T41n1822_俱舍論疏
大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
No. 1822 [cf. No. 1558]
俱舍論疏卷第一
沙門法寶撰
將釋此論五門分別。第一會初轉法輪時。二學行次第。三教起因緣。四部執先後。五依文解釋 一會初轉法輪時者。于中有四。一定成道日。二定轉法輪日。三述中間事別。四會說不同 一定成道日者。依長阿含經第四云。八日如來生。八日佛出家。八日成菩提。八日取滅度 次文云。二月如來生。二月佛出家。二月成菩提。二月取涅槃 又灌佛經云。佛告諸天人。十方諸佛。皆用四月八日夜半時生。皆用四月八日夜半時出家。皆用四月八日夜半時成道。皆用四月八日夜半時。而般涅槃。諸經八日皆同。說月有異。唯二．四別。不言餘月 準上二說。說雖有異。成道月日即是同也。所以得知。略有二理。一以立正異故。婆羅門國以建子立正。此方先時以建寅立正。建子四月。即建寅二月。故存梵本者而言四月。依此方者。即云二月。根本一也 二準智論．及婆沙計。梵王請前五十七日。四月調根．兼觀機等總有六月。即是二月八日成道。至八月八日轉法輪定。如下引文。以此故知。二月八日成道為定。去八月八日有六月故。若是四月八日。即無六月
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
No. 1822 [cf. No. 1558]
《俱舍論疏》卷第一
沙門法寶 撰
將要解釋這部論典，分為五個方面：第一，初次轉法輪的時間；第二，學習和修行的次第；第三，佛陀說法教化的因緣；第四，各部派執見的先後；第五，依據經文進行解釋。
一、關於初次轉法輪的時間，其中有四個方面：一是確定成道的日子；二是確定轉法輪的日子；三是敘述中間發生的其他事情；四是各經論中關於此事的說法不同。
一是確定成道的日子。依據《長阿含經》第四卷所說：『八日如來誕生，八日佛陀出家，八日成就菩提（bó tí，覺悟），八日進入滅度（miè dù，死亡）』。
接下來的經文說：『二月如來誕生，二月佛陀出家，二月成就菩提，二月進入涅槃（niè pán，寂滅）』。
又有《灌佛經》說：『佛告訴諸天人和十方諸佛，都用四月八日夜半時分誕生，都用四月八日夜半時分出家，都用四月八日夜半時分成道，都用四月八日夜半時分而般涅槃（bān niè pán，入滅）。』 諸經中關於八日的說法都相同，只是關於月份的說法有所不同，只有二月和四月的區別，沒有說其他的月份。
根據以上兩種說法，雖然說法有所不同，但成道的月份和日子實際上是相同的。為什麼可以這樣認為呢？略有兩方面的理由：一是由於建立『正』（zhèng，曆法的正月）的差異。婆羅門國以建子（jiàn zǐ，農曆十一月）為正月，而我們這裡先前以建寅（jiàn yín，農曆正月）為正月。建子的四月，就是建寅的二月。所以儲存梵文原本的就說是四月，依據我們這裡的歷法就說是二月，根本上是一樣的。
二是根據《智論》（zhì lùn，《大智度論》）以及《婆沙》（pó shā，《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）的計算，梵天（fàn tiān，佛教護法神）勸請之前有五十七天，四月調伏根機、兼顧觀察眾生根器等總共有六個月，那就是二月八日成道，到八月八日確定轉法輪。如下面引用的經文。因此可知，二月八日成道是確定的。距離八月八日有六個月的緣故。如果是四月八日成道，就沒有六個月了。
【English Translation】 English version Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1822 Abhidharmakośabhāṣya
No. 1822 [cf. No. 1558]
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Volume 1
Composed by Śramaṇa (shā mén, Buddhist monk) Fabao (fǎ bǎo, Dharma Jewel)
To explain this treatise, there are five aspects to be distinguished: First, the time of the initial turning of the Dharma wheel; second, the order of learning and practice; third, the causes and conditions for the Buddha's teaching; fourth, the order of the various schools' views; fifth, explanation based on the text.
One, regarding the time of the initial turning of the Dharma wheel, there are four aspects: First, determining the day of enlightenment; second, determining the day of turning the Dharma wheel; third, narrating other events that occurred in between; fourth, the differences in the accounts in various sutras and treatises.
First, determining the day of enlightenment. According to the fourth volume of the Dīrghāgama Sūtra (cháng ā hán jīng, Long Agama Sutra): 'On the eighth day, the Tathāgata (rú lái, Thus Come One) was born; on the eighth day, the Buddha (fó tuó, Buddha) renounced the household life; on the eighth day, he attained Bodhi (bó tí, enlightenment); on the eighth day, he entered Parinirvana (miè dù, death)'.
The following text says: 'In the second month, the Tathāgata was born; in the second month, the Buddha renounced the household life; in the second month, he attained Bodhi; in the second month, he entered Nirvana (niè pán, extinction)'.
Furthermore, the Bathing the Buddha Sutra (guàn fó jīng, Sutra of Bathing the Buddha) says: 'The Buddha told all the devas (zhū tiān rén, gods) and Buddhas of the ten directions that all Buddhas are born at midnight on the eighth day of the fourth month, all renounce the household life at midnight on the eighth day of the fourth month, all attain enlightenment at midnight on the eighth day of the fourth month, and all enter Parinirvana (bān niè pán, complete extinction) at midnight on the eighth day of the fourth month.' The eighth day is the same in all sutras, but there are differences in the months, only the second and fourth months are mentioned, and no other months are mentioned.
According to the above two statements, although the statements are different, the month and day of enlightenment are actually the same. Why can this be considered so? There are roughly two reasons: First, due to the difference in establishing 'Zheng' (zhèng, the first month of the lunar calendar). The Brahman country takes Jianzi (jiàn zǐ, the eleventh month of the lunar calendar) as the first month, while we previously took Jianyin (jiàn yín, the first month of the lunar calendar) as the first month. The fourth month of Jianzi is the second month of Jianyin. Therefore, those who preserve the original Sanskrit text say it is the fourth month, and according to our calendar, it is the second month, which is fundamentally the same.
Second, according to the calculations in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (zhì lùn, Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom) and the Mahāvibhāṣā (pó shā, Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra), there were fifty-seven days before Brahma (fàn tiān, a protector deity in Buddhism) requested the Buddha to teach, and there were a total of six months for taming the roots and observing the capacities of beings in the fourth month. That is, enlightenment was attained on the eighth day of the second month, and the turning of the Dharma wheel was determined to be on the eighth day of the eighth month, as quoted below. Therefore, it can be known that enlightenment on the eighth day of the second month is certain, because it is six months away from the eighth day of the eighth month. If it were enlightenment on the eighth day of the fourth month, there would not be six months.
。去轉法輪四月。無文證故 又釋律論云。佛與五比丘。四月十六日結前安居。安居去四月八日。唯有九日。即與法華．智論．毗婆沙等眾多經論。日月相違。準此故知。二月八日成道為定 問若爾何故。菩薩處胎經。云二月八日成道。二月八日轉法輪。二月八日降魔。二月八日般涅槃 答此有二釋。一處胎經說。菩薩處胎亦轉法輪。此為蜜眾。非為顯眾也。成道之日即轉法輪。義亦準此。今言為五比丘轉法輪日諸說不同。非是蜜眾 二諸經中錯二月為四月者。由建正不同。已如前釋。錯八月為二月．四月者。以迦栗底迦是八月卯星之名。二月又是建卯地之月。星．地詮別。卯名同也。若知迦粟底迦是酉地之卯翻為八月。若謂迦栗．底迦是震地之卯。翻為二月．四月。由此轉法輪等日。有二．四．八不同。般涅槃日。八．四．二月之異。詳多教．理。度五比丘八月為定。會涅槃日如別章釋 二定轉法輪日者。諸經．論中皆云。波羅奈國鹿野苑中。為五比丘轉四諦法輪。說中間事日數不同。然不指陳說法月日名者。不可憑唯。準有婆沙及釋律論。分明指陳說法月日。應依此文。婆沙一百八十三云。佛于迦栗底迦月白半第八日。度阿若憍陳那。迦栗底迦。當此方八月也。婆沙一百三十六云。羯栗底迦月白半第八日晝夜停至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 四月份去轉法輪。因為沒有文獻證據，又根據律論解釋說，佛陀與五比丘在四月十六日結束之前的安居。安居結束於四月八日，只有九天。這與《法華經》、《智論》、《毗婆沙》等眾多經論中記載的日月不符。因此可以確定，二月八日成道是確定的。 問：如果這樣，為什麼《菩薩處胎經》說二月八日成道，二月八日轉法輪，二月八日降魔，二月八日般涅槃？ 答：這有兩種解釋。一是《處胎經》說，菩薩在處胎時也轉法輪，這是為秘密的聽眾，不是為公開的聽眾。成道之日即轉法輪，道理也一樣。現在所說的為五比丘轉法輪的日子，各種說法不同，不是為秘密的聽眾。 二是諸經中將二月錯為四月，是因為曆法不同，已經如前解釋。將八月錯為二月、四月，是因為迦栗底迦（Karttika，印度歷第八個月）是八月卯星的名稱，二月又是建立卯地的月份。星和地所詮釋的不同，但卯的名稱相同。如果知道迦粟底迦是酉地的卯，翻譯為八月。如果認為迦栗底迦是震地的卯，翻譯為二月、四月。因此，轉法輪等的日子，有二月、四月、八月的不同。般涅槃的日子，有八月、四月、二月的差異。詳細考察多種教義和道理，度化五比丘在八月是確定的。會合涅槃的日子，如別的章節解釋。 確定轉法輪的日子：諸經論中都說，在波羅奈國（Varanasi）鹿野苑（Sarnath）中，為五比丘轉四諦法輪。說法中間的日數不同，但沒有明確指出說法月日名稱的，不可輕信。根據《婆沙》（Vibhasa）及釋律論，明確指出說法月日，應該依據這些文獻。《婆沙》第一百八十三卷說，佛陀在迦栗底迦月（Karttika）白半第八日，度化阿若憍陳那（Ajnatakaundinya）。迦栗底迦，相當於此地的八月。《婆沙》第一百三十六卷說，羯栗底迦月（Karttika）白半第八日晝夜停至
【English Translation】 English version: In the fourth month, he went to turn the Dharma wheel. Because there is no textual evidence, and according to the interpretation of the Vinaya, the Buddha and the five Bhikkhus concluded their previous retreat on the sixteenth day of the fourth month. The retreat ended on the eighth day of the fourth month, only nine days. This contradicts the dates in many scriptures and treatises such as the 'Lotus Sutra', 'Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra', and 'Vibhasa'. Therefore, it can be determined that enlightenment on the eighth day of the second month is certain. Question: If so, why does the 'Sutra on the Embryo of the Bodhisattva' say that enlightenment was on the eighth day of the second month, the turning of the Dharma wheel on the eighth day of the second month, the subduing of Mara on the eighth day of the second month, and Parinirvana on the eighth day of the second month? Answer: There are two explanations for this. First, the 'Sutra on the Embryo' says that the Bodhisattva also turned the Dharma wheel while in the womb, which was for a secret audience, not a public one. The day of enlightenment is also the day of turning the Dharma wheel, and the principle is the same. The various accounts of the day of turning the Dharma wheel for the five Bhikkhus differ, and it was not for a secret audience. Second, the reason why some scriptures mistake the second month for the fourth month is due to different calendars, as explained earlier. The reason for mistaking the eighth month for the second or fourth month is that Karttika (the eighth month in the Indian calendar) is the name of the Mao star in the eighth month, and the second month is also the month of establishing the Mao earth. The interpretations of the star and the earth are different, but the name Mao is the same. If you know that Karttika is the Mao of the You earth, it is translated as the eighth month. If you think that Karttika is the Mao of the Zhen earth, it is translated as the second or fourth month. Therefore, the days of turning the Dharma wheel, etc., are different in the second, fourth, and eighth months. The days of Parinirvana differ in the eighth, fourth, and second months. After detailed examination of various doctrines and principles, it is certain that the conversion of the five Bhikkhus took place in the eighth month. The date of Nirvana will be explained in a separate chapter. Determining the day of turning the Dharma wheel: All scriptures and treatises say that in the Deer Park (Sarnath) in Varanasi (Benares), the Four Noble Truths were taught to the five Bhikkhus. The number of days in between the teachings differs, but those that do not clearly state the month and day of the teachings should not be relied upon. According to the 'Vibhasa' and the interpretation of the Vinaya, the month and day of the teachings are clearly stated, and these documents should be followed. Volume 183 of the 'Vibhasa' says that the Buddha converted Ajnatakaundinya on the eighth day of the white half of the month of Karttika. Karttika corresponds to the eighth month here. Volume 136 of the 'Vibhasa' says that on the eighth day of the white half of the month of Karttika, day and night stopped at
九日夜增一獵縛故。羯．迦雖異語是同也。故知。定是八月八日。又釋律論云。佛與五比丘。四月十六日結前安居。一夏中不得聖果。過夏於八月八日。憍陳那忽然見法。此二論文極理分明余文既不分明不可依準。故知八月八日轉法輪定。佛成道日雖有二說不同。或二月八日。或四月八日。無經論說二月．四月轉法輪。故知非是三七日後。亦無文說三月．四月．五月．六月。故知非是六七．八七．五十七日後轉法輪也 三述中間事別者。經律論中。述從成道至轉法輪中間時節。廣略不同。前後有異。今且觀機已前。依四分律敘。觀機已后。依婆沙述。余文同異次便錄附 四分律三十一云。初夜得宿命明。中夜得死生智證明。后夜獲得漏盡明。得此三明。即往菩提樹下。結跏趺坐。七日不動受解脫樂。過七日已從其定起。受二賈客兄弟麨蜜。為授二歸。云從此優婆塞最初也。四王奉缽用受麨蜜。第一七日也。因果經于觀機后說受賈人麨蜜 四分云。食麨蜜已即于樹下。結跏趺坐七日不動。游解脫三昧 過七日已從三昧起。去彼不遠。有呵梨勒果樹。即于彼樹神奉世尊呵梨勒果。受已為授二歸。第二七日也 食此果已如前入定。出定入郁鞞羅村乞食。受婆羅門食已為授二歸。第三七日也 已上三七在菩提樹下 食已更詣一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 九日夜裡增加一次獵縛故（一種儀式）。羯（時間單位）和迦（時間單位）雖然說法不同，但意義相同。因此可以知道，確定是八月八日。另外，《釋律論》中說，佛陀與五比丘在四月十六日開始結夏安居，整個夏天都沒有證得聖果，過了夏天，在八月八日，憍陳那（梵文：Ajñātakauṇḍinya，五比丘之首）忽然證悟佛法。這兩段經文的道理非常明確，其餘的經文既然不明確，就不能作為依據。因此可以知道，八月八日轉法輪是確定的。佛陀成道的日子雖然有兩種不同的說法，或是二月八日，或是四月八日，但是沒有經論說在二月或四月轉法輪。因此可以知道，不是在三七日之後。也沒有經文說在三月、四月、五月、六月，因此可以知道，不是在六七、八七、五十七日之後轉法輪。 三、敘述中間發生的事情有所不同：經、律、論中，敘述從成道到轉法輪中間的時節，有詳細的，有簡略的，前後也有差異。現在先看觀機（觀察眾生根器）之前的事情，依據《四分律》敘述；觀機之後的事情，依據《婆沙論》敘述。其餘經文的相同和不同之處，依次記錄附在後面。《四分律》第三十一卷說，初夜證得宿命明（能夠知曉過去世的智慧），中夜證得死生智證明（能夠知曉眾生死生因果的智慧），后夜獲得漏盡明（斷盡一切煩惱的智慧）。獲得這三種智慧后，就前往菩提樹下，結跏趺坐，七日不動，享受解脫的快樂。過了七日後，從禪定中起身，接受兩位賈客兄弟（商人）的麨蜜（炒麵和蜂蜜），為他們授予二歸（皈依佛、法），說從此以後他們是最早的優婆塞（在家男居士）。四天王（佛教的護法神）奉上缽，用來接受麨蜜。這是第一個七日。而《因果經》在觀機之後才說接受賈人的麨蜜。 《四分律》說，吃了麨蜜后，就在樹下結跏趺坐七日不動，在解脫三昧中游樂。過了七日後，從三昧中起身，在離那裡不遠的地方，有一棵呵梨勒果樹（訶子樹，一種藥用植物），於是那棵樹的神奉獻給世尊呵梨勒果。接受后為他授予二歸。這是第二個七日。吃了這種果實后，像之前一樣入定。出定后前往郁鞞羅村（Uruvilva，地名）乞食，接受婆羅門（Brahmin，古印度祭司階層）的食物后為他授予二歸。以上這三個七日都在菩提樹下。吃完食物后，又前往一……
【English Translation】 English version On the ninth night, an additional Lie Fu Gu (a ritual) was added. Jie (a unit of time) and Jia (a unit of time), although different in wording, have the same meaning. Therefore, it can be known that it is definitely August 8th. Furthermore, the 'Explanation of the Vinaya' states that the Buddha and the five Bhikkhus (monks) began their summer retreat on April 16th, and did not attain any sacred fruit during the entire summer. After the summer, on August 8th, Ajñātakauṇḍinya (the first of the five Bhikkhus) suddenly realized the Dharma. These two scriptures are very clear in their reasoning, and the rest of the scriptures, being unclear, cannot be relied upon. Therefore, it can be known that the turning of the Dharma wheel on August 8th is definite. Although there are two different accounts of the Buddha's enlightenment day, either February 8th or April 8th, no sutras or treatises state that the Dharma wheel was turned in February or April. Therefore, it can be known that it was not after three weeks. There is also no text stating March, April, May, or June, so it can be known that it was not after six weeks, eight weeks, or fifty-seven days that the Dharma wheel was turned. Third, the narration of the events in between differs: In the Sutras, Vinaya, and Shastras, the narration of the time from enlightenment to the turning of the Dharma wheel varies in detail and differs in sequence. Now, let's first look at the events before observing the faculties (of sentient beings), based on the 'Four-Part Vinaya'; the events after observing the faculties, based on the 'Vibhasa'. The similarities and differences of the remaining texts are recorded and attached in order. The thirty-first volume of the 'Four-Part Vinaya' states that in the first watch of the night, he attained the Ming of Past Lives (the wisdom to know past lives), in the middle watch of the night, he attained the Wisdom of Death and Rebirth (the wisdom to know the causes and effects of the death and rebirth of sentient beings), and in the last watch of the night, he attained the Ming of Exhaustion of Outflows (the wisdom to completely eliminate all afflictions). After attaining these three wisdoms, he went to the Bodhi tree, sat in the lotus position, and remained motionless for seven days, enjoying the bliss of liberation. After seven days, he arose from meditation and accepted the roasted barley flour and honey from two merchant brothers, and conferred upon them the Two Refuges (refuge in the Buddha and the Dharma), saying that from then on they were the first Upasakas (lay male devotees). The Four Heavenly Kings (guardian deities of Buddhism) offered bowls to receive the roasted barley flour and honey. This was the first seven days. The 'Karma Sutra', however, states that the acceptance of the roasted barley flour and honey from the merchants occurred after observing the faculties. The 'Four-Part Vinaya' states that after eating the roasted barley flour and honey, he sat in the lotus position under the tree for seven days without moving, enjoying the Samadhi of Liberation. After seven days, he arose from Samadhi, and not far from there, there was a Haritaki tree (Terminalia chebula, a medicinal plant), so the deity of that tree offered the World Honored One Haritaki fruit. After accepting it, he conferred upon him the Two Refuges. This was the second seven days. After eating this fruit, he entered Samadhi as before. After emerging from Samadhi, he went to Uruvilva (a place name) to beg for food, and after accepting food from a Brahmin (ancient Indian priestly class), he conferred upon him the Two Refuges. The above three seven-day periods were all under the Bodhi tree. After eating the food, he went to...
離婆那樹下。準前入定。從定出已入郁鞞羅村乞食。受婆羅門婦食。為授二歸。云此優婆夷之初也 準此律文。人受三歸得近事戒。神畜非也。第四七日也 食已還詣離婆那樹下。準前入定。從定起已入郁鞞羅村。乞食。受婆羅門男．女食。為授三歸。第五七日也。已上二七日在離婆那樹下 食已詣文麟龍宮。到已同前入定。天雨七日。乃至龍王以身繞佛頭蔭佛上等第六七日也。因果經在觀機后 已上六七受解脫三昧樂又四分云。從定起已詣阿輸婆羅尼𤘽律樹下。敷坐具結跏趺坐 五分律云。入三昧七日 又云。受酪如人食。食已入定。
已上五分文 四分又云。作是思念言。我今已獲此法甚深。難解難知。欲寂休息。微妙最上智者能知。乃至思惟已說二頌。說二頌已默然 已上思惟深法時。不言日數 法華云。觀樹亦經行。於三七日中。思惟如是事。我所得智慧。微妙最第一。眾生諸根鈍。著樂癡所盲。如斯之等類。云何而可度 與律意同 準上。六七日受解脫樂。三七日思惟法。總九七日。前出定日即是后七日初。除重六日。余有五十七日。是梵王請前。與智論．及毗婆沙。日數同也。智論第八云。釋迦牟尼佛得道后。五十七日寧不說法。言我法甚深難解難知。一切眾生縛著世法無能解者。不如默然入涅槃
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在離婆那樹（Lippavana，一種樹名）下，如之前一樣入定。從定中出來后，前往郁鞞羅村（Uruvela，地名）乞食，接受婆羅門婦人的食物，併爲她授予二歸（皈依佛、法）。這被稱為優婆夷（Upasika，女居士）的開始。根據律文，人受三歸（皈依佛、法、僧）才能得到近事戒（Upasaka，居士戒）。神和畜生不能受戒。這是第四個七日。 食畢后，再次回到離婆那樹下，如之前一樣入定。從定中出來后，前往郁鞞羅村乞食，接受婆羅門男子和女子的食物，併爲他們授予三歸。這是第五個七日。以上兩個七日都在離婆那樹下度過。 食畢后，前往文麟龍宮（Mucalinda，龍名）。到達后，如之前一樣入定。天降雨七日，乃至龍王用身體纏繞佛頭，遮蔽佛身等，這是第六個七日。《因果經》在觀機之後。 以上六個七日享受解脫三昧（Samadhi，禪定）的快樂。四分律（Dharmaguptaka，律宗派別）中說，從定中出來后，前往阿輸婆羅尼𤘽律樹（Ajapala Nigrodha，樹名）下，鋪設坐具，結跏趺坐。 五分律（Mahisasaka，律宗派別）中說，入三昧七日。又說，接受乳酪如同人食用。食畢后入定。 以上是五分律的說法。四分律又說，佛陀這樣思念：『我今已獲得此法，甚深，難以理解和認知，想要寂靜休息，微妙最上，只有智者才能知曉。』乃至思惟后說了兩首偈頌。說完兩首偈頌后便默然不語。以上是思惟甚深法的時候，沒有說明日數。 《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）中說，觀樹，也經行，在三個七日中，思惟這樣的事情：『我所得的智慧，微妙最第一。眾生諸根遲鈍，被享樂和愚癡所矇蔽。像這樣的人，如何才能度化呢？』與律藏的意義相同。根據以上記載，六個七日享受解脫的快樂，三個七日思惟法，總共九個七日。前一個出定的日子就是后一個七日的開始。除去重複的六日，還剩下五十七日。這是梵天（Brahma，天神）勸請之前的時間，與《智度論》（Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra）和《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa，論書）的日數相同。《智度論》第八卷中說，釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）得道后，五十七日寧可不說法，說：『我的法甚深，難以理解和認知，一切眾生被世法束縛，沒有能理解的人，不如默然入涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）。』
【English Translation】 English version Under the Lippavana tree (Lippavana, a type of tree), he entered Samadhi (Samadhi, meditative state) as before. Emerging from Samadhi, he went to Uruvela village (Uruvela, a place name) to beg for food, receiving food from a Brahmin woman, and conferred upon her the Two Refuges (Buddha and Dharma). This is known as the beginning of a Upasika (Upasika, female lay follower). According to the Vinaya (Vinaya, monastic rules), a person must take the Three Refuges (Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha) to receive the Upasaka vow (Upasaka, lay vow). Gods and animals are not eligible. This was the fourth seven-day period. After eating, he returned to the Lippavana tree and entered Samadhi as before. Emerging from Samadhi, he went to Uruvela village to beg for food, receiving food from Brahmin men and women, and conferred upon them the Three Refuges. This was the fifth seven-day period. The above two seven-day periods were spent under the Lippavana tree. After eating, he went to Mucalinda Dragon Palace (Mucalinda, name of a Naga). Upon arrival, he entered Samadhi as before. It rained for seven days, and the Dragon King coiled his body around the Buddha's head, sheltering the Buddha's body, etc. This was the sixth seven-day period. The Karma Sutra (Karma Sutra) follows after observing the potential of beings. The above six seven-day periods were spent enjoying the bliss of liberation Samadhi. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (Dharmaguptaka, a Vinaya school) states that after emerging from Samadhi, he went to the Ajapala Nigrodha tree (Ajapala Nigrodha, a type of tree), spread out his seat, and sat in the lotus position. The Mahisasaka Vinaya (Mahisasaka, a Vinaya school) states that he entered Samadhi for seven days. It also states that he received milk-rice as a person eats. After eating, he entered Samadhi. The above is from the Mahisasaka Vinaya. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya also states that the Buddha thought, 'I have now attained this Dharma, which is profound, difficult to understand and know, desiring tranquility and rest, subtle and supreme, only the wise can know.' And after contemplating, he spoke two verses. After speaking the two verses, he remained silent. The above is about the time of contemplating the profound Dharma, without mentioning the number of days. The Lotus Sutra (Lotus Sutra) states that he observed the tree and also walked around, contemplating such things for three seven-day periods: 'The wisdom I have attained is subtle and supreme. The faculties of beings are dull, blinded by pleasure and delusion. How can such beings be delivered?' This is the same meaning as the Vinaya. According to the above, six seven-day periods were spent enjoying the bliss of liberation, and three seven-day periods were spent contemplating the Dharma, for a total of nine seven-day periods. The day of emerging from Samadhi earlier is the beginning of the later seven-day period. Subtracting the six repeated days, there remain fifty-seven days. This is the time before Brahma (Brahma, a deity) requested him to teach, which is the same number of days as in the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra (Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra) and the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, commentaries). The eighth volume of the Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra states that after Sakyamuni Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha) attained enlightenment, he would rather not teach for fifty-seven days, saying, 'My Dharma is profound, difficult to understand and know, all beings are bound by worldly dharmas, and no one can understand it, it is better to remain silent and enter Nirvana (Nirvana, cessation).'
樂。是時梵天王等請佛為諸眾生初轉法輪。佛。時默然受請。後到波羅奈林轉正法輪 與律．法華意同也 四分又云。梵王請佛轉法輪。佛許已梵王歸宮 已上觀機。律與婆沙等大意同也。中間少異略而不述 已上依婆沙一百八十二述．論云。菩薩。菩提樹下。三十四心得阿耨菩提。以佛眼遍觀一切世界。誰應最初聞我正法。我當爲說。觀已便知。唱連摩子應先聞我法。是時有天即白佛言。唱連摩子昨夜命終。有說七日 四分律云。郁頭藍子命過七日 又曰。爾時世尊。亦起智見知彼命終。便傷嘆言。彼失大利。若彼聞我所說法者。當得正解。世尊復觀除彼。誰應初聞我正法。我當爲說。觀已便知。頞迦羅摩子 四分云。阿藍迦蘭應先聞法。天覆白佛。命終已經七日 有說昨日 四分律中亦云昨日 爾時世尊。亦起智見。知彼過。如前傷嘆 問初得阿耨菩提。何故不為二人說法。而待命過不得聞法將非如來教化失時耶 又說。彼時二人善根未熟。未堪聞法。所以者何。佛成道已。彼初一人。若更經五十七日有餘命者。應堪聞法。彼第二人。若更有五十一日有餘命者。應堪聞法。由此非佛教化失時 準此論文。婆沙雖不廣說梵王請前日數。而除佛成道日。至許請前五十七日與律．及智論等同也 又云。世尊或時留自壽行
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 樂。這時，梵天王等懇請佛陀為眾生初次轉法輪。佛陀當時默然接受了請求。後來到了波羅奈林（Varanasi，古印度城市名）轉正法輪，與律藏、《法華經》的意義相同。四分律又說，梵天王請佛陀轉法輪，佛陀答應后梵天王返回宮殿。以上是觀機的部分，律藏和《婆沙論》等大意相同，中間略有差異，此處省略不述。以上依據《婆沙論》第一百八十二卷所述。《論》中說，菩薩在菩提樹下，三十四歲時證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）。以佛眼遍觀一切世界，誰應該最先聽聞我的正法，我應當為他說法。觀察后便知道，唱連摩子（Udraka Ramaputra）應該先聽聞我的法。這時有天人稟告佛陀說，唱連摩子昨夜已經命終。有的說是七日之前。四分律說，郁頭藍子（Udraka Ramaputra）命過七日。又說，當時世尊也生起智慧，知道他已經命終，便傷感嘆息說，他失去了大利益，如果他能聽聞我所說的法，應當能夠得到正確的理解。世尊又觀察，除了他，誰應該最先聽聞我的正法，我應當為他說法。觀察后便知道，頞迦羅摩子（Arada Kalama）。四分律中說是阿藍迦蘭（Arada Kalama）應該先聽聞佛法。天人又稟告佛陀，他命終已經七日。有的說是昨日。四分律中也說是昨日。當時世尊也生起智慧，知道他已經過世，如前一樣傷感嘆息。問：初次證得阿訬多羅三藐三菩提，為什麼不為這二人說法，而要等到他們命終，使他們不得聽聞佛法？難道不是如來教化失時嗎？又說，那時二人善根未熟，不能夠聽聞佛法。為什麼呢？佛陀成道后，第一個人如果再有五十七日以上的壽命，就應該能夠聽聞佛法。第二個人如果再有五十一日以上的壽命，就應該能夠聽聞佛法。因此，不是佛教化失時。依照這篇論文，《婆沙論》雖然沒有詳細說明梵天王請求之前的日數，但是除去佛陀成道之日，到答應請求之前的五十七日，與律藏以及《智論》等相同。又說，世尊有時會保留自己的壽命。
【English Translation】 English version: Joy. At that time, King Brahma and others requested the Buddha to turn the Dharma wheel for the sake of all beings for the first time. The Buddha then silently accepted the request. Later, he went to the Deer Park at Varanasi (an ancient Indian city) to turn the Righteous Dharma wheel, which is the same meaning as the Vinaya and the Lotus Sutra. The Four-Part Vinaya also says that King Brahma requested the Buddha to turn the Dharma wheel, and after the Buddha agreed, King Brahma returned to his palace. The above is the part about observing the opportunity. The Vinaya and the Vibhasa, etc., have the same general meaning, with slight differences in between, which will be omitted here. The above is based on the description in the 182nd volume of the Vibhasa. The Treatise says that the Bodhisattva, under the Bodhi tree, at the age of thirty-four, attained Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unsurpassed, complete and perfect enlightenment). With the Buddha's eye, he surveyed all the worlds, wondering who should hear my Righteous Dharma first, and to whom I should preach it. After observing, he knew that Udraka Ramaputra (a philosopher) should hear my Dharma first. At that time, a deva (god) reported to the Buddha that Udraka Ramaputra had passed away last night. Some say it was seven days ago. The Four-Part Vinaya says that Udraka Ramaputra passed away seven days ago. It also says that at that time, the World-Honored One also arose with wisdom and knew that he had passed away, and he lamented with sadness, saying that he had lost a great benefit. If he could have heard the Dharma I preached, he would have been able to attain correct understanding. The World-Honored One then observed again, wondering who, besides him, should hear my Righteous Dharma first, and to whom I should preach it. After observing, he knew that Arada Kalama (a philosopher) should hear the Dharma first. The Four-Part Vinaya says that Arada Kalama should hear the Dharma first. The deva again reported to the Buddha that he had passed away seven days ago. Some say it was yesterday. The Four-Part Vinaya also says it was yesterday. At that time, the World-Honored One also arose with wisdom and knew that he had passed away, and he lamented with sadness as before. Question: Having initially attained Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi, why did he not preach the Dharma to these two people, but waited until they passed away, so that they could not hear the Dharma? Isn't this the Tathagata's (Buddha's) failure to teach at the right time? It is also said that at that time, the good roots of the two people were not yet ripe, and they were not able to hear the Dharma. Why? After the Buddha attained enlightenment, if the first person had lived for fifty-seven more days, he would have been able to hear the Dharma. If the second person had lived for fifty-one more days, he would have been able to hear the Dharma. Therefore, it was not the Buddha's failure to teach at the right time. According to this treatise, although the Vibhasa does not explain in detail the number of days before King Brahma's request, subtracting the day of the Buddha's enlightenment, the fifty-seven days before agreeing to the request are the same as the Vinaya and the Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra, etc. It is also said that the World-Honored One sometimes retains his own lifespan.
。如待蘇拔達羅等。若然留他壽行。無有是處 準此論文。無留他壽行。世尊復觀除彼二人。誰最初應聞我說法。我當爲說。觀已即知。憍陳那等五人應先聞法。即作是念。彼皆是我父母親族。先來恭敬供養於我。今欲酬報為何所在。天即白言。今在波羅底斯國仙人鹿野苑。爾時世尊。亦起知見知在彼處。便舍菩提樹下步涉而往。問佛具最勝神力何故步涉往耶。答敬重法故不以神足。又佛行時足常去地如四指量。一一足跡皆有喜旋吉祥可愛千輻輪相分明如畫。身影所觸乃至七日。能令有情至其處者諸根安快。漸次行至婆羅底斯。爾時。五人忽逢見佛。遂共立制。彼喬答摩。懈慢多求。狂亂失念。空無所獲。而今復來欲相呼誘。我等宜各忽與言談．恭敬．問訊。但敷一常座。其坐不。爾時世尊漸次近彼。威德所逼。令捨本期。不覺一時從座而起。趨走迎逆合掌歸命。于中。或有改敷凈座。或取佛衣。或取佛缽。或有恭水。或有洗足。俱白佛言。唯愿就座。佛便作念。如是癡人。自立制約須臾還破。時佛就座安祥而坐。威光奇特。如妙高山 乃至 世尊於是。漸漸誘化令其調伏。于日初分。為二人。說法。教誡。教授。令餘三人入村乞食。彼所乞食充足六人。于日後分。為三人說法。教誡。教授。令餘二人入村乞食。所乞
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 例如對待蘇拔達羅（Subhadra，一位晚年皈依佛陀的修行者）等人。如果（佛陀）還留著他的壽命，這是不可能的。根據這些論述，沒有留下他的壽命。世尊又觀察，除了他們二人（指蘇拔達羅等），誰最先應該聽聞我說法？我應當為他們說法。觀察后，立即知道，憍陳那（Kaundinya，五比丘之首）等五人應該先聽聞佛法。於是這樣想：他們都是我的父母親族，先前恭敬供養我。現在想要報答他們，他們在哪裡呢？天人立即稟告說：現在在波羅底斯國（Varanasi）仙人鹿野苑（Sarnath）。當時世尊，也生起知見，知道他們在那裡。便捨棄菩提樹下，步行前往。問：佛陀具備最殊勝的神力，為什麼步行前往呢？答：因為敬重佛法，所以不使用神足通。而且佛陀行走時，腳常離地約四指高。每一個足跡都有喜旋吉祥可愛千輻輪相，分明如畫。身影所觸及的地方，乃至七日，能令到那裡的人諸根安穩快樂。漸漸行走到達波羅底斯國。當時，五人忽然看見佛陀。於是共同立下約定：那個喬答摩（Gautama，佛陀的姓氏），懈怠放慢，貪求過多，狂亂失念，一無所獲。現在又來了，想要引誘我們。我們應該各自不與他交談、恭敬、問訊。只鋪設一個普通的座位，看他是否會坐。當時世尊漸漸靠近他們，威德所逼，使他們捨棄了原先的約定。不知不覺一時從座位上起來，快步迎接，合掌歸命。其中，或者有人重新鋪設乾淨的座位，或者取來佛陀的衣服，或者取來佛陀的缽，或者準備恭敬的水，或者為佛陀洗腳。都對佛陀說：唯愿就座。佛陀便這樣想：這些愚癡的人，自己立下約定，一會兒又破壞了。當時佛陀就座，安詳而坐，威光奇特，如妙高山（Sumeru，須彌山）……乃至……世尊於是，漸漸誘導教化，使他們調伏。在每天的初分（上午），為二人說法、教誡、教授。讓其餘三人進入村莊乞食。他們所乞的食物足夠六人食用。在每天的後分（下午），為三人說法、教誡、教授。讓其餘二人進入村莊乞食。所乞的食物……
【English Translation】 English version: For example, treating Subhadra (a mendicant who converted to Buddhism in his old age) and others in the same way. If (the Buddha) had prolonged his lifespan, it would not have been possible. According to these treatises, his lifespan was not prolonged. The World-Honored One further observed, besides those two (referring to Subhadra and others), who should be the first to hear my teachings? I should teach them the Dharma. Upon observing, he immediately knew that Kaundinya (the leader of the five ascetics) and the other four should be the first to hear the Dharma. Thus, he thought: They are all my parents and relatives, who previously respectfully made offerings to me. Now, wanting to repay them, where are they? The Devas immediately reported: They are now in the Deer Park (Sarnath) of the Rishipatana (Isipatana) in the country of Varanasi. At that time, the World-Honored One also arose with knowledge and knew that they were there. He then abandoned the Bodhi tree and walked there. Question: The Buddha possesses the most supreme divine powers, why did he walk there? Answer: Because he respected the Dharma, he did not use his supernatural powers. Moreover, when the Buddha walked, his feet were always about four fingers' distance from the ground. Each footprint had auspicious, lovely wheel marks with a thousand spokes, as clear as a painting. Wherever his shadow touched, even for seven days, it could bring peace and happiness to those who came there. Gradually, he walked to Varanasi. At that time, the five ascetics suddenly saw the Buddha. They then made a pact together: That Gautama (Buddha's family name), is lazy and slow, seeks too much, is confused and forgetful, and has gained nothing. Now he has come again, wanting to entice us. We should each not speak to him, show him respect, or greet him. Just set out an ordinary seat and see if he will sit. At that time, the World-Honored One gradually approached them, and his majestic virtue compelled them to abandon their original agreement. Unconsciously, they rose from their seats at once, rushed to greet him, and joined their palms in reverence. Among them, some rearranged a clean seat, some took the Buddha's robe, some took the Buddha's bowl, some prepared respectful water, and some washed the Buddha's feet. They all said to the Buddha: We wish you would take a seat. The Buddha then thought: These foolish people, they make an agreement themselves, and then break it in a moment. At that time, the Buddha took his seat, sitting peacefully, his majestic light extraordinary, like Mount Sumeru (Sumeru) ... and so on ... The World-Honored One then gradually guided and transformed them, causing them to be tamed. In the early part of the day (morning), he taught the Dharma, instructed, and lectured to two of them. He had the other three go into the village to beg for food. The food they begged for was enough for six people. In the later part of the day (afternoon), he taught the Dharma, instructed, and lectured to three of them. He had the other two go into the village to beg for food. The food they begged for...
飲食充足五人。世尊性離非時食故。如是教化經於三月。有說四月。令彼五人善根熟已。于迦栗底迦月白半第八日。如來為彼轉正法輪。時憍陳那最初見法 四會說不同者。問若佛成道后。經於六月轉正法輪者。何故出曜．方等大莊嚴經云七七日因果．法華經云三七日。智度論五十七日佛不說法。方等大莊嚴經二七日觀。二七日經行。因果經觀樹一七日。法華經觀樹行不言日也。四分律六七日。五分律八七日。毗婆沙四月。復有經說半年。十二由延經一年耶 答自古經律論師皆云見聞異也。意說。佛在世時隨眾生機威德不同。或見多日後轉法輪。或見少日後轉法輪 今詳不爾釋如來。八相成道示有父．母．妻．子．生日．出家．成道。為五比丘轉法輪日。大小乘說理合皆同。如說經行．遠近．觀樹等事。容有異也。佛神境力入定之相事難知故 問所以得知。答略有五例。一舉時別故。二異本前後廣略不同。三生等日月同故。四同本前後說有異故。五傳者誤故。由上五緣說有差別。根本事同 一舉時別者。四分律六七日者受解脫樂時。法華經三七日者。思惟法時。出曜經．莊嚴經七七日。五分律八七日等。通思惟法時。智論五十七日者。梵王請前。婆沙四月者。調五比丘根時。有經半年者。以六月故。十二由經一歲者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 飲食充足的五個人。（指）世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）的習性是遠離非時食的緣故。像這樣教化經過三個月，有的說是四個月，使那五個人善根成熟后，在迦栗底迦月（Karttika，印度歷第八個月）白半月（上半月）的第八天，如來為他們轉正法輪。當時憍陳那（Ajnatakaundinya）最初見法。關於四種說法不同的情況：有人問，如果佛陀成道后，經過六個月才轉正法輪，那麼為什麼《出曜經》、《方等大莊嚴經》說七個七日是因果， 《法華經》說三個七日，《智度論》說五十七日佛陀沒有說法，《方等大莊嚴經》說兩個七日是觀，兩個七日是經行，《因果經》說觀樹一個七日，《法華經》說觀樹行但沒有說日子呢？《四分律》說六個七日，《五分律》說八個七日，《毗婆沙論》說四個月，又有經書說半年，《十二由延經》說一年呢？答：自古以來經、律、論的法師都說見聞不同，是意說。佛陀在世時，隨著眾生的根機和威德不同，有人見到多日後轉法輪，有人見到少日後轉法輪。現在詳細分析並非如此。解釋如來八相成道，示現有父親、母親、妻子、兒子、生日、出家、成道，以及為五比丘轉法輪的日子，大小乘的說法在道理上應該相同。像說經行、遠近、觀樹等事，容許有不同。佛陀的神境力和入定之相難以知曉的緣故。問：所以如何得知？答：略有五個例子。一是舉時不同，二是不同版本前後廣略不同，三是生等等的日月相同，四是同一版本前後說法有不同，五是傳者有誤。由於以上五個原因，說法有差別，但根本的事情是相同的。一是舉時不同。《四分律》說六個七日，是享受解脫樂的時候。《法華經》說三個七日，是思惟法的時候。《出曜經》、《莊嚴經》說七個七日，《五分律》說八個七日等，都是通指思惟法的時候。《智度論》說五十七日，是梵天王請法之前。《婆沙論》說四個月，是調伏五比丘根機的時候。有經書說半年，是因為六個月的緣故。《十二由延經》說一年，是...
【English Translation】 English version: Five people with sufficient food. (Referring to) the World Honored One (Sakyamuni Buddha) whose nature is to abstain from untimely meals. He taught them in this way for three months, some say four months, until the five people's roots of goodness matured. On the eighth day of the white half of the month of Karttika (the eighth month in the Indian calendar), the Tathagata turned the Dharma wheel for them. At that time, Ajnatakaundinya was the first to see the Dharma. Regarding the four different accounts: Someone asked, if the Buddha turned the Dharma wheel six months after attaining enlightenment, then why do the Sutra of the Collection of the Light, the Vaipulya Mahavyuha Sutra say that seven times seven days is the cause and effect, the Lotus Sutra says three times seven days, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra says that the Buddha did not preach for fifty-seven days, the Vaipulya Mahavyuha Sutra says two times seven days is contemplation, two times seven days is walking meditation, the Sutra of Cause and Effect says one times seven days is observing the tree, the Lotus Sutra says observing the tree and walking but does not mention the days? The Four-Part Vinaya says six times seven days, the Five-Part Vinaya says eight times seven days, the Vibhasa says four months, and some sutras say half a year, the Twelve Yojanas Sutra says one year? Answer: Since ancient times, the Dharma masters of the Sutras, Vinayas, and Sastras have said that what they saw and heard was different, and that is what they meant. When the Buddha was in the world, depending on the faculties and majesty of sentient beings, some saw the Dharma wheel turned after many days, and some saw the Dharma wheel turned after fewer days. Now, upon detailed analysis, this is not the case. Explaining the Tathagata's eight phases of enlightenment, showing that he had a father, mother, wife, son, birthday, renunciation, enlightenment, and the day he turned the Dharma wheel for the five Bhikkhus, the teachings of both the Mahayana and Hinayana should be the same in principle. Matters such as walking meditation, distance, and observing trees may differ. The Buddha's divine powers and the state of entering samadhi are difficult to know. Question: So how can we know? Answer: There are roughly five examples. First, the time mentioned is different. Second, the different versions differ in length and detail. Third, the sun and moon of birth, etc., are the same. Fourth, the same version has different accounts before and after. Fifth, the transmitter made a mistake. Due to the above five reasons, the accounts differ, but the fundamental matter is the same. First, the time mentioned is different. The Four-Part Vinaya says six times seven days, which is the time of enjoying the bliss of liberation. The Lotus Sutra says three times seven days, which is the time of contemplating the Dharma. The Sutra of the Collection of the Light and the Adornment Sutra say seven times seven days, the Five-Part Vinaya says eight times seven days, etc., all generally refer to the time of contemplating the Dharma. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sastra says fifty-seven days, which is before Brahma requested the Dharma. The Vibhasa says four months, which is the time of taming the faculties of the five Bhikkhus. Some sutras say half a year, because of the six months. The Twelve Yojanas Sutra says one year, which is...
以經一夏。律．及受歲經。以夏為歲故 二異本前後廣略不同者。律前廣后略。前別說受解脫樂思惟法時。后略不說四月調機。婆沙前略不說梵王請前。后即廣說四月調機。以此二文互證。即知日數經於六月方始說法 三生等日月同者。以八相成道父．母．妻．子．生．及出家．成道等日說皆是同。如何為五比丘轉法輪日有斯懸隔。故知。根本是同。傳有廣略及有誤耳 四同本前後說有異故者。婆沙一百八十二云。佛于菩提樹下三十四心得阿耨菩提。以佛眼遍觀一切世界。誰應最初聞我正法。如前引文。準此。佛成道已即觀根機。中間略其受解脫樂．及思惟法．梵王請等。豈即無耶。故知。諸本闕者亦是略也。若謂婆沙見聞不同。成道之後即觀機根。因何婆沙次下文云。彼初一人。佛成道后。若更五十七日。有餘命者應堪聞法 此即佛成道后。至觀根時五十七日。與智論同。又智論第一云。爾時菩薩舍苦行處。到菩提樹下。坐金剛座降魔眾已。即得阿耨菩提。時梵天王等皆詣佛所。勸請世尊初轉法輪 準此論文。即無食乳糜。即受解脫樂。思惟法時。佛成道后即梵王請。若獨智論見聞異故即說無者。何故第八卷云釋迦牟尼佛得道后。五十七日寧不說法。是時梵王等請。諸文闕略如第一卷略故。非見聞異也 五傳譯誤者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一、關於『以經一夏』（經過一個夏天）：律藏和《受歲經》（關於接受年齡的經典）都以夏天作為一歲。因此，二者的異本在前後內容上有所廣略不同。律藏是前面廣而後面略，前面詳細說明了接受解脫之樂和思惟法的時候，後面則省略了四月調機的說法。《婆沙論》（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）則是前面略而沒有說梵天勸請佛陀說法的事情，後面則詳細地說了四月調機。用這兩段文字互相印證，就可以知道佛陀在證悟后的第六個月才開始說法。 二、關於『生等日月同者』（出生等日期相同）：關於佛陀八相成道（從出生到涅槃的八個階段）中，父親、母親、妻子、兒子、出生、出家、成道等日期，各種說法都是相同的。那麼，為什麼為五比丘（佛陀最初度化的五位比丘）轉法輪（初次說法）的日期卻有如此大的差異呢？因此可知，根本的日期是相同的，只是在流傳過程中出現了廣略和錯誤。 三、關於『同本前後說有異故者』（同一版本前後說法不一致）：《婆沙論》第一百八十二卷說，佛陀在菩提樹下第三十四天證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提（無上正等正覺），然後用佛眼遍觀一切世界，看誰應該最先聽聞他的正法。如前面引用的文字。根據這些，佛陀成道后立即觀察眾生的根機，中間省略了接受解脫之樂、思惟法以及梵天勸請等情節。難道這些就沒有發生嗎？因此可知，各個版本有所缺失，也是因為省略的緣故。如果說《婆沙論》的見聞不同，認為佛陀成道之後立即觀察根機，那麼為什麼《婆沙論》接下來的文字又說，最初有一個人，佛陀成道后，如果再過五十七天，還有剩餘壽命的話，就應該能夠聽聞佛法了？ 這說明佛陀成道后，到觀察根機的時候，經過了五十七天，與《智論》（《大智度論》）的說法相同。而且，《智論》第一卷說，當時菩薩捨棄苦行的地方，來到菩提樹下，坐在金剛座上降伏魔眾之後，立即證得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。當時梵天王等都來到佛陀那裡，勸請世尊初轉法輪。根據這段文字，就沒有吃乳糜（牛奶粥），也沒有接受解脫之樂，思惟法的時候。佛陀成道后，立即有梵天勸請。如果僅僅因為《智論》的見聞不同，就說沒有這些事情，那麼為什麼第八卷又說釋迦牟尼佛得道后，五十七天難道沒有說法嗎？那時梵天王等勸請。各種經文的缺失和省略，就像第一卷的省略一樣，並非見聞不同。 四、關於『傳譯誤者』（傳抄翻譯的錯誤）：
【English Translation】 English version 1. Regarding 'Having spent a summer': Both the Vinaya (律) and the Receiving the Year Sutra (受歲經) (a scripture about receiving age) consider summer as a year. Therefore, the different versions of these two texts vary in their breadth and detail. The Vinaya is broad at the beginning and concise at the end, detailing the time of receiving the joy of liberation and contemplating the Dharma, while omitting the 'four-month adjustment' (四月調機) later on. The Mahavibhasa (婆沙論) (Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Shastra) is concise at the beginning, not mentioning Brahma's (梵天) request for the Buddha to teach, but later elaborates on the 'four-month adjustment'. By cross-referencing these two texts, we can know that the Buddha began teaching in the sixth month after enlightenment. 2. Regarding 'Birth and other dates being the same': Concerning the eight phases of the Buddha's attainment (八相成道) (from birth to Nirvana), the dates of the father, mother, wife, son, birth, renunciation, and enlightenment are all said to be the same. Then why is there such a large discrepancy in the date of the first turning of the Dharma wheel (轉法輪) (first teaching) for the five Bhikkhus (比丘) (the first five disciples)? Therefore, it can be known that the fundamental date is the same, but there have been expansions, omissions, and errors in the transmission. 3. Regarding 'Different accounts in the same text': The 182nd volume of the Mahavibhasa states that the Buddha attained Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (阿耨多羅三藐三菩提) (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment) under the Bodhi tree on the thirty-fourth day, and then used his Buddha-eye to observe all the worlds, seeing who should first hear his Dharma. As quoted earlier. According to this, the Buddha immediately observed the faculties of beings after enlightenment, omitting the episodes of receiving the joy of liberation, contemplating the Dharma, and Brahma's request. Did these not happen? Therefore, it can be known that the omissions in various versions are also due to abbreviation. If it is said that the Mahavibhasa's accounts differ, believing that the Buddha immediately observed the faculties after enlightenment, then why does the Mahavibhasa then say that initially there was one person who, if he had fifty-seven days of remaining life after the Buddha's enlightenment, would be able to hear the Dharma? This indicates that from the Buddha's enlightenment to the time of observing the faculties, fifty-seven days passed, which is the same as the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra (智論) (Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom). Moreover, the first volume of the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra says that at that time, the Bodhisattva left the place of ascetic practices, came to the Bodhi tree, sat on the Vajra seat, subdued the Mara hosts, and immediately attained Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi. At that time, Brahma kings and others all came to the Buddha and requested the World-Honored One to turn the Dharma wheel for the first time. According to this passage, there was no eating of milk porridge, nor was there a time for receiving the joy of liberation and contemplating the Dharma. Immediately after the Buddha's enlightenment, Brahma requested him to teach. If only because the Mahaprajnaparamita Shastra's accounts differ, it is said that these things did not happen, then why does the eighth volume say that Shakyamuni Buddha did not teach for fifty-seven days after attaining enlightenment? At that time, Brahma kings and others requested him. The omissions and abbreviations in various scriptures are like the omissions in the first volume, and are not due to different accounts. 4. Regarding 'Errors in transmission and translation':
如宋本藥師云善信菩薩二十四戒。唐．隋本菩薩四百戒。正法華六根各千二百功德。妙法華三根。千二百。三根八百等。自余不同不可和會。皆如此類。根本是一。傳不同故。
二學行次第者。一切萬行以聞法近善知識為初。涅槃二十五云。一切眾生以聽法因緣。得近大涅槃。一切眾生以聽法故。則具信根。得信根故。樂行佈施．戒．忍．精進．禪定．智慧得須隨洹果．乃至佛果。是故當知。得諸善法皆是聽法因緣力故 又云。信心因於聽法。聽法．因於信心。如是二法亦因亦因因亦果亦果果。又正理五十八云。初業地中所習行儀極為繁廣。欲通解者。當於眾生所集觀行諸論中求。以要言之。初修行者。應于解脫具深意樂。觀涅槃德背生死過。先應方便親近善友。善友能為眾行本故。具聞等力。得善友名譬如良醫。乃至廣說。又四預流支。一親近善友。二聽聞正法。三如理作意。四法隨法行。如是等文諸經皆有。聞而不信。猶勝不聞。故法華云。時若法眾聞不輕言汝當作佛。雖謗不信隨於地獄。以是因緣值無量佛。后遇不輕皆發大心 就三乘法中。皆須先學小乘有教后乃可學大乘空教。所以得知。有多文證故。一十輪經第六云。善男子。若諸眾生。于聲聞乘法．獨覺乘法。未作劬勞正勤修學。如是眾生根機下劣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 例如宋代的藥師經中記載有善信菩薩二十四戒，唐代和隋代的版本中則有菩薩四百戒。《正法華經》中說六根各有千二百種功德，《妙法華經》中則說三根有一千二百種功德，或者三根有八百種功德等等。其餘的差異之處，無法調和統一，都屬於此類情況。根本教義是一致的，只是傳抄不同造成的。
二、關於修學次第：一切修行都以聽聞佛法、親近善知識為開端。《涅槃經》第二十五卷中說：『一切眾生因為聽聞佛法的因緣，得以接近大涅槃。一切眾生因為聽聞佛法的緣故，就具備了信根。得到信根后，就樂於行佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧，從而證得須陀洹果，乃至佛果。』因此應當知道，獲得各種善法都是聽聞佛法的因緣力量所致。又說：『信心源於聽聞佛法，聽聞佛法源於信心。』這兩種法互為因果，既是因的因，也是果的果。另外，《正理》第五十八卷中說：『初學修行者所要學習的行儀非常繁多。想要通透理解這些行儀，應當在眾生所集結的觀行論著中尋求。』總而言之，初修行者，應當對解脫具有深刻的意樂，觀察涅槃的功德，背離生死的過患。首先應當想方設法親近善友，因為善友能成為一切修行的根本，具備聽聞佛法等力量，得到善友的稱號，譬如良醫。』乃至廣說。又有四種預流支：一、親近善友；二、聽聞正法；三、如理作意；四、法隨法行。像這樣的經文在各種經典中都有。聽聞佛法而不相信，也勝過不聽聞。所以《法華經》中說：『當時如果法眾聽聞常不輕菩薩說『你當作佛』，即使誹謗不信，墮入地獄，也因此因緣值遇無量佛，後來遇到常不輕菩薩都發大菩提心。』就三乘佛法而言，都必須先學習小乘有教，然後才可以學習大乘空教。之所以知道這一點，是因為有很多經文可以證明。其中，《十輪經》第六卷中說：『善男子，如果眾生對於聲聞乘法、獨覺乘法，沒有勤勞精進地修學，這樣的眾生根機下劣。
【English Translation】 English version: For example, the Song Dynasty version of the Bhaisajyaguru Sutra (Yaoshi Jing) records the twenty-four precepts of the Shànxìn Bodhisattva (善信菩薩, Bodhisattva of Good Faith), while the Tang and Sui Dynasty versions have four hundred Bodhisattva precepts. The Saddharma-puṇḍarīka Sūtra (正法華經) states that each of the six roots has twelve hundred merits, while the Lotus Sutra (妙法華經) states that the three roots have twelve hundred merits, or eight hundred merits, and so on. Other differences cannot be reconciled and are all of this nature. The fundamental teaching is the same, but the transmission differs.
- Regarding the order of learning and practice: All practices begin with hearing the Dharma and associating with virtuous friends. The twenty-fifth chapter of the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) states: 'All sentient beings, through the cause of hearing the Dharma, are able to approach Great Nirvana (大涅槃, Great Nirvana). All sentient beings, because of hearing the Dharma, possess the root of faith. Having obtained the root of faith, they are happy to practice giving, morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and wisdom, thereby attaining the fruit of Srotapanna (須陀洹果, Stream-enterer), and even the fruit of Buddhahood.' Therefore, it should be known that obtaining all good dharmas is due to the power of the cause of hearing the Dharma. It also says: 'Faith arises from hearing the Dharma, and hearing the Dharma arises from faith.' These two dharmas are mutually causal, being both the cause of the cause and the fruit of the fruit. Furthermore, the fifty-eighth chapter of the Nyāyānusāra (正理) states: 'The practices to be learned in the initial stage of cultivation are extremely numerous. Those who wish to understand them thoroughly should seek them in the treatises on contemplation and practice collected by sentient beings.' In short, the initial practitioner should have a deep aspiration for liberation, observe the virtues of Nirvana, and turn away from the faults of birth and death. First, one should find ways to associate with virtuous friends, because virtuous friends can be the root of all practices, possessing the power of hearing the Dharma, etc., and earning the title of virtuous friend, like a good doctor.' And so on. There are also four factors for entering the stream: 1. associating with virtuous friends; 2. hearing the true Dharma; 3. reflecting properly; 4. practicing the Dharma in accordance with the Dharma. Such passages are found in various sutras. Hearing the Dharma without believing is still better than not hearing it. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 'If, at that time, the assembly of Dharma heard Sadāparibhūta Bodhisattva (常不輕菩薩, Never Disparaging Bodhisattva) say, 'You will become Buddhas,' even if they slandered and disbelieved, and fell into hell, they would, through this cause, encounter countless Buddhas, and later, upon encountering Sadāparibhūta Bodhisattva, all would generate great Bodhicitta (菩提心, Bodhi mind).' Regarding the three vehicles of Buddhism, one must first learn the Hīnayāna (小乘, Lesser Vehicle) teaching with doctrines before learning the Mahāyāna (大乘, Greater Vehicle) teaching of emptiness. The reason for knowing this is that there are many scriptural proofs. Among them, the sixth chapter of the Daśacakra-kṣitigarbha Sūtra (十輪經) states: 'Good man, if sentient beings have not diligently practiced and studied the Dharma of the Śrāvakayāna (聲聞乘, Hearer Vehicle) and the Pratyekabuddhayāna (獨覺乘, Solitary Realizer Vehicle), such sentient beings have inferior faculties.
精進微少。若有為說微妙甚深大乘正法。說．聽二人俱獲大罪。亦為違逆一切諸佛。所以者何。若諸眾生。于聲聞乘。獨覺乘法。未作劬勞乃至。而聽受大乘正法。如是眾生實是愚癡。自謂聰睿。乃至。如是眾生所有罪報。皆為未求聽習聲聞．獨覺乘法。先求聽習大乘正法。如是愚癡。斷滅論者下劣人身尚難可得。說當能成賢聖法器。乃至。如是眾生所有過失。皆由未學聲聞。獨覺乘法先入大乘 二解深密第二云。我為未種善根。未清凈障。未成就相續。未多修勝解。未積習福德．智慧二種資糧。依生死自性定說諸法。彼聞隨分解了無常無恒等。令種善根等 此指第一時小乘教已 若已種善根 乃至 已積習福德．智慧資糧等。又依三種無自性性。說一切法皆無自性。依相無自性性等說一切法無生滅等 此指第二時大乘教也 又下文云。若有眾生已積習上品善根 乃至 上品福德．智慧二種資糧。聞我善說無生滅等法中。信是佛說。善知取捨。即能速證無上菩提。若修下品五事。聞我此說信是佛說。得無量功德。生自見取。謂一切法皆無生無滅本來寂靜自性涅槃等。生自見取故。退失無量智慧。若不修五事聞我此說。生大業障誹謗不信 準此經文。由聞有教修行五事。由有五事能信大乘。若不修五事即謗不信。故知亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果（有人）精進很少，卻為（他人）宣說微妙甚深的大乘正法，宣說者和聽聞者都會獲得很大的罪過，也算是違逆一切諸佛。為什麼呢？如果眾生對於聲聞乘、獨覺乘的法，還沒有勤勞修習，就聽受大乘正法，這樣的眾生實在是愚癡，自認為聰明睿智。這樣的眾生所有的罪報，都是因為沒有先求聽習聲聞乘、獨覺乘的法，就先求聽習大乘正法。像這樣愚癡、持斷滅論的下劣之人，連獲得人身尚且很難，還說能夠成為賢聖的法器。這樣的眾生所有的過失，都是由於沒有學習聲聞乘、獨覺乘的法，就先進入大乘。《解深密經》第二卷說：『我為那些尚未種植善根、尚未清凈業障、尚未成就相續、尚未多次修習勝解、尚未積習福德和智慧兩種資糧的人，依據生死的自性而確定宣說諸法。他們聽聞后，隨著自己的理解分解諸法的無常、無恒等特性，從而令他們種植善根等。』這裡指的是第一時的小乘教法。 如果已經種植善根，乃至已經積習福德和智慧資糧等，又依據三種無自性性，宣說一切法皆無自性，依據相無自性性等，宣說一切法無生滅等。這裡指的是第二時的大乘教法。又下文說：『如果有眾生已經積習上品善根，乃至上品福德和智慧兩種資糧，聽聞我善巧宣說的無生滅等法，相信這是佛所說，善於取捨，就能迅速證得無上菩提。如果修習下品五事，聽聞我這樣說，相信這是佛所說，就能得到無量功德。如果產生自己的見解，認為一切法皆無生無滅，本來寂靜，自性涅槃等，因為產生自己的見解，就會退失無量智慧。如果不修習五事，聽聞我這樣說，就會產生大的業障，誹謗不信。』 根據這段經文，由於聽聞有教法而修行五事，由於有五事才能信受大乘。如果不修習五事，就會誹謗不信。由此可知也是（這個道理）。
【English Translation】 English version: If one has little diligence and yet expounds the subtle and profound Mahayana Dharma to others, both the speaker and the listener will incur great offenses and will be acting against all Buddhas. Why is this so? If sentient beings have not diligently practiced the teachings of the Sravaka-yana (Hearer Vehicle) and Pratyekabuddha-yana (Solitary Realizer Vehicle), and then listen to the Mahayana Dharma, such beings are truly foolish, considering themselves wise. All the karmic consequences of such beings arise from not seeking to learn and practice the Sravaka-yana and Pratyekabuddha-yana first, but instead seeking to listen to the Mahayana Dharma. Such foolish, nihilistic, and inferior beings will find it difficult even to obtain a human body, let alone become vessels for the Dharma of the wise and holy. All the faults of such beings arise from entering the Mahayana without first learning the Sravaka-yana and Pratyekabuddha-yana. The second chapter of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra (Explanation of the Profound Secrets Sutra) states: 'For those who have not planted good roots, have not purified their obscurations, have not achieved continuity, have not cultivated superior understanding, and have not accumulated the two resources of merit and wisdom, I definitively explain the dharmas based on the nature of birth and death. Upon hearing this, they analyze the impermanence, non-constancy, etc., of the dharmas according to their own understanding, thereby causing them to plant good roots, etc.' This refers to the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) teachings of the first period. If one has already planted good roots, and has accumulated the resources of merit and wisdom, etc., then based on the three natures of non-self-existence (trisvabhāva), it is taught that all dharmas are without self-existence, and based on the nature of non-self-existence of characteristics, it is taught that all dharmas are without arising or ceasing, etc. This refers to the Mahayana teachings of the second period. Furthermore, the text below states: 'If there are sentient beings who have accumulated superior good roots, and superior resources of merit and wisdom, upon hearing my skillful explanation of the dharmas of non-arising and non-ceasing, etc., they believe that this is what the Buddha taught, and are skilled in adopting and discarding, they will quickly attain unsurpassed bodhi (enlightenment). If they practice the five aspects of the lower grade, upon hearing my explanation, they believe that this is what the Buddha taught, and they will obtain immeasurable merit. If they generate their own views, thinking that all dharmas are without arising or ceasing, are originally quiescent, and are of the nature of nirvana (liberation), etc., because they generate their own views, they will lose immeasurable wisdom. If they do not practice the five aspects, upon hearing my explanation, they will generate great karmic obstacles, slander, and disbelieve.' According to this sutra passage, one practices the five aspects because one has heard the teachings, and one can believe in the Mahayana because one has the five aspects. If one does not practice the five aspects, one will slander and disbelieve. Therefore, it is also (this principle).
定須先學小乘後學大乘。由斯諸佛出世先說小乘。后說大乘 三大般若四百六十五遍學品云。善現。若不遍學聲聞乘法．獨覺乘法。終不能得菩薩見道 四涅槃經云。譬如長者唯有一子。幼小未堪。恩教半字。后漸長大方教滿字 五菩薩戒本云。菩薩受學菩薩戒者。若學小不學大。是犯非染污。學大不學小。是犯亦染污 六法華經．大智度論．四分律等。皆云。眾生不堪聞大乘故。不及默然入于涅槃。因梵天王請先說小乘。準此等文。故知。欲學大法。須先學小乘法也 今詳。經說先學小乘後學大乘略有四意。一大乘深妙難信即生謗故。法華經云。若但贊佛乘。眾生沒在苦。謗法不信故。墮於三惡道。二生斷滅見故。十輪經云。若諸眾生於聲聞乘．獨覺法乘。未作劬勞正勤修學。根機未熟根機下劣。精進微少而便聽受微妙深甚大乘正法。如是眾生實是愚癡。自謂聰睿陷斷滅邊。墮顛狂想執無因論。三不學小乘唯學大乘。自謂學大乘者。于聲聞乘若人及法。輕毀誹謗招大苦報。故十輪云。或小聽受無上乘法。便於諸佛共所護持聲聞乘法．獨覺乘法。誹謗毀呰。障蔽隱沒。不令流佈。為求名利唱如是言。我是大乘是大乘黨。唯樂聽習受持大乘。不樂聲聞．獨覺乘法。亦不親近學二乘人。如是詐稱大乘人等。由自愚癡憍慢勢
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：必須先學習小乘，然後才能學習大乘。因此，諸佛出世時，總是先說小乘，后說大乘。《三大般若》（指《大般若經》，佛教經典）四百六十五遍學品中說：『善現（須菩提的別名，意為『善於顯現』）。如果不普遍學習聲聞乘法（通過聽聞佛法而修行的法門）、獨覺乘法（不依賴他人教導，獨自悟道的法門），最終不能獲得菩薩見道（菩薩證悟真理的階段）。』《四涅槃經》（指《大般涅槃經》，佛教經典）中說：『譬如一位長者只有一個兒子，年幼弱小，只能教他半個字。等到漸漸長大，才能教他完整的字。』《菩薩戒本》（菩薩所應遵守的戒律）中說：『菩薩接受和學習菩薩戒的人，如果只學習小乘而不學習大乘，這是犯戒，但不屬於染污罪。如果只學習大乘而不學習小乘，這是犯戒，也屬於染污罪。』《法華經》（指《妙法蓮華經》，佛教經典）、《大智度論》（佛教論書）、《四分律》（佛教戒律）等都說：『眾生無法接受聽聞大乘佛法，不如保持沉默進入涅槃（佛教的最高境界，指解脫生死輪迴）。』因為梵天王（印度教神祇，后被佛教吸收）請求佛陀先說小乘佛法。根據這些經文，可知想要學習大法，必須先學習小乘佛法。 現在詳細分析，經文說先學小乘後學大乘，略有四個意思：一是大乘佛法深奧微妙難以置信，容易產生誹謗。《法華經》中說：『如果只讚揚佛乘（成佛的法門），眾生沉溺在痛苦中，因為誹謗佛法不相信的緣故，會墮入三惡道（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）。』二是容易產生斷滅見（認為人死後一切皆無的錯誤見解）。《十輪經》（指《大乘大集地藏十輪經》，佛教經典）中說：『如果眾生對於聲聞乘法、獨覺乘法，沒有勤勞精進地修學，根基不成熟，根機下劣，精進微少，卻聽受微妙深奧的大乘正法，這樣的眾生實在是愚癡，自以為聰明，陷入斷滅邊，墮入顛狂的想法，執著于無因論（認為世間萬物沒有原因）。』三是不學習小乘，只學習大乘，自認為學習大乘的人，對於聲聞乘的修行者和法，輕視、詆譭、誹謗，招致巨大的苦報。所以《十輪經》中說：『或者稍微聽受無上乘法（指大乘佛法），就對於諸佛共同護持的聲聞乘法、獨覺乘法，誹謗、詆譭、遮蔽、隱藏，不讓其流傳。爲了追求名利，宣揚說：『我是大乘，是大乘一黨，只喜歡聽聞、學習、受持大乘佛法，不喜歡聲聞乘、獨覺乘法，也不親近學習二乘的人。』像這樣假稱大乘的人，由於自己的愚癡、驕慢的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version: One must first learn the Hinayana (Small Vehicle, a term sometimes used to refer to early Buddhist schools) before learning the Mahayana (Great Vehicle, a major branch of Buddhism). Therefore, when Buddhas appear in the world, they first teach the Hinayana and then the Mahayana. The 'Four Hundred Sixty-Five Sections on Learning' in the 'Great Prajna Sutra' (referring to the 'Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra', a Buddhist scripture) states: 'Subhuti (a disciple of the Buddha, meaning 'Good Existence'). If one does not thoroughly study the Sravakayana Dharma (the path of those who hear the teachings and practice accordingly), and the Pratyekabuddhayana Dharma (the path of solitary realizers), one will ultimately not attain the Bodhisattva Path of Seeing (the stage of a Bodhisattva's realization of truth).' The 'Four Nirvana Sutra' (referring to the 'Mahaparinirvana Sutra', a Buddhist scripture) states: 'It is like an elder who has only one son, who is young and immature, and can only be taught half a word. Later, as he gradually grows up, he can be taught complete words.' The 'Bodhisattva Precepts' (the precepts that Bodhisattvas should observe) state: 'A Bodhisattva who receives and studies the Bodhisattva precepts, if they only study the Hinayana and not the Mahayana, this is a transgression, but not a defiling offense. If they only study the Mahayana and not the Hinayana, this is a transgression and also a defiling offense.' The 'Lotus Sutra' (referring to the 'Saddharma Pundarika Sutra', a Buddhist scripture), the 'Mahaprajnaparamita-sastra' (a Buddhist treatise), the 'Four-Part Vinaya' (a Buddhist code of conduct), etc., all state: 'Beings are incapable of hearing the Mahayana Dharma, it is better to remain silent and enter Nirvana (the ultimate goal of Buddhism, liberation from the cycle of birth and death).' Because Brahma (a Hindu deity, later absorbed into Buddhism) requested the Buddha to first teach the Hinayana Dharma. Based on these texts, it is known that if one wants to learn the Great Dharma, one must first learn the Hinayana Dharma. Now, to analyze in detail, the scriptures say that first learning the Hinayana and then learning the Mahayana has roughly four meanings: First, the Mahayana Dharma is profound and subtle and difficult to believe, easily giving rise to slander. The 'Lotus Sutra' states: 'If one only praises the Buddha Vehicle (the path to Buddhahood), beings are immersed in suffering, because of slandering the Dharma and not believing, they will fall into the three evil realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals).' Second, it is easy to give rise to the view of annihilation (the mistaken view that after death, everything ceases to exist). The 'Ten Wheels Sutra' (referring to the 'Mahayana Mahasamgraha Jizo Ten Wheels Sutra', a Buddhist scripture) states: 'If beings have not diligently and earnestly cultivated the Sravakayana Dharma and the Pratyekabuddhayana Dharma, their roots are not mature, their faculties are inferior, and their diligence is slight, yet they listen to the subtle and profound Mahayana Dharma, such beings are truly foolish, thinking themselves to be intelligent, falling into the extreme of annihilation, falling into delusional thoughts, clinging to the theory of no cause (the belief that things in the world have no cause).' Third, not learning the Hinayana, only learning the Mahayana, those who consider themselves to be learning the Mahayana, despise, denigrate, and slander the practitioners and Dharma of the Sravakayana, inviting great suffering. Therefore, the 'Ten Wheels Sutra' states: 'Or, having slightly heard the Supreme Vehicle Dharma (referring to the Mahayana Dharma), they slander, denigrate, obscure, and conceal the Sravakayana Dharma and the Pratyekabuddhayana Dharma, which are jointly protected by all Buddhas, not allowing them to spread. In order to seek fame and profit, they proclaim: 'I am Mahayana, a member of the Mahayana party, only liking to hear, study, and uphold the Mahayana Dharma, not liking the Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana Dharma, and not associating with those who study the Two Vehicles.' Such people who falsely claim to be Mahayana practitioners, due to their own ignorance and arrogance.
力。乃至。修學二乘法人誹謗毀辱。令無威勢 又云。若於三乘隨輕毀一品至一頌。不應親近或與交遊。或共住止。或同事業。若有親近。或與交遊。及共住止。或同事業。俱定當墮無間地獄。乃至。受大苦惱難有出期何以故。善男子。我於過去修菩薩行。精勤求證無上智時。或為求請聲聞乘法。下至一頌。乃至。棄捨自身手足。血肉皮骨。頭目髓腦(餘二亦爾)。四若不先學有教精習善根等。即當多諸障難不能信解 問曰。若爾何故諸大乘經。多分毀學小乘。贊學大乘是究竟行。答十輪經自會釋云。是故三乘皆應修學。不應憍傲妄號大乘謗毀聲聞．獨覺乘法。我先唯為大乘法器堅修行者。說如是言。唯修大乘法能得究竟。是故今昔說不相違。梵網經等皆準此會釋 若爾豈無大乘種姓不假積習。唯聞大乘而能信解。答三乘種姓要因先習善根。無有法爾本性三乘差別故。優婆塞戒經第一云。不以性故名為菩薩。眾生有界名為欲心。心如是欲善業因緣。發菩提心名菩薩姓。如是等文非唯一二。又小乘法有二。一小乘法。謂說有教苦．空．無常．及緣起等。二者發小乘心。此說依其有教。積習善根。方能信大。不說先發二乘心。後方學大乘。不發二乘心。發大乘心者。雖學小乘。不名不定。名菩薩性 今應反難。若爾。不因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 要不然，如果有人修學聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna，通過聽聞佛法而證悟的修行方式）或緣覺乘（Pratyekabuddhayāna，通過自身努力證悟的修行方式）的法門，卻加以誹謗和侮辱，使其失去威勢。又說，如果對於三乘（Triyāna，包括聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘）中的任何一乘，哪怕是輕微地譭謗一品或一句偈頌，都不應該親近、交往、共同居住或一起做事。如果有人親近、交往、共同居住或一起做事，必定會墮入無間地獄（Avīci，八大地獄中最苦之處）。乃至遭受巨大的痛苦，難以脫離。為什麼呢？善男子，我在過去修菩薩行（Bodhisattvacaryā，菩薩的修行）時，精勤地尋求證悟無上智慧，有時爲了求得聲聞乘的法，哪怕只是一句偈頌，甚至會捨棄自己的手足、血肉皮骨、頭目髓腦（其他兩種情況也是如此）。如果事先不學習有教法，不精進修習善根等，就會有很多障礙和困難，無法信解。 有人問：如果這樣，為什麼很多大乘經典（Mahāyāna，以普度眾生為目標的修行方式）大多譭謗學習小乘（Hinayāna，以自我解脫為目標的修行方式），讚歎學習大乘才是究竟的修行呢？《十輪經》（Daśacakra Sūtra）自己解釋說：因此，三乘都應該修學，不應該驕傲自大，妄自稱大乘，而誹謗聲聞乘和緣覺乘的法。我先前只是對那些具有大乘根器，堅定修行的行者，才說這樣的話，只有修大乘法才能得到究竟。所以，過去和現在所說並不矛盾。《梵網經》（Brahmajāla Sūtra）等經典都可以參照這個解釋。 如果這樣，難道沒有大乘種姓（Mahāyāna gotra，具有大乘修行潛質的人）不需要積累修習，只要聽聞大乘就能信解嗎？回答是：三乘的種姓都需要依靠先前修習的善根，沒有自然而然就具有的三乘差別。 《優婆塞戒經》（Upāsaka Śīla Sūtra）第一卷說：不是因為天性而稱為菩薩，眾生有界限，稱為欲心。心像這樣渴望善業因緣，發起菩提心（bodhicitta，為求證悟而發的心）才稱為菩薩種姓。像這樣的經文不止一兩處。而且，小乘法有兩種：一是小乘法，即宣說有教法，如苦、空、無常以及緣起等；二是發小乘心。這裡說的是依靠有教法，積累修習善根，才能信解大乘。不是說先發二乘心，然後才學習大乘。不發二乘心，發大乘心的人，即使學習小乘，也不算是不定性，而是具有菩薩的根性。 現在應該反過來問：如果這樣，不依靠
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, if someone, while studying the Dharma of the Śrāvakayāna (vehicle of hearers, those who attain enlightenment by listening to the teachings) or Pratyekabuddhayāna (vehicle of solitary realizers, those who attain enlightenment through their own efforts), slanders and insults it, causing it to lose its influence. It is also said that if one disparages even a single verse or section of any of the three vehicles (Triyāna, including Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna), one should not associate with them, befriend them, live with them, or work with them. If one does associate with them, befriend them, live with them, or work with them, one is certain to fall into the Avīci (the most painful of the eight hot hells) hell. Furthermore, one will suffer great torment and find it difficult to escape. Why is this? Good man, in the past, when I was practicing the Bodhisattvacaryā (the practice of a Bodhisattva) and diligently seeking to attain unsurpassed wisdom, I would, in order to seek even a single verse of the Śrāvakayāna Dharma, even abandon my own hands, feet, flesh, blood, skin, bones, head, eyes, marrow, and brain (the same applies to the other two vehicles). If one does not first study the teachings and diligently cultivate good roots, one will encounter many obstacles and difficulties and be unable to believe and understand. Someone asks: If this is the case, why do many Mahāyāna (the great vehicle, focused on universal liberation) sutras mostly criticize the study of the Hinayāna (the lesser vehicle, focused on individual liberation) and praise the study of the Mahāyāna as the ultimate practice? The Daśacakra Sūtra (Sūtra of the Ten Wheels) itself explains: Therefore, all three vehicles should be studied. One should not be arrogant and falsely claim to be a Mahāyāna practitioner while slandering the Dharma of the Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna. I previously spoke in this way only to those who had the capacity for the Mahāyāna and were firmly committed to practice, saying that only by practicing the Mahāyāna Dharma could one attain ultimate liberation. Therefore, what I said in the past and what I say now are not contradictory. The Brahmajāla Sūtra (Brahma's Net Sutra) and other sutras can be interpreted in the same way. If this is the case, are there not those of the Mahāyāna gotra (lineage, those with the potential for Mahāyāna practice) who do not need to accumulate practice and can believe and understand simply by hearing the Mahāyāna? The answer is: The gotra of all three vehicles depends on previously cultivated good roots. There is no inherent difference between the three vehicles. The first chapter of the Upāsaka Śīla Sūtra (Sutra on the Precepts for Lay Practitioners) says: One is not called a Bodhisattva because of one's nature. Beings have limitations, which are called desires. When the mind desires good karma in this way, and one generates bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment, the aspiration to attain enlightenment for the benefit of all beings), one is called a Bodhisattva gotra. There are many such passages, not just one or two. Moreover, there are two aspects to the Hinayāna Dharma: first, the Hinayāna Dharma itself, which teaches the doctrines of suffering, emptiness, impermanence, and dependent origination; and second, the mind of the Hinayāna. Here, it is said that one can believe in the Mahāyāna by relying on the teachings and accumulating good roots. It is not said that one must first generate the mind of the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) before studying the Mahāyāna. Those who do not generate the mind of the two vehicles but generate the mind of the Mahāyāna, even if they study the Hinayāna, are not considered to be of uncertain nature but rather possess the nature of a Bodhisattva. Now, the question should be turned around: If this is the case, without relying on
遇緣積習善根方能信大。遇說而能生其信者。先佛應已度盡。何為至今猶有般涅槃性者墮三惡道。而論中說地獄成就三無漏根 問有立云。若有法爾涅槃種姓．及一乘根機等。即有異相。謂性自然于厭生死。愛樂涅槃。薄小煩惱。不行粗惡斷善根等。廣翻無性之相。此說為是為非。答此說非也。問所以得知。答違理．教故。言違理者。無始已來能厭生死愛樂涅槃。薄少煩惱不行粗惡。漸漸熏修。並應先已般涅槃界。時無始故。因行莊嚴論說。一向行惡並斷善根。善因不具名時邊無性。今猶有也。又若有本性即有印相者。普斷善根一向行惡。與無種姓相。有何別而知是菩薩．及一乘人 言違文者。善戒經。瑜伽論。地持等言。菩薩細性無因而得。共許此是菩薩本性。經論之中唯有二印相。一細性印相。二具二性相。細性印相唯佛能知。如何凡夫輒說相別。具二種性有六印相。一切眾生知。凡可知相非本相。如何有相可知是本性相。又瓔珞經云。善財王子等。六住已前退斷善根。墮無間獄。無惡不造。此等何相知是菩薩。又唯識論等。皆云瑜伽五十二真如所緣緣種。是菩薩本性瑜伽論云一切皆有真如所緣緣 以皆有故就障分性。因既平等。相云何異。故知。就人說相有．無不同。定非本性。若言法爾無性有相可知。除聲聞
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 只有遇到因緣、積累習氣和善根，才能相信偉大的佛法。如果有人一聽聞佛法就能生起信心，那麼過去的諸佛應該已經度盡了所有眾生。為什麼直到今天，仍然有具有般涅槃（Parinirvana）（完全的涅槃）性質的眾生墮入三惡道（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）？而且《瑜伽師地論》中說，地獄眾生也能成就三種無漏根（無漏根是指超越世間煩惱的智慧和能力）。 問：有人立論說，如果存在法爾涅槃種姓（Dharmata-parinirvana-gotra）（天生具有涅槃的潛質）以及一乘根機（Ekayana-indriya）（唯一成佛之道的根器）等，就會有特殊的相狀，例如天性自然厭惡生死，喜愛涅槃，煩惱輕微，不會做出粗暴惡劣的行為，也不會斷絕善根等等，廣泛地描述了無性（Agotraka）（沒有成佛潛質）的相反特徵。這種說法是對還是錯？ 答：這種說法是錯誤的。 問：如何得知這種說法是錯誤的？ 答：因為這種說法違背了道理和教義。從道理上說，如果從無始以來就能厭惡生死、喜愛涅槃，煩惱輕微，不做粗暴惡劣的行為，並且逐漸熏修善行，那麼早就應該進入般涅槃的境界了。因為時間是無始的。正如《因行莊嚴論》所說，一味作惡並斷絕善根，善的因緣不具足，這被稱為時邊無性（kalpana-agotrika）（在特定時期內沒有成佛潛質）。但現在仍然存在這種情況。而且，如果天生具有某種本性，就應該有相應的印相（Laksana）（特徵），那麼完全斷絕善根、一味作惡的人，與沒有種姓（Agotraka）（沒有成佛潛質）的人有什麼區別？又如何得知這些人是菩薩（Bodhisattva）（立志成佛的修行者）或一乘根機的人？ 從教義上說，《善戒經》、《瑜伽師地論》、《地持經》等都說，菩薩的細性（suksma-prakrti）（微細的本性）是無因而得的，大家都承認這是菩薩的本性。經論之中只有兩種印相：一是細性印相，二是具二性相（具有兩種種性的特徵）。細性印相只有佛才能知道，凡夫如何能隨便說出其他的相狀？具二種性有六種印相，一切眾生都知道。凡是可以通過現象來認識的相，就不是本來的相。如何能說可以通過現象來認識的相是本性的相？而且，《瓔珞經》說，善財王子等人在六住位（菩薩修行過程中的一個階段）之前，會退轉並斷絕善根，墮入無間地獄，無惡不作。從什麼相狀可以得知這些人是菩薩？而且，《唯識論》等都說，瑜伽行者以五十二種真如（Tathata）（事物的真實本性）所緣為緣的種子，是菩薩的本性。《瑜伽師地論》說一切眾生都具有真如所緣緣。既然大家都具有真如所緣緣，只是因為被遮障的程度不同而區分了種性，那麼成佛的因是平等的，相狀又怎麼會有差異呢？所以要知道，就人來說，說有相和沒有相是不同的，但肯定不是本性。如果說天生沒有成佛潛質的人也有可以認識的相，那麼就只有聲聞（Sravaka）（聽聞佛法而修行的弟子）才符合這種情況。
【English Translation】 English version: Only by encountering conditions, accumulating habits, and good roots can one believe in the great Dharma. If those who hear and can generate faith have already been completely delivered by past Buddhas, why is it that even today there are still beings with the nature of Parinirvana (complete Nirvana) who fall into the three evil realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals)? Moreover, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra says that beings in hell can also achieve the three Anasrava-mula (non-outflow roots, referring to wisdom and abilities that transcend worldly afflictions). Question: Someone argues that if there exists Dharmata-parinirvana-gotra (innate potential for Nirvana) and Ekayana-indriya (the capacity for the one vehicle to Buddhahood), there will be special characteristics, such as a natural aversion to birth and death, a love for Nirvana, slight afflictions, not engaging in coarse and evil deeds, and not severing good roots, etc., extensively describing the opposite characteristics of Agotraka (those without the potential for Buddhahood). Is this statement correct or incorrect? Answer: This statement is incorrect. Question: How can we know that this statement is incorrect? Answer: Because this statement contradicts both reason and doctrine. In terms of reason, if from beginningless time one could be averse to birth and death, love Nirvana, have slight afflictions, not engage in coarse and evil deeds, and gradually cultivate good deeds, then one should have already entered the realm of Parinirvana. Because time is beginningless. As the Karana-vyuha-sutra says, constantly doing evil and severing good roots, lacking the conditions for goodness, is called Kalpana-agotrika (those without the potential for Buddhahood within a specific time frame). But this situation still exists today. Moreover, if one inherently possesses a certain nature, there should be corresponding Laksana (characteristics), then what is the difference between those who completely sever good roots and constantly do evil and those who are Agotraka (without the potential for Buddhahood)? And how can we know that these people are Bodhisattvas (beings who aspire to Buddhahood) or those with Ekayana-indriya? In terms of doctrine, the Susila-sutra, Yogacarabhumi-sastra, Bodhisattvabhumi-sutra, etc., all say that the Bodhisattva's suksma-prakrti (subtle nature) is obtained without cause, and everyone acknowledges that this is the Bodhisattva's nature. Within the sutras and sastras, there are only two types of Laksana: one is the subtle nature Laksana, and the other is the characteristic of possessing two natures (having characteristics of two Gotras). Only the Buddha can know the subtle nature Laksana. How can ordinary people casually speak of other characteristics? Those with two natures have six Laksana, which all beings know. Whatever can be recognized through phenomena is not the original characteristic. How can it be said that the characteristic that can be recognized through phenomena is the characteristic of the original nature? Moreover, the Ingluo Sutra says that before the sixth stage of dwelling (a stage in the Bodhisattva's path), Prince Sudhana and others may regress and sever good roots, fall into the Avici hell, and commit all kinds of evil. From what characteristics can we know that these people are Bodhisattvas? Furthermore, the Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi-sastra and others all say that the seeds of the Yogin's (practitioner of Yoga) object of the fifty-two kinds of Tathata (the true nature of things) are the Bodhisattva's nature. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra says that all beings possess Tathata as the object of their awareness. Since everyone possesses Tathata as the object of their awareness, and the Gotra is differentiated only by the degree to which it is obscured, then the cause of Buddhahood is equal, so how can the characteristics be different? Therefore, it should be known that, in terms of people, saying that there are characteristics and no characteristics is different, but it is definitely not the original nature. If it is said that those who are inherently without the potential for Buddhahood also have recognizable characteristics, then only Sravakas (disciples who practice by listening to the Dharma) fit this description.
地有何文證。今時能信大乘法者。皆是先世曾種善根。故般若云。若於此經生一念凈信者。當知是人不於一佛．二佛．三．四．五佛所種諸善根。已於無量千萬佛所種諸善根。唯上所明。此論彼機通其五性。一切萬行之根本故。
三教起因緣者。就中有五。一一切教起緣。二三乘教起緣。三空有教起緣。四三藏教起緣。五此論教起緣 一一切教起緣者。一切諸佛因中發願。皆為度脫一切眾生令得成佛。三無數劫行菩薩行。證大菩提。不為眾生生人．天中取小果故。求大菩提行多苦行。故法華經云。唯以一大事因緣故出現於世。謂以佛之知見開示悟入一切眾生。又般若論發大菩提有四心。謂廣大．第一．常．其心不顛倒。廣大．第一者。欲令一切眾生得無餘涅槃。無餘涅槃者簡異小乘涅槃也。一切大乘經意皆同。智論云。有三乘道．及人．天道菩薩法應引道眾生於大乘道中。不住大道者著二乘中。不住涅槃者著人天福樂中。作涅槃因。大般若經．法華意亦同也。準上所引經論文意。一切菩薩行菩薩行。演說三學．三乘．三藏皆為佛乘 二三乘教起緣者。就中有二。一正。二兼。正者。謂為求聲聞乘者轉四諦法輪。求緣覺者。說十二因緣。求大乘者說六波羅蜜。兼者說三乘法通為三乘人。諸論中說總別念住．加行位
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有什麼文獻可以證明這一點呢？現在能夠相信大乘佛法的人，都是前世曾經種下善根的人。所以《般若經》說：『如果對於此經生起一念清凈的信心，應當知道這個人不是在一佛、二佛、三、四、五佛那裡種下各種善根，而是在無量千萬佛那裡種下各種善根。』唯獨上面所說明的，此論與眾生的根機相通，涵蓋其五種根性，是一切萬行的根本。
關於三教興起的因緣，其中有五點：第一，一切教法興起的因緣；第二，三乘教法興起的因緣；第三，空有教法興起的因緣；第四，三藏教法興起的因緣；第五，此論教法興起的因緣。第一，一切教法興起的因緣：一切諸佛在因地發願時，都是爲了度脫一切眾生，使他們能夠成就佛果。經歷了無數劫的菩薩行，證得了大菩提，不是爲了讓眾生在人、天道中獲得小果。爲了求得大菩提，行持諸多苦行。所以《法華經》說：『唯獨因為一大事因緣的緣故，才出現於世。』 也就是爲了用佛的知見開示、引導、使一切眾生覺悟和進入佛的知見。另外，《般若論》中發起大菩提心有四種心，即廣大心、第一心、常心、其心不顛倒。所謂廣大心、第一心，是指想要讓一切眾生都得到無餘涅槃（nirvana）。無餘涅槃是爲了區別于小乘的涅槃。一切大乘經典的意思都相同。《智論》說：『有三乘道以及人、天道，菩薩法應當引導眾生進入大乘道中。不執著于大道的人，會執著於二乘中；不執著于涅槃的人，會執著於人天福樂中。』這是作涅槃之因。《大般若經》、《法華經》的意思也相同。根據上面所引用的經文和論文的意思，一切菩薩行菩薩行，演說三學、三乘、三藏，都是爲了佛乘。
第二，三乘教法興起的因緣，其中有兩點：一是正說，二是兼說。正說，是指爲了求聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna）的人，轉四諦法輪（Four Noble Truths）；為求緣覺乘（Pratyekabuddhayana）的人，說十二因緣（Twelve links of dependent origination）；為求大乘（Mahāyāna）的人，說六波羅蜜（Six Pāramitās）。兼說，是指說三乘法，普遍爲了三乘人。諸論中說總別念住、加行位。
【English Translation】 English version: What textual evidence is there for this? Those who can believe in the Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle) Dharma in this present age are all those who have planted good roots in previous lives. Therefore, the Prajñā (Wisdom) says: 'If one generates a single thought of pure faith in this sutra, one should know that this person has not planted various good roots in the presence of one Buddha, two Buddhas, three, four, or five Buddhas, but has planted various good roots in the presence of countless millions of Buddhas.' Only what is explained above, this treatise is connected to the faculties of beings, encompassing their five natures, and is the root of all myriad practices.
Regarding the causes and conditions for the arising of the Three Teachings, there are five aspects: First, the causes and conditions for the arising of all teachings; second, the causes and conditions for the arising of the Three Vehicle teachings; third, the causes and conditions for the arising of the emptiness and existence teachings; fourth, the causes and conditions for the arising of the Three Pitakas (Tripiṭaka) teachings; fifth, the causes and conditions for the arising of this treatise's teachings. First, the causes and conditions for the arising of all teachings: All Buddhas, in their causal stage, made vows to liberate all sentient beings and enable them to attain Buddhahood. They practiced the Bodhisattva path for countless kalpas (aeons), attaining Great Bodhi (Enlightenment), not for the sake of sentient beings obtaining small fruits in the realms of humans and gods. To seek Great Bodhi, they practiced many difficult practices. Therefore, the Lotus Sutra says: 'Solely for the sake of one great event and cause, they appear in the world.' That is, to use the Buddha's knowledge and vision to reveal, instruct, awaken, and lead all sentient beings to enter the Buddha's knowledge and vision. Furthermore, the Prajñā Treatise states that there are four minds for generating the Great Bodhi mind, namely, the vast mind, the foremost mind, the constant mind, and the mind that is not inverted. The vast mind and the foremost mind refer to the desire to enable all sentient beings to attain Nirvāṇa (extinguishment) without remainder. Nirvāṇa without remainder is to distinguish it from the Nirvāṇa of the Small Vehicle (Hinayana). The meaning of all Mahāyāna sutras is the same. The Wisdom Treatise says: 'There are the paths of the Three Vehicles, as well as the paths of humans and gods. The Bodhisattva Dharma should guide sentient beings into the Great Vehicle path. Those who do not abide in the Great Path will be attached to the Two Vehicles; those who do not abide in Nirvāṇa will be attached to the happiness and bliss of humans and gods.' This is the cause of Nirvāṇa. The meaning of the Great Prajñā Sutra and the Lotus Sutra is also the same. According to the meaning of the sutras and treatises cited above, all Bodhisattvas practice the Bodhisattva path, expounding the Three Learnings, the Three Vehicles, and the Three Pitakas, all for the sake of the Buddha Vehicle.
Second, the causes and conditions for the arising of the Three Vehicle teachings, there are two aspects: one is the direct explanation, and the other is the concurrent explanation. The direct explanation refers to turning the Wheel of the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni) for those who seek the Śrāvakayāna (Hearer Vehicle); explaining the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda) for those who seek the Pratyekabuddhayana (Solitary Buddha Vehicle); and explaining the Six Pāramitās (ṣaṭ pāramitāḥ) for those who seek the Mahāyāna (Great Vehicle). The concurrent explanation refers to explaining the Three Vehicle Dharma universally for the people of the Three Vehicles. The treatises speak of the general and specific mindfulness and the stages of application.
中聲聞乘人。亦修三義觀緣起．及七處善．四十四智．七十七智等。故大般若遍學品云。三乘見道已前皆須遍學。故知四諦．十二緣．六波羅蜜等。通為三乘說也 三空有教起緣者。說有教。為未種善根。未清凈障。未成就相續。未多修勝解。未積集福德．智慧資糧。說諸法有性有生有滅是不安穩等。種善根。乃至。令積集福德．智慧二種資糧。若已種善根。乃至。已積集福德．智慧二種資糧者。佛又依三無性。說一切法皆無自性。謂相無自性性。生無自性性。勝義無自性性。又依相無自性性。勝義無自性性。說一切無生無滅。本來寂靜自性涅槃。又為發趣聲聞乘者。轉四諦法輪。即是有教為聲聞說。唯為發趣修大乘者。說一切法皆無自性無生無滅。本來寂靜自性涅槃。此則唯發趣大乘者說其空教。此就顯相。理實說有通為三乘。說空亦通三乘。三乘定性聞般若者。皆證自乘無漏地故 四三藏教起緣者。說素呾纜藏依力等流。一為眾生得增上心學論道故。二為眾生種種雜說故。三令諸眾生種善根故。四為未入正法令入正法故 說毗奈耶藏依悲等流。一為眾生得增上戒學論道故。二為眾生說諸學處故。三為已種善根者。令相續成就故。四令入正法者。令受持學處故 說阿毗達磨藏依無畏等流。一依增上慧學論道故。二分
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：中等聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna）的人，也修習三義觀緣起（ प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद, dependent origination），以及七處善（sapta-sthāna-kuśala），四十四智（catuścatvāriṃśat jñānāni），七十七智（saptasaptati jñānāni）等。所以《大般若經》（Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra）遍學品中說，三乘（Triyāna）見道（darśanamārga）之前都必須普遍學習。因此可知四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni, four noble truths）、十二緣起（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda, twelve links of dependent origination）、六波羅蜜（ṣaṭ pāramitā, six perfections）等，是共通為三乘而說的。 三空有教（tri-śūnyatā-vidyā）的興起因緣是：說『有』的教法，是爲了那些未種善根、未清凈業障、未成就相續、未多修勝解、未積集福德智慧資糧的人，說諸法有自性、有生有滅、是不安穩等等，爲了讓他們種下善根，乃至積集福德智慧兩種資糧。如果已經種下善根，乃至已經積集福德智慧兩種資糧的人，佛又依據三無自性（tri-niḥsvabhāvatā），說一切法皆無自性。即相無自性性（lakṣaṇa-niḥsvabhāvatā）、生無自性性（utpatti-niḥsvabhāvatā）、勝義無自性性（paramārtha-niḥsvabhāvatā）。又依據相無自性性、勝義無自性性，說一切法無生無滅，本來寂靜自性涅槃（nirvāṇa）。 又爲了引導趣向聲聞乘的人，轉四諦法輪（dharma-cakra-pravartana），這就是『有』的教法為聲聞乘而說。唯獨爲了引導趣向修習大乘（Mahāyāna）的人，說一切法皆無自性、無生無滅，本來寂靜自性涅槃。這則是唯獨為引導趣向大乘的人說『空』的教法。這是就顯現的方面來說，實際上說『有』是共通為三乘，說『空』也共通為三乘。三乘定性（gotra）的人聽聞般若（prajñā），都能證得各自乘的無漏地（anāsrava-bhūmi）。 四三藏教（tripiṭaka）的興起因緣是：說素呾纜藏（sūtrapiṭaka）是依仗力量等流（bala-niṣyanda）而產生的。一是為眾生得到增上心學（adhicitta-śikṣā）而論道；二是為眾生種種雜說；三是令諸眾生種下善根；四是為未入正法（saddharma）的人令其進入正法。 說毗奈耶藏（vinayapiṭaka）是依仗悲心等流（karuṇā-niṣyanda）而產生的。一是為眾生得到增上戒學（adhiśīla-śikṣā）而論道；二是為眾生說諸學處（śikṣāpada）；三是為已種善根的人，令其相續成就；四是令入正法的人，令其受持學處。 說阿毗達磨藏（abhidharmapiṭaka）是依仗無畏等流（abhaya-niṣyanda）而產生的。一是依仗增上慧學（adhiprajñā-śikṣā）論道；二是分別
【English Translation】 English version: Those of the intermediate Śrāvakayāna (中聲聞乘) also cultivate the contemplation of dependent origination in terms of three meanings (三義觀緣起, pratītyasamutpāda), as well as the seven wholesome abodes (七處善, sapta-sthāna-kuśala), forty-four wisdoms (四十四智, catuścatvāriṃśat jñānāni), seventy-seven wisdoms (七十七智, saptasaptati jñānāni), and so on. Therefore, the 'Universal Learning' chapter of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (大般若經) states that all three vehicles (三乘, Triyāna) must universally learn before the path of seeing (見道, darśanamārga). Thus, it is known that the Four Noble Truths (四諦, catvāri āryasatyāni), the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination (十二緣起, dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda), the Six Perfections (六波羅蜜, ṣaṭ pāramitā), and so on, are commonly taught to the three vehicles. The arising conditions for the teachings of three emptinesses and existence (三空有教, tri-śūnyatā-vidyā) are as follows: The teaching of 'existence' is for those who have not planted roots of virtue, have not purified their obscurations, have not accomplished continuity, have not cultivated superior understanding, and have not accumulated the resources of merit and wisdom. It states that phenomena have inherent existence, have arising and ceasing, are impermanent, and so on, in order to enable them to plant roots of virtue and accumulate the two resources of merit and wisdom. If one has already planted roots of virtue and accumulated the two resources of merit and wisdom, the Buddha then, based on the three non-existences (三無自性, tri-niḥsvabhāvatā), says that all phenomena are without inherent existence, namely, characteristic non-inherent existence (相無自性性, lakṣaṇa-niḥsvabhāvatā), arising non-inherent existence (生無自性性, utpatti-niḥsvabhāvatā), and ultimate non-inherent existence (勝義無自性性, paramārtha-niḥsvabhāvatā). Furthermore, based on characteristic non-inherent existence and ultimate non-inherent existence, it is said that all phenomena are without arising and ceasing, are originally quiescent, and are of the nature of nirvāṇa (涅槃). Furthermore, in order to guide those who are inclined towards the Śrāvakayāna, the wheel of the Dharma of the Four Noble Truths (四諦法輪, dharma-cakra-pravartana) is turned. This is the teaching of 'existence' spoken for the Śrāvakayāna. Solely for the purpose of guiding those who are inclined towards cultivating the Mahāyāna (大乘), it is said that all phenomena are without inherent existence, without arising and ceasing, are originally quiescent, and are of the nature of nirvāṇa. This is solely the teaching of 'emptiness' spoken for those who are inclined towards the Mahāyāna. This is in terms of manifestation. In reality, the teaching of 'existence' is common to the three vehicles, and the teaching of 'emptiness' is also common to the three vehicles. Those of the three vehicles with fixed nature (三乘定性, gotra) who hear the Prajñā (般若) can all attain the uncontaminated ground (無漏地, anāsrava-bhūmi) of their respective vehicles. The arising conditions for the teachings of the three piṭakas (三藏教, tripiṭaka) are as follows: The Sūtrapiṭaka (素呾纜藏) is said to arise from the outflow of power (力等流, bala-niṣyanda). Firstly, it is for sentient beings to discuss the path to attain higher mind training (增上心學, adhicitta-śikṣā). Secondly, it is for various miscellaneous teachings for sentient beings. Thirdly, it is to enable sentient beings to plant roots of virtue. Fourthly, it is to enable those who have not entered the true Dharma (正法, saddharma) to enter the true Dharma. The Vinayapiṭaka (毗奈耶藏) is said to arise from the outflow of compassion (悲心等流, karuṇā-niṣyanda). Firstly, it is for sentient beings to discuss the path to attain higher ethical training (增上戒學, adhiśīla-śikṣā). Secondly, it is to teach the precepts (學處, śikṣāpada) to sentient beings. Thirdly, it is to enable those who have already planted roots of virtue to achieve continuity. Fourthly, it is to enable those who have entered the true Dharma to uphold the precepts. The Abhidharmapiṭaka (阿毗達磨藏) is said to arise from the outflow of fearlessness (無畏等流, abhaya-niṣyanda). Firstly, it is to discuss the path based on higher wisdom training (增上慧學, adhiprajñā-śikṣā). Secondly, it distinguishes
別諸法自．共相故。三為已成就者。令得正解脫故。四為已受持學處通達諸法真實相故 問素呾纜中有毗奈耶等。毗奈耶中有阿毗達磨等。阿毗達磨中有素呾纜等。此則三藏無有差別。答婆沙一說從勝立名 此經律論中雖一部內兼明三藏。然說就多分立藏名。二即從所明立三藏名。此謂三藏不全分部。隨所明義。即依彼文立三藏別 問何故弟子唯造對法。不造素呾纜藏及毗奈耶藏耶。答素呾纜藏次第所顯。謂素呾纜中應求次第。何故世尊此品無間宣說彼品等 此隨當時機宜次第佛為教主。佛在世時承佛神力。如此說者亦同得名經。佛滅度后弟子不可自造經也 毗奈耶藏緣起所顯。謂毗奈耶中應求緣起。世尊依何緣起制立彼彼學處制立學處唯在於佛不在弟子。雖亦有別教誡學徒。然不名為毗奈耶藏 阿毗達磨應求諸法真實性相。不應求彼次第緣起。或前或后。或無緣起說。俱無過失唯此弟子釋佛所說幽隱法性故。亦得名阿毗達磨。故弟子所製得名對法。非經．律也。然有弟子釋經及律。皆名為論不名經．律唯此弟子造論釋佛三藏 五此論緣起者。世親菩薩。健馱羅國人也。先於一切有部出家。因即受持彼部三藏。後學經部將為當理。于有部義時懷取捨。菩薩。更欲往迦濕彌羅國。研檄有部考定是非。恐彼諸師情懷忌憚。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為諸法的自相和共相不同。三藏是爲了已經成就的人，令他們獲得真正的解脫。四藏是爲了已經受持學處，通達諸法真實相的人。 問：素呾纜（Sutra，經）中有毗奈耶（Vinaya，律）等內容，毗奈耶中有阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論）等內容，阿毗達磨中有素呾纜等內容，這樣看來三藏就沒有差別了。 答：婆沙（Vibhasa，論書名）一種說法是從殊勝處立名。經、律、論中雖然一部之內兼明三藏，但命名是根據其中所說的大部分內容來確定的。另一種說法是根據所闡明的內容來確定三藏的名稱。這意味著三藏並非完全按照分部來劃分，而是根據所闡明的意義，依據相關文字來區分三藏。 問：為什麼弟子們只造對法（論），而不造素呾纜藏（經藏）和毗奈耶藏（律藏）呢？ 答：素呾纜藏（經藏）強調次第的顯現，也就是說，在素呾纜中應該尋求次第，例如世尊為什麼在這品之後緊接著宣說那一品等等。這是隨順當時的機宜次第，佛陀作為教主。佛陀在世時，憑藉佛陀的神力，這樣說的人也同樣可以被稱為經。佛陀滅度后，弟子們不可以自己創作經。 毗奈耶藏（律藏）強調緣起的顯現，也就是說，在毗奈耶中應該尋求緣起，例如世尊依據什麼緣起而制定了這些學處。制定學處是佛陀的職責，而不是弟子。雖然也有其他的教誡學徒，但不能稱之為毗奈耶藏。 阿毗達磨（論藏）應該尋求諸法的真實性相，不應該尋求次第和緣起。或者在前，或者在後，或者沒有緣起，這樣說都沒有過失。只有弟子解釋佛陀所說的幽深隱秘的法性，才可以被稱為阿毗達磨。所以弟子們所製作的可以被稱為對法（論），而不是經或律。然而，有弟子解釋經和律，這些都被稱為論，而不是經或律。只有這些弟子造論來解釋佛陀的三藏。 五、這部論的緣起是：世親菩薩（Vasubandhu），是健馱羅國（Gandhara）人。他先在一切有部（Sarvastivada）出家，因此受持該部的三藏。後來學習經部（Sautrantika），認為經部的觀點更合乎道理，對於有部的義理，時而採納，時而捨棄。菩薩想要前往迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir），研究和辯論有部的觀點，考證其是非，但又擔心那裡的諸位法師心懷忌憚。
【English Translation】 English version: Because the self-nature and common characteristics of all dharmas are different. The three pitakas (Tripitaka) are for those who have already attained accomplishment, enabling them to obtain true liberation. The four pitakas are for those who have already upheld the precepts and thoroughly understood the true nature of all dharmas. Question: In the Sutras (Sutra), there are contents of the Vinaya (Vinaya) and so on; in the Vinaya, there are contents of the Abhidharma (Abhidharma) and so on; in the Abhidharma, there are contents of the Sutras and so on. In this way, there is no difference between the three pitakas. Answer: The Vibhasa (Vibhasa, a commentary) has one explanation: names are established based on the superior aspect. Although one part within the Sutras, Vinaya, and Abhidharma may concurrently explain the three pitakas, the naming is determined based on the majority of the content being discussed. Another explanation is that the names of the three pitakas are determined based on the content being elucidated. This means that the three pitakas are not completely divided according to sections, but rather, based on the meaning being elucidated, the distinctions of the three pitakas are established according to the relevant texts. Question: Why do disciples only create Abhidharma (treatises) and not create Sutra pitaka (collection of Sutras) and Vinaya pitaka (collection of Vinaya)? Answer: The Sutra pitaka (collection of Sutras) emphasizes the manifestation of sequence, that is, in the Sutras, one should seek the sequence, such as why the World-Honored One (Bhagavan) immediately after this section, expounds that section, and so on. This is in accordance with the expedient sequence of the time, with the Buddha (Buddha) as the teaching master. When the Buddha was in the world, relying on the Buddha's divine power, those who spoke in this way could also be called Sutras. After the Buddha's passing, disciples cannot create Sutras themselves. The Vinaya pitaka (collection of Vinaya) emphasizes the manifestation of dependent origination, that is, in the Vinaya, one should seek the dependent origination, such as what dependent origination the World-Honored One relied on to establish these precepts. Establishing precepts is the responsibility of the Buddha, not the disciples. Although there are other instructions for disciples, they cannot be called the Vinaya pitaka. The Abhidharma (collection of treatises) should seek the true nature and characteristics of all dharmas, and should not seek sequence and dependent origination. Whether it is before, after, or without dependent origination, there is no fault in saying so. Only when disciples explain the profound and hidden nature of the Dharma spoken by the Buddha can it be called Abhidharma. Therefore, what the disciples create can be called Abhidharma (treatises), not Sutras or Vinaya. However, there are disciples who explain the Sutras and Vinaya, and these are all called treatises, not Sutras or Vinaya. Only these disciples create treatises to explain the Buddha's three pitakas. Five, the origin of this treatise is: Vasubandhu (Vasubandhu) Bodhisattva, was a person from Gandhara (Gandhara). He first left home in the Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada) school, and therefore upheld the three pitakas of that school. Later, he studied the Sautrantika (Sautrantika) school, and believed that the views of the Sautrantika school were more reasonable. Regarding the doctrines of the Sarvastivada school, he sometimes adopted them and sometimes discarded them. The Bodhisattva wanted to go to Kashmir (Kashmir) to study and debate the views of the Sarvastivada school, and to verify their correctness, but he was worried that the teachers there would be jealous and apprehensive.
遂改本名潛往尋究。時經四載。有部三藏文義無遺。數以經部異義難破有宗。時有羅漢。名塞建陀。唐言悟入。即是眾賢之本師也。此阿羅漢。頻被詰問怪其神異。遂入定觀知是世親。密告之曰。此部眾中。有未離欲者。恐當致害。長老。可速還本國耳。因即歸還制此論頌。使人赍往迦濕彌羅國。時彼國王。及諸僧眾聞皆歡喜。嚴幢幡等。出境而迎。摽頌于香象前後引從至國。尋讀。咸誦世親弘我宗義。時彼悟入告眾言白。此非專弘有部宗也。頌置傳。說似為不信。如其不爾。請釋即知。於是國王。及諸僧眾。發使往請。菩薩奉珠珍。論主受請為釋本文。凡八千頌。還使寄往。果如悟入之所言也。世親論主。意無朋執。依第一時製造此論。同第一時 依第二時造般若論說諸法皆空。同第二時意 依第三時釋攝論等。旨趣同其解深密意 依第四時述法華論。明二乘無滅。與前三教別。依如來藏無上依經等諸大乘經述佛性論。會經中說一分決定無涅槃法。以為不了 依涅槃經造涅槃論云。法華前經總為一教云。以生死度眾生為船。法華經為一教。以萬行為船涅槃經為一教。以無生滅為船 依前後教述六種論。隨經義別而無朋執。此論既依四諦。旨歸同於初說。三乘實滅。識唯有六。心外有境。就初法輪分二十部。此論多據
婆沙以制頌。長行中唯以理勝為宗。非偏一部。然于中間多以經量為正義也。又正理破此名俱舍雹。眾賢論師欲定宗趣。菩薩能仁避而不對。眾賢寄盡謝過。並附俱舍雹屈菩薩評定云。若其無理請便火焚。若有行當愿為流傳 論主披檢將為有理。改俱舍雹名順正理。準此。菩薩豈有偏執。故知。此中理長為是。非定一宗。
四部執前後者。于中有二。一述部分前後。二述執義不同 一述部分前後者。佛涅槃后一百年中。眾雖有四法唯一 宗 言四眾者。一龍象眾。二邊鄙眾三多聞眾。四大德眾 至百餘年。因其四眾共議大天五事不同。分為兩部(五事者。一余所誘。二無知。三猶豫。四他令入。五道因道故起。言二部者。一大眾部。二上座部也) 第二百年。大眾部義。更經四破分為九部 先出三部(一一說部。二說出世部。三雞胤部也) 次出一部(名多聞部)次出一部(名說假部) 二百年滿。大眾部中有一師出。亦名大天。與彼部僧重評五義。因有乖諍分為三部(一制多山部。二西山住部。三北山住部也) 流出八部。兼其本宗總為九部(一大眾部。二一說部。三說出世部。四雞胤部。五多聞部。六說假部。七制多山部。八西山住部。九北山住部也) 二百餘年。上座部義一味和合。至三百年初分為二部
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《婆沙論》以偈頌形式寫成，而長行部分則以義理勝過一切為宗旨，不偏袒任何一部。然而，在論述過程中，多以經量部的觀點作為正確的解釋。 此外，《正理》破斥此論，稱之為《俱舍雹》。眾賢論師想要確定其宗派歸屬，菩薩能仁避而不答。眾賢最終放棄並道歉，並將《俱舍雹》呈請菩薩評定，說：『如果其中沒有道理，請付之一炬；如果其中有道理，希望能夠流傳於世。』 論主披閱檢查后認為有道理，於是將《俱舍雹》更名為《順正理》。由此可見，菩薩並沒有偏袒執著，因此可知，此論以義理見長為是，並非固定於某一宗派。
關於四部派執著於時間先後問題，其中有兩種情況：一是敘述部分的前後順序，二是敘述執持的義理不同。 一是敘述部分的前後順序：佛陀涅槃后一百年中，僧眾雖然有四類，但法義上只有一種宗派。（所說的四眾是：一、龍象眾（指有能力有德行的僧人），二、邊鄙眾（指邊遠地區的僧人），三、多聞眾（指博學多聞的僧人），四、大德眾（指有高尚品德的僧人）。） 到一百多年後，因為四眾共同討論大天五事（Mahadeva's five points）的不同觀點，而分為兩部。（五事是：一、余所誘（asavas），二、無知（ignorance），三、猶豫（doubt），四、他令入（others cause entry），五、道因道故起（the path arises because of the path）。所說的兩部是：一、大眾部（Mahasamghika），二、上座部（Sthavira）。） 第二個一百年，大眾部的義理，經過四次分裂，分為九部。先出現三部（一、一說部（Ekavyavaharika），二、說出世部（Lokottaravada），三、雞胤部（Kukkuṭika））。接著出現一部（名為多聞部（Bahusrutiya））。又出現一部（名為說假部（Prajñaptivada））。 兩百年期滿，大眾部中有一位論師出現，也叫大天（Mahadeva）。與該部僧眾重新評議五事，因為意見不合而分為三部（一、制多山部（Caityaka），二、西山住部（Apara Saila），三、北山住部（Uttara Saila））。 流出八部，加上其根本宗派，總共為九部（一、大眾部（Mahasamghika），二、一說部（Ekavyavaharika），三、說出世部（Lokottaravada），四、雞胤部（Kukkuṭika），五、多聞部（Bahusrutiya），六、說假部（Prajñaptivada），七、制多山部（Caityaka），八、西山住部（Apara Saila），九、北山住部（Uttara Saila））。 兩百多年後，上座部的義理一直保持一致和諧，到三百年初才分為兩部。
【English Translation】 English version: The Vibhasa is composed in verses, while the prose sections prioritize reasoned arguments, without favoring any particular school. However, in its discussions, it often regards the views of the Sautrantika school as the correct interpretations. Furthermore, the Nyaya refutes this treatise, calling it Kosha Hail. The Acharya Vasubandhu sought to determine its sectarian affiliation, but Bodhisattva Narendrayasas avoided answering. Vasubandhu eventually gave up and apologized, presenting Kosha Hail to the Bodhisattva for evaluation, saying: 'If there is no reason in it, please burn it; if there is reason, I hope it can be circulated in the world.' The author, after examining it, considered it reasonable and renamed Kosha Hail to Abhidharmakosabhasyam. From this, it can be seen that the Bodhisattva did not have any biased attachments. Therefore, it is known that this treatise excels in reasoning and is not fixed to one particular school.
Regarding the four schools' adherence to chronological order, there are two situations: one is the narration of the order of the parts, and the other is the narration of different interpretations. One is the narration of the order of the parts: In the first hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana, although there were four assemblies of monks, there was only one school in terms of Dharma and doctrine. (The so-called four assemblies are: 1. Dragon Elephant Assembly (referring to monks with ability and virtue), 2. Borderland Assembly (referring to monks from remote areas), 3. Learned Assembly (referring to erudite monks), 4. Great Virtue Assembly (referring to monks with noble character).) More than a hundred years later, because the four assemblies jointly discussed different views on Mahadeva's five points, they were divided into two schools. (The five points are: 1. asavas (temptations), 2. ignorance, 3. doubt, 4. others cause entry, 5. the path arises because of the path). The two schools are: 1. the Mahasamghika (Great Assembly School), and 2. the Sthavira (Elders School). In the second hundred years, the doctrines of the Mahasamghika school, after four divisions, were divided into nine schools. The first three schools to emerge were: 1. the Ekavyavaharika (One Expression School), 2. the Lokottaravada (Supramundane School), and 3. the Kukkuṭika (Cock School). Then came one school (named the Bahusrutiya (The School of the Great Learning)). Then came one school (named the Prajñaptivada (Provisional Designation School)). At the end of two hundred years, a teacher appeared in the Mahasamghika school, also named Mahadeva. He re-evaluated the five points with the monks of that school, and because of disagreements, they were divided into three schools: 1. the Caityaka (Chaitya School), 2. the Apara Saila (Western Mountain School), and 3. the Uttara Saila (Northern Mountain School). Eight schools emerged, plus their original school, for a total of nine schools: 1. the Mahasamghika, 2. the Ekavyavaharika, 3. the Lokottaravada, 4. the Kukkuṭika, 5. the Bahusrutiya, 6. the Prajñaptivada, 7. the Caityaka, 8. the Apara Saila, and 9. the Uttara Saila. More than two hundred years later, the doctrines of the Sthavira school remained consistent and harmonious, and it was not until the beginning of the third hundred years that it was divided into two schools.
(一說一切有部。亦名說因部。二本上座部。傳名雪山部) 次於一切有部流出一部(名犢子部) 次從犢子部流出四部(一法上部。二賢胄部。三正量部。四密林山部) 次後從說一切有部流出一部(名化地部) 次於化地部流出一部(名法藏部) 至三百年末。從說一切有部流出一部(名飲光部。亦名善歲部) 至四百年初。從說一切有部流出一部(名經量部。自稱我以慶喜為師) 如是上座部。本末重破成十一部(一說一切有部。二雪山部。三犢子部。四法上部。五賢胄部。六正量部。七密林山部。八化地部。九法藏部。十飲光部。十一經量部也) 二述執義不同者。如是諸部。本宗末宗同義異義。今應略說 大眾部。一說部。說出世部。雞胤部本宗同義者 一切如來無有漏法 諸如來語皆轉法輪 佛以一音說一切法 世尊所說無不如義 如來色身實無邊際 諸佛壽量亦無邊際 色．無色界具六識身 五種色根肉團為體 在等引位有發語言 第八地中亦得久住。
預流者有退義 阿羅漢無退義 無世間正見。無世間信根 無無記法 入正離生時可說斷一切結 諸預流者造一切惡。唯除無間 佛所說經皆是了義 無為有九。謂虛空。擇滅。非擇滅。四無色。緣起支性。聖道支性 都無中有 隨眠與心不相應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 （一說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda），也名說因部，二本上座部（Sthavira），傳名雪山部（Haimavata））其次從一切有部流出一部（名犢子部（Vātsīputrīya））其次從犢子部流出四部（一法上部（Dharmottarīya），二賢胄部（Bhadrayānīya），三正量部（Sammitīya），四密林山部（Ṣaṇṇagarika））其次後從說一切有部流出一部（名化地部（Mahīśāsaka））其次於化地部流出一部（名法藏部（Dharmaguptaka））到三百年末，從說一切有部流出一部（名飲光部（Kāśyapīya），也名善歲部）到四百年初，從說一切有部流出一部（名經量部（Sautrāntika），自稱我以慶喜（Ānanda）為師）如此上座部，從根本到末流重重分化成十一部（一說一切有部，二雪山部，三犢子部，四法上部，五賢胄部，六正量部，七密林山部，八化地部，九法藏部，十飲光部，十一經量部）以下敘述各部執持的義理不同之處。如此各部，本宗和末宗的相同和相異之處，現在應當簡略說明：
大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika），一說部（Ekavyāvahārika），說出世部（Lokottaravāda），雞胤部（Gokulika）本宗相同的義理是：一切如來沒有有漏法；諸如來說的話都是轉法輪；佛以一音說法；世尊所說沒有不如實之義；如來色身實無邊際；諸佛的壽命也無邊際；色、無色蘊具有六識身；五種色根以肉團為體；在等引位（samāpatti）有發語言；第八地中也可以久住。
預流者（Srotāpanna）有退轉的可能；阿羅漢（Arhat）沒有退轉的可能；沒有世間正見，沒有世間信根；沒有無記法；進入正離生時可以說斷一切結；諸預流者造一切惡，唯獨不造無間罪；佛所說經都是了義經；無為法有九種，即虛空，擇滅，非擇滅，四無色定，緣起支性，聖道支性；完全沒有中有（antarābhava）；隨眠（anuśaya）與心不相應。
【English Translation】 English version (The Sarvāstivāda (Sarvāstivāda), also known as the Hetuvāda; the original Sthavira (Sthavira), traditionally known as the Haimavata (Haimavata)). Next, one school branched out from the Sarvāstivāda (named Vātsīputrīya (Vātsīputrīya)). Next, four schools branched out from the Vātsīputrīya (1. Dharmottarīya (Dharmottarīya), 2. Bhadrayānīya (Bhadrayānīya), 3. Sammitīya (Sammitīya), 4. Ṣaṇṇagarika (Ṣaṇṇagarika)). Next, one school branched out from the Sarvāstivāda (named Mahīśāsaka (Mahīśāsaka)). Next, one school branched out from the Mahīśāsaka (named Dharmaguptaka (Dharmaguptaka)). Towards the end of the 300 years, one school branched out from the Sarvāstivāda (named Kāśyapīya (Kāśyapīya), also known as the Bhadravarṣika). At the beginning of the 400 years, one school branched out from the Sarvāstivāda (named Sautrāntika (Sautrāntika), claiming Ānanda (Ānanda) as their teacher). Thus, the Sthavira school, from its origin to its later branches, repeatedly divided into eleven schools (1. Sarvāstivāda, 2. Haimavata, 3. Vātsīputrīya, 4. Dharmottarīya, 5. Bhadrayānīya, 6. Sammitīya, 7. Ṣaṇṇagarika, 8. Mahīśāsaka, 9. Dharmaguptaka, 10. Kāśyapīya, 11. Sautrāntika). The following describes the differences in the doctrines held by each school. Regarding these schools, the similarities and differences between the original and later doctrines should now be briefly explained:
The Mahāsāṃghika (Mahāsāṃghika), Ekavyāvahārika (Ekavyāvahārika), Lokottaravāda (Lokottaravāda), and Gokulika (Gokulika) schools share the following doctrines: All Tathāgatas (Tathāgata) are free from defiled dharmas; the words of all Tathāgatas turn the Dharma wheel; the Buddha speaks all dharmas with one sound; there is nothing untrue in what the World Honored One says; the physical body of the Tathāgata is truly boundless; the lifespan of all Buddhas is also boundless; the realms of form and formlessness possess the six consciousnesses; the five sense organs are made of flesh; speech can occur in the state of samāpatti (samāpatti); one can also dwell for a long time in the eighth ground.
A Srotāpanna (Srotāpanna) can regress; an Arhat (Arhat) cannot regress; there is no worldly right view, no worldly root of faith; there is no indeterminate dharma; upon entering the stage of right detachment, it can be said that all fetters are severed; all evil deeds are committed by Srotāpannas, except for the five heinous crimes; the sutras spoken by the Buddha are all of definitive meaning; there are nine types of unconditioned dharmas, namely space, extinction by choice, extinction without choice, the four formless absorptions, the nature of dependent origination, and the nature of the noble path; there is absolutely no intermediate existence (antarābhava); latent tendencies (anuśaya) are not associated with the mind.
。故纏與心相應 預流者亦得靜慮 四部末宗異義 有於一時二心俱起 道與煩惱容俱現前 業與與異熟有俱時轉 種即為芽 色根。大種有轉變義 心．心所法無轉變義 心遍於身 心隨依境卷．舒可得 說一切有部本宗同義 亦有天中修梵行者 佛慈悲等不緣有情。執有有情不得解脫 定無小法能從前世轉至後世 余如常說 化地部本宗同義 過去．未來是無。現世．無為是有 於四聖諦一時現觀。見苦諦時然見諸諦 異生不行欲界貪．嗔 亦無天中住梵行者 無為有九。謂虛空。擇滅。非擇滅。不動。善法真如。不善法真如。無記法真如。八道支真如。九緣起真如 佛與二乘。皆同一道同一解脫 飲光部本宗同義 謂若法已斷已遍知則無。未斷未遍知即有 善惡業．果已熟則無。果未熟即有 諸有學有異熟果 經量部本宗同義。謂說諸蘊有從前世轉至後世 異生位中亦有聖法。執有勝義補特迦羅 余說亦同一切有部 今詳。諸部本宗同義。宗輪論具述差別 末宗異義多分不述但云無量 本宗同義中。一切有部執有有情不得解脫。餘部多分指同有部。諸部中本宗同義。無說一切眾生悉有佛性。佛性論云。佛為小乘人說有眾生不住于性永不般涅槃。於此生疑起不信心 論自釋云。分別部說。凡聖眾生皆從空出。以空
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，煩惱（纏，Kleshas）與心相應。即使是入流者（預流，Srotapanna）也能獲得禪定（靜慮，Dhyana）。 四部末宗的異義包括：有時會有兩個心同時生起；道（Marga）與煩惱可以同時顯現；業（Karma）與異熟果（Vipaka）可以同時轉變；種子（種，Bija）即是芽；色根（色根，Rupa-indriya）和大種（大種，Mahabhuta）具有轉變的性質；心（心，Citta）和心所法（心所法，Caitasika）沒有轉變的性質；心遍佈全身；心可以隨著所依之境捲曲或舒展。 說一切有部（Sarvastivada）本宗的共同觀點包括：也有天界眾生修梵行；佛陀的慈悲等不緣于有情（Sattva）。執著于有有情則無法解脫。絕對沒有微小的法（Dharma）能夠從前世轉移到後世。其餘的說法與通常的說法相同。 化地部（Mahisasaka）本宗的共同觀點包括：過去和未來是不存在的，現在和無為法（無為，Asamskrta）是存在的。對於四聖諦（四聖諦，Arya-satya）可以一時現觀，即在見苦諦（苦諦，Dukkha-satya）時，也能同時見到其他諦。異生（Prthagjana）不會生起欲界的貪（貪，Lobha）和嗔（嗔，Dvesha）。天界中也沒有住于梵行者。無為法有九種，即虛空（虛空，Akasa）、擇滅（擇滅，Pratisamkhya-nirodha）、非擇滅（非擇滅，Apratisamkhya-nirodha）、不動（不動，Anenja）、善法真如（善法真如，Kusala-dharma-tathata）、不善法真如（不善法真如，Akusala-dharma-tathata）、無記法真如（無記法真如，Avyakrta-dharma-tathata）、八道支真如（八道支真如，Astangika-marga-tathata）和九緣起真如（九緣起真如，Pratitya-samutpada-tathata）。佛陀與二乘（二乘，Dvayayana）都遵循同一道路，獲得同一解脫。 飲光部（Kasyapiya）本宗的共同觀點包括：如果一個法已經被斷除和遍知，那麼它就不存在；如果尚未斷除和遍知，那麼它就存在。善惡業及其果報如果已經成熟，那麼就不存在；如果果報尚未成熟，那麼它就存在。諸有學者（有學，Saiksa）有異熟果。 經量部（Sautrantika）本宗的共同觀點包括：認為諸蘊（蘊，Skandha）可以從前世轉移到後世。在異生位中也有聖法（聖法，Arya-dharma）。執著于勝義補特伽羅（補特伽羅，Pudgala）。其餘的說法與一切有部相同。 現在詳細說明：各部的本宗共同觀點，《宗輪論》（Samayabhedoparacanacakra）詳細敘述了差別。末宗的異義大多沒有敘述，只是說『無量』。在本宗的共同觀點中，一切有部執著于有有情則無法解脫，其餘各部大多指出與有部相同。在各部的本宗共同觀點中，沒有說一切眾生都有佛性。《佛性論》（Buddhadharmata-sastra）說：佛陀為小乘人說，有些眾生不住于佛性，永遠無法般涅槃。因此產生懷疑，生起不信心。《論》自己解釋說：分別部（Vibhajyavada）說，凡夫和聖人都從空性（空，Sunyata）中產生，因為空性。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, afflictions (Kleshas) are associated with the mind. Even a Stream-enterer (Srotapanna) can attain meditative absorption (Dhyana). The differing views of the late schools of the four main schools include: sometimes two minds can arise simultaneously; the path (Marga) and afflictions can manifest simultaneously; karma and its resultant maturation (Vipaka) can transform simultaneously; the seed (Bija) is the sprout; the sense faculty of form (Rupa-indriya) and the great elements (Mahabhuta) have the nature of transformation; the mind (Citta) and mental factors (Caitasika) do not have the nature of transformation; the mind pervades the entire body; the mind can be contracted or expanded depending on the object it relies on. The common views of the Sarvastivada school include: there are also beings in the heavens who practice pure conduct; the Buddha's compassion, etc., do not have sentient beings (Sattva) as their object. Clinging to the existence of a sentient being prevents liberation. There is absolutely no small dharma that can transfer from the previous life to the next. The rest of the statements are the same as the usual ones. The common views of the Mahisasaka school include: the past and future do not exist; the present and the unconditioned (Asamskrta) exist. One can have a simultaneous realization of the Four Noble Truths (Arya-satya), that is, when seeing the truth of suffering (Dukkha-satya), one can also see the other truths simultaneously. Ordinary beings (Prthagjana) do not generate greed (Lobha) and hatred (Dvesha) in the desire realm. There are also no practitioners of pure conduct in the heavens. There are nine types of the unconditioned, namely: space (Akasa), cessation through discrimination (Pratisamkhya-nirodha), cessation not through discrimination (Apratisamkhya-nirodha), immovability (Anenja), suchness of wholesome dharmas (Kusala-dharma-tathata), suchness of unwholesome dharmas (Akusala-dharma-tathata), suchness of neutral dharmas (Avyakrta-dharma-tathata), suchness of the eightfold path (Astangika-marga-tathata), and suchness of dependent origination (Pratitya-samutpada-tathata). The Buddha and the two vehicles (Dvayayana) follow the same path and attain the same liberation. The common views of the Kasyapiya school include: if a dharma has been abandoned and fully known, then it does not exist; if it has not been abandoned and fully known, then it exists. Wholesome and unwholesome karma and their results, if they have matured, then they do not exist; if the results have not matured, then they exist. Those who are still learning (Saiksa) have results of maturation. The common views of the Sautrantika school include: the aggregates (Skandha) can transfer from the previous life to the next. There are also noble dharmas (Arya-dharma) in the state of ordinary beings. They cling to the ultimately real person (Pudgala). The rest of the statements are the same as the Sarvastivada school. Now, to explain in detail: the common views of the main schools, the Samayabhedoparacanacakra elaborates on the differences. The differing views of the late schools are mostly not described, only saying 'immeasurable'. Among the common views of the main schools, the Sarvastivada school clings to the existence of a sentient being, which prevents liberation, and most of the other schools point out that they are the same as the Sarvastivada school. Among the common views of the main schools, it is not said that all beings have Buddha-nature. The Buddhadharmata-sastra says: the Buddha told the followers of the Lesser Vehicle that some beings do not abide in Buddha-nature and can never attain Nirvana. Therefore, they become doubtful and lose faith. The treatise itself explains: the Vibhajyavada school says that ordinary beings and noble ones all arise from emptiness (Sunyata), because of emptiness.
為佛性。若依毗曇薩婆多等諸部中說。一切眾生無性得佛性。但有修得佛性。分別眾生凡有三種。一定無佛性。若永不得涅槃。二不定有無。若修即得。不修不得。三定有佛性。即三乘聖人。撿宗輪論。本宗部中無分別部。亦無有執有佛性宗。詳其旨趣。分別部者是末宗異計。立佛性者是末宗異義。分別部中不誦有部所引經故。而不全信。心生疑惑。一切有部以皆共許阿含等經。如來性力知種種界成立無性。分別說部復以四義求有佛性。有部即以五義重破。一種種界可得故。二無相眾生不可得故。三同類譬喻不可得故。以有情為同類。四異類譬喻不同故(以無情為異類也)。五現在無涅槃法不應理故。以分別說部依小乘宗意有佛性。違越契經。于小乘中未說有故。涅槃經云。九部經中無方等經。是故不說有佛性也。又云。我于聲聞．緣覺經中。未說一闡提等悉有佛性 由此慈氏菩薩于聲聞地。述有部等計破分別說部。以違經故。世親菩薩。依方等經述佛性論。破小乘執品破有部等計。順大乘故。後代讀瑜伽者。以聲聞地破有性故。涅槃經說一切眾生悉有佛性。是不了義。佛性論偽惑之甚也。而不知瑜伽于菩薩地后五識相應地。立一切眾生悉有佛因。即是真如所緣緣種一切眾生平等有。又與涅槃第一義空。佛性一切諸佛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 是關於佛性的討論。如果按照毗曇宗、薩婆多部等各部的說法，一切眾生本來沒有佛性，只有通過修行才能獲得佛性。他們將眾生分為三種：第一種是決定沒有佛性的，永遠無法證得涅槃；第二種是不確定有沒有佛性的，如果修行就能獲得，不修行就不能獲得；第三種是決定有佛性的，即三乘聖人。考察《宗輪論》，本宗部中沒有分別說部，也沒有主張有佛性的宗派。詳細考察其旨趣，分別說部是末宗的異端見解，主張佛性是末宗的異義。分別說部不誦讀有部所引用的經典，因此不完全相信，心中產生疑惑。一切有部都共同認可《阿含經》等經典，認為如來以其性力，知曉種種界，從而成立無佛性之說。分別說部又以四種理由來論證有佛性，有部則以五種理由來反駁：一是種種界可以獲得；二是無相眾生不可獲得；三是同類比喻不可獲得（以有情為同類）；四是異類比喻不同（以無情為異類）；五是現在沒有涅槃法是不合理的。因為分別說部依據小乘宗的觀點認為有佛性，這違背了契經，因為小乘中沒有說過有佛性。《涅槃經》說，九部經中沒有方等經，所以沒有說有佛性。又說，『我在聲聞、緣覺經中，沒有說一闡提等一切眾生都有佛性。』因此，慈氏菩薩在《聲聞地》中，闡述有部等的觀點，破斥分別說部，認為其違背了經典。世親菩薩依據方等經，撰寫《佛性論》，破斥小乘的執著，破斥有部等的觀點，順應了大乘的教義。後代研讀《瑜伽師地論》的人，因為《聲聞地》破斥有佛性，以及《涅槃經》說一切眾生都有佛性，就認為這是不了義的說法，認為《佛性論》是偽造的，迷惑性很大。卻不知道《瑜伽師地論》在《菩薩地》的后五識相應地中，確立了一切眾生都有佛因，即是真如所緣緣種，一切眾生平等具有。這又與《涅槃經》的第一義空、佛性、一切諸佛的教義相符。
【English Translation】 English version: This is a discussion about Buddha-nature (Fo Xing). According to the Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada) and other schools, all sentient beings do not inherently possess Buddha-nature; it can only be attained through cultivation. They categorize sentient beings into three types: first, those who are definitely without Buddha-nature and can never attain Nirvana (Nie Pan); second, those who are uncertain whether they have Buddha-nature, which can be attained through cultivation but not without it; and third, those who definitely have Buddha-nature, namely the saints of the Three Vehicles (San Cheng). Examining the Treatise on the Differentiation of Schools (Zong Lun Lun), there is no Sautrantika (Fen Bie Shuo Bu) school or any school that asserts the existence of Buddha-nature within the original schools. Upon detailed examination of its essence, the Sautrantika school represents a heterodox view of the later schools, and the assertion of Buddha-nature is a divergent meaning of the later schools. The Sautrantika school does not recite the scriptures cited by the Sarvastivada school, thus they do not fully believe and harbor doubts. All Sarvastivada schools commonly acknowledge scriptures such as the Agamas (A Han Jing), believing that the Tathagata (Ru Lai), with his inherent power, knows the various realms (Zhong Zhong Jie), thereby establishing the doctrine of no Buddha-nature. The Sautrantika school, in turn, argues for the existence of Buddha-nature based on four reasons, while the Sarvastivada school refutes them with five reasons: first, the various realms can be attained; second, formless beings cannot be attained; third, analogies of the same kind cannot be attained (considering sentient beings as the same kind); fourth, analogies of different kinds are not the same (considering non-sentient beings as different kinds); fifth, it is unreasonable that there is no Nirvana-dharma (Nie Pan Fa) at present. Because the Sautrantika school believes in the existence of Buddha-nature based on the Hinayana (Xiao Cheng) perspective, it contradicts the sutras (Qi Jing), as the existence of Buddha-nature is not mentioned in Hinayana. The Nirvana Sutra (Nie Pan Jing) states that the Vaipulya Sutras (Fang Deng Jing) are not included in the nine divisions of scriptures, hence the absence of Buddha-nature. It also states, 'In the Sravaka (Sheng Wen) and Pratyekabuddha (Yuan Jue) sutras, I have not said that icchantikas (Yi Chan Ti) and all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature.' Therefore, Bodhisattva Maitreya (Ci Shi Pusa), in the Sravakabhumi (Sheng Wen Di), elaborates on the views of the Sarvastivada school and refutes the Sautrantika school, considering it to be in contradiction with the scriptures. Bodhisattva Vasubandhu (Shi Qin Pusa), based on the Vaipulya Sutras, wrote the Treatise on Buddha-nature (Fo Xing Lun), refuting the attachments of Hinayana and the views of the Sarvastivada school, aligning with the teachings of Mahayana (Da Cheng). Later generations who study the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (Yu Jia Shi Di Lun), because the Sravakabhumi refutes the existence of Buddha-nature and the Nirvana Sutra states that all sentient beings possess Buddha-nature, consider this to be an incomplete teaching, and regard the Treatise on Buddha-nature as fabricated and highly misleading. However, they do not know that the Yogacarabhumi-sastra, in the Bodhisattvabhumi (Pu Sa Di) and the corresponding ground of the later five consciousnesses, establishes that all sentient beings have the cause of Buddhahood, which is the seed of the object-support condition of Suchness (Zhen Ru), equally possessed by all sentient beings. This is also in accordance with the teachings of the First Principle Emptiness (Di Yi Yi Kong), Buddha-nature, and all Buddhas in the Nirvana Sutra.
阿耨菩提中道種子。無差別也。又涅槃第一義空。佛性亦名非空非不空。能與善法為種子故。有何差別也。
分別界品第一之一
自下第五依文解釋。于中有三。一釋品名。二明次第。二依文解釋 一釋品名者 性義。族義。持義名界。別義。類義。分義名品。此品多門分別界故。由此故名分別界品 所以多門分別界者。蘊唯有為。處唯根境。界中具顯六根．境識。若具依三門明有見等文多繁廣。若分別蘊處類釋于界。義即難知。若以有見就界分別。類釋蘊．處義即易解。故就界門分別有見等 第者居也 一者初也 此品居初故云第一 二明次第者。此論一部總有九品。前之八品。述自宗義釋本頌文。所以先明 后之一品。造釋時加破外執故。所以後說 就八品中。初之二品。通明漏．無漏所以先明。后之六品別明漏．無漏。所以後說 前二品中。界品明諸法體。所以先明。根品明諸法用所以後說。體是本故。故正理論名本事品。又對法論明蘊．處．界名本事分故。根是勝用法差別故。故正理論名差別品 后之六品中。前之三品明有漏因果。后之三品明無漏因果。先厭后欣前明有漏 就有漏中世品是果。所以先明。業．或是因。所以後說。業是近有差別因故在惑先說。隨眠是遠無差別因。所以後說。又或
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 阿耨菩提（Anuttara-bodhi，無上正等正覺）的中道種子，是沒有差別的。另外，涅槃（Nirvana）的第一義空，佛性（Buddha-nature）也名為非空非不空，因為它能作為善法的種子。那麼，這之間有什麼差別呢？
分別界品第一之一
下面第五個部分是依文解釋，其中有三個方面：一是解釋品名，二是說明次第，三是依文解釋。一是解釋品名：性義、族義、持義稱為『界』（Dhatu，界）；別義、類義、分義稱為『品』（Varga，品）。此品通過多種方式分別諸界，因此得名『分別界品』。
之所以要通過多種方式分別諸界，是因為蘊（Skandha，蘊）只包含有為法（conditioned phenomena），處（Ayatana，處）只包含根（sense organs）和境（sense objects）。而在界中，六根、境、識都得到了充分的顯現。如果完全按照三門（蘊、處、界）來闡明有見等內容，文章會過於繁瑣。如果按照類別來解釋蘊和處，那麼界的含義就難以理解。如果從有見的角度來分別界，那麼按照類別來解釋蘊和處的含義就容易理解。因此，就從界這個角度來分別有見等。
『第』（number）的意思是『居於』，『一』（one）的意思是『最初』。此品居於最初，所以稱為『第一』。
二是說明次第：這部論總共有九品。前面的八品，闡述自宗的義理，解釋本頌的文句，所以先說明。後面的一品，是造論者在解釋時加入的，用來破斥外道的執見，所以放在後面說。
在八品中，最初的兩品，總的說明有漏（afflictions）和無漏（non-afflictions），所以先說明。後面的六品，分別說明有漏和無漏，所以放在後面說。
在前面的兩品中，界品說明諸法的體性，所以先說明。根品說明諸法的作用，所以放在後面說。體是根本，所以《正理論》稱之為『本事品』。另外，《對法論》說明蘊、處、界，稱為『本事分』。根是殊勝的作用差別，所以《正理論》稱之為『差別品』。
在後面的六品中，前面的三品說明有漏的因果，後面的三品說明無漏的因果。先厭離后欣求，所以先說明有漏。
在有漏中，世品是果，所以先說明。業（Karma，業）和惑（Klesha，煩惱）是因，所以放在後面說。業是近的、有差別的因，所以在惑之前說。隨眠（Anusaya，隨眠）是遠的、沒有差別的因，所以放在後面說。還有...
【English Translation】 English version: The seed of the Middle Way in Anuttara-bodhi (supreme enlightenment), is without difference. Furthermore, Nirvana's ultimate emptiness is also called neither empty nor not empty, because it can serve as the seed for wholesome dharmas. So, what is the difference between them?
Chapter on Distinguishing Realms, Part One of One
The fifth part below explains according to the text, and there are three aspects to it: first, explaining the chapter title; second, clarifying the order; and third, explaining according to the text. First, explaining the chapter title: 'Dhatu' (realm) means nature, lineage, and upholding. 'Varga' (chapter) means distinction, category, and division. This chapter distinguishes realms in many ways, hence it is named 'Chapter on Distinguishing Realms'.
The reason for distinguishing realms in many ways is that Skandhas (aggregates) only contain conditioned phenomena, and Ayatanas (sense bases) only contain sense organs and sense objects. In Dhatus, however, the six sense organs, sense objects, and consciousness are all fully manifested. If we were to fully explain things like 'visible' according to the three doors (Skandhas, Ayatanas, Dhatus), the text would become too lengthy. If we were to explain Skandhas and Ayatanas by category, then the meaning of Dhatus would be difficult to understand. If we were to distinguish Dhatus from the perspective of 'visible', then explaining the meanings of Skandhas and Ayatanas by category would be easier. Therefore, we distinguish things like 'visible' from the perspective of Dhatus.
'Number' means 'residing in', and 'one' means 'first'. This chapter resides in the first position, so it is called 'First'.
Second, clarifying the order: This treatise has a total of nine chapters. The first eight chapters expound the doctrines of our own school and explain the verses of the original text, so they are explained first. The last chapter was added by the author during the explanation to refute the views of other schools, so it is placed last.
Among the eight chapters, the first two chapters generally explain afflictions and non-afflictions, so they are explained first. The last six chapters separately explain afflictions and non-afflictions, so they are placed later.
Among the first two chapters, the Dhatu chapter explains the nature of all dharmas, so it is explained first. The Indriya (faculty) chapter explains the function of all dharmas, so it is placed later. Nature is fundamental, so the Tattvartha calls it the 'Substance Chapter'. Also, the Abhidharma explains Skandhas, Ayatanas, and Dhatus, calling it the 'Substance Section'. Indriya is a superior difference in function, so the Tattvartha calls it the 'Difference Chapter'.
Among the last six chapters, the first three chapters explain the cause and effect of afflictions, and the last three chapters explain the cause and effect of non-afflictions. First, we renounce, then we rejoice, so we explain afflictions first.
Among afflictions, the Loka (world) chapter is the result, so it is explained first. Karma and Klesha (afflictions) are the cause, so they are placed later. Karma is a near and differentiated cause, so it is explained before Klesha. Anusaya (latent tendencies) is a distant and undifferentiated cause, so it is placed later. Also...
為業因故最後釋。厭果斷因先．因后。或果是苦諦。因是集諦。此舉大體非克性也。有部苦．集是一物故 無漏三品。賢聖是果。所以先明。如有漏中有情世間。聖無別器故唯說人。不同有漏兼舉器果。智．定是因。所以後說。定因．智果故先明智 亦可。三品俱是道諦。滅諦文便此品已明。或隨眠品末明斷是滅 上明有漏．及無漏等。並據正釋及多分說。文便釋義非無交雜 三依文釋者。此論總有六百七頌。大分為三。前之三頌是釋頌序。次六百頌是根本頌。即是正宗。后之四頌。及破我品釋頌流通 前三后四釋頌時加。非根本頌 然諸論不同。或有流通而無序分。如二十唯識論。或有序分而無流通。如婆沙等。或二俱有。如此論等。或二分俱無。如發智等 前三頌中有二別。初之一頌明歸敬序。次之二頌明發起序 前歸敬序中復分為二。先頌。后釋 頌中有三。前兩句贊所敬德次之一句正申敬禮。后之一句述歸敬序意 就兩句中。初之一字表德所成人。次十三字明人所成德。就十三字中上句六字。顯智斷德。下之一句述其恩德 就六字中。初之三字顯其智德次之一字述其斷德。后之兩字雙明二德。即是二種冥滅義也。下三句易了。知長行中釋。
論曰至方申敬禮長行釋也 文中有二。一釋歸敬意。二隨文別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 為業因的緣故最後解釋。厭離果，斷除因，先說因，后說果。或者說果是苦諦（duhkha-satya，痛苦的真諦），因是集諦（samudaya-satya，痛苦的根源）。這只是舉其大體，並非絕對的性質。有部認為苦諦和集諦是一回事。無漏的三品，賢聖是果，所以先說明。如有漏中說有情世間，聖者沒有別的處所，所以只說人，不同於有漏中兼舉器世間和果世間。智慧和禪定是因，所以後說。因為禪定是因，智慧是果，所以先說明智慧。也可以說，三品都是道諦（marga-satya，通往解脫的道路）。滅諦（nirodha-satya，痛苦的止息）的文義已經在這一品中說明。或者在隨眠品末尾說明斷除就是滅。上面說明有漏和無漏等，都是根據通常的解釋和大多數情況來說的。文句的方便和意義的解釋並非沒有交錯混雜。 三依文解釋：這部論總共有六百七頌。大體分為三部分。前面的三頌是解釋頌的序言。其次的六百頌是根本頌，也就是正宗。後面的四頌，以及破我品解釋頌是流通分。前面的三頌和後面的四頌在解釋頌的時候加上，不是根本頌。然而各種論典不同，有的有流通分而沒有序分，如《二十唯識論》。有的有序分而沒有流通分，如《婆沙論》等。有的兩者都有，如此論等。有的兩部分都沒有，如《發智論》等。前面的三頌中有兩個區別。最初的一頌說明歸敬序，其次的兩頌說明發起序。前面的歸敬序中又分為兩個部分。先是頌，后是解釋。頌中有三個部分。前面的兩句讚歎所敬者的功德，其次的一句正式申明敬禮，最後的一句陳述歸敬序的意義。就兩句中，最初的一個字表明功德所成就的人。其次的十三個字說明人所成就的功德。就十三個字中，上面的六個字顯示智慧和斷德。下面的一句陳述其恩德。就六個字中，最初的三個字顯示其智德，其次的一個字陳述其斷德，最後的兩個字同時說明兩種功德，就是兩種冥滅的意義。下面的三句容易理解，知道長行中的解釋。 論曰至方申敬禮長行釋也。文中有二。一是解釋歸敬的意義，二是隨文分別解釋。
【English Translation】 English version It is explained last because of the causal relationship of karma. Disliking the result, cutting off the cause, first the cause is explained, then the result. Or the result is duhkha-satya (the truth of suffering), and the cause is samudaya-satya (the origin of suffering). This is a general statement, not an absolute characteristic. The Sarvastivadins hold that duhkha-satya and samudaya-satya are the same thing. The three unconditioned categories, the wise and the noble are the result, so they are explained first. As in the conditioned, it speaks of the sentient world; the sages have no other place, so it only speaks of people, unlike the conditioned which also includes the vessel world and the result world. Wisdom and samadhi (concentration) are the cause, so they are explained later. Because samadhi is the cause and wisdom is the result, wisdom is explained first. Alternatively, all three categories are marga-satya (the path to liberation). The meaning of nirodha-satya (the cessation of suffering) is already explained in this category. Or at the end of the category on latent defilements, it is explained that cessation is extinction. The above explanations of the conditioned and unconditioned, etc., are based on the standard interpretation and the majority of cases. The convenience of the text and the interpretation of the meaning are not without intermingling. Three explanations based on the text: This treatise has a total of six hundred and seven verses. It is broadly divided into three parts. The first three verses are the introduction to the verses. The next six hundred verses are the fundamental verses, which are the main body. The last four verses, and the verses explaining the refutation of self, are the concluding section. The first three verses and the last four verses are added when explaining the verses, and are not fundamental verses. However, various treatises differ. Some have a concluding section but no introduction, such as the 'Twenty Verses on Consciousness-Only'. Some have an introduction but no concluding section, such as the 'Mahavibhasa' etc. Some have both, such as this treatise. Some have neither, such as the 'Jnanaprasthana'. The first three verses have two distinctions. The first verse explains the homage introduction, and the next two verses explain the initiating introduction. The preceding homage introduction is further divided into two parts. First the verse, then the explanation. There are three parts in the verse. The first two lines praise the virtues of the one being revered, the next line formally declares reverence, and the last line states the meaning of the homage introduction. In the two lines, the first word indicates the person in whom the virtues are accomplished. The next thirteen words explain the virtues accomplished by the person. In the thirteen words, the upper six words reveal wisdom and the virtue of cessation. The line below states their kindness. In the six words, the first three words reveal their wisdom, the next word states their virtue of cessation, and the last two words simultaneously explain the two virtues, which are the meaning of the two kinds of extinction. The following three lines are easy to understand, knowing the explanation in the prose. The treatise says, '...to formally declare reverence' is the explanation in prose. There are two parts in the text. One is to explain the meaning of homage, and the other is to explain separately according to the text.
解。此所舉文釋歸敬意。故正理云。諸欲造論必有宗承。于所奉師理先歸敬 乃至 令發殷凈信心。欲正流通彼所立教故。先贊禮佛薄伽梵 顯宗云。以贊禮言滅諸惡障。標嘉瑞故 此論云。今欲造論。為顯自師其體尊高。超諸聖眾。故先贊德方申敬禮 已上三論同釋此頌。並唯歸佛不說法．僧 有人云所拔之中亦有僧。故通法．僧者。謬也。僧雖是佛所拔。何文證論主歸禮 今詳。三論述贊禮意有其三種。一教本佛說。欲傳佛教故先贊禮。令發自他敬重信心。二先贊世尊有勝三德。欲顯教主其體尊高超諸聖眾。證所立教真實不虛。三贊禮大師以標吉祥。福力護念能滅惡障離諸魔事。惡障有三。一師障。二弟子障。三論障。若師有障即不得著述。弟子有障即不能受行。若論有障即水．火等滅。為離此障故先贊禮 諸論之中。或有歸敬而無發起。如阿毗曇論。或有發起而無歸禮。如雜心論。或兼二種。如此論。或二俱無。如發智論 就歸敬中。或唯歸佛。或兼法．僧。皆是作者之意。不可傍求所以也。若傍求言多繁雜。
論。諸言所表謂佛世尊。第二隨文別解。于中有五。一述德所依人。二明自利德。三彰利他德。四明敬禮相。五述歸敬意。此文初也 諸言所表謂佛世尊者。如法華云諸求三乘人若有疑悔者。諸言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 解。這裡所引用的文字是爲了解釋歸敬的意義。所以《正理》中說：『凡是想要造論的人，必定有所宗承，對於自己所尊奉的老師，首先要歸敬。』乃至『使（讀者）發起殷切而清凈的信心，爲了正確地流通他所建立的教法，所以首先贊禮佛薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）。』《顯宗》中說：『用贊禮的言辭來滅除各種惡障，以此來標示吉祥的徵兆。』此論（指本論）說：『現在想要造論，爲了顯示自己老師的體性尊貴高超，超過一切聖眾，所以首先讚歎功德，以此來表達敬禮。』以上三種論典都同樣解釋了這個偈頌，並且都只是歸敬佛，而不說法、僧。有人說，在佛所度化的人中也有僧人，所以（歸敬的對象）也包括法、僧，這是錯誤的。僧人雖然是佛所度化的，但有什麼經文可以證明論主歸禮僧人呢？ 現在詳細分析。這三種論典敘述贊禮的意義有三種：一是教法的根本是佛所說，想要傳揚佛教，所以首先贊禮，使自己和他人發起敬重和信心的。二是首先讚歎世尊具有殊勝的三種功德，想要顯示教主的體性尊貴高超，超過一切聖眾，以此來證明所建立的教法真實不虛。三是贊禮大師，以此來標示吉祥，憑藉福德之力護念，能夠滅除惡障，遠離各種魔事。惡障有三種：一是老師的障礙，二是弟子的障礙，三是論典的障礙。如果老師有障礙，就不能著述；弟子有障礙，就不能接受和修行；如果論典有障礙，就會被水、火等毀滅。爲了遠離這些障礙，所以首先贊禮。 在各種論典中，有的只有歸敬而沒有發起，如《阿毗曇論》；有的只有發起而沒有歸禮，如《雜心論》；有的兼具兩種，如此論；有的兩種都沒有，如《發智論》。 就歸敬而言，有的只是歸敬佛，有的兼顧法、僧，這都是作者的意願，不能從其他方面去尋求原因。如果從其他方面去尋求原因，就會變得繁雜。 論：『諸言所表謂佛世尊』。第二，隨著文句分別解釋，其中有五個方面：一是敘述功德所依之人，二是闡明自利之德，三是彰顯利他之德，四是闡明敬禮之相，五是敘述歸敬之意。這段文字是第一個方面。『諸言所表謂佛世尊者』，如《法華經》所說：『各種尋求三乘（Sravakayana，聲聞乘；Pratyekabuddhayana，緣覺乘；Bodhisattvayana，菩薩乘）的人，如果有疑惑和後悔的。』這裡的『諸言』
【English Translation】 English version: Explanation: The text cited here is to explain the meaning of paying homage. Therefore, the Hetuvidya (正理) says: 'Those who wish to compose treatises must have a tradition to follow. They must first pay homage to the teacher they revere,' and so on, 'to inspire sincere and pure faith (in the readers). In order to correctly propagate the teachings established by him, they first praise and pay homage to the Buddha, the Bhagavan (薄伽梵, the Blessed One).' The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (顯宗) says: 'The words of praise and homage extinguish all evil obstacles, thereby marking auspicious omens.' This treatise (referring to the present treatise) says: 'Now, wishing to compose this treatise, in order to show that the nature of my teacher is noble and supreme, surpassing all the saints, I first praise his virtues, thereby expressing my reverence and homage.' The above three treatises similarly explain this verse, and all only pay homage to the Buddha, without mentioning the Dharma or the Sangha. Someone says that among those saved by the Buddha, there are also Sangha (僧, monastic community) members, so (the object of homage) also includes the Dharma and the Sangha, which is incorrect. Although the Sangha is saved by the Buddha, what scripture proves that the author pays homage to the Sangha? Now, let's analyze in detail. These three treatises describe the meaning of praise and homage in three ways: First, the root of the teachings is what the Buddha said. Wishing to propagate Buddhism, one first praises and pays homage, inspiring respect and faith in oneself and others. Second, one first praises the Bhagavan for having the three supreme virtues, wishing to show that the nature of the teacher is noble and supreme, surpassing all the saints, thereby proving that the teachings established are true and not false. Third, one praises and pays homage to the master, thereby marking auspiciousness. Relying on the power of merit and protection, one can extinguish evil obstacles and stay away from all demonic affairs. There are three kinds of evil obstacles: first, the teacher's obstacles; second, the disciple's obstacles; and third, the treatise's obstacles. If the teacher has obstacles, he cannot write; if the disciple has obstacles, he cannot accept and practice; if the treatise has obstacles, it will be destroyed by water, fire, etc. In order to stay away from these obstacles, one first praises and pays homage. Among the various treatises, some only have homage without initiation, such as the Abhidharma treatises; some only have initiation without homage, such as the Zaxinlun (雜心論); some have both, like this treatise; and some have neither, such as the Vijñānakāya (發智論). As for paying homage, some only pay homage to the Buddha, and some include the Dharma and the Sangha. These are all the intentions of the author, and one cannot seek the reasons from other aspects. If one seeks the reasons from other aspects, it will become complicated. Treatise: 'What all words express is the Bhagavan.' Second, explaining each sentence separately, there are five aspects: first, describing the person on whom the virtues rely; second, clarifying the virtues of self-benefit; third, highlighting the virtues of benefiting others; fourth, clarifying the aspect of paying homage; and fifth, describing the meaning of paying homage. This passage is the first aspect. 'What all words express is the Bhagavan', as the Lotus Sutra (法華經) says: 'Various people seeking the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana), if they have doubts and regrets.' The 'all words' here
所表三乘人也。今此論云諸一切種．諸冥滅者。諸言所表具德人也。此則諸言唯表于佛。非及餘人無三德故 諸德相傳。西方釋云。初言諸者顯無朋黨。以德召人。諸有三德我即歸敬。以諸外道各謂自師是一切智。若偏歸敬釋迦牟尼。恐生彼謗。故置諸言息其異論者 此乃更招異論。外道亦謂自師具三德及一切智。今置諸言豈非招謗。亦謂世親菩薩歸事外道 又云。或恐佛化根淺有情。權作彼師引入正法。故置諸言。此之諸字起自西方母兒論師。凡欲作論皆置諸言。論主將為當理。故亦言諸者 不然。權形五趣即是化身。直言歸佛豈攝化。又佛權為外道即歸外道。佛既權形五趣。亦應兼歸鬼．畜。即合諸言通於一切 論自釋云。諸言所表謂佛世尊。又云。今欲造論為顯自師其體尊高超諸聖眾。正理．顯宗意同此論。即此諸言已簡外道。何得諸言顯無朋黨。此中言諸顯一切佛。諸言具三德皆歸敬禮故。
論。此能破闇故稱冥滅者。此第二明自利德也。文中有二。初以德屬人。次人所成德。此文初也 此者。此諸所表佛也 能破闇故稱冥滅者。由佛世尊能破二種無明闇故。故稱冥滅。
論。言一切種諸冥滅者。次人所成德。文中有二。初牒頌標德。次依頌別釋此文初也。
論。謂滅諸境一切品冥。次依
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『所表三乘人也』。這裡是指代表三乘（Śrāvakayāna，Pratyekabuddhayāna，Bodhisattvayāna）之人。現在此論中說『諸一切種』（sarva-prakāra，一切種類）和『諸冥滅者』（tamaḥ-vinodaka，驅散黑暗者），『諸』字所代表的是具備功德之人。這樣說來，『諸』字僅僅代表佛陀（Buddha），不包括其他人，因為他們不具備三種功德。 『諸德相傳』。西方的解釋說，最初的『諸』字顯示沒有朋黨偏私，用功德來召感眾人。凡是具有三種功德的人，我就歸依敬禮。因為各個外道都認為自己的老師是一切智者，如果只偏向歸敬釋迦牟尼（Śākyamuni），恐怕會引起他們的誹謗，所以用『諸』字來平息不同的議論。但這實際上反而會招來不同的議論。外道也會認為自己的老師具備三種功德和一切智慧。現在用『諸』字，難道不是招來誹謗嗎？他們也會認為世親（Vasubandhu）菩薩歸順侍奉外道。又有人說，或許佛陀爲了教化根基淺薄的有情眾生，權且作為他們的老師，引導他們進入正法，所以用『諸』字。這個『諸』字起源於西方的母子論師，凡是想要作論，都用『諸』字。論主認為這是合理的，所以也用『諸』字。 不然。權且顯現於五趣（gati，眾生輪迴的五種道途，即地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）就是化身（nirmāṇakāya）。直接說歸依佛陀，難道能涵蓋化身嗎？而且佛陀權且作為外道，就是歸依外道。佛陀既然權且顯現於五趣，也應該兼顧歸依鬼、畜。這樣就符合『諸』字通用於一切的含義。論自身解釋說，『諸』字所代表的是佛陀世尊。又說，現在想要造論，是爲了彰顯自己的老師，他的本體尊貴高超于諸聖眾。正理派（Nyāya）和顯宗（Abhidharma）的觀點與此論相同。這樣看來，這個『諸』字已經排除了外道。怎麼能說『諸』字顯示沒有朋黨偏私呢？這裡說『諸』字顯示一切佛，『諸』字具備三種功德，都應該歸依敬禮。 論：『此能破闇故稱冥滅者』。這是第二點，說明自利之德。文中有兩層意思。首先是以功德歸屬於人，其次是人所成就的功德。這段文字是第一層意思。『此』是指前面所說的佛陀。『能破闇故稱冥滅者』，因為佛陀世尊能夠破除兩種無明之暗，所以被稱為『冥滅』。 論：『言一切種諸冥滅者』。這是指人所成就的功德。文中有兩層意思。首先是依照頌文標明功德，其次是依照頌文分別解釋。這段文字是第一層意思。 論：『謂滅諸境一切品冥』。其次是依照
【English Translation】 English version: 'What is indicated refers to the people of the Three Vehicles (Triyāna).' This refers to those who represent the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna). Now, this treatise says 'all kinds' (sarva-prakāra) and 'those who extinguish darkness' (tamaḥ-vinodaka), the word 'those' represents those who possess virtues. In this way, the word 'those' only represents the Buddha (Buddha), not including others, because they do not possess the three virtues. 'The transmission of various virtues.' The Western explanation says that the initial word 'those' shows no partisanship, using virtue to summon people. Whoever possesses the three virtues, I will take refuge in and revere. Because each of the external paths (外道) believes that their teacher is omniscient, if one were to only revere Śākyamuni, it would likely cause their slander, so the word 'those' is used to quell different opinions. But this actually invites different opinions. The external paths also believe that their teacher possesses the three virtues and all wisdom. Now, using the word 'those', isn't this inviting slander? They would also think that Bodhisattva Vasubandhu serves the external paths. Furthermore, it is said that perhaps the Buddha, in order to teach sentient beings with shallow roots, temporarily acts as their teacher, guiding them into the right Dharma, so the word 'those' is used. This word 'those' originated from the Western mother-son teachers, who use the word 'those' whenever they want to write a treatise. The author of the treatise thinks this is reasonable, so he also uses the word 'those'. Not so. Temporarily appearing in the five realms (gati, the five paths of sentient beings' reincarnation, namely hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods) is a transformation body (nirmāṇakāya). Directly saying to take refuge in the Buddha, can it encompass the transformation body? Moreover, the Buddha temporarily acts as an external path, which is taking refuge in the external path. Since the Buddha temporarily appears in the five realms, one should also take refuge in ghosts and animals. This is in accordance with the meaning of 'those' applying to everything. The treatise itself explains that the word 'those' represents the World Honored Buddha. It also says that now one wants to write a treatise in order to highlight one's own teacher, whose essence is noble and surpasses all the saints. The views of the Nyāya and Abhidharma schools are the same as this treatise. In this way, this word 'those' has already excluded the external paths. How can it be said that the word 'those' shows no partisanship? Here it says that the word 'those' shows all Buddhas, and the word 'those' possesses the three virtues, all of whom should be taken refuge in and revered. Treatise: 'Because this can break through darkness, it is called the Extinguisher of Darkness (冥滅者)'. This is the second point, explaining the virtue of benefiting oneself. There are two layers of meaning in the text. First, virtue is attributed to a person, and second, the virtue achieved by a person. This passage is the first layer of meaning. 'This' refers to the Buddha mentioned earlier. 'Because this can break through darkness, it is called the Extinguisher of Darkness', because the World Honored Buddha can break through the darkness of the two kinds of ignorance, so he is called the 'Extinguisher of Darkness'. Treatise: 'Speaking of all kinds, those who extinguish darkness'. This refers to the virtue achieved by a person. There are two layers of meaning in the text. First, the virtue is marked according to the verse, and second, the explanation is given separately according to the verse. This passage is the first layer of meaning. Treatise: 'Namely, extinguishing all kinds of darkness in all realms'. The second is according to
頌別釋 文中有三。一釋一切種諸四字。二釋冥字。三釋滅字。此文初也 謂滅諸境。釋頌諸字 由染無知於五門境迷自．共相境非一故。故言諸也。染心。不緣二無為故不云一切。非緣諸法味．勢．熟等品類別故不云種也 一切品冥者。不染無知也。此釋一切種三字也 種是種類。是品異名。故以品名釋于種也。不染無知。緣一切法品類皆盡。故言一切。於一一境味．熟．勢用品類眾多。不能了故。不得直言諸境別也。雖言諸．一切品別。皆就所迷非是自體。雖一切品容說自體。然不及說就其所迷所迷品類。相易顯故 有人多解未為得意。恐繁不述。對讀自知 二滅名同其義各別。染污無知雖通二滅。然此中論得擇滅也。不染無知雖通二滅。然此中論得非擇滅。此之二滅。若智。斷德。分各為一德。若自。他利德合為自利若就心以明。即恩居先。為利他故方求佛果滅二冥也。若就成以明。次則先自利。後方能化他。此中論意就成以明。先標自利。智．斷二德。頌與長行先後異者。智德不共是有為。斷德無為共。互有勝劣非定前後。遂其文便故不同也。
論。以諸無知至故說為冥。第二別釋冥也 此二無知能覆諸境自．共相等。及一切種味．熟．勢等真實義故。能障諸境自．共相等。及一切種味．熟．勢等真實
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 頌別釋，文中有三重含義。一是解釋『一切種諸』這四個字，二是解釋『冥』字，三是解釋『滅』字。這段文字是開篇。 意思是滅除各種境界。解釋『頌諸』等字，由於被染污的無知所矇蔽，對於五門（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）的境界，迷惑于自相和共相，認為境界不是單一的，所以說『諸』。染污的心，不緣于兩種無為法（指擇滅無為和非擇滅無為），所以不說『一切』。不是緣于諸法的味、勢、熟等品類的差別，所以不說『種』。 『一切品冥』，指的是不染污的無知。這是解釋『一切種』三個字。『種』是種類，是品類的別名，所以用品類的名稱來解釋『種』。不染污的無知，緣於一切法，品類都窮盡，所以說『一切』。對於每一個境界的味、熟、勢等，用品類眾多，不能明瞭，所以不能直接說各種境界的差別。雖然說『諸』、『一切品』的差別，都是就所迷惑的對象而言，不是自體。雖然一切品類容許說自體，但不如說就其所迷惑的對象，所迷惑的品類，相比較容易顯現。 有人做了很多解釋，但沒有說到要點，恐怕繁瑣，不在這裡敘述，對照閱讀自然明白。兩種『滅』名稱相同，但意義各別。染污的無知雖然通於兩種滅，但這裡論述的是擇滅。不染污的無知雖然通於兩種滅，但這裡論述的是非擇滅。這兩種滅，如果從智慧、斷德來說，各自為一種功德。如果從自利、他利德來說，合為自利。如果就心來闡明，那麼恩德居於首位，爲了利益他人，才求取佛果，滅除兩種『冥』。 如果就成就來說明，那麼首先是自利，然後才能教化他人。這裡論述的意圖是就成就來說明，先標明自利，智慧、斷德兩種功德。頌文與長行的先後順序不同，是因為智德是不共的有為法，斷德是無為的共法，相互之間有勝有劣，沒有固定的先後順序，順應文句的方便，所以不同。 論：因為各種無知，所以說為『冥』。這是第二段分別解釋『冥』。這兩種無知能夠覆蓋各種境界的自相、共相等，以及一切種類的味、熟、勢等真實意義，能夠障礙各種境界的自相、共相等，以及一切種類的味、熟、勢等真實。
【English Translation】 English version Explanation of the Gatha Separately: There are three aspects in the text. First, to explain the four characters 'Yi Qie Zhong Zhu' (一切種諸, all kinds of various). Second, to explain the character 'Ming' (冥, darkness). Third, to explain the character 'Mie' (滅, extinction). This text is the beginning. It means extinguishing all realms. Explaining the characters 'Song Zhu' (頌諸, praising various), due to being deluded by defiled ignorance regarding the realms of the five senses (five sense organs: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body), being confused about their self-characteristics and common characteristics, and considering the realms not to be singular, hence the word 'Zhu' (諸, various). The defiled mind does not relate to the two unconditioned dharmas (Nirvana with residue and Nirvana without residue), hence it is not said 'Yi Qie' (一切, all). It does not relate to the differences in categories such as taste, power, and maturity of dharmas, hence it is not said 'Zhong' (種, kind). 'Yi Qie Pin Ming' (一切品冥, darkness of all kinds) refers to undefiled ignorance. This explains the three characters 'Yi Qie Zhong' (一切種, all kinds). 'Zhong' (種, kind) is category, another name for type. Therefore, the name of the type is used to explain 'Zhong' (種, kind). Undefiled ignorance relates to all dharmas, and all categories are exhausted, hence it is said 'Yi Qie' (一切, all). Regarding the taste, maturity, power, etc., of each realm, there are many categories that cannot be understood, hence one cannot directly say the differences of various realms. Although the differences of 'Zhu' (諸, various) and 'Yi Qie Pin' (一切品, all kinds) are mentioned, they all refer to the objects of delusion, not the self-nature. Although all kinds can be said to have self-nature, it is not as good as saying it in terms of the objects of delusion, as the categories of delusion are easier to reveal. Many people have given explanations, but they have not grasped the essence. Fearing complexity, I will not elaborate here. You will understand by reading and comparing yourself. The two 'Mie' (滅, extinction) have the same name but different meanings. Defiled ignorance is common to both extinctions, but here we are discussing extinction through wisdom (擇滅, Nirvāṇa attained through discrimination). Undefiled ignorance is common to both extinctions, but here we are discussing extinction without wisdom (非擇滅, Nirvāṇa attained without discrimination). These two extinctions, if considered from the perspective of wisdom and cessation, each constitutes a virtue. If considered from the perspective of self-benefit and benefiting others, they combine into self-benefit. If explained from the perspective of the mind, then kindness comes first. In order to benefit others, one seeks Buddhahood, extinguishing the two 'Ming' (冥, darkness). If explained from the perspective of accomplishment, then self-benefit comes first, and then one can transform others. The intention here is to explain from the perspective of accomplishment, first marking self-benefit, the two virtues of wisdom and cessation. The difference in the order of the Gatha and the prose is because wisdom is a conditioned dharma that is not shared, while cessation is an unconditioned dharma that is shared. They have their respective strengths and weaknesses, and there is no fixed order. It is different to suit the convenience of the text. Treatise: Because of various ignorances, it is said to be 'Ming' (冥, darkness). This is the second section separately explaining 'Ming' (冥, darkness). These two ignorances can cover the self-characteristics, common characteristics, etc., of various realms, as well as the true meanings of all kinds of taste, maturity, power, etc., and can obstruct the self-characteristics, common characteristics, etc., of various realms, as well as the true meanings of all kinds of taste, maturity, power, etc.
見故。說為冥也。如闇能覆人．杌實義。及障實見故說為闇 有人云。若染無知能覆理．事二種實義。不染無知能障理．事二種真見 破曰。二種無知。一種是冥。何能證知一覆實義。一障真見。必若爾者。論何不言如其次第。能覆實義能障真見。又二乘無學豈見實義。若見實義即是真見 又云。能覆實義是不染無知。能障真見染無知。
破曰。二乘無學豈無真見之障。又論亦應說如其次第言 又云。能覆實義謂覆外境能障真見謂障內心。能覆。能障皆是冥義通二無知 破曰。能覆．能障通二無知。雖不違理。何須于境以外簡內。內門不了豈非冥也。言障內心意趣難解。為障緣內之心。為障內心緣外。為障緣內．外心。三皆有過。若謂障緣內心。緣外因何不障。若謂障緣外心。緣內因何不障。若謂障緣內．外心。因何境唯覆外。心兼障內。諸障實義豈唯六境。縱令有救亦乃言中有迷。
論。唯佛世尊至故稱為滅。第三別釋滅字 于中有二。一即正釋。二遮余聖。此即初也 唯。遮余聖 世尊表佛 於二無知證不生法者。明所證法也。言不生者。即有其二種。一無知不生。二擇滅．非擇滅。論既言證謂二無為。于染無知證於擇滅。斷德圓滿。不染無知證非擇滅。智德圓滿。無知不生智無障故。正理云。諸境
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，這被稱作『冥』（ming，黑暗、無明）。就像黑暗能夠遮蔽人，『杌實義』（wushi yi，頑固的實在意義）以及阻礙真實的見解，所以被稱為『闇』（an，黑暗）。有人說，染污的無知能夠遮蔽理和事兩種實在的意義，不染污的無知能夠阻礙理和事兩種真實的見解。 駁斥：兩種無知，其中一種是『冥』，如何能夠證明一個遮蔽實在的意義，一個阻礙真實的見解？如果一定要這樣說，論著為什麼不說按照次序，一個能夠遮蔽實在的意義，一個能夠阻礙真實的見解？而且二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的無學（已經達到修行最高階段）難道沒有見到實在的意義嗎？如果見到實在的意義，那就是真實的見解。 又有人說，能夠遮蔽實在的意義是不染污的無知，能夠阻礙真實的見解是染污的無知。 駁斥：二乘的無學難道沒有真實見解的障礙嗎？而且論著也應該按照次序來說。又有人說，能夠遮蔽實在的意義是指遮蔽外境，能夠阻礙真實的見解是指阻礙內心。『能覆』（neng fu，能夠遮蔽）和『能障』（neng zhang，能夠阻礙）都是『冥』的意義，貫通兩種無知。 駁斥：『能覆』和『能障』貫通兩種無知，雖然不違背道理，但為什麼要在外境以外區分內心？內心之門不瞭解難道不是『冥』嗎？說阻礙內心，意趣難以理解。是阻礙緣于內心的心，還是阻礙內心緣于外境，還是阻礙緣于內心和外境的心？這三種說法都有過失。如果說是阻礙緣于內心的心，那麼緣于外境的心為什麼不阻礙？如果說是阻礙緣于外境的心，那麼緣于內心的心為什麼不阻礙？如果說是阻礙緣于內心和外境的心，那麼為什麼境只遮蔽外境，而心卻兼顧阻礙內心？難道所有遮蔽實在意義的只有六境（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）嗎？即使有辯解，也只是言語中存在迷惑。 論：只有佛世尊達到，所以稱為『滅』（mie，寂滅）。第三個方面分別解釋『滅』字。其中有兩點。一是正面解釋，二是遮止其餘聖者。這裡是第一點。『唯』（wei，只有），遮止其餘聖者。『世尊』（shizun，佛的尊稱）代表佛。對於兩種無知證得不生之法的人，說明所證得的法。說『不生』（busheng，不生起）的，有兩種。一是無知不生，二是擇滅（ze mie，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）和非擇滅（fei ze mie，非通過智慧選擇而自然達到的寂滅）。論著既然說證得，指的是兩種無為法（wuwei fa，不生不滅的法）。對於染污的無知證得擇滅，斷德圓滿。不染污的無知證得非擇滅，智德圓滿。無知不生，智慧沒有障礙。正理說，諸境
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is called 'Ming' (冥, darkness, ignorance). Just as darkness can cover people, 'Wushi Yi' (杌實義, stubborn reality) and obstruct true views, so it is called 'An' (闇, darkness). Some say that defiled ignorance can cover the real meaning of both principle and matter, and undefiled ignorance can obstruct the true view of both principle and matter. Refutation: Two kinds of ignorance, one of which is 'Ming,' how can it be proved that one covers the real meaning and the other obstructs the true view? If it must be so, why doesn't the treatise say in order, one can cover the real meaning, and one can obstruct the true view? Moreover, do the Arhats (無學, those who have reached the highest stage of practice) of the Two Vehicles (聲聞乘 and 緣覺乘) not see the real meaning? If they see the real meaning, then that is the true view. Someone also said that the ability to cover the real meaning is undefiled ignorance, and the ability to obstruct the true view is defiled ignorance. Refutation: Do the Arhats of the Two Vehicles not have obstacles to true views? Moreover, the treatise should also say in order. Someone also said that the ability to cover the real meaning refers to covering the external environment, and the ability to obstruct the true view refers to obstructing the inner mind. 'Neng Fu' (能覆, able to cover) and 'Neng Zhang' (能障, able to obstruct) are both meanings of 'Ming,' which run through the two kinds of ignorance. Refutation: 'Neng Fu' and 'Neng Zhang' run through the two kinds of ignorance, although it does not violate the principle, but why distinguish the inner mind from the external environment? Is it not 'Ming' if the door of the inner mind is not understood? It is difficult to understand the intention of saying that it obstructs the inner mind. Is it obstructing the mind that is related to the inner mind, or is it obstructing the inner mind that is related to the external environment, or is it obstructing the mind that is related to both the inner and external environments? All three statements have faults. If it is said that it obstructs the mind that is related to the inner mind, then why does it not obstruct the mind that is related to the external environment? If it is said that it obstructs the mind that is related to the external environment, then why does it not obstruct the mind that is related to the inner mind? If it is said that it obstructs the mind that is related to both the inner and external environments, then why does the environment only cover the external environment, while the mind takes into account obstructing the inner mind? Are all the real meanings that are covered only the six objects (色, 聲, 香, 味, 觸, 法)? Even if there is a defense, there is only confusion in the words. Treatise: Only the Buddha, the World Honored One, has attained it, so it is called 'Mie' (滅, extinction). The third aspect separately explains the word 'Mie.' There are two points in it. One is a positive explanation, and the other is to prevent other saints. This is the first point. 'Wei' (唯, only), prevents other saints. 'Shizun' (世尊, the Buddha's honorific title) represents the Buddha. For those who have attained the unproduced Dharma (不生) from the two kinds of ignorance, it explains the Dharma that has been attained. There are two kinds of 'unproduced' (不生). One is ignorance is not produced, and the other is Cessation by Discrimination (擇滅) and Cessation without Discrimination (非擇滅). Since the treatise says that it has been attained, it refers to the two unconditioned Dharmas (無為法). For defiled ignorance, Cessation by Discrimination is attained, and the virtue of cutting off is complete. For undefiled ignorance, Cessation without Discrimination is attained, and the virtue of wisdom is complete. Ignorance is not produced, and wisdom has no obstacles. The Hetu-vidya-nyaya says, all realms
界冥亦永滅故。斷德圓滿。一切種冥皆永斷故。智德圓滿 準上論文。斷染無知證得擇滅名為斷德。不染無智得永不生得其智德。即是佛一切智。若兼眷屬通五蘊性。
論。聲聞獨覺至非一切種。第二遮余聖 聲聞．獨覺雖滅諸冥。以染無知畢竟斷故。麟喻獨覺不動羅漢以不退故。染污無知畢竟永斷。與佛同斷。非一切種。不染無知猶未斷故。與佛不同。論。所以者何。徴 俱解脫人是利根者。戒．定二障悉已永斷。如何說非一切種智耶。
論。由於佛法至由未斷故。答也 言佛法者。其二義。一功德法。二佛教法。于功德法根障未盡。不能證得。于佛教法無知覆故。不能證解。
極遠時。謂觀前後八萬劫外 極遠處者。三千界外。二乘宿住不能觀知八萬劫前。死生智通不能觀知八萬劫后。天眼．天耳．神境智通。不能見聞．往三千外 諸義類者。謂熟．勢等種種義類 不染無知猶未斷者。謂于佛法極遠時等。不染無知未得不生故 此唯顯佛具二德也 問正理文。斷染無知證斷圓滿。不染無知得智圓滿。何故此論二十七云。斷圓德有四種。一一切煩惱斷。二一切定障斷。三畢竟斷。四並習斷 準此論文。定障。並習非是擇滅。如何斷德準是擇滅。答此亦不違。前說斷圓德擇滅為體。二乘雖有斷德。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：由於界冥（指認知上的黑暗）也永遠滅除的緣故，所以斷德（斷除煩惱的功德）圓滿。因為一切種類的冥暗都永遠斷除的緣故，所以智德（智慧的功德）圓滿。參照上面的論文，斷除染污的無知，證得擇滅（通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅狀態），這被稱為斷德。不染污的無知永遠不再生起，獲得其相應的智慧功德，這就是佛的一切智。如果加上眷屬，則通於五蘊的性質。
論文：聲聞獨覺乃至非一切種。這是第二點，遮止其餘的聖者。聲聞（聽聞佛法而悟道的修行者）、獨覺（無師自悟的修行者）雖然滅除了各種冥暗，因為染污的無知已經徹底斷除的緣故。麟喻獨覺（像麒麟一樣稀有的獨覺）和不動羅漢（不再退轉的阿羅漢），因為不再退轉的緣故，染污的無知已經徹底永遠斷除，與佛相同。但並非一切種智，因為不染污的無知還沒有斷除的緣故，與佛不同。
論文：所以是什麼原因呢？這是提問。俱解脫人（同時解脫煩惱和知見束縛的人）是利根者（根器銳利的人），戒障（因破戒而產生的障礙）、定障（因禪定不足而產生的障礙）都已經永遠斷除，為什麼說他們不是一切種智呢？
論文：由於佛法乃至由於未斷的緣故。這是回答。所說的佛法，有兩種含義：一是功德法（各種功德），二是佛教法（佛陀的教法）。對於功德法，因為根器和障礙沒有窮盡，所以不能證得。對於佛教法，因為無知的覆蓋，所以不能證理解。
極遠的時劫，指的是觀察前後八萬劫以外的事情。極遠處，指的是三千大千世界之外。二乘（聲聞和獨覺）的宿住智（瞭解過去生世的能力）不能觀察瞭解八萬劫以前的事情，死生智通（瞭解眾生死生情況的神通）不能觀察瞭解八萬劫以後的事情。天眼通、天耳通、神境智通，不能見聞、前往三千大千世界之外。諸義類，指的是熟、勢等種種義類。不染污的無知還沒有斷除，指的是對於佛法極遠的時劫等，不染污的無知還沒有得到不生。這只是顯示佛具有兩種功德。問：按照正理文，斷除染污的無知，證得斷德圓滿；不染污的無知，得到智德圓滿。為什麼此論二十七說，斷圓德有四種：一、一切煩惱斷；二、一切定障斷；三、畢竟斷；四、並習斷。按照此論文，定障和並習不是擇滅，如何說斷德是擇滅呢？答：這也不矛盾。前面說斷圓德以擇滅為體，二乘雖然有斷德。
【English Translation】 English version: Because the darkness of the realm (referring to cognitive darkness) is also eternally extinguished, the virtue of cessation (the merit of eliminating afflictions) is perfected. Because all kinds of darkness are eternally eliminated, the virtue of wisdom (the merit of wisdom) is perfected. Referring to the above thesis, eliminating defiled ignorance and attaining Nirodha (the state of cessation achieved through wisdom) is called the virtue of cessation. Undefiled ignorance never arises again, and obtaining its corresponding merit of wisdom is the Omniscience of the Buddha. If combined with retinue, it encompasses the nature of the five aggregates.
Treatise: 'Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas, up to not all kinds.' This is the second point, refuting other saints. Although Śrāvakas (practitioners who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings) and Pratyekabuddhas (practitioners who attain enlightenment independently without a teacher) eliminate various darknesses, it is because defiled ignorance has been completely eliminated. The solitary enlightened ones like the unicorn and the non-retrogressing Arhats, because they do not regress, have completely and eternally eliminated defiled ignorance, which is the same as the Buddha. However, it is not Omniscience, because undefiled ignorance has not yet been eliminated, which is different from the Buddha.
Treatise: 'What is the reason?' This is a question. Those who are liberated from both afflictions and views are sharp-witted, and the obstacles of precepts (obstacles arising from breaking precepts) and the obstacles of Samadhi (obstacles arising from insufficient meditation) have been eternally eliminated. Why is it said that they do not possess Omniscience?
Treatise: 'Because of the Buddha-dharma, up to because it has not been eliminated.' This is the answer. The so-called Buddha-dharma has two meanings: one is the dharma of merit (various merits), and the other is the dharma of the Buddha's teachings (the Buddha's teachings). Regarding the dharma of merit, because the roots and obstacles have not been exhausted, they cannot be attained. Regarding the dharma of the Buddha's teachings, because of the covering of ignorance, they cannot be understood.
Extremely distant kalpas refer to observing events beyond eighty thousand kalpas before and after. Extremely distant places refer to beyond the three thousand great chiliocosms. The knowledge of past lives of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas) cannot observe and understand events before eighty thousand kalpas, and the knowledge of death and rebirth cannot observe and understand events after eighty thousand kalpas. The divine eye, divine ear, and the power of magical abilities cannot see, hear, or go beyond the three thousand great chiliocosms. Various kinds of meanings refer to various kinds of meanings such as maturity and potential. Undefiled ignorance has not yet been eliminated, referring to undefiled ignorance not yet being eliminated regarding extremely distant kalpas of the Buddha-dharma. This only shows that the Buddha possesses two virtues. Question: According to the text of the principle, eliminating defiled ignorance proves the perfection of cessation; undefiled ignorance obtains the perfection of wisdom. Why does this treatise twenty-seven say that there are four kinds of perfect cessation: 1. Elimination of all afflictions; 2. Elimination of all obstacles to Samadhi; 3. Complete elimination; 4. Elimination along with habits. According to this treatise, the obstacles to Samadhi and the elimination along with habits are not Nirodha, so how can it be said that the virtue of cessation is Nirodha? Answer: This is not contradictory. It was previously said that the perfect cessation takes Nirodha as its essence, and although the Two Vehicles have the virtue of cessation.
而不是圓滿。佛兼斷余方得滅圓。如九遍知。異生位中。雖斷下八地煩惱而滅雙因。無無漏得未缺有頂。見道五心雖有無漏得證其擇滅。由雙因未滅俱系未離。斷義未圓不名遍知 斷德亦爾。二乘雖斷煩惱證於擇滅。由習氣未斷。定障未盡。不名圓滿。如來由具四義斷德名圓。非無記滅為斷德體 如九遍知。雖賴四緣得遍知名。非此四緣即遍知體 如無師義以成智圓。非彼無師即是智體 有人雖有三解並非應理 第一解云。斷德從強擇滅為體。若據其兼通非擇滅。故不相違者 不然更無有文許無記滅為斷德體。是故無記而名為德。理不應然 第二解云。斷德唯以擇滅為體。然有定障等擇滅不顯。定障等若無擇滅即顯。能顯斷故。名斷圓德者 有其二過一即非斷亦名斷德。所顯是斷。能顯非斷故。如九遍知能顯非遍知故。二即無記滅顯擇滅名斷德者。與前斷德通無記滅有何差別。此釋雖似是仍非盡理也 第三釋云。彼文四斷皆通擇滅。若煩惱斷是自性斷．緣縛斷。若定障斷。並習斷是緣縛斷。若畢竟斷通自性．緣縛者 不然。此與不退俱解脫人有何差別。亦具如前四種斷德故。皆于定障．習氣．緣縛斷故。亦有畢竟．自性．緣縛斷故。與佛何別 問世尊實斷一切煩惱．並及習氣。如何但說滅二無知。答但顯無知即兼顯余
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：而不是圓滿。佛陀斷除所有障礙才能達到圓滿的寂滅。例如九遍知（Nava-prajna，九種智慧）。在異生位（prthag-jana-bhumi，凡夫的境界）中，即使斷除了下八地的煩惱，並且滅除了雙因（du-hetuka，兩種原因），由於無漏之得（anasrava-labha，無漏的獲得）尚未圓滿，仍然存在有頂天（bhavagra，三界最高的境界）。見道五心（darshana-marga-citta-panca，見道位的五個心念）雖然具有無漏之得，並且證得了擇滅（pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅），但由於雙因尚未滅除，仍然被束縛，因此斷除的意義並不圓滿，不能稱為遍知。斷德（prahana-guna，斷除的功德）也是如此。二乘（shravaka-yana和pratyeka-buddha-yana，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）雖然斷除了煩惱，證得了擇滅，但由於習氣（vasana，煩惱的習性）尚未斷除，定障（samadhi-avarana，禪定的障礙）尚未窮盡，不能稱為圓滿。如來（tathagata，佛陀）由於具備四種意義，斷德才稱為圓滿。並非無記滅（avyakrta-nirodha，非記說的寂滅）是斷德的本體。 例如九遍知，雖然依賴四種因緣才能獲得遍知的名稱，但並非這四種因緣就是遍知的本體。如同無師義（anacharya-artha，無師自證的意義）以成就智慧圓滿，並非沒有老師就是智慧的本體。有些人雖然有三種解釋，但並非都符合道理。第一種解釋說，斷德主要以擇滅為本體，如果考慮到它也包含非擇滅（apratisankhya-nirodha，非由智慧選擇而達到的寂滅），因此並不矛盾。但這種說法不對，因為沒有任何經典允許無記滅作為斷德的本體。因此，將無記滅稱為功德，在道理上是不應該的。第二種解釋說，斷德唯以擇滅為本體，然而由於存在定障等，擇滅並不明顯。如果定障等不存在，擇滅就會顯現，因為能夠顯現斷除，所以稱為斷圓德。這種說法有兩個過失：一是並非斷除也稱為斷德，所顯現的是斷除，能顯現的並非斷除，如同九遍知能顯現的並非遍知。二是無記滅顯現擇滅而稱為斷德，這與之前斷德包含無記滅有什麼區別？這種解釋雖然看似合理，但仍然不盡道理。第三種解釋說，經文中的四種斷除都包含擇滅。煩惱斷是自性斷（svabhava-prahana，自性上的斷除）和緣縛斷（pratyaya-bandhana-prahana，因緣束縛上的斷除）。定障斷和習斷是緣縛斷。畢竟斷（atyanta-prahana，究竟的斷除）包含自性和緣縛。這種說法不對。這與不退俱解脫人（anivrtti-samak-vimukta，證得不退轉並且同時解脫的人）有什麼區別？他們也具備如前所述的四種斷德，因為他們也斷除了定障、習氣和緣縛，也具有畢竟斷、自性斷和緣縛斷。這與佛陀有什麼區別？問：世尊（bhagavan，佛陀）確實斷除了一切煩惱以及習氣，為什麼只說滅除了二種無知（ajnana-dvaya，兩種無知）？答：只是爲了顯現無知，就兼帶顯現了其餘的煩惱。
【English Translation】 English version: Rather than perfection. The Buddha attains perfect extinction only by severing all obstacles. For example, the Nine Knowledges (Nava-prajna). In the state of an ordinary being (prthag-jana-bhumi), even if the afflictions of the lower eight realms are severed and the dual causes (du-hetuka) are extinguished, the attainment of non-outflow (anasrava-labha) is not yet complete, and the peak of existence (bhavagra) still remains. Although the five thoughts of the path of seeing (darshana-marga-citta-panca) possess the attainment of non-outflow and realize selective extinction (pratisankhya-nirodha), because the dual causes have not yet been extinguished and are still bound, the meaning of severance is not complete and cannot be called complete knowledge. The virtue of severance (prahana-guna) is also the same. Although the Two Vehicles (shravaka-yana and pratyeka-buddha-yana) sever afflictions and realize selective extinction, because habitual tendencies (vasana) have not been severed and the obstructions to concentration (samadhi-avarana) have not been exhausted, they cannot be called complete. The Tathagata (tathagata), due to possessing four meanings, is said to have complete virtue of severance. Non-cognitive extinction (avyakrta-nirodha) is not the substance of the virtue of severance. For example, although the Nine Knowledges rely on four conditions to obtain the name of complete knowledge, these four conditions are not the substance of complete knowledge. Just as the meaning of having no teacher (anacharya-artha) is to achieve the perfection of wisdom, not having a teacher is not the substance of wisdom. Some people have three explanations, but not all of them are reasonable. The first explanation says that the virtue of severance mainly takes selective extinction as its substance. If it is considered that it also includes non-selective extinction (apratisankhya-nirodha), then there is no contradiction. But this statement is incorrect, because no scripture allows non-cognitive extinction to be the substance of the virtue of severance. Therefore, it is not reasonable to call non-cognitive extinction a virtue. The second explanation says that the virtue of severance only takes selective extinction as its substance. However, due to the existence of obstructions to concentration, selective extinction is not obvious. If the obstructions to concentration do not exist, selective extinction will be manifest. Because it can manifest severance, it is called the complete virtue of severance. This statement has two faults: first, what is not severance is also called the virtue of severance. What is manifested is severance, but what can manifest it is not severance, just as what the Nine Knowledges can manifest is not complete knowledge. Second, if non-cognitive extinction manifests selective extinction and is called the virtue of severance, what is the difference between this and the previous statement that the virtue of severance includes non-cognitive extinction? Although this explanation seems reasonable, it is still not entirely correct. The third explanation says that the four severances in the text all include selective extinction. The severance of afflictions is severance of nature (svabhava-prahana) and severance of causal bondage (pratyaya-bandhana-prahana). The severance of obstructions to concentration and the severance of habits are severance of causal bondage. Ultimate severance (atyanta-prahana) includes both nature and causal bondage. This statement is incorrect. What is the difference between this and a non-regressing simultaneous liberation person (anivrtti-samak-vimukta)? They also possess the four virtues of severance mentioned earlier, because they also sever obstructions to concentration, habits, and causal bondage, and also have ultimate severance, severance of nature, and severance of causal bondage. What is the difference between this and the Buddha? Question: The World-Honored One (bhagavan) has indeed severed all afflictions and habitual tendencies, so why does he only say that he has extinguished the two ignorances (ajnana-dvaya)? Answer: It is only to manifest ignorance, which also manifests the remaining afflictions.
。無知通與一切煩惱習相應故。無知即是一切煩惱習氣本故。無斷無知留余煩惱．及習氣故。所以但說斷二無知 問此二無知以何為體 答染污無知無明為體 不染無知劣慧為體 今釋不染無知八門分別。一引文出體。二釋通外難。三對妄通文。四破敘異說。五述體通局。六對染辨異。七明差別。八述斷分位 一引文出體者。婆沙第九云。有有五種。一名有。謂龜毛．兔角．空華．髻等。二實有。謂一切法各住自性。三假有。謂瓶．衣．軍．林。四和合有。謂于諸蘊和合施設補特伽羅。五相對有。謂此彼岸長短事等 問若無有見於五見何見攝。何所斷。答此非是見。邪智 問此邪智是何。答此是欲界修所斷中無覆無記邪行相智。如於杌起人想。及於人起杌想。于非道起道想。于道起非道想如是等 問若爾智蘊所說當云何通。如說云何邪智謂染污慧。答邪智有二。一染污．二不染污 染污者無明相應 不染污者無明不相應。如於杌起人想等 染污者．聲聞．獨覺俱能斷盡。亦不現行 不染污者。聲聞．獨覺雖能斷盡而由現行。唯有如來畢竟不起。煩惱．習氣俱永斷故。由此獨稱正等覺者 染污邪智由勝義故名為邪智。不染污者由世俗故得邪智名。非由勝義。煩惱邪法不相應故。后智蘊中所說邪智是勝義者。今說世俗。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無知與所有煩惱習氣相應。無知是一切煩惱習氣的根本。因為不斷除無知，就會留下剩餘的煩惱和習氣。所以只說斷除兩種無知。 問：這兩種無知以什麼為本體？ 答：染污無知以無明為本體，不染污無知以低劣的智慧為本體。現在解釋不染污無知，分為八個方面：一、引經文說明本體；二、解釋普遍存在的外部疑問；三、對照虛妄的普遍說法；四、駁斥敘述不同觀點的說法；五、陳述本體的普遍性和侷限性；六、對照染污無知辨別差異；七、闡明差別；八、陳述斷除的分位。 一、引經文說明本體。《婆沙論》第九卷說：『有』有五種：第一種是名有（概念上的有），如龜毛、兔角、空中花、髮髻等。第二種是實有（真實的存在），指一切法各自安住于自身的本性。第三種是假有（假立的存在），指瓶子、衣服、軍隊、樹林。第四種是和合有（組合的存在），指在諸蘊和合的基礎上施設的補特伽羅（人）。第五種是相對有（相對的存在），指此岸彼岸、長短等事物。 問：如果沒有有見，那麼在五見中屬於哪一種見？應該斷除什麼？ 答：這不是見，而是邪智（錯誤的智慧）。 問：這種邪智是什麼？ 答：這是欲界修所斷中的無覆無記（不障礙解脫，不記為善惡）的邪行相智（錯誤的認知方式）。例如，把樹樁看成人，把人看成樹樁，把非道看成道，把道看成非道等等。 問：如果這樣，智蘊中所說的應該如何解釋？比如所說：『什麼是邪智？指染污的智慧。』 答：邪智有兩種：一種是染污的，一種是不染污的。 染污的邪智與無明相應，不染污的邪智與無明不相應。例如，把樹樁看成人等等。 染污的邪智，聲聞（阿羅漢）、獨覺（辟支佛）都能斷盡，並且不再現行。不染污的邪智，聲聞、獨覺雖然能斷盡，但還會現行。只有如來（佛）才能徹底不起，因為煩惱和習氣都永遠斷除了。因此才獨稱為正等覺者（圓滿覺悟的人）。 染污的邪智，從勝義（究竟真理）的角度來說，稱為邪智。不染污的邪智，從世俗（世間常識）的角度來說，才得到邪智的名稱，不是從勝義的角度。因為它與煩惱邪法不相應。後來的智蘊中所說的邪智是勝義的，現在說的是世俗的。
【English Translation】 English version: Ignorance is associated with all afflictions and habitual tendencies. Ignorance is the root of all afflictions and habitual tendencies. Because without cutting off ignorance, remaining afflictions and habitual tendencies will remain. Therefore, it is only said to cut off two kinds of ignorance. Question: What is the substance of these two kinds of ignorance? Answer: Defiled ignorance has ignorance (avidya) as its substance, and undefiled ignorance has inferior wisdom as its substance. Now, the undefiled ignorance is explained in eight aspects: 1. Quoting scriptures to reveal the substance; 2. Explaining common external doubts; 3. Comparing with false common views; 4. Refuting narratives of different views; 5. Stating the universality and limitations of the substance; 6. Differentiating differences by comparing with defiled ignorance; 7. Clarifying differences; 8. Stating the stages of cutting off. 1. Quoting scriptures to reveal the substance. The ninth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Existence' has five types: The first is name-existence (conceptual existence), such as turtle hair, rabbit horns, flowers in the sky, hair knots, etc. The second is real existence (true existence), referring to all dharmas abiding in their own nature. The third is provisional existence (conventionally established existence), referring to bottles, clothes, armies, forests. The fourth is aggregate existence (composite existence), referring to the pudgala (person) established on the basis of the aggregation of the skandhas (aggregates). The fifth is relative existence (relative existence), referring to things like this shore and the other shore, long and short, etc. Question: If there is no view of existence, then which of the five views does it belong to? What should be cut off? Answer: This is not a view, but a wrong wisdom (mithyājñāna). Question: What is this wrong wisdom? Answer: This is the non-obstructed and non-specified (anivṛtāvyākṛta) wrong mode of knowledge (mithyā-ākāra-jñāna) within the realm of desire (kāmadhātu) that is severed through cultivation (bhāvanā). For example, seeing a tree stump as a person, seeing a person as a tree stump, seeing a non-path as a path, seeing a path as a non-path, and so on. Question: If so, how should the statements in the Jñānaskandha (Collection of Knowledge) be reconciled? For example, it says: 'What is wrong wisdom? It refers to defiled wisdom.' Answer: There are two types of wrong wisdom: one is defiled, and the other is undefiled. Defiled wrong wisdom is associated with ignorance (avidyā), and undefiled wrong wisdom is not associated with ignorance. Defiled wrong wisdom can be completely cut off by śrāvakas (hearers/arhats) and pratyekabuddhas (solitary buddhas), and it no longer manifests. Undefiled wrong wisdom, although it can be cut off by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, it still manifests. Only the Tathāgata (Buddha) never arises it, because both afflictions and habitual tendencies are permanently cut off. Therefore, he is uniquely called the Perfectly Enlightened One (samyaksaṃbuddha). Defiled wrong wisdom is called wrong wisdom from the perspective of ultimate truth (paramārtha). Undefiled wrong wisdom is called wrong wisdom from the perspective of conventional truth (saṃvṛti), not from the perspective of ultimate truth, because it is not associated with afflictions and wrong dharmas. The wrong wisdom mentioned later in the Jñānaskandha is from the perspective of ultimate truth, while what is being discussed now is from the perspective of conventional truth.
不相違 準上。二種邪智攝一切邪智。世俗邪智即是煩惱習氣。與正理同。既云無覆無記。故知不通善性。又正理論二十八云。是故即應味．勢．熟等。不勤求解。慧與異相法俱為因引生后同類惠此慧于解又不勤求。復為因引生不勤求解慧。如是展轉無始時來。因果相仍習以成性。故即于彼味等境中。數習於解無堪能智。此所引劣智名不染無知。即此俱生心．心所法總名習氣。理定應然 又云 或諸有情有煩惱位。所有無染心。及相續。由諸煩惱間雜所熏。有能順生煩惱氣分。故諸無染心．及眷屬。似彼行相差別而生。由數習力相繼而起故。離過身中仍名有習氣。一切智者永斷不行。然于已斷見所斷位。通染．不染心相續中。有餘順生煩惱習性。是見所斷煩惱氣分。于中染者說名類性。金剛道斷皆不現行。若不染者名見所斷煩惱習氣。亦彼道斷。由根差別有行．不行 準此論文。類性既非是身習氣。故知心所 又云。若於已斷修所斷位。唯于不染心相續中。有餘順生煩惱習性。是修所斷煩惱氣分。名修所斷煩惱習氣。是有漏故無學已斷。隨根勝劣有行．不行。世尊已得法自在故。彼如煩惱畢竟不行。故佛獨稱善凈相續。即由此故行無誤失。得不共法三念住等 準上二解。其意大同。而因有別。前釋以不勤求慧。及異相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『不相違』，同上文。兩種邪智涵蓋一切邪智。世俗邪智即是煩惱習氣，與正理相同。既然說是『無覆無記』，因此可知它不屬於善性。另外，《正理論》第二十八卷說：『因此就應該在味、勢、熟等方面，不勤奮地去求解。智慧與異相法一起作為因，引生後來的同類智慧。這種智慧對於理解又不勤奮地去尋求，又作為因引生不勤奮求解的智慧。』像這樣輾轉相續，從無始以來，因果相連，習以為常，因此就在那些味等境界中，多次習慣於理解無堪能的智慧。這種所引生的劣智，名為不染無知。即這種俱生的心、心所法，總名為習氣。道理必定是這樣。又說：『或者有些有情在有煩惱的狀態時，所有無染的心及相續，由於各種煩惱的間雜薰染，有能夠順著產生煩惱氣分的，因此各種無染的心及眷屬，好像那些行相差別而生起，由於多次習力的相繼而生起。』因此，在脫離過失的身中，仍然稱為有習氣。一切智者（Sarvajna）永遠斷除不行。然而在已經斷除見所斷（dṛṣṭi-heya）的階段，在通於染、不染的心相續中，有剩餘的順著產生煩惱的習性，這是見所斷煩惱的氣分。其中染污的，稱為類性。金剛道（vajra-mārga）斷除后，都不會現行。如果不染污的，名為見所斷煩惱習氣，也被那個道斷除。由於根器的差別，有行與不行。按照這篇論文，類性既然不是身習氣，因此可知是心所。又說：『如果在已經斷除修所斷（bhāvanā-heya）的階段，只有在不染污的心相續中，有剩餘的順著產生煩惱的習性，這是修所斷煩惱的氣分，名為修所斷煩惱習氣。』因為是有漏的，所以無學（aśaikṣa）已經斷除。隨著根器的勝劣，有行與不行。世尊（Bhagavān）已經得到法自在，因此那些像煩惱一樣畢竟不行。因此佛（Buddha）單獨被稱為善凈相續。就是因為這個緣故，行為沒有錯誤，得到不共法（āveṇika-dharma）、三念住（tri-smṛtyupasthāna）等。按照以上兩種解釋，其意思大體相同，而原因有所區別。前面的解釋是以不勤求慧及異相。
【English Translation】 English version 『Not contradictory,』 same as above. The two types of wrong wisdom encompass all wrong wisdom. Worldly wrong wisdom is the habitual energy of afflictions, which is the same as correct reasoning. Since it is said to be 『obstructed and non-specified,』 it is known that it does not belong to the nature of goodness. Furthermore, the twenty-eighth volume of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『Therefore, one should not diligently seek understanding in aspects such as taste, power, and maturity. Wisdom, together with dissimilar dharmas, acts as a cause, giving rise to subsequent wisdom of the same kind. This wisdom does not diligently seek understanding, and again acts as a cause, giving rise to wisdom that does not diligently seek understanding.』 In this way, revolving and continuing from beginningless time, cause and effect are linked, becoming habitual. Therefore, in those realms of taste and so on, one repeatedly becomes accustomed to wisdom that is incapable of understanding. This inferior wisdom that is produced is called non-afflicted ignorance. That is, these co-emergent mental factors and mental events are collectively called habitual energy. The principle must be so. It also says: 『Or some sentient beings, in a state of having afflictions, all have undefiled minds and continuums, which, due to the intermingling and薰染 (xūn rǎn, influence) of various afflictions, have the ability to give rise to the energy of afflictions. Therefore, all undefiled minds and their retinues arise as if with those different aspects, arising successively due to the power of repeated habituation.』 Therefore, in a body that has transcended faults, it is still called having habitual energy. The All-Knowing One (Sarvajna) forever cuts it off and does not engage in it. However, in the stage of having already severed what is to be abandoned by seeing (dṛṣṭi-heya), in the mind-continuum that is common to both defiled and undefiled, there remains the habitual nature of afflictions that tends to arise, which is the energy of afflictions to be abandoned by seeing. Among them, the defiled is called class-nature. After the Vajra Path (vajra-mārga) severs it, it will not manifest. If it is undefiled, it is called the habitual energy of afflictions to be abandoned by seeing, which is also severed by that path. Due to the difference in faculties, there is engagement and non-engagement. According to this treatise, since class-nature is not bodily habitual energy, it is known to be mental. It also says: 『If, in the stage of having already severed what is to be abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya), only in the undefiled mind-continuum does there remain the habitual nature of afflictions that tends to arise, which is the energy of afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation, called the habitual energy of afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation.』 Because it is afflicted, the no-more-learning (aśaikṣa) has already severed it. Depending on the superiority or inferiority of the faculties, there is engagement and non-engagement. The World-Honored One (Bhagavān) has already attained mastery over the Dharma, therefore those, like afflictions, ultimately do not engage. Therefore, the Buddha (Buddha) alone is called the continuum of goodness and purity. It is for this reason that actions have no errors, and one attains unshared dharmas (āveṇika-dharma), the three mindfulnesses (tri-smṛtyupasthāna), and so on. According to the above two explanations, their meanings are largely the same, but the causes are different. The previous explanation is based on non-diligent wisdom and dissimilar aspects.
法俱。展轉為因引生習氣。后釋以無染心。及與相續。由諸煩惱間雜所熏。有能順生煩惱氣分。由此為因引生習氣。是心．心所不取于身 元瑜師。引此文證兼取其身以為習氣者誤也。所以定知不通於身。正理對辨差別中雲。又若於事自．共相愚是名第一染無知相。若於諸法味．勢．熟．德．數．量．處．時．同．異等相不如實覺。是第二不染無知相 準此故知。正理二說。唯心。心所以為習氣。即彼相應慧名不染無知。準上正理。二文既同婆沙邪智習氣為體 故知。亦同婆沙唯無記性 又正理云。有劣無知無覆無記效能障解脫。是解脫障體 又云。諸大論師咸言。練根皆為遮遣見．修斷惑力所引發。無覆無記無知現行 準知上二文。定準無記準是心所。若兼通善。及通身者。有何文證。又違其理。凡言邪智不得名為正智。無知不得名知。善相應慧名為正智。如何名邪智。及名無知耶。又如非香嗅物受香嗅熏有香嗅習氣。香嗅之物即不如是。故知無記受熏。善．惡不爾 準上理教義極分明定是無記。既無理．教。何得通身．通善 二釋通外難者。有人難云。若唯無記不通善者。無色羅漢善心現前。應名為佛。爾時不成就不染無知故 通曰。準此難意不得論意。不染無知。佛與二乘有差別者。但論生與不生以釋別相。處
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『法俱』（Dharmas）輾轉相因為因，引生習氣（Vāsanā）。後來的解釋以無染心（undefiled mind），以及相續（continuity）為基礎。由於各種煩惱（Kleshas）間雜薰染，產生了能夠順勢引發煩惱的氣分（tendency）。因此，以此為因引生習氣。是心（Citta）、心所（Caitasika）不取于身——元瑜師（Yuan Yu）引用此文來證明兼取其身以為習氣是錯誤的。所以可以確定習氣不通於身。《正理對辨差別》（Nyāyānusāra）中說：『又如果對於事物的自相（Svalakṣaṇa）、共相（Sāmānyalakṣaṇa）愚昧無知，這被稱為第一染無知相（defiled ignorance）。如果對於諸法的味（taste）、勢（power）、熟（maturity）、德（virtue）、數（number）、量（quantity）、處（place）、時（time）、同（sameness）、異（difference）等相不如實覺知，這是第二不染無知相（undefiled ignorance）。』 依照這個說法可知，《正理》（Nyāyānusāra）的兩種說法都認為，只有心、心所才能作為習氣。與此相應之慧（Prajna）名為不染無知。依照上述《正理》（Nyāyānusāra），兩段文字都與《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā）相同，認為邪智（false wisdom）的習氣為體。因此可知，也與《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā）相同，唯是無記性（avyākṛta）。 又《正理》（Nyāyānusāra）說：『有劣無知（inferior ignorance），無覆無記性（uncovered and indeterminate nature）能夠障礙解脫（liberation），是解脫障體（obstacle to liberation）。』 又說：『諸位大論師都說，練根（training the roots）都是爲了遮遣見（views）、修斷惑力（cultivation to sever the power of delusion）所引發的無覆無記無知（uncovered and indeterminate ignorance）現行。』 依照以上兩段文字可知，可以確定無記是心所。如果兼通於善，以及通於身，有什麼樣的文獻證明？又違背其理。凡是稱為邪智的，就不能稱為正智（right wisdom）；無知就不能稱為知。與善相應的慧稱為正智，如何能稱為邪智，以及稱為無知呢？又比如非香之物嗅物，接受香氣薰染，有香氣習氣，香氣之物卻不是這樣。所以可知無記接受薰染，善、惡不是這樣。依照以上理教，義理極其分明，確定是無記。既然沒有理證、教證，怎麼能通於身、通於善呢？ 第二種解釋是用來駁通外難的。有人提出疑問說：『如果只有無記，不通於善，那麼無色界的阿羅漢（Arhat）善心現前，應該被稱為佛（Buddha）。因為那時沒有成就無染無知。』 回答說：依照這個疑問的用意，沒有理解論述的意圖。不染無知，佛與二乘（two vehicles）有差別，只是論述生與不生來解釋差別之處。
【English Translation】 English version 'Dharmas' mutually serve as causes, giving rise to Vāsanā (habitual tendencies). Later explanations are based on undefiled mind and continuity. Due to the intermingling and薰染 (fumigation) of various Kleshas (afflictions), there arises a tendency that can facilitate the arising of afflictions. Therefore, this serves as the cause for giving rise to Vāsanā. It is the Citta (mind) and Caitasika (mental factors) that do not take the body—Master Yuan Yu cited this passage to prove that it is wrong to include the body as Vāsanā. Therefore, it can be determined that Vāsanā does not extend to the body. The Nyāyānusāra (Treatise on Following the Principles) states: 'Furthermore, if one is ignorant of the Svalakṣaṇa (self-nature) and Sāmānyalakṣaṇa (general nature) of things, this is called the first defiled ignorance. If one does not truly perceive the taste, power, maturity, virtue, number, quantity, place, time, sameness, difference, etc., of Dharmas, this is the second undefiled ignorance.' According to this statement, it can be known that both statements in the Nyāyānusāra consider only the mind and mental factors as Vāsanā. The Prajna (wisdom) corresponding to this is called undefiled ignorance. According to the above Nyāyānusāra, both passages are the same as the Vibhāṣā (Great Commentary), considering the Vāsanā of false wisdom as the substance. Therefore, it can be known that it is also the same as the Vibhāṣā, being only of an avyākṛta (indeterminate) nature. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states: 'Inferior ignorance, with its uncovered and indeterminate nature, can obstruct liberation and is the obstacle to liberation.' It also states: 'All great masters say that training the roots is to prevent the uncovered and indeterminate ignorance manifested by the power of delusions severed by views and cultivation.' According to the above two passages, it can be determined that the indeterminate is a mental factor. If it extends to the wholesome and the body, what textual evidence is there? It also contradicts the principle. Anything called false wisdom cannot be called right wisdom; ignorance cannot be called knowledge. The Prajna corresponding to the wholesome is called right wisdom. How can it be called false wisdom or ignorance? Furthermore, just as a non-fragrant object is薰染 (fumigated) by fragrance when smelled, acquiring the Vāsanā of fragrance, the fragrant object is not like this. Therefore, it can be known that the indeterminate is薰染 (fumigated), but the wholesome and unwholesome are not. According to the above principles and teachings, the meaning is extremely clear: it is determined to be indeterminate. Since there is no logical or scriptural proof, how can it extend to the body or the wholesome? The second explanation is to refute external difficulties. Someone raises the question: 'If it is only indeterminate and does not extend to the wholesome, then when an Arhat in the formless realm has a wholesome mind, they should be called a Buddha. Because at that time, they have not achieved undefiled ignorance.' The response is: According to the intention of this question, the intention of the argument has not been understood. The difference between the Buddha and the two vehicles in undefiled ignorance is only discussed in terms of arising and not arising to explain the differences.
處文同。無一文說成不成別。無色羅漢善心現前。雖不成就不染無知。與佛是同。然佛不生。羅漢生故故不名佛。難既非難。文又無文。理全無理。故知不染無知定唯無記 三對妄通文者。妄通論云。婆沙但解邪行相智非實知故名之為邪。故云無記。正理出解脫障體及根障體故言無記。今者總出一切不染無知體故亦通善性 今詳。此釋全無理趣。婆沙但解邪行相智非如實知名之為邪。故云無記者。今說一切不染無知。豈亦通取如實知者。若如實知。即非無知。故正理辨差別云。若於味．熟．勢等不能如實覺。是不染無知相 準此。豈取如實知耶 又妄通云。無知有二。一者是善障法力劣。二者無記障法力勝。婆沙。正理據勝而說。故言無記。今言通善。亦據劣明者 難曰。正理說根障等可言無記。婆沙不明根障。因何不說於劣。又釋義法。兩俱有文可就理長。從一文正釋通一文說通善性。既無文．理。何得執通善性。通無記文 四破異說者。準正理．婆沙。不染無知唯慧為體。文極分明。何得有人執通余法。若有此釋不堪載文。何得謬敘十一師釋總違論文 第一師云。不染無知以未成佛來。鈍異熟心。心所為體 第二師云。以未成佛來。鈍四無記心．心所法為體 第三西方德光論師云。以未成佛來鈍自性無記心．心所
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "處文同（人名）。沒有一句話說成不成別。無色羅漢（超出物質世界的阿羅漢）善心現前。即使沒有成就，也不染著無知。與佛是相同的。然而佛不生滅，羅漢有生滅，所以不稱為佛。既然不是難題，文句又沒有問題，道理完全沒有不通順的地方。因此可知不染無知必定只是無記（非善非惡）。", "三種對妄通文的解釋。妄通論說，《婆沙論》只解釋了邪行相智（錯誤的修行認知），因為不是真實的認知，所以稱為無記。正理則解釋了解脫障的本體以及根障的本體，所以說是無記。現在總括一切不染無知的本體，所以也通於善性。", "現在詳細分析，這種解釋完全沒有道理。《婆沙論》只解釋了邪行相智，因為不是如實的認知，所以稱為邪，故說是無記。現在說一切不染無知，難道也包括如實知嗎？如果如實知，就不是無知。所以《正理》辨別差別時說，如果對於味、熟、勢等不能如實覺知，這就是不染無知的相。依照這個說法，難道會取如實知嗎？", "又妄通說，無知有兩種，一種是善障法力弱，一種是無記障法力強。《婆沙》、《正理》根據力強的來說，所以說是無記。現在說通於善，也是根據力弱來說。有人反駁說，《正理》說根障等可以說成無記，《婆沙》沒有說明根障，為什麼不說力弱的情況？又解釋義法，兩方面都有文句可以就道理長處來解釋，從一個文句正確地解釋，通於另一個文句來說明善性。既然沒有文句和道理，怎麼能執意說通於善性，通於無記的文句呢？", "四種破斥不同說法的情況。根據《正理》、《婆沙》，不染無知只有慧（智慧）為本體，文句非常分明。為什麼有人執意說通於其他法？如果有這種解釋，不值得記載在文中。為什麼會錯誤地敘述十一位論師的解釋，全部違背了論文？第一位論師說，不染無知以未成佛時，遲鈍的異熟心（果報心），以及心所為本體。第二位論師說，以未成佛時，遲鈍的四種無記心、心所法為本體。第三位西方德光論師說，以未成佛時，遲鈍的自性無記心、心所。" ], "english_translations": [ "English version", 'Chu Wentong (a person\'s name). There is not a single sentence that distinguishes success from failure. An Arhat (a perfected being) in the formless realm has good intentions present. Even if they have not achieved enlightenment, they are not tainted by ignorance. They are the same as the Buddha. However, the Buddha does not experience birth and death, while the Arhat does, so they are not called Buddha. Since it is not a difficult question, and the wording is not problematic, the reasoning is completely sound. Therefore, it can be known that untainted ignorance must only be non-definitive (neither good nor evil).', 'Three types of explanations that broadly connect to the text. The \'Wang Tong Lun\' says that the \'Vibhasa\' only explains the knowledge of incorrect practices, because it is not true knowledge, so it is called non-definitive. The \'Nyaya\' explains the essence of the obstacle to liberation and the essence of the root obstacle, so it is said to be non-definitive. Now, generalizing the essence of all untainted ignorance, it also extends to virtuous nature.', 'Now, upon detailed analysis, this explanation is completely unreasonable. The \'Vibhasa\' only explains the knowledge of incorrect practices, because it is not true knowledge, so it is called incorrect, hence it is said to be non-definitive. Now, when speaking of all untainted ignorance, does it also include true knowledge? If it is true knowledge, then it is not ignorance. Therefore, the \'Nyaya\' distinguishes differences by saying that if one cannot truly perceive taste, ripeness, strength, etc., this is the characteristic of untainted ignorance. According to this, would it include true knowledge?', 'Also, the \'Wang Tong\' says that there are two types of ignorance: one is that the power of the virtuous obstructing dharma is weak, and the other is that the power of the non-definitive obstructing dharma is strong. The \'Vibhasa\' and \'Nyaya\' speak according to the stronger power, so they say it is non-definitive. Now, saying that it extends to virtue is also according to the weaker power. Someone refutes by saying that the \'Nyaya\' says that root obstacles, etc., can be said to be non-definitive. The \'Vibhasa\' does not explain root obstacles, so why not speak of the weaker situation? Also, when explaining the meaning of the Dharma, both sides have sentences that can be explained according to the length of the reasoning. Correctly explaining from one sentence extends to another sentence to explain virtuous nature. Since there are no sentences or reasoning, how can one insist on extending to virtuous nature, extending to the non-definitive sentences?', 'Four types of refutations of different views. According to the \'Nyaya\' and \'Vibhasa\', untainted ignorance only has wisdom (prajna) as its essence, and the sentences are very clear. Why do some people insist on extending it to other dharmas? If there is such an explanation, it is not worth recording in the text. Why would one mistakenly narrate the explanations of eleven masters, all of which contradict the thesis? The first master says that untainted ignorance takes the dull, ripening mind (vipaka-citta) and mental factors as its essence when one has not yet become a Buddha. The second master says that it takes the dull four non-definitive minds and mental factors as its essence when one has not yet become a Buddha. The third Western master, De Guang, says that it takes the dull, self-natured non-definitive mind and mental factors as its essence when one has not yet become a Buddha.' ] }
法為體 第四師云。以未成佛來鈍眾同分為體。依此同分所起慧等觀境不明 已上四師若不錯敘即是無記。此釋薄有所知。即合依于經論。正理．婆沙分明唯無記慧為體性。因何前三師說兼心．心所。第四師取眾同分耶。應言前三雖說無記通局不同。皆慧為體。第四應云鈍眾同分所生劣慧為體 第五師。以不自在為體。引正理七十出解脫障體證此師釋 第六師云。以不得為體 第七師云。以不勤求等為體 此二亦引正理出解脫障為證。準正理師出解脫障體有四師說。一師以無記劣慧為體。此是以不染無知為體。正理詳為正義。后三。皆不用不染無知為體。正理廣破此之三師。是出解脫障體不同。非是說不染無知體性有異。正理七十破皆云不許是彰。不言不許是不染無知。將此三師說障不同。說為不染無知者。誤之甚也。如出教體。或說音聲。或云名句。復出聲體豈得云聲．或以名句為體。后四師說。論自立破。非宗所許不繁敘 五述體通局者。不染無知無覆無記劣慧為體。通四無記。異熟生心理不應疑。所以知通威儀．工巧。習氣相應劣慧名不染無知。二乘齊足越坑。迦葉起舞。是威儀習氣。畢凌伽喚河神為小婢等。是工巧習氣。故知定通三種無記。通變化者。有似貪．嗔等起變化者。然未見文。皆是習氣。故知亦通
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法為體：第四位論師說，以未成佛的鈍根眾生的共業果報為體。依據這種共業果報所產生的智慧等，觀察境界不清晰。以上四位論師如果敘述沒有錯誤，那就是無記。這種解釋略有所知，應當依據經論。《正理》、《婆沙》分明地說只有無記慧為體性。為什麼前三位論師說兼有心、心所？第四位論師取眾生共業果報呢？應該說前三位雖然說無記，但通達的範圍不同，都是以智慧為體。第四位應該說鈍根眾生共業果報所生的低劣智慧為體。 第五位論師，以不自在為體。引用《正理》第七十品，提出解脫障礙的本體來證實這位論師的解釋。 第六位論師說，以不得為體。 第七位論師說，以不勤求等為體。 這兩位也引用《正理》提出解脫障礙作為證據。根據《正理》論師提出的解脫障礙本體，有四種說法。一位論師以無記劣慧為體，這是以不染污無知為體。《正理》詳細地認為是正確的意義。后三位，都不用不染污無知為體。《正理》廣泛地駁斥這三位論師。這是提出解脫障礙的本體不同，不是說不染污無知的體性有差異。《正理》第七十品駁斥都說『不許』，沒有說『不許是不染污無知』。把這三位論師說的障礙不同，說成是不染污無知，那就大錯特錯了。例如提出教法之體，或者說是音聲，或者說是名句，又提出音聲之體，難道能說音聲、或者以名句為體嗎？后四位論師的說法，論著自己立論駁斥，不是本宗所允許的，不詳細敘述。 五、陳述本體的通達範圍：不染污無知、無覆無記劣慧為體，通達四種無記。異熟生心理不應該懷疑。所以知道通達威儀、工巧。與習氣相應的低劣智慧名為不染污無知。二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）並肩越過坑，迦葉（Kāśyapa，佛陀十大弟子之一，以頭陀苦行著稱）起舞，是威儀習氣。畢陵伽（Piyaṅgama，佛陀弟子）喚河神為小婢等，是工巧習氣。所以知道一定通達三種無記。通達變化者，有類似貪、嗔等產生變化的人，然而沒有見到經文。都是習氣，所以知道也通達。
【English Translation】 English version The Nature of Dharma: The fourth teacher says that it takes the shared karma of dull sentient beings who have not yet become Buddhas as its nature. Based on the wisdom and other qualities arising from this shared karma, the observation of objects is unclear. If the above four teachers are described correctly, then it is indeterminate. This explanation has limited knowledge and should be based on the scriptures and treatises. The Nyāyānusāra and Vibhāṣā clearly state that only indeterminate wisdom is its nature. Why did the first three teachers say that it includes mind and mental factors? Why does the fourth teacher take the shared karma of beings? It should be said that although the first three speak of indeterminate, their scope of understanding is different, but all take wisdom as their nature. The fourth should say that the inferior wisdom arising from the shared karma of dull sentient beings is its nature. The fifth teacher takes non-freedom as its nature. He quotes the seventieth chapter of the Nyāyānusāra to present the nature of the obstacle to liberation to confirm this teacher's explanation. The sixth teacher says that it takes non-attainment as its nature. The seventh teacher says that it takes non-diligence and so on as its nature. These two also cite the Nyāyānusāra to present the obstacle to liberation as evidence. According to the Nyāyānusāra teacher's presentation of the nature of the obstacle to liberation, there are four views. One teacher takes indeterminate inferior wisdom as its nature, which is to take non-defiled ignorance as its nature. The Nyāyānusāra details this as the correct meaning. The latter three do not use non-defiled ignorance as its nature. The Nyāyānusāra extensively refutes these three teachers. This is because the nature of the obstacle to liberation they present is different, not that there is a difference in the nature of non-defiled ignorance. The refutations in the seventieth chapter of the Nyāyānusāra all say 'not allowed,' and do not say 'not allowed is non-defiled ignorance.' To say that the different obstacles spoken of by these three teachers are non-defiled ignorance is a great mistake. For example, when presenting the nature of the teaching, one might say it is sound, or one might say it is name and phrase. If one then presents the nature of sound, could one say that sound, or name and phrase, is its nature? The views of the latter four teachers are established and refuted by the treatise itself, and are not allowed by our school, so they are not described in detail. 5. Stating the scope of the nature: Non-defiled ignorance, uncovered indeterminate inferior wisdom, is its nature, encompassing the four types of indeterminate. There should be no doubt about the result of maturation of mind and mental factors. Therefore, it is known to encompass deportment and skillful activities. Inferior wisdom corresponding to habitual tendencies is called non-defiled ignorance. The two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) walk side by side over a pit, and Kāśyapa (one of the ten great disciples of the Buddha, known for his ascetic practices) dances, which are habitual tendencies of deportment. Piyaṅgama (a disciple of the Buddha) calls the river goddess a little maid, etc., which are habitual tendencies of skillful activities. Therefore, it is known to definitely encompass the three types of indeterminate. As for encompassing transformations, there are those who produce transformations similar to greed, anger, etc., but no texts have been seen. All are habitual tendencies, so it is known to also encompass transformations.
變化 六對辨差別。正理二十八有三釋 第一釋云。今詳。二種無知相別。謂由此故立愚．智殊。如是名為染無知相。若由此故或有境中智不及愚是第二相 述曰。愚謂異生。智謂聖者。斷名聖者。不斷名凡。此由染污無知立愚．智別。或有境中羅漢不識赤鹽。異生善通三藏。是名于境智不及愚。準此異相。而不可說不染無知通所依身 第二釋云。又若斷已。佛與二乘皆無差別。是第一相。若有斷已。佛與二乘有行．不行。是第二相 述曰。染污無知三乘同斷。斷已不行自性斷故。皆無差別。不染無知三乘同斷。緣縛斷故。二乘容行。唯佛不行。故有差別 第三釋云。若於事中自．共相愚。是名第一染無知相。若於諸法味．勢．熟．德．數．量．處．時．同．異等相。不能如實覺。是不染無知 述曰。染污無知迷自．共相。不染無知謂于諸法味(諸法滋味或苦等味)勢(諸法損益等勢力)熟(諸法至成熟位)德(德用也)數(一二等數也)量(大少等量)處(近遠等處)時(近遠等時)同(相似)異(差別也)準第三釋。不染無知亦非所依身也 七明斷差別者。染污無知有其三義。一自性斷。謂對治道力。舍彼得時名之為斷故。二緣縛斷。謂望他身名緣縛斷。斷緣他身煩惱。至第九品方名斷故。若望自身無緣縛斷。三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 變化：六對辨差別。正理二十八有三種解釋。第一種解釋說：現在詳細說明，兩種無知（avidyā）的差別在於，由此而建立愚笨（moha）和智慧（jñāna）的差別，這稱為染污無知（kliṣṭāvidyā）的相。如果由此導致在某些境界中，智慧不如愚笨，這是第二種相。 解釋：愚笨指的是異生（pṛthagjana，凡夫），智慧指的是聖者（ārya）。斷除煩惱稱為聖者，未斷除煩惱稱為凡夫。這是由於染污無知而建立愚笨和智慧的差別。或者在某些境界中，阿羅漢（arhat）不認識赤鹽，而異生卻精通三藏（tripiṭaka）。這稱為在境界中智慧不如愚笨。根據這種不同的相，不能說不染污無知（akliṣṭāvidyā）遍及所依身（āśrayakāya）。 第二種解釋說：如果斷除之後，佛（buddha）與二乘（śrāvaka-pratyekabuddha，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）沒有差別，這是第一種相。如果斷除之後，佛與二乘有行與不行的差別，這是第二種相。 解釋：染污無知三乘共同斷除，斷除之後不再行，因為自性斷除的緣故，所以沒有差別。不染污無知三乘共同斷除，因為緣縛斷除的緣故，二乘可以行，只有佛不行，所以有差別。 第三種解釋說：如果在事物中對自相（svalakṣaṇa）和共相（sāmānyalakṣaṇa）愚昧，這稱為第一種染污無知的相。如果對於諸法的味（rasa，諸法的滋味或苦等味）、勢（śakti，諸法的損益等勢力）、熟（vipāka，諸法至成熟位）、德（guṇa，德用）、數（saṃkhyā，一二等數）、量（māṇa，大小等量）、處（sthāna，遠近等處）、時（kāla，遠近等時）、同（sādṛśya，相似）、異（vailakṣaṇya，差別）等相，不能如實覺知，這是不染污無知。 解釋：染污無知迷惑自相和共相。不染污無知是指對於諸法的味（諸法滋味或苦等味）、勢（諸法損益等勢力）、熟（諸法至成熟位）、德（德用）、數（一二等數）、量（大小等量）、處（遠近等處）、時（遠近等時）、同（相似）、異（差別）等相，不能如實覺知。根據第三種解釋，不染污無知也不是所依身。 七、說明斷除的差別：染污無知有三種含義。一是自性斷（svabhāva-prahāṇa），指通過對治道（pratipakṣamārga）的力量，捨棄彼得時，稱為斷除。二是緣縛斷（pratyaya-bandha-prahāṇa），指相對於他身而言，稱為緣縛斷。斷除緣於他身的煩惱，到第九品才稱為斷除。如果相對於自身而言，則沒有緣縛斷。三是...
【English Translation】 English version Change: Six pairs distinguish differences. The Correct Principle has twenty-eight with three explanations. The first explanation says: Now, in detail, the difference between the two kinds of ignorance (avidyā) lies in that, due to this, the difference between foolishness (moha) and wisdom (jñāna) is established. This is called the aspect of defiled ignorance (kliṣṭāvidyā). If, due to this, in some realms, wisdom is inferior to foolishness, this is the second aspect. Explanation: Foolishness refers to ordinary beings (pṛthagjana), and wisdom refers to noble ones (ārya). Severing afflictions is called a noble one, and not severing afflictions is called an ordinary being. This is due to defiled ignorance that the difference between foolishness and wisdom is established. Or, in some realms, an Arhat (arhat) does not recognize red salt, while an ordinary being is well-versed in the three baskets (tripiṭaka). This is called wisdom being inferior to foolishness in a realm. According to this different aspect, it cannot be said that undefiled ignorance (akliṣṭāvidyā) pervades the support body (āśrayakāya). The second explanation says: Furthermore, if after severance, there is no difference between the Buddha (buddha) and the Two Vehicles (śrāvaka-pratyekabuddha), this is the first aspect. If after severance, there is a difference between the Buddha and the Two Vehicles in terms of practice and non-practice, this is the second aspect. Explanation: Defiled ignorance is severed in common by the Three Vehicles. After severance, there is no further practice because of the severance of its nature, so there is no difference. Undefiled ignorance is severed in common by the Three Vehicles. Because of the severance of conditioned bondage, the Two Vehicles can still practice, but only the Buddha does not practice, so there is a difference. The third explanation says: If one is ignorant of the self-characteristic (svalakṣaṇa) and the common characteristic (sāmānyalakṣaṇa) in things, this is called the first aspect of defiled ignorance. If one cannot truly perceive the aspects of flavors (rasa, the tastes of dharmas, such as bitterness), powers (śakti, the powers of dharmas, such as benefit and harm), maturation (vipāka, the state of dharmas reaching maturity), virtues (guṇa, virtuous functions), numbers (saṃkhyā, such as one or two), quantities (māṇa, such as large or small), places (sthāna, such as near or far), times (kāla, such as near or far), similarities (sādṛśya), differences (vailakṣaṇya), etc., of all dharmas, this is undefiled ignorance. Explanation: Defiled ignorance is confused about the self-characteristic and the common characteristic. Undefiled ignorance refers to not being able to truly perceive the aspects of flavors (the tastes of dharmas, such as bitterness), powers (the powers of dharmas, such as benefit and harm), maturation (the state of dharmas reaching maturity), virtues (virtuous functions), numbers (such as one or two), quantities (such as large or small), places (such as near or far), times (such as near or far), similarities, differences, etc., of all dharmas. According to the third explanation, undefiled ignorance is also not the support body. Seven, explaining the difference in severance: Defiled ignorance has three meanings. First, self-nature severance (svabhāva-prahāṇa), which refers to, through the power of the antidote path (pratipakṣamārga), abandoning it and attaining the time, it is called severance. Second, conditioned bondage severance (pratyaya-bandha-prahāṇa), which refers to, relative to another's body, it is called conditioned bondage severance. Severing the afflictions conditioned by another's body, it is only called severance in the ninth category. If relative to one's own body, there is no conditioned bondage severance. Third...
不生斷。謂諸煩惱至不生位得畢竟不生。如見道惑至上忍位。如修道惑。利根聖人不出觀斷惑。加行道時。彼九品惑得永不生。鈍根聖人容卻退故無不生斷。菩薩．麟角。於七方便見修煩惱皆得不生。餘一類聲聞等。於七方便亦容見修惑不生。其相不顯故不述也。自餘一切無不生斷 不染無知有二種斷。一緣縛斷。謂彼彼地斷第九品染無知時。得緣縛斷。二不生斷。謂于彼彼位得畢竟不生。二乘分斷。佛全斷故 八述斷分位者。于中有二。一分斷。二全斷 分斷者。隨彼彼位畢竟不生。爾時名斷。如根定障等 全斷者。菩薩至金剛心。爾時總得一切不染無知非擇滅故。爾時斷盡。雖從五停觀一坐得大菩提。爾時即永不行。然得非擇滅盡。必至金剛喻定。如現觀邊俗心雖永不生。至三類智邊。得非擇滅。由於爾時勝緣闕故。其勝緣者。正理論云謂彼所依身。彼所依身與見道同。在見道時無容得起。出現觀時所依已滅。既闕勝依故不得起 問利根聖人不出觀斷惑。九煩惱于加行道得非擇滅。不染無知與此應同。五停心位應得不生。答未成佛來。容得與一類不染無知作其所依。此類不染無知。闕勝緣時。身得不起。設令三十三心中。若起散心亦容不了。爾時未具一切智故。道非是彼正對治故。且如欲界九依身中此身皆容作煩
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『不生斷』，指的是各種煩惱達到不再產生的階段，從而徹底不再產生。例如，見道所斷的迷惑達到上忍位，修道所斷的迷惑，利根的聖人不需要通過出觀來斷除迷惑，在加行道時，那九品迷惑就能永遠不再產生。鈍根的聖人因為可能退轉，所以沒有『不生斷』。菩薩和麟角喻獨覺，對於七方便所斷的見惑和修惑都能達到『不生』。其餘一些聲聞等，對於七方便所斷的見惑和修惑也可能達到『不生』，只是這種現象不明顯，所以不詳細說明。其餘一切都沒有『不生斷』。 『不染無知』有兩種斷除方式。一是『緣縛斷』，指的是在各個地斷除第九品染污的無知時，獲得『緣縛斷』。二是『不生斷』，指的是在各個階段達到徹底不再產生。二乘行人是部分斷除，佛是完全斷除。 下面講述斷除的分位，其中有兩種：一是分斷，二是全斷。 『分斷』指的是隨著各個階段的進展，某些煩惱徹底不再產生，這時就稱為『斷』，例如根定障等。 『全斷』指的是菩薩到達金剛心時，那時總能獲得一切不染無知和非擇滅，那時就斷盡了。雖然從五停心觀的一次禪坐就能獲得大菩提，那時就永遠不再造作，然而獲得非擇滅盡，必定要到金剛喻定。如同現觀邊的俗心雖然永遠不再產生，但要到三類智邊才能獲得非擇滅。因為那時缺少殊勝的因緣。所謂的殊勝因緣，正如《正理論》所說，指的是所依之身。這個所依之身與見道相同，在見道時不可能生起，出現觀時所依已經滅亡。既然缺少殊勝的所依，所以不能生起。 問：利根的聖人不需要通過出觀來斷除迷惑，九煩惱在加行道就能獲得非擇滅，不染無知與此應該相同，在五停心位就應該獲得『不生』。 答：在沒有成佛之前，還可能與一類不染無知作為所依。這類不染無知，在缺少殊勝因緣時，身體可能不會生起。即使在三十三心中，如果生起散亂心也可能不清楚，因為那時還沒有具備一切智慧，道也不是它的正對治。例如欲界的九依身中，這個身體都可能作為煩惱的所依。
【English Translation】 English version 'Non-arising Cessation (不生斷, Bu Sheng Duan)' refers to the state where all afflictions reach a point of non-origination, thus completely ceasing to arise. For example, the delusions severed in the Path of Seeing (見道, Jian Dao) reach the stage of Highest Endurance (上忍位, Shang Ren Wei); as for the delusions severed in the Path of Cultivation (修道, Xiu Dao), sharp-witted saints do not need to sever delusions through emerging from contemplation. During the Path of Application (加行道, Jia Xing Dao), those nine categories of delusions can be permanently prevented from arising. Dull-witted saints, because they may regress, do not have 'Non-arising Cessation'. Bodhisattvas and Pratyekabuddhas (麟角, Lin Jiao) (Solitary Buddhas), can achieve 'non-arising' for both the delusions of view and cultivation severed by the Seven Expedients (七方便, Qi Fang Bian). Some Shravakas (聲聞, Sheng Wen) and others may also achieve 'non-arising' for the delusions of view and cultivation severed by the Seven Expedients, but this phenomenon is not obvious, so it is not described in detail. All others do not have 'Non-arising Cessation'. 'Non-defiled Ignorance (不染無知, Bu Ran Wu Zhi)' has two types of cessation. The first is 'Cessation by Conditioned Binding (緣縛斷, Yuan Fu Duan)', which refers to obtaining 'Cessation by Conditioned Binding' when severing the ninth category of defiled ignorance in each respective realm. The second is 'Non-arising Cessation', which refers to reaching a state of complete non-origination in each respective stage. Those of the Two Vehicles (二乘, Er Cheng) partially sever it, while the Buddha completely severs it. Next, the stages of cessation are discussed, which include two types: partial cessation and complete cessation. 'Partial Cessation (分斷, Fen Duan)' refers to the permanent non-arising of certain afflictions as progress is made through each stage, at which point it is called 'cessation', such as the obstructions of roots and samadhi. 'Complete Cessation (全斷, Quan Duan)' refers to when a Bodhisattva reaches the Vajra Mind (金剛心, Jin Gang Xin), at which point all non-defiled ignorance and Nirodha-samapatti (非擇滅, Fei Ze Mie) are obtained, and cessation is complete. Although Great Bodhi can be attained from a single sitting of the Five Aspects of Mindfulness (五停心觀, Wu Ting Xin Guan), and no further actions are performed from that point on, the attainment of Nirodha-samapatti necessarily requires reaching the Vajra-like Samadhi (金剛喻定, Jin Gang Yu Ding). Just as mundane thoughts at the edge of Direct Perception (現觀, Xian Guan) no longer arise, Nirodha-samapatti is attained at the edge of the Three Types of Wisdom (三類智, San Lei Zhi). This is because the superior conditions are lacking at that time. As the Nyayanusara (正理論, Zheng Li Lun) says, the superior conditions refer to the body on which it depends. This body on which it depends is the same as in the Path of Seeing; it is impossible to arise in the Path of Seeing, and the basis has already perished when Direct Perception appears. Since the superior basis is lacking, it cannot arise. Question: Sharp-witted saints do not need to sever delusions through emerging from contemplation, and the nine afflictions can obtain Nirodha-samapatti during the Path of Application. Non-defiled ignorance should be the same, and 'non-arising' should be obtained in the Five Aspects of Mindfulness. Answer: Before becoming a Buddha, it is still possible to have a type of non-defiled ignorance as a basis. This type of non-defiled ignorance may not arise when superior conditions are lacking. Even if scattered thoughts arise in the thirty-three moments of thought, they may not be clear, because one does not yet possess all wisdom, and the path is not its direct antidote. For example, among the nine dependent bodies of the Desire Realm (欲界, Yu Jie), this body can serve as the basis for afflictions.
惱依。以道是煩惱正對治故。以是義故不可為例。又假令三十三心。出觀之時。智不及佛也。三十二心出觀之時。智又更劣也。余心準此。故知不染無知別別心起別別品斷。豈同煩惱。
論。已贊世尊至利他德圓。此下第三述利他德。此結引也。
論。拔眾生出生死泥者。牒頌文也 言眾生者。即有情異名。梵名薩埵。此名有情。梵名社伽(上聲)此名眾生。即與有情體一名異 有人云。若名眾生即兼非情。所以但言有情 誤也。故大乘同性經。楞伽主。白佛言。世尊。眾生何義。佛告楞伽主。眾生者。眾物和合。地．水．火．風．空．識。由如蘆束更轉相依。故言眾生 準此經文說其有情名眾生者。為破別有一物為有情體又準此文。有情．眾生。名異體同。眾生六界共成。有情亦爾。不可別指一法為有情體。唯識論師。指一實物阿賴耶識為有情體。即非六界合成。不顯有情是假非實。
論。由彼生死至所以喻泥釋頌泥義。三界五趣是生死處。業雜愛水其類于泥。處之即沉溺。出之即難。可漸下名沉沒故稱溺。九十五種不能離故難可得出。處泥必沉沒。小力不能出。二義同故以喻于泥。
論。眾生於中至拔濟令出。釋恩德也 眾生於中淪沒無救出悲境 世尊哀愍。是大悲也 隨授所應正法教
【現代漢語翻譯】 惱依（Nao Yi）。因為道是煩惱的正確對治方法。因為這個原因，不可以作為例子。又假設有三十三個心念，出觀的時候，智慧不如佛。三十二個心念出觀的時候，智慧又更差。其餘的心念依此類推。所以知道不染無知是各個心念分別生起，分別品類斷除，怎麼能和煩惱相同呢？
論：已經讚歎了世尊最殊勝的利他功德圓滿。下面第三部分陳述利他功德。這是總結和引導。
論：『拔眾生出生死泥者』，是照著頌文來寫的。『眾生』，就是『有情』的另一個名稱。梵文名叫薩埵（Sattva），這裡翻譯為『有情』。梵文名叫社伽（Sangha），這裡翻譯為『眾生』，也就是和『有情』是同一個本體，只是名稱不同。有人說，如果名叫『眾生』，就包含了非有情，所以只說『有情』。這是錯誤的。所以《大乘同性經》中，楞伽主（Lankavatara）問佛說：『世尊，眾生是什麼意思？』佛告訴楞伽主說：『眾生，是眾多事物和合而成，地、水、火、風、空、識，猶如蘆葦捆在一起互相依靠，所以叫做眾生。』根據這部經文，說有情名叫眾生，是爲了破除認為有一個單獨的物體作為有情的本體。又根據這段經文，有情和眾生，名稱不同，本體相同。眾生是六界共同形成的，有情也是這樣。不可以單獨指一種法作為有情的本體。《唯識論》的論師，指一個真實的物體阿賴耶識（Alaya-vijnana）作為有情的本體，就不是六界合成的，不能夠顯示有情是虛假的而不是真實的。
論：『由彼生死至所以喻泥釋頌泥義』。三界五趣是生死的地方。業和愛如同混雜的水，類似於泥。處在其中就會沉溺，出來就很困難。可以逐漸向下叫做沉沒，所以稱為『溺』。九十五種外道不能脫離，所以難以出來。處在泥中必定沉沒，小小的力量不能出來。這兩個意義相同，所以用泥來比喻。
論：『眾生於中至拔濟令出』，解釋恩德。眾生在其中沉淪，沒有救助，是悲慘的境地。世尊哀憐同情，是大悲。隨順傳授所應的正法教義。
【English Translation】 Nao Yi. Because the path is the correct antidote to afflictions. For this reason, it cannot be taken as an example. Furthermore, suppose there are thirty-three thoughts; when emerging from contemplation, their wisdom is inferior to that of the Buddha. When thirty-two thoughts emerge from contemplation, their wisdom is even more inferior. The remaining thoughts are similar. Therefore, it is known that non-afflicted ignorance arises separately in each thought, and is severed in separate categories. How can it be the same as afflictions?
Treatise: The World-Honored One's supreme virtue of benefiting others has been praised as complete. The third part below describes the virtue of benefiting others. This is a summary and introduction.
Treatise: 'Pulling beings out of the mud of birth and death' is based on the verse. 'Beings' is another name for 'sentient beings'. The Sanskrit name is Sattva, which is translated here as 'sentient beings'. The Sanskrit name is Sangha, which is translated here as 'beings', which means it has the same essence as 'sentient beings', but a different name. Some people say that if it is called 'beings', it includes non-sentient beings, so only 'sentient beings' is mentioned. This is wrong. Therefore, in the Mahayana Samdhinirmocana Sutra, Lankavatara asked the Buddha: 'World-Honored One, what is the meaning of beings?' The Buddha told Lankavatara: 'Beings are the combination of many things, earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness, just like reeds bundled together relying on each other, so they are called beings.' According to this sutra, saying that sentient beings are called beings is to refute the idea that there is a separate entity as the essence of sentient beings. Also, according to this passage, sentient beings and beings have different names but the same essence. Beings are formed by the six elements together, and so are sentient beings. It is not possible to single out one dharma as the essence of sentient beings. The masters of the Vijnanavada school point to one real thing, Alaya-vijnana, as the essence of sentient beings, which is not composed of the six elements, and cannot show that sentient beings are false and not real.
Treatise: 'From that birth and death to the reason for using mud to explain the meaning of mud in the verse'. The Three Realms and Five Paths are the places of birth and death. Karma and love are like mixed water, similar to mud. Being in it will cause drowning, and getting out is difficult. Gradually going down can be called sinking, so it is called 'drowning'. The ninety-five kinds of heretics cannot escape, so it is difficult to get out. Being in the mud will definitely sink, and small forces cannot get out. These two meanings are the same, so mud is used as a metaphor.
Treatise: 'Beings in it to rescue and bring out', explains the grace. Beings are sinking in it, without rescue, which is a tragic situation. The World-Honored One's compassion is great compassion. He transmits the correct Dharma teachings according to what is appropriate.
手。巧便智也 拔濟令出。悲事成也 顯宗論云。諸有成就巧智大悲。授如應言。拔濟令出。此即由悲故欲救。由巧智故能救。大悲。巧智。名雖不同。是佛利他有漏智攝。為恩德體。兼取隨行。義如常釋。
論。已贊佛德次中敬禮。此下第四述敬禮相。此結引也。
論。敬禮如是。至名如理師。牒頌釋也 稽首接足故稱敬禮者。釋頌敬禮二字 稽之言至 首之謂頭。以已之首至佛之足。表敬禮敬。禮通三業。故攝論云。我以身．口．意頂禮世尊足 世親菩薩敬雖偏說身。必具三業。頌讚是語業。稽首是身業。起二是意業 諸有具前自他利德故云如是者。釋頌第三。二字 如是。即是指前有德人也 如實無倒教授誡勖名如理師釋頌下三字也。言必契理名為如實。法應時機名為無倒。勸行有益名為教授。遮行無益名為誡勖。故婆沙十六云。遮無利益故名教誡。與有利益故名教授 言無倒者。倒有三種。一法倒。二人倒。三時倒。法倒則識機不識法。如知此人多貪為說慈悲觀。人倒則識法不識機。如知不凈觀。能治多貪。不識機故教多嗔者。時倒雖識機法。而說失時。或根未熟而說。或根已熟不說。逆時即無智慧。過時是無慈悲。如來說法離此三倒故名如理師。
論。如理師言至與愿神通。上明所禮之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 手。指巧妙方便的智慧，能夠拔除救濟眾生令其脫離苦難。這是由大悲心促成的事情。顯宗的論著中說：『凡是成就了巧妙智慧和大悲心的人，（佛）會根據他們的情況給予相應的教導，拔除救濟他們令其脫離苦難。』這說明由於大悲心，所以想要救度眾生；由於巧妙智慧，所以能夠救度眾生。大悲心和巧妙智慧，名稱雖然不同，但都是佛陀利益他人的有漏智慧所包含的，是恩德的本體，也包含隨之而來的行為。其含義如常解釋。
論：已經讚歎了佛的功德，接下來是中間的敬禮部分。下面第四部分陳述敬禮的相狀，這是總結和引出下文。
論：『敬禮如是……乃至名為如理師。』這是重複頌文並加以解釋。『稽首接足』所以稱為敬禮，這是解釋頌文中的『敬禮』二字。『稽』的意思是『至』，『首』的意思是『頭』。用自己的頭接觸佛的腳，表示恭敬和禮拜。『禮』包含身、口、意三業。所以《攝大乘論》中說：『我以身、口、意頂禮世尊足。』世親（Vasubandhu）菩薩的敬禮雖然偏重於身業，但必然包含三業。頌讚是語業，稽首是身業，生起（敬意和信心）是意業。『諸有具前自他利德故云如是者』，這是解釋頌文中的第三個字『如是』。『如是』，就是指前面所說的具有功德的人。『如實無倒教授誡勖名如理師』，這是解釋頌文中的最後三個字。言語必定符合真理，稱為『如實』；教法應適應時機，稱為『無倒』；勸人行有益之事，稱為『教授』；阻止人做無益之事，稱為『誡勖』。所以《婆沙論》第十六卷說：『阻止無利益的事情，所以稱為教誡；給予有利益的事情，所以稱為教授。』所說的『無倒』，有三種顛倒：一是法倒，即只認識時機而不認識法；二是人倒，即只認識法而不認識時機，比如知道不凈觀可以治療貪慾，但不認識時機，教導嗔恨心重的人修習；三是時倒，即雖然認識時機和法，但說法不合時宜，或者根機尚未成熟就說，或者根機已經成熟卻不說。違背時機就是沒有智慧，錯過時機就是沒有慈悲。如來說法遠離這三種顛倒，所以稱為如理師。
論：『如理師』這句話……乃至『與愿神通』。上面說明了所敬禮的
【English Translation】 English version 『Hand』 refers to skillful and expedient wisdom, capable of rescuing beings and liberating them from suffering. This is accomplished through great compassion. The Sh顯宗論 (Xianzong Lun) states: 『Those who have achieved skillful wisdom and great compassion, (the Buddha) will instruct them according to their circumstances, rescuing them and liberating them from suffering.』 This illustrates that due to great compassion, one desires to save beings; and due to skillful wisdom, one is able to save them. Great compassion and skillful wisdom, though different in name, are both encompassed by the Buddha's altruistic, conditioned wisdom, serving as the essence of grace and also including accompanying actions. The meaning is as explained regularly.
Treatise: Having praised the Buddha's virtues, next is the middle section on reverence. The fourth section below describes the aspects of reverence, which is a summary and introduction to what follows.
Treatise: 『Reverence to such… even named the Teacher of Reason.』 This is a repetition and explanation of the verse. 『Bowing the head and touching the feet』 is why it is called reverence, explaining the words 『reverence』 in the verse. 『稽 (qi)』 means 『to reach,』 and 『首 (shou)』 means 『head.』 Using one's own head to reach the Buddha's feet expresses respect and reverence. 『禮 (li)』 encompasses the three karmas of body, speech, and mind. Therefore, the Compendium of Mahayana states: 『I bow with body, speech, and mind to the feet of the World Honored One.』 Although Vasubandhu (世親) Bodhisattva's reverence emphasizes bodily action, it necessarily includes the three karmas. Praising is verbal action, bowing the head is bodily action, and generating (respect and faith) is mental action. 『Those who possess the aforementioned virtues of benefiting self and others are called such,』 explaining the third word 『such』 in the verse. 『Such』 refers to the virtuous individuals mentioned earlier. 『Truthful, non-inverted teaching and exhortation are named the Teacher of Reason,』 explaining the last three words of the verse. Words that certainly accord with truth are called 『truthful』; teachings that adapt to the occasion are called 『non-inverted』; encouraging beneficial actions is called 『teaching』; and preventing harmful actions is called 『exhortation.』 Therefore, the sixteenth volume of the Vibhasa states: 『Preventing non-beneficial things is called exhortation; giving beneficial things is called teaching.』 The 『non-inverted』 refers to three types of inversion: first, inversion of the Dharma, which is recognizing the occasion but not recognizing the Dharma; second, inversion of the person, which is recognizing the Dharma but not recognizing the occasion, such as knowing that the contemplation of impurity can cure greed, but not recognizing the occasion and teaching it to someone with strong anger; third, inversion of the time, which is recognizing the occasion and the Dharma but speaking inappropriately, either speaking before the faculties are mature or not speaking after the faculties are mature. Going against the occasion is lacking wisdom, and missing the occasion is lacking compassion. The Tathagata's teaching is free from these three inversions, so he is called the Teacher of Reason.
Treatise: The phrase 『Teacher of Reason』… even 『supernatural powers of granting wishes.』 The above explains the object of reverence.
師體具三德。下釋如理師名。從恩德也 如理師言顯利他者。總釋也 能方便說如理正教者。釋有巧便智 從生死泥拔眾生出者 悲拔苦也。由斯悲智恩德圓也。不由威力與愿神通者。簡凡．小也 不由威力。簡輪王以王威力令行十善等 不由與愿。簡父母天神。但有深愿。不能救也 不由神通。簡獨覺等。現通教化暫令生信。不能說法令出生死。此等皆非如理師也。不能拔眾生出生死泥故。
論。禮如理師欲何所作。寄問生起。
論。對法藏論我當說者。此下第五述歸敬意標頌答也。
論。教誡學徒故稱為論。釋論名也 教。謂教授。令修擇法 誡。謂誡勖。令滅煩惱。此是對法功能故舉此釋論。故下文云。若離擇法。定無餘能滅諸惑勝方便 故稱為論。結論名也 即是問答分別教誡學徒之義。名之為論。
論。其論者何。已下。第二明發起序。舉論名體發起本頌一切法故 文中有四。一出昔論名體。二釋今論名。三明說論意四明先說人。此半頌第一齣昔論名體。文中有三。初頌前問起。次舉頌答。后長行釋。此文初也。
論。謂對法藏。釋論名也。
論。何謂對法。問論體。
頌曰至諸慧論舉頌答也。梵云伽陀。舊名為偈此訛略也。訛伽為偈又略其陀 曰者。詞也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 一位導師應具備三種美德。下面解釋『如理師』（Rulishi，指符合正理的導師）的含義，從恩德方面解釋：『如理師』這個稱謂，彰顯了利他性。這是總體的解釋。『能方便說如理正教者』，解釋了具有善巧方便的智慧。『從生死泥拔眾生出者』，是悲心拔除眾生的痛苦。由於這種悲心和智慧，恩德才得以圓滿。『不由威力與愿神通者』，是爲了區分凡夫和小乘修行者。『不由威力』，是爲了區分轉輪王，因為轉輪王只能用王者的威力來推行十善等。『不由與愿』，是爲了區分父母和天神，他們只有深切的願望，卻無法真正救度眾生。『不由神通』，是爲了區分獨覺等，他們展現神通教化，只能暫時讓眾生生起信心，卻不能說法使眾生脫離生死。這些都不是真正的『如理師』，因為他們不能拔眾生出生死泥潭。
論：禮敬如理師，想要做什麼呢？這是通過提問來引出下文。
論：對於《對法藏論》（Abhidharma Pitaka），我將要宣說。這以下是第五部分，陳述歸敬之意，標明頌文的回答。
論：教誡學徒，所以稱為『論』。這是解釋『論』的名稱。『教』，指的是教授，使學徒修習選擇法（Dharmapravicaya，指辨別法義的智慧）。『誡』，指的是告誡勉勵，使學徒滅除煩惱。這是因為《對法》具有這樣的功能，所以用這些來解釋『論』。因此下文說：『如果離開了選擇法，就一定沒有其他能夠滅除諸惑的殊勝方便。』所以稱為『論』。這是總結『論』的名稱。也就是問答分別，教誡學徒的意義，稱之為『論』。
論：這個『論』是什麼呢？以下是第二部分，闡明發起序。舉出論的名稱和體性，發起根本頌文，因為其包含一切法。文中包含四個方面：一是指出過去的論的名稱和體性，二是解釋現在的論的名稱，三是闡明宣說論的意圖，四是說明先前的宣說者。這半頌是第一部分，指出過去的論的名稱和體性。文中包含三個方面：首先是頌文提問，其次是舉出頌文回答，最後是長行解釋。這段文字是第一個方面。
論：所謂《對法藏》（Abhidharma Pitaka），這是解釋論的名稱。
論：什麼是『對法』（Abhidharma）？這是提問論的體性。
頌曰：乃至諸慧論。這是舉出頌文回答。梵語『伽陀』（Gatha），舊譯名為『偈』，這是訛略的說法。把『伽』訛略為『偈』，又省略了『陀』。『曰』，是說的意思。
【English Translation】 English version: A teacher should possess three virtues. The following explains the meaning of 'Rulishi' (如理師, a teacher who conforms to the right principles), explaining it from the aspect of grace and virtue: The term 'Rulishi' highlights altruism. This is a general explanation. 'One who can skillfully explain the correct teachings of Ruli (如理正教)' explains having skillful wisdom. 'One who pulls beings out of the mud of Samsara (生死泥)' is compassionately removing the suffering of beings. Because of this compassion and wisdom, grace and virtue are perfected. 'Not by power, wishes, or supernatural abilities' is to distinguish ordinary people and practitioners of the Lesser Vehicle (小乘). 'Not by power' is to distinguish the Chakravartin (轉輪王), because the Chakravartin can only use the power of a king to promote the ten virtues, etc. 'Not by wishes' is to distinguish parents and gods, who only have deep wishes but cannot truly save beings. 'Not by supernatural abilities' is to distinguish Pratyekabuddhas (獨覺) and others, who display supernatural powers to teach and can only temporarily inspire faith in beings, but cannot preach the Dharma to liberate beings from Samsara. These are not true 'Rulishi' because they cannot pull beings out of the mud of Samsara.
Treatise: Paying homage to the Rulishi, what is one intending to do? This is to introduce the following text through questioning.
Treatise: Regarding the Abhidharma Pitaka (對法藏論), I am going to expound. The following is the fifth part, stating the intention of paying homage and marking the answer of the verse.
Treatise: To instruct and admonish disciples, hence it is called 'Treatise'. This is explaining the name 'Treatise'. 'Instruct' refers to teaching, enabling disciples to cultivate the selection of Dharma (Dharmapravicaya, 擇法, the wisdom of discerning the meaning of Dharma). 'Admonish' refers to exhortation, enabling disciples to extinguish afflictions. This is because the Abhidharma has such functions, so these are used to explain 'Treatise'. Therefore, the following text says: 'If one is separated from the selection of Dharma, there will certainly be no other excellent means to extinguish all delusions.' Therefore, it is called 'Treatise'. This is summarizing the name 'Treatise'. That is, the meaning of questioning and answering, distinguishing, instructing, and admonishing disciples is called 'Treatise'.
Treatise: What is this 'Treatise'? The following is the second part, clarifying the introductory preface. It raises the name and nature of the treatise, initiating the fundamental verses because it contains all Dharmas. The text contains four aspects: First, it points out the name and nature of past treatises; second, it explains the name of the present treatise; third, it clarifies the intention of expounding the treatise; and fourth, it explains the previous expounder. This half-verse is the first part, pointing out the name and nature of past treatises. The text contains three aspects: First, the verse raises the question; second, it raises the verse to answer; and finally, there is a lengthy explanation. This text is the first aspect.
Treatise: The so-called Abhidharma Pitaka (對法藏), this is explaining the name of the treatise.
Treatise: What is 'Abhidharma' (對法)? This is asking about the nature of the treatise.
Verse says: Even to all wisdom treatises. This is raising the verse to answer. The Sanskrit word 'Gatha' (伽陀) was formerly translated as '偈' (verse), which is an abbreviated error. '伽' (Ga) is abbreviated to '偈' (Ji), and '陀' (tha) is omitted. '曰' (Yue) means 'to say'.
頌中有兩句。上句出勝義對法體。下句出世俗對法體。
論曰至阿毗達磨長行釋也 就中有二。一出對法體。二釋對法名 就出體中有二。一出勝義對法體。二出世俗對法體。此文出勝義也。文中有二。一自性。二眷屬 慧謂擇法者。出惠體也。惠能簡擇故名擇法。是即簡擇四聖諦故釋擇法名。此以擇法出慧體也 凈謂無漏者。釋凈名也。以無漏故名之為凈。無漏即是離垢為義。諸漏名垢。擇法能離故名凈慧 問何緣唯無漏慧名勝義對法。答由此現觀諸法相已不重迷故 問既諸心．心所總名對法。何故說慧為自性。受等隨行。不說受等為自性。慧等隨行。答慧于見等三現觀中皆有能故。生等．及色有事非余。受等唯通緣．事現觀 問受等各有領納等用。如慧能見。應與慧同。皆應得名自性對法。答受等如盲。豈得名為自性對法。不能簡擇四聖諦故。以于現觀苦等相中。其見現觀最為殊勝。于諸諦中簡擇轉故。受等雖與凈慧俱行。而慧力持趣彼彼境。故於現觀非為最勝 是故唯無漏慧得自性名非受等也 問何故不說忍智．及見。唯立慧名。答忍唯見道一分。智非忍故。智不遍見道。忍非智故。見不遍無學。盡．無生非見故 慧遍一切 對法亦爾。故以凈慧出對法體。凈簡有漏。故知。即是一切無漏慧名勝義對法
【現代漢語翻譯】 頌中有兩句。上句出自勝義對法（Paramattha-Abhidhamma，究竟真理的阿毗達磨）的體性，下句出自世俗對法（Saṃvṛti-Abhidhamma，相對真理的阿毗達磨）的體性。
論曰：以下是阿毗達磨的長行解釋。其中分為兩部分：一是闡述對法的體性，二是解釋對法的名稱。在闡述體性中，又分為兩部分：一是闡述勝義對法的體性，二是闡述世俗對法的體性。此文闡述的是勝義對法。文中包含兩個方面：一是自性，二是眷屬。慧，指的是能進行選擇判斷的智慧。這裡闡述的是慧的體性。慧能夠進行簡擇，因此被稱為擇法。這是因為慧能夠簡擇四聖諦，所以解釋為擇法。這裡用擇法來闡述慧的體性。凈，指的是無漏。這是對『凈』這個詞的解釋。因為是無漏的，所以稱之為『凈』。無漏的意思就是遠離垢染。諸漏被稱為垢染。擇法能夠遠離垢染，所以稱為凈慧。
問：為什麼只有無漏慧才能被稱為勝義對法？答：因為通過無漏慧現觀諸法實相之後，就不會再迷惑。
問：既然所有心和心所都總稱為對法，為什麼只說慧是自性，而受等是隨行，而不說受等是自性，慧等是隨行？答：因為慧在見等三種現觀中都具有作用。而生等以及色法，有其特定的作用，不能普遍適用於其他。受等只能通於緣和事現觀。
問：受等各有領納等作用，如同慧能見，應該與慧相同，都應該被稱為自性對法。答：受等如同盲人，怎麼能被稱為自性對法呢？因為受等不能簡擇四聖諦。在現觀苦等相時，見現觀最為殊勝，因為它能在諸諦中進行簡擇。受等雖然與凈慧一同執行，但慧的力量能夠引導它們趨向各自的境界，因此在現觀中，慧不是最殊勝的。所以只有無漏慧才能被稱為自性，而不是受等。
問：為什麼不說忍智以及見，而隻立慧名？答：因為忍只是見道的一部分，智不是忍，所以智不遍及見道。忍不是智，所以忍不遍及無學道。盡智和無生智不是見。慧遍及一切，對法也是如此。所以用凈慧來闡述對法的體性。『凈』字是爲了簡別有漏慧。因此可知，一切無漏慧被稱為勝義對法。
【English Translation】 There are two lines in the verse. The first line comes from the essence of Paramattha-Abhidhamma (Ultimate Abhidhamma), and the second line comes from the essence of Saṃvṛti-Abhidhamma (Conventional Abhidhamma).
The treatise says: The following is a detailed explanation of the Abhidhamma. It is divided into two parts: first, to explain the essence of Abhidhamma; second, to explain the name of Abhidhamma. The explanation of the essence is further divided into two parts: first, to explain the essence of Paramattha-Abhidhamma; second, to explain the essence of Saṃvṛti-Abhidhamma. This text explains Paramattha-Abhidhamma. The text includes two aspects: first, the self-nature; second, the retinue. Wisdom (慧, prajñā) refers to the one who discerns the Dharma. This explains the essence of wisdom. Wisdom can discern, so it is called 'Discernment of Dharma' (擇法, dharmapravicaya). This is because wisdom can discern the Four Noble Truths, so it is explained as 'Discernment of Dharma'. Here, 'Discernment of Dharma' is used to explain the essence of wisdom. Purity (凈, viśuddhi) refers to the un-leaked (無漏, anāsrava). This is an explanation of the word 'purity'. Because it is un-leaked, it is called 'purity'. 'Un-leaked' means being free from defilements. The leaks (漏, āsrava) are called defilements. Discernment of Dharma can remove defilements, so it is called pure wisdom.
Question: Why is it that only un-leaked wisdom is called Paramattha-Abhidhamma? Answer: Because after directly perceiving the true nature of all dharmas through un-leaked wisdom, one will not be confused again.
Question: Since all minds and mental factors are collectively called Abhidhamma, why is it said that wisdom is the self-nature, while reception (受, vedanā) and others are the retinue? Why not say that reception and others are the self-nature, while wisdom and others are the retinue? Answer: Because wisdom has the ability to function in all three types of direct perception, such as seeing. Production (生, jāti) and form (色, rūpa) have specific functions and cannot be universally applied to others. Reception and others can only be applied to the perception of conditions and events.
Question: Reception and others each have functions such as receiving, just as wisdom can see. They should be the same as wisdom and should all be called self-nature Abhidhamma. Answer: Reception and others are like blind people. How can they be called self-nature Abhidhamma? Because reception and others cannot discern the Four Noble Truths. In the direct perception of suffering and other aspects, the direct perception of seeing is the most excellent because it can discern among the truths. Although reception and others operate together with pure wisdom, the power of wisdom can guide them towards their respective realms. Therefore, in direct perception, wisdom is not the most excellent. Therefore, only un-leaked wisdom can be called self-nature, not reception and others.
Question: Why not mention forbearance (忍, kṣānti), knowledge (智, jñāna), and seeing (見, dṛṣṭi), but only establish the name of wisdom? Answer: Because forbearance is only a part of the path of seeing, and knowledge is not forbearance, so knowledge does not pervade the path of seeing. Forbearance is not knowledge, so forbearance does not pervade the path of no-more-learning (無學, aśaikṣa). Exhaustion-knowledge (盡智, kṣayajñāna) and non-arising-knowledge (無生智, anutpādajñāna) are not seeing. Wisdom pervades everything, and so does Abhidhamma. Therefore, pure wisdom is used to explain the essence of Abhidhamma. The word 'pure' is to distinguish it from leaked wisdom. Therefore, it can be known that all un-leaked wisdom is called Paramattha-Abhidhamma.
凈慧眷屬名曰隨行者。出隨行對法體也 正理論云。何謂隨行。謂慧隨轉色。受．想等諸心所法。生等。及心。名為隨轉 問隨轉行。為同爲異。答隨即是隨行。故正理釋眷屬對法雲。何謂隨行。謂慧隨轉 既以隨轉釋于隨行。明知二義亦無差別 問若爾即慧不應名轉但有隨轉。所以知然。釋俱有因中。正理．顯宗皆云四句。有轉非隨轉。謂心王 有隨轉非轉。謂心王上生等 有亦轉亦隨轉。謂心相應法 第四句可知 準此。慧非是王如何名轉。答若舉心為所隨。即唯心為轉。若舉慧為所隨。即唯慧為轉。俱有因中釋心為所隨故。唯心為轉。此中以慧為所隨故。唯慧為轉 問得為隨行不。答得非隨行。故正理出眷屬對法體中。不言得故。婆沙第三解得非世第一法中雲。何與彼法不相隨行。又俱有因中雲。以得或前或后。所以非俱有因 故知．雖有得起與法俱時。非隨行．隨轉也 有人云。隨轉有二。一俱有因故名隨轉。二相隨順故名隨轉 隨行亦有二。一俱有因故名隨行。二相隨順故名隨行。若諸論中說得為隨行．隨轉。據相隨順說。若諸論中說得非隨行隨轉。據非俱有因說 彈云。既不見文豈得斟酌。有何文證而為此釋。詳其言義得非隨行。亦非隨轉。隨轉。隨行皆是定俱起義。非不定偏俱起名曰隨行。如欲界心起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 凈慧（智慧）的眷屬被稱為隨行者。出自隨行所對應的法體。《正理論》中說：『什麼是隨行？』是指智慧隨著色（物質）、受（感受）、想（表象）、等諸心所法（心理活動），以及生等（生起等），和心（意識）一起運轉，稱為隨轉。 問：隨轉行是相同還是不同？答：隨行就是隨轉。所以《正理論》解釋眷屬對法時說：『什麼是隨行？』是指智慧隨著運轉。既然用隨轉來解釋隨行，就表明這兩個概念沒有差別。 問：如果這樣，那麼智慧不應該被稱為『轉』，而只能是『隨轉』。為什麼這麼說呢？在解釋俱有因（同時存在的因）時，《正理論》和《顯宗論》都說了四句話：有轉非隨轉，指的是心王（根本意識）；有隨轉非轉，指的是心王上的生等（生起等）；有既轉又隨轉，指的是心相應法（與心相關的心理活動）；第四句可以類推得知。按照這個說法，智慧不是心王，怎麼能被稱為『轉』呢？ 答：如果以心作為所隨從的對象，那麼只有心才能被稱為『轉』。如果以智慧作為所隨從的對象，那麼只有智慧才能被稱為『轉』。在俱有因中，因為解釋的是心作為所隨從的對象，所以只有心被稱為『轉』。這裡因為以智慧作為所隨從的對象，所以只有智慧被稱為『轉』。 問：『得』（獲得）是隨行嗎？答：『得』不是隨行。所以《正理論》在闡述眷屬對法的法體時，沒有提到『得』。在《婆沙論》第三解中，解釋『得』不是世第一法時說：『什麼與那個法不相隨行？』而且在俱有因中說：『因為『得』可能在前也可能在後，所以不是俱有因。』因此可知，即使有『得』生起與法同時，也不是隨行、隨轉。 有人說：隨轉有兩種，一是俱有因所以稱為隨轉，二是互相隨順所以稱為隨轉。隨行也有兩種，一是俱有因所以稱為隨行，二是互相隨順所以稱為隨行。如果諸論中說『得』是隨行、隨轉，那是根據互相隨順來說的。如果諸論中說『得』不是隨行、隨轉，那是根據不是俱有因來說的。 反駁說：既然沒有看到相關經文，怎麼能隨意揣測？有什麼經文可以證明這種解釋？詳細分析其言語含義，『得』既不是隨行，也不是隨轉。隨轉、隨行都是指一定同時生起的含義，不是不確定、部分同時生起就能稱為隨行的。比如欲界心生起。
【English Translation】 English version The retinue of Pure Wisdom (Jinghui) is called 'Followers' (Suixingzhe). This originates from the Dharma-body corresponding to 'Following'. The Nyāyānusāra (Zheng Lilun) says: 'What is 'Following'?' It refers to wisdom following after form (Se, matter), sensation (Shou), perception (Xiang), and other mental functions (Xin suo fa), as well as arising (Sheng) and so on, and the mind (Xin, consciousness), all of which are called 'Accompanying' (Suizhuan). Question: Are 'Accompanying Action' (Suizhuanxing) and 'Following' the same or different? Answer: 'Following' is the same as 'Accompanying'. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra explains the Dharma of Retinue by saying: 'What is 'Following'?' It refers to wisdom following after the operation. Since 'Accompanying' is used to explain 'Following', it is clear that the two meanings are not different. Question: If that is the case, then wisdom should not be called 'Operating' (Zhuan), but only 'Accompanying'. Why is that? When explaining the 'Co-existent Cause' (Ju you yin), both the Nyāyānusāra and the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Xian Zong) state four sentences: 'There is operating but not accompanying,' referring to the 'Mind-King' (Xin Wang, principal consciousness); 'There is accompanying but not operating,' referring to arising and so on in the Mind-King; 'There is both operating and accompanying,' referring to mental functions associated with the mind (Xin xiang ying fa); the fourth sentence can be inferred. According to this, wisdom is not the Mind-King, so how can it be called 'Operating'? Answer: If the mind is taken as the object being followed, then only the mind can be called 'Operating'. If wisdom is taken as the object being followed, then only wisdom can be called 'Operating'. In the Co-existent Cause, because the explanation is about the mind as the object being followed, only the mind is called 'Operating'. Here, because wisdom is taken as the object being followed, only wisdom is called 'Operating'. Question: Is 'Attainment' (De) a 'Follower'? Answer: 'Attainment' is not a 'Follower'. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra, when elaborating on the Dharma-body of Retinue, does not mention 'Attainment'. In the third explanation of the Mahāvibhāṣā (Po Sha Lun), when explaining that 'Attainment' is not the 'World's First Dharma' (Shi di yi fa), it says: 'What does not follow after that Dharma?' Moreover, in the Co-existent Cause, it says: 'Because 'Attainment' may be before or after, it is not a Co-existent Cause.' Therefore, it can be known that even if 'Attainment' arises simultaneously with a Dharma, it is not 'Following' or 'Accompanying'. Some people say: There are two types of 'Accompanying': one is called 'Accompanying' because of the Co-existent Cause, and the other is called 'Accompanying' because of mutual accordance. There are also two types of 'Following': one is called 'Following' because of the Co-existent Cause, and the other is called 'Following' because of mutual accordance. If the treatises say that 'Attainment' is 'Following' or 'Accompanying', it is based on mutual accordance. If the treatises say that 'Attainment' is not 'Following' or 'Accompanying', it is based on not being a Co-existent Cause. The rebuttal says: Since no relevant text is seen, how can one arbitrarily speculate? What textual evidence can prove this explanation? Analyzing the meaning of the words in detail, 'Attainment' is neither 'Following' nor 'Accompanying'. 'Accompanying' and 'Following' both refer to the meaning of definitely arising simultaneously; not uncertain or partially simultaneous arising can be called 'Following'. For example, when the mind of the Desire Realm (Yu jie xin) arises.
時無隨轉色。起彼心時雖定有色。非心隨轉。得既或前或后非俱有因。有何文證云定是隨轉。雖許得與所得名為隨順。義亦無違。隨順非是行轉義也。無文說相隨順名隨行故 問隨行為攝慧不。答慧為自性。受等隨行。由此分其自性。眷屬。若謂受等與慧互相隨者。亦應展轉名為自性。自性既唯獨慧。故知隨行亦唯受等。故正理云。受等雖與凈慧俱行。而慧力持趣彼彼境 亦不可說慧隨慧行。準下文云。染心眷屬少。三蘊隨從故。善心眷屬多。四蘊隨從故 既心非心隨轉。心非心眷屬。故知慧不隨慧行。亦非慧眷屬 有人引婆沙八十一出喜無量體云。喜者以喜根為自性。若兼眷屬相應隨轉。欲界者四蘊為自性。色界者五蘊為自性 引此論文證慧為隨行。今詳此文。慧非隨行。何者。彼文以喜根為自性。如此論。對法以凈慧為自性若兼取相應隨轉。即四蘊五蘊性者。如此論。若兼隨轉即五蘊性。彼文出喜無量體。隨轉非喜根。準知。此論隨轉亦非取慧。又引正理．顯宗。三念住中相雜念住。皆攝於慧證慧為隨行者。彼論兩文名義不同。此云隨行能隨所隨別。彼云相雜互相雜也。因何將相雜文證隨行耶 有人雖有兩解。然自評取慧為隨行為勝。未知憑何理．教 如是總說無漏五蘊名為對法者。結隨行對法體也 此即勝義阿
【現代漢語翻譯】 時（time）不是隨著色（form）而轉變的。生起那個心的時候，雖然必定有色，但不是心隨著色轉變。『得』（attainment）既可以先於『所得』（what is attained），也可以後于『所得』，不是同時具有因。有什麼經文可以證明一定是隨著轉變的呢？即使允許『得』與『所得』可以稱為隨順，在意義上也沒有違背。隨順不是行轉變的意義。沒有經文說『相隨順』叫做『隨行』的緣故。 問：隨行是否包含慧（wisdom）？答：慧是自性（svabhava），受（feeling）、想（perception）等是隨行。由此區分出自性和眷屬。如果說受等與慧互相隨順，也應該輾轉相稱為自性。自性既然只有慧，所以知道隨行也只有受等。所以《正理》（Abhidharmakosha-bhashya）中說：『受等雖然與清凈的慧共同執行，而慧的力量執持著趨向那個那個境界。』也不可說慧隨著慧行。參照下文說：『染心（defiled mind）的眷屬少，三蘊（three skandhas）隨從的緣故。善心（wholesome mind）的眷屬多，四蘊隨從的緣故。』 既然心不是隨著心轉變，心不是心的眷屬。所以知道慧不隨著慧行，也不是慧的眷屬。有人引用《婆沙》（Vibhasha）第八十一卷，解釋喜無量（unlimited joy）的體性時說：『喜，是以喜根（root of joy）為自性。如果兼顧眷屬相應隨轉，欲界（desire realm）的四蘊為自性，**（此處原文缺失）的五蘊為自性。』引用這段經文來證明慧是隨行。現在詳細考察這段經文，慧不是隨行。為什麼呢？那段經文以喜根為自性，如此論，《對法》（Abhidharma）以凈慧為自性。如果兼取相應隨轉，就是四蘊五蘊的體性，如此論，如果兼顧隨轉就是五蘊的體性。那段經文解釋喜無量的體性，隨轉不是喜根。準此可知，此論的隨轉也不是取慧。又引用《正理》、《顯宗》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）中三念住（three mindfulnesses）中的相雜念住，都包含在慧中，來證明慧是隨行。那兩部論典的文句名義不同。這裡說隨行，能隨和所隨是不同的。那裡說相雜，是互相雜合。因為什麼要把相雜的文句來證明隨行呢？ 有人雖然有兩種解釋，然而自己評價說取慧為隨行是殊勝的。不知道憑藉什麼道理和教義。像這樣總說無漏五蘊（five aggregates）名為對法，是總結隨行對法的體性。這才是勝義（paramartha）的阿毗達磨（Abhidharma）。
【English Translation】 Time does not change according to form. Although there is definitely form when that mind arises, it is not that the mind changes according to form. 'Attainment' can either precede or follow 'what is attained'; it is not that they simultaneously have a cause. What scriptural evidence is there to prove that it definitely changes accordingly? Even if it is allowed that 'attainment' and 'what is attained' can be called 'following along', there is no contradiction in meaning. 'Following along' is not the meaning of 'change in action'. There is no scriptural text that says 'mutual following along' is called 'following action'. Question: Does 'following action' include wisdom (prajna)? Answer: Wisdom is the self-nature (svabhava), feeling (vedana), perception (samjna), etc., are following actions. From this, the self-nature and retinue are distinguished. If it is said that feeling, etc., mutually follow wisdom, then they should also be mutually called self-nature. Since self-nature is only wisdom, it is known that following action is also only feeling, etc. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosha-bhashya says: 'Although feeling, etc., occur together with pure wisdom, the power of wisdom holds and directs them towards those various objects.' It cannot be said that wisdom follows wisdom. Refer to the following text: 'The retinue of a defiled mind is small, because the three skandhas follow. The retinue of a wholesome mind is large, because the four skandhas follow.' Since the mind does not change according to the mind, and the mind is not the retinue of the mind, it is known that wisdom does not follow wisdom, nor is it the retinue of wisdom. Someone quotes the eighty-first fascicle of the Vibhasha, explaining the nature of unlimited joy (apramanah sukha), saying: 'Joy is based on the root of joy as its self-nature. If also considering the retinue that corresponds and follows along, the four skandhas of the desire realm are the self-nature, and the five skandhas of ** (missing in the original text) are the self-nature.' Quoting this text to prove that wisdom is a following action. Now, examining this text in detail, wisdom is not a following action. Why? That text takes the root of joy as its self-nature, just as this treatise, the Abhidharma, takes pure wisdom as its self-nature. If also taking the corresponding following along, then it is the nature of the four or five skandhas, just as this treatise, if also considering the following along, then it is the nature of the five skandhas. That text explains the nature of unlimited joy; the following along is not the root of joy. According to this, it can be known that the following along in this treatise also does not take wisdom. Also, quoting the mixed mindfulness (sammisra-smrtyupasthana) in the three mindfulnesses from the Abhidharmakosha and Abhidharmasamuccaya, all included in wisdom, to prove that wisdom is a following action. The wording and meaning of those two treatises are different. Here it says 'following action,' the one that follows and what is followed are different. There it says 'mixed,' it is mutually mixed. Why use the text about mixing to prove following action? Although someone has two explanations, they themselves evaluate that taking wisdom as a following action is superior. It is not known based on what reason or teaching. Like this, generally speaking, the unconditioned five aggregates are called Abhidharma, which is summarizing the nature of the Abhidharma of following action. This is the ultimate (paramartha) Abhidharma.
毗達磨者。結勝義對法體也 言勝義者。真實之異名。
論。若說世俗至諸慧及論。舉頌出體。此實非對法。與真實對法為資糧假名對法。如業．異熟．漏等資糧(刀杖等為殺業資糧異熟受境為異熟資糧女人等境為漏資糧) 假名業等。所以得知。勝義．世俗是真．假之異名者。舊俱舍云。若假名阿毗達磨。謂能得此諸智及論。故知世俗對法即是假名。又應云真諦．俗諦。即是勝義。世俗諦之異名 故知。阿毗達磨有正。有俗。有真。有假。正謂凈慧有力持余趣彼彼故。具有三種現觀能故。假謂受等。隨他轉故。無見能故。凈慧隨行名真對法。對向涅槃對觀諦理不重迷故。有漏慧等無上能故。非是勝義阿毗達磨。是真因故假名對法 有人。云無漏故名勝義。有漏故名世俗 誤也。無漏．有漏皆通勝義．世俗。何得無漏是勝義因。有漏是世俗因。應言勝義者無漏。世俗者有漏。
論。慧謂得此至慧及隨行。此出世俗對法體。即是釋頌第二句也。先近后遠。故先說修慧等。四種善根定唯修慧。總別想念處定是思修。五停心等通聞．思．修。非生得慧。受持十二分教唯生得慧 婆沙四十二云。評曰應作是說。若於三藏．十二分教。受持讀誦究竟流佈。是生得慧。準此論文。聞慧．思慧。雖亦緣名及發身．語。然
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：毗達磨（Abhidharma），指的是總結殊勝意義的對法之本體。所謂『殊勝意義』，是『真實』的另一種稱謂。
論：如果說世俗諦乃至諸慧以及論著，並引用頌文來闡述其本體，那麼這些實際上並非真正的對法，而是與真實的對法相對，作為資糧的假名對法。例如，業、異熟（Vipāka）、煩惱（Āsava）等都是資糧（刀杖等是殺業的資糧，異熟所感受的境界是異熟的資糧，女人等境界是煩惱的資糧），這些都是假名的業等。由此可知，勝義諦和世俗諦分別是真和假的另一種稱謂。舊《俱舍論》中說：『如果說是假名的阿毗達磨，指的是能夠獲得這些智慧和論著。』因此可知，世俗對法就是假名。又應該說真諦和俗諦，也就是勝義諦和世俗諦的另一種稱謂。因此可知，阿毗達磨有正、有俗、有真、有假。正，指的是清凈的智慧具有力量，能夠支援其餘的趣向彼岸，因為它具有三種現觀的能力。假，指的是感受等，因為它隨他人而轉，沒有見解的能力。清凈的智慧隨行，稱為真對法，因為它對向涅槃，對觀真諦的道理，不會再次迷惑，並且具有有漏智慧等無上的能力。它不是勝義的阿毗達磨，而是真實的因，所以是假名對法。有人說，因為是無漏，所以稱為勝義；因為是有漏，所以稱為世俗。這是錯誤的。無漏和有漏都貫通勝義和世俗，怎麼能說無漏是勝義的因，有漏是世俗的因呢？應該說勝義是無漏的，世俗是有漏的。
論：智慧指的是獲得這些智慧以及隨行。這闡述了世俗對法的本體，也就是解釋頌文的第二句。先說近的，后說遠的，所以先說修慧等。四種善根的禪定唯有修慧。總想念處和別想念處一定是思修。五停心等貫通聞、思、修，不是生得慧。受持十二分教唯有生得慧。《婆沙論》第四十二卷中說：『評論說，應該這樣說，如果對於三藏（Tripiṭaka）、十二分教，受持讀誦，究竟流佈，這就是生得慧。』根據這段論文，聞慧和思慧雖然也緣于名相，並且引發身語的行為，但是
【English Translation】 English version: Abhidharma refers to the essence of the Dharma that summarizes the ultimate meaning. The term 'ultimate meaning' is another name for 'reality'.
Treatise: If we speak of conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya) up to all wisdoms and treatises, and cite verses to explain their essence, then these are not actually Abhidharma, but rather nominal Abhidharma that serves as a resource for true Abhidharma. For example, karma, its maturation (Vipāka), and defilements (Āsava) are all resources (weapons are resources for the karma of killing, the objects experienced as maturation are resources for maturation, and objects such as women are resources for defilements). These are nominal karma, etc. From this, we know that ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya) and conventional truth are different names for true and false, respectively. The old Kośa says: 'If it is nominal Abhidharma, it means that one can attain these wisdoms and treatises.' Therefore, we know that conventional Abhidharma is nominal. Furthermore, it should be said that true truth and relative truth are other names for ultimate truth and conventional truth. Thus, we know that Abhidharma is correct, conventional, true, and nominal. 'Correct' refers to pure wisdom that has the power to support other paths to the other shore, because it has the ability of three kinds of direct perception (abhisaṃbodhi). 'Nominal' refers to feelings, etc., because they follow others and have no ability to see. Pure wisdom that follows is called true Abhidharma, because it is directed towards Nirvana, contemplates the truth of reality, and is not confused again, and it has the supreme ability of defiled wisdom, etc. It is not ultimate Abhidharma, but it is the true cause, so it is nominal Abhidharma. Some say that because it is unconditioned (anāsrava), it is called ultimate; because it is conditioned (sāsrava), it is called conventional. This is wrong. Unconditioned and conditioned both pervade ultimate and conventional. How can it be said that unconditioned is the cause of ultimate, and conditioned is the cause of conventional? It should be said that ultimate is unconditioned, and conventional is conditioned.
Treatise: Wisdom refers to attaining these wisdoms and what follows. This explains the essence of conventional Abhidharma, which is also the explanation of the second line of the verse. First, the near is spoken of, then the far, so first, meditative wisdom (bhāvanā-prajñā), etc., are spoken of. The samādhi of the four roots of goodness (kuśala-mūla) is only meditative wisdom. The general and specific mindfulness (smṛti) are definitely thinking and meditation. The five stopping points of mind (pañca nivāraṇāni) pervade hearing, thinking, and meditation, and are not innate wisdom. Upholding the twelve divisions of the teachings (dvādaśāṅga-buddhavacana) is only innate wisdom. Vibhāṣā, volume 42, says: 'The commentary says that it should be said that if one upholds, recites, and thoroughly propagates the Tripiṭaka and the twelve divisions of the teachings, this is innate wisdom.' According to this text, although the wisdom of hearing and the wisdom of thinking also depend on names and generate actions of body and speech, but
不能受持十二分教。用各別故 及隨行者。釋隨轉也。若是修慧。五蘊為性。若是思．聞．生得四蘊。為性。無隨轉色。雖聞．思．生得皆能發戒。然所等起非心隨轉。不名對法。非隨轉故 有人。云是隨轉者非也。
論。論謂傳生無漏慧教者。即是六足．發智等論。因教起聞。因聞有思。因思有修。因修有勝義對法。故云傳生無漏慧教。
論。此諸慧論至阿毗達磨。釋世俗對法得名所以。已上出二種對法體也 言諸論者。謂六足及發智等論 言六足者。舍利子造集異門足論。一萬二千頌。略本八千頌(舍利此云百舌鳥。子是唐言也) 大目健連。造法蘊足論。六千頌(目健連此云采菽氏。大是唐言。故法蘊足論云大采菽氏) 大迦多衍那。造施設足論。一萬八千頌(迦多此云剪剃衍此云種。那是男聲。婆羅門中第一姓也) 已上三論佛在世時造 佛涅槃后一百年中。提婆設摩。造識身足論。七千頌(此云賢寂) 至三百年初。伐蘇密多羅。造品類足論。六千頌(即是舊眾事分阿毗曇也) 又造界身足論。廣本六千頌。略本七百頌(伐蘇密多羅。此云世友也) 至三百年末。迦多衍尼子。造發智論。二萬五千頌。後代誦者廣略不同。一本一萬八千頌。一本一萬六千頌。此本即是唐三藏所翻 前之六論義門
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不能領受和奉行十二分教（dvādaśāṅga-buddha-vacana）。因為它們各有不同的作用，並且是隨著修行者的行為而轉變的。這裡所說的『隨轉』，指的是隨著修行者的行為而轉變。如果是修習智慧，那麼五蘊（pañca-skandha）是其自性。如果是通過思考、聽聞而獲得的智慧，那麼四蘊是其自性。沒有隨之轉變的色蘊（rūpa-skandha）。雖然通過聽聞、思考而獲得的智慧都能引發戒律，但是它們所等起的並非是心隨之轉變的，所以不能稱為對法（abhidharma）。因為它們不是隨之轉變的。有人說它們是隨之轉變的，這是不對的。
論：這裡所說的『論』，指的是能夠傳承和產生無漏智慧的教法，也就是六足論（ṣaṭpāda-abhidharma）和發智論（jñānaprasthāna-śāstra）等論典。因為教法而產生聽聞，因為聽聞而產生思考，因為思考而產生修習，因為修習而產生勝義對法。所以說能夠傳承和產生無漏智慧的教法。
論：這些智慧之論，最終被稱為阿毗達磨（abhidharma）。解釋了世俗對法（saṃvṛti-abhidharma）獲得這個名稱的原因。以上闡述了兩種對法的本體。這裡所說的『諸論』，指的是六足論和發智論等論典。這裡所說的『六足』，指的是舍利子（Śāriputra）所造的集異門足論（saṅgīti-paryāya-pāda-śāstra），有一萬二千頌，簡略本有八千頌。（舍利，在這裡的意思是百舌鳥。子，是唐語。）大目犍連（Mahāmaudgalyāyana）所造的法蘊足論（dharma-skandha-pāda-śāstra），有六千頌。（目犍連，在這裡的意思是采菽氏。大，是唐語。所以法蘊足論中說大采菽氏。）大迦多衍那（Mahākātyāyana）所造的施設足論（prajñapti-pāda-śāstra），有一萬八千頌。（迦多，在這裡的意思是剪剃。衍，在這裡的意思是種。那，是男聲。是婆羅門中的第一姓。）以上三論是佛陀在世時所造。佛陀涅槃后一百年中，提婆設摩（Devaśarman）所造的識身足論（vijñāna-kāya-pāda-śāstra），有七千頌。（提婆設摩，在這裡的意思是賢寂。）到三百年初，伐蘇密多羅（Vasumitra）所造的品類足論（dhātu-kāya-pāda-śāstra），有六千頌。（也就是舊譯的眾事分阿毗曇。）又造界身足論（prakaraṇa-pāda-śāstra），廣本有六千頌，簡略本有七百頌。（伐蘇密多羅，在這裡的意思是世友。）到三百年末，迦多衍尼子（Kātyāyanīputra）所造的發智論，有二萬五千頌。後代誦讀者所傳誦的廣略有所不同。一個版本有一萬八千頌，一個版本有一萬六千頌。這個版本就是唐三藏所翻譯的。前面的六論是義門。
【English Translation】 English version: One cannot receive and uphold the twelve divisions of the teachings (dvādaśāṅga-buddha-vacana), because they each have distinct functions and transform according to the practitioner's conduct. 'Following transformation' (隨轉) refers to transforming according to the practitioner's conduct. If it is the cultivation of wisdom, then the five aggregates (pañca-skandha) are its nature. If it is wisdom obtained through thought and hearing, then the four aggregates are its nature. There is no form aggregate (rūpa-skandha) that transforms accordingly. Although wisdom obtained through hearing and thought can initiate precepts, what arises from them does not transform with the mind, so it cannot be called Abhidharma (abhidharma), because it does not transform accordingly. Some say that they transform accordingly, but this is incorrect.
Treatise: 'Treatise' refers to the teachings that transmit and generate undefiled wisdom, namely the Six Pāda Abhidharma (ṣaṭpāda-abhidharma) and the Jñānaprasthāna-śāstra (jñānaprasthāna-śāstra), etc. Because of the teachings, hearing arises; because of hearing, thought arises; because of thought, practice arises; because of practice, ultimate Abhidharma arises. Therefore, it is said to transmit and generate undefiled wisdom teachings.
Treatise: These treatises of wisdom are ultimately called Abhidharma (abhidharma). It explains the reason why conventional Abhidharma (saṃvṛti-abhidharma) obtained this name. The above explains the substance of the two types of Abhidharma. 'The treatises' refer to the Six Pāda Abhidharma and the Jñānaprasthāna-śāstra, etc. 'The Six Pāda' refers to the Saṅgīti-paryāya-pāda-śāstra (saṅgīti-paryāya-pāda-śāstra) composed by Śāriputra (Śāriputra), with 12,000 verses, and the abridged version with 8,000 verses. ('Śāri' here means 'cuckoo'. 'Putra' is in the Tang language.) The Dharma-skandha-pāda-śāstra (dharma-skandha-pāda-śāstra) composed by Mahāmaudgalyāyana (Mahāmaudgalyāyana), with 6,000 verses. ('Maudgalyāyana' here means 'collector of beans'. 'Mahā' is in the Tang language. Therefore, the Dharma-skandha-pāda-śāstra says 'Mahāmaudgalyāyana'.) The Prajñapti-pāda-śāstra (prajñapti-pāda-śāstra) composed by Mahākātyāyana (Mahākātyāyana), with 18,000 verses. ('Kātyā' here means 'to cut'. 'Āyana' here means 'seed'. 'Na' is a masculine sound. It is the first surname among Brahmins.) The above three treatises were composed when the Buddha was alive. One hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana, the Vijñāna-kāya-pāda-śāstra (vijñāna-kāya-pāda-śāstra) composed by Devaśarman (Devaśarman), with 7,000 verses. ('Devaśarman' here means 'virtuous silence'.) At the beginning of the third century, the Dhātu-kāya-pāda-śāstra (dhātu-kāya-pāda-śāstra) composed by Vasumitra (Vasumitra), with 6,000 verses. (This is the old translation of the Saṃgrahavastu Abhidharma.) Also, the Prakaraṇa-pāda-śāstra (prakaraṇa-pāda-śāstra) was composed, with 6,000 verses in the expanded version and 700 verses in the abridged version. ('Vasumitra' here means 'friend of the world'.) At the end of the third century, the Jñānaprasthāna-śāstra composed by Kātyāyanīputra (Kātyāyanīputra), with 25,000 verses. The expanded and abridged versions recited by later generations differ. One version has 18,000 verses, and another version has 16,000 verses. This version is the one translated by the Tang Tripitaka Master. The preceding six treatises are the doors to meaning.
稍小發智一論法門最廣。故後代論師。說六為足。發智為身。此上七論是諸論根本也。唐三藏。唯施設足論未翻。余之六論皆悉翻訖。
論。釋此名者至故稱對法。此第二釋對法名。于中有三。一釋法名。二釋對義。三總結成 持自相故名為法者。釋法名也 將釋能對先釋所對。法有二種。一持自相。謂一切法。皆持自體相故。二法式軌則法。謂七眾律儀等法。此法非此所明 若依大乘。軌．持二義俱通一切。皆能持自相。軌生解故。此中唯取持自相義釋一切法。虛空．非擇滅。雖持自相。非勝義對法所緣境故。此中不說。由此但言若法相法通四聖諦。法相法中。是善是常名勝義法。亦名涅槃。是極圓寂勝義善故。又持自相常無改變 此能對向或能對觀者。第二正釋對法名也 此者。此阿毗達磨無漏般若 能對曏者。謂無漏慧對向涅槃。及能對觀者。謂觀四諦。望法相法唯有對觀。望勝義法具有對觀．及對向義 真諦法師。以無漏慧望其涅槃。觀．向不同。以為四句無間道趣解脫道名為趣向至得對。趣解脫道中得擇滅故名為至得。慧心緣滅理名如實相知對。諸道不同以為四句 有是趣向至得對非如實相知對者。謂無漏惠觀三諦無間道時 有如實相知對非趣向至得對。謂緣滅諦加行．勝進．解脫道時 有是如實相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《稍小發智論》的法門最為廣博，因此後代的論師說六論是足，而《發智論》（Prajñapti-śāstra，解釋概念的論書）是身。這七部論是所有論著的根本。唐朝的三藏法師（指玄奘）只翻譯了《施設足論》（Prakaraṇa-pāda-śāstra，解釋範疇的論書）以外的六部論。
論：解釋這個名稱，乃至稱為『對法』（Abhidharma，殊勝的法）。這是第二種解釋『對法』名稱的方式，其中有三點：一是解釋『法』（Dharma，事物、法則）的名稱，二是解釋『對』（Abhi，殊勝、相對）的意義，三是總結。 『持自相故名為法』，這是解釋『法』的名稱。將要解釋能對（Abhi）之前，先解釋所對（Dharma）。法有兩種：一是『持自相』，即一切法都持有自身的體相；二是『法式軌則法』，即七眾的律儀等法。這種法不是這裡所要闡明的。 如果依據大乘佛教的觀點，『軌』（引導）和『持』（保持）兩種意義都適用於一切法，都能保持自身的體相，並引導產生理解。這裡只取『持自相』的意義來解釋一切法。虛空（Ākāśa，沒有阻礙的空間）和非擇滅（Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，不依靠智慧力量而自然止息的狀態），雖然持有自身的體相，但不是勝義對法（Paramārtha-Abhidharma，以真諦為對象的殊勝法）所緣的境界，因此這裡不討論。由此只說『若法相法通四聖諦』，在法相法中，是善是常的稱為勝義法，也稱為涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂滅），因為它是極圓滿寂靜的勝義善。而且持有自身的體相，恒常不變。 『此能對向或能對觀者』，這是第二種正式解釋『對法』名稱的方式。『此』指的是這部阿毗達磨（Abhidharma）的無漏般若（Anāsrava-prajñā，無煩惱的智慧）。『能對曏者』，是指無漏慧對向涅槃；『及能對觀者』，是指觀四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，四條聖諦）。對於法相法來說，只有對觀；對於勝義法來說，則具有對觀和對向的意義。 真諦法師認為，以無漏慧望向涅槃，觀和向不同，因此分為四句：無間道（Ānantarya-mārga，直接通往解脫的道路）趣向解脫道（Vimukti-mārga，從煩惱中解脫的道路）稱為趣向至得對，因為在趣向解脫道中得到擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧力量而止息的狀態）的緣故，稱為至得。慧心緣滅理稱為如實相知對。諸道不同，因此分為四句。 有的是趣向至得對，不是如實相知對，指的是無漏慧觀三諦（trīṇi āryasatyāni，三條聖諦，即苦諦、集諦、滅諦）的無間道時。 有的是如實相知對，不是趣向至得對，指的是緣滅諦（Nirodha-satya，滅苦的真理）的加行道（Prayoga-mārga，為證得真理而努力的道路）、勝進道（Adhyāśaya-mārga，在修行道路上精進的道路）、解脫道（Vimukti-mārga，從煩惱中解脫的道路）時。 有的是如實相知對
【English Translation】 English version The Dharma gate of the Śauchīya Abhidharma is the broadest. Therefore, later ācāryas (teachers) said that the six śāstras (treatises) are the feet, and the Prajñapti-śāstra (treatise explaining concepts) is the body. These seven śāstras are the foundation of all treatises. The Tripiṭaka master of the Tang Dynasty (referring to Xuanzang) only did not translate the Prakaraṇa-pāda-śāstra (treatise explaining categories); the other six śāstras were all translated.
Treatise: Explaining this name, up to being called 『Abhidharma』 (superior Dharma). This is the second way of explaining the name 『Abhidharma』, which has three points: first, explaining the name 『Dharma』 (things, laws); second, explaining the meaning of 『Abhi』 (superior, relative); and third, summarizing. 『Because it holds its own characteristics, it is called Dharma,』 this is explaining the name 『Dharma』. Before explaining the Abhi (that which is superior), first explain the Dharma (that which is held). There are two types of Dharma: one is 『holding its own characteristics,』 that is, all dharmas hold their own characteristics; the second is 『Dharma as a model and rule,』 that is, the Dharma of the vinaya (discipline) of the seven assemblies, etc. This Dharma is not what is being explained here. If based on the viewpoint of Mahayana Buddhism, both the meanings of 『guiding』 and 『holding』 apply to all dharmas, all can hold their own characteristics and guide the generation of understanding. Here, only the meaning of 『holding its own characteristics』 is taken to explain all dharmas. Ākāśa (space without obstruction) and Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation without relying on the power of wisdom), although they hold their own characteristics, are not the objects of the Paramārtha-Abhidharma (superior Dharma with truth as its object), so they are not discussed here. Therefore, it is only said, 『If the Dharma characteristic Dharma is connected to the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni),』 in the Dharma characteristic Dharma, that which is good and constant is called Paramārtha-Dharma, also called Nirvāṇa (extinction), because it is the supremely perfect and tranquil Paramārtha good. Moreover, it holds its own characteristics and is eternally unchanging. 『This can face towards or can observe,』 this is the second formal way of explaining the name 『Abhidharma』. 『This』 refers to this Abhidharma of non-outflow prajñā (Anāsrava-prajñā, wisdom without afflictions). 『That which can face towards』 refers to non-outflow wisdom facing towards Nirvāṇa; 『and that which can observe』 refers to observing the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni). For Dharma characteristic Dharma, there is only observation; for Paramārtha-Dharma, there is both observation and the meaning of facing towards. Paramārtha ācārya (teacher) believes that, with non-outflow wisdom looking towards Nirvāṇa, observation and facing towards are different, so it is divided into four sentences: the Ānantarya-mārga (path directly leading to liberation) facing towards the Vimukti-mārga (path of liberation from afflictions) is called facing towards attaining, because in the Vimukti-mārga, Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through the power of wisdom) is attained, so it is called attaining. The mind of wisdom contemplating the principle of cessation is called knowing the true characteristics as they are. The paths are different, so it is divided into four sentences. Some are facing towards attaining, not knowing the true characteristics as they are, referring to when non-outflow wisdom observes the trīṇi āryasatyāni (three noble truths, i.e., the truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of suffering, and the truth of the cessation of suffering) in the Ānantarya-mārga. Some are knowing the true characteristics as they are, not facing towards attaining, referring to when contemplating the Nirodha-satya (truth of the cessation of suffering) in the Prayoga-mārga (path of effort), Adhyāśaya-mārga (path of increasing progress), Vimukti-mārga (path of liberation). Some are knowing the true characteristics as they are
知對亦是趣向至得對。謂緣滅諦無間道時 俱非者謂緣三諦餘三道時 婆沙有惠證身不證。有身證慧不證。有一剎那四句。有多剎那四句 一剎那四句者。謂以滅智得一來果時一剎那頃。有慧證身不證者。謂欲界后三品滅。滅智觀故是慧證。非第二果故身不證 有身證非慧證者。謂色無色見道所斷諸滅。非法智境故非慧證。第二果故是身證 俱者。謂欲界修斷前六品滅。及欲見所斷一切滅。法智境故是慧證。第二果故是身證俱非者。謂上二界修斷惑滅 多剎那四句者。慧證身不證者。謂于見道緣滅諦無間道時 身證慧不證者。謂緣三諦解脫道時 俱者謂緣滅諦解脫道時 俱非者謂緣三諦無間道時 既慧對觀四諦對向涅槃。名為對法。如何涅槃是對法耶 故稱對法者。第三總結成也 言對法者。法之對故名為對法也。依士釋也 古師立有五種對法。一自性。謂無漏慧。二共有。即隨行。三方便。謂諸慧．四名字。謂傳生教。五境界謂四諦 有人非古師說數多法少。更自立有四種對法。謂理．教．行．果．理謂四諦。教謂諸論。行謂能觀。果謂涅槃。立數雖少攝法多也。古師兼取境界為一失。有人又加涅槃為二失也。傳習時久人多費耳。若不廣述固執難回。今出所對法為失。總有八過。若釋三藏之中對法藏有其六失。若釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 知對亦是趣向至得對。謂緣滅諦（Nirodha Satya，四聖諦之一，指滅除煩惱的狀態）無間道（Anantarya-marga，無間道，指斷除煩惱障的修行道路）時，俱非者謂緣三諦（苦、集、道諦）餘三道（解脫道等）時。 《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）中有說，有慧證身不證，有身證慧不證，有一剎那四句，有多剎那四句。一剎那四句者，謂以滅智（Nirodha-jnana，滅盡煩惱的智慧）得一來果（Sakrdagamin，佛教四果之一，指證得一來果的聖者）時一剎那頃。有慧證身不證者，謂欲界（Kama-dhatu，佛教三界之一，指有情慾的眾生所居住的世界）后三品滅，滅智觀故是慧證，非第二果故身不證。有身證非慧證者，謂色界（Rupa-dhatu，佛教三界之一，指色界天的眾生所居住的世界）無色界（Arupa-dhatu，佛教三界之一，指無色界天的眾生所居住的世界）見道（Darshana-marga，見道，指初次證悟真理的修行道路）所斷諸滅，非法智境故非慧證，第二果故是身證。俱者，謂欲界修斷前六品滅，及欲見所斷一切滅，法智境故是慧證，第二果故是身證。俱非者，謂上二界修斷惑滅。 多剎那四句者，慧證身不證者，謂于見道緣滅諦無間道時。身證慧不證者，謂緣三諦解脫道（Vimukti-marga，解脫道，指脫離煩惱束縛的修行道路）時。俱者謂緣滅諦解脫道時。俱非者謂緣三諦無間道時。既慧對觀四諦對向涅槃（Nirvana，涅槃，指解脫生死輪迴的境界），名為對法（Abhidharma，阿毗達磨，佛教經論之一，是對佛法的精細分析和系統闡述）。如何涅槃是對法耶？故稱對法者，第三總結成也。言對法者，法之對故名為對法也。依士釋也。 古師立有五種對法：一自性，謂無漏慧（Anasrava-prajna，無漏慧，指沒有煩惱染污的智慧）；二共有，即隨行；三方便，謂諸慧；四名字，謂傳生教；五境界謂四諦。有人非古師說數多法少，更自立有四種對法，謂理、教、行、果。理謂四諦，教謂諸論，行謂能觀，果謂涅槃。立數雖少攝法多也。古師兼取境界為一失，有人又加涅槃為二失也。傳習時久人多費耳。若不廣述固執難回。今出所對法為失。總有八過。若釋三藏（Tripitaka，佛教經典的總稱，包括經、律、論三部分）之中對法藏有其六失。若釋
【English Translation】 English version Knowing the opposite is also the direction to attain the opposite. This refers to the moment of the Anantarya-marga (path of immediate consequence) when contemplating Nirodha Satya (the truth of cessation, one of the Four Noble Truths, referring to the state of extinguishing suffering). 'Neither' refers to the moment when contemplating the other three truths (suffering, origin, and path) and the other three paths (such as the path of liberation). In the Vibhasa (Abhidharma texts), it is said that there are those who have wisdom-realization but not body-realization, and those who have body-realization but not wisdom-realization. There are four possibilities in one instant and four possibilities in multiple instants. The four possibilities in one instant refer to the single instant when one attains the Sakrdagamin (once-returner, one of the four fruits of Buddhist practice, referring to a noble one who has attained the fruit of once-returning) fruit with the wisdom of cessation (Nirodha-jnana, the wisdom of extinguishing afflictions). 'Having wisdom-realization but not body-realization' refers to the last three categories of destruction in the Kama-dhatu (desire realm, one of the three realms in Buddhism, referring to the world where beings with desires reside), which are wisdom-realized because they are contemplated with the wisdom of cessation, but not body-realized because they are not the second fruit. 'Having body-realization but not wisdom-realization' refers to the cessation of afflictions severed by the Darshana-marga (path of seeing, the path of initial realization of truth) in the Rupa-dhatu (form realm, one of the three realms in Buddhism, referring to the world where beings in the form realm reside) and Arupa-dhatu (formless realm, one of the three realms in Buddhism, referring to the world where beings in the formless realm reside), which are not wisdom-realized because they are not within the scope of Dharma-jnana (knowledge of the Dharma), but are body-realized because they are the second fruit. 'Both' refers to the cessation of the first six categories of afflictions severed by cultivation in the Kama-dhatu, and all cessations severed by desire and seeing, which are wisdom-realized because they are within the scope of Dharma-jnana, and body-realized because they are the second fruit. 'Neither' refers to the cessation of afflictions severed by cultivation in the upper two realms. The four possibilities in multiple instants are: 'Having wisdom-realization but not body-realization' refers to the moment of the Anantarya-marga when contemplating Nirodha Satya on the path of seeing. 'Having body-realization but not wisdom-realization' refers to the moment of the Vimukti-marga (path of liberation, the path of freeing oneself from the bonds of affliction) when contemplating the three truths. 'Both' refers to the moment of the Vimukti-marga when contemplating Nirodha Satya. 'Neither' refers to the moment of the Anantarya-marga when contemplating the three truths. Since wisdom contemplates the Four Noble Truths and directs towards Nirvana (the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death), it is called Abhidharma (Buddhist scriptures that provide detailed analysis and systematic exposition of the Buddha's teachings). How can Nirvana be Abhidharma? Therefore, calling it Abhidharma is the third summary and completion. Saying 'Abhidharma' means 'that which is opposite to the Dharma' is called Abhidharma. This is based on the interpretation of the term. Ancient teachers established five types of Abhidharma: first, self-nature, referring to Anasrava-prajna (undefiled wisdom, wisdom without the defilements of afflictions); second, commonality, which is accompaniment; third, expedient means, referring to all wisdoms; fourth, names, referring to transmitted teachings; fifth, the realm of the Four Noble Truths. Some, not ancient teachers, say that the number is large but the Dharma is small, and they establish four types of Abhidharma: principle, teaching, practice, and result. Principle refers to the Four Noble Truths, teaching refers to the treatises, practice refers to the ability to contemplate, and result refers to Nirvana. Although the number established is small, it encompasses much Dharma. The ancient teachers' inclusion of the realm as one is a mistake, and some add Nirvana as a second mistake. Transmission and practice have been long, and many people waste their efforts. If it is not widely explained, it is difficult to change fixed views. Now, pointing out the faults of what is opposed to the Dharma, there are a total of eight errors. If explaining the Abhidharma-pitaka (the collection of Abhidharma texts, one of the three divisions of the Buddhist canon, including sutras, vinaya, and abhidharma) within the Tripitaka, there are six errors. If explaining
經中對法有其二失 言六失者。一無文立義失。二違論出體失。三違論釋名失。四違二藏例失。五妄釋論文失。六釋名違論失 一無文立義失者。夫立義法。須有聖教及不違文。古師所立五種對法。前四名體同此論。第五無文 有人。更立理．教．行．果四種對法。理．果名體俱違論說既違聖教復無文證。豈堪傳習 二違論出體失者。一切諸論出對法體。皆云勝義唯無漏慧。若兼隨行通五蘊性世俗對法謂諸慧．及論。今取境果豈不違文 三違論釋名失者。大小乘論略有三十六種。釋對法名。並不取境果。婆沙有十二論師二十四釋。分別功德論有二釋。雜心論有二釋。世親攝論有四義釋。無性攝論有二義。此釋論二釋。總無取境．果以為對法。此論二釋。即是婆沙世友六釋之中。第三．第五釋對法也。第三釋云。複次能現觀四聖諦法故名對法。第五釋云。複次能證涅槃故名對法四違二藏例 失者。依增上心論道。說素呾纜。不取所觀境。依增上戒論道說毗奈耶。不取所防。因何依增上慧論道說阿毗達磨。即取所對 五妄釋論文失者。有人為成所對以為對法。釋此論云。頌中雖取能對。長行兼取所對。惑之甚也。一長行釋頌。豈出對法體數與頌相乖反耶。若必有異釋。應分明標別。二若長行中取所對為體。應于出體中說。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 經中對於『法』存在兩種過失，即六種過失。這六種過失是：一、沒有經文依據而擅自立義的過失；二、違背論典而提出本體的過失；三、違背論典而解釋名稱的過失；四、違背經藏和律藏的例子的過失；五、錯誤解釋經文的過失；六、解釋名稱違背論典的過失。 一、沒有經文依據而擅自立義的過失：要確立一個『法』的定義，必須有聖教的依據，並且不違背經文。古德所立的五種『對法』（Abhidharma），前四種名稱和本體與此論相同，第五種則沒有經文依據。 有人進一步設立理、教、行、果四種『對法』。理和果的名稱和本體都違背論典的說法，既違背聖教，又沒有經文證據，怎麼能傳習呢？ 二、違背論典而提出本體的過失：一切論典在闡述『對法』的本體時，都說是勝義諦，唯有無漏的智慧。如果兼顧隨行，則通於五蘊的性質。世俗的『對法』指的是各種智慧和論典。現在如果取境和果作為『對法』，豈不是違背經文？ 三、違背論典而解釋名稱的過失：大乘和小乘的論典大約有三十六種，解釋『對法』的名稱時，都不取境和果。『婆沙』（Vibhasa）有十二位論師的二十四種解釋，『分別功德論』（Fenbie Gongde Lun）有兩種解釋，『雜心論』（Zaxin Lun）有兩種解釋，『世親攝論』（Shīqīn Shèlùn）有四種解釋，『無性攝論』（Wúxìng Shèlùn）有兩種解釋。此論的兩種解釋，總而言之，沒有取境和果作為『對法』的。此論的兩種解釋，就是『婆沙』世友六種解釋中的第三種和第五種解釋『對法』。第三種解釋說：『進一步說，因為能夠現觀四聖諦的法，所以名為對法。』第五種解釋說：『進一步說，因為能夠證得涅槃，所以名為對法。』 四、違背經藏和律藏的例子的過失：依據增上心論道，講述『素呾纜』（Sūtrānlun），不取所觀的境。依據增上戒論道，講述『毗奈耶』（Vinaya），不取所防的對象。為什麼依據增上慧論道，講述『阿毗達磨』（Abhidharma），卻取所對的境呢？ 五、錯誤解釋經文的過失：有人爲了成就所對的境作為『對法』，解釋此論說：『頌文中雖然取能對的法，長行中兼取所對的境。』這真是迷惑啊！長行解釋頌文，怎麼能超出『對法』的本體，與頌文的意思相反呢？如果一定有不同的解釋，應該分明地標示出來。第二，如果長行中取所對的境作為本體，應該在闡述本體時說明。
【English Translation】 English version In the scriptures, there are two kinds of errors regarding 'Dharma' (法, the teachings or principles), namely six errors. These six errors are: 1. The error of establishing a meaning without scriptural basis; 2. The error of presenting a substance that contradicts the treatises; 3. The error of interpreting a name that contradicts the treatises; 4. The error of contradicting the examples of the Sutra Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka; 5. The error of falsely interpreting the scriptural text; 6. The error of interpreting a name that contradicts the treatises. 1. The error of establishing a meaning without scriptural basis: To establish a definition of 'Dharma', there must be a basis in the sacred teachings and it must not contradict the scriptures. The five kinds of 'Abhidharma' (對法, higher teachings or philosophy) established by ancient masters, the first four have the same name and substance as this treatise, but the fifth has no scriptural basis. Some further establish four kinds of 'Abhidharma': principle, teaching, practice, and result. The names and substances of principle and result both contradict the statements of the treatises, and since they contradict the sacred teachings and have no scriptural evidence, how can they be transmitted and studied? 2. The error of presenting a substance that contradicts the treatises: All treatises, when explaining the substance of 'Abhidharma', say that it is the ultimate truth, only the undefiled wisdom. If also considering the accompanying factors, it is common to the nature of the five aggregates. Worldly 'Abhidharma' refers to various wisdoms and treatises. Now, if we take the object and result as 'Abhidharma', wouldn't that contradict the scriptures? 3. The error of interpreting a name that contradicts the treatises: There are approximately thirty-six kinds of treatises in the Mahayana and Hinayana traditions, and when interpreting the name of 'Abhidharma', none of them take the object and result. The 'Vibhasa' (婆沙, a commentary) has twenty-four interpretations by twelve masters, the 'Fenbie Gongde Lun' (分別功德論, Treatise on Distinguishing Merits) has two interpretations, the 'Zaxin Lun' (雜心論, Miscellaneous Abhidharma) has two interpretations, the 'Shīqīn Shèlùn' (世親攝論, Vasubandhu's Compendium of Abhidharma) has four interpretations, and the 'Wúxìng Shèlùn' (無性攝論, Asanga's Compendium of Abhidharma) has two interpretations. In summary, the two interpretations of this treatise do not take the object and result as 'Abhidharma'. The two interpretations of this treatise are the third and fifth interpretations of 'Abhidharma' among the six interpretations of Vasumitra in the 'Vibhasa'. The third interpretation says: 'Furthermore, it is called Abhidharma because it can directly perceive the Four Noble Truths.' The fifth interpretation says: 'Furthermore, it is called Abhidharma because it can attain Nirvana.' 4. The error of contradicting the examples of the Sutra Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka: According to the path of higher mind, when explaining 'Sūtrānlun' (素呾纜, Sutras), it does not take the object of observation. According to the path of higher morality, when explaining 'Vinaya' (毗奈耶, monastic rules), it does not take the object of prevention. Why is it that when explaining 'Abhidharma' (阿毗達磨, higher teachings) according to the path of higher wisdom, it takes the object of what is being countered? 5. The error of falsely interpreting the scriptural text: Someone, in order to establish the object as 'Abhidharma', interprets this treatise by saying: 'Although the verses take the Dharma that counters, the prose also takes the object that is countered.' This is truly confusing! How can the prose, which explains the verses, exceed the substance of 'Abhidharma' and contradict the meaning of the verses? If there must be a different interpretation, it should be clearly indicated. Second, if the prose takes the object that is countered as the substance, it should be explained when elucidating the substance.
何故於釋名中說。此是長行中。欲釋能對名對法故。先舉二種法以釋法名。后將無漏慧對此法故。名為對法。此是先釋所對法也 六釋名違論失者。有人數十翻釋名。並非諸論釋名。多是自意穿鑿妄通境．果以釋論名。言義繁理不堪述也。若言是釋經中對法有二失者。一違經失。二違論失 違經失者。婆沙引八經釋對法。一引藥叉經。二引筏縒經。若依此二經唯無漏慧。三引西彌迦經。以空．無我．及如實覺為性。準此經文通一切法。四引鄔陀夷經。以滅定退為體。此即唯以非得為體。五引阿難陀經。以因緣性．及如實覺為性。此經若取親因緣或十二因緣。即唯有為。若通取六因。即一切法。六又引經取因緣性及彼寂滅並如實覺為性。準此經云。因緣性即是十二因緣性及彼寂滅即是擇滅。若言寂滅通非擇滅。此之寂滅即通非諦。非擇體非諦攝故。並如實覺。即是覺緣起智。非攝一切智也。此是經中種種異說。非是三藏之中阿毗達磨 七引阿難陀經。謂諸見取及如實覺為性。此即唯以苦集道一分。不通滅諦 八又引經。一切諸法．及以如實覺為體。此即通一切法。今立理對法謂四聖諦。果對法謂涅槃。行對法謂能觀。此即不攝虛空非擇滅也。此立對法。八經之中為依何經。皆有增減失。無有一經。唯除虛空及非擇滅立對
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 為什麼要在《釋名》中這樣說呢？這是在長行文中，想要解釋『能對』的名和『對法』的法，所以先舉出兩種法來解釋『法』這個名稱。之後將無漏慧與此法相對，因此稱為『對法』。這是首先解釋所對之法。 六、解釋名稱違背論典的過失：有些人用數十種方式解釋名稱，但這些並非是各論典中解釋名稱的方式，大多是自己隨意穿鑿附會，牽強地用境和果來解釋論典的名稱，言辭繁瑣，道理難以陳述。如果說這是解釋經文中的『對法』，則有兩個過失：一是違背經文的過失，二是違背論典的過失。 違背經文的過失：譬喻師（婆沙）引用八部經來解釋『對法』。一是引用《藥叉經》，二是引用《筏縒經》。如果依據這兩部經，則『對法』唯指無漏慧。三是引用《西彌迦經》，以空、無我以及如實覺為自性。按照這部經的經文，則『對法』通指一切法。四是引用《鄔陀夷經》，以滅盡定退為體。這也就是唯以非得為體。五是引用《阿難陀經》，以因緣性和如實覺為自性。這部經如果取親因緣或者十二因緣，則『對法』唯指有為法；如果通取六因，則『對法』通指一切法。六是又引用經文，取因緣性和它的寂滅以及如實覺為自性。按照這部經的說法，因緣性就是十二因緣性，它的寂滅就是擇滅。如果說寂滅通指非擇滅，那麼這個寂滅就通指非諦，因為非擇滅的體不是諦所攝。還有如實覺，就是覺悟緣起之智，不是攝盡一切智。這些是經文中種種不同的說法，不是三藏之中的阿毗達磨。 七、引用《阿難陀經》，認為諸見取和如實覺為自性。這也就是唯以苦集道諦的一部分為自性，不通於滅諦。 八、又引用經文，以一切諸法以及如實覺為體。這也就是通指一切法。現在建立的理對法是四聖諦（catu-arya-satya），果對法是涅槃（nirvana），行對法是能觀之智。這也就是不包括虛空（akasa）和非擇滅（apratisankhya-nirodha）。這樣建立『對法』，八部經中依據哪一部經呢？都有增減的過失，沒有一部經是完全符合的，除非將虛空和非擇滅也立為『對法』。
【English Translation】 English version: Why is it said this way in the Explanation of Names (釋名)? This is in the prose section, intending to explain the name of 'that which can be compared' (能對) and the dharma of 'counterpart dharma' (對法). Therefore, two types of dharma are first presented to explain the name 'dharma'. Afterwards, unconditioned wisdom (無漏慧) is contrasted with this dharma, hence it is called 'counterpart dharma'. This is first explaining the dharma that is being contrasted. Six, the fault of explaining names in contradiction to the treatises: Some people explain names in dozens of ways, but these are not the ways names are explained in the various treatises. Most are arbitrary and forced interpretations, using realms (境) and results (果) to explain the names of the treatises, which is verbose and the reasoning is difficult to describe. If it is said that this is explaining 'counterpart dharma' in the sutras, then there are two faults: one is the fault of contradicting the sutras, and the other is the fault of contradicting the treatises. The fault of contradicting the sutras: The Vaibhashika (婆沙) cites eight sutras to explain 'counterpart dharma'. One is the Yaksha Sutra (藥叉經), and the other is the Vatsa Sutra (筏縒經). If based on these two sutras, then 'counterpart dharma' refers only to unconditioned wisdom. The third is the Simhika Sutra (西彌迦經), which takes emptiness (空), non-self (無我), and true knowledge (如實覺) as its nature. According to the text of this sutra, 'counterpart dharma' refers to all dharmas. The fourth is the Udayi Sutra (鄔陀夷經), which takes the cessation of cessation attainment (滅盡定退) as its substance. This is only taking non-attainment (非得) as its substance. The fifth is the Ananda Sutra (阿難陀經), which takes conditionality (因緣性) and true knowledge as its nature. If this sutra takes proximate conditionality or the twelve links of dependent origination (十二因緣), then 'counterpart dharma' refers only to conditioned dharmas (有為法); if it takes all six causes (六因), then 'counterpart dharma' refers to all dharmas. The sixth is another citation of a sutra, taking conditionality and its cessation (寂滅), along with true knowledge, as its nature. According to this sutra, conditionality is the nature of the twelve links of dependent origination, and its cessation is selective cessation (擇滅). If it is said that cessation refers to non-selective cessation (非擇滅), then this cessation refers to non-truth (非諦), because the substance of non-selective cessation is not included in the truths. Also, true knowledge is the wisdom of realizing dependent origination, not encompassing all wisdom. These are various different statements in the sutras, not the Abhidharma (阿毗達磨) within the Tripitaka (三藏). Seven, citing the Ananda Sutra, which considers views and attachments (諸見取) and true knowledge as its nature. This is only taking a portion of the truth of suffering (苦), the truth of accumulation (集), and the truth of the path (道) as its nature, not encompassing the truth of cessation (滅諦). Eight, another citation of a sutra, taking all dharmas and true knowledge as its substance. This refers to all dharmas. The 'counterpart dharma' now established in terms of principle is the Four Noble Truths (catu-arya-satya), the 'counterpart dharma' in terms of result is Nirvana (nirvana), and the 'counterpart dharma' in terms of practice is the wisdom of contemplation. This does not include space (akasa) and non-selective cessation (apratisankhya-nirodha). In establishing 'counterpart dharma' in this way, which of the eight sutras is being relied upon? All have the fault of increase or decrease, and no sutra is completely consistent, unless space and non-selective cessation are also established as 'counterpart dharma'.
法故。此即第一違經失也 二違論失者。婆沙第一引八經釋對法已。論自釋云。雖此等經中各隨意趣作種種異說。然阿毗達磨勝義自性。唯無漏慧根。乃至兼取世俗對法。論既不取異說對法。今既釋論文。因何違論取異說耶。
論。已釋對法至名對法藏。此下第二。半頌釋今論名。文中有三。初結引。次頌答。后釋頌。此文初也。
頌曰至俱舍名。次頌答中上句明二釋名。下句結藏名。也俱舍梵音。此翻為藏。
論曰至此得藏名。后釋頌也。文中有三。一述屬主釋。二述多財釋。三總結藏名。此文初也 正理云。此就依主及多財釋。藏謂堅實猶如樹藏。對法論中諸堅實義。皆入此攝。是彼藏故。名對法藏準此論文。西方釋藏有二義。一堅實義。猶如樹藏。即樹心堅實名藏。喻對法論中勝義是堅實義。即此勝義名對法藏。如將樹藏更造諸器。即此諸器名為樹藏。樹之藏故。喻將對法藏中勝義之藏用造此論。此論亦名對法藏也。即是對法藏之勝義也。
論。或此依彼至故亦名藏。第二多財釋也 正理云。藏或所依。猶如刀藏。謂彼對法是此所依。引彼義言造此論故。此論以彼對法為藏。名對法藏。即是對法為所依義 西方第二義引所依名藏。猶如刀所依故名為刀藏。亦如絹布所依名絹布藏 此論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為法的緣故。這就是第一種違背經文的過失。第二種違背論典的過失是：在《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書名）第一卷中，引用了八部經來解釋《對法》（Abhidharma，佛教術語，意為『論』或『殊勝之法』）之後，論典自己解釋說：『雖然這些經文中各自根據自己的意趣作出了種種不同的說法，但是阿毗達磨最殊勝的自性，唯有無漏的智慧之根。』乃至兼顧世俗的對法。論典既然不採納不同的說法作為對法，現在既然解釋論文，為何違背論典而採納不同的說法呢？
論典：已經解釋了對法，乃至名為對法藏（Abhidharma-kosa，佛教術語，意為『論藏』）。這以下是第二部分。用半頌來解釋現在的論名。文中分為三個部分。首先是總結引出，其次是頌文回答，最後是解釋頌文。這段文字是第一個部分。
頌文說：乃至俱舍（kosa，佛教術語，意為『藏』）這個名稱。其次在頌文回答中，上半句說明了兩種解釋名稱的方法，下半句總結了藏這個名稱。俱舍是梵語。這裡翻譯為藏。
論典說：乃至因此得到藏這個名稱。這是最後解釋頌文的部分。文中分為三個部分。一是敘述所屬主來解釋，二是敘述多財來解釋，三是總結藏這個名稱。這段文字是第一個部分。《正理》（Nyaya，佛教術語，意為『正理』或『論證』）中說：『這是就依主和多財來解釋。藏的意思是堅實，猶如樹藏。對法論中所有堅實的意義，都包含在這裡面。因為是對法的藏，所以名為對法藏。』根據這段論文，西方的解釋藏有兩種含義。一是堅實的意義，猶如樹藏。就是樹心堅實叫做藏。比喻對法論中殊勝的意義是堅實的意義。就是這殊勝的意義名為對法藏。如同將樹藏再製造各種器具。就是這些器具名為樹藏。因為是樹的藏。比喻將對法藏中殊勝意義的藏用來製造這部論。這部論也名為對法藏。就是對法藏的殊勝意義。
論典：或者這部論依靠那個對法，所以也名為藏。這是第二種多財的解釋。《正理》中說：『藏或者是指所依靠的。猶如刀藏。就是說那個對法是這部論所依靠的。因為引用那個對法的意義來製造這部論。這部論以那個對法為藏。名為對法藏。就是以對法為所依靠的意義。』西方第二種意義引用所依靠的叫做藏。猶如刀所依靠的，所以名為刀藏。也如絹布所依靠的，名為絹布藏。這部論
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the Dharma. This is the first fault of contradicting the scriptures. The second fault of contradicting the treatises is: In the first volume of Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise), after quoting eight sutras to explain Abhidharma (Buddhist term, meaning 'treatise' or 'superior Dharma'), the treatise itself explains: 'Although these sutras each make various different statements according to their own intentions, the most superior nature of Abhidharma is only the root of undefiled wisdom.' It even considers worldly Abhidharma. Since the treatise does not adopt different statements as Abhidharma, now that it is explaining the treatise, why does it contradict the treatise and adopt different statements?
The treatise: The Abhidharma has already been explained, even to the point of being named Abhidharma-kosa (Buddhist term, meaning 'treasury of treatises'). The following is the second part. Use a half-verse to explain the name of the current treatise. There are three parts in the text. First is the summary introduction, second is the verse answer, and third is the explanation of the verse. This text is the first part.
The verse says: Even to the name kosa (Buddhist term, meaning 'treasury'). Secondly, in the verse answer, the first half of the sentence explains the two methods of explaining the name, and the second half summarizes the name 'treasury'. Kosa is a Sanskrit word. Here it is translated as 'treasury'.
The treatise says: Even to the point of obtaining the name 'treasury'. This is the last part of explaining the verse. There are three parts in the text. First, describe the owner to explain, second, describe the abundance of wealth to explain, and third, summarize the name 'treasury'. This text is the first part. Nyaya (Buddhist term, meaning 'right reason' or 'argument') says: 'This is explained in terms of dependence on the owner and abundance of wealth. The meaning of 'treasury' is solid, like a tree treasury. All the solid meanings in the Abhidharma treatise are included in it. Because it is the treasury of Abhidharma, it is named Abhidharma-kosa.' According to this thesis, the Western explanation of 'treasury' has two meanings. One is the meaning of solidity, like a tree treasury. That is, the solid heartwood of a tree is called a treasury. It is analogous to the superior meaning in the Abhidharma treatise being a solid meaning. That is, this superior meaning is named Abhidharma-kosa. Just as the tree treasury is used to make various utensils. That is, these utensils are named tree treasury. Because it is the treasury of the tree. It is analogous to using the treasury of superior meaning in the Abhidharma-kosa to create this treatise. This treatise is also named Abhidharma-kosa. That is, it is the superior meaning of the Abhidharma-kosa.
The treatise: Or this treatise relies on that Abhidharma, so it is also named 'treasury'. This is the second explanation of abundance of wealth. Nyaya says: 'Treasury' or what is relied upon. Like a knife treasury. That is, that Abhidharma is what this treatise relies on. Because the meaning of that Abhidharma is quoted to create this treatise. This treatise takes that Abhidharma as its treasury. It is named Abhidharma-kosa. That is, it takes Abhidharma as the meaning of what is relied upon.' The second meaning in the West quotes what is relied upon as 'treasury'. Just as what the knife relies upon is named knife treasury. Also, what the silk cloth relies upon is named silk cloth treasury. This treatise
依對法故。其對法論。是此論之藏。名對法藏。對法即藏持業釋也 此論依對法藏故名對法藏。即是有對法藏故。全取對法藏名名多財釋 正理云。藏或所依。猶如刀藏等者。此喻所依名藏。未辨多財 正理云。此論以彼對法為藏名對法藏。此辨多財釋也。有人多不得此意。謂言刀藏即是多財。或說刀是所依。藏能依也。皆是誤耳。應細看文。今阿毗達磨．及藏。皆是本論之名。本論是阿毗達磨即藏。名阿毗達磨藏。持業釋也。末論名阿毗達磨藏。是多財釋。多財釋者。即是全取本論之名。然此末論無持業釋者。由後代造論。皆取本論堅實義故。及引彼義言造此論故。所有文義皆依古論。非自穿鑿故 有人云亦應有持業釋。論主不欲自取。推功歸本者。不得意也。
論。是故此論名對法藏。第三結藏名也。
論。何因說彼至恭敬解釋。此下一頌。第三明說對法意。及先說人。文中有三。此即初文。頌前問起。
頌曰說對法。舉頌答。頌有四句。前三句全。第四句因此兩字。答說意也。傳佛兩字答先說人。說對法三字雙答兩問。
論曰至能滅諸惑。一釋頌文。此釋滅惑必由對法。
論。諸惑能令至生死大海。此釋諸惑過必須斷也。
論。因此傳佛說彼對法。結上諸惑過盡。明其能
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
因為是對法（Abhidharma，佛教術語，指對佛法的分析和解釋）的緣故。那部對法論，是這部論的藏（集合），名為對法藏。『對法即藏』是持業釋（ Karmadharaya，一種梵文複合詞的構成方式，其中后一個詞修飾前一個詞）。這部論因為依據對法藏的緣故，所以名為對法藏，就是具有對法藏的緣故。完全取對法藏之名，是名多財釋（Tatpurusha，梵文複合詞的另一種構成方式，表示所屬關係）。
《正理》中說：『藏或者是指所依，就像刀藏等。』這個比喻說明藏是所依，但沒有辨明多財釋。 《正理》中說：『這部論以那個對法為藏，名為對法藏。』這是辨明多財釋。有些人不理解這個意思，說刀藏就是多財釋，或者說刀是所依，藏是能依，這些都是錯誤的。應該仔細看原文。現在阿毗達磨（Abhidharma）和藏，都是本論的名稱。本論是阿毗達磨即是藏，名為阿毗達磨藏，是持業釋。末論名為阿毗達磨藏，是多財釋。多財釋，就是完全取本論的名稱。然而這部末論沒有持業釋，因為後代造論，都是取本論堅實的意義，並且引用其中的意義來造這部論，所有的文義都依據古論，不是自己隨意穿鑿的。
有人說也應該有持業釋，論主不想自己居功，把功勞歸於本論，這是不得要領的。
論：因此這部論名為對法藏。這是第三次總結藏的名稱。
論：什麼原因說彼至恭敬解釋？下面一頌，第三說明說對法的意義，以及先說人。文中有三部分，這是第一部分。頌前提出問題。
頌曰：說對法。舉頌回答。頌有四句，前三句完整，第四句『因此』兩字，回答說的意義。『傳佛』兩字回答先說人。『說對法』三字同時回答兩個問題。
論曰：至能滅諸惑。一釋頌文。這裡解釋滅除迷惑必定要通過對法。
論：諸惑能令至生死大海。這裡解釋各種迷惑的過患，必須斷除。
論：因此傳佛說彼對法。總結上面各種迷惑的過患，說明其能力。
【English Translation】 English version:
Because of Abhidharma (a Buddhist term referring to the analysis and explanation of the Buddha's teachings). That Abhidharma treatise is the 'treasure' (collection) of this treatise, named the Abhidharma-pitaka (Abhidharma-treasure). 'Abhidharma is treasure' is a Karmadharaya (a type of Sanskrit compound where the latter term modifies the former).
This treatise is named Abhidharma-pitaka because it relies on the Abhidharma-pitaka, meaning it possesses the Abhidharma-pitaka. Completely taking the name Abhidharma-pitaka is a Tatpurusha (another type of Sanskrit compound indicating a possessive relationship).
The Nyaya says: 'Treasure is either the support, like a sword sheath, etc.' This metaphor explains that treasure is the support, but it doesn't clarify the Tatpurusha. The Nyaya says: 'This treatise takes that Abhidharma as its treasure, named Abhidharma-pitaka.' This clarifies the Tatpurusha. Some people don't understand this meaning, saying that a sword sheath is a Tatpurusha, or that the sword is the support and the sheath is what supports it; these are all mistakes. One should carefully read the original text. Now, Abhidharma and pitaka are both names of the original treatise. The original treatise is Abhidharma, which is treasure, named Abhidharma-pitaka, which is a Karmadharaya. The later treatise is named Abhidharma-pitaka, which is a Tatpurusha. The Tatpurusha means completely taking the name of the original treatise. However, this later treatise doesn't have a Karmadharaya because later treatises all take the solid meaning of the original treatise and quote its meaning to create this treatise. All the text and meaning rely on the ancient treatise and are not arbitrarily created.
Some people say there should also be a Karmadharaya; the author doesn't want to take credit himself and attributes the merit to the original treatise, but this is missing the point.
Treatise: Therefore, this treatise is named Abhidharma-pitaka. This is the third summary of the name of the treasure.
Treatise: What is the reason for saying 'to respectfully explain'? The following verse, the third, explains the meaning of speaking about Abhidharma and who speaks first. There are three parts in the text; this is the first part. The question is raised before the verse.
Verse: 'Speaking of Abhidharma.' The verse is cited to answer. The verse has four lines; the first three lines are complete, and the fourth line, 'therefore,' answers the meaning of speaking. The words 'transmitted by the Buddha' answer who speaks first. The three words 'speaking of Abhidharma' answer both questions simultaneously.
Treatise: 'To be able to extinguish all delusions.' One explanation of the verse. This explains that extinguishing delusions must be done through Abhidharma.
Treatise: 'Delusions can lead to the ocean of birth and death.' This explains the faults of various delusions, which must be cut off.
Treatise: 'Therefore, transmitted by the Buddha, he spoke of that Abhidharma.' Summarizing the faults of the various delusions above, clarifying its ability.
斷。因此事故佛說對法。即是佛先說 因此。標文答。
論。欲令世間得擇故。釋頌說意 令諸眾生得擇法者。謂得無漏慧簡擇四諦。斷煩惱也。
論。離說對法至如理簡擇。此下釋伏難也。伏難有二。一難說意。二難說人。難說意者。欲令眾生得擇法故說對法者。說其二藏豈不能耶。答云離說對法說餘二藏。弟子不能于諸法相如理簡擇。
論。然佛世尊至傳如此釋第二先說人難。難云若是佛說。何故。云迦多衍尼子等造耶 婆沙第一有二釋。一云佛說。由迦多衍尼子等受持演說等名稱歸彼也。二云迦多衍尼子造。由經中散說。迦多衍尼子等採集安布。名稱歸彼。此論即是第二釋也 迦多衍尼子者。是佛滅度后三百年中。依說一切有部造發智論 等者。等取六足等論。如前已釋 迦多此云剪剃。衍此云種。尼是女聲。此人是剪剃種女生。從母姓為名。故名迦多衍尼子。即婆羅門十姓中一姓也。此剪剃種。西方貴族。所以名剪剃種者。依婆羅門法。七歲已上在家學問。十五已去受婆羅門法遊方學問。至年四十恐家嗣斷絕歸娶妻室生子繼嗣。年至五十入山修道。昔劫初時有婆羅門。生二子已入山修道。二子覲問見父鬢髮蓬亂。遂為剃除形容端正。諸仙見已皆欲剃除。弟性慈愍。來即為剃。兄心傲慢。非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 斷。因此，世尊才宣說了對法（Abhidharma，佛教論藏）。這正是佛陀首先宣說的原因。因此，標明文義並解答疑問。
論：爲了讓世間能夠辨別選擇，所以解釋頌文的意義。讓眾生能夠辨別選擇法，是指獲得無漏智慧，簡擇四諦（Four Noble Truths），斷除煩惱。
論：離開宣說對法，乃至如理簡擇。以下解釋先前埋下的疑問。先前埋下的疑問有兩個：一是疑問宣說的意義，二是疑問宣說的人。疑問宣說的意義是：爲了讓眾生能夠辨別選擇法才宣說對法，那麼宣說其餘兩個藏（經藏和律藏）難道不能達到這個目的嗎？回答說：離開宣說對法，宣說其餘兩個藏，弟子們就不能對諸法的體相如理地進行簡擇。
論：然而，佛世尊乃至流傳如此。這以下解釋第二點，即先前疑問宣說的人。疑問是：如果是佛陀宣說的，為什麼說是迦多衍尼子（Kātyāyanīputra，尊者名）等人造的呢？《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一卷有兩種解釋：一是說是佛陀宣說的，因為迦多衍尼子等人受持、演說等，名稱歸於他們。二是說迦多衍尼子造的，因為經典中分散地宣說，迦多衍尼子等人採集、安排，名稱歸於他們。此論就是第二種解釋。迦多衍尼子，是佛陀滅度后三百年中，依據說一切有部（Sarvastivada）造了《發智論》（Jnanaprasthana）。等者，等同於包括六足論等論，如前已解釋。迦多，這裡的意思是剪剃。衍，這裡的意思是種。尼是女聲。這個人是剪剃種女所生。從母親的姓作為名字，所以名叫迦多衍尼子。即婆羅門（Brahmin）十姓中的一個姓。這個剪剃種，是西方的貴族。之所以名叫剪剃種，是依據婆羅門法，七歲以上在家學習，十五歲以後接受婆羅門法，遊歷四方學習，到四十歲時，恐怕家族後嗣斷絕，回家娶妻生子繼承後代。到五十歲時，入山修道。過去劫初的時候，有婆羅門生了兩個兒子后入山修道。兩個兒子拜見父親，看到父親鬢髮蓬亂，於是為他剃除，容貌端正。諸位仙人看到后都想剃除。弟弟天性慈悲，來就為他們剃除。哥哥心性傲慢，非
【English Translation】 English version …cut off. Therefore, the Blessed One spoke the Abhidharma (Buddhist philosophical treatises). This is why the Buddha spoke it first. Therefore, the text is marked and the question is answered.
Treatise: In order to enable the world to discern and choose, the meaning of the verse is explained. To enable beings to discern and choose the Dharma means to attain undefiled wisdom, to discern the Four Noble Truths, and to cut off afflictions.
Treatise: Apart from speaking of Abhidharma, up to rational discernment. The following explains the previously buried questions. There are two previously buried questions: one is the question of the meaning of the teaching, and the other is the question of the person who taught it. The question of the meaning of the teaching is: In order to enable beings to discern and choose the Dharma, Abhidharma is taught, so can't the other two pitakas (Sutra Pitaka and Vinaya Pitaka) achieve this goal? The answer is: Apart from speaking of Abhidharma, speaking of the other two pitakas, the disciples cannot rationally discern the characteristics of all dharmas.
Treatise: However, the Blessed One... and so it was transmitted. The following explains the second point, that is, the previously questioned person who taught it. The question is: If it was spoken by the Buddha, why is it said that it was made by Katyayaniputra (an honored monk's name) and others? The first volume of the Vibhasa has two explanations: one is that it was spoken by the Buddha, because Katyayaniputra and others uphold, expound, etc., and the name is attributed to them. The second is that Katyayaniputra made it, because it is scattered in the scriptures, and Katyayaniputra and others collected and arranged it, and the name is attributed to them. This treatise is the second explanation. Katyayaniputra lived three hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana and created the Jnanaprasthana based on the Sarvastivada school. 'Etc.' includes treatises such as the six-footed treatises, as explained earlier. 'Katyā' here means 'shaved'. 'Yani' here means 'seed'. 'Ni' is a feminine sound. This person was born from a shaved-seed woman. The mother's surname is used as the name, so it is called Katyayaniputra. It is one of the ten surnames of Brahmins. This shaved-seed is a Western aristocracy. The reason why it is called shaved-seed is based on Brahmin law. From the age of seven, they study at home, and after the age of fifteen, they accept Brahmin law and travel around to study. At the age of forty, fearing that the family line would be cut off, they return home to marry and have children to inherit the family line. At the age of fifty, they enter the mountains to cultivate the Tao. In the past, at the beginning of the kalpa, there was a Brahmin who entered the mountains to cultivate the Tao after having two sons. The two sons visited their father and saw that his hair was disheveled, so they shaved it for him, and his appearance was upright. When the immortals saw this, they all wanted to shave. The younger brother was compassionate by nature and came to shave them. The elder brother was arrogant and not
我父者我不能剃。諸仙嗔怒。咒愿弟言。乃至劫末是汝種族常大富貴。咒愿兄言。乃至劫末是汝種族常大貧窮剪剃自活。故今印度見有二類。其弟種族名剪剃種。從本為名。極大富貴而不作剪剃事。其兄種族極大貧窮剪剃自活。仙人咒力使之然也。
法救梵名達磨多羅。仙涅槃后三百年出世 等者等取空無我等 鄔陀南者。此云自說。即十二部經中第五自說經也。無人問佛佛自說故。大德法救。佛說無常頌者。集為無常品。佛說空．無我頌者。集為空．無我品。乃至佛說梵志頌。立梵志品。印度現有梵本流行。若言唱陀南此雲集散。集散說故 或雲集施。集所說義施有情故 毗婆沙師傳說如此者。毗名為廣。或名為勝。或名為異 婆沙名說 謂彼論中分別義廣故名廣說。說義勝故名為勝說。五百阿羅漢各以異義解釋發智名為異說。具斯三義故存梵音 言傳說者。顯己不信 正理云。舍利子等諸大聲聞。亦無有能于諸法相如理簡擇。是故此論所依根本阿毗達磨。定是佛說。經主稱傳。顯己不信阿毗達磨是佛所說 何緣不信。傳聞尊者迦多衍尼子等造故。不說對法為所依故。如世尊告阿難陀言。汝等從今當依經量。諸部對法義宗異故 此皆不然。諸大聲聞隨佛聖教而結集故。乃至廣說。
論。何法名為至說對
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『我父輩不允許我剃髮。』眾仙因此嗔怒，對弟弟咒愿道：『直至劫末，你的種族將永遠大富大貴。』又對哥哥咒愿道：『直至劫末，你的種族將永遠大貧大窮，靠剪髮剃鬚為生。』所以如今在印度能看到這兩種人。弟弟的種族被稱為剪剃種（Kshatriya），從一開始就以此為名，極其富貴卻不做剪髮剃鬚之事。哥哥的種族極其貧窮，靠剪髮剃鬚為生。這是仙人的咒力所致。
法救（Dharmatrāta），梵文名為達磨多羅（Dharmatara）。仙人涅槃后三百年出世。『等者』，是指等同於空、無我等概念。『鄔陀南（Udāna）』，意為『自說』，即十二部經中的第五種自說經。因為無人提問，佛陀自己宣說。大德法救將佛陀所說的關於無常的偈頌，彙集成《無常品》；將佛陀所說的關於空、無我的偈頌，彙集成《空·無我品》；乃至將佛陀所說的關於婆羅門（Brahmin）的偈頌，立為《婆羅門品》。印度現在還有梵文字流傳。如果說『唱陀南』，意為『集散』，因為是收集和散佈所說之義；或者說『集施』，因為是收集所說之義施予有情眾生。毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）的傳說就是這樣。『毗（Vi）』，意為廣、勝、異。『婆沙（bhāṣā）』，意為說。意思是說，該論中分別義理廣泛，所以名為廣說；所說之義殊勝，所以名為勝說；五百阿羅漢（Arhat）各自以不同的意義解釋《發智論（Jñānaprasthāna）》，所以名為異說。具備這三種含義，所以保留梵語音譯。說『傳說』，表明自己不相信。正理論認為，即使是舍利子（Śāriputra）等大聲聞，也沒有能力如理簡擇諸法之相。因此，這部論所依據的根本阿毗達磨（Abhidharma），一定是佛陀所說。經主稱之為『傳說』，表明自己不相信阿毗達磨是佛陀所說。為什麼不相信呢？因為傳聞是尊者迦多衍尼子（Kātyāyanīputra）等人所造。而且沒有說對法是所依據的。就像世尊告訴阿難陀（Ānanda）說：『你們從今以後應當依據經量。』因為各個部派的對法義理宗派不同。這些說法都不對。因為各大聲聞都是隨順佛陀的聖教而結集的，乃至廣說。
論：什麼法被稱為至說對？
【English Translation】 English version: 『My father does not allow me to shave.』 The immortals were angered by this and cursed the younger brother, saying, 『Until the end of the kalpa, your lineage will always be extremely rich and noble.』 They cursed the elder brother, saying, 『Until the end of the kalpa, your lineage will always be extremely poor and destitute, living by cutting hair and shaving beards.』 Therefore, in India today, one can see these two types of people. The younger brother's lineage is called the Kshatriya (Kshatriya), named so from the beginning, extremely wealthy but not engaging in cutting hair or shaving beards. The elder brother's lineage is extremely poor, living by cutting hair and shaving beards. This is caused by the power of the immortals' curse.
Dharmatrāta (Dharmatrāta), whose Sanskrit name is Dharmatara (Dharmatara), appeared three hundred years after the nirvana of the immortal. 『Etc.』 refers to concepts such as emptiness, non-self, etc. 『Udāna (Udāna)』 means 『self-spoken,』 which is the fifth of the twelve divisions of scripture, the self-spoken scripture. Because no one asked, the Buddha spoke it himself. The great worthy Dharmatrāta collected the verses spoken by the Buddha about impermanence into the 『Impermanence Chapter』; he collected the verses spoken by the Buddha about emptiness and non-self into the 『Emptiness and Non-Self Chapter』; and he established the 『Brahmin Chapter』 from the verses spoken by the Buddha about Brahmins (Brahmin). Sanskrit texts are still circulating in India today. If one says 『chanting Udāna,』 it means 『collecting and scattering,』 because it is the meaning of collecting and scattering what is said; or one says 『collecting and bestowing,』 because it is collecting the meaning of what is said and bestowing it upon sentient beings. This is the tradition of the Vaibhāṣika (Vaibhāṣika). 『Vi (Vi)』 means broad, superior, or different. 『Bhāṣā (bhāṣā)』 means speaking. It means that the distinctions of meaning in that treatise are broad, so it is called broad speaking; the meaning spoken is superior, so it is called superior speaking; five hundred Arhats (Arhat) each explained the Jñānaprasthāna (Jñānaprasthāna) with different meanings, so it is called different speaking. Possessing these three meanings, the Sanskrit transliteration is retained. Saying 『tradition』 indicates that one does not believe it. The Nyaya theory holds that even great śrāvakas (śrāvakas) such as Śāriputra (Śāriputra) do not have the ability to properly discern the characteristics of all dharmas. Therefore, the fundamental Abhidharma (Abhidharma) upon which this treatise is based must have been spoken by the Buddha. The author of the sutra calls it 『tradition,』 indicating that he does not believe that the Abhidharma was spoken by the Buddha. Why does he not believe it? Because it is rumored to have been created by the venerable Kātyāyanīputra (Kātyāyanīputra) and others. Moreover, it does not say that the Abhidharma is what it is based on. Just as the World-Honored One told Ānanda (Ānanda), 『From now on, you should rely on the sutra.』 Because the Abhidharma doctrines of the various schools are different. All these statements are incorrect. Because all the great śrāvakas compiled it in accordance with the Buddha's holy teachings, and so on.
Treatise: What dharma is called the ultimate saying?
法耶。上來釋論名體．及說人等。皆是發起釋本頌也。自下大文第二明正宗分。有六百頌。于中。界品有四十四頌。初二十五頌總明漏．無漏法。后十九頌諸門分別 就二十五頌中。前三頌開一切法為漏．無漏。次二十二頌開為五蘊．十二處等 就前有三。一頌前結引。二舉頌答。三長行釋。此標問也。已后皆同。不繁更釋。
頌曰至別得非擇滅。舉頌答也。
論曰至謂有漏無漏長行釋也 文中有二。一開二章門。二依章別釋。此即初也。
論有漏法雲何至余有為法。第二依章別釋 文中有二。一釋有漏二釋無漏。此文初也 言有漏者。一切有為法中唯除道諦余有漏。
論所以者何。徴余有為法是有漏所以。
論諸漏于中等隨增故。答也。余有為法名。為有漏者。以身見等諸漏于彼苦．集法中平等隨增故名有漏。
論。緣滅道諦至自當顯說。釋伏難也。難云。身見等漏緣四諦生。因何唯苦．集諦名為有漏。非滅．道諦。答云。緣滅．道諦諸漏雖生。而不隨增故非有漏。不隨增所以。指下當釋也 佛涅槃后五百年中。土火羅縛國法勝論師。造阿毗曇心論中雲。若生煩惱是聖說有漏。至六百年。達磨多羅造雜阿毗曇心論。以生名濫改云。若增諸煩惱是聖說有漏 此正其文不正其義。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：法耶。上面解釋了名稱和本體，以及所說的人等等，都是爲了發起解釋本頌。從下面開始，大的段落第二部分闡明正宗，有六百頌。其中，界品有四十四頌。最初的二十五頌總括地闡明了有漏法和無漏法。後面的十九頌從各個方面進行了分別。在二十五頌中，前面的三頌將一切法開示為有漏和無漏。接著的二十二頌將一切法開示為五蘊、十二處等等。在前面的三頌中，第一頌是前面的總結和引出，第二頌是舉頌回答，第三頌是長行解釋。這裡是標出問題。以後的內容都相同，不再繁瑣地解釋。
『頌曰至別得非擇滅』，這是舉頌回答。
『論曰至謂有漏無漏』，這是長行解釋。文中分為兩個部分：一是開示兩個章節的門徑，二是依據章節分別解釋。這裡是第一部分。
『論有漏法雲何至余有為法』，這是第二部分，依據章節分別解釋。文中分為兩個部分：一是解釋有漏，二是解釋無漏。這裡是解釋有漏的部分。所謂有漏，就是在一切有為法中，唯獨道諦除外，其餘都是有漏。
『論所以者何』，這是提問，為什麼其餘的有為法是有漏的。
『論諸漏于中等隨增故』，這是回答。其餘的有為法之所以被稱為有漏，是因為身見等各種煩惱在那些苦、集法中平等地隨之增長，所以稱為有漏。
『論。緣滅道諦至自當顯說』，這是解釋先前埋下的疑問。疑問是：身見等煩惱緣於四諦而生，為什麼只有苦諦和集諦被稱為有漏，而不是滅諦和道諦？回答是：緣于滅諦和道諦而生的煩惱雖然產生，但不會隨之增長，所以不是有漏。不隨之增長的原因，將在後面解釋。佛陀涅槃后五百年中，土火羅縛國（Tukhara，古代中亞地區）的法勝論師，在所著的《阿毗曇心論》（Abhidharmahrdaya）中說：『如果產生煩惱，聖者說這是有漏。』到了六百年，達磨多羅（Dharmatrata）在所著的《雜阿毗曇心論》（Samkrtabhidharmahrdaya）中，因為『生』這個詞容易混淆，所以改說：『如果增長各種煩惱，聖者說這是有漏。』這只是修正了文字，並沒有修正其含義。
【English Translation】 English version: Faya. The above explanation of name and substance, as well as the people mentioned, are all to initiate the explanation of the original verses. From here onwards, the second major section elucidates the orthodox teachings, comprising six hundred verses. Among them, the Dhatu (Element) chapter contains forty-four verses. The initial twenty-five verses generally clarify defiled (with outflows) and undefiled (without outflows) dharmas. The subsequent nineteen verses distinguish them from various perspectives. Within the twenty-five verses, the first three verses reveal all dharmas as defiled and undefiled. The following twenty-two verses reveal all dharmas as the five skandhas (aggregates), twelve ayatanas (sense bases), etc. Among the first three verses, the first verse is a summary and introduction, the second verse presents the answer in verse, and the third verse provides a detailed explanation. This marks the question. The subsequent content is similar, so I will not explain it redundantly.
'The verse says to separately attain Nirodha-samapatti (cessation of perception and sensation),' this is answering by quoting the verse.
'The treatise says to explain defiled and undefiled,' this is a detailed explanation. The text is divided into two parts: first, to reveal the gateways of two chapters; second, to explain separately according to the chapters. This is the first part.
'The treatise asks, 'What are defiled dharmas?' to 'the remaining conditioned dharmas',' this is the second part, explaining separately according to the chapters. The text is divided into two parts: first, to explain defiled; second, to explain undefiled. This is the part explaining defiled. What is meant by defiled is that among all conditioned dharmas, only the Path Truth (Magga-sacca) is excluded; the rest are defiled.
'The treatise asks, 'What is the reason for this?',' this is questioning why the remaining conditioned dharmas are defiled.
'The treatise answers, 'Because the outflows equally increase within them',' this is the answer. The reason why the remaining conditioned dharmas are called defiled is that the various outflows such as self-view equally increase within those suffering and origin dharmas, hence they are called defiled.
'The treatise says, 'Regarding the cessation and path truths, it will be explained later',' this is resolving a previously planted doubt. The doubt is: the outflows such as self-view arise dependent on the Four Noble Truths, why are only the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha-sacca) and the Truth of Origin (Samudaya-sacca) called defiled, and not the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha-sacca) and the Truth of Path? The answer is: although the outflows arising dependent on the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of Path are produced, they do not increase accordingly, so they are not defiled. The reason for not increasing accordingly will be explained later. Five hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana, Dharmatrata, a master of treatises from Tukhara (ancient Central Asia), said in his Abhidharmahrdaya (Heart of Abhidharma): 'If afflictions arise, the sages say this is defiled.' Six hundred years later, Dharmatrata, in his Samkrtabhidharmahrdaya (Miscellaneous Heart of Abhidharma), changed the word 'arise' because it was ambiguous, saying: 'If various afflictions increase, the sages say this is defiled.' This only corrected the wording, not the meaning.
正理云。云何隨眠。共相應法．及所緣境有隨增義。先軌範師作如是說。如城邑側有雜穢聚。糞．水．土等之所共成。於此聚中。由糞過失令成不凈。由水等力令糞轉增。更互相依皆甚可惡。是煩惱相應聚中。由煩惱力染心．心所。煩惱由彼勢力轉增。更互相依成雜穢污。此聚相續穢污漸增。亦令隨行生等成染 如豬．犬等居雜穢聚。生極眠樂。眠戲其中。糞穢所涂轉增不凈。後由豬等穢聚漸增。如是。所緣自地有漏。由煩惱力有漏義成。彼後有能順煩惱力。令其三品相次漸增 已上論文。釋自地有漏法猶如豬等。煩惱如塵。相應如水．土也 如清凈人。誤墮穢聚雖觸塵穢。而非所增。人亦無能增彼穢聚。如是。無漏．異界地法。雖有亦被煩惱所緣。而彼相望互無增義。此緣無漏．異地隨眠。但相應有隨增理 準此故知。苦．集與漏更互相增。雖漏與境更互相增。然取增漏名為有漏。不取增境。以此正釋境能增漏名有漏故。即有能生．亦能增漏名為有漏。如沃壤田能生苗稼。亦令增盛名為有苗。如鹹鹵田雖生其苗。不能增盛名曰無苗。苦．集能生。能增故名有漏。滅．道雖生不增名為無漏 然釋漏名有正有傍。下文釋漏有其多義。一住義名漏。即留住之義。令諸有情留住生死。二流義名漏。即流轉之義。令諸有情流轉
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 正理中說：『什麼是隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在傾向）？』是指與相應法（Samprayukta-dharma，共同生起的心理現象）以及所緣境（Alambana，認識的對象）具有隨之增長的意義。先前的軌範師（Acharya，導師）是這樣說的：就像城邑旁邊有一堆混雜的污穢物，由糞便、水、泥土等共同構成。在這堆污穢物中，由於糞便的過失而變得不乾淨，由於水等的作用而使糞便更加增多。它們互相依賴，都非常令人厭惡。在與煩惱相應的聚合中，由於煩惱的力量，染污了心和心所（Citta-caitta，心理活動）。煩惱由於這些心和心所的力量而更加增長。它們互相依賴，形成混雜的污穢。這種污穢的聚合相續不斷，污穢逐漸增加，也使得隨之而來的生等（Jati，出生）變得染污。就像豬、狗等居住在混雜的污穢堆中，產生極大的安樂，在其中嬉戲。糞便污穢塗抹在身上，更加增加不凈。後來由於豬等，污穢堆逐漸增加。像這樣，所緣的自地（Svabhumi，自身所處的境界）有漏法（Sasrava-dharma，帶有煩惱的法），由於煩惱的力量而成為有漏的意義。這些有漏法之後具有能夠順應煩惱的力量，使其三品（善、惡、無記）依次逐漸增長。以上是論文的內容。解釋自地有漏法就像豬等，煩惱就像塵土，相應法就像水、泥土。 就像清凈的人，不小心掉入污穢堆中，雖然接觸到塵土污穢，但並不會因此而增加污穢。人也沒有能力增加那些污穢。像這樣，無漏法（Anasrava-dharma，沒有煩惱的法）、異界地法（不同境界的法），雖然也有被煩惱所緣的情況，但它們相互之間並沒有增長的意義。這種緣無漏法、異地法的隨眠，只是在相應法上具有隨之增長的道理。根據這個道理可知，苦（Dukkha，痛苦）、集（Samudaya，痛苦的根源）與漏（Asrava，煩惱）互相增長。雖然漏與境互相增長，但只取增長漏的稱為有漏，不取增長境的。這是因為正確地解釋了境能夠增長漏，所以稱為有漏。也就是說，既能產生又能增長漏的稱為有漏。就像肥沃的田地能夠生長苗稼，也能使其增盛，稱為有苗。就像鹽堿地雖然能生長苗，但不能使其增盛，稱為無苗。苦、集能夠產生，能夠增長，所以稱為有漏。滅（Nirodha，痛苦的止息）、道（Marga，通往止息痛苦的道路）雖然能產生，但不增長，所以稱為無漏。 然而，解釋漏這個名稱有正面的解釋，也有旁面的解釋。下文解釋漏有多種含義：第一，住義（Sthiti，停留）稱為漏，也就是停留的意思，使有情（Sattva，眾生）停留于生死（Samsara，輪迴）之中。第二，流義（Srava，流動）稱為漏，也就是流轉的意思，使有情流轉。
【English Translation】 English version: The Nyaya Sutra says: 'What is Anusaya (latent tendencies of defilements)?' It refers to the meaning of increasing along with the associated dharmas (Samprayukta-dharma, co-arising mental phenomena) and the objects of cognition (Alambana). Former Acharyas (teachers) have said this: Like a pile of mixed filth beside a city, composed of feces, water, soil, and so on. In this pile, due to the fault of the feces, it becomes impure, and due to the power of water and so on, the feces increase even more. They depend on each other, and all are very disgusting. In the aggregate associated with defilements, due to the power of defilements, the mind and mental factors (Citta-caitta, mental activities) are defiled. The defilements increase even more due to the power of these minds and mental factors. They depend on each other, forming mixed filth. This aggregate of filth continues, and the filth gradually increases, also causing the accompanying birth (Jati, birth) and so on to become defiled. Just like pigs, dogs, and so on live in a pile of mixed filth, producing great pleasure, playing in it. The filth of feces smeared on their bodies further increases impurity. Later, due to the pigs and so on, the pile of filth gradually increases. In this way, the objects of cognition, the contaminated dharmas (Sasrava-dharma, dharmas with defilements) of one's own realm (Svabhumi, one's own state of existence), become contaminated due to the power of defilements. These contaminated dharmas later have the power to accord with the defilements, causing their three categories (good, bad, neutral) to gradually increase in sequence. The above is the content of the treatise. It explains that the contaminated dharmas of one's own realm are like pigs and so on, defilements are like dust, and associated dharmas are like water and soil. Just like a pure person accidentally falls into a pile of filth, although touching the dust and filth, it does not increase the filth. The person also has no ability to increase that filth. In this way, although there are instances where uncontaminated dharmas (Anasrava-dharma, dharmas without defilements) and dharmas of different realms are cognized by defilements, they do not have the meaning of increasing each other. This Anusaya that cognizes uncontaminated dharmas and dharmas of different realms only has the principle of increasing along with the associated dharmas. According to this principle, it is known that suffering (Dukkha), the origin (Samudaya) and outflows (Asrava, defilements) increase each other. Although outflows and objects increase each other, only the increase of outflows is taken as contaminated, not the increase of objects. This is because it is correctly explained that objects can increase outflows, so it is called contaminated. That is to say, what can both produce and increase outflows is called contaminated. Just like fertile land can grow seedlings and also make them flourish, it is called having seedlings. Just like saline-alkali land can grow seedlings but cannot make them flourish, it is called having no seedlings. Suffering and origin can produce and increase, so they are called contaminated. Cessation (Nirodha) and the path (Marga, the path to the cessation of suffering), although they can produce, do not increase, so they are called uncontaminated. However, the explanation of the name 'outflow' has both a direct explanation and an indirect explanation. The following text explains that outflows have many meanings: First, 'abiding' (Sthiti, staying) is called outflow, which means staying, causing sentient beings (Sattva, beings) to stay in Samsara (cycle of rebirth). Second, 'flowing' (Srava, flowing) is called outflow, which means flowing, causing sentient beings to transmigrate.
生死準上二釋。漏義即寬流義即狹。漏即通其流義．住義。流即流義不通住義。又流義是寬通其傍順。漏即是狹不通順流。此上二釋從喻立名。如堤塘漏水。望正流住而不違此喻。六根漏泄煩惱即住生死。不順正流趣向涅槃。雖亦因業住其生死。若無煩惱。雖有諸業即不受故。煩惱名漏。非業名漏。鞞婆沙云。煩惱留住則定。行則不定。由如水漏穿破堤塘。傍流漂盪則損苗稼。喻煩惱穿破六根之堤塘。漂盪損善法之苗稼。雖此漏義兩釋不同。皆是正釋漏義。以正當漏名釋故。鞞婆沙論更有四釋。漬義。主義。持義。醉義 漬義者。如種得漬則有芽生。眾生為結所瀆則有果報芽生 主義者。如人為主所镮不得東西。眾生為結所镮不越三界 將義者。譬如有人為鬼所將不應說而說。不應作而作。眾生為結所持亦爾 醉義者。如人醉酒即無慚愧。眾生為結所醉亦爾 由惑具此義故名之為漏。此四義釋亦得傍也。
論。已辨有漏無漏云何。此第二釋無漏。于中有四。一文前結引。二出無漏體。三釋無漏義。四釋三無為。此即初也。
論。謂道聖諦及三無為。此即第二齣無漏體。于中有三。一總出法體。二列無為名。三結無漏名。此是初也。
論。何等為三至擇非滅。此即第二列無為名。
論。此虛空
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生死準上二釋：『漏』的含義較寬泛，『流』的含義較狹窄。『漏』可以通達『流』的含義和『住』的含義，而『流』只通達『流』的含義，不通達『住』的含義。而且，『流』的含義是寬泛的，可以通達其旁邊的順流；『漏』的含義是狹窄的，不通達順流。以上兩種解釋是從比喻的角度來立名的，就像堤壩漏水一樣，期望正流能夠停留而不違背這個比喻。六根漏泄煩惱，就會停留在生死之中，不順著正流趨向涅槃。雖然也因為業力而停留在生死之中，但如果沒有煩惱，即使有各種業力也不會受報。煩惱被稱為『漏』，而不是業被稱為『漏』。《鞞婆沙》（Vibhasa）說，煩惱留住則（心）定，（煩惱）行走則（心）不定，猶如水漏穿破堤壩，旁流漂盪就會損害莊稼。比喻煩惱穿破六根的堤壩，漂盪損害善法的莊稼。雖然這『漏』的含義有兩種不同的解釋，但都是正確地解釋了『漏』的含義，因為正當『漏』這個名稱的解釋。《鞞婆沙論》（Vibhasa）還有四種解釋：漬義、主義、持義、醉義。
漬義者：就像種子得到浸漬就會有芽生長一樣，眾生被結（Klesha，煩惱）所瀆，就會有果報的芽生長。
主義者：就像人被主人所束縛，不得東西自由一樣，眾生被結所束縛，不能超越三界。
持義者：譬如有人被鬼所控制，不應該說而說，不應該做而做，眾生被結所控制也是這樣。
醉義者：就像人喝醉了酒就沒有慚愧之心一樣，眾生被結所醉也是這樣。因為迷惑具備這些含義，所以稱之為『漏』。這四種含義的解釋也可以說是旁義。
論：已經辨別了有漏（Sasrava）和無漏（Anasrava），什麼是無漏呢？這是第二種解釋無漏，其中有四個部分：一、文前結引；二、出無漏體；三、釋無漏義；四、釋三無為（Trilaksana）。這是第一部分。
論：所謂的道（Marga）聖諦（Satya）以及三無為。這是第二部分，說明無漏的本體。其中有三個部分：一、總出法體；二、列無為名；三、結無漏名。這是第一部分。
論：什麼是三無為，乃至擇非滅（Pratisamkhyanirodha）？這是第二部分，列出無為的名稱。
論：此虛空
【English Translation】 English version Second explanation on the standard of 'birth and death': The meaning of 'leakage' (漏, Lou) is broader, while the meaning of 'flow' (流, Liu) is narrower. 'Leakage' can encompass the meanings of both 'flow' and 'abiding' (住, Zhu), whereas 'flow' only encompasses the meaning of 'flow' and not 'abiding'. Moreover, the meaning of 'flow' is broad, encompassing the adjacent downstream flow; the meaning of 'leakage' is narrow, not encompassing the downstream flow. The above two explanations establish the name from the perspective of metaphor, just as a leaking dam expects the main current to remain without violating this metaphor. If the six sense organs leak out afflictions (煩惱, Klesha), one will remain in birth and death, not following the main current towards Nirvana (涅槃). Although one also remains in birth and death due to karma (業, Ye), if there are no afflictions, even with various karmas, one will not receive retribution. Afflictions are called 'leakage', not karma. The Vibhasa (鞞婆沙) says that if afflictions remain, the (mind) is stable; if (afflictions) move, the (mind) is unstable, just as water leaking through a broken dam, the side flow will damage crops. This is a metaphor for afflictions breaking through the dam of the six sense organs, drifting and damaging the crops of good Dharma (法). Although there are two different explanations for the meaning of 'leakage', both correctly explain the meaning of 'leakage', because it is the explanation that is appropriate for the name 'leakage'. The Vibhasa (鞞婆沙論) also has four explanations: soaking meaning, master meaning, holding meaning, and intoxication meaning.
Soaking meaning: Just as a seed that is soaked will sprout, sentient beings defiled by knots (結, Klesha) will have the sprout of karmic retribution grow.
Master meaning: Just as a person is bound by a master and cannot move freely, sentient beings bound by knots cannot transcend the three realms (三界).
Holding meaning: For example, if a person is controlled by a ghost, they say what they should not say and do what they should not do; sentient beings controlled by knots are the same.
Intoxication meaning: Just as a person who is drunk has no shame, sentient beings intoxicated by knots are the same. Because delusion possesses these meanings, it is called 'leakage'. These four explanations can also be said to be side meanings.
Treatise: Having distinguished between 'with leakage' (Sasrava) and 'without leakage' (Anasrava), what is 'without leakage'? This is the second explanation of 'without leakage', which has four parts: 1. Introductory summary before the text; 2. Presenting the substance of 'without leakage'; 3. Explaining the meaning of 'without leakage'; 4. Explaining the three unconditioned (Trilaksana). This is the first part.
Treatise: The so-called Noble Truth (Satya) of the Path (Marga) and the three unconditioned. This is the second part, explaining the substance of 'without leakage'. It has three parts: 1. General presentation of the substance of Dharma; 2. Listing the names of the unconditioned; 3. Concluding the name of 'without leakage'. This is the first part.
Treatise: What are the three unconditioned, up to and including cessation through discrimination (Pratisamkhyanirodha)? This is the second part, listing the names of the unconditioned.
Treatise: This space
等至名無漏法。此即第三結無漏名。
論。所以者何至不隨增故。此即第三釋無漏義。以貪等諸漏。于道聖及為法不隨增故。此中道．滅諦緣而不增。虛空．及非擇滅不緣不增 正理云。無漏法。自判。譬喻論師違理背經妄作此說。非有情數離過身中。所有色等名無漏法 此必不然。違契經故。如契經言。謂於過去．未來．現在諸所有色。生長現貪或嗔或癡。乃至廣說。非有情數離過身中所有色等。既能生長有情貪等。云何無漏。所以者何。無比。指鬘。烏盧頻螺迦葉波等。緣世尊身生長貪．嗔．癡等漏故 彼計。于言非境第七。是依第七。如油于麻。為漏所依故名有漏 此不應理。以于去．來說起現故。不未曾依去．來起現在貪等。是故彼計決定非善。乃至廣說 又一切聲聞應無漏。以聲定非諸漏依故。不應執聲定是無漏。經定聲體是雜染故。乃至又顯色等糞穢酒等非漏依故。應皆無漏。乃至廣說 又云。又譬喻部異生身中眼等亦應非漏依止。彼執五識無染污故。
論。于略所說至色于中行。此即第四釋三無為。中有三。一釋虛空二釋擇滅。三釋非擇滅。此即初也 列名未釋名之為略。雖諸部立無為不同。此三無為諸部皆有 大乘加六。謂不動。想受滅。及三性真如 大眾部等加六無為。謂四無色為四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：等到證得名為無漏法（Anāsrava-dharma，指沒有煩惱污染的法）。這就是第三個關於無漏之名的解釋。
論：為什麼這樣說呢？因為貪等諸漏，對於道、聖以及作為對象的法，不會隨之增長。這就是第三個解釋無漏的含義。因為貪等煩惱不會隨著道諦和滅諦的因緣而增長，也不會隨著虛空和非擇滅的因緣而增長。正理認為，無漏法是自己可以判斷的。譬喻論師違背道理和經典，妄加此說。認為在沒有情識的、遠離過患的身中，所有色等都名為無漏法。這必定是不對的，因為違背了契經的說法。如契經所說：『對於過去、未來、現在的所有色，會生長出現貪、嗔、癡。』等等。沒有情識的、遠離過患的身中所有色等，既然能夠生長有情的貪等煩惱，怎麼能說是無漏呢？為什麼呢？比如鴦掘摩羅（Angulimāla，以殺人為業的強盜，后被佛陀感化）、迦葉三兄弟（Kāśyapa，指烏盧頻螺迦葉波Uruvilvā-kāśyapa、伽耶迦葉波Gayā-kāśyapa、那提迦葉波Nadī-kāśyapa）等人，緣於世尊的身相，生長貪、嗔、癡等煩惱。他們認為，『于』字所表示的並非是第七格的範圍，而是依據的第七格，就像油存在於芝麻中一樣，因為是煩惱所依止的，所以名為有漏。
這不應該成立，因為對於過去、未來之法，會生起現在的貪等煩惱。不是未曾依據過去、未來之法而生起現在的貪等煩惱。所以他們的觀點肯定是不正確的。等等。而且一切聲聞都應該是無漏的，因為聲音肯定不是諸漏所依止的。不應該執著聲音肯定是無漏的，因為經中確定聲音的體性是雜染的。等等。又顯示色等、糞穢、酒等不是煩惱所依止的，應該都是無漏的。等等。又說，譬喻部的異生身中的眼等也應該不是煩惱所依止的，因為他們認為五識沒有染污。
論：對於略說的內容，到『色于中行』。這是第四個解釋三種無為法（Asaṃskṛta-dharma，指沒有生滅變化的法），其中有三點：一是解釋虛空（Ākāśa，指沒有阻礙的空性），二是解釋擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，指通過智慧力量斷滅煩惱而證得的涅槃），三是解釋非擇滅（Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，指不通過智慧力量，由於因緣不具足而自然止息的法）。這是第一點。列出名稱但沒有解釋，就叫做略說。雖然各個部派所立的無為法不同，但這三種無為法各個部派都有。大乘增加了六種，即不動（Acala）、想受滅（Saṃjñā-vedayitanirodha）、以及三種自性真如（Tathatā，指空性）。大眾部等增加了六種無為法，即四無色定為四種。
【English Translation】 English version: Reaching the stage of the Dharma known as Anāsrava-dharma (Dharma without outflows). This is the third explanation of the name 'without outflows'.
Treatise: Why is this so? Because the outflows such as greed do not increase along with the path, the noble ones, and the Dharma as an object. This is the third explanation of the meaning of 'without outflows'. Because defilements like greed do not increase with the conditions of the Path Truth and the Cessation Truth, nor do they increase with the conditions of space and non-selective cessation. The principle states that the Dharma without outflows can be judged by itself. The Sautrāntikas, going against reason and scripture, falsely assert that all forms, etc., in a body without consciousness and free from faults are called Dharma without outflows. This is certainly not correct, because it contradicts the scriptures. As the scriptures say: 'Regarding all forms in the past, future, and present, greed, hatred, or delusion arise.' and so on. Since forms, etc., in a body without consciousness and free from faults can give rise to greed, etc., in sentient beings, how can they be without outflows? Why? For example, Aṅgulimāla (a robber who made a garland of fingers, later converted by the Buddha), the three Kāśyapas (Uruvilvā-kāśyapa, Gayā-kāśyapa, and Nadī-kāśyapa), and others, due to the Buddha's body, gave rise to outflows such as greed, hatred, and delusion. They believe that 'in' does not indicate the scope of the seventh case, but rather the seventh case of dependence, like oil in sesame, because it is the basis of outflows, hence it is called 'with outflows'.
This should not be established, because present greed, etc., arise with respect to the past and future. It is not that present greed, etc., arise without ever depending on the past and future. Therefore, their view is definitely incorrect. And so on. Moreover, all Śrāvakas should be without outflows, because sound is definitely not the basis of outflows. One should not insist that sound is definitely without outflows, because the nature of sound as determined by the scriptures is impure. And so on. Furthermore, forms, etc., filth, wine, etc., are not the basis of outflows, so they should all be without outflows. And so on. It is also said that the eyes, etc., in the body of an ordinary being of the Sautrāntika school should also not be the basis of outflows, because they believe that the five consciousnesses are not defiled.
Treatise: Regarding the briefly stated content, up to 'form moves within it'. This is the fourth explanation of the three unconditioned Dharmas (Asaṃskṛta-dharma, Dharmas without arising and ceasing), which has three points: first, explaining space (Ākāśa, unobstructed emptiness), second, explaining selective cessation (Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, Nirvāṇa attained through the power of wisdom to extinguish defilements), and third, explaining non-selective cessation (Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, Dharma that naturally ceases due to the lack of conditions, without the power of wisdom). This is the first point. Listing the names without explaining them is called a brief statement. Although the unconditioned Dharmas established by various schools differ, all schools have these three unconditioned Dharmas. The Mahāyāna adds six, namely, immovability (Acala), cessation of perception and feeling (Saṃjñā-vedayitanirodha), and the three kinds of suchness (Tathatā, emptiness). The Mahāsāṃghika school and others add six unconditioned Dharmas, namely, the four formless absorptions as four.
。八緣起支性。九聖道支性 化地部六加六無為。四不動。五善法真如。六不善法真如。七無記法真如。八聖道支真如。九緣起真如 一切有部立三無為 然于其中。虛空但以無礙為性。簡余法也。無礙之言。簡於色法。色有礙故。但以之言。簡心．心所．及不相應．二種無為。此等諸法體雖無礙問于虛空。更有別體。非是但以無礙為性 色。于中行問者。釋虛空相也。色是礙法于空中行顯空無礙。于礙法中不得行故。無礙之法于空中行不顯無礙。于礙法中亦得行故 正理釋云。虛空但以無礙為性。于中諸法最極頓現故名虛空。是即無障以為其相。所有大種。及造色聚。一切不能遍覆障故。或非所障。亦非能障。是故說言無障為相 準此論文。非能．所障者。簡空界色。雖無能障是所障故。但以無礙為性。與此論同 婆沙評曰。應作是說。實有虛空。以彼不知即謂非有。由前教．理實有虛空 問若爾虛空有何作用答虛空無為無有作用。然此然為種種虛空界作增上緣。種種空界。能與種種大種作近增上緣。彼大種能與有對造色等作近增上緣。彼有對造色。能與心心所作近增上緣。若無虛空。如是展轉因果次第皆不成立。勿有此失。是故虛空體相實有不應撥無。
論。擇滅即以至名為擇滅。釋二滅 文中有三。一出
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 八緣起支性（構成緣起的要素）。九聖道支性（通往解脫的聖道要素）。 化地部（佛教部派之一）立六加六無為（六種有為法和六種無為法）：四不動（四種禪定狀態），五善法真如（善良行為的真實本性），六不善法真如（不善行為的真實本性），七無記法真如（非善非惡行為的真實本性），八聖道支真如（聖道要素的真實本性），九緣起真如（緣起法則的真實本性）。 一切有部（佛教部派之一）立三無為（三種無為法）。然于其中，虛空但以無礙為性，簡余法也。無礙之言，簡於色法（物質現象），色有礙故。但以之言，簡心（意識）、心所（心理活動）、及不相應（非物質現象）、二種無為。此等諸法體雖無礙，問于虛空，更有別體，非是但以無礙為性。 色，于中行問者，釋虛空相也。色是礙法，于空中行，顯空無礙。于礙法中不得行故。無礙之法，于空中行，不顯無礙。于礙法中亦得行故。 正理釋云：『虛空但以無礙為性，于中諸法最極頓現，故名虛空。是即無障以為其相。所有大種（構成物質的基本元素），及造色聚（由基本元素構成的物質），一切不能遍覆障故。或非所障，亦非能障，是故說言無障為相。』 準此論文，非能、所障者，簡空界色（空間中的物質），雖無能障，是所障故。但以無礙為性，與此論同。 婆沙評曰：『應作是說，實有虛空，以彼不知即謂非有。由前教、理實有虛空。』 問：若爾，虛空有何作用？答：虛空無為，無有作用。然此然為種種虛空界作增上緣（輔助條件）。種種空界，能與種種大種作近增上緣。彼大種能與有對造色（有形可見的物質）等作近增上緣。彼有對造色，能與心心所作近增上緣。若無虛空，如是展轉因果次第皆不成立。勿有此失，是故虛空體相實有，不應撥無。 論：擇滅即以至名為擇滅。釋二滅（兩種滅盡狀態）。文中（本段文字）有三：一出
【English Translation】 English version Eight constituents of dependent origination. Nine constituents of the Noble Path. The H化地部 (Mahīśāsaka, a Buddhist school) establishes six plus six unconditioned dharmas: four immovables (four states of meditative absorption), five the suchness of wholesome dharmas, six the suchness of unwholesome dharmas, seven the suchness of unspecified dharmas, eight the suchness of the constituents of the Noble Path, nine the suchness of dependent origination. The Sarvāstivāda (Everything Exists school) establishes three unconditioned dharmas. Among them, space is characterized only by unobstructedness, distinguishing it from other dharmas. The term 'unobstructedness' distinguishes it from rūpa (matter), because rūpa is obstructive. The term 'only' distinguishes it from citta (mind), mental factors, non-associated formations, and the two kinds of unconditioned dharmas. Although these dharmas are unobstructed in nature, they have a separate entity from space and are not characterized only by unobstructedness. The question 'rūpa (matter) moves within it' explains the characteristic of space. Rūpa is obstructive, and its movement in space reveals the unobstructedness of space, because it cannot move within obstructive things. The movement of unobstructed dharmas in space does not reveal unobstructedness, because they can also move within obstructive things. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya explains: 'Space is characterized only by unobstructedness, because all dharmas appear within it most quickly, hence it is called space. That is, it has no obstruction as its characteristic. All the mahābhūtas (great elements) and aggregates of produced matter cannot completely cover and obstruct it. Or it is neither obstructed nor capable of obstructing, therefore it is said to have no obstruction as its characteristic.' According to this text, 'neither obstructed nor capable of obstructing' distinguishes it from the rūpa (matter) of the space element. Although it is not capable of obstructing, it is obstructed. Being characterized only by unobstructedness is the same as this text. The Vibhāṣā comments: 'It should be said that space truly exists, because those who do not know it consider it non-existent. Based on the preceding teachings and reasoning, space truly exists.' Question: If so, what is the function of space? Answer: Space is unconditioned and has no function. However, it serves as a supporting condition for various space elements. Various space elements can serve as a proximate supporting condition for various mahābhūtas (great elements). Those mahābhūtas can serve as a proximate supporting condition for visible matter, etc. That visible matter can serve as a proximate supporting condition for mind and mental factors. If there were no space, such a sequential chain of cause and effect would not be established. To avoid this error, the entity and characteristic of space truly exist and should not be denied. Treatise: Cessation through discrimination is called cessation through discrimination. Explanation of the two cessations. There are three points in the text: first, the emergence
性。二釋得名。三明同異。此即初也 擇滅則以離係爲性者。舉離系名出擇滅體。所以是離系者。由諸有漏遠離自性．所緣繫縛。證得解脫。即此解脫名為擇滅。以此擇滅。離係爲性。
論。擇謂簡擇至名為擇滅。釋得名也 于中有二。一法說。二喻顯。此即初也 擇謂簡擇即慧差別者。決斷名智。推求名見。擇法名慧。簡擇即是。慧之差別功能名也。以八忍．智等各別簡擇四諦故。名為擇也 擇力所得滅名為擇滅。由慧簡擇四諦理故。斷于煩惱證得此滅。從其能證名為擇滅擇之滅故名為擇滅。此是法說諸論意同 有人云。謂有漏慧異無漏慧名慧差別。或無染異有染名慧差別 此釋謬也。此中明慧擇四諦能。造會擇．不擇。慧漏．無漏等。
論如牛所駕車至故作是說。二喻顯也。牛車略去所駕二字擇滅略去力所得三字。故名擇滅。
論。一切有漏法同一擇滅耶。三明同異也 正量部計。一切有漏同有一擇滅 婆沙或說唯內法有 經部有說擇滅無體 為對諸宗故寄問起 于中有七。一問。二略答。三重問。四廣答。五反釋。六難。七通。此即問也。
論。不爾。略答也。
論。云何。重問也。
論。隨系事各別。舉頌廣答也。
論。謂隨系事量離系事亦爾。釋文也。事謂體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 性。二、解釋名稱。三、闡明同異。這是第一部分。 擇滅則以離係爲特性。舉出『離系』這個名稱，是爲了顯示擇滅的本體。之所以是『離系』，是因為所有有漏法遠離了其自性以及所緣的繫縛，從而證得了脫。這個解脫就叫做擇滅。因此，擇滅以離係爲特性。 論：『擇』是指簡擇，因此稱為擇滅。這是解釋名稱的部分。其中分為兩部分：一是法說，二是比喻顯示。這是第一部分。 『擇』是指簡擇，也就是智慧的差別。決斷叫做『智』，推求叫做『見』，擇法叫做『慧』。簡擇就是智慧的差別功能。因為八忍、智等分別簡擇四諦，所以稱為『擇』。通過擇力所得到的滅，稱為擇滅。由於智慧簡擇四諦之理，斷除了煩惱，證得了這種滅。從其能證的角度來說，稱為擇滅，因為是擇的滅，所以稱為擇滅。這是法說，各論的意義相同。有人說，有漏慧不同於無漏慧，這叫做慧的差別；或者說，無染慧不同於有染慧，這叫做慧的差別。這種解釋是錯誤的。這裡說明的是智慧簡擇四諦的能力，不要牽扯到擇與不擇，慧的有漏與無漏等。 論：如同牛所駕的車……所以這樣說。這是比喻顯示的部分。『牛車』省略了『所駕』二字，『擇滅』省略了『力所得』三個字，所以叫做擇滅。 論：一切有漏法都相同於一個擇滅嗎？這是闡明同異的部分。正量部認為，一切有漏法都共同具有一個擇滅。婆沙論或者說只有內法才有。經部有人說擇滅沒有實體。爲了反駁這些宗派的觀點，所以提出這個問題。其中分為七個部分：一、提問。二、簡略回答。三、再次提問。四、詳細回答。五、反向解釋。六、詰難。七、通達。這是提問的部分。 論：不是這樣的。這是簡略回答。 論：為什麼不是這樣？這是再次提問。 論：隨著所繫的事物而各有差別。舉出頌文來詳細回答。 論：所謂隨著所繫的事物，離系的事物也是這樣。這是解釋頌文。『事』是指本體。
【English Translation】 English version: Nature. Second, explaining the name. Third, clarifying similarities and differences. This is the first part. 『Nirvana attained through discrimination』 (擇滅, Ze Mie) is characterized by 『separation from bondage』 (離系, Li Xi). Mentioning the name 『separation from bondage』 is to reveal the substance of Nirvana attained through discrimination. The reason it is 『separation from bondage』 is that all conditioned dharmas (有漏法, You Lou Fa) are far from their own nature and the bondage of what is conditioned, thereby attaining liberation. This liberation is called Nirvana attained through discrimination. Therefore, Nirvana attained through discrimination is characterized by separation from bondage. Treatise: 『Discrimination』 (擇, Ze) refers to selective examination, hence it is called Nirvana attained through discrimination. This is the part explaining the name. It is divided into two parts: first, explanation through Dharma (法說, Fa Shuo); second, illustration through analogy. This is the first part. 『Discrimination』 refers to selective examination, which is the difference in wisdom. Decision is called 『knowledge』 (智, Zhi), investigation is called 『view』 (見, Jian), and selecting dharmas is called 『wisdom』 (慧, Hui). Selective examination is the differential function of wisdom. Because the eight acceptances (八忍, Ba Ren) and knowledges (智, Zhi) separately examine the Four Noble Truths (四諦, Si Di), it is called 『discrimination』. The extinction obtained through the power of discrimination is called Nirvana attained through discrimination. Because wisdom selectively examines the principles of the Four Noble Truths, it cuts off afflictions and attains this extinction. From the perspective of its ability to attain, it is called Nirvana attained through discrimination, because it is the extinction of discrimination. This is the explanation through Dharma, and the meanings of the various treatises are the same. Some say that conditioned wisdom is different from unconditioned wisdom, which is called the difference in wisdom; or that undefiled wisdom is different from defiled wisdom, which is called the difference in wisdom. This explanation is wrong. This explains the ability of wisdom to selectively examine the Four Noble Truths, and should not involve selection and non-selection, conditioned and unconditioned wisdom, etc. Treatise: Like a cart driven by an ox... therefore it is said this way. This is the part of illustration through analogy. 『Ox cart』 omits the words 『driven by』, and 『Nirvana attained through discrimination』 omits the three words 『obtained through power』, hence it is called Nirvana attained through discrimination. Treatise: Are all conditioned dharmas the same as one Nirvana attained through discrimination? This is the part clarifying similarities and differences. The Sautrantika (正量部, Zheng Liang Bu) school believes that all conditioned dharmas commonly possess one Nirvana attained through discrimination. The Vibhasa (婆沙, Po Sha) says that only internal dharmas have it. Some in the Sutra school (經部, Jing Bu) say that Nirvana attained through discrimination has no substance. To refute the views of these schools, this question is raised. It is divided into seven parts: first, asking the question; second, brief answer; third, asking again; fourth, detailed answer; fifth, reverse explanation; sixth, challenge; seventh, thorough understanding. This is the part of asking the question. Treatise: It is not like that. This is the brief answer. Treatise: Why is it not like that? This is asking again. Treatise: It varies according to the things to which it is related. The verse is cited to answer in detail. Treatise: So-called according to the things to which it is related, the things separated from bondage are also like that. This is explaining the verse. 『Thing』 (事, Shi) refers to substance.
事。隨所繫體有爾所體。擇滅亦爾有爾所也。隨系事言簡無漏法也。
論。若不爾者至諸煩惱滅。此反釋也。若爾不如有部隨系事量各別擇滅者。即有此失。
論。若如是者至則為無用。若如前義。即有後失。本為證滅令惑不生修余對治。滅既證滅已。修余對治即為無用。
論。依何義說滅無同類。正量部難。若不如我宗同一擇滅。則有眾多同類擇滅。因何經說滅無同類。
論。依滅自無至非無同類。通難也。除初無漏一切有為法。皆從同類因生。亦與他作同類因。初無漏雖不從同類因生與他作同類因。不得名為無同類也。擇滅自不從同類因生。亦不與他作同類因。故作是說滅無同類。此是婆沙二十一初釋也 今釋擇滅五門分別。一出體性。二辨得名。三得差別。四證同異。五斷不同 一出體性者。七十五法中以擇滅為體。如有漏法一一極微。一一剎那。各別法上有一擇滅。故諸論云。隨系事量擇滅亦爾 一辨得名者。善慧差別名之為擇。由擇力證名為擇滅。屬主釋也 三得差別者。就中有四。一述正義。二敘異說。三述違理教。四釋通外難 一述正義者。自身煩惱。俱有．及得。隨彼彼品別對治道生。得離身時。彼法擇滅。爾時名得。由自性斷得擇滅故 他身染法。及一切色。不染有漏無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 事。隨所繫之事物有多少，就有多少個「體」（dravyā，實體）。擇滅（pratisamkhyanirodha，通過智慧力而達到的滅盡）也是如此，有多少所繫之事物，就有多少個擇滅。隨所繫之事而言，簡而言之就是無漏法（anasrava-dharma，沒有煩惱的法）。 論：若不這樣認為，就會導致諸煩惱滅盡。這是反過來解釋。如果像有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）那樣，認為隨所繫之事物有多少，擇滅的數量也各不相同，就會有這樣的過失。 論：如果像前面所說的那樣，就會變得沒有用處。如果像前面的意思那樣，就會有後面的過失。本來是爲了證得滅，使迷惑不產生，才修習其他的對治法。滅既然已經證得了，再修習其他的對治法就沒有用了。 論：依據什麼意義說滅沒有同類？正量部（Sammitiya，一個佛教部派）提出疑問。如果不像我宗一樣，只有一個擇滅，就會有眾多同類的擇滅。因為什麼經典說滅沒有同類呢？ 論：依據滅自身沒有同類，所以說滅沒有同類。這是對疑問的解答。除了最初的無漏法，一切有為法（samksrta-dharma，由因緣和合而成的法）都從同類因產生，也給其他事物作同類因。最初的無漏法雖然不從同類因產生，但給其他事物作同類因，不能稱為沒有同類。擇滅自身不從同類因產生，也不給其他事物作同類因，所以才說滅沒有同類。這是《婆沙》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第二十一卷最初的解釋。現在解釋擇滅的五個方面：一、說明體性；二、辨別得名；三、得的差別；四、證明同異；五、斷除不同。一、說明體性：在七十五法中，以擇滅為體。如有漏法（sasrava-dharma，有煩惱的法）的每一個極微（paramanu，最小的物質單位），每一個剎那（ksana，極短的時間單位），在各個不同的法上都有一個擇滅。所以諸論說，隨所繫之事物有多少，擇滅也是如此。二、辨別得名：善慧的差別稱為「擇」（pratisamkhyana，智慧）。由擇的力量證得，稱為擇滅。這是屬主釋。三、得的差別：其中有四點：一、陳述正確的意義；二、敘述不同的說法；三、陳述違背道理的教義；四、解釋並融通外道的疑問。一、陳述正確的意義：自身的煩惱，俱有（sahabhu，同時存在）以及得（prapti，獲得），隨著各個品類的不同，對治道（pratipaksa-marga，對治煩惱的修行道路）產生，在離開自身的時候，那個法的擇滅，在那個時候就叫做得。因為自性斷除了，所以得到擇滅。他身的染污法，以及一切色法（rupa，物質），不染污的有漏無
【English Translation】 English version: Matter. As many 'bodies' (dravyā, substances) as there are things to which they are related, so many bodies exist. Cessation through discrimination (pratisamkhyanirodha, cessation attained through the power of wisdom) is also like this; as many things to which it is related, so many cessations through discrimination exist. Speaking of things to which it is related, in short, it is unconditioned dharma (anasrava-dharma, dharma without afflictions). Treatise: If it is not considered this way, it will lead to the extinction of all afflictions. This is an explanation from the opposite perspective. If, like the Sarvastivada (the 'All Exists' school), it is thought that the amount of cessation through discrimination varies according to the amount of things to which it is related, then this fault will occur. Treatise: If it is as previously stated, then it becomes useless. If it is like the previous meaning, then the subsequent fault will occur. Originally, it was to attain cessation, preventing delusion from arising, that other antidotes were practiced. Since cessation has already been attained, practicing other antidotes becomes useless. Treatise: Based on what meaning is it said that cessation has no similar kind? The Sammitiya (a Buddhist school) raises a question. If it is not like our school, which has only one cessation through discrimination, then there will be many cessations through discrimination of the same kind. Because of what sutra does it say that cessation has no similar kind? Treatise: Based on cessation itself having no similar kind, it is said that cessation has no similar kind. This is the answer to the question. Except for the initial unconditioned dharma, all conditioned dharmas (samksrta-dharma, dharmas compounded by causes and conditions) arise from similar causes and also act as similar causes for other things. Although the initial unconditioned dharma does not arise from similar causes, it acts as a similar cause for other things, so it cannot be called having no similar kind. Cessation through discrimination itself does not arise from similar causes, nor does it act as a similar cause for other things, so it is said that cessation has no similar kind. This is the initial explanation in the twenty-first volume of the Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise). Now, explaining the five aspects of cessation through discrimination: 1. Explaining the nature; 2. Distinguishing the name; 3. Differences in attainment; 4. Proving similarities and differences; 5. Cutting off differences. 1. Explaining the nature: Among the seventy-five dharmas, cessation through discrimination is the nature. Like each atom (paramanu, the smallest unit of matter) and each moment (ksana, an extremely short unit of time) of conditioned dharma (sasrava-dharma, dharma with afflictions), there is a cessation through discrimination on each different dharma. Therefore, the treatises say that as many things to which it is related, so many cessations through discrimination exist. 2. Distinguishing the name: The distinction of good wisdom is called 'discrimination' (pratisamkhyana, wisdom). Attainment through the power of discrimination is called cessation through discrimination. This is a possessive compound. 3. Differences in attainment: There are four points: 1. Stating the correct meaning; 2. Narrating different views; 3. Narrating doctrines that contradict reason; 4. Explaining and reconciling the questions of externalists. 1. Stating the correct meaning: One's own afflictions, co-existent (sahabhu, existing simultaneously) and attainment (prapti, acquisition), as the different categories vary, the antidote path (pratipaksa-marga, the path of practice to counteract afflictions) arises, and when leaving oneself, the cessation through discrimination of that dharma is called attainment at that time. Because the nature is cut off, cessation through discrimination is attained. The defiled dharmas of others, and all form (rupa, matter), undefiled conditioned un-
色。所有無為。由緣彼法自身煩惱至究竟盡。所繫法上所有無為。爾時起得。能縛斷故 問所以知然。答此論隨眠品云。由此應說。煩惱等斷定何所從。自相續中煩惱等斷。由得斷故 他相續中煩惱等斷。及一切色．不染法斷。由能緣彼自相續中。所有諸惑究竟斷故 準此論文。故知。此二種斷得無為異 問又準何文。證知煩惱得斷是自性斷。不染法等是緣縛斷答此論第十六云。何緣諸地有漏善法。唯最後道能斷。非余。以諸善法非自性斷。斷已有容現在前故。然由緣彼煩惱盡時。方說名為斷彼善法。爾時善法得離系故。由此乃至緣彼煩惱。餘一品在。斷義不成。善法爾時未離系故。準上論文。故知。斷已不行名自性斷。斷已容行是所緣斷。
又正理第六。阿毗達磨諸大論師。依經所說立二種斷。一自性斷。二所緣斷 若法是結．及一果等。對治生時。于彼得斷名自性斷 由彼斷故。于所緣事便得離系。不必于中得不成就名所緣斷 此中一切若有漏色。若不染污有漏無色。及彼諸得。生等法上。有見所斷．及修所斷結所繫。如是諸結漸次斷時。於一一品各別體上起離系得。彼諸結．及一果等皆名已斷(已上釋自性斷) 言一果者。結俱有等。等者等取得也。彼有漏色．及不染污有漏無色．並彼諸得．生等法上諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 色（Rūpa，物質）。所有無為法（Asamskrta，非造作的、無為的法），都是由於緣于彼法自身煩惱而至究竟斷盡。在所繫縛的法上，所有無為法，爾時生起獲得。因為能夠斷除繫縛的緣故。 問：根據什麼知道是這樣的呢？ 答：此論《隨眠品》說：『由此應說，煩惱等斷定從何而來？』從自相續（Sva-santana，自身的相續）中煩惱等斷，由獲得斷故。從他相續（Para-santana，他人的相續）中煩惱等斷，以及一切色（Rūpa，物質）、不染法（不染污法）斷，由能緣彼自相續中所有諸惑究竟斷故。 根據此論文，可知這兩種斷得無為是不同的。 問：又根據什麼文，證明煩惱得斷是自性斷（Svabhava-pratisedha，自性斷除），不染法等是緣縛斷（Pratyaya-pratisedha，因緣斷除）呢？ 答：此論第十六說：『什麼緣故諸地有漏善法（有煩惱的善法），唯有最後道（Marga，道）才能斷除，而不是其他的道？因為諸善法不是自性斷，斷除后還有可能再次現前。然而由於緣于彼煩惱斷盡時，才說名為斷彼善法。爾時善法得到離系（Visamyoga，解脫繫縛）的緣故。由此乃至緣于彼煩惱，餘下一品還在，斷的意義不能成立。善法爾時未離系的緣故。』 根據以上論文，可知，斷已不行名為自性斷，斷已容行是所緣斷。 又，《正理》第六，《阿毗達磨》（Abhidharma，論藏）的諸大論師，依據經中所說，立二種斷：一、自性斷；二、所緣斷。 若法是結（Bandhana，煩惱的束縛）、以及一果等，對治（Pratipaksa，對治法）生起時，于彼得斷，名自性斷。由於彼斷的緣故，對於所緣之事便得到離系，不必于其中得到不成就，名所緣斷。 此中一切若有漏色（有煩惱的物質），若不染污有漏無色（有煩惱的非物質），以及彼諸得（Lābha，獲得）、生等法上，有見所斷（Drsti-heya，見道所斷）、以及修所斷（Bhavana-heya，修道所斷）結所繫，如是諸結漸次斷時，於一一品各別體上，生起離系得。彼諸結、以及一果等，都名為已斷（以上解釋自性斷）。 言『一果』者，結俱有等。『等』者，等取得也。彼有漏色、以及不染污有漏無色、並彼諸得、生等法上諸
【English Translation】 English version Rūpa (Form). All Asamskrta (Unconditioned). All Unconditioned dharmas arise when the afflictions related to that dharma itself are completely extinguished. All Unconditioned dharmas on the bound dharmas arise at that time because they can sever the bonds. Question: How do we know this is so? Answer: This treatise, in the 'Section on Latent Afflictions,' states: 'Therefore, it should be said, from where does the cessation of afflictions, etc., arise?' The cessation of afflictions, etc., in one's own continuum (Sva-santana), arises from obtaining cessation. The cessation of afflictions, etc., in another's continuum (Para-santana), as well as the cessation of all rūpa (form) and non-defiled dharmas, arises because one can cognize the complete cessation of all delusions in that other's own continuum. According to this text, it is known that these two types of cessation-attainment of the Unconditioned are different. Question: According to what text is it proven that the attainment of the cessation of afflictions is Svabhava-pratisedha (cessation by nature), and the cessation of non-defiled dharmas, etc., is Pratyaya-pratisedha (cessation by condition)? Answer: This treatise, in the sixteenth section, states: 'For what reason can only the final path (Marga) sever the defiled wholesome dharmas of the various realms, and not the other paths? Because wholesome dharmas are not Svabhava-pratisedha; after cessation, they can still manifest again. However, it is said that those wholesome dharmas are severed when the afflictions related to them are exhausted. At that time, the wholesome dharmas attain Visamyoga (separation from bonds). Therefore, as long as even one category of afflictions related to them remains, the meaning of cessation is not established. The wholesome dharmas are not yet separated from bonds at that time.' According to the above text, it is known that cessation after which there is no further arising is called Svabhava-pratisedha, and cessation after which arising is possible is called Pratyaya-pratisedha. Furthermore, in the sixth section of the Nyāyānusāra, the great masters of the Abhidharma (doctrines) establish two types of cessation based on what is said in the sutras: 1. Svabhava-pratisedha; 2. Pratyaya-pratisedha. If a dharma is a Bandhana (bond, i.e., the binding force of afflictions) and its single result, when the Pratipaksa (antidote) arises, the attainment of cessation in that dharma is called Svabhava-pratisedha. Because of that cessation, one attains Visamyoga (separation from bonds) with respect to the object of cognition, and it is not necessary to attain non-accomplishment in it, which is called Pratyaya-pratisedha. Here, all defiled rūpa (form), all non-defiled defiled arūpa (formless), and the Lābha (attainments), arising, etc., of those, are bound by the afflictions severed by Drsti-heya (the path of seeing) and Bhavana-heya (the path of cultivation). When these afflictions are gradually severed, the attainment of separation from bonds arises on each individual entity of each category. Those afflictions and their single result are all called 'already severed' (the above explains Svabhava-pratisedha). The term 'single result' refers to the co-existence of afflictions, etc. 'Etc.' includes attainments. All defiled rūpa and non-defiled defiled arūpa, and the attainments, arising, etc., of those
離系得。爾時未起。未名為斷。由彼諸法唯隨彼最後無間(已上釋所緣斷)準上論文。自身煩惱。及俱有法．並二法得。由對治道斷彼彼品。得舍之時得擇滅也。非是由能緣煩惱斷故而得擇滅 二敘異說者。就中有二。一太法師等已上諸德釋云。然苦．集遍便同一繫縛。斷苦下十便時。雖為集下遍使所縛未斷。而說苦下使等得離系者。以自種使近。離自種能系時。所繫得解脫。如人離自身上近枷鎖時。說人得解脫 他種使遠。彼未離而解脫如人獄中雖彼未離獄門。而獄中有已離身上近枷鎖故。名已解脫 修道門中九品相縛亦爾。斷初品時。自品近離系說得解脫。八品遠系雖復未得斷。而斷初品染污說得無為。其餘八品例釋可知 唯染污色．及余不染五蘊。斷第九品能系盡。所繫之事方說解脫 一唐三藏。改大小乘諸師釋云。問若離繫縛證得擇滅。如苦智已生集智未生。見苦所斷。猶為集下遍行惑系。如何證滅 修道九品隨斷一品乃至前八猶后品系如何證滅 解云雖斷能縛所縛解脫證得擇滅。然能縛惑有強有弱。一相應縛。謂煩惱縛彼同時心．心所法。令于所緣不得自在 二所緣縛。謂惑緣境有毒勢力。縛此所緣令不自在。就緣縛中後有其四。一同部同品。二同部異品。三異部同品。四異部異品 並前相應總有五縛。就
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：離系得（通過脫離束縛而獲得的果報）。爾時未起（在那個時候，果報尚未顯現），未名為斷（不能稱之為斷滅）。由於那些諸法僅僅隨順於最後的無間（指涅槃，已上解釋了所緣斷）。參照上面的論文，自身煩惱，以及與其相應的法，還有這兩種法所獲得的果報。通過對治道斷除那些品類的煩惱，在捨棄之時獲得擇滅（通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）。並非是因為能緣的煩惱斷除而獲得擇滅。 二、敘述不同的說法。其中有兩種：一、太法師等諸位大德解釋說，苦、集（苦諦和集諦，佛教四聖諦之二）普遍地是同一繫縛。斷除苦諦下的十種煩惱時，雖然還被集諦下的遍行煩惱所束縛，尚未斷除，但說苦諦下的煩惱等獲得離系，是因為自身種類的煩惱接近，脫離自身種類的能束縛時，所束縛的就得到解脫。如同人脫離自身上靠近的枷鎖時，說人得到解脫。他種類的煩惱距離較遠，沒有脫離而得到解脫，如同人在監獄中，雖然沒有脫離監獄的門，但監獄中有人已經脫離了身上的枷鎖，所以稱為已經解脫。修道門中的九品煩惱相互束縛也是如此。斷除初品煩惱時，自身品類接近脫離束縛，所以說得到解脫。八品煩惱距離較遠，雖然沒有斷除，但斷除了初品染污，所以說得到無為（涅槃）。其餘八品可以類推解釋。只有染污的色法，以及其餘不染污的五蘊（色、受、想、行、識），斷除第九品能束縛的煩惱盡時，所束縛的事物才說得到解脫。 一、唐三藏（玄奘法師）改變大小乘諸位法師的解釋說：問：如果脫離繫縛證得擇滅，例如苦智（對苦諦的智慧）已經生起，集智（對集諦的智慧）尚未生起，見苦所斷的煩惱，仍然被集諦下的遍行惑所束縛，如何證得寂滅？修道九品，隨斷一品，乃至前八品仍然被后品所束縛，如何證得寂滅？解答說：雖然斷除了能束縛的，所束縛的就解脫，證得擇滅。然而，能束縛的煩惱有強有弱。一、相應縛（與心相應的束縛），指煩惱束縛同時的心、心所法，使它們對於所緣（對像）不得自在。二、所緣縛（對所緣的束縛），指煩惱緣于境界，具有毒害的力量，束縛這個所緣，使它不得自在。就緣縛中，後面有四種：一同部同品（同一部類同一品類的煩惱），二同部異品（同一部類不同品類的煩惱），三異部同品（不同部類同一品類的煩惱），四異部異品（不同部類不同品類的煩惱）。加上前面的相應縛，總共有五種束縛。就
【English Translation】 English version: 'Lī-saṃyoga-prāpti' (The attainment through detachment). At that time, it has not arisen, and it is not called cessation. Because those dharmas only follow that last 'anantara' (nirvana, explaining 'ālambana-prahāṇa' above). Refer to the above thesis, one's own afflictions, and the co-existent dharmas, and the attainments of these two dharmas. By the antidote path, severing those categories of afflictions, at the time of abandonment, 'pratisankhyā-nirodha' (cessation through wisdom) is attained. It is not because the afflictions that cognize are severed that 'pratisankhyā-nirodha' is attained. 2. Narrating different views. There are two types: 1. 'Ta Fa Shi' and other virtuous ones explain that 'duḥkha' (suffering) and 'samudāya' (accumulation, the second of the Four Noble Truths) are universally the same bondage. When severing the ten afflictions under 'duḥkha', although still bound by the pervasive afflictions under 'samudāya' and not yet severed, it is said that the afflictions under 'duḥkha' etc. attain detachment because the afflictions of one's own kind are close, and when one detaches from the binding of one's own kind, what is bound is liberated. It is like when a person removes the shackles close to their body, it is said that the person is liberated. Afflictions of other kinds are far away, and liberation is attained without detachment, like a person in prison who has not left the prison gate, but someone in the prison has already removed the shackles on their body, so it is called liberated. The mutual bondage of the nine grades of afflictions in the path of cultivation is also like this. When severing the first grade of affliction, one's own kind is close to detachment, so it is said that liberation is attained. The eight grades of affliction are far away, and although they have not been severed, the defilement of the first grade is severed, so it is said that 'asaṃskṛta' (unconditioned, nirvana) is attained. The explanation of the remaining eight grades can be inferred. Only defiled 'rūpa' (form), and the remaining undefiled five 'skandhas' (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness), when the binding afflictions of the ninth grade are completely severed, it is said that what is bound is liberated. 1. 'Tang Sanzang' (Monk Xuanzang) changed the explanations of the masters of both the 'Mahayana' and 'Hinayana' schools, asking: If detachment is attained and 'pratisankhyā-nirodha' is realized, such as when 'duḥkha-jñāna' (knowledge of suffering) has arisen but 'samudāya-jñāna' (knowledge of the origin of suffering) has not, and the afflictions to be severed by seeing suffering are still bound by the pervasive delusions under 'samudāya', how is cessation realized? In the nine grades of cultivation, if one grade is severed, even the first eight grades are still bound by the later grades, how is cessation realized? The answer is: Although the binding is severed, what is bound is liberated, and 'pratisankhyā-nirodha' is realized. However, the binding afflictions are strong and weak. 1. 'Sahabhū-bandha' (co-existent bondage), refers to the afflictions binding the simultaneous mind and mental factors, causing them to be unable to be free with regard to the object. 2. 'Ālambana-bandha' (object bondage), refers to afflictions clinging to objects, possessing the power of poison, binding this object, causing it to be unable to be free. Regarding object bondage, there are four types: 1. Same category, same grade, 2. Same category, different grade, 3. Different category, same grade, 4. Different category, different grade. Adding the previous 'sahabhū-bandha', there are a total of five bondages. Regarding
五縛中斷強證滅。斷弱非證 言強弱者。一相應縛其力最強。二同部同品縛其力次強。三同部異品縛其力次強。四異部同品縛其力稍弱。五異部異品縛其力最弱 於五縛中前三是強。后二是弱。若斷前三隨其所應證得擇滅。后之二種能縛力微。非由斷彼證得擇滅 如見苦所斷法總有二類。相應法為一類。得．四相為一類。相應法具五縛。得與四相除相應縛有餘四縛。若苦智已生集智未生。見苦所斷相應法。由斷相應縛。同部同品縛。同部異品縛故。證得擇滅以斷強故。得與四相。由斷同部同品。同部異品縛故。證得擇滅以斷強故。此相應法．得．及四相。爾時雖為集下異部同品異品遍行惑縛。以微劣故而證得滅。又復爾時雖斷後四部。見苦所斷異部同品．異品縛。而不能證后四部無為。未斷強故。見所斷惑九品同一品斷。約所斷惑有九品故。所以得說同品．異品 如見苦所斷。見集見滅見道所斷各有二類準釋可知 修道所斷總有三類。染相應法為一類。染相應法上得．四相為一類。余有漏法為一類。即是染污色．並此色上得．及四相。及不染五蘊 初類具五縛。后二類各有四縛除相應縛非相應。故 若斷初品染相應法。由斷相應縛同部同品縛。證得無為以斷強故。爾時雖為同部異品餘八品縛。以劣縛故亦證無為。不同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 五種煩惱的束縛被中斷，才能有力地證明擇滅（Nirvana，涅槃）的獲得。中斷較弱的煩惱束縛，不能證明擇滅的獲得。所謂『強』和『弱』，是指：第一，相應的煩惱束縛，其力量最強；第二，同一部類、同一品類的煩惱束縛，其力量次強；第三，同一部類、不同品類的煩惱束縛，其力量再次強；第四，不同部類、同一品類的煩惱束縛，其力量稍弱；第五，不同部類、不同品類的煩惱束縛，其力量最弱。在五種煩惱束縛中，前三種是『強』，后兩種是『弱』。如果斷除了前三種煩惱束縛，就隨其所應證得擇滅。后兩種煩惱束縛的束縛力微弱，不能通過斷除它們來證得擇滅。 例如，見苦所斷的法總共有兩類：相應法為一類，得（Prāpti，獲得）、四相（四種狀態：生、住、異、滅）為一類。相應法具有五種煩惱束縛。得與四相，除了相應縛之外，有其餘四種煩惱束縛。如果苦智（Dukkha-jnana，對苦諦的智慧）已經生起，而集智（Samudaya-jnana，對集諦的智慧）尚未生起，那麼見苦所斷的相應法，由於斷除了相應縛、同部同品縛、同部異品縛，所以證得擇滅，因為斷除了『強』的煩惱束縛。得與四相，由於斷除了同部同品縛、同部異品縛，所以證得擇滅，因為斷除了『強』的煩惱束縛。此時，這些相應法、得以及四相，雖然被集諦之下的異部同品、異品遍行惑所束縛，但因為這些煩惱束縛微弱，所以仍然證得滅。而且，此時雖然斷除了后四部，即見苦所斷的異部同品、異品縛，但不能因此證得后四部的無為（Asamskrta，非造作，指涅槃），因為沒有斷除『強』的煩惱束縛。見所斷的煩惱，九品在同一品中斷除。因為所斷的煩惱有九品，所以才會有同品、異品的說法。 如同見苦所斷，見集（Dukkha-samudaya，苦之集起）、見滅（Dukkha-nirodha，苦之滅盡）、見道（Dukkha-marga，通往苦滅之道）所斷的煩惱各有兩類，可以參照上述解釋來理解。修道所斷的煩惱總共有三類：與染污相應的法為一類；與染污相應的法之上的得、四相為一類；其餘有漏法為一類，也就是染污的色（Rupa，物質形態），以及此色之上的得和四相，以及不染污的五蘊（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）。第一類具有五種煩惱束縛。后兩類各有四種煩惱束縛，除了相應縛，因為它們不是相應法。 如果斷除了初品的染污相應法，由於斷除了相應縛、同部同品縛，所以證得無為，因為斷除了『強』的煩惱束縛。此時，雖然被同部異品的其餘八品煩惱束縛，但因為這些煩惱束縛微弱，也證得無為。這與之前的情況不同。
【English Translation】 English version The strong proof of extinction (Nirvana) is attained by interrupting the five bonds. Interrupting weak bonds does not prove extinction. By 'strong' and 'weak' it is meant: First, the bond of association is the strongest. Second, the bond of the same category and same type is the next strongest. Third, the bond of the same category but different type is the next strongest. Fourth, the bond of different categories but same type is slightly weaker. Fifth, the bond of different categories and different types is the weakest. Among the five bonds, the first three are strong, and the last two are weak. If the first three are severed, then extinction is attained accordingly. The latter two have weak binding power, and extinction is not attained by severing them. For example, the dharmas (phenomena) severed by the view of suffering are generally of two types: associative dharmas are one type, and attainment (Prāpti) and the four characteristics (birth, duration, change, and extinction) are another type. Associative dharmas have all five bonds. Attainment and the four characteristics have the remaining four bonds, excluding the associative bond. If the wisdom of suffering (Dukkha-jnana) has arisen but the wisdom of origination (Samudaya-jnana) has not, then the associative dharmas severed by the view of suffering, by severing the associative bond, the bond of the same category and same type, and the bond of the same category but different type, extinction is attained because the strong bonds are severed. Attainment and the four characteristics, by severing the bond of the same category and same type, and the bond of the same category but different type, extinction is attained because the strong bonds are severed. At this time, although these associative dharmas, attainment, and the four characteristics are bound by the pervasive afflictions of different categories but same and different types under the origination, extinction is attained because these bonds are weak. Furthermore, although the bonds of different categories but same and different types severed by the view of suffering of the latter four categories are severed at this time, the unconditioned (Asamskrta, referring to Nirvana) of the latter four categories cannot be attained because the strong bonds have not been severed. The afflictions severed by the view are severed in the same type of the nine grades. Because there are nine grades of afflictions to be severed, the terms 'same type' and 'different type' are used. Just as with what is severed by the view of suffering, what is severed by the view of origination (Dukkha-samudaya), the view of cessation (Dukkha-nirodha), and the view of the path (Dukkha-marga) each have two types, which can be understood by analogy. What is severed by cultivation is generally of three types: dharmas associated with defilement are one type; attainment and the four characteristics on dharmas associated with defilement are one type; and the remaining conditioned dharmas are one type, which are defiled form (Rupa), and attainment and the four characteristics on this form, and the undefiled five aggregates (Skandha: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). The first type has all five bonds. The latter two types each have four bonds, excluding the associative bond because they are not associative. If the first grade of dharmas associated with defilement is severed, by severing the associative bond and the bond of the same category and same type, the unconditioned is attained because the strong bonds are severed. At this time, although bound by the remaining eight grades of the same category but different type, the unconditioned is also attained because these bonds are weak. This is different from the previous situation.
見道。見道九品一品斷故。所以同部同品．異品俱可說強修道九品別斷。所以同部異品說名為弱 或可。見道同部異品亦名為弱。如諸異生五部雜斷。隨斷前品。猶為未斷見惑之所繫縛。以劣弱故亦證擇滅。以此而言。故知是弱。若異部同品異品遍行惑先已斷故。設不斷彼亦證無為。以縛劣故。初品染得四相。斷初品時。由斷同部同品縛。以斷強故證得無為。同部異品異部同品異品皆準前說。如斷初品所餘八品準釋可知。余有漏法亦有九品。擬儀相當故。說同品異品。斷余有漏法時。由斷同部同品．異品縛。以斷強故證得無為。異部同品．異品先已斷故設不斷彼亦證擇滅。以縛劣故。又此余有漏法是緣縛斷。要斷能緣九品惑盡。所緣之法方名為斷 三述違理．教者。諸德亦釋。雖云進縛．遠縛．及縛。強．弱不同。斷有差別。然皆同說由同品等能緣煩惱斷故。同品等所緣諸煩惱等得解脫也。如修斷惑九品互相緣縛。其第九品惑上擇滅。雖斷上八品能緣不得離系。以非同部同品。遠故劣故。斷第九品時。以斷同部同品。近故強故。得離系也 然諸德同爲此釋將希奇當理。然無文暄度仍違理．教 言違理者。且如修惑九品受互相緣。有何別因煩惱自部自品。繫縛自部自品為近為強。自部異品緣縛之時。有何別理名遠名劣。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於見道（Dṛṣṭimārga）：見道有九個品類，因為斷除一個品類，所以同一部類同一品類是『強』，異品類也可以說是『強』。修道（Bhāvanāmārga）的九個品類是分別斷除的，所以同一部類異品類可以稱為『弱』。或者說，見道中同一部類的異品類也可以稱為『弱』。例如，凡夫俗子雜亂地斷除五部（五種煩惱：貪、嗔、癡、慢、疑）。隨著前一個品類的斷除，仍然會被未斷的見惑所束縛。因為（這種束縛）是低劣的、微弱的，所以也證得了擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha）。從這個角度來說，就知道它是『弱』。如果異部類同一品類、異品類的遍行惑（Sarvatraga-anuśaya）先前已經斷除，即使不斷除它們，也能證得無為（Asaṃskṛta）。因為（殘餘的）束縛是微弱的。最初品類的染污獲得了四種相（生、住、異、滅）。在斷除最初品類的時候，由於斷除了同一部類同一品類的束縛，因為斷除是強有力的，所以證得了無為。同一部類異品類、異部類同一品類、異品類都可以參照前面的解釋。如同斷除最初品類，剩餘的八個品類可以參照解釋來理解。其餘的有漏法（Sāsrava-dharma）也有九個品類，擬議的程度相當，所以說同一品類、異品類。在斷除其餘有漏法的時候，由於斷除了同一部類同一品類、異品類的束縛，因為斷除是強有力的，所以證得了無為。異部類同一品類、異品類先前已經斷除，即使不斷除它們，也能證得擇滅。因為（殘餘的）束縛是微弱的。而且，這些其餘的有漏法是緣縛斷，需要斷除能緣的九個品類的惑，所緣的法才能稱為斷除。 三、駁斥違背道理和教義的觀點： 一些有德之人也解釋說，雖然說進縛、遠縛以及束縛，有強、弱的不同，斷除也有差別，但都同樣認為由於同一品類等能緣的煩惱斷除，所以同一品類等所緣的各種煩惱等才能得到解脫。如同修道所斷的惑的九個品類互相緣縛，第九品惑上的擇滅，即使斷除了上面八個品類的能緣，也不能得到離系（Visamyoga），因為不是同一部類同一品類，是遙遠的、低劣的。斷除第九品的時候，因為斷除了同一部類同一品類，是接近的、強有力的，所以得到離系。 然而，這些有德之人共同做出這樣的解釋，將希望寄託于奇特的道理，但沒有經文的闡明，仍然違背道理和教義。 說到違背道理，且如修惑的九個品類互相緣，有什麼特別的原因使得煩惱自部自品，繫縛自部自品是接近的、強有力的？自部異品緣縛的時候，有什麼特別的道理可以稱為遙遠的、低劣的？
【English Translation】 English version On the Path of Seeing (Dṛṣṭimārga): The Path of Seeing has nine categories. Because one category is severed, the same category within the same division is considered 'strong,' and different categories can also be considered 'strong.' The nine categories of the Path of Cultivation (Bhāvanāmārga) are severed separately, so different categories within the same division can be called 'weak.' Alternatively, different categories within the same division in the Path of Seeing can also be called 'weak.' For example, ordinary beings haphazardly sever the five divisions (five afflictions: greed, hatred, delusion, pride, doubt). As the previous category is severed, one is still bound by the unsevered afflictions of the Path of Seeing. Because this binding is inferior and weak, one also attains Cessation through Discrimination (Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). From this perspective, it is known to be 'weak.' If the pervasive afflictions (Sarvatraga-anuśaya) of different divisions but the same category, or different categories, have already been severed, even if they are not severed, one can still attain the Unconditioned (Asaṃskṛta). Because the remaining binding is weak. The initial category of defilement acquires four characteristics (birth, duration, change, extinction). When severing the initial category, because the binding of the same category within the same division is severed, and because the severance is strong, one attains the Unconditioned. Different categories within the same division, the same category within different divisions, and different categories can all be understood by referring to the previous explanation. Just as the initial category is severed, the remaining eight categories can be understood by referring to the explanation. The remaining conditioned dharmas (Sāsrava-dharma) also have nine categories, with a corresponding degree of approximation, so the same category and different categories are mentioned. When severing the remaining conditioned dharmas, because the binding of the same category within the same division and different categories is severed, and because the severance is strong, one attains the Unconditioned. The same category within different divisions and different categories have already been severed, even if they are not severed, one can still attain Cessation through Discrimination. Because the remaining binding is weak. Moreover, these remaining conditioned dharmas are severed by severing the binding of conditions. It is necessary to sever the nine categories of afflictions that condition, so that the conditioned dharma can be called severed. Three, Refuting Views that Contradict Reason and Doctrine: Some virtuous individuals also explain that although there are differences in 'advancing binding,' 'distant binding,' and 'binding,' with differences in strength and weakness, and differences in severance, they all similarly believe that because the afflictions that condition of the same category, etc., are severed, the various afflictions, etc., that are conditioned by the same category, etc., can be liberated. Just as the nine categories of afflictions severed in the Path of Cultivation bind each other, the Cessation through Discrimination on the ninth category of affliction, even if the conditioning of the upper eight categories is severed, one cannot attain Disjunction (Visamyoga), because it is not the same category within the same division, it is distant and inferior. When severing the ninth category, because the same category within the same division is severed, it is close and strong, so one attains Disjunction. However, these virtuous individuals commonly make such explanations, placing hope in peculiar reasoning, but without scriptural elucidation, it still contradicts reason and doctrine. Speaking of contradicting reason, consider that the nine categories of afflictions in the Path of Cultivation condition each other. What special reason is there that the afflictions of one's own category and division, binding one's own category and division, are close and strong? When different categories within one's own division bind, what special reason is there that can be called distant and inferior?
如下品惑緣下品時。有何別因強。上八品緣下品時。斷上八品不證無為。斷下品時始得擇滅。若言力同所繫。不得言強是下品故。若言力勝所繫不名同品。力勝下品非下品故。如何與下品同耶。故云有力勝上八品。又下品惑合緣兩品時。為如同品強。為如異品劣。不可一品亦強．亦劣。又此惑緣縛自．他品時。豈有分別縛自品即強。縛他品即劣耶 言違教者。正理第六云。阿毗達磨諸大論師依經所說立二種斷故。準此論文。一切論師其意皆同。一自性斷。謂捨得時名之為斷。由此證得擇滅無為。二所緣斷。由斷最後品惑證得擇滅。今立斷云由同部同品斷。及相應斷故得無為者。此非是自性斷。非捨得時得擇滅故。復非所緣斷。非最後品證擇滅故。憑何聖教立此一斷。而違阿毗達磨諸大論師立二斷耶 四通外難者。難曰。若斷染法捨得之時名自性斷。非所緣斷者。何故諸論皆言隨所繫事量無為亦爾。又婆沙三十一云。諸有漏法無始時來。煩惱所繫不得解脫。若斷煩惱彼離系故便得解脫。如人被縛得解脫時人名解脫。非謂繩等。既所繫證得解脫。故外物中亦得解脫 又雜心等云。應知從所緣可令諸惑斷 準上論文。故知諸惑是所緣斷。然與不染色等不同。故知斷同品時證得擇滅 釋曰。此所引文並非定證。不分明故。誰能
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：當下品煩惱作為下品煩惱的緣時，有什麼特別的原因使其更強？當上八品煩惱作為下品煩惱的緣時，斷除了上八品煩惱卻不能證得無為（Nirvana，涅槃）。只有斷除了下品煩惱時，才能證得擇滅（Pratisankhyanirodha，一種無為法）。如果說它們的力量相同，因為它們所繫縛的對象相同，就不能說下品煩惱更強。如果說它們的力量更強，那麼它們所繫縛的對象就不能被稱為同品。力量勝過下品煩惱，就不是下品煩惱了。如何能與下品煩惱相同呢？所以說，有一種力量勝過上八品煩惱。另外，當下品煩惱同時作為兩品煩惱的緣時，是如同品一樣強，還是如異品一樣弱？不可能一個煩惱既強又弱。此外，當這些煩惱緣縛自身品類和他品類時，難道會有分別嗎？緣縛自身品類就強，緣縛他品類就弱嗎？ 說（這種觀點）違背教義的人，正理論第六卷說：『阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）的各位大論師依據經文所說，建立了兩種斷除（煩惱）的方式。』根據這段文字，所有論師的觀點都是相同的。第一種是自性斷，即在捨棄（煩惱）獲得（解脫）時，稱之為斷。由此證得擇滅無為。第二種是所緣斷，通過斷除最後品類的煩惱來證得擇滅。現在你提出一種斷除方式，說通過同一部類、同一品類的斷除，以及相應的斷除，就能獲得無為。這不是自性斷，因為不是在捨棄（煩惱）獲得（解脫）時證得擇滅。也不是所緣斷，因為不是通過斷除最後品類來證得擇滅。你憑藉什麼聖教來建立這種斷除方式，而違背阿毗達磨各位大論師所建立的兩種斷除方式呢？ 四通外難是指：如果斷除染污法，在捨棄（煩惱）獲得（解脫）之時稱為自性斷，而不是所緣斷，那麼為什麼各種論典都說，隨著所繫縛的事物，無為也同樣如此？另外，《大毗婆沙論》第三十一卷說：『所有有漏法（Sasrava-dharma，有煩惱的法），從無始以來，被煩惱所繫縛，無法解脫。如果斷除了煩惱，因為它們脫離了繫縛，就能獲得解脫。就像人被束縛，獲得解脫時，稱人為解脫，而不是繩索等。』既然所繫縛的事物證得了脫，那麼外在事物中也能獲得解脫。另外，《雜心論》等說：『應當知道，從所緣可以使各種煩惱斷除。』根據以上文字，可知各種煩惱是所緣斷。然而，這與不染色的事物等不同。因此可知，斷除同品煩惱時，證得擇滅。 解釋說：這些引用的文字並非一定能證明（你的觀點），因為它們不夠明確。誰能...
【English Translation】 English version: When lower-grade defilements act as conditions for lower-grade defilements, what specific reason makes them stronger? When the upper eight grades of defilements act as conditions for lower-grade defilements, severing the upper eight grades does not lead to the attainment of Nirvana (無為). Only by severing the lower-grade defilements can one attain Pratisankhyanirodha (擇滅, a type of unconditioned dharma). If it is argued that their strength is the same because they are bound to the same object, then it cannot be said that the lower-grade defilements are stronger. If it is argued that their strength is greater, then the object they are bound to cannot be called the same grade. If the strength surpasses the lower-grade defilements, then they are not lower-grade defilements. How can they be the same as lower-grade defilements? Therefore, it is said that there is a strength that surpasses the upper eight grades of defilements. Furthermore, when lower-grade defilements act as conditions for two grades of defilements simultaneously, are they as strong as those of the same grade, or as weak as those of different grades? It is impossible for a defilement to be both strong and weak. Moreover, when these defilements bind their own category and other categories, is there a distinction? Is it that binding their own category makes them strong, while binding other categories makes them weak? Those who say that this view contradicts the teachings, the sixth volume of the Nyaya-anusara-sastra (正理論) states: 'The great Abhidharma (阿毗達磨) masters, based on the sutras, established two types of severance (of defilements).' According to this passage, all the masters share the same view. The first is severance by nature (自性斷), which is called severance when abandoning (defilements) and attaining (liberation). Through this, one attains Pratisankhyanirodha (擇滅). The second is severance by object (所緣斷), through severing the last grade of defilements, one attains Pratisankhyanirodha. Now you propose a type of severance, saying that through the severance of the same category, the same grade, and corresponding severance, one can attain the unconditioned. This is not severance by nature, because it is not through abandoning (defilements) and attaining (liberation) that one attains Pratisankhyanirodha. Nor is it severance by object, because it is not through severing the last grade that one attains Pratisankhyanirodha. What sacred teaching do you rely on to establish this type of severance, contradicting the two types of severance established by the great Abhidharma masters? The 'fourfold external difficulties' refer to: If severing defiled dharmas (染法), at the time of abandoning (defilements) and attaining (liberation), is called severance by nature, and not severance by object, then why do various treatises say that, along with the object bound, the unconditioned is also the same? Furthermore, the thirty-first volume of the Maha-Vibhasa-sastra (大毗婆沙論) states: 'All conditioned dharmas (Sasrava-dharma, 有漏法), from beginningless time, are bound by defilements and cannot be liberated. If the defilements are severed, because they are freed from bondage, they can attain liberation. Just as when a person is bound and attains liberation, the person is called liberated, not the ropes, etc.' Since the object bound attains liberation, liberation can also be attained in external objects. Furthermore, the Samyuktabhidharmahdaya-sastra (雜心論) and others say: 'It should be known that from the object, various defilements can be severed.' According to the above passages, it can be known that various defilements are severed by object. However, this is different from non-colored objects, etc. Therefore, it can be known that when severing defilements of the same grade, one attains Pratisankhyanirodha. The explanation says: These cited passages do not necessarily prove (your point), because they are not clear enough. Who can...
信此不明瞭文。而違阿毗達磨諸大論師。依經所說立二斷耶。詳此三文皆有別意。且如所引隨系事量無為亦爾者。此明擇滅數量不明斷證。以婆沙異師計擇滅無為同能系事量故。對法師說如所繫事量。又對正量部立唯一無為故作是說。非明染污法是所緣斷。諸有漏法無始時來。乃至如人被縛得解脫時人名解脫。非謂繩等者。此以異師執斷法而於能系得於解脫。非於所縛外法上得。故作是說。非是不許有自性斷作此說也。應知從所緣可令諸惑斷者。對相應說．非是欲遮自性斷也 四論同異者。擇滅無為隨系事量。故知一一法上唯有一擇滅。又一切無學。皆於一切有漏法中證得擇滅。故知擇滅必定共證婆沙通經云。問若爾。何故涅槃名不共法。答涅槃體雖是共。而就得說名不共法。以離系得一一有情自相續中各別起故。又引經說。如來解脫與余阿羅漢等無異。此就所證滅說 五斷不同者。今應依斷作句數分別。法有三種。一自身所得法。亦他身所得法。三非二所得法。一望自身所得。七十五法分別者。有自性斷非所緣斷者。謂煩惱大地。不善大地。小煩惱地。不定中貪嗔慢疑 有所緣斷非自性斷者。謂十色全。無表一分除無漏者。大善地法一分。不相應中除四相及得一分餘九不相應法全 亦自性斷亦所緣斷者。謂心王。十
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不相信這些不明確的文字，卻違背《阿毗達磨》（Abhidharma，論藏）的各位大論師，依據經文所說建立二種斷嗎？詳細分析這三段文字，各有不同的含義。比如所引用的『隨系事量無為亦爾』，這是說明擇滅（nirodha-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而達到的滅盡）的數量不明，斷證不明。因為《婆沙》（Vibhasa，註釋）的異師認為擇滅無為與能系事量相同。對法師說如同所繫事量。又因為對正量部（Sammitiya，佛教部派之一）建立唯一的無為法，所以這樣說。並非說明染污法是所緣斷。一切有漏法從無始以來，乃至如同人被束縛得到解脫時，人名為解脫，並非說繩索等。這是因為異師執著于斷法，從而在能繫上得到解脫，而不是在所縛的外法上得到。所以這樣說，並非是不允許有自性斷而這樣說。應當知道，從所緣可以使諸惑斷除，這是針對相應而說，並非是要遮止自性斷。四論的同異之處在於，擇滅無為隨系事量，因此知道每一個法上只有一種擇滅。而且一切無學（asaiksha，已證阿羅漢果位者），都在一切有漏法中證得擇滅。因此知道擇滅必定是共同證得。《婆沙》通經中說：『問：如果這樣，為什麼涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）被稱為不共法？答：涅槃的本體雖然是共同的，但就證得來說，稱為不共法。因為離系得在每一個有情自身的相續中各自生起。』又引用經文說：『如來的解脫與其餘阿羅漢等沒有差異。』這是就所證的滅來說的。五種斷的不同之處在於，現在應當依據斷來分別句數。法有三種：一是自身所得法，二是他人身所得法，三是非二者所得法。從自身所得的角度來看，七十五法分別如下：有自性斷非所緣斷的，是指煩惱大地法（klesha-mahabhumika）、不善大地法（akusala-mahabhumika）、小煩惱地法（parittaklesa-bhumika）、不定法中的貪（raga，貪慾）、嗔（dvesha，嗔恚）、慢（mana，我慢）、疑（vicikitsa，懷疑）。有所緣斷非自性斷的，是指十色全，無表色（avijnapti-rupa）一分（除了無漏的），大善地法（kusala-mahabhumika）一分，不相應行法（citta-viprayukta-samskara-dharma）中除了四相（生、住、異、滅）及得（prapti）一分，其餘九種不相應行法全。既是自性斷又是所緣斷的，是指心王（citta），十
【English Translation】 English version Not believing these unclear texts, but contradicting the great Abhidharma masters, and establishing two kinds of cessation based on what the sutras say? Analyzing these three passages in detail, each has a different meaning. For example, the quoted phrase 'the measure of things related to attachment is also the same' explains that the quantity of Nirodha-nirodha (cessation through wisdom) is unclear, and the proof of cessation is unclear. This is because the dissenting teachers of the Vibhasa (commentary) believe that Nirodha-nirodha as unconditioned is the same as the measure of things related to attachment. It is said to the Dharma masters to be like the measure of things related to attachment. Also, it is said because the Sammitiya (a Buddhist school) establishes only one unconditioned dharma. It does not mean that defiled dharmas are objects of cessation. All conditioned dharmas, from beginningless time, are like a person who is bound and then liberated; the person is called liberated, not the ropes, etc. This is because dissenting teachers cling to the cessation of dharmas, thereby attaining liberation from attachment, not from the external dharmas that are bound. Therefore, it is said in this way, not to deny that there is cessation by nature. It should be known that the cessation of afflictions can be caused by objects of cessation, which is said in relation to correspondence, not to prevent cessation by nature. The similarities and differences of the four treatises are that Nirodha-nirodha is measured by things related to attachment, so it is known that there is only one Nirodha-nirodha on each dharma. Moreover, all those who are beyond learning (arhats) attain Nirodha-nirodha in all conditioned dharmas. Therefore, it is known that Nirodha-nirodha is certainly attained together. The Vibhasa Sutra says: 'Question: If so, why is Nirvana (extinction) called a non-common dharma? Answer: Although the substance of Nirvana is common, it is called a non-common dharma in terms of attainment. Because the attainment of detachment arises separately in the individual continuums of each sentient being.' Also, the sutra says: 'The liberation of the Tathagata is no different from that of other Arhats.' This is in terms of the cessation attained. The differences in the five cessations are that the number of sentences should now be distinguished according to cessation. There are three kinds of dharmas: first, dharmas obtained by oneself; second, dharmas obtained by others; and third, dharmas not obtained by either. From the perspective of what is obtained by oneself, the seventy-five dharmas are distinguished as follows: There is cessation by nature but not cessation by object, which refers to the great earth of afflictions (klesha-mahabhumika), the great earth of unwholesome dharmas (akusala-mahabhumika), the earth of minor afflictions (parittaklesa-bhumika), and greed (raga), hatred (dvesha), pride (mana), and doubt (vicikitsa) among the uncertain dharmas. There is cessation by object but not cessation by nature, which refers to the entirety of the ten forms, a portion of non-revealing form (except for the unconditioned), a portion of the great earth of wholesome dharmas (kusala-mahabhumika), and among the non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-samskara-dharma), all nine non-associated formations except for the four characteristics (birth, duration, change, and extinction) and attainment. What is both cessation by nature and cessation by object refers to the mind (citta), the ten
大地尋伺一分。及悔．眠全。四相。及得一分有漏者。此等與自性斷相應．俱有．及得是自性斷也。非彼相應俱有．及得是所緣斷也 俱非句者。謂七十五法中。是無漏法者皆非二斷 若通就他身作問答者。但自性斷皆所緣斷。自結一果等他所斷故。總有三句 除自性斷非所緣斷。若他身所得法．及非二所得法。有漏者但有所緣斷一句。無漏者俱非句。
論。已說擇滅至得非擇滅。結前舉后頌也 以得不同簡名體也。
論。謂能永礙至名非擇滅。釋頌文也 言得滅異前者。前因擇得。此不因擇。故言異前。得不因慧但由闕緣名非擇滅。不應釋言前滅是善。此滅無記名異前也。若爾即是前得善滅。今得非善。即應得滅異前名非善滅。然此闕緣名為非擇滅。因非擇得非擇滅。亦辨得名同前擇滅是屬主釋。
論。得不因擇但由闕緣。釋得因也 準此論文但由闕緣。即是更無餘力準正理．顯宗由二因得。一由闕緣。二由非擇。非擇鄣故。若遇勝緣法即得生。若遇劣緣法即不起。正理云。擇謂如理勤所成慧。不由此慧。有法永礙未來法生名非擇滅 乃至 若法能礙彼法生用。此法離慧定礙彼法。令住未來永不生故。得非擇滅。此法實有後當成立 又顯宗云。非唯緣闕便永不生。后遇同類緣彼復應生故。詳此論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於大地尋伺的一分（指煩惱），以及悔、睡眠，全部的四相（生、住、異、滅），以及獲得的一分有漏法，這些都與自性斷相應，是俱有（同時存在），並且獲得（這些煩惱的斷滅）是自性斷。不是與它們相應、俱有，並且獲得的是所緣斷。俱非句是指七十五法中，是無漏法的都不是這兩種斷滅。 如果通盤就他身（其他眾生的身）作問答，那麼只有自性斷才是所緣斷，因為自結（自己煩惱的結縛）的一果等是由他人所斷的。總共有三句： 除去自性斷不是所緣斷的情況，如果是他身所得的法，以及不是兩種斷滅所能獲得的法，有漏法只有所緣斷這一句，無漏法則是俱非句。
論：已經說了擇滅，接下來是獲得非擇滅。這是總結前面並引出後面的頌文。用『得』的不同來區分名稱和本體。
論：所謂能夠永遠阻礙未來法產生的，叫做非擇滅。這是解釋頌文。說『得滅異前』，是因為前面的（擇滅）是因選擇而獲得的，而這個（非擇滅）不是因選擇而獲得的，所以說『異前』。獲得不是因為智慧，而是因為缺少因緣，所以叫做非擇滅。不應該解釋為前面的滅是善的，而這個滅是無記的，所以說『異前』。如果這樣，那就是前面的獲得是善滅，現在的獲得不是善的，就應該說獲得滅異前叫做非善滅。然而，這裡是因為缺少因緣，所以叫做非擇滅。因為非選擇而獲得非擇滅。也辨明了『得』的名稱與前面的擇滅相同，是屬主釋（所有格結構）。
論：獲得不是因為選擇，而是因為缺少因緣。這是解釋獲得的因。根據這段論文，『只是因為缺少因緣』，就是說沒有其他的力量。根據《正理》和《顯宗》，（非擇滅）由兩個原因獲得：一是缺少因緣，二是非擇（非智慧的選擇）的障礙。如果遇到殊勝的因緣，法就能產生；如果遇到低劣的因緣，法就不會生起。《正理》說：『擇』是指如理勤奮所成就的智慧。不是通過這種智慧，有法永遠阻礙未來法的產生，叫做非擇滅。乃至，如果法能夠阻礙彼法的生起作用，這個法離開智慧，一定能阻礙彼法，使其停留在未來，永遠不生起，所以獲得非擇滅。這個法是真實存在的，後面將會成立。又，《顯宗》說：不是僅僅缺少因緣就永遠不生起，以後遇到同類的因緣，它又應該生起。詳細討論這個理論。
【English Translation】 English version A portion of Earthly Mental Application (Dhatu Manasikara, referring to afflictions), along with regret, sleep, all four characteristics (birth, duration, change, and extinction), and a portion of defiled dharmas that are attained—these are all associated with self-nature severance, are co-existent, and the attainment (of the cessation of these afflictions) is self-nature severance. What is not associated with them, co-existent with them, and attained is object-related severance. The 'neither' category refers to the seventy-five dharmas, where those that are unconditioned dharmas are not either of the two severances. If we comprehensively ask and answer regarding the bodies of others (other sentient beings), then only self-nature severance is object-related severance, because the result of self-bondage (the binding of one's own afflictions), etc., is severed by others. In total, there are three categories: Except for the case where self-nature severance is not object-related severance, if it is a dharma attained by another's body, and a dharma that cannot be attained by either of the two severances, then defiled dharmas have only the object-related severance category, and unconditioned dharmas are in the 'neither' category.
Treatise: Having spoken of Cessation by Discrimination (Pratisankhya-nirodha), next is the attainment of Cessation Without Discrimination (Apratisankhya-nirodha). This summarizes the preceding and introduces the following verse. The difference in 'attainment' is used to distinguish the name and the substance.
Treatise: What is able to permanently obstruct the arising of future dharmas is called Cessation Without Discrimination. This explains the verse. Saying 'attainment of cessation differs from the previous' is because the previous (Cessation by Discrimination) is attained through choice, while this (Cessation Without Discrimination) is not attained through choice, hence 'differs from the previous.' Attainment is not due to wisdom but due to the lack of conditions, hence it is called Cessation Without Discrimination. It should not be explained that the previous cessation is wholesome, while this cessation is neutral, hence 'differs from the previous.' If that were the case, then the previous attainment would be wholesome cessation, and the current attainment would not be wholesome, so it should be said that the attainment of cessation differs from the previous and is called non-wholesome cessation. However, here it is because of the lack of conditions that it is called Cessation Without Discrimination. Because of non-choice, Cessation Without Discrimination is attained. It also clarifies that the name 'attainment' is the same as the previous Cessation by Discrimination, and it is a possessive compound.
Treatise: Attainment is not due to choice but due to the lack of conditions. This explains the cause of attainment. According to this text, 'only because of the lack of conditions' means that there is no other force. According to the Nyaya and Abhidharmakosa, (Cessation Without Discrimination) is attained by two causes: one is the lack of conditions, and the other is the obstruction of non-choice (non-wisdom choice). If favorable conditions are encountered, the dharma can arise; if unfavorable conditions are encountered, the dharma will not arise. The Nyaya says: 'Choice' refers to the wisdom achieved through diligent effort in accordance with reason. Without this wisdom, a dharma permanently obstructs the arising of future dharmas, which is called Cessation Without Discrimination. Even if a dharma can obstruct the function of another dharma's arising, this dharma, apart from wisdom, can definitely obstruct that dharma, causing it to remain in the future and never arise, thus attaining Cessation Without Discrimination. This dharma is truly existent and will be established later. Also, the Abhidharmakosa says: It is not only because of the lack of conditions that it will never arise; if similar conditions are encountered later, it should arise again. Discuss this theory in detail.
意。諸不生由其二緣。一由闕緣。二由非擇滅。以後遇同類緣法得生者。此擇非理。后遇同類緣為是生緣。為非生緣。若後有生緣前非闕緣。若后非生緣如何得生。由無生緣法永不生。何關滅力 問顯宗云。法非唯緣闕。此論云但由闕緣。兩論不同何者為正。答準婆沙釋得不同。有為三性法得同所得判性。由所得法力令得起故 擇滅得從道。依道起故 非擇滅得從眾同分。依同分起故。以無為無用。二滅不從所得判也 婆沙亦云。虛空等無用。故知此論但由闕緣理勝 問若爾。何故婆沙云 虛空與四大等近增上緣耶。答虛空無礙。大種有礙。故名為近。非謂有力名為近也 問若爾故。婆沙三十二云。此非擇滅。唯于未來不生法得。所以者何。此滅。本欲遮有為法令永不生。若永不生此得便起。如與欲法系屬有情。現在正行。過去已行。未來當行。皆有生義。故於彼法不得此滅耶。答雖本欲遮有為法。如與欲法者。此是義言非實爾也。由如擇滅本欲遮有漏法。煩惱繫縛。法若離系。如與欲法。而起滅得。然此滅得。由斷道力不由擇滅。非擇滅得義亦準此。若不爾者。此非擇滅。應于自得。是有力用。非但不障。
有人云。此法本欲礙法不生。若法不生便即起得送與行者 此釋誤也。應言法永不生得非擇滅。不應言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：意。諸法的不生起由兩種原因導致：一是由於缺少必要的因緣，二是由於非擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧力達到的滅盡）。如果之後遇到同類的因緣，法仍然能夠生起，那麼這種『擇』（選擇）就是不合理的。之後遇到的同類因緣，是生起的因緣，還是非生起的因緣？如果之後有生起的因緣，那麼之前就不是缺少因緣；如果之後不是生起的因緣，那麼如何能夠生起？由於沒有生起的因緣，法永遠不會生起，這與滅的力量有什麼關係？ 問：顯宗（Abhidharma）說，法的不生起不僅僅是由於缺少因緣，而此論（指《俱舍論》）說僅僅是由於缺少因緣。兩種論述不同，哪一種是正確的？答：按照《婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）的解釋，可以認為它們是從不同的角度說的。有為法的三性（善、惡、無記）可以根據其『所得』（結果）來判斷性質，因為由所得之法的力量使得（有為法）生起。擇滅的獲得來自於道（mārga，修行之道），因為它依賴於道而生起。非擇滅的獲得來自於眾同分（nikāya-sabhāga，同類眾生的共性），因為它依賴於同分而生起。因為無為法沒有作用，所以兩種滅（擇滅和非擇滅）不能從所得來判斷性質。《婆沙論》也說，虛空等沒有作用，因此可知此論（《俱舍論》）所說的『僅僅由於缺少因緣』的說法更為合理。 問：如果這樣，為什麼《婆沙論》第三十二卷說，虛空與四大（四大種，地、水、火、風）等是近增上緣（upādāna-pratyaya，強有力的助緣）呢？答：虛空沒有阻礙，四大種有阻礙，所以稱為『近』，並非說它有力量而稱為『近』。 問：如果這樣，為什麼《婆沙論》第三十二卷說，這種非擇滅僅僅在未來不生之法上才能獲得？原因是什麼？這種滅，本來是想要遮止有為法，使其永遠不生起。如果永遠不生起，這種『得』（prāpti，獲得）便會生起，就像『與欲法』（chandas，意願）系屬於有情一樣，現在正在實行，過去已經實行，未來將要實行，都有生起的意義，因此對於那些法不能獲得這種滅嗎？答：雖然本來是想要遮止有為法，就像『與欲法』一樣，這只是比喻的說法，並非真實如此。就像擇滅本來是想要遮止有漏法（sāsrava-dharma，有煩惱的法），煩惱的繫縛，法如果脫離了繫縛，就像『與欲法』一樣，而生起滅的獲得。然而這種滅的獲得，是由斷道的力用，而不是由擇滅。非擇滅的獲得的意義也與此類似。如果不是這樣，這種非擇滅，應該在它自身上也是有力量和作用的，而不僅僅是不阻礙。 有人說，這種法本來是想要阻礙法不生起，如果法不生起，便立即生起『得』，並將其送給修行者。這種解釋是錯誤的。應該說，法永遠不生起，才能獲得非擇滅，不應該說...
【English Translation】 English version: Meaning. The non-arising of all dharmas is due to two causes: first, the lack of necessary conditions; second, pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through the power of wisdom). If, after encountering similar conditions, a dharma can still arise, then this 'selection' (choice) is unreasonable. Are the similar conditions encountered later conditions for arising, or non-arising? If there are conditions for arising later, then there was no lack of conditions before; if there are no conditions for arising later, then how can it arise? Because there are no conditions for arising, a dharma will never arise, so what does this have to do with the power of cessation? Question: The Abhidharma says that the non-arising of a dharma is not only due to the lack of conditions, while this treatise (referring to the Abhidharmakośa) says it is only due to the lack of conditions. These two statements are different, which one is correct? Answer: According to the explanation in the Mahāvibhāṣā, they can be considered from different perspectives. The three natures (good, evil, and neutral) of conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma) can be judged based on their 'attainment' (result), because the power of the attained dharma causes (the conditioned dharma) to arise. The attainment of pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha comes from the path (mārga, the path of practice), because it depends on the path to arise. The attainment of apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation without wisdom) comes from the commonality of beings (nikāya-sabhāga, the common nature of beings of the same kind), because it depends on the commonality to arise. Because unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma) have no function, the two cessations (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha and apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) cannot be judged based on attainment. The Mahāvibhāṣā also says that space, etc., have no function, so it can be known that the statement in this treatise (Abhidharmakośa) that 'only due to the lack of conditions' is more reasonable. Question: If so, why does the thirty-second fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā say that space and the four great elements (mahābhūta, earth, water, fire, and wind), etc., are proximate dominant conditions (upādāna-pratyaya, powerful supporting conditions)? Answer: Space has no obstruction, and the four great elements have obstruction, so it is called 'proximate', not because it has power that it is called 'proximate'. Question: If so, why does the thirty-second fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā say that this apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha can only be attained on dharmas that will not arise in the future? What is the reason? This cessation originally intended to prevent conditioned dharmas from ever arising. If it never arises, this 'attainment' (prāpti, acquisition) will arise, just as 'chandas' (intention) is bound to sentient beings, now being practiced, already practiced in the past, and to be practiced in the future, all have the meaning of arising, so can this cessation not be attained for those dharmas? Answer: Although it originally intended to prevent conditioned dharmas, just like 'chandas', this is just a metaphorical statement, not really so. Just like pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha originally intended to prevent defiled dharmas (sāsrava-dharma, dharmas with afflictions), the bondage of afflictions, if a dharma is freed from bondage, it is like 'chandas', and the attainment of cessation arises. However, this attainment of cessation is due to the power of cutting off the path, not due to pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. The meaning of the attainment of apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is similar to this. If it is not so, this apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha should also have power and function in itself, and not just be non-obstructing. Some people say that this dharma originally intended to prevent dharmas from arising, and if a dharma does not arise, 'attainment' immediately arises and sends it to the practitioner. This explanation is wrong. It should be said that a dharma will never arise in order to attain apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, and should not say...
非擇滅有力送得與行者 兩說相違應依此論 婆沙三十二云。問諸有情類于非擇滅為共得。為不共得耶。答此不決定。于共有法非擇滅則共得。不共法非擇滅則各別得 準評家云。如是說者應作是說。非擇滅多。擇滅少。所以者何。非擇滅如有為法數量。擇滅但如有漏法數量故。若不爾者。諸可生法。若得不生應不得非擇滅 準此論文一切外物皆有非擇滅。皆可證得。然于中有共．不共。若共者共得。如共財等。若不共者即唯別得 婆沙云問因勝進道得煩惱不生。及諸生處得非擇滅。何故非道果耶。答曰。不為此滅而修道故。謂為涅槃及為離染勤修于道。以修道故於惡趣等得非擇滅。若為此滅而修道者。于惡趣等不得此滅。非於生死不深厭患。可於惡趣得非擇滅故 故得非擇滅不名道果 述曰。求擇滅得涅槃。深厭患染法永斷入聖。可得惡趣非擇滅故。若求非擇滅。不得不生惡趣非擇滅也。以厭心劣后容退故。言厭惡趣即不厭人．天。故厭心劣。
論。如眼與意至得非擇滅。指事釋也 如眼與意專一色時者。眼謂眼根。意謂意識。即是有一分意識取色之時。余識等法得非擇滅 或即眼識。以意名說 或專一青等色時。用時黃等色。及四境唸唸滅者。能緣彼境五識等法。住未來世畢竟不生。以彼不能緣過去故。亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 非擇滅（pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧力量達到的滅盡）有力地傳遞給修行者，存在兩種相互矛盾的說法，應該依據此論典。《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第三十二卷說：『問：諸有情類對於非擇滅是共同獲得，還是不共同獲得呢？』答：『這不一定。對於共有的法，非擇滅則共同獲得；不共有的法，非擇滅則各自獲得。』 準評家說：『如此說來，應該這樣說：非擇滅多，擇滅（pratisankhya-nirodha，通過修行智慧斷滅煩惱）少。為什麼呢？因為非擇滅如有為法（samskrta-dharma，由因緣和合而生的法）的數量那麼多，而擇滅只有如漏法（sasrava-dharma，有煩惱的法）的數量那麼多。』如果不是這樣，諸可生之法，如果得到不生，應該不得非擇滅。 準此論文，一切外物皆有非擇滅，皆可證得。然而其中有共同和不共同。若是共同的，則共同獲得，如共同的財產等；若是不共同的，則唯獨各自獲得。《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》說：『問：因勝進道（visesa-marga，殊勝之道）得到煩惱不生，以及諸生處得到非擇滅，為什麼不是道果（marga-phala，修道所證得的果位）呢？』答曰：『不是爲了此滅而修道。』意思是說，爲了涅槃（nirvana，寂滅）以及爲了遠離染污而勤奮修道，因為修道的緣故，對於惡趣（durgati，不好的去處）等得到非擇滅。如果爲了此滅而修道，對於惡趣等就不得此滅。因為對於生死沒有深深的厭患，才可能對於惡趣得到非擇滅。 所以得到非擇滅不稱為道果。述曰：求擇滅得到涅槃，深深厭患染污之法，永遠斷除而進入聖位，才可能得到惡趣的非擇滅。如果求非擇滅，就不能得到不生惡趣的非擇滅。因為厭離之心薄弱，以後容易退轉。說厭惡趣，就是不厭人、天，所以厭離之心薄弱。 論：如眼與意，至於得到非擇滅，是指事解釋。如眼與意專一于某個顏色的時候，眼指眼根（caksu-indriya，視覺器官），意指意識（manas-vijnana，精神活動）。也就是說，有一部分意識取色的時候，其餘的識等法得到非擇滅。或者就是眼識，用意的名稱來說。或者專一于青色等顏色的時候，用時黃色等顏色，以及四境唸唸滅者，能緣彼境的五識等法，住在未來世，畢竟不生，因為它們不能緣過去。
【English Translation】 English version Non-cessation by discrimination (pratisankhya-nirodha) is powerfully delivered to practitioners. There are two conflicting views, and this treatise should be relied upon. Volume 32 of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra states: 'Question: Do all sentient beings attain non-cessation by discrimination in common, or not in common?' Answer: 'This is not definite. For shared dharmas, non-cessation by discrimination is attained in common; for non-shared dharmas, non-cessation by discrimination is attained separately.' The commentator Zhun says: 'Speaking in this way, it should be said: non-cessation by discrimination is more, cessation by discrimination (pratisankhya-nirodha) is less. Why? Because non-cessation by discrimination has as many instances as conditioned dharmas (samskrta-dharma), while cessation by discrimination only has as many instances as defiled dharmas (sasrava-dharma).' If this were not the case, then if all dharmas that can arise were to attain non-arising, they should not attain non-cessation by discrimination. According to this treatise, all external objects have non-cessation by discrimination and can be attained. However, there are shared and non-shared aspects. If it is shared, then it is attained in common, like shared property; if it is not shared, then it is attained separately. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra states: 'Question: Why is it that attaining the non-arising of afflictions through the path of progress (visesa-marga), and attaining non-cessation by discrimination in various realms of rebirth, are not considered fruits of the path (marga-phala)?' Answer: 'It is not because the path is cultivated for this cessation.' This means that one diligently cultivates the path for nirvana and for detachment from defilements. Because of cultivating the path, one attains non-cessation by discrimination in the evil destinies (durgati). If one were to cultivate the path for this cessation, one would not attain this cessation in the evil destinies. It is because one does not have deep revulsion towards samsara that one can attain non-cessation by discrimination in the evil destinies. Therefore, attaining non-cessation by discrimination is not called a fruit of the path. The commentary states: Seeking cessation by discrimination leads to attaining nirvana, deeply loathing defiled dharmas, permanently severing them, and entering the state of a sage, which allows one to attain non-cessation by discrimination in the evil destinies. If one seeks non-cessation by discrimination, one cannot attain the non-arising of evil destinies. This is because the mind of revulsion is weak and easily regresses. Saying one loathes the evil destinies means one does not loathe humans and gods, so the mind of revulsion is weak. Treatise: As with the eye and the mind, up to attaining non-cessation by discrimination, this is an explanation by referring to the matter. As when the eye and the mind are focused on a single color, the eye refers to the eye faculty (caksu-indriya), and the mind refers to consciousness (manas-vijnana). That is to say, when a portion of consciousness is perceiving a color, the remaining consciousnesses and other dharmas attain non-cessation by discrimination. Or it is simply eye-consciousness, referred to by the name 'mind.' Or when one is focused on a color such as blue, the color being used is yellow, and the five consciousnesses and other dharmas that cognize those objects, which cease moment by moment in the four realms, will ultimately not arise in the future, because they cannot cognize the past.
不更能緣余境故。正理論云。如眼與意專一色時。于所餘色．及一切聲．香．味．觸等。唸唸滅中。緣彼少分意。及法處。得非擇滅。以五識身與一分意識身等。于已滅境終不能生。緣俱境故。述曰。一分意識者。如八勝處等。唯緣現境不緣過去。亦所緣定故。得非擇滅。意．及法處者。意是諸識。法處者心所。及四相等。
論。於法得滅至過現生法。此對擇滅作句數也。若就法明滅有無。一切有漏法各有擇滅。一切有為法各有非擇滅。即非擇滅寬。擇滅狹也。
若以寬問狹。稱后句答 若以狹問寬。稱前句答 若就得以明擇滅。世寬體狹。得通三世故寬。唯有漏法有故體狹 非擇滅則世狹體寬。唯未來得故世狹。一切有為故體寬。由此不同成其四句。如文可解。論。如是已說至何謂有為。上來三頌總明漏．無漏。下二十二頌開為蘊．處．界。先開為五蘊。后開為處．界 初兩頌總明五蘊。次色者下別釋五蘊並分處．界 就前兩頌中。初一頌總明漏無漏蘊。次一頌別明有漏蘊。
就前文中。初結前問后次舉頌答。后長行釋。此即初也。
頌曰至有離有事等。次舉頌答。就中。初兩句重舉有為。分為五蘊出有為體。次兩句述有為眾名。
論曰。至具攝有為后長行釋 于中有七。一列名體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為不能再緣取其餘的境，所以《正理論》中說：『比如眼識和意識專注於一個顏色時，對於其餘的顏色、以及一切聲音、香味、味道、觸覺等，在念念滅去的過程中，緣取它們少分的意識，以及法處，獲得非擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而獲得的滅）。』因為五識身和一部分意識身等，對於已經滅去的境終究不能生起緣取，因為它們緣取的是同時存在的境。註釋中說：『一部分意識』，比如八勝處等，只緣取現在的境，不緣取過去的境，也是因為所緣是確定的，所以獲得非擇滅。『意』是指諸識，『法處』是指心所，以及四相等。 對於法獲得滅，直到過去、現在、未來生起的法。這是針對擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而獲得的滅）作句數的說明。如果就法來說明滅的有無，一切有漏法（sāsrava-dharma，與煩惱相關的法）各有擇滅，一切有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，有生滅變化的法）各有非擇滅。也就是說，非擇滅的範圍寬泛，擇滅的範圍狹窄。 如果用寬泛的問狹窄的，用后一句回答；如果用狹窄的問寬泛的，用前一句回答；如果就『得』來說明擇滅，世間是寬泛的，本體是狹窄的。『得』通於三世（過去、現在、未來）所以寬泛，只有有漏法才有所以本體狹窄。非擇滅則是世間狹窄，本體寬泛。只有未來才能獲得所以世間狹窄，一切有為法都是所以本體寬泛。由此不同，成就了四句的分別。如文中所說可以理解。論中說：『像這樣已經說了』，直到『什麼是有為』。上面三頌總括地說明了有漏和無漏。下面二十二頌展開為蘊（skandha，集合）、處（āyatana，感覺的來源）、界（dhātu，元素）。先展開為五蘊，后展開為處和界。最初的兩頌總括地說明五蘊。其次『色』以下分別解釋五蘊，並區分處和界。就前面的兩頌中，第一頌總括地說明有漏和無漏的蘊，第二頌分別說明有漏的蘊。 就前面的文中，首先總結前面的內容，然後提出後面的問題，其次舉出頌文回答，最後是長行的解釋。這就是最初的部分。 頌文說：『有為有事等』。其次舉出頌文回答。其中，最初的兩句重複舉出『有為』，分為五蘊，顯現有為的本體。其次的兩句陳述有為的各種名稱。 論中說：『完全攝取有為』。後面是長行的解釋。其中有七個方面：一是列出名稱和本體。
【English Translation】 English version: Because it can no longer cognize other objects, the Nyāyānusāra (正理論) says: 'For example, when the eye and mind are focused on one color, with regard to the remaining colors, and all sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, etc., in the process of moment-to-moment cessation, the mind cognizes a small portion of them, and the dharmāyatana (法處), obtains pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (擇滅, cessation through discernment, i.e., selective cessation).' Because the five sense consciousnesses and a portion of the mind consciousness, etc., ultimately cannot arise to cognize objects that have already ceased, because they cognize co-existent objects. The commentary says: 'A portion of the mind consciousness,' such as the eight emancipations (八勝處), only cognizes present objects, not past objects, and also because the object of cognition is fixed, therefore pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is obtained. 'Mind' refers to the consciousnesses, and 'dharmāyatana' refers to mental factors, and the four characteristics (四相), etc. With regard to obtaining cessation of dharma, up to the dharmas that arise in the past, present, and future. This is making a statement about the number of clauses regarding pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. If, with regard to dharma, we explain the existence or non-existence of cessation, all contaminated dharmas (sāsrava-dharma) each have pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, and all conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma) each have apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (非擇滅, cessation without discernment, i.e., non-selective cessation). That is to say, apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is broad, and pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is narrow. If the broad asks about the narrow, answer with the latter clause; if the narrow asks about the broad, answer with the former clause; if, with regard to 'obtaining,' we explain pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, the world is broad, and the substance is narrow. 'Obtaining' pervades the three times (past, present, future), so it is broad, and only contaminated dharmas have it, so the substance is narrow. Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, on the other hand, has a narrow world and a broad substance. Only the future can obtain it, so the world is narrow, and all conditioned dharmas are it, so the substance is broad. Because of these differences, the fourfold distinction is accomplished. As the text says, it can be understood. The treatise says: 'Thus, it has already been said,' up to 'What is conditioned?' The above three verses summarize the contaminated and uncontaminated. The following twenty-two verses expand into aggregates (skandha), sources (āyatana), and elements (dhātu). First, it expands into the five aggregates, and then it expands into the sources and elements. The first two verses summarize the five aggregates. Next, 'form' and below separately explain the five aggregates, and distinguish the sources and elements. In the preceding two verses, the first verse summarizes the contaminated and uncontaminated aggregates, and the second verse separately explains the contaminated aggregates. In the preceding text, first, it summarizes the preceding content, and then raises the following question, second, it cites the verse to answer, and finally, there is a lengthy explanation. This is the initial part. The verse says: 'Conditioned, with things, etc.' Next, it cites the verse to answer. Among them, the first two lines repeat 'conditioned,' dividing it into the five aggregates, revealing the substance of the conditioned. The next two lines state the various names of the conditioned. The treatise says: 'Completely encompassing the conditioned.' The following is a lengthy explanation. Among them, there are seven aspects: first, listing the names and substance.
。二釋有為三釋世路。四釋言依。五釋有離。六釋有事。七總結也。此列蘊名顯有為名體。故正理云。老病死等災橫差別。隱積損伏故名為蘊。此說有為有多過違。隱伏其中遇緣便起。如賊隱山。為別戒等故後言色等。戒等五蘊不能具攝一切有為。色等五蘊具攝有為。
論。眾緣聚集至如乳如薪。釋有為也。無有少法。一緣所生。故即是眾緣共所作義。若爾未來生．及不生。應非有為。是彼類故未來無妨。此釋通也。
如乳薪等。此舉喻也。正理云。未來未起何謂有為。是彼類故亦名有為。如所燒薪于未燒位。是彼類故亦名為薪。或據曾當立名無失。如琴瑟等名為有聲。亦如乳房蓮華池等諸不生法。不越彼類故名有為。
論。此有為法至所吞食故。釋世路也。正理論云。此有為法。彼彼經中。世尊。隨義名世路等。彼復云何。謂諸有為亦名世路。色等五蘊生滅法故。未來現在過去路中。而流轉故。諸不生法眾緣闕故。雖復不生。是彼類故立名無失。有說無常之所吞食故名世路 準此。前釋三世即路名為世路。持業釋也。諸有為法行世路故名為世路。即有世路故名世路。有財釋也 后釋無常所吞食故。真諦釋云。行行不息能盡萬里之路。無常是世。有為是路。與世作路故名世路。即世之路。即依主釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 二、解釋有為（Samskrta，指由因緣和合而成的法）。三、解釋世路（世界的道路，指輪迴）。四、解釋言依（語言所依賴的事物）。五、解釋有離（存在的離散）。六、解釋有事（存在的事物）。七、總結。 這裡列出蘊（Skandha，構成個體存在的要素）的名稱，是爲了顯示有為法的體性。所以《正理經》（Nyaya Sutra）中說：『衰老、疾病、死亡等災難和變故，隱藏、積累、損害、潛伏，所以稱為蘊。』 這說明有為法有很多過失和違逆，隱藏在其中，遇到因緣就會生起，就像盜賊隱藏在山中一樣。爲了區別戒等，所以後面說色等。戒等五蘊不能完全涵蓋一切有為法，而色等五蘊可以完全涵蓋有為法。
論：眾緣聚集，就像牛奶和柴薪一樣。這是解釋有為法。沒有任何法是由單一因緣所生的，所以有為法是眾多因緣共同作用的結果。如果這樣，那麼未來生和不生的法，應該不是有為法。因為它們屬於同一類，所以未來生沒有妨礙。這是通用的解釋。
就像牛奶和柴薪等。這是舉例說明。《正理經》中說：『未來還沒有生起，怎麼能說是「有為」呢？』 因為它們屬於同一類，所以也稱為有為法。就像燃燒過的柴薪，在未燃燒時，因為屬於同一類，所以也稱為柴薪。或者根據曾經或將要發生的情況來命名，沒有錯誤。就像琴瑟等被稱為有聲音。也像蓮花池等不生之法，因為沒有超出它們所屬的類別，所以稱為有為法。
論：這些有為法，最終會被無常所吞噬。這是解釋世路。 《正理論》中說：『這些有為法，在不同的經典中，世尊根據不同的含義，稱之為世路等。』 那麼世路是什麼呢？就是指諸有為法，也稱為世路。因為色等五蘊是生滅之法，在過去、現在、未來的道路中流轉。那些不生之法，因為缺少因緣，所以即使不生，也因為屬於同一類，所以命名沒有錯誤。』 有人說，因為會被無常所吞噬，所以稱為世路。 按照這個說法，前面的解釋是把三世直接當作道路，稱為世路，這是持業釋。諸有為法行走於世路，所以稱為世路，這就是擁有世路，所以稱為世路，這是有財釋。後面的解釋是因為會被無常所吞噬。真諦（Paramārtha）解釋說：『行走不止，能走完萬里的路。無常是世，有為是路，與世作為道路，所以稱為世路。』 也就是世間的道路，這是依主釋。
【English Translation】 English version: Two, explaining Samskrta (有為, that which is conditioned, or compounded of causes). Three, explaining the path of the world (世路, the cycle of rebirth). Four, explaining that which language relies on (言依). Five, explaining the separation of existence (有離). Six, explaining the things that exist (有事). Seven, a summary. Listing the names of the Skandhas (蘊, aggregates constituting individual existence) here is to reveal the nature of Samskrta. Therefore, the Nyaya Sutra (正理經) says: 'Decay, disease, death, and other calamities and changes, hidden, accumulated, damaged, and latent, are therefore called Skandhas.' This explains that Samskrta has many faults and oppositions, hidden within it, which arise when conditions meet, just like thieves hiding in the mountains. To distinguish precepts (戒) and so on, it is said later that form (色) and so on. The five Skandhas such as precepts cannot fully encompass all Samskrta, while the five Skandhas such as form can fully encompass Samskrta.
Treatise: The gathering of many causes, like milk and firewood. This explains Samskrta. No dharma (法, phenomenon) is born from a single cause, so Samskrta is the meaning of being jointly produced by many causes. If so, then future arising and non-arising should not be Samskrta. Because they belong to the same category, future arising is not an obstacle. This is a general explanation.
Like milk and firewood, etc. This is an analogy. The Nyaya Sutra says: 'The future has not yet arisen, how can it be called 'Samskrta'?' Because they belong to the same category, they are also called Samskrta. Like firewood that has been burned, in its unburned state, because it belongs to the same category, it is also called firewood. Or naming based on what has happened or will happen is not a mistake. Like the zither and lute are called having sound. Also like lotus ponds (蓮華池) and other non-arising dharmas, because they do not exceed the category to which they belong, they are called Samskrta.
Treatise: These Samskrta dharmas are ultimately swallowed by impermanence. This explains the path of the world. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra (正理論) says: 'These Samskrta dharmas, in different sutras, the World-Honored One, according to different meanings, calls them the path of the world, etc.' So what is the path of the world? It refers to all Samskrta dharmas, also called the path of the world. Because the five Skandhas such as form are dharmas of arising and ceasing, they flow in the paths of the past, present, and future. Those non-arising dharmas, because they lack causes, even if they do not arise, are named without error because they belong to the same category.' Some say that because they are swallowed by impermanence, they are called the path of the world. According to this statement, the previous explanation directly takes the three times as the path, called the path of the world, which is a Karmadharaya compound (持業釋). All Samskrta dharmas walk the path of the world, so they are called the path of the world, which is possessing the path of the world, so they are called the path of the world, which is a possessive compound (有財釋). The later explanation is because they are swallowed by impermanence. Paramārtha (真諦) explains: 'Walking without stopping can complete a journey of ten thousand miles. Impermanence is the world, Samskrta is the path, making the world a path, so it is called the path of the world.' That is, the path of the world, which is a Tatpurusa compound (依主釋).
也。
論。或名言依至即名俱義釋言依也 言謂語言者。此即語聲相續差別 此所依者即名俱義者。與言為所依。即是名。俱義 有為之法可名俱行於三世。可俱說為過去．現在．未來世故 無為不爾。所以遍於有為不通無為 有釋。諸有為法可與言俱名為言依。故婆沙十五脅尊者云。有為諸法。與言可有俱時轉義。故立言依 無為不爾是故不說 準此論文。即是諸有為法。與言同墮三世義。故正理云。如契經說。言依有三。無四無五 準此。雖說三世 或可諸有為法與名俱 可說與言俱時轉故名言依 此則俱舍與尊者無別。
論。如是言依至有為諸法。以一切有為法皆名俱行三世故。具攝有為。
論。若不爾者至十八界攝。若不如此釋具攝一切有為。如余師義言依唯名。即不通十八界。違論所說通十八界 正理論云。言依。謂名。俱義。即具攝五蘊。如契經說。言依有三．無四無五。由此善通品類足論 彼說言依五蘊所攝 問此論．正理同引品類足論。因何。此論言十八界。正理言五蘊耶。答正理云具攝五蘊。此論云具攝一切有為諸法。言雖少異。義無別也 又破余師言依唯名。品類足論云。言依五蘊十二處．十八界攝 正理引初。此論引后。義皆無失。然皆證通攝有為 婆沙有二說。一云名是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
也。
論：或者說，『言依』（Yan Yi）指的是名、俱、義，解釋為語言所依賴的事物。『言』指的是語言，也就是語音聲波相續的差別。『此所依』指的是名、俱、義，它們是語言所依賴的對象，也就是名、俱、義。有為法（You Wei Fa）可以與名、俱在三世中同時存在，可以同時被稱為過去世、現在世、未來世。無為法（Wu Wei Fa）則不然，因此『言依』普遍存在於有為法中，但不包括無為法。有一種解釋是，所有有為法都可以與語言同時存在，被稱為『言依』。因此，婆沙（Po Sha）第十五卷中，脅尊者（Xie Zun Zhe）說，有為諸法與語言可以同時運轉，因此建立『言依』。無為法不是這樣，所以不討論。根據這段論文，指的是所有有為法與語言一同存在於三世中。因此，正理論（Zheng Li Lun）說，正如契經（Qi Jing）所說，『言依』有三種，沒有四種或五種。根據這個說法，雖然提到了三世，或者說，所有有為法都與名同時存在，可以說與語言同時運轉，因此被稱為『言依』。這與俱舍（Ju She）和脅尊者的觀點沒有區別。
論：正如『言依』所說，一切有為法都與名、俱在三世中同時存在，因此包含了所有有為法。
論：如果不是這樣，就會被十八界（Shi Ba Jie）所包含。如果不是這樣解釋，就不能包含一切有為法。如果像其他老師所說，『言依』只是名，那麼就不能包含十八界，這與論文所說的包含十八界相矛盾。正理論說，『言依』指的是名、俱、義，包含了五蘊（Wu Yun）。正如契經所說，『言依』有三種，沒有四種或五種。由此可以很好地解釋品類足論（Pin Lei Zu Lun）。品類足論說，『言依』被五蘊所包含。問：此論和正理論都引用了品類足論，為什麼此論說是十八界，而正理論說是五蘊呢？答：正理論說是包含了五蘊，此論說是包含了一切有為諸法。說法雖然略有不同，但意思沒有區別。此外，駁斥了其他老師所說『言依』只是名的觀點。品類足論說，『言依』被五蘊、十二處（Shi Er Chu）、十八界所包含。正理論引用了前者，此論引用了後者，意思都沒有錯誤。然而，都證明了『言依』包含了有為法。婆沙有兩種說法，一種說法是名是
【English Translation】 English version:
Also.
Treatise: Or it is said that 'Yan Yi' (言依, Support of Speech) refers to name, aggregation, and meaning, explained as that upon which language relies. 'Speech' refers to language, which is the continuous difference of sound waves. 'That which is relied upon' refers to name, aggregation, and meaning, which are the objects upon which language relies, namely name, aggregation, and meaning. Conditioned dharmas (有為法, You Wei Fa) can coexist with name and aggregation in the three times (past, present, and future), and can be simultaneously referred to as past, present, and future. Unconditioned dharmas (無為法, Wu Wei Fa) are not like this, therefore 'Yan Yi' universally exists in conditioned dharmas but does not include unconditioned dharmas. One explanation is that all conditioned dharmas can coexist with language and are called 'Yan Yi'. Therefore, in the fifteenth volume of the Vibhasa (婆沙, Po Sha), the Venerable Xie (脅尊者, Xie Zun Zhe) said that conditioned dharmas and language can operate simultaneously, hence establishing 'Yan Yi'. Unconditioned dharmas are not like this, so they are not discussed. According to this treatise, it refers to all conditioned dharmas coexisting with language in the three times. Therefore, the Nyayanusara-sastra (正理論, Zheng Li Lun) says, as the Sutra (契經, Qi Jing) says, there are three 'Yan Yi', not four or five. According to this, although the three times are mentioned, or rather, all conditioned dharmas coexist with name, it can be said that they operate simultaneously with language, hence being called 'Yan Yi'. This is no different from the views of the Abhidharmakosa (俱舍, Ju She) and the Venerable Xie.
Treatise: As 'Yan Yi' says, all conditioned dharmas coexist with name and aggregation in the three times, therefore encompassing all conditioned dharmas.
Treatise: If it were not so, it would be encompassed by the eighteen realms (十八界, Shi Ba Jie). If it were not explained this way, it could not encompass all conditioned dharmas. If, as other teachers say, 'Yan Yi' is only name, then it cannot encompass the eighteen realms, which contradicts the treatise's statement that it encompasses the eighteen realms. The Nyayanusara-sastra says that 'Yan Yi' refers to name, aggregation, and meaning, encompassing the five aggregates (五蘊, Wu Yun). As the Sutra says, there are three 'Yan Yi', not four or five. This well explains the Dharmaskandha (品類足論, Pin Lei Zu Lun). The Dharmaskandha says that 'Yan Yi' is encompassed by the five aggregates. Question: This treatise and the Nyayanusara-sastra both quote the Dharmaskandha, so why does this treatise say eighteen realms, while the Nyayanusara-sastra says five aggregates? Answer: The Nyayanusara-sastra says it encompasses the five aggregates, while this treatise says it encompasses all conditioned dharmas. The wording is slightly different, but the meaning is the same. Furthermore, it refutes the view of other teachers that 'Yan Yi' is only name. The Dharmaskandha says that 'Yan Yi' is encompassed by the five aggregates, twelve ayatanas (十二處, Shi Er Chu), and eighteen realms. The Nyayanusara-sastra quotes the former, while this treatise quotes the latter, and the meanings are not wrong. However, both prove that 'Yan Yi' encompasses conditioned dharmas. The Vibhasa has two views, one of which is that name is
言依。義是言展轉依。一云名．義俱是言依。此論同於后說。言有于名方能詮義。欲言之時雙依二故 問何故但說名俱不云句等。答起言之時。或唯召法即唯有名。若兼差別即兼名．句。名是通故所以言名 問若爾文最是通。因何不說。答文是所依。然不能詮自性．差別故不說也。
論。或名有離至有彼離故。釋有離也 正理論云。或名有離。諸趣輪迴沉溺生死。涅槃欲舍故名有離。是息諸趣恒流轉義。若已至得定不還來。此有離故說名有離。如有財者名為有財。即是有為有出離義。一切有為皆同船筏是故聖道亦應舍離。如契經言。法尚應舍。何況非法 準兩論釋。涅槃名永離。一切有為有此離故。名為有離。此有涅槃。諸有為法。至涅槃時皆可舍故。非如離系唯有漏有。此中有離遍一切有為。至涅槃時皆可舍離。即是有能捨離之涅槃也。
論。或名有事至傳說如此。釋有事也。以有因故。事是因義。故正理論云。事謂所依。或是所住。即是因義 果依于因從因生故。如子依母 或果從因能覆因故。如人住床。是因為果所映蔽義。因果前後性故。及細粗性故。此有事故說名有事。喻如前說 準二論釋。因名為事。果有因故名為有事。一切有為皆有其因。所以亦攝一切有為 毗婆沙師傳說如此者。意非全許
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 言依：意義是言語輾轉相依。一種說法是名稱和意義都依賴於言語。此論點與後面的說法相同，即言語只有依賴於名稱才能詮釋意義。想要表達時，兩者相互依賴。問題：為什麼只說名稱，而不說句子等？回答：開始說話時，或者只是指稱事物，即只有名稱；如果涉及差別，則兼有名詞和句子。名稱是通用的，所以說名稱。問題：如果這樣，文字最通用，為什麼不說？回答：文字是所依賴的，但不能詮釋自性或差別，所以不說。
論：或者說名稱具有出離性，因為具有這種出離性。解釋具有出離性：正理論說，或者說名稱具有出離性，因為諸趣輪迴，沉溺於生死，想要捨棄涅槃，所以說名稱具有出離性。這是止息諸趣恒常流轉的意義。如果已經到達，獲得，決定不再回來，因為具有這種出離性，所以說名稱具有出離性。比如有財產的人稱為有財產。即是有為法具有出離的意義。一切有為法都如同船筏，因此聖道也應該捨棄。如契經所說：法尚且應該捨棄，何況非法。根據兩部論的解釋，涅槃名為永遠的出離。一切有為法具有這種出離性，所以名為具有出離性。這裡具有涅槃，一切有為法，到達涅槃時都可以捨棄，不像離系只有有漏法才有。這裡具有的出離性遍及一切有為法，到達涅槃時都可以捨棄，即是具有能夠舍離的有為法的涅槃。
論：或者說名稱具有因，因為具有因。解釋具有因：因為具有因，事就是因的意義。所以正理論說，事是指所依賴的，或者是所住的，即是因的意義。果依賴於因，從因產生，如兒子依賴母親。或者果從因能夠覆蓋因，如人住在床上。這是因為果所映蔽因的意義。因為因果有前後性，以及細粗性，所以說具有因，稱為具有因。比喻如同前面所說。根據兩部論的解釋，因名為事，果具有因，所以名為具有因。一切有為法都具有其因，所以也包含一切有為法。毗婆沙師的傳說是這樣，意思並非完全認可。
【English Translation】 English version Word-dependence: Meaning is the mutual dependence of words. One view is that both name and meaning depend on words. This argument is the same as the later one, that words can only interpret meaning by relying on names. When one wants to express something, the two depend on each other. Question: Why only mention name and not sentence, etc.? Answer: When starting to speak, either one only refers to things, i.e., only has a name; if it involves distinctions, then it includes both name and sentence. Name is universal, so it is said to be name. Question: If so, writing is the most universal, why not mention it? Answer: Writing is what is relied upon, but it cannot interpret self-nature or distinctions, so it is not mentioned.
Argument: Or name has detachment (Nirvana), because it has this detachment. Explanation of having detachment: The Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya says, or name has detachment, because the realms of rebirth, being immersed in birth and death, wanting to abandon Nirvana, so it is said that name has detachment. This is the meaning of stopping the constant flow of the realms of rebirth. If one has arrived, obtained, and is determined not to return, because it has this detachment, it is said that name has detachment. For example, a person with property is called having property. That is, conditioned dharmas have the meaning of detachment. All conditioned dharmas are like rafts, therefore the holy path should also be abandoned. As the sutra says: Even the Dharma should be abandoned, let alone non-Dharma. According to the interpretation of the two treatises, Nirvana is called eternal detachment. All conditioned dharmas have this detachment, so it is called having detachment. Here there is Nirvana, all conditioned dharmas, when reaching Nirvana can be abandoned, unlike lìxì (a type of ascetic practice) which only has defiled dharmas. The detachment here pervades all conditioned dharmas, when reaching Nirvana can be abandoned, that is, having the Nirvana that can abandon conditioned dharmas.
Argument: Or name has cause, because it has cause. Explanation of having cause: Because it has cause, thing is the meaning of cause. Therefore, the Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya says, thing refers to what is relied upon, or what is dwelt in, which is the meaning of cause. The effect relies on the cause, arising from the cause, like a son relying on his mother. Or the effect can cover the cause from the cause, like a person living on a bed. This is because the effect obscures the meaning of the cause. Because cause and effect have anteriority and posteriority, as well as fineness and coarseness, it is said to have cause, called having cause. The metaphor is as mentioned before. According to the interpretation of the two treatises, cause is called thing, effect has cause, so it is called having cause. All conditioned dharmas have their cause, so it also includes all conditioned dharmas. The tradition of the Vibhasa masters is like this, meaning not fully accepted.
說因名事。經部釋。有事者名有體事。一切有為有體。無為無體有事唯攝有為。
論。如是等類至差別眾名。此總結也。
論於此所說有為法中。自下第二。一頌明有漏五蘊名。于中有三。一標前生起。二舉頌答。三長行釋。此即第一 有為法中一分故言有為法中。
頌曰至三有等。次舉頌答。頌中初兩字標其漏法 名取蘊下。列眾名也。
論曰此何所立。長行釋也 文中有三。一總明頌意。二釋頌眾名。三總結也 就明頌意中有三。一問。二答。此問也 如前已說。除道聖諦余有為法名為有漏。此中具說何所立耶 論。謂立取蘊至謂無漏行。答也。前雖已說。今重說者。欲顯取蘊亦名為蘊。或有唯蘊而非取蘊。諸無漏行聚義同故。俱名為蘊不從取生不名取蘊。
論。煩惱名取蘊至如華果樹。釋得名所以也。于中有三法喻。煩惱名取。蘊從煩惱得取名者。從取生故。如草糠火從因立名 系屬取故。如帝王臣。從所屬立名也 雜心論云。蘊為惑所使。如因貪瞋有疑等事。能生取故。如華果樹。從果立名。
論。此有漏法至猶如有漏。釋有諍也。世間諍有二義。一觸動好人。二令自他損害。煩惱亦爾。一觸動善品。二損害自他。故名為諍。諸蘊隨增諍故。
論。亦名為苦違聖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『說因名事』，根據經部的解釋，具有『事』的性質，被稱為『有體事』。一切有為法都具有實體，而無為法沒有實體。因此，『有事』僅包含有為法。
論：『如是等類至差別眾名』，這是總結。
論：『於此所說有為法中』，以下第二部分，用一頌說明有漏五蘊的名稱。其中有三部分：一、標明前文的生起；二、舉頌回答；三、用長行解釋。這是第一部分，因為是有為法的一部分，所以說『有為法中』。
頌曰：『至三有等』，接下來是舉頌回答。頌中的前兩個字標明了有漏法。『名取蘊下』，列出各種名稱。
論曰：『此何所立』，這是用長行解釋。文章中有三部分：一、總的說明頌的意義；二、解釋頌中的各種名稱；三、總結。在說明頌的意義中，有三部分：一、提問；二、回答。這是提問：『如前已說，除了道聖諦（Arya-satya，四聖諦之一，指引向解脫的道路）以外，其餘有為法都稱為有漏。這裡全部說明，是基於什麼立足點呢？』
論：『謂立取蘊至謂無漏行』，這是回答。前面雖然已經說過，現在重新說，是爲了顯示取蘊（Upadanakkhandha，執取之蘊）也稱為蘊（Skandha，構成要素）。或者有些只是蘊而不是取蘊。諸無漏行（Anasrava，無煩惱之行）聚積的意義相同，所以都稱為蘊，但不從執取產生，所以不稱為取蘊。
論：『煩惱名取蘊至如華果樹』，這是解釋得名的原因。其中有三種比喻：法喻、系屬喻和生果喻。煩惱名為『取』，蘊從煩惱得到『取』這個名稱，是因為從執取產生，就像草糠之火，從因來立名。系屬於執取，就像帝王之臣，從所屬關係來立名。雜心論說：蘊為迷惑所驅使，就像因為貪瞋而有疑惑等事，能夠產生執取，就像花果樹，從結果來立名。
論：『此有漏法至猶如有漏』，這是解釋『有諍』（Sarana，鬥爭）的含義。世間的鬥爭有兩種含義：一、觸動好人；二、使自己和他人受到損害。煩惱也是這樣：一、觸動善品；二、損害自己和他人。所以稱為『諍』。諸蘊隨著增長鬥爭的緣故。
論：『亦名為苦違聖』，也稱為苦，違背聖道。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Saying cause names things.' According to the explanation of the Sutra Department, things with the nature of 'things' are called 'things with substance.' All conditioned dharmas have substance, while unconditioned dharmas have no substance. Therefore, 'things' only include conditioned dharmas.
Treatise: 'Such categories to different names,' this is a summary.
Treatise: 'Among the conditioned dharmas mentioned here,' the second part below uses a verse to explain the names of the five aggregates with outflows. There are three parts: 1. Indicate the arising of the previous text; 2. Cite the verse to answer; 3. Explain with a long passage. This is the first part, because it is a part of conditioned dharmas, so it is said 'among conditioned dharmas.'
Verse: 'To the three existences, etc.,' next is citing the verse to answer. The first two words in the verse indicate the dharmas with outflows. 'Name grasping aggregates below,' lists various names.
Treatise says: 'What is established here?' This is explained with a long passage. There are three parts in the article: 1. General explanation of the meaning of the verse; 2. Explanation of the various names in the verse; 3. Summary. In explaining the meaning of the verse, there are three parts: 1. Question; 2. Answer. This is the question: 'As previously said, except for the Path Truth (Arya-satya, one of the Four Noble Truths, referring to the path leading to liberation), the remaining conditioned dharmas are called having outflows. What is the basis for explaining everything here?'
Treatise: 'Establishing grasping aggregates to saying outflow-free practices,' this is the answer. Although it has been said before, it is repeated now to show that grasping aggregates (Upadanakkhandha, aggregates of clinging) are also called aggregates (Skandha, elements of constitution). Or some are only aggregates and not grasping aggregates. The meaning of gathering is the same for all outflow-free practices (Anasrava, practices without afflictions), so they are all called aggregates, but they do not arise from grasping, so they are not called grasping aggregates.
Treatise: 'Afflictions are called grasping aggregates to like flowering fruit trees,' this is the explanation of the reason for the name. There are three metaphors: dharma metaphor, belonging metaphor, and fruit-bearing metaphor. Afflictions are called 'grasping,' and aggregates get the name 'grasping' from afflictions because they arise from grasping, just like the fire of straw and chaff, the name is established from the cause. Belonging to grasping, like the ministers of the emperor, the name is established from the relationship of belonging. The Miscellaneous Abhidharma Heart Treatise says: Aggregates are driven by delusion, just like because of greed and anger there are doubts and other things, which can produce grasping, like flowering fruit trees, the name is established from the result.
Treatise: 'These dharmas with outflows to like having outflows,' this is the explanation of the meaning of 'strife' (Sarana, struggle). There are two meanings of strife in the world: 1. Disturbing good people; 2. Causing harm to oneself and others. Afflictions are also like this: 1. Disturbing good qualities; 2. Harming oneself and others. So it is called 'strife.' Because the aggregates increase with the cause of strife.
Treatise: 'Also called suffering, opposing the noble,' also called suffering, opposing the noble path.
心故。此有漏蘊聖心厭故違聖心。以違聖心名之為苦 正理論云。五取蘊者。是諸逼迫所依處故。自性粗重不安隱故 之為苦。論亦名為集能招苦故。此有漏蘊。能為苦因故名為集。
論。亦名世間至有對治故。釋有漏蘊名世間也 正理云。或名世間性可毀壞故。如世尊說。性可毀壞故名世間。若爾道諦應是世間。不爾。第二毀壞無故。道諦毀壞性不定故。世間毀壞性決定故 第二毀壞即是有對治也。
論。亦名見處至隨增眠故。釋見處也。謂見住有漏蘊中。隨順增長名隨增也。行相微細故名眠也 正理釋云。亦名見處。薩迦耶等五見。住中隨增眠故 豈不有漏一切煩惱皆隨增耶。豈不諸見。漏取諍攝。前已說耶者 此問意云。五見即是煩惱所收。前釋有漏。一切煩惱皆隨增者已說。一切煩惱諍增者已說諸見。因何別說有漏以為見處。以是諸見隨增眠故 雖有此理。而彼諸見於有漏法一切種。一切時。相無差別。堅執不動。隨增眠故體用增盛。為顯有漏是能生長此諸見處故應重說者 此釋重說見處所以也 貪等癡疑則不如是者。無上一切種等四義云不如是。以彼貪等有一切種。無一切時者。釋貪等有一切種異纏．垢等。無一切時與見不同 一切種者。元瑜師云。遍緣五門或遍緣六境。不云有所簡也 今釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為這個有漏蘊（指包含煩惱和業力的五蘊），聖者的心會厭惡它，因為它違背了聖者的心意。因為違背聖者的心意，所以稱之為苦。《正理論》說：『五取蘊（指執取五蘊而產生的苦果）是各種逼迫的所依之處，其自性粗重而不安定，所以是苦。』此論也稱之為集（苦集滅道中的集），因為它能招致痛苦。這個有漏蘊能成為痛苦的原因，所以稱為集。
論中也稱有漏蘊為『世間』，因為它有對治（指能對治它的方法）。解釋有漏蘊名為世間。《正理論》說：『或者稱為世間，因為其性質可以毀壞。』如世尊所說：『性質可以毀壞，所以名為世間。』如果這樣，道諦（苦集滅道中的道）也應該是世間了？不是的。因為沒有第二種毀壞。道諦的毀壞性是不定的，而世間的毀壞性是決定的。第二種毀壞就是指有對治。
論中也稱有漏蘊為『見處』，因為各種見解住在有漏蘊中，隨順增長，所以稱為隨增。其行相微細，所以稱為眠。《正理論》解釋說：『也稱為見處，薩迦耶見（身見）等五見，住在其中隨順增長，所以稱為眠。』難道有漏的一切煩惱不都是隨增嗎？難道各種見解不是被漏、取、諍所攝嗎？前面已經說過了呀？
此問的意思是說，五見就是煩惱所包含的。前面解釋有漏時，已經說過一切煩惱都是隨增的，也已經說過一切煩惱都是諍增的，為什麼還要特別說有漏是見處呢？因為這些見解在有漏法中，一切種類、一切時間，其相狀都沒有差別，堅固執著不動搖，隨順增長而眠伏，其體用增盛。爲了顯示有漏是能生長這些見解的地方，所以應該重複說明。
解釋重複說明見處的原因。貪等癡疑則不是這樣。『無上』、『一切種』等四種意義說不是這樣。因為貪等有一種類，但沒有一切時間。解釋貪等有一種類，如異纏、垢等，但沒有一切時間，這與見解不同。一切種類，元瑜師說，是普遍緣五門或普遍緣六境，沒有說有所簡略。現在解釋。
【English Translation】 English version: Because this contaminated skandha (referring to the five aggregates containing afflictions and karma), the heart of a sage detests it because it goes against the sage's heart. Because it goes against the sage's heart, it is called suffering. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'The five aggregates of clinging (referring to the suffering resulting from clinging to the five aggregates) are the place upon which all oppressions rely, and their nature is coarse, heavy, and unstable, therefore they are suffering.' This treatise also calls it samudaya (accumulation, one of the Four Noble Truths), because it can bring about suffering. This contaminated skandha can be the cause of suffering, so it is called samudaya.
The treatise also calls the contaminated skandha 'the world' because it has an antidote (referring to the method that can counteract it). Explaining the contaminated skandha as 'the world'. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Or it is called the world because its nature can be destroyed.' As the World-Honored One said: 'Because its nature can be destroyed, it is called the world.' If so, should the mārga (the path, one of the Four Noble Truths) also be the world? No. Because there is no second destruction. The destructibility of the mārga is uncertain, while the destructibility of the world is certain. The second destruction refers to having an antidote.
The treatise also calls the contaminated skandha 'the place of views' because various views reside in the contaminated skandha and increase accordingly, so it is called anushaya (latent tendency). Its appearance is subtle, so it is called nidrā (dormancy). The Nyāyānusāra explains: 'It is also called the place of views, the five views such as satkāya-dṛṣṭi (view of self), reside within it and increase accordingly, so it is called nidrā.' Don't all afflictions of the contaminated increase accordingly? Aren't the various views included in āsrava (outflows), upādāna (clinging), and vivāda (disputes)? Hasn't it been said before?
The meaning of this question is that the five views are included in afflictions. When explaining the contaminated earlier, it was already said that all afflictions increase accordingly, and it was also said that all afflictions increase disputes. Why is it necessary to specifically say that the contaminated is the place of views? Because these views, in the contaminated dharma, in all kinds and at all times, their appearances have no difference, they are firmly attached and unmoving, they increase accordingly and lie dormant, and their substance and function increase greatly. In order to show that the contaminated is the place where these views can grow, it should be explained again.
Explaining the reason for repeating the explanation of the place of views. Greed, etc., ignorance, and doubt are not like this. The four meanings of 'supreme', 'all kinds', etc., say they are not like this. Because greed, etc., have one kind but do not have all times. Explaining that greed, etc., have one kind, such as different entanglements and defilements, but do not have all times, which is different from views. 'All kinds', Master Yuanyou said, is universally connected to the five senses or universally connected to the six objects, without saying there is any simplification. Now explaining.
。一切種者。謂貪．瞋慢有隨眠．纏．垢．一切種過。上必兼下故。由是別相隨眠。雖一切種。不能於一切時起。名非一切時 非無差別者。雖獨頭無明。及共相煩惱相應無明。是一切時。而有別相煩惱相應無明非一切時。及與忿等相應無明。非一切種．及一切時故。相有差別 疑雖無差別而不堅執者 疑是隨眠性非別相惑。不與別相煩惱。及非一切種染法相應。有一切種。及一切時。相無差別。而疑有苦無苦等。不堅執故。非是堅執 不同於見是隨眠故。有一切種。共相惑故有一切時。不與自相煩惱．及非隨眠染相應故相無差別。此我斷常。撥無等見。不猶豫故非不堅執。由此過重。于有漏法。別說見處令生厭離。
論。亦名三有至三有漏故。釋三有也。三有三界也。此有漏蘊。與有為因故。與有為依故。三有攝故。亦名有。
論。如是等類至隨義別名。總結也。準正理論。向外等。正理。等言。為攝名有染等。如是等類是有漏法。隨義別名。
俱舍論疏卷第一
建久二十一十一日於三井寺南此疏一部卅軸是東南覺僧都深得對法之□□搜諸師意讀難讀訓難訓而所切句付假名之點本也誠是一寺規模萬代寶物也。然當卷本自缺了爰予悲法命漸盡不顧鳥跡所寫加也。雖然寫本文字極狼藉也少少雖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『一切種』指的是貪（Tanha，渴愛）、瞋（Dosa，嗔恨）、慢（Mana，我慢）具有隨眠（Anusaya，潛在的煩惱）、纏（Paryavasthana，纏縛）、垢（Mala，污垢）以及一切種類的過失。上面所說的必然包含下面的，因此，雖然別相隨眠（Visesa-laksana-anusaya，特定相的隨眠）是一切種，但不能在所有時間都生起，所以稱為『非一切時』。 『非無差別者』，雖然獨頭無明（Moha，愚癡）以及與共相煩惱（Samanya-laksana-klesa，普遍相的煩惱）相應的無明是一切時生起的，但與別相煩惱相應的無明並非一切時生起，以及與忿（Krodha，忿怒）等相應的無明並非一切種和一切時生起，因此相狀有差別。疑（Vicikiccha，懷疑）雖然沒有差別，但並不堅執。 疑是隨眠的性質，不是別相的迷惑，不與別相煩惱以及非一切種的染法相應，具有一切種和一切時的特性，相狀沒有差別。然而，疑有苦無苦等，因為不堅執，所以不是堅執。這不同於見（Drsti，邪見），見是隨眠，具有一切種，因為是共相的迷惑，所以具有一切時。不與自相煩惱以及非隨眠的染法相應，所以相狀沒有差別。例如『此我斷常』、『撥無』等見，因為不猶豫，所以不是不堅執。由於這種過失嚴重，所以在有漏法（Sasrava-dharma，有煩惱的法）中，特別說見處，使人生起厭離。 論：也稱為三有（Tri-bhava，三界）乃至三有漏故。解釋三有。三有即三界。這些有漏蘊（Sasrava-skandha，有煩惱的蘊），因為是有為（Samskrta，有造作的）之因，因為是有為所依賴的，被三有所攝，所以也稱為『有』。 論：如是等類乃至隨義別名。總結。根據《阿毗達磨俱舍論》的正理論，『向外等』，正理中的『等』字，是爲了包括名為『有染』等。如是等類是有漏法，隨其意義而有的不同名稱。 《俱舍論疏》卷第一 建久二十一年十一日於三井寺南，此疏一部卅軸是東南覺僧都深得對法之□□，搜諸師意，讀難讀訓難訓，而所切句付假名之點本也。誠是一寺規模萬代寶物也。然當卷本自缺了，爰予悲法命漸盡，不顧鳥跡所寫加也。雖然寫本文字極狼藉也，少少雖
【English Translation】 English version: 『All-seeds』 refers to greed (Tanha, thirst), hatred (Dosa, aversion), and pride (Mana, conceit) having latent defilements (Anusaya, latent afflictions), entanglements (Paryavasthana, binding afflictions), stains (Mala, taints), and all kinds of faults. What is mentioned above necessarily includes what is below. Therefore, although specific-characteristic latent defilements (Visesa-laksana-anusaya, latent afflictions with specific characteristics) are 『all-seeds,』 they cannot arise at all times, hence they are called 『not all-times.』 『Not without distinctions』 means that although independent ignorance (Moha, delusion) and ignorance associated with common-characteristic afflictions (Samanya-laksana-klesa, afflictions with common characteristics) arise at all times, ignorance associated with specific-characteristic afflictions does not arise at all times, and ignorance associated with anger (Krodha, wrath) and the like does not arise in all ways and at all times; therefore, their characteristics are different. Doubt (Vicikiccha, uncertainty), although without distinctions, is not firmly held. Doubt is the nature of latent defilements, not a specific-characteristic delusion. It is not associated with specific-characteristic afflictions and defiled dharmas that are not 『all-seeds.』 It has the characteristics of 『all-seeds』 and 『all-times,』 and its characteristics are not different. However, doubt about whether there is suffering or not, etc., is not firmly held, so it is not a firm adherence. This is different from views (Drsti, wrong views), which are latent defilements and have 『all-seeds.』 Because they are delusions of common characteristics, they have 『all-times.』 They are not associated with self-characteristic afflictions and defiled dharmas that are not latent defilements, so their characteristics are not different. For example, views such as 『this self is permanent or impermanent』 and 『denial of existence』 are not hesitant, so they are not 『not firmly held.』 Because of the severity of these faults, in conditioned dharmas (Sasrava-dharma, contaminated dharmas), the place of views is specifically mentioned to cause aversion and detachment. Treatise: It is also called the Three Realms of Existence (Tri-bhava, three realms of existence) and even 『because of the Three Realms of Existence with outflows.』 Explaining the Three Realms of Existence. The Three Realms of Existence are the three realms. These contaminated aggregates (Sasrava-skandha, contaminated aggregates), because they are the cause of the conditioned (Samskrta, conditioned), because they are what the conditioned relies on, and because they are included in the Three Realms of Existence, are also called 『existence.』 Treatise: Such categories and so on, up to 『different names according to meaning.』 Conclusion. According to the Correct Principle Treatise of the Abhidharmakosa, 『outward-directed and so on,』 the word 『and so on』 in the Correct Principle is to include things like 『contaminated existence.』 Such categories are contaminated dharmas, with different names according to their meaning. Kosa Commentary, Volume 1 Eleventh day of the eleventh month of the twenty-first year of Kenkyu at the south of Mii-dera Temple. This commentary, a set of 30 scrolls, is deeply understood by the monk So-to Kakusho of the southeast, who thoroughly researched the meanings of various teachers, reading the difficult-to-read and interpreting the difficult-to-interpret, and adding kana marks to the crucial phrases. It is truly a treasure of the temple for all ages. However, this scroll is missing parts, so I, lamenting the nearing end of the Dharma's life, disregarded the bird tracks and added to it. Although the writing in this copy is extremely messy, even a little bit...
直之多多謬難盡歟隨後覽可直之。
壽永元年十月十二日于石山寺書寫了 弟子范賢生年十九歲
俱舍論疏卷第一(余之)
沙門法寶撰
論如。上所言至色蘊者何。已下二十行頌。別釋五蘊。並分處．界 于中。有十三段。分為四節。初五頌半明色蘊。及分處．界。文中有五。第一半頌總列十一色。第二半頌辨五色根。第三一頌辨五色境。第四三頌辨無表色。第五半頌以色蘊分處．界此即初也。
頌曰至及無表者。次舉頌答。
論曰至立色蘊名。此釋頌也。如文可解。
論。此中先應說五根相。第二半頌辨五根相。
論曰至眼等五根。此釋頌也 彼識有兩釋也。一云。彼色等識 二云。彼眼等識 此文第一。即是彼色識所依名眼根。乃至。觸識所依名身根也。
論。如世尊說至如是廣說。此引經證五根是凈色也。
論。或復彼者至鼻舌身識。此第二釋。識從根得名也。
論。彼識所依至所依止義。即眼識所依名眼根。乃至。身識所依名身根也。
論。如是便順至如是廣說。此引文證。后說為正。諸論皆同。正理論先說識從根立名。斷為正訖云。有說。彼者是境非根。而無意識緣色等故名色等識。彼識所依名眼等過。由凈色言所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 其中謬誤難免，難以一一列舉，希望之後閱覽時可以自行修正。
于壽永元年十月十二日在石山寺書寫完畢。 弟子范賢，生年十九歲。
《俱舍論疏》卷第一（余之）
沙門法寶 撰
論中如上文所言，至於色蘊是什麼？以下二十行頌文，分別解釋五蘊，並劃分處、界。其中有十三段，分為四節。最初五頌半闡明色蘊，以及劃分處、界。文中有五點：第一，用半頌總括列出十一種色。第二，用半頌辨析五色根。第三，用一頌辨析五色境。第四，用三頌辨析無表色。第五，用半頌用色蘊劃分處、界。這便是最初的部分。
頌曰：至於及無表者。接下來舉出頌文回答。
論曰：至於立色蘊名。這是解釋頌文。如文意即可理解。
論：此處首先應當說明五根的相狀。第二部分用半頌辨析五根的相狀。
論曰：至於眼等五根。這是解釋頌文。彼識有兩種解釋。一種說法是：彼色等識。另一種說法是：彼眼等識。此文采用第一種解釋，即彼色識所依之處，名為眼根。乃至，觸識所依之處，名為身根。
論：如世尊所說，至於如是廣說。這裡引用經文來證明五根是凈色。
論：或者彼者，至於鼻舌身識。這是第二種解釋，認為識是從根得名的。
論：彼識所依，至於所依止義。即眼識所依之處名為眼根。乃至，身識所依之處名為身根。
論：這樣便順應，至於如是廣說。這裡引用經文來證明。后一種說法是正確的。各種論著都相同。正理論先說識從根立名，斷定此說為正確。然後說：有人說，彼者是境而非根。因為沒有意識緣於色等，所以名為色等識。彼識所依名為眼等是錯誤的。因為有凈色之說。
【English Translation】 English version: The mistakes are inevitable and difficult to list exhaustively. I hope they can be corrected during later readings.
Completed writing at Ishiyama Temple on the 12th day of the 10th month of the first year of Juei (壽永). Disciple Fanxian (范賢), born in the 19th year.
《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya》 Scroll 1 (Remaining)
Composed by Śramaṇa (沙門) Fabao (法寶)
The treatise says, as mentioned above, what is the Form Skandha (色蘊)? The following twenty lines of verses separately explain the Five Skandhas (五蘊) and divide the realms (處) and spheres (界). Among them, there are thirteen sections, divided into four parts. The first five and a half verses clarify the Form Skandha and the division of realms and spheres. There are five points in the text: First, half a verse generally lists the eleven forms. Second, half a verse distinguishes the five sense organs (五色根). Third, one verse distinguishes the five sense objects (五色境). Fourth, three verses distinguish non-revealing form (無表色). Fifth, half a verse divides the realms and spheres by the Form Skandha. This is the initial part.
The verse says: 'As for and non-revealing.' Next, the verse is cited as an answer.
The treatise says: 'As for establishing the name of Form Skandha.' This explains the verse. It can be understood as the text says.
The treatise: Here, the characteristics of the five sense organs should be explained first. The second part uses half a verse to distinguish the characteristics of the five sense organs.
The treatise says: 'As for the five sense organs such as the eye.' This explains the verse. There are two interpretations of 'that consciousness (彼識)'. One says: 'that consciousness of form, etc.' The other says: 'that consciousness of the eye, etc.' This text adopts the first interpretation, that is, the place where that consciousness of form depends is called the eye organ. And so on, the place where the consciousness of touch depends is called the body organ.
The treatise: 'As the World-Honored One said, as for such extensive explanation.' This quotes the sutra to prove that the five sense organs are pure form (凈色).
The treatise: 'Or that one, as for the nose, tongue, and body consciousness.' This is the second interpretation, which believes that consciousness is named after the root.
The treatise: 'That which consciousness depends on, as for the meaning of dependence.' That is, the place where eye consciousness depends is called the eye organ. And so on, the place where body consciousness depends is called the body organ.
The treatise: 'In this way, it conforms, as for such extensive explanation.' This quotes the text to prove it. The latter statement is correct. All treatises are the same. The Zhengli Lun (正理論) first says that consciousness is named after the root, and concludes that this statement is correct. Then it says: 'Some say that that one is the object and not the root. Because there is no consciousness that is related to form, etc., it is called consciousness of form, etc. It is wrong to say that what consciousness depends on is called the eye, etc.' Because there is the saying of pure form.'
簡別故(釋曰。言所依凈色。簡意識故。意識。所依非凈色也) 又云。若爾。色言應成無用。彼識依凈名眼等根。義已成故。無識所依。凈而非色。為簡彼故應用色言 釋曰。難也。若謂凈色簡意根者。即應但凈。不假色言。一切法中凈有二種。一者五根。二者謂信。信是心所非意識所依。五根是色非是意根。但言彼識依凈。已簡意根。更置色言便為無用 如是釋者。為遣疑難須置色言。若識依言就有財釋。則應凈信名眼等根。故置色言。為簡此釋。無有一法以識為依。色而是凈。可為此釋。是故色言甚為有用 釋曰。直言彼識依凈。若有財釋。信名識依。以信依識有所依識。取其識名名為識依。體復是凈。若直言彼識依凈。不置色言。則濫有財釋。信名為識依。復是其凈。即應凈信名眼等根。若置色言不濫此釋。無色是凈。用識為依。就有財釋名為識依。故置色言甚為有用 有人不得此意。以識依凈三字相違是有財釋。云有一分有財釋。誤也 又云。又於此中前言。為簡耳等四根。彼雖皆用凈色為性。而彼非為眼識所依。故彼四根非眼根攝。後言。為簡無間滅依。彼雖亦為眼識所依。而彼非用凈色為性。故彼意根非眼根攝 或復前言。顯同分眼。後言。為顯彼同分眼。余根亦爾 釋曰。前言。是眼識所依。後言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『簡別故』（解釋說：『所依賴的清凈色，是爲了簡別意識的緣故。意識所依賴的不是清凈色。』） 又說：『如果這樣，那麼「色」這個詞就應該變得無用了。因為那個識所依賴的清凈之物，名為眼等根，這個意義已經成立了。沒有識所依賴的，清凈但不是色的東西，爲了簡別那個，才應該用「色」這個詞。』 解釋說：『這是個難題。如果說清凈色是爲了簡別意根，那就應該只說「凈」，不需要用「色」這個詞。一切法中，清凈有兩種，一是五根，二是信。信是心所法，不是意識所依賴的；五根是色法，不是意根。只說那個識依賴於清凈之物，就已經簡別了意根，再加一個「色」字就變得無用了。』 這樣解釋的人，是爲了去除疑難才需要用「色」這個詞。如果「識依」這個詞有有財釋，那麼清凈的信就可能被誤認為眼等根。所以用「色」這個詞，是爲了簡別這種解釋。沒有一種法，以識為所依，而且是色又是清凈的，可以用來做這種解釋。所以「色」這個詞非常有用。 解釋說：『直接說那個識依賴於清凈之物，如果用有財釋，信就可以被稱為識所依賴的，因為信依賴於識，有所依賴的識，取其識的名字，就叫做識所依賴的。本體又是清凈的。如果直接說那個識依賴於清凈之物，不用「色」這個詞，就會混淆有財釋，信可以被稱為識所依賴的，又是清凈的，這樣清凈的信就可能被誤認為眼等根。如果用「色」這個詞，就不會混淆這種解釋，沒有色是清凈的，用識作為所依賴的，用有財釋叫做識所依賴的。』所以用「色」這個詞非常有用。 有人不理解這個意思，認為「識依凈」三個字相互矛盾，是有財釋。說有一部分是有財釋，是錯誤的。 又說：『又在這裡，前面的「色」字，是爲了簡別耳等四根。它們雖然都用清凈色作為體性，但它們不是眼識所依賴的。所以那四個根不是眼根所攝。後面的「色」字，是爲了簡別無間滅依（Anantarika-niruddha）。它雖然也是眼識所依賴的，但它不是用清凈色作為體性。所以那個意根不是眼根所攝。』 或者前面的「色」字，是爲了顯示同分眼（Samanabhaga-caksu）。後面的「色」字，是爲了顯示那個同分眼。其餘的根也是這樣。 解釋說：『前面的「色」字，是眼識所依賴的。後面的「色」字，』
【English Translation】 English version: 'To distinguish the reason' (Explanation: 'The pure form that is relied upon is to distinguish consciousness. Consciousness is not based on pure form.') It is also said: 'If so, then the word 'form' should become useless. Because that which the consciousness relies on, named eye, etc., as roots, this meaning is already established. There is nothing that consciousness relies on that is pure but not form. To distinguish that, the word 'form' should be used.' Explanation: 'This is a difficult question. If it is said that pure form is to distinguish the mind-root, then it should only be said 'pure,' without needing the word 'form.' In all dharmas, there are two kinds of purity: one is the five roots, and the other is faith. Faith is a mental factor, not what consciousness relies on; the five roots are form, not the mind-root. Just saying that consciousness relies on purity has already distinguished the mind-root; adding the word 'form' becomes useless.' Those who explain it this way need to use the word 'form' to remove doubts. If the term 'consciousness-dependent' has a possessive interpretation, then pure faith might be mistaken for eye, etc., as roots. Therefore, the word 'form' is used to distinguish this interpretation. There is no dharma that relies on consciousness and is both form and pure, which can be used for this explanation. Therefore, the word 'form' is very useful. Explanation: 'Directly saying that consciousness relies on purity, if using a possessive interpretation, faith can be called consciousness-dependent, because faith relies on consciousness, having a consciousness that is relied upon, taking the name of that consciousness, it is called consciousness-dependent. The substance is also pure. If directly saying that consciousness relies on purity, without using the word 'form,' it will confuse the possessive interpretation. Faith can be called consciousness-dependent and is also pure, so pure faith might be mistaken for eye, etc., as roots. If using the word 'form,' it will not confuse this interpretation. No form is pure, using consciousness as what is relied upon, using a possessive interpretation, it is called consciousness-dependent.' Therefore, the word 'form' is very useful. Some people do not understand this meaning, thinking that the three words 'consciousness-dependent purity' contradict each other, which is a possessive interpretation. Saying that a part is a possessive interpretation is wrong. It is also said: 'Also here, the preceding 'form' is to distinguish the four roots of ear, etc. Although they all use pure form as their nature, they are not what eye-consciousness relies on. Therefore, those four roots are not included in the eye-root. The following 'form' is to distinguish the immediately ceased base (Anantarika-niruddha). Although it is also what eye-consciousness relies on, it does not use pure form as its nature. Therefore, that mind-root is not included in the eye-root.' Or the preceding 'form' is to show the common-nature eye (Samanabhaga-caksu). The following 'form' is to show that common-nature eye. The remaining roots are also like this. Explanation: 'The preceding 'form' is what eye-consciousness relies on. The following 'form' is'
是凈色也 又云。若爾凈色相無別故應不成五。不爾。功能有差別故。如何得知功能別者。不共境識。所依定故。乃至廣說 有部等計五根以凈色為體 大眾部五根以肉團為體 覺天以四大為體 論已說五根次說五境。第三一頌明五境也。
頌中味先。香後者。正理論云。越次說者。顯彼境識生無定故。論既此釋。故知不為犯聲香在味后。
論曰至四色差別。釋五境也 就中。文有六段。五境即為五段。第六生識總別 就別釋色境中有三。一釋二色。二開二十色。三四句分別。此即第一釋二色也 言二色者。一顯。二形。此釋顯色 顯色有四者。根本顯色。即青．黃．赤．白。
余顯是此四色差別者。謂云．煙．塵．霧．影．光．明．闇。此之八色隨其所應。即青．黃等色之差別 因龍氣等名云 因火名煙 末散名塵 地氣曰霧 因日名光 因寶．月等名明 障光．明生於中余物可見名影 翻此名闇 雖八差別不同。根本即是青等色也。亦有碧．紅．紫．綠等異。此是淺深不同。離．合有異。不別立也。淺青名碧。薄赤名紅。青．黃合綠。赤．黑合紫。
論。形色有八至不正為后。列形色也 正理論云。此中顯色有十二種。形色有八。其名如下。
論。或二十者至影光明闇。第二開二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 是清凈的色法啊。又說：『如果這樣，清凈色法的相沒有差別，那就不應該成立五根。』不是這樣的，因為功能有差別。如何得知功能有差別呢？因為它們是不共的所緣境和識的所依，這是確定的。』乃至廣說。有部等宗派認為五根以清凈色法為本體，大眾部認為五根以肉團為本體，覺天認為五根以四大為本體。論中已經說了五根，接下來要說五境。第三個偈頌說明五境。 頌中先說味，后說香。《正理論》說：『越過次第來說，是爲了顯示這些境和識的生起沒有定準。』論中既然這樣解釋，就知道這不是因為犯了聲和香在味之後的錯誤。 論中說『到四色差別』，這是解釋五境。其中，文有六段。五境即為五段，第六段是關於生識的總說和別說。在分別解釋色境中，有三部分：一是解釋二色，二是展開為二十色，三是用四句來分別。這裡是第一部分，解釋二色。所說的二色，一是顯色，二是形色。這是解釋顯色。顯色有四種，根本顯色，即青、黃、赤、白。 其餘的顯色是這四種顏色的差別。所說的云、煙、塵、霧、影、光、明、暗，這八種顏色隨著它們的情況，就是青、黃等顏色的差別。因為龍的氣等而名為云，因為火而名為煙，末端散開的叫做塵，地氣叫做霧，因為太陽而名為光，因為寶物、月亮等而名為明，阻礙光和明，使中間的其餘物體可以看見的叫做影，與此相反的叫做暗。雖然這八種差別不同，但根本上就是青等顏色。也有碧、紅、紫、綠等不同，這是深淺不同，離合有異，所以不另外建立。淺青色叫做碧，薄的赤色叫做紅，青色和黃色合起來是綠色，赤色和黑色合起來是紫色。 論中說『形色有八到不正為后』，這是列舉形色。《正理論》說：『這裡顯色有十二種，形色有八種，它們的名稱如下。』 論中說『或者有二十種到影光明暗』，這是第二部分，展開為二十種。
【English Translation】 English version: It is pure form (凈色也). Furthermore, it says: 'If that is the case, since the characteristics of pure form are not different, it should not constitute the five sense organs.' It is not so, because their functions are different. How is it known that their functions are different? Because they are the unique objects (不共境) and the reliable bases of consciousness (識所依), that is certain.' And so on, extensively explained. The Sarvastivadins (有部) and other schools consider the five sense organs to have pure form as their substance. The Mahasanghika (大眾部) consider the five sense organs to have the fleshy mass as their substance. Jue Tian (覺天) considers the four great elements (四大) as their substance. The treatise has already discussed the five sense organs; next, it will discuss the five sense objects. The third verse explains the five sense objects. In the verse, taste (味) is mentioned first, and smell (香) is mentioned later. The Abhidharmakosha-bhashya (正理論) says: 'Speaking of them out of order is to show that the arising of these objects and consciousnesses is not fixed.' Since the treatise explains it this way, it is known that this is not a mistake of placing sound (聲) and smell after taste. The treatise says 'to the differences of the four colors,' which explains the five sense objects. Among them, the text has six sections. The five sense objects constitute five sections, and the sixth section is a general and specific discussion of the arising of consciousness. In the separate explanation of the object of form, there are three parts: first, explaining the two forms; second, expanding into twenty forms; and third, distinguishing them with four sentences. This is the first part, explaining the two forms. The two forms mentioned are: first, manifest form (顯色); second, shape form (形色). This explains manifest form. There are four kinds of manifest form: the fundamental manifest colors, namely blue (青), yellow (黃), red (赤), and white (白). The remaining manifest colors are the differences of these four colors. The so-called clouds (云), smoke (煙), dust (塵), fog (霧), shadow (影), light (光), brightness (明), and darkness (闇), these eight colors, according to their circumstances, are the differences of blue, yellow, and other colors. They are called clouds because of the dragon's breath, etc.; they are called smoke because of fire; the scattered ends are called dust; the earth's atmosphere is called fog; they are called light because of the sun; they are called brightness because of jewels, the moon, etc.; obstructing light and brightness, so that other objects in the middle can be seen, is called shadow; the opposite of this is called darkness. Although these eight differences are not the same, fundamentally they are blue and other colors. There are also different colors such as cyan (碧), red (紅), purple (紫), and green (綠). These are different in depth and combination, so they are not established separately. Light blue is called cyan, thin red is called red, blue and yellow combined are green, and red and black combined are purple. The treatise says 'Shape form has eight to incorrect as last,' which lists shape forms. The Abhidharmakosha-bhashya says: 'Here, there are twelve kinds of manifest colors and eight kinds of shape forms, and their names are as follows.' The treatise says 'Or there are twenty kinds to shadow, light, and darkness,' which is the second part, expanding into twenty kinds.
色為二十也。
論。有餘師說至第二十一。述異說也 此師意說。空一顯色非是明．闇。別立此色故二十一 依婆沙正義。空一顯色即是空界色一分。空界色即是明．闇等色。無別體性。然明．闇等。即青等四色差別而立。故識身足論第十一云。空一顯色。如青．黃等者。以是青等差別立也 或似青等之差別色。非即青等。故言如也。
論。此中正者至故今不釋。逐難釋形色也 此形色相者。古今諸師多不得意。不依聖教妄述其相 今明此相二門分別。一述正義。二敘異說出過 述正義者。大小乘論。述八色相。皆無相待立長．短也。大乘成業論。對有部等諸宗。立八色相。及此論業品經部對有部立八色相。皆云。見面齊平起于正覺。見面參差起不正覺。見一面多便起長覺。見一面少便起短覺見四面等便起方覺。見一切處生則起圓覺。見中凸出便起高覺。見中㘭凹便起下覺 兩論少異大意同也。準此論文。長短二色非相形立。是各別體勢。依論所立體相各異 依大乘釋。即是顯色安布不同名為長．短等依有部釋。別有形微攝持成此八相差別 古來大．小乘師迷一面多名長。一面少名短。作種種釋。皆不得意。遂謂相待以立長等 今釋。一面多者。六面之中一面多故。亦應是六面之中。兩面多。恐難解故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『色』（Rūpa，物質）有二十種。
論：有些論師說，應該有第二十一種。這是爲了闡述不同的觀點。這些論師認為，『空一顯色』（kāśa-ekavarṇa-rūpa，空間單一顯色）並非明或暗。因此，他們額外設立了這種顏色，所以總共有二十一種。根據《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，大毗婆沙論）的正義，『空一顯色』實際上是『空界色』（ākāśadhātu-rūpa，空間界色）的一部分。『空界色』就是明、暗等顏色，沒有獨立的體性。然而，明、暗等顏色，實際上是青、黃等四種顏色的差別而產生的。因此，《識身足論》（Vijñānakāya-pāda-śāstra）第十一卷說，『空一顯色』，就像青色、黃色等顏色一樣，是因為它是青色等顏色的差別而設立的。或者說，它類似於青色等顏色的差別色，但並非就是青色等顏色，所以說是『如』。
論：這裡正確的是……因此現在不解釋，而是逐一解釋形色。這些形色的相狀，古今的論師大多不得要領，不依據聖教而妄自描述其相狀。現在從兩個方面來闡明這些相狀：一是闡述正義，二是敘述不同的觀點並指出其過失。闡述正義是，大乘和小乘的論典，在描述八種形色相狀時，都沒有通過相互比較來建立長、短的概念。大乘的《成業論》（Karma-siddhi-prakaraṇa）針對有部等宗派，以及此論的業品中，經部針對有部設立八種形色相狀時，都說：『見到面齊平，產生正覺；見到面參差不齊，產生不正覺；見到一面多，便產生長覺；見到一面少，便產生短覺；見到四面相等，便產生方覺；見到一切處都一樣，便產生圓覺；見到中間凸出，便產生高覺；見到中間凹陷，便產生下覺。』這兩部論典略有不同，但大意相同。根據這些論述，長和短兩種顏色並非相互比較而建立，而是各自獨立的體勢。根據論典所立，其體相各不相同。根據大乘的解釋，就是顯色的安布不同，稱為長、短等。根據有部的解釋，另外有形微攝持，形成這八種相狀的差別。古來的大乘和小乘論師，誤以為一面多就是長，一面少就是短，作出了種種解釋，都沒有抓住要領。於是認為長等是通過相互比較而建立的。現在解釋，一面多，是指六個面之中一面多。也應該是六個面之中兩面多，恐怕難以理解，所以這樣說。
【English Translation】 English version 『Rūpa』 (matter) is twentyfold.
Treatise: Some teachers say that there should be a twenty-first. This is to elaborate on different views. These teachers believe that 『kāśa-ekavarṇa-rūpa』 (space-one-color-form) is neither light nor darkness. Therefore, they additionally establish this color, so there are twenty-one in total. According to the correct meaning of the 『Vibhāṣā』 (Mahāvibhāṣā, Great Commentary), 『kāśa-ekavarṇa-rūpa』 is actually a part of 『ākāśadhātu-rūpa』 (space-element-form). 『Ākāśadhātu-rūpa』 is the same as colors like light and darkness, without an independent nature. However, colors like light and darkness are actually produced by the differences in the four colors of blue, yellow, etc. Therefore, the eleventh volume of the 『Vijñānakāya-pāda-śāstra』 (Treatise on the Body of Consciousness) says that 『kāśa-ekavarṇa-rūpa』 is like blue, yellow, etc., because it is established by the differences in blue, etc. Or, it is similar to the differential colors of blue, etc., but it is not exactly blue, etc., so it is said to be 『like』.
Treatise: What is correct here is... Therefore, it is not explained now, but the shapes and colors are explained one by one. The appearances of these shapes and colors are mostly misunderstood by ancient and modern teachers, who describe their appearances arbitrarily without relying on the holy teachings. Now, these appearances are clarified in two aspects: first, to elaborate on the correct meaning; second, to narrate different views and point out their faults. To elaborate on the correct meaning, the Mahayana and Hinayana treatises, when describing the eight appearances of shapes and colors, do not establish the concepts of long and short through mutual comparison. The Mahayana 『Karma-siddhi-prakaraṇa』 (Treatise on the Establishment of Karma), targeting schools such as the Sarvāstivāda, and in the chapter on karma of this treatise, the Sautrāntika targeting the Sarvāstivāda in establishing the eight appearances of shapes and colors, both say: 『Seeing the surface level, one generates correct awareness; seeing the surface uneven, one generates incorrect awareness; seeing one side more, one generates the perception of long; seeing one side less, one generates the perception of short; seeing four sides equal, one generates the perception of square; seeing all places the same, one generates the perception of round; seeing the middle protruding, one generates the perception of high; seeing the middle recessed, one generates the perception of low.』 These two treatises are slightly different, but the general meaning is the same. According to these statements, the two colors of long and short are not established by mutual comparison, but are independent forms. According to the treatises, their forms are different. According to the Mahayana explanation, it is the different arrangement of manifest colors that are called long, short, etc. According to the Sarvāstivāda explanation, there are other subtle forms that hold together to form the differences in these eight appearances. Ancient Mahayana and Hinayana teachers mistakenly thought that more on one side is long, and less on one side is short, and made various explanations, none of which grasped the key points. Thus, they believed that long, etc., are established through mutual comparison. Now, to explain, more on one side refers to more on one side among the six sides. It should also be more on two sides among the six sides, but it is feared that it would be difficult to understand, so it is said this way.
故言一面。如竹．筍．越瓜等名為長色。若言兩面多。人即不解六面之中是何兩面。故言一面多也。一面少者。翻此可解 長即是細。短即是粗。故八色中不立粗細 正理業品中。云離顯之外別有形微。是眼識境。積集長等。是假非實。唯意識緣非眼識境 此假長等。要由形色攝持邊故方有份量。余物入中。破別成分。中可穿鑿成孔穴等。方有形色。論意。但說顯外別有形微。不說八種形微。體性別有 今詳。形色長等有二。一相待得名。二形量各別 相待立名。體不定故。此中不明 形量各別。體不同故是此所說 婆沙第九云。五相待有。謂此．彼岸。長．短等事者 非是明色體類別也。長．短等事通余法故。縱說於色亦不違。此是前相待得名攝故 就形量各別。復有二類。一外緣來。如金石。待工匠等成長等故 二種性異。如鹽性方。縱散成水后還方故。越瓜自長。菰樓性短。胡桃高下。櫻桃自圓。豆角性邪。如是等物種類各別。若待緣成。若種類別。並皆不是相待立名。如針雖對菰樓是短。而是長色。菰樓雖對棗是長。而是短色。此等皆由長．短微力。令成長等。長．短之微不相雜也。又即由此于余境中不立長等。無別形微。令同時聚成長等故 余文易了。故不釋也 敘異說者。有人云。長短者。長．短極微各
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所以說一面。比如竹子、竹筍、越瓜等，被稱為長色（láng sè，長的顏色）。如果說兩面或更多面，人們就不理解六面之中是哪兩面。所以說一面比較多。一面少的情況，反過來理解就可以明白。長就是細，短就是粗。所以在八色（bā sè，佛教術語，指顯色中的八種顏色）中沒有建立粗細的概念。正理業品中說，在顯色之外，另有形微（xíng wēi，微細的形狀），是眼識的境界。積聚起來的長等（cháng děng，長度等）是虛假的，不是真實的，只有意識才能緣取，不是眼識的境界。這種虛假的長等，需要依靠形色（xíng sè，形狀和顏色）的攝持才能有份量。其他物體進入其中，破壞了原有的成分，中間可以穿鑿成孔穴等，才會有形色。論的本意是，只說顯色之外另有形微，沒有說八種形微的體性是各自不同的。現在詳細分析，形色長等有兩種：一種是相待而得名，一種是形量各自不同。相待而立名，體性不定，這裡不討論。形量各自不同，體性不同，是這裡所說的。婆沙第九卷說，有五種是相待而有的，比如此岸、彼岸，長、短等事物。這不是說明色體的類別。長、短等事物也適用於其他法，即使說在色法中也不違背，因為這是前面所說的相待而得名。就形量各自不同而言，又有兩種：一種是外緣造成的，比如金石，需要等待工匠等來使之成長等。另一種是種性不同，比如鹽的性質是方的，即使分散成水后還是方的。越瓜自然就長，菰樓（gū lóu，一種植物）的性質是短，胡桃有高有低，櫻桃自然是圓的，豆角的性質是斜的。像這些東西，種類各不相同。無論是等待外緣成就，還是種類的差別，都不是相待而立名。比如針雖然相對於菰樓是短的，但它本身是長色。菰樓雖然相對於棗是長的，但它本身是短色。這些都是由長、短的微細力量，使之成長等。長、短的微細力量不會混雜。又因為這個原因，在其他境界中不建立長等，因為沒有別的形微，使之同時聚整合長等。其餘的文字容易理解，所以不解釋了。敘述不同的說法：有人說，長短，是長、短的極微（jí wēi，最小的微粒）各自
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said 'one side'. For example, bamboo, bamboo shoots, and Yue cucumbers are called 'long color' (láng sè, long color). If you say two sides or more, people will not understand which two sides among the six sides are being referred to. Therefore, it is said that 'one side' is more appropriate. The case of 'one side being less' can be understood by reversing this. 'Long' means 'thin', and 'short' means 'thick'. Therefore, 'thickness' is not established in the eight colors (bā sè, eight types of visible form in Buddhism). In the chapter on Right Action, it is said that apart from manifest color, there are subtle forms (xíng wēi, subtle forms) that are the object of eye consciousness. Accumulations of length, etc. (cháng děng, length, etc.) are false and not real; only consciousness can perceive them, not eye consciousness. These false lengths, etc., require the support of shape and color (xíng sè, shape and color) to have magnitude. Other objects entering into them break the original components, and holes can be drilled in the middle, etc., to have shape and color. The meaning of the treatise is that it only says that there are subtle forms apart from manifest color, and does not say that the nature of the eight subtle forms is different from each other. Now, upon detailed analysis, there are two types of shape, color, length, etc.: one is named relative to something else, and the other is where shape and size are different. Naming relative to something else, the nature is uncertain, so it is not discussed here. Shape and size being different, the nature is different, which is what is being discussed here. The ninth volume of the Vibhasa says that there are five things that exist relative to each other, such as this shore, the other shore, length, shortness, etc. This is not to clarify the categories of color bodies. Length, shortness, etc., also apply to other dharmas, and it is not contradictory to say that they are in the realm of color, because this is included in the aforementioned naming relative to something else. Regarding shape and size being different, there are again two types: one is caused by external conditions, such as gold and stone, which need to wait for craftsmen, etc., to make them long, etc. The other is due to different natures, such as the nature of salt being square, even if it is dispersed into water, it is still square. Yue cucumbers are naturally long, Goulou (gū lóu, a type of plant) is naturally short, walnuts have high and low variations, cherries are naturally round, and the nature of bean pods is oblique. Like these things, the types are all different. Whether it is waiting for external conditions to be fulfilled, or the difference in types, it is not naming relative to something else. For example, although a needle is short compared to Goulou, it is itself a long color. Although Goulou is long compared to a date, it is itself a short color. These are all due to the subtle power of length and shortness, which makes them long, etc. The subtle powers of length and shortness do not mix. Also, for this reason, length, etc., are not established in other realms, because there are no other subtle forms that cause them to gather together to become long, etc. The remaining text is easy to understand, so it will not be explained. Narrating different views: Some people say that length and shortness are the ultimate particles (jí wēi, smallest particles) of length and shortness, each
有別體。相雜而住。形長見短。形短見長 彈曰此釋違其教．理。違教者。憑何經．論作此釋耶。而違成業論。及此論。一面多名長。一面少名短 言違理者。一色之內具有長．短極微。形長見短。形短見長者。準此。無長不見短。無短不見長。若爾。有長有短同時相形。應見長見短。若無長．短相形之時。應物不見長短二色。正對眼前作意取長．短色。因何不見。要待相形。皆不應理。又待比方知。是意識境非眼識取。眼識不能計度緣故知為非理 又云。可量已去名長。不可量者名短 亦違教．理。及違世間。違教者。如前引文 違理者。如觸中說不可稱名輕。可稱名重。不簡多少。但牽秤下即名重觸。此亦應爾。但有份量即應名長。七微已上即有份量應名為長。世間即無見短色者 違世間者。一切世間皆不說可量名長。不可量名短 又自問答云。此短極微既有眾多。如何說彼而不可量 解云。雖有多體。而不可量。如輕極微雖有多體。而不可稱。短微雖多。而不可量。若言眼見非不可量。顯亦眼見。應當可量。若言同聚應可量者。香等同聚。應亦可量。此既雜住而不可量。短與長雜亦不可量 準上所釋。全無理趣。前後相違。準上標宗釋長．短色別。第二釋云。可量已去名為長色。即是可量聚色名為長也。不可量
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 存在著別體（不同性質的物體）相混合而居的情況，表現爲形體長的東西看起來短，形體短的東西看起來長。有人反駁說，這種解釋違背了佛教的教義和道理。違背教義是指，憑什麼經典或論著來做這種解釋呢？這與《成業論》以及此論相悖，因為《成業論》認為一面多就叫做長，一面少就叫做短。說違背道理是指，在一種顏色之內，同時具有長度和短度的極微小部分。如果形體長的東西看起來短，形體短的東西看起來長，按照這種說法，沒有長就不會看到短，沒有短就不會看到長。如果這樣，有長有短同時相互比較，就應該既看到長又看到短。如果沒有長短相互比較的時候，那麼物體就不應該呈現長短兩種顏色。明明正對著眼前，有意識地去觀察長短的顏色，為什麼卻看不到呢？一定要等待相互比較才能看到，這完全不合道理。而且，要通過比較才能知道，這是意識的境界，不是眼識所能獲取的。因為眼識不能進行計度，所以知道這種說法是不合理的。 又有人說，可以測量的就叫做長，不可以測量的就叫做短。這也違背了教義、道理以及世俗常識。違背教義，就像前面引用的經文。違背道理，就像在觸覺中說，不可稱量的叫做輕，可以稱量的叫做重，不考慮數量多少，只要放在秤上就叫做重觸。這裡也應該這樣，只要有份量就應該叫做長。七個極微以上就有份量，就應該叫做長。這樣的話，世間就沒有人能看到短的顏色了。違背世俗常識，是因為世間上沒有人說可以測量的叫做長，不可以測量的叫做短。 又有人自己提問自己回答說，這些短的極微已經有很多了，為什麼還說它們不可測量呢？解釋說，雖然有很多個體，但是不可測量，就像輕的極微雖然有很多個體，但是不可稱量。短的極微雖然很多，但是不可測量。如果說眼睛看到就不是不可測量，那麼顯現的也應該能被眼睛看到，就應該可以測量。如果說同類聚集就應該可以測量，那麼香等同類聚集也應該可以測量。既然這些雜亂地聚集在一起而不可測量，那麼短和長雜亂地聚集在一起也應該不可測量。按照上面的解釋，完全沒有道理，前後矛盾。按照上面標明的宗旨來解釋長短的顏色區別，第二種解釋說，可以測量的就叫做長色，也就是可以測量的聚集的顏色叫做長。不可測量
【English Translation】 English version: There exist distinct entities ( Bie Ti - different natured objects) that reside in a mixed state, where long forms appear short, and short forms appear long. Someone objects, stating that this explanation contradicts Buddhist teachings and reason. Contradicts teachings in that, based on what sutra or treatise is this explanation made? It conflicts with the Cheng Ye Lun (Treatise on the Completion of Karma) and this very treatise, because the Cheng Ye Lun considers a side with more to be called 'long,' and a side with less to be called 'short.' Contradicts reason in that, within a single color, there exist extremely minute parts of both length and shortness. If long forms appear short, and short forms appear long, according to this, without long, one would not see short, and without short, one would not see long. If so, with long and short simultaneously comparing, one should see both long and short. If there is no time when long and short are comparing, then objects should not present the two colors of long and short. Clearly facing the eyes, consciously observing the colors of long and short, why is it not seen? It must wait for comparison to be seen, which is entirely unreasonable. Moreover, knowing through comparison is a state of consciousness, not obtainable by eye-consciousness. Because eye-consciousness cannot measure, it is known to be unreasonable. Someone also says, that which can be measured is called 'long,' and that which cannot be measured is called 'short.' This also contradicts teachings, reason, and worldly common sense. Contradicts teachings, as in the previously cited text. Contradicts reason, as in touch, it is said that what cannot be weighed is called 'light,' and what can be weighed is called 'heavy,' regardless of quantity; as long as it is placed on a scale, it is called 'heavy touch.' It should be the same here; as long as there is weight, it should be called 'long.' Seven Ji Wei (extremely minute particles) or more have weight and should be called 'long.' In that case, no one in the world would see the color of short. Contradicts worldly common sense, because no one in the world says that what can be measured is called 'long,' and what cannot be measured is called 'short.' Someone then asks and answers themselves, 'These short Ji Wei are already numerous, why are they said to be immeasurable?' The explanation is, although there are many individual entities, they are immeasurable, just as light Ji Wei, although there are many individual entities, are unweighable. Short Ji Wei, although numerous, are immeasurable. If it is said that what the eye sees is not immeasurable, then what is manifested should also be seen by the eye and should be measurable. If it is said that a gathering of the same kind should be measurable, then a gathering of scents and the like should also be measurable. Since these are mixed together and immeasurable, then short and long mixed together should also be immeasurable. According to the above explanation, there is no reason at all, and it is self-contradictory. According to the above-stated principle to explain the difference between long and short colors, the second explanation says that what can be measured is called 'long color,' which is to say that a measurable gathered color is called 'long.' Immeasurable
聚名短色也。釋難即云短微長微相雜而住 準此即是可量已去亦長亦短。不可量聚亦短亦長。豈不與宗自相乖反 又引觸例。亦不應理。極微體性非定是重。故有一類觸微不能牽秤。多亦非重。七微體是對礙法故多必可量。如何成例 又自釋色相云。中凸名高。中凹名下。自問答云。長與高何別。短與下何殊。自釋云。長．短據橫。高．下就豎 準此前後自相違也。豈可豎凸名高。橫凸名長。豎凹名下。橫凹名短 又諸大乘師皆云。聚顯以成長等。復說長等相待而立。明知。即是假聚長等。此唯意緣。如何色處。又聚觸等何得無長。
論。或有色處至影光明闇。第三四句分別。今將釋四句須知形色 今詳。形量三種不同。一者。謂極礙聚不依託生。中可穿鑿成孔穴等。如墻樹等 二。自有形量不依託余。如雲．煙等。三。待他成量不堪搖動。如光．明等．及畫等。
有人云。畫有形者 謬也 諸論多取第一形色以為形也。或取第二。或取第三 前文八種形色即是第一 此中四句兼第二形。以云．煙等入俱句故 或有色處有顯無形者。謂不與形色同聚顯也。即除俱句十二。余所有顯非形。青等皆是唯顯 正理三十四云。或有色聚二俱可了。謂所餘諸形．顯聚。以非於此聚離一可取余故 準此故知。不與形俱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：聚集的名稱是短色（Kṣudra-varṇa，微小的顏色）。《釋難》中說，短微（Kṣudra-aṇu，微小的粒子）和長微（Dīrgha-aṇu，長的粒子）相互混合存在。按照這個說法，可量（Meya，可以測量）的已經算是長或短了，不可量的聚集也是短或長。這難道不是與你自己的宗義自相矛盾嗎？ 又引用觸（Sparśa，觸覺）的例子，也不合理。極微（Paramāṇu，最小的粒子）的體性不一定是重的，所以有一類觸微不能牽動秤，即使數量多也不一定是重的。七微（Sapta-aṇu，七個粒子）的體性是對礙法（Pratighāta-dharma，阻礙的性質），所以數量多必定可以測量。這如何能成為例子？ 又你自己解釋色相（Varṇa-lakṣaṇa，顏色的相）說：『中間凸起叫做高，中間凹陷叫做下。』又自問自答說：『長（Dīrgha，長度）和高（Ucca，高度）有什麼區別？短（Kṣudra，短度）和下（Nīca，低度）有什麼不同？』你自己解釋說：『長和短是就橫向而言，高和下是就豎向而言。』按照這個說法，前後自相矛盾啊！怎麼能說豎向凸起叫做高，橫向凸起叫做長；豎向凹陷叫做下，橫向凹陷叫做短呢？ 又各位大乘（Mahāyāna，大乘）的論師都說，聚集顯現出長等。又說長等是相對而立的，明明知道這就是假立的聚集長等，這只是意念的緣起，怎麼能成為色處（Rūpāyatana，色處）呢？又聚集的觸等為什麼沒有長呢？
論：或者有色處（Rūpāyatana，色處）有顯（Varṇa，顏色）沒有形（Saṃsthāna，形狀），第三句和第四句是分別說明的。現在要解釋這四句，必須知道形色（Saṃsthāna-varṇa，形狀和顏色）。現在詳細分析，形量有三種不同。第一種，是指極礙的聚集，不依託其他而生，中間可以穿鑿成孔穴等，如墻壁、樹木等。 第二種，是自身有形量，不依託其他，如雲、煙等。第三種，是依靠其他而形成量，不能搖動，如光、明等，以及繪畫等。
有人說，繪畫有形，這是錯誤的。各種論典大多取第一種形色作為形。或者取第二種，或者取第三種。前文的八種形色就是第一種。此處的四句兼顧第二種形，因為云、煙等歸入俱句（Ubhaya，兩者都有）的緣故。或者有色處有顯沒有形，是指不與形色一同聚集顯現。即除去俱句的十二種，其餘所有的顯都不是形，青等都是唯顯。 《正理》（Nyāyasūtra，正理經）第三十四條說：『或者有色聚兩者都可以瞭解，是指其餘的各種形、顯聚集。因為不能從這個聚集分離出一個可以取得的其餘部分。』按照這個說法，就知道不與形俱。
【English Translation】 English version: The name for an aggregate is 'short color' (Kṣudra-varṇa). The 'Explanation of Difficulties' says that short atoms (Kṣudra-aṇu) and long atoms (Dīrgha-aṇu) reside intermingled. According to this, what is measurable (Meya) is already considered long or short, and an immeasurable aggregate is also short or long. Doesn't this contradict your own doctrine? Furthermore, citing the example of touch (Sparśa) is also unreasonable. The nature of an ultimate particle (Paramāṇu) is not necessarily heavy, so there is a type of touch particle that cannot move a scale, and even a large quantity is not necessarily heavy. The nature of seven particles (Sapta-aṇu) is to obstruct (Pratighāta-dharma), so a large quantity must be measurable. How can this serve as an example? Moreover, you yourself explain the characteristics of color (Varṇa-lakṣaṇa) by saying: 'A bulge in the middle is called high, and a depression in the middle is called low.' You also ask and answer yourself: 'What is the difference between long (Dīrgha) and high (Ucca)? What is the difference between short (Kṣudra) and low (Nīca)?' You yourself explain: 'Long and short refer to the horizontal dimension, while high and low refer to the vertical dimension.' According to this, it is self-contradictory! How can you say that a vertical bulge is called high, a horizontal bulge is called long; a vertical depression is called low, and a horizontal depression is called short? Furthermore, all the Mahāyāna (Mahāyāna) teachers say that aggregates manifest as length, etc. They also say that length, etc., are established in relation to each other, clearly indicating that these are merely conceptual constructs of length, etc., arising from thought. How can this be a color object (Rūpāyatana)? Furthermore, why doesn't an aggregate of touch, etc., have length?
Treatise: Or there are color objects (Rūpāyatana) that have manifestation (Varṇa) but no shape (Saṃsthāna). The third and fourth lines are separate explanations. To explain these four lines, one must understand shape and color (Saṃsthāna-varṇa). Now, upon detailed analysis, there are three different types of shape and dimension. The first type refers to extremely obstructive aggregates that do not arise dependent on anything else, and can be bored through to form holes, such as walls, trees, etc. The second type is that which has its own shape and dimension, not dependent on anything else, such as clouds, smoke, etc. The third type is that which forms dimension dependent on something else and cannot be moved, such as light, brightness, etc., and paintings, etc.
Someone says that paintings have shape, but this is incorrect. Most treatises take the first type of shape and color as shape. Or they take the second type, or the third type. The eight types of shape and color mentioned earlier are the first type. The four lines here include the second type of shape, because clouds, smoke, etc., are included in the 'both' (Ubhaya) category. Or there are color objects that have manifestation but no shape, referring to that which does not manifest together with shape and color. That is, excluding the twelve types in the 'both' category, all the remaining manifestations are not shape; blue, etc., are all purely manifestation. The 34th verse of the Nyāyasūtra (Nyāyasūtra) says: 'Or there are color aggregates that can be understood in both ways, referring to the remaining various aggregates of shape and manifestation. Because one cannot separate out a remaining part that can be taken from this aggregate.' According to this, it is known that it is not together with shape.
同聚。名顯非形。
論。或有色處至身表業性。第二句也。身表業色。雖起之時。與舊相續顯色同聚。然不必俱。初起。息滅。與顯異故。初起無新顯色。息滅。古顯相續故 正理論云。所說身表是形差別。其理極成。謂從加行心所生不住等流大種果別類形色。不待余顯色為眼識生因。能蔽異熟生所長養形色。如是形色名為身表。
論。或有色處至謂所餘色。第三句。也此是形．顯同聚色也。如前引正理文。
論。有餘師說至有長等故。述異說也 此師兼取第三形。唯光明色一分無形。謂無障礙所發光明。其色漸微故無有份量 有人云新生智者。非也。
論。如何一事具有顯形。經部難也 難意云。長等色處即是顯微。于聚集位立差別名。如何一極微事亦顯亦形。
論。由於此中至非有境義。論主取經部意答也 此中實是一色生顯．形二智故。名亦顯．亦形。所以得知不依有部答者。正理論云經主前難。如何一事具有二體者。此難不成。非所許故(述曰形微。顯微體各別故。不許一事有顯形也)。
論。若爾身表中亦應有顯智。論主難絕 若生二智故名亦顯亦形。身表亦應生二智也 婆沙七十五一師云。二十色內八有顯無形。謂青．黃．赤．白．影．光．明．闇。餘十二色有顯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 同聚。名顯非形。
論。或有色處至身表業性。第二句也。身表業色。雖起之時。與舊相續顯色同聚。然不必俱。初起。息滅。與顯異故。初起無新顯色。息滅。古顯相續故 正理論云。所說身表是形差別。其理極成。謂從加行心所生不住等流大種果別類形色。不待余顯色為眼識生因。能蔽異熟生所長養形色。如是形色名為身表。
論。或有色處至謂所餘色。第三句。也此是形．顯同聚色也。如前引正理文。
論。有餘師說至有長等故。述異說也 此師兼取第三形。唯光明色一分無形。謂無障礙所發光明。其色漸微故無有份量 有人云新生智者。非也。
論。如何一事具有顯形。經部難也 難意云。長等色處即是顯微。于聚集位立差別名。如何一極微事亦顯亦形。
論。由於此中至非有境義。論主取經部意答也 此中實是一色生顯．形二智故。名亦顯．亦形。所以得知不依有部答者。正理論云經主前難。如何一事具有二體者。此難不成。非所許故(述曰形微。顯微體各別故。不許一事有顯形也)。
論。若爾身表中亦應有顯智。論主難絕 若生二智故名亦顯亦形。身表亦應生二智也 婆沙七十五一師云。二十色內八有顯無形。謂青．黃．赤．白．影．光．明．闇。餘十二色有顯
【English Translation】 English version Together they gather. The name manifests, but not the form.
Treatise: 'Or there are color-objects up to the nature of bodily expression.' This is the second sentence. Although the color of bodily expression arises at the same time and gathers together with the previously continuous manifest color, they are not necessarily always together. Because the initial arising and ceasing are different from the manifest color. At the initial arising, there is no new manifest color. At the ceasing, the ancient manifest color continues. The Abhidharmakosha-bhasya (Treasury of Metaphysics) says: 'What is said to be bodily expression is a difference in form.' This principle is extremely well-established. It refers to the distinct form and color that arise from the karma-produced mind, are impermanent, and are the result of the continuous flow of the great elements. It does not depend on other manifest colors to be a cause for the arising of eye-consciousness. It can obscure the form and color that are nourished by the results of past karma. Such form and color are called bodily expression.
Treatise: 'Or there are color-objects up to what are called the remaining colors.' This is the third sentence. This refers to colors where form and manifest color gather together. As quoted in the Abhidharmakosha-bhasya above.
Treatise: 'Some other teachers say up to having length, etc.' This describes a different view. This teacher also takes the third type of form. Only a portion of the color of light has no form, namely the light emitted without obstruction. Because its color gradually diminishes, it has no measure. Some people say it refers to newly born wise ones, but this is not correct.
Treatise: 'How can one thing have both manifest color and form?' This is a question from the Sautrantikas (Sutra School). The meaning of the question is: Length, etc., are manifest and subtle colors. How can one ultimate particle, in a state of aggregation, have different names? How can one ultimate particle be both manifest color and form?
Treatise: 'Because in this case, up to not having the meaning of an object.' The author of the treatise answers by taking the meaning of the Sautrantikas. In this case, it is actually one color that gives rise to two cognitions, manifest color and form. Therefore, it is named both manifest color and form. The reason for knowing that the answer does not rely on the Sarvastivadins (School of Everything Exists) is that the Abhidharmakosha-bhasya says that the Sautrantika previously questioned: 'How can one thing have two entities?' This question is not valid because it is not what is accepted (The commentary says that the form-particle and the manifest-particle are separate entities, so it is not accepted that one thing has both manifest color and form).
Treatise: 'If so, then bodily expression should also have manifest cognition.' The author of the treatise refutes the objection. If it is named both manifest color and form because it gives rise to two cognitions, then bodily expression should also give rise to two cognitions. The Mahavibhasa (Great Commentary), seventy-five, one teacher says: 'Within the twenty colors, eight have manifest color but no form, namely blue, yellow, red, white, shadow, light, brightness, and darkness. The remaining twelve colors have manifest color.'
有形 此師意說。有形必有顯。自有顯無形。有一師四句。與此論同。第四句取空界色非形非顯。以恒被明．闇覆故。此之四句非是正義。正義空界明．闇為體。理合是顯非形。然此四句所明長等。是假聚長等。非實極微。此長等聚必有形．顯二微故。言亦形亦顯。非長等微亦是顯也。此之四句依色處作四句 正理三十四一說云。香．味．觸．及無表色為第四者。依色蘊作四句。聲非恒故不入俱非。就蘊以明。非是正義。此中明色處故 問水鏡等中所有影像。為是實有。非實有耶 譬喻者說。此非實有。所以者何。面不入鏡。鏡不在面。如何鏡上有面像生 阿毗達磨諸論師云。此是實有。是眼所見。眼識所緣色處攝故。問面不入鏡。鏡不在面。云何實有。答生色因緣有多種理。故彼非難。如緣月光月愛珠器得有水生。非不實有。彼所生水有水用故(云云。多喻) 谷響有二說。譬喻者以剎那滅不至谷。故無 諸論師云。生耳識。故有 問此像色。二十種中是何色攝。答此是二十種像色。非二十種攝。由此。婆沙七十五釋二十色已別明像色 或即彼本色攝。青等像即入青等攝。不可將其本色難於像色。障光生等釋本色故。形顯分者。差別說。像色即是顯收。若從本質亦通形攝。此明像故。不可以本形為難。正理有文。言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有形：這是某位老師的觀點。認為有形之物必定有顯現。有顯現之物未必有形。另一位老師提出了四句分類，與此論點相同。第四句是指空界（ākāśa-dhātu），認為空界之色既非有形也非顯現，因為它總是被光明或黑暗所覆蓋。但這四句分類並非正義。正義認為空界以光明和黑暗為體性，理應是顯現而非有形。然而，這四句所說的長等，是假合的長等，並非真實的極微。這些長等聚合必定具有形和顯兩種微粒，因此說是既有形又有顯。非長等微粒也是顯現。這四句分類是依據色處（rūpāyatana）而作的四句分類。《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）第三十四卷第一節說，香、味、觸及無表色為第四類。這是依據色蘊（rūpa-skandha）而作的四句分類。聲音並非恒常，因此不歸入俱非之列。就蘊（skandha）來闡明，並非正義。此處闡明的是色處。 問：水鏡等中所顯現的影像，是真實存在還是非真實存在？ 譬喻者（Dārṣṭāntika）說：這不是真實存在的。為什麼呢？因為面容沒有進入鏡子，鏡子也沒有進入面容，鏡子上怎麼會產生面容的影像呢？ 阿毗達磨（Abhidharma）的論師們說：這是真實存在的，是眼睛所見，是眼識所緣的色處所攝。問：面容沒有進入鏡子，鏡子也沒有進入面容，怎麼會是真實存在的呢？答：生起色法的因緣有多種道理，所以這種質疑是不成立的。例如，憑藉月光和月愛珠（candra-kānta）等器具，可以產生水，這不是不真實的。因為所產生的水具有水的功用。（云云，舉了很多例子） 谷響（pratiśruti）有兩種說法。譬喻者認為，聲音剎那生滅，無法到達山谷，因此沒有谷響。 論師們認為，谷響能生起耳識，因此是存在的。 問：這種影像之色，在二十種色法中屬於哪一種？答：這種影像是二十種像色，並非二十種色法所攝。因此，《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā）第七十五卷在解釋二十種色法之後，特別說明了像色。或者，它就是本色所攝。青色等的影像就歸入青色等之中。不能用本色來質疑像色，因為本色有障光生等解釋。在形和顯的區分上，有不同的說法。像色屬於顯。如果從本質上來說，也通於形。這裡闡明的是影像，因此不能用本形來質疑。 《正理》中有這樣的文字。
【English Translation】 English version: Form: This is the view of a certain teacher, who believes that anything with form must have manifestation. Something that manifests does not necessarily have form. Another teacher proposed a four-fold classification, which is the same as this argument. The fourth category refers to the space element (ākāśa-dhātu), which is considered neither to have form nor manifestation, because it is always covered by light or darkness. However, this four-fold classification is not the correct meaning. The correct meaning is that the space element has light and darkness as its nature, and should be considered manifestation rather than form. However, the length, etc., mentioned in these four categories are aggregates of length, etc., which are not real ultimate particles. These aggregates of length, etc., must have both form and manifestation particles, so it is said to have both form and manifestation. Non-length, etc., particles are also manifestation. This four-fold classification is based on the four-fold classification of the color object (rūpāyatana). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, Chapter 34, Section 1, says that smell, taste, touch, and non-revealing form are the fourth category. This is a four-fold classification based on the form aggregate (rūpa-skandha). Sound is not constant, so it is not included in the neither/nor category. Explaining it in terms of aggregates (skandha) is not the correct meaning. Here, the color object is being explained. Question: Are the images appearing in mirrors, etc., real or unreal? The Dārṣṭāntika (Illustrator) says: They are not real. Why? Because the face does not enter the mirror, and the mirror does not enter the face. How can the image of the face arise in the mirror? The Abhidharma masters say: They are real, seen by the eye, and included in the color object cognized by eye-consciousness. Question: The face does not enter the mirror, and the mirror does not enter the face, so how can they be real? Answer: There are many reasons for the arising of form, so this question is not valid. For example, with the help of moonlight and instruments like the moon-loving pearl (candra-kānta), water can be produced, which is not unreal, because the water produced has the function of water. (Etc., many examples are given.) There are two views on echo (pratiśruti). The Dārṣṭāntika believes that sound arises and ceases in an instant and cannot reach the valley, so there is no echo. The masters believe that echo gives rise to ear-consciousness, so it exists. Question: Which of the twenty types of form does this image-form belong to? Answer: This image is one of the twenty types of image-form, and is not included in the twenty types of form. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā, Chapter 75, after explaining the twenty types of form, specifically explains image-form. Alternatively, it is included in the original color. Images of blue, etc., are included in blue, etc. One cannot use the original color to question the image-color, because the original color has explanations such as obstructing light. Regarding the distinction between shape and manifestation, there are different views. Image-form belongs to manifestation. If viewed from its essence, it also relates to shape. Here, the image is being explained, so one cannot use the original shape to question it. There is such a passage in the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra.
顯色者像本別說。
論。已說色處當說聲處。此下第二釋聲處也。文中有四。一文前結引。二舉數列名。三依名別釋。四破異說。此文初也 正理論云。能有呼召說名為聲 或唯音響說名為聲(述曰。前是語聲。后非語聲)。
論。聲唯八種至差別成八。第二舉數列名 前四種聲。各有可意．不可意別故成八種。
論。執受大種至大種為因。已下第三依名別釋。此明執受大種．非執受大種為因聲也。于執受大種為因聲中。有是有情名聲。謂語表業。有非有情名聲。謂余執受大種為因聲 于非執受大種為因。聲。唯是非有情名聲。
論。有情名聲至非有情名。此釋有情名．非有情名聲也 此說有情名是語表業。非謂一切語表業皆有情名也 正理云。此語表業。復有二種。謂依名起。及不待名 又準此文。有情名聲。是執受大種一分。非有情名聲。是非執受大種為因聲全。及有執受一分。有情名聲定是有執受大種為因 又下業品云。身．語表業定是有執受大種為因。故知。此論有情名聲。定是有執受大種因發。是有情數。有得得故。非化人語。諸化人語非是執受大種為因聲故 若依正理第一云。有執受大種為因聲。無執受大種為因聲。有情數聲非有情數聲 述曰 此文執受大種為因聲。即是有情
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 顯色者的形象，在此單獨說明。
論：已經說了色處，接下來應當說聲處。以下是第二部分，解釋聲處。文中包含四個部分：一是文章前的總結引導，二是列舉並數出名稱，三是根據名稱分別解釋，四是駁斥不同的說法。這段文字是第一部分。 正理論說：『能夠進行呼喚和述說的，稱之為聲。』或者僅僅是音響，稱之為聲。（述曰：前者是語言的聲音，後者不是語言的聲音）。
論：聲只有八種，直到差別形成八種。第二部分是列舉並數出名稱。前面的四種聲音，各有可意（令人愉悅）和不可意（令人不悅）的區別，因此形成八種。
論：以執受大種（擁有感受能力的基本元素）為因，直到以大種為因。以下是第三部分，根據名稱分別解釋。這裡說明以執受大種和非執受大種為因的聲音。在以執受大種為因的聲音中，有的是有情名聲（有生命存在的名稱的聲音），比如語表業（通過語言表達的行為）。有的是非有情名聲（非生命存在的名稱的聲音），比如其餘以執受大種為因的聲音。在以非執受大種為因的聲音中，只有非有情名聲。
論：有情名聲，直到非有情名。這裡解釋有情名和非有情名聲。這裡說有情名是語表業，但不是說所有的語表業都是有情名。正理論說：『這種語表業，又有兩種，一種是依據名稱而起，一種是不依賴名稱。』又根據這段文字，有情名聲是執受大種的一部分，非有情名聲是以非執受大種為因的全部聲音，以及執受大種的一部分。有情名聲一定是執受大種為因發出的。又如下面的業品所說：身表業（通過身體表達的行為）和語表業一定是執受大種為因。因此可知，此論中的有情名聲，一定是執受大種為因發出的，是有情之數，因為有獲得。不是化人（通過變化產生的人）的語言，因為化人的語言不是以執受大種為因的聲音。如果依據正理論第一卷所說：有以執受大種為因的聲音，有以非執受大種為因的聲音，有有情之數的聲音，有非有情之數的聲音。述曰：此文中的執受大種為因的聲音，就是有情的聲音。
【English Translation】 English version The appearance of the one who manifests colors is explained separately here.
Treatise: Having discussed the 'color-sphere' (色處), we should now discuss the 'sound-sphere' (聲處). The following is the second section, explaining the 'sound-sphere'. There are four parts in this text: first, a summary introduction; second, listing and enumerating the names; third, explaining each name separately; and fourth, refuting different views. This passage is the first part. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: 'That which can call out and speak is called 'sound'.' Or, only sounds are called 'sound'. (Commentary: The former is the sound of language; the latter is not the sound of language.)
Treatise: There are only eight kinds of sound, until the differences form eight. The second part is listing and enumerating the names. The previous four kinds of sound each have agreeable (可意) and disagreeable (不可意) distinctions, thus forming eight kinds.
Treatise: 'Based on the 'appropriated great elements' (執受大種)' until 'based on the great elements'. The following is the third part, explaining each name separately. This explains sounds based on 'appropriated great elements' and 'non-appropriated great elements'. Among the sounds based on 'appropriated great elements', some are 'name-sounds of sentient beings' (有情名聲), such as 'verbal expression-karma' (語表業). Some are 'name-sounds of non-sentient beings' (非有情名聲), such as the remaining sounds based on 'appropriated great elements'. Among the sounds based on 'non-appropriated great elements', there are only 'name-sounds of non-sentient beings'.
Treatise: 'Name-sounds of sentient beings' until 'name-sounds of non-sentient beings'. This explains 'name-sounds of sentient beings' and 'name-sounds of non-sentient beings'. This says that 'name-sounds of sentient beings' are 'verbal expression-karma', but it does not mean that all 'verbal expression-karma' are 'name-sounds of sentient beings'. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'This 'verbal expression-karma' is further of two kinds: that which arises based on names, and that which does not depend on names.' Also, according to this text, 'name-sounds of sentient beings' are a part of the 'appropriated great elements', while 'name-sounds of non-sentient beings' are all sounds based on 'non-appropriated great elements', and a part of the 'appropriated great elements'. 'Name-sounds of sentient beings' must be emitted based on 'appropriated great elements'. Also, as the following chapter on karma says: 'Bodily expression-karma (身表業) and verbal expression-karma must be based on 'appropriated great elements'.' Therefore, it is known that the 'name-sounds of sentient beings' in this treatise must be emitted based on 'appropriated great elements', and are among the number of sentient beings, because there is attainment. It is not the speech of 'transformation-people' (化人), because the speech of 'transformation-people' is not a sound based on 'appropriated great elements'. If according to the first volume of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra: there are sounds based on 'appropriated great elements', there are sounds based on 'non-appropriated great elements', there are sounds of the number of sentient beings, there are sounds of the number of non-sentient beings. Commentary: The sounds based on 'appropriated great elements' in this text are the sounds of sentient beings.
數聲。無執受大種為因聲。即是無情數聲 又云。八中。唯有初二應理。以有情數．非有情數。即是有執受．及無執受大種為因聲所攝故 準此論文。無執受為因聲中。無有情名聲．及有情數聲。亦無有得得。有得得聲是有情數故。準此論文分聲四種。不須四句寬狹不同。但據義別分為四種。造定．道戒大種相擊發聲。非此所明 或可。彼大不自相擊發聲。婆沙亦許有四大不相擊發聲 問若爾何故。入阿毗達磨第一云。聲有二種。謂有執受．及無執受大種為因有差別故。墮自體者名有執受(自體者自身也)是有覺受義。與此相違名無執受。前所生者名有執受大種為因。謂手．語等聲。后所生者名無執受大種為因。謂風．林等聲。此有情名．非有情名差別為四。謂前聲中。語聲名有情名聲。餘聲名非有情名聲。后聲中。化語聲名有情名聲。餘聲名非有情名聲 準此論文。取化人語。是無執受為因有情名聲。然不說是業。準此論文。與此論．正理相違。此論有情名聲。唯語表業。唯是執受大種為因聲 正理有情數聲。唯是執受大種為因聲。化人語。同許非執受大種為因聲。故知。非是有情數聲．及有情名聲 入阿毗達磨。許非執受。而言化語是有情名聲者。豈不相違。答各依一義故不同也。此論等據此聲無得得故非是有情
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 數聲：指無執受大種（無情之物的基本構成元素）為因產生的聲響。這指的是無情之物的聲響。 又有說法：在八種聲音中，只有前兩種（有情數聲和非有情數聲）是合理的。因為有情數聲和非有情數聲分別是由有執受和無執受的大種為因產生的。 根據這些論述，由無執受為因產生的聲響中，沒有有情名聲和有情數聲，也沒有『得得』聲，因為『得得』聲是有情數聲。 根據這些論述，可以將聲音分為四種，不需要用四句來區分寬泛和狹窄，只需根據意義的不同分為四種即可。建造、禪定、道、戒等大種相互撞擊發出的聲音，不在此處討論。 或者說，那些大種不會自己相互撞擊發出聲音。《婆沙論》也允許有四大不相互撞擊而發聲的情況。 問：如果是這樣，為什麼在《入阿毗達磨》第一卷中說，聲音有兩種，即由有執受和無執受大種為因產生的差別？墮入自體（自身）的稱為有執受（指有覺受的意義），與此相反的稱為無執受。前者產生的聲音稱為有執受大種為因，比如手語等聲音；後者產生的聲音稱為無執受大種為因，比如風聲、林聲等。這裡將有情名聲和非有情名聲分為四種，即在前一種聲音中，語聲稱為有情名聲，其餘聲音稱為非有情名聲；在後一種聲音中，化人（變化出來的人）的語聲稱為有情名聲，其餘聲音稱為非有情名聲。 根據這些論述，取化人的語言，是由無執受為因產生的有情名聲。然而，這並不被認為是業。根據這些論述，這與此論和《正理》相違背。此論認為，有情名聲僅僅是語表業，僅僅是由執受大種為因產生的聲響。 《正理》認為，有情數聲僅僅是由執受大種為因產生的聲響。化人的語言，都被認為是無執受大種為因產生的聲響。因此可知，它不是有情數聲和有情名聲。 《入阿毗達磨》允許非執受，卻說化語是有情名聲，這難道不是相互矛盾嗎？答：這是因為各自依據不同的意義，所以不同。此論等認為，這種聲音沒有『得得』，所以不是有情。
【English Translation】 English version Sound of Number: Refers to sounds produced by non-sentient Mahabhutas (the fundamental elements of inanimate objects) as the cause. This refers to the sounds of inanimate objects. Another saying: Among the eight types of sounds, only the first two (sentient number sounds and non-sentient number sounds) are reasonable. This is because sentient number sounds and non-sentient number sounds are produced by sentient and non-sentient Mahabhutas as the cause, respectively. According to these treatises, among the sounds produced by non-sentient causes, there are no sentient name sounds and sentient number sounds, nor are there 'attained-attained' sounds, because 'attained-attained' sounds are sentient number sounds. According to these treatises, sounds can be divided into four types, without needing to use four sentences to distinguish between broad and narrow, simply dividing them into four types according to the difference in meaning. The sounds produced by the collision of Mahabhutas such as construction, meditation, the path, and precepts are not discussed here. Or it could be said that those Mahabhutas do not collide with each other to produce sounds. The Vibhasa also allows for situations where the four great elements do not collide with each other to produce sounds. Question: If that is the case, why does the first volume of the Abhidharmakosha say that there are two types of sounds, namely the differences produced by sentient and non-sentient Mahabhutas as the cause? That which falls into its own nature (oneself) is called sentient (referring to the meaning of having sensation), and that which is contrary to this is called non-sentient. The sounds produced by the former are called sentient Mahabhutas as the cause, such as hand gestures and speech; the sounds produced by the latter are called non-sentient Mahabhutas as the cause, such as wind sounds and forest sounds. Here, sentient name sounds and non-sentient name sounds are divided into four types, namely, in the former type of sound, speech is called sentient name sound, and the remaining sounds are called non-sentient name sounds; in the latter type of sound, the speech of a transformation being (a being created through transformation) is called sentient name sound, and the remaining sounds are called non-sentient name sounds. According to these treatises, taking the language of a transformation being is a sentient name sound produced by a non-sentient cause. However, this is not considered karma. According to these treatises, this contradicts this treatise and the Nyaya Sutra. This treatise believes that sentient name sounds are only verbal expressions of karma, and are only sounds produced by sentient Mahabhutas as the cause. The Nyaya Sutra believes that sentient number sounds are only sounds produced by sentient Mahabhutas as the cause. The language of a transformation being is considered to be a sound produced by non-sentient Mahabhutas as the cause. Therefore, it can be known that it is not a sentient number sound or a sentient name sound. The Abhidharmakosha allows for non-sentient causes, but says that the language of a transformation being is a sentient name sound. Isn't this contradictory? Answer: This is because they each rely on different meanings, so they are different. This treatise, etc., believes that this sound does not have 'attained-attained', so it is not sentient.
名聲 正理非是有情數聲。入阿毗達磨據有情心發故。名有情名聲 問若爾。何故。婆沙十三云。聲處有八種。謂執受大種因聲．非執受大種因聲 此各有二。謂有情名聲．非有情名聲 此復各有可意．不可意別故成八種 答此師。與入阿毗達磨意同。然非正義。正理此論。兩文不用此義。故婆沙百二十二云。問諸化語是業不。有作是說。彼是語業。由心發故 有餘師說。彼非語業但名語聲。以所化身無執受故 問婆沙兩說無評。何者為是。答非業為正。所以得知。以此論業品中。身．語表業。唯執受大種為因故。化人語。既同許是非執受大種為因。故知非業。
又準正理六十四解發語中雲。此居口內名語。亦業。流出外時但名為語。不名語業。準彼論文。化人語離身遠響。如何成業 問既非是業。有得得不。答既非有情。無得得也 問如何。得知化聲無得。答一準正理論云。非執受大種為因聲。與非有情數聲。無寬狹故。化人同許非執受故。故知不成就也。二準婆沙評家義。及此論下文。色界身作欲界化。所化香味如莊嚴具。尚不成就。如何離質化語得成就耶 有人。引婆沙一百三十二云。有成就欲界系所造色。亦色界系所造色。謂生欲界得色界善心。若生色界作欲界化發欲界語。準此論文。若化語不成就者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
名聲：正理認為並非是有情數的音聲。但根據《阿毗達磨》，由於有情的心識發動而產生的，才稱為有情名聲。
問：如果這樣，為什麼《大毗婆沙論》第十三卷說：『聲處有八種，即執受大種因聲、非執受大種因聲。』這兩種又各有兩種，即有情名聲、非有情名聲。這些又各有可意、不可意的區別，所以成為八種？
答：這位論師的觀點與《入阿毗達磨》的觀點相同。但這並非正確的解釋。《正理》和此論都沒有采用這種解釋。所以《大毗婆沙論》第一百二十二卷說：『問：諸化語是業嗎？』有人這樣說：『它們是語業，因為是由心識發動的。』另有論師說：『它們不是語業，只是稱為語聲，因為所化之身沒有執受。』
問：《大毗婆沙論》的兩種說法沒有評判，哪一種是正確的？
答：非業是正確的。為什麼知道呢？因為此論的業品中，身、語表業，只有執受大種作為原因。化人的語言，既然共同承認是非執受大種作為原因，所以知道不是業。
又根據《正理》第六十四卷解釋發語時說：『這在口內稱為語，也是業。流出外時只稱為語，不稱為語業。』根據那篇論文，化人的語言遠離身體，聲音遙遠，如何能成為業呢？
問：既然不是業，有得嗎？
答：既然不是有情，就沒有得。
問：如何知道化聲沒有得呢？
答：一、根據《正理論》說：『非執受大種作為原因的音聲，與非有情數的音聲，沒有寬狹之分。』化人共同承認是非執受，所以知道不成就。二、根據《大毗婆沙論》評家的觀點，以及此論下文，即使身體在欲界變化，所變化的香味如同莊嚴具，尚且不成就，何況是脫離實體的化語能夠成就呢？
有人引用《大毗婆沙論》第一百三十二卷說：『有成就欲界系所造色，也有系所造色。』即生在欲界得到善心，如果生在**作欲界變化發出欲界語言。根據這篇論文，如果化語不成就的話……
【English Translation】 English version
Sound: The Nyaya-sastra (正理) considers it not to be a sound belonging to sentient beings. According to the Abhidharma (阿毗達磨), it is called the sound of sentient beings because it originates from the mind of sentient beings.
Question: If so, why does the Mahavibhasa-sastra (婆沙) Volume 13 say: 'There are eight kinds of sound-sources, namely, sound caused by the great elements with appropriation and sound caused by the great elements without appropriation.' Each of these has two kinds, namely, the sound of sentient beings and the sound of non-sentient beings. These further have agreeable and disagreeable distinctions, thus forming eight kinds?
Answer: This teacher's view is the same as that of the Abhidharma. However, this is not the correct explanation. The Nyaya-sastra (正理) and this treatise do not adopt this explanation. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa-sastra (婆沙) Volume 122 says: 'Question: Are emanated speech acts karma?' Some say: 'They are verbal karma because they are produced by the mind.' Other teachers say: 'They are not verbal karma but are merely called speech-sounds because the emanated body has no appropriation.'
Question: The two views in the Mahavibhasa-sastra (婆沙) are not evaluated. Which one is correct?
Answer: Non-karma is correct. How is this known? Because in the karma section of this treatise, bodily and verbal expressive actions have only the great elements with appropriation as their cause. Since the speech of an emanation is jointly acknowledged to have the great elements without appropriation as its cause, it is known that it is not karma.
Furthermore, according to the Nyaya-sastra (正理) Volume 64, in the explanation of speech production, it says: 'That which is inside the mouth is called speech and is also karma. When it flows out, it is only called speech and is not called verbal karma.' According to that text, how can the speech of an emanation, which is far from the body and whose sound is distant, become karma?
Question: Since it is not karma, is there attainment?
Answer: Since it is not a sentient being, there is no attainment.
Question: How is it known that emanated sound has no attainment?
Answer: First, according to the Nyaya-sastra (正理論), 'Sound caused by the great elements without appropriation is no different in scope from the sound of non-sentient beings.' Emanations are jointly acknowledged to be without appropriation, so it is known that it is not accomplished. Second, according to the view of the commentators of the Mahavibhasa-sastra (婆沙), and the following text of this treatise, even if the body is transformed in the desire realm, the transformed fragrance and taste are like ornaments and are not accomplished. How much less can emanated speech, which is separated from substance, be accomplished?
Someone quotes the Mahavibhasa-sastra (婆沙) Volume 132, saying: 'There is accomplishment of created form belonging to the desire realm, and there is also created form belonging to the ** realm.' That is, if one is born in the desire realm and obtains ** wholesome mind, if one is born in the ** and creates an emanation in the desire realm and utters speech in the desire realm. According to this text, if emanated speech is not accomplished...
。如何說此成二界色耶 破曰。此不成證。通異解故。前引文證。化人無得。文是決定。此文容有兩釋。故不成證。此說即質化。色．觸二境。及即自身。以欲界化心發欲界語。故作是說。非謂此是離質化人所發語也。所以得知。身生色界作欲界化。一說不化香味。一說化而不成就。如莊嚴具。離質化人既更疏遠身莊嚴具。如何說語有成就義。余如前說 問若爾何故。婆沙上下。無文說不成就離質化語 答此不在疑故不別說。即是入總不成就無情法中此已說故。故不別說。如不別說一樹．一石等名不成就。又如說發毛爪等非執受者。非有情數無得得故。此物親于離質化人尚不成就。如何離質化語須更別說 問化人語．及簫笛等。雖非成就為有名不。答定無有名。下論文云。名是有情數故 既無得得何得有名。
論。有說有聲至合所生聲。第四破異說也 此雜心師說。手．鼓合生聲名因俱聲。即二大種所生聲也。
論。如不許一至聲亦應爾。論主破也。如婆沙不許一顯色極微．二四大所造。故知。一聲亦不得內．外大種共造 今詳此意。論說聲因大種別者是造義也。非唯緣擊發聲 正理論云。雖有執受．與無執受。二四大種共相扣擊。而俱為因各別發聲。彼聲各據自所依故。不成三體 問何故。但言可意．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如何說這構成了欲界和色界兩種色呢？ 答：這個論證不成立，因為它有不同的解釋。前面引用的經文證明，化人（Nirmanakaya，佛或菩薩爲了度化眾生而顯現的化身）沒有證得果位。那段經文是確定的，而這段經文可能有兩種解釋，所以不能作為證據。這裡說的是即質化，色和觸兩種境界，以及即自身。因為欲界（Kamadhatu，眾生輪迴的慾望界）的化心發出欲界的語言，所以這樣說。並不是說這是離開物質的化人所發出的語言。為什麼知道呢？身體產生，造作欲界的化身。一種說法是不化香味，一種說法是化了而不成就，就像莊嚴具（裝飾品）。離開物質的化人，比起身體的莊嚴具更加疏遠，怎麼能說語言有成就的意義呢？其餘的就像前面所說。 問：如果這樣，為什麼《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）上下都沒有經文說不成就離開物質的化語呢？ 答：這是因為沒有疑問，所以沒有特別說明。這包含在總的不成就的無情法中，因為已經說過了，所以沒有特別說明。就像沒有特別說明一棵樹、一塊石頭等名稱不成就一樣。又如說頭髮、指甲等不是執受者（擁有者），不是有情數，因為沒有證得果位。這些東西比離開物質的化人更親近，尚且不成就，怎麼能離開物質的化語需要另外說明呢？ 問：化人的語言以及簫笛等，即使不是成就，有名嗎？ 答：肯定沒有名。下面的論文說，名是有情數，既然沒有證得果位，怎麼能有名？ 論：有人說有聲，直到合所生聲。這是第四種破斥不同的說法。 這是《雜心論》（Samuccaya，佛教論書）的論師說的。手和鼓合在一起產生的聲音，名為因俱聲，也就是兩大種（地、水、火、風）所產生的聲音。 論：如不許一，直到聲亦應爾。這是論主破斥。就像《婆沙論》不許一個顯色極微（最小的顏色單位）、二大種所造，所以知道，一個聲音也不得由內、外大種共同創造。 現在詳細分析這個意思。論說聲音的因是大種不同，這是造作的意思。不僅僅是緣于敲擊而發聲。《正理論》（Nyayasutra，印度正理學根本經典）說，即使有執受和無執受的二大種互相敲擊，而都作為因各自發出聲音，那些聲音各自依據自己所依之處，所以不能成為三種實體。 問：為什麼只說可意（悅耳的）？
【English Translation】 English version: Question: How can it be said that this constitutes two realms of form, the Desire Realm (Kamadhatu) and the Form Realm (Rupadhatu)? Answer: This argument is not valid because it has different interpretations. The previously cited text proves that a Nirmanakaya (emanation body, a manifestation of a Buddha or Bodhisattva to liberate beings) does not attain realization. That text is definitive, while this text may have two interpretations, so it cannot be used as evidence. This refers to the transformation of substance, the two realms of form and touch, as well as oneself. Because the mind of the Desire Realm emanates speech of the Desire Realm, it is said in this way. It does not mean that this is speech emitted by a Nirmanakaya separate from matter. How do we know this? The body arises, creating a Nirmanakaya of the Desire Realm. One explanation is that it does not transform fragrance and taste, and another explanation is that it transforms but does not achieve completion, like ornaments (decorations). A Nirmanakaya separate from matter is even more distant than the ornaments of the body, so how can it be said that speech has the meaning of completion? The rest is as previously stated. Question: If so, why is there no text in the Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise) that says that speech separate from matter is not accomplished? Answer: This is because there is no doubt, so it is not specifically stated. This is included in the general category of inanimate dharmas that are not accomplished, because it has already been stated, so it is not specifically stated. Just as it is not specifically stated that the names of a tree, a stone, etc., are not accomplished. Also, like saying that hair, nails, etc., are not possessors, not sentient beings, because they do not attain realization. These things are closer than a Nirmanakaya separate from matter, and yet they are not accomplished, so how can speech separate from matter need further explanation? Question: Do the speech of a Nirmanakaya and flutes, etc., have a name, even if they are not accomplished? Answer: Definitely not. The following treatise says that name is a sentient being, and since there is no attainment, how can there be a name? Treatise: Some say there is sound, up to the sound produced by combination. This is the fourth refutation of different views. This is what the teacher of the Samuccaya (a Buddhist treatise) says. The sound produced by the combination of hand and drum is called 'sound of combined causes,' which is the sound produced by the two great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind). Treatise: Just as one is not allowed, up to sound should also be so. This is the treatise master's refutation. Just as the Vibhasa does not allow one ultimate particle of visible form (the smallest unit of color) to be created by the two great elements, it is known that a sound cannot be jointly created by internal and external great elements. Now, let's analyze this meaning in detail. The treatise says that the cause of sound is different great elements, which is the meaning of creation. It is not only due to striking that sound is produced. The Nyayasutra (the fundamental text of Indian logic) says that even if the two great elements, with and without possession, strike each other, and both act as causes to emit sounds separately, those sounds each rely on their own basis, so they cannot become three entities. Question: Why only say 'pleasant' (agreeable)?
不可意。不言處中聲耶 答若言可意．違意。即有處中。既言可意．不可意故。所以攝聲盡也。以除可意外。皆是非可意故。此即可意聲狹。不可意寬。違意．處中。皆是不可意故 又可意．不可意。就情而說。非決定也 問於色等中。何不說有可意．不可意等 答亦應說有執受等為因之異。然因聲性難知故。但就因．情等。說有差別。
論。已說聲處當說味處。此下第三釋味處也 正理論云。味謂所啖。是可嘗義 此中有二一結引。二舉數列名。此即初也。
論。味有六種至苦淡別故。第二舉數列名 諸法差別種種不同。不可一例。由此五境差別不等。色有二十。聲八。味六。香四。觸十一等。謂本。味別唯有此六。余末皆是此六差別 雜集論說和合味等。不離此六。
論。已說味處當說香處。第四釋香處也 正理論云。香謂所嗅 就中有三。一結引。二依婆沙十三說香有四。三依本論說香有三種。此即初也。
論。香有四種至有差別故。第二婆沙說四香也 五事論云。諸悅意者說名好香。不悅意者說名惡香 正理論云。增益．損減依身別故。有說。微弱．增盛異故 述曰。增益．增盛為平等香。損減．微弱為不等香。
論。本論中說至及平等香。第三引本論三香也 正理釋云。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不可意（不合意）。難道不是在『處中』（不偏不倚）的聲音中嗎？ 回答：如果說『可意』（合意）、『違意』（不合意），那就有了『處中』。既然說了『可意』、『不可意』，所以就涵蓋了所有的聲音。因為排除了『可意』之外，其餘都是『非可意』。這樣看來，『可意』的聲音範圍狹窄，『不可意』的範圍寬廣，『違意』、『處中』都屬於『不可意』。 而且，『可意』、『不可意』是就情感而言，並非絕對。 問：在色等其他境中，為什麼不說有『可意』、『不可意』等？ 答：也應該說有執受等作為原因的差異。然而，因為聲音的性質難以知曉，所以只就原因、情感等方面，說明有差別。
論：已經說了聲處，接下來應當說味處。以下是第三部分，解釋味處。 《正理論》說：『味』是指所嘗的東西，是可品嚐的意思。 這裡面有兩部分：一是總結引出，二是舉出數列出名稱。這裡是第一部分。
論：味有六種，乃至苦味、淡味的區別。第二部分是舉出數列出名稱。 諸法的差別種種不同，不可一概而論。因此，五境的差別也不相同。色有二十種，聲有八種，味有六種，香有四種，觸有十一種等。所謂根本的味只有這六種，其餘末端的味道都是這六種的差別。《雜集論》說和合味等，都不離這六種。
論：已經說了味處，接下來應當說香處。第四部分是解釋香處。 《正理論》說：『香』是指所嗅的東西。 其中有三部分：一是總結引出，二是依照《婆沙論》的十三種說法，說明香有四種，三是依照本論，說明香有三種。這裡是第一部分。
論：香有四種，乃至有差別的原因。第二部分是《婆沙論》所說的四種香。 《五事論》說：『凡是令人愉悅的，就叫做好香；不令人愉悅的，就叫做惡香。』 《正理論》說：『增益、損減是根據身體的差別；有人說，微弱、增盛是由於不同的原因。』 述記說：『增益、增盛是平等的香，損減、微弱是不平等的香。』
論：本論中說，乃至平等香。第三部分是引用本論的三種香。 《正理釋》解釋說：
【English Translation】 English version Unpleasant. Isn't it in the 'neutral' (impartial) sound? Answer: If you say 'pleasant' (agreeable), 'unpleasant' (disagreeable), then there is 'neutral'. Since 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant' are mentioned, all sounds are covered. Because excluding 'pleasant', the rest are 'non-pleasant'. Thus, the range of 'pleasant' sounds is narrow, and the range of 'unpleasant' is wide; 'disagreeable' and 'neutral' all belong to 'unpleasant'. Moreover, 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant' are based on emotions, not absolute. Question: Why don't you say there are 'pleasant', 'unpleasant', etc., in other realms such as form? Answer: It should also be said that there are differences in causes such as apprehension. However, because the nature of sound is difficult to know, only the differences in causes, emotions, etc., are explained.
Treatise: Having spoken of the sound realm, we should next speak of the taste realm. The following is the third part, explaining the taste realm. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Taste' refers to what is tasted, meaning it can be tasted. There are two parts here: one is to summarize and introduce, and the other is to list the names in sequence. This is the first part.
Treatise: There are six kinds of taste, up to the distinction between bitter and bland. The second part is to list the names in sequence. The differences between dharmas are various and different, and cannot be generalized. Therefore, the differences between the five realms are also different. Form has twenty kinds, sound has eight, taste has six, smell has four, touch has eleven, etc. The fundamental tastes are only these six, and the remaining terminal tastes are all differences of these six. The Abhidharmasamuccaya says that combined tastes, etc., are inseparable from these six.
Treatise: Having spoken of the taste realm, we should next speak of the smell realm. The fourth part is to explain the smell realm. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Smell' refers to what is smelled. There are three parts: one is to summarize and introduce, two is to explain that there are four kinds of smell according to the thirteen kinds of Vibhasa, and three is to explain that there are three kinds of smell according to this treatise. This is the first part.
Treatise: There are four kinds of smell, up to the reason for the difference. The second part is the four kinds of smell mentioned in the Vibhasa. The Pañcavastuka says: 'Whatever is pleasing is called good smell; whatever is not pleasing is called bad smell.' The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Increase and decrease depend on the difference of the body; some say that weakness and intensity are due to different reasons.' The commentary says: 'Increase and intensity are equal smells, decrease and weakness are unequal smells.'
Treatise: This treatise says, up to equal smell. The third part is to quote the three kinds of smell from this treatise. The Nyāyānusāra explains:
能長養諸根．大種名為好香。與此相違名為惡香(相違者謂。能損諸根) 無前二用名平等香 或諸福業增上所生名為好香。若諸罪業增上所生名為惡香。唯四大種勢力所生名平等香 今詳上釋。香隨其一義非決定也。望多有情損．益不定故。三香四香。說雖不同。皆攝香盡。更互相攝。思而可知。非是要義。不煩廣述。
論。已說香處當說觸處。第五釋觸處也。文中有四。一結引。二舉數列名。三牒名重釋。四界系通局。此即初也。
論。觸有十一至及冷飢渴。第二舉數列名也。
論。此中大種后當廣說。第三牒名重釋也。文中有三。一指后釋。二當體立名。三因取果名。此即初也。
論。柔軟名滑至翻此為輕。第二當體立名也 問何故七種觸中唯滑等四觸言性。余觸及余境不說性耶。答此為對后三從果立名故。此四從自性為名。故為性也。后三從果為名。故不言性。余境無相對故。所以不名為性 可稱名重者。謂能牽秤向下 不可稱者。謂不能牽秤向下。及有力上升。如煙．炎等。皆名為輕 余文可解。
論。暖欲名冷至飲欲名渴。第三因取果名 文中有三。一釋果名。二結歸因稱。三引例證成。此即初也 暖欲．食慾．饑欲．是心所欲數。由身中有觸力令欲暖。有觸力令欲食。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能滋養諸根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五根）和大種（地、水、火、風四大元素）的，稱為好香。與此相反，能損害諸根的，稱為惡香（相違指的是能損害諸根）。沒有前兩種作用的，稱為平等香。或者說，由諸多福業增長而產生的，稱為好香。由諸多罪業增長而產生的，稱為惡香。僅僅由四大種的勢力所產生的，稱為平等香。現在詳細解釋一下，香隨著其中一種意義而並非是絕對的。考慮到對多數有情的損害或利益是不確定的。三種香或四種香，說法雖然不同，都涵蓋了所有的香。它們之間互相包含。仔細思考就可以明白。這不是主要的意義，所以不必過多闡述。
論：已經說了香處，接下來應當說觸處。這是第五個解釋觸處。文中包含四個部分：一、總結並引出；二、列舉並數出名稱；三、重複名稱並加以解釋；四、界限、聯繫和普遍性。這裡是第一部分。
論：觸有十一種，乃至冷、饑、渴。這是第二部分，列舉並數出名稱。
論：這其中的大種，後面將會詳細解釋。這是第三部分，重複名稱並加以解釋。文中包含三個部分：一、指明後面解釋；二、根據本體建立名稱；三、根據原因取結果來命名。這裡是第一部分。
論：柔軟的稱為滑，乃至翻譯成輕。這是第二部分，根據本體建立名稱。問：為什麼七種觸中只有滑等四種觸說是『性』，其餘的觸和其餘的境不說『性』呢？答：這是爲了對應後面三種從結果來命名的緣故。這四種是從自性來命名的，所以說是『性』。後面三種是從結果來命名的，所以不說『性』。其餘的境沒有相對的，所以不稱為『性』。可以稱量的，指的是能夠牽引秤向下。不可稱量的，指的是不能牽引秤向下，以及有力上升的，如煙、火焰等，都稱為輕。其餘的文字可以自行理解。
論：想要溫暖稱為冷，乃至想要飲用稱為渴。這是第三部分，根據原因取結果來命名。文中包含三個部分：一、解釋結果的名稱；二、總結歸納到原因的稱謂；三、引用例子來證明成立。這裡是第一部分。想要溫暖、想要食物、想要飢餓，是心所的慾望。由於身體中有觸的力量，使得想要溫暖，有觸的力量，使得想要食物。
【English Translation】 English version That which nourishes the roots (the five roots of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body) and the great elements (the four great elements of earth, water, fire, and wind) is called good fragrance (好香). That which is contrary to this, which harms the roots, is called bad fragrance (惡香) (contrary means that which harms the roots). That which has neither of the previous two functions is called neutral fragrance (平等香). Or, that which is produced by the increase of many meritorious deeds is called good fragrance. That which is produced by the increase of many sinful deeds is called bad fragrance. That which is produced solely by the power of the four great elements is called neutral fragrance. Now, to explain in detail, fragrance follows one of its meanings and is not absolute. Considering that the harm or benefit to most sentient beings is uncertain. The three fragrances or four fragrances, although the statements are different, all encompass all fragrances. They contain each other. Careful thought will make it clear. This is not the main meaning, so there is no need to elaborate.
Treatise: Having spoken of the place of fragrance, we should next speak of the place of touch. This is the fifth explanation of the place of touch. The text contains four parts: 1. Summarizing and introducing; 2. Listing and enumerating the names; 3. Repeating the names and explaining them; 4. Boundaries, connections, and universality. This is the first part.
Treatise: Touch has eleven types, up to and including cold, hunger, and thirst. This is the second part, listing and enumerating the names.
Treatise: The great elements among these will be explained in detail later. This is the third part, repeating the names and explaining them. The text contains three parts: 1. Pointing out the later explanation; 2. Establishing names according to the substance; 3. Naming based on the cause taking the result. This is the first part.
Treatise: Soft is called smooth (滑), up to being translated as light (輕). This is the second part, establishing names according to the substance. Question: Why is it that among the seven types of touch, only the four touches such as smooth are said to be 'nature' (性), while the other touches and other objects are not said to be 'nature'? Answer: This is in order to correspond to the latter three which are named from the result. These four are named from their own nature, so they are said to be 'nature'. The latter three are named from the result, so they are not said to be 'nature'. The other objects have no relative, so they are not called 'nature'. That which can be weighed refers to that which can pull the scale downwards. That which cannot be weighed refers to that which cannot pull the scale downwards, and that which has the power to rise, such as smoke and flames, are all called light. The remaining text can be understood on your own.
Treatise: Wanting warmth is called cold (冷), up to wanting to drink is called thirst (渴). This is the third part, naming based on the cause taking the result. The text contains three parts: 1. Explaining the names of the results; 2. Summarizing and歸納 to the names of the causes; 3. Citing examples to prove their establishment. This is the first part. Wanting warmth, wanting food, wanting hunger, are desires of the mind. Because there is a force of touch in the body, it makes one want warmth, and there is a force of touch that makes one want food.
有觸力令欲飲。所令之慾名冷．饑．渴。即是由其能令之觸。即能令觸從果為名名冷．饑．渴。
論。此皆于因。至故作是說。第二結也。
論。如有頌言至同修勇進樂。第三引例證也 諸佛出世等。與樂為因名為樂也 問澀．滑．輕．重各相對立。何故對冷不說暖耶 答暖是能造即是火大。故不說也。
論。於色界中至傳說如此。已下第四界系分別 上界決定無饑．渴二觸。不段食故。余觸皆有于理無違。衣別不可稱。重微少故不能牽秤。聚集多即可稱。故知別時亦有重也 余文可解 婆沙一百二十七。問若色界中有重觸者。以何義故。施設論說北俱盧洲衣重一兩。四王眾衣重半兩。三十三天衣重一銖。夜摩天衣重半銖。睹史多天衣重一銖中四分之一。樂變化天衣重一銖中八分之一。他化自在天衣重一銖中十六分之一。此上天衣皆不可稱耶。有說。色界衣雖不可稱。而余物可稱 有說。彼界一一衣雖不可稱。多衣積集即可稱。如細縷．輕毛積集便重 正理論云。觸謂所觸。十一為性。乃至。若爾身根應成所觸。此既能觸彼。彼定觸此故。有說。身根唯能觸非所觸。譬如眼根唯能見非所見。
復有說者。無有少法能觸少法。所依．所緣無間生時。立觸名想。若依此識能得彼境。此于彼境假說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有接觸的力量使人想要喝東西。這種使人產生慾望的力量被稱為『冷』（coldness）、『饑』（hunger）、『渴』（thirst）。這是因為它們能夠引起這種接觸。這種接觸之所以被稱為『冷』、『饑』、『渴』，是因為它們是從結果來命名的。
論：這些都是從原因上來說的，所以才這樣說。這是第二重總結。
論：正如頌文所說，『諸佛出世等，與樂為因名為樂也』。這是第三重引用例證。諸佛出世等等，因為能帶來快樂，所以被稱為快樂。 問：澀（roughness）、滑（smoothness）、輕（lightness）、重（heaviness）各自相對而立，為什麼相對於冷（coldness）不說暖（warmth）呢？ 答：暖（warmth）是能造之物，也就是火大（fire element），所以不說暖。
論：在中至傳說如此。以下是第四部分，關於界系的區別。上界（higher realms）決定沒有饑（hunger）、渴（thirst）這兩種觸（tactile sensations），因為他們不食用段食（coarse food）。其餘的觸都有，在道理上沒有衝突。衣服的重量無法稱量，因為太輕微了，無法牽動秤。但如果聚集很多，就可以稱量了。所以知道在個別情況下也有重量。 其餘的文字可以自行理解。《婆沙論》第一百二十七卷：問：如果中有重觸（sensation of heaviness）的話，那麼根據什麼意義，《施設論》中說北俱盧洲的衣服重一兩，四王眾天的衣服重半兩，三十三天（Trayastrimsha）的衣服重一銖，夜摩天（Yama）的衣服重半銖，兜率天（Tushita）的衣服重一銖的四分之一，樂變化天（Nirmanarati）的衣服重一銖的八分之一，他化自在天（Paranirmitavasavartin）的衣服重一銖的十六分之一。這些天上的衣服都無法稱量嗎？ 有的人說，**的衣服雖然無法稱量，但是其他的物品可以稱量。 有的人說，那個地方的每一件衣服雖然無法稱量，但是很多衣服聚集起來就可以稱量了，就像細絲、輕毛聚集起來就變重一樣。 《正理論》說：觸（touch）是指所觸（that which is touched），以十一為自性。乃至。如果這樣，身根（body sense organ）應該成為所觸（that which is touched）。因為這個能觸及那個，那個一定觸及這個。有的人說，身根只能觸及，不是被觸及的，比如眼根只能見，不是被見的。
還有人說，沒有少許的法（dharma）能夠觸及少許的法。在所依（basis）、所緣（object）無間斷產生的時候，建立觸（touch）的名稱和想法。如果依靠這個識（consciousness）能夠得到那個境界（object），那麼對於那個境界假立名稱。
【English Translation】 English version: There is a force of contact that causes the desire to drink. The desire caused by this force is called 'coldness' (coldness), 'hunger' (hunger), and 'thirst' (thirst). This is because it is capable of causing this contact. This contact is called 'coldness', 'hunger', and 'thirst' because they are named from the result.
Treatise: All of these are spoken from the perspective of the cause, hence this explanation. This is the second conclusion.
Treatise: As the verse says, 'The Buddhas appearing in the world, etc., give rise to joy, hence it is called joy.' This is the third citation of an example. The Buddhas appearing in the world, etc., because they can bring happiness, are called happiness. Question: Roughness (roughness), smoothness (smoothness), lightness (lightness), and heaviness (heaviness) are each opposites, why is warmth (warmth) not mentioned as the opposite of coldness (coldness)? Answer: Warmth (warmth) is a creative element, which is the fire element (fire element), so warmth is not mentioned.
Treatise: In ** to the tradition says so. The following is the fourth part, concerning the distinctions of realms. The higher realms (higher realms) definitely do not have the two tactile sensations (tactile sensations) of hunger (hunger) and thirst (thirst), because they do not consume coarse food (coarse food). The remaining tactile sensations are all present, and there is no conflict in principle. The weight of clothing cannot be measured because it is too light to move the scale. However, if a large amount is gathered, it can be measured. Therefore, it is known that there is also weight in individual cases. The remaining text can be understood on your own. Mahavibhasa, Volume 127: Question: If there is a sensation of heaviness (sensation of heaviness) in , then according to what meaning does the Treatise on Establishments say that the clothes of the Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru) weigh one tael, the clothes of the Four Heavenly Kings (Caturmaharajika) weigh half a tael, the clothes of the Trayastrimsha (Trayastrimsha) weigh one zhu, the clothes of the Yama (Yama) heaven weigh half a zhu, the clothes of the Tushita (Tushita) heaven weigh one-quarter of a zhu, the clothes of the Nirmanarati (Nirmanarati) heaven weigh one-eighth of a zhu, and the clothes of the Paranirmitavasavartin (Paranirmitavasavartin) heaven weigh one-sixteenth of a zhu. Are the clothes of these heavens all unmeasurable? Some say that although the clothes of ** cannot be measured, other objects can be measured. Some say that although each piece of clothing in that realm cannot be measured, a large collection of clothes can be measured, just as fine silk and light wool become heavy when gathered together. The Nyayanusara says: Touch (touch) refers to that which is touched (that which is touched), and its nature is elevenfold. And so on. If this is the case, the body sense organ (body sense organ) should become that which is touched (that which is touched). Because this can touch that, that must touch this. Some say that the body sense organ can only touch, not be touched, just as the eye sense organ can only see, not be seen.
Others say that no small dharma (dharma) can touch a small dharma. When the basis (basis) and object (object) arise without interruption, the name and idea of touch (touch) are established. If one can attain that realm (object) by relying on this consciousness (consciousness), then a name is falsely established for that realm.
能觸。境非識依故非能觸。即由此 唯說地等名為所觸。依彼色等。定非所觸。此中意。顯依身根識不緣彼境而生起故 若彼色等非所觸者。如何花等。由身觸時色等變壞 由彼所依被損壞故。現見所依有損益故能依損益。非此相違。如地方所甘澤沃潤。苗稼鮮榮。烈日所迫與此相違。故知。所依大種被損。能依色等變壞。非余 婆沙一百二十七云。問緣五色根所依大種發身識不。有說不發。如五色根不可觸故不發身識。所依大種理亦應然 問何故說身識所識。答依法性說身識所識。未來世中身識境故。然無現在發身識義 有說。除身根所依大種皆能發身識。以身根所依極鄰近故不能發身識。然他身識所緣境故。亦得名為身識所識 今詳兩釋恐非應理。于自身中異處相觸。何理能遮 或可。自身異處亦得名他 又云。饑．渴二觸為是長養。為是等流。為是異熟生。西方師說。此非異熟以飲食能斷故 又說。饑．渴亦通異熟生。以飲食暫斷非永斷故。斷有二種。永斷。暫時斷。永斷不可續。非暫時斷如地獄中斬裁身份。異熟生色斷已續生。迦濕彌羅國諸論師言。飽時彼亦不斷。飲食障故不可覺知。飲食消已還可覺知 問異熟者為善．不善。答與雜心同 婆沙一百二十七云。不由大種偏增故生滑等。但由大種性類差別。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能觸：如果境不是識所依賴的，就不能被觸及。因此，只有地等才被稱為『所觸』（Sparsha-ayatana，觸所依處）。依賴於那些色等，一定不是『所觸』。這裡的意圖是，顯示依賴於身根的識，不會緣于那些境而生起。如果那些色等不是『所觸』，那麼花等如何因為身體觸碰而變壞呢？因為它們所依賴的基礎被損壞了。顯而易見，所依賴的基礎有損益，所以能依賴的事物也有損益，這並不矛盾。就像地方的甘甜滋潤使苗稼鮮艷繁榮，而烈日迫害則與之相反。因此可知，所依賴的大種（Mahabhuta，四大元素）被損壞，能依賴的色等才會變壞，而不是其他原因。 《大毗婆沙論》第一百二十七卷說：『問：緣於五色根（Panca-rupa-indriya，五種色根）所依賴的大種，會生起身識（Kaya-vijnana，身識）嗎？』有人說不會。就像五色根不可觸，所以不生起身識一樣，所依賴的大種也應該如此。『問：為什麼說身識所識？』答：依法性（Dharmata，事物本性）來說，身識所識。因為在未來世中，它是身識的境。然而，現在沒有生起身識的意義。』 有人說：『除了身根所依賴的大種，其他都能生起身識。因為身根所依賴的大種極其鄰近，所以不能生起身識。然而，因為它是他人身識所緣的境，所以也可以被稱為身識所識。』現在詳細考察這兩種解釋，恐怕不合理。在自身中不同地方相互觸碰，有什麼道理能夠阻止呢？或者，自身不同地方也可以被稱為『他』。 《大毗婆沙論》又說：『饑、渴兩種觸，是長養（Posha，滋養），還是等流（Nisyanda，同類相續），還是異熟生（Vipaka-ja，異熟果報所生）？』西方師說：『這不是異熟生，因為飲食能夠斷除它。』又說：『饑、渴也通異熟生，因為飲食只是暫時斷除，不是永遠斷除。』斷除有兩種：永斷和暫時斷。永斷不可續，而非暫時斷。就像地獄中斬裁身體，異熟生色斷了之後還會繼續產生。迦濕彌羅國的論師們說：『飽的時候，飢渴也沒有斷，只是因為飲食的阻礙而無法察覺。飲食消化后，又可以察覺了。』『問：異熟是善還是不善？』答：與雜心（Samprayukta-citta，相應心）相同。 《大毗婆沙論》第一百二十七卷說：『不是因為大種偏頗增多而產生滑等，而是因為大種的性類差別。』
【English Translation】 English version 『Tangible: If the object is not what consciousness relies on, then it cannot be touched. Therefore, only earth and the like are called 『tangible』 (Sparsha-ayatana, the base of touch). Relying on those colors and the like, it is definitely not 『tangible』. The intention here is to show that consciousness relying on the body sense does not arise from those objects. If those colors and the like are not 『tangible』, then how do flowers and the like deteriorate when touched by the body? Because the foundation they rely on is damaged. It is evident that the foundation has gains and losses, so what relies on it also has gains and losses, which is not contradictory. Just as the sweetness and moisture of a place make the seedlings flourish, while the scorching sun does the opposite. Therefore, it is known that when the dependent great elements (Mahabhuta, the four great elements) are damaged, the dependent colors and the like will deteriorate, and not for other reasons.』 The Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, volume 127, says: 『Question: Does body consciousness (Kaya-vijnana, body consciousness) arise from the great elements on which the five sense organs (Panca-rupa-indriya, five sense organs) rely?』 Some say it does not. Just as the five sense organs are intangible, so body consciousness does not arise, and the great elements on which they rely should be the same. 『Question: Why is it said that body consciousness is what is cognized?』 Answer: According to the nature of things (Dharmata, the nature of things), body consciousness is what is cognized. Because in the future, it is the object of body consciousness. However, there is no meaning in body consciousness arising now.』 Some say: 『Except for the great elements on which the body sense relies, all others can give rise to body consciousness. Because the great elements on which the body sense relies are extremely close, they cannot give rise to body consciousness. However, because it is the object of other people's body consciousness, it can also be called what is cognized by body consciousness.』 Now, examining these two explanations in detail, I am afraid they are not reasonable. In one's own body, different places touch each other, what reason can prevent it? Or, different places in one's own body can also be called 『other』. The Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra also says: 『Are hunger and thirst two kinds of touch that are nourishing (Posha, nourishment), or flowing in the same category (Nisyanda, flowing in the same category), or born from different maturation (Vipaka-ja, born from different maturation)?』 The Western teachers say: 『This is not born from different maturation, because food and drink can cut it off.』 It is also said: 『Hunger and thirst also communicate different maturation, because food and drink only cut it off temporarily, not permanently.』 There are two kinds of cutting off: permanent cutting off and temporary cutting off. Permanent cutting off cannot be continued, but not temporary cutting off. Just like cutting and tailoring the body in hell, the color born from different maturation will continue to arise after it is cut off. The teachers of Kashmir say: 『When full, hunger and thirst are not cut off either, but cannot be perceived because of the obstruction of food and drink. After the food and drink are digested, they can be perceived again.』 『Question: Is different maturation good or bad?』 Answer: The same as associated mind (Samprayukta-citta, associated mind). The Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, volume 127, says: 『It is not because the great elements are biased and increased that smoothness and the like are produced, but because of the difference in the nature of the great elements.』
生滑果。乃至。有生渴果 有餘師言。水．火增故滑。地．風增故澀。火．風增故輕。地．水增故重。水．風增故冷。風增故饑。火增故渴無評家 今詳。二義兼有 雜心論云。饑．渴。或是善報。謂富者饑．渴是善報。貧者饑．渴是不善報。問饑．渴何處大種所造。有說腹邊大種所造。有餘師說遍身大種所造。于饑．渴時遍身惱故 正理論云。余所未說悶．力．劣等攝在此中。故不別說。悶不離滑。力即澀．重。劣在輕軟。輕性中攝。如是其餘所觸種類。隨其所應十一中攝 準此十一觸攝一切觸盡。乃至。火．風界增故生輕性。故死身內重性偏增。水．風界增故生於冷。由是亦說此所生悶 若爾云何言不離滑。隨一一增。此無有過。或復悶者是滑差別。非唯滑性。應知此因亦有差別。是故滑性。或因水．風界增故起。或因水．火界增故生。所以二言無相違失。
論。此中已說至諸識亦爾。第六明生識總別也。文中有四。一結前述正義。二述婆沙異說。三問答分別。四生識前後 此即初也 已說多種色處者。五根．五境十處不同名為多種。五識取境皆通總別。是婆沙一百二十七評家正義。
論。有餘師說至十一觸起。第二述婆沙異說 此論二說中后說為正。
論若爾五識至非自相境。第三問答分別
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "生滑果（未成熟的光滑水果）。乃至。有生渴果（未成熟的止渴水果）。有其他老師說：『水、火元素增加導致光滑，地、風元素增加導致粗澀。火、風元素增加導致輕盈，地、水元素增加導致沉重。水、風元素增加導致寒冷，風元素增加導致飢餓，火元素增加導致口渴。』沒有評判家對此進行評論。現在詳細分析，兩種說法兼而有之。《雜心論》中說：『飢餓、口渴，或許是善報。』指的是富人的飢餓、口渴是善報，窮人的飢餓、口渴是不善報。問：『飢餓、口渴是由何處的大種（四大元素）所造？』有人說是由腹部的大種所造，有其他老師說是由遍身的大種所造，因為在飢餓、口渴時全身都感到難受。《正理論》中說：『其他未曾提及的悶、力、劣等也包含在此處，所以不再單獨說明。』悶與滑有關，力即是粗澀、沉重，劣則屬於輕軟，包含在輕性之中。像這樣，其餘所觸的種類，都應包含在相應的十一種觸之中。依據此理，十一種觸可以涵蓋一切觸。乃至。火、風界增加導致產生輕性，所以死亡的身體內沉重性會明顯增加。水、風界增加導致產生寒冷，因此也有人說由此產生悶的感覺。如果這樣說，那麼為什麼說悶與滑有關呢？隨著其中一種元素的增加，這並沒有過失。或者說，悶是滑的一種差別，不僅僅是滑性。應該知道，這其中的原因也有差別，所以滑性，或者是因為水、風界增加而產生，或者是因為水、火界增加而產生。因此這兩種說法並沒有相互矛盾之處。", "", "論：『此處已經說到諸識亦爾（各種意識也是如此）。』第六部分說明生識的總相和別相。文中包含四個部分：一、總結前文並闡述正確的意義；二、敘述《婆沙論》中的不同說法；三、問答辨析；四、生識的前後關係。』這裡是第一部分，即總結前文。『已經說到多種色處（多種色境）』，五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）和五境（色、聲、香、味、觸）這十處不同，稱為多種。五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）取境都通於總相和別相。這是《婆沙論》第一百二十七評判家的正確觀點。", "", "論：『有其他老師說……乃至……十一種觸生起。』第二部分敘述《婆沙論》中的不同說法。此論中的兩種說法以後一種為正確。", "", "論：『如果這樣，五識……乃至……非自相境（不是以自身為境界）。』第三部分問答辨析。", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", ], "english_translations": [ "English version:", "Unripe smooth fruit. And even unripe thirst-quenching fruit. Some teachers say: 'Smoothness is due to the increase of water and fire elements; roughness is due to the increase of earth and wind elements. Lightness is due to the increase of fire and wind elements; heaviness is due to the increase of earth and water elements. Coldness is due to the increase of water and wind elements; hunger is due to the increase of wind element; thirst is due to the increase of fire element.' No commentators have commented on this. Now, upon detailed analysis, both views hold true. The Samuccaya-kaya-sastra says: 'Hunger and thirst may be good retribution.' This refers to the hunger and thirst of the wealthy being good retribution, while the hunger and thirst of the poor is bad retribution. Question: 'From which mahabhuta (great elements) are hunger and thirst produced?' Some say they are produced from the mahabhuta of the abdomen. Other teachers say they are produced from the mahabhuta throughout the body, because during hunger and thirst, the entire body feels discomfort. The Nyaya-siddhanta-dipa says: 'Other unmentioned sensations such as depression, strength, and weakness are included here, so they are not mentioned separately.' Depression is related to smoothness; strength is related to roughness and heaviness; weakness belongs to lightness and softness, and is included in the nature of lightness. Thus, the remaining types of touch should be included in the corresponding eleven types of touch. According to this principle, the eleven types of touch can encompass all touch. Even to the point that the increase of fire and wind elements gives rise to lightness, so the heaviness within a dead body will noticeably increase. The increase of water and wind elements gives rise to coldness, and thus it is also said that depression arises from this. If that is the case, then how can it be said that depression is related to smoothness? There is no fault in this, as each element increases individually. Or rather, depression is a variation of smoothness, not just the nature of smoothness. It should be understood that the causes are also different, so smoothness may arise from the increase of water and wind elements, or it may arise from the increase of water and fire elements. Therefore, these two statements are not contradictory.", "", "Treatise: 'Here it has been said that the same applies to all consciousnesses.' The sixth section explains the general and specific characteristics of arising consciousness. The text contains four parts: 1. Summarizing the previous text and elucidating the correct meaning; 2. Narrating different views from the Vibhasa; 3. Questioning and analyzing; 4. The sequence of arising consciousnesses.' This is the first part, summarizing the previous text. 'It has been said that there are many rupa-ayatana (sense fields of form),' the five indriya (sense organs - eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and the five visaya (sense objects - form, sound, smell, taste, touch) are the ten ayatana (sense bases) that are different, and are called many. The five vijnana (consciousnesses - eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness) all perceive both general and specific characteristics. This is the correct view of the 127th commentator of the Vibhasa.", "", "Treatise: 'Some other teachers say... up to... the eleven touches arise.' The second part narrates different views from the Vibhasa. Among the two views in this treatise, the latter is considered correct.", "", "Treatise: 'If that is the case, the five consciousnesses... up to... not their own object.' The third part is questioning and analyzing." ] }
先問。后答 此即問也。
論。約處自相至斯有何失。答也 五識身等。非緣十二處中共相如無常等。同一處中體事不同。非唯緣一。
論。今應思擇至何識先起。第四生識先後。先問。后答 此即問也。
論。隨境強盛至令相續故。答也 境若均平舌識先起。由食慾引起身。令展轉相續。持食入口欲取舌．味故。境若均平先應覺味。此就多分。若為知冷．暖即合先覺于觸 今詳取境先後略由四緣。一由作意不同。二由根有明．昧。三由境有強．弱。四由境有新．舊。
論。已說根境至今次當說。自下一頌釋無表色。
論曰至不亂有心。此釋頌也。文中有五。一無表位。二無表相。三無表性。四無表因。五無表名 此即是釋無表位也 亂心者謂此余心者。善無表。以善心為此。以不善．無記心為余 不善無表。以不善心為此善．無記心為余 正理論云。不善．無記名亂心。余心名不亂者。就善無表說也 無心者謂入無想及滅盡定者。正理論云。無想．滅定名無心。此能滅心故。雖更有餘無心果位。而無表色非所隨流。故無心言不攝於彼 等言顯示不亂有心者。等言。謂通兩處。謂亂心等。及無心等。亂心等。等取不亂心。無心等。等取有心 正理彈云。又謂等言通無心者。此言無用
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 先提問，后回答。這正是提問。
論：如果從處（ayatana, 十二處）的自相（svalaksana）來討論，直到這裡，會有什麼缺失呢？答：五識身（panca-vijnanakaya, 眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）等，並非以十二處中的共相（samanya-laksana），如無常等為緣。在同一處中，體和事不同，並非只緣於一。
論：現在應該思考，哪一個識先產生？第四生識（指輪迴中的識）的先後順序。先提問，后回答。這正是提問。
論：隨著所緣境的強盛，以至於令其相續不斷。答：如果所緣境均等平和，舌識（jihva-vijnana）會先產生，因為由飲食的慾望引起身體的活動，使其輾轉相續。因為要持食物入口，想要獲取舌頭的味道。如果所緣境均等平和，應該先感覺到味道。這是就大多數情況而言。如果要感知冷暖，就應該先感覺到觸覺。現在詳細分析取境的先後順序，大致由四個因緣決定：一是由作意（manaskara）不同；二是由根（indriya, 六根）有明昧；三是由境有強弱；四是由境有新舊。
論：已經說了根和境，接下來應當說。從下一頌開始解釋無表色（avijnapti-rupa）。
論曰：直到『不亂有心』。這是解釋頌文。文中有五個方面：一、無表的位置；二、無表的相狀；三、無表的性質；四、無表的因；五、無表的名字。這正是解釋無表的位置。『亂心』指的是此心之外的其餘心。善無表（kusala avijnapti），以善心（kusala citta）為此心，以不善心（akusala citta）和無記心（avyakrta citta）為其餘心。不善無表（akusala avijnapti），以不善心為此心，以善心和無記心為其餘心。正理論（Abhidharmakosa-bhasya）說：『不善心和無記心名為亂心，其餘心名為不亂心』，這是就善無表而言。『無心』指的是進入無想定（asanjni-samapatti）以及滅盡定（nirodha-samapatti）的人。正理論說：『無想定和滅盡定名為無心』，因為它們能夠滅除心。雖然還有其他的無心果位，但是無表色並非隨其流轉，所以『無心』一詞不包括那些果位。『等』字顯示『不亂有心』，『等』字貫通兩處，即亂心等和無心等。亂心等，『等』取不亂心。無心等，『等』取有心。正理彈（指對《阿毗達磨俱舍論》的批評）說：『又說『等』字貫通無心』，這句話沒有用處。
【English Translation】 English version First ask, then answer. This is the question.
Treatise: If we discuss from the svalaksana (self-characteristic) of the ayatana (twelve sources), until here, what would be missing? Answer: The panca-vijnanakaya (five consciousnesses aggregates, eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness) etc., do not take the samanya-laksana (common characteristic) in the twelve sources, such as impermanence, as their condition. In the same source, the substance and the matter are different, not only conditioned by one.
Treatise: Now we should consider, which consciousness arises first? The order of the fourth birth consciousness (referring to consciousness in reincarnation). First ask, then answer. This is the question.
Treatise: Following the strength of the object, so that it continues uninterruptedly. Answer: If the objects are equal and peaceful, the jihva-vijnana (tongue consciousness) will arise first, because the desire for food causes the body to move, so that it continues to transform. Because one wants to hold food in the mouth, wanting to obtain the taste of the tongue. If the objects are equal and peaceful, one should first feel the taste. This is in most cases. If one wants to perceive cold and warmth, one should first feel the touch. Now, a detailed analysis of the order of taking objects is roughly determined by four conditions: one is due to different manaskara (attention); two is due to the clarity or obscurity of the indriya (six roots); three is due to the strength or weakness of the object; four is due to the newness or oldness of the object.
Treatise: Having spoken of the roots and objects, next we should speak of. Starting from the next verse, explain avijnapti-rupa (unmanifested form).
Treatise says: Until 'not confused mind'. This is an explanation of the verse. There are five aspects in the text: one, the position of avijnapti; two, the appearance of avijnapti; three, the nature of avijnapti; four, the cause of avijnapti; five, the name of avijnapti. This is an explanation of the position of avijnapti. 'Confused mind' refers to the remaining minds other than this mind. Kusala avijnapti (wholesome unmanifested form), takes kusala citta (wholesome mind) as this mind, and akusala citta (unwholesome mind) and avyakrta citta (neutral mind) as the remaining minds. Akusala avijnapti (unwholesome unmanifested form), takes akusala citta as this mind, and kusala citta and avyakrta citta as the remaining minds. Abhidharmakosa-bhasya (Treasury of Abhidharma) says: 'Unwholesome mind and neutral mind are called confused mind, and the remaining minds are called not confused mind', this is in terms of wholesome unmanifested form. 'No mind' refers to those who enter asanjni-samapatti (non-perception attainment) and nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment). Abhidharmakosa-bhasya says: 'Non-perception attainment and cessation attainment are called no mind', because they can extinguish the mind. Although there are other fruitional states of no mind, avijnapti-rupa does not flow with them, so the word 'no mind' does not include those fruitional states. The word 'etc.' shows 'not confused mind', the word 'etc.' connects two places, namely confused mind etc. and no mind etc. Confused mind etc., 'etc.' takes not confused mind. No mind etc., 'etc.' takes mind. Criticism of Abhidharmakosa (referring to criticisms of the Abhidharma-kosa-bhasya) says: 'Also saying that the word 'etc.' connects no mind', this sentence is useless.
。前已攝故。亂心等言已攝一切余有心位。第二等言復何所攝。經主應思 述曰。無心是無心位。亂心等言。等不亂心。除此二外。更有何心。須無心等．等也。此等。應於一處安也。經主應思 或謂后等攝不亂心前無用者。此不應然。無容攝故。何容后等攝不亂心。遮言。理于相似處起。乘無起等。理不及余。故非全攝 述曰。既乘無心下起等。理不及不亂心餘。故非全攝 或可。亂心言成無用 述曰。無心等。已等一切有心。何用亂心。故言亂心是無用也 又應簡言唯凈無表。于無心位隨流。非余 述曰。入無心定。理合一切不善無表皆舍。不可言在無心位也 于自釋中亦不簡別。故於此理經主應思 安慧救云。亂心．不亂說其散位。亂心等取不亂心。散自相似。無心．有心說其定位。無心等取有心。定自相似。故此等言通於兩處。
論。相似相續說名隨流。此第二釋無表相也 述曰。無表體性。相似相續唯善．不善 有人云。相似者。謂與表業．及心。性．相似隨流 非也。
正理彈云。今謂。經主於此頌中不能具說無表色相。以說隨流名無表故。彼自釋言。相似相續說名隨流。非初剎那可名相續。勿有太過之失。是故決定初念無表。不入所說相中。又相續者。是假非實。無表非實失對法宗。又定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
前文已經包含（攝）了，因為『亂心』等詞已經包含了所有其他有心的狀態。那麼，第二個『等』字又包含什麼呢？經主應該思考。
窺基法師解釋說：『無心』指的是無心位，『亂心』等詞，『等』的是不亂的心。除了這兩種之外，還有什麼心需要用『無心等』來『等』呢？這個『等』字，應該放在一個地方。經主應該思考。
或者有人認為後面的『等』字包含不亂的心，那麼前面的『無』字就沒有用了。這種說法是不對的，因為沒有包含的餘地。為什麼說後面的『等』字不能包含不亂的心呢？因為遮言的道理是從相似的地方產生的，憑藉『無』字而產生『等』字，道理就不能涉及其他，所以不是全部包含。
窺基法師解釋說：既然憑藉『無心』而產生『等』字，道理就不能涉及不亂的心等，所以不是全部包含。
或者可以認為，『亂心』這個詞就變得沒有用了。
窺基法師解釋說：『無心等』已經包含了所有有心，為什麼還要用『亂心』呢？所以說『亂心』這個詞是沒有用的。
還應該簡化語言，只說『唯凈無表』，在無心位隨順流轉，而不是其他。
窺基法師解釋說：進入無心禪定，道理上應該捨棄一切不善的無表，不能說它還在無心位。
在自己的解釋中也沒有區分，所以對於這個道理，經主應該思考。
安慧的解釋是：『亂心』、『不亂』說的是散亂的狀態，『亂心等』包含不亂的心，散亂和自身相似；『無心』、『有心』說的是禪定的狀態，『無心等』包含有心，禪定和自身相似。所以這個『等』字可以通用於兩個地方。
論：相似相續叫做隨流。這是對無表相的第二種解釋。
窺基法師解釋說：無表的體性，是相似相續，只有善和不善。
有人說：相似，指的是與表業以及心，在性質上相似而隨順流轉。
這種說法是不對的。
正理反駁說：現在我認為，經主在這首偈頌中不能完全說出無表色的相狀，因為說隨流就叫做無表。他自己解釋說：相似相續叫做隨流，不是最初的剎那可以叫做相續的，不要有過分的過失。所以可以確定最初的念頭沒有無表，不屬於所說的相中。而且相續是假的而不是真實的，無表不是真實的就違背了對法宗。而且禪定
【English Translation】 English version:
Since it has already been included (contained), because the words 'distracted mind' (亂心 luànxīn) etc. have already included all other states of having a mind. Then, what does the second 'etc.' include? The author of the sutra (經主 jīngzhǔ) should consider.
Kuiji (窺基 Kuījī) explains: 'No-mind' (無心 wúxīn) refers to the state of no-mind, 'distracted mind' etc., 'etc.' refers to the non-distracted mind. Besides these two, what other mind needs to be 'etc.' by 'no-mind etc.'? This 'etc.' should be placed in one place. The author of the sutra should consider.
Or someone thinks that the later 'etc.' includes the non-distracted mind, then the previous 'no' is useless. This statement is incorrect because there is no room for inclusion. Why is it said that the later 'etc.' cannot include the non-distracted mind? Because the principle of negation arises from similar places, relying on 'no' to generate 'etc.', the principle cannot involve others, so it is not a complete inclusion.
Kuiji explains: Since relying on 'no-mind' to generate 'etc.', the principle cannot involve the remaining non-distracted mind, so it is not a complete inclusion.
Or it can be considered that the word 'distracted mind' becomes useless.
Kuiji explains: 'No-mind etc.' has already included all minds with consciousness, why use 'distracted mind'? Therefore, it is said that the word 'distracted mind' is useless.
It should also simplify the language, only saying 'only pure non-manifestation' (唯凈無表 wéi jìng wúbiǎo), flowing along in the state of no-mind, and not others.
Kuiji explains: Entering the samadhi of no-mind, in principle, all unwholesome non-manifestations should be abandoned, and it cannot be said that it is still in the state of no-mind.
There is also no distinction in one's own explanation, so for this principle, the author of the sutra should consider.
Anhui's (安慧 Ānhuì) explanation is: 'Distracted mind', 'non-distracted' refers to the scattered state, 'distracted mind etc.' includes the non-distracted mind, scatteredness is similar to itself; 'no-mind', 'having-mind' refers to the state of samadhi, 'no-mind etc.' includes having-mind, samadhi is similar to itself. So this 'etc.' can be used in both places.
Treatise: Similar continuation is called flowing along (隨流 suíliú). This is the second explanation of the non-manifestation aspect (無表相 wúbiǎoxiàng).
Kuiji explains: The nature of non-manifestation is similar continuation, only wholesome and unwholesome.
Someone says: Similar refers to being similar in nature and flowing along with manifest actions (表業 biǎoyè) and mind.
This statement is incorrect.
Zhengli (正理 Zhènglǐ) refutes: Now I think that the author of the sutra cannot fully state the appearance of non-manifestation form in this verse, because saying flowing along is called non-manifestation. He himself explains: Similar continuation is called flowing along, not the initial moment can be called continuation, do not have excessive faults. So it can be determined that the initial thought has no non-manifestation, it does not belong to the aspect being spoken of. Moreover, continuation is false and not real, non-manifestation is not real, which violates the Abhidharma (對法 Duìfǎ) school. Moreover, samadhi
所發。亂．無心位不隨流故。應非無表。若言不亂．有心位中。此隨流故無斯過者。凈．不凈表業。應有無表相 俱舍師救云。言相續者。或以前續後。如初念無表。或以後續前。如后念無表。或續前．后。如中間無表。故初．及后皆名相續。設有無表唯一剎那。相續類故亦名相續 故入阿毗達磨云。亦有無表唯一剎那。依總種類故說相續 此無表體即名相續。實體相續。如何是假 又定無表雖復非遍四位中行。名無表者。四位之言。隨應而說。非言無表皆遍四位。如定俱無表有心位行。不善無表亂．不亂心位行。若散善無表通四位行。汝立無心亦為一位。定俱無表豈得行耶。表業為難亦為非理 期心一發。任運相續彼位中行是無表相。表雖心發。心斷即無。而非任運。故不成例。
論善與不善名凈不凈。此第三述無表性也 必假強表方能發故。不通無記。
論。為簡諸得至大種所造。此第四述無表因也 得雖四位。相似相續與無表同。非四大造。與無表異。即以造因。簡于諸得復言大種所造。
論。毗婆沙說至五種因故。引教證造是因義也。
論。顯立名因至故名無表。此第五釋無表名也。頌文略故但言由此 成業論云。何故名錶。此能表示自發業心令他知故。頌文云。外發身語業。表內
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所發起的。『亂』（煩亂）。『無心位』（沒有心念的狀態）不會隨波逐流。因此，它應該不是『無表』（無表業）。如果說它不亂，在『有心位』（有心念的狀態）中，它會隨波逐流，所以沒有這個過失。『凈』（清凈）和『不凈』（不清凈）的表業，應該有『無表相』（無表業的相）。 『俱舍師』（《俱舍論》的論師）救護說：『言相續者』（所說的相續），或者以前續後，比如最初念頭的無表；或者以後續前，比如後來的念頭的無表；或者續前和后，比如中間的無表。所以，最初和最後都叫做相續。即使無表只有一個剎那，因為是相續的種類，也叫做相續。因此，《入阿毗達磨》（《入阿毗達磨論》）說：『也有無表只有一個剎那，依據總的種類，所以說相續。』這個無表的本體就叫做相續。實體是相續的，怎麼說是假呢？ 而且，『定無表』（禪定中的無表業）雖然不是遍於四位（四種心念狀態）中執行，稱為無表，四位之說，是隨應而說，不是說無表都遍於四位。比如『定俱無表』（與禪定同時產生的無表業）在有心位執行，『不善無表』（不善的無表業）在亂和不亂的心位執行。如果『散善無表』（散亂的善的無表業）通於四位執行。你設立無心也作為一位，『定俱無表』怎麼能執行呢？用表業來責難也是沒有道理的。 期心一旦發起，任運相續，在那一位中執行，這是無表的相。表業雖然由心發起，心斷了就沒有了，而不是任運的，所以不能作為例子。
論：善與不善叫做凈與不凈。這是第三個敘述無表的性質。必須憑藉強烈的表業才能發起，所以不通於『無記』（非善非惡）。
論：爲了簡別諸『得』（獲得）到『大種』（四大種）所造的。這是第四個敘述無表的因。得雖然遍於四位，相似相續，與無表相同，但不是四大所造，與無表不同。就用造作為因，簡別于諸得，又說大種所造。
論：『毗婆沙』（《大毗婆沙論》）說，到五種因的緣故。引用教證，造作是因的意義。
論：顯示建立名為因，到故名無表。這是第五個解釋無表的名字。頌文省略了，所以只說由此。《成業論》（《成實論》）說：『為什麼叫表？』因為這能表示自己發業的心，讓別人知道。頌文說：『外發身語業，表內』（外在發出的身語業，表達內在）
【English Translation】 English version: That which is initiated. 'Distraction' (turbulent). 'No-mind state' (state without mental activity) does not follow the flow. Therefore, it should not be 'unmanifest' (unmanifested karma). If it is said that it is not turbulent, in the 'mindful state' (state with mental activity), it will follow the flow, so there is no such fault. 'Pure' (clean) and 'impure' (unclean) manifested karma should have 'unmanifested characteristics' (characteristics of unmanifested karma). The 'Kosha Master' (teacher of the Abhidharma-kosa) defends, saying: 'The so-called continuity' (the mentioned continuity), either the former continues the latter, such as the initial thought's unmanifested karma; or the latter continues the former, such as the later thought's unmanifested karma; or continues both the former and the latter, such as the intermediate unmanifested karma. Therefore, both the beginning and the end are called continuity. Even if the unmanifested karma is only a moment, because it is a type of continuity, it is also called continuity. Therefore, the 'Entering the Abhidharma' (Abhidharmavatara) says: 'There is also unmanifested karma that is only a moment, based on the general type, so it is called continuity.' This essence of unmanifested karma is called continuity. The substance is continuous, how can it be said to be false? Moreover, although 'fixed unmanifested karma' (unmanifested karma in meditation) does not pervade the four states (four states of mind), it is called unmanifested. The saying of the four states is according to the situation, not that unmanifested karma pervades all four states. For example, 'fixed concurrent unmanifested karma' (unmanifested karma arising concurrently with meditation) operates in the mindful state, and 'unwholesome unmanifested karma' (unwholesome unmanifested karma) operates in the turbulent and non-turbulent states of mind. If 'scattered wholesome unmanifested karma' (scattered wholesome unmanifested karma) operates in all four states. You establish no-mind as a state as well, how can 'fixed concurrent unmanifested karma' operate? It is unreasonable to challenge with manifested karma. Once the intentional mind arises, it continues naturally, operating in that state, which is the characteristic of unmanifested karma. Although manifested karma arises from the mind, it ceases when the mind ceases, and it is not natural, so it cannot be used as an example.
The treatise says: Good and unwholesome are called pure and impure. This is the third description of the nature of unmanifested karma. It must rely on strong manifested karma to arise, so it does not extend to 'neutral' (neither good nor evil).
The treatise says: To distinguish the various 'attainments' (achievements) from those made of 'great elements' (the four great elements). This is the fourth description of the cause of unmanifested karma. Although attainments pervade the four states, they are similar and continuous, and are the same as unmanifested karma, but they are not made of the four great elements, and are different from unmanifested karma. Therefore, using creation as the cause, it distinguishes from the various attainments, and also says that it is made of the great elements.
The treatise says: The 'Vibhasha' (Mahavibhasa) says, up to the reason of the five causes. Quoting the teachings, creation is the meaning of cause.
The treatise says: Showing that establishing the name is the cause, hence it is called unmanifested. The verse is abbreviated, so it only says 'by this'. The 'Treatise on Accomplishment of Karma' (Tattvasiddhi Shastra) says: 'Why is it called manifested?' Because it can manifest one's own mind of initiating karma, so that others may know. The verse says: 'External expression of body and speech karma, manifests the internal.'
心所思。譬如潛淵魚鼓波而自表 頌言由此者。為顯由無此表義故名為無表。
論。說者顯此是師宗言。顯上說無表相。是薩婆多師宗說也 正理論云。說者。顯此是余師意。經主。不許如是種類無表色故。論。略說表業至名為無表。此略結上無表體也。
論。既言無表至大種云何。自下兩頌。因論生論。明四大也。文中有二。初一行頌明真四大。第二行頌述假四大。此第一明真四大也。
論曰。至故名為界。長行釋也。文中有四。一釋界義。二釋大種義。三釋業義。四釋性義 此釋界也。以二義釋界。一能持自相。二能持所造。同顯宗論第三釋也 顯宗第一釋云。一切色法出生本故。亦從大種大種出生。諸出生本世間名界。如金等礦名金等界 第二釋云。或種種苦出生本故。說名為界。喻如前說。
論。如是四界至大事用故。第二釋大種也。大即種故名大種也。是持業釋 顯宗論云。或能顯了十種造色。是故言種。由此勢力彼顯了故。所言大者。有大用故。言大用者謂諸有情根本事中。如是四大有勝作用。依此建立識之與空 此論釋種云一切余色所依性故。云何作所依耶。婆沙一百二十七。有說在下為因所依法應爾故。問若爾。于逼近色可說能造。于隔遠者云何造耶。答不說一樹所有大種
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：心中所思之事，就像深淵中的魚，通過鼓動水波來展現自己。頌文說『由此者』，是爲了表明由於沒有這種展現，所以稱為『無表』（Avijñapti-rūpa，無表色）。
論：『說者』，表明這是師宗的觀點，揭示了上面所說的『無表相』，是薩婆多（Sarvāstivāda，一切有部）師宗的說法。《正理論》說：『說者』，表明這是其他師的觀點，經主（作者）不認可這種型別的無表色。論：簡略地說，表業（動作）……稱為『無表』，這是對上面無表體的簡要總結。
論：既然說了『無表』……大種（Mahābhūta，四大）是什麼？從下面兩頌開始，因論而生論，闡明四大。文中包含兩部分，第一行頌文闡明真四大，第二行頌文描述假四大。這裡首先闡明真四大。
論曰：……所以稱為『界』（Dhātu，界）。長行解釋說，文中有四個方面：一、解釋『界』的含義；二、解釋『大種』的含義；三、解釋『業』的含義；四、解釋『性』的含義。這裡解釋『界』，用兩種含義解釋『界』：一、能夠保持自身的特性；二、能夠保持所造之物。與顯宗論（Abhidharmakośa，俱舍論）第三種解釋相同。顯宗第一種解釋說：一切色法（Rūpa，色）出生的根本，也是從大種大種出生，這些出生的根本在世間被稱為『界』，例如金礦等被稱為金等『界』。第二種解釋說：或者種種痛苦出生的根本，所以稱為『界』，比喻就像前面所說。
論：像這樣，四大……因為有大事用。第二，解釋大種。『大』即是『種』，所以稱為『大種』，這是持業釋（Karmadhāraya，一種複合詞的構成方式）。《顯宗論》說：或者能夠顯現十種造色（Upādāyarūpa，所造色），所以稱為『種』。由於這種力量，它們才得以顯現。所說『大』，是因為有大的作用。所謂『大用』，是指在諸有情（Sattva，眾生）的根本事務中，這四大有殊勝的作用，依靠它們建立識（Vijñāna，識）與空（Śūnyatā，空）。此論解釋『種』說，因為是一切其餘色法所依賴的性質。如何作為所依賴呢？《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，大毗婆沙論）第一百二十七卷說，有人說在下面作為原因，所依賴的法應該是這樣的。問：如果這樣，對於逼近的色法可以說能夠造作，對於隔遠的色法如何造作呢？答：不說一棵樹所有的大種。
【English Translation】 English version: What is thought in the mind is like a fish in a deep abyss, expressing itself by agitating the waves. The verse says 'by this' to indicate that because there is no such expression, it is called 'Avijñapti-rūpa' (unmanifested form).
Treatise: 'The speaker' indicates that this is the view of the teacher's lineage, revealing that the 'unmanifested characteristic' mentioned above is the teaching of the Sarvāstivāda (the 'All Exists' school). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Following the Logic Treatise) says: 'The speaker' indicates that this is the view of other teachers, which the author of the treatise does not accept as a type of unmanifested form. Treatise: Briefly speaking, expressive actions... are called 'unmanifested.' This is a brief summary of the substance of the unmanifested form mentioned above.
Treatise: Since 'unmanifested' has been mentioned... what are the Mahābhūtas (great elements)? From the following two verses onwards, a discussion arises from the discussion, clarifying the four great elements. There are two parts in the text: the first verse clarifies the true four great elements, and the second verse describes the false four great elements. Here, the true four great elements are clarified first.
Treatise says: ...therefore they are called 'Dhātu' (elements). The prose explanation says that there are four aspects: first, explaining the meaning of 'Dhātu'; second, explaining the meaning of 'Mahābhūta'; third, explaining the meaning of 'Karma'; and fourth, explaining the meaning of 'Svabhāva' (nature). Here, 'Dhātu' is explained, using two meanings: first, being able to maintain its own characteristics; second, being able to maintain what is created. This is the same as the third explanation in the Abhidharmakośa. The first explanation in the Abhidharmakośa says: the root from which all Rūpa (form) arises, and also arises from Mahābhūta Mahābhūta, these roots of arising are called 'Dhātu' in the world, such as gold mines are called gold 'Dhātu'. The second explanation says: or the root from which various sufferings arise, therefore it is called 'Dhātu', the analogy is as mentioned before.
Treatise: Like this, the four elements... because they have great functions. Second, explaining Mahābhūta. 'Mahā' is 'Bhūta', so it is called 'Mahābhūta', which is a Karmadhāraya compound. The Abhidharmakośa says: or being able to manifest the ten Upādāyarūpas (derived forms), therefore they are called 'Bhūta'. Because of this power, they are manifested. What is said to be 'Mahā' is because they have great functions. The so-called 'great function' refers to the fact that in the fundamental affairs of all Sattvas (sentient beings), these four elements have excellent functions, and based on them, Vijñāna (consciousness) and Śūnyatā (emptiness) are established. This treatise explains 'Bhūta' by saying that it is the nature on which all other forms depend. How does it act as a dependency? The 127th volume of the Vibhāṣā says that some say it is below as the cause, and the dharma that is depended on should be like this. Question: If so, for forms that are close, it can be said that they can create, but how can they create for forms that are far away? Answer: It is not said that all the Mahābhūtas of one tree...
。都在其下造諸造色。但說一樹分分。皆有大種在下造色在上 有作是說。相雜而住。大種在外造色在中。問若爾。應斷截時見有孔隙。猶如斷藕。答雖有孔隙而不可見。以諸大種非有見故。所見孔隙是造色故 正理論云。何故名種。云何名大。種種造色差別生時。彼彼品類差別能起。是故言種 準正理文。即是令造色種類不同而得生起。名為種也 婆沙云。大德說曰。虛空雖大而非種。不能生故。余有為法雖能為種。而體非大。相不遍故 體寬廣故等者。以三義釋大也。體寬廣者。一切色聚之中具有堅等性故 或於地等增盛聚中形相大故者。此假四大。如大地．大海．大火．風等 或起種種大事用者。其內四界為有情本。外水．火．風成壞世界。地以能持 正理論云。虛空有大而無種義。種與能生名差別故 有說。虛空亦無大義。體非色故 造色．及余有為非色。效能生故。名種 無上二義故非大種。大．種二義互不成故 述曰。虛空無種。造色及余非色法無大故。由此 大種唯四不增不減。毗婆沙者作如是言。減即無能。增便無用。故唯有四。如床四足 述曰。減即造色不成。增又無用。
論。此四大種能成何業。已下第三釋業。文中有二。一問。二答。此即問也。
論。如其次第至熟長四業。已下
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：都在其下產生各種造色（Rūpa，物質現象）。但說一棵樹，其每一部分都有大種（Mahābhūta，四大元素）在下，造色在上。有人這樣說，它們是相互混合而住的，大種在外，造色在內。問：如果這樣，那麼在斷截時應該看到有孔隙，就像斷藕一樣。答：雖然有孔隙，但不可見，因為諸大種不是可見的。所見的孔隙是造色所致。正理論說：『為什麼稱為種？又為什麼稱為大？』當種種造色差別生起時，它們能生起彼彼品類的差別，所以稱為種。準正理文，即是令造色種類不同而得生起，名為種。婆沙論說：大德說：『虛空雖然大，但不是種，因為它不能生。其餘有為法雖然能作為種，但體不是大，因為相不普遍。』『體寬廣故』等，以三種意義解釋『大』。『體寬廣者』，一切色聚之中具有堅等性質。『或於地等增盛聚中形相大故』，這是假四大，如大地、大海、大火、風等。『或起種種大事用者』，其內四界為有情之本，外水、火、風成壞世界，地以能持。正理論說：虛空有大而無種的意義，種與能生的名稱有差別。有人說，虛空也沒有大的意義，因為體不是色。造色及其他有為法不是色，但效能生，所以名為種。沒有以上兩種意義，所以不是大種。大和種兩種意義互相不能成立。述曰：虛空無種，造色及其他非色法無大，因此大種只有四種，不多也不少。毗婆沙論作者這樣說：減少就不能，增加就沒有用，所以只有四種，如床的四足。述曰：減少則造色不能形成，增加又沒有用。 論：這四大種能成就什麼作用？以下第三部分解釋作用。文中有二：一問，二答。這是提問。 論：如其次第至成熟、增長四種作用。以下是回答。
【English Translation】 English version: All generate various rūpa (matter) beneath them. But speaking of a tree, each part of it has mahābhūta (the four great elements) beneath and rūpa above. Some say that they dwell intermingled, with the mahābhūta on the outside and rūpa on the inside. Question: If that is so, then when cutting it, one should see gaps, like cutting a lotus root. Answer: Although there are gaps, they are not visible, because the mahābhūta are not visible. The gaps that are seen are due to rūpa. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Why is it called 'seed'? And why is it called 'great'?' When various rūpa arise differently, they can give rise to differences in those categories, therefore they are called 'seed.' According to the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, it means that it causes different kinds of rūpa to arise, and is called 'seed.' The Vibhāṣā says: The venerable one said: 'Although space is great, it is not a seed, because it cannot generate. Other conditioned dharmas, although they can be seeds, are not great in nature, because their characteristics are not pervasive.' 'Because the substance is broad,' etc., explains 'great' in three ways. 'Because the substance is broad,' means that all aggregates of matter have properties such as solidity. 'Or because the form and appearance are great in aggregates that are abundant, such as earth,' these are the four great elements in a provisional sense, such as the great earth, the great ocean, the great fire, and the wind. 'Or those that give rise to various great functions,' the inner four realms are the basis of sentient beings, and the outer water, fire, and wind form and destroy the world, with earth being able to sustain. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Space has the meaning of 'great' but not of 'seed,' because the names 'seed' and 'that which can generate' are different. Some say that space also does not have the meaning of 'great,' because its substance is not matter. Rūpa and other conditioned dharmas are not matter, but their nature can generate, so they are called 'seed.' Because they do not have the above two meanings, they are not mahābhūta. The two meanings of 'great' and 'seed' cannot be established mutually. The Śāstra says: Space has no seed, and rūpa and other non-material dharmas have no greatness, therefore the mahābhūta are only four, no more and no less. The author of the Vibhāṣā says: Decreasing them would make them incapable, and increasing them would make them useless, so there are only four, like the four legs of a bed. The Śāstra says: Decreasing them would make it impossible for rūpa to form, and increasing them would be useless. Question: What actions can these four great elements accomplish? The following is the third part explaining actions. There are two parts in the text: a question and an answer. This is the question. Statement: In order, they have the four actions of maturing and growing. The following is the answer.
答也。答中有三。一舉頌略答。二釋頌文。三逐難重釋 此第一也。
論。地界能持至風界能長。第二釋頌文也。
論。長謂增盛或複流引。此逐難釋 增盛者。如長小成大。體增盛也 流引者。謂轉至余方如水流等。體不增也。
論。業用既爾自性云何。第四釋自性也。文中有二。一問。二答 此文問也。
論。如其次第至故名為動。答也。四文如上可知。
論。品類足論至故亦言輕。釋違文也 正理論云。風界若以動為性者。何故。契經及品類足論。皆言風界謂輕等動性。復說輕性為所造色。說動為風。輕為造色是顯自相 輕為風者舉果顯因。輕是風果故 豈不火界亦是輕因。以說火．風增生輕故。雖有是說而火不定。若有輕性火增為因。是處必有增盛風界。或有輕性風增為因。而其中無增盛火界。如葦等花飄舉輕性。此中火界若增盛者。其中應有熱觸可得。由此風界遍為輕因。故別舉輕偏顯風界。然地等相易可了知。故不須說重等果顯。對堅等三。動難了故 此中舉果顯因。輕八轉聲中業聲 八轉聲者。一體。謂直詮法體。二業。謂所作事業。三具。謂作者作具。四為。謂所為也。五從。謂所從也。六屬。謂所屬也。七依。謂所依也。八呼。謂呼彼也。依聲明法凡呼諸法。隨其
【現代漢語翻譯】 答：回答包含三個部分。第一，用偈頌概括地回答。第二，解釋偈頌的文義。第三，針對疑問進行重複解釋。這是第一部分。
論：地界具有保持的作用，直到風界具有增長的作用。這是第二部分，解釋偈頌的文義。
論：增長指的是增盛或者流動引導。這是針對疑問的解釋。增盛，例如從小變大，本體增長增盛。流動引導，指的是轉移到其他地方，如同水流一樣，本體沒有增長。
論：作用既然如此，自性又是什麼呢？這是第四部分，解釋自性。文中有兩個部分，一是提問，二是回答。這段文字是提問。
論：按照次序，直到因此名為動。這是回答。四種文義如上所述，可以理解。
論：《品類足論》（Prakaranapada-shastra）中說，因此也說輕。這是解釋相違背的文句。《正理論》說，如果風界以動為自性，為什麼契經和《品類足論》都說風界是輕等動性？又說輕性是所造色，說動是風，輕是所造色，這是顯示自相。輕為風，這是舉果顯因，輕是風的果。難道火界不是輕的因嗎？因為說火、風增長產生輕。雖然有這種說法，但是火是不定的。如果有輕性，火增長是原因，那麼這個地方一定有增盛的風界。或者有輕性，風增長是原因，但是其中沒有增盛的火界。例如蘆葦等花飄舉的輕性，如果這裡火界增盛，那麼其中應該有熱觸可以得到。因此，風界普遍是輕的原因，所以特別舉出輕來偏重顯示風界。然而地等相容易瞭解，所以不需要說重等果來顯示。對於堅等三種，動難以瞭解，所以要特別說明。這裡是舉果顯因，輕在八轉聲中是業聲。八轉聲指的是：一體，指的是直接詮釋法體；二業，指的是所作事業；三具，指的是作者的工具；四為，指的是所為的目的；五從，指的是所從的處所；六屬，指的是所屬的關係；七依，指的是所依賴的處所；八呼，指的是呼喚的對象。依照聲明法，凡是稱呼諸法，都隨其...
【English Translation】 English version: Answer: The answer has three parts. First, a brief answer in verse. Second, an explanation of the verse. Third, repeated explanations addressing the questions. This is the first part.
Treatise: The earth element has the function of holding, up to the wind element having the function of growth. This is the second part, explaining the meaning of the verse.
Treatise: Growth refers to increasing or flowing and guiding. This is an explanation addressing the questions. Increasing, such as growing from small to large, the substance increases and flourishes. Flowing and guiding refers to transferring to other places, like the flow of water, the substance does not increase.
Treatise: If the function is like this, what is the self-nature? This is the fourth part, explaining the self-nature. There are two parts in the text, one is the question, and the other is the answer. This text is the question.
Treatise: In order, up to therefore it is called movement. This is the answer. The four meanings are as mentioned above, and can be understood.
Treatise: The Prakaranapada-shastra (品類足論) says, therefore it is also said to be light. This is explaining the contradictory sentences. The Nyaya-siddhanta-dipa (正理論) says, if the wind element has movement as its self-nature, why do the sutras and the Prakaranapada-shastra both say that the wind element is light and other moving properties? It also says that lightness is a created form, and says that movement is wind, and lightness is a created form, which shows the self-nature. Lightness is wind, this is showing the cause by citing the effect, lightness is the effect of wind. Isn't the fire element also the cause of lightness? Because it is said that fire and wind increase and produce lightness. Although there is this statement, fire is uncertain. If there is lightness, the increase of fire is the cause, then there must be an increasing wind element in this place. Or if there is lightness, the increase of wind is the cause, but there is no increasing fire element in it. For example, the lightness of reeds and other flowers fluttering, if the fire element is increasing here, then there should be hot touch that can be obtained. Therefore, the wind element is universally the cause of lightness, so lightness is specially cited to emphasize the wind element. However, the characteristics of earth and other elements are easy to understand, so there is no need to say heavy and other effects to show them. For the three elements of solidity and so on, movement is difficult to understand, so it needs to be explained specifically. Here, the effect is cited to show the cause, lightness is the accusative case in the eight cases. The eight cases refer to: 1. Nominative, which refers to directly explaining the substance of the dharma; 2. Accusative, which refers to the action performed; 3. Instrumental, which refers to the tool of the actor; 4. Dative, which refers to the purpose for which it is done; 5. Ablative, which refers to the place from which it comes; 6. Genitive, which refers to the relationship of belonging; 7. Locative, which refers to the place on which it depends; 8. Vocative, which refers to the object being called. According to the science of language, whenever dharmas are called, they follow their...
所應有八轉聲 此中說輕為風業者。是舉果顯因之業用也。非如餘業聲之所表也。如言刀割等。能割離刀無別體也。
論。云何地等地等界別。自下一頌。第二明假四大。
論曰至表示風故。此之假地水等。實四境成隨世想立故唯說色。世間但識顯．形地故而不知是四境共成。亦不知有堅等四界故。但于形．顯立地．水．火名。世間亦有知動是風。亦有于黑團等色謂為風故由此于風有二種釋。文顯可解 問假地等中亦有香等。因何但言形．顯為體 答地等雖有四境合成。世假地想。於色處起。如觀四大。唯觀於色不觀香等。以色離境。可示在此在彼處故。聲非恒有。三境合知。故論不說。
論何故此蘊至說為色耶。問色名也 上來釋五根．五境無表為后。皆是色蘊。釋色既了。須識色名。故今問起。
論。由變壞故。答也。文中有二釋。一變壞。二變礙 就前釋中文有三段。一略標。二引文證。三問答 此文初也。
論。如世尊說至惱壞如箭中。第二引文證也。變壞即是可惱壞義。引法救義品中頌證。可知。婆沙三十四云。釋迦菩薩為多求王貪海外國故說此頌。廣如彼說 婆沙九十七云。問變與壞有何差別。答變者。顯示細無常法。壞者。顯示粗無常法。云云多釋 問今此中釋。變壞
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所應具有的八種轉聲，這裡說把輕微的聲響作為風的行業，這是舉結果來顯示原因的行業作用，不像其他的行業聲音所能表達的。例如說刀割等，能割離的刀沒有別的本體。
論：什麼是地等、地等界限的區別？下面一頌，第二說明假四大。
論曰：乃至表示風的緣故。這虛假的地、水等，實際上是四種境界形成的，隨著世間的想法而建立，所以只說是色。世間只認識顯現、形狀的地，所以不知道是四種境界共同形成的。也不知道有堅硬等四界，所以只在形狀、顯現上建立地、水、火的名字。世間也有知道動是風，也有把黑團等顏色認為是風的緣故，因此對於風有兩種解釋。文句顯明可以理解。問：虛假的地等中也有香等，為什麼只說形狀、顯現是它的本體？答：地等雖然有四種境界合成，世間虛假地想，在色處生起。如觀察四大，只觀察色，不觀察香等。因為色離開境界，可以指示在此在彼處。聲音不是恒常有的，三種境界合起來才知道，所以論中不說。
論：為什麼這個蘊要說為色呢？問的是色的名稱。上面解釋五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）、五境（色、聲、香、味、觸五種感覺對像）無表為后，都是色蘊。解釋色已經完畢，需要認識色的名稱，所以現在提出問題。
論：由於變壞的緣故。回答。文中中有兩種解釋：一是變壞，二是變礙。就前面的解釋中，文中有三段：一、略標；二、引文證明；三、問答。此文是第一段。
論：如世尊所說，乃至惱壞如箭中。第二是引文證明。變壞就是可以惱壞的意思。引用法救義品中的頌來證明，可以知道。《婆沙》（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》的簡稱）第三十四卷說，釋迦菩薩爲了多求王貪圖海外國家，所以說了這個頌。詳細的如彼處所說。《婆沙》第九十七卷說，問：變和壞有什麼差別？答：變，是顯示細微的無常法；壞，是顯示粗大的無常法。等等多種解釋。問：現在這裡的解釋，變壞
【English Translation】 English version: The eight kinds of transformed sounds that should exist, where it is said that taking slight sounds as the activity of wind is using the result to reveal the causal activity. It is not like what other activity sounds can express. For example, saying 'knife cutting,' the knife that can cut apart has no separate entity.
Treatise: What are the distinctions between the earth element and other elements, and the boundaries of the earth element and other elements? The following verse, the second, explains the provisional four great elements.
Treatise says: Up to the reason for indicating wind. These false earth, water, etc., are actually formed by four realms, established according to worldly thoughts, so only 'form' is spoken of. The world only recognizes the manifested, shaped earth, so they do not know that it is formed by the four realms together. They also do not know that there are the four elements such as solidity, so they only establish the names of earth, water, and fire based on shape and manifestation. There are also those in the world who know that movement is wind, and there are also those who consider black masses and other colors to be wind, so there are two explanations for wind. The text is clear and understandable. Question: In the false earth, etc., there are also smells, etc. Why is it only said that shape and manifestation are its substance? Answer: Although earth, etc., are composed of four realms, the worldly false thought of earth arises in the realm of form. Like observing the four great elements, one only observes form and does not observe smells, etc. Because form, separated from the realm, can be indicated as being here or there. Sound is not constant, and it is known by combining three realms, so the treatise does not speak of it.
Treatise: Why is this aggregate said to be 'form'? This asks about the name of 'form'. The above explanation of the five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body - the five sense organs), the five objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch - the five sense objects) and non-manifestation as the latter, are all the aggregate of form. Having finished explaining form, it is necessary to know the name of form, so the question is now raised.
Treatise: Because of change and decay. This is the answer. There are two explanations in the text: one is change and decay, and the other is obstruction. Regarding the former explanation, there are three sections in the text: first, a brief statement; second, citing text as proof; and third, questions and answers. This text is the first section.
Treatise: As the World Honored One said, up to 'annoyance and destruction like an arrow'. The second is citing text as proof. Change and decay mean 'can be annoyed and destroyed'. Citing the verse from the 'Chapter on the Meaning of Dharma Rescue' as proof, it can be known. 《Vibhasa》 (short for 《Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Shastra》) Volume 34 says that Shakyamuni Bodhisattva spoke this verse because King Muchukunda was greedy for overseas countries. The details are as described there. 《Vibhasa》 Volume 97 says, Question: What is the difference between change and decay? Answer: Change shows subtle impermanent dharmas; decay shows coarse impermanent dharmas. And so on, with many explanations. Question: In the explanation here, change and decay
名色同婆沙釋變壞不 答此不同也。變即壞也。如說變礙礙即變。故不可有礙而無變有變而無礙也。
論。色復云何欲所惱壞。此第三問答也。此是其問。
論。欲所擾惱變壞生故。答也 正理論云。此中色蘊何緣名色。善逝。聖教且說變壞故名為色。此說意言。苦受因故。有觸對故。可轉易故。名為變壞。由變壞故說名為色 苦受因者。色有變壞能生苦受。如義品言趣求。欲等 有觸對者。手等所觸色便變壞。是有對礙可變壞義 可轉易者。如牛羊等身可轉易。是可轉變及貿易義。由可轉易故名變壞。云何色法可轉易耶。謂異相生故名轉易 或能表示宿所習業。故名為色。如契經說。此摩納婆。宿習能招惡形色業。謂多忿恨 或能表示內心所有。故名為色。如契經說。具壽。汝今諸根凝悅。定證甘露 豈不此說。唯就有見有情數色訓釋色詞。唯此能表宿所習業及內心故 若爾。無見非情數色。應皆非色 無斯過失。唯色聚中有此義故。不說諸色皆能表示。且於一切非色聚中無能表示。故此釋詞理得成立。如契經說業為生因。此說諸生皆因於業。不言諸業皆是生因。今不應難業非生因便為非業 若不爾者。善逝訓詞亦可為難。非一切色皆變壞 故世尊且據有對礙色說如是言。有變壞故說名為色。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：名色（Namarupa，五蘊之一，由精神和物質構成）與婆沙（Vibhasa，佛教論書）所釋的『變壞』是否相同？ 答：這二者不同。『變』就是『壞』。例如，經中說『變礙，礙即變』。因此，不可能有『礙』而無『變』，也不可能有『變』而無『礙』。
論：色（Rupa，五蘊之一，指物質現象）又如何被慾望所惱亂和破壞？這是第三個問答，此為提問。
論：因慾望的擾亂而變壞和生滅。這是回答。《正理論》中說：『此中色蘊（Rupa-skandha，色蘊，物質的集合）為何稱為色？』善逝（Sugata，佛陀的稱號）的聖教說，暫且因為變壞的緣故而稱為色。』這裡的意思是說，因為是苦受的原因，因為有觸對，因為可以轉變，所以稱為變壞。由於變壞的緣故，所以說名為色。
『苦受因』是指，色有變壞，能夠產生苦受。如《義品》所說，追求慾望等等。
『有觸對』是指，手等所觸碰的色就會變壞。這是有對礙，可以變壞的意思。
『可轉易』是指，如牛羊等的身體可以被轉易。這是可以轉變和貿易的意思。由於可以轉易的緣故，所以名為變壞。色法（Rupa-dharma，物質現象）如何可以轉易呢？是指異相產生，所以名為轉易。
或者能夠表示宿世所習的業（Karma，行為），所以名為色。如契經（Sutra，佛經）所說：『這位摩納婆（Manava，年輕人），宿世所習的能夠招致惡劣形色的業，就是多忿恨。』
或者能夠表示內心所有，所以名為色。如契經所說：『具壽（Ayushman，對年長比丘的尊稱），你現在諸根凝定喜悅，必定證得甘露（Amrita，不死之藥）。』
難道這種說法，僅僅就具有可見有情眾生的色來訓釋『色』這個詞嗎？僅僅是這種色能夠表示宿世所習的業和內心嗎？
如果這樣，那麼無見非有情眾生的色，應該都不是色了？
沒有這種過失。僅僅是色聚（Rupa-samgraha，色的集合）中有這種意義，所以不說所有的色都能夠表示。而且在一切非色聚中，沒有能夠表示的，所以這種解釋詞義的道理才能成立。如契經所說，業是生的原因。這是說諸生都因為業，而不是說諸業都是生的原因。現在不應該因為業不是生的原因，就認為它不是業。
如果不是這樣，那麼善逝（Sugata，佛陀的稱號）的訓詞也可以用來責難。不是一切色都會變壞。
所以世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀的稱號）暫且根據有對礙的色，說了這樣的話：『因為有變壞，所以說名為色。』
【English Translation】 English version Question: Are Namarupa (name and form, one of the five skandhas, consisting of mind and matter) and the 'change and decay' explained in Vibhasa (a type of Buddhist commentary) the same? Answer: These two are not the same. 'Change' is 'decay'. For example, it is said in the scriptures, 'Change is obstruction, obstruction is change.' Therefore, it is impossible to have 'obstruction' without 'change', and it is impossible to have 'change' without 'obstruction'.
Treatise: How is Rupa (form, one of the five skandhas, referring to material phenomena) troubled and destroyed by desire? This is the third question and answer; this is the question.
Treatise: It decays and arises due to the disturbance of desire. This is the answer. The Nyaya-siddhanta-dipa says: 'Why is the Rupa-skandha (aggregate of form, the collection of material things) called Rupa here?' The sacred teachings of the Sugata (Tathagata, an epithet of the Buddha) say that it is temporarily called Rupa because of change and decay.' The meaning here is that it is called change and decay because it is the cause of painful feelings, because there is contact, and because it can be transformed. Because of change and decay, it is called Rupa.
'Cause of painful feelings' means that Rupa has change and decay, which can produce painful feelings. As stated in the Arthavarga, pursuing desires, etc.
'Having contact' means that the Rupa touched by hands, etc., will decay. This means that there is obstruction with contact, which can be changed and decayed.
'Transformable' means that the bodies of cattle, sheep, etc., can be transformed. This means that it can be transformed and traded. Because it can be transformed, it is called change and decay. How can Rupa-dharma (material phenomena) be transformed? It means that different appearances arise, so it is called transformation.
Or it can indicate the Karma (action) practiced in past lives, so it is called Rupa. As the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) says: 'This Manava (young man) has practiced Karma in past lives that can cause bad form, which is much anger and hatred.'
Or it can indicate what is in the mind, so it is called Rupa. As the Sutra says: 'Ayushman (a respectful term for an elder monk), your senses are now concentrated and joyful, and you will surely attain Amrita (the nectar of immortality).'
Does this statement only explain the word 'Rupa' in terms of the Rupa of sentient beings with visibility? Is it only this Rupa that can indicate the Karma practiced in past lives and what is in the mind?
If so, then the Rupa of non-sentient beings without visibility should not be Rupa?
There is no such fault. It is only in the Rupa-samgraha (collection of Rupa) that there is this meaning, so it is not said that all Rupas can indicate. Moreover, in all non-Rupa-samgrahas, there is nothing that can indicate, so the principle of explaining the meaning of this word can be established. As the Sutra says, Karma is the cause of birth. This means that all births are due to Karma, but it does not mean that all Karmas are the cause of birth. Now, it should not be argued that Karma is not the cause of birth, so it is not Karma.
If not, then the teachings of the Sugata (Tathagata, an epithet of the Buddha) can also be used to criticize. Not all Rupas will decay.
Therefore, the Bhagavan (Buddha) temporarily spoke according to the Rupa with obstruction and contact, saying: 'Because there is change and decay, it is called Rupa.'
論。有說變礙故名為色。第二釋也 色可變。有礙．可變。謂可變壞故。有礙。謂有礙用故。
論。若爾極微至無變礙故。難也。
論。此難不然至變礙義成。釋也 五識依緣皆應積集。故無現在獨住極微。由恒積集故有變礙。然正理第二有兩說。一說同此論文。又一說云有說。亦有獨住極微然有變礙。而不發識。五識依．緣要積集故如立極微。雖無方分亦無觸對。而許極微有礙有對有障用故。應知變礙義亦如是。
論。過去未來應不名色。難也 現在眾微集。變礙義可成。過．未眾微散。應不名為色。
論。此亦曾當知至如所燒薪通也 過去曾礙。未來生法當礙。諸不生法是彼礙類。如所燒薪。
論。諸無表色應不名色難 無表色無變礙故應不名色 于中有二釋。
論。有釋表色至影亦隨動。是初釋也。
論。此釋不然至影必隨滅。論主述婆沙破也 正理不許此破云。有不定過。如父．工匠種等滅時。子．堂．芽等不隨滅故 正理破此釋云。此不應理。隨心轉色不從表生。應非色故。
論。有釋所依至亦得色名。第二釋 從所依大種得名也。
論。若爾所依至應亦名色。此難也 于中有二釋。一依親．疏釋。二共．不共依釋。
論。此難不齊至助生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：有人說，因為色會變化和阻礙，所以稱為色。（第二種解釋） 色是可以變化的，並且具有阻礙性。可變，指的是可以變壞；有礙，指的是具有阻礙作用。
論：如果這樣說，那麼極微（最小的物質單位）到了沒有變化和阻礙的程度，就難以成立了。
論：這個難題並不成立，（以下解釋）變化和阻礙的意義是可以成立的。（解釋）五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）所依賴的緣（條件）都應該是積聚的，所以沒有現在獨存的極微。由於恒常積聚，所以才有變化和阻礙。然而，在《正理》中，對此有兩種說法：一種說法與此論文相同；另一種說法認為，也有獨存的極微，但它們有變化和阻礙，卻不引發五識。五識所依賴的緣需要積聚，就像建立極微一樣，雖然沒有方分，也沒有觸對，但允許極微有阻礙、有對立、有障礙作用。應該知道，變化和阻礙的意義也是如此。
論：過去和未來（的色法）應該不能稱為色。（難題）現在眾多的極微積聚，變化和阻礙的意義可以成立。過去和未來眾多的極微散開，應該不能稱為色。
論：要知道，過去曾經有阻礙，未來生起的法將會有阻礙，那些不生起的法是那些阻礙的同類。（舉例說明）就像所燒的柴薪。
論：諸無表色（無表色，指無法用語言或行為表達的色法）應該不能稱為色。（難題）無表色沒有變化和阻礙，所以應該不能稱為色。對此有兩種解釋。
論：有一種解釋是，表色（表色，指可以用語言或行為表達的色法）……（舉例說明）影子也會隨之移動。（這是第一種解釋）
論：這種解釋不成立……（論主）世親（Vasubandhu）在《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）中駁斥了這種說法。（論主闡述《婆沙論》的駁斥）《正理》不允許這種駁斥，認為它有不確定的過失。例如，父親、工匠、種子等滅亡時，兒子、房屋、芽等不會隨之滅亡。（《正理》駁斥這種解釋）這種說法不合理，隨心而轉的色法不是從表色產生的，所以不應該是色。
論：有一種解釋是，從所依的大種（四大種，即地、水、火、風）得到名稱。（這是第二種解釋）
論：如果這樣說，那麼所依的大種也應該稱為色。（這個難題）對此有兩種解釋：一種是依據親近和疏遠來解釋；另一種是依據共同和不共同的所依來解釋。
論：這個難題並不完全……（以下解釋）有助於生起……
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: Some say that it is called 'rupa' (form) because it changes and obstructs. (Second explanation) Rupa (form) is changeable and obstructive. 'Changeable' means it can be destroyed. 'Obstructive' means it has the function of obstruction.
Treatise: If that is the case, then it is difficult to establish that the 'paramanu' (ultimate particle) has no change or obstruction.
Treatise: This difficulty does not hold. (The following explains) The meaning of change and obstruction can be established. (Explanation) The 'five consciousnesses' (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness) all rely on accumulated conditions, so there are no 'paramanu' that exist alone in the present. Because of constant accumulation, there is change and obstruction. However, in the 'Nyaya' (Correct Reasoning), there are two views on this: one view is the same as this treatise; another view says that there are also 'paramanu' that exist alone, but they have change and obstruction without giving rise to consciousness. The conditions on which the five consciousnesses rely need to be accumulated, just like establishing the 'paramanu'. Although there are no spatial dimensions or contact, it is allowed that the 'paramanu' have obstruction, opposition, and the function of obstruction. It should be known that the meaning of change and obstruction is also like this.
Treatise: The past and future (rupa) should not be called 'rupa'. (Difficulty) The numerous 'paramanu' in the present accumulate, and the meaning of change and obstruction can be established. The numerous 'paramanu' in the past and future are scattered, so they should not be called 'rupa'.
Treatise: It should be known that the past once had obstruction, and the future arising dharmas will have obstruction. Those dharmas that do not arise are of the same kind as those obstructions. (Example) Like the firewood that has been burned.
Treatise: The 'anirvrti-rupa' (unmanifested form) should not be called 'rupa'. (Difficulty) The 'anirvrti-rupa' has no change or obstruction, so it should not be called 'rupa'. There are two explanations for this.
Treatise: One explanation is that the 'vijnapti-rupa' (manifested form)... (Example) The shadow also moves along with it. (This is the first explanation)
Treatise: This explanation does not hold... (The master) Vasubandhu refutes this in the 'Vibhasa' (Great Commentary). (The master elaborates on the 'Vibhasa's' refutation) The 'Nyaya' does not allow this refutation, considering it to have the fault of uncertainty. For example, when the father, craftsman, seed, etc., perish, the son, house, sprout, etc., do not perish along with them. (The 'Nyaya' refutes this explanation) This statement is unreasonable. The rupa that changes according to the mind is not produced from the 'vijnapti-rupa', so it should not be rupa.
Treatise: One explanation is that it gets its name from the 'maha-bhuta' (four great elements, i.e., earth, water, fire, wind) on which it relies. (This is the second explanation)
Treatise: If that is the case, then the 'maha-bhuta' on which it relies should also be called 'rupa'. (This difficulty) There are two explanations for this: one is based on explaining it in terms of closeness and distance; the other is based on explaining it in terms of common and uncommon reliance.
Treatise: This difficulty is not entirely... (The following explains) Helps to arise...
緣故。此親．疏釋也。
論。此影依樹至四大種故。論主與出違宗失也。
論。設許影光至未為釋難。此縱釋破也 前不許寶與光為依破。后許為依義不同破 正理救云。此言意顯影等大種。樹等大種為所依故。所以者何。影等大種生．住．變時皆隨彼故。此影光言。意表總聚。非唯顯色如樹．寶言。是故影等顯色極微。依止影等大種而轉。影等大種復依樹等大種而生。故於此中無不順過 正理救縱云。此難不關毗婆沙義。能依所依許俱滅故無表所依大種若滅。能依無表未嘗不滅 初念無表。可與所依大種俱滅。第二念等無表云何 第二念等大種若無。其無表色豈得現有 雖此位中非無大種。而彼大種非此所依。非生因故 奇哉如是善解對法。豈不非唯生因大種。望所造色能為所依。然更有餘四因大種。望所造色許為依故。若彼所依大種滅已。能依無表猶不滅者。聖生無色。無漏無表既許成就應得現前。生．依二因大種滅已。無漏無表雖成不行。故知欲界無錶行者。定由所依大種不滅此若不爾彼云何然 由此諸師咸作是說。諸所造色有二種依。一生起依。二力轉依。聖生無色由力轉依大種無故。無漏無表雖覆成就而不現行 已上正理引例釋。今破正理。無色界中雖成下地無表而不行者。以必不起下地定故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 緣故。這是對親疏關係的解釋。 論：如果影子依賴於樹等四大種，論主就出現了違背宗義的過失。 論：假設允許影子和光依賴於樹，這仍然沒有解釋難題。這是縱容對方的觀點並進行駁斥。之前不允許寶物和光作為所依賴的對象進行駁斥，之後允許作為所依賴的對象，但因為意義不同而進行駁斥。正理派辯護說：這句話的意思是影子等也是大種，樹等大種是它們所依賴的對象。為什麼這樣說呢？因為影子等大種的生、住、變化都隨著樹等大種而變化。這裡的『影光』一詞，意在表示總體的聚合，不僅僅是顯色，就像『樹』、『寶』這些詞一樣。因此，影子等顯色的極微，依賴於影子等大種而運轉。影子等大種又依賴於樹等大種而生。因此，這裡面沒有不順理的地方。正理派縱容對方的觀點說：這個難題與毗婆沙師的觀點無關。因為能依賴的和所依賴的，都允許同時滅亡。如果作為所依賴的無表大種滅亡，能依賴的無表色沒有不滅亡的。初唸的無表色，可以和所依賴的大種同時滅亡。那麼第二念等的無表色又該如何解釋呢？如果第二念等的大種不存在，那麼它們的無表色怎麼可能還存在呢？雖然在這個階段並非沒有大種，但是那些大種不是這個無表色所依賴的，因為它們不是生起的原因。真是奇怪啊，竟然如此善於理解對法！難道不是隻有生起原因的大種，才能作為所造色的所依賴嗎？還有其餘的四種原因的大種，也被允許作為所造色的所依賴。如果作為所依賴的大種已經滅亡，而能依賴的無表色仍然不滅亡，那麼聖人生於無色界，無漏的無表色既然已經成就，就應該能夠顯現。生起原因和所依賴原因的大種都已經滅亡，無漏的無表色雖然成就了，卻不能執行。所以，要知道欲界的無表色執行，一定是因為所依賴的大種沒有滅亡。如果不是這樣，那又該如何解釋呢？因此，各位論師都這樣說，所有的所造色都有兩種依賴：一是生起依賴，二是力量運轉依賴。聖人生於無色界，因為力量運轉依賴的大種不存在，所以無漏的無表色雖然成就了，卻不能顯現執行。以上是正理派引用例子進行解釋。現在駁斥正理派的觀點：在無色界中，即使成就了下地的無表色，也不會執行，因為一定不會生起下地的禪定。
【English Translation】 English version The reason. This explains the relationship of closeness and distance. Argument: If shadows depend on trees and other four great elements (Mahabhuta, the four primary elements of earth, water, fire, and air), the proponent of the argument commits the fault of contradicting their own doctrine. Argument: Suppose it is allowed that shadows and light depend on trees, this still does not resolve the difficulty. This is a concession to refute. Previously, it was not allowed that treasures and light be the objects of dependence for refutation. Later, it was allowed as the object of dependence, but refuted because the meaning is different. The Sautrantika (a school of Buddhism emphasizing the importance of sutras) defends by saying: This statement means that shadows and the like are also great elements, and trees and other great elements are what they depend on. Why is this so? Because the arising, abiding, and changing of shadows and other great elements all follow them. The term 'shadow and light' here intends to represent the overall aggregation, not just visible form, like the terms 'tree' and 'treasure'. Therefore, the extremely subtle particles of visible form such as shadows depend on the great elements such as shadows to function. The great elements such as shadows in turn depend on the great elements such as trees to arise. Therefore, there is nothing unreasonable here. The Sautrantika concedes: This difficulty is not relevant to the Vaibhashika's (another school of Buddhism) view. Because both the dependent and the depended upon are allowed to perish simultaneously. If the unmanifested (Avijñapti-rupa, non-revealing form) great element that is depended upon perishes, the unmanifested form that depends on it never fails to perish. The unmanifested form of the first moment can perish simultaneously with the great element it depends on. Then how to explain the unmanifested form of the second moment and so on? If the great elements of the second moment and so on do not exist, how can their unmanifested form still exist? Although there are great elements in this stage, those great elements are not what this unmanifested form depends on, because they are not the cause of arising. How strange that you are so good at understanding Abhidharma (Buddhist philosophical texts)! Isn't it only the great element that is the cause of arising that can be the object of dependence for the form created by it? There are also the remaining four causal great elements that are allowed to be the object of dependence for the form created by it. If the great element that is depended upon has already perished, and the unmanifested form that depends on it still does not perish, then when a saint is born in the Formless Realm (Arupadhatu, the highest of the three realms in Buddhist cosmology), the unconditioned (Anasrava, free from defilements) unmanifested form, since it has already been accomplished, should be able to manifest. The great elements of the cause of arising and the cause of dependence have already perished, and the unconditioned unmanifested form, although accomplished, cannot function. Therefore, know that the functioning of the unmanifested form in the Desire Realm (Kamadhatu, the realm of desire) is definitely because the great element that is depended upon has not perished. If this is not the case, then how can it be explained? Therefore, all the teachers say that all created forms have two kinds of dependence: one is the dependence of arising, and the other is the dependence of the power of transformation. When a saint is born in the Formless Realm, because the great element of the power of transformation does not exist, the unconditioned unmanifested form, although accomplished, cannot manifest and function. The above is the Sautrantika quoting examples to explain. Now refute the Sautrantika's view: In the Formless Realm, even if the unmanifested form of the lower realm is accomplished, it will not function, because one will definitely not arise in the lower realm's samadhi (Dhyana, a state of meditative absorption).
。若謂以無依因大種生．第．四定成下五地無漏無表有依因大。此豈得生上起下無表耶 然眼等識。所依五根雖有變礙 而不成色。由彼種類有別異故。有識種類不依於色。唯五識身依色而起。六識皆用意為所依。無色界中意亦可得。乃至。又理不應六識自性。一法種類亦色非色。無有無表不依色生故。應所依有變礙故。能依無表亦得色名 述曰。一切識依意。雖一分識亦依於色。故不名色。無表一切依色。故名色也 又言色者。如牛．孔雀。依少分類以立想名。非無差別。不應為難 述曰水牛名地眠。孔雀名地叫。非一切時眠叫又如世說急食．急行故名為馬。而非一切。雖無彼德而似彼故。種類義成。但隨少分建立名想。此亦如是。由此即釋。定不生法。住色相故亦得色名 述曰。同牛及孔雀。亦可用此釋無表色 俱舍師破云。汝言影等大種。樹等大種為所依者。何異影等依于樹等。樹等望彼皆是疏依。並非親生。等非能造。汝說影等大種。依樹等大種。還是違宗。故救非理 又破救縱云。汝意立初念生因大種。望第二念等無表能為所依。第二念等四因大種。望第二念等同時無表。亦為所依。故說能依．所依俱滅。同樹等滅。影等隨滅 即言初念大種為生因。第二念大種為依等四因者。豈有別世兩具四大種。共為五
因生一所造。諸論皆說。一切四大望所造色。皆具五因 故婆沙一百三十二云。過去大種與未來所造色。為幾緣。答因．增上。因者五因。謂生等五。增上者如前說。現在大種與未來亦爾。現在與現在亦爾 準此文。初念大種望第二念所造色。具五因。云何乃言但作生因 若轉救言初念大種為生因者。即五因皆名生因。以親能生造色故。第二念四因大種名依等四因。雖初念大種得具五因第二念大種即關生因。還有別世兩具四大。共造色過 若轉救言第二念四因大種者。非是依等四因。即四大種各為一因。名為四因。總是依因。故諸論說。初念大種為能生因。現在大種能為依因。若作此救。雖無闕因之過。既言第二念大種為所依。為別起大種。為即造身根等大種。為是親所依。為是疏依。若言即是身根等大種。望無表色但為疏依者。我亦許此同時疏依。非親所依。無表不由同時依力而得色名。但由初念所依力故而得色名。由此理故。初念大種為親所依。可得同彼影．光二種。親依樹．寶。故我就此。說所依滅無表不滅。不可說彼疏為所依。但應言依。彼說所依言中有過。若言無表亦望同時疏依。得名色者。眼等五根。望眼等識亦是疏依。應眼識等亦名為色。又由彼力得名色者。應是能造。若是能造。還應具有生等五因。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為生因這一種原因所造。各種論著都這樣說。一切四大對於所造的色法，都具備五種因。所以《婆沙論》第一百三十二卷說：『過去的大種對於未來所造的色法，是幾種緣？』回答是因緣和增上緣。因緣有五種因，就是生因等五種。增上緣如前面所說。現在的大種對於未來所造的色法也是這樣。現在的大種對於現在的所造色法也是這樣。』 根據這段經文，第一念的大種對於第二念所造的色法，具備五種因。為什麼卻說它只作為生因呢？如果轉而辯解說第一念的大種作為生因，那麼五種因都可以稱為生因，因為它能夠直接產生所造的色法。第二唸的四大因大種稱為依因等四種因。即使第一念的大種具備五種因，第二唸的大種只關係到生因，仍然會有另外一個世界兩種具備四大，共同造色的過失。 如果轉而辯解說第二唸的四大因大種，不是依因等四種因，而是四大種各自作為一種因，稱為四因，總的來說是依因。所以各種論著說，第一念的大種是能生因，現在的大種能夠作為依因。如果這樣辯解，雖然沒有缺少因的過失，既然說第二唸的大種是所依，那麼是另外生起的大種，還是就是所造的身根等大種？是親近的所依，還是疏遠的所依？如果說是身根等大種，對於無表色來說，只是疏遠的所依，我也承認同時存在疏遠的所依，而不是親近的所依。無表色不是依靠同時的依力而得到色法的名稱，而是由於第一念所依的緣故而得到色法的名稱。由於這個道理，第一念的大種是親近的所依，可以像影子和光芒兩種，親近地依靠樹木和寶物。所以我根據這一點，說所依滅了，無表色不滅。不能說那疏遠的所依，說所依這個詞語中有過失。如果說無表色也依靠同時的疏遠所依，而得到色法的名稱，那麼眼等五根，對於眼識等來說，也是疏遠的所依，那麼眼識等也應該稱為色法。又因為依靠它的力量而得到色法的名稱，那麼應該是能造。如果是能造，還應該具備生因等五種因。
【English Translation】 English version: It is created by the single cause of 'hetu-ja' (生因, cause of origination). All treatises state that all four great elements (四大, catu-mahābhūta) possess five causes with respect to the created form (所造色, rūpa). Therefore, the one hundred and thirty-second fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論) says: 'How many conditions are the past great elements for the future created form?' The answer is 'hetu (因, cause) and adhipati (增上, dominant condition).' The 'hetu' has five causes, namely the five causes such as 'hetu-ja'. The 'adhipati' is as previously explained. 'It is the same for the present great elements with respect to the future created form. It is also the same for the present with respect to the present.' According to this passage, the first moment's great elements possess five causes with respect to the second moment's created form. Why then is it said that it only acts as the 'hetu-ja' (生因, cause of origination)? If one were to argue that the first moment's great elements are the 'hetu-ja', then all five causes could be called 'hetu-ja', because they can directly produce the created form. The four causes of the second moment's great elements are called the four causes such as 'āśraya-hetu' (依因, dependence cause). Even if the first moment's great elements possess five causes, and the second moment's great elements are only related to the 'hetu-ja', there would still be the fault of two worlds possessing four great elements together creating form. If one were to argue that the four causes of the second moment's great elements are not the four causes such as 'āśraya-hetu', but rather that each of the four great elements acts as one cause, called the four causes, which are all 'āśraya-hetu'. Therefore, the treatises say that the first moment's great elements are the 'janaka-hetu' (能生因, producing cause), and the present great elements can act as the 'āśraya-hetu'. If one were to argue in this way, although there would be no fault of lacking a cause, since it is said that the second moment's great elements are the 'āśraya' (所依, dependence), are they the great elements that arise separately, or are they the great elements such as the body and roots that are created? Are they the close 'āśraya' or the distant 'āśraya'? If it is said that they are the great elements such as the body and roots, then for the non-manifest form (無表色, avijñapti-rūpa), they are only the distant 'āśraya'. I also admit that the distant 'āśraya' exists simultaneously, but not the close 'āśraya'. The non-manifest form does not obtain the name of form by relying on the power of the simultaneous 'āśraya', but rather obtains the name of form because of the first moment's 'āśraya'. Because of this reason, the first moment's great elements are the close 'āśraya', which can be like the two kinds of shadow and light, closely relying on trees and jewels. Therefore, based on this, I say that when the 'āśraya' ceases, the non-manifest form does not cease. It cannot be said that the distant 'āśraya' is the 'āśraya'; there is a fault in saying 'āśraya' in that case. If it is said that the non-manifest form also relies on the simultaneous distant 'āśraya' to obtain the name of form, then the five roots such as the eye, with respect to the eye consciousness and so on, are also distant 'āśraya'. Then the eye consciousness and so on should also be called form. Furthermore, if it obtains the name of form by relying on its power, then it should be the creator. If it is the creator, then it should also possess the five causes such as 'hetu-ja'.
故為非理。
論。復有別釋至理得成就述曰。第二正釋也。如文可解。
上來第四有三行頌。述無表色 並明四界及假名大。
頌曰至身界觸界。自下第五半行頌。以色蘊為處．界。如文可解。
上來五行半頌。別明色蘊及分處．界也。
論。已說色蘊至三蘊處界。自下第二有一行半頌。別明受．想．行蘊。並立處．界也。
論曰至意觸所生受。述曰。長行釋中文有二。初明三蘊。後分處．界。此明三蘊。文中有三。即釋三蘊以為三也 此文是初受體也。文復有三。一示體。二分三受。三分六受 領隨觸者。示自性受。體異余心所也。諸心。心所。雖與受同領所緣境。而不領隨觸。非自性受。自性受領所隨觸 若時為所緣。爾時非所領 若時為所領。爾時非所緣 有人云。諸心．心所同緣一境。皆能執受。與受何別。解云。諸心．心所雖復同緣俱名執受。受領納強。名自性受。猶如十人。同一處坐。一人是賊。傍忽有人叫喚呼賊。雖復十人同聞賊聲。實是賊者領即偏強。不同餘九。受領境強。想等領境弱。應知亦爾 又解。諸心．心所。雖復同緣皆執受境。想等諸法從別立名。受無別名。雖標總稱即受別名。如色處等雖有兩解前解為勝 準此兩解皆約領境名受。然與論意並不相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此是不合道理的。
論：又有其他的解釋，達到真理就能成就。（述曰：這是第二種正式的解釋。如同文字所能解釋的那樣。）
上面第四部分有三行頌文，敘述了無表色，並闡明了四大以及假名大。
頌曰：到身界觸界。從下面開始是第五部分，半行頌文，以色蘊作為處和界。如同文字所能解釋的那樣。
上面五行半頌文，分別闡明了色蘊以及它所分的處和界。
論：已經說了色蘊，到三蘊處界。從下面開始是第二部分，有一行半頌文，分別闡明了受蘊、想蘊、行蘊，並設立了處和界。
論曰：到意觸所生受。（述曰：長行解釋的文字中有兩部分。首先闡明三蘊，然後劃分處和界。這裡闡明三蘊。文字中有三點，即解釋三蘊作為三種。這段文字是最初的受的本體。文字中又有三點：一是顯示本體，二是劃分三種受，三是劃分六種受。領隨觸者，顯示自性受，本體不同於其他心所。各種心和心所，雖然與受一同領納所緣境，但不領納隨觸，不是自性受。自性受領納所隨觸。如果某個時候是所緣，那麼那個時候就不是所領。如果某個時候是所領，那麼那個時候就不是所緣。有人說，各種心和心所共同緣於一個境界，都能執受，與受有什麼區別？解釋說，各種心和心所雖然一同緣于境界，都叫做執受，但受的領納更強，稱為自性受。就像十個人，在同一個地方坐著，其中一個人是賊。旁邊忽然有人叫喊抓賊，雖然十個人都聽到了賊的聲音，但真正是賊的那個人領納得就特別強烈，不同於其他九個人。受領納境界強烈，想等領納境界較弱，應該知道也是這樣。又解釋說，各種心和心所，雖然一同緣于境界，都執受境界，但想等諸法是從其他方面立名的，受沒有其他的名稱，雖然標明總稱，也就是受的別名，如色處等。雖然有兩種解釋，但前面的解釋更好。按照這兩種解釋，都是依據領納境界而稱為受。然而與論的意義並不相符。）
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is unreasonable.
Treatise: Furthermore, there is another explanation that achieving the ultimate truth leads to accomplishment. (Commentary: This is the second formal explanation. It can be understood as the text explains.)
The fourth section above contains three lines of verses, describing unmanifested form (無表色) and clarifying the four great elements (四大) and the nominally existent great (假名大).
Verse: To the body element (身界) and touch element (觸界). From below is the fifth section, a half-line verse, using the form aggregate (色蘊) as the bases (處) and elements (界). It can be understood as the text explains.
The above five and a half lines of verses separately clarify the form aggregate (色蘊) and its divided bases (處) and elements (界).
Treatise: The form aggregate (色蘊) has been discussed, up to the three aggregates' bases and elements. From below is the second section, a one and a half line verse, separately clarifying the feeling aggregate (受蘊), perception aggregate (想蘊), and volition aggregate (行蘊), and establishing the bases (處) and elements (界).
Treatise: To the feeling born of mental contact (意觸所生受). (Commentary: The text in the extended explanation has two parts. First, it clarifies the three aggregates; then, it divides the bases and elements. Here, it clarifies the three aggregates. There are three points in the text, which is to explain the three aggregates as three. This text is the initial essence of feeling. There are also three points in the text: first, to show the essence; second, to divide the three kinds of feeling; third, to divide the six kinds of feeling. 'That which experiences along with contact' indicates the self-nature of feeling (自性受), whose essence is different from other mental factors (心所). Various minds (心) and mental factors (心所), although they experience the object of cognition (所緣境) together with feeling, do not experience along with contact; they are not the self-nature of feeling. The self-nature of feeling experiences along with what is contacted. If at some time it is the object of cognition (所緣), then at that time it is not what is experienced (所領). If at some time it is what is experienced (所領), then at that time it is not the object of cognition (所緣). Someone asks, 'Various minds and mental factors cognize the same object and can all grasp it; what is the difference with feeling?' The explanation is, 'Although various minds and mental factors all cognize the same object and are called grasping, feeling's experiencing is stronger, and it is called the self-nature of feeling. It is like ten people sitting in the same place, one of whom is a thief. Suddenly someone shouts, 'Catch the thief!' Although all ten people hear the thief's voice, the one who is actually the thief experiences it particularly strongly, unlike the other nine. Feeling's experiencing of the object is strong; perception and so on have a weaker experiencing of the object. It should be understood that it is also like this.' Another explanation is, 'Although various minds and mental factors all cognize the same object and grasp the object, perception and other dharmas are named from other aspects. Feeling has no other name; although a general term is marked, it is the specific name of feeling, like the sense bases (色處) and so on.' Although there are two explanations, the previous explanation is better. According to these two explanations, they are both based on experiencing the object to be called feeling. However, it does not accord with the meaning of the treatise.)
當 又準此釋。受與想等皆同。但強弱有異。立名不同。受既如此余亦應然。豈非雜亂 又此論云。受蘊謂三。領納隨觸。即樂．及苦．不苦不樂 正理云。隨觸而生。領納可愛．及不可愛．俱相違觸名為受蘊。領納即是能受用義 準此二論。俱以領納隨觸為受。不取領境 又此論第十云。如何觸為受所領行相依。行相極似觸。依觸而生。故正理第二云。又說諸受略有二種。一執取受。二自性受。執取受者。謂能領納自所緣境。自性受者。謂能領納自所隨觸。乃至。領所緣受與一境法。差別之相難可了知。乃至。雖受亦能領納境界。而此領納自性難知。故領納觸為自性受。此不共余易了差別。如是諸受。與心等法同所緣故。領納異故。所緣事別。所領事別。由此觸于受。若時為所領是時非所緣 若時為所緣。是時非所領 故緣．領事別 準此豈得取境勝故偏得受名 又顯宗第二云。云何此受領納隨觸。謂受是觸鄰近果。故此隨觸聲。為顯因義。能順受故。受能領納能順觸因。是故說受領納隨觸。領納順觸名自性受。有人又云。言領納觸名自性受者。謂即此受領納自體。言領觸者。觸是其因。受是其果。受能領觸順．違．俱相。領納觸果。果即是受。還領自體以領觸相故。故正理論釋果云。如言王食國土非食地土。食地
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 再說，按照這個解釋，『受』（Vedana，感受）與『想』（Samjna，知覺）等都是相同的，只是強弱不同，所以立名不同。『受』既然如此，其餘的也應該這樣，難道不是雜亂嗎？ 此外，此論說：『受蘊』（Vedana-skandha，感受蘊）有三種，即領納隨觸，也就是樂（Sukha，快樂）、苦（Dukkha，痛苦）和不苦不樂（Aduhkhasukha，不苦不樂）。 《正理經》（Nyayasutra）說：『隨觸而生，領納可愛、以及不可愛、互相違背的觸，名為受蘊。』領納就是能受用的意思。 根據這兩部論典，都以領納隨觸為『受』，不取領境。 此外，此論第十卷說：『如何觸（Sparsha，觸）為受所領行相依？』行相極似觸，依觸而生。所以《正理經》第二卷說：『又說諸受略有二種：一、執取受；二、自性受。執取受者，謂能領納自所緣境；自性受者，謂能領納自所隨觸。』乃至，領所緣受與一境法，差別之相難以瞭解。乃至，雖受也能領納境界，而此領納自性難以知曉。所以領納觸為自性受，此不共余，容易瞭解差別。如此諸受，與心等法同所緣故，領納異故，所緣事別，所領事別。由此觸于受，若時為所領，是時非所緣；若時為所緣，是時非所領。』 所以緣（Alambana，所緣）和領（Vedana，感受）的事是不同的。根據這些，怎麼能因為取境殊勝就偏偏得到『受』這個名稱呢？ 此外，《顯宗論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）第二卷說：『云何此受領納隨觸？』謂受是觸鄰近果，故此隨觸聲，為顯因義，能順受故。受能領納能順觸因，是故說受領納隨觸。領納順觸名自性受。有人又云：言領納觸名自性受者，謂即此受領納自體。言領觸者，觸是其因，受是其果。受能領觸順、違、俱相，領納觸果，果即是受，還領自體以領觸相故。故正理論釋果云：如言王食國土非食地土，食地。
【English Translation】 English version Furthermore, according to this explanation, 『Vedana』 (feeling) and 『Samjna』 (perception) are all the same, only differing in strength, hence the different names. If 『Vedana』 is like this, then the rest should be as well, wouldn't that be chaotic? Moreover, this treatise says: 『Vedana-skandha』 (aggregate of feeling) has three types, namely, experiencing what arises from contact, which are Sukha (pleasure), Dukkha (pain), and Aduhkhasukha (neither-pleasure-nor-pain). The 『Nyayasutra』 (The Book of Axioms) says: 『Arising from contact, experiencing what is desirable, and what is undesirable, mutually conflicting contacts are called Vedana-skandha.』 Experiencing is the meaning of being able to experience. According to these two treatises, both take experiencing what arises from contact as 『Vedana』, not taking experiencing the object. Furthermore, this treatise, volume ten, says: 『How does Sparsha (contact) depend on the aspect of being experienced by Vedana?』 The aspect is extremely similar to contact, arising dependent on contact. Therefore, the 『Nyayasutra』, volume two, says: 『Also, it is said that there are roughly two types of feelings: first, grasping feeling; second, self-nature feeling. Grasping feeling is said to be able to experience its own object; self-nature feeling is said to be able to experience its own contact.』 And so on, the difference between experiencing the object and the dharma of one object is difficult to understand. And so on, although feeling can also experience the object, this self-nature of experiencing is difficult to know. Therefore, experiencing contact is self-nature feeling, this is not shared with others, and it is easy to understand the difference. Thus, these feelings, because they share the same object with mental factors and other dharmas, and because the experiencing is different, the object experienced is different, and the thing experienced is different. Therefore, contact in relation to feeling, when it is what is experienced, it is not what is cognized; when it is what is cognized, it is not what is experienced.』 Therefore, the matter of Alambana (object of cognition) and Vedana (feeling) are different. According to these, how can one specifically obtain the name 『Vedana』 because of the superiority of experiencing the object? Furthermore, the 『Abhidharmasamuccaya』, volume two, says: 『How does this feeling experience what arises from contact?』 It is said that feeling is the immediate result of contact, therefore this phrase 『what arises from contact』 is to reveal the meaning of the cause, because it can accord with feeling. Feeling can experience the cause of contact that it accords with, therefore it is said that feeling experiences what arises from contact. Experiencing what accords with contact is called self-nature feeling. Some also say: The statement that experiencing contact is called self-nature feeling means that this feeling experiences its own self. The statement 『experiencing contact』 means that contact is its cause, and feeling is its result. Feeling can experience the agreeable, disagreeable, and neutral aspects of contact, experiencing the result of contact, the result is feeling, and it experiences its own self by experiencing the aspect of contact. Therefore, the 『Nyayasutra』 explains the result by saying: For example, when it is said that the king eats the country, it is not eating the land, it is eating the produce of the land.
中所出。言食國土。舉因顯果。領觸亦然。又如父生子。子媚好皆似於父。亦如果從種生。果似於因 準上所引。證受自領。皆非應理 若受還領受即違文。若時為所緣。爾時非所領 若時為所領。爾時非所緣 若領自體誰為能所。故婆沙第九云。若自性知自性者。不應建立能取所取 準此。既言能領所領。故知不是自領 又與所引喻不同。王食國土等豈是自食。此中言領者。即是自體有彼相故。自為能領彼為所領。如印物印。物領印相。不可說物自領物也 有人妄敘唯識轉計破有部之義。將為正宗 誤也 又云。若作俱舍師破云。諸心．心所。同一剎那俱緣前境。如何可言領相應觸。若從他生。及相似者。即名為受。子從父生。果從因生。皆應名受者 此皆亦謬也。論主自以領納為自性受。與正理同。何勞此中輒引唯識論破。以為破也。又諸法得名不同。豈可以一例余皆同名受。
論。想蘊至應如受說。第二齣想蘊體也 想能取像者。謂取青等．男．女．苦．樂相狀故名取像。
論。除前及后至名為行蘊。第三齣行蘊體也 除前。謂色．受．想 及后。謂識蘊 余有為法。簡無為也 即是除四蘊．及無為。餘一切法皆行蘊攝。以法多故從通立名。
論。然薄伽梵至由最勝故。此下第二會釋經也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 從中產生。說『食國土』，是舉原因來顯示結果。『領觸』也是這樣。又如父親生兒子，兒子的容貌都像父親。也如果實從種子生長出來，果實像原因。按照上面所引用的，證明『受』自己領納，都不合道理。如果『受』還是領納，就違背了經文。如果某個時候是所緣，那個時候就不是所領。如果某個時候是所領，那個時候就不是所緣。如果領納自體，誰是能領，誰是所領？所以《婆沙論》第九卷說，如果自性知道自性，就不應該建立能取和所取。按照這個，既然說是能領和所領，就知道不是自己領納自己。又與所引用的比喻不同。國王吃國土等，難道是自己吃自己嗎？這裡說的『領』，就是自體具有那個相的緣故，自己作為能領，那個相作為所領。就像印章印在物體上，物體領納印章的相，不能說物體自己領納物體自己。有人胡亂敘述唯識宗，轉而計較破斥有部的意義，當作是正宗，這是錯誤的。又說，如果按照俱舍師的觀點來破斥說，各種心和心所，在同一個剎那一起緣取前面的境界，怎麼能說是領納相應的觸呢？如果從他處產生，以及相似的，就叫做『受』。兒子從父親產生，果實從原因產生，都應該叫做『受』嗎？這些也都是錯誤的。論主自己以領納作為自性的『受』，與《正理》相同，何必在這裡隨便引用唯識論來破斥，當作是破斥呢？而且各種法得到名稱不同，怎麼可以用一個例子，其餘的都同樣叫做『受』呢？
論：想蘊乃至應該像『受』一樣解釋。這是第二部分，說明想蘊的體性。想能取像，就是說取青色等、男人、女人、苦、樂的相狀，所以叫做取像。
論：除了前面和後面的，就叫做行蘊。這是第三部分，說明行蘊的體性。前面，指的是色蘊、受蘊、想蘊。後面，指的是識蘊。其餘的有為法，是簡別無為法。也就是說，除了四蘊和無為法，其餘的一切法都屬於行蘊所攝。因為法很多，所以從普遍的角度來立名。
論：然而薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）乃至因為最殊勝的緣故。這下面是第二部分，會合解釋經文。
【English Translation】 English version From which they arise. To say 'eating the country' is to illustrate the result by citing the cause. 'Experiencing contact' is also like this. Furthermore, just as a father begets a son, and the son's features resemble the father, similarly, a fruit grows from a seed, and the fruit resembles the cause. According to the above citations, proving that 'feeling (vedana)' experiences itself is unreasonable. If 'feeling' still experiences, it contradicts the text. If at one time it is the object of experience, at that time it is not what is experienced. If at one time it is what is experienced, at that time it is not the object of experience. If experiencing the self, who is the experiencer and what is experienced? Therefore, the ninth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says, 'If the self-nature knows the self-nature, one should not establish the grasper and the grasped.' According to this, since it is said to be the experiencer and the experienced, it is known that it is not self-experiencing. Moreover, it is different from the cited analogy. Does the king eat himself when he eats the country? Here, 'experiencing' means that the self has that characteristic, the self is the experiencer, and that characteristic is what is experienced. Just as a seal imprints on an object, the object receives the seal's characteristic, one cannot say that the object experiences itself.
Some people mistakenly narrate the Yogācāra (唯識) school, turning to dispute the meaning of the Sarvāstivāda (有部), taking it as the orthodox view, which is wrong. Furthermore, if one refutes according to the view of the Abhidharmakośa (俱舍), saying that all minds and mental factors, in the same moment, simultaneously cognize the preceding object, how can it be said to experience corresponding contact? If it arises from elsewhere, and is similar, it is called 'feeling (vedana)'. Should the son arising from the father, and the fruit arising from the cause, all be called 'feeling'? These are also wrong. The author himself takes experiencing as the self-nature of 'feeling', which is the same as the Nyāyānusāra (正理), why bother citing the Yogācāra to refute it here, taking it as a refutation? Moreover, the names of various dharmas are different, how can one example be used to make all others have the same name of 'feeling'?
Treatise: The aggregate of perception (saṃjñā-skandha) should be explained like 'feeling (vedana)'. This is the second part, explaining the nature of the aggregate of perception. Perception can grasp images, that is, grasping the characteristics of blue, male, female, suffering, and pleasure, hence it is called grasping images.
Treatise: Except for the preceding and the following, it is called the aggregate of formations (saṃskāra-skandha). This is the third part, explaining the nature of the aggregate of formations. The preceding refers to the aggregate of form (rūpa-skandha), the aggregate of feeling (vedana-skandha), and the aggregate of perception (saṃjñā-skandha). The following refers to the aggregate of consciousness (vijñāna-skandha). The remaining conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma) are to distinguish them from the unconditioned (asaṃskṛta). That is, except for the four aggregates and the unconditioned, all other dharmas are included in the aggregate of formations. Because there are many dharmas, the name is established from a general perspective.
Treatise: However, the Bhagavan (薄伽梵, World Honored One) ... because of the most excellent reason. This below is the second part, explaining the sutra.
文中有二。一順釋。二反難．釋。此順釋也 理實行蘊攝多有為。然經唯說六思名行蘊者。以思行義勝餘法故。
論。所以者何。徴勝所以也。
論。行名造作至故為最勝。答勝所以也 由造作名行。業是造作。思為業性。造作義強余有為法。故名最勝。偏說思也。
論。是故佛說至名行取蘊。引教證也 準佛所說。故知。實通余法。以思造作義強。名行取蘊 正理論云。契經中說永斷三結證預流果。非不永斷見諦所斷一切煩惱。當知此經是有餘說。如是等經皆就勝說。此亦如是。造作有為功能勝故。云何說此能造有為。謂有勝能引生果故。
論。若不爾者至應知應斷。及難釋也。若依經文。唯六思身為行蘊者。即有為法中。除色受思．想．識外。余有為法。非取蘊攝故。即非苦．集諦。既非苦．集。即不可為應知．應斷。
論。如世尊說至說亦如是。引文證 余有為法。必須達．及知也。未達．未知是知苦也 未斷．未滅說亦如是者。亦云。若於一法未斷未滅。我說不能作集邊際。未斷未滅是斷集也。故知。一切有漏法皆須知．斷。
論。是故定應至皆行蘊攝。結攝一切有為法也。
論。即此所說至立為法界總束七法為處．界也。
論。已說受等三蘊處界。自下
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 文中包含兩種論述方式：一是順向解釋，二是反向駁難並解釋。以下是順向解釋： 理實上，『行蘊』（Saṃskāra-skandha，積聚、組合）包含許多有為法（saṃskṛta，有條件的事物）。然而，經典中只說六種『思』（cetanā，意志）名為『行蘊』，是因為『思』在『行』的意義上勝過其他法。 論：為什麼這樣說呢？這是爲了提問『勝』的原因。 論：『行』的意思是造作，因為造作是最殊勝的。這是回答『勝』的原因。由於『造作』被稱為『行』，而『業』（karma，行為）是造作，『思』是業的性質。造作的意義強於其他有為法，所以『思』被稱為最殊勝，因此特別說明『思』。 論：因此，佛說…名為『行取蘊』（saṃskāra-upādānaskandha，執取之行蘊）。這是引用教證。根據佛所說，可知『行蘊』實際上普遍包含其他法。因為『思』的造作意義強烈，所以稱為『行取蘊』。《正理論》說，經典中說永遠斷除三種結（saṃyojana，束縛）證得預流果（srota-āpanna，入流者），並非沒有永遠斷除見諦（darśana-satya，見真諦）所斷的一切煩惱。應當知道，此經是有保留的說法。像這樣的經典都是就殊勝之處而說。這裡也是如此，因為造作有為的功能殊勝，所以這樣說。如何說這能造作有為呢？因為具有殊勝的能力引生結果。 論：如果不是這樣…應該知應該斷。這是反駁和解釋。如果依據經文，只有六種『思』的身為『行蘊』，那麼在有為法中，除了色（rūpa，形態）、受（vedanā，感覺）、思、想（saṃjñā，知覺）、識（vijñāna，意識）之外，其餘的有為法就不被『取蘊』（upādānaskandha，執取蘊）所包含。因此，它們就不是苦諦（duḥkha-satya，苦諦）和集諦（samudaya-satya，集諦）。既然不是苦諦和集諦，就不可作為應該知和應該斷的對象。 論：如世尊說…所說也是如此。這是引用經文來證明。其餘的有為法，必須通達和知曉，未通達和未知的，就是知苦。未斷和未滅的說法也是如此，也說，如果對於一個法未斷未滅，我說不能作為集邊際。未斷未滅就是斷集。所以可知，一切有漏法（sāsrava-dharma，有煩惱的法）都必須知曉和斷除。 論：因此，必定應該…都屬於『行蘊』所包含。這是總結包含一切有為法。 論：即此所說…立為法界。這是總結七法為處（āyatana，處）、界（dhātu，界）。 論：已經說了受等三蘊的處界，下面開始……
【English Translation】 English version: There are two approaches in the text: one is direct explanation, and the other is refutation and explanation. This is the direct explanation: In reality, the 『Saṃskāra-skandha』 (aggregate of formations) includes many 『saṃskṛta』 (conditioned things). However, the scriptures only mention six types of 『cetanā』 (volition) as 『Saṃskāra-skandha』 because 『cetanā』 excels other dharmas in the meaning of 『saṃskāra』. Treatise: Why is this so? This is to inquire about the reason for 『excellence』. Treatise: 『Saṃskāra』 means fabrication, because fabrication is the most excellent. This is the answer to the reason for 『excellence』. Because 『fabrication』 is called 『saṃskāra』, and 『karma』 (action) is fabrication, and 『cetanā』 is the nature of karma. The meaning of fabrication is stronger than other conditioned dharmas, so 『cetanā』 is called the most excellent, therefore 『cetanā』 is specifically mentioned. Treatise: Therefore, the Buddha said… is called 『saṃskāra-upādānaskandha』 (aggregate of clinging to formations). This is quoting scriptural evidence. According to what the Buddha said, it is known that 『Saṃskāra-skandha』 actually universally includes other dharmas. Because the meaning of fabrication of 『cetanā』 is strong, it is called 『saṃskāra-upādānaskandha』. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that the scriptures say that permanently cutting off the three 『saṃyojana』 (fetters) proves the 『srota-āpanna』 (stream-enterer) fruit, not that all the 『kleshas』 (defilements) cut off by 『darśana-satya』 (truth of seeing) are not permanently cut off. It should be known that this scripture is a reserved statement. Scriptures like this are all spoken in terms of excellence. This is also the case here, because the function of fabricating conditioned things is excellent, so it is said this way. How is it said that this can fabricate conditioned things? Because it has the excellent ability to produce results. Treatise: If not so… should be known and should be cut off. This is refutation and explanation. If according to the scriptures, only the body of six 『cetanā』 is the 『Saṃskāra-skandha』, then among the conditioned dharmas, except for 『rūpa』 (form), 『vedanā』 (feeling), 『cetanā』, 『saṃjñā』 (perception), 『vijñāna』 (consciousness), the remaining conditioned dharmas are not included in the 『upādānaskandha』 (aggregate of clinging). Therefore, they are not 『duḥkha-satya』 (truth of suffering) and 『samudaya-satya』 (truth of origin). Since they are not 『duḥkha-satya』 and 『samudaya-satya』, they cannot be objects that should be known and should be cut off. Treatise: As the World Honored One said… what is said is also the same. This is quoting scriptures to prove. The remaining conditioned dharmas must be understood and known, and what is not understood and not known is knowing suffering. The statement of not cutting off and not extinguishing is also the same, also saying that if one dharma is not cut off and not extinguished, I say it cannot be the boundary of origin. Not cutting off and not extinguishing is cutting off origin. Therefore, it can be known that all 『sāsrava-dharma』 (defiled dharmas) must be known and cut off. Treatise: Therefore, it must be that… are all included in the 『Saṃskāra-skandha』. This is summarizing the inclusion of all conditioned dharmas. Treatise: That which is said here… is established as the 『dhātu』 (realm). This is summarizing the seven dharmas as 『āyatana』 (sense bases) and 『dhātu』 (elements). Treatise: The 『āyatana』 and 『dhātu』 of the three aggregates of 『vedanā』 etc. have been discussed, and below begins……
第三有一行頌。釋識蘊。並立處．界。
論曰至故名識蘊。長行釋中有二。一釋識蘊並分處．界。二總結五蘊並分處．界 前文有三。一釋名義。二分為六。三立處．界。此所舉文釋識名義 即六識身各了自境。于自境處總取境相。不別取．像印．持等故名總取也。非是總．別相中取總想也。正理論云識謂了別者。是唯總取境界相義。各各總取彼彼境相各各了別。謂彼眼識。雖有色等多境現前然唯取色不取聲等 釋各別取境義 唯取青等非謂青等(論既言唯。故知。不通取別。簡勝解也) 亦非可意不可意等 簡觸．受所取也 非男女等非人杌等。非得失等(隨其所應簡心所也) 如彼眼識。于其自境。唯總取相。如是余識隨應當知(準上言唯定不取別) 又顯宗云。識謂了者。是唯總取境界相義。各各總取彼彼境相。名各了別。謂識唯能總取境相。非能取別 入阿毗達磨第二云唯總分別色等境。非彼境相差別事。說名為識若能分別差別相者。即名受等諸心所法。識無彼用但作所依 準上三論有四唯一但。取總之文決定。不可言兼別也。心所法中無一唯別。容作兩釋 有人不得論意。妄為四解亦不可是非何者為勝。乃疑後學令迷論說。其四解者 第一解云。于境之中有二種相。一者總相。謂色．聲等。二者別相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第三行頌詞解釋了識蘊（vijñāna-skandha，五蘊之一，指意識的集合），並確立了處（āyatana，感覺的來源）和界（dhātu，構成要素）。
論曰：因此名為識蘊。長行解釋中有二部分：一是解釋識蘊並區分處和界，二是總結五蘊並區分處和界。前文有三部分：一是解釋名稱和含義，二是分為六識，三是確立處和界。這裡引用的文字解釋了識的名稱和含義，即六識身各自了別自己的境界，在自己的境界處總括地攝取境界的相狀，不分別攝取形象、印記、執持等，所以名為『總取』。這不是在總相和別相中攝取總想。正理論說，識就是了別，是唯一總括地攝取境界相的含義。各自總括地攝取各自的境界相，各自了別，比如眼識，雖然有顏色等多種境界顯現，但只攝取顏色，不攝取聲音等。解釋各自攝取境界的含義：只攝取青色等，不是說青色等（論中既然說了『唯』，就知道不通達攝取別相，簡別于勝解）。也不是可意、不可意等（簡別于觸、受所攝取）。不是男女等，不是人、木樁等，不是得失等（根據情況簡別於心所法）。如同眼識，對於自己的境界，只總括地攝取相狀，像這樣，其餘的識也應當知道（根據上面的『唯』字，確定不攝取別相）。
又《顯宗論》說，識就是了別，是唯一總括地攝取境界相的含義。各自總括地攝取各自的境界相，名為各自了別。意思是說，識只能總括地攝取境界相，不能攝取別相。《入阿毗達磨論》第二卷說，只是總括地分別顏色等境界，而不是那些境界相的差別事，這被稱為識。如果能夠分別差別相，就稱為受等各種心所法。識沒有那種作用，只是作為所依。《顯宗論》、《入阿毗達磨論》和《正理論》這三部論典都強調了『唯一』和『但』，說明攝取總相的說法是確定的，不能說是兼顧別相。心所法中沒有『唯一別相』的說法，可以有兩種解釋。有人不理解論的含義，妄加四種解釋，也不可判斷哪種解釋更好，反而使後來的學習者迷惑于論的說法。這四種解釋是：第一種解釋說，在境界中，有兩種相：一種是總相，比如顏色、聲音等；一種是別相。
【English Translation】 English version The third verse explains the vijñāna-skandha (aggregate of consciousness, one of the five skandhas), and establishes the āyatana (source of sensation) and dhātu (constituent element).
The treatise says: Therefore, it is called vijñāna-skandha. There are two parts in the prose explanation: first, to explain the vijñāna-skandha and distinguish āyatana and dhātu; second, to summarize the five skandhas and distinguish āyatana and dhātu. There are three parts in the previous text: first, to explain the name and meaning; second, to divide into six consciousnesses; and third, to establish āyatana and dhātu. The text quoted here explains the name and meaning of vijñāna, that is, each of the six vijñāna-kāyas (bodies of consciousness) individually cognizes its own realm, and in its own realm, it comprehensively grasps the characteristics of the realm, without separately grasping images, marks, holdings, etc., so it is called 'general grasping'. This is not grasping the general idea among the general and specific characteristics. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise Following the Principle) says that vijñāna is discrimination, which means only comprehensively grasping the characteristics of the realm. Each comprehensively grasps its respective realm, each individually cognizes, such as the eye-consciousness, although various realms such as colors appear, it only grasps colors and does not grasp sounds, etc. Explaining the meaning of individually grasping the realm: it only grasps blue, etc., not saying blue, etc. (Since the treatise says 'only', it is known that it does not extend to grasping specific characteristics, distinguishing it from adhimoksha (superior understanding)). Nor is it pleasant, unpleasant, etc. (Distinguishing it from what is grasped by touch and sensation). Not male and female, etc., not human, stump, etc., not gain and loss, etc. (According to the situation, distinguishing it from mental factors). Just like the eye-consciousness, for its own realm, it only comprehensively grasps the characteristics, in this way, the remaining consciousnesses should also be known (according to the 'only' word above, it is determined not to grasp specific characteristics).
Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma) says that vijñāna is discrimination, which means only comprehensively grasping the characteristics of the realm. Each comprehensively grasps its respective realm, called individual cognition. It means that vijñāna can only comprehensively grasp the characteristics of the realm, and cannot grasp specific characteristics. The second volume of the Abhidharmakośa-ṭīkā (Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma) says that it only comprehensively distinguishes realms such as colors, not the differences in those realm characteristics, which is called vijñāna. If one can distinguish the differences in characteristics, it is called various mental factors such as sensation. Vijñāna does not have that function, but only serves as the basis. The three treatises, Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, Abhidharmakośa-ṭīkā, and Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, all emphasize 'only' and 'but', indicating that the statement of grasping general characteristics is definite, and it cannot be said to be inclusive of specific characteristics. There is no statement of 'only specific characteristics' in mental factors, and there can be two interpretations. Some people do not understand the meaning of the treatise and rashly add four interpretations, and it is also impossible to judge which interpretation is better, but instead confuse later learners about the statement of the treatise. The four interpretations are: The first interpretation says that in the realm, there are two kinds of characteristics: one is the general characteristic, such as color, sound, etc.; the other is the specific characteristic.
。謂違．順等。心．心所法于所緣境。心取總相不能取別。心所各自取境別相不能取總。以於一體無多解故。故入阿毗達磨論第二云。唯總分別色等境事說名為識。若能分別差別相者。即名受等諸心所法。識無彼用但作所依 第二解云。心王正取總相兼取別相。諸心所法。各自取別相非能取總相。此義意說。心王力強能取總別。心所力劣取別非總 破曰。違文無教。不可依據 第三解云。諸心所法。各各正能取自別相。兼取總相心王但取總相非別。此義意說王所作處心所必隨。故心所法兼能取總王非隨所故不取別 破曰。喻不相似。王能總領臣豈遍攝。無文違喻。不可依也 第四解云。心．心所法。一一皆能取．總別相。然彼心王正取總相兼取別相。諸心所法。各各正能取自別相兼能取他別相．及與總相。所以得知諸心。心所皆能取境總．別相者。如婆沙第三十四無慚納息中。解無慚行相云。有餘師說。此顯無慚行相。此行相對余應作四句。有無慚非無慚行相。轉。謂無慚作余行相轉 有無慚行相轉非無慚。謂無慚相應法。作無慚行相轉 有無慚亦無慚行相轉。謂無慚作無慚行相轉 有非無慚亦非無慚行相轉。謂若取此種類應說無慚相應法作余行相轉。若不爾者。應說除前相 解無愧中亦有四句。不能具引 以此準知
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所謂違背、順應等等。心（Citta，意為心王，主要的意識）和心所法（Caitasika，意為心所，伴隨心王的心理活動）對於所緣境（Alambana，意為對像）。心取總相（Samanya-laksana，意為共相），不能取別相（Visesa-laksana，意為自相）。心所各自取境的別相，不能取總相。因為對於一體沒有多種理解的緣故。所以入阿毗達磨論第二卷說：『只有總的分別色等境的事物，才被稱作識（Vijnana，意爲了別）。如果能夠分別差別相的，就叫做受（Vedana，意為感受）等諸心所法。識沒有那樣的作用，只是作為所依。』 第二種解釋是：心王（Citta）正確地取總相，兼取別相。諸心所法各自取別相，不能取總相。這個意思說的是，心王的力量強大，能夠取總相和別相。心所的力量弱小，取別相而不能取總相。 駁斥：違背經文，沒有教證，不可依據。 第三種解釋是：諸心所法，各自正確地能夠取自己的別相，兼取總相。心王只取總相，不取別相。這個意思說的是，心王所作之處，心所必定跟隨。所以心所法兼能取總相，心王不是被跟隨的，所以不取別相。 駁斥：比喻不相似。國王能夠總領臣子，難道能遍攝一切嗎？沒有經文，比喻也違背，不可依據。 第四種解釋是：心和心所法，一一都能取總相和別相。然而心王正確地取總相，兼取別相。諸心所法，各自正確地能夠取自己的別相，兼能取其他的別相以及總相。所以得知諸心和心所都能取境的總相和別相的原因是，如《婆沙論》第三十四卷，無慚（Ahrikya，意為無慚）納息中，解釋無慚的行相說：『有其他論師說，這顯示了無慚的行相。這個行相，相對其他，應當作四句。有是無慚，不是無慚的行相轉變。說的是無慚作其他的行相轉變。有是無慚的行相轉變，不是無慚。說的是與無慚相應的法，作無慚的行相轉變。有是無慚，也是無慚的行相轉變。說的是無慚作無慚的行相轉變。有不是無慚，也不是無慚的行相轉變。說的是如果取這種種類，應當說與無慚相應的法作其他的行相轉變。如果不這樣，應當說除去前面的相。』 解釋無愧（Anapatrapya，意為無愧）中也有四句，不能全部引用。以此類推得知。
【English Translation】 English version: The so-called violation, compliance, and so on. Citta (meaning mind-king, the primary consciousness) and Caitasika (meaning mental factors, mental activities accompanying the mind-king) with respect to Alambana (meaning object). Citta takes the Samanya-laksana (meaning general characteristic), and cannot take the Visesa-laksana (meaning specific characteristic). Each of the Caitasikas takes the specific characteristic of the object, and cannot take the general characteristic. Because there is no multiple understanding of the one entity. Therefore, it says in the second volume of the Abhidharma-kosa-sastra: 'Only the general distinction of objects such as form is called Vijnana (meaning consciousness). If one can distinguish the different characteristics, it is called Vedana (meaning feeling) and other Caitasikas. Vijnana does not have that function, but only serves as the basis.' The second explanation is: Citta correctly takes the general characteristic and also takes the specific characteristic. Each of the Caitasikas takes the specific characteristic and cannot take the general characteristic. This means that the power of Citta is strong and can take both the general and specific characteristics. The power of the Caitasikas is weak, taking the specific characteristic but not the general characteristic. Refutation: It violates the scriptures and has no teaching, so it cannot be relied upon. The third explanation is: Each of the Caitasikas can correctly take its own specific characteristic and also take the general characteristic. Citta only takes the general characteristic and does not take the specific characteristic. This means that wherever Citta acts, the Caitasikas must follow. Therefore, the Caitasikas can also take the general characteristic, but Citta is not followed, so it does not take the specific characteristic. Refutation: The analogy is not similar. The king can lead all the ministers, but can he encompass everything? There is no scripture, and the analogy is also violated, so it cannot be relied upon. The fourth explanation is: Both Citta and Caitasikas can take both the general and specific characteristics. However, Citta correctly takes the general characteristic and also takes the specific characteristic. Each of the Caitasikas can correctly take its own specific characteristic and also take other specific characteristics and the general characteristic. The reason why it is known that all Citta and Caitasikas can take both the general and specific characteristics of the object is, as in the thirty-fourth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, in the section on Ahrikya (meaning shamelessness), explaining the characteristics of Ahrikya: 'Some other teachers say that this shows the characteristics of Ahrikya. This characteristic, relative to others, should be made into four sentences. There is Ahrikya, which is not a transformation of the characteristics of Ahrikya. It means that Ahrikya makes other transformations of characteristics. There is a transformation of the characteristics of Ahrikya, which is not Ahrikya. It means that the dharma corresponding to Ahrikya makes a transformation of the characteristics of Ahrikya. There is Ahrikya, and it is also a transformation of the characteristics of Ahrikya. It means that Ahrikya makes a transformation of the characteristics of Ahrikya. There is neither Ahrikya nor a transformation of the characteristics of Ahrikya. It means that if this kind is taken, it should be said that the dharma corresponding to Ahrikya makes other transformations of characteristics. If not, it should be said to remove the previous characteristic.' There are also four sentences in the explanation of Anapatrapya (meaning non-shame), which cannot be fully quoted. It can be inferred from this.
。皆取總．別 破曰。有人雖引文證。不知正．不且如受領隨觸。想取境像。豈可亦說想領隨觸。受取境像。理必不然。諸心。心所同一行相者。謂取青等諸法自共相等。非是心．心所法各別取像等也。婆沙三十四云云何無慚。答諸無慚無所慚。無羞無所羞。乃至。無敬性等。乃至。問此中所說差別名言。為顯自性。為顯行相。為顯所緣 一說顯自性。二說顯行相。三說顯所緣 準三十八云。云何不共無明隨眠。答諸無明於苦不了。于集．滅．道不了。此中不了者。顯不欲忍義謂由無明迷覆心故。於四聖諦不欲不忍故名不了。非但不明。如貧賤人惡食在腹。雖遇好食不欲食之。異生亦爾。無明覆心。聞四聖諦。不欲不忍 問此中所說不了名言。為顯自性。為顯行相。為顯所緣。有作是說。此顯無明自性。有餘師說此顯無明行相。復有說者此顯無明所緣。評曰應作是說。如是無明於四聖諦。乃至不抉擇以為自性 準此評文故知。初師為正。無慚亦爾所作四句非是正義。故不成證 今詳論意。心．心所法。雖同取青等總．別相等。然於此相。有即印持．取．像等多種不同。名為取別。心王總取境相。別相難知。如臺六司同理一國。然所理事各各不同。王則總理。別相難了。
論。此復差別至至意識身。此第二就依分
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 皆取總相和別相。有人反駁說：『有人雖然引用經文作為證據，卻不明白其真正的含義。』例如，領受和隨順於接觸，是想蘊取境的表象。難道也可以說想蘊領受和隨順於接觸，受蘊取境的表象嗎？這在道理上必然是不成立的。各種心和心所法，如果具有相同的行相，是指它們都取青色等諸法的自相和共相，而不是指心和心所法各自單獨取境的表象等等。《婆沙論》第三十四卷中說：『什麼是無慚（Ahrikya）？』回答是：『諸無慚者，對於不應慚愧的事不感到慚愧，對於不應羞恥的事不感到羞恥，乃至沒有恭敬的本性等等。』乃至，提問：『這裡所說的差別名言，是爲了顯示自性，還是爲了顯示行相，還是爲了顯示所緣？』一種說法是顯示自性，第二種說法是顯示行相，第三種說法是顯示所緣。參照第三十八卷中說：『什麼是不共無明隨眠（Avidya-anusaya）？』回答是：『諸無明對於苦諦（Dukkha）不了知，對於集諦（Samudaya）、滅諦（Nirodha）、道諦（Marga）也不了知。』這裡所說的『不了知』，是顯示不欲忍的含義，意思是由於無明遮蔽心的緣故，對於四聖諦（Arya-satyani）不欲求、不忍受，所以稱為不了知，不僅僅是不明白。如同貧窮人得到粗惡的食物填飽肚子，即使遇到好的食物也不想吃。異生（Prthag-jana）也是這樣，無明遮蔽心，聽到四聖諦，不欲求、不忍受。提問：『這裡所說的『不了知』這個名言，是爲了顯示自性，還是爲了顯示行相，還是爲了顯示所緣？』有人這樣說，這是顯示無明的自性。有其他論師說，這是顯示無明的行相。還有人說，這是顯示無明的所緣。評論說：『應該這樣說，這樣的無明對於四聖諦，乃至不抉擇，以此作為自性。』參照這個評論，就知道最初的論師是正確的。無慚也是這樣，所作的四句不是正確的意義，所以不能作為證據。現在詳細考察論的意義，心和心所法，雖然共同取青色等總相和別相，然而對於這些相，有即時印持、取、像等多種不同，稱為取別。心王（Citta）總體上取境的表象，別相難以知曉。如同臺六司共同治理一個國家，然而所治理的事物各不相同，國王則總理一切，別相難以瞭解。
論：這種差別又在於，乃至意識身。這是第二種，就所依處進行區分。
【English Translation】 English version: All grasp the general and specific characteristics. Someone refutes: 'Although someone cites scriptures as evidence, they do not understand the true meaning.' For example, reception and compliance with contact are the image of the skandha of thought grasping the object. Can it also be said that the skandha of thought receives and complies with contact, and the skandha of feeling grasps the image of the object? This is necessarily not established in reason. Various minds and mental factors, if they have the same characteristics, it means that they all grasp the self-characteristics and common characteristics of phenomena such as blue, not that the mind and mental factors each separately grasp the image of the object, etc. The thirty-fourth volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says: 'What is Ahrikya (shamelessness)?' The answer is: 'Those who are shameless do not feel ashamed of things that should not be ashamed of, do not feel embarrassed about things that should not be embarrassed about, and even lack the nature of respect, etc.' Furthermore, the question is: 'Are the different terms mentioned here to show the self-nature, or to show the characteristics, or to show the object?' One view is to show the self-nature, the second view is to show the characteristics, and the third view is to show the object. Referring to the thirty-eighth volume, it says: 'What is uncommon Avidya-anusaya (ignorance-latent tendency)?' The answer is: 'Those who are ignorant do not understand Dukkha (suffering), and do not understand Samudaya (accumulation), Nirodha (cessation), and Marga (path).' The 'not understanding' mentioned here shows the meaning of not desiring to endure, meaning that because ignorance covers the mind, one does not desire or endure the Four Noble Truths (Arya-satyani), so it is called not understanding, not just not understanding. Just like a poor person who gets coarse food to fill their stomach, even if they encounter good food, they do not want to eat it. Ordinary beings (Prthag-jana) are also like this, ignorance covers the mind, and when they hear the Four Noble Truths, they do not desire or endure them. The question is: 'Is the term 'not understanding' mentioned here to show the self-nature, or to show the characteristics, or to show the object?' Some say that this shows the self-nature of ignorance. Other teachers say that this shows the characteristics of ignorance. Still others say that this shows the object of ignorance. The commentary says: 'It should be said that such ignorance, regarding the Four Noble Truths, and even not making a decision, takes this as its self-nature.' Referring to this commentary, it is known that the initial teacher is correct. Ahrikya (shamelessness) is also like this, the four sentences made are not the correct meaning, so they cannot be used as evidence. Now, examining the meaning of the treatise in detail, although the mind and mental factors jointly grasp the general and specific characteristics of phenomena such as blue, there are various differences in these characteristics, such as immediate impression, grasping, and image, which are called grasping differences. The Citta (mind-king) generally grasps the image of the object, and the specific characteristics are difficult to know. Just like the six departments of the platform jointly govern a country, but the things governed are different, and the king manages everything, so the specific characteristics are difficult to understand.
Treatise: This difference also lies in, up to the body of consciousness. This is the second, distinguishing based on the support.
六也。
論。應知如是至轉為意界。第三分識蘊為處．界也。
論。如是此中至及與意界。大文第四總結五蘊已。重總分五蘊。為十二處．十八界也 如文可知。
論豈不識蘊至復為意界。自下第四有十二行頌 問答分別。文中有十一段。此第一問意界也。前半頌問意體。後半頌問意數。此問體也。
論。更無異法即於此中者。即於六識中也。
論曰。至即名餘種。釋也 即六識身。為所依義名之為意。為能依義名之為識。如父．子。果．種。所望不同得名有異。此答體也。
論。若爾實界至十八界耶。第二問數也 若六識依他起故名之為識。即唯六識。更兼五根．六境。界唯十七 若為所依義名一意根。即更兼五根．六境。應唯十二 六識與意更相攝故者。攝意從識即為十七 攝識從意即為十二。
論曰。至界成十八釋也 此為建立十八界故成第六依。故六識外更立意界。已上數也。
論。若爾無學至非意界故。難也 若以後識依故名為意者。無學後心無能依識。應非意界。
論。不爾此已至后識不生。答也 猶如種子已住因性。闕余緣故後果不生。後心亦爾。已住意性。余緣闕故后識不生。而成意界。
論。此中蘊攝至總攝云何。自下一頌。第二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 六也。
論：應當知道像這樣一直轉變為意界（Manovijnana-dhatu，意識界）。第三部分識蘊（Vijnana-skandha，識蘊）是處（Ayatana，處）和界（Dhatu，界）。
論：像這樣，這裡總結五蘊（Panca-skandha，五蘊）后，重新總括地將五蘊分為十二處（Dvadasayatana，十二處）和十八界（Astadasadhatu，十八界）。如文中所說的那樣可以知道。
論：難道不是識蘊（Vijnana-skandha，識蘊）又轉變為意界（Manovijnana-dhatu，意識界）嗎？從下面第四部分開始有十二行頌，問答分別。文中有十一段。這是第一個問題，關於意界（Manovijnana-dhatu，意識界）。前半頌問意的本體，後半頌問意的數量。這是問本體。
論：沒有其他不同的法，就在這其中，就在六識（Sad-vijnana，六識）中。
論曰：就名為餘種。解釋說：就是六識身（Sad-vijnanakaya，六識身），作為所依的意義，稱之為意（Manas，意）；作為能依的意義，稱之為識（Vijnana，識）。如同父和子，果和種，所期望的不同，得到的名稱也有差異。這是回答本體。
論：如果這樣，真實的界（Dhatu，界）是十八界（Astadasadhatu，十八界）嗎？第二個問題是關於數量。如果六識（Sad-vijnana，六識）依他而起，所以稱之為識（Vijnana，識），那麼就只有六識（Sad-vijnana，六識）。如果再加上五根（Panca-indriya，五根）和六境（Sad-visaya，六境），界（Dhatu，界）就只有十七個。如果作為所依的意義，稱為一個意根（Manas-indriya，意根），那麼如果再加上五根（Panca-indriya，五根）和六境（Sad-visaya，六境），就應該只有十二個。六識（Sad-vijnana，六識）和意（Manas，意）互相攝取，攝取意（Manas，意）從識（Vijnana，識）來說就是十七個，攝取識（Vijnana，識）從意（Manas，意）來說就是十二個。
論曰：界（Dhatu，界）成就十八界（Astadasadhatu，十八界）。解釋說：這是爲了建立十八界（Astadasadhatu，十八界）的緣故，成就第六依。所以六識（Sad-vijnana，六識）之外，另外建立意界（Manovijnana-dhatu，意識界）。以上是關於數量。
論：如果這樣，無學（Asaiksa，無學）后識（Pascat-vijnana，后識）不是意界（Manovijnana-dhatu，意識界）的緣故。這是責難。如果以後識（Pascat-vijnana，后識）作為所依的緣故稱為意（Manas，意），那麼無學（Asaiksa，無學）的後心沒有能依的識（Vijnana，識），應該不是意界（Manovijnana-dhatu，意識界）。
論：不是這樣，這已經后識（Pascat-vijnana，后識）不生。回答說：猶如種子已經具有因的性質，缺少其餘的緣故，所以後果不生。後心也是這樣，已經具有意的性質，其餘的緣故缺少，所以後識（Pascat-vijnana，后識）不生，而成就意界（Manovijnana-dhatu，意識界）。
論：這其中蘊（Skandha，蘊）攝取總攝是什麼？從下面一頌開始，第二
【English Translation】 English version Six.
Treatise: It should be known that it thus transforms into the Manovijnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness element). The third part, the Vijnana-skandha (aggregate of consciousness), is Ayatana (sense base) and Dhatu (element).
Treatise: Thus, here, after summarizing the Panca-skandha (five aggregates), it re-summarizes and divides the five aggregates into the Dvadasayatana (twelve sense bases) and Astadasadhatu (eighteen elements). As it can be known from the text.
Treatise: Isn't the Vijnana-skandha (aggregate of consciousness) transformed again into the Manovijnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness element)? From the fourth part below, there are twelve lines of verses, distinguishing through questions and answers. There are eleven sections in the text. This is the first question, about the Manovijnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness element). The first half of the verse asks about the essence of mind, and the second half asks about the number of minds. This is asking about the essence.
Treatise: There is no other different dharma, just within this, just within the Sad-vijnana (six consciousnesses).
Treatise says: It is called another kind. Explanation: It is the Sad-vijnanakaya (body of six consciousnesses). As the meaning of that which is relied upon, it is called Manas (mind); as the meaning of that which is able to rely, it is called Vijnana (consciousness). Like father and son, fruit and seed, the expectations are different, and the names obtained are also different. This is the answer about the essence.
Treatise: If so, is the real Dhatu (element) the Astadasadhatu (eighteen elements)? The second question is about the number. If the Sad-vijnana (six consciousnesses) arise dependently, so it is called Vijnana (consciousness), then there are only the Sad-vijnana (six consciousnesses). If you add the Panca-indriya (five roots) and Sad-visaya (six objects), the Dhatu (element) would only be seventeen. If, as the meaning of that which is relied upon, it is called one Manas-indriya (mind-faculty), then if you add the Panca-indriya (five roots) and Sad-visaya (six objects), there should only be twelve. The Sad-vijnana (six consciousnesses) and Manas (mind) mutually include each other. Including Manas (mind) from Vijnana (consciousness) is seventeen; including Vijnana (consciousness) from Manas (mind) is twelve.
Treatise says: The Dhatu (element) becomes the Astadasadhatu (eighteen elements). Explanation: This is for the sake of establishing the Astadasadhatu (eighteen elements), achieving the sixth reliance. Therefore, outside of the Sad-vijnana (six consciousnesses), the Manovijnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness element) is established separately. The above is about the number.
Treatise: If so, the Asaiksa (non-learner)'s Pascat-vijnana (subsequent consciousness) is not the reason for the Manovijnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness element). This is a difficulty. If the Pascat-vijnana (subsequent consciousness) is called Manas (mind) because it is that which is relied upon, then the Asaiksa (non-learner)'s subsequent mind does not have the Vijnana (consciousness) that can rely upon it, so it should not be the Manovijnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness element).
Treatise: It is not so, this already Pascat-vijnana (subsequent consciousness) does not arise. Answer: It is like a seed that already has the nature of a cause, but because it lacks the remaining conditions, the subsequent fruit does not arise. The subsequent mind is also like this, already having the nature of mind, but because the remaining conditions are lacking, the subsequent Vijnana (consciousness) does not arise, and the Manovijnana-dhatu (mind-consciousness element) is achieved.
Treatise: Among these, what is the Skandha (aggregate) that encompasses the total encompassment? From the verse below, the second
明蘊．處．界各一攝一切法。
論曰至一切法盡。長行釋也。于中有三。一明一蘊．處．界攝一切法盡。二明勝義攝。三明世俗攝。此文初也。
論。謂于諸處至不攝他性。第二明勝義攝 此一蘊．處．界攝一切法。是勝義攝 言勝義者是真實義。
論。所以者何。徴也 所以勝義攝唯攝自性。
論。法與他性至其理不然。答也 自性．他性恒相離故。不可相攝。
論。且如眼根至離彼性故。指事釋也。
論。若於諸處至攝徒眾等。世俗攝也。
論眼耳鼻三處各有二。已下半頌。第三明三根處二界一。頌前問答 如文可了。
論曰至眼識依故。答也 三根雖處各別二。以三同故合立一界。此釋三義同也。
論。由此眼界至如是安立。總結成也。
論若爾何緣生依二處。難也 眼等三根。既三義同。故雖二同界。何緣生依二處 自下半頌。第四明三根生二處所以。
論曰至身不端嚴釋中有二。一有部釋。二論主破。此文初也 為令身端嚴故所以生二。身舌生二即不端嚴。如串子並。及如蛇兩舌故。廣如婆沙。若眼．耳．鼻唯有一者。即身不端嚴。故各生二。
論。此釋不然至有何端嚴。第二論主難也。貓．鴟二鼻二耳。雖生二處有何端嚴。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 明蘊、處、界各自包含一切法。
論曰：直至一切法完盡。這是長行（散文）的解釋。其中有三點：一是說明一個蘊、處、界包含一切法完盡；二是說明勝義諦的包含；三是說明世俗諦的包含。這段文字是第一點。
論：所謂在各種處（ayatana）中，直至不包含其他自性。第二點說明勝義諦的包含。這一個蘊、處、界包含一切法，是勝義諦的包含。所說的勝義諦，是真實意義。
論：為什麼呢？這是提問。為什麼勝義諦的包含只包含自性呢？
論：法與其他自性，直至這個道理是不成立的。這是回答。自性與他性恒常相互分離，所以不可能相互包含。
論：例如眼根（cakṣurindriya），直至遠離那個自性。這是指事解釋。
論：如果在各種處中，直至包含徒眾等等。這是世俗諦的包含。
論：眼、耳、鼻三處各有二。以下是半頌。第三點說明三根處在二處一界。這是對前面問答的總結。如文字所表達的那樣可以理解。
論曰：直至眼識（cakṣurvijñāna）所依賴的。這是回答。三根雖然處在各自不同的二處，但因為三者的意義相同，所以合起來成立一個界。這是解釋三者的意義相同。
論：由此眼界（cakṣurdhātu），直至這樣安立。這是總結。
論：如果這樣，那麼為什麼生起依賴於二處呢？這是提問。眼等三根，既然三者的意義相同，所以即使同屬於二界，為什麼生起依賴於二處呢？以下是半頌。第四點說明三根生起於二處的原因。
論曰：直至身體不端正莊嚴。解釋中包含兩點：一是有部（Sarvāstivāda）的解釋；二是論主的駁斥。這段文字是第一點。爲了使身體端正莊嚴，所以生起於二處。身體和舌頭生起於二處，就是不端正莊嚴，就像串在一起的珠子，以及像蛇的兩條舌頭一樣。詳細內容如《婆沙論》（Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra）所說。如果眼、耳、鼻只有一個，那麼身體就不端正莊嚴，所以各自生起於二處。
論：這個解釋不成立，直至有什麼端正莊嚴？這是第二點，論主的駁斥。貓和鴟有兩個鼻子和兩隻耳朵，即使生起於二處，又有什麼端正莊嚴呢？
【English Translation】 English version The aggregates (skandha), bases (āyatana), and realms (dhātu) each encompass all dharmas.
Treatise says: Up to the exhaustion of all dharmas. This is an explanation in prose. There are three points within this: first, clarifying that one aggregate, base, and realm encompass all dharmas completely; second, clarifying the inclusion from the perspective of ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya); third, clarifying the inclusion from the perspective of conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). This passage is the first point.
Treatise: Regarding the various bases, up to not including other natures. The second point clarifies the inclusion from the perspective of ultimate truth. This one aggregate, base, and realm encompasses all dharmas, which is the inclusion from the perspective of ultimate truth. What is meant by ultimate truth is the true meaning.
Treatise: Why is that? This is a question. Why does the inclusion from the perspective of ultimate truth only include self-nature?
Treatise: A dharma and other natures, up to that reasoning is not established. This is the answer. Self-nature and other natures are always separate from each other, so they cannot include each other.
Treatise: For example, the eye faculty (cakṣurindriya), up to being separate from that nature. This is an explanation by pointing to a specific instance.
Treatise: If in the various bases, up to including followers and so on. This is the inclusion from the perspective of conventional truth.
Treatise: The eye, ear, and nose, each have two bases. The following is a half-verse. The third point clarifies that the three roots are located in two places and one realm. This is a summary of the previous questions and answers. It can be understood as expressed in the text.
Treatise says: Up to what the eye consciousness (cakṣurvijñāna) relies on. This is the answer. Although the three roots are located in two different places, because the meanings of the three are the same, they are combined to establish one realm. This explains that the meanings of the three are the same.
Treatise: From this eye realm (cakṣurdhātu), up to establishing it in this way. This is a conclusion.
Treatise: If so, then why does arising depend on two places? This is a question. Since the meanings of the three roots, such as the eye, are the same, even if they belong to two realms, why does arising depend on two places? The following is a half-verse. The fourth point explains the reason why the three roots arise in two places.
Treatise says: Up to the body not being upright and adorned. The explanation includes two points: one is the explanation of the Sarvāstivāda school; the other is the refutation by the treatise master. This passage is the first point. In order to make the body upright and adorned, it arises in two places. The body and tongue arising in two places is not upright and adorned, like beads strung together, and like a snake's two tongues. The details are as described in the Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra. If the eye, ear, and nose each had only one, then the body would not be upright and adorned, so they each arise in two places.
Treatise: This explanation is not established, up to what uprightness and adornment is there? This is the second point, the refutation by the treatise master. Cats and owls have two noses and two ears, even if they arise in two places, what uprightness and adornment is there?
論。若爾三根何緣生二。有部難也。
論。為所發識至各生二處。論主答也 正理論意亦同此釋。正理論云。為所依身相端嚴故。界體雖一。而兩處生。若眼．耳根．處唯生一。鼻無二穴。身不端嚴 此釋不然。如駝．貓等。如是醜陋何有端嚴。是故。諸根各別種類如是安布差別而生。此待因緣如是差別。因緣有障或不二生。猶如身根．頭．項．腹．背．手．足等處。安布差別種類如是。不應疑難。亦待因緣如是差別。因緣有障或別異生。故見蛇等身支有闕。又見彼類舌非一生。是故諸根安布差別。待因緣起。非為嚴身 若爾何故說眼等根。為令端嚴各生二處 此有別義。非為嚴身。現見世間于諸作用增上圓滿亦說端嚴。若眼等根各闕一處見．聞．嗅用皆不明瞭。各具二者明瞭用生。是故此言為端嚴者。正是為令用增上義 準此。正理論釋。會婆沙同俱舍(今難。為若發識少大即得何用二處如正理前解為勝)。
論。已說諸蘊及處界攝。自下第五半頌釋蘊．處．界義。論曰至是蘊義。釋頌也。文中有四。釋蘊．處．界。即分為三。四問答分別 釋蘊義中。文復有二。一釋蘊義。二引經證 此所舉文即初釋蘊義也 和合聚義是蘊義故。
論。如契經言至若遠若近第二引經證也。文中有三。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如果這樣，為什麼三種根（trini indriyāṇi）只產生兩種呢？這是有部（Sarvāstivāda）的詰難。 論：爲了所發之識（vijñāna）各自在兩處產生。這是論主的回答。《正理論》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）的意義也與此相同。《正理論》說：『爲了所依之身（āśraya-kāya）相貌端正莊嚴的緣故，界體（dhātu）雖然是一個，但在兩處產生。如果眼根（cakṣur-indriya）、耳根（śrotra-indriya）只生一個，鼻子沒有兩個孔，身體就不端正莊嚴。』 這種解釋不對。像駱駝、貓等，如此醜陋，哪裡有端正莊嚴？因此，諸根（indriya）各自是不同的種類，如此安布差別而生。這取決於因緣（hetu-pratyaya）如此差別。因緣有障礙，或者不生兩個。猶如身根（kāya-indriya）、頭、頸、腹、背、手、足等處，安布差別，種類如此。不應該懷疑詰難。也取決於因緣如此差別。因緣有障礙，或者分別異生。所以見到蛇等身體肢體有缺失。又見到它們那一類的舌頭並非一生。因此，諸根安布差別，取決於因緣生起，不是爲了莊嚴身體。 如果這樣，為什麼說眼等根，爲了使之端正莊嚴，各自在兩處產生呢？這有別的意義，不是爲了莊嚴身體。現在見到世間對於各種作用增上圓滿也說端正莊嚴。如果眼等根各自缺少一處，見、聞、嗅的作用都不明瞭。各自具備兩個，明瞭的作用就產生。因此，說『爲了端正莊嚴』，正是爲了使作用增上的意義。 準此，《正理論》的解釋，與《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）和《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa）相同（現在詰難：如果爲了發識少大就可以，何必用兩處？如《正理論》前面的解釋為好）。 論：已經說了諸蘊（skandha）以及處（āyatana）、界（dhātu）所攝。從下面第五個半頌解釋蘊、處、界的意義。論曰：『乃至是蘊義』，解釋頌文。文中有四個部分：解釋蘊、處、界，即分為三個部分，四個問答分別。 在解釋蘊義中，文又分為兩個部分：一是解釋蘊義，二是引經文證明。這裡所舉的文就是最初解釋蘊義。 和合聚集的意義是蘊的意義。 論：如契經言，乃至若遠若近，第二是引經文證明。文中有三個部分：一
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: If so, why do the three roots (trini indriyāṇi) only produce two? This is a challenge from the Sarvāstivāda (有部). Treatise: It is for the consciousness (vijñāna) that is produced to arise in two places each. This is the treatise master's answer. The meaning of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理論) is also the same as this explanation. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Because the dependent body (āśraya-kāya) has a dignified and adorned appearance, although the element (dhātu) is one, it arises in two places. If the eye-root (cakṣur-indriya) and ear-root (śrotra-indriya) only arise in one place, and the nose does not have two holes, the body would not be dignified and adorned.' This explanation is not correct. Like camels and cats, which are so ugly, where is there dignity and adornment? Therefore, the roots (indriya) are each different kinds, and they arise with such arrangement and difference. This depends on the causes and conditions (hetu-pratyaya) being so different. If the causes and conditions have obstacles, or do not produce two. It is like the body-root (kāya-indriya), head, neck, abdomen, back, hands, feet, and other places, which have different arrangements and kinds. One should not doubt and challenge this. It also depends on the causes and conditions being so different. If the causes and conditions have obstacles, or arise separately and differently. Therefore, we see that snakes and other creatures have missing limbs. And we see that their tongues are not born as one. Therefore, the arrangement and difference of the roots depends on the arising of causes and conditions, and is not for the sake of adorning the body. If so, why is it said that the eye-root and other roots arise in two places each in order to make them dignified and adorned? This has a different meaning, it is not for the sake of adorning the body. Now we see that in the world, when various functions are enhanced and perfected, it is also said to be dignified and adorned. If the eye-root and other roots each lack one place, the functions of seeing, hearing, and smelling will not be clear. If each has two, the clear function will arise. Therefore, saying 'for the sake of dignity and adornment' is precisely for the meaning of enhancing the function. According to this, the explanation of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is the same as the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論) and the Abhidharmakośa (俱舍論) (Now a challenge: If it is enough to produce a little or a lot of consciousness, why use two places? The previous explanation of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya is better). Treatise: It has already been said that the aggregates (skandha) and the bases (āyatana) and elements (dhātu) are included. From the following fifth half-verse, the meaning of aggregates, bases, and elements is explained. The treatise says: 'Even to the meaning of aggregates,' explaining the verse. There are four parts in the text: explaining aggregates, bases, and elements, which are divided into three parts, and four questions and answers are distinguished. In the explanation of the meaning of aggregates, the text is further divided into two parts: one is the explanation of the meaning of aggregates, and the other is the citation of sutras as proof. The text cited here is the initial explanation of the meaning of aggregates. The meaning of combination and gathering is the meaning of aggregates. Treatise: As the sutra says, even if it is far or near, the second is the citation of sutras as proof. There are three parts in the text: one
顯類多。二明聚。三結成 此即初也。明過去等顯類多也。
論。如是一切至說名色蘊。第二明聚也。此是名略非體略也。三世等色不可略為一聚。但名中總略為一聚也 婆沙論七十四云。問過去。未來。現在諸色可略聚耶。答雖不可略聚其體。而可得略聚其名。乃至。識蘊。應知亦爾 雜心論云。名略非體也 婆沙七十四云。余經復說云何色蘊諸所有色。若過去。若未來．若現在．若內．若外．若粗．若細．若劣．若勝．若遠．若近。如是一切略為一聚。說名色蘊。乃至識蘊廣說亦爾。此為遮止外道所說。謂佛在世有出家外道。名為杖髻撥無過去未來。為遮彼意故。世尊說諸所有色。若過去若未來若現在。乃至廣說。阿毗達磨作是說言。云何色蘊。謂十色處及法處所攝色。是名色蘊。此為遮止譬喻者說。謂譬喻者撥無法處所攝諸色。故此尊者法救亦言。諸所有色。皆五識身所依所緣。如何是色非五識身所依所緣。為遮彼意故作是說。云何色蘊。謂十色處。法處所攝色。
論。由此聚義蘊義得成。結也。
論。於此經中至名現在。釋經三世色也。
論。自身名內至或約處辨。自身名內者。自身名內。他身．及非有情名外 若就處釋內外。五根名內。五境名外。
論。有對名粗至或相待
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 顯現種類繁多，第二是闡明聚集，第三是總結完成。這便是最初的部分。闡明過去等，是爲了顯現種類繁多。 論：如是所有一切，乃至稱為色蘊（Rūpa-skandha，物質之蘊）。這是第二闡明聚集。這是名稱上的省略，而非本體上的省略。過去、現在、未來三世等色法，不可省略為一個聚集，但名稱上可以總括省略為一個聚集。《婆沙論》第七十四卷說：『問：過去、未來、現在諸色，可以省略聚集嗎？』答：『雖然不能省略聚集它們的本體，但可以省略聚集它們的名稱。』乃至識蘊（Vijñāna-skandha，識之蘊），應當知道也是如此。《雜心論》說：『是名稱上的省略，而非本體上的省略。《婆沙論》第七十四卷說：『其他經中又說：云何色蘊？諸所有色，若是過去、若是未來、若是現在、若是內、若是外、若是粗、若是細、若是劣、若是勝、若是遠、若是近，如是所有一切，略為一個聚集，說名色蘊。』乃至識蘊廣說也是如此。這是爲了遮止外道（Tīrthika）的說法。說佛在世時，有出家的外道，名叫杖髻（Daṇḍa-jaṭika），否定過去和未來。爲了遮止他們的意思，世尊說諸所有色，若是過去、若是未來、若是現在，乃至廣說。《阿毗達磨》這樣說：『云何色蘊？謂十色處（Daśa rūpāyatanāni）及法處（Dharmāyatana）所攝之色，是名色蘊。』這是爲了遮止譬喻者（Dṛṣṭāntika）的說法。譬喻者否定法處所攝的諸色，所以這位尊者法救（Dharma-trāta）也說：『諸所有色，皆是五識身（Pañca-vijñānakāyāḥ）所依所緣，如何有色不是五識身所依所緣呢？』爲了遮止他們的意思，所以這樣說：『云何色蘊？謂十色處，法處所攝之色。』 論：由此聚集之義，蘊之義得以成立。這是總結。 論：於此經中，乃至名為現在。這是解釋經中的三世色。 論：自身名為內，乃至或依處所辨別。自身名為內，他身以及非有情名為外。若就處所解釋內外，五根（Pañcendriyāṇi）名為內，五境（Pañca viṣayāḥ）名為外。 論：有對名為粗，乃至或互相待。
【English Translation】 English version: Manifesting many categories, the second is clarifying the aggregates, and the third is concluding the completion. This is the initial part. Clarifying the past, etc., is to manifest the many categories. Treatise: 'Thus, all such things, up to what is called the Rūpa-skandha (aggregate of form). This is the second clarification of the aggregates. This is an abbreviation in name, not in substance. The colors of the three times—past, present, and future—cannot be abbreviated into one aggregate, but in name, they can be generally abbreviated into one aggregate.' The Vibhāṣā (Commentary) in its seventy-fourth fascicle says: 'Question: Can the colors of the past, future, and present be abbreviated and aggregated?' Answer: 'Although their substance cannot be abbreviated and aggregated, their names can be abbreviated and aggregated.' And so it is with the Vijñāna-skandha (aggregate of consciousness). The Saṃyukta-hṛdaya-śāstra (Treatise on the Summary of the Heart) says: 'It is an abbreviation in name, not in substance.' The Vibhāṣā, seventy-fourth fascicle, says: 'Other sutras also say: What is the Rūpa-skandha? All colors, whether past, future, or present, whether internal, external, coarse, subtle, inferior, superior, distant, or near, all such things are abbreviated into one aggregate, called the Rūpa-skandha.' And so it is with the extensive explanation of the Vijñāna-skandha. This is to prevent the assertions of the Tīrthikas (non-Buddhist schools). It is said that when the Buddha was in the world, there was a Tīrthika ascetic named Daṇḍa-jaṭika, who denied the past and the future. To prevent their meaning, the World-Honored One said: 'All colors, whether past, future, or present,' and so on extensively. The Abhidharma says: 'What is the Rūpa-skandha? It is the ten rūpāyatanāni (sense-fields of form) and the colors included in the Dharmāyatana (sense-field of phenomena). This is called the Rūpa-skandha.' This is to prevent the assertions of the Dṛṣṭāntikas (those who use analogies). The Dṛṣṭāntikas deny the colors included in the Dharmāyatana, so the venerable Dharma-trāta also said: 'All colors are the support and object of the Pañca-vijñānakāyāḥ (five bodies of consciousness). How can there be colors that are not the support and object of the five bodies of consciousness?' To prevent their meaning, it is said: 'What is the Rūpa-skandha? It is the ten rūpāyatanāni and the colors included in the Dharmāyatana.' Treatise: By this, the meaning of 'aggregate' and the meaning of 'skandha' are established. This is the conclusion. Treatise: In this sutra, up to what is called the present. This is explaining the colors of the three times in the sutra. Treatise: 'Oneself' is called 'internal,' up to distinguishing based on location. 'Oneself' is called 'internal,' while 'another's body' and 'non-sentient beings' are called 'external.' If explaining 'internal' and 'external' based on location, the Pañcendriyāṇi (five sense organs) are called 'internal,' and the Pañca viṣayāḥ (five sense objects) are called 'external.' Treatise: What has resistance is called 'coarse,' up to being relative to each other.
立。以二義釋粗．細。有對名粗。五根．五境名粗。無表名細．相待粗．細即所望不同。
論。若言相待粗細不成。難也。
論。此難至苦集諦等釋外難也。
論。染污名劣不染名勝。釋勝劣也 即是無覆無記善法皆名為勝。有覆無記。不善名劣。
論。去來名遠現在名近。此就時遠．近釋也。
論。乃至識蘊應知亦然。義同。類釋余蘊也。
論。而有差別至或約地辨述其異也。唯粗．細二與色蘊義別。余義皆同。
論毗婆沙師所說如是。結婆沙師義也。
論。大德法救至粗細同前。述異說也。此師不說有無對色。如前引婆沙文 五根所取名粗色者。即是五境名粗 所餘名細者。即是五根非無表也 非可意名劣色可意。名勝色者。從多說別 或就情釋勝．劣也 不可見處名遠色在可見處名近色。就處遠．近釋遠．近也 過去等色如自名顯者。即如釋過去．未來．現在名。釋三世色也。謂已生已滅名過去色。已生未滅名現在色。未生未滅名未來色 受等亦然者。類釋四蘊也 隨所依力應知遠近。逐難重釋 可意．不可意．三世等。說同易解 不須重釋。無色之法無處所故。類同色說其遠．近。難解故重釋也。故隨所依說遠．近也。四蘊粗．細同婆沙釋。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 立。以二義解釋粗、細。有對的稱為粗，五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）和五境（色、聲、香、味、觸五種感覺對像）稱為粗。無表（無法用語言或行為表達的業力）稱為細。相待的粗、細，是所參照的對象不同。
論：如果說相待的粗細不能成立，這是個難題。
論：這個難題涉及到苦集諦等，用來解釋外人的難題。
論：染污的稱為劣，不染污的稱為勝。這是解釋勝劣。也就是說，無覆無記（不導致善或不善結果，也不覆蓋真理的心理狀態）的善法都稱為勝，有覆無記（覆蓋真理的心理狀態）和不善法稱為劣。
論：過去、未來稱為遠，現在稱為近。這是就時間上的遠近來解釋。
論：乃至識蘊（意識的集合）也應該知道是這樣，意義相同。這是用類比的方法解釋其餘的蘊（構成要素）。
論：而有差別，乃至或者根據地（存在的層次）來辨別和敘述它們的差異。只有粗、細二者與色蘊（物質的集合）的意義不同，其餘的意義都相同。
論：毗婆沙師（佛教論師）所說是這樣的。總結了毗婆沙師的觀點。
論：大德法救（一位佛教論師）乃至粗細與前面相同。敘述不同的說法。這位論師不說有無對的色。如前面引用的婆沙文，五根所取名為粗色，就是五境名為粗。其餘名為細的，就是五根，不是無表。不可意的稱為劣色，可意的稱為勝色。這是從多數情況來說明差別，或者就情（情感）來解釋勝、劣。不可見之處名為遠色，在可見之處名為近色。這是就處所的遠近來解釋遠、近。過去等的色，如字面意思一樣明顯。就是像解釋過去、未來、現在一樣來解釋三世色。所謂已生已滅的稱為過去色，已生未滅的稱為現在色，未生未滅的稱為未來色。受等也是這樣，用類比的方法解釋四蘊。隨所依的力，應該知道遠近。這是針對難題重新解釋。可意、不可意、三世等，所說的相同，容易理解，不需要重新解釋。無色之法沒有處所，用類比的方法和色法一樣來說明它的遠、近。因為難以理解，所以重新解釋。所以隨著所依來說明遠、近。四蘊的粗、細與婆沙的解釋相同。
論：
【English Translation】 English version Establishment. Explaining 'coarse' and 'subtle' with two meanings. That which has opposition is called 'coarse'. The five roots (five sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and the five objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch) are called 'coarse'. Unmanifested karma (karma that cannot be expressed through language or action) is called 'subtle'. The 'coarse' and 'subtle' are relative, depending on the reference point.
Treatise: If it is said that relative 'coarse' and 'subtle' cannot be established, this is a difficult question.
Treatise: This difficulty extends to the suffering and accumulation truths, etc., to explain external difficulties.
Treatise: 'Defiled' is called 'inferior', 'undefiled' is called 'superior'. This explains 'superior' and 'inferior'. That is, unconditioned neutral (mental states that do not lead to good or bad results, nor obscure the truth) good dharmas are all called 'superior'. Conditioned neutral (mental states that obscure the truth) and unwholesome are called 'inferior'.
Treatise: 'Past' and 'future' are called 'distant', 'present' is called 'near'. This explains 'distant' and 'near' in terms of time.
Treatise: Even the consciousness aggregate (collection of consciousness) should be understood similarly, the meaning is the same. This explains the remaining aggregates (constituent elements) by analogy.
Treatise: But there are differences, even to the point of distinguishing and describing their differences based on the ground (level of existence). Only 'coarse' and 'subtle' differ in meaning from the form aggregate (collection of matter); the remaining meanings are the same.
Treatise: The Vibhasha masters (Buddhist commentators) say it is like this. Concluding the meaning of the Vibhasha masters.
Treatise: The Venerable Dharmatrata (a Buddhist commentator) says that 'coarse' and 'subtle' are the same as before. Describing different views. This master does not say that there is form with or without opposition. As quoted in the Vibhasha text earlier, what is taken by the five roots is called 'coarse form', which means the five objects are called 'coarse'. What remains, called 'subtle', is the five roots, not unmanifested karma. What is undesirable is called 'inferior form', what is desirable is called 'superior form'. This explains the difference from the majority perspective, or explains 'superior' and 'inferior' in terms of emotion. What is in an invisible place is called 'distant form', what is in a visible place is called 'near form'. This explains 'distant' and 'near' in terms of the distance of the place. The forms of the past, etc., are as clear as their names suggest. That is, explaining the three times of form as explaining past, future, and present. What has already arisen and ceased is called 'past form', what has already arisen but not yet ceased is called 'present form', what has not yet arisen and not yet ceased is called 'future form'. The same applies to feeling, etc., explaining the four aggregates by analogy. Depending on the power of what is relied upon, one should know 'distant' and 'near'. This is a re-explanation in response to the difficulty. 'Desirable', 'undesirable', the three times, etc., are the same in what is said, easy to understand, and do not need to be re-explained. Because formless dharmas have no location, they are explained in the same way as form dharmas in terms of 'distant' and 'near'. Because it is difficult to understand, it is re-explained. Therefore, 'distant' and 'near' are explained according to what is relied upon. The 'coarse' and 'subtle' of the four aggregates are the same as the Vibhasha explanation.
Treatise:
心．心所法至彼作用義。第二釋處義也 舊譯名入。義不盡也。滅義是入義但是其滅而不得生義。理實十二處。作心．心所生長之處。亦作滅沒之處 今言處者。通其兩義 訓釋詞者。謂能生長心心所法名為處者。舉一義訓釋 是能生長彼作用者。心．心所法先有體性。由十二處令行世取果。名為作用。
論。法種族義至名十八界。第三釋界。文有二釋。一種族義。二種類義。此即初也。如一山中等。舉喻也 如是一身或一相續等。法合也。
論。此中種族至同類因故。釋種族義也。
論。若爾無為應不名界。以無同類因故。難也。
論心．心所法生之本故。答也 正理云。若爾。處．界義應相濫。俱心．心所生本義故。由此別應釋種族義。如雄黃等展轉相望。體類不．故名種族。如是眼等展轉相望。體類不同故名種族 若爾意界望於六識。無別體類。應非別界 此難不然。所依．能依體類別故 有說。安立時分異故 復有說者。六是意先。意非六先。故知有異。雖諸界體並通三世。然就位別安立異名。由此故言六先意后 有人作俱舍師釋處．界相濫難云。一同類因名生之本。十七界全．一少分。二境界緣名生之本。謂無為法一界少分。從多分說處義不同。少分相濫亦無有失者 今詳此解。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 心、心所法（Citta-cetasika dhamma，心和與心相關的心理現象）的作用意義在於此。第二是解釋『處』（āyatana，感官領域）的意義，舊譯名為『入』，但意義不完全。『滅』的意義是『入』的意義，但僅指滅沒而沒有生起之義。實際上，十二處是心、心所法生長之處，也是滅沒之處。現在說『處』，是通用於這兩種意義。解釋詞語的人說，能夠生長心、心所法，因此稱為『處』，這是舉出一個方面的意義來解釋。這是能夠生長那些作用的，心、心所法先有其體性，通過十二處使其在世間執行併產生結果，這被稱為作用。
論：『法種族義』直到『名十八界』，第三是解釋『界』（dhātu，元素、界限）。文中有兩種解釋，一種是種族義，另一種是種類義。這裡是第一種，即種族義。例如『一山中』等，這是舉例子。『如是一身或一相續』等，這是法的集合。
論：『此中種族』直到『同類因故』，這是解釋種族義。
論：『若爾無為應不名界，以無同類因故』，這是提問。
論：『心、心所法生之本故』，這是回答。正理中說：『如果這樣，處和界的意義應該混淆，因為都是心、心所法生起的根本。』因此應該另外解釋種族義，例如雄黃等相互比較，體性和種類不同，所以稱為種族。像這樣，眼等相互比較，體性和種類不同，所以稱為種族。如果這樣，意界（manodhātu，意識界）相對於六識（viññāṇa，識），沒有不同的體性和種類，不應該是不同的界。這個提問不對，因為所依（nissaya，依靠）和能依（nissita，能依靠）的體性類別不同。有人說，安立時分不同。還有人說，六識在意界之前，意界不在六識之前，所以知道有不同。雖然各個界的體性都通於三世（過去、現在、未來），但就位置差別而安立不同的名稱。因此說六識在前，意界在後。有人作為俱舍師解釋處和界相互混淆的難題，說：『同一類因是生起的根本，十七界全部和一界少分。二，境界緣是生起的根本，指無為法一界少分。』從大部分來說，處和界的意義不同，少部分混淆也沒有損失。現在詳細考察這種解釋。
【English Translation】 English version The meaning of the function of Citta-cetasika dhamma (mind and mental factors) lies therein. Secondly, it explains the meaning of 'āyatana' (sense fields), formerly translated as 'entrance,' but the meaning is not complete. The meaning of 'cessation' is the meaning of 'entrance,' but it only refers to cessation without the meaning of arising. In reality, the twelve āyatanas are the places where Citta-cetasika dhamma grow, and also the places where they cease. Now, when we say 'āyatana,' it applies to both meanings. Those who explain the terms say that being able to grow Citta-cetasika dhamma is why it is called 'āyatana,' which is to explain by citing one aspect of the meaning. This is being able to grow those functions; Citta-cetasika dhamma first have their own nature, and through the twelve āyatanas, they operate in the world and produce results, which is called function.
Treatise: 'The meaning of the genus of dharmas' up to 'named the eighteen dhātus (elements)'. The third is to explain 'dhātu'. There are two explanations in the text, one is the meaning of genus, and the other is the meaning of type. This is the first, which is the meaning of genus. For example, 'in a mountain,' etc., this is giving an example. 'Like one body or one continuum,' etc., this is the collection of dharmas.
Treatise: 'Among these genera' up to 'because of the cause of the same type,' this explains the meaning of genus.
Treatise: 'If so, non-conditioned (asaṃskṛta) should not be called dhātu, because there is no cause of the same type,' this is a question.
Treatise: 'Because it is the origin of the arising of Citta-cetasika dhamma,' this is the answer. The Nyāyasūtra says: 'If so, the meanings of āyatana and dhātu should be confused, because both are the origin of the arising of Citta-cetasika.' Therefore, the meaning of genus should be explained separately, such as realgar, etc., compared with each other, their nature and type are different, so they are called genus. Like this, the eye, etc., compared with each other, their nature and type are different, so they are called genus. If so, the manodhātu (mind element) in relation to the six viññāṇas (consciousness), does not have a different nature and type, so it should not be a different dhātu. This question is not correct, because the nature and type of the support (nissaya) and the supported (nissita) are different. Some say that the establishment of different time divisions is the reason. Others say that the six consciousnesses are before the mind element, and the mind element is not before the six consciousnesses, so we know there is a difference. Although the nature of each dhātu pervades the three times (past, present, future), different names are established according to the difference in position. Therefore, it is said that the six consciousnesses are first, and the mind element is later. Someone, as a Sarvāstivādin, explains the difficult problem of the confusion between āyatana and dhātu, saying: 'The cause of the same type is the origin of arising, all of the seventeen dhātus and a small part of one dhātu. Second, the object condition is the origin of arising, referring to the non-conditioned dharma, a small part of one dhātu.' From the majority perspective, the meanings of āyatana and dhātu are different, and there is no loss even if a small part is confused. Now, let's examine this explanation in detail.
未為釋難三科名義既許不同。不可處義復是界義。若許無為一分與處義同。無別界義。理合無為唯處非界。如無蘊義非蘊所攝。欲救俱舍應求別理。
論。又說界聲至名十八界。第二釋也 與正理意大同正理論師斷後釋為當異處義故。雖二釋不同總是第三釋界義也。
論。若言聚義至如聚如我。自下第四問答分別 薩婆多部三科總實 經部蘊．處是假。唯界是實 論主蘊假。處．界是實。立量破有部云。色等五蘊必定是假。多實成故。猶如聚．我。
論。此難不然至亦名蘊故。有部救也。多實成因。有部不許。是不成過。
論。若爾不應至有聚義故論主難也。經說聚義名之為蘊。而言一實亦名蘊者。此聖教相違過 正理論云。若以聚義釋蘊義者。蘊則非實。聚是假故 此難不然。于聚所依立義言故。非聚即義。義是實物名之差別。聚非實故 此釋顯經有大義趣。謂如言聚離聚所依。無別實有聚體可得。如是言我。色等蘊外。不應別求實有我體。蘊相續中假說我故。如世間聚我。非實有 蘊若實有經顯何義 勿所化生知色等法。三時品類無量差別。各是蘊故。蘊則無邊。便生怯退。謂我何能遍知永斷此無邊蘊。為策勵彼。蘊雖無邊。而相同故總說為一 又諸愚夫。于多蘊上生一合想現起我執。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：既然已經允許對釋難的三科（蘊、處、界）的名義可以不同，那麼『處』的意義是否與『界』的意義相同呢？如果允許『無為』是『處』的一部分，那麼『無為』就沒有單獨的『界』的意義。按照道理，『無為』應該只是『處』而不是『界』，就像『無蘊』的意義不是『蘊』所包含的一樣。如果想要挽救《俱舍論》的觀點，就應該尋求其他的理由。
論：又說『界』的聲音，直到名為十八界。（這是）第二種解釋。與《正理論》的意義大體相同。《正理論》的論師斷定後面的解釋是爲了與『處』的意義不同。雖然兩種解釋不同，但總歸是第三種解釋『界』的意義。
論：如果說『聚』的意義，就像『聚』、『如我』。下面是第四個問答分別。薩婆多部（一切有部）認為三科（蘊、處、界）總體上都是真實的。經部（經量部）認為蘊、處是假，只有界是真實的。論主（本論作者）認為蘊是假，處、界是真實的。立量破斥有部（一切有部）說：色等五蘊必定是假的，因為是由多個實法組成的，就像『聚』、『我』一樣。
論：這個難點是不成立的，因為（色等五蘊）也名為『蘊』。有部（一切有部）進行辯護。『由多個實法組成』這個原因，有部（一切有部）不承認，所以是不成立的過失。
論：如果這樣，就不應該說有『聚』的意義。論主（本論作者）進行反駁。經中說『聚』的意義名為『蘊』，而（你們）說一個實法也名為『蘊』，這與聖教相違背。正理論說：如果用『聚』的意義來解釋『蘊』的意義，那麼『蘊』就不是真實的，因為『聚』是假的。這個反駁是不成立的，因為是在『聚』的所依之上建立『義』的說法，而不是說『聚』就是『義』。『義』是真實事物的名稱差別，而『聚』不是真實的。這個解釋顯示了經文有很大的意義。也就是說，就像說『聚』離開『聚』的所依，就沒有單獨真實存在的『聚』的自體可以得到一樣。像這樣說『我』，在色等蘊之外，不應該另外尋求真實存在的『我』的自體，因為『我』只是在蘊的相續中假說而已，就像世間的『聚』、『我』，不是真實存在的。如果『蘊』是真實存在的，經文顯示了什麼意義呢？爲了不讓所化生的眾生認為色等法，在三時（過去、現在、未來）的品類有無量的差別，各自都是『蘊』，因此『蘊』就是無邊的，從而產生怯懦退縮，認為我怎麼能夠普遍地瞭解並永遠斷除這無邊的『蘊』呢？爲了策勵他們，『蘊』雖然無邊，但因為相同，所以總的說為一個。另外，那些愚昧的人，在多個『蘊』上產生一個整體的想像，從而現起『我執』。
【English Translation】 English version: Since it is already allowed that the names and meanings of the three categories (Skandhas, Ayatanas, Dhatus) for explanation can be different, is the meaning of 'Ayatana' the same as the meaning of 'Dhatu'? If it is allowed that 'Asamskrta' (unconditioned) is a part of 'Ayatana', then 'Asamskrta' has no separate meaning of 'Dhatu'. Logically, 'Asamskrta' should only be 'Ayatana' and not 'Dhatu', just as the meaning of 'non-Skandha' is not included in 'Skandha'. If you want to save the viewpoint of the Abhidharmakosa, you should seek other reasons.
Treatise: Also, the sound of 'Dhatu' is mentioned, up to being named the Eighteen Dhatus. (This is) the second explanation. It is largely the same in meaning as the Nyayanusara. The teacher of the Nyayanusara determined that the later explanation was to be different from the meaning of 'Ayatana'. Although the two explanations are different, they are ultimately the third explanation of the meaning of 'Dhatu'.
Treatise: If it is said that the meaning of 'aggregate' is like 'aggregate', 'like self'. Below is the fourth question and answer analysis. The Sarvastivada school believes that the three categories (Skandhas, Ayatanas, Dhatus) are all ultimately real. The Sautrantika school believes that Skandhas and Ayatanas are false, and only Dhatu is real. The author of this treatise believes that Skandhas are false, and Ayatanas and Dhatus are real. Establishing a measure to refute the Sarvastivada school, saying: The five Skandhas such as Rupa (form) are certainly false, because they are composed of multiple real dharmas, just like 'aggregate', 'self'.
Treatise: This difficulty is not established, because (the five Skandhas such as Rupa) are also named 'Skandha'. The Sarvastivada school defends. The Sarvastivada school does not acknowledge the reason of 'composed of multiple real dharmas', so it is a fault of being unestablished.
Treatise: If so, it should not be said that there is the meaning of 'aggregate'. The author of this treatise refutes. The Sutra says that the meaning of 'aggregate' is named 'Skandha', but (you) say that a single real dharma is also named 'Skandha', which contradicts the holy teachings. The Nyayanusara says: If the meaning of 'aggregate' is used to explain the meaning of 'Skandha', then 'Skandha' is not real, because 'aggregate' is false. This refutation is not established, because it is establishing the statement of 'meaning' on the basis of what the 'aggregate' relies on, rather than saying that 'aggregate' is 'meaning'. 'Meaning' is the name difference of real things, while 'aggregate' is not real. This explanation shows that the Sutra has great significance. That is to say, just as saying that 'aggregate' is separated from what the 'aggregate' relies on, there is no separate real 'aggregate' self that can be obtained. Saying 'self' in this way, outside of the Skandhas such as Rupa, one should not seek a real 'self' self that exists separately, because 'self' is only a provisional designation in the continuity of the Skandhas, just like the worldly 'aggregate', 'self', which are not real. If 'Skandha' is real, what meaning does the Sutra reveal? In order to prevent the beings to be transformed from thinking that dharmas such as Rupa, in the three times (past, present, future), have countless differences in categories, and each is a 'Skandha', therefore 'Skandha' is boundless, thereby generating cowardice and retreat, thinking how can I universally understand and permanently cut off this boundless 'Skandha'? In order to encourage them, although 'Skandha' is boundless, because they are the same, they are collectively said to be one. In addition, those ignorant people, generate an imagination of a whole on multiple 'Skandhas', thereby manifesting 'self-attachment'.
為令彼除一合想故。說一蘊中有眾多分。不為顯示色等五蘊多法合成是假非實 又一極微三世等攝。以慧分析略為一聚。蘊雖即聚而實義成。余法亦然。故蘊非假 又於一一別起法中亦說蘊故。蘊定非假。如說俱生受名受蘊。想名想蘊。余說如經。於一切時和合生故。蘊雖各別而聚義成。
論有說能荷至物所聚故。第二釋也 謂有為法皆有果故。即是因荷果義名之為蘊。雖言物所聚故。非以聚義釋其蘊也。以荷重中有物聚也。與經不同。
論。或有說者至我當與汝。第三釋也 可分段義者。正理論云。可三世等分段義故 汝三蘊還者。可三分還我當與汝。
論。此釋越經至廣如前說。破第三說。前說物所聚故。與經聚同 兼破二說亦得。經不說荷果重擔義名為蘊故 正理論第三釋。亦得為正。
論。若謂此經至說名蘊故。此重破有部也。
論是故如聚蘊定假有。總結成也。
論。若爾應許至成生門故。有部反難。
論。此難非理至有因用故。此順釋也。
論。若不爾者至十二處別反難成也 論主許處是實。異於經部。
論。然毗婆沙至亦說燒衣下通牒婆沙通釋 故婆沙云對法諸師說。若觀假蘊。彼說極微一界一處。一蘊少分。若不觀者。彼說極微即是一界．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：爲了使他們消除對『一』的執著，所以說一個蘊（skandha，構成要素）中有很多部分。這並不是爲了顯示色（rupa，物質）、受（vedana，感受）、想（samjna，認知）、行（samskara，意志）、識（vijnana，意識）這五蘊是由多種法合成，是虛假的而非真實的。而且，一個極微（paramanu，最小的物質單位）包含過去、現在、未來三世等。用智慧分析，可以略微歸納為一個集合。蘊雖然是集合，但其實質意義成立。其他法也是如此，所以蘊不是虛假的。而且，在每一個個別的法生起時，也說蘊，所以蘊一定不是虛假的。例如說，俱生（同時產生）的受名為受蘊，想名為想蘊，其他的說法如經中所說。因為在一切時和合產生，所以蘊雖然各別，但集合的意義成立。 論中有人說，因為能夠承載（荷）到物體聚集的地方，所以是第二種解釋。意思是說，有為法（samskrta-dharma，因緣和合而成的法）都有結果，這就是因承載果的意義，名為蘊。雖然說物體聚集的地方，但不是用聚集的意義來解釋蘊。因為在承載重擔中有物體的聚集。這與經文不同。 論中有人說，（蘊）是可以分段的意義。正理論說，因為可以分為過去、現在、未來三世等分段的意義。『你三蘊還』的意思是，可以分成三份還我，我應當給你。 論中說，這種解釋超越了經文，詳細的解釋如前面所說。這是爲了駁斥第三種說法。前面說物體聚集的地方，與經文中的聚集相同。也可以同時駁斥第二種說法，因為經文沒有說承載果的重擔的意義名為蘊。正理論的第三種解釋，也可以認為是正確的。 論中說，如果認為此經說聚集名為蘊，這是再次駁斥有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）的觀點。 論中說，因此，像聚集一樣，蘊一定是假有的。這是總結性的陳述。 論中說，如果這樣，應該允許極微是實有，因為極微是構成生門的原因。這是有部提出的反駁。 論中說，這種反駁沒有道理，因為極微有因果作用。這是順著有部的觀點進行解釋。 論中說，如果不是這樣，那麼十二處（ayatana，感覺器官和感覺對像）的差別就無法成立。這是反駁成立。論主（論典的作者）認為處是實有的，這與經部（Sautrantika，經量部）不同。 然而，毗婆沙（Vibhasa，註釋）中說，也說了燒衣服。下面是通牒婆沙的通俗解釋。所以婆沙說，對法諸師（Abhidharma masters，阿毗達摩論師）說，如果觀察假蘊，他們說極微是一個界（dhatu，要素）、一個處、一個蘊的少部分。如果不觀察，他們說極微就是一個界。
【English Translation】 English version: In order to eliminate their attachment to 'oneness,' it is said that there are many parts in one skandha (aggregate, constituent). This is not to show that the five skandhas of rupa (form, matter), vedana (feeling, sensation), samjna (perception, cognition), samskara (volition, mental formations), and vijnana (consciousness) are composed of many dharmas and are false rather than real. Moreover, one paramanu (ultimate particle, the smallest unit of matter) encompasses the three times of past, present, and future, etc. Analyzing it with wisdom, it can be briefly summarized as a collection. Although a skandha is a collection, its substantial meaning is established. The same is true for other dharmas, so a skandha is not false. Moreover, when each individual dharma arises, skandhas are also mentioned, so skandhas are definitely not false. For example, it is said that co-arisen feeling is called the feeling skandha, and perception is called the perception skandha. Other statements are as stated in the sutras. Because they arise together at all times, although the skandhas are separate, the meaning of collection is established. In the treatise, some say that because it can bear (carry) to the place where objects gather, it is the second explanation. It means that conditioned dharmas (samskrta-dharmas, phenomena arising from causes and conditions) all have results, which is the meaning of cause bearing fruit, and is called a skandha. Although it is said to be the place where objects gather, it does not explain the skandha in terms of gathering. Because there is a gathering of objects in bearing a heavy burden. This is different from the sutras. In the treatise, some say that (a skandha) has the meaning of being divisible. The Tattvasiddhi-sastra (Chengshi Lun) says that it has the meaning of being divisible into the three times of past, present, and future, etc. 'Return your three skandhas' means that it can be divided into three parts and returned to me, and I should give it to you. The treatise says that this explanation goes beyond the sutras, and the detailed explanation is as mentioned earlier. This is to refute the third explanation. The previous statement that it is the place where objects gather is the same as the gathering in the sutras. It can also refute the second explanation at the same time, because the sutras do not say that the meaning of bearing the heavy burden of fruit is called a skandha. The third explanation in the Tattvasiddhi-sastra can also be considered correct. The treatise says that if it is thought that this sutra says that gathering is called a skandha, this is again refuting the view of the Sarvastivada (the 'All Exists' school). The treatise says that therefore, like a gathering, a skandha must be provisionally existent. This is a concluding statement. The treatise says that if so, it should be allowed that paramanus are real, because paramanus are the cause of constituting the gate of birth. This is a counter-argument raised by the Sarvastivadins. The treatise says that this counter-argument is unreasonable, because paramanus have causal functions. This is an explanation following the Sarvastivadin's view. The treatise says that if it is not so, then the differences of the twelve ayatanas (sense bases, sense organs and their objects) cannot be established. This is a refutation that is established. The author of the treatise considers the ayatanas to be real, which is different from the Sautrantika (the 'Sutra School'). However, the Vibhasa (commentary) says that it also mentions burning clothes. The following is a common explanation of the Vibhasa. Therefore, the Vibhasa says that the Abhidharma masters (those versed in Abhidharma) say that if one observes provisional skandhas, they say that a paramanu is a dhatu (element), an ayatana, and a small part of a skandha. If one does not observe, they say that a paramanu is a dhatu.
一處．一蘊者 觀假者。觀待總聚假蘊極微即是一分。不觀者。不觀待假聚。極微即是色界．色處．色蘊準此。一極微得名為蘊。故知蘊是其實 通云。此應于分假說有分者 極微是蘊一分而假。名蘊者蘊是總名。是有分也 喻說可解。
論。何故世尊于所知境。自下半頌。第六說三科所由。即是教起因緣。
論曰至蘊等三門。此總釋也。有三種三合說為三。
論。傳說有情至或愚色心。此釋第一三。佛意難知故言傳說 故正理云。善逝意趣雖極難知。據理推尋似應如是 為愚心所說蘊。一色．一心．三心所故 為愚色說處。十全．一少分色。一全心。一少分心所故 為愚色．心說十八界。十全．一少分是色。七全心．一多分是心所故。
論。根亦有三謂利中鈍。為利說蘊。蘊略故。為中說處。處非廣．略故。為鈍說界。界門廣故 眾生根性有三。一解遲．疾不同分三根別。二記難．易分三根別。若就解不同分根上．下。即利者略說。鈍者廣說。若記不同分根上．下。即鈍為略說利為廣說。
論。樂亦三種至蘊處界三。如文可解 此三種三。論主略說隨其別義即有無量 故正理云。經主。此中所說猶少。謂諸弟子。已過作意．已熟習行初修事業。三位別故 懷我慢行。執我所隨。迷識
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一處，一蘊（skandha，聚集）的觀察者，觀察假象的人。觀察依賴於總體聚集的假蘊的極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）即是一部分。不觀察的人，不觀察依賴於假象的聚集。極微即是。色處（rūpāyatana，色所生之處），色蘊（rūpaskandha，色之聚集）依此準繩。一極微可以得名為蘊，因此可知蘊是其實質。通說：這應該在對分假說有分者時說。極微是蘊的一部分，是假象。名為蘊者，蘊是總名，是有分也。比喻的說法可以理解。
論：為何世尊對於所知之境，從下半頌開始，第六說明三科（蘊、處、界）的由來，即是教法興起的因緣。
論曰至蘊等三門。這是總體的解釋。有三種三合起來說為三。
論：傳說有情至或愚色心。這是解釋第一種三。佛的意圖難以理解，所以說是傳說。所以《正理》說：『善逝（Sugata，佛陀的稱號）的意趣雖然極難知，但根據道理推尋，似乎應該是這樣。』為愚於心的人說蘊，一色、一心、三心所（caitta，心之附屬物）的緣故。為愚於色的人說處，十全、一少分色，一全心，一少分心所的緣故。為愚於色和心的人說十八界（dhātu，構成要素），十全、一少分是色，七全心、一多分是心所的緣故。
論：根（indriya，感覺器官）也有三種，即利、中、鈍。為利根者說蘊，因為蘊簡略。為中根者說處，因為處非廣非略。為鈍根者說界，因為界門廣闊。眾生的根性有三種。一，理解的遲緩、快速不同，分為三種根的差別。二，記憶的難易分為三種根的差別。如果就理解的不同來分根的上、下，即利根者略說，鈍根者廣說。如果就記憶的不同來分根的上、下，即鈍根者略說，利根者廣說。
論：樂（adhimukti，勝解）也有三種至蘊處界三。如文可解。這三種三，論主略說，隨其不同的意義，即有無量。所以《正理》說：『經主，這裡所說的還很少，即諸位弟子，已過作意（manasikara，注意）、已熟習行、初修事業，三種位次的差別。』懷有我慢的行為，執著於我所擁有的，迷惑于識（vijñāna，意識）。
【English Translation】 English version An observer of one place, one skandha (aggregate), observes the illusory. Observing depends on the ultimate particle (paramāṇu, the smallest unit of matter) of the aggregate of illusory skandhas, which is one part. One who does not observe, does not observe the aggregate of illusions. The ultimate particle is. The same principle applies to rūpāyatana (sense-sphere of form) and rūpaskandha (aggregate of form). One ultimate particle can be named a skandha, therefore it can be known that the skandha is its essence. Generally speaking: This should be said when discussing the division of the illusory into parts. The ultimate particle is a part of the skandha and is illusory. That which is named a skandha, the skandha is a general name, and has parts. The metaphorical explanation can be understood.
Treatise: Why did the World Honored One, regarding the objects of knowledge, starting from the second half of the verse, explain the origin of the three categories (skandhas, āyatanas, dhātus) in the sixth section, which is the cause and condition for the arising of the teachings?
Treatise says: To the three gates of skandhas, etc. This is a general explanation. There are three types of three combined to be called three.
Treatise: It is said that sentient beings are either foolish about form and mind. This explains the first type of three. The Buddha's intention is difficult to understand, so it is said to be a tradition. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says: 'Although the intention of the Sugata (Buddha's epithet) is extremely difficult to know, based on reason and investigation, it seems it should be like this.' For those foolish about the mind, the skandhas are explained, because of one form, one mind, and three mental factors (caitta, mental concomitants). For those foolish about form, the āyatanas are explained, because of ten complete and one partial form, one complete mind, and one partial mental factor. For those foolish about both form and mind, the eighteen dhātus (elements) are explained, because ten complete and one partial are form, and seven complete and one major part are mental factors.
Treatise: There are also three types of faculties (indriya, sense organs), namely sharp, medium, and dull. For those with sharp faculties, the skandhas are explained, because the skandhas are concise. For those with medium faculties, the āyatanas are explained, because the āyatanas are neither broad nor concise. For those with dull faculties, the dhātus are explained, because the gate of the dhātus is broad. Sentient beings have three types of faculties. First, the difference in the speed of understanding is divided into three types of faculties. Second, the difficulty of remembering is divided into three types of faculties. If the difference in understanding is used to divide the faculties into superior and inferior, then the sharp faculties are explained concisely, and the dull faculties are explained broadly. If the difference in remembering is used to divide the faculties into superior and inferior, then the dull faculties are explained concisely, and the sharp faculties are explained broadly.
Treatise: There are also three types of joy (adhimukti, conviction), up to the three of skandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus. As the text can be understood. These three types of three, the author of the treatise explains briefly, and according to their different meanings, there are countless. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says: 'The author of the sutra, what is said here is still little, namely the disciples, who have passed attention (manasikara, attention), have become familiar with practice, and are in the initial stage of practice, the difference of the three stages.' Acting with pride, clinging to what is possessed, being deluded by consciousness (vijñāna, consciousness).
依緣。三過別故 恃命．財．族而生憍逸。三病異故 由此等緣如其次第。世尊。為說蘊．處．界三。
論。何緣世尊說余心所。已下第七明蘊廢立。
論曰至貪著諸見長行釋也。文中有三。一諍根。二生死因。二次第因 此文第一因也。在家之人因樂受故起貪之諍。出家之人由倒想故能生見諍。
論 又生死法至生死輪迴。第二因也。如文可解。
論。由此二因至鄰次當辨。總結成也 正理論云。又此受．想能為愛．見二雜染法生根本故。各別顯一識住名故。依滅此二立滅定故。如是等因有多品類。
論。何故無為說在處界。已下第八有半行頌。廢立蘊也。
論曰至乃至非識。此長行釋。文中有二。一不可攝在色等蘊中。非色等故。二不可別立為第六蘊。無蘊義故 此文初也。
論。亦不可說至名無為蘊。第二無蘊義也。文中有三。一無聚義。二無依義。三蘊義息 此是第一無聚義也。
論。又言取蘊至故不立蘊。第二無依義也。
論。有說至應非蘊。第三釋。蘊義息故非蘊也。
論。彼于處界例應成失。論主破第三釋。若蘊息得無為。無為非蘊攝。處．界息故得無為。無為非處．界。故言彼于處．界例應成失 正理救云。經主難言。彼于處．界例
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 依緣。因為三種過失的差別，即依仗生命、財富、家族而產生驕慢放逸。因為三種疾病的差別，即由此等因緣，如其次第。世尊，請為我們解說蘊（skandha，積聚）、處（āyatana，處所）、界（dhātu，界限）這三者。
論。為什麼世尊要說其餘的心所（citta-caitta，心和心所）？以下第七部分闡明建立和廢除蘊的理由。
論曰至貪著諸見長行釋也。這段文字中有三個部分。一是諍論的根源，二是生死的因，三是次第的因。這段文字是第一個因。在家之人因為喜愛樂受而產生貪婪的諍論。出家之人由於顛倒的想而能產生見解上的諍論。
論 又生死法至生死輪迴。這是第二個因。如文字所表達的那樣可以理解。
論。由此二因至鄰次當辨。這是總結性的陳述。正理論說：『而且這受、想能為愛、見這兩種雜染法產生根本，各自顯示一個識住的名稱，依靠滅除這二者而建立滅盡定，像這樣的原因有很多種類。』
論。為什麼無為法（asaṃskṛta，不生不滅的法）沒有被包括在處和界中？以下第八部分有一半偈頌，說明了廢除和建立蘊的理由。
論曰至乃至非識。這是長行的解釋。這段文字中有兩個部分。一是無為法不能被攝入色等蘊中，因為它不是色等。二是無為法不能被單獨建立為第六個蘊，因為它沒有蘊的含義。這段文字是第一個部分。
論。亦不可說至名無為蘊。這是第二個部分，說明無為法沒有蘊的含義。這段文字有三個方面。一是沒有積聚的含義，二是沒有所依的含義，三是蘊的含義消失。這是第一個方面，說明無為法沒有積聚的含義。
論。又言取蘊至故不立蘊。這是第二個方面，說明無為法沒有所依的含義。
論。有說至應非蘊。這是第三個解釋，說明蘊的含義消失，所以不是蘊。
論。彼于處界例應成失。論主駁斥第三種解釋。如果蘊的含義消失就能得到無為法，那麼無為法就不是蘊所攝。處和界的含義消失也能得到無為法，那麼無為法就不是處和界。所以說，『他們對於處和界的例子應該成為過失』。正理論辯護說：經主提出疑問，『他們對於處和界的例子』
【English Translation】 English version Depending on conditions. Because of the difference in three faults, namely, arrogance and negligence arising from reliance on life, wealth, and family. Because of the difference in three diseases, namely, due to these conditions, in their respective order. World-Honored One, please explain the three: skandha (aggregates), āyatana (sense bases), and dhātu (elements).
Treatise: Why did the World-Honored One speak of the remaining citta-caitta (mind and mental factors)? The seventh section below clarifies the reasons for establishing and abolishing the skandhas.
Treatise says to clinging to views, explained in prose. This passage has three parts. First, the root of contention; second, the cause of birth and death; and third, the sequential cause. This passage is the first cause. Laypeople, because of their fondness for pleasant feelings, give rise to greedy contention. Those who have left home, due to their inverted thoughts, can generate contention in views.
Treatise: Also, the law of birth and death to the cycle of birth and death. This is the second cause. It can be understood as expressed in the text.
Treatise: From these two causes to the next to be distinguished. This is a concluding statement. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: 'Moreover, these feelings and thoughts can generate the root of the two defilements of attachment and views, each showing the name of a consciousness-abiding place, and relying on the cessation of these two to establish the cessation attainment. There are many kinds of such causes.'
Treatise: Why is the asaṃskṛta (unconditioned) not included in the āyatana and dhātu? The eighth section below has half a verse, explaining the reasons for abolishing and establishing the skandhas.
Treatise says to even non-consciousness. This is the explanation in prose. This passage has two parts. First, the asaṃskṛta cannot be included in the skandhas such as rūpa (form), because it is not rūpa, etc. Second, the asaṃskṛta cannot be separately established as the sixth skandha, because it does not have the meaning of a skandha. This passage is the first part.
Treatise: Also, it cannot be said to be named the asaṃskṛta skandha. This is the second part, explaining that the asaṃskṛta does not have the meaning of a skandha. This passage has three aspects. First, it does not have the meaning of aggregation; second, it does not have the meaning of reliance; and third, the meaning of a skandha ceases. This is the first aspect, explaining that the asaṃskṛta does not have the meaning of aggregation.
Treatise: Also, the statement 'grasping skandhas' to therefore not establishing a skandha. This is the second aspect, explaining that the asaṃskṛta does not have the meaning of reliance.
Treatise: Some say to should not be a skandha. This is the third explanation, explaining that the meaning of a skandha ceases, so it is not a skandha.
Treatise: They should become a fault in the example of the āyatana and dhātu. The author of the treatise refutes the third explanation. If the meaning of a skandha ceases, one can attain the asaṃskṛta, then the asaṃskṛta is not included in the skandhas. If the meaning of the āyatana and dhātu ceases, one can also attain the asaṃskṛta, then the asaṃskṛta is not an āyatana and dhātu. Therefore, it is said, 'They should become a fault in the example of the āyatana and dhātu.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra defends, saying: The author of the sutra raises the question, 'They should become a fault in the example of the āyatana and dhātu.'
應成失。謂處．界息。應非處．界 便違所宗 全于蘊門眾生計我。入無餘位諸蘊頓息 處．界不然。非全生故。唯取蘊起假說為生 若諸蘊息亦立為蘊。般涅槃已餘蘊應存。眾生畏蘊有多過患。應于涅槃無安穩想。非處．界中全有多過。故無餘位處．界猶隨。故蘊不應例彼成失 又此息言。意非顯斷。空．非擇滅體非斷故。此言意顯若於是處。蘊相都無名為蘊息。三無為上。聚義都無可名蘊息。非生門．族義。于彼亦無。故不應例 此釋與頌義善相符有人作俱舍釋破云。若言無為無聚義者。與我此論初解何殊 然檢三解並是婆沙師釋也 檢正理抄云。經主。謬取古師意。謂息為斷 若以斷義名息。即有空．非擇滅難。彼非斷故。亦名蘊息故。若以無聚義故名息。即不合舉處．界為例。處．界義不息故 今詳不爾。若唯斷義名息唯在擇滅。唯取蘊有息。余蘊無息無擇滅故。亦不是都無蘊相名之為息。由第三解與第一釋不合同故 今詳古師言息。息滅所顯故名為息。一切有漏法有二種息。謂斷及非擇滅。色滅兼顯虛空。有為無漏唯有非擇滅息。若以蘊息。故顯無為則蘊不攝者。十七界全．一界少分息。顯三無為。亦應無為非界攝。彼非斷故。亦名蘊息故。若以無聚義故名息。即不合舉處．界為例。處．界義不息故。應以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果說蘊（skandha，積聚）滅盡，那麼處（āyatana，感覺的場所）、界（dhātu，要素）也應該滅盡。如果說處、界不滅盡，那就違背了你自己的宗義。因為你完全是根據蘊門（skandha-dvāra，蘊的範疇）來認為眾生有『我』的。當進入無餘涅槃（nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa，沒有剩餘的涅槃）的境界時，諸蘊全部止息，但處、界卻不是這樣，因為它們並非完全產生。我們只是取蘊的生起，假說為『生』。如果說諸蘊止息也算是『蘊』，那麼般涅槃（parinirvāṇa，完全的涅槃）之後，剩餘的蘊就應該存在。眾生畏懼蘊，認為它有很多過患，所以不應該認為涅槃沒有安穩可言。處、界中並沒有完全的多重過患，所以在無餘涅槃的境界中，處、界仍然存在。因此，不應該像蘊那樣，認為處、界滅盡就會造成過失。 此外，這裡的『息』字，意思不是指斷滅。因為空（ākāśa，空間）、非擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧力而達到的滅）的本體不是斷滅。這裡的『息』字，意思是說，如果某個地方，蘊的相狀完全沒有了，就叫做『蘊息』。在三種無為法（trayo 'saṃskṛtā dharma，三種非因緣和合的法）上，積聚的意義完全沒有，所以可以叫做『蘊息』。生的門、族的意義，在那裡也沒有。所以不應該類比。 這種解釋與頌文的意義非常相符。有人作《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa，論藏）的解釋，反駁說：如果說無為法沒有積聚的意義，那和我這部論的最初解釋有什麼區別呢？然而，檢查三種解釋，都是婆沙師（Vibhāṣācārya，論師）的解釋。 檢查《正理抄》說：經主（sūtra-pati，經的作者）錯誤地採用了古師的觀點，認為『息』就是『斷』。如果用『斷』的意思來解釋『息』，就會有空、非擇滅的難題，因為它們不是斷滅。也叫做『蘊息』。如果因為沒有積聚的意義而叫做『息』，那就不應該舉處、界為例，因為處、界的意義沒有止息。 現在詳細分析一下，如果只有『斷』的意思才能叫做『息』，那就只存在於擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧力而達到的滅）中。只有取蘊有止息，其餘的蘊沒有止息，也沒有擇滅。也不是完全沒有蘊的相狀才叫做『息』，因為第三種解釋與第一種解釋不一致。 現在詳細分析一下，古師所說的『息』，是息滅所顯現的，所以叫做『息』。一切有漏法（sāsrava-dharma，有煩惱的法）有兩種止息，即斷滅和非擇滅。色滅（rūpa-nirodha，色法的滅）兼有顯現虛空（ākāśa，空間）的作用。有為無漏法（saṃskṛta-anāsrava-dharma，有為的無煩惱法）只有非擇滅的止息。如果因為蘊的止息，就顯現出無為法，那麼蘊就不攝取無為法。十七界（saptadaśa dhātu，十八界中的十七個）全部和一界（dhātu，要素）的少部分止息，顯現出三種無為法，也應該認為無為法不是界所攝。因為它們不是斷滅。也叫做『蘊息』。如果因為沒有積聚的意義而叫做『息』，那就不應該舉處、界為例，因為處、界的意義沒有止息。應該以...
【English Translation】 English version: If skandhas (aggregates) cease, then āyatanas (sense fields) and dhātus (elements) should also cease. If āyatanas and dhātus do not cease, then it contradicts your own doctrine, as you entirely rely on the skandha-dvāra (category of aggregates) to posit the 'self' of sentient beings. When entering nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa (nirvana without remainder), all skandhas completely cease, but āyatanas and dhātus are not like that, because they are not entirely produced. We merely take the arising of skandhas and conventionally call it 'birth'. If the cessation of skandhas is also considered a 'skandha', then after parinirvāṇa (complete nirvana), the remaining skandhas should exist. Sentient beings fear skandhas, considering them to have many faults, so one should not think that nirvana lacks peace. There are no complete multiple faults in āyatanas and dhātus, so in the state of nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa, āyatanas and dhātus still exist. Therefore, one should not think that the cessation of āyatanas and dhātus, like that of skandhas, would cause a fault. Furthermore, the word 'cessation' here does not mean annihilation, because the nature of ākāśa (space) and pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through wisdom) is not annihilation. The word 'cessation' here means that if in a certain place, the characteristics of skandhas are completely absent, it is called 'skandha-nirodha' (cessation of aggregates). In the three asaṃskṛtā dharmas (unconditioned dharmas), the meaning of accumulation is completely absent, so it can be called 'skandha-nirodha'. The meaning of the gate or lineage of birth is also not there. So it should not be analogized. This explanation is very consistent with the meaning of the verse. Someone made an explanation of the Abhidharmakośa (Treasury of Abhidharma), refuting: If you say that unconditioned dharmas have no meaning of accumulation, then what is the difference between that and the initial explanation of my treatise? However, checking the three explanations, they are all explanations of the Vibhāṣācāryas (commentators). Checking the Zhengli Chao says: The sūtra-pati (author of the sutra) mistakenly adopted the view of the ancient teachers, thinking that 'cessation' means 'annihilation'. If 'cessation' is explained with the meaning of 'annihilation', there will be the difficulty of ākāśa and pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, because they are not annihilation. It is also called 'skandha-nirodha'. If it is called 'cessation' because it has no meaning of accumulation, then one should not cite āyatanas and dhātus as examples, because the meaning of āyatanas and dhātus does not cease. Now, analyzing in detail, if only the meaning of 'annihilation' can be called 'cessation', then it only exists in pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through wisdom). Only the aggregates that are taken have cessation, the remaining aggregates do not have cessation, nor do they have pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. It is also not that the absence of the characteristics of aggregates is called 'cessation', because the third explanation is inconsistent with the first explanation. Now, analyzing in detail, the 'cessation' mentioned by the ancient teachers is what is manifested by cessation, so it is called 'cessation'. All sāsrava-dharmas (defiled dharmas) have two kinds of cessation, namely annihilation and non-selective cessation. Rūpa-nirodha (cessation of form) also has the function of manifesting ākāśa (space). Saṃskṛta-anāsrava-dharmas (conditioned undefiled dharmas) only have the cessation of non-selective cessation. If, because of the cessation of aggregates, unconditioned dharmas are manifested, then the aggregates do not include unconditioned dharmas. All seventeen dhātus (elements) and a small part of one dhātu cease, manifesting the three unconditioned dharmas, and it should also be considered that unconditioned dharmas are not included in the dhātus, because they are not annihilation. It is also called 'skandha-nirodha'. If it is called 'cessation' because it has no meaning of accumulation, then one should not cite āyatanas and dhātus as examples, because the meaning of āyatanas and dhātus does not cease. It should be...
空．非擇滅為難。不應處．界例蘊。若謂正理同於初解。論主此破即違初解。應更思之。
論。如是已說諸蘊廢立。已下第九一頌半。辨蘊．處．界次第。于中有二。一明蘊次第。二明處．界次第 此半頌明蘊次第。
論曰至立蘊次第。長行釋也。文中有三。一以四義辨次第。二證蘊唯五。三以次第因別立受．想二蘊 此文第一四義辨次第。四義即為四別。此即第一隨粗辨次第也。
論。或從無始至立蘊次第。第二隨染辨次第。並先果后因以為次第也。
論。或色如器至立蘊次第。第三隨器等次第也。
論。或隨界別至次第如是。第四隨界辨次第也。
論。由此五蘊無增減過。第二證蘊唯有五也。
論。即由如是至故別立蘊。第三以次第因別立受．想二蘊。
論。處界門中至次第可知。自下一頌。第二明處．界次第。
論曰至或二三四。釋頌本也。文中有五。一唯取現故先說。二唯取所造故先說。三取離境故先說。四遠速故先說。五上下次第故先說 此文第一。唯取現境故。五先說也。
論。所言四境至或二俱取。第二。唯取所造。故眼．耳．鼻．舌。先身根也。
論。余謂前四至在二先說。第三。眼．耳取離境故在鼻．舌先。
論。二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『空』（Śūnyatā，佛教中的空性概念）和『非擇滅』（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而達到的滅盡）難以理解。不應以『處』（Āyatana，感覺器官與對像）、『界』（Dhātu，構成要素）的例子來類比『蘊』（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素）。如果認為正理與最初的解釋相同，那麼論主的這種駁斥就違背了最初的解釋，應該重新思考。
論：如上已經說明了諸蘊的建立和廢除。接下來第九頌和一半頌的內容，辨析蘊、處、界的次第。其中分為兩部分：一是說明蘊的次第，二是說明處、界的次第。這半頌說明蘊的次第。
論曰：至建立蘊的次第。這是用長行文來解釋。文中包含三點：一是用四種意義來辨別次第，二是證明蘊只有五種，三是用次第的原因來分別建立受蘊和想蘊。這段文字是第一點，用四種意義來辨別次第，這四種意義就是四種區別。這裡是第一種，隨粗顯的程度來辨別次第。
論：或者從無始以來至建立蘊的次第。這是第二種，隨染污的程度來辨別次第，並且是先果后因作為次第。
論：或者色如器皿至建立蘊的次第。這是第三種，隨器皿等來辨別次第。
論：或者隨界別的不同至次第就是這樣。這是第四種，隨界別來辨別次第。
論：由此五蘊沒有增多或減少的過失。這是第二點，證明蘊只有五種。
論：正因為這樣至所以分別建立蘊。這是第三點，用次第的原因來分別建立受蘊和想蘊。
論：在處界門中至次第可以知道。下面一頌，是第二部分，說明處、界的次第。
論曰：至或者二三四。這是解釋頌文的原本含義。文中包含五點：一是隻取顯現的，所以先說；二是隻取所造的，所以先說；三是取遠離對境的，所以先說；四是遠近快慢的緣故，所以先說；五是上下次第的緣故，所以先說。這段文字是第一點，只取顯現的對境，所以五根先說。
論：所說的四境至或者兩者都取。這是第二點，只取所造的，所以眼、耳、鼻、舌在身根之前。
論：其餘認為前四至在二者之前說。這是第三點，眼、耳取遠離的對境，所以在鼻、舌之前。
論：二
【English Translation】 English version: 『Śūnyatā』 (emptiness, the Buddhist concept of emptiness) and 『Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha』 (cessation through discernment) are difficult to understand. It is inappropriate to use the examples of 『Āyatana』 (sense bases) and 『Dhātu』 (elements) to draw parallels with 『Skandha』 (aggregates). If one considers the logical reasoning to be the same as the initial explanation, then the master's refutation contradicts the initial explanation and should be reconsidered.
Treatise: As mentioned above, the establishment and abolishment of the Skandhas have been discussed. Next, the ninth verse and half a verse will analyze the order of Skandhas, Āyatanas, and Dhātus. This is divided into two parts: first, explaining the order of the Skandhas; second, explaining the order of the Āyatanas and Dhātus. This half-verse explains the order of the Skandhas.
Treatise says: To establish the order of the Skandhas. This is explained in prose. There are three points in the text: first, using four meanings to distinguish the order; second, proving that there are only five Skandhas; third, using the reason for the order to separately establish the Vedanā (feeling) and Saṃjñā (perception) Skandhas. This passage is the first point, using four meanings to distinguish the order, these four meanings are four distinctions. Here is the first, distinguishing the order according to the degree of obviousness.
Treatise: Or from beginningless time to establish the order of the Skandhas. This is the second, distinguishing the order according to the degree of defilement, and taking the order as cause after effect.
Treatise: Or Rūpa (form) is like a vessel to establish the order of the Skandhas. This is the third, distinguishing the order according to vessels, etc.
Treatise: Or according to the difference of Dhātus, the order is like this. This is the fourth, distinguishing the order according to the difference of Dhātus.
Treatise: Therefore, there is no fault of increasing or decreasing the five Skandhas. This is the second point, proving that there are only five Skandhas.
Treatise: Precisely because of this, the Skandhas are established separately. This is the third point, using the reason for the order to separately establish the Vedanā and Saṃjñā Skandhas.
Treatise: In the Āyatana and Dhātu section, the order can be known. The following verse is the second part, explaining the order of Āyatanas and Dhātus.
Treatise says: To or two, three, four. This is to explain the original meaning of the verse. There are five points in the text: first, only taking what is manifest, so it is said first; second, only taking what is created, so it is said first; third, taking what is away from the object, so it is said first; fourth, because of distance and speed, it is said first; fifth, because of the order of up and down, it is said first. This passage is the first point, only taking the manifest object, so the five roots are said first.
Treatise: The so-called four objects to or both are taken. This is the second point, only taking what is created, so the eyes, ears, nose, and tongue are before the body root.
Treatise: The rest think that the first four to are said before the two. This is the third point, the eyes and ears take the distant object, so they are before the nose and tongue.
Treatise: Two
中眼用至后聞聲故。第四遠．速故先說 文中有二。一。眼．耳。同離中知。眼遠．速故先耳說。二。鼻．舌。同閤中知。鼻速故先舌說。此第一明眼先說也。
論。鼻．舌兩根至舌後嘗味。第二明鼻速故先說也。
論。或於身中至故最後說。第五上下次第故。從上先說。意無方處故最後說 根品中雲。眼．耳．鼻根橫布齊平如冠華鬘者。就根體說。此文言上下者。據所依根相也。義不相違 然正理改頌云。前五用先起。五用．初二遠。三用．初二明。或隨處次第 長行釋云。於六根中。眼等前五。於色等境先起功用。意後方生。是故先說。如本論言。色等五境。五識先受。意識後知。為自識依及取自境。應知。俱是眼等功用 於五根中。初二用遠。境不合故。所以先說 二中。眼用復遠於耳。引事如前。是故先說 鼻等三用。初二。分明故鼻居先。舌次。身後。如鼻于香能取微細。舌于甘苦則不如是。如舌于味能取微細身於冷暖則不如是 隨處次第釋不異前 若色等境。五識先受意識後知。云何夢中能取色等。有餘師說夢中憶念先所受境。若不爾者。諸生盲人。于其夢中亦應取色 有說。夢中。非必憶念先所受境。境相現前分明取故。非於覺位憶念了別先所受境。如在夢中。色等現前分明可取。非於夢
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『中眼用至后聞聲故。第四遠．速故先說』：因為眼睛的功用在於遠處，並且速度快，所以先說眼睛。 『文中有二。一。眼．耳。同離中知。眼遠．速故先耳說。二。鼻．舌。同閤中知。鼻速故先舌說。此第一明眼先說也。』：這段文字包含兩點：第一，眼睛和耳朵都是在遠離物體的情況下感知。眼睛感知距離遠，速度快，所以先說耳朵。第二，鼻子和舌頭都是在接觸物體的情況下感知。鼻子感知速度快，所以先說舌頭。這是第一點，說明先說眼睛的原因。
『論。鼻．舌兩根至舌後嘗味。第二明鼻速故先說也。』：鼻子和舌頭這兩個根，到舌頭之後才嚐到味道。這是第二點，說明鼻子感知速度快，所以先說鼻子。
『論。或於身中至故最後說。第五上下次第故。從上先說。意無方處故最後說』：或者在身體中，所以最後說。第五，按照上下順序，從上到下先說。意（manas）沒有固定的位置，所以最後說。 『根品中雲。眼．耳．鼻根橫布齊平如冠華鬘者。就根體說。此文言上下者。據所依根相也。義不相違』：《根品》中說，眼根、耳根、鼻根橫向分佈，齊平如頭上的花鬘，這是就根的本體而言。這段文字說上下，是根據所依賴的根的形狀而言。意義上並不矛盾。 『然正理改頌云。前五用先起。五用．初二遠。三用．初二明。或隨處次第 長行釋云。於六根中。眼等前五。於色等境先起功用。意後方生。是故先說。如本論言。色等五境。五識先受。意識後知。為自識依及取自境。應知。俱是眼等功用 於五根中。初二用遠。境不合故。所以先說 二中。眼用復遠於耳。引事如前。是故先說 鼻等三用。初二。分明故鼻居先。舌次。身後。如鼻于香能取微細。舌于甘苦則不如是。如舌于味能取微細身於冷暖則不如是 隨處次第釋不異前 若色等境。五識先受意識後知。云何夢中能取色等。有餘師說夢中憶念先所受境。若不爾者。諸生盲人。于其夢中亦應取色 有說。夢中。非必憶念先所受境。境相現前分明取故。非於覺位憶念了別先所受境。如在夢中。色等現前分明可取。非於夢』：然而，《正理》修改偈頌說：『前五種根的作用先產生，五種根的作用中，前兩種根（眼、耳）感知距離遠，三種根的作用中，前兩種根（鼻、舌）感知清晰。或者按照所處的位置依次排列。』長行解釋說：在六根中，眼等前五根，對於色等境界先產生作用，意（manas）后產生，所以先說。如本論所說，色等五境，五識先接受，意識後知，作為自己意識的所依以及獲取自己的境界。應該知道，這些都是眼等根的作用。在五根中，前兩種根（眼、耳）的作用距離遠，因為不與境界接觸，所以先說。在這兩種根中，眼根的作用比耳根更遠，引用的事例如前所述，所以先說。鼻等三種根的作用中，前兩種根（鼻、舌）感知清晰，所以鼻子排在前面，舌頭其次，身體在最後。例如，鼻子對於香味能夠獲取細微的資訊，舌頭對於甘苦則不如鼻子。如同舌頭對於味道能夠獲取細微的資訊，身體對於冷暖則不如舌頭。按照所處的位置依次排列的解釋與前面相同。如果色等境界，五識先接受，意識後知，那麼在夢中如何能夠獲取色等境界？有些老師說，夢中是回憶先前所接受的境界。如果不是這樣，那麼天生的盲人，在他們的夢中也應該能夠獲取顏色。有人說，夢中，不一定回憶先前所接受的境界，因為境界的形象在眼前顯現，清晰地獲取。不像在清醒的時候回憶分辨先前所接受的境界。如同在夢中，顏色等境界在眼前顯現，清晰地可以獲取，不像在夢中。
【English Translation】 English version: '中眼用至后聞聲故。第四遠．速故先說'：Because the function of the eye is to perceive from a distance and is fast, therefore the eye is discussed first. '文中有二。一。眼．耳。同離中知。眼遠．速故先耳說。二。鼻．舌。同閤中知。鼻速故先舌說。此第一明眼先說也。'：This passage contains two points: First, both the eye and the ear perceive from a distance. The eye perceives from a greater distance and is faster, so the ear is discussed first. Second, both the nose and the tongue perceive through contact. The nose perceives faster, so the tongue is discussed first. This is the first point, explaining why the eye is discussed first.
'論。鼻．舌兩根至舌後嘗味。第二明鼻速故先說也。'：The two roots of the nose and tongue, taste is experienced after the tongue. This is the second point, explaining that the nose perceives faster, so the nose is discussed first.
'論。或於身中至故最後說。第五上下次第故。從上先說。意無方處故最後說'：Or in the body, so it is discussed last. Fifth, according to the order from top to bottom, starting from the top. Manas (意) has no fixed location, so it is discussed last. '根品中雲。眼．耳．鼻根橫布齊平如冠華鬘者。就根體說。此文言上下者。據所依根相也。義不相違'：The Root Chapter says that the eye, ear, and nose roots are arranged horizontally and evenly like a garland on the head, which refers to the essence of the roots. This passage speaks of up and down, which refers to the appearance of the roots on which they rely. The meanings are not contradictory. '然正理改頌云。前五用先起。五用．初二遠。三用．初二明。或隨處次第 長行釋云。於六根中。眼等前五。於色等境先起功用。意後方生。是故先說。如本論言。色等五境。五識先受。意識後知。為自識依及取自境。應知。俱是眼等功用 於五根中。初二用遠。境不合故。所以先說 二中。眼用復遠於耳。引事如前。是故先說 鼻等三用。初二。分明故鼻居先。舌次。身後。如鼻于香能取微細。舌于甘苦則不如是。如舌于味能取微細身於冷暖則不如是 隨處次第釋不異前 若色等境。五識先受意識後知。云何夢中能取色等。有餘師說夢中憶念先所受境。若不爾者。諸生盲人。于其夢中亦應取色 有說。夢中。非必憶念先所受境。境相現前分明取故。非於覺位憶念了別先所受境。如在夢中。色等現前分明可取。非於夢'：However, the Nyaya Sutra revised the verse, saying: 'The first five senses arise first. Among the five senses, the first two (eye and ear) perceive from a distance. Among the three senses, the first two (nose and tongue) perceive clearly. Or, they are arranged according to their location.' The prose explanation says: Among the six senses, the first five, such as the eye, first produce function in relation to objects such as color. Manas (意) arises later, so they are discussed first. As this treatise says, the five objects such as color are first received by the five consciousnesses, and then known by the mind, as the basis for one's own consciousness and for grasping one's own objects. It should be known that these are all functions of the eye and other senses. Among the five senses, the first two (eye and ear) function from a distance, because they do not come into contact with the object, so they are discussed first. Among these two, the function of the eye is farther than that of the ear, as mentioned earlier, so it is discussed first. Among the three senses of the nose, etc., the first two (nose and tongue) perceive clearly, so the nose comes first, then the tongue, and then the body. For example, the nose can perceive subtle information about fragrance, but the tongue is not as good at perceiving sweet and bitter. Just as the tongue can perceive subtle information about taste, but the body is not as good at perceiving cold and warmth. The explanation of arranging them according to their location is the same as before. If objects such as color are first received by the five consciousnesses and then known by the mind, how can one grasp objects such as color in dreams? Some teachers say that in dreams, one recalls the objects previously received. If this were not the case, then people born blind should also be able to grasp colors in their dreams. Some say that in dreams, it is not necessarily a recollection of previously received objects, because the appearance of the object is clearly grasped in front of one. It is not like recalling and distinguishing previously received objects in the waking state. Just as in dreams, objects such as color appear clearly and can be grasped, unlike in dreams.
位憶昔境時。有殊勝德。過於覺位。由此。憶念先所受境明瞭現前。勝於覺位。是故夢中能取非昔所受色等。然于夢位。有時亦能憶昔境者。此非實夢。不能分明取境相故 若爾。生盲何緣。夢位不能取色 誰言。生盲于其夢位不能取色。若謂夢中必定憶念先所受境。非先未受。應信。生盲。夢中取色。昔餘生中曾見色故。又于夢中非唯夢見曾所受事。如余處說。是故生盲夢亦應爾。而本論言色等五境。五識先受。意後知者據容有說。非必定然。如是所言。於色等境。眼等先用意後生者。亦非必定。眼等五識展轉互為等無間緣。本論說故。此中且約非夢散位受了色等次第而說。由此已釋。定所取色。住空閑者咸作是言。定中青等。是有見色。不可說言此色定是眼識曾受。異類色相於此定中分明現故。此定境色。是定所生大種所造。清潔分明無所障礙。如空界色 婆沙七十三。複次隨順粗細次第法故。謂六內處眼處最粗。是故先說。意處最細。是故后說。
論。何緣十處至立法處名。自下第十一頌廢立色處。及法處名。
論曰至不總為一。釋頌本也。文中有二。一釋色處。二釋法處 就釋色處中。一釋分十差別。二釋最勝。三順世立名 此釋分十差別 為令了知境者。謂五境 有境者。謂五根 即五境．五
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：當回憶過去經歷時，存在一種殊勝的功德，超過了清醒時的狀態。因此，回憶先前所經歷的境界會清晰地呈現在眼前，勝過清醒時的狀態。所以，在夢中能夠獲取並非過去所經歷的顏色等事物。然而，在夢境中，有時也能回憶起過去的經歷，但這並非真實的夢境，因為不能清晰地獲取境界的相狀。如果這樣，那麼天生盲人為何在夢中不能獲取顏色呢？誰說天生盲人在夢中不能獲取顏色？如果說夢中必定回憶先前所經歷的境界，而非先前未經歷的，那麼應該相信天生盲人在夢中能夠獲取顏色，因為他們在過去的其他生命中曾經見過顏色。而且，在夢中不僅僅夢見曾經經歷過的事情，正如其他地方所說。因此，天生盲人的夢也應該是這樣。而本論所說的顏色等五種境界，是五識首先感受，意識隨後知曉，這是根據可能的情況而說的，並非必定如此。像這樣所說的，對於顏色等境界，是眼等首先作用，意識隨後產生，也並非必定如此。眼等五識可以相互作為等無間緣，本論中這樣說。這裡且就非夢境的散亂狀態下，感受顏色等的次第而說。由此已經解釋了，對於禪定中所獲取的顏色，住在空閑地方的人都說，禪定中的青色等，是有可見的顏色。不能說這種顏色一定是眼識曾經感受過的，因為不同的顏色相狀在這種禪定中清晰地顯現。這種禪定境界中的顏色，是禪定所產生的大種所造，清潔分明，沒有任何障礙，如同空界中的顏色。《婆沙論》第七十三卷說，其次是隨順粗細的次第法，即六內處中，眼處最粗，所以先說。意處最細，所以後說。 論：為何十處到立法處才廢除色處和法處的名稱？自下第十一頌廢立色處。 論曰：到不總為一。解釋頌文的根本。文中有二：一、解釋色處；二、解釋法處。就解釋色處中，一、解釋分為十種差別；二、解釋最殊勝；三、順應世俗而立名。這裡解釋分為十種差別：爲了讓人瞭解境者，即五境；有境者，即五根，即五境、五根。
【English Translation】 English version: When recalling past experiences, there exists a special merit that surpasses the state of being awake. Therefore, recalling previously experienced realms appears clearly before one's eyes, surpassing the state of wakefulness. Thus, in dreams, one can grasp colors and other things not previously experienced. However, in the dream state, sometimes one can also recall past experiences, but this is not a true dream because one cannot clearly grasp the characteristics of the realm. If so, why can't a person born blind grasp colors in dreams? Who says that a person born blind cannot grasp colors in dreams? If it is said that in dreams one must recall previously experienced realms, and not those not previously experienced, then it should be believed that a person born blind can grasp colors in dreams because they have seen colors in other past lives. Moreover, in dreams, one does not only dream of things that have been experienced, as it is said elsewhere. Therefore, the dreams of a person born blind should also be like this. And what this treatise says about colors and the five realms being first sensed by the five consciousnesses and then known by the mind is said according to possible situations, and is not necessarily so. What is said in this way, that for realms such as colors, the eyes and other senses act first and the mind arises later, is also not necessarily so. The five consciousnesses of the eyes and other senses can mutually serve as immediately preceding conditions, as this treatise says. Here, it is said in terms of the order of experiencing colors and other things in a non-dreaming, scattered state of mind. From this, it has been explained that for the colors grasped in meditation, those who live in secluded places all say that the blue colors and others in meditation are visible colors. It cannot be said that these colors must have been previously sensed by the eye consciousness because different characteristics of colors clearly appear in this meditation. The colors in this meditative realm are created by the great elements produced by meditation, and are clean, clear, and without any obstruction, like the colors in the space realm. The seventy-third fascicle of the Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣāśāstra says that next is the Dharma of following the order of coarse and fine, that is, among the six internal sense bases, the eye base is the coarsest, so it is mentioned first. The mind base is the finest, so it is mentioned last. Treatise: Why are the names of the color base (rūpāyatana) and the Dharma base (dharmāyatana) abolished from the ten bases to the establishment of the Dharma base? From the eleventh verse onwards, the color base is established and abolished. Treatise says: 'Until they are not collectively one.' This explains the root of the verse. There are two parts in the text: first, explaining the color base; second, explaining the Dharma base. Regarding the explanation of the color base, first, explaining the ten kinds of differences; second, explaining the most excellent; third, establishing names in accordance with worldly customs. Here, the ten kinds of differences are explained: In order to make people understand the experiencer of the realm, that is, the five realms (pañcaviṣaya); the one who has the realm, that is, the five roots (pañcendriya), that is, the five realms and the five roots.
根為十色處。
論。若無眼等至而即別名。釋為眼等別故。雖標色總稱。即十處中一處別名。
論。又諸色中至在彼差別。第二釋色處勝故立通名也 由有對故。及有見故。具此二義名之為勝。手等觸時。即便變壞釋有對也 可示在此在彼差別。釋有見也。自餘九處唯是有對不是有見。非是勝故不得通名。
論。又諸世間至非於眼等。第三順世立名也。
論。又為差別至如色應知。第二釋法處也。
文中有三釋。一為差別。二攝多法。三攝增上法 此初釋也。此如釋色處。雖標總稱。即是別名。
論。又於此中至應立通名。第二攝多法故。
論。又增上法至獨名為法。第三攝增上法故。
論。有餘師說至獨立法名。此是雜心釋也。
論。諸契經中有餘種種。已下第十一有四行頌。攝諸經中異名蘊．處．界也。第一頌攝諸經法蘊。第二頌辨法蘊量。第三頌攝余經中諸蘊．處．界。第四頌因論生論。釋經中六界 此頌第一攝經蘊也。頌前問答。如文可了。
論曰至皆行蘊攝釋頌文也。諸論多作兩釋。然婆沙以聲為體正。婆沙一百二十六云。問如是佛教以何為體。為是語業。為是名等。答應作是說。語業為體 問若爾次後所說。當云何通。如說佛教名何法。
答謂名身．句身．文身。乃至次第連合 答後文為顯佛教作用不欲顯示佛教自體。謂次第行列安布連合。名．句．文身是佛教用 有說。佛教名等為體 問若爾此中所說當云何通。如說佛教云何。謂佛語言乃至語表。是謂佛教 答依展轉因故作是說如世子孫展轉生法。謂語起名名能顯義 如是說者。語業為體。佛意所說他所聞故 又云。問何故佛教唯是語表非無表耶。答生他正解故名佛教。他正解生但由表業。非無表故(廣如彼釋) 又云。佛教當言善耶。無記耶。答或善．或無記 云何善。謂佛善心所發語言乃至語表 云何無記。謂佛無記心所發語言。乃至語表 問于佛教中何者善。何者無記。答阿毗達磨素怛纜藏多分是善。毗奈耶藏多分無記。如世尊說門應關閉。衣缽應置竹架．龍牙。如是等言皆無記故 有說。佛教若為所化說應知是善若為餘事說是則無記。如世尊告阿難陀。言汝往觀天為雨。不雨。園中何為高聲．大聲。如是等言皆是無記。
論。此諸法蘊其量云何。自下第二一頌辨法蘊量。
論曰至法蘊足說。此釋頌本。有三師說。此第一師云。佛教有八萬部。一一部量有六千頌。如法蘊足論。準此論文。即是六足中法蘊足論。此就文．句定量 若真諦釋云。有餘師說。有一分阿毗達磨名法陰。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：什麼是名身（nāma-kāya，名稱的集合）、句身（vākya-kāya，語句的集合）、文身（vyañjana-kāya，文字的集合），乃至次第連合？ 答：後面的經文是爲了顯示佛教的作用，而不是要顯示佛教的本體。所謂次第行列安布連合，名身、句身、文身是佛教的作用。 有種說法認為，佛教以名等為本體。 問：如果這樣，這裡所說的應該如何解釋呢？比如所說佛教是什麼？是指佛的語言乃至語表（vac-vijñapti，通過語言表達出來的行為）。這就是所謂的佛教。 答：這是依據輾轉相因的緣故這樣說的，就像世間的子孫輾轉相生一樣。所謂語言產生名稱，名稱能夠顯明意義。 這樣說的人認為，語業（vak-karma，語言行為）是佛教的本體，因為是佛的意念所說，他人所聽聞的緣故。 又有人說：問：為什麼佛教唯獨是語表，而不是無表（avijñapti，無法表達的行為）呢？答：因為能使他人產生正確的理解，所以稱為佛教。他人正確的理解產生，僅僅是由於表業，而不是無表業（詳細的解釋見相關論著）。 又有人說：佛教應該說是善（kuśala，好的，有益的）呢，還是無記（avyākṛta，非善非惡的）呢？答：或者善，或者無記。 什麼是善？是指佛以善心所發出的語言乃至語表。 什麼又是無記？是指佛以無記心所發出的語言乃至語表。 問：在佛教中，什麼是善，什麼又是無記？答：阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）、素怛纜藏（Sūtrānta，經藏）大部分是善，毗奈耶藏（Vinaya，律藏）大部分是無記。比如世尊說門應該關閉，衣缽應該放置在竹架、龍牙上，像這樣的言語都是無記。 有種說法認為，佛教如果是為所化之人（vineya-jana，被教化的人）所說，就應當知道是善；如果是爲了其他事情所說，那就是無記。比如世尊告訴阿難陀（Ānanda，佛陀的十大弟子之一），說你去看天是否下雨，園中為何有高聲大聲，像這樣的言語都是無記。
論：這些法蘊（dharma-skandha，法的集合）的量有多少呢？下面第二頌辨說法蘊的量。
論曰至法蘊足說。這是解釋頌的原本。有三位論師的說法。這是第一位論師的說法：佛教有八萬部，每一部有六千頌，如法蘊足論（Dharma-skandha-pāda，法蘊足論）。根據這篇論文，就是六足論（ṣaṭ-pāda-abhidharma，六足論）中的法蘊足論。這是就文、句來定量。 如果真諦（Paramārtha，南朝時期翻譯家）解釋說：有其他論師認為，有一部分阿毗達磨名為法陰（dharma-skandha，法的集合）。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What are nāma-kāya (collection of names), vākya-kāya (collection of sentences), vyañjana-kāya (collection of letters), and their sequential combinations? Answer: The subsequent text aims to reveal the function of Buddhism, not to display the essence of Buddhism itself. The so-called sequential arrangement and combination, nāma-kāya, vākya-kāya, and vyañjana-kāya are the functions of Buddhism. Some say that Buddhism takes names, etc., as its essence. Question: If so, how should what is said here be explained? For example, what is meant by saying 'Buddhism'? It refers to the Buddha's speech and even vac-vijñapti (expression through language). This is what is called Buddhism. Answer: This is said based on the cause of interdependent origination, just like the successive generations of descendants in the world. The so-called language produces names, and names can reveal meaning. Those who say this believe that vak-karma (speech act) is the essence of Buddhism because it is spoken by the Buddha's intention and heard by others. Furthermore, some say: Question: Why is Buddhism only vac-vijñapti and not avijñapti (non-expression)? Answer: Because it can cause others to generate correct understanding, it is called Buddhism. The generation of correct understanding in others is solely due to expression, not non-expression (see relevant treatises for detailed explanations). Furthermore, some say: Should Buddhism be said to be kuśala (wholesome, beneficial) or avyākṛta (neither wholesome nor unwholesome)? Answer: Either wholesome or unwholesome. What is wholesome? It refers to the language and even expression emitted by the Buddha with a wholesome mind. What is unwholesome? It refers to the language and even expression emitted by the Buddha with an unwholesome mind. Question: In Buddhism, what is wholesome and what is unwholesome? Answer: The Abhidharma (collection of treatises), and Sūtrānta (collection of sutras) are mostly wholesome, while the Vinaya (collection of monastic rules) is mostly unwholesome. For example, when the World-Honored One said that the door should be closed, and the robes and bowl should be placed on the bamboo rack or dragon tooth, such words are all unwholesome. Some say that if Buddhism is spoken for the vineya-jana (those to be taught), it should be known as wholesome; if it is spoken for other matters, then it is unwholesome. For example, when the World-Honored One told Ānanda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) to go and see if it was raining and why there was loud noise in the garden, such words are all unwholesome.
Treatise: What is the measure of these dharma-skandha (aggregates of dharma)? The second verse below explains the measure of dharma-skandha.
The treatise says up to Dharma-skandha-pāda. This explains the original verse. There are three masters' explanations. This is the first master's explanation: Buddhism has 80,000 sections, and each section has 6,000 verses, such as the Dharma-skandha-pāda. According to this paper, it is the Dharma-skandha-pāda in the ṣaṭ-pāda-abhidharma (six-footed Abhidharma). This is to quantify in terms of sentences and words. If Paramārtha (translator during the Southern Dynasties) explains it, other masters believe that a portion of the Abhidharma is called dharma-skandha (aggregate of dharma).
其量有六千偈。八十千中。一一法陰其量皆爾者。佛阿毗達磨藏。有九分。九分者。一法陰。二分別惑。三分別世。四分別因。五成立界。六名聚。七到得。八業相。九定相 九分中有一分名法陰。有六千偈。余分多少無不皆爾。八萬法陰中。一一法陰。各有六千偈。故舉九分中法陰分有六千偈。是八萬中之一數也 詳其此釋與論不同。九分中法陰非法蘊足故。
論。或說法蘊至名一法蘊。此第二師說。一一教門名一法蘊。如是教門有八萬別。謂蘊．處等。如文可解。
論如是說者至八萬法蘊。此第三論主評云。如是說者。以病有八萬故。說能對治法有八萬也 正理二解同前 第三解云。如是說者。所化有情有貪．瞋．癡．我慢．身見．及尋思等八萬行別。為對治彼八萬行故。世尊宣說八萬法蘊。謂說不凈．慈悲．緣起．無常想．空．持息念等諸對治門。此即順顯隨蘊等言。無蘊等言不為對治有情病行。唐捐而說 準此論文。論第三釋。即與第二釋無別 然八萬者舉其大數。此即是八萬四千法蘊也 真諦師云。諸師實判如此。眾生有八萬煩惱行類。謂欲．瞋．癡．慢慢等差別故。為對治此行。世尊正說八萬法陰者 由眾生煩惱行。有八萬。佛為對治眾生八萬煩惱故說八萬法門。如此道理判法門量。故言實
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 其數量有六千頌（偈：佛經中的詩歌體裁）。在八萬個法蘊（法蘊：佛教術語，指佛法的集合）中，每一個法蘊的數量都是這樣。佛陀的阿毗達磨藏（阿毗達磨藏：佛教經藏的一部分，主要討論佛教的哲學和心理學）有九部分。這九部分是：一、法蘊；二、分別惑（分別惑：區分各種迷惑）；三、分別世（分別世：區分世間）；四、分別因（分別因：區分各種因緣）；五、成立界（成立界：建立各種界限）；六、名聚（名聚：名稱的集合）；七、到得（到得：獲得成就）；八、業相（業相：業力的表現）；九、定相（定相：禪定的狀態）。這九部分中，有一部分名為法蘊，有六千頌。其餘部分的數量也大致如此。在八萬個法蘊中，每一個法蘊各有六千頌。所以，舉出九部分中的法蘊部分有六千頌，是八萬中的一個數字。 詳細考察這個解釋，與論典的說法不同。九部分中的法蘊並非法蘊足（法蘊足：阿毗達磨論書名）所包含的內容。
論典中說：或者說法蘊乃至名為一法蘊。這是第二位論師的說法。每一個教門（教門：佛教的教義和修行方法）稱為一個法蘊。像這樣的教門有八萬種差別，例如蘊（蘊：構成人身的五種要素）、處（處：感覺器官和感覺對像）等等。如經文的字面意思就可以理解。
論典這樣說：乃至八萬法蘊。這是第三位論主的評論：這樣說，是因為眾生有八萬種病，所以佛陀宣說能對治這些病的法有八萬種。正理（正理：指正確的道理）的兩種解釋與前面的相同。第三種解釋說：這樣說，是因為所教化的眾生有貪（貪：貪婪）、嗔（嗔：嗔恨）、癡（癡：愚癡）、我慢（我慢：驕傲自大）、身見（身見：認為身體是真實的）以及尋思（尋思：胡思亂想）等八萬種行為差別。爲了對治這八萬種行為，世尊宣說了八萬法蘊，即宣說了不凈觀（不凈觀：觀察身體不潔凈的修行方法）、慈悲觀（慈悲觀：培養慈愛和悲憫之心的修行方法）、緣起觀（緣起觀：觀察事物之間相互依存關係的修行方法）、無常想（無常想：思考事物無常變化的修行方法）、空觀（空觀：觀察事物空性的修行方法）、持息念（持息念：專注于呼吸的修行方法）等各種對治法門。這正是順應了隨蘊等言的說法。沒有蘊等言，就不能對治有情（有情：有情感的眾生）的病行，白白地說。 根據這段論文，論典的第三種解釋與第二種解釋沒有區別。然而，八萬只是一個大概的數字。這實際上是八萬四千法蘊。真諦（真諦：佛教翻譯家）法師說：諸位論師實際上是這樣判定的。眾生有八萬種煩惱行為，即欲（欲：慾望）、嗔、癡、慢（慢：傲慢）等等的差別。爲了對治這些行為，世尊正確地宣說了八萬法蘊。由於眾生的煩惱行為有八萬種，佛陀爲了對治眾生的八萬種煩惱，所以宣說了八萬種法門。用這樣的道理來判斷法門的數量，所以說是真實的。
【English Translation】 English version Its quantity is six thousand Gathas (Gatha: a verse in Buddhist scriptures). Among the eighty thousand Dharma Skandhas (Dharma Skandha: a collection of Buddhist teachings), each Dharma Skandha has the same quantity. The Buddha's Abhidharma Pitaka (Abhidharma Pitaka: a part of the Buddhist canon, mainly discussing Buddhist philosophy and psychology) has nine parts. These nine parts are: 1. Dharma Skandha; 2. Discrimination of Delusions; 3. Discrimination of Worlds; 4. Discrimination of Causes; 5. Establishment of Realms; 6. Collection of Names; 7. Attainment; 8. Aspects of Karma; 9. Aspects of Samadhi (meditative concentration). Among these nine parts, one part is called Dharma Skandha, which has six thousand Gathas. The quantity of the remaining parts is roughly the same. Among the eighty thousand Dharma Skandhas, each Dharma Skandha has six thousand Gathas. Therefore, citing the Dharma Skandha part of the nine parts as having six thousand Gathas is one number among the eighty thousand. Examining this explanation in detail, it differs from the statements in the treatises. The Dharma Skandha in the nine parts is not what is contained in the Dharma Skandha Pada (Dharma Skandha Pada: name of an Abhidharma treatise).
The treatise says: Or saying Dharma Skandha up to calling it one Dharma Skandha. This is the statement of the second teacher. Each teaching gate (teaching gate: Buddhist doctrines and practices) is called one Dharma Skandha. There are eighty thousand differences in such teaching gates, such as Skandhas (Skandha: the five aggregates that constitute a person), Ayatanas (Ayatana: sense organs and sense objects), etc. It can be understood as the literal meaning of the text.
The treatise says: Thus saying up to eighty thousand Dharma Skandhas. This is the comment of the third treatise master: Saying this is because sentient beings have eighty thousand diseases, so the Buddha proclaimed that there are eighty thousand dharmas that can cure these diseases. The two explanations of Right Reason (Right Reason: refers to correct reasoning) are the same as before. The third explanation says: Saying this is because the sentient beings to be taught have eighty thousand different behaviors such as greed (greed: greed), hatred (hatred: hatred), delusion (delusion: ignorance), arrogance (arrogance: pride), self-view (self-view: considering the body to be real), and discursive thought (discursive thought: random thoughts). In order to counteract these eighty thousand behaviors, the World Honored One proclaimed eighty thousand Dharma Skandhas, that is, proclaimed various antidotal methods such as impurity contemplation (impurity contemplation: a practice of observing the body as impure), loving-kindness and compassion contemplation (loving-kindness and compassion contemplation: a practice of cultivating loving-kindness and compassion), dependent origination contemplation (dependent origination contemplation: a practice of observing the interdependent relationship between things), impermanence thought (impermanence thought: a practice of contemplating the impermanent changes of things), emptiness contemplation (emptiness contemplation: a practice of observing the emptiness of things), mindfulness of breathing (mindfulness of breathing: a practice of focusing on the breath), etc. This is precisely in accordance with the saying of following the Skandhas, etc. Without the saying of Skandhas, etc., it would not be possible to counteract the diseases and behaviors of sentient beings, and it would be said in vain. According to this thesis, there is no difference between the third explanation of the treatise and the second explanation. However, eighty thousand is just an approximate number. This is actually eighty-four thousand Dharma Skandhas. The Dharma Master Paramartha (Paramartha: a Buddhist translator) said: The masters actually judged it this way. Sentient beings have eighty thousand kinds of afflictive behaviors, that is, differences in desire (desire: desire), hatred, delusion, pride, etc. In order to counteract these behaviors, the World Honored One correctly proclaimed eighty thousand Dharma Skandhas. Because sentient beings have eighty thousand kinds of afflictive behaviors, the Buddha proclaimed eighty thousand Dharma gates in order to counteract the eighty thousand afflictions of sentient beings. Using this reasoning to judge the quantity of Dharma gates, therefore it is said to be true.
判 經部亦同此解 相傳云。真諦師解。分十隨眠為十。一．一。各有九隨眠為方便。一．一具十即成一百。一百各有前分．後分。並本成三百。置本一百就前後二百中。一．一。以九隨眠為方便。並本二百合成二千。兼本一百為二千一百。又約多貪．多瞋．思覺．愚癡．著我五。品品有二千百。成一萬五百。已起有一萬五百。未起一萬五百。合二萬一千。又以三毒等分四人。各有二萬一千。合成八萬四千。此釋與正理意不同也 檢真諦俱舍疏無文又依賢劫經。三百五十度。各有六波羅蜜乘成二千一百。對四大．六衰。各有二千一百。成二萬一千。貪．瞋．癡．等分。各直有二萬一千乘成八萬四千。此釋與此論．正理不同。智度論云。貪．瞋．癡．等分。此四人各有二萬一千病行。各有八萬四千法蘊 已上論文。一一法蘊有別．通。故與此不同 問八萬法蘊。合有幾萬億頌。答。此間演算法有上．中．下。下法十萬曰億。中者百萬曰億。上者萬萬曰億。若依智論千萬曰億。若如此方則十萬為億 一法蘊有六千頌。十法蘊有六萬頌。百法蘊有六十萬頌。千法蘊有六百萬頌。萬法蘊有六千萬頌。如是即一萬法蘊。有六百億頌。八萬法蘊有四十八百億頌 問智論說三藏唯有三十萬頌。何故此說過多 答。毗曇。據佛．在時。法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 判：經部也同樣如此解釋。相傳云：真諦（Paramārtha）法師解釋說，將十隨眠（daśa-anuśaya，十種潛在的煩惱）分為十個，每一個都各有九個隨眠作為方便，每一個都具備十個，就成為一百個。一百個各有前分、後分，加上根本的一百個，成為三百個。將根本的一百個放在一邊，在前後二百個中，每一個都以九個隨眠作為方便，加上根本的二百個，合成二千個。兼併根本的一百個，成為二千一百個。又根據多貪、多瞋、思覺、愚癡、著我五種，每一種都有二千一百個，成為一萬零五百個。已生起有一萬零五百個，未生起有一萬零五百個，合計二萬一千個。又以三毒（貪、瞋、癡）等分四種人，每一種人各有二萬一千個，合計八萬四千個。這種解釋與《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）的意義不同。 檢查真諦的《俱舍論疏》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）沒有這段文字。又依據《賢劫經》，三百五十度，每一種都有六波羅蜜（ṣaṭ-pāramitā，六種達到彼岸的方法）相乘，成為二千一百個。對應四大、六衰，每一種都有二千一百個，成為二萬一千個。貪、瞋、癡、等分，每一種都直接有二萬一千乘，成為八萬四千個。這種解釋與此論、《阿毗達磨順正理論》不同。《大智度論》（Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa）說，貪、瞋、癡、等分，這四種人每一種人各有二萬一千種病行，各有八萬四千法蘊（dharma-skandha，佛法的集合）。 以上論文，每一個法蘊有別、通，所以與此不同。 問：八萬法蘊，合共有幾萬億頌（śloka，詩頌）？ 答：此間演算法有上、中、下。下法是十萬為億，中法是百萬為億，上法是萬萬為億。如果依據《大智度論》，是千萬為億。如果按照此方，則是十萬為億。一個法蘊有六千頌，十個法蘊有六萬頌，一百個法蘊有六十萬頌，一千個法蘊有六百萬頌，一萬個法蘊有六千萬頌。這樣，一萬個法蘊就有六百億頌，八萬個法蘊有四千八百億頌。 問：《大智度論》說三藏（tripiṭaka，佛教經典的總稱）只有三十萬頌，為什麼這裡說得這麼多？ 答：《阿毗達磨》，是根據佛陀在世時所說的法。
【English Translation】 English version: Explanation: The Sautrāntika school also interprets it in the same way. Tradition says: The Dharma Master Paramārtha explained that the ten anuśayas (daśa-anuśaya, ten latent afflictions) are divided into ten, each with nine anuśayas as a means. Each possesses ten, making a hundred. Each of the hundred has a prior and a posterior part, plus the original hundred, making three hundred. Setting aside the original hundred, in the prior and posterior two hundred, each uses the nine anuśayas as a means, adding the original two hundred to form two thousand. Combining with the original hundred, it becomes two thousand one hundred. Furthermore, based on the five types of excessive greed, excessive anger, thinking, ignorance, and attachment to self, each type has two thousand one hundred, making ten thousand five hundred. There are ten thousand five hundred that have already arisen, and ten thousand five hundred that have not yet arisen, totaling twenty-one thousand. Moreover, dividing the three poisons (greed, anger, and delusion) equally among four types of people, each type has twenty-one thousand, totaling eighty-four thousand. This explanation differs from the meaning of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya). Checking Paramārtha's commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya), there is no such passage. Furthermore, according to the Bhadrakalpika Sūtra, each of the three hundred and fifty degrees is multiplied by the six pāramitās (ṣaṭ-pāramitā, six perfections), resulting in two thousand one hundred. Corresponding to the four great elements and the six declines, each has two thousand one hundred, resulting in twenty-one thousand. Greed, anger, delusion, and equanimity each directly have twenty-one thousand multiplications, resulting in eighty-four thousand. This explanation differs from this treatise and the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa) states that greed, anger, delusion, and equanimity, each of these four types of people has twenty-one thousand types of diseased conduct, and each has eighty-four thousand dharma-skandhas (dharma-skandha, aggregates of teachings). The above treatises differ because each dharma-skandha has distinct and common aspects. Question: How many hundreds of millions of ślokas (śloka, verses) are there in total in the eighty-four thousand dharma-skandhas? Answer: The calculation here has upper, middle, and lower methods. The lower method is one hundred thousand is a hundred million, the middle method is one million is a hundred million, and the upper method is ten thousand times ten thousand is a hundred million. According to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, ten million is a hundred million. If according to this region, then one hundred thousand is a hundred million. One dharma-skandha has six thousand ślokas, ten dharma-skandhas have sixty thousand ślokas, one hundred dharma-skandhas have six hundred thousand ślokas, one thousand dharma-skandhas have six million ślokas, and ten thousand dharma-skandhas have sixty million ślokas. Thus, ten thousand dharma-skandhas have six hundred billion ślokas, and eighty thousand dharma-skandhas have four thousand eight hundred billion ślokas. Question: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says that the Tripiṭaka (tripiṭaka, the collection of Buddhist scriptures) only has three hundred thousand ślokas, why is it said to be so much here? Answer: The Abhidharma is based on the teachings spoken by the Buddha when he was alive.
未滅沒故多。智論。據佛滅后隨人滅沒。故少。故智論說佛經根本無量。佛涅槃后。諸惡邪見王。已出焚燒經書。破壞寺塔。害諸沙門。五百歲後像法不凈。諸阿羅漢．神通菩薩難可得見。故諸深經不盡在閻浮。行者受者少故。諸龍神持去。付法藏云。商那和修。既滅度。七萬七千本生經。一萬阿毗曇。八萬清凈毗尼悉皆隨滅。此即明證 婆沙云瞿沙。解云。五十萬五千五百五十頌是一法蘊量 案此解計。頌數更多。言八萬法蘊者。但就聲聞教中為語耳。緣覺及菩薩即多故。菩薩藏經無量義經云。聲聞八萬．緣覺九萬．菩薩十億 悲華經云。聲聞有八萬四千法聚。緣覺有九萬法聚大乘法藏有十億法聚 諸說不同 其實法蘊有無量。各據一說。故不相違。如華嚴．隨機說四諦不同。有十萬等。
論。如彼所說至二蘊所攝。謂色．行蘊也。
論。如是余處至類亦應。然自下第三一行頌。釋經異名．蘊．處．界也。
論曰至一一自相。總釋頌也。謂經中說前色等五蘊．眼等十二處．及眼等十八界。更有異名蘊．處．界。皆攝在前所說中。
論且諸經中至此行蘊攝。此第一辨攝余蘊。此即戒等五蘊 婆沙三十三出戒等五蘊體云。云何無學戒蘊答無學身．語律儀 云何無學定蘊。答無學三三摩地 云何
無學慧蘊答無學正見智 云何無學解脫蘊。答無學作意相應心。已勝解．今勝解．當勝解。謂盡．無生無學正見相應勝解 于境自在立解脫名。非謂離系 云何無學智見蘊．答盡智．無生智 問何故此二智名解脫智見蘊。答解脫身中獨有此故。最能審決解脫事故 無學慧蘊與解脫智見蘊有何差別。答無學苦．集智是無學慧蘊。緣繫縛法故。無學滅。道智。是無學解脫智見蘊。緣解脫法故 複次。無學苦．集．滅智。是無學慧蘊。此緣有漏．無為解脫。不緣緣解脫無漏智故。無學道智。是無學解脫智見蘊。此緣無漏有為解脫。亦緣緣解脫無漏智故 複次。無學苦．集．道智。是無學慧蘊。不緣離系法故。無學滅智。是無學解脫智見蘊緣離系法故 是謂差別者是謂世俗粗相差別 若說勝義真實差別。應如前說。謂無學正見智。是無學慧蘊盡無生智是無學解脫智見蘊。
論。又諸經說至法處所攝。此第二攝異名處也。文初有三。一十遍處。二八勝處。三四無色處 此中文意。大分可知。
論。五解脫處至法處所攝。第二攝五解脫處也 言五解脫處者。一聞佛等說法得解脫。二因自讀誦得解脫。三為他說法得解脫。四靜處思惟得解脫。五善取定相得解脫。解脫謂涅槃 因此五種得解脫故名解脫處 此即略依集異門
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無學慧蘊回答無學正見智：什麼是無學解脫蘊？回答：與無學作意相應的心。已經勝解、現在勝解、將來勝解。指的是盡智（Kshaya-jnana，知諸漏已盡之智）、無生智（Anutpada-jnana，知未來諸漏不生之智）與無學正見相應的勝解，對於境界的自在，就立名為解脫。並非指遠離繫縛。 什麼是無學智見蘊？回答：盡智、無生智。問：為什麼這兩個智被稱為解脫智見蘊？回答：因為在解脫之身中唯獨有這兩種智慧，並且最能審慎決斷解脫之事。 無學慧蘊與解脫智見蘊有什麼差別？回答：無學苦智、集智是無學慧蘊，因為它們所緣的是繫縛之法。無學滅智、道智是無學解脫智見蘊，因為它們所緣的是解脫之法。 進一步說，無學苦智、集智、滅智是無學慧蘊，因為它們所緣的是有漏法、無為解脫，不緣于緣解脫的無漏智。無學道智是無學解脫智見蘊，因為它所緣的是無漏有為解脫，也緣于緣解脫的無漏智。 進一步說，無學苦智、集智、道智是無學慧蘊，因為它們不緣于離系法。無學滅智是無學解脫智見蘊，因為它緣于離系法。 以上所說是世俗粗相的差別。如果說勝義真實的差別，應該像前面所說的那樣：無學正見智是無學慧蘊，盡智、無生智是無學解脫智見蘊。
論：還有各種經文所說的，都歸屬於法處所攝。這裡所說的第二種攝，是異名處。文初有三：一是十遍處（Dasakasina-ayatana，十種觀想處），二是八勝處（Asta-abhibhayatana，八種克服處），三是四無色處（Cattaro-arupa-ayatana，四種無色定處）。這裡文中的意思，大部分可以理解。
論：五解脫處歸屬於法處所攝。這裡所說的第二種攝，是五解脫處。所說的五解脫處是：一是聽聞佛陀等說法而得解脫，二是因自己讀誦而得解脫，三是為他人說法而得解脫，四是在安靜的地方思維而得解脫，五是善於選取禪定之相而得解脫。解脫指的是涅槃（Nirvana）。因為這五種途徑可以得到解脫，所以稱為解脫處。以上是簡略地依據《集異門足論》所說。
【English Translation】 English version 'The Wisdom Aggregate of the Non-Learner Answers the Right View Wisdom of the Non-Learner: What is the Aggregate of Liberation of the Non-Learner?' Answer: 'The mind corresponding to the non-learner's attention. Already comprehended, now comprehending, will comprehend. Referring to the exhaustion-wisdom (Kshaya-jnana, the wisdom of knowing that all outflows are exhausted), the non-arising-wisdom (Anutpada-jnana, the wisdom of knowing that future outflows will not arise), and the comprehension corresponding to the right view of the non-learner. Freedom in relation to objects is established as liberation. It does not refer to being separated from bondage.' 'What is the Aggregate of Knowledge and Vision of the Non-Learner?' Answer: 'Exhaustion-wisdom, non-arising-wisdom.' Question: 'Why are these two wisdoms called the Aggregate of Knowledge and Vision of Liberation?' Answer: 'Because only these two wisdoms exist in the body of liberation, and they are most capable of carefully deciding matters of liberation.' 'What is the difference between the Wisdom Aggregate of the Non-Learner and the Aggregate of Knowledge and Vision of Liberation?' Answer: 'The non-learner's wisdom of suffering and origination is the Wisdom Aggregate of the Non-Learner because it focuses on the laws of bondage. The non-learner's wisdom of cessation and the path are the Aggregate of Knowledge and Vision of Liberation because they focus on the laws of liberation.' 'Furthermore, the non-learner's wisdom of suffering, origination, and cessation is the Wisdom Aggregate of the Non-Learner because it focuses on the defiled and the unconditioned liberation, not on the undefiled wisdom that focuses on liberation. The non-learner's wisdom of the path is the Aggregate of Knowledge and Vision of Liberation because it focuses on the undefiled conditioned liberation and also focuses on the undefiled wisdom that focuses on liberation.' 'Furthermore, the non-learner's wisdom of suffering, origination, and the path is the Wisdom Aggregate of the Non-Learner because it does not focus on the law of separation from bondage. The non-learner's wisdom of cessation is the Aggregate of Knowledge and Vision of Liberation because it focuses on the law of separation from bondage.' 'These are the differences' means 'these are the differences in terms of conventional, coarse characteristics.' If we speak of the ultimate, real difference, it should be as previously stated: the right view wisdom of the non-learner is the Wisdom Aggregate of the Non-Learner, and the exhaustion-wisdom and non-arising-wisdom are the Aggregate of Knowledge and Vision of Liberation.'
'Moreover, various sutras say that they are included in the sphere of the Dharma. This second inclusion is a different name for the sphere. There are three at the beginning of the text: first, the ten kasina spheres (Dasakasina-ayatana, ten spheres of contemplation); second, the eight spheres of mastery (Asta-abhibhayatana, eight spheres of overcoming); and third, the four formless spheres (Cattaro-arupa-ayatana, four spheres of formless concentration). The meaning of the text here is largely understandable.'
'The five spheres of liberation are included in the sphere of the Dharma. This second inclusion is the five spheres of liberation. The five spheres of liberation are: first, liberation is attained by hearing the Dharma from the Buddha, etc.; second, liberation is attained by reading and reciting oneself; third, liberation is attained by explaining the Dharma to others; fourth, liberation is attained by contemplating in a quiet place; and fifth, liberation is attained by skillfully taking the characteristics of samadhi. Liberation refers to Nirvana. Because liberation is attained through these five paths, they are called spheres of liberation. The above is briefly based on what is said in the Sangitiparyaya.'
足論十三．十四。及阿含經第九。列名標釋。廣如彼說 言皆慧為性者。第二生得慧 故。婆沙云。受持讀誦十二部經是生得善 初．及第三聞慧。由聞聖教生勝慧故 或可。第三亦思慧。為他說法必先思故 第四思慧。如名可知 第五修慧。于彼定中善取相故 雖說不同皆慧為體。此法處攝 若兼助伴前三。聲．意．法處所攝。后二。意．法所攝 又解聲在第二．第三取自聲故。聲非第一非以他聲為自助伴。
論。復有二處至四蘊性故。第三攝二處也無想有情。聲恒成就故得有聲。成十處也 故發智說。誰成就身。謂欲。色界有情。如身色．聲．觸亦爾。故知此聲恒成就也 正受無想異熟果時雖無有心。初生．將死時必有心故。故亦言意 又成彼地法必有心故 又婆沙一百三十七云。問世尊。何故 于無想天及有頂天。多說為處。答有諸外道。執此二處以為解脫。佛為遮彼說為生處。廣彼如釋。
論又多界經至十八界攝。第三攝異名界。多界經明六十二界。謂三種六．六種三．一種四．兩種二。更加十八界故。成六十二。隨其所應十八界攝。出體相攝如次別明。
論。且彼經中所說六界已下第四。一頌明六界也。頌前問答。如文可解。此下第四別明。如文可知。
論曰至名為空界。出空界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 足論十三．十四。及阿含經第九。列名標釋。廣如彼說
言皆慧為性者。第二生得慧故。《婆沙》（Vibhasa，論書名）云。受持讀誦十二部經是生得善初．及第三聞慧。由聞聖教生勝慧故。或可。第三亦思慧。為他說法必先思故。第四思慧。如名可知。第五修慧。于彼定中善取相故。雖說不同皆慧為體。此法處攝。若兼助伴前三。聲．意．法處所攝。后二。意．法所攝。又解聲在第二．第三取自聲故。聲非第一非以他聲為自助伴。
論。復有二處至四蘊性故。第三攝二處也無想有情。聲恒成就故得有聲。成十處也。故《發智》（Jnanaprasthana，論書名）說。誰成就身。謂欲界有情。如身色．聲．觸亦爾。故知此聲恒成就也。正受無想異熟果時雖無有心。初生．將死時必有心故。故亦言意。又成彼地法必有心故。又《婆沙》一百三十七云。問世尊。何故於無想天及有頂天。多說為處。答有諸外道。執此二處以為解脫。佛為遮彼說為生處。廣彼如釋。
論又多界經至十八界攝。第三攝異名界。《多界經》（Nanatvadhātu Sūtra，經名）明六十二界。謂三種六．六種三．一種四．兩種二。更加十八界故。成六十二。隨其所應十八界攝。出體相攝如次別明。
論。且彼經中所說六界已下第四。一頌明六界也。頌前問答。如文可解。此下第四別明。如文可知。
論曰至名為空界。出空界 English version Regarding the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of the 'Foot Treatise,' as well as the ninth section of the Agamas, the names are listed and explained extensively as described therein.
It is said that all are of the nature of wisdom (慧, huì). The second, innate wisdom, is because the Vibhasa states that upholding, reciting, and studying the twelve divisions of scriptures is an innate virtue, initially, and the third is wisdom from hearing, because superior wisdom arises from hearing the holy teachings. Or perhaps, the third is also wisdom from thinking, because one must first think before explaining the Dharma to others. The fourth, wisdom from thinking, is as the name suggests. The fifth, wisdom from cultivation, is because one skillfully grasps the characteristics in that samadhi. Although the explanations differ, all are fundamentally wisdom. This is included in the Dharma-sphere. If combined with assisting factors, the first three are included in the sound, mind, and Dharma-spheres. The latter two are included in the mind and Dharma-spheres. Furthermore, it is explained that sound in the second and third takes its own sound, because sound is not primary and does not use the sound of others as its own assisting factor.
The treatise states, 'Again, there are two spheres up to the nature of the four aggregates.' The third includes two spheres. In the realm of non-percipient beings, sound is constantly attained, hence there is sound, completing the ten spheres. Therefore, the Jnanaprasthana states, 'Who attains the body?' It refers to beings in the desire realm. The same applies to the body's form, sound, and touch. Thus, it is known that this sound is constantly attained. Although there is no mind when experiencing the fruition of non-perception, there must be mind at the time of initial birth and near death. Therefore, it is also said to be mind. Furthermore, there must be mind to accomplish the Dharma of that realm. Moreover, Vibhasa 137 states, 'The World Honored One is asked, why are the realms of non-perception and the peak of existence often referred to as spheres?' The answer is that there are externalists who cling to these two realms as liberation. The Buddha, in order to refute them, speaks of them as places of rebirth. The explanation is extensive as described therein.
The treatise also states, 'Moreover, the Nanatvadhātu Sūtra up to the eighteen spheres.' The third includes spheres with different names. The Nanatvadhātu Sūtra clarifies sixty-two spheres, namely three types of six, six types of three, one type of four, and two types of two. Adding the eighteen spheres, it becomes sixty-two. According to their respective appropriateness, they are included in the eighteen spheres. The emergence of substance and inclusion are separately clarified in order.
The treatise states, 'Moreover, regarding the six spheres mentioned in that sutra, the fourth below, one verse clarifies the six spheres.' The questions and answers before the verse can be understood from the text. The fourth below separately clarifies, as can be understood from the text.
The treatise says, 'Up to what is called the space sphere.' Explaining the space sphere.
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the thirteenth and fourteenth sections of the 'Foot Treatise,' as well as the ninth section of the Agamas, the names are listed and explained extensively as described therein. It is said that all are of the nature of wisdom (慧, huì). The second, innate wisdom, is because the Vibhasa (婆沙, Vibhasa, a treatise name) states that upholding, reciting, and studying the twelve divisions of scriptures is an innate virtue, initially, and the third is wisdom from hearing, because superior wisdom arises from hearing the holy teachings. Or perhaps, the third is also wisdom from thinking, because one must first think before explaining the Dharma to others. The fourth, wisdom from thinking, is as the name suggests. The fifth, wisdom from cultivation, is because one skillfully grasps the characteristics in that samadhi. Although the explanations differ, all are fundamentally wisdom. This is included in the Dharma-sphere. If combined with assisting factors, the first three are included in the sound, mind, and Dharma-spheres. The latter two are included in the mind and Dharma-spheres. Furthermore, it is explained that sound in the second and third takes its own sound, because sound is not primary and does not use the sound of others as its own assisting factor. The treatise states, 'Again, there are two spheres up to the nature of the four aggregates.' The third includes two spheres. In the realm of non-percipient beings, sound is constantly attained, hence there is sound, completing the ten spheres. Therefore, the Jnanaprasthana (發智, Jnanaprasthana, a treatise name) states, 'Who attains the body?' It refers to beings in the desire realm. The same applies to the body's form, sound, and touch. Thus, it is known that this sound is constantly attained. Although there is no mind when experiencing the fruition of non-perception, there must be mind at the time of initial birth and near death. Therefore, it is also said to be mind. Furthermore, there must be mind to accomplish the Dharma of that realm. Moreover, Vibhasa 137 states, 'The World Honored One is asked, why are the realms of non-perception and the peak of existence often referred to as spheres?' The answer is that there are externalists who cling to these two realms as liberation. The Buddha, in order to refute them, speaks of them as places of rebirth. The explanation is extensive as described therein. The treatise also states, 'Moreover, the Nanatvadhātu Sūtra (多界經, Nanatvadhātu Sūtra, a sutra name) up to the eighteen spheres.' The third includes spheres with different names. The Nanatvadhātu Sūtra clarifies sixty-two spheres, namely three types of six, six types of three, one type of four, and two types of two. Adding the eighteen spheres, it becomes sixty-two. According to their respective appropriateness, they are included in the eighteen spheres. The emergence of substance and inclusion are separately clarified in order. The treatise states, 'Moreover, regarding the six spheres mentioned in that sutra, the fourth below, one verse clarifies the six spheres.' The questions and answers before the verse can be understood from the text. The fourth below separately clarifies, as can be understood from the text. The treatise says, 'Up to what is called the space sphere.' Explaining the space sphere.
體。
論。如是竅隙云何應知問也。
論。傳說竅隙至明闇為體以有部宗答也。
不信空界實有故言傳說 正理論云。所言傳說。表不信敬。彼說意言何有此理。故彼上座。及餘一切譬喻部師。咸作是說。虛空界者不離虛空。然彼虛空體非實有。故虛空界體亦非實 此有虛言而無實義。虛空實有後當廣明 今因空界。且略成立離虛空界實有虛空。故世尊言。虛空無色．無見．無對。當何所依。然藉光明虛空顯了此經意說虛空無為。雖無所依而有所作。謂能容受一切光明。以果顯因有實體相。虛空無者應無光明。既有光明眼識所取是色差別。故有虛空以能容受光明等故。實有虛空理極成立。由此所說契經文句。顯二。分明各別實有 又於色界得離染時。亦說斷此虛空界故。如世尊說。離色染時。心於五界解脫離染唯除識界。不應說斷虛空無為。諸漏于中曾未轉故(已上論文) 然空界色。理實通其光．影．明．闇。光與明類。闇與影類。於二類中各舉其一。義亦兼余。故正理云。傳說。竅隙。即是光．闇。謂窗牖等光．闇竅隙。
論。應知此體不離晝夜者。晝以明為體。夜以闇為體。此空界色以明．闇為體。晝．夜為位。
論。即此說名鄰阿伽色。述本論空界色異名也。
論。傳
【現代漢語翻譯】 體。
論。如是竅隙云何應知問也。
論。傳說竅隙至明闇為體以有部宗答也。
不信空界實有故言傳說 正理論云。所言傳說。表不信敬。彼說意言何有此理。故彼上座。及餘一切譬喻部師。咸作是說。虛空界者不離虛空。然彼虛空體非實有。故虛空界體亦非實 此有虛言而無實義。虛空實有後當廣明 今因空界。且略成立離虛空界實有虛空。故世尊言。虛空無色．無見．無對。當何所依。然藉光明虛空顯了此經意說虛空無為。雖無所依而有所作。謂能容受一切光明。以果顯因有實體相。虛空無者應無光明。既有光明眼識所取是色差別。故有虛空以能容受光明等故。實有虛空理極成立。由此所說契經文句。顯二。分明各別實有 又于**得離染時。亦說斷此虛空界故。如世尊說。離色染時。心於五界解脫離染唯除識界。不應說斷虛空無為。諸漏于中曾未轉故(已上論文) 然空界色。理實通其光．影．明．闇。光與明類。闇與影類。於二類中各舉其一。義亦兼余。故正理云。傳說。竅隙。即是光．闇。謂窗牖等光．闇竅隙。
論。應知此體不離晝夜者。晝以明為體。夜以闇為體。此空界色以明．闇為體。晝．夜為位。
論。即此說名鄰阿伽色。述本論空界色異名也。
論。傳
【English Translation】 Body.
Question: How should such apertures be understood?
Answer: It is said that apertures have brightness and darkness as their essence, according to the Sarvastivada school.
The term 'said' indicates disbelief in the actual existence of the space realm. The Tattvasiddhi-sastra says: 'The term 'said' expresses disbelief and disrespect. What they say is unreasonable. Therefore, those elders and all the Sautrantika masters say that the space realm is inseparable from space, but the essence of that space is not real, so the essence of the space realm is also not real.' This is empty talk without real meaning. The real existence of space will be explained later. Now, concerning the space realm, let's briefly establish that there is real space apart from the space realm. Therefore, the World-Honored One said, 'Space is without color, without visibility, without opposition. What should it rely on?' However, through light, space becomes apparent. This sutra means that space is unconditioned. Although it has no support, it has a function, namely, it can accommodate all light. Using the effect to show the cause, it has a substantial form. If there were no space, there should be no light. Since there is light perceived by the eye consciousness, it is a difference in color. Therefore, there is space because it can accommodate light, etc. The real existence of space is logically established. Therefore, the sutra verses clearly show that the two are distinct and real. Furthermore, when one attains dispassion in ** (omitted, as it seems to be missing information), it is also said that this space realm is severed. As the World-Honored One said, 'When one is detached from color, the mind is liberated from the five realms, except for the consciousness realm.' It should not be said that unconditioned space is severed, because the outflows have never turned within it.' (End of the treatise) However, the color of the space realm actually encompasses light, shadow, brightness, and darkness. Light and brightness are similar, and darkness and shadow are similar. In each of the two categories, one is mentioned to encompass the rest. Therefore, the Tattvasiddhi-sastra says, 'Said, apertures, are light and darkness, such as the apertures of windows, etc., for light and darkness.'
It should be understood that this essence is inseparable from day and night. Day has brightness as its essence, and night has darkness as its essence. This color of the space realm has brightness and darkness as its essence, and day and night as its position.
This is also called lin a jia se (neighboring Akasa color). This describes another name for the color of the space realm in the original treatise.
Treatise. Trans
說阿伽至鄰阿伽色。述婆沙異釋。此第一云。阿伽是極礙也。
論。有說阿伽至鄰阿伽色。第二釋也。此阿伽名為無礙。梵語阿伽通其二義。各據一釋。
論。諸有漏識名為識界。前出空界體。此出識界體。唯取有漏不取無漏。
論。云何不說至為識界耶。問也。
論。由許六界至則不如是答也 由許六界。是諸有情生所依故。又恒持生。諸無漏法則不如是 故正理云。由無漏法。于有情生。斷．害．壞等差別轉故非生所依。如是六界。于有情生。生．養．長因差別轉故是生所依。生因謂識界續生種故。養因謂大種生依止故。長因謂空界容受生故。尊者世友。作如是言。界是施設有情因故。非無漏法。如契經說。六界為緣入母胎故。
又婆沙七十五云。若法能長養諸有。攝益諸有。任持諸有者。立六界中。無漏意識。能損減諸有散壞諸有破滅諸有。是故不立在六界中 廣如彼釋 問三無心位闕六識界。四無色中后闕前五。如何得說識等六界恒持生也。答此總說諸界。從續生位至命終心。隨其所有皆能持生。無有現起不持生者。及無一有情總無六界而得有生。非如無漏法現起在身。而不持。總無無漏而其生亦有。不欲說一切有情恒具六界。故作是說。所以論云。由許六界是諸有情生所依
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 經文說：『阿伽至鄰阿伽色』（Ākāśānantya-āyatana，無邊虛空處）。《述婆沙異釋》對此進行了解釋。第一種解釋說：『阿伽』是極大的障礙的意思。
論中說：『有說阿伽至鄰阿伽色』，這是第二種解釋。這裡的『阿伽』名為無礙。梵語『阿伽』包含兩種含義，分別根據不同的解釋。
論中說：『所有有漏的識都稱為識界』。前面已經說明了空界的體性，這裡說明識界的體性。只取有漏的識，不取無漏的識。
論中說：『為什麼不說「至為識界」呢？』這是提問。
論中說：『因為承認六界是所有有情眾生所依賴的』，這是回答。因為承認六界是所有有情眾生生存所依賴的，並且持續地維持生命。而無漏法則不是這樣。所以《正理》中說：『因為無漏法對於有情眾生的生存，會產生斷滅、損害、破壞等不同的作用，所以不是生存所依賴的。』像這樣，六界對於有情眾生的生存，會產生出生、養育、增長等不同的作用，所以是生存所依賴的。出生的原因是識界延續生命的種子，養育的原因是大種作為生存的依止，增長的原因是空界容納生命的存在。尊者世友這樣說：『界是設施有情眾生的原因，而不是無漏法。』正如契經所說：『以六界為緣而進入母胎。』
另外，《婆沙》第七十五卷中說：『如果某種法能夠增長所有有，攝益所有有，任持所有有，那麼就將其設立在六界之中。而無漏意識，能夠損減所有有，散壞所有有，破滅所有有，所以不將其設立在六界之中。』詳細的解釋如彼處所說。有人問：在三種無心位中，缺少六識界；在四種無色定中，後面的階段缺少前面的五識。如何能夠說識等六界持續地維持生命呢？回答是：這裡總的來說，諸界從延續生命開始到生命終結，隨著其所有，都能夠維持生命。沒有出現而不維持生命的情況，也沒有任何一個有情眾生完全沒有六界而能夠生存。不像無漏法，即使出現在身上，也不維持生命；即使完全沒有無漏法，生命也仍然存在。這裡並不是想說一切有情眾生始終具備六界，所以才這樣說。所以論中說：『因為承認六界是所有有情眾生生存所依賴的。』
【English Translation】 English version: The text says: 'Ākāśānantya-āyatana (the sphere of infinite space)'. The Śāstra-vibhāṣā explains this. The first explanation says: 'Ākāśa' means extreme obstruction.
The treatise says: 'Some say Ākāśānantya-āyatana', this is the second explanation. Here, 'Ākāśa' is called unobstructed. The Sanskrit word 'Ākāśa' has two meanings, each based on a different explanation.
The treatise says: 'All contaminated consciousness is called the consciousness element (vijñāna-dhātu)'. The nature of the space element has been explained earlier; here, the nature of the consciousness element is explained. Only contaminated consciousness is taken, not uncontaminated consciousness.
The treatise says: 'Why is it not said "to be the consciousness element"?' This is a question.
The treatise says: 'Because the six elements are admitted to be what all sentient beings rely on for their existence', this is the answer. Because the six elements are admitted to be what all sentient beings rely on for their existence, and they continuously maintain life. Uncontaminated dharmas are not like this. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Because uncontaminated dharmas, with respect to the existence of sentient beings, produce different effects such as cessation, harm, and destruction, they are not what existence relies on.' Like this, the six elements, with respect to the existence of sentient beings, produce different effects such as birth, nourishment, and growth, so they are what existence relies on. The cause of birth is the consciousness element continuing the seed of life; the cause of nourishment is the great elements (mahābhūta) being the basis of reliance for existence; the cause of growth is the space element accommodating the existence of life. Venerable Vasumitra said: 'The element is the cause of establishing sentient beings, not uncontaminated dharmas.' As the sūtra says: 'With the six elements as conditions, one enters the mother's womb.'
Furthermore, Vibhāṣā seventy-five says: 'If a dharma can increase all existence (bhava), benefit all existence, and maintain all existence, then it is established within the six elements. But uncontaminated consciousness can diminish all existence, scatter and destroy all existence, and break all existence, so it is not established within the six elements.' The detailed explanation is as stated there. Someone asks: In the three states of no-mind, the six consciousness elements are lacking; in the four formless absorptions (arūpa-samāpatti), the later stages lack the preceding five consciousnesses. How can it be said that the six elements, such as consciousness, continuously maintain life? The answer is: Here, generally speaking, the elements, from the beginning of the continuation of life to the end of life, according to what they possess, can all maintain life. There is no case where they appear and do not maintain life, and there is no sentient being who can exist without all six elements. It is not like uncontaminated dharmas, which, even if they appear in the body, do not maintain life; even if there are no uncontaminated dharmas at all, life still exists. It is not intended to say that all sentient beings always possess the six elements, so it is said in this way. Therefore, the treatise says: 'Because the six elements are admitted to be what all sentient beings rely on for their existence.'
故。如是諸界從續生心至命終心。恒持生故。諸無漏法則不如是。
論。彼六界中至七心界攝。相攝可知。
論。彼經余界至十八界攝。類說余界皆此十八界攝 略依法蘊足論第十．第十一多界品。出六十二界體。攝入十八界中者。法蘊頌云。界有六十二。十八界為初。三六．一四種。六三。后二二 十八界謂六根．六境．六識。如自名攝 言三六者。謂三種六 第一六。謂地．水．火．風．空．識界。前四界觸界攝。空界以光．影．明．闇為體。色界攝。識界以有漏識為體。七心界攝 第二六。謂欲．恚．害．無慾．無恚．無害界。欲以欲貪為性恚以瞋為性。害以害為性。無慾以無貪為性。無恚以無瞋為性。無害以不害為性。此六是心所法。皆是法界攝 第三六．謂樂．苦．喜．憂．舍．無明界。前五界以受為性。后一以癡為性。是心所法故。皆法界攝 一四種。謂受想．行．識界．受．想．行法界攝。識界七心界攝 六三者。第一三。謂欲．色．無色界。欲界十八界攝。色界十四界攝。除香．味二。及鼻．舌識。無色界意．法．意識界攝 第二三界。謂色．無色．滅界。色界謂欲．色界。以有色故總名色界。十八界攝。無色界后三界攝。滅界以擇滅．非擇滅為性。法界攝 第三三界 謂過去。未來。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，這些界從相續的生心到命終心，恒常保持生起的狀態。而無漏的法則則不是這樣。
論：這六界中，到七心界所包含的，它們的相互包含關係是可以理解的。
論：這部經中其餘的界，都被包含在十八界中。類似地，可以推斷其餘的界也都被這十八界所包含。簡略地依據《法蘊足論》第十、第十一多界品，提出了六十二界的體性，並將它們歸納到十八界中。《法蘊頌》中說：『界有六十二，十八界為首，三六、一四種，六三，后二二。』十八界指的是六根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）、六境（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）、六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識），如它們自身的名字所包含的意義一樣。所說的『三六』，指的是三種六。
第一種六，指的是地界（earth element）、水界（water element）、火界（fire element）、風界（wind element）、空界（space element）、識界（consciousness element）。前四界包含在觸界（touch element）中。空界以光（light）、影（shadow）、明（brightness）、暗（darkness）為體性，包含在色界（form element）中。識界以有漏的識為體性，包含在七心界（seven consciousness elements）中。第二種六，指的是欲界（desire realm）、恚界（anger realm）、害界（harm realm）、無慾界（non-desire realm）、無恚界（non-anger realm）、無害界（non-harm realm）。欲以欲貪（desire and craving）為自性，恚以瞋（hatred）為自性，害以害心（harming intention）為自性，無慾以無貪（non-craving）為自性，無恚以無瞋（non-hatred）為自性，無害以不害（non-harming）為自性。這六種都是心所法（mental factors），都包含在法界（dharma element）中。第三種六，指的是樂界（pleasure realm）、苦界（pain realm）、喜界（joy realm）、憂界（sorrow realm）、舍界（equanimity realm）、無明界（ignorance realm）。前五界以受（feeling）為自性，后一界以癡（delusion）為自性。因為是心所法，所以都包含在法界中。一種四，指的是受界（feeling element）、想界（perception element）、行界（volition element）、識界（consciousness element）。受、想、行包含在法界中，識界包含在七心界中。六種三，第一種三，指的是欲界（desire realm）、色界（form realm）、無（formless realm）。欲界包含在十八界中，色界包含在十四界中，除了香（smell）、味（taste）二境，以及鼻識（nose consciousness）、舌識（tongue consciousness）。無包含在意界（mind element）、法界（dharma element）、意識界（mind consciousness element）中。第二種三界，指的是色界（form realm）、無色界（formless realm）、滅界（cessation realm）。指的是欲界、色界。因為有色法的緣故，總稱為，包含在十八界中。無**包含在後三種界中。滅界以擇滅（selective cessation）、非擇滅（non-selective cessation）為自性，包含在法界中。第三種三界，指的是過去（past）、未來（future）。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, these realms, from the moment of the continuing arising of consciousness to the moment of death consciousness, constantly maintain the state of arising. However, the undefiled (anāsrava) principles are not like this.
Treatise: Among these six realms, up to the seven consciousness realms are included. Their mutual inclusion is understandable.
Treatise: The remaining realms in this sutra are all included within the eighteen realms. Similarly, it can be inferred that the remaining realms are also included within these eighteen realms. Briefly, according to the tenth and eleventh 'Many Realms' chapters of the Dharmaskandha-pāda-śāstra, the nature of the sixty-two realms is presented, and they are categorized into the eighteen realms. The Dharmaskandha verse says: 'There are sixty-two realms, the eighteen realms are the first, three sixes, one fourfold, six threes, and then two twos.' The eighteen realms refer to the six sense bases (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind), the six sense objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma), and the six consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness), as their own names imply.
The 'three sixes' refer to three types of sixes. The first six refers to the earth element (prthivī-dhātu), water element (āpo-dhātu), fire element (tejo-dhātu), wind element (vāyu-dhātu), space element (ākāśa-dhātu), and consciousness element (vijñāna-dhātu). The first four elements are included in the touch element (sparśa-dhātu). The space element, having light (āloka), shadow (chāyā), brightness (obhāsa), and darkness (andhakāra) as its nature, is included in the form element (rūpa-dhātu). The consciousness element, having defiled consciousness as its nature, is included in the seven consciousness elements (sapta-vijñāna-dhātu). The second six refers to the desire realm (kāma-dhātu), anger realm (krodha-dhātu), harm realm (vihimsā-dhātu), non-desire realm (nekkhamma-dhātu), non-anger realm (avyāpāda-dhātu), and non-harm realm (avihimsā-dhātu). Desire has desire and craving (kāma-trsna) as its nature, anger has hatred (dvesa) as its nature, harm has harming intention (vihimsā) as its nature, non-desire has non-craving (atrshna) as its nature, non-anger has non-hatred (advesa) as its nature, and non-harm has non-harming (avihimsā) as its nature. These six are all mental factors (caitta), and are all included in the dharma element (dharma-dhātu). The third six refers to the pleasure realm (sukha-dhātu), pain realm (duhkha-dhātu), joy realm (somanassa-dhātu), sorrow realm (domanassa-dhātu), equanimity realm (upekkhā-dhātu), and ignorance realm (avijjā-dhātu). The first five realms have feeling (vedanā) as their nature, and the last realm has delusion (moha) as its nature. Because they are mental factors, they are all included in the dharma element. The one fourfold refers to the feeling element (vedanā-dhātu), perception element (samjñā-dhātu), volition element (samskāra-dhātu), and consciousness element (vijñāna-dhātu). Feeling, perception, and volition are included in the dharma element, and the consciousness element is included in the seven consciousness elements. The six threes, the first three, refer to the desire realm (kāma-dhātu), form realm (rūpa-dhātu), and formless realm (arūpa-dhātu). The desire realm is included in the eighteen realms, the form realm is included in the fourteen realms, except for the smell (gandha) and taste (rasa) objects, and nose consciousness (ghāna-vijñāna) and tongue consciousness (jihvā-vijñāna). The formless realm is included in the mind element (mano-dhātu), dharma element (dharma-dhātu), and mind consciousness element (mano-vijñāna-dhātu). The second three realms refer to the form realm (rūpa-dhātu), formless realm (arūpa-dhātu), and cessation realm (nirodha-dhātu). Form refers to the desire realm and the form realm. Because they have form, they are collectively called form, and are included in the eighteen realms. The formless realm is included in the latter three realms. The cessation realm has selective cessation (pratisamkhyā-nirodha) and non-selective cessation (apratisamkhyā-nirodha) as its nature, and is included in the dharma element. The third three realms refer to the past (atīta), future (anāgata).
現在界。皆以五蘊為性。十八界攝 第四三界。謂劣．中．妙界。劣界以不善．有覆無記法為性。七心界．色．聲．法界攝。中界以有漏善．及無覆無記法為性。十八界攝。妙界以無漏善法為性。意．法．意識界攝 第五三界。謂善．不善．無記界。善界以一切善法為性。不善界以諸不善法為性。此二七心界．色．聲．法界攝。無記界以一切無記法為性。十八界攝 第六三界。謂學．無學．非學非無學界。學界以學無漏五蘊為性。無學界以無學無漏五蘊為性。此二意．法．意識界攝。非學非無學界。以有漏五蘊．及三無為為性。十八界攝 后二二者。第一二界。謂有漏．無漏界。有漏界以有漏五蘊為性。十八界攝。無漏界謂無漏五蘊。及三無為為性意．法．意識界攝 第二二界。謂有為．無為界。有為界以五蘊為性。十八界攝。無為界以三無為為性。法界攝 阿含經中亦列六十二界名。名多界經。
俱舍論疏卷第一(之餘)
保延三年潤九月六日于南新房奉點了 加久壽
(交了) 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二
沙門法寶撰
分別界品第一之二
論。複次至幾無記。此下大文第二有一十九行頌。義門分別十八界也。正理論云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在界，都以五蘊（skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）為自性。包含在十八界中。第四，三界，指劣界、中界、妙界。劣界以不善法、有覆無記法為自性。包含在七心界、色界、聲界、法界中。中界以有漏善法以及無覆無記法為自性。包含在十八界中。妙界以無漏善法為自性。包含在意識界、法界、意識界中。第五，三界，指善界、不善界、無記界。善界以一切善法為自性。不善界以諸不善法為自性。這兩個界包含在七心界、色界、聲界、法界中。無記界以一切無記法為自性。包含在十八界中。第六，三界，指學界、無學界、非學非無學界。學界以學位的無漏五蘊為自性。無學界以無學位的無漏五蘊為自性。這兩個界包含在意識界、法界、意識界中。非學非無學界，以有漏五蘊以及三種無為法為自性。包含在十八界中。后兩種二界，第一種二界，指有漏界、無漏界。有漏界以有漏五蘊為自性。包含在十八界中。無漏界指無漏五蘊以及三種無為法為自性，包含在意識界、法界、意識界中。第二種二界，指有為界、無為界。有為界以五蘊為自性。包含在十八界中。無為界以三種無為法為自性。包含在法界中。《阿含經》中也列有六十二界的名字，名為《多界經》。 《俱舍論疏》卷第一（之餘） 保延三年閏九月六日于南新房奉點了 加久壽 (交了) 大正藏第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》 《俱舍論疏》卷第二 沙門法寶撰 分別界品第一之二 論：複次至幾無記。此下大文第二有一十九行頌。義門分別十八界也。《正理論》云：
【English Translation】 English version: The present realms all have the five skandhas (skandha, the five aggregates constituting individual existence: form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) as their nature. They are included within the eighteen dhatus. Fourth, the three realms are the inferior realm, the intermediate realm, and the superior realm. The inferior realm has unwholesome dharmas and obscured indeterminate dharmas as its nature. It is included within the seven mind-dhatus, the form-dhatu, the sound-dhatu, and the dharma-dhatu. The intermediate realm has defiled wholesome dharmas and unobscured indeterminate dharmas as its nature. It is included within the eighteen dhatus. The superior realm has undefiled wholesome dharmas as its nature. It is included within the mind-dhatu, the dharma-dhatu, and the consciousness-dhatu. Fifth, the three realms are the wholesome realm, the unwholesome realm, and the indeterminate realm. The wholesome realm has all wholesome dharmas as its nature. The unwholesome realm has all unwholesome dharmas as its nature. These two realms are included within the seven mind-dhatus, the form-dhatu, the sound-dhatu, and the dharma-dhatu. The indeterminate realm has all indeterminate dharmas as its nature. It is included within the eighteen dhatus. Sixth, the three realms are the realm of learners, the realm of non-learners, and the realm of neither learners nor non-learners. The realm of learners has the undefiled five skandhas of learners as its nature. The realm of non-learners has the undefiled five skandhas of non-learners as its nature. These two realms are included within the mind-dhatu, the dharma-dhatu, and the consciousness-dhatu. The realm of neither learners nor non-learners has the defiled five skandhas and the three unconditioned dharmas as its nature. It is included within the eighteen dhatus. The latter two sets of two realms: the first set of two realms are the defiled realm and the undefiled realm. The defiled realm has the defiled five skandhas as its nature. It is included within the eighteen dhatus. The undefiled realm has the undefiled five skandhas and the three unconditioned dharmas as its nature. It is included within the mind-dhatu, the dharma-dhatu, and the consciousness-dhatu. The second set of two realms are the conditioned realm and the unconditioned realm. The conditioned realm has the five skandhas as its nature. It is included within the eighteen dhatus. The unconditioned realm has the three unconditioned dharmas as its nature. It is included within the dharma-dhatu. The Agama Sutras also list the names of sixty-two realms, called the 'Multitude of Realms Sutra'. 'Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā' Scroll 1 (remainder) Respectfully annotated on the sixth day of the intercalary ninth month of the third year of Hoen at the South New Chamber. Kakuju (Completed) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1822, 'Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā' 'Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā' Scroll 2 Composed by the Shramana (Buddhist monk) Fǎbǎo Chapter 1, Part 2: Analysis of the Dhatus Treatise: 'Furthermore, up to how many are indeterminate?' Below this, the second major section has nineteen lines of verses. The meaning and categories analyze the eighteen dhatus. The 'Nyāyānusāra' says:
。界中具顯根．境．識故。諸門義類易可了知故。今且約十八界辨。由斯蘊．處義類已成 此一行頌三門分別。先問。次頌答。此文問也。
頌中上句有見。第二句有對。后二句三性 如文可解。
論曰至說余無見。長行釋。頌三門則為三段。此第一釋有見也 婆沙．正理皆有二釋。正理第四云。云何說此名有見耶。由二義故。一者。此色定與見俱故名有見。由色與眼俱時起故。如有伴侶。二者。此色可有示現故名有見。可示在此在彼別故。如有所緣。有說。此色于鏡等中有像可現故名有見可示如彼此亦爾故。不可說聲有谷向等應成有見。不俱生故 婆沙同也 此論但取第二。以可示現此．彼差別 由此義準余無見者。除色餘十七不可示現彼．此差別名無見也。
如正理。即無上三義名無見也。此論略故唯一釋也。
論。如是已說至所緣異故。第二釋有對也。先結引標章。后依章牒釋。此文初也。
論。障礙有對至或二相礙。第二釋也。釋中有八。此文第一釋障礙有對也。五根。五境。自於他處被礙不生。是障礙有對義 如手至或二相礙。指事釋也。準其手．石。餘一切十色法。亦復如是。如瓦．木等。
論。境界有對至於色等境。第二釋境界有對也。文中有二。一示體。二引
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為（十八）界中完全包含了根（indriya，感覺器官）、境（vishaya，感覺對像）和識（vijnana，意識）。各種門類的意義和類別很容易理解。現在暫且根據十八界來辨析，由此五蘊（skandha）、十二處（ayatana）的意義和類別就已經包含了。這一行偈頌分為三個方面來解釋：先是提問，然後是偈頌回答。這段文字是提問。
偈頌中第一句是『有見』（sadarshana，可見），第二句是『有對』（sapratigha，有對礙），后兩句是三性（tri-svabhava，三種自性）。如文字本身可以理解。
論曰：『至說余無見』。長行解釋偈頌的三個方面，分為三段。這是第一段解釋『有見』。（一切有部）《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra）和《正理》（Nyayanusara-sastra）都有兩種解釋。《正理》第四卷說：『為什麼說這個叫做「有見」呢？』因為兩個原因：第一，這個色（rupa，物質）一定和見（darshana，視覺）同時存在，所以叫做「有見」，因為色和眼（caksu，眼睛）同時生起，就像有伴侶一樣。第二，這個色可以被示現，所以叫做「有見」，可以指示它在這裡或在那裡，有所區別，就像有所緣（alambana，所緣境）一樣。有人說，這個色在鏡子等中有影像可以顯現，所以叫做「有見」，可以指示它在這裡或在那裡，也是一樣。因此，不能說聲音（shabda，聲）有山谷迴響等就應該成為「有見」，因為不是同時生起的。《婆沙論》的觀點相同。這個論只採用第二種解釋，因為可以指示它在這裡或在那裡的區別。由此可以推斷，其餘的（十七界）是「無見」（adarshana，不可見）的，除了色以外的十七界不能指示它在這裡或在那裡的區別，所以叫做「無見」。
如《正理》所說，沒有上述三種意義的叫做「無見」。這個論因為簡略，所以只有一種解釋。
論：『如是已說至所緣異故』。第二段解釋『有對』。先總結並標出綱要，然後根據綱要來解釋。這段文字是開始。
論：『障礙有對至或二相礙』。第二段解釋『有對』，解釋中有八種，這段文字是第一種解釋『障礙有對』（avarana-sapratigha，障礙有對礙）。五根（panca indriyani，五種感覺器官），五境（panca vishaya，五種感覺對像），在其他地方被障礙而不能產生，這就是『障礙有對』的意義。如手至或二相礙，是指示事例的解釋。按照手和石頭，其餘一切十種色法（rupa-dharma，物質現象）也是這樣，如瓦片、木頭等。
論：『境界有對至於色等境』。第二種解釋『境界有對』（gocara-sapratigha，境界有對礙）。文字中有兩個方面：一是顯示體性，二是引用。
【English Translation】 English version: Because the (eighteen) realms fully contain the root (indriya, sense organs), object (vishaya, sense objects), and consciousness (vijnana, consciousness). The meanings and categories of various doors are easily understood. Now, let's analyze based on the eighteen realms, whereby the meanings and categories of the five aggregates (skandha) and twelve entrances (ayatana) are already included. This verse is explained in three aspects: first is the question, then the verse answer. This text is the question.
In the verse, the first sentence is 'visible' (sadarshana), the second sentence is 'resistant' (sapratigha), and the last two sentences are the three natures (tri-svabhava). The meaning can be understood as the text itself.
Treatise says: 'To say the rest are invisible'. The long passage explains the three aspects of the verse, divided into three sections. This is the first section explaining 'visible'. Both the (Sarvastivada) 'Mahavibhasa-sastra' and 'Nyayanusara-sastra' have two explanations. The fourth volume of 'Nyayanusara-sastra' says: 'Why is this called 'visible'?' Because of two reasons: first, this form (rupa, matter) must exist simultaneously with seeing (darshana, vision), so it is called 'visible', because form and eye (caksu, eye) arise simultaneously, just like having a companion. Second, this form can be shown, so it is called 'visible', it can be indicated that it is here or there, with differences, just like having an object (alambana, object of perception). Some say that this form has an image that can appear in mirrors, etc., so it is called 'visible', it can be indicated that it is here or there, and it is the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that sound (shabda, sound) having echoes in valleys, etc., should become 'visible', because it does not arise simultaneously. The view of 'Mahavibhasa-sastra' is the same. This treatise only adopts the second explanation, because it can indicate the difference between it being here or there. From this, it can be inferred that the rest (seventeen realms) are 'invisible' (adarshana), the seventeen realms other than form cannot indicate the difference between it being here or there, so they are called 'invisible'.
As 'Nyayanusara-sastra' says, what does not have the above three meanings is called 'invisible'. This treatise has only one explanation because it is brief.
Treatise: 'As has been said, to the difference of the object'. The second section explains 'resistant'. First, summarize and mark the outline, and then explain according to the outline. This text is the beginning.
Treatise: 'Obstructive resistance to or two mutual obstructions'. The second section explains 'resistant', there are eight explanations, this text is the first explanation of 'obstructive resistance' (avarana-sapratigha). The five roots (panca indriyani, five sense organs), the five objects (panca vishaya, five sense objects), are obstructed in other places and cannot arise, this is the meaning of 'obstructive resistance'. Such as hand to or two mutual obstructions, is an explanation of indicating examples. According to hand and stone, all other ten kinds of form-dharmas (rupa-dharma, material phenomena) are also like this, such as tiles, wood, etc.
Treatise: 'Boundary resistance to the realm of form, etc.'. The second explanation is 'boundary resistance' (gocara-sapratigha). There are two aspects in the text: one is to show the nature, and the other is to quote.
證結成。此文初也 十二界者。謂六根．六識 法界一分諸有境法者。是心所法 於色等境者。謂六根．六識等。於色等境之中有功能故。名為境界。即於此有礙名為有對。
論。故施設論至除前相。第二引證也 施設論者。是六足論中一論也。大迦多衍尼子造也 四句可知 此礙者。是見色義。礙是對之別名。即是于所見色名之有對 畢舍遮。唐言食血肉鬼。舊名毗舍阇鬼 室獸摩羅。是傍生類。形如壁宮。小者長二丈。大者乃至長一百尺。
此等名為境界有對者。結也。
論。所緣有對至於自所緣。第三釋所緣有對也 心．心所法。于自所緣和會被礙。名所緣有對。
論。境界所緣復有何別。第四辨異也。一問。二答。此文問也。
論。若於彼法至名為所緣。答也。
若於彼法此有功能者。正理論云。如人于彼有勝功能。便說彼為我之境界。
釋曰。有境之法于自境上。有見．聞等游履功能名為境界 心．心所法。執境而起名為所緣 即心．心法二差別者。執境而起心．心所同名為所緣。越彼彼境或余境中。此不轉故名為有對 取像．印持功能差別。心．心法異名為境界。越彼于余境此不轉故名為有對。此謂差別 有人有四解 一云。境界有對此約有能非要起用。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 證成結論。以上是本文的開頭部分。 十二界，指的是六根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）和六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）。 法界的一部分，指的是諸有境法，也就是心所法。 『於色等境』，指的是六根和六識等。因為它們在色等境界中具有作用，所以被稱為境界。即在此處有阻礙，稱為有對。
論：『故施設論至除前相』，這是第二個引證。《施設論》是六足論中的一部論，由大迦多衍尼子所造。四句的內容可以理解。這裡的『礙』，指的是見色的意義。『礙』是『對』的別名，也就是對於所見之色，稱之為有對。畢舍遮（Pisaca），翻譯成漢語是食血肉鬼，舊稱毗舍阇鬼。室獸摩羅（Sisumara），是傍生類，形狀像壁宮，小的有二丈長，大的甚至有一百尺長。
『此等名為境界有對』，這是結論。
論：『所緣有對至於自所緣』，這是第三個解釋所緣有對。心和心所法，對於自身所緣的對象和合會遇時受到阻礙，稱為所緣有對。
論：『境界所緣復有何別』，這是第四個辨別差異。一問一答，這段文字是提問。
論：『若於彼法至名為所緣』，這是回答。
『若於彼法此有功能』，正理論說：『如人于彼有勝功能，便說彼為我之境界。』
解釋：有境之法在自身的境界上，具有見、聞等遊歷作用，稱為境界。心和心所法，執取境界而生起，稱為所緣。心和心所法的兩個差別在於：執取境界而生起，心和心所法相同，都稱為所緣。超越了那個境界或者其他境界，心和心所法不會改變，所以稱為有對。取像和印持的功能不同，心和心所法不同，稱為境界。超越了那個境界到其他境界，心和心所法不會改變，所以稱為有對。這就是所說的差別。有人有四種解釋：第一種說法是，境界有對是就具有能力而言，不一定要實際起作用，比如...
【English Translation】 English version Concluding the argument. This is the beginning of the text. The twelve ayatanas (spheres of sense), refer to the six indriyas (sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) and the six vijnanas (sense consciousnesses: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness). A portion of the dharmadhatu (realm of phenomena), refers to the dharmas that have objects, which are the mental factors (citta-caitta dharmas). 'Regarding objects such as form', refers to the six indriyas and six vijnanas, etc. Because they have functions in the realms of form, etc., they are called objects (visaya). That which has obstruction here is called 'with counter-part' (sapratigha).
Treatise: 'Therefore, the Treatise on Establishments (Prajnapati-sastra) up to excluding the previous aspect', this is the second citation. The Prajnapati-sastra is one of the treatises in the Six-Foot Abhidharma (Satpadabhidharma-sastra), composed by Maha-Katyayaniputra. The meaning of the four phrases is understandable. This 'obstruction' (agha) refers to the meaning of seeing form. 'Obstruction' is another name for 'counter-part' (pratigha), that is, with respect to the form seen, it is called 'with counter-part'. Pisaca (畢舍遮) in Chinese means 'blood-flesh-eating ghost', formerly known as '毗舍阇鬼'. Sisumara (室獸摩羅) is a type of animal, shaped like a wall palace, the small ones are two zhang (丈) long, and the large ones are even one hundred chi (尺) long.
'These are called object with counter-part', this is the conclusion.
Treatise: 'Object of cognition with counter-part up to its own object of cognition', this is the third explanation of object of cognition with counter-part. When the mind and mental factors encounter and are obstructed by their own objects of cognition, it is called object of cognition with counter-part.
Treatise: 'What is the difference between object and object of cognition?', this is the fourth distinction of differences. One question and one answer, this passage is the question.
Treatise: 'If with respect to that dharma up to called object of cognition', this is the answer.
'If with respect to that dharma, this has function', the Nyayanusara-sastra (正理論) says: 'If a person has superior function with respect to that, then it is said that that is my object'.
Explanation: The dharma that has an object, with respect to its own object, has the function of seeing, hearing, etc., which is called object (visaya). The mind and mental factors, grasping an object and arising, are called object of cognition (alambana). The two differences between the mind and mental factors are: grasping an object and arising, the mind and mental factors are the same, both are called object of cognition. Transcending that object or other objects, the mind and mental factors do not change, so it is called 'with counter-part'. The functions of taking an image and holding an impression are different, the mind and mental factors are different, which is called object. Transcending that object to other objects, the mind and mental factors do not change, so it is called 'with counter-part'. This is what is called the difference. Some people have four explanations: The first explanation is that object with counter-part refers to having the ability, not necessarily actually functioning, such as...
彼同分眼名有對。所緣有對執所緣境方起至現。謂起彼取果用有緣即起無緣不起皆名有對 第二解。礙取境用名境界有對。礙取果用名所緣有對 第三解。礙體義邊名所緣有對。礙用義邊名境界有對 第四解礙取境用名境界有對。礙緣境用名所緣有對 詳此四解並非論意。
論。云何眼等至說名有礙。第五釋有對名也。先問。后答。此文問也。
論越彼于余此不轉故。答也。答有二。此前答也 謂明若是境界。若是所緣。色等之中若於此名為有對。即礙眼等．心等於余不起。是有對義。
論。或復礙者至和會轉故。第二釋也。此是能緣．所緣。有境．與境。和會起時名為有對。並非是礙體．礙取果等。
論應知此中至說余無對第六會頌文。明無上有對名無對也。
論。若法境界有對至是第四句。第七句數分別也 文中有二。一境界對障礙四句。二境界對所緣順后句此第一也 第一句是境界有對非障礙。第二句是障礙非境界。第三俱句。第四俱非。並可解。
論。若法境界有對至眼等五根第二順后句 以寬問狹順后句答。若是所緣有對定是境有對故。所緣障礙體不相關。所以不合作句。
論。此中大德至此是所許。第八述經部計也 鳩摩羅多。此云豪童。是經部祖師。于經
部中造喻鬘論．癡鬘論等。中有此頌。明有對。與有部不同 此處心欲生者。謂心於青色等上生 他礙令不起者。謂被余障。心不得於青色上起 應知是有對者。結 無對此相違翻上也 有部計。即于青上生名有對也 此是所許者。經主印許經部義也。
論。如是已說至故名無記。第三三性分別。文中有二。一釋八界。二釋十界。此文初也 謂十色界中。除色．聲二界餘八．不可記為善．不善。故名無記。釋無記有兩說。此第一也。
論又說至應唯無記。敘異說破如文可解。
論。其餘十界至餘名無記。第二釋十界也 文中三段。一釋七心界。二釋法界。三釋色．聲二界。此文初也 七心界與無貪等善相應名善。貪等三不善根相應名不善。非二相應名無記也。
論。法界若是至餘名無記。第二釋法界也。
若是無貪等。是自性善 想．受等與自性善相應名相應善 無表色。法上四相。並得。是二善等起。亦名為善 擇滅無為。是勝義善故亦名為善 即法界中。具自性．相應．等起．勝義四種善也。此四種善等。后當廣釋。
論。色界聲界至余是無記。第三釋色．聲。此二之中。唯有等起善．不善也。
論。已說善等至無色界系。第二一行頌明三界系。文有三。先結引。次
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《部中造喻鬘論》、《癡鬘論》等中有這樣的頌文，闡明『有對』（Sapatigha，有障礙、有對礙），這與有部的觀點不同。『此處心欲生者』，是指心對於青色等境生起。『他礙令不起者』，是指被其他障礙所阻，心無法在青色等境上生起。『應知是有對者』，是結論。『無對此相違翻上也』，是指與此相反即為無對。有部認為，心於青色等境上生起即名為有對。『此是所許者』，是經主（Sutradhara，佛經的作者或權威）印可經部的觀點。
論：如是已說至故名無記。第三三性分別。文中有二。一釋八界。二釋十界。此文初也。謂十**中。除色．聲二界餘八．不可記為善．不善。故名無記。釋無記有兩說。此第一也。
論又說至應唯無記。敘異說破如文可解。
論：其餘十界至餘名無記。第二釋十界也。文中三段。一釋七心界。二釋法界。三釋色．聲二界。此文初也。七心界與無貪等善相應名善。貪等三不善根相應名不善。非二相應名無記也。
論：法界若是至餘名無記。第二釋法界也。
若是無貪等。是自性善。想．受等與自性善相應名相應善。無表色。法上四相。並得。是二善等起。亦名為善。擇滅無為。是勝義善故亦名為善。即法界中。具自性．相應．等起．勝義四種善也。此四種善等。后當廣釋。
論：**聲界至余是無記。第三釋色．聲。此二之中。唯有等起善．不善也。
論：已說善等至無**系。第二一行頌明三界系。文有三。先結引。次
【English Translation】 English version: In works like the 'Garland of Examples' (Upamā-mālā) and the 'Garland of Delusion' (Moha-mālā), there are verses that clarify 'Sapatigha' (having obstruction, resistance), which differs from the Sarvastivada's (a major early Buddhist school) view. 'Here, when the mind desires to arise' refers to the mind arising in relation to objects like blue. 'Obstructed by others, preventing its arising' means that due to other obstacles, the mind cannot arise in relation to objects like blue. 'It should be known as Sapatigha' is the conclusion. 'The opposite of this is also reversed as Apratigha' means that the opposite of this is Apratigha (without obstruction). The Sarvastivadins consider the arising of the mind in relation to objects like blue as Sapatigha. 'This is what is permitted' is the Sutradhara's (the author or authority of the Sutra) endorsement of the Sautrantika's (a school of Buddhist philosophy) view.
Treatise: 'As has been said...' to '...therefore it is called indeterminate.' The third section is the differentiation of the three natures. There are two parts in the text: 1. Explanation of the eight elements (dhātu). 2. Explanation of the ten elements. This is the beginning of this text. Among the ten elements, except for the element of form (rūpa) and the element of sound (śabda), the remaining eight cannot be categorized as good (kusala) or unwholesome (akuśala); therefore, they are called indeterminate (avyākrta). There are two explanations of indeterminate; this is the first.
Treatise: 'Again, it is said...' to '...should only be indeterminate.' Narrating different views and refuting them can be understood from the text.
Treatise: 'The remaining ten elements...' to '...the rest are indeterminate.' This is the second explanation of the ten elements. There are three sections in the text: 1. Explanation of the seven mind-elements (citta-dhātu). 2. Explanation of the dharma-element (dharma-dhātu). 3. Explanation of the form and sound elements. This is the beginning of this text. The seven mind-elements associated with non-greed (alobha) and other wholesome qualities are called wholesome. Those associated with greed (lobha) and the other three unwholesome roots are called unwholesome. Those not associated with either are called indeterminate.
Treatise: 'If the dharma-element...' to '...the rest are indeterminate.' This is the second explanation of the dharma-element.
If it is non-greed, etc., it is intrinsically wholesome. Thought (samjna), feeling (vedana), etc., associated with intrinsic wholesomeness are called associated wholesomeness. Unmanifested form (avijñapti-rūpa), the four characteristics on dharmas, and attainment (prapti) are all caused by these two wholesomeness and are also called wholesome. Cessation through discrimination (pratisankhya-nirodha), unconditioned (asamskrta), is ultimately wholesome and is also called wholesome. Thus, within the dharma-element, there are four types of wholesomeness: intrinsic, associated, caused, and ultimate. These four types of wholesomeness will be explained in detail later.
Treatise: 'The form and sound elements...' to '...the rest are indeterminate.' This is the third explanation of form and sound. Among these two, there are only caused wholesome and unwholesome.
Treatise: 'Having spoken of wholesome, etc....' to '...not bound by the elements.' The second verse explains the three realms (tridhātu) and their bondage. There are three parts in the text: first, a concluding introduction; then...
頌。后釋。此文初也 頌中初句明欲界。次兩句色界。后一句無色界。
論曰至具足十八第二長行釋也 釋三界即為三段。此第一釋欲界系也 系謂系屬。即被縛義。將辨法多少先釋系義 欲界系法被欲界貪等繫縛名欲界系 即鼻．舌．香．味四界全。餘十四界一分。是欲界系。由此欲界具十八。
論。色界所繫至無所緣故。第二釋色界也 文中有二。一辨法多少。二問答分別。此文初也 無段食故無香．味境。以無境故無鼻．舌識。
論。若爾至段食性故。第二問答分別也。香．味是段食性。上界無段食故無香．味境。觸界亦段食性色界應無。
論。彼所有觸非段食性。答也。色界有觸非是段食。
論。若爾香．味類亦應然難也 觸界段食性。上界有觸非段食。香．味段食性。上界有香．味非段食性。
論。香．味離食至故觸非無答 香．味離食更無有用。上無段食香．味亦無。觸離段食有用。別有能持諸根．及衣服等用。故於色界雖無段食有觸界也。
論。有餘師。說至故在彼無。迷異說也 住此者謂住欲界 依彼靜慮等至見色聞聲輕安俱起者。謂身在欲界。得天眼．耳通見色聞聲。入定之時有輕安俱起。殊勝觸境攝益於身。因中三事俱故。果處亦相隨逐。香．味不
爾。故在彼無。
論。若爾至彼無用故。難也 在彼無段食。香．味二境無用故無在彼。無二境鼻．舌無用。在彼應無。
論。不爾至及莊嚴身。答也 言無用者不爾。舌起言說。鼻莊嚴身。是有用故彼皆有也。
論。若為嚴身至何用二根。難也 二根依處是色觸二境若為起言說。及莊嚴身。但須色．觸二境即得言說．及莊嚴身。何用二根。
論。如無男根至依處亦無。答也 由有二根有二依處。若無二根依處亦無。取男根為例。
論。于彼可無至離根應有。難也 男根依處以無用故離根非有。鼻．舌根依處為有用。故離根應有。
論。有雖無用至定當死者。答也 根之有無非定由有用無用亦生。如處六處胞胎。定當死者。此眼等根雖是無用。亦有根生。鼻．舌亦爾。
論。有雖無用至得有根起。徴起因也 既無境愛何因得起。
論。于根有愛發殊勝業。答因也 於此鼻．舌二根起愛。發殊勝思業。為此二因也。
論。若離境愛至男根亦生。難也。難中有二。一難本釋。二難轉釋。此文初也。
凡起根愛為有境貪。若離境貪根貪定無。既離境貪即無根愛。既無根愛鼻．舌無因。即應非有。若謂雖離境貪得有根愛有鼻．舌根。男根亦應如鼻．舌有。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 爾。故在彼無。
論。若爾至彼無用故。難也 在彼無段食（粗糙的食物）。香．味二境無用故無在彼。無二境鼻．舌無用。在彼應無。
論。不爾至及莊嚴身。答也 言無用者不爾。舌起言說。鼻莊嚴身。是有用故彼皆有也。
論。若為嚴身至何用二根。難也 二根依處是色觸二境若為起言說。及莊嚴身。但須色．觸二境即得言說．及莊嚴身。何用二根。
論。如無男根至依處亦無。答也 由有二根有二依處。若無二根依處亦無。取男根為例。
論。于彼可無至離根應有。難也 男根依處以無用故離根非有。鼻．舌根依處為有用。故離根應有。
論。有雖無用至定當死者。答也 根之有無非定由有用無用亦生。如處六處胞胎。定當死者。此眼等根雖是無用。亦有根生。鼻．舌亦爾。
論。有雖無用至得有根起。徴起因也 既無境愛何因得起。
論。于根有愛發殊勝業。答因也 於此鼻．舌二根起愛。發殊勝思業。為此二因也。
論。若離境愛至男根亦生。難也。難中有二。一難本釋。二難轉釋。此文初也。
凡起根愛為有境貪。若離境貪根貪定無。既離境貪即無根愛。既無根愛鼻．舌無因。即應非有。若謂雖離境貪得有根愛有鼻．舌根。男根亦應如鼻．舌有。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it does not exist there.
Objection: If so, it is useless there. It is argued that coarse food (duan shi) does not exist there. The realms of smell and taste are useless, so they do not exist there. Without these two realms, the nose and tongue are useless, so they should not exist there.
Answer: Not so, up to and including adorning the body. It is answered that it is not useless. The tongue enables speech, and the nose adorns the body. Because they are useful, they both exist there.
Objection: If it is for adorning the body, why use two roots? It is argued that the bases of the two roots are the realms of color and touch. If it is for enabling speech and adorning the body, only the realms of color and touch are needed to achieve speech and adornment. Why use two roots?
Answer: Just as there is no male organ, so too there is no base. It is answered that because there are two roots, there are two bases. If there were no two roots, there would be no base. Take the male organ as an example.
Objection: It may not exist there, but it should exist apart from the root. It is argued that the base of the male organ is useless, so it does not exist apart from the root. The bases of the nose and tongue roots are useful, so they should exist apart from the root.
Answer: Although it is useless, it is not certain that those who are destined to die will not be born. It is answered that the existence or non-existence of roots is not determined by usefulness or uselessness; they are also born. Like the six places in the womb, those who are destined to die, these roots such as the eyes, although useless, are also born. The nose and tongue are the same.
Objection: Although it is useless, how can roots arise? This questions the cause of arising. Since there is no love for the realm, how can it arise?
Answer: Love for the roots generates superior karma. This answers the cause. Love arises for these two roots, the nose and tongue, generating superior intentional karma. This is the cause of these two.
Objection: If there is no love for the realm, then the male organ should also be born. This is an objection. There are two objections: first, an objection to the original explanation; second, an objection to the further explanation. This is the first part of the text.
Generally, the arising of love for roots is due to greed for the realm. If there is no greed for the realm, then there is definitely no greed for the root. Since there is no greed for the realm, there is no love for the root. Since there is no love for the root, the nose and tongue have no cause, so they should not exist. If it is said that although there is no greed for the realm, there can be love for the root, and thus there are nose and tongue roots, then the male organ should also exist like the nose and tongue.
論。若謂不生至鼻舌應無。釋轉救也 若謂鼻．舌為嚴身故有。男根以醜陋故無者。陰藏隱密。是善業招。何容醜陋 又諸根生已下。第二難也。若諸根生。非由有用．無用醜陋．端嚴。有因即生。何論醜陋。鼻．舌．男根俱離境貪。理合齊無根愛。男根非有鼻．舌應無。
論。若爾至不減諸根。又引經難也 上界不減諸根。如何無其鼻．舌。
論。隨彼諸根至男根應有。先釋彼反難也。契經所說不減諸根。隨彼地諸根多少皆悉具有無減根者。如是釋經何所相違。若許隨有諸根不減。即令如於欲界具有根者。不減諸根。若然者。于彼上界男根應有。
論。如是說者至男根非有。論主評也。以六根愛依內身生。非依境界而得現起者。即緣六根愛。即有緣自身起。不緣境生。由有因故有鼻．舌根。其男根體即是身根一分。能觸淫境名為男根。此之愛生必因境愛。非如鼻．舌依內根處總起身愛。由此上界有內身愛鼻．舌非無。無淫境愛男根非有 余文可解。
論。無色界系至無色界系。第三釋無色也。無色界中唯有後三。要離色．欲方生彼故。色者即是五根．五境。離色慾故彼無根境。雖不離心欲。以無根．境。五識亦無。由此唯有後三界也。即是意．意識．法界三也。
論。已說界系
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如果說因為不（需要）生殖，所以（上界天人）沒有鼻和舌，這（種說法）應該是不成立的。這是通過解釋來反駁對方的觀點。如果說鼻和舌是爲了莊嚴身體而存在，而男根因為醜陋所以不存在，那麼陰藏（指女性的生殖器官）是隱秘的，這是善業所招感的，怎麼能說是醜陋的呢？而且，諸根（指六根：眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）的產生，還有第二個難點。如果諸根的產生不是因為有用或無用、醜陋或端正，而是有因緣就會產生，那又何必討論醜陋呢？鼻、舌、男根都遠離對境界的貪愛，按道理應該一起都沒有（根愛）。如果男根沒有，那麼鼻和舌也應該沒有。
論：如果這樣說，直到『不減少諸根』，這是又引用經文來反駁對方。上界天人不減少諸根，怎麼會沒有鼻和舌呢？
論：『隨彼諸根』直到『男根應該有』，這是先解釋對方的反駁。契經所說的不減少諸根，是指隨那個地方諸根的多少，都全部具有，沒有減少根的情況。這樣解釋經文有什麼相違背的呢？如果允許隨著（所處的界）有（的）諸根而不減少，那麼就使得像欲界一樣具有（所有）根的人，不減少諸根。如果這樣，那麼在上界天，男根應該存在。
論：『這樣說』直到『男根非有』，這是論主的評論。因為對六根的愛是依內身而生，不是依境界而得以顯現的。就是說，緣於六根的愛，就是緣于自身而生起，不是緣于外境而生。因為有（內身）的因，所以有鼻和舌根。而男根的本體是身根的一部分，能夠接觸淫慾的境界，才叫做男根。這種愛的產生必定是因為對境界的愛，不像鼻和舌是依于內在的根處而總的生起身愛。因此，上界天有對內身的愛，所以鼻和舌不會沒有；沒有對淫慾境界的愛，所以男根不會有。其餘的文字可以自己理解。
論：『無系』直到『無系』，這是第三個解釋無色界。無色界中只有后三界（指空無邊處天、識無邊處天、無所有處天），一定要遠離色界和欲界才能生到那裡。色，就是指五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）和五境（色、聲、香、味、觸）。因為遠離了色，所以那裡沒有根和境。雖然沒有遠離心欲，但因為沒有根和境，所以五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）也沒有。因此，只有后三界。也就是意、意識、法界這三者。
論：已經說了界系（指三界和它們之間的關係）。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: If it is argued that because there is no need for procreation, there are no nose and tongue (in the higher realms), this (argument) should not stand. This is a refutation by way of explanation. If it is said that the nose and tongue exist for the sake of adorning the body, while the male organ does not exist because it is ugly, then the hidden genitals (referring to the female reproductive organs) are concealed, which are brought about by good karma. How can they be said to be ugly? Moreover, regarding the arising of the sense organs (referring to the six sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind), there is a second difficulty. If the arising of the sense organs is not due to usefulness or uselessness, ugliness or beauty, but arises when there is a cause, then why discuss ugliness? The nose, tongue, and male organ are all free from craving for objects; logically, they should all be absent (of root-desire). If the male organ is absent, then the nose and tongue should also be absent.
Treatise: If that is the case, up to 'not diminishing the sense organs,' this is another refutation by quoting scripture. The beings in the higher realms do not diminish the sense organs, so how can they not have a nose and tongue?
Treatise: 'According to those sense organs' up to 'the male organ should exist,' this is first explaining the opponent's refutation. The scripture says that the sense organs are not diminished, meaning that according to the number of sense organs in that place, all are fully possessed, without any diminished sense organs. How does this explanation of the scripture contradict anything? If it is allowed that the sense organs are not diminished according to (what) exists (in the realm), then it would be like those who have (all) the sense organs in the desire realm, not diminishing the sense organs. If that is the case, then in the higher realms, the male organ should exist.
Treatise: 'Saying it this way' up to 'the male organ is not present,' this is the treatise master's commentary. Because the love for the six sense organs arises based on the inner body, not based on objects. That is, the love arising from the six sense organs arises from oneself, not from external objects. Because there is a cause (of the inner body), there are nose and tongue. The essence of the male organ is a part of the body sense, which is called the male organ when it can touch lustful objects. The arising of this love must be due to the love of objects, unlike the nose and tongue, which generally give rise to body love based on the inner root location. Therefore, the higher realms have love for the inner body, so the nose and tongue are not absent; there is no love for lustful objects, so the male organ is not present. The remaining text can be understood on your own.
Treatise: 'No ** realm' up to 'no ** realm,' this is the third explanation of the Formless Realm. In the Formless Realm, there are only the latter three realms (referring to the Realm of Infinite Space, the Realm of Infinite Consciousness, and the Realm of No-Thingness), and one must be far from the Form Realm and the Desire Realm to be born there. Form refers to the five sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and the five sense objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch). Because they are far from form, there are no sense organs and objects there. Although they have not departed from mental desire, because there are no sense organs and objects, there are also no five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness). Therefore, there are only the latter three realms. That is, mind, consciousness, and the realm of phenomena.
Treatise: The realm system has already been discussed (referring to the Three Realms and the relationships between them).
至幾無漏。第三半頌明漏．無漏也。先問。頌答。如文可解。
論曰至唯名有漏釋也。意界．意識唯有二類。道諦攝者是無漏。漏不增故。余唯有漏。漏隨增故。
法界。有為無漏道諦所攝。無為無漏謂三無為。擇滅無為漏緣不增故是無漏。虛空．非擇滅二。漏不緣故名為無漏。非二因果故染不緣也。餘名有漏。漏隨增故。餘十五界唯名有漏。漏隨增故。與大乘．諸部不同也。
論。如是已說至無尋無伺。第四半頌釋有尋．有伺等也。結引頌答 如文可解。
論曰至故說唯言。釋也。文中有三。一唯有尋伺。二有無不定。三唯無尋伺。此文初也 十八界中五識唯有尋有伺。分界名也 由與尋伺恒共相應。釋唯有尋．伺所以也 以行相粗外門轉者。釋恒共尋．伺相應所以也 正理論云。經主釋言以行相粗外門轉故。此因非理。現見。意識內門轉時亦常與彼共相應故應作是釋。五識唯于尋．伺所隨地中有故。非於欲界．初靜慮中心．心所法除尋與伺。而有不與尋．伺相應。何用外門為因簡別 俱舍釋救之。一行相粗。是通因。二外門轉。是別因。五識具二內。門意識雖無外門轉。而有行相粗故。有尋有伺。上地外門意識。雖有外門轉。而無行相粗故。無尋無伺 詳曰。有無尋．伺即既但由行相何
【現代漢語翻譯】 至幾無漏（達到什麼程度才沒有煩惱）。第三半頌明漏（第三個半頌說明煩惱）．無漏也（以及沒有煩惱的狀態）。先問（首先提問）。頌答（然後用偈頌回答）。如文可解（就像文中的解釋一樣）。
論曰至唯名有漏釋也（論中說，只有名稱上是有煩惱的解釋）。意界（mind element，意識的領域）．意識唯有二類（意識只有兩種）。道諦（the Truth of the Path，通往解脫的真理）攝者是無漏（被道諦所包含的是沒有煩惱的）。漏不增故（因為煩惱不會增加）。余唯有漏（其餘的只有煩惱）。漏隨增故（因為煩惱會隨之增加）。
法界（dharma element，事物或法則的領域）。有為無漏道諦所攝（有為法中沒有煩惱的，被道諦所包含）。無為無漏謂三無為（無為法中沒有煩惱的，指三種無為法）。擇滅無為（Nirvana，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅狀態）漏緣不增故是無漏（因為煩惱的因緣不會增加，所以是沒有煩惱的）。虛空（space，空間）．非擇滅二（非擇滅和空間兩種）。漏不緣故名為無漏（因為煩惱不會以它們為緣，所以被稱為沒有煩惱的）。非二因果故染不緣也（因為它們不是因果關係，所以染污不會以它們為緣）。餘名有漏（其餘的被稱為有煩惱的）。漏隨增故（因為煩惱會隨之增加）。餘十五界唯名有漏（其餘十五界只有名稱上是有煩惱的）。漏隨增故（因為煩惱會隨之增加）。與大乘．諸部不同也（這與大乘佛教和其他部派不同）。
論。如是已說至無尋無伺（論中，像這樣已經說到了沒有尋和伺的狀態）。第四半頌釋有尋（第四個半頌解釋有尋）．有伺等也（有伺等狀態）。結引頌答（總結並引導到偈頌的回答） 如文可解（就像文中的解釋一樣）。
論曰至故說唯言（論中說，所以說『唯』這個詞）。釋也（是解釋）。文中有三（文中包含三個方面）。一唯有尋伺（一，只有尋和伺）。二有無不定（二，有或者沒有不確定）。三唯無尋伺（三，只有沒有尋和伺）。此文初也（這是第一個方面）。十八界中五識唯有尋有伺（十八界中，五識只有尋和伺）。分界名也（這是從界來區分名稱）。由與尋伺恒共相應（因為它們總是與尋和伺共同相應）。釋唯有尋．伺所以也（解釋了為什麼只有尋和伺）。以行相粗外門轉者（因為它們的行相粗糙，並且通過外門運作）。釋恒共尋．伺相應所以也（解釋了為什麼總是與尋和伺相應）。正理論云（《正理論》中說）。經主釋言以行相粗外門轉故（經的作者解釋說，因為它們的行相粗糙，並且通過外門運作）。此因非理（這個原因是沒道理的）。現見（現在看到）。意識內門轉時亦常與彼共相應故（意識通過內門運作時，也常常與它們共同相應）。應作是釋（應該這樣解釋）。五識唯于尋．伺所隨地中有故（五識只在尋和伺所隨的地中存在）。非於欲界（不是在欲界）．初靜慮中心（初禪的中心）．心所法除尋與伺（心和心所法除了尋和伺）。而有不與尋．伺相應（還有不與尋和伺相應的）。何用外門為因簡別（為什麼用外門作為原因來區分）。俱舍釋救之（《俱舍論》的解釋挽救了這個說法）。一行相粗（一，行相粗糙）。是通因（是共同的原因）。二外門轉（二，通過外門運作）。是別因（是特別的原因）。五識具二內（五識具備這兩個原因）。門意識雖無外門轉（內門意識雖然沒有通過外門運作）。而有行相粗故（但是有行相粗糙的原因）。有尋有伺（所以有尋和伺）。上地外門意識（上地的外門意識）。雖有外門轉（雖然有通過外門運作）。而無行相粗故（但是沒有行相粗糙的原因）。無尋無伺（所以沒有尋和伺）。詳曰（詳細地說）。有無尋．伺即既但由行相何（有沒有尋和伺，既然只是因為行相的原因，那麼為什麼……）
【English Translation】 To what extent is there no outflow (asravas)? The third half-verse clarifies outflows and non-outflows. First, a question is posed. Then, an answer is given in verse. The meaning can be understood from the text.
The treatise states that 'only nominally with outflows' is an explanation. The mind element (意界) and consciousness (意識) are only of two types. Those included in the Truth of the Path (道諦) are without outflows because outflows do not increase. The rest are only with outflows because outflows increase.
The dharma element (法界). The conditioned and without outflows are included in the Truth of the Path. The unconditioned and without outflows refer to the three unconditioned dharmas. Cessation through discrimination (擇滅無為) is without outflows because the conditions for outflows do not increase. Space (虛空) and non-cessation through discrimination (非擇滅) are both called without outflows because outflows do not take them as conditions. Because they are not causes and effects, defilements do not take them as conditions. The rest are called with outflows because outflows increase. The remaining fifteen elements are only nominally with outflows because outflows increase. This differs from the Mahayana and other schools.
The treatise. As has been said, 'to without investigation and analysis (尋伺)'. The fourth half-verse explains with investigation and analysis, etc. Concluding and leading to the verse answer. The meaning can be understood from the text.
The treatise states, 'therefore, it is said only'. This is an explanation. There are three aspects in the text. First, only with investigation and analysis. Second, uncertain whether with or without. Third, only without investigation and analysis. This is the first aspect. Among the eighteen elements, the five consciousnesses (五識) are only with investigation and analysis. This is a distinction by element. Because they are always associated with investigation and analysis. This explains why they are only with investigation and analysis. 'Because their characteristics are coarse and they operate through the external doors.' This explains why they are always associated with investigation and analysis. The Nyayanusara says, 'The author of the sutra explains that because their characteristics are coarse and they operate through the external doors.' This reason is not logical. It is evident that when consciousness operates through the internal door, it is also often associated with them. It should be explained as follows: the five consciousnesses exist only in the realms where investigation and analysis are present. In the desire realm (欲界) and the first dhyana (初靜慮), among the mental and mental factors, besides investigation and analysis, there are none that are not associated with investigation and analysis. Why use the external door as a distinguishing factor? The Abhidharmakosa attempts to rescue this by saying: 'First, coarse characteristics are a general cause. Second, operating through the external door is a specific cause.' The five consciousnesses possess both. Although internal door consciousness does not operate through the external door, it has coarse characteristics, so it has investigation and analysis. Upper realm external door consciousness, although it operates through the external door, does not have coarse characteristics, so it does not have investigation and analysis. In detail, if the presence or absence of investigation and analysis is solely due to characteristics, then why...'
假外門．內門。外門無尋．伺內門有尋．伺故。故知。外門非是因也 今詳。以五識唯行相粗故。恒與尋．伺相應唯外門轉 顯義決定故說唯言者。顯五識唯尋．伺相應所以。故不至上地。
論。后三至皆通三品。第二釋三界不定也。先標三界皆通三品。后釋不同。此文標也。
論。意界意識界至無尋無伺。釋 此三界中法有四類。一除尋．及伺余相應法 二非相應法．靜慮中間伺． 三尋 四欲界初定伺 此文初也 就前文中復有三節即一有尋有伺。二無尋唯伺。三無尋無伺。謂此三界除尋．及伺。若在欲界．初靜慮中。有尋有伺。靜慮中間無尋有伺。第二靜慮已上。乃至有頂。無尋無伺。
論。法界所攝至伺亦如是。第二明非相應法。及靜慮中間伺。俱是無尋無伺。此中言有尋有伺者。是相應有非俱有有。由此四相及隨相不名有尋伺。中間伺無第二伺故。及地法無尋故。所以伺是無尋無伺。
論。尋一切時至但伺相應故。第三明尋也。有尋之處必有伺故。尋唯有伺。無第二尋故不名有尋。此意說。伺聚起時無第二伺故不相應。受等亦爾。雖有二三受。同聚起時無第二受等故不相應。正理不應以二受為例。應錄正理於前。
論。伺在欲界至但尋相應故。第四釋伺也 伺在中間禪無尋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：外門和內門。外門沒有尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，精細的思考），而內門有尋和伺，因此可知外門不是（產生尋和伺的）原因。現在詳細解釋：因為五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）的行相粗糙，所以總是與尋和伺相應，僅僅在外門運轉。說『唯』是爲了顯明決定的意義，是爲了顯明五識僅僅與尋和伺相應的原因，所以不能達到上地（更高的禪定境界）。
論：后三個『至』都通於三品（善、惡、無記）。第二是解釋三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的不定性。先標明三界都通於三品，然後解釋它們的不同。這段文字是標明。
論：意界（Manodhatu）、意識界（Manovijnanadhatu）到無尋無伺（無粗略思考和精細思考）。解釋：這三界中的法有四類：一、除去尋和伺之外的其餘相應法；二、非相應法、靜慮中間（禪定中間階段）的伺；三、尋；四、欲界初禪（初級禪定）的伺。這段文字是第一類。在前文中又有三個小節，即一、有尋有伺；二、無尋唯伺；三、無尋無伺。意思是說，這三界除去尋和伺，如果在欲界和初靜慮中，就有尋有伺；在靜慮中間，就沒有尋只有伺；在第二靜慮以上，乃至有頂（最高禪定），就沒有尋也沒有伺。
論：法界（Dharmadhatu）所攝到伺也是這樣。第二是說明非相應法和靜慮中間的伺，都是無尋無伺。這裡說有尋有伺，是相應的有，不是俱有的有。因此，四相（生、住、異、滅）以及隨相（例如生生）不稱為有尋伺。中間的伺沒有第二個伺，並且地法（禪定境界的法）沒有尋，所以伺是無尋無伺。
論：尋在一切時到但與伺相應。第三是說明尋。有尋的地方必定有伺，所以尋只有伺。沒有第二個尋，所以不稱為有尋。這個意思是說，伺聚集生起時沒有第二個伺，所以不相應。受等也是這樣，雖然有二三個受，同時聚集生起時沒有第二個受等，所以不相應。正理（Abhidharmakosabhasyam，俱舍論）不應該以二受為例，應該把正理記錄在前面。
論：伺在欲界到但與尋相應。第四是解釋伺。伺在中間禪沒有尋。
【English Translation】 English version: Outer gate and inner gate. The outer gate has no Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought), while the inner gate has Vitarka and Vicara. Therefore, it is known that the outer gate is not the cause (of producing Vitarka and Vicara). Now, to explain in detail: because the characteristics of the five consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness) are coarse, they are always associated with Vitarka and Vicara, and only operate in the outer gate. The word 'only' is used to clarify the definite meaning, to clarify the reason why the five consciousnesses are only associated with Vitarka and Vicara, and therefore cannot reach the higher grounds (higher states of Samadhi).
Treatise: The latter three 'to's all apply to the three qualities (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral). The second is to explain the indeterminacy of the three realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm). First, it is stated that the three realms all apply to the three qualities, and then their differences are explained. This passage is a statement.
Treatise: Manodhatu (Mind Element), Manovijnanadhatu (Mind-Consciousness Element) to no Vitarka and no Vicara (no gross thought and no subtle thought). Explanation: In these three realms, there are four categories of Dharmas: 1. The remaining associated Dharmas except for Vitarka and Vicara; 2. Non-associated Dharmas, Vicara in the intermediate stage of Dhyana (meditative absorption); 3. Vitarka; 4. Vicara in the first Dhyana (first stage of meditative absorption) of the Desire Realm. This passage is the first category. In the previous text, there are three subsections, namely: 1. With Vitarka and with Vicara; 2. Without Vitarka but only with Vicara; 3. Without Vitarka and without Vicara. It means that in these three realms, except for Vitarka and Vicara, if in the Desire Realm and the first Dhyana, there are Vitarka and Vicara; in the intermediate stage of Dhyana, there is no Vitarka but only Vicara; above the second Dhyana, up to the Peak of Existence (highest state of Samadhi), there is neither Vitarka nor Vicara.
Treatise: What is included in the Dharmadhatu (Element of Dharma) is also like this for Vicara. The second is to explain that non-associated Dharmas and Vicara in the intermediate stage of Dhyana are both without Vitarka and without Vicara. Here, saying 'with Vitarka and with Vicara' means that it is associated with, not co-existent with. Therefore, the four characteristics (birth, duration, change, extinction) and the secondary characteristics (e.g., birth of birth) are not called having Vitarka and Vicara. The Vicara in the intermediate stage has no second Vicara, and the Dharmas of the ground (Dharmas of the meditative state) have no Vitarka, so Vicara is without Vitarka and without Vicara.
Treatise: Vitarka is at all times to only associated with Vicara. The third is to explain Vitarka. Where there is Vitarka, there must be Vicara, so Vitarka only has Vicara. There is no second Vitarka, so it is not called having Vitarka. This means that when Vicara gathers and arises, there is no second Vicara, so it is not associated. It is also like this for feeling, etc. Although there are two or three feelings, when they gather and arise at the same time, there is no second feeling, etc., so they are not associated. The Abhidharmakosabhasyam (Treasury of Abhidharma) should not use two feelings as an example, and the Abhidharmakosabhasyam should be recorded earlier.
Treatise: Vicara is in the Desire Realm to only associated with Vitarka. The fourth is to explain Vicara. Vicara in the intermediate Dhyana has no Vitarka.
無伺。在欲界初禪有尋無伺。余準尋釋 此中總有四句。一有尋。有伺。二無尋唯伺。三無尋無伺。四無伺唯尋。就地作法故與余處四句次第不同。十八界中有五識一句。唯有尋有伺 意界．意識界三句。有尋有伺．無尋唯伺．無尋無伺。此由歷三地也 法界通四句。除尋．及伺余相應法．歷三地有三句。謂有尋有伺．無尋唯伺．無尋無伺 其尋唯有一句。謂有伺無尋 伺有兩句。謂有尋無伺．無尋無伺 餘十界唯一句無尋無伺。
論。由此故言至謂即是伺。結也。已上句數有尋有伺地法有四品。四品者。除尋．伺余相應法名有尋有伺。尋名無尋唯伺。伺是唯尋無伺．無尋無伺。餘十色界．及不相應法．無表色三無為。皆是無尋無伺。
論。餘十色界至不相應故。第三釋十界。無尋無伺也。
論。若五識身至無分別耶。第五一行頌因論生論明三分別。先問．頌答。可知 論曰至隨念分別。長行釋也。文中有三。一標三分別。二正釋難。三牒分別名釋。此文初也 可解。
論。由五識身至名為無足。第二正通難也 分別有三。五識唯一故名無分別。如馬有四足唯有一足亦名無足。
論。自性分別至隨念分別。第三牒名釋也 尋是自性分別。五識恒有。正理論云。夫分別者推求行相故。說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無伺（Avitarka，沒有精細觀察）。在欲界和初禪（Prathama Dhyana，色界的第一禪定）中有尋（Vitarka，粗略觀察）無伺。其餘的按照解釋尋的方式解釋。這裡總共有四句：一、有尋有伺；二、無尋唯伺；三、無尋無伺；四、無伺唯尋。因為就地進行分類，所以與其它地方的四句次第不同。在十八界（Dhatus，構成經驗世界的十八種元素）中，有五識（識蘊中的五種感官意識）只有一句，即有尋有伺。意界（Manodhatu，意識元素）、意識界（Manovijnanadhatu，心意識元素）有三句：有尋有伺、無尋唯伺、無尋無伺。這是由於經歷三地（三界）的緣故。法界（Dharmadhatu，法元素）貫通四句。除了尋和伺，其餘相應的法，經歷三地有三句，即有尋有伺、無尋唯伺、無尋無伺。而尋只有一句，即有伺無尋。伺有兩句，即有尋無伺、無尋無伺。其餘十界（Dhatus）只有一句，即無尋無伺。 論：由此故說，即是伺。總結。以上句數，有尋有伺地的法有四品。四品是指，除了尋和伺，其餘相應的法名為有尋有伺。尋名為無尋唯伺。伺是唯尋無伺、無尋無伺。其餘十色界（Rupadhatu，色蘊中的十種元素）、以及不相應法（不與心識相應的法）、無表色（Avijnapti-rupa，不可知色）、三種無為法（Asamskrta，非因緣和合的法），都是無尋無伺。 論：其餘十色界至不相應故。第三解釋十界，是無尋無伺。 論：如果五識身（Panca-vijnanakaya，五種感官意識的集合）至無分別耶？第五，用一行頌因論生論，來說明三種分別。先提問，用頌回答，可以理解。論曰至隨念分別。用長行文解釋。文中分為三部分：一、標出三種分別；二、正式解釋難題；三、重複分別的名稱來解釋。這段文字是第一部分，可以理解。 論：由五識身至名為無足。第二，正式地通達難題。分別有三種。五識是唯一的，所以稱為無分別。如同馬有四足，但只有一足，也可以稱為無足。 論：自性分別至隨念分別。第三，重複名稱來解釋。尋是自性分別。五識恒常具有。正理論說，所謂分別，就是推求事物的行相。
【English Translation】 English version: Avitarka (without subtle examination). In the Desire Realm and the First Dhyana (Prathama Dhyana, the first meditation in the Form Realm), there is Vitarka (gross examination) without Avitarka. The rest is explained according to the way Vitarka is explained. Here, there are a total of four possibilities: 1. With Vitarka and with Avitarka; 2. Without Vitarka but only with Avitarka; 3. Without Vitarka and without Avitarka; 4. Without Avitarka but only with Vitarka. Because the classification is done based on the ground, the order of the four possibilities is different from other places. In the Eighteen Dhatus (elements that constitute the world of experience), the five consciousnesses (the five sense consciousnesses in the Skandha of consciousness) have only one possibility, which is with Vitarka and with Avitarka. The Manodhatu (mind element) and Manovijnanadhatu (mind-consciousness element) have three possibilities: with Vitarka and with Avitarka, without Vitarka but only with Avitarka, and without Vitarka and without Avitarka. This is because of experiencing the three realms. The Dharmadhatu (Dharma element) encompasses all four possibilities. Except for Vitarka and Avitarka, the remaining corresponding Dharmas, experiencing the three realms, have three possibilities, which are with Vitarka and with Avitarka, without Vitarka but only with Avitarka, and without Vitarka and without Avitarka. Vitarka has only one possibility, which is with Avitarka but without Vitarka. Avitarka has two possibilities, which are with Vitarka but without Avitarka, and without Vitarka and without Avitarka. The remaining ten Dhatus have only one possibility, which is without Vitarka and without Avitarka. Treatise: Therefore, it is said that it is Avitarka. Conclusion. Regarding the number of possibilities above, the Dharmas in the ground with Vitarka and with Avitarka have four categories. The four categories refer to the remaining corresponding Dharmas, except for Vitarka and Avitarka, which are called with Vitarka and with Avitarka. Vitarka is called without Vitarka but only with Avitarka. Avitarka is only with Vitarka without Avitarka, and without Vitarka and without Avitarka. The remaining ten Rupadhatu (the ten elements in the Skandha of Form), as well as non-corresponding Dharmas (Dharmas that do not correspond with consciousness), Avijnapti-rupa (unmanifested form), and the three Unconditioned Dharmas (Asamskrta, Dharmas not compounded by causes and conditions), are all without Vitarka and without Avitarka. Treatise: The remaining ten Rupadhatu to non-corresponding, therefore. The third explanation of the ten Dhatus is without Vitarka and without Avitarka. Treatise: If the Panca-vijnanakaya (aggregate of five sense consciousnesses) to without discrimination? Fifth, using a verse to explain the arising of the treatise from the cause of the treatise, to clarify the three discriminations. First, ask the question, and answer with a verse, which can be understood. Treatise says to subsequent discrimination. Explain with prose. The text is divided into three parts: 1. State the three discriminations; 2. Formally explain the difficult problem; 3. Repeat the names of the discriminations to explain. This text is the first part, which can be understood. Treatise: From the Panca-vijnanakaya to called without feet. Second, formally understand the difficult problem. There are three discriminations. The five consciousnesses are unique, so they are called without discrimination. Just as a horse has four legs, but if it only has one leg, it can also be called without feet. Treatise: Self-nature discrimination to subsequent discrimination. Third, repeat the names to explain. Vitarka is self-nature discrimination. The five consciousnesses always have it. The Proper Theory says, 'What is called discrimination is the pursuit of the characteristics of things.'
尋為自性分別。簡擇．明記片似順尋。故分別名亦通慧．念。由此三行差別攝持。皆令于境明瞭轉異。于已了境遮簡行生。故分別名不通於想。于未了境不能印持。故分別名不通勝解。
意識相應散慧。是計度分別。定中無計度故。若定．若散念名隨念分別。念于定．散皆能記持故。
論。如是已說有尋伺等至幾無執受。第六一行頌明有緣．無緣。執受．非執受二門也。結引頌答。如文可解。
論曰至義準成故。釋也。文中有二。一釋有所緣。二釋有執受。此文初也 六識意界諸心所法名有所緣。指法體也 能取境故。釋所以也 以心．心所能取所緣之境名有所緣。正理論云。如人有子。所緣．所行．及與境界。名義差別 餘十色界及法界攝不相應法名無所緣指法體也。不相應法亦攝無表色．及三無為。俱是不相應。以不能取境故 義準成故。釋所以也 正理論云。五識身決定不用和合為境。然必有境故以實法為境義成。若五識身。了勝義境。何緣五識不斷結耶。了自相故。外門轉故。無等引故。無分別故。一墮境故。所緣少故。雖了勝義而不斷結。
論。如是已說至皆無執受。第二釋執受．無執受也。文中有三。一明唯無執受界。二通二界。三執受義。此文初也 謂十八界中。七心界．法
界聲界。此九界唯無執受。乘前有所緣中七心界．法界故。別釋七心界．及法界名為前八。聲非有所緣法故言及聲。
論。所餘九界至無執受故。第二釋通二界也。文中有二。先標．次釋。此即標也。
論。眼等至名無執受。此釋也。釋中有二。一釋五根。二釋色等四境。此釋五根也 此唯有二。住現在名有執受。過．未名無執受。
論。色．香．味．觸至名無執受。第二釋色等四境也。此有三類。過。未一向無執受。現在與五根合名執受。不與根合名無執受。
論。如在身內至而無執受。指事釋也 如文可解 準上釋五根．四境。住現在世不離根名有執受。故知。三無心位。住現在五根．不離根四境。亦有執受。是心．心所法攝為依處故。余緣闕故識雖不生．己身攝故。
論。有執受者此言何義至名無執受。第三釋執受義也 心心所法共所執持攝為依處名有執受者。釋有執受義也 損益展轉更相隨故者。五根．四境不相離故。損．益展轉更相隨也 即諸世間說有覺觸眾緣所觸覺苦樂者。指事釋也 正理論云。有執受法略有二種。一者有愛及有身見執為己有。名有執受。二者為因能生苦．樂。名有執受 此當第二。
論。如是已說有執受等至幾非積集。第七一行頌明大造．積集
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 界聲界（Shēngjiè）：這九界（Jiè）唯一沒有執受（Zhíshòu）。憑藉前面有所緣（Suǒyuán）中的七心界（Qī xīnjiè）和法界（Fǎjiè）的緣故，特別解釋七心界和法界，稱作前八。聲音不是有所緣的法，所以說及聲音。
論：其餘九界乃至沒有執受的緣故。第二解釋通於二界。文中有二，先標明，后解釋。這即是標明。
論：眼等乃至名為沒有執受。這是解釋。解釋中有二，一解釋五根（Wǔ gēn），二解釋色等四境（Sè děng sì jìng）。這是解釋五根。這唯有二種情況：處於現在的名為有執受，過去和未來的名為沒有執受。
論：色、香、味、觸乃至名為沒有執受。第二解釋色等四境。這有三類：過去和未來一向沒有執受；現在與五根結合名為有執受，不與根結合名為沒有執受。
論：如在身內乃至而沒有執受。這是指事解釋。如文義可以理解。參照上面解釋五根和四境，處於現在世不離根名為有執受。因此可知，在三無心位（Sān wú xīnwèi），處於現在的五根和不離根的四境，也有執受。這是因為心和心所法（Xīn xīn suǒ fǎ）攝為依處的緣故。其餘因緣闕少，所以識（Shí）雖然不生，但因為屬於自身攝持。
論：有執受者，此言何義乃至名為沒有執受？第三解釋執受的意義。心和心所法共同執持，攝為依處，名為有執受。這是解釋有執受的意義。損益展轉更相隨的緣故，五根和四境不相離的緣故，損益展轉更相隨。即諸世間說有覺觸眾緣所觸覺苦樂者，這是指事解釋。《正理論（Zhènglǐ lùn）》云：有執受法略有二種，一者有愛及有身見執為己有，名為有執受；二者為因能生苦樂，名為有執受。這相當於第二種。
論：如是已說有執受等乃至幾非積集？第七一行頌明大造（Dà zào）、積集（Jījí）。
【English Translation】 English version The realm of sound (Shēngjiè): These nine realms (Jiè) are uniquely without grasping (Zhíshòu). Relying on the seven mental realms (Qī xīnjiè) and the realm of dharma (Fǎjiè) within what is previously cognized (Suǒyuán), the seven mental realms and the realm of dharma are specifically explained and called the former eight. Sound is not a dharma that is cognized, hence the mention of sound.
Treatise: The remaining nine realms, up to the reason of being without grasping. The second explanation applies to both realms. There are two parts in the text: first, the statement; second, the explanation. This is the statement.
Treatise: Eyes, etc., up to being called without grasping. This is the explanation. There are two parts in the explanation: first, the explanation of the five roots (Wǔ gēn); second, the explanation of the four objects, such as form (Sè děng sì jìng). This is the explanation of the five roots. There are only two situations: what is in the present is called with grasping; what is in the past and future is called without grasping.
Treatise: Form, smell, taste, touch, etc., up to being called without grasping. The second explanation is of the four objects, such as form. There are three categories: the past and future are always without grasping; the present, when combined with the five roots, is called with grasping; when not combined with the roots, it is called without grasping.
Treatise: As within the body, up to being without grasping. This is an explanation by pointing to the matter. The meaning can be understood as in the text. Referring to the above explanation of the five roots and four objects, what is in the present world and not separated from the roots is called with grasping. Therefore, it can be known that in the three states of no-mind (Sān wú xīnwèi), the five roots in the present and the four objects not separated from the roots also have grasping. This is because the mind and mental factors (Xīn xīn suǒ fǎ) are taken as the basis. Because other conditions are lacking, although consciousness (Shí) does not arise, it is included as belonging to oneself.
Treatise: What is meant by 'with grasping,' up to being called 'without grasping'? The third explanation is of the meaning of grasping. The mind and mental factors jointly grasp and are taken as the basis, which is called 'with grasping.' This is the explanation of the meaning of 'with grasping.' Because of the mutual dependence of loss and gain, the five roots and four objects are not separate, so loss and gain mutually follow. That is, in the world, it is said that there is feeling of touch, and the feeling of suffering and joy is touched by various conditions. This is an explanation by pointing to the matter. The Zhengli Lun (Zhènglǐ lùn) says: 'There are roughly two kinds of dharmas with grasping: first, having love and self-view, grasping as one's own, is called with grasping; second, being the cause of generating suffering and joy is called with grasping.' This corresponds to the second kind.
Treatise: Having thus spoken of 'with grasping,' etc., how many are not accumulations? The seventh line of verse explains the great creation (Dà zào) and accumulation (Jījí).
等二門也。結引頌答。如文可解。
論曰至俱非二種。釋也。文中有二。一釋大造等。二釋積集等 就釋大造等中。有二。一釋十八界中有是大造等。二敘異說。此文初也 觸中有二。七觸是所造。四大是能造。五根．四境．及法界無表唯所造。余俱非二。
論。尊者覺天至唯大種性。第二敘異說也。先敘。后破。此文敘也。
論。彼說不然至理定不然。破也。引二經破。此第一引經破也 彼說不然。總非也 契經唯說堅等四相為大種故者。經唯說堅相為地種。濕相為水種。暖相為火種。動相為風種。非說滑等青等相為地等種故。故知滑等相非地等種 此四大種唯觸攝故者。堅等四相唯是觸處。故知余處非四大種 非堅濕等眼等所取者。色等是眼等所取。故知非大種 非色聲等身根所覺者。故知色等非是四大 彼說理定不然者。結也。
論。又契經說至無見有對。第二引經破也。文中有四。一引經文。二釋經意。三外難。四通難。此文第一也 經中說五根．四境皆唯所造。觸界說有大種．造色也。證知四大種唯是能造非色等也。
論。如是經中至皆非大種。第二釋經意也。如文可解。
論。若爾至乃至廣說。第三外引經難也 經言眼肉團中。若內堅性堅類等。故知。眼等是四大
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
這是關於第二類門（等二門）的解釋。總結並引導以偈頌作答，文意淺顯易懂。
論曰：『至俱非二種』，這是解釋部分。文中包含兩點：一是解釋『大造等』，二是解釋『積集等』。在解釋『大造等』中，又分為兩點：一是解釋十八界中哪些是『大造等』，二是敘述不同的觀點。這段文字是第一點。
觸（Sparsha）包含兩種：七種觸是所造的，四大（Mahabhuta）是能造的。五根（Indriya）、四境（Gocara），以及法界（Dharmadhatu）中的無表色（Avijnapti-rupa）只是所造的，其餘則兩者都不是。
論：『尊者覺天至唯大種性』，這是第二點，敘述不同的觀點。先敘述，后破斥。這段文字是敘述。
論：『彼說不然至理定不然』，這是破斥。引用兩部經來破斥。這是第一次引用經文來破斥。『彼說不然』，是總體的否定。『契經唯說堅等四相為大種故者』，經中只說了堅相（hardness）是地種（Prthivi-dhatu），濕相（moisture）是水種（Apo-dhatu），暖相（heat）是火種（Tejo-dhatu），動相（motion）是風種（Vayo-dhatu），並沒有說滑（smoothness）等、青（blue）等相是地等種。因此，可知滑等相不是地等種。『此四大種唯觸攝故者』，堅等四相只是觸處（Sparsha-ayatana）。因此，可知其餘處不是四大種。『非堅濕等眼等所取者』，色（Rupa）等是眼（Caksu）等所取的。因此，可知它們不是大種。『非色聲等身根所覺者』，因此，可知色等不是四大。『彼說理定不然者』，這是總結。
論：『又契經說至無見有對』，這是第二次引用經文來破斥。文中包含四點：一是引用經文，二是解釋經文的含義，三是外人提出疑問，四是解答疑問。這段文字是第一點。經中說五根、四境都是所造的，觸界（Sparsha-dhatu）中說有大種、造色（Rupa-nirmita）。證明四大種只是能造的，不是色等。
論：『如是經中至皆非大種』，這是第二點，解釋經文的含義。文意淺顯易懂。
論：『若爾至乃至廣說』，這是第三點，外人引用經文提出疑問。經中說眼肉團中，有內在的堅性、堅類等。因此，可知眼等是四大。
【English Translation】 English version:
These are explanations regarding the second set of doors (the 'equal two doors'). The conclusion is drawn and guided with a verse as an answer, the meaning of which is easily understood.
Treatise says: 'To both non-two kinds', this is the explanation section. There are two points in the text: one is to explain 'greatly created and so on', and the other is to explain 'accumulated and so on'. In explaining 'greatly created and so on', there are two points: one is to explain which of the eighteen realms are 'greatly created and so on', and the other is to narrate different views. This text is the first point.
Touch (Sparsha) contains two kinds: the seven touches are what is created, and the four great elements (Mahabhuta) are what can create. The five roots (Indriya), the four objects (Gocara), and the non-manifest form (Avijnapti-rupa) in the Dharma realm (Dharmadhatu) are only what is created, and the rest are neither.
Treatise: 'Venerable Jue Tian to only great elemental nature', this is the second point, narrating different views. First narrate, then refute. This text is narration.
Treatise: 'That saying is not right to reason certainly not right', this is refutation. Quoting two sutras to refute. This is the first time quoting a sutra to refute. 'That saying is not right' is a general negation. 'The sutra only says that the four characteristics of hardness etc. are the great elements', the sutra only says that the characteristic of hardness is the earth element (Prthivi-dhatu), the characteristic of moisture is the water element (Apo-dhatu), the characteristic of heat is the fire element (Tejo-dhatu), and the characteristic of motion is the wind element (Vayo-dhatu). It does not say that the characteristics of smoothness etc., blue etc. are earth etc. elements. Therefore, it can be known that the characteristics of smoothness etc. are not earth etc. elements. 'These four great elements are only included in touch', the four characteristics of hardness etc. are only the touch-ayatana (Sparsha-ayatana). Therefore, it can be known that the remaining places are not the four great elements. 'Not hardness, moisture etc. taken by the eyes etc.', form (Rupa) etc. are taken by the eyes (Caksu) etc. Therefore, it can be known that they are not great elements. 'Not form, sound etc. perceived by the body root', therefore, it can be known that form etc. are not the four great elements. 'That saying is certainly not right', this is the conclusion.
Treatise: 'Also, the sutra says to invisible and tangible', this is the second time quoting a sutra to refute. There are four points in the text: one is to quote the sutra, two is to explain the meaning of the sutra, three is that outsiders raise questions, and four is to answer the questions. This text is the first point. The sutra says that the five roots and the four objects are all created, and the touch realm (Sparsha-dhatu) says that there are great elements and created form (Rupa-nirmita). It proves that the four great elements are only what can create, not form etc.
Treatise: 'Thus, in the sutra to all are not great elements', this is the second point, explaining the meaning of the sutra. The meaning of the text is easily understood.
Treatise: 'If so to and so on extensively', this is the third point, outsiders raise questions by quoting the sutra. The sutra says that in the fleshy mass of the eye, there are internal hardness, hardness class, etc. Therefore, it can be known that the eyes etc. are the four great elements.
也。
論。彼說至無相違過。第四通難也。文中有二。一通所引經。二會入胎經。此文初也 彼說眼根肉團中有堅性等。非謂堅等即是眼根。無相違失。
論。入胎經中至六觸處故。會入胎經也 彼經說六界者。謂四大．空．識。為成士夫本事。士夫非唯爾許。亦更有六境．及心所故。所以得知。彼經亦說色等六觸處故。
論。又諸心所至依止心故。反難也 若以經說四大即無色等。經說識界心所亦應非有。亦不應執心所即心。以契經言想．受等心所法依止心故。若受．想等即是心者。何故經云心所法依止心也。
論。又經亦說有貪心等故。又引證也。既言有貪。不可心即是貪。
論。由此如前至差別義成。結也。
論如是已說至非極微故。大文第二釋積集等也。如文可解。
論。如是已說至幾所稱。第七一行頌分別能斫．所斫等三門。結引頌答。如文可解。
論曰至此法名斫。釋也。文中有三。一釋能斫．所斫。二合釋所燒．能稱。三合釋能燒．所稱此文初也。文有二段一明能斫．所斫。二明俱非。此文初也 謂外四界。除聲。合成斧薪。是能斫．所斫。何法名斫。由斧隔薪令成二分各別續生。名為能斫。
論。身等色根至如珠寶光。釋五根俱非也 離身
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
論：他們的說法沒有相違背的過失，這是第四個通過論證來反駁對方的觀點。這段文字分為兩部分：一是解釋引用的經文，二是解釋《入胎經》。這裡是第一部分。他們的說法是，眼根的肉團中有堅硬的性質等等，但並不是說堅硬等同於眼根，所以沒有相違背的過失。
論：《入胎經》中說到了六觸處，這是爲了解釋《入胎經》。經文中所說的六界，指的是地、水、火、風四大，以及空界和識界，是爲了成就『士夫』（Pudgala，補特伽羅，指有情眾生）的根本。但『士夫』不僅僅只有這些，還有六境（色、聲、香、味、觸、法）以及心所法。為什麼知道呢？因為經文中也說了色等六觸處。
論：如果認為經文說四大就是無色等，那麼經文說識界，心所法也應該不存在。也不應該認為心所法就是心，因為契經上說，想、受等心所法是依止於心的。如果受、想等就是心，為什麼經上說心所法依止於心呢？
論：而且經文也說了有貪心等等。既然說了有貪，就不能說心就是貪。
論：因此，就像前面所說，通過這些論證，可以成立差別義。
論：像這樣已經說了積集等，這是第二大段，解釋積集等等。按照文字就可以理解。
論：像這樣已經說了多少所稱，這是第七個部分，用一行頌文來分別能斫（能砍的）、所斫（被砍的）等三個方面，總結並引用頌文來回答。按照文字就可以理解。
論曰：這個法叫做『斫』。這是解釋。這段文字分為三部分：一是解釋能斫、所斫，二是合起來解釋所燒、能稱，三是合起來解釋能燒、所稱。這裡是第一部分。這段文字分為兩段：一是說明能斫、所斫，二是說明都不是。這裡是第一部分。所謂外四界（地、水、火、風），除去聲界，合成為斧頭和柴薪，這就是能斫、所斫。什麼法叫做『斫』呢？就是斧頭將柴薪隔開，使之成為兩部分，各自延續生命，這叫做能斫。
論：身體等色根，就像珠寶的光芒一樣。這是解釋五根都不是。
【English Translation】 English version:
Treatise: Their statement does not have the fault of contradiction; this is the fourth refutation through argumentation. This text is divided into two parts: first, explaining the quoted scripture; second, explaining the Entering the Womb Sutra. This is the first part. Their statement is that the fleshy mass of the eye-organ has the nature of hardness, etc., but it is not saying that hardness, etc., are identical to the eye-organ; therefore, there is no fault of contradiction.
Treatise: The Entering the Womb Sutra speaks of the six sense-spheres; this is to explain the Entering the Womb Sutra. The six realms mentioned in the sutra refer to the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), as well as the space realm and the consciousness realm, for the purpose of accomplishing the fundamental nature of a 『Pudgala』 (person, sentient being). However, a 『Pudgala』 is not limited to just these; there are also the six objects (form, sound, smell, taste, touch, dharma) and mental factors. How do we know this? Because the sutra also speaks of the six sense-spheres such as form, etc.
Treatise: If one argues that the sutra says the four great elements are identical to the immaterial, etc., then the sutra's mention of the consciousness realm and mental factors should also mean they do not exist. Nor should one hold that mental factors are identical to the mind, because the sutra says that mental factors such as thought, feeling, etc., rely on the mind. If feeling, thought, etc., are identical to the mind, why does the sutra say that mental factors rely on the mind?
Treatise: Moreover, the sutra also speaks of having greed, etc. Since it is said that there is greed, it cannot be said that the mind is identical to greed.
Treatise: Therefore, as mentioned before, through these arguments, the meaning of difference can be established.
Treatise: Having thus spoken of accumulation, etc., this is the second major section, explaining accumulation, etc. It can be understood according to the text.
Treatise: Having thus spoken of how much is called, this is the seventh part, using a one-line verse to distinguish the three aspects of the cutter (that which can cut), the cut (that which is cut), etc., summarizing and quoting the verse to answer. It can be understood according to the text.
Treatise says: This dharma is called 『cutting』. This is an explanation. This text is divided into three parts: first, explaining the cutter and the cut; second, combining the explanation of the burned and the weighing; third, combining the explanation of the burner and the weighed. This is the first part. This text is divided into two sections: first, explaining the cutter and the cut; second, explaining that neither is. This is the first part. The so-called outer four elements (earth, water, fire, wind), excluding the sound element, combine to form the axe and the firewood; these are the cutter and the cut. What dharma is called 『cutting』? It is the axe separating the firewood, causing it to become two parts, each continuing its life; this is called the cutter.
Treatise: The sense organs such as the body, etc., are like the light of jewels. This is explaining that none of the five sense organs are.
支節無根故 不成二分非所斫也。如珠寶等光故非能斫。
論。如能斫至不相續故。第二合釋所燒．能稱也。外四界是所燒．能稱。五根．及聲俱非也。
論。能燒所稱至所稱唯重。第四合釋能燒．所稱也 或即四界。或火大能燒 重觸所稱也。◎
◎論。如是已說至幾一剎那。第十四明五類門。文中有三。結引。二頌答。三釋頌。此文初也。
頌曰至剎那唯后三。此頌答也。
論曰至無別性故。此釋頌也 言。內五者。謂眼等五根。有異熟生．及所長養。遮等流性。是故不說。無別性故。
論。異熟因所生至故作是說。釋異熟生。文中有四。此第一釋 異熟因所生者。因名異熟。果名異熟生者。屬主釋也。異熟因所生故名異熟生。略去因所二字名異熟生。喻意可解。此但釋果名異熟生所以。不說因名異熟因所以。
論。或所造業至名異熟生。第二釋也。此釋因名異熟。持業釋也。異熟即因名異熟因。果名異熟生者。屬主釋也。
論。彼所得果至故名異熟。第三釋也。此即果是無記。因是善．惡。與因別類名之為異。復是所熟名為異熟。異熟即生名異熟生。持業釋也。
論。或於因上至昔所造業。第四有財釋也。因有異熟果故名異熟因。果從彼異熟因生名異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『支節無根』，因此不能被分割成兩部分，也不是可以被砍伐的東西。如同珠寶等發出的光芒，因此無法被砍伐。
論：如果可以砍伐直至不相連續，那麼第二部分合並解釋所燒和能稱。外四界（地、水、火、風）是所燒和能稱，五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）以及聲音都不是。
論：能燒所稱，所稱唯有重量。第四部分合並解釋能燒和所稱。或者就是四大界。或者火大能夠燃燒，重觸是所稱。
論：如是已說完，到幾一剎那？第十四說明五類門。文中有三部分：總結引導，二頌回答，三解釋頌。這段文字是第一部分。
頌曰：到剎那唯后三。這是頌的回答。
論曰：到無別性故。這是解釋頌。言：內五者，指的是眼等五根。有異熟生（Vipāka-ja，由異熟果報所生）以及所長養。遮止等流性（Nisyanda-ja，由同類因所生）。因此不說。因為沒有差別性的緣故。
論：異熟因所生，到故作是說。解釋異熟生。文中有四部分。這是第一部分解釋。異熟因所生者，因名為異熟（Vipāka），果名為異熟生（Vipāka-ja），是屬主釋（Tad-dhita）。異熟因所生，因此名為異熟生。省略『因』和『所』二字，名為異熟生。比喻的意義可以理解。這裡只是解釋果名異熟生的原因，沒有說因名異熟因的原因。
論：或者所造業，到名異熟生。第二部分解釋。這是解釋因名異熟，是持業釋（Karma-dhāraya）。異熟即是因，名為異熟因。果名為異熟生，是屬主釋。
論：彼所得果，到故名異熟。第三部分解釋。這裡指果是無記（Avyākrta，非善非惡），因是善或惡。與因的類別不同，名之為異。又是所成熟的，名為異熟。異熟即生，名為異熟生。是持業釋。
論：或者于因上，到昔所造業。第四部分是有財釋（Arśa-ādi）。因有異熟果，因此名為異熟因。果從彼異熟因生，名為異熟生。
【English Translation】 English version 'Branches and joints without roots' cannot be divided into two parts, nor are they something that can be chopped. Like the light emitted from jewels, they cannot be chopped.
Treatise: If it could be chopped until discontinuous, then the second part combines to explain what is burned and what can be weighed. The outer four elements (earth, water, fire, wind) are what is burned and what can be weighed; the five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and sound are not.
Treatise: What can be burned and what can be weighed, what can be weighed is only weight. The fourth part combines to explain what can be burned and what can be weighed. Or it is the four great elements. Or the fire element can burn, and heavy touch is what can be weighed.
Treatise: As has been said, up to how many in one kshana (moment)? The fourteenth explains the five categories. There are three parts in the text: summarizing introduction, two verses answering, and three explaining the verses. This text is the first part.
Verse: Up to kshana (moment), only the last three. This is the answer in verse.
Treatise: Up to because there is no separate nature. This is explaining the verse. Speaking of the inner five, it refers to the five roots such as the eye. There is Vipāka-ja (異熟生, born from different karma results) and what is nourished. Preventing Nisyanda-ja (等流性, born from similar causes). Therefore, it is not mentioned. Because there is no separate nature.
Treatise: Vipāka-ja (異熟生, born from different karma results) is born from Vipāka (異熟) cause, up to therefore it is said. Explaining Vipāka-ja (異熟生). There are four parts in the text. This is the first part of the explanation. Vipāka-ja (異熟生) is born from Vipāka (異熟) cause, the cause is called Vipāka (異熟), and the result is called Vipāka-ja (異熟生), which is Tad-dhita (屬主釋). Vipāka-ja (異熟生) is born from Vipāka (異熟) cause, therefore it is called Vipāka-ja (異熟生). Omitting the words 'cause' and 'from', it is called Vipāka-ja (異熟生). The meaning of the metaphor can be understood. This only explains the reason for the result name Vipāka-ja (異熟生), and does not explain the reason for the cause name Vipāka (異熟).
Treatise: Or the karma created, up to is called Vipāka-ja (異熟生). The second part explains. This explains the cause name Vipāka (異熟), which is Karma-dhāraya (持業釋). Vipāka (異熟) is the cause, named Vipāka (異熟) cause. The result is called Vipāka-ja (異熟生), which is Tad-dhita (屬主釋).
Treatise: The result obtained, up to therefore it is called Vipāka (異熟). The third part explains. This refers to the result being Avyākrta (無記, non-virtuous and non-non-virtuous), and the cause being virtuous or non-virtuous. Different from the category of cause, it is called different. It is also what is matured, called Vipāka (異熟). Vipāka (異熟) is born, called Vipāka-ja (異熟生). It is Karma-dhāraya (持業釋).
Treatise: Or on the cause, up to karma created in the past. The fourth part is Arśa-ādi (有財釋). The cause has Vipāka (異熟) result, therefore it is called Vipāka (異熟) cause. The result is born from that Vipāka (異熟) cause, called Vipāka-ja (異熟生).
熟生。屬主釋也 正理有四解。三解同此論無此論第三。與因別類而是所熟釋也。加一解云。離因而熟故名異熟。異熟體生名異熟生 釋云。所以離因而熟等釋異熟生名。離因。謂因已滅經于多時方有異熟。此即熟名目果。以論云離因而熟故名異熟。體生名異熟生。持業釋也 泰法師云。其異熟眼。從異熟因所生名異熟生。如牛所駕車名牛車。略去因所中言故。但言異熟生。此異熟因言是總。下三義是別 二或所造業。至得果時變異有力成熟。異未熟時故名異熟。果從彼異熟生從因為名。名異熟生 三或所得果是無記。因是善惡。果與因別類。而是所熟故。果名異熟。因從果名名異熟因。果從異熟生名異熟生 四或於因上假立果名故因名異熟。如於果上假立因名。第三因從果名說因名異熟。第四因上假立果名。說因名異熟。前是相從得名。后是假立故有異也 今詳。相從。假立俱是多財釋。未見有異。又總．別不同。總合在最初。或居最後。因何正理為第二釋 有人．解第一云。言異熟者 異在因。熟在果 或異在果。熟在因 或異通因．果熟在果。或在因 或熟通因．果。異或在因。或在果 或異熟。在因 或異熟。在果 或異熟通因．及果。如此繁雜未成釋義。
論。飲食資助至防援內城。釋長養也。依此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『熟生』（Vipāka-ja）。屬於『持業釋』（Karmadhāraya）。『正理』（Nyāya）有四種解釋。其中三種解釋與此論相同，此論沒有第三種解釋。與『因』（hetu）不同類別，而是『所熟』（paripāka）的解釋。增加一種解釋說：離開『因』而成熟，所以名為『異熟』（Vipāka）。『異熟』的自體產生，名為『異熟生』。解釋說：所以離開『因』而成熟等解釋『異熟生』這個名稱。離開『因』，是指『因』已經滅去，經過很長時間才有『異熟』。這即是『熟』這個名稱指代『果』（phala）。因為論中說，離開『因』而成熟，所以名為『異熟』。自體產生，名為『異熟生』。屬於『持業釋』。 泰法師說：那『異熟眼』（Vipāka-cakṣus），從『異熟因』所生，名為『異熟生』。如同牛所駕的車，名為『牛車』。省略了『因所』中間的言語，所以只說『異熟生』。這『異熟因』的說法是總的，下面三種意義是別的。 第二種解釋是：或者所造的『業』（karma），到得『果』的時候，變異而有力，成熟于未熟的時候，所以名為『異熟』。『果』從那『異熟』產生，從『因』而得名，名為『異熟生』。 第三種解釋是：或者所得的『果』是『無記』（avyākṛta），『因』是『善』（kuśala）或『惡』（akuśala）。『果』與『因』類別不同，而是『所熟』的，所以『果』名為『異熟』。『因』從『果』得名，名為『異熟因』。『果』從『異熟』生，名為『異熟生』。 第四種解釋是：或者在『因』上假立『果』的名稱，所以『因』名為『異熟』。如同在『果』上假立『因』的名稱。第三種解釋是從『果』得名說『因』名為『異熟』，第四種解釋是在『因』上假立『果』的名稱，說『因』名為『異熟』。前面是相從得名，後面是假立，所以有不同。 現在詳細分析，相從、假立都是『多財釋』（Bahuvrīhi），未見有不同。又總、別不同，總合在最初，或者居於最後。因何『正理』為第二種解釋？ 有人解釋第一種說：說到『異熟』，『異』在『因』，『熟』在『果』；或者『異』在『果』，『熟』在『因』；或者『異』通於『因』、『果』，『熟』在『果』，或者在『因』；或者『熟』通於『因』、『果』，『異』或者在『因』，或者在『果』；或者『異熟』在『因』；或者『異熟』在『果』；或者『異熟』通於『因』及『果』。如此繁雜，未成釋義。 論：『飲食』（āhāra）資助，到防援內城。解釋為長養。依此。
【English Translation】 English version 『Vipāka-ja』 (Result-born). It belongs to 『Karmadhāraya』 (Determinative Compound). 『Nyāya』 (Logic) has four explanations. Three of these explanations are the same as this treatise, this treatise does not have the third explanation. It is of a different category from 『hetu』 (cause), and is an explanation of 『paripāka』 (ripening). Adding one explanation, it says: Because it ripens apart from the 『hetu』, it is called 『Vipāka』 (Result). The self-nature of 『Vipāka』 arising is called 『Vipāka-ja』. Explanation: Therefore, 『ripening apart from the cause』 and other explanations explain the name 『Vipāka-ja』. 『Apart from the cause』 means that the 『hetu』 has already ceased, and after a long time, there is 『Vipāka』. This is the name 『ripening』 referring to 『phala』 (fruit). Because the treatise says that it ripens apart from the 『hetu』, it is called 『Vipāka』. The self-nature arising is called 『Vipāka-ja』. It belongs to 『Karmadhāraya』. Master Tai said: That 『Vipāka-cakṣus』 (Result-eye), born from 『Vipāka-hetu』 (Result-cause), is called 『Vipāka-ja』. Like a cart driven by an ox is called an 『ox-cart』. The words 『caused by』 in the middle are omitted, so it is only called 『Vipāka-ja』. This statement of 『Vipāka-hetu』 is general, and the following three meanings are specific. The second explanation is: Or the 『karma』 (action) created, when the 『phala』 (fruit) is obtained, changes and becomes powerful, ripening from the unripe state, so it is called 『Vipāka』. The 『phala』 arises from that 『Vipāka』, and is named after the 『hetu』, called 『Vipāka-ja』. The third explanation is: Or the 『phala』 obtained is 『avyākṛta』 (unspecified), and the 『hetu』 is 『kuśala』 (wholesome) or 『akuśala』 (unwholesome). The 『phala』 is of a different category from the 『hetu』, and is what is 『ripened』, so the 『phala』 is called 『Vipāka』. The 『hetu』 is named after the 『phala』, called 『Vipāka-hetu』. The 『phala』 arises from 『Vipāka』, called 『Vipāka-ja』. The fourth explanation is: Or the name of the 『phala』 is falsely established on the 『hetu』, so the 『hetu』 is called 『Vipāka』. Just like falsely establishing the name of the 『hetu』 on the 『phala』. The third explanation is that the 『hetu』 is named 『Vipāka』 from the name of the 『phala』, and the fourth explanation is that the name of the 『phala』 is falsely established on the 『hetu』, saying that the 『hetu』 is called 『Vipāka』. The former is named by association, and the latter is falsely established, so there is a difference. Now, analyzing in detail, both association and false establishment are 『Bahuvrīhi』 (Possessive Compound), and no difference is seen. Also, the general and specific are different, the general is combined at the beginning, or resides at the end. Why is 『Nyāya』 the second explanation? Someone explained the first one saying: Speaking of 『Vipāka』, 『different』 is in the 『hetu』, 『ripening』 is in the 『phala』; or 『different』 is in the 『phala』, 『ripening』 is in the 『hetu』; or 『different』 applies to both 『hetu』 and 『phala』, 『ripening』 is in the 『phala』, or in the 『hetu』; or 『ripening』 applies to both 『hetu』 and 『phala』, 『different』 is either in the 『hetu』 or in the 『phala』; or 『Vipāka』 is in the 『hetu』; or 『Vipāka』 is in the 『phala』; or 『Vipāka』 applies to both 『hetu』 and 『phala』. So complicated, it does not form an explanation. Treatise: 『Āhāra』 (food) assists, to defending the inner city. Explaining as nourishing. According to this.
論有三。一飲食。二睡眠。三等持。依雜心加梵行。此論不許 破云。此唯無損。非別有蓋 猶如外郭防援內城者。異熟必有長養 自有長養而無異熟。如阿那律天眼。其阿那律肉眼先失。準正理云。有所長養離異熟生。如修所得天眼．天耳。準此身在欲界修得天眼．耳等。皆是唯長養也。無同地異熟故。長小令大。養疲令肥名為長養 又釋因養而長。故名長養。養之長故依士釋也 問外無情物。何故不說有長養耶。如穀麥等 答長養對異熟說。內有異熟說有長養。外無異熟不說長養。長養力然防異熟故 問若有異熟即說長養。心．心所等亦有異熟。因何不說有長養耶 答色法可說長疲令肥。心法無形。如何長養就別義說亦有長養。
論聲有等流至隨欲轉故。釋聲唯通二類。飲食等長養生故有長養。離長養有等流故有別等流。異熟色法一起相續。聲隨欲生故非異熟。是有為故非實。從同類因生故非剎那。
論。若爾不應至梵音聲相。外難 既離粗惡語感得梵音聲。如何非異熟也。
論。有說聲屬至緣擊發聲。第一釋也 雖由離粗惡語感得梵音聲。而聲非異熟。屬第三傳故。
論有說聲屬至此乃生聲。第二釋也。
論。若爾身受至便違正理。有人云。論主破初師者 謬也。正理云。何緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於『有』（bhava）有三種：一是飲食（āhāra），二是睡眠（middha），三是等持（samāhita）。依據《雜心論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）的觀點，還應加上梵行（brahmacarya）。 此論點不認可（梵行）——反駁說：這（梵行）僅僅是沒有損害，並非是單獨的蓋障（āvaraṇa）。 就像外城的城郭是爲了防衛內城一樣，異熟果（vipāka-phala）必定有長養（āhāra）。 也有長養而沒有異熟果的情況，比如阿那律（Aniruddha）的天眼（divyacakṣus）。阿那律的肉眼（māṃsacakṣus）先前已經失去。根據《正理經》（Nyāyāgama）所說，有所長養但並非異熟所生，比如通過修行獲得的天眼、天耳（divyaśrotra）。據此，身在欲界（kāmadhātu）通過修行獲得的天眼、天耳等，都只是長養而已，因為沒有同地的異熟果。使小的變大，使疲憊的變得肥壯，這叫做長養。 另一種解釋是，因為滋養而生長，所以名為長養。因為滋養而生長，所以是依士釋（指一種梵文複合詞的構成方式）。 問：為什麼對外在的無情物，比如穀物等，不說有長養呢？ 答：長養是針對異熟果而言的。內在有異熟果，所以說有長養；外在沒有異熟果，所以不說長養。長養的力量是爲了防禦異熟果。 問：如果說有異熟果就說有長養，那麼心（citta）、心所（caitta）等也有異熟果，為什麼不說有長養呢？ 答：色法（rūpa）可以說長得疲憊變得肥壯，心法沒有形體，如何長養？就別的意義來說，也有長養。 論：聲音有等流（niḥsyanda），乃至隨心所欲地轉變。 解釋：聲音只通于兩類：飲食等通過長養而生，所以有長養；離開長養有等流，所以有別的等流。異熟的色法一起相續，聲音隨心所欲地產生，所以不是異熟果。因為是有為法（saṃskṛta），所以不是實（sat）。從同類因產生，所以不是剎那（kṣaṇa）。 論：如果這樣，就不應該有梵音聲相（brahma-svara-lakṣaṇa）。外人的詰難：既然離開了粗惡語（pāruṣya-vacana）而感得梵音聲，為什麼不是異熟果呢？ 論：有人說，聲音屬於……乃至緣擊發聲。這是第一種解釋。雖然由於離開了粗惡語而感得梵音聲，但聲音不是異熟果，因為它屬於第三傳（tṛtīya-saṃtāna）。 論：有人說，聲音屬於……乃至因此產生聲音。這是第二種解釋。 論：如果這樣，身體感受……就違背了正理。有人說，論主駁斥了最初的說法——這是錯誤的。《正理經》說：什麼原因……
【English Translation】 English version There are three types of 『bhava』 (existence): first, food (āhāra); second, sleep (middha); third, concentration (samāhita). According to the Abhidharmasamuccaya, brahmacarya (pure conduct) should also be added. This argument does not accept (brahmacarya) – refuted by saying: This (brahmacarya) is merely without harm, and is not a separate obscuration (āvaraṇa). Just as the outer walls of a city defend the inner city, the result of vipāka (vipāka-phala) must have nourishment (āhāra). There is also nourishment without the result of vipāka, such as Aniruddha's (Aniruddha) divine eye (divyacakṣus). Aniruddha's physical eye (māṃsacakṣus) was lost earlier. According to the Nyāyāgama, there is nourishment that is not born from vipāka, such as the divine eye and divine ear (divyaśrotra) obtained through cultivation. Accordingly, the divine eye and ear, etc., obtained through cultivation while in the desire realm (kāmadhātu), are only nourishment, because there is no vipāka of the same realm. Making the small become large, making the tired become fat, this is called nourishment. Another explanation is that it is called nourishment because it grows through nourishment. Because it grows through nourishment, it is an appositional compound (referring to a way of constructing Sanskrit compound words). Question: Why is it not said that external inanimate objects, such as grains, etc., have nourishment? Answer: Nourishment is spoken of in relation to the result of vipāka. If there is a result of vipāka internally, then it is said to have nourishment; if there is no result of vipāka externally, then nourishment is not spoken of. The power of nourishment is to defend against the result of vipāka. Question: If it is said that if there is a result of vipāka, then there is nourishment, then the mind (citta), mental factors (caitta), etc., also have a result of vipāka, so why is it not said that they have nourishment? Answer: It can be said of form (rūpa) that it grows from tired to fat, but the mind has no form, so how can it be nourished? In another sense, there is also nourishment. Argument: Sound has a continuous flow (niḥsyanda), and can even be transformed at will. Explanation: Sound only applies to two categories: food, etc., is produced through nourishment, so it has nourishment; leaving nourishment has a continuous flow, so there is a separate continuous flow. The form of vipāka arises together continuously. Sound arises at will, so it is not the result of vipāka. Because it is conditioned (saṃskṛta), it is not real (sat). Because it arises from a cause of the same kind, it is not momentary (kṣaṇa). Argument: If so, there should not be the characteristic of Brahma's voice (brahma-svara-lakṣaṇa). An outsider's challenge: Since Brahma's voice is attained by leaving harsh speech (pāruṣya-vacana), why is it not the result of vipāka? Argument: Some say that sound belongs to... even to the sound produced by striking a cause. This is the first explanation. Although Brahma's voice is attained by leaving harsh speech, sound is not the result of vipāka, because it belongs to the third transmission (tṛtīya-saṃtāna). Argument: Some say that sound belongs to... even to the sound produced by this. This is the second explanation. Argument: If so, the body feels... then it violates the Nyāyāgama. Some say that the author of the treatise refutes the initial statement – this is wrong. The Nyāyāgama says: What is the reason...
聲界非異熟生。數數間斷復還生故。異熟生色無如是事。非隨欲樂異熟果生。聲隨欲生故非異熟 豈不如彼施設論言善修遠離粗惡語故感得大士梵音聲相 雖由業感而非異熟。以聲起在第三傳故。謂從彼業。生諸大種。從諸大種緣擊發聲 若爾。身受因業所生大種發故應非異熟 此難不然。非諸身受皆因大種。及因業生大種所發。亦非一切皆是異熟 然諸身受亦因非業所生大種。及非大種而得生故。謂身受起要假身．解．身識等緣。由此亦緣外大種起。非要待業所感大生。于理無違。故通異熟 若執聲界是異熟生。如是聲界唯因大種。唯因異熟大種而生。不離如前所說過失 若說聲界非異熟生。如是聲界唯因大種通因異熟．及非異熟大種而起。于理無違。亦無如前所說過失 故應如是分別聲界 非諸身受。唯內大種是異熟者。非唯異熟大種為因。又不同彼有違理失。是故所例理極不齊 今詳正理論意。異熟心等定有依．緣方得生起。既緣非異熟大種得起。異熟身受依異熟者因何不復是異熟耶。若緣異熟亦不得起。即應總無異熟身受。既許有者。豈不依．緣生於身受 有餘師說。聲非異熟如何異熟大種所生。故應許聲屬第四傳。或第五傳故。非異熟。謂從業生異熟大種。從此傳生長養大種。此復傳生等流大種。長養大種
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 聲界（shēng jiè，聲音的領域）不是異熟生（yì shú shēng，由業力成熟而產生的）。因為它是數數間斷（shù shù jiàn duàn，經常中斷）又復還生（fù huán shēng，再次產生）的。異熟生色（yì shú shēng sè，由業力成熟而產生的色法）沒有這樣的情況。而且它不是隨欲樂（suí yù lè，隨著慾望和快樂）而異熟果生（yì shú guǒ shēng，產生異熟果報）的。聲音是隨欲而生的，所以不是異熟生。 難道不像《施設論》（Shī shè lùn，佛教論著）里所說的那樣嗎？因為善修遠離粗惡語（shàn xiū yuǎn lí cū è yǔ，好好地修習遠離粗俗惡劣的語言），所以感得大士梵音聲相（gǎn dé dà shì fàn yīn shēng xiàng，感得偉大聖者的清凈聲音的相）？雖然是由業感（yóu yè gǎn，由業力感召）的，但不是異熟。因為聲音的產生是在第三傳（dì sān zhuàn，第三層傳遞）的緣故。也就是說，從那個業，產生諸大種（zhū dà zhǒng，各種基本元素），從諸大種緣擊發聲（zhū dà zhǒng yuán jī fā shēng，由各種基本元素相互作用而產生聲音）。 如果這樣，那麼身受（shēn shòu，身體的感受）因為業所生大種（yè suǒ shēng dà zhǒng，由業力產生的基本元素）而產生，應該不是異熟？這個責難是不成立的。不是所有的身受都因為大種，以及因為業生大種所發（yè shēng dà zhǒng suǒ fā，由業力產生的基本元素所引發）。也不是一切都是異熟。 然而，諸身受（zhū shēn shòu，各種身體的感受）也因為非業所生大種（fēi yè suǒ shēng dà zhǒng，不是由業力產生的基本元素），以及非大種（fēi dà zhǒng，不是基本元素）而得以產生。也就是說，身受的產生需要依靠身（shēn，身體）、解（jiě，理解）、身識（shēn shí，身體的意識）等緣（yuán，條件）。由此也依靠外大種（wài dà zhǒng，外部的基本元素）而產生。不一定要等待業所感大生（yè suǒ gǎn dà shēng，由業力感召而產生），在道理上沒有違背。所以可以通於異熟（tōng yú yì shú，可以歸於異熟）。 如果執著聲界是異熟生（zhí zhuó shēng jiè shì yì shú shēng，如果認為聲音的領域是由業力成熟而產生的），那麼這個聲界就僅僅因為大種（dà zhǒng，基本元素），僅僅因為異熟大種（yì shú dà zhǒng，由業力成熟而產生的基本元素）而產生。不能脫離前面所說過的過失。 如果說聲界不是異熟生（shuō shēng jiè bù shì yì shú shēng，如果說聲音的領域不是由業力成熟而產生的），那麼這個聲界就僅僅因為大種（dà zhǒng，基本元素），既可以因為異熟（yì shú，由業力成熟而產生的），也可以因為非異熟大種（fēi yì shú dà zhǒng，不是由業力成熟而產生的基本元素）而產生。在道理上沒有違背。也沒有前面所說過的過失。 所以應該這樣分別聲界（fēn bié shēng jiè，區分聲音的領域）。不是所有的身受（shēn shòu，身體的感受），僅僅是內大種（nèi dà zhǒng，內部的基本元素）是異熟。不是僅僅以異熟大種（yì shú dà zhǒng，由業力成熟而產生的基本元素）為因。又不同於那些有違背道理的過失。所以所舉的例子在道理上極不相同。 現在詳細考察《正理論》（Zhèng lǐ lùn，佛教論著）的意義。《正理論》認為，異熟心等（yì shú xīn děng，由業力成熟而產生的心等）一定有依（yī，所依賴的）和緣（yuán，條件）才能產生。既然依靠非異熟大種（fēi yì shú dà zhǒng，不是由業力成熟而產生的基本元素）才能產生，那麼異熟身受（yì shú shēn shòu，由業力成熟而產生的身體感受）依靠異熟（yì shú，由業力成熟而產生的），為什麼不能是異熟呢？如果依靠異熟也不能產生，那就應該完全沒有異熟身受（yì shú shēn shòu，由業力成熟而產生的身體感受）了。既然允許有異熟身受，難道不是依靠依和緣而產生身受嗎？ 有其他論師說，聲音不是異熟（yì shú，由業力成熟而產生的），怎麼會是由異熟大種（yì shú dà zhǒng，由業力成熟而產生的基本元素）所生呢？所以應該允許聲音屬於第四傳（dì sì zhuàn，第四層傳遞），或者第五傳（dì wǔ zhuàn，第五層傳遞）。所以不是異熟。也就是說，從業產生異熟大種（yè chǎn shēng yì shú dà zhǒng，由業力產生異熟的基本元素），從此傳遞生長養大種（chuán shēng zhǎng yǎng dà zhǒng，由此傳遞產生滋養的基本元素），這又傳遞產生等流大種（děng liú dà zhǒng，同類相續的基本元素），滋養大種（zī yǎng dà zhǒng，滋養的基本元素）。
【English Translation】 English version The sound realm (shēng jiè, the realm of sound) is not Vipāka-born (yì shú shēng, born from the maturation of karma), because it repeatedly ceases and then arises again (shù shù jiàn duàn fù huán shēng). Vipāka-born form (yì shú shēng sè, form born from the maturation of karma) does not have such a characteristic. Moreover, it is not born as a Vipāka result according to desire and pleasure (suí yù lè yì shú guǒ shēng). Sound arises according to desire, therefore it is not Vipāka-born. Is it not as stated in the Treatise on Establishments (Shī shè lùn, a Buddhist treatise): 'Because of well cultivating the abandonment of coarse and evil speech (shàn xiū yuǎn lí cū è yǔ), one obtains the majestic Brahma-like sound of a great being (gǎn dé dà shì fàn yīn shēng xiàng)'? Although it is caused by karma (yóu yè gǎn), it is not Vipāka, because the arising of sound is in the third transmission (dì sān zhuàn). That is to say, from that karma, the great elements (zhū dà zhǒng, the fundamental elements) arise; from the great elements, sound is produced through interaction (zhū dà zhǒng yuán jī fā shēng). If that is the case, then bodily sensations (shēn shòu, physical sensations) arising from the great elements produced by karma (yè suǒ shēng dà zhǒng) should not be Vipāka? This objection is not valid. Not all bodily sensations arise from the great elements, nor are they all caused by the great elements produced by karma (yè shēng dà zhǒng suǒ fā). Nor is everything Vipāka. However, bodily sensations (zhū shēn shòu) also arise from great elements not produced by karma (fēi yè suǒ shēng dà zhǒng), and from non-elements (fēi dà zhǒng). That is to say, the arising of bodily sensations requires reliance on conditions such as the body (shēn), understanding (jiě), and bodily consciousness (shēn shí). Therefore, it also arises in dependence on external great elements (wài dà zhǒng). It does not necessarily have to wait for the great elements produced by karma (yè suǒ gǎn dà shēng); there is no contradiction in principle. Therefore, it can be included in Vipāka (tōng yú yì shú). If one insists that the sound realm is Vipāka-born (zhí zhuó shēng jiè shì yì shú shēng), then this sound realm arises only from the great elements (dà zhǒng), only from the Vipāka-born great elements (yì shú dà zhǒng). It cannot be separated from the faults mentioned earlier. If one says that the sound realm is not Vipāka-born (shuō shēng jiè bù shì yì shú shēng), then this sound realm arises only from the great elements (dà zhǒng), both from Vipāka-born (yì shú) and non-Vipāka-born great elements (fēi yì shú dà zhǒng). There is no contradiction in principle. Nor are there the faults mentioned earlier. Therefore, the sound realm (fēn bié shēng jiè) should be distinguished in this way. Not all bodily sensations (shēn shòu) are such that only the internal great elements (nèi dà zhǒng) are Vipāka. It is not solely caused by Vipāka-born great elements (yì shú dà zhǒng). Moreover, it is not the same as those with contradictory faults. Therefore, the example given is extremely dissimilar in principle. Now, examining the meaning of the Treatise on Correct Principles (Zhèng lǐ lùn, a Buddhist treatise) in detail, it states that Vipāka-born mind, etc. (yì shú xīn děng) must have a basis (yī) and conditions (yuán) in order to arise. Since it can arise in dependence on non-Vipāka-born great elements (fēi yì shú dà zhǒng), then why can't Vipāka-born bodily sensations (yì shú shēn shòu) be Vipāka, since they rely on Vipāka (yì shú)? If it cannot arise even in dependence on Vipāka, then there should be no Vipāka-born bodily sensations (yì shú shēn shòu) at all. Since it is admitted that there are Vipāka-born bodily sensations, isn't it that bodily sensations arise in dependence on a basis and conditions? Some other teachers say that sound is not Vipāka (yì shú), so how can it be produced by Vipāka-born great elements (yì shú dà zhǒng)? Therefore, it should be admitted that sound belongs to the fourth transmission (dì sì zhuàn), or the fifth transmission (dì wǔ zhuàn). Therefore, it is not Vipāka. That is to say, from karma, Vipāka-born great elements (yè chǎn shēng yì shú dà zhǒng) are produced; from this, nourishing great elements (chuán shēng zhǎng yǎng dà zhǒng) are transmitted and produced; this further transmits and produces homogenous great elements (děng liú dà zhǒng), nourishing great elements (zī yǎng dà zhǒng).
髮長養聲。等流大種發等流聲 此說非理。豈不如從無記大種發善．惡聲。從有執受發無執受。從身境界發耳境界。如是若從異熟大種發非異熟有何相違。是故。彼說定為非理(已上正理)有人作俱舍師破云。汝若言身受從大種．非大種生故。通異熟。聲唯大種生。不通異熟者。色亦唯從大種生。應不通異熟 汝若言身受從異熟．長養．等流大種生。通異熟者。汝亦許聲從此三生。應通異熟。
汝若言身受從異熟大種生者。亦非一切皆是異熟有通善．惡者。我亦非言一切身受從異熟大種生者。皆是異熟。亦通善惡。今此中破且據身受是異熟者。從業所生大種生者為難 汝若言聲屬第三傳故非異熟者。此第三傳非為定證。為如異熟身受。屬第三傳故。聲是異熟。為如善．惡身受。屬第三傳故。聲非異熟。我以不定出汝過失汝言身受不定故通異熟。豈不徒言故聲非屬第三傳也。初師既破后師還立 詳其此破未得其意。又正理論救第三傳云。豈不如從無記大種發善．惡聲。從有執受發無執受。從身境界發耳境界。如是若從異熟大種發非異熟。有何相違 若作俱舍師破。大種造色理實無定。此異熟大種所發之聲。既非異熟為是何等。若是長養。理應用彼長養大造。若是等流。理應用彼等流大造。有何所以異熟大造詳其釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『髮長養聲。等流大種發等流聲』，這種說法是不合理的。難道不是從無記（既非善也非惡）的大種發出善、惡的聲音嗎？不是從有執受（有感覺）的發出無執受（無感覺）的嗎？不是從身體的境界發出耳朵的境界嗎？這樣，如果從異熟（果報）的大種發出非異熟的聲音，有什麼相違背的呢？因此，那種說法肯定是錯誤的（以上是《正理》的觀點）。 有人作為俱舍師反駁說：『如果你們說身體的感受（身受）是從大種、非大種所生，所以通於異熟，而聲音僅僅是從大種所生，不通於異熟，那麼，色（物質）也僅僅是從大種所生，應該不通於異熟。』 『如果你們說身體的感受是從異熟、長養、等流的大種所生，通於異熟，那麼，你們也承認聲音是從這三種所生，應該通於異熟。』 『如果你們說身體的感受是從異熟的大種所生，也不是一切都是異熟，也有通於善、惡的，我也不是說一切身體的感受從異熟的大種所生，都是異熟，也有通於善惡的。』現在這裡反駁，暫且根據身體的感受是異熟，從業所生的大種所生來作為難點。 『如果你們說聲音屬於第三傳，所以不是異熟，那麼，這第三傳不是確定的證據。是像異熟的身體感受，屬於第三傳，所以聲音是異熟呢？還是像善、惡的身體感受，屬於第三傳，所以聲音不是異熟呢？我用不定來指出你們的過失。』你們說身體的感受不確定，所以通於異熟，難道不是白說嗎？所以聲音不屬於第三傳。最初的論師既然反駁了，後面的論師又重新建立。 詳細考察這種反駁，沒有抓住要點。而且《正理論》爲了挽救第三傳，說：『難道不是從無記的大種發出善、惡的聲音嗎？不是從有執受的發出無執受的嗎？不是從身體的境界發出耳朵的境界嗎？這樣，如果從異熟的大種發出非異熟的聲音，有什麼相違背的呢？』 如果作為俱舍師反駁，大種造色的道理實際上是不確定的。這異熟大種所發出的聲音，既然不是異熟，那是什麼呢？如果是長養，理應用那長養的大種所造；如果是等流，理應用那等流的大種所造。有什麼理由用異熟的大種所造呢？詳細考察這種解釋。
【English Translation】 English version 'The production of sound that nourishes and the production of sound that is an outflow from the outflowing great elements' – this statement is unreasonable. Is it not the case that from the indeterminate (neither good nor bad) great elements, good and bad sounds arise? Does not that which has apprehension (feeling) produce that which has no apprehension (no feeling)? Does not the realm of the body produce the realm of the ear? Thus, if non-resultant sounds arise from resultant (Vipaka) great elements, what contradiction is there? Therefore, that statement is definitely incorrect (the above is the view of the Nyaya). Someone, acting as a Kosa master, refutes: 'If you say that bodily feeling (kaya-vedana) arises from great elements and non-great elements, and therefore is connected to resultant, while sound arises only from great elements and is not connected to resultant, then color (rupa) also arises only from great elements and should not be connected to resultant.' 'If you say that bodily feeling arises from resultant, nourishing, and outflowing great elements, and is connected to resultant, then you also admit that sound arises from these three and should be connected to resultant.' 'If you say that bodily feeling arises from resultant great elements, it is not the case that everything is resultant; there is also connection to good and bad. I am not saying that all bodily feeling arises from resultant great elements and is all resultant; there is also connection to good and bad.' Here, the refutation is based on the premise that bodily feeling is resultant, arising from great elements produced by karma, as the point of contention. 'If you say that sound belongs to the third transmission and therefore is not resultant, then this third transmission is not a definite proof. Is it like resultant bodily feeling, which belongs to the third transmission, so sound is resultant? Or is it like good and bad bodily feeling, which belongs to the third transmission, so sound is not resultant? I use the uncertain to point out your fault.' You say that bodily feeling is uncertain, so it is connected to resultant; is this not a futile statement? Therefore, sound does not belong to the third transmission. The initial master having refuted, the later master re-establishes. Examining this refutation in detail, it does not grasp the essential point. Moreover, the Nyaya attempts to salvage the third transmission, saying: 'Is it not the case that from the indeterminate great elements, good and bad sounds arise? Does not that which has apprehension produce that which has no apprehension? Does not the realm of the body produce the realm of the ear? Thus, if non-resultant sounds arise from resultant great elements, what contradiction is there?' If, acting as a Kosa master, one refutes, the principle of great elements creating form is actually uncertain. Since the sound produced by these resultant great elements is not resultant, what is it then? If it is nourishing, it should logically be created by those nourishing great elements; if it is outflowing, it should logically be created by those outflowing great elements. What reason is there to use resultant great elements to create it? Examine this explanation in detail.
意未為盡理。誰言異熟大種造長養聲作此破耶 又詳論意。正理破后師。俱舍破兩師。正理存前師故於前師后救。俱舍破兩師故於第二說后破也 及身受之難正破前師亦兼后師。欲存聲通異熟故。然正理論意異熟．長養．等流大種皆能發聲。非唯異熟。此是擊發生聲非是造義 諸德。多將此論存后師釋。及擊發生以為造者。並不得論意。若謂后師為正．因何異熟大種相擊不發於聲。唯等流大種擊發生聲。此即違婆沙一百二十七云。評曰。總說此聲一切身支大種所造 遍身大種造者。對喉及臍邊大種說。遍身大種非是以造色等遍身內大種造也。即是遍身更有大種造聲。若此以造色等大種造聲。即是一因造多色過 如婆沙說。乃至現見。此等舉身。掉動故 準論文。既舉身掉動。因何異熟．長養不掉動耶。若亦掉動因何相擊不生聲耶。要須傳生等流大種。又婆沙九十云。問聲界云何恒時成就。有作是說。大種合．離必生聲界。有情若在欲．色界中。大種恒有故常發聲 評曰。彼不應作是說。若四大種必恒生聲。此所生聲何大種造。若即此造。應多有對色一四大種生。若說余造。餘四大種復必生聲。如是展轉有無窮過。應作是說。生欲．色界有情身中。多四大種在一身內。有相擊者便發生聲。不相擊者即無聲起。雖一身中必
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 意義並未完全窮盡真理。是誰說由異熟（Vipāka，果報）大種造作長養，從而產生聲音並打破這種觀點呢？ 進一步詳細討論其含義。正理論破斥後世的觀點，俱舍論破斥兩個學派的觀點。正理論保留了前世的觀點，因此在前世的觀點之後進行補救。俱舍論破斥兩個學派的觀點，因此在第二種觀點之後提出了進一步的破斥。 以及關於身體感受的難題，既直接破斥了前世的觀點，也間接破斥了後世的觀點。這是爲了保留聲音能夠通達異熟的觀點。然而，正理論的觀點是，異熟、長養、等流（Nisyanda，等流果）大種都能夠發出聲音，而不僅僅是異熟。這指的是撞擊產生聲音，而不是造作的含義。 諸位賢德，很多人將此論解釋為支援後世的觀點，並將撞擊產生聲音理解為造作，這都沒有理解論的真正含義。如果說後世的觀點是正確的，那麼為什麼異熟大種相互撞擊不會發出聲音，只有等流大種撞擊才會發出聲音呢？這與《婆沙論》第一百二十七卷所說相違背，其中評論說：『總的來說，這種聲音是由身體所有肢體的大種所造作的。』 遍身大種造作聲音，是針對喉嚨和肚臍附近的大種而言的。遍身大種並非是通過造作色等遍佈全身的大種來造作聲音。也就是說，遍佈全身還有其他的大種造作聲音。如果認為這是通過造作色等大種來造作聲音，那麼就會出現一個原因造作多種顏色的過失。 正如《婆沙論》所說，乃至現在所見，這些都舉身搖動。按照論文的說法，既然是舉身搖動，為什麼異熟、長養不搖動呢？如果也搖動，為什麼相互撞擊不產生聲音呢？必須通過傳遞產生等流大種。另外，《婆沙論》第九十卷說：『問：聲界如何恒時成就？有人這樣說：大種的聚合和分離必然產生聲界。有情如果在欲界、中，大種恒常存在，因此經常發出聲音。』 評論說：他不應該這樣說。如果四大種必然恒常產生聲音，那麼這種產生的聲音是由什麼大種造作的呢？如果就是由這些大種造作，那麼應該一個四大種產生多種對色。如果說是其他大種造作，那麼其他四大種又必然產生聲音。這樣循環往復，就會有無窮的過失。應該這樣說：生於欲界、的有情身中，多種四大種在一個身體內，有相互撞擊的就會發出聲音，不相互撞擊的就沒有聲音產生。即使在一個身體中，必然
【English Translation】 English version: The meaning is not fully exhaustive of the truth. Who says that Vipāka (resultant) great elements create and nourish, thereby producing sound and refuting this view? Further discuss the meaning in detail. The Nyaya-sastra refutes the later schools, and the Abhidharmakośa refutes two schools. The Nyaya-sastra retains the former school's view, so it remedies after the former school's view. The Abhidharmakośa refutes two schools, so it puts forward further refutations after the second view. And the difficulty regarding bodily sensations directly refutes the former school's view and indirectly refutes the later school's view as well. This is to retain the view that sound can pervade Vipāka. However, the view of the Nyaya-sastra is that Vipāka, nourishment, and Nisyanda (outflow) great elements can all produce sound, not just Vipāka. This refers to the striking producing sound, not the meaning of creation. Virtuous ones, many interpret this treatise as supporting the later school's view, and understand striking producing sound as creation, which does not understand the true meaning of the treatise. If the later school's view is correct, then why do Vipāka great elements not produce sound when they strike each other, and only Nisyanda great elements produce sound when they strike? This contradicts what is said in the Vibhāṣā, volume 127, which comments: 'Generally speaking, this sound is created by the great elements of all the body's limbs.' The great elements pervading the body creating sound are in relation to the great elements near the throat and navel. The great elements pervading the body do not create sound by creating the great elements that pervade the body, such as color. That is to say, there are other great elements pervading the body that create sound. If it is thought that this is creating sound by creating great elements such as color, then there will be the fault of one cause creating multiple colors. As the Vibhāṣā says, even as seen now, these all shake the whole body. According to the text, since the whole body is shaking, why do Vipāka and nourishment not shake? If they also shake, why do they not produce sound when they strike each other? It is necessary to transmit and produce Nisyanda great elements. Furthermore, the Vibhāṣā, volume 90, says: 'Question: How is the sound realm constantly accomplished? Some say this: the aggregation and separation of great elements necessarily produce the sound realm. If sentient beings are in the desire realm and , the great elements are constantly present, so they often produce sound.' Comment: He should not say this. If the four great elements necessarily constantly produce sound, then what great element creates this produced sound? If it is created by these great elements, then one great element should produce multiple colors. If it is said that other great elements create it, then the other four great elements must produce sound again. Repeating in this way, there will be infinite faults. It should be said this way: in the bodies of sentient beings born in the desire realm and , multiple four great elements are within one body, and those that strike each other will produce sound, and those that do not strike each other will not produce sound. Even in one body, necessarily
有聲界。非諸身份皆遍發聲(已上論文) 準此因何異熟．長養無相擊時。要須傳生等流大種。又證緣擊發聲非是造義。故知第二師義違婆沙正義。由此正理論破而不立。第一師義不違婆沙。論主意不許故兩師同破。許聲是異熟生故 又諸德多說。聲屬第三傳。證異熟大種造長養．等流聲 此亦非理。若以造義名為第三者。造余異熟色等。亦是從業生大種。大種造色等亦是第三。應非異熟。又若異熟大種。能造聲者。此造聲大種。若如余異熟色相續在身。即聲無而有大種。即違婆沙一百三十二云若成就現在大種彼現在所造色耶。答如是 設成就現在所造色彼現在大種耶。答如是。以非現在大種無果故(已上論文) 若聲無而有大種。此即大種無其果也。若此異熟大種隨聲有無。此即如聲間斷應非異熟 有人引正理第二十。成就造色不成大種。成就大種不成造色。證有一類異熟四大在身而不造色 謬也。此翻證無有造聲異熟大種在身。而無所造聲也。彼文引造無表色大種作句。不引此類大種作句數故 問若成就造無表業大種。而不成就無表色者。豈非現在大種無果耶。答此據無對造色說。不據有對造色說。若不爾者。即違現在大種必有果也。造色必有因。四大必有果。同世者。據有對造色說 準上道理一切聲皆無異熟大
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『有聲界』，並非所有身份（skandha，蘊）都能普遍發出聲音（以上是論文中的觀點）。 按照這個邏輯，為什麼異熟（vipāka，果報）、長養（āhāra，滋養）在沒有相互撞擊時，必須要有傳生等流（samanantara-pratyaya，等無間緣）的大種（mahābhuta，四大元素）呢？又，這證明了依靠撞擊而發聲並非是『造』的含義。因此，可以知道第二位論師的觀點違背了《婆沙論》的正義。因此，《正理論》破斥了第二位論師的觀點，但沒有確立自己的觀點。第一位論師的觀點不違背《婆沙論》。論主的意圖是不允許這兩種觀點，所以同時破斥了他們。因為論主允許聲音是異熟所生的。 此外，許多論德認為，聲音屬於第三傳。這證明了異熟的大種能夠『造』長養、等流的聲音。但這也不合理。如果以『造』的含義作為第三傳，那麼『造』其餘的異熟色等，也是從業所生的大種。大種『造』色等也是第三傳，那麼這些色等就不應該是異熟了。而且，如果異熟的大種能夠『造』聲音，那麼這種『造』聲音的大種，如果像其餘的異熟色一樣相續存在於身中，那麼就是聲音不存在時，大種卻存在，這就違背了《婆沙論》第一百三十二卷所說：『如果成就現在的大種，那麼他現在所造的色嗎？』回答：『是的。』『假設成就現在所造的色，那麼他現在的大種嗎？』回答：『是的。』因為不是現在的大種就沒有果報（以上是論文中的觀點）。 如果聲音不存在時，大種卻存在，那麼就是大種沒有它的果報。如果這種異熟的大種隨著聲音的有無而存在或消失，那麼就像聲音一樣間斷，就不應該是異熟了。 有人引用《正理論》第二十卷，說『成就造色，不成大種；成就大種，不成造色』，來證明有一類異熟的四大存在於身中，但不『造』色。這是錯誤的。這反而證明了沒有『造』聲音的異熟大種存在於身中，而沒有所『造』的聲音。那段經文引用的是『造無表色』的大種作為例句，而不是引用這類大種作為句子的數量。 問：如果成就『造無表業』的大種，而不成就無表色，難道不是現在的大種沒有果報嗎？答：這是根據沒有對礙的造色來說的，不是根據有對礙的造色來說的。如果不是這樣，就違背了現在的大種必定有果報的說法。『造色』必定有因，四大必定有果。『同世者』，是根據有對礙的造色來說的。 按照上面的道理，一切聲音都沒有異熟的大種。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the 'Sound Realm,' it is not the case that all skandhas (aggregates) universally emit sound (the above is a point from the treatise). According to this logic, why is it that vipāka (resultant effect), āhāra (nourishment) must have samanantara-pratyaya (immediately preceding condition) mahābhūtas (great elements) when there is no mutual striking? Furthermore, this proves that sound arising from striking is not the meaning of 'creation.' Therefore, it can be known that the view of the second teacher contradicts the correct meaning of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra. Hence, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra refutes the second teacher's view but does not establish its own. The view of the first teacher does not contradict the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra. The treatise master's intention is not to allow either of these views, so he refutes them both. Because the treatise master allows that sound is born from vipāka. Moreover, many virtuous ones say that sound belongs to the third transmission. This proves that vipāka mahābhūtas can 'create' nourishing, flowing sounds. But this is also unreasonable. If the meaning of 'creation' is taken as the third transmission, then 'creating' other vipāka forms, etc., is also from karma-born mahābhūtas. Mahābhūtas 'creating' forms, etc., is also the third transmission, then these forms, etc., should not be vipāka. Moreover, if vipāka mahābhūtas can 'create' sound, then if these 'creating' sound mahābhūtas, like other vipāka forms, continuously exist in the body, then it is that when sound does not exist, the mahābhūtas do exist, which contradicts what is said in the 132nd fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra: 'If one attains present mahābhūtas, then do they presently create form?' The answer is: 'Yes.' 'Suppose one attains presently created form, then are they present mahābhūtas?' The answer is: 'Yes.' Because if they are not present mahābhūtas, there is no result (the above is a point from the treatise). If when sound does not exist, mahābhūtas do exist, then it is that the mahābhūtas do not have their result. If these vipāka mahābhūtas exist or disappear with the presence or absence of sound, then like sound, they are intermittent and should not be vipāka. Someone quotes the 20th fascicle of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, saying 'Attaining created form, not attaining mahābhūtas; attaining mahābhūtas, not attaining created form,' to prove that there is a type of vipāka four great elements existing in the body, but not 'creating' form. This is wrong. This instead proves that there are no vipāka mahābhūtas 'creating' sound existing in the body, without the 'created' sound. That passage quotes the mahābhūtas of 'creating non-manifest form' as an example sentence, not quoting this type of mahābhūtas as the number of sentences. Question: If one attains the mahābhūtas of 'creating non-manifest karma,' but does not attain non-manifest form, isn't it that the present mahābhūtas have no result? Answer: This is according to the creation of form without opposition, not according to the creation of form with opposition. If it were not so, it would contradict the statement that present mahābhūtas must have a result. 'Creating form' must have a cause, the four great elements must have a result. 'Those in the same world' are according to the creation of form with opposition. According to the above reasoning, all sounds do not have vipāka mahābhūtas.
種造也 長養大種造等流色。定共戒定長養大造故。長養四大造長養聲。等流四大造等流聲。無文證二互相造故。一切業聲皆是等流。等流大造非余造故。
論。八無礙至非所長養。此釋八有等流異熟生 如文可解 酬先因者是異熟性。余是等流 諸無礙法無積集故非所長養者。正理論云。豈不此中亦有長養。謂先因力引後果生。亦令功能轉明盛故。契經亦言信無色法。增長廣大。應有長養 雖有此言而非長養。即說等流增長廣大。若先因力引後果生。令其功能轉明盛者。此亦即依等流性說。同類．遍行因所生故。諸有礙法。極微所成。同時積集可名長養。諸無礙法非極微故。無積集義不名長養。
論。余謂餘四至有等流性。此釋色．香．味．觸四界也。色有情數者。有異熟生．及所長養。三性業俱唯有等流性。香．味．觸三有情數者。有異熟．長養。無記業俱者是等流性。一切外五境皆是等流。
論。實唯法者至獨名有實。如文可解。
論。意法意識至名為法界。此釋剎那唯后三也 此說究竟非等流者。自余無漏。苦法智忍未現前時無同類因。苦法智忍若現在前即有同類因。唯苦法智忍。於一切時無同類因。故名究竟非等流者 正理論云。謂初無漏苦法忍品。非等流故名一剎那。此說正現
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『種造』（kammaja）也能增長和滋養『大種造』（mahābhūta-kammaja）的『等流色』（nisyanda-rūpa）。因為『定共戒』（dhyāna-sahabhūta-śīla）和『定』（dhyāna）能增長『大種造』的緣故。增長四大能增長聲音。『等流』（nisyanda）四大能產生『等流』聲音。沒有文獻證明二者互相產生。一切業所生的聲音都是『等流』，因為『等流』『大種造』不是其他『造』所生。
論：八無礙至非所長養。這是解釋八有『等流』（nisyanda）和『異熟生』（vipāka-ja）。如文義可解。酬答先因的是『異熟性』（vipāka-svabhāva），其餘的是『等流』。因為諸『無礙法』（anāvaraṇa-dharma）沒有積集，所以不是所增長的。『正理論』（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya）說：『難道這裡面沒有增長嗎？』所謂先前的因的力量引導後來的果產生，也使功能更加明顯和旺盛。『契經』（sūtra）也說相信『無色法』（arūpa-dharma），增長廣大，應該有增長。雖然有這種說法，但不是增長，而是說『等流』增長廣大。如果先前的因的力量引導後來的果產生，使其功能更加明顯和旺盛，這也是依據『等流性』（nisyanda-svabhāva）說的。因為是同類、遍行因所生。諸『有礙法』（sāvaraṇa-dharma），由極微所成，同時積集可以稱為增長。諸『無礙法』不是極微，沒有積集的意義，所以不稱為增長。
論：余謂餘四至有等流性。這是解釋色、香、味、觸四界。色有情數，有『異熟生』和所增長。三性業都只有『等流性』。香、味、觸三有情數，有『異熟』、『長養』。『無記業』（avyākṛta-karma）都具有『等流性』。一切外五境都是『等流』。
論：實唯法者至獨名有實。如文義可解。
論：意法意識至名為法界。這是解釋剎那唯后三也。這是說究竟非『等流』。其餘的『無漏』（anāsrava），『苦法智忍』（duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti）未現前時沒有同類因。『苦法智忍』如果現在前，即有同類因。只有『苦法智忍』，在一切時都沒有同類因，所以名為究竟非『等流』。『正理論』說：『所謂最初的無漏『苦法忍品』（duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti-prakaraṇa），因為不是『等流』，所以名為一剎那。』這是說正現。
【English Translation】 English version 'Kammaja' (born of action) also grows and nourishes the 'nisyanda-rūpa' (outflow-form) of 'mahābhūta-kammaja' (great element born of action). Because 'dhyāna-sahabhūta-śīla' (morality born of meditation) and 'dhyāna' (meditation) can increase the 'mahābhūta-kammaja'. Increasing the four great elements can increase sound. 'Nisyanda' (outflow) of the four great elements can produce 'nisyanda' sound. There is no textual evidence that the two produce each other. All sounds born of action are 'nisyanda', because 'nisyanda' 'mahābhūta-kammaja' is not born of other 'ja' (born of).
Treatise: The eight unobstructed ones are not nourished. This explains the eight that have 'nisyanda' (outflow) and 'vipāka-ja' (result-born). As the text can be understood. Repaying the previous cause is the 'vipāka-svabhāva' (result-nature), the rest is 'nisyanda'. Because the 'anāvaraṇa-dharma' (unobstructed dharmas) do not accumulate, they are not nourished. The 'Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya' (Treasury of Abhidharma) says: 'Isn't there growth in this?' The power of the previous cause guides the birth of the subsequent effect, and also makes the function more obvious and vigorous. The 'sūtra' (scripture) also says to believe in 'arūpa-dharma' (formless dharmas), which grow and expand, and should have growth. Although there is this statement, it is not growth, but rather saying that 'nisyanda' grows and expands. If the power of the previous cause guides the birth of the subsequent effect, making its function more obvious and vigorous, this is also based on the 'nisyanda-svabhāva' (outflow-nature). Because it is born of similar, pervasive causes. 'Sāvaraṇa-dharma' (obstructed dharmas), composed of extremely small particles, can be called growth when accumulated simultaneously. 'Anāvaraṇa-dharma' are not extremely small particles, and have no meaning of accumulation, so they are not called growth.
Treatise: The remaining four have 'nisyanda-svabhāva'. This explains the four realms of color, smell, taste, and touch. Color, sentient beings, have 'vipāka-ja' (result-born) and what is nourished. The three natures of karma all have only 'nisyanda-svabhāva'. The three sentient beings of smell, taste, and touch have 'vipāka' (result), 'growth'. 'Avyākṛta-karma' (unspecified karma) all have 'nisyanda-svabhāva'. All external five objects are 'nisyanda'.
Treatise: Only the real dharma is uniquely named real. As the text can be understood.
Treatise: Mind, dharma, consciousness are called the dharma realm. This explains that only the latter three are momentary. This is saying that ultimately it is not 'nisyanda'. The remaining 'anāsrava' (untainted), 'duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti' (patience with the knowledge of the dharma of suffering) does not have a similar cause when it has not yet appeared. If 'duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti' appears now, then there is a similar cause. Only 'duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti' does not have a similar cause at all times, so it is called ultimately not 'nisyanda'. The 'Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya' says: 'The so-called initial untainted 'duḥkha-dharma-kṣānti-prakaraṇa' (section on patience with the dharma of suffering), because it is not 'nisyanda', is called a moment.' This is saying that it is truly present.
行亦非等流者。余有為法無非等流。唯初無漏五蘊剎那。無同類因而得生起。余有為法無如是事。等無間緣勢力強故。前因雖闕而此得生。等無間緣勢力強者。與初聖道品類同故。無量善法所長養故。與初聖道性相等故。為此。廣修諸加行故 問從同類因生名為等流者。利根聖人。鈍無漏道。畢竟無同類因。五類之中是何法攝。若謂等流無同類因。若謂剎那非初無漏。豈非五類攝法不盡 答五類攝法盡。所以得知。故此論云。謂初無漏苦法忍品。非等流故名為剎那。此說究竟非等流者。余有為法無非等流。故知。除初無漏余有為法皆等流攝。利根聖人鈍無漏道。既是余有為法攝。明知是等流。何者名為剎那。答唯取現起一剎那法名曰剎那。自余皆非以不定故。故正理云。此說正現行亦非等流者。余有為法無非等流 問利根聖人鈍無漏道。亦是究竟無同類因。如何得說是等流性。答未練根時皆容起故。容有因故非剎那法 問在凡位中豈無唯有利根性者。答一切眾生。法爾身中具六種性。遇緣不同成利．鈍性。未遇緣前利．鈍不定。非是法爾。何理相違。
論。如是已說異熟生等。下半頌。第十五明成就門 今應略述得與成就二名通別。準婆沙一百六十二云。得唯在初。成就通初．后 準此論意。先不成就。及得已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『行亦非等流者』，意思是說，除了初次生起的無漏五蘊剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位），沒有同類因而能夠生起之外，其餘的有為法（saṃskṛta，由因緣和合而生的事物）沒有不是等流（niṣyanda，同類相續）的。其餘的有為法並非如此，因為等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，心識生起時，前一剎那的心識為后一剎那心識的生起提供無間斷的條件）的勢力強大，即使前因缺失，此果也能生起。等無間緣的勢力強大，是因為它與初次生起的聖道（āryamārga，達到解脫的道路）品類相同，受到無量善法的滋養，並且與初次生起的聖道性質相等，因此，要廣泛地修習各種加行（prayoga，為達到目標所做的努力）。 問：從同類因生起才叫做等流，那麼，利根（tīkṣṇendriya，根器敏銳）聖人（ārya，已證悟真理的人）的鈍無漏道（mṛdvārya-nirvedha-bhāgīya，緩慢生起的無漏智慧），畢竟沒有同類因，這在五類（pañca-vidha，五種分類）之中屬於哪一類？如果說等流沒有同類因，或者說剎那不是初次生起的無漏法，那豈不是五類攝法不全面？ 答：五類攝法是全面的。為什麼知道呢？因為此論中說：『所謂初次生起的無漏苦法忍品（duḥkhe dharmajñānaksānti，對苦諦的無漏忍），因為不是等流，所以叫做剎那。』這說明了究竟不是等流的，其餘的有為法沒有不是等流的。因此可知，除了初次生起的無漏法，其餘的有為法都屬於等流。利根聖人的鈍無漏道，既然是其餘有為法所攝，就明顯是等流。什麼叫做剎那呢？答：唯獨取現起的一剎那法叫做剎那，其餘都不是，因為不確定。所以《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）中說：『這說明了正在現行的也不是等流，其餘的有為法沒有不是等流的。』 問：利根聖人的鈍無漏道，也是究竟沒有同類因，如何能說是等流性呢？答：在沒有練習根器的時候，都可能生起，容許有因，所以不是剎那法。 問：在凡夫位中難道沒有唯獨具有利根性的人嗎？答：一切眾生，法爾（dharma-tā，事物本來的性質）身中都具有六種性（ṣaḍ-gotra，六種根性），遇到不同的因緣，成就利根或鈍根的性質。在沒有遇到因緣之前，利根或鈍根是不確定的，不是法爾如此，有什麼道理相違背呢？ 論：像這樣已經說了異熟生等。下半頌，第十五說明成就門（siddhi-dvāra，成就之門）。現在應該簡略地敘述『得』（prāpti，獲得）與『成就』（siddhi，成就）這兩個名稱的共通和差別。根據《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第一百六十二卷所說：『得』只在最初，『成就』貫通最初和之後。根據此論的意義，先是不成就，以及得到之後。
【English Translation】 English version: 'That which proceeds is also not of the same kind.' This means that, apart from the initial moment of arising of the unconditioned five aggregates (skandha) of a kṣaṇa (an extremely short unit of time), which arises without a cause of the same kind, there is no conditioned phenomenon (saṃskṛta) that is not a niṣyanda (homogeneous continuation). Other conditioned phenomena are not like this, because the force of the immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya) is strong, so even if the prior cause is lacking, this result can arise. The force of the immediately preceding condition is strong because it is of the same category as the initial holy path (āryamārga), nourished by immeasurable good dharmas, and equal in nature to the initial holy path. Therefore, one should extensively practice various preparatory practices (prayoga). Question: If that which arises from a cause of the same kind is called a niṣyanda, then to which of the five categories (pañca-vidha) does the slow unconditioned path (mṛdvārya-nirvedha-bhāgīya) of a sharp-witted (tīkṣṇendriya) noble one (ārya) belong, since it ultimately has no cause of the same kind? If you say that a niṣyanda has no cause of the same kind, or that a kṣaṇa is not the initial unconditioned, wouldn't that mean that the five categories do not exhaustively encompass all dharmas? Answer: The five categories exhaustively encompass all dharmas. How do we know this? Because this treatise says: 'That which is called the initial moment of arising of the unconditioned forbearance regarding the dharma of suffering (duḥkhe dharmajñānaksānti), is called a kṣaṇa because it is not a niṣyanda.' This explains that what is ultimately not a niṣyanda is only that, and there is no other conditioned phenomenon that is not a niṣyanda. Therefore, it is known that apart from the initial unconditioned, all other conditioned phenomena are included in niṣyanda. Since the slow unconditioned path of a sharp-witted noble one is included among other conditioned phenomena, it is clearly a niṣyanda. What is called a kṣaṇa? Answer: Only that which is actually arising for one moment is called a kṣaṇa; the rest are not, because they are uncertain. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'This explains that what is currently manifesting is also not a niṣyanda; there is no other conditioned phenomenon that is not a niṣyanda.' Question: The slow unconditioned path of a sharp-witted noble one is also ultimately without a cause of the same kind. How can it be said to be of the nature of a niṣyanda? Answer: Before training the faculties, it is possible for it to arise, and it is permissible to have a cause, so it is not a kṣaṇa. Question: Are there no beings in the position of ordinary people who possess only sharp faculties? Answer: All beings, by their inherent nature (dharma-tā), possess six kinds of natures (ṣaḍ-gotra) in their bodies. Encountering different conditions, they develop the nature of sharp or dull faculties. Before encountering conditions, sharp or dull faculties are uncertain, and it is not inherently so. What principle contradicts this? Treatise: Thus, the result of maturation and so on have been explained. The second half of the verse, the fifteenth, explains the door of accomplishment (siddhi-dvāra). Now, the commonalities and differences between the two terms 'attainment' (prāpti) and 'accomplishment' (siddhi) should be briefly described. According to the Vibhāṣā, volume 162: 'Attainment' is only at the beginning, 'accomplishment' pervades the beginning and the end. According to the meaning of this treatise, first there is non-accomplishment, and then after attainment.
舍后獲此法初念之得。名通二種。名得亦名成就。后念之得唯名成就。不名得也 又正理論第十二云。豈不盡智于成佛時亦不名得。況滅盡定。以諸菩薩任金剛喻三摩地時。名得盡智。得體生時名為得故 婆沙得．舍文中大意亦同。準此論意。先不成就。及得已舍。后獲此法。不簡所得之法生與不生。但初得之得。至生相時名之為得。若至現在即名成就。故知。第一念得有其二名。名得亦名成就。后念之得但名成就。婆沙以初念得有其二名。后念之得唯有一名。故言得唯在初成就通其初．后。正理辨得時故。說唯得至生相。此論辨得門中。云先不成就今得．成就者。即是說初念得。于生相時名之為得。至現在時名為成就。合二義說故。言今得成就 古諸師云。成通新．舊。得據新論。不成通新．舊。舍據新論者。此同婆沙得唯在初。成通初．后。舍時即名不成得時即名成者。應改一字余義無失。應云舍體即名不成。得體即名成就。雖時不同其體一故。若就用明。得時非是成就時。成就時非得時。生時現在時不同故 有人云。問得與成就何別。舍與不成就何別。解云。若法爾時創至生相爾時名得。若流至現方名成就。得時不名成就。成就時不名得。故正理第十二云。豈不乃至。得體生時名為得。故正理既言得體生時名得
。故知。法至生時名得．流至現在方名成就 若準此釋不得論意。論既自云得體生時名之為得。因何妄謂法至生時。若謂要法至生相時方名得者。三類智邊得世俗智。此法豈是至生相耶。住世第一法時。于無漏根非舍而得。非滅而起。爾時所得諸無漏根。此時皆悉說能起耶。諸不起者皆不名得耶。如何唯說法至生時名之為得。又得時。雖實不得名成就。取共當名亦得名成就。此論于得門中。云或有眼界先不成就今得．成就。非眼識。謂生欲界漸得眼根。故知。即于得時取其當名亦得名為成就眼也。舍．不成就準上以釋。此上所辨皆是別義 若據通名自有兩類。若就體以說。一切得皆亦得名成就。一切成就皆亦名得。若就時論。成就時亦名得。得時不名成就。以即前流至現在故。若得正在生相時。但名得不名成就。不可住世第一時成聖法故。又若然者。即有一時亦聖亦凡過也。應更思之 問準下文。二通變化有三世得。何故此中。生上三禪中。眼識不現在前即不成就。答泰法師引三藏釋云。二通初禪系。依初禪地發自地通。三世成就。如善習自地威儀．工巧有三世得。下文言二通三世得者。據初禪說。此中據身生上地起下地二通故。唯有法俱得。如泛借識說 問生上三定起下眼耳二通。是何無記 解言。雜心論主達磨多
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：由此可知，『法』在產生的時候稱為『得』（prāpti，獲得），流傳到現在才稱為『成就』（siddhi，圓滿）。如果按照這種解釋，就無法理解《俱舍論》的本意。《俱舍論》明明自己說，獲得自體產生的時候就稱為『得』，為何要妄稱『法』到產生之相的時候才稱為『得』呢？如果說一定要『法』到產生之相的時候才稱為『得』，那麼三類智（無漏智、世俗智、他心智）旁邊獲得的世俗智，這種『法』難道是到產生之相的時候嗎？住在世第一法（laukikāgradharma，世間最高法）的時候，對於無漏根（anāsravendriya，無漏的根）來說，不是捨棄而獲得，也不是滅盡而生起。那時所獲得的各種無漏根，此時都全部說能生起嗎？那些不生起的，都不稱為『得』嗎？為何唯獨說法到產生的時候才稱為『得』呢？而且，獲得的時候，雖然實際上不能稱為『成就』，但取其共同的名稱，也可以稱為『成就』。《俱舍論》在『得』的章節中說，或者有眼界（cakṣurdhātu，眼界）先前沒有成就，現在獲得而成就，但不是眼識（cakṣurvijñāna，眼識）。這是說，生在欲界（kāmadhātu，慾望界）逐漸獲得眼根（cakṣurindriya，眼根）。由此可知，就是在獲得的時候，取其將來的名稱，也可以稱為成就眼。捨棄和不成就，參照上面的解釋。以上所辨析的，都是個別的意義。如果按照通用的名稱來說，自然有兩類。如果就自體來說，一切『得』都可以稱為『成就』，一切『成就』也都可以稱為『得』。如果就時間來說，成就的時候也可以稱為『得』，獲得的時候不能稱為『成就』，因為是之前的狀態流傳到現在。如果『得』正處於產生之相的時候，只能稱為『得』，不能稱為『成就』，因為不可能在世第一法的時候成就聖法。而且如果這樣，就會出現一時既是聖法又是凡法的過失，應該再思考一下。 問：按照下文，二通（神通）變化有三世的『得』，為何這裡說，生在上三禪（上三dhyāna，色界上三禪）中，眼識不現在前就是不成就呢？答：泰法師引用三藏（Tripitaka，佛教經典總稱）的解釋說，二通是初禪系的，依靠初禪地（prathamadhyāna-bhūmi，初禪境界）發出自地的神通，三世成就。如同善於學習自地的威儀、工巧，有三世的『得』。下文說二通有三世的『得』，是根據初禪說的。這裡是根據身體生在上地，生起下地的二通，所以只有『法』俱得。如同泛泛地借用識來說明。問：生在上三定（上三samāpatti，上三禪定）中，生起下地的眼耳二通（cakṣu-śrotra-abhijñā，天眼通和天耳通），是什麼無記（avyākṛta，非記別）呢？解答說，《雜心論》（Abhidharmahṛdaya，阿毗達磨論書）的作者達磨多（Dharmatrāta，法救）認為：
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is known that when a 'dharma' (法, phenomenon) arises, it is called 'prāpti' (得, attainment), and only when it flows to the present is it called 'siddhi' (成就, accomplishment). If we interpret it this way, we cannot understand the meaning of the Abhidharmakośa (俱舍論). The Abhidharmakośa itself clearly states that when the self-nature of attainment arises, it is called 'prāpti'. Why falsely claim that a 'dharma' is called 'prāpti' only when it reaches the phase of arising? If it is said that a 'dharma' must reach the phase of arising to be called 'prāpti', then the mundane wisdom (世俗智, laukika-jñāna) attained alongside the three types of wisdom (三類智, three kinds of wisdom: non-outflow wisdom, mundane wisdom, and the wisdom of others' minds), is this 'dharma' reaching the phase of arising? When dwelling in the World's Highest Dharma (世第一法, laukikāgradharma), for the non-outflow roots (無漏根, anāsravendriya), it is not attained by abandoning, nor does it arise from extinction. Are all the various non-outflow roots attained at that time said to be able to arise at this moment? Are those that do not arise not called 'prāpti'? Why only say that a 'dharma' is called 'prāpti' when it reaches the phase of arising? Moreover, although it cannot actually be called 'siddhi' at the time of attainment, it can also be called 'siddhi' by taking its common name. In the chapter on 'Attainment' in the Abhidharmakośa, it says that there may be an eye-sphere (眼界, cakṣurdhātu) that was not accomplished before but is now attained and accomplished, but not eye-consciousness (眼識, cakṣurvijñāna). This means that one born in the desire realm (欲界, kāmadhātu) gradually attains the eye-root (眼根, cakṣurindriya). Therefore, it is known that even at the time of attainment, taking its future name, it can also be called the accomplishment of the eye. Abandonment and non-accomplishment are explained according to the above. All the distinctions made above are individual meanings. If according to the common name, there are naturally two types. If speaking in terms of self-nature, all 'prāpti' can be called 'siddhi', and all 'siddhi' can also be called 'prāpti'. If speaking in terms of time, the time of accomplishment can also be called 'prāpti', but the time of attainment cannot be called 'siddhi', because it is the previous state flowing to the present. If 'prāpti' is precisely in the phase of arising, it can only be called 'prāpti' and not 'siddhi', because it is impossible to accomplish the holy dharma at the time of the World's Highest Dharma. Moreover, if this is the case, there will be the fault of being both holy and mundane at the same time, so it should be considered further. Question: According to the following text, the two superknowledges (神通, abhijñā) of transformation have 'prāpti' in the three times. Why does it say here that if eye-consciousness does not appear in the upper three dhyānas (上三禪, the upper three dhyānas of the form realm), it is not accomplished? Answer: Master Tai (泰法師) quoted the interpretation of the Tripitaka (三藏, collection of Buddhist scriptures), saying that the two superknowledges belong to the first dhyāna system, relying on the first dhyāna ground (初禪地, prathamadhyāna-bhūmi) to emit the superknowledges of its own ground, accomplished in the three times. It is like being skilled in learning the deportment and craftsmanship of one's own ground, having 'prāpti' in the three times. The following text says that the two superknowledges have 'prāpti' in the three times, based on the first dhyāna. Here, it is based on the body being born in the upper ground, arising the two superknowledges of the lower ground, so only the 'dharma' is attained together. It is like loosely using consciousness to explain. Question: Arising in the upper three samāpattis (上三定, the upper three dhyānic attainments), arising the two superknowledges of the lower ground, eye and ear (天眼通和天耳通, cakṣu-śrotra-abhijñā), what is the unspecified (無記, avyākṛta) nature of this? The explanation says that Dharmatrāta (達磨多, 法救), the author of the Abhidharmahṛdaya (雜心論, Abhidharmahṛdaya), believes:
羅造。對法藏論中說。天眼．耳通．是威儀無記。工巧唯欲不通上界。異熟非異地起。變化唯意。既非餘三。明知二通定是威儀 有人破云。此解不然。違理．教故。如下論云。色界威儀心。二十心中從五心生。謂自界五除通果心者 此不成證。二十心中說威儀．工巧．通果唯是意識。威儀．工巧加行亦通四識．五識。然明相生不明加行。由彼不是正緣威儀．工巧心故。如說七業道色為體性。此七加行亦通非色。明七業道不辨非色。此亦如是。此四識雖是加行。然辨相生不取加行。然婆沙說四識．五識有威儀．工巧者。此就威儀．工巧加行中。說為威儀．工巧。如殺加行亦名殺生。其通果心唯是意識不通五識故。此論廣心云。欲界無覆無記分為四心。乃至．威儀路等三無覆心。色．香．味．觸為所緣境。工巧處等亦緣于聲。如是三心唯是意識。既言唯是意識。故知定遮五識。婆沙亦同應檢。既言工巧處亦緣于聲。故知。威儀不緣聲也。威儀路．工巧處加行。亦通四識．五識。故知。四識是威儀加行。五識唯是工巧加行。四識．五識不通根本。有餘師說。有威儀路。及工巧處所引意識具緣十二處境。此師亦唯意識。故知。廣心說威儀心相生者。說意識威儀心。雜心論師。二通為威儀心者。加行類故亦名威儀。將意識正威
儀相生。難五識加行類威儀。豈相關預。然廣心中工巧．威儀加行。通四識．五識。其通果心定唯意識。更無異端。因何引來將破雜心師義。必欲破斥應求異理。言異理者。雜心．既用四識為威儀加行。可說是威儀。耳識非威儀加行。如何天耳通是威儀也。非威儀加行故。又威儀意識尚不緣聲。如何耳識是加行也。若言似威儀心以能通緣十二處境者 此亦不然。論文唯說在意地故。準此等理。雜心所立非為正也。應言四無記心攝心不盡。借識之類非四攝也。耳識非威儀。上地無工巧。變化唯意識故 頌第二句云獨得者。初兩偏句 俱得者。第三俱得句 非者。第四俱非句 等者。等成就門。長行中有二。先明得門。二明成就門也。得門中有將眼對識成四句。將眼對色成兩句。若得色必得眼。自有得眼不得色故。將識對色成四句。將鼻．舌對二識成四句。將鼻．舌對香．味亦成四句。將識對香．味述可句。將身對識成四句。將身對觸述可句。將觸對識成四句。成就門中準釋。然若成就眼定成就色。自有成就色不成就眼。余文可解。
論。如是已說至幾內幾外。此下半頌。第十六內．外門也。
論曰至色等六境。長行釋中有二。初總釋頌文。后別釋內．外。此即初也。
論。我依名內．外謂此余。自下
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：儀相的產生，與五識（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官的意識活動）的加行類威儀無關。怎麼會有關聯呢？然而，在廣大的心識中，工巧（指精巧的技藝）和威儀加行，可以通於四識（眼、耳、鼻、舌四識）和五識。而能通達果報的心識，必定只有意識（第六意識）。沒有其他的說法。為何要引用來破斥雜心師（一種佛教理論流派）的觀點呢？如果一定要破斥，應該尋找不同的道理。所說的不同道理是，雜心既然用四識作為威儀加行，可以說那是威儀。耳識不是威儀加行，那麼天耳通（一種神通）怎麼會是威儀呢？因為它不是威儀加行。而且，威儀意識尚且不緣于聲音，耳識又怎麼會是加行呢？如果說它類似於威儀心，因為它能通達緣於十二處（指六根和六塵）的境界，這也是不對的。論文中只說了它在意地（意識的層面）。根據這些道理，雜心所立的觀點是不正確的。應該說四種無記心（指非善非惡，無法記別的心理狀態）沒有完全包含所有心識。借用識的種類，並非四攝（指佈施、愛語、利行、同事四種菩薩攝化眾生的方法）。耳識不是威儀。上地（指色界和無色界）沒有工巧。變化只有意識才能做到。頌文第二句說『獨得』，最初兩個偏句說『俱得』，第三句說『俱得』，第四句說『俱非』。『等』，指等成就門。長行中有兩部分，先說明得門，再說明成就門。得門中，將眼對識，形成四句。將眼對色，形成兩句。如果得到色，必定得到眼。也有得到眼而沒有得到色的情況。將識對色，形成四句。將鼻、舌對二識，形成四句。將鼻、舌對香、味，也形成四句。將識對香、味，敘述可說的內容。將身對識，形成四句。將身對觸，敘述可說的內容。將觸對識，形成四句。成就門中，參照解釋。然而，如果成就了眼，必定成就了色。也有成就了色而沒有成就眼的情況。其餘的文字可以理解。 論：像這樣已經說了，到幾內幾外。這下面是半首頌，第十六內、外門。 論曰：到色等六境。長行解釋中有兩部分，首先總的解釋頌文，然後分別解釋內、外。這部分是最初的解釋。 論：我依名內、外謂此余。自下
【English Translation】 English version: The arising of demeanor is unrelated to the auxiliary practices of the five consciousnesses (referring to the consciousness activities of the five sense organs: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and body). How could they be related? However, in the vast mind, skillful activities (referring to exquisite techniques) and auxiliary practices of demeanor can be common to the four consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, and tongue consciousnesses) and the five consciousnesses. And the consciousness that can penetrate the karmic results must only be the consciousness (the sixth consciousness). There is no other explanation. Why bring this up to refute the views of the 雜心師 (Zaxin Shi, a school of Buddhist thought)? If you must refute, you should seek different reasons. The different reason being, since 雜心 (Zaxin) uses the four consciousnesses as auxiliary practices of demeanor, it can be said that it is demeanor. Ear consciousness is not an auxiliary practice of demeanor, so how can clairaudience be demeanor? Because it is not an auxiliary practice of demeanor. Moreover, demeanor consciousness does not even perceive sounds, so how can ear consciousness be an auxiliary practice? If it is said that it is similar to demeanor consciousness because it can penetrate and perceive the realms of the twelve 處 (chu, sense bases - six sense organs and six sense objects), this is also incorrect. The treatise only states that it is in the mind ground (the level of consciousness). According to these reasons, the views established by 雜心 (Zaxin) are incorrect. It should be said that the four neutral minds (referring to psychological states that are neither good nor evil, and cannot be distinguished) do not completely encompass all consciousnesses. Borrowing the types of consciousness is not the four 攝 (she, methods of embracing beings - giving, kind speech, beneficial action, and cooperation). Ear consciousness is not demeanor. The higher realms (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm) do not have skillful activities. Transformation can only be done by consciousness. The second line of the verse says 'obtained alone,' the first two partial lines say 'obtained together,' the third line says 'obtained together,' and the fourth line says 'not obtained together.' 'Etc.' refers to the 成就門 (cheng jiu men, door of accomplishment). There are two parts in the prose, first explaining the door of obtaining, and then explaining the door of accomplishment. In the door of obtaining, comparing the eye to consciousness forms four sentences. Comparing the eye to form forms two sentences. If you obtain form, you must obtain the eye. There are also cases where you obtain the eye but do not obtain form. Comparing consciousness to form forms four sentences. Comparing the nose and tongue to the two consciousnesses forms four sentences. Comparing the nose and tongue to smell and taste also forms four sentences. Comparing consciousness to smell and taste, describe what can be said. Comparing the body to consciousness forms four sentences. Comparing the body to touch, describe what can be said. Comparing touch to consciousness forms four sentences. In the door of accomplishment, refer to the explanation. However, if you accomplish the eye, you must accomplish form. There are also cases where you accomplish form but do not accomplish the eye. The remaining text can be understood. Treatise: Having spoken thus, regarding how many internal and how many external. The following is half a verse, the sixteenth internal and external door. Treatise says: To the six realms of form etc. There are two parts in the prose explanation, first a general explanation of the verse, and then separate explanations of internal and external. This part is the initial explanation. Treatise: I rely on name, internal and external, call this the rest. From below
別釋內．外。于中有二。初正釋內．外。后問答分別。此即初也。
論。我體既無至假說心為我。后問答分別也。
論。故契經說至假說為我。此引兩文證心為我 如文可解。
論。眼等為此至故說名外。此釋成內．外也。
論。若爾至非心依故。自下問答六識為內所以。此是問也。
論。至意位時至皆通三世答也。答中有二。初順答。后反釋。此即初也。
論。又若未來至無改易故。第二反釋 文相可解 正理云。若爾何緣說心為我。恒于自境自在行故。我謂于自境常自在行。心曾無有時不行自境。故一切心皆名為我。非諸心所亦得我名。意為上首故。經說獨行故。彼要依心能行境故。如諸心所雖亦調伏。而但就勝說調伏心。說我亦然。唯心非所。若法與此似我之心。為不共益彼名為內。與此相違余法名外。故諸心所無成內失。又諸心所。雖復與心一生住等。而心望心獨名為內。非心所者。同異類心展轉相望。為所依性皆不捨故。諸心所法異類望心。必定舍離能依性故。謂若善心。望善染污．及無記心。為所依性皆不捨離。染污無記心亦如是。若善心所。望彼染污．及無記心。舍能依性。染污無記望余亦爾。故心望心為所依性。無相簡隔得名為內。心所望心為能依性。有相簡
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 別釋內．外（區分內部和外部）。于中有二（其中分為兩部分）。初正釋內．外（首先正確解釋內部和外部），后問答分別（然後通過問答進行區分）。此即初也（這是第一部分）。
論（論）：我體既無（我的本體既然不存在），至假說心為我（就假設心為我）。后問答分別也（後面通過問答進行區分）。
論（論）：故契經說（所以契經說），至假說為我（就假設為我）。此引兩文證心為我（這裡引用兩段經文來證明心為我），如文可解（如同經文可以解釋的那樣）。
論（論）：眼等為此（眼等因此），至故說名外（所以被稱為外部）。此釋成內．外也（這裡解釋了內部和外部的構成）。
論（論）：若爾（如果這樣），至非心依故（不是心所依賴的）。自下問答六識為內所以（下面通過問答來解釋六識為什麼是內部）。此是問也（這是提問）。
論（論）：至意位時（到達意位時），至皆通三世答也（都貫通過去、現在、未來，這是回答）。答中有二（回答分為兩部分）。初順答（首先是順著提問回答），后反釋（然後從反面解釋）。此即初也（這是第一部分）。
論（論）：又若未來（又如果未來），至無改易故（沒有改變的緣故）。第二反釋（第二部分是從反面解釋），文相可解（文句的含義可以理解），正理云（正理說）：若爾何緣說心為我（如果這樣，為什麼說心為我）？恒于自境自在行故（因為它總是在自己的境界中自在執行）。我謂于自境常自在行（我指的是在自己的境界中常常自在執行）。心曾無有時不行自境（心從來沒有不在自己的境界中執行的時候）。故一切心皆名為我（所以一切心都稱為我）。非諸心所亦得我名（不是所有的心所都能稱為我）。意為上首故（因為意是首要的）。經說獨行故（經中說心是獨自執行的）。彼要依心能行境故（它們需要依靠心才能在境界中執行）。如諸心所雖亦調伏（如同各種心所雖然也被調伏），而但就勝說調伏心（但只是就殊勝的方面來說調伏心）。說我亦然（說我也是這樣）。唯心非所（只有心不是心所）。若法與此似我之心（如果某種法與這個類似我的心），為不共益彼名為內（有不共同的利益，那麼它就被稱為內部）。與此相違余法名外（與此相反的其他法被稱為外部）。故諸心所無成內失（所以各種心所沒有成為內部的過失）。又諸心所（而且各種心所），雖復與心一生住等（雖然與心一生同住等），而心望心獨名為內（但是心相對於心，獨自被稱為內部）。非心所者（不是心所的），同異類心展轉相望（同類和異類的心相互觀望），為所依性皆不捨故（作為所依賴的性質都沒有捨棄的緣故）。諸心所法異類望心（各種心所法，從異類的角度看心），必定舍離能依性故（必定捨棄能依賴的性質的緣故）。謂若善心（比如善心），望善染污．及無記心（相對於善、染污以及無記心），為所依性皆不捨離（作為所依賴的性質都沒有捨棄）。染污無記心亦如是（染污和無記心也是這樣）。若善心所（如果善心所），望彼染污．及無記心（相對於染污以及無記心），舍能依性（捨棄能依賴的性質）。染污無記望余亦爾（染污和無記心相對於其他也是這樣）。故心望心為所依性（所以心相對於心作為所依賴的性質），無相簡隔得名為內（沒有相互間隔，可以被稱為內部）。心所望心為能依性（心所相對於心作為能依賴的性質），有相簡（有相互間隔）。
【English Translation】 English version: Distinguishing Between Inner and Outer. There are two parts to this. First, a correct explanation of inner and outer. Second, distinctions through questions and answers. This is the first part.
Treatise: Since 'I' has no substance, it is hypothetically said that the mind is 'I'. This will be further distinguished through questions and answers.
Treatise: Therefore, the sutras say that it is hypothetically said to be 'I'. This quotes two texts to prove that the mind is 'I', as can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Eyes, etc., are therefore said to be external. This explains the composition of inner and outer.
Treatise: If so, why are the six consciousnesses considered internal, since they are not dependent on the mind? This is a question.
Treatise: When reaching the position of intention, it encompasses all three times. This is the answer. There are two parts to the answer. First, a direct answer. Second, an explanation from the opposite perspective. This is the first part.
Treatise: Furthermore, if in the future there is no alteration. The second part is an explanation from the opposite perspective. The meaning of the text is understandable. The principle states: If so, why is the mind said to be 'I'? Because it constantly operates freely in its own realm. 'I' refers to constantly operating freely in its own realm. There is never a time when the mind does not operate in its own realm. Therefore, all minds are called 'I'. Not all mental factors can also be called 'I', because intention is the foremost. The sutra says it acts alone, because they must rely on the mind to act in the realm. Just as mental factors are also tamed, only the mind is said to be tamed in terms of superiority. Saying 'I' is also the same. Only the mind is not a mental factor. If a dharma has a non-common benefit with this mind that resembles 'I', it is called internal. Other dharmas that contradict this are called external. Therefore, mental factors do not have the fault of becoming internal. Moreover, although mental factors live and abide with the mind for a lifetime, the mind is uniquely called internal in relation to the mind. Those that are not mental factors, minds of the same and different types, mutually regard each other, and do not abandon the nature of being relied upon. Mental factors, when viewed from different types of minds, necessarily abandon the nature of being able to rely. For example, a wholesome mind, in relation to wholesome, defiled, and neutral minds, does not abandon the nature of being relied upon. Defiled and neutral minds are also the same. If a wholesome mental factor, in relation to defiled and neutral minds, abandons the nature of being able to rely. Defiled and neutral minds are also the same in relation to others. Therefore, the mind is considered the nature of being relied upon in relation to the mind, and without mutual separation, it can be called internal. Mental factors are considered the nature of being able to rely in relation to the mind, and there is mutual separation.
隔不得內名。又諸心所望同類心。為能依性或多或少。心為所依則不如是。由此內名。在心非所 若爾大法應受內名。不爾心所朋類壞故。如異生中不墮法者 不墮法。謂不墮三惡道。雖至忍位不墮惡趣。以異生類中多墮惡趣故。經說預流名不墮惡趣 正理破我執依故說心為我云。又心少分是我執依。一切心依皆名為內。由此不應作如是釋我執依心故假說心為我。又少分心貪等依故。應一切心皆成染污。又少分心尋．伺依故 一切應成有尋有伺。此既不爾。彼云何然。差別因緣不可得故。
述曰。我執是我見。依有二義。一者相應。即是與身見相應心名我執依。余相應心非我執依。此即心通非我執依。二者我執所緣名我執依此即我執所依。通五取蘊非無漏蘊。即應色等四蘊亦名為我。我執依故。無漏心不名為內。非我依故。無漏之心既非我執依。不得名我所依之根。既非我依不得名內。前所引正理文就相應依。破宗說一切為我。我執所依唯一分故 正理又云。又彼何能遮心所等。我執依性。以有身見緣五取蘊為境界故 述曰。此破第二所緣名所依也。此即我執所依通異品也。非是定因。以色等四蘊亦是我執依故 有人釋我執所依有三。一釋是相應依。二釋是境界依。如正理破。第三釋云。我執有二。一者迷執。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
不能因此就說心是『內』（ātman，我）的名字。而且，諸多的心所（caitasika，心理活動）都希望與同類的心相應。作為能依之性，心所可能多也可能少。但心作為所依，情況就不是這樣了。因此，『內』這個名字，在心上並非是恰當的。如果這樣說，那麼大法（dharma，佛法）也應該接受『內』這個名字了。如果不這樣，心所的朋類就會壞滅。就像異生（prthagjana，凡夫）中不墮法（aparihāṇadharman，不退法）的人一樣。不墮法，指的是不墮入三惡道。即使到了忍位（ksānti，安忍），也不會墮入惡趣。因為異生類中多數會墮入惡趣。經中說預流（srota-āpanna，入流者）名為不墮惡趣。
《正理經》（Nyāyasūtra）破斥我執，依據的是說心為『我』的觀點。而且，心的一小部分是我執的依據。一切心所依據的都名為『內』。因此，不應該這樣解釋：因為我執依據心，所以假說心為『我』。而且，因為少部分心是貪等煩惱的依據，所以應該一切心都成為染污的。而且，因為少部分心是尋（vitarka，粗分別）和伺（vicāra，細分別）的依據，所以一切心都應該成為有尋有伺的。既然事實並非如此，那麼上述說法又怎麼能成立呢？因為差別因緣是不可得的。
述曰：我執是『我見』（ātma-dṛṣṭi，薩迦耶見）。『依』有兩種含義。一是相應，即是與身見（satkāya-dṛṣṭi，有身見）相應的心名為我執依。其餘相應的心不是我執依。這說明心是普遍的，並非我執依。二是『我執』所緣（ālambana，所取境）名為我執依，這說明我執所依通於五取蘊（pañca-upādāna-skandha，五取蘊），但不通於無漏蘊（anāsrava-skandha，無漏蘊）。即應色等四蘊也名為『我』，因為是我執的依據。無漏心不名為『內』，因為它不是『我』的依據。無漏的心既然不是我執的依據，就不能名為我所依之根。既然不是『我』的依據，就不能名為『內』。前面所引的《正理經》的文句，是就相應依來破斥宗派說一切都是『我』的觀點，因為我執所依只有一部分。
《正理經》又說：『而且，它怎麼能遮止心所等的我執依性呢？因為有身見緣五取蘊為境界的緣故。』
述曰：這是破斥第二種所緣名為所依的觀點。這說明我執所依通於異品。這不是定因，因為色等四蘊也是我執的依據。
有人解釋說，我執所依有三種。一是相應依，二是境界依，如《正理經》所破斥的。第三種解釋說：我執有兩種，一是迷執。
【English Translation】 English version:
It cannot be said that the mind is named 'ātman' (self) for this reason. Moreover, many 'caitasikas' (mental activities) hope to correspond with minds of the same kind. As the nature of being relied upon, 'caitasikas' may be many or few. But the mind as what is relied upon is not like this. Therefore, the name 'ātman' is not appropriate for the mind. If so, then the great 'dharma' (Buddha's teachings) should also receive the name 'ātman'. If not, the groups of 'caitasikas' will be destroyed. Like those who do not fall from the 'dharma' ('aparihāṇadharman', non-regressing dharma) among ordinary beings ('prthagjana', common people). Not falling from the 'dharma' means not falling into the three evil paths. Even if one reaches the stage of 'ksānti' (patience), one will not fall into the evil realms. Because most of the ordinary beings fall into the evil realms. The sutra says that 'srota-āpanna' (stream-enterer) is called not falling into the evil realms.
'Nyāyasūtra' refutes the attachment to self, based on the view that the mind is the 'self'. Moreover, a small part of the mind is the basis of attachment to self. Everything that the mind relies on is called 'ātman'. Therefore, it should not be explained like this: because attachment to self relies on the mind, it is falsely said that the mind is the 'self'. Moreover, because a small part of the mind is the basis of greed and other afflictions, all minds should become defiled. Moreover, because a small part of the mind is the basis of 'vitarka' (coarse thought) and 'vicāra' (subtle thought), all minds should become with 'vitarka' and 'vicāra'. Since this is not the case, how can the above statement be established? Because the causes and conditions for the difference are not available.
Commentary: Attachment to self is 'ātma-dṛṣṭi' (self-view, 'satkāya-dṛṣṭi'). 'Relying' has two meanings. One is correspondence, that is, the mind corresponding to 'satkāya-dṛṣṭi' (view of the existing body) is called the basis of attachment to self. The remaining corresponding minds are not the basis of attachment to self. This shows that the mind is universal and not the basis of attachment to self. The second is that what is cognized by 'attachment to self' ('ālambana', object) is called the basis of attachment to self, which means that the basis of attachment to self is common to the five aggregates of grasping ('pañca-upādāna-skandha'), but not common to the unconditioned aggregates ('anāsrava-skandha'). That is, the four aggregates such as form should also be called 'self', because they are the basis of attachment to self. The unconditioned mind is not called 'ātman', because it is not the basis of 'self'. Since the unconditioned mind is not the basis of attachment to self, it cannot be called the root of what the self relies on. Since it is not the basis of 'self', it cannot be called 'ātman'. The sentence from 'Nyāyasūtra' quoted earlier refutes the view of the school that everything is 'self' based on the corresponding reliance, because the basis of attachment to self is only a part.
'Nyāyasūtra' also says: 'Moreover, how can it prevent the nature of attachment to self of 'caitasikas' and others? Because there is 'satkāya-dṛṣṭi' that takes the five aggregates of grasping as its object.'
Commentary: This refutes the second view that what is cognized is called what is relied upon. This shows that the basis of attachment to self is common to different categories. This is not a definite cause, because the four aggregates such as form are also the basis of attachment to self.
Some people explain that there are three kinds of reliance on attachment to self. One is corresponding reliance, the second is object reliance, as refuted by 'Nyāyasūtra'. The third explanation says: there are two kinds of attachment to self, one is delusional attachment.
謂即我見。但緣有漏。二者取執。謂一切心。于境自在執取前境。皆名我執。二執所緣雖通諸法。心強勝故偏名依止。故於此心假說為我。此解。依止遍通諸心。此是所緣說依。非相應依及自體依。此釋還同前不定過 有人又云。正理解心為我。恒于自境自在行故。若作俱舍師破。不異我前第三解也 今詳前第三解與正理師。其意全別。如何是同。前第三解云一迷執。二者取執。謂一切心於境自在執取皆名我執。二執所緣雖通諸法。心強勝故偏名依止。故於此心假說為我。此即說心我執境界是依止假說為我。正理說心恒于自境自在行故名之為我。此即是自體名非是所緣。所緣．自體。義既懸別。如何是同。必欲作俱舍師救。應云。我釋依汝宗婆沙。汝釋違自宗義如何是正婆沙七十四。問。云何建立內．外為依於法。為依於我。答。一說唯依法立。然非一切。謂內六識身是染凈法所依止處。若與六識作所依者名為內處。作所緣者名為外處。故依法立內．外處名。複次。若法是根立為內處。若法是根義立為外處。複次。若法是有境立為內處。若法是境立為外處。有說。依我立內．外處。我即是心。我執所依止故。於此心上假立我名。引頌文證。與此同。乃至又云。然內．外名非圓成實。謂於我是內者。於他名外。於我是外
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所謂的『我見』，只是基於有漏法（指有煩惱和業力的法）而產生的。 第二種是取執，指的是一切心識，對於境界自在地執取前境，都叫做『我執』。這兩種執著的所緣雖然普遍存在於各種法中，但因為心識的力量強大，所以偏重於將心識作為依止。因此，就在這心識上假立為『我』。 這種解釋認為，依止普遍存在於各種心識中。這是從所緣的角度來說的依止，而不是相應的依止以及自體（自身）的依止。 這種解釋仍然和前面不確定的過失一樣。 有人又說，正確地理解心識就是『我』，因為它恒常地在自己的境界中自在執行。如果按照《俱舍論》的觀點來駁斥，這和前面第三種解釋中的『我』沒有什麼不同。 現在詳細分析，前面第三種解釋和正理師的觀點完全不同，怎麼能說是相同呢？ 前面第三種解釋說：第一是迷執，第二是取執，指的是一切心識對於境界自在地執取，都叫做『我執』。這兩種執著的所緣雖然普遍存在於各種法中，但因為心識的力量強大，所以偏重於將心識作為依止。因此，就在這心識上假立為『我』。這也就是說，心識作為我執的境界，是依止，並假立為『我』。 而正理師說，心識恒常地在自己的境界中自在執行，所以稱之為『我』。這指的是自體，而不是所緣。所緣和自體的含義既然截然不同，怎麼能說是相同呢？ 如果一定要按照《俱舍論》的觀點來救護，應該說：我的解釋是依據你們宗派的《婆沙論》，而你們的解釋違背了自己宗派的義理，怎麼能說是正確的呢？ 《婆沙論》第七十四卷：問：如何建立內處（adhyātmikāyatana，指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根）和外處（bāhyāyatana，指色、聲、香、味、觸、法六塵）作為法（dharma）的依止，或者作為我的依止？ 答：一種說法是，僅僅依法來建立，但並非一切情況都如此。例如，內在的六識身（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）是染污法和清凈法所依止之處。如果與六識作為所依止的，就叫做內處；作為所緣的，就叫做外處。所以，是依法來建立內處和外處的名稱。 其次，如果法是根（indriya），就建立為內處；如果法是根的意義，就建立為外處。 再次，如果法是有境（viṣaya，具有能認識作用），就建立為內處；如果法是境（ālambana，被認識的對象），就建立為外處。 有的人說，是依『我』來建立內處和外處。『我』就是心識，是我執所依止的。就在這心識上假立『我』的名稱。引用頌文來證明，與此相同。乃至又說，然而，內處和外處的名稱並非圓成實性（pariniṣpanna-svabhāva，指真實存在的自性）。對於『我』來說是內處的，對於他人來說就叫做外處；對於『我』來說是外處的
【English Translation】 English version That which is called 'view of self' (ātma-dṛṣṭi) arises only from conditioned existence (sāsrava, with outflows). The second is grasping (grahaṇa) and clinging (abhiniveśa), referring to all minds (citta) freely grasping and clinging to objects. All such are called 'self-grasping' (ātma-graha). Although the objects of these two graspings are common to all dharmas, the mind's strength and dominance cause it to be primarily considered the support (āśraya). Therefore, 'self' is conventionally imputed to this mind. This explanation considers the support to be universally present in all minds. This is the support spoken of in terms of the object (ālambana), not the corresponding support (saṃprayoga-āśraya) or the support of self-nature (ātma-bhāva-āśraya). This explanation still has the same fault of being indefinite as before. Some also say that correctly understanding the mind is 'self' (ātman), because it constantly operates freely in its own realm. If refuted according to the Abhidharmakośa, it is no different from the third explanation of 'self' given earlier. Now, upon detailed analysis, the third explanation given earlier and the view of the Sautrāntikas are completely different in meaning. How can they be the same? The third explanation given earlier states: first, there is delusion (moha); second, there is grasping. This refers to all minds freely grasping objects, which are called 'self-grasping'. Although the objects of these two graspings are common to all dharmas, the mind's strength and dominance cause it to be primarily considered the support. Therefore, 'self' is conventionally imputed to this mind. This means that the mind, as the object of self-grasping, is the support, and 'self' is conventionally imputed to it. The Sautrāntikas say that the mind constantly operates freely in its own realm, and therefore it is called 'self'. This refers to self-nature, not the object. Since the meanings of object and self-nature are distinctly different, how can they be the same? If one insists on defending this according to the Abhidharmakośa, one should say: My explanation is based on your school's Vibhāṣā, but your explanation contradicts the meaning of your own school. How can it be considered correct? Vibhāṣā, section 74: Question: How are the internal bases (adhyātmikāyatana, the six sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) and external bases (bāhyāyatana, the six sense objects: form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma) established as supports of dharma (dharma), or as supports of self (ātman)? Answer: One explanation is that they are established solely based on dharma, but not in all cases. For example, the internal six consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness) are the places where defiled and purified dharmas are supported. If something serves as the support for the six consciousnesses, it is called an internal base; if it serves as the object, it is called an external base. Therefore, the names of internal and external bases are established based on dharma. Secondly, if a dharma is a sense faculty (indriya), it is established as an internal base; if a dharma is the meaning of a sense faculty, it is established as an external base. Thirdly, if a dharma is a subject (viṣaya, possessing the ability to cognize), it is established as an internal base; if a dharma is an object (ālambana, that which is cognized), it is established as an external base. Some say that internal and external bases are established based on 'self'. 'Self' is the mind, which is the support of self-grasping. The name 'self' is conventionally imputed to this mind. Quoting verses to prove this is the same. Furthermore, it is said that the names of internal and external bases are not ultimately real (pariniṣpanna-svabhāva, perfectly accomplished nature). What is internal to 'self' is called external to others; what is external to 'self'
者。於他名內故 但依一立內．外名。非不決定 準婆沙有四釋。此論即當第四。正理如何破自宗義 又世想立名。依少分立如何為難。
論。已說內．外至幾彼同分。下半頌第十七同分彼同分門。
論曰至恒名同分。長行文中有三。一明法界唯同分。二明十七通二種。三明同分等義。此即初也 言。法同分者。牒頌文也 謂一法界唯是同分。釋頌意也 言若境與識至說名同分釋境同分義也 若境。簡六根．六識。定為所緣。簡外五境。五境雖二識緣對其五識為定所緣不對意識。法界對其意識為定所緣不對余識。故正理云。且如法界與彼意識為定所緣是不共故 準此。故知。五境是共非定所緣。然望五識為定所緣。五識于余不能緣故。由此法界已．正．當生無邊意識故名同分。餘十七界雖已．正．當生無邊意識。不名同分。已生謂過．現。生法謂未來正生。及當生也 言。無一法界至無邊意識者。釋唯同分 言。由諸聖者至恒名同分者。指事釋也。如文可解。
論。餘二者至應說自用。第二明十七界通二 餘二者。牒頌文 餘十七界皆有同分彼同分者。釋頌意 何名同分彼同分耶者。問。十七界何者名同分。何者名彼同分 謂作自業不作自業者。引頌答 若作自業至名彼同分釋頌意 此中眼界至應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
問：對於其他名稱的緣故，只是依據一個設立內在和外在的名稱，不是不決定的。根據《婆沙論》有四種解釋，此論相當於第四種。正理如何破斥自己的宗義？又，世俗的想法設立名稱，依據少部分設立如何成為難題？
論：已經說了內在和外在，直到多少彼同分。《下半頌》第十七同分彼同分門。
論曰：直到恒名同分。長行文中有三點：一、說明法界唯是同分；二、說明十七界通於兩種（同分和彼同分）；三、說明同分等的意義。這是第一點。言：『法同分』，是抄錄頌文。謂一法界唯是同分，解釋頌文的意思。言：『若境與識，乃至說名同分』，解釋境同分的意義。若境，簡別六根、六識，確定為所緣。簡別外五境。五境雖然是二識所緣，但對於其五識來說是確定的所緣，對於意識則不是。法界對於其意識是確定的所緣，對於其他識則不是。所以《正理》說：『且如法界與彼意識為定所緣，是不共故。』根據這個，可知五境是共同的而非確定的所緣。然而，對於五識來說是確定的所緣，因為五識不能緣其他。由此，法界已生、正生、當生無邊的意識，所以名為同分。其餘十七界雖然已生、正生、當生無邊的意識，但不名為同分。已生指過去和現在，生法指未來正生和當生。言：『無一法界，乃至無邊意識者』，解釋唯是同分。言：『由諸聖者，乃至恒名同分者』，指事解釋，如文可解。
論：其餘二者，乃至應說自用。第二，說明十七界通於兩種。其餘二者，抄錄頌文。其餘十七界皆有同分彼同分者，解釋頌文的意思。何名同分彼同分耶者，問：十七界中哪些名為同分，哪些名為彼同分？謂作自業不作自業者，引用頌文回答。若作自業，乃至名彼同分，解釋頌文的意思。此中眼界，乃至應 English version:
Question: Regarding the reason for other names, it is only based on one to establish internal and external names, it is not undetermined. According to the Vibhasa, there are four explanations, and this treatise corresponds to the fourth. How does the Nyaya refute its own doctrine? Also, how does the worldly idea of establishing names, based on a small part, become a difficulty?
Treatise: It has been said about internal and external, up to how many 'those-same-division' (para-sabhāga). The second half of the verse is the seventeenth 'same-division' (sabhāga) and 'those-same-division' section.
Treatise says: Up to 'constant-name same-division'. There are three points in the prose: 1. Explaining that the dhātu (element) of dharma is only 'same-division'; 2. Explaining that the seventeen dhātus are common to both (same-division and those-same-division); 3. Explaining the meaning of 'same-division' and so on. This is the first point. The phrase 'dharma same-division' is a transcription of the verse. 'That one dharma-dhātu is only same-division' explains the meaning of the verse. The phrase 'If an object and consciousness, up to saying the name same-division' explains the meaning of 'object same-division'. 'If an object' distinguishes the six roots and six consciousnesses, determining them as the objects of cognition. It distinguishes the outer five objects. Although the five objects are cognized by two consciousnesses, they are the determined objects of cognition for their respective five consciousnesses, but not for the mind consciousness. The dharma-dhātu is the determined object of cognition for its mind consciousness, but not for other consciousnesses. Therefore, the Nyaya says: 'For example, the dharma-dhātu and its mind consciousness are determined objects of cognition, because they are not shared.' According to this, it can be known that the five objects are common and not determined objects of cognition. However, for the five consciousnesses, they are determined objects of cognition, because the five consciousnesses cannot cognize others. Therefore, the dharma-dhātu has already arisen, is arising, and will arise with boundless consciousnesses, so it is called 'same-division'. Although the remaining seventeen dhātus have already arisen, are arising, and will arise with boundless consciousnesses, they are not called 'same-division'. 'Already arisen' refers to the past and present; 'arising dharma' refers to the future, currently arising, and about to arise. The phrase 'No one dharma-dhātu, up to boundless consciousnesses' explains 'only same-division'. The phrase 'Because of the sages, up to constant-name same-division' explains by pointing to the matter, as the text can be understood.
Treatise: The remaining two, up to should say self-use. Secondly, explaining that the seventeen dhātus are common to both. The remaining two, transcribing the verse. 'The remaining seventeen dhātus all have same-division and those-same-division' explains the meaning of the verse. 'What is called same-division and those-same-division?' asks: Among the seventeen dhātus, which are called same-division and which are called those-same-division? 'That which performs its own function and that which does not perform its own function' quotes the verse to answer. 'If it performs its own function, up to called those-same-division' explains the meaning of the verse. 'Here, the eye dhātu, up to should
【English Translation】 Question: Regarding the reason for other names, it is only based on one to establish internal and external names, it is not undetermined. According to the Vibhasa, there are four explanations, and this treatise corresponds to the fourth. How does the Nyaya refute its own doctrine? Also, how does the worldly idea of establishing names, based on a small part, become a difficulty? Treatise: It has been said about internal and external, up to how many 'those-same-division' (para-sabhāga). The second half of the verse is the seventeenth 'same-division' (sabhāga) and 'those-same-division' section. Treatise says: Up to 'constant-name same-division'. There are three points in the prose: 1. Explaining that the dhātu (element) of dharma is only 'same-division'; 2. Explaining that the seventeen dhātus are common to both (same-division and those-same-division); 3. Explaining the meaning of 'same-division' and so on. This is the first point. The phrase 'dharma same-division' is a transcription of the verse. 'That one dharma-dhātu is only same-division' explains the meaning of the verse. The phrase 'If an object and consciousness, up to saying the name same-division' explains the meaning of 'object same-division'. 'If an object' distinguishes the six roots and six consciousnesses, determining them as the objects of cognition. It distinguishes the outer five objects. Although the five objects are cognized by two consciousnesses, they are the determined objects of cognition for their respective five consciousnesses, but not for the mind consciousness. The dharma-dhātu is the determined object of cognition for its mind consciousness, but not for other consciousnesses. Therefore, the Nyaya says: 'For example, the dharma-dhātu and its mind consciousness are determined objects of cognition, because they are not shared.' According to this, it can be known that the five objects are common and not determined objects of cognition. However, for the five consciousnesses, they are determined objects of cognition, because the five consciousnesses cannot cognize others. Therefore, the dharma-dhātu has already arisen, is arising, and will arise with boundless consciousnesses, so it is called 'same-division'. Although the remaining seventeen dhātus have already arisen, are arising, and will arise with boundless consciousnesses, they are not called 'same-division'. 'Already arisen' refers to the past and present; 'arising dharma' refers to the future, currently arising, and about to arise. The phrase 'No one dharma-dhātu, up to boundless consciousnesses' explains 'only same-division'. The phrase 'Because of the sages, up to constant-name same-division' explains by pointing to the matter, as the text can be understood. Treatise: The remaining two, up to should say self-use. Secondly, explaining that the seventeen dhātus are common to both. The remaining two, transcribing the verse. 'The remaining seventeen dhātus all have same-division and those-same-division' explains the meaning of the verse. 'What is called same-division and those-same-division?' asks: Among the seventeen dhātus, which are called same-division and which are called those-same-division? 'That which performs its own function and that which does not perform its own function' quotes the verse to answer. 'If it performs its own function, up to called those-same-division' explains the meaning of the verse. 'Here, the eye dhātu, up to should
說自用。下指法釋也。
論。迦濕彌羅國至應知亦爾。下釋彼同分 西方師。是揵馱國師。薩婆多師釋是正義。不許有識不與根合 同分眼有三。謂已生．正生．當生。此無異說 彼同分眼二說不同。婆沙師說有四種。西方諸師五種。如文可解。已上釋五根同分．彼同文。
論。意彼同分唯不生法。釋意根也。意同分有三。謂已．正．當生意。彼同分有一。謂不生法。識起必托于境緣境即有自用。故唯不生是彼同分。更無異說 問意能緣十七皆名為同分。十七為意緣應名為同分 答五根．五識對自境方名為同分。不約為境義。雖被意緣非同分 問五根．五識對自境雖被意緣非同分。五境既對於能緣意。若緣時名同分 答五境對自根．識名同分。不對意識名同分 問意非五自識被緣非同分。五非意自境意緣非同分 答五境用有三。謂自根．自識．及意識。他識雖緣非同分。緣五意一用。但起此用即同分。婆沙七十一云。問餘十七界亦是意識所了別境。應皆同分便無彼同分。如何說有彼同分耶。答餘十七界。不依意識立為同分．及彼同分。但依各別根．境相對。謂眼對色。色對眼。乃至。身對觸。觸對身。問若爾意界．及意識界。唯應對法界立同分．彼同分。是即緣餘十七界者應非同分。答理應如是。然以意
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『說自用』（svakārya）：指各自的功用，下文將解釋其含義。
論：在迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）的觀點中，『應知亦爾』（api ca jñeyam eva）：下文解釋了『彼同分』（tat-sabhāga）的含義。西方老師（pāścātya ācārya）：是犍陀國（Gandhāra）的老師。薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda）的老師解釋這是正確的含義，不認為有識（vijñāna）不與根（indriya）結合。
『同分眼』（sabhāga cakṣu）有三種：即已生（atīta）、正生（pratyutpanna）、當生（anāgata）。對此沒有不同的說法。『彼同分眼』（tad-sabhāga cakṣu）有兩種不同的說法。婆沙師（Vibhāṣācārya）說有四種，西方諸師（pāścātya ācārya）說有五種，具體內容可以參考原文理解。以上解釋了五根（pañcendriya）的同分和彼同分。
論：意（manas）的彼同分只有不生法（anutpāda-dharma）。解釋意根（manas-indriya）。意的同分有三種：即已（atīta）、正（pratyutpanna）、當生（anāgata）意。彼同分有一種：即不生法。識（vijñāna）的生起必然依賴於境（viṣaya），緣境（viṣaya）即有各自的功用，因此只有不生法是彼同分，沒有其他不同的說法。
問：意（manas）能夠緣十七界（saptadaśa dhātu），都可以稱為同分（sabhāga）。十七界被意緣（manas-ālambana），應該被稱為同分。 答：五根（pañcendriya）、五識（pañca vijñāna）對於各自的境（viṣaya）才能稱為同分，不以約為境（viṣaya）的意義。即使被意（manas）緣，也不是同分。 問：五根（pañcendriya）、五識（pañca vijñāna）對於各自的境（viṣaya），即使被意（manas）緣，也不是同分。五境（pañca viṣaya）既然對於能緣的意（manas），如果緣的時候，是否可以稱為同分？ 答：五境（pañca viṣaya）對於各自的根（indriya）、識（vijñāna）稱為同分，不對意識（manovijñāna）稱為同分。 問：意（manas）不是五（pañca）的自識（svavijñāna），被緣（ālambana）不是同分（sabhāga）。五（pañca）不是意的自境（svaviṣaya），意緣（manas-ālambana）不是同分（sabhāga）。 答：五境（pañca viṣaya）的功用有三種：即自根（svendriya）、自識（svavijñāna）、以及意識（manovijñāna）。他識（paravijñāna）即使緣（ālambana）也不是同分（sabhāga）。緣（ālambana）五（pañca）意（manas）是一種功用，但生起這種功用就是同分（sabhāga）。《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）第七十一卷說：問：其餘十七界（saptadaśa dhātu）也是意識（manovijñāna）所了別的境（viṣaya），應該都是同分（sabhāga），那就沒有彼同分（tad-sabhāga）了，如何說有彼同分呢？答：其餘十七界（saptadaśa dhātu），不依據意識（manovijñāna）而建立為同分（sabhāga）和彼同分（tad-sabhāga），而是依據各自的根（indriya）、境（viṣaya）相對。即眼（cakṣu）對色（rūpa），色（rūpa）對眼（cakṣu），乃至身（kāya）對觸（spraṣṭavya），觸（spraṣṭavya）對身（kāya）。問：如果這樣，意界（mano-dhātu）以及意識界（mano-vijñāna-dhātu），只應該對法界（dharma-dhātu）建立同分（sabhāga）和彼同分（tad-sabhāga），那麼緣（ālambana）其餘十七界（saptadaśa dhātu）的就不應該是同分（sabhāga）了。答：道理應該是這樣。然而以意（manas）
【English Translation】 English version 'Saying 'own use' (svakārya)': Refers to their respective functions, which will be explained below.
Treatise: In the view of Kashmir (Kāśmīra), 'should also be known thus' (api ca jñeyam eva): The following explains the meaning of 'that-homogeneous' (tat-sabhāga). Western teachers (pāścātya ācārya): Are the teachers of Gandhāra (Gandhāra). The teachers of Sarvāstivāda (Sarvāstivāda) explain that this is the correct meaning, and do not believe that there is consciousness (vijñāna) that does not combine with the root (indriya).
'Homogeneous eye' (sabhāga cakṣu) has three types: namely, past (atīta), present (pratyutpanna), and future (anāgata). There is no different view on this. 'That-homogeneous eye' (tad-sabhāga cakṣu) has two different views. The Vibhāṣā teachers (Vibhāṣācārya) say there are four types, and the Western teachers (pāścātya ācārya) say there are five types, the specific content can be understood by referring to the original text. The above explains the homogeneous and that-homogeneous of the five roots (pañcendriya).
Treatise: The that-homogeneous of mind (manas) only has unarisen dharmas (anutpāda-dharma). Explaining the mind-root (manas-indriya). The homogeneous of mind has three types: namely, past (atīta), present (pratyutpanna), and future (anāgata) mind. That-homogeneous has one type: namely, unarisen dharmas. The arising of consciousness (vijñāna) necessarily depends on the object (viṣaya), and relating to the object (viṣaya) has its own function, therefore only unarisen dharmas are that-homogeneous, and there are no other different views.
Question: The mind (manas) can relate to the seventeen realms (saptadaśa dhātu), all of which can be called homogeneous (sabhāga). The seventeen realms being related to by the mind (manas-ālambana) should be called homogeneous. Answer: The five roots (pañcendriya) and five consciousnesses (pañca vijñāna) can only be called homogeneous in relation to their respective objects (viṣaya), not in the sense of being related to the object (viṣaya). Even if related to by the mind (manas), it is not homogeneous. Question: The five roots (pañcendriya) and five consciousnesses (pañca vijñāna) are not homogeneous even when related to by the mind (manas) in relation to their respective objects (viṣaya). Since the five objects (pañca viṣaya) are related to the mind (manas) that can relate, can they be called homogeneous when related? Answer: The five objects (pañca viṣaya) are called homogeneous in relation to their respective roots (indriya) and consciousnesses (vijñāna), but not in relation to mind-consciousness (manovijñāna). Question: The mind (manas) is not the own-consciousness (svavijñāna) of the five (pañca), and being related to (ālambana) is not homogeneous (sabhāga). The five (pañca) are not the own-object (svaviṣaya) of the mind, and being related to by the mind (manas-ālambana) is not homogeneous (sabhāga). Answer: The functions of the five objects (pañca viṣaya) are of three types: namely, own-root (svendriya), own-consciousness (svavijñāna), and mind-consciousness (manovijñāna). Even if other-consciousness (paravijñāna) relates to (ālambana), it is not homogeneous (sabhāga). Relating to (ālambana) the five (pañca) minds (manas) is one function, but the arising of this function is homogeneous (sabhāga). The Vibhāṣā (Vibhāṣā) Volume 71 says: Question: The remaining seventeen realms (saptadaśa dhātu) are also objects (viṣaya) discerned by mind-consciousness (manovijñāna), should they all be homogeneous (sabhāga), then there would be no that-homogeneous (tad-sabhāga), how can it be said that there is that-homogeneous? Answer: The remaining seventeen realms (saptadaśa dhātu) are not established as homogeneous (sabhāga) and that-homogeneous (tad-sabhāga) based on mind-consciousness (manovijñāna), but are based on the relative relationship between their respective roots (indriya) and objects (viṣaya). That is, eye (cakṣu) to form (rūpa), form (rūpa) to eye (cakṣu), and so on, body (kāya) to touch (spraṣṭavya), touch (spraṣṭavya) to body (kāya). Question: If so, the mind-realm (mano-dhātu) and mind-consciousness-realm (mano-vijñāna-dhātu) should only establish homogeneous (sabhāga) and that-homogeneous (tad-sabhāga) in relation to the dharma-realm (dharma-dhātu), then relating to (ālambana) the remaining seventeen realms (saptadaśa dhātu) should not be homogeneous (sabhāga). Answer: The principle should be like this. However, with mind (manas)
界．及意識界通能了別一切法故。依自作用立為同分。如眼等根有見等用。必不立為彼同分故。
論。色界至應說自用。上明根同分．彼同分。自此下明五境同分．彼同分。于中有二。初明五境。次對根顯差別。此即初。文可解。
論。應知同分至故如色說。此即第二對根顯差別。得同分名有二。一諸不可共用之法。若於用者名為同分。于不用者亦得說名此是同分。彼同分亦爾。二諸可共用者各于用者名為同分。于不用者不名同分。彼同分亦爾 應知同分至乃至意界亦爾者。此是初不共用 言。色即不然至相撲等色者。此是第二共受用也。正理論云。亦有色界於一切眾生不名同分。如妙高山中色 言。眼無是事至建立同分及彼同分。釋共．不共得名所以。言。如說色界聲香．味觸應知亦爾者。類釋餘四境言。聲可如色至不應如色說者。外難。聲離中知可如色說。三境合知。一取余不取。如何是共 言。雖有是理至故如色說者。通難。雖此三境正與根合不共覺等。未根合前可共受用。謂或與彼．此根合不決定故。故如色說。眼不如是不如眼說。正理論云。何緣說眼同分．及彼同分異於色耶。容多有情同見一色。無用一眼二有情觀。聲如色說。是共境故。香．味．觸三如內界說非共境故。然諸世間依假名想。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 界（dhatu，元素、界），以及意識界（vijnana-dhatu，意識元素、界），能夠通達了別一切法（dharma，事物、現象）。依據各自的作用而建立為同分（sabhaga，同類、相似）。例如眼等根（indriya，感官）有見等作用，必定不建立為彼同分（visabhaga，異類、不相似）。
論：應該說自用。上面說明了根的同分、彼同分。從這裡開始說明五境（visaya，對像）的同分、彼同分。其中有二：首先說明五境，其次對照根來顯示差別。這是第一個部分，文句可以理解。
論：應當知道同分乃至如同色（rupa，顏色、形態）所說。這是第二個部分，對照根來顯示差別。得到同分之名有兩種情況：一是諸不可共同使用的法，如果對於使用者稱為同分，對於不使用者也可以說這是同分，彼同分也是如此。二是諸可共同使用者，各自對於使用者稱為同分，對於不使用者不稱為同分，彼同分也是如此。應當知道同分乃至意界（mano-dhatu，意識界）也是如此，這是第一種不共同使用的情況。言：色即不然乃至相撲等色，這是第二種共同受用的情況。正理論說：也有對於一切眾生不名為同分的，例如妙高山（Sumeru，須彌山）中的色。
言：眼無是事乃至建立同分及彼同分，解釋共同、不共同得到名稱的原因。言：如說聲（shabda，聲音）、香（gandha，氣味）、味（rasa，味道）、觸（sprashtavya，觸覺）應當知道也是如此，分類解釋其餘四境。言：聲可如色乃至不應如色說，外人提出疑問。聲離開中間的認知可以像色一樣說，三境合起來認知，一個取，其餘不取，如何是共同的？
言：雖有是理乃至如同色所說，通達疑問。雖然這三種境正與根結合，不共同覺知等，未與根結合之前可以共同受用。意思是或者與彼根、此根結合不決定，所以如同色所說。眼不如是，所以不如眼所說。正理論說：什麼緣故說眼的同分以及彼同分異於色呢？容許多有情共同看見一種色，沒有用一隻眼讓兩個有情觀看。聲如同色所說，是共同的境的緣故。香、味、觸三種如同內界所說，不是共同的境的緣故。然而諸世間依據假名想。
【English Translation】 English version The dhatu (element, realm), and the vijnana-dhatu (consciousness element, realm), are able to thoroughly distinguish all dharmas (things, phenomena). Based on their respective functions, they are established as sabhaga (homogeneous, similar). For example, the indriya (sense organs) such as the eye have functions such as seeing, and are certainly not established as visabhaga (heterogeneous, dissimilar).
Treatise: It should be said 'self-use'. Above, the sabhaga and visabhaga of the roots were explained. From here onwards, the sabhaga and visabhaga of the five visayas (objects) are explained. There are two aspects to this: first, the five objects are explained; second, the differences are shown in contrast to the roots. This is the first part, and the sentences can be understood.
Treatise: It should be known that sabhaga, up to 'as said of rupa (color, form)'. This is the second part, showing the differences in contrast to the roots. There are two situations in which the name 'sabhaga' is obtained: first, for dharmas that cannot be used in common, if they are called sabhaga for the user, they can also be called 'this is sabhaga' for the non-user; the visabhaga is also like this. Second, for those that can be used in common, each is called sabhaga for the user, and is not called sabhaga for the non-user; the visabhaga is also like this. It should be known that sabhaga, up to 'even the mano-dhatu (mind element)' is also like this, which is the first case of non-common use. The statement 'rupa is not like this, up to colors such as wrestling' is the second case of common enjoyment. The Nyayanusara-sastra (Treatise Following the Correct Principle) says: 'There are also those that are not called sabhaga for all sentient beings, such as the rupa in Mount Sumeru (Mount Meru)'.
The statement 'the eye is not like this, up to establishing sabhaga and visabhaga' explains the reasons for obtaining the name 'common' and 'non-common'. The statement 'as said of shabda (sound), gandha (smell), rasa (taste), sprashtavya (touch)' should be known to be the same, classifying and explaining the remaining four objects. The statement 'sound can be said like rupa, up to it should not be said like rupa' is a question raised by an outsider. Sound, apart from intermediate cognition, can be said like rupa; the three objects are combined for cognition, one is taken, and the others are not taken, how is it common?
The statement 'although there is this reason, up to as said of rupa' clarifies the question. Although these three objects are directly combined with the roots, and there is no common awareness, etc., before being combined with the roots, they can be enjoyed in common. The meaning is that they may be combined with that root or this root, and it is not definite, so it is said like rupa. The eye is not like this, so it is not said like the eye. The Nyayanusara-sastra says: 'For what reason is it said that the sabhaga and visabhaga of the eye are different from rupa? It is possible for many sentient beings to see one rupa together, but it is useless for two sentient beings to see with one eye.' Sound is said like rupa because it is a common object. The three, gandha, rasa, and sprashtavya, are said like the inner realm because they are not common objects. However, the worlds rely on imputed names and thoughts.
有言我等同嗅此香。同嘗此味。同覺此觸。
準正理文。三境如眼說。此論如色說。二論各依婆沙一說意各別。此論以未來香可容生二鼻根由不定故如色說。正理論據正嗅香不可共嗅故如眼說 今詳二說。此論理長。所以知然。鼻根．鼻識境界必同。一切眾生鼻識既於一切香有其三定。此即香境是其共緣。識既是共。故知于根亦共。眼即不爾。唯自識望眼有其三定。他識望眼全無依義。何得同香。如何謂其三境如眼說耶。三境雖與色不全同。然是共境其義決定。
論。眼等六識至如意界說。此由六識轉為意故。如釋意界。六識亦爾 論。云何同分至名彼同分。此第三釋同分．彼同分義 言。根境識三更相交涉故名為分。正理云。分謂交涉同有此分故名同分。云何交涉。謂根．境．識更相交涉。則是展轉相隨順義 言。或復分者是己作用。正理言。或復分者是己作用。更相交涉故。先說言若作自業名為同分 言。或復分者是所生觸。正理論云。或復分者是所生觸。依根．境．識交涉生故 言。同有此分故名同分。此釋同字並結。正理云。同有此分故名同分。則同有用。同有觸義 準正理文。更相交涉是總句。作用及觸是別句 論。與此相違至名彼同分。釋彼同分。正理云。云何與彼種類分同。謂此與彼同見
等相。同處。同界。互為因故。互相屬故。互相引故。種類分同 準此論意。有用名同分。無用名非同分。此無用非同分。與彼有用同分。同能見相。乃至。互相引故。是種類分同。即是有用無用雖別。而互相似。名種類分同。同有此分故。即是無用與彼有用分同。名彼同分。是彼同分之同類故。婆沙七十一云。問同分眼能見色。彼同分眼不能見色。云何見色眼是不見色眼之同分。不見色眼是彼見色眼之同分耶。答彼．此二眼互為因故 乃至 複次見色眼。與不見色眼。俱一界攝。俱一處攝。俱一根攝。同一見性。故見色眼是不見色眼之同分。不見色眼復是彼見色眼之同分。如眼界耳．鼻．舌．身界亦爾。同分．彼同分品類差別皆相似故。問色界云何。答諸色為眼已．正．當見。及彼同分是名色界 乃至 或有色界一切有情眼所不見。即彼色界於一切時名彼同分。如妙高山中心之色。及大地中。大海下色。一切有情無有見者。問彼色豈非天眼境界。答彼色雖是天眼境界。而無用故此不觀人。複次非一切時天眼現起。故有彼色天眼不見。問彼色豈非佛眼見 亦同天眼釋。又有無佛時故 然於此義或有欲令唯嗅嘗覺各自身中諸香．味．觸。彼作是說。香．味．觸界依世俗理如色界說 依勝義理如眼界說 問若一觸界二有情
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『等相』（具有相同性質）。『同處』（處於相同位置）。『同界』（屬於同一界別）。因為互相是原因，所以互相隸屬，互相牽引，種類相同。按照這個理論，有用的稱為『同分』，無用的稱為『非同分』。這個無用的『非同分』，與那個有用的『同分』，同樣能夠看見事物，乃至互相牽引，這就是種類上的相同。也就是說，即使有用和無用有所區別，但因為互相相似，所以稱為種類上的相同，因為共同具有這個部分。也就是說，無用的部分與那個有用的部分相同，稱為『彼同分』，是『彼同分』的同類。 《婆沙論》第七十一卷說：『問：同分的眼睛能看見顏色，彼同分的眼睛不能看見顏色，為什麼能看見顏色的眼睛是不見顏色眼睛的同分，不見顏色眼睛是能見顏色眼睛的彼同分呢？答：因為這兩種眼睛互相是原因，乃至。又，能看見顏色的眼睛，與不能看見顏色的眼睛，都屬於同一界別，處於同一位置，屬於同一根，具有相同的見性。所以能看見顏色的眼睛是不見顏色眼睛的同分，不見顏色眼睛又是能見顏色眼睛的彼同分。』如同眼界，耳、鼻、舌、身界也是這樣。同分、彼同分的品類差別都很相似。 『問：什麼是（此處指眼所能見之物）？答：諸色為眼已、正、當見，以及它們的同分，這稱為。乃至。或者有是一切有情眼睛所不能見的，那麼這個在任何時候都稱為彼同分。』例如妙高山（Sumeru）中心之色，以及大地中，大海下的顏色，一切有情都沒有能見到的。 『問：那些顏色難道不是天眼的境界嗎？答：那些顏色雖然是天眼的境界，但因為沒有用處，所以這裡不考慮。』而且，不是所有時候天眼都會顯現，所以有些顏色天眼也看不見。 『問：那些顏色難道不是佛眼所見？』也可以用與天眼相同的解釋。而且還有沒有佛的時候。然而對於這個意義，有些人想要只有嗅覺、味覺、觸覺各自身體中的香、味、觸才是。他們這樣說，香、味、觸界依照世俗的道理如同所說，依照勝義的道理如同眼界所說。 『問：如果一個觸界被兩個有情...
【English Translation】 English version 'Equal characteristics' (having the same nature). 'Same location' (being in the same place). 'Same realm' (belonging to the same realm). Because they are causes for each other, they are mutually subordinate, mutually attracting, and of the same kind. According to this theory, the useful is called 'same division' (同分), and the useless is called 'non-same division' (非同分). This useless 'non-same division', and that useful 'same division', can both see things, and even attract each other, which is the same in kind. That is to say, even if there is a difference between useful and useless, they are called the same in kind because they are similar to each other, because they share this part. That is to say, the useless part is the same as that useful part, called 'other's same division' (彼同分), which is the same kind of 'other's same division'. The Vibhasa (婆沙) Volume 71 says: 'Question: The eye of the same division can see colors, and the eye of the other's same division cannot see colors, why is the eye that can see colors the same division of the eye that cannot see colors, and the eye that cannot see colors is the other's same division of the eye that can see colors? Answer: Because these two eyes are causes for each other, and so on. Also, the eye that can see colors and the eye that cannot see colors both belong to the same realm, are in the same location, belong to the same root, and have the same nature of seeing. Therefore, the eye that can see colors is the same division of the eye that cannot see colors, and the eye that cannot see colors is the other's same division of the eye that can see colors.' Just like the eye realm, the ear, nose, tongue, and body realms are also like this. The differences in the categories of the same division and the other's same division are all similar. 'Question: What is ** (referring to what the eye can see here)? Answer: All colors that the eye has seen, is seeing, and will see, and their same divisions, are called . And so on. Or there is ** that all sentient beings' eyes cannot see, then this ** is called the other's same division at any time.' For example, the color in the center of Mount Sumeru (妙高山), and the colors under the great earth and under the great sea, no sentient being can see. 'Question: Aren't those colors the realm of the divine eye (天眼)? Answer: Although those colors are the realm of the divine eye, they are not considered here because they are useless.' Moreover, the divine eye does not always appear, so some colors cannot be seen by the divine eye. 'Question: Aren't those colors seen by the Buddha's eye (佛眼)?' The same explanation as the divine eye can also be used. And there are times when there is no Buddha. However, for this meaning, some people want only the fragrances, tastes, and touches in the respective bodies of smell, taste, and touch to be . They say that the realms of fragrance, taste, and touch are like ** according to worldly reasoning, and like the eye realm according to ultimate reasoning. 'Question: If one touch realm is experienced by two sentient beings...
身。各在一邊共所逼觸。豈非勝義如色界說。答如是觸界有多極微和集一處。二身逼觸各得一邊無共得者。故勝義理如眼界說。香．味二界準此應知。復有欲令亦嗅嘗覺他．及非情諸香．味．觸。彼作是說。香．味．觸界若已受用及受用時。依世俗理如色界說。謂諸世間說共得故。依勝義理如眼界說。一所受用余不得故。若未受用香．味．觸界。依勝義理亦有得義。如色界說義。謂在未來當至現在。有多人等共得義故 乃至 是故諸論皆作是說。如色界聲．香．味．觸界亦爾。以香．味．觸可共得故。
論已說同分至幾非所斷。下一頌第十八明見斷等。論曰至皆非所斷。長行釋中有三。一述自宗。二敘異說。三示斷相。此初述自宗也。
論。后三界者至各通三種。釋第二句。
論。八十八隨眠至皆非所斷。釋后三界通三種也。謂后三界。若是八十八隨眠。及彼俱有法。並隨行得。皆見斷。同時心王是意界．意識界。余是法界。見所斷法唯是自性斷非是所緣斷 並隨行得者。謂是隨是眠上得。並隨行心．心所法上得。非是說得為隨行也 諸餘有漏皆修所斷者。謂四隨眠．及俱有法．並得是自性斷。及諸有漏色．無覆無記．有漏善法是所緣斷。此二總名修所斷。于中若是心王是意界．意識界。余是法界
。后三界中所有無漏皆非所斷。
論。豈不更有至極相違故。第二敘異說云。此中有說。最初聖道剎那生時。諸異生性一切皆得永不成就。是故此性亦見所斷。經說預流得不墮法。非不永斷能招惡趣身．語．意業。得盡惡趣名不墮法。又說。我已盡那落迦。乃至廣說。儘是斷義。是故染污能招惡趣身．語業等亦見所斷。皆與見道極相違故 此是經部等計。
論。雖爾至親發起故。第三示斷相也。非見斷法略有三相。一不染污。二非六生。三色 此三非是迷諦理。又非是迷諦親起故。
論。謂不染法非六生色定非見斷。立宗 其異生性是不染污無記性攝者。出所以也。見所斷性是自性斷。不染污無記是所緣斷也。
論。已離欲者斷善根者猶成就故。證是不染無記性也 已離欲者猶成就故。證非染污 斷善根者猶成就者。證非善性。若是染污。欲界異生性即合是欲界染法。離欲染時應不成就。既離欲染猶成就。故知非染污法。正理論云。其異生性是不染污無記性攝。此若染污欲界異生。離欲貪已應非異生。此成就得依屬生身。是故不應生余界地成余界地諸異生性。此若是善斷善根者應非異生。故不染污無記性攝。既不染污非見所斷。若見所斷應忍所斷。若忍所斷忍正起時猶應成就。則應聖者亦是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：后三界中所有無漏法都不是見所斷的。
論：難道不是有極其相反的觀點嗎？第二種敘述不同觀點的說法是：『這裡有人說，最初聖道生起的剎那，所有異生性都會永遠無法成就。因此，這種異生性也是見所斷的。』經中說，『預流果（Srotapanna，入流者）獲得不墮落之法』，如果不能永遠斷除能招致惡趣的身、語、意業，就不能稱為獲得不墮落之法。又說：『我已經脫離那落迦（Naraka，地獄），』等等，『盡』就是斷除的意思。因此，染污的、能招致惡趣的身、語業等也是見所斷的，因為它們與見道極其相反。』這是經部等宗派的觀點。
論：即使如此，也是因為至親（指與諦理的密切關係）而發起的。第三部分是說明斷除的相狀。不是見所斷的法略有三種相狀：一是不染污，二是非六生（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六識所生），三是色法。這三種不是迷惑諦理，也不是迷惑諦理所直接引發的。
論：所謂不染污法、非六生色法，一定不是見所斷的。這是立宗。異生性是不染污的無記性所攝。這是說明原因。見所斷的性質是自性斷，不染污的無記是所緣斷。
論：已經離欲者和斷善根者仍然成就異生性，這是證明異生性是不染污的無記性。已經離欲者仍然成就異生性，證明它不是染污的。斷善根者仍然成就異生性，證明它不是善性。如果是染污的，欲界異生性就應該是欲界的染污法。當離欲染時，就不應該再成就異生性。既然離欲染仍然成就異生性，就知道它不是染污法。《正理論》說：『異生性是不染污的無記性所攝。』如果它是染污的，那麼欲界異生在離欲貪之後，就不應該再是異生了。這種成就的獲得依附於生身，因此不應該在其他界地成就其他界地的異生性。如果它是善的，那麼斷善根者就不應該是異生了。因此，異生性是不染污的無記性所攝。既然不染污，就不是見所斷。如果是見所斷，就應該是忍所斷。如果是忍所斷，那麼在忍正起時，仍然應該成就異生性，那麼聖者也應該是異生了。
【English Translation】 English version: All unconditioned (Anasrava) dharmas in the latter three realms are not abandoned by seeing.
Treatise: Isn't there an extremely contradictory view? The second narration of different views says: 'Here some say that at the moment when the initial noble path arises, all states of being an ordinary being (Prthag-jana-tva) are permanently unachievable. Therefore, this state is also abandoned by seeing.' The Sutra says, 'A Stream-enterer (Srotapanna) obtains the dharma of non-falling,' and if one cannot permanently abandon the physical, verbal, and mental actions that lead to evil destinies, one cannot be said to have obtained the dharma of non-falling. It also says, 'I have exhausted Naraka (hell),' and so on. 'Exhausted' means abandoned. Therefore, defiled physical and verbal actions that lead to evil destinies are also abandoned by seeing because they are extremely contradictory to the path of seeing.' This is the view of the Sautrantika school and others.
Treatise: Even so, it is initiated because of the closest relationship (referring to the close relationship with the truth). The third part explains the characteristics of abandonment. Dharmas that are not abandoned by seeing have roughly three characteristics: one is non-defiled, two is non-six-consciousness-born (referring to what is born of the six consciousnesses of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind), and three is form (Rupa). These three are not deluded about the truth, nor are they directly caused by delusion about the truth.
Treatise: So-called non-defiled dharmas and non-six-consciousness-born form dharmas are definitely not abandoned by seeing. This is the establishment of the thesis. The state of being an ordinary being is included in the non-defiled, neutral (avyākrta) nature. This is explaining the reason. The nature of what is abandoned by seeing is abandoned by its own nature, and the non-defiled, neutral is abandoned by what it is related to.
Treatise: Those who have already abandoned desire and those who have severed their roots of goodness still achieve the state of being an ordinary being, which proves that the state of being an ordinary being is non-defiled and neutral. Those who have already abandoned desire still achieve it, proving that it is not defiled. Those who have severed their roots of goodness still achieve it, proving that it is not good in nature. If it were defiled, the state of being an ordinary being in the desire realm should be a defiled dharma of the desire realm. When abandoning desire, one should no longer achieve the state of being an ordinary being. Since one still achieves the state of being an ordinary being after abandoning desire, it is known that it is not a defiled dharma. The Abhidharmakosha says, 'The state of being an ordinary being is included in the non-defiled, neutral nature.' If it were defiled, then an ordinary being in the desire realm should no longer be an ordinary being after abandoning desire. This achievement is dependent on the physical body, so one should not achieve the state of being an ordinary being of other realms in other realms. If it were good, then those who have severed their roots of goodness should not be ordinary beings. Therefore, the state of being an ordinary being is included in the non-defiled, neutral nature. Since it is not defiled, it is not abandoned by seeing. If it were abandoned by seeing, it should be abandoned by endurance. If it were abandoned by endurance, then one should still achieve the state of being an ordinary being when endurance is arising, then even a noble one would be an ordinary being.
異生。又不染法定非見斷。緣彼煩惱究竟斷時方名斷故。
論。此異生性至應是異生。此反難經部也。若忍斷者如無間道猶成惑得。若忍斷異生性。忍現起時應成異生。則應聖者亦是異生。
論。六謂意處至則五識等正理云。則五識等緣色等境。外門轉故非見所斷。
論。色謂一切身語業等正理云。又諸色法。若染．不染亦非見斷。如不染法。緣彼煩惱究竟斷時方名斷故。
論。前及此色至親發起故。總結三種非見所斷所以。正理云。斷義云何。略有二種。一離縛斷。二離境斷。離縛斷者。如契經言于無內眼結如實了知我無內眼結。離境斷者。如契經言。汝等苾芻。若能于眼斷欲貪者。是則名為眼得永斷 述曰煩惱名縛。舍煩惱故名離縛也 阿毗達磨諸大論師。依彼次第立二種斷。一自性斷。二所緣斷。若法是結．及一果等。對治生時。于彼得斷名自性斷。由彼斷故於所緣事便得離系。不必于中得不成就名所緣斷。此中一切若有漏色。若不染污有漏無色。及彼諸得生等法上。有見所斷．及修所斷諸結所繫。如是諸結漸次斷時。於一一品各別體上起離系得時。彼諸結。及一果等皆名已斷。彼有漏色。及不染污有漏無色。並彼諸得生等法上諸離系得。爾時未起未名為斷。由彼諸法唯隨彼地最後無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：異生性（Pṛthag-janatva，指凡夫的性質）。又不屬於法定的非見斷（Darśana-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）。因為只有當那些煩惱被徹底斷除時，才能稱之為斷除。
論：這種異生性（Pṛthag-janatva）以至於應該是異生（Pṛthag-jana，凡夫）。這是對經部的反駁。如果忍（Kṣānti，一種智慧）能斷除，那麼就像無間道（Ānantarya-mārga，直接斷除煩惱的道）一樣，仍然是煩惱所獲得的。如果忍能斷除異生性（Pṛthag-janatva），那麼當忍現起時，就應該成為異生（Pṛthag-jana，凡夫）。那麼聖者也應該是異生（Pṛthag-jana，凡夫）了。
論：六，指的是意處（Manāyatanā，意識的領域），那麼五識等（Pañca-vijñāna，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）的正理是：那麼五識等緣於色等境（Rūpādi-viṣaya，色、聲、香、味、觸等對像），因為是從外門運轉，所以不是見所斷（Darśana-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）。
論：色，指的是一切身語業等（Kāya-vāṅ-manas-karma，身、語、意所造的業）的正理是：而且諸色法（Rūpa-dharma，物質現象），無論是染污的還是不染污的，都不是見所斷（Darśana-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）。就像不染污法一樣，只有當那些煩惱被徹底斷除時，才能稱之為斷除。
論：前述以及此色（Rūpa，物質現象）以至於親近發起的原因是：總結三種不是見所斷（Darśana-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）的原因。正理是：斷的意義是什麼？略有二種：一是離縛斷（Visaṃyoga-prahāṇa，脫離束縛的斷除），二是離境斷（Ālambana-prahāṇa，脫離對境的斷除）。離縛斷（Visaṃyoga-prahāṇa，脫離束縛的斷除）就像契經所說：『對於無內眼結如實了知我無內眼結。』離境斷（Ālambana-prahāṇa，脫離對境的斷除）就像契經所說：『汝等苾芻（Bhikṣu，比丘），若能于眼斷欲貪者，是則名為眼得永斷。』述曰：煩惱名為縛，舍煩惱故名離縛也。阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）諸大論師，依彼次第立二種斷：一自性斷（Svabhāva-prahāṇa，自性上的斷除），二所緣斷（Ālambana-prahāṇa，所緣境上的斷除）。若法是結（Bandhana，束縛）、及一果等，對治生時，于彼得斷名自性斷（Svabhāva-prahāṇa，自性上的斷除）。由彼斷故於所緣事便得離系。不必于中得不成就名所緣斷（Ālambana-prahāṇa，所緣境上的斷除）。此中一切若有漏色（Sāsrava-rūpa，有煩惱的色法），若不染污有漏無色（Anāsrava-arūpa，無煩惱的無色法），及彼諸得生等法上，有見所斷（Darśana-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）、及修所斷（Bhāvanā-heya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）諸結所繫。如是諸結漸次斷時，於一一品各別體上起離系得時，彼諸結，及一果等皆名已斷。彼有漏色（Sāsrava-rūpa，有煩惱的色法），及不染污有漏無色（Anāsrava-arūpa，無煩惱的無色法），並彼諸得生等法上諸離系得，爾時未起未名為斷。由彼諸法唯隨彼地最後無
【English Translation】 English version: 'Pṛthag-janatva' (the state of being an ordinary being). Furthermore, it does not belong to the legally defined 'Darśana-heya' (afflictions to be eliminated through the path of seeing). It is called 'eliminated' only when those afflictions are completely eradicated.
Treatise: This 'Pṛthag-janatva' (the state of being an ordinary being) should even be an ordinary being ('Pṛthag-jana'). This is a refutation against the Sautrāntika school. If 'Kṣānti' (forbearance, a type of wisdom) can eliminate, then like the 'Ānantarya-mārga' (path of immediate consequence, the path that directly eliminates afflictions), it is still obtained by afflictions. If 'Kṣānti' eliminates 'Pṛthag-janatva' (the state of being an ordinary being), then when 'Kṣānti' arises, one should become an ordinary being ('Pṛthag-jana'). Then even the noble ones should be ordinary beings ('Pṛthag-jana').
Treatise: Six, referring to 'Manāyatanā' (the sphere of mind), then the correct reasoning for the five consciousnesses ('Pañca-vijñāna', eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) is: then the five consciousnesses, etc., are conditioned by objects such as form ('Rūpādi-viṣaya', form, sound, smell, taste, touch, etc.), because they operate through the external gates, they are not 'Darśana-heya' (afflictions to be eliminated through the path of seeing).
Treatise: 'Rūpa' (form), referring to all actions of body, speech, and mind ('Kāya-vāṅ-manas-karma'), the correct reasoning is: Moreover, all 'Rūpa-dharma' (material phenomena), whether defiled or undefiled, are not 'Darśana-heya' (afflictions to be eliminated through the path of seeing). Just like undefiled dharmas, it is called 'eliminated' only when those afflictions are completely eradicated.
Treatise: The aforementioned and this 'Rūpa' (form) up to the reason for close arising: Summarizing the reasons why the three are not 'Darśana-heya' (afflictions to be eliminated through the path of seeing). The correct reasoning is: What is the meaning of elimination? Briefly, there are two types: one is 'Visaṃyoga-prahāṇa' (elimination by separation from bondage), and the other is 'Ālambana-prahāṇa' (elimination by separation from the object). 'Visaṃyoga-prahāṇa' (elimination by separation from bondage) is like what the sutra says: 'Knowing truly that I have no internal eye-fetter, I have no internal eye-fetter.' 'Ālambana-prahāṇa' (elimination by separation from the object) is like what the sutra says: 'You 'Bhikṣu' (monks), if you can eliminate desire and greed for the eye, then it is called the eye being permanently eliminated.' Commentary: Afflictions are called bondage, and abandoning afflictions is called separation from bondage. The great masters of 'Abhidharma' (the collection of treatises), according to that order, establish two types of elimination: one is 'Svabhāva-prahāṇa' (elimination of nature), and the other is 'Ālambana-prahāṇa' (elimination of the object). If a dharma is a 'Bandhana' (fetter) and its single result, when the antidote arises, obtaining elimination of it is called 'Svabhāva-prahāṇa' (elimination of nature). Because of that elimination, one obtains separation from the object. Not necessarily obtaining non-accomplishment in it is called 'Ālambana-prahāṇa' (elimination of the object). Here, all conditioned form ('Sāsrava-rūpa', form with afflictions), all undefiled conditioned formless ('Anāsrava-arūpa', formless without afflictions), and on those dharmas such as obtaining birth, there are fetters associated with 'Darśana-heya' (afflictions to be eliminated through the path of seeing) and 'Bhāvanā-heya' (afflictions to be eliminated through the path of cultivation). When these fetters are gradually eliminated, when separation is obtained on each separate entity of each category, those fetters and their single result are all called eliminated. Those conditioned form ('Sāsrava-rūpa', form with afflictions), and undefiled conditioned formless ('Anāsrava-arūpa', formless without afflictions), and the separation obtained on those dharmas such as obtaining birth, are not yet called eliminated at that time. Because those dharmas only follow the last no
間道所斷故。非諸見道能隨地別次第離染。云何能斷彼色等法。見聖諦者諸惡趣法眾緣闕故已得不生。緣彼煩惱未斷盡故猶未名斷。若法未斷已得不生或不成就。此與已斷有何差別。斷據治道令得離系。非謂不生或不成就。
論如是已說至幾非見。自下第十九有兩頌見。非見門。
論曰至余皆非見。長行釋中有五。一辨見界攝。二釋八見名體。三顯見力。四問答分別。五破異執。此則初也。
論。何等為八至諸無漏見。釋八見名體也。如文可解。婆沙四十九云。以四事故名見。一徹視故。二推度故。三堅執故。四深入故。
論。譬如夜分至明昧不同。釋顯見力也。正理云。一正見言具攝三種。別開三者。為顯異生．學．無學地三見別故。又顯漸次修習生故。譬如夜分無月等明雲霧晦冥以游險阻。所見色像無不顛倒。五染污見觀法亦爾。世間正見。譬如夜分無雲所見色像。譬如晝分雲翳上升掩蔽日輪以游平坦所見色像漸增明凈。有學正見觀法亦爾。譬如晝分烈日舒光雲霧廓清以游平坦。所見色像最極明凈。無學正見觀法亦爾。如如行者漸習慧生除自心中愚闇。差別如是如是于諸所緣正見漸增明凈有異。非所緣境有凈不凈。由自覺慧垢障有無。故謂所緣有凈．不凈。如是諸見總類有五。一無記類
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為被間道所斷。所以各種見道不能隨著不同層次的境界，次第地斷除染污。那麼，如何能夠斷除那些色等法呢？證悟聖諦的人，因為各種惡趣之法的因緣缺失，已經獲得了不生於惡趣的狀態。但因為導致惡趣的煩惱還沒有斷盡，所以還不能稱為斷。如果某種法沒有斷除，但已經獲得了不生或不成就的狀態，這與已斷有什麼區別呢？斷，是依據能對治的道，從而獲得解脫繫縛的狀態，而不是指不生或不成就。
論述完畢，下面將說明有多少法不是見。從下面第十九頌開始，有兩頌是關於見與非見的討論。
論曰：到其餘都不是見。長行解釋中有五個部分：一是辨別見屬於哪個界；二是解釋八見的名稱和體性；三是顯示見的力量；四是問答分別；五是破斥不同的觀點。這裡是第一個部分。
論：什麼是八見到各種無漏見。這是解釋八見的名稱和體性。如文義可以理解。《婆沙論》第四十九卷說：因為四種原因而稱為見：一是徹視，二是推度，三是堅執，四是深入。
論：譬如夜分到明昧不同。這是解釋顯示見的力量。《正理》說：一個正見之言，就具備了三種（正見）。分開為三種，是爲了顯示異生（凡夫）、有學、無學三種境界的見有所區別。又是爲了顯示漸次修習而生起。譬如夜裡沒有月亮等光明，雲霧昏暗，在危險的道路上行走，所見到的色像沒有不顛倒的。五種染污見觀察法也是這樣。世間的正見，譬如夜裡沒有云霧所見到的色像。譬如白天雲翳上升，遮蔽了太陽，在平坦的道路上行走，所見到的色像逐漸增加明亮。有學的正見觀察法也是這樣。譬如白天烈日舒放光明，雲霧消散，在平坦的道路上行走，所見到的色像最為明亮。無學的正見觀察法也是這樣。就像修行者逐漸修習智慧生起，去除自己心中的愚昧黑暗。差別就是這樣，這樣對於各種所緣，正見逐漸增加明亮有所不同。不是所緣的境界有清凈不清凈，而是由於自覺的智慧，垢障的有無。所以認為所緣有清凈不清凈。像這樣，各種見的總類有五種：一是無記類。
【English Translation】 English version: Because it is severed by the interval path (jian dao). Therefore, the various paths of seeing (jian dao) cannot sequentially eliminate defilements according to different levels of attainment. How, then, can one sever those dharmas such as form (se)? For those who have realized the noble truths (sheng di), the causes and conditions for evil destinies are absent, and they have already attained a state of non-rebirth in evil destinies. However, because the afflictions (fan nao) that lead to evil destinies have not been completely severed, it cannot yet be called severance. If a certain dharma has not been severed, but a state of non-arising or non-accomplishment has already been attained, what is the difference between this and severance? Severance, based on the path that can counteract (zhi dao), leads to the attainment of liberation from bondage (li xi), not merely to non-arising or non-accomplishment.
Having discussed this, we will now explain how many dharmas are not 'seeing' (jian). Starting from the nineteenth verse below, there are two verses discussing 'seeing' and 'non-seeing'.
The treatise says: '...to the rest are not seeing.' The extended explanation has five parts: first, distinguishing which realm 'seeing' belongs to; second, explaining the names and nature of the eight views (ba jian); third, revealing the power of 'seeing'; fourth, questions and answers for differentiation; fifth, refuting different views. This is the first part.
The treatise: 'What are the eight views...to the various unconditioned seeings (wu lou jian).' This explains the names and nature of the eight views. The meaning can be understood from the text. The Vibhasa (po sha) forty-ninth volume says: 'It is called 'seeing' for four reasons: first, because of thorough observation; second, because of inference; third, because of firm adherence; fourth, because of deep penetration.'
The treatise: 'For example, the night...to different degrees of clarity.' This explains and reveals the power of 'seeing'. The Nyayanusara (zheng li) says: 'One word of right view (zheng jian) encompasses three types. Separating them into three is to show the differences in 'seeing' among the states of ordinary beings (yi sheng), learners (xue), and non-learners (wu xue). It is also to show the gradual cultivation and arising. For example, at night, without the light of the moon, etc., with clouds and fog obscuring, traveling on dangerous roads, all the forms and images seen are inverted. The five defiled views (wu ran wu jian) observing dharmas are also like this. Worldly right view is like seeing images at night without clouds. Like daytime when clouds rise, obscuring the sun, traveling on flat roads, the images seen gradually increase in clarity. The right view of a learner is also like this. Like daytime when the blazing sun shines brightly, clouds and fog dissipate, traveling on flat roads, the images seen are most clear. The right view of a non-learner is also like this. Just as practitioners gradually cultivate wisdom and eliminate the darkness of ignorance in their minds. The difference is that, in this way, for various objects of perception (suo yuan), right view gradually increases in clarity and differs. It is not that the objects of perception are pure or impure, but due to the presence or absence of defilements obscuring the self-aware wisdom. Therefore, it is thought that the objects of perception are pure or impure. In this way, the general categories of various views are five: first, the category of neutral (wu ji) views.'
。二染污類。三善有漏類。四有學類。五無學類。無記類中眼根是見。耳等諸根一切無覆無記慧等悉皆非見。染污類中五見是見。余染污慧悉皆非見。謂貪．嗔．慢．不共無明．疑俱生慧。余染污法亦皆非見。有學類中無慧非見。但余非見。無學類中盡．無生智。及余非見余無學慧一切是見。善有漏類中唯意識相應善慧是見。余皆非見。有餘師說。意識相應善有漏慧亦有非見。謂五識身所引發慧。發有表慧。命終時慧。
論。何故至意識相應。自下問答分別。此外問也。
論。以五識俱生慧不能決度故。舉頌答也。
論。審慮為先至是故非見。釋頌意也。余文可解。
論。若爾眼根至云何名見。外難。
論。以能明利至故亦名見。論主答也。雜心有四義。一觀視者。慧性故。二決定者。無疑故。三堅受者。難捨故。四深入者。洞境故。通論八種見皆具上四義。此論決度名見略舉二義。決是決定。度是自度。即堅受也。定中雖無計度。有餘義故。亦名見也。眼根雖無決．度二義。而有明利．觀照二義。故亦名見 明利。則義當雜心深入 觀照則義當雜心觀視 尊者世友眼見。此是有部正義。尊者法救眼識見。尊者妙音眼識相應慧見。譬喻者眼識同時心．心所法和合見 又說犢子部心．心
【現代漢語翻譯】 二、染污類：三、善有漏類：四、有學類：五、無學類。無記類中，眼根（cakṣurindriya，視覺器官）是見。耳等諸根，一切無覆無記的慧等，悉皆非見。染污類中，五見（五種錯誤的見解，即身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）是見。其餘染污的慧，悉皆非見。即貪（lobha，貪慾）、嗔（dveṣa，嗔恨）、慢（māna，傲慢）、不共無明（asaṃskṛtāvidyā，與生俱來的無明）、疑（vicikitsā，懷疑）俱生慧。其餘染污法，亦皆非見。有學類中，無慧非見，但其餘非見。無學類中，盡智（kṣayajñāna，斷盡煩惱的智慧）、無生智（anutpādajñāna，不再產生煩惱的智慧），及其餘非見，其餘無學慧，一切是見。善有漏類中，唯意識相應善慧是見，其餘皆非見。有餘師說，意識相應善有漏慧，亦有非見，謂五識身所引發慧、發有表慧、命終時慧。 論：何故至意識相應？自下問答分別。此外問也。 論：以五識俱生慧不能決度故。舉頌答也。 論：審慮為先至是故非見。釋頌意也。余文可解。 論：若爾眼根至云何名見？外難。 論：以能明利至故亦名見。論主答也。雜心有四義：一、觀視者，慧性故；二、決定者，無疑故；三、堅受者，難捨故；四、深入者，洞境故。通論八種見，皆具上四義。此論決度名見，略舉二義。決是決定，度是自度，即堅受也。定中雖無計度，有餘義故，亦名見也。眼根雖無決、度二義，而有明利、觀照二義，故亦名見。明利，則義當雜心深入；觀照，則義當雜心觀視。尊者世友眼見，此是有部正義。尊者法救眼識見。尊者妙音眼識相應慧見。譬喻者眼識同時心、心所法和合見。又說犢子部心、心
【English Translation】 Two, the category of defilements (saṃkleśa). Three, the category of wholesome with outflows (kuśala sāsrava). Four, the category of learners (śaikṣa). Five, the category of non-learners (aśaikṣa). In the category of indeterminate (avyākṛta), the eye-faculty (cakṣurindriya, the organ of sight) is 'seeing'. The other faculties such as the ear, and all indeterminate wisdoms (prajñā) that are not obscured, are not 'seeing'. In the category of defilements, the five views (pañca dṛṣṭi, the five wrong views: satkāya-dṛṣṭi, anta-grāha-dṛṣṭi, mithyā-dṛṣṭi, dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa, and śīla-vrata-parāmarśa) are 'seeing'. All other defiled wisdoms are not 'seeing', namely, the wisdoms born together with greed (lobha), hatred (dveṣa), pride (māna), unassociated ignorance (asaṃskṛtāvidyā), and doubt (vicikitsā). All other defiled dharmas are also not 'seeing'. In the category of learners, the absence of wisdom is not 'seeing', but the rest are not 'seeing'. In the category of non-learners, the knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna, knowledge of the exhaustion of defilements), the knowledge of non-arising (anutpādajñāna, knowledge of the non-arising of defilements), and the rest are not 'seeing', while all other wisdoms of non-learners are 'seeing'. In the category of wholesome with outflows, only the wholesome wisdom associated with consciousness (vijñāna) is 'seeing', the rest are not 'seeing'. Some teachers say that even the wholesome wisdom associated with consciousness that has outflows is sometimes not 'seeing', namely, the wisdom produced by the five consciousnesses, the wisdom of expressed action (abhisaṃskārika), and the wisdom at the time of death. Treatise: Why does it go as far as the consciousness association? The following is a question and answer analysis. This is an external question. Treatise: Because the wisdom born together with the five consciousnesses cannot decisively determine. This is answered with a verse. Treatise: Deliberation comes first, therefore it is not 'seeing'. This explains the meaning of the verse. The rest of the text is understandable. Treatise: If so, the eye-faculty, how is it called 'seeing'? An external difficulty. Treatise: Because it can be clear and sharp, therefore it is also called 'seeing'. The treatise master answers. The Zaxin (Saṃyuktabhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra) has four meanings: One, the observer, because of the nature of wisdom; two, the determiner, because there is no doubt; three, the firm receiver, because it is difficult to abandon; four, the deep penetrator, because it penetrates the realm. Generally speaking, the eight kinds of 'seeing' all possess the above four meanings. This treatise names 'seeing' as decisive determination, briefly mentioning two meanings. 'Decisive' is determination, 'determination' is self-determination, which is firm reception. Although there is no calculation in concentration, it is also called 'seeing' because it has other meanings. Although the eye-faculty does not have the two meanings of decisive determination, it has the two meanings of clarity and sharpness, and observation, therefore it is also called 'seeing'. Clarity and sharpness correspond to the deep penetration of the Zaxin; observation corresponds to the observation of the Zaxin. The venerable Śeṣabandhu says that the eye sees, this is the correct meaning of the Sarvāstivāda. The venerable Dharmatrāta says that the eye-consciousness sees. The venerable Ghoṣa says that the wisdom associated with eye-consciousness sees. The Dṛṣṭāntavādin says that the mind and mental factors arising simultaneously with eye-consciousness see in combination. Furthermore, the Vātsīputrīyas say that the mind and mental
所和合見 問諸論皆破識慧和合。何故此論唯破識見耶 答雜心云。同分眼見色。非彼眼識見。非慧。非和合。不見障色故 準雜心文不見障色之因通破三計。今此論破其識見。餘二不立。故但破一例亦破余。
論。若眼見者至亦應名見。外難。若眼能見者。耳識等起時眼應能見。
論。非一切眼至能見非余。眼見家答。
論。若爾至見色非眼。識見家難。若識有則見。識無不見。此見則由能依識應是識見。
論。不爾眼識定非能見。立宗。
論。所以者何。識見家徴。
論。傳說不能觀障色故。此立因也。
論。現見壁等至欲不能觀。引現量證。
論。若識見者至應見障色。反難識見家。
論。于被障色至如何當見。識見家通難也。
論。眼識于彼何故不生。眼見家徴。識既無礙。何為不生。
論。許眼見者至何緣不起。重責識見家也。我許眼見識可不生。汝許識見何為不起。
論眼豈如身根至不見彼耶。識見家卻徴也。
論。又頗胝迦至云何得見。識見家重難也。汝前言眼有對故不見障色。水等亦是其障云何得見。
論。是故不由至無見功能。識見家總結也。
論。若爾所執眼識云何。眼見家卻問識見家。于被障
色有見．不見。其義云何。
論。若於是處至故不能見識見家答。
論。然經說眼至故說能見。識見家通經也。
論。如彼經言至已過去故。識見家引例也。雖有于彼說眼見。經云意能識法是意識識。非是根能識法。已過去故。眼能見色。故知非眼。
論。何者能識者。眼見家問也。
論。謂是意識至故說能識。識見家答。
論。或就所依至床座言聲。識見家重答也。如人依床人有言聲而說床座。
論。又如經言至是眼所識。識見家重引例證也。
論。又如經說至唯為見色。識見家引經重證也。正理救云。又此契經為顯眼等各有二用。一能為門。二能取境。能為門者。且如眼根能為所依令心．心所各別行相於境而轉。能取境者。且如眼根唯為見色。若異此者唯義相違。諸心。心所唯應見故。然心．心所皆眼為門。汝執見體唯心非所。又受．想等諸心所法領納．取像．造作等用各各不同。不應唯見。既言唯見明知是眼。由此眼根唯能見故。如是眼用略有二種。一能為門。二能見色。乃至意處如理當知。故我所宗無違經失。
論。若識能見誰復了別。眼見家難。
論。見與了別至亦能了別。識見家釋。
論有餘難言至誰是見用太法師云犢子難。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：色（Rupa，物質、形態）有可見和不可見兩種。這是什麼意思呢？
答：如果因為某些原因，在某個地方無法看見，那麼就是識見家（認為意識能見）的回答。
問：但是經書上說眼（eye，視覺器官）能見，所以說眼能見。識見家是如何解釋經文的呢？
答：就像經書上說的，已經過去了。識見家引用例子來證明。雖然經書上說眼能見，但經文也說意（mind，意識）能識別法（Dharma，事物、規律），這是意識的識別。不是根（根，感官）能識別法，因為已經過去了。眼能見色（色，顏色、形態），所以知道不是眼。
問：那麼，什麼才能識別呢？眼見家（認為眼能見）提問。
答：是意識（consciousness，覺知），所以說意識能識別。識見家回答。
答：或者就所依賴的事物來說，就像床座能發出聲音一樣。識見家再次回答。就像人依靠床，人發出聲音，但人們會說床座發出了聲音。
答：又如經書上說，這是眼所識別的。識見家再次引用例子來證明。
答：又如經書上說，僅僅是爲了見色。識見家引用經文再次證明。正理（合理的論證）辯護說：這本經書是爲了說明眼等各有兩種作用。一是作為門（gate，通道），二是能取境（object，對像）。作為門，比如眼根（eye-faculty，視覺能力）能作為所依，讓心（citta，心識）、心所（cetasika，心理活動）各自不同的行相（aspect，狀態）在境（object，對像）上運轉。能取境，比如眼根僅僅是爲了見色。如果不是這樣，那麼意義就相互矛盾了。所有的心、心所都應該只能見。然而，心、心所都以眼為門。你認為見的本體只是心而不是眼。而且，受（vedana，感受）、想（sañña，概念）、等諸心所法，領納、取像、造作等作用各不相同，不應該只是見。既然說是僅僅是見，那就說明是眼。因此，眼根只能見。所以，眼的作用大概有兩種：一是作為門，二是能見色。乃至意處（mind-base，意識的場所），應該如理地理解。所以我所遵循的宗義沒有違背經書的說法。
問：如果識能見，那麼誰來了解和分別呢？眼見家提出疑問。
答：見和了解分別，也能瞭解分別。識見家解釋。
問：還有人提出疑問，誰是見的作用？太法師說是犢子（Vatsiputra，一個佛教部派）的提問。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Rupa (form, matter) has visible and invisible aspects. What does this mean?
Answer: If, for some reason, it cannot be seen in a certain place, then this is the answer of the Vijnanavadins (those who believe consciousness can see).
Question: But the sutras say that the eye (visual organ) can see, so it is said that the eye can see. How do the Vijnanavadins explain the sutras?
Answer: Just as the sutras say, it has already passed. The Vijnanavadins cite examples to prove it. Although the sutras say that the eye can see, the sutras also say that the mind (consciousness) can recognize Dharma (things, laws), which is the recognition of consciousness. It is not the root (sense organ) that can recognize Dharma, because it has already passed. The eye can see Rupa (color, form), so we know it is not the eye.
Question: Then, what can recognize? The Chaksu-darshana-vadins (those who believe the eye can see) ask.
Answer: It is consciousness (vijnana, awareness), so it is said that consciousness can recognize. The Vijnanavadins answer.
Answer: Or, in terms of what is relied upon, just as a bed can make a sound. The Vijnanavadins answer again. Just as a person relies on a bed, the person makes a sound, but people will say that the bed made the sound.
Answer: Also, as the sutras say, this is what is recognized by the eye. The Vijnanavadins cite examples again to prove it.
Answer: Also, as the sutras say, it is only for seeing Rupa. The Vijnanavadins cite the sutras again to prove it. Right Reason (rational argument) defends: This sutra is to explain that the eye and so on each have two functions. One is to act as a gate (channel), and the other is to take objects (object). As a gate, for example, the eye-faculty (visual ability) can act as a basis, allowing the mind (citta, mind) and mental factors (cetasika, mental activities) to operate in different aspects (state) on the object (object). To take objects, for example, the eye-faculty is only for seeing Rupa. If it is not like this, then the meaning is contradictory. All minds and mental factors should only be able to see. However, the mind and mental factors all take the eye as a gate. You think that the essence of seeing is only the mind and not the eye. Moreover, the functions of feeling (vedana, feeling), perception (sañña, concept), and other mental factors, such as receiving, taking images, and creating, are different, and should not only be seeing. Since it is said that it is only seeing, it shows that it is the eye. Therefore, the eye-faculty can only see. So, the function of the eye is roughly two kinds: one is to act as a gate, and the other is to see Rupa. Even the mind-base (the place of consciousness) should be understood reasonably. Therefore, the doctrine I follow does not violate the sutras.
Question: If consciousness can see, then who understands and distinguishes? The Chaksu-darshana-vadins raise a question.
Answer: Seeing and understanding and distinguishing, can also understand and distinguish. The Vijnanavadins explain.
Question: Someone else raised a question, who is the function of seeing? The Great Dharma Master said it was a question from the Vatsiputra (a Buddhist school).
論。此言非難至是亦應爾。眼見家答。
論。有餘復言至亦說鐘能鳴。太法師云。曇摩多羅部通前經說眼能見色。
論。若爾至應名能識。眼見家難。經說眼見色見依名眼見。識亦依眼根應說眼能識。
論。無如是失至不言識色。曇摩多羅部釋。以世間共說眼見色不言識色故。
論。毗婆沙中至名能作晝。此是曇摩多羅部引有部婆沙通難。識現前時名識色。識外不別有能識。如日現前名作晝。日外無別晝。
論。經部諸師至不應固求。此經部師傷略前諸師執。論。然迦濕彌羅國至意能了。論主此述有部宗也。
論于見色時為一眼見。下有五頌因論生論分別根境．識。非是諸門分別十八界義。初半頌分別一眼二眼見色之義。有部等計二眼同時而見。犢子部計兩眼互見非同時見。處隔越故。速疾轉故。謂同時見婆沙十三破云。若一眼見非二眼者。身諸分亦應不俱時覺觸。如身兩臂相去雖遠。而得俱時覺觸生一身識。兩眼亦爾。相去雖遠。何妨俱時見色生一眼識。論曰至不分明故引古師釋二眼見也。
論。又開一眼至二眼俱見。論主自釋二眼見也 一類師云。但被觸眼所引意識妄謂見二。其第二月非觸眼見者 不然。兩眼同見一月。由根移動見處不同。由此意識謂為二月
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如果這樣說沒有錯，那麼對於以下說法也應該如此。眼見家回答。
論：如果還有其他說法，那麼也應該說鐘能鳴響。太法師說：曇摩多羅部（Dharmottara, 一個佛教部派）通過之前的經文說明眼睛能看見顏色。
論：如果這樣，那麼應該叫做『能識』。眼見家反駁：經文說眼睛看見顏色，這個『見』是依附於『眼』這個名稱而說的，所以叫做『眼見』。『識』也是依附於眼根，那麼應該說眼睛能識別。
論：沒有這樣的過失，曇摩多羅部解釋說，世俗都說眼睛看見顏色，不說眼睛識別顏色。
論：在《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa, 一部佛教論書）中，稱太陽為『能作晝』。這是曇摩多羅部引用有部（Sarvastivada, 一個佛教部派）的《婆沙論》來共同反駁。當『識』現前的時候，稱之為『識色』，在『識』之外沒有其他的『能識』。就像太陽現前的時候，稱之為『作晝』，在太陽之外沒有其他的『晝』。
論：經部（Sautrantika, 一個佛教部派）的諸位法師認為不應該固執地追求這些。這是經部的法師批評之前那些法師的執著。 論：然而，迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）認為意識能夠了知。論主在這裡闡述有部的宗義。
論：在看見顏色的時候，是一隻眼睛看見還是兩隻眼睛都看見？下面有五首偈頌，因為討論而產生討論，分別根、境、識（indriya, visaya, vijnana）。這不是分別十八界（dhatus）的意義。最初的半首偈頌分別一隻眼睛和兩隻眼睛看見顏色的意義。有部等認為兩隻眼睛同時看見。犢子部（Vatsiputriya, 一個佛教部派）認為兩隻眼睛互相看見，不是同時看見，因為處在不同的位置，而且轉換迅速。如果同時看見，那麼《婆沙論》第十三卷反駁說：如果一隻眼睛看見而不是兩隻眼睛看見，那麼身體的各個部分也不應該同時感覺到觸覺。就像身體的兩隻手臂相距雖然遙遠，但是能夠同時感覺到觸覺，產生一個身體的意識。兩隻眼睛也是這樣，相距雖然遙遠，為什麼妨礙同時看見顏色，產生一個眼睛的意識？論說：因為不分明，所以引用古代法師來解釋兩隻眼睛看見。
論：又打開一隻眼睛，兩隻眼睛都看見。論主自己解釋兩隻眼睛看見。一類法師說：只是被觸碰的眼睛所引導的意識錯誤地認為看見了兩個月亮，第二個月亮不是被觸碰的眼睛看見的。不對，兩隻眼睛同時看見一個月亮，由於眼根移動，看見的位置不同，因此意識認為是兩個月亮。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: If this statement is not wrong, then the following statement should also be true. The Eye-Seer replies.
Treatise: If there are other statements, then it should also be said that a bell can ring. The Great Master says: The Dharmottara (a Buddhist school) explains through previous scriptures that the eye can see color.
Treatise: If so, then it should be called 'the ability to cognize'. The Eye-Seer retorts: The scripture says that the eye sees color, and this 'seeing' is said to be dependent on the name 'eye', so it is called 'eye-seeing'. 'Cognition' also depends on the eye-root, so it should be said that the eye can cognize.
Treatise: There is no such fault. The Dharmottara explains that the world commonly says that the eye sees color, but does not say that the eye cognizes color.
Treatise: In the Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise), the sun is called 'the maker of day'. This is the Dharmottara quoting the Sarvastivada's Vibhasa to jointly refute. When 'cognition' appears, it is called 'cognizing color'. There is no other 'cognizer' outside of 'cognition'. Just as when the sun appears, it is called 'making day'. There is no other 'day' outside of the sun.
Treatise: The masters of the Sautrantika (a Buddhist school) believe that one should not stubbornly pursue these. This is the Sautrantika master criticizing the attachments of the previous masters. Treatise: However, Kashmir believes that consciousness can understand. The author here elaborates on the Sarvastivada's doctrine.
Treatise: When seeing color, does one eye see or do both eyes see? Below are five verses, arising from discussion, distinguishing between the root, object, and consciousness (indriya, visaya, vijnana). This is not distinguishing the meaning of the eighteen realms (dhatus). The first half of the verse distinguishes the meaning of one eye and two eyes seeing color. The Sarvastivada and others believe that both eyes see simultaneously. The Vatsiputriya (a Buddhist school) believes that the two eyes see each other, not simultaneously, because they are in different positions and the transition is rapid. If they see simultaneously, then the thirteenth volume of the Vibhasa refutes: If one eye sees and not two eyes, then the parts of the body should also not simultaneously feel touch. Just as the two arms of the body are far apart, but can simultaneously feel touch, producing one body consciousness. The two eyes are also like this, although far apart, why does it prevent simultaneously seeing color, producing one eye consciousness? The treatise says: Because it is not clear, the ancient master is quoted to explain that two eyes see.
Treatise: Also, opening one eye, both eyes see. The author himself explains that two eyes see. One type of master says: It is only the consciousness guided by the touched eye that mistakenly thinks it sees two moons, the second moon is not seen by the touched eye. That's not right, both eyes see one moon at the same time, because the eye-root moves and the position seen is different, so consciousness thinks it is two moons.
若謂開一觸一見月有二。非是兩眼各見一月者 閉一觸一因何不見二月。此如兩眼互開見物雖同而物處別 又若謂第二月非觸眼見者 論主因何證兩眼見。雖同一物兩眼見異。引意識起謂為二月 又若兩月非各一眼見者 因何障被觸眼第二月無第一月在。障不觸眼第一月無第二月在 又若以被觸之眼見月參差。即謂第二之月唯意識了 若兩眼時參差而觸。所見之月並悉參差。豈可兩眼俱不見月 若謂不見。從何識后引意識生謂二月耶。余文易了。
論若此宗說至為至不至。自下第二半頌明取境離．合也。
論曰。至則不能聞。明有部宗眼．耳不能取至境也。若依勝論外道六根皆取至境 正理論敘一師說云。耳取于至境。聲相續轉來入耳故。又自能聞耳中聲故 此說非理。手才執鈴聲頓息故。若聲相續來入耳中。手執鈴時依鈴聲可息。從彼傳生中間。離質相續不息。此聲應可聞。然執鈴時現見。一切鈴聲頓息都不可聞。不可息余。余亦隨息。不聞余故余亦不聞。云云 此難傳來可爾。若聲頓發與光同者。即不成難 然自能聞耳中聲者。非如香等鄰鼻等根。雖在耳中仍非至境。由語逼耳字句難知。欲審聽者遮其苦逼。故耳唯能取非至境 又云。意根亦唯取非至境。不取俱有相應法故。又無色故非能有至。是故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果你們認為睜開一隻眼睛，看到一個月亮，睜開兩隻眼睛，看到兩個月亮，並非是兩隻眼睛各自看到一個月亮。那麼閉上一隻眼睛，接觸（觸，指根與境的接觸）一隻眼睛，為什麼沒有看到兩個月亮呢？這就像兩隻眼睛互相睜開，看到物體雖然相同，但是物體的位置是不同的。 又如果你們認為第二個月亮不是接觸眼睛所見到的，論主（指作者）為什麼要用兩眼見來證明呢？雖然是同一個物體，兩隻眼睛看到的景象不同，引導意識產生，認為是兩個月亮。 又如果兩個月亮不是各自一隻眼睛所見到的，為什麼被遮擋的眼睛接觸到的第二個月亮，第一個月亮不存在；遮擋沒有接觸到眼睛的第一個月亮，第二個月亮不存在呢？ 又如果用被接觸的眼睛看到的月亮有差異，就認為第二個月亮只是意識的了別。如果兩隻眼睛同時有差異而接觸，所見到的月亮都應該有差異。難道兩隻眼睛都看不到月亮嗎？ 如果認為看不到月亮，從哪裡認識到之後引導意識產生，認為是兩個月亮呢？剩下的文字容易理解。
論：如果這個宗派的說法，至於至與不至。下面第二半頌說明取境的離和合。
論曰：至於就不能聽到。說明有部宗的眼根和耳根不能取至境。如果按照勝論外道的說法，六根都取至境。《正理論》敘述一位老師的說法：耳朵取至境，聲音相續不斷地傳入耳朵。又因為自己能夠聽到耳朵中的聲音。這種說法不合理，因為手才抓住鈴鐺，聲音立刻停止。如果聲音相續不斷地傳入耳朵中，手抓住鈴鐺的時候，依靠可以停止。從那裡傳遞產生，中間離開本質相續不斷，聲音不停止，這個聲音應該可以聽到。然而抓住鈴鐺的時候，現在看到一切立刻停止，都不能聽到。不能停止其餘的，其餘的也隨著停止。聽不到其餘的，其餘的也聽不到。云云。這個困難傳來可以這樣。如果聲音突然發出和光一樣，就不構成困難。然而自己能夠聽到耳朵中的聲音，不是像香等靠近鼻子等根。雖然在耳朵中仍然不是至境。因為說話逼近耳朵，字句難以知道。想要仔細聽的人遮擋它的苦逼。所以耳朵只能取非至境。 又說：意根也只能取非至境，不取俱有相應法。又因為沒有顏色，不能有至。所以。
【English Translation】 English version: If you claim that opening one eye sees one moon, and opening two eyes sees two moons, and that it's not the case that each eye sees one moon individually, then why, when one eye is closed and one eye is in contact (觸, 'sparsha', referring to the contact between a sense organ and its object), are two moons not seen? This is like when both eyes are open and see the same object, but the object's location is different. Furthermore, if you claim that the second moon is not seen through contact with the eye, why does the author (論主, 'vadin', referring to the author of the text) use the example of seeing with two eyes to prove it? Although it is the same object, the appearance seen by the two eyes is different, leading consciousness to arise and perceive it as two moons. Moreover, if the two moons are not seen by each eye individually, why is it that when the obstructed eye is in contact with the second moon, the first moon is absent; and when the unobstructed eye is in contact with the first moon, the second moon is absent? Furthermore, if the moon seen by the eye in contact is different, then the second moon is merely a perception of consciousness. If the two eyes are simultaneously in contact with differences, then the moons seen should all be different. How can it be that both eyes do not see the moon at all? If you claim that the moon is not seen, from where does the subsequent arising of consciousness, which perceives it as two moons, originate? The remaining text is easily understood.
Treatise: If this school's argument concerns 'to-reach' and 'not-to-reach', the second half of the verse below explains the separation and combination of grasping objects.
Treatise says: 'To-reach' then cannot hear. This explains that the Sarvastivada school's eye and ear organs cannot grasp objects that 'reach'. According to the Vaisheshika school of non-Buddhists, all six sense organs grasp objects that 'reach'. The Tattvartha Sutra recounts one teacher's saying: the ear grasps objects that 'reach', because sound continuously travels and enters the ear. Also, because one can hear sounds within the ear. This argument is unreasonable, because when a hand grasps a bell, the sound immediately ceases. If sound continuously travels and enters the ear, then when a hand grasps a bell, relying on ** can stop it. From that transmission, the intermediate separation of essence continues without stopping, and this sound should be audible. However, when grasping a bell, it is immediately apparent that all ** immediately cease and cannot be heard. One cannot stop the rest, and the rest also ceases along with it. Because one cannot hear the rest, one cannot hear the rest. And so on. This difficulty can be transmitted in this way. If the sound suddenly arises like light, then this difficulty does not arise. However, the statement that one can hear sounds within the ear is not like the nose being close to smells, etc. Although it is within the ear, it is still not an object that 'reaches'. Because speech forces itself into the ear, words and phrases are difficult to understand. Those who want to listen carefully block its painful pressure. Therefore, the ear can only grasp objects that do not 'reach'. It is also said: the mind organ can only grasp objects that do not 'reach', because it does not grasp co-existent corresponding dharmas. Also, because it has no color, it cannot 'reach'. Therefore.
意根取不至境 已上文同此論。
論。若眼耳根至如鼻根等。反難釋也。若眼．耳不能遠見．聞故。不應修生天眼．耳根。
論。若眼能見至不至諸色外難。如文可解。
論。如何磁石至不至鐵耶。引喻答也。
論。執見至境至至眼諸色。就外計以眼合知反例釋也。
論。又如鼻等至耳根亦爾。此以鼻等合知例眼等釋 問如人處在密闇室中。眼見闇色以不 答必不能見。見色必因明故。處極闇處開閉眼同都無所見。若能見者必有少明。然不能見逼眼闇色。
論。意無色故非能有至。釋意不取至所以也。
論。有執耳根至亦能聞故。敘異執也。如前所引正理論破。
論。所餘鼻等至不嗅香故。此明三根取至境也。
論。云何名至問也。
論。謂無間生。答也。非是相觸名至。但無間生名至。一切功能不離體故。不可言體不至。功能至也。三根知境雖近．遠不同。俱無間生皆名為至。
論。又諸極微為相觸不。問也。
論。迦濕彌羅國至更無細分。有部答也。
論。若爾何故相擊發聲外難。
論。但由極微無間生故。答也。
論。若許相觸至體應相糅反難外人。
論。不相觸者至云何不散外人重難。
論。風
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 意根取不至境：意根（Manas, mind-organ）獲取的不是直接的境界，這與前面的論述相同。
論：如果像眼根、耳根一樣到達，如同鼻根等，這是一種反駁和解釋。如果眼睛和耳朵不能遠距離地看和聽，那麼就不應該修行獲得天眼（ দিব্য-চক্ষুস, divya-cakṣus, divine eye）和天耳（ দিব্য-শ্রোত্র, divya-śrotra, divine ear）的能力。
論：如果眼睛能看到，但不能到達各種色法的外部，這可以通過前面的文字來理解。
論：為什麼磁石能吸引鐵，但不是直接到達鐵呢？這是用比喻來回答。
論：執著于見境，到達眼睛所見的各種色法。這是針對外道的觀點，用眼睛的結合認知來反駁。
論：又如鼻根等，與耳根的情況也一樣。這是用鼻根等結合認知來類比解釋眼根等。 問：如果一個人處在黑暗的房間里，眼睛能看到黑暗的顏色嗎？ 答：必定不能看到。看到顏色必定是因為有光明。處在極度黑暗的地方，睜眼和閉眼都一樣，什麼也看不到。如果能看到，必定是有少許光明。然而，不能看到逼近眼睛的黑暗顏色。
論：意根沒有色法，所以不能到達。這是解釋意根不能直接獲取境界的原因。
論：有人認為耳根也能到達，所以也能聽到聲音。這是敘述不同的觀點。如同前面引用的《正理論》所破斥的。
論：其餘的鼻根等，不能嗅到香味。這是說明三種根不能直接到達境界。
論：什麼叫做『至』（reaching）呢？這是提問。
論：所謂『無間生』（uninterrupted arising）。這是回答。不是相互接觸叫做『至』，而是無間產生叫做『至』。一切功能不離本體，所以不能說本體不至，而是功能至。三種根感知境界，雖然遠近不同，但都是無間產生，都叫做『至』。
論：那麼，各種極微（paramāṇu, ultimate particle）是相互接觸嗎？這是提問。
論：迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）的……沒有更細微的劃分。這是有部（Sarvāstivāda）的回答。
論：如果這樣，為什麼相互撞擊會發出聲音？這是外道的反駁。
論：只是因為極微無間產生。這是回答。
論：如果允許相互接觸，那麼本體應該相互混合。這是反駁外道。
論：如果不相互接觸，那麼為什麼不會散開？這是外道的再次質問。
論：風……
English version The mind-organ (Manas) does not apprehend objects by reaching them directly; the preceding text discusses this similarly.
Discussion: If the eye-organ and ear-organ reach like the nose-organ, etc., this is a refutation and explanation. If the eyes and ears cannot see and hear from a distance, then one should not cultivate the ability to acquire the divine eye ( দিব্য-চক্ষুস, divya-cakṣus, divya-cakṣus) and divine ear ( দিব্য-শ্রোত্র, divya-śrotra, divya-śrotra).
Discussion: If the eye can see but cannot reach the exterior of various forms, this can be understood through the preceding text.
Discussion: How is it that a magnet attracts iron but does not directly reach the iron? This is answered with a metaphor.
Discussion: Clinging to the view of objects, reaching the various forms seen by the eye. This is directed at externalist views, using the example of the eye's combined cognition to refute them.
Discussion: Furthermore, like the nose-organ, etc., the situation is the same with the ear-organ. This uses the example of the nose-organ's combined cognition to explain the eye-organ, etc. Question: If a person is in a dark room, can the eye see the color of darkness? Answer: Certainly not. Seeing color necessarily depends on light. In a place of extreme darkness, opening and closing the eyes is the same; nothing can be seen. If one can see, there must be a little light. However, one cannot see the color of darkness that is close to the eye.
Discussion: The mind-organ does not have form, so it cannot reach. This explains the reason why the mind-organ cannot directly apprehend objects.
Discussion: Some hold that the ear-organ can also reach, so it can also hear sounds. This narrates a different view, which is refuted as in the previously cited Nyāyānusāraśāstra.
Discussion: The remaining nose-organ, etc., cannot smell fragrance. This clarifies that the three organs do not directly reach objects.
Discussion: What is called 'reaching'?
Discussion: So-called 'uninterrupted arising'. This is the answer. It is not mutual contact that is called 'reaching', but uninterrupted arising is called 'reaching'. All functions do not depart from the substance, so it cannot be said that the substance does not reach, but the function reaches. The three organs perceive objects, although near and far are different, but all are uninterrupted arising, all are called 'reaching'.
Discussion: Then, do the various ultimate particles (paramāṇu) mutually contact each other? This is a question.
Discussion: The Kashmir country... there is no finer division. This is the answer of the Sarvāstivāda.
Discussion: If so, why does mutual collision produce sound? This is an externalist's refutation.
Discussion: It is only because the ultimate particles arise without interruption. This is the answer.
Discussion: If mutual contact is allowed, then the substances should mutually mix. This is a refutation of the externalist.
Discussion: If they do not mutually contact, then why do they not scatter? This is the externalist's repeated question.
Discussion: Wind...
【English Translation】 The mind-organ (Manas) does not apprehend objects by reaching them directly; the preceding text discusses this similarly.
Discussion: If the eye-organ and ear-organ reach like the nose-organ, etc., this is a refutation and explanation. If the eyes and ears cannot see and hear from a distance, then one should not cultivate the ability to acquire the divine eye ( দিব্য-চক্ষুস, divya-cakṣus) and divine ear ( দিব্য-শ্রোত্র, divya-śrotra).
Discussion: If the eye can see but cannot reach the exterior of various forms, this can be understood through the preceding text.
Discussion: How is it that a magnet attracts iron but does not directly reach the iron? This is answered with a metaphor.
Discussion: Clinging to the view of objects, reaching the various forms seen by the eye. This is directed at externalist views, using the example of the eye's combined cognition to refute them.
Discussion: Furthermore, like the nose-organ, etc., the situation is the same with the ear-organ. This uses the example of the nose-organ's combined cognition to explain the eye-organ, etc. Question: If a person is in a dark room, can the eye see the color of darkness? Answer: Certainly not. Seeing color necessarily depends on light. In a place of extreme darkness, opening and closing the eyes is the same; nothing can be seen. If one can see, there must be a little light. However, one cannot see the color of darkness that is close to the eye.
Discussion: The mind-organ does not have form, so it cannot reach. This explains the reason why the mind-organ cannot directly apprehend objects.
Discussion: Some hold that the ear-organ can also reach, so it can also hear sounds. This narrates a different view, which is refuted as in the previously cited Nyāyānusāraśāstra.
Discussion: The remaining nose-organ, etc., cannot smell fragrance. This clarifies that the three organs do not directly reach objects.
Discussion: What is called 'reaching'?
Discussion: So-called 'uninterrupted arising'. This is the answer. It is not mutual contact that is called 'reaching', but uninterrupted arising is called 'reaching'. All functions do not depart from the substance, so it cannot be said that the substance does not reach, but the function reaches. The three organs perceive objects, although near and far are different, but all are uninterrupted arising, all are called 'reaching'.
Discussion: Then, do the various ultimate particles (paramāṇu) mutually contact each other? This is a question.
Discussion: The Kashmir country... there is no finer division. This is the answer of the Sarvāstivāda.
Discussion: If so, why does mutual collision produce sound? This is an externalist's refutation.
Discussion: It is only because the ultimate particles arise without interruption. This is the answer.
Discussion: If mutual contact is allowed, then the substances should mutually mix. This is a refutation of the externalist.
Discussion: If they do not mutually contact, then why do they not scatter? This is the externalist's repeated question.
Discussion: Wind...
界攝持至如劫成時。遮外難。故說有多種風廣答也。
論。云何三根至名取至境。問也。既不相觸如何無間生即名為至。
論。即由無間至都無片物答也。
論。又和合色至同類相續。第二師答。謂三根三境和合之色。相觸無失。
論。由許此理至義善成立。引婆沙文證。論。故彼問言至同類相續。廣引婆沙文。正理不許此義。正理論云。鄰近生時即名為合。豈待相觸。方得合名。又汝不應躊躇此義。此彼大種定不相觸。所以者何。是所觸故。非能觸故。諸色蘊中唯有觸界名為所觸。但有身根名為能觸。此外觸義更不應思。若謂所觸亦能觸者。應許身根亦是所觸。則境．有境便應雜亂。然無雜亂立境．有境。若謂此二無雜亂失。身識所緣．所依別故。豈不由此轉成雜亂。謂若身根亦所觸者。何緣不作身識所緣。若許觸界亦能觸者。何緣不作身識所依。若諸極微定不相觸 毗婆沙論則不應言非觸為因生於是觸。謂離散物正和合時。是觸為因生於非觸。謂和合物正離散時。是觸為因生於是觸。謂和合物復和合時。非觸為因生於非觸。謂向游塵同類相續。毗婆沙宗決定不許極微展轉更相觸義。應知彼言有別意趣。且向游塵多極微集而彼論說非觸為因生於非觸。故知彼言定有別意。有何別意。謂于和
合說是觸言 準此論文。和合聚色假名相觸 豈不一切鼻．舌．身根皆取至境無差別。故則應能觸通鼻．舌根。所觸亦應兼于香．味。此亦非理。鄰近雖同而於其中有品別故。又如眼等取非至同。非至境中非無品別。鼻等亦爾。取至境同。于至境中應有品別。又滑．澀等世間共起所觸想名。對彼身根說名能觸。故無有過 準此。正理有其兩釋 一以近故。二以順世間故 有餘師說。雖諸極微互不相觸。而和合色相觸無過。由此撫擊得發音聲。如諸極微雖無變礙而和合色變礙非無。此不應理。非離極微有和合色。若觸和合應觸極微。彼即應許極微相觸。是故前說于理為善 此破與此論同。
論。尊者世友至住至后念。第三尊者釋。若謂此極微非無間生。于現在世移處相擊。此即住一剎那應至后念。
論。然大德說至假立觸名。此是第四大德釋。大德即是法救論師。敬其德故不序其名。
論。此大德意應可愛樂。論主評取第四釋也。
論。若異此者至許為有對。釋大德意可愛樂所以也。亦是兼破第三師也。正理破云。然大德說。一切極微實不相觸。但由無間假立觸名。經主此中顯彼勝德作如是言。此大德意應可愛樂。若異此者。是諸極微應有間隙。中間既空誰障其行許為有對。今說大德如是意趣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
如果按照『觸』的定義來說，就應該按照這個理論來論述。如果和合聚集的色法（rupa，物質）以假名相觸，難道不是所有的鼻、舌、身根都獲取最遠處的境界而沒有差別嗎？如果這樣，那麼就應該能夠通過觸覺來感知鼻、舌根所感知的。所觸及的也應該兼有香、味。這也是不合理的。雖然鄰近的極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）相同，但在其中有品類的差別。又比如眼根等獲取非最遠處的境界，在非最遠處的境界中並非沒有品類的差別。鼻根等也是這樣，獲取最遠處的境界相同，在最遠處的境界中應該有品類的差別。又如滑、澀等是世間共同產生的所觸之想的名稱，對於這種身根來說，稱之為能觸，所以沒有過失。按照這個，正理有兩方面的解釋：一是由於鄰近的緣故，二是順應世間的說法。有其他老師說，雖然各個極微互相不相觸，但和合的色法相觸沒有過失。由此撫摸敲擊能夠發出聲音，就像各個極微雖然沒有變礙，但和合的色法變礙並非沒有。這不合理，因為沒有離開極微的和合色法。如果觸及和合色法，就應該觸及極微。他們就應該承認極微相觸。所以前面說的在道理上是好的。這個破斥與這個理論相同。
論：尊者世友認為，至住至后念，是第三位尊者釋說的。如果說這個極微不是無間產生的，在現在世移動位置互相撞擊，那麼這個極微住在一剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）就應該到達后念。
論：然而大德說，至假立觸名，這是第四位大德釋說的。大德就是法救論師（Dharma-trāta），因為尊敬他的德行所以不寫出他的名字。
論：這位大德的意圖應該是可愛的。論主評論並採用了第四種解釋。
論：如果與此不同，至許為有對，解釋了大德的意圖是可愛的原因。也是兼帶破斥第三位老師的觀點。正理破斥說：然而大德說，一切極微實際上不相觸，只是由於沒有間隙而假立觸的名稱。經主在這裡顯示他的勝德，這樣說：這位大德的意圖應該是可愛的。如果與此不同，那麼這些極微應該有間隙，中間既然是空的，誰來阻礙它們的執行，就應該承認它們是有對的。現在說大德是這樣的意趣。 English version:
If we speak according to the definition of 'touch,' then we should argue according to this theory. If the aggregate of rūpa (matter) touches with a provisional name, wouldn't all the nose, tongue, and body roots acquire the furthest realm without any difference? If so, then it should be possible to perceive what the nose and tongue roots perceive through touch. What is touched should also include smell and taste. This is also unreasonable. Although neighboring paramāṇu (ultimate particles) are the same, there are differences in their categories. Also, like the eye root, it acquires a non-furthest realm, and in the non-furthest realm, there are differences in categories. The nose root and others are also like this; acquiring the same furthest realm, there should be differences in categories within the furthest realm. Furthermore, smoothness, roughness, etc., are names for the thought of touch that arises commonly in the world. For this body root, it is called 'able to touch,' so there is no fault. According to this, there are two explanations in logic: one is due to proximity, and the other is to conform to worldly sayings. Some other teachers say that although the individual paramāṇu do not touch each other, there is no fault in the aggregate of rūpa touching. Therefore, stroking and hitting can produce sound, just as the individual paramāṇu, although without obstruction, the obstruction of the aggregate of rūpa is not non-existent. This is unreasonable because there is no aggregate of rūpa apart from the paramāṇu. If the aggregate of rūpa is touched, then the paramāṇu should be touched. They should then admit that the paramāṇu touch each other. Therefore, what was said earlier is good in reason. This refutation is the same as this theory.
Treatise: Venerable Vasumitra (世友) thought that 'to abide until the subsequent thought' was explained by the third venerable one. If it is said that this paramāṇu is not produced without interval, and moves in the present world to strike each other, then this paramāṇu abiding for one kṣaṇa (instant) should reach the subsequent thought.
Treatise: However, the great worthy (大德) said, 'up to the provisional establishment of the name of touch,' this was explained by the fourth great worthy. The great worthy is Dharma-trāta (法救論師), and because of respect for his virtue, his name is not written out.
Treatise: This great worthy's intention should be lovable. The author of the treatise commented on and adopted the fourth explanation.
Treatise: If it is different from this, 'up to admitting it as having resistance,' explains why the great worthy's intention is lovable. It also refutes the view of the third teacher. Logical refutation says: However, the great worthy said that all paramāṇu do not actually touch each other, but the name of touch is provisionally established because there is no gap. The author of the sutra shows his superior virtue here, saying: This great worthy's intention should be lovable. If it is different from this, then these paramāṇu should have gaps, and since the middle is empty, who would obstruct their movement, and they should be admitted as having resistance. Now it is said that the great worthy's intention is like this.
【English Translation】 English version:
If we speak according to the definition of 'touch,' then we should argue according to this theory. If the aggregate of rūpa (matter) touches with a provisional name, wouldn't all the nose, tongue, and body roots acquire the furthest realm without any difference? If so, then it should be possible to perceive what the nose and tongue roots perceive through touch. What is touched should also include smell and taste. This is also unreasonable. Although neighboring paramāṇu (ultimate particles) are the same, there are differences in their categories. Also, like the eye root, it acquires a non-furthest realm, and in the non-furthest realm, there are differences in categories. The nose root and others are also like this; acquiring the same furthest realm, there should be differences in categories within the furthest realm. Furthermore, smoothness, roughness, etc., are names for the thought of touch that arises commonly in the world. For this body root, it is called 'able to touch,' so there is no fault. According to this, there are two explanations in logic: one is due to proximity, and the other is to conform to worldly sayings. Some other teachers say that although the individual paramāṇu do not touch each other, there is no fault in the aggregate of rūpa touching. Therefore, stroking and hitting can produce sound, just as the individual paramāṇu, although without obstruction, the obstruction of the aggregate of rūpa is not non-existent. This is unreasonable because there is no aggregate of rūpa apart from the paramāṇu. If the aggregate of rūpa is touched, then the paramāṇu should be touched. They should then admit that the paramāṇu touch each other. Therefore, what was said earlier is good in reason. This refutation is the same as this theory.
Treatise: Venerable Vasumitra (世友) thought that 'to abide until the subsequent thought' was explained by the third venerable one. If it is said that this paramāṇu is not produced without interval, and moves in the present world to strike each other, then this paramāṇu abiding for one kṣaṇa (instant) should reach the subsequent thought.
Treatise: However, the great worthy (大德) said, 'up to the provisional establishment of the name of touch,' this was explained by the fourth great worthy. The great worthy is Dharma-trāta (法救論師), and because of respect for his virtue, his name is not written out.
Treatise: This great worthy's intention should be lovable. The author of the treatise commented on and adopted the fourth explanation.
Treatise: If it is different from this, 'up to admitting it as having resistance,' explains why the great worthy's intention is lovable. It also refutes the view of the third teacher. Logical refutation says: However, the great worthy said that all paramāṇu do not actually touch each other, but the name of touch is provisionally established because there is no gap. The author of the sutra shows his superior virtue here, saying: This great worthy's intention should be lovable. If it is different from this, then these paramāṇu should have gaps, and since the middle is empty, who would obstruct their movement, and they should be admitted as having resistance. Now it is said that the great worthy's intention is like this.
非即可樂。亦非可惡。但應尋究如何無間仍不相觸。理未顯故。意趣難知。若說諸微全無間隙然不相雜。應成有分。不許處同復無間隙。既許無間何不相觸。故彼涅間言定顯鄰近義。此中涅言或顯定義。定有間隙故云定間。如定有熱故言定熱。是定有隙。理得成義。或顯無義。謂此中無如極微量觸色。所間故名無間。如是無間大種極微。鄰近生時假說為觸。若作此釋。大德所言一切極微實不相觸。但由無間假立觸名。深有義趣。即由障礙有對勢力能相障行許為有對。非許住處展轉相容。而可說為障礙有對。豈怖處同遮無間住。許有間隙而無趣行。非有所怖法性應爾。諸有對者處必不同。勿彼處同或成有分故無間住理必不然。雖于中間有少空隙。而有對力拒遏其行。間隙者何。有餘師說。是無觸色。復有說言都無所有 無觸色者。是空界色。
論。又離極微至此亦應爾。破第二師。與正理同。
論。又許極微至亦無斯過。破初師也。正理救云。經主復說又許極微若有方分。觸與不觸皆應有分。若無方分設許相觸亦無過者。此說非理。有分．方分名異義同。立無分言已遮方分。如何於此復更生疑。謂許極微若有方分。既無方分如何可觸。又遍體相觸。或觸一分。二皆有過。前已具論。如何復言若無方分設許相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 並非是不可樂的，也不是可厭惡的。但應該探究如何在沒有間隙的情況下仍然不互相接觸。因為這個道理還沒有顯現，所以意趣難以理解。如果說所有的極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）完全沒有間隙，但是又不互相混合，那就應該成為有分割的部分。不允許在同一個地方既沒有間隙。既然允許沒有間隙，為什麼不互相接觸呢？所以，他們所說的『涅間』（nirantara，無間）這個詞，一定是顯示鄰近的意思。這裡面的『涅』字，或許是顯示定義。定義為有間隙，所以叫做『定間』。就像定義為有熱，所以叫做『定熱』一樣，這是定義為有間隙，道理才能成立。或者顯示沒有的意思，說這裡面沒有像極微量級的觸色（sprastavya-rūpa，可觸的色法）所間隔，所以叫做無間。像這樣，無間的大種極微（mahābhūta-paramāṇu，組成四大元素的極微），在鄰近產生的時候，假說為接觸。如果這樣解釋，大德（指有學問的僧人）所說的一切極微實際上不互相接觸，只是因為沒有間隙而假立接觸的名稱，就很有意義了。就是因為障礙和有對（pratighāta，阻礙）的力量，能夠互相阻礙執行，所以才允許稱為有對。不是允許在同一個地方互相容納，而可以稱為障礙有對。難道是害怕在同一個地方而遮止沒有間隙的居住？允許有間隙但是沒有趣行，不是因為害怕，法性本來就應該是這樣。所有有對的事物，所處的位置必定不同。不要讓它們所處的位置相同，否則就會成為有分割的部分，所以沒有間隙的居住，道理必定不成立。即使在中間有少許空隙，但是有對的力量會阻止它們的執行。那麼，間隙是什麼呢？有其他老師說，是沒有觸的色法。還有人說，是什麼都沒有。沒有觸的色法，是空界色（ākāśadhātu-rūpa，空界之色）。
論：又離開極微到這裡也應該是這樣。駁斥第二位老師，和正理相同。
論：又允許極微這樣，也沒有這個過失。駁斥第一位老師。正理辯護說：經主又說，又允許極微如果有方分（diśābhāga，有方向的部分），接觸與不接觸都應該是有分割的部分。如果沒有方分，即使允許互相接觸也沒有過失。這種說法沒有道理。有分和方分，名稱不同，意義相同。立論為沒有分割，就已經遮止了方分。為什麼在這裡又產生疑問呢？說允許極微如果有方分，既然沒有方分，怎麼可以接觸呢？又是全部身體互相接觸，或者是接觸一個部分，這兩種情況都有過失。前面已經詳細討論過，為什麼又說如果沒有方分，即使允許相
【English Translation】 English version It is neither unpleasant nor detestable. But one should investigate how there can be no gap and yet no contact. Because the principle is not yet clear, the meaning is difficult to understand. If it is said that all paramāṇus (smallest units of matter) have no gaps at all, but do not mix with each other, then they should become divisible parts. It is not allowed to be in the same place and have no gaps. Since it is allowed to have no gaps, why not contact each other? Therefore, what they call 'nirantara' (without gaps) must mean proximity. The word 'nir' here may mean definition. Defined as having gaps, so it is called 'defined gap'. Just as defining as having heat, so it is called 'defined heat', this is defined as having gaps, and the principle can be established. Or it means nothing, saying that there is no touchable color (sprastavya-rūpa, tangible form) to separate it, so it is called without gaps. In this way, when the uninterrupted mahābhūta-paramāṇus (the smallest units that make up the four great elements) are produced nearby, they are hypothetically said to be in contact. If this is explained in this way, what the great virtuous ones (referring to learned monks) say is that all paramāṇus do not actually touch each other, but only because there are no gaps, the name of contact is falsely established, which is very meaningful. It is because of the power of obstruction and pratighāta (resistance) that they can obstruct each other's movement, so they are allowed to be called pratighāta. It is not allowed to accommodate each other in the same place, and it can be called obstructive pratighāta. Is it because you are afraid of being in the same place that you prevent living without gaps? Allowing gaps but not moving is not because of fear, the nature of Dharma should be like this. All things that have pratighāta must be in different positions. Do not let them be in the same position, otherwise they will become divisible parts, so the principle of living without gaps must not be established. Even if there are some gaps in the middle, the power of pratighāta will prevent their movement. So, what are the gaps? Some other teachers say that it is a color without touch. Others say that there is nothing at all. The color without touch is ākāśadhātu-rūpa (the color of the space element).
Treatise: Also, leaving the paramāṇus to here should also be like this. Refuting the second teacher is the same as the correct principle.
Treatise: Also, allowing the paramāṇus like this does not have this fault. Refuting the first teacher. The correct principle defends: The sūtra master also said, and also allows the paramāṇus if they have diśābhāga (directional parts), contact and non-contact should be divisible parts. If there are no directional parts, even if it is allowed to contact each other, there is no fault. This statement is unreasonable. Divisible parts and directional parts have different names but the same meaning. Establishing the theory of no division has already prevented directional parts. Why do you have doubts here again? Saying that allowing the paramāṇus if they have directional parts, since there are no directional parts, how can they be touched? Also, the entire body touches each other, or touches a part, both of which have faults. It has been discussed in detail before, why do you say that even if there are no directional parts, even if it is allowed to
觸亦無斯過。是故所言。無極微量觸色所間。故名無間。如是無間大種極微。鄰近生時假說為觸。其義成就 若作俱舍師救應反詰言。汝立無方分。極微何不相觸若言相觸成過失者。言不相觸亦不免過。對向六方面不同故。若言極微各有勢用。更相拒遏不相觸者。此之勢用為離體不。若離體者便同勝論業句義也。若不離體。體外無用何不相觸。故亦成過。
論。又眼等根至不等量耶。自下第三半頌明六根有境等不等。
論曰至鼻等識故文中有三。一明諸根取境等不。二明諸根極微安布不同。三明同分．彼同分等。此文即是明根取境等不此文先明三根取等量也 言等量者。如根微量境微亦然。相稱合生鼻等識。此之等言。境與根量非減非增名之為等。非是要與爪甲量等名之為等。隨取少多皆名等也。即此三識依緣等故。
論。眼耳不定至小大等量此辨眼．耳取境大．小不定。此亦說所依之根與境大小不等。非是要如蒲桃果也。如半蒲桃果眼取蒲桃境亦名取大 言蚊云等聲者。隨質判也。
論。意無質礙至形量差別明意境也。所取之境雖有大小。能取之意無大小也。
論。云何眼等諸根極微。已下明諸根極微安布差別。
論。云何眼等至今無分散。釋眼微安布也。論有二釋。此初說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 觸覺也不會有這種過失。因此說，沒有極微小量觸覺和色法之間的間隔，所以叫做『無間』。像這樣無間隔的大種極微，鄰近產生時，假說為觸覺，這個意義就成立了。如果俱舍師提出救應反駁說：『你建立沒有方分的極微，為什麼不互相接觸？』如果說互相接觸會產生過失，那麼說不互相接觸也免不了過失，因為朝向六個方面的不同。如果說極微各有作用，互相排斥阻擋而不接觸，那麼這種作用是離開本體還是不離開本體？如果離開本體，就和勝論的『業』的意義相同了。如果不離開本體，本體之外沒有作用，為什麼不互相接觸？所以也構成過失。 論：又眼等根至不等量耶？下面第三個半頌說明六根有境等不等。 論曰至鼻等識故文中有三。一明諸根取境等不。二明諸根極微安布不同。三明同分．彼同分等。此文即是明根取境等不此文先明三根取等量也 言等量者。如根微量境微亦然。相稱合生鼻等識。此之等言。境與根量非減非增名之為等。非是要與爪甲量等名之為等。隨取少多皆名等也。即此三識依緣等故。 論：眼耳不定至小大等量此辨眼．耳取境大．小不定。此亦說所依之根與境大小不等。非是要如蒲桃果也。如半蒲桃果眼取蒲桃境亦名取大 言蚊云等聲者。隨質判也。 論：意無質礙至形量差別明意境也。所取之境雖有大小。能取之意無大小也。 論：云何眼等諸根極微。已下明諸根極微安布差別。 論：云何眼等至今無分散。釋眼微安布也。論有二釋。此初說
【English Translation】 English version: Touch would not have this fault either. Therefore, it is said that there is no interval between the extremely small amount of touch and form (rupa), so it is called 'without interval' (無間). Thus, when such uninterrupted (無間) mahabhuta (大種, great elements) paramanu (極微, ultimate particles) arise in proximity, it is conventionally said to be touch, and this meaning is established. If a Kosa master raises a counter-argument for rescue, saying, 'You establish paramanu without directional parts, why do they not touch each other?' If it is said that touching each other would cause a fault, then saying that they do not touch each other does not avoid fault either, because of the difference in facing six directions. If it is said that each paramanu has its own force and repels each other and does not touch, then is this force separate from the substance or not? If it is separate from the substance, it is the same as the meaning of 'karma' (業) in the Vaisesika school. If it is not separate from the substance, and there is no function outside the substance, why do they not touch each other? So it also constitutes a fault. Treatise: Furthermore, do the sense organs such as the eye perceive unequal amounts? The third half-verse below explains that the six sense organs have equal or unequal objects. Treatise says: To the nose and other consciousnesses, therefore there are three points in the text. First, it clarifies whether the sense organs perceive equal objects or not. Second, it clarifies that the arrangement of the paramanu of the sense organs is different. Third, it clarifies samabhaga (同分, commonality), tad-samabhaga (彼同分, that commonality), etc. This text clarifies whether the sense organs perceive equal objects or not. This text first clarifies that the three sense organs perceive equal amounts. The term 'equal amount' means that the amount of the sense organ's paramanu and the amount of the object's paramanu are the same. They correspond and combine to produce nose consciousness, etc. This term 'equal' means that the amount of the object and the sense organ are neither reduced nor increased, which is called 'equal'. It does not mean that it must be equal to the size of a fingernail. Any amount, whether small or large, is called 'equal'. That is, these three consciousnesses depend on equal conditions. Treatise: The eye and ear are uncertain, to small and large equal amounts. This distinguishes that the eye and ear perceive objects of uncertain size, small or large. This also says that the sense organ on which they depend is unequal in size to the object. It is not necessarily like a grape. If the eye perceives a grape-like object, such as half a grape, it is also called perceiving a large object. The sounds of mosquitoes and clouds, etc., are judged according to their substance. Treatise: The mind has no material obstruction, to differences in shape and amount, clarifying the object of the mind. Although the perceived object may be large or small, the perceiving mind has no size. Treatise: How are the paramanu of the sense organs such as the eye arranged? Below clarifies the differences in the arrangement of the paramanu of the sense organs. Treatise: How are the eyes and other sense organs not scattered until now? Explaining the arrangement of the eye's paramanu. The treatise has two explanations. This is the first explanation.
也。
論。有說重累至不相障礙第二釋也。
論。耳根極微至如雙爪甲。此釋耳鼻二根安布別也。
論。此初三根至如冠華鬘。此辨三根處等。
論。舌根極微至極微所遍。此明舌根極微量也 述曰。準鼻．舌根兩釋中后釋為善。若微傍布清徹暯覆令無分散。準此鼻．舌亦合如此。若如此師釋。三根必不取外香．味等。隔清暯故。若外香等非根所取。非執受香等恒彼同分。即不可說二識識也。亦無五識煩惱縛義。違眾多理．教。應依后釋為善 傳說舌中如毛端量非為舌根極微所遍者。此事難知。應豎如毛端量非是橫也。論主不全信故言傳說也。
論。身根極微至形如指𩎽。如文可解。
論。眼根極微至不可見故。此辨同分．彼同分也 言。身根極微至不可見故。此辨身根。不得一切皆是同分。以離散故。如輪王眼得見於微不見極微。余即不爾。銅塵已上隨其所應見大小也。眼根既爾。身根亦然。身根既遍其身。若遍同分。積聚觸境亦須遍身。若爾身便分散。由業力故不遍同分 經部宗說即不如是。由此論主標之傳說。正理云。又彼上座論宗所許全身沒在冷暖水中身根極微遍能生識 乃至云 對法者說。身根極微理應定無一切同分 乃至云 謂由業力令彼身中身根極微不遍發識。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 也。
論：有一種說法是，重重疊疊以至於互不障礙，這是第二種解釋。
論：耳根的極微小部分，就像兩個指甲蓋那麼大。這是解釋耳朵和鼻子這兩個根的安置和分佈的區別。
論：這最初的三個根，就像頭上的花冠和花鬘一樣。這是辨別三個根的位置等等。
論：舌根的極微小部分，遍佈極微小部分所及之處。這是說明舌根極微小部分的量。 述曰：參照鼻子和舌頭兩個根的解釋，後面的解釋更好。如果極微小部分橫向分佈，清澈透明的薄膜覆蓋，使其沒有分散。參照這個，鼻子和舌頭也應該如此。如果按照這位法師的解釋，三個根必定不能獲取外面的香、味等，因為隔著清澈透明的薄膜。如果外面的香等不是根所獲取的，不是執受的香等恒常與它們相同的部分，那就不能說二識的識了。也沒有五識煩惱的束縛的意義，違背了眾多的道理和教義。應該依照後面的解釋更好。傳說舌頭中間像毛髮尖端那麼大的量，不是舌根極微小部分所遍佈的。這件事難以知曉。應該是豎起來像毛髮尖端那麼大的量，不是橫向的。論主沒有完全相信，所以說是傳說。
論：身根的極微小部分，形狀像手指的指甲。如文字所說可以理解。
論：眼根的極微小部分，因為不可見。這是辨別同分和彼同分。 言：身根的極微小部分，因為不可見。這是辨別身根，不能一切都是同分，因為離散的緣故。比如輪王的眼睛能夠看到微小的東西，看不到極微小的東西。其餘的就不是這樣。銅塵以上，根據其所應見的大小。眼根既然如此，身根也是這樣。身根既然遍佈其身體，如果遍佈同分，積聚接觸境界也必須遍佈全身。如果這樣，身體便會分散。由於業力的緣故，不遍佈同分。經部宗的說法就不是這樣。因此論主標明這是傳說。《正理》說：『又那些上座部論宗所允許的，全身沒在冷暖水中，身根的極微小部分遍能產生識。』乃至說：『對法者說，身根的極微小部分理應一定沒有一切同分。』乃至說：『謂由業力，令彼身中身根極微不遍發識。』
【English Translation】 English version Also.
Treatise: One explanation is that the layers are so numerous that they do not obstruct each other; this is the second explanation.
Treatise: The extremely small part of the ear-faculty is like two fingernails. This explains the difference in the arrangement and distribution of the ear and nose faculties.
Treatise: These initial three faculties are like a crown of flowers and garlands. This distinguishes the location, etc., of the three faculties.
Treatise: The extremely small part of the tongue-faculty pervades where the extremely small part reaches. This explains the measure of the extremely small part of the tongue-faculty. Commentary: Referring to the explanations of the nose and tongue faculties, the latter explanation is better. If the extremely small parts are spread laterally, a clear and transparent membrane covers them, preventing them from dispersing. Referring to this, the nose and tongue should also be like this. If according to this Dharma master's explanation, the three faculties certainly cannot acquire external fragrances, tastes, etc., because they are separated by a clear and transparent membrane. If external fragrances, etc., are not acquired by the faculties, and are not the constantly identical parts of the perceived fragrances, etc., then it cannot be said to be the consciousness of the two consciousnesses. There is also no meaning of the bondage of the five consciousnesses' afflictions, which contradicts many principles and teachings. It is better to rely on the latter explanation. It is said that the amount in the middle of the tongue, like the tip of a hair, is not pervaded by the extremely small part of the tongue-faculty. This matter is difficult to know. It should be upright like the tip of a hair, not lateral. The treatise master does not fully believe it, so he says it is a tradition.
Treatise: The extremely small part of the body-faculty is shaped like a fingernail. It can be understood as the text says.
Treatise: The extremely small part of the eye-faculty is because it is invisible. This distinguishes between the same part (sabhāga) and the different part (visabhāga). Commentary: The extremely small part of the body-faculty is because it is invisible. This distinguishes the body-faculty; not everything can be the same part, because it is scattered. For example, the eye of a wheel-turning king can see the subtle but not the extremely subtle. The rest are not like this. Above copper dust, see the size as appropriate. Since the eye-faculty is like this, so is the body-faculty. Since the body-faculty pervades the body, if it pervades the same part, the accumulation of contact with the realm must also pervade the entire body. If so, the body would be scattered. Due to the power of karma, it does not pervade the same part. The Sautrāntika school says it is not like this. Therefore, the treatise master marks it as a tradition. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Also, those elders of the school allow that when the whole body is submerged in cold or warm water, the extremely small part of the body-faculty can universally generate consciousness.' And further: 'Those who follow the Abhidharma say that the extremely small part of the body-faculty should definitely not have all the same parts.' And further: 'It is said that due to the power of karma, the extremely small part of the body-faculty in that body does not universally generate consciousness.'
勿遍發識身便散壞如等活等奈落迦中。隨發識處身份便壞。而不全壞。若全壞者彼應數數命終受生 問何不由業力故雖遍發識而命不斷。答如念觀音由聖力故刀不隔身．首。不可由聖力故雖隔身．首而不命終。法無身．首相離不命終故。此亦如是。法無身散不命終故。
論。如前所說至不爾云何。自下第四半行頌明六識所依俱．不俱也 長行文中有二。一辨依俱．不俱。二句數分別。
論曰至通所依性。此明所依俱．不俱也。意識唯依無間滅意。五識通依同時依根及次第滅意。次第滅意是過去依。同時色根是現在依。又次第滅意是通所依。同時依根是別依也 經部師說五識亦緣過去境故。如正理第八破。
論故如是說至心所法界此句數分別也。眼等五識所依性通二。同時依止根。是根性。非是等無間性。次第滅意。是等無間性。亦是根性。次第滅心所。是等無間性。非根性。根性寬通色。狹不至心所。等無間性寬通心所。狹不通色。左右寬狹不同故成四句。自下四句皆準此釋。意識所依性唯是心王。等無間性通其心所。若先將意識所依性問等無間緣性。此即以狹問寬順前句答。若先將等無間緣性問所依性。即是以寬問狹順后句答。余文可解。自下偏句皆準此釋 問羅漢後心豈非是意識所依而非等無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不要認為『識』（Vijnana，了別作用）遍佈全身，身體就會像等活地獄（Samjiva-naraka，八熱地獄之一）一樣散壞。在哪個部位生起『識』，那個部位的身體就會壞掉，但不會完全壞掉。如果完全壞掉，那麼他們就應該多次死亡和受生。問：為什麼不是因為業力，即使『識』遍佈全身，生命也不會中斷？答：就像唸誦觀音菩薩（Avalokitesvara，佛教菩薩）的名號，由於聖力的緣故，刀不會割斷身體和頭。但不能因為聖力的緣故，即使身體和頭被割斷也不會死亡，因為法（Dharma，佛法）沒有身體和頭，分離也不會死亡。這裡也是如此，法沒有身體散壞也不會死亡。
論：如前面所說，直到『不爾云何』（如果不是這樣，那又該如何）。從下面第四個半頌開始，說明六識（六種意識）所依的俱（同時）與不俱（不同時）。長行文中有兩部分：一是辨別所依的俱與不俱，二是句數的分別。
論曰：直到『通所依性』。這說明所依的俱與不俱。意識（Manovijnana，第六識）只依于無間滅意（Anantarika-mano，緊前念滅的意）。五識（前五識，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）通依于同時的依根（Samakalinendriya，同時存在的根）和次第滅意（Kramaniruddha-mano，次第滅去的意）。次第滅意是過去依，同時色根（Rupa-indriya，色法根）是現在依。而且次第滅意是通所依（Sadharana-asraya，共同所依），同時依根是別依（Visesa-asraya，個別所依）。經部師（Sautrantika，佛教部派之一）說五識也緣於過去境，如《正理經》（Nyayasutra）第八品所破斥。
論：所以這樣說，直到『心所法界』。這是句數的分別。眼等五識所依的性質通於兩種：同時依止的根，是根性（Indriyata，根的性質），不是等無間性（Samanantarata，無間滅的性質）。次第滅意，是等無間性，也是根性。次第滅的心所（Caitasika，心所有法），是等無間性，不是根性。根性寬泛地通於色法（Rupa，物質），狹隘地不通於心所。等無間性寬泛地通於心所，狹隘地不通於色法。左右寬狹不同，所以形成四句。從下面四句開始，都按照這個解釋。意識所依的性質只是心王（Citta，心識），等無間性通於心所。如果先將意識所依的性質問等無間緣性（Samanantara-pratyaya，等無間緣的性質），這就是以狹問寬，順著前面的句子回答。如果先將等無間緣性問所依性，這就是以寬問狹，順著後面的句子回答。其餘的文字可以理解。從下面偏句開始，都按照這個解釋。問：阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者）的後心（最後的心）難道不是意識所依，而不是等無間
【English Translation】 English version: Do not assume that if 『Vijnana』 (consciousness, the function of discernment) pervades the entire body, the body will be scattered and destroyed like in the Samjiva-naraka (hell of revival, one of the eight hot hells). Wherever 『Vijnana』 arises, that part of the body will be destroyed, but not completely. If it were completely destroyed, then they should die and be reborn repeatedly. Question: Why is it not due to karma that even if 『Vijnana』 pervades the entire body, life is not interrupted? Answer: Just like reciting the name of Avalokitesvara (a Buddhist Bodhisattva), due to the power of the saint, the knife will not cut the body and head. But it cannot be that due to the power of the saint, even if the body and head are cut off, one will not die, because the Dharma (Buddhist teachings) has no body and head, and separation does not lead to death. It is the same here; the Dharma does not die even if the body is scattered.
Treatise: As mentioned earlier, up to 『What if it is not so?』 (What if it is not like that). From the fourth half-verse below, it explains the simultaneity and non-simultaneity of the bases of the six consciousnesses (six types of consciousness). There are two parts in the prose: one is to distinguish the simultaneity and non-simultaneity of the bases, and the other is the distinction of the number of sentences.
Treatise says: Up to 『common nature of dependence』. This explains the simultaneity and non-simultaneity of the bases. Consciousness (Manovijnana, the sixth consciousness) only relies on the immediately preceding mind (Anantarika-mano, the immediately preceding mind that has ceased). The five consciousnesses (the first five consciousnesses: eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) generally rely on the simultaneous sense organs (Samakalinendriya, simultaneously existing organs) and the successively ceasing mind (Kramaniruddha-mano, successively ceasing mind). The successively ceasing mind is the past base, and the simultaneous sense organs of form (Rupa-indriya, sense organs of form) are the present base. Moreover, the successively ceasing mind is the common base (Sadharana-asraya, common base), and the simultaneous sense organs are the specific base (Vishesa-asraya, specific base). The Sautrantika (a Buddhist school) says that the five consciousnesses also cognize past objects, as refuted in the eighth chapter of the Nyayasutra (Treatise on Logic).
Treatise: Therefore, it is said like this, up to 『the realm of mental factors』. This is the distinction of the number of sentences. The nature of the bases of the five consciousnesses such as eye consciousness is common to two: the simultaneously relying organs are the nature of the organs (Indriyata, the nature of the organs), not the nature of immediate succession (Samanantarata, the nature of immediate cessation). The successively ceasing mind is the nature of immediate succession and also the nature of the organs. The successively ceasing mental factors (Caitasika, mental properties) are the nature of immediate succession, not the nature of the organs. The nature of the organs broadly encompasses form (Rupa, matter), but narrowly does not extend to mental factors. The nature of immediate succession broadly encompasses mental factors, but narrowly does not extend to form. The breadth on the left and right are different, so four sentences are formed. From the four sentences below, all are explained according to this. The nature of the base of consciousness is only the mind (Citta, consciousness), and the nature of immediate succession encompasses mental factors. If the nature of the base of consciousness is first asked about the nature of immediate succession (Samanantara-pratyaya, the nature of immediate succession), this is asking broadly with the narrow, answering according to the previous sentence. If the nature of immediate succession is first asked about the nature of the base, this is asking narrowly with the broad, answering according to the following sentence. The remaining text can be understood. From the partial sentences below, all are explained according to this. Question: Isn't the last mind of an Arhat (Arhat, a saint who has exhausted afflictions) the base of consciousness, but not the nature of immediate succession?
間耶。何故乃言是意識所依性。定是意識等無間緣。答此中舉作所依性以為問答。故非舉得所依相。羅漢後心但得依相名為意界更無後識非作所依。是俱非句攝 又解此是舉果以問依。故不說羅漢後心。
論何因識起至在根非境。下半頌第五明在根非境也。
論曰至眼等非余如文可解。正理論云。若爾意識亦隨身轉。謂風病等損惱身時意識即亂。身清泰時意識安靜。何緣彼意識不以身為依。隨自所依故無此失。謂風病等損惱身時。發生苦受相應身識。如是身識名亂意界。此與苦受俱落謝時。能為意根生亂意識。與此相違意識安靜。是故意識隨自所依。豈不有漏意界無間無漏識生如是等異。如何意識隨自所依。非據有漏．無漏等類名隨自所依。但據增損．明昧差別。如從無覆無記眼根。生善．不善．有覆眼識。而名眼識隨自所依。此亦應爾。是故能依非隨一切所依法性。若不爾者。應非能依隨所依故。
論。何緣色等至乃至法識。自下有半頌第六明眼等六識隨根得名。
論曰彼謂前說眼等名依。釋頌彼字。此即彼言。彼前頌釋眼等得名也。
論。根是依故隨根說識。謂根是依。色等非依。義如前說由眼等根是所依故。隨眼等根名眼等識。不名色等識也。
論。及不共者至及麥芽等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：是這樣嗎？為什麼說它是意識所依之自性？一定是意識的等無間緣（anantarika-pratyaya，指前念滅后，能立即成為后念生起之緣）嗎？ 答：這裡舉出『所依之自性』來作為問答的內容，所以並不是舉出『已獲得所依之相』。阿羅漢（arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）的最後心識只能得到『依』之相，名為意界（manodhatu，意識的界限），不再有後續的識產生，屬於『俱非句』所攝。 另一種解釋是，這是舉出果來詢問依，所以沒有說阿羅漢的最後心識。
論：什麼原因導致識的生起……在於根而非境？ 下面的半頌（第五頌）說明識的生起在於根而非境。
論曰：至於眼等……其餘的如文義可以理解。《正理論》說：如果這樣，意識也應該隨著身體而轉移。比如，風病等損害身體時，意識就會混亂；身體清泰時，意識就安靜。為什麼意識不以身體為所依呢？因為意識是隨其自身所依而轉移，所以沒有這個過失。比如，風病等損害身體時，會發生與苦受相應的身識（kaya-vijnana，通過身體產生的意識）。這樣的身識名為亂意界。此身識與苦受一同消逝時，能為意根（manas，意識的根源）產生混亂的意識。與此相反，意識就安靜。所以，意識是隨其自身所依而轉移。難道有漏的意界與無漏的識的生起不是有差異嗎？如何說意識是隨其自身所依而轉移呢？不是根據有漏、無漏等類別來說『隨其自身所依』，而是根據增損、明昧的差別來說。比如，從無覆無記（anavrta-avyakrta，非善非惡，不構成道德障礙）的眼根（caksu，視覺器官）生起善、不善、有覆的眼識（caksu-vijnana，通過眼睛產生的意識），而稱眼識隨其自身所依。這裡也應該這樣理解。所以，能依不是隨一切所依的法性。如果不這樣，就不應該說能依隨所依。
論：什麼原因導致色等……乃至法識？ 下面的半頌（第六頌）說明眼等六識（sad-vijnana，六種感官意識）隨根得名。
論曰：他們認為前面所說的眼等是依……解釋頌中的『彼』字。這就是『彼』的意思。『彼』指前面頌中解釋眼等得名。
論：根是依，所以隨根說識。意思是說，根是所依，色等不是所依。道理如前所述，由於眼等根是所依，所以隨眼等根而命名為眼等識，不命名為色等識。
論：以及不共者……以及麥芽等。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Is that so? Why is it said to be the nature of what consciousness relies on? Is it necessarily the immediately preceding condition (anantarika-pratyaya) of consciousness? Answer: Here, the 'nature of what is relied upon' is taken as the subject of the question and answer, so it is not referring to 'the aspect of having obtained reliance.' The final consciousness of an Arhat (arhat, a saint who has attained Nirvana) can only obtain the aspect of 'reliance,' which is called the mind element (manodhatu, the boundary of consciousness), and no subsequent consciousness arises. It is included in the 'neither' category. Another explanation is that this is raising the result to inquire about the basis, so it does not mention the final consciousness of an Arhat.
Treatise: What causes the arising of consciousness... lies in the root, not the object? The following half-verse (the fifth verse) explains that the arising of consciousness lies in the root, not the object.
Treatise says: As for the eye, etc.... the rest can be understood as the text explains. The Nyāyānusāra says: If that is so, then consciousness should also move with the body. For example, when wind disorders, etc., harm the body, consciousness becomes confused; when the body is clear and peaceful, consciousness is quiet. Why doesn't consciousness take the body as its basis? Because consciousness moves according to its own basis, so there is no such fault. For example, when wind disorders, etc., harm the body, bodily consciousness (kaya-vijnana, consciousness arising through the body) corresponding to painful feeling arises. Such bodily consciousness is called the confused mind element. When this bodily consciousness and painful feeling disappear together, they can cause confused consciousness to arise from the mind-root (manas, the root of consciousness). Conversely, consciousness is quiet. Therefore, consciousness moves according to its own basis. Aren't there differences between the arising of defiled mind element and undefiled consciousness? How can it be said that consciousness moves according to its own basis? It is not according to the categories of defiled and undefiled that it is said to 'move according to its own basis,' but according to the differences of increase, decrease, clarity, and obscurity. For example, from the uncovered and indeterminate (anavrta-avyakrta, neither good nor bad, not constituting a moral obstacle) eye-root (caksu, the visual organ), good, bad, and covered eye-consciousness (caksu-vijnana, consciousness arising through the eyes) arise, and it is called eye-consciousness moving according to its own basis. It should be understood in the same way here. Therefore, what is able to rely does not follow the nature of all that is relied upon. If it were not so, it should not be said that what is able to rely follows what is relied upon.
Treatise: What causes form, etc.... and even dharma-consciousness? The following half-verse (the sixth verse) explains that the six consciousnesses (sad-vijnana, the six sense consciousnesses) are named according to their roots.
Treatise says: They think that the eye, etc., mentioned earlier are the basis... Explaining the word 'they' in the verse. This is what 'they' means. 'They' refers to the earlier verse explaining how the eye, etc., are named.
Treatise: The root is the basis, so consciousness is named according to the root. It means that the root is the basis, and form, etc., are not the basis. The reason is as mentioned earlier, because the eye, etc., are the basis, so they are named eye-consciousness, etc., according to the eye, etc., and not form-consciousness, etc., according to form, etc.
Treatise: And those that are not common... and malt, etc.
。釋不共義。如文可解。正理論云。豈不意識境是不共故應名法識。此難非理。通別法名共非遍故。境不具前二種因故。謂通名法非唯不共。別名法界非遍攝識。又別法界雖不共余。而非意識所依根性。是故若法是識所依及不共者。隨彼說識 述曰若據通法為名。即色等五境亦是法也。意識便與眼等識共。及自他共。非唯不共。若據別法名為法識。攝意不盡。緣通法意識此不攝故。唯從根立意識名。即遍而不共。又不共法界唯有不共一義。無依義故不同根也 如名鼓聲及麥芽等者。鼓聲依鼓。鐘聲依鐘。亦依手等有鐘．鼓聲。鐘．鼓是不共依。手等是共依。故名鐘．鼓聲。又鼓等聲雖因手發聲。聲依于鼓不依手也。麥芽依麥亦依水．土。麥別依故名麥芽。不名水．土芽也。正理論云。又此頌文復有餘義。彼謂眼等識所隨故。及不共者。及由眼等是不共故。謂有一生色發四生眼識。無一生眼根發二生識。況有能發四生識者。如是界．趣．族類身．眼各別發識。故名不共。廣說乃至。身亦如是。豈不餘生意根亦發餘生意識(死生位也)非全不發。但不俱時。無一生意一時併發二生意識可如色等。故作是言。無二況四。如是眼等識所隨故。生界趣等別生識故。由此二因隨根非境。問眾緣和合眼識方生。何緣契經唯舉眼．色。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：解釋『不共義』，如果文字可以理解，正如《正理論》所說：『難道不是因為意識的境是不共的，所以應該叫做『法識』嗎？』這個責難是不合理的。因為通名『法』並非僅僅是不共的，別名『法界』也並非普遍包含所有的識。境不具備前兩種原因。也就是說，通名『法』並非僅僅是不共的，別名『法界』並非普遍包含所有的識。而且，別名『法界』雖然不與其他的相同，但並非意識所依賴的根性。因此，如果法是識所依賴的以及不共的，就根據這些來說識。 解釋：如果根據通法來命名，那麼色等五境也是法。意識就與眼等識共通，以及與自身和他者共通，並非僅僅是不共的。如果根據別法來命名法識，就不能完全包含意，因為緣于通法的意識不能包含在內。僅僅從根來建立意識的名字，就是普遍的而非不共的。而且，不共的法界只有不共這一個意義，沒有所依賴的意義，所以與根不同。例如命名鼓聲和麥芽等，鼓聲依賴於鼓，鐘聲依賴於鐘，也依賴於手等才有鐘、鼓聲。鐘、鼓是不共的所依賴，手等是共通的所依賴，所以命名為鐘、鼓聲。而且，鼓等的聲音雖然因為手而發出聲音，但聲音依賴於鼓，不依賴於手。麥芽依賴於麥，也依賴於水、土。麥是特別的所依賴，所以命名為麥芽，不命名為水、土芽。《正理論》說：『而且這個偈頌還有其他的意義。』他們認為眼等識所跟隨的，以及不共的，以及由於眼等是不共的。也就是說，有一種生命狀態的色，引發四種生命狀態的眼識。沒有一種生命狀態的眼根，引發兩種生命狀態的識，更何況有能引發四種生命狀態的識呢？像這樣，界（界，指眾生的種類）、趣（趣，指眾生輪迴的去處）、族類、身、眼各自不同地引發識，所以叫做不共。廣泛地說乃至，身也是這樣。難道不是其他的生命狀態的意根，也引發其他的生命狀態的意識（死生位）嗎？並非完全不引發，但不是同時。沒有一種生命狀態的意，一時同時引發兩種生命狀態的意識，可以像色等那樣。所以這樣說，沒有二，更何況四。像這樣，眼等識所跟隨的，生界趣等分別產生識，由於這兩種原因，是跟隨根而不是境。問：眾多的因緣和合，眼識才產生，為什麼契經只舉出眼、色？
【English Translation】 English version: Explaining the meaning of 'non-common' (不共義, bù gòng yì). If the text is understandable, as the Zheng Lilun (正理論, Zhèng Lǐlùn, Treatise on Correct Principles) says: 'Isn't it because the object of consciousness is non-common, so it should be called 'Dharma-consciousness' (法識, Fǎshí)?' This accusation is unreasonable because the general name 'Dharma' (法, Fǎ) is not only non-common, and the specific name 'Dharma-realm' (法界, Fǎjiè) does not universally include all consciousnesses. The object does not possess the first two reasons. That is to say, the general name 'Dharma' is not only non-common, and the specific name 'Dharma-realm' does not universally include all consciousnesses. Moreover, the specific name 'Dharma-realm', although not the same as others, is not the root nature on which consciousness relies. Therefore, if a Dharma is what consciousness relies on and is non-common, then consciousness is spoken of based on these. Explanation: If named according to the general Dharma, then the five objects such as form (色, Sè) are also Dharma. Consciousness then becomes common with eye-consciousness (眼識, Yǎnshí) and other consciousnesses, as well as common with oneself and others, not only non-common. If named Dharma-consciousness according to the specific Dharma, it cannot completely include mind (意, Yì), because consciousness that arises from the general Dharma cannot be included. Only establishing the name of consciousness from the root is universal and not non-common. Moreover, the non-common Dharma-realm only has the one meaning of non-common, without the meaning of reliance, so it is different from the root. For example, naming drum sound and malt sprouts, etc., drum sound relies on the drum, bell sound relies on the bell, and bell and drum sounds also rely on hands, etc. The bell and drum are non-common reliance, and hands, etc., are common reliance, so they are named bell and drum sounds. Moreover, although the sounds of drums, etc., are produced because of the hand, the sound relies on the drum, not on the hand. Malt sprouts rely on malt and also rely on water and soil. Malt is the special reliance, so it is named malt sprouts, not named water and soil sprouts. The Zheng Lilun says: 'Moreover, this verse has other meanings.' They believe that what eye-consciousness, etc., follows, and what is non-common, and because eye-consciousness, etc., are non-common. That is to say, a form of one life state gives rise to eye-consciousness of four life states. There is no eye-root of one life state that gives rise to consciousness of two life states, let alone one that can give rise to consciousness of four life states. Like this, realms (界, Jiè, refers to the types of beings), destinies (趣, Qù, refers to the destinations of beings in reincarnation), classes, bodies, and eyes each give rise to consciousness differently, so it is called non-common. Speaking broadly, even the body is like this. Isn't it that the mind-root (意根, Yìgēn) of other life states also gives rise to consciousness of other life states (death and birth states)? It is not that it does not give rise to it at all, but it is not at the same time. There is no mind of one life state that simultaneously gives rise to consciousness of two life states, which can be like form, etc. So it is said, there is no two, let alone four. Like this, what eye-consciousness, etc., follows, the realms of birth, etc., separately produce consciousness, and due to these two reasons, it follows the root and not the object. Question: When many causes and conditions come together, eye-consciousness arises, why does the sutra only mention eye and form?
答眼識所依．所緣性故。余法雖是眼識生緣。而非所依．及所緣性。又是眼識鄰近緣故。問豈不空．明．能生作意。亦是眼識鄰近緣耶。答眼識生時必藉所依．所緣力故。余法不定。謂夜行類識不藉明生。水行類識不待空發。人于琉璃．頗胝迦等障色亦爾。天眼發識不假空．明。作意通與六識作共生緣。眼．色非共。是故契經唯舉眼．色。或隨所化宜聞便說。像跡喻等諸契經中。作意等緣皆具說故(已上論文)。
論。隨身所住至如是分別。此下第七明所依身．及根．識．境依地同異。就中。先指法以明。第二別顯定相 論。隨身所住至地為同不。問 論。應言此四或異或同。總答 今詳。三法若與身俱名同。不與身俱名異。故正理云。所言同者。謂生欲界以自地眼見自地色。四皆同地。生初靜慮以自地眼見自地色。亦皆同地 所言異者(云云) 余句準此。二地四法。同地名之為同。自余諸句皆是異也。身生欲界有一句同。余句皆異。生初靜慮有一句同。余句皆異。二．三．四定唯是異句。無其同句。以于上地無五識故。耳亦如是。鼻．舌二種唯有同句。無有異句。二境二識唯欲界故。上地有根無識依故。身在下地無上根故。身根若生欲界及初靜慮。唯有同句。生上三地唯有別句。意根若四蘊身隨生何地皆有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：眼識的所依和所緣是什麼？ 答：是眼根（眼識的依託，即眼睛）和色境（眼識所觀察的對象）。其他法雖然是眼識產生的助緣，但不是眼識的所依和所緣，而且只是眼識的鄰近緣。 問：那麼，空、明（光明）、能生作意（專注）不也是眼識的鄰近緣嗎？ 答：眼識產生時，必須依靠所依（眼根）和所緣（色境）的力量。而其他法（空、明、作意）則不一定。例如，夜間活動的生物的眼識不依賴光明而生起，水生生物的眼識不依賴空間而生起。人們看到琉璃、頗胝迦（水晶）等障礙物後面的顏色也是如此。天眼產生眼識也不需要空間和光明。作意可以作為六識共同的生起之緣，而眼根和色境不是共同的。所以契經（佛經）中只提到眼根和色境。或者，這是隨所教化對象的根機而方便宣說。在《象跡喻經》等經典中，作意等緣都有詳細說明（以上是論文內容）。
論：隨身所住至如是分別。此下第七明所依身．及根．識．境依地同異。就中。先指法以明。第二別顯定相 論：隨身所住至地為同不。問 論：應言此四或異或同。總答 現在詳細解釋。如果這三種法（身、根、境）與身體在同一處，就稱為『同』；如果不在同一處，就稱為『異』。所以《正理》中說：『所說的『同』，是指生在欲界的人用欲界的眼睛看欲界的顏色，這四者（身、根、識、境）都在同一地。生在初禪的人用初禪的眼睛看初禪的顏色，這四者也在同一地。』 所說的『異』（以下省略）其餘的句子可以依此類推。二地中的四法，在同一地就稱為『同』，其餘的句子都是『異』。身體生在欲界時，有一句是『同』，其餘的句子都是『異』。身體生在初禪時，有一句是『同』，其餘的句子都是『異』。二禪、三禪、四禪都只有『異』的句子，沒有『同』的句子。因為在上界沒有五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）。耳識的情況也類似。鼻識和舌識只有『同』的句子，沒有『異』的句子，因為鼻識和舌識的對境和所依識只存在於欲界。上界有根，但沒有識所依。身體在地獄，沒有上界的根。身體和根如果生在欲界或初禪，就只有『同』的句子。生在上三界就只有『異』的句子。意根無論隨四蘊身生在哪個界，都存在。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What are the support (所依, suǒ yī) and object (所緣, suǒ yuán) of eye consciousness (眼識, yǎn shí)? Answer: They are the eye faculty (眼根, yǎn gēn) (the basis of eye consciousness, i.e., the eye) and the object of sight (色境, sè jìng) (the object observed by eye consciousness). Although other dharmas (法, fǎ) are conditions for the arising of eye consciousness, they are not its support and object, and are merely proximate conditions. Question: Then, aren't space (空, kōng), light (明, míng), and the capacity to generate attention (作意, zuò yì) also proximate conditions for eye consciousness? Answer: When eye consciousness arises, it must rely on the power of its support (eye faculty) and object (object of sight). Other dharmas (space, light, attention) are not necessarily required. For example, the eye consciousness of nocturnal creatures does not depend on light to arise, and the eye consciousness of aquatic creatures does not depend on space to arise. The same is true when people see colors behind obstacles like lapis lazuli (琉璃, liú lí) or crystal (頗胝迦, pō zhī jiā). The divine eye (天眼, tiān yǎn) also does not require space and light to generate eye consciousness. Attention can serve as a common condition for the arising of all six consciousnesses, while the eye faculty and object of sight are not common. Therefore, the sutras (契經, qì jīng) only mention the eye faculty and object of sight. Or, this is a convenient explanation according to the capacity of those being taught. In sutras such as the Elephant Footprint Simile Sutra (象跡喻經, xiàng jì yù jīng), all conditions, including attention, are explained in detail (the above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: 'Depending on where the body dwells' up to 'such distinctions.' The seventh section below clarifies the similarities and differences in the grounds on which the supporting body, faculties, consciousnesses, and objects rely. Among these, first, the dharmas are indicated to clarify, and second, the definite characteristics are separately shown. Treatise: 'Depending on where the body dwells' up to 'are the grounds the same or not?' Question. Treatise: 'It should be said that these four are either different or the same.' General answer. Now, let's explain in detail. If these three dharmas (body, faculty, object) are in the same place as the body, it is called 'the same'; if they are not in the same place, it is called 'different.' Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理, zhèng lǐ) says: 'What is meant by 'the same' is when a being born in the Desire Realm (欲界, yù jiè) uses the eye of the Desire Realm to see a color of the Desire Realm; these four (body, faculty, consciousness, object) are all on the same ground. When a being born in the First Dhyana (初禪, chū chán) uses the eye of the First Dhyana to see a color of the First Dhyana, these four are also on the same ground.' What is meant by 'different' (omitted below). The remaining sentences can be inferred by analogy. The four dharmas in the two realms, if they are on the same ground, are called 'the same'; the remaining sentences are all 'different.' When the body is born in the Desire Realm, there is one sentence that is 'the same,' and the remaining sentences are all 'different.' When the body is born in the First Dhyana, there is one sentence that is 'the same,' and the remaining sentences are all 'different.' The Second Dhyana, Third Dhyana, and Fourth Dhyana only have 'different' sentences and no 'same' sentences, because there are no five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) in the higher realms. The situation with ear consciousness is similar. Nose consciousness and tongue consciousness only have 'same' sentences and no 'different' sentences, because the objects and supporting consciousnesses of nose consciousness and tongue consciousness only exist in the Desire Realm. In the higher realms, there are faculties but no supporting consciousnesses. If the body and faculty are born in the Desire Realm or the First Dhyana, there are only 'same' sentences. If they are born in the upper three realms, there are only 'different' sentences. No matter which realm the mind consciousness (意根, yì gēn) is born in along with the four aggregates (四蘊, sì yùn), it exists.
同句．異句。若初約色身唯在五地。辨其同．異如理應思。言上至余界亦應如是分別。是指法以明也。
論。今當略辨至用少功多。此釋決定相。于中有二。先舉頌略說。彼長行廣釋。
論曰身眼色三至唯在欲界初定。此辨四所在通局也 言此中眼根至終不居下釋頌眼不下於身。述曰。下容修上眼上眼依下身。上不修下眼故不下於身 言。色識望眼等下非上者。舉頌第二句 言。下眼不能見上色故上識不依下地眼故。釋頌意也 言。色望于識通等上下。釋頌中色于識一一切 言。色識于身如色于識者。釋頌二于身二然 言。廣說耳界至廣如眼釋。釋頌如眼耳亦然 言。鼻舌身三至謂之為下。釋頌次三皆自地。身識自下地 言。應知意界至用少功多。釋頌意不定應知也。
論。傍論已周。下一頌有三門。一識．識多少門。二常．無常門。三根．非根門。加前二十二門。
論曰十八界中至所緣境故。明識．識多少門。
論。十八界中至法余余界。明常．無常門 法餘者。法界中除三無為余法界也 余界者。除法界外餘十七界。
論。又經中說至有所緣故。是根．非根門。于中有二。一引經中二十二根。二辨根界攝。此即初也。經中說二十二根。意根于身根后說。依六處次第故。諸大
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 同句和異句。如果最初僅就色身存在於五地進行討論，那麼應該如理如實地思考它們的相同和不同之處。至於上面直到其他界，也應該這樣分別。這是指通過法來闡明道理。
論：現在應當簡略地辨析，以達到事半功倍的效果。這是解釋決定的相狀。其中分為兩個部分：先用偈頌概括地說，然後用長行詳細地解釋。
論曰：身、眼、色三種，僅存在於欲界和初禪天。這是辨別四種事物所存在的普遍性和侷限性。言：『此中眼根，最終不低於身』，解釋偈頌中『眼不下於身』。述曰：下面可以修習上面的眼，上面的眼依賴下面的身。上面不修習下面的眼，所以眼不會低於身。言：『色、識相對於眼等，下面不是上面的』，這是引用偈頌的第二句。言：『下位的眼不能看見上位的色，所以上位的識不依賴下地的眼』，這是解釋偈頌的含義。言：『色相對於識，普遍地等於上下』，這是解釋偈頌中『色于識一一切』。言：『色和識相對於身，就像色相對於識一樣』，這是解釋偈頌中『二于身二然』。言：『廣泛地說，耳界等，像眼一樣廣泛地解釋』，這是解釋偈頌中『如眼耳亦然』。言：『鼻、舌、身三種，被稱為下』，這是解釋偈頌中『次三皆自地，身識自下地』。言：『應該知道意界等，以達到事半功倍的效果』，這是解釋偈頌中『意不定應知』。
論：旁論已經結束。下一頌有三個方面：一是識和識的多少方面；二是常和無常方面；三是根和非根方面。加上前面的二十二個方面。
論曰：在十八界（十八界：眼界、耳界、鼻界、舌界、身界、意界、色界、聲界、香界、味界、觸界、法界、眼識界、耳識界、鼻識界、舌識界、身識界、意識界）中，直到所緣的境界，闡明了識和識的多少方面。
論：在十八界中，直到法和其他界，闡明了常和無常方面。法余：法界（法界：指一切事物所存在的境界或狀態）中，除去三種無為法（三無為法：擇滅無為、非擇滅無為、虛空無為），剩餘的法界。余界：除去法界之外，剩餘的十七界。
論：又經中說，直到有所緣的緣故，這是根和非根的方面。其中分為兩個部分：一是引用經中的二十二根（二十二根：眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根、意根、男根、女根、命根、樂根、苦根、喜根、憂根、舍根、信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根、未知當知根、已知根、具知根）；二是辨別根界所包含的內容。這正是第一個方面。經中說二十二根，意根在身根之後說，是依據六處（六處：眼處、耳處、鼻處、舌處、身處、意處）的次第的緣故。諸大
【English Translation】 English version: Sentences that are the same and sentences that are different. If initially discussing the form body as only existing in the five grounds (五地), one should contemplate their similarities and differences as they truly are. As for above, up to the other realms, one should also differentiate them in this way. This refers to using the Dharma to clarify the principles.
Treatise: Now, we should briefly analyze to achieve more with less effort. This explains the determined characteristics. Within this, there are two parts: first, a summary in verse, then a detailed explanation in prose.
Treatise says: Body, eye, and form, these three only exist in the desire realm and the first dhyana heaven. This distinguishes the universality and limitations of the four locations. It is said: 'Here, the eye faculty ultimately does not descend below the body,' explaining the verse 'the eye does not descend below the body.' It is stated: The lower can cultivate the higher eye, the higher eye relies on the lower body. The higher does not cultivate the lower eye, therefore the eye does not descend below the body. It is said: 'Form and consciousness relative to the eye, etc., the lower is not the higher,' this is quoting the second line of the verse. It is said: 'The lower eye cannot see the higher form, therefore the higher consciousness does not rely on the eye of the lower ground,' this is explaining the meaning of the verse. It is said: 'Form relative to consciousness, universally equals above and below,' this is explaining 'form in relation to consciousness, one and all' in the verse. It is said: 'Form and consciousness relative to the body are like form relative to consciousness,' this is explaining 'two in relation to the body, two thus' in the verse. It is said: 'Speaking broadly, the ear realm, etc., explain as broadly as the eye,' this is explaining 'like the eye, so too the ear' in the verse. It is said: 'Nose, tongue, and body, these three are called lower,' this is explaining 'the next three are all of their own ground, body consciousness is of the lower ground' in the verse. It is said: 'One should know the mind realm, etc., to achieve more with less effort,' this is explaining 'the mind is uncertain, one should know' in the verse.
Treatise: The side discussion is finished. The next verse has three aspects: first, the aspect of consciousness and the amount of consciousness; second, the aspect of permanence and impermanence; third, the aspect of roots and non-roots. Adding the previous twenty-two aspects.
Treatise says: Within the eighteen realms (十八界: eye realm, ear realm, nose realm, tongue realm, body realm, mind realm, form realm, sound realm, smell realm, taste realm, touch realm, dharma realm, eye consciousness realm, ear consciousness realm, nose consciousness realm, tongue consciousness realm, body consciousness realm, mind consciousness realm), up to the object of what is cognized, it clarifies the aspect of consciousness and the amount of consciousness.
Treatise: Within the eighteen realms, up to the Dharma and the other realms, it clarifies the aspect of permanence and impermanence. Dharma remainder: Within the Dharma realm (法界: refers to the realm or state in which all things exist), removing the three unconditioned dharmas (三無為法: cessation through discrimination, cessation without discrimination, space as unconditioned), the remaining Dharma realm. Other realms: Removing the Dharma realm, the remaining seventeen realms.
Treatise: Also, the sutra says, up to the reason for what is cognized, this is the aspect of roots and non-roots. Within this, there are two parts: first, quoting the twenty-two roots (二十二根: eye root, ear root, nose root, tongue root, body root, mind root, male root, female root, life root, pleasure root, pain root, joy root, sorrow root, indifference root, faith root, vigor root, mindfulness root, concentration root, wisdom root, about-to-know root, knowing root, fully knowing root) in the sutra; second, distinguishing what the root realms encompass. This is precisely the first aspect. The sutra says twenty-two roots, the mind root is said after the body root, it is because it is based on the order of the six sense bases (六處: eye base, ear base, nose base, tongue base, body base, mind base). All great
論師命根后說意根。于無緣根后說有緣根故。
論。如是所說至皆體非根。第二辨界攝也。十八界中六根．六識全是根。五根即是七色根。七心界即是意根 法界一分者。命根．信等五根．五受根也。三無漏根一分。三無漏根中有心王即意界攝。余心所法即法界攝 后三者。謂三無漏根。若以心所為體法界攝 心為體意．意識攝 女．男即是身根一分身根攝 色等五境。法界一分。非是根也。
俱舍論疏卷第二
保延三年潤九月十六日向霖雨天奉點了 覺樹
此卷少少有難通□ 交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第三
沙門法寶撰
分別根品第二之一
明根等義立名有異 此論名根品。雜心名行品。正理名差別品 然雜心合此論根品．世品總名行品。以行有二義。一緣。二所作。緣行是因行。所作是果行。由此雜心合為行品。因行即是勝用義故。此論與根合為根品。又以先明根故故名根品。如本論中說世第一品等作用即是法差別。故正理論名辨差別品。名雖有異義不相違 問何故根品界品后明 答以界是自性．及是本事．是所依故。所以先明。根是作用．及是差別。是能依故。所以後說 釋品名者。最勝．自
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論師在解釋『命根』（Jīvitendriya，生命力）之後，接著解釋『意根』（Manas，意識的根源）。這是因為『無緣根』（nirālambana-indriya，不以對像為緣的根）之後應該解釋『有緣根』（sālambana-indriya，以對像為緣的根）。
論：如上所說，皆體非根。接下來辨析『界』（dhātu，構成要素）的攝屬關係。在十八界（aṣṭādaśa dhātavaḥ，十八種構成要素）中，六根（ṣaḍ indriyāṇi，六種感覺器官）、六識（ṣaḍ vijñānāni，六種意識）全部是『根』。五根（pañcendriyāṇi，五種感覺器官）即是七色根（sapta varṇa-indriyāṇi，七種色法根）。七心界（sapta citta-dhātavaḥ，七種心界）即是『意根』（Manas，意識的根源）。『法界』（dharma-dhātu，法界）的一部分，指的是『命根』（Jīvitendriya，生命力）、『信』（śraddhā，信仰）等五根（pañcendriyāṇi，五種感覺器官）、五受根（pañca vedanā-indriyāṇi，五種感受根）。三無漏根（trīṇy anāsrava-indriyāṇi，三種無漏根）的一部分，三無漏根（trīṇy anāsrava-indriyāṇi，三種無漏根）中的心王（citta-rāja，主要的心識）屬於『意界』（mano-dhātu，意識界）所攝。其餘心所法（caitta-dharmāḥ，心理作用）屬於『法界』（dharma-dhātu，法界）所攝。后三者，指的是三無漏根（trīṇy anāsrava-indriyāṇi，三種無漏根）。如果以心所（caitta，心理作用）為體，則屬於『法界』（dharma-dhātu，法界）所攝。以心為體，則屬於『意』（manas，意識）和『意識』（vijñāna，識別）所攝。『女』（strī，女性）和『男』（puruṣa，男性）即是『身根』（kāya-indriya，身體感覺器官）的一部分，屬於身根（kāya-indriya，身體感覺器官）所攝。色等五境（pañca viṣayāḥ，五種感官對像），屬於『法界』（dharma-dhātu，法界）的一部分，但不是『根』。
《俱舍論疏》卷第二
保延三年潤九月十六日向霖雨天奉點了 覺樹
此卷少少有難通□ 交了 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第三
沙門法寶撰
分別根品第二之一
闡明『根』（indriya，感覺器官）等含義，立名各有不同。此論名為『根品』（indriya-prakaraṇa，根的章節），《雜心論》（Saṃyuktabhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra）名為『行品』（karma-prakaraṇa，行為的章節），《正理》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya，俱舍論的註釋）名為『差別品』（bheda-prakaraṇa，差別的章節）。然而，《雜心論》（Saṃyuktabhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra）將此論的『根品』（indriya-prakaraṇa，根的章節）和『世品』（loka-prakaraṇa，世界的章節）合稱為『行品』（karma-prakaraṇa，行為的章節）。因為『行』（karma，行為）有兩種含義：一是『緣』（pratyaya，條件），二是『所作』（kṛtya，所做的事情）。緣行是因行（hetu-karma，作為原因的行為），所作是果行（phala-karma，作為結果的行為）。因此，《雜心論》（Saṃyuktabhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra）合稱為『行品』（karma-prakaraṇa，行為的章節）。因行即是殊勝作用的含義。此論與『根』（indriya，感覺器官）合稱為『根品』（indriya-prakaraṇa，根的章節）。又因為先闡明『根』（indriya，感覺器官），所以名為『根品』（indriya-prakaraṇa，根的章節）。如本論中說『世第一品』（laukikāgradharma-prakaraṇa，世間第一法的章節）等，作用即是法的差別。所以《正理》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya，俱舍論的註釋）名為『辨差別品』（bheda-prakaraṇa，差別的章節）。名稱雖然不同，但意義並不相違背。問：為什麼在『界品』（dhātu-prakaraṇa，界的章節）之後才闡明『根品』（indriya-prakaraṇa，根的章節）？答：因為『界』（dhātu，構成要素）是自性，並且是本事，是所依。所以先闡明。『根』（indriya，感覺器官）是作用，並且是差別，是能依。所以後說。解釋品名，最殊勝，自
【English Translation】 English version The master, after explaining 『Jīvitendriya』 (life faculty), then explains 『Manas』 (mind faculty). This is because after 『nirālambana-indriya』 (faculty without an object), 『sālambana-indriya』 (faculty with an object) should be explained.
Treatise: As mentioned above, all are entities that are not faculties. Next is to distinguish the affiliation of 『dhātu』 (elements). Among the eighteen dhātavaḥ (eighteen elements), the six indriyāṇi (six sense organs) and the six vijñānāni (six consciousnesses) are all 『faculties』. The five indriyāṇi (five sense organs) are the seven varṇa-indriyāṇi (seven color faculties). The seven citta-dhātavaḥ (seven mind elements) are the 『Manas』 (mind faculty). A portion of the 『dharma-dhātu』 (dharma element) refers to 『Jīvitendriya』 (life faculty), the five indriyāṇi (five faculties) such as 『śraddhā』 (faith), and the five vedanā-indriyāṇi (five feeling faculties). A portion of the three anāsrava-indriyāṇi (three unconditioned faculties). Among the three anāsrava-indriyāṇi (three unconditioned faculties), the citta-rāja (mind-king) is included in the 『mano-dhātu』 (mind element). The remaining caitta-dharmāḥ (mental functions) are included in the 『dharma-dhātu』 (dharma element). The latter three refer to the three anāsrava-indriyāṇi (three unconditioned faculties). If the entity is caitta (mental function), it is included in the 『dharma-dhātu』 (dharma element). If the entity is mind, it is included in 『manas』 (mind) and 『vijñāna』 (consciousness). 『Strī』 (female) and 『puruṣa』 (male) are a portion of the 『kāya-indriya』 (body faculty) and are included in the kāya-indriya (body faculty). The five viṣayāḥ (five objects) such as color are a portion of the 『dharma-dhātu』 (dharma element), but are not 『faculties』.
Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā, Volume 2
Dedicated on the 16th day of the intercalary 9th month of the 3rd year of Hoen, under the continuous rain. Kakuju
This volume has a few difficult passages □ Completed Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1822, Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā
Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā, Volume 3
Composed by Śramaṇa Dharmaratna
Chapter 2: Analysis of Faculties, Part 1
Clarifying the meanings of 『indriya』 (faculty) etc., the establishment of names differs. This treatise is named 『Indriya-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on Faculties), the Saṃyuktabhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra is named 『Karma-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on Actions), and the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya is named 『Bheda-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on Differences). However, the Saṃyuktabhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra combines this treatise』s 『Indriya-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on Faculties) and 『Loka-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on the World) and calls them 『Karma-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on Actions). Because 『karma』 (action) has two meanings: one is 『pratyaya』 (condition), and the other is 『kṛtya』 (what is done). Karma as a condition is hetu-karma (action as a cause), and what is done is phala-karma (action as a result). Therefore, the Saṃyuktabhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra combines them into 『Karma-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on Actions). Karma as a cause is the meaning of superior function. This treatise and 『indriya』 (faculty) are combined into 『Indriya-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on Faculties). Also, because 『indriya』 (faculty) is explained first, it is named 『Indriya-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on Faculties). As in this treatise, the function of 『Laukikāgradharma-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on the Highest Worldly Dharma) etc. is the difference of dharma. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya is named 『Bheda-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on Differences). Although the names are different, the meanings do not contradict each other. Question: Why is 『Indriya-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on Faculties) explained after 『Dhātu-prakaraṇa』 (Chapter on Elements)? Answer: Because 『dhātu』 (element) is self-nature, and is the basis, and is what is relied upon. Therefore, it is explained first. 『Indriya』 (faculty) is function, and is difference, and is what relies. Therefore, it is explained later. Explaining the name of the chapter, most superior, self-
在．光顯名根 此品初明故名分別根品。
論。如是因界至根是何義。此品總有七十四頌分為三節。初二十二頌正分別根。次二十七頌分別俱生。后二十五頌分別因緣 就初節中復有三段。初六頌建立根。次兩頌釋根體相。后十四頌義門分別 就初六頌中。初之一頌述婆沙師建立。第二三頌述曇無德建立。第三一頌述曇無德重說根相。第四一頌述余師建立 就初文中有五。一結前問后。二答根義。三重問。舉頌略答。五長行釋。此初文也 真諦師云。根義云何者。前已開十八界為二十二根。未解根義。根有二義。一名義。二法門義。名義是立名義。法門義是流．無流等義 今詳。此中問其根義。正問名義 此二十二法以何義故名之為根。
論。最勝自在至根增上義。第二答根義也。正理論云。此增上義。界義顯成。界謂伊地或謂忍地。最勝自在是伊地義。照灼明瞭是忍地義 今詳字界有其多義。正理論意。最勝自在是伊地界義。照灼明瞭是忍地界義。熾盛光顯是字緣。助其伊地忍地二字界名。最勝自在照灼明瞭之義轉名增上。增上即是根義。此論最勝自在是伊地字界之義。光顯是字緣。助其伊地最勝自在之義轉名增上義。增上義名根也。故正理云。此增上義界義顯成。此意總顯二十二根。于諸聚中作用增
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 在。光顯名根 此品最初闡明，故名分別根品。
論：如是，從因界到根，其意義是什麼？此品總共有七十四頌，分為三節。最初二十二頌，正式分別根。其次二十七頌，分別俱生。最後二十五頌，分別因緣。就最初一節中，又分為三個段落。最初六頌，建立根。其次兩頌，解釋根的體相。最後十四頌，從義理方面分別。就最初六頌中，最初一頌，敘述婆沙師（Vaibhashika）的建立。第二、三頌，敘述曇無德（Dharmottara）的建立。第三一頌，敘述曇無德重新說明根的相狀。第四一頌，敘述其他師的建立。就最初的文中有五個方面：一、總結前文，提問後文。二、回答根的意義。三、再次提問，用頌略作回答。五、用長行文解釋。這是最初的文。
真諦（Paramārtha）師說：『根的意義是什麼？』之前已經將十八界（dhatus）開立為二十二根（indriya），但尚未解釋根的意義。根有兩種意義：一名義，二法門義。名義是建立名稱的意義，法門義是流（srota）、無流（anasrava）等的意義。現在詳細考察，這裡提問根的意義，正是提問名義。這二十二法以什麼意義而被稱為根呢？
論：最勝自在，乃至根增上義。這是第二部分，回答根的意義。正理論（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）說：『此增上義，界義顯成。界，指的是伊地（I-di）或者忍地（Kṣānti-di）。最勝自在是伊地義，照灼明瞭是忍地義。』現在詳細考察，字界有很多意義。正理論的意思是，最勝自在是伊地字界的意義，照灼明瞭是忍地字界的意義。熾盛光顯是字緣，輔助伊地、忍地這兩個字界的名。最勝自在、照灼明瞭的意義轉而稱為增上。增上就是根的意義。此論認為，最勝自在是伊地字界的意義，光顯是字緣，輔助伊地最勝自在的意義轉而稱為增上義。增上義名為根。所以正理論說：『此增上義，界義顯成。』這個意思總的來說，是顯示二十二根在各種聚合中作用增強。
【English Translation】 English version: In. 'Manifesting the Name and Root' This chapter initially elucidates, hence named 'Chapter on Distinguishing the Roots'.
Treatise: What is the meaning of 'from causes and realms to roots' as such? This chapter has a total of seventy-four verses, divided into three sections. The first twenty-two verses formally distinguish the roots (indriya). The next twenty-seven verses distinguish the co-arisen. The last twenty-five verses distinguish the causes and conditions. Within the first section, there are three subsections. The first six verses establish the roots. The next two verses explain the substance and characteristics of the roots. The last fourteen verses distinguish from the perspective of meaning. Within the first six verses, the first verse narrates the establishment by the Vaibhashika masters. The second and third verses narrate the establishment by Dharmottara. The third verse narrates Dharmottara's restatement of the characteristics of the roots. The fourth verse narrates the establishment by other masters. Within the initial text, there are five aspects: 1. Summarizing the previous and questioning the subsequent. 2. Answering the meaning of the roots. 3. Questioning again, answering briefly with verses. 4. Explaining with prose. This is the initial text.
Master Paramārtha said: 'What is the meaning of the roots?' Previously, the eighteen realms (dhatus) have been established as twenty-two roots (indriya), but the meaning of the roots has not yet been explained. The roots have two meanings: one is the meaning of the name, and the other is the meaning of the Dharma gate. The meaning of the name is the meaning of establishing the name, and the meaning of the Dharma gate is the meaning of 'flowing' (srota), 'non-flowing' (anasrava), etc. Now, upon detailed examination, the question here about the meaning of the roots is precisely asking about the meaning of the name. By what meaning are these twenty-two dharmas called roots?
Treatise: 'Supreme and independent,' up to 'the meaning of increased influence of the roots.' This is the second part, answering the meaning of the roots. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'This meaning of increased influence is manifested by the meaning of the realm. The realm refers to I-di or Kṣānti-di. Supreme and independent is the meaning of I-di, and illuminating and clear is the meaning of Kṣānti-di.' Now, upon detailed examination, the term 'realm' has many meanings. The meaning of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra is that 'supreme and independent' is the meaning of the realm of the letter I-di, and 'illuminating and clear' is the meaning of the realm of the letter Kṣānti-di. 'Flourishing and manifesting' is the condition of the letter, assisting the names of these two realms of the letters I-di and Kṣānti-di. The meaning of 'supreme and independent' and 'illuminating and clear' is transformed and called 'increased influence.' 'Increased influence' is the meaning of the root. This treatise considers 'supreme and independent' to be the meaning of the realm of the letter I-di, and 'manifesting' to be the condition of the letter, assisting the meaning of 'supreme and independent' of I-di, which is transformed and called the meaning of 'increased influence.' The meaning of 'increased influence' is called the root. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'This meaning of increased influence is manifested by the meaning of the realm.' This meaning, in general, shows that the twenty-two roots have an enhanced effect in various aggregates.
上。問諸法相望各各別有增上用故應併名根。答。此極增上別說義成。如師子王及村邑長等。于獸．村邑極增上故。
論。此增義誰望于誰者。此第三重問。
頌曰至各別為增上。第四重答。
論曰至四不共事。第五釋頌文也。于中有三。初釋五根有四增上。次釋四根各二增上。后釋十三根各一增上。此即列四增上用也。
論。且眼耳根至聞聲別故。此釋眼．耳二增上也 論鼻舌身根至香味觸故。釋后三根增上用也。
論。女男命意至能為增上。次釋四根各二增上。
論。且女男根至乳房等別。此釋女．男二根增上。正理論云。且女．男根二增上者。一有情異。二分別異。有情異者。劫初有情形類皆等。二根生已便有男．女形類差別 分別異者。進止．言音．乳房．髻等。安布差別。有說勇．怯有差別故名有情異。衣服．莊嚴。有差別故名分別異。
論。有說此于至諸清凈法敘異說也 扇搋。謂無根．損根 半擇謂無勢．損勢 二形。謂具足二根。初以無根或被損故於染．凈中無增上用。次以無勢或被損故。于染．凈中亦無增上。后具二根具二煩惱。故染．凈中亦不增上 扇搋．半擇皆悉通有本性．損壞。由此故言本性．損壞扇搋．半擇。扇搋中有全無根。有分無根 半
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：如果諸法（dharma）相互觀望，各自別有增上作用，那麼是否應該都稱為根（indriya）？答：這是在極度增上的情況下，特別說明其意義成立。例如師子王（Śīla, 獅子王）以及村邑長等，因為他們對於獸類、村邑具有極度的增上作用。
論：這種增上作用是誰相對於誰而言的呢？這是第三重提問。
頌曰：乃至各別為增上。這是第四重回答。
論曰：乃至四不共事。這是第五重解釋頌文。其中有三點：首先解釋五根（pañcendriya）有四種增上作用；其次解釋四根（catvāri indriyāṇi）各有兩種增上作用；最後解釋十三根（trayodaśa indriyāṇi）各有一種增上作用。這即是列舉四種增上作用。
論：且眼耳根（cakṣur-indriya, śrotra-indriya）乃至聞聲別故。這是解釋眼根（cakṣur-indriya）、耳根（śrotra-indriya）的兩種增上作用。 論：鼻舌身根（ghrāṇendriya, jihvendriya, kāyendriya）乃至香味觸故。這是解釋后三種根的增上作用。
論：女男命意（strīndriya, puruṣendriya, jīvitendriya, mana-indriya）乃至能為增上。接下來解釋四根各有兩種增上作用。
論：且女男根（strīndriya, puruṣendriya）乃至等別。這是解釋女根（strīndriya）、男根（puruṣendriya）的增上作用。《正理論》說：女根、男根的兩種增上作用，一是「有情異」，二是「分別異」。「有情異」是指劫初時，有情眾生的形體種類都相同，自從產生男女二根后，便有了男女形體的差別。「分別異」是指在進止、言語聲音、、髮髻等方面，安布陳設有所差別。有人說，因為勇猛和怯懦有差別，所以稱為「有情異」；因為衣服和莊嚴有差別，所以稱為「分別異」。
論：有人說，這對於諸清凈法敘述不同。扇搋（paṇḍaka），指無根者、損根者。半擇（napuṃsaka），指無勢者、損勢者。二形（ubhayavyañjanaka），指具足男女二根者。最初，因為無根或者被損壞，所以在染污和清凈中沒有增上作用。其次，因為無勢或者被損壞，所以在染污和清凈中也沒有增上作用。最後，具有男女二根，具備兩種煩惱，所以在染污和清凈中也不增上。扇搋（paṇḍaka）、半擇（napuṃsaka）都包括本性和損壞兩種情況。因此說本性、損壞的扇搋（paṇḍaka）、半擇（napuṃsaka）。扇搋（paṇḍaka）中有完全沒有根的，也有部分沒有根的。半擇
【English Translation】 English version: Question: If all dharmas (phenomena) observe each other and each has its own superior function, should they all be called indriyas (roots)? Answer: This is a special explanation of the meaning that is established in the case of extreme superiority. For example, a lion king (Śīla, lion king) and the head of a village, because they have extreme superiority over beasts and villages.
Treatise: With respect to whom is this superiority in relation to whom? This is the third question.
Verse: Up to 'each separately as superior.' This is the fourth answer.
Treatise: Up to 'four non-common affairs.' This is the fifth explanation of the verse. There are three points: First, explain that the five indriyas (pañcendriya) have four kinds of superior functions; second, explain that the four indriyas (catvāri indriyāṇi) each have two kinds of superior functions; and finally, explain that the thirteen indriyas (trayodaśa indriyāṇi) each have one kind of superior function. This is to enumerate the four kinds of superior functions.
Treatise: For example, the eye and ear indriyas (cakṣur-indriya, śrotra-indriya) up to 'hearing sounds differently.' This explains the two superior functions of the eye (cakṣur-indriya) and ear (śrotra-indriya) indriyas. Treatise: The nose, tongue, and body indriyas (ghrāṇendriya, jihvendriya, kāyendriya) up to 'smell, taste, and touch.' This explains the superior functions of the latter three indriyas.
Treatise: The female, male, life, and mind (strīndriya, puruṣendriya, jīvitendriya, mana-indriya) up to 'being able to be superior.' Next, explain that the four indriyas each have two kinds of superior functions.
Treatise: For example, the female and male indriyas (strīndriya, puruṣendriya) up to ' and other differences.' This explains the superior functions of the female (strīndriya) and male (puruṣendriya) indriyas. The Nyāyānusāra says: The two superior functions of the female and male indriyas are, first, 'sentient being difference' and, second, 'discrimination difference.' 'Sentient being difference' refers to the fact that at the beginning of the kalpa, the forms and kinds of sentient beings were all the same. Since the production of the female and male indriyas, there have been differences in the forms of males and females. 'Discrimination difference' refers to the differences in arrangement and display in terms of advancing and stopping, speech and sounds, , and hairstyles. Some say that because there are differences in courage and cowardice, it is called 'sentient being difference'; because there are differences in clothing and adornment, it is called 'discrimination difference.'
Treatise: Some say that this is a different account of the various pure dharmas. Paṇḍaka refers to those without roots or with damaged roots. Napuṃsaka refers to those without potency or with damaged potency. Ubhayavyañjanaka refers to those who possess both male and female organs. Initially, because they have no roots or are damaged, they have no superior function in defilement and purity. Secondly, because they have no potency or are damaged, they also have no superior function in defilement and purity. Finally, those who possess both male and female organs possess two kinds of afflictions, so they also do not have a superior function in defilement and purity. Paṇḍaka and napuṃsaka both include both natural and damaged conditions. Therefore, it is said that natural and damaged paṇḍaka and napuṃsaka. Among paṇḍaka, there are those who have no roots at all and those who have partially no roots. Half
擇中有全無勢。有分無勢。諸經論中有說扇搋是無根者。全無少無同名無故。婆沙九十解離欲名為丈夫四句中。云或成就男根而不名丈夫。如扇搋．半擇迦等 此意即說分無根也 有人多解未能釋難。然此後釋不及前師。所以然者。二根之者。雖于染．凈無增上用。而得名根。故知有染．凈言非為定證。
論。命根二者至能續及能持。此釋命根二增上。正理論云。命根於二有增上者。謂由此故施設諸根及根差別。由此有彼有。此無彼無故。或於眾同分能續．及能持。于無色界要有命根方有所生處決定故。彼起自地善．染心等。或起余心非命終故 舊俱舍云。于眾同分相應。及執持中增上。真諦釋云。如生人道得在人類。故言相應。命若壞時則生異道非復人類。又此身何以得相續住。要由有命執持住故。
論。意根二者至皆自在隨行。此釋意根二增上。正理論云。有說意根于染．凈品。有增上力故言於二。如契經言。心雜染故有情雜染。心清凈故有情清凈。
論。樂等五受至喜及憂舍。后釋十三根各一增上。樂．喜貪隨增。苦．憂瞋隨增。舍受癡隨增。信等八根皆能生長清凈法也 樂等於凈亦為增上者。顯有二義。故致亦言。謂能令染亦能令凈。染義如上。凈義云何 如契經說樂故心定苦為信依六出
離依喜．及憂．舍者。定．信．出離皆是凈品。樂受與定為增上。苦受與信為增上。喜．及憂．舍與於六境出離之義為增上也。
論。毗婆沙師傳說如是。第四結上所說。是毗婆沙師也。正理論云。初傳說言顯樂后說。謂或有說能導養身．等 述曰。顯世親師樂后說也。
論。有餘師說至受段食故。已下第二述曇無德建立根也。真諦云經部 于中有三。一破婆沙師建立二十二根。二以三頌建立二十二根。三長行釋。此破五根導養身也。云此是識非根用也。
論。見色等用至別增上用。此破眼等以見色等為不共事。見色等用是識非根。
論故非由此眼等成根總結破。余義大同少異故不破也。
論。若爾云何。婆沙師問。若不許我以眼導養．及不共事等故名增上用。汝經部師說其義云何。
頌曰至涅槃等增上。第二頌答建立根也。
論曰至各立為根。釋頌文也。謂眼等根與眼等識為依故。于眼等識有增上用故立為根。
論。豈不色等至應立為根外難。
論。境于識中至於法亦爾。通難。夫增上用謂勝自在。眼于眼識之中最勝自在故名增上。有其二義。一與了青等眾多色識為通依故。二能依之識隨所依根有明．昧故。以此二義根于識有最勝．自在增上之義 色則不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
離喜、及憂、舍（Upeksha，不苦不樂的感受）者，定（Samadhi，禪定）、信（Shraddha，信心）、出離（Nirvana，涅槃）皆是凈品。樂受（Sukha，快樂的感受）與定為增上（Adhipati，主導）。苦受（Dukkha，痛苦的感受）與信為增上。喜（Priti，喜悅的感受）、及憂（Daurmanasya，憂愁的感受）、舍與於六境出離之義為增上也。 論：毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，佛教論師）傳說如是。第四結上所說，是毗婆沙師也。正理論云：初傳說言顯樂后說，謂或有說能導養身。述曰：顯世親（Vasubandhu，佛教論師）師樂后說也。 論：有餘師說至受段食故。已下第二述曇無德（Dharmottara，佛教論師）建立根（Indriya，根，感覺器官）也。真諦（Paramartha，佛教翻譯家）云經部（Sautrantika，佛教部派）。于中有三：一破婆沙師建立二十二根，二以三頌建立二十二根，三長行釋。此破五根導養身也。云此是識（Vijnana，意識）非根用也。 論：見色等用至別增上用。此破眼等以見色等為不共事。見色等用是識非根。 論：故非由此眼等成根總結破。余義大同少異故不破也。 論：若爾云何？婆沙師問。若不許我以眼導養、及不共事等故名增上用，汝經部師說其義云何？ 頌曰至涅槃等增上。第二頌答建立根也。 論曰至各立為根。釋頌文也。謂眼等根與眼等識為依故，于眼等識有增上用故立為根。 論：豈不色等至應立為根外難。 論：境于識中至於法亦爾。通難。夫增上用謂勝自在。眼于眼識之中最勝自在故名增上。有其二義：一與了青等眾多色識為通依故，二能依之識隨所依根有明、昧故。以此二義根于識有最勝、自在增上之義。色則不。
【English Translation】 English version:
For those who are detached from joy, sorrow, and equanimity (Upeksha), concentration (Samadhi), faith (Shraddha), and liberation (Nirvana) are all pure qualities. Pleasant feeling (Sukha) is enhanced by concentration. Painful feeling (Dukkha) is enhanced by faith. Joy (Priti), sorrow (Daurmanasya), and equanimity, along with the meaning of liberation from the six sense objects, are also enhanced. Treatise: The Vaibhashikas (Vaibhashika, Buddhist scholars) transmit it thus. What was said in the fourth section above is according to the Vaibhashikas. The Nyayanusara-shastra says: The initial transmission emphasizes joy, while the later transmission suggests that some say it can nourish the body. Commentary: This indicates that Master Vasubandhu (Vasubandhu, Buddhist scholar) favored the later transmission. Treatise: 'Some other teachers say' up to 'because of receiving coarse food.' The following section describes how Dharmottara (Dharmottara, Buddhist scholar) establishes the faculties (Indriya, sense organs). Paramartha (Paramartha, Buddhist translator) says it is according to the Sautrantikas (Sautrantika, a Buddhist school). There are three parts: first, refuting the Vaibhashikas' establishment of twenty-two faculties; second, establishing the twenty-two faculties with three verses; and third, a lengthy explanation. This refutes the idea that the five faculties nourish the body, saying that this is the function of consciousness (Vijnana), not the faculties. Treatise: 'The function of seeing forms' up to 'separate enhancing functions.' This refutes the idea that the eyes, etc., have the unique function of seeing forms, etc. The function of seeing forms, etc., belongs to consciousness, not the faculties. Treatise: Therefore, the eyes, etc., do not become faculties in this way, concluding the refutation. The remaining meanings are largely the same with minor differences, so they are not refuted. Treatise: If so, what then? The Vaibhashika asks: If you do not allow that the eyes nourish and have unique functions, thus being called 'enhancing functions,' what is your explanation, O Sautrantika teacher? Verse: 'Up to Nirvana, etc., are enhanced.' The second verse answers, establishing the faculties. Treatise: 'It is said' up to 'each is established as a faculty.' This explains the verse. It means that the eyes, etc., are faculties because they are the basis for the consciousness of seeing, etc., and because they have an enhancing function on the consciousness of seeing, etc. Treatise: 'Wouldn't colors, etc.' up to 'should be established as faculties?' This is an external objection. Treatise: 'Objects in consciousness' up to 'and the same for dharmas.' This is a general objection. An enhancing function means superior and independent. The eyes are most superior and independent in the consciousness of seeing, thus being called 'enhancing.' There are two meanings: first, they are a common basis for many color consciousnesses, such as perceiving blue, etc.; second, the consciousness that relies on them is clear or dim depending on the faculty it relies on. Because of these two meanings, the faculties have the meaning of being most superior, independent, and enhancing in relation to consciousness. Colors do not.
然二相違故者。一青色唯爲了青色為所緣。不爲了黃等色為所緣。二色有變壞識不隨變壞。色之二事。與根二事。以相違故不立為根。乃至意根亦具二也。聲等亦爾。
論從身復立至有增上故。釋頌第三．第四句。
論。女男根體至別立為二。此文釋女男根所以。謂即以身一分為體。此二少異余處身根。謂能于女．男有增上用。故身根外別立二根。
論。女身形類至於二性增上。釋女．男性及顯二根與此二性為增上也。
論。于眾同分至各能為根。釋第二頌 言。于眾同分住中命根有增上用者。釋命根也 言。于雜染中至無明隨增故。釋五受根增上用也 言。于清凈中至引聖道故。釋信等五根有增上用 言。言應知者至各能為根此釋頌中應知字也。
論。三無漏根至有增上用釋第三頌。
論。言亦爾者至各能為根。此釋頌中亦爾字。
論。謂未知當知根至能般涅槃故。此釋頌中於得後後道涅槃等增上。
論。等言為顯至解脫喜樂故釋頌等字 等言為顯更有異門。釋增上也。正理論云。此說非理。彼同分根應非根故(以非識依。應非根故)。豈不斯過汝亦有耶(經部卻難。汝不共事等以見．聞等為增上。彼同分眼更不見色。應非是根)。我無此失。說于嚴身有增上故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『然二相違故者』，意思是：第一，青色只能以青色作為所緣（所觀察的對象），不能以黃色等顏色作為所緣。第二，色法有變壞，而識不會隨之變壞。色法的這兩種特性，與根的兩種特性相反，因此不能成立為根。乃至意根也具備這兩種特性。聲等也是如此。
『論從身復立至有增上故』，解釋了頌文的第三、第四句。
『論。女男根體至別立為二。』這段文字解釋了女根和男根的由來。它們以身體的一部分為體，與身體的其他部分略有不同，因為它們對女性和男性有增強作用，因此在身根之外單獨設立女根和男根。
『論。女身形類至於二性增上。』解釋了女性、男性以及顯現的兩種根與這兩種性別特徵的增強作用。
『論。于眾同分至各能為根。』解釋了第二頌中的內容。『言。于眾同分住中命根有增上用者。』解釋了命根的作用。『言。于雜染中至無明隨增故。』解釋了五受根的增強作用。『言。于清凈中至引聖道故。』解釋了信等五根的增強作用。『言。言應知者至各能為根』，解釋了頌文中的『應知』二字。
『論。三無漏根至有增上用』解釋了第三頌。
『論。言亦爾者至各能為根。』解釋了頌文中的『亦爾』二字。
『論。謂未知當知根至能般涅槃故。』解釋了頌文中關於獲得後後道和涅槃等方面的增強作用。
『論。等言為顯至解脫喜樂故』解釋了頌文中的『等』字。『等言為顯更有異門。』解釋了增強作用。正理論認為：這種說法不合理，因為同分根不應該是根（因為它不是識的所依，所以不應該是根）。難道這個過失你們也有嗎？（經部反駁說：你們的不共事等以見、聞等為增上，但同分眼卻看不見顏色，所以不應該是根）。我沒有這個過失，因為我說的是對嚴身有增強作用。
【English Translation】 English version 『然二相違故者』 means: First, the blue color can only take blue color as its object (the object of observation), and cannot take yellow and other colors as its object. Second, the color-form has change and decay, while consciousness does not change and decay with it. These two characteristics of color-form are contrary to the two characteristics of the root, so it cannot be established as a root. Even the mind-root also has these two characteristics. The same applies to sound and so on.
『論從身復立至有增上故』 explains the third and fourth lines of the verse.
『論。女男根體至別立為二。』 This passage explains the origin of the female and male roots. They take a part of the body as their substance, and are slightly different from other parts of the body, because they have an enhancing effect on women and men, so the female and male roots are established separately from the body-root.
『論。女身形類至於二性增上。』 explains the enhancing effect of female, male, and the manifested two roots on these two gender characteristics.
『論。于眾同分至各能為根。』 explains the content of the second verse. 『言。于眾同分住中命根有增上用者。』 explains the function of the life-root (jīvitendriya). 『言。于雜染中至無明隨增故。』 explains the enhancing effect of the five feeling-roots (vedanendriya). 『言。于清凈中至引聖道故。』 explains the enhancing effect of the five roots of faith (śraddhā), etc. 『言。言應知者至各能為根』 explains the word 『should be known』 in the verse.
『論。三無漏根至有增上用』 explains the third verse.
『論。言亦爾者至各能為根。』 explains the word 『also』 in the verse.
『論。謂未知當知根至能般涅槃故。』 explains the enhancing effect of obtaining the later and later paths and nirvana (nirvāṇa), etc., in the verse.
『論。等言為顯至解脫喜樂故』 explains the word 『etc.』 in the verse. 『等言為顯更有異門。』 explains the enhancing effect. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) believes that this statement is unreasonable, because the co-nascent root should not be a root (because it is not the basis of consciousness, so it should not be a root). Do you also have this fault? (The Sautrāntika (經部) retorted: Your non-common affairs, etc., take seeing, hearing, etc., as enhancing, but the co-nascent eye cannot see colors, so it should not be a root). I don't have this fault, because I said that it has an enhancing effect on adorning the body.
(彼同分眼雖無餘三增上。有嚴身等增上用也)。又非一切與能了別一切色識為通因性。以諸眼根剎那滅故了諸色識不俱生故。若言眼類無差別者。色亦應同。類無異故。若謂青．黃種類別者。眼亦應爾。有異熟生．及所長養類不同故(準此見青．黃色眼根不別)。識但隨根有明．昧者。此亦非因。識體生已方可得有隨根明．昧(未生不可說隨根也)。未生令生增上力等。隨闕一種即不生故(未生令生。若色若根隨闕一種識即不生。此說根與境等)。若作俱舍師彈。只由未生令生之根有明．昧故。識隨眼根有明．昧生誰言識獨至現已方說隨耶。又現在世唯一剎那。如何得有轉明作昧移昧作明耶 或識隨根有明．昧故。導養身義應許在根。眼用若增隨發勝識能避險難導養于身。眼用若微隨發劣識不了險難令身顛墜。故導養身在根非識 彈曰避險導身親由識濟。今既廢親立遠一何誤耶 正理又云。又於此中有何少異。前門已顯眼等諸根發眼等識及相應法。今此門中略彼一分。非己所見何足生欣。既無別義不應重說 即是於我前說中減卻一分。所不略者還說我說。何足生喜。已下諸根言同我說。
論。若增上故至增上用故。論主假立賓．主釋難 于中有二。一假設難。二正通難 就難之中先舉自宗難。次舉數論難。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 （即使同類的眼根沒有其餘三種增上，也有嚴身等增上作用）。而且，並非一切眼根都具有作為能了別一切色識的通因的性質。因為眼根的剎那滅，導致了別色識不能同時產生。如果說眼根的種類沒有差別，那麼色也應該相同，因為種類沒有差異。如果說青色、黃色等種類有差別，那麼眼根也應該如此，因為有異熟生以及所長養的種類不同（由此可見青色、黃色的眼根沒有區別）。如果說識只是隨著根而有明、昧，這也不是原因。識體產生之後，才可能隨著根而有明、昧（未產生時不能說隨著根）。未生令生的增上力等，缺少一種就不產生（未生令生，無論是色還是根，缺少一種識就不產生。這裡說的是根與境等）。如果像俱舍師那樣反駁，只因爲未生令生的根有明、昧，所以識隨著眼根有明、昧產生，誰說識獨自到了現已才說隨著根呢？而且現在世只有一個剎那，如何能有轉明作昧、移昧作明呢？或者說，因為識隨著根有明、昧，所以引導養護身體的意義應該在根。眼的作用如果增強，隨著發出殊勝的識，就能避開危險，引導養護身體。眼的作用如果微弱，隨著發出低劣的識，不能瞭解危險，使身體顛倒墜落。所以引導養護身體在於根，而不是識。 反駁說：避開危險、引導身體，親身依靠的是識的幫助。現在既然廢棄親近的，而建立疏遠的，這是多麼大的錯誤啊！《正理》又說：又於此中有何少許差異？前面已經闡明眼等諸根產生眼等識以及相應的法。現在這個門中省略了其中的一部分。不是自己所見，有什麼值得高興的？既然沒有別的意義，就不應該重複說。也就是在我前面所說中減去了一部分。所沒有省略的，還是說我說過的，有什麼值得高興的。以下諸根的說法與我說過的相同。 論：如果因為增上，以至於增上作用。論主假設賓、主來解釋難題。其中有二：一是假設難，二是正式通難。在難之中，先舉出自宗的難，再舉出數論的難。這裡
【English Translation】 English version (Even if the eye-faculty of the same class does not have the remaining three kinds of dominance, it still has the dominant function of adorning the body, etc.). Moreover, not all eye-faculties have the nature of being a common cause for distinguishing all color-cognitions. Because the eye-faculty perishes in an instant, the distinguishing of color-cognitions cannot arise simultaneously. If it is said that there is no difference in the class of eye-faculties, then colors should also be the same, because there is no difference in class. If it is said that there are differences in the classes of blue, yellow, etc., then eye-faculties should also be like that, because there are differences in the classes of resultant-born and nurtured (from this, it can be seen that there is no difference between blue and yellow eye-faculties). If it is said that cognition only has clarity or obscurity depending on the faculty, this is also not a cause. Only after the entity of cognition has arisen can it have clarity or obscurity depending on the faculty (it cannot be said to depend on the faculty when it has not arisen). The dominant power of causing the unarisen to arise, etc., will not arise if one is missing (causing the unarisen to arise, whether it is color or faculty, cognition will not arise if one is missing. This refers to the faculty and the object, etc.). If one refutes like the Kosa master, it is only because the faculty that causes the unarisen to arise has clarity or obscurity, so cognition arises with clarity or obscurity depending on the eye-faculty. Who says that cognition only says it depends on the faculty after it has already appeared? Moreover, the present world only has one instant, how can there be turning clarity into obscurity, or moving obscurity into clarity? Or, because cognition has clarity or obscurity depending on the faculty, the meaning of guiding and nourishing the body should be in the faculty. If the function of the eye increases, then with the arising of superior cognition, it can avoid danger and guide and nourish the body. If the function of the eye is weak, then with the arising of inferior cognition, it cannot understand danger, causing the body to fall. Therefore, guiding and nourishing the body is in the faculty, not in cognition. The refutation says: Avoiding danger and guiding the body is personally dependent on the help of cognition. Now that the close one is abandoned and the distant one is established, what a great mistake this is! The Nyaya Sutra also says: What little difference is there in this? It has already been explained in the previous chapter that the eye and other faculties produce eye-cognitions and corresponding dharmas. In this chapter, a part of them is omitted. What is not seen by oneself, what is there to be happy about? Since there is no other meaning, it should not be repeated. That is, a part is subtracted from what I said earlier. What is not omitted is still saying what I said, what is there to be happy about? The following statements about the faculties are the same as what I said. Treatise: If it is because of dominance, to the point of dominant function. The author of the treatise assumes a guest and host to explain the difficult question. There are two things in it: first, assuming the difficulty; second, formally explaining the difficulty. Among the difficulties, first, the difficulty of one's own school is raised, and then the difficulty of the Samkhya school is raised. Here
即先舉自宗難也 正理論云。若增上故立為根者。于愛．見品諸煩惱中。受．想二法有增上用。想應如受亦立為根。又諸煩惱于能損壞善品等中。有增上用應成根體。又最勝故建立諸根。一切法中涅槃最勝。何緣不立涅槃為根。
論。又語具等至有增上用。此即次舉數論難也。彼論有二十五諦義。言二十五者 一我。彼計常。我思為體。性但是受者而非作者。餘二十四諦是我之所受用 二自性以薩埵．剌阇．答摩為體。亦名苦．樂．癡。亦名憂．喜．暗。此三種如我之臣佐。我若欲得受用境時。即為我變。未變之時各住自性。故名自性 三從自性生大。謂我思量欲得受用諸境界時。三法即知。動轉之時其體大故名之為大 四從大生我執。謂緣彼我故名我執 五從我執生五唯量。謂色．聲．香．味．觸。足前為九 六從五唯量生五大。謂地．水．火．風．空。足前為十四。謂色能生火。以火赤色故。聲能生空。以空中有聲故。香能生地地中多香故。味能生水。以水中多味故。觸能生風能觸身故 七從五大生十一根。謂眼．耳．鼻．舌．身．意．手．足．大便處．小便處．語具即是肉舌。足前為二十五諦 謂火能生眼還能見色。空能生耳還能聞聲。地能生鼻還能嗅香。水能生舌還能嘗味。風能生身還能覺觸。五大並
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 首先，這是引用自宗派的論點來提出質疑。《正理論》中說：『如果因為增上的緣故而建立為根，那麼在愛、見等品類的各種煩惱中，受、想這兩種法有增上的作用。想應該像受一樣也被立為根。』此外，各種煩惱在能夠損壞善品等方面有增上的作用，應該成為根的本體。而且，因為最殊勝的緣故而建立諸根，一切法中涅槃最殊勝，為什麼不立涅槃為根呢？
論中又說：『語具等至有增上的作用。』這接下來是引用數論的論點來提出質疑。他們的理論有二十五諦的意義。所說的二十五諦是：一、我（Atman），他們認為是常存的，以思為本體。自性只是受用者而不是作者。其餘二十四諦是『我』所受用的。二、自性（Prakriti），以薩埵（Sattva）、剌阇（Rajas）、答摩（Tamas）為本體，也叫做苦、樂、癡，也叫做憂、喜、暗。這三種就像『我』的臣佐，『我』如果想要受用境界時，它們就為『我』變化。未變化的時候各自安住于自性，所以叫做自性。三、從自性生出大（Mahat），意思是當『我』思量想要受用各種境界時，這三種法就知曉了。在動轉的時候，它的本體廣大，所以叫做大。四、從大生出我執（Ahamkara），意思是緣于彼此而叫做我執。五、從我執生出五唯量（Tanmatras），指的是色（rupa）、聲（shabda）、香（gandha）、味（rasa）、觸（sparsha），加上前面的，總共有九個。六、從五唯量生出五大（Mahabhutas），指的是地（prthivi）、水（ap）、火（tejas）、風（vayu）、空（akasha），加上前面的，總共有十四個。其中，色能生火，因為火是赤色的緣故。聲能生空，因為空中能有聲音的緣故。香能生地，因為地中有很多香味的緣故。味能生水，因為水中有很多味道的緣故。觸能生風，因為風能觸及身體的緣故。七、從五大生出十一根（Indriyas），指的是眼（caksu）、耳（shrotra）、鼻（ghrana）、舌（jihva）、身（kaya）、意（manas）、手（pani）、足（pada）、大便處（payu）、小便處（upastha）、語具（vak），也就是肉舌。加上前面的，總共有二十五諦。其中，火能生眼，還能見色；空能生耳，還能聞聲；地能生鼻，還能嗅香；水能生舌，還能嘗味；風能生身，還能覺觸。五大並……』
【English Translation】 English version: First, this is raising a challenge by quoting arguments from its own sect. The Nyaya Sutra says: 'If something is established as a root because of its predominance, then among the afflictions of attachment and wrong views, feeling (vedana) and perception (samjna) have predominant functions. Perception should also be established as a root like feeling.' Furthermore, various afflictions have predominant functions in damaging wholesome qualities, etc., and should become the substance of roots. Moreover, since the roots are established because of their supreme excellence, and Nirvana (Nirvana) is the most excellent among all dharmas, why isn't Nirvana established as a root?
The treatise also says: 'The faculty of speech, along with meditative states, has a predominant function.' This next is raising a challenge by quoting arguments from the Samkhya school. Their theory has the meaning of the twenty-five Tattvas (Tattvas). The so-called twenty-five Tattvas are: 1. Atman (Atman), which they consider to be permanent, with thought as its essence. The nature is only the enjoyer and not the creator. The remaining twenty-four Tattvas are what the 'Atman' enjoys. 2. Prakriti (Prakriti), with Sattva (Sattva), Rajas (Rajas), and Tamas (Tamas) as its essence, also called suffering, pleasure, and delusion, also called sorrow, joy, and darkness. These three are like the ministers of the 'Atman'; if the 'Atman' wants to enjoy objects, they transform for the 'Atman'. When not transformed, they each abide in their own nature, so it is called Prakriti. 3. From Prakriti arises Mahat (Mahat), meaning when the 'Atman' contemplates wanting to enjoy various objects, these three dharmas know it. When moving and turning, its substance is vast, so it is called Mahat. 4. From Mahat arises Ahamkara (Ahamkara), meaning it is called Ahamkara because of its relation to 'I' and 'mine'. 5. From Ahamkara arise the five Tanmatras (Tanmatras), referring to form (rupa), sound (shabda), smell (gandha), taste (rasa), and touch (sparsha), adding up to nine with the previous ones. 6. From the five Tanmatras arise the five Mahabhutas (Mahabhutas), referring to earth (prthivi), water (ap), fire (tejas), wind (vayu), and space (akasha), adding up to fourteen with the previous ones. Among them, form can produce fire because fire is red. Sound can produce space because there can be sound in space. Smell can produce earth because there are many smells in the earth. Taste can produce water because there are many tastes in the water. Touch can produce wind because wind can touch the body. 7. From the five Mahabhutas arise the eleven Indriyas (Indriyas), referring to the eye (caksu), ear (shrotra), nose (ghrana), tongue (jihva), body (kaya), mind (manas), hand (pani), foot (pada), anus (payu), genitals (upastha), and the faculty of speech (vak), which is the fleshy tongue. Adding up to twenty-five Tattvas with the previous ones. Among them, fire can produce the eye and can also see form; space can produce the ear and can also hear sound; earth can produce the nose and can also smell; water can produce the tongue and can also taste; wind can produce the body and can also feel touch. The five Mahabhutas together...'
能生意．手．足．大便處．小便處．語具。彼計肉心名意。彼宗所執諸法是常。如轉變金成環玔等。金色不改環等相異 若我欲得受用境時。從自性生大。從大生我執。從我執生五唯量。從五唯量生五大。從五大生十一根 若我不受用境時。從十一根卻入五大。從五大卻入五唯量。從五唯量卻入我執。從我執卻入大。從大卻入自性 今約彼宗十一根中五作業根為難。語具謂肉舌于語有增上用。手于執有增上。足於行有增上。大便處於棄捨便穢增上。小便處於淫慾樂事增上。此等並有增上應立為根。
論。如是等事至有如是相。下一頌第三論主為曇無德建立根也。以語具等自余諸法無根相故。不立為根。
論曰至是有情本。釋所依也 內六處是有情本故是心所依。外六處非有情本故。非心所依 有情本者。內六處中全是有情。外六處中一分是情。由內六處故。有扶根四境等故。根是其本。
論。此相差別。已下釋余根作用 此者。此上六根也。不可此有情。有情無體故。即以六處為其體故。不可言此心．心所法。男女相別多是色故。真諦等云此六處也 相別。令住。如文可解 此成雜染由五受根。雜染有二。一與煩惱相應故名雜染此即意根。二以被煩惱緣縛故。故名雜染此通六根。
論。此凈
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 他們認為能進行交易、手、足、大便處、小便處、語言工具（語具）都屬於『根』。他們認為肉體的心臟是『意』（manas）。他們宗派所執著的諸法是常恒不變的，就像轉變黃金成為環、釧等飾品，黃金的顏色不變，而環、釧等形狀各異一樣。如果我想要獲得受用境界時，從自性（prakriti）產生大（mahat），從大產生我執（ahamkara），從我執產生五唯量（tanmatra），從五唯量產生五大（mahabhuta），從五大產生十一根（ekadasendriya）。如果我不受用境界時，從十一根返回五大，從五大返回五唯量，從五唯量返回我執，從我執返回大，從大返回自性。現在針對他們宗派的十一根中的五作業根進行詰難：語言工具（語具）指的是肉舌，對於語言有增上的作用；手對於執取有增上的作用；足對於行走有增上的作用；大便處對於棄捨便穢有增上的作用；小便處對於淫慾快樂的事情有增上的作用。這些都具有增上的作用，應該被立為『根』。 論：像這些事情，乃至具有這樣的相狀。下一頌，第三論主為曇無德（Dharmottara）建立『根』。因為語言工具（語具）等其餘諸法沒有『根』的相狀，所以不被立為『根』。 論曰：乃至是有情之根本。解釋所依之處。內六處是有情之根本，所以是心所依之處。外六處不是有情之根本，所以不是心所依之處。有情之根本指的是，內六處全部是有情，外六處中一部分是有情。因為有內六處，所以有扶根四境等，因此『根』是其根本。 論：此相差別。以下解釋其餘『根』的作用。此指的是，此上的六根。不能說是此有情，因為有情沒有實體，而是以六處作為其體，所以不能說此心、心所法。男女的相貌差別大多是色法所致。真諦（Paramartha）等人說的是此六處。相別，令住，如文可解。此成就雜染是由五受根。雜染有兩種，一種是與煩惱相應，所以名為雜染，這指的是意根。另一種是被煩惱緣縛，所以名為雜染，這通於六根。 論：此清凈
【English Translation】 English version They consider the ability to trade, hands, feet, the anus, the urethra, and speech instruments (vāk-karaṇa) to be 'roots' (indriya). They consider the physical heart to be 'mind' (manas). Their school asserts that all dharmas are permanent, just as transforming gold into rings, bracelets, etc., does not change the color of the gold, while the shapes of the rings and bracelets differ. If I desire to experience an object, from prakriti (self-nature) arises mahat (the great), from mahat arises ahamkara (ego-consciousness), from ahamkara arise the five tanmatras (subtle elements), from the five tanmatras arise the five mahabhutas (gross elements), and from the five mahabhutas arise the eleven indriyas (organs). If I do not experience an object, from the eleven indriyas they revert to the five mahabhutas, from the five mahabhutas they revert to the five tanmatras, from the five tanmatras they revert to ahamkara, from ahamkara they revert to mahat, and from mahat they revert to prakriti. Now, we challenge their school's assertion regarding the five karmendriyas (organs of action) among the eleven indriyas: the speech instrument (vāk-karaṇa) refers to the physical tongue, which has an enhancing function in speech; hands have an enhancing function in grasping; feet have an enhancing function in walking; the anus has an enhancing function in discarding excrement; the urethra has an enhancing function in sexual pleasure. These all have enhancing functions and should be established as 'roots'. Treatise: Such matters, even possessing such characteristics. The next verse establishes 'roots' according to the third master, Dharmottara. Because speech instruments (vāk-karaṇa) and other dharmas do not have the characteristics of 'roots', they are not established as 'roots'. Treatise says: Even to the root of sentient beings. Explaining the place of reliance. The six internal ayatanas (sense bases) are the root of sentient beings, therefore they are the place of reliance for the mind. The six external ayatanas are not the root of sentient beings, therefore they are not the place of reliance for the mind. The root of sentient beings refers to the fact that the six internal ayatanas are entirely sentient, while a portion of the six external ayatanas are sentient. Because of the six internal ayatanas, there are the four supporting conditions of the roots, etc., therefore the 'roots' are their foundation. Treatise: This difference in characteristics. Below explains the function of the remaining 'roots'. 'This' refers to the six roots mentioned above. It cannot be said to be 'this sentient being' because sentient beings have no substance, but rather take the six ayatanas as their substance, therefore it cannot be said to be 'this mind' or 'mental factors'. The differences in appearance between male and female are mostly due to form (rupa). Paramartha and others speak of these six ayatanas. 'Difference in characteristics, causing to abide,' can be understood as the text explains. This attainment of defilement is due to the five vedana-indriyas (feeling-organs). There are two types of defilement: one is associated with afflictions (kleshas), therefore it is called defilement, which refers to the mind-organ (manas-indriya). The other is bound by the conditions of afflictions, therefore it is called defilement, which applies to all six roots. Treatise: This purity
資糧由信等五者。眼等清凈資糧謂信等五。
論。此成清凈由后三根。此有三種。若體無漏故名清凈即唯意根。若離自煩惱縛。及還滅故名清凈者。即通眼等六根。
論。由此立根事皆究竟。結上成根。
論。是故不應至增上用故。此顯余法非根攝也。正理論云。不應更立想等為根。諸煩惱中愛過最重故。唯立受與彼為根。愛過重者。以契經說愛與六處為生因故。又想非見煩惱生因。余因發生顛倒見已妄分別。想持令相續。離正對治不可斷壞。故說此想與彼為因。受為愛因俱通二種。受為過重煩惱因故。通二因故。獨立為根。
論。復有餘師別說根相。下一頌第三述余師建立二十二根。二十二根是經說故。諸師皆無增減其數建立是論師意所以諸說不同。
論曰至二十二根。釋頌或字顯余師執。約生死流轉．還滅。最勝所依．生．住．受用有增上故建立諸根。生死相續是流轉義。生死止息是還滅義。即是六處畢竟斷滅。正理論云。生死相續是流轉義。生死止息是還滅義。即是六處畢竟斷滅 婆沙一百云。流轉者謂更受生。還滅者謂趣涅槃。
論。流轉所依謂眼等六。此說六根為流轉依。
論。生由女男從彼生故。此意偏說欲界胎．卵生也。此中有難。行．執有用於口．腹。
由茲不定手．足不立根。生中亦有不依男．女根。此亦不定應非根。
論。由命根住杖彼住故。此說眼等六根杖命住故。
論。受用由五受因彼領納故。此意顯受有增上。
論。約此建立前十四根。結也。
論。還滅位中至立后八根。亦約四義以立后八。
論。還滅所依謂信等五。正理釋云。生死止息是還滅義。即是六處畢竟斷滅。此得所依謂信等五(此得者是擇滅得。或是六處不生。即非擇滅得也)。以是一切善根生長最勝因故。
論。於三無漏至由后受用。正理釋云。初無漏根能生此得。正定聚中此初生故。次無漏根令此得住。由彼長時相續起故。后無漏根令得受用現法樂住。彼所顯故。
論。根量由此無減無增。總結數決定也。
論。即由此緣經立次第。此明經中先說內六處。次說男．女。次說命根。次說五受。次說信等五根。次說三無漏根 不言論說次第者。以論意根于命根后說。不依此次第也。
論。不應語具。已下彈斥外道立十一根。有與釋同。有與釋別。與前同者不破。與異者即破之 言。不應語具至語方成故者。如能見色不待學成。若舌于語有增上用。應自能語不待學成。正理云。又語具等亦不名根。不定．雜亂．太過失故。不定失者。何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 由於這個原因，（這些根）不能確定是手，腳也不能穩固地站立。在生命中，也有不依賴於男性或女性性器官的情況。因此，這些不確定的東西不應被認為是根（indriya）。
論：因為命根（jīvitendriya）是依靠，它們才能存在。這裡說的是眼等六根（ṣaḍindriya）依靠命根才能存在。
論：感受（vedanā）的受用是因為五種感受的因，它們領納感受。這表明感受具有增上的作用。
論：根據這些，建立了前面的十四根。這是總結。
論：在還滅位（nirodha-samāpatti）中，建立了後面的八根。也是根據四種意義來建立後面的八根。
論：還滅所依賴的是信等五根（śraddhendriya, vīryendriya, smṛtīndriya, samādhīndriya, prajñendriya）。《正理釋》解釋說：『生死止息就是還滅的意義，也就是六處（ṣaḍāyatana）的徹底斷滅。』這種獲得所依賴的是信等五根（這裡所說的『獲得』是指擇滅得，或者是六處不生，也就是非擇滅得）。因為這是一切善根生長的最殊勝的因。
論：在三種無漏根（anāsravendriya）中，由後面的受用。《正理釋》解釋說：『最初的無漏根能夠產生這種獲得，因為在正定聚（samyaktva-niyata-rāśi）中，這是最初產生的。其次的無漏根使這種獲得保持住，因為它們長時間地相續生起。後面的無漏根使獲得能夠受用現法樂住（dṛṣṭadharmasukhavihāra），因為它們所顯現的。』
論：根的數量由此沒有減少也沒有增加。這是總結數量的決定。
論：就是因為這個緣故，經中建立了次第。這裡說明經中先說內六處（adhyātmikāni ṣaḍāyatanāni），其次說男女根（strīndriya, puruṣendriya），其次說命根（jīvitendriya），其次說五受（pañca vedanā），其次說信等五根（śraddhendriya, vīryendriya, smṛtīndriya, samādhīndriya, prajñendriya），其次說三種無漏根（anāsravendriya）。不說論中說的次第，是因為論中意根（mana-indriya）在命根（jīvitendriya）之後說，不依照這個次第。
論：不應該說具備。以下是彈斥外道建立的十一根。有些與解釋相同，有些與解釋不同。與前面相同的就不破斥，與不同的就破斥。說『不應該說具備，到語言才能成就』，例如能看見顏色不需要學習才能成就。如果舌頭對於語言有增上的作用，應該自己就能說話，不需要學習才能成就。《正理》說：『而且語具等也不能稱為根，因為有不定、雜亂、太過等過失。』不定失是指什麼？
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, (these indriyas) cannot be definitely hands, nor can the feet stand firmly. In life, there are also cases that do not rely on male or female sexual organs. Therefore, these uncertain things should not be considered indriyas (roots).
Treatise: Because the jīvitendriya (life faculty) is the support, they can exist. This says that the six indriyas (ṣaḍindriya), such as the eye, rely on the jīvitendriya to exist.
Treatise: The enjoyment of vedanā (feeling) is because of the causes of the five feelings, which receive the feelings. This shows that feeling has an increasing effect.
Treatise: Based on these, the previous fourteen indriyas are established. This is a summary.
Treatise: In nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment), the latter eight indriyas are established. The latter eight indriyas are also established based on four meanings.
Treatise: What nirodha (cessation) relies on are the five indriyas of faith, etc. (śraddhendriya, vīryendriya, smṛtīndriya, samādhīndriya, prajñendriya). The Nyāyānusāra explains: 'The cessation of birth and death is the meaning of nirodha, which is the complete cessation of the six āyatanas (ṣaḍāyatana).' This attainment relies on the five indriyas of faith, etc. (Here, 'attainment' refers to pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, or the non-arising of the six āyatanas, which is apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). Because this is the most excellent cause for the growth of all good roots.
Treatise: Among the three anāsravendriyas (un outflow indriyas), from the subsequent enjoyment. The Nyāyānusāra explains: 'The first anāsravendriya can produce this attainment, because it is the first to arise in the samyaktva-niyata-rāśi (rightly fixed group). The second anāsravendriya keeps this attainment, because they arise continuously for a long time. The latter anāsravendriya enables the attainment to enjoy dṛṣṭadharmasukhavihāra (dwelling in happiness in the present life), because they manifest it.'
Treatise: The quantity of indriyas does not decrease or increase from this. This is a summary of the determination of the number.
Treatise: It is because of this reason that the order is established in the sutras. This explains that the sutras first speak of the six internal āyatanas (adhyātmikāni ṣaḍāyatanāni), then the male and female indriyas (strīndriya, puruṣendriya), then the jīvitendriya (life faculty), then the five vedanās (pañca vedanā), then the five indriyas of faith, etc. (śraddhendriya, vīryendriya, smṛtīndriya, samādhīndriya, prajñendriya), and then the three anāsravendriyas (un outflow indriyas). The order mentioned in the treatise is not followed because the mana-indriya (mind faculty) is mentioned after the jīvitendriya (life faculty) in the treatise.
Treatise: It should not be said to be equipped. The following is a refutation of the eleven indriyas established by externalists. Some are the same as the explanation, and some are different from the explanation. Those that are the same as the previous ones are not refuted, and those that are different are refuted. Saying 'It should not be said to be equipped, until language can be accomplished,' for example, being able to see colors does not require learning to be accomplished. If the tongue has an increasing effect on language, it should be able to speak on its own, without learning to be accomplished. The Nyāya says: 'Moreover, language tools, etc., cannot be called indriyas, because there are faults such as uncertainty, confusion, and excessiveness.' What does the fault of uncertainty refer to?
等語具立為語根。能發言音名為語具。此即是舌。若爾則應尋．伺等法．及能引起語業諸風。亦立為根。能發語故 又尋．伺等於發言音是勝因故。若謂了色亦由言故。不應獨立眼為根者。理必不然。諸生盲人雖聞說色。不了青等差別相故。
論。手．足不應至建立為根。破手．足也 異處。謂運動 異相。謂申．屈 余文可了 已上不定．雜亂失也。
論。出大便處至起此樂故。前難有雜亂失。后難無別增上。
論。又諸喉齒至不應立根。此是太過失也。正理云。太過失者彼所立根應無限量等 問七十五法何故色唯五根。心王全。通中唯取受．念．定慧四。善中唯取信．勤二法。不相應中唯取命根。不取余法 答若依余師。此十三法于流轉．還滅有勝用故建立為根。余用非勝不立根也。若依曇無德。即此十三法是心所依。此別。此住。此雜染。此資糧。此凈故立為根。余法不爾不立為根。正理問云。諸法相望各各別有增上用故。應併名根。答云此極增上別說義成。如師子王．及村邑主 如前已引此文 問此中將勝能作因對增上果當立為根 豈能親于因緣對果而反不立根耶。
論。此中眼等至亦當廣辨。上來六頌建立二十二根。下兩頌第二釋根體相。于中有二。先指當余根。后釋五受．及三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
能使語言完整表達的要素被認為是語根。能夠發出聲音的工具被稱為語具。這裡指的是舌頭。如果這樣，那麼尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，精細的思考）等心理活動，以及能夠引起語言行為的各種風息，也應該被認為是語根，因為它們也能發出聲音。而且，尋和伺對於發出聲音來說是更重要的原因。如果有人說，『瞭解顏色也是通過語言實現的，所以不應該單獨建立眼根』，那麼這個理由肯定是不成立的。因為天生的盲人即使聽到別人描述顏色，也無法瞭解青色等各種顏色的差別。 手和足不應該被建立為根。這是對手和足的反駁。『異處』指的是運動，『異相』指的是伸展和彎曲。其餘的文字可以理解。以上是不確定、雜亂的錯誤。 從『出大便處』到『產生這種快樂』。前面的反駁有雜亂的錯誤，後面的反駁沒有特別的增上作用。 還有，各種喉嚨、牙齒等，不應該被建立為根。這是一個太過分的錯誤。《正理》中說，『太過分的錯誤是指，他們所建立的根應該沒有**等作用』。有人問：在七十五法中，為什麼色法只有五根，心王是全部，通於三性的法中只取受（Vedana，感受）、念（Smrti，正念）、定（Samadhi，禪定）、慧（Prajna，智慧）四種，善法中只取信（Sraddha，信心）、勤（Virya，精進）兩種，不相應行法中只取命根（Jivitindriya，生命力），而不取其餘的法呢？』回答是：如果按照其他老師的觀點，這十三種法在流轉和還滅的過程中有重要的作用，所以被建立為根。其餘的作用不重要，所以不被建立為根。如果按照曇無德的觀點，這十三種法是心所依賴的，是心的差別、心的住所、心的雜染、心的資糧、心的清凈，所以被建立為根。其餘的法不是這樣，所以不被建立為根。《正理》中問道：『各種法相互之間都有增上作用，所以應該都叫做根。』回答說：『這是極大的增上作用，特別說明了它的意義。』就像獅子王和村莊的首領一樣。前面已經引用過這段文字。有人問：『這裡將殊勝的能作因對增上果，應當建立為根，難道能親近於因緣對果反而不建立為根嗎？』 這裡，眼等根的作用也應當廣泛地辨析。上面六頌建立了二十二根。下面兩頌是第二部分，解釋根的體相。其中有兩點：首先指出其餘的根，然後解釋五種感受和三種...
【English Translation】 English version:
The elements that enable complete expression of language are considered linguistic roots. The tools capable of producing sounds are called linguistic instruments. This refers to the tongue. If so, then mental activities such as Vitarka (initial application of thought) and Vicara (sustained application of thought), as well as the various winds that can cause verbal actions, should also be considered roots because they can also produce sounds. Moreover, Vitarka and Vicara are more important causes for producing sounds. If someone says, 'Understanding colors is also achieved through language, so the eye-faculty should not be established independently,' then this reasoning is certainly invalid. Because congenitally blind people, even if they hear others describe colors, cannot understand the differences between blue and other colors. Hands and feet should not be established as roots. This is a refutation of hands and feet. 'Different location' refers to movement, and 'different aspect' refers to extension and contraction. The remaining text can be understood. The above are uncertain and confused errors. From 'the place of excrement' to 'arising this pleasure.' The previous refutation has confused errors, and the latter refutation has no special augmentation. Furthermore, various throats, teeth, etc., should not be established as roots. This is an excessive error. The Nyaya-sutra says, 'An excessive error means that the roots they establish should not have functions such as .' Someone asks: 'Among the seventy-five dharmas, why are there only five sense faculties for form, the mind-king is all-encompassing, among the dharmas common to the three natures, only Vedana (feeling), Smrti (mindfulness), Samadhi (concentration), and Prajna (wisdom) are taken, among the wholesome dharmas, only Sraddha (faith) and Virya (effort) are taken, and among the non-associated formations, only Jivitindriya (life-faculty) is taken, while the remaining dharmas are not taken?' The answer is: 'According to other teachers, these thirteen dharmas have important functions in the process of transmigration and cessation, so they are established as roots. The remaining functions are not important, so they are not established as roots. According to Dharmatrata, these thirteen dharmas are what the mind relies on, they are the mind's difference, the mind's dwelling, the mind's defilement, the mind's resources, and the mind's purification, so they are established as roots. The remaining dharmas are not like this, so they are not established as roots.' The Nyaya-sutra asks: 'Since various dharmas have augmenting functions in relation to each other, they should all be called roots.' The answer is: 'This is an extremely great augmentation, and its meaning is specifically explained.' Just like the lion king and the village chief. The previous text has already quoted this passage. Someone asks: 'Here, the superior efficient cause for the augmenting result should be established as a root, but how can it be that what is close to the causal condition for the result is not established as a root?' Here, the functions of the eye-faculty and other faculties should also be widely analyzed. The above six verses establish the twenty-two roots. The following two verses are the second part, explaining the nature of the roots. There are two points: first, pointing out the remaining roots, and then explaining the five feelings and the three...
無漏。此即初也。
論。樂等五受至依九立三根者。后釋五受．及三無漏根。受有三種。一攝益。二損惱。三非損非益 又有二種。一身受。謂五識相應。二心受。謂意識相應 身受攝益。及第三禪心受攝益名樂受。身受損惱名苦受 心受第二禪已下攝益名喜受。損惱名憂受 通在身．心非損非益名舍受。
論曰至名為苦根。釋苦受也。
論。所言悅者至心悅名樂釋樂受也。
論。即此心悅至名為喜根。釋喜受也。
論。第三靜慮至唯名喜根。此釋三禪名樂。下地名喜所以。
論。意識相應至名曰憂根。釋憂受也。
論。中謂非悅至應言通二釋舍受也。
論。何因此二總立一根。問也。何因悅與不悅。在身．在心。受名各別。非悅非不悅。在心．在身。合為舍受。
論。此受在身心至身心合一。釋妨難也。
論。又苦樂受至故總立根。更重釋也。
論。意樂喜舍至立具知根。此釋三無漏根 于中有二。先以九根。于其三道立為三根。后釋三根得名所由。此即初也。
論。如是三名因何而立。自此已下釋三根名。先問后答 問云因何名未知當知根等。
論。謂在見道至名未知當知。此釋初無漏根名也。智名為知。忍非知故。在見道中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無漏。此即初也。』
論：樂等五受至依九立三根者。后釋五受．及三無漏根。受有三種。一攝益。二損惱。三非損非益。又有二種。一身受。謂五識相應。二心受。謂意識相應。身受攝益。及第三禪心受攝益名樂受。身受損惱名苦受。心受第二禪已下攝益名喜受。損惱名憂受。通在身．心非損非益名舍受。
論曰至名為苦根。釋苦受也。
論：所言悅者至心悅名樂釋樂受也。
論：即此心悅至名為喜根。釋喜受也。
論：第三靜慮至唯名喜根。此釋三禪名樂。下地名喜所以。
論：意識相應至名曰憂根。釋憂受也。
論：中謂非悅至應言通二釋舍受也。
論：何因此二總立一根。問也。何因悅與不悅。在身．在心。受名各別。非悅非不悅。在心．在身。合為舍受。
論：此受在身心至身心合一。釋妨難也。
論：又苦樂受至故總立根。更重釋也。
論：意樂喜舍至立具知根。此釋三無漏根。于中有二。先以九根。于其三道立為三根。后釋三根得名所由。此即初也。
論：如是三名因何而立。自此已下釋三根名。先問后答。問云因何名未知當知根等。
論：謂在見道至名未知當知。此釋初無漏根名也。智名為知。忍非知故。在見道中
【English Translation】 English version 'No outflows. This is the beginning.'
Treatise: That the five feelings such as pleasure, etc., are established as three roots based on the nine roots. Later, the five feelings and the three roots without outflows will be explained. There are three types of feelings: 1. Beneficial. 2. Harmful. 3. Neither harmful nor beneficial. There are also two types: 1. Bodily feeling, which corresponds to the five consciousnesses. 2. Mental feeling, which corresponds to the mind consciousness. Beneficial bodily feeling and beneficial mental feeling of the third Dhyana (meditative state) are called pleasure feeling. Harmful bodily feeling is called pain feeling. Beneficial mental feeling from the second Dhyana downwards is called joy feeling. Harmful feeling is called sorrow feeling. That which is neither harmful nor beneficial, present in both body and mind, is called neutral feeling.
The treatise says up to 'is called the root of suffering'. This explains the feeling of suffering.
Treatise: That which is called 'pleasant' up to 'mental pleasure is called pleasure' explains the feeling of pleasure.
Treatise: 'This mental pleasure' up to 'is called the root of joy' explains the feeling of joy.
Treatise: 'The third Dhyana' up to 'is only called the root of joy'. This explains why the third Dhyana is called pleasure, and the lower realms are called joy.
Treatise: 'Corresponding to the mind consciousness' up to 'is called the root of sorrow' explains the feeling of sorrow.
Treatise: 'Neutral' means 'neither pleasant' up to 'should be said to encompass both' explains the feeling of neutrality.
Treatise: 'Why are these two collectively established as one root?' This is a question. Why are pleasant and unpleasant feelings, whether in the body or in the mind, named separately? And why are neither pleasant nor unpleasant feelings, whether in the mind or in the body, combined into neutral feeling?
Treatise: 'This feeling is in the body and mind' up to 'body and mind are combined into one'. This explains the refutation of the difficulty.
Treatise: 'Moreover, the feelings of suffering and pleasure' up to 'therefore they are collectively established as a root'. This is a further explanation.
Treatise: 'Mental pleasure, joy, and neutrality' up to 'establish the root of complete knowledge'. This explains the three roots without outflows. Within this, there are two aspects: first, the nine roots are used to establish the three roots in the three paths; second, the reason for the names of the three roots is explained. This is the beginning.
Treatise: 'Why are these three names established?' From here onwards, the names of the three roots are explained. First a question, then an answer. The question is: why are they called the 'root of the one who does not yet know that he will know', etc.?
Treatise: 'That which is in the path of seeing' up to 'is called the one who does not yet know that he will know'. This explains the name of the first root without outflows. 'Wisdom' is called 'knowing'. 'Patience' is not knowing. It is in the path of seeing.
苦法智忍位。有八諦未知當知行轉。至苦法智位有七未知當知行。乃至道類忍位有色．無色道諦未知當知行故。故十五心皆名未知當知根也。
論。若在修道至名為已知。此釋第二無漏根名也。至道類智已知諦周盡。無未曾知聖諦之境為求知故起于聖道。但為斷除修道惑故。於四諦境複數數了。是故說彼名為已知。婆沙一百四十三云。第十六心頃應如七智。何故獨說為已知根。非已知而知故。答此亦從多分說。謂初剎那雖與七智相似。后諸剎那皆與彼異。從多分說悉名已知根。一類性故 準此論文前七智唯一剎那。道類智二乘必有多念 或聲聞．眾出必有多念。
準此。重知名已知也 有說此後更無未已知道所陵所覆。不以下著上令不得自在。必當爾故。于知言已知。如去時名已去。彼亦如是 準此論文。未已知道為下。已知道為上。忍為其下。智為其上。前為其下。后為其上。雖前七即于知說已知。亦得名為已知。后道類忍名為未知。故名以下著上。八智雖皆得名已知。七智上有下故不名已知。第八上無下故名為已知。雖道類智不能自知。至第二念方被智知。如須彌一塵。大海一渧。又就諦作法非就剎那 問修道中觀諦為斷煩惱。及為練根法樂等。因何但言為斷煩惱 答初果道后必起勝果道。其勝果道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：在苦法智忍位（Khu Fa Zhi Ren Wei，指見道位中的一個階段），有對八種真理的未知和應當知曉的行轉。到了苦法智位（Khu Fa Zhi Wei，指見道位中的一個階段），有七種未知和應當知曉的行。乃至道類忍位（Dao Lei Ren Wei，指見道位中的一個階段），因為有色界和無色界的道諦的未知和應當知曉的行。所以這十五個心念都被稱為未知當知根（Wei Zhi Dang Zhi Gen，指一種修行階段）。
論：如果在修道位，就稱為已知。這是解釋第二種無漏根（Wu Lou Gen，指修行中達到的一種境界）的名稱。到了道類智（Dao Lei Zhi，指一種智慧）時，對真理的認知就圓滿了。沒有未曾知曉的聖諦之境需要去求知，所以發起聖道。只是爲了斷除修道中的迷惑，所以對四諦之境反覆了知。因此說它名為已知。婆沙一百四十三說：『第十六個心念應該像七智一樣。為什麼單獨說它是已知根呢？』因為不是已知而知。回答說，這也是從大多數情況來說的。意思是最初的剎那雖然與七智相似，但後面的剎那都與它們不同。從大多數情況來說，都稱為已知根，因為它們屬於同一類。根據這篇論文，前七智只有一個剎那。道類智二乘必定有很多念頭，或者聲聞眾必定有很多念頭。
根據這個，重新命名為已知。有人說，此後不再有未已知道所陵所覆，不以下著上，令不得自在，必定是這樣的。對於知，就說已知，就像去的時候說已去。他們也是這樣。根據這篇論文，未已知道為下，已知道為上，忍為其下，智為其上，前為其下，后為其上。雖然前七智就在知的時候說已知，也可以稱為已知。後面的道類忍名為未知，所以名叫以下著上。八智雖然都可以稱為已知，但七智上有下，所以不叫已知。第八智上無下，所以稱為已知。雖然道類智不能自己知道，到第二個念頭才被智知道，就像須彌山的一粒塵土，大海的一滴水。又就諦作法，不是就剎那。
問：修道中觀察真理是爲了斷煩惱，還是爲了練根法樂等？為什麼只說爲了斷煩惱？答：初果道后必定會生起勝果道，那勝果道。
【English Translation】 English version: At the stage of Khu Fa Zhi Ren Wei (苦法智忍位, the stage of acceptance of suffering in the realm of desire), there are eight truths that are unknown and should be known, undergoing transformation. Upon reaching the stage of Khu Fa Zhi Wei (苦法智位, the wisdom of suffering in the realm of desire), there are seven truths that are unknown and should be known. Even up to the stage of Dao Lei Ren Wei (道類忍位, the acceptance of the path in the realm of form and formlessness), because there are unknown and should-be-known aspects of the truth of the path in the realms of form and formlessness. Therefore, these fifteen mental moments are all called Wei Zhi Dang Zhi Gen (未知當知根, the root of the unknown and to-be-known).
Treatise: If one is in the stage of cultivation, it is called 'already known.' This explains the name of the second type of undefiled root (Wu Lou Gen, 無漏根, a state achieved in practice). When Dao Lei Zhi (道類智, wisdom regarding the path) is reached, the understanding of the truths is complete. There are no previously unknown aspects of the noble truths that need to be sought, so the noble path is initiated. It is only to eliminate the delusions in the path of cultivation that the four truths are repeatedly understood. Therefore, it is said to be 'already known.' The Vibhasa (婆沙) 143 says: 'The sixteenth mental moment should be like the seven wisdoms. Why is it uniquely called the root of the already known?' Because it is not knowing through not knowing. The answer is that this is also said from the perspective of the majority of cases. It means that although the initial moment is similar to the seven wisdoms, the subsequent moments are different from them. From the perspective of the majority of cases, they are all called the root of the already known because they belong to the same category. According to this treatise, the first seven wisdoms have only one moment. The Dao Lei Zhi of the two vehicles (二乘) must have many thoughts, or the Sravaka (聲聞) assembly must have many thoughts.
According to this, it is renamed 'already known.' Some say that after this, there is no longer any unknown that can overcome or cover it, and the lower does not attach to the upper, preventing it from being free. It must be so. Regarding knowing, it is said to be 'already known,' just as when going, it is said to be 'already gone.' They are the same. According to this treatise, the unknown is below, the already known is above, acceptance is below, wisdom is above, the former is below, and the latter is above. Although the first seven wisdoms are said to be 'already known' at the moment of knowing, they can also be called 'already known.' The later Dao Lei Ren is called unknown, so it is called the lower attaching to the upper. Although all eight wisdoms can be called 'already known,' the seven wisdoms have a lower above them, so they are not called 'already known.' The eighth wisdom has no lower above it, so it is called 'already known.' Although Dao Lei Zhi cannot know itself, it is known by wisdom in the second thought, like a speck of dust on Mount Sumeru, a drop of water in the ocean. Also, the practice is based on the truths, not on the moment.
Question: In the path of cultivation, is observing the truths for the sake of eliminating afflictions, or for the sake of cultivating roots, the joy of Dharma, etc.? Why is it only said to be for the sake of eliminating afflictions? Answer: After the path of the first fruit, a superior path of fruit will definitely arise, that superior path of fruit.
即是斷惑之加行也。又練根等恐煩惱退。為現法樂亦是斷惑之勝進道故。但言斷惑義即攝余。由斯論師唯說斷惑。
論。在無學道至乃至廣說。此釋具知根名。 知己已知者。唯說盡智。即是鈍根。謂得盡智知我已知苦．知集等。或得盡智知我已知苦．斷集等 或習此知已成性者。謂得盡智．無生智也。此即利根得其二智。我已知苦是盡不復更知是無生智 乃至廣說者。謂我已斷集不復更斷等。正理論云。第三具知根體知己已知故名為知。習知成性故。或能護知故 抄釋云。謂無學道云苦我已知等名知己已知。此名知習已成性。是初得謂盡智。或能護知。是后位即無生智。成而能護故名為具。俱舍亦云以初為有知。后為習成性。此能有．能習者名為具知。具知家根名具知根 案此二論意有差別。若此論以三道慧名未知欲知等。即彼是根。就同依釋。是即彼是根義但唯是慧 若俱舍意彼之三名目能成行者。就依士釋。彼所有根名為彼根。即具攝九法 正理論云九根相應合成此事。故意等八亦得此名 婆沙歷七十五法廢立。恐煩不述。然不過此前建立門。無前義者不立為根。
論。彼所有根至當知根等。總結前三根名。
論。如是已釋至幾無漏。下第三有十四頌諸門分別 于中有二。初六頌有六門分別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這就是斷除迷惑的加行（yujiaxing，預備階段）。又因為修習練根等法，恐怕煩惱退失，爲了獲得現法樂（xianfale，今生的快樂），這也是斷除迷惑的殊勝進道。所以只說斷除迷惑，就包含了其他方面。因此，論師只說斷除迷惑。
論：在無學道（wuxuedao，佛教修行的最高階段）乃至廣說。這是解釋具知根（juzhigen，完全知曉之根）的名稱。『知己已知者』，只說是盡智（jinzhi，對苦的完全瞭解）。這是鈍根（dungen，能力較弱的人）的境界。意思是獲得盡智，知道『我已經知道苦』、『已經知道集（ji，苦的根源）』等等。或者獲得盡智，知道『我已經知道苦』、『已經斷除集』等等。或者修習這種智慧已經成為習慣者，指的是獲得盡智、無生智（wushengzhi，對不再輪迴的瞭解）。這就是利根（ligen，能力較強的人）獲得這兩種智慧。『我已經知道苦』，是盡智，『不再需要知道』是無生智。乃至廣說，指的是『我已經斷除集，不再需要斷除』等等。正理論（zhenglilun）說，第三種具知根的本體，因為『知己已知』所以叫做『知』，修習知道已經成為習慣，或者能夠守護這種知。抄釋說，在無學道中說『苦我已經知道』等等，叫做『知己已知』。這種知已經修習成為習慣。最初獲得的是盡智，或者能夠守護這種知，是後來的無生智。因為已經成就並且能夠守護，所以叫做『具』。《俱舍論（jushelun）》也說，最初是『有知』，後來是『習成性』。這種能夠『有』、能夠『習』的叫做『具知』。具知家的根叫做具知根。按照這兩部論的意義，是有差別的。如果這部論以三道慧（sandaozhi，三種智慧）命名為未知欲知等，那麼它就是根。就同依釋來說，它就是根的意義，但僅僅是智慧。如果《俱舍論》的意思，這三個名稱是能夠成就修行的人，就依士釋來說，他所有的根叫做他的根。就包含了九法。正理論說，九根相應合成這件事。所以意等八也得到這個名稱。婆沙歷七十五法廢立。恐怕繁瑣，不敘述了。然而不超過前面的建立門。沒有前面意義的，不建立為根。
論：他所有的根乃至當知根等。總結前面三種根的名稱。
論：像這樣已經解釋了乃至幾無漏（jigewulou，多少無遺漏）。下面第三部分有十四頌，從各個方面進行分別。其中有兩部分。最初六頌有六個方面進行分別。
【English Translation】 English version: This is the preparatory practice (yujiaxing) for cutting off delusion. Furthermore, practicing cultivating the roots, etc., is done for fear that afflictions may regress. Obtaining the pleasure of the present life (xianfale) is also a superior path for advancing in cutting off delusion. Therefore, only speaking of cutting off delusion encompasses the rest. Hence, the commentator only speaks of cutting off delusion.
Treatise: In the stage of No More Learning (wuxuedao), and so on, extensively explained. This explains the name of the Root of Complete Knowledge (juzhigen). 'One who knows what is already known' only refers to the Exhaustion Knowledge (jinzhi). This is the realm of those with dull faculties (dungen). It means obtaining the Exhaustion Knowledge, knowing 'I have already known suffering,' 'already known the accumulation (ji, the origin of suffering),' and so on. Or obtaining the Exhaustion Knowledge, knowing 'I have already known suffering,' 'already cut off the accumulation,' and so on. Or one who has cultivated this knowledge to the point of habituation refers to obtaining the Exhaustion Knowledge and the Non-Arising Knowledge (wushengzhi). This is the sharp faculties (ligen) obtaining these two knowledges. 'I have already known suffering' is the Exhaustion Knowledge; 'no longer needing to know' is the Non-Arising Knowledge. And so on, extensively explained, refers to 'I have already cut off the accumulation, no longer needing to cut it off,' and so on. The Treatise on Correct Reasoning (zhenglilun) says that the substance of the third Root of Complete Knowledge is called 'knowledge' because of 'knowing what is already known.' Cultivating knowledge to the point of habituation, or being able to protect this knowledge. The commentary says that in the stage of No More Learning, saying 'I have already known suffering,' and so on, is called 'knowing what is already known.' This knowledge has been cultivated to the point of habituation. Initially obtaining it is the Exhaustion Knowledge, or being able to protect this knowledge is the later Non-Arising Knowledge. Because it is accomplished and able to protect, it is called 'complete.' The Abhidharmakośa (jushelun) also says that initially it is 'having knowledge,' and later it is 'habituation.' That which is able to 'have' and able to 'habituate' is called 'complete knowledge.' The root of the family of complete knowledge is called the Root of Complete Knowledge. According to the meaning of these two treatises, there is a difference. If this treatise names the wisdom of the Three Paths (sandaozhi) as unknown, wanting to know, etc., then that is the root. In terms of the shared basis explanation, that is the meaning of the root, but it is only wisdom. If the meaning of the Abhidharmakośa is that these three names are those who can accomplish practice, then in terms of the agent explanation, all the roots he possesses are called his roots. It encompasses nine dharmas. The Treatise on Correct Reasoning says that the nine roots correspond and combine to form this matter. Therefore, the mind and the other eight also obtain this name. The Vibhasa establishes and abolishes seventy-five dharmas. Fearing complexity, I will not narrate it. However, it does not exceed the preceding establishment gate. Without the preceding meaning, it is not established as a root.
Treatise: All the roots he possesses, and so on, up to the Root of Knowing, etc. Summarizes the names of the preceding three roots.
Treatise: Having thus explained, and so on, up to how many without outflows (jigewulou). Below, the third part has fourteen verses, distinguishing from various aspects. Among them, there are two parts. The initial six verses distinguish from six aspects.
。后八頌別約諸義分別。初一頌漏．無漏分別 于中有三。一唯無漏。二唯有漏。三通有漏．無漏。
論曰至名異體同。此明唯無漏。
論。七有色根至色蘊攝故。此明有漏詳此釋義不盡。無漏無表亦色蘊攝是無漏故。
論。意樂喜舍至有漏無漏。第三漏無漏也。
論。有餘師說至外異生品。此敘化地部計。則是應婆沙毗婆阇婆提。此云分別論師。彼引經證信等五根唯是無漏。以契經唯說聖所有故。謂說阿羅漢乃至預流向有此信等五根。故知無漏 又世尊說。若全無此信等五根我說彼住外異生品者。又下文全無五根住外異生品。故知無漏。雖引重文其義是一。聖有凡無。
論。此非成證至外異生品。自下論主破有二。一通化地部引文證成無漏。二自引經文證通有漏。此即初也 此非成證。總非 依無漏根說此言故。釋所以信等五根通其二種。謂有漏．無漏。彼說聖有．凡無。依無漏根說不依有漏信等五根 云何知然者。化地部徴。云何知依無漏根說 言。先依無漏至說此言故。釋。論主釋依無漏信等五根所以也。夫建立聖人唯有為無漏非無為有漏。彼經既以信等五根建立聖人。故知唯依無漏根說。前說聖有依無漏根。既言若全無此信等五根。故知唯說無漏 或諸異生至外異生品。論主
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 后八頌是對之前各種含義的分別總結。最初一頌是對有漏和無漏的分別，其中包含三種情況：一、唯有無漏；二、唯有有漏；三、通於有漏和無漏。
論曰：乃至名稱不同但本體相同。這說明了唯有無漏。
論：七種有色根乃至色蘊所攝。這說明了有漏。詳細分析這個解釋並不全面，因為無漏的無表色也屬於色蘊所攝，這是無漏的緣故。
論：意樂、喜、舍乃至有漏、無漏。這是第三種情況，即有漏和無漏都包括。
論：有其餘的論師說乃至外異生品。這裡敘述的是化地部的觀點，也就是應婆沙毗婆阇婆提，這裡稱作分別論師。他們引用經文證明信等五根唯是無漏，因為契經中只說了聖者才具有這些。經中說阿羅漢乃至預流向的人才有信等五根，因此可知是無漏的。世尊還說，如果完全沒有信等五根，我就說他們住在外異生品中。而且下文中說完全沒有五根的人住在外異生品中，因此可知是無漏。雖然引用了重要的經文，但其含義是一致的，即聖者有而凡夫沒有。
論：這不能成立證明乃至外異生品。下面論主開始破斥，分為兩部分：一是反駁化地部引用經文證明無漏的觀點，二是自己引用經文證明也包含有漏。這裡是第一部分。這不能成立證明，是完全否定。因為是依據無漏根才說了這些話。解釋了為什麼信等五根包括兩種情況，即有漏和無漏。他們說聖者有而凡夫沒有，是依據無漏根說的，而不是依據有漏的信等五根。怎麼知道是這樣呢？化地部反問，怎麼知道是依據無漏根說的呢？
言：先依據無漏乃至說了這些話。解釋：論主解釋了依據無漏信等五根的原因。建立聖人唯有有為的無漏法，而沒有無為的有漏法。經文既然用信等五根來建立聖人，因此可知是依據無漏根說的。前面說聖者有是依據無漏根，既然說如果完全沒有信等五根，因此可知只是說了無漏。或者諸異生乃至外異生品。論主
【English Translation】 English version: The latter eight verses are a summary of the distinctions of various meanings mentioned earlier. The first verse distinguishes between defiled (with outflows, sāsrava) and undefiled (without outflows, anāsrava), containing three cases: 1. Only undefiled; 2. Only defiled; 3. Common to both defiled and undefiled.
Treatise says: Even if the names are different, the substance is the same. This clarifies that it is only undefiled.
Treatise: The seven sense bases with form, up to being included in the form aggregate (rūpa-skandha). This clarifies that it is defiled. A detailed analysis shows that this explanation is not exhaustive, because undefiled non-revealing form (anāsrava avijñapti-rūpa) is also included in the form aggregate, and this is undefiled.
Treatise: Intention, joy, equanimity, up to defiled and undefiled. This is the third case, including both defiled and undefiled.
Treatise: Some other teachers say, up to the category of external ordinary beings. This narrates the view of the Haimavata school, which is also known as the Āgama-Vibhāṣā-Vādins, here called the 'Distinction-Analyzing Teachers'. They cite scriptures to prove that the five roots of faith (śraddhā), etc., are only undefiled, because the sūtras only mention that saints possess them. The sūtras say that Arhats and those on the path to becoming Stream-enterers have these five roots of faith, etc., therefore it is known that they are undefiled. The World-Honored One also said, 'If someone completely lacks these five roots of faith, etc., I say that they dwell in the category of external ordinary beings.' Moreover, the text below says that those completely lacking the five roots dwell in the category of external ordinary beings, therefore it is known that they are undefiled. Although important texts are cited, their meaning is consistent: saints have them, while ordinary beings do not.
Treatise: This does not establish proof, up to the category of external ordinary beings. The following is where the treatise master begins to refute, in two parts: first, refuting the Haimavata school's citation of scriptures to prove that they are undefiled; second, citing his own scriptures to prove that they also include defiled ones. This is the first part. 'This does not establish proof' is a complete negation. It is because these words were spoken based on the undefiled roots. This explains why the five roots of faith, etc., include both cases, defiled and undefiled. They say that saints have them while ordinary beings do not, but this is based on the undefiled roots, not based on the defiled roots of faith, etc. How is it known to be so? The Haimavata school asks, 'How is it known that it is based on the undefiled roots?'
It is said: First, based on the undefiled, up to 'these words were spoken'. Explanation: The treatise master explains the reason for basing it on the undefiled roots of faith, etc. Establishing saints only involves conditioned undefiled dharmas, not unconditioned defiled dharmas. Since the sūtras use the five roots of faith, etc., to establish saints, therefore it is known that it is based on the undefiled roots. Earlier it was said that saints have them based on the undefiled roots, and since it is said that if someone completely lacks these five roots of faith, etc., therefore it is known that it only refers to the undefiled. Or, ordinary beings, up to the category of external ordinary beings. The treatise master
第二釋。如文可解。
論。又契經說至亦通有漏。論主引經證信等五根通有漏也。佛未轉法輪時未有聖人。此時已說有情根上．中．下。故知說有漏信等五根。
論。又世尊說至品類觀察。論主引第二經證通有漏。信等五根若唯無漏。如何實知是集．沒．味．過患。此之四行觀有漏故。集能招苦。沒沉沒處。味愛味處。過患是苦。出離是在滅。余文可解。
論。故信等五根通有漏無漏。總結證也。
論。如是已說至成非異熟。下一頌第二明是異熟．非異熟門。
論曰唯一命根定是異熟。此定宗也。二十二根中。唯一命根定是異熟 唯遮更通余根 定遮通非異熟。
論。若如是者至誰之異熟。外難。難云。若定是異熟者留多壽行。既由第四定等延此命根。即此命根是誰異熟。
論。如本論說至壽異熟果。此有二意。一引本論證有留壽行。二引本論答前問也 言。留壽行誰之異熟者。引本論證。即是先感富等業之異熟 云何苾芻留多壽行者。問留法 謂阿羅漢。簡有學 成就神通。簡慧解脫 得心自在。簡時解脫 若於僧眾若於別人。簡余田 以諸命緣至隨分佈施。簡余物 施已發願。簡無愿 即入第四定等。簡余定 從定起已至則皆轉招壽異熟果者。由施．定力能轉招也。
由施．定轉先不定富異熟業。令招今時壽異熟果 或由此施．定愿令延不定業也 問何以得知非是由今佈施現招壽果。答有多文證。婆沙一百二十六云。問理無富異熟果可成壽異熟果。何故乃說富異熟業則轉能招壽異熟果。答無轉果體有轉業力。謂由佈施．邊際定力轉富異熟業招壽異熟果。雖俱可轉。而彼今時不顧富果祈壽果故 準此文。施為能轉不言正感 有餘師說。有業先感壽異熟果。然有災障。由今佈施．邊際定力彼災障滅壽異熟起。雖俱可轉而彼今時不顧富果祈壽果故 準此論文。施為能感。有作是說。有業先招壽異熟果。然不決定。由今佈施．邊際定力。令招壽業決定與果 準此論文。施為能決定也 復有欲令由施．定故引取宿世殘壽異熟。謂阿羅漢有餘生中殘壽異熟。由今佈施．邊際定力引令現前。定力不思議令久斷還續 準此論文。亦由施．定引也 準上四解 第一解云。由佈施．邊際定力轉富異熟業招壽異熟果。準此論文。于僧眾等施為轉業因。非自招命。然此初解即與本論相扶。言轉富業招壽果故 第二師云。有業先招壽異熟果。然有障故等。此亦容是不定業也 第三師云。有業先招壽異熟果。然不決定 第四師云。由施．定故引取宿世殘壽異熟 上三師釋皆與本論相違 本論云。時彼能感富異熟
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 由佈施和禪定能轉變原本不確定的、感生財富的異熟業（Vipāka karma，指成熟的業力），使其招感今生的壽命異熟果。或者，通過佈施和禪定發願來延長不確定的壽命業力。問：如何得知這不是由於現在的佈施直接招感壽命果報呢？答：有很多經文可以證明。在《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百二十六卷中說：問：道理上沒有財富的異熟果可以轉變成壽命的異熟果，為什麼說感生財富的異熟業可以轉變並招感壽命的異熟果呢？答：沒有轉變果報的實體，只有轉變業力的力量。意思是說，通過佈施和臨終時的禪定力，轉變感生財富的異熟業，從而招感壽命的異熟果。雖然兩者都可以轉變，但是因為現在不顧財富果報而祈求壽命果報的緣故。 根據這段經文，佈施是能轉變業力的，而不是直接感生果報的。有其他論師說，有業力先前已經感生了壽命的異熟果，但是有災難和障礙。通過現在的佈施和臨終時的禪定力，這些災難和障礙消滅了，壽命的異熟果就顯現出來。雖然兩者都可以轉變，但是因為現在不顧財富果報而祈求壽命果報的緣故。根據這段論文，佈施是能感生果報的。有人這樣說，有業力先前已經招感了壽命的異熟果，但是不確定。通過現在的佈施和臨終時的禪定力，使招感壽命的業力確定會產生果報。根據這段論文，佈施是能使業力確定的。 還有人想通過佈施和禪定來引取宿世剩餘的壽命異熟果。比如，阿羅漢（Arhat，佛教修行 достигший высшей цели）在剩餘的生命中還有剩餘的壽命異熟果，通過現在的佈施和臨終時的禪定力，引導它顯現出來。禪定力的不可思議之處在於，能讓已經斷絕很久的壽命重新延續。根據這段論文，也是通過佈施和禪定來引導的。根據以上四種解釋，第一種解釋說，通過佈施和臨終時的禪定力，轉變感生財富的異熟業，從而招感壽命的異熟果。根據這段論文，對僧眾等的佈施是轉變業力的原因，而不是自己招感壽命。然而，這第一種解釋與本論的觀點相符，因為本論說轉變財富業力來招感壽命果報。第二位論師說，有業力先前已經招感了壽命的異熟果，但是因為有障礙等等。這也可能是因為是不確定的業力。第三位論師說，有業力先前已經招感了壽命的異熟果，但是不確定。第四位論師說，通過佈施和禪定來引取宿世剩餘的壽命異熟果。以上三位論師的解釋都與本論的觀點相違背。本論說，那時他能夠感生財富的異熟果。
【English Translation】 English version: Through generosity (施, dana) and meditative stabilization (定, dhyana), one can transform the indeterminate karma of ripening into wealth (富異熟業, vipaka karma that ripens into wealth), causing it to bring about the fruition of a lifespan in this present moment (壽異熟果, vipaka result of lifespan). Alternatively, one may extend indeterminate karma through the power of vows made during acts of generosity and meditative stabilization. Question: How can we know that it is not the present act of generosity that directly brings about the result of lifespan? Answer: There are many textual proofs. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙, Vibhasa), in its one hundred and twenty-sixth fascicle, states: Question: Logically, there is no way for the result of wealth to transform into the result of lifespan. Why then is it said that the karma that ripens into wealth can transform and bring about the result of lifespan? Answer: There is no transformation of the entity of the result, but there is a transformation of the power of the karma. This means that through generosity and the power of meditative stabilization at the time of death, one transforms the karma that ripens into wealth, thereby bringing about the result of lifespan. Although both can be transformed, it is because one is not concerned with the result of wealth but seeks the result of lifespan. According to this passage, generosity is what transforms the karma, not what directly brings about the result. Some other teachers say that there is karma that has already brought about the result of lifespan, but there are calamities and obstacles. Through present generosity and the power of meditative stabilization at the time of death, these calamities and obstacles are eliminated, and the result of lifespan arises. Although both can be transformed, it is because one is not concerned with the result of wealth but seeks the result of lifespan. According to this treatise, generosity is what brings about the result. Some say that there is karma that has already brought about the result of lifespan, but it is uncertain. Through present generosity and the power of meditative stabilization at the time of death, the karma that brings about lifespan is made certain to produce its result. According to this treatise, generosity is what makes the karma certain. Still others wish to use generosity and meditative stabilization to draw forth the remaining result of lifespan from past lives. For example, an Arhat (阿羅漢, Arhat, one who has attained the highest goal in Buddhism) has remaining results of lifespan in their remaining life. Through present generosity and the power of meditative stabilization at the time of death, one guides it to manifest. The inconceivable aspect of the power of meditative stabilization is that it can cause a lifespan that has been severed for a long time to be continued again. According to this treatise, it is also guided by generosity and meditative stabilization. According to the above four explanations, the first explanation says that through generosity and the power of meditative stabilization at the time of death, one transforms the karma that ripens into wealth, thereby bringing about the result of lifespan. According to this treatise, generosity towards the Sangha (僧眾, Sangha, the Buddhist community) and others is the cause of transforming karma, not of bringing about one's own lifespan. However, this first explanation is in accordance with the view of this treatise, because the treatise says that one transforms the karma of wealth to bring about the result of lifespan. The second teacher says that there is karma that has already brought about the result of lifespan, but because there are obstacles, etc. This may also be because it is indeterminate karma. The third teacher says that there is karma that has already brought about the result of lifespan, but it is uncertain. The fourth teacher says that through generosity and meditative stabilization, one draws forth the remaining result of lifespan from past lives. The explanations of the above three teachers all contradict the view of this treatise. This treatise says that at that time, he is able to bring about the result of wealth.
業則皆轉招壽異熟果 此後三師皆不言轉富業。但言壽業有障。不定。殘果。故知非與本論相扶。
論。復有欲令至引取受用。此是婆沙第四家也。
論。云何苾芻至富異熟果。此釋舍壽行。準舍壽行欲舍壽行皆行施等。定知不是轉現施業招壽之力令招富也。本欲轉舍壽業令招富果。欲令壽短今更造壽業轉令招富。于舍壽行有何用耶。故知。留壽行中所有佈施但為轉力。不招現果。問若爾何故佈施 答婆沙云。問所留壽行正由誰引。為由佈施。為定力耶。若由施力。不應入定。若由定力。不應行施。有說由施。有說由定。如是說者俱由二種。雖多行施。若不入定。彼終不能引壽果故。雖數入定。若不行施。彼終不能引壽果故。然施力能引。定令決定。由此故言俱由二種 準上論文。由施命緣能引過去招富之業感壽果也。婆沙釋舍壽行有六師釋。問理無壽異熟果可成富異熟果。何故乃說壽異熟業即轉能招富異熟果 答有三師如前留壽。唯改壽．富有異。皆言由施．定力。第四師云。有業先招富異熟果粗而非妙。由今佈施．邊際定力。令滅粗業轉招妙果。謂彼先引長時粗果。今由佈施．定．願力故。令彼轉招促時妙果。第五釋云。復有欲令引殘富異熟業。如留壽第四釋。婆沙論云。問若諸有情壽果富果不決定
者可有留舍。若俱決定如何留舍。答但作分限無留舍事。譬如良醫所記分限無能過者。此亦應然 準此論文。留壽行者富．壽二業俱不定者可有留舍。若決定者但為分限不能增減 又準此文。增壽行者非是現施能感。文極分明。第六尊者妙音釋如此論。正理論云。且無分別。此諸根中唯一命根定是異熟。如何此命可無分別。定果命根非異熟故。如是命根亦是異熟。得邊際定應果苾芻。于僧眾中或別人所施思果故。諸我能感富異熟業。愿皆轉招壽異熟果。本論說故。此當婆沙初解。準婆沙四釋中初釋及后立由施能引定能決定。即是現施之思。引舊業起故。名施思果也。若作此釋。即與婆沙初釋相扶。婆沙復三師釋。皆違本論。不可依也。若不爾者。即與婆沙所解相違。又違本論舍壽行文。正理第二解同婆沙第三解。第三解同婆沙第四解。瑜師正理抄中雲。俱舍所釋並非薩婆多正義。應以此引不定業為正。由不許命根是現業果。引無邊胄造婆沙抉擇云。如說一法是業果非現業果謂命根。又不許一業感多身。瑜師自云。然未詳其深趣應更思之 今詳。有部命根定非現果。不許造一引業引多生果。亦不許造多引業共感一生。今此留壽。若為通釋。若準留壽定愿即轉前富果令續今命。即有多業感一生過。若言令感命不定業延。即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：這種情況下，是否可以延長或縮短壽命？如果壽命是完全確定的，又該如何延長或縮短？ 答：只能設定一個界限，沒有延長或縮短的說法。比如，就像良醫所規定的劑量，沒有人能夠超過。這裡也應該這樣理解。 根據這段論文，對於壽命不確定的人，可以通過行善來延長壽命。如果壽命是確定的，那麼只能是設定一個界限，不能增加或減少。 而且，根據這段文字，延長壽命並不是通過現在的佈施就能感應到的。文字非常明確。第六尊者妙音是這樣解釋這個理論的。《正理論》說：『沒有分別。這些根中只有命根一定是異熟果。』怎麼能說這個命根沒有分別呢？因為命根是確定的果報，不是異熟果。像這樣的命根也是異熟果。得到邊際定的應果比丘（Arhat Bhikshu），在僧眾中或者別人那裡佈施思果，所以我能感應到財富的異熟業，希望都能轉為壽命的異熟果。』這是本論說的。這應該是《婆沙論》最初的解釋。根據《婆沙論》四種解釋中的第一種解釋和後來的立論，通過佈施能夠引導，通過禪定能夠決定。這就是現在的佈施之思，引導舊業生起，所以稱為施思果。如果這樣解釋，就與《婆沙論》最初的解釋相符。《婆沙論》還有三種解釋，都違背了本論，不可依從。如果不是這樣，就與《婆沙論》的解釋相違背，也違背了本論中舍壽行的文字。《正理論》第二種解釋與《婆沙論》第三種解釋相同，第三種解釋與《婆沙論》第四種解釋相同。《瑜伽師地論·正理抄》中說：『《俱舍論》的解釋並非薩婆多部（Sarvastivada）的正確含義，應該用這個來引導不定的業作為正確的解釋。』因為不允許命根是現世業的果報。引用無邊胄（Anantagotra）造的《婆沙抉擇》說：『比如，說一種法是業的果報，但不是現世業的果報，說的就是命根。』也不允許一種業感應多個身體。《瑜伽師地論》的作者自己說：『然而，還沒有詳細瞭解其中的深意，應該再思考一下。』 現在詳細分析一下，有部（Sarvastivada）認為命根一定不是現世的果報，不允許造一種引業（Karma）引出多個生的果報，也不允許造多種引業共同感應一生。現在這個延長壽命，如果是爲了普遍解釋，如果按照延長壽命的決定願望，就是把之前的財富果報轉為延續現在的生命，這就有多業感應一生的過失。如果說讓感應命的不定業延續，那麼...
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Can life be extended or shortened in this case? If life is completely determined, how can it be extended or shortened? Answer: Only a limit can be set; there is no such thing as extending or shortening. For example, like the dosage prescribed by a good doctor, no one can exceed it. This should be understood in the same way here. According to this treatise, for those whose lifespan is uncertain, longevity can be extended through good deeds. If lifespan is determined, then it can only be setting a limit; it cannot be increased or decreased. Moreover, according to this text, extending lifespan is not something that can be sensed through present giving. The text is very clear. The Venerable Miaoyin (Melodious Sound), the sixth patriarch, explains this theory in this way. The Nyāyānusāra (Treatise on Following the Right Principle) says: 'There is no distinction. Among these roots, only the life-root is definitely a Vipāka (result of karma).』 How can it be said that this life-root has no distinction? Because the life-root is a definite result, not a Vipāka. Such a life-root is also a Vipāka. An Arhat Bhikshu (Arhat monk) who has attained the border-line Samādhi (meditative absorption), giving the fruit of thought in the Sangha (monastic community) or to others, so I can sense the Vipāka of wealth, hoping that it can all be transformed into the Vipāka of longevity.』 This is what the original treatise says. This should be the initial explanation of the Vibhāṣā (Great Commentary). According to the first of the four explanations in the Vibhāṣā and the subsequent establishment, giving can guide through giving, and Samādhi can determine through Samādhi. This is the present thought of giving, guiding the arising of old karma, so it is called the fruit of giving-thought. If explained in this way, it is consistent with the initial explanation of the Vibhāṣā. The Vibhāṣā has three other explanations, all of which contradict the original treatise and should not be followed. If it is not like this, it contradicts the explanation of the Vibhāṣā and also contradicts the text on relinquishing life in the original treatise. The second explanation in the Nyāyānusāra is the same as the third explanation in the Vibhāṣā, and the third explanation is the same as the fourth explanation in the Vibhāṣā. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra-nyāyānusāra-ṭīkā (Commentary on the Treatise Following the Right Principle of the Stages of Yogic Practice) says: 'The explanation in the Abhidharmakośa (Treasury of Higher Knowledge) is not the correct meaning of the Sarvastivada (School of the Realism of Everything), and this should be used to guide the uncertain karma as the correct explanation.』 Because it does not allow the life-root to be the result of present karma. Quoting the Vibhāṣā-nirvacana (Commentary on the Great Commentary) made by Anantagotra (Lineage of Infinity), it says: 'For example, saying that a Dharma (teaching) is the result of karma, but not the result of present karma, refers to the life-root.』 It also does not allow one karma to sense multiple bodies. The author of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra himself says: 'However, I have not yet understood its profound meaning in detail and should think about it further.』 Now, let's analyze it in detail. The Sarvastivada school believes that the life-root is definitely not the result of present karma, and it does not allow creating one inducing karma to lead to the result of multiple lives, nor does it allow creating multiple inducing karmas to jointly sense one life. Now, this extending of life, if it is for a universal explanation, if according to the determined wish to extend life, it is to transform the previous fruit of wealth into continuing the present life, which has the fault of multiple karmas sensing one life. If it is said to allow the uncertain karma of life to continue, then...
有與愿不同過 今即以此二義以為兩釋 一解。以定．愿．及施思力延不定業留壽得長。問若爾豈不與愿不同。答由愿富業感壽果故。此愿方能延不定業。如以命緣施等方能延等 二釋。即轉富業令招壽果。問若爾豈不一生多業引。及非取而與果耶。答不許二引業共一生受。由施．定力資不思議。故轉其非取滿業令招壽果。然不是一生多引業果。如色是礙。通力不思議故而能令無礙 若不爾者。因何本論云富異熟業則皆轉招壽異熟果 若言施思為引招現果者。此即有多過失。違婆沙增．舍文故。一生多業引故。違舍壽行文。違無邊胄抉擇云一法是業果非現業果謂命根。又不許一業感多身。若引感富業感此身者。此非多引感一生過。然兩釋中應取后釋。順本論故 尊者法勝。說此命根亦非異熟故。彼論說。有十三根皆通二種。此違本論一根非業是異熟。九根非業非異熟。十二不定 有人釋論。第一引本論意云。此家意說。以佈施時無貪相應思。正能感現異熟命根。以邊際定等為緣轉富業令感壽果。此即現業能感現命果。此釋為定。問同分亦現感不。命與同分誰總。誰別。第一解云。同分是總。命根是別。同分非現感。命根容現感。由有總．別不同。現．非現異故。有同分長命根短者可延。若同分亦短者命不可延。此論既
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人認為願力與實際結果不同，現在就用這兩種意義來做兩種解釋。第一種解釋是，通過禪定、願力以及佈施等善行的力量，可以延緩那些不確定的業力，從而延長壽命。有人問：如果這樣，豈不是與願力不同了嗎？回答是：正是因為願力能夠增益業力，從而感得壽命的果報，所以這種願力才能夠延緩不確定的業力。就像用維持生命的因緣去佈施等等，才能延長壽命一樣。第二種解釋是，將原本會帶來財富的業力轉化為帶來壽命的果報。有人問：如果這樣，豈不是一生中會有多種業力牽引，以及不是直接取業力而給予果報了嗎？回答是：我們不認為一生中會有兩種牽引業力同時起作用。通過佈施、禪定的力量，以及不可思議的加持，可以轉變那些原本不會帶來壽命的圓滿業力，使之感得壽命的果報。但這並不是一生中多種牽引業力的結果。就像顏色是有障礙的，但通過神通不可思議的力量，可以使其變得沒有障礙一樣。如果不是這樣，那麼為什麼《阿毗達摩論》中說，原本會帶來財富的異熟業，都可以轉變為帶來壽命的異熟果呢？如果說佈施等善行是牽引和招感現世果報的原因，那麼這就會有很多過失。因為這違反了《大毗婆沙論》中關於增益和捨棄的說法，也違反了一生中多種業力牽引的說法，還違反了《無邊胄抉擇》中關於一種法是業果而不是現世業果（指命根）的說法。而且我們不認為一種業力會感得多個身體。如果牽引和招感財富的業力感得這個身體，那麼這就不是多種牽引感得一生的過失。然而，在這兩種解釋中，應該採取后一種解釋，因為它更符合《阿毗達摩論》的觀點。尊者法勝認為，這個命根也不是異熟果。他的論述說，有十三種根都通於兩種（業和異熟）。這與《阿毗達摩論》的觀點相違背，該論認為一種根不是業而是異熟，九種根既不是業也不是異熟，十二種是不確定的。有人解釋說，第一種解釋是引用《阿毗達摩論》的觀點，認為這家宗派的意思是，在佈施時，沒有與貪慾相應的思，才能真正感得現世的異熟命根。以邊際禪定等為因緣，轉變原本會帶來財富的業力，使之感得壽命的果報。這就是現世的業力能夠感得現世的命根果報。這種解釋是確定的。有人問：同分（sabhāgatā，眾生共業所感的身心相似性）也是現世感得的嗎？命根與同分，哪個是總相，哪個是別相？第一種解釋認為，同分是總相，命根是別相。同分不是現世感得的，命根可以現世感得。因為有總相和別相的不同，所以現世感得和非現世感得也不同。有同分長而命根短的情況，可以延長命根。如果同分也短，那麼命根就不可延長。這個論述已經...
【English Translation】 English version: Some argue that wishes and outcomes differ. Now, let's use these two meanings to provide two explanations. The first explanation is that through the power of Samadhi (定, concentration), vows (願, praṇidhāna), and acts of generosity (施, dāna) and mindful effort (思, cetanā), one can delay uncertain karma (不定業, aniyata-karma), thereby extending lifespan. Someone asks: If that's the case, doesn't it contradict the nature of wishes? The answer is: It is precisely because vows enrich karma, leading to the fruition of lifespan, that these vows can delay uncertain karma. Just as using the conditions that sustain life for acts of generosity can extend life. The second explanation is that one transforms wealth-generating karma into lifespan-generating results. Someone asks: If that's the case, wouldn't there be multiple karmas leading one's life, and wouldn't it be giving results without directly taking the karma? The answer is: We don't accept that two leading karmas operate simultaneously in one lifetime. Through the power of generosity and Samadhi, along with inconceivable blessings, one can transform non-lifespan-generating complete karma into lifespan-generating results. However, this is not the result of multiple leading karmas in one lifetime. Just as color has obstruction, but through the inconceivable power of psychic abilities, it can become unobstructed. If it weren't so, then why does the Abhidharma treatise say that wealth-ripening karma can all be transformed into lifespan-ripening results? If one says that generosity and mindful effort are the causes of leading and attracting present results, then there would be many faults. Because it contradicts the statements in the Mahāvibhāṣā on increase and abandonment, it also contradicts the statement of multiple karmas leading one's life, and it contradicts the Anantagotra-viniscaya which says that one dharma is the result of karma but not the result of present karma (referring to the life-faculty). Moreover, we don't accept that one karma can result in multiple bodies. If the karma that leads and attracts wealth results in this body, then this is not the fault of multiple leading karmas resulting in one lifetime. However, among these two explanations, the latter should be adopted because it aligns better with the Abhidharma treatise. Venerable Dharmatrāta (法勝) says that this life-faculty is also not a ripened result. His treatise says that there are thirteen faculties that are all common to two types (karma and ripened result). This contradicts the Abhidharma treatise, which states that one faculty is not karma but a ripened result, nine faculties are neither karma nor a ripened result, and twelve are uncertain. Someone explains that the first explanation quotes the meaning of the Abhidharma treatise, believing that this school's intention is that, at the time of generosity, the thought (思, cetanā) not associated with greed can truly result in the present ripened life-faculty. Taking the boundary Samadhi as the condition, one transforms the wealth-generating karma, causing it to result in the lifespan result. This is the present karma that can result in the present life-faculty result. This explanation is definite. Someone asks: Is sabhāgatā (同分, commonality) also presently resulted? Between the life-faculty and sabhāgatā, which is the general aspect and which is the specific aspect? The first explanation believes that sabhāgatā is the general aspect, and the life-faculty is the specific aspect. Sabhāgatā is not presently resulted, but the life-faculty can be presently resulted. Because there is a difference between the general and specific aspects, there is also a difference between presently resulted and not presently resulted. There are cases where sabhāgatā is long but the life-faculty is short, and the life-faculty can be extended. If sabhāgatā is also short, then the life-faculty cannot be extended. This discourse already...
云轉招壽果。以此故知。現容感命。又下論云。四業容俱作。引同分唯三等(云云) 又引婆沙一百十四三說(云云) 通婆沙三十一云命根．眾同分是牽引果。解云。引業非唯感總同分。亦能兼感別命根故 彈曰。舊翻名總。今譯為引。舊翻為別。今譯為滿。引滿總．別眼目異名。如何引業兼感別命。豈非引．滿雜亂過耶 第二解云。同分是總。命根是別。同第一解。言差別者。俱容現感由業力故 引婆沙第三師四業容感眾同分證 第三解云。同分是總。命根是別。同第一解。俱容現感同第二解。言差別者。雖總．別不同。由彼俱容現業感故。長即齊長。短即齊短。延即同延。促則同促 第四解云。同分非現感。命根容現感。同第一解。言差別者。二俱是總 引婆沙三十一證 第五解云。俱容現感同第二解。二俱是總同第四解。言差別者。或延同分。或延命根 第六解云。俱容現感同第二解。二俱是總同第四解。云差別者。既俱容現感。又同是總。長即齊長。短即同短。延即同延。促則同促。雖作六解初解稍勝。非但順多論文。亦乃于理為善 今詳光師所引。論云時彼能感富異熟業。則皆轉招壽異熟果。謂是轉現施思之業為所轉業招現命根。違婆沙四釋及能轉所轉義也。及違舍壽行文如前已述。亦違自釋。施思既已
招命。何更用定．愿轉 言命是滿。復違婆沙三十一文。及正理十六文。如后當述 又云命根及同分俱能令六處住時長．短。不得論意如前已述 問命．及同分誰是引果 答婆沙三十一云。複次命根．眾同分是牽引果。又正理十六云。要意業牽引命．眾同分 又云。身．語二業定不能引命．眾同分。不爾便違契經正理。經言劣界思所引故。此說欲有命．眾同分 又云。又非次第一一極微牽引命根及眾同分一心起故 正理此文與婆沙三十一同。既有正文說命是引。無文說命是滿。不可準義云命滿而違正文 問若爾何故婆沙一百一十四解四業三說。一云。生．后二業感眾同分．及滿。現及不定感滿非眾同分。二云。三感眾同分．及滿除現。現能感滿非眾同分。三云。四能感眾同分．及滿 婆沙既對滿說眾同分不言命根。故知命唯是滿 答彼文明四業感果引．滿差別。引中舉眾同分。命可例同。婆沙三十一正明眾同分．命根是何果故。具說二種牽引果也。四業中是準義。三十一及正理是正文。不可釋正文從準義也。此論云。引同分唯三。即是第二師義。由引有命及同分故。言引同分欲簡命根。若唯同分是引。但應言引。何用同分之言 問命及同分俱是引果。何故唯說留捨命行。不說留舍同分 答二用別故。故論云。一趣生等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：招感生命（招命）之後，為何還要用『定』（定業）？如果說生命是『滿』（滿業），那就違背了《婆沙論》第三十一卷和《正理經》第十六卷的說法，這些將在後面詳細闡述。 又說，命根（jīvitendriya）和眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）都能使六處（ṣaḍāyatana）的住時長短，不能像前面那樣隨意推論。 問：生命（jīvita）和眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）哪個是引果（ākarṣa-phala）？ 答：《婆沙論》第三十一卷說：『其次，命根（jīvitendriya）和眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）是牽引果（ākarṣa-phala）。』《正理經》第十六卷說：『要由意業（manas-karma）牽引生命（jīvita）和眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）。』 又說，身業（kāya-karma）和語業（vāk-karma）一定不能牽引生命（jīvita）和眾同分（nikāyasabhāga），否則就違背了契經（sūtra）和正理（nyāya）。經中說，因為是下劣界的思（cetanā）所牽引。這裡說的是欲有（kāmadhātu）的生命（jīvita）和眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）。 又說，並非依次由每一個極微（paramāṇu）牽引命根（jīvitendriya）和眾同分（nikāyasabhāga），因為它們是一心（eka-citta）生起的。 《正理經》的這段文字與《婆沙論》第三十一卷相同。既然有明確的經文說生命（jīvita）是引果（ākarṣa-phala），沒有經文說生命（jīvita）是滿果（pūraṇa-phala），就不能根據推測說生命（jīvita）是滿果（pūraṇa-phala）而違背明確的經文。 問：如果這樣，為什麼《婆沙論》第一百一十四卷解釋四業（catuḥ-karma）時有三種說法？第一種說法是：『生業（janaka-karma）和后業（apara-karma）感得眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）和滿果（pūraṇa-phala），現業（dṛṣṭa-karma）和不定業（aniyata-karma）感得滿果（pūraṇa-phala）而非眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）。』第二種說法是：『三種業感得眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）和滿果（pūraṇa-phala），除了現業（dṛṣṭa-karma），現業（dṛṣṭa-karma）能感得滿果（pūraṇa-phala）而非眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）。』第三種說法是：『四種業都能感得眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）和滿果（pūraṇa-phala）。』 《婆沙論》既然針對滿果（pūraṇa-phala）說了眾同分（nikāyasabhāga），卻沒有說命根（jīvitendriya），因此可知生命（jīvita）只是滿果（pūraṇa-phala）。 答：那段文字說明了四業（catuḥ-karma）感果（phala）時，引果（ākarṣa-phala）和滿果（pūraṇa-phala）的差別。在引果（ākarṣa-phala）中舉了眾同分（nikāyasabhāga），生命（jīvita）可以類比。而《婆沙論》第三十一卷明確說明了眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）和命根（jīvitendriya）是什麼果（phala），所以詳細說了兩種牽引果（ākarṣa-phala）。四業（catuḥ-karma）中的說法是推測的含義，《婆沙論》第三十一卷和《正理經》是明確的經文，不能用解釋明確經文的方式來推測含義。此論說，引果（ākarṣa-phala）只有三種，這就是第二種師的含義。因為引果（ākarṣa-phala）有生命（jīvita）和眾同分（nikāyasabhāga），說引果（ākarṣa-phala）是爲了簡別命根（jīvitendriya）。如果只有眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）是引果（ākarṣa-phala），就應該只說『引』，何必用『同分』這個詞呢？ 問：生命（jīvita）和眾同分（nikāyasabhāga）都是引果（ākarṣa-phala），為什麼只說留捨命行（jīvita-vyūha），而不說留舍同分（nikāyasabhāga）？ 答：因為二者的作用不同。所以論中說：『一是趣向生等。』
【English Translation】 English version: Question: After attracting life (Ākarṣa-jīvita), why is 'fixed karma' (niyata-karma) still used? If life is 'fulfillment' (pūraṇa), then it contradicts the statements in Vibhāṣā, volume 31, and Nyāyānusāra, volume 16, which will be elaborated later. Furthermore, it is said that the life-faculty (jīvitendriya) and the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) can both determine the duration of the six sense bases (ṣaḍāyatana), and one should not speculate arbitrarily as mentioned earlier. Question: Which, life (jīvita) or the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga), is the attracting result (ākarṣa-phala)? Answer: Vibhāṣā, volume 31, states: 'Furthermore, the life-faculty (jīvitendriya) and the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) are the attracting results (ākarṣa-phala).' Nyāyānusāra, volume 16, states: 'It is the volitional karma (manas-karma) that attracts life (jīvita) and the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga).' It is also said that bodily karma (kāya-karma) and verbal karma (vāk-karma) definitely cannot attract life (jīvita) and the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga); otherwise, it would contradict the sūtras and the principles of reasoning (nyāya). The sūtra states that it is attracted by the thought (cetanā) of an inferior realm. This refers to the life (jīvita) and the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) in the desire realm (kāmadhātu). It is also said that the life-faculty (jīvitendriya) and the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) are not attracted by each individual subtle particle (paramāṇu) in sequence, because they arise from a single mind (eka-citta). This passage in Nyāyānusāra is the same as Vibhāṣā, volume 31. Since there is a clear statement that life (jīvita) is an attracting result (ākarṣa-phala), and there is no statement that life (jīvita) is a fulfilling result (pūraṇa-phala), one cannot assume that life (jīvita) is a fulfilling result (pūraṇa-phala) and contradict the clear statement. Question: If so, why does Vibhāṣā, volume 114, explain the four karmas (catuḥ-karma) in three ways? The first way is: 'Generative karma (janaka-karma) and subsequent karma (apara-karma) produce the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) and fulfilling results (pūraṇa-phala), while visible karma (dṛṣṭa-karma) and indeterminate karma (aniyata-karma) produce fulfilling results (pūraṇa-phala) but not the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga).' The second way is: 'Three karmas produce the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) and fulfilling results (pūraṇa-phala), except for visible karma (dṛṣṭa-karma), which can produce fulfilling results (pūraṇa-phala) but not the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga).' The third way is: 'All four karmas can produce the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) and fulfilling results (pūraṇa-phala).' Since Vibhāṣā speaks of the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) in relation to fulfilling results (pūraṇa-phala) but does not mention the life-faculty (jīvitendriya), it can be inferred that life (jīvita) is only a fulfilling result (pūraṇa-phala). Answer: That passage explains the difference between attracting results (ākarṣa-phala) and fulfilling results (pūraṇa-phala) when the four karmas (catuḥ-karma) produce results (phala). The commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) is mentioned in attracting results (ākarṣa-phala), and life (jīvita) can be analogized. Vibhāṣā, volume 31, clearly explains what results (phala) the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) and the life-faculty (jīvitendriya) are, so it elaborates on the two types of attracting results (ākarṣa-phala). The statement in the four karmas (catuḥ-karma) is an inferred meaning, while Vibhāṣā, volume 31, and Nyāyānusāra are clear statements, and one cannot interpret clear statements based on inferred meanings. This treatise states that there are only three types of attracting results (ākarṣa-phala), which is the meaning of the second teacher. Because attracting results (ākarṣa-phala) include life (jīvita) and the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga), the term 'attracting' is used to distinguish the life-faculty (jīvitendriya). If only the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) were an attracting result (ākarṣa-phala), it should simply be called 'attracting'; why use the term 'commonality of beings'? Question: Since life (jīvita) and the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga) are both attracting results (ākarṣa-phala), why is only the maintenance of life (jīvita-vyūha) mentioned, and not the maintenance of the commonality of beings (nikāyasabhāga)? Answer: Because the functions of the two are different. Therefore, the treatise states: 'One is to proceed towards birth, etc.'
諸有情類所有身形諸根業用。及飲食等互相似因。並其展轉相樂欲因名眾同分。故有別法能轉暖．識相續住因說名為壽。又命根增上用。謂能令眾同分相續住等。準此故知延．促是命。非是眾同分也。
論。尊者妙音至舍壽行。如文可解。
論。應如是說至皆是異熟。此述論主釋也。如文可解。正理破云。而經主言由勝定力引取未曾諸根大種住時勢分。如此命根非是異熟。余是異熟 此言非理。所以者何。且彼唯說諸根大種住時勢分名為命根。如后當破。設許如是。隨執彼為長養等性。皆不應理。且不應執是長養性。彼能訪護異熟果故。所防異熟已轉盡故。不應異熟相續斷已獨有長養。太過失故。亦不應執是等流性。眼等無別等流性故。無記非善等流果故。又界應成雜亂過故。亦不應執是異熟性。定非欲界異熟因故。又彼自許如是事故。然其所說迷謬難詳。任更指陳。彼名何法而言此命非異熟耶。
論。因論生論至二種堪能者。釋留壽行所以。可知。
論。復何因緣至猶如舍眾病。釋舍壽行所以。如文可解。
論。此中應知至無煩惱故。釋留舍壽處．人等也 處唯三洲 趣。唯是人 依。唯男．女 根。唯不時解脫。慧．俱解脫者。唯俱解脫 得邊際定諸阿羅漢。辨位 由彼身中有自
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：所有有情眾生的身形、諸根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）的業用，以及飲食等，它們之間相互相似的原因，以及輾轉相續的快樂和慾望的原因，稱為眾同分（所有生命共有的特性）。因此，有一種特別的法能夠使暖（體溫）、識（意識）相續不斷地存在，這種原因被稱為壽（壽命）。另外，命根（維持生命的力量）具有增上的作用，能夠使眾同分相續不斷地存在等等。根據這個道理可知，壽命的延長和縮短是命根的作用，而不是眾同分的作用。
論：尊者妙音到達舍壽行（放棄壽命的行為）的境界，如原文所說的那樣可以理解。
論：應該這樣說，直到『皆是異熟（都是由業力成熟的結果）』。這是論主的解釋，如原文所說的那樣可以理解。正理反駁說：而經主說，由於殊勝的禪定力，引取了未曾有過的諸根和大種（地、水、火、風）的住時勢分（存在的時間和力量）。如此說來，命根不是異熟，其餘的才是異熟。這種說法是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為他們僅僅說諸根和大種住時勢分名為命根，這一點後面將會駁斥。即使允許這樣說，隨便執著它為長養等性質，都是不合理的。而且不應該執著它是長養的性質，因為它能夠訪問和保護異熟果。所要防護的異熟已經完全消盡了，不應該在異熟相續斷絕之後，單獨存在長養，這樣就太過分了。也不應該執著它是等流性（同類相續的性質），因為眼等沒有特別的等流性。無記（非善非惡）不是善的等流果。而且，界（界限）應該成為雜亂的過失。也不應該執著它是異熟性，因為禪定不是欲界異熟的原因。而且他們自己也承認這樣的事情。然而他們所說的迷謬難以詳盡，任憑他們再去指陳。他們所說的到底是什麼法，竟然說這個命不是異熟呢？
論：因論而生論，直到『二種堪能者（兩種有能力的人）』。解釋了留壽行（保持壽命的行為）的原因，可以理解。
論：又是什麼因緣，直到『猶如舍眾病（就像捨棄各種疾病一樣）』。解釋了舍壽行（放棄壽命的行為）的原因，如原文所說的那樣可以理解。
論：這裡應該知道，直到『無煩惱故（因為沒有煩惱的緣故）』。解釋了留舍壽（保持或放棄壽命）的處所、人等。處所只有三洲（東勝身洲、南贍部洲、西牛貨洲）。趣（所去的方向）只有人。依（所依賴的）只有男和女。根（根器）只有不時解脫（不需要特定時間就能解脫的人）。慧解脫（依靠智慧解脫的人）和俱解脫（同時依靠智慧和禪定解脫的人）中，只有俱解脫。得到邊際定（最高禪定）的諸阿羅漢（斷盡煩惱的聖人）。辨別他們的地位。因為他們的身中具有自身。
【English Translation】 English version: All sentient beings' bodies, faculties (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind), karmic functions, and food, etc., the causes of their mutual similarities, as well as the causes of their continuous joy and desires, are called 'commonality of beings' (the characteristics shared by all life). Therefore, there is a special Dharma that can cause warmth (body temperature) and consciousness to continue uninterruptedly. This cause is called 'life' (lifespan). In addition, the 'life force' (the power that sustains life) has an enhancing effect, enabling the 'commonality of beings' to continue uninterruptedly, and so on. According to this principle, it can be known that the lengthening and shortening of lifespan are the functions of the life force, not the functions of the 'commonality of beings'.
Treatise: Venerable Wonderful Sound reaches the state of 'abandoning the lifespan practice' (the act of giving up lifespan), which can be understood as stated in the original text.
Treatise: It should be said like this, until 'all are results of maturation' (all are the result of karmic maturation). This is the explanation of the treatise master, which can be understood as stated in the original text. The 'Right Reasoning' refutes: But the Sutra master says that due to the power of superior Samadhi (meditative concentration), it draws upon the unprecedented faculties and the temporal power of the great elements (earth, water, fire, wind). In this way, the life force is not a result of maturation, but the rest are results of maturation. This statement is unreasonable. Why? Because they only say that the temporal power of the faculties and the great elements is called the life force, which will be refuted later. Even if it is allowed to say so, arbitrarily clinging to it as the nature of nourishment, etc., is unreasonable. Moreover, it should not be clung to as the nature of nourishment, because it can visit and protect the fruits of maturation. The maturation to be protected has been completely exhausted, and nourishment should not exist alone after the continuous maturation has been cut off, which would be too much. Nor should it be clung to as the nature of 'flowing in the same category' (the nature of continuous flow in the same category), because eyes, etc., do not have a special nature of 'flowing in the same category'. The 'unspecified' (neither good nor evil) is not the fruit of the good 'flowing in the same category'. Moreover, the 'realm' (boundary) should become a confused fault. Nor should it be clung to as the nature of maturation, because Samadhi is not the cause of maturation in the desire realm. Moreover, they themselves admit such things. However, what they say is confusing and difficult to detail, let them point it out again. What Dharma are they talking about, that they say this life is not a result of maturation?
Treatise: From the discussion arising from the discussion, until 'two capable ones' (two kinds of capable people). It explains the reason for 'maintaining the lifespan practice' (the act of maintaining lifespan), which can be understood.
Treatise: And what is the reason, until 'like abandoning all diseases' (just like abandoning all kinds of diseases). It explains the reason for 'abandoning the lifespan practice' (the act of giving up lifespan), which can be understood as stated in the original text.
Treatise: Here it should be known, until 'because there are no afflictions' (because there are no afflictions). It explains the place, people, etc., for 'maintaining or abandoning lifespan' (maintaining or giving up lifespan). The places are only the three continents (Purva-videha, Jambudvipa, Aparagodaniya). The destination is only humans. The reliance is only male and female. The faculties are only those who are liberated out of season (those who can be liberated without a specific time). Among those who are liberated by wisdom (those who are liberated by relying on wisdom) and those who are liberated simultaneously (those who are liberated by relying on both wisdom and Samadhi), only those who are liberated simultaneously. The Arhats (saints who have cut off all afflictions) who have attained the ultimate Samadhi (highest meditative concentration). Distinguish their positions. Because their bodies have their own.
在定。簡鈍根 無煩惱故。簡有學。
論。經說世尊至由此暫住名為命行。此釋經中壽行命行二名差別。如文可解。
論。多言為顯至不應言行。釋多命壽。然有三解 第一解云。此顯命壽留．舍多念。非一剎那有留．舍義故。婆沙云。多言顯示所留．所舍非一剎那。行言為顯示所留．所舍是無常法 第二有部解云。有說。此多言者。為遮正量部計有一命壽實體經多時住。初起名生。終盡名滅。中間名住異。行言為顯留．舍多念。命行．壽行唸唸體別非一命壽經多時住 第三經部師說。多言為顯無一實命壽體。但於五蘊眾多行上。假立如是命．壽二名故說多行。若謂不然。不應言行。但可應言留多命舍多壽。以此行是有為通名非唯命壽。
論。世尊何故至煩惱魔故。此明世尊留．舍。如文可解。婆沙百二十六云。經說世尊留多命行。舍多壽行。其義云何。有作是說。諸佛世尊舍第三分壽。有作是說。諸佛世尊舍第五分壽。若說諸佛舍第三分壽者。彼說世尊釋迦牟尼壽量應住一百二十。舍后四十但受八十。問佛出世時。此洲人壽不過百歲。何故世尊釋迦牟尼壽百二十。答如佛色．力．種姓．富貴．徒眾．智見。勝餘有情。壽量亦應過眾人故。若說諸佛舍第五分壽者。彼說世尊釋迦牟尼所感壽量應住百
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『在定』是指簡擇鈍根（zhundun gen），因為他們沒有煩惱。『簡有學』是指簡擇那些還在學習的人。
論：經中說世尊（Shìzūn，對佛的尊稱）到達此處暫時停留，這被稱為『命行』。這是解釋經文中『壽行』（shòuxíng）和『命行』（mìngxíng）這兩個名稱的差別，如同經文的字面意思可以理解的那樣。
論：多說『為顯』是爲了顯示不應說『行』。解釋『多命壽』。然而有三種解釋：第一種解釋說，這顯示了命和壽的停留和捨棄有很多念頭，而不是一個剎那有停留和捨棄的意義。婆沙（Póshā）中說，『多』這個詞顯示了所停留和所捨棄的不是一個剎那。『行』這個詞顯示了所停留和所捨棄的是無常法。第二種有部（yǒu bù）的解釋說，有人說，這個『多』字，是爲了遮止正量部（zhèngliàng bù）認為有一個命壽的實體，經過很長時間的停留。最初生起叫做『生』，最終結束叫做『滅』，中間叫做『住異』。『行』這個詞是爲了顯示停留和捨棄有很多念頭，命行和壽行唸唸的體性不同，不是一個命壽經過很長時間的停留。第三種經部師（jīng bù shī）說，『多』這個詞是爲了顯示沒有一個真實的命壽實體，只是在五蘊（wǔyùn）眾多行上，假立了命和壽這兩個名稱，所以說『多行』。如果說不是這樣，就不應該說『行』，但可以應該說停留很多命，捨棄很多壽。因為這個『行』是有為法（yǒuwéi fǎ）的通用名稱，不是隻有命壽。
論：世尊為什麼留和舍？如同經文的字面意思可以理解的那樣。婆沙第一百二十六卷中說，經中說世尊停留很多命行，捨棄很多壽行，這是什麼意思呢？有人這樣說，諸佛世尊（zhū fó shìzūn）捨棄了三分之一的壽命。有人這樣說，諸佛世尊捨棄了五分之一的壽命。如果說諸佛捨棄了三分之一的壽命，那麼他們說世尊釋迦牟尼（Shìjiāmóuní，佛教創始人）的壽命應該住世一百二十年，捨棄後面的四十年，只接受八十年。問：佛出世的時候，這個洲的人的壽命不超過一百歲，為什麼世尊釋迦牟尼的壽命有一百二十歲？答：如同佛的顏色、力量、種姓、富貴、徒眾、智見，勝過其他有情，壽命也應該超過眾人。 如果說諸佛捨棄了五分之一的壽命，那麼他們說世尊釋迦牟尼所感應的壽命應該住世一百年。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Being in Samadhi' refers to selecting those of dull faculties (zhundun gen), because they are without afflictions. 'Selecting the Learners' refers to selecting those who are still learning.
Treatise: The sutra says that the World-Honored One (Shìzūn, a respectful title for the Buddha) arrived here and temporarily stayed, which is called 'life activity'. This explains the difference between the two names 'lifespan activity' (shòuxíng) and 'life activity' (mìngxíng) in the sutra, as can be understood from the literal meaning of the text.
Treatise: Saying 'for manifestation' is to show that 'activity' should not be said. Explaining 'multiple life spans'. However, there are three explanations: The first explanation says that this shows that the retention and abandonment of life and lifespan have many thoughts, rather than a single moment having the meaning of retention and abandonment. The Vibhasa (Póshā) says that the word 'multiple' shows that what is retained and what is abandoned is not a single moment. The word 'activity' shows that what is retained and what is abandoned is impermanent dharma. The second explanation from the Sarvastivada school (yǒu bù) says that some say that the word 'multiple' is to prevent the Sautrantika school (zhèngliàng bù) from believing that there is a life-span entity that stays for a long time. The initial arising is called 'birth', the final ending is called 'cessation', and the middle is called 'abiding differently'. The word 'activity' is to show that the retention and abandonment have many thoughts, and the nature of life activity and lifespan activity are different in each thought, not a single life-span staying for a long time. The third explanation from the Sutra school (jīng bù shī) says that the word 'multiple' is to show that there is no real life-span entity, but only on the many activities of the five aggregates (wǔyùn), the two names of life and lifespan are falsely established, so it is said 'multiple activities'. If it is said that it is not so, then 'activity' should not be said, but it should be said that many lives are retained and many lifespans are abandoned. Because this 'activity' is a general name for conditioned dharmas (yǒuwéi fǎ), not only life and lifespan.
Treatise: Why did the World-Honored One retain and abandon? As can be understood from the literal meaning of the text. The one hundred and twenty-sixth volume of the Vibhasa says that the sutra says that the World-Honored One retained many life activities and abandoned many lifespan activities. What does this mean? Some say that the Buddhas, World-Honored Ones (zhū fó shìzūn) abandoned one-third of their lifespan. Some say that the Buddhas, World-Honored Ones abandoned one-fifth of their lifespan. If it is said that the Buddhas abandoned one-third of their lifespan, then they say that the lifespan of the World-Honored One Shakyamuni (Shìjiāmóuní, the founder of Buddhism) should have been one hundred and twenty years, abandoning the last forty years and only accepting eighty years. Question: When the Buddha appeared in the world, the lifespan of the people on this continent did not exceed one hundred years. Why did the World-Honored One Shakyamuni have a lifespan of one hundred and twenty years? Answer: Just as the Buddha's color, strength, lineage, wealth, retinue, and wisdom surpass other sentient beings, his lifespan should also surpass the lifespan of others. If it is said that the Buddhas abandoned one-fifth of their lifespan, then they say that the lifespan of the World-Honored One Shakyamuni should have been one hundred years.
年。舍后二十但受八十。問諸佛色．力．種姓．富貴．徒眾．智見。勝餘有情。何故壽量與眾人等。答生在爾所壽量時故。由此經言舍壽行者。謂舍四十或二十歲 正理二十二同婆沙。
論。傍論已竟至皆通二類。釋憂根．及信等八根。是有記故唯非異熟。七色根．意根．除憂四受。十二通異熟．非異熟。
論。七有色根至余皆異熟。重釋。如文可解。
論。若說憂根至順舍受業。外難。既有三順受業。喜．舍即是異熟。故順受業。亦是順憂異熟業也。
論。依受相應至名順樂受觸。有部通難。此是相應名順。非順異熟果也。
論。若爾至亦應如是。外將喜．舍受例。亦應唯據相應名順。
論。一經說故至理皆無失。有部通也。言順異熟於我無違。相應名順亦是於我無違。
論。無逃難處至憂非異熟。外重徴也。
論。以憂分別至異熟不爾。有部釋也。
論。若爾喜根至生及止息故。外人將喜根例難也。
論。若許憂根至名果已熟。有部反難外人。
論。亦應如是至名果已熟。外引喜根例釋。
論。毗婆沙師至故非異熟。有部引婆沙釋。正理論云。何緣定謂憂非異熟。此是異熟不應理故。云何不應。離欲貪者不隨轉故。異熟不然。設計隨
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 年。捨棄后二十年但接受八十年。問諸佛的色身、力量、種姓、富貴、徒眾、智見，勝過其他有情。為何壽命長短與眾人相等？答：因為生存在那個壽命長短的時代。因此經文說捨棄壽命行者，是指捨棄四十歲或二十歲。正理論第二十二卷與婆沙論相同。 論：旁論已經結束，到達皆通二類。解釋憂根以及信等八根，因為是有記，所以唯是非異熟。七色根、意根、除去憂的四種受，十二種是通異熟、非異熟。 論：七有色根到其餘都是異熟。重新解釋，如文義可以理解。 論：如果說憂根直到順舍受業。外人提出疑問：既然有三種順受業，喜受、舍受就是異熟，所以順受業，也是順憂異熟業。 論：依靠受相應直到名為順樂受觸。有部通難：這是相應，名為順，不是順異熟果。 論：如果這樣，也應該如此。外人將喜受、舍受作為例子，也應該僅僅根據相應，名為順。 論：因為一部經這樣說，道理上都沒有過失。有部通達。說順異熟對我沒有違背，相應名為順，也是對我沒有違背。 論：沒有逃避困難的地方，憂不是異熟。外人再次提出質疑。 論：因為憂愁分別直到異熟不是這樣。有部解釋。 論：如果這樣，喜根直到生起以及止息的緣故。外人將喜根作為例子來為難。 論：如果允許憂根直到名為果已經成熟。有部反過來為難外人。 論：也應該這樣直到名為果已經成熟。外人引用喜根作為例子來解釋。 論：毗婆沙師直到所以不是異熟。有部引用毗婆沙的解釋。正理論說：什麼緣故一定說憂不是異熟？這是異熟不應該的緣故。為什麼不應該？因為離開欲貪的人不隨之轉變的緣故。異熟不是這樣，設計隨。
【English Translation】 English version: Year. After abandoning twenty years, they only receive eighty years. Question: The Buddhas' form, strength, lineage, wealth, retinue, wisdom, and insight surpass other sentient beings. Why is their lifespan equal to that of ordinary people? Answer: Because they are born in an era with that lifespan. Therefore, the sutra says that those who abandon their lifespan are those who abandon forty or twenty years. The twenty-second volume of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) is the same as the Mahāvibhāṣā (婆沙). Treatise: The side discussion is over, reaching 'all are connected to two categories.' Explaining the root of sorrow (dveṣa) and the eight roots such as faith (śraddhā), because they are marked (saṃjñā), they are only non-resultant (vipāka). The seven sense-organs (rūpa-indriya), the mind-organ (manas-indriya), and the four feelings excluding sorrow, twelve are both resultant and non-resultant. Treatise: The seven material sense-organs to the rest are all resultant. Re-explanation, as the text can be understood. Treatise: If it is said that the root of sorrow leads to karma that accords with neutral feeling (upekṣā). An outsider raises a question: Since there are three types of karma that accord with feeling, joy (prīti) and neutral feeling are resultant, so karma that accords with feeling is also karma that accords with sorrow and is resultant. Treatise: Relying on feeling association until it is called contact that accords with pleasant feeling. The Sarvāstivāda school generally objects: This is association, called accord, not a resultant fruit that accords. Treatise: If that's the case, it should also be like this. The outsider uses joy and neutral feeling as examples, it should also only be based on association, called accord. Treatise: Because one sutra says so, there is no fault in the principle. The Sarvāstivāda school understands. Saying that according with result does not contradict me, and that association is called accord also does not contradict me. Treatise: There is no place to escape difficulty, sorrow is not resultant. The outsider raises the question again. Treatise: Because sorrow distinguishes until the resultant is not like this. The Sarvāstivāda school explains. Treatise: If that's the case, the root of joy until the reason for arising and ceasing. The outsider uses the root of joy as an example to make things difficult. Treatise: If you allow the root of sorrow until it is called the fruit has matured. The Sarvāstivāda school counters the outsider. Treatise: It should also be like this until it is called the fruit has matured. The outsider cites the root of joy as an example to explain. Treatise: The Vibhāṣā master until therefore it is not resultant. The Sarvāstivāda school cites the Vibhāṣā explanation. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: For what reason is it definitely said that sorrow is not resultant? This is because it is resultant and should not be. Why should it not be? Because those who are free from desire do not follow it. The resultant is not like this, design follows.
轉應如苦根。阿羅漢等亦可知有。而實非有。經所遮故。如契經說。設見大師般涅槃位。亦無愁等又無用故。善亦不行。非能攝益如喜根故。
論。若爾至何相知有。外人徴喜根有相也。
論。隨彼有相至定非異熟。此有部釋有喜無憂相也。
論。眼等八根至是惡異熟。此釋異熟諸根于善．惡趣異熟不同。
論。于善趣中至善業引故。此釋伏難。如文可解。
論。如是已說至幾無異熟。下一頌第三明有異熟．無異熟門。
論曰至定有異熟。釋頌第一句也。
論。依唯越義頌說定聲。釋頌定字。
論。謂顯憂根至故越次說。釋越次第 先說憂根定有異熟所以。一以唯有異熟。二以兼具二義。由此二故越次先說憂根定有異熟。
論。具二義者至唯散地故。釋二義也。唯有異熟有其二義。一非無記。二非無漏。憂根具有故先說也。
論。由此越次至定有異熟。此結先說憂根定有異熟所以。
論。眼等前八至三無漏故。釋十一根定無異熟 無異熟有二義。一無記故。二無漏故。眼等八根唯有一義。謂無記故。無無漏也。三無漏根唯有一義。謂無漏故。無無記也。雖有定無異熟之義。不兼二故。不越次說。于第二說定無異熟。
論。余皆通二至皆通
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『轉應』（Vipāka）就像苦根（duḥkha-indriya）。阿羅漢（Arhat）等聖者也可能知道它的存在，但實際上它並不存在，因為經典中已經遮止了它的存在。正如契經（sūtra）所說，即使見到大師（佛陀）進入般涅槃（parinirvāṇa）的狀態，也不會有憂愁等情緒，而且它也沒有實際作用，不能像喜根（somanassa-indriya）那樣帶來利益。
論：如果這樣，那麼通過什麼特徵可以知道喜根（somanassa-indriya）存在呢？外人提出了喜根存在的特徵。
論：根據它所具有的特徵，可以確定它不是異熟果（vipāka）。這是有部（Sarvāstivāda）對喜根有而憂根無的解釋。
論：眼等八根（cakṣur-indriya, śrotra-indriya, ghrāṇa-indriya, jihvā-indriya, kāya-indriya, mana-indriya, jīvita-indriya, puruṣa-indriya/strī-indriya）是惡趣的異熟果。這是解釋異熟諸根在善趣和惡趣中的異熟不同。
論：在善趣中，這是由善業所引導的。這是爲了消除疑問，如文中所述，可以理解。
論：如上所述，已經說明了哪些根沒有異熟果。下一頌的第三句說明了有異熟果和無異熟果的方面。
論曰：可以確定有異熟果。這是解釋頌的第一句。
論：依靠『唯』和『越』的含義，頌中使用了『定』字。這是解釋頌中的『定』字。
論：這意味著憂根（daurmanasya-indriya）只有異熟果，所以越過其他根先說它。這是解釋越過次第，先說憂根一定有異熟果的原因。一是它只有異熟果，二是它兼具兩種含義。由於這兩個原因，所以越過其他根先說憂根一定有異熟果。
論：兼具兩種含義是指它既不是無記性（avyākṛta），也不是無漏性（anāsrava），而只存在於散亂之地（vikṣipta-bhūmi）。這是解釋兩種含義。只有異熟果具有兩種含義：一是非無記性，二是非無漏性。憂根兼具這兩種含義，所以先說它。
論：因此，越過其他根先說憂根一定有異熟果。這是總結先說憂根一定有異熟果的原因。
論：眼等前八根（cakṣur-indriya, śrotra-indriya, ghrāṇa-indriya, jihvā-indriya, kāya-indriya, mana-indriya, jīvita-indriya, puruṣa-indriya/strī-indriya）以及三無漏根（anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya, ājñendriya, ājñātāvīndriya）沒有異熟果。這是解釋十一個根一定沒有異熟果。沒有異熟果有兩種含義：一是無記性，二是無漏性。眼等八根只有一種含義，即無記性，沒有無漏性。三無漏根只有一種含義，即無漏性，沒有無記性。雖然有一定沒有異熟果的含義，但不兼具兩種含義，所以不越過其他根先說，而是在第二位說一定沒有異熟果。
論：其餘的根都通於兩種含義，都通於...
【English Translation】 English version 『Vipāka』 (轉應) is like the root of suffering (duḥkha-indriya). Even Arhats (阿羅漢) and others may know of its existence, but in reality, it does not exist because the scriptures have prohibited it. As the sūtra (契經) says, even when seeing the master (the Buddha) enter the state of parinirvāṇa (般涅槃), there will be no sorrow or other emotions, and it has no practical use, unlike the root of joy (somanassa-indriya), which can bring benefits.
Treatise: If that is the case, then through what characteristics can the existence of the root of joy (somanassa-indriya) be known? Outsiders have proposed the characteristics of the existence of the root of joy.
Treatise: According to the characteristics it possesses, it can be determined that it is not a vipāka (異熟果). This is the Sarvāstivāda (有部) explanation of the existence of the root of joy and the absence of the root of sorrow.
Treatise: The eight roots such as the eye (cakṣur-indriya), etc. (śrotra-indriya, ghrāṇa-indriya, jihvā-indriya, kāya-indriya, mana-indriya, jīvita-indriya, puruṣa-indriya/strī-indriya) are the vipāka of evil realms. This explains the difference in vipāka of the roots in good and evil realms.
Treatise: In good realms, this is guided by good karma. This is to eliminate doubts, and as stated in the text, it can be understood.
Treatise: As mentioned above, it has been explained which roots do not have vipāka. The third line of the next verse explains the aspects of having vipāka and not having vipāka.
Treatise says: It can be determined that there is vipāka. This is an explanation of the first line of the verse.
Treatise: Relying on the meaning of 『only』 and 『exceeding,』 the word 『determined』 is used in the verse. This is an explanation of the word 『determined』 in the verse.
Treatise: This means that the root of sorrow (daurmanasya-indriya) only has vipāka, so it is mentioned before the other roots. This is an explanation of exceeding the order and first saying that the root of sorrow certainly has vipāka. First, it only has vipāka, and second, it has two meanings. Because of these two reasons, the root of sorrow is mentioned first, stating that it certainly has vipāka.
Treatise: Having two meanings means that it is neither unwholesome (avyākṛta) nor unconditioned (anāsrava), but only exists in a scattered state of mind (vikṣipta-bhūmi). This is an explanation of the two meanings. Only vipāka has two meanings: one is that it is not unwholesome, and the other is that it is not unconditioned. The root of sorrow has both of these meanings, so it is mentioned first.
Treatise: Therefore, exceeding the other roots and first saying that the root of sorrow certainly has vipāka. This is a summary of the reason for first saying that the root of sorrow certainly has vipāka.
Treatise: The first eight roots such as the eye (cakṣur-indriya), etc. (śrotra-indriya, ghrāṇa-indriya, jihvā-indriya, kāya-indriya, mana-indriya, jīvita-indriya, puruṣa-indriya/strī-indriya) and the three unconditioned roots (anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya, ājñendriya, ājñātāvīndriya) do not have vipāka. This explains that eleven roots certainly do not have vipāka. There are two meanings for not having vipāka: one is that it is unwholesome, and the other is that it is unconditioned. The eight roots such as the eye only have one meaning, which is that they are unwholesome, and they are not unconditioned. The three unconditioned roots only have one meaning, which is that they are unconditioned, and they are not unwholesome. Although there is a meaning of certainly not having vipāka, it does not have both meanings, so it is not mentioned before the other roots, but is mentioned second, stating that it certainly does not have vipāka.
Treatise: The remaining roots all have two meanings, all have...
二類。準唯有記有漏有異熟。唯無記無漏無異熟。釋餘十根通二種也。先略后廣。此即略也。
論。意樂喜舍至無異熟。此釋四根通有漏．無漏。通三性。若非無漏非無記者。一向有異熟。若無記無漏者。無異熟。
論。苦根至無異熟。此釋苦根唯有漏通三性。唯無記性無異熟。
論。信等五根至無異熟。此釋五根通漏．無漏唯是善性。若有漏者即有異熟。
論。如是已說至幾無記。下一頌第四三性分別門也。
論曰至故先說。此釋信等八根先說所以。二十二根信等是后。次前門中復明信等。故乘前便說信等根。
論。憂根唯通至無記性。釋餘十四根。如文可解。憂根唯通善．不善性不通無記者。婆沙一百四十四釋憂非無記云。憂根且非有覆無記。由與欲界有身見．邊執見不相應故。所以者何。行相異故。彼二見歡行相轉。憂根戚行相轉。互相違法不相應故。憂根亦非無覆無記。非威儀．工巧處．異熟生所攝故。問何故憂根非威儀路所攝。答憂根分別轉。威儀路無分別轉。若威儀路有憂根者。設有分別我今應作如是威儀如佛世尊。或如馬勝。即分別時便應已住如是威儀。然威儀路無此分別。故威儀路無有憂根。問何故憂根非工巧處。答憂根分別轉。工巧處無分別轉。若工巧處有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 二類：只有記錄、有遺漏、有異熟（vipāka）。只有無記、無遺漏、無異熟。解釋其餘十根，它們貫通兩種情況。先簡略后詳細，這裡是簡略的部分。
論：意樂、喜、舍，直到沒有異熟。這裡解釋了四根貫通有漏和無漏，貫通三種性質。如果不是無漏也不是無記，一定有異熟。如果是無記無漏，就沒有異熟。
論：苦根，直到沒有異熟。這裡解釋了苦根只有有漏，貫通三種性質。只有無記性質沒有異熟。
論：信等五根，直到沒有異熟。這裡解釋了五根貫通有漏和無漏，只有善的性質。如果有漏，就有異熟。
論：像這樣已經說了，到有多少是無記的。下一頌是第四個三性分別門。
論曰：到所以先說。這裡解釋了信等八根先說的原因。二十二根中信等在後面。在前面的門中又說明了信等，所以趁著前面的內容就說了信等根。
論：憂根只貫通到無記性。解釋其餘十四根，就像文字可以理解的那樣。憂根只貫通善和不善性，不貫通無記性。婆沙一百四十四解釋憂不是無記，說：『憂根且不是有覆無記（sāvaraṇāvyākṛta），因為它與欲界（kāmadhātu）的有身見（satkāyadṛṣṭi）、邊執見（antagrahadṛṣṭi）不相應。』為什麼呢？因為行相不同。那兩種見是歡喜的行相轉變，憂根是悲慼的行相轉變，互相違背所以不相應。憂根也不是無覆無記（anāvaraṇāvyākṛta），不是威儀、工巧處、異熟生所包含的。問：為什麼憂根不是威儀路所包含的？答：憂根是分別轉變，威儀路沒有分別轉變。如果威儀路有憂根，假設有分別，我現在應該做出這樣的威儀，像佛世尊（Buddha）或者像馬勝（Aśvajit）。就在分別的時候就應該已經處於這樣的威儀了。然而威儀路沒有這種分別，所以威儀路沒有憂根。問：為什麼憂根不是工巧處？答：憂根是分別轉變，工巧處沒有分別轉變。如果工巧處有
【English Translation】 English version: Two categories: Only those that record, have outflows (āsrava), and have resultant maturation (vipāka). Only those that are indeterminate (avyākṛta), without outflows, and without resultant maturation. Explaining the remaining ten roots, they encompass both situations. First briefly, then extensively; this is the brief part.
Treatise: Mental ease (upekṣā), joy (prīti), equanimity (upekṣā), up to no resultant maturation. This explains that the four roots encompass both with and without outflows, encompassing the three natures. If it is neither without outflows nor indeterminate, it certainly has resultant maturation. If it is indeterminate and without outflows, it has no resultant maturation.
Treatise: Suffering root (duḥkha-indriya), up to no resultant maturation. This explains that the suffering root only has outflows, encompassing the three natures. Only the indeterminate nature has no resultant maturation.
Treatise: The five roots of faith (śraddhā), etc., up to no resultant maturation. This explains that the five roots encompass both with and without outflows, only being of a wholesome (kuśala) nature. If they have outflows, they have resultant maturation.
Treatise: As has been said, up to how many are indeterminate. The next verse is the fourth section on the differentiation of the three natures.
Treatise says: Up to therefore, it is said first. This explains the reason why the eight roots of faith, etc., are spoken of first. Among the twenty-two roots, faith, etc., are later. In the previous section, faith, etc., were again explained, so taking advantage of the previous content, the roots of faith, etc., were spoken of.
Treatise: The sorrow root (daurmanasya-indriya) only encompasses the indeterminate nature. Explaining the remaining fourteen roots, as the text can be understood. The sorrow root only encompasses wholesome and unwholesome (akuśala) natures, not encompassing the indeterminate nature. Vibhāṣā one hundred and forty-four explains that sorrow is not indeterminate, saying: 'The sorrow root is not obscured-indeterminate (sāvaraṇāvyākṛta), because it does not correspond with the personality belief (satkāyadṛṣṭi) and extreme views (antagrahadṛṣṭi) of the desire realm (kāmadhātu).' Why? Because the modes of operation are different. Those two views are transformations of a joyful mode of operation, the sorrow root is a transformation of a mournful mode of operation, mutually contradictory, therefore not corresponding. The sorrow root is also not unobscured-indeterminate (anāvaraṇāvyākṛta), not included in deportment, skillful activities, or resultant birth. Question: Why is the sorrow root not included in deportment? Answer: The sorrow root is a discriminative transformation, deportment has no discriminative transformation. If deportment had the sorrow root, supposing there was discrimination, I should now make such deportment, like the World Honored One (Buddha) or like Aśvajit (Aśvajit). At the moment of discrimination, one should already be in such deportment. However, deportment has no such discrimination, therefore deportment has no sorrow root. Question: Why is the sorrow root not in skillful activities? Answer: The sorrow root is a discriminative transformation, skillful activities have
憂根者。設有分別我今應作如是工巧如佛世尊或如妙業天子。即分別時已應成辨如是工巧。然工巧處無此分別。故工巧處無有憂根。問何故憂根非異熟生。答憂根分別轉。異熟生無分別轉。若異熟生有憂根者。設有分別我今應受如是異熟如佛世尊。或如轉輪聖王。即分別時便應現受如是異熟。然異熟生無此分別。故異熟生無有憂根 廣如彼釋 問何故受通三性。念．定．慧不通三性。答受全中建立二十二根故。所以說四受通三性。念．定．慧唯善入二十二根故。所以不通三性。如建立二十二根中說。
論如是已說至幾無色界系。下一頌第五明界系門。
論曰至十九根。此明欲界唯有十九根。除后三無漏根故。
論。色界如前至亦通色界系。明十五根通色界系 通言欲顯色界亦有。兼除女．男．憂．苦。
論。除女男者至身醜陋故。此釋色界無男．女根所以。一以離淫慾法故 若爾因何有其鼻．舌。為釋伏難故言醜陋不同鼻舌有嚴身用。
論。若爾何故說彼為男。難也。男．女二名由二根得。彼無男根。何故名男。
論。於何處說。反問也。
論。契經中說至男身為梵。引經說也。
論。別有男相至男身所有者。此通經。雖無男根。而有男身眾相故名男也。非如欲界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對於憂根（duhkhendriya，憂苦之根）：如果有人分別思量『我現在應當做這樣的工巧之事，如同佛世尊或如妙業天子（Subhakarma-deva-putra，善業天之子）』，那麼在分別思量時，就已經應該成就這樣的工巧之事了。然而，在工巧之處並沒有這樣的分別思量，所以工巧之處沒有憂根。問：為什麼憂根不是異熟生（vipāka-ja，果報所生）？答：憂根是分別轉起的，而異熟生沒有分別轉起。如果異熟生有憂根，那麼有人分別思量『我現在應當承受這樣的異熟果報，如同佛世尊或如轉輪聖王（cakravartin，統治世界的君主）』，那麼在分別思量時，便應該立即承受這樣的異熟果報。然而，異熟生沒有這樣的分別思量，所以異熟生沒有憂根。詳細解釋如同彼處所說。問：為什麼受（vedanā，感受）通於三種性質（三性，即善、惡、無記），而念（smṛti，憶念）、定（samādhi，禪定）、慧（prajñā，智慧）不通於三種性質？答：因為受在全部之中建立了二十二根（dvāviṃśati indriyāṇi，二十二種功能），所以說四種受通於三種性質。念、定、慧唯有善性，才能進入二十二根，所以不通於三種性質。如同在建立二十二根中所說。
論：像這樣說完之後，說到有幾種是無系（asaṃyojaniya，不被煩惱束縛的）？下一頌第五說明界系門（dhātu-saṃyojana-dvāra，界與煩惱的聯繫）。
論：直到十九根。這說明欲界（kāmadhātu，慾望界）只有十九根，因為除去了后三種無漏根（anāsrava-indriya，無煩惱之根）。
論：如同前面所說，直到也通於系（saṃyojanīya，被煩惱束縛的）。說明十五根通於系。『通』字是爲了顯示色界（rūpadhātu，色界）也有。兼除女根（strīndriya，女性根）、男根（puruṣendriya，男性根）、憂根、苦根（duḥkha-indriya，痛苦根）。
論：除去女根、男根，是因為身體醜陋的緣故。這是解釋色界沒有男根、女根的原因。一是由於遠離淫慾之法。如果這樣，為什麼他們有鼻（ghrāṇa，嗅覺器官）、舌（jihvā，味覺器官）？爲了解釋這個疑問，所以說醜陋不同於鼻舌，鼻舌有莊嚴身體的作用。
論：如果這樣，為什麼說他們是男身？這是個難題。男、女二個名稱是由二根得到的。他們沒有男根，為什麼稱為男身？
論：在什麼地方說的？這是反問。
論：契經中說，男身是梵行者。這是引用經文來說明。
論：別有男相，是男身所有的。這是通經文來說明。雖然沒有男根，但是有男身眾多的相，所以稱為男身。不像欲界那樣。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the root of sorrow (duhkhendriya, the root of suffering): If someone were to contemplate, 'I should now perform such skillful work, like the Buddha, the World Honored One, or like Subhakarma-deva-putra (son of a god of good deeds),' then at the very moment of contemplation, such skillful work should already be accomplished. However, in the realm of skillful work, there is no such contemplation; therefore, in the realm of skillful work, there is no root of sorrow. Question: Why is the root of sorrow not born of fruition (vipāka-ja, born of karmic result)? Answer: The root of sorrow arises from discrimination, while that which is born of fruition does not arise from discrimination. If that which is born of fruition had a root of sorrow, then someone might contemplate, 'I should now receive such fruition, like the Buddha, the World Honored One, or like a Universal Monarch (cakravartin, a world-ruling monarch),' then at the very moment of contemplation, such fruition should immediately be received. However, that which is born of fruition does not have such contemplation; therefore, that which is born of fruition does not have a root of sorrow. The detailed explanation is as stated there. Question: Why does feeling (vedanā, sensation) encompass the three natures (three qualities, i.e., wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral), while mindfulness (smṛti, recollection), concentration (samādhi, meditation), and wisdom (prajñā, insight) do not encompass the three natures? Answer: Because feeling, in its entirety, establishes the twenty-two faculties (dvāviṃśati indriyāṇi, twenty-two functions), therefore it is said that the four types of feeling encompass the three natures. Mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are only wholesome and can enter into the twenty-two faculties; therefore, they do not encompass the three natures. As stated in the establishment of the twenty-two faculties.
Treatise: Having spoken thus, it is said how many are unbound (asaṃyojaniya, not bound by afflictions)? The next verse, the fifth, explains the gateway of realms and bonds (dhātu-saṃyojana-dvāra, the connection between realms and afflictions).
Treatise: Up to nineteen faculties. This explains that the desire realm (kāmadhātu, the realm of desire) has only nineteen faculties, because the last three unconditioned faculties (anāsrava-indriya, faculties free from defilements) are excluded.
Treatise: As previously stated, up to also bound (saṃyojanīya, bound by afflictions). Explains that fifteen faculties are bound. The word 'also' is to show that the form realm (rūpadhātu, the realm of form) also has them. It also excludes the female faculty (strīndriya, female organ), male faculty (puruṣendriya, male organ), sorrow faculty, and suffering faculty (duḥkha-indriya, faculty of suffering).
Treatise: Excluding the female and male faculties is because of the ugliness of the body. This explains why the form realm does not have male and female faculties. One reason is because of being apart from the law of lust. If so, why do they have a nose (ghrāṇa, olfactory organ) and tongue (jihvā, gustatory organ)? To explain this difficulty, it is said that ugliness is different from the nose and tongue, which have the function of adorning the body.
Treatise: If so, why are they said to be male? This is a difficult question. The two names, male and female, are obtained from the two faculties. They do not have the male faculty, so why are they called male?
Treatise: Where is it said? This is a counter-question.
Treatise: The sutra says that the male body is a practitioner of pure conduct. This is quoting the sutra to explain.
Treatise: There are other male characteristics that the male body possesses. This is explaining through the sutra. Although they do not have the male faculty, they have many characteristics of a male body, so they are called male. It is not like the desire realm.
無男根即無男相。
論。無苦根者至不善法故。釋無苦所以身凈妙故無等流苦。無不善法故無異熟苦也。
論。無憂根者至惱害事故。釋無憂所以也 一以所依身定潤故無憂 二以無憂境故無憂也。
論。無色如前至信等五根。明無色界唯八根也 言。通者。顯地獄亦有。
論。如是已說至幾非所斷。下一頌第六三斷分別門也。
論曰至非無漏故。明四根通三也。與見．修煩惱相應故見．修斷。通無漏故亦非所斷。憂根不通無漏故唯見．修所斷。但與見．修惑相應故。不通非斷。
論。七色命苦至皆有漏故。此明九根唯修所斷。不染污故不與見．修煩惱相應。及非第六意識所生故非見斷。皆有漏故是修所斷。不通非斷。
論。信等五根至及無漏故。釋信等五根。非染污故不通見斷。通有漏故是修所斷。通無漏故亦非所斷。
論。最後三根至是所斷故。釋后三根唯不斷也。
上來六頌六門分別義類差別。自下八頌就得等不同六門分別。
論。已說諸門義類差別。結前 何界已下生后。此下一頌第一明三界四生初得異熟根多少也。
論曰至定染污故。此明欲界三生。初生唯得二異熟根。爾時雖有意．舍二根。唯染污故非異熟根。異熟意根無法前得。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無男根即無男相』的意思是沒有男性性器官就沒有男性的外貌特徵。
論：沒有苦根的人不會產生不善法。解釋：因為沒有苦根，所以身心清凈美好，也就沒有由等流因產生的苦。因為沒有不善法，也就沒有由異熟因產生的苦。
論：沒有憂根的人不會產生惱害的事情。解釋：沒有憂根的原因是：一、所依賴的身體穩定滋潤，所以沒有憂愁；二、沒有引起憂愁的境界，所以沒有憂愁。
論：沒有色界（的根）如前面所說，（只有）信等五根。說明沒有（此處原文有誤，應為『色根』），只有八根。言：『通』的意思是，顯示地獄也有。
論：像這樣已經說了（各種根的差別），（接下來要說）哪些不是所斷的。下一頌是第六個關於三界斷的分別門。
論曰：乃至不是無漏的緣故。說明四根通於三界。與見惑、修惑煩惱相應，所以是見斷、修斷。通於無漏，所以也不是所斷。憂根不通於無漏，所以只是見斷、修斷。只是與見惑、修惑相應，所以不通於非斷。
論：七色（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、色、法）命（根）苦（根）乃至都是有漏的緣故。這裡說明九根只是修所斷。因為不是染污的，所以不與見惑、修惑煩惱相應。以及不是第六意識所生的，所以不是見斷。都是有漏的，所以是修所斷。不通於非斷。
論：信等五根乃至及無漏的緣故。解釋信等五根。因為不是染污的，所以不通於見斷。通於有漏，所以是修所斷。通於無漏，所以也不是所斷。
論：最後三根乃至是所斷的緣故。解釋最後三根只是不斷。
上面六頌是關於六個門（指六種分類方式）的義類差別。從下面八頌開始，就得等不同，用六個門來分別。
論：已經說了各種門的義類差別。總結前面所說的。什麼界以下，產生以後。下面一頌是第一個說明三界四生最初獲得異熟根的多少。
論曰：乃至決定染污的緣故。這裡說明欲界三生，最初產生時只能得到兩個異熟根。那時雖然有意根、舍根，但因為只是染污的，所以不是異熟根。異熟意根無法在之前獲得。
【English Translation】 English version 'No male organ means no male appearance.' means without male sexual organs, there is no male appearance.
Treatise: One without the root of suffering does not generate unwholesome dharmas. Explanation: Because there is no root of suffering, the body and mind are pure and wonderful, and there is no suffering arising from the cause of equal flow. Because there are no unwholesome dharmas, there is no suffering arising from the cause of different maturation (vipaka).
Treatise: One without the root of sorrow does not generate afflictive events. Explanation: The reasons for not having the root of sorrow are: First, the body on which one relies is stable and nourished, so there is no sorrow; second, there is no object that causes sorrow, so there is no sorrow.
Treatise: The absence of form realm (roots) is as previously stated, (only) the five roots of faith, etc. It explains that there are no (original text has an error, should be 'form roots'), only eight roots. The word 'common' means to show that the lower realms also have them.
Treatise: Having thus spoken of (the differences between the various roots), (next we will discuss) which are not to be severed. The next verse is the sixth section on the distinctions of severance in the three realms.
Treatise says: Up to the reason of not being unconditioned. It explains that the four roots are common to the three realms. Being associated with the afflictions of the views and cultivation, they are severed by views and cultivation. Being common to the unconditioned, they are also not to be severed. The root of sorrow is not common to the unconditioned, so it is only severed by views and cultivation. It is only associated with the delusions of views and cultivation, so it is not common to the non-severed.
Treatise: The seven forms (referring to eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, form, dharma), life (root), suffering (root), up to all being conditioned. This explains that the nine roots are only severed by cultivation. Because they are not defiled, they are not associated with the afflictions of views and cultivation. And because they are not produced by the sixth consciousness, they are not severed by views. All are conditioned, so they are severed by cultivation. They are not common to the non-severed.
Treatise: The five roots of faith, etc., up to and including the unconditioned. Explains the five roots of faith, etc. Because they are not defiled, they are not common to the severance by views. Being common to the conditioned, they are severed by cultivation. Being common to the unconditioned, they are also not to be severed.
Treatise: The last three roots, up to the reason of being severed. Explains that the last three roots are only non-severed.
The above six verses are about the differences in meaning and categories of the six doors (referring to six classification methods). From the following eight verses, the six doors are used to distinguish based on differences in attainment, etc.
Treatise: The differences in meaning and categories of the various doors have been explained. Summarizing what was said earlier. What realm and below, after arising. The following verse is the first to explain the amount of roots of different maturation initially obtained in the three realms and four births.
Treatise says: Up to the reason of being definitely defiled. This explains that the three births in the desire realm can only obtain two roots of different maturation at the initial birth. Although there are mind root and equanimity root at that time, they are not roots of different maturation because they are only defiled. The mind root of different maturation cannot be obtained before.
漸具根者無眼等四．及女．男也。
論。化生初位至初得八根。明化生也。準此化生必具諸根。
論。豈有二形至二形化生。釋通妨也。準此善趣無有二形．化生。此上所說唯異熟根。若兼染污並加意．舍。
論。說欲界中至色無色界。結引。
論。欲界欲勝至過色無色。釋頌但言欲．色不言界也 然詳此釋似當煩長。
論。色界初得至無形者說。釋色界也。
論。上唯命者至唯命非余。釋無色界。頌中上言以定勝生勝故。非是在欲．色界之上。無別處故。余文可解 正理論云。由此證知。命根實有。此若非有為得何根名生無色。非善．染污名業果生。未受彼生容現起故。又異熟心無續生理。唯許染心能續生故。過去未來非有論者。爾時三世異熟皆無。異熟既無。生依何說。必應許有生依實法(大乘有賴耶即無過。經部有過)婆沙一百四十七云。問余無色根爾時亦得。謂意．五受．信等五根此中何故不說。答有說。爾時一切得者此中即說。余無色根雖有得者。而非一切。是故不說。謂上地沒生下地時。雖得彼根。若自地沒還生自地彼皆不得。是故不說 述曰。此說先不成就今之得者名得。若自地沒還生自地。先成就故不名為得。從下地沒生上地時。爾時善．染亦先成就。唯異熟
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 漸具根者，指無眼等四根（眼根等四種感覺器官），以及女根、男根。
論：化生之初，便已具備八根。這說明是化生。由此推斷，化生必定具備所有諸根。
論：難道會有二形（同時具有男女兩性性徵）之人嗎？這是爲了消除疑問。由此推斷，善趣（好的去處）中沒有二形化生之人。以上所說的只是異熟根（由業力成熟而產生的根）。如果加上染污，還要加上意根和舍受。
論：在欲界中……直到色界和無色界沒有**（性器官）。這是總結。
論：欲界中慾望強烈……超過色界和無色界。這是解釋頌文中只說欲界和色界，而沒有說界的原因。然而，詳細解釋起來似乎會變得冗長。
論：最初獲得……直到無形者（沒有性器官的人）的說法。這是解釋。
論：上面只有命根……只有命根而不是其他。這是解釋無。頌文中說『上』，是因為以禪定勝過欲界，所以說勝生。不是在欲界、之上，沒有其他地方。其餘的文字可以理解。正理論說：由此可以證明，命根是真實存在的。如果命根不存在，那麼在無色界獲得什麼根而稱為生呢？不是善業或染污業所產生的，因為沒有接受那種生命形態，所以不能顯現。而且，異熟心（由業力成熟而產生的心）沒有延續生命的功能，只允許染污心延續生命。過去和未來不存在的論者認為，那時三世的異熟都是不存在的。異熟既然不存在，那麼生命的依據又是什麼呢？必定應該承認有生命的依據是真實存在的法（大乘有阿賴耶識就沒有過失，經部有過失）。《婆沙論》第一百四十七卷說：問：其餘無色界的根，那時也獲得了嗎？比如意根、五受根、信等五根，為什麼這裡沒有說？答：有的人說，那時一切獲得的，這裡都已經說了。其餘無色界的根，雖然有獲得的，但不是一切都獲得。所以沒有說。比如從上地死亡而生到下地時，雖然獲得了那些根，但如果從自己的地死亡而還生到自己的地，那麼他們都不能獲得。所以沒有說。述曰：這裡說的是先前沒有成就，現在獲得的才叫做獲得。如果從自己的地死亡而還生到自己的地，因為先前已經成就了，所以不叫做獲得。從下地死亡而生到上地時，那時善業和染污業也先前已經成就了，只有異熟。
【English Translation】 English version Those gradually possessing roots refer to the four without eyes, etc. (the four sense organs such as eye-faculty), as well as the female and male faculties.
Treatise: At the initial moment of apparitional birth, one possesses eight faculties. This clarifies that it is apparitional birth. Based on this, apparitional birth must possess all faculties.
Treatise: Could there be beings with two forms (having both male and female characteristics)? This is to dispel doubts. Based on this, there are no apparitional births with two forms in the good realms. What is mentioned above refers only to the resultant faculties (faculties arising from the maturation of karma). If defilements are included, then the mind faculty and feeling of indifference are also added.
Treatise: In the desire realm... until the form and formless realms have no ** (sexual organs). This is a conclusion.
Treatise: In the desire realm, desire is strong... surpassing the form and formless realms. This explains why the verse only mentions the desire and form realms, without mentioning the realms themselves. However, a detailed explanation seems to become lengthy.
Treatise: The initial attainment of ... until the statement about those without form (those without sexual organs). This explains .
Treatise: Above, only the life faculty... only the life faculty and not others. This explains the absence of . The verse says 'above' because it surpasses the desire realm through meditative concentration, hence the term 'superior birth'. It is not above the desire realm or ; there is no other place. The remaining text can be understood. The Nyāyānusāra says: From this, it is known that the life faculty truly exists. If the life faculty did not exist, then what faculty would be attained in the formless realm to be called birth? It is not born from wholesome or defiled karma, because that life form has not been received, so it cannot manifest. Moreover, the resultant mind (mind arising from the maturation of karma) does not have the function of continuing life; only the defiled mind is allowed to continue life. Those who argue that the past and future do not exist claim that the resultant states of the three times do not exist at that time. Since the resultant states do not exist, then what is the basis for saying there is birth? It must be admitted that the basis of life is a real dharma (in Mahayana, there is the Alaya-consciousness, so there is no fault; the Sautrāntikas have a fault). The Mahāvibhāṣā Volume 147 says: Question: Are the other formless realm faculties also attained at that time? Such as the mind faculty, the five feeling faculties, and the five faculties of faith, etc. Why are they not mentioned here? Answer: Some say that everything attained at that time is already mentioned here. Although the other formless realm faculties are attained, they are not all attained. Therefore, they are not mentioned. For example, when dying from a higher realm and being born in a lower realm, although those faculties are attained, if one dies from one's own realm and is reborn in one's own realm, then they are not attained. Therefore, they are not mentioned. Commentary: This says that what was not previously accomplished, but is now attained, is called attainment. If one dies from one's own realm and is reborn in one's own realm, it is not called attainment because it was previously accomplished. When dying from a lower realm and being born in a higher realm, wholesome and defiled karma have also been previously accomplished, only the resultant karma is new.
根無法前得。彼彼生處初獲名得 問若言雖同欲界以報別故。此無記根名初得者。何故得識不得眼云。如從二．三．四定沒生初靜慮．及欲界時。但得其識不得其眼。而於前身已得眼故 答前文據十八界作論。彼于眼界總說不簡異界．異地．及業果別。此中辨異熟根就業果說。雖于同地先成眼。業果不同名之為得。又說。此中但問初得業所生者。初受生位余無色根。雖有得者而非業生故此不說。后位所得雖業所生而非初得故此不說。此論意與後文同也。
論。說異熟根至幾根后滅。下一頌第二明最後滅諸根多少。
論曰在無色界至於最後滅。此釋無色界。前先欲后無色。此文先無色后欲者乘前義便。正理論云。又無色言遮彼有色。有餘師說彼有色故。若不說有實物命根。何異熟斷名無色死。若言異熟四蘊斷故彼名死者。善染污心現在前位應亦名死。若言彼地所受異熟猶未盡者。如何不受而有盡期。善．染污心現在前位。當言彼受何業異熟非不現前可名為受。若謂于彼異熟習氣恒隨轉故名為受者。理亦不然。所執習氣非極成故。太過失故。異熟雖盡習氣隨故。如業習氣應無死期。若異熟盡無習氣者。業亦不應有餘習氣。若言習氣望現異熟如我得者。應如我得異熟不起習氣則無。又非異熟習氣隨轉名受。異熟
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 根無法在之前獲得。在各個生命之處，最初獲得才稱為『得』。 問：如果說雖然同在欲界，但因果報不同，所以這無記根才稱為最初獲得。那麼，為什麼獲得識，卻不能說獲得眼呢？比如從二禪、三禪、四禪定中死去，轉生到初禪，以及欲界時，只獲得其識，而沒有獲得其眼。但在前世已經獲得了眼。 答：前面的論述是根據十八界（眼界、耳界、鼻界、舌界、身界、意界、色界、聲界、香界、味界、觸界、法界、眼識界、耳識界、鼻識界、舌識界、身識界、意識界）來展開的。那裡對眼界總的來說，沒有區分不同的界、不同的地，以及業果的差別。這裡辨析異熟根，是就其業果來說的。雖然在同一地，先前已經成就了眼，但業果不同，所以稱為獲得。又說，這裡只是問最初獲得的業所生的根。在最初受生的時候，其他的無色根，雖然有獲得的，但不是業所生的，所以這裡不說。後來的獲得，雖然是業所生的，但不是最初獲得的，所以這裡也不說。這個論的意義與後面的內容相同。
論：說異熟根到多少根之後才滅盡？下一頌的第二部分說明最後滅盡的諸根有多少。
論曰：在無色界，直到最後才滅盡。這裡解釋『無色』。之前是先欲界后無色界。這裡先說無色界后說欲界，是順承前面的意思。正理論說：『又無色界是指遮止那些有色之物。』有其他老師說，無色界是有色的。如果說沒有真實的命根，那麼異熟斷絕怎麼能稱為無色死呢？如果說異熟的四蘊（色蘊、受蘊、想蘊、行蘊）斷絕，所以稱為死，那麼善心或染污心現在前的時候，也應該稱為死。如果說那個地方所承受的異熟還沒有窮盡，那麼如何能在沒有感受的情況下，就到了窮盡的時候呢？善心、染污心現在前的時候，應當說他們感受的是什麼業的異熟？如果不是現在前，怎麼能稱為感受呢？如果認為對於那個異熟的習氣恒常隨轉，所以稱為感受，那麼這個道理也是不成立的。因為所執著的習氣不是極成（佛教術語，指已被普遍接受的真理或原則）的。而且有太過（邏輯錯誤，指結論過於寬泛）的過失。即使異熟窮盡，習氣仍然存在，就像業的習氣一樣，應該沒有死亡的期限。如果異熟窮盡就沒有習氣，那麼業也不應該有剩餘的習氣。如果說習氣對於現在的異熟，就像我（靈魂）的獲得一樣，那麼應該像我獲得異熟不起習氣一樣，習氣也就沒有了。而且不是異熟的習氣隨轉就稱為感受，異熟...
【English Translation】 English version Roots cannot be obtained beforehand. The initial acquisition at each place of birth is called 'obtaining'. Question: If it is said that although in the Desire Realm, due to different retributions, this non-specified root is called the initial obtaining, then why is it said that consciousness is obtained, but not the eye? For example, when dying from the second, third, or fourth Dhyana (meditative states) and being reborn in the first Dhyana or the Desire Realm, only consciousness is obtained, but not the eye, even though the eye was already obtained in the previous life. Answer: The previous discussion was based on the Eighteen Realms (eye realm, ear realm, nose realm, tongue realm, body realm, mind realm, form realm, sound realm, smell realm, taste realm, touch realm, dharma realm, eye consciousness realm, ear consciousness realm, nose consciousness realm, tongue consciousness realm, body consciousness realm, mind consciousness realm). There, the eye realm was discussed in general, without distinguishing between different realms, different planes, and the differences in karmic results. Here, the analysis of the Vipaka (result of karma) root is based on its karmic result. Although the eye was already established in the same plane, the karmic results are different, so it is called obtaining. Furthermore, it is said that here we are only asking about the roots born from karma that are initially obtained. At the time of initial rebirth, other Arupa (formless) roots, although there are those that are obtained, are not born from karma, so they are not discussed here. Later acquisitions, although born from karma, are not initial acquisitions, so they are not discussed here either. The meaning of this treatise is the same as the following content.
Treatise: It is said, after how many roots does the Vipaka root cease? The second part of the next verse explains how many roots cease last.
Treatise: In the Arupa Realm, it ceases last. This explains 'Arupa'. Previously, it was first the Desire Realm and then the Arupa Realm. Here, the Arupa Realm is mentioned first and then the Desire Realm, following the previous meaning. The Nyayapravesa (text on logic) says: 'Also, the term Arupa excludes those with form.' Some other teachers say that the Arupa Realm has form. If it is said that there is no real life-force, then how can the cessation of Vipaka be called Arupa death? If it is said that the cessation of the four Skandhas (aggregates of existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) of Vipaka is called death, then when wholesome or defiled minds are present, they should also be called death. If it is said that the Vipaka experienced in that place has not yet been exhausted, then how can it reach exhaustion without being experienced? When wholesome or defiled minds are present, what karmic Vipaka should be said to be experienced by them? If it is not present, how can it be called experiencing? If it is thought that the habit-energy of that Vipaka constantly follows, so it is called experiencing, then this reasoning is also not valid, because the habit-energy that is clung to is not an established truth (a universally accepted truth or principle). Moreover, there is the fault of being too broad (a logical fallacy where the conclusion is too general). Even if Vipaka is exhausted, habit-energy still exists, just like the habit-energy of karma, there should be no end to death. If there is no habit-energy when Vipaka is exhausted, then karma should also not have any remaining habit-energy. If it is said that habit-energy is to present Vipaka as my (soul) obtaining, then it should be like my obtaining Vipaka without arising habit-energy, and then there would be no habit-energy. Moreover, it is not that the habit-energy of Vipaka follows and is called experiencing, Vipaka...
非彼性故。又汝所執習氣理無。后當廣辨 抄釋云。我宗異熟法上得。異熟若滅得亦隨滅。不同業得。
論。若在色界至而生死故。此釋色界。如文可解。
論。若在欲界至唯有前八。此釋欲界。如文可解。
論。如是所說依頓命終。總結上滅依頓終。
論。若漸命終至前後滅義。釋漸命終滅根多．少如文可解。
論。如是所說至而命終者。結上頓．漸二種命終。但依染．無記心而命終者。染．無記心滅根數同。所以合說。
論。若在三界至如理應知。次釋善心命終。隨其所應於前所說舍根位中加信等五。
論。分別根中至何沙門果。下一頌第三明得果用根多少。此中明得。通無間道解脫道。與得果前為引因後轉為依因。由此前．后二果定用二無漏根得也 此中言得。初證名得。不說后位．及練根也。若說練根初．后二果應八根得 又此中言得。是與果道為其近因名之為得。
論曰至在中間故。總釋邊中果名。
論。初預流果至依因性故。釋初果也。正理論云。雖解脫道于沙門果非同類因。而是相應．俱有因故名得彼果。亦無有失。以沙門體更互相依而得生故。展轉相望為士用果。誰復能遮。若言加行．無間．勝進應亦爾者。許亦無失。或已知根亦為同類因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『非彼性故』：因為不是那種性質的緣故。又你所執著的習氣之理是不存在的，之後會詳細辨析。《抄釋》中說：我宗認為異熟法上可以獲得，異熟如果滅了，獲得也會隨著滅，這不同於業的獲得。
『若在...至而生死故』：如果在...直到生死，因此。《釋》如文中所說可以理解。
『若在欲界至唯有前八』：如果在欲界直到只有前八個。《釋》欲界，如文中所說可以理解。
『如是所說依頓命終』：像這樣所說的是依據頓命終的情況。總結上面所說的滅是依據頓命終。
『若漸命終至前後滅義』：如果漸命終直到前後滅的意義。解釋漸命終時滅根的多少，如文中所說可以理解。
『如是所說至而命終者』：像這樣所說的是直到命終的人。總結上面頓命終和漸命終兩種情況。只是依據染污心和無記心而命終的人，染污心和無記心滅根的數量相同，所以合在一起說。
『若在三界至如理應知』：如果在三界直到如理應知。接下來解釋善心命終的情況。根據情況，在前面所說的舍根位中加上信等五根。
『分別根中至何沙門果』：在分別根中直到什麼沙門果。下一頌第三個方面說明獲得果位所用的根的數量。這裡說明獲得，包括無間道和解脫道，與獲得果位之前作為引發的原因，之後轉為依因。因此，前後兩個果位一定用兩個無漏根獲得。這裡所說的獲得，最初證得稱為獲得，不包括後來的位次以及練根的情況。如果說練根，那麼初果和二果應該用八個根獲得。又這裡所說的獲得，是與果道作為近因，稱之為獲得。
『論曰至在中間故』：論中說直到在中間的緣故。總的解釋邊果和中果的名稱。
『初預流果至依因性故』：初預流果直到依因的性質的緣故。解釋初果。正理論中說：雖然解脫道對於沙門果不是同類因，但是因為是相應、俱有因，所以稱為獲得那個果位，也沒有什麼過失。因為沙門果的體性互相依靠才能產生，輾轉相望作為士用果，誰又能阻止呢？如果說加行、無間、勝進也應該是這樣，那麼允許也是沒有過失的。或者已知根也作為同類因。
【English Translation】 English version '非彼性故 (fēi bǐ xìng gù)': Because it is not of that nature. Furthermore, the principle of habitual tendencies that you adhere to is non-existent, and will be extensively analyzed later. The commentary says: Our school believes that attainment is possible on the Vipāka (yìshú,異熟) dharma. If Vipāka ceases, attainment also ceases accordingly, which is different from the attainment of karma.
'若在...至而生死故 (ruò zài...zhì ér shēngsǐ gù)': If in... until the reason for birth and death. The explanation can be understood as stated in the text.
'若在欲界至唯有前八 (ruò zài yùjiè zhì wéi yǒu qián bā)': If in the desire realm until only the first eight. The explanation of the desire realm can be understood as stated in the text.
'如是所說依頓命終 (rúshì suǒ shuō yī dùn mìngzhōng)': What is said in this way is based on the case of sudden death. Summarizing the above, cessation is based on sudden death.
'若漸命終至前後滅義 (ruò jiàn mìngzhōng zhì qiánhòu miè yì)': If gradual death until the meaning of anterior and posterior cessation. Explaining the number of roots that cease during gradual death, which can be understood as stated in the text.
'如是所說至而命終者 (rúshì suǒ shuō zhì ér mìngzhōng zhě)': What is said in this way is about those who die until the end of life. Summarizing the two cases of sudden and gradual death mentioned above. Only those who die based on defiled mind and non-defiled mind have the same number of roots that cease, so they are discussed together.
'若在三界至如理應知 (ruò zài sānjiè zhì rú lǐ yìng zhī)': If in the three realms until one should know according to reason. Next, explaining the case of dying with a wholesome mind. According to the situation, add the five roots of faith, etc., to the position of relinquishing roots mentioned earlier.
'分別根中至何沙門果 (fēnbié gēn zhōng zhì hé shāmén guǒ)': In the differentiation of roots until what Śrāmaṇa (shāmén, 沙門) fruit. The third aspect in the next verse explains the number of roots used to attain the fruit. Here, attainment is explained, including the path of no interval (無間道, wújiàn dào) and the path of liberation (解脫道, jiětuō dào), which serve as the cause of initiation before attaining the fruit, and then transform into the dependent cause. Therefore, the two fruits before and after must be attained using two non-outflow roots. The attainment mentioned here refers to the initial attainment, not including later positions and the practice of refining roots. If refining roots is mentioned, then the first and second fruits should be attained using eight roots. Also, the attainment mentioned here is called attainment because it is the proximate cause with the path of the fruit.
'論曰至在中間故 (lùn yuē zhì zài zhōngjiān gù)': The treatise says until the reason for being in the middle. A general explanation of the names of the marginal fruit and the intermediate fruit.
'初預流果至依因性故 (chū yùliú guǒ zhì yī yīn xìng gù)': The first Stream-enterer fruit until the nature of the dependent cause. Explaining the first fruit. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論, Zhènglǐlùn) says: Although the path of liberation is not a homogeneous cause for the Śrāmaṇa fruit, it is a corresponding and co-existent cause, so it is called attaining that fruit, and there is no fault. Because the nature of the Śrāmaṇa fruit relies on each other to arise, and mutually regards each other as the agent cause, who can prevent it? If it is said that the preliminary practice, the path of no interval, and the superior progress should also be like this, then it is permissible without fault. Or the already known root is also regarded as a homogeneous cause.
能得預流果。謂轉根時如阿羅漢就容有說。亦無有過。
論。阿羅漢果至依因性故。釋後果也。二道相資如初果釋。雖樂．喜．舍三根容得。正得果時唯一受故。不越九根。雖無間．解脫道不同時。而等流．士用果同時故。亦無有過。
論。中間二果至九根所得。自此已下釋中二果。先總釋根數。后一一別釋。此即初也。
論。所以者何至由九根得。釋第二果 于中有三。一依世道由七根得。二依出世道由八根得。三依超越由九根得。
論。若不還果至得一來果。自此已下釋第三果 于中有四。三如一來果說。
論。總說雖然而有差別。已下重釋不還果也。與其前果根數雖同。而受根有別。謂前超越唯用舍受。依未至故。此果超越通樂．喜．舍。容依六地證三果故。依未至．中間．及第四禪即是舍受。前二禪喜。第三禪樂根。若次第者亦與前殊。第九解脫或入根本地。或在未至。若入根本地加其喜根。若不入者還同前果。婆沙一百四十八云。問離欲界染第九解脫道。誰即入靜慮誰不入耶。答有說。欣多者入。厭多者不入。有說。為求靜慮而離染者入。為求解脫而離染者不入。有說。利根者入。鈍根者不入。已上論文 又三釋俱通。所以無評 問因何次第證有入根本地。超越證者即無斯
理 答離修道惑多種不同。或有欣上厭下而斷于惑。若是利根欣心多者得入根本。或有為求解脫。或有為求靜慮而斷于迷惑。若是利根為求靜慮得入根本。道類智雖是修道。容預多念亦有利根。然為現觀諦理。若依未至入于見道。不為欣上地。不為求靜慮。入見道故不入根本 又解。先得根本靜慮。若意樂根本即依根本。若意樂未至即依未至。由此無間．解脫必同一地。斷非想惑無其上地可欣求故。依其未至得第四果。解脫道中不入根本。
論。豈不根本至由九根得。問。
論。實得第四至定由九根。答。
論。于不還果中何不如是說。重難。
論。以無樂根至極堅牢故。通也。如文可解 依發智論第十五云。幾根永斷．滅．起。得預流果。答無根永斷。七根滅起。一滅不起。一起不滅得預流果 述曰。言永斷者。謂于諸根永斷繫縛得離系義。言起滅者。無間道滅解脫道起。言滅不起者。無間道滅解脫道不起。言起不滅者。無間道無故不滅。解脫道新起故言起也。得預流果時。無有一根得永離繫縛。故言無根永斷。言七根起滅者。謂信等五及意．舍也。無間道滅解脫道起。一滅不起者。謂未知根。第十五心滅后更不起。一起不滅者。謂知根。第十六心起第十五心無故不滅 幾根永斷．滅．起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 理：回答說，斷除修道位上的迷惑有多種不同的方式。有些人因為欣求更高的境界，厭惡較低的境界而斷除迷惑。如果是根器銳利，欣求心強的人，就能進入根本定（根本靜慮）。有些人爲了求解脫，有些人爲了尋求禪定（靜慮）而斷除迷惑。如果是根器銳利，爲了尋求禪定的人，就能進入根本定。道類智雖然屬於修道位，但可以容許多種念頭，也有根器銳利的人。然而，爲了現觀真諦，如果依靠未至定進入見道位，不是爲了欣求上地，也不是爲了尋求禪定，因為進入了見道位，所以不進入根本定。另一種解釋是，先獲得根本靜慮，如果意樂是根本定，就依靠根本定；如果意樂是未至定，就依靠未至定。因此，無間道（無間解脫道）和解脫道必定在同一地。斷除非想非非想處天的迷惑，因為沒有更高的境界可以欣求，所以依靠未至定獲得第四果（阿羅漢果）。在解脫道中不進入根本定。
論：難道不是說根本定是由九根（九種根，即信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根、未知當知根、已知根、具知根、樂根）獲得的嗎？（這是）提問。
論：確實獲得第四禪定是由九根得到的。（這是）回答。
論：為什麼在不還果（阿那含果）中不這樣說呢？（這是）再次提問。
論：因為沒有樂根，（禪定）極其堅牢。（這是）解釋。如文字所說可以理解。依據《發智論》第十五卷所說：幾種根永斷、滅、起，可以獲得預流果（須陀洹果）？回答是：沒有根永斷，七根滅起，一根滅不起，一根起不滅，可以獲得預流果。述：所說的『永斷』，是指對於諸根永遠斷除繫縛，獲得離系之義。所說的『起滅』，是指無間道滅，解脫道起。所說的『滅不起』，是指無間道滅，解脫道不起。所說的『起不滅』，是指無間道沒有了，所以不滅。解脫道新起，所以說是『起』。在獲得預流果時，沒有一根得到永遠的離繫縛，所以說沒有根永斷。所說的七根起滅，是指信等五根（信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根）以及意根、舍根。無間道滅，解脫道起。一根滅不起，是指未知根（未知當知根）。第十五心滅后不再起。一根起不滅，是指知根（已知根）。第十六心起，第十五心沒有了，所以不滅。幾種根永斷、滅、起？
【English Translation】 English version Reply: There are various ways to sever the afflictions on the path of cultivation. Some sever afflictions because they aspire to higher realms and厭惡 lower realms. If one has sharp faculties and a strong aspiration, they can enter fundamental concentration (root meditation). Some sever afflictions in order to seek liberation, and some in order to seek meditative absorption (meditation). If one has sharp faculties and seeks meditative absorption, they can enter fundamental concentration. Although the Knowledge of the Types of Paths (道類智, Dào lèi zhì) belongs to the path of cultivation, it can accommodate many thoughts, and there are also those with sharp faculties. However, in order to directly perceive the truth, if one relies on the preliminary concentration (未至定, Wèizhì dìng) to enter the path of seeing (見道, Jiàn dào), it is not for aspiring to higher realms, nor for seeking meditative absorption. Because one has entered the path of seeing, one does not enter fundamental concentration. Another explanation is that if one first obtains fundamental concentration, if the intention is fundamental concentration, then one relies on fundamental concentration; if the intention is preliminary concentration, then one relies on preliminary concentration. Therefore, the immediate path (無間道, Wújiàn dào) and the liberation path (解脫道, Jiětuō dào) must be in the same realm. Severing the afflictions of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (非想非非想處天, Fēixiǎng fēifēixiǎng chù tiān), because there is no higher realm to aspire to, one relies on preliminary concentration to attain the fourth fruit (Arhatship, 阿羅漢果, Āluóhàn guǒ). In the liberation path, one does not enter fundamental concentration.
Treatise: Isn't it said that fundamental concentration is attained by the nine roots (九根, Jiǔ gēn, i.e., the roots of faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom, the root of 'I shall know what is not yet known,' the root of knowledge, the root of 'I know,' and the root of joy)? (This is) a question.
Treatise: Indeed, attaining the fourth dhyana (禪定, Chándìng) is achieved by the nine roots. (This is) an answer.
Treatise: Why isn't it said this way in the case of the Non-Returning Fruit (Anāgāmi, 阿那含果, Ānàhán guǒ)? (This is) a re-question.
Treatise: Because there is no root of joy, (the concentration) is extremely firm. (This is) an explanation. It can be understood as the text says. According to the fifteenth chapter of the Jñānaprasthāna (發智論, Fā zhì lùn): How many roots are permanently severed, extinguished, and arise when one attains the Stream-Enterer Fruit (Sotāpanna, 預流果, Yùliú guǒ)? The answer is: No root is permanently severed, seven roots are extinguished and arise, one root is extinguished and does not arise, and one root arises and does not extinguish when one attains the Stream-Enterer Fruit. Commentary: What is meant by 'permanently severed' is that one permanently severs the bonds of the roots and attains the meaning of detachment. What is meant by 'arise and extinguish' is that the immediate path extinguishes and the liberation path arises. What is meant by 'extinguish and does not arise' is that the immediate path extinguishes and the liberation path does not arise. What is meant by 'arise and does not extinguish' is that the immediate path is gone, so it does not extinguish. The liberation path newly arises, so it is said to 'arise.' When attaining the Stream-Enterer Fruit, no root attains permanent detachment, so it is said that no root is permanently severed. The seven roots that arise and extinguish refer to the five roots of faith, etc. (faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom) as well as the mind root and the equanimity root. The immediate path extinguishes and the liberation path arises. The one root that extinguishes and does not arise refers to the 'root of 'I shall know what is not yet known'' (未知根, Wèizhī gēn). After the fifteenth moment of consciousness extinguishes, it does not arise again. The one root that arises and does not extinguish refers to the 'root of knowledge' (知根, Zhī gēn). The sixteenth moment of consciousness arises, and the fifteenth moment of consciousness is gone, so it does not extinguish. How many roots are permanently severed, extinguished, and arise?
。得一來果。答若倍離欲染入正性離生者。如證預流果說。若從預流果以世俗道證一來果。無根永斷。七根滅起得一來果 述曰。無根永斷者。同預流說。七根起滅者。亦同預流 若從預流果以無漏道證一來果無根永斷。八根起滅得一來果 述曰。八根起滅者。於七根上加已知根。俱無間道滅。解脫道起故 幾根永斷．滅．起。得不還果。答若已離欲染入正性離生無根永斷。七根滅起。一滅不起。一起不滅。得不還果 述曰。無根永斷者。見道第十五．六心中不滅根故。七根滅起者。若依未至．中間．及第四靜慮。即是信等五．及意．舍根。若依初．二禪即信等五．及意．喜根。若依第三禪除喜加樂 若從一來果以世俗道證不還果不入靜慮。四根永斷。七根滅起得不還果 述曰。四根永斷者。謂憂．苦．女．男。離欲斷故。七根滅起。如預流說。若入靜慮四根永斷。六根滅起。一滅不起。一起不滅。得不還果 述曰。六根滅起。謂信等五．及喜意根。一滅不起。謂舍根。一起不滅。謂喜根 若從一來果以無漏道證不還果。不入靜慮四根永斷。八根滅起得不還果 述曰八根滅起者。謂七根上加知根 若入靜慮四根永斷。七根滅起。一滅不起。一起不滅得不還果 述曰。七滅起者。謂信等五．及意知根。一滅不起者舍根。
一起不滅謂喜根 幾根永斷滅起得阿羅漢果。答若依未至證阿羅漢果。一根永斷。七根永斷滅起。一滅不起。一起不滅得阿羅漢果。如依未至。依靜慮中間．第四靜慮．三無色定亦爾 述曰。一根永斷者。謂命根。七根永斷滅起者。信等五根．及意．舍。一滅不起知根。一起不滅謂具知根 若依初靜慮證阿羅漢果。二根永斷。六根永斷滅起。一根滅起。一滅不起。一起不滅得阿羅漢果。如依初靜慮依第二．第三靜慮亦爾 述曰。二根永斷者。謂命．舍根。六根永斷滅起。謂信等五及意根。一根起滅者。若初．二靜慮喜根。第三靜慮樂根。一滅不起。知根。一起不滅。謂具知根。
論。今應思擇。下有三行頌。第四明隨成就一根定成根多少也。于中有定成三．四．五．七．八．十一．十三。無定成一．二．六．九．十．十二．十四。
論曰命意舍中至皆定成就者。釋定成三也。于中有二。初明三根定成。后明余根非定。
言。命意舍中至所餘根者。此明三根定成。此三於一切處．時．位等皆定成也。一切眾生必有命故。及通大地故。定有于受。五受之中舍遍一切故 言。除此三根至或不成就。已下釋余根不定。先總后別。此總釋也 言。此中眼耳鼻舌四根。已下別釋也。總有十九根不定。類同即合釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：一起不滅稱為喜根（Pīti-indriya，喜的官能）。要斷滅多少根才能證得阿羅漢果（Arhat，已證悟的人）？ 答：如果依據未至定（Anāgamana，一種禪定狀態）證得阿羅漢果，一根會永遠斷滅，七根會經歷斷滅和生起，一根會滅后不再生起，一根會生起后不滅，這樣才能證得阿羅漢果。如同依據未至定一樣，依據靜慮中間定（Dhyāna-antarika，禪定中間狀態）、第四靜慮（Caturtha-dhyāna，第四禪）、三無色定（Tri-ārūpya-samāpatti，三種無色界的禪定）也是如此。 述：一根永遠斷滅，指的是命根（Jīvitindriya，生命的官能）。七根經歷斷滅和生起，指的是信等五根（Śraddhādi-pañcendriya，信等五種官能）、以及意根（Manas-indriya，意識的官能）和舍根（Upekṣā-indriya，舍受的官能）。一根滅后不再生起，指的是知根（Ājñā-indriya，知曉的官能）。一根生起后不滅，指的是具知根（Ājñātāvīndriya，完全知曉的官能）。 如果依據初靜慮（Prathama-dhyāna，第一禪）證得阿羅漢果，二根會永遠斷滅，六根會經歷斷滅和生起，一根會經歷生起和斷滅，一根會滅后不再生起，一根會生起后不滅，這樣才能證得阿羅漢果。如同依據初靜慮一樣，依據第二靜慮（Dvitīya-dhyāna，第二禪）和第三靜慮（Tṛtīya-dhyāna，第三禪）也是如此。 述：二根永遠斷滅，指的是命根和舍根。六根經歷斷滅和生起，指的是信等五根和意根。一根經歷生起和斷滅，如果是初禪和二禪，指的是喜根。如果是三禪，指的是樂根（Sukha-indriya，樂受的官能）。一根滅后不再生起，指的是知根。一根生起后不滅，指的是具知根。 論：現在應該思考。下面有三行頌，第四行說明隨成就一根而必定成就的根有多少。其中有必定成就三根、四根、五根、七根、八根、十一根、十三根的情況。也有不一定成就一根、二根、六根、九根、十根、十二根、十四根的情況。 論曰：命根、意根、舍根中，都是必定成就的。解釋必定成就三根的情況。其中有兩部分，首先說明三根必定成就，然後說明其餘的根不一定。 言：命根、意根、舍根中，以及其餘的根。這裡說明三根必定成就。這三根在一切處、一切時、一切位等都是必定成就的。一切眾生必定有命根，並且普遍存在於大地，必定有受，在五受（Pañca-vedanā，五種感受）之中，舍受（Upekṣā-vedanā，不苦不樂的感受）普遍存在於一切處。 言：除了這三根，或者不成就。以下解釋其餘的根不一定。先總說，后別說。這裡是總的解釋。 言：這其中，眼根（Cakṣur-indriya，視覺的官能）、耳根（Śrotra-indriya，聽覺的官能）、鼻根（Ghrāṇa-indriya，嗅覺的官能）、舌根（Jihvā-indriya，味覺的官能）這四根。以下分別解釋。總共有十九根不一定，類別相同就合併解釋。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is called the 'joy faculty' (Pīti-indriya) that arises and does not cease? How many faculties must be permanently severed to attain the fruit of an Arhat (Arhat, a liberated being)? Answer: If one attains the fruit of an Arhat based on the 'access concentration' (Anāgamana, a state of meditative concentration), one faculty is permanently severed, seven faculties experience severance and arising, one faculty ceases and does not arise again, and one faculty arises and does not cease, in order to attain the fruit of an Arhat. Just as with the 'access concentration,' it is the same when based on the 'intermediate concentration' (Dhyāna-antarika, an intermediate state of meditation), the 'fourth concentration' (Caturtha-dhyāna, the fourth meditative absorption), and the 'three formless concentrations' (Tri-ārūpya-samāpatti, the three formless attainments). Commentary: The one faculty permanently severed refers to the 'life faculty' (Jīvitindriya, the faculty of life). The seven faculties that experience severance and arising refer to the 'five faculties of faith, etc.' (Śraddhādi-pañcendriya, the five faculties of faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom), as well as the 'mind faculty' (Manas-indriya, the faculty of mind) and the 'equanimity faculty' (Upekṣā-indriya, the faculty of equanimity). The one faculty that ceases and does not arise again is the 'faculty of knowing' (Ājñā-indriya, the faculty of knowledge). The one faculty that arises and does not cease is the 'faculty of complete knowing' (Ājñātāvīndriya, the faculty of complete knowledge). If one attains the fruit of an Arhat based on the 'first concentration' (Prathama-dhyāna, the first meditative absorption), two faculties are permanently severed, six faculties experience severance and arising, one faculty experiences arising and severance, one faculty ceases and does not arise again, and one faculty arises and does not cease, in order to attain the fruit of an Arhat. Just as with the 'first concentration,' it is the same when based on the 'second concentration' (Dvitīya-dhyāna, the second meditative absorption) and the 'third concentration' (Tṛtīya-dhyāna, the third meditative absorption). Commentary: The two faculties permanently severed refer to the 'life faculty' and the 'equanimity faculty.' The six faculties that experience severance and arising refer to the 'five faculties of faith, etc.' and the 'mind faculty.' The one faculty that experiences arising and severance, in the case of the first and second concentrations, is the 'joy faculty.' In the case of the third concentration, it is the 'happiness faculty' (Sukha-indriya, the faculty of happiness). The one faculty that ceases and does not arise again is the 'faculty of knowing.' The one faculty that arises and does not cease is the 'faculty of complete knowing.' Treatise: Now, one should contemplate. Below are three lines of verse. The fourth line explains how many faculties are necessarily attained along with the attainment of one faculty. Among them, there are cases where three, four, five, seven, eight, eleven, or thirteen faculties are necessarily attained. There are also cases where one, two, six, nine, ten, twelve, or fourteen faculties are not necessarily attained. Treatise says: 'Among the life faculty, mind faculty, and equanimity faculty, all are necessarily attained.' This explains the case where three faculties are necessarily attained. There are two parts to this. First, it explains that three faculties are necessarily attained. Then, it explains that the remaining faculties are not necessarily attained. It is said: 'Among the life faculty, mind faculty, and equanimity faculty, and the remaining faculties.' This explains that three faculties are necessarily attained. These three faculties are necessarily attained in all places, at all times, and in all states, etc. All beings necessarily have the life faculty, and it is universally present on earth. There is necessarily feeling, and among the five feelings (Pañca-vedanā, the five types of feeling), equanimity (Upekṣā-vedanā, neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling) is universally present everywhere. It is said: 'Apart from these three faculties, or not attained.' The following explains that the remaining faculties are not necessarily attained. First, it gives a general explanation, then a specific explanation. This is the general explanation. It is said: 'Among these, the eye faculty (Cakṣur-indriya, the faculty of sight), ear faculty (Śrotra-indriya, the faculty of hearing), nose faculty (Ghrāṇa-indriya, the faculty of smell), and tongue faculty (Jihvā-indriya, the faculty of taste).' The following gives a specific explanation. In total, there are nineteen faculties that are not necessarily attained. Those of the same category are explained together.
也 眼等四根類同故合釋。有二處不成。一生無色界。二未得已失 身根唯一處不成。謂生無色界 男．女二根二處不成。謂上二界及未得．已失 喜．樂根一處定不成就。謂異生生三定已上 言異生者。簡于聖人。聖人生上成下無漏喜．樂根故 苦根一處定不成就。謂生上二界 憂根一種不定不成。謂一切離欲貪者。此二根唯有漏故不簡凡．聖 余文可解 言。于非遮位至皆定成就者。一切處非遮者。即是前三命．意．舍根。
論。若成就樂至及此身根。第二釋定成四。若成就樂．及身根定成意．命．舍故。聖生無色成就樂不成身根。異生生第四定成就身根不成樂根。此身．樂二根不互定成。
論。若成眼根至舍樂喜根。釋定成五。成眼等必依身故。成喜必成樂故。所以定成五根。
論。第二靜慮至此成何樂根。外難。未得第三靜慮舍欲界．初定樂根。未得第三靜慮定成何樂根。
論。當言成就至余未得故。答。余凈無漏樂猶未得故。若成樂根喜即不定。謂異生生第三定成就樂根不成喜故。若成喜根即定成樂。聖人生上成無漏必成無漏樂。異生生第二定。必成染污樂故。
論。若成苦根至四受除憂。釋定成七。成苦根定身在欲界。身．及四受必定成就。憂離欲舍。所以有。苦之者容
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 也，眼等四根（眼根等四種根）種類相同，所以放在一起解釋。有兩種情況不能成就：一是生來就沒有，二是未獲得或已失去。身根只有一種情況不能成就，即生來就沒有。男根和女根有兩種情況不能成就，即在上二界（色界和無色界）以及未獲得或已失去。喜根和樂根有一種情況必定不能成就，即異生（凡夫）生於三禪天以上。說『異生』，是爲了區別于聖人。聖人生於上界，成就地獄的無漏喜根和樂根。苦根有一種情況必定不能成就，即生於上二界。憂根有一種情況不一定不能成就，即一切遠離欲貪的人。這兩種根只有有漏，所以不區分凡夫和聖人。其餘文句可以理解。說到『在非遮位到皆必定成就』，一切處在非遮位的人，就是前面的三命根（命根）、意根（意根）、舍根（舍根）。
論：如果成就樂根（樂受）乃至此身根（身根）。第二種解釋是必定成就四種根。如果成就樂根和身根，必定成就意根、命根、舍根。聖人生於無色界，成就樂根而不成就身根。異生生於第四禪天，成就身根而不成就樂根。此身根和樂根兩種根不是互相必定成就的。
論：如果成就眼根（眼根）乃至舍樂喜根（舍根、樂根、喜根）。解釋必定成就五種根。成就眼根等必定依賴於身根，成就喜根必定成就樂根，所以必定成就五種根。
論：第二禪天乃至此處成就什麼樂根？外人提問：未獲得第三禪天，捨棄欲界和初禪天的樂根，未獲得第三禪天必定成就什麼樂根？
論：應當說成就乃至其餘未獲得。回答：其餘清凈無漏的樂根還沒有獲得。如果成就樂根，喜根就不一定成就，即異生生於第三禪天，成就樂根而不成就喜根。如果成就喜根，就必定成就樂根。聖人生於上界，成就無漏的喜根必定成就無漏的樂根。異生生於第二禪天，必定成就染污的樂根。
論：如果成就苦根（苦受）乃至四受（四種感受）除去憂受。解釋必定成就七種根。成就苦根必定身體在欲界，身根以及四種感受必定成就。憂受是遠離欲界的人捨棄的，所以有苦受的人容
【English Translation】 English version Also, the four roots such as the eye root (eye, ear, nose, tongue) are of the same kind, so they are explained together. There are two situations where they cannot be accomplished: first, being born without ; second, not having obtained or having lost them. The body root is only not accomplished in one situation, that is, being born without . The male and female roots are not accomplished in two situations, namely, in the upper two realms (the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm) and not having obtained or having lost them. The joy and pleasure roots are definitely not accomplished in one situation, namely, when a non-holy being (an ordinary person) is born in the third Dhyana heaven or higher. Saying 'non-holy being' is to distinguish them from the holy ones. Holy beings born in the upper realms accomplish the undefiled joy and pleasure roots of the lower realms. The suffering root is definitely not accomplished in one situation, namely, being born in the upper two realms. The sorrow root is not necessarily not accomplished in one situation, namely, all those who are free from desire and greed. These two roots are only defiled, so they do not distinguish between ordinary people and holy ones. The remaining sentences can be understood. Speaking of 'being definitely accomplished in non-obstructive positions', those who are in non-obstructive positions everywhere are the previous three life roots (life root), mind root (mind root), and equanimity root (equanimity root).
Treatise: If one accomplishes the pleasure root (pleasure sensation) up to this body root (body root). The second explanation is that four roots are definitely accomplished. If one accomplishes the pleasure root and the body root, one will definitely accomplish the mind root, life root, and equanimity root. Holy beings born in the Formless Realm accomplish the pleasure root but not the body root. Non-holy beings born in the fourth Dhyana heaven accomplish the body root but not the pleasure root. These two roots, the body root and the pleasure root, are not necessarily accomplished mutually.
Treatise: If one accomplishes the eye root (eye root) up to the equanimity, pleasure, and joy roots (equanimity root, pleasure root, joy root). It explains that five roots are definitely accomplished. Accomplishing the eye root, etc., necessarily depends on the body root, and accomplishing the joy root necessarily accomplishes the pleasure root, so five roots are definitely accomplished.
Treatise: The second Dhyana heaven up to what pleasure root is accomplished here? An outsider asks: Not having obtained the third Dhyana heaven, abandoning the pleasure roots of the Desire Realm and the first Dhyana heaven, what pleasure root is definitely accomplished when not having obtained the third Dhyana heaven?
Treatise: It should be said that one accomplishes up to the remaining not yet obtained. Answer: The remaining pure undefiled pleasure root has not yet been obtained. If one accomplishes the pleasure root, the joy root is not necessarily accomplished, that is, a non-holy being born in the third Dhyana heaven accomplishes the pleasure root but not the joy root. If one accomplishes the joy root, one will definitely accomplish the pleasure root. Holy beings born in the upper realms accomplish the undefiled joy root and will definitely accomplish the undefiled pleasure root. Non-holy beings born in the second Dhyana heaven will definitely accomplish the defiled pleasure root.
Treatise: If one accomplishes the suffering root (suffering sensation) up to the four sensations (four types of sensations) excluding sorrow. It explains that seven roots are definitely accomplished. Accomplishing the suffering root necessarily means the body is in the Desire Realm, and the body root and the four sensations are definitely accomplished. Sorrow is abandoned by those who are free from the Desire Realm, so those who have suffering can
得無憂。
論。若成女根至信等五根。此釋定成八根。若成就女．男．憂．根定身在欲界。所以七如苦說。第八即是女．男．憂根。有女．男根容離欲。憂非定成。有憂根容無形故。女．男二根非定成就。若成信等五根定成八根。意．命．舍三一切有故定成三根。異生生無色界無七色根．及四受故。是異生故不成三無漏根。由此唯八根定。十四不定。
論。若成就具知根至及已知根。若那含生無色界得羅漢果。即不成就七色．憂苦。三無漏根不併成故。眼等十一不定成也。若成就已知根義亦如上。
論。若成就未知根至及未知根。釋定成十三根。以見道定依欲界故。如前有身．苦。已離欲者容入見道。憂非定成。無眼等四根容入見道。眼等不定。女．男二根漸捨命者容不成就。故非定成。正理論云。若成未知根定成就十三。謂身．命．意．苦．樂．喜．舍．信等五根．及未知根。漸命終位傳說深心厭生死故能入見道 漸捨命無男女根亦容入聖故。不可釋云以男．女互成不定故不說。則男．女互無數終十四。因何論文但說十三。若言男．女互無以不定不說十四。即是西方師義。迦濕彌羅國師云。此中說數不說名也。故婆沙一百五十云。若成就女．男二根定成就過去．未來九。三世二。現在四。過．未
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 得無憂（沒有憂愁）。
論：如果成就女根（女性性器官）至信等五根（信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根），這解釋確定成就八根。如果成就女、男（男性性器官）、憂（憂愁）根，確定此身在欲界（六道輪迴中的第一層）。所以說七如苦（苦受）。第八就是女、男、憂根。有女、男根可能離開慾望。憂並非一定成就，有憂根可能沒有形體。女、男二根並非一定成就。如果成就信等五根，一定成就八根。意（意根）、命（命根）、舍（舍受）三根一切眾生都有，所以一定成就三根。異生（凡夫）出生沒有**，沒有七色根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、顏色），以及四受（苦、樂、喜、舍），因為是異生，所以不成就三無漏根（未知當知根、已知根、具知根）。由此只有八根是確定的，十四根是不確定的。
論：如果成就具知根（完全知曉一切的智慧）至及已知根（已經知曉一切的智慧）。如果阿那含（三果聖人）生無**，得阿羅漢果（佛教修行的最高果位），就不成就七色、憂苦。三無漏根不能同時成就。眼等十一根不確定成就。如果成就已知根，意義也如上。
論：如果成就未知根（尚未知曉一切的智慧）至及未知根。解釋確定成就十三根。因為見道（證悟的第一階段）確定依于欲界。如前有身（身根）、苦（苦受）。已經離開慾望的人可能進入見道。憂並非一定成就。沒有眼等四根（眼、耳、鼻、舌）可能進入見道。眼等不確定。女、男二根漸捨命者（逐漸死亡的人）可能不成就，所以並非一定成就。《正理論》說：如果成就未知根，確定成就十三根，即身、命、意、苦、樂、喜、舍、信等五根、以及未知根。漸命終位傳說深心厭生死，所以能入見道。漸捨命無男女根也可能入聖，所以不可解釋為因為男、女互相成就而不確定所以不說。那麼男、女互相無數終十四。因為何論文只說十三。如果說男、女互相沒有以不確定不說十四，這就是西方師的意義。迦濕彌羅國師說：此中說數量不說名稱。所以《婆沙》一百五十說：如果成就女、男二根，確定成就過去、未來九，三世二，現在四，過、未
【English Translation】 English version One obtains freedom from sorrow.
Treatise: If one attains the female organ (female sexual organ) up to the five roots of faith, etc. (faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom), this explanation determines the attainment of eight roots. If one attains the female, male (male sexual organ), and sorrow roots, it is certain that this body is in the desire realm (the first level of the six realms of reincarnation). Therefore, it is said that seven are like suffering (suffering sensation). The eighth is the female, male, and sorrow roots. Having the female and male roots allows for detachment from desire. Sorrow is not necessarily attained; having the sorrow root may not have a physical form. The female and male roots are not necessarily attained. If one attains the five roots of faith, etc., one will certainly attain eight roots. The mind (mind root), life (life root), and equanimity (equanimity sensation) are present in all beings, so one will certainly attain these three roots. Ordinary beings are born without **, without the seven sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, color), and without the four sensations (suffering, pleasure, joy, equanimity), because they are ordinary beings, so they do not attain the three unconditioned roots (the root of the unknown to be known, the root of knowledge, the root of complete knowledge). Therefore, only eight roots are certain, and fourteen roots are uncertain.
Treatise: If one attains the root of complete knowledge (complete knowledge of everything) up to and including the root of knowledge (already knowing everything). If an Anagamin (a third-stage Arhat) is born without **, and attains Arhatship (the highest state of Buddhist practice), then one will not attain the seven senses, sorrow, and suffering. The three unconditioned roots cannot be attained simultaneously. The eleven roots of the eye, etc., are uncertain to be attained. If one attains the root of knowledge, the meaning is also as above.
Treatise: If one attains the root of the unknown (not yet knowing everything) up to and including the root of the unknown. The explanation determines the attainment of thirteen roots. Because the path of seeing (the first stage of enlightenment) is certainly based on the desire realm. As before, there is the body (body root) and suffering (suffering sensation). Those who have already detached from desire may enter the path of seeing. Sorrow is not necessarily attained. Without the four roots of the eye, etc. (eye, ear, nose, tongue), one may enter the path of seeing. The eye, etc., are uncertain. The female and male roots may not be attained by those who are gradually dying, so they are not necessarily attained. The Abhidharmakosha says: If one attains the root of the unknown, one will certainly attain thirteen roots, namely the body, life, mind, suffering, pleasure, joy, equanimity, the five roots of faith, etc., and the root of the unknown. It is said that those who are gradually dying deeply detest birth and death, so they can enter the path of seeing. Those who are gradually dying without the female and male roots may also enter the path of the saints, so it cannot be explained as because the female and male mutually attain each other and are uncertain, so they are not mentioned. Then the female and male mutually have countless ends of fourteen. Why does the treatise only say thirteen? If it is said that the female and male mutually do not have each other and are uncertain, so fourteen are not mentioned, this is the meaning of the Western teachers. The teachers of Kashmir say: This speaks of quantity, not names. Therefore, the Mahavibhasa one hundred and fifty says: If one attains the female and male roots, one will certainly attain nine in the past and future, two in the three times, four in the present, past, and future.
九者。謂四受．信等五根。三世二者。謂意．一受。現在四者。謂男．女．身．命。余不定如前說。西方師云。應過．未定成十。謂五受．信等五。三世定成一。謂意。受名不定。故迦濕彌羅國諸師云。名雖不定而數即定。必有一受現在前故。此中說數不說名也 又云。若成就未知當知根定成就三世七。過去．未來三。未來．現在一。現在二。三世七者。謂意．一受．信等五根。過．未三者。謂三受。未現一者。謂未知當知根。現二者。謂身．命。此二說如前 準上論文。故知女．男二根非互有不定故不說也 問若爾何故正理九云。言一形者。無有二形．及與無形得聖法故 答此說本性無形。及除去無形。不能得聖。非是漸捨命者。準婆沙文。不容異解。既無形以志性不定不得入聖。漸捨命者以深厭生死。能入聖故義不同也 問漸命終者無形得戒以不 答亦得戒無失。無形不得戒不據漸命終者。無形不得戒據本性．損壞。以多煩惱等。漸命終者性猶未轉。何不得戒又漸捨命眾同分本男．女根依漸舍故無。非是無根所依眾同分。如何即令不得戒耶。漸命終者如入無心亦得於戒。受緣具故非不律儀有漸捨命得。漸捨命時無作及受事故。不同律儀。
論。諸極少者。下一行頌第五明成根極少 論曰至及身命意者。釋頌
初二句。極少成八無八者。唯於二位極少成八。謂一斷善根定成五受及身．意．命。定不成八信等五．及三無漏根。六根不定。謂眼等四根．及女．男根。容有不成。
論。受謂至立圓滿名。便釋受。
論。如斷善根至愚生無色界故。釋頌后二句。言成八根。信等五．及命．意．舍。十四定不定。謂七色根及苦．憂．喜．樂三無漏根。斷善者極少成八。極多十四。愚生無色唯成八根。更無增理。婆沙一百五十隨信行極多十九。極少十三。十九者除一形二無漏根。即未離欲染住見道者。十三者身．命．意．四受．信等五．一無漏根。即已離欲染漸命終位入見道者。問何故此位能入見道。答是愛行者一期生中恒厭生死。臨命終時苦受所觸厭心轉增能入見道。如隨信行。隨法行亦爾。
論。諸極多者。下一行頌第六明極多門。極多成就十九根。有其二位。一是凡位。二聖位。凡謂二形。唯除三無漏。聖謂未離欲貪。除二無漏及除一形。此論釋頌第四句。云除二無漏及除一形。乃至女．男二根隨除一種。以諸聖者無二形故。此文既是明極多。文言一形但遮其有二。不是遮無形。若有無者非極多故。此論此釋不違定成十三根也。正理釋第四句云。除二無漏及除一形。乃至。言一形者。無有二形及與無形得聖法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 初二句：極少情況下成就八根，哪些情況下不是八根呢？只有在兩種情況下極少成就八根。第一種是斷善根者，必定成就五受（苦、樂、喜、憂、舍）以及身根、意根、命根，必定不成就信等五根（信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根）以及三無漏根（未知當知根、已知根、具知根）。六根是不定的，即眼根等四根（眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根）以及女根、男根，有可能不成就。
論：『受』是指達到確立圓滿的名稱，這裡解釋了『受』的含義。
論：『如斷善根至愚生無色故』，解釋了頌文的后兩句。說到成就八根，是指信等五根、命根、意根、舍受。十四根是不定的，即七色根（眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根、色根、聲根）以及苦受、憂受、喜受、樂受、三無漏根。斷善根者極少成就八根，極多成就十四根。愚生無色者只成就八根，沒有增加的道理。《婆沙論》第一百五十卷說，隨信行者極多成就十九根，極少成就十三根。十九根是指除了一種形根（女根或男根）和兩種無漏根（未知當知根、已知根）。即未離開欲界染污，住在見道位的人。十三根是指身根、命根、意根、四受、信等五根、一種無漏根。即已經離開欲界染污，漸次命終時進入見道位的人。問：為什麼這個階段能夠進入見道？答：因為是愛行者，在一期生命中一直厭惡生死，臨命終時被苦受觸動，厭惡之心更加強烈，能夠進入見道。如同隨信行者，隨法行者也是如此。
論：『諸極多者』，下一行頌文第六句說明極多的情況。極多情況下成就十九根，有兩種情況。一是凡夫位，二是聖者位。凡夫位是指具有兩種形根（女根和男根），只是不包括三種無漏根。聖者位是指未離開欲界貪慾，不包括兩種無漏根，以及一種形根。此論解釋頌文第四句，說『除去兩種無漏根以及一種形根』，乃至女根、男根兩種形根中除去一種。因為聖者沒有兩種形根。這段文字是說明極多的情況，文字說一種形根，只是排除有兩種形根的情況，不是排除沒有形根的情況。如果有無形根的情況，就不是極多的情況了。因此，此論和此解釋不違背必定成就十三根的說法。《正理論》解釋第四句說：『除去兩種無漏根以及一種形根』，乃至。說一種形根，是指沒有兩種形根以及沒有形根的情況，能夠獲得聖法。
【English Translation】 English version The first two lines: In very few cases, eight roots are achieved. In what cases are not eight roots achieved? Only in two cases are very few eight roots achieved. The first is those who have severed their roots of goodness (斷善根者), they will certainly achieve the five feelings (五受) (suffering, pleasure, joy, sorrow, indifference) as well as the body faculty (身根), the mind faculty (意根), and the life faculty (命根). They will certainly not achieve the five roots of faith, etc. (信等五根) (faith root (信根), vigor root (精進根), mindfulness root (念根), concentration root (定根), wisdom root (慧根)) and the three unconditioned roots (三無漏根) (the root of 'I will know what is not yet known' (未知當知根), the known root (已知根), the root of complete knowledge (具知根)). The six roots are uncertain, namely the four sense faculties such as the eye faculty (眼根) (eye, ear, nose, tongue) and the female faculty (女根), male faculty (男根), which may not be achieved.
Treatise: 'Feeling (受)' refers to reaching the established perfect name, which explains the meaning of 'feeling (受)'.
Treatise: 'As those who have severed their roots of goodness to those who are foolishly born without form (愚生無色故)', explains the last two lines of the verse. Speaking of achieving eight roots, it refers to the five roots of faith, etc., the life faculty, the mind faculty, and indifference feeling (舍受). The fourteen roots are uncertain, namely the seven sense faculties (七色根) (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, form, sound) as well as suffering feeling (苦受), sorrow feeling (憂受), joy feeling (喜受), pleasure feeling (樂受), and the three unconditioned roots. Those who have severed their roots of goodness achieve eight roots in very few cases, and fourteen roots in most cases. Those who are foolishly born without form only achieve eight roots, and there is no reason to increase. The 150th volume of the Vibhasa (婆沙論) says that those who follow faith (隨信行者) achieve nineteen roots in most cases and thirteen roots in very few cases. Nineteen roots refer to excluding one of the gender faculties (形根) (female or male) and the two unconditioned roots (the root of 'I will know what is not yet known', the known root). That is, those who have not left the defilements of the desire realm and reside in the path of seeing (見道位). Thirteen roots refer to the body faculty, the life faculty, the mind faculty, the four feelings, the five roots of faith, etc., and one unconditioned root. That is, those who have already left the defilements of the desire realm and gradually enter the path of seeing at the time of death. Question: Why can this stage enter the path of seeing? Answer: Because they are those who practice with attachment (愛行者), they always厭惡生生死 and death in one lifetime. When they are about to die, they are touched by suffering feeling, and their厭惡心 of厭惡生生死 and death increases, and they can enter the path of seeing. Like those who follow faith, those who follow the Dharma are also like this.
Treatise: 'Those who are the most', the sixth sentence of the next line of verse explains the situation of the most. In most cases, nineteen roots are achieved, and there are two situations. One is the position of ordinary people (凡夫位), and the other is the position of sages (聖者位). The position of ordinary people refers to having two gender faculties (female and male), but does not include the three unconditioned roots. The position of sages refers to not leaving the desire realm, not including the two unconditioned roots, and one gender faculty. This treatise explains the fourth sentence of the verse, saying 'Remove the two unconditioned roots and one gender faculty', and even remove one of the two gender faculties, female and male. Because sages do not have two gender faculties. This passage is to explain the situation of the most, and the text says one gender faculty, but it only excludes the situation of having two gender faculties, not excluding the situation of not having a gender faculty. If there is a situation of not having a gender faculty, it is not the situation of the most. Therefore, this treatise and this explanation do not violate the statement that thirteen roots must be achieved. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理論) explains the fourth sentence by saying: 'Remove the two unconditioned roots and one gender faculty', and even. Saying one gender faculty refers to the situation of not having two gender faculties and not having a gender faculty, and being able to obtain the holy Dharma.
故 述曰。此無形者。謂是本性除去者非漸命終。與前意別。
俱舍論疏卷第三
保延三年潤九月二十三日初夜于南新屋點了 老僧 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第四
沙門法寶撰
分別根品第二之二
論曰今應思擇至決定俱生。此品大文第二。有二十七頌明俱生法。文中有二。一問。二答。此即問也 問何故作此論耶。正理論云。何緣思擇諸法俱生。為破邪宗顯正理故。謂或有執諸行無因自然而起。或復有執由一因故諸行得生。或復有執由自性等不平等因而生諸行 為對此執故作斯論。此論問意意云。一切有為如其體相色．心等法種種不同。此法生時亦各別起。為有諸法決定俱生。
論。有定俱生。答也。答中有三。一即略答。二開章門。三依章別釋。此略答也。
論。謂一切法至此中不說。第二開章門也。雖標五法唯釋四章。無為不生。此中不說。
論。今先辨色決定俱生已下第三依章別釋。此一頌第一釋色定俱生。
論曰至細於此者。此釋頌微聚也。極微非聚。微是七微。聚色之中微聚最細。此文亦顯色等極微。自類聚整合其微聚 又釋。同正理。正理云。色之極少更無分故立極少名。如一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 故，所述說的是，這裡所說的『無形者』，指的是本性被去除的人，而不是逐漸死亡的人。這與前面的意思不同。
《俱舍論疏》卷第三
保延三年閏九月二十三日初夜于南新屋點了 老僧 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第四
沙門法寶撰
分別根品第二之二
論曰：現在應當思考直至『決定俱生』。此品的大綱第二部分，有二十七頌說明俱生法。文中分為兩部分：一是提問，二是回答。這裡就是提問的部分。提問：為什麼要作這部論呢？《正理論》說：『因為什麼原因要思考諸法俱生呢？』爲了破除邪宗，顯揚正理的緣故。因為或者有人執著認為諸行沒有原因自然而生起；或者又有人執著認為由於一個原因，諸行才得以產生；或者又有人執著認為由自性等不平等的因而生起諸行。爲了駁斥這些執著，所以才作這部論。這部論的提問的意圖是說：一切有為法，如其體相、色、心等法，種種不同。這些法產生的時候也各自 अलग 起。是否有諸法是決定一起產生的？
論：『有定俱生。』這是回答。回答中分為三部分：一是簡略回答，二是開啟章節，三是依照章節分別解釋。這是簡略回答。
論：『謂一切法至此中不說。』這是第二部分，開啟章節。雖然標明了五法，但只解釋了四章。因為無為法不生，所以這裡沒有說。
論：『今先辨色決定俱生已下』這是第三部分，依照章節分別解釋。這一頌是第一部分，解釋色法決定俱生。
論曰：『至細於此者』。這是解釋頌文中的『微聚』。極微不是聚，微是七微。在聚色之中，微聚是最細微的。這段文字也顯示了色等極微，自類聚集形成其微聚。又解釋說，與《正理論》相同。《正理論》說：『色的極少，不能再分割，所以立名為極少。』就像一...
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is stated: 'This formless one' refers to someone whose inherent nature has been removed, not someone who is gradually dying. This is different from the previous meaning.
Kośa-bhāṣya-ṭīkā (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya Commentary) Volume 3
Pointed out on the 23rd day of the intercalary 9th month of the 3rd year of Hoen (1137) at the first watch of the night in the South New House by Old Monk. Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1822, Kośa-bhāṣya-ṭīkā
Kośa-bhāṣya-ṭīkā (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya Commentary) Volume 4
Composed by Śramaṇa Dharmaratna (法寶)
Chapter Two, Section Two: Analysis of the Faculties
The Treatise says: 'Now we should contemplate up to 'determined co-arising (決定俱生)''. This is the second major section of this chapter, with twenty-seven verses explaining co-arising dharmas (俱生法). The text has two parts: first, a question; second, an answer. This is the question. Question: Why is this treatise composed? The Nyāyānusāra (正理論) says: 'For what reason should we contemplate the co-arising of dharmas?' It is to refute heterodox views and reveal correct principles. Because some assert that phenomena (行) arise naturally without cause; or others assert that phenomena arise due to a single cause; or others assert that phenomena arise from unequal causes such as inherent nature (自性). To counter these assertions, this treatise is composed. The intention of the question in this treatise is: All conditioned phenomena (有為法), such as their substance, characteristics, form (色), mind (心), etc., are all different. When these dharmas arise, they also arise separately. Are there dharmas that are definitely co-arising?
The Treatise: 'There is determined co-arising.' This is the answer. The answer has three parts: first, a brief answer; second, opening the chapter; third, explaining each chapter separately. This is the brief answer.
The Treatise: 'Namely, all dharmas... are not discussed here.' This is the second part, opening the chapter. Although five dharmas are indicated, only four chapters are explained. Because unconditioned dharmas (無為法) do not arise, they are not discussed here.
The Treatise: 'Now, first, distinguish the determined co-arising of form (色)...' This is the third part, explaining each chapter separately. This verse is the first part, explaining the determined co-arising of form.
The Treatise says: '...to the finest of these.' This explains the 'minute aggregate (微聚)' in the verse. An ultimate particle (極微) is not an aggregate. A 'minute' (微) is seven ultimate particles. Among aggregates of form, the minute aggregate is the finest. This passage also shows that ultimate particles of form, etc., gather together to form their minute aggregates. It also explains that it is the same as the Nyāyānusāra. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'The ultimate minimum of form, which cannot be further divided, is called the ultimate minimum.' Like one...
剎那名時極少。更不可折為半剎那。如是眾微展轉和合。定不離者說為微聚 準此論文。微是極微。聚是八．九微等。二釋之中后釋為善。
論。此在欲界至色香味觸。此釋欲界無聲無根。
論。無聲有根至身為第九。此釋無聲有身根也。
論。有餘根聚至處各別故。釋有餘根處各別也。
論。於前諸聚至大種因起。釋有聲也。婆沙九十云。身．色．聲．觸界。欲．色界定成就。無色界不成就者。問身．色．觸界可爾。聲界云何恒時成就。有作是說。大種離合必生聲界。有情若在欲．色界中。大種恒有故常發聲。評曰。彼不應作是說。若四大種必恒生聲。此所生聲何大種造。若即此造。應多有對色一四大種生。若說余造。餘四大種復必生聲。如是展轉有無窮過。應作是說生欲．色界有情身中。多四大種在一身內。有相擊者便發生聲。不相擊者即無聲起。雖一身中必有聲起。非諸身份皆悉發聲 又此論等云無聲八等。準此等文。定成聲者據一有情。於一身中定成聲故非定遍有 有聲九等。據相鄰近。二文意別互不相違 詳諸論意有眼等根定有身根。及有餘八。有身根處亦定有八。雖根四境定不相離必定俱生。亦有內四境。有定俱生。有不定者。定者如有感眼必感身等。有唯不離根非俱生．滅。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『剎那』（Kshana）這個時間單位非常短。不能再分割成半個『剎那』。像這樣，許多微小的物質逐漸聚集結合，那些確定不會分離的就被稱為『微聚』。根據這個論述，『微』是極微（paramāṇu），『聚』是八個或九個極微等等。在兩種解釋中，后一種解釋更好。
論：這些存在於欲界（Kāmadhātu），直到色（rūpa）、香（gandha）、味（rasa）、觸（sparśa）。而在**界（Arūpadhātu），沒有聲音，也沒有根（indriya）。
論：沒有聲音，但有根，直到身體，是第九個。這解釋了沒有聲音，但有身根（kāyendriya）。
論：其餘的根聚集，因為處所各不相同。這解釋了其餘的根，處所各不相同。
論：在前述的各種聚集，直到由大種（mahābhūta）因產生。這解釋了有聲音。婆沙（Vibhāṣā）第九十卷說：身界、色界、聲界、觸界，在欲界和定（Arūpasamāpatti）中成就，在無（nirāśrava）中不成就。問：身界、色界、觸界可以這樣說，但聲界如何能恒時成就？有人這樣說：大種的分離和結合必然產生聲界。如果眾生在欲界或界中，大種恒常存在，所以經常發出聲音。評論說：他們不應該這樣說。如果四大種（catvāro mahābhūtāḥ）必然恒常產生聲音，那麼這種產生的聲音是由什麼大種造成的？如果說是由此大種造成的，那麼應該有許多有對色（sapratigharūpa）由一個四大種產生。如果說是其餘的大種造成的，那麼其餘的四大種又必然產生聲音。這樣輾轉下去，會有無窮的過失。應該這樣說，生在欲界或界的有情身中，許多四大種在一個身體內，有互相撞擊的就會發生聲音，不互相撞擊的就沒有聲音產生。雖然一個身體中必然有聲音產生，但不是所有身體的部分都發出聲音。此外，此論等說沒有聲音的有八種等等。根據這些經文，確定成就聲音的是指一個有情，在一個身體中確定成就聲音，所以不是確定普遍存在的。有聲音的有九種等等，是指相鄰近的。兩段經文的意思不同，互相不違背。詳細考察各種論的意義，有眼等根（cakṣurindriya）必定有身根，以及其餘的八種。有身根的地方也必定有八種。雖然根和四境（gocara）必定不相分離，必定同時產生，也有內在的四境，有確定同時產生的，也有不確定的。確定的是如有感眼必定感身等。有隻是不離開根，並非同時產生、滅亡的。
【English Translation】 English version A 『Kshana』 (moment) is an extremely short period of time. It cannot be further divided into half a 『Kshana』. In this way, many minute substances gradually gather and combine, and those that are certain not to separate are called 『minute aggregates』. According to this treatise, 『minute』 refers to the ultimate minute particle (paramāṇu), and 『aggregate』 refers to eight or nine ultimate minute particles, and so on. Among the two explanations, the latter is better.
Treatise: These exist in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), up to form (rūpa), smell (gandha), taste (rasa), and touch (sparśa). In the Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu), there is no sound and no sense faculty (indriya).
Treatise: There is no sound, but there are sense faculties, up to the body, which is the ninth. This explains that there is no sound, but there is the body faculty (kāyendriya).
Treatise: The remaining sense faculties gather because their locations are different. This explains that the remaining sense faculties have different locations.
Treatise: In the aforementioned various aggregates, up to those arising from the great element (mahābhūta) cause. This explains that there is sound. The ninety-first chapter of the Vibhāṣā says: The body realm, form realm, sound realm, and touch realm are accomplished in the Desire Realm and the Formless Attainment (Arūpasamāpatti), but not accomplished in the Non-Outflow (nirāśrava). Question: The body realm, form realm, and touch realm can be said to be so, but how can the sound realm be constantly accomplished? Some say that the separation and combination of the great elements necessarily produce the sound realm. If sentient beings are in the Desire Realm or the Formless Realm, the great elements are constantly present, so they constantly emit sound. Comment: They should not say that. If the four great elements (catvāro mahābhūtāḥ) necessarily and constantly produce sound, then what great element creates this produced sound? If it is said that it is created by this great element, then there should be many visible forms (sapratigharūpa) produced by one great element. If it is said that it is created by the remaining great elements, then the remaining great elements must again produce sound. In this way, there will be infinite faults. It should be said that in the bodies of sentient beings born in the Desire Realm or the Formless Realm, many great elements are within one body, and if some collide with each other, sound will be produced, and if they do not collide with each other, no sound will arise. Although sound must be produced in one body, not all parts of the body emit sound. Furthermore, this treatise and others say that there are eight kinds of no sound, and so on. According to these texts, the definite accomplishment of sound refers to one sentient being, and the definite accomplishment of sound in one body, so it is not definitely universally present. There are nine kinds of sound, and so on, which refers to those that are close to each other. The meanings of the two texts are different and do not contradict each other. Examining the meanings of the various treatises in detail, if there are sense faculties such as the eye (cakṣurindriya), there must be the body faculty, as well as the remaining eight kinds. Where there is the body faculty, there must also be eight kinds. Although the sense faculties and the four objects (gocara) are certainly not separate, and certainly arise simultaneously, there are also internal four objects, some of which definitely arise simultaneously, and some of which are uncertain. What is certain is that if there is a sense of sight, there must be a sense of body, and so on. There are those that only do not leave the sense faculty, but do not arise and cease simultaneously.
如有表色．聲。及造表．無表大。變化色等。此等與根雖有．無不定。依總處說云定不相離。雖聲不定。然聲起時必擊色等大種方生。色與香等必定俱起。由此有聲定有八事。有餘八事非定有聲。有香味境定有色觸。有欲色觸非定有香．味。有一師說。身在色界作欲界化。不化香味。此非正義。此即外境決定有八。造道．定戒四大種等。雖依身等。不定俱生。若取必相依有。即無四大起而無色等。容有無聲 舊毗婆沙有二師說。第一師云。一切四大必不離色聲。一切欲界色必不離香．味。第二師云。一切四大不必有色．聲。一切欲色不必有香．味 念法師云。兩師並非正義。各取少分方可為正。應言一切四大必不離色。不必有聲。一切欲界色必不離香．味。故雜心云極微在四根十種。應當知身根九。餘八。謂是有香地 泰法師云。念法師意。以雜心論不說有聲。明知此聲非恒成就泰法師云。念法師若作斯釋。此大謬也。發智論云誰成就聲持。答曰欲．色界 又雜心云。無想眾生十入性 聲既恒成。故知婆沙初師一切四大必不離色．聲一切欲界色必不離香．味。是其正義。然雜心．俱舍頌不說聲者。以聲因大種相擊故生。非如香等恒時有故。其聲此論別加。雜心略而不說。泰法師意說聲既恒成。明知一切四大必不離聲。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如有表色（可以被識別的顏色）、聲，以及造表色（產生可以被識別的顏色的物質）、無表色（無法被識別的顏色）大、變化色等。這些（色、聲等）與根（感覺器官）雖然有聯繫，但並非絕對不變。依據總處（總體而言）來說，它們是不可分離的。雖然聲音是不確定的，但聲音產生時，必定是撞擊了色等大種（四大元素）才會產生。色與香等必定同時產生。因此，有聲音就必定有八件事物（同時存在）。其餘八件事物並非一定有聲音。有香味的境界必定有色和觸。有欲界的色和觸，不一定有香和味。有一位老師說，身在梵天（色界天）可以化作欲界之身，但不化作香味。這不是正確的說法。這就是說外境決定有八種事物（同時存在）。造道（修行之道）、定戒（禪定和戒律）和四大種等，雖然依賴於身等，但不一定同時產生。如果取必定相互依賴的事物，就沒有四大產生而沒有色等的情況。容許沒有聲音的情況。 舊的《毗婆沙論》中有兩位老師的說法。第一位老師說，一切四大必定不離色和聲。一切欲界的色必定不離香和味。第二位老師說，一切四大不一定有色和聲。一切欲界的色不一定有香和味。 念法師說，兩位老師的說法都不是正確的。各自取少部分才可以認為是正確的。應該說一切四大必定不離色，不一定有聲。一切欲界的色必定不離香和味。所以《雜心論》說極微（最小的物質單位）存在於四根（眼耳鼻舌）和十種事物中。應當知道身根（觸覺）有九種，其餘八種，指的是有香味的地。 泰法師說，念法師的意思是，《雜心論》沒有說有聲音，表明聲音並非恒常存在。泰法師說，念法師如果這樣解釋，那就大錯特錯了。《發智論》說誰成就聲持（保持聲音）？回答說欲界和梵天。又《雜心論》說，無想眾生有十入性（十種感覺的性質）。聲音既然是恒常存在的，所以知道《毗婆沙論》第一位老師說的一切四大必定不離色和聲，一切欲界的色必定不離香和味，是正確的。然而《雜心論》和《俱舍論》的頌詞沒有說聲音，是因為聲音是由大種相互撞擊而產生的，不像香等是恒常存在的。聲音是此論特別補充的，《雜心論》省略了沒有說。泰法師的意思是說聲音既然是恒常存在的，表明一切四大必定不離聲。
【English Translation】 English version If there are manifest colors (colors that can be recognized), sounds, as well as causative manifest colors (substances that produce recognizable colors), non-manifest colors (colors that cannot be recognized), great elements, changing colors, and so on. Although these (colors, sounds, etc.) have a connection with the roots (sense organs), they are not absolutely fixed. According to the general location (generally speaking), they are inseparable. Although sound is uncertain, when sound arises, it must be that the great elements such as color (the four great elements) are struck to produce it. Color and fragrance, etc., must arise simultaneously. Therefore, where there is sound, there must be eight things (existing simultaneously). The remaining eight things do not necessarily have sound. Realms with fragrance and taste must have color and touch. Colors and touches of the desire realm do not necessarily have fragrance and taste. One teacher says that the body in Brahma (the form realm heaven) can transform into a body of the desire realm, but does not transform into fragrance and taste. This is not a correct statement. This means that the external environment definitely has eight things (existing simultaneously). Causative paths (paths of practice), fixed precepts (meditation and precepts), and the four great elements, etc., although dependent on the body, etc., do not necessarily arise simultaneously. If we take things that are necessarily interdependent, there is no situation where the four great elements arise without color, etc. It is permissible to have no sound. In the old Vibhasa (Commentary) there are two teachers' statements. The first teacher said that all four great elements must not be separated from color and sound. All colors of the desire realm must not be separated from fragrance and taste. The second teacher said that all four great elements do not necessarily have color and sound. All colors of the desire realm do not necessarily have fragrance and taste. Master Nian said that neither teacher's statement is correct. Only taking a small part of each can be considered correct. It should be said that all four great elements must not be separated from color, but do not necessarily have sound. All colors of the desire realm must not be separated from fragrance and taste. Therefore, the Zaxin Lun (Treatise on the Collection of Categories) says that the subtle particles (smallest units of matter) exist in the four roots (eyes, ears, nose, tongue) and ten things. It should be known that the body root (touch) has nine types, and the remaining eight types refer to the earth with fragrance and taste. Master Tai said that Master Nian's meaning is that the Zaxin Lun does not mention sound, indicating that sound is not constantly present. Master Tai said that if Master Nian interprets it this way, it would be a big mistake. The Fa Zhi Lun (Treatise on Knowledge) says, 'Who achieves and maintains sound?' The answer is the desire realm and Brahma. Also, the Zaxin Lun says that beings without thought have ten entry natures (ten qualities of sensation). Since sound is constantly present, it is known that the first teacher's statement in the Vibhasa that all four great elements must not be separated from color and sound, and all colors of the desire realm must not be separated from fragrance and taste, is correct. However, the verses of the Zaxin Lun and Kosa (Treasury of Abhidharma) do not mention sound because sound is produced by the collision of the great elements, unlike fragrance, etc., which are constantly present. Sound is a special addition in this treatise, and the Zaxin Lun omits it. Master Tai's meaning is that since sound is constantly present, it indicates that all four great elements must not be separated from sound.
今詳。念法師釋深得論意。一切四大不必有聲。與婆沙評家義同。一切欲．色界定成就聲者。據一身說。一切欲界色必不離香．味。同婆沙一百四十五評家。身在色界作欲界化。亦化香．味而不成就 泰法師解。若言定成就聲。此說即是。若言一切四大必不離色．聲者。此即非也。只可言不離色。何得必不離聲。準婆沙評家義。有四大種不離聲。有四大種離聲。何得說言一切四大必不離聲。若言大種皆遍發聲。還同婆沙評家所破。故亦非理 又言。一切欲界色必不離香．味。還同念法師。準念法師一切四大必不離色不必有聲者。此同婆沙評家所說。擊發四大方名有聲。自餘四大不名有聲。非是一身不必有聲名為不定。若說同在一身即合必有聲也。應定九．十等 今詳婆沙二說。前師欲界必不離香．味者。是色界亦化香．味。如莊嚴具而不成就。后師一切欲界色不必有香．味者。是身在色界唯化欲界色．觸二境。泰師．光師妄解念法師意。以雜心不說有聲。明知此聲非恒成就。此即謬釋法師意也。念法師既講迦延。豈不知發智云誰成就聲持。答曰欲．色界。又豈不知無想十入。念法師以非是一切四大恒有聲故不必有聲。非謂一身全無聲也。如此論等云無聲八．九．十。有聲九．十．十一等。此同雜心。此言無聲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 現在詳細分析。念法師的解釋深刻地領會了《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》的含義。並非一切四大（地、水、火、風，構成物質世界的四種基本元素）都必然有聲音，這與《大毗婆沙論》評家的觀點相同。一切欲界（指眾生有情慾和物質慾望的生存界）和色界定（通過禪定達到的色界狀態）成就聲音的說法，是就一個身體而言的。一切欲界的色法（物質現象）必定不離香、味，這與《大毗婆沙論》第一百四十五卷評家的觀點相同。身體在色界（脫離了粗糙物質慾望但仍有物質存在的境界）時，所作的欲界變化，也變化出香、味，但並不成就。 泰法師的解釋是：如果說禪定成就聲音，這種說法是對的。如果說一切四大必定不離色、聲，這就錯了。只能說不離色，怎麼能說必定不離聲呢？按照《大毗婆沙論》評家的觀點，有些四大種不離聲音，有些四大種離開聲音。怎麼能說一切四大必定不離聲音呢？如果說四大種都普遍發出聲音，那就和《大毗婆沙論》評家所破斥的觀點相同了，所以也是不合理的。 又說：一切欲界的色法必定不離香、味，這與念法師的觀點相同。按照念法師的觀點，一切四大必定不離色，但不一定有聲音，這與《大毗婆沙論》評家所說的一致。撞擊引發的四大才叫做有聲音，其餘的四大不叫做有聲音。並非是一個身體不一定有聲音就叫做不定。如果說同在一個身體，就應該必定有聲音。應該確定是九、十等。 現在詳細分析《大毗婆沙論》的兩種說法。前一位論師認為欲界必定不離香、味，是因為在色界也變化出香、味，就像莊嚴具一樣，但並不成就。后一位論師認為一切欲界的色法不一定有香、味，是因為身體在色界只變化出欲界的色、觸二境。泰法師、光法師錯誤地理解了念法師的含義，因為《雜心論》沒有說有聲音，就認為這聲音不是恒常成就的，這實在是錯誤地解釋了法師的含義。念法師既然講解《迦旃延論》，怎麼會不知道《發智論》說誰成就聲音保持呢？回答是欲界、色界。又怎麼會不知道無想十入（指進入無想定的十種方法）呢？念法師認為不是一切四大恒常有聲音，所以不一定有聲音，不是說一個身體完全沒有聲音。像《阿毗達磨論》等說無聲八、九、十，有聲九、十、十一等，這與《雜心論》相同。這裡說的無聲。
【English Translation】 English version: Now, let's examine this in detail. The explanation by Dharma Master Nian deeply understands the meaning of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Great Commentary on the Abhidharma). Not all four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind, the four basic elements constituting the material world) necessarily have sound, which aligns with the view of the Mahāvibhāṣā commentators. The statement that all kāmadhātu (the realm of desire, referring to the realm of existence where beings have sensual and material desires) and rūpadhātu samādhi (the state of form realm attained through meditation) achieve sound refers to a single body. All forms in the kāmadhātu invariably include smell and taste, which is consistent with the view of the 145th fascicle commentator of the Mahāvibhāṣā. When the body is in the rūpadhātu (the realm of form, a state of existence devoid of coarse material desires but still possessing material existence), the transformations of the kāmadhātu also produce smell and taste, but they are not achieved. Dharma Master Tai's explanation is: if it is said that samādhi achieves sound, this statement is correct. If it is said that all four great elements invariably include form and sound, then this is incorrect. It can only be said that they invariably include form; how can it be said that they invariably include sound? According to the view of the Mahāvibhāṣā commentators, some four great elements do not separate from sound, while others do. How can it be said that all four great elements invariably include sound? If it is said that all great elements universally emit sound, then it is the same as the view refuted by the Mahāvibhāṣā commentators, so it is also unreasonable. Furthermore, it is said that all forms in the kāmadhātu invariably include smell and taste, which is the same as Dharma Master Nian's view. According to Dharma Master Nian's view, all four great elements invariably include form but do not necessarily have sound, which is consistent with what the Mahāvibhāṣā commentators say. Only the four great elements that are struck and triggered are called having sound; the remaining four great elements are not called having sound. It is not that a body necessarily having no sound is called indefinite. If it is said that they are in the same body, then they should necessarily have sound. It should be determined as nine, ten, etc. Now, let's examine the two statements in the Mahāvibhāṣā in detail. The former teacher believes that the kāmadhātu invariably includes smell and taste because smell and taste are also transformed in the rūpadhātu, just like ornaments, but they are not achieved. The latter teacher believes that not all forms in the kāmadhātu necessarily have smell and taste because the body in the rūpadhātu only transforms the two realms of form and touch in the kāmadhātu. Dharma Master Tai and Dharma Master Guang misunderstood the meaning of Dharma Master Nian because the Abhidharmasamuccaya (Compendium of Abhidharma) does not mention sound, so they believe that this sound is not constantly achieved, which is a truly incorrect interpretation of the Dharma Master's meaning. Since Dharma Master Nian lectured on the Kātyāyana-śāstra, how could he not know that the Jñānaprasthāna (Foundation of Knowledge) says who achieves and maintains sound? The answer is the kāmadhātu and rūpadhātu. And how could he not know the ten entrances of non-perception (referring to the ten methods of entering the state of non-perception)? Dharma Master Nian believes that not all four great elements constantly have sound, so they do not necessarily have sound, not that a body has no sound at all. Like the Abhidharma treatises, etc., say that there is no sound in eight, nine, and ten, and there is sound in nine, ten, and eleven, etc., which is the same as the Abhidharmasamuccaya. What is said here is no sound.
。豈說不成就聲耶。法師既取此文意亦如是。
泰法師復引發智等論。破念法師為大謬也。又自釋云故知婆沙初師一切四大必不離色．聲。一切欲界色必不離香．味是正義也。此更大謬。即違婆沙有四大無聲。此論．雜心無聲八等。念法師義既順論文。泰．光二師即謬破耳。
論。若四大種至可得非余。此明四大體．用增．減。此是問也。
論。于彼聚中至與麨合味。此以用增答也。婆沙一百三十一有其兩說。一云體增。二云用增。此論是后師。正理是前師。正理救前師云。豈不色法亦見用增。如酢和水。良藥和毒。鹽和水等。雖兩數同。而用有異。如何言色就體說增。此不相違。以酢與水觸微雖等而味不同。酢味微多。水味微少。故酢味勝還是體增。于諸聚中有味等物體增強故。謂是用增。良藥．毒等緣起理門有差別故體類如是。由此雖少而能伏多。非異體類有別用生。故執用增是為邪計。或如類別。品別亦爾。故唯心等就用說增。就體說增。謂諸色法。譬如依多．依一成故 釋曰。色．心依一依多不同。用增．體增亦非一例。詳其兩說。並是婆沙之文。正理論師此中不合彈斥論主為非。然詳體增．用增。未為盡理。如若干水具有六味。如有六人同食此水。先覺不同。何者體增。何者用增。故知
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：難道說這樣就不能成就聲音了嗎？泰法師既然採用這個文意，也是一樣的。
泰法師又引用《發智論》等，來駁斥念法師，認為他的觀點大錯特錯。又自己解釋說：『所以知道《婆沙論》最初的師說認為一切四大必定不離色、聲，一切欲界色必定不離香、味，這是正確的觀點。』這種說法更是大錯特錯。這直接違背了《婆沙論》中『有四大而無聲』的說法。此論和《雜心論》都認為沒有聲音等八種。念法師的觀點既然順應論文，泰法師和光法師就是錯誤地駁斥了。
論：『如果四大種到…可以得到，而不是其他的。』這說明四大本體和作用的增加和減少。這是一個提問。
論：『在那聚集之中…和炒麵混合的味道一樣。』這是用作用增加來回答。在《婆沙論》第一百三十一卷中有兩種說法。一種說是本體增加，一種說是作用增加。此論是后一種師說的觀點。《正理論》是前一種師說的觀點。《正理論》為前一種師說辯護說：『難道色法也看不到作用增加嗎？比如醋和水混合，良藥和毒藥混合，鹽和水混合等。雖然兩者的數量相同，但是作用卻有不同。』怎麼能說色法就本體來說增加呢？這並不矛盾。因為醋和水，觸覺上雖然相同，但是味道不同。醋的味道稍微多一些，水的味道稍微少一些。所以醋的味道勝過水，還是本體增加。在各種聚集之中，有味道等物體增強的緣故，說是作用增加。良藥、毒藥等，緣起理門有差別，所以本體類別是這樣的。因此，即使少量也能制伏多數。不是因為不同本體類別而產生不同的作用。所以執著于作用增加是錯誤的。或者像類別、品類一樣也是如此。所以唯心等就作用來說增加，就本體來說增加。所說的諸色法，譬如依靠多、依靠一而成就的緣故』釋曰：色法和心法依靠一和依靠多不同，作用增加和本體增加也不是一個例子。詳細考察這兩種說法，都是《婆沙論》的原文。《正理論》的論師不應該在這裡彈劾論主為錯誤。然而詳細考察本體增加和作用增加，還沒有窮盡道理。比如若干水具有六種味道。如果有六個人一同食用這些水。先感覺到的味道不同。哪個是本體增加，哪個是作用增加。所以知道……
【English Translation】 English version: Could it be said that sound cannot be achieved in this way? Since Dharma Master Tai adopts this meaning, it is the same.
Dharma Master Tai further cited the Fa Zhi Lun (Treatise on the Arising of Wisdom) and other treatises to refute Dharma Master Nian, considering his views to be greatly mistaken. He further explained himself, saying, 'Therefore, it is known that the initial teachings of the Vibhasa (Great Commentary) hold that all four great elements (si da, earth, water, fire, wind) must not be separate from form and sound, and all form in the desire realm (yu jie, realm of desire) must not be separate from smell and taste. This is the correct view.' This statement is even more mistaken. It directly contradicts the Vibhasa, which states, 'There are four great elements without sound.' This treatise and the Za Xin Lun (Miscellaneous Abhidharma Treatise) both hold that there are no sound, etc., eight kinds. Since Dharma Master Nian's view accords with the treatise, Dharma Master Tai and Dharma Master Guang are mistakenly refuting it.
Treatise: 'If the four great elements reach...can be obtained, and not others.' This explains the increase and decrease of the substance and function of the four great elements. This is a question.
Treatise: 'In that gathering...the taste is the same as that of roasted flour mixed together.' This answers with the increase of function. In the Vibhasa, volume 131, there are two views. One says it is the increase of substance, and the other says it is the increase of function. This treatise holds the view of the latter teacher. The Zheng Li Lun (Treatise on Establishing the Correct Principle) holds the view of the former teacher. The Zheng Li Lun defends the former teacher, saying, 'Can't the increase of function also be seen in form? For example, vinegar mixed with water, good medicine mixed with poison, salt mixed with water, etc. Although the quantities of the two are the same, the functions are different.' How can it be said that form increases in terms of substance? This is not contradictory. Because vinegar and water, although the tactile sensation is the same, the taste is different. The taste of vinegar is slightly more, and the taste of water is slightly less. Therefore, the taste of vinegar surpasses water, and it is still the increase of substance. Among various gatherings, because there are tastes and other objects that are enhanced, it is said to be the increase of function. Good medicine, poison, etc., the principle of dependent origination (yuan qi, dependent arising) has differences, so the nature of the substance is like this. Therefore, even a small amount can subdue a large amount. It is not because different types of substances produce different functions. Therefore, clinging to the increase of function is a mistaken view. Or it is the same as categories and types. Therefore, only mind, etc., are said to increase in terms of function, and to increase in terms of substance. The so-called various forms, for example, are accomplished by relying on many and relying on one.' Explanation: Form and mind differ in relying on one and relying on many, and the increase of function and the increase of substance are not a single example. Examining these two views in detail, they are both the original texts of the Vibhasa. The master of the Zheng Li Lun should not criticize the author of the treatise as being wrong here. However, examining the increase of substance and the increase of function in detail has not exhausted the principle. For example, several waters have six tastes. If six people eat these waters together. The first taste felt is different. Which is the increase of substance, and which is the increase of function. Therefore, know that...
法性隨緣不定非體．用。
論。云何于彼知亦有餘。問也。
論。由有攝熟長持業故答也 于中有二。此第一答。以業有故知體有也。
論。有說遇緣至用有勝劣。此第二答。以後有相知前有體。遇火等緣蘇．臘．鐵等物便流動。如冬水中由極冷故有暖等相。及由先觸極冷水故后觸次冷覺中有暖。雖四大種體不相離。以用勝故唯一相顯。如多境相雜勝者先受。多聲同發唯聞勝者。婆沙一百四十一云。問云何得知。此四大種恒不相離。答自相．作業。一切聚中皆可得故。謂堅聚中地界自相。現可得故有義極成。於此聚中若無水界。金．銀．錫等應不可銷。又水若無彼應分散。若無火界石等相擊火不應生。又火若無無能成熟彼應腐敗。若無風界應無動搖。又若無風應無增長 于濕聚中水界自相。現可得故有。義極成。於此聚中若無地界至嚴寒位應不成水。又地若無船等應沒。若無火界應無暖時。又火若無彼應腐敗。若無風界應不動搖。又風若無應無增長 于暖聚中火界自相。現可得故 有義極成。於此聚中若無地界燈．燭等焰應不可回。又地若無不應持物。若無水界應不生流。又水若無焰不應聚。若無風界應不動搖。又若無風應不增長 于動聚中風界自相。現可得故有義極成。於此聚中若無地界觸墻等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法性隨著因緣而變化，並非固定不變的本體或作用。
論：如何才能得知法性既有作用，也有本體呢？（問）
論：因為有攝受、成熟、增長、保持等作用的緣故。（答）這裡面包含兩層意思。這是第一種回答，因為有作用的緣故，所以知道有本體。
論：有人說，遇到因緣時，作用會顯現出勝劣的差別。這是第二種回答，通過後面的現象可以推知前面有本體。比如酥油（Su，澄清的奶油）、蜂蠟（La，蜂巢分泌的蠟）、鐵等物質遇到火等因緣就會流動。就像冬天水因為極度寒冷而具有溫暖的特性一樣。以及因為先前接觸過極冷的水，所以之後接觸到稍微冷一些的水時，會感覺其中帶有暖意。雖然四大種（地、水、火、風）的本體沒有分離，但因為作用的強弱不同，所以只有一種相貌顯現出來。就像多種境界同時出現時，最強的那個境界會被首先感知到。多種聲音同時發出時，只能聽到最響亮的聲音。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，全稱《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）第一百四十一卷中說：問：如何得知這四大種恒常不相分離？答：通過它們的自相和作用。在一切聚合體中都可以找到它們。比如在堅硬的聚合體中，地界的自相是可以明顯觀察到的，因此可以確定它存在。如果這個聚合體中沒有水界，那麼金、銀、錫等金屬就不應該能夠被熔化。而且，如果沒有水，這個聚合體就應該會分散。如果沒有火界，石頭等相互撞擊就不應該產生火花。而且，如果沒有火，就沒有東西能夠使它成熟，它就應該會腐爛。如果沒有風界，它就不應該會動搖。而且，如果沒有風，它就不應該會增長。在潮濕的聚合體中，水界的自相是可以明顯觀察到的，因此可以確定它存在。如果這個聚合體中沒有地界，那麼在極度寒冷的環境下，它就不應該能結成冰。而且，如果沒有地，船等就應該會沉沒。如果沒有火界，它就不應該有溫暖的時候。而且，如果沒有火，它就應該會腐爛。如果沒有風界，它就不應該會動搖。而且，如果沒有風，它就不應該會增長。在溫暖的聚合體中，火界的自相是可以明顯觀察到的，因此可以確定它存在。如果這個聚合體中沒有地界，燈、蠟燭等的火焰就不應該能夠被控制。而且，如果沒有地，它就不應該能夠支撐物體。如果沒有水界，它就不應該產生流動。而且，如果沒有水，火焰就不應該聚集。如果沒有風界，它就不應該動搖。而且，如果沒有風，它就不應該增長。在運動的聚合體中，風界的自相是可以明顯觀察到的，因此可以確定它存在。如果這個聚合體中沒有地界，接觸墻壁等……
【English Translation】 English version The Dharma-nature changes according to conditions, and is not a fixed substance or function.
Treatise: How can one know that it has both function and substance? (Question)
Treatise: Because it has the functions of gathering, maturing, growing, and maintaining. (Answer) There are two meanings in this. This is the first answer, because there is function, so we know there is substance.
Treatise: Some say that when encountering conditions, the function will show differences in superiority and inferiority. This is the second answer, and the existence of the substance can be inferred from the subsequent phenomena. For example, butter (Su, clarified butter), beeswax (La, wax secreted by the honeycomb), iron, and other substances will flow when they encounter fire and other conditions. Just like water in winter has warm characteristics due to extreme cold. And because of previously touching extremely cold water, when touching slightly colder water later, one will feel warmth in it. Although the substances of the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) are not separated, because the strength of the functions is different, only one aspect appears. Just like when multiple realms appear at the same time, the strongest realm will be perceived first. When multiple sounds are emitted at the same time, only the loudest sound can be heard. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa, full name Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Shastra) Volume 141 says: Question: How can one know that these four great elements are always inseparable? Answer: Through their self-characteristics and functions. They can be found in all aggregates. For example, in a hard aggregate, the self-characteristic of the earth element can be clearly observed, so it can be determined that it exists. If there is no water element in this aggregate, then metals such as gold, silver, and tin should not be able to be melted. Moreover, if there is no water, this aggregate should disperse. If there is no fire element, sparks should not be produced when stones and other things collide. Moreover, if there is no fire, nothing can mature it, and it should rot. If there is no wind element, it should not shake. Moreover, if there is no wind, it should not grow. In a wet aggregate, the self-characteristic of the water element can be clearly observed, so it can be determined that it exists. If there is no earth element in this aggregate, it should not be able to freeze in extremely cold environments. Moreover, if there is no earth, boats and the like should sink. If there is no fire element, it should not have warm times. Moreover, if there is no fire, it should rot. If there is no wind element, it should not shake. Moreover, if there is no wind, it should not grow. In a warm aggregate, the self-characteristic of the fire element can be clearly observed, so it can be determined that it exists. If there is no earth element in this aggregate, the flames of lamps, candles, etc. should not be able to be controlled. Moreover, if there is no earth, it should not be able to support objects. If there is no water element, it should not produce flow. Moreover, if there is no water, the flame should not gather. If there is no wind element, it should not shake. Moreover, if there is no wind, it should not grow. In a moving aggregate, the self-characteristic of the wind element can be clearly observed, so it can be determined that it exists. If there is no earth element in this aggregate, touching walls, etc...
障應不折回。又地若無應不持物。若無水界應無冷風。又水若無彼應分散。若無火界應無暖風。又火若無彼應腐敗。
論。有餘師說至界謂種子。此是經部也。唯有種子無其體相。大乘不言種子。然許或有一大乃至四大。許一造色乃至五境。然同處不相離。非和雜也。經部大意亦同。
論。如何風中知有顯色問也。若言外境定有八微如外風中無塵埃者。長等形色共許定無。如何得知風中有顯色。若無顯色即唯有觸。孰有八微。
論。此義可信至不相離故。答也。風中顯色但可依教信有。不可比知 或所合香現可取者。雖不可見而香可嗅。香．顯必俱定有顯也。
論。前說色界至故不別說。類釋色界。可知。
論。此中言事至為依處說。自此已下問答分別。此是問也。
論。若爾何過。此反問也。
論。二俱有過至有太少過。此責依體有太．少過。
論。若依處說至有太多失。此明依處太多失也。
論。二俱無過至能依造色。答二難也。
論。若爾大種至四大種故。此就異類大種為難。
論。應知此中至類無別故。此以類同合說答也 然正理論更有二說。故彼論云。或唯依體亦無有失。由此中說定俱生故。形色等體非決定有。光．明等中則無有故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：障礙應當不會折返。又如果地界沒有，就不應持有物體。如果沒有水界，就不應有冷風。又如果水界沒有，它就應該分散。如果沒有火界，就不應有暖風。又如果火界沒有，它就應該腐敗。
論：有其餘的老師說，『界』指的是種子（bīja，事物生長的潛在力量）。這是經部（Sautrāntika）的觀點。只有種子而沒有其實體和形相。大乘（Mahāyāna）不談論種子，但允許有一個大的，乃至四大（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）。允許有一個造色（rūpa，物質），乃至五境（pañca viṣaya，色、聲、香、味、觸）。然而，它們在同一處所不互相分離，也不是混合在一起的。經部的大意也相同。
論：如何在風中知道有顯色（varṇa，顏色）呢？（問）如果說外境一定有八微（aṣṭa dravya，地、水、火、風、色、香、味、觸），就像外面的風中沒有塵埃一樣。長、短等形狀和顏色，大家都承認一定沒有。如何得知風中有顯色呢？如果沒有顯色，就只有觸（sparśa，觸覺）。誰會有八微呢？
論：這個道理可以相信，因為它們不互相分離。（答）風中的顯色只能依靠教義來相信有，不能通過比較來得知。或者所組合的香（gandha，氣味）現在可以被獲取。雖然顯色不可見，但香可以被嗅到。香和顯色必定同時存在，所以一定有顯色。
論：前面說...所以不分別說明。（類釋）可以知道。
論：這裡說的事...是爲了依據處所來說明。從這裡以下是問答分別。這是問。
論：如果這樣，有什麼過失？這是反問。
論：兩者都有過失...有太多或太少的過失。這是責備依據實體有太多或太少的過失。
論：如果依據處所來說...有太多過失。這是說明依據處所有太多過失。
論：兩者都沒有過失...能夠依據造色。這是回答兩個難題。
論：如果這樣，大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）...因為是四大種。這是就不同種類的大種來發難。
論：應當知道這裡...因為種類沒有區別。這是用種類相同合起來說明來回答。然而，正理論（Abhidharmakośa）還有兩種說法。所以那個論典說：『或者僅僅依據實體也沒有過失。』因為這裡說的是一定同時產生。形狀、顏色等的實體不是一定有的，在光、明等之中就沒有。
【English Translation】 English version: Obstacles should not turn back. Furthermore, if the earth element (pṛthivī-dhātu) did not exist, there should be no holding of objects. If the water element (ap-dhātu) did not exist, there should be no cold wind. Furthermore, if the water element did not exist, it should be dispersed. If the fire element (tejas-dhātu) did not exist, there should be no warm wind. Furthermore, if the fire element did not exist, it should decay.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that 'element' refers to the seed (bīja, the potential force for things to grow). This is the view of the Sautrāntika school. There are only seeds without their substance and form. The Mahāyāna does not speak of seeds, but allows for one great element, or even the four great elements (mahābhūta, earth, water, fire, wind). It allows for one produced matter (rūpa, material form), or even the five objects (pañca viṣaya, form, sound, smell, taste, touch). However, they are in the same place without separating from each other, nor are they mixed together. The main idea of the Sautrāntika is also the same.
Treatise: How do we know there is visible form (varṇa, color) in the wind? (Question) If it is said that the external environment certainly has eight subtle elements (aṣṭa dravya, earth, water, fire, wind, form, smell, taste, touch), just as there is no dust in the outside wind. Length, shape, and color are all acknowledged to certainly not exist. How do we know there is visible form in the wind? If there is no visible form, there is only touch (sparśa, tactile sensation). Who would have the eight subtle elements?
Treatise: This meaning can be believed because they do not separate from each other. (Answer) The visible form in the wind can only be believed to exist based on doctrine; it cannot be known through comparison. Or the combined fragrance (gandha, odor) can now be taken. Although visible form is invisible, the fragrance can be smelled. Fragrance and visible form must exist simultaneously, so there must be visible form.
Treatise: It was said earlier... therefore, it is not explained separately. (Explanation by analogy) It can be known.
Treatise: The matter spoken of here... is to explain based on the location. From here onwards, there are questions and answers to distinguish. This is the question.
Treatise: If so, what is the fault? This is a counter-question.
Treatise: Both have faults... there is too much or too little fault. This is to blame that relying on the substance has too much or too little fault.
Treatise: If explaining based on the location... there is too much fault. This clarifies that relying on the location has too much fault.
Treatise: Neither has fault... able to rely on produced matter. This answers the two difficulties.
Treatise: If so, the great elements (mahābhūta, earth, water, fire, wind)... because they are the four great elements. This is to challenge based on different kinds of great elements.
Treatise: It should be known that here... because the kinds have no difference. This is to answer by combining the explanation with the same kind. However, the Abhidharmakośa has two more explanations. Therefore, that treatise says: 'Or there is no fault in relying solely on the substance.' Because it is said here that they are certainly produced simultaneously. The substance of shape, color, etc., is not certain to exist; there is none in light, brightness, etc.
。或唯依處。然為遮遣多誹謗故別說大種。多誹謗者。謂或謗言。大種造色無別有性(謂譬喻部及覺天等)。或復謗言。無別觸處所造色體(室利邏多說許余色)。或復謗言。非一切聚皆具一切。經部諸師或有總無四大。或復謗言數不決定。別說大種此謗皆除(經部諸師同大乘說或言定有大種不必具四)。
論。何用分別至義應思擇。此論主止諍也。
論。如是已辨至今次當說。此下半頌釋余俱生。
論曰至余則不起。釋心．心所必定俱也。無有心王起時不兼心所。心所起時不兼心王。故言必俱。非謂心王而與一切種類心所俱也。
論。諸行即是至四相俱起 言。諸行相者。謂一切有為與四種相必定俱起。上句必俱二字流至下句。諸行．相必俱也。
論。言或得者至是故言或。釋頌或得二字。于諸行中或與得俱起謂有情法。或與得不俱謂無情法。故言或也。
論。向言心所何者是耶。此下乘便廣明心所 言心所者是心所有。正理論云。四有為中廣辨色．心如前品說。心所等法猶未廣辨 自下有十一頌半廣明心所。文中有四。一述名體。二述俱生。三述簡濫。四述眾名 就述名體中復分為二。一開章列名。二牒章別釋。此下半頌開章列名。
論曰至五小煩惱地法。列五地名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：或者僅僅依賴於『依處』（āśraya，所依賴之處）。然而，爲了遮止眾多的誹謗，所以特別說明『大種』（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風四大元素）。所謂的『多誹謗』是指：或者有人誹謗說，『大種』所造的『色』（rūpa，物質現象）沒有各自獨立的自性（比如譬喻部和覺天等人所持的觀點）。或者又有人誹謗說，沒有與『觸處』（sparśa-āyatana，觸覺的來源）不同的所造『色』的自體（室利邏多這樣說，並且允許其他的『色』存在）。或者又有人誹謗說，不是一切聚合都具備一切『大種』（四大）。經部的諸位論師，或者有人認為完全沒有四大。或者又有人誹謗說，『大種』的數量不確定。特別說明『大種』，這些誹謗都可以消除（經部的諸位論師與大乘的觀點相同，或者說一定有『大種』，不一定具備全部四種）。
論：為什麼要分別說明『大種』呢？其中的意義應該仔細思考。這段論述是論主爲了止息爭論。
論：像這樣已經辨析了『至今』，接下來應當說『次當說』。這下面的半頌解釋了其餘的『俱生』（sahaja，一同生起）。
論曰：直到『余則不起』。解釋了『心』（citta，意識）和『心所』（caitta，心理活動）必定一同生起。沒有『心王』（citta-rāja，主要意識）生起的時候不伴隨『心所』，『心所』生起的時候不伴隨『心王』。所以說必定一同生起。但並不是說『心王』與一切種類的『心所』都一同生起。
論：『諸行』（saṃskṛta，有為法）即是直到『四相俱起』。說『諸行相』，是指一切『有為』（saṃskṛta，有為法）與四種『相』（lakṣaṇa，生、住、異、滅）必定一同生起。上一句的『必俱』二字也適用於下一句。『諸行』和『相』必定一同生起。
論：說『言或得者』直到『是故言或』。解釋頌文中的『或得』二字。在『諸行』中，或者與『得』（prāpti，獲得）一同生起，指的是有情法。或者與『得』不一同生起，指的是無情法。所以說是『或』。
論：前面說『心所』，什麼是『心所』呢？這下面就順便廣泛地說明『心所』。說『心所』，是『心』所有的。正理論中說，在四種『有為』中，廣泛地辨析『色』和『心』，如前面的品所說。『心所』等法還沒有廣泛地辨析。從下面開始有十一頌半廣泛地說明『心所』。文中分為四個部分：一、敘述名稱和體性；二、敘述一同生起；三、敘述簡別和概括；四、敘述各種名稱。就敘述名稱和體性中又分為兩個部分：一、開章列出名稱；二、按照章節分別解釋。這下面的半頌是開章列出名稱。
論曰：直到『五小煩惱地法』。列出五種『地』（bhūmi，層次）的名稱。
【English Translation】 English version: Or solely relies on 'āśraya' (依處, the support). However, in order to prevent many slanders, 'mahābhūta' (大種, the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind) are specifically explained. The so-called 'many slanders' refer to: either someone slanders that the 'rūpa' (色, material phenomena) created by 'mahābhūta' does not have its own independent self-nature (such as the views held by the Dārṣṭāntika school and Jue Tian, etc.). Or someone slanders that there is no self-nature of the created 'rūpa' that is different from 'sparśa-āyatana' (觸處, the source of tactile sensation) (Śrīlāta says this, and allows the existence of other 'rūpa'). Or someone slanders that not all aggregates possess all 'mahābhūta' (the four great elements). Some teachers of the Sautrāntika school believe that there are no four great elements at all. Or someone slanders that the number of 'mahābhūta' is uncertain. Specifying 'mahābhūta' eliminates these slanders (the teachers of the Sautrāntika school have the same view as the Mahāyāna, or say that there must be 'mahābhūta', but not necessarily all four).
Treatise: Why should 'mahābhūta' be distinguished? The meaning of this should be carefully considered. This discourse is for the master to stop the dispute.
Treatise: Having distinguished 'until now' in this way, 'what comes next should be said'. The following half-verse explains the remaining 'sahaja' (俱生, co-arising).
Treatise says: Until 'the rest will not arise'. It explains that 'citta' (心, consciousness) and 'caitta' (心所, mental activities) must arise together. There is no 'citta-rāja' (心王, main consciousness) arising without accompanying 'caitta', and 'caitta' arising without accompanying 'citta-rāja'. Therefore, it is said that they must arise together. But it does not mean that 'citta-rāja' arises together with all kinds of 'caitta'.
Treatise: 'Saṃskṛta' (諸行, conditioned phenomena) is until 'the four characteristics arise together'. Saying 'the characteristics of saṃskṛta', it refers to all 'saṃskṛta' (有為, conditioned phenomena) that must arise together with the four 'lakṣaṇa' (相, characteristics: birth, duration, change, and extinction). The words 'must arise together' in the previous sentence also apply to the next sentence. 'Saṃskṛta' and 'lakṣaṇa' must arise together.
Treatise: Saying 'words or gains' until 'therefore say or'. Explaining the words 'or gains' in the verse. Among 'saṃskṛta', either arises together with 'prāpti' (得, attainment), referring to sentient beings' dharmas. Or does not arise together with 'prāpti', referring to non-sentient beings' dharmas. Therefore, it is said 'or'.
Treatise: Previously said 'caitta', what is 'caitta'? The following will conveniently explain 'caitta' extensively. Saying 'caitta', it is what 'citta' possesses. The Zhengli Theory says that among the four 'saṃskṛta', 'rūpa' and 'citta' are extensively analyzed, as mentioned in the previous chapter. 'Caitta' and other dharmas have not been extensively analyzed yet. From below, there are eleven and a half verses extensively explaining 'caitta'. The text is divided into four parts: 1. Narrating the name and nature; 2. Narrating co-arising; 3. Narrating distinction and summary; 4. Narrating various names. The narration of name and nature is further divided into two parts: 1. Opening the chapter and listing the names; 2. Explaining each chapter separately. The following half-verse opens the chapter and lists the names.
Treatise says: Until 'five minor afflictions' ground dharmas'. Listing the names of the five 'bhūmi' (地, levels).
。可知。依婆沙四十二。五地法外更有大有覆無記地。謂有覆無記心．心所法。大無覆無記地法。謂即一切無覆無記。此二地法無別心所。故此不說。
論。地謂行處至為彼法地。總釋五地名也。
論。大法地故名為大地。別釋大法地也。謂地是心王。大法是心所。
論。此中若法至名大地法。別釋大地法也。謂即心所。此是兩重屬主釋也。
論。謂法怛於一切心有。示大地法體也。
論。彼法是何。此重問也 自下別釋五大地法。即為五段。此下第一一頌別釋大地法也 將釋名體先釋總名。如前所述 正理論云。地即是心。大法地故名為大地。此中若法。大地所有名大地法。謂法遍與一切品類一切心俱生。由此故心非大地法。非心俱生故 準上論文。受等十法。遍一切心故名為大。心王。與大為所依故名為大地。受等十法。與心俱生名大地法。心。與心王不俱生故非大地法 婆沙十六。問大地法是何義。答大者謂心。如是十法是心起處。大之地故名為大地。大地即法名大地法。有說心名為大。體．用勝故。即大是地故名大地。是諸心所所依處故。受等十法。于諸大地遍可得故名大地法。有說受等十法。遍諸心品故名為大。心是彼地故名大地。受等即是大地所有名大地法 前之二釋與
【現代漢語翻譯】 可知，按照《婆沙論》四十二的說法，在五地法之外，還有大有覆無記地，指的是有覆無記的心和心所法。以及大無覆無記地法，指的是一切無覆無記法。這兩種地法沒有特別的心所，所以這裡不作說明。
論：『地』指的是行處，是那些法的『地』。這是總的解釋五地的名稱。
論：因為是『大法』的『地』，所以稱為『大地』。這是分別解釋『大法地』。意思是『地』是心王，『大法』是心所。
論：這裡如果有什麼法，是『大地』所有的，就稱為『大地法』。這是分別解釋『大地法』。指的是心所。這是兩重的屬主釋。
論：指的是那些法與一切心同在。這是揭示『大地法』的本體。
論：那些法是什麼？這是重複提問。下面分別解釋五大地法，分為五段。下面第一頌分別解釋大地法。將要解釋名稱和本體，先解釋總名，如前所述。《正理論》說：『地』就是心，因為是『大法』的『地』，所以稱為『大地』。這裡如果有什麼法，是『大地』所有的，就稱為『大地法』。指的是那些法普遍與一切品類的一切心共同生起。因此，心不是大地法，因為它不是與心共同生起的。根據上面的論文，受等十法，普遍存在於一切心中，所以稱為『大』。心王，因為以『大』為所依，所以稱為『大地』。受等十法，與心共同生起，稱為『大地法』。心，因為不與心王共同生起，所以不是大地法。《婆沙論》十六說：問：『大地法』是什麼意思？答：『大』指的是心。這十法是心生起的地方。因為是『大』的『地』，所以稱為『大地』。『大地』即是法，稱為『大地法』。有人說，心名為『大』，因為它的體和用都很殊勝。『大』就是『地』，所以稱為『大地』。是各種心所的所依之處。受等十法，在各種『大地』中普遍可以得到，所以稱為『大地法』。有人說，受等十法，普遍存在於各種心品中，所以稱為『大』。心是它們的『地』，所以稱為『大地』。受等就是『大地』所有的，稱為『大地法』。』前兩種解釋與
【English Translation】 It is knowable. According to Vibhasha (婆沙) 42, besides the Five Grounds Dharmas, there are also Great Defiled-Indeterminate Ground (大有覆無記地), referring to the defiled-indeterminate mind and mental factors. And Great Non-Defiled-Indeterminate Ground Dharmas (大無覆無記地法), referring to all non-defiled-indeterminate dharmas. These two grounds of dharmas do not have separate mental factors, so they are not discussed here.
Treatise: 'Ground' (地) refers to the place of activity, being the 'ground' for those dharmas. This is a general explanation of the names of the Five Grounds.
Treatise: Because it is the 'ground' of 'Great Dharmas' (大法), it is called 'Great Ground' (大地). This is a separate explanation of 'Great Dharma Ground'. It means that 'ground' is the Mind-King (心王), and 'Great Dharmas' are the mental factors (心所).
Treatise: If there are any dharmas here that belong to the 'Great Ground', they are called 'Great Ground Dharmas' (大地法). This is a separate explanation of 'Great Ground Dharmas'. It refers to mental factors. This is a double possessive explanation.
Treatise: It refers to those dharmas that are present in all minds. This reveals the substance of 'Great Ground Dharmas'.
Treatise: What are those dharmas? This is a repeated question. Below, the Five Great Ground Dharmas are explained separately, divided into five sections. The first verse below explains the Great Ground Dharmas separately. Before explaining the name and substance, the general name is explained first, as mentioned earlier. The Zhengli Lun (正理論) says: 'Ground' is the mind. Because it is the 'ground' of 'Great Dharmas', it is called 'Great Ground'. If there are any dharmas here that belong to the 'Great Ground', they are called 'Great Ground Dharmas'. It refers to those dharmas that universally arise together with all kinds of minds. Therefore, the mind is not a Great Ground Dharma, because it does not arise together with the mind. According to the above treatise, the ten dharmas such as Feeling (受) are called 'Great' because they are present in all minds. The Mind-King is called 'Great Ground' because it relies on the 'Great'. The ten dharmas such as Feeling arise together with the mind and are called 'Great Ground Dharmas'. The mind is not a Great Ground Dharma because it does not arise together with the Mind-King. Vibhasha (婆沙) 16 says: Question: What is the meaning of 'Great Ground Dharma'? Answer: 'Great' refers to the mind. These ten dharmas are the place where the mind arises. Because it is the 'ground' of the 'Great', it is called 'Great Ground'. 'Great Ground' is dharma, called 'Great Ground Dharma'. Some say that the mind is called 'Great' because its substance and function are superior. 'Great' is 'ground', so it is called 'Great Ground'. It is the place where various mental factors rely. The ten dharmas such as Feeling are universally obtainable in various 'Great Grounds', so they are called 'Great Ground Dharmas'. Some say that the ten dharmas such as Feeling are universally present in various kinds of minds, so they are called 'Great'. The mind is their 'ground', so it is called 'Great Ground'. Feeling and others are what the 'Great Ground' possesses, called 'Great Ground Dharmas'. The first two explanations are consistent with
二論異。后之一釋與二論同。自古諸師或以三義。或以五義。簡五地別。恐煩不敘 今此論主。唯以一義簡地法別。勝於三義五義簡也。即以遍於一切心簡自余心所。皆不能遍一切心也。
論曰至和合遍有。先總釋遍有。謂傳婆沙師說故言傳說。
論。此中受謂至有差別故。準釋受蘊。言領隨觸。及於此中正理不破。故知此言即謂領順苦．樂等觸。非謂領順苦．樂等境 有人定為領納前境。非決定也。故正理云。于所依身能益．能損．或俱相違。領愛．非愛．俱相違觸說名為受。準此論文領同時觸。
論。想謂于境取差別相。即是取男．女等差別之相。正理論云。安立執取男．女等境差別相因說名為想 述曰。謂能為因。令心．心所安立男．女等相而執取故。
論。思謂能令心有造作 正理論云。令心造作善．不善．無記。成妙．劣．中性說名為思。由有思故令心於境有動作用。猶如磁石勢力能令鐵有動用。
論。觸謂根境至能有觸對 正理論云。由根．境．識和合而生。能為受因有所觸對說名為觸。
論。欲謂希求所作事業 正理論云。希求取境說名為欲。
論慧謂於法能有簡擇 正理論云。簡擇所緣邪．正等相說名為慧 簡擇未決亦得疑俱。
論。念謂于緣明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於第二種異論，后一種解釋與第二種異論相同。自古以來的各位法師，有的用三種意義，有的用五種意義來區分五地（指欲界、色界、無色界、有學地、無學地）的差別，恐怕過於繁瑣，這裡就不敘述了。現在這部論的作者，只用一種意義來區分地法（指不同層次的修行境界及其相應的法）的差別，勝過用三種或五種意義來區分。即用『遍於一切心』來區分其餘的心所，因為其餘的心所都不能遍於一切心。 論曰：至和合遍有。首先總的解釋『遍有』。因為是傳承自傳婆沙師的說法，所以說是『傳說』。 論：此中受謂至有差別故。依據解釋受蘊，說是領隨觸，並且在此處正理不破斥。因此可知這句話是指領順苦、樂等觸，而不是指領順苦、樂等境。有人認為一定是領納前境，但並非是決定的。所以《正理論》說：『對於所依之身，能益、能損、或俱相違，領愛、非愛、俱相違觸說名為受。』依據這段論文，是領同時的觸。 論：想謂于境取差別相。即是取男、女等差別之相。《正理論》說：『安立執取男、女等境差別相因說名為想。』述曰：謂能為因，令心、心所安立男、女等相而執取故。 論：思謂能令心有造作。《正理論》說：『令心造作善、不善、無記，成妙、劣、中性說名為思。』因為有思，所以能使心對於境界有動的作用，猶如磁石的勢力能使鐵有動的作用。 論：觸謂根境至能有觸對。《正理論》說：『由根、境、識和合而生，能為受因有所觸對說名為觸。』 論：欲謂希求所作事業。《正理論》說：『希求取境說名為欲。』 論：慧謂於法能有簡擇。《正理論》說：『簡擇所緣邪、正等相說名為慧。』簡擇未決亦得疑俱。 論：念謂于緣明
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the second heterodox view, the latter explanation is the same as the second heterodox view. Since ancient times, some masters have used three meanings, and some have used five meanings to distinguish the differences between the five grounds (referring to the desire realm, the form realm, the formless realm, the learning ground, and the no-learning ground). Fearing it would be too cumbersome, I will not describe it here. The author of this treatise now only uses one meaning to distinguish the differences between the ground dharmas (referring to the different levels of practice and their corresponding dharmas), which is better than using three or five meanings to distinguish them. That is, using 'pervading all minds' to distinguish the remaining mental factors, because the remaining mental factors cannot pervade all minds. Treatise says: To 'pervading all existence'. First, generally explain 'pervading all existence'. Because it is a saying inherited from the Transmission Vibhasha masters, it is said to be a 'tradition'. Treatise: 'Here, feeling means to have differences.' According to the explanation of the feeling aggregate, it is said to be 'leading along with contact', and here the principle is not refuted. Therefore, it can be known that this sentence refers to leading along with pleasant, unpleasant, etc. contacts, not referring to leading along with pleasant, unpleasant, etc. objects. Some people think that it must be leading and receiving the previous object, but it is not definite. Therefore, the Nyayanusara says: 'Regarding the dependent body, being able to benefit, harm, or both contradict, leading to love, non-love, and contradictory contacts is called feeling.' According to this thesis, it is leading to simultaneous contact. Treatise: 'Conception means taking different characteristics of objects.' That is, taking the different characteristics of male, female, etc. The Nyayanusara says: 'Establishing and grasping the different characteristics of objects such as male, female, etc. is called conception.' Commentary says: 'It means being able to be the cause, causing the mind and mental factors to establish the characteristics of male, female, etc. and grasp them.' Treatise: 'Volition means being able to cause the mind to have activity.' The Nyayanusara says: 'Causing the mind to create good, non-good, and neutral, achieving wonderful, inferior, and neutral nature is called volition.' Because there is volition, it can cause the mind to have a moving function towards the object, just like the power of a magnet can cause iron to have a moving function. Treatise: 'Contact means that the root and object can have contact.' The Nyayanusara says: 'Born from the combination of root, object, and consciousness, being able to be the cause of feeling and having contact is called contact.' Treatise: 'Desire means hoping for the work to be done.' The Nyayanusara says: 'Hoping to take the object is called desire.' Treatise: 'Wisdom means being able to discern the dharma.' The Nyayanusara says: 'Discriminating the right, wrong, etc. aspects of what is related to is called wisdom.' Discernment that is not yet decided can also be accompanied by doubt. Treatise: 'Memory means being clear about what is related to.'
記不忘 正理論。于境明記不忘失因說名爲念 述曰。由念力故於緣境明記。顯了能為后時不忘失因。非謂但據緣過去境。
論。作意謂能令心警覺 正理論云。引心．心所。令于所緣有所警覺。說名作意。此即世間說為留意 述曰。諸心．心所沉沒不行。由作意力警令發覺。策之令造能屬於境。即世間言留心於此。
論。勝解謂能于境印可 正理論云。于境印可說名勝解。有餘師言。勝謂增勝。解謂解脫。此能令心於境無礙自在而轉。如勝戒等 述曰于境分明印可。審定是事如是非不如是。殊勝之解名為勝解 問若然者。與疑相應。云何有勝解耶 解云有耶無耶於二心中一一皆能印可取相故有勝解 言余師者。雜心等師。彼說令心於境自在為勝。境不能礙故得改易名解 解謂解脫。故舊雜心謂名解脫。言勝戒等等取勝定．勝慧。如說由觸故心屬於境。由勝解故心離於境。即其義也。
論。三摩地謂心一境性 正理論云。令心無亂取所緣境不流散因名三摩地 述曰。由定力故當剎那中。令心．心所同屬一境。至此非余。三摩地者。此云等持。即平等持心於一境住。上釋諸心所。言於心者亦兼心所。諸相相違而俱起者如理思之。恐煩不述。略舉兩論辨其體相。欲述多文恐繁不敘。
論。諸心．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『記不忘』（Smrti，憶念）在《正理論》中解釋為：『于境明記不忘失因說名爲念』，意思是說，通過憶念的力量，對於所緣的境界能夠清晰地記住，並且能夠作為以後不忘記的原因。這不僅僅是指緣於過去的境界。
『作意』（Manaskara，注意）是指能夠使心警覺。《正理論》中說：『引心、心所，令于所緣有所警覺，說名作意。』這也就是世俗所說的留意。意思是說，當心和心所沉沒不活動時，通過作意的力量使其警覺，策動它們去造作，使它們專注于所緣的境界，這就是世俗所說的留心於此。
『勝解』（Adhimoksha，勝解）是指能夠對所緣的境界進行印可。《正理論》中說：『于境印可說名勝解。』有其他論師說，『勝』是指增勝，『解』是指解脫。勝解能夠使心對於所緣的境界沒有障礙，自在地運轉，就像殊勝的戒律等。』意思是說，對於所緣的境界分明地印可，審定此事是這樣而不是那樣。殊勝的理解稱為勝解。問：如果這樣的話，勝解與疑相應，怎麼會有勝解呢？答：在『有』還是『無』的兩種心中，每一種都能印可取相，所以有勝解。這裡說的『余師』，指的是《雜心論》等的論師。他們說，使心對於所緣的境界自在就是『勝』，境界不能夠阻礙心，因此可以改變，這叫做『解』，『解』就是解脫。所以舊的《雜心論》說叫做解脫。『勝戒等』，指的是殊勝的禪定、殊勝的智慧。就像所說的，由於觸，心才屬於境界；由於勝解，心才脫離境界，就是這個意思。
『三摩地』（Samadhi，禪定）是指心專注于單一境界的性質。《正理論》中說：『令心無亂取所緣境不流散因名三摩地。』意思是說，通過禪定的力量，在當下的一剎那，使心和心所共同專注於一個境界，不再轉移到其他境界。『三摩地』，在這裡翻譯為『等持』，就是平等地保持心住在同一個境界上。上面解釋各種心所，說到『於心』的時候，也兼指心所。各種心所的體相雖然相互違背，但是可以同時生起，要如理地思考。因為怕繁瑣，所以不詳細敘述了。這裡簡略地引用兩部論典來辨析它們的體相。想要敘述更多的經文，又怕過於繁瑣，所以不敘述了。
各種心、心所……
【English Translation】 English version: 『Smrti』 (Remembrance) is explained in the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise on Following the Correct Principle) as: 『Remembering clearly the object and not forgetting the cause is called Smrti.』 This means that through the power of remembrance, one can clearly remember the object and it can serve as the cause for not forgetting in the future. This does not only refer to objects of the past.
『Manaskara』 (Attention) refers to that which can make the mind alert. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『Leading the mind and mental factors to be alert to the object is called Manaskara.』 This is what the world calls paying attention. It means that when the mind and mental factors are submerged and inactive, the power of attention makes them alert, urging them to act and focus on the object, which is what the world calls paying attention to this.
『Adhimoksha』 (Resolution) refers to being able to approve of the object. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『Approving of the object is called Adhimoksha.』 Some other teachers say that 『Adhi』 means superior, and 『moksha』 means liberation. Adhimoksha enables the mind to operate freely and without hindrance in relation to the object, like superior precepts, etc. It means clearly approving of the object, determining that this is so and not otherwise. A superior understanding is called Adhimoksha. Question: If that is the case, how can there be Adhimoksha if it corresponds to doubt? Answer: In the two minds of 『is』 or 『is not,』 each can approve and grasp the characteristic, so there is Adhimoksha. The 『other teachers』 mentioned here refer to teachers of texts like the Abhidharma-samuccaya. They say that making the mind free in relation to the object is 『Adhi,』 and the object cannot hinder the mind, so it can be changed, which is called 『moksha,』 and 『moksha』 means liberation. Therefore, the old Abhidharma-samuccaya calls it liberation. 『Superior precepts, etc.』 refer to superior Samadhi (concentration) and superior wisdom. Just as it is said, because of contact, the mind belongs to the object; because of Adhimoksha, the mind is liberated from the object, which is the meaning.
『Samadhi』 (Concentration) refers to the nature of the mind being focused on a single object. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『Causing the mind to be without confusion and taking the object without scattering is called Samadhi.』 It means that through the power of concentration, in that moment, the mind and mental factors are jointly focused on one object, and do not shift to other objects. 『Samadhi』 is translated here as 『equal holding,』 which is equally holding the mind and dwelling on one object. The above explanation of the various mental factors, when referring to 『the mind,』 also includes mental factors. Although the characteristics of the various mental factors contradict each other, they can arise simultaneously, which should be considered according to reason. Because I fear being verbose, I will not describe it in detail. Here, I briefly cite two treatises to distinguish their nature and characteristics. I want to describe more texts, but I fear being too verbose, so I will not describe them.
Various minds and mental factors...
心所至唯覺慧取。此難心．心所法微細難知。有部之宗十法遍行。大乘之中唯五遍行。正理中雲。彼上坐言但有三種。謂受．想．思。此即唯三名為遍行。亦有不立心所。唯心差別說名受等。應錄之。
論。如是已說至彼法是何。自下第二一頌釋大善地法。先釋大善地。彼善地法兩重屬主。如前可知。
論曰至唯遍善心。此釋大善法名諸心所中有唯是善不遍善心。謂欣．厭也。有遍善心非唯是善。謂大地法。有唯是善亦遍善心。謂信等十。有不遍善心及非唯是善。謂尋伺二。睡眠．惡作。唯染心所非善性故善言已簡。
論。此中信者至故名為信 正理論云。心濁相違現前忍許。無倒因．果各別相屬。為欲所依能資勝解。說名為信 入阿毗達磨云。是能除遣心濁穢法。如水清珠置於池內。令濁穢水皆即澄凈。如是信珠在心池內。心諸濁穢皆悉除遣。
論。不放逸者至名不放逸 正理論云。專於己利防身．語．意。放逸相違名不放逸 述曰。己利即是三乘涅槃．及世愛果。是己所專。舉所依也。防身．語．意舉作用。放逸相違明所治。
論。輕安者謂心堪任性 正理論云。正作意轉。身．心輕利安適之因。心堪任性說名輕安 述曰。正作意轉。明所依位。即如理作意正現起時。能為身心輕
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：心所的作用在於覺察和領會智慧。這很難理解，因為心和心所的法非常微細難以察覺。有部的宗義認為有十種法是普遍存在的（遍行），而大乘佛教則認為只有五種。在《正理》中說，上座部的人認為只有三種，即受（vedanā，感受）、想（saṃjñā，概念）、思（cetanā，意志）。這就是說只有這三種被稱為遍行。也有人不建立心所，而只是將心的差別稱為受等等，應該記錄下來。
論：如上已經說了，到彼法是什麼。下面第二頌解釋大善地法。首先解釋大善地。彼善地法有兩重所屬關係，如前文可知。
論曰：到唯遍善心。這裡解釋大善法這個名稱，在諸心所中，有些只是善的，不普遍存在於所有善心中，比如欣（滿意）和厭（厭惡）。有些普遍存在於善心中，但並非只是善的，比如大地法（mahā-bhūmika）。有些既是善的，也普遍存在於所有善心中，比如信（śraddhā，信仰）等十種。有些既不普遍存在於所有善心中，也並非只是善的，比如尋（vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（vicāra，細緻的思考）這兩種。睡眠（middha）和惡作（kaukṛtya，後悔）只是染污的心所，不是善的性質，所以用『善』這個詞來加以區分。
論：此中信者，到故名為信。《正理論》中說：與心的混濁狀態相反，對無顛倒的因果關係各自的歸屬，產生現前的認可和允許，作為慾望的所依，能夠資助殊勝的理解，這被稱為信。《入阿毗達磨》中說：信是能夠去除心中污濁的法，就像清水珠放在池塘里，能使渾濁的水立刻變得清澈一樣。同樣，信珠在心中，能去除心中的各種污濁。
論：不放逸者，到名不放逸。《正理論》中說：專注于自身的利益，防護身、語、意，與放逸相反，這稱為不放逸。述曰：自身的利益就是三乘的涅槃以及世間的愛果，是自身所專注的。『防護身、語、意』是舉出作用，『與放逸相反』是說明所要對治的。
論：輕安者，謂心堪任性。《正理論》中說：由於正確的作意運轉，身心變得輕快安適的原因，心的堪任性被稱為輕安。述曰：『正確的作意運轉』，說明所依的地位，即如理作意正確地現起時，能夠使身心輕快。
【English Translation】 English version: The function of the mind-object is to perceive and grasp wisdom. This is difficult to understand because the mind and its objects are very subtle and difficult to perceive. The Sarvāstivāda school holds that there are ten universally present (sarvatraga) mental factors, while Mahāyāna Buddhism believes there are only five. In the Nyāyānusāra, it is said that the elders of the Sautrāntika school believed there are only three, namely feeling (vedanā), conception (saṃjñā), and volition (cetanā). This means that only these three are called universally present. Some do not establish mental factors, but simply refer to the differences in the mind as feeling, etc., which should be recorded.
Treatise: As mentioned above, what is 'that dharma'? The second verse below explains the 'great wholesome ground' dharmas. First, explain the 'great wholesome ground'. These wholesome ground dharmas have a dual relationship of belonging, as can be understood from the previous text.
Treatise says: To only universally wholesome mind. This explains the name 'great wholesome dharma'. Among the mental factors, some are only wholesome and do not universally exist in all wholesome minds, such as satisfaction (hri) and dissatisfaction (apatrāpya). Some universally exist in wholesome minds but are not only wholesome, such as the 'great ground' dharmas (mahā-bhūmika). Some are both wholesome and universally exist in all wholesome minds, such as faith (śraddhā) and the other ten. Some neither universally exist in all wholesome minds nor are only wholesome, such as initial application of thought (vitarka) and sustained application of thought (vicāra). Sleep (middha) and regret (kaukṛtya) are only defiled mental factors and are not wholesome in nature, so the word 'wholesome' is used to distinguish them.
Treatise: Here, 'faith' means... therefore it is called 'faith'. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Opposite to the turbid state of mind, the present acceptance and permission of the respective attributions of the non-inverted cause and effect, as the basis of desire, capable of supporting superior understanding, is called faith.' The Abhidharmakośa says: 'It is the dharma that can remove the turbidity and impurity of the mind, just as a clear water pearl placed in a pond can immediately purify the turbid water. Similarly, when the faith pearl is in the mind, it can remove all the turbidity in the mind.'
Treatise: 'Non-negligence' means... it is called 'non-negligence'. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Focusing on one's own benefit, guarding body, speech, and mind, opposite to negligence, is called non-negligence.' Commentary says: 'One's own benefit is the nirvāṇa of the three vehicles and the worldly fruits of love, which is what one focuses on. 'Guarding body, speech, and mind' is to illustrate the function, and 'opposite to negligence' is to clarify what is to be counteracted.
Treatise: 'Tranquility' means the mind's capacity. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Due to the correct operation of attention, the cause of lightness and comfort of body and mind, the mind's capacity is called tranquility.' Commentary says: 'The correct operation of attention' indicates the position of reliance, that is, when proper attention correctly arises, it can make the body and mind light and comfortable.
利．安適之因。舉作用也。心堪任性。指其體也。
論。豈無經亦說有身輕安耶。經部問也。既有經說有身輕安。如何唯是心堪任性。
論。雖無非說至應知亦爾。有部釋也。此如身受非是色身。即是五識相應受也。輕安亦爾。
論。如何可立此為覺支。經部難也。若五識相應有輕安者。如何可說此為覺支。此難絕也 今詳此難非為切當。即心輕安當非皆是覺支。如何五識輕安令是覺支。
論。應知此中至身堪任性。此文經部釋經與有部不同。經說身輕安性。即是色身有堪任性。身中輕觸。
論。復如何說此為覺支。有部難也。覺支是心所。輕安是色法。如何可說此為覺支。
論。能順覺支至心輕安故。經部通也。由入定時身輕安性。隨順定中心輕安故。名為覺支。
論。于余亦見有是說耶。有部問也。于余亦有如是相從立名耶。
論。有如經說至得名無失。引經例釋。亦見余處嗔及嗔因緣名嗔恚蓋。見．思惟．及勤名為慧蘊。雖彼嗔因．思惟．及勤。非嗔．非慧。然順彼故亦得彼名。此亦應爾。經部亦許有心輕安。而無別體即思差別。唯定心有于散即無。五識相應理即非有。身輕安者即是輕觸。身輕利因。正理論云。有作是言。此中既說身輕安故。非唯心所說名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 利。安適之因。這是從作用方面來說的。『心堪任性』，指的是它的本體。
論：難道經典中沒有說到有『身輕安』嗎？這是經部的提問。既然經典中說了有『身輕安』，為什麼只有『心堪任性』才算呢？
論：即使沒有明確說，也應該知道也是這樣的。這是有部的解釋。這就像身受不是色身，而是與五識相應的受。輕安也是這樣。
論：怎麼能把這個立為覺支呢？這是經部的質疑。如果與五識相應的有輕安，怎麼能說這個是覺支呢？這個質疑很尖銳。仔細分析，這個質疑並非完全恰當。即使是心輕安，也不是全部都是覺支。怎麼能因為五識有輕安，就認為它是覺支呢？
論：應該知道這裡所說的『身堪任性』。這段經文經部的解釋與有部不同。經部說身輕安的性質，就是色身具有堪任性，是身體中的輕觸。
論：又怎麼能說這個是覺支呢？這是有部的質疑。覺支是心所法，輕安是色法，怎麼能說這個是覺支呢？
論：因為能順應覺支，所以是心輕安的緣故。這是經部的解釋。因為進入禪定時，身輕安的性質，隨順於禪定中的心輕安，所以名為覺支。
論：在其他地方也看到有這樣的說法嗎？這是有部的提問。在其他地方也有這樣互相隨順而立名的例子嗎？
論：有，比如經典中說，嗔及嗔的因緣被稱為嗔恚蓋。見、思惟和勤被稱為慧蘊。雖然嗔的因緣、思惟和勤，不是嗔，也不是慧，但是因為順應它們，所以也得到它們的名字。這裡也應該這樣。經部也承認有心輕安，但沒有單獨的體性，只是思的差別。只有在定心中才有，在散亂心中就沒有。與五識相應在道理上是不存在的。身輕安就是輕觸，是身體輕利的原因。《正理論》中說：有人這樣說，這裡既然說了身輕安，就不僅僅是心所法才能稱為輕安。
【English Translation】 English version Benefit. The cause of ease and comfort. This is from the perspective of function. 'The mind is capable and competent' refers to its essence.
Question: Are there no sutras that also speak of 'bodily lightness and ease'? This is a question from the Sautrāntika school. Since there are sutras that speak of 'bodily lightness and ease,' how can only 'the mind being capable and competent' be considered as such?
Answer: Although not explicitly stated, it should be understood that it is also like this. This is an explanation from the Sarvāstivāda school. This is like how bodily feeling is not the physical body, but the feeling associated with the five consciousnesses. Lightness and ease are also like this.
Question: How can this be established as a limb of enlightenment (bodhyaṅga)? This is a challenge from the Sautrāntika school. If there is lightness and ease associated with the five consciousnesses, how can it be said that this is a limb of enlightenment? This challenge is sharp. Upon careful analysis, this challenge is not entirely appropriate. Even mental lightness and ease are not entirely limbs of enlightenment. How can the lightness and ease of the five consciousnesses be considered a limb of enlightenment?
Answer: It should be understood that what is said here as 'the body being capable and competent.' The Sautrāntika school's interpretation of this passage differs from that of the Sarvāstivāda school. The Sautrāntikas say that the nature of bodily lightness and ease is that the physical body possesses capability and competence; it is a light touch in the body.
Question: How can this be said to be a limb of enlightenment? This is a challenge from the Sarvāstivāda school. Limbs of enlightenment are mental factors (caitasika), while lightness and ease are physical phenomena (rūpa). How can this be said to be a limb of enlightenment?
Answer: Because it can accord with the limbs of enlightenment, it is due to mental lightness and ease. This is the Sautrāntika's explanation. Because the nature of bodily lightness and ease in entering samādhi accords with the mental lightness and ease in samādhi, it is called a limb of enlightenment.
Question: Is there also a similar saying seen elsewhere? This is a question from the Sarvāstivāda school. Are there also examples elsewhere of establishing names based on mutual accordance?
Answer: Yes, for example, the sutras say that anger and the causes of anger are called the hindrance of anger (krodha-nivaraṇa). View (dṛṣṭi), thought (saṃkalpa), and diligence (vyāyāma) are called the aggregate of wisdom (prajñā-skandha). Although the causes of anger, thought, and diligence are not anger or wisdom, they also obtain those names because they accord with them. It should also be like this here. The Sautrāntika school also acknowledges mental lightness and ease, but there is no separate entity; it is merely a difference in thought. It only exists in the mind in samādhi, and not in the scattered mind. Association with the five consciousnesses is not logically possible. Bodily lightness and ease are light touch, the cause of bodily lightness and benefit. The Abhidharmakośa says: Some say that since bodily lightness and ease are mentioned here, it is not only mental factors that can be called lightness and ease.
輕安。此言非理。受等亦應同此說故。然五識身相應諸受說名身受。有作是說。設有輕安體非心所。然此中說心所法故不應說彼。以能隨順覺支體亦名覺支。謂身輕安。能引覺支心輕安故。亦見余處。嗔．及嗔因名嗔恚蓋。見．思惟．勤名為慧蘊。雖彼嗔因．思惟．及勤。非嗔非慧。然順彼故亦得彼名。此亦應爾 今詳此正理。既言有作是說敘兩師說。有人所釋似不得意。亦見余處已下似通述彼計。非是欲說五識輕安名覺支也。婆沙上下無說身輕安名覺支故。設有此說是引證自宗。即是別有經說身輕安名覺支也。
論。心平等性至說名為舍 正理論云。心平等性說名為舍。掉舉相違如理所引令心不越是為舍義 述曰。心平等性即指其體。對治沉掉不平等性故名平等。掉舉相違舉所治也。掉行粗動違舍義強。所以偏說。如理所引等者釋舍義。謂舍是善性是如理心引生。能調伏心令不越所作。此論無警覺性者。即是無掉舉也。
論。如何可說至二相應起。難也。通中作意是有警覺。善中行舍是無警覺。如何同一剎那二相應起。
論。豈不前說至難可了知。論主答也。
論。有雖難了至而不乖反。外重難也。
論。此有警覺至有何乖反。答也。作意有警覺。舍即無警覺。二體既殊有何乖反。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『輕安』（Tranquility）。這種說法不合理。因為對於『受』（Feeling）等也應該同樣這樣說。然而，與五識身（five consciousnesses）相應的諸『受』才被稱為『身受』（bodily feeling）。有一種說法是，即使『輕安』的本體不是心所法（mental factors），但因為這裡說的是心所法，所以不應該說它。因為能夠隨順覺支（factors of enlightenment）的本體，也可以被稱為覺支，比如『身輕安』，因為它能引發覺支中的『心輕安』。也可見於其他地方，『嗔』（Anger）以及『嗔』的原因被稱為『嗔恚蓋』（coverings of anger and hatred）。『見』（View）、『思惟』（Thinking）、『勤』（Diligence）被稱為『慧蘊』（aggregate of wisdom）。即使『嗔』的原因、『思惟』和『勤』，不是『嗔』也不是『慧』，但因為它們順應『嗔』和『慧』，所以也可以得到它們的名字。這裡也應該這樣理解。現在詳細考察這個道理，既然說『有一種說法』，敘述了兩位論師的說法，有人所解釋的似乎不得要領。『也可見於其他地方』以下似乎是通盤敘述他們的觀點，不是想要說五識的『輕安』名為覺支。因為《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）上下都沒有說『身輕安』名為覺支。即使有這種說法，也是引證自己的宗派，就是另外有經文說『身輕安』名為覺支。
論：心的平等性被稱為『舍』（Equanimity）。《正理論》（Abhidharmakosha-bhashya）說：『心的平等性被稱為『舍』。與掉舉（restlessness）相反，如理作意（reasoned attention）所引導，使心不超越，這就是『舍』的含義。』 述曰：心的平等性，就是指它的本體。因為對治沉沒和掉舉的不平等性，所以名為平等。掉舉的行相粗重躁動，與『舍』的含義強烈相違背，所以特別說明。『如理所引』等是解釋『舍』的含義。所謂『舍』是善性，是由如理的心所引發，能夠調伏心，使心不超越所作。此論沒有警覺性，就是沒有掉舉。
論：怎麼能說同一剎那，『作意』（Attention）和『舍』兩種心所相應生起？難點在於，『作意』中有警覺性，善法中的『舍』是沒有警覺性的，怎麼能同一剎那兩種心所相應生起？
論：難道不是前面說過，『作意』和『舍』的差別很難了解嗎？這是論主的回答。
論：即使很難了解，但它們並不互相違背。這是外人的再次提問。
論：『作意』有警覺性，『舍』沒有警覺性，二者本體既然不同，有什麼互相違背的呢？這是回答。『作意』有警覺性，『舍』沒有警覺性，二者本體既然不同，有什麼互相違背的呢？
【English Translation】 English version: 'Tranquility'. This statement is unreasonable. 'Feeling' etc. should also be said in the same way. However, the 'feelings' associated with the five consciousnesses are called 'bodily feelings'. One view is that even if the substance of 'tranquility' is not a mental factor, it should not be mentioned here because mental factors are being discussed. Because the substance that accords with the factors of enlightenment can also be called a factor of enlightenment, such as 'bodily tranquility', because it can induce 'mental tranquility' in the factors of enlightenment. It can also be seen elsewhere that 'anger' and the cause of 'anger' are called 'coverings of anger and hatred'. 'View', 'thinking', and 'diligence' are called the 'aggregate of wisdom'. Even if the cause of 'anger', 'thinking', and 'diligence' are neither 'anger' nor 'wisdom', they can also be given their names because they accord with 'anger' and 'wisdom'. It should also be understood here. Now, examining this principle in detail, since it is said 'one view', narrating the views of two masters, the explanation of some people seems to be off the mark. 'It can also be seen elsewhere' below seems to be a general description of their views, not wanting to say that the 'tranquility' of the five consciousnesses is called a factor of enlightenment. Because the Vibhasa does not say that 'bodily tranquility' is called a factor of enlightenment from beginning to end. Even if there is such a statement, it is citing one's own sect, that is, there are other sutras that say that 'bodily tranquility' is called a factor of enlightenment.
Treatise: The equanimity of the mind is called 'equanimity'. The Abhidharmakosha-bhashya says: 'The equanimity of the mind is called 'equanimity'. Contrary to restlessness, guided by reasoned attention, so that the mind does not exceed, this is the meaning of 'equanimity'.' Commentary: The equanimity of the mind refers to its substance. Because it counteracts the inequality of sinking and restlessness, it is called equanimity. The behavior of restlessness is rough and agitated, which strongly contradicts the meaning of 'equanimity', so it is specifically stated. 'Guided by reason' etc. is to explain the meaning of 'equanimity'. So-called 'equanimity' is a good nature, which is caused by a reasoned mind, which can subdue the mind and prevent it from exceeding what it does. This treatise does not have alertness, that is, there is no restlessness.
Treatise: How can it be said that 'attention' and 'equanimity', two mental factors, arise in the same moment? The difficulty is that 'attention' has alertness, and 'equanimity' in good dharmas does not have alertness. How can two mental factors arise in the same moment?
Treatise: Didn't you say earlier that the difference between 'attention' and 'equanimity' is difficult to understand? This is the master's answer.
Treatise: Even if it is difficult to understand, they do not contradict each other. This is the outsider's question again.
Treatise: 'Attention' has alertness, and 'equanimity' does not have alertness. Since the two substances are different, what contradicts each other? This is the answer. 'Attention' has alertness, and 'equanimity' does not have alertness. Since the two substances are different, what contradicts each other?
論 若爾不應至皆互相應。外重難也。一有警覺。一無警覺。二既有殊如何同緣一境。又若有警覺與無警覺二得相應。亦應一切貪．無貪等皆互相應。
論。如是種類至應知亦爾。答也。如是體別用殊。種類所餘諸法。此中應皆引來為例。如彼用別。同一心起。今於此中舍．及作意。同一心起應知亦爾。
論。慚愧二種如后當釋。指下釋也。
論。二根者謂至大善地法。正理論云。已得．未得境界。耽著希求相違。無愛染心名為無貪。于情．非情無恚害意。哀愍種子說名無嗔。
論。言不害者謂無損惱 正理論云。與樂損惱有情相違。心賢善性說名不害。
論。勤謂令心勇悍為性 正理論云。于諸已生功德．過失．守護．棄捨。于諸未生功德．過失令生．不生。心無墮性說名為勤。由有此故。心於如理所作事業堅進不息 依正理論。于善法中更立欣．厭。然不遍於一切善心。故彼論云。說二及言兼攝欣．厭。厭謂善心審觀無量過患法性。此增上力所起順無貪心厭背性。與此相應名厭作意。欣謂善心希求過患出離對治。此增上力所起順其證修心欣尚性。此于離喜未至等地亦有現行故非喜受。與此相應名欣作意。此二行相更互相違。故一心中無容並起。是故此中不正顯說。大善地
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如果它們不應該達到相互相應，那麼外部的質疑就很難解決了。一個有警覺，一個沒有警覺，這兩個既然有差異，如何能共同緣於一個境呢？而且，如果警覺和無警覺二者能夠相應，那麼一切的貪（Lobha，指貪婪、慾望）和無貪等也應該能夠相互相應。
論：像這樣種類不同，作用不同的，其餘的諸法也應該這樣理解。這是在回答上面的問題。像這樣體性不同，作用各異的種類，其餘的諸法，這裡都應該引來作為例子。就像它們作用不同，卻能同時從一個心中生起一樣，現在在這裡，舍（Upeksha，指捨棄、平靜）和作意（Manasikara，指注意、作意）同時從一個心中生起，也應該這樣理解。
論：慚（Hri，指慚愧）和愧（Apatrapya，指羞恥）這兩種，在後面會解釋。這是指在後面的解釋。
論：二根指的是大善地法（Mahakushala-bhumika dharmas，指普遍存在於所有善心中的心理因素）。《正理論》中說：『已得和未得的境界，耽著希求是相反的。沒有愛染的心叫做無貪（Allobha，指不貪婪）。對於有情和非有情沒有嗔恚和損害的意圖，哀愍的種子叫做無嗔（Advesha，指不嗔恨）。』
論：不害者指的是沒有損害和惱害。《正理論》中說：『與給與快樂和損害有情相反，心的賢善的性質叫做不害（Avihimsa，指不傷害）。』
論：勤指的是使心勇敢和精進的性質。《正理論》中說：『對於已經產生的功德和過失，守護和捨棄；對於尚未產生的功德和過失，使之產生和不產生。心沒有墮落的性質叫做勤（Virya，指精進）。』由於有這種勤，心對於如理所作的事業能夠堅定地前進而不停止。依據《正理論》，在善法中又建立了欣（Abhisaṃbodhi，指欣悅）和厭（Nirveda，指厭離）。但是它們並不普遍存在於一切善心中，所以《正理論》說：『說二以及言語兼攝了欣和厭。』厭指的是善心審視觀察無量過患的法性，這種增上力所產生的順應無貪的心就是厭背的性質，與此相應的叫做厭作意。欣指的是善心希望過患的出離和對治，這種增上力所產生的順應證悟和修行的心就是欣尚的性質，這種欣尚在離喜和未至等地也有現行，所以不是喜受（Sukha，指快樂的感受），與此相應的叫做欣作意。這兩種行相更加相互違背，所以一個心中不能同時生起。因此，這裡沒有明確地說出大善地法。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: If they should not reach mutual correspondence, then the external difficulty would be hard to resolve. One is aware, one is not aware. Since the two are different, how can they share the same object? Moreover, if awareness and non-awareness can correspond, then all greed (Lobha, meaning greed, desire) and non-greed, etc., should also correspond to each other.
Treatise: Such kinds, with different natures and functions, the remaining dharmas should also be understood in this way. This is answering the above question. Like these kinds with different natures and distinct functions, the remaining dharmas should all be brought here as examples. Just as their functions are different, yet they can arise simultaneously from one mind, now here, equanimity (Upeksha, meaning equanimity, calmness) and attention (Manasikara, meaning attention, focusing) arising simultaneously from one mind should also be understood in this way.
Treatise: Shame (Hri, meaning shame) and embarrassment (Apatrapya, meaning embarrassment) will be explained later. This refers to the explanation below.
Treatise: The two roots refer to the Mahakushala-bhumika dharmas (mental factors universally present in all wholesome minds). The Nyayanusara says: 'The already attained and the not-yet-attained realms, attachment and seeking are contradictory. The mind without attachment is called non-greed (Allobha, meaning non-greed). Towards sentient and non-sentient beings, there is no intention of hatred or harm; the seed of compassion is called non-hatred (Advesha, meaning non-hatred).'
Treatise: Non-harming refers to the absence of harm and annoyance. The Nyayanusara says: 'Opposite to giving pleasure and harming sentient beings, the virtuous nature of the mind is called non-harming (Avihimsa, meaning non-harming).'
Treatise: Diligence refers to the nature of making the mind brave and vigorous. The Nyayanusara says: 'For the merits and faults that have already arisen, guarding and abandoning; for the merits and faults that have not yet arisen, causing them to arise and not arise. The mind without a falling nature is called diligence (Virya, meaning diligence).' Because of this diligence, the mind can firmly advance without stopping in activities done according to reason. According to the Nyayanusara, joy (Abhisaṃbodhi, meaning joy) and aversion (Nirveda, meaning aversion) are also established in wholesome dharmas. However, they are not universally present in all wholesome minds, so the Nyayanusara says: 'Saying 'two' and language also include joy and aversion.' Aversion refers to the wholesome mind carefully observing the nature of limitless faults; the mind that accords with non-greed arising from this increased power is the nature of aversion, and what corresponds to this is called aversion-attention. Joy refers to the wholesome mind hoping for the departure from and the antidote to faults; the mind that accords with enlightenment and practice arising from this increased power is the nature of joy, and this joy is also present in the absence of joy and in the states of not-yet-attainment, so it is not pleasant feeling (Sukha, meaning pleasant feeling), and what corresponds to this is called joy-attention. These two aspects are even more contradictory to each other, so they cannot arise simultaneously in one mind. Therefore, the Mahakushala-bhumika dharmas are not explicitly stated here.
法性不成故。亦有喜根．厭行俱轉。定無有欣．厭行俱轉。為表此二定不俱行。說二及言。行相違故 又阿毗達磨論云。欣謂欣尚。于還滅品見功德已。令心欣慕隨順。修善。心有此故欣樂涅槃。與此相應名欣作意。厭謂厭患。于流轉品見過失已。令心厭離隨順離染。心有此故厭惡生．死與此相應名厭作意 又婆沙二十八云。評曰。有別法名厭。非慧非無貪是心所法。與心相應。此說在復有所餘如是類諸心所法與心相應。然見蘊說。苦．集．忍智名能厭者。由彼忍智與厭相應故名能厭。非厭自性 又婆沙一百九十六評家。別說有厭體。與前文同。此厭唯善通漏．無漏 又婆沙一百四十三。亦別立欣．厭。然諸小論多不說者以非恒起不遍善心。不說以為大善地法 諸心．心所有相應起非自力起。有二十八。通中除慧。善大地十。煩惱地除無明一。不善地二。不定取二謂尋．伺 有自力起非相應起。有十六法。謂小惑十。不定中六。謂貪．嗔．慢．悔．睡眠．及疑 其睡眠所以是自力起者。由於睡位起貪．嗔等．及諸善心。此是貪等．善等隨眠而起。非是眠睡隨貪等起。故婆沙五十云。睡眠．惡作雖亦獨立。而不離二不立結中 問若爾貪等應是亦自力起亦隨從起 答于睡眠中若自力起。若他力起。或皆隨眠故相無差別。所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為法性是不變的，所以才會有喜根（對涅槃的欣喜）和厭行（對輪迴的厭惡）同時轉變的情況。如果說沒有欣喜和厭惡同時轉變的情況，是爲了表明這兩種狀態不會同時存在，所以才說二者並存，因為它們的行相是相反的。此外，《阿毗達磨論》中說，『欣』是指欣尚，在還滅品（涅槃）中見到功德之後，使內心欣慕並隨順修善。心中有這種欣喜，就會欣樂涅槃，與此相應的就叫做欣作意。『厭』是指厭患，在流轉品（輪迴）中見到過失之後，使內心厭離並隨順離染。心中有這種厭惡，就會厭惡生死，與此相應的就叫做厭作意。 另外，《婆沙論》第二十八卷中評論說：有一種特別的法叫做『厭』，它不是智慧，也不是無貪，而是一種心所法，與心相應。這裡說的是在還有其他類似的心所法與心相應的情況下。然而，在蘊的解釋中，苦忍智和集忍智被稱為『能厭』，是因為這些忍智與厭相應，所以被稱為『能厭』，而不是厭本身的自性。 此外，《婆沙論》第一百九十六卷中，評論家特別說明有『厭』的自體，與前面的說法相同。這種『厭』只有善的性質，可以通於有漏和無漏。 另外，《婆沙論》第一百四十三卷中，也分別設立了『欣』和『厭』。然而，許多小論中沒有提到它們，是因為它們不是恒常生起，也不普遍存在於善心中，所以沒有把它們作為大善地法來說明。 各種心和心所的生起，不是依靠自身的力量，而是相應而起。有二十八種，通於中性，除了智慧。善大地法有十種，煩惱地法除去無明有一種，不善地法有兩種，不定法取兩種，即尋和伺。 有依靠自身力量生起，而不是相應生起的，有十六種法。即小惑有十種，不定法中有六種，即貪、嗔、慢、悔、睡眠和疑。 睡眠之所以是依靠自身力量生起的，是因為在睡眠狀態中，會生起貪、嗔等，以及各種善心。這些是貪等和善等隨眠而生起的，而不是睡眠隨著貪等而生起。所以《婆沙論》第五十卷中說，睡眠和惡作雖然也是獨立的，但是不離開二者，所以沒有被列為結使之中。 問：如果這樣，那麼貪等也應該是既依靠自身力量生起，也隨從其他法生起？ 答：在睡眠中，無論是依靠自身力量生起，還是依靠其他力量生起，或者都是隨眠，所以相上沒有差別。
【English Translation】 English version Because the nature of Dharma (法性) is immutable, there can be instances where both the root of joy (喜根, xigen, joy towards Nirvana) and the practice of aversion (厭行, yanxing, aversion towards Samsara) change simultaneously. The statement that joy and aversion do not change simultaneously is to indicate that these two states do not coexist, hence the mention of both, as their characteristics are contradictory. Furthermore, the Abhidharma states that 'joy' (欣, xin) refers to admiration; upon seeing the merits in the cessation category (還滅品, huanmiepin, Nirvana), it causes the mind to admire and follow the cultivation of goodness. With this joy in the mind, one delights in Nirvana, and the corresponding mental activity is called 'joyful intention' (欣作意, xinzuyi). 'Aversion' (厭, yan) refers to disgust; upon seeing the faults in the cycle of existence category (流轉品, liuzhuanpin, Samsara), it causes the mind to detest and follow detachment from defilements. With this aversion in the mind, one detests birth and death, and the corresponding mental activity is called 'averse intention' (厭作意, yanzuyi). Moreover, the Vibhasa (婆沙) commentary in its twenty-eighth volume states: It is commented that there is a separate Dharma called 'aversion' (厭, yan), which is neither wisdom nor non-greed, but a mental factor (心所法, xinsuofa) that corresponds with the mind. This refers to cases where other similar mental factors correspond with the mind. However, in the explanation of the aggregates (蘊, yun), the forbearance-wisdom of suffering (苦忍智, kurenzhi) and the forbearance-wisdom of origination (集忍智, jirenzhi) are called 'capable of aversion' (能厭, nengyan), because these forbearance-wisdoms correspond with aversion, hence they are called 'capable of aversion,' not the nature of aversion itself. Furthermore, in the one hundred and ninety-sixth volume of the Vibhasa, the commentator specifically states that there is a self-nature of 'aversion' (厭, yan), which is the same as the previous statement. This 'aversion' is only of a wholesome nature and can be connected to both defiled (有漏, youlou) and undefiled (無漏, wulou) states. Additionally, in the one hundred and forty-third volume of the Vibhasa, 'joy' (欣, xin) and 'aversion' (厭, yan) are also separately established. However, many minor treatises do not mention them because they do not arise constantly and are not universally present in wholesome minds, so they are not explained as great wholesome mental factors (大善地法, dashandifa). The arising of various minds and mental factors is not due to their own power but arises in correspondence. There are twenty-eight types, common to the neutral, excluding wisdom. There are ten wholesome great mental factors (善大地法, shandadifa), one defilement mental factor excluding ignorance (無明, wuming), two unwholesome mental factors, and two indeterminate factors, namely investigation (尋, xun) and discernment (伺, si). There are sixteen Dharmas that arise by their own power and not in correspondence. These are the ten minor afflictions (小惑, xiaohuo) and six indeterminate factors, namely greed (貪, tan), hatred (嗔, chen), pride (慢, man), regret (悔, hui), sleep (睡眠, shuimian), and doubt (疑, yi). The reason why sleep arises by its own power is that in the state of sleep, greed, hatred, etc., and various wholesome minds arise. These arise from the latent tendencies (隨眠, suimian) of greed, etc., and wholesomeness, etc., and not that sleep arises following greed, etc. Therefore, the fiftieth volume of the Vibhasa states that although sleep and remorse are also independent, they do not depart from the two, so they are not established among the fetters (結使, jieshi). Question: If so, then greed, etc., should also arise both by their own power and following other Dharmas? Answer: In sleep, whether it arises by its own power, by the power of others, or all are latent tendencies, there is no difference in appearance.
以不說。又雖隨眠起性不隨彼成不善等。故不別說 亦相應起亦自力起。謂有二法。謂大惑中無明．及通中慧。若作五見則自力起。余即相應無明。若與九種隨眠十種小惑．及與悔俱則是相應。不共無明則是自力 非相應起非自力起。謂有一法。即是心王。
論。如是已說至彼法是何。自下第三明大煩惱地法。兩重依主如文可知 此有四句。有唯染非遍。謂忿．覆等。及貪．嗔等。並無慚等 有遍染非唯。謂通中十 有遍亦唯。謂大惑地 非唯非遍謂即尋．伺．睡眠．惡作。唯善心所非染性故。染言已簡。
論曰至無智無顯。此釋無明相也。正理論云。癡謂愚癡。于所知境障如理解無辨了相即是無明。無智．無顯故說名愚。
論。逸謂放逸至所對治法 正理論云。于專己利棄捨縱情名為放逸 述曰。專己利者。如不放逸中釋。
論。怠謂懈怠至勤所對治 正理論云。于善事業闕減勝能。于惡事業順成勇悍無明等流名為懈怠。由此說為鄙劣勤性。勤習鄙穢故名懈怠。
論。不信者謂至信所對治 正理論云。心不澄凈。邪見等流。于諸諦．寶．靜慮．等至。現前輕毀。于施等因及於彼果。心不現許。名為不信。
論。惛謂惛沉至是名惛沈。此引對法釋也。
論。此是心所如何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
以不說：因為雖然隨眠生起的性質不隨彼（心王）而成為不善等，所以不另外說明。也可能是相應生起，也可能是自己獨立生起。這裡有兩種情況：一種是大惑中的無明（avidyā，指對事物真相的迷惑和無知），以及通中的慧（prajñā，指智慧）。如果產生五見（五種錯誤的見解，即身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見），則是自己獨立生起。其餘情況則是相應無明。如果與九種隨眠（煩惱的潛在形式）、十種小惑，以及與悔（kaukṛtya，指對已做或未做之事的後悔）一起出現，則是相應的。不共無明則是自己獨立生起。非相應生起，非自己獨立生起：指一種法，即是心王（citta-rāja，指心識的主體）。
論：像這樣已經說了，到彼法是什麼。從下面第三部分說明大煩惱地法。兩重依主，如文可知。這裡有四句：有的是唯染非遍，指忿（krodha，指憤怒）、覆（mrakṣa，指隱藏自己的過失）等，以及貪（rāga，指貪婪）、嗔（dveṣa，指憎恨）等，並無慚（ahrīka，指不知羞恥）等。有的是遍染非唯，指通中的十種（指遍行十心所）。有的是遍亦唯，指大惑地。非唯非遍，指尋（vitarka，指粗略的思考）、伺（vicāra，指細緻的思考）、睡眠（styāna，指昏沉）、惡作（kaṅkukṛtya，指後悔）。唯有善心所不是染污的性質，『染』這個詞已經簡別了。
論曰至無智無顯：這是解釋無明的相狀。正理論說：『癡（moha，指愚昧）就是愚癡，對於所知之境，障礙如理的理解，沒有辨別了相，這就是無明。』沒有智慧，沒有顯現，所以名為愚。
論：逸（styāna，指放逸）就是放逸，到所對治法。正理論說：『對於只顧自己的利益，拋棄正道，縱情放任，名為放逸。』述曰：『只顧自己的利益，如不放逸中解釋。』
論：怠（kausīdya，指懈怠）就是懈怠，到勤所對治。正理論說：『對於善的事業，缺少殊勝的能力，對於惡的事業，順從成就，勇猛強悍，是無明的等流，名為懈怠。』因此說為鄙劣的勤性。勤習鄙穢，所以名為懈怠。
論：不信者，到信所對治。正理論說：『心不清凈，是邪見等的等流。對於諸諦（satya，指四聖諦）、寶（ratna，指三寶）、靜慮（dhyāna，指禪定）、等至（samāpatti，指禪定中的境界），現前輕視譭謗。對於佈施等因，以及對於彼果，心中不認可，名為不信。』
論：惛（middha，指昏沉）就是惛沉，到是名惛沈。這是引用對法來解釋。
論：這是心所，如何？ English version:
'Not saying' is because although the nature of arising from latent tendencies (anusaya) does not become unwholesome etc. along with it (the mind-king), it is therefore not separately explained. It may also arise concomitantly or arise independently. There are two cases here: one is ignorance (avidyā) in the great delusion, and wisdom (prajñā) in the general. If the five views (five types of wrong views: satkayadṛṣṭi, antagrahadṛṣṭi, mithyadṛṣṭi, dṛṣṭiparāmarśa, śīlavrataparāmarśa) are produced, then it arises independently. The rest is concomitant ignorance. If it occurs with the nine latent tendencies (anuśaya), the ten minor delusions, and with regret (kaukṛtya), then it is concomitant. Non-common ignorance is independent. 'Not arising concomitantly, not arising independently': refers to one dharma, which is the mind-king (citta-rāja).
Treatise: Having spoken like this, what is that dharma? The third part below explains the dharmas of the great afflictive ground. The two-fold dependence is as can be known from the text. There are four sentences here: Some are only defiled and not universal, referring to anger (krodha), concealment (mrakṣa), etc., as well as greed (rāga), hatred (dveṣa), etc., and lack of shame (ahrīka), etc. Some are universally defiled but not only, referring to the ten in general (referring to the ten universal mental factors). Some are both universal and only, referring to the ground of great delusion. Neither only nor universal refers to initial thought (vitarka), sustained thought (vicāra), sleep (styāna), and regret (kaṅkukṛtya). Only wholesome mental factors are not of a defiled nature, the word 'defiled' has already distinguished them.
Treatise says to 'no wisdom, no manifestation': This explains the characteristic of ignorance. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Delusion (moha) is ignorance, which obstructs the understanding of objects of knowledge according to reason, and has no distinguishing characteristic. 'No wisdom, no manifestation' is why it is called ignorance.'
Treatise: 'Dissipation (styāna) is negligence,' to 'the dharma to be countered.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Abandoning the path and indulging in desires for the sake of one's own benefit is called dissipation.' Commentary says: 'For the sake of one's own benefit, as explained in non-negligence.'
Treatise: 'Idleness (kausīdya) is laziness,' to 'what is countered by diligence.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Lacking superior ability in wholesome activities, and readily accomplishing evil activities with courage and ferocity, is a consequence of ignorance and is called laziness.' Therefore, it is said to be a base and inferior diligence. Diligently practicing baseness is called laziness.
Treatise: 'Non-belief,' to 'what is countered by faith.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'The mind is not clear, and is a consequence of wrong views, etc. Towards the truths (satya), jewels (ratna), meditative concentration (dhyāna), and attainments (samāpatti), there is present disparagement and slander. Towards the causes such as giving, and towards their results, the mind does not acknowledge them, and this is called non-belief.'
Treatise: 'Drowsiness (middha) is torpor,' to 'this is called torpor.' This quotes the Abhidharma to explain it.
Treatise: 'This is a mental factor, how?'
【English Translation】 'Not saying' is because although the nature of arising from latent tendencies (anusaya) does not become unwholesome etc. along with it (the mind-king), it is therefore not separately explained. It may also arise concomitantly or arise independently. There are two cases here: one is ignorance (avidyā) in the great delusion, and wisdom (prajñā) in the general. If the five views (five types of wrong views: satkayadṛṣṭi, antagrahadṛṣṭi, mithyadṛṣṭi, dṛṣṭiparāmarśa, śīlavrataparāmarśa) are produced, then it arises independently. The rest is concomitant ignorance. If it occurs with the nine latent tendencies (anuśaya), the ten minor delusions, and with regret (kaukṛtya), then it is concomitant. Non-common ignorance is independent. 'Not arising concomitantly, not arising independently': refers to one dharma, which is the mind-king (citta-rāja). Treatise: Having spoken like this, what is that dharma? The third part below explains the dharmas of the great afflictive ground. The two-fold dependence is as can be known from the text. There are four sentences here: Some are only defiled and not universal, referring to anger (krodha), concealment (mrakṣa), etc., as well as greed (rāga), hatred (dveṣa), etc., and lack of shame (ahrīka), etc. Some are universally defiled but not only, referring to the ten in general (referring to the ten universal mental factors). Some are both universal and only, referring to the ground of great delusion. Neither only nor universal refers to initial thought (vitarka), sustained thought (vicāra), sleep (styāna), and regret (kaṅkukṛtya). Only wholesome mental factors are not of a defiled nature, the word 'defiled' has already distinguished them. Treatise says to 'no wisdom, no manifestation': This explains the characteristic of ignorance. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Delusion (moha) is ignorance, which obstructs the understanding of objects of knowledge according to reason, and has no distinguishing characteristic. 'No wisdom, no manifestation' is why it is called ignorance.' Treatise: 'Dissipation (styāna) is negligence,' to 'the dharma to be countered.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Abandoning the path and indulging in desires for the sake of one's own benefit is called dissipation.' Commentary says: 'For the sake of one's own benefit, as explained in non-negligence.' Treatise: 'Idleness (kausīdya) is laziness,' to 'what is countered by diligence.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Lacking superior ability in wholesome activities, and readily accomplishing evil activities with courage and ferocity, is a consequence of ignorance and is called laziness.' Therefore, it is said to be a base and inferior diligence. Diligently practicing baseness is called laziness. Treatise: 'Non-belief,' to 'what is countered by faith.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'The mind is not clear, and is a consequence of wrong views, etc. Towards the truths (satya), jewels (ratna), meditative concentration (dhyāna), and attainments (samāpatti), there is present disparagement and slander. Towards the causes such as giving, and towards their results, the mind does not acknowledge them, and this is called non-belief.' Treatise: 'Drowsiness (middha) is torpor,' to 'this is called torpor.' This quotes the Abhidharma to explain it. Treatise: 'This is a mental factor, how?'
名身。問也。既是心所。如何對法說身重等。
論。如身受言故亦無失。答也。如言身受非即是身而是心所言身惛沈義亦應爾。正理論云𧄼瞢不樂等所生心重性說名惛沈。由斯覆蔽心便惛昧無所堪任瞢憒性故。由是說為輕安所治。
論。掉謂掉舉令心不靜 正理論云。親里尋等所生令心不寧靜性說名掉舉。心與此合越路而行。
論。唯有如是至煩惱地法。總結數也。
論。豈不根本至掉舉放逸。此舉本論難也。本論六中不說惛沈。大地法中復取其五合成十數名大煩惱地法。今將本論難唯有六。
論。天愛汝今至不閑意旨。總非難也。汝但知本論說十之言。而不知彼后五即是大地法也。惛沈就勝雖障等持。明其體性誰無掉舉。既同唯遍染心。如何非是煩惱地法也。
論。意旨者何。此卻問也。
論。謂失念至及邪勝解。廣答意旨。如文可解 問失念．不正知．邪勝解．心亂．及非理作意。何故本論說此五法。而許通入大煩惱地。受等五法而不入耶 答仰測論意由此五法。于善品中所起業用順自名體。于染分中所起業用違自名體故。染位名失念．不正知．邪勝解．心亂．非理作意等相違名也。受．想．思．觸．欲。于染．凈位中所起業用。不失本名故不重說。論主將為有過。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 名身（Nāma-kāya，名稱之身）。問：既然是心所法，為什麼在《阿毗達磨法蘊足論》中說身重等？ 論：如同說身感受一樣，也沒有過失。答：如同說身感受，並非就是指身體，而是指心所法。說身體昏沉的意義也應該如此。《正理論》說，由親屬尋等所生，使心不快樂等，這種所生的心的沉重性，稱為昏沉。由於這種昏沉覆蓋，心就昏昧，不能勝任任何事情，因為有瞢憒（méng kuì，昏亂）的性質。因此說昏沉是被輕安所對治的。 論：掉，指掉舉，使心不能安定。《正理論》說，由親屬尋等所生，使心不得安寧的性質，稱為掉舉。心與掉舉結合，就會越出正道而行。 論：只有像這樣，直到煩惱地法。這是總結數量。 論：難道不是根本煩惱到掉舉放逸嗎？這是舉出根本論來責難。根本論六種煩惱中沒有說昏沉。大地法中又取其中的五種，合成為十種，名為大煩惱地法。現在用根本論來責難，只有六種。 論：天愛（Devānāṃpriya，受天神喜愛者，常用於稱呼國王），你現在乃至不理解意旨。這是總體的非難。你只知道根本論說了十種煩惱，卻不知道那後面的五種就是大地法。昏沉就殊勝之處來說，雖然障礙等持（Samādhi，禪定），但說明它的體性，誰沒有掉舉呢？既然同樣是普遍存在於染污心中，為什麼不是煩惱地法呢？ 論：意旨是什麼？這是反問。 論：指失念乃至邪勝解。這是廣泛地回答意旨。如文義可以理解。問：失念（Muṣitasmṛtitā，失去正念）、不正知（Asamprajanya，不正確認知）、邪勝解（Mithyādhimokṣa，錯誤的理解）、心亂（Vikṣepa，心識散亂）以及非理作意（Ayoniśomanaskāra，不如理的思維），為什麼根本論說這五種法，而允許它們通入大煩惱地法，而受等五種法卻不進入呢？答：我揣測論主的意圖，因為這五種法，在善品中所產生的業用，順應它們自身的名稱和體性；在染污分中所產生的業用，違背它們自身的名稱和體性。所以在染污位，稱為失念、不正知、邪勝解、心亂、非理作意等，是與它們本性相違背的名稱。而受（Vedanā，感受）、想（Saṃjñā，表象）、思（Cetanā，意志）、觸（Sparśa，接觸）、欲（Chanda，慾望），在染污和清凈位中所產生的業用，不失去它們本來的名稱，所以不重複說明。論主認為這是有過失的。
【English Translation】 English version Nāma-kāya (The body of name). Question: Since it is a mental factor, how does the Abhidharma-skandha-pāda-śāstra say that the body is heavy, etc.? Treatise: It is not a fault, just as saying the body feels. Answer: Just as saying the body feels is not referring to the physical body, but to a mental factor. The meaning of saying the body is dull should be understood similarly. The Tattvartha-sutra says that the heaviness of mind arising from relatives' seeking, etc., and the unpleasantness, etc., is called dullness. Because of this covering of dullness, the mind becomes obscured and incapable of anything, due to its confused nature. Therefore, it is said that dullness is counteracted by lightness and ease (Prasrabdhi). Treatise: Excitement (Auddhatya) means agitation, causing the mind to be unquiet. The Tattvartha-sutra says that the nature of causing the mind to be unquiet, arising from relatives' seeking, etc., is called excitement. When the mind is combined with excitement, it goes astray. Treatise: Only like this, up to the afflictive ground dharmas. This is a summary of the number. Treatise: Isn't it from the root afflictions to excitement and laxity? This is citing the root treatise to challenge. The root treatise does not mention dullness among the six afflictions. In the great ground dharmas, five of them are taken and combined to form ten, called the great afflictive ground dharmas. Now, using the root treatise to challenge, there are only six. Treatise: Devānāṃpriya (Beloved of the Gods, often used to address kings), you now do not understand the meaning. This is a general refutation. You only know that the root treatise speaks of ten afflictions, but you do not know that the latter five are the great ground dharmas. Although dullness obstructs Samādhi (concentration) in terms of its superiority, who does not have excitement when explaining its nature? Since it is equally pervasive in defiled minds, why is it not an afflictive ground dharma? Treatise: What is the meaning? This is a counter-question. Treatise: It refers to loss of mindfulness up to wrong understanding. This is a broad answer to the meaning. The meaning can be understood from the text. Question: Loss of mindfulness (Muṣitasmṛtitā), non-correct knowledge (Asamprajanya), wrong understanding (Mithyādhimokṣa), mental wandering (Vikṣepa), and non-reasoned attention (Ayoniśomanaskāra), why does the root treatise say these five dharmas, and allow them to enter the great afflictive ground dharmas, while feeling, etc., do not enter? Answer: I speculate on the intention of the treatise master, because the functions produced by these five dharmas in the wholesome category accord with their own names and nature; the functions produced in the defiled category violate their own names and nature. Therefore, in the defiled state, they are called loss of mindfulness, non-correct knowledge, wrong understanding, mental wandering, non-reasoned attention, etc., which are names contrary to their nature. Feeling (Vedanā), perception (Saṃjñā), volition (Cetanā), contact (Sparśa), and desire (Chanda), the functions produced in the defiled and pure states do not lose their original names, so they are not repeated. The treatise master considers this to be a fault.
不勞廣釋。
論。故說若是至謂除前相。廣作四句分別。如文可解。
論。有執邪等持至與此不同。敘異說四句也。
論。又許惛沉至於誰有過。通惛沉入大煩惱地與本論說不同難也。共許惛沈與余掉舉等。通與一切煩惱相應其義是同。而不說在大煩惱地。于誰有過。此即乃是不立者過。非我有過。與余同故。
論。有作是言至非至掉舉行。此敘異釋惛沈不入大煩惱地所以。此是雜心等釋。正理論釋本論意云。然此惛沈無明覆故。本論不說為大煩惱地法。有言彼論說無明名唯目惛沈。相相似故。無明性是大遍行故。是此地法不說而成 準上論文。此云本論十煩惱地說無明者即是惛沈。惛沈相似無明。所以不說無明者。無明與一切染心相應不說而成故。正理有說此名總目二義。已上論文。此說本論大煩惱地法中。說無明者名一所目通二。謂無明．惛沈。
論。誰惛沈行至不俱行故。論主難雜心等釋。誰有惛沈而無掉舉。誰有掉舉而無惛沈。此二未嘗不俱行故。何得有惛沈行順等持也。
論。雖爾應知隨增說行。外人答論主也。雖掉舉．惛沈二常俱行。而惛沈偏增者名惛沈行。
論。雖知說行至建立地法。此縱奪外人也。
論。故此地法至俱起非余故。總結成也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不勞廣釋。
論：所以說如果是爲了去除之前的表相，廣泛地作出四句的分別，就像文中所說的那樣可以理解。
論：有人執著于邪定等持，認為這與此不同。這是敘述不同觀點的四句。
論：又有人認為昏沉進入大煩惱地，這與本論的說法不同，這是提出的疑問。共同認可昏沉與其餘的掉舉等，普遍與一切煩惱相應，這個意義是相同的。但是本論沒有說它在大煩惱地，那麼誰有過錯呢？這實際上是不立宗者的過錯，不是我的過錯，因為我和其他人觀點相同。
論：有人這樣說，不是指掉舉行。這是敘述另一種解釋，說明昏沉不進入大煩惱地的原因。這是《雜心論》等的解釋。《正理論》解釋本論的含義說：然而這種昏沉因為無明的覆蓋，所以本論沒有說它是大煩惱地的法。有人說，彼論所說的無明，只是指昏沉，因為它們相類似。無明的性質是大遍行，所以是此地的法，即使不說也成立。根據上面的論文，這裡說本論十煩惱地中說無明，指的就是昏沉。昏沉與無明相似，所以不說無明的原因是，無明與一切染心相應，即使不說也成立。《正理論》有人說，這個名稱總括了兩種含義。以上論文說明，本論大煩惱地法中，說無明這個名稱，一個所指可以通指兩個，即無明和昏沉。
論：誰有昏沉而行，直到不一起發生的原因。論主反駁《雜心論》等的解釋。誰有昏沉而沒有掉舉？誰有掉舉而沒有昏沉？這二者從來沒有不一起發生的，怎麼會有昏沉而行，順於等持呢？
論：即使這樣，應該知道隨著增盛而說行。外人回答論主。即使掉舉和昏沉二者常常一起發生，但是昏沉偏於增盛的，就稱為昏沉行。
論：即使知道說行，直到建立地法。這是縱容和駁斥外人的觀點。
論：所以此地法，直到一起生起而不是其餘的緣故。這是總結和完成。
【English Translation】 English version Not elaborating extensively.
Treatise: Therefore, it is said that if it is to remove the previous appearance, make a broad distinction of the four sentences, as the text can be understood.
Treatise: Some are attached to wrong Samadhi, thinking it is different from this. This is a narrative of different views in four sentences.
Treatise: Also, some think that torpor enters the great affliction ground, which is different from what is said in this treatise, which is a question raised. It is commonly acknowledged that torpor and the remaining agitation, etc., are universally corresponding to all afflictions, and this meaning is the same. However, this treatise does not say that it is in the great affliction ground, so who is at fault? This is actually the fault of the non-establishers, not my fault, because my views are the same as others.
Treatise: Some say that it does not refer to agitation. This is a narrative of another explanation, explaining why torpor does not enter the great affliction ground. This is the explanation of 雜心論 (Za Xin Lun) etc. The 正理論 (Zheng Li Lun) explains the meaning of this treatise by saying: However, this kind of torpor is covered by ignorance, so this treatise does not say that it is a dharma of the great affliction ground. Some say that the ignorance mentioned in that treatise only refers to torpor, because they are similar. The nature of ignorance is great pervasiveness, so it is a dharma of this ground, and it is established even if it is not said. According to the above thesis, it is said here that the ignorance mentioned in the ten affliction grounds of this treatise refers to torpor. Torpor is similar to ignorance, so the reason for not mentioning ignorance is that ignorance corresponds to all defiled minds, and it is established even if it is not said. Some in the 正理論 (Zheng Li Lun) say that this name encompasses two meanings. The above thesis explains that in the dharma of the great affliction ground in this treatise, the name of ignorance can refer to two things, namely ignorance and torpor.
Treatise: Who has torpor and acts, until the reason for not occurring together. The author refutes the explanations of 雜心論 (Za Xin Lun) etc. Who has torpor without agitation? Who has agitation without torpor? These two have never not occurred together, so how can there be torpor and act, in accordance with Samadhi?
Treatise: Even so, it should be known that the act is spoken of according to the increase. The outsider answers the author. Even though agitation and torpor often occur together, if torpor is more prevalent, it is called torpor act.
Treatise: Even if it is known to speak of act, until establishing the ground dharma. This is indulging and refuting the outsider's point of view.
Treatise: Therefore, this ground dharma, until arising together and not for other reasons. This is a summary and completion.
論。如是已說至彼法是何。已下半頌第四釋不善地法。有兩重釋如前可知。頌云唯遍不善心者。此有四句。有不善非遍不善。謂忿等七。及不定中嗔。有遍不善非唯不善。謂大地十。大煩惱六。不定中尋．伺。有遍不善亦唯不善。謂不善地二法。有非唯不善非遍不善。謂小惑三。不定之中睡眠．惡作．貪．慢．疑等。唯善心所不善已簡。不勞唯．遍。
論曰至如后當辨。指下釋也。
論。如是已說至彼法是何自下第五有一頌釋小煩惱地法。有兩重釋如前可知。謂以小分染污心俱故名為小。
論曰至煩惱地法。釋小義也。一唯修所斷。二唯意識地起。三唯無明相應。四各別現行 大善地法不與一切染心相應。煩惱之名以簡此法 尋．伺雖通染心闕四義故。不名為小煩惱地法 大煩惱地。大不善地。雖復唯與無明相應。闕三義故不得名小 慢．疑二種雖唯意地起。唯無明相應。各別頭起。非唯修斷。闕一義故不得名小 惡作一種雖唯修斷。唯意地起。以非唯與無明相應。雖別頭起。不名為小 睡眠一種雖唯意地。闕三義故不名為小 貪．嗔二種雖復唯與無明相應。各別頭起。闕二義故不名為小 前之四地皆名為大。此之一地不得大名者。通大地法以遍一切心故名大。大善地法以遍一切善心名大。大
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如是已說，至彼法是何？以下半頌第四，解釋不善地法。有兩重解釋，如前可知。頌云：『唯遍不善心者』。此有四句：有不善而非遍不善，謂忿等七，及不定中嗔。有遍不善而非唯不善，謂大地十，大煩惱六，不定中尋、伺。有遍不善亦唯不善，謂不善地二法。有非唯不善，非遍不善，謂小惑三，不定之中睡眠、惡作、貪、慢、疑等。唯善心所不善已簡，不勞唯、遍。
論曰：至如后當辨。指下釋也。
論：如是已說，至彼法是何？自下第五，有一頌解釋小煩惱地法。有兩重解釋，如前可知。謂以小分染污心俱故名為小。
論曰：至煩惱地法。解釋小義也。一、唯修所斷。二、唯意識地起。三、唯無明（無知）相應。四、各別現行。大善地法不與一切染心相應。煩惱之名以簡此法。尋、伺雖通染心，闕四義故，不名為小煩惱地法。大煩惱地、大不善地，雖復唯與無明（無知）相應，闕三義故，不得名小。慢、疑二種，雖唯意地起，唯無明（無知）相應，各別頭起，非唯修斷，闕一義故，不得名小。惡作一種，雖唯修斷，唯意地起，以非唯與無明（無知）相應，雖別頭起，不名為小。睡眠一種，雖唯意地，闕三義故，不名為小。貪、嗔二種，雖復唯與無明（無知）相應，各別頭起，闕二義故，不名為小。前之四地皆名為大，此之一地不得大名者，通大地法以遍一切心故名大。大善地法以遍一切善心名大。大
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: As has been said, what is that dharma? The following half-verse is the fourth explanation of the dharmas of the unwholesome ground. There are two layers of explanation, as can be understood from before. The verse says: 'Only those pervasive unwholesome minds.' This has four possibilities: There are unwholesome [dharmas] that are not pervasive unwholesome, namely, the seven of anger, etc., and anger among the undetermined. There are pervasive unwholesome [dharmas] that are not only unwholesome, namely, the ten of the great ground, the six great afflictions, and seeking and investigation among the undetermined. There are pervasive unwholesome [dharmas] that are also only unwholesome, namely, the two dharmas of the unwholesome ground. There are [dharmas] that are neither only unwholesome nor pervasive unwholesome, namely, the three minor delusory [dharmas], and among the undetermined, sleep, regret, greed, pride, doubt, etc. The unwholesome that are only wholesome mental factors have already been excluded; there is no need to labor over 'only' and 'pervasive'.
Treatise says: 'As will be distinguished later.' This refers to the explanation below.
Treatise: As has been said, what is that dharma? From here below, the fifth [section] has a verse explaining the dharmas of the minor affliction ground. There are two layers of explanation, as can be understood from before. They are called 'minor' because they are together with minds defiled by a small portion.
Treatise says: 'To the affliction ground dharmas.' This explains the meaning of 'minor'. 1. Only severed by cultivation. 2. Only arising in the consciousness ground. 3. Only corresponding to ignorance (avidya). 4. Manifesting separately. The dharmas of the great wholesome ground do not correspond to all defiled minds. The name 'affliction' excludes these dharmas. Although seeking and investigation are common to defiled minds, they lack the four meanings, so they are not called dharmas of the minor affliction ground. The great affliction ground and the great unwholesome ground, although they only correspond to ignorance (avidya), lack three meanings, so they are not called 'minor'. The two types of pride and doubt, although they only arise in the mind ground, only correspond to ignorance (avidya), and arise separately, and are not only severed by cultivation, lack one meaning, so they are not called 'minor'. The one type of regret, although it is only severed by cultivation and only arises in the mind ground, because it does not only correspond to ignorance (avidya), although it arises separately, it is not called 'minor'. The one type of sleep, although it is only in the mind ground, lacks three meanings, so it is not called 'minor'. The two types of greed and anger, although they only correspond to ignorance (avidya) and arise separately, lack two meanings, so they are not called 'minor'. The previous four grounds are all called 'great'. This one ground does not obtain the name 'great' because the dharmas common to the great ground are called 'great' because they pervade all minds. The dharmas of the great wholesome ground are called 'great' because they pervade all wholesome minds. Great
煩惱地以遍一切染心名大。大不善地以遍一切不善心故名為大 又上四地法皆並頭起故名為大。
論。此法如后至當廣分別。指后釋也。
論。如是已說至尋伺等法。已下第六明不定也。言不定者謂不定入餘五地故。故言不定 惡作．睡眠．尋．伺等法者。此舉四法等余貪．瞋．慢．疑。婆沙四十五云睡眠．惡作．怖．尋伺．心。又七十五云評曰應作是說。此心所中應別說怖。所以者何。有別心所與心相應是怖自性。此即說在復有所餘如是類法與心相應心所法內。非諸煩惱。復說怖唯欲界。上界言怖于厭說怖。又云。問若爾厭．怖有何差別。答尊者世友作如是說。怖唯欲界。厭通三界。復作是說。怖在煩惱品。厭在善品。復作是說。怖染污．無覆無記。厭唯是善(準上。怖不通善。厭唯善性)。正理論云。類言為攝不忍．不樂．憤發等義 準此論文不忍等法既是小煩惱類。亦是少分染心相應。各別頭起。唯修所斷。在意識地。唯無明相應。又此忿等大乘中說謂嗔分等。故是假法。此宗皆是實有性。故正理論云。如前所說一切心所應知其性皆是實有。所以者何。非一品類所緣義中種種行相俱時起故。一體同時。如所緣義。差別行相無容有故。然由余法所制伏故。見其相續變異而起。現見清油．垢．水．風等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 煩惱以其遍及一切染污之心而被稱為『大』。『大不善地』是因為它遍及一切不善之心而得名。此外，上四地（指色界和無色界的四禪天）的法都同時生起，因此也稱為『大』。
論：此法將在後面詳細解釋。（『指后釋也』是對前面所說之法的解釋）。
論：如是已說至尋伺等法。在前面已經說完了『尋』（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和『伺』（Vicara，細緻的思考）等法。下面第六部分說明『不定』。所謂『不定』，是指不一定進入其餘五地（五識、意識、末那識、阿賴耶識、無想定）的緣故。所以稱為『不定』。『惡作』（Kaukṛtya，後悔）、『睡眠』（Middha，昏沉）、『尋』（Vitarka，粗略的思考）、『伺』（Vicara，細緻的思考）等法。這裡列舉了四種法，等同於其餘的貪（Raga，貪慾）、嗔（Dvesha，嗔恨）、慢（Mana，傲慢）、疑（Vicikitsa，懷疑）。《婆沙論》第四十五卷說，睡眠、惡作、怖（Bhaya，恐懼）、尋、伺、心。第七十五卷評論說，應該這樣說，在這個心所中應該單獨說明『怖』。為什麼呢？因為有別的心所與心相應，是『怖』的自性。這就在於另外一些與心相應的心所法內，而不是諸煩惱。又說『怖』只存在於欲界。上界說『怖』是對於厭惡的『怖』。又說，問：如果這樣，『厭』（Arati，厭惡）和『怖』有什麼差別？答：尊者世友（Vasumitra）這樣說，『怖』只在欲界，『厭』通於三界。又說，『怖』屬於煩惱品，『厭』屬於善品。又說，『怖』是染污、無覆無記（既非善亦非惡），『厭』只是善。（根據以上，『怖』不通於善，『厭』只是善性）。《正理論》說，『類』這個詞是爲了包含不忍、不樂、憤發等的含義。根據此論文，不忍等法既然是小煩惱的種類，也是少分染污心相應，各自單獨生起，只有通過修習才能斷除，存在於意識地，只與無明（Avidya，無知）相應。而且這種忿等在大乘中說是嗔恨的一部分等，所以是假法。而此宗（指說一切有部）都認為是實有性。所以《正理論》說，如前所說，一切心所應該知道它們的性質都是實有的。為什麼呢？因為不是同一品類所緣的意義中，種種行相同時生起。一體同時，如所緣的意義，差別行相沒有存在的餘地。然而由於其他法所制伏，看到它們的相續變異而生起。現在看到清油、垢、水、風等。
【English Translation】 English version 『Great』 is the name given to afflictions because they pervade all defiled minds. 『Great unwholesome ground』 is so named because it pervades all unwholesome minds. Furthermore, the dharmas of the upper four grounds (referring to the four Dhyana heavens of the Form Realm and Formless Realm) all arise simultaneously, hence they are also called 『great.』
Treatise: This dharma will be extensively explained later. (『Pointing to later explanation』 is an explanation of the dharma mentioned earlier.)
Treatise: As has been said, up to the dharmas of Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought). The sixth part below explains 『indefinite.』 What is meant by 『indefinite』 is that it is not certain to enter the other five grounds (the five consciousnesses, the mind consciousness, the Manas consciousness, the Alaya consciousness, and the state of non-perception). Therefore, it is called 『indefinite.』 The dharmas of Kaukṛtya (regret), Middha (sleepiness), Vitarka (gross thought), and Vicara (subtle thought), etc. Here, four dharmas are listed, equivalent to the remaining Raga (greed), Dvesha (hatred), Mana (pride), and Vicikitsa (doubt). The 45th fascicle of the Vibhasha states: sleepiness, regret, Bhaya (fear), Vitarka, Vicara, and mind. The 75th fascicle comments that it should be said that 『fear』 should be separately explained among these mental factors. Why? Because there is a separate mental factor that corresponds to the mind, which is the nature of 『fear.』 This lies within other mental factors that correspond to the mind, but not among the afflictions. It is also said that 『fear』 exists only in the Desire Realm. In the upper realms, 『fear』 is said to be 『fear』 of aversion. It is also said, question: If so, what is the difference between Arati (aversion) and 『fear』? Answer: Venerable Vasumitra said that 『fear』 is only in the Desire Realm, while 『aversion』 pervades the three realms. It is also said that 『fear』 belongs to the category of afflictions, while 『aversion』 belongs to the category of wholesome qualities. It is also said that 『fear』 is defiled and neither wholesome nor unwholesome, while 『aversion』 is only wholesome. (According to the above, 『fear』 does not extend to wholesome qualities, while 『aversion』 is only of a wholesome nature). The Nyayanusara states that the word 『category』 is to include the meanings of impatience, displeasure, resentment, etc. According to this text, since impatience and other such dharmas are types of minor afflictions, they also correspond to a small portion of the defiled mind, arise separately, can only be eliminated through cultivation, exist in the mind consciousness ground, and only correspond to Avidya (ignorance). Moreover, these resentments, etc., are said in Mahayana to be part of hatred, etc., so they are provisional dharmas. This school (Sarvastivada) considers them all to be of a real nature. Therefore, the Nyayanusara states that, as mentioned earlier, all mental factors should be known to be of a real nature. Why? Because not in the meaning of the object of the same category, various aspects arise simultaneously. One entity at the same time, like the meaning of the object, there is no room for different aspects. However, due to being subdued by other dharmas, their continuous changes are seen to arise. Now we see clear oil, dirt, water, wind, etc.
勢力制持。燈相續中便有明．昧．聲．動等故。已上論文 然諸心所差別功能難可了知。且如睡眠．惡作。非唯不善。而取一分入十纏中。尋亦雖通無漏而為道障。勝解．定．慧雖通三性而立五分法身。一種五根。三是通攝二是善地。如是等類法性難知。心所相翻義亦如是。古來相傳廢立。依此論有四十六種。謂大地法十至不定有八。於四十六中。如大地法十。尋．伺．睡眠．惡作。以通三性。或通二性。故此十四不別翻名。餘三十二中總有二類。一凈品有十。謂信等。二染品有二十二。謂大煩惱地法六。大不善地法二。小煩惱地十。及貪．嗔．慢．疑。若於染中通五斷。遍六識者。即正翻入凈。若不通五斷。不遍六識者。但可傍翻 總有十法。謂大煩惱地法六。不善地法二。及與貪．嗔。大煩惱地法六中翻癡為無癡。無癡即是大地慧故。故於善中不立無癡。翻放逸為不放逸。翻懈怠為精進。翻不信為信。翻惛沈為輕安。翻掉舉為行舍。不善地法二中翻無慚為慚。翻無愧為愧。不定中翻貪為無貪。翻瞋為無瞋。于小惑中害雖不通五斷。非遍六識。而亦翻者以過重故。惱亂菩薩。障趣菩提。菩薩將證無上菩提仍起欲．恚．害覺。所以別翻 餘九。及與慢．疑。二義不具。但可傍翻非正翻也。謂餘九及疑。非通五斷。非遍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 勢力制持：燈的相續點亮，其中便有明亮、昏暗、聲音、動作等現象產生。以上是論文的內容。 然而，各種心所的差別功能難以完全瞭解。例如睡眠、惡作，不僅僅是不善的，而且取其一部分歸入十纏之中。尋雖然也通於無漏，但會成為修道的障礙。勝解、定、慧雖然通於三性，卻被立為五分法身。一種五根，三種是通攝，兩種是善地。像這些法性難以瞭解。心所的相反意義也是如此。古來相傳的廢立，依據此論有四十六種，即大地法十種到不定有八種。在這四十六種中，如大地法十種，尋、伺、睡眠、惡作，因為通於三性，或者通於二性，所以這十四種不另外翻譯名稱。其餘三十二種總共有兩類：一類是凈品有十種，即信等；另一類是染品有二十二種，即大煩惱地法六種，大不善地法二種，小煩惱地十種，以及貪、嗔、慢、疑。 如果在染品中通於五斷，遍於六識的，就正式翻譯為凈品；如果不通於五斷，不遍於六識的，就只能傍譯。總共有十法，即大煩惱地法六種，不善地法二種，以及貪、嗔。大煩惱地法六種中，將癡翻譯為無癡（無癡即是大地慧），所以在善中不立無癡。將放逸翻譯為不放逸，將懈怠翻譯為精進，將不信翻譯為信，將惛沈翻譯為輕安，將掉舉翻譯為行舍。不善地法二種中，將無慚翻譯為慚，將無愧翻譯為愧。不定中將貪翻譯為無貪，將嗔翻譯為無嗔。在小惑中，害雖然不通於五斷，不遍於六識，但也被翻譯，是因為其過失嚴重，惱亂菩薩，障礙趣向菩提。菩薩將要證得無上菩提時，仍然會生起欲覺、恚覺、害覺，所以特別翻譯。 其餘九種，以及慢、疑，二義不具備，只能傍譯，不能正式翻譯。即其餘九種以及疑，不通於五斷，不遍於六識。
【English Translation】 English version Supported by power and control. In the continuous flow of a lamp, there arise phenomena such as brightness, dimness, sound, and movement. The above is the content of the treatise. However, the distinct functions of various mental factors (citta-caitta) are difficult to fully comprehend. For example, sleep (middha) and regret (kaukṛtya) are not only unwholesome but also take a portion to be included in the ten entanglements (daśa bandhana). Investigation (vitarka), although common to the unconditioned (anāsrava), becomes an obstacle to the path. Resolve (adhimokṣa), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (prajñā), although common to the three natures (tri-svabhāva), are established as the fivefold Dharma body (pañca dharma-kāya). One of the five roots (pañcendriya) is universally inclusive, three are universally inclusive, and two are wholesome grounds. Such is the difficulty in understanding the nature of these dharmas. The opposite meanings of mental factors are also like this. The establishment and rejection passed down from ancient times, according to this treatise, are of forty-six kinds, namely, the ten universal mental factors (mahā-bhūmika) to the eight indeterminate ones (aniyata). Among these forty-six, such as the ten universal mental factors, investigation (vitarka), examination (vicāra), sleep (middha), and regret (kaukṛtya), because they are common to the three natures or common to two natures, these fourteen are not translated with separate names. The remaining thirty-two are generally of two categories: one category is the pure qualities, having ten, namely, faith (śraddhā) and so on; the other category is the defiled qualities, having twenty-two, namely, the six great afflictive mental factors (mahā-kleśa-bhūmika), the two great unwholesome mental factors (akusala-mahā-bhūmika), the ten minor afflictive mental factors (paritta-kleśa-bhūmika), and greed (rāga), hatred (dveṣa), pride (māna), and doubt (vicikitsā). If, among the defiled qualities, it is common to the five severances (pañca prahāṇa) and pervasive in the six consciousnesses (ṣaṭ vijñāna), then it is formally translated into the pure qualities; if it is not common to the five severances and not pervasive in the six consciousnesses, then it can only be translated indirectly. There are a total of ten dharmas, namely, the six great afflictive mental factors, the two unwholesome mental factors, and greed (rāga) and hatred (dveṣa). Among the six great afflictive mental factors, ignorance (moha) is translated as non-ignorance (amoha) (non-ignorance is the great earth wisdom), so non-ignorance is not established in the wholesome. Laziness (kausīdya) is translated as diligence (vīrya), non-belief (āśraddhya) is translated as faith (śraddhā), lethargy (styāna) is translated as pliancy (praśrabdhi), excitement (auddhatya) is translated as equanimity (upekṣā). Among the two unwholesome mental factors, shamelessness (āhrīkya) is translated as shame (hrī), and lack of consideration (anapatrāpya) is translated as consideration (apatrāpya). Among the indeterminate ones, greed (rāga) is translated as non-greed (alobha), and hatred (dveṣa) is translated as non-hatred (adveṣa). Among the minor afflictions, harm (vihiṃsā), although not common to the five severances and not pervasive in the six consciousnesses, is also translated because its fault is severe, disturbing Bodhisattvas and obstructing the path to Bodhi. When Bodhisattvas are about to attain unsurpassed Bodhi, they still give rise to desires, anger, and harmful thoughts, so it is translated separately. The remaining nine, as well as pride (māna) and doubt (vicikitsā), do not fully possess the two meanings and can only be translated indirectly, not formally. That is, the remaining nine and doubt are not common to the five severances and not pervasive.
六識。慢雖通五斷。而不遍六識。故不翻也 此十一種但可傍翻者。就中有二。一約等流門翻。二約行相相似門翻。言等流者謂是本惑等流果故。忿．恨．嫉是嗔等流果翻入無嗔。惱是見等流翻見取為正見。正見即是大地中慧。所以善中不可別立。覆或是貪等流翻入無貪。或是癡等流翻入無癡。無癡是慧故於善中不別立也。慳．誑．憍．欲貪等流翻入無貪。諂是諸見等流。翻入正見。正見還是慧數故善不立 約等流門但翻得九。慢．疑本惑非等流。故。二種不可翻也。害雖是嗔等流過重別翻。已如前釋 言約行相相似翻者。如忿．恨．嫉．惱。與嗔行相相似翻入無嗔。覆若貪等流與貪行相相似翻入無貪。若是癡等流與癡行相相似翻入無癡。即是慧攝。慳．誑二種。與貪行相相似翻入無貪。諂謂諂曲。翻曲即為正直。正直是舍。品類足第三云。身正直。心正直 憍之與慢。憍自傲逸。慢陵蔑他不恭敬師。若不憍．慢心便恭敬。敬即是慚翻入無慚。疑謂猶豫不決行相。若能正決即是智慧翻入慧中。害雖似瞋過重別翻。已如前釋。
論。此中應說至決定俱生。上來五頌辨大地法等。自下有四頌。大文第二辨心．心所決定俱生。于中有二。初三頌辨欲界俱生。后一頌明上界俱生。此三頌釋欲界俱生。
論曰至無覆
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）。『慢』雖然普遍存在於前五識中並能被斷除，但它並不遍及六識，因此不翻譯。這十一種隨煩惱可以被間接翻譯，其中有兩種方式：一是通過等流果的角度翻譯，二是通過行相相似的角度翻譯。 等流果是指這些煩惱是根本煩惱的等流果。『忿』（憤怒）、『恨』（怨恨）、『嫉』（嫉妒）是『嗔』（嗔恨）的等流果，因此可以翻譯為『無嗔』（不嗔恨）。『惱』（惱怒）是『見』（錯誤的見解）的等流果，因此可以翻譯為『見取』（執取錯誤的見解）為『正見』（正確的見解）。正見即是大地法中的『慧』（智慧），所以在善法中不能單獨設立。『覆』（隱藏）或者是『貪』（貪婪）的等流果，因此可以翻譯為『無貪』（不貪婪）；或者是『癡』（愚癡）的等流果，因此可以翻譯為『無癡』（不愚癡）。無癡就是『慧』，所以在善法中不單獨設立。『慳』（吝嗇）、『誑』（欺騙）、『憍』（驕傲）、『欲貪』（對慾望的貪婪）是『貪』的等流果，因此可以翻譯為『無貪』。『諂』（諂媚）是各種『見』的等流果，因此可以翻譯為『正見』。正見仍然是慧，所以在善法中不設立。 通過等流果的角度只能翻譯九種。『慢』和『疑』（懷疑）這兩種根本煩惱不是等流果，所以不能翻譯。『害』（傷害）雖然是『嗔』的等流果，但其過失嚴重，需要單獨翻譯，這已經在前面解釋過了。 通過行相相似的角度翻譯，例如『忿』、『恨』、『嫉』、『惱』與『嗔』的行相相似，因此可以翻譯為『無嗔』。『覆』如果是『貪』的等流，與『貪』的行相相似，因此可以翻譯為『無貪』；如果是『癡』的等流，與『癡』的行相相似，因此可以翻譯為『無癡』，即屬於『慧』。『慳』、『誑』這兩種與『貪』的行相相似，因此可以翻譯為『無貪』。『諂』是指諂曲，去除諂曲就是正直，正直就是『舍』（捨棄）。《品類足論》第三卷說：身正直，心正直。 『憍』與『慢』的區別在於，『憍』是自我傲慢放縱，『慢』是輕視他人，不恭敬師長。如果不『憍』、不『慢』，內心就會恭敬，恭敬就是『慚』（慚愧），因此可以翻譯為『無慚』（不慚愧）。『疑』是指猶豫不決的行相，如果能夠正確決斷，那就是智慧，因此可以翻譯為『慧』。『害』雖然類似於『嗔』，但其過失嚴重，需要單獨翻譯，這已經在前面解釋過了。 論：此中應說至決定俱生。上面五頌辨別大地法等。下面有四頌，大文第二辨別心、心所決定俱生。其中有二部分，前三頌辨別欲界俱生，后一頌說明上界俱生。這三頌是欲界俱生。 論曰至無覆
【English Translation】 English version The six consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, and mind consciousness). 'Conceit' (māna) pervades and can be severed in the first five consciousnesses, but it does not pervade all six consciousnesses, so it is not translated. These eleven secondary afflictions can only be translated indirectly, in one of two ways: one, from the perspective of the outflowing result (niṣyanda-phala); two, from the perspective of similar characteristics (ākāra-sādṛśya). The outflowing result means that these afflictions are the outflowing results of the root afflictions. 'Rage' (krodha), 'resentment' (upanāha), and 'jealousy' (īrṣyā) are the outflowing results of 'hatred' (dveṣa), so they can be translated as 'non-hatred' (adveṣa). 'Annoyance' (pradāśa) is the outflowing result of 'wrong views' (dṛṣṭi), so 'grasping at wrong views' (dṛṣṭiparāmarśa) can be translated as 'right view' (samyagdṛṣṭi). Right view is 'wisdom' (prajñā) among the great mental factors, so it cannot be established separately among the wholesome factors. 'Concealment' (mrakṣa) is either the outflowing result of 'greed' (lobha), so it can be translated as 'non-greed' (alobha); or it is the outflowing result of 'delusion' (moha), so it can be translated as 'non-delusion' (amoha). Non-delusion is 'wisdom', so it is not established separately among the wholesome factors. 'Stinginess' (mātsarya), 'deceit' (śāṭhya), 'arrogance' (mada), and 'greed for desires' (kāma-lobha) are the outflowing results of 'greed', so they can be translated as 'non-greed'. 'Flattery' (śathya) is the outflowing result of various 'views', so it can be translated as 'right view'. Right view is still wisdom, so it is not established among the wholesome factors. Only nine can be translated from the perspective of the outflowing result. 'Conceit' and 'doubt' (vicikitsā), the two root afflictions, are not outflowing results, so they cannot be translated. Although 'harm' (vihiṃsā) is the outflowing result of 'hatred', its fault is too severe and must be translated separately, as explained earlier. From the perspective of similar characteristics, for example, 'rage', 'resentment', 'jealousy', and 'annoyance' have characteristics similar to 'hatred', so they can be translated as 'non-hatred'. If 'concealment' is the outflow of 'greed', it has characteristics similar to 'greed', so it can be translated as 'non-greed'. If it is the outflow of 'delusion', it has characteristics similar to 'delusion', so it can be translated as 'non-delusion', which is included in 'wisdom'. 'Stinginess' and 'deceit' have characteristics similar to 'greed', so they can be translated as 'non-greed'. 'Flattery' means crookedness; removing crookedness is uprightness, and uprightness is 'equanimity' (upekṣā). The third volume of the Prakaraṇapāda says: the body is upright, the mind is upright. The difference between 'arrogance' and 'conceit' is that 'arrogance' is self-arrogance and indulgence, while 'conceit' is looking down on others and not respecting teachers. If there is no 'arrogance' or 'conceit', the mind will be respectful, and respect is 'shame' (hrī), so it can be translated as 'shamelessness' (ahrī). 'Doubt' refers to the characteristic of hesitation and indecision; if one can make a correct decision, that is wisdom, so it can be translated as 'wisdom'. Although 'harm' is similar to 'hatred', its fault is too severe and must be translated separately, as explained earlier. Treatise: In this context, it should be said that they arise together until the determination. The above five verses distinguish the great mental factors, etc. Below are four verses, the second major section distinguishing the mind and mental factors that arise together with certainty. There are two parts to this: the first three verses distinguish those that arise together in the desire realm, and the last verse explains those that arise together in the upper realms. These three verses are those that arise together in the desire realm. Treatise says to without cover
無記。此即總分欲界心可為五類也。下釋五品即為五數。
論。然欲界心至至二十三。此第一釋善心起數。如文可解。
論。惡作者何。自下便釋惡作。此問起也。
論。惡所作體名為惡作。略釋名體。
論。應知此中至心追悔性。廣釋體也。謂不稱情所作事業名為惡作。非是不如理事名為惡作如不善悔緣善所作。能追悔心緣其惡作從境為名。即是有惡作故名為惡作。是多財釋。準下三喻有三義釋。一從所緣得名。二從所依得名。三從因受稱也。
論。如緣空解脫門至說為不凈。從所緣境立此名也。
論。又見世間至說為惡作。從其所依立此名也。
論。又于果體至名宿作業。此是從因受其稱也。
論。若緣未作事云何名惡作。問也。謂若有所作此可說為從境等故名為惡作。若有追悔不作之事。何得相從名惡作耶。
論。于未作事至是我惡作。答也。謂即不作亦名惡作。如有人言我於今日不施此物是我惡作。此即是作此之不作亦名惡作。婆沙三十七云。此中惡作總有四句。一有惡作是善於不善處起。二有惡作是不善於善處起。三有惡作是善於善處起。四有惡作是不善於不善處起。
論。何等惡作說名為善。問也。
論。謂于善惡至二處而起。答
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無記（Avyākrta，無法明確歸類為善或惡的狀態）。這概括了欲界（Kāmadhātu，眾生有慾望的界）的心，可以分為五類。
論：然而欲界的心最多有二十三種。這首先解釋了善心生起的數量，如文中所述即可理解。
論：什麼是惡作（Kaukṛtya，後悔）？下面就開始解釋惡作。這是提問。
論：惡所作的體性名為惡作。簡要解釋了名稱和體性。
論：應當知道，這裡是指具有追悔的心性。廣泛解釋了體性。所謂不合心意所做的事業名為惡作。並非不如理的事名為惡作，例如不善的後悔緣于善所作。能追悔的心緣于其惡作，從所緣的境界而得名。即是因為有惡作，所以名為惡作。這是從多方面解釋。根據下面的三個比喻，有三種解釋：一是從所緣得到名稱，二是從所依得到名稱，三是從因接受稱呼。
論：例如緣于空解脫門（Śūnyatā-vimokṣa-mukha，通過空性獲得解脫的法門）乃至說為不凈（Aśubha，不凈觀）。這是從所緣的境界建立這個名稱。
論：又見世間乃至說為惡作。這是從其所依建立這個名稱。
論：又于果體乃至名為宿作業（Pūrva-karma，前世所造的業）。這是從因接受這個稱呼。
論：如果緣于未作的事，為什麼稱為惡作？這是提問。如果有所作，這可以說是因為從境界等原因而名為惡作。如果有追悔沒有做的事情，怎麼能相互關聯而名為惡作呢？
論：對於未作的事乃至說是我惡作。這是回答。即是不作也名為惡作。例如有人說，我今天沒有佈施此物，這是我的惡作。這就是做了這個『不作』，也名為惡作。《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，佛教論書）第三十七卷說，這裡惡作總共有四句：一是有惡作是善，于不善處生起；二是有惡作是不善，于善處生起；三是有惡作是善，于善處生起；四是有惡作是不善，于不善處生起。
論：什麼樣的惡作說名為善？這是提問。
論：所謂對於善惡乃至在兩處生起。這是回答。
【English Translation】 English version: Avyākrta (Indeterminate). This summarizes the mind of the Kāmadhātu (Desire Realm), which can be divided into five categories.
Treatise: However, the mind of the Kāmadhātu can have up to twenty-three types. This first explains the number of arising good minds, which can be understood as stated in the text.
Treatise: What is Kaukṛtya (Regret)? The following begins to explain Kaukṛtya. This is a question.
Treatise: The nature of what has been badly done is called Kaukṛtya. Briefly explains the name and nature.
Treatise: It should be known that this refers to the nature of having a repentant mind. Broadly explains the nature. What is done that is not in accordance with one's wishes is called Kaukṛtya. It is not that what is not in accordance with principle is called Kaukṛtya, such as unwholesome regret arising from wholesome deeds. The mind that can repent is related to its Kaukṛtya, named from the object of focus. That is, because there is Kaukṛtya, it is called Kaukṛtya. This is explained from multiple perspectives. According to the three metaphors below, there are three explanations: one is named from what is focused on, two is named from what it relies on, and three is named from the cause it receives.
Treatise: For example, focusing on the Śūnyatā-vimokṣa-mukha (Door of Liberation through Emptiness) and even being spoken of as Aśubha (Impurity). This name is established from the object of focus.
Treatise: Also, seeing the world and even being spoken of as Kaukṛtya. This name is established from what it relies on.
Treatise: Also, regarding the fruit body and even being named Pūrva-karma (Past Karma). This receives its name from the cause.
Treatise: If it focuses on what has not been done, why is it called Kaukṛtya? This is a question. If something has been done, it can be said that it is named Kaukṛtya because of reasons such as the object of focus. If there is regret for something that has not been done, how can they be related and named Kaukṛtya?
Treatise: Regarding what has not been done, even saying 'This is my Kaukṛtya.' This is the answer. That is, not doing is also called Kaukṛtya. For example, someone says, 'I did not give this thing away today; this is my Kaukṛtya.' This is doing this 'not doing,' which is also called Kaukṛtya. The Vibhāṣā (Buddhist Treatise), volume thirty-seven, says that there are four sentences regarding Kaukṛtya: one is that there is Kaukṛtya that is wholesome, arising in an unwholesome place; two is that there is Kaukṛtya that is unwholesome, arising in a wholesome place; three is that there is Kaukṛtya that is wholesome, arising in a wholesome place; and four is that there is Kaukṛtya that is unwholesome, arising in an unwholesome place.
Treatise: What kind of Kaukṛtya is said to be wholesome? This is a question.
Treatise: What is said to be wholesome or unwholesome even arises in two places. This is the answer.
也。謂于善不作于惡作中。心追悔性名之為善。于惡不作。于善作中心追悔者不善。惡作皆悉依于善．及不善二處而起 或皆依作．不作二處而起。
論。若於不善至謂尋與伺。此第二釋不共心品。
論。何等名為不共心品。此問不共心品法也。
論。謂此心品至貪煩惱等。答也。謂不共心者。不與貪等煩惱相應名為不共。婆沙三十八有二說云。第一師說。唯見所斷不與貪等．忿等相應。自力而起名為不共。以修所斷忿等相應非自力起不名不共。第二師云通見．修斷。不與貪等本惑相應皆名不共。忿等相應非自力起皆是不共 準此論文。第二師釋。不與隨眠相應起故。名為不共。此中俱起。依前師說。唯是見道 問此中所說不共無明於何位起 答若諸異生由勝解力。發起正見。或起邪見。心勞倦時數數間起迷四諦理不共無明。謂緣四諦不欲．不忍．不了行相。準正理論釋頌唯字。即不共通二十一也。正理釋頌中見俱唯二十云。頌唯言者是簡別義。謂唯見俱定有二十。表不共品中容有惡作等。謂若惡作是不善者。唯無明俱非余煩惱。貪慢二種欣行轉故。惡作然戚行相轉故。嗔外門轉行相粗故。惡作行細內門轉故。疑非惡作俱。疑不決定。惡作決定。故不俱起。有身見等欣行轉故。極猛利故。惡作不爾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
也。指的是對於善事沒有去做，對於惡事卻做了的情況。心中追悔這種性質，稱之為善。對於惡事沒有去做，對於善事做了，心中追悔的，則是不善。惡事的產生，都完全依賴於善和不善這兩種情況而產生；或者完全依賴於做和不做的兩種情況而產生。
論：如果對於不善，乃至尋（vitarka，粗略的思考）與伺（vicara，細緻的思考）。這是對不共心品的第二種解釋。
論：什麼叫做不共心品？這是在詢問不共心品的法。
論：指的是這種心品，乃至貪（lobha，貪婪）等煩惱。這是回答。所謂不共心，就是不與貪等煩惱相應的，稱之為不共。婆沙（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第三十八卷有兩種說法：第一位老師說，只有見所斷（darśana-prahātavya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）不與貪等、忿（krodha，憤怒）等相應，依靠自身的力量而產生的，稱之為不共。因為修所斷（bhāvanā-prahātavya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）的忿等相應，不是依靠自身的力量產生，所以不稱為不共。第二位老師說，通於見所斷和修所斷。不與貪等根本煩惱相應的，都稱為不共。與忿等相應的，不是依靠自身的力量產生，都是不共。根據這段論文，按照第二位老師的解釋，不與隨眠（anuśaya，潛在的煩惱）相應而產生的，稱之為不共。這裡的同時產生，依照前一位老師的說法，只有見道。
問：這裡所說的不共無明（avidyā，無明）在什麼位次產生？
答：如果各種異生（prthagjana，凡夫），由於勝解力（adhimukti-bala，強烈的信念），發起正見（samyag-drsti，正確的見解），或者產生邪見（mithyā-drsti，錯誤的見解），心生勞倦的時候，常常間斷地產生迷惑四諦（satya，四聖諦）之理的不共無明。指的是緣於四諦時，不欲、不忍、不了的行相。根據正理論（Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra，阿毗達磨順正理論）解釋頌文中的『唯』字，就是不共通的二十一種。正理在解釋頌文中『見俱唯二十』時說：頌文中的『唯』字是簡別的含義。意思是說，只有與見道同時產生的，必定有二十種。表明不共品中容許有惡作（kaukṛtya，追悔）等。如果惡作是不善的，那麼只有與無明同時產生，而不是與其餘煩惱同時產生。貪和慢（māna，傲慢）兩種是欣行（abhinandaniya，令人愉悅的）的轉變，惡作是然戚（anutāpa，燃燒的悲傷）的行相轉變。嗔（dvesa，嗔恨）是外門（bahirmukha，向外的）的轉變，行相粗猛，惡作是細微的內門（antarmukha，向內的）轉變。疑（vicikitsa，懷疑）不是與惡作同時產生的，疑是不決定的，惡作是決定的，所以不一起產生。有身見（satkāya-drsti，認為五蘊是真實自我的邪見）等是欣行的轉變，極其猛利，惡作不是這樣。 English version:
Also, it refers to the situation where good deeds are not done, but evil deeds are committed. The nature of regretting this in the mind is called good. If evil deeds are not done, and good deeds are done, and there is regret in the mind, then it is not good. The arising of evil deeds completely depends on the two situations of good and not good; or it completely depends on the two situations of doing and not doing.
Treatise: If it is about non-virtue, even to vitarka (gross thought) and vicara (subtle thought). This is the second explanation of the uncommon mental factors (asaṃprayukta-citta-dharma).
Treatise: What is called uncommon mental factors? This is asking about the dharma of uncommon mental factors.
Treatise: It refers to these mental factors, even to greed (lobha), and other afflictions. This is the answer. The so-called uncommon mind is that which is not associated with afflictions such as greed, and is called uncommon. In Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra), volume 38, there are two views: The first teacher says that only those afflictions severed by seeing (darśana-prahātavya) are not associated with greed, anger (krodha), etc., and arise by their own power, are called uncommon. Because the anger, etc., that are severed by cultivation (bhāvanā-prahātavya) are associated and do not arise by their own power, they are not called uncommon. The second teacher says that it applies to both those severed by seeing and those severed by cultivation. Those that are not associated with fundamental afflictions such as greed are all called uncommon. Those that are associated with anger, etc., and do not arise by their own power are all uncommon. According to this thesis, according to the second teacher's explanation, it is called uncommon because it does not arise in association with latent defilements (anuśaya). The simultaneous arising here, according to the first teacher's statement, is only in the path of seeing.
Question: In what stage does the uncommon ignorance (avidyā) mentioned here arise?
Answer: If various ordinary beings (prthagjana), due to the power of strong conviction (adhimukti-bala), generate right view (samyag-drsti), or generate wrong view (mithyā-drsti), when the mind is weary, the uncommon ignorance that confuses the principles of the Four Noble Truths (satya) arises intermittently. It refers to the aspect of not desiring, not enduring, and not understanding when contemplating the Four Noble Truths. According to the Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra's explanation of the word 'only' in the verse, it is the twenty-one that are not common. The Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra explains the verse 'only twenty together with seeing' by saying: The word 'only' in the verse is a distinguishing meaning. It means that only those that arise simultaneously with the path of seeing definitely have twenty. It indicates that the uncommon factors may include regret (kaukṛtya), etc. If regret is unwholesome, then it only arises simultaneously with ignorance, not with other afflictions. Greed (lobha) and pride (māna) are transformations of pleasant conduct (abhinandaniya), while regret is a transformation of the aspect of burning sorrow (anutāpa). Anger (dvesa) is an external (bahirmukha) transformation, and its aspect is coarse, while regret is a subtle internal (antarmukha) transformation. Doubt (vicikitsa) does not arise simultaneously with regret; doubt is uncertain, while regret is certain, so they do not arise together. The view of a real self (satkāya-drsti), etc., is a transformation of pleasant conduct and is extremely intense, which is not the case with regret.
【English Translation】 Also. It refers to not doing good and doing evil. The nature of regretting this in the mind is called good. Not doing evil and doing good, regretting in the mind is not good. Evil deeds all arise depending on the two places of good and not good; or they all arise depending on the two places of doing and not doing. Treatise: If it is about non-virtue, even to vitarka (initial application of thought) and vicara (sustained application of thought). This is the second explanation of the uncommon mental factors. Treatise: What is called uncommon mental factors? This asks about the dharma of uncommon mental factors. Treatise: It refers to these mental factors, even to greed (lobha) and other afflictions. This is the answer. The so-called uncommon mind is that which is not associated with afflictions such as greed, and is called uncommon. The Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa) 38 has two sayings: The first teacher says that only those severed by seeing (darśana-prahātavya) are not associated with greed, anger (krodha), etc., and arise by their own power, are called uncommon. Because the anger, etc., that are severed by cultivation (bhāvanā-prahātavya) are associated and do not arise by their own power, they are not called uncommon. The second teacher says that it applies to both those severed by seeing and those severed by cultivation. Those that are not associated with fundamental afflictions such as greed are all called uncommon. Those that are associated with anger, etc., and do not arise by their own power are all uncommon. According to this thesis, according to the second teacher's explanation, it is called uncommon because it does not arise in association with latent defilements (anuśaya). The simultaneous arising here, according to the first teacher's statement, is only in the path of seeing. Question: In what stage does the uncommon ignorance (avidyā) mentioned here arise? Answer: If various ordinary beings (prthagjana), due to the power of strong conviction (adhimukti-bala), generate right view (samyag-drsti) or generate wrong view (mithyā-drsti), when the mind is weary, the uncommon ignorance that confuses the principles of the Four Noble Truths (satya) arises intermittently. It refers to the aspect of not desiring, not enduring, and not understanding when contemplating the Four Noble Truths. According to the Nyayanusara's explanation of the word 'only' in the verse, it is the twenty-one that are not common. The Nyayanusara explains the verse 'only twenty together with seeing' by saying: The word 'only' in the verse is a distinguishing meaning. It means that only those that arise simultaneously with seeing definitely have twenty. It indicates that the uncommon factors may include regret (kaukṛtya), etc. If regret is unwholesome, then it only arises simultaneously with ignorance, not with other afflictions. Greed (lobha) and pride (māna) are transformations of pleasant conduct, while regret is a transformation of the aspect of burning sorrow (anutāpa). Anger (dvesa) is an external transformation, and its aspect is coarse, while regret is a subtle internal transformation. Doubt (vicikitsa) does not arise simultaneously with regret; doubt is uncertain, while regret is certain, so they do not arise together. The view of a real self (satkāya-drsti), etc., is a transformation of pleasant conduct and is extremely intense, which is not the case with regret.
。然此惡作依善．惡行事處轉故。諸見不爾。故不相應。邪見一分雖戚行轉。而二因故非惡作俱。言二因者。謂極猛利。理處轉故。是故惡作是不善者唯無明俱 詳其惡作具六義。一愁戚行。違情方起故。二內門轉。審察是非故。三行相細。諦思方起故。四決定故。解知方悔故。五不猛利。追戀心昧故。六但緣事。緣善．惡行故。邪見雖有四義無二義故非惡作俱。正理但云或惡作俱有二十一。即是不共無明通修所斷。故知亦取后師義也。
論。于不善見至說為見故。釋不善見同不共品有二十也。如文可解 論言不善見至或戒禁取。釋三不善見也。
論。於四不善至貪等隨一。此第二釋貪等俱起。
論。於前所說至加忿等隨一。第三釋忿等也。
論。不善惡作至第二十一。此第四釋不善惡作相應品也。
論。略說不善至有二十一。總結上也。
論。別於無記至謂尋與伺。第四釋有覆無記相應品也。性是染污能有隱覆名為有覆。體非巧便無果記故名為無記。
論。欲界無記至應知如前釋。此出有覆無記體也。
論于余無記至並不定尋伺。此第五釋無覆無記。體非染污不障聖道。無果記故。名無覆無記。
論。外方諸師至心所俱起敘異師說。異師意云。憂如喜根非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：然而，這種惡作（Kaukṛtya，後悔）是依據善與惡的行為處所而轉變的，而諸見解並非如此，所以不相應。邪見的一部分雖然也隨著行為轉變，但由於兩個原因，不與惡作同時生起。這兩個原因是：極其猛利，以及依據道理處所而轉變。因此，惡作這種不善法只與無明（Avidyā，無知）相應。詳細分析惡作具有六種特性：一是愁戚之行，違背情意才會生起；二是內門運轉，審察是非對錯；三是行相微細，仔細思考才會生起；四是具有決斷性，理解知曉后才會後悔；五是不猛利，追憶戀念時心意昏昧；六是隻緣於事，緣于善與惡的行為。邪見雖然有四種特性，但缺少兩種特性，所以不與惡作同時生起。正理只說或者與惡作同時生起有二十一種，即是不共無明，通於修所斷。所以可知也採用了後代論師的觀點。 論：對於不善見解，說到『見』的緣故。解釋了不善見解的同品和不共品有二十種，如經文可以理解。 論：論中說不善見解或者與戒禁取（Śīlāvrata-parāmarśa，執取錯誤的戒律和苦行）相應，解釋了三種不善見解。 論：對於四種不善，與貪等隨一相應。這是第二種解釋，說明與貪等煩惱同時生起。 論：對於前面所說的，加上忿等隨一相應。這是第三種解釋，說明與忿等煩惱相應。 論：不善惡作乃至第二十一種。這是第四種解釋，說明不善惡作的相應品。 論：簡略地說，不善法有二十一種。總結了以上內容。 論：特別對於無記法（Avyākṛta，非善非惡），是指尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）與伺（Vicāra，細緻的思考）。這是第四種解釋，說明有覆無記的相應品。性質是染污的，能夠隱蔽覆蓋，所以稱為有覆。體性並非巧妙便利，沒有果報記別，所以稱為無記。 論：欲界的無記法，應當知道如前面的解釋。這是說明有覆無記的體性。 論：對於其餘的無記法，並不一定與尋伺相應。這是第五種解釋，說明無覆無記。體性並非染污，不障礙聖道，沒有果報記別，所以稱為無覆無記。 論：外方諸位論師，說到與心所同時生起，敘述了不同論師的觀點。不同論師的意思是，憂（Daukham，憂愁）如同喜根（prīti-indriya，喜悅的根源）一樣，並非...
【English Translation】 English version: However, this Kaukṛtya (remorse) changes according to the places of good and evil actions, but the views are not like this, so they are not corresponding. Although a part of wrong view also changes with actions, it does not arise simultaneously with Kaukṛtya due to two reasons. These two reasons are: being extremely intense, and changing according to the place of reason. Therefore, this unwholesome dharma of Kaukṛtya only corresponds to Avidyā (ignorance). A detailed analysis shows that Kaukṛtya has six characteristics: first, it is the act of sorrow and distress, arising only when it goes against one's feelings; second, it operates within the internal gate, examining right and wrong; third, its aspect is subtle, arising only after careful consideration; fourth, it has decisiveness, regretting only after understanding and knowing; fifth, it is not intense, the mind being obscured when recalling and longing; sixth, it only focuses on events, focusing on good and evil actions. Although wrong view has four characteristics, it lacks two, so it does not arise simultaneously with Kaukṛtya. The Hetu-vidyā only says that there are twenty-one kinds that arise simultaneously with Kaukṛtya, which is the uncommon ignorance, common to what is severed by cultivation. Therefore, it can be known that it also adopts the views of later masters. Treatise: Regarding unwholesome views, it is said to be because of 'view'. It explains that there are twenty kinds of similar and dissimilar categories of unwholesome views, as can be understood from the text. Treatise: The treatise says that unwholesome views may correspond to Śīlāvrata-parāmarśa (attachment to wrong precepts and asceticism), explaining the three kinds of unwholesome views. Treatise: Regarding the four unwholesome things, they correspond to any one of greed, etc. This is the second explanation, indicating that they arise simultaneously with afflictions such as greed. Treatise: Regarding what was said earlier, adding correspondence with any one of anger, etc. This is the third explanation, indicating correspondence with afflictions such as anger. Treatise: Unwholesome remorse up to the twenty-first kind. This is the fourth explanation, explaining the corresponding categories of unwholesome remorse. Treatise: Briefly speaking, there are twenty-one kinds of unwholesome dharmas. This summarizes the above content. Treatise: Especially regarding Avyākṛta (undetermined, neither good nor evil), it refers to Vitarka (coarse thought) and Vicāra (subtle thought). This is the fourth explanation, explaining the corresponding categories of covered undetermined. Its nature is defiled, capable of concealing and covering, so it is called covered. Its essence is not skillful and convenient, and there is no karmic result, so it is called undetermined. Treatise: The undetermined dharmas of the desire realm should be understood as explained earlier. This explains the essence of covered undetermined. Treatise: Regarding the remaining undetermined dharmas, they do not necessarily correspond to Vitarka and Vicāra. This is the fifth explanation, explaining uncovered undetermined. Its essence is not defiled, it does not obstruct the holy path, and there is no karmic result, so it is called uncovered undetermined. Treatise: The various masters from other regions, speaking of arising simultaneously with mental factors, narrate the views of different masters. The meaning of the different masters is that sorrow (Daukham) is like the root of joy (prīti-indriya), not...
唯有記。由此惡作亦通三性。此相應品便有十三心所俱起。正理論云。然此惡作通善．不善不通無記。隨憂行故。離欲貪者不成就故。非無記法有如是事。然有追戀。我頃何為不消而食。我頃何為不畫此壁。如是等類。彼心乃至未觸憂根。但是省察未起惡作。若觸憂根便起惡作。爾時惡作理同憂根。故說惡作有如是相。謂令心戚惡作心品。若離憂根誰令心戚(名省察誤) 論。應知睡眠至如例應知。此述睡眠遍前一切心品中故皆悉無遮。睡眠無夢。性唯無記。據有夢說故通三性。即不定中總有四例。一貪．瞋．慢．疑唯自力起。二惡作善及不共俱起通二。不善自力。善即共起。三睡眠有時亦容與一切心品俱起。四尋．伺定與欲界一切心品俱起。
論已說欲界至當說上界。自此已下一頌第三明上界也。
論曰至如欲界說。文中有三。一明初定。二明中間。三明二禪已上。此文第一明初定也。不定除瞋．惡作．睡眠。小惑除七。不善地二。余皆同欲。以于上界無不善法。眠．惡作故。
論。中間靜慮至余皆具有。此第二明中間禪也。此地除尋與初禪異。自余心所皆同初定。
論。第二靜慮至如前具有。此第三明二定已上。文中有二。一正釋。二引證。此文初也。二定已上如前所除兼伺．諂．誑。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：只有追憶。因此，悔（惡作，Kukkritya）也通於三種性質（善、不善、無記）。此相應品便有十三種心所（Caitasikas）同時生起。《正理論》說：『然而，悔通於善和不善，不通於無記。因為它隨憂愁而行。』因為離欲貪者不成就悔。無記法沒有這樣的作用。然而有追戀，例如：『我當時為什麼不消化就吃東西？我當時為什麼不畫這面牆？』像這樣等等。那個心乃至沒有觸及憂根（Duhkha-indriya），都只是省察，沒有生起悔。如果觸及憂根，便生起悔。那時悔在道理上與憂根相同。所以說悔有這樣的相，即令心悲慼。悔是心品。如果離開憂根，誰能令心悲慼（這被稱為省察誤）？ 論：『應當知道睡眠等，如例子應當知道。』這裡敘述睡眠遍於前面一切心品中，所以都悉無遮。睡眠無夢，性質唯是無記。根據有夢來說，所以通於三種性質。即不定中總共有四種例子：一，貪（Lobha）、瞋（Dosa）、慢（Mana）、疑（Vicikitsa）唯有自力才能生起。二，悔，善以及不共俱起通於二者。不善是自力，善是共同生起。三，睡眠有時也容許與一切心品共同生起。四，尋（Vitarka）、伺（Vicara）一定與欲界一切心品共同生起。 論：『已經說了欲界，將要說上界。』從這裡開始，下面一頌第三說明上界。論曰：『乃至如欲界所說。』文中有三：一，說明初禪（Prathama-dhyana）。二，說明中間禪（Dhyanantara）。三，說明二禪（Dvitiya-dhyana）以上。此文第一說明初禪。不定中去除瞋、悔、睡眠。小惑中去除七種。不善地中去除兩種。其餘都與欲界相同。因為在上界沒有不善法，沒有睡眠和悔。 論：『中間靜慮乃至其餘都具有。』此第二說明中間禪。此地去除尋，與初禪不同。其餘心所都與初禪相同。 論：『第二靜慮乃至如前面具有。』此第三說明二禪以上。文中有二：一，正式解釋。二，引用證據。此文是第一。二禪以上如前面所去除的，兼有伺、諂（Satya）、誑（Maya）。
【English Translation】 English version: Only recollection exists. Therefore, remorse (Kukkritya) also pervades the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral). In this associated category, thirteen mental factors (Caitasikas) arise simultaneously. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'However, remorse pervades wholesome and unwholesome, but not neutral, because it follows sorrow.' Because those who are free from desire and greed do not achieve remorse. Neutral dharmas do not have such a function. However, there is recollection, such as: 'Why didn't I digest my food properly when I ate? Why didn't I paint this wall then?' and so on. Until that mind has not touched the root of sorrow (Duhkha-indriya), it is only reflection and remorse has not arisen. If it touches the root of sorrow, then remorse arises. At that time, remorse is logically the same as the root of sorrow. Therefore, it is said that remorse has such a characteristic, which causes the mind to be sad. Remorse is a mental factor. If one is separated from the root of sorrow, who can cause the mind to be sad (this is called mistaken reflection)?' Treatise: 'It should be known that sleep, etc., should be known as examples.' Here, it is stated that sleep pervades all the preceding mental factors, so there is no exclusion. Sleep without dreams is only of neutral nature. According to having dreams, it pervades the three natures. That is, in the indeterminate, there are a total of four examples: First, greed (Lobha), hatred (Dosa), pride (Mana), and doubt (Vicikitsa) can only arise by their own power. Second, remorse, wholesome, and non-common arise together, pervading both. Unwholesome is by its own power, and wholesome arises together. Third, sleep sometimes allows arising together with all mental factors. Fourth, initial application (Vitarka) and sustained application (Vicara) definitely arise together with all mental factors in the desire realm. Treatise: 'The desire realm has been discussed, and the upper realms will be discussed.' From here onwards, the following verse explains the upper realms. The Treatise says: 'Even as described in the desire realm.' There are three parts in the text: First, explaining the first dhyana (Prathama-dhyana). Second, explaining the intermediate dhyana (Dhyanantara). Third, explaining the second dhyana (Dvitiya-dhyana) and above. This text first explains the first dhyana. In the indeterminate, hatred, remorse, and sleep are removed. In the minor afflictions, seven are removed. In the unwholesome ground, two are removed. The rest are the same as the desire realm. Because there are no unwholesome dharmas in the upper realms, there is no sleep and remorse. Treatise: 'The intermediate dhyana, and the rest are all present.' This second explains the intermediate dhyana. In this ground, initial application is removed, which is different from the first dhyana. The rest of the mental factors are the same as the first dhyana. Treatise: 'The second dhyana, and the rest are as before.' This third explains the second dhyana and above. There are two parts in the text: First, a formal explanation. Second, citing evidence. This text is the first. The second dhyana and above, as previously removed, also include sustained application, flattery (Satya), and deceit (Maya).
自余皆與中間定同。
論。經說諂誑至令還問佛。第二引證。如文可解。梵王不知四大。若無漏定依六禪地皆容可盡。皆悉能斷第四靜慮修煩惱故。若有漏定唯空處近分。唯此近分能盡色故。
論。如是已說至差別云何。自此已下有兩頌。大文第三簡相濫也。
論曰至所敵對法。此釋第一對中無慚相也 于諸功德。謂尸羅等 及有德者。謂親教等。此二是無慚境故言于也。於此二境不尊敬故名為無敬。不崇重故名無崇也 或如次第各屬其一。于德不敬。於人不重。于諸功德無所忌難。于有德者無所隨屬。此無慚相 即是恭敬所敵對者。明能治也。
論。為諸善士至能生怖故。此釋第二無愧相也 為諸善士所訶厭法說名為罪者。出罪體也。即不善法無愧境也 於此罪中不見怖畏者。明無愧行相也 此中怖言顯非愛果能生怖故者。釋怖名也。此之怖言因受果名。以不善果能生怖故。故名為怖。即是無愧不見惡果名不見怖。惡果有二。一是現果譏毀謫罰等。二異熟果三惡道等。
論。不見怖言至名不見怖外問。無愧行相名不見怖。為見怖果而不生怖名不見怖。為不見怖果名不見怖。
論。若爾何失。反問。
論。二俱有過至應顯無明外出過也。若見而不怖應顯智慧。正理論意慧
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 其餘的都與中間的禪定相同。
論：經中說『諂誑』，以至於還要反過來問佛陀。這是第二個引證。如經文的字面意思就可以理解。梵天王不知道四大（地、水、火、風）。如果沒有無漏的禪定，依靠六禪定地，都可能窮盡（煩惱）。都能斷除第四靜慮的修所成煩惱。如果有漏的禪定，只有空無邊處定（ākāśānantyāyatana）的近分定（upa-samādhi）。只有這個近分定能夠窮盡色界。
論：像這樣已經說了，到『差別是什麼』。從這裡以下有兩首偈頌。大的方面來說，這是第三個簡別容易混淆之處。
論曰：到『所敵對法』。這是解釋第一個『對』中無慚（āhrīkya）的相狀。『于諸功德』，指的是尸羅（śīla，戒）等。『及有德者』，指的是親教師等。這兩種是無慚的對象，所以說『于』。對於這兩種對像不尊敬，所以叫做無敬。不崇尚尊重，所以叫做無崇。或者按照次第各自屬於其中一個。對於功德不敬，對於人不尊重。對於各種功德沒有什麼顧忌和為難，對於有德者沒有什麼隨從歸屬。這就是無慚的相狀，是恭敬所敵對的。
論：爲了諸位善士，到『能生怖故』。這是解釋第二個無愧（anapatrāpya）的相狀。被諸位善士所呵責厭惡的法，被稱為罪。這是指出罪的本體。也就是不善法是無愧的對象。『於此罪中不見怖畏者』，說明無愧的行相。『此中怖言顯非愛果能生怖故者』，解釋『怖』這個名稱。這個『怖』字是因接受果報而得名。因為不善的果報能夠產生怖畏，所以叫做『怖』。也就是無愧的人不見惡果，叫做不見怖。惡果有兩種：一是現世的果報，如譏諷譭謗、責罰等；二是異熟果報，如三惡道等。
論：『不見怖言』，到『名不見怖』。外人的提問：無愧的行相叫做不見怖，是見到怖畏的果報而不生怖畏叫做不見怖，還是不見怖畏的果報叫做不見怖？
論：『若爾何失』。反問。
論：『二俱有過』，到『應顯無明』。外出過失。如果見到而不怖畏，應該顯示智慧。正理論的意圖是智慧。
【English Translation】 English version: The rest are the same as the intermediate Dhyana.
Treatise: The Sutra says 'flattery and deceit,' to the point of having to ask the Buddha in return. This is the second citation. It can be understood as the literal meaning of the text. Brahma does not know the four great elements (mahābhūta) (earth, water, fire, and wind). If there is no non-outflow meditation (anāsrava-samādhi), relying on the six meditation grounds, it is possible to exhaust (afflictions). All can cut off the afflictions cultivated in the fourth Dhyana (dhyāna). If there is outflow meditation (sāsrava-samādhi), only the near-attainment (upa-samādhi) of the Sphere of Infinite Space (ākāśānantyāyatana). Only this near-attainment can exhaust the realm of form (rūpadhātu).
Treatise: It has been said like this, up to 'what is the difference?' From here onwards, there are two verses. In a broad sense, this is the third distinction to clarify what is easily confused.
Treatise says: To 'the opposing Dharma.' This explains the aspect of shamelessness (āhrīkya) in the first 'opposition'. 'Towards all merits,' refers to śīla (precepts), etc. 'And those with virtue,' refers to the preceptor, etc. These two are the objects of shamelessness, hence the word 'towards'. Not respecting these two objects is called disrespect. Not honoring and valuing is called non-reverence. Or, according to the order, each belongs to one of them. Not respecting merits, not respecting people. Having no scruples or difficulties towards various merits, having no affiliation towards those with virtue. This is the aspect of shamelessness, which is opposed to respect.
Treatise: For the sake of all virtuous people, to 'can generate fear.' This explains the second aspect of non-shame (anapatrāpya). The Dharma that is rebuked and disliked by all virtuous people is called a sin. This points out the substance of the sin. That is, unwholesome Dharma is the object of non-shame. 'Not seeing fear in this sin' indicates the behavior of non-shame. 'Here, the word fear shows that the undesirable result can generate fear' explains the name 'fear.' This word 'fear' is named because of receiving the result. Because the unwholesome result can generate fear, it is called 'fear.' That is, the person without shame does not see the evil result, which is called not seeing fear. There are two kinds of evil results: one is the present result, such as ridicule, slander, punishment, etc.; the other is the result of different maturation, such as the three evil paths, etc.
Treatise: 'Not seeing the word fear,' to 'called not seeing fear.' An outsider's question: The behavior of non-shame is called not seeing fear. Is seeing the result of fear without generating fear called not seeing fear, or is not seeing the result of fear called not seeing fear?
Treatise: 'If so, what is the fault?' A rhetorical question.
Treatise: 'Both have faults,' to 'should reveal ignorance.' Going out of fault. If one sees but is not afraid, it should reveal wisdom. The intention of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra is wisdom.
是邪見。慧為體故名為智慧。邪見雖見三惡道等。而撥因果相屬之理故無怖也 若不見彼怖應顯無明者。無明無智。不了因果名不見也。
論。此意不顯見與不見。論主答也。不見怖言不顯見與不見。
論。何所顯耶。外人問也。既不離二。更何所顯。
論。此顯有法至說名無愧。論主答也。此顯無愧別有體性。非是無明。亦非邪見。與二為因名為無愧。即是無愧與邪見無明為因。令雖見不怖。或不見彼怖。
論。有餘師說至說名無愧。述異說也。此師意說造罪之時。觀自無恥是無慚相。觀他無恥是無愧相。無恥是同。就自．他別。
論。若爾此二至云何俱起。外人難。觀自即緣自。觀他即緣他。此二境別。云何俱起。
論。不說此二至說名無愧。余師答也。就勝而說。非是別緣。
論。慚愧差別至說名為愧。翻第一釋。可知。
論。翻第二釋至說名為愧。翻第二釋。可知。正理論云。趣向如理。自．法二種增上所生。違愛等流心自在性說名為慚 述曰慚以不作惡為義。聖道．涅槃皆名如理。善心趣彼舉所依也 自增上者。即恐自落三塗 法增上者。即恐廢傳法。二增上力所生舉其因也 愛等流即無慚。違無慚即明對治 由此不為惡法所牽名自在 性指其體也 正
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：是邪見（錯誤的見解）。慧（智慧）是它的本體，所以稱為智慧。邪見雖然能看到三惡道等等，但是否定因果相屬的道理，所以沒有恐懼。如果說不見三惡道的怖畏就應該顯示是無明（對事物真相的迷惑）的話，那麼無明就是沒有智慧，不瞭解因果關係，所以才說『不見』。
論：這裡的意思並沒有明確說明『見』與『不見』。論主的回答是：『不見怖畏』這句話並沒有明確說明『見』與『不見』。
論：那又說明了什麼呢？外人問道：既然不離『見』與『不見』這二者，那又說明了什麼呢？
論：這裡說明有『無愧』這種法，才說叫做『無愧』。論主回答說：這裡說明『無愧』另外有其體性，不是無明，也不是邪見，與二者作為因緣，叫做『無愧』。也就是說，『無愧』與邪見、無明作為因緣，使得（人）即使見到（惡果）也不恐懼，或者說不見（惡果的）怖畏。
論：有其他論師說，觀察自己是無慚（對自己不尊重）之相，觀察他人是無愧（對他人不尊重）之相。『**』是相同的，只是就自己和他人的區別而言。
論：如果這樣，那麼這二者（慚和愧）的境界不同，怎麼能同時生起呢？外人詰難：觀察自己就是緣于自己，觀察他人就是緣於他人，這二者的境界不同，怎麼能同時生起呢？
論：這裡不是說這二者分別緣于不同的對象，而是就殊勝的一面來說，不是分別緣于不同的對象，才說叫做『無愧』。其他論師回答說：就殊勝的一面來說，不是分別緣于不同的對象。
論：慚和愧的差別在於……才說叫做『愧』。這是對第一種解釋的推翻，可以理解。
論：推翻第二種解釋……才說叫做『愧』。這是對第二種解釋的推翻，可以理解。《正理論》說：趣向如理，由自身和佛法兩種增上力所生，違背愛等流的心自在性，叫做『慚』。述曰：『慚』以不作惡為意義。聖道、涅槃都叫做『如理』，善心趣向它們，這是舉出所依之處。自身增上力，就是害怕自己墮落三惡道。佛法增上力，就是害怕廢棄傳法。這兩種增上力所生，這是舉出其原因。愛等流就是無慚，違背無慚就是表明對治。因此不被惡法所牽引，叫做自在。『性』指的是它的體性。《正理論》
【English Translation】 English version: It is a wrong view (evil view). Wisdom (prajna) is its substance, hence it is called wisdom. Although wrong views can see the three evil realms, they deny the principle of cause and effect, so there is no fear. If not seeing the fear of the three evil realms should reveal ignorance (avidya), then ignorance is the absence of wisdom, not understanding the relationship of cause and effect, hence the saying 'not seeing'.
Treatise: This meaning does not clearly state 'seeing' or 'not seeing'. The treatise master's answer is: The statement 'not seeing fear' does not clearly state 'seeing' or 'not seeing'.
Treatise: What does it reveal then? The outsider asks: Since it does not depart from the two, 'seeing' and 'not seeing', what else does it reveal?
Treatise: This reveals that there is a dharma called 'shamelessness', hence it is called 'shamelessness'. The treatise master answers: This reveals that 'shamelessness' has its own distinct nature, it is not ignorance, nor is it a wrong view, but it is caused by the two, hence it is called 'shamelessness'. That is to say, 'shamelessness' together with wrong views and ignorance as causes, makes (a person) not fear even if they see (evil consequences), or not see the fear of (evil consequences).
Treatise: Some other teachers say that observing oneself is the aspect of no self-respect (ahrīka), observing others is the aspect of no respect for others (anapatrāpya). '**' is the same, only differing in terms of oneself and others.
Treatise: If so, then the objects of these two (shame and disgrace) are different, how can they arise simultaneously? The outsider challenges: Observing oneself is based on oneself, observing others is based on others, the objects of these two are different, how can they arise simultaneously?
Treatise: It is not said that these two are based on different objects, but it is spoken of in terms of the superior aspect, not based on different objects, hence it is called 'shamelessness'. The other teacher answers: It is spoken of in terms of the superior aspect, not based on different objects.
Treatise: The difference between shame and disgrace lies in... hence it is called 'disgrace'. This is a reversal of the first explanation, which can be understood.
Treatise: Reversing the second explanation... hence it is called 'disgrace'. This is a reversal of the second explanation, which can be understood. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Approaching the truth (yathābhūta), arising from the two superior forces of oneself and the Dharma, the mind's self-mastery that opposes the outflow of attachment is called 'shame' (hrī). Commentary: 'Shame' means not doing evil. The holy path and Nirvana are both called 'truth', the good mind approaches them, this is mentioning the place of reliance. The superior force of oneself is the fear of falling into the three evil realms. The superior force of the Dharma is the fear of abandoning the transmission of the Dharma. These two superior forces give rise to it, this is mentioning its cause. The outflow of attachment is shamelessness, opposing shamelessness is showing the antidote. Therefore, not being led by evil dharmas is called self-mastery. 'Nature' refers to its substance. Nyāyānusāra-śāstra
理又云。愛樂修習功德為先。違癡等流厭惡劣法。說名為愧。有說怖畏謫罰．惡趣．自．他謗因說名為愧 述曰愧以滅諸惡為義 愛樂功德為先舉所依也 癡等流即無愧。違無愧者即明對治 劣法謂諸有過失法。于中生惡即作用也 有說已下。敘有別釋 現遭屈辱為謫罰 當來三惡為惡趣 己遭塵點為自謗 令他受謗為他謗。此四法因。謂諸煩惱于如是因生怖畏亦舉作用。
論。已說無慚至謂除前三相。釋第二對愛．敬相別。與忻相應信名之為愛。即是愛樂可忻尚法。貪染前境亦名為愛。即是染著愛也。由此愛妻子等是染著愛。愛師長等是信愛也。緣滅．道諦忻相應故亦信．亦愛。緣苦．集諦厭相應故是信非愛。染愛貪故是愛非信。
論。有說信者至謂有敬等。述異說也。此師意說。信是忍許有德。由此為先方生愛樂。故信非愛。信因愛果故。敬謂敬重。以慚為體。
論。有慚非敬至謂緣滅道慚。此第二師成兩句也。于忻上境名敬名慚。于厭劣境是慚非敬。故成兩句。
論。有說敬者至故敬非慚。此第三師釋慚．敬。此師意說。敬是有所崇重。由此為先方生慚．恥。即敬為慚因也。
論。望所緣境至謂除前三相。四句分別。如文可知。
論 如是愛敬至無色界無。此明界通局也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 理又說，以喜愛和樂於修習功德作為先決條件，違背愚癡等流（癡的同類，指無慚無愧），厭惡低劣的法，這叫做『愧』（Hirī，羞恥心）。有人說，因為害怕懲罰、惡趣（Apāya，三惡道）、自己或他人誹謗的原因，而產生的畏懼，叫做『愧』。 述曰：『愧』以滅除諸惡為意義。以喜愛功德為先，是舉出所依之根本。『癡等流』即是『無愧』。違背『無愧』，即是鮮明地對治它。『劣法』是指各種有過失的法。對於這些法產生厭惡，就是『愧』的作用。『有說已下』，敘述另一種解釋。現在遭受屈辱是『謫罰』。未來墮入三惡道是『惡趣』。自己遭受污點是『自謗』。使他人遭受誹謗是『他謗』。這四種法的起因，是各種煩惱。對於這些起因產生怖畏，也是舉出『愧』的作用。
論：已經說了『無慚』，直到『謂除前三相』。解釋第二對，『愛』（Pema，愛）和『敬』（Gaurava，尊敬）的差別。與欣悅相應的信，稱之為『愛』。也就是喜愛那些令人欣悅和尊崇的法。貪染于眼前的境界，也叫做『愛』。也就是染著之愛。因此，愛妻子等是染著之愛。愛師長等是信愛。緣于滅諦（Nirodha Satya，寂滅的真理）和道諦（Mārga Satya，通往寂滅的道路）的欣悅相應，所以既是信又是愛。緣于苦諦（Duḥkha Satya，痛苦的真理）和集諦（Samudaya Satya，痛苦的根源）的厭惡相應，所以是信而非愛。染愛貪著，所以是愛而非信。
論：有人說，『信』（Śraddhā，信仰）是指忍可和認可有功德，因此以此為先，才產生愛樂，所以信不是愛。信是因，愛是果。『敬』是指敬重，以慚為體。
論：有慚非敬，直到『謂緣滅道慚』。這是第二位論師成立兩句。對於欣悅的境界，既是敬又是慚。對於厭惡的低劣境界，是慚而非敬。所以成立兩句。
論：有人說，『敬』是指有所崇尚和尊重，因此以此為先，才產生慚和恥。也就是敬是慚的起因。
論：望所緣境，直到『謂除前三相』。四句分別，如文可知。
論：像這樣，愛和敬，直到『無慚無愧無』。這說明了界限的共通和侷限。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, it is said that 'Hirī' (shame) is primarily based on the love and joy of cultivating merits, opposing the outflow of ignorance (the same kind of ignorance, referring to shamelessness and lack of shame), and detesting inferior dharmas. Some say that 'Hirī' is the fear arising from the dread of punishment, evil destinies (Apāya, the three evil realms), self-reproach, or the reproach of others. Commentary states: 'Hirī' is defined by the eradication of all evils. Taking delight in merit is the basis upon which it relies. 'The outflow of ignorance' is 'lack of shame'. Opposing 'lack of shame' is a clear antidote to it. 'Inferior dharmas' refer to various dharmas with faults. Generating aversion towards them is the function of 'Hirī'. 'Some say below' narrates another explanation. Currently suffering humiliation is 'punishment'. Falling into the three evil destinies in the future is 'evil destinies'. Being tainted by oneself is 'self-reproach'. Causing others to be reproached is 'the reproach of others'. The cause of these four dharmas is various afflictions. Generating fear towards these causes is also an example of the function of 'Hirī'.
Treatise: 'Lack of shame' has already been discussed, up to 'excluding the previous three characteristics'. Explaining the second pair, the difference between 'Pema' (love) and 'Gaurava' (respect). Faith that corresponds with joy is called 'love'. That is, loving those dharmas that are delightful and venerable. Attachment to the present realm is also called 'love'. That is, attachment-love. Therefore, loving one's wife, etc., is attachment-love. Loving one's teachers, etc., is faith-love. Because of the joy corresponding to the cessation truth (Nirodha Satya, the truth of cessation) and the path truth (Mārga Satya, the path to cessation), it is both faith and love. Because of the aversion corresponding to the suffering truth (Duḥkha Satya, the truth of suffering) and the accumulation truth (Samudaya Satya, the origin of suffering), it is faith but not love. Attachment-love is greed, so it is love but not faith.
Treatise: Some say that 'Śraddhā' (faith) is the tolerance and recognition of merit. Therefore, it is the prerequisite for generating love and joy, so faith is not love. Faith is the cause, and love is the result. 'Respect' refers to reverence, with shame as its essence.
Treatise: There is shame but not respect, up to 'referring to shame towards cessation and the path'. This is the second teacher establishing two sentences. Towards the joyful realm, it is both respect and shame. Towards the detestable inferior realm, it is shame but not respect. Therefore, two sentences are established.
Treatise: Some say that 'respect' refers to something that is revered and respected. Therefore, it is the prerequisite for generating shame and disgrace. That is, respect is the cause of shame.
Treatise: Looking at the object of the mind, up to 'excluding the previous three characteristics'. The four sentences are distinguished, as can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Like this, love and respect, up to 'no shame, no disgrace, no'. This explains the commonality and limitations of the boundaries.
。無色界中無色身故不能緣他起敬愛也。亦不緣下佛世尊等故無有敬。
論。豈不信慚至無色亦有。問也。論愛敬有二至無色界無。答文。可解。
論。如是已說至差別云何。已下一頌第二明尋．伺慢．憍別也。
論曰至細性名伺。此釋尋．伺二別相也。
論。云何此二一心相應。經部問也。粗．細相違如何許二一心俱起。
論。有作是釋至俱有作用有部答。如文可解。
論。若爾尋伺至體非凝釋。此是粗．細之因。體非粗．細。第一難也。
論又粗細性至應有尋伺。第二難也。此即應至上地亦有。如何唯至初定有耶。
論。又粗細性至以別尋伺。第三難也。粗．細無體。何得有實尋．伺體耶。
論。復有釋言至於理何違。敘異釋也。
論。若有別體至俱時起故。難也。粗．細一法上下不同。如何俱起。此經部宗不許有別體性。
論。若言體類至別相云何。縱釋徴也。
論此二體類至顯其別相答也。
論。非由上下至有上下故。此重難也。
論。由是應知至一心相應。總結難也。
論。若爾云何至具足五支有部難經部也。
論。具五支言至故無有過。經部答也。正理論云若爾粗．細性相違故。不應尋．伺一心俱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為在無色界沒有色身，所以不能引發他人敬愛。也不緣于下方的佛或世尊等，所以沒有敬意。
論：難道信和慚在無色界就沒有嗎？這是提問。論：愛和敬有兩種情況，到達無色界就沒有了。這是回答，可以理解。
論：像這樣已經說了...到差別是什麼。下面一頌是第二部分，說明尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）.伺（Vicara，精細的思考）、慢（Māna，驕慢）.憍（Stambha，自負）的區別。
論曰：...到細微的性質叫做伺。這是解釋尋和伺的兩種不同相。
論：為什麼這二者能一心相應？這是經部的提問。粗和細相互違背，怎麼能允許二者一心同時生起？
論：有人這樣解釋...到同時具有作用。這是有部的回答。如原文可以理解。
論：如果這樣，尋和伺...到體性不是凝滯的。這是粗和細的原因。體性不是粗或細。這是第一個難點。
論：又，粗和細的性質...到應該有尋和伺。這是第二個難點。這也就是應該到上地也有。為什麼只有在初禪才有呢？
論：又，粗和細的性質...到用來區分尋和伺。這是第三個難點。粗和細沒有實體，怎麼能有真實的尋和伺的體性呢？
論：還有一種解釋...到道理上有什麼違背。這是敘述不同的解釋。
論：如果有不同的體性...到同時生起。這是難點。粗和細是一種法，上下不同，怎麼能同時生起？這是經部宗不承認有不同的體性。
論：如果說體類...到不同的相是什麼。這是假設性的提問。
論：這二者的體類...到顯示它們不同的相。這是回答。
論：不是由於上下...到有上下的緣故。這是重複的難點。
論：由此應該知道...到一心相應。這是總結性的難點。
論：如果這樣，尋和伺...到具足五支。這是有部為難經部。
論：具足五支的意思...到所以沒有過失。這是經部的回答。正理論說如果這樣，粗和細的性質相互違背，不應該尋和伺一心同時生起。
【English Translation】 English version: Because there is no Rūpaskandha (form aggregate) in the Ārūpyadhātu (formless realm), it cannot cause others to generate respect and love. Also, it does not relate to the Buddhas or World-Honored Ones below, so there is no reverence.
Treatise: Isn't it the case that Śrāddha (faith) and Hrī (shame) also exist in the Ārūpyadhātu (formless realm)? This is a question. Treatise: Love and respect have two situations; upon reaching the Ārūpyadhātu (formless realm), they cease to exist. This is the answer, which can be understood.
Treatise: As has been said... to what is the difference. The following verse is the second part, explaining the differences between Vitarka (gross thought), Vicara (subtle thought), Māna (pride), and Stambha (conceit).
Treatise says: ...to the subtle nature is called Vicara (subtle thought). This explains the two different characteristics of Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought).
Treatise: Why can these two be in accordance with one mind? This is a question from the Sautrāntika school. Gross and subtle contradict each other, how can it be allowed that the two arise simultaneously in one mind?
Treatise: Some explain it this way... to simultaneously have function. This is the answer from the Sarvāstivāda school. As the text can be understood.
Treatise: If so, Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought)... to the nature is not solidified. This is the cause of gross and subtle. The nature is neither gross nor subtle. This is the first difficulty.
Treatise: Also, the nature of gross and subtle... to there should be Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought). This is the second difficulty. That is, it should also be present in the higher realms. Why is it only present in the first Dhyana (meditative state)?
Treatise: Also, the nature of gross and subtle... to distinguish Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought). This is the third difficulty. Gross and subtle have no substance, how can there be real Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought) substances?
Treatise: There is another explanation... to what contradiction is there in principle. This is narrating a different explanation.
Treatise: If there are different substances... to arise simultaneously. This is a difficulty. Gross and subtle are one Dharma (teaching), different above and below, how can they arise simultaneously? This is the Sautrāntika school not admitting that there are different natures.
Treatise: If you say the type of substance... to what is the different characteristic. This is a hypothetical question.
Treatise: The type of substance of these two... to showing their different characteristics. This is the answer.
Treatise: Not because of above and below... to because there is above and below. This is a repeated difficulty.
Treatise: From this, it should be known... to in accordance with one mind. This is a concluding difficulty.
Treatise: If so, Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought)... to possessing five branches. This is the Sarvāstivāda school making it difficult for the Sautrāntika school.
Treatise: The meaning of possessing five branches... to so there is no fault. This is the answer from the Sautrāntika school. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Treasury of Metaphysics) says if so, the natures of gross and subtle contradict each other, it should not be that Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought) arise simultaneously in one mind.
生。雖一心中二體可得用增時別故不相違。如水與酢等分和合。體雖平等而用有增。粗心品中尋用增故。伺用被損有而難覺。細心品中伺用增故。尋用被損有而難覺若謂酢用一切時增故非喻者。此言非理。我不定說以酢喻尋伺喻於水。但有用增者。即說如酢故若心品中尋．伺二法。隨用增者即說如酢。微便喻水。由是尋．伺雖 心中體俱可得。用時別故。而無一心即粗即細。如貪癡性雖並現行而得說心為有貪行。隨何心品有法用增。由此為門總標心品。
論。如是已說至故名為慢。自此下釋慢．憍差別。此即慢相。正理論云。慢謂對他心自舉性。稱量自．他德類勝．劣若實不實。心自舉恃陵蔑於他故名為慢。
論。憍謂染著至無所顧性釋憍相也。正理論云。憍謂染著自法為先。令心傲逸無所顧性。于自勇健．財．位．戒．慧．族等法中。先起染著心生傲逸。于諸善本無所顧盻故名為憍。于諸善本無所顧者。謂由心傲于諸善業不欣修習。是謂憍．慢差別之相。
論。有餘師說至差別之相。自此已下敘異說也。如文可解 準上論文。慢謂方他。憍唯自傲。是謂慢．憍二相差別。
論。如是已說至名義差別。自此已下有一頌。大文第四明心．心所眾名義也。
論曰至故名識。就長行中有二。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
生。雖然一個心中可以同時存在兩種不同的作用，但由於它們各自作用增強的時間不同，所以並不矛盾。就像水和醋混合在一起，雖然它們的本質是平等的，但作用卻有增強。在粗略的心念活動中，尋（Vitarka，粗略的觀察）的作用增強，伺（Vicara，精細的觀察）的作用被減弱，這種減弱難以察覺。在精細的心念活動中，伺的作用增強，尋的作用被減弱，這種減弱也難以察覺。如果有人說，醋的作用在任何時候都在增強，所以這個比喻不恰當，這種說法是不合理的。我並沒有說用醋來比喻尋，用水來比喻伺。我只是說，哪種作用增強，就說它像醋。所以在心念活動中，尋和伺這兩種法，雖然可以在同一個心中同時存在，但由於它們作用的時間不同，所以不會出現一個心既是粗略的又是精細的情況。就像貪和癡的性質雖然可以同時出現，但我們可以說這個心是有貪的。根據哪種心念活動中哪種法的作用增強，就可以用這個作為標準來概括心念活動的型別。
論：像這樣已經說了，以至於被稱為慢（Māna，傲慢）。從這裡開始解釋慢和憍（Mada，驕傲）的區別。這就是慢的相狀。《正理論》中說，慢是指在面對他人時，內心自我抬高的性質。通過衡量自己和他人的德行，來判斷誰勝誰劣，無論這種判斷是真實的還是虛假的，內心都會自我抬高，輕視他人，所以被稱為慢。
論：憍是指染著于自身，以至於變得毫無顧忌的性質，這是在解釋憍的相狀。《正理論》中說，憍是指首先染著于自身的優點，使內心傲慢放縱，毫無顧忌的性質。對於自己的勇敢、健康、財富、地位、持戒、智慧、種族等優點，首先產生染著，內心生起傲慢，對於各種善行毫不關心，所以被稱為憍。對於各種善行毫不關心，是指由於內心傲慢，對於各種善業不樂於修行。這就是憍和慢的區別。
論：有其他論師說，這就是慢和憍的區別。從這裡開始敘述不同的說法。就像文中所說的那樣可以理解，參照上面的論文，慢是針對他人的，憍只是自我傲慢。這就是慢和憍兩種相狀的區別。
論：像這樣已經說了，以至於被稱為名義的區別。從這裡開始有一首偈頌，大的方面來說，第四點是說明心和心所的各種名稱和含義。
論曰：以至於被稱為識（Vijñāna，了別）。在長行中有兩點。
【English Translation】 English version:
Birth. Although two different functions can exist in one mind simultaneously, they are not contradictory because their respective times of increased activity differ. It is like water and vinegar mixed in equal proportions; although their essence is equal, their function increases. In coarse mental activity, the function of Vitarka (initial application of thought) increases, and the function of Vicara (sustained application of thought) is diminished, but this diminution is difficult to perceive. In subtle mental activity, the function of Vicara increases, and the function of Vitarka is diminished, but this diminution is also difficult to perceive. If someone says that the function of vinegar always increases, making this analogy inappropriate, this statement is unreasonable. I am not definitively saying that vinegar is a metaphor for Vitarka and water is a metaphor for Vicara. I am only saying that whichever function increases is said to be like vinegar. Therefore, in mental activity, although the two dharmas of Vitarka and Vicara can exist simultaneously in the same mind, because their times of activity differ, there is no situation where one mind is both coarse and subtle. Just as the natures of greed and delusion can manifest simultaneously, we can say that the mind is characterized by greed. Based on which dharma's function increases in which mental activity, this can be used as a standard to generally categorize the types of mental activity.
Treatise: As has been said, it is therefore called Māna (pride, arrogance). From here onwards, the difference between Māna and Mada (conceit) is explained. This is the characteristic of Māna. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says, 'Māna refers to the nature of self-elevation in the face of others. By measuring one's own virtues and those of others, judging who is superior or inferior, whether this judgment is true or false, the mind elevates itself and looks down upon others, hence it is called Māna.'
Treatise: Mada refers to attachment to oneself, leading to a nature of recklessness; this explains the characteristic of Mada. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says, 'Mada refers to first being attached to one's own merits, causing the mind to become arrogant and unrestrained. Regarding one's own courage, health, wealth, status, morality, wisdom, lineage, and other merits, attachment arises first, and arrogance arises in the mind, showing no regard for various virtuous deeds, hence it is called Mada.' 'Showing no regard for various virtuous deeds' means that due to arrogance, one is not inclined to cultivate various virtuous actions. This is the difference between Mada and Māna.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that this is the difference between Māna and Mada. From here onwards, different views are narrated. As can be understood from the text, referring to the above treatise, Māna is directed towards others, while Mada is merely self-arrogance. This is the difference between the two characteristics of Māna and Mada.
Treatise: As has been said, it is therefore called the difference in names and meanings. From here onwards, there is a verse. In a broad sense, the fourth point is to explain the various names and meanings of mind and mental factors.
Treatise: To the extent that it is called Vijñāna (consciousness, discernment). There are two points in the prose.
初唯釋心王眾名。后通釋心．心所眾名。此釋心王。以三義別立三種名 梵云質多此言心。是集起義。謂由心力引諸心所．及諸一切所作事業。如樹界之心集起面板及枝葉等 梵云末那此言意。是思量義。以心能思量故名為意也 梵云毗(毗必反) 若南此言識。是了別之義。謂心於境能了別故謂之為識。
論。復有釋言至而體是一。述異說也。界是性義．因義。凈．不凈品緣境差別作種種因差別不同故名為心。如一樹心與大小枝葉種種不同而為界性。余文易了。
論。如心意識至而體是一。類釋心所。于中有二。一結前引后。二釋心．心所眾名。此即初也。
論。謂心．心所至等和合故者。第二釋眾名也。即心．心所五義。然心王三義別故立三種名依訓詞釋。心．心所五義亦訓詞釋。以托依根故名有所依等 又所依等三亦可說名就多財釋。相應一種唯訓詞釋。等和合故。名相應故。有所依．有所緣。如文可解。有行相者。即于所緣品類差別起行相故。準此論文即是能緣心法。于所緣境品類不同。行解心上起品類相。如鏡照物如其物類于鏡面上。有種種像差別之相。與其心法不即不離。非如像色與鏡不同 問諸心．心所名有行相者。何故十六行相中但言唯慧 答準正理有三解。一解意云諸心．心所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：首先，單獨解釋心王（梵文：Citta，意為『心』）的各種名稱。然後，總括地解釋心和心所（心理活動）的各種名稱。這裡解釋心王，用三種不同的含義來建立三種名稱：梵文叫質多（Citta），這裡翻譯成『心』，是『積聚生起』的意思。意思是說，由於心的力量，引發各種心所，以及所有造作的事業，就像樹的主幹積聚生起樹皮和枝葉等等。梵文叫末那（Manas），這裡翻譯成『意』，是『思量』的意思。因為心能夠思量，所以叫做意。梵文叫毗若南（Vijnana），這裡翻譯成『識』，是『了別』的意思。意思是說，心對於外境能夠了別，所以稱之為識。
論：又有解釋說…而體是一。這是敘述不同的說法。『界』是『性質』或『原因』的意思。清凈和不清凈的品類，由於緣取境界的差別，產生種種不同的原因差別，所以叫做心。就像一棵樹的主幹，與大小不同的枝葉有種種不同，而作為它們的性質和原因。其餘的文字容易理解。
論：如心意識…而體是一。這是比照解釋心所。其中有兩點：一是總結前面，引出後面；二是解釋心和心所的各種名稱。這裡是第一點。
論：謂心心所…等和合故者。這是第二點，解釋各種名稱。即心和心所的五種含義。然而，心王因為有三種不同的含義，所以建立三種名稱，這是依據訓釋詞義來解釋的。心和心所的五種含義，也是訓釋詞義來解釋的。因為依託于根，所以叫做『有所依』等等。另外，『有所依』等等三種含義，也可以說是就其具有多種屬性來解釋。『相應』這一種含義，只是依據訓釋詞義來解釋，因為是『等和合』的緣故，所以叫做『相應』。『有所依』、『有所緣』，就像文中所說的那樣可以理解。『有行相』，就是對於所緣的品類差別，生起行相的緣故。根據這段論文，這就是能緣的心法。對於所緣的境界，品類不同，在行解心上生起品類的相。就像鏡子照物，按照物體的種類，在鏡面上，有種種影像差別的相。與心法不即不離，不像影像的顏色與鏡子不同。問：各種心和心所的名字都有行相，為什麼十六行相中只說唯有慧？答：根據《正理》，有三種解釋。第一種解釋的意思是，各種心和心所
【English Translation】 English version: First, individually explain the various names of Citta (mind-king). Then, comprehensively explain the various names of mind and mental factors (mental activities). Here, Citta is explained by establishing three names based on three different meanings: The Sanskrit word is Citta, which is translated here as 'mind,' meaning 'accumulation and arising.' It means that due to the power of the mind, various mental factors are induced, as well as all created actions, just as the trunk of a tree accumulates and gives rise to bark, branches, and leaves, etc. The Sanskrit word is Manas, which is translated here as 'intellect,' meaning 'thinking.' Because the mind is capable of thinking, it is called intellect. The Sanskrit word is Vijnana, which is translated here as 'consciousness,' meaning 'discernment.' It means that the mind is capable of discerning external objects, so it is called consciousness.
Treatise: Another explanation says... and the essence is one. This is narrating different views. 'Realm' means 'nature' or 'cause.' Pure and impure categories, due to the difference in the objects they grasp, produce various different causal differences, so it is called mind. Just like the trunk of a tree, which has various differences from branches and leaves of different sizes, while serving as their nature and cause. The remaining text is easy to understand.
Treatise: Like mind, intellect, and consciousness... and the essence is one. This is a comparative explanation of mental factors. There are two points: one is to summarize the previous and introduce the following; the other is to explain the various names of mind and mental factors. This is the first point.
Treatise: Saying that mind and mental factors... are equally combined. This is the second point, explaining the various names. That is, the five meanings of mind and mental factors. However, because the mind-king has three different meanings, three names are established, which is explained based on the interpretation of the meaning of the words. The five meanings of mind and mental factors are also explained by interpreting the meaning of the words. Because it relies on the root, it is called 'that which is relied upon,' etc. In addition, the three meanings of 'that which is relied upon,' etc., can also be said to be explained in terms of having multiple attributes. The meaning of 'correspondence' is only explained based on the interpretation of the meaning of the words, because it is 'equally combined,' so it is called 'correspondence.' 'That which is relied upon' and 'that which is related to' can be understood as stated in the text. 'Having characteristics' means that for the differences in the categories of what is related to, characteristics arise. According to this treatise, this is the mind-dharma that can relate. For the realm of what is related to, the categories are different, and the characteristics of the categories arise on the mind of understanding. Just like a mirror reflects objects, according to the type of object, on the surface of the mirror, there are various images of different characteristics. It is neither identical nor separate from the mind-dharma, unlike the color of the image which is different from the mirror. Question: All the names of the various minds and mental factors have characteristics, why do the sixteen characteristics only mention wisdom? Answer: According to the Nyaya Sutra, there are three explanations. The first explanation means that all minds and mental factors
名有行相者。不同十六行相亦以慧為體。但是心．心所。等於所緣品類相中。有能取義名有行相 又解諸心．心所亦是有慧行相。名有行相。若爾慧不自有。如何得說慧有行相 答此中行相亦以慧為體。而言諸心．心所者。與行相等。行相於所緣起必俱時。相從總名行相。猶如諸漏同時諸法。體非是漏。以同對治總得漏名。此亦如是 又解或依無間亦說有聲。如有所依。故無有過。謂如心．心所皆名有所依。意識相應諸心．所法。與所依識亦俱時生。識之所依唯無間滅。有行相理應知亦然 泰法師云。依婆沙影像相非蘊．處．界攝。亦非所緣緣然心．心所皆同取慧所現行相名同行相 瑜師又云不同行相違諸處文 詳泰法師云非蘊．界．處攝。恐非盡理。若非三科攝即是無法。不得言其同．異。若是有法不合不攝。既云是慧之相。理合攝入行蘊。若通諸心．心所。即合攝屬四蘊。如何說全不攝耶。故相應法名同行相。言行相者。行解之相名為行相。或名相應。等和合故。
論。依何義故名等和合。問等和合義。
論。有五義故至皆平等故。釋和合義。可知 論事平等者至各各亦爾逐難釋也 有人云。一所依平等。謂必同所依根。意識．及相應法有一種依。謂無間滅意根。五識．及相應法各有二依。一同時依
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『名有行相』（nama-rupa laksana，具有活動表象之名）是指，即使十六行相（solasa-rupa laksana，十六種表象）不同，其本質仍然是慧（prajna，智慧）。但這些都是心（citta，意識）和心所（caitasika，心理活動）。在所緣（alambana，對像）的品類相中，具有能取之義的，稱為『有行相』。 另一種解釋是，所有心和心所都具有慧的活動表象，因此稱為『有行相』。如果這樣，慧本身不具有，如何能說慧具有活動表象呢？ 回答是，這裡所說的活動表象，其本質也是慧。之所以說諸心和心所，是因為它們與活動表象相等。活動表象在所緣生起時必然同時存在，因此從總體上稱為活動表象。這就像諸漏（asrava，煩惱）與諸法同時存在，但其體性並非是漏，而是因為共同對治而總稱為漏。這裡的情況也是如此。 另一種解釋是，或者依據無間（anantara，無間斷）也說『有』聲，就像有所依（asraya，所依賴的事物）一樣，所以沒有過失。例如，心和心所都稱為有所依。意識（vijnana，意識）相應的諸心和心所法，與所依的識（vijnana，意識）也同時生起。識的所依只有無間滅。有行相的道理應該知道也是這樣。 泰法師說，依據《婆沙論》，影像相（pratibimba-laksana，影像的表象）不屬於蘊（skandha，五蘊）、處（ayatana，十二處）、界（dhatu，十八界）所攝，也不是所緣緣（alambana-pratyaya，對像緣），但心和心所都共同取慧所顯現的活動表象，稱為同行相（samana-rupa laksana，相同的活動表象）。 瑜伽師（Yogacarin，瑜伽行者）又說，不同的活動表象違反了諸處的經文。 詳細來說，泰法師說不屬於蘊、界、處所攝，恐怕並非完全合理。如果不是三科（蘊、處、界）所攝，那就是無法（asat，不存在的事物），就不能說其同異。如果是有法（sat，存在的事物）卻不包含在內，既然說是慧的表象，理應攝入行蘊（samskara-skandha，行蘊）。如果通於諸心和心所，就應攝屬於四蘊（色、受、想、行），如何能說完全不攝呢？所以，相應的法稱為同行相。所說的『行相』，是對『行』的理解之相，稱為行相，或者稱為相應，因為平等和合的緣故。 論：依據什麼意義稱為『等和合』？問的是等和合的意義。 論：因為有五種意義，直到『都平等』。解釋了和合的意義，可以理解。 論：『事平等』，直到『各自也是如此』，這是逐一解釋疑問。 有人說：一是所依平等，即必定是相同的所依根。意識及相應的法有一種所依，即無間滅的意根（manas，意根）。五識（panca-vijnana，五種感官意識）及相應的法各有二種所依，一是同時依。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Nama-rupa laksana' (name and form characteristics) means that even if the sixteen aspects (solasa-rupa laksana, sixteen characteristics) are different, their essence is still prajna (wisdom). However, these are all citta (consciousness) and caitasika (mental activities). Among the categories of alambana (objects), that which has the meaning of 'taking' is called 'having characteristics'. Another explanation is that all citta and caitasika have the active characteristics of prajna, so they are called 'having characteristics'. If so, prajna itself does not possess it, how can it be said that prajna has active characteristics? The answer is that the active characteristics mentioned here are also essentially prajna. The reason for saying all citta and caitasika is that they are equal to the active characteristics. Active characteristics must exist simultaneously when alambana arises, so they are collectively called active characteristics. This is like the asrava (defilements) existing simultaneously with all dharmas, but their nature is not defilement, but they are collectively called defilement because of common treatment. The situation here is also the same. Another explanation is that, or based on anantara (without interruption), the sound 'having' is also said, just like having asraya (that which is relied upon), so there is no fault. For example, citta and caitasika are both called having asraya. The citta and caitasika dharmas corresponding to vijnana (consciousness) also arise simultaneously with the vijnana on which they rely. The asraya of vijnana is only anantara-nirodha (cessation without interval). The principle of having characteristics should be known to be the same. Master Tai said that according to the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, pratibimba-laksana (image characteristics) are not included in skandha (five aggregates), ayatana (twelve sense bases), or dhatu (eighteen elements), nor are they alambana-pratyaya (object condition), but citta and caitasika all commonly take the active characteristics manifested by prajna, called samana-rupa laksana (same characteristics). The Yogacarin (Yogacara practitioner) also said that different active characteristics violate the sutras of the various ayatanas. In detail, Master Tai said that it is probably not entirely reasonable to say that it is not included in skandha, dhatu, or ayatana. If it is not included in the three categories (skandha, ayatana, dhatu), then it is asat (non-existent), and it cannot be said to be the same or different. If it is a sat (existent) dharma but not included, since it is said to be the characteristic of prajna, it should be included in samskara-skandha (aggregate of formations). If it is common to all citta and caitasika, it should be included in the four aggregates (rupa, vedana, samjna, samskara), how can it be said that it is not included at all? Therefore, the corresponding dharma is called samana-rupa laksana. The so-called 'rupa laksana' is the characteristic of understanding 'rupa', called rupa laksana, or called corresponding, because of equal harmony. Treatise: According to what meaning is it called 'equal harmony'? Asking about the meaning of equal harmony. Treatise: Because there are five meanings, until 'all are equal'. The meaning of harmony is explained, which can be understood. Treatise: 'Equality of things', until 'each is also like this', this is explaining the questions one by one. Some say: One is the equality of the asraya, that is, it must be the same asraya-indriya (sense faculty). Vijnana and the corresponding dharmas have one asraya, that is, the manas (mind) of anantara-nirodha. The panca-vijnana (five sense consciousnesses) and the corresponding dharmas each have two asrayas, one is simultaneous asraya.
止根。二無間滅意根。隨應皆是所依平等。此文欲攝二種所依。故不別言同一所依。諸論中說心．心所法同一依者且據別依。故說六識．及相應法名同一依 又解所依平等此顯六識．及相應法 各同一依。故解相應因中雲。此中同言顯所依一。雖復五識亦依意根。此文且據同時依說。二所緣平等。謂必同所緣。于所緣中或時緣一。或復緣多。隨應皆是所緣平等。諸論中說心．心所法同一緣者。且據別緣一法說也。若不爾者。如無我觀除自相應．俱有通緣一切。此豈同一所緣 又解所緣平等此顯六識．及相應法各同一緣。故諸論中說心．心所法同一所緣。雖復亦有緣多境者。此文且據緣一境說。三行相平等。心．心所法其體明凈。隨緣何境各起行相或緣一法各一行相。或緣多法各多行相。若一．若多。行相皆別。隨應皆是行相平等。以多現時各有多相故不言同一行相。諸論中說心．心所法同一行相者。且據緣一境相似義同。理實皆別 又解行相平等。此顯心．心所法同緣一境名同一行相。故諸論說心．心所法同一行相。雖復行相各別不同。據相似同故言同一行相。雖復亦有緣多境時多行相現。各互相望而不相似。此中且約緣一境說 詳其此釋同一所依。同一所緣。同一行相。不得論意。論言同一所依者。非謂所依唯一根
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 止根（止息之根，指意根停止活動的狀態）。二、無間滅意根（指意根在死亡或入滅盡定時，不再產生作用的狀態）。隨其相應的情況，都是所依平等（指心和心所法所依賴的根是相同的）。此文想要涵蓋兩種所依，所以沒有特別說同一所依。各種論典中說心、心所法同一所依，只是就個別的所依而言。所以說六識以及相應的法，名為同一所依。又解釋所依平等，這是顯示六識以及相應的法，各自同一所依。所以在解釋相應因時說：『此中『同』字顯示所依是一。』雖然五識也依賴意根，但此文只是就同時的所依來說。二、所緣平等（指心和心所法所緣的對象是相同的）。指必定是相同的所緣。在所緣中，有時緣一個，有時緣多個。隨其相應的情況，都是所緣平等。各種論典中說心、心所法同一所緣，只是就個別緣一個法來說。如果不是這樣，比如無我觀，除了自身相應的，普遍地緣一切法。這怎麼能說是同一所緣呢？又解釋所緣平等，這是顯示六識以及相應的法，各自同一所緣。所以各種論典中說心、心所法同一所緣。雖然也有緣多個境的情況，但此文只是就緣一個境來說。三、行相平等（指心和心所法呈現出的狀態是相同的）。心、心所法的體性是明凈的，隨著所緣的境，各自產生行相。或者緣一個法，各自一個行相；或者緣多個法，各自多個行相。無論一個還是多個，行相都是有區別的。隨其相應的情況，都是行相平等。因為多個現前時，各自有多個行相，所以不說同一行相。各種論典中說心、心所法同一行相，只是就緣一個境，相似的意義相同而言，實際上都是有區別的。又解釋行相平等，這是顯示心、心所法同緣一個境，名為同一行相。所以各種論中說心、心所法同一行相。雖然行相各自不同，但就相似的相同而言，所以說同一行相。雖然也有緣多個境時，多個行相現前，各自互相觀望而不相似，但此中只是就緣一個境來說。詳細考察這種解釋，同一所依、同一所緣、同一行相，沒有理解論典的本意。論典說同一所依，不是說所依只有一個根。
【English Translation】 English version Cessation-root (the root of cessation, referring to the state where the mind-root ceases to function). Second, the uninterrupted cessation of the mind-root (referring to the state where the mind-root no longer functions at death or when entering cessation meditation). Correspondingly, all are equal in terms of support (referring to the fact that the mind and mental factors rely on the same root). This text intends to encompass two kinds of support, so it does not specifically mention the same support. Various treatises state that the mind and mental factors have the same support, but this is only in terms of individual support. Therefore, it is said that the six consciousnesses and their corresponding dharmas are called the same support. Furthermore, explaining the equality of support, this shows that the six consciousnesses and their corresponding dharmas each have the same support. Therefore, in explaining the cause of correspondence, it is said: 'Here, the word 'same' indicates that the support is one.' Although the five consciousnesses also rely on the mind-root, this text only refers to simultaneous support. Second, equality of object (referring to the fact that the mind and mental factors perceive the same object). It refers to a definite sameness of object. Among objects, sometimes one is perceived, and sometimes many are perceived. Correspondingly, all are equal in terms of object. Various treatises state that the mind and mental factors have the same object, but this is only in terms of individually perceiving one dharma. If this were not the case, such as in the contemplation of no-self, which universally perceives everything except its own corresponding and co-arisen dharmas, how could this be said to be the same object? Furthermore, explaining the equality of object, this shows that the six consciousnesses and their corresponding dharmas each have the same object. Therefore, various treatises state that the mind and mental factors have the same object. Although there are also cases of perceiving multiple objects, this text only refers to perceiving one object. Third, equality of characteristics (referring to the fact that the mind and mental factors exhibit the same characteristics). The nature of the mind and mental factors is clear and pure, and according to the object perceived, each produces characteristics. Either perceiving one dharma, each with one characteristic; or perceiving multiple dharmas, each with multiple characteristics. Whether one or many, the characteristics are different. Correspondingly, all are equal in terms of characteristics. Because when multiple things are present, each has multiple characteristics, it is not said to be the same characteristic. Various treatises state that the mind and mental factors have the same characteristic, but this is only in terms of perceiving one object, with similar meanings being the same, but in reality, they are all different. Furthermore, explaining the equality of characteristics, this shows that the mind and mental factors perceiving the same object are called the same characteristic. Therefore, various treatises state that the mind and mental factors have the same characteristic. Although the characteristics are different from each other, they are said to be the same characteristic in terms of similar sameness. Although there are also cases of multiple characteristics appearing when perceiving multiple objects, each looking at each other and not being similar, this only refers to perceiving one object. Examining this explanation in detail, the same support, the same object, and the same characteristic do not understand the meaning of the treatise. The treatise says the same support, not that the support is only one root.
故名同一所依。是心．心所法雖多不同。共一所依名同一所依。若一．若二。皆名同一。如何得說所依雖二且據一說。同一所緣者。謂心．心所雖復不同。若想緣青。受等亦緣青等。由此故說同一所緣。即心．心所法共緣無量百千多法。雖復不同。所緣共故。皆名同一所緣。如何將無我觀難一所緣。即自解云且據一說。同一行相者心王起一青行相時。諸心所等亦同起此相。如心王緣多境時起多行相。心所亦爾。名同一行相。如何得言且據一說。
論。已說心．心所至何者是耶。自下大文第二有十四頌。明非色非心不相應行。初一頌列不相應總別名。后十三頌一一牒釋。此文初也。
論曰至不相應行 如是諸法者。總舉不相應法。心不相應者。簡心．心所 非色等性行蘊所攝者。簡色．及無為法 是故名心不相應行。略結名也 廣應言非色非心不相應行。今但言不相應行亦得簡諸法盡 言不相應簡一切心．心所 言行。行是行蘊。簡色．無為。由此諸論多存略名 有人自釋頌云。等謂等取句身．文身。類謂流類即是得等。今案此論。心不相應但有十四。若依正理加和合性。故正理云。等者等取句身．文身．及和合性 詳光師以二說不同廣為問答。此論雖不別說和合亦不述無。正理釋此論頌言等和合。故知不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，它們被稱為『同一所依』（Samanashraya）。雖然心（Citta）和心所法（Caitasika）多種多樣，但它們共享一個所依，因此被稱為『同一所依』。無論是一個還是兩個，都可稱為『同一』。如何能說所依雖然有兩個，但僅根據一個來說呢？ 『同一所緣』（Samanalambana）是指，雖然心和心所各不相同，但如果心緣于青色，那麼受（Vedana）等心所也緣于青色等。因此，它們被稱為『同一所緣』。心和心所法共同緣于無數百千種法，雖然各不相同，但由於所緣相同，都被稱為『同一所緣』。如何用無我觀來反駁『一所緣』呢？這可以自我解釋為僅根據一個來說。 『同一行相』（Samanakara）是指，當心王（Cittaraja）生起一個青色的行相時，各種心所等也同時生起這個行相。如同心王緣于多個境時生起多個行相，心所也是如此，這被稱為『同一行相』。如何能說僅根據一個來說呢？ 論：已經說了心和心所，那麼什麼是非色（Arupa）、非心（Acitta）不相應行（Cittaviprayukta-samskara）呢？下面這篇大文的第二部分有十四頌，闡明非色非心不相應行。第一頌列出不相應行的總名和別名，後面的十三頌逐一解釋。這是本文的開頭。 論曰：『如是諸法』等，總括了不相應法。『心不相應者』，是爲了區分心和心所。『非色等性行蘊所攝者』，是爲了區分色（Rupa）以及無為法（Asamskrta）。『是故名心不相應行』，這是對名稱的簡略總結。更完整地說應該是『非色非心不相應行』，現在只說『不相應行』也可以概括所有法。『不相應』是爲了區分一切心和心所。『行』是指行蘊（Samskara-skandha），是爲了區分色和無為。因此，許多論典都保留了簡略的名稱。有人自己解釋頌文說：『等』是指等取句身（Pada-kaya）、文身（Vyanjana-kaya）。『類』是指流類，也就是得（Prapti）等。現在根據這部論，心不相應只有十四種。如果依據《阿毗達磨順正理論》（Abhidharmakoshabhasya），加上和合性（Samprayuktatva），所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》說：『等』是指等取句身、文身以及和合性。詳細情況，光師（Ghosa）以兩種不同的說法進行了廣泛的問答。這部論雖然沒有單獨說明和合，也沒有說沒有。而《阿毗達磨順正理論》解釋這部論的頌文時說了『等和合』，因此可知。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, they are called 'Same Support' (Samanashraya). Although the mind (Citta) and mental factors (Caitasika) are many and different, they share one support, hence they are called 'Same Support'. Whether it is one or two, both can be called 'Same'. How can it be said that although there are two supports, it is only according to one that it is spoken of? 'Same Object' (Samanalambana) means that although the mind and mental factors are different, if the mind is focused on blue, then feeling (Vedana) and other mental factors are also focused on blue, etc. Therefore, they are called 'Same Object'. The mind and mental factors together focus on countless hundreds of thousands of dharmas, although they are different, because the object is shared, they are all called 'Same Object'. How can the view of no-self be used to refute 'one object'? This can be self-explained as only according to one that it is spoken of. 'Same Appearance' (Samanakara) means that when the mind-king (Cittaraja) arises with a blue appearance, the various mental factors, etc., also arise with this appearance at the same time. Just as the mind-king arises with multiple appearances when focused on multiple objects, so do the mental factors, and this is called 'Same Appearance'. How can it be said that it is only according to one that it is spoken of? Treatise: Having spoken of the mind and mental factors, what are non-form (Arupa), non-mind (Acitta) non-associated formations (Cittaviprayukta-samskara)? The second part of this great text below has fourteen verses, explaining non-form, non-mind, non-associated formations. The first verse lists the general and specific names of non-associated formations, and the following thirteen verses explain them one by one. This is the beginning of the text. Treatise says: 'Such dharmas' etc., summarizes the non-associated dharmas. 'Non-associated with mind' is to distinguish between mind and mental factors. 'Not included in the form, etc., nature aggregates' is to distinguish between form (Rupa) and unconditioned dharmas (Asamskrta). 'Therefore, they are called non-associated formations' is a brief summary of the name. It should be said more completely as 'non-form, non-mind, non-associated formations', but now saying only 'non-associated formations' can also encompass all dharmas. 'Non-associated' is to distinguish all minds and mental factors. 'Formations' refers to the formations aggregate (Samskara-skandha), which is to distinguish form and the unconditioned. Therefore, many treatises retain the abbreviated name. Someone explains the verse themselves saying: 'Etc.' refers to equally taking phrase-body (Pada-kaya), word-body (Vyanjana-kaya). 'Category' refers to the flowing category, which is attainment (Prapti), etc. Now according to this treatise, there are only fourteen types of non-associated formations. If according to the Abhidharmakoshabhasya, adding association (Samprayuktatva), therefore the Abhidharmakoshabhasya says: 'Etc.' refers to equally taking phrase-body, word-body, and association. In detail, Ghosa conducted extensive questions and answers with two different statements. Although this treatise does not separately explain association, it does not say there is none. And the Abhidharmakoshabhasya, when explaining the verses of this treatise, said 'etc. association', therefore it can be known.
是兩論相違。若謂不說即是無者。此論頌中不說怖等應無其怖。怖等既不定無。和合寧知非有 今詳此論只是略而不論。非是所明之外更無心所。心所既爾和合應同。不依論文信自胸襟問答往還徒煩紙墨 自云品類足論不說非得。說有十三同俱舍論 又云。彼論云復有所餘如是類法與心不相應。法蘊足論第十同品類足 彼論既言所餘如是類法。焉知唯有非得。此論不說更無。正理不彈俱舍。六足言有所餘。正理說有和合。余文皆通兩解。正理更無異端。教既分明。理須依釋。故知十四之外更有不相應行。婆沙說言類者。顯是余師所計度法。正理云類者。顯余所計度法即前種類。謂有計度離得等有蘊得等性。與婆沙少同也。
論于中且辨得非得相。自下有十三頌。別釋不相應也。前五頌明得．非得。就中。前一頌明得．非得自性。后四頌明得．非得差別。此文初也。
論曰至與此相違此明得．非得相。然此得名有總。有別。總名得者。得．及成就皆名為得。非得亦爾。舍．及不成皆名非得 別名得者。曾來未得及得已失。將成就法得至生相。初獲名得。二者得已不失。得至現在名為成就。即是先不屬己。初獲屬己名之為得。此謂生時決定屬己故名之為得。未在身故不名成就。成就謂得現在於身 舍．及不成
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這是《兩論》之間的矛盾之處。如果說論中沒有提及就等同於不存在，那麼按照這個邏輯，此論的頌文中沒有提及恐懼等，是否就意味著沒有恐懼等呢？既然恐懼等不能斷定為沒有，那麼和合（和合，指不相應行法中的一種）又怎麼能確定它不存在呢？現在仔細研究這部論典，它只是做了簡略的論述，並非說所闡明的內容之外，就沒有其他心所（心所，心的附屬作用）了。心所既然如此，和合也應該相同。不依據論典原文，只憑自己的主觀臆斷來問答，只會徒勞地浪費紙墨。 有人自己說，《品類足論》中沒有提到非得（非得，指與『得』相反的一種不相應行法）。《品類足論》中說了有十三種，這與《俱舍論》相同。又說，《品類足論》中說還有其他與心不相應的法。《法蘊足論》第十品與《品類足論》相同。既然《品類足論》說了還有其他類似的法，怎麼知道只有非得呢？此論沒有說就沒有其他的了。《正理》不反駁《俱舍》。六足（六足，指六部阿毗達磨論書）說還有其他的。《正理》說有和合。其餘的文字都可以有兩種解釋。《正理》沒有其他的異端。教義既然分明，就應該依據解釋。所以知道在十四種之外，還有不相應行。《婆沙》中說『類』，表明是其他論師所計度的法。《正理》中說『類』，表明其他論師所計度的法就是前面的種類。說有人計度離開得等，有蘊得等性。這與《婆沙》稍微相同。 論中先辨別得（得，指獲得）與非得（非得，指未獲得）的相狀。下面有十三頌，分別解釋不相應行。前面的五頌說明得與非得。其中，第一頌說明得與非得的自性，後面的四頌說明得與非得的差別。這是本文的開始。 論中說：『至於與此相違』，這是說明得與非得的相狀。然而，『得』這個名稱有總的含義，也有別的含義。總的來說，『得』指的是獲得以及成就，都可以稱為『得』。非得也是如此，舍（舍，指放棄）以及不成（不成，指未成就）都可以稱為非得。別的含義來說，『得』指的是曾經沒有獲得，以及獲得后又失去，將要成就的法獲得到生起的狀態，最初獲得稱為『得』。第二種是獲得后沒有失去，獲得到現在的狀態稱為成就。也就是先前不屬於自己的，最初獲得屬於自己，稱之為『得』。這是說在出生的時候，就決定屬於自己，所以稱之為『得』。因為還沒有在身上，所以不稱為成就。成就指的是獲得現在於自身。舍以及不成。
【English Translation】 English version: This is the contradiction between the two treatises (指兩論相違). If saying that not mentioning something means it doesn't exist, then according to this logic, if the verses in this treatise don't mention fear, etc., does that mean there is no fear, etc.? Since fear, etc., cannot be definitively said to not exist, how can 'Hetu-phalasambandha' (和合, Hetu-phalasambandha, referring to a type of non-associated formations) be determined to not exist? Now, upon careful study of this treatise, it only provides a brief discussion; it doesn't mean that beyond what is explained, there are no other mental factors (心所, mental factors, referring to the functions associated with the mind). If it's like this for mental factors, 'Hetu-phalasambandha' should be the same. Relying not on the original text of the treatise, but only on one's own subjective assumptions to ask and answer questions, will only waste paper and ink in vain. Someone says themselves that the Prakaranapada (品類足論) doesn't mention aprapti (非得, aprapti, referring to a type of non-associated formations opposite to 'prapti'). The Prakaranapada says there are thirteen, which is the same as the Abhidharmakosa (俱舍論). Furthermore, it says that the Prakaranapada says there are other dharmas that are not associated with the mind. The tenth chapter of the Dharmaskandha (法蘊足論) is the same as the Prakaranapada. Since the Prakaranapada says there are other similar dharmas, how do we know there is only aprapti? This treatise doesn't say that there is nothing else. The Nyaya-anusara (正理) doesn't refute the Abhidharmakosa. The six padas (六足, six Abhidharma treatises) say there are others. The Nyaya-anusara says there is 'Hetu-phalasambandha'. The remaining texts can all have two interpretations. The Nyaya-anusara has no other heterodox views. Since the teachings are clear, one should rely on the explanations. Therefore, we know that beyond the fourteen, there are other non-associated formations. The Vibhasa (婆沙) says 'category' (類), indicating that it is a dharma conceived by other teachers. The Nyaya-anusara says 'category', indicating that the dharma conceived by others is the same as the previous category. It says that some conceive of properties such as the aggregates of prapti, etc., as being separate from prapti, etc. This is slightly similar to the Vibhasa. The treatise first distinguishes the characteristics of prapti (得, prapti, referring to attainment) and aprapti (非得, aprapti, referring to non-attainment). Below are thirteen verses that separately explain non-associated formations. The first five verses explain prapti and aprapti. Among them, the first verse explains the nature of prapti and aprapti, and the following four verses explain the differences between prapti and aprapti. This is the beginning of the text. The treatise says: 'As for what is contrary to this,' this explains the characteristics of prapti and aprapti. However, the name 'prapti' has both a general and a specific meaning. Generally speaking, 'prapti' refers to attainment and accomplishment, both of which can be called 'prapti'. Aprapti is the same; abandonment (舍, abandonment) and non-accomplishment (不成, non-accomplishment) can both be called aprapti. Specifically speaking, 'prapti' refers to what was previously not attained, and what was lost after being attained, the attainment of a dharma that is about to be accomplished to the state of arising; the initial attainment is called 'prapti'. The second is what is attained and not lost, the attainment to the present state is called accomplishment. That is, what previously did not belong to oneself, the initial attainment belongs to oneself, and this is called 'prapti'. This means that at the time of birth, it is determined to belong to oneself, so it is called 'prapti'. Because it is not yet on the body, it is not called accomplishment. Accomplishment refers to what is attained and is now on the body. Abandonment and non-accomplishment.
亦準于得。若望同類。即唯初剎那生相名得。最後剎那滅相名舍。爾時非得至生相故。于其中間雖後後念至其生相。然此類法恒名成就。非今獲故。此類之得現在身故。若別望剎那三相前後者。生相定獲此時名得。至住．異相時總名成就。至滅相位方名為舍。落謝過去名不成就。于諸論中依總類說。不約剎那。故婆沙．正理四通行等。皆約初剎那生相名得非於后念。若就諸法具得．成就。及舍．不成。四種差別即有不同。如非想見惑。唯有成就．及舍．不成。無有得也。以無始來恒成就故。后雖容斷必無退故。若利根無學諸無漏法。有得．成就．及不成就。在凡位時名不成就。金剛心時名之為得。盡智已去名為成就。無其舍也。至無學位更無退故。涅槃舍時無非得故。若有得．舍定有成就．不成就。所以最初得至生時不名成就。以彼身中成就非得故。最初非得生時不名不成。以彼身中成彼法故。于生位中正得．舍故名為得．舍。正理論云。得．獲．成就。義雖是一而依門異說差別名。得有二種。謂先未得。及先已得。先未得得說名為獲。先已得得說名成就。應知非得與此相違。謂先未得．及得已失。未得非得說名不獲。已失非得名不成就。故說異生性名不獲聖法 今詳正理。文雖少異其義亦同。先未得說名為獲者有二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也同樣適用於『得』（prāpti，獲得）。如果從同類事物來看，只有最初剎那的生起相可以稱為『得』，最後剎那的滅壞相可以稱為『舍』（parityāga，捨棄）。因為那時『得』並沒有到達生起相。在它們之間的中間階段，即使后唸到達了生起相，但這類法始終被稱為『成就』（siddhi，成就），而不是現在才獲得。這類『得』存在於現在的身心中。如果分別觀察剎那的三相（生、住、滅）的前後，生起相確定獲得時稱為『得』，到達住相、異相時總稱為『成就』，到達滅壞相時才稱為『舍』，衰落過去則稱為『不成就』（asiddha，未成就）。在各種論典中，都是依據總的類別來說明，不侷限於剎那。所以《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）和《正理》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）中的四種通行等，都是依據最初剎那的生起相稱為『得』，而不是后念。如果就諸法具備『得』、『成就』，以及『舍』、『不成就』這四種差別來說，就會有所不同。例如非想非非想處的見惑，只有『成就』、『舍』和『不成就』，沒有『得』。因為從無始以來就一直成就，後來即使斷除也一定不會退失。如果利根的無學聖者所證的各種無漏法，有『得』、『成就』和『不成就』。在凡夫位時稱為『不成就』，在金剛心時稱為『得』，從盡智（kṣayajñāna，盡智）之後稱為『成就』，沒有『舍』。到達無學位后更沒有退失的可能，涅槃舍報時也沒有非得的情況。 如果有『得』、『舍』，一定有『成就』、『不成就』。所以最初獲得到達生起相時，不稱為『成就』，因為在他身中成就的不是『得』。最初沒有獲得到達生起相時，不稱為『不成就』，因為在他身中成就了那個法。在生起位中，正是『得』、『舍』的時候，所以稱為『得』、『舍』。《正理論》說，『得』、『獲』（adhigama，獲得）、『成就』，意義雖然相同，但依據不同的方面而有不同的名稱。『得』有兩種，即先前未得和先前已得。先前未得的『得』稱為『獲』，先前已得的『得』稱為『成就』。應當知道『非得』（aprāpti，未獲得）與此相反，即先前未得和獲得后又失去。未得的『非得』稱為『不獲』，已失去的『非得』稱為『不成就』。所以說異生性（pṛthag-jana-tva，凡夫性）稱為『不獲』聖法。現在詳細考察《正理》，文句雖然略有不同，但意義相同。先前未得稱為『獲』的有兩種。
【English Translation】 English version: It also applies to 'prāpti' (得, attainment). If viewed from the perspective of similar phenomena, only the arising aspect of the initial moment is termed 'prāpti', and the ceasing aspect of the final moment is termed 'parityāga' (舍, abandonment). This is because 'prāpti' does not reach the arising aspect at that time. In the intermediate stages between them, even if subsequent moments reach the arising aspect, such dharmas are always called 'siddhi' (成就, accomplishment), not newly acquired. This kind of 'prāpti' exists in the present body and mind. If one observes the three aspects of a moment (arising, abiding, ceasing) separately, the moment of arising is definitely called 'prāpti', the moments of abiding and changing are collectively called 'siddhi', and only the moment of ceasing is called 'parityāga'. When it declines and passes into the past, it is called 'asiddha' (不成就, non-accomplishment). In various treatises, the explanation is based on general categories, not limited to moments. Therefore, the four types of practices in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論) and the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理) are all based on the arising aspect of the initial moment being called 'prāpti', not subsequent moments. If we consider the four distinctions of 'prāpti', 'siddhi', 'parityāga', and 'asiddha' in relation to all dharmas, there will be differences. For example, the afflictions of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception only have 'siddhi', 'parityāga', and 'asiddha', but not 'prāpti'. This is because they have always been accomplished since beginningless time, and even if they are later eliminated, they will never be lost. If the undefiled dharmas attained by sharp-witted non-learners have 'prāpti', 'siddhi', and 'asiddha'. When in the position of ordinary beings, it is called 'asiddha'; at the moment of the Vajra-like Samadhi (金剛心), it is called 'prāpti'; after the Exhaustion of Defilements Knowledge (kṣayajñāna, 盡智), it is called 'siddhi'; there is no 'parityāga'. There is no possibility of regression after reaching the state of non-learning, and there is no non-attainment when abandoning the body at Nirvana. If there is 'prāpti' and 'parityāga', there must be 'siddhi' and 'asiddha'. Therefore, when the initial attainment reaches the arising aspect, it is not called 'siddhi', because what is accomplished in that body is not 'prāpti'. When the initial non-attainment reaches the arising aspect, it is not called 'asiddha', because that dharma is accomplished in that body. In the arising state, it is precisely the time of 'prāpti' and 'parityāga', so it is called 'prāpti' and 'parityāga'. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that 'prāpti', 'adhigama' (獲, acquisition), and 'siddhi' have the same meaning, but different names are given according to different aspects. There are two types of 'prāpti': previously unattained and previously attained. The 'prāpti' of what was previously unattained is called 'adhigama', and the 'prāpti' of what was previously attained is called 'siddhi'. It should be known that 'aprāpti' (非得, non-attainment) is the opposite of this, that is, previously unattained and lost after attainment. The 'aprāpti' of what was unattained is called 'non-acquisition', and the 'aprāpti' of what was lost is called 'non-accomplishment'. Therefore, the state of an ordinary being (pṛthag-jana-tva, 異生性) is called 'non-acquisition' of the holy dharma. Now, upon detailed examination of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, although the wording is slightly different, the meaning is the same. There are two types of what was previously unattained that are called 'acquisition'.
種。一曾來未得如無漏道等。二得已失如生上地生下地等。先未得得說名為獲者。即是於二位初得至生相時。先已得得說名成就者有二。一無始已來恒成就者。二初得已后第二念去皆名先已得得 應知非得與此相違者。非得有二種。一無始已來曾未得者名為不獲通其前後名為不獲。二謂已得后舍。于初念生相名為不獲。第二念去名不成就。
論。於何法中有得非得。自此已下明得所依。于中有二。先問后答。此即問也。
論。于自相續至決定如是。此即答也。總明得等所依有二。一有為法謂自相續。二無為法謂即二滅。此即初也。若成他身即趣雜亂。若成非情即共成有為過。及無情不定過。壞法性故。
論。無為法中至有得非得。此釋無為得所依也。
論。一切有情至謂一切有情。此以一切有情無始已來必有無邊闕緣不生法故。故引對法中雲。誰成無漏法。謂一切有情者即是非擇滅也。
論。除初剎那至皆成擇滅。釋定成擇滅 除初剎那者。謂苦法忍 具縛聖者。簡先離染 及餘一切具縛異生者。簡具縛異生未成擇滅。未斷惑故 諸餘有情者。舉成擇滅人也。已斷惑故。
論。決定無有至相翻而立故。此釋虛空無得．非得。非是礙法不生故。非是道力引故。
論。諸有得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『種』有二種：一、曾經來過但未獲得，例如無漏道等；二、獲得后又失去，例如從上地轉生到下地等。先前未獲得而現在獲得的，可以稱為『獲』，即在二位（指得與非得）初次獲得直至生起現象時。先前已經獲得而現在仍然擁有的，可以稱為『成就』，這也有兩種：一、從無始以來就一直成就的；二、初次獲得之後，從第二念開始都稱為先前已經獲得。應當知道，『非得』與此相反。『非得』有兩種：一、從無始以來從未獲得，稱為『不獲』，包括其前後狀態；二、指已經獲得后又捨棄。在初念生起現象時稱為『不獲』，從第二念開始稱為『不成就』。
論：在什麼法中存在『得』和『非得』？從這裡開始闡明『得』所依之處。其中分為兩部分：先提問，后回答。這裡是提問。
論：在自身的相續中……直至決定如此。這裡是回答。總的來說，『得』等所依之處有兩種：一、有為法，即自身的相續；二、無為法，即兩種滅（擇滅和非擇滅）。這裡是第一種情況。如果成就於他人的身體，就會陷入混亂；如果成就於非情之物，就會共同產生有為的過失，以及無情不定的過失，因為破壞了法的本性。
論：在無為法中……存在『得』和『非得』。這裡解釋了無為法的『得』所依之處。
論：一切有情……指一切有情。這是因為一切有情從無始以來必定存在無邊的缺失因緣，導致不生法。所以《對法》中說：『誰成就無漏法？』指一切有情，即是非擇滅。
論：除了初剎那……都成就擇滅。這裡解釋了必定成就擇滅的情況。『除了初剎那』，指苦法忍（Kṣānti-dharma-utpāda-jñāna）。『具縛聖者』，是簡別先前已經離染的人。『以及其餘一切具縛異生』，是簡別具縛異生尚未成就擇滅，因為尚未斷除迷惑。『諸餘有情』，是舉例說明成就擇滅的人，因為已經斷除迷惑。
論：決定沒有……因為相互顛倒而成立。這裡解釋了虛空沒有『得』和『非得』。因為它不是障礙法，不會產生；也不是道力所引導。
論：諸有得
【English Translation】 English version: There are two types of 『gains』 (種): 1. Those that have come before but have not been obtained, such as the unconditioned path (無漏道, anāsrava-mārga) etc.; 2. Those that are obtained and then lost, such as being born from an upper realm to a lower realm etc. That which was not previously obtained but is now obtained can be called 『acquisition』 (獲), which is the initial obtaining in the two positions (得 and 非得, gain and non-gain) up to the moment of arising. That which was previously obtained and is still possessed can be called 『accomplishment』 (成就), and there are two types of this: 1. That which has been constantly accomplished since beginningless time; 2. After the initial obtaining, from the second moment onwards, it is all called previously obtained. It should be known that 『non-gain』 (非得) is the opposite of this. There are two types of 『non-gain』: 1. That which has never been obtained since beginningless time is called 『non-acquisition』 (不獲), encompassing its prior and subsequent states; 2. Refers to that which has been obtained and then abandoned. In the initial moment of arising, it is called 『non-acquisition』; from the second moment onwards, it is called 『non-accomplishment』.
Treatise: In what dharma (法, dharma) do 『gain』 and 『non-gain』 exist? From here onwards, the basis of 『gain』 is explained. It is divided into two parts: first a question, then an answer. This is the question.
Treatise: In one's own continuum (相續, saṃtāna)… until it is determined as such. This is the answer. In general, the basis of 『gain』 etc. is twofold: 1. Conditioned dharmas (有為法, saṃskṛta-dharma), which is one's own continuum; 2. Unconditioned dharmas (無為法, asaṃskṛta-dharma), which are the two cessations (滅, nirodha) (i.e., selective cessation (擇滅, pratisamkhyā-nirodha) and non-selective cessation (非擇滅, apratisamkhyā-nirodha)). This is the first case. If it is accomplished in another's body, it will fall into confusion; if it is accomplished in non-sentient matter, it will jointly produce the fault of conditioned existence, as well as the fault of being indeterminate and non-sentient, because it destroys the nature of dharma.
Treatise: In unconditioned dharmas… there exist 『gain』 and 『non-gain』. This explains the basis of 『gain』 in unconditioned dharmas.
Treatise: All sentient beings (有情, sattva)… refers to all sentient beings. This is because all sentient beings from beginningless time must have boundless deficient conditions, causing the non-arising of dharmas. Therefore, it is said in the Abhidharma (對法): 『Who accomplishes the unconditioned dharma?』 It refers to all sentient beings, which is non-selective cessation.
Treatise: Except for the initial moment… all accomplish selective cessation. This explains the case of definitely accomplishing selective cessation. 『Except for the initial moment』 refers to the Kṣānti-dharma-utpāda-jñāna (苦法忍). 『Bound saints』 (具縛聖者) distinguishes those who have previously separated from desire. 『And all other bound ordinary beings』 (具縛異生) distinguishes bound ordinary beings who have not yet accomplished selective cessation, because they have not yet severed the afflictions (惑, kleśa). 『All other sentient beings』 exemplifies those who have accomplished selective cessation, because they have already severed the afflictions.
Treatise: It is definitely not… because they are established in mutual opposition. This explains that space (虛空, ākāśa) has neither 『gain』 nor 『non-gain』, because it is not an obstructive dharma and does not arise; nor is it guided by the power of the path.
Treatise: All gains
者至故不別釋準釋非得可知。
論。何緣知有別物名得。自下經部破薩婆多得實有也。此文即是經部師問也。
論。契經說故至乃至廣說。有部引經答也 十無學法。謂八道支．及正解脫．正智 五支五順上分結 成就十無學法。明有得也 已斷五支。明捨得也。
論。若爾非情至乃至廣說經部難也。于輪寶等無情之物。于馬寶等他相續中。應亦有得。經說成就七寶故。故知成就是假非實。
論。此中自在至隨樂轉故。有部答也。
論。此既自在至知有別物。經部徴。
論。許有別物有何非理。有部反問。
論。如是非理至是為非理。經部責無如色．聲等為其眼．耳現量可知。如貪．瞋等他心智知。如眼．耳等比量可知。以有見．聞用故。故知別有體性。其得既無現量可知。復無用故比量可知。故無體也。既無二量可知是為非理。
論。若謂此得至理不成立。經部縱計為生因破。若得是法生因名為有用。無為無生。應無有得。又所得法未得。及已舍。及界地轉易。及離染。彼皆無有法前之得。如何后法得生 又縱計云。若以俱得為生因者。大生．小生復何所作。得能生故。又無情法無俱生得。應定不生。又具縛者下．中．上惑煩惱現起差別應無。得用無別故。若謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
這些道理很深奧，所以不分別解釋，按照（前面的）解釋，不是能夠知道的。
論：根據什麼知道有另外的『得』（prāpti，獲得，一種假設的存在，使得法能夠被『獲得』）這種東西存在？下面是經部（Sautrāntika，佛教的一個學派，以經為權威）破斥薩婆多部（Sarvāstivāda，一切有部，認為過去、現在、未來一切法皆實有）認為『得』是真實存在的觀點。這段文字是經部師的提問。
論：因為契經（sūtra，佛經）這樣說……乃至廣說。有部（Sarvāstivāda）引用佛經來回答。十無學法（aśaikṣa-dharma，無學位的十種功德）是指八聖道支（aṣṭāṅga-mārga，八正道）以及正解脫（samyag-vimukti，正確的解脫）、正智（samyag-jñāna，正確的智慧）。成就十無學法，說明有『得』存在。已經斷除了五順上分結（pañca-ūrdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojanāni，導致眾生投生到色界和無色界的五種煩惱），說明捨棄了『得』。
論：如果這樣，那麼非情（無情，沒有感覺和意識的事物）……乃至廣說。這是經部的詰難。對於輪寶（cakra-ratna，轉輪王的輪寶）等無情之物，對於馬寶（aśva-ratna，轉輪王的馬寶）等其他眾生的相續（saṃtāna，心識的連續）中，也應該有『得』存在。因為經中說成就七寶（sapta ratna，轉輪王的七種寶物）的緣故。所以知道『成就』是假立的，不是真實的。
論：在這種情況下，因為自在……隨其喜好而轉變的緣故。這是有部的回答。
論：既然這種『得』是自在的……知道有另外的『得』存在。這是經部的質問。
論：承認有另外的『得』存在有什麼不合理的？有部反問。
論：像這樣不合理……這就是不合理。經部責難說，沒有像色（rūpa，顏色、形狀）、聲（śabda，聲音）等那樣，可以通過眼（cakṣus，視覺器官）、耳（śrotra，聽覺器官）現量（pratyakṣa，直接感知）可知；沒有像貪（rāga，貪慾）、嗔（dveṣa，嗔恨）等那樣，可以通過他心智（paracitta-jñāna，瞭解他人心思的智慧）可知；沒有像眼、耳等那樣，可以通過比量（anumāna，推理）可知，因為有見、聞的作用的緣故。所以知道有另外的體性（svabhāva，自性）。而『得』既沒有現量可知，又因為沒有作用而無法通過比量可知，所以沒有自體。既然沒有兩種量可以認知，這就是不合理。
論：如果認為這個『得』……道理不能成立。經部假設『得』是法產生的因，然後進行破斥。如果『得』是法產生的因，就叫做有用。無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma，不生不滅的法）沒有產生，應該沒有『得』。而且，所要獲得的法在未獲得、以及已經捨棄、以及界地（dhātu-bhūmi，存在領域）轉變、以及離染（virāga，脫離煩惱）的時候，都沒有在後來的法產生之前的『得』，那麼後來的法如何產生？又假設說，如果以俱得（sahaprāpti，同時獲得的『得』）作為產生的因，那麼大生（mahā-jāti，大的產生）、小生（anu-jāti，小的產生）又有什麼作用呢？因為『得』能夠產生（法）的緣故。而且無情法（無情，沒有感覺和意識的事物）沒有俱生得（sahaja-prāpti，與生俱來的『得』），應該一定不會產生。而且，具有束縛的人，下品、中品、上品惑（煩惱，klesha）煩惱現起差別應該沒有，因為『得』的作用沒有區別的緣故。如果認為……
【English Translation】 English version:
These principles are profound, so they are not explained separately. According to the (previous) explanations, they cannot be understood.
Treatise: Based on what do we know that there is a separate entity called 『prāpti』 (prāpti, attainment, a hypothetical entity that allows dharmas to be 『attained』)? The following is the Sautrāntika (Sautrāntika, a Buddhist school that takes the sutras as authoritative) refuting the Sarvāstivāda's (Sarvāstivāda, the 'all exists' school, which believes that all dharmas of the past, present, and future are real) view that 『prāpti』 is truly existent. This passage is a question from the Sautrāntika master.
Treatise: Because the sutras (sūtra, Buddhist scriptures) say so… and so on, extensively explained. The Sarvāstivāda (Sarvāstivāda) quotes the sutras to answer. The ten aśaikṣa-dharmas (aśaikṣa-dharma, ten qualities of the state of no-more-learning) refer to the eightfold noble path (aṣṭāṅga-mārga, the eightfold path) as well as right liberation (samyag-vimukti, correct liberation) and right knowledge (samyag-jñāna, correct knowledge). Accomplishing the ten aśaikṣa-dharmas indicates that 『prāpti』 exists. Having already severed the five ūrdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojanāni (pañca-ūrdhvabhāgīya-saṃyojanāni, the five fetters that bind beings to the realms of form and formlessness), indicates that 『prāpti』 is abandoned.
Treatise: If that is the case, then for non-sentient beings (無情, things without feeling or consciousness)… and so on, extensively explained. This is the Sautrāntika's challenge. For non-sentient things like the cakra-ratna (cakra-ratna, the wheel jewel of a Chakravartin), and for the continua (saṃtāna, the continuity of consciousness) of other beings like the aśva-ratna (aśva-ratna, the horse jewel of a Chakravartin), there should also be 『prāpti』. Because the sutras say that the seven jewels (sapta ratna, the seven treasures of a Chakravartin) are accomplished. Therefore, we know that 『accomplishment』 is a provisional designation, not real.
Treatise: In this case, because it is autonomous… because it transforms according to one's liking. This is the Sarvāstivāda's answer.
Treatise: Since this 『prāpti』 is autonomous… knowing that a separate 『prāpti』 exists. This is the Sautrāntika's question.
Treatise: What is unreasonable about admitting that a separate 『prāpti』 exists? The Sarvāstivāda counters.
Treatise: It is unreasonable like this… this is unreasonable. The Sautrāntika criticizes, saying that there is nothing like rūpa (rūpa, color, form), śabda (śabda, sound) etc., that can be known through direct perception (pratyakṣa, direct perception) by the eye (cakṣus, visual organ), ear (śrotra, auditory organ); nothing like rāga (rāga, greed), dveṣa (dveṣa, hatred) etc., that can be known through knowledge of others' minds (paracitta-jñāna, the wisdom of understanding others' minds); nothing like the eye, ear, etc., that can be known through inference (anumāna, reasoning), because there is the function of seeing and hearing. Therefore, we know that there is a separate nature (svabhāva, self-nature). But 『prāpti』 is neither knowable through direct perception, nor can it be known through inference because it has no function, so it has no self-nature. Since it cannot be cognized by either of the two means of knowledge, this is unreasonable.
Treatise: If it is thought that this 『prāpti』… the reasoning cannot be established. The Sautrāntika hypothesizes that 『prāpti』 is the cause of the arising of dharmas, and then refutes it. If 『prāpti』 is the cause of the arising of dharmas, it is called useful. Asaṃskṛta-dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma, unconditioned dharmas) do not arise, so there should be no 『prāpti』. Moreover, when the dharma to be attained is not yet attained, and when it has already been abandoned, and when the realm (dhātu-bhūmi, realm of existence) has transformed, and when there is dispassion (virāga, freedom from defilements), there is no 『prāpti』 before the arising of the later dharma, so how does the later dharma arise? Furthermore, hypothesizing that if sahaprāpti (sahaprāpti, simultaneously attained 『prāpti』) is taken as the cause of arising, then what is the function of mahā-jāti (mahā-jāti, great birth) and anu-jāti (anu-jāti, small birth)? Because 『prāpti』 is able to cause (dharmas) to arise. Moreover, non-sentient dharmas (無情, things without feeling or consciousness) do not have sahaja-prāpti (sahaja-prāpti, innate 『prāpti』), so they should definitely not arise. Moreover, for those who are bound, there should be no difference in the arising of inferior, intermediate, and superior kleshas (煩惱, klesha, afflictions), because the function of 『prāpti』 is not different. If it is thought that…
由余境界同類因等有差別者。即應由彼余因諸法得生。得復何用。故彼言得作法生因。理不成立。
論。誰言此得作法生因。有部反拒。誰言此得作法生因。汝輒為斯難也。
論。若爾此得有何作用。經部徴也。
論。謂于諸法至建立差別。有部反難答也。
論。豈不煩惱至應有差別。經部釋也。
論。若執無得至離未離故。有部反難。
論。此由所依至未斷義成。此經部總釋也 所依。謂身。所依身中種子。斷．未斷別分其凡．聖。不由其得。
論。謂諸聖者至但假非實。下別釋也。謂諸聖者見修道力。令所依身種子能生之力。轉變無力異本現起。乃至如是二種但假非實。如文可解。
論。善法有二至亦假非實。經部敘自宗也。此明成就．不成就也。此當大乘若生得善種子成就亦名不成就。若加行善自在現行名自在成就。並假非實。生得善種被邪見損。善不得生名不成就。不畢竟斷種子成就。此當大乘種子成就。故成就亦名不成就 要由功力修得者。即加行善 彼法已起生彼功能自在無損說名成就。此當大乘自在成就。余文可解。
論。故所依中至無有別物。總結可知。
論。此中何法名為種子。有部問。
論。謂名與色至轉變差別。經部答
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果餘留的境界，由於同類原因等而存在差別，那麼就應該由那些餘留的原因和諸法產生，又何必需要『得』（prāpti）呢？所以說『得』作為法產生的『因』，在理上是不能成立的。
論：誰說這個『得』是法產生的『因』呢？有部（Sarvāstivāda）反駁道：誰說這個『得』是法產生的『因』呢？你竟然為此而提出詰難。
論：如果這樣，這個『得』有什麼作用呢？經部（Sautrāntika）提出疑問。
論：是指在諸法中建立差別。有部反駁並回答。
論：難道不是因為煩惱等，應該有差別嗎？經部解釋。
論：如果認為沒有『得』，那麼（有法）離（煩惱）與未離（煩惱）之間，應該沒有差別。有部反駁。
論：這是由於所依（āśraya）等，未斷的意義才能成立。這是經部的總體解釋。所依，指的是身體。所依的身體中的種子（bīja），斷與未斷的區別在於區分凡夫和聖人，而不是取決於『得』。
論：是指諸位聖者，通過見道和修道的威力，使得所依身體中的種子產生能力，轉變成為無力，不同的本性顯現出來，乃至像這樣兩種都只是假立而非真實。如文中所說可以理解。
論：善法有二種，也只是假立而非真實。經部敘述自己的宗義。這裡說明成就（siddhi）與不成就。這裡指的是大乘，如果生得的善種子成就，也叫做不成就。如果通過加行善，自在地現行，叫做自在成就，都是假立而非真實。生得的善種子被邪見損害，善法不能產生，叫做不成就。不畢竟斷的種子成就，這裡指的是大乘的種子成就。所以成就也叫做不成就。必須要通過功力修得的，就是加行善。那個法已經生起，產生那個法的功能自在而沒有損害，就叫做成就。這裡指的是大乘的自在成就。其餘的文字可以理解。
論：所以，在所依之中，沒有別的實物。總結，可以理解。
論：這裡什麼法叫做種子？有部提問。
論：是指名（nāma）與色（rūpa）等，轉變的差別。經部回答。
【English Translation】 English version: If the remaining realms have differences due to similar causes, etc., then they should arise from those remaining causes and dharmas. What need is there for 'prāpti' (attainment)? Therefore, the statement that 'prāpti' is a cause for the arising of dharmas is not logically established.
Treatise: Who says that this 'prāpti' is a cause for the arising of dharmas? The Sarvāstivāda school refutes: Who says that this 'prāpti' is a cause for the arising of dharmas? You are creating difficulties for this.
Treatise: If so, what is the function of this 'prāpti'? The Sautrāntika school questions.
Treatise: It refers to establishing differences among dharmas. The Sarvāstivāda school refutes and answers.
Treatise: Isn't it the case that due to afflictions, etc., there should be differences? The Sautrāntika school explains.
Treatise: If it is held that there is no 'prāpti', then there should be no difference between being separated (from afflictions) and not being separated (from afflictions). The Sarvāstivāda school refutes.
Treatise: This is because the meaning of 'not yet severed' is established by the support (āśraya), etc. This is the general explanation of the Sautrāntika school. The support refers to the body. The difference between severed and not severed in the seeds (bīja) within the supporting body lies in distinguishing between ordinary beings and sages, not depending on 'prāpti'.
Treatise: It refers to the fact that the sages, through the power of the path of seeing and the path of cultivation, cause the seed-producing ability in the supporting body to transform into powerlessness, and different natures manifest, and even these two are merely provisional and not real. As the text says, it can be understood.
Treatise: Good dharmas are of two kinds, and they are also merely provisional and not real. The Sautrāntika school narrates its own doctrine. This explains accomplishment (siddhi) and non-accomplishment. This refers to Mahāyāna. If the innate good seed is accomplished, it is also called non-accomplishment. If, through effort in good conduct, it manifests freely, it is called free accomplishment, and both are provisional and not real. If the innate good seed is damaged by wrong views, and good dharmas cannot arise, it is called non-accomplishment. The seed of non-ultimate severance is accomplished; this refers to the seed accomplishment of Mahāyāna. Therefore, accomplishment is also called non-accomplishment. What must be attained through effort and power is effort in good conduct. When that dharma has already arisen, and the function of producing that dharma is free and without damage, it is called accomplishment. This refers to the free accomplishment of Mahāyāna. The remaining text can be understood.
Treatise: Therefore, within the support, there is no other real entity. Conclusion, it can be understood.
Treatise: What dharma is called a seed here? The Sarvāstivāda school asks.
Treatise: It refers to the differences in transformation of name (nāma) and form (rūpa), etc. The Sautrāntika school answers.
也。此即經部有二師執。一色持種。二心持種。此中合說色．心持種。
論。何名轉變。有部問也。
論。謂相續中前後異性。經部答也。此是將生果時前色．心上力用起也。
論。何名相續。有部徴也。
論。謂因果性三世諸行。經部答也。
論。何名差別。有部徴也。
論。謂有無間生果功能。經部答也。
論。然有處說至必不能修。此經部通經也 經部上文云。若有種子即有鄰近生果功能 又云。一切異生。二道未起皆成就惑。經說若成就貪即不能修四念住故。此即聖法無由得起。故通經云。彼說耽著貪煩惱者。不能厭舍故名成就。由隨耽著貪愛。時分於四念住必不能修。此說增盛貪位名為成就。非謂但是有種子者不能修也。
論。如是成就至亦假非實。經部結宗義也。如文可解 正理論破經部種子云。且執何法名為種子 有部徴也 謂名與色于生自果。所有展轉鄰近功能。此由相續轉變差別。(經部答也)名色者何(徴也)謂即五蘊(答也)如何執此為種子性 問也 能為善等諸法生因 答也 為總。為別。為自種類(問也。為總一身五蘊為異熟等別。為自類為種)。若言是總。種體應假。假為實因不應正理(若合諸色。心總為種子 即是假法。假法如無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也。這就是經部宗的兩種觀點。一是色法持有種子，二是心法持有種子。這裡是合起來說色法和心法持有種子。 論：什麼叫做轉變？有部宗問道。 論：是指相續中前後不同的性質。經部宗回答。這是指將要產生果的時候，之前的色法和心法上生起作用。 論：什麼叫做相續？有部宗問道。 論：是指因果性質的三世諸行。經部宗回答。 論：什麼叫做差別？有部宗問道。 論：是指有無間斷產生果的功能。經部宗回答。 論：然而有的地方說到了必定不能修。這是經部宗解釋經典。經部宗上文說：『如果有了種子，就有了鄰近產生果的功能。』又說：『一切凡夫，二道（見道和修道）未生起之前，都成就了惑。』經典上說如果成就了貪愛，就不能修四念住。這樣聖法就沒有辦法生起。所以解釋經典說：他們說耽著貪煩惱的人，不能厭離捨棄，所以叫做成就。由於隨順耽著貪愛，在修四念住的時候必定不能修。這是說貪愛增盛的狀態叫做成就，不是說僅僅是有種子的人就不能修。 論：像這樣成就，也是虛假的而不是真實的。經部宗總結宗義。如文字所表達的意思。正理論破斥經部宗的種子說：且說執著什麼法叫做種子？有部宗問道。是指名和色對於產生自己的果，所有輾轉鄰近的功能。這是由相續、轉變、差別而來。（經部宗回答）名和色是什麼？（問道）是指五蘊。（回答）如何執著這個為種子性？問道。能夠作為善等諸法產生的因。回答。是總的，還是別的，還是自種類？（問道。是總的一個身體的五蘊，還是異熟等別的，還是自類為種）。如果說是總的，種子的體性應該是假的。假法作為真實的因，不應該合乎道理（如果合起來把諸色、心總的作為種子，就是假法。假法如無
【English Translation】 English version: Also. This is the view held by two teachers of the Sautrāntika (Sūtra School). One is that rūpa (form) holds the seed, and the other is that citta (mind) holds the seed. Here, it is said together that rūpa and citta hold the seed. Treatise: What is called transformation? The Sarvāstivāda ( সর্বাস্তিবাদ ) asks. Treatise: It refers to the different natures before and after in the continuum. The Sautrāntika answers. This refers to the arising of function on the previous rūpa and citta when the fruit is about to be produced. Treatise: What is called continuum? The Sarvāstivāda inquires. Treatise: It refers to the three times of all dharmas (elements of existence) with the nature of cause and effect. The Sautrāntika answers. Treatise: What is called difference? The Sarvāstivāda inquires. Treatise: It refers to the function of producing fruit without interruption. The Sautrāntika answers. Treatise: However, in some places it is said that one will definitely not be able to cultivate. This is the Sautrāntika explaining the sūtra. The Sautrāntika said above: 'If there is a seed, then there is the function of producing fruit nearby.' It also said: 'All ordinary beings, before the two paths (the path of seeing and the path of cultivation) have arisen, have accomplished afflictions.' The sūtra says that if one has accomplished greed, then one cannot cultivate the four foundations of mindfulness. In this way, the holy dharma cannot arise. Therefore, explaining the sūtra, it says: Those who are attached to the affliction of greed cannot厭離捨棄 (renounce and abandon), so it is called accomplishment. Because of following and being attached to greed, one will definitely not be able to cultivate the four foundations of mindfulness. This says that the state of increasing greed is called accomplishment, not that only those who have seeds cannot cultivate. Treatise: Like this accomplishment, it is also false and not real. The Sautrāntika concludes the meaning of the doctrine. The meaning is as expressed in the text. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya refutes the Sautrāntika's seed, saying: Let's say, what dharma is clung to as a seed? The Sarvāstivāda asks. It refers to the function of all the turning and proximity of nāma (name) and rūpa (form) for producing their own fruit. This comes from continuum, transformation, and difference. (The Sautrāntika answers) What are nāma and rūpa? (Asks) It refers to the five skandhas (aggregates). (Answers) How do you cling to this as seed nature? Asks. It can be the cause of producing good dharmas, etc. Answers. Is it general, or specific, or of its own kind? (Asks. Is it the general five skandhas of one body, or the specific different ripening, etc., or its own kind as a seed). If it is said to be general, the nature of the seed should be false. It is not reasonable for a false dharma to be a real cause (If all the rūpas and cittas are combined as a seed, then it is a false dharma. A false dharma is like nothing
。非種子也)。若言是別。如何可執無記色種為善．不善諸法生因(若身中別取色法為種子者。色是無記。如何與善不善為因)。若自種類善法無間不善法生。或復相違以何為種 已上三義徴破。已下經部異師釋種子也 天愛非汝解種子性。前心俱生思差別故。後心功能差別而起。即後心上功能差別說為種子。由此相續轉變差別當來果生。此中意說。不善心中。有善所引展轉鄰近功能差別。以為種子。從此無間善法得生。或善心中。不善所引展轉鄰近功能差別。以為種子。從此無間不善法生 已上經部異師立種子也。自下正理破也 今汝所執功能差別種子。與彼善．不善心。為有別體。為無別體。此無別體。豈不許善為不善種。及許不善為善種耶。誰有心者。執暖與火無有別體。而復執言唯暖能燒。火不能燒。云何能感那落迦等諸異熟果不善心中。安置能感可愛異熟。善思差別所引功能差別種子。復云何感末奴沙(人也)等諸異熟果。凈善心中。安置能感非愛異熟。惡思差別所引功能差別種子 乃至廣說。具如彼也。
論。毗婆沙師至實而非假。結有部示宗義也。
論。如是二途至我所宗故。評薄兩宗說也。
論。已辨自性差別云何。自下明得．非得差別。
論。且應辨得者。辨差別中先明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：並非種子）。如果說是別異的，又如何能執著無記的色法種子作為善、不善諸法的生因呢？（如果從身中特別選取色法作為種子，色是無記的，如何能作為善與不善的因呢？）如果自種類善法無間地產生不善法，或者相反，又以什麼作為種子呢？以上是三種意義的征破。以下是經部異師解釋種子。 天愛啊，你不是這樣理解種子性的。因為前心俱生的思的差別，後心功能差別而生起。即後心上的功能差別被說為種子。由此相續轉變差別，當來果產生。這裡的意思是說，在不善心中，有善所引發的展轉鄰近的功能差別，作為種子。從此無間，善法得以產生。或者在善心中，有不善所引發的展轉鄰近的功能差別，作為種子。從此無間，不善法產生。以上是經部異師建立種子。 現在你所執著的功能差別種子，與那善、不善心，是有別異的本體，還是沒有別異的本體？如果是沒有別異的本體，豈不是允許善作為不善的種子，以及允許不善作為善的種子嗎？誰有心智，會執著暖與火沒有別異的本體，卻又執著說只有暖能燒，火不能燒呢？如何能感得那落迦（地獄）等諸異熟果呢？在不善心中，安置能感可愛異熟的、善思差別所引發的功能差別種子。又如何感得末奴沙（人）等諸異熟果呢？在清凈善心中，安置能感非可愛異熟的、惡思差別所引發的功能差別種子？乃至廣說，具體如彼所說。 論：毗婆沙師是真實的而非虛假的，總結有部的宗義。 論：像這樣兩條途徑，評論了薄弱的兩宗的說法。 論：已經辨明了自性的差別，那麼得與非得的差別又是什麼呢？下面闡明得與非得的差別。 論：首先應當辨明得，在辨別差別中，先闡明得。
【English Translation】 English version: (Not a seed). If it is said to be different, how can one insist that the indeterminate 'rupa' (form) seed is the cause of the arising of good and bad 'dharmas' (phenomena)? (If one specifically selects 'rupa' (form) from the body as a seed, 'rupa' is indeterminate, how can it be the cause of good and bad?). If good 'dharma' arises immediately after its own kind of good 'dharma', or vice versa, what serves as the seed? The above are three refutations. The following is the explanation of seeds by the Sautrantika (those who uphold the sutras) school. Dear one, you do not understand the nature of seeds in this way. Because of the difference in 'citta' (thought) arising simultaneously with the previous 'citta', the functional difference of the subsequent 'citta' arises. That is, the functional difference on the subsequent 'citta' is said to be the seed. From this continuous transformation and difference, the future fruit arises. The meaning here is that in the bad 'citta', there is the functional difference of gradual proximity induced by the good, serving as the seed. From this, good 'dharma' can arise immediately. Or in the good 'citta', there is the functional difference of gradual proximity induced by the bad, serving as the seed. From this, bad 'dharma' arises immediately. The above is the establishment of seeds by the Sautrantika school. Now, regarding the functional difference seed that you insist on, is it a separate entity from that good or bad 'citta', or is it not a separate entity? If it is not a separate entity, wouldn't it be allowing good to be the seed of bad, and allowing bad to be the seed of good? Who with a mind would insist that warmth and fire are not separate entities, and yet insist that only warmth can burn, and fire cannot burn? How can one experience the 'vipaka' (result) fruits of 'naraka' (hell) and so on? In the bad 'citta', one places the functional difference seed induced by the good 'citta' that can cause the pleasant 'vipaka'. How can one experience the 'vipaka' fruits of 'manusa' (human) and so on? In the pure good 'citta', one places the functional difference seed induced by the bad 'citta' that can cause the unpleasant 'vipaka'? And so on, as described in detail there. Treatise: The Vaibhashika (those who uphold the commentaries) masters are truthful and not false, summarizing the tenets of the Sarvastivada (the doctrine that all exists). Treatise: These two paths comment on the weak views of both schools. Treatise: The difference in self-nature has already been distinguished, so what is the difference between attainment and non-attainment? The following clarifies the difference between attainment and non-attainment. Treatise: First, attainment should be distinguished. In distinguishing differences, first clarify attainment.
得。后明非得。故言且也 自此已下有兩頌半明得差別。此一頌半五門分別。
論曰至各有三得。此明三世門也 言三得者。有其二義。一三世得不據在法前後。雖是法前仍名未來。雖是法后仍名過去。二法前．法后．法俱三得不據世別。雖是過去仍名法后。雖是未來仍名法前 今此中言三世各三者。是據三世分得為三。不據法前後也 過去法有三世得者。如過去世有一善心。橫望今日。已前所有得起。若在法前．法俱．法后皆名過去。即如今日現起剎那名現在得。此現在剎那后所有得名未來得。其過去世法于未來無前得。得無決定隨起說前．后故 若現世法得。即法前名過去。法俱名現在。法后名未來 若未來世法得法前通三得。法后．法俱唯未來 婆沙一百五十八明法前．法俱．法后得不同。此文明三世得 然就法辨得即有四種。謂法前．法俱．法后。非法前．法俱．法后 若能得辨法即有六種。一唯有法俱得。如異熟生等。由力劣故。二唯有法前得。謂如見道三類智邊修世俗智。畢竟不生故。三唯有法俱得．及法后得。如別解脫戒等。無逆得故。四唯有俱得．及法前得。如道類忍等。即此剎那時舍故。五具有法前．法俱．法后三得。如所餘善．不善等。有逆得追成行三世故。六有非法前．法后．法俱得謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 得。后明非得。故言且也。自此已下有兩頌半明得差別。此一頌半五門分別。
論曰至各有三得。此明三世門也。言三得者。有其二義。一三世得不據在法前後。雖是法前仍名未來，雖是法后仍名過去。二法前、法后、法俱三得不據世別。雖是過去仍名法后，雖是未來仍名法前。今此中言三世各三者。是據三世分得為三。不據法前後也。過去法有三世得者。如過去世有一善心。橫望今日。已前所有得起。若在法前、法俱、法后皆名過去。即如今日現起剎那名現在得。此現在剎那后所有得名未來得。其過去世法于未來無前得。得無決定隨起說前、后故。若現世法得。即法前名過去。法俱名現在。法后名未來。若未來世法得法前通三得。法后、法俱唯未來。婆沙（Vibhasa）一百五十八明法前、法俱、法后得不同。此文明三世得。然就法辨得即有四種。謂法前、法俱、法后，非法前、法俱、法后。若能得辨法即有六種。一唯有法俱得。如異熟生等。由力劣故。二唯有法前得。謂如見道三類智邊修世俗智。畢竟不生故。三唯有法俱得、及法后得。如別解脫戒等。無逆得故。四唯有俱得、及法前得。如道類忍等。即此剎那時舍故。五具有法前、法俱、法后三得。如所餘善、不善等。有逆得追成行三世故。六有非法前、法后、法俱得謂
【English Translation】 English version: 'De. Hou ming fei de. Gu yan qie ye. Zi ci yi xia you liang song ban ming de cha bie. Ci yi song ban wu men fen bie.'
'Lun yue zhi ge you san de. Ci ming san shi men ye. Yan san de zhe. You qi er yi. Yi san shi de bu ju zai fa qian hou. Sui shi fa qian reng ming wei lai, sui shi fa hou reng ming guo qu. Er fa qian, fa hou, fa ju san de bu ju shi bie. Sui shi guo qu reng ming fa hou, sui shi wei lai reng ming fa qian. Jin ci zhong yan san shi ge san zhe. Shi ju san shi fen de wei san. Bu ju fa qian hou ye. Guo qu fa you san shi de zhe. Ru guo qu shi you yi shan xin. Heng wang jin ri. Yi qian suo you de qi. Ruo zai fa qian, fa ju, fa hou jie ming guo qu. Ji ru jin ri xian qi cha na ming xian zai de. Ci xian zai cha na hou suo you de ming wei lai de. Qi guo qu shi fa yu wei lai wu qian de. De wu jue ding sui qi shuo qian, hou gu. Ruo xian shi fa de. Ji fa qian ming guo qu. Fa ju ming xian zai. Fa hou ming wei lai. Ruo wei lai shi fa de fa qian tong san de. Fa hou, fa ju wei wei lai. Vibhasa (婆沙, Commentary) yi bai wu shi ba ming fa qian, fa ju, fa hou de bu tong. Ci wen ming san shi de. Ran jiu fa bian de ji you si zhong. Wei fa qian, fa ju, fa hou, fei fa qian, fa ju, fa hou. Ruo neng de bian fa ji you liu zhong. Yi wei you fa ju de. Ru yi shu sheng deng. You li lie gu. Er wei you fa qian de. Wei ru jian dao san lei zhi bian xiu shi su zhi. Bi jing bu sheng gu. San wei you fa ju de, ji fa hou de. Ru bie jie tuo jie deng. Wu ni de gu. Si wei you ju de, ji fa qian de. Ru dao lei ren deng. Ji ci cha na shi she gu. Wu ju you fa qian, fa ju, fa hou san de. Ru suo yu shan, bu shan deng. You ni de zhui cheng xing san shi gu. Liu you fei fa qian, fa hou, fa ju de wei'
得二滅。所得法無三世故 必無有法唯有法后得以可得法至現在時必有得故 如道類忍唯有法前．法俱者。以不定故。若現起者若未來者皆容有二得。不應言各有一得及定有二得。若爾同四行相隨從義過 若定法俱過如後述。
論。又善等法至無記三得。此三性分別也。三性法得與所得法雖定同性。然得起時所由即異。諸有為法由所得法。擇滅由道。非擇滅由命根．眾同分。婆沙一百五十八云。問何故得與所得法。性類或同。或異耶。答得有三種。一有為。二擇滅。三非擇滅得。有為法得隨所得法性類差別。以有為法能有作用引自得故。擇滅得隨能證道性類差別。以諸擇滅自無作用。但由道力求證彼時引彼得故。非擇滅得隨自所依性類差別。以非擇滅自無作用非道所求。彼得但依命根．眾同分而現前故 由此三性之法各自性得得。雖得擇滅不由所得。得非擇滅依眾同分等。道與擇滅同性。同分與非擇滅同性。由此二種雖不由所得。而與所得必定同性。由此三性必同性得。
論。又有系法至得有四種。此係不繫門也。其所得法有其四種。謂三界係爲三。及不繫法為四。其能得得亦有四種。亦如上說 又所得法有其二種。一者有為。謂三界法．及道聖諦。二者無為。謂二種滅。能得之得唯是有為 所得之法又
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 獲得兩種『得』(prāpti，獲得)。因為所獲得的法沒有過去、現在、未來三世的分別。必定沒有隻有法，只有在法之後才能獲得『可得法』，直到現在時必定有獲得。例如道類忍(dharmakṣānti，對法的忍耐)只有在法之前、法同時存在的情況。因為不確定。如果現起者或未來者都可能有兩種『得』。不應說各自有一種『得』，或者一定有兩種『得』。如果這樣，就如同四行相(catuḥ-ākāra，四種行相)隨從的意義一樣有過失。如果確定法同時存在，過失將在後面敘述。
論：又善等法到無記有三種『得』。這是對三性的分別。三性法的『得』與所獲得的法雖然一定同性，然而『得』生起時所依據的卻不同。諸有為法(saṃskṛta-dharma，有為法)由所獲得的法。擇滅(pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，擇滅)由道(mārga，道)。非擇滅(apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，非擇滅)由命根(jīvitendriya，命根)、眾同分(nikāya-sabhāgatā，眾同分)。《婆沙》第一百五十八卷說：問：為什麼『得』與所獲得的法，性質種類或者相同，或者不同呢？答：『得』有三種。一、有為『得』。二、擇滅『得』。三、非擇滅『得』。有為法的『得』隨著所獲得法的性質種類而有差別。因為有為法能夠有作用，引出自『得』的緣故。擇滅的『得』隨著能證之道(mārga，道)的性質種類而有差別。因為諸擇滅自身沒有作用，只是由於道的力量，在求證彼時引彼『得』的緣故。非擇滅的『得』隨著自身所依的性質種類而有差別。因為非擇滅自身沒有作用，不是道所求的，彼『得』只是依靠命根、眾同分而現前的緣故。由此三性之法各自性『得』『得』。雖然『得』擇滅不由所獲得法，『得』非擇滅依靠眾同分等。道與擇滅同性，眾同分與非擇滅同性。由此二種雖然不由所獲得，而與所獲得必定同性。由此三性必定同性『得』。
論：又有系法到『得』有四種。這是有系與不繫之門。其所獲得的法有四種。即三界系(traidhātuka，三界系)為三，以及不繫法為四。其能『得』之『得』也有四種。也如上面所說。又所獲得的法有兩種。一者有為，即三界法、以及道聖諦(mārga-satya，道諦)。二者無為(asaṃskṛta，無為)，即二種滅。能『得』之『得』唯是有為。所『得』之法又
【English Translation】 English version Two 'prāpti' (attainment) are obtained. Because the dharma obtained does not have the three times of past, present, and future. There must be no dharma alone; only after the dharma can the 'attainable dharma' be obtained, and there must be attainment until the present time. For example, dharmakṣānti (patience with the dharma) only exists before and simultaneously with the dharma. Because it is uncertain. If the arising one or the future one, both may have two 'prāpti'. It should not be said that each has one 'prāpti', or that there are definitely two 'prāpti'. If so, it is the same as the fault of following the meaning of the four characteristics (catuḥ-ākāra). If it is determined that the dharmas exist simultaneously, the fault will be described later.
Treatise: Furthermore, good dharmas, etc., up to the unconditioned, have three types of 'prāpti'. This is a distinction of the three natures. Although the 'prāpti' of the three-natured dharmas and the dharmas obtained are certainly of the same nature, the basis upon which the 'prāpti' arises is different. All conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma) are based on the dharmas obtained. Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through discrimination) is based on the path (mārga). Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation without discrimination) is based on the life faculty (jīvitendriya) and the commonality of beings (nikāya-sabhāgatā). The 158th fascicle of the Vibhāṣā says: Question: Why are the nature and type of 'prāpti' and the dharmas obtained either the same or different? Answer: There are three types of 'prāpti'. First, conditioned 'prāpti'. Second, cessation through discrimination 'prāpti'. Third, cessation without discrimination 'prāpti'. The 'prāpti' of conditioned dharmas varies according to the nature and type of the dharmas obtained. Because conditioned dharmas can have an effect, drawing from their own 'prāpti'. The 'prāpti' of cessation through discrimination varies according to the nature and type of the path (mārga) that can realize it. Because all cessations through discrimination do not have an effect themselves, but only through the power of the path, when seeking to realize them, they draw from that 'prāpti'. The 'prāpti' of cessation without discrimination varies according to the nature and type of its own basis. Because cessation without discrimination does not have an effect itself and is not sought by the path, that 'prāpti' only relies on the life faculty and the commonality of beings to manifest. Therefore, the dharmas of these three natures each 'obtain' 'prāpti' of their own nature. Although 'prāpti' of cessation through discrimination is not based on the dharmas obtained, 'prāpti' of cessation without discrimination relies on the commonality of beings, etc. The path is of the same nature as cessation through discrimination, and the commonality of beings is of the same nature as cessation without discrimination. Therefore, although these two types are not based on what is obtained, they are certainly of the same nature as what is obtained. Therefore, these three natures must have 'prāpti' of the same nature.
Treatise: Furthermore, conditioned dharmas up to 'prāpti' have four types. This is the gate of conditioned and unconditioned. There are four types of dharmas obtained. That is, the three realms (traidhātuka) are three, and the unconditioned dharma is four. There are also four types of 'prāpti' that can be 'obtained'. It is also as described above. Furthermore, there are two types of dharmas obtained. First, conditioned, that is, the dharmas of the three realms, and the path truth (mārga-satya). Second, unconditioned (asaṃskṛta), that is, the two types of cessation. The 'prāpti' that can be 'obtained' is only conditioned. The dharma that is 'obtained' is again
有二種。一有漏。謂三界系法。二無漏。謂道聖諦二滅 能得得亦有二種。一有漏。謂三界系。二無漏。謂道聖諦。三界系法是有為故。能得之得。從其所得唯三界系。不繫之法通無為故。非擇滅得從依身繫。其擇滅得從能斷道。道通有漏．及無漏故。若有漏道色無色系。若無漏道從道不繫。非擇滅得以隨身故通三界系。所以有系法得唯有三種。無系法得通四種也。
論。又有學法至得即無學。此明三學門也。學．無學法是有為故。能得之得。從所得法是學．無學得。非學非無學通無為故三種得得。有為有漏．及非擇滅。非學非無學得得。擇滅三種得得。若有學道引得是有學。若無學道引得是無學。若有漏道引得是非學非無學。
論。又見修所斷法至皆非所斷。此明三斷門也。見斷．修斷法是有為故。得從所得法通二斷也。非所斷法即通三種。謂有為無漏．擇滅．非擇滅。有為無漏得從所得法唯非所斷。擇滅得從道故通漏．及無漏。有漏修道斷。無漏得不斷。非擇滅得從眾同分．命根故唯修道斷。余文可解。故不牒釋。
論。前雖總釋至其中差別相。自下有一頌。就法辨得差別。
論曰至得亦現在。此明無覆無記勢力劣故唯引法俱得。即在三世各自世得。
論。一切無覆至不爾云何。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有兩種。一是有漏（指三界所繫縛的法），二是無漏（指道聖諦和滅聖諦）。 能獲得的『得』也有兩種。一是有漏（指三界所繫縛的），二是無漏（指道聖諦）。三界所繫縛的法是有為法，所以能獲得的『得』，從其所獲得的法來說，只有三界所繫縛的。不繫縛的法通於無為法，所以非擇滅的『得』從所依之身而繫縛，其擇滅的『得』從能斷煩惱的道而來。道通於有漏和無漏，如果有漏道是色界和無色界所繫縛，如果無漏道則從道而不繫縛。非擇滅的『得』因為隨身而通於三界所繫縛。所以有繫縛的法的『得』只有三種，無繫縛的法的『得』通於四種。 論：又有學法至得即無學。這是說明三學（戒、定、慧）的分類。學法和無學法是有為法，所以能獲得的『得』，從所獲得的法來說，是學法和無學法的『得』。非學非無學通於無為法，所以有三種『得』的『得』。有為有漏法以及非擇滅，是非學非無學的『得』的『得』。擇滅有三種『得』的『得』。如果有學道所引導的『得』是有學，如果無學道所引導的『得』是無學，如果有漏道所引導的『得』是非學非無學。 論：又見修所斷法至皆非所斷。這是說明三斷（見所斷、修所斷、非所斷）的分類。見所斷法和修所斷法是有為法，『得』從所獲得的法來說，通於兩種斷法。非所斷法就通於三種，即有為無漏法、擇滅和非擇滅。有為無漏法的『得』從所獲得的法來說，只有非所斷。擇滅的『得』從道而來，所以通於有漏和無漏。有漏的修道斷除煩惱，無漏的『得』不斷除煩惱。非擇滅的『得』從眾同分（指眾生的共業）和命根而來，所以只有修道才能斷除。其餘的文字可以理解，所以不再逐一解釋。 論：前面雖然總的解釋了，至其中差別相。下面有一首偈頌，就法來辨別『得』的差別。 論曰至得亦現在。這是說明無覆無記（指不善不惡的心理活動）的勢力弱，所以只能引發法俱『得』。即在三世各自的世間獲得。 論：一切無覆至不爾云何？
【English Translation】 English version There are two kinds. One is 'with outflows' (referring to the laws bound by the Three Realms), and the other is 'without outflows' (referring to the Path Truth and Cessation Truth). The 'attainment' that can be attained is also of two kinds. One is 'with outflows' (referring to what is bound by the Three Realms), and the other is 'without outflows' (referring to the Path Truth). The laws bound by the Three Realms are conditioned, so the 'attainment' that can be attained, in terms of what is attained, is only bound by the Three Realms. The unbound law is common to unconditioned laws, so the 'attainment' of 'non-selective cessation' is bound from the dependent body. The 'attainment' of 'selective cessation' comes from the path that can sever afflictions. The path is common to 'with outflows' and 'without outflows'. If the path 'with outflows' is bound by the Form Realm and Formless Realm, if the path 'without outflows' is from the path and not bound. The 'attainment' of 'non-selective cessation' is common to the Three Realms because it follows the body. Therefore, the 'attainment' of laws 'with outflows' is only of three kinds, and the 'attainment' of laws 'without outflows' is common to four kinds. Treatise: Furthermore, from 'laws of the learner' to 'attainment is the non-learner'. This explains the classification of the Three Learnings (morality, concentration, and wisdom). The laws of the learner and the non-learner are conditioned, so the 'attainment' that can be attained, in terms of the law attained, is the 'attainment' of the laws of the learner and the non-learner. 'Neither learner nor non-learner' is common to unconditioned laws, so there are three kinds of 'attainment' of 'attainment'. Conditioned laws 'with outflows' and 'non-selective cessation' are the 'attainment' of 'attainment' of 'neither learner nor non-learner'. 'Selective cessation' has three kinds of 'attainment' of 'attainment'. If the 'attainment' led by the path of the learner is the learner, if the 'attainment' led by the path of the non-learner is the non-learner, if the 'attainment' led by the path 'with outflows' is 'neither learner nor non-learner'. Treatise: Furthermore, from 'laws to be abandoned by seeing and cultivation' to 'all are not to be abandoned'. This explains the classification of the Three Abandonments (abandonment by seeing, abandonment by cultivation, and non-abandonment). Laws to be abandoned by seeing and laws to be abandoned by cultivation are conditioned, and 'attainment', in terms of the law attained, is common to the two kinds of abandonment. 'Non-abandonment' is common to three kinds, namely conditioned laws 'without outflows', 'selective cessation', and 'non-selective cessation'. The 'attainment' of conditioned laws 'without outflows', in terms of the law attained, is only 'non-abandonment'. The 'attainment' of 'selective cessation' comes from the path, so it is common to 'with outflows' and 'without outflows'. The path of cultivation 'with outflows' abandons afflictions, and the 'attainment' 'without outflows' does not abandon afflictions. The 'attainment' of 'non-selective cessation' comes from 'commonality of beings' (referring to the shared karma of beings) and the 'life force', so only the path of cultivation can abandon it. The remaining text can be understood, so it will not be explained one by one. Treatise: Although the previous explanation was general, to the differences therein. Below is a verse to distinguish the differences in 'attainment' based on the law. Treatise says to 'attainment is also present'. This explains that the power of 'uncovered and unspecified' (referring to mental activities that are neither good nor bad) is weak, so it can only trigger the simultaneous 'attainment' of the law. That is, it is attained in each of the three times in its respective world. Treatise: All uncovered... how could it not be so?
重問差別。
論。除眼耳通至及俱起得。答也。二通．變化二緣故通前．后得。一以勢力勝故。二以加行所引起故。有三世得。
論。若工巧處至得亦許爾。此明威儀．工巧極善數習。亦許有前．后俱得。此說心不說色。有覆無記色當無前．后得。況無覆無記色。婆沙一百二十六云。工巧處者。謂色．聲香．味．觸五處為體。起工巧處者。謂能起彼意法二處為體 準婆沙一百五十七解欲界威儀．工巧四蘊。即云善習者三世得。解色界威儀即無簡別 復云。一切有覆無記無覆無記。及威儀路異熟四蘊彼得。世不雜。隨在彼世即唯有彼世得 準此故知。色界二無記心無前．后得 識身足論云。成就欲界善心．不善心。皆云定成就欲界無覆無記心 準此文定有無覆無記心有三世得。
論。唯有無覆至法前後得。此明有覆無記色也。如文可解。此即初禪．中間靜慮染心所起身．語表。故自余諸地更無此業。欲界唯身．邊二見有覆無記不能發業。上地無發業心。
論。如無記法至及後起得。此明欲界善．不善色無法前得。唯法俱。法后。勢力不能引前得故。此色若在未來未來得。若至現在未來．現在得。若至過去三世得。初無漏心．及加行善最初起者。若在未來未來得。若至現在未來現在得。若至過去
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 重問差別。
論：除了眼耳通至及俱起得（同時生起獲得）。答：是的。二通（兩種神通，指天眼通和天耳通）、變化二緣故通前（過去）、后得（未來）。一以勢力勝故（憑藉強大的力量），二以加行所引起故（通過修行努力而產生）。有三世得（過去、現在、未來三世皆可獲得）。
論：若工巧處至得亦許爾（如果對於工巧處的掌握達到極高的程度，也可以允許有過去和未來的獲得）。此明威儀（行為舉止）、工巧（技藝）極善數習（非常熟練）。亦許有前（過去）、后俱得（未來同時獲得）。此說心不說色（這裡說的是心，不是色）。有覆無記色（有煩惱覆蓋的無記色法）當無前（過去）、后得（未來獲得）。況無覆無記色（更何況沒有煩惱覆蓋的無記色法）。婆沙一百二十六云（《大毗婆沙論》第一百二十六卷說）：工巧處者（工巧處），謂色（顏色）、聲（聲音）香（氣味）、味（味道）、觸五處為體（以色、聲、香、味、觸五種感覺對像為本體）。起工巧處者（生起工巧處），謂能起彼意法二處為體（指能夠生起它們的意和法兩種感覺對像為本體）。準婆沙一百五十七解欲界威儀（根據《大毗婆沙論》第一百五十七卷的解釋，欲界的威儀）、工巧四蘊（工巧四蘊，即受、想、行、識四蘊）。即云善習者三世得（就是說，如果善於修習，三世都可以獲得）。解威儀即無簡別（解釋的威儀就沒有區別了）。復云（又說）：一切有覆無記（一切有煩惱覆蓋的無記）、無覆無記（沒有煩惱覆蓋的無記），及威儀路異熟四蘊彼得（以及威儀路和異熟四蘊的獲得）。世不雜（三世不混雜），隨在彼世即唯有彼世得（在哪一世，就只有那一世的獲得）。準此故知（根據這些可知），**二無記心無前（過去）、后得（未來獲得）。識身足論云（《識身足論》說）：成就欲界善心（成就欲界的善心）、不善心（不善心），皆云定成就欲界無覆無記心（都說一定成就欲界的無覆無記心）。準此文定有無覆無記心有三世得（根據這段文字，一定有無覆無記心有三世的獲得）。
論：唯有無覆至法前後得（只有無覆無記的法才能有過去和未來的獲得）。此明有覆無記色也（這裡說的是有煩惱覆蓋的無記色法）。如文可解（如同文字所表達的那樣可以理解）。此即初禪（初禪）、中間靜慮（中間靜慮）染心所起身（被染污的心所產生的身業）、語表（語表業）。故自余諸地更無此業（所以從其他的禪定境界來說，沒有這樣的業）。欲界唯身（欲界只有身見）、邊二見有覆無記不能發業（邊見兩種有煩惱覆蓋的無記不能引發業）。上地無發業心（更高的禪定境界沒有引發業的心）。
論：如無記法至及後起得（如同無記法一樣，以及後來生起的獲得）。此明欲界善（善）、不善色無法前得（不善的色法無法在過去獲得）。唯法俱（只有法俱時獲得）。法后（法之後獲得）。勢力不能引前得故（因為力量不足以引導在過去獲得）。此色若在未來未來得（這種色法如果在未來，就在未來獲得）。若至現在未來（未來）、現在得（現在獲得）。若至過去三世得（如果到了過去，三世都可以獲得）。初無漏心（最初的無漏心）、及加行善最初起者（以及通過修行努力而產生的最初的善），若在未來未來得（如果在未來，就在未來獲得）。若至現在未來（未來）現在得（現在獲得）。若至過去（如果到了過去）
【English Translation】 English version Re-questioning the Differences.
Treatise: Except for the attainment of the eye and ear faculties, up to and including simultaneous arising. Answer: Yes. The two faculties (referring to the divine eye and divine ear) and the two conditions of transformation allow for attainment in the past and future. One is due to superior power, and the other is due to the effort of practice. There is attainment in the three times (past, present, and future).
Treatise: If skill in craftsmanship reaches a certain level, it is also permissible to have attainment in the past and future. This clarifies that demeanor (behavior) and craftsmanship (skill) are extremely well-practiced. It is also permissible to have simultaneous attainment in the past and future. This refers to the mind, not form. Defiled indeterminate form should not have attainment in the past or future. How much less so for undefiled indeterminate form. The Mahavibhasa (Great Commentary) states in volume 126: 'Craftsmanship' refers to the five sense objects of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch as its substance. 'Arising of craftsmanship' refers to the mind and dharma objects that can give rise to them as its substance. According to the Mahavibhasa, volume 157, the demeanor and craftsmanship of the desire realm are the four aggregates (skandha) of feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. It states that those who are skilled in practice can attain in the three times. The explanation of demeanor does not differentiate. It further states that all defiled indeterminate, undefiled indeterminate, demeanor, and the four aggregates of resultant karma are attained in their respective times, without mixing. Whatever time they are in, they are only attained in that time. According to this, it is known that the two indeterminate minds do not have attainment in the past or future. The Vijnanakaya Shastra (Treatise on the Body of Consciousness) states that the attainment of wholesome and unwholesome minds in the desire realm is always accompanied by the attainment of undefiled indeterminate minds in the desire realm. According to this text, there must be undefiled indeterminate minds that have attainment in the three times.
Treatise: Only undefiled has attainment before and after the Dharma. This clarifies defiled indeterminate form. The meaning is clear from the text. This refers to the bodily and verbal expressions arising from defiled mental states in the first dhyana (meditative absorption) and intermediate dhyana. Therefore, there is no such karma in other realms. In the desire realm, only the views of self and extremes, which are defiled and indeterminate, cannot generate karma. Higher realms do not have minds that generate karma.
Treatise: Like indeterminate dharmas, up to and including subsequent arising. This clarifies that wholesome and unwholesome form in the desire realm cannot be attained in the past. Only simultaneous with the Dharma, or after the Dharma. Because the power is not sufficient to lead to attainment in the past. If this form is in the future, it is attained in the future. If it reaches the present, it is attained in the future and present. If it reaches the past, it is attained in the three times. The initial undefiled mind and the initial arising of wholesome effort are attained in the future if they are in the future. If they reach the present, they are attained in the future and present. If they reach the past
有三世得。余法不同思之可解。
論。非得如得至不爾云何。自下有一頌半明非得差別。
論曰至無記性攝。第一三性門也。故婆沙一百五十八云。問非得隨何性類差別。答彼定不隨所不得法。以相違故。又不隨道。非道所求但依命根．眾同分轉故。隨所依性類差別。問若諸非得．非擇滅得。俱隨所依性類別者。所依或異熟。或唯等流。此二隨何性類差別。答隨等流性以義遍故。異熟非遍故不隨立。問非得若隨所不得法性類差別有何過耶。答斷善根者應成就善。已離欲染者應成就不善。諸無學者應成就染。異生應成三乘無漏法。退果應成果。舍嚮應成向。二滅非得應是無為。由此等過非得不可隨所不得。
論。世差別者至三世非得。第二三世門也。過去．未來各有三世與前得同。現在唯二無法俱非得。有情之法住現在時必成就故。若現在法法前為過去。法后為未來。若過去法前唯過去。法后通三世。若未來法后唯未來。法前通三世。故婆沙一百五十八解非得云。一切非得總有三種。一在彼法前。二在彼法后。三非彼法前．法后．及俱。所不得法亦有三種。一唯有法前非得。謂未來情數等畢竟不生法。及入無餘涅槃最後剎那心等。二有法通有法前．法后非得。謂余隨所應有情數法。三有法無彼前後俱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有三種情況可以獲得『非得』（Aprāpti，未獲得）。其餘的法則不同，不能通過思考來理解。
論：如果不是獲得如同獲得一樣，那又該如何解釋呢？下面有一頌半的文字闡明『非得』的差別。
論曰：乃至無記性所攝。這是第一三性門。所以《婆沙論》第一百五十八卷說：『問：『非得』隨著什麼性質類別而不同？』答：『它一定不隨著所未獲得的法。因為它們是相反的。也不隨著道，因為道所尋求的只是依靠命根和眾同分而運轉。所以隨著所依的性質類別而不同。』問：『如果諸『非得』和『非擇滅得』都隨著所依的性質類別而不同，那麼所依或者是異熟，或者只是等流，這二者隨著什麼性質類別而不同？』答：『隨著等流性，因為它的意義普遍。異熟不普遍，所以不隨順它而建立。』問：『如果『非得』隨著所未獲得的法的性質類別而不同，會有什麼過失呢？』答：『斷了善根的人應該成就善法，已經離開了欲染的人應該成就不善法，諸無學者應該成就染污法，異生應該成就三乘的無漏法，退果的人應該成果，舍向的人應該成向。二滅『非得』應該是無為法。』由於這些過失，『非得』不可以隨著所未獲得的法。
論：世差別者，乃至三世『非得』。這是第二三世門。過去和未來各有三世，與前面的『得』相同。現在只有二世，沒有法是同時『非得』的。有情之法住在現在時，必定成就的緣故。如果現在的法，法的前面是過去，法的後面是未來。如果過去的法，法的前面只有過去，法的後面通於三世。如果未來的法，法的後面只有未來，法的前面通於三世。所以《婆沙論》第一百五十八卷解釋『非得』說：『一切『非得』總共有三種：一，在那法之前；二，在那法之後；三，不是在那法之前、法之後，也不是同時。』所未獲得的法也有三種：一，只有法之前的『非得』，指未來有情數等畢竟不生的法，以及進入無餘涅槃（nirvāṇa）的最後剎那心等。二，有法通於法之前、法之後的『非得』，指其餘隨所應有的有情數法。三，有法沒有前後俱時的『非得』。
【English Translation】 English version There are three ways to obtain Aprāpti (non-attainment). The remaining principles are different and cannot be understood through thinking.
Treatise: If it were not that obtaining is like obtaining, how could it be explained? Below is one and a half verses clarifying the differences in Aprāpti.
Treatise says: Up to being included in the indeterminate nature. This is the first of the three natures. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 158, says: 'Question: What kind of differences does Aprāpti follow in terms of nature? Answer: It certainly does not follow the dharma that is not attained, because they are contradictory. Nor does it follow the path, because what the path seeks only operates based on the life faculty and the commonality of beings. Therefore, it differs according to the nature of what it relies on.' Question: 'If all Aprāpti and non-cessation attainment differ according to the nature of what they rely on, and what they rely on is either Vipāka (resultant) or only Niṣyanda (outflow), what kind of differences do these two follow in terms of nature?' Answer: 'It follows the Niṣyanda nature, because its meaning is universal. Vipāka is not universal, so it is not established as following it.' Question: 'If Aprāpti differs according to the nature of the dharma that is not attained, what faults would there be?' Answer: 'Those who have severed their roots of good should attain good dharmas, those who have left behind the defilements of desire should attain unwholesome dharmas, those who are without learning should attain defiled dharmas, ordinary beings should attain the unconditioned dharmas of the three vehicles, those who have regressed from the fruit should attain the fruit, and those who have abandoned the path should attain the path. The Aprāpti of the two cessations should be unconditioned.' Because of these faults, Aprāpti cannot follow what is not attained.
Treatise: The difference in time, up to the three times of Aprāpti. This is the second of the three times. The past and future each have three times, the same as the previous 'attainment'. The present only has two times; there is no dharma that is simultaneously 'not attained'. This is because the dharma of sentient beings, residing in the present time, must be attained. If it is a present dharma, the past is before the dharma, and the future is after the dharma. If it is a past dharma, only the past is before the dharma, and all three times are after the dharma. If it is a future dharma, only the future is after the dharma, and all three times are before the dharma. Therefore, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 158, explains Aprāpti as follows: 'All Aprāpti can be summarized into three types: first, before that dharma; second, after that dharma; third, neither before nor after that dharma, nor simultaneous with it.' The dharma that is not attained also has three types: first, Aprāpti only before the dharma, referring to dharmas that will definitely not arise in the future, such as the number of sentient beings, and the final moment of mind when entering Nirvāṇa without remainder. Second, Aprāpti that is common to before and after the dharma, referring to the number of sentient beings and dharmas that exist as appropriate. Third, dharmas that have no Aprāpti before, after, or simultaneously.
非得而有非得。謂擇滅．非擇滅。必無非得可與法俱。以法現在前時。是所得法必有得故。非所得法無非得故。亦無唯有彼法后非得非無始來恒成就彼未舍必起彼類盡故。然諸非得性羸劣故唯成現在。一一剎那得已即舍。于未得彼法及已舍位。恒有此非得應知 今詳有部畢竟無涅槃法。以時遠故名為畢竟。若不爾即合有一類法唯有得無非得。謂無涅槃法非想地惑。有一類法唯有非得而無有得。謂無涅槃法三乘聖人道。即違有得必有非得相翻而立若謂無涅槃法三乘聖道亦無非得。即應此人非是異生。無異生性故。又世親菩薩佛性論釋有部無涅槃法。就位建立。非法爾定言一闡提犯重禁等無涅槃法。故聲聞地中說法爾者寄客說本。如唯識論釋攝論云聞熏習為無漏因寄客說本 又婆沙論簡唯法前非得云。謂未來情數畢竟不生法。及入無餘涅槃最後剎那心等 言未來者。簡過．現也。言情數者。簡非情也。言畢竟不生者。簡暫不生法也。如眼識等闕緣不生。皆亦得名畢竟不生。得非擇滅故。此論云。畢竟礙當生別得非擇滅。即此不生眼亦是未來情數畢竟不生。如何此文即表定是唯見道邊俗智。若言此唯世俗智者。即是婆沙闕字。若通取余不生諸法。雖無所闕即與非想過去見惑義同 今解婆沙應改竟字為其定字。定者即是始．末
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『非得而有非得』，指的是『擇滅』（Vimoksha，通過智慧選擇而達到的解脫）和『非擇滅』（Apratisamkhya-nirodha，不通過智慧選擇而自然達到的滅盡）。一定不存在沒有『非得』而只有『得』的情況，因為當法現在前時，是已經獲得的法，必然有『得』；而未獲得的法，就沒有『非得』。也不存在只有彼法在後來才『非得』，而不是從無始以來就恒常成就，彼法未曾捨棄，必然生起同類，直至窮盡的情況。然而，諸『非得』的性質羸弱，所以只能成就於現在。每一個剎那獲得后立即捨棄。對於未獲得彼法以及已經捨棄的階段，恒常存在此『非得』，應當知曉。 現在詳細考察有部的觀點，他們認為畢竟沒有『涅槃法』（Nirvana-dharma，達到涅槃狀態的法）。因為時間久遠，所以稱為『畢竟』。如果不是這樣，就應該存在一類法只有『得』而沒有『非得』，即沒有『涅槃法』的『非想非非想處』（Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana，既非有想也非無想處）的煩惱。也有一類法只有『非得』而沒有『得』，即沒有『涅槃法』的聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘聖人的道。這就違背了『有得』必然『有非得』，兩者相互對立的原則。如果認為沒有『涅槃法』的三乘聖道也沒有『非得』，那麼這個人就應該不是異生（Prthagjana，凡夫），因為沒有異生的性質。而且，世親（Vasubandhu）菩薩在《佛性論》的解釋中認為有部沒有『涅槃法』，是就位（狀態）而建立的，並非法爾（Dharmata，事物本性）如此。斷定說一闡提（Icchantika，斷善根者）、犯重禁等沒有『涅槃法』。所以在《聲聞地》中說法爾者，是寄託于客說本。如同《唯識論》解釋《攝論》所說，聞熏習作為無漏因，是寄託于客說本。 此外，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，阿毗達摩論書）簡別『唯法前非得』時說：指的是未來情數（有情眾生的數量）畢竟不生的法，以及進入無餘涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃）最後剎那的心等。說『未來』，是爲了簡別過去和現在。說『情數』，是爲了簡別非情（無情之物）。說『畢竟不生』，是爲了簡別暫時不生的法。如眼識等缺少因緣而不生，都可以稱為『畢竟不生』，因為獲得了『非擇滅』。此論說：『畢竟障礙當生，別得非擇滅』。即此不生的眼識也是未來情數畢竟不生。為何此文就一定表示只是見道（Darshana-marga，見道位）邊的世俗智（Samvriti-jnana，世俗諦的智慧）？如果說這只是世俗智，那麼就是《婆沙論》缺少了字。如果通取其餘不生的諸法，即使沒有什麼缺少，也與『非想非非想處』過去見惑的意義相同。 現在解釋《婆沙論》，應該把『竟』字改為『定』字。『定』的意思就是始末（始終）。
【English Translation】 English version 'Non-attainment through attainment' refers to 'Vimoksha' (deliverance through choice, i.e., selective cessation) and 'Apratisamkhya-nirodha' (cessation without choice, i.e., non-selective cessation). There can never be a case where there is only 'attainment' without 'non-attainment', because when a dharma is present, it is a dharma that has been attained, and there must be 'attainment'; while a dharma that has not been attained has no 'non-attainment'. Nor is there a case where only that dharma is 'non-attained' later, and not constantly accomplished from beginningless time, that dharma has never been abandoned, and it will necessarily arise in the same category until it is exhausted. However, the nature of all 'non-attainments' is weak, so they can only be accomplished in the present. Each moment it is attained, it is immediately abandoned. For the stage where that dharma has not been attained and the stage where it has been abandoned, this 'non-attainment' is always present, it should be known. Now, examining the Sarvastivada (a school of early Buddhism) view in detail, they believe that there is ultimately no 'Nirvana-dharma' (the dharma of attaining Nirvana). Because the time is long, it is called 'ultimate'. If this were not the case, there should be a category of dharmas that only have 'attainment' and no 'non-attainment', i.e., the afflictions of 'Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana' (the realm of neither perception nor non-perception) that have no 'Nirvana-dharma'. There is also a category of dharmas that only have 'non-attainment' and no 'attainment', i.e., the path of the Sravakas (hearers), Pratyekabuddhas (solitary realizers), and Bodhisattvas (enlightenment beings) who have no 'Nirvana-dharma'. This violates the principle that 'having attainment' necessarily 'has non-attainment', and the two are opposed to each other. If it is thought that the Three Vehicle (Triyana) holy path without 'Nirvana-dharma' also has no 'non-attainment', then this person should not be a Prthagjana (ordinary being), because they have no the nature of ordinary being. Moreover, Vasubandhu Bodhisattva, in his commentary on the 'Ratnagotravibhaga' (Treatise on Buddha-nature), believes that the Sarvastivadins have no 'Nirvana-dharma', which is established based on the state (condition), and not Dharmata (the nature of things). It is determined that Icchantikas (those who have severed their roots of goodness), those who violate heavy precepts, etc., have no 'Nirvana-dharma'. Therefore, those who speak of Dharmata in the 'Sravakabhumi' (the stage of hearers) are relying on the guest to speak of the host. Just as the 'Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi' (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-only) explains the 'Mahayana-samgraha' (Compendium of the Mahayana) as saying that the hearing-habit is the cause of the unconditioned, relying on the guest to speak of the host. In addition, the 'Vibhasa' (an Abhidharma treatise) distinguishes 'non-attainment before dharma only' by saying: it refers to the dharmas of future sentient beings that will ultimately not arise, and the mind, etc., of the last moment of entering Parinirvana (complete Nirvana). Saying 'future' is to distinguish the past and present. Saying 'sentient beings' is to distinguish non-sentient beings. Saying 'ultimately not arising' is to distinguish dharmas that temporarily do not arise. For example, eye consciousness, etc., lacking conditions and not arising, can all be called 'ultimately not arising', because they have attained 'Apratisamkhya-nirodha'. This treatise says: 'Ultimately obstructing what is about to arise, separately attaining Apratisamkhya-nirodha'. That is, this unarisen eye consciousness is also a future sentient being that will ultimately not arise. Why does this text necessarily indicate that it is only the mundane wisdom (Samvriti-jnana) on the side of the path of seeing (Darshana-marga)? If it is said that this is only mundane wisdom, then the 'Vibhasa' is missing a word. If all other unarisen dharmas are taken together, even if nothing is missing, it has the same meaning as the past afflictions of seeing in the 'Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana'. Now explaining the 'Vibhasa', the word 'jing' (竟, ultimately) should be changed to the word 'ding' (定, fixed). 'Ding' means beginning and end (from beginning to end).
不生。此即無過。以餘五識等法不是始．末不生法。見道俗智始．末不生名唯法前若得非擇已去即俱名畢竟也。此字應是抄寫者錯耳。又準俱有因。有對造色非俱有因。而名必定俱起。得即或前．或后不說定俱。若總說者。何不言法俱得雖定俱生而非因也。前．后．俱得若言決定。如何論言或前．或后。亦不可言總同類說。於此類中有定俱者應須簡故。故知言有法前．后．俱皆是不定。據容有說。非得準此 又婆沙釋無唯法后非得云。非無始來恒成就彼未舍。必起彼類盡故。準此文意。所不得法約法種類說有非得。有頂見惑種類眾多。已入過去。雖復但有法后非得。在未來者即有法前非得。然此文是被難之後重改婆沙。然此不順得中六句。應云。以不定故容有二種非得。以非想地過去見道煩惱。於過去世中煩惱未起之前皆容入聖。若未起煩惱即斷見惑。即此煩惱即有法前非得。由此說過去煩惱不得名為唯法后非得。若作此釋。即順得中六句。即同自余通二非得。由不得此意。被將過去見惑唯法后難應成四句通難不得。遂改婆沙以為四句。見今長安多本流行。猶作四句。於後數年重改論文云唯有三句。遂加文遮難云非無始等。一十六字通此妨難。由未得婆沙意故由未盡理。
論。界差別者至是無漏者。第三界系門
也。非得隨身繫故。故三界法各各皆有三界非得。身在地獄欲界非得。非得三界。色．無色界義亦準此。欲界系法有三界非得。色．無色界義亦準此。非得隨身不隨法故。所以非得不通無漏。無漏非得亦通三界。三界異生皆不成故。
論。所以者何。自此已下明異生性。婆沙四十五云。犢子部執。異生性是欲界見苦斷十隨眠 瑜伽五十二云。複次云何異生性。謂三界見所斷法種子唯未永害量名異生性 今詳。唯未永害言即是世第一法已前。非是無間道已后。即是害見所斷惑故。既言唯未永害量。即是不取一分害量名異生性。唯言所遮故。今時人釋云二障種子上建立異生性。聲聞之人斷煩惱障名非異生。有所知障故名為異生。若爾二障通其見．修。唯佛能盡二障種子。即合唯佛一人名為聖人。自余皆是亦凡亦聖。以障種有斷不斷故。譬喻者說其異生性無有實體。
論。由許聖道至是無漏應理引文證也。異生既非聖人。非無漏性。應道理也。
論。不獲何聖法名異生性。問也。
論。謂不獲一切至應名異生。答也。謂總不獲一切聖法也。此不獲言表離於獲故。若隨獲少多。即應言有簡別。既無簡別。但言不獲。故知此言表離於獲。此若不表離於獲者。此即諸佛亦不成就二乘聖法應名異生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 也。並非一定要隨身攜帶的緣故。所以三界（指欲界、色界、無色界）的法各有各的三界『非得』（指未獲得的狀態）。身處地獄欲界，『非得』三界。色界、無色界的意義也依此類推。欲界繫縛的法有三界的『非得』，色界、無色界的意義也依此類推。因為『非得』是隨身而非隨法的緣故。所以『非得』不通於無漏（指超越三界的清凈狀態）。無漏的『非得』也通於三界。因為三界的異生（指凡夫）都不能成就無漏法。
論：為什麼這樣說呢？從這裡開始說明異生性（指凡夫的性質）。《婆沙論》第四十五卷說：犢子部（佛教部派之一）認為，異生性是欲界見苦所斷的十隨眠（指煩惱）。《瑜伽師地論》第五十二卷說：再者，什麼是異生性？是指三界見所斷法的種子，僅僅是未被永遠斷除的程度，稱為異生性。現在詳細分析，『唯未永害』的意思是指在世第一法（指修行過程中的一個階段）之前，而不是在無間道（指斷除煩惱的智慧）之後。因為已經斷除了見所斷的迷惑。既然說是『唯未永害量』，就是不取一部分斷除的程度，稱為異生性。『唯』字是用來遮止的緣故。現在的人解釋說，在二障（指煩惱障和所知障）的種子上建立異生性。聲聞（指小乘修行者）斷除了煩惱障，稱為非異生。因為有所知障的緣故，稱為異生。如果這樣，二障貫通見道和修道。只有佛才能完全斷除二障的種子。那麼就只有佛一個人可以稱為聖人。其餘的人都是亦凡亦聖。因為二障的種子有斷除和未斷除的緣故。譬喻者說，異生性沒有實體。
論：因為承認聖道到達無漏的境界，所以應該引用經文來證明。異生既然不是聖人，就不是無漏的性質，這是應有的道理。
論：不獲得什麼聖法，才稱為異生性呢？這是提問。
論：所謂不獲得一切聖法，才應該稱為異生。這是回答。所謂總是不獲得一切聖法。這個『不獲得』表示遠離獲得的狀態。如果隨所獲得的多少，就應該說有簡別。既然沒有簡別，只說不獲得。所以知道這句話表示遠離獲得。如果這句話不表示遠離獲得，那麼諸佛也不成就二乘（指聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的聖法，就應該稱為異生。
【English Translation】 English version Also, it is not necessarily something that must be carried with one. Therefore, the dharmas of the Three Realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm) each have their own 'non-attainment' (the state of not having attained). Being in the lower desire realm, one 'non-attains' the Three Realms. The meaning for the form and formless realms is similar. Dharmas bound to the desire realm have the 'non-attainment' of the Three Realms; the meaning for the form and formless realms is similar. Because 'non-attainment' follows the person and not the dharma, therefore 'non-attainment' does not extend to the unconditioned (transcending the Three Realms). Unconditioned 'non-attainment' also extends to the Three Realms, because beings in the Three Realms cannot achieve the unconditioned.
Treatise: Why is this so? From here onwards, the nature of ordinary beings is explained. The Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa Sastra) Volume 45 states: The Vatsiputriya school (a Buddhist school) holds that the nature of ordinary beings is the ten latent defilements severed by seeing suffering in the desire realm. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra Volume 52 states: Furthermore, what is the nature of ordinary beings? It refers to the seeds of dharmas to be severed by seeing in the Three Realms, merely the extent to which they have not been permanently eliminated is called the nature of ordinary beings. Now, upon detailed analysis, 'merely not permanently eliminated' means before the Worldly First Dharma (a stage in practice), and not after the Path of Immediate Effect (wisdom that cuts off defilements), because the delusions to be severed by seeing have already been cut off. Since it is said 'merely the extent of not being permanently eliminated', it means not taking a portion of the extent of elimination as the nature of ordinary beings. The word 'merely' is used to exclude. Present-day people explain that the nature of ordinary beings is established on the seeds of the two hindrances (afflictive hindrance and cognitive hindrance). A sravaka (a Hinayana practitioner) who has severed the afflictive hindrance is called a non-ordinary being. Because of the cognitive hindrance, they are called ordinary beings. If so, the two hindrances pervade the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. Only the Buddha can completely eliminate the seeds of the two hindrances. Then only the Buddha alone can be called a sage. The rest are both ordinary and sage, because the seeds of the two hindrances are both eliminated and not eliminated. Those who use analogies say that the nature of ordinary beings has no substance.
Treatise: Because it is acknowledged that the holy path reaches the unconditioned, one should cite scriptures to prove it. Since ordinary beings are not sages, they are not of the unconditioned nature; this is the proper reasoning.
Treatise: What holy dharma must one not attain to be called the nature of ordinary beings? This is a question.
Treatise: So-called not attaining all holy dharmas should be called ordinary beings. This is the answer. So-called generally not attaining all holy dharmas. This 'not attaining' expresses being apart from attainment. If it were according to the amount attained, one should say there is distinction. Since there is no distinction, only 'not attaining' is said. Therefore, it is known that this statement expresses being apart from attainment. If this statement does not express being apart from attainment, then even the Buddhas would not have accomplished the holy dharmas of the Two Vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle) and should be called ordinary beings.
論。若爾彼論應說純言。問也。彼本論中。應言純不獲聖法名異生性。隨獲一．二即非純也。
論。不要須說至食水食風。答也。立一句言不獲聖法。即是純義。隨獲少多是雜。非純不名不獲如說蟬食于風。蚊食於水。即顯蟬唯食風。蚊唯食水。不要須言純食風．水 有人云。如魚食水。如龜食風。以釋純義。不得意也。魚不純食水。龜不純食風故。
論。有說不獲至彼非得故。敘異說也。謂不得三乘苦法智忍．及俱生法名異生性。文外伏難。難云若爾至道類智舍前向故。舍苦忍等爾時亦名不得苦忍應名異生。由遮此難故。言前已永害彼非得故。謂前不獲一切苦忍名異生性。此之非得已被永害。入於過去至道類智時更起非得。非是未曾得苦法忍故非異生。
論。若爾此性至唐捐其功。難也。既若同前何須重說唐捐其功。
論。如經師所說為善。論主意信經部故云所說為善。
論。經部所說其義云何。問經部宗。
論。謂曾未生至名異生性。答經部義。
論。如是非得何時當舍。自此已下第四明舍時。此即問也。
論。此法非得至類此應思答舍時也。舍有二種。一有雖不易地得此法時舍此非得。二有雖非新得此法由易地故。舍此地非得。得彼地非得。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如果那樣說，那個論點應該只說『純』這個詞。問：為什麼呢？因為在那個根本論中，應該說『純』，即沒有獲得聖法（Arya-dharma）的，才叫做異生性（prthag-janatva）。如果稍微獲得了一點點，就不是『純』了。 論：不需要說到『食水』、『食風』。答：建立一句『沒有獲得聖法』，就是『純』的意義。稍微獲得一點點就是『雜』，不是『純』就不能叫做『沒有獲得』。就像說蟬吃風，蚊子吃水，就顯示了蟬只吃風，蚊子只吃水，不需要說『純吃風』、『純吃水』。有人說，像魚吃水，像龜吃風，來解釋『純』的意義，是不恰當的。因為魚不是純粹吃水，龜也不是純粹吃風。 論：有人說，『沒有獲得』，是因為『他們沒有得到』。這是敘述不同的說法。意思是說，沒有得到三乘（Triyana）的苦法智忍（duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti）以及俱生法（sahaja-dharma），才叫做異生性。文外隱藏著一個難題。難題是：如果這樣，到達道類智（marga-anvaya-jnana）時，捨棄了之前的，捨棄了苦忍（duhkha-ksanti）等等，那時也叫做『沒有得到苦忍』，應該叫做異生。爲了遮止這個難題，所以說『之前已經永遠損害了，他們沒有得到』。意思是說，之前沒有獲得一切苦忍，才叫做異生性。這種『沒有得到』已經被永遠損害了，到達道類智時，重新產生『沒有得到』，但這不是未曾得到苦法忍，所以不是異生。 論：如果這樣，這種性質和之前一樣，為什麼需要重複說，白白浪費功夫呢？這是一個難題：既然和之前一樣，為什麼需要重複說明，豈不是白費力氣？ 論：如經師（Sutrantika）所說，是好的。論主（abhidharmika）認為經部（Sutrantika）的說法是好的，所以說『所說為善』。 論：經部所說的意義是什麼呢？這是詢問經部的宗義。 論：意思是說，曾經沒有生起，才叫做異生性。這是回答經部的意義。 論：像這樣，『沒有得到』什麼時候應當捨棄呢？從這裡開始，第四部分說明捨棄的時間。這是一個提問。 論：這種法的『沒有得到』，到達類智（anvaya-jnana）時就捨棄了，應該這樣思考捨棄的時間。捨棄有兩種：一種是雖然沒有改變地方，得到這種法的時候，就捨棄了這種『沒有得到』。另一種是雖然不是新得到的這種法，由於改變了地方，捨棄了這個地方的『沒有得到』，得到那個地方的『沒有得到』。 論：
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: If that's the case, that argument should only use the word 'pure'. Question: Why? Because in that fundamental treatise, it should be said that only someone who has not attained the Arya-dharma (holy dharma) is called a prthag-janatva (worldling state). If one has attained even a little bit, it is not 'pure'. Treatise: There is no need to mention 'eating water' or 'eating wind'. Answer: Establishing the phrase 'has not attained the holy dharma' is the meaning of 'pure'. Attaining even a little is 'mixed'; not being 'pure' cannot be called 'not attaining'. Just as it is said that cicadas eat wind and mosquitoes eat water, it shows that cicadas only eat wind and mosquitoes only eat water. There is no need to say 'purely eat wind' or 'purely eat water'. Some say that like fish eat water and turtles eat wind, to explain the meaning of 'pure', but this is not appropriate because fish do not purely eat water, and turtles do not purely eat wind. Treatise: Some say that 'not attaining' is because 'they have not obtained'. This is narrating a different view. It means that not obtaining the duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti (patience with the knowledge of suffering dharma) of the Triyana (Three Vehicles) and sahaja-dharma (innate dharma) is called prthag-janatva. There is a hidden difficulty outside the text. The difficulty is: If so, when reaching marga-anvaya-jnana (knowledge of conformity to the path), abandoning the previous, abandoning duhkha-ksanti (patience with suffering) etc., at that time it is also called 'not obtaining duhkha-ksanti', and should be called a worldling. To prevent this difficulty, it is said that 'previously it has been permanently damaged, they have not obtained'. It means that previously not obtaining all duhkha-ksanti is called prthag-janatva. This 'not obtaining' has been permanently damaged. When reaching marga-anvaya-jnana, 'not obtaining' arises again, but this is not because one has never obtained duhkha-dharma-jnana-ksanti, so it is not a worldling. Treatise: If so, this nature is the same as before, why is it necessary to repeat it, wasting effort in vain? This is a difficulty: Since it is the same as before, why is it necessary to repeat the explanation, wouldn't it be a waste of effort? Treatise: As the Sutrantika (one who relies on the sutras) says, it is good. The abhidharmika (one who relies on the abhidharma) believes that the Sutrantika's statement is good, so he says 'what is said is good'. Treatise: What is the meaning of what the Sutrantika says? This is asking about the Sutrantika's doctrine. Treatise: It means that what has never arisen is called prthag-janatva. This is answering the meaning of the Sutrantika. Treatise: Like this, when should 'not obtaining' be abandoned? From here onwards, the fourth part explains the time of abandonment. This is a question. Treatise: This 'not obtaining' of dharma is abandoned when reaching anvaya-jnana (knowledge of conformity), one should think about the time of abandonment in this way. There are two types of abandonment: one is that although the place has not changed, when obtaining this dharma, this 'not obtaining' is abandoned. The other is that although this dharma is not newly obtained, due to changing the place, the 'not obtaining' of this place is abandoned, and the 'not obtaining' of that place is obtained. Treatise:
若非得得斷至舍于非得。釋舍非得相也。即非得上得斷名舍非得。
論。得與非得至得與非得。問也。
論。應言此二至得及非得。答也。
論若爾至有無窮過。難也。
論。無無窮過至無無窮過。此廣答也。雖雙問得與非得。然二不同。得有大得小得同時相得。非得不爾。以于現在無非得故。故知非得不如其得有小非得。就其別義亦有大小非得不同。謂翻大得名大非得。即非得大得所得之法本法及大小相故。翻于小得名小非得。此唯非得大得及四相。故婆沙一百五十八云。如是說者。法與生等同一得得。相與所相極親近故。由此善通色蘊．行蘊一得得等 已上論文 得與非得相翻而立。不可不同。雖無大小非得更互非得。以得非無窮故非得亦非無窮。故答無窮唯釋于得。即顯非得無無窮也。翻得立故。
論。如是若善至有無邊得。釋增數也。如第一剎那善心起時 唯說善心不說相應。即此剎那本法為一。大得為二。小得為三。第二剎那有六法起。不說第二剎那所起善心。但說前剎那法后得有六法起。謂前本法大得小得。即此三法法后之得大小各三故有六得。第三剎那即此六法。謂三大得。及三小得。及初剎那法大小得。此之九法法后得起有九大得。有九小得。合成十八。如是後後漸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果不是獲得（de）的斷滅以至於捨棄了非獲得（feide），這就是解釋捨棄非獲得之相。也就是說，不是獲得之上的獲得斷滅，就叫做捨棄非獲得。
論：獲得與非獲得，乃至獲得與非獲得。這是提問。
論：應該說這兩個，乃至獲得及非獲得。這是回答。
論：如果這樣，乃至有無窮的過失。這是詰難。
論：沒有無窮的過失，乃至沒有無窮的過失。這是廣泛的回答。雖然同時問了獲得與非獲得，但二者不同。獲得有大的獲得、小的獲得，同時相互獲得。非獲得不是這樣，因為在現在沒有非獲得。所以知道非獲得不如獲得那樣有小的非獲得。就其個別的意義來說，也有大小非獲得的不同。所謂翻轉大的獲得，就叫做大的非獲得，也就是非獲得大得、所得之法、本法以及大小之相的緣故。翻轉小的獲得，就叫做小的非獲得。這僅僅是非獲得大得及四相。所以《婆沙》（Vibhasa）一百五十八卷說：『像這樣說，法與生等同一種獲得。相與所相極其親近的緣故。』由此可以很好地理解色蘊、行蘊是一種獲得等等。以上是論文。獲得與非獲得相互對立而成立，不可以不同。雖然沒有大小非獲得更互相非獲得，因為獲得不是無窮的，所以非獲得也不是無窮的。所以回答無窮，僅僅是解釋獲得，也就是顯示非獲得沒有無窮。因為翻轉獲得而成立的緣故。
論：像這樣，如果善，乃至有無邊的獲得。這是解釋增加的數量。如第一剎那善心生起時，只說善心，不說相應。也就是這個剎那本法為一，大得為二，小得為三。第二剎那有六法生起，不說第二剎那所生起的善心，只說前剎那法后得有六法生起。所謂前本法、大得、小得，也就是這三種法法后之得大小各三，所以有六得。第三剎那就是這六法，所謂三大得，及三小得，及初剎那法大小得。這九法法后得生起有九大得，有九小得，合成為十八。像這樣後後逐漸增加。
【English Translation】 English version: If the cessation of what is obtained (de) leads to the abandonment of what is not obtained (feide), this explains the aspect of abandoning what is not obtained. That is, the cessation of obtaining upon obtaining is called abandoning what is not obtained.
Treatise: Obtaining and not obtaining, up to obtaining and not obtaining. This is a question.
Treatise: It should be said that these two, up to obtaining and not obtaining. This is an answer.
Treatise: If so, up to having infinite faults. This is a challenge.
Treatise: There is no infinite fault, up to no infinite fault. This is a broad answer. Although both obtaining and not obtaining are asked about simultaneously, they are different. Obtaining has great obtaining, small obtaining, and simultaneous mutual obtaining. Not obtaining is not like this, because there is no not obtaining in the present. Therefore, it is known that not obtaining is not like obtaining in that it has small not obtaining. In terms of its individual meaning, there are also differences between large and small not obtaining. What is called reversing great obtaining is called great not obtaining, that is, because of not obtaining great obtaining, the obtained dharma, the original dharma, and the aspects of large and small. Reversing small obtaining is called small not obtaining. This is only not obtaining great obtaining and the four aspects. Therefore, Vibhasa (Vibhasa) Chapter 158 says: 'Those who say this, dharma and birth are the same kind of obtaining. Because the aspect and what is aspected are extremely close.' From this, it can be well understood that form aggregate, activity aggregate are one kind of obtaining, etc. The above is the treatise. Obtaining and not obtaining are established in opposition to each other, and cannot be different. Although there is no mutual not obtaining of large and small not obtaining, because obtaining is not infinite, not obtaining is also not infinite. Therefore, answering infinity only explains obtaining, that is, it shows that not obtaining has no infinity. Because it is established by reversing obtaining.
Treatise: Like this, if it is good, up to having boundless obtaining. This explains the increasing number. For example, when the first moment of good mind arises, only the good mind is spoken of, not the corresponding. That is, in this moment, the original dharma is one, great obtaining is two, and small obtaining is three. In the second moment, six dharmas arise, and the good mind that arises in the second moment is not spoken of, only that the obtaining after the dharma of the previous moment has six dharmas arising. That is, the previous original dharma, great obtaining, and small obtaining, that is, these three dharmas each have three large and small obtainings after the dharma, so there are six obtainings. In the third moment, there are these six dharmas, that is, three great obtainings, and three small obtainings, and the large and small obtainings of the dharma of the first moment. These nine dharmas have nine great obtainings and nine small obtainings arising after the dharma, totaling eighteen. Like this, it gradually increases later and later.
增有無邊得。
論。旦一有情至況第二等。此顯諸得極多無對礙故得相容受。如文可解。
俱舍論疏卷第四
保延三年十月二日朝南新屋點了
角 樹
以黃園古本一交了教俊 一交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第五
沙門法寶撰
分別根品第二之三
論。如是已辨至同分者何。已下第二一句明同分也。同是其界。分是其因。同之分故名為同分。故正理云。此中身形．業用．樂欲展轉相似。故名為同。分是因義。有別實物。是此同因故名同分。論既此釋。徒煩異解 亦名眾同分。同法非一名為眾同。與彼為因名之為分。
論曰至名眾同分。就長行中有二。一述有部宗。二引經部難 就述有部宗中。先總。復別。此名總也 有別實物。舉其體也 名為同分。述其名也 本論說此名眾同分。會異名也。
論。此復二種至各等有故。于中二。一有情同分。二法同分 就有情同分中復分為二。一無差別。二有差別。此文釋無差別 謂一切有情平等皆有。唯簡無情。名無差別。
論。有差別者至各等有故。此釋差別。故正理論云。一趣等生諸有情類。所有身形．諸根．業用。及飲食等互相似因。並其展轉相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 增有無邊得。
論。旦一有情至況第二等。此顯諸得極多無對礙故得相容受。如文可解。
俱舍論疏卷第四
保延三年十月二日朝南新屋點了
角 樹
以黃園古本一交了教俊 一交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第五
沙門法寶撰
分別根品第二之三
論。如是已辨至同分者何。已下第二一句明同分也。同是其界。分是其因。同之分故名為同分。故正理云。此中身形．業用．樂欲展轉相似。故名為同。分是因義。有別實物。是此同因故名同分。論既此釋。徒煩異解 亦名眾同分。同法非一名為眾同。與彼為因名之為分。
論曰至名眾同分。就長行中有二。一述有部宗。二引經部難 就述有部宗中。先總。復別。此名總也 有別實物。舉其體也 名為同分。述其名也 本論說此名眾同分。會異名也。
論。此復二種至各等有故。于中二。一有情同分。二法同分 就有情同分中復分為二。一無差別。二有差別。此文釋無差別 謂一切有情平等皆有。唯簡無情。名無差別。
論。有差別者至各等有故。此釋差別。故正理論云。一趣等生諸有情類。所有身形．諸根．業用。及飲食等互相似因。並其展轉相
【English Translation】 English version Increased existence has boundless attainment.
Treatise: If a single sentient being reaches the second level, this shows that the attainments are extremely numerous and without obstruction, thus they can accommodate each other. The text can be understood as it is.
'Abhidharmakośabhāṣya' Commentary, Volume 4
In the third year of Hoen (1077), on the second day of the tenth month, marked at the South New House in the morning.
Kaku (scribe) Tree
Transcribed from the old copy of Kōen, proofread by Kyōshun. Proofread once. Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1822, 'Abhidharmakośabhāṣya' Commentary
'Abhidharmakośabhāṣya' Commentary, Volume 5
Composed by Śramaṇa (Buddhist monk) Hōbō (Dharma Jewel)
Chapter 2, Section 3: Analysis of the Faculties
Treatise: Having thus explained, what is meant by 'commonality' (sāmānyabhāga)? The second sentence below clarifies 'commonality'. 'Common' (sama) is its boundary. 'Division' (bhāga) is its cause. Because it is a division of the common, it is called 'commonality'. Therefore, the 'Nyāyānusāra' (Following the Reasoning) says: 'Here, body, form, activity, enjoyment, and mutual resemblance are called 'common'. 'Division' means cause. There are separate real entities. Because this is the cause of this commonality, it is called 'commonality'.' Since the treatise has already explained this, further different interpretations are merely troublesome. It is also called 'community commonality' (nikāya-sāmānyabhāga). 'Common dharma' is not the only name for 'community commonality'. Being the cause for them, it is called 'division'.
Treatise: 'This is called community commonality.' In the prose section, there are two parts: first, stating the Sarvāstivāda (the 'All Exists' school) position; second, citing the Sautrāntika (the 'Sūtra school') objection. Within stating the Sarvāstivāda position, first is the general statement, then the specific. This name is the general statement. 'There are separate real entities' refers to its substance. 'It is called commonality' states its name. The present treatise says this is called 'community commonality', reconciling different names.
Treatise: 'This again has two types, up to each having equally.' Within this, there are two: first, sentient being commonality; second, dharma commonality. Within sentient being commonality, there are again two divisions: first, without difference; second, with difference. This text explains 'without difference'. It means that all sentient beings equally have it, only excluding non-sentient beings. This is called 'without difference'.
Treatise: 'Those with difference, up to each having equally.' This explains the difference. Therefore, the 'Nyāyānusāra' says: 'The bodies, forms, faculties, activities, and food, etc., of sentient beings born in one realm, etc., are mutually similar causes, and their mutual...
樂欲因名眾同分。如鮮凈色業．心．大種皆是其因。故身形等非唯因業。現見。身形是更相似業所引果。諸根業用．及飲食等有差別故。若謂滿業有差別故此差別者。理不應然。或有身形唯由相似引業所起。以眾同分有差別故業用等別。若身形等唯業果者。隨其樂欲。業用等事若舍．若行應不得有。此中身形．業用．樂欲展轉相似。故名為同。分是因義。有別實物。是此同因故名同分。如是同分。世尊唯依諸有情說。非草．木等。故契經言。此天同分。此人同分。乃至廣說。就界．趣．生．處．身等別有無量種有情同分。復有法同分。謂隨蘊．處．界 準上論文差別之因非唯業力兼同分也。品類差別種種不同。一一之類皆有同分。與無差別覺為境界。蘊．處．界同其義亦爾。即有情類蘊．界．處同。相狀相似亦有同分。
論。復有法同分謂隨蘊處界。此釋法同分也。此法同分與蘊．界．處無差別覺以為其因。亦與彼法為無差別因也。
論。若無實物至如理應知。舉同分果證有同因。
論。頗有死生至謂除前相。此明得．舍。如文可解。
論。若別有實物至別有人性故。自此已下經部難也 于中有六。一別立異生性難。二無量難。三無用難。四無情同分難。五同分無同分難。六同外道難。此初
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：樂欲（chanda，意願）的起因被稱為眾同分（nikayasabhaga，類同性）。就像鮮艷乾淨的顏色，以及業（karma，行為）、心（citta，意識）、大種（mahabhuta，四大元素）都是它的起因一樣。因此，身形等不僅僅是業的起因，這是顯而易見的。身形是更相似的業所帶來的結果。諸根（indriya，感官）的業用以及飲食等都有差別。如果說這是因為滿業（paripurna-karma，圓滿業）有差別而導致的，那麼這個理由是不成立的。或者有些身形僅僅是由相似的引業（akarshana-karma，牽引業）所引起的。因為眾同分有差別，所以業用等也有差別。如果身形等僅僅是業的果報，那麼隨著樂欲，業用等事情，無論是捨棄還是實行，都不應該存在。這裡，身形、業用、樂欲相互之間相似，所以被稱為『同』。『分』是起因的意思。存在著不同的實物，是這種『同』的起因，所以被稱為『同分』。世尊僅僅是依據有情（sattva，眾生）來說明這種同分，而不是草木等。所以契經（sutra，經文）中說：『這是天（deva，天神）的同分，這是人（manushya，人類）的同分』，乃至廣說。就界（dhatu，界）、趣（gati，趣）、生（jati，生）、處（ayatana，處）、身（kaya，身）等差別，存在著無量種有情同分。還有法同分（dharma-nikayasabhaga，法的類同性），即隨著蘊（skandha，蘊）、處（ayatana，處）、界（dhatu，界）。準照上面的論文，差別的起因不僅僅是業力，還包括同分。 品類的差別種種不同，每一種類都有同分，與無差別的覺（jnana，知覺）作為境界。蘊、處、界的同分，其意義也是如此。即有情類的蘊、界、處相同，相狀相似，也有同分。
論：復有法同分謂隨蘊處界。這是解釋法同分。這種法同分與蘊、界、處無差別的覺，作為它的起因，也與那些法作為無差別的起因。
論：若無實物至如理應知。舉出同分的果，來證明有同分的因。
論：頗有死生至謂除前相。這說明了得（prapti，獲得）和舍（aprapti，捨棄）。如文中所述，可以理解。
論：若別有實物至別有人性故。從這裡開始，經部（sutra-vadin，經量部）提出了質疑。其中有六個方面：一是單獨設立異生性（prthagjana-tva，凡夫性）的困難；二是無量（ananta，無限）的困難；三是無用（anartha，無用）的困難；四是無情（acetana，無情）同分的困難；五是同分無同分的困難；六是與外道（tirthika，外道）相同的困難。這是第一個。
【English Translation】 English version: The cause of chanda (desire) is called nikayasabhaga (community of kind). Just as bright and clean color, karma (action), citta (mind), and mahabhuta (the four great elements) are all its causes. Therefore, bodily form, etc., are not solely caused by karma; this is evident. Bodily form is the result brought about by more similar karma. The functions of the indriya (senses) and diet, etc., have differences. If it is said that these differences are due to the differences in paripurna-karma (complete karma), then this reason is not valid. Or some bodily forms are caused only by similar akarshana-karma (attracting karma). Because nikayasabhaga has differences, the functions of karma, etc., also have differences. If bodily form, etc., are only the result of karma, then with the chanda, matters such as abandoning or practicing should not exist. Here, bodily form, karma functions, and chanda are mutually similar, so they are called 'same'. 'Bhaga' means cause. There are different real entities that are the cause of this 'sameness', so they are called 'nikayasabhaga'. The World-Honored One only explains this nikayasabhaga based on sattva (sentient beings), not grass, trees, etc. Therefore, the sutra (scripture) says: 'This is the nikayasabhaga of deva (gods), this is the nikayasabhaga of manushya (humans),' and so on. The differences in categories are various and different. Each category has nikayasabhaga, with undifferentiated jnana (perception) as its object. The nikayasabhaga of skandha (aggregates), ayatana (sense bases), and dhatu (elements) has the same meaning. That is, the skandha, dhatu, and ayatana of sentient beings are the same, and similar appearances also have nikayasabhaga.
Treatise: Furthermore, dharma-nikayasabhaga refers to following the skandha, ayatana, and dhatu. This explains dharma-nikayasabhaga. This dharma-nikayasabhaga, with the undifferentiated jnana of skandha, dhatu, and ayatana, serves as its cause, and also serves as the undifferentiated cause for those dharmas.
Treatise: If there is no real entity, up to 'should be known accordingly'. Citing the result of nikayasabhaga to prove that there is a cause of nikayasabhaga.
Treatise: Is there death and birth, up to 'excluding the previous appearance'. This explains prapti (attainment) and aprapti (non-attainment). As stated in the text, it can be understood.
Treatise: If there is a separate real entity, up to 'because there is a separate human nature'. From here onwards, the sutra-vadin (Sautrantika school) raises questions. There are six aspects: First, the difficulty of establishing prthagjana-tva (the state of being an ordinary person) separately; second, the difficulty of ananta (infinity); third, the difficulty of anartha (uselessness); fourth, the difficulty of acetana (insentient) nikayasabhaga; fifth, the difficulty of nikayasabhaga without nikayasabhaga; sixth, the difficulty of being the same as tirthika (non-Buddhists). This is the first.
難也 既有異生同分何用別立異生性耶 正理釋云。豈不異生性即異生同分。此不應然。所作異故由彼身形．業用．樂欲互相似因名為同分。若與聖道成就相違。是異生因名異生性。入離生時于眾同分亦舍亦得。于異生性舍而不得。
論。又非世間至無別用故。第二難也。
論。世雖不了至亦何所用。第三難也。正理釋云。同分非色。如何得知有用能生無別事類。由見彼果知有彼故。如見現在業所得果。知有前生曾所作業又觀行者現證知故。
論。又何因不許至互相似故。第四難也。正理釋云。何不許有無情同分。不應如是責。有大過失故。汝亦許有人．天等趣。胎．卵等生。何不亦許庵羅等趣。綠豆等生。又佛世尊曾不說故。但應思擇。何故世尊唯于有情說有同分非於草等。復云何知。如是同分別有實物。且我于中作如是解。由彼草等無有展轉業用．樂欲互相似故。于彼不說別有同分。又必因有情草等方生故。唯于有情說有同分。又因先業．及現勤勇此法得生。于彼草等二事皆無。故無同分。即由此事證有實物。又木．素．漆．雕．畫等像。及彼真形。雖有色形展轉相似。而言一實。由此非唯見彼相似即言是實。要于相似差別物類方起實言。故知實有此差別法。此實言說由此法生 木等無同分不
得言實。人等有同分。故言實也。
論。又諸同分至覺施設耶。第五難也。正理釋云。如何于彼更無同分。而起無別覺．施設耶。由諸同分是同類事等因性故。即為同類展轉相似覺施設因。如眼．耳等由大種造方成色性。大種雖無餘大種造而色性成。
論。又應顯成至由此發生。第六難也。無差別同分如總同句義。差別同分如同異句義 或唯如同異句義。
論。毗婆沙師至於多轉故。論主引婆沙答。正理釋云。此應顯同勝論所執總同句義．同異句義。若勝論執此二句義其體非一。剎那無常無所依止展轉差別。設令同彼亦無多過。非勝論者執眼等根能行色等。即令釋子舍如是見別作余解。故彼所難是朋黨言。求正理人不應收采 述曰。若如勝論。一法遍於多法。其體是常依和合諦。是為有過。若彼外道計二句義其體非一。剎那無常無所依止展轉差別。設令同彼亦無多過。論。又縱于彼至乃至廣說。有部第二引經證也。
論。雖有是說至名為同分。此經部通經也。如經部釋此經文。是假非實。
論。若爾所說同分是何。有部徴也。
論。即如是類至違我宗故。經部答也。余文可解。
論。已辨同分無想者何。自下第三明無想異熟。
論曰至是異熟果。此釋無想處用等也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『得言實』，因為人們具有相同的『同分』（sabhāga，相似性），所以說『實』。
論：此外，所有的『同分』（sabhāga，相似性）都能產生覺和施設嗎？這是第五個難題。正理釋中說：如果其中沒有『同分』（sabhāga，相似性），又如何產生無差別的覺和施設呢？因為這些『同分』（sabhāga，相似性）是同類事物等的因性，因此成為同類事物之間輾轉相似的覺和施設的因。例如，眼、耳等由『大種』（mahābhūta，四大元素）所造，才能形成色性。雖然『大種』（mahābhūta，四大元素）不是由其他『大種』（mahābhūta，四大元素）所造，但色性卻能形成。
論：此外，應該顯明成就，由此發生。這是第六個難題。無差別的『同分』（sabhāga，相似性）就像總同句義，有差別的『同分』（sabhāga，相似性）就像同異句義，或者僅僅如同異句義。
論：『毗婆沙師』（Vaibhāṣika，佛教論師）至於多轉故。論主引用『婆沙』（Vibhāṣā，佛教論書）的回答。正理釋中說：這應該顯明與『勝論』（Vaiśeṣika，印度哲學流派）所執的總同句義、同異句義相同。如果『勝論』（Vaiśeṣika，印度哲學流派）認為這兩個句義的本體不是一，而是剎那無常，無所依止，輾轉差別，即使與他們相同也沒有太多過失。如果『勝論』（Vaiśeṣika，印度哲學流派）者認為眼等根能行色等，就讓釋子捨棄這樣的見解，另作其他解釋。因此，他們的責難是朋黨之言，追求正理的人不應該採納。述曰：如果像『勝論』（Vaiśeṣika，印度哲學流派）那樣，一法遍於多法，其體是常，依和合諦，這就是過失。如果那些外道認為這兩個句義的本體不是一，而是剎那無常，無所依止，輾轉差別，即使與他們相同也沒有太多過失。論：此外，即使在他們那裡，乃至廣說。有部第二次引用經文作為證據。
論：雖然有這樣的說法，乃至名為『同分』（sabhāga，相似性）。這是經部通經。就像經部解釋這段經文，是假而非實。
論：如果這樣，所說的『同分』（sabhāga，相似性）是什麼？有部提出疑問。
論：就像這樣，乃至違揹我宗故。經部回答。其餘文字可以理解。
論：已經辨明『同分』（sabhāga，相似性），『無想』（asaṃjñā，無想）是什麼？下面第三部分說明『無想異熟』（asaṃjñā-vipāka，無想的異熟果報）。
論曰：乃至是『異熟果』（vipāka-phala，異熟果）。這是解釋『無想處』（asaṃjñā-samāpatti，無想定）的作用等。
【English Translation】 English version 'It is said to be real' because people have the same 'sabhāga' (similarity), therefore it is said to be 'real'.
Discussion: Furthermore, do all 'sabhāga' (similarities) give rise to perception and designation? This is the fifth difficulty. The commentary on the principle states: How can there be undifferentiated perception and designation if there is no 'sabhāga' (similarity) in them? Because these 'sabhāga' (similarities) are the causal nature of similar things, they become the cause of mutually similar perception and designation among similar things. For example, eyes, ears, etc., are made of 'mahābhūta' (great elements), so that color nature can be formed. Although 'mahābhūta' (great elements) are not made by other 'mahābhūta' (great elements), color nature can be formed.
Discussion: Furthermore, it should be clearly accomplished, and thereby arise. This is the sixth difficulty. Undifferentiated 'sabhāga' (similarity) is like the meaning of the general same phrase, and differentiated 'sabhāga' (similarity) is like the meaning of the same and different phrase, or only like the meaning of the same and different phrase.
Discussion: The 'Vaibhāṣika' (Buddhist commentator) to the extent of many transformations. The master of the treatise quotes the answer from the 'Vibhāṣā' (Buddhist treatise). The commentary on the principle states: This should clearly be the same as the general same phrase and the same and different phrase held by the 'Vaiśeṣika' (Indian philosophical school). If the 'Vaiśeṣika' (Indian philosophical school) believes that the substance of these two phrase meanings is not one, but momentary, impermanent, without support, and mutually different, even if it is the same as them, there is not much fault. If the 'Vaiśeṣika' (Indian philosophical school) believes that the roots of the eyes, etc., can perform colors, etc., then let the disciples abandon such views and make other explanations. Therefore, their accusations are partisan words, and those who seek the right principle should not adopt them. Commentary: If it is like the 'Vaiśeṣika' (Indian philosophical school), one dharma pervades many dharmas, and its substance is constant and depends on the truth of combination, then this is a fault. If those heretics believe that the substance of these two phrase meanings is not one, but momentary, impermanent, without support, and mutually different, even if it is the same as them, there is not much fault. Discussion: Furthermore, even in them, to the extent of extensive explanation. The Sarvāstivāda school quotes the sutra for the second time as evidence.
Discussion: Although there is such a saying, to the extent of being called 'sabhāga' (similarity). This is a sutra that is common to the Sautrāntika school. It is like the Sautrāntika school explaining this sutra, which is false and not real.
Discussion: If so, what is the 'sabhāga' (similarity) that is said? The Sarvāstivāda school raises a question.
Discussion: Just like this, to the extent of violating my school. The Sautrāntika school answers. The remaining text can be understood.
Discussion: 'Sabhāga' (similarity) has been distinguished, what is 'asaṃjñā' (non-perception)? The third part below explains 'asaṃjñā-vipāka' (the fruition of non-perception).
Discussion: To the extent of being 'vipāka-phala' (fruition). This explains the function of 'asaṃjñā-samāpatti' (the attainment of non-perception), etc.
若生無想有情天中。明依處也 有法能令心．心所滅。寄用顯體 名為無想。立其名也 是實有物。明假．實也 能遮未來心．心所法令暫不起。明滅世時 如堰江河。舉喻顯也 此法一向是異熟果。明五類也。
論。誰之異熟謂無想定。辨其因也。婆沙一百十八有多師釋。初師釋云。無想定感無想．及色異熟。命根．眾同分是彼有心靜慮異熟。所餘諸蘊是俱異熟。復有說者。無想定感無想．及色異熟。命根。是彼有心靜慮異熟。所餘諸蘊是俱異熟。復有說者。無想定感無想異熟。所餘諸蘊是俱異熟。復有說者。若有心時亦感無心諸蘊異熟。若無心時亦感有心諸蘊異熟。評曰應作是說。無想異熟唯無想定感。一切命根．及眾同分等眼等色根。皆是業感。余蘊俱感 正理論云。此法一向是無想定所感異熟。由彼無想有情天中無想．及色。唯是無想定所感異熟故。此定無力引眾同分．及與命根。以眾同分．及與命根。唯是有心第四靜慮所感果故。彼處余蘊是共異熟 準正理文同初師義。非評家義 此論云。誰之異熟。謂無想定 準此論文。唯與第四說別。前三師說．及評家義。皆說無想是無想定果。唯第四說通有心果。
論。無想有情至名無想天。此釋無想有情天處。
論。彼為恒無想為亦有想耶。
已下明無想天亦有想也。先問。后答。此即問也。
論。生死位中至還起于想。答也。謂初生彼天多時有想。將欲命終位亦多時有想。于其中間長時無想。以此義故名為無想。非是彼天全無想也。婆沙一百五十四評家云。如是說者。此事不定。或前多后少。或前少后多。隨彼意樂有差別故 又婆沙評家云。出無想心通生得善．有覆無記無覆無記。通五部所斷。幾隨眠隨增者。色界有漏緣。謂第四定有漏緣隨眠。問何故無漏緣隨眠。于彼無想不隨增耶。答彼計無想為涅槃。無想定為真道。乃至。生彼及從彼沒。唯如是執還復隨轉。于真滅道不謗為無。故無漏緣爾時不起。問彼無想位三食亦滅。云何說有食。答食有二種。一先時能引。二現在任持。彼位雖無現任持食。而有先時能引食。故名為有食 問入無想心為通幾性。幾部所斷 有人釋云。雖未見文準彼出心入心亦爾 今詳入心多分唯是異熟生心。以順滅故。趣異熟故。前心雖非等無間緣。然正理論云。彼以宿業等無間緣為任持食。謂由宿業引眾同分．及命根等。由續生心．及無間入無想果心。牽引資助故。彼亦有過去觸等為任持食。無心位中唯有過去觸等為食。現在都無。有心位中二種俱有。已上論文同婆沙意。
論從彼沒已至力盡便墮。此明後報處也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 已生於無想天（沒有思想的色界天）者，是否意味著他們完全沒有思想？這是提問。
論：在生死輪迴中，思想還會重新生起。這是回答。意思是說，最初生到無想天時，在很長一段時間內是有思想的；當將要死亡時，在很長一段時間內也是有思想的；而在中間的漫長時間裡，是沒有思想的。因此，才稱之為『無想』，並非是說那個天界完全沒有思想。《婆沙論》第一百五十四卷的評家說：『這樣說來，這件事並不確定。或許是開始時思想多，後來少；或許是開始時思想少，後來多。』這取決於他們的意樂差別。另外，《婆沙論》的評家說，從無想心中出來，可以通往生得的善、有覆無記、無覆無記。通於五部所斷的煩惱。哪些隨眠會隨之增長呢？是有漏緣。指的是第四禪定中的有漏緣隨眠。問：為什麼無漏緣隨眠在無想位不隨之增長呢？答：因為他們認為無想是涅槃，無想定是真正的解脫之道。乃至，生到那裡以及從那裡死亡，都只是這樣執著，還會繼續流轉。對於真正的寂滅之道，他們不會誹謗為不存在，所以無漏緣在那個時候不會生起。問：在無想位，三種食（段食、觸食、思食）也滅盡了，為什麼還說有食呢？答：食有兩種，一是先前的能引發，二是現在的能任持。在無想位，雖然沒有現在的任持食，但有先前的能引發食，所以稱之為有食。問：進入無想心，可以通往幾種性質的心？是哪幾部所斷的煩惱？有人解釋說，雖然沒有見到經文，但可以參照從無想心出來的情況，進入無想心也是如此。現在詳細分析，進入無想心的多半是異熟生心，因為是順於滅盡的緣故，趣向于異熟果報的緣故。雖然前一個心不是等無間緣，但《正理論》說，它是以宿業等無間緣作為任持食。意思是說，由宿業引發眾同分以及命根等，由續生心以及無間進入無想果心，牽引資助的緣故。它也有過去的觸等作為任持食。在無心位中，只有過去的觸等作為食，現在都沒有。在有心位中，兩種都有。以上論述與《婆沙論》的觀點相同。
論：從那裡死亡后，直到力量耗盡便會墮落。這說明了后報之處。
【English Translation】 English version Is it the case that those born in the Aviha Heaven (無想天, the Form Realm heaven of non-perception) also have perception? This is the question.
Treatise: Within the cycle of birth and death, perception will still arise. This is the answer. It means that when one is first born into that heaven, there is perception for a long time; when one is about to die, there is also perception for a long time; but in the long period in between, there is no perception. Therefore, it is called 'non-perception,' not that there is absolutely no perception in that heaven. The commentator of Vibhasa (婆沙) 154 says: 'According to this explanation, this matter is uncertain. Perhaps there is more perception at the beginning and less later, or perhaps there is less perception at the beginning and more later.' This depends on their different inclinations. Furthermore, the commentator of Vibhasa says that emerging from the non-perception mind can lead to acquired wholesome, defiled-unspecified, and undefiled-unspecified states. It is connected to the afflictions severed by the five parts. Which latent tendencies (隨眠, anusaya) increase along with it? Those with outflows (有漏緣, sāsrava). This refers to the latent tendencies with outflows in the fourth dhyana (第四定, fourth meditation). Question: Why do the latent tendencies without outflows not increase in the state of non-perception? Answer: Because they consider non-perception to be Nirvana (涅槃, liberation), and the non-perception samadhi (無想定, state of non-perception) to be the true path to liberation. Even when born there and dying from there, they only hold onto this view and continue to transmigrate. They do not slander the true path of cessation as non-existent, so the latent tendencies without outflows do not arise at that time. Question: In the state of non-perception, the three kinds of nutriment (段食, kabaliṅkārāhāra; 觸食, sparśāhāra; 思食, manasañcetanāhāra) are also extinguished, so why is it said that there is nutriment? Answer: There are two kinds of nutriment: one that can cause it in the past, and one that sustains it in the present. In the state of non-perception, although there is no present sustaining nutriment, there is past nutriment that can cause it, so it is called having nutriment. Question: Entering the non-perception mind, what kinds of minds can it lead to? Which parts of afflictions are severed? Some explain that although they have not seen the text, they can refer to the situation of emerging from the non-perception mind, and entering the non-perception mind is the same. Now, upon detailed analysis, entering the non-perception mind is mostly the mind born from the result of karma (異熟生心, vipākaja citta), because it is in accordance with extinction, and it is directed towards the result of karma. Although the previous mind is not an immediately contiguous condition, the Nyāyānusāra (正理論) says that it takes past karma as the immediately contiguous condition for sustaining nutriment. This means that the commonality of beings (眾同分, nikāyasabhāga) and the life force (命根, jīvitendriya) are caused by past karma, and they are drawn and supported by the mind of rebirth and the mind of entering the non-perception result without interruption. It also has past contact (觸, sparśa) as sustaining nutriment. In the state of no-mind, only past contact is the nutriment, and there is none in the present. In the state of mind, both kinds are present. The above discussion is the same as the view of the Vibhasa.
Treatise: After dying from there, one will fall when the strength is exhausted. This explains the place of future retribution.
。彼諸外道初修定時。必有色界善心。厭生死苦求解脫處。求師及教不逢正教。遂遇邪師先聞邪教說無想處以為涅槃。起上緣見取執為出離。又起戒取非因計因。執無想定能得涅槃。即于欲界造后報業。隨其勝劣生五趣異。為求無想起下諸定以為加行。自余定果非本所求不招引果。又非定業由無想定力生無想天。從無想出更不入定。無想定因勢力既盡便墮欲界。不生上界無定力故。
論。若諸有情至生天之業。第二釋也。此明生處法爾相系。婆沙一百五十四云。有說若造無想順次生受業者。法爾亦造欲界順后受業 又云。問定生何處。答有說生地獄。有說生惡趣。如是說者。定生欲界處所不定。或生惡趣或天．或人。
論。已辨無想至其想云何。已下釋二定也。先釋無想定也。
論曰至名無想定。類無想異熟釋無想定也。別有二十一．或二十二。非色非心不相應行。能令二十二心．心所滅名無想定。
論。無想者定至名無想定。此釋名也。前是屬主。后是持業。無想假者有此定故名無想定。屬主釋也。即定無想名無想定。持業釋也。
論。說如是聲至與無想同。釋頌如是聲也。頌言如是者。唯顯無想定滅心．心所與無想同。不同無想性類體數問何故名定。正理論云。由正成辨．或極成
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：那些外道最初修行禪定時，必定懷有善心，厭惡生死的痛苦，尋求解脫之處。但由於尋求導師和教法時沒有遇到正教，反而遇到了邪師，先聽聞了邪教，說無想處（沒有思想的境界）就是涅槃（解脫）。他們對這種境界產生顛倒的見解，執著地認為這就是脫離輪迴的方法，又執著于錯誤的戒律，把非因當成是因，認為修習無想定就能得到涅槃。因此，他們在欲界（充滿慾望的生存領域）造作了會導致未來果報的業。根據他們所修習的無想定的程度，他們會轉生到五趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）中的不同地方。爲了求得無想，他們修習較低層次的禪定作為輔助手段。至於其他的禪定果報，並非他們原本所追求的，因此不會招引這些果報。而且，這些果報也不是由禪定之業所致，而是由於無想定的力量而生到無想天（沒有思想的天界）。從無想天出來后，他們不再進入禪定，因為無想定的因緣勢力已經耗盡，便會墮落到欲界，無法轉生到更高的境界，因為他們沒有禪定的力量。
論：如果這些有情眾生造作了轉生到天界的業，這是第二種解釋。這說明了轉生之處的自然法則。在《婆沙論》第一百五十四卷中說：『有人說，如果造作了順次生受業（指在下一世感受果報的業）的無想業，那麼自然也會造作欲界的順后受業（指在未來世感受果報的業）。』又說：『問：禪定會生到哪裡？答：有人說會生地獄，有人說會生惡趣。』這樣說來，禪定會生到欲界，但具體地點不定，或者生到惡趣，或者生到天界，或者生到人間。
論：已經辨析了無想，那麼它的『想』是什麼樣的呢？以下解釋二種禪定。首先解釋無想定。
論曰：乃至名為無想定。類似於無想異熟（無想果報）來解釋無想定。特別有二十一或二十二種非色（非物質）、非心（非精神）的不相應行（既非物質也非精神的抽像概念），能夠使二十二種心（精神活動）、心所（心理活動）滅除，這叫做無想定。
論：無想者，定乃至名為無想定。這是解釋名稱。前面是屬主釋（所有格），後面是持業釋（動賓結構）。因為無想的假象存在，所以叫做無想定，這是屬主釋。即禪定本身就是無想，所以叫做無想定，這是持業釋。
論：說『如是』聲，乃至與無想同。解釋頌文中的『如是』聲。頌文說『如是』，只是爲了表明無想定滅除心、心所與無想相同，但與無想的性質、類別、本體和數量都不同。問：為什麼叫做『定』？《正理論》說：『由於正確地成就辨別，或者極其成就。』
【English Translation】 English version: When those non-Buddhist practitioners initially cultivate samadhi (meditative concentration), they invariably possess wholesome intentions, detesting the suffering of birth and death, and seeking a place of liberation. However, in their quest for teachers and teachings, they fail to encounter the correct doctrine and instead encounter heretical teachers. They first hear heretical teachings that proclaim the realm of non-perception (no thought) as Nirvana (liberation). They develop inverted views regarding this state, clinging to it as a means of escaping samsara (the cycle of rebirth), and they also cling to incorrect precepts, mistaking non-causes for causes, believing that the cultivation of the non-perception samadhi can lead to Nirvana. Consequently, they create karma in the desire realm (the realm of existence filled with desires) that will result in future retributions. Depending on the degree of their cultivation of the non-perception samadhi, they will be reborn in different realms within the five destinies (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods). In order to attain non-perception, they cultivate lower levels of samadhi as preparatory practices. As for the fruits of other samadhis, they are not what they originally sought, and therefore do not attract those fruits. Moreover, these fruits are not the result of karmic actions related to samadhi, but rather arise from the power of the non-perception samadhi, leading to rebirth in the realm of non-perception (the heaven of no thought). After emerging from the realm of non-perception, they no longer enter samadhi, because the causal power of the non-perception samadhi has been exhausted, and they will fall back into the desire realm, unable to be reborn in higher realms due to their lack of samadhi power.
Treatise: If these sentient beings create karma that leads to rebirth in the heavens, this is the second explanation. This clarifies the natural laws governing the place of rebirth. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Great Commentary) states in its 154th fascicle: 'Some say that if one creates karma of non-perception that leads to a subsequent rebirth, then one will naturally also create karma in the desire realm that leads to a later rebirth.' It also says: 'Question: Where does samadhi lead to rebirth? Answer: Some say it leads to hell, some say it leads to the evil destinies.' Thus, samadhi leads to rebirth in the desire realm, but the specific location is uncertain, either in the evil destinies, or in the heavens, or among humans.
Treatise: Having discussed non-perception, what is its 'perception' like? The following explains the two samadhis. First, it explains the non-perception samadhi.
Treatise says: Up to being named the non-perception samadhi. It is similar to explaining the non-perception result (the fruit of non-perception) to explain the non-perception samadhi. There are especially twenty-one or twenty-two kinds of non-form (non-material), non-mind (non-mental) non-associated formations (abstract concepts that are neither material nor mental), which can cause the twenty-two kinds of mind (mental activities) and mental factors (psychological activities) to cease. This is called the non-perception samadhi.
Treatise: 'Non-perception,' samadhi, up to being named the non-perception samadhi. This explains the name. The former is a possessive explanation, and the latter is a determinative explanation. Because the illusion of non-perception exists, it is called the non-perception samadhi, which is a possessive explanation. That is, the samadhi itself is non-perception, so it is called the non-perception samadhi, which is a determinative explanation.
Treatise: Saying 'suchness' sound, up to being the same as non-perception. Explaining the 'suchness' sound in the verse. The verse says 'suchness' only to indicate that the non-perception samadhi's cessation of mind and mental factors is the same as non-perception, but it is different from non-perception in nature, category, substance, and number. Question: Why is it called 'samadhi'? The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise Following the Principle) says: 'Because of correctly accomplishing discrimination, or extremely accomplishing.'
辨故名為定。有餘師說如理等行故名為定。令心．大種平等行故 述曰。此中定言應名等至。隨言便故名之為定。言等者有三義。一正義。二極義。二如理平等行義。前釋取前二義。余師取后義也。即釋等至名也。成辨義是至義也。定三名中等至。唯定非散通無心。散心無正成辨．及極成辨故。
論。此在何地至靜慮非余。第二明依地也。
論。修無想定至修無想定。第三明作意也。
論。前說無想至一向是善。第四明性攝也。
論。此是善故至五蘊異熟。第五明果通局。
論。既是善性至正性離生。第六明順受也 今詳。此定既許有退今身還得 復云。唯是決定生受非后．不定 準此故知。若先入定已能招全五百劫果。即不合退更入無想。劫數定故。或可得招余蘊異熟。或此重入無想定等。感彼報時或入報出果。或入果出報。
論。又許此定至必不修行。第七明修人異也。先起見取執無想處以為涅槃。後起戒取執無想定以為真道方能入故。聖已斷二取所以不入。
論。若諸聖者至無想定不。第八明成就也。文中有二。一問。二答。此問。
論。余亦不得。此略答也。非唯聖者不成未來。余凡夫人亦不得也。
論。所以者何。徴不得所以也。
論。彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：辨別事物的本性，因此稱之為『定』（Samadhi，禪定）。有些其他的老師說，因為符合真理的修行，所以稱之為『定』。爲了使心和大種（四大元素）平等執行。述曰：這裡所說的『定』，應該稱之為『等至』（Samapatti，正定）。隨順習慣的說法，稱之為『定』。說『等』有三種含義：一是『正』義，二是『極』義，三是『如理平等行』義。前面的解釋取前兩種含義，其他的老師取后一種含義。也就是解釋『等至』這個名稱。成就辨別是『至』的含義。在『定』的三個名稱中，『等至』唯有『定』才具備，不是散亂心，也通於無心。因為散亂心沒有『正』的成就辨別，以及『極』的成就辨別。
論：此定在哪個地才能達到？只有在靜慮（Dhyana，禪那）才能達到，而不是其他的地。這是第二點，說明所依之地。
論：修習無想定（Asanjnasamapatti，無想定）……直到修習無想定。這是第三點，說明作意。
論：前面說過無想（Asanjnaka，無想）……直到一向是善。這是第四點，說明其性質屬於什麼。
論：此定是善的緣故……直到五蘊（Panca-skandha，五蘊）的異熟果報。這是第五點，說明果報的普遍性和侷限性。
論：既然是善的性質……直到正性離生（Samyaktva-niyata，正性決定）。這是第六點，說明順受（Adaniya，領受）。現在詳細考察：此定既然允許有退失，今生還能獲得。又說：唯有決定生受，不是後世或不定的。根據這些可知，如果先入定，已經能夠招感全部五百劫的果報，就不應該退失，再次進入無想定，因為劫數已經確定。或者可以招感其他蘊的異熟果報。或者這次重新進入無想定等，感得那個果報的時候，或者入報出果，或者入果出報。
論：又允許此定……必定不修行。這是第七點，說明修習的人不同。先產生見取（Drstisilaparāmarsa，見取）執著無想處（Asanjnika，無想處）以為是涅槃（Nirvana，涅槃），后產生戒取（Silavrataparāmarsa，戒禁取）執著無想定以為是真正的道路，才能進入。聖者已經斷除了這兩種取，所以不進入。
論：如果各位聖者……無想定不？這是第八點，說明成就。文中有兩個部分：一是提問，二是回答。這是提問。
論：其餘人也不得。這是簡略的回答。不僅僅是聖者不能成就未來的無想定，其餘的凡夫俗子也不能成就。
論：為什麼呢？這是征問不得成就的原因。
論：他們……
【English Translation】 English version: Discriminating the nature of things is called 'Samadhi' (定, concentration). Some other teachers say that it is called 'Samadhi' because of practicing in accordance with the truth. It is to make the mind and the Mahabhutas (大種, the great elements) operate equally. Commentary: The 'Samadhi' mentioned here should be called 'Samapatti' (等至, attainment). Following the convenient expression, it is called 'Samadhi'. The word 'equal' (等) has three meanings: first, the meaning of 'correctness' (正); second, the meaning of 'extreme' (極); and third, the meaning of 'practicing equally in accordance with the truth' (如理平等行). The previous explanation takes the first two meanings, while other teachers take the latter meaning. That is, explaining the name 'Samapatti'. Accomplishing discrimination is the meaning of 'attainment' (至). Among the three names of 'Samadhi', 'Samapatti' is only possessed by 'Samadhi', not by distracted mind, and it also applies to no-mind. Because distracted mind does not have the 'correct' accomplishment of discrimination, nor the 'extreme' accomplishment of discrimination.
Treatise: In which realm can this Samadhi be attained? Only in Dhyana (靜慮, meditation) can it be attained, not in other realms. This is the second point, explaining the ground of reliance.
Treatise: Cultivating Asanjnasamapatti (無想定, Samadhi of Non-Perception)... until cultivating Asanjnasamapatti. This is the third point, explaining the intention.
Treatise: It was previously said that Asanjnaka (無想, Non-Perception)... until it is always wholesome. This is the fourth point, explaining its nature.
Treatise: Because this Samadhi is wholesome... until the Vipaka (異熟, fruition) of the five Skandhas (五蘊, aggregates). This is the fifth point, explaining the universality and limitations of the result.
Treatise: Since it is of a wholesome nature... until Samyaktva-niyata (正性決定, definitely right). This is the sixth point, explaining Adaniya (順受, receptive). Now, upon detailed examination: Since this Samadhi allows for regression, it can still be obtained in this life. It is also said: Only definitely received in this life, not in future lives or uncertain. According to these, if one first enters Samadhi and is already able to attract the full result of five hundred Kalpas (劫, eons), then one should not regress and enter Asanjnasamapatti again, because the number of Kalpas is already determined. Or one can attract the Vipaka of other Skandhas. Or this re-entry into Asanjnasamapatti, etc., when sensing that retribution, either enters retribution and exits fruition, or enters fruition and exits retribution.
Treatise: It is also allowed that this Samadhi... will definitely not practice. This is the seventh point, explaining the difference in practitioners. First, generate Drstisilaparāmarsa (見取, view attachment), clinging to Asanjnika (無想處, realm of non-perception) as Nirvana (涅槃, liberation), then generate Silavrataparāmarsa (戒禁取, adherence to precepts), clinging to Asanjnasamapatti as the true path, in order to enter. The saints have already cut off these two attachments, so they do not enter.
Treatise: If all the saints... Asanjnasamapatti not? This is the eighth point, explaining accomplishment. There are two parts in the text: first, a question; second, an answer. This is the question.
Treatise: The rest also cannot. This is a brief answer. Not only can the saints not accomplish future Asanjnasamapatti, but the rest of the ordinary people also cannot accomplish it.
Treatise: Why is that? This is questioning the reason for not being able to accomplish it.
Treatise: They...
雖曾習至方便修得。此廣答也。
論。故初得時至無未來修。便釋成就世通局也。婆沙一百五十一云。入出無想定心俱是．第四靜慮有漏善心。廣如彼述。
論。次滅盡定其相云何。第四明滅盡定也。
論曰至滅定亦然。如無想定例釋滅定。
論。此亦然聲為例何義。問也。
論。例無想定至名滅盡定。答也 此亦然者。但例滅心．心所非同例余也。婆沙一百五十二云。問此滅盡定幾物為體。有說此定一物為體。若滅現前即名無心故。問云何一滅剎那現前即名無心。答如一受剎那現前即名有受。一想剎那現前即名有想。一識剎那現前即名有識。如是一滅剎那現前即名無心。斯有何過。有說此定十一物為體。以十大地法及心滅故。有說此定二十一物為體。以十大地。善大地法。及心滅故。如是說者。隨滅爾所心．心所法。即有爾所物現前為此定體 此與第三師別者。評家兼取欣．厭。第三唯二十一。故不同也。準義無想有二十二謂加欣。滅定有二十二謂加厭也。二定既唯滅心．心所為數。故知無想亦唯滅心．心所。四相準同 又婆沙一百五十三云。問入滅定時滅何等心．心所法。為過去。為未來。為現在。若過去者。過去已滅復何所滅。若未來者。未來未生云何所滅。若現在者。現在不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：雖然曾經修習到方便的程度而獲得（無想定）。這是廣泛地回答。
論：所以在最初獲得（無想定）時，直至沒有未來的修習。這便解釋了成就世間通的侷限性。《婆沙論》第一百五十一卷說：『入無想定和出無想定，心都是第四禪的有漏善心。』詳細情況如彼處所述。
論：其次，滅盡定的相狀是怎樣的？這是第四個問題，說明滅盡定。
論曰：乃至滅盡定也是這樣。如無想定一樣解釋滅盡定。
論：這裡的『也是這樣』的聲音，是用來比作什麼意義？這是提問。
論：比作無想定，乃至名為滅盡定。這是回答。這個『也是這樣』，只是比作滅心、心所，並非完全相同于其他情況。《婆沙論》第一百五十二卷說：『問：這個滅盡定以幾種事物為體？』有的人說：『這個定以一種事物為體，如果滅現前，就名為無心。』問：『為什麼一個滅的剎那現前，就名為無心？』答：『如一個受的剎那現前，就名為有受；一個想的剎那現前，就名為有想；一個識的剎那現前，就名為有識。這樣，一個滅的剎那現前，就名為無心，這有什麼過失？』有的人說：『這個定以十一種事物為體，因為十大地法以及心滅的緣故。』有的人說：『這個定以二十一種事物為體，因為十大地法、善大地法，以及心滅的緣故。』這樣說的人認為，隨著滅除那麼多的心、心所法，就有那麼多的事物現前作為這個定的體。』這與第三位論師的區別在於，評論家兼取欣、厭，而第三位論師只取二十一種，所以不同。按照意義，無想定有二十二種，即加上欣；滅盡定有二十二種，即加上厭。兩種定都只是以滅心、心所為數，所以知道無想定也只是滅心、心所，四種相狀大致相同。又，《婆沙論》第一百五十三卷說：『問：入滅定時，滅除什麼心、心所法？是過去的？是未來的？還是現在的？如果是過去的，過去已經滅了，還滅什麼？如果是未來的，未來還沒有產生，怎麼滅？如果是現在的，現在不
【English Translation】 English version: Although one has practiced to the point of conveniently attaining it (the state of No-Thought Concentration, Asamjnasamadhi). This is a broad answer.
Treatise: Therefore, upon initially attaining it, there is no future practice. This explains the limitations of achieving mundane superknowledges (lokikabhijna). The Vibhasa, volume 151, states: 'Entering and exiting the No-Thought Concentration, the mind is both a defiled wholesome mind of the Fourth Dhyana.' The details are as described there.
Treatise: Next, what is the characteristic of the Cessation Concentration (Nirodhasamadhi)? This is the fourth question, explaining the Cessation Concentration.
Treatise says: Even the Cessation Concentration is the same. Explain the Cessation Concentration as in the example of the No-Thought Concentration.
Treatise: What meaning is exemplified by this phrase 'is also the same'? This is a question.
Treatise: Exemplify the No-Thought Concentration, even to the name Cessation Concentration. This is the answer. This 'is also the same' only exemplifies the cessation of mind and mental factors; it is not entirely the same as other cases. The Vibhasa, volume 152, states: 'Question: With how many things as its substance is this Cessation Concentration constituted?' Some say: 'This concentration is constituted with one thing as its substance. If cessation is present, it is called no-mind.' Question: 'Why is it that when one instant of cessation is present, it is called no-mind?' Answer: 'Just as when one instant of feeling is present, it is called having feeling; when one instant of perception is present, it is called having perception; when one instant of consciousness is present, it is called having consciousness. Likewise, when one instant of cessation is present, it is called no-mind. What fault is there in this?' Some say: 'This concentration is constituted with eleven things as its substance, because of the ten great earth dharmas and the cessation of mind.' Some say: 'This concentration is constituted with twenty-one things as its substance, because of the ten great earth dharmas, wholesome great earth dharmas, and the cessation of mind.' Those who say this believe that along with the cessation of so many minds and mental factors, there are so many things present as the substance of this concentration.' The difference between this and the third teacher is that the commentator also takes into account joy (hri) and aversion (apatrapa), while the third teacher only takes twenty-one. Therefore, they are different. According to the meaning, the No-Thought Concentration has twenty-two, namely adding joy; the Cessation Concentration has twenty-two, namely adding aversion. Since both concentrations only take the cessation of mind and mental factors as their number, it is known that the No-Thought Concentration also only ceases mind and mental factors. The four characteristics are roughly the same. Furthermore, the Vibhasa, volume 153, states: 'Question: When entering the Cessation Concentration, what mind and mental factors are ceased? Are they past, future, or present? If they are past, what is ceased since the past has already ceased? If they are future, how can they be ceased since the future has not yet arisen? If they are present, the present is not'
住復云何滅。設非定力亦自滅故。答應作是說。滅于未來。問未來未至云何可滅。答住于現在遮于未來心．心所法。令不相續故說為滅。如斷城路閉門豎幢。不令人入出故名除寇。此亦如是。有說通滅未來．現在。問現必不住復云何滅。設非定力亦自滅故。答先現在世心．心所法。令有緣法續起而滅。今現在世心．心所法。不令有緣法續起而滅。此由誰力所謂定力 上二說中應取前釋。順余文故 有人云。以是有說不是正者。即違多例。又一百五十三云。評曰應說。此入定心緣未來定。而不可說緣何剎那不緣何剎那。以未來定有多剎那。未有先後雜亂住故。又云。評曰應說。此出定心緣過去定。而不可說緣何剎那不緣何剎那。以過去定有多剎那相雜住故 準上論文既相雜住。不可別說。即是總緣過．未定也。然味定即緣次前凈定。以味定是貪相應心緣別相惑。所以別緣次前定心而起。出二定心是善心故。總緣前定不別取也。
論。如是二定至作意為先。第一作意差別也。
論。前無想定至非非想處。第二依地差別。婆沙一百五十二。問何故下無無想定。一說云。下諸地有歡戚受。行相粗動難可除滅。第四靜慮唯有處中受。行相微細易可斷滅故。問何故無色無此定耶。答唯有異生計習此定。以為能證無想涅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 住的相續如何滅除？如果不是依靠禪定的力量，它也會自己滅除嗎？ 應該這樣回答：滅除的是未來的（相續）。 問：未來（的相續）尚未到來，怎麼能滅除呢？ 答：安住于現在的（禪定）遮斷未來的心和心所法，使它們不能相續，所以說這是滅除。 就像截斷城墻的道路，關閉城門，豎起障礙，不讓人出入，所以叫做除去寇賊。 這裡也是這樣。 有人說，（滅除）通於未來和現在。 問：現在（的相續）必定不住留，又如何滅除呢？如果不是依靠禪定的力量，它也會自己滅除嗎？ 答：先前的現在世的心和心所法，讓有緣的法相續生起而滅除。 現在的現在世的心和心所法，不讓有緣的法相續生起而滅除。 這是依靠誰的力量呢？ 就是禪定的力量。 以上兩種說法中，應該採取前一種解釋，因為它順應其餘的文句。 有人說：因為有『有人說』，就不是正確的說法。 這就違背了許多例子。 另外，第一百五十三卷說：評論說，應該說，這入定之心緣于未來的禪定，但不能說緣于哪個剎那，不緣于哪個剎那。 因為未來的禪定有許多剎那，沒有先後雜亂地安住。 又說：評論說，應該說，這出定之心緣於過去的禪定，但不能說緣于哪個剎那，不緣于哪個剎那。 因為過去的禪定有許多剎那相雜而住。 按照上面的論文，既然是相雜而住，就不能分別地說，這就是總緣過去和未來的禪定。 然而，味定（Vimoksha-samadhi，解脫三昧）就是緣于緊挨著的前一個凈定（Shuddha-samadhi，清凈三昧）。 因為味定是與貪相應的，心緣于別相的迷惑，所以分別緣于緊挨著的前一個定心而生起。 出二定之心是善心，所以總緣於前一個禪定，不分別取捨。 論：像這樣二定（指無想定和滅盡定）以作意為先。第一是作意的差別。 論：前面的無想定（Asanjnika-samapatti，無想定）直到非非想處（Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana，非想非非想處）。第二是依地的差別。《婆沙論》第一百五十二卷：問：為什麼地獄沒有無想定？ 一種說法是：地獄諸地有歡喜和憂愁的感受，行相粗糙動盪，難以除去滅盡。 第四禪（Caturtha-dhyana，第四禪）只有舍受（Upeksha-vedana，舍受），行相微細，容易斷除滅盡。 問：為什麼無色界（Arupadhatu，無色界）沒有這種禪定呢？ 答：只有異生（Prthagjana，凡夫）計度習染這種禪定，以為能夠證得無想涅槃（Asanjnika-nirvana，無想涅槃）。
【English Translation】 English version How is the continuation of abiding extinguished? If it is not due to the power of Samadhi (Dhyana, 禪那), will it extinguish by itself? The answer should be given in this way: what is extinguished is the future (continuation). Question: The future (continuation) has not yet arrived, how can it be extinguished? Answer: Abiding in the present (Samadhi) obstructs the future mind and mental factors, preventing them from continuing, so it is said to be extinguished. It is like cutting off the road of a city wall, closing the city gate, and erecting obstacles, preventing people from entering and exiting, so it is called removing the enemy. It is the same here. Some say that (extinguishing) applies to both the future and the present. Question: The present (continuation) is bound to not stay, so how can it be extinguished? If it is not due to the power of Samadhi, will it extinguish by itself? Answer: The previous mind and mental factors of the present world allow the conditioned dharmas to arise and be extinguished in succession. The current mind and mental factors of the present world do not allow the conditioned dharmas to arise and be extinguished in succession. Whose power is this due to? It is the power of Samadhi. Among the above two statements, the former interpretation should be adopted because it conforms to the rest of the text. Some say: Because there is 'some say', it is not a correct statement. This violates many examples. Also, volume one hundred and fifty-three says: It should be said that this mind entering Samadhi is conditioned by the future Samadhi, but it cannot be said which moment it is conditioned by and which moment it is not conditioned by. Because there are many moments of future Samadhi, there is no prior or later mixed abiding. It is also said: It should be said that this mind emerging from Samadhi is conditioned by the past Samadhi, but it cannot be said which moment it is conditioned by and which moment it is not conditioned by. Because there are many moments of past Samadhi that abide in a mixed manner. According to the above thesis, since they abide in a mixed manner, it cannot be said separately, which means it is generally conditioned by the past and future Samadhi. However, the Vimoksha-samadhi (味定, 解脫三昧) is conditioned by the immediately preceding Shuddha-samadhi (凈定, 清凈三昧). Because the Vimoksha-samadhi is associated with greed, the mind is conditioned by the delusion of separate characteristics, so it arises separately conditioned by the immediately preceding mind of Samadhi. The mind emerging from the two Samadhis is a wholesome mind, so it is generally conditioned by the previous Samadhi and does not separately take or reject. Treatise: These two Samadhis (referring to Asanjnika-samapatti and Nirodha-samapatti) are preceded by volition. The first is the difference in volition. Treatise: The preceding Asanjnika-samapatti (無想定) extends to the Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana (非非想處). The second is the difference based on the ground. Vibhasa (婆沙) volume one hundred and fifty-two: Question: Why is there no Asanjnika-samapatti in the lower realms? One explanation is: the lower realms have feelings of joy and sorrow, and their characteristics are coarse and turbulent, making them difficult to remove and extinguish. The fourth Dhyana (第四禪) only has Upeksha-vedana (舍受), and its characteristics are subtle, making it easy to cut off and extinguish. Question: Why doesn't the Arupadhatu (無色界) have this Samadhi? Answer: Only Prthagjana (異生) speculatively practice this Samadhi, thinking that they can attain Asanjnika-nirvana (無想涅槃).
槃。無色界中無有無想異熟可計。故無想定於彼亦無 正理論云。前無想定在色界邊地。今滅盡定在無色邊地 以在非想非非想處。所受生身是最上業所牽引故。說名有頂。或有邊際故名有頂。如樹邊際說名樹頂。唯此地中有滅盡定 何緣下地無此定耶 厭背一切心。及邊際心斷方能得此勝解脫故謂由二緣立此解脫。一者厭背一切心故。二者邊際心暫斷故。若於下地有此定者便非厭背一切種心。以未能厭上地心故。亦不名為邊際心斷。以上地心猶未斷故。應名厭背少分諸心。亦復應名中際心斷。
論。此同前定至善等起故。第三明性同也。
論。前無想定至四蘊異熟。第四明招果別。文中有二。前明受別。后依地別。
論。前無想定至勝解入故。第五明修者別。有其三因非異生得。一怖斷滅故。二唯聖道力所能引故。三現法涅槃勝解入故。遠加行作涅槃想。近加行作止息想。
論。此亦如前至方證得故。第六初得同也。
論。又初得時至亦成過去。第七明成世同也。
論。世尊亦以至皆離染得。第八明世尊唯離染得。
論。世尊曾未至俱分解脫。已下第九對他部辨同．異也。文中有二。一問。二答。此即問也。
論。于起滅定至成俱解脫。答也。婆沙一百五十三云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：槃（涅槃）。無色界中沒有無想定所產生的異熟果報可以計算。所以，無想定在那裡也沒有作用。《正理論》說，之前的無想定在色界的邊地。現在的滅盡定在無色界的邊地，因為它存在於非想非非想處（既非有想也非無想的境界）。所受生的身體是由最上等的業力所牽引的，所以稱為有頂（最高處）。或者因為有邊際所以稱為有頂，就像樹的邊際稱為樹頂一樣。只有這個地方才有滅盡定。為什麼下層境界沒有這種禪定呢？因為只有厭倦背離一切心，以及斷除邊際的心才能獲得這種殊勝的解脫。也就是說，通過兩個條件才能成立這種解脫：一是厭倦背離一切心，二是邊際的心暫時斷滅。如果在下層境界有這種禪定，那就不是厭倦背離一切種類的意識，因為沒有厭倦上層境界的意識。也不能稱為邊際的心斷滅，因為上層境界的意識還沒有斷滅。應該稱為厭倦背離少部分的意識，也應該稱為中間階段的心斷滅。
論：此定和之前的禪定一樣，都是以善等心所為基礎而生起的。第三點是說明性質相同。
論：之前的無想定只能招感四蘊（色、受、想、行）的異熟果報。第四點是說明招感果報的差別。文中有兩部分，前面說明果報的差別，後面依據境界的差別。
論：之前的無想定是因為對斷滅感到恐懼，以及只有聖道的威力才能引導，還有對現法涅槃（今生證得涅槃）的殊勝解脫的嚮往才能修成。第五點是說明修習者的差別。有三種原因導致凡夫俗子無法獲得：一是害怕斷滅，二是隻有聖道的威力才能引導，三是對現法涅槃的殊勝解脫的嚮往。在遠期的加行中，作涅槃想；在近期的加行中，作止息想。
論：此定也和之前的禪定一樣，都是通過漸次修習才能證得的。第六點是初次證得的相同之處。
論：而且，在初次證得的時候，如果退失了，也會變成過去。第七點是說明成就世間的相同之處。
論：世尊也是通過遠離染污才能證得的。第八點是說明世尊只有通過遠離染污才能證得。
論：世尊從來沒有通過俱分解脫（同時解脫煩惱和色身）來證得。以下第九點是針對其他部派來辨別相同和不同之處。文中有兩部分，一是提問，二是回答。這裡是提問。
論：在起滅定和滅盡定之間，如何才能成就俱分解脫呢？這是回答。婆沙一百五十三說。
【English Translation】 English version: 槃 (Nirvana). In the realm of formlessness, there are no resultant effects of the 'non-perception' attainment that can be calculated. Therefore, the 'non-perception' attainment has no function there either. The Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra says that the previous 'non-perception' attainment is in the borderland of the realm of form. The current cessation attainment is in the borderland of the formless realm, because it exists in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (a state that is neither with perception nor without perception). The body received at birth is drawn by the most supreme karma, so it is called the peak (highest point). Or because it has a boundary, it is called the peak, just as the boundary of a tree is called the treetop. Only this place has the cessation attainment. Why don't the lower realms have this samadhi? Because only by being weary of and turning away from all minds, and by cutting off the mind at the boundary, can one obtain this supreme liberation. That is to say, this liberation can be established through two conditions: first, being weary of and turning away from all minds; second, the mind at the boundary is temporarily cut off. If this samadhi were in the lower realms, then it would not be weary of and turning away from all kinds of consciousness, because it has not wearied of the consciousness of the upper realms. Nor can it be called the cutting off of the mind at the boundary, because the consciousness of the upper realms has not yet been cut off. It should be called weary of and turning away from a small portion of consciousness, and it should also be called the cutting off of the mind in the middle stage.
Treatise: This samadhi, like the previous samadhi, arises based on wholesome mental factors. The third point is to explain the similarity in nature.
Treatise: The previous 'non-perception' attainment can only cause the resultant effects of the four aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volition). The fourth point is to explain the difference in the resultant effects. There are two parts in the text, the first explaining the difference in the resultant effects, and the second based on the difference in the realms.
Treatise: The previous 'non-perception' attainment is cultivated because of the fear of annihilation, and because only the power of the noble path can guide it, and because of the aspiration for the supreme liberation of dṛṣṭadharma-nirvāṇa (Nirvana in this life). The fifth point is to explain the difference in the cultivators. There are three reasons why ordinary people cannot obtain it: first, they are afraid of annihilation; second, only the power of the noble path can guide it; third, they aspire to the supreme liberation of dṛṣṭadharma-nirvāṇa. In the long-term preliminary practice, one contemplates Nirvana; in the short-term preliminary practice, one contemplates cessation.
Treatise: This samadhi is also like the previous samadhi, it can only be attained through gradual cultivation. The sixth point is the similarity in the initial attainment.
Treatise: Moreover, at the time of initial attainment, if one regresses, it will also become a thing of the past. The seventh point is to explain the similarity in achieving the mundane.
Treatise: The World Honored One also attains it by being apart from defilements. The eighth point is to explain that the World Honored One can only attain it by being apart from defilements.
Treatise: The World Honored One has never attained it through ubhayabhāga-vimukti (simultaneous liberation from afflictions and the physical body). The following ninth point is to distinguish the similarities and differences with other schools. There are two parts in the text, one is the question, and the other is the answer. This is the question.
Treatise: Between the arising and ceasing samadhi and the cessation samadhi, how can one achieve ubhayabhāga-vimukti? This is the answer. The Mahāvibhāṣā 153 says.
。何故世尊盡智起已名俱解脫。答已得彼定入．出心故名俱解脫。非得定體。則由此理名離染得。后時不由加行起故。
論。西方師說至后得菩提。述異部也。此師意說。菩薩學位已起滅定。后得菩提。
論。云何此中不許彼說。此責有部不許所以。
論。若許彼說至後生盡智。西方師證自義順論說也。西方師是健馱羅國師。鄔波鞠多此云近藏。佛涅槃后一百年出。是阿育王門師。
論。迦濕彌羅國至後方生盡智。此述婆沙宗也。
論。所以者何。西方師徴。
論。傳說菩薩至成三十四。釋。以三十四心成菩提不入滅盡定也。
論。一切菩薩至起滅盡定。釋三十四心成菩提所以。
論。外國諸師至斯有何過。外國反問也。
論。若爾至不越期心。出越期心過也。
論。理實菩薩至無漏聖道。西方師釋。不越期心。與婆沙異。
論。若爾期心如何不越。毗婆沙師破西方釋。如何得是不越期心。
論。謂我未得至諸事究竟。西方重釋。不越期心。正理論云。豈不由斯已成違越欲起無漏聖道期心。如何菩薩為盡諸漏修未曾得見．修二道。欲拔有頂見斷惑根。及除有頂修惑怨敵。立誓要期結加趺坐。事未究竟而於其中。舍所要期無漏治道。貴重無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『為何世尊在盡智生起后被稱為俱解脫？』回答：『因為已經獲得了進入和離開該定的心，所以稱為俱解脫。』並非獲得了定的本體。因此，根據這個道理，被稱為離染得，因為之後不是通過加行而生起的。
論：『西方師說乃至后得菩提。』這是在敘述其他部派的觀點。這位老師的意思是說，菩薩在學位時已經生起了滅定，之後才獲得菩提。
論：『為何在這裡不允許那種說法？』這是責問有部為什麼不允許這種說法。
論：『如果允許那種說法，乃至後生盡智。』西方師爲了證明自己的觀點，順著論典的說法。西方師是健馱羅國（Gandhāra，古代印度地區名）的老師。鄔波鞠多（Upagupta，尊者名）這裡翻譯為近藏，佛陀涅槃后一百年出現，是阿育王（Ashoka，印度孔雀王朝的國王）的老師。
論：『迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir，克什米爾）乃至後方生盡智。』這是在敘述婆沙宗（Vaibhāṣika，說一切有部的主要論書《大毗婆沙論》的宗派）的觀點。
論：『所以是什麼呢？』西方師提出疑問。
論：『傳說菩薩乃至成三十四。』解釋：用三十四心成就菩提，不進入滅盡定。
論：『一切菩薩乃至起滅盡定。』解釋用三十四心成就菩提的原因。
論：『外國諸師乃至斯有何過？』外國師反問。
論：『如果這樣，乃至不越期心。』指出越期心的過失。
論：『理實菩薩乃至無漏聖道。』西方師解釋：不越期心，與婆沙宗的觀點不同。
論：『如果這樣，期心如何不越？』毗婆沙師反駁西方師的解釋：如何才能做到不越期心呢？
論：『說我未得乃至諸事究竟。』西方師重新解釋：不越期心。《正理論》說：『難道不是因為這樣已經違越了想要生起無漏聖道的期心嗎？』菩薩爲了窮盡諸漏，修習未曾得見的見道和修道，想要拔除有頂（Bhavāgra，三界之頂）的見斷惑根，以及去除有頂的修惑怨敵，立下誓言，結跏趺坐，事情沒有完成，卻在其中捨棄所要達成的無漏對治之道，看重無為涅槃。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Why is the World-Honored One called 'liberated in both ways' after the arising of exhaustive knowledge?' The answer is: 'Because one has attained the mind of entering and emerging from that samadhi, it is called 'liberated in both ways.' It is not that one has attained the substance of the samadhi itself. Therefore, according to this principle, it is called 'attained through detachment,' because it does not arise through subsequent effort.'
Treatise: 'The Western Teacher speaks of even the subsequent attainment of Bodhi.' This is a narration of the views of other schools. This teacher means to say that Bodhisattvas, while in the stage of learning, have already generated the cessation samadhi and only later attain Bodhi.
Treatise: 'Why is that view not permitted here?' This is questioning why the Sarvāstivāda school does not permit that view.
Treatise: 'If that view is permitted, even until the subsequent arising of exhaustive knowledge.' The Western Teacher, in order to prove his own view, follows the statements of the treatise. The Western Teacher is a teacher from the country of Gandhāra. Upagupta, which is translated here as 'Near Treasury,' appeared one hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana and was the teacher of King Ashoka.
Treatise: 'The country of Kashmir, even until the subsequent arising of exhaustive knowledge.' This is a narration of the views of the Vaibhāṣika school.
Treatise: 'What is the reason?' The Western Teacher raises a question.
Treatise: 'It is said that the Bodhisattva even attains thirty-four.' Explanation: One attains Bodhi with thirty-four minds, without entering the cessation samadhi.
Treatise: 'All Bodhisattvas even generate the cessation samadhi.' Explanation of the reason for attaining Bodhi with thirty-four minds.
Treatise: 'Foreign teachers, what fault is there in this?' The foreign teacher asks in return.
Treatise: 'If so, even without exceeding the appointed time.' Pointing out the fault of exceeding the appointed time.
Treatise: 'In reality, the Bodhisattva even has the undefiled holy path.' The Western Teacher explains: Not exceeding the appointed time, which is different from the view of the Vaibhāṣika school.
Treatise: 'If so, how is it that the appointed time is not exceeded?' The Vaibhāṣika teacher refutes the Western Teacher's explanation: How can it be that the appointed time is not exceeded?
Treatise: 'Saying, 'I have not yet attained even the complete accomplishment of all things.'' The Western Teacher re-explains: Not exceeding the appointed time. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Is it not because of this that one has already violated the intention to generate the undefiled holy path?' The Bodhisattva, in order to exhaust all defilements, cultivates the path of seeing and the path of cultivation, which have not yet been attained, wanting to uproot the root of afflictions to be severed by seeing in the Peak of Existence (Bhavāgra), and to remove the enemies of afflictions to be cultivated in the Peak of Existence, makes a vow, sits in the lotus position, and before the matter is completed, abandons the undefiled antidote that is to be achieved, valuing the unconditioned Nirvana.'
始能為誑惑世間定類。為獲共有易得滅定而致稽留。如是善成三十四念得菩提故。
論。前說為善我所宗故。結歸本宗。
論。雖已說二定至滅定初人中。次下有半頌第五重明二定同．異。
論曰至而得現起。第一明二定起處同也故婆沙一百五十三云。問何故生欲．色界能起滅定非無色界。答命根依二法轉。一色。二心。此定無心斷心起故。生欲．色界起此定時。其心雖斷而命依色轉。生無色界色雖斷而命依心轉。若生彼起此定者色．心俱無命根無依故亦應斷。是應名死。非謂入定。是故生彼界不起。
論。若有不許至是名同相。引證明起處同也 言。若有不許至非五行。若不許色界起二定者即違本論 或有是色有者。謂色界有也 此有非五行者。五行謂五蘊。迦葉佛時以行名同蘊。婆沙一百九十二云。此中諸蘊以行聲說。過去如來應正等覺說蘊名行。今釋迦如來說行為蘊。此阿毗達磨中說五行者。欲顯今佛所說五蘊則是先佛所說五行。已上論文 非五行者。謂有色界身不具五蘊也 言。謂色纏有情至此有非五行。引本論釋也 或生有想天住不同類心者。是起異界心及無漏心。此心非色界故 若入無想定若入滅盡定者。是有想天中入二定也 或生無想天已得入無想者。生無想天中已入無想異
熟 是謂是色有此有非五行者。結成非五行也。此上所說唯有色．行二蘊無餘蘊也 言。由此證知至是名同相。結證同相。
論。言異相者至后復修起。第二明異相也。婆沙一百五十二云問何故生色界中能初起靜慮。無色而非滅定。答靜慮由三緣故初起。一因力。二業力。三法爾力。無色由二緣故初起。一因力。二業力。滅定由一緣故初起。謂由說力。唯欲界有佛說故能起現前。不由因力以餘生中未曾起滅定故。不由業力以此定非業性故。不由法爾力以無色中無世界壞故 正理論云。謂滅盡定初起唯在人中。有說者．釋者。及有強盛加行力故。
論。此滅盡定至斯有是處。明滅定有退也。若不退即不得於色界起 鄔馱夷。是阿難共住弟子。
論。應如是知至亦有是處。正引經證退也。
論。應如是知至往色界受生。結證所以也。若不退起色界煩惱。即不得生意成天中。已離無所有惑得此定故。既經說生彼故知有退。
論。有餘部執至此義亦成。述異釋。無退義得成也。離第三定染得第四定。即第四定處亦名意成天。滅定不退亦得生彼。
論。第四靜慮至契經說故。破異說也。
論。此若必然至超越定義。異執難也。
論。此定次第至隨樂超入。釋外難也 言次第者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『熟』是指如果色蘊存在，那麼非五行（非色、受、想、行、識五蘊）也存在，這是因為非五行是由五行結合而成的。以上所說的只包含色蘊和行蘊，沒有其他蘊。『言。由此證知至是名同相。』是總結並證明同相。
『論。言異相者至后復修起。』第二部分闡明異相。婆沙（《大毗婆沙論》）第一百五十二卷中說：『問：為什麼在生**（此處應為「欲界」）中能夠最初生起靜慮（禪定），而在無色界卻不能生起滅盡定？』答：靜慮最初生起有三種因緣：一、因力；二、業力；三、法爾力（自然規律）。無色界最初生起有兩種因緣：一、因力；二、業力。滅盡定最初生起只有一種因緣，即佛陀的教說之力。只有欲界有佛陀的教說，因此能夠生起現前。不是因為因力，因為在其他生命中從未生起過滅盡定；不是因為業力，因為此定不是業的性質；不是因為法爾力，因為在無色界沒有世界壞滅。』正理論（《阿毗達磨順正理論》）中說：『滅盡定最初生起只能在人中，因為有說法者、解釋者，以及有強盛的加行力。』
『論。此滅盡定至斯有是處。』闡明滅盡定是有退失的。如果不退失，就不能在**（此處應為「欲界」）生起。鄔馱夷（Udayi）是阿難（Ananda）的同住弟子。
『論。應如是知至亦有是處。』這是引用經文來證明退失。
『論。應如是知至往受生。』總結並證明原因。如果不退失，生起（此處應為「欲界」）的煩惱，就不能在生意成天（無所有處天）中受生，因為已經離開了無所有處的迷惑而得到此定。既然經中說生於彼處，就知道有退失。
『論。有餘部執至此義亦成。』敘述不同的解釋，即沒有退失的意義也能成立。離開第三禪的染著而得到第四禪，那麼第四禪的處所也名為意成天。滅盡定不退失也能生於彼處。
『論。第四靜慮至契經說故。』駁斥不同的說法。
『論。此若必然至超越定義。』這是用不同的執著來提出的疑問。
『論。此定次第至隨樂超入。』解釋外來的疑問。『言次第者』
【English Translation】 English version 'Shu' means that if the Rupa-skandha (form aggregate) exists, then the non-Five Skandhas (i.e., anything other than form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) also exist, because the non-Five Skandhas are formed by the combination of the Five Skandhas. What has been said above only includes the Rupa-skandha and Samskara-skandha (formation aggregate), without the other Skandhas. 'Yan. You ci zheng zhi zhi shi ming tong xiang.' concludes and proves the sameness.
'Lun. Yan yi xiang zhe zhi hou fu xiu qi.' The second part elucidates the different aspects. The 152nd fascicle of the Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa-sastra) says: 'Question: Why can the Dhyana (meditative absorption) be initially arisen in the ** (should be 'Desire Realm'), but not the Nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment) in the Formless Realm?' Answer: Dhyana initially arises due to three causes: 1. Causal force; 2. Karmic force; 3. Dharma-nature force (natural law). The Formless Realm initially arises due to two causes: 1. Causal force; 2. Karmic force. Nirodha-samapatti initially arises due to only one cause, which is the power of the Buddha's teachings. Only the Desire Realm has the Buddha's teachings, so it can arise in the present. It is not because of causal force, because Nirodha-samapatti has never arisen in other lives; it is not because of karmic force, because this attainment is not of the nature of karma; it is not because of Dharma-nature force, because there is no world destruction in the Formless Realm.' The Zhengli-lun (Abhidharmanyayanusara) says: 'Nirodha-samapatti can only initially arise among humans, because there are speakers, interpreters, and strong effort.'
'Lun. Ci mie jin ding zhi si you shi chu.' elucidates that Nirodha-samapatti can be lost. If it is not lost, it cannot arise in the ** (should be 'Desire Realm'). Udayi is a disciple of Ananda who lived with him.
'Lun. Ying ru shi zhi zhi yi you shi chu.' This is quoting the sutras to prove the loss.
'Lun. Ying ru shi zhi zhi wang ** shou sheng.' concludes and proves the reason. If it is not lost, and the afflictions of the ** (should be 'Desire Realm') arise, one cannot be born in the Akaniṣṭha Heaven (the Heaven of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception), because one has already left the delusion of the Realm of Nothingness and attained this samapatti. Since the sutras say that one is born there, it is known that there is loss.
'Lun. You yu bu zhi zhi ci yi yi cheng.' narrates different explanations, that is, the meaning of no loss can also be established. Leaving the attachment to the Third Dhyana and attaining the Fourth Dhyana, then the place of the Fourth Dhyana is also called the Akaniṣṭha Heaven. Nirodha-samapatti that is not lost can also be born there.
'Lun. Di si jing lv zhi qi jing shuo gu.' refutes different statements.
'Lun. Ci ruo bi ran zhi chao yue ding yi.' This is a question raised with different attachments.
'Lun. Ci ding ci di zhi sui le chao ru.' explains the external questions. 'Yan ci di zhe'
。據初修說。
論。如是二定至有頂地故。自此已下述多別也。此第一依地異也。
論。加行有異至作意為先故。第二異也。
論。相續有異至相續起故。第三異也。
論。異熟有異至異熟果故。第四異也。
論。順受有異至生二受故。第五異也。
論。初起有異至最初起故。第六異也。
論。二定總以至滅受想耶。問定名也。
論。二定加行至名他心智。舉喻釋也 正理論云。何緣唯說滅受想定。厭逆彼二生此定故。謂想與受能為見．愛雜染所依。故先厭逆如是二法多諸過患。如立蘊中已廣分別。故偏厭逆入滅盡定。
論。今二定中至心復得生。問心重生因也。
論。毗婆沙師至等無間緣。引婆沙釋。由過去世等無間緣力能生也。正理廣明在滅定位總無有心。故彼論云。無心有情理必應有。有命等故。異於命終有情色．心非決定有。心若定有色亦應然。色有時無心亦應爾。故有命者即名有情。然命必依色．心隨一。引契經說識不離身。于定無心亦無違害。以即於此所依身中識必還生故言不離。謂一相續眾同分中。識相續流非畢竟斷。譬如鬼病暫不發時。由未永除仍名不離 乃至 然定後心復得生者。定前心作等無間緣所引發故。又加行中要期勢力所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 根據初修的說法。
論：像這樣，二定（指滅盡定和無想定）到達有頂地（三界中最高的禪定境界）的緣故。從這裡以下，敘述多種差別。這是第一種，依據地的不同。
論：加行（為達到某種禪定狀態所做的準備工作）有差異，乃至以作意（有意識的努力）為先導的緣故。這是第二種差異。
論：相續（心識的連續性）有差異，乃至相續生起的緣故。這是第三種差異。
論：異熟（果報）有差異，乃至異熟果的緣故。這是第四種差異。
論：順受（感受）有差異，乃至產生兩種感受的緣故。這是第五種差異。
論：初起（最初生起）有差異，乃至最初生起的緣故。這是第六種差異。
論：二定（滅盡定和無想定）總的來說，乃至滅盡受想嗎？這是對定的名稱的提問。
論：二定的加行，乃至名為他心智（瞭解他人心思的智慧）。這是舉例說明。《正理論》說：為什麼只說滅受想定？因為厭惡、違逆受和想，才生起這種定。也就是說，想和受能夠成為見（錯誤的觀點）和愛（貪愛）等雜染的所依。所以首先厭惡、違逆這兩種法，因為它們有很多過患，就像在《立蘊》中已經廣泛分別的那樣。所以偏重於厭惡、違逆而進入滅盡定。
論：現在在二定中，乃至心又能夠重新生起。這是提問心重新生起的原因。
論：毗婆沙師，乃至等無間緣（緊鄰的前一剎那）。這是引用《婆沙論》的解釋。由於過去世等無間緣的力量能夠產生（心）。《正理論》廣泛地說明在滅定位中完全沒有心。所以那部論說：無心的有情（眾生）在道理上必定存在，因為有命根等。這不同於命終（死亡），有色（物質）和心並非一定是同時存在。心如果一定存在，那麼色也應該如此。色有時不存在，心也應該如此。所以有命根的就被稱為有情。然而命根必定依賴於色或心其中之一。引用契經（佛經）說識（心識）不離開身體，對於在定中無心也沒有違背。因為就在這個所依的身體中，識必定還會生起，所以說不離開。也就是說，在一個相續、眾同分（同一類眾生的共同特徵）中，識的相續流轉並非畢竟斷絕。譬如鬼病暫時不發作的時候，因為沒有永遠去除，仍然稱為不離開。乃至，然而定后的心又能夠重新生起，是因為定前的心作為等無間緣所引發的緣故。又，在加行中，要期（預先設定的期限）的勢力所致。
【English Translation】 English version: According to the initial compilation.
Treatise: Thus, these two Samādhis (referring to Nirodha-samāpatti and Asaṃjñika-samāpatti) reach the summit of existence (the highest meditative state in the Realm of Desire, Form, and Formless Realms). From here onwards, multiple differences are described. This is the first difference, based on the difference in the ground (bhūmi).
Treatise: The preparatory actions (prayoga) are different, even to the extent that they are preceded by attention (manaskāra). This is the second difference.
Treatise: The continuity (saṃtāna) is different, even to the extent that the continuity arises. This is the third difference.
Treatise: The resultant maturation (vipāka) is different, even to the extent of the resultant maturation fruit. This is the fourth difference.
Treatise: The agreeable feeling (anubhava) is different, even to the extent of producing two feelings. This is the fifth difference.
Treatise: The initial arising (prathamotpāda) is different, even to the extent of the initial arising. This is the sixth difference.
Treatise: Generally speaking, regarding the two Samādhis, is it to the extent of the cessation of perception and feeling? This is a question about the name of the Samādhi.
Treatise: The preparatory actions of the two Samādhis, even to the extent of being named the 'knowledge of others' minds' (paracitta-jñāna). This is an illustration. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says: Why is only the Samādhi of the cessation of perception and feeling (saṃjñā-vedayita-nirodha-samāpatti) mentioned? Because one is averse to and opposes feeling (vedanā) and perception (saṃjñā), and then arises this Samādhi. That is to say, perception and feeling can become the basis for defilements such as wrong views (dṛṣṭi) and craving (tṛṣṇā). Therefore, one first becomes averse to and opposes these two dharmas, because they have many faults, as has been extensively explained in the Establishment of Aggregates. Therefore, one particularly becomes averse to and enters the Nirodha-samāpatti.
Treatise: Now, in these two Samādhis, even to the extent that the mind can arise again. This is a question about the cause of the mind's re-arising.
Treatise: The Vaibhāṣika masters, even to the extent of the immediately preceding condition (samanantara-pratyaya). This is quoting the explanation from the Vibhāṣā. Due to the power of the immediately preceding condition from past lives, it is able to produce (the mind). The Nyāyānusāra extensively explains that in the state of Nirodha-samāpatti, there is completely no mind. Therefore, that treatise says: 'It is logically necessary that there are sentient beings without mind, because they have life, etc.' This is different from death (maraṇa), where the presence of form (rūpa) and mind (citta) is not necessarily determined. If the mind is definitely present, then form should also be so. When form is sometimes absent, the mind should also be so. Therefore, one who has life is called a sentient being (sattva). However, life necessarily depends on either form or mind. Quoting the sūtra, it says that consciousness (vijñāna) does not leave the body, and there is no contradiction even if there is no mind in the Samādhi. Because in this dependent body, consciousness will definitely arise again, so it is said not to leave. That is to say, in one continuity (saṃtāna) and commonality of beings (nikāya-sabhāga), the flow of consciousness is not completely cut off. For example, when a ghost sickness temporarily does not manifest, it is still called not leaving because it has not been permanently removed. Even to the extent that the mind can arise again after the Samādhi, it is because the mind before the Samādhi is caused by the power of the preparatory actions.
引發故。
論。有餘師言至非由心起。述經部宗。彼宗色．心互為因起。
論。故彼先代至心有根身。引經部宗古師證也。
論。尊者世友至故無有失。敘異計通難也。
論。尊者妙音至亦應不滅。述妙音師破也。
論。若謂如經至故有差別。反遮通難。
論。由此道理至諸心皆滅。結歸婆沙宗也。
論。若都無心如何名定。外難。定是心所。若都無心如何名定。
論。此令大種至故名為定。述有部兩釋也。定即等至異名。散無此能。故等至名唯目于定。二定無心亦有此能。故此二定亦名等至。
論。如是二定至令不生故。述有部宗實有。若假即無有體。如何能遮礙心令不生也。
論。有說此證至無別實體。釋經部假體也。
論。此唯不轉至是有為攝。釋。雖無體而名有為。
論或即所依至假立為定。第二釋也。即無心位所依色身假名為定。
論。應知無想至余說如前。類滅盡定釋無想定。
論。此非善說違我宗故。可解。正理論云。又執滅定體唯是假。未知何法為假所依。非離假依可有假法 述曰。如瓶等假。所依即是色等四境。若四境無亦無瓶等 又唯不轉。其體是無如何可言是有為攝。此前後位．及現皆無有性。恒時
不可得故。而言是有。是有為攝。但有虛言都無有義。若言假定亦有所依謂所依身。由定心引令如是起假立為定。是則此定應無記攝。非無記法可說為善 述曰。若身為所依即是無記。已下自立宗也 是故唯應依心．心起。非前定心力能遮礙余心。由此故知。離前心外定有別法能遮礙心。由此法故於無心位。雖有心因而心不起。即此別法名滅盡定。體是有為。實而非假。修觀行者。由定前心要期願力所引發故。令滅盡定勢力漸微。至都盡位無遮礙用。意．法為緣還生意識。由此準釋前無想定．及與無想 述曰。亦同實有。
論。已辨二定命根者何。自下第五半頌述命根也。
論曰至謂三界壽。此引對法會二名也。
論。此復未了何法名壽。問體性也。
論。謂有別法至說名為壽。答壽體也。
論。故世尊說至如木無思覺。引經證也。
論。故有別法至說名為壽。結體用也。
論。若爾此壽何法能持。問也。
論。即暖及識還能持壽。答也。
論。若爾至應常無謝。難也。既言三法更互相持。必無先滅。應常不謝。
論。既爾此壽至相續轉故。有部被難轉計。
論。若爾至而須壽耶。經部難也。經部宗六處住時勢分名壽。大乘本識上假立。有部別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為不可得，所以說『是有』。『是有』是被『有為』所攝的。但這些都只是虛妄的言語，實際上沒有任何意義。如果說是假定，也應該有所依據，即所依據的身體。由禪定之心引導，使之如此生起，假立為『定』。那麼，這個『定』應該屬於『無記』（既非善也非惡）的範疇。不是『無記』之法可以說成是『善』的。敘述說：如果身體是所依據的，那就是『無記』。以下是自立宗派的觀點。因此，只應該依據心和心所生起。不是之前的禪定之心力能夠阻礙其他的心。由此可知，離開之前的心之外，確實有別的法能夠阻礙心。因為這個法的緣故，在沒有心的時候，即使有心的因，心也不會生起。這個特別的法就叫做『滅盡定』（Nirodha-samāpatti）。它的本體是『有為』（saṃskṛta），是真實的而不是虛假的。修行觀行的人，由於禪定之前的心要期願力所引發的緣故，使得『滅盡定』的勢力逐漸減弱，直到完全消失，沒有阻礙作用。意和法作為緣，還會生起意識。由此可以類推解釋之前的『無想定』（Asañjñā-samāpatti）以及『無想』（Asañjika）。敘述說：也同樣是真實存在的。
論：已經辨析了兩種『定』，那麼『命根』（jīvitendriya）是什麼呢？下面第五個半頌敘述『命根』。
論曰至謂三界壽：這裡引用《對法會》的兩個名稱。
論：這裡還不明白什麼法叫做『壽』（āyus）？這是在問它的體性。
論：謂有別法至說名為壽：回答『壽』的本體。
論：故世尊說至如木無思覺：引用經文來證明。
論：故有別法至說名為壽：總結『壽』的本體和作用。
論：若爾此壽何法能持？問。
論：即暖及識還能持壽：答。
論：若爾至應常無謝：難。既然說三種法互相支援，必定沒有先滅的，應該永遠不會消逝。
論：既爾此壽至相續轉故：有部（Sarvāstivāda）被難后改變觀點。
論：若爾至而須壽耶：經部（Sautrāntika）的責難。經部宗認為六處（ṣaḍāyatana）住時的勢分叫做『壽』。大乘（Mahāyāna）在本識（ālayavijñāna）上假立。有部（Sarvāstivāda）則認為是別法。
【English Translation】 English version: Because it is unattainable, it is said to 'exist'. 'Exists' is encompassed by 'conditioned' (saṃskṛta). But these are merely empty words, actually without any meaning. If it is said to be hypothetical, it should also have a basis, namely the body that is relied upon. Guided by the mind of meditation, causing it to arise in this way, hypothetically establishing it as 'samādhi' (定). Then, this 'samādhi' should belong to the category of 'avyākṛta' (無記, neither good nor evil). A 'avyākṛta' dharma cannot be said to be 'good'. The commentary states: If the body is what is relied upon, then it is 'avyākṛta'. The following is the self-established sectarian view. Therefore, one should only rely on the mind and what arises from the mind. It is not that the power of the previous meditative mind can obstruct other minds. From this, it is known that apart from the previous mind, there is indeed another dharma that can obstruct the mind. Because of this dharma, in the state of no-mind, even if there is the cause of the mind, the mind will not arise. This special dharma is called 'Nirodha-samāpatti' (滅盡定). Its essence is 'conditioned' (saṃskṛta), real and not false. Those who practice contemplation, due to the power of the vow made before meditation, cause the power of 'Nirodha-samāpatti' to gradually weaken, until it completely disappears, without any obstructing function. Intention and dharma serve as conditions, and consciousness will still arise. From this, one can infer and explain the previous 'Asañjñā-samāpatti' (無想定) and 'Asañjika' (無想). The commentary states: They are also truly existent.
Treatise: Having distinguished the two 'samādhis', what is 'jīvitendriya' (命根, life faculty)? The fifth half-verse below describes 'jīvitendriya'.
Treatise says to mean life in the three realms: Here, two names from the Abhidharmasamuccaya are cited.
Treatise: Here, it is not yet understood what dharma is called 'āyus' (壽, life)? This is asking about its nature.
Treatise: Meaning there is a separate dharma to say is called life: Answers the essence of 'life'.
Treatise: Therefore, the World-Honored One said to be like wood without thought or sensation: Citing scripture to prove it.
Treatise: Therefore, there is a separate dharma to say is called life: Concluding the essence and function of 'life'.
Treatise: If so, what dharma can sustain this life? Question.
Treatise: Namely, warmth and consciousness can still sustain life: Answer.
Treatise: If so, it should always be without ceasing: Difficulty. Since it is said that the three dharmas support each other, there must be no prior extinction, and it should never cease.
Treatise: Since this life continues to transform: The Sarvāstivāda (有部) school changed its view after being challenged.
Treatise: If so, then why is life needed? The Sautrāntika (經部) school's difficulty. The Sautrāntika school considers the potential of the six āyatanas (六處, sense bases) at the time of dwelling to be called 'life'. Mahāyāna (大乘) hypothetically establishes it on the ālayavijñāna (本識, store consciousness). The Sarvāstivāda (有部) school considers it to be a separate dharma.
有實物。故經部言。何緣不許唯業能持暖．識而須壽耶。
論。理不應然至恒異熟故。有部出過。若一切識唯是異熟可說唯業能持。有情或起善．染之心。及異地無漏諸識互起。如何得說唯業持識。
論。既爾至何須此壽。經部轉計。
論。如是識在至彼無暖故。有部出過。彼既無暖。誰持于識。
論。應言彼識業為能持。經部又轉計也。
論。豈得隨情至唯業持識。有部責經部數轉計也 論。又前已說。有部述前破也。
論。前說者何。經部問也。
論。謂前說言至皆是異熟。有部述前說也。
論。是故定應至說名為壽。有部結自宗也。
論。今亦不言至非別實物。經部敘自宗也。
論。若爾至說名為壽。有部問壽體也。
論。謂三界業至說名為壽。經部答。
論。如谷種等至住時勢分。舉喻顯也 正理論云。於此但應徴經主意。若處無業所引異熟內五色處。于彼或時無業所引第六意處。謂于長時起染污識。或善有漏．及無漏識相續位中。無業所引異熟勢分。說何為壽。若於是處有業異熟。從生剎那至命終位恒無間轉。可說是處有業所引住時勢分。相續決定說為命根。此既無業所引異熟住時勢分恒無間轉。云何可說此有命根。其理既然
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有實物存在。因此經部（Sautrantika）才這樣說。有什麼理由不允許只有業力能夠維持暖（tejas，火元素）、識（vijnana，意識），而必須要有壽（ayu，壽命）呢？
論：道理上不應該是這樣……直到恒常的異熟果報。有部（Sarvastivada）提出了反駁。如果一切識都只是異熟果報，或許可以說只有業力能夠維持。但有情有時會生起善心、染污之心，以及不同地的無漏諸識相互生起。如何能說只有業力才能維持識呢？
論：既然這樣……何必要有這個壽呢？經部轉變了想法。
論：如果這樣，識存在……因為那裡沒有暖。有部提出了反駁。那裡既然沒有暖，誰來維持識呢？
論：應該說那裡的識是由業力來維持的。經部又轉變了想法。
論：怎麼能隨心所欲……只有業力才能維持識呢？有部責備經部多次轉變想法。論：而且前面已經說過了。有部陳述了之前的駁斥。
論：前面說的是什麼？經部問道。
論：前面說的是……都是異熟果報。有部陳述了之前的說法。
論：因此，必定應該……說名為壽。有部總結了自己的宗義。
論：現在也不說……不是別的實物。經部敘述了自己的宗義。
論：如果這樣……說名為壽。有部詢問壽的本體。
論：指的是三界的業……說名為壽。經部回答。
論：如同穀子的種子等……住留的時間和勢分。舉例來顯明。正理論說：在這裡只需要詢問經部的意圖。如果某個地方沒有業力所引生的異熟內五色處（panca-varna-rupa-ayatana，五根所對的五種色境），在那個地方，有時也沒有業力所引生的第六意處（manayatana，意識的所緣）。比如在長時間生起染污識，或者善的有漏識以及無漏識相續的階段中，沒有業力所引生的異熟勢分。那麼，說什麼是壽呢？如果某個地方有業力所引生的異熟，從出生的剎那到命終的位置，恒常沒有間斷地運轉，可以說這個地方有業力所引生的住留的時間和勢分，相續不斷，可以確定地說這就是命根。既然這裡沒有業力所引生的異熟住留的時間和勢分恒常沒有間斷地運轉，怎麼能說這裡有命根呢？道理就是這樣。
【English Translation】 English version: There is a real entity. Therefore, the Sautrantikas (Sautrantika) say this. What reason is there to not allow only karma to maintain tejas (tejas, fire element), vijnana (vijnana, consciousness), and to require ayu (ayu, lifespan)?
Treatise: It should not be so in principle... until the constant maturation result. The Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivada) raised an objection. If all consciousness is only maturation results, it could be said that only karma can maintain it. But sentient beings sometimes generate wholesome or defiled thoughts, and various consciousnesses from different realms arise mutually. How can it be said that only karma maintains consciousness?
Treatise: Since that's the case... why is this lifespan needed? The Sautrantikas changed their minds.
Treatise: If that's the case, consciousness exists... because there is no warmth there. The Sarvastivadins raised an objection. Since there is no warmth there, who maintains the consciousness?
Treatise: It should be said that the consciousness there is maintained by karma. The Sautrantikas changed their minds again.
Treatise: How can one arbitrarily... only karma maintains consciousness? The Sarvastivadins blamed the Sautrantikas for changing their minds many times. Treatise: Moreover, it has already been said before. The Sarvastivadins stated the previous refutation.
Treatise: What was said before? The Sautrantikas asked.
Treatise: What was said before is... all are maturation results. The Sarvastivadins stated the previous statement.
Treatise: Therefore, it must be... called lifespan. The Sarvastivadins concluded their own doctrine.
Treatise: Now it is not said... not a separate real entity. The Sautrantikas narrated their own doctrine.
Treatise: If so... called lifespan. The Sarvastivadins asked about the substance of lifespan.
Treatise: It refers to the karma of the three realms... called lifespan. The Sautrantikas answered.
Treatise: Like the seeds of grains, etc.... the time and potential of dwelling. An analogy is used to illustrate. The Nyayanusara-sastra (Zhengli Lun) says: Here, one should only inquire about the intention of the Sutra master. If in a place where there are no internally derived five sense objects of maturation (panca-varna-rupa-ayatana, the five sense objects corresponding to the five roots) caused by karma, in that place, sometimes there is also no sixth sense object of mind (manayatana, the object of consciousness) caused by karma. For example, in the stage of continuously generating defiled consciousness for a long time, or wholesome contaminated consciousness, and uncontaminated consciousness, there is no potential of maturation caused by karma. Then, what is called lifespan? If in a place where there is maturation caused by karma, from the moment of birth to the position of death, it constantly operates without interruption, it can be said that in this place there is the time and potential of dwelling caused by karma, continuously and definitely, which can be said to be the life force. Since there is no time and potential of dwelling caused by karma constantly operating without interruption here, how can it be said that there is a life force here? The principle is like this.
。為說何法名業所引住時勢分。既無所引住時勢分。相續決定復屬於誰。既無如是相續決定。由何義說隨應住時爾所時住說為壽體。是故經主於此義中專構多言都無所表。又所引喻于證無能。如種所引相續無斷乃至熟時恒隨轉故。放箭所引相續無斷。乃至住時恒隨轉故。此二可有乃至熟時．住時勢分。非業異熟於一切時相續無斷可言業謝猶有所引住時勢分相續決定。隨應住時。爾所時住。故所引喻于證無能 準上論文。正理破經部義。論主既下不存經部之義。不勞更釋。故下文云。別有實物是說為善 有人雖作俱舍師釋。未為當理。
論。有謂有行至恒行不息。論主因其義便兼破勝論。此敘計也。彼計德句義有二十四種。行是第二十一。故言是德差別。彼計諸法從此至彼。速疾迴轉等皆由行力。箭等乃至未墮落時。其行。猶如鳥銜其果。持其箭也。
論。彼體一故至無墮落時。論主破也。其箭之上行德持箭。初發．將墮其體是一。后無別障往趣余方先急．后緩至時分位不同應不得有。又應畢竟無墮落時。初發．將墮其行一故。
論。若謂由風至無差別故。破轉計也。若風能障初即應墮。若初不能障后亦應然。即應畢竟無墮落時。障風一故。
論。有別實物至是說為善。論主結歸有部宗也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：根據什麼法，才能說明由業力所牽引而產生的住時（sthiti-kāla，事物持續存在的時間）和勢分（avasthā，事物所處的狀態）？既然沒有由業力牽引而產生的住時和勢分，那麼相續（saṃtāna，事物前後相續的延續）的決定又屬於誰呢？既然沒有這樣的相續決定，又根據什麼道理說，隨其應住的時間，就在那段時間裡住留，並稱之為壽體（āyuḥ-kāya，壽命的本體）呢？因此，經部（Sautrāntika，佛教的一個派別）的論主在這層意義上，專門構建了許多言論，卻都不能表達任何意義。而且，所引用的比喻也不能證明任何東西。比如，種子所牽引的相續沒有間斷，乃至成熟時都恒常隨之運轉。又如，射出的箭所牽引的相續沒有間斷，乃至停止時都恒常隨之運轉。這兩種情況都可以有乃至成熟時、停止時的勢分。但對於業的異熟果報（karma-vipāka，由業力所產生的果報）來說，在一切時間裡相續沒有間斷，卻不能說業已消謝，仍然有由業力所牽引的住時和勢分，相續決定，隨其應住的時間，就在那段時間裡住留。所以，所引用的比喻不能證明任何東西。參照上面的論文，正理論師（Vaibhāṣika，佛教的一個派別）駁斥了經部的觀點。論主既然不採納經部的觀點，就不必再作解釋。所以下文說：『另外有實物，這樣說才是正確的。』有人雖然作了俱舍論師（Abhidharmakośa-kāraka，精通《俱舍論》的論師）的解釋，但並不恰當。 論：有人說有行（gati，運動）這種東西，乃至恒常執行不息。論主因為這個觀點，順便駁斥了勝論派（Vaiśeṣika，印度教的一個哲學派別）。這是敘述他們的觀點。他們認為德句義（guṇa-padārtha，屬性的範疇）有二十四種，行是第二十一種，所以說是德的差別。他們認為諸法（dharma，事物）從此到彼，快速回轉等，都是由行的力量所致。箭等乃至沒有墜落時，其行就像鳥銜著果實，保持著箭的狀態一樣。 論：它的體性是一，乃至沒有墜落時。論主進行駁斥。箭上的行德保持著箭的狀態，初發時和將要墜落時，其體性是一樣的。後來沒有其他的障礙，前往其他方向，先前急速，後來緩慢，到達時分位不同，本不應該有。又應該畢竟沒有墜落的時候，因為初發時和將要墜落時的行是一樣的。 論：如果說由風（vāyu，風）所致，乃至沒有差別。駁斥轉變的觀點。如果風能夠阻礙，那麼一開始就應該墜落。如果一開始不能阻礙，那麼後來也應該如此，就應該畢竟沒有墜落的時候，因為阻礙的風是一樣的。 論：另外有實物，這樣說才是正確的。論主最終歸結到有部宗（Sarvāstivāda，佛教的一個派別）的觀點。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: According to what Dharma (law, principle), can it be explained that the sthiti-kāla (duration of existence) and avasthā (state of being) are induced by karma (action)? Since there is no sthiti-kāla and avasthā induced by karma, to whom does the continuity (saṃtāna) belong? Since there is no such continuity, by what reasoning can it be said that according to the time it should abide, it abides for that time, and this is called āyuḥ-kāya (the body of life)? Therefore, the master of the Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) has constructed many words in this meaning, but they cannot express anything. Moreover, the metaphors cited cannot prove anything. For example, the continuity induced by a seed is uninterrupted, and it constantly revolves until it matures. Also, the continuity induced by an arrow shot is uninterrupted, and it constantly revolves until it stops. These two situations can have the avasthā of maturation and stopping. However, for the karma-vipāka (the result of karma), the continuity is uninterrupted at all times, but it cannot be said that the karma has ceased, and there is still the sthiti-kāla and avasthā induced by karma, the continuity is determined, and according to the time it should abide, it abides for that time. Therefore, the metaphors cited cannot prove anything. Referring to the above thesis, the Vaibhāṣika (a Buddhist school) refutes the view of the Sautrāntika. Since the author of the treatise does not adopt the view of the Sautrāntika, there is no need to explain it further. Therefore, the following text says: 'There is another real entity, and it is correct to say so.' Although some have made explanations as Abhidharmakośa-kāraka (a master of the Abhidharmakośa), they are not appropriate. Treatise: Some say that there is something called gati (motion), and it constantly moves without ceasing. Because of this view, the author of the treatise incidentally refutes the Vaiśeṣika (a Hindu philosophical school). This is a description of their view. They believe that there are twenty-four kinds of guṇa-padārtha (categories of attributes), and gati is the twenty-first, so it is said to be a difference of guṇa (attribute). They believe that dharmas (things) from here to there, rapid rotation, etc., are all due to the power of gati. The arrow, etc., until it falls, its gati is like a bird holding a fruit, maintaining the state of the arrow. Treatise: Its nature is one, until it falls. The author of the treatise refutes it. The gati on the arrow maintains the state of the arrow, and its nature is the same at the beginning and when it is about to fall. Later, there are no other obstacles, going to other directions, rapid at first, slow later, and the time and position are different, which should not be the case. Also, there should be no falling at all, because the gati is the same at the beginning and when it is about to fall. Treatise: If it is said to be caused by vāyu (wind), until there is no difference. Refuting the changed view. If the wind can hinder, then it should fall at the beginning. If it cannot hinder at the beginning, then it should be the same later, and there should be no falling at all, because the hindering wind is the same. Treatise: There is another real entity, and it is correct to say so. The author of the treatise ultimately concludes to the view of the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school).
論。為壽盡故死為更有餘因。自此已下述傍論也。先問后答。此即問也。
論。施設論說至舍壽行故。引論四句答也 第一句者感壽異熟業力盡故者。此通二義。一任業自力盡故不能招果。二由邊際定等損其業力不能招果。舍壽行復有二義。一亦得同其外緣損壽。二亦得同其壽盡故死。與外緣損義不全同。外緣損壽非令業力不招異熟。但緣強於業壽隨緣損。舍壽行義轉其業力令招富果。與壽業盡亦不全同。壽業力盡非是他緣。舍壽行力是別緣令盡。各有片同。正理將同業盡。此論謂同橫緣。兩師各據一途。互無全是亦不全非。正理先彈自招其失。此第一句壽盡故死。第二句即福盡故死。第三句是俱盡故死。第四句是俱不盡死。但由抂橫緣死 又亦應言舍壽行故者。以其片同第四句故引入此中。故正理云。不應復言舍壽行故。義已攝在初句中故者 以其片同初句義故。廣如前釋。
論。壽盡位中至俱盡故死。釋伏難也。能感二種業俱盡時此死。由感壽業盡死。豈由福盡令命死耶 解云福盡于死雖無功力。以死之時二俱時盡。由斯但言俱盡故死。此俱盡言不欲說由福盡力也。
論。發智論說至一起便住。又引發智釋傍論也。
論。彼言何義至一起便住。論主釋發智論。或是發智自釋。正理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：因為壽命耗盡而死，還是有其他原因？以下是旁論的闡述。先提問后回答，這便是提問。
論：施設論說乃至捨棄壽命的行為。引用四句論來回答。第一句是感受壽命的異熟業力耗盡的緣故。這包含兩種含義：一是任由業力自身耗盡，不能再招感果報；二是由於邊際定等損害了業力，不能招感果報。捨棄壽命的行為也有兩種含義：一是也可以像外緣一樣損害壽命；二是也可以像壽命耗盡一樣死亡。與外緣損害壽命的意義不完全相同。外緣損害壽命並非使業力不能招感異熟果報，而是因為外緣強於業力，壽命隨外緣而損減。捨棄壽命的行為是轉變業力，使其招感惡果。與壽命業力耗盡也不完全相同。壽命業力耗盡並非由於其他因緣，而捨棄壽命的行為是別的因緣使其耗盡。各有部分相同。正理論認為與業力耗盡相同，此論認為與橫緣相同。兩家各據一途，互不完全正確，也不完全錯誤。正理論先反駁自己招致的過失。這第一句是壽命耗盡而死。第二句是福報耗盡而死。第三句是兩者都耗盡而死。第四句是兩者都不耗盡而死，只是由於橫死的因緣。又應該說捨棄壽命的行為的緣故，因為它與第四句有部分相同，所以引入到這裡。所以正理論說：不應該再說捨棄壽命的行為的緣故，因為意義已經包含在第一句中了。因為它與第一句的意義有部分相同，詳細解釋如前。
論：在壽命耗盡的情況下，乃至兩者都耗盡而死。解釋隱藏的疑問。能夠感生兩種業力都耗盡時，就會死亡。由於感生壽命的業力耗盡而死，難道是因為福報耗盡而導致死亡嗎？解釋說：福報耗盡對於死亡雖然沒有作用，但在死亡的時候，兩者同時耗盡。因此只說兩者都耗盡而死。這句『兩者都耗盡』不是想說由於福報耗盡的力量。
論：發智論說乃至一起便住。又引用發智論來解釋旁論。
論：那句話是什麼意思，乃至一起便住。論主解釋發智論。或是發智論自己解釋。正理論
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: Is death due to the exhaustion of lifespan, or are there other causes? The following is a discussion of related points. First a question, then an answer; this is the question.
Treatise: The 'Treatise on Establishments' speaks of abandoning the act of lifespan. It cites four statements in response. The first statement is 'due to the exhaustion of the ripening karmic force of experiencing lifespan.' This encompasses two meanings: first, the karma itself exhausts its own power and cannot bring about results; second, the power of the karma is damaged by border-area samadhi (bianji ding) and cannot bring about results. Abandoning the act of lifespan also has two meanings: first, it can also damage lifespan like external conditions; second, it can also die like the exhaustion of lifespan. It is not entirely the same as the meaning of external conditions damaging lifespan. External conditions damaging lifespan do not prevent karma from bringing about ripening results, but because external conditions are stronger than karma, lifespan is reduced according to the conditions. Abandoning the act of lifespan transforms the karma, causing it to bring about evil results. It is also not entirely the same as the exhaustion of lifespan karma. The exhaustion of lifespan karma is not due to other conditions, while abandoning the act of lifespan is a separate condition that causes it to exhaust. Each has partial similarities. The Nyāyānusāra (正理) considers it the same as the exhaustion of karma, while this treatise considers it the same as horizontal conditions. The two masters each hold to one path, neither completely correct nor completely wrong. The Nyāyānusāra first refutes itself, inviting its own error. This first statement is 'death due to the exhaustion of lifespan.' The second statement is 'death due to the exhaustion of merit.' The third statement is 'death due to the exhaustion of both.' The fourth statement is 'death not due to the exhaustion of either, but due to accidental causes.' It should also be said 'due to abandoning the act of lifespan,' because it has partial similarity with the fourth statement, so it is introduced here. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'It should not be said again 'due to abandoning the act of lifespan,' because the meaning is already included in the first statement.' Because it has partial similarity with the meaning of the first statement, as explained in detail above.
Treatise: In the state of lifespan exhaustion, up to 'death due to the exhaustion of both.' Explains the hidden difficulty. When the two types of karma that can produce effects are exhausted, this death occurs. Since death is due to the exhaustion of the karma that produces lifespan, is it because the exhaustion of merit causes death? Explanation: Although the exhaustion of merit has no power over death, at the time of death, both are exhausted simultaneously. Therefore, it is only said 'death due to the exhaustion of both.' This phrase 'exhaustion of both' does not intend to say due to the power of the exhaustion of merit.
Treatise: The Jñānaprasthāna (發智論) says up to 'they arise and abide together.' Again, citing the Jñānaprasthāna to explain related points.
Treatise: What is the meaning of that statement, up to 'they arise and abide together.' The author of the treatise explains the Jñānaprasthāna. Or perhaps the Jñānaprasthāna explains itself. Nyāyānusāra
論云若所依身可損害故壽隨損害。是名第一隨相續轉。若所依身不可損害如起而住。是名第二一起便住 婆沙論云。有說色身名為相續。若身平和壽則無夭。若身損壞壽則中夭。
論。迦濕彌羅至有非時死。引婆沙釋。隨相續轉是有障非時死也。不隨相續轉。一起便住是無障非是非時死也。
論。故契經說至輪王胎時。已下引四得自體證前義也。前三句證隨相續轉。第四句證一起便住。戲忘念天由喜增忘念便死。意憤恚天由怒增故死。婆沙一百九十九問此二天云。如是諸天住在何處。有說住妙高層級。有說彼是三十三天 今詳。此天雖二說不同。皆可得與修羅相害。準此即合二害俱有。因何但言唯可自害 又應說諸佛自般涅槃。此亦同其自害句攝。婆沙論一百五十一於此句中雲。復有一類或龍．妙翅．或鬼．及人或復所餘可為自害非他害者 唯可他害及俱害者。如文可解 俱非害者中有上二界全。勝業感故 那落迦。上品惡業感故 北俱盧洲。壽分定故 見道．慈定．滅定．及無想定。定力勝故 王仙。謂輪王或舍國習仙。或初受位時先習仙道名為王仙。此亦由勝業力俱非害也 佛使。謂所使人。此由佛力。如時縛迦此云活命。舊云耆婆。或云耆域訛也。佛遣入火抱取殊底穡迦。此云有明。舊云樹提伽訛
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：論中說，如果所依賴的身體可以被損害，那麼壽命也隨著損害而減少，這稱為第一種『隨相續轉』。如果所依賴的身體不可被損害，就像『起而住』一樣，這稱為第二種『一起便住』。《婆沙論》中說，有人說色身名為相續，如果身體平和，壽命就不會夭折；如果身體損壞，壽命就會中途夭折。
論中說，迦濕彌羅（Kashmir）直到有非時死（untimely death）。引用《婆沙論》解釋，『隨相續轉』是有障礙的非時死。『不隨相續轉』，『一起便住』是無障礙的非非時死。
論中說，所以契經說直到輪王（Chakravartin）胎時。以下引用四種獲得自體（self-nature）來證明前面的意義。前三句證明『隨相續轉』。第四句證明『一起便住』。戲忘念天（Playful Forgetful Devas）因為喜悅增加而忘記正念便死去。意憤恚天（Mindful Wrathful Devas）因為憤怒增加而死去。《婆沙論》第一百九十九問中問這兩種天，說：『這些天住在哪裡？』有人說住在妙高山（Mount Meru）的層級上。有人說他們是三十三天（Trāyastriṃśa Devas）。現在詳細考察，這兩種天雖然說法不同，都可以和阿修羅（Asura）互相傷害。按照這個說法，就應該二種傷害都有。為什麼只說唯可自害？又應該說諸佛（Buddha）自己般涅槃（Parinirvana）。這也同樣包含在自害句中。《婆沙論》第一百五十一條中說：『又有一類，或者龍（Nāga）、妙翅（Garuda）、或者鬼（Preta）、以及人（Manushya）或者其餘可以自害而非他害者。』唯可他害及俱害者，如文可解。俱非害者中有上二界全，因為殊勝的業力感召。那落迦（Naraka），因為上品惡業感召。北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru），因為壽命已定。見道（Darśana-mārga）、慈定（Maitrī-samādhi）、滅定（Nirodha-samāpatti）、以及無想定（Asañjñā-samāpatti），因為定力殊勝。王仙（Rājarṣi），指輪王或者捨棄國家修習仙道，或者剛開始即位時先修習仙道，稱為王仙。這也是因為殊勝的業力，所以俱非害。佛使（Buddha's messenger），指被派遣的人。這是因為佛力。如時縛迦（Jīvaka），此云活命。舊譯為耆婆，或者耆域，是訛傳。佛派遣他進入火中抱取殊底穡迦（Śūtikā），此云有明。舊譯為樹提伽，是訛傳。
【English Translation】 English version: The treatise states that if the dependent body is susceptible to harm, then the lifespan decreases with the harm, which is called the first type, 'following the continuity of existence.' If the dependent body is not susceptible to harm, like 'rising and abiding,' this is called the second type, 'arising and abiding immediately.' The Vibhāṣā states that some say the physical body is called continuity. If the body is peaceful, the lifespan will not be cut short. If the body is damaged, the lifespan will be cut short prematurely.
The treatise states that from Kashmir (Kāśmīra) until there is untimely death. Quoting the Vibhāṣā to explain, 'following the continuity of existence' is untimely death with obstacles. 'Not following the continuity of existence,' 'arising and abiding immediately' is non-untimely death without obstacles.
The treatise states, 'Therefore, the sutra says until the time of the Chakravartin's (wheel-turning king) gestation.' The following quotes four attainments of self-nature to prove the preceding meaning. The first three sentences prove 'following the continuity of existence.' The fourth sentence proves 'arising and abiding immediately.' The Playful Forgetful Devas (Xi Wangnian Tian) die because their joy increases and they forget mindfulness. The Mindful Wrathful Devas (Yi Fenhui Tian) die because their anger increases. The 199th question of the Vibhāṣā asks about these two types of devas, saying, 'Where do these devas reside?' Some say they reside on the levels of Mount Meru (Miàogāo Shān). Some say they are the Thirty-three Devas (Trāyastriṃśa Devas). Now, upon detailed examination, although these two types of devas have different descriptions, they can both harm the Asuras (Āshūluó) mutually. According to this, there should be both types of harm. Why is it only said that they can only harm themselves? Furthermore, it should be said that the Buddhas (Fó) themselves enter Parinirvana (Bān Nièpán). This is also included in the statement of self-harm. The 151st section of the Vibhāṣā states, 'Furthermore, there is a category of beings, either Nāgas (Lóng), Garudas (Miàochì), or Pretas (Guǐ), as well as humans (Rén), or others who can harm themselves but not others.' Those who can only be harmed by others and those who can be harmed by both, as the text can be understood. Among those who are harmed by neither are the entire upper two realms, due to the influence of superior karma. Naraka (Nàluòjiā), due to the influence of superior unwholesome karma. Uttarakuru (Běijūlúzhōu), because the lifespan is fixed. The Path of Seeing (Darśana-mārga), the Samadhi of Loving-kindness (Maitrī-samādhi), the Cessation Samadhi (Nirodha-samāpatti), and the Non-Perception Samadhi (Asañjñā-samāpatti), because the power of samadhi is superior. The Royal Sage (Rājarṣi), refers to a Chakravartin who either abandons the country to practice the way of the immortals, or who first practices the way of the immortals when first ascending the throne, called the Royal Sage. This is also because of the power of superior karma, so they are harmed by neither. Buddha's messenger (Fó Shǐ), refers to the person who is sent. This is because of the Buddha's power. Such as Jīvaka (Shí Fùjiā), which means 'life-giver.' The old translation was Qí Pó, or Qí Yù, which are corruptions. The Buddha sent him into the fire to embrace Śūtikā (Shū Dǐ Sèsà), which means 'having light.' The old translation was Shù Tí Jiā, which is a corruption.
也。此涅槃經說。外道記女。佛記為男。母死火焚。佛令活命抱取有明。俱火不燒。活命佛使。有明佛記。俱不死也 達弭。此云有法。羅。此云取。于有法神邊乞取從所乞神為名故名有法取 嗢怛羅。此云上勝。亦是長者子 殑耆。是河神名。羅名攝受。父母憐子與子立名殑耆攝受。女聲呼名耆。男聲呼為伽。舊云恒河訛也 長者子耶舍。耶舍此云名稱。投佛出家。夜度深流安然無損 鳩摩羅時婆。鳩摩羅此云童子。時婆此云活命。名活命童子也 最後身菩薩。謂是王宮所生身也。此等皆是俱非害也 問若爾何故與上不隨相續轉不同 答廣略異耳。如婆沙四句與此不同。如上所引論師意爾。
論。若爾至受生有情。外人難也。若謂上所說是俱非害。何故契經唯說非想處受生有情。
論。傳說至俱非可害。論主答也。無自地聖道．及他近分道所害故名俱非害。餘地為他近分地道．及自地聖道害故。不名非自他害。
論。豈不有頂至應名他害外。人重難。既為下地聖道所害如何得名非自他害。不信前釋故言傳說。此難無救。
論。如是應說至舉后顯初。論主更引正解也。理實色．無色界一切有情俱非二害。經說非想非非想。舉后顯初引例也。
論。云何有處至第一樂生天。第一樂生天有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也。《涅槃經》中說，外道預言是女孩，佛陀預言是男孩。母親死後火化，佛陀讓他復活，抱起有明（指嬰兒的名字），兩人一起在火中卻沒有被燒傷。活命（指復活的人）是佛陀的使者，有明被佛陀預言，兩人都不會死去。 達弭（Dami）。這裡的意思是『有法』。羅（La），這裡的意思是『取』。因為在有法神那裡乞求，並以所乞求的神的名字命名，所以叫做有法取。 嗢怛羅（Uddala）。這裡的意思是『上勝』，也是一位長者的兒子。 殑耆（Gangi）。是河神的名字。羅（La）的意思是攝受。父母憐愛兒子，給兒子起名叫殑耆攝受。用女聲呼喚名字時叫耆（Gi），用男聲呼喚名字時叫伽（Ga）。舊譯為恒河是訛傳。 長者子耶舍（Yasa）。耶舍的意思是『名稱』。投奔佛陀出家。夜晚渡過深流，安然無恙。 鳩摩羅時婆（Kumarajiva）。鳩摩羅的意思是『童子』。時婆的意思是『活命』。名字的意思是活命童子。 最後身菩薩。指的是在王宮出生的菩薩。這些人都是俱非害。 問：如果這樣，為什麼和上面所說的相續轉變不同呢？ 答：因為廣略不同。比如《婆沙論》中的四句和這裡不同。就像上面引用的論師的觀點一樣。
論：如果這樣，乃至受生有情。外道會提出疑問。如果說上面所說的是俱非害，為什麼契經只說非想處受生有情？
論：傳說乃至俱非可害。論主回答說。因為沒有自地聖道以及其他近分道所損害，所以叫做俱非害。其他地為其他近分地道以及自地聖道所損害，所以不叫非自他害。
論：難道有頂乃至應名他害。外道再次提出疑問。既然被下地聖道所損害，為什麼能叫做非自他害？因為不相信之前的解釋，所以說『傳說』。這個疑問無法解答。
論：這樣應該說乃至舉后顯初。論主再次引用正確的解釋。實際上色界、無色界一切有情都是俱非二害。經中說非想非非想，是舉后顯初的例子。
論：云何有處乃至第一樂生天。第一樂生天有
【English Translation】 English version: Also. The Nirvana Sutra says that the heretics predicted a girl, but the Buddha predicted a boy. After the mother died and was cremated, the Buddha brought him back to life, and he held Youming (the name of the baby), and both were not burned in the fire. Huoming (the resurrected person) is the Buddha's messenger, and Youming was predicted by the Buddha, and neither of them will die. Dami. Here it means 'having Dharma'. La, here it means 'to take'. Because he begged from the Dharma God and named himself after the God he begged from, he is called Dami. Uddala. Here it means 'supreme victory', and he is also the son of an elder. Gangi. It is the name of the river god. La means to receive. The parents loved their son and named him Gangi. When calling the name in a female voice, it is called Gi, and when calling the name in a male voice, it is called Ga. The old translation of Ganges is a corruption. The son of the elder, Yasa. Yasa means 'name'. He went to the Buddha to become a monk. He crossed the deep stream at night and was safe and sound. Kumarajiva. Kumara means 'boy'. Jiva means 'life'. The name means living boy. The last body Bodhisattva. Refers to the Bodhisattva born in the royal palace. These people are all neither harmful nor harmless. Question: If so, why is it different from the continuous transformation mentioned above? Answer: Because the scope is different. For example, the four sentences in the Mahavibhasa are different from here. It's like the opinion of the commentator quoted above.
Treatise: If so, even sentient beings who are born. Outsiders will raise questions. If it is said that what is said above is neither harmful nor harmless, why does the sutra only say that sentient beings are born in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception?
Treatise: It is said that even neither harmful nor harmless. The author of the treatise answers. Because there is no harm from the holy path of one's own realm or the path of other nearby realms, it is called neither harmful nor harmless. Other realms are harmed by the path of other nearby realms and the holy path of one's own realm, so it is not called neither self-harm nor other-harm.
Treatise: Could it be that the summit is even called other-harm. Outsiders raise questions again. Since it is harmed by the holy path of the lower realm, why can it be called neither self-harm nor other-harm? Because they do not believe the previous explanation, they say 'legend'. This question cannot be answered.
Treatise: It should be said that even the latter is used to show the former. The author of the treatise quotes the correct explanation again. In fact, all sentient beings in the realm of form and the realm of formlessness are neither of the two harms. The sutra says neither perception nor non-perception, which is an example of using the latter to show the former.
Treatise: How can there be a place even the first heaven of happiness. The first heaven of happiness has
三。梵眾是初舉其梵眾兼顯上二。
論。云何有處至第二樂生天。第二樂生天有三天。極光凈天是最上天。舉極光凈以顯下二。
論。彼經如聲至不可例彼。外人難也。前文云謂在非想非非想。不言如非非想也。後文言如梵眾天。如聲是顯譬喻義也。如梵眾天余天亦爾。可言舉初顯后。彼無如聲。何得言舉后顯初。
論。若顯喻義至亦有如聲。論主破前難也。若謂要有譬喻方得有如聲者。如人一分天是第一識住。此之如聲欲喻何法。故知無喻亦有如聲。如梵眾言亦非譬喻。但是舉其梵眾兼顯上天。
論。已辨命根諸相者何。已下有一頌半第六明四有為相。于中有三。初半頌明相體。次半頌明小相。後半頌明四相待因緣。
論曰至是無為法。總釋四相名也 正理論云。如是四種是有為相。顯彼性故得彼相名 述曰此四種相顯諸有為性是無常。從其所顯名有為相。無此相者表是無為。婆沙三十八云。何故作此論。有執諸有為相皆是無為。如分別論者。或復有執三相是有為。滅相是無為。如法密部。或復有執相與所相一切相似。如相似相續沙門。彼作是說色法生．老．住．無常。體還是色。乃至識亦爾。顯有為唯是有為唯不相應行蘊所攝。或復有執色等五蘊出胎時名生。相續時名住。衰變時
【現代漢語翻譯】 三、梵眾天是最初被提及的天界，同時也暗示了其上的兩個天界。
論：什麼是有處天，乃至第二樂生天（Second Pleasure-Birth Heaven）？第二樂生天有三天，極光凈天（Abhasvara Heaven）是最高的天。提及極光凈天是爲了暗示其下的兩個天界。
論：彼經中的『如』字，如同聲音一樣，無法用其他事物來比擬。這是外道的詰難。前面的經文說的是『在非想非非想處』，沒有說『如非非想』。後面的經文說『如梵眾天』，『如』字是用來顯示譬喻的意義。如同梵眾天一樣，其他的（天界）也是如此，可以說舉一例而顯示其餘。但『非想非非想處』沒有『如』字，怎麼能說舉后顯初呢？
論：如果說顯示譬喻的意義，必須要有譬喻才能有『如』字，那麼，比如『人一分天是第一識住』，這裡的『如』字要比喻什麼呢？所以要知道，沒有比喻也可以有『如』字。『如梵眾天』也不是譬喻，只是提及梵眾天，同時也暗示了其上的天界。
論：已經辨明了命根，那麼諸相是什麼呢？下面用一頌半的偈頌，第六次闡明四有為相（Four characteristics of conditioned phenomena）。其中有三點：前半頌說明相的本體，後半頌說明小相，最後半頌說明四相依賴因緣。
論曰：總的解釋四相的名稱是無為法。正理論說：『這四種是有為相，因為它們顯現了有為的性質，所以才得到有為相的名稱。』述曰：這四種相顯現了諸有為法的性質是無常。從它們所顯現的（無常）而得名為有為相。沒有這些相的，就表示是無為法。婆沙第三十八卷說：為什麼要作這個論呢？因為有人認為諸有為相都是無為法，比如分別論者。或者有人認為三相是有為，滅相是無為，比如法密部。或者有人認為相與所相一切相似，比如相似相續沙門。他們這樣說：色法生、老、住、無常，其本體還是色法，乃至識也是如此。這表明有為法只是有為，只是不相應行蘊所攝。或者有人認為色等五蘊出胎時名為生，相續時名為住，衰變時
【English Translation】 3. The Brahma Assembly Heaven (Brahma Assembly Heaven) is initially mentioned, also implying the two heavens above it.
Treatise: What are the Heavens of Possessions (Arūpadhātu), up to the Second Pleasure-Birth Heaven (Second Pleasure-Birth Heaven)? The Second Pleasure-Birth Heaven has three heavens. The Heaven of Utmost Light and Purity (Abhasvara Heaven) is the highest heaven. Mentioning the Heaven of Utmost Light and Purity is to imply the two heavens below it.
Treatise: The 『like』 (如) in that sutra, like a sound, cannot be compared to other things. This is the challenge from externalists. The previous text said 『being in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception,』 without saying 『like the realm of neither perception nor non-perception.』 The later text says 『like the Brahma Assembly Heaven.』 The word 『like』 is used to show the meaning of metaphor. Just like the Brahma Assembly Heaven, other (heavens) are also like this, and it can be said that one example is given to show the rest. But the 『realm of neither perception nor non-perception』 does not have the word 『like,』 so how can it be said that the latter is used to show the former?
Treatise: If it is said that to show the meaning of metaphor, there must be a metaphor to have the word 『like,』 then, for example, 『a portion of humans is the first abode of consciousness,』 what is the word 『like』 here used to metaphorize? Therefore, it should be known that there can be the word 『like』 even without a metaphor. 『Like the Brahma Assembly Heaven』 is also not a metaphor, but only mentions the Brahma Assembly Heaven, also implying the heavens above it.
Treatise: The life-faculty has already been distinguished, so what are the characteristics? Below, a verse and a half are used to explain the four conditioned characteristics (Four characteristics of conditioned phenomena) for the sixth time. There are three points in it: the first half of the verse explains the substance of the characteristics, the second half of the verse explains the minor characteristics, and the last half of the verse explains that the four characteristics depend on conditions.
Treatise says: The general explanation of the names of the four characteristics is unconditioned dharma. The Treatise on Right Principle says: 『These four are conditioned characteristics, because they manifest the nature of the conditioned, so they get the name of conditioned characteristics.』 Commentary says: These four characteristics manifest that the nature of all conditioned dharmas is impermanent. From what they manifest (impermanence), they are named conditioned characteristics. Those without these characteristics indicate unconditioned dharmas. Vibhasha, volume 38, says: Why is this treatise written? Because some people think that all conditioned characteristics are unconditioned dharmas, like the Differentiation Theorists. Or some people think that three characteristics are conditioned, and cessation is unconditioned, like the Dharmagupta school. Or some people think that the characteristic and what is characterized are all similar, like the Similar Continuity Shramanas. They say: Form arises, ages, abides, and is impermanent, and its substance is still form, and so on with consciousness. This shows that conditioned dharmas are only conditioned, only included in the non-associated formations aggregate. Or some people think that the five aggregates of form, etc., are called birth when they come out of the womb, called abiding when they continue, and called decay when they decline.
名異。命終時名滅。如經部師。為遮彼計顯彼唯是眾同分相非有為相。有為相者諸有為法一一剎那皆具四相 婆沙三十九云。謂或有執三有為相非一剎那。如譬喻者。彼作是說若一剎那有三相者。則應一法一時亦生。亦老。亦滅。然無此理。互相違故。應說諸法初起名生。后盡名滅。中熟名老。為遮彼執顯一剎那具有三相。問若如是者則應一法一時亦生。亦老。亦滅。答作用時異故不相違。謂法生時生有作用。滅時老時方有作用。體雖同時用有先後。一法生．滅作用究竟名一剎那。故無有失。或生．滅位非一剎那。然一剎那具有三體。故說三相同一剎那。由此因緣故作斯論 準上兩釋。相用皆是異時。前釋三相同一剎那。后釋生．滅異剎那也。然異．滅相用。同．異時文不決定。問四相為是共相。為是自相。一說自相。一說共相。評曰應作是說。此是共相。然共相有二種。一者自體共相。謂一一有為法自體各有生等四義。二者和合共相謂一一有為法各與生等四相和合。此四但是和合共相。復作是釋。剎那住相微細難知難可施設。故說不住。謂剎那量是佛所知。非諸聲聞．獨覺等境。如乘神通屈申臂頃從此處沒至色究竟。于其中間非不相續可有從此往至彼義。亦非一法移轉至彼。又無從此越至彼義。是故決定剎那剎那生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 名稱不同。死亡時稱為『滅』（niè）。如經部師（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）所說。爲了駁斥他們的觀點，表明這些只是眾同分相，而不是有為相。有為相是指所有有為法在每一個剎那都具備四相。 《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，佛教論書）第三十九卷說：或者有人認為有為三相不是一個剎那。如譬喻者（Dṛṣṭāntika，佛教部派之一）。他們這樣說：如果一個剎那有三相，那麼就應該一個法在同一時間既生、又老、又滅。然而沒有這個道理，因為互相矛盾。應該說諸法初起名為『生』（utpāda），后盡名為『滅』（nirodha），中間成熟名為『老』（jarā）。爲了駁斥他們的觀點，表明一個剎那具有三相。問：如果這樣，那麼就應該一個法在同一時間既生、又老、又滅。答：作用的時間不同，所以不矛盾。法生的時候，『生』有作用；滅的時候，『老』的時候才有作用。體雖然同時，但作用有先後。一個法的生滅作用究竟，名為一個剎那，所以沒有過失。或者生滅的位置不是一個剎那，但一個剎那具有三體，所以說三相與一個剎那相同。因為這個因緣，所以作此論述。按照以上兩種解釋，相和作用都是不同時。前一種解釋是三相與一個剎那相同，后一種解釋是生滅在不同剎那。然而異相和滅相的作用，同時或不同時的說法並不確定。問：四相是共相，還是自相？一種說法是自相，一種說法是共相。評論說：應該這樣說，這是共相。然而共相有兩種：一種是自體共相，指每一個有為法的自體各有生等四義；另一種是和合共相，指每一個有為法各與生等四相和合。這四相只是和合共相。又作這樣的解釋：剎那住相微細難以知曉，難以施設，所以說不住。剎那的量是佛所知，不是諸聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而證悟者）、獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依師教而獨自證悟者）等境界。如同憑藉神通屈伸手臂的瞬間，從此處消失到達色究竟天（Akaniṣṭha，色界最高的禪天）。在其中間並非不相續，可以有從此處往至彼處的意義。也不是一個法轉移到彼處，又沒有從此處越過到達彼處的意義。所以決定是剎那剎那生。
【English Translation】 English version The names are different. At the time of death, it is called 'cessation' (nirodha). As stated by the Sautrāntikas (a Buddhist school). To refute their view, it is shown that these are merely common characteristics of aggregates, not conditioned characteristics. Conditioned characteristics mean that every conditioned dharma possesses four characteristics in each moment. The Vibhāṣā (a Buddhist treatise), volume 39, states: Or some may hold that the three conditioned characteristics do not occur in a single moment, like the Dṛṣṭāntikas (a Buddhist school). They say that if there are three characteristics in one moment, then one dharma should simultaneously arise, decay, and cease. However, this is not logical because they contradict each other. It should be said that the initial arising of dharmas is called 'arising' (utpāda), the final exhaustion is called 'cessation' (nirodha), and the intermediate maturation is called 'decay' (jarā). To refute their view, it is shown that a single moment possesses three characteristics. Question: If that is the case, then one dharma should simultaneously arise, decay, and cease. Answer: The functions occur at different times, so there is no contradiction. When a dharma arises, 'arising' has its function; only at the time of cessation and decay do those have their functions. Although the substance is simultaneous, the functions have a sequence. The complete arising and cessation functions of a dharma are called one moment, so there is no fault. Or the positions of arising and cessation are not in one moment, but one moment possesses three entities, so it is said that the three characteristics are the same as one moment. Because of this cause, this treatise is written. According to the above two explanations, the characteristics and functions are at different times. The former explanation is that the three characteristics are the same as one moment, and the latter explanation is that arising and cessation are in different moments. However, the statements about the functions of different and cessation characteristics being simultaneous or different are not definitive. Question: Are the four characteristics common characteristics or individual characteristics? One view is that they are individual characteristics, and another view is that they are common characteristics. Commentary: It should be said that these are common characteristics. However, there are two types of common characteristics: one is the common characteristic of the self-nature, which means that each conditioned dharma has the four meanings of arising, etc., in its self-nature; the other is the combined common characteristic, which means that each conditioned dharma is combined with the four characteristics of arising, etc. These four are only combined common characteristics. Another explanation is given: the characteristic of duration in a moment is subtle and difficult to know, difficult to establish, so it is said to be non-abiding. The measure of a moment is known by the Buddha, not the realm of Śrāvakas (hearers who attain enlightenment by listening to the Buddha's teachings), Pratyekabuddhas (those who attain enlightenment independently without a teacher), etc. It is like, with supernatural power, in the instant of flexing and extending an arm, disappearing from here and reaching the Akaniṣṭha Heaven (the highest heaven in the Form Realm). In between, it is not non-continuous, and there can be the meaning of going from here to there. It is also not that one dharma is transferred to there, nor is there the meaning of crossing over from here to there. Therefore, it is determined that arising occurs moment by moment.
滅相續從此至彼。于其中間諸剎那量最極微細唯佛能知。由此故言諸行有住。一說無住。評曰既不能通應信有住。由有住相力。諸行生已能取自果。能取所緣。由異．滅力一剎那后無復作用。若無住相諸行應無因果相續。心．心所法應無所緣。故必有住。
論。此中於法至能壞名滅。釋別名也。正理論云。此中生者謂有別法是行生位無障勝因。由能引攝令其生故。能引攝者。謂彼生時此法能為彼勝緣性。雖諸行起皆得名生。然此生名。但依諸行生位無障勝因而立。住謂別法是已生未壞。諸行引自果無障勝因。異謂前法是行相續後異前因。滅謂別法是俱生行滅壞勝因。
論。性是體義。此釋頌中第十字也。
論。豈不經說至之有為相。問也。經說有三。因何說四。答中有二。一不說住相。二住．異合說。
論。於此經中至所謂住相。此初答也。應合說四。不說住故但說有三。
論。然經說住異至異名住異。通伏難也。難云若經不說住相何故彼經云住異相。通云經說住異即是此中異別名也。引例可知。
論。若法令行至有為相中。釋經不說住相所以。于中有二。一為住相不令有情怖故不說。二以住相濫無為故不說。此即初也。如文可知。
論。又無為法至故經不說。第二答也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 滅相續，從此剎那至彼剎那。于這些剎那中間的量，極其微細，只有佛才能知曉。因此說諸行（Samskara，有為法）是有『住』（Sthiti，存在）的。另一種說法是無『住』。評判說，既然不能通達，就應該相信有『住』。由於有『住』相（Sthiti-laksana，存在的特徵）的力量，諸行生起后能夠取得自己的果報，能夠取得所緣（Alambana，認識對像）。由於『異』（Anyathatva，變異）和『滅』（Nirodha，消滅）的力量，一剎那之後就沒有作用了。如果沒有『住』相，諸行就應該沒有因果相續，心（Citta，意識）和心所法（Caitasika，心理活動）就應該沒有所緣。所以必定有『住』。
論：此中，對於法，能夠壞滅的叫做『滅』。這是解釋別名。正理論說：此中，『生』（Jati，生起）是指有別的法，是行生起時無障礙的殊勝之因，因為它能夠引導和攝持，使其生起。能夠引導和攝持，是指它生起時，此法能夠成為它的殊勝緣性。雖然諸行生起都可以叫做『生』，但是這個『生』的名詞，只是依據諸行生起時無障礙的殊勝之因而立。『住』是指別的法，是已生起但未壞滅的諸行，引生自己果報時無障礙的殊勝之因。『異』是指前一法，是行相續中后一剎那不同於前一剎那的原因。『滅』是指別的法，是與俱生行滅壞的殊勝之因。
論：『性』是『體』的意思。這是解釋頌中的第十個字。
論：難道經中不是說有三種有為相（Samskrta-laksana，有為法的特徵）嗎？這是提問。經中說了三種，為什麼這裡說四種？回答中有兩種：一是沒有說『住』相，二是『住』和『異』合起來說。
論：在這部經中，所謂『住』相。這是第一個回答。應該合起來說四種，因為沒有說『住』，所以只說了三種。
論：然而經中說『住異』，『異』名『住異』。這是爲了普遍地降伏詰難。詰難說，如果經中沒有說『住』相，為什麼那部經中說『住異』相？解釋說，經中說的『住異』，就是這裡『異』的別名。引用的例子可以知道。
論：如果法令有情對於行，在有為相中感到恐怖。這是解釋經中不說『住』相的原因。其中有兩種：一是為『住』相不令有情感到恐怖，所以不說；二是以『住』相容易與無為法（Asamskrta，無為）混淆，所以不說。這是第一種原因。如文可知。
論：又，無為法沒有生、住、異、滅，所以經中不說。這是第二個回答。
【English Translation】 English version The cessation of continuity extends from this moment to that moment. The measure of these moments in between is extremely subtle, known only to the Buddha. Therefore, it is said that all Samskaras (conditioned phenomena) have 'Sthiti' (existence). Another view is that there is no 'Sthiti'. The commentary says that since it cannot be understood, one should believe in 'Sthiti'. Because of the power of 'Sthiti-laksana' (the characteristic of existence), the Samskaras, once arisen, are able to obtain their own results and are able to grasp their Alambana (object of cognition). Due to the power of 'Anyathatva' (alteration) and 'Nirodha' (cessation), after a moment, there is no further function. If there were no 'Sthiti-laksana', the Samskaras should have no causal continuity, and Citta (mind) and Caitasika (mental activities) should have no Alambana. Therefore, 'Sthiti' must exist.
Treatise: Here, for a dharma, that which is able to destroy is called 'Nirodha'. This is explaining another name. The Zhengli Theory says: Here, 'Jati' (birth) refers to a separate dharma that is the unobstructed and superior cause for the arising of a Samskara, because it is able to guide and gather, causing it to arise. Able to guide and gather means that when it arises, this dharma can be the superior condition for it. Although the arising of all Samskaras can be called 'Jati', this name of 'Jati' is established only based on the unobstructed and superior cause for the arising of Samskaras. 'Sthiti' refers to a separate dharma that is the unobstructed and superior cause for the already arisen but not yet destroyed Samskaras, leading to the production of their own results. 'Anyathatva' refers to the previous dharma, which is the cause in the continuity of Samskaras where the later moment is different from the previous moment. 'Nirodha' refers to a separate dharma that is the superior cause for the destruction of co-arisen Samskaras.
Treatise: 'Sva-bhava' means 'essence'. This is explaining the tenth word in the verse.
Treatise: Isn't it said in the sutras that there are three Samskrta-laksana (characteristics of conditioned phenomena)? This is a question. The sutras say three, why does this say four? There are two answers: one is that 'Sthiti-laksana' is not mentioned, and two is that 'Sthiti' and 'Anyathatva' are combined.
Treatise: In this sutra, the so-called 'Sthiti-laksana'. This is the first answer. It should be said that there are four combined, but because 'Sthiti' is not mentioned, only three are said.
Treatise: However, the sutra says 'Sthiti-anyathatva', 'Anyathatva' is another name for 'Sthiti-anyathatva'. This is to universally subdue the difficulty. The difficulty says, if the sutra does not mention 'Sthiti-laksana', why does that sutra say 'Sthiti-anyathatva-laksana'? The explanation is that 'Sthiti-anyathatva' mentioned in the sutra is another name for 'Anyathatva' here. The cited examples can be understood.
Treatise: If the Dharma causes sentient beings to be afraid of Samskaras in Samskrta-laksana. This is explaining the reason why the sutra does not mention 'Sthiti-laksana'. There are two reasons: one is that 'Sthiti-laksana' does not cause sentient beings to be afraid, so it is not mentioned; two is that 'Sthiti-laksana' is easily confused with Asamskrta (unconditioned), so it is not mentioned. This is the first reason. As the text can be understood.
Treatise: Also, Asamskrta does not have Jati, Sthiti, Anyathatva, or Nirodha, so the sutra does not mention it. This is the second answer.
。如文可知。
論。有謂此經至名住異相。此下大文第二答經不說也。即是敘異說也。
論。何用如是總合說為。問合說所以也。
論。住是有情至與吉祥俱。答合說所以也。如文可知。
論。是故定有四有為相。結也。
論。此生等相。已下半頌第二明隨相也。此四小相立名不同。或名隨相隨本相故。或名小相對大相故。或名生生等生本生等故。
論曰至四種本相。此釋頌中此字。即是此四本相也。正理釋云。此中有言兼顯定義。意顯此有唯四非余。此謂前說四種本相 述曰。釋此同此論。釋有此論無。
論。生生等者至滅滅。此釋本相所有隨相。正理論云。即是生之生生。乃至滅之滅滅。
論。諸行有為至由四隨相。此釋諸行有為。有其二義。一法體生滅由四本相。二得有為名由四本相。本相有為亦準此釋 正理論云。世尊何處說隨相耶。豈不此經亦說隨相。謂生等相亦是有為故。生生等相亦起等性故。契經既說有三有為之有為相。有為之起亦可了知。盡及住異亦可了知。如何此中不攝隨相。又于諸相皆有亦言。故此經中亦說隨相。言有為之起亦可了知者。起即本相生。亦表生生義。盡及住異亦可知言。類起亦言應如理釋。若不爾者何用亦言。故契經中於無為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如經文所說可知。
論：有人說這部經只講到生、住、異、滅四相（Sheng, Zhu, Yi, Mie Si Xiang，指有為法的四種根本相狀）。以下大段文字是第二次回答經中沒有說到的內容，也就是敘述不同的說法。
論：為什麼要這樣總合起來說呢？問的是總合起來說的原因。
論：住是有情眾生安住，乃至與吉祥一同存在。回答的是總合起來說的原因。如經文所說可知。
論：因此，必定存在四種有為相（You Wei Xiang，指有為法的相狀）。這是結論。
論：此生等相（Ci Sheng Deng Xiang，指生等四相）。以下半頌是第二次闡明隨相（Sui Xiang，跟隨根本相而生起的相）。這四個小相的名稱不同，或者稱為隨相，因為它們跟隨根本相而生起；或者稱為小相，相對於大相（Da Xiang，根本相）而言；或者稱為生生等，因為它們是生所生的生等等。
論曰：乃至四種本相（Si Zhong Ben Xiang，四種根本相）。這是解釋頌文中的『此』字，指的就是這四種根本相。正理釋中說：『此中有言兼顯定義』，意思是說，這裡只有這四種，沒有其他的。這裡所說的『此』，指的是前面所說的四種根本相。述曰：這個解釋與論相同，解釋中有這個論，但論中沒有。
論：生生等者，乃至滅滅。這是解釋根本相所具有的隨相。正理論中說：『就是生之生生，乃至滅之滅滅。』
論：諸行有為（Zhu Xing You Wei，一切行都是有為法），乃至由四隨相。這是解釋諸行有為，有兩種含義：一是法體的生滅由四根本相決定；二是獲得『有為』這個名稱由四根本相決定。根本相的有為也可以按照這個來解釋。正理論中說：『世尊在什麼地方說了隨相呢？難道這部經沒有說隨相嗎？所謂生等相也是有為法，所以生生等相也具有生起的性質。』契經既然說了有三種有為法的有為相，有為法的生起也可以瞭解，盡及住異也可以瞭解。為什麼這裡沒有包含隨相呢？而且對於各種相都有『亦』字，所以這部經中也說了隨相。『有為之起亦可了知』，『起』就是根本相的生，也表示生生的含義。盡及住異也可以瞭解，類似於『起』字，應該按照道理來解釋。如果不是這樣，為什麼要用『亦』字呢？所以契經中對於無為法（Wu Wei Fa，指沒有生滅變化的法）
【English Translation】 English version: As can be known from the text.
Treatise: Some say that this sutra only discusses the characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing (Sheng, Zhu, Yi, Mie Si Xiang, the four fundamental characteristics of conditioned phenomena). The following major section is the second response to what the sutra does not mention, which is to describe different views.
Treatise: Why is it necessary to combine and explain it in this way? This asks for the reason for combining the explanations.
Treatise: Abiding is where sentient beings dwell, even existing together with auspiciousness. This answers the reason for combining the explanations. As can be known from the text.
Treatise: Therefore, there must be four conditioned characteristics (You Wei Xiang, characteristics of conditioned phenomena). This is the conclusion.
Treatise: These characteristics of arising, etc. (Ci Sheng Deng Xiang, the characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing). The following half-verse is the second explanation of the secondary characteristics (Sui Xiang, characteristics that arise following the fundamental characteristics). These four minor characteristics have different names, either called secondary characteristics because they arise following the fundamental characteristics; or called minor characteristics in relation to the major characteristics (Da Xiang, fundamental characteristics); or called arising-of-arising, etc., because they are the arising of what arises, and so on.
Treatise says: Up to the four fundamental characteristics (Si Zhong Ben Xiang, four fundamental characteristics). This explains the word 'these' in the verse, which refers to these four fundamental characteristics. The Commentary on the Principle says: 'The word 'have' here also reveals the definition,' meaning that there are only these four, and no others. The 'these' mentioned here refers to the four fundamental characteristics mentioned earlier. Commentary says: This explanation is the same as this treatise. The explanation has this treatise, but the treatise does not.
Treatise: Arising-of-arising, etc., up to ceasing-of-ceasing. This explains the secondary characteristics possessed by the fundamental characteristics. The Commentary on the Principle says: 'That is, the arising of arising, up to the ceasing of ceasing.'
Treatise: All conditioned phenomena (Zhu Xing You Wei, all phenomena are conditioned), up to being caused by the four secondary characteristics. This explains all conditioned phenomena, which has two meanings: first, the arising and ceasing of the dharma body is determined by the four fundamental characteristics; second, obtaining the name 'conditioned' is determined by the four fundamental characteristics. The conditioned nature of the fundamental characteristics can also be explained in this way. The Commentary on the Principle says: 'Where did the World Honored One speak of secondary characteristics? Does this sutra not also speak of secondary characteristics? The characteristics of arising, etc., are also conditioned phenomena, so the characteristics of arising-of-arising, etc., also have the nature of arising.' Since the sutra speaks of the conditioned characteristics of the three kinds of conditioned phenomena, the arising of conditioned phenomena can also be understood, and cessation and change can also be understood. Why are the secondary characteristics not included here? Moreover, there is the word 'also' for all characteristics, so this sutra also speaks of secondary characteristics. 'The arising of conditioned phenomena can also be understood,' 'arising' is the arising of the fundamental characteristics, and also expresses the meaning of arising-of-arising. Cessation and change can also be understood, similar to the word 'arising,' and should be explained according to reason. If not, why use the word 'also'? Therefore, in the sutra, regarding unconditioned phenomena (Wu Wei Fa, phenomena without arising and ceasing)
法說尚無有起等可知。此說意言諸無為法尚無生等本相可知。況生生等隨相可得。若不爾者應但說無起等可知。不應言尚。又薄伽梵于契經中說諸有為相復有相。故契經說色有起盡此復應知亦有起盡。乃至廣說。又契經說老死生等。由此故知相復有相。
論。豈不本相至展轉無窮。此釋有無窮．過。先問。后答。此即問也。
論。無斯過失至功能別故。答也。
論。何謂功能至或謂士用。釋功能也。作用是業用名。士用就喻以顯。正理論云。為親緣用名曰功能。
論。四種本相至一法有用。此釋功能別也。
論。其義云何。問也。
論。謂法生時至唯生本生。此廣答也。
論。謂如雌雞至其力亦爾。此顯喻也。正理論云。生性既無異。功能何有別。如受領納性雖無異。而有差別損．益功能。又本相．隨相境有多少。如五識．意識境有少多。
論。本相中住至隨應亦爾。此後三相準前釋也。
論。是故生等至無無窮失。此總結也。
論。經部師說至如所分別。經部師宗四相無體。與大乘同。故作此商略也。
論。所以者何。有部徴也。
論。無定量故至證體實有。經部出所以也。既無三量何得言有。正理論云。又此諸相豈如瓶等有定現．比
．或至教量證體假有。既遮實有。故彼定應許生等相體是假有。第三計有理必無故。
論。若爾何故至亦可了知。有部救也。既經言有三有為之有為相。即是屬主之名。前是本法。后是其相。故知法外別有四相。
論。天愛至義是所依。經部答也。
論。何謂此經所說實義。有部問也。
論。謂愚夫類至之有為相。自下經部釋也 于中有五。一明經說意。二明經不說剎那四相。三釋經重說有為相言。四敘經部所立。五引教證。此文初也。
論。非顯諸行至亦可了知。第二明經所說非剎那也。凡言相者表其體性令人了知。經言亦可了知。明非不可知也。一剎那中生等四相既不可知。定是非經所說。
論。然經重說至表善非善。第三明經重說有為意也。經言有為之有為相。前言示三相體。後言表前三相是有為也。非是如有白鷺鳥處知其水有。亦非欲表有為善．惡。如童女有發細且長兩臂過膝等是其善相。發粗臂煩等是惡相。
論。諸行相續至名為住異。此即第四述經部宗。此說一期三相是假非實。非一剎那是實非假。
論。世尊依此至衰異壞滅。已下第五引教證也 于中有五。一引佛為難陀說經。二引三頌。三引本論。四會本論。五即別立剎那四相是假非實。此即初也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：或者到達教量，證明本體是假有。既然遮止了實有，那麼他們必定應該承認生、住、異、滅等相的本體是假有。第三種計度認為有道理，必定沒有。
論：如果這樣，為什麼說『至亦可了知』？有部（Sarvāstivāda）的辯解。既然經文說有『三有為之有為相』，這就是所屬主的名詞。前面是本體法，後面是它的相。因此可知在法之外，另有四相。
論：天愛（Devānāmpriya，對國王的尊稱）說『至義是所依』。經部（Sautrāntika）的回答。
論：這部經所說的真實意義是什麼？有部的提問。
論：所謂愚夫類（普通的凡夫）說『至之有為相』。下面是經部的解釋。其中有五點：一、闡明經文的意圖；二、闡明經文沒有說剎那四相；三、解釋經文重複說『有為相』；四、敘述經部所建立的宗義；五、引用教證。這段文字是第一點。
論：不是顯示諸行（一切事物）說『至亦可了知』。第二點闡明經文所說不是剎那四相。凡是說到『相』，就是表明它的體性，使人瞭解。經文說『亦可了知』，表明不是不可知。一剎那中的生、住、異、滅四相既然不可知，必定不是經文所說的。
論：然而經文重複說『至表善非善』。第三點闡明經文重複說『有為』的意圖。經文說『有為之有為相』，前面的『有為』表示三相的本體，後面的『有為』表示前面的三相是有為的。不是像有白鷺鳥的地方就知道那裡有水一樣。也不是想要表示有為是善或惡。例如童女有頭髮細且長，兩臂過膝等是她的善相；頭髮粗糙，手臂短等是惡相。
論：諸行（一切事物）相續說『至名為住異』。這是第四點，敘述經部的宗義。這裡說一期（一段時間）的三相是假有而不是實有，不是一剎那是實有而不是假有。
論：世尊依據這個說『至衰異壞滅』。以下是第五點，引用教證。其中有五點：一、引用佛陀為難陀（Nanda，佛陀的堂弟）所說的經；二、引用三頌；三、引用本論；四、會合本論；五、特別建立剎那四相是假有而不是實有。這段文字是第一點。
【English Translation】 English version: Or, reaching the teaching's measure, it proves that the substance is a provisional existence (假有, jiǎ yǒu). Since it negates real existence (實有, shí yǒu), they must necessarily concede that the substance of characteristics such as arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing are provisional existences. The third calculation is that if there is reason, there must be nothing.
Treatise: If so, why is it said 'even can be understood'? This is the Sarvāstivāda's (有部, Yǒu bù) defense. Since the sutra says there are 'characteristics of the conditioned of the conditioned,' this is a possessive noun. The former is the fundamental dharma, and the latter is its characteristic. Therefore, it is known that there are four characteristics separate from the dharma.
Treatise: 'Beloved of the Gods' (天愛, Tiān ài, a respectful title for kings) says 'the meaning is what is relied upon.' This is the Sautrāntika's (經部, Jīng bù) answer.
Treatise: What is the true meaning spoken of in this sutra? This is the Sarvāstivāda's question.
Treatise: What the common person (愚夫類, yú fū lèi) says is 'the characteristics of the conditioned.' Below is the Sautrāntika's explanation. Within this, there are five points: 1. Clarifying the intention of the sutra; 2. Clarifying that the sutra does not speak of momentary four characteristics; 3. Explaining the sutra's repetition of 'characteristics of the conditioned'; 4. Narrating the tenets established by the Sautrāntika; 5. Citing scriptural proofs. This passage is the first point.
Treatise: It does not reveal that all phenomena (諸行, zhū xíng) say 'even can be understood.' The second point clarifies that what the sutra speaks of is not the momentary four characteristics. Whenever 'characteristic' (相, xiàng) is mentioned, it indicates its substance, enabling people to understand. The sutra says 'even can be understood,' indicating that it is not unknowable. Since the four characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing in a moment are unknowable, they must not be what the sutra is speaking of.
Treatise: However, the sutra repeats 'to indicate good and non-good.' The third point clarifies the intention of the sutra's repetition of 'conditioned.' The sutra says 'characteristics of the conditioned of the conditioned,' the former 'conditioned' indicates the substance of the three characteristics, and the latter 'conditioned' indicates that the former three characteristics are conditioned. It is not like knowing there is water where there are white egrets. Nor is it intended to indicate that the conditioned is good or bad. For example, a young girl having fine and long hair, and arms that reach past her knees, are her good characteristics; coarse hair and short arms are bad characteristics.
Treatise: The continuity of all phenomena (諸行, zhū xíng) says 'to be named abiding and changing.' This is the fourth point, narrating the tenets of the Sautrāntika. This says that the three characteristics of a period (一期, yī qī, a certain duration) are provisional existences and not real existences, not that a moment is a real existence and not a provisional existence.
Treatise: The World Honored One relies on this to say 'to decay, change, destruction.' Below is the fifth point, citing scriptural proofs. Within this, there are five points: 1. Citing the sutra spoken by the Buddha for Nanda (難陀, Nán tuó, Buddha's cousin); 2. Citing three verses; 3. Citing the original treatise; 4. Unifying the original treatise; 5. Specifically establishing that the momentary four characteristics are provisional existences and not real existences. This passage is the first point.
。佛弟難陀性重欲染。欲染之本為貪其受。佛令難陀觀受生．住．異．滅。難陀得道。佛于眾中說難陀言。是善男子善知受生。善知受住。及善知受衰．異壞．滅 準此經文。一類樂受初起名生。終盡名滅。非一剎那觀受之法通自．他身。亦不得言現在之心不得觀現在受。
論。故說頌言至相續說住。第二引三頌證經部義也。前二頌證一期四相非一剎那。后一頌破有住想也。
論。由斯對法至名剎那法性。此即第三引本論證。
論。雖發智論至非一剎那。此第四會本論文也 言。一心者。非一剎那名一心也。依眾同分一相續心說一心也。
論。又一一剎那至四相亦成。第五別立剎那四相是假非實。于中有二。一標宗。二問答。此即初也。
論。云何得成。問也。
論。謂一一念至非無差別。答也。謂一一念本無今有生。準此生在現世同大乘也。即是法有名生有唯現故 有已還無名滅。準此亦同大乘。法無名滅。至滅相時法已過去 後後剎那嗣前前起名之為住。此與大乘不同。成唯識云。住表此法暫有用 嗣前前起者。以相續不斷義名為住也 即彼前後有差別故名為住異。於前后念相似生時。前後相望非無差別。此亦與大乘不同。成唯識云。異表此法非凝然故。
論。彼差
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：佛陀的弟子難陀（Nanda），他的習性是沉溺於強烈的慾望和情愛。而慾望和情愛的根源在於貪戀感官帶來的愉悅感受。佛陀教導難陀觀察感受的生起（生）、持續（住）、變化（異）和消滅（滅）。難陀因此證悟得道。佛陀在眾人面前讚揚難陀說：『這位善男子非常善於瞭解感受的生起，善於瞭解感受的持續，以及善於瞭解感受的衰退、變化和壞滅。』 依據這段經文，一類快樂的感受最初產生叫做『生』，最終消失叫做『滅』。這並非只在一剎那間觀察感受的方法，而是可以通用於自身和他人的身體。因此，也不能說現在的念頭不能觀察現在的感受。
論：『故說頌言至相續說住。』 這是第二部分，引用三首偈頌來證明經部的觀點。前兩首偈頌證明一個時期的四相（生、住、異、滅）並非只在一剎那間發生。后一首偈頌是爲了破除認為『住』是真實存在的想法。
論：『由斯對法至名剎那法性。』 這是第三部分，引用本論來證明。
論：『雖發智論至非一剎那。』 這是第四部分，彙集本論的論述。所謂『一心』，並非指一剎那，而是指依眾生共同擁有的同一類相續心識來說的『一心』。
論：『又一一剎那至四相亦成。』 這是第五部分，特別提出剎那四相是假立的，並非真實存在。其中分為兩部分：一是標明宗旨，二是問答。這裡是第一部分，標明宗旨。
論：『云何得成？』 這是提問。
論：『謂一一念至非無差別。』 這是回答。所謂『一一念本無今有生』，按照這種說法，『生』存在於現世，與大乘佛教的觀點相同，即是法（dharma）的生起，因為法只有在現在才存在。『有已還無名滅』，按照這種說法，也與大乘佛教的觀點相同，即法的消滅。當到達『滅』相時，法已經成為過去。『後後剎那嗣前前起名之為住』，這一點與大乘佛教的觀點不同。《成唯識論》中說，『住』表示此法暫時存在作用。『嗣前前起者』，是以相續不斷的意思稱為『住』。『即彼前後有差別故名為住異』，在前後念相似生起時，前後相互比較並非沒有差別。這一點也與大乘佛教的觀點不同。《成唯識論》中說，『異』表示此法並非凝固不變。
【English Translation】 English version: The Buddha's disciple, Nanda, was heavily inclined towards desire and lust. The root of desire and lust lies in the craving for pleasurable sensations. The Buddha instructed Nanda to observe the arising (birth), abiding (duration), changing (decay), and ceasing (death) of sensations. Nanda attained enlightenment as a result. The Buddha praised Nanda in the assembly, saying: 'This good man is skilled in understanding the arising of sensations, skilled in understanding the duration of sensations, and skilled in understanding the decay, change, and destruction of sensations.' According to this sutra passage, the initial arising of a pleasant sensation is called 'birth,' and its ultimate disappearance is called 'death.' This is not a method of observing sensations only in a single instant, but can be applied to both one's own body and the bodies of others. Therefore, it cannot be said that present thoughts cannot observe present sensations.
Treatise: 'Therefore, the verse says, up to the continuous saying of abiding.' This is the second part, quoting three verses to prove the Sautrantika's (Sutra School's) view. The first two verses prove that the four aspects (birth, duration, change, death) of a period do not occur in a single instant. The last verse is to refute the idea that 'duration' is truly existent.
Treatise: 'Because of this Abhidharma, up to the name of the nature of momentary dharmas.' This is the third part, quoting the treatise itself to prove the point.
Treatise: 'Although the Jnanaprasthana (Treatise on the Establishment of Knowledge) says, up to not a single instant.' This is the fourth part, compiling the arguments of the treatise. The so-called 'one mind' does not refer to a single instant, but refers to the 'one mind' spoken of in terms of the same continuous stream of consciousness shared by beings.
Treatise: 'Also, each and every instant, up to the four aspects are also established.' This is the fifth part, specifically stating that the four aspects of an instant are provisionally established and not truly existent. It is divided into two parts: first, stating the thesis; second, question and answer. This is the first part, stating the thesis.
Treatise: 'How are they established?' This is the question.
Treatise: 'Namely, each and every thought, up to not without difference.' This is the answer. 'Namely, each and every thought originally not existing, now existing, is birth.' According to this, 'birth' exists in the present world, which is the same as the Mahayana view, that is, the arising of a dharma, because a dharma only exists in the present. 'Having existed, then ceasing to exist, is called death.' According to this, it is also the same as the Mahayana view, that is, the cessation of a dharma. When the aspect of 'death' is reached, the dharma has already become the past. 'Subsequent instants succeeding preceding instants are called duration.' This differs from the Mahayana view. The Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi (Treatise Establishing Consciousness-Only) says, 'Duration indicates that this dharma temporarily has a function.' 'Succeeding preceding instants' means that it is called 'duration' because of the continuous and unbroken nature. 'Namely, there are differences between the preceding and following, therefore it is called change.' When similar thoughts arise in the preceding and following, there is no lack of difference when comparing the preceding and following. This also differs from the Mahayana view. The Vijnaptimatrata-siddhi says, 'Change indicates that this dharma is not static.'
別相云何應知。有部問也。如金剛等前後異相云何得知。
論。謂金剛等至而見相似。經部答也。如金剛等極堅之物。前後相同而有擲．未擲異。及強力擲去速墮遲。弱力擲去遲墮速。時不同也。雖有不同金剛本相前後相似。大種雖復前後相似。轉變差別其義亦成。亦余諸行例亦如是。相雖相似轉變義成。
論。若爾至應不遍有為。有部難也。最後聲．光。及涅槃時最後六處。既無後可異。應無住．異。有部師難住．異相也。既無住．異。即汝所立住．異二相不遍有為。
論。此不說住為有為相。經部答也。我第三言住異相者。不欲說住為有為相。但欲說異為有為相。
論。其義云何。有部徴也。
論。謂住之異至無不遍失。經部答也。謂住之異故。若有住必有異也。謂最後聲．光等嗣前起故名住。此即名住最後聲．光異其前念名為住異。即住名異故名住異也。非是待后剎那前方名異。亦非待后剎那前方名住。理必應然。只可后異前故名之為異。不可前異於后名之為異。若異於前異由於自。若異於后異乃由他。
論。然此經中至生等別物。經部述經意也。即有為法本無今有名生。有已還無名滅。相續名住。即此前念后念不同名異。已顯有為之無常相。何用離其所相別有生等。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如何理解『別相』（vilakṣaṇa，有為法的四種相狀之一，指事物各不相同的特性）？這是有部（Sarvāstivāda，佛教部派之一）的提問。例如，金剛（vajra，比喻堅固不壞的事物）等事物，前後狀態不同，又該如何理解？
答：金剛等事物，看起來相似。這是經部（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）的回答。例如，金剛等極其堅硬的物體，前後本身是相同的，但有被投擲和未被投擲的區別。並且，用強大的力量投擲出去，墜落得快；用微弱的力量投擲出去，墜落得慢。這是因為時間不同。雖然有這些不同，但金剛的本質特徵前後是相似的。四大種（mahābhūta，構成物質世界的地、水、火、風四種基本元素）雖然前後相似，但轉變的差別仍然成立。其餘諸行（saṃskāra，有為法）也是如此。相狀雖然相似，但轉變的意義仍然成立。
問：如果這樣，那麼『住』（sthiti，有為法的四種相狀之一，指事物相續存在）就不能遍及一切有為法了。這是有部的反駁。最後的聲、光，以及涅槃（nirvāṇa，佛教術語，指解脫）時的最後六處（ṣaḍāyatana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感覺器官），既然沒有後續狀態可以變化，那麼就應該沒有『住』和『異』（anyathātva，有為法的四種相狀之一，指事物變異）了。有部師難『住』和『異』二相，既然沒有『住』和『異』，那麼你們所立的『住』和『異』二相就不能遍及一切有為法。
答：我並沒有說『住』是有為法的相狀。這是經部的回答。我第三個說的『住異相』，並不是想說『住』是有為法的相狀，只是想說『異』是有為法的相狀。
問：這是什麼意思？這是有部的追問。
答：所謂『住』的變異，沒有不普遍適用的情況。這是經部的回答。因為『住』的變異，所以如果存在『住』，就必定存在『異』。所謂最後的聲、光等，因為接續之前的狀態而產生，所以稱為『住』。這也就是所謂的『住』，最後的聲、光不同於它之前的念頭，這被稱為『住異』。也就是『住』即是『異』，所以稱為『住異』。不是要等到后一個剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）才稱為『異』，也不是要等到后一個剎那才稱為『住』。道理必然是這樣，只能是后一個狀態不同於前一個狀態，所以稱之為『異』，不能是前一個狀態不同於后一個狀態，所以稱之為『異』。如果是不同於前一個狀態，那麼『異』是由於自身；如果是不同於后一個狀態，那麼『異』是由於他者。
答：然而，這部經中說，生等是不同的事物。這是經部引述經文的含義。有為法本來沒有，現在有了，這叫做『生』（jāti，有為法的四種相狀之一，指事物產生）；有了之後又消失了，這叫做『滅』（vyaya，有為法的四種相狀之一，指事物消滅）；相續不斷，叫做『住』；前一個念頭和后一個念頭不同，叫做『異』。已經顯示了有為法的無常相（anitya-lakṣaṇa，佛教術語，指事物生滅變化，沒有恒常不變的自性），為什麼還要離開它所具有的相狀，另外設立『生』等呢？
English version: Question: How should 'vilakṣaṇa' (distinctive characteristics, one of the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas) be understood? This is a question from the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school). For example, how can we understand the different states of things like vajra (diamond, a metaphor for something indestructible) before and after?
Answer: Things like vajra appear similar. This is the answer from the Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school). For example, extremely hard objects like vajra are the same before and after, but there is a difference between being thrown and not being thrown. Furthermore, when thrown with great force, it falls quickly; when thrown with weak force, it falls slowly. This is because the time is different. Although there are these differences, the essential characteristics of vajra are similar before and after. Although the four great elements (mahābhūta, the four basic elements of earth, water, fire, and wind that constitute the material world) are similar before and after, the difference in transformation is still valid. The same applies to the remaining saṃskāras (conditioned dharmas). Although the characteristics are similar, the meaning of transformation is still valid.
Question: If so, then 'sthiti' (duration, one of the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas) should not be pervasive to all conditioned dharmas. This is the rebuttal from the Sarvāstivāda. The last sound, light, and the last six āyatanas (ṣaḍāyatana, the six sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) at the time of nirvāṇa (Buddhist term, referring to liberation), since there is no subsequent state that can change, then there should be no 'sthiti' and 'anyathātva' (alteration, one of the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas). The Sarvāstivāda masters challenge the two characteristics of 'sthiti' and 'anyathātva'. Since there is no 'sthiti' and 'anyathātva', then the two characteristics of 'sthiti' and 'anyathātva' that you have established cannot be pervasive to all conditioned dharmas.
Answer: I did not say that 'sthiti' is a characteristic of conditioned dharmas. This is the answer from the Sautrāntika. The 'sthiti-anyathātva-lakṣaṇa' (characteristic of duration and alteration) that I mentioned thirdly, I do not intend to say that 'sthiti' is a characteristic of conditioned dharmas, but only intend to say that 'anyathātva' is a characteristic of conditioned dharmas.
Question: What does this mean? This is the inquiry from the Sarvāstivāda.
Answer: The so-called alteration of 'sthiti' has no non-pervasive situation. This is the answer from the Sautrāntika. Because of the alteration of 'sthiti', if 'sthiti' exists, then 'anyathātva' must exist. The so-called last sound, light, etc., are called 'sthiti' because they arise following the previous state. This is what is called 'sthiti', the last sound and light are different from the previous thought, which is called 'sthiti-anyathātva'. That is, 'sthiti' is 'anyathātva', so it is called 'sthiti-anyathātva'. It is not that it has to wait until the next kṣaṇa (kṣaṇa, an extremely short unit of time) to be called 'anyathātva', nor is it that it has to wait until the next kṣaṇa to be called 'sthiti'. The principle must be so, it can only be that the later state is different from the former state, so it is called 'anyathātva', it cannot be that the former state is different from the latter state, so it is called 'anyathātva'. If it is different from the former state, then 'anyathātva' is due to itself; if it is different from the latter state, then 'anyathātva' is due to others.
Answer: However, this sutra says that jāti (birth, one of the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas) etc. are different things. This is the meaning of the sutra quoted by the Sautrāntika. Conditioned dharmas originally did not exist, but now they exist, this is called 'jāti'; after existing, they disappear again, this is called 'vyaya' (decay, one of the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas); continuous succession is called 'sthiti'; the previous thought and the next thought are different, this is called 'anyathātva'. It has already shown the impermanent characteristic (anitya-lakṣaṇa, Buddhist term, referring to the fact that things arise and cease, and have no constant and unchanging self-nature) of conditioned dharmas, why should we establish 'jāti' etc. separately from the characteristics it possesses?
【English Translation】 Question: How should 'vilakṣaṇa' (distinctive characteristics, one of the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas) be understood? This is a question from the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school). For example, how can we understand the different states of things like vajra (diamond, a metaphor for something indestructible) before and after?
Answer: Things like vajra appear similar. This is the answer from the Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school). For example, extremely hard objects like vajra are the same before and after, but there is a difference between being thrown and not being thrown. Furthermore, when thrown with great force, it falls quickly; when thrown with weak force, it falls slowly. This is because the time is different. Although there are these differences, the essential characteristics of vajra are similar before and after. Although the four great elements (mahābhūta, the four basic elements of earth, water, fire, and wind that constitute the material world) are similar before and after, the difference in transformation is still valid. The same applies to the remaining saṃskāras (conditioned dharmas). Although the characteristics are similar, the meaning of transformation is still valid.
Question: If so, then 'sthiti' (duration, one of the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas) should not be pervasive to all conditioned dharmas. This is the rebuttal from the Sarvāstivāda. The last sound, light, and the last six āyatanas (ṣaḍāyatana, the six sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) at the time of nirvāṇa (Buddhist term, referring to liberation), since there is no subsequent state that can change, then there should be no 'sthiti' and 'anyathātva' (alteration, one of the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas). The Sarvāstivāda masters challenge the two characteristics of 'sthiti' and 'anyathātva'. Since there is no 'sthiti' and 'anyathātva', then the two characteristics of 'sthiti' and 'anyathātva' that you have established cannot be pervasive to all conditioned dharmas.
Answer: I did not say that 'sthiti' is a characteristic of conditioned dharmas. This is the answer from the Sautrāntika. The 'sthiti-anyathātva-lakṣaṇa' (characteristic of duration and alteration) that I mentioned thirdly, I do not intend to say that 'sthiti' is a characteristic of conditioned dharmas, but only intend to say that 'anyathātva' is a characteristic of conditioned dharmas.
Question: What does this mean? This is the inquiry from the Sarvāstivāda.
Answer: The so-called alteration of 'sthiti' has no non-pervasive situation. This is the answer from the Sautrāntika. Because of the alteration of 'sthiti', if 'sthiti' exists, then 'anyathātva' must exist. The so-called last sound, light, etc., are called 'sthiti' because they arise following the previous state. This is what is called 'sthiti', the last sound and light are different from the previous thought, which is called 'sthiti-anyathātva'. That is, 'sthiti' is 'anyathātva', so it is called 'sthiti-anyathātva'. It is not that it has to wait until the next kṣaṇa (kṣaṇa, an extremely short unit of time) to be called 'anyathātva', nor is it that it has to wait until the next kṣaṇa to be called 'sthiti'. The principle must be so, it can only be that the later state is different from the former state, so it is called 'anyathātva', it cannot be that the former state is different from the latter state, so it is called 'anyathātva'. If it is different from the former state, then 'anyathātva' is due to itself; if it is different from the latter state, then 'anyathātva' is due to others.
Answer: However, this sutra says that jāti (birth, one of the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas) etc. are different things. This is the meaning of the sutra quoted by the Sautrāntika. Conditioned dharmas originally did not exist, but now they exist, this is called 'jāti'; after existing, they disappear again, this is called 'vyaya' (decay, one of the four characteristics of conditioned dharmas); continuous succession is called 'sthiti'; the previous thought and the next thought are different, this is called 'anyathātva'. It has already shown the impermanent characteristic (anitya-lakṣaṇa, Buddhist term, referring to the fact that things arise and cease, and have no constant and unchanging self-nature) of conditioned dharmas, why should we establish 'jāti' etc. separately from the characteristics it possesses?
論。云何所相法即立為能相。有部難也。若說色等本無今有等是有為相。即是所相立為能相。云何所相法即立為能相。
論。如何大士相至理亦應然。經部引例答也。既大士等相不異大士等。故知有為之相不異有為。
論。雖了有為至有生等實物。經部述經生等四相。雖不離有為然不即彼。雖了有為色等自性。而不能了先無今有生。今有後大滅。相續之住相。差別之住異。仍未知彼體是有為。故非色等即有為相。然非離彼色等生有生等實物。
論。若離有為至復何非理。有部卻問。我立生等別有體性異其所相。有何非理。
論。一法一時至許俱有故。經部示非理也。一一法上同時具有生等四相。即法生時應即滅等。同有體故。
論。此難不然至而不相違。有部通也。雖體俱有用有前後。謂生作用令未生法生至現在。現在已生。豈鬚生相。由此生時非即是住．衰異．壞滅。
論。且應思擇至有用無用。經部難也。未來法體未得為有。即生等相體亦非有。如何得說生相有用三相無用。
論。設許至現在相。經部縱有未來難也。生相有用時不得是未來。生相已用時不得名現在。有部之宗約其作用辨三世故。正理論云。謂有為法若能為因引攝自果名為作用。若能為緣攝助異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：如果所相法（lakshanasya dharma，被標示的法）被設立為能相（lakshana，標示者），這是什麼意思？有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）對此提出疑問。如果說色等（rupa，色等五蘊）本來沒有現在有等是有為相（saṃskṛta-lakṣaṇa，有為法的特徵），即是所相被設立為能相。那麼，『所相法即立為能相』是什麼意思？ 論：如果像大士（mahāsattva，菩薩）的相一樣，至高的真理也應該是這樣嗎？經部（Sautrantika，經量部）引用例子來回答。既然大士等的相不異於大士等本身，所以可知有為的相不異於有為本身。 論：雖然瞭解有為（saṃskṛta，有為法）的自性，但仍然認為生等（jāti，生等四相）是實物。經部闡述經中所說的生等四相。雖然生等四相不離有為，但並不等同於有為。雖然瞭解有為色等的自性，但不能瞭解『先無今有』的生相（jāti-lakṣaṇa，生相），『今有後滅』的滅相（vyaya-lakṣaṇa，滅相），『相續』的住相（sthiti-lakṣaṇa，住相），『差別』的異相（anyathātva-lakṣaṇa，異相）。仍然不知道它們的本體是有為。所以色等不是有為的相。然而，生等四相併非脫離色等而存在的實物。 論：如果離開有為（saṃskṛta，有為法），又有什麼不合道理的呢？有部反問。我設立生等（jāti，生等四相）具有獨立的體性，不同於它們所標示的法，有什麼不合道理的？ 論：一個法在同一時間具有生等四相，這難道不是不合道理的嗎？經部指出其中的不合理之處。一個法上同時具有生等四相，那麼這個法在生起的時候就應該同時滅亡等，因為它們具有相同的體性。 論：這個反駁是不成立的，雖然體性相同，但作用有先後。有部進行辯解。雖然體性相同，但作用有先後。生相的作用是使未生的法生起，到達現在。現在已經生起的法，哪裡還需要生相？因此，生起的時候並非同時就是住、衰異、壞滅。 論：應該思考一下，生相是有用的，還是無用的？經部提出質疑。未來法的體性尚未成為『有』，那麼生等相的體性也不是『有』。如何能說生相是有用的，而其他三相是無用的呢？ 論：假設承認生相是未來相或現在相。經部進一步提出質疑。生相發揮作用的時候，不應該是未來相。生相已經發揮作用的時候，就不能稱為現在相。有部的宗義是根據作用來區分三世的。正理論中說：『所謂有為法，如果能夠作為因，引導和攝取自己的果，就叫做作用。如果能夠作為緣，攝取和幫助其他』
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: How can a characteristic of what is characterized (lakshanasya dharma) be established as the characteristic itself (lakshana)? The Sarvastivada (Everything Exists school) raises this question. If it is said that the characteristic of arising, etc., of form (rupa) and so on, which were originally non-existent but now exist, is a conditioned characteristic (saṃskṛta-lakṣaṇa), then it is the characteristic of what is characterized that is established as the characteristic itself. What does it mean that 'the characteristic of what is characterized is established as the characteristic itself'? Treatise: Should the characteristics of a great being (mahāsattva, Bodhisattva) be like this, and should the ultimate truth also be like this? The Sautrantika (Sutra school) cites an example to answer. Since the characteristics of a great being, etc., are not different from the great being, etc., themselves, it can be known that the characteristics of the conditioned are not different from the conditioned themselves. Treatise: Although understanding the nature of the conditioned (saṃskṛta), they still consider arising, etc. (jāti, the four characteristics of the conditioned) to be real entities. The Sautrantika explains the four characteristics of arising, etc., as described in the sutras. Although the four characteristics of arising, etc., are not separate from the conditioned, they are not identical to the conditioned. Although understanding the nature of the conditioned form, etc., they cannot understand the characteristic of arising (jāti-lakṣaṇa), which is 'originally non-existent but now exists,' the characteristic of cessation (vyaya-lakṣaṇa), which is 'now exists but later ceases,' the characteristic of duration (sthiti-lakṣaṇa), which is 'continuous,' and the characteristic of change (anyathātva-lakṣaṇa), which is 'differentiation.' They still do not know that their substance is conditioned. Therefore, form, etc., are not the characteristics of the conditioned. However, the four characteristics of arising, etc., are not real entities that exist separately from form, etc. Treatise: If separated from the conditioned (saṃskṛta), what is unreasonable? The Sarvastivada asks in return. What is unreasonable about my establishing that arising, etc. (jāti, the four characteristics of the conditioned) have independent substances that are different from what they characterize? Treatise: Isn't it unreasonable for one dharma to simultaneously possess the four characteristics of arising, etc.? The Sautrantika points out the unreasonableness. If one dharma simultaneously possesses the four characteristics of arising, etc., then this dharma should simultaneously cease, etc., when it arises, because they have the same substance. Treatise: This rebuttal is not valid; although the substances are the same, the functions have a sequence. The Sarvastivada defends. Although the substances are the same, the functions have a sequence. The function of arising is to cause the unarisen dharma to arise until the present. The dharma that has already arisen in the present, where is the need for the characteristic of arising? Therefore, arising is not simultaneously duration, decay, change, and destruction. Treatise: It should be considered whether the characteristic of arising is useful or useless. The Sautrantika questions. The substance of the future dharma has not yet become 'existent,' so the substance of the characteristics of arising, etc., is also not 'existent.' How can it be said that the characteristic of arising is useful, while the other three characteristics are useless? Treatise: Suppose it is admitted that the characteristic of arising is a future characteristic or a present characteristic. The Sautrantika further questions. When the characteristic of arising functions, it should not be a future characteristic. When the characteristic of arising has already functioned, it cannot be called a present characteristic. The Sarvastivada's doctrine distinguishes the three times based on function. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'The so-called conditioned dharma, if it can act as a cause to guide and gather its own effect, is called function. If it can act as a condition to gather and assist others'
類是謂功能如前已辨。一切現在皆能為因引攝自果。非諸現在皆能為緣攝明異類。謂闇中眼或有功能被損害者。便於眼識不能為緣攝助令起。然其作用非闇所損。定能為因引當眼故。由斯作用．功能有別。然于同類相續果生有定不定。攝引勢力名為作用亦名功能。若於異類相續果生。但能為緣攝助令起。此非作用但是功能 述曰。準婆沙問四大生等五因。為是因為是緣。一說是因。一說是緣 準此論意因是因緣。緣是增上。其因緣定有取果。取果作用定在現在。其增上緣攝助異類。于中有取果者。有非取果者。其取果者即是諸有為法住現在世。于增上果皆有取果用。其未來法．及生相法功能雖是攝助。而非是取．與準正理論上下文。一切取果皆是現在。此中說取自類果者據顯說也。一切法體住現在時。定能取果故無能障也。若因與果及增上緣攝助諸法即容有被障。如因暗障眼識不依根也。又餘一切有為住現在時。皆能取其自果名為作用。無力能遮不取果故。一切有為法住現在時。攝助異類即不決定。有法力能遮彼功能不得起故。如眼識等。此釋自類果者。即因緣所取皆是自類。
論。又住等三至為名壞滅。經部宗難三相同時用也。
論。諸說住等至剎那滅義。經部難也。若用前後。諸法生已經住．時異．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如前所述，『類』指的是其功能。一切現在的事物都能作為因，引出幷包含其自身的結果。但並非所有現在的事物都能作為緣，包含並明確不同類別的事物。例如，在黑暗中，眼睛或者其功能受到損害時，就不能作為眼識的緣，無法幫助其產生。然而，眼睛的作用並未被黑暗所損害，它一定能作為因，引出未來的眼識。因此，作用和功能是有區別的。在同類事物的連續產生中，有的具有確定的攝引力量，有的則不確定，這種攝引的力量被稱為作用，也稱為功能。如果對於不同類事物的連續產生，只能作為緣來攝助其產生，這並非作用，而只是功能。述曰：根據《婆沙論》中關於四大產生等五種原因的提問，這些原因是因還是緣？一種說法是因，一種說法是緣。按照此論的觀點，因是因緣，緣是增上緣。因緣一定能取得結果，取得結果的作用一定發生在現在。增上緣攝助不同類別的事物，其中有的能取得結果，有的則不能取得結果。能取得結果的就是那些存在於現在的有為法，它們對於增上果都有取得結果的作用。而未來的法以及生相法，其功能雖然是攝助，但並非是取得或給予。根據《正理論》的上下文，一切取得結果的都是現在。這裡說取得自類結果，是根據顯現來說的。一切法體存在於現在時，一定能取得結果，因此沒有能阻礙它的。如果因與果以及增上緣攝助諸法，就可能存在被阻礙的情況，例如黑暗阻礙眼識不依賴於根。此外，一切有為法存在於現在時，都能取得其自身的結果，這被稱為作用，因為沒有力量能夠阻止其不取得結果。一切有為法存在於現在時，攝助不同類別的事物就不確定了，有的法力能夠阻止其功能無法產生，例如眼識等。這裡解釋自類結果，指的是因緣所取得的都是自類。
論：又，住、等三，至為名壞滅。經部宗對三相同時作用提出質疑。
論：諸說住等，至剎那滅義。經部對此提出質疑。如果使用前後關係，諸法產生后已經存在，時間不同。
【English Translation】 English version: As previously explained, 'category' refers to its function. All present things can serve as a cause, leading to and encompassing their own results. However, not all present things can serve as a condition, encompassing and clarifying different categories of things. For example, in darkness, when the eye or its function is impaired, it cannot serve as a condition for eye consciousness, unable to help it arise. Nevertheless, the eye's function is not impaired by darkness; it will certainly serve as a cause, leading to future eye consciousness. Therefore, there is a distinction between action and function. In the continuous arising of things of the same category, some have a definite power of encompassing and leading, while others do not; this power of encompassing and leading is called action, and also called function. If, for the continuous arising of things of different categories, it can only serve as a condition to encompass and help them arise, this is not action, but only function. Commentary: According to the question in the Vibhasha on the five causes such as the arising of the four great elements, are these causes causes or conditions? One view is that they are causes, and another view is that they are conditions. According to this treatise's view, a cause is a hetupratyaya (causal condition), and a condition is an adhipatipratyaya (dominant condition). A hetupratyaya will certainly obtain a result, and the action of obtaining a result certainly occurs in the present. An adhipatipratyaya encompasses and helps things of different categories, among which some can obtain a result, while others cannot. Those that can obtain a result are those conditioned phenomena that exist in the present, and they all have the action of obtaining a result for the dominant result. As for future phenomena and the phenomena of arising, although their function is to encompass and help, it is not to obtain or give. According to the context of the Nyāyānusāraśāstra, everything that obtains a result is in the present. Here, saying that obtaining a result of the same category is according to manifestation. All phenomena exist in the present time, and they will certainly obtain a result, so there is nothing that can obstruct them. If a cause and a result, as well as an adhipatipratyaya, encompass and help all phenomena, there may be obstruction, such as darkness obstructing eye consciousness from relying on the root. Furthermore, all conditioned phenomena that exist in the present time can obtain their own result, which is called action, because there is no power that can prevent them from obtaining a result. All conditioned phenomena that exist in the present time, encompassing and helping things of different categories, are uncertain; some powers can prevent their function from arising, such as eye consciousness and so on. Here, explaining the result of the same category refers to what is obtained by the hetupratyaya is all of the same category.
Treatise: Furthermore, 'abiding', and the three, to be named destruction. The Sautrāntika school questions the simultaneous action of the three characteristics.
Treatise: Those who say 'abiding' and so on, to the meaning of momentary destruction. The Sautrāntika school questions this. If using before and after relationships, after phenomena arise, they already exist, and the time is different.
時滅時。三時既別。應三剎那時之極少名剎那故。即違教說剎那滅義。
論。若言至非異非滅。經部難。住先用過也。住異．滅相同時而生。因何住相先餘二用。
論。若住力強至所衰壞耶又難。住力若強因何被其異滅。並其本法俱遭衰壞。
論。若言住相至令無再用。又遮難也。若言住相同其生相不再用者理亦不同。法生不可更生生相無其再生。法住可令更住。如何住相不令再住。
論。又誰障住用至何不于先用。又遮此住用暫有還無也。若異．滅為障即力合強住應先住用。若力弱住故於後用。即不合能障于住也。
論。又住用息至更無所為。又遮難也。若住不由有障暫用自息。即應法自然壞滅。何用異．滅二相。
論。又應一法至理不應有。又縱許有滅而破其異也。
論。所以者何。有部徴也。所以一法不許有異。
論。異謂前後至立異終不成。經部出所以也。若前一法說異不成。無所異故。若后異前即非一法。是故一法立異不成。正理論云。諸對法者。於法自體差別用中立有異名非唯自體。謂有為法于自體中。能引自果作用名住。即此作用衰損名異。此住．及衰無容自有。應有別法令住．令衰。此二之因即住．異相。於斯正理何不忍歟 又云。非正生位立有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 時而生滅。如果將時間分為三段，既然這三段時間是不同的，那麼就應該認為剎那（ksana）是時間極短的單位，這樣就違背了教義中關於剎那生滅的說法。
論：如果說『至』不是異，也不是滅，經部（Sautrantika）會反駁說：『住』（sthiti，存在）先於作用。『住』、『異』（anyathatva，變異）、『滅』（vyaya，消滅）這三種相同時產生，為什麼『住』相的作用先於其他兩種？
論：如果說『住』的力量強大，以至於衰壞，這又是一個難題。如果『住』的力量強大，為什麼會被『異』和『滅』所影響？甚至連其本體都遭受衰壞。
論：如果說『住』相和生相（jati，產生）一樣，不會再次使用，這也是一種遮難。如果說『住』相和『生』相一樣不再使用，道理也是不同的。法（dharma，事物）的產生不可能再次產生，『生』相也沒有再次產生的道理。法的『住』可以使其再次『住』，為什麼『住』相不能使其再次『住』呢？
論：又有誰阻礙『住』的作用，為什麼不先使用？這也是對『住』的作用暫時存在又消失的遮難。如果『異』和『滅』是阻礙，那麼力量結合起來應該更強，『住』應該先發揮作用。如果力量弱，『住』因此在後面發揮作用，那麼就不能阻礙『住』了。
論：如果『住』的作用停止，就再也沒有什麼作用了，這也是一種遮難。如果『住』不是因為有阻礙而暫時停止作用，那麼法就應該自然壞滅，又何必需要『異』和『滅』這兩種相呢？
論：又應該一個法（dharma）有『異』，道理上不應該有。這也是縱然允許有『滅』，也要破斥『異』。
論：為什麼呢？有部（Sarvastivada）提出疑問。為什麼一個法不允許有『異』呢？
論：『異』是指前後不同，如果建立『異』最終不能成立。經部解釋原因。如果說前面的一個法是『異』，那麼不能成立，因為沒有可以不同的東西。如果後面的不同於前面，那就不是一個法了。所以一個法建立『異』不能成立。《正理論》說：『諸對法者，於法自體差別用中立有異名非唯自體。』意思是說，對於法的自體差別作用中，建立『異』這個名稱，不僅僅是自體。有為法（conditioned dharma）在自體中，能夠引生自身結果的作用叫做『住』，這種作用衰損叫做『異』。這種『住』和衰損不能自己產生，應該有別的法使其『住』，使其衰損。這兩種原因就是『住』相和『異』相。對於這種正理，為什麼不能容忍呢？又說：『非正生位立有』
【English Translation】 English version Sometimes it arises and sometimes it ceases. Since the three times are distinct, it should be that a ksana (moment) is the smallest unit of time, thus contradicting the teachings about the arising and ceasing of a ksana.
Treatise: If you say that 『to』 is neither different nor ceasing, the Sautrantika (Sautrantika) school will object: 『Sthiti』 (existence) precedes function. 『Sthiti』 (existence), 『anyathatva』 (alteration), and 『vyaya』 (cessation) arise simultaneously, why does the function of 『sthiti』 precede the other two?
Treatise: If you say that the power of 『sthiti』 is strong, so that it decays, this is another difficulty. If the power of 『sthiti』 is strong, why is it affected by 『anyathatva』 and 『vyaya』? Even its own essence is subject to decay.
Treatise: If you say that the characteristic of 『sthiti』 is like the characteristic of 『jati』 (birth), it will not be used again, this is also a refutation. If you say that the characteristic of 『sthiti』 is like the characteristic of 『jati』 and is no longer used, the reasoning is also different. The arising of a dharma (phenomenon) cannot arise again, and there is no reason for the characteristic of 『jati』 to arise again. The 『sthiti』 of a dharma can cause it to 『stay』 again, why can』t the characteristic of 『sthiti』 cause it to 『stay』 again?
Treatise: Who hinders the function of 『sthiti』, why is it not used first? This is also a refutation of the temporary existence and disappearance of the function of 『sthiti』. If 『anyathatva』 and 『vyaya』 are hindrances, then the combined force should be stronger, and 『sthiti』 should function first. If the force is weak, and 『sthiti』 therefore functions later, then it cannot hinder 『sthiti』.
Treatise: If the function of 『sthiti』 ceases, then there is nothing more to do, this is also a refutation. If 『sthiti』 does not temporarily cease its function because of an obstruction, then the dharma should naturally decay, so why are 『anyathatva』 and 『vyaya』 needed?
Treatise: Also, one dharma should have 『anyathatva』, it should not be reasonable. This is also, even if 『vyaya』 is allowed, 『anyathatva』 must be refuted.
Treatise: Why? The Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada) school raises a question. Why is one dharma not allowed to have 『anyathatva』?
Treatise: 『Anyathatva』 refers to the difference between before and after, if 『anyathatva』 is established, it cannot be established in the end. The Sautrantika school explains the reason. If it is said that the one dharma before is 『anyathatva』, then it cannot be established, because there is nothing to be different from. If the latter is different from the former, then it is not one dharma. Therefore, establishing 『anyathatva』 for one dharma cannot be established. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『Those who study Abhidharma establish the name of 『anyathatva』 in the difference of the function of the dharma itself, not just the dharma itself.』 It means that, in the difference of the function of the dharma itself, the function of a conditioned dharma that can produce its own result is called 『sthiti』, and the weakening of this function is called 『anyathatva』. This 『sthiti』 and weakening cannot arise by themselves, there should be other dharmas that cause it to 『stay』 and cause it to weaken. These two causes are the characteristics of 『sthiti』 and 『anyathatva』. Why can』t you tolerate this correct reasoning? It also says: 『Not in the position of correct birth is established』
異名。作用爾時未衰損故。即由此理立住．異名。此能衰損引果用故。由法作用被衰損時方引自果。由因被損後果生位漸劣前因。故果漸劣由因有異。此果剎那復由俱起異相為緣令衰損故。復能為後果漸劣緣。如是一切有為相續。剎那剎那令後後異。故前前念有異義成。此義既成應為比量。謂見最後有差別故。前諸剎那定有差別。若爾相續漸增長時應無異相。不見異故。無斯過失。住相爾時由外緣助。勢力增強摧伏異故。
論。雖餘部說。已下破正量部。彼執色法有二緣滅。一內滅想。二外滅緣。心法唯內滅相。不待外緣。剎那即滅 先破色。后破心法。
論。雖餘部說至有滅相為。初破色法待二緣滅。既現見薪由火緣滅。如何更說別有內滅。服寫藥痢豈是由天。
論。又心．心所至不應正理。次破心。剎那滅不待外緣。一法之上同時既有住．滅二相。應於一時亦住．亦滅。相違同時不應正理。
論。故依相續至善順契經。經部師破他宗已結自宗順經合理。
論。若生在未來至何不俱生。已下半頌第三明生相待因緣合方能生法。
論曰至非皆頓起。就長行中有二。一釋頌文述有部義。二問答分別。此即初也。
論。若爾至因緣力起。自此已下問答分別。此即經部師問。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『異名』（Anyathatva-laksana）：作用在那個時候還沒有衰減和減損的緣故。就由此道理安立『住』（sthiti）。『異名』（Anyathatva-laksana）：它能夠衰減和減損，並引生結果的緣故。由於法的功用被衰減和減損的時候，才引生它自身的結果。由於因被損害，所以後果產生的狀態逐漸劣於之前的因。所以結果逐漸變差是由於因有了差異。這個結果的剎那，又由於同時生起的『異相』（Anyathatva-laksana）作為助緣，使它衰減和減損的緣故。又能成為後果逐漸變差的助緣。像這樣一切有為法的相續，剎那剎那地使後後的狀態不同。所以前前念有差異的意義成立。這個意義既然成立，應該作為比量。就是說，見到最後有差別，所以之前的各個剎那必定有差別。如果這樣，相續逐漸增長的時候，應該沒有『異相』（Anyathatva-laksana）。因為沒有見到『異相』（Anyathatva-laksana）的緣故。沒有這樣的過失。『住相』（sthiti）在那個時候由於外緣的幫助，勢力增強，摧伏『異相』（Anyathatva-laksana）的緣故。
論：雖然其他部派說。以下是破斥正量部（Sammitiya）的觀點。他們認為色法有兩種因緣導致滅亡：一是內在的滅想，二是外在的滅緣。心法只有內在的滅相，不依賴外在的因緣，剎那間就滅亡。先破斥色法，后破斥心法。
論：雖然其他部派說到有滅相為止。首先破斥色法依賴兩種因緣而滅亡的觀點。既然現在親眼見到柴薪由於火的因緣而滅亡，為什麼還要說另外有內在的滅呢？服用瀉藥導致腹瀉難道是由於天神嗎？
論：又，心、心所到不應道理。其次破斥心剎那滅亡不依賴外在因緣的觀點。在一個法之上，同時既有『住』（sthiti）、『滅』（vyaya）兩種相，應該在同一時間既存在又滅亡。相互違背同時存在是不合道理的。
論：所以依據相續到善順契經。經部師（Sautrantika）破斥其他宗派之後，總結自己的宗派符合佛經，合理。
論：若生在未來到何不俱生。以下半頌第三說明生相依賴因緣聚合才能產生法。
論曰到非皆頓起。在長行中有兩部分：一是解釋頌文，陳述有部（Sarvastivada）的觀點；二是問答分別。這裡是第一部分。
論：若爾到因緣力起。從這裡開始是問答分別。這是經部師（Sautrantika）的提問。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Anyathatva-laksana' (The characteristic of change): Because the function is not yet weakened or diminished at that time. Therefore, 'sthiti' (duration) is established based on this principle. 'Anyathatva-laksana' (The characteristic of change): Because it can weaken and diminish, and bring about results. Because the function of the dharma is weakened and diminished, it brings about its own result. Because the cause is damaged, the state of the subsequent result gradually becomes inferior to the previous cause. Therefore, the gradual deterioration of the result is due to the difference in the cause. This moment of the result is further weakened and diminished by 'Anyathatva-laksana' (The characteristic of change) arising simultaneously as a condition. It can also become a condition for the gradual deterioration of subsequent results. Like this, the continuity of all conditioned dharmas makes the subsequent states different moment by moment. Therefore, the meaning of difference in the preceding moments is established. Since this meaning is established, it should be used as an analogy. That is, seeing that there is a difference in the final state, there must be a difference in the previous moments. If so, when the continuity gradually increases, there should be no 'Anyathatva-laksana' (The characteristic of change). Because 'Anyathatva-laksana' (The characteristic of change) is not seen. There is no such fault. 'Sthiti' (duration) at that time is strengthened by the help of external conditions, subduing 'Anyathatva-laksana' (The characteristic of change).
Treatise: Although other schools say. The following refutes the views of the Sammitiya school. They believe that material dharmas have two conditions that lead to extinction: one is the internal thought of extinction, and the other is the external condition of extinction. Mental dharmas only have the internal characteristic of extinction and do not depend on external conditions; they become extinct in an instant. First, refute material dharmas, and then refute mental dharmas.
Treatise: Although other schools say up to the characteristic of extinction. First, refute the view that material dharmas depend on two conditions to become extinct. Since it is now clearly seen that firewood becomes extinct due to the condition of fire, why say that there is another internal extinction? Does diarrhea from taking laxatives come from the gods?
Treatise: Also, mind and mental factors up to it is not reasonable. Next, refute the view that the extinction of the mind in an instant does not depend on external conditions. On one dharma, there are both 'sthiti' (duration) and 'vyaya' (cessation) at the same time, so it should both exist and cease at the same time. Contradictory things should not exist at the same time.
Treatise: Therefore, according to the continuity up to the Sutra that is well in accordance. The Sautrantika master refutes other schools and then concludes that his own school is in accordance with the Sutras and is reasonable.
Treatise: If it is born in the future up to why not born together. The following half-verse explains that the arising of a dharma depends on the aggregation of conditions.
Treatise says up to not all arise suddenly. There are two parts in the prose: one is to explain the verse and state the views of the Sarvastivada school; the other is to distinguish through questions and answers. This is the first part.
Treatise: If so, up to arising from the power of conditions. From here onwards are questions and answers. This is the question from the Sautrantika master.
論。豈諸有法至而不可知。有部答也。答中有三。一以細故雖有實體汝不知也。二反難。若無生體。因何得有生覺。三反難。若法外無生。如何得有第六轉聲 此即初也。豈得以汝但見因緣不見生相。即謂唯有因緣無生相也。豈諸有法皆汝所知。此之生相雖現有體而不可知。以法性幽微甚難知故。
論。生相若無應無生覺。反難也。心法托境必不自起。生相若無應無生覺。
論。又第六轉至色之色言。反難第六轉也。若生異色。可得說言色之生等。第六轉聲既名屬主。非即一法。若於一法有屬主言。應有說言色之色等。
論。如責無生至隨其所應。類釋三相別有體也。
論。若爾至有等別性。自下經部反難通也 于中有二。一破生覺。二破屬主。此即初也。就初中有二。一就內法無破。二同外道有破。為成空．無我覺法外應有空．無我性。此就內法無破。謂無我觀時觀一切法皆無有我。應於法外別立空．無我性。若於法外無其空．無我性。如何得有空．無我覺。既有空．無我覺。法外無空．無我性故。唯有生覺。法外無生性 言。為成一二至有等別性。同外道有破也。既有生覺。即離法外別有生相。即應一．二覺。大．小覺。各別。合．離。彼．此。有性等覺。應如外道法外執有數．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：難道所有的有法（Sarvastivada，一切有部的教義，認為一切事物，無論過去、現在、未來，都是真實存在的）都到了不可知的地步嗎？有部（Sarvastivada）回答說。回答中有三點：第一，因為極其細微的緣故，即使有實體，你也不知道。第二，反過來詰難。如果沒有生相（jati-laksana，事物產生的特性）的實體，怎麼會有生覺（jati-samjna，對事物產生的認知）？第三，反過來詰難。如果法（dharma，佛法的基本組成單位）之外沒有生相，怎麼會有第六轉聲（ ষষ্ঠী বিভক্তি，梵文語法中的所有格）？這即是第一點。難道因為你只看到因緣（hetu-pratyaya，事物產生的條件和關係），而沒有看到生相，就說只有因緣而沒有生相嗎？難道所有的有法都是你所能知道的嗎？這生相雖然現在有實體，但卻不可知，因為法性（dharma-svabhava，事物的本性）幽深微妙，難以知曉。 論：如果生相沒有，就不應該有生覺。這是反過來詰難。心法（citta-dharma，精神現象）依賴於外境，必定不會自己產生。如果生相沒有，就不應該有生覺。 論：又，第六轉聲到『色之色』的說法，是反過來詰難第六轉聲。如果生出不同的色（rupa，物質現象），可以說『色之生』等等。第六轉聲既然是表示所屬關係，就不是同一個法。如果對於同一個法有表示所屬關係的說法，就應該有『色之色』等等的說法。 論：如同責難沒有生相，到『隨其所應』，是分類解釋三相（trilaksana，生、住、滅）各自有實體。 論：如果這樣，到『有等別性』，以下是經部（Sautrantika，佛教部派之一，主張只有現在存在的法才是真實的）反過來詰難。其中有兩點：一是破斥生覺，二是破斥所屬關係。這是第一點。在第一點中又有兩點：一是不就內在的法進行破斥，二是與外道（Tirthika，佛教以外的其他宗教）相同進行破斥。爲了成就空（sunyata，空性）、無我（anatman，無我性）的覺悟，在法之外應該有空性、無我性。這是不就內在的法進行破斥。意思是說，在進行無我觀（anatman-darsana，觀察一切事物沒有自我的修行）時，觀察一切法都沒有我。應該在法之外另外建立空性、無我性。如果在法之外沒有空性、無我性，怎麼會有空、無我的覺悟？既然有空、無我的覺悟，法之外沒有空性、無我性，只有生覺，法之外沒有生性。說：爲了成就一、二覺，到『有等別性』，是與外道相同進行破斥。既然有生覺，就離開法之外另外有生相，就應該有一、二覺，大、小覺，各不相同。合、離，彼、此，有性等覺，應該像外道一樣，在法之外執著有數（samkhya，古印度哲學流派，認為世界由Purusha和Prakriti構成）。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: Could it be that all existing dharmas (Sarvastivada, the doctrine of the All-Existing school, which believes that all things, whether past, present, or future, are truly existent) have reached the point of being unknowable? The Sarvastivadins reply. There are three points in the reply: First, because of their extreme subtlety, even if they have substance, you do not know it. Second, a counter-argument. If there is no entity of origination (jati-laksana, the characteristic of things arising), how can there be a perception of origination (jati-samjna, the cognition of things arising)? Third, a counter-argument. If there is no origination outside of dharmas (dharma, the basic units of Buddhist teachings), how can there be a sixth case ending ( ষষ্ঠী বিভক্তি, the genitive case in Sanskrit grammar)? This is the first point. Just because you only see conditions (hetu-pratyaya, the conditions and relationships by which things arise) and do not see the characteristic of origination, do you then say that there are only conditions and no characteristic of origination? Are all existing dharmas knowable by you? This characteristic of origination, although it now has substance, is unknowable because the nature of dharmas (dharma-svabhava, the inherent nature of things) is profound and subtle, and very difficult to know. Treatise: If there is no characteristic of origination, there should be no perception of origination. This is a counter-argument. Mental dharmas (citta-dharma, mental phenomena) rely on external objects and will certainly not arise on their own. If there is no characteristic of origination, there should be no perception of origination. Treatise: Furthermore, the statement from the sixth case ending to 'color of color' is a counter-argument against the sixth case ending. If different colors (rupa, material phenomena) arise, it can be said 'origination of color' and so on. Since the sixth case ending indicates possession, it is not the same dharma. If there is a statement of possession for the same dharma, there should be statements such as 'color of color' and so on. Treatise: Just as the accusation of no origination, up to 'according to what is appropriate,' is a classification and explanation that the three characteristics (trilaksana, origination, duration, and cessation) each have substance. Treatise: If that is so, down to 'having distinct natures,' what follows is the Sautrantikas (Sautrantika, one of the Buddhist schools, which argues that only presently existing dharmas are real) counter-argument. There are two points in it: first, refuting the perception of origination; second, refuting the relationship of possession. This is the first point. Within the first point, there are two points: first, not refuting based on internal dharmas; second, refuting in the same way as the Tirthikas (Tirthika, religions other than Buddhism). In order to achieve the realization of emptiness (sunyata, emptiness) and non-self (anatman, selflessness), there should be emptiness and non-self natures outside of dharmas. This is not refuting based on internal dharmas. It means that when practicing the contemplation of non-self (anatman-darsana, the practice of observing that all things have no self), one observes that all dharmas have no self. One should separately establish emptiness and non-self natures outside of dharmas. If there are no emptiness and non-self natures outside of dharmas, how can there be a realization of emptiness and non-self? Since there is a realization of emptiness and non-self, and there are no emptiness and non-self natures outside of dharmas, there is only the perception of origination, and there is no nature of origination outside of dharmas. Saying: In order to achieve the perceptions of one and two, down to 'having distinct natures,' is refuting in the same way as the Tirthikas. Since there is a perception of origination, there is a separate characteristic of origination outside of dharmas, there should be perceptions of one and two, perceptions of large and small, each different. Perceptions of combination and separation, that and this, having nature, etc., should be like the Tirthikas, who cling to numbers (samkhya, an ancient Indian philosophical school that believes the world is composed of Purusha and Prakriti) outside of dharmas.
量．各別．合．離．彼．此．有等別性。外道計如前述。
論。又為成立至言何得成第二反難。破第六轉。如文可知。
論。是故生等至無別實物。結成經部宗也。
論。爲了諸行至隨應當知。經部通經。離法之外無別生等。經說第六轉聲。色之生言。先法說后喻顯。如文可知。
論。若行離生相至何故不生有部難經部也。有為．無為俱無生相。有為既生。無為何為不生。
論。諸行名生至何得言生。已下經部通也 于中有三。一無為不得名生。二將有部非一切法皆有生相例。三將有部一切有為同有生相。因緣或有能無能例。此即初也。本無今有可得名生。無為體常如何名生。
論。又如法爾至皆可生。此第二也。如汝有部唯有為有其生相。無為之法無其生相。我經部宗亦爾。有為可生。無為不可生也。
論。又如有為至一無生用。第三釋也。如汝有部一切有為皆有生相。而許因緣望有為法於一有用。於一無用。即如眼根于生眼識有用。于生耳識無用。我經部有為．無為同無生相。而彼因緣望有為有用。無為無用。余文可解。
論。如是已辨至其義云何已下第七有半頌明名．句．文身。
論曰至句身文身。釋頌等也。
論。應知此中至壹伊等字。會異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 量（Māṇa，衡量），各別（Pṛthaktva，不同），合（Saṃyoga，結合），離（Viyoga，分離），彼（Tatra，那裡），此（Idam，這裡），有等別性。外道計如前述。
論。又為成立至言，何得成第二反難。破第六轉。如文可知。
論。是故生等至無別實物。結成經部宗也。
論。爲了諸行至隨應當知。經部通經。離法之外無別生等。經說第六轉聲。色之生言。先法說后喻顯。如文可知。
論。若行離生相至何故不生？有部難經部也。有為（Saṃskṛta，有條件的）．無為（Asaṃskṛta，無條件的）俱無生相。有為既生。無為何為不生？
論。諸行名生至何得言生？已下經部通也。于中有三。一無為不得名生。二將有部非一切法皆有生相例。三將有部一切有為同有生相。因緣或有能無能例。此即初也。本無今有可得名生。無為體常如何名生？
論。又如法爾至皆可生。此第二也。如汝有部唯有為有其生相。無為之法無其生相。我經部宗亦爾。有為可生。無為不可生也。
論。又如有為至一無生用。第三釋也。如汝有部一切有為皆有生相。而許因緣望有為法於一有用。於一無用。即如眼根于生眼識有用。于生耳識無用。我經部有為．無為同無生相。而彼因緣望有為有用。無為無用。余文可解。
論。如是已辨至其義云何？已下第七有半頌明名（Nāma，名稱）．句（Pada，詞組）．文身（Vyañjana-kāya，音節集合）。
論曰至句身文身。釋頌等也。
論。應知此中至壹伊等字。會異
【English Translation】 English version Māṇa (Measurement), Pṛthaktva (Distinctness), Saṃyoga (Combination), Viyoga (Separation), Tatra (There), Idam (Here), possessing such distinct characteristics. The views of non-Buddhists are as previously stated.
Treatise: Furthermore, to establish the 'words of truth,' how can a second counter-argument be formed? Refuting the sixth turning. The meaning is evident in the text.
Treatise: Therefore, birth and so on are not separate real entities. This concludes the Sautrāntika (Sūtra School) position.
Treatise: In order to understand all phenomena, it should be known accordingly. The Sautrāntika school understands the scriptures. Apart from the Dharma, there is no separate birth, etc. The scriptures speak of the sixth turning of sound and the arising of form. First, the Dharma is explained, then an analogy is shown. The meaning is evident in the text.
Treatise: If phenomena are devoid of the characteristic of birth, why do they not arise? This is a challenge from the Sarvāstivāda (School of 'All Exists') to the Sautrāntika. Both Saṃskṛta (conditioned) and Asaṃskṛta (unconditioned) lack the characteristic of birth. Since the conditioned arises, why does the unconditioned not arise?
Treatise: The name 'birth' for phenomena—how can it be said to be birth? The following is a general explanation by the Sautrāntika school. There are three points: 1. The unconditioned cannot be called birth. 2. An analogy is drawn from the Sarvāstivāda school's view that not all dharmas have the characteristic of birth. 3. An analogy is drawn from the Sarvāstivāda school's view that all conditioned things share the characteristic of birth. The causes and conditions may or may not be effective. This is the first point. What was originally non-existent now exists, and can be called birth. How can the unconditioned, whose nature is constant, be called birth?
Treatise: Furthermore, just as by nature, everything can arise. This is the second point. Just as in your Sarvāstivāda school, only the conditioned has the characteristic of birth, and the unconditioned does not, so too in our Sautrāntika school, the conditioned can arise, and the unconditioned cannot.
Treatise: Furthermore, just as the conditioned has one use and no use for birth. This is the third explanation. Just as in your Sarvāstivāda school, all conditioned things have the characteristic of birth, and you admit that causes and conditions are useful for the conditioned in one way and useless in another, such as the eye faculty being useful for the arising of eye consciousness but useless for the arising of ear consciousness, so too in our Sautrāntika school, both the conditioned and unconditioned lack the characteristic of birth, but those causes and conditions are useful for the conditioned and useless for the unconditioned. The rest of the text can be understood.
Treatise: Thus, it has been explained. What is its meaning? The following seventh section has a half-verse explaining Nāma (name), Pada (phrase), and Vyañjana-kāya (collection of syllables).
Treatise: Explaining the verse, etc., regarding phrase-body and syllable-body.
Treatise: It should be known that within this, the characters such as 'Eka' and 'I' are different gatherings.
名也 名謂作想者。由於色等念色等名。令於色等起色等想。名是想因名為作想。此是因取果名說名為想。論既不言想謂作名。不可釋言從因受稱。因取果名者。即是名之異目。亦不可別為一釋或是名之異目 亦可名如作想詮法相狀。義與想同故名為想 梵云那(去聲)摩此云名。是歸義。赴義。隨義。趣義。謂隨音聲歸赴於法趣其自相。㘝有異求表呼專一即歸之義。由斯呼召能引自體 梵云僧若(日何反)此云想。是能取像專執之義。或是共立契約之義 梵云缽陀此云跡。如一象身有四足跡。亦如一頌總四句成。今就義翻名之為句 梵云縛迦(去何反)此雲章。是詮辨終竟義。如說諸行無常等章。直言諸行是名非句。直言諸行義未究竟。更云無常方成究竟。故名詮義究竟名之為章。如立蘊章詮蘊究竟 若爾何故外典章．句義別 答詮義究竟名之為章。詮義之中有廣有狹。極狹名．句。廣名為章。即于章中分其二義。一句義。二章義。即句同章。故名為章 或能辨了業用德時相應差別者。如說善能招愛果。刀能割物等。此是業用。寂滅為樂此是德也。三無數劫此是時也。相應謂詮諸法相隨順也。差別謂詮諸法義不同也。或差別是其總義。即是對其自性名差別也。如說諸行是其自性。無常是其差別。對法論云。名詮自性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『名』也被稱為『作想者』（Zuò xiǎng zhě）。由於對色等（sè děng，指色蘊等）的憶念，而稱之為色等之『名』。使人對色等生起色等之『想』。『名』是『想』的起因，所以說『名』是『作想』。這是以因取果，稱『名』為『想』。論中既然沒有說『想』就是『作名』，就不能解釋為從因接受名稱。『因取果名』，就是『名』的別稱。也不可另外解釋，或者說是『名』的別稱。也可以說『名』如同『作想』，詮釋法的相狀，意義與『想』相同，所以稱為『想』。 梵語『那摩』（nāma），這裡翻譯為『名』。是歸義、赴義、隨義、趣義。意思是隨著音聲歸向於法，趨向於它的自相。『㘝』有尋求表達、呼喚專一，即歸向之義。因此呼喚能夠引出自體。梵語『僧若』（saṃjñā），這裡翻譯為『想』。是能取像、專執之義。或者是共同建立契約之義。 梵語『缽陀』（pada），這裡翻譯為『跡』。如同一隻象身有四個足跡。也如同一首頌總共有四句組成。現在就意義翻譯，稱之為『句』。梵語『縛迦』（vākya），這裡翻譯為『章』。是詮釋辨明終結之義。如說諸行無常等章。直接說『諸行』是『名』，不是『句』。直接說『諸行』，意義沒有完結。再說『無常』才成為完結。所以說詮釋意義完結的稱為『章』。如設立蘊章，詮釋蘊的意義完結。 如果這樣，為什麼外道的經典中『章』、『句』的意義不同？回答說，詮釋意義完結的稱為『章』。詮釋意義之中有廣有狹。極狹的稱為『名』、『句』，廣大的稱為『章』。就在『章』中分出兩種意義：一句義；二章義。即『句』等同於『章』，所以稱為『章』。 或者能夠辨別業用、德、時相應差別的事物。如說善能招感可愛的果報，刀能割斷物體等。這是業用。寂滅為樂，這是德。三無數劫，這是時。相應，是指詮釋諸法互相隨順。差別，是指詮釋諸法意義不同。或者差別是其總義。就是針對它的自性稱為差別。如說諸行是它的自性，無常是它的差別。對法論說：『名詮自性』。
【English Translation】 English version 'Name' is also called 'the maker of thought' (Zuò xiǎng zhě). Due to the recollection of aggregates of form, etc. (sè děng, referring to the aggregates of form, etc.), it is called the 'name' of aggregates of form, etc. It causes people to have 'thoughts' of aggregates of form, etc. 'Name' is the cause of 'thought', so it is said that 'name' is 'the maker of thought'. This is taking the effect from the cause, calling 'name' as 'thought'. Since the treatise does not say that 'thought' is 'making name', it cannot be explained as receiving the name from the cause. 'Taking the effect from the cause' is another name for 'name'. It cannot be explained separately, or it is another name for 'name'. It can also be said that 'name' is like 'making thought', explaining the characteristics of the Dharma, and its meaning is the same as 'thought', so it is called 'thought'. The Sanskrit word 'nāma' is translated here as 'name'. It means returning to meaning, going to meaning, following meaning, and approaching meaning. It means that with the sound, one returns to the Dharma and approaches its own characteristics. '㘝' has the meaning of seeking expression, calling for singleness, which is the meaning of returning. Therefore, calling can bring out the self. The Sanskrit word 'saṃjñā' is translated here as 'thought'. It means being able to take images and being single-mindedly attached. Or it is the meaning of establishing a covenant together. The Sanskrit word 'pada' is translated here as 'trace'. Just as an elephant's body has four footprints. It is also like a verse that consists of four lines in total. Now, based on the meaning, it is translated as 'sentence'. The Sanskrit word 'vākya' is translated here as 'chapter'. It is the meaning of explaining and clarifying the end. For example, saying the chapter of 'all conditioned things are impermanent', etc. Directly saying 'all conditioned things' is a 'name', not a 'sentence'. Directly saying 'all conditioned things', the meaning is not complete. Saying 'impermanent' again makes it complete. Therefore, it is said that what explains the complete meaning is called a 'chapter'. For example, establishing the chapter of aggregates, explaining the meaning of aggregates completely. If so, why are the meanings of 'chapter' and 'sentence' different in external scriptures? The answer is that what explains the complete meaning is called a 'chapter'. There is broad and narrow meaning in explaining the meaning. The extremely narrow is called 'name' and 'sentence', and the broad is called 'chapter'. Two meanings are divided in the 'chapter': the meaning of sentence; the meaning of chapter. That is, 'sentence' is the same as 'chapter', so it is called 'chapter'. Or it can distinguish things that correspond to the differences in karma, virtue, and time. For example, saying that good can attract a lovely result, and a knife can cut things, etc. This is karma. Nirvana is happiness, this is virtue. Three countless kalpas, this is time. Correspondence refers to explaining that all dharmas follow each other. Difference refers to explaining that the meanings of all dharmas are different. Or difference is its general meaning. That is, difference is called for its own nature. For example, saying that all conditioned things are its nature, and impermanence is its difference. The Abhidharma says: 'Name explains self-nature.'
。句詮差別。其義同也 梵云便杜那此云文。是能彰顯義。西方俗呼醬酢．鹽．扇等物為便社那。以醬．酢．鹽等能顯于味扇能顯風故名便社那。舊譯為味誤也。以文顯故與名．句為依。故對法雲彼二所依是文。如綾．錦文由起于絲顯異余處。即依此顯安布以為龍．鳳。又合龍．鳳以作錦窠。根本皆依文．絲顯成。絲如其聲。文如其字。龍．鳳如名。句如其窠。壹．伊等字顯在聲上。即將此顯能目自性別更生名目差別義別更生句。此名．句皆依于文。
論。豈不此字至亦書分名。此問答分別也 豈不此字即是紙上屈曲色名為字。問也 答云非為顯書分色字製造諸不相應字。但為顯不相應字製造色書字。依此色字記持不相應字。及將色字傳流異方及於後代。是故不相應諸字非同書字。
論。云何名等身至迦佉伽等。釋名等身 云何名等身者。問也。梵云迦耶此云身 謂想等總說已下答也。梵云三木訖底此云總說。總說釋身義也。即是二三等名總說為身 梵云三摩婆曳此云合集。總說即是合集。二三等名名合集義。于合集義中說嗢遮界故。由合集義中置嗢遮字界。后字緣助成總說義。即以總說釋于身也。二名為身。三名已上名為多身也 此中名身。乃至。文身者謂迦佉伽等。皆至三數釋者。一不名身。二單名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：句詮的差別，它們的意義是相同的。梵語稱『便杜那』（vyঞ্জন，文），這裡翻譯為『文』，是能夠彰顯意義的。西方俗語稱醬、醋、鹽、扇子等物為『便社那』，因為醬、醋、鹽等能夠彰顯味道，扇子能夠彰顯風，所以稱為『便社那』。舊的翻譯為『味』是錯誤的。因為『文』能夠彰顯，所以與『名』、『句』互為依存。因此，《對法論》說：『那二者所依存的是文。』如同綾羅錦緞上的花紋，由於絲線的起伏而顯現出與其它地方的不同，就是依據這些花紋顯現並安排成龍、鳳等圖案。又將龍、鳳組合起來製作成錦窠。根本上都是依靠花紋和絲線顯現而成的。絲線如同聲音，花紋如同文字，龍、鳳如同名稱，錦窠如同句子。『壹』、『伊』等字顯現在聲音之上。即將這種顯現的能力用來區分自體的性別，進一步產生名稱的差別，意義的差別，進而產生句子。這些名稱和句子都依賴於『文』。 論：難道不是這些字，乃至書寫也區分名稱嗎？這是問答的分別。『難道不是這些字，就是紙上彎曲的顏色，稱為字嗎？』這是提問。回答說：『不是爲了顯現書寫而區分顏色字，製造各種不相應的字，而是爲了顯現不相應的字而製造顏色書寫的字。依據這些顏色字來記憶和保持不相應的字，以及將顏色字傳播到異地和後代。』因此，這些不相應的字與書寫的字是不同的。 論：什麼是名身等，乃至迦佉伽等？解釋名身等。『什麼是名身等？』這是提問。梵語稱『迦耶』（kāya，身），這裡翻譯為『身』。所謂『想等總說』，以下是回答。梵語稱『三木訖底』（samukti，總說），這裡翻譯為『總說』。『總說』解釋了『身』的意義。就是二個或三個等名稱總合起來稱為『身』。梵語稱『三摩婆曳』（samavāya，合集），這裡翻譯為『合集』。『總說』就是『合集』。二個或三個等名稱是『合集』的意義。在『合集』的意義中，說了『嗢遮界』的緣故。由於在『合集』的意義中放置了『嗢遮』字界，後面的字緣輔助成就了『總說』的意義。就是用『總說』來解釋『身』。二個名稱為『身』，三個名稱以上稱為『多身』。這裡所說的名身，乃至文身，指的是迦佉伽等，都達到三個數字來解釋。一個不稱為身，兩個單獨稱為名。
【English Translation】 English version: The differences in phrases and sentences, their meanings are the same. The Sanskrit term is 'vyañjana' (便杜那), here translated as 'letter' or 'text' (文), which is capable of manifesting meaning. Common parlance in the West refers to soy sauce, vinegar, salt, fans, etc., as 'vyañjana' (便社那), because soy sauce, vinegar, salt, etc., can manifest flavors, and fans can manifest wind, hence they are called 'vyañjana'. The old translation as 'taste' is incorrect. Because 'text' can manifest, it is interdependent with 'name' and 'sentence'. Therefore, the Abhidharma says: 'That which these two depend on is text.' Just as the patterns on damask and brocade manifest differently from other places due to the undulations of the silk threads, it is based on these patterns that dragons, phoenixes, and other designs are manifested and arranged. Furthermore, dragons and phoenixes are combined to create brocade patterns. Fundamentally, everything relies on the manifestation of patterns and silk threads. Silk threads are like sounds, patterns are like letters, dragons and phoenixes are like names, and brocade patterns are like sentences. Characters like 'one' (壹) and 'I' (伊) are manifested above the sound. This manifesting ability is then used to distinguish the gender of the self, further generating differences in names, differences in meanings, and consequently generating sentences. These names and sentences all depend on 'text'. Argument: Aren't these letters, and even writing, distinguishing names? This is a distinction through question and answer. 'Aren't these letters, which are the curved colors on paper, called letters?' This is the question. The answer is: 'It is not to distinguish color letters for the sake of manifesting writing, creating various non-corresponding letters, but to create color-written letters for the sake of manifesting non-corresponding letters. Based on these color letters, non-corresponding letters are memorized and maintained, and color letters are transmitted to different places and future generations.' Therefore, these non-corresponding letters are different from written letters. Argument: What are name-bodies, etc., up to ka kha ga, etc.? Explanation of name-bodies, etc. 'What are name-bodies, etc.?' This is the question. The Sanskrit term is 'kāya' (迦耶, body), here translated as 'body' (身). The so-called 'thought, etc., collectively spoken,' the following is the answer. The Sanskrit term is 'samukti' (三木訖底, collective speech), here translated as 'collective speech' (總說). 'Collective speech' explains the meaning of 'body' (身). That is, two or three or more names collectively referred to as 'body' (身). The Sanskrit term is 'samavāya' (三摩婆曳, collection), here translated as 'collection' (合集). 'Collective speech' is 'collection' (合集). Two or three or more names are the meaning of 'collection' (合集). Within the meaning of 'collection' (合集), the 'uddeśa-dhātu' (嗢遮界) is spoken of. Because the 'uddeśa-dhātu' (嗢遮界) is placed within the meaning of 'collection' (合集), the subsequent letter-affixes assist in accomplishing the meaning of 'collective speech' (總說). That is, 'collective speech' (總說) is used to explain 'body' (身). Two names are 'body' (身), three or more names are called 'multiple bodies' (多身). What is referred to here as name-body, and even letter-body, refers to ka kha ga, etc., all reaching three numbers to explain. One is not called a body, two alone are called names.
身。三名已上皆多名身。至於多身不減三也。四．五已上皆是多故。不須至四．五也 前釋文中。即以十二音中𧙃．阿．壹．伊釋。今釋身中即以字型迦．佉．伽釋者。欲顯此二皆得是文。故倚互明。
論。豈不此三至心不相應行。已下問答分別。此即經部問也。
論。此三非以至即令了義。有部答也。
論。云何令了經部問也 論。謂語發名至乃能令了。有部答也。正理論云。此中經主作如是言。豈不此三語為性故用聲為體色自性攝。如何乃說為心不相應行。此責非理。所以者何。由教及理知別有故。教謂經云語力．文力。若文即語別說何為。又說應持正法文句。又言依義不依于文。又說伽他因謂闡陀文字。闡陀謂造頌份量語為體。又契經言知法知義。法謂名等。義謂所詮。又契經言文義巧妙。又言應以善說文句讀誦正法。惡說文句讀誦正法義即難解。又說如來獲得希有名．句．文身。又說彼彼勝．解文句甚為希有。由此等教證知別有能詮諸義名．句．文身。猶加語聲。實而非假。理謂現見有時得聲而不得字。有時得字而不得聲。故知體別。有時得聲不得字者。謂雖聞聲而不了義。現見有人粗聞他語而複審問汝何所言。此聞語聲不了義者。都由未達所發文故。如何乃執文不異聲。有時得字不得聲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：身。三個名稱以上都可稱為多名身。至於多身，數量不少於三個。四個、五個以上都可以算作多身，所以不必非要到四個、五個。前面的解釋中，用十二音中的𧙃 (Ā)、阿 (A)、壹 (I)、伊 (Ī) 來解釋。現在解釋身的時候，用字型迦 (ka)、佉 (kha)、伽 (ga) 來解釋，是爲了表明這兩種方式都可以用來闡明文字，所以互相參照說明。
論：難道這三種（名、句、文）不是與心不相應的行嗎？這是經部的提問。
論：這三種並非通過『至』就能使意義明瞭。這是有部的回答。
論：如何才能使意義明瞭呢？這是經部的提問。
論：通過語言發出名稱，才能使意義明瞭。這是有部的回答。《正理論》中說：『經部的主張是這樣的：這三種（名、句、文）以語言為體性，以聲音為載體，屬於色法的範疇。怎麼能說是與心不相應的行呢？』這種責難是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為通過教證和理證可以知道它們是不同的。教證是指經典中說到的『語力』、『文力』。如果文字就是語言，那為什麼還要單獨說『文』呢？又說應該『持正法文句』，又說『依義不依于文』，又說『伽他 (gāthā，偈頌) 的因是闡陀 (chandas，韻律) 文字』，闡陀是指造頌的份量，以語言為體。還有契經中說『知法知義』，法是指名稱等，義是指所詮釋的內容。還有契經中說『文義巧妙』，又說『應該以善說的文句讀誦正法，以惡說的文句讀誦正法，意義就難以理解』。又說如來獲得希有的名身、句身、文身。又說那些殊勝的、容易理解的文句非常稀有。通過這些教證可以知道，存在能夠詮釋諸義的名身、句身、文身，它們就像附加在語聲上的，是真實存在的，而不是虛假的。理證是指，現在可以看到，有時有聲音而沒有文字，有時有文字而沒有聲音，所以知道它們的體性是不同的。有時有聲音而沒有文字，是指雖然聽到了聲音，卻不明白意思。現在看到有人粗略地聽到別人說話后，還要仔細地詢問『你說了什麼？』這種聽到了聲音卻不明白意思的情況，都是因為沒有理解所發出的文字。怎麼能認為文字和聲音沒有區別呢？有時有文字而沒有聲音。
【English Translation】 English version: Body. More than three names are called multiple name-bodies. As for multiple bodies, the number is not less than three. Four or five or more can be considered multiple bodies, so it is not necessary to reach four or five. In the previous explanation, 𧙃 (Ā), 阿 (A), 壹 (I), 伊 (Ī) from the twelve sounds were used to explain. Now, when explaining the body, the letters 迦 (ka), 佉 (kha), 伽 (ga) are used to explain, in order to show that both methods can be used to clarify the text, so they are explained with mutual reference.
Question: Are these three (name, sentence, phrase) not non-associated formations with mind? This is the question from the Sutra School ( Sautrāntika).
Answer: These three are not made clear in meaning by 'to'. This is the answer from the Sarvāstivāda School.
Question: How can the meaning be made clear? This is the question from the Sutra School.
Answer: By uttering the name through language, the meaning can be made clear. This is the answer from the Sarvāstivāda School. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'The Sutra Master's (Sautrāntika) view is this: These three (name, sentence, phrase) have language as their nature, sound as their medium, and are included in the nature of form. How can they be said to be non-associated formations with mind?' This accusation is unreasonable. Why? Because it can be known through scriptural and logical proofs that they are different. Scriptural proof refers to the 'power of language' and 'power of text' mentioned in the scriptures. If the text is the same as language, then why mention 'text' separately? It also says that one should 'uphold the correct Dharma phrases', and 'rely on the meaning, not on the text'. It also says that 'the cause of gāthās (gāthā, verses) is chandas (chandas, meter) letters', chandas refers to the measure of composing verses, with language as its essence. Also, the sutras say 'know the Dharma, know the meaning', Dharma refers to names, etc., and meaning refers to what is being explained. Also, the sutras say 'the text and meaning are skillful', and 'one should recite the correct Dharma with well-spoken phrases, and reciting the correct Dharma with poorly spoken phrases makes the meaning difficult to understand'. It also says that the Tathāgata (Tathāgata, Thus Come One) obtains rare name-bodies, sentence-bodies, and phrase-bodies. It also says that those excellent and easily understood phrases are very rare. Through these scriptural proofs, it can be known that there exist name-bodies, sentence-bodies, and phrase-bodies that can explain all meanings, and they are like additions to the sound of language, and are real, not false. Logical proof refers to the fact that it can be seen that sometimes there is sound without text, and sometimes there is text without sound, so it is known that their natures are different. Sometimes there is sound without text, which means that although the sound is heard, the meaning is not understood. It is now seen that someone, after roughly hearing someone else speak, still asks carefully, 'What did you say?' This situation of hearing the sound but not understanding the meaning is all because the uttered text has not been understood. How can one think that text and sound are not different? Sometimes there is text without sound.
者。謂不聞聲而得了義。現見有人不聞他語。睹唇等動知其所說。此不聞聲得了義者。都由了達所發文故。由斯理證文必異聲。又見世間隱聲誦咒。故知咒字異於咒聲。又見世間有二論者。言音相似一負一勝。此勝．負因必異聲有。又法與詞二無礙解境界別故知字離聲。是故聲者但是言音相無差別。其中屈曲必依迦．遮．吒．多．波等。要由語聲發起諸字。諸字前後和合生名。此名既生即能顯義。由此展轉而作是言。語能發名。名能顯義。故名．聲異其理極成。應知此中聲是能說。文是所說。義謂非二。如是則為無亂建立。
論。非但音聲至方攝語故。此是經部敘自宗義。
論。何等音聲令義可了。有部問經部也。如我所釋有名之聲方能了義。汝言即聲了義。何等音聲令義可了。
論。謂能說者至智者立瞿聲。經部釋也。於一瞿聲詮其九事。由共定量故能了義。
論諸有執名至能詮定量。準聲共立定量。名亦如之。
論。若此句義至別有實名。自此已下經部師難有別名也。但由假音聲顯用已辨。因何計有離聲實名。
論。又未了此名至為由語生。經部定有部宗兩關進退難也。
論。若由語生至何待別名。難語生名也。
論。若由語顯至何待別名。難聲顯名。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有人說，不通過聽聲音也能理解意義。現在看到有人不聽別人說話，但通過觀察嘴唇等動作就能知道對方在說什麼。這種不聽聲音就能理解意義的情況，都是因為完全理解了所發出的文字的緣故。由此可以推斷，文字必然不同於聲音。又看到世間有人默默地念誦咒語，所以知道咒字不同於咒聲。又看到世間有兩位辯論者，言語聲音相似，但一個失敗一個獲勝，這勝負的原因必然在於聲音之外。而且，法無礙解和詞無礙解的境界不同，所以知道文字是獨立於聲音的。因此，聲音只是言語的聲音，沒有差別，其中的變化取決於迦（ka）、遮（ca）、吒（ṭa）、多（ta）、波（pa）等。必須通過語聲來發起諸字，諸字前後組合形成名稱。這個名稱一旦產生，就能顯現意義。由此輾轉而說，語能發起名稱，名稱能顯現意義。所以名稱和聲音不同，這個道理非常明確。應該知道，這裡聲音是能說的，文字是所說的，意義則不是兩者之一。這樣才能建立沒有錯亂的觀點。
論：不僅僅是聲音，乃至方位都能包含語言，這是經部（Sautrantika）在敘述自己的宗義。
論：什麼樣的聲音才能使意義可以理解？有部（Sarvastivada）問經部。就像我所解釋的，有名稱的聲音才能理解意義。你們說聲音就能理解意義，那麼什麼樣的聲音才能使意義可以理解？
論：是指能說話的人，乃至智者所立的『瞿』聲（go-shabda，牛的聲音）。經部解釋說，一個『瞿』聲可以詮釋九件事物，因為有共同的定量，所以能夠理解意義。
論：那些執著名稱，乃至能夠詮釋的定量。按照聲音共同建立的定量，名稱也是如此。
論：如果這個句子的意義，乃至另外有實在的名稱。從這裡開始，經部師開始反駁有部有另外的名稱。僅僅通過假借的聲音來顯現作用已經很清楚了，為什麼還要認為有離開聲音的實在名稱呢？
論：又沒有理解這個名稱，乃至因為由語言產生。經部針對有部宗的兩個關鍵點進行反駁。
論：如果由語言產生，那麼為什麼還要另外的名稱？反駁語言產生名稱。
論：如果由聲音顯現，那麼為什麼還要另外的名稱？反駁聲音顯現名稱。
【English Translation】 English version Some say that one can understand the meaning without hearing the sound. Now we see people who do not listen to others, but can understand what they are saying by observing the movement of their lips, etc. This understanding of meaning without hearing the sound is all because of a complete understanding of the words being uttered. From this, it can be inferred that words must be different from sounds. Also, we see people in the world silently reciting mantras, so we know that mantra words are different from mantra sounds. Furthermore, we see two debaters in the world whose speech sounds are similar, but one fails and the other wins. The reason for this victory and defeat must lie outside of the sound. Moreover, the realms of unobstructed understanding of Dharma (法無礙解, dharma-pratibhana) and unobstructed understanding of words (詞無礙解, nirukti-pratibhana) are different, so we know that words are independent of sounds. Therefore, sound is merely the sound of speech, without any difference, and its variations depend on ka (迦, ka), ca (遮, ca), ṭa (吒, ṭa), ta (多, ta), pa (波, pa), etc. It is necessary to initiate the various letters through speech sounds, and the letters are combined before and after to form names. Once this name is produced, it can manifest meaning. From this, it is said that speech can initiate names, and names can manifest meaning. Therefore, the difference between names and sounds is very clear. It should be known that here, sound is what can be spoken, words are what are spoken, and meaning is neither of the two. Only in this way can a view be established without confusion.
Treatise: Not only sound, but even directions can encompass language. This is the Sautrantika (經部) school narrating its own doctrine.
Treatise: What kind of sound makes meaning understandable? The Sarvastivada (有部) asks the Sautrantika. Just as I explained, the sound with a name can understand meaning. You say that sound can understand meaning, so what kind of sound makes meaning understandable?
Treatise: It refers to the 'go-shabda' (瞿聲, cow sound) established by the speaker, even the wise. The Sautrantika explains that one 'go-shabda' can interpret nine things, because it has a common measure, so it can understand meaning.
Treatise: Those who cling to names, even the measure that can interpret. According to the common measure established by sound, the name is also like this.
Treatise: If the meaning of this sentence, even if there is another real name. From here on, the Sautrantika master begins to refute the Sarvastivada's claim that there is another name. It is already clear that the function is manifested only through borrowed sounds, so why do you think there is a real name apart from sound?
Treatise: Also, you have not understood this name, even because it is produced by language. The Sautrantika refutes the two key points of the Sarvastivada school.
Treatise: If it is produced by language, then why do you need another name? Refuting that language produces names.
Treatise: If it is manifested by sound, then why do you need another name? Refuting that sound manifests names.
論。又諸念聲至可由語發。難無生理。一念之聲未能詮表。多念之聲乃能呼召。故知多念之聲乃有名也。前後念聲剎那已滅不可聚集。又不可說一字之名分分漸生。進退徴難無其生理。如何可說由語發耶。
論。云何待至能生無表。有部反難經部成自義也。由多念表色唸唸漸生入於過去。最後表剎那無表方生。聲生於名義亦準此。
論。若爾至應能了義。經部難也。既唯最後聲能生名者。但聞最後聲應能了義。何須要待前念之聲。
論。若作是執至不可集故。難異執也。若語生文文復生名亦同前難。前後念文不可集故。
論。語顯名過應例如生。前難語生名。復準難語顯名也。生謂名由聲生。顯謂名先有體但由語顯。已上破有部離語有名。自下破離語有文。
論。又異語文至莫辨其相。諸明慧者現量知無也。
論。又文由語至皆不應理。若生若顯二關破斥。準語于名生顯之過也 正理論云。此難違害自所稟宗。彼說去來皆無自體。聲前後念不可頓生。如何成文成名成句。若前前念傳傳相資最後剎那成文．名．句。但聞最後應了義成。又無相資去．來無故。既恒一念如何相資。既無相資前後相似后如初念應不能詮。聞后如初應不了義。故彼所執前後相資聲即能詮理不成立。我宗
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：論：又，諸多的念頭和聲音最終可以通過語言表達出來。如果說沒有生理上的依據，那麼一個念頭的聲音無法完全表達意義，而多個念頭的聲音才能形成呼喚。因此可知，多個念頭的聲音才有名。前後唸的聲音在剎那間已經消滅，無法聚集。又，不能說一個字的名是逐漸產生的。進退兩難，沒有生理上的依據。如何能說是由語言發出的呢？
論：如何等待到能夠產生無表業（Avijñapti-karma，無表業：一種無形的業力）？有部（Sarvāstivāda，一切有部：佛教部派之一）反過來詰難經部（Sautrāntika，經量部：佛教部派之一），以成立自己的觀點。由多個念頭的表色（vijñapti-rūpa，表色：能表達意義的顏色和形狀）唸唸漸生，進入過去。最後的表剎那產生無表。聲音產生於名義也依照這個道理。
論：如果這樣，那麼應該能夠理解意義。經部反駁說：既然只有最後的聲音才能產生名，那麼只聽到最後的聲音就應該能夠理解意義，為什麼需要等待之前的念頭的聲音呢？
論：如果這樣認為，那麼就無法聚集。這是對不同觀點的駁斥。如果語言產生文字，文字又產生名，也和前面的難題一樣，前後唸的文字無法聚集。
論：語言顯現名的過失，應該像產生一樣。前面是反駁語言產生名，這裡是反駁語言顯現名。產生是指名由聲音產生，顯現是指名先有本體，只是由語言顯現。以上是破斥有部認為離開語言有名。下面是破斥離開語言有文字。
論：又，不同的語言文字，如果離開語言文字，就無法辨別它們的相狀。明智的人通過現量（pratyakṣa，現量：直接的認知）知道這是沒有的。
論：又，文字由語言產生或顯現，都不應該合理。無論是產生還是顯現，都用兩種方式進行駁斥，就像語言對於名的產生和顯現的過失一樣。《正理論》說：這個反駁違背了自己所稟承的宗義。他們說過去和未來都沒有自體，聲音的前後念不能同時產生，如何形成文字、名、句？如果前前念傳遞相資，最後的剎那形成文字、名、句，那麼只聽到最後的聲音就應該理解意義。又，沒有相資，因為過去和未來都不存在。既然恒常只有一個念頭，如何相資？既然沒有相資，前後相似，後面的念頭應該像最初的念頭一樣，不能詮釋意義。聽到後面的聲音應該像最初一樣，不能理解意義。所以他們所執著的前後相資，聲音就能詮釋意義的理論是不成立的。我宗...
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: Furthermore, various thoughts and sounds can ultimately be expressed through language. If there is no physiological basis, then the sound of a single thought cannot fully express meaning, while the sounds of multiple thoughts can form a call. Therefore, it can be known that the sounds of multiple thoughts have names. The sounds of previous and subsequent thoughts have vanished in an instant and cannot be gathered. Also, it cannot be said that the name of a single word is gradually produced. Advancing and retreating are both difficult, and there is no physiological basis. How can it be said that it is produced by language?
Treatise: How can one wait until one can produce Avijñapti-karma (無表業: non-manifesting karma, a type of invisible karmic force)? The Sarvāstivāda (一切有部: a Buddhist school) in turn refutes the Sautrāntika (經量部: a Buddhist school) to establish its own view. The vijñapti-rūpa (表色: manifesting form, colors and shapes that can express meaning) of multiple thoughts gradually arises, entering the past. The final moment of manifestation produces the non-manifestation. The production of sound from name and meaning also follows this principle.
Treatise: If so, then one should be able to understand the meaning. The Sautrāntika refutes: Since only the final sound can produce the name, then hearing only the final sound should be able to understand the meaning. Why is it necessary to wait for the sounds of previous thoughts?
Treatise: If one holds this view, then it cannot be gathered. This is a refutation of different views. If language produces letters, and letters produce names, it is the same as the previous difficulty. The letters of previous and subsequent thoughts cannot be gathered.
Treatise: The fault of language revealing names should be like production. The previous refutation was against language producing names, and this is against language revealing names. Production means that the name is produced by sound, and revelation means that the name already has a substance, but is revealed by language. The above is a refutation of the Sarvāstivāda's view that names exist apart from language. The following is a refutation of the view that letters exist apart from language.
Treatise: Furthermore, different languages and letters, if separated from language and letters, cannot be distinguished by their characteristics. Wise people know through pratyakṣa (現量: direct perception) that this does not exist.
Treatise: Furthermore, whether letters are produced or revealed by language, neither should be reasonable. Whether it is production or revelation, both are refuted in two ways, just like the faults of language in the production and revelation of names. The Nyāyānusāra says: This refutation violates the tenets of its own school. They say that the past and future have no self-nature, and the previous and subsequent thoughts of sound cannot arise simultaneously. How can letters, names, and sentences be formed? If the previous thoughts transmit and support each other, and the final moment forms letters, names, and sentences, then hearing only the final sound should understand the meaning. Also, there is no mutual support, because the past and future do not exist. Since there is only one constant thought, how can they support each other? Since there is no mutual support, and the previous and subsequent are similar, the subsequent thought should be like the initial thought and cannot interpret the meaning. Hearing the subsequent sound should be like the initial sound and cannot understand the meaning. Therefore, their adherence to the theory that previous and subsequent support each other, and that sound can interpret meaning, is not established. My school...
三世皆有非無。故后待前能生名等。雖最後念名等方生。而但聞彼不能了義。由不具聞。如先共立名等契約能發聲故。然聞一聲亦有了者由串習故。依此比余。故經主言破彼非此。
論。又若有執至而不應許。破異計也。若名與所詮義俱時而生。由如生相與義俱生者。即有三過。一名在現在義在過．未。二子名與子俱生。父母不合隨意立名。三無為無生應無有名。
論。然世尊說至安布差別。通有部難。難云。若謂離聲無別名者。因何經說頌依于名。答云。即聲安布假說為名。
論。執有實物至及心次第。總非有部別立實名。如樹等行離樹無行。心之次第離心無體。名亦如是。離聲無體。
論。或唯應執至便為無用。經部縱文破有名也。
論。毗婆沙師至所能了故。此迷有部宗也。正理論云。毗婆沙說名．句．文三各有三種。名三種者謂名．名身．多名身。句．文亦爾。名有多位謂一字生。或二字生。或多字生。一字生者說一字時但可有名。說二字時即謂名身。或作是說。說三字時即謂多名身。或作是說說四字時方謂多名身。二字生者說二字時但可有名。說四字時即謂名身。或作是說。說六字時即謂多名身。或作是說。說八字時方謂多名身。多字生中三字生者。說三字時但可有名。說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 三世（過去、現在、未來）皆有，並非沒有。因此，後面的念頭依賴於前面的念頭才能產生名稱等等。即使最後一個念頭名稱等等才產生，但僅僅聽到它也不能理解意義，因為沒有完全聽到。就像先前共同建立名稱等等的契約能夠發出聲音一樣。然而，聽到一聲也有理解的人，因為習慣的緣故。依此來類比其他情況。所以《經》的主人說，破斥的是他們的觀點，而不是我們的觀點。
論：又如果有人執著于某種觀點而不應該允許，這是爲了破斥不同的見解。如果名稱和所詮釋的意義同時產生，就像生相和意義同時產生一樣，就會有三種過失：第一，名稱在現在，意義在過去或未來；第二，兒子的名字和兒子同時出生，父母不應該隨意起名；第三，無為法（Nirvana）沒有產生，應該沒有名稱。
論：然而，世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀）所說的『安布差別』，是爲了通用於有部（Sarvastivada）的詰難。詰難說：如果認為離開聲音就沒有別的名稱，那麼為什麼經中說頌依賴於名稱？回答說：就是聲音的安排假說為名稱。
論：執著于有真實的事物，以及心的次第，總的來說，有部（Sarvastivada）特別設立真實的名。就像樹的執行離開樹就沒有執行，心的次第離開心就沒有自體一樣，名稱也是如此，離開聲音就沒有自體。
論：或者只應該執著于……就變得沒有用了。經部（Sautrantika）縱容文句來破斥有名稱的觀點。
論：毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，論師）……所能瞭解的緣故。這是迷戀有部（Sarvastivada）的宗義。正理論說：毗婆沙（Vaibhasha）說名、句、文各有三種。名三種是指名、名身、多名身。句、文也是如此。名有多個位置，比如一個字產生，或者兩個字產生，或者多個字產生。一個字產生的情況，說一個字的時候只能有名。說兩個字的時候就叫做名身。或者這樣說，說三個字的時候就叫做多名身。或者這樣說，說四個字的時候才叫做多名身。兩個字產生的情況，說兩個字的時候只能有名。說四個字的時候就叫做名身。或者這樣說，說六個字的時候就叫做多名身。或者這樣說，說八個字的時候才叫做多名身。多個字產生的情況中，三個字產生的情況，說三個字的時候只能有名。說……
【English Translation】 English version: All three times (past, present, and future) exist, they are not non-existent. Therefore, later thoughts depend on earlier thoughts to generate names, etc. Even if the final thought is when names, etc., are produced, merely hearing it cannot lead to understanding the meaning, because it is not heard completely. Just like a previously established agreement of names, etc., can produce sound. However, some people understand even upon hearing a single sound, due to habituation. Other situations are compared based on this. Therefore, the master of the Sutra says that what is refuted is their view, not ours.
Treatise: Furthermore, if someone clings to a view that should not be allowed, this is to refute different views. If names and the meanings they signify arise simultaneously, just like the characteristic of arising and the meaning arise simultaneously, there would be three faults: First, the name is in the present, while the meaning is in the past or future; second, the son's name and the son are born simultaneously, and parents should not be able to arbitrarily give names; third, unconditioned dharmas (Nirvana) are not produced, so there should be no names.
Treatise: However, what the Bhagavan (Buddha) said about 'arrangement and differentiation' is to address the challenges of the Sarvastivada (the 'All Exists' school). The challenge is: If it is thought that there is no name apart from sound, then why does the Sutra say that verses depend on names? The answer is: It is the arrangement of sounds that is provisionally called a name.
Treatise: Clinging to the existence of real entities, as well as the sequence of mind, in general, the Sarvastivada (the 'All Exists' school) particularly establishes real names. Just like the movement of a tree has no existence apart from the tree, and the sequence of mind has no substance apart from the mind, names are also like that, having no substance apart from sound.
Treatise: Or one should only cling to... then it becomes useless. The Sautrantika (the 'Sutra school') indulges in wording to refute the view that names exist.
Treatise: The Vaibhashika (commentator)... because of what can be understood. This is being deluded by the tenets of the Sarvastivada (the 'All Exists' school). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: The Vaibhasha says that names, sentences, and phrases each have three types. The three types of names are name, name-body, and multiple name-body. Sentences and phrases are also like this. A name has multiple positions, such as one syllable arising, or two syllables arising, or multiple syllables arising. In the case of one syllable arising, when one syllable is spoken, there can only be a name. When two syllables are spoken, it is called a name-body. Or it is said that when three syllables are spoken, it is called a multiple name-body. Or it is said that when four syllables are spoken, it is called a multiple name-body. In the case of two syllables arising, when two syllables are spoken, there can only be a name. When four syllables are spoken, it is called a name-body. Or it is said that when six syllables are spoken, it is called a multiple name-body. Or it is said that when eight syllables are spoken, it is called a multiple name-body. Among the cases of multiple syllables arising, in the case of three syllables arising, when three syllables are spoken, there can only be a name. When...
六字時即謂名身。或作是說。說九字時即謂多名身。或作是說。說十二字時方謂多名身。此為門故余多字生名身．多身如理應說。句亦多位。謂處中句初句后句短句長句。若八字生名處中句。不長不短故。謂處中三十二字生於四句。如是四句成室路迦。經．論文章多依此數。若六字已上生名初句。二十六字以下生名后句。若減六字生名短句。過二十六字生名長句。且依處中句辨三種。說八字時但可有句。說十六字時即謂句身。或作是說。說二十四字時即謂多句身。或作是說。說三十二字時方謂多句身。文即字故唯有一位。說一字時但可有文。說二字時即謂文身。或作是說說三字時即謂多文身。或作是說。說四字時方謂多文身。由此理故應作是說。說一字時。有名。無名身。無多名身。無句無句身無多句身。有文。無文身。無多文身。說二字時有名有名身。無多名身。無句等三。有文有文身。無多文身。說四字時。有名等三。無句等三。有文等三。說八字時。有名等三有句無句身無多句身。有文等三。說十六字時。有名等三有句有句身。無多句身。有文等三。說三十二字時。名．句．文三各具三種。由此為門余如理說 準上論文多念聲生一文。前念聲無文 一文生一名．及一字句者。即一念聲三法同起。謂文．名．句。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 當說六個字時，就稱為名身（Nāma-kāya，名稱的集合）。或者有這樣的說法，當說九個字時，就稱為多名身（Bahunāma-kāya，多個名稱的集合）。或者有這樣的說法，當說十二個字時，才稱為多名身。這是作為一個入門，由此更多的字產生名身、多身，應該如理如實地說。句子也有多種位置，即中間句、起始句、結尾句、短句、長句。如果八個字產生名稱，則是中間句，不長也不短。三十二個字產生四個句子，這樣四個句子構成一個室路迦（Śloka，梵語詩頌）。經文、論著的文章大多依據這個數量。如果六個字以上產生名稱，則是起始句；二十六個字以下產生名稱，則是結尾句；如果少於六個字，則稱為短句；超過二十六個字，則稱為長句。且依據中間句來辨別三種情況：說八個字時，只能有句子；說十六個字時，就稱為句身（Vāk-kāya，句子的集合）；或者有這樣的說法，說二十四個字時，就稱為多句身（Bahuvāk-kāya，多個句子的集合）；或者有這樣的說法，說三十二個字時，才稱為多句身。文字就是字，所以只有一個位置。說一個字時，只能有文字；說兩個字時，就稱為文身（Akṣara-kāya，文字的集合）；或者有這樣的說法，說三個字時，就稱為多文身（Bahvakṣara-kāya，多個文字的集合）；或者有這樣的說法，說四個字時，才稱為多文身。 由此道理，應該這樣說：說一個字時，有名（Nāma，名稱），沒有名身，沒有多名身，沒有句（Vāk，句子），沒有句身，沒有多句身，有文（Akṣara，文字），沒有文身，沒有多文身。說兩個字時，有名，有名身，沒有多名身，沒有句等三種情況，有文，有文身，沒有多文身。說四個字時，有名等三種情況，沒有句等三種情況，有文等三種情況。說八個字時，有名等三種情況，有句，沒有句身，沒有多句身，有文等三種情況。說十六個字時，有名等三種情況，有句，有句身，沒有多句身，有文等三種情況。說三十二個字時，名、句、文三種各自具備三種情況。由此作為一個入門，其餘的應該如理如實地說。依照上面的論文，多次唸誦聲音產生一個文字，前一次唸誦的聲音沒有文字。一個文字產生一個名稱，以及一個字的句子，即一念的聲音，三種法同時生起，即文、名、句。
【English Translation】 English version: When six letters are uttered, it is called Nāma-kāya (collection of names). Or it is said that when nine letters are uttered, it is called Bahunāma-kāya (collection of multiple names). Or it is said that only when twelve letters are uttered is it called Bahunāma-kāya. This serves as an entry point, from which more letters generate Nāma-kāya and multiple bodies, which should be spoken of truthfully and appropriately. Sentences also have multiple positions, namely the middle sentence, the initial sentence, the final sentence, the short sentence, and the long sentence. If eight letters generate a name, it is a middle sentence, neither long nor short. Thirty-two letters generate four sentences, and these four sentences form a Śloka (Sanskrit verse). The texts of scriptures and treatises mostly follow this number. If six or more letters generate a name, it is the initial sentence; if twenty-six or fewer letters generate a name, it is the final sentence; if fewer than six letters, it is called a short sentence; if more than twenty-six letters, it is called a long sentence. Furthermore, based on the middle sentence, three situations are distinguished: when eight letters are uttered, there can only be a sentence; when sixteen letters are uttered, it is called Vāk-kāya (collection of sentences); or it is said that when twenty-four letters are uttered, it is called Bahuvāk-kāya (collection of multiple sentences); or it is said that only when thirty-two letters are uttered is it called Bahuvāk-kāya. A letter is a word, so there is only one position. When one letter is uttered, there can only be Akṣara (letter); when two letters are uttered, it is called Akṣara-kāya (collection of letters); or it is said that when three letters are uttered, it is called Bahvakṣara-kāya (collection of multiple letters); or it is said that only when four letters are uttered is it called Bahvakṣara-kāya. Therefore, according to this principle, it should be said: when one letter is uttered, there is Nāma (name), but no Nāma-kāya, no Bahunāma-kāya, no Vāk (sentence), no Vāk-kāya, no Bahuvāk-kāya, there is Akṣara (letter), but no Akṣara-kāya, no Bahvakṣara-kāya. When two letters are uttered, there is Nāma, there is Nāma-kāya, but no Bahunāma-kāya, no sentence and the three related aspects, there is Akṣara, there is Akṣara-kāya, but no Bahvakṣara-kāya. When four letters are uttered, there are Nāma and the three related aspects, but no sentence and the three related aspects, there are Akṣara and the three related aspects. When eight letters are uttered, there are Nāma and the three related aspects, there is a sentence, but no Vāk-kāya, no Bahuvāk-kāya, there are Akṣara and the three related aspects. When sixteen letters are uttered, there are Nāma and the three related aspects, there is a sentence, there is Vāk-kāya, but no Bahuvāk-kāya, there are Akṣara and the three related aspects. When thirty-two letters are uttered, the three aspects of Nāma, sentence, and Akṣara each possess three situations. Taking this as an entry point, the rest should be spoken of truthfully and appropriately. According to the above treatise, repeated recitation of sounds generates one letter, and the sound of the previous recitation has no letter. One letter generates one name and a one-letter sentence, that is, the sound of one thought, and the three dharmas arise simultaneously, namely Akṣara, Nāma, and sentence.
若二字名已去於前念文未有名．句。至其後字成名．句位方有名．句。多文生一名多名成一句者。非一一念聲皆有文一一文皆有名。一一名皆有句。然有一字生名。容有一字一名．一句。或無一字句。句必須二字。其二字已上生名者皆于第二字等方有二字名生 若二字乃至多字生名者於前字即得生解。此由聞者串習於前解義。非謂於前位中有二字名等於先已生。如言諸行二字名。于中有二。一二一字名。二一二字名。余例準此。所以如是如說二字名時。一人聞諸。一人聞行。各生一解故。若聞一兼二即是串習。若作此釋。善順名之極少謂一字也。又如說諸行無常等句。諸行是自性。無常是差別。名詮自性。句詮差別。無常二字或有名起或無名起。義則未定。如說無常可厭。無常即是自性。可厭即是差別。此無常二字理合有名。若為差別即無名起。如實說者若為自性。若為差別。皆悉有名。如人說諸行無常句。有人唯聞無字。或唯聞常字。或聞無．常二字。或具聞四字。若唯聞無字者謂唯說無。若聞常字者謂唯說常。若合聞者謂詮無常。然此無常未屬何法。故知此上所聞皆不了句。若有聞說諸行無常。此方了句。知此無常諸行差別故。以此準知。諸行無常四字之邊。一一皆有一字名也。于中若至二字亦有二字名也。至第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果一個雙字詞的名相，在前一個字被念及的時候，文法上還沒有形成完整的名稱或句子。只有當后一個字被念及，才形成完整的名稱和句子。多個字組成一個名稱，多個名稱組成一個句子的情況是，並非每一個念頭的聲音都對應一個字，並非每一個字都對應一個名稱，也並非每一個名稱都對應一個句子。然而，一個字可以構成一個名稱，也可能構成一個包含一個字的名稱和一個字的句子，或者不構成任何句子。句子必須由兩個字組成。如果兩個或兩個以上的字組成一個名稱，那麼從第二個字開始，才會有雙字名稱的產生。如果兩個或多個字組成一個名稱，那麼聽到的人可以通過對前面字義的串習來理解。這並不是說在前面的位置上已經存在一個雙字名稱。例如，當說『諸行』（一切行，所有現象）這個雙字名稱時，其中包含兩個部分：第一部分是『一字名』（一個字的名稱），第二部分是『二字名』（兩個字的名稱）。其他情況可以依此類推。之所以如此，是因為當說『諸行』這個雙字名稱時，一個人可能只聽到『諸』（一切），另一個人可能只聽到『行』（行），每個人都會產生不同的理解。如果一個人同時聽到『諸』和『行』，那就是串習的結果。如果這樣解釋，那麼名稱的最小單位就是一個字。又如說『諸行無常』（一切行無常）這個句子，『諸行』是自性（事物本身的性質），『無常』是差別（與事物本身性質不同的屬性）。名稱詮釋自性，句子詮釋差別。『無常』這兩個字，有時可以構成名稱，有時不能構成名稱，其意義尚未確定。例如，如果說『無常可厭』（無常是令人厭惡的），那麼『無常』就是自性，『可厭』就是差別。這裡的『無常』這兩個字理應構成名稱。如果作為差別，那麼就不會構成名稱。如實地說，如果作為自性，或者作為差別，都應該構成名稱。例如，當一個人說『諸行無常』這個句子時，有人可能只聽到『無』字，有人可能只聽到『常』字，有人可能聽到『無』和『常』兩個字，有人可能聽到全部四個字。如果只聽到『無』字，那麼他會認為只說了『無』。如果只聽到『常』字，那麼他會認為只說了『常』。如果同時聽到『無』和『常』，那麼他會理解為『無常』。然而，這個『無常』還沒有歸屬於任何事物，所以可知以上所聽到的都不是完整的句子。如果有人聽到『諸行無常』，這才是完整的句子，因為他知道這個『無常』是『諸行』的差別屬性。以此類推，『諸行無常』這四個字的每一個字，都對應一個單字名稱。其中，如果到兩個字，也有一個雙字名稱。到第
【English Translation】 English version: If a two-character name has already passed in the previous thought, there is no name or sentence formed yet. Only when the subsequent character is completed does the position of the name and sentence become established. In cases where multiple characters generate a single name, or multiple names form a single sentence, it is not that every sound of a thought has a character, every character has a name, and every name has a sentence. However, a single character can generate a name, and it may contain a one-character name and a one-character sentence, or no sentence at all. A sentence must consist of two characters. If two or more characters generate a name, then from the second character onwards, a two-character name can be generated. If two or more characters generate a name, the listener can understand through the habitual understanding of the meaning of the preceding characters. This does not mean that a two-character name already exists in the preceding position. For example, when saying the two-character name 'Zhū Xíng' (諸行, all phenomena), it contains two parts: the first part is a 'one-character name,' and the second part is a 'two-character name.' Other cases can be inferred by analogy. The reason for this is that when saying the two-character name 'Zhū Xíng,' one person may only hear 'Zhū' (諸, all), and another person may only hear 'Xíng' (行, phenomena), and each person will have a different understanding. If a person hears both 'Zhū' and 'Xíng' simultaneously, it is the result of habitual understanding. If explained in this way, then the smallest unit of a name is a single character. Furthermore, when saying the sentence 'Zhū Xíng Wú Cháng' (諸行無常, all phenomena are impermanent), 'Zhū Xíng' is the self-nature (the inherent nature of things), and 'Wú Cháng' is the difference (attributes that differ from the inherent nature of things). A name explains the self-nature, and a sentence explains the difference. The two characters 'Wú Cháng' (無常, impermanence) may or may not form a name, and their meaning is not yet determined. For example, if saying 'Wú Cháng Kě Yàn' (無常可厭, impermanence is repulsive), then 'Wú Cháng' is the self-nature, and 'Kě Yàn' (可厭, repulsive) is the difference. The two characters 'Wú Cháng' here should logically form a name. If it is a difference, then it will not form a name. Speaking truthfully, whether it is the self-nature or the difference, it should form a name. For example, when a person says the sentence 'Zhū Xíng Wú Cháng,' someone may only hear the character 'Wú' (無, not), someone may only hear the character 'Cháng' (常, constant), someone may hear the two characters 'Wú' and 'Cháng,' and someone may hear all four characters. If only the character 'Wú' is heard, then he will think that only 'Wú' was said. If only the character 'Cháng' is heard, then he will think that only 'Cháng' was said. If 'Wú' and 'Cháng' are heard together, then he will understand it as 'Wú Cháng.' However, this 'Wú Cháng' has not yet been attributed to anything, so it is known that what was heard above is not a complete sentence. If someone hears 'Zhū Xíng Wú Cháng,' this is a complete sentence, because he knows that this 'Wú Cháng' is the differential attribute of 'Zhū Xíng.' By analogy, each of the four characters in 'Zhū Xíng Wú Cháng' corresponds to a single-character name. Among them, if it reaches two characters, there is also a two-character name. To the
三字有一字名及三字句。如有但聞諸行無三字。此即謂詮諸行無也。諸行為自性。無為差別。至第四字有一字名。及二字名。及三字名。及三．四字句也。于中加．減如理應思 又釋所以四字名等有一字名。發語遠加行心多緣此故。如說諸行兩字。必須先緣詮諸詮行一一別名。方可合成二字名故 正理．婆沙說名．句．文各有三種。一名。二名身。三多名身。句．文亦爾。名有多位有一字生有二字生有多字生。婆沙名有六位。有一字．二字．四字．八字．十六字．三十二字。準此論據位相倍及極一頌。作如是說。然實以論非無三字．五字．七字．九字等生名之者。上引論云一字生名．二字生名．多字生名。多字生名者。或三字已上生名皆多字名。以西方語法。說二名身有合集義故。說三已上皆名多故。或說四字已上名多字生也。倍二字故。一字生名者。說一字時但名名。說二字時有名身也。多名身有二釋。或作是說。說三字時即謂多名身。或作是說。說四字時即謂多名身 有人云。問多名身中。一云說三字時名多名身。一云說四字時名多名身。其義云何。解云三字生名名多名身者。第一．第二字為一身。第一．第三字復為一身。第二．第三字復為一身。依聲明法言三已去方說為多。若四字生名名多名身者。鄰次相合即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三字句中有一個字的名詞和三個字的句子。例如，如果只聽到『諸行無』這三個字，這就是在詮釋『諸行無』的含義。『諸行』是自性（svabhāva），『無』是差別（viśeṣa）。到了第四個字，就有一個字的名詞、兩個字的名詞以及三個字的名詞，還有三字和四字的句子。在這些組合中，應該如理作加法和減法來思考。 進一步解釋為什麼四字名詞等包含一個字的名詞：因為發語時，遠距離的加行心（prayoga-mārga-citta）會更多地緣於此。例如，說到『諸行』這兩個字，必須先緣于詮釋『諸』和『行』各自的別名，才能合成為兩個字的名詞。 《正理》（Nyāyānusāra）和《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā）中說，名詞、句子、文句各有三種：一名、二名身、多名身。句子和文句也是如此。名詞有多種情況：有一個字產生的名詞，有兩個字產生的名詞，有多個字產生的名詞。《婆沙》中，名詞有六種情況：一個字、兩個字、四個字、八個字、十六個字、三十二個字。按照這個論據，位數成倍增加，以及最長的一頌，可以這樣說。然而，實際上並非沒有三個字、五個字、七個字、九個字等產生的名詞。上面引用的論述說，一個字產生的名詞、兩個字產生的名詞、多個字產生的名詞。多個字產生的名詞，或者三個字以上產生的名詞都稱為多個字的名詞。按照西方的語法，說兩個名詞的組合有合集的意思，所以說三個字以上都稱為『多』。或者說四個字以上才稱為多個字產生的名詞，因為是兩個字的兩倍。 一個字產生的名詞，說一個字時只是名詞。說兩個字時，有名身（nāma-kāya）。多個名身有兩種解釋。或者這樣說，說三個字時就稱為多個名身。或者這樣說，說四個字時才稱為多個名身。 有人問：在多個名身中，一種說法是說三個字時稱為多個名身，一種說法是說四個字時稱為多個名身，這兩種說法是什麼意思？解釋說，三個字產生的名詞稱為多個名身，是因為第一個字和第二個字是一個身，第一個字和第三個字又是一個身，第二個字和第三個字又是一個身。按照聲明法（śabda-vidyā）的說法，三個字以上才稱為『多』。如果說四個字產生的名詞稱為多個名身，那麼相鄰的字相互結合。
【English Translation】 English version There is a one-syllable name and a three-syllable phrase in a three-syllable sentence. For example, if one only hears the three syllables 'zhū xíng wú' (諸行無) [all phenomena are without self], this is to say that it explains the meaning of 'zhū xíng wú'. 'Zhū xíng' [all phenomena] is svabhāva (自性) [self-nature], and 'wú' [without] is viśeṣa (差別) [distinction]. By the fourth syllable, there is a one-syllable name, a two-syllable name, and a three-syllable name, as well as three- and four-syllable phrases. In these combinations, one should think with addition and subtraction as appropriate. Further explaining why four-syllable names, etc., contain a one-syllable name: because when speaking, the prayoga-mārga-citta (加行心) [mind of preparatory practice] from a distance will be more related to this. For example, when saying the two syllables 'zhū xíng' [all phenomena], one must first relate to the separate names that explain 'zhū' and 'xíng' individually before they can be combined into a two-syllable name. The Nyāyānusāra (正理) [Following the Logic] and the Vibhāṣā (婆沙) [Exegesis] say that names, sentences, and phrases each have three types: one name, two name-bodies, and multiple name-bodies. Sentences and phrases are also like this. Names have various situations: there are names generated from one syllable, names generated from two syllables, and names generated from multiple syllables. In the Vibhāṣā, names have six situations: one syllable, two syllables, four syllables, eight syllables, sixteen syllables, thirty-two syllables. According to this argument, the number of digits increases exponentially, and the longest verse, it can be said this way. However, in reality, it is not that there are no names generated from three syllables, five syllables, seven syllables, nine syllables, etc. The above-quoted discussion says one-syllable generated names, two-syllable generated names, and multiple-syllable generated names. Multiple-syllable generated names, or names generated from three or more syllables, are all called multiple-syllable names. According to Western grammar, saying that the combination of two names has a collective meaning, so saying three or more syllables are all called 'multiple'. Or it is said that four or more syllables are called multiple-syllable generated names because it is twice the two syllables. A one-syllable generated name, when saying one syllable, is just a name. When saying two syllables, there is a nāma-kāya (名身) [name-body]. There are two explanations for multiple name-bodies. Or it is said that when saying three syllables, it is called multiple name-bodies. Or it is said that when saying four syllables, it is called multiple name-bodies. Someone asks: Among multiple name-bodies, one says that when saying three syllables, it is called multiple name-bodies, and one says that when saying four syllables, it is called multiple name-bodies. What is the meaning of these two statements? The explanation is that a name generated from three syllables is called multiple name-bodies because the first and second syllables are one body, the first and third syllables are another body, and the second and third syllables are another body. According to śabda-vidyā (聲明法) [the science of sound], three or more syllables are called 'multiple'. If it is said that a name generated from four syllables is called multiple name-bodies, then adjacent syllables combine with each other.
為三身名多名身。又解但約名多故名多名身。不約多身。又解身上加身名多名身 準上三釋自相牟楯。但遍說而已不能是非。何者準論所明。但說名．句．文三各有三位。謂一．二．多。一以名一故不成身。二以名二故成身也。第三亦合以名多故名多名身。因何說一二之位即是名之一二。第三多位因何其數即說是身。若於此中以身多故名多名身。即是第三說其身數。于中亦合說身及身身。依第二解四字生多鄰次相對應名身身 又自引聲明說三已上方得名多。因何復說身上加身名為多身。若爾三字生者次第相合亦有二身。是身上加身。應亦得名多名身也。雖一解但約名多故名多名身。既不得所由。即是如蟲食木 此中所說。一．二．多三皆約名說。不據身論。婆沙更有明文。應撿錄之 又牒文云。三字生名名多名身者。謬。三字生名者唯有一三字名故。此中兩說不同。一據成多即名多身。謂三已上。二據位相倍。謂四名已上倍於前也。兼依二釋義皆無違。故論雙舉。然唯有字．名．句體而無頌體者。其字．名．句。五趣．諸方愚．智不同。但能語者皆聲發文。依文有名。依名有句。皆能說自性．差別。故。皆令解自性．差別。故其頌唯是文者能作。只是安布其文乃至名．句。更無別物 問如說一名．一字。對諸方名各生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：關於『三身名多名身』，一種解釋是，因為名稱多所以稱為『多名身』。另一種解釋是，只根據名稱多來解釋，所以稱為『多名身』，不涉及身體多。還有一種解釋是，在身體上加身體，稱為『多名身』。按照以上三種解釋，自相矛盾。只是普遍地說了，不能判斷哪個是對的。為什麼呢？根據論中所說，只是說名、句、文各有三種情況，即一、二、多。一個名稱因為只有一個，所以不能構成身。兩個名稱因為有兩個，所以構成身。第三種情況也應該是因為名稱多，所以稱為『多名身』。為什麼說一個和兩個的位置就是名稱的一個和兩個，而第三個多的位置，它的數量就說是身呢？如果在這裡因為身體多，所以稱為『多名身』，那就是第三種說法是說身體的數量。其中也應該說身體和身體的身體。按照第二種解釋，四個字產生多個相鄰的字，相互對應，稱為『身身』。又自己引用聲明說，三個字以上才能稱為多，為什麼又說身體上加身體稱為多身呢？如果這樣，三個字產生的詞，次第相合，也有兩個身，是身體上加身體，也應該稱為『多名身』。即使有一種解釋只根據名稱多，所以稱為『多名身』，既然找不到原因，就像蟲子吃木頭一樣。這裡所說的一個、二個、多個，都是根據名稱說的，不根據身體來討論。《婆沙論》里有更明確的說法，應該查閱。又抄錄經文說，『三個字產生的名稱稱為多名身』，這是錯誤的。三個字產生的名稱只有一個三字名。這裡有兩種說法不同，一種是根據形成多，就稱為多身，指三個以上。另一種是根據位置加倍，指四個名稱以上比前面的加倍。兼顧兩種解釋，意義上都沒有衝突，所以論中同時舉出。然而只有字、名、句的本體，而沒有頌的本體。字、名、句，在五趣（指地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天五道）、各個地方，愚笨和聰明的人都不同，但只要能說話的人都能發出聲音形成文字。根據文字有名稱，根據名稱有句子，都能說出自性、差別。因此，都能讓人理解自性、差別。所以頌只有能寫文章的人才能創作，只是安排文字，乃至名稱、句子，沒有其他的東西。問：如果說一個名稱、一個字，對於各個地方的名稱各自產生，
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 'San Shen Ming Duo Ming Shen' (Three Bodies Name Many Names Body), one explanation is that because there are many names, it is called 'Duo Ming Shen' (Many Names Body). Another explanation is that it is only explained according to the multiplicity of names, so it is called 'Duo Ming Shen', without involving the multiplicity of bodies. There is also an explanation that adding bodies on top of bodies is called 'Duo Ming Shen'. According to the above three explanations, they contradict each other. It is just a general statement, and it is impossible to judge which one is correct. Why? According to what is stated in the treatise, it only says that names, sentences, and texts each have three situations, namely one, two, and many. One name cannot form a body because it is only one. Two names form a body because there are two. The third situation should also be called 'Duo Ming Shen' because there are many names. Why is it said that the positions of one and two are the one and two of the name, and the number of the third many position is said to be the body? If it is called 'Duo Ming Shen' here because there are many bodies, then the third statement is about the number of bodies. It should also be said that there are bodies and bodies of bodies. According to the second explanation, four characters produce multiple adjacent characters, corresponding to each other, called 'Shen Shen' (Body Body). Furthermore, it is stated that more than three characters are needed to be called many, so why is it said that adding bodies on top of bodies is called many bodies? If so, the words produced by three characters, combined in order, also have two bodies, which are bodies added on top of bodies, and should also be called 'Duo Ming Shen'. Even if there is an explanation that it is called 'Duo Ming Shen' only based on the multiplicity of names, since the reason cannot be found, it is like a worm eating wood. The one, two, and many mentioned here are all based on names, not bodies. There is a clearer statement in the Vibhasa, which should be consulted. Also, copying the text and saying, 'The name produced by three characters is called Duo Ming Shen' is wrong. There is only one three-character name produced by three characters. There are two different statements here. One is based on the formation of many, which is called many bodies, referring to three or more. The other is based on doubling the position, referring to four or more names being doubled compared to the previous ones. Taking both explanations into account, there is no conflict in meaning, so the treatise mentions both. However, there are only the entities of characters, names, and sentences, but not the entity of verses. Characters, names, and sentences are different in the five realms (referring to the five paths of hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods) and various places, for the foolish and the wise, but as long as people can speak, they can make sounds to form words. According to the words, there are names, and according to the names, there are sentences, which can all speak of self-nature and differences. Therefore, they can all make people understand self-nature and differences. Therefore, only those who can write can create verses, just arranging words, and even names and sentences, there is nothing else. Question: If it is said that one name, one character, each produces names for various places,
異解。為有多名。為有一名為有一字。為有多字 答字唯是一諸方通用更無差別。名即不同。若為此方語唯有此方名無諸方名。所以知然。若不爾者。即應唯說一字生名應有多名。論既不說多名。故知唯有一名。又當發語遠方便心唯緣一方名故 問若爾何故生其多解 答此如絲竹之聲亦生名解似而非實。
論。此名身等至此皆應辨。已下半頌第二義門分別。
論曰至然不可說。第一界地門也。于中有二。一云唯欲．色界。一云通無色界。然不可說。二說之中前說為正。就前說中有其二說。一云唯隨語系。謂唯二地。謂欲界．初定。二云隨身繫。謂通五地。謂欲．四禪。舊婆沙有四說兩重評文。初二說一云隨語。一云隨身。評取隨語。后兩說一云欲．色界。二云通無色。評取前說。深法師云。一論不可有二評故。隨語系者是后評。但說不許無色有名。非是欲許隨身繫也。法師此釋深有理趣 準正理論等解名．句．文．身。皆依聲有文。依文有名。又此論云有情名聲謂語表業。故知餘聲無有名也。所依語業既唯二地。如何能依之名通於五地。若謂正理等論雙舉二故則容兩是。亦不應理。此論亦舉無色界名而不是非。豈亦兼取。故知名隨語系義決定也 問若爾何故但法無礙解通其五地。而無論文說唯二地 答準
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 異解。為什麼有多個名？為什麼一個名有一個字？為什麼有多個字？答：字只有一個，各方通用，沒有差別。名則不同。如果是這個地方的語言，就只有這個地方的名，沒有其他地方的名。為什麼知道是這樣呢？如果不是這樣，就應該只說一個字，而生出多個名。但論中沒有說多個名，所以知道只有一個名。又應當發起語言，以遠大的方便心，只緣於一方的名。 問：如果這樣，為什麼會產生多種理解？答：這就像絲竹之聲，也產生名的理解，但似是而非，並非真實。
論：此名身等至此皆應辨。以下半頌是第二義門的分別。
論曰至然不可說。這是第一界地門。其中有兩種說法。一種說只有欲界和初禪（指初禪）。一種說通於無色界（無指無色界）。然而不可說。兩種說法中，前一種說法是正確的。在前一種說法中，又有兩種說法。一種說是隨語系，指只有二地，即欲界和初禪。一種說是隨身繫，指通於五地，即欲界和四禪。舊《婆沙》有四種說法，兩重評文。最初兩種說法，一種說是隨語，一種說是隨身，評定取隨語。后兩種說法，一種說是欲界和初禪，一種說是通於無色界，評定取前一種說法。深法師說，一部論不應該有兩種評定，所以隨語系是後來的評定。只是說不許無色界有名，並非是允許隨身繫。法師的這種解釋很有道理。準據《正理論》等解釋名、句、文、身，都是依據聲音，有文，依據文有名。又此論說，有情名聲，是指語言表達的業。所以知道其餘的聲音沒有名。所依據的語言業既然只有二地，如何能依據它的名通於五地？如果說《正理論》等論同時舉出兩種，所以可以兩種都成立，也不應道理。此論也舉出無色界名，但那不是真的。難道也兼取嗎？所以知道名隨語系的意義是確定的。問：如果這樣，為什麼但法無礙解通於五地，而無論文說只在二地？答：準
【English Translation】 English version: Different interpretations. Why are there multiple names? Why does one name have one character? Why are there multiple characters? Answer: A character is only one, universally used in all directions, without any difference. Names are different. If it is the language of this region, then there is only the name of this region, and no names of other regions. How do we know this is so? If it were not so, then only one character should be spoken, and multiple names should arise. But the treatise does not speak of multiple names, so we know there is only one name. Moreover, one should initiate language with a far-reaching expedient mind, only focusing on the name of one direction. Question: If so, why do multiple interpretations arise? Answer: This is like the sound of silk and bamboo, which also gives rise to an understanding of names, but it is similar but not real.
Treatise: 'This name-body, etc., should all be distinguished here.' The following half-verse is a distinction of the second meaning-gate.
Treatise says: '...up to, but cannot be said.' This is the first realm-ground gate. Within it, there are two views. One says only the Desire Realm and the First Dhyana (the ** refers to the First Dhyana). One says it pervades the Formless Realm (the 'no ' refers to the Formless Realm). However, it cannot be said. Among the two views, the former is correct. Within the former view, there are two sub-views. One says it follows the language system, referring only to two grounds, namely the Desire Realm and the First Dhyana. One says it follows the body system, referring to pervading five grounds, namely the Desire Realm and the Four Dhyanas. The old Vibhasa has four views, with two layers of commentary. The initial two views, one says it follows language, one says it follows the body, and the commentary adopts following language. The latter two views, one says it is the Desire Realm and the First Dhyana, one says it pervades the Formless Realm, and the commentary adopts the former view. Master Shenfa said that one treatise should not have two commentaries, so following the language system is the later commentary. It only says that it does not allow names in the Formless Realm, and does not allow following the body system. This explanation by the Master is very reasonable. According to the Nyayanusara-sastra and other texts, the explanation of name, phrase, word, and body all rely on sound, having words, and relying on words to have names. Moreover, this treatise says that the name-sound of sentient beings refers to the karma expressed by language. Therefore, we know that other sounds do not have names. Since the language-karma on which it relies is only in two grounds, how can the name that relies on it pervade five grounds? If it is said that the Nyayanusara-sastra and other texts simultaneously mention both, so both can be established, that is also unreasonable. This treatise also mentions the name of the Formless Realm, but that is not real. Does it also include that? Therefore, we know that the meaning of name following the language system is definite. Question: If so, why does the unimpeded understanding of Dharma pervade five grounds, while the treatise says it is only in two grounds? Answer: According to
論所說。名系地中即敘二說。法無礙解系地之中即唯說通五地。故知法無礙解據能緣說。若隨語．隨身。皆容五地心能緣故。由此無文敘二說也。法無礙解是了法慧。如何即令與所解名定同地也。詞無礙解是其能作諸方語慧。由此唯于發語地有不通餘地 有人自作問答云。問發語通果心不緣三界。如何名等能詮三界。解云雖發語通果心不緣三界。然通果加行遠能發心能緣三界故。所發名能詮三界 詳此問答未達一切發語心也。一切近因等起發業之心。皆緣色聲為境。因何偏問通果心也。加行之中有緣其名。未必定緣所詮義也。如多人不識摩尼寶等。豈不得有此寶與名。
論。又名身等至非所顯義。第二情．非情分別也。婆沙五十云。問誰成就名等。為能說者。為所說耶。設爾何失。若能說者則阿羅漢應成染污法等。以阿羅漢等亦說染污法故。若所說者則外事．無為亦應成就名等。以彼亦是所說法故 答唯能說者成就名等 問若爾後難善通。前難云何通 答阿羅漢等雖成就染污等名。而不成就染污等法。以染污等名皆是無覆無記法故。十五又云。問名等為善．不善．無記耶。答無記。非造業者故思起故。如四大種。已上論文 然發業時近因等起唯緣于聲。遠因等起亦通緣名。不從遠因判性。余處說業．心二緣名者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於所說之義，『名』與『系地』之中，即敘述兩種說法。『法無礙解』與『系地』之中，即只說通於五地。因此可知，『法無礙解』是根據能緣之心而說的。如果隨語、隨身，都容許五地之心能夠緣取。因此，經文中沒有敘述兩種說法。『法無礙解』是了知諸法的智慧，如何能使它與所瞭解的名相確定在同一地呢？『詞無礙解』是能夠運用各種方言的智慧，因此只有在發語地才有，不通於其他地。
有人自己提出問答說：『問：發語通於果位之心，但不緣三界，如何能說名相等於能詮釋三界呢？』解答說：『雖然發語通於果位之心，但不緣三界，然而通於果位的加行，從遠處能夠引發的心，能夠緣三界，因此所發的名相能夠詮釋三界。』
詳細考察這個問答，並沒有理解一切發語之心。一切近因等起而引發業行的心，都以色聲為境界。為何偏偏問通於果位的心呢？加行之中，有緣取其名相的，未必一定緣取所詮釋的意義。例如很多人不認識摩尼寶等，難道就不能有此寶與名相嗎？
論中說：『又名身等，並非所顯現的意義。』這是第二種對有情、非情的分別。《婆沙》第五十卷說：『問：誰成就名等？是能說者，還是所說者？如果這樣問，會有什麼缺失？如果說是能說者，那麼阿羅漢應該成就染污法等，因為阿羅漢等也說染污法故。如果說是所說者，那麼外事、無為也應該成就名等，因為它們也是所說法故。』答：『只有能說者成就名等。』問：『如果這樣，後面的難點容易理解，前面的難點如何理解？』答：『阿羅漢等雖然成就染污等名，但不成就染污等法，因為染污等名都是無覆無記法故。』第十五卷又說：『問：名等是善、不善、還是無記？』答：『無記。因為不是造業者，不是思所引發的，如同四大種。』以上是論文的內容。
然而，在引發業行時，近因等起只緣取聲音，遠因等起也通於緣取名相。不從遠因來判斷性質。其他地方說業、心二者緣取名相的，
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding what is said, within 'name' and 'related ground', two views are described. Within 'eloquence in understanding the Dharma' (法無礙解) and 'related ground', it only speaks of being connected to the five grounds. Therefore, it can be known that 'eloquence in understanding the Dharma' is spoken of according to the mind that can cognize (能緣). If following speech and body, it is permissible for the minds of the five grounds to cognize. Therefore, there is no text describing two views. 'Eloquence in understanding the Dharma' is the wisdom that understands the Dharma. How can it be made to be in the same ground as the name being understood? 'Eloquence in expression' (詞無礙解) is the wisdom that can produce languages of various regions. Therefore, it only exists in the ground of speech production and does not extend to other grounds.
Someone creates their own questions and answers, saying: 'Question: Speech production is connected to the mind of the fruition stage, but it does not cognize the three realms. How can it be said that names are equal to what can explain the three realms?' The answer is: 'Although speech production is connected to the mind of the fruition stage and does not cognize the three realms, the effort (加行) connected to the fruition stage, from a distance, can cause the mind that can cognize the three realms to arise. Therefore, the names produced can explain the three realms.'
Examining this question and answer in detail, it does not understand all minds that produce speech. All minds that arise from proximate causes and initiate actions take form and sound as their objects. Why specifically ask about the mind connected to the fruition stage? Among the efforts, there are those that cognize the name, but it is not necessarily the case that they cognize the meaning being explained. For example, many people do not recognize Mani jewels (摩尼寶) etc. Can it be that there is no jewel and name for this jewel?
The treatise says: 'Furthermore, name-body etc. are not the meanings being revealed.' This is the second distinction between sentient beings (有情) and non-sentient things (非情). The fiftieth volume of the Mahavibhasa (婆沙) says: 'Question: Who achieves names etc.? Is it the speaker or what is being spoken? What is the fault if this is asked? If it is the speaker, then Arhats (阿羅漢) should achieve defiled dharmas etc., because Arhats etc. also speak of defiled dharmas. If it is what is being spoken, then external matters and the unconditioned (無為) should also achieve names etc., because they are also dharmas being spoken.' Answer: 'Only the speaker achieves names etc.' Question: 'If so, the later difficulty is easy to understand, how is the earlier difficulty understood?' Answer: 'Although Arhats etc. achieve defiled names etc., they do not achieve defiled dharmas etc., because defiled names etc. are all unrepented and unspecified dharmas (無覆無記法).' The fifteenth volume also says: 'Question: Are names etc. wholesome, unwholesome, or unspecified?' Answer: 'Unspecified. Because they are not creators of karma, they are not caused by thought, like the four great elements (四大種).' The above is the content of the treatise.
However, when initiating actions, the proximate cause only cognizes sound, and the distant cause also connects to cognizing names. The nature is not judged from the distant cause. Other places say that karma and mind both cognize names.
。據遠而說。
論。又名身等唯是等流。第三五類分別。非色法故非是長養。隨欲生故非是異熟。是有為故非實。從同類因生故非是剎那是等流性。
論。又唯無覆無記性攝。第四三性分別門。
論。如上所說。已下一頌大門第二。總釋余義。
論曰。至無覆無記。釋頌第一句也。如文可解。
論。並無色言至類通二義。釋頌第二句也。上句說一分同。下句說一分異。名身等。界唯欲．色。類唯等流。同分。界即通三。類通於二。是謂異也。正理論云。云何異熟。謂地獄等．及卵生等。趣．生同分。云何等流。謂界．地．處．種性．族類．沙門．梵志．學．無學等所有同分。有餘師說諸同分中有先業所引生者。是異熟同分。現在加行起是等流同分。
論。得及諸相至非異熟等。釋下兩句。如文可解。
論。已說如是至隨應準知。已下指當。如文了知。
俱舍論疏卷第五
保延三年十月十日朝點了依維摩會□
角壽 一交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第六
沙門法寶撰
分別根品第二之四
論。如是已說至說為因緣。此下當品大文第三明因．及緣。將欲釋義先結引也。
論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：從長遠的角度來說。
論：又名身等唯是等流（Nisyanda-phala，等流果）。第三，從五類分別。因為不是色法，所以不是長養。因為隨欲而生，所以不是異熟（Vipāka-phala，異熟果）。因為是有為法，所以不是實法。從同類因所生，所以是剎那的等流性。
論：又唯是無覆無記性所攝。第四，從三性分別的角度來說。
論：如上所說。接下來一頌，是大門第二，總的解釋其餘意義。
論曰：到無覆無記。解釋頌的第一句。如文義可解。
論：並無色言至類通二義。解釋頌的第二句。上句說一分相同，下句說一分相異。名身等，界唯在欲界、色界。類唯是等流、同分。界即通三界，類通於二。這就是所謂的不同。正理論說：什麼是異熟？是指地獄等，以及卵生等，趣、生同分。什麼是等流？是指界、地、處、種性、族類、沙門（Śrāmaṇa，出家求道者）、梵志（Brāhmaṇa，婆羅門）、有學、無學等所有同分。有其他論師說，諸同分中，有先業所引生的，是異熟同分；現在加行所起的，是等流同分。
論：得及諸相至非異熟等。解釋下面兩句。如文義可解。
論：已說如是至隨應準知。接下來是指示應當如何理解。如文義了知。
《俱舍論疏》卷第五
保延三年十月十日朝點了依維摩會□
角壽 一交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第六
沙門法寶撰
分別根品第二之四
論：如是已說至說為因緣。此下當品大文第三，闡明因和緣。將要解釋意義，先作總結和引導。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: Speaking from a long-term perspective.
Treatise: Also known as 'name, body, etc., are only the Nisyanda-phala (等流果, result of outflow)'. Third, from the five categories of distinction. Because it is not a form, it is not 'nourishment'. Because it arises according to desire, it is not Vipāka-phala (異熟果, result of maturation). Because it is conditioned, it is not real. Because it arises from a cause of the same kind, it is the Nisyanda-nature of a moment.
Treatise: Moreover, it is only included in the nature of 'uncovered and unspecified'. Fourth, from the perspective of distinguishing the three natures.
Treatise: As mentioned above. The following verse is the second major section, generally explaining the remaining meanings.
Treatise says: 'To uncovered and unspecified'. Explains the first line of the verse. The meaning can be understood as it is written.
Treatise: 'And the statement of formless' to 'category encompasses two meanings'. Explains the second line of the verse. The previous line says one part is the same, the following line says one part is different. 'Name, body, etc.', the realm is only in the Desire Realm and Form Realm. The category is only Nisyanda and commonality. The realm encompasses the three realms, the category encompasses two. This is what is called difference. The Treatise on Right Reason says: What is Vipāka? It refers to hells, etc., and egg-born beings, etc., the commonality of destination and birth. What is Nisyanda? It refers to the commonality of realm, ground, place, nature, clan, Śrāmaṇa (沙門, renunciant), Brāhmaṇa (梵志, Brahmin), those in learning, those beyond learning, etc. Some other teachers say that among the commonalities, those that are brought about by past karma are Vipāka commonalities; those that arise from present effort are Nisyanda commonalities.
Treatise: 'Attainment and all characteristics' to 'not Vipāka, etc.'. Explains the following two lines. The meaning can be understood as it is written.
Treatise: 'Having spoken thus' to 'know accordingly as appropriate'. The following indicates how one should understand. The meaning can be understood as it is written.
Commentary on the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, Volume 5
Morning of the tenth day of the tenth month of the third year of Hoen, marked the Vimalakīrti Assembly □
Kakuju One completed Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41 No. 1822 Commentary on the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya
Commentary on the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, Volume 6
Composed by the Śrāmaṇa Dharmapāla
Chapter Two on Distinguishing Faculties, Part Four
Treatise: 'Having spoken thus' to 'said to be cause and condition'. The following is the third major section of this chapter, clarifying cause and condition. Intending to explain the meaning, first make a summary and introduction.
。且因六種。文中有二。一六因。二四緣。緣次後說先釋因故。故言且因六種。
論。何等為六。此先辨因 就中有三。一明六因。二明五果。三明法具因異 明六因中。一總列因名。二依名別釋。三定取．與此下一頌總列因名。
論曰至六異熟因。牒頌釋也 顯宗論云。能作因體通一切法。是故前說。俱有因體遍諸有為故居第二。余同類等於有為中。如其所應各攝少分。隨言便穩次第而說 今詳。六因皆廣者先說。同類因體。雖除未來狹俱有因。然攝一切心．心所法．色．不相應 相應因體雖通三世。唯心．心所故狹同類。然通染污一切心．及心所廣遍行因 遍行因體。若於欲界。二部一分狹異熟因 異熟因體通五部故。于上八地。異熟因體唯通修斷一分。遍行因體二部一分。故異熟因。遍行后說 然六因．四緣並通親．疏。因名是親。緣名是疏 顯宗論云。法生所賴故說為因。即親順益所生果義。
論。對法諸師至如是六種。此以四緣有經文說。六因無經文故。故言對法諸師許。因唯有六種。此明無增．減也 正理論云。如是六因非佛所說。如何本論自立此名。定無大師所不說義。阿毗達磨輒有所說。經中現無。由穩沒故。自相可得決定應有。又諸經中所化力故。世尊方便作異門說。對法諸師
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 而且有六種因。這段文字中有兩部分。一是六因，二是四緣。因為緣在後面說，所以先解釋因。因此說『且因六種』。
論：什麼是六因？這裡首先辨別因。其中有三點。一是說明六因，二是說明五果，三是說明法具有因的差異。在說明六因中，一是總列因的名稱，二是根據名稱分別解釋，三是確定取捨。下面一頌總列因的名稱。
論曰：乃至六異熟因。這是依照頌文來解釋。顯宗論說：『能作因的本體貫通一切法。』所以前面說。『俱有因的本體遍及所有有為法』，因此排在第二位。其餘的同類因等在有為法中，根據它們各自的情況攝取少部分。隨著言語的方便而穩妥地依次解說。現在詳細分析，六因都是廣大的，先說同類因的本體。雖然排除了未來，顯得狹隘，但俱有因卻攝取了一切心、心所法、色、不相應法。相應因的本體雖然貫通三世，但只有心、心所，所以比同類因狹隘。然而貫通染污的一切心及心所，廣遍行因。遍行因的本體，如果在欲界，比二部的一分狹隘異熟因。異熟因的本體貫通五部，所以在上八地，異熟因的本體只貫通修斷的一分。遍行因的本體是二部的一分，所以異熟因在遍行因之後說。然而六因、四緣都貫通親近和疏遠。因的名稱是親近的，緣的名稱是疏遠的。』顯宗論說：『法產生所依賴的，所以稱為因，就是親近地順益所生果的意義。』
論：對法諸師乃至如是六種。這是因為四緣有經文說明，六因沒有經文說明。所以說『對法諸師』允許因只有六種。這是說明沒有增加或減少。正理論說：『像這樣的六因不是佛所說的。為什麼本論自己設立這個名稱？一定沒有大師所沒有說過的意義。阿毗達磨隨便有所說，經典中現在沒有，因為隱沒的緣故。自體相可以得到，決定應該有。』又因為各種經典中所教化的力量，世尊方便地用不同的方式來說明。對法諸師……
【English Translation】 English version: Moreover, there are six kinds of causes. There are two parts in this text. First, the six causes; second, the four conditions. Because the conditions are discussed later, the causes are explained first. Therefore, it is said, 'And because of six causes'.
Treatise: What are the six causes? Here, the causes are first distinguished. Among them, there are three points. First, to explain the six causes; second, to explain the five results; third, to explain the differences in the causes of phenomena. In explaining the six causes, first, the names of the causes are listed in general; second, they are explained separately according to the names; third, the acceptance and rejection are determined. The following verse lists the names of the causes in general.
Treatise says: Up to the six Vipāka-hetu (異熟因, Resultant Cause). This is explained according to the verse. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (顯宗論) says: 'The substance of Kāraṇa-hetu (能作因, Efficient Cause) pervades all dharmas.' Therefore, it is said earlier. 'The substance of Sahabhū-hetu (俱有因, Co-existent Cause) pervades all conditioned dharmas,' therefore it is ranked second. The remaining Sābhāga-hetu (同類因, Similar Cause) etc. in conditioned dharmas, take up a small part according to their respective situations. They are explained sequentially in a convenient and stable manner with the words. Now, in detailed analysis, all six causes are vast, and the substance of Sābhāga-hetu (同類因, Similar Cause) is mentioned first. Although it excludes the future, making it seem narrow, Sahabhū-hetu (俱有因, Co-existent Cause) encompasses all Citta (心, mind), Cetasika (心所, mental factors), Rūpa (色, form), and non-associated dharmas. Although the substance of Saṃprayuktaka-hetu (相應因, Associated Cause) pervades the three times, it only includes Citta (心, mind) and Cetasika (心所, mental factors), so it is narrower than Sābhāga-hetu (同類因, Similar Cause). However, it pervades all defiled Citta (心, mind) and Cetasika (心所, mental factors), the vast Sarvatraga-hetu (遍行因, Pervading Cause). The substance of Sarvatraga-hetu (遍行因, Pervading Cause), if in the Kāmadhātu (欲界, Desire Realm), is narrower than one part of the two categories, Vipāka-hetu (異熟因, Resultant Cause). The substance of Vipāka-hetu (異熟因, Resultant Cause) pervades the five categories, so in the upper eight grounds, the substance of Vipāka-hetu (異熟因, Resultant Cause) only pervades one part of the cultivation and severance. The substance of Sarvatraga-hetu (遍行因, Pervading Cause) is one part of the two categories, so Vipāka-hetu (異熟因, Resultant Cause) is mentioned after Sarvatraga-hetu (遍行因, Pervading Cause). However, the six causes and four conditions all pervade the close and distant. The name of cause is close, and the name of condition is distant.' The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (顯宗論) says: 'That which a dharma relies on to arise is called a cause, which is the meaning of closely benefiting the result that is produced.'
Treatise: The Abhidharma (對法) masters, up to these six kinds. This is because the four conditions are explained in the scriptures, and the six causes are not explained in the scriptures. Therefore, it is said that 'the Abhidharma (對法) masters' allow that there are only six kinds of causes. This is to explain that there is no increase or decrease. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: 'These six causes are not spoken by the Buddha. Why does this treatise establish this name itself? There is certainly no meaning that the great master has not spoken. The Abhidharma (阿毗達磨) arbitrarily says something, which is not present in the scriptures now, because it is hidden. The self-nature can be obtained, and it should definitely exist.' Also, because of the power of teaching in various scriptures, the World Honored One (世尊) conveniently explains it in different ways. The Abhidharma (對法) masters...
由見少相知其定有分明結集。故有說言。此六因義說在增一增六經中。時經久遠其文穩沒。尊者迦多衍尼子等。于諸法相無間思求。冥感天仙現來授與。如天授與筏第遮經其理必然。如四緣義雖具列在此部經中。而餘部中有不誦者。乃至廣說 準此論文。六因四緣是小乘義。四緣有文。六因無文以無正經文故。故言對法諸師許因唯有如是六種 大乘對法論亦有六因。能作因有二十因 中邊分別論．及成唯識各取其十。未知大乘十因六因。及四緣義出何經文。
論。且初能作因相云何。此下第二依名別釋。因體不同分為六段。將釋初因故先問也。頌答可知。
論曰至無障住故。長行釋也 就中有二。一釋但無障住．及有力起名能作因。二餘師釋諸法展轉皆有力用 就初文中復分為二。一釋頌文。二問答分別 就釋頌文中。一明因體。二釋因名。此文明因體也 然出因體有二種。一總出體。即以一切法為體。二對果出體。除自余能作。謂除自體以餘一切為能作因。由彼生時無障住故 問法若畢竟不生。除其自體餘一切法與作因不 答與作因。若其因法。未至已生但是性因。若至已生是取果因。若果至生名與果因。其不生法。無與果因 正理論云。此能作因略有二種。一有生力。二唯無障。諸法生時唯除自體。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 由此可見，（佛陀）在（僧團）還小的時候就認識到（弟子們）一定會有明確的分類和結集（經典的需要）。所以有人說，這六因（Sadhetu）的意義在《增一阿含經》（Ekottara Agama）和《增六經》中有所闡述。但由於時間久遠，這些經文已經隱沒不顯。尊者迦多衍尼子（Katyayaniputra）等人，對於諸法（Dharma）的法相（Laksana）無間斷地思考和探求，冥冥之中感應到天仙顯現並傳授給他們（這些教義），就像天仙傳授筏第遮經（Vatthucitta Sutta）一樣，其道理是必然的。例如四緣（Cattari paccaya）的意義雖然完整地列在這部經中，但其他一些部派的經典中卻沒有誦讀這些內容，乃至更廣泛的說法也是如此。根據這段論文，六因和四緣是小乘（Hinayana）的教義。四緣有經文依據，而六因沒有經文依據，因為沒有正式的經文支援。因此，對法（Abhidharma）的諸位論師認為，因只有這六種。大乘（Mahayana）的《對法論》中也有六因，能作因（Karanahetu）有二十種因。而《中邊分別論》（Madhyantavibhaga）和《成唯識論》（Vijnaptimatratasiddhi）各自取其中的十種。我不知道大乘的十因、六因以及四緣的意義出自哪部經文。
論：首先，能作因（Karanahetu）的相是什麼？以下第二部分，根據名稱分別解釋。因的體性不同，分為六段。將要解釋第一個因，所以先提問。頌文的回答可以理解。
論曰：乃至沒有障礙地存在。這是長行的解釋。其中有兩點：一是解釋僅僅沒有障礙地存在，並且具有力量產生作用，就叫做能作因。二是其他論師解釋說，諸法之間相互作用都具有力量。在第一點中又分為兩點：一是解釋頌文，二是問答分別。在解釋頌文中，一是說明因的體性，二是解釋因的名稱。這裡說明因的體性。然而，說明因的體性有兩種方式：一是總的說明體性，即以一切法為體性。二是針對果來說明體性，即除了自身以外，其餘的都能作為能作因。因為當果產生時，（這些因）沒有障礙地存在。問：如果法畢竟不產生，那麼除了它自身以外，其餘的一切法是否都作為它的能作因？答：是的，作為能作因。如果因法還沒有達到已經產生的狀態，那只是性因（Prakritihetu）。如果達到已經產生的狀態，那就是取果因（Adanahetu）。如果果達到產生的狀態，那就是與果因（Samprayogahetu）。而不產生的法，就沒有與果因。正理論（Abhidharmakosabhasyam）中說：這種能作因大致有兩種：一種是有生起的力量，一種僅僅是沒有障礙。諸法產生時，唯獨排除它自身。
【English Translation】 English version: From this, it can be seen that when the (Sangha) was small, (the Buddha) recognized that (the disciples) would definitely have clear classifications and collections (of scriptures). Therefore, some say that the meaning of these six causes (Sadhetu) is explained in the Ekottara Agama and the Zengliu Jing. However, due to the passage of time, these scriptures have become obscured. Venerable Katyayaniputra and others, through uninterrupted contemplation and inquiry into the characteristics (Laksana) of all dharmas (Dharma), mysteriously sensed the appearance of celestial beings who imparted (these teachings) to them, just as celestial beings imparted the Vatthucitta Sutta; the reasoning is inevitable. For example, although the meaning of the four conditions (Cattari paccaya) is completely listed in this scripture, some other schools' scriptures do not recite these contents, and even more extensive statements are also like this. According to this treatise, the six causes and four conditions are the teachings of the Hinayana. There are textual bases for the four conditions, but there are no textual bases for the six causes because there are no formal scriptures to support them. Therefore, the Abhidharma masters believe that there are only these six types of causes. The Mahayana Abhidharma also has six causes, and the Karanahetu has twenty causes. The Madhyantavibhaga and Vijnaptimatratasiddhi each take ten of them. I do not know which scripture the ten causes, six causes, and the meaning of the four conditions of Mahayana come from.
Treatise: First, what is the characteristic of the Karanahetu? The second part below explains separately according to the name. The nature of the cause is different and divided into six sections. The first cause will be explained, so ask first. The answer in the verse can be understood.
Treatise says: Up to existing without obstacles. This is a lengthy explanation. There are two points in it: one is to explain that merely existing without obstacles and having the power to produce an effect is called Karanahetu. The second is that other teachers explain that the interaction between all dharmas has power. In the first point, it is divided into two points: one is to explain the verse, and the other is to ask and answer separately. In explaining the verse, one is to explain the nature of the cause, and the other is to explain the name of the cause. Here, the nature of the cause is explained. However, there are two ways to explain the nature of the cause: one is to explain the nature in general, that is, to take all dharmas as the nature. The second is to explain the nature in relation to the effect, that is, everything other than oneself can be regarded as Karanahetu. Because when the effect arises, (these causes) exist without obstacles. Question: If a dharma does not arise after all, then does everything other than itself act as its Karanahetu? Answer: Yes, it acts as Karanahetu. If the causal dharma has not yet reached the state of having arisen, it is only Prakritihetu. If it reaches the state of having arisen, it is Adanahetu. If the effect reaches the state of arising, it is Samprayogahetu. And the dharma that does not arise has no Samprayogahetu. The Abhidharmakosabhasyam says: This Karanahetu roughly has two types: one is the power to arise, and the other is merely without obstacles. When all dharmas arise, only oneself is excluded.
以一切法為能作因。由彼生時皆不為障。于中少分有能生力。且如有一眼識生時。以所依眼為依止因。以所緣色為建立因。以眼識等如種子法為不斷因。以相應法為攝受因。以俱有法為助伴因。以耳根等為依住因。此等總說為能作因。于中一分名有力因。以有能生勝功能故。所餘諸分名無力因。以但不為障礙住故。何故自體非自能作因。以能作因於自體無故。謂無障義是能作因。自於自體恒為障礙。又一切法不待自體。應有恒成損減等故 述曰。若待即此自體。自體恒有。應恒成。若待第二自體。第二自體恒無。應恒成損減等 有餘師說。若有自體因自體者。即應無明還緣無明等。一剎那頃此即此因。是則乖違緣起法性。有餘師說。自於自體不見有用。故非因緣。猶如指端．刀刃．眼等。
論。雖余因性至總即別名。明得名也 顯宗論釋能作因名有四。一云因即能作名能作因。此因有力能作果故。雖余因性亦能作因。然能作因更無別稱。如色處等總即別名。二云或復此因能作二義。以無障故可名為因。可名非因不能生故。三云又能作者是余親因。此能助彼名能作因。四云或此令他能有所作。他即是果。能作之因名能作因 此四釋中初二持業釋。后二屬主釋。
論。豈不未知至為能作因。次下第二問答分別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：以一切法作為能作因（hetupratyaya，產生結果的條件）。當這些法生起時，它們都不會成為障礙。在這些法中，只有少部分具有產生結果的能力。例如，當一個眼識生起時，以所依之眼為依止因（adhipati-pratyaya，增上緣），以所緣之色為建立因（alambana-pratyaya，所緣緣），以眼識等如種子之法為不斷因（samanantara-pratyaya，等無間緣），以相應之法為攝受因，以俱有之法為助伴因，以耳根等為依住因。這些總稱為能作因。其中一部分被稱為有力因，因為它們具有產生殊勝功能的能力。其餘部分被稱為無力因，因為它們僅僅是不成為障礙而存在。為什麼自體不是自己的能作因呢？因為能作因在自體中不存在。所謂『無障礙』是能作因的含義，而自體對於自身來說始終是障礙。而且，一切法不應該依賴於自身，否則應該恒常存在，或者恒常損減等等。述曰：如果依賴的是這個自體，自體恒常存在，那麼就應該恒常存在。如果依賴的是第二個自體，第二個自體恒常不存在，那麼就應該恒常存在、損減等等。有其他論師說：如果自體是自體的因，那麼就應該出現無明還緣無明等等的情況。在一剎那間，這個就是這個的因，這就違背了緣起法的性質。還有其他論師說：對於自體來說，看不見有任何作用，所以不是因緣，就像指尖、刀刃、眼睛等等。 論：雖然其餘的因的性質，總的來說就是個別的名稱。明得了名稱的含義。顯宗論解釋能作因的名稱有四種。第一種說法是『因即能作』，名為能作因。這個因具有力量能夠產生結果。雖然其餘的因的性質也能作為能作因，但是能作因沒有其他的別稱，就像色處等等，總的來說就是個別的名稱。第二種說法是或者這個因具有能作的兩種含義。因為沒有障礙，所以可以稱為因，可以稱為非因，因為它不能產生結果。第三種說法是能作者是其餘的親因。這個能夠幫助其他的因，所以名為能作因。第四種說法是或者這個使其他的法能夠有所作為。其他的法就是結果。能夠產生結果的因，名為能作因。這四種解釋中，前兩種是持業釋，后兩種是屬主釋。 論：難道不是因為不知道，所以作為能作因嗎？接下來是第二個問答分別。
【English Translation】 English version: All dharmas act as the hetupratyaya (the condition that enables something to arise). When these dharmas arise, they do not act as obstructions. Among these dharmas, only a small portion has the ability to produce results. For example, when an eye-consciousness arises, the eye that it relies on is the adhipati-pratyaya (dominant condition), the color that it perceives is the alambana-pratyaya (object-condition), the preceding moments of eye-consciousness, like seeds, are the samanantara-pratyaya (immediately preceding condition), the associated mental factors are the condition of reception, the co-existent dharmas are the condition of assistance, and the ear-faculty, etc., are the condition of reliance. These are collectively called the hetupratyaya. A portion of these is called the 'powerful condition' because they have the ability to produce superior functions. The remaining portions are called the 'powerless condition' because they merely exist without being obstructions. Why is the self-nature (svabhava) not its own hetupratyaya? Because the hetupratyaya does not exist in the self-nature. The meaning of 'non-obstruction' is the hetupratyaya, but the self-nature is always an obstruction to itself. Moreover, all dharmas should not depend on themselves; otherwise, they should either always exist or always diminish, etc. Commentary: If it depends on this self-nature, and the self-nature always exists, then it should always exist. If it depends on a second self-nature, and the second self-nature never exists, then it should always exist, diminish, etc. Other teachers say: If the self-nature is the cause of itself, then ignorance should condition ignorance, etc. In one instant, this is the cause of this, which contradicts the nature of dependent origination. Still other teachers say: One cannot see any function in the self-nature for itself, so it is not a condition, like a fingertip, a knife edge, or an eye, etc. Treatise: Although the nature of the remaining causes, generally speaking, is an individual name. Understanding the meaning of the name. The Abhidharmakosha explains that there are four types of hetupratyaya. The first explanation is 'cause is enabling', named hetupratyaya. This cause has the power to produce results. Although the nature of the remaining causes can also act as hetupratyaya, the hetupratyaya does not have other specific names, like the sense-sphere of color, etc., generally speaking, it is an individual name. The second explanation is that this cause has two meanings of enabling. Because there is no obstruction, it can be called a cause, and it can be called a non-cause because it cannot produce results. The third explanation is that the enabler is the remaining proximate cause. This can help other causes, so it is named hetupratyaya. The fourth explanation is that this enables other dharmas to function. The other dharmas are the results. The cause that can produce results is named hetupratyaya. Among these four explanations, the first two are karmadharaya compounds, and the last two are possessive compounds. Treatise: Is it not because one does not know, so it acts as the hetupratyaya? Next is the second question and answer analysis.
。此即問也。
論。應知此生。至是能作因。答也。雖智障漏生。光障睹星。漏生之時智無障住。睹星之時光無障住。若為能障即不得生。
論。若於此生至可立為因。難也。若先能障。由今不障可得是因。本無障力今不為障。何得是因。
論。譬如國人至何得為因。王喻可知。
論。且如涅槃至無能障用。指事難也。此等諸法有。如非有。先不能障今不為障。何得是因。
論。雖無障用至亦得如前說。指事答也。若有力者。由今不障得為其因。其無力者。亦由今不障故得為其因。有力．無力障雖有別。生時無障其義即同。由此二種為因即等。正理釋云。由一切法展轉相望。皆有障力故得為因。謂於是處有此一法。是處無容更有第二。設復此法于余處有。彼亦無容更有餘法如是諸法。豈不相望皆能為障而不為障。故皆可立為能作因。無色亦有時依等定故。彼相望亦有障力。又諸法內一法生時。如與欲法余皆無障。謂二緣故法不得生。一順因無。二違緣有。諸法生位必待勝力各別內緣。及待所餘無障而住。
論。此即通說至於芽等。結前無障因起後有力因如文可解。
論。有作是難至皆成殺業。敘外難也。因既常有。果應頓起。既同爲殺因應齊得殺罪。
論。此難不
【現代漢語翻譯】 論：此即是提問。
論：應當知曉，此生（指現象的生起）能夠作為因。這是回答。 即使有智障（妨礙智慧的障礙）和煩惱的產生，就像光線被遮蔽時也能看到星星一樣。煩惱產生時，智慧並沒有被障礙而停止；看到星星時，光線也沒有被障礙而停止。如果成為能障礙的原因，那麼（現象）就無法產生。
論：如果說在此生（現象的生起）中，（無障礙）可以被立為因，這是提問。 如果先前能夠障礙，因為現在不障礙，所以可以作為因。如果原本沒有障礙的力量，現在也不成為障礙，怎麼能作為因呢？
論：譬如國王和國民的關係，這個比喻可以理解。
論：例如涅槃（Nirvana，佛教術語，指解脫）等，沒有能障礙的作用。這是針對具體事例的提問。 這些法（Dharma，佛教術語，指構成世界萬物的要素）的存在，就像非存在一樣。先前不能障礙，現在也不成為障礙，怎麼能作為因呢？
論：即使沒有障礙的作用，也可以像前面所說的那樣。這是針對具體事例的回答。 如果有力量的（事物），因為現在不障礙，所以可以作為它的因；如果沒有力量的（事物），也因為現在不障礙，所以可以作為它的因。有力和無力的障礙雖然有所區別，但在生起時沒有障礙，其意義是相同的。因此，這兩種情況作為因是相同的。 正理釋解釋說：由於一切法（Dharma，佛教術語，指構成世界萬物的要素）相互關聯，都具有障礙的力量，所以可以作為能作因。也就是說，在這個地方有這個法，這個地方就沒有容納第二個法的空間。即使這個法在其他地方存在，那裡也沒有容納其他法的空間。像這樣的諸法，難道不是相互之間都能成為障礙而不成為障礙嗎？所以都可以被立為能作因。無色界（Arūpadhātu，佛教術語，指沒有物質存在的精神世界）也有時依靠禪定等，所以它們相互之間也具有障礙的力量。此外，諸法內部，一個法生起時，如果與欲法（指產生慾望的法）相應，其餘的法都沒有障礙。也就是說，由於兩個原因，法不能生起：一是順因（指有助於產生結果的條件）不存在，二是違緣（指阻礙產生結果的條件）存在。諸法生起的位置，必定等待殊勝的力量、各自不同的內在因緣，以及等待其餘的法沒有障礙而存在。
論：這即是普遍的說法，至於種子發芽等。總結前面所說的無障礙因，生起後面的有力因，如文字所表達的那樣可以理解。
論：有人這樣提出疑問，以至於都成為殺業。這是敘述外人的疑問。 如果因是常有的，那麼果應該立即產生。既然同樣是殺的因，就應該同時得到殺的罪過。
論：這個疑問不成立。
【English Translation】 Treatise: This is the question.
Treatise: It should be known that this arising (referring to the arising of phenomena) can be a cause. This is the answer. Even if there are intellectual obscurations (obstacles to wisdom) and the arising of afflictions, just as one can see stars when light is obscured. When afflictions arise, wisdom is not obstructed and stopped; when one sees stars, light is not obstructed and stopped. If it becomes a cause of obstruction, then (the phenomenon) cannot arise.
Treatise: If it is said that in this arising (of phenomena), (non-obstruction) can be established as a cause, this is a question. If previously it could obstruct, because now it does not obstruct, it can be a cause. If originally there was no power to obstruct, and now it does not become an obstruction, how can it be a cause?
Treatise: For example, the relationship between a king and his people, this analogy can be understood.
Treatise: For example, Nirvana (Buddhist term, referring to liberation), etc., has no function of obstruction. This is a question regarding specific examples. The existence of these Dharmas (Buddhist term, referring to the elements that constitute the world) is like non-existence. Previously it could not obstruct, and now it does not become an obstruction, how can it be a cause?
Treatise: Even if there is no function of obstruction, it can be as said before. This is an answer regarding specific examples. If there is a powerful (thing), because now it does not obstruct, it can be its cause; if there is a powerless (thing), also because now it does not obstruct, it can be its cause. Although there is a difference between powerful and powerless obstructions, their meaning is the same when there is no obstruction at the time of arising. Therefore, these two situations are the same as causes. The Commentary on Right Reasoning explains: Because all Dharmas (Buddhist term, referring to the elements that constitute the world) are interconnected, they all have the power of obstruction, so they can be a causative cause. That is, in this place there is this Dharma, and there is no room for a second Dharma in this place. Even if this Dharma exists in other places, there is no room for other Dharmas there. Are such Dharmas not able to obstruct and not obstruct each other? Therefore, they can all be established as causative causes. The Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu, Buddhist term, referring to the immaterial world) also sometimes relies on meditative concentration, etc., so they also have the power of obstruction to each other. In addition, within all Dharmas, when one Dharma arises, if it corresponds to the Dharma of desire (referring to the Dharma that produces desire), the remaining Dharmas have no obstruction. That is, due to two reasons, a Dharma cannot arise: one is that the direct cause (referring to the condition that helps to produce the result) does not exist, and the other is that the opposing condition (referring to the condition that hinders the production of the result) exists. The position where Dharmas arise must await superior power, different internal causes and conditions, and wait for the remaining Dharmas to exist without obstruction.
Treatise: This is a general statement, as for the sprouting of seeds, etc. Summarizing the previously mentioned unobstructed cause, the powerful cause arises later, as can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Someone raises this question, to the point that it all becomes the karma of killing. This is a narration of the questions of outsiders. If the cause is permanent, then the result should arise immediately. Since it is the same cause of killing, one should receive the sin of killing at the same time.
Treatise: This question is not valid.
然至有親作力。答也。無障疏因果不得生。非是親作不成業道。法生．不生雖賴疏因。業感．不感由親作力。
論。有餘師說至有能生力。大文第二敘異說也 此師意說。一切諸法與一切法為能作因。展轉皆悉有其力用。如文可解。雖由能作因取增上果。而因即廣。其果即狹 正理論云。過去諸法與餘二世為能作因。彼二世法還與過去為增上果(此有因有果也)。未來諸法與餘二世由無障故為能作因。彼二世法非俱．后故。不與未來為增上果。果必由因取故唯有二。因唯據無障故許通三 解云。取果唯現。過去已取。未來未取。已取果已屬已。未取果未屬已。果據所取故唯有二。謂若俱．若在後。因唯無障不據能取。故許通三。謂若俱。若在前。若在後也 現在諸法與餘二世為能作因。彼二世法中。唯未來法為現在果(已上三世相對)。有為．無為非因非果 有為望無為非因。無為無生故亦非果。無為不能取故 無為．無為非因．非果 無為望無為非因。無為無生故非果。非所取故 無為。有為。是因非果 不障生故是因。體不生故非所取故非果 由此義故說如是言。能作因多非增上果。以一切法皆能作因。唯諸有為是增上果。
論。如是已說能作因相已下第二三句明俱有因 俱有因者。與俱有法為因名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 然，至於有親自造作的力量。回答是：沒有障礙，疏遠的因果無法產生。並非是親自造作就不能成就業道。法的生起與不生起雖然依賴於疏遠的因，業的感受與不感受則取決於親自造作的力量。
論：有其他老師說，存在能產生力量的因。這是大段文字的第二部分，敘述不同的說法。這位老師的意思是說，一切諸法對於一切法都是能作因，輾轉之間都具有其力量和作用，如同文字所能解釋的那樣。雖然通過能作因取得增上果，但因是廣泛的，而果是狹窄的。《正理論》說：過去的諸法對於其餘二世（現在和未來）是能作因，那其餘二世的法反過來對於過去是增上果（這有因也有果）。未來的諸法對於其餘二世，因為沒有障礙的緣故，是能作因。那其餘二世的法，因為不是同時或在未來之後，所以不對於未來是增上果。果必定由因取得，所以只有兩種。因只根據沒有障礙，所以允許通於三世。解釋說：取得果只在現在。過去已經取得，未來尚未取得。已經取得的果已經屬於過去，尚未取得的果尚未屬於現在。果根據所取得的，所以只有兩種，即同時或在之後。因只根據沒有障礙，不根據能否取得，所以允許通於三世，即同時、在前或在後。現在的諸法對於其餘二世是能作因，那其餘二世的法中，只有未來的法是現在的果（以上是三世相對而言）。有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma）和無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma）既不是因也不是果。有為法對於無為法不是因，無為法沒有生起，所以也不是果。無為法不能被取得，所以不是果。無為法對於無為法既不是因也不是果。無為法對於無為法不是因，無為法沒有生起，所以不是果，也不是被取得的對象。無為法對於有為法是因但不是果。因為不障礙生起，所以是因；本體不生起，所以不是被取得的對象，因此不是果。由於這個道理，所以說這樣的話：能作因很多，但不是增上果。因為一切法都能作為能作因，只有諸有為法才是增上果。
論：像這樣已經說了能作因的相狀，以下第二段的三句話說明俱有因。俱有因（sahabhū-hetu）是指：與俱有法作為因，被稱為俱有因。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, as to having the power of personal action. The answer is: Without obstruction, distant causes and effects cannot arise. It is not that personal action cannot accomplish the path of karma. The arising and non-arising of phenomena, although relying on distant causes, the experiencing and non-experiencing of karma depends on the power of personal action.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that there exists a cause that can generate power. This is the second part of the major text, narrating different views. This teacher means to say that all dharmas are the operative cause for all dharmas, and all have their power and function in turn, as the text can explain. Although the dominant effect is obtained through the operative cause, the cause is broad, while the effect is narrow. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Past dharmas are the operative cause for the other two times (present and future), and the dharmas of the other two times, in turn, are the dominant effect for the past (this has both cause and effect). Future dharmas are the operative cause for the other two times because there is no obstruction. The dharmas of the other two times, because they are not simultaneous or after the future, are not the dominant effect for the future. The effect must be obtained from the cause, so there are only two kinds. The cause is only based on the absence of obstruction, so it is allowed to encompass the three times. The explanation is: Obtaining the effect is only in the present. The past has already obtained it, and the future has not yet obtained it. The effect that has already been obtained already belongs to the past, and the effect that has not yet been obtained does not yet belong to the present. The effect is based on what is obtained, so there are only two kinds, namely simultaneous or after. The cause is only based on the absence of obstruction, not on the ability to obtain, so it is allowed to encompass the three times, namely simultaneous, before, or after. Present dharmas are the operative cause for the other two times, and among the dharmas of the other two times, only future dharmas are the effect of the present (the above is in relation to the three times). Conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma) and unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma) are neither cause nor effect. Conditioned dharmas are not the cause for unconditioned dharmas, and unconditioned dharmas have no arising, so they are also not the effect. Unconditioned dharmas cannot be obtained, so they are not the effect. Unconditioned dharmas are neither cause nor effect for unconditioned dharmas. Unconditioned dharmas are not the cause for unconditioned dharmas, and unconditioned dharmas have no arising, so they are not the effect, nor are they the object of being obtained. Unconditioned dharmas are the cause but not the effect for conditioned dharmas. Because they do not obstruct arising, they are the cause; the substance does not arise, so it is not the object of being obtained, therefore it is not the effect. Because of this reason, it is said that the operative causes are many, but they are not the dominant effect. Because all dharmas can be the operative cause, only conditioned dharmas are the dominant effect.
Treatise: Having thus spoken of the characteristics of the operative cause, the three sentences below in the second section explain the co-existent cause. The co-existent cause (sahabhū-hetu) refers to: being a cause with co-existent dharmas, called the co-existent cause.
俱有因。或以俱有法為因名俱有因。若總出體。即攝一切有為法盡。若相對出體如下廣釋。
論曰至為俱有因。此釋初句辨因相也。此與婆沙第十六評家。及正理論義不同也。婆沙云。同一果義是俱有因義 正理論云。有為法一果是俱有因義 不云互為果是俱有因義。
論。其相云何。前雖總說互為果義其互為果相狀云何。
論。如四大種至由互為果。指事辨相狀也 故婆沙評家云。謂四大種若有偏增。若無偏增。地為三因。三為地因。所以者何。地不觀地生所造色。以一切法不觀自性．及同類體為他因故。余大例爾 如是諸相與所相法。心與心隨轉。亦更互為因。此舉三類互為因法。辨互為果相也 然於此中不說心隨轉法。及能相法自互為因者正理論云。此中所說因相太少 然自釋云 本論說故此無過失。然本論中曾不見說心隨轉色與心為因。應辨此中造論者意 正理敘兩師釋皆彈有過 自釋云。我於此中見如是意。若法與心決定俱起。遍一切心依心而轉。即說彼法與所依心展轉相望為俱有因。諸心所法非定俱起。或少或多現可得故 心所法自相對多少不定。故論不說 身業．語業非遍諸心。不定心俱全無有故 不定心無色定全無身．語二業 生等諸相皆依心轉。非互相依。生等皆以法為上首互
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
俱有因，或者說，以俱有法作為因，就叫做俱有因。如果總括地說明它的本體，那麼就包括了一切有為法。如果相對地說明它的本體，就像下面詳細解釋的那樣。
論中說：『至為俱有因』。這是解釋第一句，辨別因的相狀。這與《婆沙論》第十六品評家以及《正理論》的觀點不同。《婆沙論》說：『同一果的意義就是俱有因的意義。』《正理論》說：『有為法的一個果就是俱有因的意義。』沒有說『互為果就是俱有因的意義』。
論：『它的相狀是怎樣的呢？』前面雖然總說了互為果的意義，但互為果的相狀是怎樣的呢？
論：『如四大種至由互為果。』這是指事辨別相狀。所以《婆沙論》評家說：『所謂四大種，如果有偏增，或者沒有偏增，地為三因，三為地因。』為什麼呢？因為地不觀察地所生的所造色，因為一切法不觀察自性以及同類體作為它的因。其餘的大種也是這樣。像這樣，諸相與所相法，心與心隨轉，也更互相為因。』這是舉出三類互為因的法，辨別互為果的相狀。然而在這裡沒有說心隨轉法以及能相法自身互為因。《正理論》說：『這裡所說的因相太少了。』然後自己解釋說：『本論說了，所以這裡沒有過失。』然而在本論中，沒有見到說心隨轉色與心為因。應該辨別這裡造論者的意思。《正理論》敘述兩位論師的解釋，都認為有過失。自己解釋說：『我在這裡看到這樣的意思，如果法與心決定一起生起，普遍地在一切心中依心而轉，就說那個法與所依的心輾轉相望，互為俱有因。諸心所法不是決定一起生起，或者少或者多，現在可以得到。』心所法自身相對，多少不定，所以論中沒有說。身業、語業不是普遍地在諸心中，不定心一起，完全沒有的緣故。不定心沒有，色界一定完全沒有身、語二業。生等諸相都依心而轉，不是互相依。生等都以法為上首互相。
【English Translation】 English version:
The coexistent cause (俱有因, Ju You Yin), or rather, using coexistent dharmas as the cause, is called the coexistent cause. If we explain its substance in general, then it includes all conditioned dharmas (有為法, You Wei Fa). If we explain its substance relatively, it is as explained in detail below.
The treatise says: 'To be the coexistent cause.' This explains the first sentence, distinguishing the characteristics of the cause. This differs from the views of the critics in the sixteenth chapter of the Vibhasa (婆沙) and the Nyāyānusāra (正理論). The Vibhasa says: 'The meaning of the same result is the meaning of the coexistent cause.' The Nyāyānusāra says: 'One result of conditioned dharmas is the meaning of the coexistent cause.' It does not say 'Mutual results are the meaning of the coexistent cause.'
The treatise: 'What are its characteristics?' Although it was generally said earlier that they are mutual results, what are the characteristics of mutual results?
The treatise: 'Like the four great elements (四大種, Si Da Zhong) to being mutual results.' This points to the matter and distinguishes the characteristics. Therefore, the critics of the Vibhasa say: 'The so-called four great elements, if there is a partial increase, or if there is no partial increase, earth is the cause of the other three, and the other three are the cause of earth.' Why? Because earth does not observe the created form produced by earth, because all dharmas do not observe their own nature and similar entities as their cause. The other great elements are the same. Like this, the characteristics and the dharmas characterized, the mind and the mental concomitants (心隨轉, Xin Sui Zhuan), also mutually act as causes.' This cites three types of dharmas that mutually act as causes, distinguishing the characteristics of mutual results. However, here it does not say that mental concomitants and the characterizing dharmas themselves mutually act as causes. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'The characteristics of the causes mentioned here are too few.' Then it explains itself, saying: 'The original treatise said it, so there is no fault here.' However, in the original treatise, it is not seen that mental concomitant form acts as the cause of the mind. The meaning of the author of the treatise here should be distinguished. The Nyāyānusāra narrates the explanations of the two masters, both of which are considered to have faults. It explains itself, saying: 'I see such a meaning here, if a dharma arises together with the mind decisively, and universally relies on the mind in all minds, then it is said that that dharma and the mind it relies on mutually regard each other as coexistent causes. Mental factors (心所法, Xin Suo Fa) do not necessarily arise together, or few or many, and can be obtained now.' Mental factors themselves are relatively uncertain in quantity, so the treatise does not mention them. Bodily karma (身業, Shen Ye) and verbal karma (語業, Yu Ye) are not universally in all minds, because when the mind is uncertain, they are completely absent. When the mind is uncertain, there is definitely no bodily or verbal karma in the Form Realm (色界, Se Jie). The characteristics such as arising (生, Sheng) all rely on the mind and turn, they do not rely on each other. Arising and so on all take dharmas as the head and mutually...
相資故。由斯不說彼互為因。又於此中。為欲顯示但說異類為俱有因。同類互為因不說而成 故顯宗論云。一切心所．靜慮．無漏二種律儀．彼法．及心之生等相。如是皆謂心隨轉法。何緣心隨相非心隨轉法。心隨相於心非俱有因故。何緣心隨相非心俱有因。不由彼力心得生故。彼於一法有功能故。又與心王非一果故。聚中多分非彼果故。若爾云何心能與彼為俱有因。由隨心王生等諸位彼得轉故。豈不應如大種生等。心亦用彼為俱有因。諸如造色非生等果。生等非不與諸大種為俱有因。此亦應爾(準上論意。大種生等。與大種非一果。而得為俱有因。心與隨相雖非一果何不許為俱有因耶) 如是所例其理不齊。展轉果一果。多非彼果故。非諸造色。是諸大種展轉果中。一果所攝。何容造色非諸大種生等果。故例此為失。又如前說。前說者何。不由彼力心得生故。然諸大種與生等相。展轉力。生故無此失 又云。又此俱起和合聚中。有是能轉而非隨轉。謂即心王。有唯隨轉。謂色．及心不相應行。有是能轉亦是隨轉。謂心所法。隨心轉故。能轉色．及心不相應行故有二俱非。謂除前相 準上論文。此中所明心隨轉法。與余處說隨行隨轉義不同也。如對法中說惠為體五蘊隨行。此即心王入隨轉攝。此中說心唯為其轉非是隨
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：相互資助的緣故。因此不說它們互為因。又在這裡，爲了顯示只說異類是俱有因（hetupratyaya，共同生起之因），同類互為因不說也能成立。所以《顯揚聖教論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）說：『一切心所（citta-caitta，心所有法）、靜慮（samatha-vipassana，止觀）、無漏二種律儀（samvara，戒律）、彼法（tad-dharma，與此相關的法），以及心的生等相（utpada-sthiti-bhanga，生住滅）。』這些都稱為心隨轉法（citta-anuparivritta-dharma，隨心轉變之法）。為什麼心隨相（citta-anulaksana，心的隨類相）不是心隨轉法呢？因為心隨相對於心不是俱有因的緣故。為什麼心隨相不是心的俱有因呢？因為不由它的力量心才能生起的緣故。它對於一法有功能（samarthya，能力）的緣故。又與心王（citta-raja，主要的心）不是同一果（eka-phala，單一結果）的緣故。在聚合中，大部分不是它的果的緣故。如果這樣，心如何能與它作為俱有因呢？由於隨著心王的生等諸位，它才能轉變的緣故。難道不應該像四大種（maha-bhuta，地水火風）的生等相一樣，心也用它們作為俱有因嗎？諸如造色（rupa，由四大種所造的色法）不是生等相的果，生等相不是不與四大種作為俱有因。這裡也應該這樣（按照上面的論點，四大種的生等相，與四大種不是同一果，而可以作為俱有因，心與隨相雖然不是同一果，為什麼不許作為俱有因呢？） 像這樣所舉的例子，其道理是不齊等的。展轉果（paraspara-phala，相互作用的結果）是一果，多非它的果的緣故。不是諸造色，是諸大種展轉果中的一果所攝。怎麼能說造色不是諸大種的生等相的果呢？所以用這個來作比喻是錯誤的。又如前面所說。前面所說的是什麼？不由它的力量心才能生起的緣故。然而諸大種與生等相，是展轉力而生起的，所以沒有這個錯誤。', 又說：『又在這個俱起和合的聚合中，有是能轉變的而不是隨轉變的，就是心王。有隻是隨轉變的，就是色法以及心不相應行（citta-viprayukta-samskara，既非心也非色的行蘊）。有是能轉變的也是隨轉變的，就是心所法，因為隨著心轉變的緣故，能轉變色法以及心不相應行。』所以有二者都不是的，就是除去前面所說的相。 按照上面的論文，這裡所說明的心隨轉法，與其它地方所說的隨行隨轉的意義不同。如《阿毗達磨》（Abhidharma，論藏）中說慧（prajna，智慧）為體，五蘊（panca-skandha，色受想行識）隨行。這裡心王進入隨轉的範疇。這裡說心只是為它轉變，而不是隨行。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of mutual assistance. Therefore, it is not said that they are mutual causes. Moreover, here, in order to show that only dissimilar kinds are said to be co-existent causes (hetupratyaya), it is established without saying that similar kinds are mutual causes. Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'All mental factors (citta-caitta), samatha-vipassana, the two kinds of undefiled discipline (samvara), those dharmas (tad-dharma), and the characteristics of the arising, abiding, and ceasing (utpada-sthiti-bhanga) of the mind.' These are all called mind-concomitant dharmas (citta-anuparivritta-dharma). Why are the mind-related characteristics (citta-anulaksana) not mind-concomitant dharmas? Because the mind-related characteristics are not co-existent causes for the mind. Why are the mind-related characteristics not co-existent causes of the mind? Because the mind does not arise by their power. Because they have function (samarthya) for one dharma. Also, because they are not the same result (eka-phala) as the mind-king (citta-raja). Because, in the aggregate, most are not their result. If so, how can the mind be a co-existent cause with them? Because they can transform along with the arising and other states of the mind-king. Shouldn't the mind also use the great elements (maha-bhuta) as co-existent causes, just like the characteristics of arising and so on of the great elements? For example, form (rupa) is not the result of the characteristics of arising and so on, and the characteristics of arising and so on are not not co-existent causes with the great elements. It should be the same here (according to the above argument, the characteristics of arising and so on of the great elements are not the same result as the great elements, but can be co-existent causes; although the mind and the related characteristics are not the same result, why not allow them to be co-existent causes?) The reasoning of the examples cited in this way is not equal. Because the mutually interacting result (paraspara-phala) is one result, and many are not its result. It is not that the created forms are included in one result of the mutually interacting results of the great elements. How can it be said that created forms are not the result of the characteristics of arising and so on of the great elements? Therefore, it is wrong to use this as an analogy. Also, as mentioned earlier. What was mentioned earlier? Because the mind does not arise by their power. However, the great elements and the characteristics of arising and so on arise by mutual interaction, so there is no such error. Moreover, it is said: 'Also, in this co-arising and combined aggregate, there are those that can transform but are not transformed, namely the mind-king. There are those that are only transformed, namely form and non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-samskara). There are those that can transform and are also transformed, namely mental factors, because they transform along with the mind, and can transform form and non-associated formations.' Therefore, there are those that are neither, namely excluding the previously mentioned characteristics. According to the above text, the mind-concomitant dharmas explained here have different meanings from the accompanying and transforming meanings mentioned elsewhere. For example, in the Abhidharma, it is said that wisdom (prajna) is the substance, and the five aggregates (panca-skandha) accompany it. Here, the mind-king enters the category of transformation. Here it is said that the mind only transforms for it, but does not accompany it.
轉。即說心王非隨轉也。然此中說據王．臣理心但為轉。對法中說據對法理惠為其轉。說雖不同義無違也。
論。遍攝有為法如其所應。明俱有因體也。一切有為皆有四相。能相所相更互為因。理合遍攝一切有為。此中互為果言。謂同時因果。于中小相望其本法。非互為果。本法與彼作俱有因。此即非互為果而為因也。準此。即是但互為果皆俱有因。有俱有因非互為果立互為果因不遍宗法。此乃因狹于宗。正理彈云。又不應說唯互為果為俱有因。法與隨相非互為果。然為因故。此為因相彼應更辨。由此義故應辨相言。有為法一果可為俱有因 此與婆沙義同。婆沙十六評家云。同一果義是俱有因 今詳。此因若是同時。還有其過。自體既非自體之果如何俱有得一果耶。又大生．小生不同一果。如何得說一果因耶。此即一果之因不遍宗法。因狹于宗。與前無異。若謂異時。此即小相與其本法。同一等流．同一異熟。因何不與本法為因。此即一果之因通其異品。于異品轉其過更重。正理立因不異於前因。何彈斥俱舍自更立耶。又入阿毗達磨云。諸有為法更互為果。或同一果名俱有因 準此二因亦無勝劣。今詳。兩論所立之因皆無有過。如說變礙名之為色。而立此因不遍無表。如說忽食．急行名之為馬。而有非馬急食．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此說心王不是隨之轉變的。然而這裡所說的是根據王（指心王）、臣（指心所）的道理，心識只是被轉變。對法（Abhidharma）中說的是根據對法的道理，智慧（慧）是被轉變的。說法雖然不同，但意義上沒有衝突。 論：普遍包含有為法，如其所應。闡明俱有因（sahabhu-hetu）的本體。一切有為法都有四相（四種特徵：生、住、異、滅）。能相（產生者）和所相（被產生者）相互為因。理應普遍包含一切有為法。這裡說的『互為果』，指的是同時的因果。從小相（小特徵）來看其本法，並非互為果。本法與小相作為俱有因。這即是非互為果而為因。依此推論，就是說僅僅是互為果的，都是俱有因；有俱有因，但並非互為果，那麼『互為果』這個因就不普遍，不符合宗法（普遍性原則）。這是因為因比宗（論題）狹窄。《正理》駁斥說：『也不應該說只有互為果才是俱有因，法與隨相（伴隨的特徵）並非互為果，但卻是因。』因此，這個因相應該進一步辨析。有為法的一個果可以作為俱有因。這與《婆沙》（Vibhasa）的意義相同。《婆沙》十六評家說：『同一果的意義就是俱有因。』現在詳細分析，這個因如果是同時的，仍然存在問題。自體既然不是自體的果，如何俱有而得一果呢？而且大生（主要生起）、小生（次要生起）不是同一個果，如何能說『一果因』呢？這就是說，『一果』的因不普遍，不符合宗法。因比宗狹窄，與前面的情況沒有區別。如果說是異時的，那麼小相與其本法，是同一等流（相似的延續）、同一異熟（成熟的果報），為什麼不與本法作為因呢？這就是說，『一果』的因通於異品（不同的類別），在異品中轉化，其過失更加嚴重。《正理》所立的因與之前的因沒有不同，為什麼要駁斥《俱舍》（Abhidharmakosa），自己又重新設立呢？另外，《入阿毗達磨》（Abhidharmavatara）中說：『諸有為法相互為果，或者同一果，名為俱有因。』依此來看，這兩種因也沒有優劣之分。現在詳細分析，兩論所立的因都沒有過失。例如說『變礙』名為色（rupa），而立此因不普遍，不包含無表色（無表業）。例如說『忽然吃東西』、『急速行走』名為馬，但有不是馬的急速吃東西的情況。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is said that the mind-king (citta-raja) does not transform accordingly. However, what is stated here is based on the principle of the king (mind-king) and ministers (mental factors), where consciousness is merely transformed. In the Abhidharma, it is said that based on the principle of Abhidharma, wisdom (prajna) is what is transformed. Although the statements differ, there is no conflict in meaning. Treatise: Universally encompasses conditioned dharmas (samskrta-dharma) as appropriate, clarifying the nature of the co-existent cause (sahabhu-hetu). All conditioned dharmas have four characteristics (laksana): arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing. The producer (hetu) and the produced (phala) are mutually causes. It is reasonable to universally encompass all conditioned dharmas. The 'mutual effect' mentioned here refers to simultaneous cause and effect. From the perspective of minor characteristics (anu-laksana) looking at their original dharma, they are not mutually effects. The original dharma and the minor characteristics act as co-existent causes. This means that they are not mutually effects but are causes. Based on this inference, it means that only those that are mutually effects are all co-existent causes; there are co-existent causes that are not mutually effects, then the cause of 'mutual effect' is not universal and does not conform to the principle of generality (universality principle). This is because the cause is narrower than the topic (thesis). The Nyaya refutes: 'It should not be said that only mutual effects are co-existent causes, dharma and accompanying characteristics are not mutually effects, but they are causes.' Therefore, this causal characteristic should be further analyzed. One effect of conditioned dharmas can be a co-existent cause. This is the same meaning as the Vibhasa. The sixteen critics of the Vibhasa say: 'The meaning of the same effect is a co-existent cause.' Now, upon detailed analysis, if this cause is simultaneous, there are still problems. Since the self is not the effect of the self, how can they co-exist and obtain one effect? Moreover, major arising (maha-utpada) and minor arising (anu-utpada) are not the same effect, how can one say 'one effect cause'? This means that the cause of 'one effect' is not universal and does not conform to the principle of generality. The cause is narrower than the topic, which is no different from the previous situation. If it is said to be at different times, then the minor characteristics and their original dharma are the same flow (samanantara-pratyaya), the same result (vipaka-phala), why not use the original dharma as the cause? This means that the cause of 'one effect' is common to different categories (visabhaga), and the fault of transforming in different categories is even more serious. The cause established by the Nyaya is no different from the previous cause. Why refute the Abhidharmakosa and establish it again? Furthermore, the Abhidharmavatara says: 'All conditioned dharmas are mutually effects, or the same effect, called co-existent cause.' Based on this, these two causes are neither superior nor inferior. Now, upon detailed analysis, the causes established by both treatises have no faults. For example, saying 'change and obstruction' is called form (rupa), and establishing this cause is not universal, it does not include non-revealing form (non-manifest karma). For example, saying 'suddenly eating' and 'rapidly walking' is called a horse, but there are cases of rapidly eating that are not horses.
急行。亦有是馬緩食．緩行。然此立名不違世現互為果及一果因。例亦如是。順正理師以違婆沙故從一果。入阿毗達磨將不違理遍舉二因。此論略故但舉其一 有人問答云。問若依婆沙十六。及一百五十並云。一果者離系果。正理復云。一果者謂士用．離系。豈不相違。解云婆沙唯說離系果者。於此果中且據決定無濫者說。其士用果名寬不定。或是俱生。或無間等。婆沙亦應說士用果。而不說者恐濫俱生展轉士用果。以自體望自體非一果故。正理所以說士用者。為攝一果中士用果盡。是故別說。各據一義並不相違 今詳。正理說士用果者。以離系果不攝不生士用果盡。非是欲攝余有為法無間．隔越士用果也。等無間緣無間士用。及四大造色同時無間．隔越士用。此等皆非此中一果。非是一果俱有因義。謂彼心．心所法。及四大．生等。雖俱有因非一果故。亦非前聚色引等。春農秋實之士用果。此等雖同一果。非俱有因故。準五事論解心所法名相應中。有一解云。複次同一時分。同一所依。同一行相。同一所緣。同一果。同一等流。同一異熟。是相應義 準此論文。取等無間緣士用果者皆是相應因。是相應者。皆同取等無間緣士用果。不同俱有因。然有無等無間緣士用果得相應。如羅漢後心 今詳。此論所明一果。同其
婆沙。不同正理。以依婆沙而造頌故。若有異端應指陳所以。有人云亦同正理者謬也。
論。法與隨相至非隨相於法。此是互為果。因不遍此法故別舉也。
論。此中應辨何等名為。下三句辨心隨轉法。前言心與心隨轉法亦互為因。未知何者是心隨轉法也。
論曰至心隨轉法。此出心隨轉法體也 言心相應法者。謂一切心所法 二種律儀。是心隨轉色也。言彼法者。彼三例法 言及心之生等相者。是上三例法．及心上本相 如是皆謂心隨轉法。總結上也。正理論云。何因不說彼之隨相。不說所因后自當辨。
論。如何此法名心隨轉。下一句問立隨轉名。
論曰至名心隨轉。略以三義答。后開十義答。略以時等．果等．性三義說名心隨轉。
論。且由時者至及墮一世。開時為四也。謂一生一住。一滅。及墮一世 問何故四相之中。唯說於三不說異相 答此說時同生顯同在未來將入現在。滅顯用在現在入於過去。住顯此法于現取果。即顯未來．現在．過去三世時同。異之一相無顯時能。故此不說。正理論云。豈不但言一生．住．滅即知亦是墮一世中。雖亦即知墮於一世。而猶未了此法與心過去．未來．亦不相離。或為顯示諸不生法 述曰。雖言一生．住．滅即同一世。然未知彼生相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 婆沙（Vibhasa，一種佛教論書）。不同於正理，因為它依賴於婆沙而造頌。如果有不同的觀點，應該指出其原因。有人說它也等同於正理，這是錯誤的。
論：法與隨相，乃至非隨相於法。這是互為因果。因為因不普遍存在於此法中，所以特別舉出。
論：這裡應該辨別什麼叫做。下面三句辨別心隨轉法。前面說心與心隨轉法也互為因果。但還不知道什麼是心隨轉法。
論曰：乃至心隨轉法。這是說明心隨轉法的本體。『心相應法』指的是一切心所法。兩種律儀是心隨轉色。『彼法』指的是前面三種例法。『以及心的生等相』指的是上面三種例法以及心上的本相。像這樣都叫做心隨轉法。這是對上面的總結。正理論說：為什麼不說彼之隨相？因為所因將在後面辨別。
論：如何此法名為心隨轉？下一句是問建立隨轉這個名稱的原因。
論曰：乃至名為心隨轉。簡略地用三種意義回答，後面展開用十種意義回答。簡略地用時間等、果等、性三種意義來說明為什麼叫做心隨轉。
論：且由時間來說，乃至及墮一世。這是把時間分為四種。即一生、一住、一滅，以及墮入一世。問：為什麼在四相之中，只說三種而不說異相？答：這裡說時間相同，生顯示一同在未來將要進入現在。滅顯示作用在現在進入過去。住顯示此法在現在取得果報。這就顯示了未來、現在、過去三世時間相同。異相沒有顯示時間的作用，所以這裡不說。正理論說：難道不是隻要說一生、住、滅就知道也包括墮入一世之中了嗎？雖然也知道包括墮入一世，但仍然不瞭解此法與心在過去、未來也不相分離。或者爲了顯示那些不生之法。述曰：雖然說一生、住、滅就等同於一世，但仍然不知道彼生相。
【English Translation】 English version Vibhasa (Vibhasa, a type of Buddhist treatise). It differs from correct reasoning because it relies on Vibhasa to create verses. If there are different views, the reasons should be pointed out. Some say it is also equivalent to correct reasoning, which is wrong.
Treatise: Dharma and its associated characteristics, up to non-associated characteristics in relation to Dharma. This is a mutual cause and effect. Because the cause is not universally present in this Dharma, it is specifically mentioned.
Treatise: Here, one should discern what is called. The following three sentences discern the mind-accompanying dharmas. Earlier it was said that the mind and mind-accompanying dharmas are also mutual causes and effects. But it is not yet known what mind-accompanying dharmas are.
Treatise says: Up to mind-accompanying dharmas. This explains the essence of mind-accompanying dharmas. 'Mind-associated dharmas' refers to all mental factors. The two kinds of precepts are mind-accompanying form. 'Those dharmas' refers to the previous three example dharmas. 'And the characteristics of arising, etc., of the mind' refers to the above three example dharmas and the inherent characteristics on the mind. Like this, all are called mind-accompanying dharmas. This is a summary of the above. The Correct Reasoning Treatise says: Why not speak of their associated characteristics? Because the cause will be discerned later.
Treatise: How is this Dharma called mind-accompanying? The next sentence asks for the reason for establishing the name 'accompanying'.
Treatise says: Up to being called mind-accompanying. Briefly answers with three meanings, and later expands with ten meanings. Briefly explains why it is called mind-accompanying using the three meanings of time, etc., result, etc., and nature.
Treatise: Furthermore, regarding time, up to and including falling into one lifetime. This divides time into four types. Namely, one birth, one abiding, one cessation, and falling into one lifetime. Question: Why, among the four characteristics, are only three mentioned and not the different characteristic? Answer: Here, it is said that time is the same; arising shows that it is together in the future, about to enter the present. Cessation shows that the function is in the present, entering the past. Abiding shows that this Dharma obtains its result in the present. This shows that the times of the future, present, and past are the same. The different characteristic has no function of showing time, so it is not mentioned here. The Correct Reasoning Treatise says: Isn't it that just saying one birth, abiding, and cessation, one knows that it also includes falling into one lifetime? Although it is also known to include falling into one lifetime, it is still not understood that this Dharma and the mind are not separated in the past and future either. Or it is to show those dharmas that do not arise. Commentary says: Although saying one birth, abiding, and cessation is the same as one lifetime, it is still not known about that arising characteristic.
之前。未來滅相之後。過去此法與心亦不相離。或諸不生不與心同一生．住．滅。恐疑彼法非俱有因。故言墮一世也 正理論云。若爾但應言墮一世。不爾應不令知定墮一世 述曰。若直言墮一世。即不令知定墮一世。以同未來后時若生即不同世。雖先同世后非同世。若不言同生．滅等。即不令知定墮一世。更言一生．滅等。知定一世必無先後。論。由果等者至及一等流。此開果為三也。正理論云。豈不等流．異熟亦是一果攝。如何一果外說異熟．等流耶。實爾。此中言一果者。但攝士用及離系果。豈不此言通故亦攝等流．異熟。雖言亦攝。非此所明。然士用果總有四種。俱生．無間．隔越．不生。此顯與因非俱有果。為遮唯執與因俱生和合聚中有士用果。此和合聚互為果故。自非自體士用果故。即顯非彼俱起和合。士用果中有一果義。是故別舉等流．異熟 準此論文。遮同時果。非彼欲取無間．隔越士用果也。
論。應知此中至其義不同。明時．果義異也 時是顯俱。果是顯共。
論。由善等者至無記性故。此明性等分為三也。通前為十。
論。由此十因名心隨轉。此總結也。
論。此中心王至為心俱有因。指法明因多小。文中有二。一述正義。二敘異說。此文初也 心王極多。謂初定心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：之前，未來諸法滅相之後，過去此法與心也不相分離。或者說，諸法的不生不與心的同一生、住、滅同時發生。恐怕有人懷疑這些法不是俱有因，所以說墮于同一世。正理論說：『如果這樣，只應該說墮於一世，否則就不應該讓人知道一定是墮於一世。』 述曰：如果只說墮於一世，就不能讓人知道一定是墮於一世。因為如同未來后時，如果生起就不同於同一世。即使先前是同一世，之後也不是同一世。如果不說同生、滅等，就不能讓人知道一定是墮于同一世。再說一生、滅等，就知道一定是同一世，必定沒有先後。論：由果等，以及一等流。這是將果分為三種。正理論說：難道等流果、異熟果不是也屬於一果所攝嗎？為什麼在一果之外又說異熟果、等流果呢？實際上是這樣的。這裡說的一果，只是攝士用果和離系果。難道這句話也通用於攝等流果、異熟果嗎？雖然說也攝，但不是這裡要說明的。然而士用果總共有四種：俱生、無間、隔越、不生。這顯示了與因不是俱有的果。爲了遮止只執著于與因俱生和合的聚中有士用果。因為這個和合聚互相為果，所以不是自體士用果。這就顯示了不是那些俱起和合。士用果中有一種果的意義，所以特別舉出等流果、異熟果。』 按照這段論文，遮止同時果，不是想要取無間、隔越士用果。 論：應該知道這裡，它的意義不同。說明時、果的意義不同。時是顯示俱時，果是顯示共同。 論：由善等，到無記性。這是說明性等分為三種。連同前面的，總共有十種。 論：由此十因，名為心隨轉。這是總結。 論：此中心王，作為心的俱有因。指明法作為因的多寡。文中有二：一是陳述正義，二是敘述異說。這段文字是第一部分。心王極多，指的是初禪定心。
【English Translation】 English version: Previously, after the phase of extinction of future dharmas, this past dharma is also inseparable from the mind. Or, the non-arising of dharmas does not occur simultaneously with the mind's same arising, abiding, and ceasing. Fearing that some might doubt that these dharmas are not coexistent causes (俱有因), it is said that they fall into the same lifetime. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: 'If so, it should only be said that they fall into one lifetime; otherwise, it should not be made known that they definitely fall into one lifetime.' It is stated: If it is only said that they fall into one lifetime, it cannot be made known that they definitely fall into one lifetime. Because, like the future later time, if arising, it is different from the same lifetime. Even if they were previously in the same lifetime, they are not in the same lifetime later. If it is not said that they are co-arising, co-ceasing, etc., it cannot be made known that they definitely fall into one lifetime. Saying again co-arising, co-ceasing, etc., it is known that they are definitely in the same lifetime, and there is definitely no before or after. Treatise: From the results (果) etc., and one is the outflowing result (等流). This divides the results into three types. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Are not the outflowing result and the dissimilar maturation result (異熟) also included in one result? Why are the dissimilar maturation result and the outflowing result mentioned outside of one result?' In reality, it is like this. The one result mentioned here only includes the result of effort (士用果) and the result of separation (離系果). Does this statement also generally include the outflowing result and the dissimilar maturation result? Although it is said that it also includes them, it is not what is being explained here. However, there are four types of results of effort in total: co-arising, immediate, separated, and non-arising. This shows that the result is not coexistent with the cause. In order to prevent clinging only to the result of effort in the aggregate that arises and combines with the cause. Because this combined aggregate is a result for each other, it is not a result of effort of the self-nature. This shows that it is not those co-arising combinations. There is a meaning of one result in the result of effort, so the outflowing result and the dissimilar maturation result are specifically mentioned.' According to this treatise, simultaneous results are prevented, and it is not intended to take immediate or separated results of effort. Treatise: It should be known here that its meaning is different. It explains that the meanings of time and result are different. Time shows simultaneity, and result shows commonality. Treatise: From good etc., to unspecified nature. This explains that nature etc. are divided into three types. Together with the previous ones, there are ten types in total. Treatise: Because of these ten causes, it is called the mind following transformation. This is a summary. Treatise: This mind-king (心王), as the coexistent cause of the mind. It indicates the quantity of dharmas as causes. There are two parts in the text: one is to state the correct meaning, and the other is to narrate different views. This passage is the first part. The mind-king is extremely numerous, referring to the mind of the first dhyāna (禪定).
有十大地。及善地欣．厭隨一。及尋與伺。定共七支。總三十一法。並大．小相總二百七十九法。心已與一百五十八法為因 極少謂二定已上無覆無記心唯有十一法。並大．小相有九十九法。心王與五十八法為俱有因 有人云。心王望九十八法中。極少猶與五十八法為俱有因者謬也。若爾九十八法中極多與幾為因。顯宗第九云。本相與法其力等故 同其本法為俱有因。隨於一有功能故。唯與所相為俱有因。正理論云。何緣心隨相非心俱有因。不由彼力心得生故。非心與彼互為果故。聚中多分非彼果故。即由如是所說多因。隨相不名心隨轉法 上文指釋即此文是 若爾云何心能與彼為俱有因。由隨心王生等諸位彼得轉故。
論。有說至並心本相。第二敘異說也。此師授義與前不同。唯取鄰近以為因也。
論。此說非善。此總非也。
論。所以者何。問非所以。
論。違品類足至即所除法。出違文也。若不廣述略意難知。前後引證句義別故。依品類足論第十三千問品中。將有身見對四諦為問云。幾有身見為因非有身見因等者。二非有身見為因。非與有身見為因。二應分別(前二滅。道后二苦。集)謂苦聖諦或有身見為因非有身見因。或有身見為因亦有身見因。或非有身見為因非有身見因。此中唯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有十大地法（指遍行大地法），以及善地法中的欣（喜悅）、厭（厭惡）隨一，以及尋（粗略的觀察）與伺（精細的觀察）。定（專注）共有七支（七種構成要素）。總共有三十一法。加上大相（共相，普遍的特徵）和小相（別相，個別的特徵），總共有二百七十九法。心（心王，意識）已經與一百五十八法作為因。極少的情況是指二禪以上的無覆無記心，只有十一法。加上大相和小相，有九十九法。心王與五十八法作為俱有因（同時存在的因）。 有人說，心王對於九十八法中，極少的情況仍然與五十八法作為俱有因，這是錯誤的。如果這樣，九十八法中極多與多少法作為因呢？《顯宗論》第九卷說，本相（根本的特徵）與法（事物）的力量相等，所以與其本法作為俱有因。因為隨於一法有功能，所以只與所相（所關聯的特徵）作為俱有因。《正理論》說，為什麼心隨相（心隨從於相），而不是心俱有因呢？因為不是由它的力量心得生起，也不是心與它互為果，聚集中大部分不是它的果。即由於這樣所說的多因，隨相不稱為心隨轉法（心所法）。 上文所指的解釋就是這段文字。如果這樣，心如何能與它作為俱有因呢？由於隨心王生起等諸位，它才能轉變。
論：有人說到並心本相（心識的根本特徵）。第二段敘述不同的說法。這位老師的授義與前面不同，只取鄰近的法作為因。
論：這種說法不正確。這是總體的否定。
論：為什麼呢？問為什麼。
論：違背《品類足論》直到即所除法（被排除的法）。這是指出違背的文句。如果不詳細敘述，略微的意義難以理解。前後引用的句子意義不同。依據《品類足論》第十三千問品中，將有身見（認為五蘊為我）對四諦（苦、集、滅、道）提問說，多少有身見作為因，不是有身見的因等。二者不是有身見的因，不是與有身見作為因。二者應該分別（前二者是滅、道，后二者是苦、集）。意思是說，苦聖諦或者有身見作為因，不是有身見的因；或者有身見作為因，也是有身見的因；或者不是有身見的因，也不是有身見的因。這裡只有……
【English Translation】 English version: There are ten great ground dharmas (referring to the pervasive great ground dharmas), as well as one of the good ground dharmas: either '欣' (joy) or '厭' (aversion), along with '尋' (coarse examination) and '伺' (subtle examination). '定' (concentration) has seven branches (seven constituent elements). In total, there are thirty-one dharmas. Adding the great characteristics (general characteristics, universal features) and small characteristics (specific characteristics, individual features), there are a total of two hundred and seventy-nine dharmas. The '心' (mind, consciousness) has already taken one hundred and fifty-eight dharmas as its cause. The minimal case refers to the non-afflicted and neutral mind above the second Dhyana, which only has eleven dharmas. Adding the great and small characteristics, there are ninety-nine dharmas. The mind-king (consciousness) and fifty-eight dharmas act as co-existent causes (simultaneous causes). Someone says that, regarding the ninety-eight dharmas, the mind-king still takes fifty-eight dharmas as co-existent causes even in the minimal case, which is incorrect. If so, how many dharmas among the ninety-eight dharmas act as causes in the maximal case? The ninth volume of the Abhidharmasamuccaya says that the power of the fundamental characteristic and the dharma (thing) are equal, so it acts as a co-existent cause with its fundamental dharma. Because it has a function in relation to one dharma, it only acts as a co-existent cause with the associated characteristic. The Nyāyānusāra says, why does the mind follow the characteristic (the mind follows the appearance), but is not a co-existent cause of the mind? Because the mind's arising is not due to its power, nor are the mind and it mutually the result, and most of the aggregation is not its result. That is, due to the many causes mentioned, following the characteristic is not called a mind-concomitant dharma (mental factor). The explanation referred to in the above text is this passage. If so, how can the mind act as a co-existent cause with it? Because it can transform along with the arising and other positions of the mind-king.
Treatise: Someone speaks of the fundamental characteristics of the mind. The second paragraph narrates different views. This teacher's teaching is different from the previous one, only taking the nearby dharmas as causes.
Treatise: This statement is incorrect. This is a general negation.
Treatise: Why is that? Asking why.
Treatise: Contradicting the Prakaraṇapāda up to the excluded dharmas. This points out the contradictory sentences. If it is not described in detail, the slight meaning is difficult to understand. The meanings of the sentences quoted before and after are different. According to the thirteenth Sahasra-praśna chapter of the Prakaraṇapāda, when questioning the view of self (regarding the five aggregates as self) in relation to the Four Noble Truths (suffering, accumulation, cessation, path), it says, how many views of self are causes, and are not causes of the view of self, etc. Two are not causes of the view of self, and are not causes with the view of self. The two should be distinguished (the former two are cessation and path, the latter two are suffering and accumulation). It means that the truth of suffering is either a cause of the view of self, and not a cause of the view of self; or a cause of the view of self, and also a cause of the view of self; or not a cause of the view of self, and also not a cause of the view of self. Here only...
有三句別也。無四句者。以身見是遍行因故。能生一切染污法染污法中無能生身見不從身見生。不染污法中復無能生身見者。此中據因緣作論故。有身見為因非有身見因者。牒第一句偏句。此法多故除狹取寬。有四節文。除俱句也。謂除過去．現在見苦所斷隨眠。及彼相應．俱有等。等言謂得。此從身見有同類．遍行因生。作同類因生身見也。身見相應．俱有法加相應．俱有因也。又除過去現在見集所斷遍行隨眠。及相應．俱有苦諦。是第二節也。此以從身見遍行因生。及作遍行因生此身見故除也。得非遍行因故不言等也。又除未來有身見相應苦諦。此第三節除也。此舉身見除相應法不除身見。此以相應法作相應．俱有因生身見故除也。又除未來有身見．及彼相應法。生．老．住．無常。諸餘染污苦諦。第四節除法也。此舉身見．及相應法。取生．老．住．無常。以俱有因生身見故除也。諸餘染污苦諦。即是從身見生。不與身見為因苦諦也。有身見為因亦有身見因者。謂前所除法。非有身見為因非有身見因者。謂不染污苦諦。集聖諦亦爾(已上論文)。所以苦．集句數同者。苦．集諦同以一切有漏為體。因義名集。果義名苦。如識與意體無寬狹。然迷兩諦煩惱有別。謂若具十。集唯有七。有師異釋皆非宗意 如彼論言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有三種情況是例外的。沒有四種情況的原因是，因為有身見（Sakkāya-diṭṭhi，認為五蘊和合的身體為我）是遍行因（sabbalokasadharana，能普遍導致煩惱的因素），所以它能產生一切染污法（sāsava dhamma，與煩惱相關的法）。在染污法中，沒有能產生有身見的，因為它們不是從有身見產生的。在不染污法（anāsava dhamma，與煩惱無關的法）中，也沒有能產生有身見的。這裡是根據因緣關係進行討論，所以說有『有身見為因』的情況，也有『非有身見為因』的情況。這是呼應第一句的偏句，因為這種法很多，所以去除狹隘的理解，採取寬泛的理解。有四個小節的文句，是爲了去除『俱句』（同時是因又是果的情況）。也就是去除過去、現在見苦所斷的隨眠（anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式），以及與它們相應的法、俱有法等等。『等等』指的是『得』（patilābha，獲得）。這是從有身見產生同類因、遍行因，也就是作為同類因產生有身見。有身見相應的法、俱有法，加上相應的因、俱有因。又去除過去現在見集所斷的遍行隨眠，以及相應的法、俱有苦諦（dukkha sacca，苦的真理），這是第二節。這是因為它們是從有身見的遍行因產生的，以及作為遍行因產生有身見，所以被去除。『得』不是遍行因，所以沒有說『等等』。又去除未來有身見相應的苦諦，這是第三節去除的情況。這裡列舉有身見，去除相應的法，但不去除有身見本身。這是因為相應的法作為相應的因、俱有因產生有身見，所以被去除。又去除未來有身見以及與它相應的法，生（jāti，出生）、老（jarā，衰老）、住（ṭhiti，持續）、無常（anicca，變化），以及其餘的染污苦諦，這是第四節去除的法。這裡列舉有身見以及相應的法，取生、老、住、無常，因為它們作為俱有因產生有身見，所以被去除。其餘的染污苦諦，就是從有身見產生，但不作為有身見的因的苦諦。『有有身見為因，也有有身見因』的情況，指的是前面所去除的法。『非有身見為因，非有身見因』的情況，指的是不染污的苦諦。集諦（samudaya sacca，集起之真理）和聖諦（ariya sacca，高尚的真理）也是如此（以上是論文內容）。苦諦和集諦的句數相同的原因是，苦諦和集諦都以一切有漏法（sāsava dhamma，與煩惱相關的法）為本體。因的意義稱為集，果的意義稱為苦。就像識（viññāṇa，意識）和意（mano，心）的本體沒有寬窄之分一樣，但迷惑兩種真理的煩惱是有區別的。如果說具有十種煩惱，那麼集諦只有七種。有法師有不同的解釋，但都不是宗派的本意，就像那部論典所說的那樣。
【English Translation】 English version: There are three exceptions. There are not four because Sakkāya-diṭṭhi (belief in a self in the five aggregates) is a pervasive cause (sabbalokasadharana, a factor that universally leads to defilements), thus it can generate all defiled dharmas (sāsava dhamma, phenomena associated with defilements). Among defiled dharmas, none can generate Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, as they do not arise from it. Among undefiled dharmas (anāsava dhamma, phenomena not associated with defilements), there are also none that can generate Sakkāya-diṭṭhi. Here, the discussion is based on causal relationships, so it is said that there are cases where 'Sakkāya-diṭṭhi is a cause' and cases where 'it is not a cause'. This echoes the partial statement of the first sentence, because this dharma is abundant, so the narrow understanding is removed, and a broad understanding is adopted. There are four sections of text to remove the 'co-occurring statement' (a situation where something is both a cause and an effect simultaneously). That is, removing the past and present latent tendencies (anusaya, underlying forms of defilements) severed by seeing suffering, and their associated dharmas, co-existent dharmas, and so on. 'And so on' refers to 'attainment' (patilābha). This is from Sakkāya-diṭṭhi generating similar causes, pervasive causes, that is, generating Sakkāya-diṭṭhi as a similar cause. Dharmas and co-existent dharmas associated with Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, plus associated causes, co-existent causes. Also removing the past and present pervasive latent tendencies severed by seeing the origin, and their associated dharmas, co-existent suffering truths (dukkha sacca, the truth of suffering), this is the second section. This is because they arise from the pervasive cause of Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, and because they generate Sakkāya-diṭṭhi as a pervasive cause, so they are removed. 'Attainment' is not a pervasive cause, so it is not mentioned in 'and so on'. Also removing the suffering truths associated with future Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, this is the third section of removal. Here, Sakkāya-diṭṭhi is listed, removing the associated dharmas, but not removing Sakkāya-diṭṭhi itself. This is because the associated dharmas generate Sakkāya-diṭṭhi as associated causes, co-existent causes, so they are removed. Also removing future Sakkāya-diṭṭhi and its associated dharmas, birth (jāti, arising), aging (jarā, decay), duration (ṭhiti, persistence), impermanence (anicca, change), and other defiled suffering truths, this is the fourth section of removed dharmas. Here, Sakkāya-diṭṭhi and its associated dharmas are listed, taking birth, aging, duration, impermanence, because they generate Sakkāya-diṭṭhi as co-existent causes, so they are removed. The remaining defiled suffering truths are those that arise from Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, but are not the suffering truths that are the cause of Sakkāya-diṭṭhi. The case of 'Sakkāya-diṭṭhi being a cause, and also having a cause of Sakkāya-diṭṭhi' refers to the dharmas removed earlier. The case of 'not having Sakkāya-diṭṭhi as a cause, and not having a cause of Sakkāya-diṭṭhi' refers to undefiled suffering truths. The origin truth (samudaya sacca, the truth of the origin) and the noble truth (ariya sacca, the noble truth) are also the same (the above is the content of the treatise). The reason why the number of sentences for the suffering truth and the origin truth are the same is that both the suffering truth and the origin truth have all defiled dharmas (sāsava dhamma, phenomena associated with defilements) as their substance. The meaning of cause is called origin, and the meaning of effect is called suffering. Just as the substance of consciousness (viññāṇa, awareness) and mind (mano, intellect) are not different in scope, the defilements that delude the two truths are different. If it is said to have ten defilements, then the origin truth only has seven. Some teachers have different interpretations, but they are not the intention of the sect, as that treatise says.
或有苦諦以有身見為因非與有身見為因者。以牒品類足初句也 言。除未來有身見及彼相應法生．老．住．無常諸餘染污苦諦者。越前三節牒第四節文也。既身見及彼相應法上四相。以是俱句故除。故知。心相應法上四相亦能生心。以未來世身見相應法上四相。唯有俱有因生身見。更無餘因故 言。或有苦諦至即所除法者。牒品類足第二句也。證身見相應法上四相為俱句也。以此證知十四非也。
論。有餘師不誦及彼相應法。述余師誦異也。若除及彼相應法五字。即是唯除有身見上四相。相應法上四相非能生有身見故不除也。由此唯十四法與心為因。
論。迦濕彌國至知說有餘。婆沙正余師誦文也 或應準義知說有餘者。本相與法力既是等。法既為因。故知生等亦為因也。正理論中復有一師。一切同聚皆互相望為俱有因 非是正義。
論。諸由俱有至彼必俱有。成俱有因必俱有也。
論。或有俱有至因故成因。此雖有必俱起因而非俱有因也。有八對法。
論。謂諸隨相各于本法。第一對也。
論。此諸隨相各互相對。第二對也。
論。隨心轉法隨相於心。第三對也。
論。此諸隨相展轉相對。第四對也。
論。一切俱生至展轉相對。第五對也。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 或者，存在以有身見（Satkayadrishti，認為五蘊和合的身體為真實自我的邪見）為因的苦諦（Dukkha Satya，痛苦的真理），但並非所有苦諦都以有身見為因。這是對《品類足論》第一句的解釋。說到『除了未來世的有身見以及與它相應的生、老、住、無常等其餘染污的苦諦』，這是跳過前三節，解釋第四節的文句。既然有身見以及與它相應的法上的四相（生、老、住、滅），因為這是『俱句』（同時存在），所以要排除。因此可知，與心相應的法上的四相也能生心。因為未來世有身見相應的法上的四相，只有俱有因能生有身見，沒有其他原因。說到『或者，存在苦諦……直到所排除的法』，這是對《品類足論》第二句的解釋。證明有身見相應的法上的四相是『俱句』。以此證明十四法（可能指某種分類）的說法是不對的。
論：有其他老師不誦讀『以及與它相應的法』。這是敘述其他老師誦讀的差異。如果去除『以及與它相應的法』這五個字，就是隻排除有身見上的四相，因為相應的法上的四相不能生有身見，所以不排除。由此可知，只有十四法與心為因。
論：迦濕彌羅國的……知道有遺漏的說法。這是《婆沙論》糾正其他老師誦讀的文句。或者應該根據意義知道有遺漏的說法。既然本相與法力是相等的，法既然是因，所以可知生等（生、老、住、滅）也是因。正理論中還有一位老師認為，一切同類的聚合都互相作為俱有因。這不是正確的觀點。
論：諸由俱有……到彼必俱有。這是成立俱有因必定同時存在。
論：或者有俱有……因為這個原因而成為因。這雖然有必定同時生起的因，但不是俱有因。有八對法。
論：所謂諸隨相各自對於本法。這是第一對。
論：這些隨相各自互相對應。這是第二對。
論：隨心轉的法，隨相對於心。這是第三對。
論：這些隨相輾轉互相對應。這是第四對。
論：一切同時生起的……輾轉互相對應。這是第五對。
【English Translation】 English version: Or, there are suffering truths (Dukkha Satya) that have the view of self (Satkayadrishti, the false view that the five aggregates constituting the body are a real self) as their cause, but not all suffering truths have the view of self as their cause. This is an explanation of the first sentence of the 'Treatise on Categories' (Prakaranapada Shastra). When it says, 'Except for the future view of self and the remaining defiled suffering truths such as arising, aging, abiding, impermanence, etc., that are corresponding to it,' this skips the first three sections and explains the fourth section of the text. Since the view of self and the four characteristics (arising, aging, abiding, ceasing) on the corresponding dharmas, because this is a 'simultaneous phrase' (existing at the same time), it should be excluded. Therefore, it can be known that the four characteristics on the dharmas corresponding to the mind can also generate the mind. Because the four characteristics on the dharmas corresponding to the future view of self, only the co-existent cause can generate the view of self, there is no other cause. When it says, 'Or, there are suffering truths... until the excluded dharmas,' this is an explanation of the second sentence of the 'Treatise on Categories'. It proves that the four characteristics on the dharmas corresponding to the view of self are a 'simultaneous phrase'. With this, it proves that the statement of fourteen dharmas (possibly referring to some kind of classification) is incorrect.
Treatise: Some other teachers do not recite 'and the dharmas corresponding to it'. This is a narration of the difference in recitation by other teachers. If the five words 'and the dharmas corresponding to it' are removed, it only excludes the four characteristics on the view of self, because the four characteristics on the corresponding dharmas cannot generate the view of self, so it is not excluded. From this, it can be known that only fourteen dharmas are the cause for the mind.
Treatise: The country of Kashmir... knows that there are omissions in the statement. This is the 'Great Commentary' (Mahavibhasa) correcting the sentences recited by other teachers. Or, it should be known that there are omissions in the statement according to the meaning. Since the original nature and the power of the dharma are equal, and since the dharma is the cause, it can be known that arising, etc. (arising, aging, abiding, ceasing) are also causes. In the 'Treatise on Correct Principles' (Nyayanusara Shastra), there is also a teacher who believes that all aggregates of the same kind mutually act as co-existent causes. This is not the correct view.
Treatise: All that arises co-existently... must co-exist. This establishes that co-existent causes must exist simultaneously.
Treatise: Or, there are co-existent... because of this reason, it becomes a cause. Although there is a cause that necessarily arises simultaneously, it is not a co-existent cause. There are eight pairs of dharmas.
Treatise: The so-called characteristics each towards their original dharma. This is the first pair.
Treatise: These characteristics each correspond to each other. This is the second pair.
Treatise: Dharmas that follow the mind, characteristics towards the mind. This is the third pair.
Treatise: These characteristics correspond to each other in turn. This is the fourth pair.
Treatise: All that arises simultaneously... correspond to each other in turn. This is the fifth pair.
少分俱生展轉相對。第六對也。謂散無表。
論。一切俱生至展轉相對。第七對也。
論。一切俱生至展轉相對。第八對也。
論。如是等諸法至因故成因。上因是立名因。下因是俱有因。
論。非一果異熟及一等流故。此是通前七對。十隨轉中有一生．住．滅。及墮一世．善性等同。無共三義故不成因。第五．第六．第七三對不同。一果．異熟．等流義亦可知。前四對法言無一果．異熟．及等流義極難解。詳其此意即合是共力同取是一果義。果雖是同力不同取非是一果。故正理云。聚中多分非彼果故 此釋隨相不名心隨轉法。即是此中非一果也。如兩人共證擇滅無為。果雖是同非是一果。要相應共為能證因方名一果 若作此釋非一果等。即遍八對若不爾者。因何前四對。士用．異熟．等流果。同闕其何因非俱有因。又論總前八對。以非一果．異熟．及一等流。故知通前四也 有人云。橫望而言。非能同取一果 未知豎望能同取不。
論。得與所得至或俱生故。重明得也。又加非定俱行或前或后或俱生故。又準論云俱生得雖與法俱有不由俱有因故成因。云或前或后或俱生故。故知即俱生得可或前或后。準此亦合前得可后。后得可前。前後之得亦可法俱。
論。如是一切理且可然
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：少分俱生展轉相對，這是第六對關係。指的是散無表（sàn wú biǎo）。
論：一切俱生到展轉相對，這是第七對關係。
論：一切俱生到展轉相對，這是第八對關係。
論：像這些法，因為因的緣故而成為因。上面的因是立名因（lì míng yīn），下面的因是俱有因（jù yǒu yīn）。
論：因為不是單一的結果、異熟（yì shú）以及單一的等流（děng liú）的緣故。這適用於前面的七對關係。十隨轉（shí suí zhuǎn）中有一生（yī shēng）、住（zhù）、滅（miè），以及墮一世（duò yī shì）、善性（shàn xìng）等相同。沒有共同的三種意義，所以不能成為因。第五、第六、第七這三對關係不同。單一結果、異熟、等流的意義也可以理解。前面四對法說沒有單一結果、異熟以及等流的意義，極難理解。詳細分析其意思，就是共同出力一同取得一個結果的意義。結果雖然是共同出力，但不同時取得，就不是一個結果。所以《正理》（zhèng lǐ）中說：『聚集中大部分不是那個結果的緣故。』這解釋了隨相（suí xiàng）不稱為心隨轉法（xīn suí zhuǎn fǎ），就是這裡所說的非單一結果。例如兩個人共同證得擇滅無為（zé miè wú wéi），結果雖然相同，但不是一個結果。必須相應共同作為能證的因，才稱為一個結果。如果這樣解釋非單一結果等，就遍及八對關係。如果不是這樣，那麼前面四對關係，士用（shì yòng）、異熟、等流果，都缺少了什麼因，而不能成為俱有因呢？又論總括前面八對關係，因為不是單一結果、異熟以及單一等流，所以知道適用於前面的四對關係。有人說，橫向來看，不能共同取得一個結果，不知道縱向來看能不能共同取得。
論：得（dé）與所得（suǒ dé）到或者俱生（jù shēng）的緣故。重新說明得。又加上非一定同時發生，或者在前，或者在後，或者俱生的緣故。又根據論的說法，俱生得雖然與法同時存在，但不是由於俱有因的緣故而成為因。說或者在前，或者在後，或者俱生的緣故，所以知道俱生得可以或者在前，或者在後。根據這個推論，也應該前面得到的可以在後面，後面得到的可以在前面，前後得到的也可以與法同時。
論：像這樣一切道理姑且可以這樣認為。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Minor co-existent mutually related', this is the sixth pair. It refers to 'scattered non-manifestation' (sàn wú biǎo).
Treatise: 'All co-existent' to 'mutually related', this is the seventh pair.
Treatise: 'All co-existent' to 'mutually related', this is the eighth pair.
Treatise: Like these dharmas, they become causes because of causes. The upper cause is the 'name-establishing cause' (lì míng yīn), and the lower cause is the 'co-existent cause' (jù yǒu yīn).
Treatise: Because it is not a single result, 'different maturation' (yì shú), and a single 'equal flow' (děng liú). This applies to the previous seven pairs. Among the ten 'following transformations' (shí suí zhuǎn), there are 'one birth' (yī shēng), 'dwelling' (zhù), 'cessation' (miè), and falling into 'one lifetime' (duò yī shì), 'wholesome nature' (shàn xìng), etc., which are the same. Because there are no three common meanings, they cannot become causes. The fifth, sixth, and seventh pairs are different. The meanings of 'single result', 'different maturation', and 'equal flow' can also be understood. The previous four pairs of dharmas say that there is no meaning of 'single result', 'different maturation', and 'equal flow', which is extremely difficult to understand. Analyzing its meaning in detail, it means jointly exerting effort to obtain one result together. Although the result is a joint effort, if it is not obtained at the same time, it is not a single result. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra (zhèng lǐ) says: 'Because most of the collection is not that result.' This explains that 'following characteristics' (suí xiàng) is not called 'mind-following transformation dharma' (xīn suí zhuǎn fǎ), which is what is meant here by 'non-single result'. For example, two people jointly realize 'cessation through discrimination' (zé miè wú wéi), although the result is the same, it is not a single result. It must be correspondingly and jointly acting as the cause that can realize it to be called a single result. If 'non-single result' etc. is explained in this way, it covers all eight pairs. If not, then what cause is lacking in the previous four pairs—'effort-use' (shì yòng), 'different maturation', and 'equal flow' results—that prevents them from becoming 'co-existent causes'? Furthermore, the treatise summarizes the previous eight pairs, because it is not a single result, 'different maturation', and a single 'equal flow', so it is known that it applies to the previous four pairs. Someone says that horizontally speaking, they cannot jointly obtain one result. It is not known whether they can jointly obtain it vertically.
Treatise: 'Obtaining' (dé) and 'what is obtained' (suǒ dé) to 'or co-existent' (jù shēng) because of. Re-explaining 'obtaining'. Furthermore, adding 'not necessarily simultaneous', 'either before', 'either after', or 'co-existent' because of. Furthermore, according to the treatise, although 'co-existent obtaining' exists simultaneously with the dharma, it does not become a cause because of the 'co-existent cause'. Saying 'either before', 'either after', or 'co-existent' because of, it is known that 'co-existent obtaining' can be either before or after. According to this inference, it should also be that what was obtained before can be after, and what was obtained after can be before, and what was obtained before and after can also be simultaneous with the dharma.
Treatise: Like this, all reasoning can tentatively be considered in this way.
。經部縱有部立十隨轉故成俱有因 理且可然。不全許故。后擬破故。故言且也。
論。而諸世間至有因果義。經部先縱今即奪也。世間種與芽等為因世共極成。因果相生事中。未見如有部計立俱有因同時因果。故今應問薩婆多部。云何俱起諸法聚中有因果義。法若未生。因未取果。因若取果。果法已生。俱時生法何成因果。
論。豈不現見至亦為因果。有部答也。豈不現見。燈焰與明為因．芽與影為因。雖是同時有因果義。因何得說不見如是同時因果。
論。此應詳辨至用互為因。經部對也 于中有二。一破現燈．明因不定。二破影用芽為因。焰之與明。俱由前念與生因合。有於後念焰．明俱起。非是同時之焰。與明為。理如前說。二破芽為影因者。余東邊物障于光明而西邊有影現既障光處．別生影處殊。如何說芽與影為因。
論。理不應然至理成因果。有部釋也。我今所說俱有因果。隨因有無果有無故芽．影亦爾。如善因明者說因果相。若此有彼定隨有若此無彼定隨無者。此定為因彼定為果。俱有法中隨一有即一切有。隨一無即一切無。以此之理故成因果。
論。俱起因果至互為因果。經部縱奪也。縱其同時因果。而奪互為因果也。
論。即由前說此亦無違。有部答也。即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 經部（Sautrantika，佛教部派之一）即使承認說一切有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）所立的十種隨轉，因此成立俱有因（sahabhu-hetu，同時存在的因），這個道理也只是勉強可以接受。因為經部並沒有完全認可，之後還打算進行駁斥，所以才說是『且』（姑且，暫且）。
論：至於世間普遍承認的因果關係。經部先是縱容有部的觀點，現在立即進行反駁。世間上種子和芽等，作為因果關係，是世間普遍認可的。但在因果相生的事物中，沒有見到像有部那樣建立俱有因，即同時的因果關係。所以現在應該問薩婆多部（Sarvastivada，即說一切有部）：在同時生起的諸法聚合中，如何成立因果關係？如果法還沒有產生，因就還沒有產生結果；如果因已經產生結果，果法就已經產生。同時產生的法，如何成立因果關係？
論：難道沒有看到燈焰和光明，以及芽和影，也可以是因果關係嗎？有部回答說：難道沒有看到燈焰和光明，芽和影，雖然是同時存在，但也有因果關係。為什麼說沒有見到這樣的同時因果關係呢？
論：對此應該詳細辨析，以說明它們並非互相為因果。經部對此進行反駁，其中包含兩點：一是破斥燈焰和光明的因果關係不確定；二是破斥影子以芽為因。燈焰和光明，都是由於前一念與生因結合，才會在后一念同時產生燈焰和光明，並非是同時的燈焰和光明互為因果。道理如前所述。二是破斥芽是影子的原因。因為東邊的物體遮擋了光明，而西邊才會有影子的顯現，遮擋光線的地方和產生影子的地方是不同的。如何說芽和影子互為因果呢？
論：道理不應該是這樣的，隨因的有無，果也隨之有無，這樣才能成立因果關係。有部解釋說：我現在所說的俱有因果，是隨著因的有無，果也隨之有無，芽和影也是如此。正如善於辨明因果關係的人所說，如果這個存在，那個必定隨之存在；如果這個不存在，那個必定隨之不存在，那麼這個就可以確定為因，那個就可以確定為果。在俱有法中，隨一個存在，一切都存在；隨一個不存在，一切都不存在。根據這個道理，所以成立因果關係。
論：即使承認同時的因果關係，也不能承認互相為因果。經部先是縱容有部的觀點，然後反駁他們互相為因果的說法。
論：這也可以用前面所說的道理來解釋，並沒有什麼矛盾。有部回答說。
【English Translation】 English version: Even if the Sautrantikas (a Buddhist school) were to concede the ten co-arising factors established by the Sarvastivadins (another Buddhist school), thus establishing the 'sahabhu-hetu' (co-existent cause), the reasoning is still barely acceptable, because the Sautrantikas do not fully endorse it and intend to refute it later, hence the use of '且' (for the time being, tentatively).
Treatise: As for the worldly acknowledged cause-and-effect relationship, the Sautrantikas first concede to the Sarvastivadins' view, but now immediately refute it. In the world, seeds and sprouts, etc., as cause-and-effect relationships, are universally acknowledged. However, in the phenomena of cause and effect arising, no one has seen the Sarvastivadins establish a 'sahabhu-hetu', that is, simultaneous cause and effect. Therefore, one should now ask the Sarvastivadins: How can a cause-and-effect relationship be established in the aggregation of phenomena arising simultaneously? If a phenomenon has not yet arisen, the cause has not yet produced a result; if the cause has already produced a result, the resultant phenomenon has already arisen. How can simultaneously arising phenomena establish a cause-and-effect relationship?
Treatise: Don't we see that the flame and light of a lamp, as well as a sprout and its shadow, can also be cause-and-effect relationships? The Sarvastivadins respond: Don't we see that the flame and light of a lamp, and a sprout and its shadow, although existing simultaneously, also have a cause-and-effect relationship? Why do you say that such simultaneous cause-and-effect relationships have not been seen?
Treatise: This should be analyzed in detail to show that they are not mutually cause and effect. The Sautrantikas refute this, containing two points: First, refuting the uncertainty of the cause-and-effect relationship between the flame and light of a lamp; second, refuting that the shadow takes the sprout as its cause. The flame and light of a lamp both arise from the combination of the previous moment and the cause of arising, so that the flame and light arise simultaneously in the subsequent moment, not that the simultaneous flame and light are mutually cause and effect. The reasoning is as previously stated. Second, refuting that the sprout is the cause of the shadow. Because the object on the east side blocks the light, and only then does the shadow appear on the west side, the place where the light is blocked and the place where the shadow arises are different. How can one say that the sprout and the shadow are mutually cause and effect?
Treatise: The reasoning should not be like this; the presence or absence of the effect follows the presence or absence of the cause, and only then can a cause-and-effect relationship be established. The Sarvastivadins explain: The co-existent cause and effect that I am talking about is that the presence or absence of the effect follows the presence or absence of the cause, and the sprout and shadow are also like this. Just as those who are good at distinguishing cause-and-effect relationships say, if this exists, that will definitely exist along with it; if this does not exist, that will definitely not exist along with it, then this can be determined as the cause, and that can be determined as the effect. In co-existent phenomena, if one exists, everything exists; if one does not exist, everything does not exist. According to this reasoning, a cause-and-effect relationship is established.
Treatise: Even if simultaneous cause and effect are conceded, mutual cause and effect cannot be conceded. The Sautrantikas first concede to the Sarvastivadins' view, and then refute their claim of mutual cause and effect.
Treatise: This can also be explained using the reasoning stated earlier, and there is no contradiction. The Sarvastivadins respond.
由前說一有一切有等。非直唯證同時因果。此亦證有互為因果。
論。若爾如前至應互為因。經部難也。汝云一有一切有證互為因果者。如前所舉不由俱有因故成因中。云造色互不相離。造色．大種。隨相．與本法。皆不相離應互為因。
論。若謂三杖至連持令住。縱有部救破也。汝若說俱有因猶如三杖相依互皆有力為俱有因。有對造色等俱起相望無力故不成因者 此應思惟。如是三杖。為由俱起相依力住。為由前生因緣合力令彼三杖俱起住耶。又現見。彼三杖之中。亦有離三杖外。別物繩．鉤等連。地持令住。西方事火外道等。將三杖行。住即上安火灌繩上安鉤。用繩系三杖交立於地 經部計。三杖住由前念繩．鉤．地。令后念三杖住也。
論。此亦有餘至因義得成。論主許有部俱有因義也。繩．鉤等如同類因等。三杖相依如俱有因也。
論。如是已說俱有因相。下第三明同類因也。
論曰至為同類因。此總釋也。謂相似法與相似法為同類因 準此論文。若是與相似法為因名同類因。即同類之因名同類因。若以相似法為因名同類因。即同類是因名同類因。義通兩釋不及前解。
論。謂善五蘊至應知亦爾。此別釋也。此中染言通其不善．有覆無記。以此二法互為因故 言無記者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 前文說『一有一切有』等，並非僅僅證明同時的因果關係，這也證明了互為因果的關係。
論：如果這樣，就像前面所說，應該互為因。經部（Sautrāntika）對此提出疑問：你所說的一有一切有，證明互為因果，就像前面所舉的，不是由俱有因（sahabhū-hetu）的緣故而成為因的情況中，說『造色（rūpa）互相不相離，造色、大種（mahābhūta）、隨相（anuvyañjana）、與本法（prakṛti），都不相離，應該互為因』。
論：如果說三根木杖互相依靠才能站立。這是有部（Sarvāstivāda）的辯護和反駁。如果你說俱有因就像三根木杖互相依靠，各自都有力量，作為俱有因。有對造色等同時生起，互相觀望沒有力量，所以不能成為因。這應該仔細思考。像這三根木杖，是由同時生起互相依靠的力量而站立，還是由前生的因緣聚合的力量使這三根木杖同時站立呢？而且現在看到，這三根木杖之中，也有離開三根木杖之外，別的繩子、鉤子等連線，土地支撐使之站立。西方事火外道等，拿著三根木杖行走，站立時就在上面安放火，灌上繩子，上面安放鉤子，用繩子繫住三根木杖交叉立在地上。經部認為，三根木杖的站立是由前一念的繩子、鉤子、土地，使后一念的三根木杖站立。
論：這也有其餘的因素，因的意義才能成立。論主（Vasubandhu）認可有部的俱有因的意義。繩子、鉤子等如同類因等，三根木杖互相依靠如同俱有因。
論：像這樣已經說了俱有因的相狀，下面第三個說明同類因（sabhāga-hetu）。
論曰：相似法與相似法為同類因。這是總的解釋。就是說相似的法與相似的法為同類因。按照這個論文，如果是與相似的法為因，名為同類因，就是同類的因名為同類因。如果以相似的法為因，名為同類因，就是同類是因名為同類因。意義上可以有兩種解釋，不如前面的解釋。
論：所謂善的五蘊（pañca-skandha）等，應該知道也是這樣。這是分別解釋。這裡說的『染』，包括不善、有覆無記（sāvaraṇa-avyākṛta）。因為這兩種法互相為因的緣故。說的『無記』是...
【English Translation】 English version: It has been said before that 'one has all', etc., which does not only prove simultaneous cause and effect, but also proves mutual cause and effect.
Treatise: If so, as mentioned before, they should be mutual causes. The Sautrāntika school raises a question: You say that 'one has all' proves mutual cause and effect, just like the example given earlier where it is not due to co-existent causes (sahabhū-hetu) that something becomes a cause. It is said that 'form (rūpa) does not exist in isolation; form, the great elements (mahābhūta), secondary characteristics (anuvyañjana), and the primary substance (prakṛti) are inseparable and should be mutual causes'.
Treatise: If you say that three staffs rely on each other to stand. This is the defense and refutation of the Sarvāstivāda school. If you say that co-existent causes are like three staffs relying on each other, each having the power to be a co-existent cause, but tangible forms arising together have no power to influence each other, so they cannot be causes, then this should be carefully considered. Do these three staffs stand because of the power of arising together and relying on each other, or because of the combined power of previous causes and conditions that make the three staffs stand together? Moreover, it is now seen that among these three staffs, there are also ropes, hooks, etc., separate from the three staffs, connecting and the ground supporting them to stand. Western fire-worshipping heretics, etc., carry three staffs, and when they stand them up, they place fire on top, pour ropes on them, and place hooks on top, using ropes to tie the three staffs together, standing them crossed on the ground. The Sautrāntika school believes that the standing of the three staffs is due to the ropes, hooks, and ground of the previous moment causing the three staffs to stand in the subsequent moment.
Treatise: There are also other factors involved for the meaning of cause to be established. The treatise master (Vasubandhu) acknowledges the meaning of co-existent cause of the Sarvāstivāda school. Ropes, hooks, etc., are like homogeneous causes, and the three staffs relying on each other are like co-existent causes.
Treatise: Having thus explained the characteristics of co-existent causes, the third point below explains homogeneous cause (sabhāga-hetu).
Treatise says: Similar dharmas are homogeneous causes for similar dharmas. This is a general explanation. That is to say, similar dharmas are homogeneous causes for similar dharmas. According to this treatise, if something is a cause for a similar dharma, it is called a homogeneous cause, meaning that a cause of the same kind is called a homogeneous cause. If a similar dharma is taken as a cause, it is called a homogeneous cause, meaning that the same kind is a cause is called a homogeneous cause. There are two possible interpretations in meaning, which are not as good as the previous explanation.
Treatise: The wholesome five aggregates (pañca-skandha), etc., should be understood in the same way. This is a separate explanation. The term 'defiled' here includes unwholesome and obscured-indeterminate (sāvaraṇa-avyākṛta). Because these two dharmas are causes for each other. The term 'indeterminate' refers to...
。謂唯無覆無記法也有覆無記非唯與無記為因故。亦非唯用無記為因故。善．染之因更無異論。無記五蘊異說不同。
論。有餘師說至四非色因。此是第二師說 前師說。同善五蘊等 第二師云。五是色果。四非色因 此師意。以色性劣故與勝為因。四蘊勝色故非色因。
論。有餘師說至色非四因。第三釋也 此師意。以四蘊力勝能與五蘊為因。色蘊勢力劣故不為四因。
論。有餘師說至皆不為因。第四釋也 此師意。以四蘊．色蘊雖同無記。力劣異類不互為因 四說不同既無評文何為正說 答曰應言前說為善。同善．染故。善．染性中。既色．四蘊展轉為因。因何無記業色。不與四蘊展轉為因。違二性例 破第二師云。善心發善色。善色亦善四因。無記發無記。因何四蘊非色因 破第三師云。同類因法劣為勝因。因何色劣非四蘊因 破第四師云。善五蘊等色．心有異。展轉為因。無記色．心因何相望總不成因 有人誤解婆沙。妄斷後說為正云。諸論皆有四說。並無評家 今解且以後師為正 故婆沙一百三十一云。大種與意處為幾緣。答所緣．增上。意處與大種為幾緣。答因．增上。因者一因。謂異熟因。增上者。如前說 解云。無記四大。既望意處。展轉相望。不言有同類因。以此準知。無記色
蘊。望無記四蘊。展轉相望。非同類因 今詳。此釋未善其宗。言無記五蘊展轉為因者。豈說一切色蘊皆展轉為因耶 此說展轉為因者。謂無記業色與四為因。非異熟生．及所長養。婆沙既云四大。此非業色。如何成證 又論先敘正義與善．染同。後述異師三說不定。因何將異師說破其本宗。
論。又一身中至與余為因。釋同身異位也。同一身中前與后因。非后前因。
論。若對余身至應廣思擇。明異身十位為因也。胎中有五位。出胎有五位。總成十位 異身者謂過．未身 同類者。謂根．境同類 一一與十位為因者。謂后位生法與前位不生為因。婆沙十八評家云。應作是說。余身十位一一皆與余身十位。及此身十位為同類因。此身十位一一皆與此身十位。及余身十位為同類因。后位已生法。與前位不生法。亦為同類因故 此論與婆沙不同者。此論此身唯據生說。婆沙此身兼不生說。正理論云。若就位說。有餘師言。羯剌藍位能與十位為同類因。頞部曇等九位。一一皆除前位與余為因。后位望前但有緣義。若爾最初羯剌藍色應無有因。最後老色應無有果。故理不然 此師與此論前說義同。就一身中據生者說。何得輒難前位無因后位無果 復有師言。前生十位一一皆與後生十位各自類色為同類因。由此方隅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：蘊（skandha，指構成個體的五種要素）。希望無記的四蘊（受、想、行、識四種精神要素）。輾轉相望，不是同類因。現在詳細解釋，這個解釋沒有很好地闡述其宗旨。說無記的五蘊輾轉為因，難道是說一切色蘊（物質要素）都輾轉為因嗎？這裡說的輾轉為因，是指無記的業生色與四蘊互為因。不是異熟生（由業力產生的果報），也不是所長養的。既然《婆沙論》說是四大（地、水、火、風），這就不是業生色。如何能作為證據？而且論中先敘述正義與善、染相同，后敘述異師的三種不定說法。為何將異師的說法來反駁其本宗？
論：又一身中，乃至與余為因。解釋為同一身中不同位置。同一身中，前與后為因，不是后與前為因。
論：如果針對余身，乃至應該廣泛思考選擇。說明不同身的十個階段互為因。胎中有五個階段，出胎有五個階段，總共十個階段。異身指的是過去、未來的身體。同類指的是根（感覺器官）、境（感覺對像）同類。一一與十個階段互為因，指的是后位生法與前位不生法互為因。《婆沙論》十八評家說，應該這樣說：余身的十個階段，每一個都與余身的十個階段，以及此身的十個階段互為同類因。此身的十個階段，每一個都與此身的十個階段，以及余身的十個階段互為同類因。后位已生法，與前位不生法，也互為同類因。這個論與《婆沙論》不同之處在於，這個論的此身只根據已生來說，而《婆沙論》的此身兼顧已生和未生。正理論說，如果就階段來說，有其他老師說，羯剌藍位（kalala，受精卵最初的凝結狀態）能與十個階段互為同類因。頞部曇（arbuda，受精卵稍稍凝結的狀態）等九個階段，每一個都除去前一個階段，與其餘階段互為因。后一個階段對於前一個階段只有緣義。如果這樣，最初的羯剌藍色應該沒有因，最後的衰老色應該沒有果。所以這個道理不對。這位老師與這個論的前面所說的意義相同，就一身中根據已生者來說。怎麼能隨便責難前位沒有因，后位沒有果？又有老師說，前生的十個階段，每一個都與後生的十個階段各自的同類色互為同類因。由此方隅。
【English Translation】 English version: Skandha (the five aggregates that constitute an individual). Hoping for the four indeterminate skandhas (the four mental aggregates of feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness). Interacting with each other, not being causes of the same kind. Now, in detail, this explanation does not well elucidate its purpose. Saying that the indeterminate five skandhas are causes for each other, does it mean that all form skandhas (material elements) are causes for each other? What is said here about being causes for each other refers to the indeterminate karma-born form being the cause for the four skandhas. It is not the result of maturation (vipaka, the result produced by karmic force), nor is it what is nurtured. Since the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says it is the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), this is not karma-born form. How can it be used as evidence? Moreover, the treatise first narrates the correct meaning as being the same as good and defiled, and then narrates the three uncertain statements of other teachers. Why use the statements of other teachers to refute its own doctrine?
Treatise: Moreover, within one body, even to being a cause for the rest. It is explained as different positions within the same body. Within the same body, the former is the cause for the latter, not the latter for the former.
Treatise: If it is directed towards other bodies, then one should extensively contemplate and choose. It explains that the ten stages of different bodies are causes for each other. There are five stages in the womb, and five stages after birth, totaling ten stages. Different bodies refer to past and future bodies. The same kind refers to the same kind of roots (sense organs) and objects (sense objects). Each being a cause for the ten stages refers to the later-stage dharma that is produced being the cause for the earlier-stage dharma that is not produced. The eighteen commentators of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra say that it should be said this way: Each of the ten stages of other bodies is a cause of the same kind for the ten stages of other bodies, as well as the ten stages of this body. Each of the ten stages of this body is a cause of the same kind for the ten stages of this body, as well as the ten stages of other bodies. The dharma that has already been produced in the later stage is also a cause of the same kind for the dharma that has not been produced in the earlier stage. The difference between this treatise and the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra is that this treatise only speaks of this body in terms of what has been produced, while the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra considers both what has been produced and what has not been produced. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that if speaking in terms of stages, some teachers say that the kalala stage (the initial state of coagulation of a fertilized egg) can be a cause of the same kind for the ten stages. The nine stages such as arbuda (a slightly coagulated state of a fertilized egg), each excluding the previous stage, are causes for the remaining stages. The later stage only has the meaning of condition for the previous stage. If so, the initial kalala color should have no cause, and the final senescent color should have no result. Therefore, this reasoning is incorrect. This teacher's meaning is the same as what was said earlier in this treatise, speaking in terms of what has been produced within one body. How can one casually criticize that the previous stage has no cause and the later stage has no result? There are also teachers who say that each of the ten stages of previous lives is a cause of the same kind for the color of the same kind of each of the ten stages of later lives. From this direction.
一切外分各于自類如應當說 同此論后說既言自類。異類定不為因。
論。若不許色至因增上等。敘異師說違本論也。正理論云。譬喻者說諸色決定無同類因。但由眾緣和合資助而得生長。現從井下掘出泥中有芽生故。非於地下曾有種生。芽從何起。故知色法無同類因。彼執違害本論所說。故本論言。過去大種未來大種因增上等。(更無餘因。唯有同類因也)彼言。我說於此無違。由增上緣有近有遠。如次說為因．增上故。無方逃難矯設此言。雖似順文而實違理。又非許色有同類因。于理于文有所違害。然從井下掘出泥中有芽者。彼先有種闕和合緣未生芽等。今緣和合芽等乃生。若彼泥中無同類因而得生者。應生一切或全不生。無定因故 婆沙一百三十一云。問同趣．同地處所差別。展轉相望為有因不。有說無因。此不應理。應有大種是剎那故謂五凈居所有大種。無始生死曾未起故 準此論文。生處雖異為同類因。然左眼不與右眼為因。身根不與余根為因。言前位與后位為因者。據同類說。非是羯剌藍時身根與后眼等為因。
論。為諸相似至為同類因。自下五部九地分別。先問后答。此即問也。
論。不爾云何至自部自地。重問答也。先總答后別釋。
論。部謂五部至無色八。開五部九地也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『一切外分各于自類如應當說』，意思是說，一切外在的法，都各自屬於自己的類別，應該這樣說。如果同意這個觀點，那麼接下來說的『既言自類』，就意味著異類必定不能作為原因。
論：如果不允許色法（rupa，物質現象）有同類因、增上緣等，那麼敘述其他論師的觀點就違背了本論的宗旨。《正理論》中說，譬喻者認為諸色法決定沒有同類因，只是由眾多的因緣和合資助才能生長。例如，現在從井下掘出的泥土中有芽生長，並非地下曾經有種子存在。那麼芽是從哪裡產生的呢？因此可知色法沒有同類因。他們的這種觀點違背了本論所說，所以本論說，過去的大種（mahabhuta，四大元素）和未來的大種是因和增上緣等等（沒有其他的因，只有同類因）。他們說：『我說於此沒有違背，因為增上緣有近有遠，依次說為因和增上緣。』這是爲了逃避責難而矯飾的說法，雖然表面上順應了文句，但實際上違背了道理。而且，不允許色法有同類因，無論在道理上還是在文句上都有所違背。至於從井下掘出泥土中有芽的情況，是因為先前有種子，只是缺少和合的因緣，所以沒有生芽等；現在因緣和合，芽等才得以產生。如果泥土中沒有同類因也能生芽，那麼應該生出一切事物，或者什麼都不生，因為沒有確定的原因。』《婆沙論》第一百三十一卷說：『問：同趣（sadrsa-gati，相同的趣向）、同地（sadrsa-bhumi，相同的處所）、處所差別，展轉相望是否有因？』有的人說沒有因，這種說法不應理，應該有大種是剎那生滅的緣故，例如五凈居天（Suddhavasa，色界天中的最高層）所有的大種，無始生死以來從未生起過。』根據這段論文，生處雖然不同，但可以是同類因。然而，左眼不與右眼作為因，身根不與其他根作為因。所說前位與后位作為因，是根據同類來說的，不是羯剌藍位（kalala，受精卵最初的凝結狀態）的身根與後來的眼等作為因。
論：『為諸相似至為同類因』，從下面開始，將五部（panca-nikaya，五部）和九地（nava-bhumi，九地）分別進行說明，先提問后回答，這就是提問。
論：『不爾云何至自部自地』，這是重複提問和回答。先總的回答，然後分別解釋。
論：『部謂五部至無色八』，這是展開五部和九地。
【English Translation】 English version: 'All external divisions are according to their own categories, as it should be said.' This means that all external dharmas (phenomena) each belong to their own category, and that's how it should be stated. If this view is agreed upon, then the following statement, 'since it speaks of its own category,' implies that dissimilar categories definitely cannot be causes.
Treatise: If one does not allow that rupa (matter, form) has causes of the same kind, conditioning causes, etc., then narrating the views of other teachers contradicts the purpose of this treatise. The Tattvasiddhi-sastra says, 'Those who use analogies say that all forms definitely have no causes of the same kind, but only grow through the combination and assistance of numerous conditions. For example, sprouts are now growing in the mud dug from under a well, not because seeds were ever present underground. So where do the sprouts come from? Therefore, it is known that form has no causes of the same kind.' Their view contradicts what is stated in this treatise. Therefore, this treatise says that past mahabhuta (great elements) and future mahabhuta are causes, conditioning causes, etc. (There are no other causes, only causes of the same kind.) They say, 'I say there is no contradiction here, because conditioning causes are near and far, and are successively spoken of as causes and conditioning causes.' This is a contrived statement to escape blame, which seems to follow the text but actually contradicts reason. Moreover, not allowing form to have causes of the same kind is contradictory in both reason and text. As for the sprouts growing in the mud dug from under a well, it is because there were seeds before, but they lacked the conditions for combination, so sprouts, etc., did not grow; now that the conditions are combined, sprouts, etc., are produced. If sprouts could grow in the mud without causes of the same kind, then everything should grow, or nothing should grow, because there would be no definite cause.' The Mahavibhasa, volume 131, says, 'Question: Are there causes between differences in similar destinies (sadrsa-gati), similar places (sadrsa-bhumi), and locations?' Some say there are no causes. This is unreasonable. There should be mahabhuta because they are momentary, such as the mahabhuta of the Suddhavasa (Pure Abodes, the highest heavens in the Form Realm), which have never arisen since the beginning of samsara (cyclic existence).' According to this text, although the places of birth are different, they can be causes of the same kind. However, the left eye does not cause the right eye, and the body faculty does not cause other faculties. When it is said that the previous state causes the subsequent state, it is according to the same kind, not that the body faculty in the kalala (the initial coagulation state of a fertilized egg) stage causes the later eyes, etc.
Treatise: 'For all similarities, up to causes of the same kind,' from below, the five nikayas (groups) and nine bhumis (grounds) will be explained separately, first asking and then answering, which is the question.
Treatise: 'If not, how, up to its own group and its own ground,' this is repeating the question and answer. First, answer generally, and then explain separately.
Treatise: 'Nikaya refers to the five nikayas, up to the eight of the Formless Realm,' this is expanding on the five nikayas and nine bhumis.
。
論。此中見苦至非余。明五部各各自部為因也。
論。于中一一至皆無因義。此明五部一一別別九地各別為因非余。準此論文。但言自地．自部不簡趣．處。故知。趣．處不同。所起煩惱皆互為因。同系縛故。故婆沙十七評家云。同地異處。所起煩惱展轉相縛。隨類展轉為同類因。然除異部。五部隨眠。繫縛分齊有差別故。
論。又此非一切至為同類因。明前與后因也 前生與後生者。謂過去前生與過去後生．及現在．未來生法。過去後生與現在．未來生法。現在與未來生法。皆名前生與後生也。諸不生法名不生也。前生之法與後生不生法為因。
論。云何知然。問也。
論。本論說故。答也。
論。如發智論說至皆應廣說。引本論文證也。雖未來世至生相法。亦是前生。此中據已生說。雖至生相未越未來。
論。然即彼論作如是問言。自此已下明未來世無同類因有六難也。一無時非因難。二染污苦諦難。三因果決定難。四本無今有難。五非心因法難。六染污眼識難 前四此論有文。后二婆沙具說。
論。然即彼論至無有過。第一難云。若未來世無同類因。至現在世方為因者。此即有時作因。有時不作因。云何本論作是問言。若法與彼法為因。或時此法與彼非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：在此處，只有見苦才能達到，其他則不能。這表明五部（五種煩惱類別）各自以其自身部類為因。 論：在其中，每一個都意味著沒有因。這表明五部中的每一個，在九地（三界九地）中各自不同，都以自身為因，而不是其他。根據這篇論文，只說了自地（自身所處的禪定層次）、自部（自身所屬的煩惱類別），沒有區分趣（所去的道，如地獄道、餓鬼道等）、處（所處的地點）。因此可知，趣和處不同，所產生的煩惱都互為因，因為它們同被繫縛。所以《婆沙論》第十七卷的評家說：『同一地但不同處，所產生的煩惱互相束縛，隨其類別展轉成為同類因。』然而，異部除外，五部隨眠（五種潛在的煩惱）的繫縛範圍有差別。 論：此外，這並非一切都作為同類因。這表明前生與後生的因果關係。前生與後生指的是：過去的前生與過去的後生，以及現在、未來的生法。過去的後生與現在、未來的生法。現在與未來的生法。都稱為前生與後生。所有不生之法稱為不生。前生之法與後生的不生之法互為因。 論：如何得知是這樣的呢？這是提問。 論：因為本論是這樣說的。這是回答。 論：如《發智論》所說，都應該廣泛地解釋。這是引用本論的文字來證明。雖然未來世的生相法，也是前生，但這裡是根據已生的來說。雖然直到生相還沒有超出未來。 論：然而，就在那部論中，提出了這樣的問題。從這裡開始，闡明未來世沒有同類因的六個困難。一是無時非因難（有時不是因的困難），二是染污苦諦難（染污的苦諦的困難），三是因果決定難（因果決定的困難），四是本無今有難（本來沒有現在有的困難），五是非心因法難（不是心為因的法的困難），六是染污眼識難（染污的眼識的困難）。前四個困難在這篇論文中有提到，后兩個困難在《婆沙論》中有詳細說明。 論：然而，就在那部論中說，沒有過失。第一個困難是：如果未來世沒有同類因，直到現在世才成為因，這就是有時作為因，有時不作為因。為什麼本論會這樣提問：如果一個法與另一個法互為因，或者有時這個法與那個法不是因呢？
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: Here, only seeing suffering leads to attainment, not other things. This clarifies that each of the five categories (of afflictions) takes its own category as the cause. Treatise: Within this, each one means there is no cause. This clarifies that each of the five categories, separately in each of the nine grounds (of the three realms), takes itself as the cause, not others. According to this treatise, it only speaks of 'self-ground' (one's own level of meditative absorption), 'self-category' (one's own category of affliction), without distinguishing between 'destiny' (the path one takes, such as the hell realm, hungry ghost realm, etc.) and 'place' (the location one is in). Therefore, it can be known that different destinies and places, the afflictions that arise are mutually causes, because they are bound together. Therefore, the commentator of Vibhasa, volume seventeen, says: 'In the same ground but different places, the afflictions that arise bind each other, and transform according to their category into causes of the same kind.' However, except for different categories, the binding scope of the five latent afflictions (five types of underlying afflictions) has differences. Treatise: Furthermore, this is not everything that serves as a cause of the same kind. This clarifies the causal relationship between the prior and subsequent lives. 'Prior life' and 'subsequent life' refer to: the past prior life and the past subsequent life, as well as the present and future phenomena of life. The past subsequent life and the present and future phenomena of life. The present and future phenomena of life. All are called prior life and subsequent life. All non-arising phenomena are called non-arising. The phenomena of the prior life and the non-arising phenomena of the subsequent life are mutual causes. Treatise: How is it known to be so? This is a question. Treatise: Because the original treatise says so. This is an answer. Treatise: As the Jnanaprasthana (Treatise on the Establishment of Knowledge) says, it should all be explained extensively. This is quoting the text of the original treatise to prove it. Although the phenomena of the future world are also prior lives, here it is discussed according to what has already arisen. Although it has not yet surpassed the future until the phase of arising. Treatise: However, in that very treatise, such a question was raised. From here onwards, it clarifies the six difficulties of the future world having no cause of the same kind. First, the difficulty of 'no time, no cause' (sometimes not being a cause), second, the difficulty of 'defiled truth of suffering' (defiled truth of suffering), third, the difficulty of 'fixed cause and effect' (fixed cause and effect), fourth, the difficulty of 'originally non-existent, now existent' (originally non-existent, now existent), fifth, the difficulty of 'not mind as the cause of phenomena' (not mind as the cause of phenomena), sixth, the difficulty of 'defiled eye consciousness' (defiled eye consciousness). The first four difficulties are mentioned in this treatise, and the latter two difficulties are explained in detail in the Vibhasa. Treatise: However, in that very treatise, it says, 'there is no fault'. The first difficulty is: if the future world has no cause of the same kind, and only becomes a cause until the present world, then this is sometimes acting as a cause, and sometimes not acting as a cause. Why would the original treatise ask such a question: if one phenomenon is a cause for another phenomenon, or sometimes this phenomenon is not a cause for that phenomenon?
因耶。彼本論自答言。無時非因。故知未來有同類因。此中因者。四緣中因緣也。依四緣為問故。婆沙有七說不同。一云。彼依俱有因作論。以俱有因通有為法。親能辨果通三世故。二云。彼依相應．俱有二因作論。以此二因俱遍三性。親能辨果通三世故。三云。彼依相應．俱有．異熟三因作論。以此三因親能辨果通三世故。四云。彼依相應．俱有．異熟．能作四因作論。以此四因通三世故。五云。彼依五因作論除能作因。遍一切法皆不遮故。六云。此中有說除遍行因。體用狹故。七云。應說彼依六因作論。因名所表通六因故 解云此說為正 因名所表通六因者。本論問答既問因緣。因名所表通六因故。能作因中四大。造色五因是因緣故 問既通於六因 答亦兼其六因。謂已作因無時不作因故。如正理釋云。能為因后無時非因 故準下正理云是余師非是評家之義 此論云。此依俱有．相應．異熟三因作論。與婆沙第三說同 正理論云。如本論說。若法與彼法為因。無時此法非彼法因。豈不過．現與彼為因未來非因。便違此說。無違此過。此依俱有．相應．異熟通三世因密意說故。有餘師釋。雖此通依六因作論。而無有失。未來既無同類．遍行。如何可說無時非因。未來雖無。而此意說。能為因后無時非因。又此未來亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：什麼是『因耶』（Hetu, 原因）？ 答：該《本論》（指《發智論》）自己回答說：『沒有哪個時候不是因。』由此可知，未來也有同類的『因』。 這裡所說的『因』，是指四緣（Catuḥpratyaya, 四種條件）中的『因緣』（Hetupratyaya, 原因條件）。因為是依據四緣來提問，所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa, 《大毗婆沙論》）有七種不同的說法。 第一種說法認為，《本論》是依據『俱有因』（Sahabhūhetu, 同時存在的原因）來立論的。因為『俱有因』普遍存在於有為法（Saṃskṛta, 有條件的事物）中，並且能夠直接辨別果（Phala, 結果），貫通三世（過去、現在、未來）。 第二種說法認為，《本論》是依據『相應因』（Samprayuktakahetu, 伴隨原因）和『俱有因』兩種『因』來立論的。因為這兩種『因』都普遍存在於三種自性（善、惡、無記）中，並且能夠直接辨別果，貫通三世。 第三種說法認為，《本論》是依據『相應因』、『俱有因』和『異熟因』（Vipākahetu, 成熟原因）三種『因』來立論的。因為這三種『因』能夠直接辨別果，貫通三世。 第四種說法認為，《本論》是依據『相應因』、『俱有因』、『異熟因』和『能作因』（Kāraṇahetu, 作用原因）四種『因』來立論的。因為這四種『因』貫通三世。 第五種說法認為，《本論》是依據五種『因』來立論的，排除了『能作因』。因為『能作因』遍及一切法，沒有不包含的。 第六種說法認為，這裡有人說排除了『遍行因』（Sarvatragahetu, 普遍原因），因為它的體和作用比較狹窄。 第七種說法認為，應該說《本論》是依據六『因』來立論的。因為『因』這個名稱所代表的含義涵蓋了六『因』。 解釋說：這種說法是正確的。『因』這個名稱所代表的含義涵蓋了六『因』。因為《本論》的問答既是詢問『因緣』，而『因』這個名稱所代表的含義又涵蓋了六『因』。在『能作因』中，四大（四大元素）和造色（所造的物質）的五『因』都是『因緣』。 問：既然『因』普遍涵蓋了六『因』，那麼答覆也應該兼顧這六『因』。也就是說，已經產生的『因』沒有哪個時候不是『因』。 正如《正理釋》（Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, 《成實論》的註釋）所解釋的那樣：『能夠成為因之後，沒有哪個時候不是因。』因此，按照下面的《正理釋》所說，這是其他論師的觀點，而不是評家的意義。 此論（指《俱舍論》）說：『這是依據『俱有因』、『相應因』和『異熟因』三種『因』來立論的。』這與《婆沙論》的第三種說法相同。 《正理論》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, 《順正理論》）說：『正如《本論》所說，如果一個法與另一個法互為『因』，那麼沒有哪個時候這個法不是那個法的『因』。』難道不是過去、現在互為『因』，而未來不是『因』，就違背了這種說法嗎？ 並沒有違背這種說法。這是依據『俱有因』、『相應因』和『異熟因』貫通三世的密意來說的。 有其他論師解釋說：即使這裡普遍依據六『因』來立論，也沒有什麼過失。未來既然沒有同類『因』和『遍行因』，怎麼能說沒有哪個時候不是『因』呢？未來雖然沒有，但這裡的意思是說，能夠成為『因』之後，沒有哪個時候不是『因』。而且，這個未來也……
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is 『Hetu』 (cause)? Answer: The 『Original Treatise』 (referring to the Jñānaprasthāna, Treatise on the Foundation of Knowledge) itself answers: 『There is no time when it is not a cause.』 From this, it is known that there are similar causes in the future. The 『cause』 mentioned here refers to the 『Hetupratyaya』 (causal condition) among the four conditions (Catuḥpratyaya). Because the question is based on the four conditions, the Vibhasa (Mahāvibhāṣa, Great Commentary) has seven different explanations. The first explanation is that the 『Original Treatise』 is based on the 『Sahabhūhetu』 (co-existent cause). Because the 『Sahabhūhetu』 is universally present in conditioned phenomena (Saṃskṛta), and it can directly discern the result (Phala), penetrating the three times (past, present, and future). The second explanation is that the 『Original Treatise』 is based on the two causes of 『Samprayuktakahetu』 (associated cause) and 『Sahabhūhetu』. Because these two causes are universally present in the three natures (good, evil, and neutral), and they can directly discern the result, penetrating the three times. The third explanation is that the 『Original Treatise』 is based on the three causes of 『Samprayuktakahetu』, 『Sahabhūhetu』, and 『Vipākahetu』 (resultant cause). Because these three causes can directly discern the result, penetrating the three times. The fourth explanation is that the 『Original Treatise』 is based on the four causes of 『Samprayuktakahetu』, 『Sahabhūhetu』, 『Vipākahetu』, and 『Kāraṇahetu』 (efficient cause). Because these four causes penetrate the three times. The fifth explanation is that the 『Original Treatise』 is based on five causes, excluding the 『Kāraṇahetu』. Because the 『Kāraṇahetu』 pervades all dharmas, there is nothing it does not include. The sixth explanation is that some say here that the 『Sarvatragahetu』 (pervasive cause) is excluded because its substance and function are relatively narrow. The seventh explanation is that it should be said that the 『Original Treatise』 is based on six causes. Because the meaning represented by the name 『cause』 encompasses the six causes. The explanation says: This explanation is correct. The meaning represented by the name 『cause』 encompasses the six causes. Because the question and answer in the 『Original Treatise』 inquire about 『Hetupratyaya』, and the meaning represented by the name 『cause』 encompasses the six causes. Among the 『Kāraṇahetu』, the four great elements (Mahābhūta) and the five causes of derived matter (Upādāyarūpa) are all 『Hetupratyaya』. Question: Since 『cause』 universally encompasses the six causes, then the answer should also consider these six causes. That is to say, there is no time when a cause that has already arisen is not a cause. Just as the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra (Commentary on the Satyasiddhi-śāstra) explains: 『After being able to become a cause, there is no time when it is not a cause.』 Therefore, according to what the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra says below, this is the view of other teachers, not the meaning of the commentator. This treatise (referring to the Abhidharmakośa) says: 『This is based on the three causes of 『Sahabhūhetu』, 『Samprayuktakahetu』, and 『Vipākahetu』.』 This is the same as the third explanation in the Vibhasa. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise Following the Path of Reasoning) says: 『Just as the 『Original Treatise』 says, if one dharma is a cause for another dharma, then there is no time when this dharma is not a cause for that dharma.』 Isn't it the case that the past and present are causes for each other, but the future is not a cause, which contradicts this statement? There is no contradiction to this statement. This is said based on the hidden meaning of 『Sahabhūhetu』, 『Samprayuktakahetu』, and 『Vipākahetu』 penetrating the three times. Other teachers explain that even if this is universally based on six causes, there is no fault. Since there are no similar causes and pervasive causes in the future, how can it be said that there is no time when it is not a cause? Although there are none in the future, the meaning here is that after being able to become a cause, there is no time when it is not a cause. Moreover, this future also...
定應有。謂有為法。于正生時定能為因殄諸障故。依此密說無時非因。然經主言彼非善釋。以未來法正生位前。非同類因後方成故。如是過難前已釋通。謂非未來有前後故。就三世說無時非因。意顯更無第四時故。若爾。等無間緣應同此說。然本論不許故。本論言。若時此法未至已生非等無間。無斯過失。所以者何。等無間緣據開避力。非正生位有開避能。要已生時有開避力。若至已滅名已開避。同類因者如種子法。于正生位住種法中。至已生時正能取果。故因非類等無間緣 準上正理。雖有此救未能遣難。在未來時。因．緣二義俱未來故。何得獨因。答云無時非因。正理自釋。與此論同。取婆沙第三說為正 問未來正生位法在余未生法前。如何得說無前後耶 正理釋云。過去諸法雖皆是前。而取果時已定前後。非未來法于正生時。作用別余可立前後。要至現在已生位中。方簡未來令成后位。以已作用取彼為果。
論。有謂未來至無時非因。敘婆沙異說也。
論。彼于所難至未至已生。論主破也。
論。然彼釋至非善於文。敘救破也。如文可解。
論。是故應知前釋為善。結歸三因作論為善。
論。若爾至即所除法。第二染污苦諦難也。此不正義家誦品類足論第三節文。與正義家不同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 定應有，指的是有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，指因緣和合而成的法），在它真正產生的時候，一定能夠作為因，消除各種障礙。依據這個密義，可以說沒有哪個時間不是因。然而，《經部》（Sūtra school）的論師說這種解釋並不恰當，因為未來的法在真正產生之前，不能像同類因那樣在之後才成就。像這樣的過失，前面已經解釋清楚了，因為未來沒有前後之分。就三世（過去、現在、未來）來說，沒有哪個時間不是因，意思是說沒有第四個時間。如果這樣，等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，指心識生起時，前一剎那的心識為后一剎那心識生起的條件）也應該這樣說。但是，《阿毗達磨俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa）不允許這樣說。該論說，如果某個法還沒有到來，或者已經產生，就不是等無間緣。沒有這樣的過失。為什麼呢？因為等無間緣是根據開闢道路的力量，不是在真正產生的時候就有開闢道路的能力，而要到已經產生的時候才有開闢道路的力量。如果到了已經滅去的時候，就叫做已經開闢了道路。同類因就像種子，在真正產生的時候，處於種子的狀態中，到已經產生的時候，才能真正地產生果實。所以，因不是像等無間緣那樣。 按照上面的道理，即使有這樣的解釋，也不能消除疑問。因為在未來的時候，因和緣兩種意義都是未來的，怎麼能單獨說是因呢？回答說，沒有哪個時間不是因，這是正理自己的解釋，與這個論相同。採取《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）第三卷的說法是正確的。問：未來的真正產生位的法，在其餘未生的法之前，怎麼能說沒有前後呢？正理的解釋是：過去的諸法雖然都是在前面，但是在取果的時候，已經確定了前後。而未來的法在真正產生的時候，作用不同於其他，不能建立前後。要到現在的已經產生的位中，才能區分未來，使之成為後面的位置，因為已經作用，取它作為果實。
論：有人說未來到沒有哪個時間不是因，這是敘述《大毗婆沙論》的不同說法。
論：他在所難的地方到未至已生，這是論主的破斥。
論：然而他的解釋到不善於文，這是敘述救護和破斥。如文義可以理解。
論：所以應該知道前面的解釋是好的，總結歸於三因（hetu，因）、緣（pratyaya，緣）、作論是好的。
論：如果這樣到即所除法，這是第二個染污苦諦（duḥkha-satya，苦諦）的責難。這是不正義家誦讀《品類足論》（Prakaraṇapāda）第三節的文字，與正義家不同。
【English Translation】 English version: 'It must be determinate,' referring to conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma, referring to dharmas arising from conditions), which, at the moment of their actual arising, are certainly able to act as causes, eliminating all obstacles. Based on this esoteric meaning, it can be said that there is no time that is not a cause. However, the teachers of the Sūtra school say that this explanation is not appropriate, because future dharmas, before the moment of their actual arising, cannot become accomplished later like homogeneous causes. Such a fault has already been explained earlier, because the future has no before or after. Speaking of the three times (past, present, and future), there is no time that is not a cause, meaning that there is no fourth time. If so, the immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya, referring to the condition where the preceding moment of consciousness gives rise to the subsequent moment of consciousness) should also be spoken of in this way. However, the Abhidharmakośa does not allow this. The treatise says that if a certain dharma has not yet arrived or has already arisen, it is not an immediately preceding condition. There is no such fault. Why? Because the immediately preceding condition is based on the power of clearing the way, and does not have the ability to clear the way at the moment of actual arising, but only has the power to clear the way when it has already arisen. If it has reached the point of having already ceased, it is called having already cleared the way. A homogeneous cause is like a seed, which, at the moment of actual arising, is in the state of a seed, and only when it has already arisen can it truly produce a fruit. Therefore, the cause is not like the immediately preceding condition. According to the above reasoning, even with this explanation, the doubt cannot be eliminated. Because in the future, both the meaning of cause and condition are in the future, how can it be said to be solely a cause? The answer is that there is no time that is not a cause, which is the explanation of the principle itself, and is the same as this treatise. Taking the third volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā as correct. Question: How can it be said that there is no before or after for the dharma in the position of actual arising in the future, before the other dharmas that have not yet arisen? The explanation of the principle is: Although all past dharmas are in the front, the before and after have been determined when taking the fruit. However, the action of future dharmas at the moment of actual arising is different from others, and before and after cannot be established. Only in the present, already arisen position can the future be distinguished, making it the later position, because it has already acted, taking it as the fruit.
Treatise: Some say that from the future to no time is not a cause, which is a narration of the different views of the Mahāvibhāṣā.
Treatise: He, in the difficult place, to not yet arrived, already arisen, this is the refutation of the treatise master.
Treatise: However, his explanation to not good at the text, this is a narration of rescue and refutation. As the meaning of the text can be understood.
Treatise: Therefore, it should be known that the previous explanation is good, and the conclusion is that the three causes (hetu, cause), conditions (pratyaya, condition), and treatise are good.
Treatise: If so, to the dharma that is immediately removed, this is the second reproach of the defiled truth of suffering (duḥkha-satya, the truth of suffering). This is the text of the third section of the Prakaraṇapāda recited by the unorthodox school, which is different from the orthodox school.
。正義宗云。除未來有身見相應法。此是舉身見除相應法也。以未來身見從過去．現在身見生故。而不能更生有身見。未來既無同類．遍行二因。故知。身見望于身見更無餘因。故舉身見除相應法。由此但言除未來身見相應苦諦。不言及彼。不正義宗誦第三節文。即加及彼二字。云除未來身見．及彼相應法。既有及彼二字。即是兩件除法。身見亦是俱句故除。即是未來身見能生身見。身見望身見。無相應．俱有．異熟因義。既言未來身見與身見為因。故知即是同類因也。
論。彼文應說至由義應知。非此是正義通也。準未來世無前後義說除身見。應知非也。
論。復云何通至所依所緣。第三因果決定難也。
論。應知彼文至色等六境。此是通也 因決定者。據四因說。不據同類．遍行二因 果決定者。謂增上．士用．及異熟果。非等流果。
論。若爾同類因。應本無而有。第四本無今有難也。
論。許故無過至果非體果。答也然位本無今有。非體本無今有 此論唯有四難。正理．婆沙皆有六難 正理云。又品類足論當云何通。如說云何非心為因法。謂彼已入正性離生補特伽羅初無漏心。及余異生決定當入正性離生者初無漏心。然彼異生未來所有諸無漏心。皆非心為因。何故唯說彼初無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：正義宗認為，『除去未來有身見（Sakkāya-diṭṭhi，認為五蘊和合的身體為我所有）相應的法』，這是舉出身見除去相應的法。因為未來的身見是從過去、現在的身見產生的，所以不能再生有身見。未來既然沒有同類因、遍行因這兩種原因，所以知道，身見對於身見來說，沒有其他的因。所以舉出身見除去相應的法。因此只說除去未來身見相應的苦諦，沒有說到『及彼』。不正義宗誦讀第三節經文，就加上『及彼』二字，說『除去未來身見、及彼相應的法』。既然有『及彼』二字，就是兩件除去的法。身見也是俱生句所以除去。就是未來的身見能生身見。身見對於身見，沒有相應因、俱有因、異熟因的意義。既然說未來身見與身見為因，所以知道就是同類因。
論：那段經文應該說到『至由義應知』，不是這個正義的通解。根據未來世沒有前後義來說除去身見，應該知道不是這樣。
論：又如何解釋『至所依所緣』？這是第三個因果決定的難題。
論：應該知道那段經文『至色等六境』。這是通解。因決定，是根據四因來說，不是根據同類因、遍行因這兩種因。果決定，是指增上果、士用果、以及異熟果，不是等流果。
論：如果這樣，同類因，應該是本來沒有而現在有。這是第四個本來沒有現在有的難題。
論：允許這樣，所以沒有過失『至果非體果』。這是回答。然而位是本來沒有現在有，不是體是本來沒有現在有。這篇論只有四個難題。正理、婆沙都有六個難題。正理說：『又品類足論應當如何解釋？如說，什麼是非心為因的法？就是那些已經進入正性離生（niyāma-okkantika，證入聖道）的補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）最初的無漏心（anāsrava-citta，沒有煩惱的心），以及其餘異生（Pṛthagjana，凡夫）決定將要進入正性離生的人最初的無漏心。然而那些異生未來所有的諸無漏心，都不是心為因。為什麼只說那些最初的無漏心？』
【English Translation】 English version: The Sautrāntika school says, 'Removing the Dharma corresponding to future personality view (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, the view that the five aggregates are 'mine').' This is to cite personality view to remove the corresponding Dharma. Because future personality view arises from past and present personality view, it cannot generate personality view again. Since the future lacks both homogeneous cause and pervasive cause, it is known that personality view has no other cause in relation to personality view. Therefore, it only speaks of removing the suffering truth corresponding to future personality view, without mentioning 'and that.' The non-orthodox school recites the third section of the text, adding the words 'and that,' saying, 'Removing future personality view and the corresponding Dharma.' Since there are the words 'and that,' there are two things being removed. Personality view is also a co-existent phrase, so it is removed. That is, future personality view can generate personality view. Personality view has no meaning of corresponding cause, co-existent cause, or resultant cause in relation to personality view. Since it is said that future personality view is the cause of personality view, it is known that it is a homogeneous cause.
Treatise: That passage should say 'to be known by meaning,' not this correct explanation. According to the future world having no before and after meaning to say remove personality view, it should be known that it is not so.
Treatise: How else to explain 'to the support and object'? This is the third difficult problem of cause and effect determination.
Treatise: It should be known that that passage 'to the six objects of form, etc.' This is the explanation. Cause determination is based on the four causes, not based on the two causes of homogeneous cause and pervasive cause. Result determination refers to the dominant result, volitional result, and resultant result, not the equipotential result.
Treatise: If so, the homogeneous cause should be originally non-existent and now existent. This is the fourth difficult problem of originally non-existent and now existent.
Treatise: Allowing this, there is no fault 'to the result is not the substantial result.' This is the answer. However, the position is originally non-existent and now existent, not the substance is originally non-existent and now existent. This treatise only has four difficult problems. The Nyāyānusāra and the Vibhāṣā both have six difficult problems. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'How should the Saṃgītiparyāya-pāda be explained? As it says, what is the Dharma that is not caused by mind? That is, the first undefiled mind (anāsrava-citta, mind without defilements) of those individuals (Pudgala, person) who have already entered the fixed course (niyāma-okkantika, entered the path of holiness), and the first undefiled mind of the remaining ordinary beings (Pṛthagjana, common people) who are determined to enter the fixed course. However, all the future undefiled minds of those ordinary beings are not caused by mind. Why only say those first undefiled minds?'
漏心 解云。異生位中諸無漏。皆在未來無同類因。云何偏說初無漏心非心因也。論既唯說初無漏心無同類因。故知未來有同類因。正理論云。又作是釋。彼文不辨同類因義。何者唯辨二種異生。謂有般涅槃法。及無般涅槃法。文雖不舉無涅槃法。義準理門顯示知有。謂彼既說有餘異生決定當入正性離生。由此義準。亦有異生決定不入正性離生。準上論文有涅槃法名非心為因法。決定當入正性離生名有涅槃法故。亦名非心為因法故 有人引婆沙云。有餘師說。彼文不辨同類因義。何者唯辨二種異生。謂有般涅槃法．及無般涅槃法。文雖不舉無般涅槃法。義準理門顯示知有。謂彼既說有餘異生決定當入正性離生。由此義準。亦有異生決定不入正性離生。此即名為無涅槃法。即無涅槃法名非心為因 有人解云。有般涅槃法。有初無漏心。與涅槃為證得了因。名心為因。若無般涅槃法。無初無漏心。與涅槃為證得了因。名非心為因 今詳。此文應是抄寫者誤。應云有涅槃法名非心為因法。若作此解文即與舊婆沙同。亦順上論文 論自問云。云何非心因法。此問非心因法也 論自答云。謂彼已入正性離生補特伽羅初無漏心。及余異生決定當入正性離生者初無漏心 準此論文。二種有情初無漏心是非心為因法 余師釋云。既說有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 漏心（漏失的心念）：有人解釋說，在凡夫俗子的階段，所有的無漏（沒有煩惱）都存在於未來，沒有同類的因。為什麼特別說最初的無漏心不是心因呢？ 論典既然只說最初的無漏心沒有同類的因，由此可知未來是有同類因的。《正理論》說：『又作這樣的解釋，那段文字沒有辨別同類因的意義。』辨別什麼呢？只辨別兩種凡夫俗子，即有般涅槃法（有入滅之法）和沒有般涅槃法（沒有入滅之法）。文字雖然沒有提及沒有涅槃法，但根據義理可以推知是有的。因為既然說了還有其他的凡夫俗子必定會進入正性離生（正確的脫離生死的境界），由此義理可以推知，也有凡夫俗子必定不會進入正性離生。根據上面的論文，有涅槃法被稱為非心為因法，因為必定會進入正性離生，所以稱為有涅槃法，也稱為非心為因法。 有人引用《婆沙論》說：『有其他的論師說，那段文字沒有辨別同類因的意義。辨別什麼呢？只辨別兩種凡夫俗子，即有般涅槃法和沒有般涅槃法。文字雖然沒有提及沒有般涅槃法，但根據義理可以推知是有的。因為既然說了還有其他的凡夫俗子必定會進入正性離生，由此義理可以推知，也有凡夫俗子必定不會進入正性離生。』這就是所謂的沒有涅槃法，即沒有涅槃法被稱為非心為因。 有人解釋說：『有般涅槃法，有最初的無漏心，與涅槃作為證得了因，稱為心為因。如果沒有般涅槃法，就沒有最初的無漏心，與涅槃作為證得了因，稱為非心為因。』 現在仔細考察，這段文字應該是抄寫者錯誤。應該說『有涅槃法被稱為非心為因法』。如果這樣解釋，文字就與舊的《婆沙論》相同，也順應了上面的論文。 論典自己提問說：『什麼是非心因法？』這是在問什麼是非心因法。 論典自己回答說：『指那些已經進入正性離生的補特伽羅（人）的最初的無漏心，以及其餘的凡夫俗子必定會進入正性離生的最初的無漏心。』 根據這段論文，兩種有情的最初的無漏心是非心為因法。 其他的論師解釋說：既然說了有
【English Translation】 English version 漏心 (Louxin) [Leaking Mind]: Someone explains that in the position of ordinary beings, all the 無漏 (wúlòu) [non-leaking, without outflows, free from defilements] exist in the future and have no similar causes. Why is it specifically said that the initial 無漏心 (wúlòu xīn) [non-leaking mind] is not a mind-cause? Since the treatise only states that the initial 無漏心 (wúlòu xīn) [non-leaking mind] has no similar causes, it is known that there are similar causes in the future. The Zhengli Lun (正理論) [Treatise on Correct Principles] says: 'Also, this explanation is made, that passage does not distinguish the meaning of similar causes.' What is distinguished? Only two kinds of ordinary beings are distinguished, namely those who have 般涅槃法 (bān nièpán fǎ) [methods for complete Nirvana] and those who do not have 般涅槃法 (bān nièpán fǎ) [methods for complete Nirvana]. Although the text does not mention those without 涅槃法 (nièpán fǎ) [Nirvana methods], it can be inferred from the principle of reasoning that they exist. Because it is said that there are other ordinary beings who will definitely enter 正性離生 (zhèngxìng líshēng) [the correct state of detachment from birth], it can be inferred from this principle that there are also ordinary beings who will definitely not enter 正性離生 (zhèngxìng líshēng) [the correct state of detachment from birth]. According to the above thesis, having 涅槃法 (nièpán fǎ) [Nirvana methods] is called 非心為因法 (fēi xīn wéi yīn fǎ) [non-mind-cause dharma], because one will definitely enter 正性離生 (zhèngxìng líshēng) [the correct state of detachment from birth], so it is called having 涅槃法 (nièpán fǎ) [Nirvana methods], and it is also called 非心為因法 (fēi xīn wéi yīn fǎ) [non-mind-cause dharma].' Someone quotes the Vibhasha (婆沙論) [Great Commentary]: 'Some other teachers say that the passage does not distinguish the meaning of similar causes. What is distinguished? Only two kinds of ordinary beings are distinguished, namely those who have 般涅槃法 (bān nièpán fǎ) [methods for complete Nirvana] and those who do not have 般涅槃法 (bān nièpán fǎ) [methods for complete Nirvana]. Although the text does not mention those without 般涅槃法 (bān nièpán fǎ) [methods for complete Nirvana], it can be inferred from the principle of reasoning that they exist. Because it is said that there are other ordinary beings who will definitely enter 正性離生 (zhèngxìng líshēng) [the correct state of detachment from birth], it can be inferred from this principle that there are also ordinary beings who will definitely not enter 正性離生 (zhèngxìng líshēng) [the correct state of detachment from birth].' This is what is called not having 涅槃法 (nièpán fǎ) [Nirvana methods], that is, not having 涅槃法 (nièpán fǎ) [Nirvana methods] is called 非心為因 (fēi xīn wéi yīn) [non-mind-cause].' Someone explains: 'Having 般涅槃法 (bān nièpán fǎ) [methods for complete Nirvana] means having the initial 無漏心 (wúlòu xīn) [non-leaking mind], with Nirvana as the condition for attainment, it is called mind-cause. Not having 般涅槃法 (bān nièpán fǎ) [methods for complete Nirvana] means not having the initial 無漏心 (wúlòu xīn) [non-leaking mind], with Nirvana as the condition for attainment, it is called non-mind-cause.' Now, upon careful examination, this passage should be a copyist's error. It should say 'having 涅槃法 (nièpán fǎ) [Nirvana methods] is called 非心為因法 (fēi xīn wéi yīn fǎ) [non-mind-cause dharma].' If explained in this way, the text would be the same as the old Vibhasha (婆沙論) [Great Commentary] and would also be in accordance with the above thesis. The treatise itself asks: 'What is 非心因法 (fēi xīn yīn fǎ) [non-mind-cause dharma]?' This is asking what 非心因法 (fēi xīn yīn fǎ) [non-mind-cause dharma] is. The treatise itself answers: 'It refers to the initial 無漏心 (wúlòu xīn) [non-leaking mind] of those 補特伽羅 (bǔtèqiéluó) [persons] who have already entered 正性離生 (zhèngxìng líshēng) [the correct state of detachment from birth], and the initial 無漏心 (wúlòu xīn) [non-leaking mind] of the remaining ordinary beings who will definitely enter 正性離生 (zhèngxìng líshēng) [the correct state of detachment from birth].' According to this thesis, the initial 無漏心 (wúlòu xīn) [non-leaking mind] of two kinds of sentient beings is 非心為因法 (fēi xīn wéi yīn fǎ) [non-mind-cause dharma]. Other teachers explain: Since it is said that there is
余異生決定當入正性離生。由此義準。亦有異生決定不入正性離生。此即名為無涅槃法 準此余師既云論雖不舉無涅槃法。及云決定當入正性離生是有般涅槃法。又決定當入正性離生是非心為因法 準此故知。非心為因是有涅槃法。如何得說無涅槃法名非心為因。故知說有涅槃法名非心為因也 問若爾何故說有涅槃法為非心為因 答深法師釋云。涅槃是非心。初無漏心與涅槃為因。名非心因法。今詳。非心為因者。不用心為因。無漏之心唯同類心與心作因緣。初無漏心無心為因。正理論云。有餘師釋。彼文亦辨同類因義。然彼唯說若心畢竟非心為因。雖彼未入正性離生者諸無漏心。皆非心為因。然彼若入正性離生。唯有初無漏心是非心為因法。余心無不以心為因 正理又云。識身足論當云何通。如彼論言。於過去染污眼識所有隨眠。彼於此心。或能為因非所隨增。或所隨增不能為因。或能為因亦所隨增。或不能為因亦非所隨增。且能為因非所隨增者。謂諸隨眠在此心前同類．遍行。即彼隨眠若不緣此。設緣已斷．及此相應隨眠已斷。為所隨增不能為因者。謂諸隨眠在此心后同類．遍行。即彼隨眠緣此未斷。能為其因亦所隨增者。謂諸隨眠在此心前同類．遍行。即彼隨眠緣此未斷。及此相應隨眠未斷。不能為因亦非所隨
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 還有一些凡夫俗子決定將來證入正性離生（ariyāvatāra, 聖者之進入）。由此可以推斷，也有一些凡夫俗子決定不會證入正性離生。這些就被稱為沒有涅槃之法的人。根據這個道理，其他論師既然說論中雖然沒有提到沒有涅槃之法，但又說決定將來證入正性離生的人是有般涅槃之法的人，並且決定將來證入正性離生不是以心為因的法。根據這個道理可知，非心為因是有涅槃之法。怎麼能說沒有涅槃之法被稱為非心為因呢？所以應該說有涅槃之法被稱為非心為因。 問：如果這樣，為什麼說有涅槃之法為非心為因呢？ 答：深法師解釋說，涅槃是非心。最初的無漏心與涅槃為因，稱為非心因法。現在詳細解釋，非心為因的意思是，不用心作為因。無漏之心只與同類的心互為因緣。最初的無漏心沒有心作為因。《正理論》中說，有其他論師解釋，那段文字也是辨別同類因的意義。然而他們只說如果心畢竟不是以心為因。即使那些沒有進入正性離生的人的無漏心，都不是以心為因。然而他們如果進入正性離生，只有最初的無漏心是非心為因的法。其餘的心沒有不是以心為因的。 《正理論》又說，識身足論應當如何解釋呢？就像那部論典所說，對於過去染污眼識的所有隨眠（anusaya, 煩惱的潛在傾向），它們對於這個心，或者能作為因而不是所隨增，或者所隨增而不能作為因，或者能作為因也是所隨增，或者不能作為因也不是所隨增。其中，能作為因而不是所隨增的，是指那些隨眠在這個心之前是同類、遍行的。如果那些隨眠不緣這個心，或者已經斷除，以及與這個心相應的隨眠已經斷除。作為所隨增而不能作為因的，是指那些隨眠在這個心之後是同類、遍行的。如果那些隨眠緣這個心而沒有斷除。能作為因也是所隨增的，是指那些隨眠在這個心之前是同類、遍行的。如果那些隨眠緣這個心而沒有斷除，以及與這個心相應的隨眠沒有斷除。不能作為因也不是所隨增的。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, some ordinary beings are determined to enter into the 'rightness of separation' (ariyāvatāra). By this reasoning, it also follows that some ordinary beings are determined not to enter into the 'rightness of separation'. These are called those who have 'no Dharma of Nirvana'. According to this, since other teachers say that although the treatise does not mention 'no Dharma of Nirvana', they also say that those who are determined to enter into the 'rightness of separation' have the 'Dharma of Parinirvana', and that being determined to enter into the 'rightness of separation' is not a 'mind-as-cause Dharma'. According to this reasoning, it is known that 'non-mind as cause' is the 'Dharma of Nirvana'. How can it be said that 'no Dharma of Nirvana' is called 'non-mind as cause'? Therefore, it should be said that 'having the Dharma of Nirvana' is called 'non-mind as cause'. Question: If that is so, why is 'having the Dharma of Nirvana' said to be 'non-mind as cause'? Answer: The Deep Dharma Master explains that Nirvana is 'non-mind'. The initial 'untainted mind' (anāsrava-citta) is the cause of Nirvana, and is called 'non-mind cause Dharma'. Now, in detail, 'non-mind as cause' means not using the mind as a cause. The 'untainted mind' only acts as a cause and condition with minds of the same kind. The initial 'untainted mind' has no mind as its cause. The Jñānaprasthāna says that other teachers explain that the text also distinguishes the meaning of 'same-kind cause'. However, they only say that if the mind is definitely not caused by mind. Even the 'untainted minds' of those who have not entered the 'rightness of separation' are not caused by mind. However, if they enter the 'rightness of separation', only the initial 'untainted mind' is a 'non-mind as cause Dharma'. The remaining minds are all caused by mind. The Jñānaprasthāna also says, how should the Vijñānakāya be explained? As that treatise says, regarding all the 'latent tendencies' (anuśaya) of past defiled eye-consciousness, they, in relation to this mind, either can be a cause but are not 'concomitantly increased', or are 'concomitantly increased' but cannot be a cause, or can be a cause and are also 'concomitantly increased', or cannot be a cause and are not 'concomitantly increased'. Among them, 'can be a cause but are not concomitantly increased' refers to those 'latent tendencies' that are of the same kind and pervasive before this mind. If those 'latent tendencies' do not cognize this mind, or have already been severed, and the 'latent tendencies' corresponding to this mind have been severed. 'Are concomitantly increased but cannot be a cause' refers to those 'latent tendencies' that are of the same kind and pervasive after this mind. If those 'latent tendencies' cognize this mind and have not been severed. 'Can be a cause and are also concomitantly increased' refers to those 'latent tendencies' that are of the same kind and pervasive before this mind. If those 'latent tendencies' cognize this mind and have not been severed, and the 'latent tendencies' corresponding to this mind have not been severed. 'Cannot be a cause and are not concomitantly increased'.
增者。謂諸隨眠在此心后同類．遍行。即彼隨眠若不緣此。設緣已斷。若所餘緣。若他隨眠。若不同界遍行隨眠。如彼過去染污眼識。未來染污眼識亦爾。過去四句其理可然。未來如何可立四句 解云。未來眼識隨眠無前無後。如何得說有四句耶。正理論云。又作是釋。彼于未來應作三句。除所隨增不能為因。彼無後故。然說未來如過去者。顯正生時必入現在。望余未起可立為前。對此可說餘名后故。有餘師釋。此說未來亦有四句。不言未來有心前後同於過去。謂有同類．遍行隨眠。在未來世。于彼未來染污眼識。緣而未斷。是所隨增不為因故 解云。此中說因者。是因緣。五因隨有。皆得是因。隨增者。通相應．所緣。隨有其一皆名隨增。此正理文與婆沙同。
論。若同類因至當有何過。上明未來世無同類因。有六難。下明未來世有同類因有二難一本論不說難。二互為因果難 當有何過。問也。
論。未來若有。本論應說。此第一難也。
論。本論唯說至故無有失。此是不正義家。通本論中不說難也。本論唯說取與果因。未來無取．與故所以不說。
論。無如是義至無同類因。論主破也夫等流果必果后因先。未來既無前後。如何有同類因引等流果。未來當生前後不定。若未來世先是果者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『增者』，指的是各種隨眠（Sui Mian，煩惱的潛在狀態）在此心之後以同類和遍行的方式存在。也就是說，如果這些隨眠不緣於此心，或者即使緣於此心但已經被斷除，或者緣于其他所緣，或者存在其他的隨眠，或者存在不同界的遍行隨眠，都屬於『增者』。就像過去的染污眼識一樣，未來的染污眼識也是如此。過去的染污眼識可以立四句（四種情況），這個道理是成立的。但是，未來的染污眼識如何能立四句呢？ 解釋說：未來的眼識沒有前也沒有後，如何能說有四句呢？《正理論》（Zheng Li Lun）中說：又可以這樣解釋，對於未來，應該立三句，除了『所隨增』不能作為因之外，因為它沒有『后』的緣故。然而，說未來像過去一樣，是爲了顯示真正產生的時候必然進入現在。相對於尚未生起的，可以立為『前』。對於這個『前』，可以說有『后』。有其他論師解釋說，這裡說未來也有四句，並不是說未來有心的前後，如同過去一樣。而是說，有同類和遍行的隨眠，在未來世，對於那個未來的染污眼識，緣而未斷，所以是『所隨增』，不作為因。 解釋說：這裡說的『因』，是因緣。五因（五種因）隨有，都可以是『因』。『隨增』，包括相應和所緣，隨有其中之一都可以稱為『隨增』。這段《正理論》的文字與《婆沙》（Po Sha）相同。
論：如果未來有同類因，會有什麼過失？上面說明未來世沒有同類因，有六種困難。下面說明未來世有同類因，有兩種困難：一是本論沒有說這種困難，二是互為因果的困難。『當有何過』，是疑問。
論：如果未來有同類因，本論應該說明。這是第一種困難。
論：本論只說了『取』和『與』是果因，未來沒有『取』和『與』，所以沒有說。這是不正義的論者，用來解釋本論中沒有說這種困難的原因。本論只說了『取』（Qu，取得）和『與』（Yu，給予）是果的因，未來沒有『取』和『與』，所以沒有說。
論：沒有這樣的道理。論主破斥說：等流果（Deng Liu Guo，相似的果報）必然是果在後，因在前。未來既然沒有前後，如何有同類因引生等流果？未來當生，前後不定。如果未來世先是果，那麼...
【English Translation】 English version 'Augmenters' refer to the various Sui Mian (latent states of affliction) that exist after this mind in a homogeneous and pervasive manner. That is, if these Sui Mian are not conditioned by this mind, or even if they are conditioned but have been severed, or are conditioned by other objects, or if there are other Sui Mian, or if there are pervasive Sui Mian from different realms, they all belong to 'augmenters'. Just like past defiled eye consciousness, future defiled eye consciousness is also the same. The past defiled eye consciousness can establish four sentences (four situations), and this principle is valid. However, how can the future defiled eye consciousness establish four sentences? The explanation says: The future eye consciousness has neither before nor after, so how can it be said to have four sentences? The 'Zheng Li Lun' says: It can also be explained in this way that for the future, three sentences should be established, except that 'what is augmented' cannot be used as a cause, because it has no 'after'. However, saying that the future is like the past is to show that when it truly arises, it inevitably enters the present. Relative to what has not yet arisen, it can be established as 'before'. For this 'before', it can be said that there is 'after'. Other teachers explain that here it is said that the future also has four sentences, not that the future has the before and after of the mind, just like the past. Rather, it is said that there are homogeneous and pervasive Sui Mian, in the future world, for that future defiled eye consciousness, conditioned but not severed, so it is 'what is augmented' and does not act as a cause. The explanation says: The 'cause' mentioned here is the causal condition. Any of the five causes (five types of causes) can be a 'cause'. 'Augmentation' includes correspondence and what is conditioned, and either of them can be called 'augmentation'. This text of the 'Zheng Li Lun' is the same as the 'Po Sha'.
Treatise: If the future has a homogeneous cause, what fault would there be? The above explains that there is no homogeneous cause in the future world, and there are six difficulties. The following explains that there are two difficulties if there is a homogeneous cause in the future world: one is that this difficulty is not mentioned in this treatise, and the other is the difficulty of mutual cause and effect. 'What fault would there be' is a question.
Treatise: If the future has a homogeneous cause, this treatise should explain it. This is the first difficulty.
Treatise: This treatise only says that 'taking' (Qu, obtaining) and 'giving' (Yu, giving) are the causes of the result, and there is no 'taking' and 'giving' in the future, so it is not mentioned. This is an unjust commentator who uses this to explain why this difficulty is not mentioned in this treatise. This treatise only says that 'taking' and 'giving' are the causes of the result, and there is no 'taking' and 'giving' in the future, so it is not mentioned.
Treatise: There is no such principle. The treatise master refutes: The similar flow result (Deng Liu Guo, similar karmic retribution) must be that the result is after and the cause is before. Since the future has no before and after, how can a homogeneous cause give rise to a similar flow result? The future to be born is uncertain in its before and after. If the future world is the result first, then...
若遇緣先生。即因在未來果在過．現。即是已生法為果。未生法為因。如過去法非現在果。故知無未來法過．現為果。果先因后故。故未來世無同類因。
論。若爾異熟因至無前後故。外人引異熟因為例難也。
論。無如是失至未來非無。論主通也。如文可解 正理論云。若爾異熟因亦勿未來有。此．彼非類。所以者何。此同類因。與等流果善等無別。若無先後應互為因。既互為因。應互為果。互為因果與理相違。既無理能遮互為果則應許有果在因先。亦有二心互為因義。是則違害發智論文 已上即是互為因果難也。婆沙云。問若未來世有同類因。即應二心互為因果。答如四行相各有系屬。余法亦然。故無斯過。謂未來世無常行相。有四行相應無間生。彼是所修系屬於此。無常行相與彼為因。彼非此因系屬此故。無常行相起必先故。苦．空．無我行相亦爾。余有為法類此應知。故無二心互為因果。若作是說。有依第四靜慮得阿羅漢果。能修未來九地無漏。所修無漏皆系屬此。故后依餘地聖道現在前。更不能修未來無漏。無餘聖道系屬此故。應在過．現非同類因。是則違害此中所說前生善根。與後生者為同類因。乃至廣說。勿有此失。故未來世無同類因於理為善。
論。言同類因至定依何說。已下明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果遇到緣先生（Yuan Xiansheng），就會發現因存在於未來，而果存在於過去和現在。現在就是已經產生的法作為果，未產生的法作為因。例如，過去的法不是現在的果，因此可知沒有未來的法作為過去和現在的果。果在因之前，所以未來世沒有同類因。
論：如果這樣，異熟因（vipāka-hetu，導致不同性質結果的因）就沒有先後順序了。外道用異熟因作為例子來反駁。
論：沒有這樣的過失，未來並非不存在。論主解釋說，如文字所表達的意思。《正理論》說：『如果這樣，異熟因也不應該存在於未來。』此（同類因）與彼（異熟因）不是同一類。為什麼呢？因為此（同類因）與等流果（nisyanda-phala，與因相似的結果）等沒有區別。如果沒有先後順序，就應該互相為因。既然互相為因，就應該互相為果。互相為因果與道理相違背。既然沒有道理能夠阻止互相為果，那麼就應該允許果在因之前。也有二心互相為因的說法，這就會違背《發智論》的論述。』以上就是互相為因果的詰難。婆沙論說：『問：如果未來世有同類因，就應該有二心互相為因果。答：如同四行相（四種行相，即無常、苦、空、無我）各有系屬，其他法也是如此，所以沒有這樣的過失。』也就是說，未來世的無常行相，有四行相應無間產生，它們是所修習的，系屬於此（指過去或現在的修習）。無常行相與它們為因，它們不是此（指過去或現在的修習）的因，因為系屬於此。無常行相的生起必定在先。苦、空、無我行相也是如此。其餘有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，有生滅變化的法）可以依此類推。所以沒有二心互相為因果的情況。如果這樣說，有人依靠第四禪定（dhyāna）獲得阿羅漢果（arhat），能夠修習未來九地（指欲界、色界和無色界的九個層次）的無漏法（anāsrava-dharma，沒有煩惱的法）。所修習的無漏法都系屬於此（指第四禪定）。所以後來依靠其他地的聖道（ārya-mārga，通往解脫的道路）現在前，就不能再修習未來的無漏法，因為沒有其餘的聖道系屬於此。應該存在於過去和現在，而不是同類因。這就會違背此處所說的前生善根（kuśala-mūla，善的根源），與後生者為同類因，乃至廣說。爲了避免這樣的過失，所以未來世沒有同類因在道理上是合理的。
論：所說的同類因，到確定依據什麼來說。以下說明。
【English Translation】 English version: If we encounter Master Yuan (Yuan Xiansheng), we will find that the cause exists in the future, while the effect exists in the past and present. The present is the already produced dharma as the effect, and the unproduced dharma as the cause. For example, the past dharma is not the present effect, so it can be known that there is no future dharma as the effect of the past and present. The effect is before the cause, so there is no homogeneous cause in the future world.
Treatise: If so, the heterogeneous cause (vipāka-hetu, the cause that leads to results of different nature) has no order of precedence. Outsiders use the heterogeneous cause as an example to refute.
Treatise: There is no such fault, the future is not non-existent. The author of the treatise explains that it can be understood as the text expresses. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'If so, the heterogeneous cause should also not exist in the future.' This (homogeneous cause) and that (heterogeneous cause) are not the same category. Why? Because this (homogeneous cause) is no different from the outflowing effect (nisyanda-phala, the result similar to the cause). If there is no order of precedence, they should be causes of each other. Since they are causes of each other, they should be effects of each other. Being causes and effects of each other contradicts reason. Since there is no reason to prevent being effects of each other, then it should be allowed that the effect is before the cause. There is also the saying that two minds are causes of each other, which would violate the statements in the Jñānaprasthāna-śāstra.' The above is the difficulty of being causes and effects of each other. The Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Question: If there is a homogeneous cause in the future world, there should be two minds being causes and effects of each other. Answer: Just as the four characteristics (four aspects, namely impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self) each have their own affiliations, other dharmas are also like this, so there is no such fault.' That is to say, the characteristic of impermanence in the future world has four characteristics corresponding to it, arising without interval, and they are what is cultivated, affiliated with this (referring to past or present cultivation). The characteristic of impermanence is the cause of them, and they are not the cause of this (referring to past or present cultivation), because they are affiliated with this. The arising of the characteristic of impermanence must be first. The characteristics of suffering, emptiness, and non-self are also like this. The remaining conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma, dharmas that have arising and ceasing) can be inferred by analogy. Therefore, there is no situation of two minds being causes and effects of each other. If it is said that someone relies on the fourth dhyāna (dhyāna) to obtain the arhat fruit (arhat), and is able to cultivate the future nine grounds (referring to the nine levels of the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm) of the unconditioned dharma (anāsrava-dharma, dharma without afflictions). The unconditioned dharmas cultivated are all affiliated with this (referring to the fourth dhyāna). Therefore, later relying on the noble path (ārya-mārga, the path to liberation) of other grounds manifesting, one can no longer cultivate the future unconditioned dharma, because there are no remaining noble paths affiliated with this. It should exist in the past and present, not as a homogeneous cause. This would violate what is said here that the good roots (kuśala-mūla, the roots of goodness) of the previous life are homogeneous causes with those of the later life, and so on. In order to avoid such faults, it is reasonable in principle that there is no homogeneous cause in the future world.
Treatise: What is said about the homogeneous cause, to determine what it is based on. The following explains.
無漏．有漏為因差別。此即問也。
論。定依有漏至皆互為因。答也。前說同類因唯自地者。依有漏說。若依無漏九地展轉為因。
論。所以者何。問也。所以有漏異地非因。無漏異地互為因耶。
論。此于諸地至由同類故。答所以也。一如客住故。二不墮界攝。三非諸地愛執為已有 由此三因。地雖不同展轉為因。由同類故。
論。然唯得與至加行生故。總釋與等．勝為因也。
論。且如已生至是名為等。別釋等為因也。
論。又即此忍至是名為勝。別釋勝為因也。
論。如是廣說至更無勝故。苦法智忍已后諸無漏也。其無生智唯與等為因。更無勝故。異乘聖道無因義故。盡智已下皆與等．勝為因 正理論云。由是道諦雖地不同展轉為因。同種類故。然非一切為一切因。與誰為因。謂等．勝果。加行生故非為劣因。初定聖道有依初定。乃至。有依無所有處。二定等道應知亦爾。于依自．上有。于依下地無。謂依初定初定聖道。與依九定九地聖道為同類因。即此唯用依初定道為同類因。不用依上聖道為因。以性劣故。依第二定初定聖道。除依初定。與依余定九地聖道為同類因。即此唯用依初．二定九地聖道為同類因。非依上地。乃至。若依無所有處初定聖道。唯與依此無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：無漏（anāsrava，指沒有煩惱和業障的智慧）和有漏（sāsrava，指有煩惱和業障的世間法）的差別在於它們各自的因嗎？這是提問。
答：禪定依賴於有漏法，乃至一切法都互相為因。這是回答。前面所說的同類因只在同一地（bhūmi，指禪定的層次）中存在，是依據有漏法來說的。如果依據無漏法，那麼九地之間可以輾轉為因。
問：為什麼有漏法在不同的地之間不能作為因，而無漏法在不同的地之間可以互相作為因呢？
答：這是解釋原因。第一，就像客人寄居一樣；第二，不屬於界（dhātu，指構成世界的元素）的範疇；第三，不是各個地執著為自己所有的。由於這三個原因，即使地不同，也可以輾轉為因，因為它們是同類的。
答：然而，只能作為等因（samanantara-hetu，指緊隨其後的因）和勝因（adhipati-hetu，指起主導作用的因），因為是加行（prayoga，指修行）所生。這是總的解釋等因和勝因。
答：例如，已經生起的苦法智忍（duhkhe dharmajñānakshānti，指對苦諦的忍可），是名為等因。這是分別解釋等因為因。
答：又例如，即此忍（kshānti，指忍）是名為勝因。這是分別解釋勝因為因。
答：像這樣廣泛地說，更沒有勝因的緣故。苦法智忍之後的所有無漏法，其無生智（anutpāda-jñāna，指無生智）只能作為等因，更沒有勝因的緣故。異乘（指外道）的聖道沒有因的意義。盡智（ksaya-jñana，指漏盡智）以下都作為等因和勝因。
《正理論》說：由於道諦（mārga-satya，指通往解脫的道路）雖然地不同，也可以輾轉為因，因為是同種類。然而，並非一切都作為一切的因。與誰作為因呢？是與等果（samanantara-phala，指緊隨其後的果）和勝果（adhipati-phala，指起主導作用的果）。因為是加行所生，所以不作為劣因（hīna-hetu，指低劣的因）。初禪定（prathama-dhyāna，指色界初禪）的聖道有依賴於初禪定的，乃至有依賴於無所有處定（ākiṃcanyāyatana，指無色界第三禪）。二禪定（dvitīya-dhyāna，指色界第二禪）等的道也應該知道是這樣。對於依賴於自身和上地（ūrdhva-bhūmi，指更高的禪定層次）的可以，對於依賴於下地（adha-bhūmi，指更低的禪定層次）的不可以。例如，依賴於初禪定的初禪定聖道，與依賴於九地禪定的九地聖道作為同類因。即此只用依賴於初禪定的道作為同類因，不用依賴於上地的聖道作為因，因為性質低劣的緣故。依賴於第二禪定的初禪定聖道，除了依賴於初禪定的，與依賴於其餘九地禪定的九地聖道作為同類因。即此只用依賴於初禪定和二禪定的九地聖道作為同類因，不依賴於上地。乃至，如果依賴於無所有處定的初禪定聖道，只與依賴於此無所有處
【English Translation】 English version Question: Is the difference between anāsrava (untainted, referring to wisdom without afflictions and karmic hindrances) and sāsrava (tainted, referring to worldly dharmas with afflictions and karmic hindrances) due to the difference in their respective causes? This is the question.
Answer: Dhyana (meditative absorption) relies on sāsrava dharmas, and even all dharmas are mutually causes. This is the answer. The previous statement that homogeneous causes only exist within the same bhūmi (level, referring to the levels of dhyana) is based on sāsrava dharmas. If based on anāsrava dharmas, the nine bhūmis can be causes for each other in a revolving manner.
Question: Why can't sāsrava dharmas in different bhūmis be causes, while anāsrava dharmas in different bhūmis can be mutual causes?
Answer: This explains the reason. First, it's like a guest lodging; second, it doesn't belong to the category of dhātu (element, referring to the elements that constitute the world); third, it's not that each bhūmi clings to it as its own. Due to these three reasons, even if the bhūmis are different, they can be causes for each other in a revolving manner because they are homogeneous.
Answer: However, it can only be a samanantara-hetu (immediately preceding cause) and adhipati-hetu (dominant cause) because it is born from prayoga (practice). This is a general explanation of samanantara-hetu and adhipati-hetu.
Answer: For example, the already arisen duhkhe dharmajñānakshānti (acceptance of the truth of suffering) is called a samanantara-hetu. This is a separate explanation of samanantara-hetu as a cause.
Answer: Also, for example, this kshānti (patience) is called an adhipati-hetu. This is a separate explanation of adhipati-hetu as a cause.
Answer: Speaking broadly like this, there is no further adhipati-hetu. All anāsrava dharmas after duhkhe dharmajñānakshānti, their anutpāda-jñāna (knowledge of non-arising) can only be a samanantara-hetu, because there is no further adhipati-hetu. The holy path of other vehicles (referring to non-Buddhist paths) has no meaning of cause. Everything below ksaya-jñana (knowledge of exhaustion) is both a samanantara-hetu and an adhipati-hetu.
The Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Because the mārga-satya (truth of the path) can be causes for each other in a revolving manner even though the bhūmis are different, because they are of the same kind. However, not everything is a cause for everything. With whom does it act as a cause? It is with samanantara-phala (immediately preceding result) and adhipati-phala (dominant result). Because it is born from prayoga, it does not act as a hīna-hetu (inferior cause). The holy path of the first dhyāna (prathama-dhyāna, referring to the first dhyana of the form realm) relies on the first dhyāna, and even relies on the ākiṃcanyāyatana (sphere of nothingness, referring to the third dhyana of the formless realm). The path of the second dhyāna (dvitīya-dhyāna, referring to the second dhyana of the form realm) and so on should also be understood in this way. It is possible for those relying on oneself and the ūrdhva-bhūmi (higher dhyana level), but not for those relying on the adha-bhūmi (lower dhyana level). For example, the holy path of the first dhyāna relying on the first dhyāna acts as a homogeneous cause with the holy path of the nine dhyānas relying on the nine dhyānas. That is, it only uses the path relying on the first dhyāna as a homogeneous cause, and does not use the holy path relying on the upper bhūmis as a cause, because its nature is inferior. The holy path of the first dhyāna relying on the second dhyāna, except for relying on the first dhyāna, acts as a homogeneous cause with the holy path of the nine dhyānas relying on the remaining nine dhyānas. That is, it only uses the holy path of the nine dhyānas relying on the first and second dhyānas as a homogeneous cause, and does not rely on the upper bhūmis. Even if the holy path of the first dhyāna relying on the ākiṃcanyāyatana only acts with the ākiṃcanyāyatana
所有處九地聖道為同類因。即此通用依九地定九地聖道為同類因。如依九定初定聖道。余定聖道依於九地。隨其所應當廣思擇。
論。又諸已生至為同類因。此明三道為因異也。
論。又於此中至為同類因。此明利．鈍為因別也。正理論云。又諸已生見道．修道．及無學道。隨其次第與三．二．一為同類因。展轉為因亦不違理。如何後生勝無漏道。能與前生劣無漏道為同類因。而不違理。誰言後生勝為前生劣因。前生鈍根種姓修道。與自相續未來決定不生利根種姓見道。為同類因。何理為礙。一切有情各別相續。法爾安立六種種姓。無學望前應知亦爾。然有差別。謂有前生無學聖道。于自相續後生修道為同類因。無學退已。于修道中可有轉生利根義故。若爾應與本論相違。如說已知根與未知當知根。為所緣．增上。非因。非等無間。如是具知根於二根亦爾。此無相違有餘意故。如次前說。有餘意文處處皆有。即是此等。故應顯示有餘意文。今此文中有何余意。謂依後生如是根姓所攝已知根。即望前生如是根性所攝未知根密作如是言。為所緣．增上。非因等無間。劣故。後生故。此文但說已起作用。依相續轉諸無漏根。如說有用世第一法。若爾有情各別相續。法爾安立三乘菩提。如是亦應聲聞乘道得作獨覺
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所有處於九地（指色界四禪、無色界四空定以及無漏道）的聖道，都以同類為因。即是說，這種普遍的規律是，依據九地來確定九地聖道，以同類為因。例如，依據四禪八定來修習初禪的聖道，其餘各定的聖道也依賴於九地。對於這些，應當根據具體情況廣泛地思考和選擇。
論中說：『又諸已生至為同類因。』這說明見道、修道、無學道這三種道，它們的因是不同的。
論中又說：『又於此中至為同類因。』這說明根性的利鈍也是因的區別。正理論中說：『又諸已生見道、修道、及無學道，隨其次第與三、二、一為同類因。展轉為因亦不違理。』為什麼後生的殊勝無漏道，能以前生的劣等無漏道為同類因，而不違背道理呢？誰說後生的殊勝道是前生劣等道的因呢？前生鈍根種姓的修道，與自身相續未來決定不生的利根種姓的見道，作為同類因，有什麼道理障礙呢？一切有情各自的相續中，自然安立六種種姓（指貪行、嗔行、癡行、信行、覺行、尋思行六種根性）。無學道相對於前面的道，也應當這樣理解。然而，也有差別。即前生的無學聖道，對於自身相續後生的修道，作為同類因。因為無學道退失后，在修道中可能有轉生為利根的情況。如果這樣說，應該與本論相違背。如說已知根與未知當知根，為所緣、增上，非因，非等無間。如是具知根於二根亦爾。』這沒有相違背，因為有其餘的含義。就像前面所說，有其餘含義的文句處處都有，指的就是這些。所以應該顯示出有其餘含義的文句。現在這段文字中有什麼其餘的含義呢？就是說，依據後生的這種根性所攝的已知根，即相對於前生的這種根性所攝的未知根，秘密地這樣說：『為所緣、增上，非因等無間。』因為是劣等的緣故，因為是後生的緣故。這段文字只是說已經起作用，依據相續而轉的各種無漏根。就像說有用的世第一法。如果這樣，有情各自的相續中，自然安立三乘菩提（指聲聞菩提、獨覺菩提、佛菩提），這樣也應該允許聲聞乘的道可以作為獨覺
【English Translation】 English version: All noble paths situated in the nine grounds (referring to the four Dhyanas of the Form Realm, the four formless attainments of the Formless Realm, and the unconditioned path) have homogeneous causes. That is to say, this universal principle is that the noble paths of the nine grounds are determined based on the nine grounds, with homogeneous causes. For example, based on the four Dhyanas and eight Samapattis, one cultivates the noble path of the first Dhyana; the noble paths of the remaining Samapattis also rely on the nine grounds. Regarding these, one should extensively contemplate and choose according to the specific circumstances.
The treatise states: 'Moreover, all that has arisen serves as a homogeneous cause.' This clarifies that the three paths—the Path of Seeing (見道, Jian Dao), the Path of Cultivation (修道, Xiu Dao), and the Path of No More Learning (無學道, Wu Xue Dao)—have different causes.
The treatise also states: 'Moreover, within this, serves as a homogeneous cause.' This clarifies that the sharpness or dullness of faculties is also a distinction in causes. The Nyayanusara states: 'Moreover, the Path of Seeing, the Path of Cultivation, and the Path of No More Learning that have already arisen, in that order, serve as homogeneous causes for three, two, and one respectively. It is not contradictory for them to be causes in turn.' Why can the superior unconditioned path that arises later serve as a homogeneous cause for the inferior unconditioned path that arose earlier without contradicting reason? Who says that the superior path that arises later is the cause of the inferior path that arose earlier? The Path of Cultivation of a person with dull faculties in a previous life, together with the Path of Seeing of a person with sharp faculties that will definitely not arise in their future continuum, serves as a homogeneous cause. What reason obstructs this? In the individual continuums of all sentient beings, six types of faculties (貪行, Tan Xing; 嗔行, Chen Xing; 癡行, Chi Xing; 信行, Xin Xing; 覺行, Jue Xing; 尋思行, Xun Si Xing) are naturally established. The Path of No More Learning in relation to the preceding paths should also be understood in this way. However, there is a difference. That is, the noble Path of No More Learning in a previous life serves as a homogeneous cause for the Path of Cultivation that arises later in one's own continuum. Because after the Path of No More Learning is lost, there may be a rebirth as someone with sharp faculties in the Path of Cultivation. If this is the case, it should contradict the present treatise. As it says, 'The known faculty in relation to the unknown faculty to be known is an object, a condition of increase, but not a cause, not immediately contiguous. Likewise, the faculty of complete knowledge is also so in relation to the two faculties.' This is not contradictory because there is a remaining meaning. As mentioned earlier, sentences with remaining meanings are present everywhere; these are what is being referred to. Therefore, the sentences with remaining meanings should be revealed. What remaining meaning is there in this passage? It means that based on the known faculty included in such a lineage that arises later, that is, in relation to the unknown faculty included in such a lineage that arose earlier, it is secretly said: 'It is an object, a condition of increase, but not a cause, not immediately contiguous,' because it is inferior, because it arises later. This passage only speaks of the various unconditioned faculties that have already begun to function and that turn according to the continuum, just like saying that there is a useful mundane supreme dharma. If this is the case, in the individual continuums of sentient beings, the three Bodhis (聲聞菩提, Sheng Wen Puti; 獨覺菩提, Du Jue Puti; 佛菩提, Fo Puti) should be naturally established. In this way, it should also be permissible for the path of the Hearer Vehicle to serve as a Pratyekabuddha
．佛乘道因。獨覺乘道作佛道因。無斯過失。性極遠故。若已升陟聲聞道者。無容更生余乘道故。若爾已升陟隨信行道．隨法行道。無容更生。是則前生隨信行道。與未來世畢竟不生隨法行道。應不為因 問也 亦無此失。諸鈍根道。可有轉成利根道故。謂即由彼隨信行根諸蘊相續。可有轉得屬隨法行蘊相續根。非由已升聲聞乘道諸蘊相續。可有轉得獨覺．佛乘蘊相續道。依如是義故有說言。雖無是處而假分別。若見道中有出觀者。隨信行道亦有轉得隨法行根。然無出義。故根差別與乘不同 今詳。聖道略有三節。一種姓。二前後位。三所依地。就三之中種姓最親。次前後位。后依諸地。所以得知如是次第者。同依諸地修九地道。下與上因。非上下因。就此依中上地見道。與下地修道．及無學道為同類因。故知地疏於位。又依鈍無學道。得與利根有學為因。故知位疏種姓。正理論任細而論。俱舍論等順其本論。
論。上諸地至或等或勝。問也。
論。由因增長至為未來因。答也。
論。為唯聖道至為因非劣。問答也。
論。加行生法其體云何。問加行生體也。
論。謂聞所成至為因非劣。總略答也。
論。如欲界系至以無故劣故。此指事答也。
論。如是諸法至除前劣故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 佛乘（Buddha Vehicle）之道是成佛的因，獨覺乘（Pratyekabuddha Vehicle）之道也是成佛道之因，沒有這種過失。因為佛性極其深遠。如果已經升入聲聞道（Śrāvakayāna），就沒有可能再生起其他乘之道。如果這樣，那麼已經升入隨信行道（Śraddhānusārin）和隨法行道（Dharmānusārin）的人，就沒有可能再生起。那麼前生是隨信行道，與未來世畢竟不生隨法行道，應該不能作為因。這是個疑問。 也不會有這種過失。因為鈍根（mṛdvindriya）之道，可以轉變成利根（tīkṣṇendriya）之道。也就是說，由那些隨信行根的諸蘊相續，可以轉而獲得屬於隨法行蘊相續的根。而不是由已經升入聲聞乘道的諸蘊相續，可以轉而獲得獨覺乘或佛乘的蘊相續之道。依據這樣的意義，所以有人說，雖然沒有這樣的情況，但可以假作分別。如果在見道（darśanamārga）中有出觀的人，隨信行道也有可能轉而獲得隨法行根。然而沒有出觀的意義。所以根的差別與乘不同。現在詳細分析，聖道（āryamārga）大致有三個方面：一種姓（gotra），二前後位，三所依地。在這三個方面中，種姓最親近，其次是前後位，最後是所依地。之所以得知這樣的次第，是因為同樣依于諸地修九地道，下地與上地是因，而不是上下地互為因。就此所依中，上地見道，與下地修道（bhāvanāmārga）及無學道（aśaikṣamārga）是同類因。所以知道地疏遠於位。又依于鈍無學道，可以與利根有學道（śaikṣamārga）作為因。所以知道位疏遠於種姓。《正理論》注重細緻的論述，而《俱舍論》等則順應其本論。 論：上面的諸地，或者相等或者殊勝。這是個疑問。 論：由因增長，乃至作為未來的因。這是個回答。 論：是隻有聖道才能作為因，而不是劣道作為因嗎？這是個問答。 論：加行生法（prayoga-ja dharma）的體性是什麼？這是在問加行生法的體性。 論：所謂聞所成（śrutamayī prajñā），乃至作為因而不是劣因。這是總體的簡略回答。 論：比如欲界系（kāmadhātu）的，因為沒有（上界之法）所以是劣因。這是指明事例來回答。 論：像這樣諸法，除了前面的劣因之外。
【English Translation】 English version The path of Buddhayana (Buddha Vehicle) is the cause of becoming a Buddha, and the path of Pratyekabuddhayana (Solitary Buddha Vehicle) is also the cause of the Buddha path, without this fault. Because the Buddha-nature is extremely profound. If one has already ascended to the Śrāvakayāna (Hearer Vehicle), there is no possibility of generating other vehicle paths. If so, then those who have already ascended to the Śraddhānusārin (Faith-follower) and Dharmānusārin (Truth-follower) paths have no possibility of being reborn. Then the previous life being the Śraddhānusārin path, and the future life ultimately not generating the Dharmānusārin path, should not be considered a cause. This is a question. Nor will there be this fault. Because the path of mṛdvindriya (dull faculties) can be transformed into the path of tīkṣṇendriya (sharp faculties). That is to say, from those aggregates of the Śraddhānusārin faculties, one can transform and obtain the root belonging to the aggregates of the Dharmānusārin faculties. It is not from the aggregates of those who have already ascended to the Śrāvakayāna path that one can transform and obtain the aggregates of the Pratyekabuddhayana or Buddhayana path. According to this meaning, some say that although there is no such situation, one can make a hypothetical distinction. If there are those who emerge from contemplation in the darśanamārga (path of seeing), the Śraddhānusārin path also has the possibility of transforming and obtaining the Dharmānusārin root. However, there is no meaning of emerging from contemplation. Therefore, the difference in roots is different from the vehicles. Now, in detail, the āryamārga (noble path) roughly has three aspects: one is gotra (lineage), two is the sequence of stages, and three is the ground on which it is based. Among these three aspects, gotra is the closest, followed by the sequence of stages, and lastly the ground on which it is based. The reason for knowing this order is that the nine grounds of the path are cultivated based on the same grounds, and the lower ground and the upper ground are causes, but not causes for each other. In this basis, the darśanamārga of the upper ground is the same kind of cause as the bhāvanāmārga (path of cultivation) and aśaikṣamārga (path of no more learning) of the lower ground. Therefore, it is known that the ground is distant from the stage. Also, based on the dull aśaikṣamārga, it can be the cause for the sharp śaikṣamārga (path of learning). Therefore, it is known that the stage is distant from the gotra. The Nyāyānusāra emphasizes detailed discussions, while the Abhidharmakośa and others follow their original treatises. Question: The upper grounds are either equal or superior. This is a question. Answer: Because of the growth of the cause, and even as the cause for the future. This is an answer. Question: Is it only the āryamārga that can be the cause, and not the inferior path as the cause? This is a question and answer. Question: What is the nature of prayoga-ja dharma (dharma born of effort)? This is asking about the nature of prayoga-ja dharma. Answer: What is called śrutamayī prajñā (wisdom born of hearing), and even as the cause and not the inferior cause. This is a general and brief answer. Answer: For example, those belonging to the kāmadhātu (desire realm), because they do not have (the dharmas of the upper realms), they are inferior causes. This is answering by pointing out an example. Answer: Like these dharmas, except for the previous inferior causes.
。就同地中。聞．思．修惠復分九品。與等．勝為因也。
論。生得善法至染污亦爾。明生得善等也 正理論云。生得善法與加行善為因。非加行善與生得善為因。以彼劣故。又生得善亦有九品。一切相望展轉為因。容一一后皆現前故。有餘師說。定一心中得一切故。然由現行異熟九品。可施設有九品差別。染污九品準此應知。復由對治有九品故。可施設有九品差別。
論。無覆無記至二一為因。次明無覆無記為因差別。準義同類異熟九品展轉為因。餘二與等．勝為因。非加行生。加行生故。
論。又欲界化心至而無所獲。此明化心為因差別也。
論。因如是義故有問言。自此已下問答分別也。
論。頗有已生至於一切劣。此明已生法勝。不與未生劣為因也。
論。頗有一身至未來無故。明後雖劣非前勝因。
論。頗有前生至已彼劣故。明前已生勝無漏法非后已生劣無漏因。
論。如是已說同類因相。下第四明相應因也。
論曰至是相應因。此出體也。即心．心所更相隨順。共相應義名相應因。即是用相應法為因。持業釋也 及是與相應法為因。屬主釋也。
論。若爾所緣至為相應因。此釋頌中相應。有同一所緣．同一行相．同時．同依。然頌唯說同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：就如同在同一地界中，聽聞、思考、修習所產生的智慧又可分為九品，它們之間以相等或更勝的品級作為因。
論：生來就有的善法乃至染污之法也是如此。這是說明生來就有的善法等等的情況。《正理論》說：『生來就有的善法與通過修行而產生的善法互為因，但通過修行而產生的善法不能作為生來就有的善法的因，因為它比較低劣。』而且，生來就有的善法也有九品，一切品級相互之間輾轉為因，因為容許每一個品級在後都可能現前。有其他論師說：『在同一個禪定心中可以獲得一切品級。』然而，由於現行的異熟果報有九品，所以可以施設為有九品差別。染污之法也有九品，可以參照這個道理來理解。又由於對治之法有九品，所以可以施設為有九品差別。
論：無覆無記之法乃至二者以一者為因。接下來是說明無覆無記之法作為因的差別。按照道理，同類的異熟果報有九品，它們之間輾轉為因。其餘二者以相等或更勝的品級作為因，不是通過修行而產生的，因為是通過修行而產生的。
論：又如欲界的變化之心乃至最終一無所獲。這是說明變化之心作為因的差別。
論：因為因是這樣的意義，所以有提問說。從這裡開始是問答分別。
論：是否有一種已經產生的法，對於一切低劣的法來說。這是說明已經產生的殊勝之法，不作為未產生的低劣之法的因。
論：是否有一個身體乃至未來都沒有了。說明後來的即使低劣，也不是先前殊勝之法的因。
論：是否有一種先前產生的法乃至已經比它低劣了。說明先前產生的殊勝的無漏之法，不是後來產生的低劣的無漏之法的因。
論：像這樣已經說完了同類因的相狀。下面第四個說明相應因。
論曰：乃至是相應因。這是說明相應因的體性。就是心和心所互相隨順，共同相應的意義，叫做相應因。也就是用相應的法作為因，這是持業釋。『及』是與相應的法作為因，這是屬主釋。
論：如果是這樣，所緣乃至作為相應因。這是解釋頌中的『相應』。有同一所緣、同一行相、同時、同依。然而頌中只說了『同』。
【English Translation】 English version: Just as in the same realm, the wisdom arising from hearing, thinking, and cultivating can be further divided into nine grades, with equal or superior grades serving as the cause.
Treatise: The same applies to innate good dharmas and even defiled dharmas. This explains the nature of innate good dharmas, etc. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理論) states: 'Innate good dharmas and good dharmas arising from practice are mutual causes, but good dharmas arising from practice cannot be the cause of innate good dharmas because they are inferior.' Moreover, innate good dharmas also have nine grades, with all grades mutually serving as causes because each grade is allowed to manifest after the other. Some teachers say: 'One can obtain all grades in the same meditative mind.' However, due to the nine grades of currently active fruition, it can be established that there are nine grades of difference. The nine grades of defiled dharmas should be understood in accordance with this principle. Furthermore, due to the nine grades of antidotes, it can be established that there are nine grades of difference.
Treatise: Unspecified dharmas (無覆無記) and even two dharmas with one as the cause. Next, it explains the difference in unspecified dharmas as causes. According to reason, the nine grades of similar fruition are mutual causes. The remaining two take equal or superior grades as causes, not those arising from practice, because they arise from practice.
Treatise: Furthermore, like the mind of transformation in the desire realm, even to the point of gaining nothing. This explains the difference in the mind of transformation as a cause.
Treatise: Because the meaning of cause is such, there is a question that says. From here onwards, there is a question-and-answer analysis.
Treatise: Is there a dharma that has already arisen, in relation to all inferior dharmas. This explains that superior dharmas that have already arisen do not serve as the cause of inferior dharmas that have not yet arisen.
Treatise: Is there a body, even to the point of having no future. It explains that even if the later is inferior, it is not the cause of the previous superior.
Treatise: Is there a previously arisen dharma, even to the point of already being inferior to it. It explains that the previously arisen superior undefiled dharma is not the cause of the later arisen inferior undefiled dharma.
Treatise: Having thus explained the characteristics of similar causes. The fourth section below explains the associated cause (相應因).
Treatise: Up to and including the associated cause. This explains the nature of the associated cause. It is the meaning of mind and mental factors mutually conforming and jointly associating, called the associated cause. That is, using associated dharmas as the cause, this is a karmadharaya compound. 'And' is taking associated dharmas as the cause, this is a tatpurusha compound.
Treatise: If that is the case, the object of cognition (所緣) up to and including being the associated cause. This explains 'associated' in the verse. There is the same object of cognition, the same aspect, simultaneous, and the same basis. However, the verse only mentions 'same'.
依。意者。由一所依義最要故。所以偏說。
論。此中同言至應知亦爾。此釋同依。準此釋意。同所依者。是心．心所共一所依義。所緣亦爾 有人解前同一所依．同一所緣。云依雖有二隻依一說。緣雖有多且依一說者。即違此文。然此頌中但言同依義通。準長行釋同一剎那 就剎那同中復有二種。一所依定同。二現起同。所依定同者。如一剎那眼通有三性識依。就染識中通與貪．瞋等依。然此等法雖同一依。非相應也。故知雖同依一剎那眼根。亦非相應義。必須現起同一剎那方是相應。由此長行釋中。云謂若眼識。用此剎那眼根為依。相應受等。亦即用此眼根為依。此據剎那現起為依。由如是義應作四句。有是同一依非同時等。謂三性識。同於一根以為依定。起時不同及境不定。二起時境等雖同。而所依異。如眾人觀月等俱句可知。
論。相應因體至義何差別。問也。心．心所法是相應因體。亦俱有因體。既是一因應無二。必應于中有其別相。如是二因有何差別。
論。由互為果義至互為因義。答別相也。如商侶相依共遊險道。由互相依得度險道。即是互為果義。亦是互為因義。即如商侶同受同作食等事業。其中闕一皆不相應。是故極成互為因義 問如商侶同行。闕一如何皆不相應。此如商侶同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 依。意為，由於同一所依的意義最為重要，所以偏重於說明這一點。 論：這裡『同言』直到『應知亦爾』，這是解釋『同依』。依照這個解釋的意義，『同所依』是指心和心所共同具有一個所依的意義。『所緣』也是如此。有人解釋前面的『同一所依』、『同一所緣』，說雖然所依有兩個，但只依據一個來說；雖然所緣有多個，但只依據一個來說，這與本文的意思相違背。然而，這首偈頌中只說了『同依』，意義是相通的。依照長行的解釋，是指『同一剎那』。在剎那的相同中，又分為兩種：一是所依的確定相同，二是現起的相同。所依的確定相同，例如一個剎那的眼識，具有三種性質的識所依。就染污識來說，與貪、嗔等所依相通。然而，這些法雖然同一所依，卻不是相應的。所以要知道，即使是同一剎那的眼根，也不是相應的意義。必須是現起在同一剎那，才是相應。因此，長行的解釋中說，『如果眼識，用這個剎那的眼根作為所依，相應的受等，也用這個眼根作為所依。』這是根據剎那現起作為所依。由於這樣的意義，應該作出四句：有的是同一所依，但不是同時等等。例如三種性質的識，共同以一個根作為確定的所依，但生起的時間不同，所緣的境界也不確定。二，生起的時間和境界等雖然相同，但所依不同。例如眾人觀看月亮等，可以從俱句中得知。 論：『相應因體』直到『義何差別』，這是提問。心和心所法是相應的因體，也是俱有因體。既然是一個因，應該沒有兩種。必定應該在其中有其區別的相狀。像這樣的兩種因，有什麼差別？ 論：『由互為果義』直到『互為因義』，這是回答區別的相狀。如同商人們互相依靠，共同行走在危險的道路上。由於互相依靠，才能度過危險的道路，這就是互為果的意義，也是互為因的意義。就像商人們共同接受、共同從事飲食等事業。其中缺少一個，都不相應。所以極其明顯的是互為因的意義。問：如同商人們同行，缺少一個，為什麼都不相應？這就像商人們同...
【English Translation】 English version: Yi. It means that because the meaning of 'same basis' (所依, so yi) is the most important, it is emphasized. Treatise: Here, 'same word' until 'should also know is the same' explains 'same basis'. According to the meaning of this explanation, 'same basis' refers to the meaning that the mind and mental functions share a common basis. 'Object' (所緣, suo yuan) is also the same. Some people explain the previous 'same basis', 'same object', saying that although there are two bases, they are only based on one; although there are multiple objects, they are only based on one. This contradicts the meaning of this text. However, this verse only mentions 'same basis', and the meaning is interconnected. According to the explanation of the long passage, it refers to 'same moment' (剎那, chana). Within the sameness of a moment, there are two types: one is the definite sameness of the basis, and the other is the sameness of arising. The definite sameness of the basis is, for example, the eye consciousness (眼識, yan shi) in one moment has three kinds of consciousness bases. In terms of defiled consciousness, it is connected with greed (貪, tan), anger (瞋, chen), etc. However, although these dharmas have the same basis, they are not corresponding. Therefore, it should be known that even if it is the same eye root (眼根, yan gen) in the same moment, it is not the meaning of correspondence. It must be arising in the same moment to be corresponding. Therefore, in the explanation of the long passage, it says, 'If the eye consciousness uses the eye root of this moment as the basis, the corresponding feeling (受, shou), etc., also use this eye root as the basis.' This is based on the arising of the moment as the basis. Because of this meaning, four sentences should be made: Some are the same basis, but not at the same time, etc. For example, the three kinds of consciousness share a common root as a definite basis, but the time of arising is different, and the object of focus is also uncertain. Two, although the time of arising and the object of focus are the same, the basis is different. For example, when people watch the moon, etc., it can be known from the phrase 'together'. Treatise: 'Corresponding cause body' until 'what is the difference in meaning' is a question. The mind and mental functions are the corresponding cause body, and also the co-existent cause body. Since it is one cause, there should not be two. There must be a distinguishing feature in it. What is the difference between these two causes? Treatise: 'Because of the meaning of mutual result' until 'meaning of mutual cause' is the answer to the distinguishing feature. Like merchants relying on each other and walking together on dangerous roads. Because they rely on each other, they can pass through dangerous roads. This is the meaning of mutual result, and also the meaning of mutual cause. Just like merchants jointly accepting and jointly engaging in food and other businesses. If one is missing, they are not corresponding. Therefore, it is extremely obvious that it is the meaning of mutual cause. Question: Like merchants walking together, if one is missing, why are they not corresponding? This is like merchants...
時行者食等事業。住必同住。行必同行。食必同食。若於一人不同所作。則不住。不行。不食等也 正理云。若相應因則俱有因。此中二因義有何別。答云。非相應因即俱有因。由此二因義各別故。然即一法是相應因亦俱有因義。差別者。不相離義是相應因。同一果義是俱有因。又展轉力同生．住等是俱有因。若展轉力同緣一境是相應因 準此二論。辨因差別。故知六因辨異就用非體。其相攝亦用非體。
論。如是已說相應因相。下第五釋遍行因也。
論曰至當廣分別。此出遍行因體 謂前已生遍行諸法。出因體也 與后同地染污諸法為遍行因。示果體也。隨眠品中遍行有三。一遍隨眠五部法故。謂十一隨眠。二遍緣五部法。謂十一相應法。三遍與五部染法為因兼四相。由遍與五部染法為因故。名遍行因 隨眠有三遍。相應法有二遍。四相有一遍。
論。此與染法至亦生長故。釋同類因外別立所以也 此與染法為通因者。即是遍義。其同類因唯與自部．自地為因。遍行因與自地一切染法為因。力勢不同故別立也。亦為餘部染法因故 由此勢力餘部煩惱．及彼眷屬亦生長故。釋通因也。正理論云。于自部攝諸煩惱中。同類．遍行二因何別。由有身見諸愛得生。諸愛亦能生有身見。二差別相如何可知。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 時行者在飲食等事務上，住在一起，行動在一起，吃在一起。如果對其中一人所做的事情不同意，就不住在一起，不一起行動，不一起吃飯等等。《正理》中說：『如果相應因就是俱有因，那麼這兩種因的意義有什麼區別？』回答說：『非相應因不一定是俱有因。』因此這兩種因的意義各有區別。然而，同一法既是相應因，也是俱有因。它們的區別在於：不相離的意義是相應因，同一結果的意義是俱有因。另外，展轉相生的力量，一同生起、安住等是俱有因。如果展轉相生的力量，一同緣於一個境界，那就是相應因。根據這兩部論典，辨別因的差別。因此可知，六因辨別差異在於作用而非本體，其相互包含也是作用而非本體。
論：像這樣已經說了相應因的相狀，下面第五個解釋遍行因。
論曰：應當廣泛地分別。這是說明遍行因的本體。所謂先前已經生起的遍行諸法（指煩惱的種子），這是說明因的本體。與後來同一地上的染污諸法作為遍行因，這是顯示果的本體。在隨眠品中，遍行有三種：一是遍隨眠五部法（五部：見苦所斷、見集所斷、見滅所斷、見道所斷、修所斷），即十一隨眠（十一隨眠：貪、嗔、慢、無明、見、疑、有身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）。二是遍緣五部法，即十一相應法。三是遍與五部染法作為因，兼四相（四相：生、住、異、滅）。因為遍與五部染法作為因，所以名為遍行因。隨眠有三種遍，相應法有兩種遍，四相有一種遍。
論：這與染法（指煩惱）作為通因，與同類因之外單獨設立的原因。這與染法作為通因，就是普遍的意義。而同類因只與自部、自地作為因，遍行因與自地一切染法作為因，力量和態勢不同，所以單獨設立。也作為其餘部的染法的原因。由此勢力，其餘部的煩惱以及它們的眷屬也生長。這是解釋通因。正理論中說：『在自部所攝的諸煩惱中，同類因和遍行因有什麼區別？由於有身見而生起諸愛，諸愛也能生起有身見，這兩種差別相如何才能知道？』
【English Translation】 English version When practitioners are engaged in activities such as eating, they dwell together, act together, and eat together. If they disagree with what one person does, they do not dwell together, act together, eat together, and so on. The Nyaya Sutra states: 'If a corresponding cause is also a co-existent cause, then what is the difference between these two causes?' The answer is: 'A non-corresponding cause is not necessarily a co-existent cause.' Therefore, the meanings of these two causes are distinct. However, the same dharma can be both a corresponding cause and a co-existent cause. The difference lies in that the meaning of 'inseparability' is a corresponding cause, while the meaning of 'same result' is a co-existent cause. Furthermore, the power of mutual generation, arising together, abiding together, etc., is a co-existent cause. If the power of mutual generation is to focus on the same object, then that is a corresponding cause. Based on these two treatises, distinguish the differences between causes. Therefore, it is known that the differentiation of the six causes lies in their function rather than their substance, and their mutual inclusion is also based on function rather than substance.
Treatise: Having thus explained the characteristics of the corresponding cause, the fifth explanation below is of the pervasive cause (sarvatraga-hetu).
Treatise says: It should be widely distinguished. This explains the substance of the pervasive cause. The so-called pervasive dharmas that have already arisen (referring to the seeds of afflictions), this explains the substance of the cause. Taking the defiled dharmas on the same ground later as the pervasive cause, this shows the substance of the result. In the chapter on latent tendencies (anusaya), pervasiveness has three aspects: first, pervasive latent tendencies in the five categories of dharmas (five categories: those abandoned by seeing the truth of suffering, those abandoned by seeing the truth of origin, those abandoned by seeing the truth of cessation, those abandoned by seeing the truth of the path, and those abandoned by cultivation), namely the eleven latent tendencies (eleven latent tendencies: greed (raga), hatred (dvesa), pride (mana), ignorance (avidya), view (drsti), doubt (vicikitsa), view of self (satkayadrsti), extreme view (antagrahadrsti), wrong view (mithyadrsti), view of holding to views (drstiparamarsa), view of holding to precepts and vows (silavrataparamarsa)). Second, pervasive conditioning of the five categories of dharmas, namely the eleven associated dharmas. Third, pervasive giving of the five categories of defiled dharmas as a cause, combined with the four characteristics (four characteristics: arising, abiding, changing, ceasing). Because it pervasively gives the five categories of defiled dharmas as a cause, it is called the pervasive cause. Latent tendencies have three kinds of pervasiveness, associated dharmas have two kinds of pervasiveness, and the four characteristics have one kind of pervasiveness.
Treatise: This, with defiled dharmas (referring to afflictions) as a general cause, is the reason for establishing it separately from the homogeneous cause. This, with defiled dharmas as a general cause, is the meaning of pervasiveness. However, the homogeneous cause only takes its own category and its own ground as a cause, while the pervasive cause takes all defiled dharmas on its own ground as a cause. Because the power and momentum are different, it is established separately. It also serves as a cause for the defiled dharmas of other categories. Due to this power, the afflictions of other categories and their retinue also grow. This explains the general cause. The Nyaya Sutra states: 'Among the afflictions included in one's own category, what is the difference between the homogeneous cause and the pervasive cause? Because the view of self arises from various forms of attachment, and these attachments can also give rise to the view of self, how can these two different characteristics be known?'
自部二因亦有差別。謂執我故。能令諸愛生起堅固增廣熾盛。我見遍緣諸愛境故。愛令我見生起堅固。而不能令增廣熾盛。不能遍緣我見境故。由諸遍惑展轉相望。皆能遍緣所緣境故。一一遍惑皆互能令生起堅固增廣熾盛。故此二因非無差別。一時一品能為同類．遍行二因有何差別。雖同時取二等流果。而自部果增盛非余。故彼二因亦有差別 何故云何自部增盛。由二因門所長養故。由此為彼近生因故。令彼增廣．及熾盛故。
論。聖者身中至為遍行因。問也。有學聖人遍惑已斷。豈亦用此已斷之法為修惑因。若亦為因斷與不斷有何差別。
論。迦濕彌羅國至見所斷為因。答也。一述毗婆沙家。二引品類足證。此文初也 見所斷與一切染法為因。故知不簡聖身染污。
論。品類足至所感異熟。此文第二品類足論證 品類足論有三文證。此文第一。見所斷法為因證也 謂諸染法既並皆以見斷為因。聖人身中染法亦是諸染法故。故知亦用見斷為因。
論。云何無記至及不善法。此是第二無記為因證也。遍行之中身．邊二見。是染無記．及四無記。俱是無記。既言謂諸無記有為法。即是攝一切染．不染無記盡。又云及不善法。即是攝一切不善法盡。既染無記．及不善法皆用無記為因。故知聖人身中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 自部二因（自身所屬的兩種原因）也有差別。這是因為執著于『我』，能使各種愛（貪愛）生起、堅固、增廣和熾盛。『我見』（認為有『我』的錯誤觀念）普遍緣于各種愛所對的境界，因此愛能使『我見』生起和堅固，但不能使其增廣和熾盛，因為愛不能普遍緣于『我見』所對的境界。由於各種普遍性的煩惱輾轉相望，都能普遍緣于所緣的境界，所以每一種普遍性的煩惱都能互相使對方生起、堅固、增廣和熾盛。因此，這兩種原因並非沒有差別。 一時一品（同一時間和同一類別）能作為同類因和遍行因，這兩種原因有什麼差別？雖然它們同時取得二等流果（相似的結果），但自身所屬的結果會更加增盛，而不是其他的。因此，這兩種原因也有差別。為什麼說自身所屬的結果會更加增盛呢？這是由於兩種原因的門徑所長養的緣故。由於這種原因是那種結果的近生因（直接產生的原因），所以能使那種結果增廣和熾盛。 論：聖者身中至為遍行因。問：有學的聖人已經斷除了遍惑（普遍性的煩惱），難道還會用這種已經斷除的法作為修惑（修所斷的煩惱）的原因嗎？如果也作為原因，那麼斷除與不斷除有什麼差別？ 論：迦濕彌羅國至見所斷為因。答：一、敘述毗婆沙家（佛教論師）的觀點。二、引用《品類足論》（佛教論著）作為證據。這是本文的開始。見所斷（通過見道斷除的煩惱）與一切染法（染污的法）作為原因，因此可知不區分聖人的身體是否染污。 論：《品類足》至所感異熟。這是第二段，《品類足論》的論證。《品類足論》有三段文字作為證據。這是第一段，以見所斷法作為原因的論證。也就是說，各種染污的法都以見所斷作為原因，聖人身中的染污法也是各種染污法之一，因此可知也用見所斷作為原因。 論：云何無記至及不善法。這是第二段，以無記（非善非惡）作為原因的論證。遍行之中，身見（認為身體是『我』的錯誤觀念）和邊見（執著于斷或常的錯誤觀念）是染污的無記，以及四種無記都是無記。既然說各種無記的有為法，就是攝取一切染污和不染污的無記。又說以及不善法，就是攝取一切不善法。既然染污的無記以及不善法都用無記作為原因，因此可知聖人身中
【English Translation】 English version The two causes belonging to one's own category (two causes belonging to oneself) also have differences. This is because clinging to 'self' causes various loves (craving) to arise, become firm, increase, and flourish. 'Self-view' (the erroneous notion of a 'self') universally conditions all objects of love, thus love can cause 'self-view' to arise and become firm, but cannot cause it to increase and flourish, because love cannot universally condition the objects of 'self-view'. Because various pervasive afflictions mutually regard each other, they can all universally condition the objects they condition, so each pervasive affliction can mutually cause the other to arise, become firm, increase, and flourish. Therefore, these two causes are not without difference. At one time and in one category (same time and same category) can serve as the homogenous cause and the pervasive cause, what is the difference between these two causes? Although they simultaneously obtain the two isoflow results (similar results), the results belonging to oneself will be more enhanced, not others. Therefore, these two causes also have differences. Why is it said that the results belonging to oneself will be more enhanced? This is because they are nurtured by the paths of the two causes. Because this cause is the proximate cause (direct cause) of that result, it can cause that result to increase and flourish. Treatise: In the body of a sage, up to being a pervasive cause. Question: A learned sage has already severed the pervasive afflictions (universal afflictions), would they still use this already severed dharma as a cause for afflictions to be cultivated (afflictions to be severed through cultivation)? If it also serves as a cause, then what is the difference between severing and not severing? Treatise: The country of Kashmir up to the cause of what is severed by view. Answer: First, narrate the views of the Vaibhashika school (Buddhist scholars). Second, cite the Treatise on Categories (Buddhist treatise) as evidence. This is the beginning of this text. What is severed by view (afflictions severed through the path of seeing) serves as a cause for all defiled dharmas (defiled dharmas), therefore it can be known that it does not distinguish whether the body of a sage is defiled. Treatise: Treatise on Categories up to the matured result felt. This is the second section, the argument from the Treatise on Categories. The Treatise on Categories has three sections of text as evidence. This is the first section, the argument using what is severed by view as a cause. That is to say, all defiled dharmas take what is severed by view as a cause, the defiled dharmas in the body of a sage are also one of the various defiled dharmas, therefore it can be known that it also uses what is severed by view as a cause. Treatise: How is the unspecified up to and unwholesome dharmas. This is the second section, the argument using the unspecified (neither good nor bad) as a cause. Among the pervasive, the view of the body (the erroneous notion that the body is 'self') and the extreme view (the erroneous notion of clinging to annihilation or permanence) are defiled unspecified, and the four unspecified are all unspecified. Since it says that various unspecified conditioned dharmas, it encompasses all defiled and undefiled unspecified. And it says and unwholesome dharmas, it encompasses all unwholesome dharmas. Since defiled unspecified and unwholesome dharmas all use the unspecified as a cause, therefore it can be known that in the body of a sage
諸染污法。亦用身．邊二見為遍行因。
論。或有苦諦至諸餘染污苦諦。第三染污苦諦證也。此中取從身見生不與身見為因而證也。謂一切染法皆從身見生。一分卻與身見為因。一分不與身見為因。聖人身中染法既是諸餘染法之數。故知從身見生。
論。若爾至染污思。外人難也 既離欲聖人退最初起染污思。是唯不善為因。故知聖人身中染法。不用見道所斷身．邊二見為因。
論。依未斷因至故廢不說。通也。
論。如是已說遍行因相。第六明異熟因也。
論曰至異熟法故。出異熟因體也 異熟法者。如下廣釋 三性之中善．不善。唯是異熟因也。無記唯非異熟因也 善有二種。有漏是異熟因。無漏非異熟因。
論。何緣無記至水所沃潤。釋所以也。無記力劣如文可知 無漏不招異熟。有二義故。一無漏以無愛水潤故。二不可能招系地果故。不善．善有漏具其三義。一力用強。二愛水潤。三招系地果故。是異熟因。
論。異熟因義至名異熟因。兩關問也。
論。義兼兩釋斯有何過。答也。
論異熟即因至業之異熟。雙難兩釋 言異熟生眼者。即是異熟即因。何得說言異熟之因。言業之異熟者。即不得言異熟即因。
論。兩釋俱通已如前辨。答也。聖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諸染污法，也用身見（認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）和邊見（認為『我』要麼斷滅，要麼永恒）這兩種見解作為普遍存在的因。
論：或者有苦諦（對苦的真理的認知）乃至諸餘染污苦諦（其他被染污的對苦的真理的認知），第三染污苦諦被證得。這裡指的是從身見產生，但不以身見為因而被證得的情況。也就是說，一切染污法都從身見產生，一部分以身見為因，一部分不以身見為因。聖人身中的染污法既然是諸餘染污法之數，所以可知是從身見產生的。
論：如果這樣，外人會提出疑問：既然離欲聖人退步時最初產生的染污思，是唯有不善為因，那麼可知聖人身中的染污法，不用見道（證悟真理的道路）所斷的身見和邊見這兩種見解為因。
論：依靠未斷的因，所以廢而不說。這是通用的說法。
論：像這樣已經說了遍行因的相狀，下面第六個說明異熟因。
論曰：到異熟法，所以說異熟因的體性。異熟法，如下面廣泛解釋。在三性（善、惡、無記）之中，善和不善，唯是異熟因。無記唯不是異熟因。善有二種，有漏（有煩惱）是異熟因，無漏（無煩惱）不是異熟因。
論：為什麼無記不是異熟因，如同水所澆灌滋潤一樣？這是解釋原因。無記的力量弱，如文字所說可以知道。無漏不招感異熟果報，有兩個原因：一是無漏沒有愛水滋潤；二是不可能招感繫縛於三界之地的果報。不善和有漏的善具備這三個條件：一是力量強；二是愛水滋潤；三是招感繫縛於三界之地的果報。所以是不異熟因。
論：異熟因的意義，到名為異熟因。這是兩個相關的提問。
論：意義兼顧兩種解釋，這有什麼過失？這是回答。
論：異熟即是因，到業的異熟。這是雙重詰難兩種解釋。說異熟所生的眼，就是異熟即是因。怎麼能說異熟的因？說業的異熟，就不能說異熟即是因。
論：兩種解釋都通達，已經像前面那樣辨析過了。這是回答。聖
【English Translation】 English version All defiled dharmas also use the two views of 'self-view' (Sakkāya-diṭṭhi, the view that the five aggregates are 'I' or 'mine') and 'extreme view' (anta-graha-diṭṭhi, the view that 'I' either ceases to exist or is eternal) as pervasive causes.
Treatise: Or there is the truth of suffering (duḥkha-satya) up to the other defiled truths of suffering; the third defiled truth of suffering is realized. Here, it refers to the situation where it arises from self-view but is realized without self-view as a cause. That is to say, all defiled dharmas arise from self-view; a portion takes self-view as a cause, and a portion does not take self-view as a cause. Since the defiled dharmas in a saint are among the other defiled dharmas, it can be known that they arise from self-view.
Treatise: If that is the case, an outsider might ask: Since the defiled thought that initially arises when a saint who has abandoned desire regresses is caused only by unwholesomeness, it can be known that the defiled dharmas in a saint do not use the two views of self-view and extreme view, which are severed by the path of seeing (darśana-mārga, the path of realizing the truth), as causes.
Treatise: Relying on the cause that has not been severed, therefore it is abandoned and not spoken of. This is a general statement.
Treatise: Having thus explained the characteristics of the pervasive cause, the sixth explains the resultant cause (vipāka-hetu).
Treatise says: Up to the resultant dharma, therefore the nature of the resultant cause is stated. Resultant dharma will be explained extensively below. Among the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral), only wholesome and unwholesome are resultant causes. Only neutral is not a resultant cause. There are two types of wholesome: defiled (with afflictions) is a resultant cause, and undefiled (without afflictions) is not a resultant cause.
Treatise: Why is neutral not a resultant cause, like being watered and nourished by water? This explains the reason. The power of neutral is weak, as can be known from the text. Undefiled does not attract resultant retribution for two reasons: first, undefiled does not have the water of craving to nourish it; second, it is impossible to attract the fruit of being bound to the realms of existence. Unwholesome and defiled wholesome possess these three conditions: first, the power is strong; second, it is nourished by the water of craving; third, it attracts the fruit of being bound to the realms of existence. Therefore, it is a resultant cause.
Treatise: The meaning of resultant cause, up to named resultant cause. These are two related questions.
Treatise: What fault is there in the meaning encompassing both explanations? This is the answer.
Treatise: Resultant is the cause, up to the resultant of karma. This is a double challenge to both explanations. Saying that the eye born from the resultant is the resultant that is the cause. How can one say the cause of the resultant? Saying the resultant of karma, then one cannot say the resultant is the cause.
Treatise: Both explanations are comprehensive, as has been analyzed before. This is the answer. Saint
教中言業之異熟。即是異熟之因。聖教中言異熟生眼。即是異熟即因。由有二文義兼兩釋。
論。所言異熟其義云何。問也。前之所言不善．善有漏是異熟法者。所言異熟其義云何。
論。毗婆沙師至名異熟因。引婆沙釋對餘五因廢立名也。準此廢立熟名。通六因所得果時皆名熟也。此異熟因。唯異類熟得異熟名。自余之因。非唯異類不名異熟。
論熟果不應至時有分限。已下論主破婆沙也。要具二義方得熟名 一由相續轉變差別。謂異熟因經取果已。必定經停時別力用轉變方能與果。即此轉變是其熟義 二由隨因勢力時有分限。亦是熟義。隨因勢力或百年五十年等。如世間果轉變而熟。熟已隨其勢力分限。具斯二義得其熟名。
論。非彼俱有至即與果故。釋二因無相續．變轉．差別義也。以取果時即與果故。
論。又非能作至時無限故。釋三因無隨因勢力分限。由一取果已窮生死際數與果故。
論。由此但應至簡別余因。論主述自釋也。變異而熟是異熟義。不應如婆沙師說。熟通五果。但異以簡余因。正理救云。然經主言。毗婆沙師作如是釋。異類而熟是異熟義。謂異熟因唯異類熟。俱有等因唯同類熟。能作一因兼同．異熟。故唯此一名異熟因。乃至廣說。皆不應理。毗婆沙
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 教義中關於業的異熟（Vipāka，果報）的說法，指的是產生異熟的因。聖教中提到的異熟生眼，指的是異熟本身就是因，因為有兩段經文，可以兼顧兩種解釋。
論：所說的異熟，它的含義是什麼？（這是提問）前面所說的不善、善的有漏之法是異熟法，那麼所說的異熟，它的含義是什麼？
論：毗婆沙師甚至將異熟因稱為異熟，這是引用《大毗婆沙論》的解釋，來反對其他五種因的建立。按照這種廢立的說法，『熟』這個名稱，可以通用於六因所得的果報，都可以稱為『熟』。但這裡所說的異熟因，只有異類成熟才能得到異熟的名稱。至於其他的因，並非只有異類成熟，所以不能稱為異熟。
論：成熟的果報不應該有時間上的限制。（以下是論主駁斥《大毗婆沙論》的觀點）要具備兩種含義才能稱為『熟』：一是通過相續轉變的差別，也就是說，異熟因在產生果報之後，必定要經過一段時間的停滯，通過別力的作用轉變，才能給予果報。這種轉變就是『熟』的含義。二是通過隨因的勢力，時間上有一定的限制，這也是『熟』的含義。隨著因的勢力，或者一百年，或者五十年等等。就像世間的果實，經過轉變而成熟，成熟之後，隨著其勢力的限制。具備這兩種含義，才能得到『熟』的名稱。
論：不是因為它們同時存在，所以立即給予果報。（這是解釋俱有因沒有相續、變轉、差別的含義）因為在產生果報的時候，立即就給予果報。
論：又不是因為能作因，所以時間沒有限制。（這是解釋能作因沒有隨因勢力分限的含義）因為一旦產生果報，就會窮盡生死輪迴的次數給予果報。
論：因此，應該只是爲了簡別其他的因。（論主陳述自己的解釋）變異而成熟，才是異熟的含義。不應該像《大毗婆沙論》所說的那樣，『熟』可以通用於五種果報，只是用『異』來簡別其他的因。正理論師辯護說：然而經主說，毗婆沙師這樣解釋，異類而成熟才是異熟的含義，也就是說，異熟因只有異類成熟，俱有因等只有同類成熟，能作因兼有同類和異類成熟。所以只有這個名稱叫做異熟因，乃至廣說，都是不合理的。《大毗婆沙論》
【English Translation】 English version The teaching on the Vipāka (result of karma) of verbal actions refers to the cause that produces Vipāka. The 'eye born of Vipāka' mentioned in the Holy Teaching refers to Vipāka itself being the cause, because there are two scriptures that can accommodate both interpretations.
Treatise: What is the meaning of 'Vipāka'? (This is a question.) The previously mentioned unwholesome and wholesome contaminated dharmas are Vipāka dharmas. So, what is the meaning of 'Vipāka'?
Treatise: The Vibhāṣā masters even call the Vipāka-hetu (cause of Vipāka) Vipāka. This quotes the explanation from the Mahāvibhāṣā to oppose the establishment of the other five hetus (causes). According to this establishment and rejection, the name 'ripe' can be generally applied to the results obtained from the six causes, all of which can be called 'ripe'. However, the Vipāka-hetu mentioned here only obtains the name Vipāka when it ripens into a different kind. As for the other causes, they are not only ripening into different kinds, so they cannot be called Vipāka.
Treatise: The ripening of the fruit should not have a time limit. (The following is the treatise master refuting the view of the Mahāvibhāṣā.) To be called 'ripe', two meanings must be present: First, through the difference of continuous transformation. That is, after the Vipāka-hetu produces the result, it must go through a period of stagnation, and through the transformation of a separate force, it can give the result. This transformation is the meaning of 'ripe'. Second, through the power of the cause, there is a certain time limit, which is also the meaning of 'ripe'. Depending on the power of the cause, it may be a hundred years, or fifty years, etc. Just like worldly fruits, they ripen through transformation, and after ripening, they are limited by their power. Having these two meanings, one can obtain the name 'ripe'.
Treatise: It is not because they exist simultaneously that they immediately give the result. (This explains that the Sahabhū-hetu (co-existent cause) does not have the meaning of continuity, transformation, and difference.) Because at the time of producing the result, the result is given immediately.
Treatise: Moreover, it is not because of the Kāraṇa-hetu (efficient cause) that there is no time limit. (This explains that the Kāraṇa-hetu does not have the limitation of the power of the cause.) Because once the result is produced, it will give the result exhaustively throughout the cycles of birth and death.
Treatise: Therefore, it should only be for distinguishing the other causes. (The treatise master states his own explanation.) Transformation and ripening is the meaning of Vipāka. It should not be like what the Mahāvibhāṣā says, that 'ripe' can be generally applied to the five results, but only 'different' is used to distinguish the other causes. The defender of the Nyāyānusāra says: However, the sūtra master says that the Vibhāṣā masters explain it this way: ripening into a different kind is the meaning of Vipāka, that is, the Vipāka-hetu only ripens into a different kind, the Sahabhū-hetu etc. only ripen into the same kind, and the Kāraṇa-hetu includes both the same and different kinds of ripening. Therefore, only this name is called Vipāka-hetu, and so on, all of which are unreasonable. Mahāvibhāṣā
師非決定說六因所得皆名熟故。設許爾者是果異名。亦無有失 正理自釋云。然異熟因或持業釋如經說異熟生眼。或依主釋故契經言業之異熟。言異熟者。或離因熟。或異因熟。此二屬果。或所造業。至得果時變而能熟。此一屬因 又云。此異熟因總說有二。一能牽引。二能圓滿。且眾同分．及與命根。非不相應行獨所能牽引 又云。要業牽引命．眾同分 又云。身．語二業定不能引命．眾同分。不爾便違契經．正理。經言劣界思所引故。此說欲．有命．眾同分。唯意業感非身．語業。身．語表業眾多極微一心所起。于中唯一引眾同分．及與命根。余無此能。不應理故。若許同時共感一果。則應更互為俱有因。有對造色為俱有因非宗所許。又非次第一一極微。牽引命根．及眾同分。一心起故非一心起無異功能。別引生后而無過失。非為滿業亦有斯過。於一生中。各別能取色．香．味等圓滿果故。依此無表亦同此釋。多遠離體一心起故。不許互為俱有因故 準此論文于婆沙等論文外更立此義。引果．滿果。及生前後力用別故。一心所引不令有異。同是滿果一異熟。色等雖異力用同故。所以同一心引。感果有異。
論。于欲界中至及彼生等。自此已下就界明為因感果蘊多少。于欲界中。唯是得一蘊感一果也。得與生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如果老師不認為六因所得的結果都叫做『熟』，那麼如果允許你所說的，異熟就是果的另一個名稱，也沒有什麼損失。 答：正理自釋說：『然而，異熟因或者屬於持業釋（karma-dharaya），如經中所說『異熟生眼』（vipāka-ja cakṣus，由異熟產生的眼）。或者屬於依主釋（tat-puruṣa），所以契經說『業之異熟』（karma-vipāka，業的異熟）。』 『所說的『異熟』，或者指離開因而成熟，或者指由不同因而成熟。這兩種都屬於果。或者指所造的業，到獲得果報時發生變化而能夠成熟。這一個屬於因。』 又說：『這種異熟因總的來說有兩種：一是能牽引（ākarṣaṇa），二是能圓滿（paripūraṇa）。而且眾同分（nikāya-sabhāga，眾生的共性）以及命根（jīvitendriya，維持生命的要素），不是不相應行（viprayukta-saṃskāra，不與心識相應的行蘊）所能單獨牽引的。』 又說：『必須由業來牽引命根和眾同分。』 又說：『身業和語業一定不能牽引命根和眾同分。否則就違背了契經和正理。經中說，由下劣界的思所牽引。』這裡說的是欲界和有界的命根和眾同分，只有意業才能感得，而不是身業和語業。身業和語業的表業（vijñapti-karma，表達行為的業）由眾多極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）和一個心所（caitta，心理活動）產生。其中只有一種能牽引眾同分和命根，其餘的沒有這種能力，這是不合道理的。如果允許同時共同感得一個果報，那麼它們應該互相成為俱有因（sahabhū-hetu，同時存在的因），而有對造色（sa-pratigha-rūpa，有阻礙的色法）作為俱有因不是本宗所允許的。而且不是依次由每一個極微來牽引命根和眾同分。因為它們由一個心產生，不是由不同的心產生，沒有不同的功能，分別牽引產生後來的果報而沒有過失。對於圓滿業（paripūraṇa-karma，使果報圓滿的業）也有這種過失，因為在一生中，它們能夠分別取得色、香、味等圓滿的果報。依據這個道理，無表業（avijñapti-karma，不表達行為的業）也同樣可以這樣解釋。因為多個遠離的自體由一個心產生，不允許互相成為俱有因。 根據這段論文，在《婆沙論》等論文之外，更確立了這個意義：牽引果報、圓滿果報，以及產生前後的作用不同。一個心所牽引的果報不會有差異，同樣是圓滿果報的一種異熟。色等雖然不同，但作用相同，所以由同一個心牽引。感得的果報有差異。 論：在欲界中，乃至與彼生等。從這裡開始，就界限說明作為因感果的蘊有多少。在欲界中，只是獲得一個蘊感得一個果報。獲得與生。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: If the teacher does not consider all results obtained from the six causes to be called 'ripe,' then if what you say is allowed, that 'vipāka' is just another name for 'fruit,' there is no loss. Answer: The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra explains itself: 'However, the vipāka-hetu (resultant cause) either belongs to the karma-dharaya compound, as the sutra says 'vipāka-ja cakṣus' (eye born of vipāka, the eye produced by vipāka). Or it belongs to the tat-puruṣa compound, so the sutra says 'karma-vipāka' (the vipāka of karma, the result of action).' 'What is called 'vipāka' either refers to ripening apart from the cause, or ripening from a different cause. These two belong to the fruit. Or it refers to the karma created, which changes and is able to ripen when the fruit is obtained. This one belongs to the cause.' It also says: 'This vipāka-hetu, generally speaking, has two types: one is able to attract (ākarṣaṇa), and the other is able to perfect (paripūraṇa). Moreover, the nikāya-sabhāga (community of beings, commonality of beings) and the jīvitendriya (life faculty, the element that sustains life) are not able to be attracted solely by the viprayukta-saṃskāra (dissociated formations, formations not corresponding to consciousness).' It also says: 'It is necessary for karma to attract the jīvitendriya and the nikāya-sabhāga.' It also says: 'Physical and verbal karma definitely cannot attract the jīvitendriya and the nikāya-sabhāga. Otherwise, it would contradict the sutras and the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra. The sutra says that it is attracted by the thought of the inferior realm.' This refers to the jīvitendriya and the nikāya-sabhāga of the desire realm and the realm of existence, which are only felt by mental karma, not by physical and verbal karma. The vijñapti-karma (manifest action, expressive action) of physical and verbal karma is produced by numerous paramāṇu (atoms, the smallest units of matter) and one caitta (mental factor, mental activity). Among them, only one is able to attract the nikāya-sabhāga and the jīvitendriya, and the rest do not have this ability, which is unreasonable. If it is allowed that one fruit is felt simultaneously and jointly, then they should mutually become sahabhū-hetu (co-existent causes, simultaneous causes), but sa-pratigha-rūpa (obstructive matter, tangible matter) as sahabhū-hetu is not allowed by this school. Moreover, it is not sequentially that each paramāṇu attracts the jīvitendriya and the nikāya-sabhāga. Because they arise from one mind, not from different minds, they do not have different functions, and there is no fault in separately attracting and producing later fruits. There is also this fault for paripūraṇa-karma (perfecting karma, karma that perfects the result), because in one lifetime, they are able to separately obtain perfect fruits such as color, smell, taste, etc. According to this principle, avijñapti-karma (non-manifest action, non-expressive action) can also be explained in the same way. Because multiple distant selves arise from one mind, it is not allowed to mutually become sahabhū-hetu. According to this treatise, this meaning is further established outside of treatises such as the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra: the attraction of fruit, the perfection of fruit, and the different functions before and after production. The fruits attracted by one mental factor will not be different, and it is also a kind of vipāka of perfect fruit. Although color and so on are different, their functions are the same, so they are attracted by the same mind. The fruits felt are different. Treatise: In the desire realm, up to and including their birth, etc. From here on, the number of skandhas that are felt as a result of the cause is explained according to the realm. In the desire realm, only obtaining one skandha feels one fruit. Obtaining and birth.
等同行蘊故。
論。有時二蘊至及彼生得。二蘊為因共感一果也。色之四相與所相法。色．行別也。
論。有時四蘊至及彼生等。明四蘊為因共感一果。心．心所無有色蘊。共一果故。
論。於色界中至及彼生等。明色界也。色界有二類。一蘊為因共感一果。一得。二無想定。
論。有時二蘊至及彼生等。明二蘊為因也。正理論云。非於第二靜慮已上有諸表業。無能起故。
論。有時四蘊至及彼生等。明四蘊為因也。
論。有時五蘊至及彼生等。明定心也。於色界中有四類不同。
論。無色界中至及彼生等。明無色界。一蘊為因唯有得．及滅定。
論。有時四蘊至及彼生等。明四蘊為因也。于無色界唯有二類。於三界中無有三蘊為因共感一果。有緣極少必有四蘊。無緣極多唯二故。
論。有業唯感至即命根等。自下明業感處多少。準婆沙十九云。得命根．眾同分業。彼業唯受法處異熟 準此論文。命根等者。等取眾同分。此二皆容別業感故。又準婆沙。命根眾同分下無等。故知得與本法同一業感。感命根．眾同分業。定不兼暖．識。引．滿果業定不同故。所以因就蘊明。果就處說者。若說共果即有一蘊．二蘊．四蘊．五蘊別。說處共果唯有一處．二處無多處
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『等同行蘊故』。
論：有時二蘊（色蘊和受、想、行、識四蘊的其中之一）乃至及彼生得。說明二蘊為因，共同感得一個果報。色蘊的四相（生、住、異、滅）與所相之法，色蘊和行蘊是不同的。
論：有時四蘊乃至及彼生等。說明四蘊為因，共同感得一個果報。心和心所沒有色蘊，所以共同感得一個果報。
論：于中乃至及彼生等。說明（禪定）也。**有二類。一蘊為因，共同感得一個果報。一是得，二是無想定。
論：有時二蘊乃至及彼生等。說明二蘊為因。正理論說，在第二靜慮（禪定的一種）以上，沒有諸表業（能表達意圖的行為），因為沒有能發起它們的力量。
論：有時四蘊乃至及彼生等。說明四蘊為因。
論：有時五蘊乃至及彼生等。說明定心。在**中有四類不同。
論：無中乃至及彼生等。說明無（沒有禪定的狀態）。一蘊為因，只有得以及滅盡定。
論：有時四蘊乃至及彼生等。說明四蘊為因。在無**中只有二類。在三界（欲界、色界、無色界）中，沒有三蘊為因共同感得一個果報的情況，因為有緣的情況極少，必然有四蘊。無緣的情況極多，只有二蘊。
論：有業唯感乃至即命根等。下面說明業感得的處所和多少。根據婆沙（《大毗婆沙論》）第十九卷的說法，得到命根（生命的根本）、眾同分（眾生的共性）的業，這種業只在法處（意識的對境）感受異熟果報。根據此論文，命根等，等同於取得眾同分。這兩個都容許由不同的業感得。又根據婆沙，命根眾同分下沒有『等』字，因此得知得與本法由同一業感得。感得命根、眾同分的業，一定不兼帶暖（體溫）、識（意識）。引業（能引生下一生的業）和滿業（能圓滿這一生的業）的果報一定不同。所以，因就蘊來說明，果就處來說明的原因是：如果說共同的果報，就有一蘊、二蘊、四蘊、五蘊的區別。如果說處所的共同果報，就只有一處、二處，沒有更多處。
【English Translation】 English version 'Equal in aggregates and elements'.
Treatise: Sometimes two aggregates (either the form aggregate or one of the feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness aggregates) up to and including their arising. This explains that two aggregates are the cause, jointly experiencing one result. The four characteristics of the form aggregate (arising, abiding, changing, ceasing) are different from the phenomena they characterize; the form aggregate and the mental formations aggregate are different.
Treatise: Sometimes four aggregates up to and including their arising. This explains that four aggregates are the cause, jointly experiencing one result. Mind and mental factors do not have the form aggregate, so they jointly experience one result.
Treatise: In ** up to and including their arising. This explains ** (meditative concentration). There are two types of **. One aggregate is the cause, jointly experiencing one result. One is attainment, and the other is the non-perceptual attainment.
Treatise: Sometimes two aggregates up to and including their arising. This explains that two aggregates are the cause. The Abhidharmakosha says that above the second dhyana (a type of meditative state), there are no expressive actions (actions that express intention) because there is no power to initiate them.
Treatise: Sometimes four aggregates up to and including their arising. This explains that four aggregates are the cause.
Treatise: Sometimes five aggregates up to and including their arising. This explains the mind in concentration. Within ** there are four different types.
Treatise: In the absence of ** up to and including their arising. This explains the absence of ** (the state of not being in meditative concentration). One aggregate is the cause, and there is only attainment and cessation meditation.
Treatise: Sometimes four aggregates up to and including their arising. This explains that four aggregates are the cause. In the absence of ** there are only two types. In the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm), there is no situation where three aggregates are the cause, jointly experiencing one result, because the conditions for it are extremely rare, and there must be four aggregates. The conditions for it being absent are very numerous, and there are only two aggregates.
Treatise: Some karma only experiences up to and including the life faculty, etc. Below, it explains the places and amounts that karma experiences. According to the nineteenth volume of the Mahavibhasa (Great Commentary), the karma that obtains the life faculty (the root of life) and the commonality of beings (the shared characteristics of beings), that karma only experiences the ripened result in the object of consciousness. According to this treatise, 'life faculty, etc.' is equivalent to obtaining the commonality of beings. These two both allow for being experienced by different karma. Also, according to the Mahavibhasa, there is no 'etc.' after 'life faculty and commonality of beings', therefore it is known that attainment and the original dharma are experienced by the same karma. The karma that experiences the life faculty and the commonality of beings certainly does not include warmth (body temperature) and consciousness (awareness). The results of the karma that attracts (karma that leads to the next life) and the karma that fulfills (karma that completes this life) are certainly different. Therefore, the reason why the cause is explained in terms of aggregates and the result is explained in terms of places is: if the common result is spoken of, there is a distinction between one aggregate, two aggregates, four aggregates, and five aggregates. If the common result of places is spoken of, there is only one place, two places, and no more places.
故。說處共因即有二一乃至十一處故。依差別多明法相故。所以共果就蘊。共因就處處．蘊互明其義已顯。不就界說。
論。若感意處至應知亦爾。感二處也。意與法處。即是四相．及得．心所法也 觸法處者。得．四相也。
論。若感身處至應知亦爾。明感三處 身三處者。謂身．觸．法 觸是四大。法是四相等。色．香．味三應知亦爾。
論。若感眼處至應知亦爾。明感四處。謂眼．身．觸．法。婆沙十九複次有業唯受一處異熟謂得命根．眾同分業。彼業唯受法處異熟。有業唯受二處異熟。謂得意處業。彼業唯受意處．法處異熟。得觸處業受三處異熟。謂身處．觸處．法處。得色．香．味處業亦爾。各受自處．觸處．法處異熟。得眼處業受四處異熟。謂眼處．身處．觸處．法處。得耳．鼻．舌處業亦爾。謂各受自處．身處．觸處．法處．異熟。有餘師說。一切大種皆生色．聲。欲界諸色不離香．味。彼作是說。得眼處業受七處異熟。謂眼處．身處。及色．香．味．觸．法處異熟。得耳．鼻．舌處業亦爾。謂各受自處．身處。及色．香．味．觸．法處異熟。得身處業受六處異熟。謂身處。及色．香．味．觸．法處異熟。得色處業受五處異熟。謂色．香．味．觸．法處異熟。得香．味．觸處業亦爾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，所說的處（ayatana，感覺的來源）的共同因，即有二到十一處的原因。這是因為依據差別來詳細說明法的體相的緣故。所以，共同的果報就歸於蘊（skandha，集合），共同的因就歸於處。處和蘊互相闡明其意義已經很明顯了。這裡沒有就界（dhatu，元素）來解說。
論：如果感受意處（manayatana，意識的來源），應該知道也是這樣。感受兩個處，即意處和法處（dharmayatana，法的來源），也就是四相（生、住、異、滅）、以及得（prapti，獲得）、心所法（caitasika dharma，心理活動）。觸法處（sparshayatana，接觸的來源）指的是得和四相。
論：如果感受身處（kayayatana，身體的來源），應該知道也是這樣。說明感受三個處。身三處指的是身處、觸處（sprashatayatana，觸覺的來源）和法處。觸是四大（地、水、火、風），法是四相等。色（rupa，顏色）、香（gandha，氣味）、味（rasa，味道）三種，應該知道也是這樣。
論：如果感受眼處（cakshurayatana，眼睛的來源），應該知道也是這樣。說明感受四個處。指的是眼處、身處、觸處、法處。《婆沙論》第十九卷又說，有業（karma，行為）僅僅感受一個處的異熟果報（vipaka，成熟的果報），指的是獲得命根（jivitendriya，生命力）、眾同分（nikayasabhaga，同類眾生的共性）的業。這種業僅僅感受法處的異熟果報。有業僅僅感受兩個處的異熟果報，指的是獲得意處的業。這種業僅僅感受意處和法處的異熟果報。獲得觸處的業感受三個處的異熟果報，指的是身處、觸處、法處。獲得色處（rupayatana，顏色的來源）、香處、味處（rasayatana，味道的來源）的業也是這樣，各自感受自身處、觸處、法處的異熟果報。獲得眼處的業感受四個處的異熟果報，指的是眼處、身處、觸處、法處。獲得耳（shrotra，聽覺）、鼻（ghrana，嗅覺）、舌（jihva，味覺）處的業也是這樣，各自感受自身處、身處、觸處、法處的異熟果報。有其他老師說，一切大種（mahabhuta，基本元素）都產生色、聲（shabda，聲音）。欲界（kamadhatu，慾望界）的諸色不離香、味。他們這樣說，獲得眼處的業感受七個處的異熟果報，指的是眼處、身處，以及色處、香處、味處、觸處、法處的異熟果報。獲得耳處、鼻處、舌處的業也是這樣，各自感受自身處、身處，以及色處、香處、味處、觸處、法處的異熟果報。獲得身處的業感受六個處的異熟果報，指的是身處，以及色處、香處、味處、觸處、法處的異熟果報。獲得色處的業感受五個處的異熟果報，指的是色處、香處、味處、觸處、法處的異熟果報。獲得香處、味處、觸處的業也是這樣。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the common cause of the 'ayatanas' (sources of sensation) that are spoken of, is from two to eleven 'ayatanas'. This is because the characteristics of the 'dharmas' (teachings, phenomena) are explained in detail according to the differences. Therefore, the common result is attributed to the 'skandhas' (aggregates), and the common cause is attributed to the 'ayatanas'. The mutual clarification of their meanings between 'ayatanas' and 'skandhas' is already clear. There is no explanation here in terms of 'dhatus' (elements).
Treatise: If one experiences the 'manayatana' (source of mind), it should be understood to be the same. Experiencing two 'ayatanas', namely the 'manayatana' and the 'dharmayatana' (source of dharma), which are the four characteristics (birth, duration, change, and extinction), as well as 'prapti' (attainment), and 'caitasika dharmas' (mental phenomena). 'Sparshayatana' (source of touch) refers to 'prapti' and the four characteristics.
Treatise: If one experiences the 'kayayatana' (source of body), it should be understood to be the same. Explaining the experience of three 'ayatanas'. The three 'kayayatanas' refer to the 'kayayatana', 'sprashatayatana' (source of touch), and 'dharmayatana'. Touch is the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), and 'dharma' is the four characteristics, and so on. The three, 'rupa' (color), 'gandha' (smell), and 'rasa' (taste), should also be understood to be the same.
Treatise: If one experiences the 'cakshurayatana' (source of eye), it should be understood to be the same. Explaining the experience of four 'ayatanas'. This refers to the 'cakshurayatana', 'kayayatana', 'sprashatayatana', and 'dharmayatana'. The nineteenth volume of the 'Mahavibhasa' further states that there is 'karma' (action) that only experiences the 'vipaka' (ripened result) of one 'ayatana', which refers to the 'karma' of obtaining 'jivitendriya' (life force) and 'nikayasabhaga' (commonality of beings). This 'karma' only experiences the 'vipaka' of the 'dharmayatana'. There is 'karma' that only experiences the 'vipaka' of two 'ayatanas', which refers to the 'karma' of obtaining the 'manayatana'. This 'karma' only experiences the 'vipaka' of the 'manayatana' and the 'dharmayatana'. The 'karma' of obtaining the 'sparshatayatana' experiences the 'vipaka' of three 'ayatanas', which refers to the 'kayayatana', 'sparshatayatana', and 'dharmayatana'. The 'karma' of obtaining the 'rupayatana' (source of color), 'gandhayatana', and 'rasayatana' (source of taste) is also the same, each experiencing the 'vipaka' of its own 'ayatana', the 'sparshatayatana', and the 'dharmayatana'. The 'karma' of obtaining the 'cakshurayatana' experiences the 'vipaka' of four 'ayatanas', which refers to the 'cakshurayatana', 'kayayatana', 'sparshatayatana', and 'dharmayatana'. The 'karma' of obtaining the 'shrotra' (hearing), 'ghrana' (smell), and 'jihva' (taste) 'ayatanas' is also the same, each experiencing the 'vipaka' of its own 'ayatana', the 'kayayatana', the 'sparshatayatana', and the 'dharmayatana'. Some other teachers say that all the 'mahabhutas' (great elements) produce 'rupa' (color) and 'shabda' (sound). The various colors of the 'kamadhatu' (desire realm) are inseparable from 'gandha' (smell) and 'rasa' (taste). They say that the 'karma' of obtaining the 'cakshurayatana' experiences the 'vipaka' of seven 'ayatanas', which refers to the 'cakshurayatana', 'kayayatana', and the 'rupayatana', 'gandhayatana', 'rasayatana', 'sparshatayatana', and 'dharmayatana'. The 'karma' of obtaining the 'shrotrayatana', 'ghranayatana', and 'jihvayatana' is also the same, each experiencing the 'vipaka' of its own 'ayatana', the 'kayayatana', and the 'rupayatana', 'gandhayatana', 'rasayatana', 'sparshatayatana', and 'dharmayatana'. The 'karma' of obtaining the 'kayayatana' experiences the 'vipaka' of six 'ayatanas', which refers to the 'kayayatana', and the 'rupayatana', 'gandhayatana', 'rasayatana', 'sparshatayatana', and 'dharmayatana'. The 'karma' of obtaining the 'rupayatana' experiences the 'vipaka' of five 'ayatanas', which refers to the 'rupayatana', 'gandhayatana', 'rasayatana', 'sparshatayatana', and 'dharmayatana'. The 'karma' of obtaining the 'gandhayatana', 'rasayatana', and 'sparshatayatana' is also the same.
。謂各受自處．色．香．味．觸．法處異熟。如是所說是定得者。不定得者其數不定。然有業能受八處異熟。有業能受九處異熟。有業能受十處異熟。有業能受十一處異熟。皆除聲處 正理論云。有業唯感一處異熟。謂感法處。即命根等。若感意處定感二處。謂意與法。若感觸處應知亦爾。謂觸與法。若感色處定感三處。謂色．觸．法。若感香．味應知亦三。謂各為一。並觸與法。若感身處定感四處。謂身．色處．觸處．法處。若感眼處定感五處。謂眼．身．色．及觸．法處。感耳．鼻．舌應知亦五。謂各為一。身．色．觸．法 今詳。諸論說不同者取意各別。諸法相依有親有疏一四相．本法。及相應法等。此皆處互為因。是最親也 二有四大望造色亦是次親。雖非相望處互為因。五因生造色故。亦定相依。異熟類者此二未曾有相離故 三次有四根依身根。雖無五因生於眼等然若有四根定有身根。自有身根非定有四根 四次有五根依扶根境。謂有五根處若在色界定有色．觸。若在欲界定有四境 五次有八微不相離義。此論．及婆沙初師依前三義說。正理依前四義說。然說色界以決定故。婆沙后師通五義說。然說欲界非上界也。然所錄婆沙初說感觸與此論不同。應更詳撿。
論。有果能感至或十一處。明容有業決
【現代漢語翻譯】 謂各受自處，色（rupa, 形色）、香（gandha, 氣味）、味（rasa, 味道）、觸（sprashtavya, 觸覺）、法（dharma, 法塵）處異熟。如是所說是定得者，不定得者其數不定。然有業能受八處異熟，有業能受九處異熟，有業能受十處異熟，有業能受十一處異熟，皆除聲處。《正理論》云：『有業唯感一處異熟，謂感法處，即命根等。若感意處定感二處，謂意與法。若感觸處應知亦爾，謂觸與法。若感色處定感三處，謂色、觸、法。若感香、味應知亦三，謂各為一，並觸與法。若感身處定感四處，謂身、色處、觸處、法處。若感眼處定感五處，謂眼、身、色、及觸、法處。感耳、鼻、舌應知亦五，謂各為一，身、色、觸、法。』 今詳，諸論說不同者取意各別。諸法相依有親有疏，一四相、本法，及相應法等。此皆處互為因，是最親也。二有四大望造色亦是次親。雖非相望處互為因，五因生造色故，亦定相依。異熟類者此二未曾有相離故。三次有四根依身根。雖無五因生於眼等，然若有四根定有身根。自有身根非定有四根。四次有五根依扶根境，謂有五根處若在定有色、觸。若在欲界定有四境。五次有八微不相離義。此論、及《婆沙》初師依前三義說。《正理》依前四義說。然說以決定故。《婆沙》后師通五義說。然說欲界非上界也。然所錄《婆沙》初說感觸與此論不同，應更詳撿。 論：有果能感至或十一處，明容有業決
【English Translation】 It refers to each receiving the fruition of its own sphere: rupa (form), gandha (smell), rasa (taste), sprashtavya (touch), and dharma (mental objects). What is described in this way as definitely obtained, the number of those not definitely obtained is uncertain. However, there is karma that can receive the fruition of eight spheres, karma that can receive the fruition of nine spheres, karma that can receive the fruition of ten spheres, and karma that can receive the fruition of eleven spheres, all excluding the sphere of sound. The Abhidharmakosha-bhashya says: 'There is karma that only causes the fruition of one sphere, namely, the sphere of dharma, which is the life faculty, etc. If one experiences the sphere of mind, one definitely experiences two spheres, namely, mind and dharma. If one experiences the sphere of touch, it should be understood to be the same, namely, touch and dharma. If one experiences the sphere of rupa (form), one definitely experiences three spheres, namely, rupa (form), touch, and dharma. If one experiences smell or taste, it should also be understood as three, namely, each as one, along with touch and dharma. If one experiences the sphere of body, one definitely experiences four spheres, namely, body, rupa (form), touch, and dharma. If one experiences the sphere of eye, one definitely experiences five spheres, namely, eye, body, rupa (form), touch, and dharma. Experiencing ear, nose, and tongue should also be understood as five, namely, each as one, body, rupa (form), touch, and dharma.' Now, upon closer examination, the different interpretations in the various treatises take on different meanings. The interdependence of all dharmas has varying degrees of closeness and distance. First, the four characteristics, the original dharma, and the corresponding dharmas, etc. These are all spheres that are mutually causal, and are the closest. Second, the four great elements in relation to derived rupa (form) are also relatively close. Although they are not mutually causal as spheres, the derived rupa (form) is produced by the five causes, so they are also definitely interdependent. In terms of the category of fruition, these two have never been separated. Third, the four roots rely on the body root. Although the eye, etc., are not produced by the five causes, if there are four roots, there is definitely a body root. Having a body root does not necessarily mean having four roots. Fourth, the five roots rely on the supporting root and object, meaning that if the location of the five roots is in , there is definitely rupa (form) and touch. If it is in the desire realm, there are definitely four objects. Fifth, the meaning of the eight subtle elements not being separate. This treatise and the early teachers of the Vibhasha explain it based on the first three meanings. The Abhidharmakosha explains it based on the first four meanings. However, saying ** is for the sake of certainty. The later teachers of the Vibhasha explain it based on all five meanings. However, it refers to the desire realm, not the upper realms. However, the recorded early Vibhasha's statement about experiencing touch is different from this treatise, and should be examined more closely. Treatise: There is a result that can cause up to eleven spheres, clarifying that there may be karma that definitely
定感五．六．七．至十一也。
論。業或少果至諾瞿陀等。明因少果多也 此中或少果者。非謂因多果也。欲顯少余多果因也。如谷．麥等。一粒之因可得百千之果名種果少。如蓮．石榴等。一粒之因一年之果。已得百千多年之果不可稱計。
論。有一世業至果減因故。就大三世明也。 如一世造業可三世受。無三世造業同一世受。據引說也。勿設劬勞果少因故。
論。有一念業至如上應知。明小三世據滿說也。此中所以如上應知 問若爾菩薩百劫修其相報業因。何唯一生受耶 答修多加行助一業故然正感者果多於因。
論。能異熟果至力所引故。此明熟果必因多時。轉變方得熟故。
論。又異熟因至方能辨故。此明感異類難。必經多時。
論。如是六因至故應重辨。自下重明因世異也。
論曰至理如前說。釋遍行．同類唯世二世。未來世無。如前已述。無前後故。
論。相應俱有至皆悉遍有。明三因也。二因同時故。異熟性異故。
論。頌既不說至通三世非世。明能作因由體寬故通三世非世也。
論。已說六因至對彼成因。自下大文第二明六因對五果也。
論。曰至及與擇滅。此引本論出果體也。一切有為皆得是果。無為法中唯取擇滅。定非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 定感五、六、七至十一（指《俱舍論》中的相關章節）。
論：業的果報有少有多的情況，比如諾瞿陀（一種樹木）。這說明了因少果多的道理。這裡所說的『或少果者』，並非指因多果少。而是爲了顯示少量因可以產生大量果報。例如穀子、麥子等，一粒種子可以得到成百上千的果實，這叫做『種果少』。又如蓮花、石榴等，一粒種子一年的果實，已經得到成百上千多年果實，不可稱量計算。
論：有一種業可以在一生中受報，這是因為果報減少了因的緣故。這是就大的三世（過去、現在、未來）來說明的。比如一生造的業可以在三世中受報，沒有三世造的業在同一世受報的說法。這是根據經文引用的說法。不要認為這是因為辛勤勞作而果報少於投入。
論：有一念之間的業，其果報的道理如上所述。這是說明小三世（剎那、現在、未來）的情況，是就圓滿的情況來說的。這裡為什麼要說『如上應知』呢？問：如果這樣，菩薩經過百劫修行所積累的相報業因，為什麼只在一生中受報呢？答：因為有修多羅（經）的加行（努力）輔助，使得一種業力增強。然而，真正感果的情況是果多於因。
論：能夠產生異熟果的業，是因為業力所牽引的緣故。這說明成熟的果報必定需要經過很長時間的轉變才能得到。
論：又，產生異類果報的業因，必須經過很長時間才能分辨清楚。這說明感得不同種類的果報是困難的，必定要經過很長時間。
論：像這樣，六因（能作因、俱有因、同類因、相應因、遍行因、異熟因）的道理，所以應該重新辨析。下面重新說明因的世（時間）的不同。
論曰：道理如前面所說。解釋遍行因和同類因只有兩世（現在和過去），沒有未來世。這在前面已經敘述過了，因為沒有前後關係。
論：相應因、俱有因等，都是普遍存在的。這是說明三種因（相應因、俱有因、能作因）。因為兩種因是同時存在的，而且異熟的性質不同。
論：頌中既然沒有說，就說明能作因通於三世和非世（無為法）。這是說明能作因的體性寬廣，所以通於三世和非世。
論：已經說了六因，是爲了對治那些認為沒有因果的人，從而成就因果關係。下面開始大的科判的第二部分，說明六因對五果（異熟果、等流果、士用果、增上果、離系果）的關係。
論：曰：以及與擇滅（涅槃）。這是引用本論來說明果的體性。一切有為法都可以是果，無為法中只取擇滅（通過智慧選擇而證得的涅槃），一定不是。
【English Translation】 English version: Definite Causation 5.6.7 to 11 (referring to relevant chapters in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya).
Treatise: Karma can have few or many results, such as with the Nigrodha (a type of tree). This clarifies the principle of few causes leading to many results. The phrase 'or few results' does not mean many causes leading to few results. It aims to show that a small cause can produce a large number of results. For example, grains like rice and wheat, where one seed can yield hundreds or thousands of fruits, are called 'few seed results'. Similarly, with lotuses and pomegranates, one seed's fruit in a year can lead to hundreds or thousands of years of fruits, which are immeasurable.
Treatise: There is karma that can be experienced in one lifetime because the result is reduced due to the cause. This is explained in terms of the great three times (past, present, future). For example, karma created in one lifetime can be experienced in three lifetimes; there is no such thing as karma created in three lifetimes being experienced in one lifetime. This is according to the quoted scriptures. Do not assume that diligent effort results in fewer rewards than the input.
Treatise: Karma arising from a single thought has results as described above. This explains the situation of the small three times (instant, present, future), in terms of completeness. Why is it said here 'as above should be known'? Question: If that's the case, why do Bodhisattvas only experience the results of karma accumulated through hundreds of kalpas (aeons) of practice in one lifetime? Answer: Because the effort of Sutra (scripture) practice assists and strengthens a particular karma. However, the actual experience of results is that the result is greater than the cause.
Treatise: Karma that can produce Vipāka (differently matured) results is due to the force of karma. This explains that mature results necessarily require a long period of transformation to be obtained.
Treatise: Furthermore, karma that produces dissimilar results must be discerned over a long period. This explains that experiencing results of a different kind is difficult and necessarily requires a long time.
Treatise: Like this, the principles of the six causes (Hetu, Sahabhū-hetu, Sabhāga-hetu, Samprayuktaka-hetu, Sarvatraga-hetu, Vipāka-hetu) should be re-examined. Below, the differences in the times (periods) of the causes are explained again.
Treatise says: The principle is as previously stated. Explaining that Sarvatraga-hetu (omnipresent cause) and Sabhāga-hetu (cause of similar kind) only exist in two times (present and past), not in the future. This has already been discussed earlier, because there is no before and after relationship.
Treatise: Samprayuktaka-hetu (associated cause), Sahabhū-hetu (co-existent cause), etc., are all universally present. This explains the three causes (Samprayuktaka-hetu, Sahabhū-hetu, Kāraṇa-hetu). Because the two causes exist simultaneously, and the nature of Vipāka (differently matured) is different.
Treatise: Since the verse does not mention it, it explains that Kāraṇa-hetu (efficient cause) pervades the three times and non-time (unconditioned dharmas). This explains that the nature of Kāraṇa-hetu is broad, so it pervades the three times and non-time.
Treatise: The six causes have been explained to counter those who believe there is no cause and effect, thereby establishing the relationship of cause and effect. Below begins the second part of the major division, explaining the relationship of the six causes to the five results (Vipākaphala, Niṣyandaphala, Puruṣakāra-phala, Adhipati-phala, Visaṃyoga-phala).
Treatise: Says: As well as with Nirodha (cessation). This quotes the treatise to explain the nature of the results. All conditioned dharmas can be results, and among unconditioned dharmas, only take Nirodha (Nirvana attained through wise choice), certainly not.
擇滅非是果也。
論。若爾至此為果故。此難無為合有因也。凡立果名對於因稱。無為是果。應合有因。
論。又此無為至此為因故。此難無為合有果也。凡立因名對其果稱。無為是因應名有果。
論。唯有為法至非諸無為。此總答也。有為之法是因是果。亦有因有果。無為之法是因是果。非有因有果。
論所以者何。徴所以無為不同有為有因果也。
論。無六因故無五果故。答也。六因．五果外說證得因等非無因也。有不取．與之果。非無果也。以無六因因故言無因。以無五果果故言無果。
論。何緣不許至為能作因。難也。既無間道力得離系果。何緣不許無為有能作因耶。
論。于生不障至道何所作。答也。六因中能作因於生不障名能作因。無為不生故無能作因也。
論。若爾誰果果義如何。此中二問。一既無有因是誰之果名為果耶。二夫言果者是對因義。既無有因。果義云何。
論。謂是道果道力得故。答也。
論。若爾至非於擇滅故。難也。得因道生。可是道果。擇滅先有。豈是果耶。
論不爾至有差別故。答也。道于證滅得。及於擇滅功能別也。
論。云何于得道有功能。問也。
論謂能生故。答也。
論。云何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：『擇滅』（Nirodha-samāpatti，通過智慧之光，斷滅煩惱，達到涅槃的狀態）不是果嗎？
論：如果這樣，因為『擇滅』是（修行所要達到的）果，那麼這個詰難就變成了『無為法』（Asamskrta，不依賴於因緣和合而存在的法）也應該有因。凡是建立『果』這個名稱，都是相對於『因』而言的。如果『無為』是果，就應該有因。
論：而且，如果『無為』是（解脫的）果，那麼這個詰難就變成了『無為』應該有果。凡是建立『因』這個名稱，都是相對於『果』而言的。如果『無為』是因，就應該被稱為有果。
論：只有『有為法』（Samskrta，依賴於因緣和合而存在的法）既是因也是果，或者說，既有因也有果。而『無為法』既不是因也不是果，或者說，既沒有因也沒有果。
論：為什麼這樣說呢？（這是）提問為什麼『無為』不同於『有為』，沒有因果。
論：因為沒有六因（hetu，能生果的六種原因），也沒有五果（phala，由因而生的五種結果）。（這是）回答。外道說證得（涅槃）的因等，並非沒有因。有不取（不執著）、與之果。並非沒有果。因為沒有六因的因，所以說沒有因。因為沒有五果的果，所以說沒有果。
論：為什麼不允許（『無為』）作為『能作因』（karana-hetu，不障礙結果產生的因）呢？（這是）詰難。既然通過無間道（anantarya-marga，直接證悟真理的道路）的力量可以獲得離系果（visamyoga-phala，脫離束縛的果報），為什麼不允許『無為』有『能作因』呢？
論：對於（煩惱的）生起沒有障礙，（這樣的因）才叫做『能作因』，『道』（marga，通往解脫的道路）能做什麼呢？（這是）回答。六因中，對於（煩惱的）生起沒有障礙，才叫做『能作因』。『無為』不生起（任何事物），所以沒有『能作因』。
論：如果這樣，是誰的果？果的意義又是什麼呢？這裡有兩個問題：一、既然沒有因，那麼（『擇滅』）是誰的果，被稱為果呢？二、所謂『果』，是相對於『因』而言的。既然沒有因，那麼果的意義又是什麼呢？
論：（『擇滅』）被稱為『道果』（marga-phala，由修行道路所產生的果實），因為是通過『道』的力量獲得的。（這是）回答。
論：如果這樣，（『道』）生起（『擇滅』），不是對於『擇滅』（已經存在）有所作為嗎？（這是）詰難。通過『道』生起（『擇滅』），可以說是『道果』。『擇滅』是先前就存在的，怎麼能說是果呢？
論：不是這樣的，（『道』）對於證得『滅』（nirodha）和對於『擇滅』（本身）有差別。（這是）回答。『道』對於證得『滅』，以及對於『擇滅』本身，功能是不同的。
論：『道』在證得（『擇滅』）方面有什麼功能呢？（這是）提問。
論：（『道』）能夠生起（證得『擇滅』的智慧）。（這是）回答。
論：怎麼樣？
【English Translation】 English version Question: Is 'Nirodha-samāpatti' (cessation attained through wisdom, leading to Nirvana) not a result?
Treatise: If so, since 'Nirodha-samāpatti' is the result (to be attained through practice), this objection implies that 'Asamskrta' (unconditioned reality) should also have a cause. Whenever the name 'result' is established, it is in relation to a 'cause.' If 'Asamskrta' is a result, it should have a cause.
Treatise: Moreover, if 'Asamskrta' is the (result of liberation), this objection implies that 'Asamskrta' should have a result. Whenever the name 'cause' is established, it is in relation to a 'result.' If 'Asamskrta' is a cause, it should be called having a result.
Treatise: Only 'Samskrta' (conditioned phenomena) are both cause and result, or rather, have both cause and result. 'Asamskrta' is neither cause nor result, or rather, has neither cause nor result.
Treatise: Why is this so? (This is) questioning why 'Asamskrta' is different from 'Samskrta,' lacking cause and result.
Treatise: Because there are no six causes (hetu, the six causes that produce results), and no five results (phala, the five results arising from causes). (This is) the answer. The heretics speak of attaining the cause of (Nirvana), etc., but it is not without cause. There is non-attachment and the result of giving. It is not without result. Because there is no cause of the six causes, it is said to be without cause. Because there is no result of the five results, it is said to be without result.
Treatise: Why is it not allowed (that 'Asamskrta') is a 'karana-hetu' (efficient cause, a cause that does not obstruct the production of a result)? (This is) an objection. Since the power of the anantarya-marga (path of immediate realization) can obtain the visamyoga-phala (result of detachment), why is it not allowed that 'Asamskrta' has a 'karana-hetu'?
Treatise: What does the 'marga' (path, the path to liberation) do, if it does not obstruct the arising (of afflictions), is called 'karana-hetu'? (This is) the answer. Among the six causes, that which does not obstruct the arising (of afflictions) is called 'karana-hetu.' 'Asamskrta' does not arise (anything), so there is no 'karana-hetu.'
Treatise: If so, whose result is it? And what is the meaning of result? There are two questions here: First, since there is no cause, whose result is ('Nirodha-samāpatti'), and what is it called? Second, the so-called 'result' is in relation to a 'cause.' Since there is no cause, what is the meaning of result?
Treatise: ('Nirodha-samāpatti') is called 'marga-phala' (result of the path), because it is obtained through the power of the 'marga.' (This is) the answer.
Treatise: If so, does ('marga') arising ('Nirodha-samāpatti') not act upon ('Nirodha-samāpatti' which already exists)? (This is) an objection. Through the 'marga' arising ('Nirodha-samāpatti'), it can be said to be 'marga-phala.' 'Nirodha-samāpatti' exists beforehand, how can it be said to be a result?
Treatise: It is not so, ('marga') has a difference in attaining 'nirodha' (cessation) and in ('Nirodha-samāpatti' itself). (This is) the answer. 'Marga' has different functions in attaining 'nirodha' and in 'Nirodha-samāpatti' itself.
Treatise: What function does 'marga' have in attaining ('Nirodha-samāpatti')? (This is) a question.
Treatise: ('Marga') is able to generate (the wisdom to attain 'Nirodha-samāpatti'). (This is) the answer.
Treatise: How?
于滅道有功能。問也。
論。能證故。答也。
論。由此理故至擇滅為道果。結釋也。由道不能令滅生故無六因因也。由滅因道證故。是五果中道之果也。
論。既諸無為至能作因。問也。夫增上果者對能作因立。無為既許無增上果。如何可得是能作因。
論。以諸無為至與果用故。答也。於他生位不為障故名能作因。無為不障他生名能作因。名有果者據取．與義。法至現立方名取果。無為離世無取．與用不名有果 故無為法無增上果。已上述有部宗。
論。經部師說至唯有為故。論主述經部宗。經部不許無為是因。以經說故。
論。何處經說。有部問也。
論。如有經說至識亦如是。經部出經說也。
論若爾至作所緣緣。有部難也。經說無常因緣所生諸色。汝即謂因唯是有為。經中既說無常因緣生於識者。無為亦應非所緣緣。
論。唯說能生故至故不成難。答也。經說無常能生色者。乃至能生識者皆無常。不說為識緣者皆無常也。故不成難。
論。豈不亦說至為能作因。有部類釋。經說能生是無常不廢常法。是何緣經說無常為能生。豈廢不障為能作。
論。有契經中至不障因性。經部破也。無為為所緣緣有經說故。我作此釋。不障礙因既無經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 于滅道有功能。問：滅盡道（Nirodha-marga，通往滅盡的道路）是否具有作用？
論：能夠證得滅盡（Nirodha，寂滅）的緣故。答：因為滅盡道能夠證得滅盡。
論：由此道理，擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）是道的果報。總結解釋：因為道不能使滅產生，所以沒有六因（hetu，原因）中的因因（hetu-hetu，根本原因）。因為滅盡是道的因所證得的，所以是五果（panca-phala，五種果報）中道的果報。
論：既然一切無為法（Asamskrta-dharma，非因緣和合的法）都不能作為因。問：增上果（adhipati-phala，增上果）是相對於能作因（karana-hetu，能作因）而建立的。無為法既然被允許沒有增上果，怎麼能成為能作因呢？
論：因為一切無為法在他法產生的位置上不構成障礙，所以稱為能作因。答：無為法不障礙其他法的產生，所以稱為能作因。所謂『有果』，是根據『取』和『與』的意義來說的。法要到顯現的當下才能稱為『取果』。無為法脫離世間，沒有『取』和『與』的作用，所以不能稱為『有果』。因此，無為法沒有增上果。以上是說有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）的宗義。
論：經部師（Sautrantika，經量部）說，只有有為法（Samskrta-dharma，因緣和合的法）才是因。論主陳述經部的宗義：經部不承認無為法是因，因為經典這樣說。
論：什麼經典這樣說？有部問。
論：如有經典說：『諸所有色，彼一切皆是無常，因緣所生。諸所有受、想、行、識亦如是。』經部引出經典來說明。
論：如果這樣，那麼無為法就不能作為所緣緣（alambana-pratyaya，所緣緣）。有部反駁：經典說無常的因緣所生諸色，你們就說因只有有為法。經典中既然說無常的因緣生於識，那麼無為法也應該不是所緣緣。
論：經典只是說『能生』，所以不能構成反駁。答：經典說無常能生色，乃至能生識，都是無常。沒有說作為識的緣，都是無常。所以不能構成反駁。
論：難道不是也說『不障礙』可以作為能作因嗎？有部類比解釋：經典說『能生』是無常，並不廢除常法。是什麼緣故經典說無常為能生，難道就廢除『不障礙』作為能作因嗎？
論：有契經中說，無為法作為所緣緣，不障礙因的性質。經部駁斥：無為法作為所緣緣，有經典這樣說。我這樣解釋，不障礙因是沒有經典依據的。
【English Translation】 English version On the path to cessation, does it have a function? Question.
Treatise: Because it can realize cessation. Answer.
Treatise: From this reasoning, cessation through discernment (Pratisankhya-nirodha) is the fruit of the path. Concluding explanation: Because the path cannot cause cessation to arise, it does not have the 'cause as cause' (hetu-hetu) among the six causes (hetu). Because cessation is realized through the cause of the path, it is the fruit of the path among the five fruits (panca-phala).
Treatise: Since all unconditioned dharmas (Asamskrta-dharma) cannot act as a cause. Question: The dominant fruit (adhipati-phala) is established in relation to the efficient cause (karana-hetu). Since unconditioned dharmas are admitted to have no dominant fruit, how can they be an efficient cause?
Treatise: Because all unconditioned dharmas do not obstruct the arising of other dharmas, they are called efficient causes. Answer: Unconditioned dharmas do not obstruct the arising of other dharmas, so they are called efficient causes. The term 'having a fruit' is based on the meaning of 'taking' and 'giving'. A dharma must be present to be called 'taking a fruit'. Unconditioned dharmas are detached from the world and have no function of 'taking' or 'giving', so they cannot be called 'having a fruit'. Therefore, unconditioned dharmas have no dominant fruit. The above is the doctrine of the Sarvastivada school.
Treatise: The Sautrantika master says that only conditioned dharmas (Samskrta-dharma) are causes. The author states the doctrine of the Sautrantika school: The Sautrantika school does not admit that unconditioned dharmas are causes, because the sutras say so.
Treatise: Which sutra says so? The Sarvastivada asks.
Treatise: As the sutra says: 'All forms are impermanent, arising from causes and conditions. So are all feelings, perceptions, volitions, and consciousness.' The Sautrantika quotes a sutra to illustrate.
Treatise: If so, then unconditioned dharmas cannot be object-conditions (alambana-pratyaya). The Sarvastivada refutes: The sutra says that forms arise from impermanent causes and conditions, and you say that only conditioned dharmas are causes. Since the sutra says that consciousness arises from impermanent causes and conditions, then unconditioned dharmas should also not be object-conditions.
Treatise: The sutra only says 'can produce', so it does not constitute a refutation. Answer: The sutra says that impermanence can produce form, and even can produce consciousness, all are impermanent. It does not say that as a condition for consciousness, all are impermanent. Therefore, it does not constitute a refutation.
Treatise: Isn't it also said that 'non-obstruction' can be an efficient cause? The Sarvastivada explains by analogy: The sutra says that 'can produce' is impermanent, but it does not abolish permanent dharmas. For what reason does the sutra say that impermanence is 'can produce', and does it abolish 'non-obstruction' as an efficient cause?
Treatise: In some sutras, it is said that unconditioned dharmas, as object-conditions, do not obstruct the nature of the cause. The Sautrantika refutes: There are sutras that say that unconditioned dharmas are object-conditions. My explanation that non-obstructing cause has no sutra basis.
說。因何得立而妄例我所緣緣也。
論。雖無經說至無經說耶。有部救也。
論。若爾何法名為離系。經部問也。如經部宗擇滅無體不立為因。今汝有部既立為因。有何別法名為離系。
論。即本論中所說擇滅。有部引論答也。
論。豈不先問至開顯自性。經部責也。前界品中問云何擇滅。謂是離系。今此中問云何離系。云是擇滅。於此自性竟不能顯。
論。此法自性至亦名離系。有部釋也。擇滅無為言不可詮。但可方便說 是善。簡虛空．非擇滅 是常。簡異余有為法。顯其自性名為擇滅亦名離系。
論。經部師說至此所無故。論主述經部宗。三種無為並無有物。物無立故。
論。若爾何故名虛空等。有部問也。法既無體。依何立名。既名虛空及擇滅。故知有體。
論。唯無所觸至此是虛空。答。空無體假立名也。
論。已起隨眠至說名擇滅。釋假名擇滅也。
論。離簡擇力至中夭者余蘊。釋假名非擇滅。
論。餘部師說至名非擇滅。論主敘上座部計也 彼計由慧簡擇功能。隨眠不生名為擇滅。隨眠闕緣不生。及苦果不生名非擇滅。
論。離簡擇力至即擇滅攝。論主破也。隨眠．及苦不生皆由擇力故。此不生亦擇滅攝。
論。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 說：因為什麼而建立，從而錯誤地類比我所緣的緣呢？
論：即使沒有經文這樣說，難道就沒有經文這樣說了嗎？有部這樣辯護。
論：如果這樣，什麼法可以稱為『離系』（Vimoksha，解脫）呢？經部這樣問。如果像經部宗派那樣，認為『擇滅』（Pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧選擇而達到的滅）沒有實體，不能作為原因來建立。現在你們有部既然把它作為原因來建立，那麼有什麼特別的法可以稱為『離系』呢？
論：就是本論中所說的『擇滅』。有部引用本論來回答。
論：難道不是先前問過，直到開顯自性嗎？經部責問。前面在界品中問，什麼是『擇滅』，回答說是『離系』。現在這裡問，什麼是『離系』，回答說是『擇滅』。這樣對於它的自性，最終還是不能夠顯明。
論：這個法的自性，直到也叫做『離系』。有部解釋說。『擇滅』這種無為法，言語無法完全表達，只能方便地說它是『善』，用來區別于『虛空』（Akasa，空間）和『非擇滅』（Apratisankhya-nirodha，非通過智慧選擇而達到的滅）；它是『常』（Nitya，永恒），用來區別于其他的有為法。這樣來顯明它的自性，就叫做『擇滅』，也叫做『離系』。
論：經部的老師說，直到這裡所沒有的緣故。論主敘述經部的宗義。這三種無為法都沒有實體，因為沒有實體可以建立。
論：如果這樣，為什麼叫做『虛空』等等呢？有部問。法既然沒有實體，依據什麼來建立名稱？既然叫做『虛空』和『擇滅』，就知道它們是有實體的。
論：只是沒有所觸，直到這就是『虛空』。回答說，『虛空』沒有實體，只是假立名稱。
論：已經生起的隨眠，直到說名『擇滅』。解釋假名的『擇滅』。
論：離開簡擇的力量，直到中夭者余蘊。解釋假名的『非擇滅』。
論：其他宗派的老師說，直到名叫『非擇滅』。論主敘述上座部的觀點。他們認為，由於智慧簡擇的功能，隨眠不生起，叫做『擇滅』；隨眠缺少因緣而不生起，以及苦果不生起，叫做『非擇滅』。
論：離開簡擇的力量，直到即『擇滅』所攝。論主破斥說。隨眠以及苦不生起，都是由於簡擇的力量，因此這種不生起也應該屬於『擇滅』。
【English Translation】 Said: Because of what is established, and thus wrongly analogize the conditions of what I perceive?
Treatise: Even if there is no sutra saying this, is there no sutra saying this? The Sarvastivadins defend.
Treatise: If so, what dharma is called 'Vimoksha' (liberation)? The Sautrantikas ask. If, like the Sautrantika school, 'Pratisankhya-nirodha' (cessation through wisdom) is considered to have no substance and cannot be established as a cause. Now that you, the Sarvastivadins, establish it as a cause, what special dharma can be called 'Vimoksha'?
Treatise: It is the 'Pratisankhya-nirodha' mentioned in this treatise. The Sarvastivadins cite the treatise to answer.
Treatise: Wasn't it asked earlier, until revealing its own nature? The Sautrantikas rebuke. Earlier, in the Dhatu chapter, it was asked, what is 'Pratisankhya-nirodha', and the answer was 'Vimoksha'. Now here it is asked, what is 'Vimoksha', and the answer is 'Pratisankhya-nirodha'. Thus, its own nature is ultimately not revealed.
Treatise: The nature of this dharma, until it is also called 'Vimoksha'. The Sarvastivadins explain. 'Pratisankhya-nirodha', as an unconditioned dharma, cannot be fully expressed in words, but it can be conveniently said to be 'good' (Subha), to distinguish it from 'Akasa' (space) and 'Apratisankhya-nirodha' (cessation without wisdom); it is 'Nitya' (eternal), to distinguish it from other conditioned dharmas. Thus, revealing its own nature, it is called 'Pratisankhya-nirodha', and also called 'Vimoksha'.
Treatise: The Sautrantika teacher says, until because of what is not here. The author describes the Sautrantika doctrine. These three unconditioned dharmas have no substance, because there is no substance to establish.
Treatise: If so, why are they called 'Akasa' etc.? The Sarvastivadins ask. If the dharmas have no substance, based on what are the names established? Since they are called 'Akasa' and 'Pratisankhya-nirodha', it is known that they have substance.
Treatise: Only without touch, until this is 'Akasa'. The answer is, 'Akasa' has no substance, only a provisional name is established.
Treatise: The already arisen anusaya (latent tendencies), until it is called 'Pratisankhya-nirodha'. Explaining the provisional name 'Pratisankhya-nirodha'.
Treatise: Apart from the power of discernment, until the remaining skandhas of those who die prematurely. Explaining the provisional name 'Apratisankhya-nirodha'.
Treatise: Teachers of other schools say, until it is called 'Apratisankhya-nirodha'. The author describes the view of the Sthavira school. They believe that due to the function of wisdom discernment, the non-arising of anusaya is called 'Pratisankhya-nirodha'; the non-arising of anusaya due to the lack of conditions, and the non-arising of suffering results, are called 'Apratisankhya-nirodha'.
Treatise: Apart from the power of discernment, until it is included in 'Pratisankhya-nirodha'. The author refutes. The non-arising of anusaya and suffering are both due to the power of discernment, therefore this non-arising should also belong to 'Pratisankhya-nirodha'.
說諸法至名非擇滅。論主述大眾部計也。此計諸有為法生已后自然無名非擇滅。
論。如是所執至未滅無故。論主破也既是無為豈得先無後有。
論。豈不擇滅至應亦無常。大眾部反難論主。經部擇滅亦擇故後有不生也。
論。非擇為先至亦是無常。論主答也。擇滅本有。非擇為先方有擇滅。如何擇滅亦是無常。
論。所以者何。此大眾部徴也。既已起隨眠生種。滅位名為擇滅。故知未滅無也。所以得說非擇為先方有擇滅。
論。非先有擇至方有不生。論主答也。隨眠不生非由擇有先來自有非新有不生。
論。何者不生本來自有。大眾部等徴也。何者不生先來自有。
論。若無簡擇至非造不生。論主為經部釋。隨眠種子不生義本來自有。若為生障不生義顯。非造不生。道但為生障。非造不生也。
論。若唯不生至豈不相違。有部難經部也。若無別實物唯法不生是涅槃者。即唯是未來有不生法。如何經說能令過去．未來．現在眾苦永斷。此永斷體即是涅槃。故知於三世隨眠等斷證得無為是涅槃也。
論。雖有此文至名眾苦斷。經部通也。此經意說。緣過去等煩惱。斷故名眾苦斷。非謂斷過去．現在煩惱名眾苦斷。
論。如世尊說至義亦應然。引例釋也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 說諸法至名非擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而獲得的滅）。論主（論師）闡述這是大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）的觀點。此派認為，所有有為法（Saṃskṛta，因緣和合而成的法）在生起之後，自然而然地消失，這種消失就叫做非擇滅。
論：如是所執至未滅無故。論主駁斥道：既然是非擇滅這種無為法（Asaṃskṛta，不依賴因緣和合的法），怎麼能先沒有而後有呢？
論：豈不擇滅至應亦無常。大眾部反駁論主：經部（Sautrāntika）也認為，擇滅也是通過『擇』而獲得的，所以之後才不會再生起。
論：非擇為先至亦是無常。論主回答說：擇滅本來就存在。因為有了『非擇』作為前提，才會有擇滅。怎麼能說擇滅也是無常的呢？
論：所以者何。這是大眾部的提問：既然已經生起了隨眠（Anuśaya，煩惱的種子）和生起的原因，在滅盡的位置就叫做擇滅。所以知道在未滅盡之前是沒有擇滅的。因此才說因為有了『非擇』作為前提，才會有擇滅。
論：非先有擇至方有不生。論主回答說：隨眠不生，不是因為有了『擇』才不生，而是它本來就具有不生的自性，不是新產生的『不生』。
論：何者不生本來自有。大眾部等提問：什麼東西不生是本來就具有的？
論：若無簡擇至非造不生。論主為經部解釋：隨眠的種子不生的意義，是它本來就具有的。如果有了生起的障礙，不生的意義就顯現出來，而不是通過造作才不生。道（Mārga，通往涅槃的道路）只是作為生起的障礙，而不是通過造作才不生。
論：若唯不生至豈不相違。有部（Sarvāstivāda）責難經部：如果說沒有一個實在的物體，只有法不生才是涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂滅），那麼就只是未來有不生之法。為什麼經典上說，涅槃能夠讓過去、未來、現在的眾苦永遠斷除呢？這個永斷的本體就是涅槃。所以知道對於三世的隨眠等斷除，證得無為法才是涅槃。
論：雖有此文至名眾苦斷。經部解釋說：這部經的意思是說，因為斷除了過去等的煩惱，所以叫做眾苦斷，而不是說斷除了過去、現在的煩惱才叫做眾苦斷。
論：如世尊說至義亦應然。引用例子來解釋。
【English Translation】 English version To say that all dharmas (phenomena) up to name are non-selective cessation (Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, cessation obtained through the wisdom of discernment). The treatise master (the author of the commentary) states that this is the view of the Mahāsāṃghika school (the Great Assembly Sect). This school believes that all conditioned dharmas (Saṃskṛta, phenomena arising from the combination of causes and conditions) naturally cease to exist after they arise, and this cessation is called non-selective cessation.
Treatise: 'As such, the assertion... until not yet ceased.' The treatise master refutes: Since non-selective cessation is an unconditioned dharma (Asaṃskṛta, a dharma not dependent on the combination of causes and conditions), how can it be that it first does not exist and then exists?
Treatise: 'Wouldn't selective cessation... should also be impermanent?' The Mahāsāṃghika rebuts the treatise master: The Sautrāntika school (the Sutra School) also believes that selective cessation is obtained through 'selection,' so it will not arise again afterward.
Treatise: 'Non-selective as prior... is also impermanent.' The treatise master replies: Selective cessation exists originally. Only when 'non-selective' is prior can there be selective cessation. How can it be said that selective cessation is also impermanent?
Treatise: 'What is the reason?' This is the question from the Mahāsāṃghika: Since latent tendencies (Anuśaya, seeds of afflictions) and the causes of arising have already arisen, the state of extinction is called selective cessation. Therefore, it is known that there is no selective cessation before extinction. That is why it is said that only when 'non-selective' is prior can there be selective cessation.
Treatise: 'Not first having selection... then there is no arising.' The treatise master replies: The non-arising of latent tendencies is not because there is 'selection' that causes non-arising, but because it inherently possesses the nature of non-arising; it is not a newly produced 'non-arising'.
Treatise: 'What does not arise is inherently existent?' The Mahāsāṃghika and others ask: What is it that does not arise and is inherently existent?
Treatise: 'If there is no discernment... not created non-arising.' The treatise master explains for the Sautrāntika school: The meaning of the non-arising of the seeds of latent tendencies is that it is inherently existent. If there is an obstacle to arising, the meaning of non-arising becomes apparent; it is not that it does not arise through creation. The path (Mārga, the path to Nirvana) only serves as an obstacle to arising; it is not that it does not arise through creation.
Treatise: 'If only non-arising... wouldn't it be contradictory?' The Sarvāstivāda school (the school that asserts all exists) challenges the Sautrāntika school: If there is no real entity, and only the non-arising of dharmas is Nirvana (Nirvāṇa, extinction), then it is only the future that has the dharma of non-arising. Why do the scriptures say that Nirvana can permanently cut off the suffering of the past, future, and present? This entity of permanent cessation is Nirvana. Therefore, it is known that the attainment of unconditioned dharma through the cessation of latent tendencies, etc., in the three times is Nirvana.
Treatise: 'Although there is this text... called the cessation of suffering.' The Sautrāntika school explains: The meaning of this scripture is that because afflictions of the past, etc., are cut off, it is called the cessation of suffering, not that the cessation of past and present afflictions is called the cessation of suffering.
Treatise: 'As the World Honored One said... the meaning should also be so.' Quoting an example to explain.
如煩惱非色緣色等故。名為色等。煩惱非過去等緣過去等故名過去等。
論。設有餘經至義亦無違。準此通余經也。
論。或此經中至應知亦爾者。更別釋也。謂斷過．現所薰種故名斷過．現。如十八愛行過去世起者。依過去生說。未來．現在應知亦爾。
論。如是二世至說名業盡。舉法釋也。由過去．現在生煩惱熏成種子。由道力故彼種子斷。此過．現所薰種子斷時。名過．現生煩惱斷也。此即果斷說因斷也。如異熟盡時說名業盡。
論。未來眾苦至說名為斷。此釋未來斷也。
論。若異此者至為令其滅。經部更難有部。過去已滅。現在正滅。何用修道令其滅也 論。若無為法至立為第一。有部難也。凡稱第一皆說有法。法既非有。如何得說為第一耶。如石女之兒。豈得說為此兒第一。
論。我亦不說至此為第一。經部釋也。如說此聲有先非有等。即此非有不是有。故有義得成。非是有體。一切有．非有中此最可稱歎。故經嘆說此為第一。
論。若無為法至名滅聖諦。有部轉難。凡言稱諦是其實義。既稱滅諦如何非有。
論。且言聖諦至義有何違。經部釋也 言聖諦實者。見無顛倒名之為實。謂有見其有。無見其無。聖見有．無不顛倒故名為聖諦。非是有別體性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『如煩惱非色緣色等故。名為色等。煩惱非過去等緣過去等故名過去等。』——意思是說，煩惱不是以色（Rupa，物質）為緣而生，或者以與色相關的法為緣而生，所以稱為『色等』。煩惱不是以過去等為緣而生，或者以與過去相關的法為緣而生，所以稱為『過去等』。
『論。設有餘經至義亦無違。準此通余經也。』——如果還有其他的經文，其意義與此相同，也沒有任何衝突。可以參照這個解釋來理解其他的經文。
『論。或此經中至應知亦爾者。更別釋也。謂斷過．現所薰種故名斷過．現。如十八愛行過去世起者。依過去生說。未來．現在應知亦爾。』——或者，在這部經中，需要進一步分別解釋。所謂斷除了過去和現在所熏習的種子，因此稱為『斷過．現』。例如，十八種愛行是在過去世產生的，這是依據過去世的生起來說的。未來世和現在世的情況也應該這樣理解。
『論。如是二世至說名業盡。舉法釋也。由過去．現在生煩惱熏成種子。由道力故彼種子斷。此過．現所薰種子斷時。名過．現生煩惱斷也。此即果斷說因斷也。如異熟盡時說名業盡。』——像這樣，過去世和現在世的煩惱熏習形成了種子。通過修道的威力，這些種子被斷除。當過去和現在所熏習的種子被斷除時，就稱為斷除了過去和現在產生的煩惱。這是從果的斷除來說明的因的斷除。就像異熟果報窮盡時，就稱為業盡一樣。
『論。未來眾苦至說名為斷。此釋未來斷也。』——未來世的種種痛苦，通過修道而斷除，這解釋了未來世的斷除。
『論。若異此者至為令其滅。經部更難有部。過去已滅。現在正滅。何用修道令其滅也』——如果不是這樣，經部（Sautrantika）就進一步詰難有部（Sarvastivada）：過去已經滅了，現在正在滅，為什麼還要修道來讓它們滅呢？
『論。若無為法至立為第一。有部難也。凡稱第一皆說有法。法既非有。如何得說為第一耶。如石女之兒。豈得說為此兒第一。』——如果無為法（Asamskrta，未生之法）可以被立為第一，這是有部提出的詰難。凡是稱為第一的，都是指『有』的法。無為法既然不是『有』，怎麼能說它是第一呢？就像石女的兒子，怎麼能說這個兒子是第一呢？
『論。我亦不說至此為第一。經部釋也。如說此聲有先非有等。即此非有不是有。故有義得成。非是有體。一切有．非有中此最可稱歎。故經嘆說此為第一。』——我（經部）也沒有說無為法是『有』的法中的第一。就像說這個聲音有『先非有』等等的性質，這個『非有』並不是指它『有』。因此，『有』的意義得以成立，但它不是『有』的實體。在一切『有』和『非有』之中，這個無為法最值得稱讚。所以經中讚歎說它是第一。
『論。若無為法至名滅聖諦。有部轉難。凡言稱諦是其實義。既稱滅諦如何非有。』——如果無為法被稱為滅聖諦（Nirodha Satya），有部反過來詰難。凡是稱為『諦』的，都是指真實存在的意義。既然稱為滅諦，怎麼能說它不是『有』呢？
『論。且言聖諦至義有何違。經部釋也 言聖諦實者。見無顛倒名之為實。謂有見其有。無見其無。聖見有．無不顛倒故名為聖諦。非是有別體性』——且說聖諦的意義，這有什麼衝突呢？經部解釋說，所謂聖諦的『實』，是指見解沒有顛倒，因此稱為『實』。也就是說，『有』就見其『有』，『無』就見其『無』。聖者對於『有』和『無』的見解沒有顛倒，所以稱為聖諦。但它並不是指『有』一個單獨的體性。
English version: 『As afflictions are not conditioned by Rupa (form, matter) or things related to Rupa, they are called 'Rupa etc.' Afflictions are not conditioned by the past etc., or things related to the past, hence they are called 'past etc.'』—This means that afflictions do not arise from Rupa or from dharmas related to Rupa, therefore they are called 'Rupa etc.' Afflictions do not arise from the past etc., or from dharmas related to the past, therefore they are called 'past etc.'
『Treatise: If there are other sutras whose meaning is the same, there is no contradiction. This can be used to understand other sutras.』—If there are other sutras whose meaning is the same as this, there is no conflict. You can refer to this explanation to understand other sutras.
『Treatise: Or in this sutra, it needs to be explained separately. Cutting off the seeds that have been perfumed by the past and present is called 'cutting off the past and present.' For example, the eighteen acts of craving arise in the past, which is based on the arising in the past. The future and present should be understood in the same way.』—Or, in this sutra, it needs to be further explained separately. The so-called cutting off the seeds perfumed by the past and present is therefore called 'cutting off the past and present.' For example, the eighteen acts of craving arise in the past, which is based on the arising in the past. The future and present should be understood in the same way.
『Treatise: Thus, the afflictions of the two times (past and present) are extinguished, which is called the exhaustion of karma. This is explained by example. Afflictions arising in the past and present perfume and form seeds. By the power of the path, these seeds are cut off. When the seeds perfumed by the past and present are cut off, it is called the cutting off of afflictions arising in the past and present. This is the cutting off of the cause from the perspective of the cutting off of the effect. Just as when the result of karma is exhausted, it is called the exhaustion of karma.』—In this way, the afflictions of the past and present perfume and form seeds. Through the power of the path, these seeds are cut off. When the seeds perfumed by the past and present are cut off, it is called the cutting off of afflictions arising in the past and present. This is explaining the cutting off of the cause from the perspective of the cutting off of the effect. Just as when the result of karma is exhausted, it is called the exhaustion of karma.
『Treatise: The various sufferings of the future are cut off, which is called cutting off.』—The various sufferings of the future are cut off through cultivation, which explains the cutting off of the future.
『Treatise: If it is different from this, the Sautrantika (Sutra School) further challenges the Sarvastivada (School of Universal Existence): The past has already ceased, and the present is ceasing. Why use cultivation to make them cease?』—If it is not like this, the Sautrantika further challenges the Sarvastivada: The past has already ceased, and the present is ceasing. Why use cultivation to make them cease?
『Treatise: If Asamskrta (unconditioned dharma) can be established as the first, this is a challenge from the Sarvastivada. Generally, the first is said to be an existing dharma. Since Asamskrta is not existent, how can it be said to be the first? Like the son of a barren woman, how can it be said that this son is the first?』—If Asamskrta can be established as the first, this is a challenge from the Sarvastivada. Generally, the first is said to be an existing dharma. Since Asamskrta is not existent, how can it be said to be the first? Like the son of a barren woman, how can it be said that this son is the first?
『Treatise: I (Sautrantika) also do not say that Asamskrta is the first among existing dharmas. Just as it is said that this sound has the nature of 'previously non-existent' etc., this 'non-existent' does not mean that it 'exists.' Therefore, the meaning of 'existent' is established, but it is not an existent entity. Among all 'existent' and 'non-existent' things, this Asamskrta is most worthy of praise. Therefore, the sutra praises it as the first.』—I (Sautrantika) also do not say that Asamskrta is the first among existing dharmas. Just as it is said that this sound has the nature of 'previously non-existent' etc., this 'non-existent' does not mean that it 'exists.' Therefore, the meaning of 'existent' is established, but it is not an existent entity. Among all 'existent' and 'non-existent' things, this Asamskrta is most worthy of praise. Therefore, the sutra praises it as the first.
『Treatise: If Asamskrta is called Nirodha Satya (Cessation of Suffering, one of the Four Noble Truths), the Sarvastivada challenges in turn. Generally, when something is called 'Satya' (Truth), it refers to a real meaning. Since it is called Nirodha Satya, how can it be said that it is not existent?』—If Asamskrta is called Nirodha Satya, the Sarvastivada challenges in turn. Generally, when something is called 'Satya', it refers to a real meaning. Since it is called Nirodha Satya, how can it be said that it is not existent?
『Treatise: Let's talk about the meaning of Satya. What conflict is there? The Sautrantika explains that the 'real' of Satya means that the view is without inversion, therefore it is called 'real.' That is, 'existent' is seen as 'existent,' and 'non-existent' is seen as 'non-existent.' The view of the noble ones regarding 'existent' and 'non-existent' is without inversion, therefore it is called Satya. But it does not mean that 'existent' has a separate entity.』—Let's talk about the meaning of Satya. What conflict is there? The Sautrantika explains that the 'real' of Satya means that the view is without inversion, therefore it is called 'real.' That is, 'existent' is seen as 'existent,' and 'non-existent' is seen as 'non-existent.' The view of the noble ones regarding 'existent' and 'non-existent' is without inversion, therefore it is called Satya. But it does not mean that 'existent' has a separate entity.
【English Translation】 English version: 『As afflictions are not conditioned by Rupa (form, matter) or things related to Rupa, they are called 'Rupa etc.' Afflictions are not conditioned by the past etc., or things related to the past, hence they are called 'past etc.'』—This means that afflictions do not arise from Rupa or from dharmas related to Rupa, therefore they are called 'Rupa etc.' Afflictions do not arise from the past etc., or from dharmas related to the past, therefore they are called 'past etc.'
『Treatise: If there are other sutras whose meaning is the same, there is no contradiction. This can be used to understand other sutras.』—If there are other sutras whose meaning is the same as this, there is no conflict. You can refer to this explanation to understand other sutras.
『Treatise: Or in this sutra, it needs to be explained separately. Cutting off the seeds that have been perfumed by the past and present is called 'cutting off the past and present.' For example, the eighteen acts of craving arise in the past, which is based on the arising in the past. The future and present should be understood in the same way.』—Or, in this sutra, it needs to be further explained separately. The so-called cutting off the seeds perfumed by the past and present is therefore called 'cutting off the past and present.' For example, the eighteen acts of craving arise in the past, which is based on the arising in the past. The future and present should be understood in the same way.
『Treatise: Thus, the afflictions of the two times (past and present) are extinguished, which is called the exhaustion of karma. This is explained by example. Afflictions arising in the past and present perfume and form seeds. By the power of the path, these seeds are cut off. When the seeds perfumed by the past and present are cut off, it is called the cutting off of afflictions arising in the past and present. This is the cutting off of the cause from the perspective of the cutting off of the effect. Just as when the result of karma is exhausted, it is called the exhaustion of karma.』—In this way, the afflictions of the past and present perfume and form seeds. Through the power of the path, these seeds are cut off. When the seeds perfumed by the past and present are cut off, it is called the cutting off of afflictions arising in the past and present. This is explaining the cutting off of the cause from the perspective of the cutting off of the effect. Just as when the result of karma is exhausted, it is called the exhaustion of karma.
『Treatise: The various sufferings of the future are cut off, which is called cutting off.』—The various sufferings of the future are cut off through cultivation, which explains the cutting off of the future.
『Treatise: If it is different from this, the Sautrantika (Sutra School) further challenges the Sarvastivada (School of Universal Existence): The past has already ceased, and the present is ceasing. Why use cultivation to make them cease?』—If it is not like this, the Sautrantika further challenges the Sarvastivada: The past has already ceased, and the present is ceasing. Why use cultivation to make them cease?
『Treatise: If Asamskrta (unconditioned dharma) can be established as the first, this is a challenge from the Sarvastivada. Generally, the first is said to be an existing dharma. Since Asamskrta is not existent, how can it be said to be the first? Like the son of a barren woman, how can it be said that this son is the first?』—If Asamskrta can be established as the first, this is a challenge from the Sarvastivada. Generally, the first is said to be an existing dharma. Since Asamskrta is not existent, how can it be said to be the first? Like the son of a barren woman, how can it be said that this son is the first?
『Treatise: I (Sautrantika) also do not say that Asamskrta is the first among existing dharmas. Just as it is said that this sound has the nature of 'previously non-existent' etc., this 'non-existent' does not mean that it 'exists.' Therefore, the meaning of 'existent' is established, but it is not an existent entity. Among all 'existent' and 'non-existent' things, this Asamskrta is most worthy of praise. Therefore, the sutra praises it as the first.』—I (Sautrantika) also do not say that Asamskrta is the first among existing dharmas. Just as it is said that this sound has the nature of 'previously non-existent' etc., this 'non-existent' does not mean that it 'exists.' Therefore, the meaning of 'existent' is established, but it is not an existent entity. Among all 'existent' and 'non-existent' things, this Asamskrta is most worthy of praise. Therefore, the sutra praises it as the first.
『Treatise: If Asamskrta is called Nirodha Satya (Cessation of Suffering, one of the Four Noble Truths), the Sarvastivada challenges in turn. Generally, when something is called 'Satya' (Truth), it refers to a real meaning. Since it is called Nirodha Satya, how can it be said that it is not existent?』—If Asamskrta is called Nirodha Satya, the Sarvastivada challenges in turn. Generally, when something is called 'Satya', it refers to a real meaning. Since it is called Nirodha Satya, how can it be said that it is not existent?
『Treatise: Let's talk about the meaning of Satya. What conflict is there? The Sautrantika explains that the 'real' of Satya means that the view is without inversion, therefore it is called 'real.' That is, 'existent' is seen as 'existent,' and 'non-existent' is seen as 'non-existent.' The view of the noble ones regarding 'existent' and 'non-existent' is without inversion, therefore it is called Satya. But it does not mean that 'existent' has a separate entity.』—Let's talk about the meaning of Satya. What conflict is there? The Sautrantika explains that the 'real' of Satya means that the view is without inversion, therefore it is called 'real.' That is, 'existent' is seen as 'existent,' and 'non-existent' is seen as 'non-existent.' The view of the noble ones regarding 'existent' and 'non-existent' is without inversion, therefore it is called Satya. But it does not mean that 'existent' has a separate entity.
名為實也。
論。如何非有至第三聖諦。有部轉難。凡論數物須有體性。滅既非有何成第三。
論。第二無間至故成第三。經部答也。聖人見第二諦后見此滅故。說第二諦后說此滅故名為第三。非要有體方名第三。
論。若無為法至應緣無境。有部轉難。若無為法唯是無者。如緣虛空．及涅槃識應緣無境。境既是無如何生識。無所扶故。
論。此緣無境至當廣思擇。指後述也。
論。若許無為至當有何失。有部問也。
論。復有何德。經部師反問也。
論。許便擁護至是名為德。有部答也。
論。若有可護至是名為失。經部彈有部德。及出有部失也。
論。所以者何。有部徴也。所以實有朋虛妄計。
論。此非有體至如眼．耳等。經部出無現．比二量過也。一無二量失。二違彼事滅失 違二量者。謂無如色．受等現量可知。如眼．耳等以有用故比量可知。
論。又若別有至名為滅故。經部更以違第六轉聲彼事滅破 如說色滅唯遮色有非別有物 言煩惱滅。故知唯煩惱滅無別實物。如立擇滅無為與其煩惱。非是因果不定相屬。如何得稱煩惱之滅。故知言煩惱滅。但遮煩惱有名言為滅。
論。滅雖別有至屬於彼事。有部釋也。由煩惱繫縛不證
【現代漢語翻譯】 名為實也。
論：如果不是『有』，如何達到第三聖諦（Arya-satya，指滅諦）？有部（Sarvastivada）反駁說，凡是討論數量的事物，必須要有實體和自性。『滅』既然不是『有』，如何能成為第三聖諦？
論：在第二聖諦（苦集滅道中的集諦）之後，無間地證得『滅』，所以成為第三聖諦。經部（Sautrantika）回答說，聖人在見到第二諦后見到此『滅』，所以說在第二諦后說此『滅』，因此名為第三聖諦。並非一定要有實體才能稱為第三聖諦。
論：如果無為法（Asamskrta-dharma）僅僅是『無』，那麼如緣虛空（Akasa）及涅槃（Nirvana）的識，應該緣的是『無』境。境既然是『無』，如何能生起識？因為沒有所扶持的。
論：此緣『無』境，當廣思擇。指後面會詳細論述。
論：如果承認無為法是『有』，當有什麼過失？有部問道。
論：又有什麼功德？經部反問道。
論：承認『有』便能擁護正法，這是功德。有部回答說。
論：如果『有』是可以被擁護的，那又有什麼過失？經部以此反駁有部的『功德』，並指出有部的過失。
論：為什麼這樣說？有部追問道。為什麼說『有』是真實，而『無』是虛妄的計度？
論：此非『有』體，如眼（Caksu）、耳（Srotra）等。經部指出有部在現量（Pratyaksa）和比量（Anumana）上的過失。一是失去了兩種量（現量和比量），二是違背了『彼事滅』的原則。違背兩種量是指，『無為法』不像色（Rupa）、受（Vedana）等可以通過現量認知，也不像眼、耳等可以通過比量，因為它們有作用。
論：又如果另外有『滅』，那又如何稱之為『滅』呢？經部進一步以違背第六轉聲（屬格）的『彼事滅』來破斥有部。例如說『色滅』，僅僅是遮止『色』的存在，而不是另外有一個『滅』的實體。說『煩惱滅』，因此可知僅僅是煩惱的滅除，沒有另外一個真實的『滅』的實體。如果設立擇滅（Pratisamkhya-nirodha）無為法和煩惱，不是因果關係，也沒有一定的相屬關係，如何能稱之為煩惱的『滅』？因此可知，說『煩惱滅』，只是遮止煩惱，用名言來表達『滅』。
論：『滅』雖然是另外『有』的，但仍然屬於『彼事』。有部解釋說，因為煩惱的繫縛，才不能證得『滅』。
【English Translation】 It is called reality.
Treatise: How can it be non-existent and reach the Third Noble Truth (Arya-satya, referring to Nirodha-satya, the Truth of Cessation)? The Sarvastivada school counters, stating that anything discussed in terms of quantity must have substance and self-nature. Since 'cessation' is non-existent, how can it become the third truth?
Treatise: After the Second Truth (Samudaya-satya, the Truth of the Origin of Suffering), 'cessation' is realized without interruption, thus becoming the Third Truth. The Sautrantika school replies that the noble ones see this 'cessation' after seeing the Second Truth, so it is said after the Second Truth, hence it is called the Third Truth. It is not necessary to have substance to be called the Third Truth.
Treatise: If unconditioned dharmas (Asamskrta-dharma) are merely 'non-existence,' then, like the consciousnesses that cognize space (Akasa) and Nirvana (Nirvana), they should cognize 'non-existent' objects. Since the object is 'non-existent,' how can consciousness arise? Because there is nothing to support it.
Treatise: This cognition of 'non-existent' objects should be thoroughly considered. This refers to a detailed discussion later.
Treatise: If you admit that unconditioned dharmas are 'existent,' what fault would there be? The Sarvastivada school asks.
Treatise: What merit would there be? The Sautrantika school counter-questions.
Treatise: Admitting 'existence' can protect the Dharma, this is merit. The Sarvastivada school replies.
Treatise: If 'existence' can be protected, what fault would there be? The Sautrantika school refutes the Sarvastivada school's 'merit' and points out the Sarvastivada school's faults.
Treatise: Why do you say this? The Sarvastivada school inquires. Why do you say that 'existence' is real, while 'non-existence' is a false conception?
Treatise: This is not an 'existent' entity, like the eye (Caksu), ear (Srotra), etc. The Sautrantika school points out the Sarvastivada school's faults in terms of direct perception (Pratyaksa) and inference (Anumana). First, they lose the two means of valid cognition (direct perception and inference). Second, they violate the principle of 'cessation of that thing.' Violating the two means of valid cognition means that 'unconditioned dharmas' cannot be known through direct perception like form (Rupa), feeling (Vedana), etc., nor can they be known through inference like the eye, ear, etc., because they have a function.
Treatise: Furthermore, if there is a separate 'cessation,' then how can it be called 'cessation'? The Sautrantika school further refutes the Sarvastivada school by violating the 'cessation of that thing' in the sixth case (genitive case). For example, saying 'cessation of form' merely prevents the existence of 'form,' and there is no separate entity of 'cessation.' Saying 'cessation of afflictions,' therefore, it can be known that it is merely the cessation of afflictions, and there is no separate real entity of 'cessation.' If one establishes unconditioned dharma of cessation through discrimination (Pratisamkhya-nirodha) and afflictions, they are not cause and effect, nor do they have a definite relationship, how can it be called the 'cessation' of afflictions? Therefore, it can be known that saying 'cessation of afflictions' merely prevents afflictions, using language to express 'cessation.'
Treatise: Although 'cessation' is separately 'existent,' it still belongs to 'that thing.' The Sarvastivada school explains that because of the bondage of afflictions, one cannot realize 'cessation.'
擇滅。煩惱斷時方得此滅。由此可言此滅屬於此事。
論。云何因此滅定屬此得。經部問也 何因此煩惱滅屬於得也。
論。如契經言至可言獲得。有部答也。既經言獲得。故知屬得體非無也。若體是無如何非有可名獲得。
論。由得對治至名得涅槃。經部通也。即得所依永違煩惱身故。名為獲得涅槃。
論。復有聖教至名為涅槃。經部引經證也 所有眾苦至極美妙。是本經文 謂舍已下經部釋也 謂舍諸依。即上所有眾苦皆無餘斷 及一切愛盡離染滅。釋上各別捨棄．離染滅．靜息．永沒．余苦不續．不取．不生。此總釋上苦．集永斷更不生義 此極寂靜此極美妙。是總嘆上滅功德也。即是釋經中涅槃之義。此之不生即是苦．集不生無別實物。
論。云何不許至故言不生。有部釋經。經說不生。云何得不知是即同別有實體擇滅名為不生。
論。我等見此至依此無生。經部破也。經言眾苦不生。此之不生屬於眾苦。即是苦之不生。屬主之聲有其功力。經言眾苦不生。汝言不是眾苦不生。是別實體擇滅不生。此經證汝擇滅不生第七轉聲都無功力。經說不生何意。知是說滅不生非苦不生。
論若依此言至涅槃常故。經部徴也。若已有擇滅故名為不生。即應一切眾生苦本不生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 擇滅（Nirvana）。只有當煩惱斷除時才能獲得這種寂滅。因此可以說這種寂滅屬於『得』（prapti）。
論：為什麼說這種寂滅必定屬於『得』？這是經部（Sautrantika）的提問。為什麼因為煩惱的寂滅就屬於『得』呢？
論：正如契經（sutra）所說，達到某種狀態就可以說獲得了某種東西。這是有部（Sarvastivada）的回答。既然經文說『獲得』，就知道『得』的體性並非虛無。如果體性是虛無，又怎麼能說『獲得』呢？
論：由於『得』是對治煩惱的手段，所以稱為『得涅槃』。這是經部的解釋。也就是因為『得』所依之處永遠遠離煩惱，所以稱為獲得涅槃。
論：還有聖教（arya-dharma）說……稱為涅槃。這是經部引經文來證明。『所有眾苦……至極美妙』，是本經的原文。『謂舍已下』是經部的解釋。『謂舍諸依』，就是說上面所說的所有眾苦都完全斷除。『及一切愛盡離染滅』，分別解釋了上面所說的捨棄、離染滅、靜息、永沒、余苦不續、不取、不生。這是總的解釋了苦、集（samudaya）永遠斷除不再產生的含義。『此極寂靜此極美妙』，是總的讚歎上面所說的寂滅的功德。這就是解釋經文中涅槃的含義。這種不生，就是苦、集的不生，沒有另外的實體。
論：為什麼不允許……所以說『不生』？這是有部的解釋。經文說『不生』，為什麼就不能理解為和擇滅（pratisamkhya-nirodha）是同一個別有的實體，而稱之為『不生』呢？
論：我們看到……依據這種『不生』。這是經部的駁斥。經文說眾苦不生，這種『不生』是屬於眾苦的，也就是苦的不生。屬於主語的詞語具有其功用。經文說眾苦不生，你說不是眾苦不生，而是另外的實體擇滅不生。這條經文證明你所說的擇滅不生，第七格（locative case）的詞語都沒有任何作用。經文說『不生』是什麼意思？要知道這是說寂滅的不生，而不是苦的不生。
論：如果依據這種說法……涅槃是常有的。這是經部的質問。如果因為已經有了擇滅，所以稱為『不生』，那麼就應該一切眾生的苦的根本都不再生起。
【English Translation】 English version Nirvana (Pratisamkhya-nirodha). This cessation is attained only when afflictions are eliminated. Therefore, it can be said that this cessation belongs to 'attainment' (prapti).
Treatise: Why is it said that this cessation necessarily belongs to 'attainment'? This is a question from the Sautrantika school. Why does the cessation of afflictions belong to 'attainment'?
Treatise: As the sutra says, reaching a certain state can be described as obtaining something. This is the response from the Sarvastivada school. Since the sutra speaks of 'attainment,' it is known that the nature of 'attainment' is not non-existent. If its nature were non-existent, how could it be called 'attainment'?
Treatise: Because 'attainment' is the means to counteract afflictions, it is called 'attaining Nirvana.' This is the explanation of the Sautrantika school. That is, because the basis of 'attainment' is forever free from afflictions, it is called attaining Nirvana.
Treatise: Furthermore, the noble teachings (arya-dharma) say... it is called Nirvana. This is the Sautrantika school citing sutras to prove their point. 'All sufferings... to the utmost bliss' is the original text of the sutra. 'Meaning from abandoning below' is the Sautrantika's explanation. 'Meaning abandoning all dependencies' means that all the aforementioned sufferings are completely eliminated. 'And all love is exhausted, detachment and cessation' separately explain the aforementioned abandonment, detachment and cessation, tranquility, eternal disappearance, no continuation of remaining suffering, non-grasping, non-arising. This is a general explanation of the meaning of suffering and accumulation (samudaya) being eternally cut off and no longer arising. 'This is extremely tranquil, this is extremely blissful' is a general praise of the merits of the aforementioned cessation. This is the explanation of the meaning of Nirvana in the sutra. This non-arising is the non-arising of suffering and accumulation, without a separate real entity.
Treatise: Why is it not permitted... therefore it is said 'non-arising'? This is the explanation of the Sarvastivada school. The sutra says 'non-arising,' why can't it be understood as the same separate entity as Nirvana (pratisamkhya-nirodha), and called 'non-arising'?
Treatise: We see... based on this 'non-arising.' This is the refutation of the Sautrantika school. The sutra says the non-arising of all sufferings, this 'non-arising' belongs to all sufferings, that is, the non-arising of suffering. Words belonging to the subject have their function. The sutra says the non-arising of all sufferings, you say it is not the non-arising of all sufferings, but the separate entity Nirvana that does not arise. This sutra proves that your saying Nirvana does not arise, the locative case has no effect at all. What is the meaning of the sutra saying 'non-arising'? Know that it is speaking of the non-arising of cessation, not the non-arising of suffering.
Treatise: If based on this statement... Nirvana is permanent. This is the question of the Sautrantika school. If because there is already Nirvana, it is called 'non-arising,' then the root of suffering for all beings should not arise again.
以擇滅涅槃是常法故。
論。若依此言至依道之得。若己得故名為不生。即應依道之得。名為不生。非擇滅也。
論。故唯依道至汝應信受。經部結歸二義。令有部師信受此義。由此彼苦之滅名眾苦滅。
論。由此善釋至更無所有。引經證也 故經說喻言如燈焰涅槃心解脫亦爾。此經意說。如燈涅槃。唯燈焰謝無別有物。如經說佛此夜滅度。
論。阿毗達磨至謂無體性。更引對法釋也。
論。毗婆沙師不許此釋。敘婆沙釋事與經部不同。
論。若爾彼釋事義云何。徴也。
論。彼言事者至無因無果。此述婆沙屬當無為。名無事者以無因故 若欲成立有部之宗。前經部難中。一一應撿正理對經部也。
論。總論已竟至何因所得。已下第二對因配果。
論曰至此因所得。釋頌上兩句也。如文可解 五果次第。一異熟。二等流。三離系。四士用。五增上 此果次第狹者先說廣者后說。因即廣者先說狹者后說。由此前因對其後果。由第三離系非六因得此中不論。與士用果少相濫故次士用之前。及狹于士用果非士用后。故於五數之中列在士用果前。不同四果廣狹次第。所以非次異熟之後。
論。增上之果名增上果。此釋名也。準下論文增上之果名增上果。以論說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：以擇滅涅槃（擇滅涅槃：通過智慧選擇而達到的涅槃狀態）是常法（常法：永恒不變的法則）的緣故。
論：如果依照這種說法，直到依道而獲得（依道而獲得：通過修行佛法而證得涅槃）。如果因為已經獲得，就稱為不生（不生：不再輪迴），那麼就應該依靠道而獲得，稱為不生，而不是擇滅。
論：所以只有依靠道才能獲得。經部（經部：佛教的一個學派）總結歸納了兩種含義，讓有部（有部：佛教的一個學派）的法師信受這個含義。由此，他們的痛苦的滅除，稱為眾苦滅（眾苦滅：所有痛苦的止息）。
論：由此很好地解釋了，再也沒有其他東西了。引用經典來證明。所以經典中說譬喻，說如燈焰涅槃（燈焰涅槃：燈焰熄滅的狀態），心的解脫（心的解脫：從煩惱中解脫）也是這樣。這個經典的意思是說，如燈涅槃，只有燈焰熄滅，沒有別的什麼東西。如經典說，佛陀今夜滅度（佛陀今夜滅度：佛陀在今晚進入涅槃）。
論：阿毗達磨（阿毗達磨：佛教論藏）說，這是指沒有實體性。再次引用對法（對法：阿毗達磨的另一種稱呼）來解釋。
論：毗婆沙師（毗婆沙師：撰寫《大毗婆沙論》的論師）不認可這種解釋。敘述毗婆沙（毗婆沙：《大毗婆沙論》的簡稱）的解釋與經部不同。
論：如果這樣，那麼他們的解釋的意義是什麼？提問。
論：他們說，事（事：指現象）是指當無為（當無為：指未來的無為法），稱為無事（無事：沒有現象）是因為沒有原因的緣故。如果想要成立有部的宗義，在前面的經部的詰難中，一一應該檢查正理來對抗經部。
論：總的討論已經結束，是什麼原因所得？以下第二部分，將原因與結果相配對。
論曰：到此原因所得。解釋頌文上面的兩句。如文字可以理解。五果（五果：五種結果）的次第：一、異熟（異熟：由業力所感得的果報）。二、等流（等流：與先前行為相似的結果）。三、離系（離系：通過修行斷除煩惱的結果）。四、士用（士用：由人的努力所產生的結果）。五、增上（增上：對其他事物產生影響的結果）。這個結果的次第是，狹隘的先說，廣大的后說。原因則是廣大的先說，狹隘的后說。由此，前面的原因對應其後面的結果。由於第三種離系果不是由六因（六因：能作因、俱有因、同類因、相應因、遍行因、異熟因）所得，因此這裡不討論。因為它與士用果有些相似，所以放在士用果之前。以及它比士用果狹隘，但不是士用果之後。所以在五種結果之中，排列在士用果之前。不同於四果（四果：須陀洹果、斯陀含果、阿那含果、阿羅漢果）的廣狹次第。所以沒有按照次第放在異熟果之後。
論：增上的結果稱為增上果。這是解釋名稱。按照下面的論文，增上的結果稱為增上果。用論來說明
【English Translation】 English version: Because cessation through discrimination, Nirvana (Nirvana: a state of perfect peace and happiness, like heaven), is a constant dharma (dharma: the teachings of the Buddha).
Treatise: If according to this statement, up to 'obtained through the path' (obtained through the path: attaining Nirvana through practicing the Buddhist teachings). If because it has already been obtained, it is called 'non-arising' (non-arising: no longer being reborn), then it should be 'obtained through the path' that is called 'non-arising,' not cessation through discrimination.
Treatise: Therefore, only by relying on the path can it be obtained. The Sautrantika school (Sautrantika: a Buddhist school) summarizes two meanings, causing the Sarvastivada school's (Sarvastivada: a Buddhist school) teachers to believe and accept this meaning. From this, their cessation of suffering is called the cessation of all suffering (cessation of all suffering: the complete stopping of all suffering).
Treatise: From this, it is well explained that there is nothing else. Quoting scriptures to prove it. Therefore, the scriptures say in a metaphor, like the Nirvana of a lamp flame (Nirvana of a lamp flame: the state of a lamp flame being extinguished), the liberation of the mind (liberation of the mind: freedom from afflictions) is also like that. The meaning of this scripture is that, like the Nirvana of a lamp, only the lamp flame is extinguished, and there is nothing else. As the scriptures say, the Buddha will pass into Nirvana tonight (the Buddha will pass into Nirvana tonight: the Buddha will enter Nirvana this evening).
Treatise: The Abhidharma (Abhidharma: Buddhist philosophical texts) says that this refers to having no substance. Again, quoting the Dharma (Dharma: another name for Abhidharma) to explain.
Treatise: The Vaibhashika masters (Vaibhashika masters: the masters who wrote the 'Great Vaibhasha Shastra') do not accept this explanation. Narrating that the Vaibhasha's (Vaibhasha: abbreviation for 'Great Vaibhasha Shastra') explanation is different from the Sautrantika school.
Treatise: If so, what is the meaning of their explanation? Questioning.
Treatise: They say that 'thing' (thing: refers to phenomena) refers to the future unconditioned (future unconditioned: refers to future unconditioned dharmas), called 'no-thing' (no-thing: no phenomena) because there is no cause. If you want to establish the Sarvastivada school's doctrine, in the previous refutations from the Sautrantika school, each one should examine the correct reasoning to counter the Sautrantika school.
Treatise: The general discussion is finished, what cause is it obtained from? The second part below, matching causes with results.
Treatise says: Up to 'obtained from this cause.' Explaining the two sentences above in the verse. As the text can be understood. The order of the five results (five results: five types of results): 1. Vipaka (Vipaka: the result of karmic actions). 2. Nisyanda (Nisyanda: a result similar to the previous action). 3. Visamyoga (Visamyoga: the result of cutting off afflictions through practice). 4. Purusakara (Purusakara: the result produced by human effort). 5. Adhipati (Adhipati: the result of influencing other things). The order of these results is that the narrower ones are mentioned first, and the broader ones are mentioned later. The causes, however, are that the broader ones are mentioned first, and the narrower ones are mentioned later. From this, the preceding cause corresponds to its subsequent result. Because the third, Visamyoga result, is not obtained from the six causes (six causes: efficient cause, co-existent cause, similar cause, associated cause, pervasive cause, and ripening cause), it is not discussed here. Because it is somewhat similar to the Purusakara result, it is placed before the Purusakara result. And it is narrower than the Purusakara result, but not after the Purusakara result. Therefore, among the five results, it is listed before the Purusakara result. It is different from the order of breadth and narrowness of the four results (four results: Stream-enterer, Once-returner, Non-returner, Arhat). Therefore, it is not placed after the Vipaka result according to the order.
Treatise: The result of Adhipati is called the Adhipati result. This is explaining the name. According to the following treatise, the result of Adhipati is called the Adhipati result. Using the treatise to explain.
因名增上故。
論。唯無障住有何增上。問也。能作之因唯無障住。既無力用有何增上。
論。即由無障至如應當思。答也 答中有二。一以無障釋。二以有用釋 以無障。通與一切為能作因故。名為增上 有用增上如文可解。
論。同類遍行至皆似因故。釋第三句 同類．遍行因俱是相似。力用少異分為二因。果但酬因不辨力用。但據似因名等流果。后等前流名為等流。等流即果名等流果。
論。俱有相應至名士用果。釋第四句。相應．俱有之法。有力用故名為士用。士用之果名士用果。非越出體有別士用。即此士用所得名士用果。
論。此士用名為目何法。問也。
論。即同諸法至得士用名。如文可解。
論。如世間說至醉象將軍舉喻釋也。此諸法作用名為士用。從似得名 如藥果實非鴉足。似鴉足故名為鴉足。將軍實非醉象。似醉象故名為醉象 正理論云。名士用果此有四種。俱生．無間．隔越．不生。言俱生者。謂同一時更互為因力所生起。言無間者。謂次後時由前念因力所生起。如世第一法生苦法智忍。言隔越者。謂隔遠時展轉為因力所生起。如農夫等於穀麥等。言不生者。所謂涅槃。由無間道力所得故。此既不生。如何可說彼力生故名士用果。現見於得亦說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因名增上故。
論：唯無障住有何增上？問也。能作之因唯無障住，既無力用，有何增上？
論：即由無障至如應當思。答也。答中有二：一以無障釋，二以有用釋。以無障，通與一切為能作因故，名為增上。有用增上如文可解。
論：同類遍行至皆似因故。釋第三句。同類（Samatā-hetu，指同類因）、遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu，指遍行因）俱是相似，力用少異分為二因。果但酬因，不辨力用，但據似因名等流果（Nisyanda-phala，指等流果）。后等前流名為等流，等流即果名等流果。
論：俱有相應至名士用果。釋第四句。相應（Samprayuktaka，指相應）、俱有之法（Sahabhūta，指俱有），有力用故名為士用。士用之果名士用果。非越出體有別士用，即此士用所得名士用果。
論：此士用名為目何法？問也。
論：即同諸法至得士用名。如文可解。
論：如世間說至醉象將軍舉喻釋也。此諸法作用名為士用，從似得名。如藥果實非鴉足，似鴉足故名為鴉足。將軍實非醉象，似醉象故名為醉象。《正理論》云：名士用果此有四種：俱生（Sahaja，指俱生）、無間（Anantara，指無間）、隔越（Viprakṛṣṭa，指隔越）、不生（Anutpāda，指不生）。言俱生者，謂同一時更互為因力所生起。言無間者，謂次後時由前念因力所生起，如世第一法生苦法智忍。言隔越者，謂隔遠時展轉為因力所生起，如農夫等於穀麥等。言不生者，所謂涅槃（Nirvana），由無間道力所得故。此既不生，如何可說彼力生故名士用果？現見於得亦說。
【English Translation】 English version Because of the increase in name.
Treatise: What increase is there in only the unobstructed abiding? This is a question. The only cause that can act is the unobstructed abiding. Since it has no power or function, what increase is there?
Treatise: It is from the unobstructed to as one should contemplate. This is the answer. There are two parts to the answer: first, explained by unobstructed; second, explained by useful. By unobstructed, it is called increase because it universally serves as the cause that can act. The increase from usefulness can be understood as the text explains.
Treatise: Similar kinds pervade to all resembling causes. Explaining the third sentence. Similar kind (Samatā-hetu, cause of similarity) and pervasive cause (Sarvatraga-hetu, pervasive cause) are both similar. With slight differences in power and function, they are divided into two causes. The result only repays the cause, without distinguishing power and function, but based on the resembling cause, it is called the outflow result (Nisyanda-phala, result of outflow). The later flowing like the former is called outflow, and the outflow is the result, hence called the outflow result.
Treatise: Co-existent and corresponding to are called agent result. Explaining the fourth sentence. Corresponding (Samprayuktaka, corresponding) and co-existent dharmas (Sahabhūta, co-existent), because they have power and function, are called agent use. The result of agent use is called agent use result. There is no separate agent use that transcends the substance; the attainment from this agent use is called agent use result.
Treatise: What dharma does this agent use name?
Treatise: It is the same as all dharmas to obtain the name of agent use. As the text can be understood.
Treatise: As the world says, the analogy of the drunken elephant and the general is used to explain. The function of these dharmas is called agent use, named from resemblance. Like the medicinal fruit is not a crow's foot, but it is called a crow's foot because it resembles a crow's foot. The general is not really a drunken elephant, but is called a drunken elephant because he resembles a drunken elephant. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: The result of agent use has four types: co-born (Sahaja, co-born), immediate (Anantara, immediate), separated (Viprakṛṣṭa, separated), and non-arising (Anutpāda, non-arising). Co-born means that at the same time, they mutually arise due to the power of cause. Immediate means that in the subsequent moment, they arise due to the power of the previous thought as cause, such as the worldly supreme dharma giving rise to the forbearance of the wisdom of suffering. Separated means that at a distant time, they arise through mutual causation, such as the farmer and the grains. Non-arising refers to Nirvana, which is obtained through the power of the path of no interval. Since this does not arise, how can it be said that it is called the result of agent use because it is produced by that power? It is also said that it is seen in attainment.
生名。如說我財生。是我得財義。若無間道斷諸隨眠所證擇滅。如是擇滅名離系果．及士用果。若無間道不斷隨眠。重證本時所證擇滅。如是擇滅非離系果。唯士用果。謂全未離欲界貪者入見道時苦法智忍。斷十隨眠所證擇滅。如是擇滅名離系果．及士用果。若全已離欲界貪者。入見道時苦法智忍。不斷隨眠證本擇滅。如是擇滅非離系果。先離系故是士用果。由此忍力更起余得而重證故。若分已離欲界貪者。入見道時。苦法智忍。於十隨眠有斷．不斷。所證擇滅有新．有本。如其次第二果．一果。如是乃至道法智忍。若全未離．已離．分離欲界貪者。於八隨眠全斷．不斷。分斷．不斷。所證擇滅有新。有本。及有新．本。如其次第二果．一果。二果．一果義如前釋 準上論文。前念因力生后法者。非唯等無間緣世第一法生苦忍等。取前生后力用。非唯取等無間緣。離緣用外理合更有力故。若不爾者即不應說生等亦是世第一法。顯宗論云。俱士用果定有又勝(二義。一定有。二又勝)故說相應俱有因得。無間隔越或有或無。設有非勝。又濫余果。是故不言余因所得。
論。為唯此二至為余亦然。問也。為唯相應．俱有有士用果。為餘四因亦有士用。
論。有說至異熟不爾。敘異說也。此說唯除異熟因皆有士
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 生名：例如說『我的財產產生』，意思是『我獲得了財產』。如果無間道（Anantarya-marga，指直接斷除煩惱的道路）斷除了所有的隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在傾向），所證得的擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而達到的滅盡）就稱為離系果（Visamyoga-phala，解脫之果）和士用果（Purusakara-phala，由個人努力而得之果）。如果無間道沒有斷除隨眠，而是重新證得原本所證的擇滅，那麼這樣的擇滅不是離系果，僅僅是士用果。例如，完全沒有脫離欲界貪慾的人，在進入見道（Darshana-marga，見真理的道路）時，通過苦法智忍（Dharma-jnana-ksanti-duhkha，對苦諦的忍）斷除了十種隨眠所證得的擇滅，這樣的擇滅稱為離系果和士用果。如果完全已經脫離欲界貪慾的人，在進入見道時，通過苦法智忍沒有斷除隨眠，而是證得了原本的擇滅，那麼這樣的擇滅不是離系果，因為先前已經解脫了，所以只是士用果。這是因為通過忍的力量，產生了其他的『得』（Prapti，獲得），從而重新證得。如果部分脫離了欲界貪慾的人，在進入見道時，通過苦法智忍，對於十種隨眠有斷除和沒有斷除的情況，所證得的擇滅有新的和原本的。那麼，按照順序，分別是二果和一果。像這樣乃至道法智忍（Dharma-jnana-ksanti-marga，對道諦的忍）。如果完全沒有脫離、已經脫離、部分脫離欲界貪慾的人，對於八種隨眠完全斷除、沒有斷除、部分斷除、沒有斷除，所證得的擇滅有新的、有原本的，以及有新的和原本的。那麼，按照順序，分別是二果、一果、二果、一果。這些果的含義如前所述。 根據上面的論文，前唸的因力產生后法，不僅僅是等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya，無間緣）的世第一法（Laukikagradharma，世間第一法）產生苦忍等。這是取前生后的力量，不僅僅是取等無間緣。因為除了緣的力量之外，理應還有其他的力量。如果不是這樣，就不應該說生等也是世第一法。《顯宗論》（Abhidharmakosabhasyam，世親所著的俱舍論的註釋）說：『俱士用果必定有而且殊勝（有兩個含義：一是必定有，二是又殊勝），所以說相應因（Samprayuktuka-hetu，相應因）和俱有因（Sahabhuka-hetu，俱有因）所得。無間斷超越或者有或者沒有，即使有也不是殊勝的，而且會混淆其他的果。』所以不說其他的因所得。 論：難道只有這兩種因有士用果，其他的因也是這樣嗎？這是提問。難道只有相應因和俱有因有士用果，其他的四種因也有士用果嗎？ 論：有人說，除了異熟因（Vipaka-hetu，異熟因），其他的因都有士用果。這是敘述不同的說法。這種說法認為，除了異熟因，其他的因都有士用果。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Birth』 is a name. For example, saying 『My wealth is born』 means 『I have obtained wealth.』 If the Anantarya-marga (path of immediate cessation) severs all Anusaya (latent tendencies of defilements), the Pratisankhya-nirodha (cessation through wisdom) thus attained is called Visamyoga-phala (fruit of detachment) and Purusakara-phala (fruit of personal effort). If the Anantarya-marga does not sever the Anusaya, but re-attains the Pratisankhya-nirodha that was originally attained, then such Pratisankhya-nirodha is not Visamyoga-phala, but only Purusakara-phala. For example, when someone who has not completely detached from desire-realm greed enters the Darshana-marga (path of seeing), the Dharma-jnana-ksanti-duhkha (patience with the knowledge of Dharma regarding suffering) severs the ten Anusaya, and the Pratisankhya-nirodha thus attained is called Visamyoga-phala and Purusakara-phala. If someone who has completely detached from desire-realm greed enters the Darshana-marga, the Dharma-jnana-ksanti-duhkha does not sever the Anusaya, but attains the original Pratisankhya-nirodha, then such Pratisankhya-nirodha is not Visamyoga-phala, because detachment has already occurred, so it is only Purusakara-phala. This is because through the power of patience, other 『Prapti』 (attainments) arise, thereby re-attaining it. If someone who has partially detached from desire-realm greed enters the Darshana-marga, the Dharma-jnana-ksanti-duhkha has both severance and non-severance of the ten Anusaya, and the Pratisankhya-nirodha thus attained is both new and original. Then, in order, they are the two fruits and one fruit respectively. Likewise, up to Dharma-jnana-ksanti-marga (patience with the knowledge of Dharma regarding the path). If someone who has not completely detached, has detached, or has partially detached from desire-realm greed, has complete severance, non-severance, partial severance, or non-severance of the eight Anusaya, the Pratisankhya-nirodha thus attained is new, original, and both new and original. Then, in order, they are the two fruits, one fruit, two fruits, and one fruit respectively. The meanings of these fruits are as explained before. According to the above treatise, the causal power of the previous thought produces the subsequent Dharma, not only the Samanantarapratyaya (condition of contiguity) of the Laukikagradharma (supreme mundane Dharma) produces Dharma-jnana-ksanti-duhkha, etc. This takes the power of the previous producing the subsequent, not only taking the Samanantarapratyaya. Because besides the power of the condition, there should be other powers. If it were not so, it should not be said that birth, etc., are also Laukikagradharma. The Abhidharmakosabhasyam (commentary on the Abhidharmakosa) says: 『The Purusakara-phala together certainly exists and is superior (has two meanings: one is certainly exists, and the other is also superior), so it is said that the Samprayuktuka-hetu (associated cause) and Sahabhuka-hetu (co-existent cause) are obtained. There is uninterrupted transcendence or there is not, even if there is, it is not superior, and it will confuse other fruits.』 Therefore, it is not said that other causes are obtained. Question: Is it only these two causes that have Purusakara-phala, or are other causes also like this? This is a question. Is it only the Samprayuktuka-hetu and Sahabhuka-hetu that have Purusakara-phala, or do the other four causes also have Purusakara-phala? Answer: Some say that except for the Vipaka-hetu (resultant cause), the other causes all have Purusakara-phala. This is a narration of different views. This view holds that except for the Vipaka-hetu, the other causes all have Purusakara-phala.
用果 此師意說。士用果唯俱生．無間。不許隔越 同類因等。並有無間士用力故 異熟即無。是故除之 士用果中亦有離系。此中說六因得故不說離系。
論。有餘師說至所收果實。第二師說。亦許隔越有士用力由此異熟因力亦有士用果也 入阿毗達磨第二釋五果名云。果不似因故名為異。熟謂成熟。堪受用故。果即異熟名異熟果 果似因故說名為等。從因生故復說為流。果即等流名等流果 擇滅無為名離系果。此由道得。非道所生。果即離系名離系果(已上三果持業釋也) 又云。由此勢力彼得生故。此名士用。彼名為果。士用因從喻得名。士用果是士用之果 又云。由前增上后法得生。增上之果名增上果(已上二果屬主釋也) 論既此釋。無煩更解。
論。異熟等果其相云何。自下兩頌辨五果相。
論曰至有異熟果。此第一異熟果相 無覆無記法中有異熟者。明性唯是無覆無記。若異熟果是其善惡。即所造業無受盡期。故異熟果唯是無覆無記中攝。
論。為此亦通至及所長養。問也 此中有三。一情．非情。二等流非等流。三長養．非長養。
論。應知唯是有記所生。略答三問。體是無記從有記生故。即知非是等流．及所長養。此二因果必同類故。亦證此法唯有情。
論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 用果（士夫作用果）：此師的觀點認為，士用果唯有俱生（同時產生）、無間（沒有間隔）的。不允許有隔越（間隔）。同類因等，都具有無間士夫作用力。異熟果則沒有，因此排除它。士用果中也有離系果。這裡因為說了六因，所以沒有說離系果。
論：有其他學派認為，（士用果）能包含所產生的果實。第二種觀點認為，也允許有隔越的士夫作用力，因此異熟因的力量也有士用果。入《阿毗達磨》第二，解釋五果的名稱時說：『果不像因，所以稱為異。熟是指成熟，堪能被受用。果就是異熟，名為異熟果。』果像因，所以說名為等。從因產生，又說為流。果就是等流，名為等流果。擇滅無為，名為離系果。這是由道（修行）獲得的，不是道所生的。果就是離系，名為離系果（以上三種果都是持業釋）。』
又說：『由此勢力，彼（果）得以產生，這稱為士用，彼（果）稱為果。士用因從比喻得名，士用果是士用之果。』又說：『由前一法的增上力，后一法得以產生，增上之果名為增上果（以上兩種果都是屬主釋）。』論中已經這樣解釋了，無需再做解釋。
論：異熟果等果的相狀是怎樣的？下面用兩頌來辨別五果的相狀。
論曰：乃至有異熟果。這是第一異熟果的相狀。無覆無記法（既不覆蓋善法，也不覆蓋惡法，且是無記性的法）中有異熟果，說明其自性唯是無覆無記。如果異熟果是善或惡，那麼所造的業就沒有受盡的時候。因此異熟果唯有無覆無記中所包含的。
論：為此也通於情（有情眾生）、非情（無情物），等流、非等流，以及長養、非長養嗎？這是提問。
這裡面有三種情況：一、有情和非情；二、等流和非等流；三、長養和非長養。
論：應當知道唯有有記（善或惡）所生的。簡略地回答這三個問題，其體性是無記，從有記產生。由此可知，它不是等流果以及長養果。因為這兩種因果必定是同類的。也證明了這種法唯屬於有情眾生。
【English Translation】 English version: Result of Effort (Śūnyatā-phala): This teacher's view is that the result of effort is only co-existent (simultaneous) and without interval (uninterrupted). It does not allow for separation (intervening). Similar causes, etc., all have uninterrupted effort. The result of maturation (vipāka-phala) is not included, so it is excluded. Among the results of effort, there is also the result of separation (visaṃyoga-phala). Here, because the six causes are mentioned, the result of separation is not discussed.
Treatise: Some other schools believe that (the result of effort) can encompass the fruits produced. The second view is that separated effort is also allowed, so the power of the maturation cause also has the result of effort. Entering the second chapter of the Abhidharma, when explaining the names of the five results, it says: 'The result is unlike the cause, so it is called different (vipāka). Maturation means ripeness, being able to be experienced. The result is maturation, called the result of maturation (vipāka-phala).' The result is like the cause, so it is called equal (niṣyanda). It arises from the cause, and is also called flowing (niṣyanda). The result is equal flow, called the result of equal flow (niṣyanda-phala). Cessation through discrimination (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha), unconditioned (asaṃskṛta), is called the result of separation (visaṃyoga-phala). This is obtained through the path (mārga), not produced by the path. The result is separation, called the result of separation (visaṃyoga-phala) (the above three results are all appositional compounds).'
It also says: 'Because of this power, that (result) can arise, this is called effort (puruṣakāra), and that (result) is called result (phala). The cause of effort is named from analogy, and the result of effort is the result of effort.' It also says: 'Due to the dominant condition (adhipati) of the preceding dharma, the subsequent dharma can arise, and the result of the dominant condition is called the result of the dominant condition (adhipati-phala) (the above two results are possessive compounds).' The treatise has already explained it this way, so there is no need to explain it further.
Treatise: What are the characteristics of the result of maturation, etc.? Below, two verses are used to distinguish the characteristics of the five results.
Treatise says: Up to the result of maturation. This is the characteristic of the first result of maturation. Among the obscured-unspecified (anivṛtāvyākṛta) dharmas (neither obscuring good nor bad, and unspecified in nature), there is the result of maturation, indicating that its nature is only obscured-unspecified. If the result of maturation were good or bad, then the karma created would have no end to its fruition. Therefore, the result of maturation is only included in the obscured-unspecified.
Treatise: Does this also extend to sentient beings (saṃjñin), non-sentient beings (asaṃjñin), equal flow, non-equal flow, and nourishment, non-nourishment? This is a question.
There are three situations here: 1. Sentient and non-sentient; 2. Equal flow and non-equal flow; 3. Nourishment and non-nourishment.
Treatise: It should be known that it is only produced by the specified (vyākṛta) (good or bad). Briefly answering these three questions, its nature is unspecified, arising from the specified. From this, it is known that it is not the result of equal flow or the result of nourishment. Because these two causes and results must be of the same kind. It also proves that this dharma only belongs to sentient beings.
。一切不善至故名有記。此釋有記也。
論。從彼后時至名有記生。釋有記生也。一因是有記。果是無記。是異義 從彼后時異熟方起非俱無間。表變異及熟義也。
論。如是名為異熟果相。總結也。
正理論云。豈不異熟亦以前位異熟果體為同類因。是前異熟等流果故。則應亦說從無記生是等流性。如何乃說從有記生非等流性。無如是失。異熟果體由同類因相可雜亂。由異熟因相無雜亂。是故但說從有記生。由此準知非等流性。以等流果與因相似有雜亂故。若異熟果與因相殊無雜亂故 今詳此意。異熟果體。雖從同類因．俱有因．能作因．異熟因所生。然同類因生是等流果義。俱有因生是士用果義。能作因生是增上果義。異熟因生是異熟果義。即此異熟果法。有等流．士用．增上．異熟四果之義。異熟果義非是等流．士用．增上果義。各取一義以立名故。士用．增上義雖是總。以總義名標別法故。因亦如此。法體是一。據用因異。后更分別。
論。非有情數至何非異熟。問也。諸增上果亦從業生。何非異熟。
論。以共有故至受異熟果。答也。如大乘說外增上果賴耶相分。各各不同非共受也。小乘中說法體是一共業所感。若是異熟即此造。余用。不應道理。增上果疏許共感共用。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：一切不善的業會導致結果，所以稱為『有記』（有善惡記別的）。這是對『有記』的解釋。
論：從那之後，異熟果產生，所以稱為『有記生』。這是對『有記生』的解釋。一種原因是『有記』，結果是『無記』（非善非惡的），這是不同的含義。從那之後，異熟果才產生，不是同時或無間斷地產生，這表示變異和成熟的含義。
論：像這樣稱為『異熟果相』。這是總結。
《正理論》說：難道異熟果不是以前位的異熟果體作為同類因嗎？因為它是前異熟的等流果。那麼也應該說從『無記』產生是等流性。為什麼說從『有記』產生不是等流性呢？沒有這樣的過失。異熟果體由於同類因的相可以雜亂，由於異熟因的相沒有雜亂。所以只說從『有記』產生。由此可以知道不是等流性。因為等流果與因相似，有雜亂的緣故。如果異熟果與因的相不同，沒有雜亂的緣故。現在詳細解釋這個意思。異熟果體，雖然是從同類因、俱有因、能作因、異熟因所生。然而同類因產生的是等流果的意義，俱有因產生的是士用果的意義，能作因產生的是增上果的意義，異熟因產生的是異熟果的意義。即此異熟果法，有等流、士用、增上、異熟四果的意義。異熟果的意義不是等流、士用、增上果的意義。各自取一種意義來立名。士用、增上義雖然是總的，用總的意義來標示別法。因也是如此。法體是一個，根據作用因不同。後面再分別。
論：非有情數（非有情之物）為什麼不是異熟果？這是提問。諸增上果也是從業產生的，為什麼不是異熟果？
論：因為是共同的，所以不是異熟果，而是增上果。這是回答。如大乘所說，外增上果的阿賴耶識（第八識）的相分，各個不同，不是共同承受的。小乘中說法體是一個，是共同的業所感。如果是異熟果，就是這個人造的，其他人用，不應該有這樣的道理。增上果允許共同感受共同使用。
【English Translation】 English version: All unwholesome karma leads to consequences, hence it is called 'having marks' (having marks of good and evil). This is an explanation of 'having marks'.
Treatise: From that later time, the maturation result arises, hence it is called 'arising from having marks'. This is an explanation of 'arising from having marks'. One cause is 'having marks', the result is 'without marks' (neither good nor evil), this is a different meaning. Only after that time does the maturation result arise, not simultaneously or without interruption, this indicates the meaning of transformation and maturation.
Treatise: Like this it is called 'the characteristic of the maturation result'. This is a summary.
The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Isn't the maturation result using the previous position's maturation result body as a cause of the same kind? Because it is the outflow result of the previous maturation. Then it should also be said that arising from 'without marks' is of the outflow nature. Why is it said that arising from 'having marks' is not of the outflow nature? There is no such fault. The maturation result body can be mixed up due to the characteristics of causes of the same kind, but there is no mixing up due to the characteristics of maturation causes. Therefore, it is only said to arise from 'having marks'. From this, it can be known that it is not of the outflow nature. Because the outflow result is similar to the cause, there is a reason for mixing up. If the maturation result is different from the characteristics of the cause, there is no reason for mixing up. Now, let's explain this meaning in detail. The maturation result body, although it arises from causes of the same kind, co-existing causes, efficient causes, and maturation causes. However, the cause of the same kind produces the meaning of the outflow result, the co-existing cause produces the meaning of the effort result, the efficient cause produces the meaning of the augmenting result, and the maturation cause produces the meaning of the maturation result. That is, this maturation result dharma has the meaning of four results: outflow, effort, augmentation, and maturation. The meaning of the maturation result is not the meaning of the outflow, effort, and augmentation results. Each takes one meaning to establish a name. Although the meanings of effort and augmentation are general, the general meaning is used to mark the specific dharma. The cause is also like this. The dharma body is one, according to the function, the causes are different. It will be distinguished later.
Treatise: Why are non-sentient things not maturation results? This is a question. All augmenting results are also produced from karma, why are they not maturation results?
Treatise: Because it is shared, it is not a maturation result, but an augmenting result. This is the answer. As the Mahayana says, the characteristic divisions of the Ālaya-vijñāna (store consciousness, the eighth consciousness) of the external augmenting results are different from each other and are not jointly received. In the Hinayana, it is said that the dharma body is one, and it is felt by shared karma. If it is a maturation result, then this person created it, and others use it, there should not be such a reason. Augmenting results allow for shared feeling and shared use.
論。其增上果至何得共受。難也。
論。共業生故。答也。雖同業生即有共業．不共業異。增上是共業故所以共受。異熟非共業不可共受。
論。似自因法至遍行二因。第二釋等流果相也 言。似自因者。謂似同類．遍行二因。
論。若遍行因至名同類因。外難也。既果似因故總名等流。二因既等相似。何不齊名同類因也。
論。此果但由至乃名同類。答也 言。等流果似自因者。但粗相說。以同是染．同一地故名為相似。非是五部體類亦同名為相似。若體同名同同類因。
論。故作此問至除前諸相。四句可解。
論。由慧盡法至名離系果。第三釋離系果相也。滅是盡義。擇是慧義。由慧盡法名為擇滅。即是擇滅名離系果。
論。若法因彼至如是等類。第四釋士用果相也 如因下地加行心等。指事釋也。
論擇滅應言由道力得。別釋擇滅。道士用果。前類是生。滅因道得。義不同故所以別釋 若生。若得。皆對有力名士用果。擇滅于道離繫縛義是離系果。有力得義是士用果。
論。諸有為法至由增上果。第五釋增上果相也 除前已生者。謂前已生望后已生未生非增上果。果據取故不在因前。因但不障故通果后 問六因．五果一體義分。五類不同因何體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：其增上果（Adhipati-phala，增上果）至何得共受？難也。 論：共業生故。答也。雖同業生即有共業（sādhāraṇa-karma，共同之業）．不共業（asādhāraṇa-karma，不共同之業）異。增上是共業故所以共受。異熟（vipāka，果報）非共業不可共受。 論：似自因法至遍行二因。第二釋等流果（niṣyanda-phala，等流果）相也。言：似自因者。謂似同類．遍行二因。 論：若遍行因至名同類因。外難也。既果似因故總名等流。二因既等相似。何不齊名同類因也。 論：此果但由至乃名同類。答也。言：等流果似自因者。但粗相說。以同是染．同一地故名為相似。非是五部體類亦同名為相似。若體同名同同類因。 論：故作此問至除前諸相。四句可解。 論：由慧盡法至名離系果（visaṃyoga-phala，離系果）。第三釋離系果相也。滅是盡義。擇是慧義。由慧盡法名為擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，擇滅）。即是擇滅名離系果。 論：若法因彼至如是等類。第四釋士用果（puruṣakāra-phala，士用果）相也。如因下地加行心等。指事釋也。 論：擇滅應言由道力得。別釋擇滅。道士用果。前類是生。滅因道得。義不同故所以別釋。若生。若得。皆對有力名士用果。擇滅于道離繫縛義是離系果。有力得義是士用果。 論：諸有為法至由增上果。第五釋增上果相也。除前已生者。謂前已生望后已生未生非增上果。果據取故不在因前。因但不障故通果后。問六因．五果一體義分。五類不同因何體
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: How is it that the Adhipati-phala (dominance result) is commonly received? This is a difficult question. Treatise: Because it arises from shared karma. This is the answer. Although arising from the same karma, there are differences between sādhāraṇa-karma (shared karma) and asādhāraṇa-karma (unshared karma). Dominance is shared karma, therefore it is commonly received. Vipāka (result of maturation) is not shared karma, so it cannot be commonly received. Treatise: The law resembling its own cause up to the two causes of pervasiveness. This is the second explanation of the nature of the Niṣyanda-phala (result of outflow). Saying 'resembling its own cause' means resembling the two causes of homogeneity and pervasiveness. Treatise: If the pervasive cause is called the cause of homogeneity. This is an external objection. Since the result resembles the cause, it is generally called outflow. Since the two causes are equal and similar, why are they not both called the cause of homogeneity? Treatise: This result is only called homogeneity because of... This is the answer. Saying 'the result of outflow resembles its own cause' is only a rough explanation. They are called similar because they are both defiled and of the same realm. It is not that the five categories are also the same in substance and kind, and therefore called similar. If the substance and name are the same, it is called the cause of homogeneity. Treatise: Therefore, this question is asked to eliminate the previous characteristics. The four sentences can be understood. Treatise: By wisdom, exhausting the law, it is called Visaṃyoga-phala (result of separation). This is the third explanation of the nature of the result of separation. Extinction is the meaning of exhaustion. Discrimination is the meaning of wisdom. By wisdom, exhausting the law is called Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through discrimination). That is, cessation through discrimination is called the result of separation. Treatise: If a law is caused by that... This is the fourth explanation of the nature of the Puruṣakāra-phala (result of effort). For example, the mind of effort in the lower realm. This is an explanation by pointing to the matter. Treatise: Cessation through discrimination should be said to be obtained by the power of the path. This is a separate explanation of cessation through discrimination. The path is the result of effort. The previous category is arising. Extinction is obtained by the path. The meaning is different, so it is explained separately. Whether arising or obtaining, both are called the result of effort in relation to power. Cessation through discrimination is the result of separation in the sense of separating from bondage through the path. Obtaining through power is the result of effort. Treatise: All conditioned dharmas... by the Adhipati-phala (dominance result). This is the fifth explanation of the nature of the dominance result. Excluding those already arisen means that those already arisen, in relation to those subsequently arisen and not yet arisen, are not the dominance result. The result is based on taking, so it is not before the cause. The cause only does not obstruct, so it encompasses the result. Question: The six causes and five results are one in meaning. Why are the five categories different in substance?
性各別 答六因．五果就用建立。用別體同。五類義門據體以分。由斯體別。如異熟位雖即等流。從別立名不據通稱。因果不爾。即一兼余。如一邪見是相應因亦餘五因。雖具六因而無六體。六用既別亦不相攝。即將因用開合為緣。由此因緣展轉相攝。五果亦爾。若就法體具因多少。亦得相對明其句數。如遍行因對同類因四句分別。正理具述。意同不錄。
論。士用增上二果何殊。問也。
論。士用果名至唯增上果。答也。如文可解。
論。于上所說至取果與果。下一頌第三明六因取與果也。
論曰至彼無用故。明取果也。過去已取。未來無用故。唯現在能取果也。
論。亦應如是至故此不說。別釋能作因也。現在取果與五因同。于中無為無果。所以不說。準正理論。婆沙二說。一許能作因過去取果。正理論唯現在取果 正理論云。言取果者是能引義。謂引未來令其生等。于同體類能為種子。于異體類由同一果。于非一果由同性類。于異性類而由有是自聚相續。是故一切皆名能引。如是能引名為取果。此取果用唯現在有非於去．來。唯此可名有為作用。於六因內簡去何因而言五因唯現取果。謂六因內除能作因。此能作因何緣被簡。有餘師說。此能作因取果．與果時無決定。故取．與中
【現代漢語翻譯】 性各別 答六因。五果就用建立。用別體同。五類義門據體以分。由斯體別。如異熟位（Vipāka-sthāna，指異熟果產生的位置）雖即等流（Nisyanda，等流果），從別立名不據通稱。因果不爾。即一兼余。如一邪見是相應因（Samprayuktuka-hetu，相應因）亦餘五因。雖具六因而無六體。六用既別亦不相攝。即將因用開合為緣。由此因緣展轉相攝。五果亦爾。若就法體具因多少。亦得相對明其句數。如遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu，遍行因）對同類因（Sabhāga-hetu，同類因）四句分別。正理具述。意同不錄。
論。士用增上二果何殊。問也。
論。士用果名至唯增上果。答也。如文可解。
論。于上所說至取果與果。下一頌第三明六因取與果也。
論曰至彼無用故。明取果也。過去已取。未來無用故。唯現在能取果也。
論。亦應如是至故此不說。別釋能作因（Kāritra-hetu，能作因）也。現在取果與五因同。于中無為無果。所以不說。準正理論。婆沙二說。一許能作因過去取果。正理論唯現在取果 正理論云。言取果者是能引義。謂引未來令其生等。于同體類能為種子。于異體類由同一果。于非一果由同性類。于異性類而由有是自聚相續。是故一切皆名能引。如是能引名為取果。此取果用唯現在有非於去．來。唯此可名有為作用。於六因內簡去何因而言五因唯現取果。謂六因內除能作因。此能作因何緣被簡。有餘師說。此能作因取果．與果時無決定。故取．與中
【English Translation】 The natures are distinct. The answer is the six causes. The five effects are established based on their function. The functions are different, but the essence is the same. The five categories of meaning are divided according to their essence. Because of this, the essences are different. For example, although the position of Vipāka (Vipāka-sthāna, the position where the result of Vipāka arises) is the same as Nisyanda (Nisyanda, the outflowing result), it is named separately and not according to a general term. Causes and effects are not like this; one includes the others. For example, one wrong view is a Samprayuktuka-hetu (Samprayuktuka-hetu, the associated cause) and also the other five causes. Although it possesses six causes, it does not have six essences. Since the six functions are different, they do not include each other. Therefore, the functions of the causes are opened and combined into conditions. Because of this, causes and conditions include each other in turn. The five effects are also like this. If we consider the essence of the Dharma, which possesses more or fewer causes, we can also relatively clarify the number of sentences. For example, the four sentences are distinguished between Sarvatraga-hetu (Sarvatraga-hetu, the pervasive cause) and Sabhāga-hetu (Sabhāga-hetu, the cause of the same kind). The Nyāyānusāra fully describes this, so it is not recorded here since the meaning is the same.
Treatise: What is the difference between the two results of Puruṣakāra-phala (Puruṣakāra-phala, the result of effort) and Adhipati-phala (Adhipati-phala, the dominant result)? This is a question.
Treatise: The name of the result of Puruṣakāra-phala (Puruṣakāra-phala, the result of effort) is only the Adhipati-phala (Adhipati-phala, the dominant result). This is the answer. The text can be understood as it is.
Treatise: In what was said above, regarding taking the result and giving the result, the third verse below clarifies the taking and giving of the result by the six causes.
Treatise says: Because there is no function in the past. This clarifies taking the result. The past has already taken it, and the future has no function, so only the present can take the result.
Treatise: It should also be like this, so this is not said. This separately explains Kāritra-hetu (Kāritra-hetu, the efficient cause). The present taking of the result is the same as the five causes. Among them, there is no unconditioned result, so it is not mentioned. According to the Abhidharmakośa and the Mahāvibhāṣā, there are two views. One allows the efficient cause to take the result in the past. The Abhidharmakośa only allows the present to take the result. The Abhidharmakośa says: 'Taking the result' means the ability to lead. It means leading the future to arise, etc. For entities of the same kind, it can be a seed. For entities of different kinds, it is due to the same result. For non-identical results, it is due to the same nature. For different natures, it is due to having a continuous collection of its own. Therefore, all are called 'able to lead.' Such 'able to lead' is called 'taking the result.' This function of taking the result only exists in the present, not in the past or future. Only this can be called a conditioned action. Among the six causes, which cause is omitted when saying that only the five causes take the result in the present? It means that the efficient cause is excluded from the six causes. Why is this efficient cause omitted? Some teachers say that this efficient cause has no certainty in taking and giving the result. Therefore, in taking and giving...
俱不分別。彼說非理。所以者何。此因取果無非現在。又非不取而有與義。如何乃言時無決定。然能作因能取果者。定唯現在。與通過．現。應如同類．遍行二因。但非一切有增上果可取．或與。故此不說。豈不此因能取果用亦通過去。如何乃言能取果者定唯現在。故本論中作如是說。過去諸法為等無間能生二心。若出無想．滅盡定心。由入定心現在取者。則應二定永不現前。又非不取而有與義。故應取果亦通過去。無如是事。入二定心唯現在時。能取二定．及出心果。然由二定是正所求必應先起。由此為障令出定心。非於入心無間即起。此義於後當更分別。故上所言此因取果無非現在。又非不取而有與義。其理極成。然毗婆沙有如是說。其能作因取果．與果俱通過．現。理不應然。
論。俱有相應至必俱時故。明二因與果亦現在也。
論。同類遍行至通於過現。二因與果通二世也。
論。過去可然至與等流果。問也。相應．俱有。因果同時。可說取時即能與果 等流因果前後不同。如何因現取時即能與果。
論。有等流果至不應更與。答也。無間果生因現在故。若果已生至現在時。因便過去名已與果。非正與也 問俱有．相應現在取果。爾時果法至已生位。如何說與謂果生時 有說現在亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 都不分別。他們的說法不合理。為什麼呢？因為能作因（Kāraṇa-hetu）取果、與果都只能是現在。而且沒有不取而能給予的道理。怎麼能說時間沒有決定呢？然而，能夠作為能作因並能取果的，必定只是現在。與果、通過現在，應該如同同類因（Sabhāga-hetu）、遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu）一樣。但不是一切有增上果（Adhipati-phala）都可以取、或給予。所以這裡不說。難道不是這個因能取果的作用也通過過去嗎？怎麼能說能取果的必定只是現在？所以在本論中這樣說，過去的諸法作為等無間緣（Samanantara-pratyaya）能夠產生二心。如果從無想定（Asañjñā-samāpatti）、滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti）出來的心，由入定心現在取果，那麼這兩個定應該永遠不會現前。而且沒有不取而能給予的道理。所以應該取果也通過過去。沒有這樣的事。入二定心只有在現在時，才能取二定以及出定心的果。然而由於二定是真正所求，必定應該先起。由此作為障礙，使得出定心，不是在入定心無間之後立即生起。這個道理在後面會更分別說明。所以上面所說，這個因取果沒有不是現在的，而且沒有不取而能給予的道理，這個道理非常成立。然而毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika）有這樣的說法，能作因取果、與果都通過過去、現在，道理不應該這樣。
論：俱有相應至必俱時故。說明二因與果也是現在。
論：同類遍行至通於過現。二因與果通於過去、現在二世。
論：過去可然至與等流果。問：相應因（Samprayuktaka-hetu）、俱有因（Sahabhū-hetu）因果同時。可以說取時就能與果。等流因（Niṣyanda-hetu）因果前後不同。如何因在現在取果時就能與果？
論：有等流果至不應更與。答：無間果生，因是現在。如果果已經生起至現在時，因便成為過去，名為已與果，不是正在給予。問：俱有因、相應因現在取果。那時果法至已生位，如何說與，謂果生時？有說現在也。
【English Translation】 English version They do not differentiate at all. Their statement is unreasonable. Why? Because the Kāraṇa-hetu (productive cause) taking the effect and giving the effect can only be in the present. Moreover, there is no principle of giving without taking. How can it be said that time is not definite? However, that which can act as a Kāraṇa-hetu and can take the effect must only be in the present. Giving the effect, passing through the present, should be like the Sabhāga-hetu (cause of similar type) and Sarvatraga-hetu (omnipresent cause). But not all Adhipati-phala (dominant effect) can be taken or given. Therefore, this is not discussed here. Isn't it that this cause's function of taking the effect also passes through the past? How can it be said that that which can take the effect must only be in the present? Therefore, in this treatise, it is said that past dharmas, as Samanantara-pratyaya (immediately preceding condition), can produce two minds. If the mind emerging from Asañjñā-samāpatti (state of non-perception) and Nirodha-samāpatti (state of cessation) is taken by the entering-samādhi mind in the present, then these two states should never manifest again. Moreover, there is no principle of giving without taking. Therefore, taking the effect should also pass through the past. There is no such thing. Entering the two samādhis can only take the effect of the two samādhis and the emerging mind in the present. However, because the two samādhis are truly sought, they must arise first. Because of this obstruction, the emerging mind does not arise immediately after the entering mind. This principle will be explained more distinctly later. Therefore, what was said above, that this cause taking the effect is never not in the present, and there is no principle of giving without taking, this principle is very well established. However, the Vaibhāṣika (a Buddhist school) has this saying, that the Kāraṇa-hetu taking the effect and giving the effect both pass through the past and present, the principle should not be like this.
Treatise: Sahabhū-hetu and Samprayuktaka-hetu necessarily occur simultaneously, therefore, it explains that the two causes and the effect are also in the present.
Treatise: Sabhāga-hetu and Sarvatraga-hetu communicate through the past and present. The two causes and the effect communicate through the past and present two times.
Treatise: The past is possible to give the Niṣyanda-phala (effect of outflow). Question: Samprayuktaka-hetu and Sahabhū-hetu, the cause and effect are simultaneous. It can be said that when taking, it can give the effect. Niṣyanda-hetu, the cause and effect are different before and after. How can the cause give the effect when taking the effect in the present?
Treatise: There is Niṣyanda-phala to not give again. Answer: The immediately preceding effect arises, the cause is in the present. If the effect has already arisen to the present time, the cause becomes the past, named as already giving the effect, not currently giving. Question: Sahabhū-hetu and Samprayuktaka-hetu take the effect in the present. At that time, the effect dharma reaches the already arisen position, how to say giving, meaning when the effect arises? Some say it is also in the present.
名生故。
論。善同類因至應作四句。此就不相應法作句數分別也。
論。第一句者至最後所捨得。此是取而非與句 最後所捨得者。謂斷善根時所捨得。有前者即是無始已來生得善得。後者即是斷善根前最後念得名最後所捨得。即是所捨得中已生最後念得。已生之言簡未來也。最後之言簡已前也。未來之得未取果故。已前之得亦與果故。
論。第二句者至續者前得。此釋第二句。與果而不取也 續善根時最初所得之者。是續善根時最初剎那所起得也。爾時此得是所取故。舉所取得顯前能取。與而不取前已取故。婆沙十八云。有時與果非取果。謂續善根時即住過去所舍善得 論主正云。應言爾時續者前得。準此正文。續者前得。即是續善根者過去世生得善得。此于爾時與而不取。故。舉果顯因相難顯故。所以正之。若準正理論彈續者前得。即是前斷善根時最後離身得。此得前時唯有取果未曾與果。今得初續。唯與不取。前位無量多剎那得。皆曾與果今更與故。所以不說 正理彈云。經主於此謬作是言。應說爾時續者前得。今詳彼說理不應然。所以者何。非唯斷位最後所捨得。與今續時初得等流果。以于斷位先已滅得。亦與續時得等流故。如何前位多剎那得。為同類因皆取今得。而於今時但說最後一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名生故。
論：善同類因至應作四句。此就不相應法作句數分別也。
論：第一句者至最後所捨得。此是取而非與句。最後所捨得者，謂斷善根時所捨得。有前者即是無始已來生得善得。後者即是斷善根前最後念得名最後所捨得。即是所捨得中已生最後念得。已生之言簡未來也。最後之言簡已前也。未來之得未取果故。已前之得亦與果故。
論：第二句者至續者前得。此釋第二句，與果而不取也。續善根時最初所得之者，是續善根時最初剎那所起得也。爾時此得是所取故。舉所取得顯前能取。與而不取前已取故。《婆沙》十八云：『有時與果非取果，謂續善根時即住過去所舍善得。』論主正云：『應言爾時續者前得。』準此正文，續者前得，即是續善根者過去世生得善得。此于爾時與而不取。故。舉果顯因相難顯故。所以正之。若準《正理論》彈續者前得，即是前斷善根時最後離身得。此得前時唯有取果未曾與果。今得初續，唯與不取。前位無量多剎那得，皆曾與果今更與故。所以不說。《正理》彈云：『經主於此謬作是言，應說爾時續者前得。』今詳彼說理不應然。所以者何？非唯斷位最後所捨得，與今續時初得等流果。以于斷位先已滅得，亦與續時得等流故。如何前位多剎那得，為同類因皆取今得。而於今時但說最後一
【English Translation】 English version: Name arises thus.
Treatise: 'Good of the same kind' to 'should make four sentences.' This is a distinction of the number of sentences based on non-corresponding dharmas.
Treatise: 'The first sentence' to 'the last that is relinquished and obtained.' This is the sentence of 'taking but not giving.' 'The last that is relinquished and obtained' refers to what is relinquished and obtained at the time of severing roots of goodness (善根, śubhamūla). The former is the naturally obtained goodness since beginningless time. The latter is the last thought obtained before severing the roots of goodness, called 'the last that is relinquished and obtained.' It is the last thought obtained among what is relinquished and obtained. 'Already arisen' excludes the future. 'Last' excludes the past. The future obtaining has not yet taken its result. The past obtaining has already given its result.
Treatise: 'The second sentence' to 'the previous obtaining of the continuer.' This explains the second sentence, 'giving the result but not taking it.' 'The first obtained at the time of continuing the roots of goodness' is the obtaining that arises in the first instant at the time of continuing the roots of goodness. At that time, this obtaining is what is taken. By citing what is obtained, the previous ability to take is revealed. 'Giving but not taking' is because it was already taken before. Vibhasa 18 says: 'Sometimes giving a result is not taking a result, which refers to dwelling in the past relinquished good obtained at the time of continuing the roots of goodness.' The Treatise Master (論主) correctly says: 'It should be said, 'the previous obtaining of the continuer' at that time.' According to this correct text, 'the previous obtaining of the continuer' is the naturally obtained goodness of the one who continues the roots of goodness in the past life. This gives but does not take at that time. Therefore, citing the result reveals the cause, which is difficult to reveal. That is why it is corrected. If according to the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論), 'the previous obtaining of the continuer' is the last obtaining that leaves the body at the time of previously severing the roots of goodness. This obtaining previously only took the result and never gave the result. Now, obtaining the initial continuation, it only gives but does not take. The countless moments of obtaining in the previous state all gave the result, and now they give it again. That is why it is not mentioned. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra criticizes: 'The Sutra Master (經主) mistakenly says here that it should be said, 'the previous obtaining of the continuer' at that time.' Now, upon detailed consideration, that statement is not reasonable. Why? Not only the last relinquished obtaining at the time of severance gives the result of equal flow (等流果, nisyanda-phala) to the initial obtaining at the time of continuation. Because the previously extinguished obtaining at the time of severance also gives the result of equal flow at the time of continuation. How can the many moments of obtaining in the previous state, as the cause of the same kind, all take the present obtaining, but only the last one is mentioned at this time?
剎那得。與今得果。是故應如本文為善 今詳。續者前得。通其兩釋。一續者次前得。即是斷時最後捨得。二續者前得。是續善根時已前諸得。此論若依后釋。論主但正其文不正其義。即正理謬彈。正理論師何理證知論主定依前釋。
論。第三句者至謂除前相。第三句。亦取亦與 第四句可解。
論。又于不善至謂除前相。釋不善不相應四句也。如善四句釋。
論。有覆無記至如理應說。釋有覆無記四句也。于阿羅漢得時取而不與。退時與而不取。未得亦取亦與。自余非取非與。
論。無覆無記至最後諸蘊。以無覆無始已來相續不斷。但與果時皆悉取果。入涅槃時後不續故。羅漢后蘊取而不與 先問取果亦與果。后問與果亦取果。與果必取果故言順后句也。已上皆是無緣四句。
論。約有所緣至染無記心。已下就心．心所法作問答也。此是第一取而非與。
論。第二句者至準例應說。義準前釋如文可解。
論。取果與果其義云何。問取果與果義也。
論。能為彼種至故名與果。答也。取時為因義成名為種子。與時正引果起名之為與。兩用俱在其因不在其果。舊釋為因義成名為取果義不失也。果起酬因名為與果謬也。是果力故。
論。異熟與果至及無間故。明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『剎那得』（kshanada）與『今得果』（jindeguo），因此應當如本文所說行善。現在詳細解釋，『續者前得』（xuzheqiande），貫通兩種解釋。一是『續者次前得』（xuzheciqiande），即是斷滅時最後捨棄的得。二是『續者前得』（xuzheqiande），是延續善根時以前的各種得。此論如果依照后一種解釋，論主只是糾正了文字，沒有糾正其義理，即是正理謬誤的彈劾。正理論師憑什麼道理得知論主一定是依照前一種解釋？
論：第三句是指，乃至排除前一種情況。第三句，也是取也是與。第四句可以理解。
論：又對於不善，乃至排除前一種情況。解釋不善不相應的四句。如同解釋善的四句一樣。
論：有覆無記，乃至如理應說。解釋有覆無記的四句。對於阿羅漢（Arahan）得到時，取而不與；退失時，與而不取；未得到時，也是取也是與；其餘情況，非取非與。
論：無覆無記，乃至最後諸蘊。因為無覆無記從無始以來相續不斷，只是在給予果報時都全部取果。進入涅槃（Nirvana）時，因為後面不再延續，阿羅漢（Arahan）的最後諸蘊取而不與。先問取果也是與果，后問與果也是取果，因為與果必定取果，所以說順應后一句。以上都是無緣四句。
論：關於有所緣，乃至染污無記心。以下就心、心所法作問答。這是第一種取而非與。
論：第二句是指，乃至按照例子應該說。義理按照前面的解釋，如文字可以理解。
論：取果與果，其義如何？問取果與果的含義。
論：能成為它的種子，所以叫做與果。回答說，取的時候，作為因的意義成立，名為種子。給予的時候，正是引生果報，名為給予。兩種作用都在其因上，不在其果上。舊的解釋認為作為因的意義成立，名為取果，義理沒有缺失。果報生起酬謝因，名為與果，是錯誤的。這是果報的力量。
論：異熟與果，乃至以及無間故。說明異熟果報的給予。
【English Translation】 English version 'Kshanada' (momentary attainment) and 'Jindeguo' (attainment of result now), therefore, one should do good as stated in this text. Now, in detail, 'Xuzheqiande' (the preceding attainment of the continuation), encompasses two interpretations. First, 'Xuzheciqiande' (the subsequent attainment of the continuation), which is the last attainment relinquished at the time of cessation. Second, 'Xuzheqiande' (the preceding attainment of the continuation), which refers to all the attainments before the continuation of the roots of goodness. If this treatise follows the latter interpretation, the author only corrects the words but not the meaning, which is a fallacy of the Nyaya school's criticism. By what reasoning does the Nyaya theorist know that the author definitely follows the former interpretation?
Treatise: The third phrase refers to, up to excluding the previous situation. The third phrase, also takes and also gives. The fourth phrase is understandable.
Treatise: Also, regarding unwholesome, up to excluding the previous situation. Explains the four phrases of unwholesome non-correspondence. Like explaining the four phrases of wholesome.
Treatise: Defiled indeterminate, up to as it should be said according to reason. Explains the four phrases of defiled indeterminate. For an Arahan (Arahan) at the time of attainment, takes but does not give; at the time of decline, gives but does not take; at the time of non-attainment, also takes and also gives; in other situations, neither takes nor gives.
Treatise: Undefiled indeterminate, up to the final aggregates. Because undefiled indeterminate has been continuously flowing from beginningless time, it only takes the result when giving the result. At the time of entering Nirvana (Nirvana), because there is no further continuation, the final aggregates of an Arahan (Arahan) take but do not give. First asks about taking the result also giving the result, then asks about giving the result also taking the result, because giving the result necessarily takes the result, therefore it is said to follow the latter phrase. The above are all the four phrases of without condition.
Treatise: Regarding having a condition, up to defiled indeterminate mind. The following is a question and answer regarding mental and mental factors. This is the first type, taking but not giving.
Treatise: The second phrase refers to, up to according to the example it should be said. The meaning follows the previous explanation, understandable as the text.
Treatise: Taking the result and giving the result, what is its meaning? Asks about the meaning of taking the result and giving the result.
Treatise: Being able to become its seed, therefore it is called giving the result. Answers, at the time of taking, the meaning of being a cause is established, named seed. At the time of giving, it is precisely inducing the arising of the result, named giving. Both functions are in its cause, not in its result. The old explanation considers the meaning of being a cause to be established, named taking the result, the meaning is not lost. The arising of the result repaying the cause, named giving the result, is wrong. This is the power of the result.
Treatise: Ripening and giving the result, up to and without interval. Explains the giving of the result of ripening.
異熟因與果。如文可解。
論。復有餘師至諸靜慮果。敘異說也。如文可解。
論。如是四果至增上果攝。會異名也。如文可解。
論。說因果已至諸餘善法。自此已下大門第四明法用因多少。束為四例。如文可知。
論。如是四法。下一頌半明四例法用因多少。
論曰至餘三因生。屬當因數。如文可解。講時廣云。
論。如是四法至謂心．心所。明上所說因數多少。是就心．心所說。非色．不相應。
論。不相應行至復幾因生。問餘四法。
論。如心．心所至決定無有。明色不相應。四法如前。有緣四法一一各除相應因也。極少猶有二因所生。同其外道一因生法決定無也。
俱舍論疏卷第六
一交了
保延三年十月二十四于南新屋點了
依維摩會並光明山
八講事日來達念 非人角覺 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第七
沙門法寶撰
分別根品第二之五
論。廣說因已緣后云何。此下大文第二辨四緣也 于中有二。初明四緣。第二重明等無間緣。此明四緣也。
論曰至增上緣性。因無正文。緣有經說。如契經中說四緣性。謂因緣性乃至增上緣性。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 異熟因與果。如同原文的解釋一樣可以理解。
論：又有其他論師闡述到達諸靜慮果的觀點，敘述不同的說法。如同原文的解釋一樣可以理解。
論：像這樣，四種果，直至增上果所包含的內容。會合不同的名稱。如同原文的解釋一樣可以理解。
論：在講述因果之後，直至諸餘善法。從這裡開始，大的方面第四個部分闡明法的作用、因的多少。歸納為四種例子。如同原文一樣可以理解。
論：像這樣四種法。接下來的半頌闡明四種例子的法的作用、因的多少。
論曰：直至其餘三種因所生。屬於當因的數量。如同原文的解釋一樣可以理解。講解時會廣泛地說明。
論：像這樣四種法，直至所謂心、心所（Citta, mental factors）。闡明上面所說的因的數量多少。這是就心、心所說的，不是色（Rupa, form）、不相應行（Citta-viprayukta-samskaras, non-associated formations）。
論：不相應行，直至復有幾種因所生。詢問其餘四種法。
論：如同心、心所，直至決定沒有。闡明色、不相應行。四種法如同前面所說。有緣的四種法，每一種都去除相應因。極少也有兩種因所生。如同外道所說的一種因產生法，是絕對沒有的。
《俱舍論疏》卷第六
一交了
保延三年十月二十四于南新屋點了
依維摩會並光明山
八講事日來達念 非人角覺 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第七
沙門法寶撰
分別根品第二之五
論：廣泛地講述因之後，緣又如何呢？這以下大的方面第二個部分辨析四緣。其中有兩個部分。首先闡明四緣。第二，重新闡明等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya, immediately contiguous condition）。這裡闡明四緣。
論曰：直至增上緣性（Adhipati-pratyaya, dominant condition）。因沒有正文，緣有經典記載。如同契經中所說的四緣的性質。所謂因緣性，乃至增上緣性。
【English Translation】 English version The hetu (cause) of vipaka (result) and its phala (fruit). It can be understood as explained in the text.
Treatise: Furthermore, other teachers arrive at the fruits of the various dhyanas (meditative absorptions), narrating different views. It can be understood as explained in the text.
Treatise: Thus, the four fruits, up to what is included in adhipati-phala (dominant fruit). It combines different names. It can be understood as explained in the text.
Treatise: Having explained cause and effect, up to the various other good dharmas (phenomena). From here onwards, the fourth major section elucidates the function of dharmas and the quantity of hetus (causes), summarized into four examples. It can be understood as explained in the text.
Treatise: Thus, these four dharmas. The following half-verse elucidates the function of the four examples and the quantity of hetus.
Treatise says: Up to the arising of the remaining three hetus. It belongs to the number of appropriate hetus. It can be understood as explained in the text. It will be explained extensively during the lecture.
Treatise: Thus, these four dharmas, up to what is called citta (mind), and caitta (mental factors). It elucidates the quantity of hetus mentioned above. This is spoken in terms of citta and caitta, not rupa (form) and citta-viprayukta-samskaras (non-associated formations).
Treatise: Citta-viprayukta-samskaras, up to how many hetus do they arise from? It asks about the remaining four dharmas.
Treatise: Like citta and caitta, up to definitely not existing. It elucidates rupa and citta-viprayukta-samskaras. The four dharmas are as previously stated. The four dharmas that have conditions each exclude the corresponding hetu. At the very least, they are still produced by two hetus. Like the heretics' claim that dharmas arise from one hetu, it is definitely not the case.
Kosa-bhasya-tika (Commentary on Abhidharmakosa-bhasya), Volume 6
Completed once
Completed on the 24th day of the 10th month of the 3rd year of Hoen at Minamishinya
Based on Vimalakirti-nirdesa-sutra assembly and Mt. Komyo
Eight lectures, Day of the event, Tatsu-nen, Non-human Kaku Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1822, Kosa-bhasya-tika
Kosa-bhasya-tika, Volume 7
Composed by Sramana (Buddhist monk) Hobo
Chapter 2, Section 5: Analysis of the Indriyas (Faculties)
Treatise: Having extensively explained the hetu, what about the pratyaya (condition) afterwards? Below, the second major section distinguishes the four pratyayas. Within this, there are two parts. First, it elucidates the four pratyayas. Second, it re-elucidates samanantarapratyaya (immediately contiguous condition). Here, it elucidates the four pratyayas.
Treatise says: Up to the nature of adhipati-pratyaya (dominant condition). There is no direct text for hetu, but there are sutras (scriptures) that speak of pratyaya. As it is said in the sutras, the nature of the four pratyayas. Namely, the nature of hetu-pratyaya (cause condition), up to the nature of adhipati-pratyaya.
論。此中性者是緣種類 釋上性也 界性之名是種類別義。如十八界等。即顯四種類別立四緣也 正理釋云。此中緣性即是四緣。如四所居即所居性。為顯種類故說性言。意辨諸緣隨事差別有無量體。然括其義。無非攝入四種類中。謂一切緣無過此性。
論。於六因內至是因緣性。自此已下釋四緣體性也。此文第一釋因緣體 若依婆沙。能作因中四大造色五因。亦因緣性。此中略也。唯說全因相攝。故婆沙一百七云。因緣者。如種子法。等無間緣者。如開避法。所緣緣者。如任杖法。增上緣者。如不障礙法 準此四義攝法不盡。如有力能作。非唯不障故。婆沙十六云。問為因攝緣。緣攝因耶。答互相攝。謂前五因是因緣。能作因是餘三緣。有作是說。緣攝因。非因攝緣。謂前五因是因緣。能作因是增上緣。等無間緣．及所緣緣。非因所攝 然無評家。今詳二說不同意者 前師兼有作用為能作因。除五因外所有作用。皆能作因攝。由此開避．任杖之用亦能作因攝 后師取不障礙義為能作因。故即六因攝用不盡。由斯不障礙是增上緣義。非是開避及任杖義。今詳二說相攝為善 問若爾何故。顯宗論云。六因．四緣體雖無別而義有異。且等無間．及所緣緣既非因攝。故知餘二義亦有殊。緣義等故與因皆別。故有總辨因
【現代漢語翻譯】 論：此中『性』（xing，nature）者是緣種類，解釋上面的『性』（xing，nature）也。『界性』（jie xing，nature of realms）之名是種類別義，如十八界等，即顯示四種類別而立四緣（si yuan，four conditions）也。《正理釋》云：『此中緣性即是四緣（si yuan，four conditions），如四所居即所居性。為顯種類故說性言，意辨諸緣隨事差別有無量體，然括其義，無非攝入四種類中，謂一切緣無過此性。』 論：於六因（liu yin，six causes）內至是因緣性（yin yuan xing，nature of hetu-pratyaya）。自此已下解釋四緣（si yuan，four conditions）體性也。此文第一解釋因緣（yin yuan，hetu-pratyaya）體。若依《婆沙》（Po sha，Vibhasa）所說，能作因（neng zuo yin，kāraṇa-hetu）中四大造色五因，亦是因緣性（yin yuan xing，nature of hetu-pratyaya），此處省略了。唯說全因相攝。故《婆沙》（Po sha，Vibhasa）一百七云：『因緣（yin yuan，hetu-pratyaya）者，如種子法；等無間緣（deng wu jian yuan，samanantara-pratyaya）者，如開避法；所緣緣（suo yuan yuan，ālambana-pratyaya）者，如任杖法；增上緣（zeng shang yuan，adhipati-pratyaya）者，如不障礙法。』 準此四義攝法不盡，如有力能作，非唯不障故。《婆沙》（Po sha，Vibhasa）十六云：『問：為因攝緣，緣攝因耶？』答：『互相攝，謂前五因是因緣（yin yuan，hetu-pratyaya），能作因（neng zuo yin，kāraṇa-hetu）是餘三緣。』有作是說：『緣攝因，非因攝緣，謂前五因是因緣（yin yuan，hetu-pratyaya），能作因（neng zuo yin，kāraṇa-hetu）是增上緣（zeng shang yuan，adhipati-pratyaya），等無間緣（deng wu jian yuan，samanantara-pratyaya）及所緣緣（suo yuan yuan，ālambana-pratyaya），非因所攝。』然無評家。今詳二說不同意者，前師兼有作用為能作因（neng zuo yin，kāraṇa-hetu），除五因外所有作用，皆能作因（neng zuo yin，kāraṇa-hetu）攝。由此開避、任杖之用亦能作因（neng zuo yin，kāraṇa-hetu）攝。后師取不障礙義為能作因（neng zuo yin，kāraṇa-hetu），故即六因（liu yin，six causes）攝用不盡。由斯不障礙是增上緣（zeng shang yuan，adhipati-pratyaya）義，非是開避及任杖義。今詳二說相攝為善。問：若爾何故，《顯宗論》云：『六因（liu yin，six causes）、四緣（si yuan，four conditions）體雖無別而義有異，且等無間（deng wu jian，samanantara）及所緣緣（suo yuan yuan，ālambana-pratyaya）既非因攝，故知餘二義亦有殊。緣義等故與因皆別。』故有總辨因
【English Translation】 Treatise: Here, 'nature' (xing) refers to the category of conditions, explaining the 'nature' (xing) mentioned above. The term 'nature of realms' (jie xing) signifies the meaning of classifying types, such as the eighteen realms, thus revealing the four categories upon which the four conditions (si yuan) are established. The Commentary on the Nyāyānusāra states: 'Here, the nature of conditions is precisely the four conditions (si yuan), just as the nature of the four abodes is the nature of being abodes. The term 'nature' is used to clarify the categories, intending to distinguish the differences among the conditions according to the matter, having limitless entities. However, encompassing their meaning, they are all included within the four categories, meaning that all conditions do not exceed this nature.' Treatise: Within the six causes (liu yin), it extends to the nature of hetu-pratyaya (yin yuan xing). From here onwards, it explains the nature of the four conditions (si yuan). This passage primarily explains the nature of hetu-pratyaya (yin yuan). According to the Vibhasa (Po sha), among the kāraṇa-hetu (neng zuo yin), the five causes of the four great elements and derived matter are also of the nature of hetu-pratyaya (yin yuan xing), which is abbreviated here. It only speaks of the complete cause encompassing each other. Therefore, Vibhasa (Po sha) one hundred and seven states: 'Hetu-pratyaya (yin yuan) is like the dharma of seeds; samanantara-pratyaya (deng wu jian yuan) is like the dharma of opening and avoiding; ālambana-pratyaya (suo yuan yuan) is like the dharma of relying on a staff; adhipati-pratyaya (zeng shang yuan) is like the dharma of non-obstruction.' According to these four meanings, the encompassing of dharmas is not exhaustive, such as having the power to act, which is not merely non-obstruction. Vibhasa (Po sha) sixteen states: 'Question: Does cause encompass condition, or does condition encompass cause?' Answer: 'They encompass each other, meaning that the first five causes are hetu-pratyaya (yin yuan), and kāraṇa-hetu (neng zuo yin) is the remaining three conditions.' Some say: 'Condition encompasses cause, but cause does not encompass condition, meaning that the first five causes are hetu-pratyaya (yin yuan), kāraṇa-hetu (neng zuo yin) is adhipati-pratyaya (zeng shang yuan), and samanantara-pratyaya (deng wu jian yuan) and ālambana-pratyaya (suo yuan yuan) are not encompassed by cause.' However, there are no commentators. Now, examining the two different opinions, the former teacher includes function as kāraṇa-hetu (neng zuo yin), and all functions other than the five causes are encompassed by kāraṇa-hetu (neng zuo yin). Therefore, the function of opening and avoiding, and relying on a staff, are also encompassed by kāraṇa-hetu (neng zuo yin). The latter teacher takes the meaning of non-obstruction as kāraṇa-hetu (neng zuo yin), thus the six causes (liu yin) do not exhaust the encompassing of function. Therefore, non-obstruction is the meaning of adhipati-pratyaya (zeng shang yuan), not the meaning of opening and avoiding, and relying on a staff. Now, examining the two opinions, encompassing each other is good. Question: If so, why does the Abhidharmasamuccaya say: 'Although the substance of the six causes (liu yin) and four conditions (si yuan) is not different, their meanings are different, and since samanantara (deng wu jian) and ālambana-pratyaya (suo yuan yuan) are not encompassed by cause, it is known that the meanings of the other two are also different. Because the meaning of condition is equal, it is different from cause.' Therefore, there is a general distinction between cause
．緣異言。因謂能生。緣能長養。猶如生．養二母差別。又緣攝助因方能生。生已相續緣力長養故。或有說因唯有一。緣乃眾多。猶如種子．糞．土等異。又因不共。共者是緣。如眼。如色。又作自事名因。若作他事名緣。如種．糞等。又能引起名因。能任持者名緣。如花。如蒂。又近名因。遠者名緣。如珠。如日。又因能生。緣者能辨。如酪出生蘇。人鉆器能辨。又正有義名因。能助顯發名緣。如字界字緣于義有差別。如斯等類差別眾多。是故因．緣別立名想。此總意顯因親．緣疏。故因親中親五．疏一。疏緣之中疏三．親一。已隨理．教略辨諸緣 論既此說何理證知相攝為善 答總說因之與緣非無有異。因是親稱。緣是疏名。六因之中五是親故以親名同。四緣之中三是疏故以疏名同。然因中有疏。謂能作因。緣中有親因緣也。不可以緣義疏故因緣疏能作。不可以因義親故能作親因緣。故顯宗云。六因．四緣體雖無別而義有異。又準婆沙云。我說作用以為因．果。諸法實體恒無轉變。非因．果故 準此故知。因緣以作用為體。作用既一故知無異 又顯宗云。且等無間．及所緣緣既非因攝。故知餘二義亦有殊。緣義等故 今詳此說義有餘也。以一師說因不攝二緣即謂因緣．及增上緣。因亦不攝。何不以因緣．增上是因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『緣』（Pratyaya，條件）不同於『因』（Hetu，原因）。『因』被認為是能產生事物的原因，而『緣』則能滋養事物，就像生母和養母的區別一樣。此外，『緣』能輔助『因』產生事物。事物產生后，依靠『緣』的力量才能持續生長。或者有人說，『因』只有一個，而『緣』有很多，就像種子、肥料、土壤等不同因素一樣。而且，『因』是不共的，共同的因素是『緣』，比如眼睛和顏色。此外，完成自身作用的稱為『因』，完成其他作用的稱為『緣』，比如種子和肥料等。能夠引起事物產生的稱為『因』，能夠保持事物存在的稱為『緣』，比如花和花蒂。此外，近的稱為『因』，遠的稱為『緣』，比如珠子和太陽。此外，『因』能夠產生，『緣』能夠辨別，比如從牛奶中提煉出酥油，人們鉆木取火。此外，具有真實意義的稱為『因』，能夠幫助顯現的稱為『緣』，比如文字的界和文字的緣在意義上有差別。像這樣的差別有很多，因此『因』和『緣』分別設立名稱和概念。總的來說，這意味著『因』是親近的，『緣』是疏遠的。因此，在親近的『因』中，有五種是親近的，一種是疏遠的。在疏遠的『緣』中，有三種是疏遠的，一種是親近的。以上是根據道理和教義，簡要辨析各種『緣』。 既然論中這樣說，那麼用什麼道理來證明相互攝取是好的呢？回答說：總的來說，『因』和『緣』並非沒有區別。『因』是親近的稱呼，『緣』是疏遠的稱呼。六『因』之中有五種是親近的，所以用親近的名稱相同。四『緣』之中有三種是疏遠的，所以用疏遠的名稱相同。然而，『因』中有疏遠的，指的是『能作因』（Kāraṇa-hetu，能力因）。『緣』中有親近的，指的是『因緣』（Hetu-pratyaya，原因條件）。不能因為『緣』的意義是疏遠的，就認為『因緣』和『能作因』是疏遠的。也不能因為『因』的意義是親近的，就認為『能作因』是親近的『因緣』。因此，《顯宗論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）說，六『因』和四『緣』的體性雖然沒有區別，但意義上有差異。又根據《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說，我說作用是『因』和『果』（Phala，結果），諸法的實體恒常沒有轉變，不是『因』和『果』。根據這些，可以知道『因緣』以作用為體性。作用既然是同一個，就知道沒有區別。又《顯宗論》說，且『等無間緣』（Samanantara-pratyaya，等無間緣）和『所緣緣』（Alambana-pratyaya，所緣緣）既然不被『因』所攝，就知道其餘兩種『緣』的意義也有不同，因為『緣』的意義是相同的。現在詳細考察這種說法，意義上還有剩餘。因為一位論師說『因』不攝取兩種『緣』，即認為『因緣』和『增上緣』（Adhipati-pratyaya，增上緣），『因』也不攝取。為什麼不認為『因緣』和『增上緣』是『因』呢？
【English Translation】 English version 『Pratyaya』 (condition) differs from 『Hetu』 (cause). 『Hetu』 is considered the cause that can produce things, while 『Pratyaya』 can nourish things, just like the difference between a birth mother and a foster mother. Furthermore, 『Pratyaya』 can assist 『Hetu』 in producing things. After things are produced, they rely on the power of 『Pratyaya』 to continue to grow. Or some say that there is only one 『Hetu』, while there are many 『Pratyayas』, just like different factors such as seeds, fertilizer, and soil. Moreover, 『Hetu』 is uncommon, and common factors are 『Pratyayas』, such as the eye and color. In addition, what completes its own function is called 『Hetu』, and what completes other functions is called 『Pratyaya』, such as seeds and fertilizer. What can cause things to arise is called 『Hetu』, and what can maintain the existence of things is called 『Pratyaya』, such as flowers and flower stems. In addition, what is near is called 『Hetu』, and what is far is called 『Pratyaya』, such as pearls and the sun. In addition, 『Hetu』 can produce, and 『Pratyaya』 can distinguish, such as extracting ghee from milk, and people drilling wood to make fire. In addition, what has real meaning is called 『Hetu』, and what can help manifest is called 『Pratyaya』, such as the difference between the realm of letters and the conditions of letters in meaning. There are many such differences, so 『Hetu』 and 『Pratyaya』 are established with separate names and concepts. In general, this means that 『Hetu』 is close and 『Pratyaya』 is distant. Therefore, among the close 『Hetus』, five are close and one is distant. Among the distant 『Pratyayas』, three are distant and one is close. The above is a brief analysis of various 『Pratyayas』 based on reason and doctrine. Since the treatise says so, what reason can be used to prove that mutual inclusion is good? The answer is: In general, 『Hetu』 and 『Pratyaya』 are not without differences. 『Hetu』 is a close term, and 『Pratyaya』 is a distant term. Among the six 『Hetus』, five are close, so the close name is the same. Among the four 『Pratyayas』, three are distant, so the distant name is the same. However, there are distant ones among the 『Hetus』, referring to 『Kāraṇa-hetu』 (the cause of ability). Among the 『Pratyayas』, there are close ones, referring to 『Hetu-pratyaya』 (the condition of cause). It cannot be said that 『Hetu-pratyaya』 and 『Kāraṇa-hetu』 are distant because the meaning of 『Pratyaya』 is distant. Nor can it be said that 『Kāraṇa-hetu』 is a close 『Hetu-pratyaya』 because the meaning of 『Hetu』 is close. Therefore, the 『Abhidharmasamuccaya』 says that although the nature of the six 『Hetus』 and the four 『Pratyayas』 is not different, there are differences in meaning. Also, according to the 『Vibhasa』, I say that action is 『Hetu』 and 『Phala』 (result), and the substance of all dharmas is constant and does not change, and is not 『Hetu』 and 『Phala』. According to these, it can be known that 『Hetu-pratyaya』 takes action as its nature. Since the action is the same, it is known that there is no difference. Also, the 『Abhidharmasamuccaya』 says that since 『Samanantara-pratyaya』 (the immediately preceding condition) and 『Alambana-pratyaya』 (the object condition) are not included in 『Hetu』, it is known that the meaning of the other two 『Pratyayas』 is also different, because the meaning of 『Pratyaya』 is the same. Now, after examining this statement in detail, there is still something left in the meaning. Because a teacher said that 『Hetu』 does not include two 『Pratyayas』, that is, 『Hetu-pratyaya』 and 『Adhipati-pratyaya』 (the dominant condition), 『Hetu』 does not include them either. Why not consider 『Hetu-pratyaya』 and 『Adhipati-pratyaya』 as 『Hetu』?
攝故。二緣亦合攝在因中 又此二緣。婆沙兩師同許攝在因中。二緣。一師說攝。一說不攝。如何以一師偏義例破兩師之義 又一師說因不攝等無間緣．所緣緣者。有別意也。能作因有二義。一但不障。二兼有力。若但取不障即唯攝增上。若兼作用即攝三緣。由此二師說有差別 又顯宗引余處釋因．緣別義云。因如生母．種子等。緣如養母．糞土等者。此說親因為因。疏因名緣。如婆沙問四大造色為是因義。為是緣義。此以因緣為因義。增上為緣義。豈即因義是六因。緣義是四緣耶。又能作因中。親謂四大造色。根識依等。疏謂但不障礙。等無間緣．及所緣緣。若言疏故不攝入因。豈疏但不障礙若言親故不攝入因。豈得親于根識依等。故知說不攝者是有餘說。諸論皆言除能作因所餘五因是因緣性。性是體義。類義。此類之法是因緣體。又婆沙云。增上緣如不障法。解能作因亦云不障。故知同也。豈可因不障緣不障。二不同也。一種不障豈得有親有疏 有人於此全不開悟。自問答云。於二說中明其相攝。為約體說。為約用說。若約體說。應能作因攝彼四緣。增上一緣攝彼六因。體皆寬故。若約用說。六因．四緣作用各別。如何相攝。解云。夫六因．四緣展轉相攝有其二義。一約體以明。二據用相似。婆沙初師約體以明。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，兩個緣也應該包含在因中。而且，這兩個緣，婆沙論的兩派大師都認可包含在因中。對於這兩個緣，一派說包含，一派說不包含。怎麼能用一派的片面之義來反駁兩派大師的觀點呢？而且，一派說因不包含等無間緣（saṃanantara-pratyaya，指前念為后念生起之直接條件）和所緣緣（ālambana-pratyaya，指心識生起時所攀緣的對象）是有特別意義的。能作因（hetu-pratyaya，指具有產生結果能力之因）有兩種含義：一是僅僅不障礙，二是兼具力量。如果僅僅取不障礙的含義，那就只包含增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya，指對結果起增強作用的條件）；如果兼具作用，那就包含三種緣。因此，兩派大師的說法是有差別的。 而且，《顯宗論》引用其他地方解釋因和緣的區別說：『因就像生母、種子等，緣就像養母、糞土等。』這是說親近的因稱為因，疏遠的因稱為緣。例如，《婆沙論》問四大（mahābhūta，指地、水、火、風四大元素）所造的色法是因的含義，還是緣的含義？這裡是以因緣（hetu-pratyaya，六因之一，指產生結果的直接原因）為因的含義，增上緣為緣的含義。難道因的含義就是六因，緣的含義就是四緣嗎？而且，在能作因中，親近的指四大所造的色法、根識（indriya-vijñāna，指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感覺器官所產生的意識）的所依等，疏遠的指僅僅不障礙，等無間緣以及所緣緣。如果說因為疏遠所以不包含在因中，難道疏遠就僅僅是不障礙嗎？如果說因為親近所以不包含在因中，難道能比根識的所依更親近嗎？所以，要知道說不包含是有保留的說法。各種論典都說除了能作因以外，其餘五因是因緣的體性。『性』是體義、類義。這一類法是因緣的本體。而且，《婆沙論》說，增上緣就像不障礙的法，解釋能作因也說是不障礙。所以，要知道它們是相同的。難道因的不障礙和緣的不障礙，這二者是不同的嗎？一種不障礙怎麼會有親近和疏遠之分呢？ 有人對此完全不理解，自己提問回答說：『在兩種說法中，說明它們的相互包含，是就體性來說，還是就作用來說？』如果就體性來說，應該能作因包含那四緣，增上一緣包含那六因，因為體性都寬泛。如果就作用來說，六因和四緣的作用各自不同，怎麼能相互包含呢？解釋說：『六因和四緣輾轉相互包含有兩種含義：一是就體性來說明，二是根據作用相似來說明。《婆沙論》最初的大師是就體性來說明的。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the two conditions should also be included within the cause. Moreover, these two conditions are acknowledged by both schools of Vaibhāṣika masters as being included within the cause. Regarding these two conditions, one school says they are included, while the other says they are not. How can one use the partial meaning of one school to refute the views of both schools? Furthermore, the school that says the cause does not include the immediate condition (samanantara-pratyaya, the immediately preceding mental state that conditions the arising of the subsequent mental state) and the object-condition (ālambana-pratyaya, the object upon which consciousness depends) has a special meaning. The efficient cause (hetu-pratyaya, the condition that has the power to produce a result) has two meanings: one is merely non-obstruction, and the other is having power in addition to non-obstruction. If only the meaning of non-obstruction is taken, then it only includes the dominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya, the condition that exerts influence over the result); if it includes function, then it includes three conditions. Therefore, the statements of the two schools are different. Moreover, the Abhidharmakośa quotes other places explaining the difference between cause and condition, saying: 'Cause is like a birth mother, seeds, etc., and condition is like a nurturing mother, fertilizer, etc.' This means that the close cause is called cause, and the distant cause is called condition. For example, the Vaibhāṣika asks whether the form produced by the four great elements (mahābhūta, earth, water, fire, and wind) is the meaning of cause or the meaning of condition. Here, the causal condition (hetu-pratyaya, one of the six causes, the direct cause of a result) is the meaning of cause, and the dominant condition is the meaning of condition. Is it that the meaning of cause is the six causes, and the meaning of condition is the four conditions? Moreover, in the efficient cause, the close ones refer to the form produced by the four great elements, the bases of the sense consciousnesses (indriya-vijñāna, the consciousnesses arising from the six sense organs), etc., and the distant ones refer to merely non-obstruction, the immediate condition, and the object-condition. If it is said that because it is distant, it is not included in the cause, is it that distant is merely non-obstruction? If it is said that because it is close, it is not included in the cause, can it be closer than the bases of the sense consciousnesses? Therefore, know that saying it is not included is a qualified statement. All treatises say that except for the efficient cause, the remaining five causes are the nature of the causal condition. 'Nature' is the meaning of essence, the meaning of category. This kind of dharma is the essence of the causal condition. Moreover, the Vaibhāṣika says that the dominant condition is like a non-obstructing dharma, and the explanation of the efficient cause also says it is non-obstructing. Therefore, know that they are the same. Can it be that the non-obstruction of the cause and the non-obstruction of the condition are different? How can one kind of non-obstruction have closeness and distance? Someone completely misunderstands this and asks and answers himself: 'In the two statements, explaining their mutual inclusion, is it speaking in terms of essence or in terms of function?' If it is speaking in terms of essence, then the efficient cause should include the four conditions, and the dominant condition should include the six causes, because the essences are all broad. If it is speaking in terms of function, the functions of the six causes and the four conditions are different, how can they be mutually included? The explanation says: 'The mutual inclusion of the six causes and the four conditions has two meanings: one is explaining in terms of essence, and the other is explaining according to the similarity of function. The initial master of the Vaibhāṣika is explaining in terms of essence.'
因緣攝五。能作攝三。若據能作體寬實攝四緣。增上體寬能攝六因。所以但言能作攝三。增上攝一者。此師意說。六因．四緣相對明攝。且據一相攝體盡。即休故說因緣攝五。能作攝三。為能作因外有餘五因。增上緣外有餘三緣。明其相攝。故不別說能作攝四。增上攝六。問若據體性明相攝者。體性恒有。是即六因．四緣無別。如何相攝。故婆沙云。我說作用以為因果。諸法實體恒無轉變。非因果故 解云。據體無變。因與緣同。以體從用。故說差別。若婆沙第二師．及此論。據用相似以辨相攝。若論六因．四緣作用各別。互不相攝。然說因緣攝五因。增上攝能作因者。據用相似以明相攝也。其等無間．及所緣緣。不似因故。故因不攝 詳其此釋未得論意。一何諸德總無覺者。論既皆云五因是因緣性。如何說是以為似也。又不障之義是能作因。亦是增上緣義。因之不障。與緣不障。有何差別而言相似非即是也。又言相似故攝。及云且據一相攝體盡。即休者。憑何經．論。復有何例。又能作因體即四緣體。因緣何疏能作唯三緣。又增上緣即六因體。五因何疏。增上獨攝能作。準此解釋未為當理 問四大造色生等五因。為是因緣。為是增上 答準婆沙一百三十一云。大種與所造色為幾緣。答因．增上。因謂生因．依因．立
因．持因．養因。增上者謂不礙。及唯無障 解云。是釋發智文。此是約四緣作論。言因者是因緣也。婆沙一百二十七云。問造是何義。為是因義。為緣義耶。設爾何失。俱見其過。若是因義。此四大種于所造色五因皆無。如何可言能造諸色。若是緣義。諸所造色各除自體餘一切法。無不皆是此增上緣。如何但言大種所造答應作是說。造是因義。問此于造色五因皆無。如何因義。答雖同類等五因皆無。而別有餘五種因義。謂生．因．依因．立因．持因．養因。由此能造。有餘師言。造是緣義。問諸所造色各除自體余法皆是增上緣。如何但言大種所造。答增上緣義有親。有疏。有近。有遠。有合。有不合。有在此生。有在餘生。諸親近等說名為因。諸疏遠等說名為緣。由此義故。說諸大種與所造色為因．增上。亦無違理 又五事論亦敘兩說並無評文 今詳兩說。前師為正。所以知然。發智既約四緣問答。如何實是增上緣而答是因緣。更無此例故 若爾何故論說五因因緣。此非同類等五因。如何是因緣攝 答此與同類等五因。義不同故非五因攝。生果力用分同五因。不同余增上緣。故是因緣。由此本論說十因為因緣。一為增上 問若爾何不說十一因而但說六 答生等五因因義別故。若法為因果通三界四蘊．五蘊。此中說之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『因』（Hetu，根本原因），『持因』（Dharaka-hetu，支援因），『養因』（Posaka-hetu，滋養因）。『增上』（Adhipati，增上緣）是指沒有阻礙，以及唯一的無障礙。解釋說：這是解釋《發智論》的文句。這是根據四緣（Cattāro paccayā，四種條件）作出的論述。所說的『因』就是因緣（Hetu-paccaya，因緣）。《婆沙論》第一百二十七卷說：問：『造』是什麼意思？是『因』的意思，還是『緣』的意思呢？如果這樣提問會有什麼過失？兩者都有過失。如果是『因』的意思，那麼四大種（Mahābhūta，構成物質世界的四種基本元素：地、水、火、風）對於所造色（Upādā rūpa，由四大種所產生的物質現象）來說，五因（Pañca hetu，五種原因）都沒有。怎麼能說能夠造作諸色呢？如果是『緣』的意思，那麼諸所造色各自除去自身之外，其餘一切法，沒有不是此增上緣的。為什麼只說大種所造呢？應該回答說，『造』是『因』的意思。問：這對於造色來說，五因都沒有，怎麼是『因』的意思呢？答：雖然同類等五因都沒有，但另外有其餘五種『因』的意思，即生因（Janaka-hetu，產生因）、因因（Hetu-hetu，作為原因的因）、依因（Nissaya-hetu，所依賴的因）、立因（Upasthambhaka-hetu，支援因）、持因、養因。由此能夠造作。有其他論師說，『造』是『緣』的意思。問：諸所造色各自除去自身之外，其餘一切法都是增上緣，為什麼只說大種所造呢？答：增上緣的意義有親近、有疏遠、有近、有遠、有合、有不合、有在此生、有在餘生。諸親近等稱為『因』，諸疏遠等稱為『緣』。因為這個緣故，說諸大種與所造色為『因』、『增上』，也沒有違背道理。又，《五事論》也敘述了兩種說法，並沒有評判的文字。現在詳細考察這兩種說法，前一位論師的說法是正確的。為什麼知道是這樣呢？《發智論》既然根據四緣進行問答，怎麼實際上是增上緣，卻回答是因緣呢？沒有這樣的例子。如果這樣，為什麼論中說五因是因緣呢？這並非同類等五因，怎麼是因緣所攝呢？答：這與同類等五因，意義不同，所以不是五因所攝。產生果的力量和作用與五因相同，不同於其餘增上緣，所以是因緣。因此，本論說十因為因緣，一為增上。問：如果這樣，為什麼不說十一因，而只說六因呢？答：生等五因的『因』的意義不同。如果法作為『因』，果通三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）、四蘊（Cattāro khandhā，色蘊、受蘊、想蘊、行蘊）、五蘊（Pañca khandhā，色蘊、受蘊、想蘊、行蘊、識蘊），這裡就說了它。
【English Translation】 English version 'Hetu' (root cause), 'Dharaka-hetu' (supporting cause), 'Posaka-hetu' (nourishing cause). 'Adhipati' (Dominance condition) means without hindrance, and uniquely without obstruction. Explanation: This explains the sentences of the Jnanaprasthana. This is a discussion based on the four conditions (Cattāro paccayā). The 'Hetu' that is spoken of is the Hetu-paccaya (root condition). The 127th fascicle of the Vibhasa says: Question: What is the meaning of 'making'? Is it the meaning of 'cause' or the meaning of 'condition'? What fault would there be if you asked this way? Both have faults. If it is the meaning of 'cause', then the four great elements (Mahābhūta, the four basic elements that constitute the material world: earth, water, fire, and wind) do not have any of the five causes (Pañca hetu, five causes) for the derived matter (Upādā rūpa, material phenomena produced by the four great elements). How can it be said that they can create all matter? If it is the meaning of 'condition', then all phenomena, except for themselves, are the dominance condition for each derived matter. Why only say that it is produced by the great elements? It should be answered that 'making' is the meaning of 'cause'. Question: This does not have the five causes for derived matter, so how is it the meaning of 'cause'? Answer: Although it does not have the five causes such as similar kinds, it has five other meanings of 'cause', namely Janaka-hetu (generating cause), Hetu-hetu (cause as cause), Nissaya-hetu (dependence cause), Upasthambhaka-hetu (supporting cause), Dharaka-hetu, and Posaka-hetu. Because of this, it can create. Other teachers say that 'making' is the meaning of 'condition'. Question: All phenomena, except for themselves, are the dominance condition for each derived matter, so why only say that it is produced by the great elements? Answer: The meaning of dominance condition has closeness, distance, nearness, farness, combination, non-combination, arising in this life, and arising in other lives. Those that are close are called 'cause', and those that are distant are called 'condition'. Because of this reason, saying that the great elements and derived matter are 'cause' and 'dominance' does not violate reason. Also, the Treatise on Five Matters also narrates the two views and does not have any critical text. Now, examining these two views in detail, the view of the former teacher is correct. Why do we know this? Since the Jnanaprasthana asks and answers based on the four conditions, how can it actually be a dominance condition but answer that it is a root condition? There is no such example. If so, why does the treatise say that the five causes are root conditions? This is not the five causes such as similar kinds, so how is it included in the root condition? Answer: This is different in meaning from the five causes such as similar kinds, so it is not included in the five causes. The power and function of producing the result is the same as the five causes, and it is different from the other dominance conditions, so it is a root condition. Therefore, this treatise says that ten are causes as root conditions, and one is dominance. Question: If so, why not say eleven causes, but only say six causes? Answer: The meaning of 'cause' of the five causes such as arising is different. If the Dharma is the 'cause', the result pervades the three realms (Trailokya, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm), the four aggregates (Cattāro khandhā, the aggregates of form, feeling, perception, and mental formations), and the five aggregates (Pañca khandhā, the aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), then it is spoken of here.
。造色之因唯二界果一蘊少分。由斯不說。又若法為因通多蘊共果。此中說之。四大為因唯是一蘊少分共果。此中不說。由斯俱有因等五因之外。不別建立生等五因。故入能作因攝。由此造色力用。勝餘三緣。故入因緣中攝。若開出生等五因。即有十因為因緣也。諸論並據全因相攝。故說五因為因緣也。應更思之。
論。除阿羅漢至等無間緣性。第二釋等無間緣也。此文是出等無間緣體也 謂一切已生即是過去．現在心．心所法。唯除羅漢臨涅槃心。雖是已生非等無間。無後心故。
論。此緣生法至等無間名。釋等無間緣名。
論由此色等至不等生故。廢立緣體。謂心．心所前後體一名之為等。中無間隔名為無間。等而無間名等無間。色．不相應即不如是。雖無間生體不一故。雜亂而生非等無間。正理引婆沙說云。心．及心所所依．所緣．行相有礙。由斯故立等無間緣。色．不相應無如是事。故不立彼為此緣體下自釋云 謂一所依．所緣．行相。定無有二識等並生。故必由前與處方起。若前為礙后不得生。由此證知。唯心．心所前能為后等無間緣 又云 然約開避。及據牽生立此緣體。故極微等雖前避后而非此緣。心等相生有定．不定。故知亦據有力牽生。現見一心前後相續。雖前避后其理皆同。
而生．不生有定．不定。且生定者。謂世第一法心之無間。生苦法智忍 乃至廣說 問曰若前．后體一中無間隔。前與后處後方得生。及后定生。此證有力能牽引者。命根相生亦前後體一。中無間隔。前與后處。後方得生。亦是定生。此命即是有力牽生。何故不立等無間緣 正理釋云。此例不然。命與生體俱先行力所引生故。謂此命根。非無間滅命力所引。要是先位所作行業力所引生。既爾命根應一念頃一切頓起。一切同依一念行業力所引故。先業所引心．心所法起。應不藉等無間緣。且諸命根無頓起失。即由業力生次定故。因果法爾一剎那業引多剎那異熟令起。又無用故命不頓生。謂為任持眾同分故引命根起。一命相續足能任持。多便無用。心．心所法雖先業引。而非不待等無間緣。托諸根．境而得生故。既托根．境和合故生。設多並生亦非無用。然無第二等無間緣。故同類中無二俱起。又心．心所非唯先業力所引生。異熟．及余雜亂起故。若不更托等無間緣。應一剎那有多俱起。謂命根體唯是異熟。唯由先業力所引生。可言同類定次而起。心．心所法無如是事。異熟滅已有等流生。等流無間有剎那起。或起異熟非定同類。故心．心所雖有異熟生。而亦不可言與命根等。是故唯等常無間生名等無間。以此與此為緣故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 而生，生有定數，也有不定數。所謂『生定』，是指世第一法（laukikāgradharma，世間最高的善法）的心念之間，生起苦法智忍（duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti，對苦諦的忍可）……乃至廣說。 有人問：如果前念和后唸的本體是一體的，中間沒有間隔，前念和后念處於同一處所，后念才能生起，並且是必定生起。這可以證明有一種力量在牽引。那麼，命根（jīvitendriya，維持生命的力量）的相續也是前念和后唸的本體是一體的，中間沒有間隔，前念和后念處於同一處所，后念才能生起，也是必定生起。這個命根就是有力量牽引生起的，為什麼不把它立為等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，無間緣）呢？ 《正理釋》（Nyāyānusāraśāstra）解釋說：這個例子不恰當。命根和生（指心、心所法）都是由先前的行業力所牽引而生起的。也就是說，這個命根不是由無間滅去的命根的力量所牽引，而是由先前所造的行業力所牽引而生起的。如果這樣，命根應該在一念之間全部同時生起，因為它們都是依靠同一唸的行業力所牽引。先前行業所牽引的心、心所法生起，應該不需要依靠等無間緣。 而且，諸多的命根不會有同時生起的過失，這是因為業力決定了生起的次第。因果的法則是這樣的：一個剎那的業力可以牽引多個剎那的異熟果（vipāka，果報）生起。而且，沒有必要讓命根同時生起。因為爲了任持眾生的同分（nikāya-sabhāga，同類相續），只需要一個命根相續就足夠了，多個就沒有用處了。心、心所法雖然也是由先前的行業所牽引，但並非不依賴等無間緣，而是要依託諸根（indriya，感覺器官）和境界（viṣaya，感覺對像）才能生起。既然依託根和境界的和合而生起，即使多個同時生起也不是沒有用處。 然而，沒有第二個等無間緣，所以在同類的心、心所法中，不會有兩個同時生起。而且，心、心所法不僅僅是由先前的行業力所牽引而生起，還有異熟果以及其他雜亂的生起。如果不依靠等無間緣，應該在一剎那間有多個心、心所法同時生起。也就是說，命根的本體僅僅是異熟果，僅僅是由先前的行業力所牽引而生起，可以說同類的命根是按照一定的次第生起的。心、心所法沒有這樣的情況，異熟果滅去後有等流果（niṣyanda-phala，與因相似的果）生起，等流果之後有剎那生起，或者生起異熟果，並非一定是同類的。所以，心、心所法雖然也有異熟果生起，但也不能說和命根一樣。因此，只有等（平等）、常（恒常）、無間（沒有間隔）的生起才叫做等無間。因為以此為彼的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version are born. Birth is both determinate and indeterminate. 'Determinate birth' refers to the arising of the Kṣānti of the Dharma-knowledge of Suffering (duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti, the patient acceptance of the truth of suffering) immediately following the mind of the Highest Worldly Dharma (laukikāgradharma, the highest mundane virtue)... and so on, extensively explained. Question: If the preceding and succeeding moments are one in essence, without any interval between them, and the succeeding moment can only arise when the preceding and succeeding moments are in the same place, and its arising is definite, which proves that there is a force pulling it. Then, the continuity of the life-faculty (jīvitendriya, the faculty of life) is also such that the preceding and succeeding moments are one in essence, without any interval between them, and the succeeding moment can only arise when the preceding and succeeding moments are in the same place, and its arising is also definite. This life-faculty is the force that pulls the arising, so why isn't it established as the immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya, the condition of contiguity)? The Nyāyānusāraśāstra (Treatise Following the Principles) explains: This example is not appropriate. Both the life-faculty and the arising (referring to mind and mental factors) are brought about by the force of prior karma. That is to say, this life-faculty is not brought about by the force of the immediately ceasing life-faculty, but by the force of the karma performed in the previous state. If that were the case, all life-faculties should arise simultaneously in a single moment, because they are all brought about by the force of the karma of the same moment. The arising of mind and mental factors brought about by prior karma should not rely on the immediately preceding condition. Moreover, there is no fault of multiple life-faculties arising simultaneously, because the order of arising is determined by the force of karma. The principle of cause and effect is such that the karma of one moment can bring about the arising of the ripened result (vipāka, fruition) of multiple moments. Furthermore, there is no need for life-faculties to arise simultaneously, because one continuous life-faculty is sufficient to maintain the commonality (nikāya-sabhāga, class identity) of beings; multiple would be useless. Although mind and mental factors are also brought about by prior karma, they are not independent of the immediately preceding condition, but rely on the sense organs (indriya, sensory faculties) and objects (viṣaya, sensory objects) to arise. Since they arise by relying on the combination of sense organs and objects, even if multiple arise simultaneously, it is not useless. However, there is no second immediately preceding condition, so among mind and mental factors of the same type, two will not arise simultaneously. Moreover, mind and mental factors are not only brought about by the force of prior karma, but also by the arising of ripened results and other mixed arisings. If they did not rely on the immediately preceding condition, multiple mind and mental factors should arise simultaneously in a single moment. That is to say, the essence of the life-faculty is only the ripened result, and is only brought about by the force of prior karma, so it can be said that life-faculties of the same type arise in a definite order. Mind and mental factors do not have such a situation; after the ripened result ceases, the outflowing result (niṣyanda-phala, result similar to the cause) arises, and after the outflowing result, there is momentary arising, or the ripened result arises, not necessarily of the same type. Therefore, although mind and mental factors also have the arising of ripened results, it cannot be said that they are the same as the life-faculty. Therefore, only the arising that is equal (samatā, equality), constant (nityatā, constancy), and without interval (anantara, without interval) is called immediately preceding. Because this is the condition for that.
說 準上論文。等無間緣總有多義以簡諸法。一有開避與處後方得生。不開避後後即不生 二有牽引后力 三體等 四有生無間隔與後作緣。簡命根等。由此唯心．心所立等無間緣也 正理論云。譬喻論師說諸色法如心．心所法有等無間緣。見乳．醅種．花。生酪．酢．芽．果。如心．心所前滅後生。故知諸色有此緣義。又無經說唯心．心所。能為此緣故立此緣。定非色者是虛妄執 正理論中廣破此執。今此論明色非等無間緣。亦是破譬喻師執。
論。謂欲界色至等無間緣。指事釋也 或欲界後生欲界．色界二無表色者。謂身在欲界入有漏六禪也 或欲界．無漏二無表色。謂無漏六禪也。道．定二戒不併起故。無慾界後起三種無表。
論。尊者世友至等無間緣。敘異說也。由一身中先有一長養色相續不斷。後有第二長養色生不相違害故。不立等無間緣。此師釋意。闕開避義。及雜亂不等故。不立等無間緣。
論。大德復言至多所蔭映。此大德以前．后．多．少不等故。非等無間緣。
論。豈不心所至三摩地等難也。色以前後不等非是等無間緣。心所亦前後不等。如何是等無間緣。
論。此于異類至無非等過。釋也 言其等者據自類說。非不同類。
論。豈唯自類至等無間緣。難
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論述：準上文的論述。等無間緣總共有多種含義，用來區分諸法。 一、有開避，即前一法讓出位置，后一法才能產生。如果前一法不讓出位置，后一法就無法產生。 二、有牽引后力的作用。 三、本體相等。 四、產生時沒有間隔，與后一法作為緣。用來區分命根等。因此，只有心、心所才能成立等無間緣。 《正理論》中說：譬喻論師認為諸色法也像心、心所法一樣具有等無間緣。例如，見到乳、酒母、花，就能產生酪、醋、芽、果。就像心、心所前滅後生一樣。因此可知諸色也具有這種緣的意義。而且沒有經典說只有心、心所才能作為這種緣，所以成立這種緣。如果斷定色法不是這種緣，那是虛妄的執著。 《正理論》中廣泛地破斥了這種執著。現在這部論典說明色法不是等無間緣，也是爲了破斥譬喻師的執著。
論述：所謂的欲界色乃至等無間緣，這是指事釋。 或者欲界后產生欲界、二無表色（指身在欲界進入有漏六禪）。或者欲界、無漏二無表色（指無漏六禪）。因為道和定二戒不會同時產生，所以欲界之後不會產生三種無表。
論述：尊者世友乃至等無間緣。這是敘述不同的說法。因為一個身體中先有一個長養色相續不斷，之後有第二個長養色產生，兩者不互相違背妨礙，所以不成立等無間緣。這位論師解釋的意思是，缺少開避的意義，以及雜亂不相等，所以不成立等無間緣。
論述：大德又說乃至多所蔭映。這位大德認為，因為前、后、多、少不相等，所以不是等無間緣。
論述：難道心所乃至三摩地等是難點嗎？色法因為前後不相等，所以不是等無間緣。心所也前後不相等，為什麼是等無間緣呢？
論述：這在異類乃至無非等過。解釋說：所說的相等，是根據自類來說的，不是不同類。
論述：難道只有自類乃至等無間緣？這是難點。
【English Translation】 English version: Statement: According to the above discussion. The immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya) has multiple meanings to distinguish all dharmas (phenomena). 1. There is 'opening' (apavarga), meaning the preceding dharma makes way so that the subsequent dharma can arise. If the preceding dharma does not make way, the subsequent dharma cannot arise. 2. There is the function of attracting subsequent force. 3. The entities are equal. 4. There is no interval in arising, and it serves as a condition for the subsequent dharma. This is used to distinguish the life faculty (jivitendriya) and others. Therefore, only mind (citta) and mental factors (caitasika) can establish the immediately preceding condition. The Nyayanusara says: The Sautrantika masters (Darstantika) believe that all form dharmas (rupa-dharma) have the immediately preceding condition, just like mind and mental factors. For example, seeing milk, yeast, and flowers can produce cheese, vinegar, sprouts, and fruits. Just as mind and mental factors arise after the preceding ones cease. Therefore, it is known that all forms have the meaning of this condition. Moreover, no sutra says that only mind and mental factors can serve as this condition, so this condition is established. To assert that form is definitely not this condition is a false attachment. The Nyayanusara extensively refutes this attachment. This treatise now explains that form is not the immediately preceding condition, which is also to refute the Sautrantika masters' attachment.
Statement: The so-called form of the desire realm (kama-dhatu) up to the immediately preceding condition, this is a demonstrative explanation. Or the desire realm gives rise to the desire realm, the two non-manifested forms (avyakrta-rupa) (referring to being in the desire realm and entering the six dhyanas with outflows). Or the desire realm, the two unconditioned non-manifested forms (referring to the six dhyanas without outflows). Because the two precepts of the path (marga) and concentration (samadhi) do not arise simultaneously, the three non-manifested forms do not arise after the desire realm.
Statement: Venerable Vasumitra (Shi You) up to the immediately preceding condition. This is narrating different views. Because in one body, there is first a continuous stream of one nourishing form, and then a second nourishing form arises, and the two do not contradict or hinder each other, the immediately preceding condition is not established. The meaning of this master's explanation is that it lacks the meaning of 'opening' and is mixed and unequal, so the immediately preceding condition is not established.
Statement: The Great Worthy (Mahabhadanta) also said up to much sheltering. This Great Worthy believes that because the preceding, subsequent, many, and few are unequal, it is not the immediately preceding condition.
Statement: Isn't it difficult to understand mental factors up to samadhi (san-mo-di) and others? Form is not the immediately preceding condition because the preceding and subsequent are unequal. Mental factors are also unequal in preceding and subsequent, so why are they the immediately preceding condition?
Statement: This in different categories up to no non-equal fault. Explanation: The so-called equality is based on its own category, not different categories.
Statement: Is it only its own category up to the immediately preceding condition? This is a difficulty.
也。豈是唯自類為等無間緣。因何等義唯約自說。
論。不爾云何至以說等義。答也。
論。唯執同類至為緣故起。敘異執也。彼相似同類為等無間緣。非異類也。
論。彼說非善至而得生故。破異執也。無始已來未曾起無漏心。初無漏心應闕等無間緣。
論。不相應行至俱現前故。明不相應雜亂故非等無間緣。
論。何緣不許至無前後故。明未來世無等無間緣也。
論。如何世尊至此法應生。外難。未來既無前後。如何佛知次第而生。
論。比過現法而現知故。此有部略答也。
論。傳說世尊至而非比智。雖比過．現而知未來。而非比知。是現證也。
論。由佛比類至故非比智。釋也。雖比過去知其未來。是現證知。非如見煙知火而不見。火如見其煙尋煙見火。
論。若爾世尊至應不能知。論主破也。
論。有餘復言至靜慮通慧。又敘異說。
論。若爾至非為現證。論主破也。
論。故如經部至此說為善。論主破有部二說。評取經部義也。
論。如世尊說至不可思議。未來之法無其前後。佛知前後。不可思議。如芥子納須彌。毛孔納江海。因何小不得容大。是不可思議不可解釋。此亦如是。法無前後而知前後。是不可思議
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：難道只有同類才是等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，立即且無間隔的條件）嗎？為什麼只針對同類來討論這種意義？
論：『不爾云何至以說等義』，這是回答。
論：『唯執同類至為緣故起』，這是敘述不同的觀點。他們認為相似的同類是等無間緣，而不是異類。
論：『彼說非善至而得生故』，這是駁斥不同的觀點。如果這樣，從無始以來從未生起過無漏心（anasrava-citta，沒有煩惱的心），那麼最初的無漏心就應該缺少等無間緣。
論：『不相應行至俱現前故』，說明不相應行（viprayukta-samskara，既非色法也非心法的存在）是雜亂的，因此不是等無間緣。
論：『何緣不許至無前後故』，說明未來世沒有等無間緣。
論：『如何世尊至此法應生』，這是外人的提問。既然未來沒有前後順序，佛陀（Buddha，覺悟者）怎麼知道法產生的次第？
論：『比過現法而現知故』，這是有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）的簡略回答。
論：『傳說世尊至而非比智』，雖然通過比較過去和現在來了解未來，但這不是比智（anumana-jnana，推理的智慧），而是現證（pratyaksha，直接認知）。
論：『由佛比類至故非比智』，這是解釋。雖然通過比較過去來了解未來，但這是現證知，不像看到煙就知道火，卻看不見火；而是像看見煙，尋找煙就能看見火。
論：『若爾世尊至應不能知』，這是論主的駁斥。
論：『有餘復言至靜慮通慧』，這是又敘述了另一種不同的說法。
論：『若爾至非為現證』，這是論主的駁斥。
論：『故如經部至此說為善』，這是論主駁斥有部的兩種說法，並贊同經部（Sautrantika，經量部）的觀點。
論：『如世尊說至不可思議』，未來的法沒有前後順序，佛陀卻知道前後順序，這是不可思議的。就像芥子能容納須彌山（Sumeru，宇宙中心的大山），毛孔能容納江海。為什麼小不能容納大？這是不可思議，不可解釋的。這裡也是如此，法沒有前後順序卻知道前後順序，這是不可思議的。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Is it only those of the same kind that are samanantarapratyaya (immediately preceding condition)? Why is this meaning only discussed in relation to those of the same kind?
Treatise: 'Not so, how to... to explain the meaning of equality,' this is the answer.
Treatise: 'Only those who hold to the same kind... arise as a condition,' this is a narration of different views. They believe that similar things of the same kind are samanantarapratyaya, not those of different kinds.
Treatise: 'That saying is not good... and thus be born,' this is refuting different views. If so, since beginningless time, no anasrava-citta (undefiled mind) has ever arisen, then the first undefiled mind should lack the samanantarapratyaya.
Treatise: 'Non-corresponding formations... simultaneously manifest,' explaining that non-corresponding formations (viprayukta-samskara, neither material nor mental formations) are mixed and confused, therefore not samanantarapratyaya.
Treatise: 'Why not allow... because there is no before and after,' explaining that there is no samanantarapratyaya in the future.
Treatise: 'How could the World Honored One... this dharma should arise,' this is an external challenge. Since there is no sequence in the future, how does the Buddha (Buddha, the awakened one) know the order in which dharmas arise?
Treatise: 'By comparing past and present dharmas, he knows directly,' this is a brief answer from the Sarvastivada (the doctrine that everything exists).
Treatise: 'It is said that the World Honored One... and not inferential wisdom,' although the future is known by comparing the past and present, this is not anumana-jnana (inferential wisdom), but pratyaksha (direct perception).
Treatise: 'Because the Buddha makes analogies... therefore not inferential wisdom,' this is an explanation. Although the future is known by comparing the past, this is direct knowledge, not like seeing smoke and knowing there is fire, but not seeing the fire; rather, like seeing smoke and finding the fire by following the smoke.
Treatise: 'If so, the World Honored One... should not be able to know,' this is the treatise master's refutation.
Treatise: 'Others again say... meditative concentration and wisdom,' this is another narration of a different view.
Treatise: 'If so... not direct perception,' this is the treatise master's refutation.
Treatise: 'Therefore, like the Sautrantikas... this saying is good,' this is the treatise master refuting the two views of the Sarvastivadins and approving the view of the Sautrantika (those who rely on the sutras).
Treatise: 'As the World Honored One said... inconceivable,' the dharmas of the future have no sequence, yet the Buddha knows the sequence, this is inconceivable. It is like a mustard seed containing Mount Sumeru (Sumeru, the central mountain of the universe), or a pore containing rivers and seas. Why can't the small contain the large? This is inconceivable and inexplicable. It is the same here, the dharmas have no sequence, yet the sequence is known, this is inconceivable.
。亦不可解釋。
論。若於未來至不生余法。外難。若爾未來世無前後者。因何未來如是次第。
論。若此法生至等無間緣。釋也。謂法雖無前後有相系屬。金剛喻定盡智等法。相系屬故次後而起。如世第一法與苦法忍位。已前是事相定。非剎那定。有多苦法忍未定前後。至增上忍方剎那定。此顯世第一法定在一切苦法忍前。以至生相。世第一法決定在前故。
論。諸阿羅漢至非等無間緣。問也。
論。無餘心等續此起故。答也。
論。豈不如是至應不名意難也。
論。意是依所顯至等無間緣。通也。
論。若法與心至心無間耶。已下兩重四句分別。此文是四句家問。若法與心為等無間者。是從心等無間緣生也 彼法亦是心無間耶者。續心後起中間無餘物隔也。
論。應作四句至二定剎那答也。此是心等無間緣生非心無間。出二定心隔二定故 言第二等。等取第三位等。乃至百千剎那。此由隔初剎那等定故非心無間也。
論。第二句者。至生住異滅。此是心無間非心等無間緣生也。四相不從無間緣生故。初剎那定．及心位四相與心無間隔故。是心無間非心等無間也。
論。第三句者至心．心所法。此是心等無間緣生。是心．心所故。是心無間從心生中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 亦不可解釋。
論：若於未來至不生余法。外難：若爾未來世無前後者。因何未來如是次第？
論：若此法生至等無間緣。釋也：謂法雖無前後有相系屬。金剛喻定（Vajropamasamadhi，一種堅固如金剛的比喻性禪定）盡智（ksayajnana，斷盡煩惱的智慧）等法，相系屬故次後而起。如世第一法（laukikagradharma，世間最高的法）與苦法忍（kṣānti，對苦諦的忍耐）位。已前是事相定，非剎那定。有多苦法忍未定前後，至增上忍（adhimokṣa-kṣānti，更強的忍耐）方剎那定。此顯世第一法定在一切苦法忍前，以至生相，世第一法決定在前故。
論：諸阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得阿羅漢果位的人）至非等無間緣。問也。
論：無餘心等續此起故。答也。
論：豈不如是至應不名意難也。
論：意是依所顯至等無間緣。通也。
論：若法與心至心無間耶？已下兩重四句分別。此文是四句家問：若法與心為等無間者，是從心等無間緣生也？彼法亦是心無間耶者，續心後起中間無餘物隔也。
論：應作四句至二定剎那答也。此是心等無間緣生非心無間。出二定心隔二定故。言第二等，等取第三位等，乃至百千剎那。此由隔初剎那等定故非心無間也。
論：第二句者，至生住異滅。此是心無間非心等無間緣生也。四相不從無間緣生故。初剎那定及心位四相與心無間隔故，是心無間非心等無間也。
論：第三句者至心、心所法。此是心等無間緣生，是心、心所故，是心無間從心生中
【English Translation】 English version Also, it cannot be explained.
Treatise: If in the future, until no other dharma arises. External objection: If so, if there is no sequence in the future world, why is the future in such an order?
Treatise: If this dharma arises until the immediately preceding condition. Explanation: Although dharmas have no sequence, they are related. Dharmas such as the Vajropamasamadhi (diamond-like concentration), ksayajnana (wisdom of exhaustion) are related and arise one after another. For example, the laukikagradharma (highest mundane dharma) and the position of kṣānti (endurance) towards the suffering truth. Before this is the determination of phenomena, not the determination of a moment. There are many kṣānti towards the suffering truth whose sequence is not determined. Only with adhimokṣa-kṣānti (increased endurance) is there determination of a moment. This shows that the laukikagradharma is definitely before all kṣānti towards the suffering truth. Because it reaches the phase of arising, the laukikagradharma is definitely before.
Treatise: All Arhats (those who have attained the Arhat fruit) until not the immediately preceding condition. Question.
Treatise: Because no other mind, etc., continues to arise from this. Answer.
Treatise: Is it not like this, it should not be called a mental difficulty. Objection.
Treatise: The mind is manifested by what it relies on until the immediately preceding condition. General explanation.
Treatise: If a dharma is with the mind, is it without interval from the mind? The following is a distinction of four sentences in two layers. This text is a question from the four-sentence school: If a dharma is immediately preceding with the mind, is it born from the immediately preceding condition of the mind? Is that dharma also without interval from the mind? It continues after the mind arises, with nothing else separating it in between.
Treatise: One should make four sentences to answer the two concentrations of a moment. This is born from the immediately preceding condition of the mind, but is not without interval from the mind. Because the two concentrations of mind are separated by two concentrations. The second, etc., includes the third position, etc., up to hundreds of thousands of moments. This is because it is separated by the initial moment, etc., of concentration, so it is not without interval from the mind.
Treatise: The second sentence, until arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing. This is without interval from the mind, but is not born from the immediately preceding condition of the mind. Because the four characteristics are not born from the immediately preceding condition. The four characteristics of the initial moment of concentration and the mind position are without interval from the mind, so it is without interval from the mind, but not born from the immediately preceding condition of the mind.
Treatise: The third sentence, until mind and mental factors. This is born from the immediately preceding condition of the mind, because it is mind and mental factors, it is without interval from the mind, from the arising of the mind
間無隔故。
論。第四句者至生住異滅。此非心等無間是不相應故。非心無間中間隔二定故。
論。若法與心至為無間耶。第二四句問也。
論。應作四句至第二句。答也。準前第三句是從等無間緣生。亦心無間。此第一句。是從心等無間生。非定無間初剎那定．及心位。皆從心等無間生非次定後起故。是今第一句也。前第四是不從心等無間緣生。亦非心無間。二定第二剎那．及出定心上四相。此皆非心等無間。是次定後起故。是今第二句。
論。即前第一至第四句 前第一句者。是定第二等剎那等．及出定心 此從心等無間生。亦次定後起故。為今第三句 前第二句者。謂初剎那定上四相。及有心位心。心所上四相 此非心等無間生非次定後起。故為今第四句。
論。從二定出至等無間耶。問也。
論。中間不隔心心所故。答也 言。無間者。不隔心．心所故非謂不隔二定 婆沙一百一十一云。問何故不說無想異熟耶 有多答。一說云 若由心力無間引起不雜亂者。可名為心等無間法。無想異熟是異熟因力所引起任運而轉。非入彼心勢力所引。故不名心等無間法。問若爾異熟心．心所法。亦異熟因力所引起任運而轉。應不名心等無間法。答自類相引有勝勢力不同彼故。俱是相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『間無隔故。』
論：第四句指的是從生到住異滅。這並非心等無間，因為它是不相應的。也不是心無間，因為中間隔著兩個禪定。
論：如果法與心之間達到無間，會怎樣呢？這是對第二句和第四句的提問。
論：應該作四句來回答，直到第二句。這是回答。參照前面的第三句，是從等無間緣所生，也是心無間。這是第一句。是從心等無間所生，但並非禪定無間，例如初剎那的禪定以及有心位，都是從心等無間所生，因為不是緊接著禪定之後產生的。這是現在的第一句。前面的第四句不是從心等無間緣所生，也不是心無間。例如二禪定的第二剎那，以及出定心上的四相。這些都不是心等無間，因為是緊接著禪定之後產生的。這是現在的第二句。
論：即前面的第一句到第四句。前面的第一句指的是禪定的第二剎那等等，以及出定心。這是從心等無間所生，也是緊接著禪定之後產生的。這是現在的第三句。前面的第二句指的是初剎那的禪定上的四相，以及有心位的心，心所上的四相。這些不是從心等無間所生，也不是緊接著禪定之後產生的。所以是現在的第四句。
論：從二禪定出來，是否是等無間呢？這是提問。
論：因為中間沒有間隔心和心所。這是回答。所說的『無間』，是指沒有間隔心和心所，並非指沒有間隔兩個禪定。《婆沙論》第一百一十一卷說：問：為什麼不說無想異熟呢？有多種回答。一種說法是：如果是由心力無間引起，不雜亂的，可以稱為心等無間法。無想異熟是由異熟因的力量所引起，任運而轉，不是由入彼心（指無想定）的勢力所引導。所以不稱為心等無間法。問：如果這樣，異熟心、心所法，也是由異熟因的力量所引起，任運而轉，應該不稱為心等無間法。答：自類相引有更強的勢力，與無想異熟不同。都是相互的。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Because there is no intervening separation.'
Treatise: The fourth phrase refers to from arising to abiding, changing, and ceasing. This is not 'citta-samanantarapratyaya' (mind-uninterrupted-condition), because it is not corresponding. Nor is it 'citta-anantara' (mind-uninterrupted), because there are two 'dhyanas' (meditative states) intervening in between.
Treatise: If a dharma (phenomenon) reaches uninterruptedness with the mind, what will happen? This is a question about the second and fourth phrases.
Treatise: Four phrases should be made to answer, up to the second phrase. This is the answer. Referring to the previous third phrase, it arises from 'samanantara-pratyaya' (uninterrupted-condition), and is also 'citta-anantara' (mind-uninterrupted). This is the first phrase. It arises from 'citta-samanantara' (mind-uninterrupted), but is not 'dhyana-anantara' (meditative state-uninterrupted), such as the initial moment of 'dhyana' (meditative state) and the mind-moment with mental activity, all arise from 'citta-samanantara' (mind-uninterrupted), because they do not arise immediately after 'dhyana' (meditative state). This is the current first phrase. The previous fourth phrase does not arise from 'citta-samanantara-pratyaya' (mind-uninterrupted-condition), nor is it 'citta-anantara' (mind-uninterrupted). For example, the second moment of the two 'dhyanas' (meditative states), and the four characteristics on the mind emerging from 'dhyana' (meditative state). These are not 'citta-samanantara' (mind-uninterrupted), because they arise immediately after 'dhyana' (meditative state). This is the current second phrase.
Treatise: That is, the previous first phrase to the fourth phrase. The previous first phrase refers to the second moment of 'dhyana' (meditative state), etc., and the mind emerging from 'dhyana' (meditative state). This arises from 'citta-samanantara' (mind-uninterrupted), and also arises immediately after 'dhyana' (meditative state). This is the current third phrase. The previous second phrase refers to the four characteristics on the initial moment of 'dhyana' (meditative state), and the four characteristics on the mind and mental factors in the mind-moment with mental activity. These do not arise from 'citta-samanantara' (mind-uninterrupted), nor do they arise immediately after 'dhyana' (meditative state). Therefore, it is the current fourth phrase.
Treatise: Emerging from the two 'dhyanas' (meditative states), is it 'samanantara' (uninterrupted)? This is a question.
Treatise: Because there is no intervening separation of mind and mental factors. This is the answer. The term 'anantara' (uninterrupted) means that there is no intervening separation of mind and mental factors, not that there is no intervening separation of two 'dhyanas' (meditative states). The 'Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra' (Great Commentary on the Abhidharma), volume 111, says: Question: Why is 'asañjñika-vipāka' (fruition of non-perception) not mentioned? There are many answers. One explanation is: If it is uninterruptedly aroused by the power of the mind, and is not mixed up, it can be called 'citta-samanantara-dharma' (mind-uninterrupted-dharma). 'Asañjñika-vipāka' (fruition of non-perception) is aroused by the power of 'vipāka-hetu' (fruition-cause), and operates spontaneously. It is not guided by the power of entering that mind (referring to the 'asañjñi-samāpatti' (non-perception-attainment)). Therefore, it is not called 'citta-samanantara-dharma' (mind-uninterrupted-dharma). Question: If so, 'vipāka-citta' (fruition-mind) and 'vipāka-caitasika-dharma' (fruition-mental-factors), are also aroused by the power of 'vipāka-hetu' (fruition-cause), and operate spontaneously, should they not be called 'citta-samanantara-dharma' (mind-uninterrupted-dharma)? Answer: The mutual attraction of the same category has a stronger power, which is different from 'asañjñika-vipāka' (fruition of non-perception). Both are mutual.
應有所依等說名自類。問何故二無心定是心等無間法。而非心等無間緣耶。答彼由心加行功用勤勞所引得故。名心等無間法。與心相違遮斷心故。非心等無間緣。又說。彼由心勢力所引起故。名等無間法。不相應。無所依。無行相。無所緣故。非心等無間緣。問何故二無心定。前後相似無亂續生。而前非后等無間緣。答由入定心勢力所引不由前念力所引生。故前非后等無間緣。問若爾異熟心．心所法。由異熟因勢力引起任運而轉。前應非后等無間緣。答心．心所法是相應。有所依有行相有所緣故。前念於後有勝勢力引發開避。故皆是后等無間緣。不相應行與此相違。不可為例 又一百九十六解等無間緣中雲。此中有說。若前法未至已生位然不與后法作等無間緣。若至便作。若爾者有心位可爾。無心位云何可爾。答此中說有心位不說餘位。有說。設依無心位說亦無有過。謂入定心現在前時。頓取諸定．及出定心果。亦與最初剎那定果。后諸剎那．及出定心生時。與果非取先已取故。評曰。彼不應作是說。所以者何。無有等無間緣異時取果異時與果。若此時取果即此時與果故 準此評家。入二定心過去取果。若不爾者。第二剎那二定．及出定心。未至正生如何取果。若爾即正理與婆沙相違。正理論云。諸作是說。入二定心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『應有所依等說名自類』，意思是說，（這些法）因為有所依靠等等原因，被稱為同類。（問：）為什麼兩個無心定（指滅盡定和無想定）是心等無間法（citta-samanantara-dharma），而不是心等無間緣（citta-samanantara-pratyaya）呢？（答：）因為它們是由心的加行（yoga，努力）、功用（karitra，作用）和勤勞（vyayama，精進）所引發而得到的，所以稱為心等無間法。它們與心相違背，遮斷了心的生起，所以不是心等無間緣。又有人說，它們是由心的勢力所引起的，所以稱為等無間法。因為它們不相應（viprayukta，不和心一起生起），沒有所依（anashraya，沒有依靠），沒有行相（akara，沒有心的特徵），沒有所緣（analambana，沒有對象），所以不是心等無間緣。（問：）為什麼兩個無心定，前後相似，沒有錯亂地持續生起，而前一個無心定不是后一個無心定的等無間緣呢？（答：）因為它們是由入定之心的勢力所引發的，不是由前一念的力量所引發的，所以前一個無心定不是后一個無心定的等無間緣。（問：）如果這樣，異熟心（vipaka-citta，果報心）和心所法（caitta，心理活動），由異熟因（vipaka-hetu，果報因）的勢力引起，自然而然地運轉，那麼前一個異熟心和心所法，應該也不是后一個異熟心和心所法的等無間緣了。（答：）心和心所法是相應的，有所依靠，有行相，有所緣，所以前一念對於后一念有強大的勢力，能夠引發和開闢道路，所以它們都是后一念的等無間緣。不相應行（visamyukta-samskara，既非色法也非心法的存在）與此相反，不能作為例子。 又，在一百九十六種解釋等無間緣中說：『這裡有人說，如果前一個法沒有達到已生位（utpanna-avastha，產生的狀態），那麼它就不會作為后一個法的等無間緣；如果達到了，那麼它就會作為等無間緣。』如果是這樣，有心位（sa-citta-avastha，有心的狀態）可以這樣說，那麼無心位（a-citta-avastha，無心的狀態）怎麼說呢？（答：）這裡說的是有心位，沒有說其他的狀態。有人說，即使依據無心位來說，也沒有過失。意思是說，入定之心現在前時，同時取得諸定（samadhi，禪定）以及出定之心的果報，也與最初剎那的定果（samadhi-phala，禪定的果報）有關。後來的各個剎那，以及出定之心生起時，與果報有關，而不是取得先前已經取得的果報。』評論說：『他不應該這樣說。為什麼呢？因為沒有等無間緣在不同的時間取得果報，在不同的時間給予果報。如果在這個時候取得果報，那麼就在這個時候給予果報。』 根據這位評論家的說法，入二定之心（指滅盡定和無想定）在過去取得果報。如果不是這樣，那麼第二個剎那的二定以及出定之心，在沒有達到真正生起的狀態時，如何取得果報呢？如果這樣，就與正理（nyaya，正確的道理）和婆沙（vibhasa，註釋）相違背。《正理論》（Nyayānusāra-śāstra）說：『那些這樣說的人，入二定之心……』
【English Translation】 English version: 'Those that rely on something are called self-similar.' This means that (these dharmas) are called self-similar because they rely on something, etc. (Question:) Why are the two non-mind samadhis (nirodha-samapatti and asanjni-samapatti) citta-samanantara-dharma (immediately preceding mental dharmas) and not citta-samanantara-pratyaya (immediately preceding mental conditions)? (Answer:) Because they are obtained by the yoga (effort), karitra (function), and vyayama (diligence) of the mind, they are called immediately preceding mental dharmas. They are contrary to the mind and block the arising of the mind, so they are not immediately preceding mental conditions. Some say that they are caused by the power of the mind, so they are called immediately preceding dharmas. Because they are viprayukta (non-associated, not arising with the mind), anashraya (without reliance), without akara (characteristics), and analambana (without an object), they are not immediately preceding mental conditions. (Question:) Why do the two non-mind samadhis arise successively in a similar and orderly manner, but the former is not the immediately preceding condition for the latter? (Answer:) Because they are caused by the power of the mind entering samadhi, not by the power of the previous thought, the former is not the immediately preceding condition for the latter. (Question:) If so, the vipaka-citta (resultant mind) and caitta (mental factors), caused by the power of the vipaka-hetu (resultant cause), operate naturally. Then the former vipaka-citta and mental factors should not be the immediately preceding condition for the latter vipaka-citta and mental factors. (Answer:) The mind and mental factors are associated, rely on something, have characteristics, and have an object. Therefore, the previous thought has great power over the latter thought, enabling and paving the way. Therefore, they are all immediately preceding conditions for the latter thought. Visamyukta-samskara (non-associated formations, existences that are neither material nor mental) are the opposite of this and cannot be taken as an example. Furthermore, in the one hundred and ninety-six explanations of immediately preceding conditions, it is said: 'Here, some say that if the former dharma has not reached the utpanna-avastha (state of arising), then it will not act as the immediately preceding condition for the latter dharma; if it has reached it, then it will act as the immediately preceding condition.' If this is the case, it can be said so in the sa-citta-avastha (state of having mind), but how about the a-citta-avastha (state of having no mind)? (Answer:) This speaks of the state of having mind, not other states. Some say that even if it is based on the state of having no mind, there is no fault. This means that when the mind entering samadhi is present, it simultaneously obtains the results of all samadhis and the mind exiting samadhi, and is also related to the result of the initial moment of samadhi. The subsequent moments, as well as the mind exiting samadhi, are related to the result, but do not obtain the result that has already been obtained.' The commentary says: 'He should not say this. Why? Because there is no immediately preceding condition that obtains the result at different times and gives the result at different times. If the result is obtained at this time, then the result is given at this time.' According to this commentator, the mind entering the two samadhis (nirodha-samapatti and asanjni-samapatti) obtains the result in the past. If this is not the case, then how can the two samadhis and the mind exiting samadhi in the second moment obtain the result when they have not reached the state of truly arising? If so, it contradicts nyaya (correct reasoning) and vibhasa (commentary). The Nyayānusāra-śāstra (Treatise on Following the Correct Doctrine) says: 'Those who say this, the mind entering the two samadhis...'
滅入過去。方能漸取第二念等定．及出心。彼入定心應非過去。夫取果者是牽果名。諸牽果能是行作用。依行作用立三世別。若有作用非現在者。豈不便壞世別所依 準此論與婆沙正義相違。今詳。正理所說不及婆沙。處處文說等無間緣。若取果已決定果生。無能回者。若等無間緣唯現取果者。若取果已果決定生 如有期心聞鐘聲而出定者。本期心出定唯至齋時。后遇別緣遂不聲鐘。其定即經多時不出 當入定心現在前時。為取多時定。為取少時定。若取多時定即不應少時出。無量剎那定不生故。若取少時定即不應多時不出。無量剎那定先不取故 故知婆沙理長。取果名現在者。據因緣等說不據等無間緣等。
論。如是已釋至隨其所應。第三釋所緣緣。此出法體。
論。謂如眼識至為所緣緣。指事釋也。
論。若法與彼法至其相一故。明一切法為所緣也。
論。譬如薪等至相無異故。舉喻顯也。
論。心．心所法至如是決定耶。此明三定。問也。于所緣有三定。于所依亦有三定耶。
論。應言亦有至與所依相離。答也。
論。有說在過去亦親附所依。述異釋也 正理論云。所緣緣性應說是何。謂心所緣。即一切法。離心．心所所緣境外決定更無餘法可得。謂一切法是心．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果滅盡過去，才能逐漸取得第二念等持（Samadhi，禪定的一種）以及出定之心。那麼，入定之心應該不是過去。所謂『取果』，是指牽引果報之名。各種牽引果報的能力是行（Karma，行為）的作用。依靠行（Karma，行為）的作用而建立三世（過去、現在、未來）的差別。如果存在不是現在的行（Karma，行為）的作用，豈不是就破壞了三世差別所依賴的基礎？按照這個理論，與《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）的正義相違背。現在詳細分析，正理所說的範圍不及《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）。《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）處處經文都說等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya，緊鄰的因緣）。如果取得果報后，果報就決定產生，沒有能夠改變的。如果等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya，緊鄰的因緣）只有現在才能取得果報，那麼取得果報后，果報就決定產生。 例如，有人預先設定在聽到鐘聲時出定。原本預期的出定時間是到齋飯時。後來遇到其他因緣，沒有聽到鐘聲，他的禪定就經過很長時間也沒有出定。 當入定之心現在前時，是取得長時間的禪定，還是取得短時間的禪定？如果取得長時間的禪定，就不應該短時間就出定，因為無量剎那的禪定沒有產生。如果取得短時間的禪定，就不應該長時間不出定，因為無量剎那的禪定先前沒有取得。 所以，要知道《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）的道理更長遠。所謂『取果』之名是現在，是根據因緣等來說的，不是根據等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya，緊鄰的因緣）等來說的。 論：像這樣已經解釋了，直到『隨其所應』。第三個解釋所緣緣（Alambana-pratyaya，對像緣）。這裡闡述法體（Dharma-dhatu，法的本質）。 論：所謂如眼識（Caksu-vijnana，視覺意識）直到『為所緣緣』。這是指事釋（Nirdesa，指示性的解釋）。 論：如果法（Dharma，事物、現象）與彼法（Dharma，事物、現象）直到『其相一故』。說明一切法（Dharma，事物、現象）都是所緣（Alambana，對像）。 論：譬如薪等直到『相無異故』。這是舉例子來顯明。 論：心（Citta，意識）、心所法（Caitasika-dharmas，心理活動）直到『如是決定耶』。這是說明三種禪定，是提問。在所緣（Alambana，對像）上有三種禪定，在所依（Asraya，所依賴的基礎）上也有三種禪定嗎？ 論：應該說也有，直到『與所依相離』。這是回答。 論：有人說在過去也親近所依（Asraya，所依賴的基礎）。這是陳述不同的解釋。《正理論》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）說：所緣緣（Alambana-pratyaya，對像緣）的性質應該說是什麼？是心（Citta，意識）所緣（Alambana，對像）的，即一切法（Dharma，事物、現象）。離開心（Citta，意識）、心所（Caitasika，心理活動）所緣（Alambana，對像）的範圍之外，決定沒有其他的法（Dharma，事物、現象）可以得到。所謂一切法（Dharma，事物、現象）是心（Citta，意識）的。
【English Translation】 English version: If one extinguishes the past, one can gradually attain the second moment of Samadhi (a type of meditation) and the mind emerging from Samadhi. Then, the mind entering Samadhi should not be past. 'Taking the result' refers to attracting the name of the fruit of Karma. The various abilities to attract the fruit of Karma are the function of Karma (action). The distinction of the three times (past, present, future) is established based on the function of Karma. If there exists a function of Karma that is not present, wouldn't it undermine the foundation upon which the distinction of the three times relies? According to this theory, it contradicts the correct meaning of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra. Now, upon detailed analysis, what the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says does not cover the scope of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra states everywhere that the Samanantarapratyaya (immediately preceding condition). If the result is taken, the fruit is definitely produced, and there is no way to change it. If the Samanantarapratyaya (immediately preceding condition) only takes the result in the present, then if the result is taken, the fruit is definitely produced. For example, someone predetermines to emerge from Samadhi upon hearing the sound of a bell. The originally expected time to emerge from Samadhi is at the time of the meal. Later, due to other conditions, the bell is not heard, and their Samadhi continues for a long time without emerging. When the mind entering Samadhi is present, is it taking a long period of Samadhi or a short period of Samadhi? If it is taking a long period of Samadhi, it should not emerge in a short time, because the immeasurable moments of Samadhi have not arisen. If it is taking a short period of Samadhi, it should not remain in Samadhi for a long time, because the immeasurable moments of Samadhi were not previously taken. Therefore, it should be known that the reasoning of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra is more far-reaching. The name 'taking the result' is present, and it is based on conditions, not based on the Samanantarapratyaya (immediately preceding condition), etc. Treatise: As such, it has been explained, up to 'according to what is appropriate'. The third explanation is Alambana-pratyaya (object condition). This elucidates the Dharma-dhatu (essence of Dharma). Treatise: What is referred to as eye-consciousness (Caksu-vijnana) up to 'as Alambana-pratyaya (object condition)' is a Nirdesa (indicative explanation). Treatise: If a Dharma (thing, phenomenon) and that Dharma (thing, phenomenon) up to 'because their characteristics are the same'. It explains that all Dharmas (things, phenomena) are Alambana (objects). Treatise: For example, firewood, etc., up to 'because the characteristics are no different'. This is using an analogy to illustrate. Treatise: Mind (Citta), mental factors (Caitasika-dharmas) up to 'is it so definite?'. This explains the three Samadhis and is a question. Are there three Samadhis in Alambana (object), and are there also three Samadhis in Asraya (the basis of reliance)? Treatise: It should be said that there are also, up to 'separate from the Asraya (basis of reliance)'. This is the answer. Treatise: Some say that in the past, one also closely approaches the Asraya (basis of reliance). This is stating a different explanation. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: What should be said about the nature of Alambana-pratyaya (object condition)? It is what the mind (Citta) takes as its Alambana (object), which is all Dharmas (things, phenomena). Apart from the scope of what the mind (Citta) and mental factors (Caitasika) take as their Alambana (object), there are definitely no other Dharmas (things, phenomena) that can be obtained. What is called all Dharmas (things, phenomena) is of the mind (Citta).
心所生所攀附故曰所緣。即此所緣是心．心所發生緣故名所緣緣 準此論即是以所緣為緣故。名所緣緣。除心．心所自餘生法。皆不攀附所緣境生故無所緣 今應略釋三定之義 言處定者。謂眼等識唯緣色處不緣余處 言事定者。謂緣青．黃等別。此山．此樹等異 剎那定者。謂緣此事一一剎那心．心所法。皆悉決定。五識大意同也 識處定者。謂緣十二處意識各各不同。非唯望法處也。事定者。謂一一處中隨彼彼事各各有異。剎那定者．謂一一事中於其所緣唸唸各別 所依定者。謂五識身各依自根名為處定。言事定者。於一根中復有多類。謂有四性．男．女．非男女等。及六趣等根。修得．生得等。各各不同。剎那定者。謂依此事之根唸唸各別 意根處定者。謂唯依意不依余根。事定者。謂世第一法唯與苦法智忍為依。金剛喻定唯與盡智為依。剎那定者。謂多剎那。世第一法于忍位前無剎那定。至增上忍有剎那定。
論。如是已釋至增上緣故。此出增上緣體準此論云即增上緣。故知緣即因也。若是相似何得言即。
論。此緣體廣至增上緣故。此釋名也 正理論云。增上緣性即能作因。以能作因因義細故。無邊際故。攝一切法。若此于彼不礙令生。是能作因增上緣義 準此論文因．緣無別 對三緣義此類
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所緣，是心和心所生起並攀附的對象。正因為這個所緣是心和心所生起的條件，所以稱為所緣緣。按照這個理論，就是以所緣作為緣，因此得名所緣緣。除了心和心所之外，其他的生法（現象）都不攀附所緣境而生起，所以沒有所緣。 現在應該簡要解釋三種定的含義：處定，指的是眼等識只緣於色處（rupa-ayatana），不緣于其他處。事定，指的是緣于青色、黃色等差別，或者這座山、這棵樹等不同。剎那定，指的是緣于這件事的每一個剎那，心和心所法都是確定的。五識的大致意思相同。 識處定，指的是緣於十二處（dvadasa-ayatana），意識各不相同，不僅僅是針對法處（dharma-ayatana）而言。事定，指的是在每一個處中，隨著不同的事物各有差異。剎那定，指的是在每一件事中，對於所緣的念頭唸唸各不相同。 所依定，指的是五識身各自依靠自己的根（indriya），稱為處定。事定，指的是在一個根中，又有很多種類，比如有四性（四大種）、男性、女性、非男非女等，以及六趣等根，修得、生得等，各有不同。剎那定，指的是依靠這件事的根，唸唸各不相同。 意根處定，指的是隻依靠意根（manas-indriya），不依靠其他根。事定，指的是世第一法（laukikagra-dharma）只與苦法智忍（duhkha-dharmajnanaksanti）作為所依。金剛喻定（vajropamasamadhi）只與盡智（ksaya-jnana）作為所依。剎那定，指的是多個剎那。世第一法在忍位之前沒有剎那定，到了增上忍（agrya-ksanti）才有剎那定。 論：像這樣已經解釋了增上緣的緣故。這裡提出了增上緣的體性，按照這個理論，就是增上緣。因此可知，緣就是因。如果只是相似，怎麼能說是『即』呢？ 論：這個緣的體性廣泛，乃至增上緣的緣故。這是解釋名稱。正理論說：增上緣的性質就是能作因（karana-hetu），因為能作因的因義非常細微，沒有邊際，能夠攝持一切法。如果這件事對於那件事的產生沒有妨礙，就是能作因，也就是增上緣的含義。按照這個論文，因和緣沒有區別。對於三緣的意義進行此類比。
【English Translation】 English version: The 'object' (alambana) is what the mind and mental factors arise and cling to. Because this object is the condition for the arising of the mind and mental factors, it is called 'object-condition' (alambana-pratyaya). According to this theory, it is named 'object-condition' because the object is taken as the condition. Except for the mind and mental factors, other conditioned phenomena do not arise clinging to an object, so they have no object. Now, the meaning of the three kinds of 'samadhi' (concentration) should be briefly explained: 'Place-determination' (sthana-niyama) means that the eye-consciousness, etc., only cognize the 'rupa-ayatana' (sense-sphere of form) and not other spheres. 'Object-determination' (vastu-niyama) means cognizing distinctions such as blue, yellow, or differences such as this mountain, this tree. 'Moment-determination' (ksana-niyama) means that in each moment of cognizing this object, the mind and mental factors are determined. The general meaning of the five consciousnesses is the same. 'Consciousness-sphere-determination' (vijnana-ayatana-niyama) means cognizing the twelve spheres (dvadasa-ayatana), with each consciousness being different, not just in relation to the 'dharma-ayatana' (sense-sphere of mental objects). 'Object-determination' (vastu-niyama) means that within each sphere, there are differences depending on the different objects. 'Moment-determination' (ksana-niyama) means that in each object, the thoughts regarding the object are different in each moment. 'Basis-determination' (asraya-niyama) means that each of the five consciousnesses relies on its own 'indriya' (sense-faculty), which is called 'place-determination'. 'Object-determination' (vastu-niyama) means that within one faculty, there are many categories, such as the four elements (catur-dhatu), male, female, non-male/non-female, and the faculties of the six realms, acquired through practice, or born with, each being different. 'Moment-determination' (ksana-niyama) means that the faculty relying on this object is different in each moment. 'Mind-faculty-place-determination' (manas-indriya-sthana-niyama) means relying only on the 'manas-indriya' (mind-faculty) and not on other faculties. 'Object-determination' (vastu-niyama) means that the 'laukikagra-dharma' (highest mundane dharma) only takes 'duhkha-dharmajnanaksanti' (acceptance of the knowledge of suffering) as its basis. 'Vajropamasamadhi' (diamond-like samadhi) only takes 'ksaya-jnana' (knowledge of exhaustion) as its basis. 'Moment-determination' (ksana-niyama) means multiple moments. The 'laukikagra-dharma' does not have moment-determination before the stage of acceptance, but it has moment-determination at the stage of 'agrya-ksanti' (highest acceptance). Treatise: As such, the condition of 'dominant condition' (adhipati-pratyaya) has been explained. This presents the nature of the 'dominant condition'. According to this theory, it is the 'dominant condition'. Therefore, it can be known that the condition is the cause. If it is only similar, how can it be said to be 'identical'? Treatise: The nature of this condition is broad, up to the 'dominant condition'. This explains the name. The 'Nyaya-anushara-shastra' (Treatise Following the Principles) says: The nature of the 'dominant condition' is the 'efficient cause' (karana-hetu), because the meaning of the 'efficient cause' is very subtle, without limits, and can encompass all dharmas. If something does not obstruct the arising of something else, it is the 'efficient cause', which is the meaning of the 'dominant condition'. According to this text, there is no difference between cause and condition. Make such analogies regarding the meaning of the three conditions.
最多。所作寔繁故名增上。豈不增上攝法普周。寧復對三言 此增上非對三體立增上名。何者對三義用而立。諸緣義用互不相通。諸緣體性更互相雜。如增上緣。義類無量所作繁廣。餘三不然。故此獨標增上緣稱 準上論文。能作因用即增上緣。又因緣唯據作用而立。體雖相雜其用各別。即六因用束作四緣。緣名雖疏非別因用。又說因．緣相攝不據體論。說用相攝亦非據似。皆言相即。及說是故不障礙生名能作因。即說不障為增上緣 有人兩釋。或云因緣相攝就體性證。但據攝盡。即休 全無憑據 及云。若用相攝據似而說 此亦非理。一種無障因．緣何別。而說不同據似相攝。
論。既一切法至何獨體廣。問也。
論。俱有諸法至為增上緣故。答也。如文可解。
論。頗有法於法全非四緣不。此問答分別也。
論。有謂至於無為。答也 自性于自性者。此無六因．四緣用也 於他性亦有謂有為于無為無為于無為者。四緣與生法為緣。無為無生。所以有為望無為。無為望無為。非四緣也 論。如是諸緣至而興作用。第二四緣果至何位而能興也。不明取果。準正理論意與果但是功能。此名作用者。即說功能為作用也。
論曰至有作用故。釋因緣中二因也。俱有．相應于現在法能與果故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 最多。因為所起的作用實在繁多，所以叫做增上緣（Adhipati-paccaya，四緣之一，指通過增強力量來幫助事物產生的條件）。難道增上緣所包含的法不是普遍周全的嗎？為什麼還要針對三種緣來說呢？ 這個增上緣不是針對三種緣的體性而建立增上緣這個名稱的。因為其他三種緣是根據其作用和意義而建立的。各種緣的意義和作用互不相通，各種緣的體性和性質更是互相混雜。而增上緣，其意義和種類數不勝數，所起的作用繁多而廣泛，其餘三種緣不是這樣。所以唯獨增上緣被稱為增上緣。 根據上面的論文，能夠產生因果作用的就是增上緣。而且因緣（Hetu-paccaya，六因之一，指產生結果的根本原因）只是根據其作用而建立的，雖然體性上可能互相混雜，但其作用各自不同。六因的作用可以歸納為四緣。緣的名稱雖然疏遠，但並非是不同的因果作用。又說因和緣互相包含，不是根據體性來討論的，說作用互相包含也不是根據相似性來說的，都是說相互即是。以及說因此不障礙生起，名為能作因（Karana-hetu，六因之一，指能夠產生結果的原因），就是說不障礙為增上緣。 有人對此有兩種解釋。或者說因緣互相包含是就體性來證明的，只是根據包含窮盡，就停止了。完全沒有憑據。 以及說，如果作用互相包含是根據相似性來說的，這也是不合理的。一種沒有障礙的因和緣有什麼區別呢？卻說不同是根據相似性互相包含。
論：既然一切法都……為什麼唯獨體性廣大？這是提問。
論：俱有諸法……作為增上緣的緣故。這是回答。如文義可以理解。
論：有沒有法對於法完全不是四緣的呢？這是問答分別。
論：有，說至於無為法（Asamskrta-dharma，指不生不滅、無為造作的法）。這是回答。自性對於自性，這裡沒有六因和四緣的作用。對於他性，也有說有為法（Samskrta-dharma，指有生有滅、有為造作的法）對於無為法，無為法對於無為法。四緣與生法為緣，無為法沒有生起，所以有為法看待無為法，無為法看待無為法，不是四緣。 論：如此諸緣……而興起作用。第二，四緣的果在什麼位置才能興起作用呢？沒有明確說明取得果實。根據正理論的意義，與果實相關的只是功能。這裡說的作用，就是說功能就是作用。
論曰：……有作用的緣故。解釋因緣中的兩個因。俱有因（Sahabhu-hetu，六因之一，指互相伴隨、共同產生結果的原因）和相應因（Samprayuktaka-hetu，六因之一，指在心理活動中，與心識相互配合、共同產生結果的原因）對於現在的法能夠給予果實。
【English Translation】 English version The most. Because what is done is truly vast, therefore it is called Adhipati-paccaya (the condition of dominance, one of the four conditions, referring to the condition that helps things arise by enhancing power). Doesn't the Dharma contained in Adhipati-paccaya universally encompass everything? Why then speak of it in relation to the three conditions? This Adhipati-paccaya is not established as the name of Adhipati-paccaya in relation to the nature of the three conditions. Because the other three conditions are established according to their function and meaning. The meanings and functions of the various conditions do not communicate with each other, and the nature and characteristics of the various conditions are even more mixed together. But Adhipati-paccaya, its meanings and types are countless, and what it does is vast and extensive, which is not the case with the other three conditions. Therefore, only Adhipati-paccaya is uniquely called Adhipati-paccaya. According to the above treatise, that which can produce causal effects is Adhipati-paccaya. Moreover, Hetu-paccaya (the root cause, one of the six causes, referring to the fundamental cause of producing a result) is established only according to its function. Although they may be mixed in nature, their functions are different. The functions of the six causes can be summarized as the four conditions. Although the name of 'condition' is distant, it is not a different causal function. It is also said that cause and condition contain each other, not based on the discussion of nature, and saying that functions contain each other is not based on similarity, but all say that they are mutually identical. And it is said that therefore not obstructing arising is called Karana-hetu (the efficient cause, one of the six causes, referring to the cause that can produce a result), which means that not obstructing is Adhipati-paccaya. Some people have two explanations for this. Or they say that the mutual inclusion of cause and condition is to prove the nature, but it is based on exhaustive inclusion, and then it stops. There is no basis at all. And saying that if functions contain each other, it is said according to similarity, this is also unreasonable. What is the difference between a kind of unobstructed cause and condition? But it is said that the difference is based on similar mutual inclusion.
Treatise: Since all dharmas are... why is only the nature vast? This is a question.
Treatise: Co-existent dharmas... as the reason for Adhipati-paccaya. This is the answer. The meaning can be understood as in the text.
Treatise: Is there any dharma that is not any of the four conditions for a dharma? This is a question and answer distinction.
Treatise: Yes, saying as for the Unconditioned (Asamskrta-dharma, referring to dharmas that are not born or destroyed, and are unconditioned). This is the answer. Self-nature for self-nature, there is no function of the six causes and four conditions here. For other-nature, it is also said that the Conditioned (Samskrta-dharma, referring to dharmas that are born and destroyed, and are conditioned) for the Unconditioned, the Unconditioned for the Unconditioned. The four conditions are conditions for arising dharmas, the Unconditioned does not arise, so the Conditioned views the Unconditioned, the Unconditioned views the Unconditioned, not the four conditions. Treatise: Thus, these conditions... and give rise to function. Secondly, in what position can the fruit of the four conditions give rise to function? It is not clearly stated to obtain the fruit. According to the meaning of the Nyaya Theory, what is related to the fruit is only function. What is said here as 'function' means that function is function.
Treatise says: ...because there is function. Explaining the two causes in Hetu-paccaya. Sahabhu-hetu (the co-existent cause, one of the six causes, referring to the cause that accompanies each other and produces results together) and Samprayuktaka-hetu (the associated cause, one of the six causes, referring to the cause that cooperates with consciousness in psychological activities and produces results together) can give fruit to the present dharma.
現在之法名為滅時。言令俱生法有作用故。即是令俱生果能取與果。雖說諸因是與果時。然此二因義得兼二。尋其理趣住．滅同時。住時取果名現在故。若住別時滅時非取果。應非是現在。
論。所言三因至作用方興。釋因緣中三因也。此三種因于所生果至生相時。即能興故。
論。已說因緣至方取境故。此釋等無間緣。及所緣緣作用時也。前二因於滅時。三因於生時 今等無間緣于生時。所緣緣于滅時。故言相違 生時滅時者。是果至生時．滅時也 言。作用者。是與果也。
論。唯增上緣至一切無遮。釋增上緣也 增上緣。于果法滅時．生時皆與作用。故言一切無遮。由此頌中略而不說 或以于中有無果故所以不說。
論。已說諸緣至由幾緣生。此下第三一頌辨法生具緣多少也。
論曰至餘一切法。明心．心所四緣生也 問所緣緣等。果至滅時方興作用。如何說有由四緣生 答婆沙一百三十六說心．心所法四緣生 此言生者。起．未已滅總名生故 正理論云。豈不一緣．二因作用非於彼法生時即有。如何心等四緣故生。如何因緣具五因性。雖法滅位作用方成。而法生時非無功力。離此彼法必不生故。以心．心所必杖所緣。及托二因方得生故。若法與彼法。為所緣或因無暫時非。本
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在的法被稱為『滅時』（Nirodha-samaya，指事物壞滅的時刻）。意思是說，俱生法（Sahabhu-dharma，指同時產生的法）具有作用，因此能夠使俱生果（Sahabhu-phala，指同時產生的果）能夠接受和給予果報。雖然說諸因是在給予果報的時候起作用，但這兩個因的意義可以兼顧兩種情況。探究其道理，住時（Sthiti-samaya，指事物存在的時刻）和滅時是同時發生的。在住時接受果報，這被稱為『現在』。如果住時和滅時是不同的時刻，那麼滅時就不能接受果報，這就不應該被稱為『現在』。
論：所說的『三因至作用方興』，解釋的是因緣（Hetu-pratyaya）中的三種因。這三種因在所生之果達到生相（Utpada-laksana，指生起的相狀）時，就能發揮作用。
論：已經說了『因緣至方取境故』，這裡解釋的是等無間緣（Samanantara-pratyaya）和所緣緣（Alambana-pratyaya）的作用時機。前兩種因在滅時起作用，三種因在生時起作用，而現在等無間緣在生時起作用，所緣緣在滅時起作用，所以說它們是相違背的。『生時』和『滅時』指的是果達到生起和壞滅的時刻。『作用』指的是給予果報。
論：唯有增上緣（Adhipati-pratyaya）『至一切無遮』，這是在解釋增上緣。增上緣在果法壞滅和生起的時候都能發揮作用，所以說『一切無遮』。因此，頌文中省略了這一點，或者是因為其中有無果的緣故，所以沒有說。
論：已經說了諸緣『至由幾緣生』，下面第三個頌文辨別法生起所需要的緣有多少。
論曰至餘一切法，說明心（Citta，指意識）和心所（Caitasika，指心理活動）是由四緣所生的。問：所緣緣等果在壞滅時才發揮作用，如何說它們是由四緣所生的呢？答：婆沙（Vibhasa，指《大毗婆沙論》）第一百三十六說心和心所法是由四緣所生的。這裡說的『生』，是指起、未已滅的總稱，都叫做『生』。正理論說：難道不是一緣、二因的作用不是在那個法生起的時候就有的嗎？如何說心等是由四緣所生的呢？如何說因緣具有五因性呢？雖然法在壞滅的階段作用才完成，但是法在生起的時候並非沒有功用，如果離開了這些，那個法必定不能生起。因為心和心所必定依賴所緣，並且依託二因才能生起。如果一個法與另一個法，作為所緣或者作為因，沒有暫時的分離，這就是根本。
【English Translation】 English version: The present dharma is called 'Nirodha-samaya' (the moment of cessation). It means that co-existent dharmas (Sahabhu-dharmas, referring to dharmas that arise simultaneously) have a function, so that co-existent results (Sahabhu-phala, referring to results that arise simultaneously) can receive and give retribution. Although it is said that the causes function when giving retribution, the meaning of these two causes can encompass both situations. Investigating its principle, the moment of abiding (Sthiti-samaya, referring to the moment of existence) and the moment of cessation occur simultaneously. Receiving retribution at the moment of abiding is called 'present'. If the moment of abiding and the moment of cessation are different moments, then the moment of cessation cannot receive retribution, and it should not be called 'present'.
Treatise: The statement 'the three causes until the function arises' explains the three causes in Hetu-pratyaya (the cause condition). These three causes can function when the result to be produced reaches the Utpada-laksana (the characteristic of arising).
Treatise: It has been said 'the cause condition until the object is taken', which explains the functioning time of Samanantara-pratyaya (the immediately preceding condition) and Alambana-pratyaya (the object condition). The first two causes function at the time of cessation, the three causes function at the time of arising, but now the Samanantara-pratyaya functions at the time of arising, and the Alambana-pratyaya functions at the time of cessation, so it is said that they are contradictory. 'Time of arising' and 'time of cessation' refer to the moment when the result reaches arising and cessation. 'Function' refers to giving retribution.
Treatise: Only Adhipati-pratyaya (the dominant condition) 'until everything is unobstructed' explains the Adhipati-pratyaya. The Adhipati-pratyaya can function at the time of cessation and arising of the result dharma, so it is said 'everything is unobstructed'. Therefore, this point is omitted in the verse, or it is not mentioned because there is a cause of having or not having a result in it.
Treatise: It has been said that the conditions 'until how many conditions arise', and the third verse below distinguishes how many conditions are needed for the arising of dharmas.
Treatise says to all other dharmas, explaining that Citta (mind, referring to consciousness) and Caitasika (mental activities) are produced by four conditions. Question: The result of Alambana-pratyaya and other conditions only function at the time of cessation, how can it be said that they are produced by four conditions? Answer: Vibhasa (referring to the Maha-Vibhasa-Sastra) one hundred and thirty-six says that Citta and Caitasika dharmas are produced by four conditions. The 'arising' mentioned here refers to the general term for arising, not yet ceasing, and already ceasing, all called 'arising'. The Zhengli Theory says: Isn't it true that the function of one condition and two causes does not exist at the time when that dharma arises? How can it be said that the mind and so on are produced by four conditions? How can it be said that the cause condition has five causal natures? Although the function is completed at the stage of cessation of the dharma, the dharma is not without function at the time of arising, and that dharma will definitely not arise if it is separated from these. Because the mind and mental activities must rely on the object and rely on the two causes to arise. If a dharma and another dharma, as an object or as a cause, do not have temporary separation, this is fundamental.
論說故。
論。滅盡無想至謂如前說。明此二定三緣生也 正理論云。豈不無想亦三緣生。是心．心所等無間故。亦應說為心等無間。但非心等加行引生。故於此中廢而不說。
論。如是二定至非等無間緣。此明二定從心等無間生。礙心起故。不與心為等無間緣 正理論云。二定何緣是心等無間。而不說是心等無間緣。由心等力所引生故。如心．心所生必系屬前滅心故。非如色法可與余心俱時轉故。非如得等可有雜亂俱現前故。非如生等是余伴故。然心方便加行引生故。可說為心等無間。與心等起定相違害故。非心等等無間緣。
論。余不相應至二緣所生。此明余色．不相應法。
論。一切世間至一因所起。此結正非邪也。一切世間諸法。皆從如上所說六因．四緣所起 非如涂灰外道執自在天是作者等能生諸法 非如勝論外道執我是實能為作者．生者 非如數論執自性亦名勝性為諸法因 非如是等一因所生。
論。此有何因。問也。此有何因知諸法從前諸因緣生。非自在等一因所起 下答有二因知諸法非一因生等。
論。若一切成至一因生。論主答也。若一切法生許由六因．四緣生義若成。豈不便舍一切世間由自在等一因生。
論。又諸世間至一因所起。第二因也。所以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論述原因。
論：滅盡定（ Nirodha-samāpatti ）和無想定（ Asañña-samāpatti ）的產生原因如前所述。說明這兩種禪定由三種緣（ hetu ）所生。正理論中說：『難道無想定不是也由三種緣所生嗎？因為它是心、心所（citta-caitta）等的無間緣（samanantara-paccaya）所生。也應該說它是心等的無間緣。』但是，它不是由心等（citta）的加行（adhipati-paccaya）所引發，因此在這裡省略而不說。
論：如此，這兩種禪定是從心等的無間緣所生，因為它們會妨礙心的生起，所以不與心作為等無間緣。正理論中說：『這兩種禪定為何是心等的無間緣，而不說是心等的無間緣呢？』因為它們是由心等的力量所引發。如同心、心所的生起必定系屬於前滅的心。不像色法（rūpa）可以與其餘的心同時運轉。不像得等（prāpti）可以有雜亂地同時現前。不像生等（jāti）是其餘法的伴侶。然而，它們是由心的方便加行所引發，所以可以說它們是心等的無間緣。因為它們與心等同時生起是相互違害的，所以不是心等的等無間緣。
論：其餘不相應行法（ citta-vippayutta-saṃskāra-dharma ）等是由兩種緣所生。說明其餘的色法、不相應行法。
論：一切世間的諸法，都是從如上所說的六因、四緣所生。這是爲了端正知見，破斥邪說。一切世間的諸法，都是從如上所說的六因、四緣所生。不像涂灰外道（Pāśupata）所執著的自在天（Īśvara）是作者等，能夠生出諸法。不像勝論外道（Vaiśeṣika）所執著的『我』（Ātman）是真實能夠作為作者、生者。不像數論外道（Sāṃkhya）所執著的自性（Prakṛti），也名為勝性（Pradhāna），是諸法的因。不像這些外道所說是由單一的因所生。
論：這是什麼原因呢？這是提問。這是什麼原因知道諸法是從前面所說的諸因緣所生，而不是由自在天等單一的因所生呢？下面回答說，有兩種原因知道諸法不是由單一的因所生等。
論：如果一切法生是由六因、四緣所生的道理成立，那麼豈不是就捨棄了一切世間由自在天等單一的因所生的說法？這是論主的回答。
論：又，諸世間現見有種種差別，所以不是由單一的因所生。這是第二個原因。
【English Translation】 English version Discussion of the Reason.
Treatise: The cessation attainment (Nirodha-samāpatti) and the non-perception attainment (Asañña-samāpatti) arise as previously described. This clarifies that these two concentrations arise from three conditions (hetu). The Treatise on the Correct Principle states: 'Isn't the non-perception attainment also produced by three conditions? Because it is the immediately preceding condition (samanantara-paccaya) of mind, mental factors (citta-caitta), etc. It should also be said to be the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc.' However, it is not induced by the effort (adhipati-paccaya) of mind, etc., therefore it is omitted and not discussed here.
Treatise: Thus, these two concentrations arise from the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc., because they hinder the arising of mind, therefore they do not serve as the immediately preceding condition for mind. The Treatise on the Correct Principle states: 'Why are these two concentrations the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc., and not said to be the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc.?' Because they are induced by the power of mind, etc. Just as the arising of mind and mental factors is necessarily connected to the previously ceased mind. Unlike form (rūpa), which can operate simultaneously with other minds. Unlike attainment (prāpti), etc., which can be mixed and simultaneously present. Unlike birth (jāti), etc., which are companions of other dharmas. However, they are induced by the skillful effort of mind, therefore it can be said that they are the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc. Because they are mutually contradictory to the simultaneous arising of mind, etc., they are not the immediately preceding condition of mind, etc.
Treatise: The remaining non-associated formations (citta-vippayutta-saṃskāra-dharma), etc., are produced by two conditions. This clarifies the remaining form, non-associated formations.
Treatise: All worldly dharmas arise from the six causes and four conditions mentioned above. This is to correct views and refute wrong views. All worldly dharmas arise from the six causes and four conditions mentioned above. Unlike the Pāśupata ascetics who believe that Īśvara is the creator, etc., who can produce all dharmas. Unlike the Vaiśeṣika school who believe that the 'Self' (Ātman) is truly capable of being the creator and producer. Unlike the Sāṃkhya school who believe that Prakṛti, also called Pradhāna, is the cause of all dharmas. Unlike these schools who say that they are produced by a single cause.
Treatise: What is the reason for this? This is a question. What is the reason for knowing that dharmas arise from the aforementioned causes and conditions, and not from a single cause such as Īśvara? The following answer states that there are two reasons for knowing that dharmas are not produced by a single cause, etc.
Treatise: If the principle that all dharmas arise from six causes and four conditions is established, then wouldn't the view that all worldly dharmas arise from a single cause such as Īśvara be abandoned? This is the treatise master's answer.
Treatise: Furthermore, the world is seen to have various differences, therefore it is not produced by a single cause. This is the second reason.
知諸法非一因生也 若許諸法一因而生。因既是一更無異因。其所生果應一時起非前後次第等 言次第等者。更等後過也。
論。若執自在至差別生故。此是非一因難。
論。或差別欲至無差別故。欲頓起難也。
論。若欲差別至一法為因。即非一因違宗難也。
論。或所待因至應無邊際。致無窮難也。
論。若更不待至非次第生。欲生非次第難。
論。若許諸因至因緣正理。違邪順正難也。
論。若言自在至無差別故。欲位無別難也。
論。又彼自在至得何義利。生法無益難也。
論。若為發喜至應非自在。發喜非自在難也。
論。于喜既爾至不可得故。于余例喜難也。
論。或若自在至此自在為。生苦自在無用難也。既為發喜生諸世間地獄等趣。苦惱有情如何生喜。
論。依彼頌言至故名魯達羅。已下引外道頌證為善說。自在苦惱有情發生自喜 由險利能燒者。彼外道說。有三阿素洛持三國土飛行空中。于自在天下過。其天不耐火箭射之。燒三國土一時俱盡。火箭險利能燒三國 可畏恒逼害者。以能貫人髑髏系其頭頂又以龍縛臂。殺象取皮。此是可畏恒逼害也 樂食血肉髓者。是所食也 故名魯達羅者。自在天千名中一名也。此名暴
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 要知道，一切諸法不是由單一原因產生的。如果允許諸法由單一原因產生，既然原因只有一個，沒有其他不同的原因，那麼所產生的果報應該同時產生，而不是有先後次第等等。這裡說的『次第等等』，是指更晚產生的過失。
論：如果執著于自在天（Īśvara，印度教中的最高神）導致了差別產生，這就是非單一原因的詰難。
論：或者說，從差別之慾（指自在天的意願）到沒有差別，這就會產生意願頓然生起的詰難。
論：如果說意願有差別，最終卻以一個法為原因，這就違反了非單一原因的宗義。
論：或者說，如果所依賴的原因需要其他原因，那麼就會導致需要的原因沒有邊際，造成無窮的詰難。
論：如果不再依賴其他原因，那麼就不會有次第產生，這就產生了意願非次第產生的詰難。
論：如果允許諸因緣和合產生果報，這就違背了邪見，順應了正理，是違背邪見、順應正理的詰難。
論：如果說自在天沒有差別，那麼意願的位置就沒有差別，這是意願位置沒有差別的詰難。
論：而且，那個自在天產生諸法，又能得到什麼利益呢？這是產生諸法沒有益處的詰難。
論：如果說是爲了引發喜悅，那麼就應該不是自在的，這是引發喜悅不是自在的詰難。
論：對於喜悅既然如此，對於其餘的（情感）也可以類比喜悅，因為（喜悅的自發性）是不可得的。
論：或者，如果自在天是自在的，那麼這個自在天是爲了什麼而自在的呢？產生痛苦的自在天是沒有用的詰難。既然爲了引發喜悅而產生諸世間，那麼地獄等趣的苦惱有情，又如何能產生喜悅呢？
論：依據他們的頌詞所說，所以叫做魯達羅（Rudra，濕婆神的別名）。下面引用外道的頌詞來證明這是善說：自在天使苦惱的有情產生自己的喜悅。『由於險利能夠焚燒者』，那些外道說，有三個阿素洛（Asura，惡神）拿著三個國土在空中飛行，經過自在天的天下，自在天不能忍受，用火箭射擊他們，燒燬了三個國土，一時全部燒盡。火箭險利，能夠焚燒三個國土。『可畏恒常逼害者』，用能夠貫穿人頭骨的（東西）繫在頭頂，又用龍纏繞手臂，殺死大象剝取象皮，這就是可畏恒常逼害。『樂於食用血肉髓者』，這是（自在天）所食用的東西。『所以叫做魯達羅』，是自在天的一千個名字中的一個名字。這個名字是暴惡的意思。
【English Translation】 English version It should be known that all dharmas (phenomena, teachings) are not produced from a single cause. If it is allowed that dharmas are produced from a single cause, since the cause is only one and there are no other different causes, the resulting effects should arise simultaneously, not in a sequential order, etc. The 'etc.' here refers to faults that arise later.
Argument: If one clings to the idea that Īśvara (the supreme god in Hinduism) causes differentiations to arise, this is a challenge to the idea of a single cause.
Argument: Or, from the desire for differentiation (referring to Īśvara's will) to no differentiation, this would create a challenge of the sudden arising of desire.
Argument: If it is said that desire has differentiations, but ultimately takes a single dharma as its cause, this violates the tenet of a non-single cause.
Argument: Or, if the cause that is relied upon requires other causes, then it would lead to the causes that are needed being without limit, creating a challenge of infinite regress.
Argument: If one no longer relies on other causes, then there would be no sequential arising, which creates a challenge of desire arising non-sequentially.
Argument: If it is allowed that all causes and conditions come together to produce effects, this contradicts wrong views and accords with right reason, which is a challenge of contradicting wrong views and according with right reason.
Argument: If it is said that Īśvara has no differentiations, then the position of desire has no differentiations, which is a challenge of the position of desire having no differentiations.
Argument: Moreover, what benefit does that Īśvara gain from producing dharmas? This is a challenge of producing dharmas having no benefit.
Argument: If it is said that it is to generate joy, then it should not be independent, which is a challenge of generating joy not being independent.
Argument: Since it is like this for joy, it can be analogized to the remaining (emotions) like joy, because (the spontaneity of joy) is unattainable.
Argument: Or, if Īśvara is independent, then what is this Īśvara independent for? An Īśvara who produces suffering is a useless challenge. Since he produces all the worlds to generate joy, how can suffering sentient beings in realms like hell generate joy?
Argument: According to their verse, therefore it is called Rudra (another name for Shiva). Below, a verse from non-Buddhists is quoted to prove that this is well said: Īśvara causes suffering sentient beings to generate their own joy. 'Because the dangerous and sharp one is able to burn,' those non-Buddhists say, there were three Asuras (evil gods) holding three countries flying in the sky, passing through Īśvara's world, Īśvara could not bear it and shot them with fire arrows, burning the three countries, all burned at once. The fire arrows are dangerous and sharp, able to burn three countries. 'The fearful one constantly harms,' using (something) that can pierce human skulls to tie on top of the head, and wrapping arms with dragons, killing elephants and peeling off their skin, this is the fearful one constantly harming. 'The one who enjoys eating blood, flesh, and marrow,' this is what (Īśvara) eats. 'Therefore it is called Rudra,' is one of the thousand names of Īśvara. This name means violent.
惡。
論。又若信受至人功等事。此世間相違也。
論。若言自在至不見別用故。余因世間見自在之力無人見也。但是明助自在之言。
論。或彼自在至應非自在。若待余因能生諸法即非自在。
論。若執初起至猶如自在。又破轉計也。
論。我勝性等至應廣徴遣。類破余也。
論。故無有法至自在等因。總結成也。
論。且止破邪至互為因緣。結前起后。
論。前言余法。已下第四一行頌明大種造色為因多少也。
論曰至同類因義。釋第一句。明四大於異類大具其二因 若自類大唯有一因。謂同類因。水望於水非俱有因故。
論。大於所造至因之差別。此明大種與造色為因也。謂有五因。謂生．依．立．持．養。此即于能作因中分出五因。若合說唯能作因。若別說即有其五。
論。從彼起故說為生因 正理論云。為生因者。從彼起故。如母生子。
論。生已隨逐至說為依因。正理意同。
論。能任持故至說為立因 正理論云。言立因者。能任持故。如地持物。
論。不斷因故說為持因 正理論云。為持因者。由彼力持令不斷故。如食持命。
論。增長因故說為養因 正理論云。言養因者。能長彼故。猶如樹根水所沃
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：又如果信受至人（具有最高智慧的人）的功德等事，這與世間的常理相違背。 論：如果說自在天（印度教中的主神）能夠爲所欲爲，但卻看不到他有任何特別的用處，那麼世間也沒有人見過自在天的力量。這只是爲了說明輔助自在天的言論。 論：或者說，如果自在天需要依靠其他因素才能產生諸法，那麼他就不是自在的。 論：如果執著於事物最初的產生，那就如同自在天一樣（荒謬）。這是爲了駁斥另一種錯誤的觀點。 論：關於我（神我）、勝性（自性）等概念，應該廣泛地進行辯駁和駁斥，以此類推，駁斥其他的錯誤觀點。 論：因此，沒有任何一種法是自在天等原因所能產生的。這是總結性的論斷。 論：暫且停止對邪說的駁斥，因為一切事物都是互為因緣的。這是承上啟下。 論：前面所說的『余法』，以下第四行頌文說明四大種（地、水、火、風）作為造色（物質現象）的因，其數量多少。 論曰：同類因的意義。解釋第一句。說明四大種作為異類大種，具備其中的兩種因；如果作為自類大種，則只有一種因，即同類因。水對於水來說，不是俱有因。 論：大於所造，因的差別。這裡說明大種與造色之間的因果關係。有五種因，即生因、依因、立因、持因、養因。這五種因是從能作因中劃分出來的。如果合起來說，只有能作因；如果分開來說，則有這五種因。 論：從彼而起，所以稱為生因。《正理論》說：『作為生因，是因為從它而產生，如同母親生孩子。』 論：產生之後，隨之相伴，所以稱為依因。《正理論》的含義相同。 論：能夠任持，所以稱為立因。《正理論》說：『所謂立因，是能夠任持的，如同大地承載萬物。』 論：不斷絕的因，所以稱為持因。《正理論》說：『作為持因，是因為憑藉它的力量維持，使之不斷絕，如同食物維持生命。』 論：增長的因，所以稱為養因。《正理論》說：『所謂養因，是能夠使之增長的，猶如樹根被水澆灌。』
【English Translation】 English version Commentary: Furthermore, if one believes in the merits and deeds of a perfect being (one with supreme wisdom), it contradicts worldly understanding. Commentary: If it is said that Ishvara (a principal deity in Hinduism) is all-powerful, yet no particular use of this power is seen, then no one in the world has seen the power of Ishvara. This merely clarifies statements that assist Ishvara. Commentary: Or, if Ishvara depends on other causes to generate dharmas (phenomena), then he is not independent. Commentary: If one clings to the initial arising of things, it is as absurd as believing in Ishvara. This refutes another erroneous view. Commentary: Concepts such as Atman (the self) and Prakriti (primordial substance) should be extensively debated and refuted, and other erroneous views should be refuted similarly. Commentary: Therefore, no dharma arises from causes such as Ishvara. This is a concluding statement. Commentary: Let us pause the refutation of wrong views, as all things are mutually interdependent. This connects the preceding and introduces the following. Commentary: The 'other dharmas' mentioned earlier, the following four-line verse explains how the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) serve as causes for produced matter (rupa), and their quantity. Commentary: The meaning of homogeneous cause. Explains the first sentence. It clarifies that the four great elements, as heterogeneous great elements, possess two of these causes; if they are homogeneous great elements, they only have one cause, namely the homogeneous cause. Water in relation to water is not a coexistent cause. Commentary: The difference between the great elements and what they produce, the difference in causes. This explains the causal relationship between the great elements and produced matter. There are five causes: the cause of production, the cause of dependence, the cause of establishment, the cause of maintenance, and the cause of nourishment. These five causes are distinguished from the efficient cause. If spoken of collectively, there is only the efficient cause; if spoken of separately, there are these five causes. Commentary: Because it arises from it, it is called the cause of production. The Abhidharmakosha says: 'As the cause of production, because it arises from it, like a mother giving birth to a child.' Commentary: Having arisen, it accompanies it, so it is called the cause of dependence. The meaning in the Abhidharmakosha is the same. Commentary: Because it can sustain, it is called the cause of establishment. The Abhidharmakosha says: 'The cause of establishment is that which can sustain, like the earth supporting objects.' Commentary: Because it is an uninterrupted cause, it is called the cause of maintenance. The Abhidharmakosha says: 'As the cause of maintenance, it is because its power sustains it, preventing it from ceasing, like food sustaining life.' Commentary: Because it is the cause of growth, it is called the cause of nourishment. The Abhidharmakosha says: 'The cause of nourishment is that which can make it grow, like the roots of a tree being watered.'
潤 欲知五因力用不同。應觀五喻。生因如母生子。依因如弟子依師。立因如地持物。持因如食持命。養因如水潤樹根。
論。如是即顯至住長因性。總結也 母能起子。師能變弟子。地持萬物。食令命得住。水令樹得長。即是四大共為五因正理論云。或生因者。一切大種生所造色。非離諸大種有造色生故。造色生已同類相續不斷位中。火為依因能令乾燥不爛壞故。水為立因能為侵潤令不散故。地為持因能任持彼令不墜故。風為養因能引發彼令增長故。如是大種雖與所造無俱有等五種因義。而有生等五種別因。故與經．論無相違失。
論。諸所造色至眼根等果。明造色相望為因多少也。
論。所造于大至大種果故。明所造與大種為因多少。
論。前已總說至云何十二。已下重明等無間緣。于中有三。初明廣心。二明三種作意。三明得心多少。此第一明廣心 就中有二。一明十二心出入。后明二十心出入。此明十二心出入也 初一頌明總成十二。后四頌明相出入也。
論曰至合成十二。分三界及無漏心為十二也。
論。此十二心互相生者。已下四一頌明十二心相出入也 三界心．心所法相生之例略有五種。一自界。二異界。三續生。四防定。五無漏 自界相生者。自界加行善心。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 潤：如果想知道五因（Pañca Hetu）的力量和作用的不同，應該觀察五個比喻。生因（Janaka Hetu）就像母親生孩子。依因（Nissaya Hetu）就像弟子依靠老師。立因（Upastambhika Hetu）就像大地承載萬物。持因（Upadhāraka Hetu）就像食物維持生命。養因（Vyūhaka Hetu）就像水滋潤樹根。
論：這樣就顯現了至住長的因性，這是總結。母親能夠產生孩子，老師能夠改變弟子，大地承載萬物，食物使生命得以存續，水使樹木得以生長。這就是四大（Mahābhūta）共同作為五因（Pañca Hetu）。正理論（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）說：『或者說生因（Janaka Hetu），是一切大種（Mahābhūta）產生所造色（Upādā rūpa）。因為離開了諸大種（Mahābhūta），就沒有所造色（Upādā rūpa）的產生。所造色（Upādā rūpa）產生后，在同類相續不斷的狀態中，火作為依因（Nissaya Hetu），能夠使其乾燥而不腐爛。水作為立因（Upastambhika Hetu），能夠使其濕潤而不散開。地作為持因（Upadhāraka Hetu），能夠任持它而不墜落。風作為養因（Vyūhaka Hetu），能夠引發它而使之增長。』 這樣，大種（Mahābhūta）雖然與所造（Upādā）沒有俱有等五種因的意義，但有生等五種不同的因，所以與經（Sūtra）、論（Śāstra）沒有相違背的過失。
論：諸所造色（Upādā rūpa）乃至眼根（cakṣurindriya）等果，說明所造色（Upādā rūpa）相互之間作為因的多少。
論：所造（Upādā）對於大（Mahā）乃至大種（Mahābhūta）果故，說明所造（Upādā）與大種（Mahābhūta）作為因的多少。
論：前面已經總說了，乃至云何十二（Dvādaśa），以下重新說明等無間緣（Samanantarapratyaya）。其中有三點：第一說明廣心，第二說明三種作意（Manasikara），第三說明得心多少。這是第一點說明廣心。其中有兩點：第一說明十二心出入，後面說明二十心出入。這是說明十二心出入。最初一頌說明總共成就十二，後面四頌說明相互出入。
論曰：乃至合成十二（Dvādaśa），是把三界（Tridhātu）及無漏心（Anāsrava-citta）分為十二。
論：此十二心互相生者，以下四一頌說明十二心相互出入。三界（Tridhātu）心、心所法（Caitasika dharma）相生的例子略有五種：一、自界（Svabhūmi）；二、異界（Parabhūmi）；三、續生（Pratisaṃdhi）；四、防定（Samāpatti）；五、無漏（Anāsrava）。自界（Svabhūmi）相生者，是自界（Svabhūmi）加行善心（Prayoga-kuśala-citta）。
【English Translation】 English version: Moistening: If you want to know the different powers and functions of the five causes (Pañca Hetu), you should observe the five metaphors. The generating cause (Janaka Hetu) is like a mother giving birth to a child. The dependence cause (Nissaya Hetu) is like a disciple relying on a teacher. The supporting cause (Upastambhika Hetu) is like the earth supporting all things. The maintaining cause (Upadhāraka Hetu) is like food sustaining life. The nourishing cause (Vyūhaka Hetu) is like water nourishing the roots of a tree.
Treatise: Thus, the nature of the cause of 'reaching, abiding, and growing' is revealed, which is a summary. A mother can produce a child, a teacher can transform a disciple, the earth supports all things, food enables life to continue, and water enables trees to grow. This is the Four Great Elements (Mahābhūta) together acting as the five causes (Pañca Hetu). The Treatise on Correct Reasoning (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) says: 'Or the generating cause (Janaka Hetu) is all the Great Elements (Mahābhūta) producing derived matter (Upādā rūpa). Because apart from the Great Elements (Mahābhūta), there is no production of derived matter (Upādā rūpa). After derived matter (Upādā rūpa) is produced, in the state of continuous succession of the same kind, fire as the dependence cause (Nissaya Hetu) can make it dry and not rot. Water as the supporting cause (Upastambhika Hetu) can make it moist and not disperse. Earth as the maintaining cause (Upadhāraka Hetu) can uphold it and not let it fall. Wind as the nourishing cause (Vyūhaka Hetu) can initiate it and make it grow.' Thus, although the Great Elements (Mahābhūta) do not have the meaning of five kinds of causes such as co-existence with the derived (Upādā), they have five different causes such as generating, so there is no fault of contradicting the Sutra (Sūtra) and Treatise (Śāstra).
Treatise: All derived matter (Upādā rūpa) up to the sense organ of the eye (cakṣurindriya) and other results, explains the amount of derived matter (Upādā rūpa) acting as causes to each other.
Treatise: The derived (Upādā) in relation to the great (Mahā), up to the result of the Great Elements (Mahābhūta), explains the amount of the derived (Upādā) and the Great Elements (Mahābhūta) acting as causes.
Treatise: It has already been generally explained before, up to 'What are the twelve (Dvādaśa)?' Below, the condition of immediate contiguity (Samanantarapratyaya) is explained again. There are three points in it: first, explaining the broad mind; second, explaining the three kinds of attention (Manasikara); third, explaining the amount of mind obtained. This is the first point explaining the broad mind. There are two points in it: first, explaining the entry and exit of the twelve minds; later, explaining the entry and exit of the twenty minds. This is explaining the entry and exit of the twelve minds. The first verse explains the total accomplishment of twelve, and the following four verses explain the mutual entry and exit.
Treatise says: Up to the composition of twelve (Dvādaśa), it is dividing the Three Realms (Tridhātu) and the unconditioned mind (Anāsrava-citta) into twelve.
Treatise: These twelve minds arise mutually, and the following four verses explain the mutual entry and exit of the twelve minds. There are roughly five examples of the arising of the minds and mental factors (Caitasika dharma) of the Three Realms (Tridhātu): 1. Own realm (Svabhūmi); 2. Different realm (Parabhūmi); 3. Rebirth (Pratisaṃdhi); 4. Attainment (Samāpatti); 5. Unconditioned (Anāsrava). The arising of the own realm (Svabhūmi) is the meritorious mind of effort in its own realm (Svabhūmi) (Prayoga-kuśala-citta).
不從異熟．威儀．工巧心生。自余諸心皆得相生。唯除化心。唯與色界加行善心相生故 二異界心相生者。三界無覆無記心。不從異界心後起。唯除欲化心。亦不生異界心。除欲化心．及命終心。生得善心即不生異地心。除續生位。不從異地心生。唯除防定心。加行善心。向上唯生加行善。向下生欲通生得善。從生者從下．上加行善生 三續生心者。唯生得善．不善．有覆無記．異熟無記．威儀心為命終心。唯不善有覆無記為續生心。向上生除不善．有覆無記。向下生隨界所有 四防定心者。欲界生得．加行善說色染心後生。色界防定加行善心從無色染後生 五無漏心相生者。如下文說。
論曰至謂出觀時。明欲界善心也。準正理論。欲善生色善者。初生未曾得。後起通生離欲得。
論。染謂不善至余無生理。明欲界染心也。
論。余謂欲廛至能生彼染。明欲無覆無記心也。
論。色界善心至無覆無記。明色界善心也。
論。有覆從八至有覆無記。明色有覆心也。
論無覆從三至欲無色染明色無覆心也。
論。無色界善至並學無學。明無色善心也。
論。有覆無間至學無學心。明無色界有覆心也。
論。無覆如色說至及欲色染。明無色無覆心也。
論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不從異熟（Vipāka，果報）心、威儀（Irmāpatha，行為舉止）心、工巧（Abhijnā，神通）心生起。其餘諸心皆可相互生起。唯有化心（Nirmita-citta，變化所作之心）例外，因為它只與加行善心（Prayoga-kuśala-citta，爲了達到某種目的而努力的善心）相互生起。二、異界心（Different realms of mind）的相生：三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的無覆無記心（Anivrita-avyākrta-citta，無覆蓋的無記心）不從異界心之後生起，唯有欲界化心例外。也不生起異界心，除了欲界化心和命終心（Cyuti-citta，死亡瞬間的心）。生得善心（Upapatti-kuśala-citta，自然產生的善心）不生起異地心（Different ground of mind），除了續生位（Pratisandhi，投生時刻）。不從異地心生起，除了防定心（Samāpatti-citta，入定之心）、加行善心。向上只生起加行善心，向下生起欲界通生得善心。從生者，從地獄、上界的加行善心生起。三、續生心（Rebirth-linking mind）：只有生得善心、不善心、有覆無記心（Klista-avyākrta-citta，有煩惱覆蓋的無記心）、異熟無記心、威儀心作為命終心。只有不善心、有覆無記心作為續生心。向上生起，除了不善心、有覆無記心。向下生起，隨各界所有。四、防定心：欲界生得善心、加行善心，說是色界染心（Rāga-citta，貪染之心）後生起。防定加行善心從無色界染心後生起。五、無漏心（Anāsrava-citta，沒有煩惱的心）的相生：如下文所說。
論曰：至於出觀之時，說明欲界善心。根據《正理論》，欲界善心生起色界善心，初生時未曾獲得，後起時普遍生起離欲得。
論：染，指不善心，至於其餘沒有生理。說明欲界染心。
論：其餘，指欲界，至於能生彼染。說明欲界無覆無記心。
論：善心，至於無覆無記。說明善心。
論：有覆，從八個至於有覆無記。說明色界有覆心。
論：無覆，從三個至於欲界色界染心。說明色界無覆心。
論：無善，至於並學無學。說明無色界善心。
論：有覆無間，至於學無學心。說明無色界有覆心。
論：無覆如色界所說，至於及欲界色界染心。說明無色界無覆心。
論
【English Translation】 English version It does not arise from Vipāka (resultant) mind, Irmāpatha (mannerism) mind, or Abhijnā (supernormal power) mind. All other minds can arise from each other, except for Nirmita-citta (transformation mind), because it only arises with Prayoga-kuśala-citta (applied wholesome mind). Secondly, the arising of minds from different realms: Anivrita-avyākrta-citta (uncovered indeterminate mind) of the three realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm) does not arise after minds from different realms, except for the Desire Realm's Nirmita-citta. It also does not give rise to minds from different realms, except for the Desire Realm's Nirmita-citta and Cyuti-citta (death mind). Upapatti-kuśala-citta (birth-produced wholesome mind) does not give rise to minds from different grounds, except for Pratisandhi (rebirth-linking). It does not arise from minds of different grounds, except for Samāpatti-citta (attainment mind) and Prayoga-kuśala-citta. Upwards, it only gives rise to Prayoga-kuśala-citta; downwards, it gives rise to the Desire Realm's common Upapatti-kuśala-citta. Those that arise, arise from the lower and upper realms' Prayoga-kuśala-citta. Thirdly, the Rebirth-linking mind: Only Upapatti-kuśala-citta, unwholesome mind, Klista-avyākrta-citta (afflicted indeterminate mind), Vipāka-avyākrta-citta (resultant indeterminate mind), and Irmāpatha mind serve as the death mind. Only unwholesome mind and Klista-avyākrta-citta serve as the rebirth-linking mind. Upwards, it arises except for unwholesome mind and Klista-avyākrta-citta. Downwards, it arises according to what exists in each realm. Fourthly, the Samāpatti mind: The Desire Realm's Upapatti-kuśala-citta and Prayoga-kuśala-citta are said to arise after the Form Realm's Rāga-citta (attachment mind). The Samāpatti Prayoga-kuśala-citta arises after the Formless Realm's attachment mind. Fifthly, the arising of Anāsrava-citta (untainted mind): As described below.
The treatise says: As for the time of emerging from Samāpatti, it explains the wholesome mind of the Desire Realm. According to the Nyāyānusāraśāstra, the Desire Realm's wholesome mind gives rise to the Form Realm's wholesome mind; at the initial arising, it has not yet been attained, but later it generally gives rise to detachment.
The treatise says: 'Attachment' refers to unwholesome minds, as for the rest, there is no physiology. It explains the attachment mind of the Desire Realm.
The treatise says: 'The rest' refers to the Desire Realm, as for what can give rise to that attachment. It explains the Anivrita-avyākrta-citta of the Desire Realm.
The treatise says: 'Wholesome mind,' as for uncovered indeterminate. It explains the wholesome mind.
The treatise says: 'Covered,' from eight to covered indeterminate. It explains the covered mind of the Form Realm.
The treatise says: 'Uncovered,' from three to the attachment mind of the Desire and Form Realms. It explains the uncovered mind of the Form Realm.
The treatise says: 'No wholesome,' as for both learners and non-learners. It explains the wholesome mind of the Formless Realm.
The treatise says: 'Covered without interval,' as for the minds of learners and non-learners. It explains the covered mind of the Formless Realm.
The treatise says: 'Uncovered as described in the Form Realm,' as for the attachment minds of the Desire and Form Realms. It explains the uncovered mind of the Formless Realm.
The treatise says:
。學心從四至及無學一。明學心．無學心也。
論。說十二心至為二十心。自下兩頌分十二心為二十心。
論曰至故成二十。分十二為二十心也。如文可解。
論。威儀路等至亦緣于聲。此明三心所緣境也。無記語亦是工巧心故。所以緣聲。
論。如是三心唯是意識 準此論文。威儀．工巧．通果三心唯是意識。非是五識 婆沙云。是威儀．工巧者說加行也。此說通果心唯意識。據化心說。明諸心相生亦唯意識。
論。有餘師說至十二處境。述異說也 婆沙亦有二說。與此論同。準威儀等發業心文。威儀唯緣色。工巧兼聲。如發善．惡業心 今前師言緣四境．五境者。非正發業心。是前．后近心 與后師別者唯緣四境．五境名威儀等心。后師兼十二處也 言威儀路工巧處者。從所依得名。威儀多依路故。工巧多依處故。
論。如是二十至自色二心。此明欲界八心相生。如前分別。
論。次說色界至自界二心。此明色界六心相生。
論。次說無色至謂自界四。明無色界四心相生也。
論。次說無漏至及學無學。明二無漏心與諸心相生也。
論。復有何緣至生加行善。自此已下問答分別。此是問也。
論。勢力劣故至加行善心。答也。明三心不生加
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 學心從四果位到無學果位共有兩種。這裡闡明的是有學之心和無學之心。
論：解釋說十二種心可以擴充套件為二十種心。接下來的兩個頌文將十二種心細分為二十種心。
論曰：因此形成了二十種心。這是將十二種心分為二十種心。文義淺顯易懂。
論：威儀路等心也緣于聲音。這裡闡明了三種心所緣的境界。無記語也是工巧心的一種，所以緣于聲音。
論：如此三種心都只是意識。根據此論文，威儀心、工巧心、通果心這三種心都只是意識，而不是五識。婆沙論中說：『是威儀、工巧者，說的是加行。』這裡說通果心唯有意識，是根據化心來說的。說明諸心相生也唯有意識。
論：有其他論師說，乃至十二處境。這是敘述不同的說法。婆沙論中也有兩種說法，與此論相同。根據威儀等發業心文，威儀心只緣於色，工巧心兼緣于聲，如同發起善業、惡業之心。現在前一位論師說緣四境、五境，並非正發業心，而是前、后近心。與后一位論師的區別在於，只有緣四境、五境才稱為威儀等心，后一位論師則兼顧十二處。說威儀路工巧處，是從所依處得名。威儀心多依于路，工巧心多依于處。
論：如此二十種心，乃至自色二心。這裡闡明欲界八種心相生的情況，如同前面所分別的。
論：接下來講述乃至自界二心。這裡闡明六種心相生的情況。
論：接下來講述無色，乃至謂自界四。闡明無**四種心相生的情況。
論：接下來講述無漏，乃至及學無學。闡明兩種無漏心與各種心相生的情況。
論：又有什麼因緣，乃至生加行善？從這裡開始是問答分別。這是提問。
論：勢力弱的緣故，乃至加行善心。這是回答。闡明三種心不生加行善心的原因。
【English Translation】 English version The learning mind ranges from the fourth fruit position to the non-learning fruit position, totaling two types. This clarifies the learning mind and the non-learning mind.
Treatise: It is explained that the twelve types of minds can be expanded into twenty types of minds. The following two verses subdivide the twelve types of minds into twenty types.
Treatise says: Therefore, twenty types of minds are formed. This is dividing the twelve types of minds into twenty types. The meaning of the text is easy to understand.
Treatise: Dignified conduct and other minds also cognize sound. This clarifies the objects cognized by the three types of minds. Indeterminate speech is also a type of skillful mind, so it cognizes sound.
Treatise: These three types of minds are only consciousness. According to this treatise, the minds of dignified conduct, skillful activity, and general fruition are all only consciousness, not the five consciousnesses. The Vibhasha states: 'Those who are dignified and skillful are referring to preparatory actions.' Here, it says that the general fruition mind is only consciousness, based on the transformation mind. It explains that the arising of all minds is also only consciousness.
Treatise: Some other teachers say, even up to the twelve sense bases. This is narrating different views. There are also two views in the Vibhasha, which are the same as this treatise. According to the text on the mind of dignified conduct and other karma-generating minds, the dignified conduct mind only cognizes form, while the skillful activity mind also cognizes sound, just like generating minds of good and evil karma. Now, the former teacher says that cognizing four or five objects is not the actual karma-generating mind, but the preceding and following proximate minds. The difference from the latter teacher is that only cognizing four or five objects is called the mind of dignified conduct, etc., while the latter teacher also considers the twelve sense bases. Saying the path of dignified conduct and the place of skillful activity derives its name from what it relies on. The dignified conduct mind mostly relies on the path, while the skillful activity mind mostly relies on the place.
Treatise: These twenty types of minds, even up to the two minds of one's own realm of form. This clarifies the arising of the eight types of minds in the desire realm, as previously distinguished.
Treatise: Next, it discusses ** even up to the two minds of one's own realm. This clarifies the arising of the six types of minds in the ** realm.
Treatise: Next, it discusses the formless, even up to saying the four of one's own realm. It clarifies the arising of the four types of minds in the formless realm.
Treatise: Next, it discusses the unconditioned, even up to the learning and non-learning. It clarifies the arising of the two unconditioned minds with various minds.
Treatise: What other reason is there, even up to generating preparatory good? From here onwards is question and answer analysis. This is the question.
Treatise: Because of weak power, even up to the preparatory good mind. This is the answer. It clarifies the reason why the three types of minds do not generate preparatory good minds.
行善也 一勢力劣故。總三心也 二非作功用所引發故。異熟心也 三樂作功用引發工巧威儀轉故。后二心也 四總結也。
論出心不由至可能生彼。一因釋三無記從加行善心生也。
論若爾染污至不相順故。難也。三心不順加行善。加行不從三心生。染污加行性相違。如何染心生加行。
論雖爾厭倦至容起加行。答也。加行善心違煩惱故。極厭煩惱生加行善。三心不能生極厭故不順。不能生加行善。
論欲界生得至引生彼心。釋欲界散地生得善心。以明利故。從二無漏心．及色加行心起。色界定地生得不明利故。不從彼起。亦不生彼。
論又欲生得至無間而起。釋欲界生得。以明利故。能續色染後生防護彼定。色生得善定勝散劣。不明利故。不從無色染心生也。
論。作意有三至相應作意。第二明三作意。聖道相生自相．共相．勝解作意。如文可解 即作意相應慧名之為觀。前二從所觀為名。第三從能觀相應勝解為名。即舊名假想觀也。境隨心變心勝境故。決定印持名為勝解。
論。如是三種至三種作意。明此三作意皆悉能與聖道相生 此言通其初．后。初入聖道決定唯是共相作意。如世第一等。
論。若作是說至念等覺分。顯順教也。此言俱者。是前後無間。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 行善也：一、勢力弱小之故。總而言之是三種心：二、不是通過努力用功引發的緣故。是異熟心（Vipāka-citta，果報心）：三、因為喜歡努力用功引發工巧和威儀的轉變的緣故。是后兩種心：四、總結。
論：生起的心不由自主以至於可能產生它。一、因為解釋三種無記心是從加行善心生起的。
論：如果這樣，染污心以至於不相順應的緣故。這是個難題。三種心不順應加行善。加行不從三種心生起。染污加行的性質和表象是相違背的。染污心如何生起加行？
論：即使這樣，厭倦以至於容許生起加行。這是回答。加行善心違背煩惱的緣故。極其厭惡煩惱而生起加行善。三種心不能產生極其厭惡，所以不順應。不能生起加行善。
論：欲界生得以至於引生彼心。欲界散地生得的善心，因為明利的緣故，從二種無漏心（Anāsava-citta，無煩惱心）以及色界加行心生起。色界定地生得的善心因為不明利的緣故，不從它們生起，也不生起它們。
論：又，欲界生得以至於無間而起。欲界生得的善心，因為明利的緣故，能夠接續色界染污心之後生起，防護那個禪定。色界生得的善定勝過散亂，但因為不明利的緣故，不從無色界染污心生起。
論：作意有三種以至於相應作意。第二，闡明三種作意。聖道（Ārya-mārga，八正道）相生的自相作意、共相作意、勝解作意。如文中所說可以理解。與作意相應的智慧就叫做觀。前兩種從所觀的對象來命名。第三種從能觀的相應勝解來命名。也就是舊名稱為假想觀。境界隨著心而變化，因為心勝過境界的緣故。決定地印持就叫做勝解。
論：像這樣三種以至於三種作意。闡明這三種作意都能夠與聖道相生。這個說法貫通始終。最初進入聖道決定只是共相作意。例如世第一等。
論：如果這樣說以至於念等覺分（Smṛti-saṃbodhyaṅga，念覺支）。顯示順應教義。這個『俱』字，是指前後沒有間隔。
【English Translation】 English version Performing good deeds: 1. Due to the weakness of power. In summary, there are three types of minds: 2. Not induced by effortful exertion. It is Vipāka-citta (resultant consciousness): 3. Because of the liking for effortful exertion that induces skillful and dignified transformations. It refers to the latter two types of minds: 4. Conclusion.
Treatise: The arising of the mind is involuntary, to the extent that it may produce it. 1. Because it explains that the three types of indeterminate minds arise from the preparatory wholesome mind.
Treatise: If that is the case, defilement, to the extent that it is not in accordance. This is a difficulty. The three types of minds do not accord with preparatory wholesomeness. Preparation does not arise from the three types of minds. The nature and appearance of defiled preparation are contradictory. How can a defiled mind give rise to preparation?
Treatise: Even so, weariness, to the extent that it allows for the arising of preparation. This is the answer. Preparatory wholesome mind opposes afflictions. Extreme aversion to afflictions gives rise to preparatory wholesomeness. The three types of minds cannot produce extreme aversion, so they are not in accordance. They cannot give rise to preparatory wholesomeness.
Treatise: Born in the desire realm, to the extent that it induces that mind. Wholesome minds born in the scattered state of the desire realm, because of their clarity, arise from the two types of Anāsava-citta (undefiled consciousness) and the preparatory mind of the form realm. Wholesome minds born in the meditative state of the form realm, because of their lack of clarity, do not arise from them, nor do they give rise to them.
Treatise: Furthermore, born in the desire realm, to the extent that it arises without interruption. Wholesome minds born in the desire realm, because of their clarity, can arise after defiled minds of the form realm, protecting that samādhi (concentration). The wholesome samādhi born in the form realm is superior to the scattered state, but because of its lack of clarity, it does not arise from defiled minds of the formless realm.
Treatise: Attention has three types, to the extent of corresponding attention. Secondly, clarifying the three types of attention. Self-characteristic attention, common-characteristic attention, and decisive-understanding attention, which arise in relation to the Ārya-mārga (Noble Eightfold Path). As explained in the text, it can be understood. The wisdom corresponding to attention is called contemplation. The first two are named from the object of contemplation. The third is named from the corresponding decisive understanding of the contemplator. That is, the old name is conceptual contemplation. The realm changes with the mind, because the mind surpasses the realm. Decisively holding is called decisive understanding.
Treatise: Like these three types, to the extent of three types of attention. Clarifying that these three types of attention can all arise in relation to the Ārya-mārga (Noble Eightfold Path). This statement encompasses the beginning and the end. Initially entering the Ārya-mārga (Noble Eightfold Path) is definitely only common-characteristic attention. For example, the highest mundane dharma, etc.
Treatise: If it is said in this way, to the extent of mindfulness as a factor of enlightenment (Smṛti-saṃbodhyaṅga). Showing accordance with the teachings. The word 'together' refers to being without interruption before and after.
非同時也。不凈觀是勝解作意。而與無漏覺支前後俱行。是相續義準此故知。勝解作意能入聖道。入難出易。但證其難。
論。有餘師說至通起三種。述異說也。此師意說入聖難唯共相作意。出心易故通三作意。
論。修不凈觀至念等覺分。余師通經。此言俱者。依傳傳說起覺支。
論。有餘復言至共相作意。述第三師意也。此師以聖道是共相作意入出聖道還用共相作意。
論。若爾有依至起何作意。難后說也 夫出聖道于曾得心出。不于未曾得心出也。于欲界有曾得共相作意可從彼出。於色界中無異四善。別有曾得共相作意出聖道也。依未至．初定．中間靜慮。同是初定不隔遠故可依欲生。依第二乃至第四。入見道時聖道無間起何作意。
論。非起欲界至以極遠故。遮第一計。若說亦起欲界共相作意。此極遠故。
論。非於彼地至順抉擇分。遮第二計。亦不可說於二定等地。異順抉擇分有曾修得共相作意。
論。非諸聖者至加行道故。遮第三計。恐彼計云從聖道起曾得順抉擇分。若如此者即是得果道後起前加行。不應道理。
論。若謂有別至違正理故。遮第四計 違正理者。正理論云。此救非理。系屬加行所修作意。非得果后可引現前。是彼類故。前說聖道無間
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 並非如此。不凈觀（Asubha-bhavana，對身體不凈的觀想）是勝解作意（adhimoksha-manaskara，通過理解而產生的心理活動）。它與無漏覺支（anasrava-bodhyanga，無漏的覺悟支）前後相隨。這是相續的意義，由此可知，勝解作意能夠進入聖道（arya-marga，通往解脫的道路），進入難，出來容易，只是證悟困難。
論：有其他老師說，直到生起三種作意。這是敘述不同的觀點。這位老師的意思是說，進入聖道困難，僅僅是共相作意（samanya-lakshana-manaskara，對事物普遍特徵的心理活動）。出離聖道容易，所以通達三種作意。
論：修習不凈觀，直到念等覺分（smrti-sambodhyanga，正念等覺悟的組成部分）。其他老師通過經典來解釋。這裡說『俱』，是依據傳承的說法，生起覺支。
論：有其他人又說，直到共相作意。這是敘述第三位老師的觀點。這位老師認為，聖道是共相作意，進入和出離聖道都使用共相作意。
論：如果這樣，有依據...直到生起什麼作意？這是對後面觀點的質疑。出離聖道是從曾經獲得的心中出離，而不是從未曾獲得的心中出離。在欲界（kama-dhatu，眾生有慾望的界），有曾經獲得的共相作意，可以從中出離。在**中，沒有不同於四善根（catvari kusala-mulani，四種善的根本）的，另外有曾經獲得的共相作意來出離聖道。依據未至定（anagamin，不還果）、初禪（prathama-dhyana，色界的第一禪定）、中間靜慮（dhyana，禪定），它們都屬於初禪，不間隔很遠，所以可以依據欲界而生起。依據第二禪（dvitiya-dhyana，色界的第二禪定）乃至第四禪（caturtha-dhyana，色界的第四禪定），進入見道（darshana-marga，見真理的道路）時，聖道無間斷，生起什麼作意？
論：不是生起欲界的...直到因為極其遙遠。這是爲了否定第一種觀點。如果說也生起欲界的共相作意，這是因為極其遙遠。
論：不是在那個地方...直到順抉擇分（anulomika-ksanti，隨順決定的智慧）。這是爲了否定第二種觀點。也不可以說在二禪定等地，不同於順抉擇分，有曾經修得的共相作意。
論：不是諸聖者...直到加行道（prayoga-marga，為達到目標而做的努力的道路）。這是爲了否定第三種觀點。恐怕他們認為從聖道生起曾經獲得的順抉擇分。如果這樣，就是獲得果位之後，生起之前的加行，不應道理。
論：如果說有別的...直到違背正理。這是爲了否定第四種觀點。違背正理是指，《正理論》中說：這種辯解不合理，屬於加行所修的作意，不是獲得果位后可以引發現前的，因為是同類。前面說聖道無間。
【English Translation】 English version It is not so. Impurity contemplation (Asubha-bhavana, contemplation on the impurity of the body) is decisive apperception (adhimoksha-manaskara, mental activity arising from understanding). It accompanies the undefiled limbs of enlightenment (anasrava-bodhyanga, undefiled components of enlightenment) before and after. This is the meaning of continuity, from which it is known that decisive apperception can enter the noble path (arya-marga, the path to liberation), it is difficult to enter but easy to exit, only the realization is difficult.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that up to the arising of three kinds of apperception. This is a narration of different views. This teacher means that entering the noble path is difficult, only common characteristic apperception (samanya-lakshana-manaskara, mental activity towards the universal characteristics of things). Exiting the mind is easy, so it penetrates the three apperceptions.
Treatise: Cultivating impurity contemplation, up to mindfulness as a limb of enlightenment (smrti-sambodhyanga, mindfulness as a component of enlightenment). Other teachers explain through the scriptures. Here, 'together' is based on traditional sayings, arising the limbs of enlightenment.
Treatise: Some others say again, up to common characteristic apperception. This is a narration of the third teacher's view. This teacher believes that the noble path is common characteristic apperception, and entering and exiting the noble path both use common characteristic apperception.
Treatise: If so, based on... up to what apperception arises? This is a question to the later statement. Exiting the noble path is exiting from a mind that has been obtained, not from a mind that has never been obtained. In the desire realm (kama-dhatu, the realm where beings have desires), there is common characteristic apperception that has been obtained, from which one can exit. In **, there is no different from the four good roots (catvari kusala-mulani, the four roots of goodness), there is no other common characteristic apperception that has been obtained to exit the noble path. Based on the unreached concentration (anagamin, non-returner), the first dhyana (prathama-dhyana, the first meditative absorption in the form realm), intermediate dhyana (dhyana, meditative absorption), they all belong to the first dhyana, not separated by a great distance, so they can arise based on the desire realm. Based on the second dhyana (dvitiya-dhyana, the second meditative absorption in the form realm) up to the fourth dhyana (caturtha-dhyana, the fourth meditative absorption in the form realm), when entering the path of seeing (darshana-marga, the path of seeing the truth), what apperception arises without interruption of the noble path?
Treatise: Not arising from the desire realm... up to because it is extremely distant. This is to negate the first view. If it is said that common characteristic apperception of the desire realm also arises, this is because it is extremely distant.
Treatise: Not in that place... up to conforming to the decisive part (anulomika-ksanti, wisdom that conforms to the decision). This is to negate the second view. It cannot be said that in the second dhyana and other places, different from the conforming decisive part, there is common characteristic apperception that has been cultivated.
Treatise: Not all noble ones... up to the path of application (prayoga-marga, the path of effort to achieve a goal). This is to negate the third view. Afraid that they think that from the noble path arises the conforming decisive part that has been obtained. If so, it is arising the previous application after obtaining the fruit, which is not reasonable.
Treatise: If it is said that there is another... up to violating the correct principle. This is to negate the fourth view. Violating the correct principle means that the 'Treatise on Correct Principles' says: This defense is unreasonable, belonging to the apperception cultivated by application, not something that can be brought to the present after obtaining the fruit, because it is of the same kind. It was previously said that the noble path is uninterrupted.
通三作意現前。于理為善 前兩師云。皆許三種作意出聖道也。婆沙十一難此師云依未至定起欲共相作意。不言初．中二地 此論即言三者。是縱說也 或舉婆沙第三說難 婆沙七十二一說。欲界與未至相生。二說未至．初定。三說至中定。四說至二定。評家評取第二說也 或此論舉三地難者。就彼計言唯共相出。唯難第三家也。婆沙十一評家評取初師義者。通說一切聖道。若取初入亦唯共相。正理論中取第二者。出見道心故。
論。若依未至定至唯自非餘地。明諸地出無學心也。十一地中欲．及有頂。無有無漏斷欲．非想非非想惑。縱令于欲曾得自在亦依未至。縱于有頂自在亦依無所有處。自余諸地自地有無漏故。若於此地得自在者。即依此入不依上．下由彼出心不勤求故。出自地易皆自地出。依非想地得自在者。即依彼出。依未至得阿羅漢雖。身在欲界于欲界心得自在鄰次而出。又身在非想斷有頂惑。必依下地起無漏故。出心還依非想心出。更無下地心故。身在欲界依上未至斷欲．界惑。出心容依欲界心出。雖生上地不起下定。上流生非想天。必起下無漏定。
論。于欲界中至二生所得。總舉八種作意。可了。
論。此中五種至以明利故明八種中五能入出聖道欲生得善亦續聖道。以明利故。于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 通達三種作意（指欲界、未至定、中間定三種狀態下的作意）現前，就道理上來說是好的。之前的兩位論師說，都允許通過這三種作意證得出世聖道。但《婆沙論》第十一卷對此提出疑問，認為這位論師是依據未至定生起欲界和共相作意，並沒有提到初禪和中間定這兩種禪定狀態。而此論中提到這三種作意，是一種縱向的說法。或者可以引用《婆沙論》第三卷的說法來提出疑問。《婆沙論》第七十二卷有一種說法是，欲界和未至定可以相互生起。第二種說法是，未至定和初禪可以相互生起。第三種說法是，可以達到中間定。第四種說法是，可以達到二禪。評家採納了第二種說法。或者此論用三種禪定狀態來提出疑問，是針對那些認為只有通過共相作意才能證得出世聖道的觀點，僅僅是針對第三種說法。《婆沙論》第十一卷中，評家採納了第一位論師的觀點，認為一切聖道都可以通過這三種作意證得。如果從初入聖道來說，也只有通過共相作意。正理論中採納第二種說法，是因為要證得出見道心。
論：如果依據未至定，只能達到自身而非其他禪定狀態，這說明了各個禪定狀態都能證得出無學心。在十一地中，欲界和有頂天（指非想非非想處天）沒有無漏智來斷除欲界和非想非非想處的煩惱。即使在欲界曾經獲得自在，也要依靠未至定。即使在有頂天獲得自在，也要依靠無所有處定。其餘的禪定狀態，因為自身具有無漏智。如果在此地獲得自在，就依靠此地入定，不依靠上地或下地，因為從該地出定不需要勤加修習。從自身禪定狀態出定比較容易，都從自身禪定狀態出定。如果依據非想非非想處定獲得自在，就依靠該定出定。依據未至定證得阿羅漢果，即使身在欲界，對於欲界的心也能獲得自在，鄰近地就能出定。又如身在非想非非想處天，要斷除有頂天的煩惱，必須依靠下地的無漏定。出定的時候還是依靠非想非非想處心出定，因為沒有更低的禪定狀態的心了。身在欲界，依靠上面的未至定斷除欲界的煩惱，出定的時候可以依靠欲界心出定。即使生在上界，不生起地獄的禪定，上流生到非想非非想處天，也必須生起地獄的無漏定。
論：在欲界中，到二生所得（指欲界到色界二禪之間所能獲得的），總共列舉了八種作意，可以理解。
論：這其中五種（指五種能入出聖道的作意），因為明利，所以說明八種作意中有五種能夠入出聖道，欲界生得的善也能延續聖道，因為明利。
【English Translation】 English version: When the three types of attention (referring to the attention in the realms of desire, the state of approaching meditation, and the intermediate meditation) are present, it is good in terms of principle. The previous two teachers said that all three types of attention are allowed to attain the supramundane path. However, the eleventh volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra raises questions about this, arguing that this teacher relies on the state of approaching meditation to generate attention to the desire realm and the common characteristics, without mentioning the first dhyana and the intermediate dhyana. The mention of these three types of attention in this treatise is a longitudinal statement. Alternatively, one can cite the statement in the third volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra to raise questions. The seventy-second volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra has one saying that the desire realm and the state of approaching meditation can arise mutually. The second saying is that the state of approaching meditation and the first dhyana can arise mutually. The third saying is that one can reach the intermediate dhyana. The fourth saying is that one can reach the second dhyana. The commentator adopts the second saying. Alternatively, this treatise uses the three dhyana states to raise questions, targeting those who believe that only through attention to the common characteristics can one attain the supramundane path, and is only targeting the third saying. In the eleventh volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, the commentator adopts the view of the first teacher, believing that all supramundane paths can be attained through these three types of attention. If one considers the initial entry into the supramundane path, it is only through attention to the common characteristics. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra adopts the second saying because it is necessary to realize the path of seeing.
Treatise: If one relies on the state of approaching meditation, one can only reach one's own state and not other dhyana states, which illustrates that each dhyana state can realize the state of no-more-learning. Among the eleven realms, the desire realm and the peak of existence (referring to the realm of neither perception nor non-perception) do not have non-outflow wisdom to eliminate the afflictions of the desire realm and the realm of neither perception nor non-perception. Even if one has attained freedom in the desire realm, one must rely on the state of approaching meditation. Even if one has attained freedom in the peak of existence, one must rely on the realm of nothingness. The remaining dhyana states have non-outflow wisdom within themselves. If one attains freedom in this realm, one relies on this realm to enter meditation, not relying on the upper or lower realms, because exiting from that realm does not require diligent practice. Exiting from one's own dhyana state is easier, and one exits from one's own dhyana state. If one attains freedom based on the realm of neither perception nor non-perception, one relies on that realm to exit. If one attains Arhatship based on the state of approaching meditation, even if one is in the desire realm, one can attain freedom over the mind of the desire realm, and one can exit from the neighboring realm. Furthermore, if one is in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception and wants to eliminate the afflictions of the peak of existence, one must rely on the non-outflow meditation of the lower realms. When exiting meditation, one still relies on the mind of the realm of neither perception nor non-perception to exit, because there is no lower dhyana state of mind. If one is in the desire realm and relies on the state of approaching meditation above to eliminate the afflictions of the desire realm, one can rely on the mind of the desire realm to exit meditation. Even if one is born in the upper realms and does not generate the dhyana of the lower realms, if one is born in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception, one must generate the non-outflow meditation of the lower realms.
Treatise: In the desire realm, up to what is obtained in the second birth (referring to what can be obtained between the desire realm and the second dhyana of the form realm), a total of eight types of attention are listed, which can be understood.
Treatise: Among these five (referring to the five types of attention that can enter and exit the supramundane path), because of their clarity and sharpness, it is explained that five out of the eight types of attention can enter and exit the supramundane path, and the goodness obtained in the desire realm can also continue the supramundane path, because of its clarity and sharpness.
三界中聖道出．入可知 正理論云。若生第二靜慮已上起下三識身時。諸有未離自地染者。彼從自地善．染．無記作意無間三識現前。三識無間還生自地三種作意。諸有已離自地染者。除染作意唯善．無記作意無間三識現前。三識無間亦唯起此二種作意 準此借識非通果也。
論。於前所說至幾心可得。此下第三明十二心中得心多少也。
論曰至今得成故。明染心中得六心也 此言得者。謂先不成今得。成也。非謂先相續有 於三位辨得。一疑心續善。二從上界退下生位。即結生染。三起惑退。此三皆是染污心也。
論。由疑續善至爾時名得。明得欲善心也。疑續善時．及界退還爾時染心正現在前。欲界善得已至生相名之為得。欲界善心唯此二位。
論。由起惑退至一有覆心。明欲二心．及色心也。若無色沒生欲界時欲二心．及得色一。從離色染退起欲惑數亦準此。若從色界下生．及離欲染退時。唯得欲二。
論。由起惑退至故名得六。學．及無色染心。唯由惑退。無色更無上界生故。于欲染心正現前位得此六心。疑續善位得欲界善。婆沙二說。一說唯得生得。二說加行。若串習者亦得。無評文也。
論。色界染心至亦由退得。第二明色界染心得六也。從無色沒生色界時。得欲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）中聖道（Aryamarga）的出入是可以知道的。《正理論》（Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra）中說：『如果生到第二禪（Dhyana）及以上，生起下三識身（kaya）時，那些沒有離開自地（svabhumi）染污的人，他們從自地的善（kusala）、染（klesa）、無記（avyakrta）作意（manaskara）無間，三種識（vijnana）現前。三種識無間還生自地三種作意。那些已經離開自地染污的人，除了染污作意，只有善、無記作意無間，三種識現前。三種識無間也只生起這兩種作意。』 依照這個，借識不是通果（sarvatraga-phala）的。
論：『對於前面所說的，至幾心可得？』 這以下第三部分說明十二心中得到的心有多少。
論曰：『至今得成故。』 說明染心中得到六心。 這裡說的『得』，是指先前沒有成就，現在得到成就。不是指先前相續存在。 在三種情況下辨別『得』：一、疑心（vicikitsa-citta）續善（kusala）。二、從上界（urdhva-bhumi）退下生位。即結生染（pratisandhi-klesa）。三、生起惑（klesa）而退。這三種都是染污心（klista-citta）。
論：『由疑續善至爾時名得。』 說明得到欲界善心（kama-kusala-citta）。疑心續善時，以及從上界退還時，染心（klista-citta）正現在前。欲界善心得到，直至生相（jati-laksana）時，才稱之為『得』。欲界善心只有這兩種情況。
論：『由起惑退至一有覆心。』 說明欲界二心（kama-dvaya-citta），以及色界心（rupa-citta）。如果從無色界（arupa-dhatu）死亡而生到欲界時，得到欲界二心，以及色界一心。從離開色界染污退回到生起欲界惑時，數量也依照這個。如果從**下生，以及離開欲界染污退回時，只得到欲界二心。
論：『由起惑退至故名得六。』 學心（saiksa-citta），以及無色界染心（arupa-klista-citta），只有通過生起惑而退回才能得到。無色界沒有更上面的界可以生，所以在欲界染心正現在前的時候，得到這六心。疑心續善的時候，得到欲界善心。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）有兩種說法：一種說法是隻得到生得（nisyanda-labha），另一種說法是加上加行（prayoga）。如果是串習（abhyasa）者，也能得到。沒有評判的文字。
論：『染心至亦由退得。』 第二部分說明染心得到六心。從無色界死亡而生到**時，得到欲界
【English Translation】 English version The coming and going of the Holy Path (Aryamarga) in the Three Realms (Trailokya, the Desire Realm, the Form Realm, and the Formless Realm) can be known. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra says: 'If one is born in the Second Dhyana (meditative absorption) or above, and the lower three consciousness-bodies (kaya) arise, then for those who have not departed from the defilements of their own ground (svabhumi), from the wholesome (kusala), defiled (klesa), and neutral (avyakrta) mental activities (manaskara) of their own ground, without interruption, three consciousnesses (vijnana) manifest. Without interruption, the three consciousnesses then give rise to the three mental activities of their own ground. For those who have already departed from the defilements of their own ground, apart from defiled mental activity, only wholesome and neutral mental activities manifest without interruption, and without interruption, the three consciousnesses manifest. Without interruption, the three consciousnesses also only give rise to these two kinds of mental activity.' According to this, borrowing consciousness is not a universal result (sarvatraga-phala).
Treatise: 'Regarding what was said earlier, how many minds can be obtained?' The third part below explains how many minds are obtained within the twelve minds.
Treatise says: 'Until now, it is accomplished, therefore.' It explains that six minds are obtained in the defiled mind. 'Obtained' here means that it was not accomplished before, but now it is accomplished. It does not mean that it existed continuously before. 'Obtained' is distinguished in three situations: 1. Doubtful mind (vicikitsa-citta) continues with wholesome (kusala). 2. Retreating from the upper realm (urdhva-bhumi) to be born in a lower realm, which is rebirth-linking defilement (pratisandhi-klesa). 3. Retreating due to arising afflictions (klesa). All three are defiled minds (klista-citta).
Treatise: 'From doubt continuing with wholesome, until that time it is called obtained.' It explains obtaining the Desire Realm wholesome mind (kama-kusala-citta). When doubt continues with wholesome, and when retreating from the upper realm, the defiled mind (klista-citta) is presently manifesting. The Desire Realm wholesome mind is obtained until the birth-phase (jati-laksana), then it is called 'obtained.' The Desire Realm wholesome mind only occurs in these two situations.
Treatise: 'From arising afflictions retreating to one obscured mind.' It explains the two Desire Realm minds (kama-dvaya-citta) and the Form Realm mind (rupa-citta). If one dies from the Formless Realm (arupa-dhatu) and is born in the Desire Realm, one obtains the two Desire Realm minds and one Form Realm mind. When retreating from departing from the Form Realm defilements and arising Desire Realm afflictions, the number is also according to this. If one is born from below and retreats from departing from the Desire Realm defilements, one only obtains the two Desire Realm minds.
Treatise: 'From arising afflictions retreating to, therefore it is called obtaining six.' The learning mind (saiksa-citta) and the Formless Realm defiled mind (arupa-klista-citta) can only be obtained by retreating due to arising afflictions. The Formless Realm has no higher realm to be born into, so when the Desire Realm defiled mind is presently manifesting, these six minds are obtained. When doubt continues with wholesome, the Desire Realm wholesome mind is obtained. The Vibhasa has two explanations: one explanation is that only the outflow result (nisyanda-labha) is obtained, and the other explanation adds effort (prayoga). If one is accustomed (abhyasa), one can also obtain it. There is no commentary text.
Treatise: ' defiled mind until also obtained by retreating.' The second part explains that the ** defiled mind obtains six minds. When one dies from the Formless Realm and is born in the , one obtains the Desire Realm
化心得色界中無覆無記．及善．染心。染心亦由退得。余心唯由界還。
論。由起惑退至故名得六。明無色界染心．及有學心唯由退得。諸文可知。
論。無色染心至故名得二。明無色染心也。彼無上界故無界退還。起惑退時起上不得下。退下必得上。由此無色染心唯得二心。
論。色界善心至由升進故。明色善也。此善升進得未至定得色善心。得根本定得二化心。故言得三 問何心後退 答婆沙六十一云。何等心無間起煩惱現前者。若畢竟離非想非非想處染起彼地纏現在前故。退者即彼地善心無間起煩惱現在前。若未畢竟離非想非非想處染。起彼地纏現在前故。退者即彼或善心．或染污心無間。起煩惱現在前。乃至初靜慮應知亦爾。若畢竟離欲界染起欲界纏故。退者即欲界或善心．或無覆無記心無間。起煩惱現在前。若未畢竟離欲界染起欲界纏故。退者即欲界或善心．或染污心．或無覆無記心無間。起煩惱現在前。此中若未得根本善靜慮．無色定現在前者。彼不能起色．無色界纏現在前故退。但能起欲界纏現在前故退。若得根本善靜慮現在前。非無色定者。彼不能起無色界纏現在前故退。但能起欲．色界纏現在前故退。若得根本善靜慮．無色定現在前者。彼能起三界纏現在前故退 婆沙說。欲界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 化心得（指通過修行獲得的心理狀態）中，沒有無覆無記心（既非善也非惡的中性心理狀態），以及善心、染污心（被煩惱污染的心理狀態）。染污心也是由於退失（修行境界）而獲得的。其餘的心（指善心和無覆無記心）僅僅由於從更高的境界退還而獲得。
論（指《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）：由於生起迷惑而退失（修行境界），所以說獲得六種心。明確說明無色界（指色界之上的四種禪定境界）的染污心，以及有學心（指還在學習修行階段的心）僅僅由於退失而獲得。這些內容可以從其他經文中得知。
論：無色界的染污心，所以說獲得兩種心。明確說明無色界的染污心。因為無色界沒有更高的境界，所以沒有從更高境界退還的情況。生起迷惑而退失時，生起更高的境界不能退到更低的境界，退到更低的境界必定能達到更高的境界。因此，無色界的染污心僅僅獲得兩種心。
論：色界的善心，由於升進（修行境界）的緣故。明確說明色界的善心。這種善心升進，獲得未至定（指接近初禪的禪定境界）就能獲得色界的善心。獲得根本定（指四禪八定的根本禪定）就能獲得兩種變化的心。所以說獲得三種心。問：什麼心之後會退失？答：婆沙（指《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）第六十一卷說：什麼心無間（指沒有間隔）生起煩惱現前呢？如果畢竟（指完全）離開了非想非非想處（指無色界的最高禪定境界）的染污，生起該地的纏（指煩惱的束縛）現在前，所以退失的人，就是該地的善心無間生起煩惱現在前。如果未畢竟離開非想非非想處的染污，生起該地的纏現在前，所以退失的人，就是該地的或者善心，或者染污心無間，生起煩惱現在前。乃至初靜慮（指初禪）也應該知道是這樣。如果畢竟離開了欲界（指眾生有慾望的生存空間）的染污，生起欲界的纏的緣故，退失的人，就是欲界的或者善心，或者無覆無記心無間，生起煩惱現在前。如果未畢竟離開欲界的染污，生起欲界的纏的緣故，退失的人，就是欲界的或者善心，或者染污心，或者無覆無記心無間，生起煩惱現在前。這裡面，如果未獲得根本善靜慮（指根本禪定）、無色定現在前的人，他們不能生起色界、無色界的纏現在前，所以退失。只能生起欲界的纏現在前，所以退失。如果獲得根本善靜慮現在前，而非無色定的人，他們不能生起無色界的纏現在前，所以退失。只能生起欲界、色界的纏現在前，所以退失。如果獲得根本善靜慮、無色定現在前的人，他們能生起三界的纏現在前，所以退失。《婆沙》說，欲界
【English Translation】 English version In the attainment of transformation (referring to psychological states achieved through practice), there are no indeterminate (neither good nor bad) states, nor wholesome states, nor defiled states (states of mind contaminated by afflictions). Defiled states are also obtained through regression (from a higher state of practice). Other states (referring to wholesome and indeterminate states) are obtained only through returning from a higher realm.
Treatise (referring to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra): Because of arising delusion and regressing (from a state of practice), it is said that six types of minds are obtained. It is clearly stated that defiled minds of the Formless Realm (referring to the four meditative states above the Form Realm), and minds of those still learning (referring to minds still in the learning and practice stage) are obtained only through regression. These contents can be known from other scriptures.
Treatise: Defiled minds of the Formless Realm, therefore it is said that two types of minds are obtained. It clearly states the defiled minds of the Formless Realm. Because the Formless Realm has no higher realm, there is no situation of returning from a higher realm. When delusion arises and one regresses, arising in a higher realm cannot regress to a lower realm; regressing to a lower realm will certainly be able to reach a higher realm. Therefore, defiled minds of the Formless Realm only obtain two types of minds.
Treatise: Wholesome minds of the Form Realm, because of advancement (in the state of practice). It clearly states the wholesome minds of the Form Realm. This wholesome mind advances, obtaining the preliminary concentration (referring to the meditative state close to the first dhyana) can obtain the wholesome mind of the Form Realm. Obtaining the fundamental concentration (referring to the fundamental meditative states of the four dhyanas and eight samadhis) can obtain two transformed minds. Therefore, it is said that three types of minds are obtained. Question: After what mind does one regress? Answer: The Vibhāṣā (referring to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra), volume sixty-one, says: What mind immediately gives rise to afflictions manifesting? If one has completely abandoned the defilements of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (referring to the highest meditative state of the Formless Realm), and the fetters (referring to the bonds of afflictions) of that realm arise, then the person who regresses is the wholesome mind of that realm immediately giving rise to afflictions. If one has not completely abandoned the defilements of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception, and the fetters of that realm arise, then the person who regresses is either the wholesome mind or the defiled mind of that realm immediately giving rise to afflictions. Even the first dhyana (referring to the first meditative state) should be understood in the same way. If one has completely abandoned the defilements of the Desire Realm (referring to the realm of existence with desires), and the fetters of the Desire Realm arise, then the person who regresses is either the wholesome mind or the indeterminate mind of the Desire Realm immediately giving rise to afflictions. If one has not completely abandoned the defilements of the Desire Realm, and the fetters of the Desire Realm arise, then the person who regresses is either the wholesome mind, the defiled mind, or the indeterminate mind of the Desire Realm immediately giving rise to afflictions. Here, if one has not obtained the fundamental wholesome dhyana (referring to the fundamental meditative state) or the Formless Realm concentration, they cannot give rise to the fetters of the Form Realm or the Formless Realm, therefore they regress. They can only give rise to the fetters of the Desire Realm, therefore they regress. If one has obtained the fundamental wholesome dhyana but not the Formless Realm concentration, they cannot give rise to the fetters of the Formless Realm, therefore they regress. They can only give rise to the fetters of the Desire Realm and the Form Realm, therefore they regress. If one has obtained the fundamental wholesome dhyana and the Formless Realm concentration, they can give rise to the fetters of the three realms, therefore they regress. The Vibhāṣā says, the Desire Realm
退時無記心無間能生染心者。一說三無記心。一說二無記心。無評家也。
論。若有學心至離欲色染。此明學心得四心也。初入見道得於學心。以無漏道離欲染時。得二化心。離色染時得無色善。若離二界染者通其全分。正理論云。此中離言非究竟離。以於色染未全離時。無色善心已可得故。有說全離色界染時。得無色界根本地善。若爾應說亦得學心離欲染時亦得色善。是則應說學心得五 依下無漏斷上惑時。修有漏未至。唯兩解不同。如下分別。
論。余謂前說至唯自可得。明余心也。十二心中三界染心即有四心。謂欲不善。及有覆心。上二界各一有覆心。色善．學心總有六心所得。如前所述。三界無覆。欲．無色善。及無學心。此之六心唯自可得 問此論等言欲界染心唯得六心。識身足論第十三云。若成就不善心定成欲無覆無記心。若爾者界還之時續生之位。爾時成就不善心。即于爾時亦合得彼威儀．工巧。即得七心。如何言六。顯宗亦爾 論意異故。此類非一 有人雖多種釋于義皆悉有餘。應更撿識身論。
論。有餘於此總說頌言。已下一頌束上總為三門。謂染．善．無記得心多少 言有餘者。是雜心頌。
論。于善心中至說名為得。此破雜心頌也 言得七者。如前所釋加欲善也。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 退沒時無記心，沒有間隔能產生染污心的，有一種說法是三種無記心，一種說法是兩種無記心。沒有評判家。
論：如果具有學心，直至遠離欲界色界的染污。這說明學心可以獲得四種心。最初進入見道時獲得學心。以無漏道遠離欲界染污時，獲得兩種化心。遠離色界染污時，獲得無色界善心。如果遠離兩個界的染污，則通達其全部分。正理論說：『這裡說的遠離並非究竟的遠離，因為在色界染污沒有完全遠離時，無色界善心已經可以獲得。』有人說完全遠離染污時，獲得無根本地善心。如果這樣說，應該說獲得學心，遠離欲界染污時，也獲得色界善心。那麼就應該說學心可以獲得五種心。依據地獄的無漏道斷除上界的迷惑時，修習有漏的未至定。只有兩種理解不同，如下分別。
論：其餘人認為前面所說是唯一可以獲得的。說明其餘的心。十二種心中，三界的染污心即有四種心。即欲界的不善心和有覆無記心（Avyakrta，無法定義其善惡性質的心）。上二界各有各的有覆無記心。色界善心、學心總共有六種心可以獲得，如前所述。三界的無覆無記心，欲界、無色界善心，以及無學心，這六種心唯有自身可以獲得。問：此論等說欲界染污心只能獲得六種心。《識身足論》第十三說：『如果成就了不善心，必定成就欲界無覆無記心。』如果這樣，在界還的時候，續生的位置，那時成就了不善心，就在那時也應該獲得那些威儀、工巧，即獲得七種心。為什麼說六種？《顯宗論》也是這樣。論的意義不同，此類情況並非只有一種。有人雖然做了多種解釋，但意義上都有不足，應該進一步檢查《識身論》。
論：還有人在此總說頌說：以下一頌總結上面，總分為三門。即染污、善、無記所得心的多少。說『還有人』，指的是《雜心頌》。
論：在善心中，說名為獲得。這是爲了破斥《雜心頌》。說『獲得七種』，如前面所解釋的，加上欲界善心。這裡。
【English Translation】 English version When retreating, the mind is non-committal, and without interruption, it can generate defiled thoughts. One theory says there are three types of non-committal minds, and another says there are two. There is no judge.
Treatise: If one has a learning mind until they are detached from the defilements of the desire and form realms. This clarifies that the learning mind can attain four types of minds. Initially entering the path of seeing, one attains the learning mind. When using the un-leaked path to detach from the defilements of desire, one attains two transformation minds. When detaching from the defilements of the form realm, one attains the good of the formless realm. If one detaches from the defilements of both realms, then one understands their entirety. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: 'The detachment spoken of here is not ultimate detachment, because even when the defilements of the form realm are not completely detached, the good mind of the formless realm can already be attained.' Some say that when completely detaching from ** defilements, one attains the good of the fundamental ground of non-. If that is the case, it should also be said that one attains the learning mind, and when detaching from the defilements of desire, one also attains the good of the form realm. Then it should be said that the learning mind can attain five minds. When relying on the un-leaked below to sever the afflictions above, one cultivates the leaked Avīci (未至). There are only two different understandings, which are distinguished below.
Treatise: Others say that what was previously said is the only thing that can be attained. This clarifies the remaining minds. Among the twelve minds, the defiled minds of the three realms are four minds, namely the unwholesome mind of the desire realm and the covered non-committal mind (Avyakrta, a mind whose nature of good or evil cannot be defined). The upper two realms each have their own covered non-committal mind. The good mind of the form realm and the learning mind can attain a total of six minds, as previously stated. The uncovered non-committal mind of the three realms, the good mind of the desire and formless realms, and the mind of no-more-learning, these six minds can only be attained by oneself. Question: This treatise and others say that the defiled mind of the desire realm can only attain six minds. The thirteenth chapter of the Vijñānakāya-pāda-śāstra (識身足論) says: 'If one achieves an unwholesome mind, one will definitely achieve the uncovered non-committal mind of the desire realm.' If that is the case, when returning to the realm, at the position of continued existence, at that time one achieves an unwholesome mind, and at that time one should also attain those dignified manners and skillful crafts, that is, attain seven minds. Why say six? The Abhidharmakośa (顯宗論) is also like this. The meaning of the treatise is different, and this kind of situation is not only one. Although some people have made various explanations, there are still deficiencies in meaning, and the Vijñānakāya-pāda-śāstra should be further examined.
Treatise: There are others who summarize this with a verse, summarizing the above into three categories. That is, the amount of defiled, good, and non-committal minds that can be attained. Saying 'there are others' refers to the Saṃyukta-hṛdaya-śāstra (雜心頌).
Treatise: In the good mind, it is said to be attained. This is to refute the Saṃyukta-hṛdaya-śāstra. Saying 'attaining seven types' is as explained previously, adding the good mind of the desire realm. Here.
中善者。通漏．無漏。正理亦許正見續善得欲善心 通云 若爾何故言得六心如經主難應言得七。然學無學同無漏故。總說一心言六。無失。
論。余準前釋應知其相 準前釋者。諸染污心總得九心者。一欲善心。二欲不善。三欲有覆。四色界有覆。五無色有覆。六學心。七欲無覆心。八色善心。九色無覆心。無記心唯自得故名無記唯無記。
論。為攝前義至非先不成故。總前得心之義總有一頌。一由託生。二由入定。三由離染。四由退時。五由續善 非先所成故。總釋得義也。
俱舍論疏卷第七
一交了 范 雅
保延三年十月二十六日夜半於南新屋點了 加久壽 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第八
沙門法寶撰
分別世品第三之一
分別世間品者。三界有漏有破壞故。名為世間。此品廣明故名分別。正理名緣起品。以明緣起義故 前二品總明漏．無漏法。后之六品別明漏．無漏法。后六品中前之三品明有漏法。后之三品明無漏法。以先厭．后忻故 前三品中先明世品后業．惑者。以先果后因故 就世品中先明有情后明器者。外由內故先明能依。后所依故。先明內果后明外果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 中等善心是指通向有漏和無漏的善心。正理也認可正見相續、善得欲善心。如果說通向有漏和無漏，那麼為什麼說得到六種心，如經主所難，應該說得到七種心？這是因為有學和無學都屬於無漏，所以總的說來，只說一心，說六種心沒有錯誤。
論：其餘的應該參照前面的解釋來了解它的相狀。參照前面的解釋是指，各種染污心總共得到九種心：一是欲善心，二是欲不善心，三是欲有覆心，四是色界有覆心，五是無色界有覆心，六是有學心，七是欲界無覆心，八是色界善心，九是色界無覆心。無記心只能自己得到，所以稱為無記，僅僅是無記。
論：爲了概括前面的意義，直到非先所成，所以用一首偈頌來概括前面得到心的意義：一是由託生，二是由入定，三是由離染，四是由退時，五是由相續善心。因為不是先前就成就的，所以總的解釋得到的意義。
《俱舍論疏》卷第七
一交了 范 雅
保延三年十月二十六日夜半於南新屋點了 加久壽 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第八
沙門法寶 撰
分別世品第三之一
分別世間品，三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）有漏（āsrava，煩惱）有破壞，所以名為世間。此品廣泛闡明，所以名為分別。正理名為緣起品，因為闡明緣起（pratītyasamutpāda，因緣和合而生）的意義。前面兩品總的闡明有漏和無漏法，後面的六品分別闡明有漏和無漏法。後面的六品中，前面的三品闡明有漏法，後面的三品闡明無漏法。因為先厭惡后欣喜的緣故。前面的三品中，先闡明世品，后闡明業和惑，因為先果后因的緣故。就世品中，先闡明有情（sentient beings），后闡明器世間（vessel world），外在的由內在的產生，所以先闡明能依，后闡明所依，先闡明內果，后闡明外果。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Middle good' refers to the good that leads to both āsrava (with outflows, defiled) and anāsrava (without outflows, undefiled). The 'Nyāyānusāra-śāstra' (正理) also acknowledges the continuity of right view, the good attainment of desire-realm good mind. If it leads to both āsrava and anāsrava, then why is it said that six types of minds are attained, as questioned by the Sūtra Master? It should be said that seven are attained. This is because both those in training (śaikṣa) and those beyond training (aśaikṣa) belong to the anāsrava, so generally speaking, only one mind is mentioned, and saying six minds is not a mistake.
Treatise: The rest should be understood by referring to the previous explanation regarding its characteristics. Referring to the previous explanation means that various defiled minds attain a total of nine minds: first, desire-realm good mind; second, desire-realm unwholesome mind; third, desire-realm obscured mind; fourth, form-realm obscured mind; fifth, formless-realm obscured mind; sixth, mind of those in training; seventh, desire-realm unobscured mind; eighth, form-realm good mind; ninth, form-realm unobscured mind. The indeterminate mind (avyākṛta-citta) can only be attained by itself, so it is called indeterminate, merely indeterminate.
Treatise: To summarize the previous meaning, up to 'not previously accomplished,' a verse is used to summarize the meaning of attaining minds: first, by rebirth; second, by entering samādhi; third, by detachment from defilements; fourth, by the time of regression; fifth, by the continuation of good mind. Because it is not previously accomplished, it generally explains the meaning of attainment.
Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā (俱舍論疏) Volume 7
One checked 范 雅
Completed at the South New House on the 26th night of the 10th month of the 3rd year of Hoen (保延) 加久壽 Taishō Tripiṭaka Volume 41 No. 1822 Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā
Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā Volume 8
Composed by Śramaṇa Dharmaratna (沙門法寶)
Chapter 3, Section 1: Analysis of the World (分別世品)
The chapter on analyzing the world (loka) is so named because the three realms (Trailokya) – the desire realm (Kāmadhātu), the form realm (Rūpadhātu), and the formless realm (Arūpadhātu) – are āsrava (subject to outflows, defiled) and subject to destruction. This chapter explains extensively, hence the name 'Analysis.' The 'Nyāyānusāra-śāstra' calls it the 'Chapter on Dependent Origination' (緣起品) because it explains the meaning of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). The first two chapters generally explain āsrava and anāsrava dharmas (laws, principles), while the latter six chapters separately explain āsrava and anāsrava dharmas. Among the latter six chapters, the first three explain āsrava dharmas, and the latter three explain anāsrava dharmas, because of the sequence of first disliking and then rejoicing. Among the first three chapters, the chapter on the world is explained first, followed by karma and afflictions, because of the sequence of first the result and then the cause. Within the chapter on the world, sentient beings (有情) are explained first, followed by the vessel world (器世間), because the external arises from the internal, so the dependent (能依) is explained first, followed by the depended-upon (所依), the internal result is explained first, followed by the external result.
就明有情文有九別。一明三界。二明五趣。三明七識住。四明九有情居。五明四識住。六明四生。七明中有。八明緣起。九明四有。
論。已依三界至處別有幾。已下三頌第一明三界也。於此頌前而有二問。一問三界體。二問于中處。
論曰至是名欲界。總出欲界體也。即欲界中若是有情若器世間。總是欲界趣。唯有情界兼無情。
論。六慾天者至化自在天。別列六天名也。此之六天多受妙欲境故。名為欲天 一四大王眾天者。四大王是主。眾是所領。即是諸層級上。及七金山日．月．星等諸類天也 類非一故名為眾也 二三十三天者。在妙高頂。帝釋居中。四面各八總三十三。亦名忉利天也 三夜摩天者。此云時分。受五欲境知時分故 四睹史多天者。此云喜足。舊云知足。受五欲境生喜足故 五樂變化天者。謂彼天中樂變欲境于中受用 六他化自在天者。謂彼天處於他所化欲境。受用得自在故。
論。如是欲界處別有幾。問也。
論。地獄洲異故成二十。答也。地獄．及人．鬼．畜等四。別舉總名不列別數。
論。八大地獄至無間地獄。此釋地獄異也 正理釋云。眾苦逼身數悶如死。尋蘇如本故名等活。謂彼有情雖遭種種斫刺磨搗。而彼暫遇涼風所吹尋蘇如本。等前活故
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", " 關於闡明有情眾生，從文義上有九種區別。一是闡明三界（Trailokya）。二是闡明五趣（Pancagatayah）。三是闡明七識住（Saptavijnanasthitayah）。四是闡明九有情居（Navasattvavasah）。五是闡明四識住（Caturvijnanasthitayah）。六是闡明四生（Caturyonayah）。七是闡明中有（Antarabhava）。八是闡明緣起（Pratityasamutpada）。九是闡明四有（Caturbhavah）。", "", " 論：已經依據三界到之處所，區別有幾種？以下三頌是第一頌，闡明三界。在這頌之前有兩個問題。一問三界的本體。二問在三界之中的處所。", "", " 論曰：到這叫做欲界（Kamadhatu）。總括地說明欲界的本體。即欲界中，若是有情眾生，若是器世間（Bhajanaloka），總是欲界所趣向的。只有有情界兼具無情。", "", " 論：六慾天（Sadkamadevaloka）是指什麼？指化樂天（Parinirmita-vasavartin）。分別列出六天的名稱。這六天大多享受美妙的欲境，所以名為欲天。一、四大王眾天（Caturmaharajakayikas Devas）：四大王是主，眾是所領。即是諸層級之上，以及七金山（Saptaratnagiri）、日、月、星等諸類天。種類不止一種，所以名為眾。二、三十三天（Trayastrimsa）：在妙高山頂（Sumeru）。帝釋天（Indra）居於中央，四面各八，總共三十三。也名忉利天（Trāyastriṃśa）。三、夜摩天（Yama）：這裡譯為時分。受五欲境，知時分故。四、兜率天（Tusita）：這裡譯為喜足。舊譯為知足。受五欲境，生喜足故。五、樂變化天（Parinirmita-vasavartin）：謂彼天中，樂於變化欲境，于中受用。六、他化自在天（Parinirmita-vasavartin）：謂彼天處於他所變化欲境，受用得自在故。", "", " 論：像這樣，欲界的處所區別有幾種？問。", "", " 論：地獄、洲等不同，所以成為二十種。答。地獄、以及人、鬼、畜等四種。分別舉出總名，不列出具體數目。", "", " 論：八大地獄（Astamahanarakah）到無間地獄（Avici）。這是解釋地獄的不同。正理釋云：眾苦逼身，數悶如死，尋蘇如本，故名等活（Samjiva）。謂彼有情，雖遭種種斫刺磨搗，而彼暫遇涼風所吹，尋蘇如本。等前活故。", "", "english_translations": [ "English version:", "Regarding the clarification of sentient beings, there are nine distinctions in terms of the text. First, clarifying the Three Realms (Trailokya). Second, clarifying the Five Destinies (Pancagatayah). Third, clarifying the Seven Stations of Consciousness (Saptavijnanasthitayah). Fourth, clarifying the Nine Abodes of Sentient Beings (Navasattvavasah). Fifth, clarifying the Four Stations of Consciousness (Caturvijnanasthitayah). Sixth, clarifying the Four Births (Caturyonayah). Seventh, clarifying the Intermediate Existence (Antarabhava). Eighth, clarifying Dependent Origination (Pratityasamutpada). Ninth, clarifying the Four Existences (Caturbhavah).", "", "Treatise: Having already relied on the Three Realms to the places, how many distinctions are there? The following three verses are the first, clarifying the Three Realms. Before this verse, there are two questions. The first asks about the substance of the Three Realms. The second asks about the places within the Three Realms.", "", "Treatise says: This is called the Desire Realm (Kamadhatu). It generally explains the substance of the Desire Realm. That is, within the Desire Realm, whether it is sentient beings or the physical world (Bhajanaloka), all are directed towards the Desire Realm. Only the realm of sentient beings combines both sentient and non-sentient.", "", "Treatise: What are the Six Desire Heavens (Sadkamadevaloka)? It refers to the Paranirmitavasavartin Deva. It lists the names of the six heavens separately. These six heavens mostly enjoy wonderful objects of desire, so they are called Desire Heavens. 1. Heaven of the Four Great Kings (Caturmaharajakayikas Devas): The Four Great Kings are the lords, and the multitude is what they lead. That is, the various levels above, as well as the Seven Golden Mountains (Saptaratnagiri), the sun, moon, stars, and other types of heavens. Because there is more than one type, it is called a multitude. 2. Heaven of the Thirty-three (Trayastrimsa): Located on the summit of Mount Sumeru. Indra resides in the center, with eight on each of the four sides, totaling thirty-three. It is also called Trayastrimsa Heaven. 3. Yama Heaven: Here it is translated as 'time division'. Because they experience the objects of the five desires and know the time division. 4. Tusita Heaven: Here it is translated as 'joyful satisfaction'. The old translation is 'contentment'. Because they experience the objects of the five desires and generate joyful satisfaction. 5. Paranirmitavasavartin Deva: It means that in that heaven, they enjoy transforming objects of desire and using them within. 6. Paranirmitavasavartin Deva: It means that those heavens are situated in the desire realms transformed by others, and they are free to enjoy them.", "", "Treatise: Like this, how many distinctions are there in the places of the Desire Realm? Question.", "", "Treatise: Because the hells and continents are different, there are twenty types. Answer. Hells, as well as humans, ghosts, animals, and other four types. They separately list the general names without listing the specific numbers.", "", "Treatise: The Eight Great Hells (Astamahanarakah) to Avici Hell. This explains the differences in the hells. The Commentary of Correct Reasoning explains: 'Various sufferings oppress the body, and one often faints as if dead, but then quickly revives to the original state, so it is called Samjiva (Reviving). It means that although those sentient beings suffer various chopping, stabbing, grinding, and pounding, they temporarily encounter a cool breeze that blows and quickly revives them to their original state. They are revived to their previous life.'" ] }
立等活名 先以黑索拼量支體。後方斬鋸故名黑繩 眾多苦具俱來逼身。合黨相殘故名眾合 眾苦所逼異類悲號。怨發叫聲故名號叫 劇苦所逼發大酷聲。悲叫稱怨故名大叫 火隨身轉炎熾周圍。熱苦難任故名炎熱 若內．若外。自身．他身。皆出猛火互相燒害。熱中極故名為極熱 此論下文云。受苦無間故名無間。無樂間苦故名無間。
論。言洲異者至北俱盧洲。此明洲異。贍部從林立名名贍部洲 以身勝故名勝身洲 以牛貨易名牛貨洲 俱盧此云勝處。於四洲中此最勝故。
論。如是十二至處成二十。此明傍生．鬼也。
論。若有情界至皆欲界攝。此總結欲界也。
論。此欲界上至總名色界。已下釋色界也 于中有三。一略舉。二廣釋。三定宗。此第一也。
論。第一靜慮至色究竟天。此第二也 正理釋云。廣善所生故名為梵。此梵即大故名大梵。由彼獲得中間定故。最初生故。最後沒故。威德等勝。故名為大 大梵所有所化所領故名梵眾 于大梵前行列侍衛故名梵輔 自地天內光明最小故名少光 光明轉勝量難測故名無量光 凈光遍照自地處故名極光凈 意地樂受說名為凈 于自地中。此凈最劣故名少凈 此凈轉增量難測故名無量凈 此凈周普故名遍凈。意顯更無樂能過此 已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『立等活名』（Samghata，意為重合）：先用黑線拼量肢體，然後用斬鋸切割，所以叫做『黑繩』（Kalasutra，意為黑線）。 眾多苦具一齊逼迫身體，互相殘殺，所以叫做『眾合』（Samghata，意為重合）。 被眾多的痛苦逼迫，不同的生物悲慘地嚎叫，發出怨恨的叫聲，所以叫做『號叫』（Raurava，意為號叫）。 被極度的痛苦逼迫，發出巨大的悽慘聲音，悲傷地叫喊和抱怨，所以叫做『大叫』（Maharaurava，意為大號叫）。 火焰隨著身體轉動，猛烈地燃燒周圍，熱的痛苦難以忍受，所以叫做『炎熱』（Tapana，意為熱）。 無論是內在還是外在，自身還是他人，都發出猛烈的火焰互相燒害，熱到極點，所以叫做『極熱』（Pratapana，意為極熱）。 此論下文說，所受的痛苦沒有間斷，所以叫做『無間』（Avici，意為無間）。沒有快樂的間隙，只有痛苦，所以叫做『無間』（Avici，意為無間）。
論：說到洲的差異，直到北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）。這裡說明了洲的差異。贍部洲（Jambudvipa）因為叢林茂盛而得名，叫做贍部洲（Jambudvipa）。 因為身體殊勝而得名勝身洲（Purvavideha）。 因為用牛交易貨物而得名牛貨洲（Godaniya）。 俱盧（Kuru）這裡的意思是殊勝之處。在四大洲中，這裡最為殊勝。
論：像這樣十二處，加上地獄，總共成為二十處。這裡說明了傍生和鬼。
論：如果說有情眾生的範圍，都屬於欲界所攝。這裡總結了欲界。
論：此欲界之上，總的名稱是（此處應為色界或無色界，原文缺失）。以下解釋（此處應為色界或無色界，原文缺失）。其中有三個部分：一是略舉，二是廣釋，三是定宗。這是第一部分。
論：第一靜慮（Dhyana）直到色究竟天（Akanistha）。這是第二部分。正理釋中說：因為廣大的善行所生，所以叫做梵（Brahma）。此梵就是大，所以叫做大梵（Mahabrahma）。由於他獲得了中間禪定，最初出生，最後死亡，威德等等殊勝，所以叫做大。 大梵所有、所化、所領，所以叫做梵眾（Brahma-parisadya）。 在大梵前面排列侍衛，所以叫做梵輔（Brahma-purohita）。 在自地天內，光明最小，所以叫做少光（Parittabha）。 光明逐漸增強，難以測量，所以叫做無量光（Apramanabha）。 清凈的光明普遍照耀自地處，所以叫做極光凈（Abhasvara）。 意地（Mano-bhumi）的快樂感受，被說成是凈。 在自地中，這種清凈最差，所以叫做少凈（Parittasubha）。 這種清凈逐漸增加，難以測量，所以叫做無量凈（Apramanasubha）。 這種清凈周遍普遍，所以叫做遍凈（Subhakrtsna）。意思是顯示沒有快樂能夠超過這個。 完畢
【English Translation】 English version 'Samghata' (meaning crushing): First, the limbs are measured with black lines, and then they are cut with saws, hence the name 'Kalasutra' (meaning black thread). Numerous instruments of suffering come together to oppress the body, and they kill each other, hence the name 'Samghata' (meaning crushing). Being oppressed by numerous sufferings, different beings cry out miserably, uttering sounds of resentment, hence the name 'Raurava' (meaning howling). Being oppressed by extreme suffering, they utter great, miserable sounds, crying and complaining sadly, hence the name 'Maharaurava' (meaning great howling). The flames turn with the body, fiercely burning the surroundings, the pain of heat is unbearable, hence the name 'Tapana' (meaning heat). Whether internal or external, one's own body or another's body, all emit fierce flames that burn each other, the heat reaching its extreme, hence the name 'Pratapana' (meaning extreme heat). This treatise says later that the suffering received is without interruption, hence the name 'Avici' (meaning without interval). There is no interval of happiness, only suffering, hence the name 'Avici' (meaning without interval).
Treatise: Speaking of the differences between continents, up to Uttarakuru (Northern Kuru). This explains the differences between continents. Jambudvipa (Rose-apple Continent) is named Jambudvipa (Rose-apple Continent) because of its lush forests. It is named Purvavideha (Eastern Videha) because of its superior bodies. It is named Godaniya (Western Godaniya) because goods are traded with cattle. Kuru here means a superior place. Among the four continents, this is the most superior.
Treatise: Like this, twelve places, plus hells, become a total of twenty places. This explains animals and ghosts.
Treatise: If we say that the realm of sentient beings is all included in the desire realm. This summarizes the desire realm.
Treatise: Above this desire realm, the general name is (should be the Form Realm or Formless Realm, the original text is missing). The following explains (should be the Form Realm or Formless Realm, the original text is missing). Among them, there are three parts: first, a brief summary; second, a detailed explanation; and third, a definition of the doctrine. This is the first part.
Treatise: The first Dhyana (meditative absorption) up to Akanistha (the highest form realm). This is the second part. The commentary of Nyaya explains: Because it is born from vast good deeds, it is called Brahma. This Brahma is great, so it is called Mahabrahma (Great Brahma). Because he obtained the intermediate dhyana, was born first, and dies last, and his power and virtue are superior, he is called Great. What belongs to, is transformed by, and is led by Mahabrahma, is called Brahma-parisadya (Assembly of Brahma). Arranged and guarding in front of Mahabrahma, it is called Brahma-purohita (Ministers of Brahma). Within its own heavenly realm, the light is the smallest, so it is called Parittabha (Limited Light). The light gradually increases and is difficult to measure, so it is called Apramanabha (Immeasurable Light). Pure light universally illuminates its own place, so it is called Abhasvara (Radiant Light). The feeling of happiness in the Mano-bhumi (mind-ground) is said to be pure. In its own realm, this purity is the worst, so it is called Parittasubha (Limited Purity). This purity gradually increases and is difficult to measure, so it is called Apramanasubha (Immeasurable Purity). This purity is pervasive and universal, so it is called Subhakrtsna (All-Pure). It means to show that there is no happiness that can surpass this. Finished
下空中天所居地如雲密合故說名云。此上諸天更無雲地。在無雲首故說無雲 更有異生勝福。方所可往生故說名福生 居在方所異生果中。此最殊勝故名廣果 離欲諸聖以聖道水。濯煩惱垢故名為凈。凈身所止故名凈居。或住於此窮生死邊。如還債盡故名為凈。凈者所住故名凈居。或此天中無異生雜。純聖所止故名凈居 繁謂繁雜。或謂繁廣。無繁雜中此最初故。繁廣天中。此最劣故說名無繁。或名無求。不求趣入無色界故 已善伏除雜修靜慮上中品障。意樂調柔離諸熱惱故名無熱。或令下生煩惱名熱。此初遠離得無熱名。或復熱者熾盛為義。謂上品修靜慮及果。此猶未證故名無熱 已得上品雜修靜慮。果德易彰故名善現 雜修定障余品至微。見極清徹故名善見 更無有處於有色中能過於此名色究竟。或此已到眾苦所依身最後邊名色究竟。
論。迦濕彌羅至四眾圍繞。此第三也。說色界有十六處者。是婆沙義。此師意說。梵王．梵輔不分二處。無想．廣果合立一處。故成十六 正理論云。此十七處諸器世間。並諸有情總名色界。有餘別說十七處名。初靜慮中總立二處。第四靜慮別說無想。彼師應言處有十八。以彼大梵望梵輔天。壽量．身量．無尋．受等皆有別故。豈不無想望廣果天。唯異生等。有差別。故前亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 下空中天所居住的地方，像云一樣密集聚合，所以叫做雲天（Cloud Heaven）。這以上的諸天，不再有云地。因為在無雲天的頂端，所以叫做無雲天（No Cloud Heaven）。 更有超過一般眾生的殊勝福報，所處的方位可以往生，所以叫做福生天（Blessed Birth Heaven）。 居住在方位特殊的眾生果報之中，這裡最為殊勝，所以叫做廣果天（Extensive Fruition Heaven）。 遠離慾望的聖者們，用聖道的智慧之水，洗滌煩惱的污垢，所以叫做凈天（Pure Heaven）。清凈之身所居住的地方，所以叫做凈居天（Pure Abode Heaven）。或者居住在這裡，窮盡生死輪迴的邊際，如同還清債務一樣，所以叫做凈。清凈者所居住的地方，所以叫做凈居天。 繁，指的是繁雜，或者指的是繁廣。在沒有繁雜的天界中，這裡最初出現，在繁廣的天界中，這裡最為低劣，所以叫做無繁天（No Complexity Heaven）。或者叫做無求天（No Craving Heaven），不尋求趣入無色界。 已經很好地降伏並清除了雜修禪定中上品、中品的障礙，意念調和柔順，遠離各種熱惱，所以叫做無熱天（No Heat Heaven）。或者使地獄眾生生起煩惱，叫做熱。這裡最初遠離，得到無熱的名稱。或者熱，是熾盛的意思，指的是上品修習禪定以及果報。這裡還沒有證得，所以叫做無熱天。 已經得到上品雜修禪定，果報功德容易彰顯，所以叫做善現天（Manifestation of Good Heaven）。 雜修禪定的障礙，其餘品類極其微小，見解極其清澈，所以叫做善見天（Good Vision Heaven）。 再也沒有任何地方在有色界中能夠超過這裡，叫做色究竟天（Akanistha）。或者這裡已經到達眾苦所依之身的最後邊際，叫做色究竟天。
論：迦濕彌羅到四眾圍繞。這是第三個。說有十六處，是《大毗婆沙論》的觀點。這位論師認為，梵王天（Brahma Heaven）、梵輔天（Brahma-parisadya Heaven）不分為兩處，無想天（Asanjnasattva Heaven）、廣果天合立為一處，所以成為十六處。 《正理論》說，這十七處器世間，以及所有有情眾生，總稱為。還有其他分別說十七處名稱的說法，最初的靜慮中總共設立兩處，第四靜慮中單獨說無想天。那位論師應該說有十八處，因為他們認為大梵天（Mahabrahma Heaven）相對於梵輔天，在壽命、身量、無尋、感受等方面都有區別。難道不是無想天相對於廣果天，只有異生等有差別嗎？所以前面也應該這樣說。
【English Translation】 English version The places where the lower intermediate heavens reside are as densely packed as clouds, hence they are called Cloud Heavens (Cloud Heaven). Above these heavens, there are no more cloud-like grounds. Being at the summit of the Cloudless Heaven, it is called the No Cloud Heaven (No Cloud Heaven). Moreover, there are beings with superior blessings beyond ordinary beings, and the directions they are in allow for rebirth, hence it is called Blessed Birth Heaven (Blessed Birth Heaven). Residing in the special realms of sentient beings' karmic results, this is the most excellent, hence it is called Extensive Fruition Heaven (Extensive Fruition Heaven). Saints who have detached from desires use the water of the holy path to wash away the defilements of afflictions, hence it is called Pure Heaven (Pure Heaven). It is called Pure Abode Heaven (Pure Abode Heaven) because it is the place where pure bodies reside. Or, residing here, they exhaust the boundaries of the cycle of birth and death, like repaying a debt completely, hence it is called Pure. The place where the pure reside is called Pure Abode Heaven. 'Complexity' refers to complexity or vastness. Among the heavens without complexity, this is the first to appear. Among the vast heavens, this is the most inferior, hence it is called No Complexity Heaven (No Complexity Heaven). Or it is called No Craving Heaven (No Craving Heaven), not seeking to enter the Formless Realm. Having well subdued and eliminated the obstacles of the upper and middle grades of mixed meditative concentration, the mind is harmonious and gentle, and free from all torments, hence it is called No Heat Heaven (No Heat Heaven). Or, causing lower beings to generate afflictions is called 'heat'. This is the first to be free from it, gaining the name 'No Heat'. Or, 'heat' means intense, referring to the upper grade of cultivating meditative concentration and its results. This has not yet been attained, hence it is called No Heat Heaven. Having attained the upper grade of mixed meditative concentration, the merits of the results are easily manifested, hence it is called Manifestation of Good Heaven (Manifestation of Good Heaven). The remaining categories of obstacles to mixed meditative concentration are extremely subtle, and the view is extremely clear, hence it is called Good Vision Heaven (Good Vision Heaven). There is no other place in the Realm of Form that can surpass this, hence it is called Akanistha (Akanistha). Or, this has reached the final boundary of the body that is the basis of all suffering, hence it is called Akanistha.
Treatise: From Kasmira to the surrounding of the four assemblies. This is the third. The statement that there are sixteen abodes of ** is the view of the Mahavibhasa. This teacher believes that the Brahma Heaven (Brahma Heaven) and Brahma-parisadya Heaven (Brahma-parisadya Heaven) are not divided into two places, and the Asanjnasattva Heaven (Asanjnasattva Heaven) and Extensive Fruition Heaven are combined into one place, thus forming sixteen places. The Nyayanusara says that these seventeen abodes of the world of vessels and all sentient beings are collectively called **. There are other separate statements of the names of the seventeen abodes. In the initial meditative concentration, two places are established in total, and in the fourth meditative concentration, the Asanjnasattva Heaven is mentioned separately. That teacher should say that there are eighteen abodes, because they believe that the Mahabrahma Heaven (Mahabrahma Heaven) differs from the Brahma-parisadya Heaven in terms of lifespan, body size, no thought, and feelings. Isn't it the case that the Asanjnasattva Heaven differs from the Extensive Fruition Heaven only in terms of ordinary beings, etc.? Therefore, the same should be said earlier.
應言處有十八。此難非理。無想天生即廣果天系業果故。若爾大梵所受生身。亦梵輔天系業果故。不應別說為一天處。即梵輔天上品系業招大梵果。此業望彼少有差別。故招壽等亦少不同。若大梵天望彼梵輔壽量等別。合為一處。則少光等壽量雖殊應合一處。成大過失。此例不然。大梵一故。要依同分立天處名。非一梵王可名同分。雖壽量等與余不同。然由一身不成同分。故與梵輔合立一天。高下雖殊然地無別。少光天等與此相違。故彼不應引之為例 準此論文。正理亦以十六為正。梵王．無想皆唯一故。地無別故。上坐色處立十八天。
論。無色界中至理決然故。已下。第三明無色界 于中有四。一無處無色。二就生分處。三證無方處。四問答所依。此文初也 以無色故無色界中無別處所。
論。但異熟生至勝劣有殊。第二就生勝劣分處。然實不離欲．色界中四處。亦無差別處所。
論。復如何知至中有起故。第三證處無方所也。得四種定同一處生。故知四無色生無別處也。又得四定欲界九處．色十六處。差別不同。若生無色皆于欲．色命終處生。故知離二界中更無別處。從彼四天處沒生地獄時。即於前生死處中有現前傳識。故知不從別處來也。
論。如有色界至心等相續。已下第四問答
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有十八種情況應該討論。這個反駁是不合理的。無想天（Asanjnasattva, 無想有情天）的產生是由於廣果天（Anabhraka, 無雲天）的業果。如果是這樣，那麼大梵天（Mahabrahma, 色界初禪天主）所受的身體，也是梵輔天（Brahmapurohita, 大梵天輔臣）的業果。不應該單獨說為一個天處。即梵輔天上品系的業招致大梵天的果報。這個業相對於梵輔天只有少許差別，所以招致的壽命等也略有不同。如果大梵天相對於梵輔天，壽命等有差別，就合為一個天處，那麼少光天（Parittabha, 少光天）等壽命雖然不同，也應該合為一個天處，會造成很大的過失。這個例子不成立，因為大梵天只有一個。要依據同分（Sabhaga, 眾生在同一世界中，具有相似的業果和感受）來建立天處的名稱，不是一個梵王可以稱為同分。雖然壽命等與其他的不同，但是由於只有一個身體，不能構成同分，所以與梵輔天合立為一個天。高下雖然不同，但是地沒有區別。少光天等與此相反，所以不應該引用這個例子。根據這個論文，正理也認為以十六天為正確。梵王和無想天都是唯一的，地沒有區別。上座部（Sthavira nikāya）的色處（Rupadhatu, 色界）設立十八天。
論：無色中至理決然故。以下，第三說明無色界（Arupadhatu, 沒有物質的境界）。其中有四個方面：一、無處無色；二、就生分處；三、證無方處；四、問答所依。這段文字是第一個方面。因為沒有物質，所以在無色界中沒有特別的處所。
論：但異熟生至勝劣有殊。第二，就眾生的勝劣來區分處所。然而實際上不離開欲界（Kamadhatu, 眾生有慾望的境界）、色界中的四個處所，也沒有不同的處所。
論：復如何知至中有起故。第三，證明處所沒有方位。得到四種禪定（Dhyana, 禪那）在同一個地方出生，所以知道四無色界（Four Arupadhatus, 四種無色禪定）的眾生沒有不同的處所。又得到四禪定，欲界有九處，色界有十六處，差別不同。如果生到無色界，都是在欲界、色界命終的地方出生，所以知道離開這兩個界，沒有其他的處所。從那四個天處死亡而生到地獄時，就在前生死的地方，中有（Antarabhava, 死亡到投胎之間的過渡狀態）顯現並傳遞意識，所以知道不是從別的地方來的。
論：如有色中至心等相續。以下，第四是問答。
【English Translation】 English version There are eighteen instances where discussion is warranted. This refutation is unreasonable. The birth in Asanjnasattva (Realm of Non-Perception) is due to the karmic result of Anabhraka (Cloudless Heaven). If that's the case, then the body received by Mahabrahma (Great Brahma) is also the karmic result of Brahmapurohita (Brahma's Retinue). It shouldn't be separately stated as a heavenly abode. That is, the superior karma of Brahmapurohita leads to the result of Mahabrahma. This karma has only slight differences compared to Brahmapurohita, so the resulting lifespan etc. are also slightly different. If the lifespan etc. of Mahabrahma are different compared to Brahmapurohita, and they are combined into one heavenly abode, then the lifespans of Parittabha (Minor Light Heaven) etc., although different, should also be combined into one heavenly abode, which would cause a great error. This example is not valid because there is only one Mahabrahma. The name of the heavenly abode should be established based on Sabhaga (commonality, beings in the same world with similar karmic results and feelings), not one Brahma can be called Sabhaga. Although the lifespan etc. are different from others, it cannot constitute Sabhaga because there is only one body, so it is combined with Brahmapurohita to establish one heaven. Although the height is different, the land is not different. Parittabha etc. are contrary to this, so this example should not be cited. According to this treatise, the correct principle also considers sixteen heavens to be correct. Brahma and Asanjnasattva are both unique, and the land is not different. The Sthavira nikāya (Theravada Buddhism) establishes eighteen heavens in the Rupadhatu (Form Realm).
Treatise: 'In the Arupadhatu (Formless Realm), the ultimate truth is certain.' Below, the third explains the Arupadhatu. There are four aspects: 1. No place, no form; 2. Division of place based on birth; 3. Proof of no directional place; 4. Questions and answers based on. This text is the first aspect. Because there is no matter, there is no special place in the Arupadhatu.
Treatise: 'But the different results of maturation lead to differences in superiority and inferiority.' Second, the places are divided according to the superiority and inferiority of beings. However, in reality, it does not depart from the four places in the Kamadhatu (Desire Realm) and Rupadhatu, nor are there different places.
Treatise: 'How do we know that until the intermediate state arises?' Third, it proves that the place has no direction. Obtaining the four Dhyana (meditative states) are born in the same place, so it is known that the beings of the Four Arupadhatus (Four Formless Realms) have no different places. Also, obtaining the four Dhyana, the Kamadhatu has nine places, and the Rupadhatu has sixteen places, which are different. If one is born in the Arupadhatu, they are born in the place where they died in the Kamadhatu and Rupadhatu, so it is known that apart from these two realms, there are no other places. When dying from those four heavenly abodes and being born in the lower realms, in the place of previous life and death, the Antarabhava (intermediate state) appears and transmits consciousness, so it is known that it does not come from another place.
Treatise: 'Like in the Form Realm, until the continuity of mind etc.' Below, the fourth is questions and answers.
所依。此即是問。
論。對法諸師至而得相續。述對法宗答也。
論。若爾有色至此二相續。難也。
論。有色界生此二劣故。答也。
論。無色此二因何故強。徴也。
論。彼界二從至能伏色相。通也。
論。若爾于彼至何用別依。難也。心等相續但依勝定。何用依彼同分．及命根也。
論。又今應說至以何為依。又難。命根．及眾同分。在無色界無所依也。
論。此二更互相依而轉。有部通也。
論。有色此二何不相依。難也 有色界者。謂欲．色界。此命．同分。何不如無色界相依而轉。而言依色。
論。有色界生此二劣故。答也。以欲．色界此二劣故依色而轉。無色此二強故相依。
論。無色此二因何故強。此徴無色界強所以也。
論。彼界此二至能伏色相。答強因也。以定勝故此二勝也。
論。是則還同至唯互相依。兩關釋也 同心相續難者。謂同前難 故前難云。若爾于彼心等相續但依勝定。何用別依。第二關云。無色心．心所法從勝定生。即應心．心所法更互相依。何須更依命根．眾同分。正理論意。唯有六根能為所依。余非所依。但俱生依由此六識。欲．色界中用四蘊為俱生依性。無色意識無複色依。彼俱生依但
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所依。此即是問。
論。對法諸師至而得相續。述對法宗答也。
論。若爾有色至此二相續。難也。
論。有**（指欲界和色界）生此二劣故。答也。
論。無色此二因何故強。徴也。
論。彼界二從至能伏色相。通也。
論。若爾于彼至何用別依。難也。心等相續但依勝定。何用依彼同分．及命根也。
論。又今應說至以何為依。又難。命根．及眾同分。在無**（指欲界和色界）無所依也。
論。此二更互相依而轉。有部通也。
論。有色此二何不相依。難也 有（指欲界和色界）者。謂欲．。此命．同分。何不如無**（指無色界）相依而轉。而言依色。
論。有（指欲界和色界）生此二劣故。答也。以欲．（指欲界和色界）此二劣故依色而轉。無色此二強故相依。
論。無色此二因何故強。此徴無**（指欲界和色界）強所以也。
論。彼界此二至能伏色相。答強因也。以定勝故此二勝也。
論。是則還同至唯互相依。兩關釋也 同心相續難者。謂同前難 故前難云。若爾于彼心等相續但依勝定。何用別依。第二關云。無色心．心所法從勝定生。即應心．心所法更互相依。何須更依命根．眾同分。正理論意。唯有六根能為所依。余非所依。但俱生依由此六識。欲．**（指欲界和色界）中用四蘊為俱生依性。無色意識無複色依。彼俱生依但
【English Translation】 English version What is the basis? This is the question.
Treatise: The masters of Abhidharma arrive and attain continuity. This describes the answer of the Abhidharma school.
Treatise: If that is so, the material (rupa) reaches this twofold continuity. This is a difficulty.
Treatise: Because the existence of kama-rupa (desire realm and form realm) causes these two to be inferior. This is the answer.
Treatise: Why are these two stronger in the formless realm? This is a query.
Treatise: In that realm, these two are able to subdue material aspects. This is a general explanation.
Treatise: If that is so, why use a separate basis in that realm? This is a difficulty. The continuity of mind and so on relies only on superior samadhi (concentration). Why rely on their commonality and the life faculty?
Treatise: Furthermore, it should now be said what is relied upon. This is another difficulty. The life faculty and the aggregation of commonality have no basis in the absence of kama-rupa (desire realm and form realm).
Treatise: These two rely on each other and turn. This is a general explanation by the Sarvastivada school.
Treatise: Why do these two not rely on each other in the material realm? This is a difficulty. The existence of kama-rupa (desire realm and form realm) refers to the desire and form realms. Why do the life faculty and commonality not rely on each other and turn as in the formless realm, but instead rely on material form?
Treatise: Because the existence of kama-rupa (desire realm and form realm) causes these two to be inferior. This is the answer. Because desire and form realms are inferior, they rely on material form to turn. In the formless realm, these two are strong, so they rely on each other.
Treatise: Why are these two stronger in the formless realm? This queries why the absence of kama-rupa (desire realm and form realm) is strong.
Treatise: In that realm, these two are able to subdue material aspects. This answers the cause of strength. Because samadhi (concentration) is superior, these two are superior.
Treatise: Then it is the same as only relying on each other. This explains both points. The difficulty with the continuity of the same mind refers to the previous difficulty. Therefore, the previous difficulty said: 'If that is so, the continuity of mind and so on relies only on superior samadhi (concentration). Why use a separate basis?' The second point says: 'The mind and mental factors in the formless realm arise from superior samadhi (concentration). Then the mind and mental factors should rely on each other. Why is it necessary to rely on the life faculty and the aggregation of commonality?' The meaning of the Abhidharmakosha is that only the six sense organs can be the basis. Others are not the basis, but co-arising dependence is due to these six consciousnesses. In the desire and form realms, the four aggregates are used as the nature of co-arising dependence. The formless consciousness has no material dependence. Their co-arising dependence is only
通三蘊 若爾何故但言無色心等依于同分．及命 此說定同無亂依故。謂心．心所雖互為依。而非定同不自依故亦非無亂。在此地生亂起自他心．心所故。同分．及命心等同依。又此地生唯此地故。依此設起不同地心。由此還令自地心起。唯依此二名此地生。牽引業生無間斷故 準此文證。命根即是引業果也 由斯說是同不亂依。心等不然。故略不說。若無此二餘地四蘊現在前時。爾時有情應名餘地。乃至。如欲．色界身同分．命為心等依。雖或有時異地心起。而依身等。於此生中后定當牽自地心起。如是無色雖無有身。心等定依同分．及命。故頌偏說同分．命根。此是牽引業異熟故。
論。故經部師至不依色轉。論主述經部宗。彼宗意云。若於因中不厭於色。所招心果。與色俱生依色而轉。若於因中厭於色。果中心等。不與色俱不依色轉。正理破云。此亦非理。若引因力。令彼心等相續轉者。善與染心現在前位。心等相續應無所依。又如有情在欲．色界。引因力故。心等相續。與色俱生依色而轉。如是有情在無色界。引因力故心等相續。與眾同分．命根俱生。不依於色唯依同分．命根而轉。既許欲．色有情心等。不依色身定無轉義。何因無色有情心等。都無所依而有轉義。
論。何故名為欲等三界。自
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 通達三蘊（蘊：構成個體存在的基本要素）的道理。如果這樣，為什麼只說無色界的『心』（心識）、『心所』（心理活動）等依存於『同分』（眾生共業所感的事物）和『命根』（生命力）呢？這是因為它們是決定的、相同的、沒有錯亂的所依。也就是說，『心』和『心所』雖然可以互相作為所依，但並非一定是相同的，也不是不依賴自身的，也不是沒有錯亂的。因為在這個地方（指無色界）生起錯亂的自心和他心、心所。『同分』和『命根』是『心』等共同的所依。而且，在這個地方所生起的，僅僅是這個地方的『心』。即使依此假設生起不同於此地的『心』，由此還會令其自身所在地的『心』生起。僅僅依靠這兩者，才能稱作此地所生。因為牽引業（導致輪迴的業力）的生起沒有間斷。根據這段經文可以證明，『命根』就是牽引業的果報。因此說『同分』和『命根』是相同的、沒有錯亂的所依。『心』等不是這樣，所以略而不說。如果沒有這二者，其他地的四蘊（色、受、想、行）現在前的時候，那時有情就應該被稱作其他地的有情了。乃至，如同欲界、色界的『身』、『同分』、『命根』是『心』等的所依。雖然有時會生起異地的『心』，但依靠『身』等，在這個生命中最終一定會牽引自身所在地的『心』生起。像這樣，無色界雖然沒有『身』，『心』等一定依存於『同分』和『命根』。所以頌文偏重於說『同分』和『命根』。這是因為它們是牽引業的異熟果（成熟的果報）。 論：經部師（佛教部派之一）認為，『心』不依賴於『色』（物質）而運轉。論主闡述經部宗的觀點。他們的意思是說，如果在因地中不厭惡『色』，所招感的『心』的果報，就會與『色』一同生起，並依賴於『色』而運轉。如果在因地中厭惡『色』，果報中的『心』等，就不會與『色』一同生起，也不會依賴於『色』而運轉。《正理》駁斥說：這也是不合理的。如果憑藉牽引業的力量，使那些『心』等相續不斷地運轉，那麼當善心和染心現在前的時候，『心』等相續應該沒有所依。又如欲界、色界有情，憑藉牽引業的力量，『心』等相續與『色』一同生起，並依賴於『色』而運轉。像這樣，無色界有情，憑藉牽引業的力量，『心』等相續與眾『同分』、『命根』一同生起，不依賴於『色』，僅僅依賴於『同分』、『命根』而運轉。既然允許欲界、色界有情的『心』等，不依賴於『色身』就一定沒有運轉的道理，那麼為什麼無色界有情的『心』等，都沒有所依卻有運轉的道理呢？ 論：為什麼稱作欲界、色界、無色界這三界呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Understanding the three skandhas (skandhas: the basic elements that constitute individual existence). If so, why is it only said that the 'mind' (consciousness), 'mental factors' (psychological activities), etc., of the Formless Realm depend on 'commonality' (things perceived by the shared karma of sentient beings) and 'life force' (vitality)? This is because they are the definite, same, and non-chaotic supports. That is to say, although 'mind' and 'mental factors' can be mutually dependent, they are not necessarily the same, nor are they independent of themselves, nor are they without chaos. Because in this place (referring to the Formless Realm), confused self-minds and other minds, and mental factors arise. 'Commonality' and 'life force' are the common supports of 'mind' and so on. Moreover, what arises in this place is only the 'mind' of this place. Even if a 'mind' different from this place is assumed to arise based on this, it will still cause the 'mind' of its own place to arise. Only relying on these two can it be called born in this place. Because the arising of attracting karma (the karmic force that leads to reincarnation) is uninterrupted. According to this passage, it can be proved that 'life force' is the result of attracting karma. Therefore, it is said that 'commonality' and 'life force' are the same and non-chaotic supports. 'Mind' and so on are not like this, so they are omitted. If these two are absent, and the four skandhas (form, feeling, perception, volition) of other realms are present, then sentient beings should be called sentient beings of other realms. Even to the extent that the 'body', 'commonality', and 'life force' of the Desire Realm and Form Realm are the supports of 'mind' and so on. Although the 'mind' of a different realm may arise sometimes, relying on the 'body' and so on, the 'mind' of its own realm will eventually be attracted to arise in this life. In this way, although the Formless Realm has no 'body', 'mind' and so on must depend on 'commonality' and 'life force'. Therefore, the verse emphasizes 'commonality' and 'life force'. This is because they are the ripened fruits (mature results) of attracting karma. Treatise: The Sautrāntikas (one of the Buddhist schools) believe that the 'mind' does not operate depending on 'form' (matter). The treatise master elaborates on the views of the Sautrāntika school. Their meaning is that if one does not detest 'form' in the causal ground, the resulting fruit of 'mind' will arise together with 'form' and operate depending on 'form'. If one detests 'form' in the causal ground, the 'mind' and so on in the result will not arise together with 'form' and will not operate depending on 'form'. The Nyāya refutes: This is also unreasonable. If relying on the power of attracting karma to make those 'minds' and so on continuously operate, then when wholesome and defiled minds are present, the continuous 'minds' and so on should have no support. Moreover, like sentient beings in the Desire Realm and Form Realm, relying on the power of attracting karma, the continuous 'minds' and so on arise together with 'form' and operate depending on 'form'. In this way, sentient beings in the Formless Realm, relying on the power of attracting karma, the continuous 'minds' and so on arise together with the 'commonality' and 'life force', not depending on 'form', but only depending on 'commonality' and 'life force'. Since it is allowed that the 'minds' and so on of sentient beings in the Desire Realm and Form Realm certainly have no reason to operate without depending on the 'form body', then why do the 'minds' and so on of sentient beings in the Formless Realm have no support but have a reason to operate? Treatise: Why are the three realms called the Desire Realm, the Form Realm, and the Formless Realm?
此已下。釋三界名。此問起也。
論。能持自相至如前已釋。答也 答中有二。一釋界義。二釋欲等界義。此即初也。于中二釋如文可解。
論。欲所屬界至如金剛環。釋欲．色界名也。如飲中有胡椒。胡椒屬飲義。如镮上有金剛。金剛屬環義。由此飲名胡椒。環名金剛。
論。于彼界中至喻如前說。釋無色界。先釋無色。后釋無色界也 色有二種。言變礙者。通十一色 言示現者。謂色處色。無色四蘊非二故名為無色。非是但用色無為體。若用色無為體。即無別物。或是虛空非四蘊也。余文可解。
論。又欲之界至應知亦然。又一釋 欲界。欲是所任持。界是能任持。界是持義。即欲界五蘊能持欲故。必名欲之界。餘二亦爾。即是四蘊．五蘊。是欲等界義也 有人。似不得意。
論。此中欲言為說何法。問欲體也。
論。略說段食淫所引貪。答欲體也。準此。色．無色貪名色．無色。
論。如經頌言至已除欲引經證也。此頌是舍利子。對外道。說外道計欲是外境也。佛法言欲即是貪也。第一句非外立。第二句述自宗。后兩句釋非境因也。
論。邪命外道至尋思故。此是外道詰舍利子。前兩句牒宗。后兩句破也。
論時舍利子至妙色故。此舍利子返質外道。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 以下解釋三界的名稱，這是提問的開始。
論：能夠保持自身特性的（界），如前文已經解釋過。這是回答。回答中有兩部分：一是解釋『界』的含義，二是解釋欲界、色界、無色界等的含義。這裡是第一部分。其中兩種解釋如文中所述，可以理解。
論：屬於欲界的（事物），就像金剛環一樣。『欲』、『色』、『無色』是名稱。就像飲料中有胡椒，胡椒屬于飲料的含義；就像環上有金剛，金剛屬於環的含義。因此，飲料被稱為胡椒飲料，環被稱為金剛環。
論：在那些界中，譬如前文所說。解釋無色界和無界。先解釋無色界，后解釋無界。色有兩種：一是變礙色，指全部十一種色；二是示現色，指色處色。無色界的四蘊不是這兩種色，所以稱為無色。並非只是以色無為體。如果以色無為體，就沒有區別于其他事物，或者只是虛空，而不是四蘊。其餘的文字可以理解。
論：又，欲界，欲是所依賴的，界是能依賴的。界是保持的含義。即欲界的五蘊能夠保持慾望，所以稱為欲界。其餘兩界也是如此。即是四蘊、五蘊，是欲界等的含義。有人似乎不理解。
論：這裡所說的『欲』，是指什麼法？這是提問『欲』的本體。
論：簡略地說，是段食和淫慾所引起的貪愛。這是回答『欲』的本體。依此推斷，色界的貪愛稱為色，無色界的貪愛稱為無色。
論：如經文所說，『已經去除慾望』，這是引用經文來證明。這首偈頌是舍利子對外道說的，外道認為慾望是外在的境界。佛法說慾望就是貪愛。第一句不是從外在建立的，第二句是陳述自己的宗派，后兩句解釋不是外在境界的原因。
論：邪命外道，因為尋思的緣故。這是外道詰問舍利子。前兩句是陳述宗派，后兩句是駁斥。
論：當時舍利子，因為美妙的顏色。這是舍利子反駁外道。
【English Translation】 English version This is below. Explaining the names of the Three Realms. This is the beginning of the question.
Treatise: That which can maintain its own characteristics, as explained before. This is the answer. There are two parts to the answer: first, explaining the meaning of 'Realm'; second, explaining the meaning of the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), Form Realm (Rūpadhātu), and Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu), etc. This is the first part. Among them, the two explanations can be understood as stated in the text.
Treatise: Things belonging to the Desire Realm are like a Vajra ring. 'Desire' (Kāma), 'Form' (Rūpa), and 'Formless' (Arūpa) are names. Just as there is pepper in a drink, pepper belongs to the meaning of the drink; just as there is a Vajra on a ring, the Vajra belongs to the meaning of the ring. Therefore, the drink is called pepper drink, and the ring is called Vajra ring.
Treatise: In those realms, for example, as mentioned before. Explaining the Formless Realm and the Non-. First explaining the Formless Realm, then explaining the Non- Realm. There are two types of form (Rūpa): one is obstructive form, referring to all eleven types of form; the other is manifest form, referring to the form element (Rūpāyatana). The four aggregates of the Formless Realm are not these two types of form, so they are called Formless. It is not merely taking formlessness as its substance. If formlessness is taken as its substance, then there would be no distinction from other things, or it would just be emptiness, not the four aggregates. The rest of the text can be understood.
Treatise: Moreover, the Desire Realm, desire is what is relied upon, and the realm is what can rely on it. Realm has the meaning of maintaining. That is, the five aggregates of the Desire Realm can maintain desire, so it is called the Desire Realm. The other two realms are also like this. That is, the four aggregates and five aggregates are the meaning of the Desire Realm, etc. Some people seem not to understand.
Treatise: What Dharma (teaching) is referred to by 'desire' here? This is asking about the substance of 'desire'.
Treatise: Briefly speaking, it is the craving caused by coarse food (kabaḍīkāra) and sexual desire. This is answering the substance of 'desire'. According to this, the craving of the Form Realm is called Form, and the craving of the Formless Realm is called Formless.
Treatise: As the sutra verse says, 'Having already removed desire,' this is quoting the sutra to prove it. This verse is what Śāriputra (舍利子) said to the heretics (外道), who believed that desire was an external realm. The Buddha's Dharma (佛法) says that desire is craving. The first sentence is not established from the outside, the second sentence states one's own school, and the last two sentences explain the reason why it is not an external realm.
Treatise: The heretical ascetics (邪命外道), because of contemplation. This is the heretics questioning Śāriputra. The first two sentences state the school, and the last two sentences refute it.
Treatise: At that time, Śāriputra, because of the wonderful color. This is Śāriputra refuting the heretics.
前兩句牃計。后兩句破也。
論。若法于彼至三界系不。問也。
論。不爾。答。
論。云何。徴。
論。于中隨增至是三界系。答也。諸無漏法雖於三界現行。非三界系。不隨增故。
論。此中何法名三界貪。問也。
論。謂三界中各隨增者。答也。
論。今此所言至皆不令解。難也。前言三界系法雲何。答云。于中隨增三界貪者。復問何法名三界貪。答云謂三界中各隨增者。於此二答皆不令解。由此說言同縛馬答。
論。今此所言至當知亦爾。答也。今此中答不同縛馬答也。謂於前說。欲界諸處有情未離貪者。身中所有貪名欲貪。此所隨增名欲界系。色界十八處。無色界四處。有情所有貪名色．無色貪。當知亦爾。
論。或不定地至名無色界系。第二釋也。如文可解。
論。欲化心上如何起貪。難也。若欲貪系名為欲界。欲界化心離欲方得。若起欲貪又失化心。如何化心是欲界也。
論。從他所聞至生貪愛故。答也。自雖未得。從他聞說生貪心也。或自已得退起欲貪。或觀他化起貪心也。
論。若心能化至作香味故。簡欲．色界化心別也。
論。如是三界唯有一耶。問也。此下問答一多界等 于中有二。一問一多。二問傍豎。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 牃計，是指對之前所說內容的總結和概括。破也，是指對之前觀點的駁斥和否定。 論：如果法存在於彼處，是否會被三界所束縛？問。 論：並非如此。答。 論：為什麼呢？征。 論：在這些法中，隨之增長的法就是被三界所束縛的。答。那些無漏之法雖然在三界中顯現執行，但並不被三界所束縛，因為它們不會隨之增長。 論：這裡所說的什麼法被稱為三界貪？問。 論：指的是在三界中各自隨之增長的貪慾。答。 論：現在這裡所說的，都不能令人理解。難。之前說三界所束縛的法是什麼，回答說：『在這些法中，隨之增長的三界貪就是。』又問什麼法被稱為三界貪，回答說：『指的是在三界中各自隨之增長的貪慾。』這兩個回答都不能令人理解。因此說這就像捆綁馬的回答一樣，毫無意義。 論：現在這裡所說的，應當知道也是如此。答。現在這裡的回答不同於捆綁馬的回答。指的是在之前所說，欲界諸處有情沒有脫離貪慾的，他們身上所有的貪慾稱為欲貪。這種隨之增長的貪慾被稱為欲界所束縛。十八處中，除了四個處，有情所有的貪慾稱為色界貪和無色界貪，應當知道也是如此。 論：或者不定地，稱為無系。第二種解釋。如文義可以理解。 論：在欲界化生心上，如何生起貪慾？難。如果欲貪是欲界所束縛的，那麼欲界化生心只有脫離了貪慾才能獲得。如果生起欲貪，又會失去化生心。那麼，化生心怎麼會是欲界的呢？ 論：從他人那裡聽聞，從而生起貪愛。答。即使自己沒有得到，從他人那裡聽聞也會生起貪心。或者自己已經得到，退失后又生起欲貪。或者觀察他人的化生而生起貪心。 論：如果心能夠化生，從而產生香味。簡要說明欲界心和化生心的區別。 論：這樣看來，三界只有一種嗎？問。下面問答關於一多界等，其中有兩個方面。一是問一和多，二是問橫向和縱向。
【English Translation】 English version: '牃計' (chapi), refers to the summary and generalization of what was said before. '破也' (po ye), refers to the refutation and negation of the previous viewpoints. Treatise: If a dharma exists in that place, is it bound by the Three Realms? Question. Treatise: It is not so. Answer. Treatise: Why is that? Inquiry. Treatise: Among these dharmas, those that increase along with it are bound by the Three Realms. Answer. Those undefiled dharmas, although they manifest and operate in the Three Realms, are not bound by the Three Realms because they do not increase along with them. Treatise: What dharma is called the 'greed of the Three Realms' here? Question. Treatise: It refers to the greed that increases along with each of the Three Realms. Answer. Treatise: What is said here now is incomprehensible. Difficulty. Earlier, it was said, 'What are the dharmas bound by the Three Realms?' The answer was, 'Among these dharmas, the greed of the Three Realms that increases along with them.' Then it was asked, 'What dharma is called the greed of the Three Realms?' The answer was, 'It refers to the greed that increases along with each of the Three Realms.' Both of these answers are incomprehensible. Therefore, it is said that this is like the answer of a tied-up horse, meaningless. Treatise: What is said here now, it should be known that it is also like that. Answer. The answer here now is different from the answer of a tied-up horse. It refers to what was said earlier, that sentient beings in the Desire Realm who have not detached from greed, the greed they have is called desire-greed. This greed that increases along with it is called bound by the Desire Realm. Among the eighteen realms, except for four realms, the greed that sentient beings have is called Form Realm greed and Formless Realm greed, it should be known that it is also like that. Treatise: Or the indeterminate ground is called unbound. The second explanation. The meaning can be understood from the text. Treatise: How can greed arise in the mind of transformation in the Desire Realm? Difficulty. If desire-greed is bound by the Desire Realm, then the mind of transformation in the Desire Realm can only be obtained by detaching from greed. If desire-greed arises, then the mind of transformation will be lost. So, how can the mind of transformation be of the Desire Realm? Treatise: Hearing from others, thereby giving rise to greed and love. Answer. Even if one has not obtained it oneself, hearing from others will give rise to greed. Or one has already obtained it, and then regresses and gives rise to desire-greed. Or one observes the transformation of others and gives rise to greed. Treatise: If the mind can transform, thereby producing fragrance and taste. Briefly explain the difference between the Desire Realm mind and the transformation mind. Treatise: In this way, are the Three Realms only one? Question. The following questions and answers are about one and many realms, etc., and there are two aspects to it. One is asking about one and many, and the other is asking about horizontal and vertical.
此問初也。
論。三界無邊至猶若虛空。答也。
論。世界當言云何安住。此即第二明傍豎也。此即問也。
論。當言傍住至不說上下。一說唯傍住也。由經說故。
論。有說亦有至有色究竟。第二說也。法密部中經等。亦說有十方故。
論。若有離一至應知亦爾。此述離染同也。
論。依初靜慮至應知亦爾。此述五通唯得往至自所生界所修定處。不得往他世界。
論。已說三界五趣云何。已下一頌。第二明五趣也。
論曰至是名五趣。明三界中有五趣也。
論。唯于欲界至天趣一分。此說三界五趣體不同也。
論。為有三界至說有五趣。問也。
論。有謂善．染．至無覆無記。答也。謂善．染．外器．中有此之四法是三界攝。非五趣也。正理論云。善．染．無記。有情．無情．及中有等。皆是界性。言趣體唯攝無覆無記者。唯異熟生為趣體故。由此已釋趣唯有情。無情中無異熟生故(言異熟生者。簡一切無情及有情中除異熟生自余諸法。中有雖是異熟生法。非是五趣。無趣義故)。
論。若異此者至體非中有。此反釋也。若不唯是無覆無記。即趣雜亂。一趣之中。得有五趣業．煩惱故。明趣非是善．染．攝也。五趣唯是有情數等。如文
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此為第一個問題。
論：三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）無邊無際，猶如虛空。答：是的。
論：世界應當如何安住？這是第二個問題，說明傍豎（空間維度）。這是提問。
論：應當說傍住（橫向存在），而不說上下（縱向存在）。一種說法是隻有傍住。因為經典這樣說。
論：有人說也有上下，直到有色究竟天（Akanistha）。這是第二種說法。法密部（Dharmagupta）的經典等，也說有十方（十個方向）。
論：如果有人離開一個世界，到達另一個世界，應當知道也是如此。這是描述離開染污世界是相同的。
論：依靠初禪（Prathama-dhyana），直到應當知道也是如此。這是描述五神通（Panca-abhijna）只能到達自己所生的世界，所修定的地方，不能到達其他世界。
論：已經說了三界（Trailokya），五趣（Gati）是什麼？下面一頌，第二說明五趣。
論曰：直到這被稱為五趣。說明三界中有五趣。
論：只有在欲界（Kama-dhatu），直到天趣（Deva-gati）的一部分。這是說三界五趣的本體不同。
論：是否有三界，直到說有五趣？提問。
論：有人說是善、染污，直到無覆無記（不屬於善或惡）。回答。所謂善、染污、外器世界、中有（Antarabhava），這四法是三界所攝，不是五趣。正理論說：善、染污、無記，有情、無情及中有等，都是界性。說趣的本體只攝無覆無記者，因為只有異熟生（Vipaka-ja）是趣的本體。由此已經解釋了趣只有有情，無情中沒有異熟生（所謂異熟生，簡別一切無情及有情中除了異熟生之外的其餘諸法。中有雖然是異熟生法，但不是五趣，因為沒有趣的意義）。
論：如果與此不同，直到本體不是中有。這是反過來解釋。如果不只是無覆無記，那麼趣就雜亂了。一個趣之中，可以有五趣的業和煩惱。說明趣不是善或染污所攝。五趣只是有情數等，如經文所說。
【English Translation】 English version: This is the first question.
Treatise: The three realms (Trailokya, the realm of desire, the realm of form, and the formless realm) are boundless, like empty space. Answer: Yes.
Treatise: How should the world be said to abide? This is the second question, explaining lateral existence (spatial dimension). This is the question.
Treatise: It should be said to abide laterally (horizontally), not vertically (up and down). One view is that it only abides laterally. Because the scriptures say so.
Treatise: Some say there is also up and down, up to the Akanistha heaven (Akanistha). This is the second view. The scriptures of the Dharmagupta school, etc., also say there are ten directions (ten directions).
Treatise: If someone leaves one world and reaches another, it should be known that it is the same. This describes that leaving a defiled world is the same.
Treatise: Relying on the first dhyana (Prathama-dhyana), up to it should be known that it is the same. This describes that the five supernormal powers (Panca-abhijna) can only reach the world where one is born, the place where one cultivates samadhi, and cannot reach other worlds.
Treatise: Having already spoken of the three realms (Trailokya), what are the five destinies (Gati)? The following verse, the second explains the five destinies.
Treatise says: Up to this is called the five destinies. Explaining that there are five destinies in the three realms.
Treatise: Only in the desire realm (Kama-dhatu), up to a part of the deva destiny (Deva-gati). This says that the substance of the three realms and five destinies are different.
Treatise: Are there three realms, up to saying there are five destinies? Question.
Treatise: Some say it is good, defiled, up to neither good nor evil (unspecified). Answer. The so-called good, defiled, external world, intermediate existence (Antarabhava), these four dharmas are included in the three realms, not the five destinies. The Nyayanusara-sastra says: Good, defiled, unspecified, sentient beings, non-sentient beings, and intermediate existence, etc., are all realm-nature. Saying that the substance of destiny only includes unspecified, because only Vipaka-ja (resultant birth) is the substance of destiny. From this, it has been explained that destiny only includes sentient beings, and there is no Vipaka-ja in non-sentient beings (the so-called Vipaka-ja, distinguishes all non-sentient beings and all dharmas other than Vipaka-ja among sentient beings. Although intermediate existence is a Vipaka-ja dharma, it is not one of the five destinies, because it has no meaning of destiny).
Treatise: If it is different from this, up to the substance is not intermediate existence. This is an explanation in reverse. If it is not only unspecified, then the destinies are mixed up. Within one destiny, there can be the karma and afflictions of the five destinies. Explaining that destiny is not included in good or defiled. The five destinies are only the number of sentient beings, etc., as the text says.
可解。
論。施設足論至中有異趣。引聖教證中有非趣。如文可解。
論。是何契經。問也。
論。謂七有經至異諸趣故。答也。既七有經。五趣之外別說中有。故知中有非趣所攝 唯是無覆無記性攝。其理極成。簡業有因異諸趣故。業既通於善．染．非趣所攝。故知唯是無覆無記。
論。迦濕彌羅國至無覆無記。重引經證無覆無記。此經有部誦故言婆沙師誦也。經既言異熟起已名那落迦。故知趣體即是異熟無記性也 于捺落迦中者。是地獄處名也。那落迦者。是有情趣名也 從諂生業名曲 從嗔生業謂穢 從貪生業謂濁。
論若如是者至所隨增故。引文難也。若趣唯是異熟無記。即合唯是修道煩惱。及是一切遍行隨眠之所隨增。何故品類足說一切隨眠所隨增也。故知非唯異熟無記唯修所斷通染污也。
論。彼說五趣至總名村落。有部通也。彼說五趣續生心中容有五部 一切煩惱者。謂結生心通三十六．三十一等。即結生心五部隨眠之所隨增。假說結生以為趣也 如村落邊假名村落。
論。有說趣體亦通善．染。此述大眾部等計也。
論。然七有經至是故別說。大眾部師通經文也。有部總引多經為證。此中即通七有經也。見．及煩惱別說為濁。然見即是煩惱所攝。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 可解。
論：施設足論認為中有（Antarabhava，指死亡到再生的過渡期）不同於五趣（Gati，指地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）。引用聖教證明中有並非五趣之一。如文所示，容易理解。
論：這是什麼契經（Sutra，佛經）？這是提問。
論：指的是《七有經》，其中說到中有不同於其他諸趣。這是回答。既然《七有經》在五趣之外單獨提到了中有，因此可知中有並非五趣所包含，僅僅是無覆無記性（Avyakrta，指非善非惡的中性狀態）所攝。這個道理非常明確。因為業有（Karma-bhava，由業力所決定的存在狀態）的原因不同於諸趣。業既包含善、染（Klesha，指煩惱）、非趣所攝，因此可知唯是無覆無記。
論：迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir，古印度地名）的論師認為，（中有）是無覆無記。再次引用經典證明（中有）是無覆無記。此經是有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）所誦讀的，所以說是婆沙師（Vibhasha，論師）所誦讀的。經中既然說異熟（Vipaka，指業的果報）生起后名為那落迦（Naraka，地獄），因此可知趣的本體就是異熟無記性。『于捺落迦中』指的是地獄的處所的名字。那落迦是有情趣（Sattva-gati，眾生的存在狀態）的名字。從諂（Matsarya，指慳吝）產生的業叫做曲（Kutila，指不正直）。從嗔（Dvesha，指嗔恨）產生的業叫做穢（Malina，指污穢）。從貪（Lobha，指貪婪）產生的業叫做濁（Kashaya，指不清凈）。
論：如果這樣的話，（趣）就被（隨眠）所隨增。這是引用經文進行詰難。如果趣僅僅是異熟無記，那麼就僅僅是修道（Bhavana-marga，指通過修行斷除煩惱的道路）的煩惱，以及一切遍行隨眠（Anusaya，指煩惱的潛在傾向）所隨增。為什麼《品類足論》（Prakaranapada，論書名）說一切隨眠所隨增呢？因此可知（趣）並非僅僅是異熟無記，也通於修所斷的染污。
論：他們說五趣（的續生心）中容有五部。這是有部的觀點。他們說五趣的續生心中容有五部（煩惱）。一切煩惱，指的是結生心（Pratisamdhi-citta，指投胎時的心識）通於三十六種、三十一種等。即結生心被五部隨眠所隨增。假說結生（Pratisamdhi，指投胎）為趣。如同村落的邊緣被假名為村落。
論：有的人說趣的本體也通於善、染。這是敘述大眾部（Mahasanghika，佛教部派之一）等的觀點。
論：然而《七有經》中（別說了中有），因此（中有）被單獨說明。大眾部的論師解釋經文。有部總共引用多部經文作為證據，這裡也包括《七有經》。見（Drishti，指邪見）以及煩惱被單獨說為濁。然而見就是煩惱所包含的。
【English Translation】 English version Understandable.
Treatise: The Treatise on the Establishment of Elements (Prakaranapada) holds that the intermediate state (Antarabhava, the transitional period between death and rebirth) is different from the five realms (Gati, realms of hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods). Scriptural evidence is cited to prove that the intermediate state is not one of the five realms. As the text shows, it is easy to understand.
Treatise: What sutra (Sutra, Buddhist scripture) is this? This is a question.
Treatise: It refers to the 'Sutra on the Seven Existences,' which states that the intermediate state is different from the other realms. This is the answer. Since the 'Sutra on the Seven Existences' mentions the intermediate state separately from the five realms, it is known that the intermediate state is not included in the five realms, but is only encompassed by the nature of the unspecified and neutral (Avyakrta, neither good nor evil). This principle is very clear. Because the cause of karmic existence (Karma-bhava, the state of existence determined by karma) is different from the realms. Since karma includes good, defilement (Klesha, afflictions), and what is not included in the realms, it is known that it is only unspecified and neutral.
Treatise: The masters of Kashmir (Kashmir, an ancient Indian place name) believe that (the intermediate state) is unspecified and neutral. The scripture is cited again to prove that (the intermediate state) is unspecified and neutral. This sutra is recited by the Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivada, one of the Buddhist schools), so it is said to be recited by the Vibhasha masters (Vibhasha, commentators). Since the sutra says that what arises as a result of maturation (Vipaka, the result of karma) is called Naraka (Naraka, hell), it is known that the essence of a realm is the nature of maturation and neutrality. 'In Naraka' refers to the name of the place of hell. Naraka is the name of the realm of sentient beings (Sattva-gati, the state of existence of beings). Karma arising from miserliness (Matsarya, stinginess) is called crooked (Kutila, not upright). Karma arising from hatred (Dvesha, aversion) is called impure (Malina, defiled). Karma arising from greed (Lobha, avarice) is called turbid (Kashaya, unclear).
Treatise: If that is the case, (the realms) are increased by (latent tendencies). This is a challenge using scripture. If the realms were only the result of maturation and neutral, then they would only be the afflictions of the path of cultivation (Bhavana-marga, the path of practice to eliminate afflictions), and all pervasive latent tendencies (Anusaya, underlying tendencies of afflictions) would increase them. Why does the 'Treatise on Categories' (Prakaranapada, name of a treatise) say that all latent tendencies increase them? Therefore, it is known that (the realms) are not only the result of maturation and neutral, but also include defilements that are severed by cultivation.
Treatise: They say that the (rebirth consciousness) of the five realms contains five parts. This is the view of the Sarvastivadins. They say that the rebirth consciousness of the five realms contains five parts (of afflictions). All afflictions refer to the rebirth consciousness (Pratisamdhi-citta, the consciousness at the time of rebirth) that includes thirty-six, thirty-one, etc. That is, the rebirth consciousness is increased by the five latent tendencies. Rebirth (Pratisamdhi, rebirth) is falsely called a realm. Just as the edge of a village is falsely called a village.
Treatise: Some say that the essence of a realm also includes good and defilement. This describes the views of the Mahasanghikas (Mahasanghika, one of the Buddhist schools), etc.
Treatise: However, in the 'Sutra on the Seven Existences' (the intermediate state is mentioned separately), therefore (the intermediate state) is explained separately. The masters of the Mahasanghikas explain the scriptures. The Sarvastivadins cite many scriptures as evidence, including the 'Sutra on the Seven Existences.' Views (Drishti, wrong views) and afflictions are separately called turbid. However, views are included in afflictions.
趣．及趣因雖別說有。何廢趣．及趣因總名為趣。故言非以別說定證非趣。
論。若爾中有亦應是趣。有部難大眾部。七有別說業。業亦是趣收。七有別說中有。中有應趣攝。
論。不爾趣義至即死處生故。大眾部通難也。別說業有不違趣義。故是趣收。別說中有違趣義故。故不名趣。
論。若爾無色至而受生故難也。中有死處生。非所趣故不名趣。無色死處生。應非是趣。
論。既爾中有至說名中有。大眾被難轉釋。中有以是二趣中故不名趣也(已上通第一經)。正理論云。然經主言非別說故定非彼攝。如五濁中煩惱與見別說為濁。非別說故彼見定非煩惱所攝。如是業有雖亦是趣。為顯趣因所以別說。故有說趣體兼善．染。彼言非理。無處說故。有處說見亦是煩惱。雖有所因別說為濁。而準余說知即煩惱。曾無有處說諸趣因業即趣體。可為誠證。雖有所因別說為有。而準彼說知業是趣。如何定知業是趣體。有所因故有中別說。而非業有體非是趣。為顯趣因說為業有。故所引喻于證無能 又云。業若趣體趣應雜亂。於一趣中有多趣業故。若趣因業即是趣者。人有地獄業．惑現前。彼應是人亦是地獄。亦不應說地獄。趣體雖現在前而非地獄。如是則有大過失故。謂異熟果正現在前。應非地獄無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：雖然『趣』（Gati，去處，輪迴的道）和『趣因』（Gatihetu，導致輪迴的原因）有所區別，但為什麼不能說『趣』和『趣因』總的來說都叫做『趣』呢？因此，不能因為經典中分別提到了它們，就斷定它們不是『趣』。
答：如果這樣，那麼『中有』（Antarabhava，死亡和投生之間的過渡期）也應該被認為是『趣』了。有部（Sarvastivada，一個佛教部派）反駁大眾部（Mahasanghika，一個佛教部派）：經典中分別提到了『七有』（Saptabhavah，七種存在狀態）和『業』（Karma，行為）。『業』也被包含在『趣』之中。既然經典中分別提到了『七有』和『中有』，那麼『中有』也應該被包含在『趣』之中。
答：不是這樣的。『趣』的定義是到達死亡之處並在此處受生。』大眾部普遍反對這種說法。分別提到『業』並不違背『趣』的定義，所以『業』被包含在『趣』之中。但分別提到『中有』卻違背了『趣』的定義，所以『中有』不被稱為『趣』。
問：如果這樣，那麼『無色界』（Arupadhatu，沒有物質形態的境界）的眾生在死亡之處受生，這又該如何解釋呢？『中有』是在死亡之處受生，但因為不是所『趣』之處，所以不被稱為『趣』。那麼，『無色界』的眾生在死亡之處受生，難道不應該也不是『趣』嗎？
答：既然這樣，『中有』是因為處於兩種『趣』的中間狀態，所以不被稱為『趣』。』大眾部被反駁后，這樣解釋道。（以上是關於第一部經的普遍討論）。《正理論》（Abhidharmakosabhasyam，一部重要的佛教論著）中說：『然而，經的作者說，不能因為經典中分別提到了它們，就斷定它們不是同一範疇。例如，在『五濁』（Pancakasaya，五種污濁）中，『煩惱』（Klesha，精神上的煩惱）和『見』（Drsti，錯誤的見解）被分別說成是『濁』。但不能因為分別提到了『見』，就斷定『見』不是『煩惱』所包含的。同樣，『業』和『有』雖然也是『趣』，但爲了顯示『趣』的原因，所以分別提到它們。』因此，有人說『趣』的本體既包含善業，也包含惡業。這種說法是不合理的，因為沒有經典依據。有些經典中說『見』也是『煩惱』。雖然因為某些原因而將『見』分別說成是『濁』，但根據其他經典，我們知道『見』就是『煩惱』。但從來沒有哪部經典說過『趣』的原因——『業』就是『趣』的本體，可以作為可靠的證據。雖然因為某些原因而將『有』分別說成是『有』，但根據其他經典，我們知道『業』就是『趣』。如何才能斷定『業』就是『趣』的本體呢？因為某些原因，所以在『有』中分別提到了『業』，但這並不意味著『業』的本體不是『趣』。爲了顯示『趣』的原因，所以說成是『業有』。因此，所引用的比喻並不能證明什麼。』
《正理論》又說：『如果『業』是『趣』的本體，那麼『趣』就會變得混亂。因為在一個『趣』中，會有多種『趣業』。如果『趣因』——『業』就是『趣』本身，那麼當一個人有地獄的『業』和『惑』（Klesha，煩惱）現前時，這個人應該既是人，又是地獄眾生。也不應該說地獄的『趣體』雖然現在已經顯現，但還不是地獄眾生。如果這樣，就會有很大的過失。也就是說，當異熟果（Vipaka，果報）真正顯現時，就不應該是地獄眾生了。』
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Although 'Gati' (destination, path of rebirth) and 'Gatihetu' (cause of destination, the cause leading to rebirth) are spoken of separately, why can't it be said that 'Gati' and 'Gatihetu' are collectively called 'Gati'? Therefore, it cannot be determined that they are not 'Gati' simply because they are mentioned separately in the scriptures.
Answer: If that were the case, then 'Antarabhava' (the intermediate state between death and rebirth) should also be considered 'Gati'. The Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school) refutes the Mahasanghika (a Buddhist school): The 'Seven Existences' (Saptabhavah, seven states of existence) and 'Karma' (action) are mentioned separately in the scriptures. 'Karma' is also included in 'Gati'. Since 'Seven Existences' and 'Antarabhava' are mentioned separately in the scriptures, 'Antarabhava' should also be included in 'Gati'.
Answer: That is not the case. The definition of 'Gati' is to arrive at the place of death and be born there. The Mahasanghika generally opposes this view. Separately mentioning 'Karma' does not contradict the definition of 'Gati', so 'Karma' is included in 'Gati'. However, separately mentioning 'Antarabhava' contradicts the definition of 'Gati', so 'Antarabhava' is not called 'Gati'.
Question: If that is the case, how can it be explained that beings in the 'Arupadhatu' (the realm of formlessness) are born at the place of death? 'Antarabhava' is born at the place of death, but because it is not the place 'gone to', it is not called 'Gati'. Then, shouldn't it also be the case that beings in the 'Arupadhatu' are born at the place of death and are not 'Gati'?
Answer: Since 'Antarabhava' is in the intermediate state between two 'Gatis', it is not called 'Gati'. The Mahasanghika, after being refuted, explains it this way. (The above is a general discussion about the first sutra). The 'Abhidharmakosabhasyam' (an important Buddhist treatise) says: 'However, the author of the sutra says that it cannot be determined that they are not in the same category simply because they are mentioned separately in the scriptures. For example, in the 'Five Turbidities' (Pancakasaya, five defilements), 'Klesha' (mental afflictions) and 'Drsti' (wrong views) are separately described as 'turbid'. But it cannot be determined that 'views' are not included in 'afflictions' simply because 'views' are mentioned separately. Similarly, although 'Karma' and 'Existence' are also 'Gati', they are mentioned separately to show the cause of 'Gati'.' Therefore, some say that the essence of 'Gati' includes both good and bad karma. This statement is unreasonable because there is no scriptural basis. Some scriptures say that 'views' are also 'afflictions'. Although 'views' are separately described as 'turbid' for some reason, we know from other scriptures that 'views' are 'afflictions'. But there has never been a scripture that says that the cause of 'Gati'—'Karma'—is the essence of 'Gati', which can be used as reliable evidence. Although 'Existence' is separately described as 'Existence' for some reason, we know from other scriptures that 'Karma' is 'Gati'. How can it be determined that 'Karma' is the essence of 'Gati'? Because 'Karma' is mentioned separately in 'Existence' for some reason, but this does not mean that the essence of 'Karma' is not 'Gati'. To show the cause of 'Gati', it is said to be 'Karma-existence'. Therefore, the cited metaphor does not prove anything.'
The 'Abhidharmakosabhasyam' also says: 'If 'Karma' is the essence of 'Gati', then 'Gati' will become confused. Because in one 'Gati', there will be multiple 'Gati-karmas'. If the 'cause of Gati'—'Karma'—is 'Gati' itself, then when a person has the 'karma' and 'klesha' (afflictions) of hell present, that person should be both a human and a hell being. Nor should it be said that although the 'essence of Gati' of hell has now manifested, it is not yet a hell being. If this is the case, there will be a great fault. That is to say, when the 'Vipaka' (result of karma) truly manifests, it should not be a hell being.'
差別故。然契經說。異熟起已名那落迦故業非趣。
論。然彼尊者至故作是言。通釋第二經也。經說異熟起已名為地獄。是說異熟起已身中善．染．無記。皆于爾時得地獄名。非說唯是異熟名為地獄 言。除五蘊彼那落迦不可得者。非是說除異熟五蘊法外。彼那落迦不可得也。此通說善．染．無記五蘊法外。別有能往諸趣實我補特伽羅不可得也。非遮異熟法外余蘊故作是說(于中有廣破斥略而不述)。正理破意。若趣非唯異熟無記。因何要言異熟起已方名地獄。異熟起前亦有地獄業等名地獄故。故知唯是異熟無記。
論。毗婆沙師至無覆無記。結歸有部宗也。
論。有說一向記至亦通長養。述異說也。此三說中第二為正 正理云。唯異熟生故又無過故。若通長養身在欲界修得天眼是長養性。趣應雜亂 正理論云。如是總釋諸趣體已。次應別釋一一趣名。那落名人。迦名為惡。人多造惡顛墜其中。由是故名那落迦趣(云云多解)。言傍生者。彼趣多分身橫住故 或彼趣中容有少分傍行者故(云云多解)。言餓鬼者。又多希求以自存濟(云云多解)。人。謂或多思慮故名為人(云云多解)。天。謂或復尊高神用自在。眾所祈告故名為天 阿素洛者。鬼趣所攝。天帝釋言本是天者。是諂曲語。若謂與天戰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 差別在於，契經中說，異熟果報生起后才稱為那落迦（Naraka，地獄），因此業不是趣（Gati，道）。 論：尊者之所以這樣說，是爲了通盤解釋第二部經。經中說，異熟果報生起后才稱為地獄，這是說異熟果報生起后，身中的善、染污、無記法，都在那時才獲得地獄的名稱。並非說只有異熟果報才名為地獄。言：『除了五蘊，那落迦不可得』，不是說除了異熟果報的五蘊法之外，那落迦就不可得。這是通盤說明，除了善、染污、無記的五蘊法之外，另外有一個能前往諸趣的實我補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『個體』）是不可得的。並非是爲了遮遣異熟果報法之外的其餘蘊而這樣說（其中有廣泛的破斥，此處省略不述）。正理的破斥意為，如果趣不是隻有異熟無記，為何要說異熟生起后才名為地獄？異熟生起前也有地獄業等，也名為地獄。所以可知只有異熟無記。 論：毗婆沙師的觀點是無覆無記，這是總結有部宗的觀點。 論：有人說一向是記說，也通於長養。這是敘述不同的說法。這三種說法中，第二種是正確的。正理說：『唯有異熟所生，所以沒有過失。』如果通於長養，身在欲界修得天眼，這是長養的性質，趣就應該雜亂。正理論說：『這樣總的解釋了諸趣的體性后，接下來應該分別解釋每一個趣的名稱。』那落迦的意思是，『那落』是人，『迦』是惡。人多造惡，顛倒墜落其中，因此名為那落迦趣（有很多解釋，此處省略）。傍生，是指這一趣中的眾生大多身體橫著居住。或者這一趣中容許有少部分橫著行走的眾生（有很多解釋，此處省略）。餓鬼，是指他們大多希望通過乞求來維持生存（有很多解釋，此處省略）。人，是指他們大多思考，所以稱為人（有很多解釋，此處省略）。天，是指他們尊貴高尚，神力作用自在，被大眾祈求，所以稱為天。阿素洛（Asura，阿修羅），屬於鬼趣所攝。天帝釋（Indra，因陀羅）說他們原本是天人，這是諂媚之語。如果說他們與天人戰鬥
【English Translation】 English version: The difference lies in the fact that the Sutras state that only after the fruition of Vipaka (Vipāka, result of karma) arises is it called Naraka (Naraka, hell), therefore karma is not Gati (Gati, path or realm of existence). Commentary: The reason the Venerable one said this is to comprehensively explain the second Sutra. The Sutra states that only after the fruition of Vipaka arises is it called hell, which means that after the fruition of Vipaka arises, the wholesome, defiled, and neutral dharmas in the body all obtain the name of hell at that time. It is not to say that only the fruition of Vipaka is called hell. It is said: 'Apart from the five Skandhas (Skandha, aggregates), Naraka cannot be obtained,' which does not mean that apart from the five Skandhas of Vipaka, Naraka cannot be obtained. This comprehensively explains that apart from the wholesome, defiled, and neutral five Skandhas, there is another real self, Pudgala (Pudgala, person or individual), who can go to the various Gatis, which is unobtainable. It is not said to negate the remaining Skandhas apart from the Vipaka dharma (there is extensive refutation in it, which is omitted here). The intention of the refutation of the principle is that if Gati is not only Vipaka and neutral, why is it necessary to say that it is only called hell after Vipaka arises? Before Vipaka arises, there is also the karma of hell, etc., which is also called hell. Therefore, it can be known that it is only Vipaka and neutral. Commentary: The view of the Vibhasha masters is that it is neutral without concealment, which is a summary of the view of the Sarvastivada school. Commentary: Some say that it is always recorded and also applies to growth. This is a description of different views. Among these three views, the second is correct. The principle says: 'Only born from Vipaka, so there is no fault.' If it applies to growth, and one obtains the divine eye in the desire realm through cultivation, this is the nature of growth, and the Gatis should be mixed up. The Zhengli theory says: 'After generally explaining the nature of the various Gatis in this way, the names of each Gati should be explained separately.' The meaning of Naraka is that 'Nara' is a person, and 'ka' is evil. People create much evil and fall into it, so it is called Naraka Gati (there are many explanations, which are omitted here). Animals are those in this Gati who mostly live horizontally. Or this Gati may allow for a small number of beings who walk horizontally (there are many explanations, which are omitted here). Hungry ghosts are those who mostly hope to maintain their survival through begging (there are many explanations, which are omitted here). People are those who mostly think, so they are called people (there are many explanations, which are omitted here). Devas (Deva, gods) are those who are noble and lofty, whose divine power is free, and who are prayed to by the masses, so they are called Devas. Asuras (Asura, demigods) belong to the realm of ghosts. Indra (Indra, the lord of the gods) said that they were originally Devas, which is flattering speech. If they fight with the Devas
故亦名天者。曼馱多王破阿素洛。及與天鬥。應亦是天。若謂與天交通名為天者。大樹緊那羅王有女端嚴名為奪意。善財菩薩納以為妻。緊那羅王應亦是人。威德殊勝故名為天。亦非證因。曾聞曼馱多王威德勝於天故。難陀．跋難陀等雖是傍生。威德自在勝諸天眾故。阿素洛唯鬼趣收。亦非第六趣。曾不有經說(云云。多解)。有說諸趣或體相雜。異趣相因而生子故。如魚身者鹿子仙人。自昔傳聞其類無量。一身兩趣故有相雜 正理破云 彼說不然。自業趣定而彼生緣有種種故。如庵羅女因樹而生。喬答摩宗因日光起。故相因有非證雜因。鹿子仙人魚身者等。由滿業異形相不同。其實是人故趣無雜。自余感赴因果不同。思擇業中當廣分別。
論。即於三界至其七者何。已下一頌半第三明七識住。
論曰至第一識住。略說識住。欲界人．天。色三靜慮。無色三天。此七生處是識住體。今依經釋故分為七 此上論文即是引經指處。論。一分天者至除劫初起。人趣全故不須別釋。天一分言事難了故所以別釋 初靜慮中除劫初者。以彼同起戒取相故。
論。言身異者至說名身異。釋身異也 種種顯狀貌者。青．黃等異 種種形狀貌者。長．短等別 或由身異。即是別指色身 或有異身。即是總標假者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如果（因為曼馱多王）也稱為天，那麼曼馱多王（Mandhatr，人名）擊敗阿素洛（Asura，非天），並且與天人戰鬥，他也應該算是天人嗎？如果說與天人交通往來就稱為天人，那麼大樹緊那羅王（Kinnara，天龍八部之一，一種樂神）有一個端莊美麗的女兒名叫奪意，善財菩薩（Sudhana，佛教人物）娶她為妻，那麼緊那羅王也應該是人嗎？如果因為威德殊勝就稱為天人，這也並非是成立的理由。曾經聽說曼馱多王的威德勝過天人。難陀（Nanda，龍名）、跋難陀（Upananda，龍名）等雖然是傍生（動物），但他們的威德自在勝過諸天眾。阿素洛（Asura，非天）只被歸於鬼趣，也不是第六趣。從來沒有經典這樣說過（此處省略多種解釋）。有人說諸趣的體相或許是混雜的，因為不同趣之間相互因緣而生子。例如魚身鹿子仙人，自古以來就傳說其種類數量眾多，一身兼具兩趣，所以有相雜的情況。 正理反駁說：那種說法是不對的。因為各自的業決定了所趣的類別，而他們出生的因緣有種種不同。例如庵羅女因樹而生，喬答摩宗因日光而起。所以只是因緣相依，不能證明趣是混雜的。鹿子仙人魚身等，是因為過去所造的業不同，導致形相不同，但其實他們還是人，所以趣並沒有混雜。至於其他的感受和趨赴，因果各不相同，在思擇業中應當詳細分別。
論：在三界中，到『其七者何』，以下一頌半是第三部分，說明七識住。
論曰：到第一識住。簡略地說，識住，欲界的人和天，色界的三靜慮，無色界的三天，這七種生存之處是識住的本體。現在依據經典來解釋，所以分為七種。以上論文就是引用經典指出之處。論：一部分天，到除去劫初興起。因為人趣是完整的，所以不需要另外解釋。天人的一部分難以理解，所以特別解釋。初禪天中除去劫初興起的天人，因為他們共同生起戒禁取見。
論：說『言身異者』，到『說名身異』，解釋身異。種種顯現的狀貌，指青色、黃色等不同。種種形狀貌，指長、短等區別。或者由於身體不同，這是特別指色身。或者有不同的身體，這是總括地指假名安立的。
【English Translation】 English version If (because King Mandhatr) is also called a Deva (Deva, god or celestial being), then King Mandhatr (Mandhatr, a proper noun) defeated the Asuras (Asura, a type of demigod or titan) and fought with the Devas, should he also be considered a Deva? If it is said that interacting with Devas makes one a Deva, then the great tree Kinnara King (Kinnara, a celestial musician) has a beautiful daughter named Delightful, and Sudhana (Sudhana, a Buddhist figure) took her as his wife, then should the Kinnara King also be considered a human? If being called a Deva is due to superior power and virtue, this is not a valid reason. It has been heard that King Mandhatr's power and virtue surpassed the Devas. Nanda (Nanda, a dragon king), Upananda (Upananda, a dragon king), and others, although they are animals, their power and freedom surpass the Devas. Asuras (Asura, a type of demigod or titan) are only classified under the realm of ghosts, and are not the sixth realm. There has never been a sutra that says this (various explanations omitted). Some say that the nature of the realms may be mixed, because different realms are mutually conditioned to produce offspring. For example, the fish-bodied Rishi Deer Child, it has been said since ancient times that there are countless of its kind, possessing two realms in one body, so there is a mixture. The principle refutation says: That statement is incorrect. Because one's karma determines the realm one goes to, and their birth conditions are various. For example, the Amra girl was born from a tree, and the Gautama lineage arose from sunlight. Therefore, it is only a mutual condition, and cannot prove that the realms are mixed. The fish-bodied Rishi Deer Child and others, because of different past karmas, have different forms, but in reality they are still humans, so the realms are not mixed. As for other feelings and tendencies, the causes and effects are different, and should be distinguished in detail in the consideration of karma.
Treatise: In the Three Realms, up to 'What are the seven?', the following one and a half verses are the third part, explaining the Seven Stations of Consciousness (Saptavijnanasthiti).
Treatise says: Up to the first station of consciousness. Briefly speaking, the stations of consciousness are the humans and Devas of the Desire Realm, the three Dhyanas of the Form Realm, and the three heavens of the Formless Realm. These seven places of existence are the substance of the stations of consciousness. Now, according to the sutras, they are divided into seven. The above treatise is quoting the sutras to point out the location. Treatise: A portion of the Devas, up to excluding the beginning of the kalpa. Because the human realm is complete, there is no need to explain it separately. A portion of the Devas is difficult to understand, so it is explained separately. Among the first Dhyana heavens, excluding the Devas arising at the beginning of the kalpa, because they jointly arise with the view of adhering to precepts.
Treatise: Saying 'The bodies are different', up to 'It is called body difference', explains body difference. The various manifested appearances refer to differences such as blue and yellow. The various shapes refer to differences such as long and short. Or due to different bodies, this specifically refers to the form body. Or there are different bodies, this generally refers to the nominal establishment.
論。言想異者至說名想異。釋想異也。欲界人．天三受互起名為想異。初靜慮中除其苦受。彼由想異別指想心 或有異想。總標假者。結文可解。
論。有色有情至第二識住。引經文也。
論。所以者何至故名想一。釋經意也。以初靜慮同想一因名為想一 不言梵輔天者。舉初顯后 正理論云。何緣梵眾同生此相。由見梵王處所．形色．及神通等皆殊勝故。又觀大梵先時已有。己．及余天後方生故。彼不能見從上地沒。依初靜慮發宿住通。不能了知上地境故。何緣大梵亦生此想。彼才發心眾便生故。謂己所化非速歿故。或愚業果感赴理故。或見己身形狀．勢力．壽．威德等過餘眾故。由是緣故。梵眾．梵王身雖有殊而生一想。
論。大梵王身至故名身異。釋身異也。如文可解。
論。經說梵眾至彼同分內。引經證想一也。由此證知我因梵王。梵王亦謂我生梵眾。
論。梵眾何處曾見梵王。問也。所以有此問者。以進退有過故。
論。有餘師言至來生此故。述初釋也 此師意以劫初成時。梵眾從第二定來生梵眾。故知在極光凈曾見梵王。理實應言第二定中三天皆得。而言極光凈者。舉后顯初。
論。云何今時至起戒禁取。此余師釋。進退有過。在梵眾天若未離初定染未
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：『言想異者至說名想異』，這是解釋『想異』。欲界的人和天，三種感受互相生起，這叫做『想異』。初禪中去除了苦受。他們由於『想異』而分別執取『想』心。或者存在不同的想法。總結來說，這些都是假設性的，文義可以理解。
論：『有色有情至第二識住』，這是引用經文。
論：『所以者何至故名想一』，這是解釋經文的含義。因為初禪中存在共同的『想一』之因，所以稱為『想一』。這裡沒有提到梵輔天，是因為舉初禪來顯示後面的禪定。正理論中說：『為什麼梵眾天會產生這種想法？』因為他們看到大梵天王所處的處所、形色以及神通等等都非常殊勝。而且觀察到大梵天王先存在，自己和其他天眾後來才產生。他們無法看到更高層天界的情況，因為他們依賴初禪而獲得宿住通，無法瞭解更高層天界的境界。為什麼大梵天王也會產生這種想法？因為他才一發心，大眾就產生了。認為這是自己所化生的，不是迅速死去的緣故。或者因為愚昧，認為這是業果感召的道理。或者看到自己的形狀、勢力、壽命、威德等等超過其他大眾。因為這些緣故，梵眾天和大梵天王雖然身體不同，卻產生同一種想法。
論：『大梵王身至故名身異』，這是解釋『身異』。如文義可以理解。
論：『經說梵眾至彼同分內』，這是引用經文來證明『想一』。由此可以證明，梵眾認為自己是梵王所生，梵王也認為自己生了梵眾。
論：『梵眾何處曾見梵王？』這是提問。之所以有這個問題，是因為存在進退兩方面的過失。
論：『有餘師言至來生此故』，這是敘述第一種解釋。這位法師認為，在劫初形成的時候，梵眾天是從第二禪天來生到梵眾天的。因此可知他們在極光凈天曾見過梵王。實際上應該說第二禪中的三天都可以。這裡說極光凈天，是爲了舉后顯示初。
論：『云何今時至起戒禁取』，這是其他法師的解釋。這種解釋存在進退兩方面的過失。如果梵眾天沒有脫離初禪的染污，那麼未
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: 'The statement 'different in perception' to 'named different in perception' explains 'different in perception'. Beings in the desire realm, both humans and gods, experience the mutual arising of three types of feelings, which is called 'different in perception'. In the first dhyana (meditative absorption), painful feelings are eliminated. They separately grasp the 'perception' mind due to 'different in perception'. Or there are different thoughts. In summary, these are all hypothetical, and the meaning of the text can be understood.
Treatise: 'Beings with form to the second abode of consciousness' quotes from the sutra.
Treatise: 'Why is it so, to therefore named one in perception' explains the meaning of the sutra. Because there is a common cause of 'one in perception' in the first dhyana, it is called 'one in perception'. The Brahmaparisadya gods (Brahma's retinue) are not mentioned because the first dhyana is used to illustrate the subsequent dhyanas. The Abhidharmakosha states: 'Why do the Brahmaparisadya gods have this thought?' Because they see that the place, form, and supernormal powers of the Great Brahma are all extremely superior. Moreover, they observe that the Great Brahma existed first, and they and other gods were born later. They cannot see the higher realms because they rely on the first dhyana to attain the power of remembering past lives and cannot understand the realms of higher levels. Why does the Great Brahma also have this thought? Because as soon as he has a thought, the multitude arises. He thinks that they are created by him and not quickly deceased. Or because of ignorance, he thinks that this is the principle of karmic retribution. Or he sees that his own form, power, lifespan, and majesty are superior to the rest of the multitude. For these reasons, although the bodies of the Brahmaparisadya gods and the Great Brahma are different, they have the same thought.
Treatise: 'The body of the Great Brahma to therefore named different in body' explains 'different in body'. The meaning can be understood as it is written.
Treatise: 'The sutra says the Brahmaparisadya gods to within their common share' quotes the sutra to prove 'one in perception'. From this, it can be proven that the Brahmaparisadya gods think that they are born from Brahma, and Brahma also thinks that he has given birth to the Brahmaparisadya gods.
Treatise: 'Where did the Brahmaparisadya gods see Brahma?' This is a question. The reason for this question is that there are faults in both advancing and retreating.
Treatise: 'Some teachers say to come and be born here' narrates the first explanation. This teacher believes that at the beginning of the kalpa (cosmic cycle), the Brahmaparisadya gods came from the second dhyana realm to be born in the Brahmaparisadya realm. Therefore, it can be known that they had seen Brahma in the Abhasvara (gods of radiant light) realm. In reality, it should be said that all three heavens in the second dhyana are possible. Saying Abhasvara is to illustrate the beginning by mentioning the end.
Treatise: 'How can it be that now to arise attachment to precepts and vows' is the explanation of other teachers. This explanation has faults in both advancing and retreating. If the Brahmaparisadya gods have not detached from the defilements of the first dhyana, then they have not
得第二定。即不能憶第二定事。若以離初染得第二定。即不合緣初定梵王起戒禁取。
論。有餘師說住中有中。述第二釋。此師意說。從第二定沒生初定時。于中有中曾見梵王長壽久住。
論。彼住中有至長壽久住。破第二釋。色界中有于受生處。無有障礙。不住多時。如何得說曾見梵王長壽久住。
論。是故梵眾至起如是念。論主述正釋也。正理論云。謂諸梵眾初下生時。見大梵王威光赫烈。雖懷敬慕欲往親承。威神所逼未果前詣。于茲荏苒遂致多時。后勵專誠預近瞻仰。到已皆共作是念言。我等曾見。乃至廣說。謂彼近見大梵王時。便能憶知先所見事。復能了達眾下生前獨有梵王。及心所愿。或彼先在極光凈天。曾見梵王今見能憶。謂彼昔在極光凈天曾見梵王獨居下地。亦知心願與眾同居。俯愍便興初靜慮化。令所化眾偶侍梵王。起化須臾自便福盡。命終下生初靜慮中。大梵身心．及所化事。皆初靜慮通慧所緣。今見便發宿住隨念。故彼梵眾作是念言。我等曾見。乃至廣說。有餘師說。二靜慮中所起能緣梵世眼識是初靜慮地法所收。故今亦能隨念彼識。有作是說。彼梵眾天不受處胎．斷末摩苦。由斯得有念無忘失。故憶前生所見等事。
論。有色有情至第三識住。牒經文也。
論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 獲得第二禪定（Dhyana）的人，就不能回憶起第二禪定的事情。如果因為脫離了最初的染污而獲得第二禪定，那麼就不應該緣于初禪的梵天（Brahma）而產生戒禁取（Śīlabbataparāmarsa）。
論：有其他老師說在中有（Antarābhava）中。敘述第二種解釋。這位老師的意思是說，從第二禪定去世而生到初禪時，在中有的狀態中曾經見到梵天長壽久住。
論：他們住在中有，直到長壽久住。駁斥第二種解釋。中有對於受生之處，沒有障礙，不會停留很長時間。怎麼能說曾經見到梵天長壽久住呢？
論：因此，梵眾天（Brahmakāyika）乃至生起這樣的念頭。論主敘述正確的解釋。正理論說：『所謂的諸梵眾天最初下生時，見到大梵天（Mahābrahmā）威光赫烈。雖然懷著敬慕之心想要前往親近侍奉，但被威神所逼迫，未能立即前往。因此耽擱了很長時間。後來努力專誠，預先靠近瞻仰。到達之後都共同產生這樣的念頭說：『我們曾經見過。』乃至廣說。』所謂的他們靠近見到大梵天時，便能憶知先前所見的事情。又能了達眾梵眾天（Brahmakāyika）下生之前只有梵天。以及心中的願望。或者他們先前在極光凈天（Ābhāsvara）時，曾經見過梵天，現在見到能夠回憶起來。所謂的他們過去在極光凈天曾經見到梵天獨自居住在地獄。也知道（他們的）心願是與大眾一同居住。梵天俯身憐憫，便興起初禪的化生，令所化生的眾生偶然侍奉梵天。興起化生不久，自己便福報耗盡，命終下生到初禪之中。大梵天的身心，以及所化生的事情，都是初禪的通慧所緣。現在見到便引發宿住隨念（Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna）。所以那些梵眾天產生這樣的念頭說：『我們曾經見過。』乃至廣說。有其他老師說：二禪中所生起的能夠緣取梵世的眼識，是初禪地法所攝。所以現在也能隨念那個眼識。有人這樣說：那些梵眾天不受處胎、斷末摩（Marma）的痛苦。因此能夠有念而不忘失。所以憶起前生所見等等事情。
論：有色有情，乃至第三識住（Vijñāna-sthiti）。照抄經文。
論：
【English Translation】 English version Having attained the second Dhyana (meditative absorption), one cannot recall the events of the second Dhyana. If one attains the second Dhyana by detaching from the initial defilements, then it is inconsistent to develop attachment to precepts and vows (Śīlabbataparāmarsa) based on the Brahma (Brahma) of the first Dhyana.
Treatise: Some other teachers say it occurs in the intermediate state (Antarābhava). Describing the second explanation. This teacher means that when one dies from the second Dhyana and is born into the first Dhyana, in the intermediate state, they once saw Brahma living long and abiding for a long time.
Treatise: They dwell in the intermediate state until long-lived and abiding. Refuting the second explanation. The intermediate state has no obstruction to the place of rebirth and does not stay for a long time. How can it be said that they once saw Brahma living long and abiding for a long time?
Treatise: Therefore, the Brahmakāyika (Brahma's retinue) and even generate such thoughts. The treatise master describes the correct explanation. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'When the Brahmakāyika first descend, they see the Mahābrahmā (Great Brahma) with majestic and radiant light. Although they cherish reverence and desire to attend upon him closely, they are compelled by his divine power and cannot go immediately. Therefore, they delay for a long time. Later, they strive with sincerity and approach to gaze upon him. Having arrived, they all generate such thoughts, saying: 'We have seen him before.' And so on. 'When they approach and see the Mahābrahmā, they can recall what they saw before. They can also understand that before the Brahmakāyika descended, there was only Brahma. And their heart's desire. Or they were previously in the Ābhāsvara (heaven of radiant light), and once saw Brahma, and now seeing him, they can recall it. They once saw Brahma dwelling alone in the lower realm in the Ābhāsvara, and also knew their wish to dwell together with the multitude. Brahma, taking pity, then initiated the transformation of the first Dhyana, causing the transformed beings to occasionally attend upon Brahma. Soon after initiating the transformation, his own merit is exhausted, and he dies and is born into the first Dhyana. The body and mind of Mahābrahmā, and the transformed events, are all objects of the penetrating wisdom of the first Dhyana. Now seeing them, they evoke the recollection of past lives (Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna). Therefore, those Brahmakāyika generate such thoughts, saying: 'We have seen him before.' And so on. Some other teachers say that the eye consciousness arising in the second Dhyana, which can perceive the Brahma world, is included in the Dharma of the first Dhyana. Therefore, they can now also recall that consciousness. Some say that those Brahmakāyika do not experience the suffering of entering the womb or the severing of the Marma (vital points). Therefore, they can have memory without forgetting. Therefore, they recall what they saw in previous lives, and so on.
Treatise: Sentient beings with form, and even the third Vijñāna-sthiti (abode of consciousness). Quoting the sutra text.
Treatise:
。此中舉后至何識住攝。釋經意也。
論。彼天顯形至故名想異。釋立名也。
論。傳說彼天至復受欲樂。廣釋想異。既言傳說顯非自意。
論。豈不遍凈想亦應然。難也豈不第三靜慮。亦厭根本樂受入近分舍。亦應同是想異。因何唯取第二定也。
論。非遍凈天至擾動心故。答也。
論。經部師說至得想異名。述經部師計也 正理論云。彼天中無有表業等為因所感差別身形故言身一。即形．顯等。同處諸天相無別義。
論。有色有情至故名想一。釋第四識住也。身一如前。想一謂唯樂受想也。
論。初靜慮中至故言想一。此釋諸地想不同也 初靜慮中言想一者。是戒禁取故言染污。第二靜慮是定心故名為善想。第三定中受異熟樂。無厭舍故名為想一。無記相也。
論。下三無色至是名為七。指經釋后三識住也。即是空無邊處五。識無邊處六。無所有處七 是名為七者。結七識住也。
論。此中何法名為識住。問識所住法也。
論。謂彼所繫至是名識住。此答所住法也。謂欲．色界系五蘊為所住。三無色中四蘊為識住 此中說識于處想樂住故兼取識也。非如四識住唯四蘊也。
論。所餘何故非識住耶。問。惡趣．第四靜慮等。何故非識住耶。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：此中（指前面列舉的識住），舉出這些之後，哪些屬於識住的範疇？這是爲了解釋經文的含義。
論：那些天顯現出不同的形體，因此稱為『想異』。這是解釋『想異』這個名稱的由來。
論：傳說那些天（指離生喜樂地）又會感受慾望的快樂。這是對『想異』的進一步解釋。既然說是『傳說』，就表明這並非作者自己的觀點。
論：難道遍凈天（Subhakrtsna）的想法不也應該如此嗎？這是一個疑問。難道第三禪（第三靜慮）不也厭惡根本的快樂感受，進入近分的舍受狀態嗎？也應該同樣是『想異』，為何只取第二禪（第二定）呢？
論：不是的，遍凈天（Subhakrtsna）沒有粗重的尋伺，不會擾動內心。這是對上述問題的回答。
論：經部師說，那些天沒有表業等作為原因所感知的差別身形，所以說『身一』，也就是形體、顯現等相同，同處的天人之間沒有差別。這是敘述經部師的觀點。《正理論》說，那些天中沒有表業等為因所感差別身形，故言身一。即形、顯等同處諸天相無別義。
論：有色界的有情，因為只有一種想法，所以稱為『想一』。這是解釋第四識住。『身一』如前所述。『想一』是指只有樂受想。
論：初禪（初靜慮）中，因為有戒禁取見，所以說『想一』。這是解釋各個禪定境界的想法不同。初靜慮中言想一者，是戒禁取故言染污。第二靜慮是定心故名為善想。第三定中受異熟樂，無厭舍故名為想一，無記相也。
論：下面的三個無色界，就是所謂的第七識住。這是指經文，解釋後面的三個識住。即是空無邊處（Akasanantyayatana）第五，識無邊處（Vijnananantyayatana）第六，無所有處（Akincanyayatana）第七。是名為七者，結七識住也。
論：這裡面什麼法被稱為識住？這是詢問識所安住的法。
論：就是那些與慾望、色界（**系）相關的五蘊，作為識所安住的地方。在三個無色界中，四蘊作為識住。此中說識于處想樂住故兼取識也。非如四識住唯四蘊也。
論：其餘的為什麼不是識住呢？這是提問，惡趣、第四禪（第四靜慮）等，為什麼不是識住呢？
【English Translation】 English version Question: Among these (referring to the previously listed abodes of consciousness), after mentioning these, which are included in the category of abodes of consciousness? This is to explain the meaning of the scripture.
Treatise: Those heavens manifest different forms, therefore they are called 'diversity in perception' (Nānātvakāyāh Nānātvasaṃjñinah). This explains the origin of the name 'diversity in perception'.
Treatise: It is said that those heavens (referring to the realm of joy born of detachment) also experience the pleasure of desire. This is a further explanation of 'diversity in perception'. Since it is said to be 'said', it indicates that this is not the author's own view.
Treatise: Shouldn't the perception of the Subhakrtsna (遍凈天) heavens also be like this? This is a question. Shouldn't the third dhyana (第三靜慮) also dislike the fundamental pleasure and enter the state of equanimity (舍受) in the near-attainment? It should also be 'diversity in perception', so why only take the second dhyana (第二定)?
Treatise: No, the Subhakrtsna (遍凈天) heavens do not have coarse investigation and analysis (尋伺), so they do not disturb the mind. This is the answer to the above question.
Treatise: The Sautrantikas (經部師) say that those heavens do not have differentiated forms of body perceived as caused by actions, etc., so they are said to have 'unity of body' (Ekatvakāyāh), that is, the form, manifestation, etc., are the same, and there is no difference between the devas in the same place. This is a narration of the Sautrantika's view. The Nyāyānusāra says that those heavens do not have differentiated forms of body perceived as caused by actions, etc., so they are said to have 'unity of body'. That is, the form, manifestation, etc., are the same, and there is no difference between the devas in the same place.
Treatise: Sentient beings in the realm of form, because they have only one kind of perception, are called 'unity of perception' (Ekatvasaṃjñinah). This explains the fourth abode of consciousness. 'Unity of body' is as mentioned before. 'Unity of perception' refers to only the perception of pleasure.
Treatise: In the first dhyana (初靜慮), because there is adherence to precepts and vows, it is said to be 'unity of perception'. This explains the difference in perception in each dhyana state. In the first dhyana, the statement 'unity of perception' refers to adherence to precepts and vows, therefore it is defiled. The second dhyana is a state of samadhi, so it is called wholesome perception. In the third dhyana, one experiences the pleasure of fruition, without aversion or abandonment, so it is called 'unity of perception', which is a state of neutral sensation.
Treatise: The three formless realms below are what are called the seventh abode of consciousness. This refers to the scripture, explaining the last three abodes of consciousness. That is, the sphere of infinite space (Akasanantyayatana) is the fifth, the sphere of infinite consciousness (Vijnananantyayatana) is the sixth, and the sphere of nothingness (Akincanyayatana) is the seventh. 'These are called the seven' concludes the seven abodes of consciousness.
Treatise: Among these, what dharma is called the abode of consciousness? This is asking about the dharma in which consciousness dwells.
Treatise: It is those aggregates associated with desire and the realm of form (**系), that serve as the place where consciousness dwells. In the three formless realms, the four aggregates serve as the abode of consciousness. Here, it is said that consciousness dwells in place, perception, and pleasure, so consciousness is also included. It is not like the four abodes of consciousness, which only have the four aggregates.
Treatise: Why are the others not abodes of consciousness? This is asking why the evil destinies, the fourth dhyana (第四靜慮), etc., are not abodes of consciousness.
論。于余處皆有損壞識法故。答也。
論。余處者何。問余處也。
論。謂諸惡處至及與有頂。答。
論。所以者何。徴非所以。
論。由彼處有至故非識住。答非識住所以。
論。何等名為損壞識法。問壞法也。
論。謂諸惡處至故非識住。答壞法也。
論。復說若處至故非識住。述異釋也。準此論文。豈可第四靜慮處三天異生。皆悉愛慕無想異熟處耶。應非正義。正理論云。有餘師說。眾生有三所。謂樂著諸境．樂．想。樂著境者。人．及欲天。樂著樂者。下三靜慮。樂著想者。下三無色。唯依此處立識住名。余無此三故非識住 又云。上代師資相承說者。若處具有見．修所斷．及無斷識立識住名。異此便非識住所攝 豈不欲界人．及六天無無漏識應非識住。若言能作無漏所依。則有頂天應名識住 此難非理。欲界無定。可就所依說有無漏。然有頂天是定地攝。應依自性說彼有無。由自性無故非識住 或非有頂補特伽羅一所依中具三種識。欲界善處補特伽羅。一所依中容具三識。故不應以有頂為例。第四靜慮雖具三識。而五處全．一處少分不具三識。故少從多不立識住。是故識住數唯有七(言三識者。謂見斷．修斷．及無漏識。非想處一切聖人無見斷識。一切
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：在其他地方都有損壞『識』（vijñāna）的方法，是這樣嗎？答：是的。
論：其他地方是指哪裡？問：是指其他地方。
論：指那些惡劣之處，乃至有頂天（Bhavāgra）。答：是的。
論：為什麼這樣說？征：這不是為什麼。
論：因為那些地方有（損壞識法），所以不是『識住』（vijñāna-sthiti）。答：回答不是『識住』的原因。
論：什麼叫做損壞『識』的方法？問：什麼是壞法？
論：指那些惡劣之處，所以不是『識住』。答：是壞法。
論：又說如果某個地方（有損壞識法），所以不是『識住』。述：這是另一種解釋。按照這段論文，難道第四禪定處的三天異生，都愛慕無想異熟處嗎？這應該不是正確的道理。《正理論》說：有其他論師說，眾生有三種執著的地方，即執著于諸境、樂、想。執著于境的是人以及欲界天。執著於樂的是下三禪定。執著于想的是下三無色界。只有依據這些地方才能建立『識住』的名稱，其餘地方沒有這三種執著，所以不是『識住』。又說：上代師資相承的說法是，如果某個地方具有見所斷、修所斷以及無斷的『識』，才能建立『識住』的名稱。不符合這些條件就不是『識住』所包含的。難道欲界的人以及六慾天沒有無漏識，所以不應是『識住』嗎？如果說能作為無漏識所依之處，那麼有頂天應該被稱為『識住』。這個責難沒有道理。欲界沒有禪定，可以就所依之處說有無漏識。然而有頂天是禪定地所攝，應該依據自性說它有無。由於自性沒有，所以不是『識住』。或者並非有頂天的補特伽羅（pudgala，人）在一個所依中具有三種『識』。欲界善處的補特伽羅，在一個所依中可以具有三種『識』。所以不應該以有頂天為例。第四禪定雖然具有三種『識』，但是五處全部、一處少部分不具有三種『識』。所以少數服從多數，不建立『識住』。因此，『識住』的數量只有七個（所說的三種『識』，是指見所斷、修所斷以及無漏識。非想非非想處的一切聖人沒有見所斷識，一切）。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: Are there methods of damaging 『consciousness』 (vijñāna) in other places? Answer: Yes.
Treatise: What are these other places? Question: It refers to other places.
Treatise: It refers to those evil realms, up to the Peak of Existence (Bhavāgra). Answer: Yes.
Treatise: Why is that? Question: This is not a why.
Treatise: Because those places have (methods of damaging consciousness), therefore they are not 『abodes of consciousness』 (vijñāna-sthiti). Answer: Answering the reason why they are not 『abodes of consciousness』.
Treatise: What is called a method of damaging 『consciousness』? Question: What is a damaging dharma?
Treatise: It refers to those evil realms, therefore they are not 『abodes of consciousness』. Answer: It is a damaging dharma.
Treatise: Furthermore, it is said that if a certain place (has methods of damaging consciousness), therefore it is not an 『abode of consciousness』. Statement: This is another explanation. According to this treatise, do the ordinary beings of the three days in the Fourth Dhyana realm all adore the realm of neither perception nor non-perception? This should not be the correct reasoning. The Nyāyānusāra says: Some other teachers say that beings have three attachments: attachment to objects, pleasure, and thought. Those attached to objects are humans and the desire realm gods. Those attached to pleasure are the lower three dhyanas. Those attached to thought are the lower three formless realms. Only based on these places can the name 『abode of consciousness』 be established; other places do not have these three attachments, so they are not 『abodes of consciousness』. It also says: The saying passed down from teachers of previous generations is that if a place possesses consciousness that is subject to abandonment by seeing, abandonment by cultivation, and non-abandonment, then the name 『abode of consciousness』 is established. Those that do not meet these conditions are not included in the 『abodes of consciousness』. Aren't humans in the desire realm and the six desire heavens without non-outflow consciousness, so they should not be 『abodes of consciousness』? If it is said that they can serve as the basis for non-outflow consciousness, then the Peak of Existence should be called an 『abode of consciousness』. This objection is unreasonable. The desire realm does not have samadhi; one can speak of the presence or absence of non-outflow consciousness based on the basis. However, the Peak of Existence is included in the samadhi realm; one should speak of its presence or absence based on its nature. Because it does not have it by nature, it is not an 『abode of consciousness』. Or it is not the case that a pudgala (person) in the Peak of Existence possesses three types of consciousness in one basis. A pudgala in a good place in the desire realm can possess three types of consciousness in one basis. Therefore, one should not take the Peak of Existence as an example. Although the Fourth Dhyana possesses three types of consciousness, the five places in their entirety and one place in part do not possess three types of consciousness. Therefore, the minority is subordinate to the majority, and 『abodes of consciousness』 are not established. Therefore, the number of 『abodes of consciousness』 is only seven (the three types of consciousness mentioned refer to consciousness subject to abandonment by seeing, abandonment by cultivation, and non-outflow consciousness. All sages in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception do not have consciousness subject to abandonment by seeing, all).
異生無無漏識。于欲界中可有一人先具見．修。復有無漏式于初忍 五處全者。謂五凈居 一少分者。為廣果天。無想天中無無漏識。廣果天中具三識故。唯下二天具有三識。上六天中不具三故。故言以少從多不名識住)。
論。如是分別至其九者何。已下一頌。第四明九有情居。九有情居非經所說。因釋經中說七識住故便釋也。
論曰至不樂住故。釋有情居。即七識住上加非想及無想天以為九也。所以此九立有情居。以樂住故。前識住中以有壞識法故。識昧劣故。故非識住。余處不樂非有情居 問有情居及識住五蘊者色．行二蘊通外器不 答正理論云。謂諸有情自樂安住所依色等實物非余。以諸有情是假有故。然諸實物是假所居故。有情居唯有情法。以有情類于自依身愛住增強非於處所。又于處所立有情居應成雜亂。居無雜亂唯有內身。故有情居唯有情法。既言生已名有情居。知有情居不攝中有。又諸中有非久所居。故諸有情不樂安住。又必應爾。由本論說為顯生處立有情居。于生死中為顯諸識由愛住著建立識住。顯諸有情于自依止。愛樂安住立有情居。故此二門建立差別。
論。言余處者至如識住中。釋余第四定．及諸惡趣非有情居。如前已釋。
論。前所引經至其四者何已下一頌第五
明四識住。
論曰至其體云何。問識住體性。
論。謂隨次第有漏四蘊。答也。就有漏．無漏中唯有漏為體。五蘊之中唯四蘊也。
論。又此唯在至依著于彼。此明自他地中唯自地也。正理論云又自地中唯有情數。唯自相續立為識住。非非情數．他相續中。識隨樂住如自相續。
論。如何不說識為識住。問唯四名識住所以。
論。由離能住至可名王座。此答識非識住所以。
論。或若有法至所說如是。第二釋也 毗婆沙師所說如是者。指宗也。
論。若爾何故至識所乘御。引經難也。
論。又如何言至五蘊為體。引例難也。
論。雖有是說至非獨說識。答兩難也。于識食中有喜．染等。及七識住。皆于生處所攝五蘊。不別分析總生喜．染非獨說識。
論。然色等蘊至於余可說。明四識住。據別別說。於一一蘊生種種喜．染也。故識不同餘四蘊故不立識住。
論。又佛意說至教意如是。第二釋也。
論。又法與識至故非識住。明四種法必俱時也。識與其識無俱時理故非識住 正理論云。識與識住如種如田。理可如是。不違教故。然彼所說若法與識。可俱時生為識良田立識住者。不應正理。所以者何。彼先自說識所依著故名識住。非於俱起受
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 辨明四識住（Sì shí zhù）。
論曰：至於它的體性是什麼？（問：識住的體性是什麼？）
論：是指隨順次第的有漏四蘊（yùn）。（答：是隨順次第的有漏四蘊。）答覆。在有漏、無漏之中，只有有漏作為體性。五蘊之中只有四蘊。
論：而且這隻在於……直到依附於它。（此明：在自地和他地中，只有自地。）《正理論》說：又在自地中，只有有情數（yǒuqíng shù）。只有自身的相續才被立為識住。不是非有情數、他人的相續。識隨其所樂而住，如同在自身的相續中。
論：為什麼不說識是識住？（問：只有四蘊被稱為識住的原因是什麼？）
論：由於離開能住……直到可以稱為王座。（此答：識不是識住的原因。）
論：或者如果有一種法……直到所說的是這樣。（第二種解釋。）毗婆沙師（Pípóshā shī）所說的是這樣，指的是宗旨。
論：如果這樣，為什麼……直到識所乘御？（引經文來發難。）
論：又如何說……直到五蘊為體？（引用例子來發難。）
論：雖然有這樣的說法……直到非獨說識。（回答以上兩個難題。）在識食（shí shí）中有喜、染等，以及七識住（qī shí zhù）。都在生處所攝的五蘊之中。不分別分析，總的來說是生喜、染，不是單獨說識。
論：然而色等蘊……至於其餘可以說。（辨明四識住。）根據個別來說。在每一個蘊中，都產生種種的喜、染。所以識不同於其餘四蘊，因此不立識住。
論：而且佛的意思是……直到教義是這樣。（第二種解釋。）
論：而且法與識……所以不是識住。（說明四種法必定同時存在。）識和其識沒有同時存在的道理，所以不是識住。《正理論》說：識與識住，如同種子和農田。道理上可以這樣，不違背教義。然而他們所說的，如果法與識可以同時產生，作為識的良田而立識住，是不應道理的。為什麼呢？他們先前自己說，識所依附的才叫做識住，不是對於同時生起的感受。
【English Translation】 English version: Clarifying the Four Stations of Consciousness (Sì shí zhù).
Treatise says: As for its substance, what is it? (Question: What is the substance of the stations of consciousness?)
Treatise: It refers to the four aggregates (yùn) with outflows in sequential order. (Answer: It is the four aggregates with outflows in sequential order.) Answer. Among those with outflows and without outflows, only those with outflows serve as the substance. Among the five aggregates, only four aggregates.
Treatise: Moreover, this only exists... until relying on it. (This clarifies: Among one's own realm and others' realms, only one's own realm.) The Nyāyānusāra says: Furthermore, within one's own realm, only sentient beings (yǒuqíng shù). Only one's own continuum is established as the station of consciousness. It is not the continuum of non-sentient beings or others. Consciousness dwells as it pleases, just as in one's own continuum.
Treatise: Why not say that consciousness is the station of consciousness? (Question: What is the reason that only the four aggregates are called the stations of consciousness?)
Treatise: Because it is apart from the ability to dwell... until it can be called a royal seat. (This answers: The reason why consciousness is not the station of consciousness.)
Treatise: Or if there is a dharma... until what is said is like this. (The second explanation.) What the Vaibhāṣika master (Pípóshā shī) says is like this, referring to the doctrine.
Treatise: If so, why... until consciousness is mounted? (Raising a difficulty by quoting scripture.)
Treatise: Also, how can it be said... until the five aggregates are the substance? (Raising a difficulty by citing an example.)
Treatise: Although there is such a saying... until not exclusively speaking of consciousness. (Answering the two difficulties above.) In the food of consciousness (shí shí), there are joy, defilement, etc., as well as the seven stations of consciousness (qī shí zhù). All are within the five aggregates included in the place of birth. Without separately analyzing, generally speaking, joy and defilement arise, not exclusively speaking of consciousness.
Treatise: However, the aggregates of form, etc.... as for the rest, it can be said. (Clarifying the four stations of consciousness.) According to individual distinctions. In each aggregate, various kinds of joy and defilement arise. Therefore, consciousness is different from the other four aggregates, so the station of consciousness is not established for it.
Treatise: Moreover, the Buddha's intention is... until the teaching is like this. (The second explanation.)
Treatise: Moreover, dharma and consciousness... therefore, it is not the station of consciousness. (Explaining that the four dharmas must exist simultaneously.) Consciousness and its consciousness have no reason to exist simultaneously, so it is not the station of consciousness. The Nyāyānusāra says: Consciousness and the station of consciousness are like seeds and fields. In principle, it can be like this, not contradicting the teachings. However, what they say, if dharma and consciousness can arise simultaneously, establishing the station of consciousness as a good field for consciousness, is not reasonable. Why? They themselves said earlier that what consciousness relies on is called the station of consciousness, not for feelings that arise simultaneously.
等蘊中有識所依。彼依識故(此識為依非識依處)。識不依彼如何可說彼為識住(若以所依義釋識住者。識不依彼受等法故。如何受等是識住耶)。又非所緣同一境故。俱生受等非所取故(依有二義。一所依義。心所法等非所依也。如前已破。二所緣義。以受等法復非所緣。如此中破。三相應依。如后破也)。又不可以相應依著釋識住義。勿諸色法．及不相應非識住故(若相應義釋識住者。一切色法。及不相應無相應義。應非識住)。又相應理無差別故。則應無漏亦識住體(有漏．無漏．心．心所法相應無別。因何有漏立識住體。無漏非也)。如何可說俱生色等為識良田立為識住 正理論云然我師宗作如是釋。為令于識除我見心。故於識中不說識住。契經中言。我達世尊所說法教。馳流生死唯識非余。識謂世尊異名說我。為欲除滅彼我見心顯識依他。體非是我。我所依性非謂能依。故識住門唯說有四。非實識住但四非識。今謂世尊所說識住。識色等四不言識者。由但色等於三時中。與續有識為助伴故。謂唯色等與識俱生。過．未亦能為識助伴。令續有識生死馳流。識則不爾。故非識住。且眼等根．及俱色等。與俱生識為所依．依 根為所依余為依也 已滅未生但為識境。是故色蘊於三時中。望續有識能為助伴。現在受
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 在等蘊（Sameness aggregate，五蘊之一）中，存在著意識所依賴的處所。既然意識依賴於這些處所（指此意識以這些為依賴，而不是這些依賴於意識），如果意識不依賴於它們，又怎麼能說它們是意識的住所（如果用所依賴的意義來解釋『識住』，意識不依賴於受等法，那麼受等法又怎麼能是意識的住所呢）？而且，受等法並非與意識緣于同一境界，因為同時產生的受等法不是意識所取之境（『依』有兩種含義：一是所依賴的意義，心所法等不是意識所依賴的，如前已破斥；二是所緣的意義，受等法又不是意識所緣的，如此處破斥；三是相應依，如後文破斥）。 此外，也不可以用相應依附來解釋『識住』的意義，否則一切色法以及不相應的法，因為沒有相應性，就不應是意識的住所（如果用相應的意義來解釋『識住』，那麼一切色法以及不相應的法，因為沒有相應的意義，就不應該是意識的住所）。而且，如果以相應的道理來說，相應沒有差別，那麼無漏法也應該是識住的本體（有漏、無漏、心、心所法在相應上沒有差別，為什麼有漏法可以被立為識住的本體，而無漏法卻不行呢）？ 又怎麼能說同時產生的色等法是意識的良田，並被立為意識的住所呢？《正理論》中說：『我的老師是這樣解釋的，爲了使人對意識去除我見之心，所以在關於意識的論述中沒有提到識住。』契經中說：『我理解世尊所說的法教，在生死中流轉的只有意識，沒有其他的。』意識是世尊的另一個名字，用來指代『我』。爲了消除人們的『我見』之心，顯示意識是依他而起的，其體性不是『我』，『我』所依賴的性質不是能依賴的。所以關於識住的論述只說了四種，並非說只有這四種是識住，而是說這四種不是意識。現在說世尊所說的識住，包括意識、色等四種，沒有說意識的原因，是因為只有色等三種在三個時段中，與相續的意識作為助伴。也就是說，只有色等與意識同時產生，過去和未來也能作為意識的助伴，使相續的意識在生死中流轉。而意識則不是這樣，所以不是識住。而且，眼等根以及俱生的色等，與同時產生的意識是所依和能依的關係（根是所依，其他的色等是能依），已經滅去的和尚未產生的，只是意識的境界。因此，色蘊在三個時段中，對於相續的意識能夠作為助伴。現在的受……』
【English Translation】 English version: Within the Sameness aggregate (one of the five aggregates), there exist locations upon which consciousness relies. Since consciousness relies on these locations (meaning this consciousness takes these as its reliance, not that these rely on consciousness), if consciousness does not rely on them, how can it be said that they are the abodes of consciousness (if 'abode of consciousness' is interpreted in terms of reliance, since consciousness does not rely on feelings, etc., how can feelings, etc., be abodes of consciousness)? Moreover, feelings, etc., do not share the same object as consciousness, because simultaneously arising feelings, etc., are not the objects taken by consciousness ( 'reliance' has two meanings: one is the meaning of what is relied upon, mental factors, etc., are not what consciousness relies upon, as refuted earlier; the other is the meaning of what is cognized, feelings, etc., are not what consciousness cognizes, as refuted here; the third is association reliance, as refuted later). Furthermore, the meaning of 'abode of consciousness' cannot be explained by associative dependence, otherwise all forms and non-associated formations, because they lack association, should not be abodes of consciousness (if 'abode of consciousness' is explained in terms of association, then all forms and non-associated formations, because they lack the meaning of association, should not be abodes of consciousness). Moreover, if the principle of association is used, and there is no difference in association, then undefiled dharmas should also be the substance of the abode of consciousness (defiled, undefiled, mind, and mental factors are not different in association, why can defiled dharmas be established as the substance of the abode of consciousness, but undefiled dharmas cannot)? How can it be said that simultaneously arising forms, etc., are the fertile fields of consciousness and are established as the abodes of consciousness? The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise Following the Path of Reasoning) says: 'My teacher explains it this way: in order to remove the mind of self-view towards consciousness, the abodes of consciousness are not mentioned in the discussion about consciousness.' The sūtra says: 'I understand the Dharma taught by the Bhagavān (World Honored One), only consciousness flows in saṃsāra (cycle of rebirth), nothing else.' Consciousness is another name for the Bhagavān, used to refer to 'self'. In order to eliminate people's minds of 'self-view', to show that consciousness arises dependently, its nature is not 'self', the nature of what 'self' relies on is not what can rely. Therefore, only four types are mentioned in the discussion about the abodes of consciousness, not that only these four are abodes of consciousness, but that these four are not consciousness. Now it is said that the abodes of consciousness spoken by the Bhagavān include consciousness, form, etc., four types, the reason for not mentioning consciousness is that only form, etc., three types, in three time periods, act as companions to the continuing consciousness. That is to say, only form, etc., arise simultaneously with consciousness, the past and future can also act as companions to consciousness, causing the continuing consciousness to flow in saṃsāra. But consciousness is not like this, so it is not an abode of consciousness. Moreover, the sense faculties such as the eye, etc., and the co-arisen forms, etc., have a relationship of what is relied upon and what relies on with the simultaneously arising consciousness (the faculties are what is relied upon, the other forms, etc., are what relies on), what has ceased and what has not yet arisen are only the objects of consciousness. Therefore, the form aggregate in three time periods can act as a companion to the continuing consciousness. The present feeling...'
等與識俱生為俱有因。一分與識同緣一境有助伴用。已滅未生俱為識境。是故受等亦於三時。望續有識能為助伴。識雖過．未望續有識少有助能。而俱生中全無助力。不俱起故。色等望識具二助能。識唯去．來故非識住。故非情數．及他身中。色等四蘊亦非識住。由彼望識但為所緣。不具二門助伴用故。住謂所住。是續有識引自果時。能為依義。住或所著。是續有識引自果時。能為境義。自身色等可有與識同一境義。設不同境然能為依。具二助能故立識住。非有情數他身色等則不如是。故非識住。
論。如是所說至四攝七耶。問相攝也。
論。非遍相攝至謂除前相。自此已下四句答也。如文可解。
論。於前所說至何處有何。已下一頌半。第六明四生也。
論曰至而生類等。此明立四所以。以生類等同名一生。正理論云。前所說界通情．非情(此即界寬。四生狹也)。趣唯有情然不遍攝(不攝中有。狹于生也)。生唯遍攝故說有情。無非有情名眾生故 準此。有情名為眾生。無情不名眾生。舊譯有情名眾生者有兩名也。準大乘同性經具六界故名眾生也 又云。然有情類卵生．胎生．濕生．化生是名為四(釋四生也)。生謂生類。諸有情中雖余類雜。而生類等言生類者是眾生義(準此論文。多
生類故名為眾生)。若爾界．趣亦應名生(問也)。不爾。界通情．非情故。趣雖有情而非遍故。此唯情遍獨立生名。
論。云何卵生至鸚鵡雁等。釋卵生也。依卵而生名為卵生。卵必有胎是故先說。
論。云何胎生至豬羊驢等。釋胎生也。依胎而生名為胎生。有胎無卵故在卵后說。為胎必濕故濕生先說。
論。云何濕生至蚊蚰蜒等。釋濕生也。依濕而生名為濕生。以有所託故在化生前。以有濕無胎。在胎生后說。
論。云何化生至故名化生。釋化生也。無而忽有名為化生。此緣最少故在後說。
論。人傍生趣各具四種。就趣辨生多少別也。
論。人卵生者至五百子等。釋人中卵生也。婆沙一百二十云。人卵生者。昔於此州有商人。入海得一𩾰鶴。形色偉麗奇而悅之。遂生二卵。於後卵開出二童子。端正聰慧。年長出家皆得阿羅漢果。小者名鄔波世羅(此云小山。鄔波名小。世羅名山。近山生故)。大者名世羅(但名山也)。鹿母者。子名鹿故從子為名故言鹿母。即是毗舍佉夫人也。毗舍佉是二月星名。從星立名此云長養。鹿母所生三十二卵。卵出一兒 般遮羅是地名此云執五。王妃生五百卵。生已羞恥恐為災變。函盛棄殑伽河。隨流而去。下有鄰國王。因觀水遣人接取見卵。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：因為有生命活動才被稱為眾生。如果這樣，界（dhatu，構成要素）、趣（gati，輪迴的去處）也應該被稱為『生』嗎？（提出疑問） 答：不是的。因為『界』包含有情和非情之物，而『趣』雖然是有情，但並非普遍存在。只有有情且普遍存在的，才能獨立地被稱為『生』。
論：什麼是卵生？（解釋卵生）到鸚鵡、雁等。 釋：依賴卵而生的，稱為卵生。因為卵必定有胎，所以先說卵生。
論：什麼是胎生？（解釋胎生）到豬、羊、驢等。 釋：依賴胎而生的，稱為胎生。因為有胎而無卵，所以在卵生之後說。又因為胎必定是濕潤的，所以濕生在胎生之前說。
論：什麼是濕生？（解釋濕生）到蚊、蚰蜒等。 釋：依賴潮濕而生的，稱為濕生。因為有所依託，所以在化生之前說。因為有濕而無胎，所以在胎生之後說。
論：什麼是化生？（解釋化生）到所以稱為化生。 釋：無中生有，突然出現的，稱為化生。因為這種因緣最少，所以在最後說。
論：人和傍生趣各自具有四種（生）。（這是）就趣來辨別生的多少差別。
論：人中的卵生，到五百個孩子等。（解釋人中的卵生） 釋：婆沙（Vibhasa）一百二十中說，人中的卵生是這樣的：過去在這個贍部洲（Jambudvipa）有個商人，入海得到一隻𩾰鶴，形狀顏色非常美麗，感到驚奇而喜歡它，於是（𩾰鶴）生了兩個卵。後來卵孵化出兩個童子，端正聰慧。長大后出家都證得了阿羅漢果（Arhat）。小的那位名叫鄔波世羅（Upasiva，意為小山。鄔波（Upa）是小的意思，世羅（Siva）是山的意思，因為靠近山而生）。大的那位名叫世羅（Siva，就是山的意思）。鹿母（Migamata）是因為兒子名叫鹿，所以從兒子的名字來命名，所以說鹿母，就是毗舍佉（Visakha）夫人。毗舍佉是二月星的名字，從星的名字來命名，這裡的意思是長養。鹿母生了三十二個卵，每個卵生出一個兒子。般遮羅（Pancala）是地名，意思是執五。般遮羅王的妃子生了五百個卵，生下後感到羞恥，害怕是災禍的預兆，用箱子裝著丟棄在殑伽河（Ganga，恒河）。隨著河流漂去，下游有個鄰國國王，因為觀看河水，派人去撈取，發現了卵。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Since living beings are named 'sentient beings' because of their life activity, should 'dhatu' (elements) and 'gati' (realms of rebirth) also be called 'beings'? Answer: No. Because 'dhatu' includes both sentient and non-sentient things, and 'gati', although sentient, is not universally present. Only that which is sentient and universally present can be independently called 'being'.
Treatise: What is egg-born? (Explaining egg-born) Up to parrots, geese, etc. Explanation: That which is born relying on an egg is called egg-born. Because eggs necessarily have a fetus, egg-born is mentioned first.
Treatise: What is womb-born? (Explaining womb-born) Up to pigs, sheep, donkeys, etc. Explanation: That which is born relying on a womb is called womb-born. Because it has a womb but no egg, it is mentioned after egg-born. Also, because a womb is necessarily moist, moisture-born is mentioned before womb-born.
Treatise: What is moisture-born? (Explaining moisture-born) Up to mosquitoes, centipedes, etc. Explanation: That which is born relying on moisture is called moisture-born. Because it has something to rely on, it is mentioned before transformation-born. Because it has moisture but no womb, it is mentioned after womb-born.
Treatise: What is transformation-born? (Explaining transformation-born) Up to therefore it is called transformation-born. Explanation: That which arises suddenly from nothing is called transformation-born. Because this condition is the least, it is mentioned last.
Treatise: Humans and animals each possess the four types (of birth). (This is) distinguishing the differences in the amount of births based on the realm.
Treatise: Egg-born among humans, up to five hundred children, etc. (Explaining egg-born among humans) Explanation: The Vibhasa says, regarding egg-born among humans: In the past, in this Jambudvipa, there was a merchant who obtained a 𩾰 crane from the sea. Its shape and color were very beautiful, and he was amazed and delighted by it. Then (the 𩾰 crane) laid two eggs. Later, the eggs hatched into two boys, who were upright and intelligent. When they grew up, they both left home and attained the fruit of Arhat. The younger one was named Upasiva (meaning small mountain. Upa means small, and Siva means mountain, because he was born near a mountain). The older one was named Siva (just meaning mountain). Migamata (Deer Mother) was named so because her son was named Deer, so she was named after her son. So Migamata is Visakha. Visakha is the name of the star in the second month, named after the star, meaning 'long nurturing'. Migamata gave birth to thirty-two eggs, and each egg produced a son. Pancala is the name of a place, meaning 'holding five'. The queen of Pancala gave birth to five hundred eggs, and after giving birth, she felt ashamed, fearing it was a sign of disaster, so she put them in boxes and abandoned them in the Ganga River. They floated down the river, and a neighboring king downstream, while observing the water, sent people to retrieve them and found the eggs.
將歸經數日間各生一子。養大驍勇所往皆伏無敢敵者。時彼鄰國王。與彼父王久來有怨。欲遣征罰。先遣使告今欲決戰。尋后兵至圍繞其城即欲摧破。般遮羅王極生忙怖。王妃問委。妃慰王言。王不須愁。此五百子皆是我兒。具陳上事。夫子見母噁心必息。妃自登城告五百子說上因緣。如何今者欲造逆罪。若不信者皆應張口。妃出兩乳有五百道乳汁。各注一口。應時信伏。因即和好各起慈心。兩國交通永無征伐。
論。人胎生者如今世人。如文可解。
論。人濕生者至庵羅衛等 曼馱多者。此云我養。布殺陀王頂皰而生。顏貌端正。王抱入宮告誰能養。諸宮各言我能養也。故以標名。舊雲頂生王者。此從生處立名非本號也。此王長大為金輪王能破修羅欲侵天帝釋位 遮盧者。此云脾。鄔波遮盧此云小脾。於我養王兩髀之上各生一皰。皰生一子。從所生處故以為名。以小標別。亦為輪王 言鴿鬘者。昔有一王此名靜授。于王腋下有胞生一女子名為鴿鬘。從腋下出如鴿出飛。王重如鬘故以名焉。或生已后鴿恒隨逐。王重如鬘因以立名 庵羅衛者。是樹名也。有一女子從此樹生。庵羅衛者或從子生。或從花枝生也。正理論云。此四生人皆可得聖。得聖無受卵．濕二生。以聖皆欣殊勝智見。卵．濕生類性多愚癡(
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 歸經數日間，王妃各生下一個兒子。這些兒子長大后驍勇善戰，所到之處無人敢抵抗。當時，鄰國的國王與般遮羅王（Panchala-raja，國王名）的父王長期存在怨恨，想要出兵征討。他先派遣使者告知即將決戰，隨後大軍壓境，包圍了般遮羅王的城池，意圖摧毀。般遮羅王非常驚慌恐懼。王妃詢問情況后，安慰國王說：『大王不必憂愁，這五百個兒子都是我的孩子。』王妃詳細地向五百個兒子陳述了事情的經過，說：『孩子們，你們見到母親難道忍心作惡嗎？』王妃希望以此平息他們的怒火。如果你們不相信，都應該張開嘴巴。』王妃露出雙乳，五百道乳汁分別注入他們的口中。五百個兒子立刻相信並順從了。因此，兩國和好，各自升起慈悲之心，兩國之間永遠沒有了征戰。
論：人胎生，就像現在的世人一樣，如字面意思可以理解。
論：人濕生，例如曼馱多（Mandhata，人名），出生于庵羅衛（Amra-vati，地名）等地。曼馱多，意思是『我養』。布殺陀王（Pusata-raja，國王名）從頭頂的肉皰中出生，容貌端正。國王抱他入宮，問誰能養育他。眾宮妃都說自己能養育。因此用『我養』來命名。舊時稱為『頂生王』，這是從出生的地方來命名，並非本名。這位國王長大后成為金輪王，能夠擊敗修羅（Asura，惡神），想要侵佔天帝釋（Indra，天神）的地位。遮盧（Chalu，人名），意思是『脾』。鄔波遮盧（Upachalu，人名），意思是『小脾』。我養王的兩腿之上各自生出一個肉皰，肉皰中各生出一個兒子。因為從所生之處得名，用『小』來區分。他們也成爲了輪王。鴿鬘（Kapota-mala，人名），過去有一位國王，名叫靜授。國王的腋下生出一個胞，胞中生出一個女子，名叫鴿鬘。從腋下出來時，像鴿子一樣飛出。國王非常看重她，如同珍貴的項鍊，因此用這個名字命名。或者說，她出生后，總有鴿子跟隨在她身邊。國王非常看重她，如同珍貴的項鍊，因此用這個名字命名。庵羅衛，是一種樹的名字。有一位女子從這種樹中出生。庵羅衛，或者從樹的果實中出生，或者從樹的花枝中出生。《正理論》中說，這四種出生方式的人都可以證得聖果。證得聖果的人不會是卵生或濕生。因為聖者都欣求殊勝的智慧和見解，而卵生和濕生的眾生大多愚癡。
【English Translation】 English version After several days, the queen gave birth to one son each day. When these sons grew up, they were brave and fierce, and wherever they went, no one dared to resist them. At that time, the king of a neighboring country had a long-standing feud with the father of Panchala-raja (Panchala-raja, name of the king) and wanted to send troops to punish him. He first sent a messenger to announce that he would engage in a decisive battle, and then his army arrived, surrounding the city of Panchala-raja, intending to destroy it. Panchala-raja was extremely frightened and terrified. After the queen inquired about the situation, she comforted the king, saying, 'Your Majesty, there is no need to worry, these five hundred sons are all my children.' The queen explained the situation in detail to the five hundred sons, saying, 'Children, how can you bear to do evil when you see your mother?' The queen hoped to quell their anger with this. 'If you don't believe me, you should all open your mouths.' The queen exposed her breasts, and five hundred streams of milk poured into their mouths. The five hundred sons immediately believed and obeyed. Therefore, the two countries reconciled, and each developed a compassionate heart, and there was never any war between the two countries.
Commentary: Human birth from the womb is like the people of the present world, and can be understood literally.
Commentary: Human birth from moisture, such as Mandhata (Mandhata, name of a person), was born in places such as Amra-vati (Amra-vati, name of a place). Mandhata means 'I nourish'. King Pusata (Pusata-raja, name of the king) was born from a fleshy protuberance on the top of his head, and his appearance was dignified. The king took him into the palace and asked who could raise him. All the palace women said they could raise him. Therefore, he was named 'I nourish'. In the past, he was called 'Top-born King', which was named after the place of birth, not his original name. When this king grew up, he became a Chakravartin king, capable of defeating the Asuras (Asura, evil spirits) who wanted to invade the position of Indra (Indra, a deity). Chalu (Chalu, name of a person) means 'spleen'. Upachalu (Upachalu, name of a person) means 'small spleen'. Two fleshy protuberances grew on each of the thighs of the 'I nourish' king, and each protuberance gave birth to a son. Because they were named after the place of birth, 'small' was used to distinguish them. They also became Chakravartin kings. Kapota-mala (Kapota-mala, name of a person), in the past there was a king named Quiet Bestowal. A cyst grew under the king's armpit, and a girl was born from the cyst, named Kapota-mala. When she came out from under the armpit, she flew out like a pigeon. The king valued her very much, like a precious necklace, so he named her this. Or, after she was born, pigeons always followed her. The king valued her very much, like a precious necklace, so he named her this. Amra-vati is the name of a tree. A woman was born from this tree. Amra-vati, either born from the fruit of the tree, or born from the branches of the tree. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that people born in these four ways can all attain sainthood. Those who attain sainthood will not be born from eggs or moisture. Because saints all seek excellent wisdom and insight, while beings born from eggs and moisture are mostly foolish.
今詳人卵．濕生不多愚癡。作金輪王．及能得聖。此從多分)。或諸卵生生皆再度。故飛禽等世號再生。聖怖多生故無受義。濕生多分眾聚同生。聖怖雜居故亦不受(卵生可爾。其濕生人即不眾聚。此從多分也)。
論。人化生者唯劫初人。如文可解。
論。傍生三種至揭路荼等。釋傍生通四生也。
論。一切地獄至皆唯化生。此釋地獄．及諸天趣．並中有也。
論。鬼趣唯通至雖盡而無飽。釋鬼趣中唯二生也。
論。一切生中至而受胎生。問佛不取化生受胎生所以也。
論。見受胎生至專修正法。答也。答中有二。一為利益。二為止謗。此即前也 就中有三利益。一引親眷令入正法。二為令知是輪王種。三為令所化生增上心。如文可解。
論。又若不爾至息諸疑謗。第二止謗。如文可解。
論。有餘師說至即無所見。述異釋也。
論。若人信佛至此不成釋。論主破也。佛既有持愿通能久留身。何須胎生。正理論云。今謂此釋其理必成。通所留身非佛功德。力。無畏等所依熏故。不能廣大饒益世間。所以然者。是可留法通愿能留。一切化生如剎那法必無留義。謂諸有為剎那定滅。諸佛神力亦不能留。設欲久留即須別化。此所別化非佛功德力無畏等之所依熏。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 現在詳細說明。卵生的人，濕生的人，大多愚癡。能夠成為金輪王，以及能夠證得聖果的，都是從多數情況來說的（此從多分）。或者說，所有的卵生生物都會再次出生，所以飛禽等生物世俗上被稱為再生。聖者不會因為害怕多次出生而沒有接受（某種形式的出生）的意義。濕生生物大多是聚集在一起同生的。聖者害怕雜居，所以也不接受（濕生）。（卵生的情況可以這樣說，但是濕生的人並不是聚集而生的，這是從多數情況來說的）。
論：人中的化生，只有劫初的人。如經文的字面意思就可以理解。
論：傍生有三種，直到揭路荼（Garuda，金翅鳥）等。解釋了傍生包括四種生。
論：一切地獄，直到都只有化生。這裡解釋了地獄，以及諸天趣，還有中有（antarabhava，中陰身）。
論：鬼趣只包括，直到雖然吃盡了也沒有飽足的時候。解釋了鬼趣中只有兩種生。
論：一切眾生中，直到而接受胎生。問：佛陀為什麼不選擇化生而選擇胎生呢？
論：見到接受胎生，直到專門修正法。答：這是回答。回答中有兩個方面。一是為利益，二是為止息誹謗。這是前面所說的。就利益而言，有三個方面：一是引導親眷進入正法，二是讓他們知道這是輪王（cakravartin，轉輪聖王）的種姓，三是讓他們所化度的眾生生起增上心。如經文的字面意思就可以理解。
論：又如果不是這樣，直到止息各種疑慮和誹謗。第二是止息誹謗。如經文的字面意思就可以理解。
論：有其他論師說，直到就什麼也看不見。這是敘述不同的解釋。
論：如果有人相信佛，直到這個解釋不能成立。論主進行了駁斥。佛既然有持愿神通能夠長久住世，為什麼需要胎生呢？正理論說：現在我認為這個解釋的道理必定成立。神通所能留住的身體，不是佛的功德力。無畏等所依的熏習，不能廣大地饒益世間。為什麼這樣說呢？因為可以留住的法，是普遍的願力所能留住的。一切化生就像剎那法一樣，必定沒有留住的意義。也就是說，一切有為法都是剎那間註定要滅亡的。諸佛的神力也不能留住。如果想要長久留住，就需要另外化生。這種另外化生的身體，不是佛的功德力、無畏等所依的熏習。
【English Translation】 English version: Now, let's elaborate. Most beings born from eggs and those born from moisture are foolish. Those who can become a Cakravartin (wheel-turning king) and attain sainthood are so in most cases (this is from the majority). Or, all oviparous beings are reborn, hence birds are commonly called 'reborn'. Saints do not fear multiple births, so they do not reject the meaning (of a certain form of birth). Most moisture-born beings are born together in groups. Saints fear living in mixed company, so they also do not accept (moisture-birth). (The case of oviparous beings can be explained this way, but moisture-born humans are not born in groups; this is from the majority).
Treatise: Among humans, only those at the beginning of the kalpa (aeon) are born by transformation. This can be understood from the literal meaning of the text.
Treatise: There are three types of animals, up to the Garuda (mythical bird). This explains that animals encompass all four types of birth.
Treatise: All hells, up to all are only born by transformation. This explains the hells, as well as the heavens, and the antarabhava (intermediate state).
Treatise: The realm of ghosts only includes, up to when they are never satisfied even after eating everything. This explains that there are only two types of birth in the realm of ghosts.
Treatise: Among all beings, up to and accept womb-birth. Question: Why did the Buddha not choose transformation-birth but womb-birth?
Treatise: Seeing the acceptance of womb-birth, up to exclusively cultivate the correct Dharma. Answer: This is the answer. There are two aspects to the answer. One is for benefit, and the other is to stop slander. This is what was mentioned earlier. Regarding benefit, there are three aspects: first, to guide relatives into the correct Dharma; second, to let them know that this is the lineage of a Cakravartin; and third, to cause the beings they transform to generate superior minds. This can be understood from the literal meaning of the text.
Treatise: Also, if it were not so, up to to stop all doubts and slanders. The second is to stop slander. This can be understood from the literal meaning of the text.
Treatise: Some other teachers say, up to then they would see nothing. This is a narration of different interpretations.
Treatise: If someone believes in the Buddha, up to this explanation cannot be established. The author refutes it. Since the Buddha has the power of vows and supernatural abilities to stay in the world for a long time, why would he need womb-birth? The Nyayānusāra-śāstra (Treatise on Following the Correct Principle) says: Now I think that the reasoning of this explanation must be established. The body that can be retained by supernatural powers is not the merit of the Buddha. The imprints relied upon by fearlessness, etc., cannot greatly benefit the world. Why is this so? Because the Dharma that can be retained is retained by universal vows. All transformation-births, like momentary dharmas, certainly have no meaning of retention. That is to say, all conditioned dharmas are destined to perish in an instant. The supernatural power of the Buddhas cannot retain them either. If one wants to retain them for a long time, one needs to transform them separately. This separately transformed body is not relied upon by the merit, power, fearlessness, etc., of the Buddha.
故於世間無大饒益。若不爾者。佛應化為如本身形受諸供養令無量眾生天解脫。故我所稟毗婆沙師咸作是言。後身菩薩為利他故不受化生。此義極成不可傾動。化生何故死無遺形。由彼頓生故應頓滅。如戲水者出沒亦然。毗婆沙師說。化生者造色多故死無遺形。大種多者死非頓滅。即由此義可以證知。一四大種生多造色 婆沙一百二十七云。問一四大種為但造一造色極微。為能造多。若但造一如何不成因四果一。因多果少理不應然。若能造多。即一四大種所造造色有多極微。云何展轉非俱有因。對法者說有對造色展轉相望無俱有因。許則便違對法宗義。答應作是說。一四大種但能造一所造色極微。問如何不成因四果一。因多果少理不應然。答果少因多理亦無失。世現見有如是類。故因四果一于理無違。有說造多。問若爾一四大種所造造色有多極微。云何展轉非俱有因。答非一果故非俱有因。以俱有因法必同一果故。此不成因同猶豫故。評云如前說者好。今詳。正理不以婆沙評家為正。若作俱舍師破。汝準此釋違婆沙正義也。
論。因論生論至為充所食。難文可解。
論。以不知故至暫食何咎。答文可解。
論。於四生內至皆化生故。釋化生多。如文可解 正理論有兩說。一說同此論。一說濕生多。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，在世間就沒有大的利益。如果不是這樣，佛應該化現成和他自身一樣的形象，接受各種供養，使無量眾生得到解脫。所以我所稟承的毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika, 佛教經量部或說一切有部論師）都這樣說，後身菩薩（Bodhisattva, 指下一世將成佛的菩薩）爲了利益他人，不接受化生。這個道理非常確定，不可動搖。化生的人為什麼死後沒有遺留形體？因為他們是突然產生的，所以也應該突然消失，就像戲水的人一會兒出現一會兒消失一樣。毗婆沙師說，化生的人制造的色法（rupa, 物質現象）多，所以死後沒有遺留形體。大種（mahabhuta, 構成物質世界的地、水、火、風四大元素）多的人，死後不會立刻消失。由此可以證明，一個四大種可以產生多種色法。婆沙（Vibhasa, 《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）第一百二十七卷說：『問：一個四大種是隻產生一個造色極微（paramanu, 物質的最小單位），還是能產生多個？如果只產生一個，為什麼不會成為因四果一（即四個因產生一個果）？因多果少，道理上說不通。如果能產生多個，那麼一個四大種所產生的造色就有多個極微，為什麼輾轉相望不是俱有因（sahabhu-hetu, 同時存在的因）？』對法者（Abhidharmikas, 精通阿毗達磨的論師）說，有對造色（sapratigha-rupa, 有對礙的色法）輾轉相望沒有俱有因，如果允許有，就違背了對法宗義。回答應該是這樣：一個四大種只能產生一個所造色極微。問：為什麼不會成為因四果一？因多果少，道理上說不通。答：果少因多，道理上也沒有錯。世間常見有這樣的例子，所以因四果一在道理上沒有違背。有人說能產生多個。問：如果是這樣，一個四大種所產生的造色就有多個極微，為什麼輾轉相望不是俱有因？答：因為不是同一個果，所以不是俱有因。因為俱有因的法必定是同一個果。這個不成因，和猶豫一樣。』評論說，像前面說的那樣好。現在詳細分析，正理（Nyaya, 因明學）不以婆沙評家為正確。如果作為俱舍師（Kosasastri, 《俱舍論》的論師）來駁斥，你按照這個解釋就違背了婆沙的正義。 論：因為辯論而產生辯論，甚至爲了吃東西而爭論。難懂的文句可以解釋。 論：因為不知道，所以暫時吃一下有什麼過錯？回答的文句可以解釋。 論：在四生（caturyoni, 卵生、胎生、濕生、化生）中，化生最多。如文中所說，化生很多。正理論（Nyaya-siddhanta, 正理宗的理論）有兩種說法，一種說法和此論相同，一種說法是濕生最多。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, there is no great benefit in the world. If not, the Buddha should have transformed into a form like his own, receiving all kinds of offerings, so that countless sentient beings could be liberated. Therefore, the Vaibhashika (佛教經量部或說一切有部論師) masters I follow all say that a Bodhisattva (菩薩, one who is on the path to Buddhahood) in his last life does not accept transformation birth for the sake of benefiting others. This principle is extremely firm and cannot be shaken. Why do transformation beings leave no remains after death? Because they arise suddenly, they should also disappear suddenly, like those who play in the water, appearing and disappearing. The Vaibhashika masters say that transformation beings create more rupa (色法, material phenomena), so they leave no remains after death. Those with more mahabhuta (大種, the four great elements of earth, water, fire, and wind) do not disappear immediately after death. From this, it can be proven that one mahabhuta can produce multiple rupas. The Vibhasa (《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》) in its one hundred and twenty-seventh volume says: 'Question: Does one mahabhuta produce only one paramanu (極微, the smallest unit of matter), or can it produce multiple? If it produces only one, why does it not become one cause and four effects (i.e., four causes producing one effect)? It is unreasonable for many causes to produce few effects. If it can produce multiple, then the rupa produced by one mahabhuta has multiple paramanus, why are they not co-existent causes (sahabhu-hetu, 同時存在的因) in relation to each other?' The Abhidharmikas (精通阿毗達磨的論師) say that sapratigha-rupa (有對造色, tangible rupa) do not have co-existent causes in relation to each other. If it is allowed, it violates the Abhidharma doctrine. The answer should be: one mahabhuta can only produce one produced rupa paramanu. Question: Why does it not become one cause and four effects? It is unreasonable for many causes to produce few effects. Answer: It is not wrong for few effects to have many causes. Such examples are commonly seen in the world, so one cause and four effects are not contradictory in principle.' Some say it can produce multiple. Question: If so, the rupa produced by one mahabhuta has multiple paramanus, why are they not co-existent causes in relation to each other? Answer: Because they are not the same effect, they are not co-existent causes. Because the dharma of co-existent causes must be the same effect.' The commentary says that what was said earlier is good. Now, in detail, Nyaya (因明學) does not consider the Vibhasa commentators to be correct. If refuted as a Kosasastri (《俱舍論》的論師), your explanation violates the correct meaning of the Vibhasa. Treatise: Arguments arise from arguments, even to the point of arguing over what to eat. Difficult passages can be explained. Treatise: Because of ignorance, what is wrong with eating temporarily? The answering passages can be explained. Treatise: Among the four types of birth (caturyoni, 卵生、胎生、濕生、化生), transformation birth is the most numerous. As stated in the text, there are many transformation beings. The Nyaya-siddhanta (正理宗的理論) has two views, one view is the same as this treatise, and the other view is that moisture birth is the most numerous.
二說無評家。今詳若兼中有即化生多。若說本有即濕生多。兩說無違。
論。此中何法至非即名生。已下一頌。第七明中有也 于中有三。一明中有名體。二引理教證有中有。三義門分別。此第一也。
論曰至故名中有。此出體釋名也 有自體起者。謂異熟五蘊前趣死後后趣生。前二趣中間故名中有。兩趣中故名之為中。四有之中一有攝故名之為有。中即是有故名中有。
論。此身已起何不名生。問也。生之與起名異義同。既名為起。何不是生。
論。生謂當來至故不名生。答也。雖生與起名異義同。於四有中立生名者。謂于當來所應至處建立生名。非於餘位。由斯中有名起非生。
論。何謂當來所應至處。問也。
論。所引異熟至所應至處。答也 論。有餘部說至故無中有。大眾部等計也。
論。此不應許至理教者何。已下第二有兩頌廣引理．教證有中有。
論曰至處必無間。引谷等為例破。現見。谷等相續轉法從子至芽。乃至果實中間無斷。故知。死．生二有中間亦無斷也。
論。豈不現見至何妨續生。大眾部引像為喻救也。
論。實有諸像至故不成喻。此即略以二理破也。一像有不成。二非等不成。
論。言像不成至無二並故。此無二並
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『無評家』的第二種說法。現在詳細分析，如果認為兼具『中有』（Antarabhava，指死亡和投生之間的過渡期）的，那麼化生（指無父母而突然出現的生命）就比較多。如果說本來就有的，那麼濕生（指從濕氣中產生的生命）就比較多。這兩種說法沒有衝突。
論：『此中何法至非即名生』，以下一頌，第七說明『中有』。關於『中有』有三點：一、說明『中有』的名稱和本體；二、引用道理和教證來證明『中有』的存在；三、從義理上進行分別。這是第一點。
論曰：『至故名中有』，這是解釋『中有』的本體和名稱。『有自體起者』，指的是異熟五蘊（Vipaka Skandhas，指由業力成熟而產生的五蘊），從前一生的死亡到后一生的出生，在這兩個階段之間就叫做『中有』。因為在兩趣（指前趣和后趣）之間，所以叫做『中』。因為在四有（指生有、本有、死有、中有）之中被其中一種所攝，所以叫做『有』。『中』就是『有』，所以叫做『中有』。
論：『此身已起何不名生』，這是提問。『生』和『起』，名稱不同，意義相同。既然已經叫做『起』，為什麼不叫做『生』呢？
論：『生謂當來至故不名生』，這是回答。雖然『生』和『起』名稱不同，意義相同，但在四有之中，設立『生』這個名稱，指的是在將來所應該到達的地方建立『生』這個名稱，而不是在其他階段。因此，『中有』有名為『起』，而不是『生』。
論：『何謂當來所應至處』，這是提問。
論：『所引異熟至所應至處』，這是回答。論：『有餘部說至故無中有』，這是大眾部（Mahasamghika）等的主張。
論：『此不應許至理教者何』，以下第二部分有兩頌，廣泛引用道理和教證來證明『中有』的存在。
論曰：『至處必無間』，引用穀子等為例來破斥。現在可以見到，穀子等相續轉變，從種子到發芽，乃至結果實，中間沒有間斷。所以知道，死亡和出生這兩個階段之間也沒有間斷。
論：『豈不現見至何妨續生』，大眾部引用大象的例子來辯解。
論：『實有諸像至故不成喻』，這是簡略地用兩個理由來破斥。一、大象的例子不成立；二、不相等，所以不能作為比喻。
論：『言像不成至無二並故』，這是說大象的例子不成立，因為沒有兩者並存的情況。
【English Translation】 English version: The second saying of 'no appraiser'. Now, analyzing in detail, if it is considered that there is 'Antarabhava' (the intermediate state between death and rebirth), then there are more instances of 'Opapāduka' (spontaneous birth). If it is said that it exists inherently, then there are more instances of 'Samsedaja' (birth from moisture). These two sayings do not contradict each other.
Treatise: 'What Dharma here is not immediately called birth?' The following verse, the seventh, explains 'Antarabhava'. There are three aspects to 'Antarabhava': first, explaining the name and entity of 'Antarabhava'; second, citing reason and teachings to prove the existence of 'Antarabhava'; third, distinguishing from the perspective of meaning. This is the first aspect.
Treatise says: 'Therefore, it is called Antarabhava.' This explains the entity and name. 'Those that arise from their own entity' refers to the Vipaka Skandhas (the aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness that arise from the maturation of karma), from the death of the previous life to the birth of the subsequent life. The intermediate state between these two stages is called 'Antarabhava'. Because it is between the two destinies (the previous and subsequent lives), it is called 'intermediate'. Because it is included in one of the four existences (birth, existence, death, and intermediate existence), it is called 'existence'. 'Intermediate' is 'existence', so it is called 'Antarabhava'.
Treatise: 'Since this body has already arisen, why is it not called birth?' This is a question. 'Birth' and 'arising' have different names but the same meaning. Since it is already called 'arising', why is it not called 'birth'?
Treatise: 'Birth refers to the future, therefore it is not called birth.' This is the answer. Although 'birth' and 'arising' have different names but the same meaning, in the four existences, the name 'birth' is established for the place that should be reached in the future, not in other stages. Therefore, 'Antarabhava' is named 'arising' but not 'birth'.
Treatise: 'What is the place that should be reached in the future?' This is a question.
Treatise: 'The Vipaka that is cited is the place that should be reached.' This is the answer. Treatise: 'Some other schools say that there is no Antarabhava.' This is the view of the Mahasamghika and others.
Treatise: 'This should not be accepted. What are the reasons and teachings?' The following second part has two verses, extensively citing reason and teachings to prove the existence of 'Antarabhava'.
Treatise says: 'There must be no interruption at the place.' Citing grains as an example to refute. It can be seen that the continuous transformation of grains, from seed to sprout, and even to fruit, has no interruption in between. Therefore, it is known that there is also no interruption between the two stages of death and birth.
Treatise: 'Don't we see that how can it prevent continuous birth?' The Mahasamghika uses the example of an elephant to defend.
Treatise: 'There are indeed images, therefore the analogy is not valid.' This is a brief refutation with two reasons. First, the example of the elephant is not valid; second, they are not equal, so it cannot be used as an analogy.
Treatise: 'The image is not valid because there are no two existing together.' This says that the example of the elephant is not valid because there is no situation where the two exist together.
。總有四種。一映象色別無二並。二兩岸像色無二並。三影光處別無二並。四月像鏡面無二並。
論。謂於一處至依異大故。此第一也。鏡面．像色。別四大造體是對礙。如何一處二得並生。故知無像。
論。又陜水上至二色俱生。第二兩岸互見分明。即是一處有二像色。曾無一處並見二色。故知無有實像一處並生。
論。又影與光至謂二並生。第三光．影相違未曾同處。現見鏡中光像在於影中。故知光像無實。
論。或言一處至如何別見。第四也。若謂像色鏡面同處。見鏡中月如觀井水。近遠別見。
論。故知諸像于理實無。總結上也。
論。然諸因緣至難可思議。此釋。像雖實無因緣令見 難思議者。不測所以然也。
論。已辨不成至亦非喻者。結前起后非等 于中有二。一相續非相續非等。二由二緣不由二緣非等。
論。以質與像至故不成喻。釋第一也。像．質同時俱有非是前後相續。死．生二有異時前後非是同時俱有。非等故非喻也。
論。又所現像至非等於法。釋第二也。映象生時因於本質依鏡面生。由二緣故與法不同。生有生時唯因死有。無別所依勝緣如鏡故不等也。
論。亦不可說至為勝依性。破轉救也。如文可解。
論。已依
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：總共有四種情況。第一種是鏡子中的影像和顏色，實際上並非在同一處並存。第二種是兩岸的景象和顏色，實際上並非在同一處並存。第三種是影子和光線所處的位置，實際上並非在同一處並存。第四種是月亮的影像和鏡面，實際上並非在同一處並存。
論述：因為在同一個地方，依賴於不同的大種（四大元素）而存在。這是第一種情況。鏡面和影像的顏色，本質上是不同的四大和造色，是對立和阻礙的。怎麼可能在同一個地方同時產生呢？所以說影像並非真實存在。
論述：又如狹窄的水面上，兩岸的景象和顏色同時顯現。這是第二種情況，兩岸互相看見，分明可見。雖然在同一個地方有兩岸的景象和顏色，但從未在同一個地方同時看到兩種顏色。所以說沒有真實的影像在同一個地方同時產生。
論述：又如影子和光線，說是兩者同時產生。這是第三種情況，光線和影子是相互違背的，從未在同一個地方出現。現在看到鏡子中的光像，實際上是在影子之中。所以說光像並非真實存在。
論述：或者有人說，在同一個地方……如何能分別看到呢？這是第四種情況。如果說影像的顏色和鏡面在同一個地方，那麼看鏡子中的月亮就像看井水中的月亮一樣，有遠近的區別。
論述：所以說，各種影像在道理上實際上是不存在的。總結以上所述。
論述：然而各種因緣聚合，使得影像顯現，這是難以思議的。這是解釋。影像雖然實際上不存在，但因緣聚合使得人們能夠看到，這種現象是難以思議的，因為無法測度其所以然。
論述：已經辨明了不成……也不是比喻。總結前面的內容，開啟後面的內容，並非相等。其中有兩種情況：一是相續和非相續並非相等，二是由二緣和不由二緣並非相等。
論述：因為本質和影像……所以不能成為比喻。這是解釋第一種情況。影像和本質是同時存在的，並非前後相續。死亡和出生是不同的存在狀態，是前後相續的，並非同時存在。因為不相等，所以不能成為比喻。
論述：又如所顯現的影像……與法不相等。這是解釋第二種情況。鏡中的影像產生時，依賴於本質，依靠鏡面而產生。由於兩個因緣，所以與法不同。生有產生時，僅僅依賴於死有，沒有其他的所依，沒有像鏡子一樣的殊勝因緣，所以不相等。
論述：也不可說……作為殊勝的所依之性。這是爲了駁斥對方的辯解。如文字所表達的意思一樣可以理解。
論述：已經依靠……
【English Translation】 English version: There are always four kinds. First, the image and color in a mirror are not coexistent in the same place. Second, the images and colors on both banks are not coexistent in the same place. Third, the locations of shadows and light are not coexistent in the same place. Fourth, the image of the moon and the mirror surface are not coexistent in the same place.
Treatise: Because in one place, it depends on different Mahabhutas (great elements) to exist. This is the first case. The mirror surface and the color of the image are essentially different Four Great Elements and derived matter, which are opposed and obstructive. How can they be produced simultaneously in the same place? Therefore, it is known that the image is not real.
Treatise: Also, on a narrow water surface, the images and colors of both banks appear simultaneously. This is the second case, where both banks see each other clearly. Although there are images and colors of both banks in the same place, two colors have never been seen simultaneously in one place. Therefore, it is known that there is no real image produced simultaneously in one place.
Treatise: Also, like shadows and light, it is said that the two are produced simultaneously. This is the third case, where light and shadow are contradictory and have never been in the same place. Now, seeing the light image in the mirror is actually in the shadow. Therefore, it is known that the light image is not real.
Treatise: Or someone says, in the same place... how can they be seen separately? This is the fourth case. If it is said that the color of the image and the mirror surface are in the same place, then seeing the moon in the mirror is like seeing the moon in well water, with differences in distance.
Treatise: Therefore, it is known that all images are not real in principle. Summarizing the above.
Treatise: However, various causes and conditions (hetu-pratyaya) gather, making the image appear, which is inconceivable. This is an explanation. Although the image does not actually exist, causes and conditions gather to allow people to see it. This phenomenon is inconceivable because it is impossible to fathom the reason.
Treatise: It has been clarified that it is not... nor is it a metaphor. Summarizing the previous content and opening up the following content, it is not equal. There are two cases: one is that continuous and non-continuous are not equal, and the other is that due to two causes and not due to two causes are not equal.
Treatise: Because the substance and the image... therefore, it cannot be a metaphor. This is an explanation of the first case. The image and the substance exist simultaneously, not continuously one after the other. Death and birth are different states of existence, which are continuous one after the other, not existing simultaneously. Because they are not equal, they cannot be a metaphor.
Treatise: Also, like the image that appears... it is not equal to the Dharma. This is an explanation of the second case. When the image in the mirror is produced, it depends on the substance and relies on the mirror surface to be produced. Due to two causes, it is different from the Dharma. When birth arises, it only depends on death, without other dependencies, without a superior condition like a mirror, so it is not equal.
Treatise: It cannot be said... as the nature of a superior reliance. This is to refute the opponent's defense. It can be understood as the meaning expressed in the text.
Treatise: Already relying on...
正理至證有中有。結前理破引后六教證也。
論。謂契經言至業有中有。第一經也。經分明五趣之外別說中有。故知非無。
論。若此契經至何現在前。第二經也 健達縛者。此名尋香。中有食香故名尋香。
論。若此契經至固唯中有。第三經也。前蘊已滅不可言來。此所言來定是中有。
論。若復不誦至何名中般。第四經也。五種不還中既別標中般。故知中有決定非無。
論。有餘師執至故名中般。大眾部等救也。
論。是則應許至故執非善。破轉救也。若五不還說有中般即是別有中天。五不還中說生般等應更別有生等天也。既不許然故執非理。
論。又經說有至定非應理。又引七善士證無中天。第五經也。如火星迸近遠時處隨滅不同。別說中天豈有此異。執有中天定非應理。
論。有餘復說至壽量中間。第二師執也 此師意說。從欲界死生色界時。壽量中間入般涅槃名中般也。
論。或近天中間至是名中般。第三師異釋 此師意謂。初生色界未至法會中間涅槃故名中般。已上兩師釋五不還經中般也。婆沙六十九云。是分別論者。
論。由至界位至故有三品。第二師釋。七善士趣契經中說中般分三。壽量中間總有三位。一染想未生名至界位。界是因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 正理至證有中有（antabhava）。這是總結之前的理論，駁斥並引用後來的六種教義來證明中有的存在。
論：如契經所言『乃至業有中有』。這是第一部經。經文中明確在五趣（gati，眾生輪迴的五種道途：地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）之外，特別說明了中有，因此可知中有並非不存在。
論：如『若此契經乃至何現在前』。這是第二部經。健達縛（gandharva）者，此名尋香。中有以香為食，故名尋香。
論：如『若此契經乃至固唯中有』。這是第三部經。前一期的蘊（skandha，構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）已經滅盡，不可說是從那裡而來。這裡所說的『來』，必定是指中有。
論：如『若復不誦乃至何名中般（antaparinnirvayin）』。這是第四部經。在五種不還（anagamin，不再返回欲界的聖者）中，既然特別標明了中般，因此可知中有決定不是沒有的。
論：有其他師父認為『乃至故名中般』。這是大眾部等派的辯護。
論：『是則應許乃至故執非善』。這是駁斥轉救的說法。如果五種不還中說有中般，那就是另外有中天。五種不還中說生般等，就應該另外有生等天了。既然不認可這樣，所以這種說法不合理。
論：『又經說有乃至定非應理』。這是又引用七善士來證明沒有中天。這是第五部經。如同火星迸發，近遠時處隨著熄滅的不同而不同。另外說有中天，怎麼會有這種差異？認為有中天，肯定是不合理的。
論：有其他人又說『乃至壽量中間』。這是第二位師父的觀點。這位師父的意思是說，從欲界死亡到**時，在壽量中間入般涅槃（parinirvana，完全的涅槃）的，叫做中般。
論：『或近天中間乃至是名中般』。這是第三位師父的不同解釋。這位師父認為，初生**還沒有到達法會中間就涅槃的，叫做中般。以上兩位師父解釋了五種不還經中的中般。婆沙（Vibhasa）六十九中說，這是分別論者的觀點。
論：『由至界位乃至故有三品』。這是第二位師父的解釋。七善士趣契經中說中般分為三類。壽量中間總共有三個階段。一是染想還沒有生起，叫做至界位。界是因。
【English Translation】 English version The principle of reasoning thoroughly proves the existence of the antabhava (intermediate existence). This summarizes the previous arguments, refutes and cites the subsequent six doctrines to prove the existence of the intermediate existence.
Treatise: As the sutra says, 'Even until the karma leads to intermediate existence.' This is the first sutra. The sutra clearly states the intermediate existence separately from the five gatis (realms of rebirth: hell, hungry ghost, animal, human, and heaven), therefore it is known that the intermediate existence is not non-existent.
Treatise: As in 'If this sutra, until what appears before.' This is the second sutra. Gandharva, this means 'scent-seeker'. The intermediate existence feeds on scent, hence the name 'scent-seeker'.
Treatise: As in 'If this sutra, until it is certainly only intermediate existence.' This is the third sutra. The previous aggregate (skandha, the five aggregates that constitute an individual: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) has already ceased, it cannot be said to come from there. The 'coming' mentioned here must refer to the intermediate existence.
Treatise: As in 'If one does not recite, until what is called antaparinnirvayin.' This is the fourth sutra. Since the antaparinnirvayin is specifically marked among the five anagamins (non-returners, saints who will not return to the desire realm), it is known that the intermediate existence is definitely not non-existent.
Treatise: Some other teachers hold that 'until it is called antaparinnirvayin.' This is the defense of the Mahasamghika school and others.
Treatise: 'Then it should be admitted that until the holding is not good.' This is to refute the counter-defense. If the five non-returners are said to have antaparinnirvayin, then there is another intermediate heaven. If the five non-returners are said to have upaparinnirvayin etc., then there should be other heavens of birth etc. Since this is not recognized, this statement is unreasonable.
Treatise: 'Also, the sutra says that until it is definitely not reasonable.' This is another citation of the seven good men to prove that there is no intermediate heaven. This is the fifth sutra. Like sparks flying, the near and far times and places vary with different extinctions. How can there be such differences in separately saying that there is an intermediate heaven? Holding that there is an intermediate heaven is definitely unreasonable.
Treatise: Some others say 'until the lifespan in between.' This is the view of the second teacher. This teacher means that from death in the desire realm to **, entering parinirvana (complete nirvana) in the middle of the lifespan is called antaparinnirvayin.
Treatise: 'Or near the heavenly intermediate until it is called antaparinnirvayin.' This is a different explanation from the third teacher. This teacher believes that the initial birth ** has not yet reached the middle of the Dharma assembly and then enters nirvana, so it is called antaparinnirvayin. The above two teachers explained the antaparinnirvayin in the sutra of the five non-returners. Vibhasa 69 says that this is the view of the separationists.
Treatise: 'From the realm to the position until there are three grades.' This is the explanation of the second teacher. The sutra of the seven good men says that antaparinnirvayin is divided into three categories. There are three stages in the middle of the lifespan. First, the defiled thought has not yet arisen, which is called the realm position. The realm is the cause.
種之異名也。種未起時名為至界。正理論云有種未行名為至界 此是利根。此即第一中般 或想位者。是次後時染想生時。正理云。彼想初行說名想位 此是中根。是第二中般 或尋位者。正理論云。由煩惱力令心於境種種尋求說名尋位 此鈍根者。此第三中般也。
論。或取色界至是名第一。此是第二師異釋也。七善士趣經中般分三。此是第一中般也。即是從生色界天中趣向本法會天。中間時有近遠。以前後不同。第一人生天未趣即般涅槃。
論。從是次後至是名第二。釋第二也。
論。復從此後至是名第三。釋第三也。已上三人並是中般。
論。入法會已至是名生般。是七善士趣第四人也。
論。或感多壽至故名生般。第二釋也。偏釋生般欲簡異中三也。
論。如是所說至皆不相應。總非上說。與七善士趣火星喻說皆不相應。
論。所以者何。大眾部師徴不相應所以。
論。以彼處行無差別故。答也 就中有二。一以行無差別。二無色界應有中般。此是初也。其火星喻滅處不同。行有近遠。由斯分其中般有三種別。如說至色界或想或尋。及初取同分受天法樂等。雖說時別前後分三滅處行時與火星喻不相扶會由斯所說皆不相應。
論。又無色界至皆是虛妄
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
『種』（bija，種子）的不同名稱。『種』未生起時，名為『至界』。《正理論》說，有『種』未執行時，名為『至界』——這是利根者，屬於第一種中般涅槃（antarbhava-parinirvana，中有階段的涅槃）。或者『想位』（samjna-avastha，想的階段）者，是其次後，當染污之想生起時。《正理論》說：『彼想初行，說名想位』——這是中根者，屬於第二種中般涅槃。或者『尋位』（vitarka-avastha，尋的階段）者，《正理論》說：『由煩惱力，令心於境種種尋求，說名尋位』——這是鈍根者，屬於第三種中般涅槃。 論：或者取……至，是名第一。這是第二位論師的另一種解釋。《七善士趣經》中，中般涅槃分為三種，這是第一種中般涅槃。即是從生……天中，趣向本法會天（dharma-sabhā-deva，法會天）。中間的時間有近有遠，因為前後不同。第一種人，生天后未趣向法會天，即般涅槃。 論：從是次後至是名第二。解釋第二種中般涅槃。 論：復從此後至是名第三。解釋第三種中般涅槃。以上這三種人，都是中般涅槃。 論：入法會已至是名生般。這是七善士趣的第四種人。 論：或感多壽至故名生般。這是第二種解釋，專門解釋生般涅槃，想要區別於前面的三種中般涅槃。 論：如是所說至皆不相應。總的來說，以上所說，與七善士趣的火星比喻都不相應。 論：所以者何。大眾部（Mahasanghika，大眾部）的論師提出不相應的原因。 論：以彼處行無差別故。回答。其中有二點：一是行為沒有差別；二是，沒有……，應有中般涅槃。這是第一點。火星的比喻，滅處不同，行為有近有遠，因此區分出中般涅槃有三種差別，如說……至……或想或尋，以及最初取同分受天法樂等。雖然說時間有差別，前後分為三種，但滅處和行為，與火星的比喻不相符，因此以上所說都不相應。 論：又無……至皆是虛妄。
【English Translation】 English version:
Different names for 『bija』 (seed). When the 『bija』 has not yet arisen, it is called 『atita-avastha』 (the state of transcendence). The Nyayanusara-sastra says, 『When the 『bija』 has not yet functioned, it is called 『atita-avastha』—this is for those with sharp faculties, belonging to the first type of antarbhava-parinirvana (intermediate state nirvana). Or those in the 『samjna-avastha』 (state of perception), it is the subsequent time, when defiled thoughts arise. The Nyayanusara-sastra says, 『When that thought first functions, it is called 『samjna-avastha』—this is for those with medium faculties, belonging to the second type of antarbhava-parinirvana. Or those in the 『vitarka-avastha』 (state of initial application of mind), the Nyayanusara-sastra says, 『Due to the power of afflictions, causing the mind to seek various things in the environment, it is called 『vitarka-avastha』—this is for those with dull faculties, belonging to the third type of antarbhava-parinirvana. Treatise: Or taking... to, is called the first. This is another explanation from the second teacher. In the Saptasatkagamin Sutra, antarbhava-parinirvana is divided into three types, this is the first type of antarbhava-parinirvana. That is, from being born in the... heaven, proceeding towards the original dharma-sabhā-deva (assembly of dharma gods). The time in between is near or far, because the before and after are different. The first type of person, after being born in heaven, without proceeding to the dharma assembly heaven, attains parinirvana. Treatise: From this subsequent... to, is called the second. Explaining the second type of antarbhava-parinirvana. Treatise: Again, from this after... to, is called the third. Explaining the third type of antarbhava-parinirvana. All three of the above are antarbhava-parinirvana. Treatise: Having entered the dharma assembly... to, is called utpatti-parinirvana (birth nirvana). This is the fourth type of person in the Saptasatkagamin Sutra. Treatise: Or feeling long life... hence it is called utpatti-parinirvana. This is the second explanation, specifically explaining utpatti-parinirvana, wanting to distinguish it from the previous three types of antarbhava-parinirvana. Treatise: What has been said thus... is all not corresponding. In general, what has been said above, does not correspond with the fire-star analogy in the Saptasatkagamin Sutra. Treatise: Why is that? The teachers of the Mahasanghika (Great Assembly School) raise the reason for the non-correspondence. Treatise: Because there is no difference in their actions in that place. Answer. There are two points in it: one is that there is no difference in actions; two is that without..., there should be antarbhava-parinirvana. This is the first point. In the fire-star analogy, the places of extinction are different, and the actions are near or far. Therefore, antarbhava-parinirvana is divided into three types, as it is said... to... either perception or initial application of mind, and initially taking the same share of enjoying the pleasures of the heavens, etc. Although it is said that there is a difference in time, and it is divided into three types before and after, the place of extinction and the actions do not correspond with the fire-star analogy. Therefore, what has been said above is all not corresponding. Treatise: Also without... all is false.
。第二無色應有破也。此前破雙破兩說。謂壽量中間及近天中間。此唯破壽量中間不破近天中也。以無色界無入天法會等故 論。然不說彼至伽陀中說。引文證也 嗢拖喃者。此雲集施 伽陀者。此云頌舊云偈者訛也 總集諸賢聖者。順解脫分已上名賢。見道已上說名為聖 四靜慮各十者。賢有二人。謂起七方便未起七方便生上界者。聖有八人。謂七善士趣。及阿羅漢。三無色無三中般。非想者又闕上流。最初生彼天者無上流故。非無從餘下天上流來者。
論。若復不誦如是等經。若復不誦總集諸聖賢經 等者等取七善趣經。
論。無上法王至實有極成。論主傷嘆 無上法王久已滅度者。造此論時佛涅槃后九百年也 諸大法將亦般涅槃者。迦延．法救等已般涅槃 聖教支離已成多部者。佛涅槃后一百年為初。四百年為后。本末分成二十部。廣如宗輪論說 於今轉盛者。至九百年轉更盛也 言。違理者。謂前像實有不成非等故故非喻也 言。拒教者。即拒所引七部契經。余文可解。
論。若爾云何至無間地獄。大眾部等引契經證無中有也。總有三經。此即第一經也。若有中有因何經說現身顛墜無間地獄 度使。此云毀壞 魔羅。此云殺者。婆沙一百二十五。羯洛迦孫馱佛。將一侍者名曰至遠。入婆羅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 第二無色界也應該被破斥。此前破斥了雙重，即兩種說法：一是壽量中間，一是近天中間。這裡只破斥壽量中間，不破斥近天中間。因為沒有無入天法會等原因。
論：然而不說那些，在伽陀中說。引用經文來證明。
嗢拖喃（Udanas）：這裡的意思是集施。
伽陀（Gatha）：這裡的意思是頌，舊譯為偈是錯誤的。
總集諸賢聖者：順解脫分以上稱為賢，見道以上稱為聖。
四靜慮各十者：賢有二人，即發起七方便和未發起七方便而生於上界的人。聖有八人，即七善士趣和阿羅漢（Arhat）。三無色界沒有三中般。非想非非想處天又缺少上流，因為最初生於彼天的人沒有上流，並非沒有從其他下天上流來的人。
論：如果又不誦讀這些經，又不誦讀總集諸聖賢經……等，等同於取七善趣經。
論：無上法王到真實有極成。論主傷感嘆息。
無上法王久已滅度者：造這部論時，佛陀（Buddha）涅槃（Nirvana）后九百年。
諸大法將亦般涅槃者：迦延（Katyayana）、法救（Dharmatrāta）等已經般涅槃。
聖教支離已成多部者：佛陀涅槃后一百年為初，四百年為后，根本和末端分成二十部，詳細情況如《宗輪論》所說。
於今轉盛者：到九百年時，轉而更加興盛。
言：違背道理者，是指前面的像實有不成，因為不相等，所以不是比喻。
言：拒絕教義者，就是拒絕所引用的七部契經。其餘文字可以解釋。
論：如果這樣，為什麼會無間地獄？大眾部等引用契經證明沒有中有（Antarabhava）。總共有三部經，這是第一部經。如果有中有，為什麼經中說現身顛墜無間地獄？
度使：這裡的意思是毀壞。
魔羅（Mara）：這裡的意思是殺者。《婆沙》一百二十五說，羯洛迦孫馱佛（Krakucchanda Buddha）將一位名叫至遠的侍者帶入婆羅……
【English Translation】 English version: The second Arūpadhātu (formless realm) should also be refuted. Previously, there was a double refutation, referring to two views: one is the intermediate lifespan, and the other is the intermediate near the heavens. Here, only the intermediate lifespan is refuted, not the intermediate near the heavens, because there are no Dharma assemblies in the heavens without entry, etc.
Treatise: However, those are not mentioned; they are mentioned in the Gāthā. The scripture is cited as proof.
Udanas: Here it means 'collected giving'.
Gāthā: Here it means 'hymn'; the old translation 'verse' is incorrect.
The assembly of all virtuous and noble ones: Those above the stage of 'following the path of liberation' are called virtuous, and those above the stage of 'seeing the path' are called noble.
Ten in each of the four Dhyānas (meditative states): There are two types of virtuous ones: those who have initiated the seven expedients and those who have not initiated the seven expedients but are born in the upper realms. There are eight types of noble ones: the seven good destinations and the Arhat (worthy one). The three formless realms lack the intermediate existence in three ways. The realm of neither perception nor non-perception also lacks the upward flow because those initially born in that realm do not have an upward flow; it is not that there is no upward flow from other lower heavens.
Treatise: If one does not recite these scriptures, if one does not recite the scriptures that gather all the virtuous and noble ones... etc., which is equivalent to taking the scriptures of the seven good destinations.
Treatise: From the unsurpassed Dharma King to the ultimate reality. The author of the treatise expresses sorrow and sighs.
'The unsurpassed Dharma King has long since passed away': At the time of writing this treatise, it was nine hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana (passing away).
'The great Dharma generals have also entered Parinirvana (complete Nirvana)': Katyayana and Dharmatrāta, etc., have already entered Parinirvana.
'The holy teachings are fragmented and have become many schools': The first hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana were the beginning, and the four hundred years were the end. The root and the branches were divided into twenty schools, as detailed in the 'Treatise on the Schools'.
'Now it is becoming more prevalent': By the nine hundredth year, it had become even more flourishing.
Statement: 'Contradictory to reason' refers to the previous image not being real because it is not equal, so it is not a metaphor.
Statement: 'Rejecting the teachings' means rejecting the seven sutras cited. The remaining text can be explained.
Treatise: If so, why is there Avīci (uninterrupted) hell? The Mahāsāṃghika (Great Assembly) school and others cite scriptures to prove that there is no Antarabhava (intermediate existence). There are a total of three scriptures; this is the first scripture. If there is an intermediate existence, why do the scriptures say that the present body falls into Avīci hell?
Dūta (messenger): Here it means 'destroyer'.
Māra (the Evil One): Here it means 'killer'. The Vibhāṣā (commentary) 125 says that Krakucchanda Buddha took an attendant named Zhiyuan into the Brahmin...
門村次第乞食。時魔度使化作少年擲石遙打。侍者頭破血流被面。隨佛後行。時佛呵叱魔言。汝何非分造斯惡業。魔時業盡便墜地獄。
論。此經意說至后受生受。論主通經。如文可解。
論。何故經說至生那落迦。引第二證無中有。經言無間即生。故知無中有也。若有中有即是有間。
論。此經意遮至定順生受。論主通經 就中有三。一順通。二反通。三責迷文。此順通也 言無間者。有其二義。一定生地獄不往余趣間故名無間也。二定受生報不為餘生間故名無間。非是無中有間。
論。若但執文至不待身壞。第二反難。釋有二。一經言無間彼即不許有中有者。經言五無間業生地獄中。應必具五無間方生。闕應不生。此第一也。唯五無間業生地獄非余惡業生地獄中。即成大過。此第二也。經言造業無間即生地獄。應造業已即生地獄。不待身壞命終心等即生地獄。此第三。
論。或雖不許至即是生有。第三責迷文也。汝迷經文。經言無間即生。生中有也。中有是生方便故名為生。從生得名非克性也。若就自性應名為起。如前廣說。
論。若爾經頌至無有所止。引第三經證無中有。此頌佛為婆羅門說。婆羅門名再生。以初生時名為一生。受法之時名再生也。出胎有五位。一嬰垓。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 門村次第乞食（沿村挨家挨戶乞討食物）。當時魔度使（魔王派來的使者）化作少年，擲石頭遠遠地打佛陀的侍者。侍者頭破血流，血流滿面。跟隨在佛陀身後行走。當時佛陀呵斥魔度使說：『你為何無端造下這等惡業？』魔度使當時業報已盡，便墜入地獄。
論：此經的意義在於說明直至後世受生的事情。論主的解釋與經文相通，可以按照字面意思理解。
論：為何經文說直接生於那落迦（地獄）？這是引用第二個證據來否定中有（中陰身）的存在。經文說『無間』，就是立即受生，因此可知沒有中有。如果有中有，那就是有間隔。
論：此經的意義在於遮止直至必定順著業力受生。論主的解釋與經文相通，就中有分三種解釋：一是順著經文解釋，二是反駁經文解釋，三是責備迷惑于經文。這是順著經文解釋。所說的『無間』，有兩種含義：一是必定生於地獄，不會前往其他趣（道）而間隔，所以稱為『無間』。二是必定承受此生的果報，不會被其他生所間隔，所以稱為『無間』。並非是沒有中有而間隔。
論：如果只是執著于經文，直至不等待身體壞滅。這是第二種反駁的詰難。解釋有兩種：一是經文說『無間』，那些不承認有中有的人會說，經文說犯了五無間業（五種極重的罪業）的人會生於地獄中，應該必須具備五種無間業才能生於地獄，缺少一種就不應該生於地獄。這是第一種反駁。只有犯了五無間業的人才會生於地獄，而不是其他惡業也會生於地獄中，這就成了很大的過失。這是第二種反駁。經文說造業后『無間』就生於地獄，那麼應該造業之後立即生於地獄，不等待身體壞滅、命終心等就生於地獄。這是第三種反駁。
論：或者即使不承認，直至就是生有（下一生的存在）。這是第三種責備迷惑于經文的人。你們迷惑于經文。經文說『無間』就是生，指的是中有。中有是受生的方便，所以稱為生。從受生的角度得名，並非是就其自性而言。如果就自性而言，應該稱為『起』，如前面廣說。
論：如果這樣，經文的偈頌，直至沒有停止的地方。這是引用第三個經文來證明沒有中有。這個偈頌是佛陀為婆羅門（古印度祭司階層）說的。婆羅門的名字叫再生，因為初生時稱為一生，接受佛法的時候稱為再生。出胎有五個階段：一是嬰孩。
【English Translation】 English version He went begging for food from door to door in the village. At that time, Māra Dūta (Māra's messenger) transformed into a young boy and threw stones from afar, hitting the attendant of the Buddha. The attendant's head was broken, and blood flowed down his face. He followed behind the Buddha. At that time, the Buddha rebuked Māra, saying, 'Why do you create such evil karma for no reason?' Māra's karma was exhausted at that moment, and he fell into hell.
Treatise: The meaning of this sutra is to explain matters up to future rebirths. The treatise master's interpretation is consistent with the sutra and can be understood literally.
Treatise: Why does the sutra say that one is born directly into Naraka (hell)? This is citing the second piece of evidence to deny the existence of antarābhava (intermediate state). The sutra says 'without interval,' which means immediate rebirth, so it is known that there is no antarābhava. If there is antarābhava, then there is an interval.
Treatise: The meaning of this sutra is to prevent the idea of inevitably being reborn according to one's karma. The treatise master's interpretation is consistent with the sutra, and there are three interpretations regarding antarābhava: first, interpreting in accordance with the sutra; second, refuting the sutra's interpretation; and third, rebuking those who are confused by the sutra. This is interpreting in accordance with the sutra. The term 'without interval' has two meanings: first, one is certain to be born in hell and will not go to other realms in between, so it is called 'without interval.' Second, one is certain to receive the retribution of this life and will not be interrupted by other lives, so it is called 'without interval.' It does not mean that there is no antarābhava in between.
Treatise: If one only clings to the text, up to not waiting for the body to decay. This is the second refutation. There are two explanations: first, the sutra says 'without interval,' and those who do not admit the existence of antarābhava will say that the sutra says that those who commit the five ānantarika-karmas (five extremely grave offenses) will be born in hell, and one must possess all five ānantarika-karmas to be born in hell; if one is missing, one should not be born in hell. This is the first refutation. Only those who commit the five ānantarika-karmas will be born in hell, and not other evil karmas, which would be a great fault. This is the second refutation. The sutra says that after creating karma, one is born in hell 'without interval,' so one should be born in hell immediately after creating karma, without waiting for the body to decay, the end of life, or the mind, etc. This is the third refutation.
Treatise: Or even if one does not admit, up to it is bhava (existence). This is the third rebuke of those who are confused by the sutra. You are confused by the sutra. The sutra says 'without interval' is birth, referring to antarābhava. Antarābhava is a means of rebirth, so it is called birth. It is named from the perspective of rebirth, not from its own nature. If it is from its own nature, it should be called 'arising,' as explained extensively earlier.
Treatise: If so, the verse in the sutra, up to there is no stopping place. This is citing the third sutra to prove that there is no antarābhava. This verse was spoken by the Buddha to a Brahmin (ancient Indian priestly class). The Brahmin's name was Rebirth, because at the time of first birth he was called one life, and at the time of receiving the Dharma he was called rebirth. There are five stages of coming out of the womb: first, infancy.
二童子。三少年。四盛年。五老年 汝今過盛位者。過第四盛年至老年也 至衰將近琰魔王者。謂將死也 琰魔王。舊云閻羅王。此云靜息。靜息罪人判是非也 欲往前路無資糧者。汝若有善資糧至其王所判生善趣。若無資糧判生惡趣 求住中間無所止者。汝怖惡趣。若欲求住中間復無所止。
論。若有中有至無有所止。辨無中有所以。
論。此頌意顯至行無礙故。論主通經。文中有二。一以人中速歸魔滅無暫停義言無所止。二或在中有速往生處中無停止。
論。寧知經意如此非余。大眾部等徴也。寧知經據速歸磨滅及速往生處言無所止。非是據無中有說中間無止也。
論。汝復焉知如余非此。論主反徴大眾部也。汝復焉知汝余說據無中有名無所止。不如我說據速磨滅名無所止。
論。二責既等至並無違害。論主明經不成證也。一以二責等。二以二釋同。
論。如何偏證至為證不成。經成非證。◎
俱舍論疏卷第八
同年十一月朔日于同處點同老法師。
此卷草書頗不穩便。
以黃園本一交了 理真 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第九
沙門法寶撰
分別世品第三之二
◎論。當
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二童子（年輕的男孩），三少年（青少年），四盛年（壯年），五老年（老年）。你現在已經過了壯年，正從第四個階段壯年走向第五個階段老年。這意味著你衰老將近，即將面對琰魔王（Yama-raja）（舊時稱為閻羅王，意為『靜息』，即平息罪人，判斷是非）。如果你想前往來世，卻沒有資糧，意味著你若有善業作為資糧，琰魔王會判你生於善趣；若無善業資糧，則會被判生於惡趣。如果你想停留在中間狀態卻無處可止，意味著你害怕墮入惡趣，但又無法在中間狀態停留。
論：如果存在中有（bardo），那麼就不會出現無處可止的情況。這裡辨析了不存在中有的原因。
論：這首偈頌的意思是顯現修行無礙的緣故。論主的解釋貫通經文，包含兩層含義：一是人在世間迅速走向死亡，沒有停留的意義，所以說無處可止；二是在中有階段，迅速前往投生之處，沒有停留。
論：憑什麼知道經文的意思是這樣而不是其他？大眾部（Mahasanghika）等提出質疑。憑什麼知道經文是根據迅速走向死亡和迅速前往投生之處來說無處可止，而不是根據不存在中有來說中間無處可止呢？
論：你又憑什麼認為其他解釋是對的，而不是我的解釋？論主反問大眾部。你又憑什麼認為你們其他的說法是根據不存在中有來說無處可止，而不是像我一樣，根據迅速走向死亡來說無處可止呢？
論：兩種責難既然相同，那麼兩種解釋也並無衝突。論主表明經文不能作為論證。一是兩種責難相同，二是兩種解釋相同。
論：如何偏袒地認為經文可以作為論證，因此論證不成立。經文成立，但不能作為論證。
《俱舍論疏》卷第八
同年十一月初一，在同一地點點校，點校人為同老法師。
此卷草書頗不穩便。
已用黃園本校對完畢 理真 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第九
沙門法寶 撰
分別世品第三之二
論：當
【English Translation】 English version Two young boys (Kumara), three youths (Yuva), four adults (Sthavira), five old men (Vrddha). You are now past the prime of life, transitioning from the fourth stage of adulthood to the fifth stage of old age. This means you are nearing decline, soon to face Yama-raja (the King of Death) (formerly known as Yama-raja, meaning 'quiescence,' which is to pacify sinners and judge right from wrong). If you wish to go to the next life but have no provisions, it means that if you have good karma as provisions, Yama-raja will judge you to be born in a good realm; if you have no good karma as provisions, you will be judged to be born in an evil realm. If you wish to stay in an intermediate state but have nowhere to stop, it means you fear falling into an evil realm, but you cannot stay in the intermediate state.
Treatise: If there is an intermediate state (bardo), then there would be no situation of having nowhere to stop. Here, the reason for the non-existence of the intermediate state is analyzed.
Treatise: The meaning of this verse is to reveal that practice is unimpeded. The treatise master's explanation connects the scriptures, containing two layers of meaning: first, people in the world quickly move towards death, with no meaning of stopping, so it is said that there is nowhere to stop; second, in the intermediate state, one quickly goes to the place of rebirth, with no stopping.
Treatise: How do you know that the meaning of the scripture is this and not something else? The Mahasanghika (Great Assembly Sect) and others raise questions. How do you know that the scripture is based on quickly moving towards death and quickly going to the place of rebirth to say there is nowhere to stop, and not based on the non-existence of the intermediate state to say there is nowhere to stop in the middle?
Treatise: How do you know that your other explanations are correct, and not my explanation? The treatise master questions the Mahasanghika in return. How do you know that your other statements are based on the non-existence of the intermediate state to say there is nowhere to stop, and not like me, based on quickly moving towards death to say there is nowhere to stop?
Treatise: Since the two criticisms are the same, then the two explanations are also not in conflict. The treatise master clarifies that the scripture cannot be used as proof. First, the two criticisms are the same; second, the two explanations are the same.
Treatise: How can you partially think that the scripture can be used as proof, therefore the proof is not established. The scripture is established, but it cannot be used as proof.
Commentary on the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, Volume 8
On the first day of the eleventh month of the same year, proofread at the same location by Dharma Master Tong Lao.
The cursive script in this volume is quite unsteady.
Checked against the Huangyuan edition. Li Zhen Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1822, Commentary on the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya
Commentary on the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, Volume 9
Composed by Shramana Fabao
Chapter 3: Analysis of the World, Part 2
Treatise: When
往何趣至形狀如何。下第三有五頌義門分別中有 就中。前一頌明中有所趣。及明形狀。次兩頌明天眼等見。及明通等。后兩頌明中有入胎。此第一也 頌前有兩問。一問當往何趣。二問形狀如何。
論曰至當本有形。釋上兩句雙答二問。以業能引當所往趣。彼業即招能往中有。此明中．生同一業也。由業同故。當往趣同及形狀同。
論。若爾於一至燒母胎。難也。若言中有如本有形。地獄中有還如地獄猛火應隨。中有起時應燒母胎。
論。彼居本有至況在中有。答也 就中有三。一中有時未有猛火。二以中有極微細故。三逐難釋 以業力故五趣中有雖同一處非互觸燒。此第一也。地獄本有尚不恒燒況在中有。
論。設許能燒至所難非理。此第二也。縱令中有即燒。如猶未見地獄中有。亦不身觸地獄中火。以中有身極微細故。
論。諸趣中有至業所遮故。此第三也。縱令地獄中有即有火隨余趣中有。由業遮故不為火燒釋所以也。
論。欲中有量至四大洲等。因明形量似當生處。兼明二界形量大小 異生．菩薩雖同欲界。而異生如小兒。菩薩如盛年等。
論。若爾何故至入已右脅。問也。若菩薩中有如盛年時照百俱胝。因何菩薩母夢見白象子來入己右脅。
論。此吉
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 將往何處，形狀如何？下文第三部分有五頌，分別闡述中有（antarabhava，指死亡到投胎之間的過渡期）的意義。其中，第一頌說明中有將往何處，以及其形狀。接下來的兩頌說明天眼等所見，以及神通等。最後的兩頌說明中有入胎。這是第一頌的內容。頌文之前有兩個問題：一是將往何處？二是形狀如何？
論曰：至於當本有形。解釋上面兩句，同時回答兩個問題。因為業力能夠牽引前往將要投生的去處，而這種業力也招感能夠前往中有的身體。這說明中有和來生是同一種業力所致。由於業力相同，所以將要前往的去處相同，形狀也相同。
論：如果這樣，那麼對於一個……燒母胎。這是責難。如果說中有像本有之形，那麼地獄中有也應該像地獄的猛火一樣隨身。中有生起的時候，應該燒燬母胎。
論：彼居本有……況在中有。這是回答。關於中有有三點：一是中有時並沒有猛火；二是中有極其微細；三是逐個解釋責難。因為業力的緣故，五趣（gati，指眾生輪迴的五種道途，即地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）的中有即使在同一處所，也不會互相觸碰焚燒。這是第一點。地獄的本有尚且不總是焚燒，更何況是中有呢？
論：假設允許能夠焚燒……所難非理。這是第二點。縱然中有能夠焚燒，就像沒有見到地獄中有一樣，也不會親身觸碰到地獄中的火焰。因為中有的身體極其微細。
論：諸趣中有……業所遮故。這是第三點。縱然地獄中有就有火焰相隨，其餘各趣的中有，由於業力的遮蔽，也不會被火焰焚燒。這是解釋原因。
論：欲中有量……四大洲等。這是因為說明形體大小，類似於將要投生之處。兼說明二界（指欲界和色界）形體大小的差異。異生（prthagjana，指凡夫）和菩薩（bodhisattva，指追求覺悟的修行者）雖然同在欲界，但是異生像小孩子，菩薩像壯年人等等。
論：如果這樣，為什麼……入已右脅。這是提問。如果菩薩的中有像壯年時一樣，能夠照亮百俱胝（koti，古印度計數單位，通常指千萬）的地方，那麼為什麼菩薩的母親會夢見白象子進入自己的右脅呢？
論：此吉
【English Translation】 English version Where does it go, and what is its form? The third section below contains five verses, which separately explain the meaning of the antarabhava (intermediate state between death and rebirth). Among them, the first verse explains where the antarabhava goes and its form. The following two verses explain what is seen by the divine eye, etc., and the supernormal powers, etc. The last two verses explain the antarabhava entering the womb. This is the content of the first verse. Before the verse, there are two questions: First, where will it go? Second, what is its form?
The treatise says: 'As for the form of the coming existence.' This explains the above two sentences, answering both questions simultaneously. Because karma can lead to the place where one will be reborn, and this karma also attracts the body that can go to the antarabhava. This explains that the antarabhava and the next life are caused by the same karma. Because the karma is the same, the place to which one will go is the same, and the form is also the same.
Treatise: If so, then for one...burn the mother's womb. This is a challenge. If it is said that the antarabhava is like the form of the coming existence, then the hellish antarabhava should also be accompanied by the fierce fire of hell. When the antarabhava arises, it should burn the mother's womb.
Treatise: 'They reside in the coming existence...how much more so in the antarabhava.' This is the answer. There are three points about the antarabhava: First, there is no fierce fire in the antarabhava; second, the antarabhava is extremely subtle; third, the challenges are explained one by one. Because of the power of karma, even if the antarabhavas of the five destinies (gati, the five realms of rebirth: hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods) are in the same place, they will not touch and burn each other. This is the first point. The coming existence of hell does not always burn, let alone the antarabhava?
Treatise: 'Suppose it is allowed to burn...the challenge is unreasonable.' This is the second point. Even if the antarabhava can burn, just as one has not seen the hellish antarabhava, one will not personally touch the fire in hell. Because the body of the antarabhava is extremely subtle.
Treatise: 'The antarabhavas of all destinies...because of the obstruction of karma.' This is the third point. Even if the hellish antarabhava is accompanied by flames, the antarabhavas of the other destinies will not be burned by the flames because of the obstruction of karma. This explains the reason.
Treatise: 'The size of the desire realm antarabhava...the four great continents, etc.' This is because it explains that the size of the form is similar to the place where one will be reborn. It also explains the difference in size between the two realms (the desire realm and the form realm). Although ordinary beings (prthagjana, ordinary people) and bodhisattvas (bodhisattva, practitioners who seek enlightenment) are both in the desire realm, ordinary beings are like children, and bodhisattvas are like adults, etc.
Treatise: If so, why...enter the right side. This is a question. If the bodhisattva's antarabhava is like that of an adult, able to illuminate hundreds of kotis (koti, an ancient Indian unit of counting, usually referring to ten million) of places, then why would the bodhisattva's mother dream of a white elephant entering her right side?
Treatise: This is auspicious.
瑞相至非如所見。答也。菩薩九十一劫已來久舍傍生。母見白象是吉相也。如訖栗枳王夢所見十事。是表當來非如所見 訖栗枳是梵語此云作事。是迦葉佛父。夜夢十事。且具白佛。佛言此表當來釋迦遺法弟子之先兆也。王夢見一大象被閉。更無門戶唯有小窗。其象方便其身得出。唯尾礙窗不得出也 此表釋迦遺法弟子。能捨父．母．妻．子出家修道。而於其中猶懷名利不能捨離如尾礙窗 井者。王夢見一渴人求覓水。飲便有一井具八功德。隨逐渴人而不取飲 此表釋迦遺法弟子諸道俗等。不肯學法。有知法者為名利故隨後為說而不學也 麨者。王夢見以一升真珠博一升麨 此表釋迦遺法弟子為求利故。以佛正法為他人說希彼財物 栴檀者。王夢見將栴檀香用博凡木 此表釋迦遺法弟子以內正法博外書等 妙園林者。王夢見有妙園林花果茂盛。狂賊毀壞無有遺余 此表釋迦遺法弟子磨滅如來正法園苑 小象者。王夢見有諸小象驅其大象令出羣中 此表釋迦遺法弟子諸惡朋黨破戒苾芻。驅擯持戒有德苾芻令出衆外 二獼猴者。王夢見有一獼猴身涂糞穢湯突己眾見皆避去 此表釋迦遺法弟子諸破戒人。以諸惡事謀謗好人見皆遠避 王又夢見有一獼猴實無有德 眾共扶捧海水灌頂立為其王 此表釋迦遺法弟子破戒苾芻實無所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『瑞相至非如所見』是什麼意思？回答是：菩薩從九十一劫以來，早已脫離了傍生道（動物）。母親夢見白象是吉祥的象徵。如同訖栗枳王（Kilikiraja）夢中所見的十件事，預示著未來的情況並非如表面所見。訖栗枳（Kilikiraja）是梵語，意為『作事』，是迦葉佛（Kasyapa Buddha）的父親。他夜裡夢見了十件事，詳細地告訴了佛。佛說：『這預示著未來釋迦（Sakyamuni）遺教時期弟子的先兆。』 國王夢見一頭大象被關起來，沒有門，只有一個小窗戶。大象設法讓身體出去，只有尾巴被窗戶卡住出不去。這表示釋迦（Sakyamuni）遺教時期的弟子，能夠捨棄父母、妻子、兒女出家修道，但在修行中仍然懷有名利之心，不能徹底捨棄，就像尾巴被窗戶卡住一樣。 井：國王夢見一個口渴的人尋找水喝，出現一口井，具備八功德水。井隨著口渴的人，但他卻不取飲。這表示釋迦（Sakyamuni）遺教時期的弟子和信徒，不肯學習佛法。有懂得佛法的人爲了名利，跟隨他們為他們講解佛法，但他們卻不學習。 麨（chǎo）：國王夢見用一升珍珠換取一升炒麵。這表示釋迦（Sakyamuni）遺教時期的弟子爲了求取利益，用佛的正法為他人講解，希望得到他們的財物。 栴檀（zhān tán）：國王夢見將栴檀香（Sandalwood）用來交換普通的木頭。這表示釋迦（Sakyamuni）遺教時期的弟子用內在的正法交換外道的書籍等。 妙園林：國王夢見有一個美妙的園林，花果茂盛，但被強盜摧毀，沒有留下任何東西。這表示釋迦（Sakyamuni）遺教時期的弟子磨滅如來的正法園林。 小象：國王夢見許多小象驅趕大象，讓它離開象群。這表示釋迦（Sakyamuni）遺教時期的弟子，那些惡劣的朋黨、破戒的比丘（bhiksu），驅逐持戒有德的比丘（bhiksu），讓他們離開僧團。 兩隻獼猴：國王夢見一隻獼猴身上塗滿糞便，衝撞人群，人們都躲避它。這表示釋迦（Sakyamuni）遺教時期的弟子，那些破戒的人，用各種惡劣的事情誹謗好人，人們都遠遠地躲避他們。 國王又夢見一隻獼猴實際上沒有任何德行，大家共同扶持它，用海水灌頂，立它為國王。這表示釋迦（Sakyamuni）遺教時期的弟子，破戒的比丘（bhiksu）實際上沒有任何...
【English Translation】 English version: What does 『Auspicious signs are not always as they appear』 mean? The answer is: Bodhisattvas have long been liberated from the animal realm (傍生, bang sheng) since ninety-one kalpas (劫, jie). The mother seeing a white elephant is an auspicious sign. Like the ten things seen in the dream of King Kilikiraja (訖栗枳王, Qi li ji wang), it indicates that the future situation is not as it appears on the surface. Kilikiraja (訖栗枳, Qi li ji) is a Sanskrit word meaning 『one who acts,』 and he was the father of Kasyapa Buddha (迦葉佛, Jia ye fo). He dreamed of ten things at night and told the Buddha in detail. The Buddha said, 『This indicates the precursors of the disciples in the future era of Sakyamuni』s (釋迦, Shi jia) remaining teachings.』 The king dreamed of a large elephant being locked up, with no door, only a small window. The elephant managed to get its body out, but its tail was stuck in the window and could not get out. This represents the disciples in the era of Sakyamuni』s (釋迦, Shi jia) remaining teachings, who are able to renounce parents, wives, and children to leave home and cultivate the Way, but still harbor fame and profit in their practice, unable to completely let go, just like the tail being stuck in the window. Well: The king dreamed of a thirsty person seeking water to drink, and a well appeared, possessing the eight qualities of water. The well followed the thirsty person, but he did not take a drink. This represents the disciples and followers in the era of Sakyamuni』s (釋迦, Shi jia) remaining teachings, who are unwilling to learn the Dharma. Those who understand the Dharma, for the sake of fame and profit, follow them and explain the Dharma to them, but they do not learn. Roasted Flour: The king dreamed of exchanging one liter of pearls for one liter of roasted flour (麨, chǎo). This represents the disciples in the era of Sakyamuni』s (釋迦, Shi jia) remaining teachings, who, in order to seek profit, explain the Buddha』s true Dharma to others, hoping to obtain their wealth. Sandalwood: The king dreamed of using sandalwood (栴檀, zhān tán) to exchange for ordinary wood. This represents the disciples in the era of Sakyamuni』s (釋迦, Shi jia) remaining teachings, who exchange the inner true Dharma for external heretical books, etc. Wonderful Garden: The king dreamed of a wonderful garden, with lush flowers and fruits, but it was destroyed by robbers, leaving nothing behind. This represents the disciples in the era of Sakyamuni』s (釋迦, Shi jia) remaining teachings, who obliterate the Tathagata』s (如來, Ru lai) garden of true Dharma. Small Elephants: The king dreamed of many small elephants driving away the large elephant, causing it to leave the herd. This represents the disciples in the era of Sakyamuni』s (釋迦, Shi jia) remaining teachings, those evil companions, the precept-breaking bhikshus (比丘, bhiksu), who drive away the precept-abiding and virtuous bhikshus (比丘, bhiksu), causing them to leave the Sangha. Two Monkeys: The king dreamed of a monkey covered in filth, rushing into the crowd, and people avoided it. This represents the disciples in the era of Sakyamuni』s (釋迦, Shi jia) remaining teachings, those precept-breaking people, who slander good people with various evil deeds, and people avoid them from afar. The king also dreamed of a monkey who actually had no virtue, but everyone supported him, poured seawater on his head, and made him king. This represents the disciples in the era of Sakyamuni』s (釋迦, Shi jia) remaining teachings, the precept-breaking bhikshus (比丘, bhiksu) who actually have no...
知。為名利故諸惡朋黨共相扶捧立為眾首 廣堅衣者。王夢見有廣堅衣有十八人各執少分四面爭攬衣不破者 此表釋迦遺法弟子既分成十八顯所學法 各有門人部執不同互興斗諍。此顯能學法人。如是所夢但表當來餘事先兆。非如所見。故知菩薩母夢中見白象。但表吉相非如所見 論。又諸中有至前小后大。此因菩薩右脅入胎。便明諸餘中有從生門入。非是欲證菩薩中有從生門入。若生時明大小則前生者大。若受胎明大小則後生者大。準此論文。唯說定者若業不同。受胎久近則不定也 有人。云此文欲證菩薩從生門入者非。此文應證菩薩從右脅入。菩薩右脅生故。婆沙七十云。問菩薩中有何處入胎。答從右脅入。正知入胎。于母母想無淫愛故。復有說者。從生門入。諸胎．卵生法應爾故。問輪王．獨覺先中有位何處入胎。答從右脅入。正知入胎。于母母想無淫愛故。復有說者從生門入。諸胎．卵生法應爾故。有餘師說。菩薩福慧極增上故。將入胎時。無顛倒想不起淫愛。輪王．獨覺雖有福慧非極增上。將入胎時雖無倒想亦起淫愛。故入胎時必從生門入 又正理云。理實中有隨欲入胎。非要生門無障礙故。然由業力胎藏所拘 正理不同諸論。此論云又諸中有者。未定取菩薩也。
論。法善現說至寢如仙隱林。又引
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 知。爲了名利，各種邪惡的團伙互相扶持，擁立為首領。廣堅衣者（擁有寬大堅固衣服的人）：國王夢見有十八個擁有寬大堅固衣服的人，各自拿著衣服的一小部分，四面爭搶，衣服卻沒有破損。這表示釋迦牟尼佛遺留下來的佛法，弟子們分成十八個派別，各自宣揚自己所學的法門，各有門人和追隨者，彼此之間互相爭鬥。這顯示了能學習佛法的人的情況。這樣的夢境只是預示了未來將要發生的事情，並非如夢中所見的那樣。所以要知道，菩薩的母親夢中見到白象，只是表示吉祥的徵兆，並非如夢中所見的那樣。論：又說，諸位中陰身到來時，前面小，後面大。這是因為菩薩從右脅進入母胎。這就說明了其餘的中陰身是從生殖門進入的。並不是要證明菩薩的中陰身是從生殖門進入的。如果出生時說明大小，那麼先生出來的那部分就大。如果受胎時說明大小，那麼後進入的那部分就大。根據這段論文，只是說業力不同的人，受胎的時間長短是不確定的。有人說，這段文字想要證明菩薩是從生殖門進入母胎，這是不對的。這段文字應該證明菩薩是從右脅進入母胎。因為菩薩是從右脅出生的。婆沙論第七十卷說：問：菩薩的中陰身從哪裡進入母胎？答：從右脅進入。以清凈的正念進入母胎，母親對菩薩沒有淫慾之念。還有一種說法，是從生殖門進入。因為所有胎生、卵生的眾生都是這樣。問：轉輪聖王、獨覺的中陰身從哪裡進入母胎？答：從右脅進入。以清凈的正念進入母胎，母親對他們沒有淫慾之念。還有一種說法，是從生殖門進入。因為所有胎生、卵生的眾生都是這樣。還有其他論師說：菩薩的福德和智慧極其增上，所以在進入母胎的時候，沒有顛倒的妄想，也不會生起淫慾之念。轉輪聖王、獨覺雖然也有福德和智慧，但不是極其增上，所以在進入母胎的時候，雖然沒有顛倒的妄想，也會生起淫慾之念。所以他們進入母胎的時候，必定是從生殖門進入。又，正理論說：實際上，中陰身是隨著自己的意願進入母胎的，不一定要從生殖門進入，因為沒有障礙。但是由於業力的作用，被胎藏所限制。正理論的觀點與其他論典不同。這部論典說，又，諸位中陰身，並沒有確定是指菩薩。 論：法善現說……直到……安睡就像仙人隱居在樹林里。又引用……
【English Translation】 English version: Know. For the sake of fame and profit, various evil groups support each other and establish themselves as leaders. 'Guang Jian Yi Zhe' (One who possesses wide and sturdy garments): The king dreamed of eighteen people with wide and sturdy garments, each holding a small part of the garment, vying for it from all sides, but the garment did not tear. This represents the Dharma left behind by Shakyamuni Buddha, with disciples divided into eighteen schools, each proclaiming their own learned Dharma, each with followers and supporters, fighting among themselves. This shows the situation of those who can learn the Dharma. Such dreams only foreshadow future events, not as seen in the dream. Therefore, know that the Bodhisattva's mother seeing a white elephant in a dream only indicates an auspicious sign, not as seen in the dream. Treatise: Furthermore, it is said that when the various intermediate beings (antarabhava) arrive, the front is small and the back is large. This is because the Bodhisattva entered the womb from the right side. This explains that the remaining intermediate beings enter through the birth canal. It is not to prove that the Bodhisattva's intermediate being enters through the birth canal. If the size is explained at birth, then the part that comes out first is large. If the size is explained at conception, then the part that enters later is large. According to this treatise, it only says that for those with different karma, the length of time for conception is uncertain. Some say that this passage intends to prove that the Bodhisattva enters the womb through the birth canal, which is incorrect. This passage should prove that the Bodhisattva enters the womb from the right side. Because the Bodhisattva was born from the right side. The 70th volume of the Vibhasa states: Question: From where does the Bodhisattva's intermediate being enter the womb? Answer: From the right side. Entering the womb with pure mindfulness, the mother has no lustful thoughts towards the Bodhisattva. There is also a saying that it enters through the birth canal. Because all viviparous and oviparous beings are like this. Question: From where do the intermediate beings of a Chakravartin (wheel-turning king) and a Pratyekabuddha (solitary Buddha) enter the womb? Answer: From the right side. Entering the womb with pure mindfulness, the mother has no lustful thoughts towards them. There is also a saying that it enters through the birth canal. Because all viviparous and oviparous beings are like this. Other teachers say: The Bodhisattva's merit and wisdom are extremely enhanced, so when entering the womb, there are no inverted delusions, and no lustful thoughts arise. Although the Chakravartin and Pratyekabuddha also have merit and wisdom, they are not extremely enhanced, so when entering the womb, although there are no inverted delusions, lustful thoughts also arise. Therefore, when they enter the womb, they must enter through the birth canal. Furthermore, the Nyaya-anusara-sastra (Treatise Following the Principle) states: In reality, the intermediate being enters the womb according to its own will, not necessarily through the birth canal, because there is no obstacle. However, due to the force of karma, it is restricted by the womb. The view of the Nyaya-anusara-sastra differs from other treatises. This treatise says, 'Furthermore, the various intermediate beings,' which does not specifically refer to the Bodhisattva. Treatise: Dharma Good Manifestation said... until... sleeping like an immortal hiding in the forest. Also quoted...
法善現頌難也。
論。不必須通至造頌無失。此釋難也。
論。色界中有至慚愧增故。上明欲界量。此明色界也。由慚．愧增與衣俱生。論菩薩中有亦與衣俱。同色界也。
論。鮮白苾芻尼至無慚愧故。明願力故常與衣俱。在俗即為俗衣。出家變為法服。除菩薩．鮮白苾芻尼。所餘中有以無慚愧故。無願力故。皆無衣也。
論。所以本有其體是何。問也。
論。謂死有後至是五取蘊。答也。
論。于中位別至中闕具三。便明四有兼界分別。正理論云。何緣無色無中有耶。彼業不能引中有故。何緣彼業於此無能起。結斷已方生彼故 云云多釋 有餘師說。為往生處表所趣形故立中有。非無色界有處有形。若爾即于自死屍內身根滅處命終受生不往余方中有何用。此立中有表所趣形。前說二緣隨有一故。此救非理。表所趣形於所趣生無勝用故 然上坐言。若命終處即受生者中有便無。彼言非善。非死有位方引中有。如何可說若死處生不引中有。定於先時已作增長感中有業。今誰為礙。令中有果不起現前。或復中．生同一業果。中有復是一期生初。中有若無生應不續。如必無有越羯邏藍生頞部曇。是彼初故 然說中有決定相者 謂無未離欲．色界貪生有。不從中有後起。亦無中有與所趣
【現代漢語翻譯】 法善現頌難也。
論。不必須通至造頌無失。此釋難也。
論。中有至慚愧增故。上明欲界量。此明也。由慚．愧增與衣俱生。論菩薩中有亦與衣俱。同**也。
論。鮮白苾芻尼至無慚愧故。明願力故常與衣俱。在俗即為俗衣。出家變為法服。除菩薩．鮮白苾芻尼（指持戒清凈的比丘尼）。所餘中有以無慚愧故。無願力故。皆無衣也。
論。所以本有其體是何。問也。
論。謂死有後至是五取蘊（指色、受、想、行、識五種構成生命的要素）。答也。
論。于中位別至中闕具三。便明四有兼界分別。正理論云。何緣無色無中有耶。彼業不能引中有故。何緣彼業於此無能起。結斷已方生彼故 云云多釋 有餘師說。為往生處表所趣形故立中有。非無有處有形。若爾即于自死屍內身根滅處命終受生不往余方中有何用。此立中有表所趣形。前說二緣隨有一故。此救非理。表所趣形於所趣生無勝用故 然上坐言。若命終處即受生者中有便無。彼言非善。非死有位方引中有。如何可說若死處生不引中有。定於先時已作增長感中有業。今誰為礙。令中有果不起現前。或復中．生同一業果。中有復是一期生初。中有若無生應不續。如必無有越羯邏藍生頞部曇。是彼初故 然說中有決定相者 謂無未離欲．貪生有。不從中有後起。亦無中有與所趣
【English Translation】 法善現's verse is difficult to understand.
Treatise: It's not necessary to be proficient to the point of composing verses without error. This explains the difficulty.
Treatise: The intermediate existence (中有, bardo) in ** is due to increased shame and embarrassment. The above clarifies the extent of the desire realm (欲界). This clarifies . Due to increased shame and embarrassment, clothing arises together. The Treatise states that the intermediate existence of Bodhisattvas also comes with clothing. It's the same as .
Treatise: The pure white Bhikshuni (苾芻尼, Buddhist nun) and others are always with clothing due to the power of their vows, because they have no shame or embarrassment. When in lay life, it becomes lay clothing. When ordained, it transforms into monastic robes. Except for Bodhisattvas and pure white Bhikshunis (referring to Bhikshunis who uphold the precepts purely), the remaining intermediate existences have no clothing because they lack shame and embarrassment, and they lack the power of vows.
Treatise: What is the substance of the original existence (本有)? This is a question.
Treatise: It refers to the five aggregates of clinging (五取蘊, skandha) after the death existence (死有). This is the answer.
Treatise: Distinguishing the positions within, up to the middle lacking three. This clarifies the four existences (四有) along with the realm distinctions. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Why is there no intermediate existence in the formless realm (無色界)? Because that karma cannot lead to an intermediate existence. Why can't that karma arise here? Because the fetters have been severed before being born there. ... Many explanations ... Some teachers say: The intermediate existence is established to represent the form of the destination to which one is going. There is no form in the ** existence. If that's the case, then upon death within one's own corpse, where the sense faculties cease, one would be born without going to another place. What use is the intermediate existence? This establishes the intermediate existence to represent the form of the destination. The previous two causes, whichever is present. This rescue is unreasonable. Representing the form of the destination has no superior use for the birth to which one is going. However, the senior monk said: If one is born at the place of death, then there would be no intermediate existence. That statement is not good. It is not at the time of the death existence that the intermediate existence is drawn forth. How can it be said that if one is born at the place of death, the intermediate existence is not drawn forth? Certainly, at an earlier time, one has already created and increased the karma that causes the intermediate existence. Who is hindering it now? Causing the fruit of the intermediate existence not to appear? Or perhaps the intermediate existence and birth are the result of the same karma. The intermediate existence is also the beginning of a lifetime. If there is no intermediate existence, birth should not continue. Just as there is definitely no going beyond kalala (羯邏藍, the first stage of embryonic development) to be born as arbuda (頞部曇, the second stage of embryonic development). It is the beginning of that. However, those who say that the intermediate existence has a definite form mean that there is no existence of those who have not departed from desire and ** greed. It does not arise after the intermediate existence. Also, there is no intermediate existence with the destination to which one is going.
生非同一業所牽引果。亦無中有能入無心。可為身證．俱分解脫。及起世俗不同分心。住中有中無轉根義。亦無能斷見所斷惑。及無斷欲界修所斷隨眠。如是等門皆應思擇 婆沙六十八。問若此處死還生此處。如聞有死生自尸中既無去來。何須中有連續二有令不斷耶。答有情死已或生惡趣等。生惡趣者識在腳滅。生人中者識在臍滅。生天上者識在頭滅。般涅槃者識在心滅。諸有死已生自尸中為蟲等者。彼未死時多愛自面故。彼死已生自面上。既從彼腳來生自面。若無中有誰能連續。無此處死還生此處。捨身受身必移轉故。問無色界沒生欲．色界者。既隨當生處中有現前。彼無往來何用中有。答彼先已造感中有業。雖無往來亦受中有。業力所引必應起故。
論。已說形量余義當辨。已下兩頌。第二明見及通等也。
論曰至以極細故。明眼見也。此以極細故唯同類眼互得相見。及有修得天眼能見。非生得眼。準此論文。上地生得不及下地修得天眼。又同類相見自是別義。非唯以細。天中有眼不劣下趣何為不見。故知義別。
論。有餘師說至自下除上。述異說也。
論。一切通中至最強盛故。明勝劣也。此論云。中有具得最疾業通。上至世尊無能遮抑。以業勢力最強盛故 準此論文有其二義。一最
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：並非由同一種業力牽引而產生相同的結果。也沒有中陰身能夠進入無心狀態。可以被身體證悟，全部都得到解脫。以及產生與世俗不同的分別心。停留在中陰身中沒有轉變根性的意義。也沒有能夠斷除見所斷惑，以及沒有斷除欲界修所斷的隨眠。像這樣的方面都應該仔細思考。《婆沙論》第六十八卷中提到：如果在此處死亡又在此處出生，如聽說有人死後生在自己的屍體中，既然沒有去來，為什麼需要中陰身來連續兩個有，使之不斷絕呢？回答說：有情死亡后，或者會生到惡趣等地方。生到惡趣的人，識在腳部滅去；生到人中的人，識在臍部滅去；生到天上的人，識在頭部滅去；般涅槃的人，識在心部滅去。那些死亡後生在自己屍體中變成蟲子等眾生，因為他們未死時大多喜愛自己的面容，所以死後就生在自己的面容上。既然是從腳部來到面容上，如果沒有中陰身，誰能夠連續呢？沒有在此處死亡又在此處出生的，捨棄身體接受身體必定會轉移。有人問：沒有沒生欲．的人，既然隨著將要出生的處所，中陰身顯現，他們沒有往來，為什麼需要中陰身呢？回答說：他們先前已經造作了感生中陰身的業，雖然沒有往來，也會感受中陰身，因為業力所牽引，必定會生起。 論：已經說了形體的量，其餘的意義應當辨明。以下兩頌，第二是說明見和神通等。 論曰：到因為極其細微的緣故。說明用眼睛看見。因為極其細微的緣故，只有同類的眼睛才能互相看見，以及有修得的天眼才能看見，不是生得的眼睛。根據這段論文，上地生得的天眼不如於下地修得的天眼。又同類相見，自然是另外的意義，不只是因為細微。天中陰身的眼睛不比下趣的眼睛差，為什麼看不見呢？所以知道意義不同。 論：有其他論師說：到從下除去上。這是敘述不同的說法。 論：一切神通中，到因為最強盛的緣故。說明勝劣。此論說：中陰身具有最快速的業通，上至世尊也沒有能夠遮止和抑制的，因為業的勢力最強盛。根據這段論文，有兩種含義：一是
【English Translation】 English version: It is not the case that the same karma leads to the same result. Nor can an intermediate being (antarabhava) enter a state of no-mind. It can be realized by the body, and all are liberated. And there arise different minds from the mundane. There is no meaning of changing roots while dwelling in the intermediate state. Nor is there the ability to sever afflictions severed by view, nor to sever the latent tendencies (anusaya) severed by cultivation in the desire realm. Such aspects should all be carefully considered. (Vibhasa 68). Question: If one dies here and is reborn here, as it is heard that some die and are born in their own corpses, since there is no going or coming, why is an intermediate being needed to connect the two existences (bhava) so that they are not interrupted? Answer: Sentient beings, after death, may be born in evil destinies, etc. Those born in evil destinies, consciousness ceases at the feet. Those born among humans, consciousness ceases at the navel. Those born in the heavens, consciousness ceases at the head. Those who attain Parinirvana, consciousness ceases at the heart. Those who die and are born in their own corpses as insects, etc., because they loved their faces greatly when they were alive, are born on their faces after death. Since they come from the feet to the face, if there were no intermediate being, who could connect them? There is no such thing as dying here and being born here; abandoning one body and accepting another necessarily involves transference. Question: Those without desire for birth and death, since the intermediate being appears according to the place where they are to be born, they do not go or come, so what is the use of the intermediate being? Answer: They have previously created the karma that causes the intermediate being. Although they do not go or come, they still experience the intermediate being, because they are compelled to arise by the force of karma. Treatise: The measure of the form has been discussed; the remaining meanings should be clarified. The following two verses, the second, explain seeing and supernormal powers (abhijna), etc. Treatise says: 'Because it is extremely subtle.' This explains seeing with the eyes. Because it is extremely subtle, only eyes of the same kind can see each other, and those who have cultivated the divine eye (divyacaksu) can see, not those with innate eyes. According to this text, the innate divine eye of the higher realms is not as good as the cultivated divine eye of the lower realms. Moreover, seeing each other by those of the same kind is naturally a different meaning, not just because of subtlety. The eyes of the intermediate being in the heavens are not inferior to those of the lower realms, so why can't they see? Therefore, we know that the meaning is different. Treatise: 'Some teachers say: '...to remove the upper from the lower.' This is a narration of different views. Treatise: 'Among all supernormal powers, ...because it is the strongest.' This explains superiority and inferiority. This treatise says: 'The intermediate being possesses the swiftest karmic power, which even the World Honored One (Bhagavan) cannot prevent or suppress, because the power of karma is the strongest.' According to this text, there are two meanings: one is
速疾義。二無遮抑義。婆沙七十云。問神境通力與中有位。諸有所行何者為疾。如是說者。神境通力行勢迅速。非諸中有。問若爾何故經說業力勝神境通。答依無障礙故作是說不依行勢。謂佛神通能礙一切有情神通。獨覺除佛。舍利子除二。大目乾連除三。能礙一切有情。無佛．獨覺．一切聲聞。及余有情咒術．藥物。能礙中有令不往趣應受生處。然必往彼隨類結生。由此契經說諸業力勝于神通。若依行勢而作論者。應說神通勝於中有 準此論文。唯有一義。正理亦引此經證業通疾 論云。此通勢用速故名疾。中有具此最疾業通。諸通速行無能勝者 正理文意與俱舍同。準此即與婆沙義別。
論。一切中有皆具五根。明根具也。正理論云。隨地諸根中有皆具。雖言中有如本有形。而初異熟最勝妙故。又求有故無不具根。
論。對謂對礙至有蟲生故。明無礙也。此金剛等所不能遮故名無對。
論。應往彼趣至定不往余。明決定也。故婆沙云。譬喻者說。中有可轉。對法師言。中有于界于趣于處皆不可轉。感中有業極猛利故 正理論云。此界．趣．處皆不可轉。謂定無有色中有沒欲中有生。亦無翻此。此與生有一業引故。
論。欲中有身至健達縛名。明所食也。
論。諸字界中至略故無過
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 速疾義：指速度極快。二無遮抑義：指沒有阻礙和抑制。 《婆沙論》第七十卷中說：有人問，神通的境界和力量與中有（bardo，指死亡和投生之間的過渡狀態）的境界相比，哪一個更快？有人這樣回答：神通的境界和力量執行的速度非常迅速，不是中有可以比擬的。有人問：如果這樣，為什麼經典中說業力勝過神通？回答說：這是依據沒有障礙的緣故這樣說的，不是依據執行的速度。意思是，佛的神通能夠阻礙一切有情的神通，除了獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，獨自覺悟者）可以避免被阻礙。舍利子（Śāriputra，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）可以避免被兩種神通阻礙。大目乾連（Mahāmaudgalyāyana，佛陀的十大弟子之一，以神通著稱）可以避免被三種神通阻礙。能夠阻礙一切有情，沒有佛、獨覺、一切聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而證悟的弟子），以及其他有情的咒術、藥物，能夠阻礙中有，使它不能前往應該投生的地方。然而，中有必定會前往那個地方，隨其種類而結生。因此，契經（Sūtra，佛經）說諸業力勝于神通。如果依據執行的速度而進行討論，應該說神通勝於中有。 根據這段論文，只有一種意義。正理也引用這段經文來證明業通的快速。論中說：這種神通的勢用快速，所以叫做疾。中有具有這種最快的業通，各種神通的快速執行沒有能夠勝過它的。 《正理論》的文意與《俱舍論》相同。根據這一點，就與《婆沙論》的意義有所不同。 論：一切中有都具有五根（pañcendriya，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）。說明根的具足。《正理論》中說：隨其所處的地界，中有都具有各種根。雖然說中有像本有（已經出生的狀態）的形狀，但是最初的異熟（vipāka，業的果報）最為殊勝微妙，而且因為求有（尋求投生），所以沒有不具足根的。 論：對，指沒有障礙，直到有蟲產生。說明沒有障礙。這種金剛等所不能遮蔽的，叫做無對（apratihata，無礙）。 論：應該前往那個地方，直到確定不往其他地方。說明是決定的。所以《婆沙論》中說：譬喻者說，中有可以轉變。對法師說，中有在界、趣、處都是不可轉變的。因為感受中有的業力極其猛烈。《正理論》中說：這個界、趣、處都是不可轉變的。意思是，一定沒有色界（Rūpadhātu，佛教宇宙觀中的一個天界）的中有死亡后，在欲界（Kāmadhātu，佛教宇宙觀中最低的天界，眾生有情慾）中產生，也沒有相反的情況。這是因為與生有一業（引導投生的業力）所引導的緣故。 論：欲界中有的身體，直到健達縛（Gandharva，一種天神，以香氣為食）的名字。說明所食之物。 論：諸字界中，直到簡略所以沒有過失。
【English Translation】 English version Speedy Meaning: Refers to extreme speed. Two, Unobstructed and Unrestrained Meaning: Refers to the absence of obstruction and restraint. The Vibhasha (Vaibhāṣika, a major Buddhist school of thought) Volume 70 says: Someone asked, 'Compared to the realm of supernatural powers and abilities and the realm of the bardo (antarābhava, the intermediate state between death and rebirth), which is faster?' Someone answered, 'The operation of supernatural powers and abilities is very rapid, not something the bardo can compare to.' Someone asked, 'If that's the case, why do the scriptures say that the power of karma surpasses supernatural powers?' The answer is, 'This is said based on the reason of having no obstruction, not based on the speed of operation.' The meaning is that the Buddha's supernatural powers can obstruct the supernatural powers of all sentient beings, except for the Pratyekabuddha (a solitary Buddha who attains enlightenment on their own) who can avoid being obstructed. Śāriputra (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his wisdom) can avoid being obstructed by two kinds of supernatural powers. Mahāmaudgalyāyana (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples, known for his supernatural powers) can avoid being obstructed by three kinds of supernatural powers. Able to obstruct all sentient beings, without the Buddha, Pratyekabuddha, all Śrāvakas (disciples who attain enlightenment by hearing the Dharma), and other sentient beings' mantras and medicines, able to obstruct the bardo, preventing it from going to the place where it should be reborn. However, the bardo will definitely go to that place, forming a connection according to its kind. Therefore, the Sūtra (Buddhist scripture) says that the power of karma surpasses supernatural powers. If discussing based on the speed of operation, it should be said that supernatural powers surpass the bardo. According to this thesis, there is only one meaning. The Nyāyānusāra (a commentary on the Abhidharmakośa) also quotes this scripture to prove the speed of karmic penetration. The treatise says: 'This supernatural power's momentum is fast, so it is called speedy.' The bardo possesses this fastest karmic penetration; the fast operation of various supernatural powers cannot surpass it. The meaning of the Nyāyānusāra is the same as the Abhidharmakośa (a major work of Buddhist Abhidharma). Based on this, it differs from the meaning of the Vibhasha. Treatise: All bardos possess the five roots (pañcendriya, the five sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body). Explaining the completeness of the roots. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Depending on the realm they are in, the bardo possesses all kinds of roots.' Although it is said that the bardo is like the shape of the already-born state, the initial vipāka (the result of karma) is the most supreme and subtle, and because of seeking existence (seeking rebirth), there is none that does not possess roots. Treatise: 'Against' refers to no obstruction, until insects are produced. Explaining no obstruction. That which cannot be obstructed by vajra (diamond) and others is called apratihata (unobstructed). Treatise: 'Should go to that place,' until it is determined not to go to other places. Explaining that it is determined. Therefore, the Vibhasha says: 'Those who use analogies say that the bardo can be transformed.' The Dharma masters say that the bardo cannot be transformed in terms of realm, destination, or place. Because the karma that experiences the bardo is extremely fierce. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'This realm, destination, and place cannot be transformed.' The meaning is that there is definitely no bardo of the Rūpadhātu (the Form Realm, a heavenly realm in Buddhist cosmology) dying and being born in the Kāmadhātu (the Desire Realm, the lowest realm in Buddhist cosmology, where beings have desires), nor the reverse. This is because it is guided by the karma of having one birth. Treatise: The body of the bardo in the Desire Realm, up to the name Gandharva (a type of celestial being, who feeds on fragrance). Explaining what is eaten. Treatise: Among the realms of characters, until it is simple, so there is no fault.
。釋略頞聲 正理論云。諸字界中義非一故。此頞縛界雖正目行。而於其中亦有食義。以食香故名健達縛。而音短者。如設建途及羯建途略故無過。有說中有藉香持身以尋香行名健達縛 準此論文。頞縛是字界。健達是字緣。言健達頞縛是長聲。言健達縛是短聲。長短雖別此翻為尋香。尋香是行義。然于其中亦有食義。言尋香者以食香故。即案縛界有二義故。雖因行義亦因食義。字界中略去頞聲亦無有失。短聲呼故。如設健途．及羯建途。設建．羯建皆是字緣。途是字界。字界應有兩字。短聲呼故略去一字但言途也。
論。諸少福者至好香為食。述食不同。
論。如是中有至應立死有。明住時也 婆沙七十云。如是中有住經少時必往結生速求生故。尊者設摩達多說曰。中有極多住經七七日。四十九日定結生故。尊者世友作如是說。中有極多住經七日。彼身羸劣不久住故。問若七日內生緣和合彼可結生。若爾所時生緣未合彼豈斷壞。答彼不斷壞。謂彼中有。乃至生緣未和合位。數死數生無斷壞故。大德說曰。此無定限。謂彼生緣速和合者。此中有身即少時住。若彼生緣多時未合。此中有身即多時住。乃至緣合方得結生。故中有身住無定限 正理論云。一切中有唯除中般自余中有。無不至生有而命終者 此論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 釋略頞聲（略去的頞聲）。《正理論》說：『諸字界中，義非一故。』這個頞縛界（Adhvā，道路）雖然主要指行，但在其中也有食的含義。因為食用香氣，所以叫做健達縛（Gandharva，尋香）。而音短的原因，就像設建途（Sakratu）和羯建途（Kakratu）一樣，省略了所以沒有過失。有人說中有（Antarābhava，中陰身）憑藉香氣維持身體，通過尋找香氣而行動，所以叫做健達縛。 根據這篇論文，頞縛是字界，健達是字緣。說健達頞縛是長聲，說健達縛是短聲。長短雖然不同，都翻譯為尋香。尋香是行的含義。然而在其中也有食的含義。說尋香是因為食用香氣。即頞縛界有二義，所以既有行的含義，也有食的含義。字界中省略頞聲也沒有損失，因為是短聲呼喚。就像設建途和羯建途。設建、羯建都是字緣，途是字界。字界應該有兩個字，因為是短聲呼喚，所以省略一個字，只說途。
論：『諸少福者，至好香為食。』（福報少的人，以美好的香氣為食物。）描述了食物的不同。
論：『如是中有，至應立死有。』（像這樣的中有，應該建立死有。）說明了停留的時間。《婆沙論》第七十卷說：『像這樣的中有，停留很短的時間，必定前往結生，迅速尋求出生。』尊者設摩達多（Śramaṇa Datta）說：『中有最多停留七個七日，四十九日必定結生。』尊者世友（Vasubandhu）這樣說：『中有最多停留七日，因為他們的身體虛弱，不能長久停留。』問：如果在七日內，出生的因緣聚合，他們可以結生。如果這樣，在那個時候出生的因緣沒有聚合，他們難道會斷滅嗎？答：他們不會斷滅。所謂的中有，乃至出生的因緣沒有聚合的時候，多次死亡多次出生，沒有斷滅的緣故。大德說：『這沒有一定的期限。』所謂的出生的因緣迅速聚合的，這個中有身就停留很短的時間。如果出生的因緣很長時間沒有聚合，這個中有身就停留很長的時間，乃至因緣聚合才能結生。所以中有身停留沒有一定的期限。《正理論》說：『一切中有，除了中般（Madhyaparinirvāyin，中般涅槃）之外，其餘的中有，沒有不到生有（Upapadyabhava，生有）而死亡的。』這篇論述
【English Translation】 English version: 釋略頞聲 (Shi Lue Ad Sheng) (Omitted 'Ad' sound). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Among all the sound elements, the meaning is not singular.' Although this Adhvā-dhātu (Adhvā, path) primarily refers to 'going', it also contains the meaning of 'eating'. Because they eat fragrance, they are called Gandharvas (Gandharva, scent-seekers). The reason for the short sound is like Sakratu and Kakratu, there is no fault in omitting it. Some say that the Antarābhava (Antarābhava, intermediate existence) sustains itself with fragrance and moves by seeking fragrance, hence the name Gandharva. According to this treatise, Adhvā is the sound element, and Gandha is the sound condition. Saying Gandharva-adhvā is a long sound, and saying Gandharva is a short sound. Although the length differs, both are translated as 'scent-seeking'. 'Scent-seeking' is the meaning of 'going'. However, it also contains the meaning of 'eating'. Saying 'scent-seeking' is because they eat fragrance. That is, the Adhvā-dhātu has two meanings, so it has both the meaning of 'going' and the meaning of 'eating'. There is no loss in omitting the 'Ad' sound in the sound element, because it is a short sound. Like Sakratu and Kakratu. Sakratu and Kakratu are both sound conditions, and 'tu' is the sound element. The sound element should have two sounds, but because it is a short sound, one sound is omitted, and only 'tu' is said.
The treatise says: 'Those with little merit take fine fragrance as food.' This describes the difference in food.
The treatise says: 'Such an intermediate existence should establish the existence of death.' This explains the duration of stay. The 70th fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Such an intermediate existence stays for a short time and will surely go to rebirth, quickly seeking birth.' The Venerable Śramaṇa Datta said: 'The intermediate existence stays for a maximum of seven times seven days, and will definitely be reborn in forty-nine days.' The Venerable Vasubandhu said: 'The intermediate existence stays for a maximum of seven days, because their bodies are weak and cannot stay for long.' Question: If the conditions for birth come together within seven days, they can be reborn. If so, if the conditions for birth have not come together at that time, will they be annihilated? Answer: They will not be annihilated. The so-called intermediate existence, until the conditions for birth have not come together, dies and is born many times, and is not annihilated. The Great Virtue said: 'There is no fixed limit to this.' If the conditions for birth come together quickly, this intermediate existence body will stay for a short time. If the conditions for birth do not come together for a long time, this intermediate existence body will stay for a long time, until the conditions come together and they can be reborn. Therefore, there is no fixed limit to the stay of the intermediate existence body. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'All intermediate existences, except for the Madhyaparinirvāyin (Madhyaparinirvāyin, one who attains Nirvana in the intermediate state), do not die without reaching the Upapadyabhava (Upapadyabhava, existence of rebirth).' This treatise
．正理與大德同。
論。設有肉聚至漸待此時。此與大德意同。未遇生緣在中有住。今詳此釋。中．生同業。亦不多時。必遇生緣。不可在中有過百年等。
論。為說從何方頓來至此。問也。
論。雖無經論至受細蟲身。第一釋也。
論。或多有情至此亦應然。第二釋也。
論。故世尊言至不可思議。引教證也。
論。尊者世友至速往結生。述異說也。
論。其有生緣至余處余類。明有定者必令合也。其不定者寄余類生。此是滿果相別。引同前也。
論。有說轉受至后四同類。述異說也。
論。豈不中有至轉受相似。論主破也。
論。如是中有至謂愛或恚。明倒心也 正理論云。由是因緣。男．女生已。于母．于父如次偏孕。
論。彼由起此至名已結生。明結生時。如文可了。
論。若男處胎至或作不男。此明住處及面四方。
論。於此義中至憎羯吒私。明成根也 羯吒私者。此名貪愛。亦名血鑊。
論。有餘師言至無相違失。第二師釋。與前引經亦不相違。
論。如是且說至處有凈穢。此明濕．化二生。亦由貪愛而受生也。
論。豈于地獄亦生愛染。問也。
論。由心倒故至馳往赴彼。答也。論有兩釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 正理與大德的觀點相同。
論：假設有肉塊逐漸形成，等待時機。這與大德（Mahādeva）的觀點相同。如果沒有遇到出生的因緣，就在中有（antarābhava，中陰身）中停留。現在詳細解釋這個觀點：中有和出生是同一種業力所致。也不會停留太久，必定會遇到出生的因緣。不可能在中陰身中停留超過一百年等等。
論：爲了說明是從哪個方向突然來到這裡。這是提問。
論：即使沒有經典論述，也會轉生為細小的蟲身。這是第一種解釋。
論：或者很多有情眾生也是這樣。這是第二種解釋。
論：所以世尊說，這是不可思議的。這是引用佛經來證明。
論：尊者世友（Vasumitra）說，要快速地去結生。這是敘述不同的說法。
論：那些有出生因緣的，必定會使其在其他地方的其他種類中結合。說明有定數的，必定會使其結合。那些沒有定數的，就寄託在其他種類中出生。這是圓滿果報的差別。與前面引用的觀點相同。
論：有人說，轉變接受后，后四個（蘊）與前四個同類。這是敘述不同的說法。
論：難道不是中有（antarābhava，中陰身）轉變接受后相似嗎？這是論主的駁斥。
論：像這樣，中有（antarābhava，中陰身）是因為愛或嗔而產生的。說明顛倒的心。正理論說：由於這個因緣，男人和女人出生后，對母親和父親依次產生偏愛。
論：他由於生起這個，才名為已經結生。說明結生的時候，如文字所說的那樣可以明白。
論：如果男人處在胎中，或者會變成不男。這裡說明了住處和麵向四個方向。
論：在這個意義中，憎恨羯吒私（Karkasha）。說明成就根。羯吒私（Karkasha）的意思是貪愛，也叫血鑊。
論：有其他老師說，沒有相違背的過失。這是第二位老師的解釋。與前面引用的佛經也不相違背。
論：像這樣，暫且說處在有清凈和污穢的地方。這裡說明了濕生和化生，也是由於貪愛而受生的。
論：難道在地獄也會產生愛染嗎？這是提問。
論：由於心顛倒的緣故，奔跑著去那裡。這是回答。論中有兩種解釋。
【English Translation】 English version The principle is the same as that of the Great Worthy (Mahādeva).
Treatise: Suppose a mass of flesh gradually forms, waiting for the right time. This is the same as the view of the Great Worthy (Mahādeva). If it does not encounter the conditions for birth, it dwells in the intermediate state (antarābhava, the intermediate being). Now, let's explain this in detail: the intermediate state and birth are caused by the same karma. It will not stay for too long; it will definitely encounter the conditions for birth. It is impossible to stay in the intermediate state for more than a hundred years, etc.
Treatise: To explain from which direction it suddenly comes here. This is a question.
Treatise: Even without scriptural discussions, it will be reborn as a tiny worm. This is the first explanation.
Treatise: Or many sentient beings are like this as well. This is the second explanation.
Treatise: Therefore, the World Honored One said that this is inconceivable. This is quoting the Buddha's teachings to prove it.
Treatise: Venerable Vasumitra said to quickly go to rebirth. This is narrating a different view.
Treatise: Those who have the conditions for birth will definitely cause them to combine in other places and other species. It explains that those with a fixed destiny will definitely be combined. Those without a fixed destiny will be entrusted to be born in other species. This is the difference in the complete fruition. It is the same as the previously quoted view.
Treatise: Some say that after the transformation and acceptance, the latter four (skandhas) are of the same kind as the former four. This is narrating a different view.
Treatise: Isn't it similar after the intermediate state (antarābhava, the intermediate being) transforms and accepts? This is the treatise master's refutation.
Treatise: Like this, the intermediate state (antarābhava, the intermediate being) is produced because of love or hatred. It explains the inverted mind. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Due to this cause, after men and women are born, they develop partiality towards their mothers and fathers in sequence.
Treatise: He gives rise to this, and is named as already reborn. It explains that at the time of rebirth, it can be understood as the text says.
Treatise: If a man is in the womb, or may become a eunuch. This explains the dwelling place and facing the four directions.
Treatise: In this meaning, hating Karkasha (羯吒私). It explains the accomplishment of the root. Karkasha (羯吒私) means greed and love, and is also called the blood cauldron.
Treatise: Other teachers say that there is no fault of contradiction. This is the explanation of the second teacher. It does not contradict the previously quoted Buddhist scriptures either.
Treatise: Like this, let's temporarily say that it is in a place with purity and impurity. This explains that the moisture-born and transformation-born are also born due to greed and love.
Treatise: Could there also be love and attachment in hell? This is a question.
Treatise: Due to the inverted mind, they run to that place. This is the answer. There are two explanations in the treatise.
如文可解。
論。又天中有至樂寂修苦行。此明生趣中有行相。婆沙七十云。且依人中命終者說。若地獄死還生地獄。不必頭下足上而行。若天中死生於人中。應頭歸下。鬼．及傍生二趣中有。隨所往處如應當知。此是正義。
論。前說倒心至其四者何。已下兩頌。第三明入胎也。
論曰至后必帶前。此明多集福業勤修念．慧者入胎也 正知入胎謂轉輪王 知住兼入。謂獨勝覺 知出兼住．入。謂無上覺也。
論。有諸有情至皆恒無知。此明福．慧俱少入胎。三位皆不知也 入不正知住．出必爾。應先說不知 順結頌法故逆說四。言入．住．出位不知前必兼后。若知后必兼前者。正理論云。謂將入位。支體諸根具足無損。強勝明利。尚不正知。況住．出時支根損缺羸劣闇昧。而能正知理無容故。
論。如何卵生至言入胎藏。問也。
論。以卵生者至入胎無失。答也。此有二意。一以先必入胎故說入胎。二以當卵生故名卵生。實是煮米磨麥。而言飯麨者從當立名。造作有為亦取果名。
論。云何三位正不正知。此明四入胎異。
論。且諸有情至從此處出答。薄福倒想也。
論。若福增者至不正知者。明福倒想。先起愛後起此倒。
論。若於三位至自知住
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如經文所說可以理解。
論：又有天中有至樂寂靜的修行和苦行。這說明眾生在中有階段的行相。《婆沙論》第七十卷說：『暫且依據人道中命終的情況來說，如果地獄眾生死後還生於地獄，不一定頭下腳上地行走。如果天道眾生死於人道，應該是頭朝下。』鬼道和傍生道這兩種趣向的中有身，應該根據所往之處的情況來理解。這是正確的解釋。
論：前面說的『倒心』直到『其四者何』是什麼意思？以下兩頌，第三頌說明入胎的情況。
論曰：直到『后必帶前』。這說明多積福業、勤修念和慧的人入胎的情況。『正知入胎』是指轉輪王（擁有統治世界的輪寶的國王）。『知住兼入』是指獨覺（獨自覺悟的人）。『知出兼住、入』是指無上覺（佛陀）。
論：有諸有情直到『皆恒無知』。這說明福德和智慧都很少的人入胎的情況，在入胎、住胎、出胎這三個階段都不知道。入胎時不正知，住胎和出胎時必定也是如此，應該先說不知道。這是爲了順應總結頌文的規律，所以倒過來說四種情況。說入胎、住胎、出胎時不知道，前面必定包含後面。如果說知道後面必定包含前面，正如《正理論》所說：『將要入胎時，支體和諸根都具足沒有損傷，強壯、殊勝、明利，尚且不能正知，更何況住胎和出胎時支體和諸根損傷、殘缺、羸弱、闇昧，而能夠正知呢？』這在道理上是不允許的。
論：如何卵生直到『言入胎藏』？這是提問。
論：以卵生者直到『入胎無失』。這是回答。這裡有兩種意思：一是認為先必定入胎，所以說入胎；二是認為將要卵生，所以稱為卵生。實際上就像煮米磨麥，卻說成是飯和炒麵一樣，這是從將來的結果來立名。造作有為法也是取果的名字。
論：云何三位正不正知？這說明四種入胎情況的差異。
論：且諸有情直到『從此處出』。這是回答薄福之人顛倒的想法。
論：若福增者直到『不正知者』。說明福德增長的人顛倒的想法。先產生愛慾，然後產生這種顛倒。
論：若於三位直到『自知住』。
【English Translation】 English version: As the text can be understood.
Treatise: Furthermore, there are beings in the heavens who experience supreme bliss, solitary meditation, and ascetic practices. This clarifies the characteristics of beings in the intermediate state (antarabhava). The Vibhasa-sastra (婆沙論) volume 70 states: 'Let us, for the moment, speak based on those who die in the human realm. If beings in hell die and are reborn in hell, they do not necessarily travel head downwards and feet upwards. If beings in the heavens die and are reborn in the human realm, they should be head downwards.' The intermediate state of beings in the realms of ghosts and animals should be understood according to where they are going. This is the correct explanation.
Treatise: What is meant by the 'inverted mind' mentioned earlier, up to 'what are the four'? The following two verses, the third verse explains the situation of entering the womb.
Treatise says: Up to 'the latter necessarily includes the former.' This explains the situation of those who accumulate much merit and diligently cultivate mindfulness (念, nian) and wisdom (慧, hui) when entering the womb. 'Knowing entry into the womb' refers to a Chakravartin (轉輪王, zhuanlun wang, a king who possesses the wheel of power to rule the world). 'Knowing abiding and entry' refers to a Pratyekabuddha (獨覺, dujue, a solitary enlightened one). 'Knowing emergence, abiding, and entry' refers to an unsurpassed Buddha (無上覺, wushang jue, the supreme enlightened one).
Treatise: There are beings up to 'all are constantly without knowledge.' This explains the situation of those with little merit and wisdom when entering the womb, being unaware in all three stages of entering, abiding, and emerging from the womb. If one is not aware when entering the womb, it is certain that one will not be aware when abiding and emerging. It should have been said that one is unaware first. This is to follow the pattern of the concluding verse, so the four situations are stated in reverse order. Saying that one is unaware when entering, abiding, and emerging from the womb, the former necessarily includes the latter. If knowing the latter necessarily includes the former, as the Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra (正理論) states: 'When about to enter the womb, even with limbs and faculties complete, undamaged, strong, superior, clear, one is still not aware. How much more so when abiding and emerging from the womb, with limbs and faculties damaged, deficient, weak, and obscure, could one be aware?' This is logically impossible.
Treatise: How do egg-born beings up to 'said to enter the womb'? This is a question.
Treatise: Those born from eggs up to 'entering the womb is not a mistake.' This is the answer. There are two meanings here: first, it is thought that one must enter the womb first, so it is said to enter the womb; second, it is thought that one will be born from an egg, so it is called egg-born. In reality, it is like cooking rice and grinding wheat, but calling it cooked rice and roasted flour, naming it from the future result. The creation of conditioned phenomena also takes the name of the result.
Treatise: How are the three stages known or not known? This explains the differences in the four ways of entering the womb.
Treatise: Furthermore, all beings up to 'emerge from this place.' This is the answer to the inverted thoughts of those with little merit.
Treatise: If merit increases up to 'not knowing.' This explains the inverted thoughts of those whose merit increases. First, desire arises, then this inversion arises.
Treatise: If in the three stages up to 'knows oneself abiding.'
出。重述前三無倒想也。
論。又別顯示至以當名顯。此指名屬當也。此言輪王．獨覺．大覺入胎者取當名。入胎之時非輪王．獨覺．大覺等故。
論。何緣如是至合成第四。明入胎知不知不同所以。皆由業．福．慧有無不同故。此中言正知者。但無倒想名為正知。非是定起善心正知正念。婆沙七十云。諸有情類多起如是顛倒想已入于母胎。唯除菩薩將入胎時于父父想。于母母想。雖能正知而於其母起親附愛。乘斯愛力便入母胎。又一百七十二明菩薩正知中雲。便於父母等生親愛由此結生 前文即言于母起親附愛者。有人。云從強多分說者。此不應理。後文言等即不合言從強。一切皆同即不合言多分 今詳。不同意者。如諸異生入胎之時倒有兩位。前位若是女人。于父起愛于母起恚。若是男子。于父起恚于母起愛。后位復謂自身入妙園林密草葉窟。菩薩入胎亦有兩位。前位既無染心於父于母等生親愛。后位既知正入母腹。故唯于母起親附愛不于父也。由斯後文無其附字。婆沙一百七十二說四種入胎。多說不同。廣如彼釋恐煩不錄。
論。此中外道至今為遮彼。已下大文第七將明緣起遮外執我。
論曰至我為何相。問也。
論。能捨此蘊至內用士夫。答也。
論。此定非有至不可
【現代漢語翻譯】 出。重述前三無倒想也。
論。又別顯示至以當名顯。此指名屬當也。此言輪王（Chakravartin，轉輪聖王）．獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，辟支佛）．大覺（Buddha，佛陀）入胎者取當名。入胎之時非輪王．獨覺．大覺等故。
論。何緣如是至合成第四。明入胎知不知不同所以。皆由業．福．慧有無不同故。此中言正知者。但無倒想名為正知。非是定起善心正知正念。婆沙七十云。諸有情類多起如是顛倒想已入于母胎。唯除菩薩將入胎時于父父想。于母母想。雖能正知而於其母起親附愛。乘斯愛力便入母胎。又一百七十二明菩薩正知中雲。便於父母等生親愛由此結生 前文即言于母起親附愛者。有人。云從強多分說者。此不應理。後文言等即不合言從強。一切皆同即不合言多分 今詳。不同意者。如諸異生入胎之時倒有兩位。前位若是女人。于父起愛于母起恚。若是男子。于父起恚于母起愛。后位復謂自身入妙園林密草葉窟。菩薩入胎亦有兩位。前位既無染心於父于母等生親愛。后位既知正入母腹。故唯于母起親附愛不于父也。由斯後文無其附字。婆沙一百七十二說四種入胎。多說不同。廣如彼釋恐煩不錄。
論。此中外道至今為遮彼。已下大文第七將明緣起遮外執我。
論曰至我為何相。問也。
論。能捨此蘊至內用士夫。答也。
論。此定非有至不可
【English Translation】 Appears. Restating the aforementioned three non-inverted perceptions.
Treatise: Furthermore, it separately reveals that 'to be named' signifies manifestation. This indicates that the name belongs to what is to be. This refers to those who enter the womb as Chakravartins (wheel-turning kings), Pratyekabuddhas (solitary Buddhas), and Buddhas (enlightened ones) taking on the name that is to be. Because at the time of entering the womb, they are not yet Chakravartins, Pratyekabuddhas, or Buddhas, etc.
Treatise: What is the reason that it is like this until the fourth is formed? It clarifies that the knowledge or lack thereof during conception differs. This is all due to the presence or absence of karma, merit, and wisdom. Here, 'correct knowledge' means that having no inverted perceptions is called correct knowledge. It is not necessarily the arising of virtuous thoughts, correct knowledge, and mindfulness. Vibhasha 70 says: 'Most sentient beings enter the mother's womb with such inverted perceptions. Only Bodhisattvas, when about to enter the womb, think of the father as the father and the mother as the mother. Although they can have correct knowledge, they develop attachment and love towards their mother. Relying on the power of this love, they enter the mother's womb.' Furthermore, one hundred and seventy-two clarifies the Bodhisattva's correct knowledge, saying: 'They develop affection and love towards their parents, and thus conception occurs.' The previous text stated that they develop attachment and love towards the mother. Some say that it is spoken from the perspective of the stronger aspect. This is unreasonable. The subsequent text says 'etc.,' which does not align with saying 'from the stronger.' If everything is the same, it does not align with saying 'mostly.' Now, in detail, those with different intentions, such as ordinary beings, have two inverted perceptions when entering the womb. In the first stage, if it is a woman, she feels love for the father and hatred for the mother. If it is a man, he feels hatred for the father and love for the mother. In the later stage, they imagine themselves entering a wonderful garden, a dense grassy cave. Bodhisattvas also have two stages when entering the womb. In the first stage, they have no defiled mind and feel equal affection and love for both father and mother. In the later stage, they know they are correctly entering the mother's womb. Therefore, they only develop attachment and love towards the mother and not the father. Because of this, the subsequent text does not have the word 'attachment.' Vibhasha one hundred and seventy-two speaks of four types of entering the womb. There are many different accounts. The extensive explanation is as it is in that text, fearing it would be cumbersome to record here.
Treatise: Here, the non-Buddhists up to now have been refuting this. The seventh major section below will clarify dependent origination to refute the non-Buddhist clinging to a self.
Treatise says to 'What is the appearance of self?' This is a question.
Treatise: 'Able to abandon these aggregates' to 'inner use of a person.' This is the answer.
Treatise: 'This is definitely not' to 'impossible.'
得故。破外道執也。汝說我者。非如色等現量可知。非如眼等有用比量可知。故定非有。
論。世尊亦言至唯除法假。引聖言量釋。舍此蘊能相續余蘊破也。
論。法假謂何。問也。
論。依此有至廣說緣起。答也。
論。若爾何等我非所遮。問也。若法假內此有故彼有。此生故彼生。無有實我能為作者。我有二說。一實。二假。於二我中何非所遮。
論。唯有諸蘊至非所遮遣。答也。謂不遮遣色等諸蘊假立我名。
論。若爾應許至轉至余世。難也。若無實我即是諸蘊自能從此世間轉至余世。
論。蘊剎那滅至入胎義成。答也。譬如燈焰雖剎那滅。就相續相似說轉至余方。諸蘊亦然。由煩惱業力轉入胎等義得成立亦無有失。
論。如業所引至轉趣余世。此明三世流轉由煩惱．業力也。
論。謂非一切至次第增長。明命短長。由能引業力增微也。
論。云何次第。問也。
論。如聖說言至漸次而轉增。引教證也。
論。謂母胎中至形相滿位。此明胎中位漸增也 羯剌藍者。此雲和合。或云雜染。或云凝滑 頞部曇者。此云皰。如皰起故 閉尸。此云軟肉 鍵南。此云堅肉。缽羅奢佉。此云支節。后發．毛．爪等。乃至色根形相滿位。總是第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 得故：因為獲得（智慧）。這是爲了破除外道的執著。你們說『我』，不像顏色等可以通過現量（直接感知）得知，也不像眼睛等可以通過有用的比量（推理）得知，所以必定是不存在的。
論：世尊也說過『唯除法假』。這是引用聖言量（佛陀的教誨）來解釋。捨棄此蘊（五蘊：色、受、想、行、識）能相續，是爲了破除其餘蘊的觀點。
論：法假謂何？這是提問。
論：依此有至廣說緣起。這是回答。意思是：依靠這個（條件）而有，從而廣泛地闡述緣起（事物相互依存的法則）。
論：若爾何等我非所遮？這是提問。如果法假（假我）之內，因為這個有，所以那個有；因為這個生，所以那個生。沒有真實的我能夠作為作者（創造者）。關於『我』有兩種說法：一是真實的，二是虛假的。在這兩種『我』中，哪一種是不被遮破的？
論：唯有諸蘊至非所遮遣。這是回答。意思是：不遮破色等諸蘊假立的『我』名。
論：若爾應許至轉至余世。這是責難。如果不存在真實的我，那就是諸蘊自身能夠從此世間轉移到其他世間。
論：蘊剎那滅至入胎義成。這是回答。譬如燈焰雖然剎那間熄滅，但就相續相似而言，可以說轉移到其他地方。諸蘊也是如此。由於煩惱和業力的作用，轉移入胎等意義得以成立，也沒有什麼過失。
論：如業所引至轉趣余世。這說明三世的流轉是由煩惱和業力造成的。
論：謂非一切至次第增長。說明壽命的長短，是由能引業力的增強或減弱決定的。
論：云何次第？這是提問。什麼是次第（順序）？
論：如聖說言至漸次而轉增。這是引用教證（佛經的證據）。
論：謂母胎中至形相滿位。這說明胎兒在母胎中的位置逐漸增長。羯剌藍（Kalala）者：這裡的意思是和合，或者說是雜染，或者說是凝滑。頞部曇（Arbuda）者：這裡的意思是皰，就像水泡一樣。閉尸（Pesi）：這裡的意思是軟肉。鍵南（Ghana）：這裡的意思是堅肉。缽羅奢佉（Prasakha）：這裡的意思是支節。之後是頭髮、毛髮、指甲等，直到色根（感覺器官）的形狀完全形成。這些都是第一階段。
【English Translation】 English version: 得故 (Hetu): Because of attainment (of wisdom). This is to refute the attachments of external paths (non-Buddhist schools). You say 'I' (Atman), it is not knowable through direct perception (Pratyaksha) like colors, nor is it knowable through useful inference (Anumana) like the eyes. Therefore, it is definitely non-existent.
論 (Commentary): The World Honored One also said 'Except for the provisional designation of Dharma'. This is explained by quoting the words of the Buddha (Agama). Abandoning this aggregate (Skandha) that can continue, is to refute the view of the remaining aggregates.
論 (Commentary): What is the provisional designation of Dharma? This is a question.
論 (Commentary): Depending on this, up to the extensive explanation of dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda). This is the answer. It means: depending on this (condition) there is that, thereby extensively explaining dependent origination (the law of interdependence of things).
論 (Commentary): If so, what 'I' is not negated? This is a question. If within the provisional designation of Dharma (the false self), because this exists, therefore that exists; because this arises, therefore that arises. There is no real 'I' that can be the agent (creator). Regarding 'I', there are two views: one is real, and the other is false. Among these two 'I's, which one is not negated?
論 (Commentary): Only the aggregates up to not being negated. This is the answer. It means: not negating the name 'I' provisionally established on the aggregates such as form (Rupa).
論 (Commentary): If so, it should be admitted up to transferring to another life. This is a challenge. If there is no real 'I', then it is the aggregates themselves that can transfer from this world to another world.
論 (Commentary): The aggregates perish in an instant up to the meaning of entering the womb is established. This is the answer. For example, although the flame of a lamp perishes in an instant, in terms of continuous similarity, it can be said to transfer to another place. The aggregates are also like this. Due to the power of afflictions (Kleshas) and karma (Karma), the meaning of transferring into the womb and so on is established, and there is no fault.
論 (Commentary): As led by karma up to transferring to another life. This explains that the cycle of the three times (past, present, future) is caused by afflictions and karma.
論 (Commentary): Meaning not all up to gradual increase. Explains that the length of life is determined by the increase or decrease of the power of the karma that leads to it.
論 (Commentary): What is the order? This is a question. What is the order (sequence)?
論 (Commentary): As the Sage said up to gradually increasing. This is quoting scriptural evidence (Agama).
論 (Commentary): Meaning in the mother's womb up to the complete formation of the form. This explains that the position of the fetus in the mother's womb gradually increases. 羯剌藍 (Kalala): Here it means combination, or defilement, or congealed and slippery. 頞部曇 (Arbuda): Here it means blister, like a blister arising. 閉尸 (Pesi): Here it means soft flesh. 鍵南 (Ghana): Here it means hard flesh. 缽羅奢佉 (Prasakha): Here it means limbs. After that are hair, nails, etc., until the shape of the sense organs is completely formed. These are all the first stage.
五位也 若依正量部說。發等已去名第六位。
論。由業所起至次第轉增。說生苦也。
睒末梨。是草名其汁滑也。如是輪主令生厭故說種種過。如文可解。
論。至根熟位至旋環無始。此明相續流轉無初際也。
論。若執有始至決定無初。此破彌沙塞部眾生有始。及破無因外道。常因外道。如前已遣。
論。然有後邊至芽必不生。明無始有終也。
論。如是蘊相續說三生為位。此下。第八明緣起也 就中有七。一明十二支位。二明體性。三明說意。四明說有情意。五束為三二。六明惑等相稱。七正釋經意。此一頌第一明十二支位。
論曰至十二老死。列支名也。
論。言三際者至及現三生。列三際名。
論。云何十二支於三際建立。問建立也。
論。謂前後際至在中際。答建立也。
論。此中際八至皆具有不。此問中際一切有情皆有八不所以。不問前後二際唯問中者。以前後各二決定有故。中際八支不定有故。
論。非皆具有。答也。或有從識至名色支。或至六處等支即命終故。或有起愛未至取位即命終故。無有至識不至名色。
論。若爾何故說有八支。徴也。
論。據圓滿者至補特伽羅。答也 就中有二。一即略答。二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 五位也：如果按照正量部（Puggalavada）的說法，頭髮等已經算是第六位了。
論：由業力所生，到次第增長，這是在說生之苦。
睒末梨（Śalmali）：是一種草的名字，它的汁液很滑。像這樣，轉輪聖王（cakravartin）使人產生厭惡，所以說了種種過失，就像經文所解釋的那樣。
論：到根成熟的位置，到旋環無始。這說明相續流轉沒有初始的邊際。
論：如果執著于有開始，到決定沒有初始。這是爲了破斥彌沙塞部（Mahisasaka）認為眾生有開始的觀點，以及破斥無因外道和常因外道。這些在前面已經駁斥過了。
論：然而有後來的邊際，到芽一定不生。說明沒有開始但有終結。
論：像這樣，蘊的相續，說三生作為位。下面，第八部分說明緣起。其中有七個方面：一是說明十二支的位置，二是說明體性，三是說明說的意圖，四是說明說有情的意圖，五是總結為三二，六是說明迷惑等相互稱合，七是正式解釋經文的意義。這一頌是第一部分，說明十二支的位置。
論曰：到十二老死。這是列出各個支的名字。
論：說三際，到以及現在三生。這是列出三際的名字。
論：怎麼樣十二支在三際中建立？這是在問建立。
論：所謂前後際，到在中際。這是回答建立。
論：這中際八支，到都具有不？這是在問中際的一切有情是否都具有八支的原因。不問前後二際，只問中際，是因為前後二際各有二支是決定有的，而中際的八支是不定有的。
論：並非都具有。這是回答。或者有從識支到名色支，或者到六入支等支就命終了。或者有生起愛支但沒有到取支就命終了。沒有到識支而不經過名色支的情況。
論：如果這樣，為什麼說有八支呢？這是提問。
論：根據圓滿的人，到補特伽羅（pudgala）。這是回答。其中有兩點：一是簡略地回答，二是……
【English Translation】 English version Five positions also: If according to the Puggalavada (personalist school), hair and so on are already considered the sixth position.
Treatise: From what is caused by karma, to gradual increase, this is speaking of the suffering of birth.
Śalmali: It is the name of a grass, its juice is slippery. Like this, the Cakravartin (wheel-turning monarch) causes aversion, so various faults are spoken of, as the text explains.
Treatise: To the position of root maturity, to the beginningless cycle. This explains that the continuous flow has no initial boundary.
Treatise: If one clings to having a beginning, to definitely having no beginning. This is to refute the Mahisasaka school's view that sentient beings have a beginning, and to refute the causeless and eternal-cause externalists. These have been refuted before.
Treatise: However, there is a later boundary, to the sprout certainly not arising. It explains that there is no beginning but there is an end.
Treatise: Like this, the continuity of the skandhas (aggregates) speaks of three lives as positions. Below, the eighth section explains dependent origination. Among them, there are seven aspects: first, explaining the positions of the twelve links; second, explaining the nature; third, explaining the intention of speaking; fourth, explaining the intention of speaking of sentient beings; fifth, summarizing into three twos; sixth, explaining that delusion and so on are mutually corresponding; seventh, formally explaining the meaning of the sutra. This verse is the first part, explaining the positions of the twelve links.
Treatise says: To the twelve, old age and death. This is listing the names of each link.
Treatise: Saying the three times, to and including the present three lives. This is listing the names of the three times.
Treatise: How are the twelve links established in the three times? This is asking about the establishment.
Treatise: The so-called past and future times, to in the present time. This is answering about the establishment.
Treatise: Do these eight links in the present time, to all possess not? This is asking the reason why all sentient beings in the present time possess the eight links. Not asking about the past and future two times, only asking about the present time, because the past and future two times each have two links that are definitely present, while the eight links of the present time are not definitely present.
Treatise: Not all possess. This is the answer. Or there are those who, from the link of consciousness to the link of name and form, or to the link of the six sense bases, etc., then die. Or there are those who arise with the link of craving but do not reach the link of grasping and then die. There is no case of reaching the link of consciousness without passing through the link of name and form.
Treatise: If so, why say there are eight links? This is a question.
Treatise: According to the complete person, to the Pudgala (person). This is the answer. Among them, there are two points: first, briefly answering; second, ...
引教證。此是初也。婆沙大意亦同。
論。大緣起經至乃至廣說。引教證也。正理論云。此中意說補特伽羅歷一切位名圓滿者。非諸中夭．及色．無色。羯剌藍等諸位闕故。世尊但約欲界少分補特伽羅說具十二。如大緣起契經中說。佛告阿難。識若不入胎得增廣大不。不也。世尊。乃至廣說。是故若有補特伽羅。于次前生造無明．行。具招現在識等五支。復于現生造愛．取．有。招次後世生等二支。應知此經依彼而說。若依一切補特伽羅立諸有支便成雜亂。謂彼或有現在五支非次前生無明．行果。及次後世生．老死支非現在生愛．取．有果。彼皆非此經意所明。勿見果因相去隔絕便疑因果感赴無能 準此一生唯一愛．取．有也。婆沙二十三云。問此經中說名色緣六處。應不遍說四生有情。謂胎．卵．濕生諸根漸起。可說名色緣六處。化生有情諸根頓起。云何可說名色緣六處。但說識緣生六處。有作是說。此經但說欲界三生。不說上界．化生故無有失。應作是說。此經通說三界．四生。謂化生者初受生時雖具諸根而未猛利。后漸增長方得猛利。未猛利時初剎那頃名識。第二剎那已后名名色支。至猛利位名六處支。是故此經無不遍失 又婆沙二十四云。此十二支幾欲界。幾色界。幾無色界。有作是說欲界具十二支。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 引教證。這是第一個教證。 《婆沙論》的大意也相同。
論。《大緣起經》乃至廣說，這是引用教證。 《正理論》說：『這裡的意思是說補特伽羅（pudgala，意為有情）經歷一切階段都名為圓滿者。不是指那些中夭（指未成年就夭折）、以及色界、無色界的眾生，因為羯剌藍（kalala，意為凝滑，受精卵最初狀態）等階段有所缺失。』 世尊只是針對欲界少部分的補特伽羅宣說了具足十二支。 如《大緣起契經》中所說：『佛告阿難，識若不入胎，能增長廣大嗎？』 『不能，世尊。』乃至廣說。 所以，如果有個補特伽羅，在前一生造作了無明（avidya，意為對事物真相的迷惑）和行（samskara，意為由無明驅動的行為），從而招感了現在的識（vijnana，意為意識）、名色（namarupa，意為精神和物質）、六處（sadayatana，意為六根，即眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）、觸（sparsa，意為根、境、識的和合）和受（vedana，意為感受）這五支；又在現生造作了愛（trsna，意為渴愛）、取（upadana，意為執取）和有（bhava，意為存在），從而招感了來世的生（jati，意為出生）和老死（jaramarana，意為衰老和死亡）這兩支，應當知道這部經是依據他們而說的。 如果依據一切補特伽羅來建立諸有支，就會變得雜亂。 因為他們或者有現在的五支不是前一生無明和行的結果，以及來世的生和老死支不是現在生愛、取、有的結果。 他們都不是這部經所要說明的。 不要因為看到果和因相隔絕，就懷疑因果的感應沒有能力。 準此而言，一生只有一個愛、取、有。《婆沙論》第二十三卷說：『問：這部經中說名色緣六處，應不應該普遍地適用於四生（samsara，意為四種出生方式，即胎生、卵生、濕生、化生）的有情？ 胎生、卵生、濕生的有情諸根是逐漸產生的，可以說名色緣六處。 化生的有情諸根是頓然產生的，怎麼能說名色緣六處？ 只能說識緣生六處。』 有人這樣說：『這部經只是說了欲界的三生，沒有說上界和化生，所以沒有過失。』 應該這樣說：『這部經是通說三界（triloka，意為欲界、色界、無色界）、四生。 所謂化生者，最初受生時雖然具足諸根，但還不猛利。 後來逐漸增長才變得猛利。 未猛利時，最初剎那頃名為識。 第二剎那以後名為名色支。 到猛利位名為六處支。』 所以這部經沒有不普遍適用的過失。 又《婆沙論》第二十四卷說：『這十二支，有多少是欲界的？有多少是色界的？有多少是無色界的？』 有人這樣說：『欲界具足十二支。
【English Translation】 English version: Quoting scriptural evidence. This is the first piece of evidence. The general meaning of the Vibhasa is also the same.
Treatise: The Great Dependent Origination Sutra, up to the extensive explanation, is quoting scriptural evidence. The Nyayanusara says: 'Here, the intention is to say that a pudgala (being) who experiences all stages is called complete. This does not refer to those who die prematurely, or those in the Form Realm or Formless Realm, because stages like kalala (the initial embryonic stage) are missing.' The World-Honored One only spoke about the twelve links in relation to a small portion of pudgalas in the Desire Realm. As it says in the Great Dependent Origination Sutra: 'The Buddha told Ananda, 'If consciousness does not enter the womb, can it increase and become vast?' 'No, World-Honored One,' and so on, extensively explained. Therefore, if there is a pudgala who, in their previous life, created avidya (ignorance) and samskara (volitional formations), thereby inviting the five branches of the present life—vijnana (consciousness), namarupa (name and form), sadayatana (six sense bases), sparsa (contact), and vedana (feeling); and in the present life creates trsna (craving), upadana (grasping), and bhava (becoming), thereby inviting the two branches of the next life—jati (birth) and jaramarana (old age and death), it should be known that this sutra is spoken in reliance on them. If one establishes the links of existence based on all pudgalas, it would become chaotic. Because they may have the five branches of the present life that are not the result of avidya and samskara from the previous life, and the branches of birth and old age and death in the next life are not the result of craving, grasping, and becoming in the present life. They are not what this sutra intends to explain. Do not doubt the efficacy of cause and effect just because you see the result and cause are separated by intervals. According to this, there is only one craving, grasping, and becoming in one lifetime. The twenty-third volume of the Vibhasa says: 'Question: In this sutra, it says that name and form are conditioned by the six sense bases. Should it not universally apply to sentient beings of the four births (samsara, i.e., womb-born, egg-born, moisture-born, and transformation-born)? For womb-born, egg-born, and moisture-born beings, the sense organs gradually arise, so it can be said that name and form are conditioned by the six sense bases. For transformation-born beings, the sense organs arise instantaneously, so how can it be said that name and form are conditioned by the six sense bases? It can only be said that consciousness is conditioned by the six sense bases.' Some say: 'This sutra only speaks of the three births in the Desire Realm and does not speak of the higher realms and transformation-born beings, so there is no fault.' It should be said: 'This sutra universally speaks of the three realms (triloka, i.e., Desire Realm, Form Realm, and Formless Realm) and the four births. So-called transformation-born beings, although they possess all the sense organs at the initial moment of birth, they are not yet vigorous. They gradually grow later and become vigorous. When they are not vigorous, the initial moment is called consciousness. After the second moment, it is called the branch of name and form. When they reach the vigorous state, it is called the branch of the six sense bases.' Therefore, this sutra has no fault of not being universally applicable. Furthermore, the twenty-fourth volume of the Vibhasa says: 'Of these twelve links, how many belong to the Desire Realm? How many belong to the Form Realm? How many belong to the Formless Realm?' Some say: 'The Desire Realm possesses all twelve links.'
色界有十一支除名色。無色界有十支除名色．六處。色界應作是說識緣六處。彼無未起四根時故。無色界應言識緣觸。彼無有色．及五根故。評曰應作是說。三界皆具十二有支。問色界生時諸根頓起云何有名色位。無色界生時無色五根。云何有名色六處位。答色界五根雖言頓起。而生未久根未猛利。爾時但是名色支攝。無色界雖無色無五根。而有名．及意根。應作是說。識緣名名緣意處意處緣觸。是故三界皆具十二 準上婆沙兩文。皆與此論．正理相違。今詳。正理．俱舍取婆沙前師義。然與婆沙評家相違。又婆沙云。一生造九地愛．取．有亦與正理相違如何和會。今詳。二論意別義不相違。婆沙據不定業。正理論據定業故不相違。
論。有時但說至二分攝故。此束三世為二分也。據前後因果各相對故。
論。無明等支何法為體。已下四頌第二明支體也。
論曰至總謂王行。此第一無明體也 言。煩惱位者。即取煩惱起時五蘊為體非唯煩惱。故婆沙云。五支心．心所法是染污。余染．不染故 五支者。謂無明．識．愛．取．生支 若據此文云。彼與無明俱時行故。即是總取諸蘊 由無明力彼現行故至總謂王行者。即是偏說染心．心所。此是染心．心所總名無明。自餘二蘊相從為名 正理論云。何故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有十一個環節（除名色（nama-rupa，精神和物質現象）外）。 沒有十個環節（除名色（nama-rupa，精神和物質現象）和六處（ayatana，感覺器官）外）。 應該這樣說：識（vijnana，意識）緣於六處（ayatana，感覺器官）。因為在六處（ayatana，感覺器官）未生起時，沒有最初的四個根（indriya，感官）。 不應該說識（vijnana，意識）緣于觸（sparsha，接觸）。因為沒有色（rupa，物質）和五個根（indriya，感官）。 評曰：應該這樣說，三界（trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）都具備十二有支（dvadasanga-bhavacakra，十二因緣）。 問：出生時諸根（indriya，感官）同時生起，為何有名色（nama-rupa，精神和物質現象）的階段？ 答：出生時沒有色（rupa，物質）和五個根（indriya，感官），為何有名色（nama-rupa，精神和物質現象）和六處（ayatana，感覺器官）的階段？ 答：五根（indriya，感官）雖然說是同時生起，但出生不久，根（indriya，感官）還不猛利，那時只是名色（nama-rupa，精神和物質現象）支所攝。 答：雖然沒有色（rupa，物質）和五個根（indriya，感官），但有名（nama，精神）和意根（manas-indriya，意根）。應該這樣說：識（vijnana，意識）緣于名（nama，精神），名（nama，精神）緣于意處（manayatana，意處），意處（manayatana，意處）緣于觸（sparsha，接觸）。所以三界（trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）都具備十二有支（dvadasanga-bhavacakra，十二因緣）。 準上婆沙（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）兩文，都與此論（俱舍論）、正理（阿毗達磨順正理論）相違。現在詳細分析，正理（Abhidharmasamayapradipika，阿毗達磨順正理論）、俱舍（Abhidharmakosa，阿毗達磨俱舍論）取婆沙（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）前師的意義，然而與婆沙（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）評家相違。又婆沙（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）說，一生造九地愛（trsna，渴愛）、取（upadana，執取）、有（bhava，存在），也與正理（Abhidharmasamayapradipika，阿毗達磨順正理論）相違，如何調和？現在詳細分析，二論（俱舍論和順正理論）意別義不相違。婆沙（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）據不定業，正理論（Abhidharmasamayapradipika，阿毗達磨順正理論）據定業，所以不相違。 論：有時只說到二分所攝，這是把三世（過去、現在、未來）束為二分，根據前後因果各自相對的緣故。 論：無明（avidya，無明）等支（anga，環節）是什麼法為體？以下四頌（偈頌）第二說明支體。 論曰：到總謂王行。這是第一無明（avidya，無明）的體。 言：煩惱位者，即取煩惱（klesha，煩惱）生起時的五蘊（panca-skandha，五蘊）為體，並非唯有煩惱（klesha，煩惱）。所以婆沙（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）說：五支（anga，環節）的心（citta，心）、心所法（caitta-dharma，心所法）是染污的，其餘的染污或不染污。 五支（anga，環節）是指無明（avidya，無明）、識（vijnana，意識）、愛（trsna，渴愛）、取（upadana，執取）、生（jati，生）支（anga，環節）。 如果根據此文說：『它與無明（avidya，無明）同時執行』，就是總取諸蘊（skandha，蘊）。 由無明（avidya，無明）力彼現行故到總謂王行者，就是偏說染心（citta，心）、心所（caitta，心所）。這是染心（citta，心）、心所（caitta，心所）總名無明（avidya，無明），其餘二蘊（skandha，蘊）相從為名。 正理論（Abhidharmasamayapradipika，阿毗達磨順正理論）說：為何……
【English Translation】 English version There are eleven links (excluding nama-rupa (mind and matter)). There are not ten links (excluding nama-rupa (mind and matter) and ayatana (sense bases)). It should be said that consciousness (vijnana) is conditioned by the six sense bases (ayatana). Because when the six sense bases (ayatana) have not arisen, there are no initial four faculties (indriya). It should not be said that consciousness (vijnana) is conditioned by contact (sparsha). Because there is no form (rupa) and five faculties (indriya). Commentary: It should be said that the three realms (trailokya, desire realm, form realm, formless realm) all possess the twelve links of dependent origination (dvadasanga-bhavacakra). Question: When the faculties (indriya) arise simultaneously at birth, how can there be a stage of nama-rupa (mind and matter)? Answer: At birth, there is no form (rupa) and five faculties (indriya), so how can there be a stage of nama-rupa (mind and matter) and six sense bases (ayatana)? Answer: Although the five faculties (indriya) are said to arise simultaneously, they are not yet strong soon after birth. At that time, they are only included in the link of nama-rupa (mind and matter). Answer: Although there is no form (rupa) and five faculties (indriya), there is name (nama) and the mind faculty (manas-indriya). It should be said that consciousness (vijnana) is conditioned by name (nama), name (nama) is conditioned by the mind base (manayatana), and the mind base (manayatana) is conditioned by contact (sparsha). Therefore, the three realms (trailokya, desire realm, form realm, formless realm) all possess the twelve links of dependent origination (dvadasanga-bhavacakra). According to the two texts of the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra), they both contradict this treatise (Abhidharmakosa) and the Nyayanusara (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra). Now, upon detailed analysis, the Nyayanusara (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) and the Abhidharmakosa (Abhidharmakosa) adopt the meaning of the former teachers of the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra), but they contradict the commentators of the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra). Furthermore, the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra) states that in one lifetime, one creates love (trsna), grasping (upadana), and existence (bhava) for the nine planes, which also contradicts the Nyayanusara (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra). How can they be reconciled? Now, upon detailed analysis, the two treatises (Abhidharmakosa and Nyayanusara) have different intentions but do not contradict each other in meaning. The Vibhasa (Abhidharma-maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra) is based on indeterminate karma, while the Nyayanusara (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) is based on determinate karma, so they do not contradict each other. Treatise: Sometimes it is only said to be included in two divisions, which is to bind the three times (past, present, future) into two divisions, based on the fact that the preceding and following causes and effects are relatively related. Treatise: What dharma is the substance of the links (anga) such as ignorance (avidya)? The following four verses explain the substance of the links. Treatise says: To the general term 'kingly conduct'. This is the substance of the first ignorance (avidya). Speaking of 'the position of afflictions', it means taking the five aggregates (panca-skandha) as the substance when afflictions (klesha) arise, not just the afflictions (klesha) alone. Therefore, the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra) says: 'The mind (citta) and mental factors (caitta-dharma) of the five links (anga) are defiled, while the rest are defiled or undefiled.' The five links (anga) refer to the links (anga) of ignorance (avidya), consciousness (vijnana), craving (trsna), grasping (upadana), and birth (jati). If according to this text it says: 'It operates simultaneously with ignorance (avidya)', it means generally taking all the aggregates (skandha). Because of the power of ignorance (avidya), it manifests, hence the general term 'kingly conduct', which specifically refers to defiled mind (citta) and mental factors (caitta). This is the general name for defiled mind (citta) and mental factors (caitta), and the remaining two aggregates (skandha) follow accordingly. The Nyayanusara (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) says: Why...
無明聲總說煩惱。與牽後有行為定因故。業由惑發能牽後有。無惑有業後有無故。非牽後有諸行生時。貪等於中皆有作用。彼行起位定賴無明。故無明聲總說煩惱。若爾何故唯前生惑總謂無明。此生不爾。問也。唯前生惑似無明故。貪等煩惱未得果時。勢用無虧說為明利。若得果已取與用虧不名明利。無明勢力設未虧損亦非明利。彼現行時亦難知故。前生諸惑至於今生已得果故。勢力虧損其相不明。似無明品故唯前世惑可說無明聲。非於行中亦應同此說。假立名想唯于同類故。然經主說。彼與無明俱時行故。由無明力彼現行故。如說王行非無導從。王俱勝故總謂王行(已上俱舍文。已下正理破)未了此中俱時行義。為諸煩惱隨從無明。為說無明隨從煩惱。若取前義理必不然。余惑相應無明劣故。勝隨從劣理必不成。若取后義。應無明體從彼為名。隨從彼故非不隨從此可從此為名。若謂此彼互相隨從無差別故。非決定因而偏立名豈令生喜。又由無明力彼現行故者。為約能轉無明而說。為約隨轉無明而說。如是二途並非應理。無明亦因貪等轉故。與余相應非自在故。非不自在可說力強。但應說無明由貪等力起。于彼相應品貪等力強故。如不可說導從勝王。如何說貪等由無明力起。是故二因皆無證也。準前所說其理為勝。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無明』（avidyā，指對事物真相的迷惑和無知）一詞總括了所有煩惱。因為煩惱是牽引後有（來世）的行為的決定性原因。由煩惱引發的業能牽引後有。如果沒有煩惱，即使有業，也不會有後有。並非所有牽引後有的行為生起時，貪（lobha，指貪慾）等煩惱都在其中起作用。這些行為的生起，一定依賴於無明。所以，『無明』一詞總括了所有煩惱。 如果這樣，為什麼只有前生的迷惑才被總稱為無明，而此生的迷惑不是呢？這是個問題。因為只有前生的迷惑才類似於無明。貪等煩惱在未得果報時，其勢用沒有虧損，可以稱為『明利』。如果已經得到果報，其作用就會虧損，不能稱為『明利』。無明的勢力即使沒有虧損，也不能稱為『明利』，因為它們在現行時也很難被察覺。前生的各種迷惑，到了今生已經得到果報，勢力虧損，其相狀不明顯，類似於無明，所以只有前世的迷惑才能被稱為無明。難道不應該在行為中也這樣說嗎？假立名想只在同類事物中進行。然而，經論的作者說，貪等煩惱與無明同時發生作用，因為貪等煩惱是由無明的力量而現行的。就像說國王出行，並非沒有引導和隨從。因為國王最為尊勝，所以總稱為『王行』（國王的出行）。（以上是《俱舍論》的原文，以下是《正理經》的駁斥） 沒有理解這裡『俱時行』（同時發生作用）的含義，是指各種煩惱隨從無明，還是說無明隨從煩惱？如果採用前一種解釋，道理必然不成立，因為其他迷惑相應的無明是低劣的。尊勝的隨從低劣的，道理必然不成立。如果採用后一種解釋，那麼無明的本體應該從其他煩惱那裡獲得名稱，因為它隨從其他煩惱。並非不隨從其他煩惱，就可以從其他煩惱那裡獲得名稱。如果認為無明和其他煩惱互相隨從，沒有差別，那麼不以決定性的原因而偏立名稱，怎麼能令人信服呢？ 『又由無明力彼現行故』這句話，是就能夠轉變無明的角度來說，還是就隨順轉變無明的角度來說？這兩種途徑都不合理。因為無明也是由貪等煩惱轉變的，與其他的煩惱相應，不是自在的。不是不自在的，就可以說力量強大。應該說無明是由貪等煩惱的力量而生起的，因為在與無明相應的品類中，貪等煩惱的力量更強大。就像不能說引導和隨從勝過國王一樣，怎麼能說貪等煩惱是由無明的力量而生起的呢？所以，這兩種原因都沒有證據。按照前面所說的，其道理才是正確的。
【English Translation】 English version The term 『Avidyā』 (ignorance, referring to delusion and unknowing of the true nature of things) encompasses all afflictions (kleśas). This is because afflictions are the determining cause of actions that lead to future existences (punarbhava). Actions arising from afflictions can draw forth future existences. If there are no afflictions, even if there are actions, there will be no future existence. It is not the case that when all actions that draw forth future existences arise, greed (lobha, referring to desire) and other afflictions are all at work within them. The arising of these actions necessarily depends on ignorance. Therefore, the term 『Avidyā』 encompasses all afflictions. If this is the case, why is it that only the delusions of the previous life are generally called ignorance, and not the delusions of this life? This is a question. It is because only the delusions of the previous life resemble ignorance. When greed and other afflictions have not yet received their karmic result, their power and function are not diminished, and they can be called 『clear and sharp.』 If they have already received their karmic result, their function will be diminished, and they cannot be called 『clear and sharp.』 Even if the power of ignorance is not diminished, it cannot be called 『clear and sharp,』 because it is difficult to perceive them when they are currently active. The various delusions of the previous life, having already received their karmic result in this life, have diminished power, and their appearance is not obvious, resembling ignorance. Therefore, only the delusions of the previous life can be called ignorance. Shouldn't this also be said of actions? The establishment of conceptual names only occurs among similar things. However, the author of the scriptures says that greed and other afflictions occur simultaneously with ignorance, because greed and other afflictions are manifested by the power of ignorance. It is like saying that when a king goes out, he is not without guides and attendants. Because the king is the most supreme, it is generally called 『the king's procession.』 (The above is the original text of the Abhidharmakośa, and the following is the refutation from the Nyāyasūtra) The meaning of 『occurring simultaneously』 (sahacāra) here has not been understood. Does it mean that the various afflictions follow ignorance, or does it mean that ignorance follows the afflictions? If the former interpretation is adopted, the reasoning is necessarily not valid, because the ignorance associated with other delusions is inferior. It is necessarily not valid for the supreme to follow the inferior. If the latter interpretation is adopted, then the essence of ignorance should derive its name from the other afflictions, because it follows the other afflictions. It is not that it does not follow the other afflictions, but that it can derive its name from the other afflictions. If it is thought that ignorance and the other afflictions follow each other mutually, without any difference, then how can establishing a name based on a non-determining cause be convincing? The statement 『and because they are manifested by the power of ignorance,』 is it spoken from the perspective of being able to transform ignorance, or from the perspective of conforming to the transformation of ignorance? Neither of these two paths is reasonable. This is because ignorance is also transformed by greed and other afflictions, and is not independent because it is associated with other afflictions. It is not that it is not independent, but that it can be said to have strong power. It should be said that ignorance arises from the power of greed and other afflictions, because in the category associated with ignorance, the power of greed and other afflictions is stronger. Just as it cannot be said that guides and attendants surpass the king, how can it be said that greed and other afflictions arise from the power of ignorance? Therefore, neither of these two causes has evidence. According to what was said earlier, that reasoning is correct.
論。于宿生中至流至老死。此第二齣行支體也。頌中初標位言流至老死。此是福．非福等業位所有五蘊總名為行。初句位言流至老死。此明十二支皆就位五蘊建立。正理論云。何緣宿生如是類業獨名為行。名隨義故。其義云何。謂依眾緣和合已起。或展轉力和合已生。又能為緣已令果和合。或此和合已能為果緣。是謂行名所隨實義。宿生中業果今熟者行相圓滿獨立行名。由此已遮當生果業。以彼業果仍未熟故。相未圓滿不立行名。豈不一切已與自果異熟因體皆具此相則。應一切皆立行名。此體是何。謂諸非業．及業前生已得果者(前生已得果者。謂招過去身業)。雖有此理而就勝說。業為異熟因牽果最勝故。生現在果業粗顯易知故。因此能信知生過去果業。是故唯此獨立行名。雖一切因已與果者總應名行。然此唯說能招後有諸異熟因(簡餘五因已與果者)。故無行名不遍相失。是故成就唯宿生中感此生業獨名為行。
論。于母胎等至五蘊名識。此出第三識支體也。正理論云。此一剎那識最勝故。此唯意識。於此位中五識生緣猶未具故。
論。結生識后至據滿立故。此第四齣名色體也。是胎中五位前四位也。正理論云。大德羅摩率自意釋。度名色已方立處名。意體雖恒有非意處。要是觸處方得處名。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：在過去生中，從『流』（指煩惱的流動）到『老死』，這是第二個『行』（saṃskāra）支。頌文中首先標明位置，說從『流』到『老死』，這是福業、非福業等業位所包含的五蘊（pañca-skandha）的總稱，都叫做『行』。第一句標明位置，說從『流』到『老死』，這說明十二因緣的各個支都是就其各自位置上的五蘊而建立的。《正理論》中說：『為什麼過去生中像這樣的業，單獨被稱為『行』呢？』這是因為名稱跟隨意義的緣故。它的意義是什麼呢？就是說，依靠眾多的因緣和合而生起，或者輾轉相續的力量和合而生。又能夠作為因緣，使果和合；或者這種和合已經能夠作為果的因緣。這就是『行』這個名稱所跟隨的實際意義。過去生中的業，其果現在成熟的，其『行』相圓滿，可以獨立地稱為『行』。由此已經排除了當來生果的業，因為那種業的果仍然沒有成熟，『行』相沒有圓滿，所以不稱為『行』。難道不是一切已經給予自身果報的異熟因都具備這種『行』相嗎？那麼，應該一切都稱為『行』。這個『行』的本體是什麼呢？就是那些非業，以及業之前生已經得到果報的（前生已經得到果報的，是指招感過去身的業）。雖然有這個道理，但是就殊勝的方面來說，業作為異熟因，牽引果報最為殊勝，所以產生現在果報的業，粗顯而容易知道。因此能夠相信並知道產生過去果報的業。所以只有這種業可以獨立地稱為『行』。雖然一切已經給予果報的因都應該總稱為『行』，然而這裡只說能夠招感後有的各種異熟因（簡別其餘五種因已經給予果報的），所以沒有『行』這個名稱不普遍的過失。因此成就了只有過去生中感受此生的業，才單獨稱為『行』。 論：從母胎等開始，到五蘊，稱為『識』（vijñāna）。這是第三個『識』支。《正理論》中說：『這一剎那的識最為殊勝。』這裡只說是意識（manovijñāna），因為在這個階段，五識（pañcavijñāna）生起的因緣還沒有具備。 論：結生識之後，到依據圓滿而建立，這是第四個『名色』（nāmarūpa）支。是胎中五個階段的前四個階段。《正理論》中說：『大德羅摩按照自己的意思解釋，度過『名色』之後，才建立『處』（āyatana）這個名稱。意（manas）的體性雖然恒常存在，但不是『意處』（mana-āyatana）。一定要是『觸處』（sparśa-āyatana），才能得到『處』這個名稱。』
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: From 'flowing' (referring to the flow of afflictions) to 'old age and death' in past lives, this is the second limb, 'saṃskāra' (formations). The verse initially marks the position, stating from 'flowing' to 'old age and death.' This refers to the aggregate of the five skandhas (pañca-skandha) contained within the karmic positions of meritorious and non-meritorious deeds, collectively termed 'saṃskāra.' The initial phrase marking the position, 'flowing to old age and death,' clarifies that each of the twelve links of dependent origination is established based on the five skandhas in their respective positions. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra states: 'Why is karma of this kind from past lives uniquely termed 'saṃskāra'?' It is because the name follows the meaning. What is its meaning? It means that it arises dependent on the aggregation of numerous conditions, or it arises from the aggregation of mutually transformative forces. Furthermore, it can serve as a condition, causing the fruit to aggregate; or this aggregation can already serve as a condition for the fruit. This is the actual meaning that the name 'saṃskāra' follows. Karma from past lives, whose fruit now ripens, has a complete 'saṃskāra' aspect and can independently be termed 'saṃskāra.' This excludes karma that will produce fruit in future lives, because the fruit of that karma has not yet ripened, and its 'saṃskāra' aspect is not complete, so it is not termed 'saṃskāra.' Isn't it the case that all causes of different maturation that have already given their own fruit possess this aspect? Then, everything should be termed 'saṃskāra.' What is the essence of this 'saṃskāra'? It is those non-karmas, and those karmas from previous lives that have already obtained their fruit (those from previous lives that have already obtained their fruit refer to karmas that cause the past body). Although this principle exists, it is discussed in terms of what is superior. Karma, as the cause of different maturation, is most superior in drawing the fruit, so karma that produces present fruit is obvious and easy to know. Therefore, one can believe and know the karma that produces past fruit. Thus, only this can independently be termed 'saṃskāra.' Although all causes that have already given fruit should generally be termed 'saṃskāra,' here it only refers to the various causes of different maturation that can cause future existence (distinguishing the other five causes that have already given fruit), so there is no fault of the name 'saṃskāra' not being universally applicable. Therefore, it is established that only the karma from past lives that experiences this life is uniquely termed 'saṃskāra.' Treatise: From the mother's womb onwards, up to the five skandhas, this is termed 'vijñāna' (consciousness). This is the third limb, 'vijñāna.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra states: 'The consciousness of this moment is most superior.' Here, it only refers to mano-vijñāna (mind consciousness), because at this stage, the conditions for the arising of the five vijñānas (pañcavijñāna) are not yet complete. Treatise: After the linking consciousness, up to being established based on completeness, this is the fourth limb, 'nāmarūpa' (name and form). It is the first four stages of the five stages in the womb. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra states: 'The Venerable Rāma interpreted according to his own meaning, that after passing through 'nāmarūpa,' the name 'āyatana' (sense base) is established. Although the nature of manas (mind) is constantly present, it is not 'mana-āyatana' (mind base). It must be 'sparśa-āyatana' (touch base) to obtain the name 'āyatana.'
滅盡定中意處不壞。由斯亦許有意識生。然闕余緣故無有觸。是故非識名色位中。身意二根可得名處。故說名色在六處前。名色為緣生於六處 破云 都無理教可以證成。意法為緣生於意識。于中亦有不名三和。或有三和而無有觸。若謂此位有劣三和觸亦應然。寧全非有。彼宗許觸即三和故 乃至廣破。
論。眼等色生至得六處名。此出第五六處體也 婆沙云。云何六處。謂四色根六處已滿。即缽羅奢佉位。眼等諸根未能與觸作所依止是六處位 正理論云。即此名色為緣所生具眼等根。未三和合中間諸蘊說名六處。謂名色后六處已生。乃至根．境．識未具和合位下中上品次第漸增。於此位中總名六處。豈於此位諸識不生。而得說三未具和合。且無一位意識不生。名色位中身識亦起。況六處位言無三和(準此文。名色位身識起覺苦．樂也)所餘識身亦容得起(準六處位。通起諸識)然非恒勝故未立三和名。於此位中唯六處勝故約六處以標位別 又云。如因種轉變芽方得起。或非離名色六處可得生。如要依云方能降雨。若爾六處非名色生。如何可說言名色緣六處(問意以種生芽。云生雨等非因緣攝無五因義。種芽雲雨等非同類等故)諸為緣者謂有助能未必親生方成緣義。如果雖為引業所牽。滿業若無果終不起(滿業
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：在滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti，一種高級禪定狀態）中，意處（Manāyatana，意識的領域）不會壞滅。因此，也可以說有意識產生。然而，由於缺乏其餘的因緣，所以沒有觸（Sparśa，感官接觸）。因此，在名色（Nāmarūpa，身心複合體）位中，它不被稱為識（Vijñāna，意識）。身根和意根可以被認為是名色位中的處（Āyatana，感官領域）。因此，經文說名色在六處（Ṣaḍāyatana，六個感官領域）之前。名色是產生六處的緣（Hetu，因）。 反駁：沒有任何道理或教義可以證明意法（Manodharma，意識的對象）是產生意識的緣。即使在意法為緣產生意識的情況下，也可能存在不被稱為三和（Saṃghāta，三事和合）的情況，或者存在三和而沒有觸的情況。如果說在這個狀態下存在低劣的三和，那麼也應該有觸，為什麼會完全沒有呢？他們的宗派認為觸就是三和。乃至廣為駁斥。 論：從眼等（眼睛等感官）產生到獲得六處之名。這闡述了第五個六處的體性。婆沙（Vibhāṣā，論書）說：『什麼是六處？』指的是四種色根（Rūpāyatana，色界感官）的六處已經完滿，即缽羅奢佉（Praśākhā，分支）位。眼等諸根未能與觸作為所依止，這就是六處位。正理論（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya，俱舍論）說：即此名色為緣所生，具有眼等根，未三和合的中間諸蘊，被稱為六處。也就是說，在名色之後，六處已經產生，乃至根、境（Viṣaya，感官對像）、識未完全和合的階段，下、中、上品次第漸增。在這個階段中，總稱為六處。難道在這個階段中，諸識不產生，就可以說三事未具和合嗎？沒有一個階段意識是不產生的。名色位中，身識（Kāyavijñāna，身體的意識）也會生起。更何況六處位，說沒有三和呢？（按照這段文字，名色位中，身識會生起覺苦、樂）。其餘的識身也可能生起（按照六處位，可以生起各種識）。然而，它們並非總是最強的，所以沒有建立三和之名。在這個階段中，只有六處最強，所以根據六處來標明階段的差別。』 又說：『如同因種子轉變，芽才能生起。或者說，離開名色，六處無法產生。如同需要依靠云才能降雨。如果這樣，六處不是名色所生，怎麼能說名色是六處的緣呢？』（提問者的意思是，以種子生芽，云生雨等，不屬於因緣所攝，沒有五因的意義。種子、芽、云、雨等不是同類等）。作為緣，指的是具有助能，未必是親生才能成為緣的意義。如果說，雖然為引業（Āgamana-karma，引導業）所牽引，如果沒有滿業（Pūraṇa-karma，圓滿業），果終究不會生起（滿業）。
【English Translation】 English version: In Nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment), the Manāyatana (sphere of mind) does not perish. Therefore, it can also be said that consciousness arises. However, due to the lack of the remaining conditions, there is no Sparśa (contact). Therefore, in the Nāmarūpa (name and form) stage, it is not called Vijñāna (consciousness). The body faculty and the mind faculty can be considered as Āyatana (sense fields) in the Nāmarūpa stage. Therefore, the scriptures say that Nāmarūpa precedes Ṣaḍāyatana (six sense fields). Nāmarūpa is the Hetu (cause) for the arising of Ṣaḍāyatana. Refutation: There is no reason or teaching that can prove that Manodharma (objects of mind) is the cause for the arising of consciousness. Even in the case where Manodharma is the cause for the arising of consciousness, there may be cases where it is not called Saṃghāta (confluence of three), or there may be Saṃghāta without Sparśa. If it is said that there is inferior Saṃghāta in this state, then there should also be Sparśa, why would there be none at all? Their sect believes that Sparśa is Saṃghāta. And so on, with extensive refutations. Treatise: From the arising of the eye, etc. (sense organs) to obtaining the name of Ṣaḍāyatana. This explains the nature of the fifth Ṣaḍāyatana. The Vibhāṣā (commentary) says: 'What is Ṣaḍāyatana?' It refers to the six sense fields of the four Rūpāyatana (form sense fields) being complete, which is the Praśākhā (branching) stage. The sense organs such as the eye, etc., are not yet able to serve as the basis for Sparśa, this is the Ṣaḍāyatana stage. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Treasury of Abhidharma) says: 'That is, this Nāmarūpa is the cause for the arising of the aggregates with the eye, etc., in between the non-confluence of the three, which are called Ṣaḍāyatana.' That is, after Nāmarūpa, Ṣaḍāyatana has arisen, and until the stage where the root, Viṣaya (sense object), and consciousness are not fully combined, the lower, middle, and upper grades gradually increase. In this stage, it is generally called Ṣaḍāyatana. Is it that in this stage, the consciousnesses do not arise, and it can be said that the three are not fully combined? There is no stage in which consciousness does not arise. In the Nāmarūpa stage, Kāyavijñāna (body consciousness) also arises. How much more so in the Ṣaḍāyatana stage, to say that there is no Saṃghāta? (According to this text, in the Nāmarūpa stage, body consciousness arises, experiencing suffering and pleasure). The remaining consciousnesses may also arise (according to the Ṣaḍāyatana stage, all consciousnesses can arise). However, they are not always the strongest, so the name of Saṃghāta is not established. In this stage, only Ṣaḍāyatana is the strongest, so the distinction of stages is marked according to Ṣaḍāyatana.' It also says: 'Just as the sprout can only arise from the transformation of the seed. Or, apart from Nāmarūpa, Ṣaḍāyatana cannot arise. Just as rain can only fall depending on the clouds. If so, Ṣaḍāyatana is not born of Nāmarūpa, how can it be said that Nāmarūpa is the cause of Ṣaḍāyatana?' (The questioner means that the arising of a sprout from a seed, the arising of rain from clouds, etc., are not included in the causal conditions, and do not have the meaning of the five causes. Seeds, sprouts, clouds, rain, etc., are not homogeneous, etc.). As a cause, it refers to having the ability to assist, and it does not necessarily have to be directly born to become the meaning of a cause. If, although it is drawn by Āgamana-karma (leading karma), if there is no Pūraṇa-karma (fulfilling karma), the result will ultimately not arise (fulfilling karma).
非是引果親因)如是六處雖業所招。無名色緣必無起義。即先行業所招六處。要由名色緣助乃生。同一相續勢力引故(準此。雖名色位染法與后染法為同類因。非正取此謂緣六處義。要與眼等四根為緣者是也)雖名色為緣亦生色等。而即初念識滋潤所生故。不說彼緣名色起 準此文意。身等及染等前位有者皆非此明 或先已辨識緣名色。即已總說緣生色等。今名色后色等與前更有何殊義用可得。而須說彼從名色生。故如本文所說無失(準此文意。雖同時五蘊總說為支。前未有者可說後生。前已有者不說由起有通說處據支體也)。
論。已至三和至總名為觸。此出第六觸支體也 已至三和。簡前位也 未了三受因差別位。簡后位也。此時四根初至三和位故得觸名。非由意與身。此位五蘊名為觸也 三受因差別者。謂即三受境差別也。即火．毒等為苦因。衣．食等為樂因等。出胎已后隨性聰．昧至未了已前名之為觸。不可定其年歲。即是婆沙云。觸火食毒位也。大分五歲六歲已上。
論。已了三受至此位名受。此出第七受支體也 已了三受因差別者。簡前 未起淫貪者。簡后 此位名受者。此中間五蘊名受。以初能簡受因故從勝為名。大分即在十歲已還。
論。貪妙資具至此位名愛。此出第八愛支體也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 並非是引生果報的親近之因。)像這樣，六處雖然是業力所招感，如果沒有名色作為緣，必定沒有生起的道理。就是說，先前的行業所招感的六處，需要由名色作為緣來幫助才能產生。因為它們具有相同的相續勢力來引導。(依照這個原則，雖然名色階段的染法與後來的染法是同類因，但並非直接取這個作為緣六處的意義。而是要與眼等四根作為緣才是。)雖然名色作為緣也能生起色等，但因為是最初一念識滋潤所生，所以不說它們以名色為緣而生起。依照這段文字的意思，身體等以及染污等在前一階段已經存在的，都不是這裡所要說明的。或者先前已經辨析了識緣名色，就已經總括地說明了緣而生色等。現在名色之後的色等與之前的色等還有什麼特殊的意義和作用可以獲得，而需要說明它們是從名色生起的呢？所以像本文所說的那樣沒有缺失。(依照這段文字的意思，雖然同時存在的五蘊可以總括地作為支，但先前沒有的可以說後來生起，先前已經有的就不說由它而生起，這是對支體的一種通用的說法。)
論：已經到達三和合的階段，總稱為觸。這是說明十二因緣中第六支「觸」的體性。已經到達三和合，是爲了簡別之前的階段。還沒有了知三受因差別，是爲了簡別之後的階段。這個時候，四根初次到達三和合的階段，所以得到觸的名稱，不是由於意與身。這個階段的五蘊名為觸。所謂三受因差別，是指三種感受的境界差別。即火、毒等是苦的因，衣服、食物等是樂的因等。從出生之後，隨著天資的聰慧或愚昧，到還沒有了知之前，都稱為觸，不能確定具體的年齡。這就是《婆沙論》所說的，觸及火、食用毒物等的階段。大致是五歲、六歲以上。
論：已經了知三受的因差別，到這個階段稱為受。這是說明十二因緣中第七支「受」的體性。已經了知三受因差別，是爲了簡別之前的階段。還沒有生起淫慾貪愛，是爲了簡別之後的階段。這個階段稱為受，是指這個中間階段的五蘊名為受。因為最初能夠簡別感受的因，所以從殊勝的角度來命名。大致是在十歲以下。
論：貪愛美妙的資具，到這個階段稱為愛。這是說明十二因緣中第八支「愛」的體性。
【English Translation】 English version It is not the direct cause that leads to the fruition of karma.) Thus, although the six sense bases (六處, liù chù) are brought about by karma, without name and form (名色, míng sè) as a condition, there is certainly no possibility of arising. That is to say, the six sense bases brought about by previous karma need the assistance of name and form as a condition to arise. This is because they have the same continuous force to guide them. (According to this principle, although the defiled dharmas in the stage of name and form are the same kind of cause as the later defiled dharmas, this is not directly taken as the meaning of conditioning the six sense bases. Rather, it must be with the four roots such as the eye as a condition.) Although name and form as a condition can also give rise to form, etc., because it is produced by the initial thought of consciousness nourishing it, it is not said that they arise with name and form as a condition. According to the meaning of this text, the body, etc., and defilements, etc., that existed in the previous stage are not what is being explained here. Or, if the condition of consciousness for name and form has already been analyzed, then the arising of form, etc., from conditions has already been generally explained. Now, what special meaning and function can be obtained from form, etc., after name and form, that is different from the previous form, etc., that requires explaining that they arise from name and form? Therefore, there is no omission as stated in this text. (According to the meaning of this text, although the five aggregates existing simultaneously can be generally regarded as limbs, what did not exist before can be said to arise later, and what already existed before is not said to arise from it. This is a general statement about the limbs.)
Treatise: Having reached the stage of the union of the three (三和, sān hé), it is generally called contact (觸, chù). This explains the nature of the sixth limb, 'contact,' in the Twelve Nidānas. 'Having reached the union of the three' is to distinguish it from the previous stage. 'Not yet understanding the differences in the causes of the three feelings' is to distinguish it from the later stage. At this time, the four roots initially reach the stage of the union of the three, so they are given the name 'contact,' not because of mind and body. The five aggregates at this stage are called contact. The so-called differences in the causes of the three feelings refer to the differences in the objects of the three feelings. That is, fire, poison, etc., are the causes of suffering, while clothing, food, etc., are the causes of pleasure, etc. From birth onwards, depending on the intelligence or dullness of the innate nature, until before understanding, it is called contact, and the specific age cannot be determined. This is what the Vibhāṣā says, the stage of touching fire, eating poison, etc. It is roughly from the age of five or six and above.
Treatise: Having understood the differences in the causes of the three feelings, this stage is called feeling (受, shòu). This explains the nature of the seventh limb, 'feeling,' in the Twelve Nidānas. 'Having understood the differences in the causes of the three feelings' is to distinguish it from the previous stage. 'Not yet arising lustful craving' is to distinguish it from the later stage. This stage is called feeling, referring to the five aggregates in this intermediate stage being called feeling. Because it is initially able to distinguish the causes of feeling, it is named from the perspective of superiority. It is roughly under the age of ten.
Treatise: Craving for wonderful resources, this stage is called craving (愛, ài). This explains the nature of the eighth limb, 'craving,' in the Twelve Nidānas.
貪妙資具淫愛現行 簡前 未廣追求。異后 此位名愛者。非唯一法總取五蘊故言此位。此位初能愛于資財．及淫境故。
論。為得種種至此位名取。此出第九取支體也 周遍馳求。此簡前也 此位名取。正出取體。準婆沙云。五支時心心所法染污。余是染不染者 故知起染時名為取支。餘位非也。愛亦如是初能馳求資財．及淫境故名為取 婆沙二十三引施設論云。云何名取。謂由三愛四方追求雖涉多危險而不辭勞倦。然未為後有起善．惡業是名取蘊位。
論。因馳求故至此位名有。此出第十有支體也 積集能牽當有果業者。別前異后也 此位名有者。總以五蘊名為有也。正理論云。取增盛時種種馳求善．不善境。為得彼故積集眾多能招後有凈．不凈業。此業生位總名有支。應知此中由此依此能有當果故立有名 準此論文名為有者有當果也。
論。由是業力至即如今識。第十一出生支體也。雖現．未別。自余義類皆同識說。謂一剎那。唯染心等。
論。生剎那后至觸受四支。出第十二老死體也。此即同前四支體性。即以同時五蘊為體。準此論文。前受支體即是從觸已去。乃至命終皆是受支。若起愛．取．有支時五蘊名三支體。是此前位受為緣也。此三位后相續受支。與后愛支以為緣也 問
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『貪妙資具淫愛現行』，這是在簡要說明『取』支之前的狀態，即尚未廣泛追求的狀態。『異后』，指的是在這個階段，被稱為『愛』。之所以說『此位』，是因為它並非僅僅指一種法，而是總括了五蘊，所以說『此位』。這個階段最初能夠對資財和淫慾之境產生愛著，因此得名。
論：爲了獲得種種，到達這個階段被稱為『取』。這指出了十二因緣中的第九支——『取』的本體。『周遍馳求』，這是對之前的狀態的簡要說明。『此位名取』，這正是『取』的本體。依照《婆沙論》的說法，五支（色、受、想、行、識）在染污時，心和心所法也是染污的，其餘的則是染污或不染污的。因此可知，生起染污時才稱為『取』支，其餘階段則不是。『愛』也是如此，最初能夠馳求資財和淫慾之境，因此被稱為『取』。《婆沙論》第二十三卷引用《施設論》說：『什麼叫做取？』就是由於三種愛（欲愛、有愛、無有愛）而四處追求，即使遇到很多危險也不辭勞苦。然而，尚未為後有生起善業或惡業，這叫做『取蘊』的階段。
論：因為馳求的緣故，到達這個階段被稱為『有』。這指出了十二因緣中的第十支——『有』的本體。『積集能牽當有果業者』，這是爲了區別之前和之後的狀態。『此位名有者』，指的是總以五蘊稱為『有』。《正理論》說：『當「取」支增強時，會爲了獲得種種善和不善之境而四處馳求。爲了得到它們，會積聚很多能夠招感後有的清凈或不清凈的業。這種業產生的階段，總稱為「有」支。』應當知道，這裡之所以稱為『有』，是因為由此（業）依靠此（因）能夠產生當來的果報。』依照這段論文，被稱為『有』，指的是具有當來的果報。
論：由於這些業力的作用，立即成為如今的『識』。這是第十一支——『出生』的本體。雖然現在和未來有所區別，但其餘的意義和類別都與『識』相同。指的是一剎那，只有染污的心等等。
論：在『生』的剎那之後，緊接著是『觸』、『受』等四支。這是第十二支——『老死』的本體。這與之前的四支的體性相同，即以同時的五蘊為本體。依照這段論文，之前的『受』支的本體，就是從『觸』開始，直到命終都是『受』支。如果生起『愛』、『取』、『有』支時，五蘊被稱為三支的本體，這是此前階段的『受』作為緣故。這三個階段之後，相續的『受』支，又作為後來的『愛』支的緣。』問：
【English Translation】 English version: 'Craving for wonderful resources and the manifestation of lustful love' briefly describes the state before the 'grasping' (upadana) link, that is, the state of not yet widely pursuing. 'Different from later' refers to this stage being called 'craving' (trsna). The reason for saying 'this stage' is that it does not refer to only one dharma, but encompasses the five aggregates (skandhas), so it is called 'this stage'. This stage is initially able to generate attachment to resources and objects of lust, hence the name.
Treatise: In order to obtain various things, reaching this stage is called 'grasping' (upadana). This points out the substance of the ninth link in the twelve links of dependent origination. 'Extensive pursuit' is a brief description of the previous state. 'This stage is called grasping' is precisely the substance of 'grasping'. According to the Mahavibhasa, when the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) are defiled, the mind and mental factors are also defiled, and the rest are either defiled or undefiled. Therefore, it can be known that it is only when defilement arises that it is called the 'grasping' link, and not in other stages. 'Craving' is also the same; it is initially able to pursue resources and objects of lust, hence it is called 'grasping'. The twenty-third volume of the Mahavibhasa quotes the Establishment Treatise, saying: 'What is called grasping?' It is pursuing in all directions due to the three cravings (craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for non-existence), not hesitating to work hard even when encountering many dangers. However, not yet generating good or bad karma for future existence, this is called the stage of 'grasping aggregate'.
Treatise: Because of the pursuit, reaching this stage is called 'becoming' (bhava). This points out the substance of the tenth link in the twelve links of dependent origination. 'Accumulating what can lead to the karma of future existence' is to distinguish it from the previous and subsequent states. 'This stage is called becoming' refers to the general term for the five aggregates as 'becoming'. The Nyayanusara-sastra says: 'When the 'grasping' link increases, one will pursue in all directions to obtain various good and bad objects. In order to obtain them, one will accumulate many pure or impure karmas that can bring about future existence. The stage in which this karma arises is generally called the 'becoming' link.' It should be known that the reason why it is called 'becoming' here is that from this (karma), relying on this (cause), the future result can arise.' According to this treatise, being called 'becoming' refers to having a future result.
Treatise: Due to the power of these karmas, it immediately becomes the present 'consciousness' (vijnana). This is the substance of the eleventh link, 'birth' (jati). Although there is a difference between the present and the future, the rest of the meaning and categories are the same as 'consciousness'. It refers to a moment, only defiled mind, etc.
Treatise: After the moment of 'birth', immediately following are the four links of 'contact' (sparsha), 'feeling' (vedana), etc. This is the substance of the twelfth link, 'old age and death' (jara-marana). This is the same as the nature of the previous four links, that is, the five aggregates at the same time are the substance. According to this treatise, the substance of the previous 'feeling' link is from 'contact' onwards, and until the end of life, it is all the 'feeling' link. If the 'craving', 'grasping', and 'becoming' links arise, the five aggregates are called the substance of the three links, which is because the 'feeling' of the previous stage is the condition. After these three stages, the continuous 'feeling' link is also the condition for the later 'craving' link.' Question:
若爾何故前論文云。貪妙資具淫愛現行未廣追求此位名愛。乃至有等皆在愛后。而今釋云更有受也 答愛．取．有三有其二種。一據一身一業而說。或唯據生報業說。若通說者。即一地中容造九地愛．取．有支。於一地中亦容造五趣．及生．后等愛．取．有。所以得知。有多文證。故正理云。積聚眾多能招後有凈不凈業。此業生位總名為有 又婆沙云。一身起九地愛．取．有 故知一身能起多種愛．取．有支 又正理二十八云。如何別立愛．取．二支。毗婆沙師許初念愛以愛聲說。即此相續增廣熾盛立以取名。相續取境轉堅猛故。若爾應說三支剎那。何故唯言二剎那性。無斯過失。一一境中各一剎那合成多故。正結生位唯一剎那。于其一身無容再結。故生與識獨說剎那 準此論文。即緣一境初一剎那名之為愛。后念已去名之為取。然經緣多境愛．取．義成。前文又云。未能四方追求名愛等。兩文不同各據一義。
論。辨十二支體別如是。總結上也。
論。又諸緣起至四者遠續。已下大文第三明說意也。于中。先標名別。后牒名釋。
論。云何剎那至滅壞名死。此明一剎那中說十二支 諸纏。謂無慚等 余文可解。此說唯有情是剎那緣起也。此即於一念中說緣起義皆望因果而說。
論。復有說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：你為什麼在前面的論文中說：『貪求美妙的資具，淫慾之愛正在發生，尚未廣泛追求的這個階段，叫做愛。』乃至有些情況都發生在愛之後。而現在解釋說還有『有』呢？ 答：『愛』、『取』、『有』這三者有兩種說法。一種是根據自身和業力來說的，或者僅僅根據來世的果報業力來說。如果通盤來說，那麼在一地中可以造作九地的『愛』、『取』、『有』支。在一地中也可以造作五趣以及來世等等的『愛』、『取』、『有』。為什麼知道呢？因為有很多經文可以證明。所以《正理》中說：『積聚眾多能夠招引後有的清凈或不清凈的業。』這個業在產生的時候，總的名稱叫做『有』。 又《婆沙》中說：『一身可以生起九地的愛、取、有。』所以知道一身能夠生起多種愛、取、有支。《正理》第二十八卷中說：『如何分別設立愛、取二支？』毗婆沙師認為最初一念的愛用『愛』這個名稱來說明，就是這個相續增廣熾盛，設立為『取』這個名稱。因為相續取境變得更加堅固猛烈。如果這樣，應該說三支都是剎那性的，為什麼只說是兩個剎那的性質呢？沒有這個過失。因為每一個境界中各有一個剎那，合成了多個剎那。真正結生的時候只有一個剎那，在自身上不可能再次結生。所以『生』和『識』單獨說是剎那性的。 根據這篇論文，就是緣於一個境界，最初一個剎那叫做『愛』，後面的念頭就叫做『取』。然而經典中緣于多個境界，愛和取的意義就成立了。前面的論文又說：『未能四處追求叫做愛』等等，這兩篇論文不同，各自根據一個意義。 論：辨別十二支的體性差別就是這樣。總結上面所說的。 論：又從『諸緣起』到『四者遠續』，以下是大的段落第三，說明意義。其中，先標明名稱的差別，然後按照名稱來解釋。 論：『什麼是剎那』到『滅壞叫做死』，這說明在一個剎那中說明十二支。各種纏縛，指的是無慚等等。其餘的文字可以理解。這說明只有有情是剎那緣起。這就是在一念中說明緣起的意義，都是針對因果來說的。 論：還有一種說法
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Why did the previous thesis say, 'Greed for wonderful resources, the lustful love is manifesting, this stage of not yet widely pursuing is called love,' and even some situations occur after love. But now the explanation says there is also 'Bhava (existence)'? Answer: These three, 'Tanha (craving)', 'Upadana (grasping)', and 'Bhava (becoming)', have two explanations. One is based on oneself and karma, or only based on the karma of future rebirth. If speaking comprehensively, then in one realm, one can create the 'Tanha', 'Upadana', and 'Bhava' branches of the nine realms. In one realm, one can also create the five destinies and future lives, etc., of 'Tanha', 'Upadana', and 'Bhava'. How do we know this? Because there are many scriptural proofs. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosha says, 'Accumulating many pure or impure karmas that can attract future existence.' When this karma arises, the general name is called 'Bhava'. Also, the Mahavibhasa says, 'One body can generate the 'Tanha', 'Upadana', and 'Bhava' of the nine realms.' Therefore, it is known that one body can generate multiple 'Tanha', 'Upadana', and 'Bhava' branches. The twenty-eighth volume of the Abhidharmakosha says, 'How are the two branches of 'Tanha' and 'Upadana' separately established?' The Vibhasa masters believe that the initial thought of craving is explained by the name 'Tanha', which is the continuous expansion and flourishing of this, established as the name 'Upadana'. Because the continuous grasping of the object becomes more firm and intense. If so, it should be said that all three branches are momentary. Why is it only said to be the nature of two moments? There is no such fault. Because each moment in each realm combines to form multiple moments. When truly connecting to rebirth, there is only one moment, and it is impossible to connect to rebirth again in oneself. Therefore, 'Jati (birth)' and 'Vijnana (consciousness)' are separately said to be momentary. According to this thesis, it means that when connected to one realm, the initial moment is called 'Tanha', and the subsequent thoughts are called 'Upadana'. However, in the scriptures, when connected to multiple realms, the meaning of 'Tanha' and 'Upadana' is established. The previous thesis also said, 'Not being able to pursue in all directions is called Tanha,' etc. These two theses are different, each based on one meaning. Treatise: Discriminating the differences in the nature of the twelve branches is like this. Summarizing what was said above. Treatise: Also, from 'All conditioned things' to 'the four are distantly connected', the following is the third major section, explaining the meaning. Among them, first, the differences in names are marked, and then explained according to the names. Treatise: 'What is a moment' to 'destruction is called death', this explains the twelve branches in one moment. The various fetters refer to shamelessness, etc. The remaining text can be understood. This explains that only sentient beings are momentary dependent origination. This is explaining the meaning of dependent origination in one thought, all referring to cause and effect. Treatise: There is another saying
者至俱遍有為。述異說也。此師所說二種緣起同品類足。俱遍情．非情法。
論。十二支位至說名遠續。此釋第三說意。將釋說意先明四緣起也。十二支無明等時分位不同所有五蘊即彼支攝說名分位。即此分位緣起。懸遠相續無始已來相續不斷。謂有後報．不定諸業能遠招果是懸遠義。不攝生．現熟業非是即次而續故名遠也。正理論云。遠續緣起謂前．后際有順后受及不定受業煩惱故無始輪轉。如說有愛等本際不可知。又應頌言。我昔與汝等。涉生死長途。由不能如實見四聖諦故 連縛緣起取相鄰接相系不斷名連縛緣起。今詳。遠續．連縛二種緣起別者。遠續唯隔越。連縛唯無間。遠續是異熟因。若兼無情亦遠同類因。若有情亦遍行因。連縛定非異熟因通同類．遍行．及能作。除相應．但有．異熟因。異熟因非連縛故。相應．俱有非前後故。不名相續。
論。世尊於此意說者何。已下半頌正明說意。
論曰至有十二支。釋也。世尊唯說分位緣起 分位者。謂於此前後分位。即此無明等時五蘊總是無明等支。
論。若支支中至無明等名。問也。既總五蘊為體何故唯立一名。
論。以諸位中至名別無失。答也。體雖是總。從勝立名。如說王行非無導從。
論。何緣經說至乃至廣說。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『者至俱遍有為』。這是在敘述不同的說法。這位論師所說的兩種緣起與《品類足論》相同，都是指普遍存在於有情和非情之法中的緣起。
論：『十二支位至說名遠續』。這是解釋第三種說法的含義。在解釋其含義之前，先闡明四種緣起。十二支，如無明等，在時間上的位置不同，所有五蘊都包含在這些支中，這被稱為『分位』。這就是分位緣起。懸遠相續，從無始以來相續不斷。指的是那些能遙遠地招感果報的不定之業，這是『懸遠』的含義。不包括現世成熟的業，因為它們不是緊接著相續的，所以稱為『遠』。正理論說：『遠續緣起指的是前際和后際之間有順后受和不定受的業和煩惱，因此無始輪轉。』正如所說，有愛等本際是不可知的。又應頌說：『我昔與汝等，涉生死長途，由不能如實見四聖諦故。』連縛緣起，指的是相鄰接、相互聯繫、不斷相續的緣起。現在詳細分析，遠續和連縛這兩種緣起的區別在於：遠續唯有間隔，連縛唯有無間。遠續是異熟因，如果兼及無情，也是遠同類因；如果是有情，也是遍行因。連縛一定不是異熟因，它貫通同類、遍行和能作。除了相應、俱有、異熟因之外。異熟因不是連縛，因為相應和俱有不是前後關係，所以不稱為相續。
論：『世尊於此意說者何？』以下半頌正式闡明世尊的說法含義。
論曰：『至有十二支』。這是解釋。世尊只說了分位緣起。分位指的是在此前後的分位，即此無明等時期的五蘊，總括起來就是無明等支。
論：『若支支中至無明等名』。這是提問。既然總括五蘊為體，為什麼隻立一個無明等的名字？
論：『以諸位中至名別無失』。這是回答。體雖然是總括的，但從最突出的方面來立名。正如說國王出行，並非沒有引導和隨從。
論：『何緣經說至乃至廣說。』
【English Translation】 English version: 'Those reach everywhere and are conditioned.' This is describing different views. The two types of dependent origination spoken of by this teacher are the same as those in the Prakaraṇapāda, referring to dependent origination that is universally present in both sentient and non-sentient phenomena.
Treatise: 'The twelve links, up to being called distant continuation.' This explains the meaning of the third view. Before explaining its meaning, the four types of dependent origination are clarified first. The twelve links, such as ignorance (avidyā), have different positions in time, and all five aggregates (skandhas) are included within these links, which is called 'positional division'. This is positional dependent origination. Distant continuation is continuous and unbroken from beginningless time. It refers to those indeterminate actions that can remotely bring about results, which is the meaning of 'distant'. It does not include actions that mature in the present life, because they are not immediately continuous, so it is called 'distant'. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Distant continuation dependent origination refers to the fact that between the past and future there are actions and afflictions that lead to subsequent or indeterminate experiences, and therefore there is beginningless wandering.' As it is said, the origin of craving (tṛṣṇā) and so on is unknowable. And a verse should say: 'In the past, I and you have traveled a long path through birth and death, because we could not truly see the Four Noble Truths.' Connected dependent origination refers to dependent origination that is adjacent, interconnected, and continuously connected. Now, analyzing in detail, the difference between the two types of dependent origination, distant continuation and connected, is that distant continuation only has intervals, while connected only has no intervals. Distant continuation is a result-producing cause (vipākahetu), and if it includes non-sentient beings, it is also a distant cause of the same type; if it is a sentient being, it is also a pervasive cause. Connected is definitely not a result-producing cause, it connects the same type, pervasive, and effective. Except for corresponding, co-existent, and result-producing causes. Result-producing causes are not connected, because corresponding and co-existent are not sequential, so they are not called continuous.
Treatise: 'What does the World Honored One (Śākyamuni) say about this meaning?' The following half-verse formally clarifies the meaning of the World Honored One's statement.
Treatise says: 'Up to having twelve links.' This is an explanation. The World Honored One only spoke of positional dependent origination. Positional refers to the positions before and after this, that is, the five aggregates at the time of ignorance and so on, which are collectively the links of ignorance and so on.
Treatise: 'If each link, up to the name of ignorance and so on.' This is a question. Since the five aggregates are collectively the substance, why only establish one name of ignorance and so on?
Treatise: 'Because in each position, up to the name is different without fault.' This is an answer. Although the substance is collective, the name is established from the most prominent aspect. Just as it is said that when a king travels, it is not without guides and followers.
Treatise: 'Why does the scripture say, up to and extensively explain.'
問經．論意不同所以。
論。素怛纜言至是謂差別。答說異所以也。
論。契經何故唯說有情。已下第四下半頌明說有情意也。
論曰至唯在有情。明說唯有情所以也。佛為遣他三際愚惑。三際愚惑謂我過去是有．非有等。此之疑惑唯在有情。故就有情說緣起也。
論。如何有情前際疑惑。問。
論。謂於前際至云何我曾有。引經明前際愚惑也 我於過去世為曾有非有者。疑我有．無。即是疑其自性 何等我曾有者。疑我類也。既知我有後疑我類。謂為色我。為受我。即蘊．離蘊等我類也 云何我曾有者。疑雲何我為常．無常等也。
論。如何有情后際疑惑。問后際也。
論。謂於後際至云何我當有。后際疑惑準過去釋。
論。如何有情中際疑惑。問現在也。
論。謂于中際至我當有唯。答也。中際現在故不疑我有．無但疑我類。為色是我。為受是我等。為常．無常。
我誰所有。疑過去因 我當有誰。疑未來果。身在現在故過去不疑果。亦非未來故不疑因。現在是過果。及未來因故。知過為現在因。即知過去有因。即知未來為現在果。即知未來有果。故過去．未來不疑因．果。
論。為除如是至並識至有。結上說意。
論。所以者何。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：為什麼《經》和《論》的意義不同？
論：在《素怛纜》（Sutram，經）中說，這就是所謂的差別。答：這是解釋它們不同的原因。
論：為什麼《契經》（Agama，阿含經）只說有情（Sattva，眾生）？以下是第四頌的後半部分，說明只說有情的原因。
論曰：只在于有情。說明只說有情的原因。佛陀爲了去除眾生對過去、現在、未來三際的愚癡迷惑。三際的愚癡迷惑是指我過去是有還是非有等等。這種疑惑只存在於有情中。所以就著有情來說緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda， dependent origination）。
論：有情如何對前際（Purvakoti，過去）產生疑惑？問。
論：所謂對前際的疑惑，乃至『云何我曾有』。引用經典來說明對前際的愚癡迷惑。『我於過去世為曾有非有者』，疑惑我過去是有還是沒有，就是疑惑我的自性。『何等我曾有者』，疑惑我的種類。既然知道有我之後，又疑惑我的種類，是色（Rūpa，物質）是我，還是受（Vedanā，感受）是我，也就是蘊（Skandha，五蘊）內、離蘊等我的種類。『云何我曾有者』，疑惑我是常（Nitya，永恒）還是無常（Anitya，無常）等。
論：有情如何對后際（Aparakoti，未來）產生疑惑？問后際。
論：所謂對后際的疑惑，乃至『云何我當有』。對后際的疑惑參照過去際的解釋。
論：有情如何對中際（Madhyakoti，現在）產生疑惑？問現在。
論：所謂對中際的疑惑，乃至『我當有唯』。答。中際是現在，所以不疑惑我有還是沒有，只是疑惑我的種類，是色是我，還是受是我等。是常還是無常。
『我誰所有』，疑惑過去的原因。『我當有誰』，疑惑未來的結果。身體在現在，所以過去不疑惑結果，也不是未來，所以不疑惑原因。現在是過去的果，以及未來的因，所以知道過去是現在的原因，就知道過去有原因，就知道未來是現在的果，就知道未來有結果。所以過去、未來不疑惑原因、結果。
論：爲了去除這樣的疑惑，乃至並識（Vijñāna，意識）至有。總結以上所說的意思。
論：所以是什麼原因呢？
【English Translation】 English version Question: Why are the meanings of the Sutras and the Shastras (treatises) different?
Shastra: In the Sutram (Sutra, discourses), it says that this is called difference. Answer: This explains the reason for their difference.
Shastra: Why do the Agamas (Agama, early Buddhist texts) only speak of sentient beings (Sattva, beings)? The following is the second half of the fourth verse, explaining the reason for only speaking of sentient beings.
Shastra says: It only lies in sentient beings. Explaining the reason for only speaking of sentient beings. The Buddha eliminates the ignorance and confusion of sentient beings regarding the three times (past, present, and future). The ignorance and confusion of the three times refer to whether I existed or did not exist in the past, etc. This kind of doubt only exists in sentient beings. Therefore, dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda) is discussed in relation to sentient beings.
Shastra: How do sentient beings have doubts about the past (Purvakoti, the beginning)? Question.
Shastra: The so-called doubts about the past, up to 'How did I exist?' Quoting the scriptures to explain the ignorance and confusion about the past. 'Did I exist or not exist in the past?' Doubting whether I existed or did not exist in the past is doubting my own nature. 'What kind of being did I exist as?' Doubting my kind. Since knowing that I exist, then doubting my kind, whether form (Rūpa, matter) is me, or feeling (Vedanā, sensation) is me, that is, whether I am within the aggregates (Skandha, the five aggregates) or separate from the aggregates. 'How did I exist?' Doubting whether I am permanent (Nitya, eternal) or impermanent (Anitya, impermanent), etc.
Shastra: How do sentient beings have doubts about the future (Aparakoti, the end)? Question about the future.
Shastra: The so-called doubts about the future, up to 'How will I exist?' The doubts about the future refer to the explanation of the past.
Shastra: How do sentient beings have doubts about the present (Madhyakoti, the middle)? Question about the present.
Shastra: The so-called doubts about the present, up to 'I will have only.' Answer. The present is the present, so there is no doubt whether I exist or not, only doubt about my kind, whether form is me, or feeling is me, etc. Whether it is permanent or impermanent.
'Who do I belong to?' Doubting the cause of the past. 'Who will I have?' Doubting the result of the future. The body is in the present, so there is no doubt about the result in the past, and it is not the future, so there is no doubt about the cause. The present is the result of the past and the cause of the future, so knowing that the past is the cause of the present, then knowing that there is a cause in the past, then knowing that the future is the result of the present, then knowing that there is a result in the future. Therefore, there is no doubt about cause and effect in the past and future.
Shastra: In order to eliminate such doubts, up to and including consciousness (Vijñāna, consciousness). Summarizing the meaning of the above.
Shastra: So what is the reason?
問所以知經為除三際愚也。
論。以契經說至有非有等。答也。以契經說 于諸緣起緣已生法者。十二緣起 以正慧觀者。觀緣起理也 彼必不應三際愚等者。以觀十二緣起故除三際愚惑也。唯見緣起知過去是無明．行。未來是生．老死。現在八支即無疑惑．及計我也。
論。有餘師說至后際因故。述異說也。正理破云。彼亦應說。識．乃至受亦為除他前際愚惑。此五皆是前際果故。則無中際便違契經。或彼應申差別所以。然不能說故前為勝。
論。又應知此至其義云何。此下第五一頌束為三．二。
論曰至所依事故。束為三也。無明．愛．取是煩惱性。行．有是業性。識．名色．六處．觸．受．生．老死是事性。以是煩惱．業所依事故。
論。如是七事至為自性故。又束為二。識．名色．六處．觸．受是過去果。生．老死是現在果。惑．業性者皆是其因。業為生因。惑為緣因。
論。何緣中際至惑唯一故。問廣．略也。何緣中際果開為五。惑分為二。后際果合為二。前際惑唯為一。
論。由中際廣至說便無用。答也。正理論云。何緣現在諸煩惱位偏說于愛非余煩惱。于愛易了愛味過患。余煩惱中此相難了。愛是能感後有勝因。世尊偏說令知過患。云何當令勤求治道。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：為什麼學習佛經能夠去除三際（過去、現在、未來）的愚癡？
論：通過契經所說的『有』、『非有』等道理。答：通過契經所說的，對於諸緣起（pratītyasamutpāda）和緣已生法，以正確的智慧去觀察十二緣起（dvādaśāṅga pratītyasamutpāda），就是觀察緣起的道理。如果能這樣觀察，就必定不會有三際的愚癡等問題。因為觀察十二緣起，就能知道過去是無明（avidyā）、行（saṃskāra），未來是生（jāti）、老死（jarāmaraṇa），現在是八支，這樣就不會有疑惑，也不會執著于『我』。
論：有其他老師說，是爲了去除后際的因。這是在陳述不同的觀點。正理反駁說：他們也應該說，識（vijñāna）、乃至受（vedanā）也是爲了去除他人對於前際的愚癡迷惑，因為這五者都是前際的果。如果這樣，就沒有中際，就違背了契經。或者他們應該說明這種差別的理由，但他們無法說明，所以前面的說法更勝一籌。
論：還應該知道，這以下第五個偈頌，將十二緣起歸納為三類和兩類，它的意義是什麼？
論曰：歸納為煩惱所依的事等。歸納為三類：無明（avidyā）、愛（tṛṣṇā）、取（upādāna）是煩惱的性質；行（saṃskāra）、有（bhava）是業的性質；識（vijñāna）、名色（nāmarūpa）、六處（ṣaḍāyatana）、觸（sparśa）、受（vedanā）、生（jāti）、老死（jarāmaraṇa）是事的性質。因為這些是煩惱和業所依賴的事。
論：像這樣七件事，是爲了自性等。又歸納為兩類：識（vijñāna）、名色（nāmarūpa）、六處（ṣaḍāyatana）、觸（sparśa）、受（vedanā）是過去的果；生（jāti）、老死（jarāmaraṇa）是現在的果；惑（煩惱的性質）、業（業的性質）都是它們的因。業是生的因，惑是緣的因。
論：為什麼中際的果開為五，惑分為二，后際的果合為二，而前際的惑卻只有一？這是在問廣略的問題。
論：因為中際廣，如果說得簡單就沒有用。回答說：正理論說，為什麼在現在的諸煩惱位中，偏偏說愛（tṛṣṇā）而不是其他的煩惱？因為愛（tṛṣṇā）容易瞭解，容易看到愛味的過患，而其他的煩惱中，這種相狀難以瞭解。愛（tṛṣṇā）是能夠感得後有的殊勝的因，世尊特別說明，是爲了讓人知道它的過患，從而努力尋求對治的方法。所以。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Why is it that studying the sutras removes the ignorance of the three times (past, present, and future)?
Treatise: Through the principles of 'existence', 'non-existence', etc., as explained in the sutras. Answer: Through the sutras, regarding the dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) and the phenomena that have arisen from conditions, observing the twelve links of dependent origination (dvādaśāṅga pratītyasamutpāda) with correct wisdom is to observe the principle of dependent origination. If one observes in this way, one will certainly not have the ignorance of the three times, etc. Because by observing the twelve links of dependent origination, one can know that the past is ignorance (avidyā) and action (saṃskāra), the future is birth (jāti) and old age and death (jarāmaraṇa), and the present is the eight limbs, so there will be no doubt and no attachment to 'self'.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that it is to remove the cause of the future time. This is stating a different view. The principle refutes: They should also say that consciousness (vijñāna), and even feeling (vedanā), are also to remove others' ignorance of the past time, because these five are all the results of the past time. If so, there would be no middle time, which would contradict the sutras. Or they should explain the reason for this difference, but they cannot, so the previous statement is superior.
Treatise: It should also be known that the fifth verse below summarizes the twelve links of dependent origination into three categories and two categories. What is its meaning?
Treatise says: Summarized as the things on which afflictions depend, etc. Summarized into three categories: ignorance (avidyā), craving (tṛṣṇā), and grasping (upādāna) are the nature of afflictions; action (saṃskāra) and existence (bhava) are the nature of karma; consciousness (vijñāna), name and form (nāmarūpa), six sense bases (ṣaḍāyatana), contact (sparśa), feeling (vedanā), birth (jāti), and old age and death (jarāmaraṇa) are the nature of things. Because these are the things on which afflictions and karma depend.
Treatise: Like these seven things, it is for self-nature, etc. Again summarized into two categories: consciousness (vijñāna), name and form (nāmarūpa), six sense bases (ṣaḍāyatana), contact (sparśa), and feeling (vedanā) are the results of the past; birth (jāti) and old age and death (jarāmaraṇa) are the results of the present; delusion (the nature of afflictions) and karma (the nature of karma) are all their causes. Karma is the cause of birth, and delusion is the cause of condition.
Treatise: Why is it that the results of the middle time are divided into five, the delusions are divided into two, the results of the future time are combined into two, and the delusions of the past time are only one? This is asking about the broad and the concise.
Treatise: Because the middle time is broad, if it is said simply, it would be useless. The principle replies: Why is it that in the present position of afflictions, craving (tṛṣṇā) is specifically mentioned instead of other afflictions? Because craving (tṛṣṇā) is easy to understand, and the faults of the taste of craving are easy to see, while in other afflictions, this aspect is difficult to understand. Craving (tṛṣṇā) is the superior cause that can bring about future existence. The World-Honored One specifically explained it in order to make people aware of its faults, so that they would diligently seek ways to counteract it. Therefore.
唯說愛剎那相續二位差別非余煩惱。有餘師說。一切煩惱初緣境時說名為愛。后增廣位說名為取。故佛雖說業因於愛愛因無明。而實業因通一切煩惱。一切煩惱皆無明為因。故知愛聲通說諸惑。欲令因此總知過患。故以愛聲說諸煩惱。非余煩惱招生劣故。有說愛聲唯說愛體。多現行故。由此于愛分別剎那相續差別(剎那名愛。相續名取)雖非無此理。然前說為勝 準此論文。評取前二釋也。
論。若緣起支至成無窮失。難也。難云。若緣起支唯有十二。老死無果故。離修對治道生死應有終。無明無因故。應同彌沙塞部。生死應有始。或應更立余緣支起。余復有餘成無窮故。正理更加一過云。又佛聖教應成缺減。然不應許。
論。不應更立至由義已顯。答也。不更立余緣起支。即說十二已顯無明有因。老死有果。
論。云何以顯。問也。此一頌明惑等相生。
論曰至其理唯此。答前難也 從惑生惑者。即愛．取．俱是煩惱。愛緣于取是從惑生惑。此有一 從惑生業者。謂無明緣行。取緣有也。取與無明同是惑也。即現在取過去名無明也。行與有同是業。即現在有過去名行。此有二也 從業生事謂行生識及有生生。即行緣識。有緣生也。生之與識俱是事故。此亦有二 從事生事者。謂從識支生於
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 唯有愛（Trsna）的剎那（ksana）和相續（prabandha）兩種狀態存在差別，其他煩惱則不然。有些論師說，一切煩惱最初緣取境界時，可稱為『愛』，之後增長擴充套件的狀態則稱為『取』（Upadana）。因此，雖然佛陀說業的因是愛，愛的因是無明（Avidya），但實際上，業的因涵蓋一切煩惱，而一切煩惱都以無明為因。由此可知，『愛』這個詞可以通指各種迷惑。佛陀希望通過這個詞來使人全面瞭解過患，所以用『愛』來代表各種煩惱，而不是因為其他煩惱產生的結果不如愛。有人說，『愛』這個詞僅僅指愛本身，因為它最常顯現。因此，對愛的剎那和相續狀態進行區分（剎那名為愛，相續名為取），雖然並非沒有道理，但之前的說法更為優勝。可以參照此論文來評判前兩種解釋。
論：如果緣起支（Paticcasamuppada）可以隨意增減，就會導致無窮的過失。這是個難題。難題在於：如果緣起支只有十二支，那麼老死（Jaramarana）就沒有結果；如果脫離了修習對治之道，生死本應有終結；如果無明沒有原因，那麼就應該像彌沙塞部（Mahisasaka）所說的那樣，生死應該有開始；或者應該再建立其他的緣起支，這樣就會導致沒完沒了的增補，造成無窮的過失。正理派（Nyaya）又增加了一個過失：佛陀的聖教應該成為殘缺不全的，這是不應該允許的。
論：不應該再建立其他的緣起支，因為（十二緣起支）已經顯明瞭（所有道理）。這是回答。不應該再建立其他的緣起支，因為僅僅是說十二緣起支就已經顯明瞭無明有因，老死有果。
論：如何顯明？這是提問。這一頌說明了迷惑等相互產生。
論曰：其理唯此。這是對前面難題的回答。從迷惑產生迷惑，即愛和取都是煩惱。愛緣取，是從迷惑產生迷惑。這是一種情況。從迷惑產生業，指的是無明緣行（Samskara），取緣有（Bhava）。取和無明都是迷惑。現在的取就是過去世的無明。行和有都是業，現在的有就是過去世的行。這是兩種情況。從業產生事，指的是行生識（Vijnana）以及有生生（Jati）。行緣識，有緣生。生和識都是事。這也是兩種情況。從事產生事，指的是從識支產生於...
【English Translation】 English version: Only the momentary (ksana) and continuous (prabandha) states of Trsna (craving) differ, not other afflictions. Some teachers say that all afflictions are called 'Trsna' when they first grasp an object, and 'Upadana' (clinging) in their later, expanded state. Therefore, although the Buddha said that the cause of karma is Trsna and the cause of Trsna is Avidya (ignorance), in reality, the cause of karma encompasses all afflictions, and all afflictions have Avidya as their cause. Thus, it is known that the term 'Trsna' generally refers to all delusions. The Buddha wanted to use this term to make people fully understand the faults, so he used 'Trsna' to represent all afflictions, not because other afflictions produce inferior results compared to Trsna. Some say that the term 'Trsna' only refers to Trsna itself, because it appears most frequently. Therefore, distinguishing between the momentary and continuous states of Trsna (the momentary is called Trsna, the continuous is called Upadana), although not unreasonable, the previous statement is superior. This treatise can be used to evaluate the first two explanations.
Objection: If the links of dependent origination (Paticcasamuppada) can be arbitrarily added or subtracted, it will lead to infinite faults. This is a difficult question. The difficulty lies in: if there are only twelve links of dependent origination, then Jaramarana (old age and death) would have no result; if one were to deviate from the path of cultivation and counteraction, samsara should have an end; if Avidya has no cause, then, as the Mahisasaka school says, samsara should have a beginning; or other links of dependent origination should be established, which would lead to endless additions and infinite faults. The Nyaya school adds another fault: the Buddha's teachings should become incomplete, which is not permissible.
Reply: Other links of dependent origination should not be established, because (the twelve links of dependent origination) have already revealed (all the principles). This is the answer. Other links of dependent origination should not be established, because merely stating the twelve links of dependent origination has already revealed that Avidya has a cause and Jaramarana has a result.
Objection: How is it revealed? This is a question. This verse explains the mutual arising of delusions, etc.
Reply: The principle is only this. This is the answer to the previous difficulty. From delusion arises delusion, that is, Trsna and Upadana are both afflictions. Trsna conditions Upadana, which is from delusion arising from delusion. This is one case. From delusion arises karma, referring to Avidya conditioning Samskara (volitional formations), and Upadana conditioning Bhava (becoming). Upadana and Avidya are both delusions. Present Upadana is past Avidya. Samskara and Bhava are both karma, present Bhava is past Samskara. These are two cases. From karma arises result, referring to Samskara conditioning Vijnana (consciousness) and Bhava conditioning Jati (birth). Samskara conditions Vijnana, and Bhava conditions Jati. Jati and Vijnana are both results. These are also two cases. From result arises result, referring to the Vijnana link arising from...
名色。乃至觸生於受。乃從生支生．老死支。
論。已顯老死至此言何用。明老死有果。無明有因。豈假更立余緣起支。故經言如是純大苦蘊集。正理論云。經言如是純大苦蘊集。是前．后二際更相顯發義。是故無有老死．無明。無果．無因。有終．始過。於是定攝因果義周。無更立支成無窮失。
論。有餘釋言至此契經中。有餘釋老死果無明因也。非理作意與無明為因。無明覆生非理作意。非理作意亦取支攝。故不別立無明因支。
論。此非理作意如何取支攝。論主問攝所以。
論。若言由此至亦應彼攝。以愛．無明例非理作意不許攝也。
論。設許彼攝至為無明因。縱攝而遮因也。
論。若但彼攝至為緣起支。縱攝為因例愛．無明應不別立。
論。余復釋云至說在觸時。第二餘師釋。正理論云。是上座釋。
論。故余經說至必引無明。無明觸位有非理作意生受位無明也。
論。故余經言至無明為緣。引余經證。如文可知。
論。由此無明至從癡生故。結對前難。非理作意從無明生。無明覆因非理起故。展轉為果非無因也。
論。如契經說至染濁作意。引經證非理作意從無明生。
論。余經雖有至應更須說。論主難也。雖緣起余經說非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名色（nāma-rūpa，精神和物質的結合）。乃至觸（sparśa，感官接觸）生於受（vedanā，感受）。乃是從生支（jāti，出生）生老死支（jarā-maraṇa，衰老和死亡）。
論：既然已經闡明了老死，為何還要再次提及？這是爲了說明老死有果報，而無明（avidyā，無知）是其原因。難道還需要另外設立緣起支嗎？所以經中說：『如是純大苦蘊集』。正理論中說：經文『如是純大苦蘊集』，是前後二際互相顯發其意義。因此，如果說沒有老死，沒有無明，沒有果，沒有因，就會有終始的過失。因此，確定地包含因果的意義就完備了，無需再設立新的支，以免造成無窮的過失。
論：還有其他解釋說，這段契經中，有其他解釋認為老死是果，無明是因。非理作意（ayoniśo manaskāra，不如理的思考）以無明為因，無明又產生非理作意。非理作意也包含在支中，所以不另外設立無明的因支。
論：這非理作意如何包含在支中？論主提問包含的原因。
論：如果說由此……也應該包含在其中。以愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）、無明為例，非理作意不應該被包含在其中。
論：假設允許它被包含……作為無明的因。即使包含，也是爲了遮止它作為（獨立的）因。
論：如果僅僅是包含在其中……作為緣起支。即使包含作為因，那麼按照愛、無明的例子，也不應該單獨設立。
論：還有其他解釋說……說在觸的時候。第二位其他老師的解釋。正理論中說：這是上座部的解釋。
論：所以其他經中說……必定會引用無明。無明在觸位時，有非理作意；在受位時，也有無明。
論：所以其他經中說……以無明為緣。引用其他經文來證明，如文中所說。
論：由此無明……因為從癡（moha，愚癡）而生。總結並反駁之前的難題。非理作意從無明而生，無明又因為非理作意而起，輾轉相生，並非沒有原因。
論：如契經所說……染濁作意。引用經文證明非理作意從無明而生。
論：其他經中雖然有……應該需要進一步說明。論主提出疑問。雖然緣起在其他經中說了非……
【English Translation】 English version: Nāma-rūpa (name and form, the combination of mind and matter). Up to sparśa (contact, sensory contact) giving rise to vedanā (feeling, sensation). And from the branch of jāti (birth) arises the branch of jarā-maraṇa (aging and death).
Treatise: Since aging and death have already been explained, what is the purpose of mentioning them again? It is to clarify that aging and death have consequences, while avidyā (ignorance) is the cause. Is it necessary to establish additional links in dependent origination? Therefore, the sutra says: 'Thus, the entire mass of suffering arises.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra states: The sutra 'Thus, the entire mass of suffering arises' means that the past and future are mutually revealing their meaning. Therefore, if there is no aging and death, no ignorance, no result, and no cause, there will be the fault of having a beginning and an end. Therefore, the meaning of definitively including cause and effect is complete, and there is no need to establish new links, lest it lead to infinite faults.
Treatise: There are other explanations that, in this sutra, other explanations consider aging and death as the result, and ignorance as the cause. Ayoniśo manaskāra (irrational attention, improper thinking) has ignorance as its cause, and ignorance in turn produces irrational attention. Irrational attention is also included in the links, so a separate link for the cause of ignorance is not established.
Treatise: How is this irrational attention included in the links? The author of the treatise asks for the reason for inclusion.
Treatise: If it is said that because of this... it should also be included therein. Using tṛṣṇā (craving, thirst) and ignorance as examples, irrational attention should not be included.
Treatise: Supposing it is allowed to be included... as the cause of ignorance. Even if it is included, it is to prevent it from being (an independent) cause.
Treatise: If it is merely included therein... as a link in dependent origination. Even if it is included as a cause, then according to the examples of craving and ignorance, it should not be established separately.
Treatise: There are other explanations that... it is said at the time of contact. The explanation of the second other teacher. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra states: This is the explanation of the elders.
Treatise: Therefore, other sutras say... it will definitely cite ignorance. At the time of contact, there is irrational attention due to ignorance; at the time of feeling, there is also ignorance.
Treatise: Therefore, other sutras say... with ignorance as the condition. Citing other sutras to prove it, as stated in the text.
Treatise: From this ignorance... because it arises from moha (delusion, ignorance). Summarizing and refuting the previous difficulty. Irrational attention arises from ignorance, and ignorance arises from irrational attention, arising in turn, not without a cause.
Treatise: As the sutra says... defiled attention. Citing sutras to prove that irrational attention arises from ignorance.
Treatise: Although other sutras have... it should be further explained. The author of the treatise raises a question. Although dependent origination is mentioned in other sutras, it is not...
理作意從無明生。無明覆生非理作意。然此緣起經中應更須說。
論。不須更說。余師答也。
論。如何證知。論主徴也。
論。由理證知。余師答也。
論。何等為理。論主問也。
論。非離無明至不生愛故。此證受位有無明也。
論。又非無倒觸能為染受緣。證觸位有非理作意也。
論。亦非離無明觸至非顛倒故。證觸時有無明故成顛倒。
論。由如是理為證故知。結也。
論若爾便應成至不成釋難。論主破也。豈由理證知即經不說。若爾十二緣起皆理可證。何為緣起經中唯說十二。不說無明之因老死之果。
論。然上所言至理不圓滿。論主釋緣起經意。
論。所以者何。外人問也。
論。此經但欲至遣他愚惑。釋主釋經意也。如文可解。
論。如世尊告至此二何異問。經中說緣起法。緣已生法。二說何異。
論。且本論文至一切法故。引本論證二說同也。
論。如何未來至說緣已生。難也。未來法未生如何說已生。
論。云何未來至說名有為。反難問也。未來未已生不許說已生。未來未有作如何說有為。
論。由能作思力所造故。答反難也。未來之法非能作已作思所造故名有為。
論。若爾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
非理作意（ayoniso-manasikara，不如理的思維）從無明（avidya，對實相的無知）產生。無明又從非理作意產生。然而，這個緣起（pratītyasamutpāda，因果關係）的道理，在經文中應該更詳細地說明。
論：不需要更詳細地說明。——這是其他論師的回答。
論：如何證明你知道這一點？——這是論主的提問。
論：通過道理來證明。——這是其他論師的回答。
論：什麼是道理？——這是論主的提問。
論：因為如果不是由於無明，就不會產生愛（trsna，渴愛）。——這證明了在感受（vedana）的階段存在無明。
論：而且，如果不是顛倒的觸（sparśa，感官接觸），就不能成為染污的感受的緣。——這證明了在觸的階段存在非理作意。
論：同樣，如果不是由於無明的觸，就不會導致顛倒。——這證明了在觸的時候存在無明，因此造成顛倒。
論：由於這些道理作為證明，所以知道這一點。——這是結論。
論：如果這樣，那麼就會導致『不成』（asiddha，不成立）的過失。——這是論主的駁斥。難道因為可以通過道理來證明，經典就不說了嗎？如果這樣，十二緣起都可以通過道理來證明，為什麼緣起經中只說了十二支，而不說無明的因，以及老死（jarā-maraṇa）的果呢？
論：然而，上面所說的，道理並不圓滿。——這是論主解釋緣起經的用意。
論：為什麼呢？——這是外人的提問。
論：這部經只是想要消除他人的愚昧迷惑。——這是解釋經文的用意。如文字所表達的那樣可以理解。
論：如世尊所說……這兩種說法有什麼不同？——經中說『緣起法』（pratītyasamutpāda-dharma，緣起之法），又說『緣已生法』（pratītyasamutpanna-dharma，由緣所生之法），這兩種說法有什麼不同？
論：且本論文……一切法故。——引用本論文來證明這兩種說法是相同的。
論：如何未來……說緣已生？——這是提問。未來的法還沒有產生，怎麼能說是『已生』呢？
論：云何未來……說名有為？——這是反問。未來的法還沒有產生，不允許說是『已生』，那麼未來的法還沒有造作，怎麼能說是有為（saṃskṛta，有造作的）呢？
論：由於能作思（cetana，意志）的力量所造作的緣故。——這是回答反問。未來的法不是能作已作的思所造作的，所以稱為有為。
論：如果這樣……
【English Translation】 English version:
Ayoniso-manasikara (irrational attention/unwise consideration) arises from avidya (ignorance). Avidya, in turn, arises from ayoniso-manasikara. However, this principle of pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) should be explained in more detail in the sutras.
Treatise: There is no need to explain it in more detail. – This is the answer of other teachers.
Treatise: How do you know this? – This is the question of the treatise master.
Treatise: It is known through reason. – This is the answer of other teachers.
Treatise: What is reason? – This is the question of the treatise master.
Treatise: Because if it were not for avidya, trsna (craving) would not arise. – This proves that avidya exists in the stage of vedana (feeling).
Treatise: Moreover, if it were not for inverted/wrong sparśa (contact), it could not be a condition for defiled vedana. – This proves that ayoniso-manasikara exists in the stage of sparśa.
Treatise: Likewise, if it were not for avidya-related sparśa, it would not lead to inversion/wrong views. – This proves that avidya exists at the time of sparśa, thus causing inversion.
Treatise: Because these reasons serve as proof, it is known. – This is the conclusion.
Treatise: If so, then it would lead to the fault of 'asiddha' (unestablished). – This is the refutation of the treatise master. Is it the case that just because it can be proven through reason, the sutras do not speak of it? If so, all twelve links of dependent origination could be proven through reason. Why does the sutra on dependent origination only speak of the twelve links, and not of the cause of avidya, and the result of jarā-maraṇa (old age and death)?
Treatise: However, what was said above, the reason is not complete. – This is the treatise master explaining the intention of the sutra on dependent origination.
Treatise: Why is that? – This is the question of an outsider.
Treatise: This sutra only intends to dispel the ignorance and confusion of others. – This is the explanation of the sutra's intention. It can be understood as the text expresses it.
Treatise: As the World Honored One said... What is the difference between these two statements? – The sutra speaks of 'pratītyasamutpāda-dharma' (the law of dependent origination), and also speaks of 'pratītyasamutpanna-dharma' (the phenomena that arise from conditions). What is the difference between these two statements?
Treatise: And this treatise... because of all dharmas. – Quoting this treatise to prove that the two statements are the same.
Treatise: How can the future... say 'already arisen'? – This is a question. How can future dharmas, which have not yet arisen, be said to be 'already arisen'?
Treatise: How can the future... be called samskrta? – This is a counter-question. If future dharmas, which have not yet arisen, are not allowed to be called 'already arisen', then how can future dharmas, which have not yet been created, be called samskrta (conditioned)?
Treatise: Because it is created by the power of cetana (volition). – This is the answer to the counter-question. Future dharmas are called samskrta because they are created by the cetana that is capable of creating.
Treatise: If so...
無漏如何有為。難也。若思異熟因力所造故名有為者。未來無漏既非異熟因所造如何名有為。
論。彼亦善思力所造故。答也。彼亦以行者修善思力所造故也。
論若爾就得涅槃應然。難也。修力得證涅槃。涅槃應亦是有為也。
論。理實應言至所說無失。論主正釋。未來未已作位名有為者。已與過．現種類同故。
論。然今正釋契經意者。已下半頌。論主正釋經意。說因分名緣起。果分名緣已生。
論曰至因果性故。釋頌文也。此十二支能生后義名之為因。此因為緣能起後果故名緣起。從前生義名之為果。此果皆從緣所生故名緣已生。如是一切十二支皆有因果義。故緣起。緣已生。二義皆成。
論若爾安立應不俱成。外難。為因之時不可為果。為果之時不可為因。如何二義俱得成也。
論。不爾所觀至父子等名。答也。所觀有別。二義得成。由如父．子從他生義名子。生他義名父。因果亦爾。
論。尊者望滿至諸無為法。述望滿釋經也。正理論云。今詳尊者所說義意。若從因已起名緣已生。若與余為因說名緣起。非無為法得緣起名。以為因相不圓滿故。因相者何。謂前已說依此有彼有。此生故彼生。依此無彼無。此滅故彼滅。雖有無為諸法得起。而不可說此生故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無漏』（Anāsrava，指沒有煩惱和業障的狀態）怎麼會是『有為』（Saṃskṛta，指由因緣和合而成的，會變化的事物）呢？這是一個難題。如果說因為是由『異熟因』（Vipāka-hetu，指導致不同結果的業因）的力量所造作，所以稱為『有為』，那麼未來的『無漏』既然不是由『異熟因』所造作，又怎麼能稱為『有為』呢？
論：那也是由善思的力量所造作的。這是回答。那也是因為修行者修習善思的力量所造作的。
論：如果這樣，那麼證得『涅槃』（Nirvāṇa，指解脫生死輪迴的境界）也應該是『有為』了。這是一個難題。通過修行的力量證得『涅槃』，那麼『涅槃』也應該是有為的了。
論：實際上應該說……以至於所說的沒有錯誤。論主正確地解釋說，未來還沒有完成造作的狀態稱為『有為』，因為它已經與過去、現在的種類相同。
論：然而現在正確地解釋契經的意義是……以下是半頌。論主正確地解釋經文的意義。說因的部分名為『緣起』（Pratītyasamutpāda，指因緣和合而生起），果的部分名為『緣已生』。
論曰：以至於因果的性質。解釋頌文。這十二支（指十二因緣）能夠產生後來的意義，所以稱為『因』。這個『因』作為『緣』（Pratyaya，指產生結果的條件），能夠生起後來的結果，所以名為『緣起』。從前面產生出來的意義稱為『果』。這個『果』都是從『緣』所生，所以名為『緣已生』。像這樣，一切十二支都有因果的意義，所以『緣起』、『緣已生』這兩種意義都成立。
論：如果這樣，那麼安立應該不能同時成立。外人的提問。作為『因』的時候不可能作為『果』，作為『果』的時候不可能作為『因』，怎麼能兩種意義都同時成立呢？
論：不是這樣的，所觀察的不同……以至於父子等名稱。回答。所觀察的角度不同，兩種意義就可以成立。猶如父親和兒子，從被他生出來的意義來說是兒子，生出他的意義來說是父親，因果也是這樣。
論：尊者望滿……以至於諸『無為法』（Asaṃskṛta，指不依賴因緣，不生不滅的法）。敘述望滿解釋經文。正理論說：現在詳細地考察尊者所說的意義，如果從『因』已經生起，就名為『緣已生』，如果與其他的作為『因』，就說名為『緣起』。『無為法』不能得到『緣起』的名稱，因為作為『因』的相狀不圓滿。『因』的相狀是什麼呢？就是前面已經說過的『依此有彼有，此生故彼生，依此無彼無，此滅故彼滅』。雖然有『無為』諸法得以生起，但是不能說『此生故……』
【English Translation】 English version How can 『Anāsrava』 (unconditioned, free from defilements), be 『Saṃskṛta』 (conditioned, compounded)? This is difficult. If it is said that because it is created by the power of 『Vipāka-hetu』 (resultant cause), it is called 『Saṃskṛta』, then how can future 『Anāsrava』, since it is not created by 『Vipāka-hetu』, be called 『Saṃskṛta』?
Treatise: That is also created by the power of good thought. This is the answer. That is also because practitioners cultivate and create it through the power of good thought.
Treatise: If that is the case, then attaining 『Nirvāṇa』 (liberation) should also be 『Saṃskṛta』. This is a difficult question. Attaining 『Nirvāṇa』 through the power of cultivation, then 『Nirvāṇa』 should also be 『Saṃskṛta』.
Treatise: In reality, it should be said... to the point that what is said is without error. The author of the treatise correctly explains that the state of the future that has not yet been created is called 『Saṃskṛta』, because it is already the same as the past and present categories.
Treatise: However, now the correct explanation of the meaning of the sutra is... the following is half a verse. The author of the treatise correctly explains the meaning of the sutra. Saying the part of the cause is called 『Pratītyasamutpāda』 (dependent origination), and the part of the effect is called 『Pratītyasamutpanna』 (dependently arisen).
Treatise says: As for the nature of cause and effect. Explaining the verse. These twelve links (of dependent origination) can produce the later meaning, so they are called 『cause』. This 『cause』 as a 『Pratyaya』 (condition), can give rise to later results, so it is called 『Pratītyasamutpāda』. The meaning that arises from the front is called 『effect』. This 『effect』 is all born from 『Pratyaya』, so it is called 『Pratītyasamutpanna』. Like this, all twelve links have the meaning of cause and effect, so the two meanings of 『Pratītyasamutpāda』 and 『Pratītyasamutpanna』 are both established.
Treatise: If that is the case, then the establishment should not be able to be established simultaneously. An outsider's question. When it is a 『cause』, it cannot be an 『effect』. When it is an 『effect』, it cannot be a 『cause』. How can both meanings be established at the same time?
Treatise: It is not like that, what is observed is different... as for names like father and son. Answer. The perspectives observed are different, and the two meanings can be established. Just like a father and a son, from the meaning of being born from him, he is a son, and from the meaning of giving birth to him, he is a father. The same is true for cause and effect.
Treatise: Venerable Vangman... as for all 『Asaṃskṛta』 (unconditioned) dharmas. Narrating Vangman's explanation of the sutra. The Zhengli Lun says: Now, examining in detail the meaning of what Venerable Vangman said, if it arises from the 『cause』, it is called 『Pratītyasamutpanna』. If it is a 『cause』 with others, it is called 『Pratītyasamutpāda』. 『Asaṃskṛta dharma』 cannot obtain the name 『Pratītyasamutpāda』, because the characteristic of being a 『cause』 is not complete. What is the characteristic of a 『cause』? It is what has been said before: 『When this exists, that exists; when this arises, that arises; when this does not exist, that does not exist; when this ceases, that ceases.』 Although there are 『Asaṃskṛta』 dharmas that arise, it cannot be said 『when this arises...』
彼生。亦不可言此滅故彼滅。及不可說依此無彼無。無生滅故。體常有故。乃至無取．與力闕于因相 準此。望滿未來法名緣起者。以是有為后為因生法名緣起。羅漢后蘊從因生故名緣已生。不生后故不名緣起。余過．現法從緣生故名緣已生。能生后故名為緣起。諸無為法二義俱闕。雖為能作因生於諸法。因相不滿不名緣起。
論。經部諸師至經義不然。已下經部破有部也。有部是本。經部是末。由此白也。
論。所以者何。有部徴也。
論。且前所說至經義相違。經部答也。經言云何無明謂前際無知。經現唯說無知如何總取五蘊。此經是了義說。不可令成不了義。意說不是五蘊但是無明。
論。非一切經至此亦應爾。有部引例證不了義。就勝說無明也。如象跡喻說。云何內地界謂發．毛等 發．毛等中非無色等。然說發．毛為地界者。以發．毛中地界勝故。故就勝說名地界也無明支中亦有五蘊。經就勝說以為無明。
論。所引非證至無復有餘。經部破所引經非成證也。經以發．毛分別地界者。經云。云何內地界。此問地界。謂發．毛等。此將發．毛分別地界內外別也。非是經說云何發．毛謂內地界。若以此言出發．毛體。可說發．毛實具四大四境就勝唯說地界。經將發．毛出地界體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 彼生，亦不可言因此滅故彼滅，及不可說依此無彼無，因為沒有生滅，本體恒常存在。乃至沒有取和給予的力量，缺乏因果關係。參照這個標準，對於期望圓滿未來法而稱為緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda，指事物相互依存的生起）的，因為是有為法，後來的法以先前的法為因而生起，所以稱為緣起。阿羅漢（Arhat，佛教修行者達到的一種境界）的后蘊（Skandha，構成個體的五種要素）從因生起，所以稱為緣已生。因為不再產生後來的法，所以不稱為緣起。其餘過去和現在的法，因為從緣生起，所以稱為緣已生，因為能夠產生後來的法，所以稱為緣起。所有無為法（Asamskrta，指不依賴條件而存在的法）都缺乏這兩種含義。雖然作為能作因生起諸法，但因果關係不圓滿，所以不稱為緣起。
論：經部（Sautrāntika，佛教的一個派別）的諸位法師認為經義不是這樣。以下是經部駁斥有部（Sarvāstivāda，佛教的一個派別）的觀點。有部是根本，經部是末流，因此可以明白。
論：為什麼這樣說呢？有部提出疑問。
論：且先前所說的，與經義相違背。經部回答說。經中說，什麼是無明（Avidyā，指對事物真相的無知）？是指對前際（Pūrvānta，過去）的無知。經中現在只說了無知，如何能總括五蘊（Pañca-skandha，構成個體的五種要素）呢？這部經是了義說（Nītārtha，指意義明確的經典），不能讓它變成不了義說（Neyārtha，指需要解釋才能理解的經典）。意思是說，無明不是五蘊，僅僅是無知。
論：不是一切經都如此，這裡也應該這樣。有部引用例子來證明不了義。這是就殊勝之處來說無明。例如象跡喻中說，什麼是內在的地界（Dhātu，指構成事物的基本元素）？是指頭髮、毛髮等。頭髮、毛髮等中並非沒有色等，但說頭髮、毛髮為地界，是因為頭髮、毛髮中地界最殊勝。所以就殊勝之處說為地界。無明支（Avidyāṅga，十二因緣中的第一支）中也有五蘊，經中就殊勝之處說為無明。
論：所引用的不是證據，直到沒有剩餘。經部駁斥所引用的經文不能成為證據。經中以頭髮、毛髮來分別地界，經中說：什麼是內在的地界？這是問地界，回答說頭髮、毛髮等。這是將頭髮、毛髮來分別地界的內外差別。不是經中說：什麼是頭髮、毛髮？回答說內在的地界。如果以此來說明頭髮、毛髮的本體，可以說頭髮、毛髮實際上具備四大四境，就殊勝之處只說是地界。經中將頭髮、毛髮作為地界的本體提出。
【English Translation】 English version: When that arises, it cannot be said that because that ceases, this ceases, nor can it be said that because this is absent, that is absent, because there is no arising or ceasing, and the essence is eternally existent. Furthermore, there is no power of taking or giving, lacking causal relationships. According to this standard, with regard to the expectation of fulfilling future dharmas, which is called Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination), because it is conditioned, the subsequent dharma arises with the preceding dharma as its cause, hence it is called 'arisen from conditions'. The subsequent skandhas (aggregates) of an Arhat (one who has attained enlightenment) arise from causes, hence they are called 'already arisen from conditions'. Because they no longer produce subsequent dharmas, they are not called Pratītyasamutpāda. Other past and present dharmas, because they arise from conditions, are called 'already arisen from conditions', and because they can produce subsequent dharmas, they are called Pratītyasamutpāda. All unconditioned dharmas (Asamskrta) lack both of these meanings. Although they act as efficient causes in the arising of dharmas, the causal relationship is incomplete, so they are not called Pratītyasamutpāda.
Treatise: The masters of the Sautrāntika (a Buddhist school) believe that the meaning of the scriptures is not like this. What follows is the Sautrāntika refuting the views of the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school). The Sarvāstivāda is the root, and the Sautrāntika is the branch, hence this is clear.
Treatise: Why is this so? The Sarvāstivāda raises a question.
Treatise: Moreover, what was said earlier contradicts the meaning of the scriptures. The Sautrāntika answers. The scripture says, 'What is Avidyā (ignorance)?' It refers to ignorance of the Pūrvānta (past). The scripture now only speaks of ignorance, how can it encompass the five skandhas (aggregates)? This scripture speaks with Nītārtha (explicit meaning), it cannot be made to have Neyārtha (implicit meaning). The meaning is that ignorance is not the five skandhas, but merely ignorance.
Treatise: Not all scriptures are like this, it should be the same here. The Sarvāstivāda cites examples to prove the implicit meaning. It speaks of ignorance in terms of its most prominent aspect. For example, in the elephant footprint analogy, it says, 'What is the internal earth element (Dhātu)?' It refers to hair, fur, etc. Among hair, fur, etc., it is not that there are no form, etc., but saying that hair and fur are the earth element is because the earth element is most prominent in hair and fur. Therefore, it is called the earth element in terms of its most prominent aspect. There are also five skandhas in the Avidyāṅga (the first link in the twelve links of dependent origination), and the scripture speaks of it as ignorance in terms of its most prominent aspect.
Treatise: What is cited is not evidence, until there is nothing remaining. The Sautrāntika refutes that the cited scripture cannot be used as evidence. The scripture distinguishes the earth element by hair and fur, the scripture says, 'What is the internal earth element?' This asks about the earth element, and answers that it is hair, fur, etc. This distinguishes the internal and external differences of the earth element by hair and fur. It is not that the scripture says, 'What is hair and fur?' and answers that it is the internal earth element. If this is used to explain the essence of hair and fur, it can be said that hair and fur actually possess the four great elements and the four realms, and only the earth element is spoken of in terms of its most prominent aspect. The scripture presents hair and fur as the essence of the earth element.
。地界不越發．毛故成具足說非從勝說。
論。豈不地界至其體亦有。有部難也。汝說地界不越發．毛成了義說。洟涕．等中豈無地界。寧不越彼。故知此經非爲了義。
論。洟等皆亦至身中余物。經部釋也。彼經云何內地界謂發等及身中余物 洟等是余物等也。
論。設復同彼至今應顯示。縱有部也。縱同象跡喻經發．毛外有此地大。如同彼說無明外有餘無明。今應顯示何者是也。
論。若引異類至此有何益。責有部也。經說無明兼引色等置無明中有何利益。
論。雖于諸位至為彼法支。經部述不取餘五蘊意也。雖無明位有色等蘊。然行但由無明而生不由色等。不由有色等故有其行支。色等不可立無明支。隨彼有無明因果故。行有唯由此無明故。
論。或有五蘊至即如所說。經部引例證也。如或有羅漢無煩惱故即無有行。隨福行亦無。非福行亦無。不動行亦無。及結生識．愛．取．有等皆無。若不唯取此有彼有者。爾時亦具五蘊。何不名行乃至愛等。
論。所說四句至所立三際。破望滿也。望滿前四句中。未來法非緣已生此即違經。經說云何緣已生法。謂無明．行乃至生．老死。生．老死既在未來名緣已生。故望滿說違其經意 或可。不許二支未來。此即壞前所立三際
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：地界不會超出頭髮和毛髮。因此，說頭髮和毛髮是完全的地界，並非是從殊勝的角度來說的。
論：難道地界直到它的本體也存在嗎？這是有部的詰難。你說地界不會超出頭髮和毛髮，這是究竟的說法。那麼鼻涕等之中難道沒有地界嗎？難道不會超出那些嗎？所以知道這部經並非爲了究竟的意義。
論：鼻涕等也都是身體中的其他物質。這是經部的解釋。那部經怎麼說內在的地界呢？就是指頭髮等以及身體中的其他物質，鼻涕等是其他的物質等等。
論：如果也和那個一樣，直到現在也應該顯示出來。這是縱有部的觀點。縱然和象跡喻經一樣，在頭髮和毛髮之外還有這個地大，如同他們所說在無明之外還有其他的無明，現在也應該顯示出來，那是什麼呢？
論：如果引用不同的類別，這有什麼好處呢？這是責備有部。經中說無明，兼帶引用色等，放在無明中有什麼利益呢？
論：雖然在各種位置，都是爲了那個法的支分。這是經部陳述不取其餘五蘊的用意。雖然在無明的位置有色等蘊，然而行只是由無明而生，不是由色等而生。因為不是由有色等而生，所以有其行支。色等不可立為無明支，因為隨那個有無明因果的緣故。行有隻是由此無明的緣故。
論：或者有五蘊，就如所說的那樣。這是經部引用例子來證明。例如或者有阿羅漢，因為沒有煩惱的緣故，就沒有行。隨福行也沒有，非福行也沒有，不動行也沒有，以及結生識（連線來世的意識，Bhavasandhi-vijnana）、愛（Trsna，渴愛）、取（Upadana，執取）、有（Bhava，存在）等等都沒有。如果不只是取這個有，那個也有的話，那麼那時也具備五蘊，為什麼不稱為行乃至愛等呢？
論：所說的四句，是建立的三際。這是爲了破斥望滿的觀點。望滿前四句中，未來的法不是緣已生的，這即是違背經文。經中說，什麼緣已生的法呢？就是無明、行乃至生、老死。生、老死既然在未來，卻名為緣已生。所以望滿的說法違背了經文的意義。或者可以不承認兩個支是未來。這就破壞了前面所建立的三際。
【English Translation】 English version: The earth element does not extend beyond hair and body hair. Therefore, saying that hair and body hair are the complete earth element is not from a superior perspective.
Treatise: Isn't it the case that the earth element exists even in its essence? This is a challenge from the Sarvastivadins. You say that the earth element does not extend beyond hair and body hair, which is an ultimate statement. Then, are there no earth elements in snot, etc.? Doesn't it extend beyond those? Therefore, it is known that this sutra is not for ultimate meaning.
Treatise: Snot, etc., are also other substances in the body. This is an explanation from the Sautrantikas. How does that sutra describe the internal earth element? It refers to hair, etc., and other substances in the body; snot, etc., are other substances, etc.
Treatise: If it were the same as that, it should be shown even now. This is the view of the Sautrantikas. Even if, like the Elephant Footprint Simile Sutra, there is this great earth element outside of hair and body hair, just as they say there is other ignorance outside of ignorance, it should be shown now; what is it?
Treatise: If different categories are cited, what benefit is there in this? This is a rebuke to the Sarvastivadins. In the sutra, when speaking of ignorance (Avidya), there is also reference to form (Rupa), etc. What benefit is there in placing them within ignorance?
Treatise: Although in various positions, it is for the branch of that dharma. This is the Sautrantikas stating the intention of not taking the remaining five aggregates (Skandhas). Although in the position of ignorance there are aggregates such as form, action (Samskara) arises only from ignorance and not from form, etc. Because it does not arise from form, etc., there is its branch of action. Form, etc., cannot be established as a branch of ignorance, because it follows that there is a cause and effect of ignorance. Action exists only because of this ignorance.
Treatise: Or there are five aggregates, just as it is said. This is the Sautrantikas citing an example to prove it. For example, there is an Arhat (one who has attained Nirvana), because there is no affliction, there is no action. There is also no meritorious action, no non-meritorious action, and no unwavering action, as well as connecting consciousness (Bhavasandhi-vijnana), craving (Trsna), grasping (Upadana), existence (Bhava), etc., all do not exist. If one does not only take this existence, but that also exists, then at that time one also possesses the five aggregates. Why are they not called action, and so on, up to craving?
Treatise: The four statements that are spoken of are the three times that are established. This is to refute the view of Wangman. In the first four statements of Wangman, future dharmas are not conditioned by what has already arisen; this is contrary to the sutras. What does the sutra say is conditioned by what has already arisen? It is ignorance, action, and so on, up to birth and death. Since birth and death are in the future, they are called conditioned by what has already arisen. Therefore, Wangman's statement contradicts the meaning of the sutras. Or, one may not acknowledge that two branches are in the future. This destroys the three times that were previously established.
應說有二。
論。有說緣起是無為法。破異計也。婆沙二十三云分別說部。宗輪論云大眾部也。以經說緣起法性常住故謂無為。
論。以契經說法至理則不然。論主審定大眾部意。
論云何如是意至及不可然。大眾部反問論主也。
論。謂若意說至理即不然。論主答也。
論。所以者何。大眾部徴理不可然等所以也。
論。生起俱是至可應正理。論主答理不可然所以也。于中有數重破。此是第一重也。為與無為相不同故。不可無為與有為相。
論。又起必應至為彼緣起。此第二重破也。緣起無常。無為常法。如何常法為無常依。
論。又名緣起至無相應理。第三破也。能詮所詮相乖反故。
論。此中緣起是何句義。大眾部問。
論。缽剌底至轉變成緣。此釋緣也。準正理云。經主此中釋差別義。缽剌底是至義 乃至 如是所釋越彼所宗 乃至 經主自立此句義已后自假立如是徴難。如是句義理不應然。所以者何。依一作者有二作用 準此等文。故知論主依經部宗釋也 西方字法有字界．字緣。略如此方字有形有聲。如一形上聲助不同目種種法。如水形上若以可助即目其河。若以每助即目海也。若以也助即目其池若以白助即目泉也。若以甚助即目其湛。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 應說有二。
論：有說緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda，指事物相互依存的生起）是無為法（Asaṃskṛta-dharma，指不依賴條件而存在的法）。這是爲了駁斥其他不同的觀點。婆沙（Vibhāṣā）二十三說這是分別說部（Vibhajyavāda）。宗輪論（Samayabhedoparacanacakra）說是大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）。因為經典說緣起法性是常住的，所以他們認為是無為法。
論：因為契經（Sūtra，佛經）說法至理則不然。論主審定大眾部的意思。
論：云何如是意至及不可然？大眾部反問論主。
論：謂若意說至理即不然。論主回答。
論：所以者何？大眾部征問理不可然等的理由。
論：生起俱是至可應正理。論主回答理不可然的理由。于中有數重破。這是第一重。因為有為（Saṃskṛta，指依賴條件而存在的法）與無為的相不同，所以不可認為無為與有為相同。
論：又起必應至為彼緣起。這是第二重破斥。緣起是無常的，無為是常法。如何能讓常法作為無常法的依據？
論：又名緣起至無相應理。這是第三重破斥。因為能詮釋的名稱和所詮釋的意義相互矛盾。
論：此中緣起是何句義？大眾部問。
論：缽剌底（Prati，緣）至轉變成緣。這是解釋緣起。準正理（Nyāyasūtra）云：經主在此中解釋差別義。缽剌底是至義，乃至，如是所釋越彼所宗，乃至，經主自立此句義已后自假立如是征難。如是句義理不應然。所以者何？依一作者有二作用。準此等文。故知論主依經部（Sūtrapiṭaka）宗釋也。西方字法有字界、字緣。略如此方字有形有聲。如一形上聲助不同目種種法。如水形上若以可助即目其河。若以每助即目海也。若以也助即目其池若以白助即目泉也。若以甚助即目其湛。
【English Translation】 English version: It should be said there are two.
Treatise: Some say that Pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination) is Asaṃskṛta-dharma (unconditioned dharma). This is to refute other different views. Vibhāṣā (Mahāvibhāṣā) twenty-three says this is Vibhajyavāda (the analytical school). Samayabhedoparacanacakra (Treatise on the Different Schools of Thought) says it is Mahāsāṃghika (the Great Assembly School). Because the scriptures say that the nature of Pratītyasamutpāda is permanent, they consider it to be Asaṃskṛta-dharma.
Treatise: Because the Sūtra (Buddhist scripture) says that the ultimate truth is not so. The author of the treatise examines the meaning of the Mahāsāṃghika.
Treatise: How can such a meaning reach and be unreasonable? The Mahāsāṃghika asks the author of the treatise in return.
Treatise: Saying that if the meaning reaches the ultimate truth, then it is not so. The author of the treatise answers.
Treatise: Why is that? The Mahāsāṃghika asks for the reason why the principle is unreasonable, etc.
Treatise: Arising and originating are both reasonable. The author of the treatise answers the reason why the principle is unreasonable. There are several layers of refutation in it. This is the first layer. Because the characteristics of Saṃskṛta (conditioned) and Asaṃskṛta (unconditioned) are different, it is not possible to consider Asaṃskṛta to be the same as Saṃskṛta.
Treatise: Moreover, arising must be the cause of that Pratītyasamutpāda. This is the second layer of refutation. Pratītyasamutpāda is impermanent, and Asaṃskṛta is a permanent dharma. How can a permanent dharma be the basis for an impermanent dharma?
Treatise: Moreover, the name Pratītyasamutpāda is not consistent with reason. This is the third layer of refutation. Because the name that explains and the meaning that is explained contradict each other.
Treatise: What is the meaning of Pratītyasamutpāda in this context? The Mahāsāṃghika asks.
Treatise: Prati (cause) to transformation becomes cause. This is the explanation of Pratītyasamutpāda. According to Nyāyasūtra (the treatise on logic), the author of the scripture explains the difference in this context. Prati means 'to', and so on. Thus, what is explained goes beyond what they advocate, and so on. The author of the scripture establishes this meaning himself and then falsely establishes such difficulties. Such a meaning should not be reasonable. Why is that? One author has two functions. According to these texts, it is known that the author of the treatise explains according to the Sūtrapiṭaka (the collection of discourses). The Western writing system has letter boundaries and letter relationships, which are roughly similar to the shapes and sounds of characters in this country. For example, different sounds on one shape can refer to various things. For example, if '可' (kě, can) is added to the shape of water, it refers to a river. If '每' (měi, every) is added, it refers to the sea. If '也' (yě, also) is added, it refers to a pond. If '白' (bái, white) is added, it refers to a spring. If '甚' (shèn, very) is added, it refers to the deep.
若以主助即目其注。水之一形有種種義。由助字異。注．湛不同。河．海有異。水是濕義。由可助故目河也 若以可為木助即目其柯。梵字亦爾。缽剌底是至義。翳底界是行義。由先翳底界行義助缽剌底至義轉變成緣。
論。三是和合義至轉變成起。此釋起也。此是界一助二合界目起。即如此方木是其一由目助成相。以相助心以為想也。
論。由此有法至是緣起義。此合釋也。此是論主依俗字法作如是釋。
論。如是句義理不應然。論主假作聲論師非前釋也。
論。所以者何。徴也。
論。依一作者至可有作用。出理不應然所以也 就中有二。一長行。二頌結。此是長行。意云。於一法上明前後二用。于先用上可言其己。如有一人浴已方食。既法起先無有小行法在起先有。即正起時方有行法。如何釋言由此有法至於緣已和合升起是緣起義。論主取經部義意假作聲論師破也。
論。故說頌言至彼應先說故。第二頌。此進退破。至緣若起先行法非有不應理。法既非有如何至緣 若俱便壞已者。若至緣時即是起時。則不應言由此有法至於緣已。言已者必應合在先說不合俱時 此是敘聲論師破也。
論。無如是過。總非聲論師也。
論。且應反詰至為在未來。反詰聲論師也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果以『主』和『助』來解釋，就像用『目』來註釋。水的形態有種種意義，由於助詞不同，『注』和『湛』的含義也不同，『河』和『海』也有差異。『水』是濕潤的意思，因為可以輔助其他事物，所以稱之為『河』。如果以『可』作為『木』的輔助，就稱之為『柯』。梵文也是如此，『缽剌底』(Pratītya，緣)是『至』的意思，『翳底界』(samutpāda，起)是『行』的意思。由於先有『翳底界』(samutpāda，起)的『行』義，輔助『缽剌底』(Pratītya，緣)的『至』義，轉變成為『緣』。
論：『三』是和合的意思，直至轉變成『起』。這是解釋『起』。這是以『界』一輔助二，合『界』來稱『起』。就像此地的『木』是其中之一，由『目』輔助形成形象，以形象輔助心，從而產生想法。
論：由此有法，直至『是緣起義』。這是綜合解釋。這是論主依據世俗的文字法則作這樣的解釋。
論：像這樣的語句義理不應該這樣。論主假託自己是聲明論師，並非之前的解釋。
論：為什麼這樣說？這是提問。
論：依據一個作者，直至可以產生作用。這是提出義理不應該這樣的原因。其中有兩部分：一是長行，二是頌的總結。這是長行。意思是說，在一個法上闡明前後兩種作用。在先前的作用上可以說『已經』。例如，有一個人洗完澡才吃飯。既然法的生起是先沒有小行法，在生起之前才有。那麼，正當生起的時候才有行法。如何解釋說『由此有法，至於緣已和合升起是緣起義』？論主採取經部的義理，假託自己是聲明論師來破斥。
論：所以說了頌：直至『彼應先說故』。第二頌。這是進退破斥。直至『緣若起先行法非有不應理』。法既然沒有，如何到達『緣』？如果同時，便破壞了『已』。如果到達『緣』的時候就是生起的時候，那麼就不應該說『由此有法至於緣已』。說『已』，必定應該在先前說，不應該同時。這是敘述聲明論師的破斥。
論：沒有這樣的過失。總的來說，不是聲明論師。
論：且應該反問，直至『為在未來』。這是反問聲明論師。
【English Translation】 English version: If we use 'subject' and 'auxiliary' to explain, it's like using 'eye' to annotate. The form of water has various meanings, due to different auxiliary words. 'Note' and 'Soak' have different meanings, and 'River' and 'Sea' also have differences. 'Water' means wetness, and because it can assist other things, it is called 'River'. If we use 'can' as an auxiliary to 'wood', it is called 'branch'. Sanskrit is also like this. 'Pratītya' (緣, condition) means 'to reach', and 'samutpāda' (起, arising) means 'to act'. Because the meaning of 'acting' of 'samutpāda' (起, arising) assists the meaning of 'reaching' of 'Pratītya' (緣, condition), it transforms into 'condition'.
Treatise: 'Three' means harmony, until it transforms into 'arising'. This explains 'arising'. This is using 'boundary' one to assist two, combining 'boundary' to call 'arising'. Just like 'wood' here is one of them, assisted by 'eye' to form an image, and using the image to assist the mind, thereby generating thoughts.
Treatise: From 'because of this there is dharma' to 'is the meaning of conditioned arising'. This is a comprehensive explanation. This is the treatise master making such an explanation based on secular writing rules.
Treatise: Sentences like this should not be reasonable in meaning. The treatise master pretends to be a grammarian, not the previous explanation.
Treatise: Why is that? This is a question.
Treatise: Based on one author, until it can produce an effect. This is the reason why the principle should not be like that. There are two parts: one is prose, and the other is a summary in verse. This is prose. It means that on one dharma, it clarifies the two functions of before and after. On the previous function, it can be said 'already'. For example, a person takes a bath before eating. Since the arising of dharma is that there was no small act of dharma before, it only exists before arising. Then, there is only the act of dharma when it is arising. How to explain 'because of this there is dharma, until the conditions have harmoniously arisen is the meaning of conditioned arising'? The treatise master adopts the meaning of the Sautrāntika school and pretends to be a grammarian to refute it.
Treatise: Therefore, the verse says: until 'it should be said first'. The second verse. This is progressive and regressive refutation. Until 'if the condition arises, the preceding dharma is non-existent, which is unreasonable'. Since the dharma does not exist, how to reach the 'condition'? If it is at the same time, it destroys 'already'. If the time of reaching the 'condition' is the time of arising, then it should not be said 'because of this there is dharma until the condition is already'. Saying 'already' must be said before, not at the same time. This is narrating the refutation of the grammarian.
Treatise: There is no such fault. In general, it is not a grammarian.
Treatise: And should ask back, until 'is in the future'. This is asking back the grammarian.
。
論。設爾何失。聲論師答。設在現在。或在未來。此有何失。
論。起若現在至便致無窮。出起現在失也。
論。起若未來至何有作用。出起未來失也。
論。故於起位即亦至緣。論主結來自釋。是聲論不得我意妄為難也。
論。起位者何。聲論師問。
論。謂未來世至亦說至緣。論主取經部義答也。正理破云。非如是言能釋前難。以正起位許屬未來。彼宗未來猶未有體至緣及起依何得成。故前所難無少行法有在起前先至於緣后時方起。非無作者可有用言仍未通釋。
論。又聲論師至於俗無謬。破聲論作者作用別也。聲論師作者如勝論實句。作用如德句。其法別也。離其作者無別作用。如刀能割豈有別耶。我立用不離體于俗無謬。
論。此緣起義至釋緣起義。結歸同十二緣起也。先長行釋。后頌結。此長行也。
論。故說頌言至若后眠應閉。頌結 言。如非有而起至緣應亦然者。此兩句論主標宗也。如先非有而有名起。至緣亦與起同時故言至緣應亦然也 生已起無窮或先有非有者。頌上反詰破聲論師也 生已起無窮。頌上破起若現在也 或先有非有者。頌上破起在未來也。或先未來有起爾時非有如何有起 下一行頌上三句釋難。下一句反徴 就三句中上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：假設你有什麼過失？聲論師回答：假設在現在，或在未來，這有什麼過失？ 論：如果生起在現在，就會導致無窮。這是生起在現在的過失。 論：如果生起在未來，又有什麼作用？這是生起在未來的過失。 論：所以在生起的位置，也就是到達緣。論主總結並親自解釋。這是聲論師不理解我的意思，妄加詰難。 論：生起的位置是什麼？聲論師問。 論：指的是未來世，也說是到達緣。論主引用經部的觀點回答。正理反駁說：不是這樣說就能解釋之前的難題。因為你所說的生起的位置，是屬於未來。你們宗派認為未來還沒有實體，到達緣和生起依靠什麼才能成立？所以之前的難題沒有絲毫解決。沒有任何事物在生起之前先到達緣，之後才生起。沒有作者，又怎麼能說作用呢？仍然沒有徹底解釋。 論：還有，聲論師在世俗諦上沒有謬誤。這是爲了破斥聲論師的作者和作用是分離的觀點。聲論師認為作者就像勝論（Vaisheshika）的實體句，作用就像德句。它們的法是分離的。離開作者就沒有其他的作用，就像刀能切割，難道還有其他的作用嗎？我所立的作用不離本體，在世俗諦上沒有謬誤。 論：這緣起的意義，是爲了解釋緣起的意義。總結歸於十二緣起（Twelve Nidānas）。先用長行文解釋，然後用頌文總結。這是長行文。 論：所以說了頌文：如果不是有而生起，到達緣也應該是這樣。頌文總結說：如果不是有而生起，到達緣也應該是這樣。這兩句是論主標明宗旨。就像先前沒有而有名生起，到達緣也與生起同時，所以說到達緣也應該是這樣。生已生起無窮，或者先前有非有。這是用頌文反駁聲論師。生已生起無窮，是用頌文反駁生起在現在。或者先前有非有，是用頌文反駁生起在未來。或者先前未來有生起，那時非有，如何生起？下一行頌文解釋上面的三句難題。下一句反問。在三句中，上面
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: Suppose what is your fault? The Sound theorist answers: Suppose it is in the present, or in the future, what fault is there in this? Treatise: If arising is in the present, it will lead to infinity. This is the fault of arising in the present. Treatise: If arising is in the future, then what is its function? This is the fault of arising in the future. Treatise: Therefore, in the position of arising, it is also reaching the condition. The treatise master concludes and explains himself. This is the Sound theorist misunderstanding my meaning and making unwarranted difficulties. Treatise: What is the position of arising? The Sound theorist asks. Treatise: It refers to the future world, and it is also said to be reaching the condition. The treatise master answers by quoting the meaning of the Sautrāntika school. The Nyāya refutes, saying: Such words cannot explain the previous difficulty. Because the position of arising that you allow belongs to the future. Your school believes that the future has no substance yet, so what can the reaching condition and arising rely on to be established? Therefore, the previous difficulty has not been resolved at all. There is no phenomenon that reaches the condition before arising and then arises later. Without an author, how can there be a function? It still has not been thoroughly explained. Treatise: Furthermore, the Sound theorist has no error in conventional truth. This is to refute the Sound theorist's view that the author and function are separate. The Sound theorist believes that the author is like the substance sentence in the Vaisheshika (勝論), and the function is like the quality sentence. Their dharmas are separate. Without the author, there is no other function, just like a knife can cut, is there any other function? The function that I establish is inseparable from the entity, and there is no error in conventional truth. Treatise: This meaning of dependent origination is to explain the meaning of dependent origination. It concludes by returning to the Twelve Nidānas (十二緣起). First, it is explained with prose, and then it is summarized with verses. This is the prose. Treatise: Therefore, the verse says: If it arises from non-existence, the reaching condition should also be like this. The verse concludes by saying: If it arises from non-existence, the reaching condition should also be like this. These two sentences are the treatise master stating the purpose. Just like something that did not exist before arises with a name, the reaching condition is also simultaneous with arising, so it is said that the reaching condition should also be like this. Having arisen, arising is infinite, or previously there was non-existence. This is refuting the Sound theorist with verses. Having arisen, arising is infinite, is refuting arising in the present with verses. Or previously there was non-existence, is refuting arising in the future with verses. Or previously the future had arising, at that time it was non-existent, how could there be arising? The next line of verse explains the above three difficulties. The next sentence is a rhetorical question. In the three sentences, the above
一句云。俱亦有言已者。正答難也。難云若起至緣二同時者。如何言至緣已方升起也。答云俱亦有言已 下兩句喻顯。謂如說闇至已燈滅。闇至與燈滅同時亦有。說言闇至已滅。故知同時亦得言已 及開口已眠眠與開口同時。亦說開口已眠。同時言已。聲論師不信開口與眠同時 第四句反難云。若未眠開口后眠應閉。以言開口已后眠故。
論。有執更以至是緣起義。述經部中上坐師釋。字界．字緣以如前釋。此師意說。種種緣聚集同處共成緣起。
論。如是所釋至聚集豈成。論主破也。種種聚集於此十二緣起可然。如眼在此色在遠方。如是亦是緣起豈是聚集。所以諸釋不同。依聲明一一字皆有十義。取意不同釋各異也。
論。何故世尊至此生故彼生。已下釋經中二句此有故彼有。此生故彼生也。先問后答。此是問也。
論。為于緣起知決定故。論主總答。欲顯緣起因果決定相系屬義此總釋也。
論。如余處說至可有諸行。別釋決定相也。就中有四。此即初明也。此明十二支各各相屬相待決定。
論。又為顯示至余支得生。此第二顯決定相明生．有。決定相屬相待。
論。又為顯示至后際得生。此第三明三世相待相屬決定相也。
論。又為顯示親傳二緣至諸行方生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 一句經文說：『俱亦有言已者』，這是爲了正確回答提問。提問是：如果『起』和『至緣』是同時發生的，為什麼說『至緣已』才升起呢？回答說：『俱亦有言已』——下面兩句是比喻來顯明這個道理。比如，我們說『黑暗至已燈滅』，黑暗的到來和燈的熄滅是同時發生的，但我們也可以說『黑暗至已滅』。所以，即使是同時發生的事情，也可以說『已』。又比如，『開口已眠』，『眠眠』（睡眠）和『開口』是同時發生的，我們也可以說『開口已眠』。但是，聲論師（Shabda grammarians）不相信開口和睡眠是同時發生的。第四句是反駁：如果未眠時開口，那麼眠后應該閉口，因為說了『開口已』之後才睡眠。
論：有人執著地認為『至』就是緣起（Pratītyasamutpāda）的意義。這是經部（Sautrāntika）中的上座師（Sthavira）的解釋。『字界』（akṣara-vyavasthāna）和『字緣』（akṣara-pratyaya）的解釋如前所述。這位上座師的意思是說，種種緣聚集在同一處，共同成就緣起。
論：『如是所釋至聚集豈成』，這是論主（abhidharma master）在駁斥。種種聚集在此十二緣起（dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda）中是可以理解的。但是，比如眼睛在這裡，顏色在遠方，這樣的情況也是緣起嗎？難道這也是聚集嗎？所以，各種解釋不同。依據聲明（Śabda-vidyā），每一個字都有十種意義，取意不同，解釋就各不相同。
論：『何故世尊至此生故彼生』，以下解釋經文中的兩句話：『此有故彼有，此生故彼生』。先提問，后回答。這是提問。
論：『為于緣起知決定故』，論主總的回答。爲了顯示緣起因果（hetu-phala）的決定相系屬的意義，這是總的解釋。
論：『如余處說至可有諸行』，分別解釋決定相。其中有四點。這是第一點說明。這裡說明十二支（dvādaśāṅga）各自相屬相待，具有決定性。
論：『又為顯示至余支得生』，這是第二點顯示決定相，說明『生』（jāti）和『有』（bhava）。決定相屬相待。
論：『又為顯示至后際得生』，這是第三點說明三世（tri-kāla）相待相屬的決定相。
論：『又為顯示親傳二緣至諸行方生』。
【English Translation】 English version: A sentence says: '俱亦有言已者 (jù yì yǒu yán yǐ zhě, both also have said already)', this is to correctly answer the question. The question is: If '起 (qǐ, arising)' and '至緣 (zhì yuán, reaching condition)' occur simultaneously, why say '至緣已 (zhì yuán yǐ, reaching condition already)' then arises? The answer is: '俱亦有言已 (jù yì yǒu yán yǐ, both also have said already)' - the following two sentences are metaphors to clarify this principle. For example, we say '闇至已燈滅 (àn zhì yǐ dēng miè, darkness arrives already, the lamp extinguishes)', the arrival of darkness and the extinguishing of the lamp occur simultaneously, but we can also say '闇至已滅 (àn zhì yǐ miè, darkness arrives already, extinguished)'. Therefore, even if things happen simultaneously, we can still say '已 (yǐ, already)'. Another example, '開口已眠 (kāi kǒu yǐ mián, mouth opens already, sleeps)', '眠眠 (mián mián, sleeping)' and '開口 (kāi kǒu, opening mouth)' occur simultaneously, we can also say '開口已眠 (kāi kǒu yǐ mián, mouth opens already, sleeps)'. However, Shabda grammarians (聲論師, shēng lùn shī) do not believe that opening the mouth and sleeping occur simultaneously. The fourth sentence is a rebuttal: If the mouth is opened before sleeping, then the mouth should be closed after sleeping, because it is said that 'opening the mouth already' then sleeps.
Treatise: Some are attached to the idea that '至 (zhì, reaching)' is the meaning of Pratītyasamutpāda (緣起, yuán qǐ, dependent origination). This is the explanation of the Sthavira (上座師, shàng zuò shī, elder monk) in Sautrāntika (經部, jīng bù). The explanations of 'akṣara-vyavasthāna (字界, zì jiè, letter boundary)' and 'akṣara-pratyaya (字緣, zì yuán, letter condition)' are as explained before. This Sthavira's meaning is that various conditions gather in the same place and together accomplish dependent origination.
Treatise: '如是所釋至聚集豈成 (rú shì suǒ shì zhì jù jí qǐ chéng, as such explained, until gathering, how can it be accomplished?)', this is the Abhidharma master (論主, lùn zhǔ) refuting. Various gatherings in this dvādaśāṅga-pratītyasamutpāda (十二緣起, shí èr āng-pratītyasamutpāda, twelve links of dependent origination) are understandable. However, for example, the eye is here, and the color is far away, is this also dependent origination? Is this also a gathering? Therefore, various explanations are different. According to Śabda-vidyā (聲明, shēng míng, the science of sound), each word has ten meanings, and the interpretations vary depending on the meaning taken.
Treatise: '何故世尊至此生故彼生 (hé gù shì zūn zhì cǐ shēng gù bǐ shēng, why the World Honored One, until this arises, therefore that arises)', the following explains the two sentences in the scripture: '此有故彼有，此生故彼生 (cǐ yǒu gù bǐ yǒu, cǐ shēng gù bǐ shēng, this exists, therefore that exists; this arises, therefore that arises)'. First question, then answer. This is the question.
Treatise: '為于緣起知決定故 (wèi yú yuán qǐ zhī jué dìng gù, in order to know the certainty of dependent origination)', the Abhidharma master's general answer. In order to show the meaning of the definite relationship of cause and effect (hetu-phala, 因果, yīn guǒ) in dependent origination, this is the general explanation.
Treatise: '如余處說至可有諸行 (rú yú chù shuō zhì kě yǒu zhū xíng, as said in other places, until there can be all actions)', separately explain the definite aspect. There are four points in it. This is the first point of explanation. This explains that the twelve links (dvādaśāṅga, 十二支, shí èr zhī) are mutually related and dependent, and have certainty.
Treatise: '又為顯示至余支得生 (yòu wèi xiǎn shì zhì yú zhī dé shēng, also to show until other links can arise)', this is the second point to show the definite aspect, explaining 'jāti (生, shēng, birth)' and 'bhava (有, yǒu, becoming)'. Definite mutual relationship and dependence.
Treatise: '又為顯示至后際得生 (yòu wèi xiǎn shì zhì hòu jì dé shēng, also to show until the future can arise)', this is the third point to explain the definite aspect of the mutual relationship and dependence of the three times (tri-kāla, 三世, sān shì).
Treatise: '又為顯示親傳二緣至諸行方生 (yòu wèi xiǎn shì qīn chuán èr yuán zhì zhū xíng fāng shēng, also to show the two directly transmitted conditions until all actions then arise)'.
第四明親傳二緣相待決定。已上並是論主釋也。
論。有餘師釋至諸行得生。此述經部異釋。即正理論牒破云上坐也。此師意者此有故彼有。破無因也。此生故彼生。破常因也。生非常故也。
論。若爾至無因常因故。論主破也。但言此生故彼生。即具顯有因及因無常。何用前句此有彼有也。
論。然或有執至純大苦蘊集。論主正釋。然或有外道執。有我為依行等得有。由無明等因分生故行等得生。此執因之與果俱依於我。然由因分生故果得生也。世尊為除彼執。果分有由生因有故不依我。若此生因生故彼果生。即依此生因有後果。非謂果有別我為余依因 謂無明行乃至純大苦蘊集者。即顯十二支是純苦蘊集聚無別我雜聚集。
論。軌範諸師至皆應廣說。論主述自承習經部師也。此有故彼有。顯諸行不斷。此生故彼生。顯相待生。由此不破。
論。有釋為顯至果分亦生。此述經部異師。此有故彼有者。是因相續有果相續有。此顯住也。因分生故果分亦生。此顯生也。
論。此欲辨生至而後說生。經主破也。有二破。一與此經意不同。經說緣生本欲辦生如何說住。二破次第失應合先說其生然後說住。如何破其次第。先說其住而後說生。故知經意不爾。
論。復有釋言至非謂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第四，闡明親傳的二緣相待決定之理。以上都是論主的解釋。
論：有其他老師解釋……乃至諸行得生。這是敘述經部的不同解釋，即《正理論》所駁斥的上座部。這位老師的意思是『此有故彼有』，爲了破斥無因論；『此生故彼生』，爲了破斥常因論，因為生是非常的。
論：若這樣……乃至無因常因故。這是論主的駁斥。只說『此生故彼生』，就完全顯明瞭有因以及因的無常，何必用前一句『此有彼有』呢？
論：然而，或者有人執著……乃至純大苦蘊集。這是論主的正釋。然而，或者有外道執著，認為有『我』作為所依，諸行等才能存在。由於無明等因的緣故，諸行等才能產生。這種執著認為因和果都依存於『我』。然而，由於因的緣故，果才能產生。世尊爲了破除他們的執著，說明果的存在是由於生因的存在，而不是依存於『我』。如果這個生因產生，那麼這個果就產生，即是依存於這個生因而有後果，而不是說果的存在另外有一個『我』作為其餘的依因。所謂無明、行乃至純大苦蘊集，就是顯示十二支是純粹的苦蘊聚集，沒有別的『我』雜在其中。
論：軌範諸師……乃至皆應廣說。這是論主敘述自己繼承學習的經部師的觀點。『此有故彼有』，顯示諸行不斷滅；『此生故彼生』，顯示相待而生。因此，不應破斥。
論：有解釋說爲了顯示……乃至果分亦生。這是敘述經部的另一種解釋。『此有故彼有』，是因相續存在，果相續存在，這是顯示『住』的狀態。因分生，所以果分也生，這是顯示『生』的狀態。
論：這是想要辨別生……乃至而後說生。這是經主的駁斥。有兩種駁斥：一是與此經的本意不同，經中說緣生本來是爲了辨別『生』，怎麼能說『住』呢？二是駁斥次第顛倒，應該先說『生』，然後說『住』，怎麼能先說『住』，后說『生』呢？所以知道經的本意不是這樣。
論：又有人解釋說……乃至非謂
【English Translation】 English version Fourth, explaining the principle of directly transmitted dependent origination. The above are all explanations by the author of the treatise (論主, lùn zhǔ).
Treatise: Some other teachers explain... up to the arising of all actions (諸行, zhū xíng). This describes a different interpretation from the Sautrāntika (經部, Jīng bù) school, which is refuted by the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論, Zhèng lǐlùn) of the Sthavira (上座, Shàngzuò) school. This teacher's meaning is 'This exists, therefore that exists,' to refute the theory of no cause; 'This arises, therefore that arises,' to refute the theory of a permanent cause, because arising is impermanent.
Treatise: If so... up to therefore no cause and permanent cause. This is the treatise author's refutation. Simply saying 'This arises, therefore that arises' fully reveals the existence of a cause and the impermanence of the cause. Why use the previous phrase 'This exists, therefore that exists'?
Treatise: However, some may hold... up to the accumulation of pure great suffering. This is the treatise author's correct explanation. However, some non-Buddhists (外道, wàidào) may hold that there is a 'self' (我, wǒ) as a basis for actions (行, xíng) to exist. Because of the cause of ignorance (無明, wúmíng) and so on, actions and so on can arise. This holding believes that the cause and effect both rely on the 'self'. However, because of the cause, the effect can arise. The World-Honored One (世尊, Shìzūn) eliminated their holding, explaining that the existence of the effect is due to the existence of the arising cause, and does not rely on the 'self'. If this arising cause arises, then this effect arises, which means relying on this arising cause to have the subsequent effect, not that the existence of the effect has another 'self' as the remaining basis. The so-called ignorance, actions, up to the accumulation of pure great suffering, shows that the twelve links (十二支, shí'èr zhī) are a pure accumulation of suffering, without any other 'self' mixed in.
Treatise: Teachers of the Vinaya (軌範諸師, guǐfàn zhū shī)... up to all should be extensively explained. This is the treatise author describing the views of the Sautrāntika teachers he inherited and learned from. 'This exists, therefore that exists' shows that actions are not cut off; 'This arises, therefore that arises' shows dependent origination. Therefore, it should not be refuted.
Treatise: Some explain that in order to show... up to the effect also arises. This describes another interpretation from the Sautrāntika school. 'This exists, therefore that exists' means that the cause continues to exist, and the effect continues to exist. This shows the state of 'abiding' (住, zhù). Because the cause arises, the effect also arises. This shows the state of 'arising' (生, shēng).
Treatise: This intends to distinguish arising... up to and then speak of arising. This is the treatise author's refutation. There are two refutations: first, it is different from the meaning of this sutra. The sutra says that dependent origination is originally intended to distinguish 'arising', how can it speak of 'abiding'? Second, it refutes the reversed order. It should first speak of 'arising' and then speak of 'abiding'. How can it first speak of 'abiding' and then speak of 'arising'? Therefore, it is known that the meaning of the sutra is not like this.
Treatise: Again, some explain... up to not meaning
無因。此述經部室利羅多解也。正理呼為上坐。此師意由果有故因有滅無。
論。經義若然至非此經義。有二破。一既由果有故因滅無者。經應言此有故彼無。何故經言此有彼有 二破云。應先言因生故果生已后乃可說此有故因滅無。如是次第方名善說。若異此者欲辨緣起依何次第先說因滅。故知所釋非此經義。
論。複次至生緣老死。自下述經部十二緣義寄問生起。
論。我今略顯至無明緣行。經部述。不知唯行即是無明。福．非福．不動行是行也。
論。由引業力至名行緣識。此釋行緣識也。經部同大乘中有識支攝。
論。若作此釋至通於六識。若中有識支攝中有具六識故。即順契經識支通於六識。若依有部唯一剎那結生名識支。此即唯意識不攝中有。不通五也。
論。識為先故至遍一期生。此釋識緣名色 言。遍一期生者。此經部名色從初生后乃至死有皆名名色。于名色上更立余支。
論。于大因緣至如是說故。引教證也。
論。如是名色至說為六處。此釋名色緣六處也。
論。次與境合便有識生。釋六處緣觸也。
論。三和故至樂等三受。釋觸緣受。
論。從此三受至生無色愛。此釋從受生於愛也。三界受不同故愛三界異。
論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無因：這是述經部室利羅多（Śrīlāta，人名）的解釋。正理學派稱他為上座。這位大師的意思是，因為果的存在，所以因才會滅無。
論：如果經文的意思是這樣，那就不是這部經的本義了。這裡有兩個破斥：第一，既然是因為果的存在，所以因才會滅無，那麼經文應該說『此有故彼無』，為什麼經文說『此有彼有』呢？第二，應該先說因生故果生，之後才可以講『此有故因滅無』。像這樣的次第才稱得上是善說。如果不是這樣，想要辨明緣起，依據什麼次第先說因滅呢？所以知道這種解釋不是這部經的本義。
論：再者，從『生緣老死』開始，下面是述經部對十二緣起的解釋，寄託于對生起原因的提問。
論：我現在簡略地闡明，從『無明緣行』開始。經部認為，不知道，唯一造作就是無明。福行、非福行、不動行就是行。
論：由引業的力量，從『名行緣識』開始。這是解釋行緣識。經部與大乘相同，認為中有識包含在識支中。
論：如果這樣解釋，那麼就通於六識了。如果中有識包含在識支中，那麼中有就具有六識。這就順應了契經，識支通於六識。如果依照有部的觀點，只有一剎那的結生識才稱為識支。這只是意識，不包含中有，也不通於前五識。
論：因為識是先導，所以從『識為先故』開始，遍及一生。這是解釋識緣名色。所謂『遍及一生』，經部認為名色從最初生起之後，乃至死亡，都稱為名色。在名色之上再建立其餘的支。
論：在大因緣經中，如是說故。這是引用教證。
論：像這樣，名色緣六處，稱為六處。這是解釋名色緣六處。
論：其次，與境相合，便有識生。這是解釋六處緣觸。
論：三和合的緣故，產生樂、苦、舍等三種感受。這是解釋觸緣受。
論：從這三種感受，產生無色界的愛。這是解釋從受生愛。因為三界的感受不同，所以對三界的愛也不同。 論
【English Translation】 English version: Avidyā (ignorance): This is the explanation of Śrīlāta (a name), a Sautrāntika (a school of Buddhism). The Vaibhāṣikas (a school of Buddhism) call him Elder. This master's idea is that because the result exists, the cause ceases to exist.
Treatise: If the meaning of the sutra is like this, then it is not the original meaning of this sutra. There are two refutations here: First, since the cause ceases to exist because the result exists, then the sutra should say 'This exists, therefore that does not exist.' Why does the sutra say 'This exists, therefore that exists?' Second, it should first be said that the result arises because the cause arises, and then it can be said 'This exists, therefore the cause ceases to exist.' Only such an order can be called a good explanation. If it is not like this, if one wants to discern dependent origination, according to what order should one first speak of the cessation of the cause? Therefore, it is known that this explanation is not the original meaning of this sutra.
Treatise: Furthermore, starting from 'birth conditions old age and death,' the following is the Sautrāntika's explanation of the twelve links of dependent origination, entrusted to the question of the cause of arising.
Treatise: I will now briefly explain, starting from 'ignorance conditions activity (saṃskāra)'. The Sautrāntikas believe that not knowing, only acting, is ignorance. Meritorious action, non-meritorious action, and unwavering action are activities.
Treatise: From the power of karma, starting from 'activity conditions consciousness (vijñāna)'. This is an explanation of activity conditions consciousness. The Sautrāntikas, like the Mahāyāna, believe that intermediate existence consciousness is included in the consciousness link.
Treatise: If explained in this way, then it is connected to the six consciousnesses. If intermediate existence consciousness is included in the consciousness link, then intermediate existence has six consciousnesses. This is in accordance with the sutra, and the consciousness link is connected to the six consciousnesses. If according to the view of the Sarvāstivāda (a school of Buddhism), only the consciousness of rebirth in one moment is called the consciousness link. This is only consciousness, not including intermediate existence, and not connected to the five consciousnesses.
Treatise: Because consciousness is the leader, starting from 'because consciousness is the leader', it pervades a lifetime. This is an explanation of consciousness conditions name and form (nāmarūpa). The so-called 'pervades a lifetime' means that the Sautrāntikas believe that name and form, from the initial arising until death, are called name and form. On top of name and form, other links are established.
Treatise: In the Great Cause Sutra, it is said as such. This is quoting scriptural proof.
Treatise: Like this, name and form conditions the six sense bases (ṣaḍāyatana), called the six sense bases. This is an explanation of name and form conditions the six sense bases.
Treatise: Next, when combined with the object, consciousness arises. This is an explanation of the six sense bases condition contact (sparśa).
Treatise: Because of the combination of the three, pleasure, suffering, and neutral feelings arise. This is an explanation of contact conditions feeling (vedanā).
Treatise: From these three feelings, desire for the formless realm arises. This is an explanation of feeling conditions desire. Because the feelings of the three realms are different, the desire for the three realms is also different. Treatise
。從欣受愛起欲等取。此明愛緣取也 言等者。等戒見．我語取也。經部宗不同有部。於一境上愛增為取。即以四取以為取支體也。
論。此中欲者謂五妙欲。已下別釋四取 欲者即色等五妙欲境。皆能生欲故名欲也。或是所欲故名欲。於五妙境起貪名為欲取。
論。見謂六十二見如梵網經廣說。此釋見取。亦如婆沙一百九十九．二百廣釋。
論。戒謂遠離惡戒。戒即是內法戒也。遠離不律儀等惡戒。
論。禁謂狗牛等禁者。是外道持狗．牛等禁。此不能離惡戒故不名戒。
論。如諸離系至無義苦行。已下指人法也 離系者。即是露形外道。離衣等系故名離系。此外道受持種種露形拔髮等禁 婆羅門外道受持手執杖行披烏鹿皮等 播輸缽多外道此云牛主。謂事天主。摩醯首羅天乘牛而行故云牛主。此外道學彼天法從彼為名故名牛主。此外道持受頂上持一髻子身體涂灰 般利伐羅句伽外道此云遍出。此是出家外道。此持執三杖行擬護凈安衣服．瓶．缽等並剪鬚髮無義苦行 等。等取自余無義五熱灸身等也。外道受此等法皆名禁也。
論。我語謂內身依之說我故。釋我語取。即此內身實非我語。依之起我語故名我語。此是有財釋也。
論。有餘師說至名為我語。述異釋也。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：從欣然接受喜愛開始，產生慾望等而進行執取。這說明了愛是產生執取的緣由。這裡說的『等』，包括戒禁取、見取、我語取。經部宗的觀點與有部宗不同，認為在同一個對像上，愛增長就成為取，即以四取作為取支的組成部分。
論：這裡說的『欲』，指的是五種美妙的慾望。以下分別解釋四取。『欲』，就是色等五種美妙慾望的境界，都能產生慾望，所以稱為『欲』。或者說是所希望的，所以稱為『欲』。對於五種美妙的境界產生貪戀，就叫做欲取。
論：『見』，指的是六十二種見解，如《梵網經》（Brahmajāla Sutta）中廣泛闡述的那樣。這是解釋見取。也如《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）第一百九十九卷、第二百卷中廣泛解釋的那樣。
論：『戒』，指的是遠離惡戒。戒就是內在的法戒。遠離不律儀等惡戒。
論：『禁』，指的是狗戒、牛戒等。這是外道所持的狗戒、牛戒等。這些不能脫離惡戒，所以不稱為戒。
論：如那些離系外道乃至無意義的苦行。以下指的是人和法。『離系』，就是裸形外道。因為脫離衣服等束縛，所以稱為離系。此外道受持種種裸形、拔髮等禁制。婆羅門（Brahmana）外道受持手執杖行、披烏鹿皮等。播輸缽多（Pāśupata）外道，這裡稱為牛主，指的是事奉天主。摩醯首羅天（Maheśvara）乘坐牛而行，所以稱為牛主。此外道學習彼天之法，從彼得名，所以稱為牛主。此外道持受頭頂上留一個髮髻，身體涂灰。般利伐羅句伽（Parivrājaka）外道，這裡稱為遍出，這是出家外道。此持執三杖而行，假裝保護乾淨的衣服、瓶、缽等，並剪鬚髮，進行無意義的苦行。『等』，包括其餘無意義的五熱灸身等。外道受持這些法都稱為禁。
論：『我語』，指的是內在的身體，依靠它來說『我』。這是解釋我語取。即這個內在的身體實際上並非『我』，但依靠它而產生『我』的說法，所以稱為我語。這是一種有財產的解釋。
論：有其他論師說乃至稱為我語。這是敘述不同的解釋。此
【English Translation】 English version: From joyfully accepting and loving, desires arise, leading to grasping. This clarifies that love is the cause of grasping. The term 'etc.' includes the grasping of precepts and vows, the grasping of views, and the grasping of self-assertion. The Sautrāntika school differs from the Sarvāstivāda school, holding that when love increases towards an object, it becomes grasping, thus considering the four graspings as components of the grasping aggregate.
Treatise: Here, 'desire' refers to the five sensual pleasures. The following separately explains the four graspings. 'Desire' refers to the objects of the five sensual pleasures, such as form, etc., which can all generate desire, hence the name 'desire'. Or it is what is desired, hence the name 'desire'. To arise greed for the five sensual objects is called grasping after desire.
Treatise: 'Views' refer to the sixty-two views, as extensively explained in the Brahmajāla Sutta (Net of Perfect Wisdom). This explains the grasping of views. It is also extensively explained in the Mahāvibhāṣā (Great Commentary) volumes 199 and 200.
Treatise: 'Precepts' refer to abstaining from evil precepts. Precepts are internal Dharma precepts. Abstaining from evil precepts such as non-restraint.
Treatise: 'Vows' refer to vows such as those involving dogs and cows. These are vows held by externalists involving dogs, cows, etc. These cannot separate from evil precepts, so they are not called precepts.
Treatise: Such as those 'liberated' ascetics, even engaging in meaningless ascetic practices. The following refers to people and Dharma. 'Liberated' refers to the naked ascetics. Because they are free from the bondage of clothing, etc., they are called 'liberated'. These externalists uphold various prohibitions such as nakedness and hair-plucking. The Brahmana (Brahmin) externalists uphold practices such as carrying a staff and wearing antelope skin. The Pāśupata (Lord of Beasts) externalists, here called the Lord of Cows, refers to serving the Lord of Gods. Maheśvara (Great Lord) travels on a cow, hence the name Lord of Cows. These externalists learn the Dharma of that god, taking their name from him, hence the name Lord of Cows. These externalists uphold practices such as keeping a single topknot and smearing their bodies with ashes. The Parivrājaka (Wandering Ascetic) externalists, here called 'completely gone forth', are renunciate externalists. They carry three staffs, pretending to protect clean clothes, bottles, bowls, etc., and cut their beards and hair, engaging in meaningless ascetic practices. 'Etc.' includes other meaningless practices such as the five-fire penance. Externalists upholding these Dharmas are all called vows.
Treatise: 'Self-assertion' refers to the internal body, upon which one relies to say 'I'. This explains the grasping of self-assertion. That is, this internal body is not actually 'I', but relying on it gives rise to the assertion of 'I', hence the name self-assertion. This is an explanation based on possession.
Treatise: Other teachers say, even calling it self-assertion. This narrates a different explanation. This
師以我見．我慢名為我語。
論。云何此二至說名我語。釋二名我語所以也。但有其語無所詮故。引經證可解。
論。於前四種至所謂欲貪。正釋取體前四取是所取。貪是能取。故引經說取是欲貪。此謂於四取上起貪慾也。非謂唯欲界貪。又此中意唯取欲貪。不同有部兼同時蘊。
論。由取為緣至說名為有。釋取緣有。引經可解。
論。有為緣故至說名為生。釋有緣生。此說生支通其五蘊亦並六識。
論。已生為緣故至廣說如經。釋生緣老死也。辨十二支廣如經說。已上依經部釋十二支也。已下依論釋經純大苦蘊集。
論。如是純言顯唯有行無我我所。大苦蘊言顯苦無初無後故名大也。集言為顯諸苦蘊生。集是生義也。此釋經中雲純大苦蘊集。
俱舍論疏卷第九
霜四日夜半於南屋點了
此卷有不慮事等字界字緣等也。
前權少僧都傳燈少法師覺受
以黃園本一交了端嚴僧理真 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第十
沙門法寶撰
分別世品第三之三
論。無明何義。自此已下大門第二釋十二支名義 就中有四。一釋無明。二釋名色。三釋觸支。四釋受支。自餘八支指余文釋 就初有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 師父說，以『我見』（認為自己是正確的觀點）和『我慢』（高估自己）為基礎的言語，就叫做『我語』。
論：為什麼這兩種情況可以被稱為『我語』？這是解釋『我語』的含義。因為這些言語只有形式，沒有實際意義。引用經文可以幫助理解。
論：在前四種『取』（Upadana）的基礎上，即所謂的『欲貪』（Kama-tanha）。這是對『取』的本質的解釋。前四種『取』是所取之物，『貪』是能取之心。因此，引用經文說『取』就是『欲貪』。這意味著在四種『取』的基礎上產生貪慾。但這並不意味著僅僅是欲界的貪慾。而且，這裡的重點是『欲貪』，不同於有部宗派同時包含五蘊。
論：由於『取』為緣，導致『有』（Bhava）的產生，這被稱為『有』。這是解釋『取緣有』。引用經文可以幫助理解。
論：由於『有』為緣，導致『生』（Jati）的產生，這被稱為『生』。這是解釋『有緣生』。這裡說的『生』支包括五蘊和六識。
論：已經產生的『生』為緣，導致『老死』（Jara-marana），詳細的解釋如經文所說。這是解釋『生緣老死』。關於十二因緣的詳細解釋，如經文所說。以上是根據經部宗派解釋十二因緣。以下是根據論典解釋經文中『純大苦蘊集』。
論：『如是純』這個詞語顯示只有行，沒有『我』（Atman）和『我所』（Atmaniya）。『大苦蘊』這個詞語顯示痛苦沒有開始也沒有結束，所以稱為『大』。『集』這個詞語顯示諸苦蘊的產生。『集』是產生的意思。這是解釋經文中說的『純大苦蘊集』。
《俱舍論疏》卷第九
霜四日夜半於南屋點了
此卷有不慮事等字界字緣等也。
前權少僧都傳燈少法師覺受
以黃園本一交了端嚴僧理真 《大正藏》第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第十
沙門法寶撰
分別世品第三之三
論：『無明』（Avidya）是什麼意思？從這裡開始，是第二大部分，解釋十二因緣的名義。其中有四個部分：一是解釋『無明』，二是解釋『名色』（Nama-rupa），三是解釋『觸』（Sparsha）支，四是解釋『受』（Vedana）支。其餘八支在其他文章中解釋。在第一部分中，有
【English Translation】 English version The teacher said that speech based on 'self-view' (Atma-drishti, the view that one's own opinions are correct) and 'conceit' (Mana, overestimation of oneself) is called 'self-speech'.
Treatise: Why can these two situations be called 'self-speech'? This explains the meaning of 'self-speech'. Because these words only have form and no actual meaning. Quoting scriptures can help understanding.
Treatise: Based on the previous four 'graspings' (Upadana), namely 'desire-attachment' (Kama-tanha). This is an explanation of the essence of 'grasping'. The previous four 'graspings' are the objects grasped, and 'greed' is the grasping mind. Therefore, quoting scriptures says that 'grasping' is 'desire-attachment'. This means that greed arises based on the four 'graspings'. But this does not mean only the greed of the desire realm. Moreover, the focus here is on 'desire-attachment', which is different from the Sarvastivada school, which includes the five skandhas simultaneously.
Treatise: Because 'grasping' is the condition, 'existence' (Bhava) arises, which is called 'existence'. This explains 'grasping as the condition for existence'. Quoting scriptures can help understanding.
Treatise: Because 'existence' is the condition, 'birth' (Jati) arises, which is called 'birth'. This explains 'existence as the condition for birth'. The 'birth' limb mentioned here includes the five skandhas and the six consciousnesses.
Treatise: Because 'birth' has already arisen as the condition, 'old age and death' (Jara-marana) arise, and the detailed explanation is as the scriptures say. This explains 'birth as the condition for old age and death'. Regarding the detailed explanation of the twelve links of dependent origination, as the scriptures say. The above is based on the Sautrantika school's explanation of the twelve links of dependent origination. The following is based on the treatise's explanation of the 'pure great mass of suffering' mentioned in the scriptures.
Treatise: The word 'pure' shows that there are only actions, and there is no 'self' (Atman) and 'what belongs to self' (Atmaniya). The word 'great mass of suffering' shows that suffering has no beginning and no end, so it is called 'great'. The word 'accumulation' shows the arising of all masses of suffering. 'Accumulation' means arising. This is an explanation of what the scriptures say, 'pure great mass of suffering'.
Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika Volume 9
Frost fourth day midnight at the south house marked
This volume contains words such as 'unconsidered matter', 'boundary word', 'condition', etc.
Former Provisional Junior Abbot Transmission Lamp Junior Dharma Master Perception
With Huangyuan edition one completed, dignified monk Li Zhen Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41 No. 1822 Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika
Abhidharmakosabhasya-tika Volume 10
Composed by Shramana Dharmapala
Analysis of the World, Third of Three
Treatise: What is the meaning of 'ignorance' (Avidya)? From here onwards is the second major section, explaining the names and meanings of the twelve links of dependent origination. There are four parts: first, explaining 'ignorance'; second, explaining 'name and form' (Nama-rupa); third, explaining the 'contact' (Sparsha) limb; and fourth, explaining the 'feeling' (Vedana) limb. The remaining eight limbs are explained in other articles. In the first part, there are
二。一正釋其名。二別證有體。就前文中先問后答此則問也。
論。謂體非明。此則答也。答中有三。前二不正答。后一舉頌正答 就不正中有二。一以非明故名曰無明。二以明無故名曰無明。此是前答。所以名無明者。以非明故。
論若爾無明應是眼等。難也。若體非明名曰無明。眼等六根。色等六境。除無漏明並體非明應名無明。
論。既爾此義應謂明無。第二轉釋。以明無故名曰無明。
論。若爾無明體應非有。破也。若明無故名曰無明。無明即應明無為性。無明若以明無為性。無明即應體非有也。
論。為顯有體義不濫余。已下第三頌正釋也 為顯有體。異明無也 義不濫余。異非明也。
論曰至非親友無。舉喻顯也就中有三。一舉親．非親喻。二舉實．非實喻。三舉等言等余非法等喻。此即是初親．非親也。此非親友唯取所對怨敵名非親友。非是體非親友。異親友故名非親友。不是親友無故名非親友。
論。諦語名實至亦非實無。舉第二也。
論。等言為顯至非異非無。舉第三也。
非法。謂不善法 非義。謂不善義 非事。謂不善事等 是彼法．義．事敵對故不是異法等法無等也。
論。如是無明至非異非無。此合釋無明也。
論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二、一、正確解釋它的名稱。二、分別證明它具有實體。在前文中，先提問后回答，這便是提問。
論：說它的本體不是光明。這是回答。回答中有三種方式。前兩種是不正確的回答，后一種是引用偈頌來正確回答。在不正確的回答中有兩種。一是因其不是光明，所以名為『無明』（avidyā，指對事物真相的無知）。二是因光明缺失，所以名為『無明』。這是第一個回答。之所以稱之為『無明』，是因為它不是光明。
論：如果這樣，那麼『無明』應該等同於眼等（感官）。這是反駁。如果本體不是光明就名為『無明』，那麼眼等六根，色等六境，除了無漏之明，本體都不是光明，都應該被稱為『無明』。
論：既然這樣，這個意義應該說是光明缺失。這是第二個轉而解釋。因為光明缺失，所以名為『無明』。
論：如果這樣，那麼『無明』的本體應該是不存在的。這是駁斥。如果因為光明缺失而名為『無明』，那麼『無明』就應該是以光明缺失為自性。如果『無明』以光明缺失為自性，那麼『無明』的本體就應該是不存在的。
論：爲了顯示它具有實體，意義上不與其它混淆。以下是第三個用偈頌來正確解釋。爲了顯示它具有實體，區別于光明的缺失。意義上不與其它混淆，區別于不是光明。
論曰：乃至不是親友就沒有。用比喻來顯示。其中有三種比喻。一是親友與非親友的比喻，二是真實與非真實的比喻，三是『等』字所代表的其餘非法等的比喻。這便是最初的親友與非親友的比喻。這裡的『非親友』只是取其相對的怨敵，名為『非親友』。不是本體上不是親友。因為不同於親友，所以名為『非親友』。不是因為沒有親友，所以名為『非親友』。
論：真實語名為真實，乃至也不是真實不存在。這是第二個比喻。
論：『等』字是爲了顯示，乃至不是不同於也非不存在。這是第三個比喻。
非法，指不善法。非義，指不善的意義。非事，指不善的事情等。這是因為它們與法、義、事相對立，所以不是異法等同於沒有法等。
論：像這樣，『無明』乃至不是不同於也非不存在。這是綜合解釋『無明』。
論：
【English Translation】 English version II. 1. Correctly explaining its name. 2. Separately proving that it has substance. In the preceding text, there is first a question and then an answer; this is the question.
Treatise: Saying that its essence is not luminosity. This is the answer. There are three ways of answering. The first two are incorrect answers, and the last one is a correct answer by quoting a verse. Among the incorrect answers, there are two. First, because it is not luminosity, it is called 'avidyā' (ignorance, referring to the lack of knowledge of the true nature of things). Second, because luminosity is absent, it is called 'avidyā'. This is the first answer. The reason it is called 'avidyā' is because it is not luminosity.
Treatise: If that is the case, then 'avidyā' should be the same as the eyes, etc. (the senses). This is a refutation. If something is called 'avidyā' because its essence is not luminosity, then the six sense organs such as the eyes, and the six sense objects such as form, except for the undefiled luminosity, all have essences that are not luminosity, and should all be called 'avidyā'.
Treatise: Since that is the case, this meaning should be said to be the absence of luminosity. This is the second explanation. Because luminosity is absent, it is called 'avidyā'.
Treatise: If that is the case, then the essence of 'avidyā' should be non-existent. This is a rebuttal. If something is called 'avidyā' because luminosity is absent, then 'avidyā' should be characterized by the absence of luminosity. If 'avidyā' is characterized by the absence of luminosity, then the essence of 'avidyā' should be non-existent.
Treatise: In order to show that it has substance and that its meaning is not confused with others. The following is the third correct explanation using a verse. In order to show that it has substance, it is distinguished from the absence of luminosity. In meaning, it is not confused with others, and is distinguished from not being luminosity.
Treatise says: Even to the point that there are no non-friends. Using metaphors to illustrate. Among them, there are three metaphors. First, the metaphor of friends and non-friends; second, the metaphor of truth and non-truth; and third, the metaphor of other non-dharmas, etc., represented by the word 'etc.'. This is the initial metaphor of friends and non-friends. The 'non-friends' here only refer to the opposing enemies, and are called 'non-friends'. It is not that their essence is not friends. Because they are different from friends, they are called 'non-friends'. It is not because there are no friends that they are called 'non-friends'.
Treatise: Truthful words are called truth, even to the point that non-truth does not exist. This is the second metaphor.
Treatise: The word 'etc.' is to show that it is not different from nor non-existent. This is the third metaphor.
Non-dharma refers to unwholesome dharma. Non-meaning refers to unwholesome meaning. Non-thing refers to unwholesome things, etc. This is because they are opposed to dharma, meaning, and things, so non-different dharma is the same as the absence of dharma, etc.
Treatise: Like this, 'avidyā' is neither different from nor non-existent. This is a comprehensive explanation of 'avidyā'.
Treatise:
。云何知然。問也 自此已下第二別證有體。所以知體非異於明。及是明無。
論。說行緣故。答也。答中有二。一略答。二廣答。此略答也。說行緣故既是行緣。明知非是異明餘一切法。亦非無體是明無也。
論。復有誠證。此下一行頌廣釋也。
論曰至說名無明。釋頌文也。就中有三。一證非是異明無。二證非是惡慧攝。三證不是非見慧。此文初也。無明既是九結中一結。三縛中一縛。十隨眠中一隨眠攝。三漏中一漏。四軛．四瀑流等中是一軛．一瀑流。故知非是異明眼等余法。亦非全無猶如菟角。而可說為結等事故。故有別法說名無明。
論。如惡妻子至應名無明。此第二證非惡慧也。先問后答。此則問也。
論。彼非無明至故非無明。答也。惡慧之中有一分慧是五見故。既非九結等有見結．無明結等別。故知是見不是無明。
論。若爾非見慧應許是無明。此第三也。就中。先問．后答。此即問也。
論。不爾無明至共相應故。答也。答中有二。一以無明見相應故。二以無明能染慧故。此是初也。
論。又說無明至異慧能染。此第二也。貪能染心貪既非心。故知無明染慧非即慧也。
論。如何不許至何理相違。經部救也。經言無明染慧非定相應。諸染
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：憑什麼知道是這樣呢？這是提問。從這裡開始是第二部分，分別論證無明的自體存在。爲了說明無明的自體並非異於光明，也不是光明的不存在。 論：因為宣說了行緣的緣故。這是回答。回答中有兩種：一是簡略回答，二是詳細回答。這裡是簡略回答。因為宣說了行緣的緣故，既然是行緣，明顯可知它不是異於光明的其他一切法，也不是沒有自體，是光明的無。 論：還有確鑿的證據。下面一行頌文是詳細解釋。 論曰：乃至說名為無明。這是解釋頌文。其中有三點：一，論證無明不是異於光明的無；二，論證無明不是惡慧所攝；三，論證無明不是非見慧。這段文字是第一點。無明既然是九結（nine bonds）中的一結，三縛（three bonds）中的一縛，十隨眠（ten latent tendencies）中的一隨眠所攝，三漏（three outflows）中的一漏，四軛（four yokes）、四瀑流（four floods）等中的一軛、一瀑流，所以可知它不是異於明眼等其他的法，也不是完全沒有，猶如兔角。而可以被說為結等事故，所以有另外的法被說名為無明。 論：如惡妻子乃至應名無明。這是第二點，論證無明不是惡慧。先提問后回答。這是提問。 論：彼非無明乃至故非無明。這是回答。惡慧之中有一部分慧是五見（five views）的緣故，既然不是九結等中的有見結（belief-attachment bond）、無明結（ignorance bond）等，所以可知是見而不是無明。 論：如果這樣，非見慧應該可以被認為是無明。這是第三點。其中，先提問，后回答。這即是提問。 論：不是這樣的，無明乃至共同相應故。這是回答。回答中有兩點：一是因為無明和見相應；二是因為無明能夠染污慧。這是第一點。 論：又說無明乃至異慧能染。這是第二點。貪能夠染污心，貪既然不是心，所以可知無明染污慧，不是即慧本身。 論：如何不許乃至何理相違。這是經部（Sautrantika school）的辯護。經中說無明染污慧，並非一定是相應的，各種染污
【English Translation】 English version: How is it known to be so? This is a question. From here onwards is the second part, separately proving the existence of ignorance's (avidyā) own substance. It is to explain that the substance of ignorance is neither different from luminosity (ming), nor is it the non-existence of luminosity. Treatise: Because the condition of action (karma) is spoken of. This is the answer. There are two types of answers: one is a brief answer, and the other is a detailed answer. This is the brief answer. Because the condition of action is spoken of, since it is the condition of action, it is clearly known that it is not any other dharma different from luminosity, nor is it without substance, the non-existence of luminosity. Treatise: There is also solid evidence. The following verse is a detailed explanation. Treatise says: Even to be named ignorance. This is an explanation of the verse. There are three points: first, proving that ignorance is not the non-existence of luminosity; second, proving that ignorance is not included in evil wisdom; third, proving that ignorance is not non-seeing wisdom. This passage is the first point. Since ignorance is one of the nine bonds (nine bonds), one of the three bonds (three bonds), included in one of the ten latent tendencies (ten latent tendencies), one of the three outflows (three outflows), one of the four yokes (four yokes), one of the four floods (four floods), etc., it can be known that it is not different from the eye of luminosity and other dharmas, nor is it completely non-existent, like a rabbit's horn. And it can be said to be the cause of bonds, etc., so there is another dharma that is named ignorance. Treatise: Like an evil wife and children, even to be named ignorance. This is the second point, proving that ignorance is not evil wisdom. First question, then answer. This is the question. Treatise: That is not ignorance, even therefore not ignorance. This is the answer. Because a part of evil wisdom is the five views (five views), since it is not the belief-attachment bond (belief-attachment bond), the ignorance bond (ignorance bond), etc. among the nine bonds, it can be known that it is a view and not ignorance. Treatise: If so, non-seeing wisdom should be allowed to be ignorance. This is the third point. Among them, first question, then answer. This is the question. Treatise: It is not so, ignorance even to be corresponding together. This is the answer. There are two points in the answer: one is because ignorance and view are corresponding; the other is because ignorance can defile wisdom. This is the first point. Treatise: Also said ignorance even different wisdom can defile. This is the second point. Greed can defile the mind, since greed is not the mind, it can be known that ignorance defiling wisdom is not wisdom itself. Treatise: How not allow even what reason contradicts. This is the defense of the Sautrantika school (Sautrantika school). The sutra says that ignorance defiling wisdom is not necessarily corresponding, all kinds of defilements
污慧間雜善慧令不清凈名之為染。何理相違。如貪染心令不能解脫。豈必現起與心相應方說能染。貪既不定。故知無明亦非相應間雜善慧故名染慧也。
論。雖復能遮至此說為善。論主評取有部義也 準此。論主不定執一宗。理長即取。
論。又執煩惱皆是無明。述異計也。此師意說。一切煩惱皆不了境並是無明。
論。此亦應同至無明染心。準前遮遣者。若諸煩惱皆是無明者。一結．縛．隨眠．漏．軛等中不應別說無明結等。二亦不應與見．貪．嗔等相應。見等即是無明。不應自相應故。三或亦應說無明染心。
論。若謂此中就差別說。牒外救也。外救一切煩惱總名無明。別名為貪．嗔．慢等。經說貪染心不說無明能染心者。說差別名不說總也。
論。應于染慧不說總名。反難也 難云。若貪染心說差別名云貪染心。因何染慧即說總名云無明染慧。
論。既許無明至其相云何。外人問也。
論。謂不了知諦寶業果。論主答也。
論。未測何相至如無明說。外人出過。
論。此謂了知所治別法。論主答也。
論。此復難測其相是何。外人未了問也。
論。此類法爾至唯可辨用。論主重釋。
論。大德法救至恃我類性。述異說也。此大德說
無明既即是余經所說恃我類性。
論。異於我慢類體是何。論主問大德也。恃我慢類即是九慢類。此即我慢之差別也。異於我慢類．性是何。
論。經言我今至異於我慢。引經例釋 如是知已如是見已。此是佛自說言如是知四諦已。如是見四諦已。即是三無漏中已知根也。或具知根 諸所有愛(謂一切貪也)。諸所有見(謂五見也)。諸所有類性(謂無明也)。諸我我所執(正理論云。以過重故故重說也)。我慢執(正理論云。攝一切慢)。隨眠(正理論云。此攝疑．嗔二隨眠)。斷遍知故(得一切結盡遍知)。無影(謂無煩惱得也。如空行影故)。寂滅(得有餘涅槃也。佛未無餘涅槃故也)。故知類性異於我慢(已與我慢別說故也)。
論。寧知類性即是無明。論主徴也。雖知別說不是我慢。寧知類性即是無明也。
論。不可說為余煩惱故。貪慢見等經雖已別說．疑．恚惑等復非是類。已說在彼隨眠之中。十隨眠中唯有無明未說只可說為無明。不可說為余煩惱故。
論。豈不可說至故應且止。論主難也。貪．見．我慢以經別說。不可說為貪．見．我慢。余慢．疑．恚經既不說。寧知不是余慢等也 等謂等取疑．恚二惑。此是異師意也。論主敘而為難。所以得知。正理論云。有說余慢
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無明（avidyā，指對事物真相的無知）既是其他經典所說的『恃我類性』（ātma-māna-prakṛti，指與自我相關的潛在傾向）。
論：與我慢（ātma-māna，指自高自大的心態）的類別和本質不同的是什麼？論主向大德提問。『恃我慢類』即是九慢類（nava-mānāni，九種不同的我慢）。這即是我慢的差別。
論：與我慢的類別和本質不同的是什麼？
論：經文說『我今至異於我慢』。引用經文為例來解釋：『如是知已，如是見已』。這是佛陀自己說，『像這樣瞭解四聖諦（catvāri ārya-satyāni，佛教的基本教義），像這樣見到四聖諦』。這就是三無漏（trīṇi anāsravāṇi，指無漏的戒、定、慧）中已知的根源。或者完全知道根源。『諸所有愛』（sarva-rāga，指一切貪愛）。『諸所有見』（sarva-dṛṣṭi，指五種邪見）。『諸所有類性』（sarva-prakṛti，指一切潛在的傾向，此處指無明）。『諸我我所執』（ātmātmīya-graha，指對自我和屬於自我的事物的執著）（《正理論》說：『因為過患深重，所以重複說』）。『我慢執』（ātma-māna-graha，指我慢的執著）（《正理論》說：『涵蓋一切慢』）。『隨眠』（anuśaya，指潛在的煩惱）（《正理論》說：『這裡涵蓋了疑和嗔兩種隨眠』）。因為『斷遍知故』（parijñā-prahāṇa，指通過完全的瞭解而斷除），（獲得一切結盡遍知）。『無影』（anālaya，指沒有煩惱的獲得，就像空中沒有鳥的痕跡一樣）。『寂滅』（nirvāṇa，指涅槃，此處指有餘涅槃，因為佛陀尚未進入無餘涅槃）。所以知道類性不同於我慢（因為它已經與我慢分別說明）。
論：憑什麼知道類性就是無明？論主提出質疑。雖然知道它是分別說明的，不是我慢，但憑什麼知道類性就是無明呢？
論：因為它不能說是其他的煩惱。貪、慢、見等已經在經文中分別說明，疑、恚（dveṣa，指嗔恨）等疑惑也不是類性，因為它們已經在隨眠之中說明了。在十隨眠（daśa anuśayāḥ，十種潛在的煩惱）中，只有無明沒有被說明，所以只能說它是無明，不能說它是其他的煩惱。
論：難道不能說是其他的慢等嗎？論主提出反駁。貪、見、我慢已經在經文中分別說明，所以不能說是貪、見、我慢。其他的慢、疑、恚經文既然沒有說明，怎麼知道它不是其他的慢等呢？『等』是指包括疑和恚兩種迷惑。這是其他論師的觀點。論主敘述並提出反駁。所以得知，《正理論》說：『有人說其他的慢』，所以應該暫時停止討論。
【English Translation】 English version Avidyā (ignorance), is the same as what other sutras refer to as 'ātma-māna-prakṛti' (the inherent nature of self-conceit).
Treatise: What is different in category and nature from ātma-māna (self-conceit)? The treatise master asks the great worthy. 'Ātma-māna-prakṛti' refers to the nine types of conceits (nava-mānāni). This is the distinction of self-conceit.
Treatise: What is different in category and nature from ātma-māna?
Treatise: The sutra says, 'I now come to be different from ātma-māna.' Citing the sutra as an example to explain: 'Having known thus, having seen thus.' This is what the Buddha himself said, 'Having known the Four Noble Truths (catvāri ārya-satyāni, the fundamental teachings of Buddhism) in this way, having seen the Four Noble Truths in this way.' This is the known root in the three non-outflows (trīṇi anāsravāṇi, referring to non-outflow morality, concentration, and wisdom). Or fully knowing the root. 'All attachments' (sarva-rāga, referring to all greed). 'All views' (sarva-dṛṣṭi, referring to the five wrong views). 'All inherent natures' (sarva-prakṛti, referring to all inherent tendencies, here referring to ignorance). 'All attachments to self and what belongs to self' (ātmātmīya-graha, referring to the attachment to self and things belonging to self) (The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Because the fault is severe, it is repeated'). 'Attachment to self-conceit' (ātma-māna-graha, referring to the attachment to self-conceit) (The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Encompasses all conceits'). 'Latent tendencies' (anuśaya, referring to latent afflictions) (The Nyāyānusāra says: 'This encompasses the two latent tendencies of doubt and anger'). Because of 'completely knowing and abandoning' (parijñā-prahāṇa, referring to abandoning through complete understanding), (obtaining complete knowledge of the exhaustion of all fetters). 'Without trace' (anālaya, referring to obtaining without afflictions, like a bird leaving no trace in the sky). 'Extinction' (nirvāṇa, referring to nirvāṇa, here referring to nirvāṇa with remainder, because the Buddha has not yet entered nirvāṇa without remainder). Therefore, know that inherent nature is different from self-conceit (because it has been explained separately from self-conceit).
Treatise: How is it known that inherent nature is ignorance? The treatise master raises a question. Although it is known that it is explained separately and is not self-conceit, how is it known that inherent nature is ignorance?
Treatise: Because it cannot be said to be other afflictions. Greed, conceit, views, etc., have already been explained separately in the sutras, and doubts, anger (dveṣa, referring to hatred), etc., are not inherent nature, because they have already been explained among the latent tendencies. Among the ten latent tendencies (daśa anuśayāḥ, ten latent afflictions), only ignorance has not been explained, so it can only be said to be ignorance, and cannot be said to be other afflictions.
Treatise: Can it not be said to be other conceits, etc.? The treatise master raises an objection. Greed, views, and self-conceit have already been explained separately in the sutras, so they cannot be said to be greed, views, or self-conceit. Since other conceits, doubts, and anger have not been explained in the sutras, how is it known that it is not other conceits, etc.? 'Etc.' refers to including the two confusions of doubt and anger. This is the view of other teachers. The treatise master narrates and raises an objection. Therefore, it is known that the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Some say other conceits,' so the discussion should be stopped for now.
是類性攝。彼說不然。諸言流至我慢中故。我慢執言攝諸慢盡(此意諸言流至我慢。即言諸慢。既言諸慢故知攝盡)。應如愛等各盡無遺(諸言流至愛等中故)然於此中勝者別說。我我所執。是諸見根。故於見中別顯二種(此諸言流至見中。理合攝一切見盡。以我我所見諸見根本勝故重說之)。為攝疑．恚說隨眠言(疑．恚雖不名顯隨眠中攝)。勝煩惱中無明未說。為別顯彼說類性言。遍與惑俱(隨種種惑相不同故名之為類)。遍往諸趣故名類性。類是行義。是類之體得類性名 今評正理此釋自是一家之別無決定證。如說隨眠如何即知定攝疑．恚不攝無明。言諸遍流即謂我慢攝餘六慢。若謂我慢攝余慢者應但言慢。經不應以我慢標別。如說其愛。若謂以我慢勝利標別我名。故知說我不攝余慢。如我我所見此見言下不攝四見。進退推尋不能通釋論主之難。
論。名色何義至今應辨名。已下一句。第二釋名。行．識二支如別處說。故今越次釋名色也。
論曰至何故稱名。問也。何故四蘊實非是名而稱名也。
論。隨所立名至故說為名。答也 答中有二。先總答。后別釋。此總答也 隨所立名于義轉變故說為名者。正舉名也 隨根．境勢力于義轉變故說為名者。四蘊似名故稱名也。正理論云。佛說無色四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 是類性所攝。他們的說法不對。因為所有的言語都流向我慢之中。我慢執取言語，就攝盡了所有的慢（意思是所有的言語都流向我慢，即是所有的慢。既然說是所有的慢，就知道是攝盡了）。應該像愛等一樣，各自窮盡沒有遺漏（因為所有的言語都流向愛等之中）。然而在這裡，殊勝者被特別說明。『我』和『我所』的執著，是各種見解的根本。所以在各種見解中特別顯示這兩種（這些言語流向見解之中，理應攝盡一切見解。因為『我』和『我所』的見解是各種見解的根本，所以重新說明）。爲了攝取疑和恚，所以說『隨眠』這個詞（疑和恚雖然不明顯，但被包含在隨眠之中）。在殊勝的煩惱中，無明沒有被說明。爲了特別顯示無明，所以說『類性』這個詞。普遍地與迷惑相伴（因為隨著各種迷惑的相狀不同，所以稱之為類）。普遍地前往各種趣，所以叫做類性。類是行的意思。是類的本體，得到類性的名稱。現在評論正理，這種解釋只是他們自己的一家之言，沒有確定的證據。例如，如果說隨眠，如何知道一定攝取疑和恚，而不攝取無明。說諸遍流，就說是以我慢來攝取其餘六慢。如果說我慢攝取其餘的慢，應該只說慢。經文中不應該用我慢來特別標明。就像說愛一樣。如果說用我慢的勝利來標明我的名稱。所以知道說我不攝取其餘的慢。就像『我』和『我所』的見解，這個見解的詞語下不攝取四見。進退推尋，不能通順地解釋論主的疑問。
論：名和色的含義，現在應該辨明。『名』，以下一句。第二句解釋名。行和識這兩支，如同在別處所說。所以現在越過次序來解釋名和色。
論曰：到為什麼稱作名。是提問。為什麼四蘊實際上不是名，卻稱作名呢？
論：隨所立名到所以說為名。是回答。回答中有兩個部分。先是總的回答。然後是分別解釋。這是總的回答。隨著所建立的名稱，在意義上轉變，所以說為名。這是正舉名。隨著根和境的勢力，在意義上轉變，所以說為名。四蘊類似於名，所以稱作名。正理論說，佛說無色四蘊。
【English Translation】 English version: It is included in the category of nature. They say it is not so, because all words flow into conceit (Māna). Conceit grasps words and thus encompasses all forms of conceit (meaning all words flow into conceit, which means all conceits. Since it is said to be all conceits, it is known to encompass all). It should be like love (Rāga) and others, each exhausting without omission (because all words flow into love and others). However, among these, the superior ones are specifically mentioned. The attachment to 'self' (ātman) and 'what belongs to self' (ātmīya) are the roots of all views (dṛṣṭi). Therefore, within views, these two are particularly highlighted (these words flow into views, and should encompass all views. Because the views of 'self' and 'what belongs to self' are the root of all views, they are restated). To encompass doubt (vicikitsā) and hatred (dveṣa), the term 'latent tendencies' (anuśaya) is used (although doubt and hatred are not explicitly named, they are included in latent tendencies). Among the superior afflictions (kleśa), ignorance (avidyā) has not been mentioned. To specifically highlight it, the term 'category of nature' (prakṛti) is used, universally accompanying delusion (because it is called a category due to the different aspects of various delusions). Universally going to various destinies (gati), it is called the category of nature. Category means action. It is the essence of the category, obtaining the name of category of nature. Now, commenting on the principle of correctness, this explanation is merely their own unique view, without definitive proof. For example, if one speaks of latent tendencies, how does one know that it definitely encompasses doubt and hatred, but not ignorance? Saying 'all pervasive flow' means that conceit encompasses the remaining six conceits. If it is said that conceit encompasses the remaining conceits, then one should only say conceit. The sutra should not specifically mark it with conceit. It is like speaking of love. If it is said that the name of 'self' is marked by the victory of conceit, then it is known that saying 'self' does not encompass the remaining conceits. Just like the view of 'self' and 'what belongs to self', the word 'view' here does not encompass the four views. Advancing and retreating in inquiry, one cannot thoroughly explain the difficulty of the master of the treatise.
Treatise: What is the meaning of name (nāma) and form (rūpa)? It should be clarified now. 'Name', the following sentence. The second sentence explains name. The two branches of action (saṃskāra) and consciousness (vijñāna) are as explained elsewhere. Therefore, now we skip the order to explain name and form.
Treatise says: To why is it called name? It is a question. Why are the four aggregates (skandha), which are actually not name, called name?
Treatise: According to the established name to therefore it is said to be name. It is the answer. There are two parts in the answer. First, a general answer. Then, a separate explanation. This is the general answer. According to the established name, it transforms in meaning, therefore it is said to be name. This is the correct example of name. According to the power of the faculties (indriya) and objects (viṣaya), it transforms in meaning, therefore it is said to be name. The four immaterial aggregates are similar to name, therefore they are called name. The Nyāyānusāraśāstra says, the Buddha spoke of the four immaterial aggregates.
蘊名名。何故名名。能表召故。謂能表召種種所緣。若爾不應全攝無色。不相應法無所緣故。不爾表召唯在無色。如釋色名所說無過。佛說變礙故名為色。去．來．無表．及諸極微。雖無變礙而得名色。以無色中無變礙故變礙名色非不極成 準正理論亦以四蘊表召同名故標名稱。此論以四蘊轉變而緣。同名轉變詮表故標名稱。
論。云何隨名至色味等名。別釋名也。
論。此復何緣至轉變而緣。此釋無色四蘊轉變同故標名稱也。
論。又類似名。與名同無色聚故。婆沙十五云。所以四蘊名名。答佛于有為總分二分。謂色．非色。色是色蘊。非色即是受等四蘊。非色聚中有能顯了一切法名。故非色聚總說為名。
論。隨名顯故。四蘊微細難知。隨名顯也。婆沙云。色法粗顯即說名色。非色微隱由名顯故說之為名。
論。有餘師說至故標名稱。述異釋也。正理論云。又於一切界．地．趣．生能遍趣求故立名稱。非無漏無色不得名名。雖非此所明而似此故。又于無色隨說者情總說為名。不勞徴詰。
論。觸何為義。此下第三明觸支也。六處如前已說故此不明。越次明觸。此中有三。一明六觸。二明二觸。三明八觸。此下第一明六觸也。
論曰至乃至意觸。此就所依根分六觸也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『蘊』被稱為『名』（Nāma，精神現象）。為什麼稱其為『名』？因為它能夠表徵和召集。也就是說，它能夠表徵和召集各種所緣（alambana，對像）。如果這樣，那麼『名』就不應該完全包含無色界（arupa-dhatu）。因為不相應的法（viprayukta-dharma）沒有所緣的緣故。如果不是這樣，那麼表徵和召集就只存在於無色界。就像解釋『色』（Rūpa，物質現象）的名稱時所說的那樣，沒有過失。佛說，因為變礙（vikara，變化和阻礙）的緣故，所以稱為『色』。過去、未來、無表色（aviññatti-rūpa，無表業）以及各種極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位），雖然沒有變礙，但也被稱為『色』，因為在無色界中沒有變礙，所以變礙被稱為『色』，這並非不成立的。根據《阿毗達磨俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa），也是因為四蘊（catur-skandha，受、想、行、識四種精神要素）的表徵和召集相同，所以標立『名稱』。此論認為，四蘊轉變而緣取對象，因為同名轉變和詮表，所以標立『名稱』。
論：什麼是隨『名』而至的色、味等『名』？這是分別解釋『名』。
論：這又是什麼緣故至轉變而緣？這是解釋無色的四蘊轉變相同，所以標立『名稱』。
論：又有類似『名』，與『名』相同，都是無色聚（arupa-skandha，非物質的集合）。《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）第十五卷說：為什麼四蘊被稱為『名』？回答是，佛將有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，有條件的事物）總分為兩部分，即『色』和『非色』。『色』是色蘊（rūpa-skandha，物質的集合）。『非色』就是受（vedanā，感受）、想（saṃjñā，知覺）、行（saṃskāra，意志）、識（vijñāna，意識）四蘊。在非色聚中，有能夠顯了一切法的『名』，所以非色聚總稱為『名』。
論：隨『名』而顯現。四蘊微細難以知曉，隨『名』而顯現。《大毗婆沙論》說：色法粗顯，所以說『名色』（nāma-rūpa，名和色）。非色微隱，由『名』顯現，所以稱之為『名』。
論：有其他老師說至故標名稱。這是敘述不同的解釋。《正理論》（Nyāyānusāra）說：又因為對於一切界（dhātu，界）、地（bhūmi，地）、趣（gati，趣）、生（jāti，生）能夠普遍趣求，所以立『名稱』。非無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱）的無色法不得稱為『名』。雖然這不是這裡所要闡明的，但類似於此。又對於無色法，隨順說話者的意願，總稱為『名』，不必勞煩征問。
論：『觸』（sparśa，接觸）是什麼含義？以下第三個部分闡明『觸』支。六處（ṣaḍ-āyatana，六根）如前所述，所以這裡不闡明。越過次第闡明『觸』。這裡有三種：一、闡明六觸；二、闡明二觸；三、闡明八觸。以下第一部分闡明六觸。
論曰至乃至意觸。這是就所依的根（indriya，感覺器官）來區分六觸。
【English Translation】 English version 『Skandha』 is called 『Nāma』 (name, mental phenomena). Why is it called 『Nāma』? Because it can represent and summon. That is, it can represent and summon various alambanas (objects). If so, then 『Nāma』 should not completely include the Arupa-dhatu (formless realm). Because the viprayukta-dharmas (non-associated dharmas) have no alambana. If not, then representation and summoning only exist in the Arupa-dhatu. Just as it is said when explaining the name 『Rūpa』 (form, material phenomena), there is no fault. The Buddha said that because of vikara (change and obstruction), it is called 『Rūpa』. Past, future, avijñapti-rūpa (non-manifesting form, unexpressed karma), and various paramāṇus (ultimate particles), although they have no vikara, are also called 『Rūpa』, because there is no vikara in the Arupa-dhatu, so vikara is called 『Rūpa』, which is not unestablished. According to the Abhidharmakośa, it is also because the representation and summoning of the catur-skandhas (four aggregates: feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) are the same, so the 『name』 is established. This treatise believes that the four aggregates change and grasp objects, and because the same name changes and expresses, the 『name』 is established.
Treatise: What are the 『names』 such as form and taste that come with 『Nāma』? This is a separate explanation of 『Nāma』.
Treatise: What is the reason for this to change and grasp? This explains that the four formless aggregates change the same, so the 『name』 is established.
Treatise: There is also a similar 『name』, which is the same as 『name』, both being arupa-skandha (non-material aggregates). The Mahāvibhāṣā, Volume 15, says: Why are the four aggregates called 『Nāma』? The answer is that the Buddha divides the samskrta-dharmas (conditioned dharmas) into two parts: 『Rūpa』 and 『non-Rūpa』. 『Rūpa』 is the rūpa-skandha (aggregate of form). 『Non-Rūpa』 is the four aggregates of vedanā (feeling), saṃjñā (perception), saṃskāra (volition), and vijñāna (consciousness). In the non-Rūpa aggregate, there is a 『name』 that can manifest all dharmas, so the non-Rūpa aggregate is generally called 『Nāma』.
Treatise: Manifested by 『Nāma』. The four aggregates are subtle and difficult to know, manifested by 『Nāma』. The Mahāvibhāṣā says: Rūpa-dharma is coarse and obvious, so it is called 『nāma-rūpa』 (name and form). Non-Rūpa is subtle and hidden, manifested by 『Nāma』, so it is called 『Nāma』.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that the name is established. This is a description of different explanations. The Nyāyānusāra says: Also, because it can universally seek for all dhatus (realms), bhūmis (planes), gatis (destinies), and jātis (births), the 『name』 is established. Non-anāsrava (untainted) arupa-dharmas cannot be called 『Nāma』. Although this is not what is to be clarified here, it is similar to this. Also, for arupa-dharmas, according to the speaker's intention, it is generally called 『Nāma』, and there is no need to bother questioning.
Treatise: What is the meaning of 『sparśa』 (contact)? The third part below clarifies the 『contact』 limb. The ṣaḍ-āyatana (six sense bases) have been mentioned before, so they are not clarified here. 『Contact』 is clarified out of order. There are three types here: first, clarifying the six contacts; second, clarifying the two contacts; and third, clarifying the eight contacts. The first part below clarifies the six contacts.
Treatise: Up to and including mind contact. This distinguishes the six contacts based on the indriya (sense organs) on which they depend.
論。此復是何。問也。此觸是何為體。
論。三和所生至有別觸生。答也。觸體難辨寄因以說。
論。且五觸生至如何和合。難也。俱在現在可說和合。三世各異如何和合。
論。此即名和合至同順生觸故。答也。即意在過去。法在未來。識現在緣。此名和合。一以因果義故。二以同一果故。謂根．境．識三同順生一觸。此是因果義。成同一果也。此因果義成同一果義名為和合。婆沙一百九十七云。答此和合有二種。一俱起不相離名和合。二不相違同辨一事名為和合。五識相應觸由二和合故名和合(已上論文) 言不相離者。即以同世為不相離。非謂同聚。以眼．耳等見色聞聲不同處故。
論。諸師於此覺慧不同。維經部師說。即三和合名觸。薩婆多部別有觸生。
論。有說三和至說名為觸。述經部計。彼以經說如是三法聚集和合說名為觸不說別生。故知三外無別觸也。
論。有說別法至故觸別有。述有部計。彼以六六經中說六根．六境外別說六觸。故知六觸不是根．境。別有觸也。
論。說即三和至非法處攝。述經部師通有部引六六經也。勿以說六根．境已更別說六觸。即謂六觸別有實體。勿受．及愛。說法處已更別說有六愛．六處。即謂受．愛非法處攝別有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：這是什麼？問。 這個觸以什麼為體？ 論：由三者和合所生……乃至有不同的觸產生。答：觸的體性難以辨別，所以藉助因緣來說明。 論：且五觸產生……如何和合？難：都在現在，可以說和合。三世各異，如何和合？ 論：這就叫做和合……因為共同順應產生觸的緣故。答：意在過去，法在未來，識是現在的緣。這叫做和合。一是因果的意義，二是同一結果的意義。根、境、識三者共同順應產生一個觸，這是因果的意義，成就同一個結果。這種因果的意義，成就同一個結果的意義，叫做和合。《婆沙論》第一百九十七卷說：回答這個和合有兩種，一是同時生起不相分離叫做和合，二是不相違背共同辨別一件事叫做和合。五識相應的觸，由於兩種和合的緣故，叫做和合（以上是論文）。 所說的不相分離，是指在同一時間不相分離，不是指聚集在一起。因為眼、耳等見色聞聲的地方不同。 論：諸位論師對此的理解不同。毗婆沙師和經部師說，就是三者和合叫做觸。薩婆多部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）認為另外有觸產生。 論：有人說三者和合……說名為觸。這是經部師的觀點。他們認為經中說，像這樣三種法聚集和合，說名為觸，沒有說另外產生。所以知道三者之外沒有另外的觸。 論：有人說另外有法……所以觸是另外有的。這是有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）的觀點。他們認為在《六六經》中，在六根、六境之外，另外說了六觸。所以知道六觸不是根、境，而是另外有的觸。 論：說就是三者和合……不是法處所攝。這是經部師用來反駁有部引用的《六六經》。不要因為說了六根、六境之後，又另外說六觸，就認為六觸是另外的實體。不要因為受、愛，在說法處之後，又另外說有六愛、六處，就認為受、愛不是法處所攝，而是另外有的。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: What is this again? Question. What is the substance of this contact (sparsha) ? Treatise: That which is born from the union of three... until different contacts are born. Answer: The substance of contact is difficult to discern, so it is explained by relying on causes. Treatise: Furthermore, the five contacts are born... How do they unite? Difficulty: If they are all in the present, it can be said that they unite. If the three times (past, present, future) are different, how do they unite? Treatise: This is called union... because of the common accordance in producing contact. Answer: The intention is in the past, the dharma is in the future, and consciousness is the present condition. This is called union. First, because of the meaning of cause and effect; second, because of the same result. That is, the three—sense faculty (root), object, and consciousness—together accord to produce one contact. This is the meaning of cause and effect, achieving the same result. This meaning of cause and effect, achieving the same result, is called union. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論) 197 says: Answering this union, there are two kinds: first, arising together and not being separate is called union; second, not being contradictory and jointly discerning one thing is called union. The contact associated with the five consciousnesses is called union because of the two kinds of union (above is the treatise). What is meant by 'not being separate' is that they are not separate in the same time, not that they are gathered together. Because the eye, ear, etc., see forms and hear sounds in different places. Treatise: The masters have different understandings of this. The Vaibhashika (維婆沙師) and Sautrantika (經部師) masters say that the union of the three is called contact. The Sarvastivada (薩婆多部) school believes that contact is produced separately. Treatise: Some say that the union of the three... is called contact. This is the view of the Sautrantika school. They believe that the sutras say that these three dharmas gather and unite, and this is called contact; they do not say that it is produced separately. Therefore, it is known that there is no separate contact outside of the three. Treatise: Some say that there is a separate dharma... therefore, contact is separate. This is the view of the Sarvastivada school. They believe that in the Shash-shash Sutra (六六經), six contacts are mentioned separately from the six sense faculties and the six sense objects. Therefore, it is known that the six contacts are not the sense faculties or the sense objects, but are separate contacts. Treatise: Saying that it is the union of the three... is not included in the sphere of dharma. This is the Sautrantika master refuting the Sarvastivada's citation of the Shash-shash Sutra. Do not think that because the six sense faculties and six sense objects have been mentioned, and then the six contacts are mentioned separately, that the six contacts are separate entities. Do not think that because feeling (vedana) and craving (trishna) are mentioned after the sphere of dharma has been explained, and then the six cravings and six places are mentioned separately, that feeling and craving are not included in the sphere of dharma, but are separate.
體也。
論。無如是失至差別而說。有部救也。無有如是重說法處之失。法處有多種故。有是受．愛．及觸。復更有餘不相應等眾多法處。經說六外處者。說余法處。經說六受說受。經說六愛說愛。經說六觸說觸。由此說法處已。更說六受．六愛．六觸汝宗離觸無別有三。可觸及三差別而說。
論。雖有根境至便成無用。此破外救也。經部救云。根之與境若發識時名為三和。不發識時名為六根．六境。遮彼云。雖有根．境不發於識可三和外別說根．境。識若起時定托根．境。若有識起即是三和。如何說三和外更說六觸。
論。有餘救言至總立為觸。有餘經部救也。此師意說。根．境有不生識即非識因。識有不託根．境非根．境果 今詳此釋。若未來實有此義可然。若法現在即無斯理。雖復有處無識。無有識不依處。識生必托根．境起故。此以是未來．彼同分。不生與根合識也。是不正義。
論。說離三和至出現樂等。此有部通經也。有兩釋。第一釋云。我部所誦經文異此。不言三法聚集和合名為觸也。第二云。三法聚集和合是生觸因。令說此名觸。是因取果名。如說諸佛出世能生樂故名樂。
論。如是展轉至說有別觸。結前有部也。
論。即前六觸複合為二。已下第二明二觸也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 體也。
論：沒有像這樣因缺失而導致差別的情況，這是有部的辯解。沒有像這樣重複說明的缺失，因為法處有多種。有些是受（vedanā，感受）、愛（taṇhā，渴愛）和觸（phassa，接觸）。還有其他不相應的行法等眾多法處。經中所說的六外處，是說了其餘的法處。經中說六受是說受，經中說六愛是說愛，經中說六觸是說觸。由此在說法處之後，再說六受、六愛、六觸。你們宗派如果離開觸就沒有另外的三者，可以觸及的三者及其差別而說。
論：即使有根和境，如果不能生識，就變得沒有用處。這是爲了駁斥外道的辯解。經部辯解說，根（indriya，感覺器官）與境（viṣaya，感覺對像）如果生起識（vijñāna，意識）時，就稱為三和（tisso saṅgatiyo，三事和合），不生起識時，就稱為六根、六境。遮止他們說，即使有根和境不生起識，也可以在三和之外另外說明根和境。識如果生起時一定依託根和境。如果有識生起，那就是三和。如何說在三和之外再說六觸呢？
論：有其他人辯解說，總的來說，根、境、識三者和合就總括地立為觸。這是其他經部的辯解。這位師父的意思是說，根和境有不生起識的情況，就不是識的原因；識有不依託根和境的情況，就不是根和境的結果。現在詳細考察這種解釋，如果未來實際有這種意義還可以，如果法是現在存在的，就沒有這種道理。即使有處所沒有識，也沒有識不依賴處所。識的生起必定依託根和境而生起。這是因為這是未來，他們是同分，不生起與根結合的識。這是不正當的意義。
論：說離開三和，出現樂等。這是有部通達經義的說法。有兩種解釋。第一種解釋說，我們部派所誦讀的經文與此不同，沒有說三法聚集和合名為觸。第二種解釋說，三法聚集和合是生起觸的原因，所以說這個名為觸。這是因取果名，例如說諸佛出世能夠生起快樂，所以名為樂。
論：像這樣輾轉推論，說有不同的觸。總結前面的有部觀點。
論：就是將前面的六觸複合為二。以下第二部分說明二觸。
【English Translation】 English version It is the substance.
Treatise: There is no such error leading to differentiation in explanation. This is the defense of the Sarvāstivāda. There is no such error of repeated explanation, because the realm of dharmas (dharma-dhātu) is diverse. Some are feeling (vedanā), craving (taṇhā), and contact (phassa). Furthermore, there are many other non-associated formations and other dharma-dhātus. The six external sense bases mentioned in the sutras refer to the remaining dharma-dhātus. When the sutra speaks of six feelings, it speaks of feeling. When the sutra speaks of six cravings, it speaks of craving. When the sutra speaks of six contacts, it speaks of contact. Thus, after explaining the dharma-dhātu, it further explains the six feelings, six cravings, and six contacts. If your school departs from contact, there are no other three, the touchable three and their differences, to speak of.
Treatise: Even if there are sense organs and sense objects, if they do not give rise to consciousness, they become useless. This is to refute the external defense. The Sautrāntika defends by saying that when sense organs (indriya) and sense objects (viṣaya) give rise to consciousness (vijñāna), it is called the 'three convergences' (tisso saṅgatiyo); when they do not give rise to consciousness, they are called the six sense organs and six sense objects. Refuting them, it is said that even if there are sense organs and sense objects that do not give rise to consciousness, one can separately explain sense organs and sense objects apart from the three convergences. When consciousness arises, it must rely on sense organs and sense objects. If consciousness arises, it is the three convergences. How can one say that there are six contacts apart from the three convergences?
Treatise: Others defend by saying that, in general, the combination of sense organs, sense objects, and consciousness is collectively established as contact. This is the defense of other Sautrāntikas. This teacher means that if sense organs and sense objects do not give rise to consciousness, they are not the cause of consciousness; if consciousness does not rely on sense organs and sense objects, it is not the result of sense organs and sense objects. Now, examining this explanation in detail, if this meaning actually exists in the future, it would be acceptable; if the dharma exists in the present, there is no such reason. Even if there is a place without consciousness, there is no consciousness that does not depend on a place. The arising of consciousness must rely on sense organs and sense objects. This is because it is in the future, and they are of the same category, not giving rise to consciousness combined with the sense organs. This is an incorrect meaning.
Treatise: Saying that apart from the three convergences, pleasure and so on appear. This is the Sarvāstivāda's explanation of the sutras. There are two explanations. The first explanation says that the sutra texts recited by our school are different from this, not saying that the gathering and combination of the three dharmas is called contact. The second explanation says that the gathering and combination of the three dharmas is the cause of the arising of contact, so this is called contact. This is naming the effect by the cause, such as saying that the Buddhas appearing in the world can give rise to happiness, so it is called happiness.
Treatise: Reasoning in this way, it is said that there are different contacts. Concluding the previous Sarvāstivāda viewpoint.
Treatise: That is, combining the previous six contacts into two. The second part below explains the two contacts.
。
論曰至就所緣立。此釋二觸也。有對觸名從所依立。以所依根是有對故。增語觸名從所緣立。所緣境中異於五識不唯緣義。意兼緣名故名為增語。增語謂名。五不緣名。意增名故名為長境。此從所緣長境為名 了是青者。了青名也。即是意識遍緣名．義。
論。有說意識至就相應立。述異說也。此師說。意識緣境因語為增上故方能緣境。此即意識名為增語。觸與增語相應故名增語。此從相應名增語觸。
論。即前六觸至覆成八種。已下第三明八觸也 就中有三。一明等相應觸。二愛．恚相應觸。三受相應觸。
論曰至無覆無記。此明第一明．無明．非二相應三觸也。
論。無明觸中至共相應故。此明第二愛．恚觸也。一切染觸名無明觸。一切染中愛．恚數行。故於染中別標此二。
論。總攝一切至不樂受觸。此明第三順受觸。
論此三能引至名為順受。釋順受也 此有三釋。一能引受故。因於觸境若違．順故。二以是樂等受所領故。三以能為受行相依故。受起行相依于觸故。
論。如何觸為受所領行相依。重問后二。
論。行相極似觸依觸而生故。答也 行相極似觸。釋上樂等受所領故 依觸而生故。釋上能為受行相依。
論。如是合成十六種觸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
論曰：至於就所緣立。這是解釋兩種觸。有對觸的名稱是從所依立的，因為所依根是有對的緣故。增語觸的名稱是從所緣立的，所緣境中不同於五識，不只是緣義，意識兼緣名，所以名為增語。增語是指名。五識不緣名，意識增加名，所以名為長境。這是從所緣長境作為名稱。
了是青者。了青是名稱。就是意識普遍緣名和義。
論：有人說意識至於就相應立。這是敘述不同的說法。這位論師說，意識緣境因為語言作為增上，才能緣境。這就是意識名為增語。觸與增語相應，所以名為增語。這是從相應而名增語觸。
論：即前六觸至於覆成八種。以下第三部分說明八觸。其中有三部分：一是明、等相應觸，二是愛、恚相應觸，三是受相應觸。
論曰：至於無覆無記。這是說明第一種，明、無明、非二相應的三種觸。
論：無明觸中至於共相應故。這是說明第二種，愛、恚觸。一切染觸名為無明觸。一切染中愛、恚數量眾多。所以在染中特別標出這二者。
論：總攝一切至於不樂受觸。這是說明第三種，順受觸。
論：此三能引至於名為順受。這是解釋順受。這裡有三種解釋：一是能引受的緣故，因為觸境有違、順的緣故。二是以樂等受所領的緣故。三是以能為受行相依的緣故，受起行相依于觸的緣故。
論：如何觸為受所領行相依？這是重新提問后兩種解釋。
論：行相極似觸，依觸而生故。這是回答。行相極似觸，解釋上面說的樂等受所領的緣故。依觸而生故，解釋上面說的能為受行相依。
論：像這樣合成為十六種觸。
【English Translation】 English version:
Treatise says: As for establishing based on the object. This explains the two types of contact (sparsha). The name 'contact with resistance' (sa-pratigha sparsha) is established based on the support, because the supporting sense faculty has resistance. The name 'contact with increased expression' (adhivacana sparsha) is established based on the object. In the object, it differs from the five consciousnesses (vijnana); it does not only cognize the meaning (artha), but the mind (manas) also cognizes the name (nama), therefore it is called 'increased expression'. 'Increased expression' refers to name. The five consciousnesses do not cognize name; the mind increases name, therefore it is called 'extended object'. This takes its name from the extended object.
'Knowing it is blue' (nilamiti) is the name of knowing blue. This is the consciousness (vijnana) universally cognizing name and meaning.
Treatise: Some say that consciousness, as for being established based on association. This narrates a different view. This teacher says that consciousness cognizes objects because language (vac) acts as a condition (adhipati), then it can cognize objects. This is why consciousness is called 'increased expression'. Contact is associated with increased expression, therefore it is called 'contact with increased expression'. This takes its name from association.
Treatise: The preceding six contacts then become eight types. The third part below explains the eight contacts. Among them, there are three parts: first, contact associated with understanding (vidya) and so on; second, contact associated with love (raga) and aversion (dvesha); third, contact associated with feeling (vedana).
Treatise says: As for neither obscured nor indeterminate (anivrta-avyakrta). This explains the first type, the three contacts associated with understanding, non-understanding (avidya), and neither.
Treatise: In contact with non-understanding, as for being associated together. This explains the second type, contact with love and aversion. All defiled contacts are called contact with non-understanding. Among all defilements, love and aversion are numerous. Therefore, these two are specifically marked out among the defilements.
Treatise: Comprehensively gathering all, as for unpleasant feeling contact. This explains the third type, contact conforming to feeling (anukula-vedaniya sparsha).
Treatise: These three can lead to, as for being called conforming to feeling. This explains conforming to feeling. There are three explanations here: first, because it can lead to feeling, because the object of contact is contrary or conforming. Second, because it is what is experienced by pleasant feeling and so on. Third, because it can be a condition for the aspect of feeling, because the arising of feeling depends on contact.
Treatise: How is contact what is experienced by feeling and a condition for its aspect? This is re-asking the latter two explanations.
Treatise: The aspect is extremely similar to contact, because it arises dependent on contact. This is the answer. The aspect is extremely similar to contact, explaining the above-mentioned reason of being experienced by pleasant feeling and so on. Because it arises dependent on contact, explaining the above-mentioned reason of being a condition for the aspect of feeling.
Treatise: Thus, combining them, there are sixteen types of contact.
。總結上也。
論。受何為義。已下第四釋受支也。于中有三。一正釋受支。二明意近行。三義門分別。此下第一正釋受也。
論曰至但依心故。此從六觸分六受也。復就所依合其六受為二受也。
論。受生與觸為后為俱。經部問也。
論。毗婆沙師至俱有因故。有部答也。
論。云何二法至義可成立。經部責也。生既同時于俱有法如何有力。受若未生。觸亦未有。如何生受。觸若已生。受亦已生。已生之法有何功能觸生於受。
論。如何不立。有部反問經部師也。
論。無功能故。經部師出不立因也。
論。于已生法至重說何用。有部責經部因與宗同也。如說聲是無常。以生滅故。生滅。無常。義意無別。如何非因證無常宗。汝言二法俱時而生。宗即是二法相望無功能義。我今問汝不立所因。還重答言無功能故。與前何別。重說無用。
論。若爾便有互相生失。經部轉破也。二法同時而生如何互為因果。因即是果。果即是因。不應道理。
論。許故非失至亦互為果。有部答也。我宗許二互為因果 今詳。此答與本文不順。本諍觸生受義。此即不是二互相生。與俱有因。義意有別。何因有部作此釋耶。今釋此疑。雖本問觸生受義。而今我便別諍同時因
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：總結在上面。
論：受的意義是什麼？以下是第四個解釋受支的部分，其中包含三個方面：一是正式解釋受支，二是闡明意近行，三是從義理上進行區分。以下是第一個正式解釋受。
論曰至但依心故：這是從六觸分出六受。又根據所依之處，將六受合併爲二受。
論：受的產生是晚於觸，還是與觸同時？這是經部的提問。
論：毗婆沙師至俱有因故：這是有部的回答。
論：如果兩種法同時產生，如何能成立因果關係？這是經部的責難。如果產生是同時的，對於俱有法來說，如何有力？如果受還沒有產生，觸也不會有；如果觸已經產生，受也已經產生。已經產生的法有什麼功能來使觸產生受呢？
論：為什麼不成立呢？這是有部反問經部師。
論：因為沒有功能。這是經部師給出不成立的原因。
論：對於已經產生的法，重複說有什麼用？這是有部責難經部的原因和宗義相同。例如說聲音是無常的，因為生滅的緣故。生滅和無常，意義沒有區別。為什麼不是用因來證明無常宗呢？你說兩種法同時產生，宗義就是兩種法相互之間沒有功能。我現在問你為什麼不成立所因，你又重複回答說因為沒有功能。和之前有什麼區別？重複說沒有用。
論：如果這樣，就會有互相產生的過失。這是經部反過來駁斥。兩種法同時產生，如何互為因果？因就是果，果就是因，不應道理。
論：因為允許，所以沒有過失至亦互為果。這是有部的回答。我宗允許二者互為因果。現在詳細分析，這個回答與本文不順。本文爭論的是觸生受的意義，這並不是二者互相產生，與俱有因的意義有所區別。為什麼有部要這樣解釋呢？現在解釋這個疑問，雖然本文提問的是觸生受的意義，但現在我便另外爭論同時因。
【English Translation】 English version: The summary is above.
Treatise: What is the meaning of 'feeling' (受, vedanā)? The following is the fourth section explaining the 'feeling' factor (受支, vedanāṅga), which contains three aspects: first, a formal explanation of the 'feeling' factor; second, clarifying the proximate cause; and third, distinguishing from the perspective of meaning. The following is the first formal explanation of 'feeling'.
Treatise says to but depend on the mind: This is differentiating the six feelings from the six contacts (六觸, ṣaḍsparśa). Furthermore, based on what they rely on, the six feelings are combined into two feelings.
Treatise: Is the arising of feeling later than contact, or simultaneous with contact? This is a question from the Sautrāntika school (經部).
Treatise: The Vaibhāṣika masters to because of co-existent causes: This is the answer from the Sarvāstivāda school (有部).
Treatise: If two dharmas arise simultaneously, how can the relationship of cause and effect be established? This is the criticism from the Sautrāntika school. If the arising is simultaneous, how can there be power for co-existent dharmas? If feeling has not yet arisen, contact will not exist; if contact has already arisen, feeling has also already arisen. What function does a dharma that has already arisen have to cause contact to produce feeling?
Treatise: Why is it not established? This is the Sarvāstivāda school asking the Sautrāntika master in return.
Treatise: Because there is no function. This is the Sautrāntika master giving the reason for not establishing it.
Treatise: For a dharma that has already arisen, what is the use of repeating it? This is the Sarvāstivāda school criticizing the Sautrāntika school for having the same reason and thesis. For example, saying that sound is impermanent because it arises and ceases. Arising and ceasing, and impermanence, have no difference in meaning. Why is it not using the cause to prove the thesis of impermanence? You say that two dharmas arise simultaneously, the thesis is that the two dharmas have no function in relation to each other. Now I ask you why the cause is not established, and you repeat the answer that it is because there is no function. What is the difference from before? Repeating it is useless.
Treatise: If so, there would be the fault of mutual arising. This is the Sautrāntika school refuting in turn. How can two dharmas that arise simultaneously be mutual cause and effect? The cause is the effect, and the effect is the cause, which is unreasonable.
Treatise: Because it is allowed, there is no fault to also mutual effect. This is the answer from the Sarvāstivāda school. Our school allows the two to be mutual cause and effect. Now, upon detailed analysis, this answer is not consistent with the text. The text argues about the meaning of contact producing feeling, which is not the two arising mutually, and is different from the meaning of co-existent cause. Why does the Sarvāstivāda school make this explanation? Now explaining this doubt, although the text asks about the meaning of contact producing feeling, now I will separately argue about the simultaneous cause.
果。有部許有。經部不許。故有部以俱有因答。
論。仁雖許爾至受所生觸。自此已下經部出過。一違教失。二違理失。此即是初違教失也。
論。又此義非理至先意后識等。此第二齣違理失也。
論。先後因果至有所造色。有部救也。因果有二。有同時。有異時。如所引教理即是異時因果。我宗亦許有極成同時因果。如眼根．色境．與識同時。而根．境生識。非識生根．境。四大．造色如影與芽豈非俱有。而芽．大種生影．造色。非影．造色生芽．大種。此亦有教理也 今詳。此釋與本文相順也。
論。此中亦許至何理能遮。經部通也。四大造色。五識依根。亦許前後何理能遮。
論。如影與芽豈非俱有。有部不能遮前教理引出同時因果法也。
論有說觸后至緣觸生受。述經部宗上坐釋也。此師意說。后念識依前念根．境生。第一念根．境第二念識生。即於此時三和合觸。此觸即用三和為體更無別法。至第三念方生受也。
論。若爾應識至非皆是觸。有部出過 若爾應識非皆有受者。三和時識未生受故 諸識亦應非皆是觸者。受位中識非是觸故。
論。無如是失至無非是觸。經部救也。觸時之識有前位受故非無受也。受位時識是后位觸故無非是觸。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 果：有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部，佛教部派之一）認可有因果關係。經部（Sautrantika，佛教部派之一，主張一切法皆為剎那生滅）不認可。所以有部用俱有因來回答。
論：雖然你（經部）認可眼等根與所生的觸，但從這裡開始，經部就出現了過失。一是違背教義的過失，二是違背道理的過失。這便是最初的違背教義的過失。
論：而且這個道理並非如此，例如先有意識後有認識等等。這是第二點，指出違背道理的過失。
論：先後因果……乃至有所造色。這是有部的辯護。因果有兩種，有同時的，有異時的。如所引用的教義和道理，就是異時的因果。我宗（有部）也認可有極其成立的同時因果，例如眼根、色境與識是同時的，但根和境產生識，而不是識產生根和境。四大（地、水、火、風）和所造色，就像影子和芽，難道不是俱有的嗎？但芽和大種產生影子和所造色，而不是影子和所造色產生芽和大種。這也有教義和道理可以證明。現在詳細解釋，這個解釋與本文是相順的。
論：這裡也認可……用什麼道理能夠遮止？這是經部的辯解。四大造色，五識依根，也認可有前後關係，用什麼道理能夠遮止呢？
論：就像影子和芽，難道不是俱有的嗎？有部用這個例子來反駁，不能遮止前面引用的教義和道理，從而引出同時因果的法。
論：有種說法是觸之後……緣觸生受。這是經部的上座部的解釋。這位法師的意思是說，后唸的識依靠前唸的根和境而生。第一念的根和境，第二唸的識生起。就在這個時候，三和合（根、境、識的和合）產生觸。這個觸就是用三和合作為自體，沒有其他的法。到了第三念才產生受。
論：如果這樣，那麼識……並非都是觸。這是有部提出的過失。如果這樣，那麼識並非都有受，因為三和合時，識還沒有產生受。諸識也應該並非都是觸，因為受位中的識不是觸。
論：沒有這樣的過失……沒有不是觸的。這是經部的辯解。觸時的識有前位的受，所以並非沒有受。受位時的識是后位的觸，所以沒有不是觸的。
論：
【English Translation】 English version: Result: The Sarvastivadins (Sarvastivada, one of the schools of Buddhism) accept the existence of cause and effect. The Sautrantikas (a school of Buddhism, which advocates that all dharmas arise and perish in an instant) do not accept it. Therefore, the Sarvastivadins answer with the co-existent cause.
Treatise: Although you (Sautrantikas) accept the sense organs such as the eye and the touch produced by them, from this point on, the Sautrantikas have faults. First, the fault of violating the teachings; second, the fault of violating reason. This is the initial fault of violating the teachings.
Treatise: Moreover, this principle is not so, such as consciousness before cognition, etc. This is the second point, pointing out the fault of violating reason.
Treatise: Antecedent and subsequent cause and effect... up to the created form. This is the defense of the Sarvastivadins. There are two kinds of cause and effect: simultaneous and non-simultaneous. As the teachings and principles cited are non-simultaneous cause and effect. Our school (Sarvastivada) also recognizes the extremely established simultaneous cause and effect, such as the eye-organ, the object of sense, and consciousness are simultaneous, but the organ and the object produce consciousness, not consciousness produces the organ and the object. The four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) and the created form, like the shadow and the sprout, are they not co-existent? But the sprout and the great elements produce the shadow and the created form, not the shadow and the created form produce the sprout and the great elements. This also has teachings and principles to prove. Now, in detail, this explanation is consistent with the text.
Treatise: Here also recognize... what reason can prevent it? This is the Sautrantikas' defense. The four great elements create form, the five consciousnesses rely on the organs, and also recognize that there is an antecedent and subsequent relationship, what reason can prevent it?
Treatise: Like the shadow and the sprout, are they not co-existent? The Sarvastivadins use this example to refute, unable to prevent the teachings and principles cited earlier, thus leading to the dharma of simultaneous cause and effect.
Treatise: There is a saying that after touch... feeling arises from touch. This is the explanation of the Sthavira school of the Sautrantikas. The meaning of this master is that the subsequent thought of consciousness relies on the previous thought of the organ and the object to arise. The organ and the object of the first thought, the consciousness of the second thought arises. At this time, the three harmonies (the harmony of the organ, the object, and consciousness) produce touch. This touch uses the three harmonies as its own body, and there is no other dharma. It is not until the third thought that feeling arises.
Treatise: If so, then consciousness... not all are touch. This is the fault pointed out by the Sarvastivadins. If so, then consciousness does not all have feeling, because at the time of the three harmonies, consciousness has not yet produced feeling. All consciousnesses should also not all be touch, because the consciousness in the position of feeling is not touch.
Treatise: There is no such fault... there is none that is not touch. This is the Sautrantikas' defense. The consciousness at the time of touch has the feeling of the previous position, so it is not without feeling. The consciousness at the time of feeling is the touch of the subsequent position, so there is none that is not touch.
Treatise:
此不應理。有部非也。
論。何理相違。經部問也。
論。謂或有時至同緣一境。有部出違理也。謂或有時違．順二觸不同。前後複色．聲境別。因前違境受位緣色觸。生后順境緣聲觸位受。此即違順不同。色．聲境別。欣．戚性殊。如何相生 或應許受此心相應非與此心同緣一境者。從前違境及緣色境觸。生后順境．及緣聲境觸位受時。心既三和名后位觸。應同后念受境不與前念受同一境。若許此理壞相應義。
論。既爾若許至斯有何過。經部轉計。若境別者許成觸識不與受俱。許受俱識而體非觸。緣差故然。斯有何過。
論。若爾便壞至心品恒俱。有部出過。觸之與受是大地法。彼定一切心品恒俱。如何說言有心無觸有心無受。
論。彼定恒俱依何教立。經部問也。
論。依本論立。有部答也。
論。我等但以至當依經量。經部救也。就中有二。一不信本論。二釋本論文。此即初也。
論。或大地法義非要遍諸心。此第二釋本論文。本論中言受等諸法大地法者。非謂要遍一切心也。
論。若爾何名大地法義。有部責也。如我所釋遍一切心名大地法。若不要遍一切心者。何得名為大地法也。
論。謂有三地至名大地法。經部答也。有三種三地。若法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這不合道理。有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）的觀點是錯誤的。
論：什麼道理相違背？經部（Sautrantika，佛教部派之一）問道。
論：指的是有時同時緣于同一境。有部認為這違背了道理。指的是有時違背和順應兩種觸感不同，前後複色境和聲境不同。因為之前的違背境的受位緣於色觸，產生之後的順應境緣于聲觸位的受。這就是違背和順應不同，色境和聲境不同，欣快和悲慼的性質不同，如何能夠相生？或者應該允許受與此心相應，而不是與此心同緣一境。從之前的違背境以及緣於色境的觸，產生之後的順應境以及緣于聲境的觸位受時，心既然是三和合，名為后位的觸，應該與后唸的受境相同，不與前唸的受同一境。如果允許這個道理，就破壞了相應義。
論：既然這樣，如果允許，有什麼過失？經部轉變計策。如果境不同，允許觸和識不與受俱生，允許受俱生的識而體不是觸，因為緣的差別是這樣的。這有什麼過失？
論：如果這樣，就破壞了心品恒常俱生。有部指出過失。觸和受是大地法（Mahabhūmika，一切心中皆有的心理作用），它們必定與一切心品恒常俱生。怎麼能說有心沒有觸，有心沒有受呢？
論：它們必定恒常俱生，依據什麼教義而立？經部問道。
論：依據本論而立。有部答道。
論：我們只依據至理，應當依據經量。經部辯解。其中有二：一是不相信本論，二是解釋本論文。這是第一點。
論：或者大地法的意義不一定要遍及所有心。這是第二種解釋本論文。本論中說受等諸法是大地法，不是說一定要遍及一切心。
論：如果這樣，什麼叫做大地法的意義？有部責問道。如我所解釋的，遍及一切心叫做大地法。如果不要遍及一切心，怎麼能叫做大地法呢？
論：指的是有三種三地，名為大地法。經部答道。有三種三地。如果法
【English Translation】 English version: This is not reasonable. The Sarvastivadins (a Buddhist school of thought) are wrong.
Treatise: What reasoning contradicts? The Sautrantikas (a Buddhist school of thought) ask.
Treatise: It refers to sometimes simultaneously cognizing the same object. The Sarvastivadins consider this contradictory to reason. It refers to sometimes the feelings of opposing and conforming contacts being different, and the preceding and following composite sense-objects of sight and sound being different. Because the feeling associated with the preceding opposing object is related to the contact of sight, and the feeling associated with the following conforming object arises related to the contact of sound, this is the difference between opposing and conforming, the difference between the sense-object of sight and the sense-object of sound, and the difference between the nature of joy and sorrow. How can they arise together? Or it should be allowed that feeling is associated with this mind, but not cognizing the same object as this mind. When the feeling associated with the preceding opposing object and the contact related to the sense-object of sight gives rise to the feeling associated with the following conforming object and the contact related to the sense-object of sound, since the mind is a combination of three factors, it is called the contact of the later state. It should be the same as the object of feeling in the later moment, not cognizing the same object as the feeling in the previous moment. If this reasoning is allowed, it destroys the meaning of association.
Treatise: Since that's the case, if it's allowed, what fault is there? The Sautrantikas change their strategy. If the objects are different, allow that contact and consciousness do not arise together with feeling, allow that consciousness arises together with feeling, but its essence is not contact, because the difference in conditions is like this. What fault is there?
Treatise: If that's the case, it destroys the constant co-arising of mental factors. The Sarvastivadins point out the fault. Contact and feeling are Mahabhūmikas (universal mental factors, mental functions that are present in every mind), they necessarily constantly co-arise with all mental factors. How can it be said that there is mind without contact, or mind without feeling?
Treatise: That they necessarily constantly co-arise, based on what teaching is it established? The Sautrantikas ask.
Treatise: Based on the original treatise it is established. The Sarvastivadins answer.
Treatise: We only rely on ultimate truth, we should rely on the scriptural authority. The Sautrantikas argue. There are two points: one is not believing in the original treatise, and the second is interpreting the original treatise. This is the first point.
Treatise: Or the meaning of Mahabhūmika does not necessarily have to pervade all minds. This is the second interpretation of the original treatise. In the original treatise, when it says that feeling and other dharmas are Mahabhūmikas, it does not mean that they necessarily pervade all minds.
Treatise: If that's the case, what is called the meaning of Mahabhūmika? The Sarvastivadins question. As I explained, pervading all minds is called Mahabhūmika. If it does not necessarily pervade all minds, how can it be called Mahabhūmika?
Treatise: It refers to having three levels, called Mahabhūmika. The Sautrantikas answer. There are three types of three levels. If a dharma
遍此三種三地名大地法。非是要遍一切心品。
論。若法唯于至非本所誦。乘便明善大地等。大不善地是今所增非本論先有。
論。若於觸后至俱起受想思。有部以經部不信本論。與出違經過也。經言三和俱起受．想．思。如何說觸．受時別也。
論。但言俱起至何違須釋。經部通經。就中有二。一總非言不違經。二為通釋。此即初也。經但言俱起受．想．思不言觸俱。此即通前念觸俱時起后念受．想．思也。故經非證。
論。又于無間至故彼非證。第二通釋經也。縱汝觸起受．想．思是觸與受等俱義者。俱有二種。有同時俱。有無間起。亦名為俱。如經說慈俱行修念覺支。慈是有漏心。覺支是無漏心。慈．覺支俱。故知前後非同時也。觸．受說俱義亦如是。
論。若爾何故至離於受等。有部重引經證。既言相雜。明知同時。
論。今應審思至作如是說。經部不定問也。經通二釋。同一剎那。同緣一境。並得言雜。此云相雜。為是何雜。
論。于壽與暖至定約剎那。有部引例證是剎那。于中有二。一引例證。二責違經。此即初也。壽與暖俱既說相雜。故知此雜亦是剎那。
論又契經言至而不名觸。此是第二責違經也。經言三和。如何觸．受位識非三和合。受位三和
而不名觸。
論。故應定許至受等俱生。總結有部宗也。
論。傍論已終應辨正義。已下半頌。第二分一心受以為十八意近行也。
論曰至顯乘前起后 頌云 此覆成十八者。乘前分為六受及分二受。此復分成十八故是乘前起后。
論。此意近行十八云何。問也。
論。謂喜憂舍各六近行。答。此三受各緣六境分為六近行合為十八也。
論。此復何緣至為所緣故。此責分成十八所以。就此之中有三問也。若由自性但應有三。若由相應應唯有一。若由所緣應唯有六。
論。此成十八具足由三。答也。由自性故分為三受。由唯意相應故。唯取喜．憂．舍三不取苦．樂。由所緣故各分六種。由此十八不增減也。
論。于中十五至皆通二種。明雜．不雜緣也。喜等各別緣境故名不雜緣。若別緣法境亦名不雜緣法意近行。若兩合緣乃至五．六合緣皆名雜緣法意近行。
論。意近行名為目何義。問也。
論。傳說喜等至數遊行故。答也 傳說喜等意為近緣于諸境中數遊行故者。即是意與喜等以為近緣。喜等於境數遊行故。喜等名為意近行也。
論。有說喜等至數遊行故。述異說也。此是喜等與意為近緣故。令意于境數遊行故名意近行也。婆娑一百四十九有三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 不稱為『觸』（Sparśa）。
論：因此，應該確定允許受（Vedanā）等與心（Citta）同時生起。這是對有部宗（Sarvāstivāda）的總結。
論：旁論已經結束，應該辨析正義。以下半頌，第二部分一心（eka-citta）的受（Vedanā）被分為十八種意近行（mano-upa vicāra）。
論曰：爲了顯明承前啓後，頌文說：『此覆成十八者』。承接前面分為六受（sad-vedanāḥ）以及分為二受（dvi-vedanāḥ），此又分成十八，所以是承前啓後。
論：這十八種意近行是什麼？這是提問。
論：是喜（prīti）、憂（daurmanasya）、舍（upekṣā）各自有六種近行。回答。這三種受各自緣六境，分為六種近行，合起來是十八種。
論：這又是什麼緣故以至於成為所緣的緣故？這是責問分成十八種的原因。在這其中有三個問題。如果由於自性（svabhāva），則應該只有三種。如果由於相應（saṃprayoga），則應該只有一種。如果由於所緣（ālambana），則應該只有六種。
論：這成就十八種是具足由於三種原因。回答。由於自性，所以分為三種受。由於僅僅與意（manas）相應，所以只取喜、憂、舍三種，不取苦（duḥkha）、樂（sukha）。由於所緣，所以各自分為六種。因此這十八種不多也不少。
論：其中十五種以至於都通於兩種。說明雜緣（sāṃsargika）和不雜緣（asāṃsargika）。喜等各自別別地緣境，所以名叫不雜緣。如果別別地緣法境，也名叫不雜緣法意近行。如果兩種合起來緣，乃至五種、六種合起來緣，都名叫雜緣法意近行。
論：意近行這個名稱是什麼含義？提問。
論：傳說喜等以至於數數的緣故。回答。傳說喜等，意（manas）作為近緣，在諸境中數數的緣故。就是意與喜等作為近緣，喜等對於境數數**的緣故。喜等名叫意近行。
論：有人說喜等以至於數數的緣故。敘述不同的說法。這是喜等與意作為近緣的緣故，令意對於境數數的緣故，名叫意近行。《婆娑論》（Vibhāṣā）一百四十九有三種。
【English Translation】 English version: It is not called 『Touch』 (Sparśa).
Treatise: Therefore, it should be definitely allowed that feeling (Vedanā) and other mental factors arise simultaneously with the mind (Citta). This is a summary of the Sarvāstivāda school.
Treatise: The digression is over; the correct meaning should be distinguished. The following half-verse, the second part, divides the feeling (Vedanā) of a single mind (eka-citta) into eighteen kinds of mental application (mano-upa vicāra).
Treatise says: To clarify the connection between what precedes and what follows, the verse says: 『This again becomes eighteen.』 Continuing from the previous division into six feelings (sad-vedanāḥ) and the division into two feelings (dvi-vedanāḥ), this is further divided into eighteen, so it connects what precedes and what follows.
Treatise: What are these eighteen mental applications? This is a question.
Treatise: They are joy (prīti), sorrow (daurmanasya), and equanimity (upekṣā), each with six applications. Answer: These three feelings each cognize six objects, dividing into six applications, totaling eighteen.
Treatise: What is the reason that it becomes the object of cognition? This questions the reason for dividing into eighteen. Within this, there are three questions. If due to its own nature (svabhāva), there should only be three. If due to association (saṃprayoga), there should only be one. If due to the object of cognition (ālambana), there should only be six.
Treatise: The accomplishment of eighteen is complete due to three reasons. Answer: Due to its own nature, it is divided into three feelings. Due to only associating with the mind (manas), only joy, sorrow, and equanimity are taken, not suffering (duḥkha) and pleasure (sukha). Due to the object of cognition, each is divided into six kinds. Therefore, these eighteen are neither more nor less.
Treatise: Among them, fifteen all connect to two kinds. Explaining mixed (sāṃsargika) and unmixed (asāṃsargika) conditions. Joy, etc., each separately cognizes objects, so it is called unmixed condition. If separately cognizing dharma objects, it is also called unmixed dharma mental application. If two combine to cognize, even five or six combine to cognize, all are called mixed dharma mental application.
Treatise: What is the meaning of the name 『mental application』? Question.
Treatise: It is said that joy, etc., are frequently ** because of the condition. Answer: It is said that joy, etc., the mind (manas) serves as a close condition, frequently ** in the various objects. That is, the mind and joy, etc., serve as a close condition, joy, etc., frequently ** regarding the objects. Joy, etc., are called mental application.
Treatise: Some say that joy, etc., are frequently ** because of the condition. Narrating a different view. This is because joy, etc., and the mind serve as a close condition, causing the mind to frequently ** regarding the objects, so it is called mental application. The Vibhāṣā (Vibhāṣā) one hundred and forty-nine has three kinds.
釋。二釋同此論 第三釋云。又依意故近境而行名意近行 又云。于境捷利樂數分別故名為行 正理論云。喜等有力能為近緣。令意于境數遊行故。若說喜等意為近緣。于境數行名意近行。則應想等亦得此名。與意相應由意行故。
論。如何身受非意近行。問也。
論。非唯依意至故亦非行。答也。準此答文以依意故名近。分別故名行也。
論。第三靜慮至何故不攝。問。第三定樂唯依意故應名為近。在意分別應名為行。何故不名意近行也。
論。傳說初界至意近行故。答也。有兩釋也。一以初界無故。二以無對苦根意近行故。
論。若唯意地至廣說如經。此作違經難也。
論。依五識身至唯意地攝。已下通經。于中有三。此第一釋。如文可解。
論。又彼經言至故不應難。第二經自簡也。經言眼見色已。故知在意不應為難。
論。若雖非見至隨明瞭說。第三明經說有餘也。于中有二。一據明瞭也。總不見．聞等亦起色等近行。二見色已亦容起聲等近行。此是初也。隨明瞭說言見色已起緣色意近行。非謂起緣色等意近行。皆因見．聞等也。若不爾要須見．聞等後起者在欲界中不見色界色。不聞色界聲。不觸色界觸。應無緣彼三意近行。在色界中無鼻．舌．識。雖有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 釋：第二種解釋與此論相同。第三種解釋說：『又因為依靠意，接近所緣境而行，所以稱為意近行。』又說：『對於所緣境迅速敏捷、喜好計數、分別思量，所以稱為行。』《正理論》說：『喜等有力量，能作為近緣，使意對於所緣境進行計數。』如果說喜等是意的近緣，對於所緣境進行計數思量稱為意近行，那麼想等也應該得到這個名稱，因為它們與意相應，由意而行。
論：如何身受不是意近行？這是提問。
論：不是僅僅依靠意，所以也不是行。』這是回答。根據這個回答，因為依靠意所以稱為『近』，因為分別思量所以稱為『行』。
論：第三靜慮為什麼不包括在內？這是提問。第三禪定的樂受僅僅依靠意，所以應該稱為『近』，在意中進行分別思量，應該稱為『行』，為什麼不稱為意近行呢？
論：傳說最初的界限，直到意近行。』這是回答。有兩種解釋。一是最初的界限沒有，二是由於沒有與苦根相對的意近行。
論：如果僅僅在意地，直到廣說如經。』這是用經文來反駁。
論：依靠五識身，直到僅僅在意地攝。』以下是解釋經文。其中有三種解釋。這是第一種解釋，如文義可以理解。
論：又那部經說，直到所以不應該反駁。』這是第二種解釋，經文自己進行了簡別。經文說『眼見色已』，所以知道在意，不應該用來反駁。
論：如果即使不是見，直到隨明瞭說。』這是第三種解釋，說明經文還有其他含義。其中有兩種含義。一是根據明瞭來說。總的來說，即使沒有見、聞等，也會產生緣色等的近行。二是見色之後，也可能產生緣聲等的近行。這是第一種含義。『隨明瞭說』是指見色之後，產生緣色的意近行，不是說產生緣色等的意近行，都是因為見、聞等。如果不是這樣，一定要在見、聞等之後才能產生，那麼在欲界中，不見色，不聞聲，不觸觸，應該沒有緣彼三的意近行。在色界中沒有鼻、舌、識，雖然有
【English Translation】 English version: Explanation: The second explanation is the same as this treatise. The third explanation says: 'Furthermore, because it relies on the mind (意, yi), it approaches the object of cognition and proceeds, therefore it is called yi jin xing (意近行, mind-near-going).' It also says: 'Because it is swift and agile towards the object of cognition, enjoys counting, and discriminates and contemplates, therefore it is called xing (行, going).' The Zheng Li Lun (正理論, Treatise on Correct Reasoning) says: 'Joy and the like have the power to act as a near cause, causing the mind to count the object of cognition.' If it is said that joy and the like are the near cause of the mind, and counting and contemplating the object of cognition is called yi jin xing, then xiang (想, ideation) and the like should also receive this name, because they correspond with the mind and proceed by the mind.
Treatise: How is bodily sensation not yi jin xing? This is a question.
Treatise: 'It is not solely reliant on the mind, therefore it is also not xing.' This is the answer. According to this answer, because it relies on the mind, it is called 'near'; because of discrimination and contemplation, it is called 'going'.
Treatise: Why is the third jing lü (靜慮, dhyana) not included? This is a question. The sensation of pleasure in the third dhyana relies solely on the mind, so it should be called 'near'; discriminating and contemplating in the mind, it should be called 'going'; why is it not called yi jin xing?
Treatise: 'It is said that the initial realm, up to yi jin xing.' This is the answer. There are two explanations. One is that the initial realm is absent, and the other is that there is no yi jin xing that opposes the root of suffering.
Treatise: 'If it is only in the mind-ground, up to a broad explanation as in the sutra.' This uses the sutra to refute.
Treatise: 'Relying on the five shi shen (識身, aggregates of consciousness), up to being included only in the mind-ground.' The following explains the sutra. There are three explanations within it. This is the first explanation, which can be understood as the text says.
Treatise: 'Furthermore, that sutra says, up to therefore it should not be refuted.' This is the second explanation, where the sutra itself makes a distinction. The sutra says 'Having seen a form with the eye,' so it is known to be in the mind, and should not be used for refutation.
Treatise: 'If even if it is not seeing, up to according to what is clearly stated.' This is the third explanation, clarifying that the sutra has other meanings. There are two meanings within it. One is according to what is clearly stated. Generally speaking, even without seeing, hearing, etc., near-goings that condition form, etc., can arise. Two, after seeing a form, near-goings that condition sound, etc., may also arise. This is the first meaning. 'According to what is clearly stated' refers to after seeing a form, the yi jin xing that conditions form arises, not that the yi jin xing that conditions form, etc., all arise because of seeing, hearing, etc. If it were not so, it must be that after seeing, hearing, etc., can they arise, then in the desire realm, not seeing se (色, form), not hearing sheng (聲, sound), not touching chu (觸, touch), there should be no yi jin xing that conditions those three. In the form realm, there is no nose, tongue, or consciousness, although there is
身識不能緣下觸。應無緣欲界香．味．觸等意近行也。
論。見已等言至根境定故。此是第二據不雜亂。
論。為有色等至一近行不。問也。有唯一色唯生喜受。或唯生憂。或唯舍不。
論。有就相續非約所緣。答也。就人有異。謂人于境違．順不同。於此起喜不起憂等。若約所緣即通三也。婆沙四十九云。問頗有色等決定順喜。乃至決定順舍耶。答依所緣故無。依相續故有。謂有色等或時可意。或不可意。或於彼可意。於此不可意。于余非可意非不可意。有說。色等於親品順喜。于怨品順憂。于中品順舍 正理論云。續生．命終。唯舍近行。非憂與喜。舍任運得故。及順彼位故(順命終也)。唯有雜緣諸舍近行能正離染。以意近行但有漏故(若通無漏即有緣滅不雜緣法念住斷惑也)。唯舍非余(有漏無間。及前八解脫。在未至定故也)。諸加行道中亦有喜近行。非無間．解脫．根本定攝故。最後解脫道容有喜近行(入根本者有喜意近行也)。
論。諸意近行中幾欲界系。已下。第三義門分別。于中有二。一界地體緣門。二有漏．無漏門。此兩行半頌第一門也。
論曰至五所緣故。釋欲界意近行．及緣三界多少。欲界具三受故。具有十八意近行也。具有六境緣欲界境亦具十八也。欲界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 身識不能緣下觸（較低層次的觸覺）。那麼，它應該不能緣欲界的香、味、觸等由意識產生的近行（臨近的心理活動）吧？
論：『見已等言至根境定故』。這是第二個依據，即不雜亂。
論：『為有色等至一近行不？』這是提問。是否存在唯一對色產生喜受，或唯一產生憂受，或唯一產生舍受的情況？
論：『有就相續非約所緣』。這是回答。就人而言存在差異。因為人對境的違順感受不同，因此對同一境可能產生喜受，也可能不產生憂受等。如果從所緣（所緣對像）來說，則三種感受都可能。婆沙（《大毗婆沙論》）第四十九卷說：『問：有沒有色等決定順喜，乃至決定順舍的？』答：『依所緣故無，依相續故有。』意思是說，色等有時令人滿意，有時令人不滿意，或者對某人滿意，對某人不滿意，對另一些人則非滿意非不滿意。有人說，色等對於親近的人會產生喜受，對於怨恨的人會產生憂受，對於中等關係的人會產生舍受。《正理論》說：續生（投胎）和命終時，只有舍近行，沒有憂和喜。因為舍是任運而得的，並且順應那個狀態（順應命終的狀態）。只有雜緣的各種舍近行才能真正地離染，因為意近行只有有漏的（如果通於無漏，那麼就有緣滅的不雜緣法念住來斷惑）。只有舍，沒有其他的（有漏的無間道，以及前八解脫，都在未至定中）。在加行道中也有喜近行，因為它不屬於無間道、解脫道和根本定所攝。最後的解脫道可能存在喜近行（進入根本定者有喜意近行）。
論：『諸意近行中幾欲界系』以下，這是第三個義門分別。其中有二：一、界地體緣門；二、有漏、無漏門。這兩行半頌是第一個門。
論曰：『至五所緣故』。欲界意近行以及緣三界的多少。因為欲界具有三種感受，所以具有十八種意近行。具有六種境，緣欲界境也具有十八種。欲界
【English Translation】 English version: The body consciousness cannot cognize lower touches. Then, shouldn't it be unable to cognize the desire realm's smells, tastes, touches, etc., which are the mind's proximate activities (nearby mental activities)?
Treatise: 'Seeing, etc., words to root and object are fixed.' This is the second basis, which is non-confusion.
Treatise: 'Is there a single proximate activity for color, etc.?' This is a question. Is there a case where only joy is produced for color, or only sorrow, or only equanimity?
Treatise: 'There is continuity, not according to the object.' This is the answer. There are differences in people. Because people have different feelings of compliance and opposition to objects, they may generate joy or not generate sorrow, etc., for the same object. If speaking from the perspective of the object (the object of cognition), then all three feelings are possible. The Vibhasa (《Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra》) Volume 49 says: 'Question: Is there color, etc., that is definitely in accordance with joy, and even definitely in accordance with equanimity?' Answer: 'According to the object, no; according to continuity, yes.' This means that color, etc., are sometimes pleasing, sometimes displeasing, or pleasing to some, displeasing to others, and neither pleasing nor displeasing to others. Some say that color, etc., produce joy for close people, sorrow for hateful people, and equanimity for people with a neutral relationship. The Nyayanusara says: At the time of rebirth and death, there is only equanimity proximate activity, not sorrow or joy. Because equanimity is obtained effortlessly and is in accordance with that state (in accordance with the state of death). Only the various equanimity proximate activities that are mixed in their objects can truly abandon defilements, because mind proximate activities are only with outflows (if it extends to without outflows, then there is the non-mixed object Dharma Mindfulness to cut off delusions). Only equanimity, not others (the outflows of the immediate path, and the previous eight liberations, are all in the Unreached Concentration). There is also joy proximate activity in the path of application, because it is not included in the immediate path, the liberation path, and the fundamental concentration. The final liberation path may have joy proximate activity (those who enter the fundamental concentration have joy mind proximate activity).
Treatise: 'Among the mind proximate activities, how many are related to the desire realm?' Below, this is the third distinction of meaning. There are two: 1. The realm, ground, substance, and object door; 2. The with-outflows and without-outflows door. These two and a half lines of verse are the first door.
Treatise says: 'To the five objects.' The desire realm mind proximate activities and the amount of objects cognized in the three realms. Because the desire realm has three feelings, it has eighteen mind proximate activities. It has six objects, and cognizing the desire realm objects also has eighteen. Desire realm
意識三受。俱能別緣色界四境故具十二也。以色界中無香．味故無香．味各三也。欲界三受。俱容得緣無色法處。所以有三。以無色界無五境故闕十五也。
論。說欲界系至謂法近行。述色界初．二定體．緣。此地有喜．舍二受故。欲界具六境故。緣欲界境具十二也。色界無香．味故緣色唯八也。無色界中唯法處故。唯有喜．舍二法近行。
論。三四靜慮至謂法近行。述三．四定。於此定此地意唯舍受。容緣欲界故唯六也。若緣色界即唯有四。謂除香．味。無色界唯有一。舍法近行也。
論。說色界系至唯一謂法。述無色界空處近分意近行也。此有二說。一許別緣下。二不許別緣。若許別緣通有四舍意近行也。若不別緣唯一雜法舍近行也。
論。四根本地至如后當辨。述四無色根本．及上三邊同也。
論。此意近行通無漏耶。此下第二半頌漏．無漏門。于長行中便明成就多少門也。
論曰至唯是有漏。此述唯有漏也。正理釋云。所以者何。長養有故。無漏諸法與此相違。有說。近行有情皆有。無漏不然。故非近行。有說。聖道任運而轉故。順無相界故。非近行體。近行與此體相違故。
論。誰成就幾意近行耶。已下明成就也。于中有三。一問。二答。三破有部。此即初也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 意識的三種感受（三受）：因為都能分別緣取四種境界（四境），所以具備十二種（可能性）。因為在無色界（）中沒有香和味，所以沒有緣取香和味的三種感受。 欲界的三種感受，都可能緣取無色界的法處，所以有三種（可能性）。因為在無色界（）中沒有五種境界（五境），所以缺少十五種（可能性）。
論：說到欲界系乃至法近行。這是描述無色界（）初禪和二禪的本體和所緣。因為此地有喜和舍兩種感受，欲界具備六種境界，所以緣取欲界境界具備十二種（可能性）。無色界（）沒有香和味，所以緣取色法只有八種（可能性）。無色界（**）中只有法處，所以只有喜和舍兩種法近行。
論：三禪四禪乃至法近行。這是描述三禪和四禪。在此禪定中，此地意識只有舍受。容許緣取欲界，所以只有六種（可能性）。如果緣取無色界（），就只有四種，即除去香和味。無色界（）中只有一種，即舍受的法近行。
論：說到無色界（**）系乃至唯一謂法。這是描述無色界空無邊處（空處）的近分定（近分）意識的近行。對此有兩種說法。一種是允許分別緣取地獄，一種是不允許分別緣取。如果允許分別緣取，那麼共有四種舍受的意識近行。如果不允許分別緣取，那麼只有一種雜法的舍受近行。
論：四根本地乃至如后當辨。這是描述四無色根本定，以及上面的三邊定也是如此。
論：此意識近行是通於有漏還是無漏呢？下面第二半頌是關於有漏和無漏的討論。在長行中便說明了成就多少的方面。
論曰乃至唯是有漏。這是描述只有有漏。正理釋解釋說：為什麼呢？因為能增長有。無漏的諸法與此相反。有人說，近行有情都有，無漏則不然，所以不是近行。有人說，聖道是任運而轉的，順應無相界，所以不是近行體。近行與此體相違。
論：誰成就幾種意識近行呢？下面是說明成就。其中有三個部分：一問，二答，三破斥有部。這裡是第一個部分。
【English Translation】 English version The three types of feelings (three vedanā) of consciousness: Because they can all separately cognize the four realms (four āyatana), they possess twelve (possibilities). Because there are no smells or tastes in the Formless Realm (), there are no three types of feelings associated with smells or tastes. The three types of feelings in the Desire Realm can all potentially cognize the Dharma-āyatana of the Formless Realm, so there are three (possibilities). Because there are no five sense objects (five āyatana) in the Formless Realm (), fifteen (possibilities) are lacking.
Treatise: Speaking of the Desire Realm affiliation, up to the 'Dharma-proximate-activity'. This describes the nature and objects of the first and second dhyānas of the Formless Realm (). Because there are both joy and equanimity feelings in this realm, and the Desire Realm possesses six sense objects, cognizing the Desire Realm objects possesses twelve (possibilities). The Formless Realm () has no smells or tastes, so cognizing form only has eight (possibilities). Because there is only the Dharma-āyatana in the Formless Realm (**), there are only joy and equanimity as Dharma-proximate-activity.
Treatise: The third and fourth dhyānas, up to the 'Dharma-proximate-activity'. This describes the third and fourth dhyānas. In this dhyāna, consciousness in this realm only has equanimity feeling. Allowing for cognizing the Desire Realm, there are only six (possibilities). If cognizing the Formless Realm (), there are only four, namely excluding smells and tastes. In the Formless Realm (), there is only one, the Dharma-proximate-activity of equanimity.
Treatise: Speaking of the Formless Realm (**) affiliation, up to 'only one called Dharma'. This describes the proximate-activity of consciousness in the Near-Samādhi (near-samādhi) of the Sphere of Infinite Space (ākāśānantyāyatana) of the Formless Realm. There are two views on this. One allows for separately cognizing the lower realms, and the other does not allow for separately cognizing. If separately cognizing is allowed, then there are four types of equanimity feeling consciousness proximate-activity. If separately cognizing is not allowed, then there is only one mixed-dharma equanimity feeling proximate-activity.
Treatise: The four fundamental realms, up to 'as will be explained later'. This describes the four fundamental Formless Realm samādhis, and the three bordering samādhis above are the same.
Treatise: Is this consciousness proximate-activity common to both defiled and undefiled? The second half of the verse below discusses the defiled and undefiled aspects. In the extended text, the aspects of attainment and quantity are explained.
Treatise says: Up to 'only defiled'. This describes only the defiled. The Commentary on the Principle explains: Why is this so? Because it nourishes existence. Undefiled dharmas are contrary to this. Some say that proximate-activity is possessed by all sentient beings, but not undefiled, so it is not proximate-activity. Some say that the holy path operates spontaneously, in accordance with the realm of no-characteristics, so it is not the nature of proximate-activity. Proximate-activity is contrary to this nature.
Treatise: Who attains how many types of consciousness proximate-activity? Below is the explanation of attainment. There are three parts: a question, an answer, and a refutation of the Sarvāstivāda school. This is the first part.
。
論。謂生欲界至唯染污故。答也。此明生欲界者未得色界善心。即是未得未至定等。此于欲界具成十八具成善．染。若成上者唯是染污。成上惑故。染不緣下。由此初．二定唯八喜舍。緣自地四境故。三．四定四唯舍。緣四境故。四無色一唯舍。緣一法故 皆不緣下唯染污故。釋所以也。
論。若已獲得至如應當知。謂已獲得色界善心。初定有十。謂舍六喜四。未離欲貪具憂根故欲成一切。上地多少數如前說。正理欲界等中。皆得緣不繫也。
論。若生色界至謂通果心俱。明色界成欲一也。生無色界定不成下故略不論。成色多少準前可知。故不重述。
論。有說如是至經義有殊。第三論主假為異說破有部也。
論。所以者何。有部更問。
論。非於此地至是意近行。論主答也。唯染污受可意相牽數行境界名意近行。善．無記者。不能引意相牽數行境故。非意近行。
論。云何與意相牽數行。問也。
論。或愛或憎或不擇舍。答也。
論。為對治彼至知法亦爾。此引證也。既六恒住對彼喜．憂．舍三。故知此三唯染污。與意相牽數行境故治彼名住。
論。非阿羅漢至故作是說。證唯染也。既說羅漢有六恒住。無數行境。故知羅漢善喜．舍非意近行也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：說生於欲界是因為只有染污。回答是：這說明生於欲界的人沒有獲得善心（善心），也就是沒有獲得未至定等。他們在欲界同時具有十八種（善與染）。如果生於上界，則只有染污，因為他們成就了上界的迷惑。染污不會緣于地獄。因此，初禪和二禪只有八種（喜和舍），因為它們緣于自身所處的四種境界。三禪和四禪只有四種（只有舍），因為它們緣於四種境界。四無色定只有一種（只有舍），因為它們緣於一種法。這些都不緣于地獄，因為只有染污。這是解釋原因。 論：如果已經獲得（善心），應該如何理解？意思是說，如果已經獲得了善心，初禪有十種（舍六種，喜四種），因為還沒有脫離欲貪，所以具有憂根，能夠成就一切。上界的多少數量如前所述。《正理》認為，欲界等中，都可以緣于不繫之法。 論：如果生於（），意思是說，通果心是同時具有的。說明成就了欲界的一種。生於無定，不會成就地獄，所以略而不論。成就色界的多少，可以參照前面所說的，所以不再重複。 論：有人說，像這樣（），經義有所不同。第三位論主假設了一種不同的說法，來反駁有部。 論：原因是什麼？有部進一步提問。 論：不是在這個地方（），這是意近行。論主回答說，只有染污的感受，可以被可意的現象牽引，並被計數和行進的境界稱為意近行。善和無記的感受，不能牽引意念，所以不是意近行。 論：如何與意念相互牽引、計數和行進？提問。 論：或者愛，或者憎，或者不選擇而捨棄。回答。 論：爲了對治那些（），要知道法也是如此。這是引用的證據。既然六種恒住對治喜、憂、舍三種，所以知道這三種只有染污，因為它們與意念相互牽引、計數和行進，所以對治它們被稱為住。 論：非阿羅漢（），所以這樣說。證明只有染污。既然說阿羅漢有六種恒住，沒有計數和行進的境界，所以知道阿羅漢的善喜和舍不是意近行。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: It is said that being born in the desire realm is solely due to defilement. The answer is: This clarifies that those born in the desire realm have not attained wholesome mind, which means they have not attained the preliminary concentration (未至定) and so on. In the desire realm, they possess both eighteen types (wholesome and defiled). If born in the higher realms, they only have defilement because they have accomplished the delusions of the higher realms. Defilement does not arise from the lower realms. Therefore, the first and second dhyanas only have eight (joy and equanimity) because they arise from the four objects of their own realm. The third and fourth dhyanas only have four (only equanimity) because they arise from four objects. The four formless absorptions only have one (only equanimity) because they arise from one dharma. None of these arise from the lower realms because they are solely defiled. This explains the reason. Treatise: If one has already attained (wholesome mind), how should it be understood? It means that if one has already attained wholesome mind, the first dhyana has ten (six of equanimity, four of joy) because they have not yet separated from desire-greed, so they possess the root of sorrow and can accomplish everything. The number of the higher realms is as previously stated. The Nyāyānusāra (正理) believes that in the desire realm and so on, one can arise from the unconditioned. Treatise: If born in (), it means that the mind of the fruition of the path (通果心) is simultaneous. This explains that accomplishes one aspect of the desire realm. Being born in the no- absorption does not accomplish the lower realms, so it is briefly omitted. The amount of accomplishment in the form realm can be understood by referring to what was said before, so it is not repeated. Treatise: Some say that, like this (), the meaning of the sutras is different. The third author posits a different view to refute the Sarvāstivāda (有部). Treatise: What is the reason? The Sarvāstivāda further asks. Treatise: It is not in this place (), this is 'close-attainment-activity' (意近行). The author answers that only defiled feelings can be drawn by agreeable phenomena, and the realm that is counted and progressed upon is called 'close-attainment-activity'. Wholesome and neutral feelings cannot draw the mind, so they are not 'close-attainment-activity'. Treatise: How does one mutually draw, count, and progress with the mind? Question. Treatise: Either love, or hate, or non-selectively abandon. Answer. Treatise: In order to counteract those (), know that dharma is also like this. This is a cited proof. Since the six constant abidings counteract the three of joy, sorrow, and equanimity, it is known that these three are only defiled because they mutually draw, count, and progress with the mind, so counteracting them is called abiding. Treatise: Not an Arhat (), so it is said like this. Proof that it is only defiled. Since it is said that an Arhat has six constant abidings, without the realm of counting and progressing, it is known that the wholesome joy and equanimity of an Arhat are not 'close-attainment-activity'.
。
論。又即喜等至謂諸善受。重引經證言。喜等者等取憂．舍。此三若染污者緣色等六成十八耽嗜。此三若善緣色等六為十八出離。合為三十六也。此是大師所說非余能說。故言大師句也。善受既非耽嗜。明非與意相牽數行境也。婆娑四十六明六恒住。一百二十九。一百九十。明耽嗜受。正理救云。如何定知于諸境界或愛或憎或不擇舍方是近行。非如先說諸離欲者。或阿羅漢。于有漏事雖全分斷而有有漏喜等現行。不名近行此有何理。又以何緣。唯六恒住遠分所治貪等相應雜染喜等方名近行。非余有漏善喜等受。又彼自說差別言故。非染近行定有極成。謂彼自言但為遮止雜染近行故作是說。即以許有非染近行非六恒住正所遮遣故。毗婆沙所說近行非與正理契經相違。又諸有漏皆名雜染。既許雜染皆名近行。與此宗義有何相違 婆沙一百三十九云。若生初定成就欲界一法舍意近行。即通果俱。總緣色等為境故。有說成就三。謂色．聲．法舍意近行。此心若緣所起身表。即有緣色舍意近行。此心若緣所起語表即有緣聲舍意近行。此心若緣所變化事。以總緣故。即有緣法舍意近行。有說。成就六舍意近行。即通果心俱。此心容有總別緣故 今詳。三解據義各別不相違也。第一師據化事心唯法舍近行。此心不唯緣一境
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
論：又就喜等持（喜等持：指禪定中伴隨喜悅的境界）而言，是指諸種善的感受。再次引用經文來證明，『喜等』中的『等』字包括了憂和舍（憂：不愉快的情緒；舍：不苦不樂的情緒）。這三種感受如果被染污，以色等六境（色：可見之物；聲：可聽之物；香：可嗅之物；味：可嘗之物；觸：可觸之物；法：意識的對象）為緣，就會形成十八種耽嗜（耽嗜：過度的慾望和執著）。這三種感受如果向善，以色等六境為緣，就能成為十八種出離（出離：脫離煩惱和痛苦）。合起來就是三十六種。』這是大師（大師：指佛陀或有智慧的導師）所說的，不是其他人能說的，所以說是『大師句』。善的感受既然不是耽嗜，就表明它不是與意（意：意識）相牽連、在數行境（數行境：指意識活動的範圍）中活動的。
《婆沙論》（《婆沙論》：佛教論書）第四十六卷闡明了六恒住（六恒住：指六種持續存在的心理狀態），第一百二十九卷和第一百九十卷闡明了耽嗜的感受。《正理救》（《正理救》：佛教論書）中說：『如何確定對於各種境界，或愛或憎，或不加選擇地捨棄，才是近行（近行：指接近煩惱的行為）？而不是像先前所說的那些遠離慾望的人，或者阿羅漢（阿羅漢：佛教修行 достигший освобождения от перерождений），對於有漏的事物（有漏的事物：指包含煩惱的事物），即使已經完全斷除，仍然會有有漏的喜等感受現行，但這不叫做近行，這是什麼道理？又因為什麼緣故，只有六恒住所控制的、與貪等相應的雜染的喜等感受才叫做近行，而不是其他的有漏的善的喜等感受？』而且他們自己也說了差別的緣故，非染的近行一定有極成的道理。他們自己說，只是爲了阻止雜染的近行才這樣說的，也就是承認有非染的近行，不是六恒住所真正要遮止的。《毗婆沙論》所說的近行與《正理》和契經（契經：符合佛陀教義的經典）並不矛盾。而且所有的有漏都叫做雜染，既然承認雜染都叫做近行，與這個宗義有什麼相違背的地方？
《婆沙論》第一百三十九卷說：『如果產生初禪（初禪：色界的第一禪定）時，成就欲界（欲界：眾生有情慾和物質慾望的世界）的一種法，即舍意近行，那麼就貫通果心（果心：修行所證得的果位的心理狀態）和俱心（俱心：與果心同時生起的心理狀態）。』因為總的來說是以色等為境界。有人說成就三種，即色、聲、法舍意近行。這個心如果緣于所起身表（身表：身體的動作），就有緣於色的舍意近行。這個心如果緣于所起語表（語表：語言的表達），就有緣于聲的舍意近行。這個心如果緣于所變化的事物，因為是總的緣故，就有緣於法的舍意近行。有人說，成就六種舍意近行，即貫通果心和俱心。這個心容許有總別兩種緣故。
現在詳細分析，這三種解釋根據的意義各有不同，並不互相矛盾。第一位師父根據變化的事物的心只有法舍近行，這個心不只是緣於一個境界。
【English Translation】 English version:
Treatise: Furthermore, concerning the Samadhi of Joy and the like (Samadhi of Joy: refers to the state of meditation accompanied by joy), it refers to all wholesome feelings. Again, citing scriptural evidence, 'the like' in 'Joy and the like' includes sorrow and equanimity (sorrow: unpleasant emotions; equanimity: neither pleasant nor unpleasant emotions). If these three feelings are defiled, taking the six objects such as form as conditions (form: visible objects; sound: audible objects; smell: olfactory objects; taste: gustatory objects; touch: tactile objects; dharma: objects of consciousness), they will form eighteen kinds of craving (craving: excessive desire and attachment). If these three feelings are wholesome, taking the six objects such as form as conditions, they can become eighteen kinds of renunciation (renunciation: detachment from afflictions and suffering). Combined, there are thirty-six kinds.' This is what the Master (Master: refers to the Buddha or a wise teacher) said, not what others can say, hence the phrase 'Master's words.' Since wholesome feelings are not craving, it shows that they are not connected to the mind (mind: consciousness) and do not operate within the realm of mental activity (realm of mental activity: refers to the scope of conscious activity).
The forty-sixth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra: a Buddhist treatise) clarifies the six constant abodes (six constant abodes: refers to six continuously existing mental states), while the one hundred and twenty-ninth and one hundred and ninetieth volumes clarify craving feelings. The Nyāyānusāra (Nyāyānusāra: a Buddhist treatise) says: 'How can it be determined that towards various objects, either love or hate, or indiscriminate abandonment, is proximate conduct (proximate conduct: refers to behavior that is close to afflictions)? It is not like those who have renounced desire, or Arhats (Arhats: Buddhist practitioners who have attained liberation from rebirth), who, even if they have completely severed defiled things (defiled things: refers to things containing afflictions), still have defiled joy and other feelings manifesting, but this is not called proximate conduct. What is the reason for this? And for what reason are only the defiled joy and other feelings that are controlled by the six constant abodes and correspond to greed and the like called proximate conduct, and not other wholesome feelings of joy and the like that are defiled?' Moreover, they themselves have spoken of the reason for the difference, that non-defiled proximate conduct certainly has an established principle. They themselves say that they only said this to prevent defiled proximate conduct, which is to admit that there is non-defiled proximate conduct, which is not what the six constant abodes truly want to prevent. The proximate conduct spoken of in the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra does not contradict the Nyāyānusāra and the sutras (sutras: scriptures that conform to the Buddha's teachings). Moreover, all defiled things are called defilements, and since it is admitted that all defilements are called proximate conduct, what contradiction is there with this doctrine?
The one hundred and thirty-ninth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'If, when the first Dhyana (first Dhyana: the first meditative state in the Realm of Form) arises, one accomplishes one dharma of the Desire Realm (Desire Realm: the world of beings with emotional and material desires), namely, the proximate conduct of equanimity, then it pervades both the resultant mind (resultant mind: the mental state of the fruit attained through practice) and the co-arisen mind (co-arisen mind: the mental state that arises simultaneously with the resultant mind).' Because, in general, it takes form and the like as objects. Some say that three are accomplished, namely, the proximate conduct of equanimity towards form, sound, and dharma. If this mind is conditioned by the bodily expression (bodily expression: the actions of the body), then there is the proximate conduct of equanimity towards form. If this mind is conditioned by the verbal expression (verbal expression: the expression of language), then there is the proximate conduct of equanimity towards sound. If this mind is conditioned by the transformed things, because it is a general condition, then there is the proximate conduct of equanimity towards dharma. Some say that six kinds of proximate conduct of equanimity are accomplished, namely, pervading both the resultant mind and the co-arisen mind. This mind allows for both general and specific conditions.
Now, upon detailed analysis, the meanings upon which these three explanations are based are different and do not contradict each other. The first teacher bases it on the fact that the mind of transformed things only has the proximate conduct of equanimity towards dharma, and this mind is not only conditioned by one object.
故。第二師說。據化事心．及發身．語業心。唯緣色．聲故。第三師說。通六近行。通取化事．發業及余通果心。亦容別緣六境界故 有人云。初師為正。初師意發業心亦兼緣能造觸故者。非也。若能造觸亦心緣。起善．惡二業例亦應然。應同所造通其善．惡。
論。如是所說至無量差別。略說受支如上所說。若廣分別無量不同。
論。何緣不說所餘有支。自此已下余指別文。
論曰至隨眠品當說。指余文也。
論。此諸緣起略立為三。自此已下有兩行頌舉喻顯也。
論曰至煩惱業事。此中煩惱總有五喻。此文即是第一喻也。
論。如龍鎮池至相續無窮。第二喻也。
論。如草根未拔至趣滅滅還起。第三喻也。
論。如從樹莖至數起惑業事。第四喻。
論。如糠裹米至應如是知。第五喻也。
論。如米有糠至能感異熟。此中明業總有三喻。此所舉文第一喻也。
論。如諸草藥至更不招異熟。第二喻也。
論。如花于果至應如是知。第三喻也。
論。如熟飲食至應如是知。喻異熟果也。並如文可解。
論。如是緣起煩惱業事。已下一頌。大文第九明四有餘義。
論曰至無潤功能。此明生有唯染污也。然通一切。若生欲界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，第二位論師說，根據化事心（指變化事物的心）以及發身語業心（指引發身體和語言行為的心），心識只緣於色（形態）和聲（聲音）。第三位論師說，心識可以普遍地緣於六種近行（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六種感官的活動範圍），普遍地取化事、發業以及其餘通果心（指能通向結果的心），也可能分別緣於六種境界（指色、聲、香、味、觸、法）。
有人說，第一位論師的觀點是正確的。第一位論師的意思是，發業心也兼緣能造觸（指能夠產生觸覺的因素）。這種說法是不對的。如果能造觸也是心識所緣的對象，那麼發起善業和惡業的情況也應該如此，應該和所造作的業一樣，普遍地包含善和惡。
論：像這樣所說的受支（指感受），乃至有無量的差別。簡略地說，受支如上面所說。如果廣泛地分別，則有無量的不同。
論：為什麼不說其餘的有支（指十二緣起中的其他支分）？從這裡開始，其餘的都指別的文句。
論曰：到隨眠品（指關於潛在煩惱的章節）時會說到。這是指其他的文句。
論：這些緣起，簡略地可以歸納為三種。從這裡開始，有兩行頌文，用比喻來顯示。
論曰：乃至煩惱業事。這裡煩惱總共有五種比喻。這段文字就是第一個比喻。
論：如同龍鎮守池塘，乃至相續無窮。這是第二個比喻。
論：如同草根沒有拔除，乃至趣向滅盡后又重新生起。這是第三個比喻。
論：如同從樹的莖幹，乃至多次生起迷惑和業。這是第四個比喻。
論：如同糠包裹著米，乃至應該這樣理解。這是第五個比喻。
論：如同米有糠，乃至能夠感得異熟果（指不同性質的果報）。這裡說明業總共有三種比喻。這裡所舉的文句是第一個比喻。
論：如同各種草藥，乃至不再招感異熟果。這是第二個比喻。
論：如同花對於果實，乃至應該這樣理解。這是第三個比喻。
論：如同煮熟的飲食，乃至應該這樣理解。這是比喻異熟果。並且如文句所說可以理解。
論：像這樣緣起煩惱業事。下面一頌。大文第九說明四有的剩餘意義。
論曰：乃至沒有滋潤的功能。這裡說明生有（指生命存在的階段）只有染污。然而普遍地適用於一切。如果生在欲界（指充滿慾望的生存領域）
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the second teacher says that according to the '化事心' (Huàshì xīn, mind of transformation activities) and the '發身語業心' (Fā shēn yǔ yè xīn, mind that initiates physical and verbal actions), the mind only cognizes '色' (sè, form) and '聲' (shēng, sound). The third teacher says that the mind can universally cognize the six '近行' (jìnxíng, the range of activities of the six senses: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind), universally taking '化事' (Huàshì, transformation activities), '發業' (fāyè, initiating actions), and the remaining '通果心' (tōng guǒ xīn, mind that leads to results), and may also separately cognize the six '境界' (jìngjiè, realms: form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharma).
Someone says that the first teacher's view is correct. The first teacher means that the '發業心' (fāyè xīn, initiating action mind) also cognizes '能造觸' (néng zào chù, the element that can produce touch). This statement is incorrect. If '能造觸' (néng zào chù, the element that can produce touch) is also an object cognized by the mind, then the arising of good and evil actions should also be the same, universally including good and evil like the actions that are created.
Treatise: Thus, the '受支' (shòu zhī, feeling aggregate) that is spoken of has limitless differences. Briefly speaking, the '受支' (shòu zhī, feeling aggregate) is as mentioned above. If broadly differentiated, there are limitless differences.
Treatise: Why are the remaining '有支' (yǒu zhī, limbs of existence) not spoken of? From here onwards, the remaining refers to other sentences.
Commentary: It will be spoken of in the '隨眠品' (suímián pǐn, chapter on latent afflictions). This refers to other sentences.
Treatise: These '緣起' (yuánqǐ, dependent origination) can be briefly summarized into three. From here onwards, there are two lines of verses, using metaphors to illustrate.
Commentary: Up to '煩惱業事' (fánnǎo yè shì, afflictions and karmic activities). Here, there are a total of five metaphors for afflictions. This passage is the first metaphor.
Treatise: Like a dragon guarding a pond, up to continuous and endless. This is the second metaphor.
Treatise: Like grass roots not being pulled out, up to tending towards extinction and then arising again. This is the third metaphor.
Treatise: Like from the stem of a tree, up to repeatedly arising confusion and karma. This is the fourth metaphor.
Treatise: Like rice wrapped in chaff, up to should be understood in this way. This is the fifth metaphor.
Treatise: Like rice with chaff, up to being able to sense different '異熟' (yìshú, Vipaka, results of different nature). Here, it explains that there are a total of three metaphors for karma. The sentence quoted here is the first metaphor.
Treatise: Like various herbs, up to no longer inviting '異熟' (yìshú, Vipaka, results of different nature). This is the second metaphor.
Treatise: Like a flower to a fruit, up to should be understood in this way. This is the third metaphor.
Treatise: Like cooked food, up to should be understood in this way. This is a metaphor for '異熟果' (yìshú guǒ, Vipaka fruit). And it can be understood as the sentences say.
Treatise: Like this '緣起' (yuánqǐ, dependent origination) of afflictions and karmic activities. The following verse. The ninth major section explains the remaining meaning of the four existences.
Commentary: Up to without the function of moistening. Here it explains that '生有' (shēng yǒu, becoming) only has defilement. However, it universally applies to everything. If born in the '欲界' (yùjiè, desire realm)
即三十六。色無色界各三十一。皆能結生。不簡上緣．無漏緣等。
論。然諸結生至現起纏垢。明除隨眠余纏．垢等不能結生。
論。雖此位中至煩惱現起。明結生位心雖昧劣。由數習力邪見等惑皆能現起。
論。應知中有至猶如生有。此明中有結生剎那同生有也。
論。然餘三有至善染無記。明餘三有通三性也。
論。于無色界至可立中有。明無色界無中有所以也。
論。頌中不說至許具四有。釋頌意也。
論。有情緣起已廣分別。已下三行頌大文第二明四食也。
論曰至由食而住。此明四食是佛說也。
論。何等為食。問。
論。食有四種至四識。列四名也。
論。段有二種至翻此為粗。此釋段食。于中有三。一問細粗。二明界系。三明體性兼釋名。此文初也 污蟲者。謂因津污濕氣而生。即細濕生蟲。余文可解。
論。如是段食至生上界故。此文第二界系分別。正理論云。非上界身依外緣住。色界雖有能益大種。而非段食。如非妙欲。如色界中雖有微妙色．聲．觸．境。而不引生增上貪故不名妙欲。如是雖有最勝微妙能攝益觸。而畢竟無分段吞啖故非段食。雖非段食攝。而非無食義。如喜雖非四食中攝。而經說為食。以有食義故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：即三十六。色無色界各有三十一。都能結生，不分上緣、無漏緣等。
論：然而諸結生至現起纏垢。說明除了隨眠之外，其餘的纏、垢等不能結生。
論：雖此位中至煩惱現起。說明結生位的心雖然昧劣，但由於數數串習的力量，邪見等惑都能現起。
論：應知中有至猶如生有。這說明中有結生的剎那，與生有相同。
論：然餘三有至善染無記。說明其餘三有通於善、染、無記三性。
論：于無色界至可立中有。說明無色界沒有中有的原因。
論：頌中不說至許具四有。解釋頌文的含義。
論：有情緣起已廣分別。以下三行頌文，是大文第二部分，說明四食。
論曰至由食而住。這說明四食是佛所說。
論：何等為食？問。
論：食有四種至四識。列出四種食的名稱。
論：段食有二種至翻此為粗。這是解釋段食。其中有三點：一是問細粗，二是明界系，三是明體性兼釋名。此文是第一點。污蟲者，是指因津液、污穢、濕氣而生的蟲子，即細小的濕生蟲。其餘的文字可以理解。
論：如是段食至生上界故。此文是第二點，關於界系的分別。《正理論》說，上界的身不依靠外緣而住。色、聲、香、味、觸雖然有能利益四大種的作用，但不是段食。如同非妙欲一樣，如同色界中雖然有微妙的色、聲、觸、境，但不引生增上的貪愛，所以不稱為妙欲。這樣，雖然有最勝微妙能攝益的觸，但畢竟沒有分段吞食的行為，所以不是段食。雖然不屬於段食，但並非沒有食的意義。如同喜雖然不屬於四食之中，但經中說為食，因為它有食的意義。
【English Translation】 English version: That is, thirty-six. The Form Realm and Formless Realm each have thirty-one. All can connect to rebirth, not distinguishing between superior conditions, non-outflow conditions, etc.
Treatise: However, all connections to rebirth up to the arising of defilements. It clarifies that apart from latent tendencies (隨眠, Suimian), other defilements and impurities cannot connect to rebirth.
Treatise: Although in this state up to the arising of afflictions. It clarifies that although the mind in the state of rebirth is weak, due to the power of repeated practice, delusions such as wrong views can all arise.
Treatise: It should be known that the intermediate existence (中有, Zhongyou) is like the existence at birth (生有, Shengyou). This clarifies that the moment of rebirth in the intermediate existence is the same as the existence at birth.
Treatise: However, the remaining three existences extend to good, defiled, and neutral. It clarifies that the remaining three existences encompass the three natures (善, 染, 無記, good, defiled, and neutral).
Treatise: In the Formless Realm up to the establishment of intermediate existence. It clarifies the reason why there is no intermediate existence in the Formless Realm.
Treatise: The verse does not mention up to allowing the possession of the four existences. It explains the meaning of the verse.
Treatise: The arising of sentient beings has already been extensively explained. The following three lines of verse are the second major section, clarifying the four kinds of nutriment (四食, Sishi).
Treatise says up to dwelling by means of nutriment. This clarifies that the four kinds of nutriment are what the Buddha spoke of.
Treatise: What are the nutriment? Question.
Treatise: There are four kinds of nutriment up to the four consciousnesses. It lists the names of the four kinds of nutriment.
Treatise: There are two kinds of coarse nutriment up to translating this as coarse. This explains coarse nutriment. Within this, there are three points: first, asking about fine and coarse; second, clarifying the realm affiliation; third, clarifying the nature and also explaining the name. This text is the first point. 'Defiled insects' refers to insects that are born due to saliva, filth, and dampness, that is, small damp-born insects. The remaining text can be understood.
Treatise: Thus, coarse nutriment up to giving rise to the upper realms. This text is the second point, concerning the distinction of realm affiliation. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says that the bodies of the upper realms do not rely on external conditions to dwell. Although form, sound, smell, taste, and touch have the function of benefiting the four great elements, they are not coarse nutriment. Just as they are not subtle desires, just as in the Form Realm, although there are subtle forms, sounds, touches, and objects, they do not give rise to increasing greed, so they are not called subtle desires. Thus, although there are supremely subtle touches that can gather and benefit, there is ultimately no segmented swallowing, so they are not coarse nutriment. Although they are not included in coarse nutriment, it is not that they have no meaning of nutriment. Just as joy, although it is not included in the four kinds of nutriment, the sutras say that it is nutriment, because it has the meaning of nutriment.
如契經言。我食喜食。由喜食久住如極光凈天。若爾欲界亦應唯口分段吞啖方名段食。不爾。欲界吞啖為門。余可相從立此名故。非於色界小有吞啖。可令余觸從彼為名。是故二界無相類失。若人生在北俱盧洲離段吞啖壽豈斷壞。雖不斷壞。而所依身形色疲損苦為存活。若爾何故彼由食住。香等為食非要吞啖。彼定常嗅如意妙香。或觸可愛風等妙觸。又彼身中有能益暖。或非欲界皆資段食。亦非段食定唯欲界。從多。就勝。故作是言。下有。上無。不應為難。
論。唯欲界系至分分受之。第三齣體兼釋名也。
論。光影炎涼如何成食。問。若欲界系香．味．觸三皆是段食。復言口．鼻分分受之。光．影．炎．涼既無口．鼻分分受義。如何成食言不簡也。
論。傳說此語至如涂洗等。有兩釋。如文可解。正理論云。然段食體事別十三。以處總收唯有三種。謂唯欲界香．味．觸三。一切皆為段食自體。可成段別而吞啖故。乃至。又諸飲等亦名段食。皆可段別而受用故。豈不求食為除饑．渴。如何饑．渴亦名為食。由此二種亦于根．大能增益故。如按摩等。又于飲食無希欲心身便疲損故二名食。又有饑．渴方名無病。故為食事此二勝餘(十三事者。十一種觸。香．味二境也)。
論。色亦可成至何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如契經所說：『我以喜悅為食』，因為以喜悅為食，所以能長久安住于如極光凈天（色界天的一種）。如果這樣，那麼欲界也應該只有用口分段吞食才叫做段食（四大食之一）了。如果不是這樣，欲界的吞食只是一種途徑，其餘的可以依附於它而建立這個名稱。不是說在小有情（指中陰身的眾生）的吞食中，就可以讓其他的觸覺也從它那裡獲得名稱。所以這兩個界沒有相似之處，不存在過失。如果有人生在北俱盧洲（四大部洲之一），離開了分段吞食，壽命難道就會斷絕嗎？即使不斷絕，但是所依賴的身體，形色會疲憊衰損，需要依靠痛苦來存活。如果這樣，為什麼他們依靠食物而住呢？香等作為食物，不一定要吞食。他們必定經常嗅聞如意的美妙香氣，或者接觸可愛的風等美妙的觸覺。而且他們的身體中有能夠增益的溫暖。或者不是欲界都需要依靠段食，也不是段食一定只存在於欲界。只是從多數和殊勝的角度來說，才這樣說。下面有，上面沒有，不應該以此來責難。 論：只有欲界系才能分分地領受它。第三個是解釋它的體性和名稱。 論：光、影、炎、涼如何成為食物？問：如果欲界系的香、味、觸三種都是段食，又說用口、鼻分分地領受它們。光、影、炎、涼既然沒有用口、鼻分分領受的意義，如何能成為食物呢？這樣說難道不是不嚴謹嗎？ 論：傳說這個說法，就像塗抹、洗滌等一樣。有兩種解釋，就像文字所表達的那樣可以理解。《正理論》中說：『然而段食的體性，從事物上來說有十三種，從處所總括來說只有三種，就是隻有欲界的香、味、觸三種。一切都是段食的自體，可以分段地吞食，乃至各種飲料等也叫做段食，都可以分段地領受和使用。』難道不是爲了解除飢餓和乾渴才求食嗎？為什麼飢餓和乾渴也叫做食物呢？因為這兩種也能對根和四大（地、水、火、風）產生增益。就像**等一樣。而且對於飲食沒有希求之心，身體就會疲憊衰損，所以這兩種也叫做食物。還有，只有飢餓和乾渴才能叫做沒有疾病，所以把這兩種作為食物，這兩種比其他的更殊勝（十三事指的是：十一種觸，香、味兩種境）。 論：色也可以成為...
【English Translation】 English version: As the sutra says, 'I feed on joy.' Because of feeding on joy, one can dwell long in the Abhasvara Heaven (a type of heaven in the Form Realm). If that's the case, then in the Desire Realm, only eating in segments with the mouth should be called 'segmental food' (one of the four kinds of food). If not, then eating in the Desire Realm is just one means, and the rest can follow it to establish this name. It's not that in the eating of a 'small being' (referring to beings in the intermediate state), other sensations can derive their names from it. Therefore, these two realms are not similar, and there is no fault. If someone is born in Uttarakuru (one of the four continents), will their lifespan be cut short if they are separated from segmental food? Even if it's not cut short, the body they rely on will be weary and weakened, and they will need to rely on suffering to survive. If that's the case, why do they dwell by relying on food? Fragrances, etc., are food, but they don't necessarily need to be swallowed. They must constantly smell the wonderful fragrances of wish-fulfilling things, or touch the wonderful sensations of pleasant winds, etc. Moreover, their bodies have warmth that can be beneficial. Or, not all in the Desire Realm need to rely on segmental food, and segmental food doesn't necessarily only exist in the Desire Realm. It's just said that way from the perspective of the majority and the superior. What is below has it, what is above doesn't, and one shouldn't use this to criticize. Treatise: Only the Desire Realm can receive it segment by segment. The third explains its substance and name. Treatise: How can light, shadow, heat, and coolness become food? Question: If the three, fragrance, taste, and touch, of the Desire Realm are all segmental food, and it is said that they are received segment by segment by the mouth and nose, since light, shadow, heat, and coolness do not have the meaning of being received segment by segment by the mouth and nose, how can they become food? Isn't it imprecise to say that? Treatise: It is said that this statement is like smearing, washing, etc. There are two explanations, which can be understood as the text expresses. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'However, the nature of segmental food, in terms of things, is thirteen kinds, and in terms of places, it is only three kinds in total, which are only the three, fragrance, taste, and touch, of the Desire Realm. Everything is the self-nature of segmental food, and can be swallowed segment by segment, and even various drinks, etc., are also called segmental food, and can be received and used segment by segment.' Isn't it that one seeks food to relieve hunger and thirst? Why are hunger and thirst also called food? Because these two can also increase the roots and the four elements (earth, water, fire, and wind). Like ** etc. Moreover, if there is no desire for food and drink, the body will be weary and weakened, so these two are also called food. Also, only hunger and thirst can be called the absence of disease, so these two are taken as food, and these two are superior to the others (the thirteen things refer to: eleven kinds of touch, and the two realms of fragrance and taste). Treatise: Form can also become...
緣非食。此問色非食所以。
論。此不能益至境各別故。答也。聞香等時能益自根。見色時不能益眼故非是食。先益自根后及余身可名為食。當不能益自根．大種。況能及余 言解脫故者。謂已離欲者。
論。有時見色至而無益故。通釋伏難。正理論云。色處何緣不名為食。是不至取根所行故。以契經說。段食非在手中．器中可成食事。要入鼻．口牙齒咀嚼。津液浸潤。進度喉咽墮生藏中。漸漸消化味勢熟德。流諸脈中攝益諸蟲乃名為食。爾時方得成食事故。若在手．器以當爲名。如天授名那落迦等。雖彼分段總得食名。而成食時唯香．味．觸。爾時唯此為根境故。若總分段皆名食者。聲．不相應亦應是食。非聲等物在彼段中。可如香等亦名為食。以不相續無形段故。非無形段不相續物。能住持身可成食事。又如何知色處非食。身內攝益根．大功能。如香．味．觸不別見故。爾時不生彼境．識故 云云乃至 若爾何故於契經中。稱讚段食具色香．味。為令欣樂兼贊助緣。如亦贊言恭敬施與。豈即恭敬亦名段食。具正．助緣。如有贊花林具花．果．影．水。豈影與水亦即是林 云云乃至 又舉色相表香．味．觸亦妙可欣故作是說。經何不讚食具觸耶。贊具色等已說觸故。非有惡觸具妙色等。故有妙觸不說自
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 緣非食。此問色非食所以。（解釋：因為色不是食物。這裡提問的是為什麼色不是食物的原因。）
論：此不能益至境各別故。答也。（解釋：論：這是因為色不能直接滋養身體，並且色境和其他食物的性質不同。這是對這個問題的回答。）聞香等時能益自根。見色時不能益眼故非是食。（解釋：聞到香味等的時候，可以滋養鼻根等感官。但是看到顏色的時候，並不能滋養眼根，所以色不是食物。）先益自根后及余身可名為食。（解釋：先滋養感官，然後滋養身體其他部分的，可以稱之為食物。）當不能益自根．大種。況能及余。（解釋：如果不能滋養感官和大種（四大元素），更何況滋養身體的其他部分呢？）言解脫故者。謂已離欲者。（解釋：這裡說『解脫』，指的是已經脫離慾望的人。）
論：有時見色至而無益故。通釋伏難。（解釋：論：有時候看到顏色，但是並沒有任何滋養作用。這是爲了全面解釋潛在的疑問。）正理論云：色處何緣不名為食。是不至取根所行故。（解釋：《正理論》說：為什麼色處不被稱為食物呢？因為色處不是感官直接攝取的。）以契經說。段食非在手中．器中可成食事。（解釋：因為契經上說，段食（固體食物）不是在手中或容器中就能成為食物的。）要入鼻．口牙齒咀嚼。津液浸潤。進度喉咽墮生藏中。漸漸消化味勢熟德。（解釋：而是要進入鼻子、口中，經過牙齒咀嚼，津液浸潤，進入喉嚨，落入內臟中，漸漸消化，產生味道和營養。）流諸脈中攝益諸蟲乃名為食。（解釋：這些營養流到各個脈絡中，滋養身體內的各種蟲類，才能稱之為食物。）爾時方得成食事故。（解釋：只有這樣才能完成食物的作用。）若在手．器以當爲名。（解釋：如果在手中或容器中，只能暫時稱之為食物。）如天授名那落迦等。（解釋：就像給某人起名叫『地獄』一樣，只是一個代號。）雖彼分段總得食名。而成食時唯香．味．觸。（解釋：雖然這些分段的食物總體上可以稱為食物，但是真正起作用的是香、味、觸。）爾時唯此為根境故。（解釋：因為只有這些才能作為感官的對象。）若總分段皆名食者。聲．不相應亦應是食。（解釋：如果所有分段的食物都稱為食物，那麼聲音等不相應的事物也應該算是食物了。）非聲等物在彼段中。可如香等亦名為食。（解釋：聲音等事物不在食物的段落中，不能像香味等一樣被稱為食物。）以不相續無形段故。（解釋：因為聲音等不連續，也沒有具體的形狀。）非無形段不相續物。能住持身可成食事。（解釋：沒有形狀，不連續的事物，不能維持身體，也不能成為食物。）又如何知色處非食。身內攝益根．大功能。（解釋：又怎麼知道色處不是食物呢？因為色處不能像香、味、觸一樣，在身體內部滋養感官和大種。）如香．味．觸不別見故。（解釋：就像香、味、觸一樣，色處不能被清楚地看到。）爾時不生彼境．識故。（解釋：因為在那個時候，不會產生對色境的認知。）云云乃至 若爾何故於契經中。稱讚段食具色香．味。（解釋：如果這樣，為什麼在契經中，稱讚段食具有色、香、味呢？）為令欣樂兼贊助緣。（解釋：爲了讓人感到愉悅，並且讚美輔助的因素。）如亦贊言恭敬施與。（解釋：就像贊美恭敬地佈施一樣。）豈即恭敬亦名段食。（解釋：難道恭敬就是段食嗎？）具正．助緣。（解釋：恭敬只是具備了正面的和輔助的因素。）如有贊花林具花．果．影．水。（解釋：就像贊美花園具有花、果、樹影和水一樣。）豈影與水亦即是林。（解釋：難道樹影和水就是花園本身嗎？）云云乃至 又舉色相表香．味．觸亦妙可欣故作是說。（解釋：又用美好的顏色來表示香、味、觸也是美妙和令人愉悅的，所以這樣說。）經何不讚食具觸耶。（解釋：經文中為什麼不讚美食物具有觸感呢？）贊具色等已說觸故。（解釋：讚美食物具有顏色等，就已經包含了觸感。）非有惡觸具妙色等。（解釋：因為沒有糟糕的觸感，卻具有美妙的顏色等。）故有妙觸不說自。（解釋：所以有了美妙的觸感，就不需要特別說明了。）
【English Translation】 English version 『Why is form not food?』 This question asks for the reason why form is not considered food.
Treatise: 『Because it cannot benefit, and the realms are distinct.』 This is the answer. When smelling fragrances, one can benefit one's own sense organ. When seeing forms, one cannot benefit the eye, therefore it is not food. That which first benefits its own sense organ and then the rest of the body can be called food. If it cannot benefit its own sense organ or the great elements (mahābhūta), how much less can it benefit the rest of the body? 『Because it speaks of liberation』 refers to those who have already abandoned desire.
Treatise: 『Sometimes seeing forms occurs without benefit.』 This is a comprehensive explanation to resolve the underlying difficulty. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: 『For what reason is the realm of form not called food? It is because it is not what the sense organ directly takes.』 As the sutra says, 『Solid food (kabaḍīkāra-āhāra) cannot become food in the hand or in a container.』 It must enter the nose, mouth, be chewed by the teeth, moistened by saliva, pass through the throat and fall into the internal organs, gradually be digested, and its taste and potency mature. Flowing through the veins and nourishing the various worms (kṛmi) in the body, then it is called food. Only then can it accomplish the function of food.』 If it is in the hand or a container, it is only nominally called food, like the name 『Naraka』 (那落迦) given to Devadatta (天授). Although those divided portions can generally be called food, only fragrance, taste, and touch are effective when it becomes food, because only these are the objects of the sense organs at that time. If all divided portions were called food, then sound and non-corresponding things should also be food. Sound and other things are not in those portions in a way that they can be called food like fragrance, because they are not continuous and have no shape. Things that are shapeless and discontinuous cannot sustain the body and become food. Furthermore, how do we know that the realm of form is not food? Because it does not nourish the sense organs and great elements within the body like fragrance, taste, and touch. Because one does not clearly see it like fragrance, taste, and touch. Because at that time, no cognition of that realm arises.』 And so on. 『If so, why does the sutra praise solid food as having form, fragrance, and taste?』 To create joy and also to praise the auxiliary conditions. Just as one praises giving with respect, does that mean respect is solid food? It possesses the proper and auxiliary conditions. Just as one praises a flower garden as having flowers, fruits, shade, and water, does that mean shade and water are the garden itself?』 And so on. 『Furthermore, it is said that the appearance of form represents fragrance, taste, and touch as also being wonderful and pleasing.』 Why does the sutra not praise food as having touch? Because praising it as having form and so on already includes touch. There is no unpleasant touch that has wonderful form and so on. Therefore, when there is wonderful touch, it is not mentioned separately.
成。又唯觸處是真食體。贊此食體有色．香．味。故經說食體無缺減。
論。觸謂三和至通三界皆有。明後三食體．及界系等。
論。如何食體不通無漏。問所以也。
論。毗婆沙師至為滅諸有。舉婆沙師答。
論。又契經說至故非食體。舉體答也。
論。言部多者至為何所目。問。
論。此目中有至說中有故。答也 求生。是中有五名中一名。
論。何等為五。問五名也。
論。一者意成至暫時起故。答五名也。
論。如契經說至起謂中有。此引經說中有名起 有壞自體起者。謂死有壞本有自體中有起也 有壞世間生者。謂無情法因滅果生。
論。又經說有至為第四句。重引經證。此之二經皆證中有名為起也。正理論云。如是四食體總有十六事 十六事者。觸為十一。香．味為二。觸．思．識三。又正理說思食唯與意識相應。唯后三食說有漏言。顯香等三不濫無漏。何緣無漏觸等非食。食謂能牽能資諸有。可厭可斷愛生長處。無漏雖資他所牽有。而自無有牽有功能。非可厭．斷愛生長處。故不建立在四食中。即由此因望他界．地。雖有漏法亦非食體。他界地法雖亦為因能資現有。而不能作牽後有因故不名食。諸無漏法現在前時。雖能為因資根．大種
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
成。又只有觸覺之處才是真正的食物本體。讚美這種食物本體具有色、香、味。所以經書上說食物本體沒有缺失減少。 論：觸覺是指三和合（根、境、識）乃至遍通三界都存在。說明后三種食物本體以及界系等。 論：為什麼食物本體不能通達無漏？（這是）提問原因。 論：毗婆沙師認為（觸食）是爲了滅除各種『有』。這是引用毗婆沙師的回答。 論：又契經上說（觸食）不是食物本體。這是舉出本體來回答。 論：所說的『部多』（bhūta，已存在的事物）是指什麼？（這是）提問。 論：這裡指的是『中有』（antarābhava，中陰身），因為經上說有『中有』的緣故。（這是）回答。求生，是『中有』的五種名稱中的一個名稱。 論：哪五種名稱？（這是）提問五種名稱。 論：一是意成（manomaya，意所成），乃至（中有）是暫時生起的緣故。（這是）回答五種名稱。 論：如契經上說（中有）名為『起』，這裡引用經文說明『中有』的名稱是『起』。『有』（bhava，存在）的自體壞滅而『起』，是指死『有』（cyuti-bhava，死亡時的存在狀態）壞滅了本『有』（pūrva-bhava，先前的存在狀態）的自體，『中有』生起。『有』壞滅世間而生，是指無情法（非生物）的因滅果生。 論：又經上說『有』是第四句。這是再次引用經文來證明。這兩部經都證明了『中有』的名稱是『起』。《正理論》說，這樣四種食物本體總共有十六件事。十六件事是：觸覺有十一件，香、味有兩件，觸、思、識有三件。又《正理論》說，思食只與意識相應。只有后三種食物才說有『有漏』的說法，表明香等三種不會混雜無漏。為什麼無漏的觸等不是食物？食物是指能夠牽引、資助各種『有』，是可厭惡、可斷除的愛慾生長的處所。無漏雖然資助其他所牽引的『有』，但自身沒有牽引『有』的功能，不是可厭惡、可斷除的愛慾生長的處所。所以不建立在四食之中。正因為這個原因，對於其他界、地來說，即使是有漏法也不是食物本體。其他界地的法雖然也能作為原因來資助現有的，但不能作為牽引后『有』的原因，所以不稱為食物。各種無漏法現在前的時候，雖然能作為原因來資助根、大種（mahābhūta，四大元素）
【English Translation】 English version:
Accomplished. Moreover, only where there is contact is the true essence of food. This essence of food is praised for having form, smell, and taste. Therefore, the scriptures say that the essence of food is without deficiency or reduction. Treatise: 'Contact' refers to the three harmonies (sense organ, object, and consciousness), extending to all three realms. It clarifies the latter three essences of food, as well as the realms and their affiliations. Treatise: Why doesn't the essence of food extend to the unconditioned (anāsrava)? (This is) asking for the reason. Treatise: The Vibhāṣā masters believe that (contact-food) is for extinguishing all 'existences' (bhava). This is citing the answer of the Vibhāṣā masters. Treatise: Furthermore, the scriptures say that (contact-food) is not the essence of food. This is answering by citing the essence. Treatise: What does 'bhūta' (that which has come into being) refer to? (This is) a question. Treatise: This refers to the 'intermediate existence' (antarābhava), because the scriptures say there is an 'intermediate existence'. (This is) the answer. Seeking rebirth is one of the five names of the 'intermediate existence'. Treatise: What are the five? (This is) asking for the five names. Treatise: First is 'mind-made' (manomaya), and so on, because (the intermediate existence) arises temporarily. (This is) answering the five names. Treatise: As the scriptures say, (the intermediate existence) is called 'arising'. This quotes the scripture to explain that the name of the 'intermediate existence' is 'arising'. 'Existence' (bhava) is destroyed and 'arises', referring to the 'existence of death' (cyuti-bhava) destroying the self-nature of the previous 'existence' (pūrva-bhava), and the 'intermediate existence' arises. 'Existence' is destroyed and the world is born, referring to the extinction of the cause and the birth of the effect in inanimate phenomena. Treatise: Furthermore, the scriptures say that 'existence' is the fourth phrase. This is quoting the scripture again to prove it. These two scriptures both prove that the name of the 'intermediate existence' is 'arising'. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that these four essences of food have a total of sixteen aspects. The sixteen aspects are: contact has eleven, smell and taste have two, and contact, thought, and consciousness have three. Also, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that thought-food only corresponds to consciousness. Only the latter three foods are said to have 'conditioned' (sāsrava) aspects, indicating that the three, smell, etc., do not mix with the unconditioned. Why are the unconditioned contact, etc., not food? Food refers to that which can draw and nourish various 'existences', and is a place where desires that are detestable and can be cut off grow. Although the unconditioned nourishes other drawn 'existences', it does not have the function of drawing 'existences' itself, and is not a place where desires that are detestable and can be cut off grow. Therefore, it is not established in the four foods. Precisely because of this reason, for other realms and lands, even conditioned dharmas are not the essence of food. Although the dharmas of other realms and lands can also serve as a cause to nourish existing ones, they cannot serve as a cause to draw later 'existences', so they are not called food. When various unconditioned dharmas are present, although they can serve as a cause to nourish the roots and the great elements (mahābhūta)
。而不能作牽後有因。雖暫為因資根．大種。而但為欲成已勝依速趣涅槃永滅諸有。自地有漏現在前時。資現令增能招後有。由此已釋段食為因招後有義。謂觸等食牽後有時。亦牽當來內法香等。現內香等資觸等因令牽當有。亦能自取當來香等為等流果。是故段食與後有因同一果故。亦能牽有故名為食。然香．味．觸體類有三。謂異熟生．等流．長養。由外香等覺發身中內香．味．觸令成食事。故所說食其理定成。
論。又部多者至說名求生。述異釋也。
論。幾食能令至求生有情。問。此四食中幾食能令阿羅漢增長。幾食能令余有情增長。
論。毗婆沙師說至老死緣故。已下明二種皆因四食住。諸有愛者亦由段食資當有故。引世尊說。四食皆為老死緣故。此中意證段食亦引當有。如前引正理釋。此明段食資現亦資當也。
論。亦見思食至望絕便死。已下明思食正牽當有亦兼資現。已下引兩事證。如文可解。
論集異門足至卵即敗亡。引集異門證其思食于現有資。
論。此不應然至忘則命終。此是論主正本文也。今詳。此文若證思食義則不應。若各別論不思議力用義即無違。
論。起念母思在於觸位。述起思時。謂十二支觸支時也。
論。諸有漏法至說食唯四。問
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，不能說牽引後有是因為有因。雖然暫時作為因資助根、大種（四大元素），但只是爲了成就已經殊勝的依處，迅速趣向涅槃，永遠滅除諸有。自地有漏的現在生起時，資助現在令其增長，能招感後有。由此已經解釋了段食（粗糙的食物）作為招感後有的原因的意義。意思是說，觸等食牽引後有時，也牽引當來的內法香等。現在內香等資助觸等因，令其牽引當有，也能自己取得當來的香等作為等流果。所以段食與後有因同一果，也能牽引有，所以名為食。然而香、味、觸的體類有三種，即異熟生、等流、長養。由外香等覺發身體中的內香、味、觸，令其成就食事。所以所說的食，其道理必定成立。 論：『又部多者』至『說名求生』。這是對不同解釋的敘述。 論：『幾食能令』至『求生有情』。問：這四食中，有幾種食能令阿羅漢增長？有幾種食能令其餘有情增長？ 論：『毗婆沙師說』至『老死緣故』。以下說明兩種都因為四食而住。諸有愛者也因為段食資助當有。引世尊說：四食都是老死的因緣。這裡的意思是證明段食也牽引當有，如前面引用的正理所解釋的。這說明段食資助現在，也資助當來。 論：『亦見思食』至『望絕便死』。以下說明思食（意念食物）正是牽引當有，也兼顧資助現在。以下引用兩件事來證明，如文可解。 論：『集異門足』至『卵即敗亡』。引用集異門來證明思食對於現有資助。 論：『此不應然』至『忘則命終』。這是論主的正文。現在詳細分析，這段文字如果用來證明思食的意義則不應該，如果分別討論不可思議的力量和作用的意義，就沒有違背。 論：『起念母思在於觸位』。敘述生起思念的時候，指的是十二因緣中的觸支的時候。 論：『諸有漏法』至『說食唯四』。問
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it cannot be said that the attraction of future existence (後有, hòuyǒu) is due to having a cause. Although it temporarily serves as a cause to nourish the roots and Mahabhutas (大種, dàzhǒng) [the four great elements], it is only to accomplish the already superior basis, quickly proceed towards Nirvana, and eternally extinguish all existences. When the contaminated (有漏, yǒulòu) present of one's own realm arises, it nourishes the present, causing it to increase, and is capable of attracting future existence. From this, the meaning of coarse food (段食, duànshí) as a cause for attracting future existence has already been explained. It means that when food such as contact attracts future existence, it also attracts future internal Dharmas such as scents. The present internal scents, etc., nourish the causes of contact, etc., causing them to attract future existence, and are also able to obtain future scents, etc., as the result of outflow (等流果, děngliúguǒ). Therefore, coarse food has the same result as the cause of future existence, and is also able to attract existence, so it is called food. However, the nature of scents, tastes, and tactile sensations are of three types, namely, born of different maturation (異熟生, yìshúshēng), outflow, and nourishment. The external scents, etc., awaken the internal scents, tastes, and tactile sensations in the body, causing them to accomplish the act of eating. Therefore, the food that is spoken of, its principle is certainly established. Treatise: 'Moreover, 'bhuta'...' to 'called seeking life.' This is a description of different interpretations. Treatise: 'How many foods can cause...' to 'sentient beings seeking life?' Question: Among these four foods, how many foods can cause an Arhat to grow? How many foods can cause other sentient beings to grow? Treatise: 'The Vibhasha masters say...' to 'the cause of old age and death.' The following explains that both abide because of the four foods. Those who have love are also because coarse food nourishes future existence. Quoting the Buddha's words: the four foods are all the causes of old age and death. The meaning here is to prove that coarse food also attracts future existence, as explained in the previously quoted principle. This explains that coarse food nourishes the present and also nourishes the future. Treatise: 'Also, volitional food...' to 'die when hope is cut off.' The following explains that volitional food (思食, sīshí) is precisely what attracts future existence, and also takes care of nourishing the present. The following quotes two things to prove it, as the text can be understood. Treatise: 'The Jnanaprasthana...' to 'the egg immediately decays and dies.' Quoting the Jnanaprasthana to prove that volitional food nourishes the existing. Treatise: 'This should not be so...' to 'forgetting, one dies.' This is the main text of the treatise master. Now, upon detailed analysis, if this passage is used to prove the meaning of volitional food, it should not be. If the meanings of inconceivable power and function are discussed separately, there is no contradiction. Treatise: 'The thought of the mother arises in the position of contact.' Describing the time when thought arises, referring to the time of the contact limb in the twelve links of dependent origination. Treatise: 'All contaminated Dharmas...' to 'only four foods are spoken of.' Question:
廢立所以。
論。雖爾就勝至能起當有。此略答也。段食．觸食能益現勝。思．識二食引當勝故。故唯說四。
論。言所依者至業為勝。釋前二食也。
論。言當有者至最為勝故。釋后二食也。
論。故雖有漏至唯說四食。總結上也。
論。前二如養母至生未生故。舉喻顯也。
論。諸所有段皆是食耶。問。能資身者有食用。無能資身無食用故不名食也。
論。有段非食至皆有四句。此答。唯其段食。餘三亦有四句。可知。
論。頗有觸等至無漏觸等。此明資益而非食。前說有食而非益也。且就不益不名為食。理實不益亦是食攝。
論。諸有食已至資根及大。此明有損亦名食也。但於二時隨有一益即名為食。
論何趣何生至皆具四食。明四生．五趣皆具四食。
論。如何地獄有段食耶。問。
論。鐵丸洋銅豈非段食。答也。
論。若能為害至識食亦爾。難也。就中有二。一違前四句。二違品類足。此二皆說為緣資益方名食故。如何乃言洋銅．鐵丸亦是食耶。
論。彼說且依至皆有四食。答也。前四句中及品類足且說資身。毗婆沙說據得食相。由斯故說鐵丸．洋銅得食相故亦名為食。孤獨地獄亦有唯益無損段食。如人中食。故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 廢立所以。
論：即使如此，就殊勝而言，有能力生起當有的（果報）。這是簡略的回答。段食（Kabalikahara，指固體食物）、觸食（Sparsha-ahara，指感官印象）能夠增益現世的殊勝，思食（Manas-ahara，指意念）和識食（Vijnana-ahara，指意識）能夠引生未來的殊勝。因此只說四食。
論：說到所依，以業為殊勝。這是解釋前兩種食。
論：說到當有，以（識食）最為殊勝。這是解釋后兩種食。
論：所以，即使有漏（的食物），也只說四食。這是總結以上內容。
論：前兩種食如同養育母親，后兩種食如同產生已生和未生的（事物）。這是用比喻來顯明。
論：所有段食都是食嗎？問：能夠資養身體的才叫食，不能資養身體的就不能叫食。
論：有段食不是食，乃至都有四句。這是回答。只有段食如此，其餘三種食也有四句。可以類推得知。
論：難道有觸等（不是食）嗎？乃至無漏的觸等。這是說明資益但不是食。前面說有食但沒有利益。暫且就不利益的（觸等）不稱為食。理實際上，不利益的也屬於食的範疇。
論：凡是食了（食物）之後，能夠資養根和大的（地水火風四大種），這說明有損害也叫食。只要在兩個時間段內有一個時間段有利益，就稱為食。
論：什麼趣、什麼生有四食？說明四生（卵生、胎生、濕生、化生）、五趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）都具有四食。
論：地獄怎麼會有段食呢？問。
論：鐵丸、洋銅難道不是段食嗎？答。
論：如果能造成傷害，識食也是如此。難。其中有兩種（過失）：一是違背前面的四句，二是違背《品類足論》。這兩種都說作為緣而資益才能稱為食。怎麼能說洋銅、鐵丸也是食呢？
論：他們說且依據（得食相），都有四食。答。前面的四句和《品類足論》暫且只說資養身體。毗婆沙（Vibhasha）說依據得到食的相狀。因此才說鐵丸、洋銅得到食的相狀，所以也稱為食。孤獨地獄也有隻有利益沒有損害的段食，如同人中的食物。故
【English Translation】 English version The Reason for Establishment and Abolition.
Treatise: Even so, in terms of superiority, one has the ability to generate what is to be. This is a brief answer. Kabalikahara (physical food), Sparsha-ahara (sense impressions) can benefit the present superiority, Manas-ahara (volition) and Vijnana-ahara (consciousness) can lead to future superiority. Therefore, only four foods are mentioned.
Treatise: Speaking of what is relied upon, karma is superior. This explains the first two foods.
Treatise: Speaking of what is to be, (consciousness) is the most superior. This explains the latter two foods.
Treatise: Therefore, even with defiled (foods), only four foods are mentioned. This summarizes the above.
Treatise: The first two foods are like nurturing a mother, the latter two foods are like producing what is already born and not yet born. This is to illustrate with a metaphor.
Treatise: Are all physical foods food? Question: What can nourish the body is called food, what cannot nourish the body is not called food.
Treatise: There is physical food that is not food, and so on, all have four possibilities. This is the answer. Only physical food is like this, the other three foods also have four possibilities. It can be inferred.
Treatise: Are there sense impressions, etc. (that are not food)? Even undefiled sense impressions, etc. This explains that they are beneficial but not food. The previous said there is food but no benefit. For the time being, what is not beneficial is not called food. In reality, what is not beneficial also belongs to the category of food.
Treatise: All who have eaten (food) can nourish the roots and the great (four elements), this explains that what is harmful is also called food. As long as there is benefit in one of the two time periods, it is called food.
Treatise: What realm, what birth has four foods? It explains that the four births (oviparous, viviparous, moisture-born, and metamorphic) and the five realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods) all have four foods.
Treatise: How can there be physical food in hell? Question.
Treatise: Are iron balls and molten copper not physical food? Answer.
Treatise: If it can cause harm, consciousness is also like this. Difficulty. There are two (faults) in it: one is that it violates the previous four possibilities, and the other is that it violates the Kindred Sayings (Prakaranapada). Both of these say that only what benefits as a condition can be called food. How can it be said that molten copper and iron balls are also food?
Treatise: They say that it is based on (the appearance of obtaining food), and all have four foods. Answer. The previous four possibilities and the Kindred Sayings only speak of nourishing the body for the time being. The Vibhasha says that it is based on the appearance of obtaining food. Therefore, it is said that iron balls and molten copper have the appearance of obtaining food, so they are also called food. Solitary hells also have physical food that only benefits and does not harm, like food among humans. Therefore.
說五趣皆具四食 準此論文八地獄中無益身食。
論。世尊所說至林中異生。因明四食問施食得果不同人也。論有作是釋至諸有腹者。述異釋也 論彼釋非理至挍量難勝。論主破 就中有二。一違文故。謂經說施贍部林中一異生故。今言所有一切住贍部洲非是一故。二一切贍部異生理勝一百外道仙。何足為奇挍量嘆勝。
論。有言彼是近佛菩薩。述第二異釋。
論。理亦不然至阿羅漢故。論主破也。施近佛地菩薩得福勝施俱胝阿羅漢。如何此中對外道仙挍量勝劣也。
論。毗婆沙者至順決釋分。此述婆沙一百三十評家釋也。
論。此名與義至自所分別。論主破。得順抉擇分名贍部異生無所憑據。既無文證即是婆沙自所分別。婆沙一百三十引經與此有少異引經雖別大意皆同。然釋贍部洲異生有異。
論。後身菩薩至此說應理。論主自評取此釋。與第二釋近佛菩薩有何別者。近佛菩薩非決定在贍部洲中。後身菩薩決定即在贍部洲中。然前有難。彼獲施福勝施俱胝阿羅漢故。
論。爾時菩薩至且言勝百。通前難也。
論。理必應然至對預流向。重審定也。所以得知理決定爾。以彼經中先將外仙對彼異生挍量勝劣。後重將彼離欲外仙。對預流向挍量勝劣。故知異生勝預流向
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：既然五趣（五道輪迴）都具備四食（四種食物：段食、觸食、思食、識食），那麼按照這個論文的說法，八大地獄中就沒有益身食（有助於身體的食物）了。
論：世尊所說的『至林中異生』（到達森林中的特殊眾生），是因為要闡明四食，並說明佈施給不同的人所得的果報也不同。論文中有這樣的解釋，『至諸有腹者』（對於所有有腹部的眾生），這是另一種不同的解釋。
論：『彼釋非理至挍量難勝』（那種解釋不合理，難以衡量勝負）。這是論主的駁斥。其中包含兩點：一是違背經文，因為經文說的是佈施給贍部林（Jambudvipa，閻浮提，指我們所居住的這個世界）中的一個特殊眾生；現在卻說所有居住在贍部洲的眾生，並非只有一個。二是贍部洲的所有特殊眾生，在理性上勝過一百個外道仙人，這有什麼值得驚奇的？因此難以衡量勝負。
論：『有言彼是近佛菩薩』（有人說，那個特殊眾生是接近佛的菩薩）。這是第三種不同的解釋。
論：『理亦不然至阿羅漢故』（這種說法也不合理，因為阿羅漢的緣故）。這是論主的駁斥。佈施給接近佛地的菩薩，所得的福報勝過佈施給俱胝（koti，一千萬）個阿羅漢。怎麼能在這裡對外道仙人衡量勝劣呢？
論：『毗婆沙者至順決釋分』（毗婆沙師的解釋，直到順抉擇分）。這是引述毗婆沙（Vibhasa，一種佛教論書）一百三十位評家的解釋。
論：『此名與義至自所分別』（這個名稱和意義，都是自己分別出來的）。這是論主的駁斥。得到順抉擇分這個名稱的贍部異生，沒有任何依據。既然沒有經文的證據，那就是毗婆沙師自己分別出來的。毗婆沙一百三十家引用的經文與此略有不同，雖然引用的經文不同，但大意都相同。然而，對於贍部洲特殊眾生的解釋卻有差異。
論：『後身菩薩至此說應理』（來世的菩薩，這種說法才合理）。這是論主自己評論並採納的解釋。這與第二種解釋，即接近佛的菩薩，有什麼區別呢？接近佛的菩薩不一定在贍部洲中，而來世的菩薩一定在贍部洲中。然而，前面有一個難題，那就是他們獲得的佈施福報勝過佈施給俱胝阿羅漢。
論：『爾時菩薩至且言勝百』（當時的菩薩，暫且說勝過一百個）。這是爲了解釋前面的難題。
論：『理必應然至對預流向』（道理必定是這樣，直到與預流向相比）。這是重新的審定。為什麼知道道理一定是這樣呢？因為在那部經中，先將外道仙人與那個特殊眾生衡量勝劣，然後又將那個離欲的外道仙人，與預流向（Srotapanna-pratipadaka，入流果向，證入聖道之初的修行者）衡量勝劣。因此，可知那個特殊眾生勝過預流向。
English version Question: Since the five realms (of reincarnation) all possess the four kinds of nutriment (physical food, sense-impression food, volitional food, and consciousness food), according to this treatise, there would be no beneficial physical food in the eight great hells.
Treatise: The 'unique being in the forest' mentioned by the World Honored One was to clarify the four kinds of nutriment and to explain that the merit of giving alms differs depending on the recipient. The treatise explains, 'to all those with bellies,' which is a different interpretation.
Treatise: 'That interpretation is unreasonable and difficult to compare.' This is the refutation by the author of the treatise. It contains two points: First, it contradicts the scripture, because the scripture speaks of giving alms to a unique being in Jambudvipa (the world we inhabit); now it says that all beings living in Jambudvipa are not just one. Second, all unique beings in Jambudvipa are rationally superior to a hundred non-Buddhist hermits, which is not surprising. Therefore, it is difficult to compare their merits.
Treatise: 'Some say that he is a Bodhisattva close to the Buddha.' This is a third different interpretation.
Treatise: 'That reasoning is also incorrect, because of the Arhats.' This is the refutation by the author of the treatise. Giving alms to a Bodhisattva close to the Buddha's realm yields more merit than giving alms to a koti (ten million) Arhats. How can we compare the merits of non-Buddhist hermits here?
Treatise: 'The Vibhasa masters explain it as the stage of sequential ascertainment.' This quotes the interpretation of the 130 commentators of the Vibhasa (a type of Buddhist treatise).
Treatise: 'This name and meaning are self-discriminated.' This is the refutation by the author of the treatise. There is no basis for calling the unique being of Jambudvipa as having attained the stage of sequential ascertainment. Since there is no scriptural evidence, it is the Vibhasa masters' own discrimination. The 130 Vibhasa masters cite scriptures that differ slightly from this, but the general meaning is the same. However, there are differences in the interpretation of the unique being of Jambudvipa.
Treatise: 'A Bodhisattva in a future life, this explanation is reasonable.' This is the author's own comment and adoption of this interpretation. What is the difference between this and the second interpretation, which is a Bodhisattva close to the Buddha? A Bodhisattva close to the Buddha is not necessarily in Jambudvipa, but a Bodhisattva in a future life is definitely in Jambudvipa. However, there is a previous difficulty, which is that they obtain more merit from alms than giving to a koti Arhats.
Treatise: 'The Bodhisattva at that time, let's just say is superior to a hundred.' This is to explain the previous difficulty.
Treatise: 'The reasoning must be so, up to comparing with the Stream-Enterer aspirant.' This is a re-examination. How do we know that the reasoning must be so? Because in that scripture, the non-Buddhist hermits were first compared with that unique being, and then the desireless non-Buddhist hermits were compared with the Stream-Enterer aspirant (one who has entered the path to enlightenment). Therefore, it can be known that the unique being is superior to the Stream-Enterer aspirant.
【English Translation】 Question: Since the five realms (of reincarnation) all possess the four kinds of nutriment (physical food, sense-impression food, volitional food, and consciousness food), according to this treatise, there would be no beneficial physical food in the eight great hells.
Treatise: The 'unique being in the forest' mentioned by the World Honored One was to clarify the four kinds of nutriment and to explain that the merit of giving alms differs depending on the recipient. The treatise explains, 'to all those with bellies,' which is a different interpretation.
Treatise: 'That interpretation is unreasonable and difficult to compare.' This is the refutation by the author of the treatise. It contains two points: First, it contradicts the scripture, because the scripture speaks of giving alms to a unique being in Jambudvipa (the world we inhabit); now it says that all beings living in Jambudvipa are not just one. Second, all unique beings in Jambudvipa are rationally superior to a hundred non-Buddhist hermits, which is not surprising. Therefore, it is difficult to compare their merits.
Treatise: 'Some say that he is a Bodhisattva close to the Buddha.' This is a third different interpretation.
Treatise: 'That reasoning is also incorrect, because of the Arhats.' This is the refutation by the author of the treatise. Giving alms to a Bodhisattva close to the Buddha's realm yields more merit than giving alms to a koti (ten million) Arhats. How can we compare the merits of non-Buddhist hermits here?
Treatise: 'The Vibhasa masters explain it as the stage of sequential ascertainment.' This quotes the interpretation of the 130 commentators of the Vibhasa (a type of Buddhist treatise).
Treatise: 'This name and meaning are self-discriminated.' This is the refutation by the author of the treatise. There is no basis for calling the unique being of Jambudvipa as having attained the stage of sequential ascertainment. Since there is no scriptural evidence, it is the Vibhasa masters' own discrimination. The 130 Vibhasa masters cite scriptures that differ slightly from this, but the general meaning is the same. However, there are differences in the interpretation of the unique being of Jambudvipa.
Treatise: 'A Bodhisattva in a future life, this explanation is reasonable.' This is the author's own comment and adoption of this interpretation. What is the difference between this and the second interpretation, which is a Bodhisattva close to the Buddha? A Bodhisattva close to the Buddha is not necessarily in Jambudvipa, but a Bodhisattva in a future life is definitely in Jambudvipa. However, there is a previous difficulty, which is that they obtain more merit from alms than giving to a koti Arhats.
Treatise: 'The Bodhisattva at that time, let's just say is superior to a hundred.' This is to explain the previous difficulty.
Treatise: 'The reasoning must be so, up to comparing with the Stream-Enterer aspirant.' This is a re-examination. How do we know that the reasoning must be so? Because in that scripture, the non-Buddhist hermits were first compared with that unique being, and then the desireless non-Buddhist hermits were compared with the Stream-Enterer aspirant (one who has entered the path to enlightenment). Therefore, it can be known that the unique being is superior to the Stream-Enterer aspirant.
失挍量法。先多后少故。若謂異生是順抉擇分等者。即應將彼異生對預流向。挍量勝劣云施異生劣預流也。
論。已說有情至有死生等。自此已下兩行半頌。大文第三明死生受識等。正理論云。今應思擇。於前所說中等四有。死．生二有唯一剎那。於此時中何識現起。此識復與何受相應。定心．無心得死生不。住何性識得入涅槃。于命終時識何處滅。斷末摩者其體是何 此論略故舉前二問等后問也。
論曰至初結中有。答第一問。舉其六位唯有意識以釋死．生唯意識也。所說生言應知亦攝初結中有。此位亦唯是意識等。故與生有同亦名生 中有初心亦名中有不名生有。既是中有。憑何文證亦得名生 正理論云。本論亦有以生聲說結中有位。有欲界系見．修所斷二部諸結一時獲者。謂上界沒欲界生時。此等生言說中有始 由此頌說生言兼攝中有。
論。死生唯許至不順死生。答第二問。正理論云。以死．生時必昧劣故。由此故說下三靜慮唯近分心有死生理。以根本地無舍受故。
論。又此二時至必非無心。略答第三．第四問也。謂死．生位非是在定亦非無心。
論。非在定心至能攝益故。別以三因證在定心無死．生也 地界別者。謂身在欲界等入上界．地定等。不可異地心而命終受生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 失挍量法。因為先多后少。如果說異生是順抉擇分等，就應該將那些異生與預流向進行比較，衡量勝劣，說異生不如預流。 論：已經說了有情至有死生等。從這裡開始以下兩行半頌，是第三大段，說明死、生、受、識等。《正理論》說：現在應該思考，在前面所說的中等四有中，死有和生有都只有一個剎那。在這個時候，什麼識會現起？這個識又與什麼感受相應？定心、無心得死生嗎？住於何種性質的識能夠進入涅槃？在命終時，識在何處滅去？斷末摩者，它的本體是什麼？這個論因為簡略，所以只舉了前兩個問題，以及類似後面的問題。 論曰至初結中有。回答第一個問題。舉出六位，只有意識來解釋死有和生有隻有意識。所說的『生』，應該知道也包括最初結生時的中有。這個階段也只有意識等。所以與生有相同，也稱為『生』。中有的最初一念也稱為中有，但不稱為生有。既然是中有，憑什麼經文證明也可以稱為『生』？《正理論》說：本論也有用『生』來指代結生中有的情況。有欲界系的見所斷和修所斷二部煩惱同時獲得的情況，是指上界死亡后在欲界出生的時候。這些『生』字，指的是中有的開始。因此，這個頌說『生』字也包括了中有。 論：死有和生有隻允許是舍受，因為不順死生。《正理論》說：因為死亡和出生時必然是昧劣的。因此說下三靜慮只有近分心才有死生理。因為根本地沒有舍受的緣故。 論：又這兩個時候，必定不是無心。簡略地回答了第三和第四個問題。意思是說，死亡和出生的時候不是在定中，也不是無心。 論：不是在定心中，因為不能攝益。分別用三個原因證明在定心中沒有死亡和出生。地界不同是指，身體在欲界等，進入上界、地定等，不可能以不同地的定心而命終受生。
【English Translation】 English version: It is a faulty comparison because it goes from more to less. If one says that an ordinary being (異生) is similar to one who is in the stage of 'following the decision' (順抉擇分) etc., then one should compare those ordinary beings with those who are in the stream-entry stage (預流向), measure their superiority and inferiority, and say that ordinary beings are inferior to stream-enterers. Treatise: It has already been said about sentient beings up to having death and birth etc. From here onwards, the next two and a half verses form the third major section, explaining death, birth, reception (受), consciousness (識), etc. The Nyāyānusāra (正理論) says: Now we should consider, among the four intermediate existences (中有) mentioned earlier, the death existence (死有) and birth existence (生有) are only a single moment. At this time, what consciousness arises? And what feeling (受) is this consciousness associated with? Is it possible to die and be born with a meditative mind (定心) or without a mind (無心)? What kind of consciousness allows one to enter Nirvana? At the time of death, where does consciousness cease? What is the nature of one who severs the vital spots (末摩)? This treatise is brief, so it only raises the first two questions and questions similar to the later ones. Treatise says to the initial connection in the intermediate existence (初結中有): This answers the first question. It lists the six positions, stating that only consciousness (意識) explains that death existence and birth existence are only consciousness. The term 'birth' (生) should be understood to also include the initial connection in the intermediate existence. This stage is also only consciousness etc. Therefore, it is the same as birth existence and is also called 'birth'. The initial thought in the intermediate existence is also called the intermediate existence, but not birth existence. Since it is the intermediate existence, what textual evidence proves that it can also be called 'birth'? The Nyāyānusāra says: This treatise also uses the term 'birth' to refer to the state of connection in the intermediate existence. There are cases where afflictions (結) of the desire realm (欲界) that are severed by seeing (見所斷) and cultivation (修所斷) are obtained simultaneously, which refers to when one dies in the upper realms and is born in the desire realm. These instances of the term 'birth' refer to the beginning of the intermediate existence. Therefore, this verse says that the term 'birth' also includes the intermediate existence. Treatise: Death existence and birth existence are only allowed to be neutral feeling (舍受), because they are not conducive to death and birth (不順死生). The Nyāyānusāra says: Because death and birth are necessarily obscure and inferior. Therefore, it is said that only the borderline mind (近分心) of the lower three meditative states (下三靜慮) has the physiology of death and birth. Because the fundamental level (根本地) does not have neutral feeling. Treatise: Also, these two times must not be without mind. This briefly answers the third and fourth questions. It means that the time of death and birth is not in meditation, nor is it without mind. Treatise: It is not in a meditative mind because it cannot gather benefit. It separately uses three reasons to prove that there is no death or birth in a meditative mind. Different realms (地界) refer to the body being in the desire realm etc., entering the upper realms, meditative states etc., it is impossible to die and be born with a meditative mind from a different realm.
縱令界．地同者定是加行起故。亦不可說命終等也。又定亦是能攝益故。正理論云。而非在定心有死．生理。非界．地別有死．生故。設界．地同極明利故。由勝加行所引發故。又在定心能攝益故。必由損害方得命終。諸在定心非染污故。必由染污方得受生。異地染心亦攝益故。加行起故無命終理。異地染心必勝地攝。何容樂往劣地受生。故彼亦無能受生理。一切異地凈無記心。加行起故無命終理。非染污故無受生理。
論。亦非無心至無受生故。別明無心無死．生也。正理論云。又非無心有命終義。理相違故。死有二種。或他所害。或任運終。無心位中他不能害。有殊勝法住持身故。處無心位不任運終。入心定能引出心故。謂入心作等無間緣。取依此身心等果法。必無有別法能礙令不生。若所依身將欲變壞。必定還起屬此身心方得命終。更無餘理。又有契經。證無心不命終。故契經說。無想有情由想起已從彼處沒。非無心位可得受生(云云多釋)。
論。雖說死有至而無異熟。唯無記涅槃。答第五問也。
論何故唯無記得入涅槃。問所以。
論。無記勢力微順心斷故。答所以也。正理論云。劣善何故不入涅槃。以彼善心有異熟故。諸阿羅漢厭背未來諸異熟果入涅槃故。若爾住異熟應不入涅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：即使在界（dhātu，構成要素）和地（bhūmi，層次）相同的情況下，由於存在加行（prayoga，努力）的生起，也不能說會命終等。此外，禪定也具有攝益（saṃgraha，包含利益）的作用。如《正理論》所說：『不在禪定中的心會有死亡和受生的道理。不是界和地有死亡和受生的區別。』假設界和地相同，極其明利，由於殊勝的加行所引發，又因為在禪定中的心能夠攝益，必定要通過損害才能命終。諸在禪定中的心不是染污的，必定要通過染污才能受生。異地的染污心也具有攝益的作用，由於加行的生起，沒有命終的道理。異地的染污心必定勝過此地所攝，怎麼會樂於前往低劣之地受生呢？因此，那也沒有能夠受生的道理。一切異地的清凈無記心，由於加行的生起，沒有命終的道理，因為不是染污的，所以沒有受生的道理。 論：也不是無心可以至無受生，這是特別說明無心沒有死亡和受生。《正理論》說：『又不是無心有命終的意義，因為道理上相違背。』死亡有兩種：或者被他人所害，或者任運而終。在無心位中，他人不能加害，因為有殊勝的法住持身體的緣故。處於無心位不會任運而終，因為入心定能夠引發出心。所謂入心定作為等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，直接原因），取得依此身心等果法，必定沒有別的法能夠阻礙令其不生。如果所依之身將要變壞，必定還會生起屬於此身的心才能命終，沒有其他的道理。又有契經（sūtra，佛經）證明無心不會命終。所以契經說：無想有情由想起之後從彼處消失，不是無心位可以受生（云云多釋）。 論：雖然說死亡有，乃至沒有異熟（vipāka，果報），只有無記（avyākṛta，非善非惡）才能入涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）。這是回答第五個問題。 論：為什麼只有無記才能入涅槃？這是問原因。 論：無記的勢力微弱，順從心的斷滅。這是回答原因。《正理論》說：『低劣的善心為什麼不能入涅槃？因為那些善心有異熟的緣故。』諸阿羅漢（arhat，斷盡煩惱者）厭背未來諸異熟果才入涅槃的緣故。如果住在異熟中，應該不能入涅
【English Translation】 English version: Even if the dhātu (element) and bhūmi (level) are the same, it cannot be said that death etc. will occur because of the arising of prayoga (effort). Furthermore, samādhi (concentration) also has the function of saṃgraha (encompassing benefit). As the Nyāyānusāra (Treatise on the Correct Principle) says: 'It is not that the mind in samādhi has the principle of death and rebirth. It is not that the dhātu and bhūmi have the difference of death and rebirth.' Suppose the dhātu and bhūmi are the same, extremely sharp, because of the excellent prayoga that is induced, and because the mind in samādhi can encompass benefit, it must be through harm that death can occur. The minds in samādhi are not defiled, and it must be through defilement that rebirth can occur. The defiled mind of a different bhūmi also has the function of encompassing benefit, and because of the arising of prayoga, there is no principle of death. The defiled mind of a different bhūmi must be superior to what is encompassed by this bhūmi, how can one be happy to go to an inferior place to be reborn? Therefore, there is also no principle of being able to be reborn there. All pure indeterminate (avyākrta) minds of different bhūmis, because of the arising of prayoga, have no principle of death, and because they are not defiled, there is no principle of rebirth. Treatise: It is also not that without mind one can reach no rebirth, this is specifically explaining that without mind there is no death and rebirth. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Also, it is not that without mind there is the meaning of death, because it is contradictory in principle.' There are two kinds of death: either harmed by others, or naturally ending. In the state of no-mind, others cannot harm, because there is an excellent dharma (law/principle) that sustains the body. Being in the state of no-mind will not naturally end, because entering samādhi can lead to the arising of mind. So-called entering samādhi as the samanantarapratyaya (immediately preceding condition), obtaining the resulting dharmas such as mind and body that rely on this body, there must be no other dharma that can hinder it from arising. If the body on which it relies is about to decay, there must still arise a mind belonging to this body before death can occur, there is no other principle. There is also a sūtra (scripture) that proves that without mind there is no death. Therefore, the sūtra says: Sentient beings in the realm of non-perception disappear from that place after recollection arises, it is not that rebirth can be obtained in the state of no-mind (and so on, with many explanations). Treatise: Although it is said that death exists, and even without vipāka (result), only avyākrta (indeterminate) can enter nirvāṇa (cessation). This is answering the fifth question. Treatise: Why can only avyākrta enter nirvāṇa? This is asking the reason. Treatise: The power of avyākrta is weak, and it follows the cessation of the mind. This is answering the reason. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Why can't inferior good minds enter nirvāṇa? Because those good minds have vipāka.' Because all arhats (worthy ones) are weary of future vipāka, they enter nirvāṇa. If one dwells in vipāka, one should not be able to enter nir
槃。不爾。已簡言厭背未來故。何不厭背現在異熟。知依現異熟永斷諸有故。依現異熟證無學果。知彼有恩不深厭患。諸阿羅漢深厭當生。故命終時避彼因善。唯二無記勢力劣故。順於昧劣相續斷心。故入涅槃唯二無記。
論。于命終位至識最後滅。答第六問。寄問起也。
論。頓命終者至亦心處滅。答也。阿羅漢人無所往後有故於心處滅。
論。有餘師說彼滅在頂。述異師說。此師意說。涅槃最勝故於頂滅。
論。正命終時至一處都盡。釋上識滅處也。識無方所不可辨處。隨身根滅處言識滅處也。
論。有漸命終者至是謂末摩。答第七問。即以身中有異支節名為末摩。無異物也。正理論云。謂于身中有別處所。風．熱．淡盛所逼切時。極苦受生即便致死。得末摩稱。
論。若水火風至故得斷名。釋斷名也。風．水．火等能觸便命斷名斷末摩。非謂如斬薪等分為二分名之為斷。正理論云。好發語言譏刺于彼隨實．不實傷切人心。由此當招斷末摩苦。
論。地界何緣至隨所應起。釋地不能為斷末摩所以。
論。有說此似外器三災。述意說也。
論。此斷末摩天中非有。明斷末摩有．無處也。
論。然諸天子至非定當死。此明天中小衰相也。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：是否所有阿羅漢都入涅槃（Nirvana，滅度）？ 答：不是的。因為他們已經厭倦並背離了未來。如果這樣，為何不厭倦並背離現在的異熟果報（Vipāka，果報）？因為他們知道依靠現在的異熟果報可以永遠斷絕諸有（bhava，存在）。依靠現在的異熟果報證得無學果（aśaikṣa-phala，無學果位），知道這其中有恩德，所以不會深深地厭患。諸阿羅漢深深地厭惡未來的生，所以在命終時避免產生那些因緣善業。只有兩種無記（avyākṛta，不記）的力量弱小，順應于昧劣的相續，斷滅心識。所以入涅槃時只有兩種無記。
論：在命終的時刻，直到識（vijñāna，意識）最後滅盡。這是回答第六個問題，寄託問題而引發的。
論：頓然命終的人，在心處滅盡。這也是回答。阿羅漢因為沒有來世，所以在心處滅盡。
論：有其他老師說，他們的滅盡在頭頂。這是敘述其他老師的說法。這位老師的意思是說，涅槃是最殊勝的，所以在頭頂滅盡。
論：真正命終的時候，在一處完全滅盡。這是解釋上面所說的識滅盡之處。識沒有固定的處所，無法辨別具體位置。隨著身體的根（indriya，感覺器官）滅盡之處，就說是識滅盡之處。
論：有漸次命終的人，這就是所謂的末摩（marman，要害）。這是回答第七個問題。身體中不同的支節被稱為末摩，沒有其他特別的東西。正理論中說：在身體中有特別的處所，當風、熱、淡盛等逼迫時，產生極大的痛苦，甚至導致死亡，就稱為末摩。
論：如果水、火、風等侵襲，因此得到斷（ccheda，斷絕）的名稱。這是解釋斷的名稱。風、水、火等能夠觸及，導致生命斷絕，稱為斷末摩。不是像砍柴一樣分成兩部分才叫做斷。正理論中說：惡語譏諷他人，無論是真實的還是不真實的，傷害到他人的內心，由此將會招致斷末摩的痛苦。
論：地界（pṛthivī-dhātu，地界）為什麼不能成為斷末摩的原因？因為地界隨其應有的方式生起。
論：有人說這類似於外在器世界的三災（trayo vipattayaḥ，三種災難）。這是敘述他們的意思。
論：這種斷末摩在天界中是沒有的。這是說明斷末摩存在與否的處所。
論：然而諸天子有五種小衰相（pañca cyavana-cihnāni，五種衰敗的徵兆），但並非一定會死亡。這是說明天界中的小衰相。
【English Translation】 English version Question: Do all Arhats (Arhat, one who is worthy) enter Nirvana (Nirvana, cessation)? Answer: No. Because they have already wearied of and turned away from the future. If so, why not weary of and turn away from the present Vipāka (Vipāka, result of karma)? Because they know that by relying on the present Vipāka, they can forever cut off all bhava (bhava, existence). By relying on the present Vipāka, they attain the aśaikṣa-phala (aśaikṣa-phala, fruit of no-more-learning), knowing that there is kindness in it, so they will not deeply weary of it. The Arhats deeply weary of future birth, so at the time of death, they avoid generating those causal wholesome deeds. Only the two avyākṛta (avyākṛta, uncharacterized) have weak power, conforming to the faint and inferior continuum, cutting off consciousness. Therefore, only the two avyākṛta enter Nirvana.
Treatise: At the moment of death, until the final cessation of vijñāna (vijñāna, consciousness). This is answering the sixth question, initiated by posing a question.
Treatise: Those who die suddenly, cease at the heart center. This is also the answer. Arhats, because they have no future existence, cease at the heart center.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that their cessation is at the crown of the head. This is narrating the views of other teachers. This teacher means that Nirvana is the most supreme, so it ceases at the crown of the head.
Treatise: At the time of true death, everything is completely exhausted in one place. This is explaining the place of cessation of consciousness mentioned above. Consciousness has no fixed location and cannot be distinguished. The place where the bodily indriya (indriya, sense organs) cease is said to be the place where consciousness ceases.
Treatise: Those who die gradually, this is what is called marman (marman, vital point). This is answering the seventh question. The different limbs in the body are called marman, there is nothing else special. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: In the body, there are special places, when wind, heat, or phlegm are excessive and pressing, extreme suffering arises, even leading to death, this is called marman.
Treatise: If water, fire, wind, etc., invade, therefore it gets the name ccheda (ccheda, cutting off). This is explaining the name of cutting off. Wind, water, fire, etc., can touch and cause life to be cut off, this is called cutting off marman. It is not like chopping wood into two pieces that is called cutting off. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Harsh words ridicule others, whether true or false, hurting the hearts of others, thereby incurring the suffering of cutting off marman.
Treatise: Why can't the pṛthivī-dhātu (pṛthivī-dhātu, earth element) be the cause of cutting off marman? Because the earth element arises according to its proper way.
Treatise: Some say this is similar to the three trayo vipattayaḥ (trayo vipattayaḥ, three calamities) of the external world. This is narrating their meaning.
Treatise: This cutting off marman does not exist in the heavens. This is explaining the place where cutting off marman exists or does not exist.
Treatise: However, the devaputra (devaputra, sons of gods) have five pañca cyavana-cihnāni (pañca cyavana-cihnāni, five signs of decay), but they are not necessarily going to die. This is explaining the minor signs of decay in the heavens.
復有五種至必定當死。此明天中有大衰相。正理論云。此五相現決定命終。設遇強緣亦不轉故。非此五相諸天皆有。亦非此五一一皆具。總集而說故言有五。如何得知非一切有。由教．理故。教謂經言。三十三天有時集坐善法堂上。共受法樂中有天子福壽俱終。即天眾中不起于坐俄然殞沒都不覺知。經說諸天五衰相現經五晝夜然後命終。寧不覺知不起于坐。理謂衰相皆是不善圓滿業果。非一切天皆同集此不善業故。
論。世尊於此至何謂三聚。自此已下大文第四明三聚眾生也。
論曰至三不定性聚。列三聚名也。
論。何名正性。問。
論。謂契經言至是名正性。答正性也。此無餘斷即是有餘．無餘涅槃。即此涅槃名為正性。正理論云。何故唯斷說名正性。謂此永盡邪偽法故。又體是善常。智者定愛。故世尊亦說聖道名正性。經說趣入正性離生故。
論。定者謂聖至故名正定。釋正定也。此謂得無漏斷得不越七生得涅槃故。
論。諸已獲得至何非正定。問也。若以定得涅槃名正定者。得順解脫分善定得涅槃。何不從此名為正定唯取聖人。
論。彼后或隨至不名正定。答也。此有四釋。一或后時墮邪定故。二得涅槃時未定故。三非如預流．極七返有等。四彼未能捨邪性故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 還有五種（現象）必定會導致死亡。這說明天人中有大的衰敗之相。正理論中說，這五種衰相出現，就決定了壽命終結。即使遇到強大的因緣，也無法轉變。不是所有的天人都有這五種衰相，也不是每一個天人都具備這五種衰相。這裡是總括起來說的，所以說有五種。如何得知不是所有天人都有（這五種衰相）呢？因為有教證和理證。教證就是經中說，三十三天（Trāyastriṃśa，佛教宇宙觀中位於須彌山頂的天界）有時會聚集在善法堂上，共同享受佛法的快樂，其中有天子福報和壽命都已終結，就在天眾中沒有起身就突然去世了，完全沒有察覺。經中說諸天五衰相出現后，經過五晝夜然後才命終。難道不會察覺，不會起身嗎？理證就是衰相都是不善圓滿的業果，不是所有天人都共同聚集了這種不善業。所以不是所有天人都有五衰相。 論：世尊在這裡（要說明）什麼叫做三聚（tricities）？從這裡以下，大的段落第四，說明三聚眾生。 論曰：到三不定性聚（the three groups of uncertain nature）。這是列出三聚的名稱。 論：什麼叫做正性（right nature）？問。 論：所謂契經（Sūtra，佛經）中說，到這叫做正性。答：正性就是指無餘斷，也就是有餘涅槃（nirvāṇa with remainder）和無餘涅槃（nirvāṇa without remainder）。也就是這種涅槃叫做正性。正理論中說，為什麼只有斷滅才叫做正性呢？因為這能永遠斷絕邪惡虛偽的法。而且它的本體是善良和永恒的，智者一定會喜愛。所以世尊也說聖道叫做正性。經中說趣入正性，遠離了生死。 論：定者，就是聖人，到所以叫做正定（rightly fixed）。解釋正定。這就是說，得到無漏斷，得到不超過七次生死，得到涅槃。 論：那些已經獲得，到為什麼不是正定？問。如果因為得到（禪）定而得到涅槃就叫做正定，那麼得到順解脫分善定而得到涅槃，為什麼不從這裡叫做正定，而只取聖人（才能稱為正定）？ 論：他們之後或許會隨順，到不叫做正定。答。這裡有四種解釋。一是或許之後會墮入邪定。二是得到涅槃時還沒有確定。三是不像預流（Srotāpanna，須陀洹），最多七次往返生死等。四是他們還不能捨棄邪性。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, there are five kinds (of phenomena) that will certainly lead to death. This indicates that there are great signs of decline among the Devas (gods). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise Following the Principles of Reasoning) says that when these five signs appear, it is determined that life will end. Even if strong conditions are encountered, they cannot be reversed. Not all Devas have these five signs, nor does every Deva possess all five of these signs. Here, it is spoken of in a general way, so it is said that there are five. How do we know that not all Devas have (these five signs)? Because there is scriptural and logical proof. Scriptural proof is what the Sūtra (Buddhist scripture) says: the Thirty-three Heavens (Trāyastriṃśa, the heaven located on the summit of Mount Sumeru in Buddhist cosmology) sometimes gather in the Good Dharma Hall, together enjoying the bliss of the Dharma, among whom there are Devas whose blessings and lifespans have come to an end, and they suddenly pass away in the assembly without even rising from their seats, completely unaware. The Sūtra says that after the five signs of decline appear in the Devas, they pass away after five days and nights. Would they not be aware and not rise from their seats? Logical proof is that the signs of decline are all the result of unwholesome and complete karma. Not all Devas have collectively accumulated this kind of unwholesome karma. Therefore, not all Devas have the five signs of decline. Treatise: What does the World Honored One (Śākyamuni Buddha) mean here by the 'three groups' (tricities)? From here onwards, the fourth major section explains the sentient beings of the three groups. Treatise says: To the 'three groups of uncertain nature'. This is listing the names of the three groups. Treatise: What is meant by 'right nature'? Question. Treatise: What the Sūtra says, to 'this is called right nature'. Answer: 'Right nature' refers to the complete cessation without remainder, which is nirvāṇa with remainder (sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa) and nirvāṇa without remainder (nirupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa). This nirvāṇa is called 'right nature'. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says, why is only cessation called 'right nature'? Because it can permanently cut off evil and false dharmas. Moreover, its essence is good and eternal, and the wise will certainly love it. Therefore, the World Honored One also says that the Noble Path is called 'right nature'. The Sūtra says to enter into right nature, to be apart from birth and death. Treatise: 'Fixed' refers to the sages, to 'therefore it is called rightly fixed'. Explaining 'rightly fixed'. This means attaining the cessation of outflows, attaining no more than seven rebirths, and attaining nirvāṇa. Treatise: Those who have already attained, to 'why is it not rightly fixed'? Question. If attaining nirvāṇa through (meditative) concentration is called 'rightly fixed', then attaining nirvāṇa through wholesome concentration that accords with liberation, why is it not called 'rightly fixed' from here, and only sages (can be called 'rightly fixed')? Treatise: They may later follow, to 'it is not called rightly fixed'. Answer. There are four explanations here. First, perhaps they will later fall into wrong concentration. Second, it is not certain when they attain nirvāṇa. Third, it is not like the Stream-enterer (Srotāpanna), who at most has seven more rebirths, etc. Fourth, they are still unable to abandon their wrong nature.
論。何名邪性。問也。
論。謂諸地獄至是名邪性。答也。謂三惡趣名為邪性。正理論云。何名邪性。謂有三種。一趣邪性。二業邪性。三見邪性。即是惡趣．五無間業．五不正見如次為體。
論。定謂無間至故名邪定。釋邪性也。即是定墮地獄故名邪定。
論。正邪定余至可成二故。此釋第三不定聚也。非定屬一得不定名。住增上忍．及第一時時少不說。及未舍見邪性故。
俱舍論疏卷第十
霜月七日夜半點了
闇眼彌疲燈下。
覺樹記
以興福寺慈恩院本一交了乘忍法師 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第十一
沙門法寶撰
分別世品第三之四
論。如是已說至今當說者。此下當品大文第二明器世間 于中有三。一述所居器。二述能居量。三述分齊 就明所居器中。一別明小器。二總明大千 就別明小器中。一明三輪。二明九山。三明八海。四明四洲。五黑山等。六明地獄。七明日．月。八明天器 此下三行頌。第一明三輪。頌文可知。
論曰至形量不同。此明三千大千世界形量不同。三輪等異諸部同許。
論。謂諸有情至逾繕那。明風輪廣厚也。
論。如是風輪至風
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：什麼叫做邪性？這是提問。 論：指各種地獄都屬於邪性。這是回答。指三惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）名為邪性。《正理論》說：什麼叫做邪性？有三種：一、趣邪性，二、業邪性，三、見邪性。分別以惡趣、五無間業、五不正見為本體。 論：『定謂無間』等，因此叫做邪定。這是解釋邪性。就是必定墮入地獄，所以叫做邪定。 論：正定、邪定之外，還有可以成為二者的。這是解釋第三種不定聚。不是確定屬於哪一種，所以叫做不定。安住于增上忍，以及第一剎那（指最初生起時）很少提及，以及沒有捨棄邪見邪性。 《俱舍論疏》卷第十 霜月七日夜半點了 闇眼彌疲燈下。 覺樹記 以興福寺慈恩院本一交了乘忍法師 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》 《俱舍論疏》卷第十一 沙門法寶撰 分別世品第三之四 論：像這樣已經說了，現在將要說的是。以下這一品的大文第二部分，說明器世間。其中有三部分：一、敘述所居住的器世間；二、敘述能居住者的數量；三、敘述分界。在說明所居住的器世間中，一、分別說明小器世間；二、總括說明大千世界。在分別說明小器世間中，一、說明三輪；二、說明九山；三、說明八海；四、說明四洲；五、說明黑山等；六、說明地獄；七、說明日、月；八、說明天器。以下三行頌文，第一說明三輪。頌文內容可以理解。 論曰：到形量不同。這是說明三千大千世界的形量不同。三輪等的差異，各個部派都認可。 論：指各種有情，到逾繕那（yú shàn nà，古印度長度單位）。說明風輪的廣度和厚度。 論：像這樣風輪，到風。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: What is called 'wrong nature'? This is a question. Treatise: It refers to all the hells as 'wrong nature'. This is the answer. It refers to the three evil destinies (hell, hungry ghosts, animals) as 'wrong nature'. The Nyāyānusāra (正理論) says: What is called 'wrong nature'? There are three types: first, the wrong destiny nature; second, the wrong karma nature; third, the wrong view nature. They respectively take the evil destinies, the five deeds of immediate retribution, and the five wrong views as their substance. Treatise: 'Definitely refers to immediate retribution,' etc., therefore it is called 'wrong concentration'. This explains 'wrong nature'. It means definitely falling into hell, therefore it is called 'wrong concentration'. Treatise: Besides right concentration and wrong concentration, there are those that can become either. This explains the third, the undetermined group. It is not definitely belonging to one, therefore it is called undetermined. Abiding in increasing forbearance, and the first moment (referring to the initial arising) is rarely mentioned, and not abandoning wrong views and wrong nature. Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā (俱舍論疏), Volume 10 Recorded at midnight on the seventh day of Frost Month Dim eyes weary under the lamp. Record of Awakening Tree Copied once from the Xingfu Temple Cien Courtyard edition by Dharma Master Chengren Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 41, No. 1822, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 11 Composed by Śramaṇa Dharmaratna (沙門法寶) Chapter 3, Section 4: Analysis of the World Treatise: Having spoken thus, what will be spoken now is. The second major section of this chapter below explains the vessel world. Within it, there are three parts: first, describing the vessel world where beings reside; second, describing the number of beings that can reside; third, describing the boundaries. Within the explanation of the vessel world where beings reside, first, separately explaining the small vessel world; second, generally explaining the great chiliocosm. Within the separate explanation of the small vessel world, first, explaining the three wheels; second, explaining the nine mountains; third, explaining the eight seas; fourth, explaining the four continents; fifth, explaining the Black Mountains, etc.; sixth, explaining the hells; seventh, explaining the sun and moon; eighth, explaining the heavenly vessels. The following three lines of verse, first explain the three wheels. The content of the verse can be understood. Treatise says: To different shapes and sizes. This explains that the shapes and sizes of the three thousand great chiliocosms are different. The differences in the three wheels, etc., are accepted by all schools. Treatise: Refers to all sentient beings, to Yojana (逾繕那, an ancient Indian unit of distance). Explains the breadth and thickness of the wind wheel. Treatise: Like this wind wheel, to wind.
輪無損。明風輪堅密 大諾健那者。是人中神名。此云露形。有大力也。
論。又諸有情至逾繕那。此明水輪厚也 廣同金輪故此不說。
論。如何水輪不傍流散。問。
論。有餘師說至墮于熟藏。述余師釋。
論。有餘部說至如篅持谷。述異部釋。未知何部。應撿。
論。有情業力至三億二萬明金輪也。及明成金已后二輪厚薄。
論。二輪廣量至逾繕那。此明水．金二輪廣量。準此金．水二輪與風輪不同。風輪無數理合大千同一。二徑十二億等。即是唯。一四天下也。略計八山．七海已六十萬余逾繕那。更加外海．輪圍亦有十二億。下文云十萬為洛叉。故知十萬為億也 有人。謂十二餘億為大千之徑。全不相當。婆娑一百三十四。風輪廣則無數 又云。如是水輪于未凝結位。深十一億二萬逾繕那。有說廣量與風輪等。有說狹小分百俱胝。百俱胝輪其量皆等。謂徑十二億三千四百半。圍量三倍。謂三十六億一萬三百五十逾繕那。有說金輪廣如水量。有師復說少廣水輪 準此論釋。風．水之中取其後說。水．金之內今取前師。今詳前之二說前說為善。既同一雨水以成水輪。于中何要分金．水別。又三輪相依。風輪既等大千。水．金因何即小。
頌曰。已下有四行頌。第二明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：風輪沒有損壞。明風輪堅固緊密，大諾健那（Mahanaukarmika，人中神名，意為露形）具有強大的力量。
論：又，所有有情眾生的業力導致水輪的形成，其厚度超過了逾繕那（yojana，古印度長度單位）。這裡只說明瞭水輪的厚度，因為其廣度與金輪相同，所以不再贅述。
論：水輪如何不向旁邊流散？（問）
論：有些老師說，水輪的形成是由於有情眾生的業力，就像把牛奶倒入熟藏（Skt. shukta，酸奶）中一樣。（述余師釋）
論：有些部派說，水輪的形成是由於有情眾生的業力，就像用竹篾箍住穀物一樣。（述異部釋，未知是哪個部派，應該查閱）
論：有情眾生的業力導致金輪的形成，其厚度為三億二萬逾繕那。（說明金輪，以及金輪形成后水輪和金輪的厚度）
論：水輪和金輪的廣度都超過了逾繕那。（說明水輪和金輪的廣度。由此推斷，金輪和水輪與風輪不同。風輪是無數的，理應與大千世界相同。二輪的直徑為十二億等，也就是一個四天下。略計八山、七海已經有六十多萬逾繕那。再加上外海和輪圍山，也有十二億。下文說十萬為洛叉（laksha，印度數字單位），所以知道十萬為億。有人說十二億多是大千世界的直徑，完全不符合實際。婆娑（Vibhasa，佛教論書）一百三十。輪的廣度則是無數的。又說，水輪在未凝結時，深度為十一億二萬逾繕那。有人說其廣度與風輪相等，有人說其狹小，只有百俱胝（百億）輪。百俱胝輪的量都相等，直徑為十二億三千四百五十，周長是三倍，為三十六億一萬三百五十逾繕那。有人說金輪的廣度與水輪相等，有老師又說比水輪略廣。根據此論的解釋，在風輪和水輪中，採用后一種說法；在水輪和金輪中，現在採用前一種說法。現在詳細分析，前一種說法更好。既然都是同一雨水形成的，為什麼要在其中區分金輪和水輪呢？而且三輪相互依存，風輪既然與大千世界相等，水輪和金輪為什麼就小了呢？
頌曰：以下有四行頌，第二說明
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: The wind wheel is without damage. The bright wind wheel is firm and dense. Mahanaukarmika (a name of a deity among humans, meaning 'naked form') possesses great power.
Treatise: Furthermore, the karma of all sentient beings leads to the formation of the water wheel, whose thickness exceeds a yojana (an ancient Indian unit of length). Here, only the thickness of the water wheel is mentioned because its breadth is the same as that of the gold wheel, so it is not elaborated upon.
Treatise: How does the water wheel not flow away to the sides? (Question)
Treatise: Some teachers say that the formation of the water wheel is due to the karma of sentient beings, just like pouring milk into shukta (yogurt). (Explanation of other teachers)
Treatise: Some schools say that the formation of the water wheel is due to the karma of sentient beings, just like using bamboo strips to bind grain. (Explanation of different schools; it is unknown which school, it should be checked)
Treatise: The karma of sentient beings leads to the formation of the gold wheel, whose thickness is three hundred and twenty million yojanas. (Explanation of the gold wheel, and the thickness of the water and gold wheels after the gold wheel is formed)
Treatise: The breadth of both the water and gold wheels exceeds a yojana. (Explanation of the breadth of the water and gold wheels. From this, it can be inferred that the gold and water wheels are different from the wind wheel. The wind wheel is countless and should be the same as the great chiliocosm. The diameter of the two wheels is twelve hundred million, which is one four-continent world. Roughly calculating the eight mountains and seven seas, there are already more than six hundred thousand yojanas. Adding the outer sea and the Chakravada Mountains, there are also twelve hundred million. The following text says that one hundred thousand is a laksha (an Indian numerical unit), so it is known that one hundred thousand is a million. Some say that twelve hundred million is the diameter of the great chiliocosm, which is completely inconsistent with reality. Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise) one hundred and thirty . The breadth of the wheel is countless. It is also said that when the water wheel is not yet solidified, its depth is eleven hundred and twenty million yojanas. Some say that its breadth is equal to the wind wheel, and some say that it is narrow, only a hundred koti (hundred million) wheels. The measure of a hundred koti wheels is all equal, with a diameter of twelve hundred and thirty-four million and fifty, and a circumference of three times that, which is thirty-six hundred and one million three hundred and fifty yojanas. Some say that the breadth of the gold wheel is equal to the water wheel, and some teachers say that it is slightly broader than the water wheel. According to the explanation of this treatise, in the wind and water wheels, the latter statement is adopted; in the water and gold wheels, the former teacher's statement is now adopted. Now, analyzing in detail, the former statement is better. Since they are all formed from the same rainwater, why should the gold and water wheels be distinguished? Moreover, the three wheels are interdependent. Since the wind wheel is equal to the great chiliocosm, why are the water and gold wheels smaller?
Verse: Below are four lines of verse, the second explaining
九山也 蘇迷盧者。此云妙高 逾健達羅。此云持雙。此山頂上有其二道猶如車跡。山持二跡故名持雙 伊沙馱羅。此云持軸山。峰上聳猶如車軸故名持軸 竭地洛迦。印度樹名。一此山寶樹形相似故從似為名 蘇達梨舍那。此云善見。莊嚴殊妙見者稱善故名善見 頞濕縛羯拏。此云馬耳。此山上峰似馬耳也 毗那怛迦。此云象鼻。印度神名。山形似彼象鼻故以名焉 尼民達羅。此是魚名。其魚㭰尖。山峰似魚㭰故以為名。后之兩頌如文可知。
論曰至吠琉璃色。此明九山安布處所。及能成財寶有不同也。
論。如是寶等從何而生。問也。
論。亦諸有情至轉變所成。以明眾寶所從生也。由業風力水減寶生。非即水體轉變成色。
論。數論云何執轉變義。問。
論。謂執有法至有餘法滅。答也。此外道說。如金為器。改變器時。金無生滅。器有生滅。
論。如是轉變何理相違。問違理也。
論。謂必無容至法滅法生。出違理也。此意欲說金之與器體性無別。如何說有別法是常。別法生滅。謂冥諦常。二十三諦是無常也。
論。誰言法外至名為有法。外道救也。誰言實諦之外別有二十三諦。金外別有器也。即是實諦轉變如金轉變相生滅也。
論。此亦非理。論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 九山是：蘇迷盧山（Sumeru），此譯為妙高山；逾健達羅山（Yugandhara），此譯為持雙山。此山頂上有兩條道路，猶如車轍。山持兩條車轍的痕跡，所以名為持雙山；伊沙馱羅山（Isadhara），此譯為持軸山。山峰聳立，猶如車軸，所以名為持軸山；竭地洛迦山（Khadiraka），印度樹名。此山上的寶樹形狀相似，因此從相似之處得名；蘇達梨舍那山（Sudarsana），此譯為善見山。莊嚴殊勝美妙，見者都稱讚美好，所以名為善見山；頞濕縛羯拏山（Asvakarna），此譯為馬耳山。此山上的山峰像馬的耳朵；毗那怛迦山（Vinataka），此譯為象鼻山。印度神名。山形像大象的鼻子，因此用此命名；尼民達羅山（Niminadhara），這是一種魚的名字。這種魚的鰭尖銳。山峰像魚鰭，因此用此命名。後面的兩頌，如文可知。
論曰：到吠琉璃色。這說明九山的安布處所，以及能成就的財寶各有不同。
論：像這樣的寶物等是從哪裡產生的？問。
論：也是諸有情眾生的業力，乃至轉變所形成的。用來說明各種寶物產生的原因。由於業力、風力，水減少而產生寶物。並非是水本身轉變成為各種顏色。
論：數論怎麼執著轉變的意義？問。
論：他們認為存在一種本體，乃至有其餘的法滅亡。答。這是外道的說法。例如金變成器皿。改變器皿時，金沒有生滅，器皿有生滅。
論：這樣的轉變與什麼道理相違背？問，違背什麼道理？
論：認為必定沒有容許，乃至法滅法生。指出違背的道理。這裡想要說明金和器皿的體性沒有差別。如何說有別的法是常，別的法是生滅的呢？他們認為冥諦是常，二十三諦是無常。
論：誰說法外，乃至名為有法？外道辯解。誰說實諦之外，另有二十三諦？就像金之外另有器皿一樣。就是實諦轉變，如金轉變一樣，有生滅。
論：這也是不合道理的。論
【English Translation】 English version The nine mountains are: Sumeru (meaning 'wonderfully high'), Yugandhara (meaning 'holding double'). This mountain has two paths on its summit, like chariot tracks. Because the mountain holds the traces of two tracks, it is called Yugandhara; Isadhara (meaning 'holding axis'). The peak of this mountain rises like a chariot axle, hence the name Isadhara; Khadiraka (an Indian tree name). The precious trees on this mountain resemble that tree in shape, hence the name is derived from the similarity; Sudarsana (meaning 'good to see'). It is adorned with exceptional beauty, and those who see it praise its goodness, hence the name Sudarsana; Asvakarna (meaning 'horse ear'). The peaks of this mountain resemble horse ears; Vinataka (meaning 'elephant nose'). This is the name of an Indian deity. The shape of the mountain resembles an elephant's trunk, hence the name; Niminadhara, this is the name of a fish. The fins of this fish are sharp. The mountain peaks resemble fish fins, hence the name. The following two verses can be understood from the text.
Treatise says: 'To the color of lapis lazuli.' This explains the arrangement of the nine mountains and the differences in the treasures they can produce.
Treatise: 'From where do such treasures arise?' Question.
Treatise: 'Also, the karma of sentient beings, even to what is transformed.' This explains the origin of various treasures. Treasures arise from the force of karma, the power of wind, and the reduction of water. It is not that the water itself transforms into various colors.
Treatise: 'How does the Samkhya school adhere to the meaning of transformation?' Question.
Treatise: 'They believe that there is a substance, even to the destruction of other dharmas.' Answer. This is the view of externalists. For example, gold is made into a vessel. When the vessel is changed, the gold does not arise or cease, but the vessel does.
Treatise: 'What principle does such transformation contradict?' Question, what principle does it contradict?
Treatise: 'It is believed that there is absolutely no allowance, even to the cessation of dharma and the arising of dharma.' Points out the contradictory principle. The intention here is to say that the nature of gold and the vessel are not different. How can it be said that a separate dharma is permanent, and a separate dharma arises and ceases? They believe that Prakriti (primordial nature) is permanent, and the twenty-three Tattvas (principles) are impermanent.
Treatise: 'Who says that outside of dharma, even to what is called a substance?' The externalists defend. Who says that outside of the Real Truth, there are twenty-three other Tattvas? Just as outside of gold, there is another vessel. It is the transformation of the Real Truth, like the transformation of gold, that has arising and ceasing.
Treatise: 'This is also unreasonable.' Treatise.
主非也。
論。非理者何。外道問也。
論。即是此物至曾所未聞。論主破也。
論。如是變生至內海外海。此明變生眾寶等已復有業風各別為山為海等也。
論。如是九山至出水量同。此明九山高廣量也。
頌曰。已下有兩行頌。第三明八海也。
論曰至不傷腹明內海具八功德水。
論。如是七海至逾繕那。明初海量也。準此論文。妙高山方以其四面數各三倍。謂各成二億四萬故。
論。其餘六海至二萬二千。明餘六海及鹹海量。總略計九山及八海。一四天下徑總有一百二十萬八百七十五逾繕那。
頌曰。已下有四行頌。第四明四大洲形量也。
論曰至二千逾繕那。略舉四洲。並明南贍部洲相。
論。唯此洲中至能持此故。明金剛座所在處也。
論。東勝身洲至人面亦然。明餘三洲．及人面也。
論。復有八中洲至羅剎婆居。明八中洲 遮末羅者。此云貓牛 筏羅遮末羅。此云勝貓牛 提訶。此云身 毗提訶者。此云勝身 舍搋者。此云諂 嗢怛羅漫怛里拏。此云上議 矩。拉。婆者。此云勝邊 憍拉婆者。此云有勝邊。一說八洲皆人所住。一說唯一羅剎婆居。婆娑一百七十二云。此八洲中人形短小如此方侏儒。有說七洲是人所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 主：不對。
論：什麼是不合道理的？外道提出的問題。
論：這就是說，這個東西是以前從未聽說過的。論主駁斥了這種說法。
論：像這樣變化產生，直到內海和海外。這說明變化產生眾多的寶物等，並且還有業風各自形成山和海等等。
論：像這樣九座山，直到出水量相同。這說明九座山的高度和廣度。
頌曰：下面有兩行頌文。第三說明八海。
論曰：直到不傷腹，說明內海具有八種功德的水。
論：像這樣七海，直到逾繕那（Yojana，長度單位）。說明最初的海的量。按照這篇論文，妙高山（Mount Meru）的四面各自的三倍，就是各自成為二億四萬。
論：其餘六海，直到二萬二千。說明其餘六海和鹹海的量。總略計算九山和八海，一個四天下的直徑總共有一百二十萬零八百七十五逾繕那。
頌曰：下面有四行頌文。第四說明四大洲的形狀和量。
論曰：直到二千逾繕那。簡略地舉出四大洲，並且說明南贍部洲（Jambudvipa）的形狀。
論：只有這個洲中，直到能夠保持這個地方。說明金剛座（Vajrasana）所在的地方。
論：東勝身洲（Purvavideha），直到人面也是這樣。說明其餘三洲以及人的面貌。
論：還有八中洲，直到羅剎婆（Rakshasa，惡鬼）居住。說明八中洲。遮末羅（Camara）的意思是貓牛。筏羅遮末羅（Varacamara）的意思是勝貓牛。提訶（Deha）的意思是身。毗提訶（Videha）的意思是勝身。舍搋（Satha）的意思是諂。嗢怛羅漫怛里拏（Uttaramantrina）的意思是上議。矩。拉。婆（Kurava）的意思是勝邊。憍拉婆（Kaurava）的意思是有勝邊。一種說法是八洲都是人居住的。一種說法是隻有羅剎婆居住。婆娑（Vibhasa）一百七十二說，這八洲中人的形狀短小，像這裡的侏儒。有人說七洲是人所居住的。
【English Translation】 English version Master: No.
Treatise: What is unreasonable? A question posed by non-Buddhists.
Treatise: That is, this thing is something that has never been heard of before. The treatise master refutes this statement.
Treatise: Like this, changes occur, reaching the inner and outer seas. This explains that changes produce numerous treasures, etc., and that there are karma winds that separately form mountains and seas, etc.
Treatise: Like this, the nine mountains, until the amount of water flowing out is the same. This explains the height and breadth of the nine mountains.
Verse: Below are two lines of verse. The third explains the eight seas.
Treatise: Until 'does not harm the abdomen,' it explains that the inner sea possesses water with eight merits.
Treatise: Like this, the seven seas, until Yojana (Yojana, a unit of length). It explains the measure of the initial sea. According to this treatise, Mount Meru's (Mount Meru) four sides are each tripled, meaning they each become 240,000.
Treatise: The remaining six seas, until 22,000. It explains the measure of the remaining six seas and the Salt Sea. In total, roughly calculating the nine mountains and eight seas, the diameter of one Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa) is a total of 1,200,875 Yojana.
Verse: Below are four lines of verse. The fourth explains the shape and measure of the four great continents.
Treatise: Until 2,000 Yojana. Briefly mentioning the four continents, and explaining the shape of Jambudvipa (Jambudvipa).
Treatise: Only in this continent, until it can maintain this place. It explains the location of the Vajrasana (Vajrasana).
Treatise: Purvavideha (Purvavideha), until the human face is also like that. It explains the remaining three continents and the appearance of humans.
Treatise: There are also eight intermediate continents, until the Rakshasas (Rakshasa, demons) reside. It explains the eight intermediate continents. Camara (Camara) means 'cat-ox.' Varacamara (Varacamara) means 'victorious cat-ox.' Deha (Deha) means 'body.' Videha (Videha) means 'victorious body.' Satha (Satha) means 'flattery.' Uttaramantrina (Uttaramantrina) means 'superior counsel.' Kurava (Kurava) means 'victorious side.' Kaurava (Kaurava) means 'having a victorious side.' One explanation is that all eight continents are inhabited by humans. Another explanation is that only Rakshasas reside there. Vibhasa (Vibhasa) 172 says that the shape of the people in these eight continents is short, like dwarfs here. Some say that seven continents are inhabited by humans.
住。遮末羅洲唯羅剎婆居。有說此所說八即是四大洲之異名 以一一洲皆有二異名故。如是說者。應如初說 準此論文即二說中前說為正。
頌曰。已下有一行頌。第五明黑山等。
論曰至以立洲號 香醉山者。此山中香氣人嗅便醉故名香醉。一殑伽河。從東面出繞池一匝流入東海。二信度河。從南面出繞池一匝流入南海。三徙多河。從北面出繞池一匝流入北海。四縛芻河。從西面出繞池一匝流入西海。
論。復於何處置捺落迦。已下第六明地獄。就中有二。初明八大地獄。二明十六增。
論曰至無如是事。明處及明無間大地獄也。
論。有餘師說至而有等流。述異釋也。順正理論有一說云。有說無隙立無間名。雖有情少而身大故 此同婆娑一百一十五云以諸有情造大惡業生彼地獄得廣大身。一一身形悉皆廣大遍彼多處中無間隙故名無間。又一百七十二有一師云。雖亦有間假說無間。有說彼處恒受苦受無喜樂間故名無間 即是此論后釋 有說眾多有情造作惡業。相續生彼滿彼處所故名無間。評曰不應作是說。生餘地獄多生無間者少。所以者何。以造作增長上品身．語．意惡業者乃生彼處。有情造作增長上品惡業生彼處者少。造作增長中．下品惡業生餘地獄者多。如造作增長上品善業生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 住。遮末羅洲（Camara Continent）唯有羅剎婆（Rakshasa）居住。有人說這裡所說的八個名稱，實際上是四大洲的不同名稱，因為每一個洲都有兩個不同的名字。如果這樣說，應該按照最初的說法。根據這篇論文，兩種說法中，第一種說法是正確的。
頌曰：下面有一行頌文。第五部分闡明黑山等。
論曰：到『以立洲號』。香醉山：這座山中的香氣，人聞到就會醉，因此得名香醉。一、殑伽河（Ganga River）：從東面流出，環繞池塘一週，流入東海。二、信度河（Indus River）：從南面流出，環繞池塘一週，流入南海。三、徙多河（Sita River）：從北面流出，環繞池塘一週，流入北海。四、縛芻河（Oxus River）：從西面流出，環繞池塘一週，流入西海。
論：又在何處安置捺落迦（Naraka，地獄）？下面第六部分闡明地獄。其中分為兩部分：第一部分闡明八大地獄，第二部分闡明十六增地獄。
論曰：到『無如是事』。闡明了地獄的位置，以及闡明了無間大地獄。
論：有其他論師說，到『而有等流』。這是對不同觀點的解釋。《順正理論》中有一種說法是：有人說沒有空隙，所以稱為無間。雖然眾生數量少，但身體巨大。這與《婆娑論》第一百一十五卷中的說法相同，即眾生因為造作極大的惡業而生於彼地獄，得到廣大的身體。每一個身形都非常巨大，遍佈彼處，中間沒有間隙，所以稱為無間。又，《婆娑論》第一百七十二卷中有一位論師說：雖然也有間隙，但假稱為無間。有人說彼處恒常遭受痛苦，沒有喜樂的間隙，所以稱為無間，這與此論的后一種解釋相同。有人說眾多眾生造作惡業，相續不斷地生於彼處，充滿彼處，所以稱為無間。評論說：不應該這樣說。生於其他地獄的眾生多，生於無間地獄的眾生少。為什麼呢？因為只有造作增長上品身、語、意惡業的人才會生於彼處。眾生造作增長上品惡業而生於彼處的人少，造作增長中品、下品惡業而生於其他地獄的人多。如同造作增長上品善業而生
【English Translation】 English version: Dwelling. Only Rakshasas dwell in Camara Continent. Some say that the eight names mentioned here are actually different names for the four great continents, because each continent has two different names. If this is the case, it should be according to the initial statement. According to this treatise, the first statement of the two is correct.
Verse: Below is a line of verse. The fifth part elucidates Black Mountain, etc.
Treatise: To 'establish the continent's name'. Fragrant Intoxication Mountain: The fragrance in this mountain intoxicates people who smell it, hence the name Fragrant Intoxication. 1. Ganga River: Flows out from the east, circles the pond once, and flows into the Eastern Sea. 2. Indus River: Flows out from the south, circles the pond once, and flows into the Southern Sea. 3. Sita River: Flows out from the north, circles the pond once, and flows into the Northern Sea. 4. Oxus River: Flows out from the west, circles the pond once, and flows into the Western Sea.
Treatise: Where are the Narakas (hells) located? The sixth part below elucidates the hells. It is divided into two parts: the first part elucidates the eight great hells, and the second part elucidates the sixteen additional hells.
Treatise: To 'there is no such thing'. It clarifies the location of the hells and clarifies the Avici (uninterrupted) great hell.
Treatise: Some other teachers say, to 'and there are outflows'. This is an explanation of different views. In the Abhidharmakosha-bhasya, there is a saying: Some say that there is no gap, so it is called Avici. Although there are few sentient beings, their bodies are huge. This is the same as the saying in the Vibhasa, volume 115, that sentient beings are born in that hell because they have committed great evil deeds and have obtained vast bodies. Each body is very large, covering many places, and there is no gap in the middle, so it is called Avici. Also, in the Vibhasa, volume 172, there is a teacher who says: Although there are gaps, it is falsely called Avici. Some say that suffering is constantly endured in that place, and there is no gap of joy, so it is called Avici, which is the same as the latter explanation of this treatise. Some say that many sentient beings commit evil deeds and are continuously born in that place, filling that place, so it is called Avici. Comment: It should not be said like this. There are more sentient beings born in other hells, and fewer born in Avici hell. Why? Because only those who commit and increase the highest quality of evil deeds of body, speech, and mind are born in that place. There are few sentient beings who commit and increase the highest quality of evil deeds and are born in that place, and there are more who commit and increase the middle and lower quality of evil deeds and are born in other hells. Just like committing and increasing the highest quality of good deeds and being born
有頂者少。造作增長中．下品善生余處者多故。應作是說。由造作增長增上不善業生彼所得身形廣大。一一有情據多處所中無間隙故名無間 此評家義即是正理論中一師釋也。
論。七捺落迦至七者等活。此則明餘七地獄也。
論。有說。此七在無間傍。述異說。婆娑一百七十二云。問地獄在何處。答多分在此贍部洲下。云何安立。有說。從此洲下四萬逾繕那至無間地獄底。無間地獄縱廣高下各二萬逾繕那。次上一萬九千逾繕那中安立餘七地獄。此七地獄一一縱廣萬逾繕那。有說。從此洲下四萬逾繕那至無間地獄。此無間地獄縱廣高下各二萬逾繕那。次上有三萬五千逾繕那安立餘七地獄。一一縱廣高下五千逾繕那。有說。無間地獄在於中央。餘七地獄圍匝圍繞。如今聚落圍繞大城。
論。八捺落迦增各十六。已下第二釋十六增。先引經中二行頌證。后牒釋也。
論。故薄伽梵至猛火恒洞然。引經證有十六增也。
論。十六增者至各有四所。先標數處。
論。煻煨增至平復如本。釋第一也。
論。二尸糞增至𠯗食其髓。釋第二也。
論。三鉾刃增至復有三種。此開第三以為三也。
論。一刀刃路至平復如本。釋第一也。
論。二釰葉林至齟掣食之。釋第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有頂天（Bhavagra，指色界最高的有頂天）的眾生很少。因為在造作增長的過程中，下品善業所生的眾生多在其他地方。應該這樣說：由於造作增長了增上的不善業，導致他們所生的身體形體廣大。每一個有情佔據很多處所，中間沒有間隙，所以叫做無間（Avīci，八大地獄中最苦之處）。這是評家（釋經論者）的觀點，也就是《阿毗達磨俱舍論》（Abhidharmakośa）中一位論師的解釋。 論：七捺落迦（Naraka，地獄）至七者等活（Sañjīva，八熱地獄之首）。這說明了其餘七個地獄。 論：有說，這七個地獄在無間地獄的旁邊。敘述不同的說法。《大毗婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā）第一百七十二卷說：問：地獄在什麼地方？答：大部分在此贍部洲（Jambudvīpa，我們所居住的這個世界）之下。如何安立呢？有說：從此贍部洲下四萬逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）到達無間地獄的底部。無間地獄縱廣高下各二萬逾繕那。再往上一萬九千逾繕那中安立其餘七個地獄。這七個地獄每一個縱廣一萬逾繕那。有說：從此洲下四萬逾繕那到達無間地獄。這個無間地獄縱廣高下各二萬逾繕那。再往上有三萬五千逾繕那安立其餘七個地獄。每一個縱廣高下五千逾繕那。有說：無間地獄在於中央，其餘七個地獄圍繞在它的周圍，就像村落圍繞著大城市一樣。 論：八捺落迦增各十六。以下第二解釋十六增。先引用經中的兩行頌來證明，然後解釋。 論：故薄伽梵（Bhagavat，佛的尊號）至猛火恒洞然。引用經文證明有十六增。 論：十六增者至各有四所。先標出數量和處所。 論：煻煨增（Bhasmakūpa，灰坑）至平復如本。解釋第一種。 論：二尸糞增（Kukūla，糞屎泥）至𠯗食其髓。解釋第二種。 論：三鉾刃增（Śūla，三叉戟）至復有三種。這裡將第三種分為三種。 論：一刀刃路（Asipatravana，刀刃林）至平復如本。解釋第一種。 論：二釰葉林（Kṣurapatravana，劍葉林）至齟掣食之。解釋第二種。
【English Translation】 English version: Beings in Bhavagra (the highest realm of the Form Realm) are few. Because in the process of karmic formation and increase, beings born from inferior wholesome deeds mostly reside elsewhere. It should be said that due to the formation and increase of intensified unwholesome karma, their resulting bodies are vast in form. Each sentient being occupies many places without any gaps in between, hence it is called Avīci (the most painful of the eight great hells). This is the view of the commentators, which is also the explanation of one master in the Abhidharmakośa. Treatise: 'Seven Naraka (hells) to seven Sañjīva (the first of the eight hot hells).' This explains the remaining seven hells. Treatise: Some say that these seven hells are beside the Avīci hell. Narrating different views, the Mahāvibhāṣā, volume 172, says: Question: Where are the hells located? Answer: Mostly below this Jambudvīpa (the world we live in). How are they arranged? Some say that from this Jambudvīpa, 40,000 Yojana (an ancient Indian unit of length) down to the bottom of the Avīci hell. The Avīci hell is 20,000 Yojana in length, width, and height. Above that, in 19,000 Yojana, the remaining seven hells are arranged. Each of these seven hells is 10,000 Yojana in length and width. Some say that from this continent, 40,000 Yojana down to the Avīci hell. This Avīci hell is 20,000 Yojana in length, width, and height. Above that, in 35,000 Yojana, the remaining seven hells are arranged. Each is 5,000 Yojana in length, width, and height. Some say that the Avīci hell is in the center, and the remaining seven hells surround it, just like villages surrounding a large city. Treatise: 'Eight Naraka increase by sixteen each.' The following is the second explanation of the sixteen augmentations. First, two lines of verse from the scriptures are cited as proof, and then explained. Treatise: 'Therefore, the Bhagavat (an epithet of the Buddha) to fierce fire constantly blazing.' Citing scriptures to prove that there are sixteen augmentations. Treatise: 'The sixteen augmentations to each having four places.' First, the number and places are indicated. Treatise: 'The Bhasmakūpa (ash pit) augmentation to returning to its original state.' Explaining the first one. Treatise: 'The Kukūla (excrement mud) augmentation to worms eating their marrow.' Explaining the second one. Treatise: 'The Śūla (trident) augmentation to again having three kinds.' Here, the third one is divided into three. Treatise: 'The Asipatravana (sword-leaf forest) to returning to its original state.' Explaining the first one. Treatise: 'The Kṣurapatravana (razor-leaf forest) to tearing and devouring them.' Explaining the second one.
二也。
論。三鐵剌林至故一增攝。此釋第三並總結也。
論。四烈河增至故言皆十六。釋第四增並總結也。
論。此是增上至重遭害故。釋增名也。以本地獄適被害已重遭害故。故名增上被刑害所。
論。有說有情至故說為增。述異釋也。前以苦重增上故名增。后釋以數受苦故名增。評其論意。只是兩釋。不是三解。有人謂是三解誤也。正理論云。此十六中受苦增劇過本地獄故說為增。或於此中受種種苦。苦具多類故說為增。
論。今於此中至是有情不。自此已下明地獄卒是有情不。問也。
論。有說非情。答。
如何動作。問。
論。有情業力如成劫風。答。
論。若爾云何至死作琰魔卒。難。
論。琰魔王使至非實有情。此通難也。
論。有說有情。述異說。
論。若爾此惡業何處受異熟。問。
論。即地獄中至此何理遮。答。
論。若爾何緣火不燒彼。難也。
論。此定由業力至故不彼燒。釋。于中有兩釋。如文可解。正理論云。無間．大熱．及炎熱三。于中皆無獄卒防守。大叫．號叫．及眾合三少有獄卒。琰魔王使時時往來巡撿彼故。其餘皆為獄卒防守。有情無情異類獄卒防守治罰罪有情故。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 二也。
論：『三鐵剌林』至『故一增攝』。此解釋第三增地獄並作總結。
論：『四烈河增』至『故言皆十六』。解釋第四增地獄並作總結。
論：『此是增上』至『重遭害故』。解釋『增』的名稱。因為本地獄遭受損害后又再次遭受損害，所以稱為增上被刑害處。
論：『有說有情』至『故說為增』。這是另一種解釋。之前解釋為苦難深重增上所以名為『增』，這裡解釋為多次受苦所以名為『增』。評論其論點，只是兩種解釋，不是三種解釋。有人認為是三種解釋是錯誤的。《正理論》說：『這十六種地獄中，所受的痛苦比本地獄更加劇烈，所以稱為增。或者在這裡面遭受各種各樣的痛苦，痛苦的種類繁多，所以稱為增。』
論：『今於此中』至『是有情不』？從這裡開始說明地獄獄卒是不是有情眾生。這是提問。
論：『有說非情』。回答。
『如何動作』？提問。
論：『有情業力如成劫風』。回答。
論：『若爾云何』至『死作琰魔卒』？責難。
論：『琰魔王使』至『非實有情』。這是普遍的責難。
論：『有說有情』。陳述不同的觀點。
論：『若爾此惡業何處受異熟』？提問。
論：『即地獄中』至『此何理遮』？回答。
論：『若爾何緣火不燒彼』？責難。
論：『此定由業力』至『故不彼燒』。解釋。其中有兩種解釋，如文中所述可以理解。《正理論》說：『無間地獄、大熱地獄和炎熱地獄這三種地獄中，都沒有獄卒防守。大叫地獄、號叫地獄和眾合地獄這三種地獄中，很少有獄卒。閻魔王（Yama，掌管地獄的王）的使者時常往來巡視。其餘的地獄都有獄卒防守。有情和無情不同種類的獄卒防守和懲罰罪惡的有情眾生。』
論。
【English Translation】 Two also.
Treatise: 『Three Tielaci forests』 to 『therefore one is included』. This explains the third incremental hell and summarizes it.
Treatise: 『Four Fierce Rivers increase』 to 『therefore all are said to be sixteen』. Explains the fourth incremental hell and summarizes it.
Treatise: 『This is increasing above』 to 『therefore heavily harmed』. Explains the name 『increase』. Because the local hell has already suffered harm and is heavily harmed again, therefore it is called the place of increased punishment.
Treatise: 『Some say sentient beings』 to 『therefore it is said to be increase』. This is another explanation. The previous explanation was that suffering is heavy and increasing above, therefore it is called 『increase』. This explanation is that suffering is received many times, therefore it is called 『increase』. Commenting on its argument, there are only two explanations, not three. It is a mistake for some to think that there are three explanations. The Abhidharmakosha-bhasya says: 『Among these sixteen, the suffering received is more severe than in the local hell, therefore it is called increase. Or in this, various kinds of suffering are received, and there are many kinds of suffering tools, therefore it is called increase.』
Treatise: 『Now in this』 to 『are there sentient beings or not?』 From here onwards, it is explained whether the hell wardens are sentient beings or not. This is a question.
Treatise: 『Some say non-sentient』. Answer.
『How do they act?』 Question.
Treatise: 『The karma of sentient beings is like the wind that forms a kalpa (aeon, an immense period of time)』. Answer.
Treatise: 『If so, how』 to 『die and become Yama』s (the lord of death) wardens?』 Challenge.
Treatise: 『Yama』s messengers』 to 『are not real sentient beings』. This is a general challenge.
Treatise: 『Some say sentient beings』. States a different view.
Treatise: 『If so, where does this evil karma receive its different maturation?』 Question.
Treatise: 『In the hell itself』 to 『what reason is there to prevent this?』 Answer.
Treatise: 『If so, why doesn』t the fire burn them?』 Challenge.
Treatise: 『This is definitely due to the power of karma』 to 『therefore it does not burn them』. Explanation. There are two explanations in it, which can be understood as described in the text. The Abhidharmakosha-bhasya says: 『In the Avici (uninterrupted) hell, the Tapana (great heat) hell, and the Pratapana (intense heat) hell, there are no wardens guarding them. In the Kalaha (great cry) hell, the Raurava (screaming) hell, and the Samghata (crushing) hell, there are few wardens. Yama』s messengers often come and go to inspect them. The rest are guarded by wardens. Sentient and non-sentient wardens of different kinds guard and punish sinful sentient beings.』
Treatise.
熱捺落迦至其八者何。已下釋 八寒地獄。先即列名。后明處也。
論。一頞部陀至摩訶缽特摩。頞部陀者。此云皰。嚴寒逼身生其皰也 尼剌部陀。此云皰裂。嚴寒過前身皰裂也。已上從身皰及皰裂得名 頞哳吒。是忍寒聲。寒增故口不得開。但得動舌作哳吒聲。
臛臛婆者。寒轉增故舌不得動。但得作臛臛聲 虎虎婆者。寒增故不得開口。但得作虎虎聲 嗢缽羅者。此云青蓮花。寒轉增故身色變青如青蓮花 缽特摩者。此云赤蓮花。寒增故其身拆裂如赤蓮花 摩訶缽特摩。此云大赤蓮花。寒轉增故其身拆裂如大赤蓮花。已上列名。
論。此中有情至以立其名。釋立名所以。前二．后三隨身變立名。第三．四．五從聲變立名也。
論。此八並居至大地獄傍。此明處也。
論。此贍部洲至無間等耶。難。
論。洲如谷聚至漸狹漸深。答。
論。如上所論至增上業感。總述前地獄處是增上共業果也。
論。余孤地獄至空及余處。明孤地獄各別業招處所不定。
論。諸地獄器至支派不定。總結地獄處也。
論。傍生住處至后流余處。述傍生處。
論。諸鬼本處至廣說如經。述鬼住處並貧富異。正理論云。此贍部洲南邊直下深過五百逾繕那量有琰魔王
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 什麼是第八種熱地獄？以下解釋八寒地獄。首先列出名稱，然後說明其處所。
論：一、頞部陀（Arbuda，意為皰），至摩訶缽特摩（Mahāpadma，意為大赤蓮花）。頞部陀，意為『皰』。嚴寒逼迫身體，生出皰瘡。尼剌部陀（Nirarbuda），意為『皰裂』。嚴寒超過之前，身體的皰瘡破裂。以上兩種地獄從身體生皰及皰裂而得名。頞哳吒（Aṭaṭa），是忍受寒冷的聲音。因為寒冷加劇，口不能張開，只能動舌頭發出『哳吒』的聲音。
臛臛婆（Hahava），寒冷更加嚴重，舌頭不能動彈，只能發出『臛臛』的聲音。虎虎婆（Huhuva），寒冷加劇，不能張開口，只能發出『虎虎』的聲音。嗢缽羅（Utpala），意為青蓮花。寒冷更加嚴重，身體顏色變得像青蓮花一樣青色。缽特摩（Padma），意為赤蓮花。寒冷加劇，身體開裂如赤蓮花。摩訶缽特摩（Mahāpadma），意為大赤蓮花。寒冷更加嚴重，身體開裂如大赤蓮花。以上是列出名稱。
論：這些有情眾生……以此來建立其名稱。解釋建立名稱的原因。前兩種地獄、后三種地獄，隨身體的變化而立名。第三、四、五種地獄從聲音的變化而立名。
論：這八種地獄都位於……大地獄的旁邊。這說明了它們的處所。
論：此贍部洲（Jambudvīpa，我們所居住的洲）……難道沒有無間地獄等嗎？提問。
論：洲像谷堆……逐漸狹窄、逐漸深入。回答。
論：如上所論……是增上業的果報。總結前面所說的地獄處所，是增上共同業力的果報。
論：其餘的孤獨地獄……在空中及其他地方。說明孤獨地獄各自的業力招感，處所不固定。
論：各種地獄的器物……支派不固定。總結地獄的處所。
論：傍生居住的地方……後世流轉的其餘處所。敘述傍生所居住的地方。
論：諸鬼的本處……詳細的說明如經典所說。敘述鬼的住處以及貧富的差異。《正理論》說：此贍部洲南邊直下，深度超過五百逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）的地方，有琰魔王（Yama，地獄之王）。
【English Translation】 English version: What are the eight hot hells? The following explains the eight cold hells. First, the names are listed, and then their locations are described.
Treatise: One, Arbuda (meaning 'blister'), to Mahāpadma (meaning 'great red lotus'). Arbuda means 'blister'. Severe cold presses upon the body, causing blisters to form. Nirarbuda means 'blister burst'. The severe cold exceeds the previous one, causing the blisters on the body to burst. The above two hells are named after the formation and bursting of blisters on the body. Aṭaṭa is the sound of enduring cold. Because the cold intensifies, the mouth cannot open, and one can only move the tongue to make the 'aṭaṭa' sound.
Hahava: The cold becomes even more severe, and the tongue cannot move, only able to make the 'hahava' sound. Huhuva: The cold intensifies, and one cannot open the mouth, only able to make the 'huhuva' sound. Utpala means 'blue lotus'. The cold becomes even more severe, and the body color turns blue like a blue lotus. Padma means 'red lotus'. The cold intensifies, and the body cracks open like a red lotus. Mahāpadma means 'great red lotus'. The cold becomes even more severe, and the body cracks open like a great red lotus. The above is a list of names.
Treatise: These sentient beings... establish their names based on this. Explains the reason for establishing the names. The first two hells and the last three hells are named according to the changes in the body. The third, fourth, and fifth hells are named according to the changes in sound.
Treatise: These eight hells are all located... next to the great hell. This explains their location.
Treatise: This Jambudvīpa (the continent we live on)... are there no Avīci hells, etc.? Question.
Treatise: The continent is like a pile of grain... gradually narrowing and deepening. Answer.
Treatise: As discussed above... is the result of intensified karma. Summarizes the hellish places mentioned earlier as the result of intensified collective karma.
Treatise: The remaining solitary hells... in the air and other places. Explains that the karmic retributions of solitary hells are different, and their locations are not fixed.
Treatise: The various hellish instruments... their branches are not fixed. Summarizes the locations of the hells.
Treatise: The places where animals reside... the remaining places of transmigration in later lives. Describes the places where animals reside.
Treatise: The original places of the ghosts... detailed explanations are as described in the scriptures. Describes the places where ghosts reside and the differences in their wealth and poverty. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: Directly below the southern edge of this Jambudvīpa, at a depth of more than five hundred yojanas, is Yama (the King of Hell).
都。縱廣量亦爾 有人云。以此文證明知金剛座近北。諸地獄等在王都下稍近南邊不相妨也 今詳此釋事恐不然。無間地獄廣二萬逾繕那。於四門外有十六增。或說七地獄繞無間獄。其傍復有寒地獄處。縱少近南亦侵金剛座下。今現人趣居處與鬼趣宅舍不相障礙。故知地獄鬼趣與金剛座不相妨也。若不爾者。鬼趣等處豈無土石等耶。
論。日月所居量等義者。自此已下有三行頌。第七明日．月處量。
論曰至令不停墜。明日．月等所依處也。
論。彼所住去此至妙高山半。述高下也。
論。日月徑量至十六逾繕那。述大小也。
論。日輪下面至為益為損。述體用也。因生長者為益。因衰落者為損。
論。唯一日月至余例應知。述用廣狹 北洲夜半東洲日沒南洲日中西洲日出者。此據一時而論。非全盡理。若不爾者。北洲夜半南洲日中。理且可然。東洲日沒當妙高山東南角。南洲日中當妙高山正南。西方日出當妙高山西南。豈全定也。
論。日行此洲至晝即漸增。述日夜增減。泛言夜增晝增夜減晝減有其兩義 一夜短其晝已去晝增。晝短其夜已去名夜增。若取此義。即秋分已后是夜增。春分已去名晝增。二起此時已去夜漸進長即第二日長第一日等名夜增。晝增翻此。若依此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 都城（王都）。縱向和橫向的量度也是如此。有人說，用這段文字可以證明金剛座（Vajrasana，佛陀成道之處）靠近北方，而諸地獄等位於王都之下，稍微靠近南方，彼此不妨礙。現在詳細考察這種解釋，恐怕不對。無間地獄（Avici hell，八大地獄中最苦之處）廣闊二萬由旬（Yojana，古印度長度單位）。在四個門外還有十六個增大地獄。或者說七個地獄圍繞著無間地獄。它的旁邊還有寒地獄。即使稍微靠近南方，也會侵佔金剛座之下。現在人趣的居住之處與鬼趣的宅舍互不障礙。所以可知地獄鬼趣與金剛座互不妨礙。如果不是這樣，鬼趣等處難道沒有土石等嗎？
論：日月所居量等義者。從這裡開始有三行頌文。第七，闡明日月所處的位置和量度。
論曰：至令不停墜。闡明日月等所依靠的處所。
論：彼所住去此至妙高山半。描述了高低。
論：日月徑量至十六逾繕那。描述了大小。
論：日輪下面至為益為損。描述了體和用。因為生長而受益的是益，因為衰落而受損的是損。
論：唯一日月至余例應知。描述了作用的廣狹。北洲夜半，東洲日沒，南洲日中，西洲日出，這是根據一時的情況而論，並非完全合理。如果不是這樣，北洲夜半，南洲日中，道理還說得過去。東洲日沒，應該在妙高山（Mount Meru，佛教宇宙觀中的須彌山）東南角。南洲日中，應該在妙高山正南。西洲日出，應該在妙高山西南。怎麼能完全確定呢？
論：日行此洲至晝即漸增。描述了日夜的增減。泛泛地說夜增晝增，夜減晝減，有兩種含義。一夜短，白晝已經過去，叫做晝增。白晝短，夜晚已經過去，叫做夜增。如果取這種含義，那麼秋分以後就是夜增，春分以後叫做晝增。二，從此時開始，夜晚逐漸增長，即第二天比第一天長，叫做夜增。晝增與此相反。如果依照這種
【English Translation】 English version: The capital (Rajagriha). The longitudinal and latitudinal measurements are also the same. Some say that this passage proves that Vajrasana (the Diamond Throne, where the Buddha attained enlightenment) is near the north, while the various hells are located below the capital, slightly closer to the south, and do not interfere with each other. Now, upon detailed examination of this explanation, I fear it is not correct. The Avici hell (the hell of incessant suffering, the most painful of the eight great hells) is 20,000 yojanas (an ancient Indian unit of distance) in breadth. Outside the four gates, there are also sixteen additional hells. Or it is said that seven hells surround the Avici hell. Beside it, there are also cold hells. Even if slightly closer to the south, they would encroach upon the area beneath Vajrasana. Now, the dwelling places of humans and the abodes of ghosts do not obstruct each other. Therefore, it can be known that the hells and the ghost realms do not interfere with Vajrasana. If this were not the case, would there be no earth and stones in the ghost realms, etc.?
Treatise: 'The meaning of the measure of the places where the sun and moon reside.' From here onwards, there are three lines of verses. Seventh, to clarify the positions and measures of the sun and moon.
Treatise says: 'Until they do not stop falling.' Clarifies the places upon which the sun, moon, etc., rely.
Treatise: 'Their dwelling place is halfway up Mount Meru from here.' Describes the height.
Treatise: 'The diameter of the sun and moon is sixteen yojanas.' Describes the size.
Treatise: 'The underside of the sun's disc is for benefit or harm.' Describes the substance and function. That which benefits due to growth is 'benefit,' and that which is harmed due to decline is 'harm.'
Treatise: 'The single sun and moon, the rest should be known accordingly.' Describes the breadth of the function. 'The northern continent is midnight, the eastern continent is sunset, the southern continent is midday, and the western continent is sunrise.' This is discussed according to a particular moment and is not entirely reasonable. If it were not so, the northern continent being midnight and the southern continent being midday would be reasonable. The eastern continent at sunset should be at the southeast corner of Mount Meru (the central mountain in Buddhist cosmology). The southern continent at midday should be directly south of Mount Meru. The western continent at sunrise should be southwest of Mount Meru. How can it be completely certain?
Treatise: 'The sun travels in this continent until the day gradually increases.' Describes the increase and decrease of day and night. Generally speaking of night increasing and day increasing, night decreasing and day decreasing, there are two meanings. One, the night is short, the day has passed, this is called 'day increasing.' The day is short, the night has passed, this is called 'night increasing.' If this meaning is taken, then after the autumnal equinox it is 'night increasing,' and after the vernal equinox it is called 'day increasing.' Two, from this time onwards, the night gradually increases, that is, the second day is longer than the first day, this is called 'night increasing.' 'Day increasing' is the opposite of this. If according to this
義即夏至日已去名夜增。冬至日已去名晝增也 問此論所明增減為是何者 答準論云。日行此洲向南向北。如其次第夜增晝增。即夏至已后至冬至日夜增。冬至日已后至夏至日晝增。婆娑一百三十六云。然晝與夜增減相違。雖各二時而無四位。晝夜增減各一臘縛。則各一牟呼栗多。三十牟呼栗多成一晝夜。于中晝夜多少四類不同。增位極長不過十八。減位極短唯有十二。晝夜停位各有十五。謂羯栗底迦月白半第八日。晝夜各有十五牟呼栗多。從此已后晝減夜增 釋曰。西方以黑月為先。白月為后。羯栗底迦是此方八月。若以此方七月十六日為月初。白半即當此方八月八日。若以此方八月十六日為月初。白半即當此方九月八日。晝夜停時當此方八月十五日。以八日後晝減．夜增故。亦即是節氣月日。非是月生．月盡月日。此月生．月盡晝夜增減不定故。若以此方八月八日晝夜停。西方節氣先於此方七日。若以此方九月八日晝夜停。西方節氣晚於此方二十三日。準輪圍山徑一百二十萬八百七十五逾繕那略計西洲。南洲。相去三十萬逾繕那。南洲節氣不同計有九十日異。此國去彼國無四五萬里。節氣七日不同是即不違。若二十三日不同理即令隔。應以七月十六日為羯栗底迦月。為月初定 又婆娑云。至末伽始羅月白半第八日
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 意義是夏至日過後，夜晚的時間增加。冬至日過後，白晝的時間增加。 問：這個論述所說明的增減指的是什麼？ 答：根據論述所說，太陽執行於此洲，或向南或向北。按照順序，夜晚增加或白晝增加。也就是夏至過後到冬至日，夜晚增加。冬至日過後到夏至日，白晝增加。《婆娑》（Vipassanā，內觀）第一百三十六卷說：『然而白晝與夜晚的增減是相反的。雖然各有兩次增減，但沒有四種位置。白晝夜晚的增減各一個『臘縛』（lava，極短的時間單位），也就是各一個『牟呼栗多』（muhurta，印度時間單位，約48分鐘）。三十個『牟呼栗多』成為一個晝夜。其中晝夜的長短有四種不同。增加到最長不超過十八個單位，減少到最短只有十二個單位。晝夜時間相等的各有十五個單位。』指的是『羯栗底迦月』（Kārttika，印度歷第八個月）白半第八日，白晝夜晚各有十五個『牟呼栗多』。從此以後，白晝減少，夜晚增加。 解釋說：西方以黑月為先，白月為后。『羯栗底迦』是此地的八月。如果以此地七月十六日為月初，白半就相當於此地的八月八日。如果以此地八月十六日為月初，白半就相當於此地的九月八日。晝夜時間相等的時候相當於此地的八月十五日。因為八日後白晝減少，夜晚增加。也就是節氣的月日，不是月生、月盡的月日。因為月生、月盡時晝夜的增減是不定的。如果以此地八月八日晝夜時間相等，西方的節氣就早於此地七日。如果以此地九月八日晝夜時間相等，西方的節氣就晚於此地二十三日。根據輪圍山直徑一百二十萬八百七十五『逾繕那』（yojana，長度單位）略計，西洲、南洲相距三十萬『逾繕那』。南洲節氣不同，計算下來有九十日的差異。此國去彼國沒有四五萬里，節氣七日不同，這就不違背常理。如果二十三日不同，道理上就相隔太遠了。應該以七月十六日為『羯栗底迦月』的月初來確定。 又《婆娑》（Vipassanā，內觀）說：到『末伽始羅月』（Mārgaśīrsha，印度歷第九個月）白半第八日
【English Translation】 English version The meaning is that after the summer solstice, the time of night increases. After the winter solstice, the time of daylight increases. Question: What does the increase and decrease explained in this treatise refer to? Answer: According to the treatise, the sun travels in this continent, either southward or northward. In order, the night increases or the day increases. That is, from after the summer solstice to the winter solstice, the night increases. From after the winter solstice to the summer solstice, the day increases. The one hundred and thirty-sixth volume of the 'Vipassanā' (婆娑, Inner Vision) says: 'However, the increase and decrease of day and night are opposite. Although there are two increases and decreases each, there are no four positions. The increase and decrease of day and night are each one 'lava' (臘縛, an extremely short unit of time), which is each one 'muhurta' (牟呼栗多, an Indian unit of time, approximately 48 minutes). Thirty 'muhurtas' make one day and night. Among them, the length of day and night has four different types. Increasing to the longest does not exceed eighteen units, and decreasing to the shortest is only twelve units.' It refers to the eighth day of the white half of 'Kārttika' (羯栗底迦月, the eighth month in the Indian calendar), where day and night each have fifteen 'muhurtas'. From then on, the day decreases and the night increases. The explanation says: The West takes the dark month first and the white month last. 'Kārttika' (羯栗底迦) is the eighth month here. If the sixteenth day of the seventh month here is taken as the beginning of the month, the white half is equivalent to the eighth day of the eighth month here. If the sixteenth day of the eighth month here is taken as the beginning of the month, the white half is equivalent to the eighth day of the ninth month here. The time when day and night are equal is equivalent to the fifteenth day of the eighth month here. Because after the eighth day, the day decreases and the night increases. That is, the month and day of the solar term, not the month and day of the new moon or full moon. Because the increase and decrease of day and night are uncertain at the new moon and full moon. If the time when day and night are equal is the eighth day of the eighth month here, the solar term in the West is seven days earlier than here. If the time when day and night are equal is the eighth day of the ninth month here, the solar term in the West is twenty-three days later than here. According to the diameter of Mount Sumeru, which is one million two hundred thousand eight hundred and seventy-five 'yojanas' (逾繕那, a unit of length), roughly estimating, the distance between the Western Continent and the Southern Continent is three hundred thousand 'yojanas'. The solar terms in the Southern Continent are different, and the calculation shows a difference of ninety days. This country is not four or five ten thousand miles away from that country, and a difference of seven days in the solar terms does not violate common sense. If there is a difference of twenty-three days, the reasoning is too far apart. The sixteenth day of the seventh month should be taken as the beginning of the month for 'Kārttika' (羯栗底迦月) to determine. Also, the 'Vipassanā' (婆娑, Inner Vision) says: Until the eighth day of the white half of 'Mārgaśīrsha' (末伽始羅月, the ninth month in the Indian calendar).
。夜有十六牟呼栗多晝十四。至報沙月白半第八日。夜有十七晝十三。至摩迦月白半第八日。夜有十八晝十二。從此已后夜減晝增各一臘縛。至頗勒窶那月白半第八日。夜有十七晝有十三。至制怛羅月白半第八日。夜有十六晝有十四。至吠舍佉月白半第八日。(此當此方二月八日。亦云從此已后夜減晝增)晝夜各十五。從此以後夜減晝增各一臘縛。至誓瑟搋月白半第八日。夜有十四晝有十六。至阿沙荼月白半第八日。夜有十三晝有十七。至室羅筏拏月白半第八日(此當此方五月八日)夜有十二晝十八。從此已后晝減夜增各一臘縛。至婆達羅缽陀月白半第八日。夜有十三晝十七。至阿濕縛庾阇月白半第八日。夜有十四晝十六。如是復至羯栗底迦月白半第八日(當此方八月八日。西方八月二十三日)晝夜停等。是名略說時之分齊 準上論文。日向北六月夜減。向南六月夜增。然標晝．夜增．減言於四處至羯栗底迦月白半第八。晝夜各十五牟呼栗多。此後復云從此已后晝減夜增(此當此方八月九日。西方八月二十四日)至摩迦月白半第八日夜十八晝十二牟呼栗多(當此方十一月)是夜極長。於此已后亦言從此已后夜減晝增。至吠舍佉月白半第八日晝．夜．各十五牟呼栗多。此後亦云從此已后夜減晝增(當此方二月九日)至室
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：夜間有十六牟呼栗多（Muhurta，印度時間單位，約等於48分鐘），白天十四。到報沙月（Pausha，印度歷月份，約在公曆12月至1月）白半第八日，夜間有十七，白天十三。到摩迦月（Magha，印度歷月份，約在公曆1月至2月）白半第八日，夜間有十八，白天十二。從此以後，夜晚減少白天增加，每次各一臘縛（Lava，印度時間單位，約等於2/5秒）。到頗勒窶那月（Phalguna，印度歷月份，約在公曆2月至3月）白半第八日，夜間有十七，白天有十三。到制怛羅月（Chaitra，印度歷月份，約在公曆3月至4月）白半第八日，夜間有十六，白天有十四。到吠舍佉月（Vaishakha，印度歷月份，約在公曆4月至5月）白半第八日（這相當於此地農曆二月初八，也有說從此以後夜晚減少白天增加），白天和夜晚各有十五。從此以後，夜晚減少白天增加，每次各一臘縛。到誓瑟搋月（Jyeshtha，印度歷月份，約在公曆5月至6月）白半第八日，夜間有十四，白天有十六。到阿沙荼月（Ashadha，印度歷月份，約在公曆6月至7月）白半第八日，夜間有十三，白天有十七。到室羅筏拏月（Shravana，印度歷月份，約在公曆7月至8月）白半第八日（這相當於此地農曆五月初八），夜間有十二，白天十八。從此以後，白天減少夜晚增加，每次各一臘縛。到婆達羅缽陀月（Bhadrapada，印度歷月份，約在公曆8月至9月）白半第八日，夜間有十三，白天十七。到阿濕縛庾阇月（Ashwayuja，印度歷月份，約在公曆9月至10月）白半第八日，夜間有十四，白天十六。這樣再次到羯栗底迦月（Kartika，印度歷月份，約在公曆10月至11月）白半第八日（相當於此地農曆八月初八，西方農曆八月二十三日），白天和夜晚相等。這叫做簡略地說明時間的區分。
依照上面的論文，太陽向北執行六個月，夜晚減少；向南執行六個月，夜晚增加。然而在四處標明白天、夜晚增加、減少的說法，到羯栗底迦月白半第八日，白天和夜晚各有十五牟呼栗多。此後又說從此以後白天減少夜晚增加（這相當於此地農曆八月初九，西方農曆八月二十四日），到摩迦月白半第八日，夜晚十八白天十二牟呼栗多（相當於此地農曆十一月），這是夜晚最長的時候。在此以後也說從此以後夜晚減少白天增加，到吠舍佉月白半第八日，白天、夜晚各有十五牟呼栗多。此後也說從此以後夜晚減少白天增加（相當於此地農曆二月初九），到室 羅
【English Translation】 English version: At night there are sixteen Muhurtas (Muhurta, an Indian unit of time, approximately equal to 48 minutes), and fourteen during the day. By the eighth day of the bright half of Pausha (Pausha, a month in the Indian calendar, approximately December to January in the Gregorian calendar), there are seventeen at night and thirteen during the day. By the eighth day of the bright half of Magha (Magha, a month in the Indian calendar, approximately January to February in the Gregorian calendar), there are eighteen at night and twelve during the day. From then on, the night decreases and the day increases, each by one Lava (Lava, an Indian unit of time, approximately equal to 2/5 of a second). By the eighth day of the bright half of Phalguna (Phalguna, a month in the Indian calendar, approximately February to March in the Gregorian calendar), there are seventeen at night and thirteen during the day. By the eighth day of the bright half of Chaitra (Chaitra, a month in the Indian calendar, approximately March to April in the Gregorian calendar), there are sixteen at night and fourteen during the day. By the eighth day of the bright half of Vaishakha (Vaishakha, a month in the Indian calendar, approximately April to May in the Gregorian calendar) (this corresponds to the eighth day of the second lunar month here, and it is also said that from then on the night decreases and the day increases), there are fifteen each for day and night. From then on, the night decreases and the day increases, each by one Lava. By the eighth day of the bright half of Jyeshtha (Jyeshtha, a month in the Indian calendar, approximately May to June in the Gregorian calendar), there are fourteen at night and sixteen during the day. By the eighth day of the bright half of Ashadha (Ashadha, a month in the Indian calendar, approximately June to July in the Gregorian calendar), there are thirteen at night and seventeen during the day. By the eighth day of the bright half of Shravana (Shravana, a month in the Indian calendar, approximately July to August in the Gregorian calendar) (this corresponds to the eighth day of the fifth lunar month here), there are twelve at night and eighteen during the day. From then on, the day decreases and the night increases, each by one Lava. By the eighth day of the bright half of Bhadrapada (Bhadrapada, a month in the Indian calendar, approximately August to September in the Gregorian calendar), there are thirteen at night and seventeen during the day. By the eighth day of the bright half of Ashwayuja (Ashwayuja, a month in the Indian calendar, approximately September to October in the Gregorian calendar), there are fourteen at night and sixteen during the day. Thus, again, by the eighth day of the bright half of Kartika (Kartika, a month in the Indian calendar, approximately October to November in the Gregorian calendar) (corresponding to the eighth day of the eighth lunar month here, and the twenty-third day of the eighth lunar month in the West), day and night are equal. This is called a brief explanation of the divisions of time.
According to the above text, the sun moves north for six months, and the night decreases; it moves south for six months, and the night increases. However, the statements of day and night increasing and decreasing are marked in four places. By the eighth day of the bright half of Kartika, day and night each have fifteen Muhurtas. After this, it is also said that from then on the day decreases and the night increases (this corresponds to the ninth day of the eighth lunar month here, and the twenty-fourth day of the eighth lunar month in the West), and by the eighth day of the bright half of Magha, there are eighteen Muhurtas at night and twelve during the day (corresponding to the eleventh lunar month here), which is the longest night. After this, it is also said that from then on the night decreases and the day increases, and by the eighth day of the bright half of Vaishakha, day and night each have fifteen Muhurtas. After this, it is also said that from then on the night decreases and the day increases (corresponding to the ninth day of the second lunar month here), and by the eighth day of the bright half of Shra
羅筏拏月白半第八日。夜有十二晝十八(此當此方五月八日。西方五月二十三日)此後亦云從此已后晝減夜增。當九日也 此論云。日行此洲路有差別故令晝夜有減有增者。當婆沙云然晝與夜增減相違雖各二時而無四位 論云從雨際第二月後半第九日夜漸增。此說五月九日．八月九日。皆悉不違婆沙所說。於此雨際第八日後。皆言從此後晝減夜增故。準此論文。五月九日婆沙云白半。此論云後半。故知第二月初即是四月十六日。第一月初即是三月十六日 論云從寒際第四月後半第九日夜漸減。此說十一月九日．二月九日。皆悉不違婆沙所說。於此兩月第八日後皆言從此後夜減晝增故。準此論文。日向南夜增晝減。故云後半婆娑云白半。故知是此方十一月九日夜極長也。若以五月為雨際第二月即此方四月十六日為雨際第二月初。與四分律不同。四分律以四月十六日為雨際第一月故。若以八月為雨際第二月。即此方六月十六日為雨際第一月初。若以十一月為寒際第四月。即此方七月十六日為寒際之初。與四分律不同。若以二月為寒際第四月。即十月十六日為寒際初。皆不違婆沙文也。然取順此方時。應以六月十六日為雨際之初。此方立秋已去多雨故。唐三藏以三月十六日為雨際之初。取五月九日夜增。亦不違婆沙 然太法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：羅筏拏月白半第八日，夜晚有十二「時」，白天有十八「時」（這相當於此地五月八日，西方五月二十三日）。此後也說從此以後白天減少夜晚增加，應在九日。此論說，太陽在此洲執行的路線有差別，所以導致白天夜晚有減少有增加。婆沙論中也這樣說，白天和夜晚的增減雖然各有兩次，但沒有四個位置。論中說從雨季第二個月後半的第九日夜晚逐漸增加。這裡說的是五月九日、八月九日，都完全不違背婆沙論所說。在雨季第八日之後，都說從此以後白天減少夜晚增加。按照此論文，五月九日婆沙論說是白半，此論說是後半，所以知道第二個月初就是四月十六日，第一個月初就是三月十六日。論中說從寒季第四個月後半的第九日夜晚逐漸減少。這裡說的是十一月九日、二月九日，都完全不違背婆沙論所說。在這兩個月的第八日之後，都說從此以後夜晚減少白天增加。按照此論文，太陽向南，夜晚增加白天減少，所以說是後半，婆沙論說是白半，所以知道是此地十一月九日夜晚最長。如果以五月為雨季第二個月，那麼此地四月十六日為雨季第二個月初，與《四分律》不同。《四分律》以四月十六日為雨季第一個月。如果以八月為雨季第二個月，那麼此地六月十六日為雨季第一個月初。如果以十一月為寒季第四個月，那麼此地七月十六日為寒季之初，與《四分律》不同。如果以二月為寒季第四個月，那麼十月十六日為寒季初，都不違背婆沙論的說法。然而爲了順應此地時節，應該以六月十六日為雨季之初，因為此地立秋以後多雨。唐三藏以三月十六日為雨季之初，取五月九日夜晚增加，也不違背婆沙論。然而太法……
【English Translation】 English version: On the eighth day of the waxing half of the month of Raupavana, there are twelve 'times' of night and eighteen 'times' of day (this corresponds to the eighth day of the fifth month here, and the twenty-third day of the fifth month in the West). It is also said that from this point onwards, the days shorten and the nights lengthen, which should be on the ninth day. This treatise says that the path of the sun's movement in this continent is different, which causes the days and nights to increase and decrease. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa, commentary) also says this, that although the increase and decrease of day and night each occur twice, there are not four positions. The treatise says that the night gradually increases from the ninth day of the latter half of the second month of the rainy season. This refers to the ninth day of May and the ninth day of August, which do not contradict what the Vibhasa says. After the eighth day of the rainy season, it is said that from then on, the days shorten and the nights lengthen. According to this treatise, the Vibhasa says 'waxing half' for the ninth day of May, while this treatise says 'latter half', so it is known that the beginning of the second month is the sixteenth day of April, and the beginning of the first month is the sixteenth day of March. The treatise says that the night gradually decreases from the ninth day of the latter half of the fourth month of the cold season. This refers to the ninth day of November and the ninth day of February, which do not contradict what the Vibhasa says. After the eighth day of these two months, it is said that from then on, the nights shorten and the days lengthen. According to this treatise, the sun moves south, the nights increase and the days decrease, so it is said to be the 'latter half', while the Vibhasa says 'waxing half', so it is known that the night is longest on the ninth day of November here. If May is taken as the second month of the rainy season, then the sixteenth day of April here is the beginning of the second month of the rainy season, which is different from the Sarvastivada Vinaya (Four-Part Vinaya). The Sarvastivada Vinaya takes the sixteenth day of April as the first month of the rainy season. If August is taken as the second month of the rainy season, then the sixteenth day of June here is the beginning of the first month of the rainy season. If November is taken as the fourth month of the cold season, then the sixteenth day of July here is the beginning of the cold season, which is different from the Sarvastivada Vinaya. If February is taken as the fourth month of the cold season, then the sixteenth day of October is the beginning of the cold season, which does not contradict the Vibhasa. However, to conform to the seasons here, the sixteenth day of June should be taken as the beginning of the rainy season, because there is more rain here after the beginning of autumn. Tang Sanzang (Tang Sanzang, refers to Xuanzang) takes the sixteenth day of March as the beginning of the rainy season, taking the night increase on the ninth day of May, which also does not contradict the Vibhasa. However, the great Dharma...
師釋以六月十六日是雨際之初者。取八月後半第九日夜增。亦不違婆沙。依四分律等。以四月十六日為雨際之初。此是譯家誤。以此方五月十六日為雨際第二月初。以此方六月前十五日。為五月白半第八日也。亦可通云。毗婆沙是迦濕彌羅國。四分律非有部宗。是其別國。寒．熱不同兩月有異。故不同也。西域記云。有國亦以十二月為雨際。彼國冬多雨故。其婆沙五月．八月白半第九日皆說夜增。俱舍但說日行向南夜增。即是婆沙五月白半第九日也 今釋俱舍雨際第二月白半第九日。即是此方五月第九日為定。然婆沙皆說白半第八日晝夜增．減。此方皆十五日為冬至．夏至日。春分．秋分者並是節氣日月也。所以不同也。節氣從西向東也。以日從西向東故南方夏。西方秋。北方冬。東方春。南方夜極短。北方夜極長。東．西方晝．夜停。
論晝夜增時一晝夜增幾。問也。
論。增一臘縛晝夜減亦然。答也。三十臘縛為一須臾。一百八十日增至極長。一百八十日計當六須臾。一百八十日減當六須臾。
論。日行此洲至夜增晝增。此明日行增減義也。
論。何故月輪至見有缺耶。問。
論。世施設中至見不圓滿。準此似月下日高。此發影覆其自面故。
論。先舊師釋至現有圓缺。述
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於解釋六月十六日是雨季開始的說法，可以理解為取八月後半月的第九天晚上增加時間。這也不違反《婆沙論》。依據《四分律》等，以四月十六日為雨季的開始，這可能是翻譯者的錯誤。因為此地（指中國）的五月十六日是雨季第二個月的月初。此地六月的前十五天，是五月白半（指上半月）的第八天。也可以這樣解釋：毗婆沙（Vibhasa，論書名）是迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）的說法，《四分律》並非有部宗（Sarvastivada），而是其他國家的律典。因為寒冷和炎熱不同，兩個月的時間有所差異，所以說法不同。《西域記》記載，有的國家也以十二月為雨季，因為那個國家冬天多雨。婆沙論中五月和八月的白半第九天都說是晚上增加時間，《俱舍論》只說是太陽向南執行，夜晚增加時間，這與婆沙論中五月白半第九天的說法一致。現在解釋《俱舍論》中雨季第二個月的白半第九天，就是此地五月初九可以確定。然而，《婆沙論》都說是白半第八天晝夜增加或減少。此地都以十五日為冬至和夏至日，春分和秋分是節氣和日月。所以說法不同。節氣是從西向東執行的，因為太陽從西向東執行，所以南方是夏季，西方是秋季，北方是冬季，東方是春季。南方夜晚極短，北方夜晚極長，東方和西方晝夜時間相等。
關於晝夜增加時間，一天一夜增加多少？這是提問。
回答是：增加一個臘縛（lava，極短的時間單位），晝夜減少也是一樣。三十個臘縛為一須臾（ksana，更長的時間單位）。一百八十天增加到最長，一百八十天總共增加六須臾。一百八十天減少也是減少六須臾。
《論》中說：太陽執行到這個洲，夜晚增加，白天減少。這說明太陽執行增加和減少的意義。
《論》中問：為什麼月亮看起來會有殘缺？
《論》中回答：在世間施設中，月亮看起來不圓滿。按照這個說法，好像是月亮在下，太陽在高處。這是因為陰影遮蓋了月亮自己的表面。
《論》中說：以前的解釋是月亮有圓缺。
English version: The explanation that the 16th day of June marks the beginning of the rainy season can be understood as taking the ninth night of the latter half of August as the time when the night increases. This does not contradict the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, a commentary). According to the Sarvastivada Vinaya (Four-Part Vinaya) and others, the 16th day of April is taken as the beginning of the rainy season, which may be a mistake by the translator. Because the 16th day of May in this place (referring to China) is the beginning of the second month of the rainy season. The first fifteen days of June in this place are the eighth day of the white half (referring to the first half of the month) of May. It can also be explained as follows: The Vibhasa is the saying of Kashmir, and the Sarvastivada Vinaya is not a Sarvastivada text, but the Vinaya of another country. Because the cold and heat are different, the two months have different times, so the statements are different. The Records of the Western Regions (Xiyu Ji) records that some countries also take December as the rainy season, because it rains a lot in winter in that country. In the Vibhasa, the ninth day of the white half of May and August is said to be the time when the night increases. The Abhidharmakosa only says that the sun moves south and the night increases, which is consistent with the statement in the Vibhasa on the ninth day of the white half of May. Now, the ninth day of the white half of the second month of the rainy season in the Abhidharmakosa is explained as the ninth day of May in this place. However, the Vibhasa says that the day and night increase or decrease on the eighth day of the white half. In this place, the fifteenth day is the winter solstice and summer solstice, and the spring equinox and autumn equinox are solar terms and sun and moon. So the statements are different. The solar terms run from west to east, because the sun runs from west to east, so the south is summer, the west is autumn, the north is winter, and the east is spring. The night is extremely short in the south, the night is extremely long in the north, and the day and night are equal in the east and west.
Regarding the increase in day and night time, how much does one day and night increase? This is a question.
The answer is: Increase by one lava (lava, an extremely short unit of time), and the same is true for the decrease in day and night. Thirty lavas are one ksana (ksana, a longer unit of time). It increases to the longest in one hundred and eighty days, and one hundred and eighty days increases by a total of six ksanas. It decreases by six ksanas in one hundred and eighty days.
The Treatise says: When the sun travels to this continent, the night increases and the day decreases. This explains the meaning of the sun's increase and decrease.
The Treatise asks: Why does the moon appear to be incomplete?
The Treatise answers: In worldly designation, the moon appears incomplete. According to this statement, it seems that the moon is below and the sun is above. This is because the shadow covers the moon's own surface.
The Treatise says: The old explanation is that the moon has phases of waxing and waning.
【English Translation】 Regarding the explanation that the sixteenth day of the sixth month is the beginning of the rainy season, it can be understood as taking the ninth night of the latter half of the eighth month as the time when the night increases. This does not violate the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, a commentary). According to the Sarvastivada Vinaya (Four-Part Vinaya) and others, the sixteenth day of the fourth month is taken as the beginning of the rainy season, which may be a mistake by the translator. Because the sixteenth day of the fifth month in this place (referring to China) is the beginning of the second month of the rainy season. The first fifteen days of the sixth month in this place are the eighth day of the white half (referring to the first half of the month) of the fifth month. It can also be explained as follows: The Vibhasa is the saying of Kashmir, and the Sarvastivada Vinaya is not a Sarvastivada text, but the Vinaya of another country. Because the cold and heat are different, the two months have different times, so the statements are different. The Records of the Western Regions (Xiyu Ji) records that some countries also take December as the rainy season, because it rains a lot in winter in that country. In the Vibhasa, the ninth day of the white half of May and August is said to be the time when the night increases. The Abhidharmakosa only says that the sun moves south and the night increases, which is consistent with the statement in the Vibhasa on the ninth day of the white half of May. Now, the ninth day of the white half of the second month of the rainy season in the Abhidharmakosa is explained as the ninth day of May in this place. However, the Vibhasa says that the day and night increase or decrease on the eighth day of the white half. In this place, the fifteenth day is the winter solstice and summer solstice, and the spring equinox and autumn equinox are solar terms and sun and moon. So the statements are different. The solar terms run from west to east, because the sun runs from west to east, so the south is summer, the west is autumn, the north is winter, and the east is spring. The night is extremely short in the south, the night is extremely long in the north, and the day and night are equal in the east and west.
Regarding the increase in day and night time, how much does one day and night increase? This is a question.
The answer is: Increase by one lava (lava, an extremely short unit of time), and the same is true for the decrease in day and night. Thirty lavas are one ksana (ksana, a longer unit of time). It increases to the longest in one hundred and eighty days, and one hundred and eighty days increases by a total of six ksanas. It decreases by six ksanas in one hundred and eighty days.
The Treatise says: When the sun travels to this continent, the night increases and the day decreases. This explains the meaning of the sun's increase and decrease.
The Treatise asks: Why does the moon appear to be incomplete?
The Treatise answers: In worldly designation, the moon appears incomplete. According to this statement, it seems that the moon is below and the sun is above. This is because the shadow covers the moon's own surface.
The Treatise says: The old explanation is that the moon has phases of waxing and waning.
經部先舊師釋也。
論。日等宮殿何有情居。問。
論。四大天王所部天眾。答。
論。是諸天眾唯住此耶。問。
論。若空居天至諸層級等。答也。
論。有幾層級其量云何。已下第八明天器。就中有三。一明大王眾天。二明三十三天。三明余色天。此下兩頌第一明四大王眾天 就中有三問也。
論曰至八四二千。明四層級量也。
論。有藥叉神至共所居止。明四層級所依天別。
論。故經依此說四大王眾天。引經釋名。以所部領天非一類故名眾也。
論。如妙高山至所部封邑。此明七金山上天也。
論。是名依地至此天最廣。結第一天並明廣也。
論。三十三天住在何處。此下四頌第二明三十三天。
論曰至各唯二萬。明山頂量。就中二說。一云上下量等。中腰細也。一云下廣上狹準頌八萬即通兩釋。或徑或周。然以山徑八萬為正。
論。山頂四角至守護諸天。明山四峰量及住神也。
論。于山頂中至所都大城。此明善見宮量及嚴飾也。
論。于其城中至諸可愛事。此明所都大城中殊勝殿量．及嚴飾也。
論。城外四面至莊嚴大城。此明城外四苑遊戲處也。
論。四苑四邊至角勝歡娛。此明苑外勝地
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
經部先舊師的解釋是這樣的。
論：太陽和月亮的宮殿里居住著什麼樣的有情眾生？（問）
論：是四大天王所統領的天眾。（答）
論：這些天眾只居住在這裡嗎？（問）
論：如果不是，那麼空居天眾住在哪裡，直到諸層級等？（答）
論：有多少層級，它們的量又是多少？以下第八部分說明天器，其中有三點：一、說明大王眾天；二、說明三十三天；三、說明其餘色界天。以下兩頌說明第一重四大王眾天，其中有三個問題。
論曰：直到八萬四千由旬。說明四層級的量。
論：有藥叉神（Yaksa，一種守護神）直到共同居住的地方。說明四層級所依附的天界差別。
論：所以經書依據這個說法，稱之為四大王眾天。引用經文解釋名稱，因為所統領的天眾並非一類，所以稱為『眾』。
論：如妙高山（Mount Meru，須彌山）直到所統領的封邑。這裡說明七金山上的天眾。
論：這被稱為依地的天，直到此天最為廣闊。總結第一重天，並說明其廣闊。
論：三十三天住在什麼地方？以下四頌說明第二重三十三天。
論曰：直到各自只有二萬由旬。說明山頂的量。其中有兩種說法：一種說法是上下量相等，中間細；另一種說法是下面寬上面窄，按照頌文八萬由旬，可以貫通兩種解釋，或者指直徑，或者指周長。然而以山徑八萬由旬為正確。
論：山頂的四個角直到守護諸天。說明山的四個峰的量以及居住的神。
論：在山頂中央直到所都的大城。這裡說明善見城（Sudarsana，帝釋天所住之城）的量以及莊嚴裝飾。
論：在善見城中直到諸可愛的事物。這裡說明所都大城中殊勝的殿堂的量以及莊嚴裝飾。
論：城外四面直到莊嚴大城。這裡說明城外四苑遊戲的地方。
論：四苑的四邊直到角勝歡娛。這裡說明苑外的殊勝之地。 English version:
This is the explanation of the old teachers of the Abhidharma school.
Treatise: What sentient beings reside in the palaces of the sun and moon? (Question)
Treatise: The heavenly beings under the command of the Four Great Kings. (Answer)
Treatise: Do these heavenly beings only reside here? (Question)
Treatise: If not, where do the heavenly beings who dwell in space reside, up to the various levels, etc.? (Answer)
Treatise: How many levels are there, and what are their dimensions? The eighth section below explains the celestial realms, which includes three points: first, explaining the Heaven of the Great Kingly Multitude; second, explaining the Heaven of the Thirty-three; and third, explaining the remaining Form Heavens. The following two verses explain the first, the Heaven of the Four Great Kingly Multitude, which includes three questions.
Treatise says: Up to eighty-four thousand yojanas. Explaining the dimensions of the four levels.
Treatise: There are Yakshas (Yaksa, a type of guardian deity) up to the place where they dwell together. Explaining the differences in the heavens upon which the four levels rely.
Treatise: Therefore, the scriptures, based on this, call it the Heaven of the Four Great Kingly Multitude. Quoting the scriptures to explain the name, because the heavenly beings under their command are not of one kind, they are called a 'multitude'.
Treatise: Like Mount Meru (Mount Meru, the central world-mountain) up to the fiefdoms under their command. This explains the heavenly beings on the Seven Golden Mountains.
Treatise: This is called the earth-based heaven, up to this heaven being the most vast. Concluding the first heaven and explaining its vastness.
Treatise: Where do the Thirty-three Heavens reside? The following four verses explain the second, the Heaven of the Thirty-three.
Treatise says: Up to each being only twenty thousand yojanas. Explaining the dimensions of the mountain peak. There are two explanations: one explanation is that the upper and lower dimensions are equal, and the middle is narrow; the other explanation is that the bottom is wide and the top is narrow, according to the verse of eighty thousand yojanas, which can connect the two explanations, either referring to the diameter or the circumference. However, the mountain diameter of eighty thousand yojanas is considered correct.
Treatise: The four corners of the mountain peak up to the guardian deities. Explaining the dimensions of the four peaks of the mountain and the deities who reside there.
Treatise: In the center of the mountain peak up to the great city where they dwell. This explains the dimensions and magnificent adornments of Sudarsana (Sudarsana, the city where Indra resides).
Treatise: In that city up to all the lovely things. This explains the dimensions and magnificent adornments of the extraordinary palaces in the great city where they dwell.
Treatise: On the four sides outside the city up to the magnificent great city. This explains the places for recreation in the four gardens outside the city.
Treatise: The four sides of the four gardens up to the victorious and joyful corners. This explains the extraordinary places outside the gardens.
【English Translation】 The old teachers of the Abhidharma school explain it thusly.
Treatise: What sentient beings reside in the palaces of the sun and moon? (Question)
Treatise: The heavenly beings under the command of the Four Great Kings. (Answer)
Treatise: Do these heavenly beings only reside here? (Question)
Treatise: If not, where do the heavenly beings who dwell in space reside, up to the various levels, etc.? (Answer)
Treatise: How many levels are there, and what are their dimensions? The eighth section below explains the celestial realms, which includes three points: first, explaining the Heaven of the Great Kingly Multitude; second, explaining the Heaven of the Thirty-three; and third, explaining the remaining Form Heavens. The following two verses explain the first, the Heaven of the Four Great Kingly Multitude, which includes three questions.
Treatise says: Up to eighty-four thousand yojanas. Explaining the dimensions of the four levels.
Treatise: There are Yakshas (Yaksa, a type of guardian deity) up to the place where they dwell together. Explaining the differences in the heavens upon which the four levels rely.
Treatise: Therefore, the scriptures, based on this, call it the Heaven of the Four Great Kingly Multitude. Quoting the scriptures to explain the name, because the heavenly beings under their command are not of one kind, they are called a 'multitude'.
Treatise: Like Mount Meru (Mount Meru, the central world-mountain) up to the fiefdoms under their command. This explains the heavenly beings on the Seven Golden Mountains.
Treatise: This is called the earth-based heaven, up to this heaven being the most vast. Concluding the first heaven and explaining its vastness.
Treatise: Where do the Thirty-three Heavens reside? The following four verses explain the second, the Heaven of the Thirty-three.
Treatise says: Up to each being only twenty thousand yojanas. Explaining the dimensions of the mountain peak. There are two explanations: one explanation is that the upper and lower dimensions are equal, and the middle is narrow; the other explanation is that the bottom is wide and the top is narrow, according to the verse of eighty thousand yojanas, which can connect the two explanations, either referring to the diameter or the circumference. However, the mountain diameter of eighty thousand yojanas is considered correct.
Treatise: The four corners of the mountain peak up to the guardian deities. Explaining the dimensions of the four peaks of the mountain and the deities who reside there.
Treatise: In the center of the mountain peak up to the great city where they dwell. This explains the dimensions and magnificent adornments of Sudarsana (Sudarsana, the city where Indra resides).
Treatise: In that city up to all the lovely things. This explains the dimensions and magnificent adornments of the extraordinary palaces in the great city where they dwell.
Treatise: On the four sides outside the city up to the magnificent great city. This explains the places for recreation in the four gardens outside the city.
Treatise: The four sides of the four gardens up to the victorious and joyful corners. This explains the extraordinary places outside the gardens.
遊戲處也。
論。城外東北至猶遍五十明圓生樹形量．妙香。
論。順風可爾云何逆熏。問。
論。有餘師言至故說逆熏。述異說。此師不許有逆風熏。
論。理實圓生至如順風熏。述正義。此香力勝而能逆風起于香也。由逆風故近處而滅不同順風。
論。如是花香至別生香氣。問。
論。此義無定至俱許無失。答也。
論。若爾何故至遍諸方。引頌難。
論。據人間香至無如是能。通也。
論。化地部說至唯遍五十。述異部計。
論。外西南角至不如法事。述善法堂。
論。如是已辨三十三天。已下半行頌第三明余有色天住器。
論曰至皆依外器。釋頌可知。
論。如是所說諸天眾中。已下便明諸天諸事 就中有五。一明欲時。二初生身量。三明欲等生別。四明居器近遠。五明下見上不。此下半頌第一明欲時也。
論曰至故使之然。釋頌文。就中二說。如文可解。
論。隨彼諸天至所生男女。明天男．女。雖是化生即于彼天膝上生者。即是彼天男．女。女天為母。男天為父。
論。初生天眾身量云何。已下半頌第二明初生量。
論曰至具妙衣服。釋頌文也。
論。一切天眾至同中印度。明語同也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 遊戲場所也是如此。
論：城外東北方，直到猶遍（Yojana，古印度長度單位）五十的地方，有明圓生樹，其形狀和大小都散發著奇妙的香氣。
論：如果順風可以熏到，為什麼逆風也能熏到？問。
論：有其餘的老師說，是因為到達的緣故，所以說逆風也能熏到。這是在陳述不同的說法。這位老師不承認有逆風薰香的情況。
論：實際上，明圓生樹的香氣勝過一切，就像順風薰香一樣。這是在陳述正確的觀點。這種香的力量強大，能夠逆風飄散，產生香氣。因為是逆風，所以在近處就消散了，不同於順風的情況。
論：像這樣，花香等如何產生不同的香氣？問。
論：這個道理沒有定論，但都承認沒有過失。答。
論：如果這樣，為什麼香氣能夠普遍散佈到各個方向？引用頌文來質問。
論：根據人間香的情況來說，沒有這樣的能力。這是在解釋。
論：化地部（Mahīśāsaka，佛教部派之一）說，香氣只能遍佈五十猶遍。這是在陳述不同部派的觀點。
論：外西南角不如法事。這是在描述善法堂（Sudharma Hall，三十三天眾議事堂）。
論：像這樣，已經辨明了三十三天（Trāyastriṃśa，欲界六天之一）。下面半行頌文第三，說明其餘有色天所居住的器世界。
論曰：都依賴於外在的器世界。解釋頌文，可以理解。
論：像這樣所說的諸天眾中。下面就開始說明諸天的事情，其中有五點：一是說明欲樂的時間；二是說明初生時的身量；三是說明欲樂等產生的差別；四是說明居住的器世界的遠近；五是說明地獄能否看到上界。下面半頌是第一點，說明欲樂的時間。
論曰：所以才使得這樣。解釋頌文。其中有兩種說法，如文中所述可以理解。
論：隨著那些天人的意願，所生的男或女。說明天男和天女。雖然是化生，但就在那天人的膝上出生，那就是那天人的男或女。女天是母親，男天是父親。
論：初生的天人的身量如何？下面半頌是第二點，說明初生時的身量。
論曰：具有美妙的衣服。解釋頌文。
論：一切天人的語言都和中印度相同。說明語言相同。
【English Translation】 English version It is also the same with places for games.
Treatise: Northeast outside the city, up to fifty Yojanas (Yojana, an ancient Indian unit of length) away, there is the Mingyuan Sheng tree, whose shape and size emit a wonderful fragrance.
Treatise: If it can be scented by the wind, why can it be scented against the wind? Question.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that it is because of arrival, so it is said that it can be scented against the wind. This is stating a different view. This teacher does not admit that there is scenting against the wind.
Treatise: In reality, the fragrance of the Mingyuan Sheng tree surpasses everything, just like scenting with the wind. This is stating the correct view. The power of this fragrance is strong and can drift against the wind, producing fragrance. Because it is against the wind, it dissipates near, unlike the case of following the wind.
Treatise: Like this, how do flower fragrances and the like produce different fragrances? Question.
Treatise: There is no definite conclusion to this principle, but all admit that there is no fault. Answer.
Treatise: If so, why can the fragrance spread universally in all directions? Quoting a verse to question.
Treatise: According to the situation of human fragrance, there is no such ability. This is explaining.
Treatise: The Mahīśāsaka (one of the Buddhist schools) says that the fragrance can only spread fifty Yojanas. This is stating the views of different schools.
Treatise: The southwest corner outside is not as good as Dharma affairs. This is describing the Sudharma Hall (the assembly hall of the Thirty-three Heavens).
Treatise: Like this, the Thirty-three Heavens (Trāyastriṃśa, one of the six heavens of the desire realm) have been distinguished. The following half-line verse is the third, explaining the container world in which the remaining form heavens reside.
Treatise: All rely on the external container world. Explaining the verse, it can be understood.
Treatise: Among the multitude of heavens spoken of in this way. Below begins to explain the affairs of the heavens, of which there are five points: one is to explain the time of desire; two is to explain the body size at the time of first birth; three is to explain the differences in the production of desire and the like; four is to explain the distance of the container world in which they live; five is to explain whether the lower realm can see the upper realm. The following half-verse is the first point, explaining the time of desire.
Treatise: That's why it makes it like this. Explaining the verse. There are two explanations in it, as described in the text can be understood.
Treatise: According to the wishes of those devas, the male or female born. Explaining the male and female devas. Although they are born by transformation, they are born on the knees of those devas, and that is the male or female of those devas. The female deva is the mother, and the male deva is the father.
Treatise: What is the body size of the newly born devas? The following half-verse is the second point, explaining the body size at the time of first birth.
Treatise: Possessing wonderful clothes. Explaining the verse.
Treatise: The language of all devas is the same as that of Central India. Explaining that the language is the same.
。
論。欲樂生別云何應知。已下半頌第三明欲等生別。
論曰至及下四天。欲生三中明第一也。
論。有諸有情至樂變化天。欲生三中明第二也。
論。有諸有情至他化自在天。欲生三中明第三也。
論。依受如生至差別三種。釋分三所以 如生等者。稱生等境自在受也。婆沙一百七十三云。問何故人．及前四天眾合立欲生。后二天眾各別建立。答人．及前四天煩惱粗。后二天煩惱細 有說。人．及前四天同樂受用自然生境故合立一。第五．第六天眾獨樂受用自化他境。故各立一。
論。樂生三者至故名樂生。此釋樂生三天別。下三靜慮各有三天故成九處。初定離生喜樂。二定定生喜樂。三定離下喜樂。乃至長時受樂。第四禪已上無樂受故不名樂生。
論。生靜慮中間至亦號樂生天。論主難殺也。正理論云。大梵既有喜樂現行名樂生天亦無有失。
論。所說諸天二十二處。已下半頌第四明居器近．遠。
論曰至去下海等。釋頌文中如文可解。
論。從此向上至得究竟名。此二師釋色究竟名。如文可解。
論。于下處生勝見上不。下半頌第五明下見上。
論曰至下見上天。明下天眼見上天。以同一地．一系縛故。
論。然下眼不能
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
論：如何得知欲界眾生的類別？接下來的半頌經文（已下半頌）第三部分闡明了欲界等眾生的類別。
論曰：直至及下四天（指四大天王天），欲界眾生的三種類別中，這是第一種。
論：有些有情（有諸有情）直至樂變化天（指樂變化天），欲界眾生的三種類別中，這是第二種。
論：有些有情（有諸有情）直至他化自在天（指他化自在天），欲界眾生的三種類別中，這是第三種。
論：依據感受（依受）如生（如生）直至差別三種（差別三種）。解釋分為三種的原因。如生等，是指稱符合眾生及其所處境界的自在感受。婆沙論第一百七十三卷說：『問：為何人及前四天眾合在一起建立欲界，而後二天眾各自建立？答：人及前四天的煩惱粗重，后二天的煩惱微細。』 有人說：『人及前四天共同享受自然產生的境界，所以合在一起建立。第五天和第六天眾獨自享受自己變化或他人變化的境界，所以各自建立。』
論：樂生三天（樂生三者）直至故名樂生（故名樂生）。這裡解釋了樂生三天的區別。下面的三個靜慮各有三天，所以形成九處。初禪是離生喜樂，二禪是定生喜樂，三禪是離下喜樂，乃至長時間感受快樂。第四禪以上沒有樂受，所以不稱為樂生。
論：生靜慮中間（生靜慮中間）直至亦號樂生天（亦號樂生天）。論主對此提出疑問。正理論說：『大梵天既然有喜樂現行，稱為樂生天也沒有什麼不妥。』
論：所說的諸天二十二處（所說諸天二十二處）。接下來的半頌經文（已下半頌）第四部分闡明了居所的遠近。
論曰：直至去下海等（去下海等）。解釋頌文中的內容，如經文字身可以理解。
論：從此向上（從此向上）直至得究竟名（得究竟名）。這兩位論師解釋了色究竟天的名稱。如經文字身可以理解。
論：在下處生的眾生能勝過見到上方的眾生嗎（于下處生勝見上不）？接下來的半頌經文（下半頌）第五部分闡明了下方的眾生能否見到上方的眾生。
論曰：直至下見上天（下見上天）。闡明了下方的天眾用天眼能見到上方的天眾，因為他們處於同一地、同一繫縛之中。
論：然而下方的天眼不能（然下眼不能）
【English Translation】 English version:
Treatise: How should the distinctions of beings born in the desire realm be understood? The following half-verse (已下半頌) is the third section, clarifying the distinctions of beings born in the desire realm, etc.
Treatise says: Up to and including the Four Heavenly Kings (及下四天), this is the first of the three types of births in the desire realm.
Treatise: Some sentient beings (有諸有情) up to the Paranirmitavasavartin Devas (樂變化天), this is the second of the three types of births in the desire realm.
Treatise: Some sentient beings (有諸有情) up to the Paranirmitavasavartin Devas (他化自在天), this is the third of the three types of births in the desire realm.
Treatise: Based on the reception (依受) such as birth (如生) up to the three distinctions (差別三種). Explaining the reason for dividing into three. 'Such as birth' etc., refers to the unconstrained reception that matches the beings and their realms. The Vibhasa, volume 173, says: 'Question: Why are humans and the first four heavens grouped together to establish the desire realm, while the latter two heavens are established separately? Answer: The afflictions of humans and the first four heavens are coarse, while the afflictions of the latter two heavens are subtle.' Some say: 'Humans and the first four heavens jointly enjoy naturally arising realms, so they are grouped together. The fifth and sixth heavens uniquely enjoy realms transformed by themselves or others, so they are established separately.'
Treatise: The three heavens of joy (樂生三天) up to therefore named 'born of joy' (故名樂生). This explains the distinction of the three heavens of joy. The three dhyanas below each have three heavens, thus forming nine abodes. The first dhyana is joy born of detachment, the second dhyana is joy born of samadhi, the third dhyana is joy born of detachment from the lower, up to experiencing joy for a long time. The fourth dhyana and above have no reception of joy, so they are not called 'born of joy'.
Treatise: The intermediate of the dhyana of birth (生靜慮中間) up to also called the 'heaven of joy' (亦號樂生天). The author questions this. The Zhengli Lun says: 'Since the Great Brahma has joy presently manifesting, it is not inappropriate to call it the 'heaven of joy'.'
Treatise: The twenty-two abodes of the heavens that have been spoken of (所說諸天二十二處). The following half-verse (已下半頌) is the fourth section, clarifying the proximity and distance of the abodes.
Treatise says: Up to going below the ocean, etc. (去下海等). Explaining the content of the verse, as it can be understood from the text itself.
Treatise: From here upwards (從此向上) up to obtaining the name 'ultimate' (得究竟名). These two teachers explain the name of the Akanistha heaven (色究竟天). As it can be understood from the text itself.
Treatise: Can beings born in a lower abode surpass and see those above (于下處生勝見上不)? The following half-verse (下半頌) is the fifth section, clarifying whether beings below can see those above.
Treatise says: Up to those below seeing the heavens above (下見上天). Clarifying that the devas below can see the devas above with their divine eye, because they are in the same realm and bound by the same fetters.
Treatise: However, the lower divine eye cannot (然下眼不能)
至要作下地化。明下地眼不能得見上界地色。及身不觸異地觸。以別地系粗細異故。若上地身。下地下地。不能為礙故作化也。
論。有餘部說至下見上天。述異部中大眾部計。
論。夜摩等天宮依處量有幾。問已上天所居宮地量大小。
論。有餘師說至量無邊際。欲界四天有其兩釋。初靜慮天有其三釋。如文可解。
論。齊何量說小中大千。已下兩行頌第二明小．中．大千數也。
論曰至后當廣辨。釋頌文。如文可解。
論。如外器量別至身量亦別耶。已下兩行半頌大文第二明能居量 就中有二。一明身量。二明壽量。
論曰至滿萬六千。釋頌。可解。婆沙一百二十八云。如曷邏呼阿素落王所得身形其量廣大。如色究竟所得身形一萬六千六逾繕那量 俱盧舍者。此云鳴喚 所以無雲減三逾繕那者。有人云。從變異受初修不變異難 此似倒也。既得難定身壽應加。應言下變異受以樂欲心勝由此造業引壽等勝。不變異受引欣心劣。由此造業引壽等減。
論。身量既殊壽量別不。已下三行半頌。第二明壽量 就中有二。一明善趣壽量。二明惡趣壽量。此明善趣。
論曰至不能計量。明人趣也。
論。已說人間至萬六千歲。明欲界天。
論。持雙以上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 至要作下地變化。明白下地之眼不能得見上界地的顏色，以及身體不能觸及異地的觸感，因為不同地的構成粗細不同。若是上地的身體，對於下地或更下地，不能形成阻礙，所以可以作變化。
論：有餘部（Sarvāstivāda）說，從地獄能見到上天。述異部（Vātsīputrīya）中的大眾部（Mahāsaṃghika）也這樣認為。
論：夜摩天（Yāma）等天宮的依處量有多少？問的是以上諸天所居住的宮殿土地的大小。
論：有餘師說，其量無邊無際。欲界四天有這兩種解釋。初禪天有三種解釋。如文中所述，可以理解。
論：齊何等量來說小千世界、中千世界、大千世界？以下兩行頌文，第二部分說明小千、中千、大千世界的數量。
論曰：之後會詳細辨析。解釋頌文。如文中所述，可以理解。
論：如外在器物的量有差別，那麼身體的量也有差別嗎？以下兩行半頌文，第二部分說明能居住者的量，其中有二：一說明身量，二說明壽量。
論曰：直到滿一萬六千逾繕那（yojana，古印度長度單位）。解釋頌文，可以理解。《婆沙論》第一百二十八卷說：如曷邏呼（Rāhu）阿修羅王（Asura-rāja）所得的身形，其量廣大，如色究竟天（Akaniṣṭha）所得的身形，一萬六千逾繕那。俱盧舍（krośa），這裡的意思是鳴喚。之所以沒有說減少三逾繕那，有人說，從變異受開始修行不變異很難。這似乎是顛倒了。既然得到難定的身壽，應該增加。應該說地獄變異受以樂欲心勝，由此造業引壽等勝；不變異受引欣心劣，由此造業引壽等減。
論：身量既然不同，壽量也有差別嗎？以下三行半頌文，第二部分說明壽量，其中有二：一說明善趣壽量，二說明惡趣壽量。這裡說明善趣。
論曰：直到不能計量。說明人趣。
論：已經說了人間，直到一萬六千歲。說明欲界天。
論：持雙以上
【English Translation】 English version: It is essential to perform transformations to appear in a lower realm. Understand that the eyes of a being in a lower realm cannot perceive the colors of the higher realms, nor can their bodies experience the tactile sensations of different realms, because the composition of different realms varies in coarseness and fineness. However, the body of a being in a higher realm does not encounter any obstruction from lower or even lower realms, thus allowing for transformations.
Treatise: The Sarvāstivāda school says that one can see the heavens from below. The Mahāsaṃghika school within the Vātsīputrīya school also holds this view.
Treatise: What is the measure of the abodes of the Yāma (Yāma) heavens and others? The question concerns the size of the palaces and lands where the heavens above reside.
Treatise: Some teachers say that their measure is boundless and limitless. There are these two explanations for the four heavens of the desire realm. There are three explanations for the first dhyāna heaven. As stated in the text, it can be understood.
Treatise: By what measure are the small chiliocosm, the medium chiliocosm, and the great chiliocosm defined? The following two lines of verse, the second part, explain the numbers of the small, medium, and great chiliocosms.
Treatise: It will be explained in detail later. Explaining the verse. As stated in the text, it can be understood.
Treatise: If the measures of external objects are different, are the measures of bodies also different? The following two and a half lines of verse, the second part, explain the measure of those who can reside, which includes two aspects: one explains the body measure, and the other explains the lifespan measure.
Treatise: Up to sixteen thousand yojanas (yojana, an ancient Indian unit of length). Explaining the verse, it can be understood. The Vibhāṣā (Vibhāṣā) Treatise, volume 128, says: Like the form obtained by Rāhu (Rāhu), the Asura King (Asura-rāja), its measure is vast, like the form obtained in the Akaniṣṭha (Akaniṣṭha) heaven, sixteen thousand yojanas. Krośa (krośa) here means 'calling out'. The reason for not saying a reduction of three yojanas is that some say it is difficult to cultivate non-change after initially experiencing change. This seems reversed. Since a difficult-to-determine lifespan is obtained, it should be increased. It should be said that the lower realm's experience of change is superior due to the mind of desire, thereby creating karma that leads to superior lifespan, etc.; the experience of non-change leads to inferior joy, thereby creating karma that leads to reduced lifespan, etc.
Treatise: Since body measures are different, are lifespans also different? The following three and a half lines of verse, the second part, explain lifespan, which includes two aspects: one explains the lifespan of the good realms, and the other explains the lifespan of the evil realms. This explains the good realms.
Treatise: Up to immeasurable. Explaining the human realm.
Treatise: It has been said about the human realm, up to sixteen thousand years. Explaining the desire realm heavens.
Treatise: Holding double and above
至依何得成。有兩問。一問年歲二問光明。
論。依花開合至成外光明事。答兩問也。
論。已說欲界天至萬六千劫。明色天也。
論。已說色界至六八萬劫。明無色界。
論。上所說劫至為中為大。問劫量也。
論。少光以上至所壽劫量。明上下天劫大．中不同。初定三天以半大劫為其一劫。二定已上以大全劫為一劫。詳其上壽量增．減。及身量增減。欲天。色天。及無色天。色天初定以半劫為劫。及中間靜慮身量等不同者。皆是生死法爾因果。如此。不可細求所以。多眼．三眼．二眼．一眼。及無足．多足等也。
論。已說善趣壽量短長。已下三頌第二明惡趣。
論曰至壽一中劫。明地獄壽量。
論。傍生壽量至能持大地。明傍生壽量。
論。鬼以人間至壽五百年。明鬼趣也。
論。寒那落迦至地獄壽量。明寒地獄 佉梨者。受一斛器名。如此間計升．斛等名 婆訶者。此云篅。受二十斛。即是二十佉梨一麻婆訶量。篅盛麻故名麻篅也。摩揭陀國盛麻篅多受二十石。余文可解。百年取一篅中麻也。
論。此諸壽量有中夭耶。已下半行頌文便明有中夭。
論曰至皆無中夭。釋頌有二。一處無中夭。二就別人明無中夭。如文可解。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 至依何得成。有兩個問題。一是關於年歲，二是關於光明。
論：依靠花朵的開放與閉合來成就外在光明的顯現。這是在回答上述兩個問題。
論：已經說了欲界天到一萬六千劫。這是在說明色界天。
論：已經說了**到六萬八千劫。這是在說明無色界。
論：上面所說的劫是為中劫還是大劫？這是在問劫的時間長度。
論：從少光天以上到所能達到的壽命劫數。這是在說明上下各天的劫數大小、長短不同。初禪三天以半個大劫作為一劫。二禪以上以整個大劫作為一劫。詳細說明了其上壽命的增長與減少，以及身量的增長與減少。欲界天、色界天以及無色界天。色界天初禪以半劫為一劫，以及中間靜慮的身量等等不同，這些都是生死自然的因果規律。像這樣，不可以過分追究原因。就像多眼、三眼、二眼、一眼，以及無足、多足等等。
論：已經說了善趣的壽命長短。以下三頌是第二部分，說明惡趣。
論曰：到壽命一個中劫。說明地獄的壽命。
論：傍生的壽命到能夠承載大地。說明傍生的壽命。
論：鬼以人間到壽命五百年。說明鬼趣。
論：寒那落迦（寒地獄）到地獄的壽命。說明寒地獄。佉梨（Khari）是指一種容器的名稱，容量為一斛。就像人間計算的升、斛等名稱。婆訶（Vaha）是指篅，可以容納二十斛，也就是二十個佉梨的量。因為篅用來盛麻，所以叫做麻篅。摩揭陀國（Magadha）盛麻的篅通常可以容納二十石。其餘的文字可以自行理解。一百年從一個篅中取一次麻。
論：這些壽命中會有中途夭折的嗎？以下半行頌文就說明了有中途夭折的情況。
論曰：到都沒有中途夭折。解釋頌文有兩種情況。一是某個地方沒有中途夭折，二是就不同的人來說明沒有中途夭折。如文中所述可以理解。
【English Translation】 English version To what does attainment depend? There are two questions: one about age, and the other about luminosity.
Treatise: Attainment depends on the opening and closing of flowers, resulting in external luminosity. This answers the two questions above.
Treatise: It has been said that the Desire Realm heavens last up to 16,000 kalpas (aeons). This clarifies the Form Realm heavens.
Treatise: It has been said that ** last up to 68,000 kalpas. This clarifies the Formless Realm.
Treatise: Are the kalpas mentioned above medium or great kalpas? This asks about the duration of a kalpa.
Treatise: From the Heaven of Limited Light upwards to the duration of their lifespans in kalpas. This clarifies that the kalpas of the upper and lower heavens differ in size and duration. The first three dhyana (meditative absorption) heavens use half a great kalpa as one kalpa. The second dhyana and above use a full great kalpa as one kalpa. It details the increase and decrease of their lifespans, as well as the increase and decrease of their body sizes. The Desire Realm, Form Realm, and Formless Realm heavens; the first dhyana of the Form Realm using half a kalpa as a kalpa; and the differences in body sizes in the intermediate dhyanas—all these are the natural cause and effect of samsara (cycle of birth and death). As such, one should not excessively seek the reasons behind them. Just like the many-eyed, three-eyed, two-eyed, one-eyed, and the footless, many-footed, etc.
Treatise: The lengths of lifespans in the good realms have been discussed. The following three verses are the second part, clarifying the evil realms.
Treatise says: Up to a medium kalpa of lifespan. This clarifies the lifespan of hells.
Treatise: The lifespan of animals extends to being able to support the earth. This clarifies the lifespan of animals.
Treatise: Ghosts from the human realm to a lifespan of five hundred years. This clarifies the realm of ghosts.
Treatise: From Naraka (cold hells) to the lifespan of hells. This clarifies the cold hells. Khari (Khari) is the name of a container, with a capacity of one 'hu' (peck). It's like the 'sheng' (pint) and 'hu' (peck) used in the human realm. Vaha (Vaha) refers to a 'chuan' (basket), which can hold twenty 'hu', which is the equivalent of twenty 'khari'. Because the 'chuan' is used to hold sesame, it is called a sesame 'chuan'. In the kingdom of Magadha (Magadha), the 'chuan' used to hold sesame usually holds twenty 'shi' (bushels). The rest of the text can be understood on its own. Sesame is taken from the 'chuan' once every hundred years.
Treatise: Are there premature deaths among these lifespans? The following half-verse clarifies that there are premature deaths.
Treatise says: To all without premature death. There are two explanations for the verse. First, there is no premature death in a certain place. Second, it clarifies that there is no premature death for certain individuals. As the text describes, it can be understood.
俱舍論疏卷第十一
次夜點了(今日春祭也令人調聲遙聞之)
晝夜增減事不審非一以黃園本一交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第十二
沙門法寶撰
分別世品第三之五
論。如是已約至三極少量。自此已下。大文第三明三分齊。一明三極少。二明極少積成多量。此下半頌明三極少。三極少中。二是所詮。一是能詮。所詮之中。一是色量。二是時量。
論。曰至為色極少。述色極少。大乘無實。但是覺慧分析。以為極微。此是識心所變非積小成 小乘中說有實極微以成大色。析其大色。至不可析名一極微。
論。如是分析至如說瞿名。述名及時。極少量也。從三十二字名。析至一字名。是名極少。準此。析多名至一名。以為極少。即合二字名已上。或無別體。或有別體。義亦無違。如微．金．水．兔．羊．牛等塵。離其體微無別體也。
論。何等名為一剎那量。通難重釋。先問后答。是此問也。
論。眾緣和合至度一極微。答中有二。一述經部答。二述有部答。此是初也 經部答中有二。一法先無體是未來。得體已滅是過去。得體未滅名為現在。即此得體未滅之頃名一剎那。二或有動法。度一極微名一剎那
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《俱舍論疏》卷第十一
（次夜點了（今日春祭也令人調聲遙聞之））
晝夜增減事不審非一以黃園本一交了 《大正藏》第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第十二
沙門法寶撰
分別世品第三之五
論：如是已約至三極少量。自此已下。大文第三明三分齊。一明三極少。二明極少積成多量。此下半頌明三極少。三極少中。二是所詮。一是能詮。所詮之中。一是色量。二是時量。
論：曰至為色極少。述色極少。大乘無實。但是覺慧分析。以為極微（paramāṇu）。此是識心所變非積小成。小乘中說有實極微以成大色。析其大色。至不可析名一極微。
論：如是分析至如說瞿名。述名及時。極少量也。從三十二字名。析至一字名。是名極少。準此。析多名至一名。以為極少。即合二字名已上。或無別體。或有別體。義亦無違。如微．金．水．兔．羊．牛等塵。離其體微無別體也。
論：何等名為一剎那（kṣaṇa）量？通難重釋。先問后答。是此問也。
論：眾緣和合至度一極微。答中有二。一述經部答。二述有部答。此是初也。經部答中有二。一法先無體是未來。得體已滅是過去。得體未滅名為現在。即此得體未滅之頃名一剎那。二或有動法。度一極微名一剎那。
【English Translation】 English version Abhidharmakośabhāṣya Scroll 11
(The next night is marked (today is the spring festival, people are tuning their instruments, heard from afar))
The increase and decrease of day and night are uncertain, not uniform; it is settled with the Huangyuan edition. Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41 No. 1822 Abhidharmakośabhāṣya
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya Scroll 12
Composed by Śramaṇa Dharmapāla
Chapter 3, Section 5: Analysis of the World
Treatise: Having discussed the three extremely small quantities. From here onwards, the third major section explains the limits of the three. First, it explains the three extremely small quantities. Second, it explains how extremely small quantities accumulate to form large quantities. The latter half of this verse explains the three extremely small quantities. Among the three extremely small quantities, two are what is being explained, and one is the explanation itself. Among what is being explained, one is the quantity of matter (rūpa), and the other is the quantity of time.
Treatise: 'Said' refers to the extreme smallness of matter. Describing the extreme smallness of matter, the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) considers it unreal. It is merely a conceptual analysis by wisdom (jñāna), resulting in the ultimate particle (paramāṇu). This is a transformation of consciousness (vijñāna) and mind (citta), not an accumulation of small parts. The Hinayana (Small Vehicle) states that real ultimate particles exist, forming large matter. Analyzing this large matter until it cannot be further divided is called an ultimate particle.
Treatise: Such analysis extends to names like 'Go.' Describing names and time, it is also an extremely small quantity. Analyzing a name of thirty-two letters down to a name of one letter is called extremely small. Accordingly, analyzing a multi-letter name down to a single-letter name is considered extremely small. Thus, names of two or more letters either have no separate entity or have a separate entity; either way, there is no contradiction. For example, particles of dust like 'micro,' 'gold,' 'water,' 'rabbit,' 'sheep,' 'cow,' etc., have no separate entity apart from their minute substance.
Treatise: What is called a kṣaṇa (instant) in terms of measurement? A general difficulty is raised and re-explained. First, a question, then an answer. This is the question.
Treatise: When various conditions come together to traverse one ultimate particle. There are two answers. First, the answer of the Sautrāntika (Sūtra School). Second, the answer of the Vaibhāṣika (Sarvāstivāda School). This is the first. The Sautrāntika's answer has two parts. First, a dharma (phenomenon) that previously had no substance is the future. Having obtained substance and then ceased is the past. Having obtained substance but not yet ceased is called the present. This moment of having obtained substance but not yet ceased is called a kṣaṇa. Second, if there is a moving dharma, traversing one ultimate particle is called a kṣaṇa.
。極微處量促。剎那時量促。若度二已上極微名一剎那。剎那即有前後非時極少。若度一極微經二剎那。即極微量有分。極微非極少。由此故說度一極微。名一剎那 問曰。若諸法得自體頃名一剎那。得自體頃即是一念。因何仁王般若。云一念有九十剎那。一剎那有九百生．滅 答生滅微細唯佛能知。小乘心粗見生滅粗。諸佛心細見生滅細。由此不同。今詳。經部釋如有動法度一極微。未知此動為取極速。為取小遲。若取小遲。對速還有前後作極少也。若取極速。且如四天下。徑有十二億三千四百半逾繕那。日輪週四天下略有三百萬逾繕那。一逾繕那約有十八里缺八十步。三百萬逾繕那。約有五千萬里余。以里計步已多日夜。日夜剎那剎那唯有六百四十八萬。步已過此。況尺．寸等。及余速物。未詳論師何意如此。
論。對法諸師至一剎那量。述有部計也。毗婆沙中更有多喻況。恐煩不述。雖與經部有少不同。然亦未能述剎那量。有一師云。實剎那量。世尊不說。正理論云。剎那難知假喻以顯。然未盡理。雖有此釋。與日剎那數亦非合。亦不能顯剎那極少無前後分。如一彈指頃六十五剎那。其頃非唯度六十五極微也。若度多極微即非無前後。若一極微名一剎那。即非唯六十五也 今略為二釋。一。日夜剎那。與
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）處量的速度很快，剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）時量也很短。如果經過兩個以上的極微，就稱為一個剎那。剎那有先後順序，時間極短。如果經過一個極微，用了兩個剎那，那麼極微的量就有分割，極微就不是最小的了。因此說，經過一個極微，稱為一個剎那。 問：如果諸法獲得自體（svabhāva，自身本性）的瞬間稱為一個剎那，獲得自體的一瞬間就是一念（citta-kṣaṇa，心念的瞬間）。為什麼《仁王般若經》中說一念有九十個剎那，一個剎那有九百個生滅？ 答：生滅非常微細，只有佛才能知道。小乘（Hinayana）的心比較粗糙，只能看到粗略的生滅。諸佛的心非常細膩，能看到微細的生滅。因此，所見不同。現在詳細分析，經部（Sautrāntika）的解釋是，如果有運動的物體經過一個極微，不知道這個運動是極快還是稍微慢一點。如果稍微慢一點，相對於快的運動，還有先後順序，可以作為極短的時間單位。如果運動極快，比如四天下（catasro dvīpāḥ，四大部洲）的直徑有十二億三千四百五十逾繕那（yojana，古印度長度單位）。日輪（sūryamaṇḍala，太陽）繞四天下大約有三百萬逾繕那。一逾繕那大約有十八里，差八十步。三百萬逾繕那大約有五千萬里多。用里來計算步數已經很多了，而晝夜的剎那剎那只有六百四十八萬。步數已經超過了這個數字，更何況是尺、寸等，以及其他快速的物體。不知道論師（abhidharmika，阿毗達摩論師）是什麼意思。 論：對法（Abhidharma）諸師說到一個剎那的量。這是有部（Sarvāstivāda）的說法。在《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa）中還有很多比喻，恐怕繁瑣就不說了。雖然與經部有少許不同，但也未能描述剎那的量。有一位論師說，真正的剎那量，世尊（Bhagavān，佛陀）沒有說。《正理論》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）說，剎那難以知道，用比喻來顯示。但沒有完全說清楚。雖然有這樣的解釋，與日夜的剎那數也不符合，也不能顯示剎那極短，沒有先後分割。比如一彈指頃有六十五個剎那，這個時間並非只經過六十五個極微。如果經過多個極微，就不是沒有先後順序。如果一個極微稱為一個剎那，就不是隻有六十五個剎那了。 現在簡略地做兩種解釋。一，晝夜的剎那數與
【English Translation】 English version: The speed of a paramāṇu (the smallest unit of matter) is very fast, and the duration of a kṣaṇa (an extremely short unit of time) is also very short. If more than two paramāṇus are traversed, it is called one kṣaṇa. A kṣaṇa has a sequence of before and after, and the time is extremely short. If one paramāṇu is traversed and it takes two kṣaṇas, then the quantity of the paramāṇu is divisible, and the paramāṇu is not the smallest. Therefore, it is said that traversing one paramāṇu is called one kṣaṇa. Question: If the moment when dharmas (elements of existence) obtain their svabhāva (own-being, self-nature) is called one kṣaṇa, and the moment of obtaining svabhāva is one citta-kṣaṇa (moment of thought), why does the Renwang Banruo Jing (the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra of Humane Kings) say that one thought has ninety kṣaṇas, and one kṣaṇa has nine hundred births and deaths? Answer: Birth and death are very subtle, and only the Buddha (Bhagavān) can know them. The mind of the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) is relatively coarse and can only see coarse births and deaths. The minds of the Buddhas are very subtle and can see subtle births and deaths. Therefore, the perceptions are different. Now, analyzing in detail, the Sautrāntika (Sūtra School) explains that if a moving object traverses one paramāṇu, it is not known whether this movement is extremely fast or slightly slower. If it is slightly slower, relative to the fast movement, there is still a sequence of before and after, which can be taken as an extremely short unit of time. If the movement is extremely fast, for example, the diameter of the four continents (catasro dvīpāḥ) is twelve billion, three hundred and forty-five million yojanas (an ancient Indian unit of length). The sun (sūryamaṇḍala) revolves around the four continents for about three million yojanas. One yojana is about eighteen li (Chinese mile), minus eighty bu (pace). Three million yojanas are about fifty million li plus. Using li to calculate the number of bu is already a lot, and the kṣaṇas of day and night are only six million, four hundred and eighty thousand. The number of bu has already exceeded this number, let alone chi (foot), cun (inch), etc., and other fast-moving objects. I don't know what the Abhidharmikas (Abhidharma masters) mean by this. Treatise: The Abhidharma masters talk about the measure of one kṣaṇa. This is the view of the Sarvāstivāda (the ' সর্বাস্তিবাদ '). In the Vibhasa (Mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra), there are many more metaphors, but I am afraid they are too cumbersome to mention. Although there are slight differences from the Sautrāntika, they have not been able to describe the measure of a kṣaṇa. One master said that the true measure of a kṣaṇa was not spoken by the Bhagavan (Buddha). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that a kṣaṇa is difficult to know and is shown by metaphors. But it has not been fully explained. Although there is such an explanation, it does not match the number of kṣaṇas in a day and night, nor can it show that a kṣaṇa is extremely short and has no before and after divisions. For example, there are sixty-five kṣaṇas in the time of a finger snap, and this time does not only traverse sixty-five paramāṇus. If multiple paramāṇus are traversed, it is not without a sequence of before and after. If one paramāṇu is called one kṣaṇa, then there are not only sixty-five kṣaṇas. Now, I will briefly give two explanations. First, the number of kṣaṇas in day and night is related to
此剎那不同。日夜剎那唯是算數之法。如此秤．尺等量極少之名。無佛法時此數常定。此生滅剎那。即是諸法生滅之量。經部云。是諸法得自體頃。有部即是取果之頃也。二釋。時之極少名一剎那。是數量時之名。即是極少名一剎那。極多名劫等。剎那非不更有細分。劫非更無有多時。應更思之。
論。已知三極少至逾繕那等。已下大文第二明積色也。
論曰至為指節。已上十一位皆七成也。兔毛細滑塵。小羊毛。牛毛潤膩塵。大羊毛也 言七成者。六方並心以為七也。
論。三節為一指至不別分別。釋頌不說三節以成一指意。以三指節為一指者。是豎三節。如今人指。
論。二十四指至中間道量。明後四量。古時一弓有八尺者。即是古尋。今時有六尺已下。即六尺步法。今時多用五尺步法 俱盧舍。是人．牛聲不及處所。無聲喧雜處 梵名阿練若。阿是言無。練若名喧雜。若以八尺為尋計之。五百弓量即是四千尺。若以六尺計之。即有三千尺也。若以一肘一尺六寸計一弓量。即有六尺四寸。昔時造論。故應八尺計之。
論。說八俱盧舍為一逾繕那。即是四八三十二。三萬二千尺也。若以五尺步法計之。即有六千四百步。以三百六十步里法計之。即有一十八里。缺八十步。
論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 此剎那（Kshana，時間單位）不同。日夜剎那只是算數的方法。如此秤、尺等，只是極少量的名稱。沒有佛法時，這個數字是恒定的。這個生滅剎那，就是諸法生滅的計量。經部說，這是諸法獲得自身體性的時刻；有部則認為是取果的時刻。這是兩種解釋。時間極短的叫做一剎那，這是數量時間的名稱。就是說，極短的時間叫做一剎那，極長的時間叫做劫等等。剎那並非不能再細分，劫也並非沒有更多的時間，應該更深入地思考。
論：已知三極少到逾繕那（Yojana，長度單位）等。以下大文第二，說明積聚的色法。
論曰：到指節。以上十一位，都是七成的。兔毛細滑塵，小羊毛，牛毛潤膩塵，大羊毛。所謂七成，就是六方加上中心，成為七。
論：三節為一指，到不特別分別。解釋頌文沒有說三節構成一指的意義。用三指節作為一指，是豎立三個指節，就像現在人的手指。
論：二十四指到中間的道路長度。說明後面的四種量。古時候一弓有八尺，那就是古時候的尋。現在有六尺以下的，就是六尺的步法。現在大多用五尺的步法。俱盧舍（Krosha，長度單位），是人和牛的聲音都聽不到的地方，沒有聲音喧雜的地方。梵語阿練若（Aranya），阿是說沒有，練若是喧雜。如果用八尺為一尋來計算，五百弓的量就是四千尺。如果用六尺計算，就有三千尺。如果用一肘一尺六寸計算一弓的量，就有六尺四寸。過去造論的時候，所以應該用八尺來計算。
論：說八俱盧舍為一逾繕那。就是四八三十二，三萬二千尺。如果用五尺步法計算，就有六千四百步。用三百六十步為一里的方法計算，就有一十八里，缺少八十步。
論
【English Translation】 English version This kshana (Kshana, unit of time) is different. Day and night kshanas are merely methods of calculation. Like scales and rulers, these are just names for extremely small quantities. When there is no Buddha-dharma, this number is constant. This kshana of arising and ceasing is the measure of the arising and ceasing of all dharmas. The Sautrantika school says that this is the moment when all dharmas attain their own nature; the Sarvastivada school considers it the moment of taking effect. These are two explanations. The extremely short time is called one kshana, which is the name of a quantity of time. That is to say, an extremely short time is called one kshana, and an extremely long time is called a kalpa, and so on. A kshana is not incapable of being further subdivided, and a kalpa is not without more time; one should think more deeply about this.
Treatise: It is known that three extremely small units up to a yojana (Yojana, unit of length), etc. The second major section below explains the accumulation of form.
Treatise says: Up to the finger joint. The above eleven are all 'seven-fold'. Rabbit hair fine dust, small sheep's wool, cow hair moist dust, large sheep's wool. The so-called 'seven-fold' means the six directions plus the center, making seven.
Treatise: Three joints make one finger, up to no special distinction. The explanation of the verse does not explain the meaning of three joints forming one finger. Using three finger joints as one finger means erecting three finger joints, like the fingers of modern people.
Treatise: Twenty-four fingers up to the length of the middle road. Explaining the four subsequent measures. In ancient times, one bow was eight feet, which was the ancient fathom. Now there are six feet or less, which is the six-foot pace. Now most people use the five-foot pace. Krosha (Krosha, unit of length) is a place where the sounds of people and cows cannot be heard, a place without noisy sounds. The Sanskrit name is Aranya. 'A' means 'without', and 'Aranya' means 'noisy'. If we calculate using eight feet as one fathom, then the measure of five hundred bows is four thousand feet. If we calculate using six feet, then there are three thousand feet. If we calculate one bow's measure using one cubit and one foot and six inches, then there are six feet and four inches. In the past, when treatises were created, one should calculate using eight feet.
Treatise: It is said that eight krosas make one yojana. That is four eights are thirty-two, thirty-two thousand feet. If we calculate using the five-foot pace, then there are six thousand four hundred paces. Calculating using the method of three hundred and sixty paces per li, then there are eighteen li, lacking eighty paces.
Treatise
。如是已說逾繕那等。第二明時量也 就中有二。一從剎那至年量。二明劫量。此下兩行頌。先明剎那至年量。
論曰剎那百二十為一怛剎那。第一節。此有一百二十剎那也。
論。六十怛剎那為一臘縛。第二節。此有七千二百剎那。
論。三十臘縛為一牟呼栗多。第三節。二十一萬六千剎那。
論。三十牟呼栗多為一晝夜。第四節。六百四十八萬剎那。
論。此晝夜至知夜減 有時增者。晝夜總三十牟呼栗多。此雲鬚臾。夜增時十八晝有十二。即是此方冬至也。晝增此方夏至也 有時等。當春．秋分也 六月減夜者。言夜兼晝。十二月中六月減夜。即是此方六月小盡也。引頌證 寒熱雨際中者。牒三際也 一月半已度者。謂雨月減一日。至第二月半已度。是第二月後半末缺一日。即是此方雨月減一日 于所餘半月。即是第二月後半月。此方亦有並小．並大．及潤月等。略而不論。
論。如是已辯至今已當辯。已下第二有四行頌。明劫量 就中有三。一明大．小。第二明人。第三明災。此下第一明劫大．小。頌文可知。
論曰至外器都盡。明壞劫也。頌中初明四劫。有壞劫。有成劫。有中劫。有大劫。此先釋壞劫。壞劫謂地獄有情不復生。至外器都盡。皆是壞劫。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如上已經解釋了逾繕那（Yojana，古印度長度單位）等概念。接下來，第二部分闡明時間的量度。這部分內容分為兩點：一是說明從剎那到年的時間量，二是說明劫的時間量。以下兩行頌文，首先闡明從剎那到年的時間量。
論曰：一百二十個剎那（Kshana，極短的時間單位）為一怛剎那（Tatkshana）。第一節。這意味著一個怛剎那包含一百二十個剎那。
論：六十個怛剎那為一臘縛（Lava）。第二節。這意味著一個臘縛包含七千二百個剎那。
論：三十個臘縛為一牟呼栗多（Muhurta）。第三節。這意味著一個牟呼栗多包含二十一萬六千個剎那。
論：三十個牟呼栗多為一晝夜。第四節。這意味著一個晝夜包含六百四十八萬個剎那。
論：這個晝夜有時變短至知夜減（夜晚縮短），有時變長者。晝夜總共有三十個牟呼栗多。這裡說的『須臾』（Muhurta）是指，夜晚增加時，十八個牟呼栗多屬於夜晚，十二個牟呼栗多屬於白天，這相當於我們這裡的冬至。白天增加則相當於我們這裡的夏至。有時相等，相當於春分和秋分。六個月夜晚縮短，指的是夜晚連同白天，在十二個月中有六個月夜晚縮短，這相當於我們這裡的六月小盡。引用頌文來證明，『寒熱雨際中』，指的是三個季節交替的時候。『一月半已度』，指的是雨月減少一天，到第二個月過了一半的時候，也就是第二個月的後半段缺少一天，這相當於我們這裡的雨月減少一天。至於剩下的半個月，也就是第二個月的後半個月，我們這裡也有並小月、並大月以及閏月等等情況，這裡就省略不談了。
論：如上已經辨析了『至今』，接下來應當辨析『已當』。以下第二部分有四行頌文，闡明劫的時間量。這部分內容分為三點：一是說明大劫和小劫，二是說明人劫，三是說明災劫。以下首先說明劫的大和小。頌文的內容可以理解。
論曰：直至外器都盡。說明的是壞劫。頌文中首先說明四劫：有壞劫、有成劫、有中劫、有大劫。這裡先解釋壞劫。壞劫指的是地獄的有情不再出生，直至外在的器世界完全毀滅，這些都屬於壞劫。
【English Translation】 English version: As explained above regarding Yojana (an ancient Indian unit of distance) and other concepts. Next, the second part elucidates the measurement of time. This section is divided into two points: first, it explains the time measurement from Kshana to year, and second, it explains the time measurement of Kalpa. The following two lines of verse first clarify the time measurement from Kshana to year.
Treatise says: One hundred and twenty Kshanas (an extremely short unit of time) make one Tatkshana. First section. This means that one Tatkshana contains one hundred and twenty Kshanas.
Treatise: Sixty Tatkshanas make one Lava. Second section. This means that one Lava contains seven thousand two hundred Kshanas.
Treatise: Thirty Lavas make one Muhurta. Third section. This means that one Muhurta contains two hundred and sixteen thousand Kshanas.
Treatise: Thirty Muhurtas make one day and night. Fourth section. This means that one day and night contains six million four hundred and eighty thousand Kshanas.
Treatise: This day and night sometimes becomes shorter to 'knowing the night decreases' (night shortens), and sometimes becomes longer. A day and night has a total of thirty Muhurtas. The 'Muhurta' mentioned here refers to when the night increases, eighteen Muhurtas belong to the night, and twelve Muhurtas belong to the day, which is equivalent to our winter solstice. The day increasing is equivalent to our summer solstice. Sometimes they are equal, equivalent to the spring and autumn equinoxes. Six months of night shortening refers to the night together with the day, in the twelve months there are six months of night shortening, which is equivalent to our sixth month of minor exhaustion. Quoting the verse to prove, 'cold, heat, rain in the middle', refers to the time of the three seasons alternating. 'One and a half months have passed', refers to the rain month decreasing by one day, until the second month has passed half, that is, the second half of the month lacks one day, which is equivalent to our rain month decreasing by one day. As for the remaining half month, that is, the second half of the month, we also have minor months, major months, and leap months, etc., which will be omitted here.
Treatise: As the above has already distinguished 'until now', next we should distinguish 'already should'. The following second part has four lines of verse, clarifying the time measurement of Kalpa. This section is divided into three points: first, it explains the major and minor Kalpas, second, it explains the human Kalpa, and third, it explains the disaster Kalpa. The following first explains the major and minor Kalpas. The content of the verse can be understood.
Treatise says: Until the outer vessel is completely exhausted. It explains the destruction Kalpa. The verse first explains the four Kalpas: there is destruction Kalpa, there is formation Kalpa, there is intermediate Kalpa, and there is great Kalpa. Here we first explain the destruction Kalpa. The destruction Kalpa refers to the sentient beings in hell no longer being born, until the external world is completely destroyed, these all belong to the destruction Kalpa.
論。壞有二種至二外器壞者。復兩重二種。一壞有情中分二。二有情與器分二。總為四門。
論。謂此世間至壞劫便至。明住劫後有壞劫也。住劫二十中劫者。謂刀．兵等中二十也。壞劫言等住者。于壞劫無刀．兵等劫。但住劫時等名等住劫。此即住．壞．空．成各二十劫。合八十中劫為一大劫。
論。若時地獄至地獄已壞。已下釋趣壞也。就趣壞中。先釋地獄。二釋畜．鬼。三釋人趣。四釋天趣。此釋地獄。應生不生。名為壞劫。有情都盡名已壞也。
論。諸有地獄至他方獄中。此世界中若不定者災後時受。或全不受。諸有定者。他方受也。今詳。地獄壞時不越中劫。
論。由此準知至與人天同壞。此明第二畜．鬼壞。鬼本住處。即此洲下五百逾繕那。傍生在大海 言各先壞本處者。先壞畜生。后壞鬼趣。
論。若時人趣至人趣已壞。此第三明人趣壞。壞劫之時三洲人。由法爾力等生於梵世。北俱盧人生欲天已後生梵世。定生欲天故。不能離染故。
論。若時天趣至例同此說。第四明天趣壞。彼彼天中皆得離染。直生梵世不轉生也。
論。乃至欲界至有情已壞。此下第二明界壞也。
論。若時梵世至有情世間。第三有情世間壞。
論。唯器世間至無遺灰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：壞有二種，一是壞有情（sentient beings）至二外器（external objects）壞者。復兩重二種：一壞有情中分二，二有情與器分二，總為四門。
論：謂此世間至壞劫便至，明住劫（period of dwelling）後有壞劫也。住劫二十中劫者，謂刀、兵等中二十也。壞劫言等住者，于壞劫無刀、兵等劫，但住劫時等名等住劫。此即住、壞、空、成各二十劫，合八十中劫為一大劫。
論：若時地獄至地獄已壞，已下釋趣壞也。就趣壞中，先釋地獄，二釋畜、鬼，三釋人趣，四釋天趣。此釋地獄，應生不生，名為壞劫。有情都盡名已壞也。
論：諸有地獄至他方獄中。此世界中若不定者災後時受，或全不受。諸有定者，他方受也。今詳，地獄壞時不越中劫。
論：由此準知至與人天同壞。此明第二畜、鬼壞。鬼本住處，即此洲下五百逾繕那（yojana）。傍生在大海。言各先壞本處者，先壞畜生，后壞鬼趣。
論：若時人趣至人趣已壞。此第三明人趣壞。壞劫之時三洲人，由法爾力等生於梵世（Brahma world）。北俱盧人（Uttarakuru）生欲天（desire realm）已後生梵世。定生欲天故，不能離染故。
論：若時天趣至例同此說。第四明天趣壞。彼彼天中皆得離染，直生梵世不轉生也。
論：乃至欲界至有情已壞。此下第二明界壞也。
論：若時梵世至有情世間。第三有情世間壞。
論：唯器世間至無遺灰。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: There are two types of destruction: one is the destruction of sentient beings, and the other is the destruction of external objects. These are further divided into two categories: first, the destruction of sentient beings is divided into two; second, the destruction of sentient beings and objects is divided into two, making a total of four aspects.
Treatise: It refers to the fact that this world will reach the stage of destruction. It clarifies that after the period of dwelling (sthiti-kalpa), there is a period of destruction (samvarta-kalpa). The twenty intermediate kalpas (antara-kalpa) of the dwelling period refer to the twenty intermediate kalpas of war, etc. The phrase 'equal to the dwelling period' in the context of the destruction period means that there are no intermediate kalpas of war, etc., during the destruction period, but the period is named 'equal to the dwelling period'. Thus, the periods of dwelling, destruction, emptiness, and formation each consist of twenty kalpas, totaling eighty intermediate kalpas to form one great kalpa (maha-kalpa).
Treatise: 'If the hells... until the hells are destroyed,' this explains the destruction of the realms of existence. Regarding the destruction of the realms, first, the hells are explained; second, the animals and ghosts; third, the human realm; and fourth, the heavenly realms. This explains the hells. Those who should be born are not born, which is called the destruction period. When all sentient beings are exhausted, it is called 'already destroyed'.
Treatise: 'All those in hell... to other hells.' Those who are uncertain in this world will experience the consequences after the disaster, or not at all. Those who are certain will experience them in other realms. Now, in detail, the destruction of the hells does not exceed an intermediate kalpa.
Treatise: 'From this, it can be inferred... that they are destroyed together with humans and gods.' This clarifies the destruction of animals and ghosts. The original dwelling place of ghosts is five hundred yojanas below this continent. Animals are in the great ocean. The statement 'each destroys its original place first' means that animals are destroyed first, followed by the realm of ghosts.
Treatise: 'If the human realm... until the human realm is destroyed.' This thirdly clarifies the destruction of the human realm. During the destruction period, the people of the three continents are born in the Brahma world (brahmaloka) due to natural forces, etc. The people of Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru) are born in the desire realm (kama-dhatu) and then in the Brahma world, because they are destined to be born in the desire realm and cannot be free from attachment.
Treatise: 'If the heavenly realms... the same applies.' Fourthly, it clarifies the destruction of the heavenly realms. In each of those heavens, they can be free from attachment and are born directly into the Brahma world without being reborn elsewhere.
Treatise: 'Even the desire realm... until sentient beings are destroyed.' Below, the second clarifies the destruction of the realms.
Treatise: 'If the Brahma world... until the sentient world.' Thirdly, the sentient world is destroyed.
Treatise: Only the physical world... until there is no ash left.
燼。第四明世間壞。
論。自地火焰至如應當知。明自地災。唯壞自地不壞他地。
論。如是始從至總名壞劫。總結壞劫。
論。所言成劫至成劫便至。大文第二明成劫也。從空劫後方有成劫。空．成二劫皆等住劫二十劫也 明成劫中復分有四。一明成次第。二明將成相。三明成外器。四明成有情。此下第一明次第也。
論。一切有情至將成前相。此下第二明成相也。
論。風漸增盛至外器世間。此下第三明成器也。
論。初一有情至應知已滿。此第四明有情成也。
論。此後復有至壽方漸減。大文第三明住劫 就中有五。一明成次第。二明初唯減。三明中下上。四明後唯增。五總結前。此即初也。從成有情世間十九中劫。人壽無量歲。漸下一有情至阿毗地獄名成劫已。自此已後人命漸減。
論。此後十八至例皆如是。此第三明中間十八有增．減也。
論。於十八后至名第二十劫。第四明後一劫唯增。此後一劫雖同十八。增至八萬。以增遲故同前上下。
論。一切劫增至成已住劫。此即第五總結前也。
論。所餘成壞至二十中劫。此明準住二十時量成．壞．空劫量同也。空之一劫更無別相。故不別釋。
論。成中初劫至有情漸舍。明成．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 燼。第四，闡明世間壞滅（世間的毀滅）。
論：從（最下）地獄的火焰開始，直至（色界頂）如應當知。闡明自地的災難。僅僅是（欲）界自身毀滅，不會破壞其他（色、無色）界。
論：像這樣開始，直至（壞劫結束），總名為壞劫。總結壞劫。
論：所說的成劫，直至成劫便到來。大的段落第二，闡明成劫。從空劫之後才有成劫。空劫和成劫都和住劫一樣，是二十劫。闡明成劫中又分為四部分。一是闡明次第，二是闡明將成之相，三是闡明形成外在的器世界，四是闡明形成有情眾生。下面是第一部分，闡明次第。
論：一切有情，直至將成的前兆。下面第二部分，闡明成劫的徵兆。
論：風逐漸增強，直至外器世間（形成）。下面第三部分，闡明器世界的形成。
論：最初一個有情，直至應當知道已經滿了。這是第四部分，闡明有情眾生的形成。
論：此後又有，直至壽命才逐漸減少。大的段落第三，闡明住劫。其中有五部分。一是闡明次第，二是闡明最初只有減少，三是闡明中間的下、上，四是闡明最後只有增加，五是總結前面所說的。這便是第一部分。從形成有情眾生的世間開始，十九個中劫中，人的壽命是無量歲。逐漸向下，一個有情直到阿毗地獄（無間地獄），名為成劫已經結束。從這之後，人的壽命逐漸減少。
論：此後的十八個，例子都像這樣。這是第三部分，闡明中間十八個有增加、減少。
論：在十八個之後，直至名為第二十劫。第四部分，闡明最後一個劫只有增加。這最後一個劫雖然和十八個劫相同，增加到八萬歲。因為增加緩慢，所以和前面的上下（增減）相同。
論：一切劫的增加，直至成劫已經住劫。這是第五部分，總結前面所說的。
論：其餘的成壞，直至二十中劫。這闡明了準住劫二十個時量，成劫、壞劫、空劫的量都相同。空劫的一個劫沒有別的相狀，所以不另外解釋。
論：成劫中的最初一劫，直至有情逐漸捨棄（生命）。闡明成劫、
【English Translation】 English version Ashes. Fourth, Explaining the Destruction of the World.
Treatise: From the flames of the (lowest) hell up to (the peak of the Form Realm), as it should be known. Explaining the calamities of one's own realm. Only the (Desire) Realm itself is destroyed, without destroying other (Form and Formless) Realms.
Treatise: Beginning in this way, up to (the end of the Destruction Kalpa), it is collectively called the Destruction Kalpa. Summarizing the Destruction Kalpa.
Treatise: What is said about the Formation Kalpa, up to when the Formation Kalpa arrives. The second major section, explaining the Formation Kalpa. Only after the Emptiness Kalpa is there a Formation Kalpa. The Emptiness Kalpa and the Formation Kalpa are both the same as the Abiding Kalpa, being twenty kalpas. Explaining that within the Formation Kalpa, there are further four parts. First, explaining the order; second, explaining the signs of what is about to be formed; third, explaining the formation of the external world of vessels; fourth, explaining the formation of sentient beings. Below is the first part, explaining the order.
Treatise: All sentient beings, up to the premonitions of what is about to be formed. Below is the second part, explaining the signs of the Formation Kalpa.
Treatise: The wind gradually increases, up to the (formation of the) external world of vessels. Below is the third part, explaining the formation of the vessel world.
Treatise: The first sentient being, up to when it should be known that it is full. This is the fourth part, explaining the formation of sentient beings.
Treatise: After this, there is again, up to when lifespan gradually decreases. The third major section, explaining the Abiding Kalpa. Within this, there are five parts. First, explaining the order; second, explaining that initially there is only decrease; third, explaining the middle lower and upper; fourth, explaining that finally there is only increase; fifth, summarizing what was said before. This is the first part. Starting from the world of sentient beings being formed, in the nineteen intermediate kalpas, the lifespan of humans is immeasurable years. Gradually downwards, one sentient being up to Avici Hell (Hell of Incessant Suffering), it is called the Formation Kalpa being finished. From after this, the lifespan of humans gradually decreases.
Treatise: The eighteen after this, the examples are all like this. This is the third part, explaining the eighteen in the middle having increase and decrease.
Treatise: After the eighteen, up to what is called the twentieth kalpa. The fourth part, explaining that the last kalpa only has increase. Although this last kalpa is the same as the eighteen kalpas, increasing to eighty thousand years. Because the increase is slow, it is the same as the previous up and down (increase and decrease).
Treatise: The increase of all kalpas, up to the Formation Kalpa already abiding. This is the fifth part, summarizing what was said before.
Treatise: The remaining formation and destruction, up to twenty intermediate kalpas. This explains that according to the twenty time-periods of the Abiding Kalpa, the amount of the Formation Kalpa, Destruction Kalpa, and Emptiness Kalpa are all the same. The one kalpa of the Emptiness Kalpa has no other characteristics, so it is not explained separately.
Treatise: The initial kalpa in the Formation Kalpa, up to sentient beings gradually abandoning (life). Explaining the Formation Kalpa,
壞劫器。及有情時量別也 立世經說器及有情成．壞各十劫與此不同者。彼說。梵王先生十劫住后梵輔等次第生。故知梵輔已下十劫成也。若兼梵王十九劫成。梵王入成器中故十劫也。故知梵王劫壞后十劫獨住。
論。如是所說至成大劫量。總八十成一大劫。
論。劫性是何。問劫體也。
論。謂唯五蘊。答劫體明無別法。即以彼時五蘊為體。不同外道別有時．方。婆沙一百四十五云。劫體是何。有說是色。如是說者晝夜等位無不皆是五蘊生滅。以此成劫。劫體亦然。劫既通三界時分。故用四蘊五蘊為性 若無色以四蘊為性。空劫即以二蘊為性。婆沙論云。何故名劫。劫是何義。答分別時分故分為劫。謂分別剎那．臘縛．牟呼栗多時分以成晝夜。分別晝夜時分以成半月．月．年。分別半月等時分以成於劫。以是分別時分中極故得總名聲。聲論師者言。分別位故說名為劫。所以者何。是分別有為法行中究竟位故。
論。經說三劫至三劫無數。問。
論累前大劫至三劫無數。答也。
論。既稱無數何復言三。難也。
論。非無數言至是其一數。答 阿僧企耶。此云無數。非無數言顯不可數。此是解脫經六十數中一數名也。
論。云何六十。問。
論。如彼經言至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 壞劫（destruction kalpa）。以及有情（sentient beings）存在的時間長短的差別。《立世經》說器世界和有情的形成和壞滅各需十劫，這與此處的說法不同。那部經中說，梵王（Brahmā，色界天主）首先產生，住世十劫，然後梵輔天（Brahma-pāriṣadya，梵天輔臣）等依次產生。因此可知，梵輔天以下的世界需要十劫形成。如果算上梵王，則需要十九劫形成。梵王被包括在形成器世界的過程中，所以說是十劫。由此可知，梵王在劫壞之後獨自住世十劫。
論：如上所說，直到形成大劫的時間長度，總共八十個成劫構成一個大劫。
論：劫的性質是什麼？問的是劫的本體。
論：就是五蘊（pañca-skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識）。答：劫的本體並沒有別的法，就是以那個時期的五蘊為本體。這不同於外道所說的有時間和空間。婆沙論第一百四十五卷說：劫的本體是什麼？有人說是色蘊。這樣說的人認為，晝夜等時段無不是五蘊生滅。以此成就劫。劫的本體也是這樣。劫既然貫通三界（trayo dhātavaḥ，欲界、色界、無色界）的時間劃分，所以用四蘊或五蘊作為其性質。如果是無色界，則以四蘊為性質。空劫（destruction kalpa）就以二蘊為性質。婆沙論說：為什麼叫作劫？劫是什麼意思？答：因為分別時分，所以分為劫。就是分別剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）、臘縛（lava，較短的時間單位）、牟呼栗多（muhūrta，印度古代的時間單位）等時分，從而形成晝夜。分別晝夜時分，從而形成半月、月、年。分別半月等時分，從而形成劫。因為這是在分別時分中達到極致，所以得到總的名稱。聲明論師說：因為分別位置，所以說名為劫。為什麼這樣說呢？因為這是在分別有為法（saṃskṛta-dharma，由因緣和合而生的事物）的執行中達到究竟的位置。
論：經中說三劫（tri-kalpa）到三劫無數（tri-kalpāsaṃkhyeya）。問。
論：累積前面的大劫，直到三劫無數。答。
論：既然稱作無數，為什麼又說三？難。
論：不是說無數就表示不可數，這只是其中的一個數。答：阿僧企耶（asaṃkhyeya）。這裡叫做無數。不是說無數就表示不可數。這是《解脫經》六十個數中的一個數名。
論：什麼是六十數？問。
論：就像那部經里說的那樣……
【English Translation】 English version The destruction kalpa (bad-kalpa). And the difference in the duration of sentient beings' existence. The Li Shi Jing (Establishing the World Sutra) says that the formation and destruction of the world and sentient beings each take ten kalpas, which differs from this account. That sutra says that Brahmā (Lord of the Form Realm) is born first and dwells for ten kalpas, and then Brahma-pāriṣadya (Brahma's retinue) and others are born in sequence. Therefore, it is known that the worlds below Brahma-pāriṣadya take ten kalpas to form. If Brahmā is included, it takes nineteen kalpas to form. Brahmā is included in the process of forming the world, so it is said to be ten kalpas. From this, it is known that Brahmā dwells alone for ten kalpas after the destruction of the kalpa.
Treatise: As mentioned above, until the length of time for the formation of a great kalpa, a total of eighty formation kalpas constitute one great kalpa.
Treatise: What is the nature of a kalpa? This asks about the substance of a kalpa.
Treatise: It is only the five aggregates (pañca-skandha, the five elements that constitute individual existence, namely form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness). Answer: The substance of a kalpa has no other dharma (law, principle); it is the five aggregates of that time that serve as its substance. This is different from the externalists who say there is time and space. The Vibhāṣā (Great Commentary) in chapter 145 says: What is the substance of a kalpa? Some say it is form. Those who say this believe that the periods of day and night are nothing but the arising and ceasing of the five aggregates. With this, a kalpa is accomplished. The substance of a kalpa is also like this. Since a kalpa pervades the divisions of time in the three realms (trayo dhātavaḥ, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm), it uses four or five aggregates as its nature. If it is the formless realm, then it uses four aggregates as its nature. The empty kalpa (destruction kalpa) uses two aggregates as its nature. The Vibhāṣā says: Why is it called a kalpa? What does kalpa mean? Answer: Because time is distinguished, it is divided into kalpas. That is, distinguishing moments (kṣaṇa, extremely short units of time), lavas (lava, shorter units of time), muhūrtas (muhūrta, ancient Indian units of time), and other divisions of time to form day and night. Distinguishing day and night to form half-months, months, and years. Distinguishing half-months and other divisions of time to form kalpas. Because this is the ultimate in distinguishing time, it gets a general name. The grammarians say: Because positions are distinguished, it is called a kalpa. Why is this so? Because it is the ultimate position in distinguishing the activity of conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta-dharma, things that arise from the combination of causes and conditions).
Treatise: The sutra says three kalpas (tri-kalpa) to three countless kalpas (tri-kalpāsaṃkhyeya). Question.
Treatise: Accumulating the previous great kalpas, up to three countless kalpas. Answer.
Treatise: Since it is called countless, why say three? Difficulty.
Treatise: It is not that countless means uncountable; this is just one of the numbers. Answer: Asaṃkhyeya. Here it is called countless. It is not that countless means uncountable. This is one of the sixty numbers in the Liberation Sutra.
Treatise: What are the sixty numbers? Question.
Treatise: Just as that sutra says...
三劫無數。總結答也。
論。何緣菩薩至方期佛果。問。菩薩何為而不速取二乘涅槃。而愿長時以取菩提。
論。如何不許至髮長時愿。答。無上菩提甚難得故。彼若不能髮長時愿修多苦行等不得菩提。是故定鬚髮長時愿。
論。若余方便至久修多苦行。此重問。若以無上大菩提果甚難得故。髮長時愿修多苦行。既有六十劫或三生方便。亦得涅槃出離於苦。何用為菩提久修多苦行。
論。為欲利樂至求無上菩提。答。為利有情故。舍涅槃道以取菩提。
論。濟他有情於己何益。問。濟他何益於己。苦行若斯。
論。菩薩濟物至即為己益。答。菩薩悲心懷益物。既得成佛濟度眾生。遂己悲心即為己益。
論。誰信菩薩有如是事。難。此事難信誰能信此。
論。有懷潤己至此事非難信。答。汝懷潤己無大慈悲。於此事中實為難信。以己方人故不得信也。若無潤己有大慈悲。此事非難信。以他方己故。
論。如有久習至如何不信。舉喻顯。如文可解。
論。又如有情至如何不信復舉喻也。已上兩喻由數習故。
論。又由種姓至別有自益。明種姓如是起悲願也。
論。依如是義至他為己故。引頌證。就此頌中。前兩句下士者是異生。次兩句中士者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三劫無數。總結回答。
論：菩薩要經歷多久才能證得佛果？問：菩薩為什麼不迅速證得二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的涅槃，而願意長時間地修行以證得菩提（覺悟）？
論：為什麼必須發長時愿？答：因為無上菩提非常難以獲得。如果他們不能發起長時愿，修行諸多苦行等，就不能得到菩提。因此，一定要髮長時愿。
論：如果還有其他方便法門，可以快速結束長時間的苦行。這是重複提問。如果因為無上大菩提果非常難以獲得，所以髮長時愿，修行諸多苦行。既然有六十劫或者三生的方便法門，也可以證得涅槃，脫離痛苦，為什麼還要爲了菩提而長期修行諸多苦行？
論：爲了利益安樂一切眾生，所以才求無上菩提。答：爲了利益有情眾生，所以捨棄涅槃之道，而選擇證得菩提。
論：救濟其他有情眾生，對自己有什麼好處？問：救濟他人對自己有什麼好處？要承受這樣的苦行。
論：菩薩救濟眾生，實際上就是利益自己。答：菩薩懷著悲憫之心利益眾生，最終得以成佛，救度眾生，成就自己的悲憫之心，這實際上就是利益自己。
論：誰會相信菩薩有這樣的行為？難：這件事難以置信，誰能相信呢？
論：如果懷著潤澤自己的想法，這件事就難以相信。答：你懷著潤澤自己的想法，沒有廣大的慈悲心，所以這件事對你來說確實難以相信。因為你以自己的想法來衡量他人，所以無法相信。如果沒有潤澤自己的想法，有廣大的慈悲心，這件事就不難相信。因為你以他人的想法來衡量自己。
論：如果像長期習慣一樣，為什麼不相信呢？舉例說明。如文可解。
論：又如果像有情眾生一樣，為什麼不相信呢？再次舉例說明。以上兩個例子都是因為長期習慣的緣故。
論：又因為種姓的緣故，另外有自身的利益。說明種姓就是這樣生起悲願的。
論：依據這樣的意義，他人就是爲了自己。引用偈頌來證明。就這首偈頌中，前兩句說的是下士（指凡夫俗子），是異生（指不同於聖人的眾生）。后兩句說的是中士。
【English Translation】 English version Countless Kalpas (aeons). This is a summary answer.
Treatise: Why does a Bodhisattva (enlightenment being) take so long to attain Buddhahood (state of a Buddha)? Question: Why doesn't a Bodhisattva quickly attain the Nirvana (liberation) of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), but instead wishes to practice for a long time to attain Bodhi (enlightenment)?
Treatise: Why is it necessary to make a long-term vow? Answer: Because unsurpassed Bodhi is very difficult to attain. If they cannot make a long-term vow and practice many ascetic practices, they cannot attain Bodhi. Therefore, it is necessary to make a long-term vow.
Treatise: If there are other expedient means to quickly end long periods of ascetic practice. This is a repeated question. If, because the unsurpassed great fruit of Bodhi is very difficult to attain, one makes a long-term vow and practices many ascetic practices, and since there are expedient means of sixty kalpas or three lives to attain Nirvana and escape suffering, why practice many ascetic practices for a long time for the sake of Bodhi?
Treatise: It is to benefit and bring happiness to all sentient beings that one seeks unsurpassed Bodhi. Answer: It is for the benefit of sentient beings that one abandons the path of Nirvana and chooses to attain Bodhi.
Treatise: What benefit is there to oneself in helping other sentient beings? Question: What benefit is there to oneself in helping others? To endure such ascetic practices.
Treatise: When a Bodhisattva helps sentient beings, it is actually benefiting oneself. Answer: A Bodhisattva benefits sentient beings with a compassionate heart, and eventually becomes a Buddha, liberating sentient beings, fulfilling one's own compassionate heart, which is actually benefiting oneself.
Treatise: Who would believe that a Bodhisattva would act in this way? Objection: This is unbelievable, who can believe this?
Treatise: If one has the thought of benefiting oneself, this is difficult to believe. Answer: You have the thought of benefiting yourself and do not have great compassion, so this is indeed difficult for you to believe. Because you measure others by your own standards, you cannot believe it. If one does not have the thought of benefiting oneself and has great compassion, this is not difficult to believe. Because you measure yourself by the standards of others.
Treatise: If it is like a long-term habit, why not believe it? Give an example to illustrate. As the text can explain.
Treatise: And if it is like sentient beings, why not believe it? Give another example. The above two examples are both due to long-term habits.
Treatise: And also because of lineage, there is also self-benefit. It explains that lineage is how compassion and vows arise.
Treatise: According to this meaning, others are for oneself. Cite a verse to prove it. In this verse, the first two lines refer to the lower person (an ordinary person), who is a different being (a being different from a sage). The last two lines refer to the middle person.
是二乘。后四句上士是菩薩。
論。如是已辯至為成劫位。自此已下。大文第二明人。第一明獨覺。第二明四輪王。第三明小王興。此之一頌第一明佛．獨覺。
論曰至諸佛出現。明佛出時。八萬歲漸咸不克定時即上八萬歲減半年等皆容出世。下至百年。百年已下無容佛出。準賢劫經第十云。拘留孫佛人壽四萬歲時出世。拘那含牟尼佛人壽三萬歲時出世。迦葉佛人壽二萬歲時出世。釋迦牟尼佛人壽百歲時出世。準西域記第六卷云。六萬．四萬．二萬．百歲。佛出世也。又準立世經第九云。二十小劫世界起成已住者幾多已過。幾多未過。八小劫已過。十一小劫未來。第九一劫現在未盡 準此經文。即今正當第九劫。即賢劫中四佛出世。以俱在此第九劫漸減位。應更詳檢。準此文。即前八劫中無佛出世。彌勒佛即當第十劫出。又準彌勒經八云。劫是刀兵劫。經云。于刀兵劫中。乃至今生此。又準此文。后唯有十一劫。更有九百九十六佛出。時恐太促。詳其賢劫。似是風劫。於六十四劫中此為第一劫。總六十四劫為一賢劫。于中千佛理且可然。應更詳檢。
論。何緣增位無佛出耶。問。增位從下自上。增時總無出。
論。有情樂增難教厭故。答。佛出本意令厭生死。樂漸漸減易起厭心。樂漸漸增難
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這是指二乘（Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha）。後面的四句『上士』指的是菩薩（Bodhisattva）。
論：如上已辨明了成劫（Samvarta-sthayi-kalpa）的階段。從這裡開始，進入第二大部分，闡明『人』。首先闡明獨覺（Pratyekabuddha），其次闡明四輪王（Cakravarti-raja），再次闡明小王的興起。這一頌首先闡明佛（Buddha）和獨覺。
論曰：直至諸佛出現。闡明佛出現的時間。當人類壽命從八萬歲逐漸減少，但尚未減少到無法確定具體時間時，即從八萬歲減少到半年等情況，都可能出現佛。下限是到一百歲。當人類壽命低於一百歲時，不可能有佛出現。參考《賢劫經》第十卷，拘留孫佛（Krakucchanda Buddha）在人類壽命四萬歲時出世，拘那含牟尼佛（Kanakamuni Buddha）在人類壽命三萬歲時出世，迦葉佛（Kasyapa Buddha）在人類壽命兩萬歲時出世，釋迦牟尼佛（Sakyamuni Buddha）在人類壽命一百歲時出世。參考《西域記》第六卷，六萬歲、四萬歲、兩萬歲、一百歲時，佛會出世。又參考《立世經》第九卷，二十小劫中，世界已經形成並存在了多久？已經過去了多少？還有多少沒有過去？八小劫已經過去，十一小劫尚未到來，第九小劫現在尚未結束。根據此經文，現在正處於第九劫，即賢劫中的四佛出世。因為都處於這第九劫的漸減階段，應該更詳細地檢查。根據此文，前八劫中沒有佛出世。彌勒佛（Maitreya Buddha）將在第十劫出世。又參考《彌勒經》第八卷，劫是刀兵劫。經云：『于刀兵劫中，乃至今生此。』又根據此文，之後只有十一劫，更有九百九十六佛出世，時間恐怕太緊迫。詳細考察賢劫，似乎是風劫。在六十四劫中，這是第一劫。總共六十四劫為一個賢劫。其中千佛的說法或許是可信的，應該更詳細地檢查。
論：為什麼在增劫（Vivarta-sthayi-kalpa）階段沒有佛出世呢？問：增劫階段，從下往上增加時，總體上沒有佛出世。
論：因為有情眾生樂於增長，難以教化，厭離心難以生起。答：佛出世的本意是讓眾生厭離生死。當快樂逐漸減少時，容易生起厭離心；當快樂逐漸增加時，難以生起厭離心。
【English Translation】 English version: This refers to the Two Vehicles (Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha). The last four sentences, 'superior beings,' refer to Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva).
Treatise: As explained above, the stage of the Samvarta-sthayi-kalpa (stage of destruction and abiding) has been clarified. From here onwards, we enter the second major section, elucidating 'people.' First, it elucidates the Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha), second, the Cakravarti-raja (Wheel-Turning King), and third, the rise of minor kings. This verse first elucidates the Buddha (Buddha) and the Pratyekabuddha.
Treatise says: Until the appearance of the Buddhas. It elucidates the time of the Buddha's appearance. When the human lifespan gradually decreases from eighty thousand years, but has not yet decreased to the point where the specific time cannot be determined, that is, from eighty thousand years decreasing to half a year, etc., it is possible for a Buddha to appear. The lower limit is one hundred years. When the human lifespan is less than one hundred years, it is impossible for a Buddha to appear. Refer to the tenth volume of the 'Bhadrakalpika Sutra,' Krakucchanda Buddha (Krakucchanda Buddha) appeared when the human lifespan was forty thousand years, Kanakamuni Buddha (Kanakamuni Buddha) appeared when the human lifespan was thirty thousand years, Kasyapa Buddha (Kasyapa Buddha) appeared when the human lifespan was twenty thousand years, and Sakyamuni Buddha (Sakyamuni Buddha) appeared when the human lifespan was one hundred years. Refer to the sixth volume of the 'Records of the Western Regions,' at sixty thousand, forty thousand, twenty thousand, and one hundred years, Buddhas appear. Also, refer to the ninth volume of the 'Loka-prajnapti-sastra,' of the twenty small kalpas, how long has the world been formed and existed? How much has passed? How much has not passed? Eight small kalpas have passed, eleven small kalpas have not yet arrived, and the ninth small kalpa is currently not finished. According to this sutra text, we are now in the ninth kalpa, that is, the four Buddhas of the Bhadrakalpa appeared. Because they are all in the gradually decreasing stage of this ninth kalpa, it should be examined in more detail. According to this text, no Buddhas appeared in the previous eight kalpas. Maitreya Buddha (Maitreya Buddha) will appear in the tenth kalpa. Also, refer to the eighth volume of the 'Maitreya Sutra,' the kalpa is a kalpa of warfare. The sutra says: 'In the kalpa of warfare, even now I am born here.' Also, according to this text, there are only eleven kalpas left, and nine hundred and ninety-six more Buddhas will appear, the time is probably too tight. Examining the Bhadrakalpa in detail, it seems to be a wind kalpa. Among the sixty-four kalpas, this is the first kalpa. A total of sixty-four kalpas is one Bhadrakalpa. The saying of a thousand Buddhas within it may be credible, and it should be examined in more detail.
Treatise: Why is there no Buddha appearing in the Vivarta-sthayi-kalpa (stage of formation and abiding) stage? Question: In the Vivarta-sthayi-kalpa stage, when increasing from bottom to top, there is generally no Buddha appearing.
Treatise: Because sentient beings are happy to increase and are difficult to teach, and aversion is difficult to arise. Answer: The original intention of the Buddha's appearance is to make sentient beings disgusted with birth and death. When happiness gradually decreases, it is easy to generate aversion; when happiness gradually increases, it is difficult.
教厭故。
論。何緣減百無佛出耶。問。減位百年已下。其苦轉增。何緣不教令厭也。
論。五濁極增難可化故。答。減其百歲煩惱等增。慧念等減。極難化故。
論。五濁者至五有情濁。乘便明五濁先列章門。后牒章釋。
論。劫減將末至說名為濁。總釋濁名即是顯惡。居下澤穢。故名為濁。如濁水等。
論。由前二濁至極被衰損。明前二濁為過速。由壽濁故衰損壽命。由劫濁故衰損資具。即劫末時資具衰損。
論。由次二濁至出家善故。明次二濁為過患。由煩惱濁耽其欲樂損在家善。由其見濁妄為苦行損出家善。
論。由后一濁至及無病故。明眾生濁。故令智慧念等悉被衰損。婆沙一百十三云。有情衰損者。謂劫初時。此贍部州。廣博嚴凈。多諸淳善福德有情。城邑次比。人民充滿。至劫末時唯余萬人。
準婆沙。衰損有情有二。一令劣惡。二令數少。惡是濁義。數少非濁義。如濁水．濁酒不以少故名濁。但以居下滓穢名濁。此論明有情濁故略不論少。
論。獨覺出現通劫增減。第二明獨覺出時也。
論。然諸獨覺至轉名獨勝。此下明二種獨覺。麟角喻。謂出無佛世獨一而出 部行獨覺。先是預流果聲聞。彼后無佛時進得勝果。故名獨覺。此是一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 教厭故。
論：為何在壽命每減一百年時，沒有佛陀出世呢？ 問：在壽命減少的階段，每過一百年，眾生的痛苦就更加深重，為什麼佛陀不教導眾生，讓他們對輪迴生起厭離心呢？
論：因為五濁極其嚴重，難以教化。 答：在壽命每減少一百年時，眾生的煩惱等增加，智慧和正念等減少，因此極難教化。
論：五濁是指……到五有情濁。爲了方便說明五濁，先列出綱要，然後逐條解釋。
論：劫衰減將要結束時……被稱為濁。總的解釋『濁』這個名稱，就是顯示其邪惡。如同污穢之物居於下處，所以稱為『濁』，比如濁水等。
論：由於前兩種濁……以至於極度地被衰損。說明前兩種濁的過患在於迅速。由於壽命濁的緣故，壽命衰減；由於劫濁的緣故，生活所需的資具衰減。也就是劫末之時，資具衰損。
論：由於其次兩種濁……以至於出家行善受到損害。說明其次兩種濁的過患。由於煩惱濁，眾生沉溺於慾望的快樂，損害了在家修行的善行；由於見濁，眾生錯誤地進行苦行，損害了出家修行的善行。
論：由於最後一種濁……以及沒有疾病。說明眾生濁，導致智慧和正念等完全被衰損。《婆沙論》第一百一十三卷說：『有情衰損，是指劫初之時，此贍部洲（Jambudvipa，指我們所居住的這個世界）廣闊莊嚴清凈，有很多淳樸善良、有福德的有情眾生，城邑排列有序，人民充滿。到了劫末之時，只剩下萬人。』
根據《婆沙論》，有情衰損有兩種情況：一是使有情變得低劣邪惡，二是使有情數量減少。邪惡是濁的含義，數量減少不是濁的含義。比如濁水、濁酒，不是因為少而稱為濁，而是因為污穢之物居於下處而稱為濁。此論說明有情濁，所以略去不談數量減少。
論：獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依師自悟的聖者）出現于通劫的增減時期。第二部分說明獨覺出現的時間。
論：然而諸獨覺……轉而名為獨勝。下面說明兩種獨覺。麟角喻獨覺，是指在沒有佛陀出世的時代，獨自一人證悟。部行獨覺，先前是預流果（Srotapanna，須陀洹），聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法而修行的弟子），他們在沒有佛陀出世的時代，進一步證得殊勝的果位，所以稱為獨覺。這是一種。
【English Translation】 English version Teaching aversion, therefore.
Treatise: Why is there no Buddha appearing when the lifespan decreases by a hundred years? Question: In the stage where lifespan decreases, the suffering of sentient beings increases with each passing hundred years. Why doesn't the Buddha teach sentient beings to arouse aversion to Samsara (cyclic existence)?
Treatise: Because the five turbidities are extremely severe and difficult to transform. Answer: When the lifespan decreases by a hundred years, afflictions and the like increase, while wisdom and mindfulness decrease, making it extremely difficult to transform.
Treatise: The five turbidities refer to... up to the turbidity of sentient beings. To facilitate the explanation of the five turbidities, first list the outline and then explain each item.
Treatise: When the eon's (kalpa) decline is about to end... it is called turbidity. The general explanation of the name 'turbidity' is to show its evil. Like filthy things residing in a lower place, it is called 'turbidity,' such as turbid water, etc.
Treatise: Due to the first two turbidities... to the extent of being extremely weakened. It explains that the fault of the first two turbidities lies in their speed. Due to the turbidity of lifespan, lifespan decreases; due to the turbidity of the eon, the resources needed for life decrease. That is, at the end of the eon, resources decline.
Treatise: Due to the next two turbidities... to the extent that the goodness of leaving home is harmed. It explains the fault of the next two turbidities. Due to the turbidity of afflictions, sentient beings indulge in the pleasure of desires, harming the good deeds of practicing at home; due to the turbidity of views, sentient beings wrongly engage in ascetic practices, harming the good deeds of practicing after leaving home.
Treatise: Due to the last turbidity... and the absence of disease. It explains the turbidity of sentient beings, which leads to the complete weakening of wisdom and mindfulness, etc. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, Volume 113, says: 'The decline of sentient beings refers to the beginning of the eon, when this Jambudvipa (the world we live in) was vast, adorned, pure, and full of pure, kind, and virtuous sentient beings, with cities arranged in order and people filled. By the end of the eon, only ten thousand people remain.'
According to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, there are two situations for the decline of sentient beings: one is to make sentient beings inferior and evil, and the other is to reduce the number of sentient beings. Evil is the meaning of turbidity, and reducing the number is not the meaning of turbidity. For example, turbid water and turbid wine are not called turbid because they are few, but because filthy things reside in a lower place. This treatise explains the turbidity of sentient beings, so it omits the discussion of reducing the number.
Treatise: A Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Realizer) appears during the increasing and decreasing periods of the common eon. The second part explains the time of the appearance of a Pratyekabuddha.
Treatise: However, all Pratyekabuddhas... are transformed and named Solitary Victors. Below, it explains two types of Pratyekabuddhas. The Rhinoceros Horn-like Pratyekabuddha refers to one who attains enlightenment alone in an age without a Buddha. The Group-Practicing Pratyekabuddha was previously a Stream-enterer (Srotapanna), a Śrāvaka (a disciple who practices by hearing the Buddha's teachings), who further attained a superior fruit in an age without a Buddha, hence the name Pratyekabuddha. This is one type.
釋。
論。有餘說彼至得獨勝名。第二釋。先修聲聞順抉擇分。后無佛時入于見道名獨覺也。
論。由本事中至不應修苦行。引此文證是凡夫。聖人改斷戒取。不應修苦行。既修苦行證是異生。
論。麟角喻者至麟角喻獨覺。此第二釋麟喻獨覺異部行。
論。言獨覺者至不調他故。釋獨覺名有二義。一取至果時不稟至教。二已得果。復不覺於他。具此二義名為獨覺非因位不因教也。
論。何緣獨覺言不調他。問。下有四難。
論。非彼無能至無礙解故。第一難也。
論。有能憶念至聖教理故。第二難也。
論。有不可說至理神通故。第三難也。
論。又不可說至對治道故。第四難也。
論。雖有此理至無說希望故。下有三種理答。此第一理也。
論。有知有情至難令逆流故。第二理也。
論。又避攝眾生悕諠雜故。第三理也。
論。輪王出世至何威何想。已下兩行頌第二明輪王 就中有五。一問何時。二問幾種種。三問幾俱。四問何威。五問何相。
論曰至故無輪王。答出時也。
論。此王由輪至名轉輪王。釋輪王得名。
論。施設足中至王四州界。引施設足答幾種也。
論。契經就勝至應知亦爾。通經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 釋： 論：有一種說法認為，他們最終獲得了獨特的殊勝之名。第二種解釋是，他們先修習聲聞乘的順抉擇分，然後在沒有佛陀住世的時候，通過修行證入見道，因此被稱為獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）。 論：根據《本事經》（Itivuttaka）中的記載，不應該修習苦行。引用這段經文是爲了證明，修習苦行是凡夫的行為。聖人會改變並斷除戒禁取見（Śīlabbataparāmarsa），因此不應該修習苦行。既然修習苦行，就證明是異生（bāla，指凡夫）。 論：以麟角（Khaḍgaviṣāṇa）為比喻，是說麟角喻示著獨覺。這是第二種解釋，麟角比喻獨覺的異部修行。 論：所謂獨覺，是指不調伏他人。解釋獨覺這個名稱有兩個含義：一是證得果位時，不接受教導；二是已經證得果位后，不再覺悟他人。具備這兩種含義，才能被稱為獨覺，而不是指因位（hetu，指修行階段），也不是指不依賴教導。 論：為什麼說獨覺不調伏他人？提問，下面有四個難點。 論：不是他們沒有能力，而是因為他們沒有無礙解（pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā，四無礙解之一）的緣故。這是第一個難點。 論：他們有能力憶念過去，並且通達聖教的道理。這是第二個難點。 論：有些道理是不可說的，他們也通達不可說的道理和神通。這是第三個難點。 論：還有一些對治道（pratipakṣa-mārga）是不可說的。這是第四個難點。 論：雖然有這些道理，但他們沒有說的希望。下面有三種理由來回答。這是第一個理由。 論：他們知道眾生的根性不同，很難讓他們逆流而上。這是第二個理由。 論：還有，他們爲了避免攝受眾生時的喧鬧和雜亂。這是第三個理由。 論：轉輪王（cakravartin-rāja）出世的時候，有什麼樣的威德和想法？以下兩行頌文，第二部分說明轉輪王，其中有五個方面：一是問何時出現；二是問有幾種；三是問有幾個同時出現；四是問有什麼樣的威德；五是問有什麼樣的相貌。 論曰：因此沒有轉輪王。回答的是出現的時間。 論：這位國王因為有輪寶（cakra-ratna）的緣故，所以被稱為轉輪王。解釋轉輪王得名的原因。 論：在《施設足論》（Prajñaptipāda-śāstra）中說，轉輪王統治四大洲的疆界。引用《施設足論》來回答有幾種轉輪王。 論：契經（sūtra）就殊勝之處而言，應當知道也是如此。通經（sūtra）
【English Translation】 English version: Explanation: Treatise: One view is that they eventually attain the unique and supreme name. The second explanation is that they first cultivate the sequential stages of discernment of the Śrāvaka path, and then, in the absence of a Buddha, they enter the path of seeing through practice, hence they are called Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas). Treatise: According to the Itivuttaka, one should not practice asceticism. Quoting this passage is to prove that practicing asceticism is the behavior of ordinary beings. Noble ones will change and abandon adherence to rites and rituals (Śīlabbataparāmarsa), therefore one should not practice asceticism. Since they practice asceticism, it proves that they are immature beings (bāla, referring to ordinary beings). Treatise: The analogy of the rhinoceros horn (Khaḍgaviṣāṇa) is used to say that the rhinoceros horn symbolizes the solitary Buddha. This is the second explanation, the rhinoceros horn symbolizes the different practices of the solitary Buddha. Treatise: The so-called solitary Buddha refers to one who does not tame others. There are two meanings to explain the name solitary Buddha: first, when attaining the fruit, they do not receive teachings; second, after attaining the fruit, they no longer enlighten others. Only those who possess these two meanings can be called solitary Buddhas, not referring to the causal stage (hetu, referring to the stage of practice), nor referring to not relying on teachings. Treatise: Why is it said that solitary Buddhas do not tame others? Question, there are four difficulties below. Treatise: It is not that they do not have the ability, but because they do not have unimpeded eloquence (pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā, one of the four unimpeded eloquence). This is the first difficulty. Treatise: They have the ability to recall the past and understand the principles of the holy teachings. This is the second difficulty. Treatise: Some principles are unspeakable, and they also understand the unspeakable principles and supernatural powers. This is the third difficulty. Treatise: There are also some antidotal paths (pratipakṣa-mārga) that are unspeakable. This is the fourth difficulty. Treatise: Although there are these principles, they have no hope of speaking. There are three reasons below to answer. This is the first reason. Treatise: They know that the dispositions of sentient beings are different, and it is difficult to make them go against the current. This is the second reason. Treatise: Also, they avoid the noise and chaos when gathering sentient beings. This is the third reason. Treatise: When a wheel-turning king (cakravartin-rāja) appears in the world, what kind of power and thoughts does he have? The following two lines of verse, the second part explains the wheel-turning king, which has five aspects: first, asking when he appears; second, asking how many kinds there are; third, asking how many appear at the same time; fourth, asking what kind of power he has; fifth, asking what kind of appearance he has. Treatise: Therefore, there is no wheel-turning king. The answer is the time of appearance. Treatise: This king is called a wheel-turning king because he has a wheel jewel (cakra-ratna). Explaining the reason for the name of the wheel-turning king. Treatise: In the Prajñaptipāda-śāstra, it is said that the wheel-turning king rules the boundaries of the four continents. Quoting the Prajñaptipāda-śāstra to answer how many kinds of wheel-turning kings there are. Treatise: The sūtra speaks of the superior aspects, and it should be known that it is also the same. Connecting the sūtra.
。唯說金輪。理實余輪王亦爾。
論。輪王如佛至輪王亦爾。答上幾俱。
論。應審思擇至為約一切界。問。乘茲便明有十方佛。此即問也。
論。有說余界至余亦應爾。述有部等計。一佛普於一切十方皆能教化。故唯一佛無二三等。若於一處有情難化佛不能化。余佛于中亦不能化。故無多佛。
論。又世尊告至唯一如來。此則復引聖教證也。
論。若爾何緣至得自在轉。大眾部等引經難。若謂一佛普於一切十方世界皆得自在。何故經說我今於此三千大千得自在轉。而不言余世界轉也。
論。彼有蜜意。有部等答。
論。蜜意者何。大眾部等問。
論。謂若世尊至例此應知。有部等答。
論。有餘部師至出現世間。有餘大眾部等師計也。
論。所以者何。徴所以。
論。有多菩薩至有無邊佛現。大眾部等釋所以有多菩薩修菩薩行。理許多人得成於佛。一界一佛理且可然。多界多佛何理能遮。
論。若唯一佛至此事頓成。反難釋也。
論。是故問時定有多佛。總結成也。
論。然彼所引至一界多界。反問通經。
論。若說多界至別界佛耶。引輪王為例。輪王說唯一。余界有輪王。如來雖說一。豈遮余界有。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：只說了金輪王（cakravarti-rāja），但實際上其他的輪王也是如此。
論：輪王（cakravarti-rāja）如佛，乃至輪王（cakravarti-rāja）也是如此。答：上面說了幾個（俱胝，koṭi）？
論：應該仔細思考，乃至約為一切世界。問：憑藉這個就能明白有十方佛嗎？這是提問。
論：有人說其他世界乃至其他也應該如此。這是有部等宗派的觀點。他們認為，一佛普遍地在一切十方都能教化，所以只有一佛，沒有第二第三等佛。如果在一處有情難以教化，佛不能教化，那麼其他佛在那裡也不能教化，所以沒有多佛。
論：而且世尊告訴乃至唯一如來（tathāgata）。這是再次引用聖教來證明。
論：如果這樣，為什麼乃至得到自在轉法輪？這是大眾部等宗派引用經文來反駁。如果說一佛普遍地在一切十方世界都能得到自在，為什麼經文說『我今於此三千大千世界得自在轉法輪』，而不說在其他世界轉法輪呢？
論：其中有密意。這是有部等宗派的回答。
論：什麼是密意？這是大眾部等宗派的提問。
論：所謂如果世尊乃至以此類推應該知道。這是有部等宗派的回答。
論：有其他部派的師父乃至出現在世間。這是其他大眾部等宗派師父的觀點。
論：為什麼呢？這是征問原因。
論：有很多菩薩乃至有無邊佛顯現。這是大眾部等宗派解釋為什麼有很多菩薩修行菩薩行，按道理應該有很多人能夠成佛。一界一佛的說法或許可以成立，但多界多佛有什麼道理可以阻止呢？
論：如果只有一佛乃至這件事立刻就能成立。這是反過來責難解釋。
論：所以提問的時候，一定有很多佛。這是總結。
論：然而他們所引用的乃至一界多界。這是反問來疏通經文。
論：如果說多界乃至其他世界的佛嗎？這是引用輪王（cakravarti-rāja）為例。輪王（cakravarti-rāja）說唯一，其他世界也有輪王（cakravarti-rāja）。如來說唯一，難道就阻止其他世界有佛嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: It only speaks of the golden wheel-turning king (cakravarti-rāja), but in reality, other wheel-turning kings are also like that.
Treatise: A wheel-turning king (cakravarti-rāja) is like a Buddha, and even a wheel-turning king (cakravarti-rāja) is like that. Answer: How many (koṭi) were mentioned above?
Treatise: One should carefully consider, even to encompass all realms. Question: Can it be understood from this that there are Buddhas in the ten directions? This is the question.
Treatise: Some say that other realms, and even others, should be like that. This is the view of the Sarvāstivāda school and others. They believe that one Buddha universally teaches in all ten directions, so there is only one Buddha, and no second or third Buddha. If sentient beings in one place are difficult to teach and the Buddha cannot teach them, then other Buddhas also cannot teach them there, so there are not many Buddhas.
Treatise: Moreover, the World-Honored One said, even the only Thus-Come One (tathāgata). This is again quoting the holy teachings as proof.
Treatise: If that is the case, why is it that even obtaining the freedom to turn the Dharma wheel? This is the Mahāsāṃghika school and others quoting scriptures to refute. If it is said that one Buddha universally obtains freedom in all ten directions of the world, why does the scripture say, 'I now obtain the freedom to turn the Dharma wheel in this three-thousand-great-thousand world,' and not say that the Dharma wheel is turned in other worlds?
Treatise: There is a hidden meaning in that. This is the answer of the Sarvāstivāda school and others.
Treatise: What is the hidden meaning? This is the question of the Mahāsāṃghika school and others.
Treatise: The so-called if the World-Honored One, and so on, by analogy, one should know. This is the answer of the Sarvāstivāda school and others.
Treatise: There are other teachers of other schools, even appearing in the world. This is the view of other teachers of the Mahāsāṃghika school and others.
Treatise: Why is that? This is asking for the reason.
Treatise: There are many Bodhisattvas, even countless Buddhas appearing. This is the Mahāsāṃghika school and others explaining why there are many Bodhisattvas practicing the Bodhisattva path. Logically, many people should be able to become Buddhas. The idea of one Buddha per realm may be valid, but what reason can prevent multiple Buddhas in multiple realms?
Treatise: If there is only one Buddha, even this matter can be immediately established. This is a counter-argument to the explanation.
Treatise: Therefore, when asking the question, there must be many Buddhas. This is the conclusion.
Treatise: However, what they quoted, even one realm or multiple realms. This is a counter-question to clarify the scriptures.
Treatise: If it is said that multiple realms, even Buddhas in other realms? This is using the wheel-turning king (cakravarti-rāja) as an example. The wheel-turning king (cakravarti-rāja) is said to be unique, but there are wheel-turning kings (cakravarti-rāja) in other realms. The Thus-Come One (tathāgata) is said to be unique, but does that prevent there from being Buddhas in other realms?
佛出世間至及決定勝道。此重難。多佛出世有多吉祥。多所利益。因何。不許有多如來俱時出世。
論。若爾何故至俱時出現。難。若以多佛出有多利益。即令多界中有多佛出世。既佛出世有多吉詳。因何。不許一界多佛。
論。以無用故至饒益一切。答也。答中有四。此即初也。
論。又願力故至為眼為道等。第二理也。
論。又令敬重至便深敬重。第三理也。
論。又令速行至無二佛現。第四理。並結總也。
論。如是所說至克勝便止。明四輪王威差別。此是第一金輪王 就中有二。一異。二同。此辯威異。
論。一切輪王至定得生天。第二同也。雖現威有異。以同無傷害。十善化生。故定生天。
論。經說輪王至主兵臣寶。此第五答何相問。相有二種。一依寶相。即七寶為相。二內身相。此即七寶相 就中有二。先列名。后問答。此即初也。
論。像等五寶至生他有情。后問答中此即問也。七寶之中殊寶．輪寶非有情攝。可由輪王自業招得。像等五寶既是有情。各由自業。如何輪王能感七寶。
論。非他有情至乘自業起。答。五寶雖是有情數攝各自業生。然一由有與轉輪聖王相系屬業故。輪王出此寶方生。然余輪王輪寶既劣。余寶亦劣。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：佛陀出現在世間，以及通往決定性勝利的道路，這是非常困難的。如果多位佛陀出現於世，會有諸多吉祥和利益。那麼，為什麼不允許有多位如來同時出現於世呢？
答：如果這樣，為什麼會同時出現呢？難點在於，如果認為多位佛陀出現會有更多利益，那就讓多個世界中有多位佛陀出現。既然佛陀出現有很多吉祥，為什麼不允許一個世界有多位佛陀出現呢？
答：因為沒有必要，所以不能饒益一切眾生。這是回答，回答中有四個方面，這是第一個方面。
答：又因為願力的緣故，成為眾生的眼睛和道路等等。這是第二個理由。
答：又爲了讓眾生敬重佛法，從而更加敬重。這是第三個理由。
答：又爲了讓眾生迅速修行，所以沒有兩位佛陀同時出現。這是第四個理由，並總結。
答：如上所說，直到戰勝為止。說明四輪王的威德差別。這是第一位金輪王。其中有異同兩方面，這裡辨別威德的差異。
答：一切輪王最終必定得生天。這是第二方面，即相同之處。雖然展現的威德有所不同，但都同樣不會傷害眾生，以十善業化導眾生，所以必定能生天。
問：經中說輪王有主兵臣寶（Zhubingchen bao）。這是第五個回答，回答的是什麼樣的問題呢？相有兩種，一是依寶相，即以七寶為相；二是內身相。這裡說的是七寶相。其中有兩部分，先列出名稱，后問答。這是第一部分。
問：象寶（Xiang bao）等五寶，如何能讓其他有情眾生感得呢？這是后問答中的提問。七寶之中，殊寶（Shu bao）、輪寶（Lun bao）並非有情所攝，可以由輪王自身的業力感召。像寶等五寶既然是有情，各自有各自的業力，輪王如何能感得七寶呢？
答：並非其他有情，而是憑藉自身業力而生。回答是，五寶雖然屬於有情之列，各自因業力而生，但因為與轉輪聖王（Zhuanlun shengwang）的業力相關聯，所以輪王出現時，這些寶物才會出現。然而，其他輪王的輪寶既然低劣，其他寶物也會相應低劣。
【English Translation】 English version Question: The appearance of a Buddha in the world, and the path to decisive victory, are extremely difficult. If multiple Buddhas were to appear, there would be much auspiciousness and benefit. So, why is it not permitted for multiple Tathagatas (Rulai) to appear simultaneously?
Answer: If that's the case, why would they appear simultaneously? The difficulty lies in, if it is believed that multiple Buddhas appearing would bring more benefits, then let multiple worlds have multiple Buddhas appearing. Since the appearance of a Buddha brings much auspiciousness, why is it not permitted for one world to have multiple Buddhas?
Answer: Because it is unnecessary, so it cannot benefit all beings. This is the answer, and there are four aspects to the answer. This is the first aspect.
Answer: Also, because of the power of vows, becoming the eyes and the path for beings, and so on. This is the second reason.
Answer: Also, in order to make beings respect the Dharma, and thereby respect it even more deeply. This is the third reason.
Answer: Also, in order to make beings practice quickly, so there are not two Buddhas appearing simultaneously. This is the fourth reason, and the conclusion.
Answer: As stated above, until victory is achieved. Explaining the differences in the power of the four Chakravartin Kings (Silun wang). This is the first, the Gold Wheel King (Jinlun wang). Among them, there are differences and similarities. Here, we distinguish the differences in power.
Answer: All Chakravartin Kings will ultimately be born in the heavens. This is the second aspect, the similarity. Although the power displayed is different, they all equally do not harm beings, and transform beings with the ten wholesome deeds, so they will certainly be born in the heavens.
Question: The sutra says that the Chakravartin King has the Treasure of the Chief Military General (Zhubingchen bao). What kind of question is this the fifth answer to? There are two kinds of characteristics: one is based on the characteristics of the treasures, that is, taking the seven treasures as characteristics; the other is the characteristics of the inner body. Here, we are talking about the characteristics of the seven treasures. Among them, there are two parts: first, list the names, then ask and answer. This is the first part.
Question: How can the five treasures, such as the Elephant Treasure (Xiang bao), be felt by other sentient beings? This is the question in the later question and answer section. Among the seven treasures, the Special Treasure (Shu bao) and the Wheel Treasure (Lun bao) are not included in sentient beings, and can be summoned by the Chakravartin King's own karma. Since the five treasures such as the Elephant Treasure are sentient beings, each with their own karma, how can the Chakravartin King feel the seven treasures?
Answer: It is not other sentient beings, but arises by relying on one's own karma. The answer is that although the five treasures belong to the category of sentient beings, and are born from their own karma, because they are related to the karma of the Chakravartin King (Zhuanlun shengwang), these treasures will appear when the Chakravartin King appears. However, since the Wheel Treasure of other Chakravartin Kings is inferior, the other treasures will also be correspondingly inferior.
論。如是所說至大士相殊。此明轉輪王身相。一切輪王皆悉並有三十二相。四王既異相有勝劣。
論。若爾輪王與佛何異。問也。
論。佛大士相至故有差別。答 處正。謂當其處。如千福輪相。正當足下 明。謂分明。如千福相明顯 圓。謂圓滿。謂千福等具足。毗婆沙云施設論說。贍部州邊于大海際有轉輪王路廣逾繕那。諸轉輪王若不出世。水所覆沒無能游履。若出世時海水咸一逾繕那此路乃現。底布金沙。旃檀香水自然灑洞。輪王每欲巡此州時。導從四軍。而游此路。
論。劫初人眾為有王無。已下一行頌。第三明劫初時小王等也。
論曰至長壽久住。此明未食段時也。
論。有如是類至從茲出現。自此已下漸食段食無有光明。日．月火明此時出現。自此已前食地味也。
論。由涉耽味至競耽食之。第二明食地皮餅。
論。地餅復隱至林藤出現。第三明食林藤食。
論。競耽食故至以充所食。第四明食香稻食。
論。此食粗故至男女根生。從此已後有男．女根。
論。由二根殊至初發此時。自此已後有非梵行。
論。爾時諸人至始於此時。自此已後有盜業道。
論。為欲遮防至剎帝利名。明有主也 剎帝利。此云田主。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：如上所說，直至大士之相有所不同。這裡說明了轉輪王（Chakravartin）的身相。一切轉輪王都具有三十二相。但四王（四大天王）之間，相貌也有勝劣之分。
論：如果這樣，轉輪王與佛（Buddha）有什麼區別呢？這是提問。
論：佛的大士之相更加殊勝，所以才有差別。回答：處所端正。指所處的位置。例如千輻輪相，正位於足下。明：指清晰分明。例如千輻之相非常明顯。圓：指圓滿。指千輻等相具足。毗婆沙（Vibhasa）說，施設論（Prajnapana-sastra）說，贍部洲（Jambudvipa）邊，在大海邊際，有轉輪王巡行的道路，寬度超過一由旬（Yojana）。如果轉輪王不出世，這條路就會被水淹沒，無人能夠行走。如果轉輪王出世，海水會退去一由旬，這條路才會顯現。路底鋪滿金沙，旃檀（Candana）香水自然灑掃。轉輪王每次想要巡視贍部洲時，都會有四軍引導跟隨，巡遊這條道路。
論：劫初（Kalpa）時，人們是有國王還是沒有國王？以下一行頌文，第三說明劫初時的小王等情況。
論曰：直至長壽久住。這裡說明了未食用段食（食物）時的情況。
論：有如此種類，直至從此出現。自此以下，逐漸食用段食，沒有光明。日、月、火的光明此時出現。自此以前，人們食用地味（從大地自然生出的食物）。
論：由於沉溺於美味，直至競相貪食。第二說明食用土地上生長的餅。
論：地餅又隱沒，直至林藤出現。第三說明食用林藤。
論：競相貪食的緣故，直至以此充當食物。第四說明食用香稻。
論：因為食用粗糙的食物，直至男女根產生。從此以後，有了男根和女根。
論：由於男女二根的差別，直至最初發生此事。自此以後，有了非梵行（不凈行）。
論：那時的人們，直至開始於此時。自此以後，有了盜竊的業道。
論：爲了遮止防範，直至剎帝利（Ksatriya）這個名稱出現。說明有了主人。剎帝利，這裡的意思是田主。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: As stated above, until the characteristics of a Bodhisattva (Mahasattva) differ. This explains the physical characteristics of a Chakravartin (wheel-turning king). All Chakravartins possess the thirty-two major marks. However, among the Four Heavenly Kings (Caturmaharajakayikas), there are superior and inferior aspects in their appearances.
Treatise: If so, what is the difference between a Chakravartin and a Buddha? This is a question.
Treatise: The characteristics of a Buddha as a great being are more outstanding, hence the difference. Answer: The location is correct. This refers to the place where it is situated. For example, the mark of a thousand-spoked wheel is precisely located under the foot. Clear: meaning distinct and clear. For example, the mark of a thousand spokes is very obvious. Complete: meaning perfect. It means that the thousand spokes and other marks are complete. The Vibhasa (commentary) says, the Prajnapana-sastra (treatise on establishments) says, on the edge of Jambudvipa (the continent of rose-apples), at the edge of the great ocean, there is a path for the Chakravartin to travel, wider than a Yojana (ancient Indian measure of distance). If a Chakravartin does not appear in the world, this path will be submerged by water, and no one can walk on it. If a Chakravartin appears, the seawater will recede by one Yojana, and this path will appear. The bottom of the path is covered with golden sand, and Candana (sandalwood) scented water naturally sprinkles it. Whenever the Chakravartin wants to tour Jambudvipa, he will have four armies leading and following him, touring this path.
Treatise: At the beginning of the Kalpa (aeon), did people have a king or not? The following verse explains the situation of the minor kings at the beginning of the Kalpa.
Treatise: Until long life and lasting residence. This explains the situation when people did not eat solid food (segmental food).
Treatise: There are such kinds, until they appear from here. From here onwards, gradually eating solid food, there is no light. The light of the sun, moon, and fire appears at this time. Before this, people ate earth essence (food naturally produced from the earth).
Treatise: Because of indulging in delicious flavors, until competing to indulge in eating it. The second explains eating cakes grown on the earth.
Treatise: The earth cakes disappear again, until forest vines appear. The third explains eating forest vines.
Treatise: Because of competing to indulge in eating, until using it to fill their food. The fourth explains eating fragrant rice.
Treatise: Because of eating coarse food, until the male and female organs are produced. From then on, there were male and female organs.
Treatise: Because of the difference between the two organs, until this first happens. From then on, there was non-brahmacharya (impure conduct).
Treatise: The people at that time, until it begins at this time. From then on, there was the path of stealing.
Treatise: In order to prevent and defend, until the name Ksatriya (warrior caste) appears. It explains that there is an owner. Ksatriya, here means the owner of the field.
論。大眾欽承至此王為首。明立主德名大 三末多。此云共許。
論。時人或有至婆羅門名。自此已後有二姓也。
論。后時有王至始於此時。明有殺業道。
論。時有罪人至此時為首。明有虛誑語。
論。于劫咸位至其相云何。自此已下。大文第三明災 就中有二。第一明小三災。第二明大三災。此即第一明小三災。
論曰至中劫末起。明起時也。此諸災患由二為本。謂耽異食及性懶墮。由此煩惱故劫漸減有小三災。
論。三災者至三饑饉。列名也。
論。謂中劫末至互相殘害。此釋第一刀兵劫名也。
論。又中劫末至難可救療。此釋第二疾疫劫。
論。又中劫末至白骨運籌。第三饑饉劫也。
論。由二種因至名有聖集。此釋聚集有二因。
論。言有白骨至煎計飲之。此釋白骨有二因。
論。有運籌言至以濟余命。此釋運籌有二因。
論。然有至教至饑饉災起。述三善因離三災也。
論。此三災起至人壽漸增。此述三災住時分也。刀兵最速。饑饉最長時。皆言七者。三災起時法爾如此。
論。東西二洲至北洲總無。述災四洲唯贍部也。
論。前說火災焚燒世界。已下兩頌第二明大三災。
論曰至由風相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：大眾欽佩擁戴這位國王為首領。明確擁立有德之人，名字叫做三末多（Samata），意思是『共同認可』。 論：當時的人，或許有到達婆羅門（Brahmin）這個地位的。從此以後，就有了兩個姓氏。 論：後來有國王出現，從這個時候開始，說明有了殺業的道路。 論：當時有罪人出現，從這個時候開始為首，說明有了虛妄的語言。 論：在劫衰減的階段，這些現象是怎樣的呢？從這裡開始，大的段落第三部分說明災難，其中分為兩部分。第一部分說明小三災，第二部分說明大三災。這裡是第一部分，說明小三災。 論曰：到中劫末期開始出現。說明災難開始的時間。這些災難的出現，根本原因有兩個：一是貪圖奇異的食物，二是天性懶惰。由於這些煩惱，所以劫數逐漸衰減，出現了小三災。 論：三災指的是刀兵、疾疫、饑饉這三種災難。這裡是列出名稱。 論：所謂中劫末期，人們互相殘殺。這是解釋第一種災難，刀兵劫的名稱。 論：又在中劫末期，疾病流行，難以救治。這是解釋第二種災難，疾疫劫。 論：又在中劫末期，人們餓死，用白骨來計算剩餘的糧食。這是第三種災難，饑饉劫。 論：由於兩種原因，所以稱為有聖賢聚集。這是解釋聚集的原因有兩個。 論：說到有白骨，人們煮著吃，或者磨成粉末來飲用。這是解釋白骨出現的原因有兩個。 論：說到用籌碼計算，是爲了節省糧食，以維持剩餘的生命。這是解釋用籌碼計算的原因有兩個。 論：然而，如果有聖賢的教導，就能避免饑饉災難的發生。這是敘述三種善因可以遠離三種災難。 論：這三種災難發生的時候，人的壽命逐漸增長。這是敘述三種災難持續的時間。刀兵劫最快，饑饉劫最長。都說七天，是因為三種災難發生時，自然規律就是這樣。 論：東勝身洲（Purva-videha）和西牛貨洲（Apara-godaniya）有災難，而北俱盧洲（Uttara-kuru）完全沒有。這是敘述災難只發生在四大部洲中的贍部洲（Jambudvipa）。 論：前面說了火災焚燒世界。以下兩頌是第二部分，說明大三災。 論曰：是因為風的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: The assembly admired and supported this king as their leader. They clearly established a virtuous person as the ruler, named Samata (meaning 'mutually agreed upon'). Treatise: At that time, some people may have reached the status of Brahmin. From then on, there were two surnames. Treatise: Later, kings appeared, and from this time onwards, it indicates the path of killing karma. Treatise: At that time, criminals appeared, starting from this time, indicating the presence of false speech. Treatise: During the period of the kalpa's decline, what are these phenomena like? From here onwards, the third major section explains the disasters, which are divided into two parts. The first part explains the minor three disasters, and the second part explains the major three disasters. This is the first part, explaining the minor three disasters. Treatise says: It begins at the end of the intermediate kalpa. It explains the time when the disasters begin. These disasters arise from two fundamental causes: one is craving for strange foods, and the other is being naturally lazy. Due to these afflictions, the kalpa gradually declines, and the minor three disasters appear. Treatise: The three disasters refer to the disasters of warfare, disease, and famine. This is listing the names. Treatise: The so-called end of the intermediate kalpa is when people kill each other. This explains the name of the first disaster, the warfare disaster. Treatise: Also, at the end of the intermediate kalpa, diseases spread and are difficult to cure. This explains the second disaster, the disease disaster. Treatise: Also, at the end of the intermediate kalpa, people starve to death, and use bones to calculate the remaining food. This is the third disaster, the famine disaster. Treatise: Due to two causes, it is called the gathering of sages. This explains that there are two causes for the gathering. Treatise: Speaking of bones, people cook them to eat, or grind them into powder to drink. This explains that there are two causes for the appearance of bones. Treatise: Speaking of calculating with tallies, it is to save food in order to sustain the remaining life. This explains that there are two causes for calculating with tallies. Treatise: However, if there is the teaching of sages, one can avoid the occurrence of the famine disaster. This describes that three good causes can avoid the three disasters. Treatise: When these three disasters occur, people's lifespans gradually increase. This describes the duration of the three disasters. The warfare disaster is the fastest, and the famine disaster is the longest. It is said that all last for seven days because the natural law is like this when the three disasters occur. Treatise: The East Purva-videha and West Apara-godaniya continents have disasters, while the North Uttara-kuru continent has none at all. This describes that the disasters only occur in Jambudvipa among the four continents. Treatise: It was previously said that the fire disaster burns the world. The following two verses are the second part, explaining the major three disasters. Treatise says: It is due to the wind.
系。此述能壞三災別也。
論。此三災刀至亦無餘在。述所壞器極微亦盡。婆沙一百三十三說。火災起時。有說七日先隱持雙。先有一日出。世界壞時後六日漸出便壞世界。有說一日分為七日。有說一日成七倍勢有說七日先藏地下後漸出現。如是說者有情類業增上力令世間成。至劫末時業力盡故。隨於近處有災火生。乃至梵宮皆被焚燒 水災起時。有說三定邊雨熱灰水能壞世界。有說從下水輪踴出。如是說者諸有情類業增上力令世界成。至劫末時業力盡故。隨於近處有災水生。由彼因緣世界便壞 風災起時。有說從四定邊風起能壞世界。有說從下風輪有猛風起。如是說者諸有情類業增上力令世界成。至劫末時業力盡故。隨於近處有災風生。至遍凈天皆被散壞 此論三災多非婆沙正義。論師意別。
論。一類外道至余極微在。自此已下破勝論也。彼外道計執極微常。彼謂劫壞但壞粗色。爾時猶有餘祖常微。
論。何緣彼執猶有餘極微。論主徴也。
論。勿復粗色生無種子故。勝論答。彼執。劫壞壞余粗色。祖極微散在虛空中。然在空中各各別住。劫將成時。兩兩和合生一子微。量等父．母。又微和合共生一孫極微。等二子微如是乃至展轉成器世間。根本以最極細祖微為種。若此祖微亦令盡者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這是關於能夠摧毀三種災難的分別敘述。
論：這三種災難，刀兵劫到來時也沒有任何剩餘。敘述中所說的摧毀，連器世間的極微也全部毀滅。《婆沙論》第一百三十三卷說：火災發生時，有人說七天前先隱藏持雙，先有一天出現。世界毀滅時，后六天逐漸出現便毀滅世界。有人說一天分為七天。有人說一天形成七倍的威力。有人說七天先藏在地下，然後逐漸出現。這樣說的人認為，有情眾生的業力增上，使得世間形成。到了劫末時，業力耗盡，所以在近處有災火產生，乃至梵天宮殿都被焚燒。水災發生時，有人說從三禪天邊降下熱灰水，能夠摧毀世界。有人說從下方的水輪涌出。這樣說的人認為，諸有情眾生的業力增上，使得世界形成。到了劫末時，業力耗盡，所以在近處有災水產生，由於這個因緣，世界便被毀滅。風災發生時，有人說從四禪天邊颳起的風能夠摧毀世界。有人說從下方的風輪有猛烈的風颳起。這樣說的人認為，諸有情眾生的業力增上，使得世界形成。到了劫末時，業力耗盡，所以在近處有災風產生，乃至遍凈天都被吹散毀滅。這個論中的三種災難，大多不是《婆沙論》的正義，是論師的個人見解。
論：有一類外道……到……剩餘極微存在。從這裡開始是破斥勝論派的觀點。那些外道計執極微是常存的。他們認為劫壞只是壞了粗糙的色法，那時仍然有作為始祖的常存極微。
論：什麼緣故他們執著仍然有剩餘的極微？這是論主提出的疑問。
論：爲了不再有粗糙的色法產生，因為沒有種子。這是勝論派的回答。他們認為，劫壞時壞了其餘的粗糙色法，始祖極微散在虛空中，然而在空中各自獨立存在。劫將要形成時，兩個兩個地結合，產生一個子極微，大小等於父極微和母極微。又由極微結合，共同產生一個孫極微，等於兩個子極微，像這樣乃至輾轉形成器世間。根本是以最極細的始祖極微作為種子。如果這個始祖極微也被毀滅，那麼……
【English Translation】 English version: This describes the distinctions regarding the ability to destroy the three calamities.
Treatise: These three calamities, even the calamity of weapons, leave nothing remaining. The destruction mentioned includes the complete annihilation of even the ultimate particles (paramāṇu) of the vessel world. The Vibhāṣā, in its one hundred and thirty-third section, states: When the fire calamity arises, some say that seven days prior, the dhāraṇī (mantra) is first concealed, and one day appears first. When the world is destroyed, the subsequent six days gradually appear and then destroy the world. Some say that one day is divided into seven days. Some say that one day forms seven times the power. Some say that the seven days are first hidden underground and then gradually appear. Those who say this believe that the augmented power of sentient beings' karma causes the world to form. When the end of the kalpa (aeon) arrives, the karmic power is exhausted, so a calamity fire arises nearby, and even the Brahma palaces are burned. When the water calamity arises, some say that hot ash water from the edge of the Third Dhyana (meditative absorption) can destroy the world. Some say that it surges out from the water wheel below. Those who say this believe that the augmented power of sentient beings' karma causes the world to form. When the end of the kalpa arrives, the karmic power is exhausted, so a calamity water arises nearby, and due to this cause, the world is destroyed. When the wind calamity arises, some say that wind arising from the edge of the Fourth Dhyana can destroy the world. Some say that a fierce wind arises from the wind wheel below. Those who say this believe that the augmented power of sentient beings' karma causes the world to form. When the end of the kalpa arrives, the karmic power is exhausted, so a calamity wind arises nearby, and even the Abhasvara Heaven is scattered and destroyed. The three calamities in this treatise are mostly not the correct meaning of the Vibhāṣā; the treatise master's intention is different.
Treatise: A certain type of heretics... to... remaining ultimate particles exist. From here onwards is refuting the views of the Vaiśeṣika school. Those heretics hold that the ultimate particles are permanent. They believe that the destruction of the kalpa only destroys the coarse matter (rūpa), and at that time, there are still primordial, permanent ultimate particles.
Treatise: What is the reason they insist that there are still remaining ultimate particles? This is the question posed by the treatise master.
Treatise: So that coarse matter will not cease to arise, because there is no seed. This is the answer of the Vaiśeṣika school. They believe that when the kalpa is destroyed, the remaining coarse matter is destroyed, and the primordial ultimate particles are scattered in empty space. However, they exist independently in the air. When the kalpa is about to form, they combine in pairs to produce a child ultimate particle, equal in size to the father and mother ultimate particles. Furthermore, ultimate particles combine to jointly produce a grandchild ultimate particle, equal to two child ultimate particles, and so on, until the vessel world is formed. The root is the most subtle primordial ultimate particle as the seed. If this primordial ultimate particle is also destroyed, then...
后子等微生即無種。
論。豈不前說至風為種子。論主述自家。有二種子。一業所生風。二災頂風也。業風如前釋。頂風如后釋。既有此種何用細微。
論。有化地部至飄種成此。述化地部計。正理論云。風中具有種子細物。為同類因引粗物起。
論。雖爾不許至親所引起。此是外道述自計也。如前所引三種種子。皆是前後為同類因。如種子芽等。外道宗計。不許種與芽為親因。芽分生芽。種分生種。為親因也。
論。若爾芽等從何而生。論主反問勝論。芽不從種生許從何生。
論。從自分生至從極微生。勝論答。即芽有粗色．細色．乃至極微。從極微生細色生粗色也。
論。于芽等生中種等有何力。論主反問勝論。若芽生時從自分生。種等於芽有何力用。既無力用。何名為種。
論。除能引集至生芽等力。勝論答。由種子故令芽極微聚集而住。更無有力。
論。何緣定作如是執耶。論主反問勝論執意。
論。從立類生定不應理。勝論答。
論。不應何理。論主問。
論。應無定故。此勝論反難。論主種中地大與芽地大二類雖別而許相生。既異類相生應無有定。故麥種．谷芽亦是異類。應麥種中大生谷等芽。
論。功能定故無不定失。論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『后子等微生即無種』。
論：難道不是之前說過風是種子嗎？論主闡述自己的觀點，有兩種種子：一是業所生的風，二是災頂的風。業風如前文解釋。頂風如後文解釋。既然有這種子，為何還要細微之物？
論：有化地部認為飄種能形成此物。這是闡述化地部的觀點。《正理論》說：風中具有種子細微之物，作為同類因，引生粗大的物質。
論：即使如此，也不允許是親所引起的。這是外道的觀點。如前文所引的三種種子，都是前後作為同類因。如種子生芽等。外道宗派認為，不允許種子與芽是親因，芽分生芽，種子分生種子，才是親因。
論：如果這樣，芽等從何而生？論主反問勝論派，芽不從種子生，那許可是從何而生？
論：從自分生，乃至從極微生。勝論派回答：即芽有粗色、細色，乃至極微。從極微生細色，細色生粗色。
論：在芽等生起中，種子等有什麼力量？論主反問勝論派，如果芽生起時從自身分生，種子對於芽有什麼力量？既然沒有力量，為何稱為種子？
論：除了能引集，乃至生芽等的力量。勝論派回答：由於種子的緣故，使芽的極微聚集而住，除此之外沒有其他力量。
論：什麼緣故一定要這樣執著呢？論主反問勝論派的執著。
論：從立類生，一定不合理。勝論派回答。
論：什麼不合理？論主問。
論：應無定故。這是勝論派反駁論主，種子中的地大與芽中的地大，二者類別雖然不同，卻允許相互生起。既然異類可以相互生起，就應該沒有定準。所以麥種、谷芽也是異類，麥種中也應該能生出谷等芽。
論：功能決定，所以沒有不定的過失。論
【English Translation】 English version 'The subsequent subtle births are without seed.'
Objection: Didn't you previously say that wind is the seed? The author explains his own view: there are two kinds of seeds: one is the wind born from karma, and the other is the wind at the peak of a disaster. The karmic wind is as explained earlier. The peak wind is as explained later. Since there are such seeds, why are subtle elements needed?
Objection: The Haimavatas (a Buddhist school) believe that drifting seeds can form this. This is an explanation of the Haimavata's view. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Wind contains subtle seed-like elements, which, as a cause of the same kind, give rise to coarser matter.'
Objection: Even so, it is not allowed to be caused by a direct cause. This is the view of non-Buddhists. As the three kinds of seeds mentioned earlier, all are causes of the same kind in sequence. Like seeds producing sprouts, etc. Non-Buddhist schools believe that seeds and sprouts are not direct causes; sprouts give rise to sprouts, and seeds give rise to seeds, as direct causes.
Objection: If so, from what do sprouts, etc., arise? The author questions the Vaiśeṣika school: if sprouts do not arise from seeds, from what do you allow them to arise?
Objection: From their own elements, even from ultimate particles. The Vaiśeṣika school answers: That is, sprouts have coarse color, subtle color, and even ultimate particles. Subtle color arises from ultimate particles, and coarse color arises from subtle color.
Objection: In the arising of sprouts, etc., what power do seeds, etc., have? The author questions the Vaiśeṣika school: If sprouts arise from their own elements, what power do seeds have for sprouts? Since there is no power, why are they called seeds?
Objection: Except for the power to attract and gather, even to produce sprouts, etc. The Vaiśeṣika school answers: Because of the seed, the ultimate particles of the sprout gather and stay together; there is no other power.
Objection: For what reason do you insist on such an attachment? The author questions the Vaiśeṣika school's attachment.
Objection: Arising from established categories is certainly unreasonable. The Vaiśeṣika school answers.
Objection: What is unreasonable? The author asks.
Objection: Because there should be no certainty. This is the Vaiśeṣika school refuting the author. Although the earth element in the seed and the earth element in the sprout are different categories, they allow each other to arise. Since different categories can arise from each other, there should be no fixed rule. Therefore, wheat seeds and rice sprouts are also different categories, and wheat seeds should also be able to produce rice sprouts, etc.
Objection: Because the function is fixed, there is no fault of uncertainty. The
主答。麥種于麥芽雖是異類。相望有力。功能定故。不生谷芽。
論。如聲熟變等從異類定生。此即論主引喻顯也。如絲．竹．土．草與聲異類。所變清．濁之聲。決定無不定也。如火．土與食．鐵俱是異類。火然能熟食變鐵。土即不能。豈非決定。
論。德法有殊實法不爾。勝論救。聲乃熟變是其德句。熱．及合．離亦德句攝。種中地．火．及芽．地大。並是實句。因合有聲因熱熟變。並是德法異類相生。與實法殊。地等實法唯生同類。
論。現見實法至縷生衣等。勝論指事釋也。藤生於支。縷生於衣。必同類生不變異類。
論。此非應理。論主非所引喻。
論。非理者何。勝論外道問非理也。
論。引不極成為能立故。即論主答非理。我宗不許藤生於支縷生於衣。既不共許。不是極成。宗為所立。喻為能立。引不共許縷生衣等為能立故。
論。令此所引何不極成。勝論外道反問論主。
論。非許藤支至如蟻行等。論主答也。如蟻之與行。樹之與林。人之與軍。即是蟻等於安布差別位中。立以異名。非別有體藤縷衣亦復如是。如何說縷等能生於衣等。
論。云何知爾。勝論云。何知縷衣如蟻行等。
論。一縷閤中至唯得縷故。論主答。現見於行之內
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 主：麥子的種子和麥芽雖然是不同的種類，但它們之間存在著相互作用的力量。因為它們的功能是確定的，所以麥種不會長出谷芽。
論：就像聲音的成熟變化等，都是從不同的種類產生的。這正是論主引用的比喻所要闡明的。例如，絲、竹、土、草與聲音是不同的種類，但它們所產生的清脆或渾濁的聲音，是確定的，不會不確定。又如，火、土與食物、鐵都是不同的種類，火可以燃燒使食物變熟，使鐵發生變化，但土卻不能。這難道不是確定的嗎？
論：德法（guna-dharma，屬性）有差異，實法（dravya-dharma，實體）則不然。勝論（Vaisheshika，印度哲學流派）反駁說：聲音的成熟變化是德法。熱、結合、分離也屬於德法。種子中的地、火，以及芽、地大（prthivi-mahabhuta，地元素）都是實法。因為結合而產生聲音，因為熱而使食物成熟變化，這些都是德法異類相生，與實法不同。地等實法只能產生同類。
論：現在看到實法，例如線產生衣服等。勝論用指示的方式來解釋：藤蔓生長在樹枝上，線產生衣服，一定是同類相生，不會改變為異類。
論：這不合道理。論主引用的比喻不恰當。
論：什麼是不合道理？勝論外道問什麼是不合道理。
論：因為引用的例子不是極成（prasiddha，公認的事實），所以不能作為能立（sadhana，論證）。論主回答說不合道理。我的宗派不承認藤蔓生長在樹枝上，線產生衣服。既然不是共同認可的，就不是極成。宗（paksha，論題）是所立（sadhya，需要證明的），喻（drshtanta，例子）是能立。引用不被共同認可的線產生衣服等作為能立，所以不合道理。
論：為什麼你引用的例子不是極成？勝論外道反問論主。
論：因為不承認藤蔓和樹枝，就像螞蟻和行進等。論主回答說：就像螞蟻和行進，樹木和森林，人和軍隊，螞蟻等在不同的排列位置中，被賦予了不同的名稱，但並非是不同的實體。藤蔓、線、衣服也是如此。怎麼能說線等能產生衣服等呢？
論：你怎麼知道的？勝論問：怎麼知道線和衣服就像螞蟻和行進等？
論：在一根線結合中，只能得到線。論主回答：現在看到在行進之內
【English Translation】 English version Question: Although a wheat seed and a malt sprout are different kinds, they have a mutually influential force. Because their functions are fixed, a wheat seed will not produce a grain sprout.
Treatise: Just as the ripening and transformation of sound, etc., arise from different kinds. This is precisely what the treatise master illustrates with a metaphor. For example, silk, bamboo, earth, and grass are different kinds from sound, but the clear or turbid sounds they produce are definite and not uncertain. Also, fire and earth are different kinds from food and iron; fire can burn and ripen food, transforming iron, but earth cannot. Is this not definite?
Treatise: Guna-dharmas (qualities) are different, but dravya-dharmas (substances) are not. The Vaisheshika (school of Indian philosophy) refutes: The ripening and transformation of sound is a guna-dharma. Heat, conjunction, and separation are also included in guna-dharmas. Earth and fire in a seed, as well as a sprout and prthivi-mahabhuta (earth element), are all dravya-dharmas. Because of conjunction, sound arises; because of heat, food ripens and transforms. These are cases of guna-dharmas arising from different kinds, which is different from dravya-dharmas. Dravyas such as earth can only produce the same kind.
Treatise: Now we see dravyas, such as threads producing clothes, etc. The Vaisheshika explains by pointing: A vine grows on a branch, and threads produce clothes; it must be the same kind producing the same kind, without changing into a different kind.
Treatise: This is not reasonable. The metaphor cited by the treatise master is inappropriate.
Treatise: What is unreasonable? The Vaisheshika heretic asks what is unreasonable.
Treatise: Because the cited example is not prasiddha (a well-known fact), it cannot be used as sadhana (proof). The treatise master answers that it is unreasonable. My school does not accept that a vine grows on a branch, or that threads produce clothes. Since it is not mutually accepted, it is not prasiddha. Paksha (thesis) is sadhya (what needs to be proven), and drshtanta (example) is sadhana. Citing the not commonly accepted threads producing clothes, etc., as sadhana is therefore unreasonable.
Treatise: Why is the example you cited not prasiddha? The Vaisheshika heretic asks the treatise master in return.
Treatise: Because we do not accept vines and branches, just like ants and marching, etc. The treatise master answers: Just like ants and marching, trees and forests, people and armies, ants, etc., are given different names in different arrangements, but they are not different entities. Vines, threads, and clothes are also like this. How can you say that threads, etc., can produce clothes, etc.?
Treatise: How do you know? The Vaisheshika asks: How do you know that threads and clothes are like ants and marching, etc.?
Treatise: In the combination of one thread, you can only get threads. The treatise master answers: Now we see within the marching
一蟻合曾不得行。亦現見一縷閤中曾不得衣唯得縷故。故知離縷之外無別衣體。即合衆縷以為衣也。
論。有誰為障令不得衣。反問勝論。於一縷上有何物為障令但見縷而不見衣。
論。若一縷中至有衣分無衣。牒救破也。若是一縷中無全衣故不見衣者。即應一縷上有衣一分無全衣。
論。應許全衣至有分名衣。縱立衣分。奪破全衣。全衣即是衣分成故還如蟻等。
論。又如何知衣分異縷。此中又破有衣分也。世所現見。一縷之上但見其縷不見衣分。又如何知衣分異縷。非即以縷為衣分耶。
論。若謂衣要待多所依合。牒轉救也。勝論救云。一縷合時未有衣。要待多縷以為所依。故如子．孫微獨一無如用百千常微生一大色。于其前位此色不生。
論。于唯多經合應亦得衣。論主破。若若要多縷合即應得衣。不須緯。因何多經同聚而不見衣。
論。或應畢竟無得衣理。論主又破前並遮轉救。若謂由此經．緯共成故。墮闕一分即不得衣。即應畢竟無得衣理。
論。中及余邊不對根故。論主出畢竟不得衣所以。如多絲成衣之中。縷．及表．里不同。必不俱見。即應畢竟無得衣時。
論。若謂漸次皆可對根。牒轉救也。中及表．里雖不同時。若漸次者皆可見故。
論。則應眼身至得有分衣故。論主破。若如此救。即不可言見觸衣也。眼．身無時得全分故。
論。故即于諸分至如旋火輪論主自述宗義。如旋火輪于相續位非輪。輪覺離其火外無別有輪。即于諸分漸次了別。而實無別有分衣故起有分覺。
論。謂若離續縷至不可得故。重釋離縷無別衣也。謂縷上有青．黃等色。毛㲲等類。禦寒業等用。別有衣上色．類．業別不可得故。若衣與縷體性別者。即應三種。亦應各別。既三無別。故知無別。同旋火輪。
論。若錦衣上至從異類起。又牒計也。若以錦上色．類．業等屬於衣者。即衣實是一。縷實有種種異。即應衣實法從種種異類縷實法生。違自宗也。即違前立德法可爾實法不然。若衣無實。色等依何起也。
論。一一縷色等無種種異故。結上過也。錦有分衣有種種色。一一之縷無種種色。衣．縷不同。縷生衣故證實從異類生也。
論。或於一分至由彼顯衣故。又重破。錦有分衣眾色共成。一分唯有自色等故。而即於一分應不見錦衣。錦衣由彼眾色成。於一分處無眾色故。
論。或即彼分至異色等相故。又重破。錦衣既是眾色共為。一分錦衣應有眾色之相。
論。彼許有分至甚為靈異。又破彼轉計。若謂有分全衣體唯是一。而
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如果按照你們的說法，那麼眼睛和身體應該能夠接觸到衣服的各個部分，因為衣服是由各個部分組成的。論主反駁：如果這樣解釋，就不能說眼睛和身體接觸到的是整個衣服。因為眼睛和身體不可能同時接觸到衣服的所有部分。
論：所以說，就像旋轉的火輪一樣。論主自己闡述宗義：就像旋轉的火輪，在相續的運動中，實際上並沒有一個實在的輪子。我們所感覺到的輪子，除了火焰之外，沒有其他的實體。同樣，我們逐漸認識到衣服的各個部分，但實際上並沒有一個獨立於各個部分的『衣服』存在，因此產生了對『有分衣』的錯覺。
論：如果說離開連續的線縷就無法得到衣服，那麼就再次解釋了離開線縷就沒有獨立的衣服。線縷上有青色、黃色等顏色，以及毛、㲲等材質，具有禦寒等作用。而衣服上獨立的顏色、材質、作用是無法找到的。如果衣服和線縷的本體是不同的，那麼顏色、材質、作用也應該是各自不同的。既然這三者沒有區別，那麼就知道衣服和線縷沒有區別，就像旋轉的火輪一樣。
論：如果錦衣上的顏色、材質、作用等屬於衣服，那麼就再次駁斥了對方的觀點。如果認為錦上的顏色、材質、作用等屬於衣服，那麼衣服實際上是一個整體，而線縷實際上有種種不同。那麼就應該是衣服這個實法是從種種不同的線縷這個實法產生的，這違反了你們自己的宗義。這違反了之前所說的『德法』可以這樣，而『實法』不能這樣。如果衣服不是實有的，那麼顏色等又依附於什麼而產生呢？
論：每一根線縷的顏色等沒有種種不同，這是總結了上面的過失。錦這種有分衣有種種顏色，但是每一根線縷沒有種種顏色。衣服和線縷是不同的，線縷產生衣服，這證實了衣服是從不同類的東西產生的。
論：或者在一部分上不能看到錦衣，因為錦衣是由那些顏色顯現出來的。這是又一次駁斥。錦這種有分衣是由眾多顏色共同形成的，而一部分只有它自己的顏色等，因此在這一部分上應該看不到錦衣。錦衣是由那些眾多顏色形成的，而在一個部分沒有眾多顏色。
論：或者在那一部分錦衣上應該有不同的顏色等相。這是又一次駁斥。錦衣既然是眾多顏色共同形成的，那麼一部分錦衣應該具有眾多顏色的特徵。
論：他們承認有分的全衣體只是一個整體，這真是非常奇怪的說法。這是又一次駁斥對方的轉計。如果認為有分的全衣體只是一個整體，那麼……
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: If, according to your view, the eyes and body should be able to contact every part of the garment, because the garment is composed of various parts. The treatise master refutes: If you explain it this way, then it cannot be said that the eyes and body are contacting the entire garment. Because the eyes and body cannot simultaneously contact all parts of the garment.
Treatise: Therefore, it is like a rotating fire wheel. The treatise master himself expounds the tenets: Just like a rotating fire wheel, in the continuous movement, there is actually no real wheel. What we perceive as the wheel, apart from the flames, has no other entity. Similarly, we gradually recognize the various parts of the garment, but in reality, there is no 'garment' that exists independently of the various parts, thus creating the illusion of a 'divisible garment'.
Treatise: If it is said that without continuous threads, the garment cannot be obtained, then it is explained again that without threads, there is no independent garment. The threads have colors such as blue and yellow, as well as materials such as wool and felt, and have functions such as keeping warm. However, independent colors, materials, and functions on the garment cannot be found. If the substance of the garment and the threads are different, then the colors, materials, and functions should also be different. Since these three have no difference, then it is known that the garment and the threads have no difference, just like a rotating fire wheel.
Treatise: If the colors, materials, functions, etc., on the brocade garment belong to the garment, then the opponent's view is refuted again. If it is believed that the colors, materials, functions, etc., on the brocade belong to the garment, then the garment is actually a whole, while the threads actually have various differences. Then it should be that the garment, which is a real entity (dharma), is produced from the various different threads, which are also real entities (dharma), which violates your own tenets. This violates what was previously said that 'attribute-dharma' (德法) can be like this, but 'real-dharma' (實法) cannot. If the garment is not real, then what do the colors, etc., rely on to arise?
Treatise: The colors, etc., of each thread do not have various differences, which summarizes the above faults. The divisible garment of brocade has various colors, but each thread does not have various colors. The garment and the threads are different, and the threads produce the garment, which proves that the garment is produced from things of different kinds.
Treatise: Or the brocade garment cannot be seen in one part, because the brocade garment is manifested by those colors. This is another refutation. The divisible garment of brocade is formed by the common formation of many colors, while one part only has its own colors, etc., therefore the brocade garment should not be seen in this part. The brocade garment is formed by those many colors, but one part does not have many colors.
Treatise: Or that part of the brocade garment should have different color characteristics, etc. This is another refutation. Since the brocade garment is formed by the common formation of many colors, then a part of the brocade garment should have the characteristics of many colors.
Treatise: They admit that the entire body of the divisible garment is just one whole, which is a very strange statement. This is another refutation of the opponent's changed argument. If it is believed that the entire body of the divisible garment is just one whole, then...
有種種色。種種類。種種業用殊者。多．一相違。甚為靈異。
論。又於一火至應不得成。又破勝論計。彼計。光明遍一窟中。有一粗色遍於室內。衣亦復爾。隨衣大．小一色遍衣。今破光明衣亦隨破。如一光明界分之中。近即明熱。遠便闇冷。既同一體。如何不同。
論。各別極微至可現根證。論主述自宗。各別一一極微根不能取名為越根而眾微共集可現根證。現根證時離微。更無別粗色也。
論。如彼所宗至合能發識。引外宗證。如彼宗中多微合故共生一果。別則不生。或如眼．境等合能生眼識。別則不生。我宗由多微合故識．根能取。別不能取。
論。又如翳目至便無見能。又引世間共許證也。
論。極微對根理亦應爾。總結成。理亦同彼合能生果根．境生識。及如散發翳目見也。
論。又即於色等至極微亦壞。明色即是極微。色壞極微壞也。
論。極微實攝至定俱時滅。外道救。極微實句攝。色是德句攝。實．德體殊。異體不應定俱時滅。
論。此二體別至故非體別。論主破體別有。文有三重。此第一也。若謂地大極微是實。色是德攝。二體別者。因何共審觀時。不見地等外有別色也。
論。又彼宗中至寧異色觸。第二破彼宗。自云。地等實句眼見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有種種顏色，種種類別的物體，種種作用不同的事物，它們之間多數是相互矛盾、彼此違背的，這顯得非常神奇靈異。
論：如果只有一個火，那麼它應該不能同時產生冷和熱。這是爲了駁斥勝論派的觀點。他們的觀點是：光明遍佈一個洞穴中，有一種粗大的顏色遍佈整個房間。衣服也是這樣，無論衣服大小，都有一種顏色遍佈整件衣服。現在駁斥光明，也同樣可以駁斥衣服。如同在一個光明的界限範圍內，靠近光源就明亮而熱，遠離光源就黑暗而冷。既然是同一個物體，為什麼會有不同呢？
論：各個獨立的極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）是根識無法直接感知的。論主闡述自己的宗義：各個獨立的極微，根識無法單獨感知，這超越了根識的能力。只有眾多極微聚集在一起，才能被根識感知。當根識感知時，除了這些聚集的極微，沒有其他的粗色存在。
論：如同他們所宗的觀點，多個極微結合在一起才能產生一個結果，單獨的極微則不能產生結果。或者像眼根、色境等結合在一起才能產生眼識，單獨的則不能產生。我的宗義認為，由於多個極微結合在一起，所以意識和根識才能感知，單獨的極微則不能感知。
論：又如眼睛被遮蔽，便失去了視覺能力。這是引用世間普遍認可的例子來證明。
論：極微對於根識來說，道理也應該如此。總結：道理也和那些結合在一起才能產生結果的例子相同，比如根識和色境結合產生意識，以及像散發遮蔽眼睛導致視力下降的情況。
論：而且，對於色等現象來說，如果色壞滅，那麼極微也會壞滅。說明色就是極微，色壞滅，極微也隨之壞滅。
論：極微屬於『實』（dravya，實體）的範疇，而色屬於『德』（guṇa，屬性）的範疇，外道辯解說：極微屬於『實』的範疇，色屬於『德』的範疇，『實』和『德』的本體不同，不同本體的事物不應該同時壞滅。
論：這二者的本體不同，所以不應該同時壞滅。論主駁斥本體不同的觀點，有三重含義，這是第一重。如果說地大的極微是『實』，而色是『德』，二者本體不同，那麼為什麼在共同觀察審視的時候，沒有看到地大之外還有其他的顏色呢？
論：而且在他們的宗義中，他們自己說，地等『實』的範疇可以用眼睛看到，為什麼不認為觸覺也是不同的顏色呢？這是第二重駁斥他們的宗義。他們自己說，地等『實』的範疇可以用眼睛看到。
【English Translation】 English version There are various colors, various kinds of objects, and various functions that are different from each other. Many of these are contradictory and conflicting, which seems very mysterious and extraordinary.
Treatise: If there is only one fire, then it should not be able to produce both cold and heat simultaneously. This is to refute the view of the Vaiśeṣika school. Their view is: light pervades a cave, and a coarse color pervades the entire room. Clothes are also like this; regardless of the size of the clothes, one color pervades the entire garment. Now, refuting light is the same as refuting clothes. Just as within the boundary of light, being close to the source is bright and hot, while being far away is dark and cold. Since it is the same entity, how can there be differences?
Treatise: Individual atoms (paramāṇu, the smallest unit of matter) cannot be directly perceived by the senses. The author states his own doctrine: individual atoms cannot be perceived by the senses alone; this exceeds the capacity of the senses. Only when many atoms gather together can they be perceived by the senses. When the senses perceive, there is no other coarse color present besides these gathered atoms.
Treatise: Just as in their doctrine, multiple atoms must combine to produce a result, while individual atoms cannot produce a result. Or like the eye-organ and the object-realm must combine to produce eye-consciousness, while individually they cannot. My doctrine holds that because multiple atoms combine together, consciousness and the senses can perceive them, while individual atoms cannot.
Treatise: Moreover, just as when the eyes are covered, they lose their ability to see. This is citing a universally accepted example to prove the point.
Treatise: The principle should be the same for atoms in relation to the senses. Conclusion: The principle is the same as those examples where combination is necessary to produce a result, such as the combination of the senses and the object-realm to produce consciousness, and like scattered hair covering the eyes causing a decrease in vision.
Treatise: Furthermore, with regard to phenomena such as color, if color is destroyed, then the atoms will also be destroyed. This explains that color is the same as atoms; if color is destroyed, the atoms are also destroyed.
Treatise: Atoms belong to the category of 'substance' (dravya), while color belongs to the category of 'quality' (guṇa). The heretics argue: atoms belong to the category of 'substance,' and color belongs to the category of 'quality.' The essence of 'substance' and 'quality' are different; things with different essences should not be destroyed simultaneously.
Treatise: These two have different essences, so they should not be destroyed simultaneously. The author refutes the view that they have different essences, in three ways; this is the first. If it is said that the atoms of earth are 'substance' and color is 'quality,' and the two have different essences, then why, when observing and examining together, is no other color seen apart from the earth?
Treatise: Moreover, in their own doctrine, they themselves say that the category of 'substance' such as earth can be seen with the eyes. Why do they not consider touch to be a different color? This is the second refutation of their doctrine. They themselves say that the category of 'substance' such as earth can be seen with the eyes.
。身觸。色德亦眼見。觸德亦身觸。實之與德色．觸何異。
論。又燒毛㲲至形量等故。第三破也。毛謂羊毛等。㲲謂白㲲等。花謂紅花等。此三種實句體別形量相似。德不同毛黑．㲲白．花紅。未被燒時由色別。故知三種異生毛等三覺。被燒已后。同一黑色。形量同故。既不記識毛．㲲等異。故知德外無別實也。若謂實外有別德者。毛等三物未燒之時。實．德俱異。被燒已去德同實異。雖德是同實有異故。實又眼．身所得。因何不能記識毛．㲲等異。故知離色無別異也。
論。猶如行伍至不記識故。引喻。由兩行。一行是瓶。一行是瓫。同一鴿毛。由觀瓶．瓫形別記識不同。若不觀形。唯著鴿毛。即不能記識兩行有別。毛．㲲．紅花亦爾。被燒已后。由色同不可記別。形復無異故不記別。若形有別可記別也。
論。誰當採錄至廣諍應止。可解。
論。此三災頂至名彼災頂。此明三頂。
論。何緣下三定至遭是外災明下定災及所以也。正理云。第二靜慮喜受為內災。與輕安俱潤澤如水。故遍身粗重由此皆除。故經說苦根第二定滅。乃至。亦由滅苦所依識身。故說苦根二靜慮滅。雖生上地識身容現前。隨欲不行。自在故無過。然經言滅苦。據正入定時。初靜慮中猶有尋．伺無增上喜不言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：身體接觸。顏色屬性也用眼睛看。觸覺屬性也用身體接觸。實體與顏色、觸覺屬性有什麼不同？
論：又如燒焦的毛、氈，直到形狀大小等同。這是第三種破斥。毛指羊毛等。氈指白氈等。花指紅花等。這三種實體的構成不同，形狀大小相似。屬性不同，毛是黑色的，氈是白色的，花是紅色的。未被燒時，因為顏色不同。所以知道三種東西產生毛等的不同感覺。被燒之後，都是一樣的黑色。形狀大小相同。既然不能記起毛、氈等的不同。所以知道屬性之外沒有別的實體。如果說實體之外有別的屬性，毛等三種東西未燒之時，實體、屬性都不同。被燒之後屬性相同，實體不同。即使屬性相同，實體有不同，實體又可以用眼睛、身體得到，為什麼不能記起毛、氈等的不同。所以知道離開顏色沒有別的不同。
論：就像隊伍一樣，直到不能記起。這是引用的比喻。由兩行組成。一行是瓶子，一行是罐子。都是一樣的鴿子毛。因為觀察瓶子、罐子的形狀不同，所以記得不同。如果不觀察形狀，只注意鴿子毛，就不能記起兩行有什麼不同。毛、氈、紅花也是這樣。被燒之後，因為顏色相同，不能記起區別。形狀又沒有不同，所以不能記起區別。如果形狀有區別就可以記起區別。
論：誰應當採納記錄，直到廣泛的爭論應當停止。可以理解。
論：這三種災難的頂端，直到稱呼那些災難的頂端。這裡說明三種頂端。
論：什麼原因導致下三禪定，直到遭遇這些外在災難，說明下三禪定的災難以及原因。《正理論》說：第二禪定的喜受是內在的災難，與輕安一同滋潤，像水一樣。所以遍身的粗重由此都消除。所以經書說苦的根源在第二禪定中滅除。乃至，也因為滅除苦所依賴的識身。所以說苦的根源在二禪定中滅除。即使生在上層，識身也可能顯現，隨心所欲不行，因為自在所以沒有過失。然而經書說滅除苦，是根據正確進入禪定時。初禪定中還有尋、伺，沒有增長的喜，所以不說。
【English Translation】 English version: Body contact. Color property is also seen by the eye. Tactile property is also felt by body contact. What is the difference between substance and color, tactile properties?
Commentary: Furthermore, like burnt wool and felt, until their shapes and sizes are identical. This is the third refutation. 'Wool' refers to sheep's wool, etc. 'Felt' refers to white felt, etc. 'Flower' refers to red flowers, etc. These three substances have different compositions but similar shapes and sizes. Their properties are different: wool is black, felt is white, and flowers are red. Before being burnt, they are distinguishable by their colors. Therefore, we know that these three things produce different sensations of wool, etc. After being burnt, they are all the same black color. Their shapes and sizes are identical. Since we cannot remember the differences between wool, felt, etc., we know that there is no substance separate from properties. If you say that there are separate properties apart from substances, then when the three things like wool are unburnt, both substance and properties are different. After being burnt, the properties are the same, but the substances are different. Even if the properties are the same, the substances are different, and the substances can be perceived by the eyes and body, why can't we remember the differences between wool, felt, etc.? Therefore, we know that there is no difference apart from color.
Commentary: Just like rows of objects, until one cannot remember the differences. This is an analogy. There are two rows. One row is of bottles, and the other row is of jars. They all have the same pigeon feathers. Because we observe the different shapes of the bottles and jars, we remember the differences. If we don't observe the shapes and only pay attention to the pigeon feathers, we cannot remember the differences between the two rows. The same is true for wool, felt, and red flowers. After being burnt, because the colors are the same, we cannot remember the differences. The shapes are also not different, so we cannot remember the differences. If the shapes were different, we could remember the differences.
Commentary: Who should adopt and record, until widespread disputes should cease. Understandable.
Commentary: The peak of these three disasters, until they are called the peaks of those disasters. This explains the three peaks.
Commentary: What causes the disasters of the lower three dhyanas (meditative states), until encountering these external disasters, explains the disasters of the lower three dhyanas and the reasons for them. The Nyāyānusāra (Treatise on Logic) says: The feeling of joy in the second dhyana is an internal disaster, which, together with lightness and ease, moistens like water. Therefore, the heaviness throughout the body is eliminated by this. Therefore, the sutras say that the root of suffering is extinguished in the second dhyana. Furthermore, it is also because the body of consciousness on which suffering depends is extinguished. Therefore, it is said that the root of suffering is extinguished in the second dhyana. Even if one is born in a higher realm, the body of consciousness may still appear, but it does not act as one wishes, because it is free, so there is no fault. However, the sutras say that suffering is extinguished, according to the correct entry into dhyana. In the first dhyana, there are still vitarka (initial application of thought) and vicāra (sustained application of thought), and there is no increased joy, so it is not mentioned.
苦滅 又云。故初靜慮內具三災。外亦具遭三災所壞。第二靜慮內有二災。故外亦遭二災所壞。第三靜慮內唯一災。故外但遭一災所壞(身粗重是苦根本。第二定輕安能除。故言苦根滅也)。
論。何緣不立至地還違地。明地大非災所以。
論。第四靜慮至所不及故。明第四定無外災所以。
論。有說彼地至更往余處。此第二師釋。正理論云。毗婆沙師說。第四定攝凈居天故。災不能損。由彼不可生無色天。亦復不應更往余處。由此證余界無凈居天。若余世界中有凈居者。應如地獄移往他方。寧說不應更往余處。下三天處。由凈居天威力攝持。故無災壞。無容一地處少不同。便有為災壞．不壞別。
論。若爾彼地至體亦非常。問答第四定器常．無常也。婆沙一百三十四云。問第四靜慮地若無邊災所不及。豈非常住。答剎那無常故無此失。有說第四靜慮地中宮殿所依俱是無常。謂彼宮地隨彼諸天生時死時俱起沒故。此說非理。所以者何。應無有情共器業故。由此如前所說者(準此。即非與宮殿等同生滅也)。正理二十一解無雲天云已下空中天所居地。如雲蜜合故說名云。此上諸天。更無雲地。在無雲首故說無雲 第四定地各別不違。諸論皆同。說滅不同。論意各別。此論所說。是婆沙后釋。評
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『苦滅』，又說：因此，初禪（初靜慮）內部具有三種災難（三災），外部也同樣會遭遇三災所破壞。第二禪（第二靜慮）內部有兩種災難，所以外部也會遭遇兩種災難所破壞。第三禪（第三靜慮）內部只有一種災難，所以外部只會遭遇一種災難所破壞（身軀的粗重是痛苦的根本，第二禪的輕安能夠去除這種痛苦，所以說苦根滅）。
論：為什麼不建立『至地還違地』的說法？這是爲了說明地大並非災難的原因。
論：第四禪（第四靜慮）乃至災難所不能及的地方，說明第四禪沒有外部災難的原因。
論：有人說，第四禪的天人會前往其他地方。這是第二種解釋。正理論說：毗婆沙師說，第四禪包含凈居天（居住在色界第四禪天的天人），所以災難不能損害他們。由於凈居天不可生於無色界天，也不應該再前往其他地方。由此可以證明其他世界沒有凈居天。如果其他世界中有凈居天，應該像地獄一樣遷移到其他地方，怎麼能說不應該再前往其他地方呢？下三禪天處，由於凈居天的威力攝持，所以沒有災難破壞。不能說同一禪天中，僅僅因為所處位置稍有不同，就會有被災難破壞和不被災難破壞的區別。
論：如果這樣，那麼第四禪的本體也不是恒常的。這是問答第四禪的器世界是常還是無常。婆沙論第一百三十四卷說：問：第四靜慮地如果沒有邊際的災難所能到達，難道不是恒常的嗎？答：因為剎那生滅無常，所以沒有這個過失。有人說，第四靜慮地中的宮殿和所依賴的土地都是無常的。意思是說，那些宮殿和土地隨著天人的出生和死亡而同時產生和消失。這種說法是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為這樣就沒有有情眾生的共同業力所感召的器世界了。因此，應該按照前面所說的理解（即宮殿等並非與天人同時生滅）。正理論第二十一卷解釋說，無雲天以下的空中天人所居住的土地，像雲和蜜一樣緊密結合，所以叫做云。這以上的諸天，不再有云地，因為在無雲天的頂端，所以叫做無雲。第四禪的各地各不相同，並不矛盾。各種論典都相同，只是所說的滅不同。論典的意義各有不同。這個論典所說的是婆沙論之後的解釋和評論。
【English Translation】 English version 'Suffering Cessation', it also says: Therefore, the First Dhyana (First Meditation) internally possesses three calamities (three disasters), and externally it will also encounter the destruction of the three calamities. The Second Dhyana (Second Meditation) internally has two calamities, so externally it will also encounter the destruction of two calamities. The Third Dhyana (Third Meditation) internally has only one calamity, so externally it will only encounter the destruction of one calamity (the coarseness and heaviness of the body is the root of suffering; the lightness and ease of the Second Dhyana can remove this suffering, so it is said that the root of suffering is extinguished).
Treatise: Why not establish the statement 'reaching the ground still contradicts the ground'? This is to explain that the earth element is not the cause of disasters.
Treatise: The Fourth Dhyana (Fourth Meditation) even reaches places that calamities cannot reach, explaining why the Fourth Dhyana has no external disasters.
Treatise: Some say that the beings of the Fourth Dhyana go to other places. This is the second explanation. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise on Following the Correct Principle) says: The Vaibhāṣika masters say that the Fourth Dhyana includes the Śuddhāvāsa heavens (pure abodes, heavens inhabited by non-returning beings in the Realm of Form), so calamities cannot harm them. Since the Śuddhāvāsa heavens cannot be born in the Formless Realm, they also should not go to other places. From this, it can be proven that there are no Śuddhāvāsa heavens in other worlds. If there were Śuddhāvāsa heavens in other worlds, they should be moved to other places like the hells. How can it be said that they should not go to other places? The lower three dhyana heavens are protected by the power of the Śuddhāvāsa heavens, so there is no destruction by calamities. It cannot be said that merely because the location is slightly different within the same dhyana, there will be a distinction between being destroyed by calamities and not being destroyed.
Treatise: If that is the case, then the substance of the Fourth Dhyana is also not permanent. This is a question and answer about whether the vessel world of the Fourth Dhyana is permanent or impermanent. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 134, says: Question: If the Fourth Dhyana land is not reached by boundless calamities, is it not permanent? Answer: Because it is impermanent in every moment, there is no such fault. Some say that the palaces and the land on which they rely in the Fourth Dhyana are both impermanent. This means that those palaces and lands arise and disappear simultaneously with the birth and death of the devas (gods). This statement is unreasonable. Why? Because then there would be no vessel world collectively created by the karma of sentient beings. Therefore, it should be understood as previously stated (i.e., the palaces, etc., do not arise and disappear simultaneously with the devas). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, volume 21, explains that the land inhabited by the devas in the air below the Anabhraka heaven (cloudless heaven) is as closely combined as clouds and honey, so it is called 'cloud'. The devas above this no longer have cloud land; because they are at the top of the cloudless heaven, they are called 'cloudless'. The various lands of the Fourth Dhyana are different and not contradictory. The various treatises are the same, only the descriptions of cessation are different. The meanings of the treatises are different. What this treatise says is the later explanation and commentary of the Vaibhāṣika.
家義意論將此為非難故。諸天宮殿。理是隨身。亦共業感。若不爾者。應無來往相過。宮殿受用之理。
論。所說三災云何次第。已下明三災起之次第。先問后答。此即問也。
論。要先無間至一風災起。答文可解。
論。何緣如是。問所以。
論。由彼有情至六十四劫。已下答。由上地因勝所感身壽。其量次長。所感外器。亦漸久住。此即善順施設足文。第三禪遍凈天。壽六十四劫。七火．一水。總七七火。七水。后七火．一風。七九六十三。並一風災有六十四。第六十四雖缺二十二中劫。據全說故言六十四。此天劫初成時。最初生容壽六十四劫。於後生者皆不得也。若有定業應移余界。
俱舍論疏卷第十二
(本奧云)初校額田部白麻呂
移唐草本寫校畢
再校葛城首麻呂
保延三年十一月十日夜點了
非人老法師 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第十三
沙門法寶撰
分別業品第四之一
以三義故名之為業。一者作用。二持法式。三分別果 一作用者。謂即作用說名為業 持法式者。謂能任持七眾法式 分別果者。謂能分別愛．非愛果 此品廣明故名分別 所以次世品後者。世品明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 家義意論認為這是一種非難。諸天宮殿（devagriha）。從道理上講，是隨身而行的，也是共同業力所感。如果不是這樣，就不應該有來往相過，以及宮殿受用的道理。
論：所說的三災（trayo bhaya）是怎樣的次第？以下說明三災生起的次第。先問后答，這便是提問。
論：一定要先從無間地獄（Avīci）開始，直至一風災（vāyu bhaya）生起。答文容易理解。
論：是什麼緣故這樣？問的是原因。
論：由於那些有情眾生，直至六十四劫（kalpa）。以下是回答。由於上地（ūrdhvabhūmi）的殊勝因緣所感的身壽，其量依次增長，所感的外器世界（bahirbhājana-loka）也逐漸長久住世。這便是善順施設足論（Śāsanapāda Abhidharma）的文句。第三禪（tṛtīya dhyāna）的遍凈天（Śubhakṛtsna），壽命六十四劫。七火災（agni bhaya）、一水災（udaka bhaya），總共七七四十九次火災，七次水災。之後是七次火災、一次風災。七九六十三，加上一次風災，共有六十四。第六十四劫雖然缺少二十二中劫（antarā-kalpa），但根據整體來說，所以說是六十四劫。此天在劫初形成時，最初生者的壽命是六十四劫，之後出生的人都不能達到這個壽命。如果存在定業，應該轉移到其他世界。
《俱舍論疏》卷第十二
（本奧云）初校額田部白麻呂
移唐草本寫校畢
再校葛城首麻呂
保延三年十一月十日夜點了
非人老法師 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第十三
沙門法寶撰
分別業品第四之一
以三種意義，稱之為業（karma）：一者作用，二者持法式，三者分別果。一、作用：就是將作用稱為業。二、持法式：是指能夠任持七眾（sapta parisah）的法式。三、分別果：是指能夠分別可愛和不可愛之果。此品廣泛闡明，所以稱為分別。之所以放在世品之後，是因為世品闡明了...
【English Translation】 English version: The Jia Yi Yi Lun considers this a criticism. The palaces of the devas (devagriha). In principle, they accompany the individual and are also the result of shared karma. If this were not the case, there should be no coming and going, nor the principle of enjoying the palaces.
Treatise: What is the order of the three calamities (trayo bhaya) mentioned? The following explains the order in which the three calamities arise. First a question, then an answer; this is the question.
Treatise: It must start from the Avīci (Avīci) hell until one wind calamity (vāyu bhaya) arises. The answer is easy to understand.
Treatise: What is the reason for this? Asking for the reason.
Treatise: Because those sentient beings, up to sixty-four kalpas (kalpa). The following is the answer. Because the life span of the bodies resulting from the superior causes of the upper realms (ūrdhvabhūmi) increases in order, and the external world (bahirbhājana-loka) they experience also gradually lasts longer. This is the text of the Śāsanapāda Abhidharma. The Śubhakṛtsna (Śubhakṛtsna) of the third dhyāna (tṛtīya dhyāna) has a lifespan of sixty-four kalpas. Seven fire calamities (agni bhaya), one water calamity (udaka bhaya), a total of forty-nine fire calamities and seven water calamities. After that, seven fire calamities and one wind calamity. Seven nines are sixty-three, plus one wind calamity, making a total of sixty-four. Although the sixty-fourth kalpa is missing twenty-two intermediate kalpas (antarā-kalpa), it is said to be sixty-four kalpas based on the whole. When this heaven is first formed at the beginning of the kalpa, the lifespan of the first being born is sixty-four kalpas, and those born later cannot attain this lifespan. If there is fixed karma, it should be transferred to other worlds.
Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā, Volume 12
(Originally, Okuda said) First proofread by Heguri no Obito no Shiromaro
Transcribed and proofread after moving the Tang grass manuscript
Second proofread by Katsuragi no Obito no Kamaro
Pointed out on the night of the tenth day of the eleventh month of the third year of Hoen
Old Dharma Master, a non-person Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41 No. 1822 Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā
Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā, Volume 13
Composed by Śramaṇa Hōbō
Chapter 4 on the Differentiation of Karma, Part 1
It is called karma (karma) for three reasons: first, function; second, upholding the Dharma style; and third, differentiating the results. First, function: that is, calling the function karma. Second, upholding the Dharma style: that is, being able to uphold the Dharma style of the seven assemblies (sapta parisah). Third, differentiating the results: that is, being able to differentiate between desirable and undesirable results. This chapter explains extensively, so it is called differentiation. The reason why it is placed after the chapter on the world is that the chapter on the world explains...
內．外果差別不同 果所賴因謂由業惑。惑總。業別。故先明業。
論。如前所說至由誰而生。結前起后。此品大文分四。一明業體。二明律儀等。三明經中諸業。四雜明諸業 明業體中。第一四頌半明業體性。第二一頌半。明能造大。第三兩頌。明執受類別。第四一頌。義門分別。第五一頌半。明四善等。第六三頌。明二等起 就明業體性中。初之一頌上一句答前問。次一句分二業。下兩句分三業。次之半頌分身．語二以成五業。次兩頌半成立表體 后之半頌明無表體 就初文中先結前問起。后舉頌答。此文初也。
論曰至業差別起。釋頌初句 世別由業生 非由一主先覺而生者。破外計也 但由有情業差別起。成立自宗 一主先覺而生者。有其多種或以梵王。或大自在天以為一主。起于先覺生於世間 或計於我以為一主。起于先覺生於世間 非由一主先覺而生者。總非上計 正理兼破無因論等。廣破耶執自立宗云世別由業生 云何知然 見業用故。謂世現見。愛．非愛果差別生時定由業用。如農夫類由勤正業。有稼穡等可愛果生。有諸愚夫行盜等業。便招非愛殺．縛等果。復見。亦有從初處胎不由現因有樂有苦。既見現在。要業為先方能引得愛．非愛果。知前樂．苦必業為先。故非無因諸內．外事自
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 內果和外果的差別在於，果報所依賴的因是業和煩惱。煩惱是總的，業是分別的。所以先說明業。
論：如前面所說，到『由誰而生』。總結前面的內容，開啟後面的內容。這一品的大的脈絡分為四個部分：一是說明業的體性，二是說明律儀等，三是說明經中的各種業，四是雜亂地說明各種業。在說明業的體性中，第一部分用四頌半說明業的體性，第二部分用一頌半說明能造作的強大力量，第三部分用兩頌說明執受的類別，第四部分用一頌從義理上進行分別，第五部分用一頌半說明四種善等，第六部分用三頌說明兩種等起。就說明業的體性中，最初的一頌，上一句回答前面的問題，下一句分出兩種業，下面的兩句分出三種業，接下來的半頌將身、語二業分成五種業，接下來的兩頌半成立表業的體性，後面的半頌說明無表業的體性。就最初的文句中，先總結前面的問題，然後用頌來回答。這段文字是最初的部分。
論曰：到『業差別起』。解釋頌的最初一句：『世別由業生』——世界（世間）的差別是由業產生的。
『非由一主先覺而生者』——不是由一個主宰先知先覺而產生的。這是爲了破斥外道的觀點。
『但由有情業差別起』——只是由於有情眾生的業的差別而產生的。這是爲了成立自己的宗派。
『一主先覺而生者』——由一個主宰先知先覺而產生的，有多種說法，或者認為是梵天（Brahmā，印度教的創造之神），或者認為是自在天（Maheśvara，濕婆神）作為唯一的主宰，先知先覺，產生於世間。或者認為是我（Ātman，神我）作為唯一的主宰，先知先覺，產生於世間。
『非由一主先覺而生者』——不是由一個主宰先知先覺而產生的，總的來說是否定上述的觀點。正理同時破斥無因論等。廣泛地破斥耶的執著，自己立宗說世界的差別是由業產生的。
『云何知然』——怎麼知道是這樣的呢？
『見業用故』——因為看到了業的作用。所謂世間現見，喜愛和不喜愛的果報差別產生的時候，一定是由業的作用。比如農夫通過辛勤的正業，有稼穡等可愛的果報產生。有些愚蠢的人做盜竊等惡業，便招致殺戮、捆綁等不喜愛的果報。又看到，也有從最初處在胎中的時候，不由現在的因，就有快樂和痛苦。既然看到現在，需要業作為先決條件，才能引得喜愛和不喜愛的果報。知道之前的快樂和痛苦必定是業作為先決條件。所以不是沒有原因，各種內外事物自然而然。
【English Translation】 English version: The difference between internal and external fruits lies in the fact that the causes upon which the fruits depend are karma and afflictions (kleśa). Afflictions are general, while karma is specific. Therefore, karma is explained first.
Treatise: As mentioned earlier, up to 'from whom do they arise?' This summarizes the previous content and introduces the following content. The main structure of this chapter is divided into four parts: first, explaining the nature of karma; second, explaining precepts (śīla) and so on; third, explaining the various karmas in the scriptures; and fourth, explaining various karmas in a miscellaneous manner. In explaining the nature of karma, the first part uses four and a half verses to explain the nature of karma, the second part uses one and a half verses to explain the great power of creation, the third part uses two verses to explain the categories of appropriation, the fourth part uses one verse to distinguish from the perspective of meaning, the fifth part uses one and a half verses to explain the four kinds of goodness, and the sixth part uses three verses to explain the two kinds of arising. Regarding the explanation of the nature of karma, the first verse, the first line answers the previous question, the next line divides into two kinds of karma, the following two lines divide into three kinds of karma, the following half verse divides the karma of body and speech into five kinds of karma, the following two and a half verses establish the nature of manifest karma (vijñapti-karma), and the last half verse explains the nature of non-manifest karma (avijñapti-karma). In the initial sentences, the previous question is first summarized, and then the verse is used to answer. This passage is the initial part.
Treatise says: Up to 'the arising of the differences of karma'. Explaining the first line of the verse: 'The differences in the world (loka) arise from karma'—the differences in the world arise from karma.
'Not arising from a single lord who is the first to know'—this is not produced by a single lord who is the first to know and perceive. This is to refute the views of externalists.
'But arising from the differences in the karma of sentient beings'—it is only produced by the differences in the karma of sentient beings. This is to establish one's own school.
'Arising from a single lord who is the first to know'—produced by a single lord who is the first to know and perceive, there are various views, either considering Brahmā (the Hindu god of creation), or considering Maheśvara (Shiva) as the sole lord, the first to know and perceive, produced in the world. Or consider the Self (Ātman) as the sole lord, the first to know and perceive, produced in the world.
'Not arising from a single lord who is the first to know'—not produced by a single lord who is the first to know and perceive, generally speaking, it is to deny the above views. Right reasoning simultaneously refutes the theory of no cause and so on. Broadly refuting the clinging of 'ye', establishing one's own school saying that the differences in the world arise from karma.
'How is it known to be so?'—how is it known to be like this?
'Because the function of karma is seen'—because the function of karma is seen. What is seen in the world is that when the differences between liked and disliked results arise, it is certainly due to the function of karma. For example, farmers, through diligent right karma, have the production of crops and other liked results. Some foolish people commit evil karma such as theft, and then incur disliked results such as killing and binding. Also, it is seen that there are also those who, from the very beginning of being in the womb, have happiness and suffering not caused by present causes. Since it is seen in the present, karma is needed as a prerequisite in order to bring about liked and disliked results. Knowing that previous happiness and suffering must have karma as a prerequisite. Therefore, it is not without cause that various internal and external things are natural.
然而有種種差別 又世現見。造善者少。造惡者多。然於世間有情。樂少。苦多。可得以現見為門 非現見成故。謂世現見造作種種凈．不凈業為因緣故。便有種種樂．苦果生 又云 然不肖者。以見世聞樂施者貧苦。慳吝者富樂。便增邪見謂果無因 此由於田及思數習所得異熟．增上．等流果差別中不了達故 謂有先世于良福田暫植施因故招富樂。然不數習能捨物思故於今生仍惟慳吝。若有先世數施非田。則於今生貧窮樂施。于如是義何致愚迷 故由有情先世業力。及現士用二種。世間差別果生。理善成立 此論言但由有情業差別起。此之但字總非諸計。
論。若爾何故至與彼相違。問 若由業異果有異者。且如人中內身外物俱從業生。何故業生外物鬱金．旃檀等甚可愛樂。而內身形等不凈穢惡。
論。以諸有情至二事俱妙。答 業類不同 雜業生人感內身形常流不凈。感外香等能對治彼 凈業生天。二事皆凈。
論。此所由業至謂思所作。明二業也。一即是思。二思已業 思已業者。謂思所作。即身．語業。
論。如是二業至身語意業。此分二為三也。
論。如何建立至為就等起。此問建立三業所以。
論。縱爾何違。反問違也。
論。若約所依至皆意等起故。述違
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 然而，世間存在種種差別，這是顯而易見的。行善的人少，作惡的人多。因此，世間眾生所感受的快樂少，痛苦多。這可以通過觀察現世的現象來理解，而不是因為沒有看到結果就否定因果。世間眾生因為造作種種清凈和不清凈的業，所以產生種種快樂和痛苦的果報。 又說，那些不明事理的人，看到今生樂善好施的人貧窮困苦，而慳吝吝嗇的人卻富裕快樂，就增長邪見，認為沒有因果報應。這是因為他們不瞭解福田（指可以種福報的殊勝之境，如佛、僧、父母等）以及思惟、串習所產生的異熟果（由過去業力所感的果報）、增上果（對現在生活產生影響的果報）、等流果（與之前行為相似的果報）的差別。 有些人前世在殊勝的福田中稍微種下佈施的善因，所以今生感得富裕快樂的果報。但是因為今生不經常串習佈施和捨棄的念頭，所以仍然非常慳吝。有些人前世經常佈施，但不是在殊勝的福田中佈施，所以今生貧窮卻樂於佈施。對於這樣的道理，為什麼會感到迷惑呢？ 所以，世間的種種差別果報，是由眾生前世的業力以及今生的努力共同作用產生的，這個道理是完全成立的。這裡所說的『但由有情業差別起』，這個『但』字是總括否定了其他錯誤的觀點。
論：如果這樣，為什麼會說到與此相反的情況？ 問：如果因為業的不同導致果報不同，那麼，比如人，內在的身體和外在的物品都是由業產生的。為什麼業所產生的外部物品，如鬱金（一種香料）和旃檀（一種香木）等，非常可愛，而內在的身體卻不乾淨、污穢醜陋？
論：因為眾生的業有不同，所以導致內外不同。 答：業的種類不同。雜業所生的人，感得的內在身體經常流出不凈之物。感得的外在香氣等，可以對治這些不凈。清凈的業所生的天人，內外兩方面都是清凈的。
論：這裡所說的業，是指思所作的業。 說明有兩種業：一種是思業（指意業），另一種是思已業（指由思所引發的身語業）。思已業，就是指思惟之後所作的，也就是身業和語業。
論：像這樣，兩種業可以分為身語意三業。 這裡將兩種業分為三種業。
論：如何建立身語意三業？ 這是詢問建立三業的原因，是爲了說明它們的等起（動機）。
論：即使這樣，又有什麼違背呢？ 反問，表示沒有違背。
論：如果從所依（指身語意）來說，都是由意發起的。 陳述沒有違背之處，因為都是由意發起的。
【English Translation】 English version: However, there are various differences, which are evident in the world. Those who do good are few, and those who do evil are many. Therefore, sentient beings in the world experience little happiness and much suffering. This can be understood by observing present phenomena, rather than denying cause and effect because the results are not immediately seen. Sentient beings in the world, due to creating various pure and impure karmas, experience various results of happiness and suffering. Furthermore, it is said that those who are unwise, seeing that those who are generous and charitable in this life are poor and miserable, while those who are stingy and miserly are rich and happy, increase their wrong views, thinking that there is no cause and effect. This is because they do not understand the differences in the ripened fruit (Vipaka-phala, the result of past karma), the augmenting fruit (Adhipati-phala, the result that influences the present life), and the outflowing fruit (Nisyanda-phala, the result similar to the previous action) that arise from the field of merit (punya-ksetra, a special environment for generating merit, such as the Buddha, Sangha, or parents) and from thinking, practicing, and habituating. Some people in their past lives planted a small seed of generosity in a superior field of merit, so in this life they experience the result of wealth and happiness. However, because they do not frequently practice generosity and the thought of giving in this life, they remain very stingy. Some people in their past lives frequently gave, but not in a superior field of merit, so in this life they are poor but happy to give. Why should one be confused about such a principle? Therefore, the various different results in the world are produced by the combined effect of sentient beings' past karma and their present efforts. This principle is completely established. The statement 'only arises from the differences in sentient beings' karma,' the word 'only' is a comprehensive negation of other erroneous views.
Treatise: If that is so, why is it said that there are situations contrary to this? Question: If different results arise from different karmas, then, for example, in humans, both the internal body and external objects are produced by karma. Why are external objects produced by karma, such as turmeric (a spice) and sandalwood (a fragrant wood), so lovely, while the internal body is unclean, filthy, and ugly?
Treatise: Because the karmas of sentient beings are different, the internal and external are different. Answer: The types of karma are different. People born from mixed karma experience internal bodies that constantly discharge impurities. External fragrances, etc., can counteract these impurities. Devas (gods) born from pure karma have both internal and external aspects that are pure.
Treatise: The karma referred to here is the karma of what is done through thought. Explaining that there are two types of karma: one is thought-karma (manas-karma, karma of the mind), and the other is karma done after thought (karma done through body and speech, resulting from thought). Karma done after thought refers to what is done after thinking, which is body-karma (kaya-karma) and speech-karma (vak-karma).
Treatise: In this way, the two karmas can be divided into the three karmas of body, speech, and mind. Here, two karmas are divided into three karmas.
Treatise: How are the three karmas of body, speech, and mind established? This is asking about the reason for establishing the three karmas, in order to explain their motivation (samutthana).
Treatise: Even so, what contradiction is there? A rhetorical question, indicating that there is no contradiction.
Treatise: If speaking from the basis (body, speech, and mind), all arise from the mind. Stating that there is no contradiction, because all arise from the mind.
所以。
論。毗婆沙師至由上三因。答 身業從所依。語業是自性。意業是等起 正理論云。謂業依身故名身業。業性即語故名語業。此業依意。復與意俱等起身．語名為意業 準此論文。意業即是能等起也。
論。然心所思至所等起故。分明屬當二業為三業也。
論。身語二業自性云何。已下半頌。第二明五業體。
論曰至表無表性。明身．語業皆用表．無表為體性分五業也。
論。且身語表其相云何 前各各開二。此釋二相無表后釋故言且也 下兩頌半。第三齣身．語表體。
論曰至名身表業。出身表體 正理論云。發．毛等聚總名為身。於此身中。有心所起四大種果形色差別能表示心名為身表。
論。有餘部說至有剎那故。破正量部執行動名身表 以身動時由業動故者。是正量部計也。身無剎那。由於思業動此身時。即此動身名為身表 為破此故說非行動 對行動宗立無行動宗也 以一切法皆有剎那故。立因。有剎那法皆無行動。如燈焰鈴聲也。
論。剎那何謂。正量問也。
論。得體無間滅至名為有杖。答剎那也。諸法得體無間即滅名為剎那 有剎那名有剎那。如有杖人名為有杖 正理彈云。彼釋非理。如杖異人。不可說故。喻不同法。非別有法異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所以。
論：毗婆沙師認為，（善惡）業由上三因（貪、嗔、癡）產生。答：身業從所依（身體）產生，語業是自性（語言本身），意業是等起（產生的原因）。正理論說：所謂的業依賴於身體，所以稱為身業；業的性質就是語言，所以稱為語業；此業依賴於意，又與意一同產生身、語，名為意業。根據此論文，意業就是能產生（身語業）的原因。
論：然而，心所思量，乃至所等起，分明屬於當二業（身業和語業），而成為三業。
論：身語二業的自性是什麼？以下半頌，第二部分說明五業的體性。
論曰：乃至表無表性。說明身、語業都用表（顯性業）和無表（隱性業）作為體性，從而分為五業。
論：且身語表（顯性業）的相是什麼？前面各自開出兩種（身表和語表），這裡解釋兩種相，無表在後解釋，所以說『且』。以下兩頌半，第三部分說明身語表的體性。
論曰：乃至名身表業。出身表的體性。正理論說：頭髮、毛髮等聚集在一起總稱為身。在這身體中，有心所產生的四大種（地、水、火、風）的果，形色差別，能夠表示心的，名為身表。
論：有餘部說，乃至有剎那（極短的時間）的緣故。破斥正量部執著行動名為身表。『以身動時由業動故者』，這是正量部的觀點。身體沒有剎那，由於思業動此身時，即此動身名為身表。爲了破斥這個觀點，所以說『非行動』。針對行動宗，立無行動宗。『以一切法皆有剎那故』，立因。有剎那的法都沒有行動，如燈焰一樣。
論：剎那是什麼意思？正量部問道。
論：得體無間滅，乃至名為有杖（有手杖的人）。答：剎那。諸法得體后沒有間隔立即消滅，名為剎那。有剎那，名為有剎那。如有手杖的人，名為有手杖。正理反駁說：他的解釋不合理。如手杖與人不同，不可說，所以比喻不同法，沒有另外的法不同。
【English Translation】 English version: So it is.
Treatise: The Vaibhashika masters believe that (good and evil) karma arises from the three roots (greed, hatred, and delusion). Answer: Bodily karma arises from its basis (the body), verbal karma is its nature (language itself), and mental karma is the cause (the reason for the arising). The Nyayānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: What is called bodily karma is so because it relies on the body; the nature of karma is language, so it is called verbal karma; this karma relies on the mind and arises together with the mind, body, and speech, and is called mental karma. According to this treatise, mental karma is the cause that can produce (bodily and verbal karma).
Treatise: However, what the mind contemplates, and even what arises, clearly belongs to the two karmas (bodily and verbal karma), and becomes the three karmas.
Treatise: What is the nature of bodily and verbal karma? The following half-verse, the second part, explains the nature of the five karmas.
Treatise says: Even the manifest and unmanifest nature. It explains that bodily and verbal karma both use manifest (顯性業) and unmanifest (隱性業) as their nature, thus dividing them into five karmas.
Treatise: And what are the characteristics of bodily and verbal expression (manifest karma)? The previous each opened two kinds (body expression and speech expression), here explains two kinds of phase, unmanifest is explained later, so say 'and'. The following two and a half verses, the third part explains the nature of body and speech expression.
Treatise says: Even the name body expression karma. From the body expression of the body. The Nyayānusāra-śāstra says: Hair, hair and other gatherings are collectively called the body. In this body, there are the fruits of the four great kinds (earth, water, fire, wind) produced by the mind, the difference in shape and color, which can express the mind, is called body expression.
Treatise: Some other schools say, even because there is a kshana (extremely short time). Refuting the Zhengliang Department's insistence that action is called body expression. 'When the body moves, it is moved by karma', this is the view of the Zhengliang Department. The body does not have a kshana, because when the mind karma moves this body, this moving body is called body expression. In order to refute this view, it is said 'non-action'. In response to the action sect, the non-action sect is established. 'Because all dharmas have kshana', the cause is established. Dharmas with kshana have no action, like the flame of a lamp.
Treatise: What does kshana mean? The Zhengliang Department asked.
Treatise: Obtaining the body without interval extinction, even called having a staff (a person with a cane). Answer: Kshana. The dharmas are obtained without interval immediately extinguished, called kshana. Having kshana, called having kshana. If a person with a cane, called having a cane. Zhengli retorted: His explanation is unreasonable. Such as the cane is different from the person, can not be said, so the metaphor is not the same law, there is no other law different.
于得體無間滅性。如何可說此有剎那如人有杖。
論。諸有為法至動名身表。結破。諸有為法皆有剎那。即此處生即此處滅。如何得說動為身表。
論。若有為法至義可成立。正量救也。我宗之義覺焰．鈴聲可有剎那。色身等物無剎那滅。若有為法皆有剎那無行動義可得成立。我宗不許皆有剎那。此因不成。何得成立。
論。諸有為法至滅不待因。論主意以後必盡故滅不待因 證有為法皆有剎那。
論。所以者何。正量部徴滅不待因。
論。待因謂果至有性等故。論主破也 待因之法必是其果。滅無非果故不待因。既不待因才生即滅。若初無滅后亦應然 以後與初有性等故者。若法待因因無未滅。既不待因何得前時不滅后即滅耶。
論。既後有盡知前有滅。結證 經部計。生有客因無主因。滅無主．客二因 有部計。滅有主因無客因 正量部計。色等諸法滅待主．客二因。心．心所法．及焰．聲等滅由主因不待客因。滅相為主余因為客。
論。若後有異至理必不然。破待異方滅也。此牒正量救也 正量部云。色等生已待后異相方始有滅。非是才生有滅也 不應即此而名有異即此相異理必不然者。此即論主破異相也。前後法體若許不同方可相異。始終是一。如何得言有相異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 于得到無間斷的滅性。如何能說這有剎那性，就像人拿著手杖一樣？
論：一切有為法，乃至動作為身表（kaya-vijnapti，身體的表達）。 駁斥：一切有為法都有剎那性，即在此處生起，即在此處滅去。如何能說動作為身表？
論：如果有為法乃至意義可以成立。 正量部（Sammitiya）的辯護：我宗派的意義是覺焰（覺悟的火焰）、**可以有剎那性。色身等事物沒有剎那滅。如果有為法都有剎那性，那麼行動的意義就無法成立。我宗派不承認一切都有剎那性。這個因（hetu，理由）不成立，如何能成立？
論：一切有為法，乃至滅去不依賴因緣。 論主的意圖是以後必定會窮盡，所以滅去不依賴因緣，以此證明有為法都有剎那性。
論：為什麼這樣說呢？ 正量部質問：滅去不依賴因緣。
論：依賴因緣是指果，乃至具有自性等等。 論主駁斥：依賴因緣的法必定是它的果。滅沒有不是果的，所以不依賴因緣。既然不依賴因緣，那麼才生起就滅去。如果最初沒有滅，那麼後來也應該如此。以後與最初具有自性等等。如果法依賴因緣，因沒有，就不會滅。既然不依賴因緣，為何前時不滅，後來就滅呢？
論：既然後來有窮盡，就知道先前有滅。 結論：經部（Sautrantika）認為，生有客因（輔助因）沒有主因（主要因）；滅沒有主因和客因。 有部（Sarvastivada）認為，滅有主因沒有客因。 正量部認為，色等諸法的滅依賴主因和客因。心、心所法以及焰、聲等的滅由主因決定，不依賴客因。滅相是主因，其餘因是客因。
論：如果後來有差異，乃至道理必定不然。 駁斥依賴異相而滅。這是重述正量部的辯護。 正量部說：色等生起后，依賴後來的異相才開始有滅，不是才生起就有滅。 不應該說這就是有異相，即此相異的道理必定不然。這就是論主駁斥異相。前後法體如果允許不同，才可以有相異。始終是一，如何能說有相異？
【English Translation】 English version Upon attaining the uninterrupted cessation of nature. How can it be said that this has momentariness, like a person holding a staff?
Treatise: All conditioned dharmas, up to movement as bodily expression (kaya-vijnapti). Refutation: All conditioned dharmas have momentariness, that is, they arise here and cease here. How can it be said that movement is bodily expression?
Treatise: If conditioned dharmas, up to meaning, can be established. The Sammitiya's defense: The meaning of our school is that the flame of awakening, ** can have momentariness. Material body and other things do not have momentary cessation. If all conditioned dharmas have momentariness, then the meaning of action cannot be established. Our school does not admit that all have momentariness. This reason (hetu) is not established, how can it be established?
Treatise: All conditioned dharmas, up to cessation, do not depend on causes. The intention of the treatise master is that they will inevitably be exhausted later, so cessation does not depend on causes, thereby proving that all conditioned dharmas have momentariness.
Treatise: Why is this so? The Sammitiya questions: Cessation does not depend on causes.
Treatise: Depending on causes refers to the result, up to having self-nature, etc. The treatise master refutes: The dharma that depends on causes must be its result. There is no cessation that is not a result, so it does not depend on causes. Since it does not depend on causes, it ceases as soon as it arises. If there is no cessation at the beginning, then it should be the same later. Later and at the beginning have self-nature, etc. If a dharma depends on causes, and the cause is not present, it will not cease. Since it does not depend on causes, why does it not cease before, and then cease later?
Treatise: Since there is exhaustion later, it is known that there was cessation before. Conclusion: The Sautrantika school believes that arising has external causes (auxiliary causes) but no primary cause (main cause); cessation has neither primary nor external causes. The Sarvastivada school believes that cessation has a primary cause but no external cause. The Sammitiya school believes that the cessation of material forms and other dharmas depends on both primary and external causes. The cessation of mind, mental factors, and flames, sounds, etc., is determined by the primary cause and does not depend on external causes. The aspect of cessation is the primary cause, and the remaining causes are external causes.
Treatise: If there is difference later, up to the principle must not be so. Refuting cessation depending on different aspects. This is restating the Sammitiya's defense. The Sammitiya says: After material forms and others arise, they depend on later different aspects to begin to have cessation, not that they have cessation as soon as they arise. It should not be said that this is having different aspects, the principle of this being different must not be so. This is the treatise master refuting different aspects. If the preceding and following dharma entities are allowed to be different, then they can have different aspects. From beginning to end it is one, how can it be said that there are different aspects?
耶。
論。豈不世間至皆不待因。正量救也。前以比量破我。然此比量不及現量。現見。薪等由待火合為因。非是法滅皆不待因。
論。如何知薪等由火合故滅。論主反問。
論。以薪等火合後便不見故。正量部答。
論。應共審思至無故不見。此是論主令正量部審思。火合為是令后不生。非是令生者滅。
論。如風手合至應由比量。論主引證。如風與燈焰合時后焰不生非令前滅。手與鈴合義亦如是 現量既有兩速。未得為定 故此義成應由比量。
論。何謂比量。正量部問。
論。謂如前說至故不待因。論主答也。
論。又若待因至無無因者。釋頌第五句。應無無因故。若薪等滅待因。焰等亦應待因如生待因無無因者。
論。然世現見至亦不待因。引例順成。
論。有執覺聲前因后滅。此是勝論異師執。前覺聲滅由后念生以後與前性相違故。猶如后水逼前水流。
彼師不立四相計故。但由後生令前念滅。
論。彼亦非理至復由誰滅。論主破也。有三道理 一二不俱故。后念起時前念已滅。如何不俱能令滅也。猶如苦．樂及貪．嗔等前．后不俱。如何后念滅於前念 二從明瞭覺．聲如何不明瞭能滅明瞭耶 三最後覺．聲既無後念。復由誰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：難道世間的一切事物都不需要原因嗎？這是正量部（Pūrvamāṇavāḥ，一個佛教部派）的觀點。之前你用比量（anumāna，推理）來駁斥我，然而這種比量不如現量（pratyakṣa，直接感知）。現量可見，柴火等需要與火結合作為原因才會燃燒。並非所有法的滅亡都不需要原因。 論：如何得知柴火等是因為與火結合而滅亡的？論主反問道。 論：因為柴火等與火結合后就看不見了。正量部回答。 論：應該共同審思，直到沒有原因就看不見。這是論主讓正量部審思，火的結合是讓之後不產生，而不是讓正在產生的滅亡。 論：如同風與手結合一樣，應該通過比量來理解。論主引用例證，如同風與燈焰結合時，後來的火焰不產生，並非讓之前的火焰熄滅。手與鈴鐺結合的道理也是如此。現量既然有兩種速度，還不能確定，所以這個道理的成立應該通過比量。 論：什麼是比量？正量部問道。 論：就像之前所說的那樣，所以不需要原因。論主回答。 論：又如果依賴原因，就沒有無因的事物了。解釋頌文的第五句，『應無無因故』。如果柴火等的滅亡依賴原因，火焰等也應該依賴原因，如同生依賴原因一樣，沒有無因的事物。 論：然而世間現見，也不需要原因。引用例子來順勢成立。 論：有人認為覺（jñāna，意識）和聲（śabda，聲音）的前者是由於後者產生而滅亡的。這是勝論（Vaiśeṣika，印度教哲學流派）異師的觀點。之前的覺和聲的滅亡是由於后唸的產生，因為後者與前者的性質相反，就像後面的水逼迫前面的水流動一樣。 那位老師不建立四相（caturlakṣaṇa，生、住、異、滅）的理論，只是由於后唸的產生而讓前念滅亡。 論：那種說法也是沒有道理的，又由誰來滅亡呢？論主駁斥道。有三個道理：一、二者不能同時存在，后念生起時前念已經滅亡，如何不一起存在還能讓其滅亡呢？如同苦和樂以及貪和嗔等，前後不能同時存在，如何后念能滅亡前念呢？二、從明瞭的覺和聲，如何不明瞭的能滅亡明瞭的呢？三、最後的覺和聲既然沒有後念，又由誰來滅亡呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Commentary: Does it mean that everything in the world does not require a cause? This is the view of the Pūrvamāṇavāḥ (a Buddhist school). Previously, you used inference (anumāna) to refute me, but this inference is not as good as direct perception (pratyakṣa). Direct perception shows that firewood, etc., need to combine with fire as a cause to burn. Not all the cessation of dharmas does not require a cause. Commentary: How do we know that firewood, etc., cease because they combine with fire? The commentator asks in return. Commentary: Because firewood, etc., are no longer seen after combining with fire. The Pūrvamāṇavāḥ reply. Commentary: We should all contemplate until we understand that they are not seen without a cause. This is the commentator asking the Pūrvamāṇavāḥ to contemplate whether the combination with fire causes the subsequent non-arising, rather than causing the cessation of what is arising. Commentary: Just as with the combination of wind and hand, it should be understood through inference. The commentator cites an example, just as when wind combines with a lamp flame, the subsequent flame does not arise, it does not cause the previous flame to extinguish. The principle of the combination of hand and bell is also the same. Since direct perception has two speeds, it cannot be determined, so the establishment of this principle should be through inference. Commentary: What is inference? The Pūrvamāṇavāḥ ask. Commentary: It is as said before, so it does not require a cause. The commentator replies. Commentary: Furthermore, if it depends on a cause, then there is no causeless thing. Explaining the fifth line of the verse, 'Therefore, there should be no causeless thing.' If the cessation of firewood, etc., depends on a cause, then flames, etc., should also depend on a cause, just as arising depends on a cause, there is no causeless thing. Commentary: However, it is seen in the world that it does not require a cause. Citing an example to establish it accordingly. Commentary: Some hold that the former consciousness (jñāna) and sound (śabda) cease due to the arising of the latter. This is the view of a different teacher of the Vaiśeṣika (a school of Hindu philosophy). The cessation of the previous consciousness and sound is due to the arising of the subsequent thought, because the latter is opposite in nature to the former, just as the later water forces the former water to flow. That teacher does not establish the theory of four characteristics (caturlakṣaṇa, arising, abiding, changing, ceasing), but only causes the previous thought to cease due to the arising of the subsequent thought. Commentary: That kind of statement is also unreasonable, by whom is it ceased again? The commentator refutes. There are three reasons: First, the two cannot exist simultaneously. When the subsequent thought arises, the previous thought has already ceased. How can they not exist together and still cause it to cease? Just like suffering and happiness, and greed and anger, etc., cannot exist simultaneously. How can the subsequent thought cease the previous thought? Second, from clear consciousness and sound, how can the unclear cease the clear? Third, since the final consciousness and sound have no subsequent thought, by whom is it ceased?
滅耶。
論。有執燈焰滅以住無為因。此是上坐師計 住。謂住相。住相若在法無容滅。以住無故方能滅法。故彼焰滅。以住無為因。
論有執焰滅時由法．非法力。此是勝論異師計也。法．非法是德句義攝。於人有益名之為法。於人無益名為非法。由此二力能生諸法能滅諸法 如闇室中有一明燈。若望受用者。燈在有益。即是法生。燈滅無益。即非法滅 若望偷盜者。燈在無益。即非法生。燈滅有益。即是法滅。
論。彼俱非理至順違相反故。論主破也。于中有二。一破住無為因。二破法．非法因 彼俱非理者。雙非二執也 無非因者。破住無為因。住無非因。因云以是無故猶如兔角 非法非法為生滅因以剎那剎那順違相反者。破勝論執於一剎那燈。望有用即順。無用即違。順．違相反如何同起 正理破云。法與非法亦非滅因。見空窟中有焰轉故(解云空窟中焰無人受用即無損益。既無損．益無法．非法。唯令焰滅)。
論。或於一切至有剎那故。論主重破兩家計也。住無為因及法．非法。非唯覺．焰及聲．色不相應。一切有為皆有住無．及法．非法故。不待余因才生即滅。以有為法皆有剎那既與我同。本諍應息不煩多解。
論。又若薪等滅至即成滅因。前文義便破于異計。今更重
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 滅耶？
論：有人認為燈焰熄滅是因為『住無為』（永遠停留在不生不滅狀態）的緣故。這是上座部（Sthavira）師的觀點。住，指的是『住相』（事物存在的狀態）。如果『住相』存在，那麼法（事物）就不會消滅。正因為『住』不存在，法才能消滅。所以燈焰的熄滅，是因為『住無為』的緣故。
論：有人認為燈焰熄滅是由於『法』（Dharma）和『非法』（Adharma）的力量。這是勝論（Vaisheshika）派其他師的觀點。『法』和『非法』屬於『德句義』（屬性範疇）。對人有益的稱為『法』，對人無益的稱為『非法』。這兩種力量能夠產生諸法，也能夠消滅諸法。例如在黑暗的房間里有一盞明燈，如果從使用者的角度來看，燈亮著是有益的，這就是『法』生；燈滅了是無益的，這就是『非法』滅。如果從盜賊的角度來看，燈亮著是無益的，這就是『非法』生；燈滅了是有益的，這就是『法』滅。
論：上述兩種觀點都不合理，因為它們彼此矛盾。論主（Vasubandhu）對此進行駁斥。其中包含兩點：一是駁斥『住無為』是原因的觀點，二是駁斥『法』和『非法』是原因的觀點。『彼俱非理者』，是指兩種觀點都不正確。『無非因者』，是駁斥『住無為』是原因的觀點。『住』不是原因，因為它是『無』，就像兔角一樣（不存在）。『非法非法為生滅因以剎那剎那順違相反者』，是駁斥勝論派的觀點，即在一剎那間，對於同一盞燈，從有用和無用的角度來看，既是順（有利）又是違（不利），順和違是相反的，怎麼能同時產生呢？正理派駁斥說：『法』和『非法』也不是熄滅的原因，因為在空曠的山洞裡，燈焰也會熄滅（解釋說，在空曠的山洞裡，燈焰沒有人使用，所以既沒有利益也沒有損害，既然沒有損害和利益，就沒有『法』和『非法』，燈焰熄滅只是自然現象）。
論：或者對於一切事物來說，直到有剎那為止。論主再次駁斥這兩家的觀點，即『住無為』是原因以及『法』和『非法』是原因的觀點。不僅是感覺、火焰以及聲音、顏色不符合這種說法，一切有為法（Samskrta-dharma）都存在『住無』以及『法』和『非法』的情況。有為法不需要等待其他原因，產生后立即消滅，因為一切有為法都具有剎那性（Kshanika），既然這一點與我的觀點相同，那麼本來的爭論就應該停止，不需要過多解釋。
論：此外，如果柴薪等熄滅，那麼就成為熄滅的原因。前面的文字已經駁斥了不同的觀點，現在再次強調。
【English Translation】 English version Extinction?
Treatise: Some hold that the extinction of a lamp flame is due to 'unconditioned abiding' (remaining forever in a state of non-arising and non-ceasing). This is the view of the Sthavira (Elders) school. 'Abiding' refers to the 'aspect of abiding' (the state of existence of a thing). If the 'aspect of abiding' exists, then the dharma (thing) cannot be extinguished. It is precisely because 'abiding' does not exist that the dharma can be extinguished. Therefore, the extinction of the lamp flame is due to 'unconditioned abiding'.
Treatise: Some hold that the extinction of a lamp flame is due to the power of 'dharma' (righteousness) and 'adharma' (unrighteousness). This is the view of other teachers of the Vaisheshika (Particularist) school. 'Dharma' and 'adharma' belong to the category of 'qualities'. That which is beneficial to people is called 'dharma', and that which is not beneficial to people is called 'adharma'. These two powers can generate all dharmas and can also extinguish all dharmas. For example, in a dark room, there is a bright lamp. If viewed from the perspective of the user, the lamp being lit is beneficial, which is the arising of 'dharma'; the lamp being extinguished is not beneficial, which is the extinction of 'adharma'. If viewed from the perspective of a thief, the lamp being lit is not beneficial, which is the arising of 'adharma'; the lamp being extinguished is beneficial, which is the extinction of 'dharma'.
Treatise: Both of the above views are unreasonable because they contradict each other. The treatise master (Vasubandhu) refutes them. This includes two points: first, refuting the view that 'unconditioned abiding' is the cause; second, refuting the view that 'dharma' and 'adharma' are the cause. 'Both are unreasonable' means that both views are incorrect. 'Non-being is not the cause' refutes the view that 'unconditioned abiding' is the cause. 'Abiding' is not the cause because it is 'non-being', just like a rabbit's horn (which does not exist). 'Unrighteousness and unrighteousness are the causes of arising and extinction, being mutually agreeable and disagreeable from moment to moment' refutes the view of the Vaisheshika school, that is, in one moment, for the same lamp, from the perspective of being useful and useless, it is both agreeable (beneficial) and disagreeable (harmful). Agreeable and disagreeable are contradictory, how can they arise simultaneously? The Nyaya school refutes, saying: 'Dharma' and 'adharma' are also not the cause of extinction, because in an empty cave, the lamp flame will also be extinguished (explaining that in an empty cave, the lamp flame is not used by anyone, so there is neither benefit nor harm. Since there is no harm or benefit, there is no 'dharma' and 'adharma', the extinction of the lamp flame is just a natural phenomenon).
Treatise: Or, for all things, until there is a moment. The treatise master again refutes the views of these two schools, that is, the view that 'unconditioned abiding' is the cause and the view that 'dharma' and 'adharma' are the cause. Not only are sensation, flame, and sound, color not in accordance with this statement, but all conditioned dharmas (Samskrta-dharma) have the situation of 'non-abiding' and 'dharma' and 'adharma'. Conditioned dharmas do not need to wait for other causes, they arise and immediately cease, because all conditioned dharmas have momentariness (Kshanika). Since this point is the same as my view, then the original dispute should stop, and no further explanation is needed.
Treatise: Furthermore, if firewood and the like are extinguished, then it becomes the cause of extinction. The previous text has already refuted different views, and now it is emphasized again.
破正量部計火合為因。即是頌中第六句也。應滅下之因即是生中之因。應生上因即是滅中之因。
論。所以者何。正量部徴。
論。謂由火合至或似此非有。論主答也 于中有二。一即。二似。謂由火合令薪熟變 生中熟因。即是滅下熟因。或似滅下熟因 生上熟因。即是滅中熟因。或似滅中熟因。若爾 則生因體應是滅因者。破即 或滅生因應相無別者。破似 不應由即此。即生因為滅因 或似。似生因為滅因 同是一薪由火熟變。如何。此由彼有。彼由此無。不應道理。
論。設於火焰至生滅因異。此即縱破正量部也。火焰前．后唸唸別故。容可滅下因與生中因別 正量部計。許灰．雪．酢．日．水．地無剎那滅。前後體一能令薪等熟變。滅下．中因。與生中．上因。如何得異。
論。若爾現見至為何所作。正量部反問也。若薪熟變不由火合。現見。火合於中為何所作。
論。由事火合至於中所作。論主答也 事火。是鐺釜下顯．形火聚 火界。即是水中熱觸 水聚。即是顯．形水聚 事．火生水中熱觸。因熱觸令彼后念水聚生漸微因。非是與已生水為滅因也。
論。故無有因至定無行動。論主結歸自宗。滅不待客因。是壞法性故。才生即滅。故有剎那。既剎那滅故無行動
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 破斥正量部關於火合為因的觀點，這對應于頌中的第六句。『應滅下之因』即是『生中之因』，『應生上因』即是『滅中之因』。
論：為什麼這麼說呢？正量部提出質問。
論：他們認為通過火的結合使柴火成熟變化。論主回答說：這裡面有兩種情況：一是『即』，二是『似』。通過火的結合使柴火成熟變化，『生中』的成熟之因，即是『滅下』的成熟之因；或者說，類似於『滅下』的成熟之因。『生上』的成熟之因，即是『滅中』的成熟之因；或者說，類似於『滅中』的成熟之因。如果這樣，那麼生的因的本體應該是滅的因嗎？這是破斥『即』的情況。或者說，滅的生因應該沒有差別嗎？這是破斥『似』的情況。不應該因為『即』，就認為生因就是滅因；或者因為『似』，就認為相似的生因就是滅因。同樣是一塊柴火，通過火的燒煮而成熟變化，怎麼能說『此』由『彼』有，『彼』由此無呢？這不合道理。
論：假設在火焰前後，生滅的因是不同的。這實際上是縱容地破斥正量部。因為火焰前後的念頭是不同的，所以可以認為『滅下』的因與『生中』的因是不同的。正量部認為，灰、雪、醋、日、水、地沒有剎那滅，前後本體是一樣的，能夠使柴火等成熟變化。那麼，『滅下』、『滅中』的因，與『生中』、『生上』的因，怎麼能是不同的呢？
論：如果這樣，那麼現在所見到的火合又有什麼作用呢？正量部反問道。如果柴火的成熟變化不是由於火的結合，那麼現在所見到的火的結合又有什麼作用呢？
論：通過處理火的結合，才能在其中發揮作用。論主回答說。『事火』，指的是鍋釜下顯現的、有形狀的火堆。『火界』，指的是水中的熱觸。『水聚』，指的是顯現的、有形狀的水聚。處理火，是爲了在水中產生熱觸，因為熱觸使得後面的水聚逐漸減少，而不是已經產生的水的滅因。
論：所以沒有因可以作為滅的客因，因為這是壞法的性質。才產生就滅亡，所以有剎那。既然是剎那滅亡，所以沒有行動。
【English Translation】 English version: Refuting the Sautrantika's (Pudgalavada) view that fire combination is the cause, which corresponds to the sixth line in the verse. 'The cause that should extinguish the lower' is the 'cause in the middle of arising,' and 'the cause that should arise above' is the 'cause in the middle of extinguishing.'
Treatise: Why is this so? The Sautrantika (Pudgalavada) raises a question.
Treatise: They believe that through the combination of fire, firewood matures and changes. The treatise master replies: There are two situations here: one is 'identical (即),' and the other is 'similar (似).' Through the combination of fire, firewood matures and changes, the cause of maturation in the 'middle of arising' is the cause of maturation in the 'lower of extinguishing'; or it is similar to the cause of maturation in the 'lower of extinguishing.' The cause of maturation in the 'upper of arising' is the cause of maturation in the 'middle of extinguishing'; or it is similar to the cause of maturation in the 'middle of extinguishing.' If so, then should the substance of the cause of arising be the cause of extinguishing? This is refuting the 'identical' situation. Or should the cause of arising in extinguishing be no different? This is refuting the 'similar' situation. It should not be because of 'identical' that the cause of arising is considered the cause of extinguishing; or because of 'similar' that the similar cause of arising is considered the cause of extinguishing. The same piece of firewood matures and changes through the burning of fire. How can it be said that 'this' exists because of 'that,' and 'that' ceases because of 'this'? This is unreasonable.
Treatise: Suppose that in the flames before and after, the causes of arising and extinguishing are different. This is actually tolerantly refuting the Sautrantika (Pudgalavada). Because the thoughts before and after the flames are different, it can be considered that the cause of 'lower of extinguishing' is different from the cause of 'middle of arising.' The Sautrantika (Pudgalavada) believes that ash, snow, vinegar, sun, water, and earth do not have momentary extinction, and the substance before and after is the same, which can make firewood, etc., mature and change. Then, how can the causes of 'lower of extinguishing' and 'middle of extinguishing' be different from the causes of 'middle of arising' and 'upper of arising'?
Treatise: If so, then what is the use of the fire combination that is seen now? The Sautrantika (Pudgalavada) asks back. If the maturation and change of firewood is not due to the combination of fire, then what is the use of the fire combination that is seen now?
Treatise: By handling the combination of fire, it can play a role in it. The treatise master replies. 'Handling fire (事火)' refers to the visible and shaped pile of fire under the pot. 'Fire element (火界)' refers to the hot touch in the water. 'Water aggregate (水聚)' refers to the visible and shaped water aggregate. Handling fire is to generate hot touch in the water, because the hot touch causes the subsequent water aggregate to gradually decrease, rather than being the cause of extinction of the water that has already been produced.
Treatise: Therefore, there is no cause that can be the external cause of extinction, because this is the nature of destroying the Dharma. It arises and then immediately ceases, so there is a moment (剎那). Since it is momentary extinction, there is no action.
。
論。然于無間至行增上慢。論主釋疑也。
疑曰。若無行動如何見法從此至彼 論主釋云。如燒草焰遠見之時。見此火焰從此至彼。然實火焰當處隨滅。然以見不明謂有行動。色等亦爾。實唸唸滅。慧目闇者謂有行動。非有謂有增上慢也。
論。既由斯理至理得成立。破異計已結歸自宗 身表是形。理得成立。然未分別形是假．實。
論。然經部說至隨應當知。論主述經部義破有部也。有部形色別有極微與顯不同。即此極微成彼長等 經部宗計形無別微。積于顯色以為長等。是假非實 謂顯色聚一面多生名長色者。謂於四面一面偏多。如幡竿等。一面少生名為短色。如菰藪等。余文可解。
論。如見火㷮至別類色體。此舉喻結經部宗也。
論。若謂實有至二根所取。難有部也。形若實有別類色體。是色處者。即眼見．身觸二根取過。由眼及身得長等故。
論。然如依觸至能取于形。論主釋無別形。然如依觸取長等相。而詐但是多豎等積無別長觸依顯取形。故知但是多顯色積無別長等 正理論云。然經主言。形非實有。乃至如是依顯能取于形。此理不然。了相別故。若一方面唯顯多生。了相於中應無差別。既有長．白二了相異。故於顯外別有形色。現見。有觸同根所取
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
論：如果對於無間（Avici）地獄的修行者產生增上慢（adhimāna，自以為是的優越感），以下是論主的釋疑。
疑問：如果沒有行動，如何能看到法從此處到達彼處？論主解釋說：就像燃燒的草，從遠處看的時候，看到火焰從此處到達彼處。然而實際上火焰在原地隨生隨滅。因為見解不明，所以認為有行動。色（rūpa，物質現象）等也是如此，實際上唸唸生滅，慧眼昏暗的人認為有行動，把沒有的當作有，這就是增上慢。
論：既然通過這個道理，至理得以成立，破斥了其他宗派的觀點，最終迴歸到自己的宗派。身表（kāya-vijñapti，身體的表達）就是形，這個道理得以成立。然而還沒有分別形是真實的還是虛假的。
論：然而經部（Sautrāntika）說，應當知道隨順這個道理。論主陳述經部的意義，破斥有部（Sarvāstivāda）。有部認為形色有不同的極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位），與顯色不同。這些極微構成彼長等。
經部宗派認為形沒有不同的極微，積累顯色成為長等，這是虛假的而不是真實的。所謂顯色聚集在一面多生，名為長色，是指在四個面中，一個面偏多，如旗桿等。一面少生名為短色，如菰草叢等。其餘文字可以理解。
論：如見到火焰，直到區分不同類別的色體。這是舉例總結經部宗的觀點。
論：如果認為形是真實存在的，是不同類別的色體，是色處（rūpāyatana，色的領域），那麼就是眼見和身觸兩種根所取。因為通過眼睛和身體可以得到長等。
論：然而就像依靠觸覺來獲取長等相，而實際上只是多個豎立等量的積累，沒有不同的長觸，依靠顯色來獲取形。所以知道只是多個顯色的積累，沒有不同的長等。正理論說：然而經部主張，形不是真實存在的，乃至像這樣依靠顯色能夠獲取形，這個道理是不對的。因爲了別的相不同。如果一個方面只是顯色多生，那麼了別的相在其中應該沒有差別。既然有長和白兩種了別的相不同，所以在顯色之外，另有形色存在。這是現量所見，有觸覺和同根所取。
【English Translation】 English version:
Treatise: If, with regard to practitioners in Avici (Avīci, the hell of incessant suffering), there arises adhimāna (self-conceit, arrogance), the following is the treatise master's explanation to dispel doubts.
Doubt: If there is no movement, how can one see the dharma (law, phenomenon) moving from here to there? The treatise master explains: It is like burning grass; when viewed from afar, one sees the flame moving from here to there. However, in reality, the flame arises and ceases at the same place. Because the perception is unclear, it is thought that there is movement. It is the same with rūpa (form, material phenomena), etc. In reality, they arise and cease moment by moment, but those with obscured wisdom eyes think there is movement, taking what is not there as being there; this is adhimāna.
Treatise: Since through this reasoning, the ultimate truth is established, having refuted other schools' views, it ultimately returns to its own school. Kāya-vijñapti (bodily expression) is shape; this principle is established. However, it has not yet been distinguished whether shape is real or unreal.
Treatise: However, the Sautrāntika (Sūtra School) says that one should understand and follow this principle. The treatise master states the meaning of the Sautrāntika, refuting the Sarvāstivāda (the ' সর্বং অস্তি' school). The Sarvāstivāda believes that shape and color have different paramāṇu (ultimate particles, smallest units of matter), which are different from manifest color. These paramāṇu constitute the long, etc.
The Sautrāntika school believes that shape does not have different paramāṇu; the accumulation of manifest color becomes long, etc., which is unreal and not real. The so-called accumulation of manifest color arising more on one side is called long color, which refers to one side being more prominent among the four sides, like a flagpole, etc. The side with less arising is called short color, like a clump of reeds, etc. The remaining text can be understood.
Treatise: Like seeing a flame, until distinguishing different categories of color entities. This is an example summarizing the Sautrāntika's view.
Treatise: If it is thought that shape is real, is a different category of color entity, and is a rūpāyatana (sphere of form), then it is taken by both the eye and body senses. Because one can obtain long, etc., through the eyes and body.
Treatise: However, just as one relies on touch to obtain the appearance of long, etc., but in reality, it is just the accumulation of multiple upright and equal quantities, there is no different long touch; one relies on manifest color to obtain shape. Therefore, one knows that it is just the accumulation of multiple manifest colors, and there is no different long, etc. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: However, the Sautrāntika argues that shape is not real, and so on, that relying on manifest color can obtain shape; this principle is incorrect because the distinguished appearances are different. If only manifest color arises more on one side, then the distinguished appearances within it should have no difference. Since there are different distinguished appearances of long and white, there is a separate shape and color outside of manifest color. This is seen through direct perception, and is taken by touch and the same root.
。了相異故體有差別。如堅與冷或暖與堅。如是白．長雖同根取。而了相異故體應別。故知聚色分析漸漸。乃至於中可生形覺。必有少分形覺生。因形色極微于中猶起。理必應爾。以色聚中有唯顯生形色不起。于中唯有顯覺非形。如見空中光．明等色 若即顯色說名為形。無份量顯中亦應起形覺。不相離故。如火界暖。彼火㷮喻于證無能。余處極成可假說故。謂于余處有長．圓等所依實因。同時無間于多方所。安布差別所成色聚長等極成。由是故於火㷮等色。異時別處無間轉中。計度立為假長．圓等。未曾見有世俗．勝義俱不極成而可假立 應二根取難亦不成。長等但為意識境故。以諸假有唯是意識所緣境界。如前已辨。能成長等如種極微。如是安布說為形色。是無分別眼識所取。非身能取。如是形色如依身根了堅．濕等。了長．短等不如是故。以非闇中了堅．濕等。即于彼位或次後時。即能了知長．短等相。要於一面多觸生中。依身根門分別觸已。方能比度。知觸俱行眼識所牽意識所受。如是相狀差別形色。如見火色及嗅花香能憶俱行火觸花色。現見。眼識隨其所應。有於一時形．顯俱了。意識分別前．后無定。以顯與形是一眼識所緣境故。意識分別時差別故。了相異故。其體不同。形亦非觸。寧有身根能取形義。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因爲了別的相各不相同，所以它們的體性也有差別。例如堅硬和寒冷，或者溫暖和堅硬。像這樣，白色和長度雖然都從同一個根源產生，但因爲了別的相各不相同，所以它們的體性也應該不同。因此可知，聚集的顏色經過分析，逐漸地，乃至在其中可以產生形狀的覺知。必定有少部分的形狀覺知產生，因為形狀和顏色的極微粒在其中仍然生起。道理必定是這樣。因為在顏色聚集之中，只有顯色生起，形狀和顏色不起作用。在其中只有顯的覺知，而不是形狀的覺知，就像看到空中光、明等顏色一樣。如果把顯色說成是形狀，那麼在沒有份量的顯色中也應該產生形狀的覺知，因為它們不相分離，就像火界的溫暖一樣。那個火㷮（火焰）的比喻對於證明是無能為力的，因為在其他地方已經極度成立，所以可以假說。意思是說，在其他地方有長度、圓形等所依賴的真實原因，同時無間斷地在多個方位，由佈置的差別所形成的顏色聚集，長度等已經極度成立。因此，對於火㷮（火焰）等顏色，在不同時間、不同地點無間斷地轉移中，推測建立為假的長度、圓形等。從未見過世俗和勝義諦都不極度成立，而可以假立的。應該由兩個根來取（長短）的責難也不能成立，長度等只是意識的境界。因為一切假有都只是意識所緣的境界，如前面已經辨別過的。能夠成長長度等，就像種子極微粒一樣。像這樣，佈置被說成是形狀和顏色，這是沒有分別的眼識所取，而不是身體能夠取到的。像這樣，形狀和顏色就像依靠身體的根來了解堅硬、潮濕等一樣，瞭解長度、短度等不是這樣的。因為不是在沒有光明的情況下了解堅硬、潮濕等，就在那個位置或者稍後的時間，就能瞭解長度、短度等相狀。一定要在一面多個觸覺產生中，依靠身體的根門分別觸覺之後，才能比較推測。知道觸覺和眼識所牽引的意識所感受到的東西一起發生。像這樣，相狀差別的形狀和顏色，就像看到火的顏色和聞到花的香味，能夠回憶起一起發生的火的觸覺和花的顏色。現在看到，眼識隨著它所應該的，有的時候形狀和顯色一起了解。意識分別前後沒有定準。因為顯色和形狀是同一個眼識所緣的境界，意識分別的時間有差別，了別的相各不相同，所以它們的體性也不同。形狀也不是觸覺，怎麼會有身體的根能夠取到形狀的意義呢？
【English Translation】 English version Because the characteristics of the perceived objects are different, their entities also have differences. For example, hardness and coldness, or warmth and hardness. Likewise, white and length, although originating from the same root, should have different entities because their perceived characteristics are different. Therefore, it can be known that when aggregated colors are analyzed gradually, even to the point where the perception of shape can arise, there must be a small portion of shape perception arising, because the ultimate particles ( 'paramāṇu' ) of shape and color still arise within it. The principle must be so. Because in the aggregation of colors, only manifest color arises, and shape and color do not arise. Within it, there is only the perception of the manifest, not the perception of shape, just like seeing light and brightness in the sky. If manifest color is called shape, then the perception of shape should also arise in manifest color without quantity, because they are inseparable, just like the warmth of the fire element. That analogy of the flame ( 'arci' ) is incapable of proving anything, because it is already extremely established elsewhere, so it can be hypothetically stated. It means that in other places, there are real causes on which length, roundness, etc., depend. Simultaneously and without interruption, in multiple directions, the aggregation of colors formed by the differences in arrangement, length, etc., are extremely established. Therefore, regarding the colors of flames ( 'arci' ) etc., in the uninterrupted transfer in different times and places, it is speculated and established as false length, roundness, etc. It has never been seen that both conventional and ultimate truths are not extremely established, yet can be hypothetically established. The difficulty of being apprehended by two sense organs should also not be established, as length, etc., are only the objects of consciousness. Because all hypothetical existents are only the objects of consciousness, as has been distinguished before. What can grow length, etc., is like the ultimate particles ( 'paramāṇu' ) of seeds. Thus, such arrangement is said to be shape and color, which is apprehended by non-discriminating eye consciousness, not by the body. Likewise, shape and color are like understanding hardness, wetness, etc., by relying on the body's sense organ; understanding length, shortness, etc., is not like that. Because it is not in the absence of light that hardness, wetness, etc., are understood; in that position or shortly thereafter, one can understand the characteristics of length, shortness, etc. It is necessary to rely on the body's sense organ to distinguish touch in the generation of multiple touches on one side, and then compare and infer. Knowing that touch and the consciousness drawn by eye consciousness occur together. Likewise, the shape and color with different characteristics are like seeing the color of fire and smelling the fragrance of flowers, being able to recall the touch of fire and the color of flowers that occurred together. Now it is seen that eye consciousness, as it should be, sometimes understands shape and manifest color together. The discrimination of consciousness has no fixed order of before and after. Because manifest color and shape are the objects of the same eye consciousness, the time of discrimination by consciousness is different, and the characteristics of the perceived objects are different, so their entities are also different. Shape is also not touch, so how can the body's sense organ apprehend the meaning of shape?
故不應難應二根取 今詳。兩論互有勝劣 俱舍論主。言一形色應二根取積集顯色以成長等。而言長等眼能見者。其理少疏 正理論師。以了相異證有別形。亦非決定生其形覺。為是眼識相應。為是意識相應。若眼識相應。容可證有別體。何理能證定是眼識同一剎那生白．長二覺。若意識相應。寧知不同行．輪等覺。蟻樹之外無別行．輪。如何定證別有形色 又于影等生長等覺。于中何故不許有形 又如書色。文有前．后屈曲不同生高．下覺。于中何不有高．下形。若言有者即違自宗。若言無者因何生覺 又云。故知。聚色分折漸微。乃至於中可生形覺。必有少分形覺生因。形色極微于中猶起。理必應爾。以色聚中有唯顯生形色不起。于中唯有顯覺非形。如見空中光．明等色。若即顯色說名為形無份量。顯中亦應起形覺。不相離故。如火界暖者 此亦無理有份量。顯室中之光生於形覺唯有顯故。又煙．云等亦生形覺。如何自云形色有八。顯色十二。
論。豈不觸形至能念花色。有部救也。謂觸與形俱行一聚。故因取彼形俱之觸。而能憶念眼所見形。非是形色亦身根取。如見火色便憶火暖。及嗅花香能念花色。登眼見暖。鼻嗅色耶。
論。此中二法至能定憶形。論主破救也。見火知暖。嗅花知色。是定不相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，不應該反對眼根和身根都能感知形色。現在詳細分析，兩部論典各有優劣。《俱舍論》的論主認為，一種形色可以被眼根和身根同時感知，因為積聚的顯色具有長短等屬性，而眼根能夠看到長短等屬性，這個說法有些疏漏。《正理論》的論師用『了相』（distinctive characteristics）的不同來證明存在不同的形色，但也不能確定『了相』的感知一定是眼識或意識相應產生的。如果是眼識相應，或許可以證明存在不同的實體，但有什麼理由能確定眼識在同一剎那產生白色和長短兩種感覺？如果是意識相應，又怎麼知道它不同於對車輪等物體的感知？在螞蟻和樹木之外，並沒有獨立的車輪等物體，如何確定存在獨立的形色？ 此外，對於影子等物體的長短等感知，為什麼不承認其中存在形色？又比如書寫文字的顏色，文字的前後屈曲不同會產生高低的感覺，為什麼其中沒有高低形狀？如果說有，就違背了自己的宗義；如果說沒有，那感覺又是怎麼產生的？ 此外，（《俱舍論》）又說：『因此可知，聚色逐漸分解變細，以至於其中可以產生形狀的感覺，必然有少部分形狀感覺的產生原因，形色極微在其中仍然起作用，理應如此。』因為在色聚中，只有顯色產生，而形色不產生，其中只有顯色的感覺而沒有形狀的感覺，就像看到空中的光亮等顏色。如果把顯色直接說成是形狀，沒有份量，那麼在顯色中也應該產生形狀的感覺，因為它們不相分離，就像火的熱量一樣。』 這種說法也沒有道理，有份量的顯色，在房間里的光亮中產生形狀的感覺，僅僅是因為有顯色。此外，煙霧、雲彩等也會產生形狀的感覺，為什麼自己又說形色有八種，顯色有十二種？
論：《俱舍論》難道不是因為觸覺和形體一起作用，才能回憶起花朵的顏色嗎？有部宗派辯解說：觸覺和形體同時存在於一個聚集中，因此通過感知與形體一起的觸覺，就能回憶起眼睛所看到的形體。這並不是說形色也能被身根感知。就像看到火的顏色就能回憶起火的熱量，聞到花的香味就能回憶起花的顏色。難道眼睛能看到熱量，鼻子能聞到顏色嗎？
論：這兩種法...能夠確定地回憶起形狀。《俱舍論》的論主駁斥這種辯解：看到火知道熱，聞到花知道顏色，這是絕對不可能的。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, it should not be argued that both the eye-faculty and the body-faculty cannot perceive shape and color. Now, upon detailed analysis, both treatises have their respective strengths and weaknesses. The Abhidharmakośa's (Treasury of Knowledge) author argues that one form-color can be perceived by both the eye-faculty and the body-faculty because accumulated manifest colors have attributes such as length, and the eye-faculty can see attributes such as length. This statement is somewhat flawed. The Nyāyānusāra (Following the Path of Reasoning) master uses the difference in 『lakṣaṇa』 (distinctive characteristics) to prove the existence of different forms. However, it cannot be determined whether the perception of 『lakṣaṇa』 is necessarily produced by the corresponding eye-consciousness or mind-consciousness. If it is eye-consciousness, it may be possible to prove the existence of different entities, but what reason can determine that eye-consciousness produces the two sensations of white and length in the same instant? If it is mind-consciousness, how do we know that it is different from the perception of objects such as wheels? Outside of ants and trees, there are no independent objects such as wheels, so how can we determine that there are independent forms and colors? Furthermore, regarding the perception of length, etc., of objects such as shadows, why not admit that there are forms and colors within them? Also, like the color of written text, the different curvatures of the text's front and back produce a sense of height. Why is there no height shape in it? If you say there is, you contradict your own doctrine; if you say there isn't, then how is the sensation produced? Furthermore, (the Abhidharmakośa) also says: 『Therefore, it can be known that as the aggregate of colors gradually decomposes and becomes finer, to the point where a sense of shape can be produced within it, there must be a small part of the cause of the shape sensation, and the extremely subtle form-color still plays a role in it, as it should be.』 Because in the aggregate of colors, only manifest color is produced, and form-color is not produced, there is only the sensation of manifest color and no sensation of shape, like seeing the light, etc., in the sky. If manifest color is directly said to be shape, without quantity, then a sense of shape should also be produced in manifest color, because they are not separate, like the warmth of fire.』 This statement is also unreasonable. Manifest color with quantity, the light in the room produces a sense of shape, simply because there is manifest color. Furthermore, smoke, clouds, etc., also produce a sense of shape. Why do you yourself say that there are eight types of form-color and twelve types of manifest color?
Objection: Isn't it because the sense of touch and form work together that one can recall the color of a flower? The Sarvāstivāda school argues: The sense of touch and form exist together in an aggregate, so by perceiving the sense of touch that is with the form, one can recall the form seen by the eyes. This does not mean that form-color can also be perceived by the body-faculty. Just as seeing the color of fire can recall the heat of fire, and smelling the fragrance of a flower can recall the color of the flower. Can the eyes see heat, and the nose smell color?
Rebuttal: These two dharmas... can definitely recall the shape. The author of the treatise refutes this defense: Seeing fire knowing heat, smelling flowers knowing color, this is absolutely impossible.
離。先知相屬見。嗅方知。若不先知。見．嗅不知火暖花色。觸之與形即不如是。若知相屬若不先知。身若隨觸即知長等。然無長．滑定相屬故。如何闇中能憶念形。故知。若有別形即合身觸。
論。若觸與形至能憶念形。反難成宗。論主本宗。形若有實即有二根取過。有部救云。因取觸故能憶念形。論主反難云。觸之與形非定不相離。而取觸時能憶念形。如先不知此有如是香。于闇中嗅如是香時。知花有如是色 而實不然。故不應說因取于觸能憶念形 正理救云。此亦非理。現見。世間諸觸聚中有形定故。謂形於觸雖無定者。而於一面多觸生中定有長色。於一切處觸遍生中。定有圓色。如是等類隨應當知。故觸于形有決定者。非觸于顯有定如形可了。觸時能憶顯色。以無有觸如是安布。于如是顯決定如形。
論。或錦等中至非實有體同處多體難也。如方錦上有圓錦窠。即此窠中復有種種耶正文像。同於一處應有多故。理實不然。顯于同處既無多顯。形於一處豈得多形 今詳。此難非有部宗。錦之文像非形色故。
論。又諸所有至假立長等。無別形微難也。如有對青等析至極微有別極微猶名青等。形微若實折至極微微應名長等。形若別有。應有極微名為長等。故知長等但是安布顯色假名長等。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 離。如果先前的認知和後續的感知相關聯才能產生認知。比如通過嗅覺來辨別方向和事物。如果事先沒有相關的認知，那麼通過視覺和嗅覺就無法知道火是溫暖的，花朵是什麼顏色。觸控和形狀的感知也是如此。如果認知和感知相關聯，或者事先已經有了認知，那麼身體在接觸物體時就能感知到物體的長短等屬性。然而，長、滑等屬性並沒有固定的關聯性。那麼，在黑暗中如何能夠回憶起物體的形狀呢？因此可知，如果存在不同的形狀，那麼它一定與身體的觸覺相結合。
論：如果觸覺和形狀的感知能夠回憶起形狀，那麼這個反駁就成立了。論主的本宗認為，如果形狀是真實存在的，那麼就會有兩個根識來獲取資訊，這存在過失。有部辯解說，因為觸覺的緣故，所以能夠回憶起形狀。論主反駁說，觸覺和形狀並非一定不可分離，但在獲取觸覺時卻能夠回憶起形狀。比如，事先不知道這種香氣，在黑暗中聞到這種香氣時，卻知道花朵有這種顏色。但實際上並非如此。所以不應該說因為獲取了觸覺就能回憶起形狀。正理辯解說，這種說法也不合理。現在可以看到，世間諸多的觸覺聚集中，形狀是確定的。雖然形狀對於觸覺來說並非是確定的，但在一個層面上，在多種觸覺產生中，一定會有長和顏色。在所有地方，在觸覺普遍產生中，一定會有圓形。像這些情況，應該根據具體情況來理解。所以觸覺對於形狀來說是有確定性的。觸覺對於顯色的確定性，不像形狀那樣可以明確瞭解。在觸覺產生時能夠回憶起顯色，是因為沒有一種觸覺是這樣安排的，對於這種顯色是像形狀那樣確定的。
論：或者說，在錦緞等物體中，並非真實存在多個實體，而是多個實體存在於同一處，這也很難成立。比如，在方形的錦緞上有一個圓形的錦緞花紋。那麼，在這個花紋中是否還有各種各樣的耶正文像呢？在同一處應該存在多個實體，但實際上並非如此。既然在同一處沒有多個顯色，那麼在一個地方怎麼會有多個形狀呢？現在詳細分析，這種反駁並非有部的觀點，因為錦緞的文像並非形狀和顏色。
論：另外，所有假立的長等屬性，如果沒有不同的形狀微粒，這也是一個難題。比如，如果有對青色等進行分析，直到分析到極微的程度，不同的極微仍然被稱為青色等。如果形狀的微粒是真實存在的，那麼在分解到極微的時候，極微也應該被稱為長等。如果形狀是獨立存在的，那麼應該存在一種極微被稱為長等。因此可知，長等只是安布顯色的假名。
【English Translation】 English version Separation. Knowing arises from the relationship between prior knowledge and present perception. For example, knowing through smell. If there is no prior knowledge, then one cannot know the warmth of fire or the color of flowers through sight or smell. The same applies to touch and form. If knowledge and perception are related, or if there is prior knowledge, then the body can perceive the length and other attributes of an object upon contact. However, attributes like length and smoothness do not have a fixed relationship. So, how can one recall the shape of an object in the dark? Therefore, it is known that if there are different shapes, they must be combined with the body's sense of touch.
Treatise: If the perception of touch and form can recall the shape, then this refutation is established. The proponent's original position is that if form is truly existent, then there would be two sense faculties to obtain information, which is a fault. The Sarvastivadins defend by saying that it is because of touch that one can recall the shape. The proponent refutes by saying that touch and form are not necessarily inseparable, but one can recall the shape when obtaining touch. For example, if one does not know a certain fragrance beforehand, but when smelling that fragrance in the dark, one knows that the flower has that color. But this is not actually the case. Therefore, it should not be said that one can recall the shape because of obtaining touch. The Justification argues that this statement is also unreasonable. It can be seen now that in the world's many aggregates of touch, shape is definite. Although shape is not definite for touch, on one level, in the production of multiple touches, there will definitely be length and color. In all places, in the universal production of touch, there will definitely be roundness. These kinds of situations should be understood according to the specific circumstances. Therefore, touch has a definiteness for shape. The definiteness of touch for visible color is not as clear as shape. One can recall visible color when touch arises because there is no touch arranged in such a way that it is as definite for that visible color as shape is.
Treatise: Or, in objects such as brocade, it is difficult to establish that there are not truly multiple entities, but rather multiple entities exist in the same place. For example, on a square brocade, there is a circular brocade pattern. Then, are there various 'ye zheng wen xiang' (various kinds of patterns) in this pattern? There should be multiple entities in the same place, but this is not actually the case. Since there are not multiple visible colors in the same place, how can there be multiple shapes in one place? Now, upon detailed analysis, this refutation is not the view of the Sarvastivadins, because the patterns of brocade are not shape and color.
Treatise: Furthermore, all imputed attributes such as length, etc., are a difficulty if there are no different shape particles. For example, if one analyzes blue, etc., until one analyzes it to the level of ultimate particles, the different ultimate particles are still called blue, etc. If the particles of shape are truly existent, then when decomposing to the ultimate particles, the ultimate particles should also be called length, etc. If shape is independently existent, then there should be an ultimate particle called length, etc. Therefore, it is known that length, etc., are merely imputed names for the arrangement of visible colors.
論。若謂即以至聚集安布。破轉救也。若謂聚顯極微不成長等。如聚香味不名為長。別有形微安布差別方名長等。此唯朋黨有部之宗別有形微。非極成故。形微既非極成。誰許安布以成長等 有人解。朋黨者。朋黨勝論師宗。非也。成業論破有部別有形色云。為是一物遍於色中名為長等。為積多微名為長等。若積多微名為長等。何異顯色。若謂一物遍於色中。即同食米齋部。今言。積其長微。故知。不是朋黨外道之義。
論豈。不現見至而形相異者。有部救。如世瓦器。黃．白雖同而有瓶．瓫相各異故。故知顯外別有形微。
論。為不已辨至理亦應然。論主釋也。如文可解。
論。豈不闇中至安布為形。有部救也。若言形色即是顯色安布差別積為形者。既不見顯應不見形。既見形色不見於顯。故知顯外別有形色。
論。以闇遠中至唯知總聚。論主釋。如文可解 正理論云。如何具壽許有極成顯色極微。非形細分。如諸顯色一一極微無獨起理。設有獨起。以極細故非眼所得於積集時眼可得故。證知定有顯色極微。形色極微亦應如是。寧獨不許。自相極成。諸有對色所積集處。皆決定有極微可得。既于聚色差別生中。有形覺生不待于顯。如不待余顯有餘顯覺生。是故定應別有。如種能成長等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如果說長度、寬度等是通過極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）的聚集和排列來實現的，這是一種辯駁和補救的說法。如果說聚集起來的顯色極微（rūpa-paramāṇu，具有顏色的最小物質單位）不會增長等，就像聚集香味不會被稱為增長一樣，那麼就需要有另外的形微（ākāra-paramāṇu，具有形狀的最小物質單位）通過排列的差別來定義長度等。這只是有部（Sarvāstivāda，一個佛教部派）的宗義，認為存在獨立的形微，但形微並非是最終的實在。既然形微不是最終的實在，那麼誰會認可通過排列來實現長度等呢？ 有人解釋說，這裡的『朋黨』指的是勝論師（Vaiśeṣika，印度教哲學流派之一）的宗義，這是不對的。成業論（Karma-siddhi-śāstra，一部佛教論著）駁斥有部認為存在獨立的形色的觀點時說：長度等是遍佈于顏色中的單一事物呢，還是由許多微粒聚集而成的呢？如果是許多微粒聚集而成的，那麼這與顯色又有什麼區別呢？如果說長度等是遍佈于顏色中的單一事物，那就和食米齋部（一個佛教部派）的觀點相同了。現在說，聚集的是長度的微粒，由此可知，這並不是朋黨外道的含義。 論：難道不是因為沒有直接看到長度等，所以形狀和顯色才不同嗎？有部辯解說：就像世俗的瓦器一樣，黃色和白色可能相同，但是瓶子和罐子的形狀各不相同。因此可知，在顯色之外，還存在獨立的形微。 論：難道不是已經辨析過，即使沒有顯色，長度等也應該存在嗎？論主（論著的作者）解釋說：就像文字可以解釋的那樣。 論：難道不是因為在黑暗中看不到顯色，所以長度等才被認為是形狀嗎？有部辯解說：如果說形狀就是顯色的排列差別，聚集起來成為形狀，那麼既然看不到顯色，就應該看不到形狀。既然能看到形狀，卻看不到顯色，由此可知，在顯色之外，還存在獨立的形色。 論：在黑暗或遠處，只能知道總體的聚集。論主解釋說：就像文字可以解釋的那樣。《正理論》（Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra，一部佛教論著）中說：具壽（尊敬的比丘）如何認可存在最終的顯色極微，而不是形狀的細分呢？就像各種顯色的每一個極微，都沒有獨立存在的道理。即使有獨立存在，因為極其微小，所以眼睛無法看到。在聚集的時候，眼睛可以看見，因此可以證明一定存在顯色極微。形色極微也應該如此，為什麼唯獨不認可呢？它們是自相（svalakṣaṇa，事物自身的特性）最終的實在。凡是有對色（sapratigha-rūpa，可以相互阻礙的顏色）聚集的地方，都一定可以得到極微。既然在聚集的顏色產生差別時，有形狀的覺知產生，不需要依賴於顯色，就像不需要依賴於其他的顯色，就有其他的顯色覺知產生一樣。因此，一定應該存在獨立的形色，就像種子能夠生長一樣。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: If it is said that length, width, etc., are achieved through the aggregation and arrangement of paramāṇu (ultimate particles), this is a refutation and a remedial statement. If it is said that the aggregated rūpa-paramāṇu (color ultimate particles) do not grow, etc., just as the aggregation of fragrance is not called growth, then there needs to be a separate ākāra-paramāṇu (shape ultimate particles) to define length, etc., through the difference in arrangement. This is only the tenet of the Sarvāstivāda (a Buddhist school), which believes that there are independent shape ultimate particles, but shape ultimate particles are not ultimately real. Since shape ultimate particles are not ultimately real, who would recognize that length, etc., are achieved through arrangement? Some explain that the 'faction' here refers to the tenet of the Vaiśeṣika (one of the Hindu philosophical schools), which is incorrect. The Karma-siddhi-śāstra (a Buddhist treatise) refutes the Sarvāstivāda's view that there are independent shape and color, saying: Is length, etc., a single thing pervading color, or is it formed by the aggregation of many particles? If it is formed by the aggregation of many particles, then what is the difference between this and visible color? If it is said that length, etc., is a single thing pervading color, then it is the same as the view of the Sāṃmitīya (a Buddhist school). Now it is said that what is aggregated are the particles of length, from which it can be known that this is not the meaning of the faction of externalists. Treatise: Is it not because length, etc., are not directly seen that shape and visible color are different? The Sarvāstivāda defends: Just like worldly earthenware, yellow and white may be the same, but the shapes of bottles and jars are different. Therefore, it can be known that there are independent shape ultimate particles apart from visible color. Treatise: Has it not already been analyzed that even without visible color, length, etc., should exist? The author of the treatise explains: Just as the text can be explained. Treatise: Is it not because visible color cannot be seen in the dark that length, etc., is considered shape? The Sarvāstivāda defends: If it is said that shape is the difference in the arrangement of visible color, which is aggregated to become shape, then since visible color cannot be seen, shape should not be seen. Since shape can be seen, but visible color cannot be seen, it can be known that there are independent shape and color apart from visible color. Treatise: In the dark or at a distance, only the overall aggregation can be known. The author of the treatise explains: Just as the text can be explained. The Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra (a Buddhist treatise) says: How does the venerable one recognize the existence of ultimate visible color particles, which are not a fine division of shape? Just like each ultimate particle of various visible colors has no reason to exist independently. Even if there is independent existence, because it is extremely small, it cannot be seen by the eyes. When aggregated, it can be seen by the eyes, therefore it can be proven that there must be visible color ultimate particles. Shape ultimate particles should also be like this, why is it uniquely not recognized? They are svalakṣaṇa (self-characteristics) ultimately real. Wherever there is an aggregation of sapratigha-rūpa (colors that can mutually obstruct), ultimate particles can definitely be obtained. Since when the aggregated colors produce differences, there is a perception of shape produced, without relying on visible color, just as without relying on other visible colors, there is a perception of other visible colors produced. Therefore, there should definitely be independent shape and color, just like a seed can grow.
形色極微 今詳無理。後有份量知前有種份量。種者即形極微。此亦非理。後有行．輪。豈樹．蟻外而許有別行．輪細分 又云 諸顯極微有質礙故即應積集假立長等。此亦非理。香等極微亦應積集為長等。故以彼香等所有極微亦有質礙。唯據處所不相容納名質礙故。若謂香等所有極微。非有見故無同彼失。則諸顯色所有極微。亦非形故豈成長等。如何知顯微體非形。如前已說。了相異故。不待顯色形覺生故。或有顯聚不見形故非體是形。有多積集無障有眼可不見形。是故應知。異於顯色有色處攝形色極微。由此整合長等假色。故形細分非不極成 準上論文。形微是實。長等是假。其長等微。或同。或異。如界品釋 然經部宗許長等色攬顯微成。是假非實。眼識所取恐非應理。行．輪等假。唯意境故 正理論師雖有多救。然以生覺證別有形。非為定證。無行．輪體有行．輪覺。故應顯色成長等時。此即顯色名為長等。眼見形體非見假形。此順釋宗妙扶至理。
論。既已遮遣至何為身表。正量部．有部徴問。
論立形為身表但假而非實。經部答。
論。既執但用至為身業耶。有部問。準此經部身表非是身業。
論若業依身至當知亦爾。經部答。經部三業總以思為體。與大乘同。即此意。思依
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 形色極微（構成物質形態的最小單位），現在詳細考察，認為這種觀點不合理。如果說後來的事物具有份量，就知道先前的種子也具有份量。所謂的『種子』就是指形極微，這種說法也是不合理的。如果說後來有行（運動）、輪（旋轉），難道要在樹木、螞蟻之外，另外允許存在有別的行、輪的細微部分嗎？又說，所有顯現的極微因為有質礙（阻礙），就應該積聚起來，假立為長等（長短等形態）。這也是不合理的。香等極微也應該積聚起來成為長等。所以，憑藉那些香等所有的極微，也具有質礙。僅僅根據處所不互相容納，才叫做質礙。如果說香等所有的極微，因為不能被看見，所以沒有和前面所說相同的過失，那麼所有顯色的極微，也不是形態，怎麼能成長等呢？如何知道顯微的本體不是形態呢？像前面已經說過的，因爲了相（認識的特徵）不同。不需要顯色，形態的覺知就能產生。或者有的顯聚（顯色的集合）看不見形態，所以顯聚的本體不是形態。有很多積聚，沒有遮障，有眼睛也可能看不見形態。因此應該知道，不同於顯色，有色處所攝的形色極微。由此積聚成長等假色。所以形態的細微部分不是不極成（不是不能成立）。 根據上面的論文，形微是真實的，長等是虛假的。那些長等微，或者相同，或者不同，就像界品所解釋的那樣。然而經部宗認為長等色是攬顯微（聚集顯微）形成的，是虛假的而不是真實的。眼識所取恐怕是不合理的。行、輪等是虛假的，僅僅是意識的境界。 正理論師雖然有很多辯解，但是用生覺（產生的覺知）來證明別有形態，不是確定的證據。沒有行、輪的本體，卻有行、輪的覺知。所以應該說，顯色成長等的時候，這個顯色就叫做長等。眼睛看見的是形態的本體，不是看見虛假的形態。這種說法順應了釋宗（解釋宗義的宗派），巧妙地扶持了至理。 論：既然已經遮遣（駁斥），那麼身表（身體的表示）是什麼呢？正量部、有部提出疑問。 論：立形（建立形態）為身表，但只是假立的而不是真實的。經部回答。 論：既然執（執著）只是用...作為身業呢？有部提問。根據這個，經部的身表不是身業。 論：如果業依身...，應當知道也是這樣。經部回答。經部的身、語、意三業總以思為本體，與大乘相同。就是這個意思，思依...
【English Translation】 English version The 'rupa paramanu' (ultimate particle of form and color) is now examined in detail, and this view is considered unreasonable. If later things have weight, then it is known that earlier seeds also have weight. The so-called 'seed' refers to the 'rupa paramanu', and this statement is also unreasonable. If later there is 'gati' (movement) and 'chakra' (rotation), should we allow the existence of separate subtle parts of 'gati' and 'chakra' outside of trees and ants? Furthermore, it is said that all manifest 'paramanu' should accumulate and falsely establish 'dirghatva' (length, etc.) because they have 'pratighata' (resistance). This is also unreasonable. 'Gandha paramanu' (ultimate particles of smell, etc.) should also accumulate to become 'dirghatva'. Therefore, relying on those 'gandha paramanu', they also have 'pratighata'. It is only based on the fact that places do not accommodate each other that it is called 'pratighata'. If it is said that 'gandha paramanu' cannot be seen, so there is no fault similar to what was said earlier, then all manifest 'rupa paramanu' are not forms, so how can they grow into 'dirghatva'? How do we know that the substance of manifest 'paramanu' is not form? As previously stated, because the 'lakshana' (characteristics of recognition) are different. The perception of form can arise without manifest 'rupa'. Or some manifest aggregates cannot see form, so the substance of manifest aggregates is not form. There are many accumulations, without obstruction, and even with eyes, form may not be seen. Therefore, it should be known that, different from manifest 'rupa', there are 'rupa paramanu' of form and color included in the 'rupa ayatana' (sphere of form). From this, 'dirghatva kalpa rupa' (illusory forms of length, etc.) are accumulated. Therefore, the subtle parts of form are not 'a-parinishtita' (not unestablished). According to the above thesis, 'rupa paramanu' is real, and 'dirghatva' is false. Those 'dirghatva paramanu' are either the same or different, as explained in the 'dhatu prakarana' (section on elements). However, the Sautrantika school believes that 'dirghatva rupa' is formed by gathering manifest 'paramanu', and is false rather than real. What is taken by eye consciousness is probably unreasonable. 'Gati', 'chakra', etc. are false, merely the realm of consciousness. Although the Vaibhashika masters have many defenses, using 'utpada jnana' (arising awareness) to prove that there is a separate form is not definitive evidence. There is no substance of 'gati' and 'chakra', but there is awareness of 'gati' and 'chakra'. Therefore, it should be said that when manifest 'rupa' grows into 'dirghatva', this manifest 'rupa' is called 'dirghatva'. What the eyes see is the substance of form, not the false form. This statement follows the 'vyakhyana sampradaya' (commentarial tradition) and skillfully supports the ultimate truth. Question: Since it has already been refuted, then what is 'kaya vijnapti' (bodily expression)? The Sammitiya and Sarvastivada schools raise the question. Thesis: Establishing 'rupa' (form) as 'kaya vijnapti', but it is only falsely established and not real. The Sautrantika school answers. Question: Since you hold that it is only used as 'kaya karma' (bodily action)? The Sarvastivada school asks. According to this, the 'kaya vijnapti' of the Sautrantika school is not 'kaya karma'. Thesis: If karma depends on the body..., it should be known that it is also like this. The Sautrantika school answers. The Sautrantika school considers the three karmas of body, speech, and mind to have 'cetanā' (volition) as their substance, which is the same as the Mahayana. That is the meaning, 'cetanā' depends on...
身．語行名身．語業。唯依意轉名為意業。
論。若爾何故至此二何異。有部難。經言思業。明知是思。經言思已業。明知非是思。如何三業以思為體。
論。謂前加行至名思已業。經部答。思有二種。一思惟思。二作事思。前名思業。后名思已業。
論。若爾表業至便成大過。有部難。能表示心名為表業。依其表業發無表業。二業唯是意思。思非是表。故無表業。既無表業無表亦無。便成大過。
論。如是大過至此有何過。經部釋也。經部宗意。身．語色聲名之為表。性是無記。與大乘同。動身．語思名身．語表業。通於三性。由思力熏種子名無表業。正理論云。此中為攝一切業盡。為攝少分差別業耶。有說此中攝一切業。有作是說。不攝無漏(此是經部兩釋思業思已業經)。此釋不與經義相符。此中不應攝意業故。謂為動發身．語二種起思惟思。及正動發身語二種起作事思。此二俱依身．語門轉。並應攝在身．語業中。既爾此中何名意業(已上與前二釋出過。若攝一切三業盡者。法既依身．語轉。如何攝意業)。若依身．語二門轉思。亦許一分名意業者。是則在業有雜亂過(此縱許依身．語門轉是意業者。即應意業亦身．語業。成雜亂失)。縱許為欲動發身．語起思惟思是意業性。且非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 身、語的行動稱為身業、語業。只有依靠意念的運轉才稱為意業。
論：如果這樣，為什麼到這裡二者有什麼不同？有部宗提出疑問。《經》中說『思業』，明確知道是思；《經》中說『思已業』，明確知道不是思。為什麼三業以思為本體？
論：所謂的前加行，直到稱為『思已業』。經部宗回答：思有兩種，一是思惟思，二是作事思。前者稱為思業，後者稱為思已業。
論：如果這樣，表業如果不是意思，便會造成大過失。有部宗提出疑問：能夠表示心意的稱為表業，依靠表業引發無表業。兩種業都只是意思，思不是表，所以沒有無表業。既然沒有無表業，無表也就不存在，便會造成大過失。
論：像這樣的大過失，這裡有什麼過失？經部宗解釋說：經部宗的觀點是，身、語的色聲稱為表，性質是無記，與大乘相同。動身、語的思稱為身、語表業，通於三性。由思的力量熏習種子，稱為無表業。《正理論》說：『這裡是爲了攝盡一切業，還是爲了攝取少分差別業呢？』有人說這裡攝盡一切業。有人這樣說：不攝取無漏（這是經部宗對思業、思已業的兩種解釋）。這種解釋與經義不相符，這裡不應該攝取意業的緣故。所謂爲了動發身、語兩種而生起思惟思，以及正在動發身語兩種而生起作事思，這兩種都依靠身、語門運轉，並且應該攝在身、語業中。既然這樣，這裡什麼稱為意業（以上與前兩種解釋提出過失。如果攝盡一切三業，法既然依靠身、語運轉，如何攝取意業）？如果依靠身、語二門運轉的思，也允許一部分稱為意業，那麼在業中就有雜亂的過失（這是縱容允許依靠身、語門運轉的是意業，那麼意業也應該是身、語業，造成雜亂的過失）。縱然允許爲了想要動發身、語而生起的思惟思是意業的性質，而且不是。
【English Translation】 English version The actions of body and speech are called body karma and speech karma. Only the operation relying on intention is called mind karma.
Treatise: If so, why is there a difference between the two here? The Sarvastivada school raises a question. The Sutra says 'thought karma', clearly indicating it is thought; the Sutra says 'karma after thought', clearly indicating it is not thought. Why are the three karmas based on thought as their substance?
Treatise: The so-called preliminary action, until it is called 'karma after thought'. The Sautrantika school answers: There are two kinds of thought: one is contemplative thought, and the other is active thought. The former is called thought karma, and the latter is called karma after thought.
Treatise: If so, if the revealing karma is not intention, it would lead to a great fault. The Sarvastivada school raises a question: That which can express intention is called revealing karma, and based on the revealing karma, unrevealing karma is generated. Both karmas are only intention, and thought is not revealing, so there is no unrevealing karma. Since there is no unrevealing karma, unrevealing also does not exist, which would lead to a great fault.
Treatise: Like this great fault, what fault is there here? The Sautrantika school explains: The Sautrantika school's view is that the form and sound of body and speech are called revealing, and their nature is indeterminate, which is the same as Mahayana. The thought of moving body and speech is called body and speech revealing karma, which is common to the three natures. The seeds are perfumed by the power of thought, which is called unrevealing karma. The Abhidharmakosha says: 'Is this to encompass all karmas, or to encompass a small portion of differentiated karmas?' Some say that this encompasses all karmas. Some say that it does not encompass the unconditioned (this is the Sautrantika school's two explanations of thought karma and karma after thought). This explanation does not conform to the meaning of the Sutra, and mind karma should not be encompassed here. The so-called contemplative thought that arises in order to initiate body and speech, and the active thought that arises while initiating body and speech, both operate relying on the doors of body and speech, and should be encompassed in body and speech karma. Since this is the case, what is called mind karma here (the above raises faults with the previous two explanations. If all three karmas are encompassed, since the Dharma operates relying on body and speech, how can mind karma be encompassed)? If the thought that operates relying on the doors of body and speech is also allowed to be called mind karma, then there would be a fault of confusion in the karmas (this is tolerating the allowance that what operates relying on the doors of body and speech is mind karma, then mind karma should also be body and speech karma, leading to a fault of confusion). Even if it is allowed that the contemplative thought that arises in order to initiate body and speech is the nature of mind karma, and it is not.
此中總攝諸業。以有不依身．語門轉有漏意業。其量無邊。皆此經中所不攝故(前明意業不成過失。今縱許彼有意業者。亦攝意業不盡過失)。且必不攝依眼．觸等所起諸思。以彼諸思非前所說思惟．作事二思攝故 準此。五識相應思是意業。此五識相應思非是起思惟思。亦非動作思故。云云。作其轉計略而不述 又云。又汝經部說諸仙人意憤殺生。是何業攝。為是身業。為意業耶。然此中無前．后所起思惟．作事二思差別。以思惟思即作事故。便不能離業雜亂失 準此論文。仙人意憤無二種思。既約二思分身．語業。思無差別。二業應無。或應意業即是身．語。故成雜亂 又云。亦不應謂依身．語思名身．語表。由彼自說形為身表假非實故。然思不應是形非實。又契經說起迎合掌恭敬禮拜是身表業。余經又言。表即是業。由此證知。欲作意等展轉所起手等別形名為身表。即是身業。故對法宗立身．語業。符教順理無雜亂過。今救經部。余經說表即是業者。果取因名。非即是業。或從所表為名。手．足等形表作思故。
論。此應名為至心俱轉故。有部出過。既熏於心差別功能與心俱轉。此則應同道．定共戒名心隨轉。
論。無如是過至以性鈍故。經部釋也。此欲散無表思之差別。與定無表義意不同。欲散
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此中總括了所有業。因為存在不依賴身、語二門而轉的有漏意業（指伴隨煩惱的心理活動所產生的業），其數量無邊無際，因此無法全部包含在此經中（前面已經說明了意業不成的問題。現在即使允許存在意業，也存在無法完全包含所有意業的過失）。而且，必定無法包含依眼、觸等所產生的各種思，因為這些思不是前面所說的思惟、作事兩種思所包含的。由此推斷，與五識相應的思是意業。這與五識相應的思既不是產生思惟的思，也不是動作的思。此處省略了他們的其他辯論。又說：『而且，你們經部說諸位仙人因憤怒而殺生，這屬於什麼業？是身業還是意業？』然而，這裡沒有先前和之後所產生的思惟、作事兩種思的差別，因為思惟的思就是作事，因此無法避免業的混雜的過失。根據這段論文，仙人的憤怒沒有兩種思。既然根據兩種思來區分身、語業，如果思沒有差別，那麼身、語業應該不存在，或者意業就是身、語業，因此造成混雜。又說：『也不應該認為依身、語的思名為身、語表，因為他們自己說形為身表是虛假的而非真實的。』然而，思不應該是虛假的。而且，契經說起迎、合掌、恭敬禮拜是身表業，其他經又說，表就是業。由此可以證明，想要作意等輾轉所產生的手等不同的形相名為身表，也就是身業。因此，對法宗建立身、語業，符合教義，順應道理，沒有混雜的過失。現在為經部辯護，其他經說表就是業，這是取果為因的說法，並非就是業，或者從所表的對象來命名，手、足等形相表達作意。\ 論：這應該稱為與至誠之心共同運轉，因此有部提出了異議。既然熏習於心的差別功能與心共同運轉，那麼這應該與道、定共戒一樣，名為心隨轉。 論：沒有這樣的過失，因為自性遲鈍。這是經部的解釋。這裡想要區分無表思的差別，與定無表的意義不同。想要散亂。
【English Translation】 English version: Herein are encompassed all karmas. Because there exist defiled mental karmas (referring to karma generated by mental activities accompanied by afflictions) that do not rely on the doors of body and speech, their quantity is boundless, and therefore cannot all be included in this sutra (it has been explained earlier that the problem of the non-establishment of mental karma. Now, even if mental karma is allowed to exist, there is still the fault of not being able to completely include all mental karma). Moreover, it is certain that it cannot include the various thoughts arising from reliance on eye, touch, etc., because these thoughts are not included in the two types of thought, namely contemplation and action, mentioned earlier. From this, it can be inferred that the thought associated with the five consciousnesses is mental karma. This thought associated with the five consciousnesses is neither the thought that generates contemplation nor the thought of action. Here, their other arguments are omitted. It is also said: 'Moreover, what kind of karma is it when your Sautrāntika school says that the immortals kill out of anger? Is it bodily karma or mental karma?' However, there is no distinction here between the two types of thought, namely contemplation and action, that arise before and after, because the thought of contemplation is the same as action, and therefore the fault of mixing up karmas cannot be avoided. According to this treatise, the anger of the immortals does not have two types of thought. Since bodily and verbal karmas are distinguished based on two types of thought, if there is no difference in thought, then bodily and verbal karmas should not exist, or mental karma is bodily and verbal karma, thus causing confusion. It is also said: 'Nor should it be thought that the thought relying on body and speech is called bodily and verbal expression, because they themselves say that the form as bodily expression is false and not real.' However, thought should not be false. Moreover, the sutras say that rising to greet, joining palms, respectfully bowing, and prostrating are bodily expressions of karma, and other sutras say that expression is karma. From this, it can be proven that the different forms of hands, etc., produced by the intention to act, etc., are called bodily expressions, which are bodily karma. Therefore, the Abhidharma school establishes bodily and verbal karmas, which are in accordance with the teachings, in accordance with reason, and without the fault of confusion. Now, to defend the Sautrāntika school, other sutras say that expression is karma, which is taking the result as the cause, and is not karma itself, or it is named after the object expressed, the forms of hands, feet, etc., expressing intention. Treatise: This should be called co-occurring with a sincere mind, therefore the Sarvāstivāda school raised an objection. Since the differentiated function that is imprinted on the mind co-occurs with the mind, then this should be the same as the undefiled precepts that co-occur with the path and concentration, and be called mind-following. Treatise: There is no such fault, because the nature is dull. This is the explanation of the Sautrāntika school. Here, it is intended to distinguish the differences of unmanifested thought, which has a different meaning from unmanifested concentration. Wanting to scatter.
無表。由二思力之所引發動作思。既名錶業。發身．語表故。此熏於心成其種子名為無表。定心無表即不如是。由彼同時心力起故名心隨轉。如有部宗。從其表業發生無表。亦由發表業思之所引發。非是表色。色性鈍故。
論。毗婆沙師至如前已說。論主述有部也。
論。經部亦說至無色相故。論主述經部也。前說身表無有實體。無表同表亦無實體。故言此亦非實有故。所以得知。有三因證 一由先誓限唯不作故。本誓既不願別有色生。但唯誓不作此業。如何與誓不同別生於色 二所依大種體非有故。既依過去大種施設無表色。過去大種既體是無。故知無表亦無有體 三若實有體應有其色對礙之相。此相既無。故知無體。
論。毗婆沙說此亦實有。論主述有部也。
論。云何知然。經部問也。云何知無表色亦實有也。已下半頌第四證有無表。
論曰至無見無對。第一證也。有見有對即是色處。無見有對是餘九處。經既更有無見無對色。故知即是無表色也。
論。又契經中至及無漏色第二證也。既有對色皆是有漏。別有無漏色。故知是無表色。故第二證 后結二證也。若無無表色。十有對色中何法名無見無對及無漏色。
論。又契經說至福業增長。第三證也。七福業事者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無表業，由第二次思的力量所引發的動作思，就被稱為表業，因為它表現爲身體和語言的動作。這種表業熏習於心中，形成種子，就稱為無表業。但如果是定心中的無表業，情況就不是這樣了。因為它是與定心同時生起，由定心的力量所引發，所以被稱為『心隨轉』，這就像有部宗的觀點。從表業發生的無表業，也是由發表業的思所引發，但它本身不是表業，因為它的性質是遲鈍的。
論：毗婆沙師的觀點如前所述。（論主在這裡陳述有部的觀點）
論：經部也說無表業沒有色相。（論主在這裡陳述經部的觀點）前面說過，身表業沒有實體，無表業和表業一樣，也沒有實體。所以說，無表業也不是真實存在的。如何得知呢？有三個理由可以證明：一、因為最初的誓願限定了只是不去做（惡業）。既然最初的誓願是不希望另外有色法產生，只是誓願不去做這個惡業，那麼怎麼能與誓願不同，另外產生色法呢？二、所依賴的大種的體性不是真實存在的。既然是依據過去的大種來施設無表色，而過去的大種的體性是虛無的，所以可以知道無表業也沒有實體。三、如果無表業真實存在，就應該有色法的對礙之相。既然沒有這種相，所以可以知道它沒有實體。
論：毗婆沙師說無表業是真實存在的。（論主在這裡陳述有部的觀點）
論：怎麼知道是這樣呢？（經部提出疑問）怎麼知道無表色也是真實存在的呢？以下半頌是第四個證明無表業存在的理由。
論曰：無見無對。（這是第一個證明）有見有對的就是色處（Rūpa-dhātu，指眼所能見的色法）。無見有對的是其餘九處（指除了色處之外的九種感覺對像）。既然經典中還有無見無對的色法，所以可以知道這就是無表色。
論：又，契經中說有無漏色。（這是第二個證明）既然有對的色法都是有漏的，另外還有無漏的色法，所以可以知道這就是無表色。這是第二個證明。後面總結了這兩個證明：如果沒有無表色，那麼在十種有對的色法中，哪一種可以被稱為無見無對以及無漏色呢？
論：又，契經中說福業增長。（這是第三個證明）七福業事指的是……
【English Translation】 English version: 'Unmanifested karma' (Avijñapti-karma), the volitional thought (cetanā) that initiates action, arising from the second force of thought, is called 'manifested karma' (Vijñapti-karma), because it manifests as actions of body and speech. This manifested karma, when imprinted on the mind, forms a seed, which is called 'unmanifested karma'. However, in the case of unmanifested karma arising from meditative concentration (samādhi), it is not the same. Because it arises simultaneously with the concentrated mind and is initiated by the power of the concentrated mind, it is called 'mind-following' (citta-anuparivartin), as in the view of the Sarvāstivāda school. The unmanifested karma that arises from manifested karma is also initiated by the thought of expressing karma, but it is not itself manifested karma, because its nature is dull.
Treatise: The view of the Vaibhāṣika masters has been stated as before. (The author of the treatise here states the view of the Sarvāstivāda school.)
Treatise: The Sautrāntika school also says that unmanifested karma has no form (rūpa). (The author of the treatise here states the view of the Sautrāntika school.) It was said earlier that manifested karma of body has no substance, and unmanifested karma, like manifested karma, also has no substance. Therefore, it is said that unmanifested karma is also not truly existent. How is this known? There are three reasons to prove it: First, because the original vow limited only to not doing (evil deeds). Since the original vow is not to wish for another form to arise, but only to vow not to do this evil deed, how can it be different from the vow and separately produce form? Second, the nature of the great elements (mahābhūta) on which it depends is not truly existent. Since unmanifested form is established based on the past great elements, and the nature of the past great elements is non-existent, it can be known that unmanifested karma also has no substance. Third, if unmanifested karma truly existed, it should have the characteristic of obstruction (pratigha) of form. Since this characteristic is absent, it can be known that it has no substance.
Treatise: The Vaibhāṣika masters say that unmanifested karma is truly existent. (The author of the treatise here states the view of the Sarvāstivāda school.)
Treatise: How is this known? (The Sautrāntika school asks.) How is it known that unmanifested form is also truly existent? The following half-verse is the fourth reason for proving the existence of unmanifested karma.
Treatise says: 'Invisible and non-resistant.' (This is the first proof.) 'Visible and resistant' is the 'form element' (Rūpa-dhātu, the form that can be seen by the eye). 'Invisible and resistant' are the other nine elements (referring to the nine kinds of sense objects other than the form element). Since the scriptures also mention 'invisible and non-resistant' form, it can be known that this is unmanifested form.
Treatise: Also, the scriptures say that there is 'untainted form' (anāsrava-rūpa). (This is the second proof.) Since 'resistant' forms are all 'tainted' (sāsrava), and there is also 'untainted' form, it can be known that this is unmanifested form. This is the second proof. The following summarizes these two proofs: If there were no unmanifested form, then among the ten 'resistant' forms, which one could be called 'invisible and non-resistant' and 'untainted'?
Treatise: Also, the scriptures say that 'meritorious karma increases'. (This is the third proof.) The seven meritorious deeds refer to...
善故名福。作故名業。思所託故名事。此有七種有依福業事。謂有所施事為依名為有依。一施羈客。二施路行人。三施有病人。四施侍病人。五施園林。六施常食。七隨時施。此七種福雖起異心作業已息。若行．悟．寐等。恒時增長。除無表色若起余心。及無心時。依何法說福業增長 無依亦爾者。謂無施物以為所依。但逢隨喜思念諸佛心恭敬等。亦如有依福業增長。
論。又非自作至此性無異故。第四證也。若無無表。但遣他為殺生等事。應不成業道。正遣他殺時。自業非殺故。自遣他表不能殺故。更作殺時自教他業如前無異故。
論。又契經說至便成無用。第五證也。經說法處內．外以分。謂是外處。十二處分。是十一處所不攝法。若以有見無見以分。即是無見。若以有對無對以分。即是無對。色．無色以分不言無色。若不以法處有無表色者。此言闕減便成無用。以彼簡法不周盡故。
論。又若無無表至語等無故。第六證也。八支中有正語．正業．正命三支。在定之中無語等三。若無無表。何法名為正語．業等。
論。若爾何故至清凈鮮白。經部難也。若謂正在定時具有八支。何為經說八中五支修習圓滿。正命等三先時已得。故知即是定前語等。
論。此依先時至無相違過。有部
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
'善'的緣故叫做'福'（Punya，功德）。'作'的緣故叫做'業'（Karma，行為）。思慮所寄託的緣故叫做'事'（Karya，事情）。這裡有七種有依靠的福業事，就是說有所施捨的事物作為依靠，名為有依靠。一是施捨給寄居的客人，二是施捨給路上的行人，三是施捨給有病人，四是施捨給侍奉病人的人，五是施捨園林，六是施捨常食，七是隨時施捨。這七種福，即使生起其他的念頭，作業已經停止，如果處於行走、覺悟、睡眠等狀態，恒常增長。除了無表色（Avijñapti-rupa，無表色），如果生起其他的念頭，以及無心的時候，依靠什麼法說福業增長？無依靠的也是這樣，就是說沒有施捨的物品作為依靠，但遇到隨喜、思念諸佛、內心恭敬等，也如有依靠的福業一樣增長。 論：又不是自己做，到這裡性質沒有差異的緣故。這是第四個證據。如果沒有無表（Avijñapti，無表），只是派遣他人去做殺生等事，應該不能構成業道（Karma-patha，業道）。正在派遣他人殺的時候，自己的業不是殺，因為自己派遣他表達不能殺的緣故。再做殺的時候，自己教他人的業和之前沒有差異的緣故。 論：又契經說，到便成為無用。這是第五個證據。經中說法處分為內、外。所謂外處，是十二處（Dvadasayatana，十二處）所分的，是不被十一處（Ekadasayatana，十一處）所包含的法。如果用有見、無見來分，就是無見。如果用有對、無對來分，就是無對。用色、無色來分，不說是無色。如果不以法處（Dharmayatana，法處）有無表色，這個說法就缺少了，便成為無用。因為那個簡擇法不周全的緣故。 論：又如果無無表，到語等沒有的緣故。這是第六個證據。八支（Astangika-marga，八支）中有正語（Samyag-vac，正語）、正業（Samyak-karmanta，正業）、正命（Samyag-ajiva，正命）三支。在禪定之中沒有語等三支。如果沒有無表，什麼法名為正語、業等？ 論：如果是這樣，什麼緣故，到清凈鮮白。經部（Sautrantika，經部）的責難。如果說正在禪定時具有八支，為什麼經中說八支中五支修習圓滿？正命等三支先前已經得到。所以知道就是禪定前的語等。 論：這是依靠先前的時候，到沒有相違背的過失。有部（Sarvastivada，有部）的觀點。
【English Translation】 English version
'Good' is called 'Punya' (merit) because of its nature. 'Action' is called 'Karma' (deed) because of its doing. That on which thought is placed is called 'Karya' (matter). Here, there are seven kinds of meritorious deeds that have a basis, meaning that there are things given as alms as a basis, which are called having a basis. First, giving to resident guests; second, giving to travelers on the road; third, giving to the sick; fourth, giving to those who attend to the sick; fifth, giving gardens and groves; sixth, giving regular food; seventh, giving at appropriate times. These seven kinds of merit, even if other thoughts arise, the action has already ceased, but if one is walking, awake, or sleeping, they constantly increase. Except for Avijñapti-rupa (unmanifest form), if other thoughts arise, or when there is no mind, by what Dharma is it said that meritorious deeds increase? It is the same for those without a basis, meaning that there are no objects of giving as a basis, but encountering joy, thinking of the Buddhas, having respectful minds, etc., also increase meritorious deeds as if they had a basis. Treatise: Moreover, not doing it oneself, up to this point, the nature is not different. This is the fourth proof. If there were no Avijñapti (unmanifestation), merely sending others to do things like killing should not constitute a Karma-patha (path of action). While sending others to kill, one's own karma is not killing, because one's own sending of expression cannot kill. When killing is done again, one's own teaching of others is no different from before. Treatise: Moreover, the sutras say, up to becoming useless. This is the fifth proof. The sutras divide the Dharmadhatu (sphere of phenomena) into internal and external. The so-called external sphere is divided by the Dvadasayatana (twelve sense bases), which are Dharmas not included in the Ekadasayatana (eleven sense bases). If divided by visible and invisible, it is invisible. If divided by with-resistance and without-resistance, it is without-resistance. If divided by form and formless, it does not say formless. If the Dharmayatana (sense base of phenomena) does not have Avijñapti-rupa, this statement is lacking and becomes useless, because that selection of Dharmas is not comprehensive. Treatise: Moreover, if there were no Avijñapti, up to the absence of speech, etc. This is the sixth proof. Among the Astangika-marga (eightfold path), there are three branches: Samyag-vac (right speech), Samyak-karmanta (right action), and Samyag-ajiva (right livelihood). In Samadhi (meditative concentration), there are no three branches of speech, etc. If there were no Avijñapti, what Dharma would be called right speech, action, etc.? Treatise: If that is the case, why, up to pure and bright. The objection of the Sautrantika (Sautrantika school). If it is said that one has the eight branches while in Samadhi, why do the sutras say that five of the eight branches are cultivated to perfection? The three branches of right livelihood, etc., were obtained earlier. Therefore, it is known that they are the speech, etc., before Samadhi. Treatise: This relies on the earlier time, up to no fault of contradiction. The view of the Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada school).
通也。此依先時已得世間諸有漏道定共色說。非是欲說定前語等語以為道支。故無過失。
論。又若撥無至而名苾芻等。第七證也。若無無表。唯是意思起異緣時即應無。于如何得名為苾芻等。
論。又契經說至可名堤塘。第八證也。若無無表。何然長時相續遮防諸破戒惡。非無有體可為堤塘。
論。由此等證知實有無表色。總結八證。
論。經部師說至然不應理。經部非前證。別有無表實體不應理也。
論。所以然者。問不應理所以。
論。所引證中至故名無對。釋第一證。經言第三無見無對者。謂定境界色非眼見故名無見。不障處所名為無對。非是無表。
論。若謂既爾至與無表同。遮有部難 正理論云。此釋非理。以一切法皆是意識所緣境故。住空閑者意識。即緣諸有見色為定境界。此色種類異余色等。是從定起大種所生。無障澄清如空界色。如是理趣辨本事品因釋夢境已具分別 應如是責。如何定境青等．長等顯．形為性。如余色處非有見攝。然從定起大種所生極清妙故。又在定中眼識無故非眼根境。如中有色雖具顯．形。而非生有眼所能見。或如上地色非下地眼境。既有現在少分色處。不與少分眼根為境。如何不許有少色處。不與一切眼根為境。又于夢中所緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 通達。這是依據先前已經獲得的世間有漏道（指修行者通過修行所證得的、仍然受煩惱影響的境界）的定共色（指由禪定所產生的色法）來說的。並不是要說禪定前的語言等行為可以作為道支（指修行道路上的要素）。所以沒有過失。 論：又如果否定無表色，那麼『苾芻』（bhiksu，比丘，佛教出家男眾）等名稱如何成立？這是第七個證據。如果沒有無表色，僅僅是意思生起，在因緣變化時就應該消失。那麼如何能夠被稱為『苾芻』等呢？ 論：又契經（佛經）上說，無表色可以被稱為堤塘（堤壩）。這是第八個證據。如果沒有無表色，如何能夠長時間地持續遮擋和防止各種破戒惡行呢？沒有實體的東西是不能作為堤塘的。 論：通過這些證據，可以知道確實存在無表色。總結以上八個證據。 論：經部師（佛教部派之一）說，這種說法不合理。經部認為之前的證據不能成立，另外存在無表實體是不合理的。 論：為什麼不合理呢？（問）不應理的原因。 論：所引用的證據中，（經文說）『無見無對』，所以稱為『無對』。解釋第一個證據。經文中所說的第三禪的『無見無對』，是指禪定境界的色法，不是眼睛所能看到的，所以稱為『無見』。不阻礙處所，所以稱為『無對』。這並不是指無表色。 論：如果說既然這樣，（定境色）就和無表色相同了。反駁有部（佛教部派之一）的責難。《正理論》說：這種解釋不合理。因為一切法都是意識所緣的境界。住在空閑地方的人的意識，可以緣取各種有見色作為禪定的境界。這種色法的種類不同於其他色法，是從禪定生起的大種（組成物質的基本元素）所產生的。沒有阻礙，清澈透明，就像空界的色法。這種道理在《本事品》中解釋夢境時已經詳細分別過了。應該這樣責難：為什麼禪定境界中的青色等、長相等顯色、形色等，作為自性，像其餘色處一樣，不是有見所攝呢？然而，從禪定生起的大種所產生的色法極其清凈微妙。而且在禪定中，眼識不起作用，所以不是眼根的境界。就像中有色（指死亡到投胎之間的狀態的色身）雖然具有顯色和形色，但不是生有（指生命開始時的狀態）的眼睛所能看到的。或者像上地（指更高的禪定層次）的色法不是下地（指較低的禪定層次）的眼睛所能看到的。既然有現在少部分的色處，不與少部分的眼根為境界，為什麼不允許有少部分的色處，不與一切眼根為境界呢？又在夢中所緣的……
【English Translation】 English version: It is comprehensive. This is based on the conditioned-arising color (rupa) associated with meditative concentration (dhyana) that has already been attained in the mundane realm through paths still subject to defilements (asrava). It is not intended to suggest that speech or other actions prior to meditative concentration can serve as factors of the path (marga). Therefore, there is no fault. Treatise: Furthermore, if one denies the existence of non-manifesting form (avyakta-rupa), how can names like 'bhiksu' (monk) be established? This is the seventh proof. If there were no non-manifesting form, and only intention arose, it should cease when conditions change. How then could one be called a 'bhiksu'? Treatise: Moreover, the sutras (scriptures) state that non-manifesting form can be called a dike or embankment. This is the eighth proof. If there were no non-manifesting form, how could one continuously prevent and guard against various transgressions and evil deeds over a long period? Something without substance cannot serve as a dike or embankment. Treatise: From these proofs, it is known that non-manifesting form truly exists. This concludes the eight proofs. Treatise: The Sautrantika (a Buddhist school) says that this explanation is unreasonable. The Sautrantika believes that the previous proofs are not valid, and that the existence of a separate non-manifesting entity is unreasonable. Treatise: Why is it unreasonable? (Question) The reason for the unreasonableness. Treatise: In the cited evidence, (the scripture says) 'invisible and non-obstructing,' hence it is called 'non-obstructing.' Explaining the first proof. The 'invisible and non-obstructing' of the third dhyana (meditative absorption) refers to the form of the meditative state, which is not seen by the eye, hence it is called 'invisible.' It does not obstruct location, hence it is called 'non-obstructing.' This does not refer to non-manifesting form. Treatise: If it is said that since this is the case, (the form of the meditative state) is the same as non-manifesting form. Refuting the objection of the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school). The Nyayanusara says: This explanation is unreasonable. Because all dharmas (phenomena) are objects of consciousness. The consciousness of one who dwells in a secluded place can perceive various visible forms as the objects of meditative concentration. This type of form is different from other forms, as it arises from the great elements (maha-bhuta, the fundamental elements constituting matter) produced by meditative concentration. It is unobstructed and clear, like the form of the space element. This principle has already been thoroughly explained in the Karmasiddhiprakarana when interpreting dreams. The objection should be made as follows: Why are the blue color, long shape, and other characteristics of the meditative state, as their nature, not included in the visible, like other sense objects? However, the form produced by the great elements arising from meditative concentration is extremely pure and subtle. Moreover, in meditative concentration, eye-consciousness does not arise, so it is not an object of the eye-sense. Just as the intermediate existence (antarabhava, the state between death and rebirth) body, although possessing color and shape, is not visible to the eyes of the being at the beginning of life (upapattibhava). Or like the form of higher realms is not an object of the eyes of lower realms. Since there are now a few sense objects that are not objects of a few eye-senses, why is it not permissible to have a few sense objects that are not objects of all eye-senses? Furthermore, what is perceived in dreams...
色處。應無見無對。唯意識境故。是故由經說有三色。證無表色實有理成 準上論文。定境色處非眼根境。此違色處二識所識。復同彼同分色不與識合。即違婆沙正義 夢境色者。即是餘位可眼見色。非謂此非眼根境界。其定境色亦是可見色處所攝。如解脫色。緣青等時是可見色。
論。又經所言至即說為無漏。釋第二證。定境色中有無漏色。即此名為無漏色也。
論。有餘師說至得無漏名。此述譬喻師計。無學身中十色界全。及外五境。皆是無漏非漏依故。
論。何故經言至乃至廣說。破譬喻計。若言無學身中色法。非漏依故名無漏者。何故經言有漏法者。諸所有眼乃至廣說。十五界等既無簡別。故知一切眼等皆是有漏。
論。此非漏對治故得名有漏。譬喻師救。無學身中十五界等有其二義。非漏依故名為無漏。非對治漏故名無漏。
論。是則此應言有漏亦無漏。有部難。離過身中十五界等。應亦是有漏亦是無漏。
論。若爾何過。譬喻師反問。
論。有相雜失。有部與出過也。
論。若依此理至有何相雜。譬喻師救。非漏依故名為無漏。不依此理說為有漏。非對治漏名為有漏。不依此理說為無漏。依此義說有何相雜。
論。若色處等至聲等亦爾。譬喻師
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『色處』（Rūpa-āyatana, 色界）應該是『無見無對』（anidarśana apratigha, 不可見且無障礙），因為它僅僅是意識的境界。因此，根據經文所說有三種色，可以證明『無表色』（avijñapti-rūpa, 無表色）的真實存在是有道理的。根據上面的論文，『定境色處』（samāpatti-gocara rūpāyatana, 入定狀態下的色處）不是眼根的境界。這與『色處』被兩個識所識別相違背。而且，它也和『同分色』（sabhāga-rūpa, 同類色）不與識結合的說法相違背，這又違背了《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）的正確含義。夢境中的色，是其他狀態下可以用眼睛看到的色，而不是說它不是眼根的境界。定境中的色也屬於可見的『色處』所包含的，比如『解脫色』（vimokṣa-rūpa, 解脫之色），在緣于青色等的時候是可以被看見的。
論：又經所言至即說為無漏。解釋第二個證據。定境色中有無漏色，即此名為無漏色也。
論：有餘師說至得無漏名。這是敘述譬喻師的觀點，認為無學（aśaikṣa, 無需再學習者）身中所有的十一個『處』（āyatana, 處），以及外面的五境，都是無漏的，因為它們不是『漏』（āsrava, 煩惱）的所依。
論：何故經言至乃至廣說。駁斥譬喻師的觀點。如果說無學身中的色法，因為不是『漏』的所依所以稱為『無漏』，那麼為什麼經文說『有漏法』（sāsrava-dharma, 有煩惱的法）是指所有的眼等，乃至廣說，十五界等沒有簡別，所以可知一切眼等都是有漏的。
論：此非漏對治故得名有漏。譬喻師辯解說，無學身中的十五界等有兩種含義：不是『漏』的所依，所以稱為『無漏』；不是對治『漏』，所以名為『有漏』。
論：是則此應言有漏亦無漏。有部反駁說，離過身中的十五界等，應該既是有漏的也是無漏的。
論：若爾何過。譬喻師反問。
論：有相雜失。有部指出其中的過失。
論：若依此理至有何相雜。譬喻師辯解說，不是『漏』的所依，所以稱為『無漏』，不依據這個道理說為『有漏』；不是對治『漏』，所以名為『有漏』，不依據這個道理說為『無漏』。依據這個意義來說，有什麼相雜的呢？
論：若色處等至聲等亦爾。譬喻師
【English Translation】 English version 『Rūpa-āyatana』 (色處, sphere of form) should be 『anidarśana apratigha』 (無見無對, invisible and non-resistant), because it is solely the realm of consciousness. Therefore, based on the scriptures stating that there are three types of form, it can be proven that the real existence of 『avijñapti-rūpa』 (無表色, non-revealing form) is logically established. According to the above treatise, 『samāpatti-gocara rūpāyatana』 (定境色處, the sphere of form experienced in meditative states) is not the realm of the eye-sense. This contradicts the idea that 『rūpāyatana』 is cognized by two consciousnesses. Furthermore, it also contradicts the statement that 『sabhāga-rūpa』 (同分色, homogenous form) does not combine with consciousness, which in turn contradicts the correct meaning of the 『Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra』 (《婆沙論》). The form in dreams is the form that can be seen by the eye in other states, rather than saying that it is not the realm of the eye-sense. The form in meditative states is also included in the visible 『rūpāyatana』, such as 『vimokṣa-rūpa』 (解脫色, form of liberation), which can be seen when focusing on blue color, etc.
Treatise: 『Moreover, what is stated in the sutras is said to be unconditioned.』 This explains the second proof. Among the forms in meditative states, there are unconditioned forms, and these are called unconditioned forms.
Treatise: 『Some other teachers say that one attains the name of unconditioned.』 This describes the view of the Sautrāntikas (譬喻師), who believe that all eleven 『āyatanas』 (處, sense bases) in the body of an 『aśaikṣa』 (無學, one beyond learning), as well as the five external objects, are unconditioned because they are not the basis of 『āsravas』 (漏, outflows/defilements).
Treatise: 『Why do the sutras say, and so on, extensively?』 This refutes the Sautrāntika's view. If it is said that the form in the body of an 『aśaikṣa』 is called 『unconditioned』 because it is not the basis of 『āsravas』, then why do the sutras say that 『sāsrava-dharma』 (有漏法, conditioned dharmas) refers to all eyes, etc., and so on extensively? Since there is no distinction among the fifteen realms, it is known that all eyes, etc., are conditioned.
Treatise: 『This is called conditioned because it is not the antidote to outflows.』 The Sautrāntika defends by saying that the fifteen realms in the body of an 『aśaikṣa』 have two meanings: they are called 『unconditioned』 because they are not the basis of 『āsravas』; they are called 『conditioned』 because they are not the antidote to 『āsravas』.
Treatise: 『Then this should be said to be both conditioned and unconditioned.』 The Sarvāstivāda (有部) refutes by saying that the fifteen realms in the body free from faults should be both conditioned and unconditioned.
Treatise: 『If so, what is the fault?』 The Sautrāntika asks in return.
Treatise: 『There is the fault of mixing.』 The Sarvāstivāda points out the fault.
Treatise: 『If according to this principle, what is mixed?』 The Sautrāntika defends by saying that it is called 『unconditioned』 because it is not the basis of 『āsravas』, and it is not based on this principle that it is said to be 『conditioned』; it is called 『conditioned』 because it is not the antidote to 『āsravas』, and it is not based on this principle that it is said to be 『unconditioned』. According to this meaning, what is mixed?
Treatise: 『If the sphere of form, etc., then sound, etc., are also the same.』 The Sautrāntika
反難也。若色處等十五界一向有漏者。何故經等不直說色處心裁覆事。簡去無漏差別而說有漏有取諸色心裁覆事。故知別有無漏色等非是心裁 裁謂裁檗。即是與有漏心為生之本覆障事也 正理破云。又非眼等非漏對治得有漏名。勿有世間諸離染道成無漏故。又彼眼等非如意．法．意識說故。謂佛有漏．無漏相中作如是言。墮世間意。墮世間法。墮世間意識。是名有漏。出世間意。出世間法。出世間意識。是名無漏。非眼等中作如是說。故知彼說但述耶計。
論。又經所說至福業續起。破第三證。經部宗中先軌範師作如是釋。由法爾力七有依福福業增長。如如施主乃至由諸受者受用勝劣有差別故。施主心雖異緣。而前緣施思種後後心生說名相續。於後后時別別而生。為轉變能生果時功力勝前名為差別。
論。若謂如何至無表法生。遮有部難。與無表同如何受者受用施財物。則有實無表色增長生耶。
論。若於無依至亦恒隨轉。釋無依增長也。
論。無表論者至寧有無表。反難有部。無依福業但是心念意思隨喜等事無有表業。寧有無表。
論。有說有依至相續增長。敘經部異說。
論。若爾經說至緣彼勝思。論主破余師也。
論。是故所言至定為應理。論主評取經部前師釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 反駁對方的詰難。如果色處等十五界（十八界中的色根、色境、識界）一概都是有漏的，那麼為什麼佛經等典籍不直接說色處是『心裁覆事』（指由心所造作並覆蓋真實的事物），而要省略無漏的差別，只說有漏、有取的諸色是『心裁覆事』呢？由此可知，另有無漏的色等，並非是『心裁』。『裁』指的是裁割、檗（一種樹木），也就是作為有漏心的生起之根本，並覆蓋、障礙真實的事物。正理反駁說：而且眼等並非是『漏』的對治，才得到『有漏』的名稱。如果這樣，豈不是世間所有遠離染污的道都成了無漏的了嗎？而且佛陀在有漏、無漏的意、法、意識的區分中，是這樣說的：『墮世間意，墮世間法，墮世間意識，是名有漏。出世間意，出世間法，出世間意識，是名無漏。』但並沒有在眼等中這樣說。所以，要知道對方的說法只是陳述了錯誤的見解。
論：又經中所說，乃至福業相續生起。這是爲了駁斥第三個論證。經部宗中，先前的軌範師是這樣解釋的：由於法爾（事物本性）的力量，七有（欲界、色界、無色界）所依的福德、福業得以增長。就像施主佈施，乃至由於接受佈施者的受用有勝劣的差別，所以即使施主的心念緣于不同的對象，但前一個緣于佈施的思惟的種子，能使後後的心生起，這叫做相續。在後后的時間裡，分別地生起，在轉變、產生結果時，其功力勝過之前，這叫做差別。
論：如果說，如何乃至無表法生起？這是爲了遮止有部的詰難。如果和無表色（指無法表現于外的色法）相同，那麼接受佈施者受用施捨的財物，是否會有真實的無表色增長生起呢？
論：如果在無所依的情況下，乃至也恒常隨之運轉。這是解釋無所依的增長。
論：無表論者，乃至寧有無表？這是反駁有部。無所依的福業，僅僅是心念、意思、隨喜等事，沒有表業（可以表現于外的業），怎麼會有無表呢？
論：有人說，有所依，乃至相續增長。這是敘述經部不同的說法。
論：如果這樣，經中所說，乃至緣于彼殊勝的思惟。這是論主駁斥其他論師的觀點。
論：因此，所說的，乃至必定是應理的。這是論主評論並採納經部前代論師的解釋。
【English Translation】 English version A refutation of the opponent's challenge. If the fifteen realms such as the sense-spheres (referring to the sense faculties, sense objects, and consciousness realms within the eighteen realms) are all inherently tainted (with outflows), then why do the sutras and other scriptures not directly state that the sense-spheres are 'fabrications of the mind covering up reality,' but instead omit the distinction of the untainted and only say that the tainted and grasping sense-spheres are 'fabrications of the mind covering up reality'? From this, it can be known that there are other untainted sense-spheres, etc., that are not 'fabrications of the mind.' 'Fabrication' refers to cutting off, or Phellodendron (a type of tree), which serves as the root for the arising of the tainted mind and covers up and obstructs reality. The principle refutes by saying: Moreover, the eye, etc., are not the antidote to 'outflows,' so they obtain the name 'tainted.' If this were the case, wouldn't all worldly paths that are free from defilements become untainted? Furthermore, the Buddha, in distinguishing between the tainted and untainted intention, Dharma, and consciousness, said: 'Falling into worldly intention, falling into worldly Dharma, falling into worldly consciousness, this is called tainted. Transcending worldly intention, transcending worldly Dharma, transcending worldly consciousness, this is called untainted.' But he did not say this in relation to the eye, etc. Therefore, it should be known that the opponent's statement merely presents a false view.
Treatise: Furthermore, what is said in the sutras, up to the continuous arising of meritorious actions. This is to refute the third argument. Within the Sautrantika school, the earlier preceptors explained it this way: Due to the power of Dharma-nature (the inherent nature of things), the merit and meritorious actions based on the seven existences (desire realm, form realm, formless realm) increase. Just as when a donor gives alms, and due to the differences in superiority and inferiority in the recipients' use, even though the donor's thoughts are directed towards different objects, the seed of the previous thought of giving alms can cause subsequent thoughts to arise, which is called continuity. Arising separately in subsequent times, when transforming and producing results, its power surpasses the previous one, which is called difference.
Treatise: If it is said, how does unmanifested Dharma arise? This is to prevent the Sarvastivadins' challenge. If it is the same as unmanifested form (referring to form that cannot be outwardly expressed), then when the recipient uses the alms given, will there be a real increase and arising of unmanifested form?
Treatise: If in the case of being without a basis, up to also constantly revolving along with it. This is to explain the increase of that which is without a basis.
Treatise: Those who advocate unmanifested form, up to how can there be unmanifested form? This is to refute the Sarvastivadins. Meritorious actions without a basis are merely thoughts, intentions, rejoicing, and other such things; there is no manifested action (action that can be outwardly expressed), so how can there be unmanifested form?
Treatise: Some say, with a basis, up to continuous increase. This is to narrate a different view of the Sautrantika school.
Treatise: If that is the case, what is said in the sutras, up to based on that superior thought. This is the treatise master refuting the views of other teachers.
Treatise: Therefore, what is said, up to must be reasonable. This is the treatise master commenting on and adopting the explanation of the earlier teachers of the Sautrantika school.
也。正理云。應問。此中何名相續。何名轉變。何名差別。彼作是答。思業為先後後心生說名相續。即此相續於後后時別別而生說名轉變。即此無間能生果時功力勝前說名差別。如有取識為命終心。於此心前雖有種種感後有業。而於此時唯有極重。或唯串習。或近作業感果功力顯著非余(此與對法論同。此中有難。非極重。非串習。非近作業。此時熟者豈非顯著)。
論。又非自作至身．語業道。破第四證。由本加行使者依能教者教所作成時。法爾能教彼者相續心上種子轉變至生果時功能差別。由此當來能感多果。即此差別從身．語業生。果立因名故名身．語業道。實非身．語 自作究竟當知亦爾 如無表業名為業道。亦是果取因名非身．語業。
論。然大德說至正殺殺已。敘異計也。此是達磨多羅計也。
論。非但由此至成無間業。論主破云。非但由思作已殺等解即成業道。實非殺母作殺母解應成無間。此既不成。如何但由其思即成業道。
論。然于自造至非不應理。論主容自作一分由思成業道。
論。何于無表至轉變差別。此有部責經部情偏。
論。然此與彼至不令生喜。此答不許無表所以。
論。若由此引至未來果故。答許經部宗所以也。
論。又先已說。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
也。《正理》中說，應該問：『這裡面什麼叫做相續，什麼叫做轉變，什麼叫做差別？』他們這樣回答：『以思和業為先，後來的心生起，這叫做相續。這個相續在後來的時間裡，各自別別地生起，這叫做轉變。這個相續無間斷地產生結果時，其功力和作用勝過之前，這叫做差別。』例如，取識作為命終的心，在這個心之前雖然有種種感受後有的業，但在此時只有極重的、或者只有串習的、或者接近完成的作業，其感受果報的功力和作用才顯著，而不是其他的。（這與《對法論》相同。這裡面有問題，如果不是極重的、不是串習的、不是接近完成的作業，此時成熟的，難道不顯著嗎？） 論：又，不是自己所作，乃至身語業道。這是爲了破斥第四種觀點。由於最初的加行，使者依靠能教者所教導的內容完成時，自然而然地，能教者相續的心上種子轉變，直到產生結果時，功能和作用產生差別。由此，將來能夠感受多種果報。這個差別是從身語業產生的，爲了方便，將果立為因的名字，所以叫做身語業道。實際上不是身語自己所作的究竟。應當知道，無表業也叫做業道，也是取果報來命名原因，而不是身語業。 論：然而，大德說，乃至真正殺害之後。這是敘述不同的觀點，這是達磨多羅（Dharmatrata）的觀點。 論：不僅僅因為這樣，乃至成為無間業。論主破斥說，不僅僅因為思考之後做了殺害等行為的理解，就成為業道。如果真的殺了母親，產生了殺母親的理解，就應該成為無間業。既然這不能成立，那麼僅僅因為思考就成為業道，怎麼可能呢？ 論：然而，對於自己所造作的，乃至並非不應道理。論主容許自己所作的一部分，由於思考而成為業道。 論：為什麼對於無表，乃至轉變差別？這是有部責備經部的情感偏頗。 論：然而，這與那，乃至不令人歡喜。這是回答不許可無表的原因。 論：如果由此引導，乃至未來果報的緣故。這是回答許可經部宗派的原因。 論：又，先前已經說過了。
【English Translation】 English version:
Also. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'One should ask: What is called continuity here? What is called transformation? What is called difference?' They answer thus: 'Thinking and karma are prior, and subsequent minds arise, which is called continuity. This continuity arises separately at later times, which is called transformation. This uninterrupted continuity, when it produces results, its power and function surpass the previous ones, which is called difference.' For example, taking consciousness as the mind at the end of life, although there are various karmas that feel the subsequent existence before this mind, only the extremely heavy, or only the habitual, or the nearly completed actions have significant power and function to feel the results at this time, not the others. (This is the same as the Abhidharma. There is a problem here: if it is not extremely heavy, not habitual, not nearly completed actions, are those that mature at this time not significant?) Treatise: Furthermore, it is not self-made, up to the karmic paths of body and speech. This is to refute the fourth view. Because of the initial effort, when the messenger completes what the instructor teaches, naturally, the seeds on the instructor's continuous mind transform until the function and effect differentiate when the result is produced. Therefore, it can feel multiple results in the future. This difference arises from the karmas of body and speech. For convenience, the result is established as the name of the cause, so it is called the karmic path of body and speech. In reality, it is not the ultimate self-made by body and speech. It should be known that the unmanifested karma is also called the karmic path, which also takes the result to name the cause, not the karma of body and speech. Treatise: However, the great worthy said, up to truly killing. This is narrating different views. This is the view of Dharmatrata (達磨多羅). Treatise: Not only because of this, up to becoming an uninterrupted karma. The treatise master refutes, saying: 'Not only because of thinking and then doing the understanding of killing, etc., does it become a karmic path. If one really kills one's mother and has the understanding of killing one's mother, it should become an uninterrupted karma. Since this cannot be established, how can it become a karmic path merely because of thinking?' Treatise: However, for what is self-made, up to it is not unreasonable. The treatise master allows that a portion of what is self-made becomes a karmic path due to thinking. Treatise: Why for the unmanifested, up to transformation and difference? This is the Sarvāstivāda (有部) blaming the Sautrāntika's (經部) emotional bias. Treatise: However, this and that, up to not making one happy. This is the answer for not allowing the unmanifested. Treatise: If guided by this, up to the cause of future results. This is the answer allowing the Sautrāntika (經部) school. Treatise: Moreover, it has already been said before.
經部引前說證。
論。先說者何。有部問也。
論。謂表業既無寧有無表等。經部答也。
論。又說法處至法處攝色。破第五證。如文可解。
論。又言道支應無八者。此牒第六證也。
論。且彼應說至求依等不。經部反問有部。
論。不爾。有部答。
論。云何。經部徴也。
論。由彼便得至立語業命名。有部答也。
論。若爾云何至八聖道支。經部準有部釋自宗義名正語．業．命。
正理破云。彼釋不然。應正見等同此釋故。謂正見等亦應可為如是計度。雖在道位無正見等。而得如斯意樂依正故。出觀後由前勢力起正見等耶見等無。以于因中立果名故。可具安立八聖道支。然非觀中無正見等。若無正見等。道亦應無故。由如是理對法諸師應作是例。如正見等正在道時實有自體。亦應實有正語．業．命諸無漏戒。
論。有餘師言至故名無漏。述經部異師釋。
論。非一切處至此亦應然。異師引例釋也。此師意說。由聖道力便能獲得決定不作三耶名正語等。無別體性。此定不作依無漏道故名無漏。非別有法。如八世法不得衣等。此之不得無別體性。
論。別解脫律儀至別解脫律儀。破第七證。此亦準前由意樂力。謂由思願力先立要
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 經部引用之前的說法來證明。
論：先前的說法是什麼？有部提問。
論：意思是如果表業都不存在，怎麼會有無表業等呢？經部回答。
論：又說法處乃至法處所攝的色。駁斥第五個證據。如文字所表達的意思一樣可以理解。
論：又說如果這樣，道支就不應該有八個了。這是針對第六個證據的複述。
論：那麼他們應該說乃至尋求所依等嗎？經部反問有部。
論：不是這樣的。有部回答。
論：為什麼呢？經部質問。
論：因為那樣就可以建立語業，並給它命名。有部回答。
論：如果這樣，那又該如何解釋八聖道支呢？經部按照有部的解釋，來解釋自己宗派關於正語（samyag-vāc），正業（samyak-karmānta），正命（samyag-ājīva）的定義。
正理反駁說：他們的解釋不對。因為正見（samyag-dṛṣṭi）等也應該用同樣的解釋。也就是說，正見等也應該可以這樣推測：即使在修道的階段沒有正見等，也能獲得這樣的意樂，依靠正的緣故。出觀之後，由於之前的力量而生起正見等，耶見等不存在。因為在因中就安立了果的名字，所以可以完整地安立八聖道支。然而，並非在觀中就沒有正見等。如果沒有正見等，道也就不應該存在了。由於這樣的道理，對法論師們應該這樣舉例：就像正見等在修道時確實有自體一樣，也應該確實有正語、正業、正命等無漏戒。
論：有其他論師說乃至所以稱為無漏。敘述經部其他論師的解釋。
論：不是所有的地方乃至這裡也應該這樣。這位論師引用例子來解釋。這位論師的意思是說，由於聖道的力量，就能獲得決定不作三種惡業的誓言，所以稱為正語等，沒有別的體性。這種決定不作的誓言，依靠無漏道，所以稱為無漏，並非是另外一種法。就像八世法不能得到衣服等一樣，這種不能得到沒有別的體性。
論：別解脫律儀乃至別解脫律儀。駁斥第七個證據。這也和前面一樣，是由於意樂的力量。也就是說，由於思愿的力量，先立下要約
【English Translation】 English version: The Sautrāntika school cites previous statements as proof.
Treatise: What is meant by 'previous statements'? This is a question from the Sarvāstivāda school.
Treatise: Meaning if 'manifest action' (表業) does not exist, how can 'non-manifest action' (無表業) etc. exist? This is the answer from the Sautrāntika school.
Treatise: Furthermore, the 'sphere of dharma' (法處) up to the 'form included in the sphere of dharma' (法處攝色). Refutes the fifth proof. It can be understood as the text expresses.
Treatise: Also, saying that if this were the case, there should not be eight 'limbs of the path' (道支). This is a restatement of the sixth proof.
Treatise: Then, should they say up to 'seeking reliance' (求依) etc.? The Sautrāntika school asks the Sarvāstivāda school in return.
Treatise: Not so. The Sarvāstivāda school answers.
Treatise: Why? The Sautrāntika school questions.
Treatise: Because in that way, 'verbal action' (語業) can be established, and it can be named. The Sarvāstivāda school answers.
Treatise: If that's the case, how should the eight 'noble limbs of the path' (八聖道支) be explained? The Sautrāntika school, according to the Sarvāstivāda school's explanation, explains its own school's definitions of 'right speech' (samyag-vāc), 'right action' (samyak-karmānta), and 'right livelihood' (samyag-ājīva).
The Nyāya refutes, saying: Their explanation is not correct. Because 'right view' (samyag-dṛṣṭi) etc. should also be explained in the same way. That is to say, 'right view' etc. should also be able to be inferred in this way: even if there is no 'right view' etc. during the stage of cultivation, one can still obtain such intention, relying on the right cause. After emerging from meditation, 'right view' etc. arise due to the power of the previous cause, and wrong views etc. do not exist. Because the name of the result is established in the cause, the eight 'noble limbs of the path' can be completely established. However, it is not the case that there is no 'right view' etc. during meditation. If there is no 'right view' etc., the path should also not exist. Due to such reasoning, the Dharma masters should give this example: just as 'right view' etc. truly have self-nature when cultivating the path, there should also truly be 'right speech', 'right action', 'right livelihood', and other undefiled precepts.
Treatise: Other teachers say up to therefore it is called undefiled. Describes the explanation of other teachers of the Sautrāntika school.
Treatise: Not in all places up to it should also be like this here. This teacher cites an example to explain. This teacher means to say that due to the power of the noble path, one can obtain the vow to definitely not commit the three evil deeds, therefore it is called 'right speech' etc., without any other self-nature. This vow to definitely not commit evil deeds relies on the undefiled path, therefore it is called undefiled, not a separate dharma. Just as the eight worldly dharmas cannot obtain clothing etc., this inability to obtain has no other self-nature.
Treatise: Prātimokṣa vows up to Prātimokṣa vows. Refutes the seventh proof. This is also the same as before, due to the power of intention. That is to say, due to the power of thought and desire, one first establishes an agreement.
期能定遮防身．語惡業。由斯故立別解脫律儀。準此意樂即是思愿。
論。若起異緣心至憶便止故。通有部難。
論。戒為堤塘至由心受持。破第八證。由心受持力遮防破戒惡法不生。非別無表。
論。若由無表至而破戒者。反難有部。若由無表遮防惡戒由如堤塘。堤塘不斷。如何失念而有破戒。
論。且止此等至是我所宗。止諍歸宗。破已覆宗。非是實取有部義也。
論。前說無表大種所造性。已下大文第二明能造大 于中有三。一表．無表大種同．異。二明造時同．異。三約地同．異。此即第一。
論曰至異大種生。答也。
論。所以者何。徴也。
論。從一和合至不應理故。釋也。
論。如表與大至為有差別。下第二明造時同．異。
論。一切所造色多與大種俱時而生(謂一切有對造色及作俱無表)。然現在未來亦有少分依過去者(作后無表)。
論。少分者何。問也。下半行頌。答也。
論曰至從過去大生。釋頌文也。初一念是作俱無表。第二念已去是作后無表。作俱無表從現大生。后念無表從過大生。此雖云從過去大生。非是大種於過去世造現．未色。此是作俱大種住現在時。懸造未來諸念無表落過去世。現．未無表依之而起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 期能決定遮止和防禦由語言產生的惡業。因此，才設立了別解脫律儀（Pratimoksha，佛教戒律）。按照這個意思理解，意樂（Adhimukti，勝解，強烈的意願）就是思愿。
論：如果因為其他原因導致心念停止，直到回憶起來才停止，這對於有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派）來說是一個難題。
論：戒律如同堤壩，能夠通過內心受持的力量來遮止和防禦破戒的惡法產生，並非是另外存在一個無表色（Avijñapti-rupa，不可知色）。
論：如果因為無表色遮防惡戒如同堤壩，堤壩沒有斷裂，那麼怎麼會因為失念而破戒呢？
論：先停止這些爭論，迴歸我的宗義。停止爭論，迴歸本宗。這並不是真正採納有部的觀點。
論：前面說過無表色是大種（Mahabhuta，四大元素）所造的性質。下面開始第二大段，說明能造的大種，其中有三點：一、表色（Vijnapti-rupa，表色）和無表色的大種的同與異；二、說明造作時的同與異；三、從地（Bhumi，境界）的角度說明同與異。這裡是第一點。
論曰：……不同的四大種產生不同的色法。回答。
論：為什麼這樣說？提問。
論：從一個和合的四大種中，不能同時產生不同的色法，這是不合理的。解釋。
論：表色和大種之間有什麼差別？下面第二點，說明造作時的同與異。
論：一切所造的色法，大多與大種同時產生（指一切有對造色和作俱無表）。然而，現在和未來也有少部分是依靠過去的（作后無表）。
論：少部分是什麼？提問。下面半行頌文，回答。
論曰：……從過去的大種產生。解釋頌文。最初一念是作俱無表，第二念以后是作后無表。作俱無表從現在的大種產生，后念無表從過去的大種產生。雖然說從過去的大種產生，但並不是說大種在過去世造作現在和未來的色法。這是作俱大種住在現在時，預先造作未來諸唸的無表色，落入過去世，現在和未來的無表色依靠它而產生。
【English Translation】 English version: It is hoped that it can definitely prevent and defend against evil karma arising from speech. Therefore, the Pratimoksha (Buddhist precepts) is established. According to this meaning, Adhimukti (strong aspiration) is the thought and wish.
Treatise: If the mind stops due to other reasons, and only stops when it is recalled, this is a difficulty for the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school).
Treatise: Precepts are like dikes, which can prevent and defend against the arising of evil deeds that break the precepts through the power of inner adherence, and there is no separate Avijñapti-rupa (unmanifested form).
Treatise: If Avijñapti-rupa prevents evil precepts like a dike, and the dike is not broken, then how can one break the precepts due to forgetfulness?
Treatise: Let's stop these disputes and return to my doctrine. Stop the dispute and return to the sect. This is not really adopting the views of the Sarvastivada.
Treatise: It was previously said that Avijñapti-rupa is the nature created by the Mahabhuta (the four great elements). The following is the second major section, explaining the Mahabhuta that can create, which has three points: 1. The similarities and differences between Vijnapti-rupa (manifested form) and Avijñapti-rupa in terms of Mahabhuta; 2. Explaining the similarities and differences in the time of creation; 3. Explaining the similarities and differences from the perspective of Bhumi (stage). This is the first point.
Treatise says: ... Different Mahabhutas produce different forms. Answer.
Treatise: Why is this so? Question.
Treatise: It is unreasonable to produce different forms from one combined Mahabhuta. Explanation.
Treatise: What is the difference between Vijnapti-rupa and Mahabhuta? The second point below explains the similarities and differences in the time of creation.
Treatise: Most of the created forms are produced simultaneously with the Mahabhuta (referring to all perceptible created forms and the co-occurring Avijñapti-rupa). However, there are also a few in the present and future that rely on the past (subsequent Avijñapti-rupa).
Treatise: What are the few? Question. The following half-line verse, answer.
Treatise says: ... Produced from the past Mahabhuta. Explaining the verse. The first moment is the co-occurring Avijñapti-rupa, and the second moment onwards is the subsequent Avijñapti-rupa. The co-occurring Avijñapti-rupa is produced from the present Mahabhuta, and the subsequent Avijñapti-rupa is produced from the past Mahabhuta. Although it is said to be produced from the past Mahabhuta, it does not mean that the Mahabhuta created the present and future forms in the past. This is because the co-occurring Mahabhuta resides in the present, pre-creating the Avijñapti-rupa of future thoughts, which falls into the past, and the present and future Avijñapti-rupa arise relying on it.
。
論。此為所依至手地為依。明無表色依有二種 一為所依。即是能造無表大種 二但為依。即是造身余色大種 前為轉因。如手轉輪 后為隨轉因如地為輪依 問表與無表大種不同。如前已釋不勞重述 未知。作俱無表。與其後唸作后無表。為同一大。為別大耶。又后念無表有多剎那。為同一大。為各別耶 有人釋此三解不同。不評是非還同未解 第一解云。造后諸無表即用造初無表大種。乃至。故婆沙一百三十二云。若成就現世大種。彼現在所造色耶 答如是 設成就現所造色。彼現在大種耶 答如是 以非現在大種無果故。亦非現在所造色無因故 自解云。以非現在大種無果故。所以必成現所造色。亦非現所造色無因故必成就大種。以此故知。現無別大造未來無表 今詳。引此論文為證不定。此論文據有對色說。不是無對色據。生因大種非是依因。依因非是造色義故。細粗之色非一因故。不可別有依因大故。既約造大后念無表現在成就之時。不成現造大種。能造大種現在成就之時。不成未來所造色故。如何引此論文。證初念無表與后無表同一大造。此釋雖不違理。誤引論文以為過也 第二釋云。一具四大造初念無表。即於此時。別有一具四大造彼后念諸無表色。正理第二十解大種望所造色非俱有因中雲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
論：這裡所說的『所依』是指作為憑藉的『至手地』。『明無表色』的『依』有兩種：一是『所依』，即能夠產生無表色的大種（mahābhūta）；二是『但為依』，即產生身體其他色法的大種。前者是『轉因』，就像手轉動輪子；後者是『隨轉因』，就像土地是輪子的依靠。問：表色（vijñapti-rūpa）與無表色（avijñapti-rūpa）的大種不同，如前已解釋，不再重複。未知：在產生俱生無表色時，與其後念產生後來的無表色，是同一大種，還是不同的大種？又，后唸的無表色有多個剎那，是同一大種，還是各自不同的大種？
有人對此有三種不同的解釋，我不評論其是非，因為這和沒有解釋一樣。第一種解釋說：產生後來的所有無表色，就是用最初產生的無表色的大種。乃至，《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第一百三十二卷說：『如果成就了現世的大種，那麼它現在所產生的色法嗎？』答：『是的。』『如果成就了現在所產生的色法，那麼它現在的大種嗎？』答：『是的。』因為不是現在的大種沒有結果，也不是現在所產生的色法沒有原因。自解說：因為不是現在的大種沒有結果，所以必定成就現在所產生的色法；也不是現在所產生的色法沒有原因，所以必定成就大種。因此可知，現在沒有別的大種產生未來的無表色。
現在詳細分析，引用這段論文作為證據並不確定。這段論文是根據有對色（sa-pratigha-rūpa）說的，不是無對色（a-pratigha-rūpa）。生因大種（janaka-mahābhūta）不是依因（āśraya-hetu），依因不是產生色法的意義。細色和粗色不是同一個原因。不可另外有依因大種。既然是關於產生大種后，后念無表現在成就之時，不成現在產生的大種；能產生的大種現在成就之時，不成未來所產生的色法。如何引用這段論文，證明初念無表與后無表是同一大種產生的？這種解釋雖然不違背道理，但誤用論文是它的過失。第二種解釋說：一具四大（catvāro mahābhūtāḥ）產生初念無表，就在此時，另外有一具四大產生那后唸的各種無表色。《正理》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya）第二十卷解釋大種對於所產生的色法不是俱有因（sahabhū-hetu）時說：
【English Translation】 English version:
Treatise: Here, 'that which is relied upon' refers to the 'hand-earth' as a basis. The 'basis' of 'manifest and non-manifest form' has two types: first, 'that which is relied upon,' which is the great elements (mahābhūta) that can produce non-manifest form; second, 'merely the basis,' which is the great elements that produce the rest of the body's form. The former is the 'turning cause,' like a hand turning a wheel; the latter is the 'following turning cause,' like the earth being the support for the wheel. Question: The great elements of manifest form (vijñapti-rūpa) and non-manifest form (avijñapti-rūpa) are different, as explained before, so there's no need to repeat it. Unknown: When producing co-arisen non-manifest form, is the subsequent thought producing later non-manifest form the same great element or a different great element? Also, the subsequent thought's non-manifest form has multiple kshanas (kṣaṇa, moments); is it the same great element or separate great elements?
Some people have three different explanations for this, but I won't comment on their right or wrong, because it's the same as not explaining it. The first explanation says: all the non-manifest forms produced later use the great elements that produced the initial non-manifest form. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra), volume 132, says: 'If one achieves the present-world great elements, then is it the form produced by it now?' Answer: 'Yes.' 'If one achieves the form produced now, then is it the great elements now?' Answer: 'Yes.' Because great elements that are not present have no result, and form produced now has no cause. The self-explanation says: Because great elements that are not present have no result, it must achieve the form produced now; and form produced now has no cause, so it must achieve the great elements. Therefore, it can be known that there are no separate great elements now producing future non-manifest form.
Now, analyzing in detail, quoting this passage as evidence is uncertain. This passage is based on forms with resistance (sa-pratigha-rūpa), not forms without resistance (a-pratigha-rūpa). The generating cause great element (janaka-mahābhūta) is not the relying cause (āśraya-hetu), and the relying cause is not the meaning of producing form. Subtle and coarse forms are not the same cause. There cannot be a separate relying cause great element. Since it is about producing great elements, when the subsequent thought's non-manifest form is achieved now, it does not become the great element produced now; when the great element that can produce is achieved now, it does not become the future form produced. How can this passage be quoted to prove that the initial thought's non-manifest form and the subsequent non-manifest form are produced by the same great element? Although this explanation does not violate reason, misusing the passage is its fault. The second explanation says: One set of four great elements (catvāro mahābhūtāḥ) produces the initial thought's non-manifest form, and at this very moment, another set of four great elements produces those subsequent thoughts' various non-manifest forms. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, volume 20, explains that the great elements are not coexistent causes (sahabhū-hetu) for the forms they produce, saying:
。謂有成就所造色非四大種。或有成就能造大種非所造色。自解云。以此文證。有成就能造非所造色。故知亦有現在大種無現在所造色。懸造未來 今詳。此釋違其理．教及所引文。亦非成證。言違理者。何因后念無量剎那同一大造。初念無表有何別因異大造耶。論但自云細粗因別。而無有文現．未別因。言違教者。正理正解此文中雲。謂欲界所繫初念無表。與能生大種俱時而生(準此。即造初念無表大種所造無表俱時而生)。此大種生已能為一切未來自相續無表生因(準此。即是此前能生初念無表大種。能為一切未來自相續無表色生因。無表生因即是造義)。此與初剎那無表俱滅已第二念等無表生時。一切皆是前過去大所造。此過大種為後後念無表所依能引發故。與後後念無表俱起身中大種但能為依。此大種若無。無表不轉故(準此。即是此前能生初念無表大種。更不說別有大種造未來色) 言引論文不成證者。正理論云。成就能造非所造者 此望未來所造色說 非成就一切所造。望法不同以為句數。如何引此以為證耶 第三解云。一具四大造初無表。即於此時復起眾多大種。懸造未來無表。剎那剎那四大別造。自問答云。一期無表其數極多。如何現在一剎那身。容彼眾多能造四大。然自解云。異熟虛疏相容無失
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有人說，存在著已經成就的、作為所造色的事物，它不是由四大種（地、水、火、風四種基本元素）構成的。或者說，存在著已經成就的、能夠造作四大種的事物，它不是所造色。有人自己解釋說：『用這段經文可以證明，存在著已經成就的、能夠造作但不是所造色的事物。因此可知，也存在著現在的大種，它沒有現在的所造色，而是懸設造作未來的所造色。』 現在詳細分析。這種解釋違背了道理、教義以及所引用的經文，也不能成立。說它違背道理，是因為什麼原因導致后唸的無量剎那與同一個大種的造作相關聯？初唸的無表色（無表業，即無法用視覺等感官直接感知的業力）有什麼特別的原因，導致它與不同的大種造作相關聯呢？論中只是說細微和粗大的原因不同，但沒有經文說明現在和未來的原因不同。 說它違背教義，是因為《正理論》正確地解釋這段經文時說：『所謂的欲界所繫縛的初念無表，與能夠產生大種的事物同時產生（按照這個說法，就是造作初念無表的大種與所造的無表同時產生）。』這個大種產生后，能夠作為一切未來自身相續的無表產生的因（按照這個說法，就是此前能夠產生初念無表的大種，能夠作為一切未來自身相續的無表色產生的因。無表產生的因就是造作的含義）。這個大種與初剎那的無表一同滅亡后，當第二念等無表產生時，一切都是前過去的大種所造作的。這是因為大種作為後後念無表的所依，能夠引發它們。與後後念無表一同起身中的大種只能作為所依。如果這個大種不存在，無表就無法運轉（按照這個說法，就是此前能夠產生初念無表的大種，更沒有說另外有大種造作未來的色）。 說引用經文不能成立，是因為《正理論》說：『已經成就的、能夠造作但不是所造色的事物』，這是針對未來所造色而言的，不是成就一切所造。因為觀察的角度不同，所以構成了不同的語句。怎麼能引用這個作為證據呢？ 第三種解釋是：一個具備四大種的事物造作最初的無表，就在這個時候又產生眾多的大種，懸設造作未來的無表。剎那剎那，四大種分別造作。有人自己提問並回答說：『一期（一生）的無表數量極多，現在一個剎那的身體，怎麼能容納那麼多能夠造作的四大種呢？』然後自己解釋說：『異熟（果報）是虛疏的，相互容納沒有問題。』
【English Translation】 English version: Some say that there are accomplished 'rupa' (form) that are 'nirmana-rupa' (created form) but are not the four 'maha-bhutas' (great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind). Or that there are accomplished 'maha-bhutas' that can create but are not 'nirmana-rupa'. One self-explanation is: 'This passage proves that there are accomplished creators that are not created forms. Therefore, it is known that there are also present 'maha-bhutas' that do not have present created forms, but rather provisionally create future forms.' Now, in detail, this explanation contradicts reason, doctrine, and the cited text, and is not valid proof. It contradicts reason because what causes countless moments of subsequent thought to be associated with the creation of the same 'maha-bhuta'? What special cause does the initial 'avyakta' (unmanifested karma) have that it is associated with the creation of a different 'maha-bhuta'? The treatise only states that subtle and coarse causes are different, but there is no text stating that present and future causes are different. It contradicts doctrine because the 'Nyaya-sutra' (treatise on logic) correctly explains this passage by saying: 'The initial 'avyakta' bound to the desire realm arises simultaneously with the things that can produce the 'maha-bhutas' (according to this, the 'maha-bhuta' that creates the initial 'avyakta' and the created 'avyakta' arise simultaneously).' After this 'maha-bhuta' arises, it can serve as the cause for the arising of all future 'avyakta' in its own continuum (according to this, the 'maha-bhuta' that can produce the initial 'avyakta' can serve as the cause for the arising of all future 'avyakta-rupa' in its own continuum. The cause of the arising of 'avyakta' is the meaning of creation). After this 'maha-bhuta' and the 'avyakta' of the initial moment perish together, when the 'avyakta' of the second moment and so on arise, everything is created by the 'maha-bhutas' of the past. This is because the 'maha-bhuta' serves as the basis for the 'avyakta' of subsequent moments and can trigger them. The 'maha-bhutas' in the body that arise together with the 'avyakta' of subsequent moments can only serve as the basis. If this 'maha-bhuta' does not exist, the 'avyakta' cannot function (according to this, the 'maha-bhuta' that can produce the initial 'avyakta' does not say that there are other 'maha-bhutas' that create future 'rupa'). The citation of the text is not valid proof because the 'Nyaya-sutra' says: 'Accomplished creators that are not created forms' refers to future created forms, not the accomplishment of all created things. Because the perspectives are different, they constitute different statements. How can this be cited as evidence? The third explanation is: A thing possessing the four 'maha-bhutas' creates the initial 'avyakta', and at this time, many 'maha-bhutas' arise again, provisionally creating future 'avyakta'. Moment by moment, the four 'maha-bhutas' create separately. Someone asks and answers: 'The number of 'avyakta' in one lifetime is extremely large. How can the body of one moment now accommodate so many creating 'maha-bhutas'?' Then they explain: 'The 'vipaka' (karmic result) is sparse, and there is no problem with mutual accommodation.'
今詳。此釋違其教理。復無文證。言違教者。如前所引正理論文。言違理者。準俱舍師釋剎那。云如有動物度一極微名一剎那。準此。日輪一日一夜週四天下。所度極微數無邊故。即是剎那不可勝數。若依日夜三十須臾。剎那有六百四十餘萬。以日計月。以月計年。以年計劫。剎那剎那無量無邊。一一剎那有七具四大。一一大種復有七微。即是於一剎那有二十八微。計其根色虛疏。尚不得容造一日一夜無表四大極微。如何得容百年八萬歲等 無文證者。凡所立義須引教．理。既違教無文。何成釋義 雖釋此義三解不同。不評是非何殊不解 今詳教理。造初念無表。與后念無表同一大造。理教分明。不可違拒。如前所述。此論以轉因聲同造因也。轉之言起。此色因過去能造大起故是轉因。依現身大種故。故是隨轉因。如輪轉時因手而轉。亦依地轉 婆沙一百三十三云。有色現在非現在大種所造。謂現在大種若色現在過去大種所造。此復云何。謂現在表所起無表過去大種所造。所以如前說。問此無表色亦有現在所依大種。何故不說耶答彼是轉依非造依故。此無表色有二種依。一是轉依。謂現在大種由彼力轉故。二是造依。謂過去大種由彼力造故。此中但說造依不說轉依。是故不說能造五因。皆過去故(解云。婆沙與此論及
正理。名雖少異其義同也)。
論。何地身．語業何地大所造。自此已下。第三約地明造同．異。
論曰至大種所造。此釋有漏自地依也。有漏之色系自地故。還用自地大種所造。亦由自地有大種故。不用他地大種所造 問身在下地起上定時。用下地身中上地大造。上地多色其四大種為在何處 答婆沙一百三十四云。問若生欲界色界大種現在前時。何處現前 有說眉間 有說鼻端 有說心邊 有說臍邊 有說足指 有作是說。隨先加行安心處所是處現前 有餘師說。欲界大種粗。色界大種細。細入粗隙如油入沙。然根本靜慮現在前時。色界大種遍身內起若近分定現在前時。色界大種唯心邊起 有說。近分定現在前色界大種亦遍身起。然長養身不如根本。如有二人俱詣池浴。一在池側掬水浴身。一入池中浸身而洗。二人用水雖俱遍身。然長養身入池者勝 后解為勝。隨定勝劣皆遍身故。
論。若身．語業至無漏生故。此釋無漏隨生處也。若無漏者依五地身。隨生此地應起現前。即用此地四大所造 以無漏法不繫界故。所以不用同地大造。必無大種是無漏故。無無漏大造無漏色 由所依力無漏生故。即用彼隨身四大所造。
論。此表無表其類是何。已下兩頌。大文第三明執受類別。
論曰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 正理。（名稱雖然略有不同，但意義相同）。
論：什麼地上的身、語業，什麼地上的大種所造？從這裡開始，第三部分是關於不同地之間造作的相同和不同之處。
論曰：乃至大種所造。這是解釋有漏的自地所依。有漏的色屬於自地，所以還是用自地的大種所造。也因為自地有大種的緣故，不用他地的大種所造。問：身在下地，起上定時，用下地身中上地的大種造作，上地的色多，那四大種在哪裡呢？答：婆沙第一百三十四卷說：問：如果生在欲界，色界的大種現在前時，在哪裡現前？有人說在眉間，有人說在鼻端，有人說在心邊，有人說在臍邊，有人說在足指。有人這樣說：隨著先前加行安心的處所，那個地方就現前。有其他老師說：欲界的大種粗，色界的大種細，細的進入粗的縫隙，就像油進入沙子一樣。然而根本靜慮現在前時，色界的大種遍佈全身內起；如果近分定現在前時，色界的大種只在心邊起。有人說，近分定現在前時，色界的大種也遍佈全身起，然而長養身體不如根本定。如有兩個人一起去池塘洗澡，一個在池塘邊舀水洗身，一個進入池中浸身而洗。兩個人用水雖然都遍佈全身，然而長養身體進入池中的人更勝一籌。后一種解釋更為殊勝，因為無論定力是強是弱，都遍佈全身。
論：若身、語業乃至無漏生故。這是解釋無漏隨生之處。如果無漏法依五地之身，隨著生在此地，就應該現前，即用此地的四大所造。因為無漏法不屬於任何界，所以不用同地的大種造作。必定沒有大種是無漏的，沒有無漏的大種造作無漏的色。由於所依的力量，無漏法產生，即用那隨身的四大所造。
論：此表無表，其類別是什麼？以下兩頌，大文第三，說明執受的類別。
論曰：
【English Translation】 English version: The principle is correct. (Although the names are slightly different, their meanings are the same).
Treatise: What realm's body and speech karma, and what realm's great elements are the cause? From here onwards, the third part explains the similarities and differences in creation among different realms.
Treatise says: Up to that produced by the great elements. This explains the dependent origination of the self-realm of the contaminated. Because the form of the contaminated belongs to its own realm, it is still produced by the great elements of its own realm. Also, because its own realm has great elements, it is not produced by the great elements of other realms. Question: When the body is in a lower realm and enters a higher realm's samadhi, it uses the great elements of the higher realm within the body of the lower realm to create it. The form of the higher realm is abundant, so where are the four great elements? Answer: Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa-sastra) volume 134 says: Question: If one is born in the desire realm, when the great elements of the form realm manifest, where do they manifest? Some say between the eyebrows, some say at the tip of the nose, some say at the edge of the heart, some say at the edge of the navel, some say at the toes. Some say that wherever one first applies effort and focuses the mind, that is where it manifests. Other teachers say that the great elements of the desire realm are coarse, and the great elements of the form realm are subtle. The subtle enters the gaps of the coarse, like oil entering sand. However, when fundamental dhyana (meditative absorption) manifests, the great elements of the form realm arise throughout the body; if proximate concentration manifests, the great elements of the form realm only arise at the edge of the heart. Some say that when proximate concentration manifests, the great elements of the form realm also arise throughout the body, but nourishing the body is not as good as fundamental dhyana. It is like two people going to a pond to bathe. One scoops water at the edge of the pond to bathe the body, and the other enters the pond to immerse the body and wash. Although both use water throughout the body, nourishing the body is better for the one who enters the pond. The latter explanation is superior because whether the power of concentration is strong or weak, it pervades the entire body.
Treatise: If body and speech karma, up to that produced by the unconditioned. This explains where the unconditioned arises. If the unconditioned depends on the body of the five realms, it should manifest as it arises in this realm, that is, it is produced by the four great elements of this realm. Because the unconditioned dharma does not belong to any realm, it is not produced by the great elements of the same realm. Certainly, there are no great elements that are unconditioned, and no unconditioned great elements produce unconditioned form. Because of the power of the dependent origination, the unconditioned arises, that is, it is produced by the four great elements that accompany the body.
Treatise: What are the categories of manifested and unmanifested? The following two verses, the third major section, explain the categories of appropriation.
Treatise says:
至無變礙故。此釋無表非執受也。
論。亦等流性至謂同類因生。釋無表五類也 亦言。顯彼兼有剎那。即是若法智忍俱時道共戒也。唯善．不善故非異熟生。無極微集故非所長養。同類因生故有等流性。與苦忍俱故故亦剎那。是有為法故故非實事。
論。此唯有情依內起故。釋無表業是有情也。
論。于中欲界至大種所造。明散無表所依大種唯是等流性。同類因生故。非所長養。因等起心不能長養能生無表諸大種故。非是異熟因所生故非異熟。非無漏故非剎那。是有為故非實事 問此大種是誰等流果。正理論云。如是說者。從無始來定有能造無對造色已滅大種為同類因能生今時等流大種。造有表業大種亦應是無始來同類大種之等流果非從異類 又云 何緣定心所生無表。是無別異大種所生。散無表生依別異大 定生無表七支相望展轉力生同一果故唯從一具四大種生。散此相違故依異大 問如不殺戒對多有情各一不殺。為同四大。為別四大 答同一大種。正理論云。雖對別異有情相續發多無貪所生無表。而但一具大種為因以所生果類無別故 疑曰。此多無貪所生無表非是一果。如何用同大造。
論。定生無表至無差別故。此釋二種定生。並唯依定心所長養大種所生。以定心俱必有殊勝長養大
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『至無變礙故』。這是解釋無表業不是執受色。
論：『亦等流性至謂同類因生。』這是解釋無表業的五種性質。『亦』字，顯示它兼有剎那性。也就是如果法智忍同時生起，就是道共戒。唯有善和不善，所以不是異熟生。沒有極微的積聚，所以不是所長養。同類因所生，所以具有等流性。與苦忍同時生起，所以也是剎那生滅。是有為法，所以不是實事。
論：『此唯有情依內起故。』這是解釋無表業是有情所依。
論：『于中欲界至大種所造。』說明散無表所依的大種只是等流性。因為是同類因所生，所以不是所長養。因為因等起心不能長養能生無表的諸大種。不是異熟因所生，所以不是異熟果。不是無漏法，所以不是剎那生滅。是有為法，所以不是實事。問：這種大種是誰的等流果？正理論說：『如果這樣說，從無始以來，一定有能造無對造色已滅的大種作為同類因，能生起現在等流的大種。』造有表業的大種也應該是無始以來同類大種的等流果，而不是從異類產生。又說：『為什麼定心所生的無表，是由沒有差別的大種所生？散心所生的無表，依於差別的大種？』定心所生的無表，七支相互觀望，展轉生力，產生同一果，所以只從一具四大種所生。散心則與此相反，所以依于不同的大種。問：比如不殺戒，對於多個有情，各有一個不殺的無表，是由同一四大種所生，還是由不同四大種所生？答：由同一大種所生。正理論說：『雖然對於不同有情相續，生起多個無貪所生的無表，但只以一具大種為因，因為所生之果沒有差別。』疑問：這多個無貪所生的無表不是一個果，如何用同一大種所造？
論：『定生無表至無差別故。』這是解釋兩種定心所生的無表，都是依靠定心所長養的大種所生。因為與定心相應，必定有殊勝的長養力。
【English Translation】 English version '至無變礙故 (zhì wú biàn ài gù)' (Therefore, there is no change or obstruction). This explains that wubiao ye (無表業) [non-manifest karma] is not zhishou se (執受色) [sense-organs].
Treatise: '亦等流性至謂同類因生 (yì děng liú xìng zhì wèi tóng lèi yīn shēng)' (Also, the nature of dengliuxing [homogeneous flow] means it is produced from similar causes). This explains the five natures of wubiao ye. The word '亦 (yì)' [also] indicates that it also possesses chana (剎那) [momentariness]. That is, if fazhiren (法智忍) [wisdom and forbearance of the Dharma] arise simultaneously, it is daogongjie (道共戒) [morality arising from the path]. It is only good and unwholesome, so it is not yishusheng (異熟生) [resultant-born]. It does not have an accumulation of jiwei (極微) [ultimate particles], so it is not suochangyang (所長養) [nourished]. It is produced from similar causes, so it has the nature of dengliuxing. It arises simultaneously with kuren (苦忍) [forbearance of suffering], so it is also momentary. It is a conditioned phenomenon, so it is not a real entity.
Treatise: '此唯有情依內起故 (cǐ wéi yǒu qíng yī nèi qǐ gù)' (This only arises internally depending on sentient beings). This explains that wubiao ye is dependent on sentient beings.
Treatise: '于中欲界至大種所造 (yú zhōng yù jiè zhì dà zhǒng suǒ zào)' (Among them, the desire realm is created by the dazhong [great elements]). It clarifies that the dazhong on which scattered wubiao ye depends is only of the nature of dengliuxing. Because it is produced from similar causes, it is not suochangyang. Because the mind arising from causes cannot nourish the dazhong that can produce wubiao ye. It is not produced from yishu yin (異熟因) [resultant causes], so it is not yishu (異熟) [resultant]. It is not unconditioned, so it is not momentary. It is a conditioned phenomenon, so it is not a real entity. Question: Whose dengliuguo (等流果) [homogeneous flow result] is this dazhong? The Zhengli Lun (正理論) [Treatise on Correct Reasoning] says: 'If it is said this way, from beginningless time, there must be nengzao wudui zaose (能造無對造色) [capable of creating non-opposing created matter], the dazhong that has already ceased, as a similar cause, can produce the current dengliu dazhong. The dazhong that creates youbiao ye (有表業) [manifest karma] should also be the dengliuguo of the dazhong of similar kind from beginningless time, not produced from a different kind.' It also says: 'Why is the wubiao produced by dingxin (定心) [concentrated mind] produced by wubieyi dazhong (無差別大種) [undifferentiated great elements]? The wubiao produced by sanxin (散心) [scattered mind] depends on bieyi dazhong (差別大種) [differentiated great elements].' The wubiao produced by dingxin, the seven branches observe each other, generating strength in turn, producing the same result, so it is only produced from one set of four great elements. Sanxin is the opposite of this, so it depends on different dazhong. Question: For example, the precept of not killing, for multiple sentient beings, each has a wusha (不殺) [non-killing] wubiao, is it produced by the same four great elements, or by different four great elements? Answer: Produced by the same dazhong. The Zhengli Lun says: 'Although for different sentient beings' continuums, multiple wutan (無貪) [non-greed] produced wubiao arise, it only takes one set of dazhong as the cause, because the kind of result produced is not different.' Doubt: These multiple wutan produced wubiao are not one result, how can they be created by the same dazhong?
Treatise: '定生無表至無差別故 (dìng shēng wú biǎo zhì wú chā bié gù)' (The wubiao produced by ding [concentration] until there is no difference). This explains that the two kinds of wubiao produced by dingxin both rely on the dazhong nourished by dingxin. Because corresponding with dingxin, there must be superior nourishing power.
種能作生因造定心俱所有無表。所以定俱無執受者。正理云。定心果故必無愛心執此大種以為現在內自體故。又此大種無有其餘執受相故名無執受。
論。應知有表至散無表同。第二釋表業也。若屬身者是其身業。不屬身者是其語業。身業與身合故有執受也。語業是聲故無執受。既是業性。已表是情。無有非情是業性故。化人語等既無有得。故知非業。品類足云。諸表業是無執受者。多有是傳家錯耳。若不爾者。婆沙及諸論等即應合會釋也 余義此與散無表同。謂有情數。及依等流．有受．別異四大種起。
論。表業生時至為不爾耶。自此已下問答分別。此即問也。
論。若爾何失。兩關反問。各有何失。
論。若破壞者至二形量成。兩關出過。如文可了。
論。有別新生至不破本身。此釋兩關難也。
論。若爾隨依至如何遍生表。此重難也。
論。身有孔隙故得相容。答也。婆沙．正理更有一釋。謂如染支體薄故不增 婆沙一百三十四云。問欲界身中先有間隙。色界大種來入中耶。答不爾。未來欲界身自有二種。一唯欲界大種。二色界大種雜。若時遇入色界定緣。彼唯欲界者便滅。色界雜者便生。故不可言先有間隙後來住中(解云。若未至現在不可說言有間隙也。若現
在世名間隙。復不可言來入中也。若來入中即至后念。故在未來與下地色同時生也)。又婆沙一百二十二云。然表．無表依身而起 有依一分。如彈指．舉足等。一分動轉作善．惡業 有依具分。如禮佛．逐怨等。舉身運動作善．惡業。此中隨所依身極微數量。表業亦爾。如表數量。無表亦爾。
論。已辨業門至差別云何。自此已下一頌半。第四義門分別。
論曰至果仍續起。此釋無表唯通善．不善也。無記不能發無表故。所以無表唯是善．惡。
論。所言餘者至善惡無記。此釋表業及思通三性也。謂身．語表及是意．思。皆通三性。
論。于中不善至無慚無愧故。釋不善者唯在欲界。自性不善謂三不善及無慚愧。思等與此相應故成不善。身．語表業由此等起故成不善。上界既無自性不善。由此亦無諸不善業。
論。善及無記至不別遮故。釋善．無記通余界也。頌既不遮諸地。故知遍有。由自性善．及自性無記。遍諸地故。相應．等起隨其所應亦通諸地。
論。欲色二界至身語律儀。釋無色界無無表業 一以無色無大種故 二以無色無身．語轉。故無色界無無表也。
論。若爾身生至有無漏無表。難也。若於是處有身．語轉。即有無表。如於欲色起無色定應有無表戒。如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在世名間隙（指有情眾生存在的時間間隔）。又不可說『來入中』。如果說『來入中』，那就到了后念。所以在未來與下地色同時產生。另外，《婆沙論》第一百二十二卷說，表業和無表業依身而起，有依靠一部分的，如彈指、舉足等，一部分的動轉產生善業或惡業；有依靠全部的，如禮佛、驅逐怨敵等，全身運動產生善業或惡業。這裡根據所依身的極微數量，表業也是這樣。如同表業的數量，無表業也是這樣。
論：已經辨明了業的方面，差別是什麼呢？從這裡開始以下一頌半，是第四個義門分別。
論說：到果仍然繼續生起。這是解釋無表業只通于善和不善。因為無記不能引發無表業。所以無表業只是善或惡。
論：所說的其餘，到善惡無記。這是解釋表業和思業通於三種性質。即身表業、語表業和意思業，都通於三種性質。
論：其中不善，到無慚無愧的緣故。解釋不善只在欲界。自性不善指三種不善以及無慚無愧。思等與此相應，所以成為不善。身語表業由此等生起，所以成為不善。上界沒有自性不善，因此也沒有諸不善業。
論：善和無記，到不特別遮止的緣故。解釋善和無記通於其餘各界。頌文既然沒有遮止諸地，所以知道普遍存在。由於自性善和自性無記，遍於諸地。相應和等起，隨其所應也通於諸地。
論：欲界和色界，到身語律儀。解釋無色界沒有無表業。一是無色界沒有大種（組成物質世界的元素），二是無色界沒有身語的活動。所以沒有**也沒有無表業。
論：如果這樣，身生，到有無漏無表。這是提問。如果在這個地方有身語的活動，就有無表業。比如在欲界和色界生起無色定，應該有無表戒。如...
【English Translation】 English version In the interval of worldly existence (referring to the time interval in which sentient beings exist). Furthermore, it cannot be said 'coming into the middle.' If it is said 'coming into the middle,' then it has reached the subsequent thought. Therefore, in the future, it arises simultaneously with the lower realm's form. Moreover, the Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa-sastra) Volume 122 states: Manifest and unmanifest actions arise dependent on the body; some depend on a part, such as snapping fingers or raising a foot, where a part's movement generates good or bad karma; some depend on the whole, such as prostrating to the Buddha or driving away enemies, where the whole body's movement generates good or bad karma. Here, according to the number of ultimate particles of the body on which it depends, the manifest action is also like that. Just like the quantity of manifest action, so is the unmanifest action.
Treatise: The aspect of karma has been distinguished; what is the difference? From here onwards, for one and a half verses, is the fourth aspect's distinction.
The treatise says: Until the result continues to arise. This explains that unmanifest action only pertains to good and unwholesome. Because neutral (neither good nor bad) cannot initiate unmanifest action. Therefore, unmanifest action is only good or unwholesome.
Treatise: What is said as 'the rest,' until good, unwholesome, and neutral. This explains that manifest action and thought pertain to the three natures. That is, bodily and verbal manifest actions, and mental thought, all pertain to the three natures.
Treatise: Among them, unwholesome, until because of shamelessness and lack of embarrassment. Explains that unwholesome is only in the Desire Realm. Intrinsically unwholesome refers to the three unwholesome roots and shamelessness and lack of embarrassment. Thoughts and so on, corresponding with these, therefore become unwholesome. Bodily and verbal manifest actions arise from these, therefore becoming unwholesome. The higher realms do not have intrinsically unwholesome, therefore there are no unwholesome karmas.
Treatise: Good and neutral, until because it is not specifically prohibited. Explains that good and neutral pertain to the remaining realms. Since the verse does not prohibit any realms, it is known to be universally present. Because of intrinsically good and intrinsically neutral, pervading all realms. Corresponding and arising together, as appropriate, also pertain to all realms.
Treatise: The Desire and Form Realms, until bodily and verbal discipline. Explains that the Formless Realm does not have unmanifest action. One, because the Formless Realm does not have the great elements (the elements that compose the material world), two, because the Formless Realm does not have bodily and verbal activity. Therefore, there is no ** and no unmanifest action.
Treatise: If that is so, bodily birth, until having undefiled unmanifest action. This is a question. If in this place there is bodily and verbal activity, then there is unmanifest action. For example, in the Desire and Form Realms, arising from the Formless Samadhi, there should be unmanifest precepts. Like...
欲．色界起無漏定。有無漏無表。
論。不爾以彼至大種為依。釋也。無漏不墮界故無無漏大種。故身在欲．色入無漏定。依身生處大種造故。有漏系地。不可言有漏無表別界大造。復不可言無大造也。婆沙十七云。無漏戒非大種力故成無漏。但由心力隨無漏心所等起故。有漏戒由大種力系屬界．地。故不相似。
論。又背諸色至伏色想故。又重釋也。無色界定背諸色故。由彼定能伏色想故。所以無色無無表色。
論。毗婆沙師至無無表色。論主引婆沙釋。可知。
論。表色唯在至可言有表。此釋表業唯二地。說有伺者。為顯中間靜慮有表業故。
論。有覆無記表至矯自嘆等。釋有覆表唯上地也。以諂．誑是有覆無記。故所發業其性亦同。
論。上地既無言何得有聲處。問也。
論。有外大種為因發聲。答也。外大種為因擊發內身處。由斯內身有于聲處。
論。有餘師言至劣故斷故。敘異說也。下善劣故。下染斷故。此是雜心師釋。
論。前說為善。評取前師。
論。復以何因至無記表業。此問上地無一切表。欲界無有覆表所以。
論。以無發業至有覆無記表。答也 言無等起故者。非唯釋有覆無記。通釋前上地無表業也。唯有尋伺心能發表業
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 欲界眾生想要發起無漏定（anāsrava-samādhi，沒有煩惱的禪定），那麼是否存在無漏無表色（anāśrava-avijñapti-rūpa，沒有煩惱的無表色）呢？
論：不是這樣的。因為無漏定以至大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風四大元素）為所依。這是解釋。 解釋：無漏法不屬於三界（欲界、色界、無色界），所以沒有無漏的大種。因此，即使身在欲界或色界，進入無漏定，也是依靠身體所生之處的大種所造。有漏法（sāsrava-dharma，有煩惱的法）系屬於三界，不能說有漏的無表色是由其他界的大種所造，也不能說沒有大種的造作。《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第十七卷說，無漏戒不是大種的力量所成就的無漏，而是由於心力隨著無漏心所等而生起。有漏戒由於大種的力量，系屬於三界和各地，所以不相似。
論：又因為背離諸色，才能降伏色想（rūpa-saṃjñā，對色法的執著）。這是再次解釋。 解釋：無色界定背離諸色，因為這種禪定能夠降伏色想。所以無色界沒有無表色。
論：毗婆沙師說，無色界沒有無表色。論主引用《婆沙論》的解釋，可以理解。
論：表色（vijñapti-rūpa，能表達意思的色法）只在欲界和初禪有。說有伺地（savitarka-bhūmi，有尋有伺的禪定）有表色，是爲了顯示中間靜慮（dhyāna，禪定）有表業（vijñapti-karma，表達意思的行為）。
論：有覆無記表（saṃvṛta-avyākṛta-vijñapti，被覆蓋的無記表色）是指諂媚、虛誑、自我讚歎等行為。這是解釋有覆表色只在上地（higher realms，指色界和無色界）才有。因為諂媚和虛誑是有覆無記的，所以由這些行為所發起的業，其性質也相同。
論：上地既然沒有語言，怎麼會有聲處（śabda-āyatana，聲音的產生處）呢？這是提問。
論：有外在的大種作為因，才能發出聲音。這是回答。 回答：外在的大種作為因，撞擊內在的身體，由此內在的身體才會有聲音。
論：有其他論師說，下地的善法低劣，下地的染污法容易斷除。這是敘述不同的說法。 解釋：下地的善法低劣，下地的染污法容易斷除。這是《雜心論》（Saṃyuktabhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra）論師的解釋。
論：前面的說法是正確的。這是評論並採納前一種說法。
論：又因為什麼原因，上地沒有無記表業（avyākṛta-vijñapti-karma，無記的表業），欲界沒有有覆表業（saṃvṛta-vijñapti-karma，被覆蓋的表業）呢？這是提問上地沒有一切表業，欲界沒有有覆表業的原因。
論：因為沒有發起業的尋伺心，所以沒有有覆無記表。這是回答。 解釋：說『沒有等起故』，不只是解釋有覆無記，也通用於解釋前面所說的上地沒有表業。只有有尋有伺的心才能發表業。
【English Translation】 English version If someone in the Desire Realm wishes to initiate an anāsrava-samādhi (undefiled concentration), is there an anāśrava-avijñapti-rūpa (undefiled unmanifest form)?
Treatise: It is not so, because that (undefiled concentration) relies on the mahābhūta (the four great elements: earth, water, fire, and wind). This is an explanation. Explanation: Undefiled dharmas do not belong to the three realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm), so there are no undefiled mahābhūtas. Therefore, even if one is in the Desire Realm or Form Realm and enters undefiled concentration, it is based on the mahābhūtas of the place where the body is born. Defiled dharmas (sāsrava-dharmas) are bound to the three realms, so it cannot be said that defiled unmanifest forms are created by the mahābhūtas of other realms, nor can it be said that there is no creation by mahābhūtas. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, in its seventeenth volume, states that undefiled precepts are not undefiled because of the power of mahābhūtas, but because of the power of the mind arising along with undefiled mental factors. Defiled precepts, due to the power of mahābhūtas, are bound to the three realms and various lands, so they are not similar.
Treatise: Also, because one turns away from all forms, one can subdue the rūpa-saṃjñā (perception of form). This is a further explanation. Explanation: The Formless Realm concentration turns away from all forms because this concentration can subdue the perception of form. Therefore, the Formless Realm has no unmanifest form.
Treatise: The Vibhāṣā masters say that the Formless Realm has no unmanifest form. The author of the treatise quotes the explanation from the Vibhāṣā, which is understandable.
Treatise: Manifest form (vijñapti-rūpa) exists only in the Desire Realm and the First Dhyāna. Saying that the savitarka-bhūmi (stage with initial and sustained thought) has manifest form is to show that the intermediate dhyāna has manifest karma (vijñapti-karma).
Treatise: Saṃvṛta-avyākṛta-vijñapti (concealed indeterminate manifestation) refers to behavior such as flattery, deceit, and self-praise. This explains that concealed manifest form exists only in the higher realms (Form and Formless Realms). Because flattery and deceit are concealed and indeterminate, the karma arising from these actions is of the same nature.
Treatise: Since the higher realms have no language, how can there be śabda-āyatana (sphere of sound)? This is a question.
Treatise: External mahābhūtas are the cause of sound. This is the answer. Answer: External mahābhūtas, as the cause, strike the internal body, and thus the internal body has sound.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that the good in the lower realms is inferior, and the defilements in the lower realms are easily eliminated. This is a narration of different views. Explanation: The good in the lower realms is inferior, and the defilements in the lower realms are easily eliminated. This is the explanation of the Saṃyuktabhidharma-hṛdaya-śāstra masters.
Treatise: The previous statement is correct. This is a comment endorsing the previous view.
Treatise: Also, for what reason do the higher realms not have indeterminate manifest karma (avyākṛta-vijñapti-karma), and the Desire Realm not have concealed manifest karma (saṃvṛta-vijñapti-karma)? This is asking for the reason why the higher realms do not have all manifest karma, and the Desire Realm does not have concealed manifest karma.
Treatise: Because there is no initial and sustained thought to initiate karma, there is no concealed indeterminate manifestation. This is the answer. Explanation: Saying 'because there is no arising' not only explains concealed indeterminate manifestation but also applies to the previous statement that the higher realms have no manifest karma. Only a mind with initial and sustained thought can express manifest karma.
。上地無尋．伺故。故無一切表業。又發業心唯修所斷。欲界無有修斷有覆染心。所以欲界無有覆表業也。
論。為但由等起至由何因成。自此已下一頌半。因論生論。第五明四種善。
論曰至猶如無病。此釋第一勝義善也。以涅槃是諸法中最極安穩。眾苦永寂。是最勝義。故此名為勝義善也。正理兩釋。一釋同前。第二釋云。或真解脫是勝是義得勝義名。勝謂最尊。無與等者。義謂別有真實體性。此顯涅槃無等實有故名勝義。如是勝義安穩名善。如是涅槃是善常故。於一切法其體最尊。是故獨標為勝義善。
論。自性善者至猶如良藥。此釋第二自性善也。無慚．無愧有二義故。一唯是不善。二遍不善心 三不善根具其五義。一通五部。二遍六識。三是隨眠性。四斷善根時作牢強加行。五能發粗惡身語二業。由此五種是自性不善作用力強。同餘心所由與此相應成相應不善 善翻此故名自性善。既自性善以喻良藥。故不待余成善性也。
論。相應善者至如雜藥水。此釋第三相應善也。諸心．心所成善性。要由與彼慚等相應方成善。故如雜藥水亦為藥。以雜藥故。
論。等起善者至所引生乳。此釋第四等起善也。謂身．語表及無表業四相得等。由二善所等起故成善性也。準婆沙一百四十四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：上界（上地）沒有尋找和伺察，所以沒有一切表業（表現于外的行為）。而且發起業的心只有修所斷的煩惱。欲界沒有修斷的有覆染心（被覆蓋的染污心），所以欲界沒有有覆表業。
論：為什麼僅僅由等起，到由什麼因成就？從這裡開始以下一頌半，因論而生論，第五說明四種善。
論曰：到猶如無病。這是解釋第一種勝義善（Paramārtha-kuśala）的含義。因為涅槃（Nirvāṇa）是諸法中最極安穩的，眾苦永遠寂滅，是最殊勝的意義。所以這被稱為勝義善。正理有兩種解釋。一種解釋與前面相同。第二種解釋說：或者真正的解脫是勝，是義，得到勝義的名稱。勝，指最尊貴，沒有可以與之相比的。義，指特別具有真實體性。這顯示涅槃無與倫比且真實存在，所以名為勝義。像這樣，勝義的安穩名為善。像這樣，涅槃是善且恒常的，對於一切法，它的體性最尊貴。因此單獨標明為勝義善。
論：自性善者，到猶如良藥。這是解釋第二種自性善（Prakṛti-kuśala）的含義。無慚（Ahrikya）、無愧（Anapatrāpya）有兩種含義。一種僅僅是不善。一種遍及不善心。三種不善根具備五種含義：一，通於五部（五種煩惱類別）；二，遍及六識（六種意識）；三，是隨眠性（潛在的煩惱）；四，斷善根時，作出牢固強烈的加行（努力）；五，能引發粗惡的身語二業（身體和語言的行為）。由於這五種原因，是自性不善，作用力強。如同其餘心所，由於與此相應，成為相應不善。善翻轉這些，所以名為自性善。既然是自性善，用良藥來比喻。所以不需要依靠其他而成就善性。
論：相應善者，到如雜藥水。這是解釋第三種相應善（Samprayukta-kuśala）的含義。諸心、心所成就善性，要由與彼慚等相應，才能成就善。所以像雜藥水一樣也成為藥，因為混合了藥物的緣故。
論：等起善者，到所引生乳。這是解釋第四種等起善（Samutthāna-kuśala）的含義。指身、語表及無表業四相得到等，由兩種善所等起，所以成就善性。參照《婆沙論》第一百四十四卷。
【English Translation】 English version: The upper realms (Upper Lands) have no seeking or investigation, therefore there are no external actions (表業). Moreover, the mind that initiates karma only has afflictions severed by cultivation. The desire realm has no obscured and defiled mind severed by cultivation, so the desire realm has no obscured external actions.
Treatise: Why only from arising, to what cause does it achieve? From here onwards, one and a half verses, from treatise arises treatise, the fifth explains the four kinds of good.
Treatise says: To like being without illness. This explains the meaning of the first Ultimate Good (Paramārtha-kuśala). Because Nirvāṇa (涅槃) is the most stable among all dharmas, the suffering of all is eternally extinguished, it is the most supreme meaning. Therefore, this is called Ultimate Good. The Correct Principle has two explanations. One explanation is the same as before. The second explanation says: Or true liberation is supreme, is meaning, obtaining the name of Ultimate Meaning. Supreme refers to the most honorable, with nothing equal to it. Meaning refers to especially having a real nature. This shows that Nirvāṇa is unparalleled and truly exists, so it is called Ultimate Meaning. Like this, the stability of Ultimate Meaning is called Good. Like this, Nirvāṇa is good and constant, for all dharmas, its nature is the most honorable. Therefore, it is singularly marked as Ultimate Good.
Treatise: Self-Nature Good, to like good medicine. This explains the meaning of the second Self-Nature Good (Prakṛti-kuśala). Shamelessness (Ahrikya) and Lack of Embarrassment (Anapatrāpya) have two meanings. One is only unwholesome. One pervades the unwholesome mind. The three unwholesome roots possess five meanings: One, it is common to the five categories (five types of afflictions); Two, it pervades the six consciousnesses (six types of consciousness); Three, it is of the nature of latent tendencies; Four, when severing the roots of goodness, one makes firm and strong effort; Five, it can cause coarse and evil actions of body and speech. Due to these five reasons, it is Self-Nature Unwholesome, its force is strong. Like the remaining mental factors, due to being associated with this, it becomes associated unwholesome. Good reverses these, so it is called Self-Nature Good. Since it is Self-Nature Good, it is likened to good medicine. So it does not need to rely on others to achieve goodness.
Treatise: Associated Good, to like mixed medicine water. This explains the meaning of the third Associated Good (Samprayukta-kuśala). The various minds and mental factors achieve goodness, it must be associated with shame and so on, then it can achieve goodness. So like mixed medicine water, it also becomes medicine, because it is mixed with medicine.
Treatise: Arising Good, to like produced milk. This explains the meaning of the fourth Arising Good (Samutthāna-kuśala). It refers to the four aspects of bodily and verbal expressions and non-manifest karma obtaining equality, arising from the two goods, so it achieves goodness. Refer to Vibhasa, volume one hundred and forty-four.
。三性分別二十二根。有一師說。有四種善及不善等。與此論同。正理三十六。亦與此論同。故知四種善與不善。是有部宗舊所稟義。非是世親菩薩新立。有人。引安惠俱舍釋。云據實而言皆是自性善。然世親阿阇梨。立四種者隨義勝劣建立異名。善中最勝者名勝義善。次強者立自性善。次劣者立相應善。最劣者名等起善者。謬也 又此釋若唯以勝故名自性者。與名．義不相符會。不待他成善等故名為自性。待他成故名相應。如藥及雜藥水故 問若爾何故婆沙第二云。今應問彼。若唯五根是自性善。所餘善法自性是何。若謂彼是不善無記雜五根故亦名善者。如是五根與彼相雜。何故不名不善．無記。然信等五與所餘法。同一所依。同一行相。同一所緣。一起。一住。一滅。一果。同一等流。同一異熟。而言五根是自性善。余相雜故假立善名。但順妄情不應正理。勿有此過故應說言世第一法根非根性 準此婆沙不立相應．等起善等。因何言謬 答婆沙第二與此意別。彼異師說。五根是世第一法。自性是善故。余非世第一法。以自性非善。與善相應假立善名。由此婆沙云但順妄情。今此四善即不如是。若相應善。若等起善。皆體性是善。非假名善。其自性善不待他成善。相應．等起待他成善性故不名自性善 問若爾未相應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：三性分別二十二根（指構成生命體的二十二種基本要素）。有一種說法，有四種善和不善等，與此論點相同。《正理》三十六也與此論點相同。因此可知，四種善與不善是有部宗（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）舊有的觀點，並非是世親菩薩（Vasubandhu）新提出的。有人引用安慧（Sthiramati）的《俱舍釋》（Abhidharmakosabhasya）說，從本質上來說，一切都是自性善。然而，世親阿阇梨（Acharya Vasubandhu）設立四種善，是根據意義的優劣來建立不同的名稱。善中最殊勝的稱為勝義善，其次較強的稱為自性善，再次較弱的稱為相應善，最弱的稱為等起善。這種說法是錯誤的。 此外，這種解釋如果僅僅因為殊勝就稱為自性善，與名稱和意義不相符合。不依賴其他條件而成就的善等才稱為自性，依賴其他條件而成就的才稱為相應，例如藥物和混合藥物的水一樣。問：如果這樣，為什麼《婆沙》（Vibhasa）第二卷說：『現在應該問他們，如果只有五根（信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根）是自性善，那麼其餘的善法自性是什麼？如果說它們是不善或無記（既非善也非惡）與五根混合，因此也稱為善，那麼五根與它們混合，為什麼不稱為不善或無記？然而，信等五根與其餘的法，同一所依，同一行相，同一所緣，一起生起，一起安住，一起滅去，同一果報，同一等流，同一異熟，卻說五根是自性善，其餘的法因為與五根相雜，所以假立善名。』這只是順應虛妄的情感，不符合正理。爲了避免這種過失，應該說世第一法（Lokagradharma）的根不是根的自性。 根據這段《婆沙》的說法，不設立相應善和等起善等，為什麼說上述說法是錯誤的？答：《婆沙》第二卷與此處的意義不同。彼異師說，五根是世第一法，自性是善，所以其餘的法不是世第一法，因為自性不是善，與善相應而假立善名。因此《婆沙》說只是順應虛妄的情感。現在這四種善並非如此。無論是相應善還是等起善，其體性都是善，並非假名善。自性善不依賴其他條件而成就善，相應善和等起善依賴其他條件而成就善性，所以不稱為自性善。問：如果這樣，未相應（還沒有相應）
【English Translation】 English version: The three natures distinguish twenty-two roots (referring to the twenty-two basic elements that constitute a living being). One teacher says that there are four kinds of good and non-good, etc., which are the same as this argument. The 'Nyaya' thirty-six is also the same as this argument. Therefore, it can be known that the four kinds of good and non-good are the old ideas of the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school), not newly established by Vasubandhu Bodhisattva. Someone quoted Sthiramati's 'Abhidharmakosabhasya', saying that in reality, everything is inherently good. However, Acharya Vasubandhu established four kinds of good based on the superiority and inferiority of their meanings to establish different names. The most superior among the good is called 'Paramartha-kusala' (ultimate good), the next strongest is called 'Prakriti-kusala' (inherent good), the next weaker is called 'Samprayukta-kusala' (associated good), and the weakest is called 'Samutthana-kusala' (arising good). This statement is wrong. Furthermore, if this explanation is called 'Prakriti-kusala' (inherent good) simply because of its superiority, it does not correspond to the name and meaning. Goodness that is not dependent on other conditions is called 'Prakriti' (inherent), and that which is dependent on other conditions is called 'Samprayukta' (associated), like medicine and mixed medicinal water. Question: If so, why does the second volume of the 'Vibhasa' say: 'Now we should ask them, if only the five roots (faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom) are inherently good, then what is the nature of the remaining good dharmas? If it is said that they are non-good or neutral (neither good nor evil) mixed with the five roots, and therefore also called good, then why are the five roots not called non-good or neutral when mixed with them? However, the five roots such as faith, etc., and the remaining dharmas have the same basis, the same characteristics, the same object, arise together, abide together, cease together, have the same result, the same outflow, the same fruition, but it is said that the five roots are inherently good, and the remaining dharmas are given the name of good because they are mixed with the five roots.' This only caters to false emotions and does not conform to the right reason. To avoid this fault, it should be said that the root of 'Lokagradharma' (the highest mundane dharma) is not the nature of the root. According to this statement in the 'Vibhasa', 'Samprayukta-kusala' (associated good) and 'Samutthana-kusala' (arising good), etc., are not established, so why is it said that the above statement is wrong? Answer: The meaning of the second volume of the 'Vibhasa' is different from this. That different teacher said that the five roots are 'Lokagradharma' (the highest mundane dharma), and their nature is good, so the remaining dharmas are not 'Lokagradharma' (the highest mundane dharma), because their nature is not good, and they are given the name of good because they are associated with good. Therefore, the 'Vibhasa' says that it only caters to false emotions. Now these four kinds of good are not like this. Whether it is 'Samprayukta-kusala' (associated good) or 'Samutthana-kusala' (arising good), their nature is good, not a false name of good. 'Prakriti-kusala' (inherent good) does not depend on other conditions to achieve goodness, while 'Samprayukta-kusala' (associated good) and 'Samutthana-kusala' (arising good) depend on other conditions to achieve goodness, so they are not called 'Prakriti-kusala' (inherent good). Question: If so, not yet associated (not yet associated)
時先是何性 答有體已來。常與自性善俱恒名善性。善由他立故非自性。以無貪之義性是善故非相應。義性善也。
論。若異類心至此義應思。論主破有部等起善也。準此故知。不是論主新立四善 異類心所起得者。謂疑心續善續生心得自地生得善等。正理論云。因異類心亦起諸得。如因靜慮得通果心。勝無記心現在前故得諸染法。勝染污心現在前故得諸善法。此等如何成善等性。以就彼法俱生得故密作是言。非異類心不作緣起故無有失(解云。言等起者。據善等法俱起得說。不據前．后。異類心起者。是法前後得。非此所說也)。又云。雖異類心亦為緣起而成善等。非待彼心。或復因彼諸得等起。即待彼故成善等性。故得由等起成善等性異(解云。雖異類心亦為緣起成就善．不善等。非待彼異類心。或因彼異類心諸得及四相起。及即待異類心。得及四相成善等。唯此得及四相。因所得法及所相法起。待所得所相法成善等性。故得等由等起成善等性異。此二解中后解為勝)。
論。如說善性至與此相違。自此已下明四不善。
論。云何相違。問。
論。勝義不善至猶如痼病。答也。翻涅槃立生死。即生死名勝義不善。以生死中有漏之法皆是行苦．自性不安性。不安故猶如痼疾。有此疾者常不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：最初的善性是什麼樣的？ 答：從有自體以來，它總是與自性善一同存在，因此恒常被稱為善性。善是由其他條件建立的，所以不是自性。由於具有無貪的含義，善性是善的，因此不是相應法。這裡的『義性』指的是善的性質。
論：如果不同類的心生起，應該思考這個道理。論主的觀點是爲了駁斥有部等宗派認為善是從其他因緣生起的觀點。因此可知，論主並不是新設立四種善。不同類的心所生起的『得』，指的是疑心之後相續的善，相續生起善心，以及從自地生起的善等。《正理論》中說：『因為不同類的心也能生起各種『得』，比如因為靜慮而獲得神通果心。』殊勝的無記心現在前，因此獲得各種染法；殊勝的染污心現在前，因此獲得各種善法。這些如何成為善等性質呢？因為就這些法來說，是俱生『得』，所以秘密地這樣說：『不是不同類的心不作為緣起，所以沒有過失。』（解釋說：『等起』指的是善等法一同生起『得』的情況，不是指前後關係。不同類的心生起，指的是法的前後『得』，不是這裡所說的。）
又說：『即使是不同類的心，也作為緣起而成就善等，不是等待那個心。或者因為那個心的各種『得』等生起，就是等待那個心，從而成就善等性質。』所以『得』是由『等起』而成就善等性質的，這是不同的。（解釋說：『即使是不同類的心，也作為緣起而成就善、不善等，不是等待那個不同類的心。或者因為那個不同類心的各種『得』以及四相生起，就是等待那個不同類的心，『得』以及四相成就善等。只有這個『得』以及四相，因為所得的法以及所相的法生起，等待所得所相的法而成就善等性質。』所以『得』等由『等起』而成就善等性質是不同的。這兩種解釋中，后一種解釋更為殊勝。）
論：如經中所說，善性與此相反。從這裡開始，說明四種不善。
論：什麼是相反的呢？（問）
論：勝義的不善，就像是頑固的疾病。（答）顛倒涅槃而建立生死，這個生死就叫做勝義的不善。因為生死中的有漏之法都是行苦，自性不安穩。因為不安穩，所以就像是頑固的疾病。有這種疾病的人常常不安寧。
【English Translation】 English version Question: What is the nature of the initial goodness? Answer: From the time it has substance, it always exists together with the goodness of self-nature, therefore it is constantly called goodness. Goodness is established by other conditions, so it is not self-nature. Because it has the meaning of non-greed, goodness is good, so it is not a corresponding dharma. The 'meaning-nature' here refers to the nature of goodness.
Treatise: If a mind of a different kind arises, one should contemplate this principle. The treatise master's view is to refute the Sarvastivadins and other schools that believe goodness arises from other causes. Therefore, it can be known that the treatise master is not newly establishing four kinds of goodness. The 'attainment' that arises from a mind of a different kind refers to the goodness that continues after a mind of doubt, the continuous arising of a good mind, and the goodness that arises from one's own realm, etc. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Because of a mind of a different kind, various 'attainments' can also arise, such as obtaining the fruit-mind of supernormal powers because of dhyāna. Because a superior non-defiled mind is present, various defiled dharmas are obtained; because a superior defiled mind is present, various good dharmas are obtained.' How do these become the nature of goodness, etc.? Because, with respect to these dharmas, they are co-born 'attainments', so it is secretly said: 'It is not that a mind of a different kind does not act as a causal arising, so there is no fault.' (Explanation: 'Arising together' refers to the situation where good dharmas, etc., arise together with 'attainment', not referring to the relationship of before and after. The arising of a mind of a different kind refers to the 'attainment' of dharmas before and after, which is not what is being discussed here.)
It is also said: 'Even a mind of a different kind also acts as a causal arising and accomplishes goodness, etc., not waiting for that mind. Or because the various 'attainments', etc., of that mind arise, that is, waiting for that mind, thereby accomplishing the nature of goodness, etc.' Therefore, 'attainment' is accomplished by 'arising together' as a different nature of goodness, etc. (Explanation: 'Even a mind of a different kind also acts as a causal arising and accomplishes goodness, non-goodness, etc., not waiting for that mind of a different kind. Or because the various 'attainments' and the four characteristics of that mind of a different kind arise, that is, waiting for that mind of a different kind, 'attainment' and the four characteristics accomplish goodness, etc. Only this 'attainment' and the four characteristics, because the dharma that is attained and the dharma that is characterized arise, waiting for the dharma that is attained and the dharma that is characterized, thereby accomplishing the nature of goodness, etc.' Therefore, 'attainment', etc., are different from the nature of goodness, etc., accomplished by 'arising together'. Among these two explanations, the latter is more superior.)
Treatise: As it is said in the sutra, the nature of goodness is contrary to this. From here onwards, the four non-goodnesses are explained.
Treatise: What is contrary? (Question)
Treatise: Ultimate non-goodness is like a chronic disease. (Answer) Reversing nirvana and establishing samsara (cycle of birth and death), this samsara is called ultimate non-goodness. Because the defiled dharmas in samsara are all the suffering of conditioned existence, and the nature of self is unstable. Because it is unstable, it is like a chronic disease. One who has this disease is constantly uneasy.
安穩。
論。自性不善至猶如毒藥。翻自性善立自性不善。
論。相應不善至如雜毒水。翻相應善立相應不善也。
論。等起不善至所引生乳。翻等起善立等起不善也 由此故言與此相違。
論。若爾便無至皆生死攝故。問也。一切有漏皆生死攝。皆是不善。如何于中有善．無記。
論。若據勝義至故無有過。答也。據義不同立名有異。若以行苦極不安穩。一切有漏皆是不善。若不招果。及招愛果。別立為善。及名無記。據義既別。過失便無。
論。勝義無記至更無異門。釋無記也。正理論云。以非擇滅及太虛空更無異門唯無記性。是故獨立勝義無記。無別自性．相應．等起。無一心所唯無記性與無記心遍相應故。設方便立自性等三亦攝不盡。無記多故。由是無記唯有二種。一者勝義。二者自性。有為無記是自性攝。不待別因成無記故。無為無記是勝義攝。以性是常無異門故 問若唯有二。何故婆沙八十七云。于欲界中有五無記。一異熟生。二威儀路。三工巧處。四通果心。五自性無記。色界有四。除工巧處。無色有二。謂異熟生。自性無記。何故不同 答據義別也。此中正理據非勝義及非相應。非由等起成無記故。諸有為無記皆名為自性。婆沙意據異熟生等所不攝者立自性名
【現代漢語翻譯】 安穩。
論。自性不善至猶如毒藥。翻自性善立自性不善。
論。相應不善至如雜毒水。翻相應善立相應不善也。
論。等起不善至所引生乳。翻等起善立等起不善也 由此故言與此相違。
論。若爾便無至皆生死攝故。問也。一切有漏皆生死攝。皆是不善。如何于中有善．無記。
論。若據勝義至故無有過。答也。據義不同立名有異。若以行苦極不安穩。一切有漏皆是不善。若不招果。及招愛果。別立為善。及名無記。據義既別。過失便無。
論。勝義無記至更無異門。釋無記也。正理論云。以非擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而達到的滅盡）及太虛空更無異門唯無記性。是故獨立勝義無記。無別自性．相應．等起。無一心所唯無記性與無記心遍相應故。設方便立自性等三亦攝不盡。無記多故。由是無記唯有二種。一者勝義。二者自性。有為無記是自性攝。不待別因成無記故。無為無記是勝義攝。以性是常無異門故 問若唯有二。何故婆沙八十七云。于欲界中有五無記。一異熟生。二威儀路。三工巧處。四通果心。五自性無記。**有四。除工巧處。無色有二。謂異熟生。自性無記。何故不同 答據義別也。此中正理據非勝義及非相應。非由等起成無記故。諸有為無記皆名為自性。婆沙意據異熟生等所不攝者立自性名
【English Translation】 Tranquility.
Treatise: 'Self-nature is not good, even like poison.' Reversing 'self-nature is good,' it establishes 'self-nature is not good.'
Treatise: 'Correspondingly not good, even like mixed poisonous water.' Reversing 'correspondingly good,' it establishes 'correspondingly not good.'
Treatise: 'Arising not good, even to the milk that is produced.' Reversing 'arising good,' it establishes 'arising not good.' Therefore, it is said to be contrary to this.
Treatise: 'If so, then there is no...' up to '...all are included in Samsara (生死, the cycle of birth and death).' Question: All that is with outflows (有漏, having defilements) is included in Samsara, and all is not good. How can there be good and neutral (無記, neither good nor bad) within it?
Treatise: 'If based on ultimate meaning...' up to '...therefore there is no fault.' Answer: According to different meanings, names are established differently. If based on the suffering of conditioned existence (行苦, the suffering of impermanence) and extreme instability, all that is with outflows is not good. If it does not bring about results, or brings about results of love, it is separately established as good and named neutral. Since the meanings are different, there is no fault.
Treatise: 'Ultimate neutral...' up to '...there is no other way.' Explaining neutral. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra (正理論) says: 'With cessation through discernment (Pratisankhya-nirodha, 非擇滅) and empty space, there is no other way, only the nature of neutral.' Therefore, ultimate neutral is established independently. There is no separate self-nature, correspondence, or arising. There is no single mind-essence; only the nature of neutral corresponds universally with the neutral mind. Even if expediently establishing the three of self-nature, etc., it is not exhaustive, because there are many neutrals. Therefore, there are only two kinds of neutral: one is ultimate, and the other is self-nature. Conditioned neutral is included in self-nature because it does not depend on separate causes to become neutral. Unconditioned neutral is included in ultimate because its nature is constant and there is no other way. Question: If there are only two, why does the Vibhasa (婆沙) eighty-seven say: 'In the desire realm, there are five neutrals: one is result of maturation, two are deportment, three are skillful activities, four are mind of the fruit of attainment, and five are self-nature neutral. In the form realm, there are four, excluding skillful activities. In the formless realm, there are two, namely result of maturation and self-nature neutral.' Why is it different? Answer: According to different meanings. The Nyayanusara-sastra here is based on non-ultimate and non-corresponding, not becoming neutral through arising. All conditioned neutrals are called self-nature. The Vibhasa's intention is to establish the name of self-nature for those not included in result of maturation, etc.'
。非是相違。
論。於此應思至例亦應然。難也。大種亦由思等起故。故應例彼成善．惡也。
論。以作者心至故不成例。答也。
論。若爾定心至應設劬勞。論主難也。應設劬勞通斯切難。正理論云。又如眼等不待心生。其性便無善等差別。如是大種不待心生故。理亦無善等差別。若爾諸得及生等相。應無等起善等差別。以非本心所欲起故。無心位中亦現起故 此難非理。由法勢力安立善等差別成故。謂得．四相依法而立。非如大種無待自成。有為法中無有一法不待心力成善不善。是故諸得及生等相。如所屬法要由心力成善等性。其理善成。生已離心雖相續轉。亦無有過。即是前心勢力所引令其轉故。隨定無表定等力生。理亦應成等起善性。天眼．天耳應善性攝。以是善心所等起故。此難非理。以彼二通解脫道心是無記故。彼二與道俱時生故。通斯似難何費劬勞 有人云。俱舍師破云。若天眼．耳由與無記道俱生故。是無記者。既由道力應名等起。若言非由彼道力故成無記者。道俱生言何成解釋。真難未通。劬勞還費 今詳。此破似非。本文多救之中唯破一故。於此一中又非切當。論主以道是善眼根。無記故以為難端。救云。道是無記。與眼根性同。難自不成。反難等起。何關此義。
論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：並非是互相矛盾的。
論：對於此點應該思考，例如，也應該是這樣。這是個詰難。因為『大種』（四大元素）也是由『思』（思考）等產生的。所以應該像它們一樣，成為善或惡。
論：因為作者的心…所以不能成為例子。這是個回答。
論：如果這樣，那麼『定心』（禪定之心）…應該設定『劬勞』（努力）。這是論主的詰難。應該設定『劬勞』，這是一個普遍而切實的詰難。《正理論》說：『又如眼等，不依賴於心而生，其性質便沒有善等差別。像這樣，『大種』不依賴於心而生，所以道理上也沒有善等差別。』如果這樣，那麼諸『得』（獲得）以及『生』（產生）等『相』（現象），應該沒有『等起』（同時生起）的善等差別。因為不是原本心所想要產生的，在無心位中也顯現生起。』這個詰難沒有道理。由於法的勢力，安立了善等差別成就。所謂『得』、『四相』（生、住、異、滅）依法而立，不像『大種』那樣不依賴於其他而自然成就。有為法中沒有一種法不依賴於心的力量而成就善或不善。所以諸『得』以及『生』等『相』，如同它們所屬的法一樣，要由心的力量來成就善等性質，這個道理是成立的。產生之後，即使離開了心而相續運轉，也沒有過失。因為這是前一個心的勢力所引導，使其運轉。隨著『定』（禪定）的『無表』（無表色）由『定』等力量產生，道理上也應該成就『等起』的善性。『天眼』（天眼通）、『天耳』（天耳通）應該屬於善性所攝，因為這是善心所同時生起的。這個詰難沒有道理。因為它們都通向解脫道心，是無記（非善非惡）的。它們與道同時產生。普遍的相似詰難，何必費力。有人說，俱舍師反駁說：『如果天眼、天耳由於與無記道同時產生，所以是無記的，那麼既然是由道的力量，應該叫做『等起』。如果說不是由於那個道的力量而成為無記的，那麼與道同時產生這句話又如何解釋呢？』真正的詰難沒有被理解，努力還是白費。現在詳細分析，這個反駁似乎不對。本文在多種辯護中只反駁了一種。在這一種中，又不是切中要害。論主以道是善眼根，無記，作為詰難的開端。辯護說：『道是無記的，與眼根的性質相同。』詰難自身不能成立。反過來詰難『等起』，與這個意義有什麼關係呢？
論
【English Translation】 English version: They are not contradictory.
Discussion: One should consider this, for example, it should also be the case. This is a challenge. Because the 'Mahabhutas' (the four great elements) are also produced by 'thought' (thinking), etc. Therefore, they should be like them, becoming good or evil.
Discussion: Because the author's mind... therefore it cannot be an example. This is an answer.
Discussion: If so, then 'Samadhi-mind' (the mind of meditation)... should require 'exertion' (effort). This is the debater's challenge. 'Exertion' should be required, which is a universal and practical challenge. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Also, like the eyes, etc., they do not depend on the mind to arise, and their nature has no distinctions of good, etc. Like this, the 'Mahabhutas' do not depend on the mind to arise, so in principle, there are no distinctions of good, etc.' If so, then the 'attainment' (gains) and the 'characteristics' (phenomena) such as 'birth' (arising), etc., should have no 'co-arising' (simultaneous arising) distinctions of good, etc. Because they are not originally what the mind wanted to produce, and they also appear and arise in the state of no-mind.' This challenge is unreasonable. Due to the power of the Dharma, the distinctions of good, etc., are established. The so-called 'attainment', 'four characteristics' (birth, duration, change, and extinction) are established according to the Dharma, unlike the 'Mahabhutas' which are naturally accomplished without relying on anything else. Among conditioned dharmas, there is no dharma that does not depend on the power of the mind to accomplish good or non-good. Therefore, the 'attainments' and 'characteristics' such as 'birth', etc., like the dharmas to which they belong, must rely on the power of the mind to accomplish the nature of good, etc. This principle is established. After arising, even if they continue to function apart from the mind, there is no fault. Because this is guided by the power of the previous mind, causing it to function. As the 'non-revealing' (unmanifested form) of 'Samadhi' (meditation) arises from the power of 'Samadhi', etc., in principle, it should also accomplish the good nature of 'co-arising'. 'Divine eye' (divine vision), 'divine ear' (divine hearing) should be included in the nature of good, because this is co-arising with the good mind. This challenge is unreasonable. Because they both lead to the mind of the path of liberation, which is neutral (neither good nor evil). They arise simultaneously with the path. A universal similar challenge, why bother. Someone said that the Kośa master refuted: 'If the divine eye and divine ear are neutral because they arise simultaneously with the neutral path, then since it is due to the power of the path, it should be called 'co-arising'. If it is said that it is not due to the power of that path that it becomes neutral, then how can the statement of arising simultaneously with the path be explained?' The real challenge has not been understood, and the effort is still wasted. Now, upon detailed analysis, this refutation seems incorrect. This text only refutes one among many defenses. And in this one, it is not to the point. The debater uses the fact that the path is a good eye-faculty, neutral, as the starting point of the challenge. The defense says: 'The path is neutral, and it has the same nature as the eye-faculty.' The challenge itself cannot be established. To challenge 'co-arising' in return, what does it have to do with this meaning?
Discussion
。如上所言至何以故。此下三頌。第六明二等起。
論曰至第二名隨轉。列二等起也。
論。謂因等起至名為隨轉。釋二等起名轉隨轉。
論。隨轉于業有何功能。問。
論。雖有先因至如死業應無。答。轉隨若無。即無表業。如死。無心。有身無業。正理論云。若無隨轉。雖有先因為能引發。如無心位。或如死屍。表應不轉。隨轉于表有轉功能。無表不依隨轉而轉。無心亦有無錶轉故。
論。若爾無心如何發戒。難 那含沙彌至羯磨時入無心定。此亦得戒。既無隨轉猶如死人。如何那含能發於戒。
論。諸有心者至於業有用。答。諸有心者依根本表發無表戒業起分明。諸無心者依加行表發無表戒業起不明。由隨轉心有根本無根本業業。故隨轉心於業有用。
論。見所斷識至此無有故。釋見所斷識非剎那等起。于能起表近因等起尋．伺生中為資糧故是遠因等。正起業時心粗散故。見所斷識爾時不起。若起見斷其業即息。正理論云。見所斷識乃至定不能為剎那等起。見所斷識雖能思量。而無功能動身發語。然于動發一表業中。容有多心思量動發。唯后一念與表俱行。異此表應非剎那性。見所斷識雖能為轉發有表業。然非業表於此識后無間即生。內門轉心不能引起與身．語表
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如上所說，這是什麼緣故呢？以下三頌，第六頌說明二等起（兩種引發）。
論：『論曰至第二名隨轉』，列出二等起。
論：『謂因等起至名為隨轉』，解釋二等起名為轉隨轉。
論：『隨轉于業有何功能？』問。
論：『雖有先因至如死業應無』，答：轉隨轉如果不存在，就沒有無表業（無形的業）。就像死亡，沒有心識。有身體卻沒有業。正理論說：『如果沒有隨轉，即使有先前的因能夠引發，就像無心識的狀態，或者像死屍，表業（有形的業）也不應運轉。』隨轉對於表業有運轉的功能，無表業不依賴隨轉而運轉，因為無心識時也有無表業的運轉。
論：『若爾無心如何發戒？』難：那含（不還果）沙彌至羯磨（僧團事務）時入無心定。這也能夠得戒。既然沒有隨轉，就像死人一樣，如何那含能夠發起戒律？
論：『諸有心者至於業有用』，答：有心識的人，依靠根本表業（最初的行動）發起無表戒業（無形的戒律之業），其過程分明。沒有心識的人，依靠加行表業（輔助的行動）發起無表戒業，其過程不分明。由於隨轉心有根本和無根本的業，所以隨轉心對於業是有用的。
論：『見所斷識至此無有故』，解釋見所斷識（通過見道斷除的煩惱）不是剎那等起（瞬間引發）。對於能夠引發表業的近因等起（接近的因引發），尋（尋求）.伺（觀察）生起是資糧，所以是遠因等。真正發起業的時候，心粗糙散亂，所以見所斷識那時不起作用。如果生起見所斷識，那麼業就停止了。正理論說：『見所斷識乃至禪定都不能作為剎那等起。』見所斷識雖然能夠思量，但是沒有功能去動身發語。然而在動身發語的一個表業中，可以容納多種心思量動發。只有最後一個念頭與表業同時進行，否則表業就不應該是剎那性的。見所斷識雖然能夠為轉發有表業，但是業表（業的表達）不會在這個識之後無間斷地產生。內門轉心不能引起與身語表（身體和語言的表達）相關的業。
【English Translation】 English version: As stated above, what is the reason for this? The following three verses, the sixth verse explains the two kinds of arising (two kinds of origination).
Treatise: 'The treatise says up to the second name is subsequent turning,' listing the two kinds of arising.
Treatise: 'Meaning the arising of causes up to the name is subsequent turning,' explaining the two kinds of arising as turning and subsequent turning.
Treatise: 'What function does subsequent turning have on karma?' Question.
Treatise: 'Although there is a prior cause, up to like death, there should be no karma,' Answer: If turning and subsequent turning do not exist, there would be no unmanifested karma (formless karma). Like death, there is no consciousness. There is a body but no karma. The Nyayānusāra-śāstra (Treatise on Following the Right Principle) says: 'If there is no subsequent turning, even if there is a prior cause capable of initiating, like in a state of unconsciousness, or like a corpse, the manifested karma (formed karma) should not operate.' Subsequent turning has the function of operating on manifested karma, unmanifested karma does not depend on subsequent turning to operate, because there is also the operation of unmanifested karma when there is no consciousness.
Treatise: 'If so, how does one without consciousness generate precepts?' Difficulty: A Anāgāmin (Non-Returner) Śrāmaṇera (novice monk) enters a state of unconscious concentration during Karma (Sangha affairs). He is also able to receive precepts. Since there is no subsequent turning, like a dead person, how can the Anāgāmin generate precepts?
Treatise: 'Those with consciousness are useful for karma,' Answer: Those with consciousness, relying on the fundamental manifested karma (initial action), generate unmanifested precepts karma (formless precepts karma), the process is clear. Those without consciousness, relying on the auxiliary manifested karma (supporting action), generate unmanifested precepts karma, the process is not clear. Because the subsequent turning mind has fundamental and non-fundamental karma, therefore the subsequent turning mind is useful for karma.
Treatise: 'The afflictions to be abandoned by seeing up to this does not exist,' Explaining that the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing (the afflictions eliminated through the path of seeing) are not momentary arising (instantaneous origination). For the proximate cause arising (near cause origination) that can initiate manifested karma, seeking (vitarka) and investigation (vicara) arising are resources, therefore they are distant causes, etc. When truly initiating karma, the mind is coarse and scattered, therefore the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing do not arise at that time. If the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing arise, then the karma ceases. The Nyayānusāra-śāstra says: 'The afflictions to be abandoned by seeing, even up to meditation, cannot be momentary arising.' Although the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing can contemplate, they do not have the function to move the body and speak. However, in one manifested karma of moving the body and speaking, it can accommodate multiple minds contemplating and initiating. Only the last thought occurs simultaneously with the manifested karma, otherwise the manifested karma should not be momentary. Although the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing can be the cause of transferring and having manifested karma, the karma expression (expression of karma) will not arise immediately after this consciousness without interruption. The internal turning mind cannot initiate karma related to the body and speech expressions.
俱行識故。若異此者。見所斷心亦應于表業為剎那等起。以修所斷加行意識能無間引表俱行心。亦與表俱行為剎那等起。故見所斷雖能為因引諸表業。離修所斷因等起心表俱行心無容得起。是故欲界無有有覆無記表業 然契經中但據展轉為因等起密作是言。由耶見故起耶語等 阿毗達磨據彼不能無間引生表俱行識。故密意說。見所斷心內門轉故不能發表。是故經．論理不相違。
論。又見所斷至是見所斷。第二反難釋也。
論。若許見斷斯有何失。卻問失也。
論。是即違越至不相違故。出違教．理失。前是違教。后是違理。
論。有漏業色至應更成立。外人令更成立。
論。若爾大種至力所起故。反難成立。若見所斷心能發業者。其所發業可見所斷。能造大種亦由見所斷心力所引起。應說大種是見所斷。大種既非見斷。故知見所斷不能發業。
論。無如是過失如非善不善。釋前難也。大種因心起。不成善．不善。大種見所斷心起。非見所斷。此有何失。
論。或復許爾理亦無違。第二答也。許四大種見斷心發。是見所斷。義亦無違。
論。不應許然至不相違故。破許大種見所斷也。大種不染污故非見所斷。是有漏故非非所斷。以四大不染污與明．無明不相違故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為它們與意識共同運作。如果不是這樣，見所斷（Dṛṣṭi-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）的心也應該在表業（vijñapti-karma，能表達意圖的行為）生起時，作為剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）的等起（samutthāna，生起的原因）。因為修所斷（Bhāvanā-heya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）的加行意識（prayoga-citta，預備階段的意識）能夠無間地引導與表業共同運作的心，並且與表業共同運作，作為剎那的等起。因此，雖然見所斷能夠作為引發各種表業的因，但如果沒有修所斷的因，等起心和與表業共同運作的心是不可能生起的。所以，欲界（Kāmadhātu，慾望界）沒有有覆無記（sāvṛtāvyākṛta，被覆蓋的無記）的表業。然而，契經（sūtra，佛經）中只是根據輾轉（paramparā，間接）作為因的等起而秘密地說：『由於邪見（mithyādṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）的緣故，生起邪語（mithyā-vāc，錯誤的言語）等。』阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）根據它們不能無間地引發與表業共同運作的意識，所以秘密地說：『見所斷的心，因為內門（adhyātmika-dvāra，內在的通道）的運轉，所以不能發表（vijñapti，表達）。』因此，經和論在道理上並不相違背。 論：又見所斷至是見所斷。這是對第二種反駁的解釋。 論：若許見斷斯有何失。這是反問有什麼過失。 論：是即違越至不相違故。這是指出違背教義和道理的過失。前面是違背教義，後面是違背道理。 論：有漏業色至應更成立。外人要求重新成立。 論：若爾大種至力所起故。這是反駁併成立。如果見所斷的心能夠引發業，那麼它所引發的業就可以被見所斷。能夠造作四大種（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）的也是由見所斷的心力所引起的，應該說四大種是見所斷。既然四大種不是見所斷，就知道見所斷不能引發業。 論：無如是過失如非善不善。這是解釋前面的反駁。四大種因心而起，不成為善或不善。四大種由見所斷的心而起，不是見所斷。這有什麼過失呢？ 論：或復許爾理亦無違。這是第二種回答。允許四大種由見所斷的心引發，是見所斷，在道理上也沒有違背。 論：不應許然至不相違故。這是破斥允許四大種是見所斷。四大種不染污，所以不是見所斷。因為是有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱）的，所以不是非所斷。因為四大不染污，與明（vidyā，光明）和無明（avidyā，無明）不相違背。
【English Translation】 English version: Because they operate together with consciousness. If it were otherwise, the mind associated with what is abandoned by seeing (Dṛṣṭi-heya, afflictions eliminated through the path of seeing) should also be the cause of arising (samutthāna, the reason for arising) as an instant (kṣaṇa, an extremely short unit of time) in the arising of representational actions (vijñapti-karma, actions that express intention). Because the preparatory consciousness (prayoga-citta, consciousness in the preparatory stage) of what is abandoned by cultivation (Bhāvanā-heya, afflictions eliminated through the path of cultivation) can seamlessly lead the mind that operates together with representational actions, and operates together with representational actions as the cause of arising in an instant. Therefore, although what is abandoned by seeing can serve as the cause for inducing various representational actions, without the cause of what is abandoned by cultivation, the arising mind and the mind that operates together with representational actions cannot arise. Therefore, the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, the realm of desire) does not have representational actions that are obscured and indeterminate (sāvṛtāvyākṛta, covered and unspecified). However, the sūtras (sūtra, Buddhist scriptures) only secretly state, based on the arising of causes through indirect means (paramparā, indirect): 'Due to wrong views (mithyādṛṣṭi, incorrect views), wrong speech (mithyā-vāc, incorrect speech) and so on arise.' The Abhidharma (Abhidharma, collection of treatises) secretly states, based on their inability to seamlessly induce consciousness that operates together with representational actions: 'The mind of what is abandoned by seeing, because of the operation of the internal door (adhyātmika-dvāra, internal channel), cannot express (vijñapti, express).' Therefore, the scriptures and treatises do not contradict each other in principle. Treatise: 'Moreover, what is abandoned by seeing' to 'is what is abandoned by seeing.' This is an explanation of the second counter-argument. Treatise: 'If it is accepted that it is abandoned by seeing, what fault is there?' This is a rhetorical question asking what the fault is. Treatise: 'That is, it violates' to 'therefore, they do not contradict.' This points out the fault of violating doctrine and reason. The former is a violation of doctrine, and the latter is a violation of reason. Treatise: 'Defiled karmic form' to 'should be further established.' An outsider requests further establishment. Treatise: 'If so, the great elements' to 'caused by the power.' This is a counter-argument and establishment. If the mind of what is abandoned by seeing can initiate karma, then the karma it initiates can be abandoned by seeing. What can create the four great elements (mahābhūta, earth, water, fire, wind) is also caused by the power of the mind of what is abandoned by seeing, and it should be said that the four great elements are abandoned by seeing. Since the four great elements are not abandoned by seeing, it is known that what is abandoned by seeing cannot initiate karma. Treatise: 'There is no such fault, like non-wholesome and non-unwholesome.' This is an explanation of the previous counter-argument. The four great elements arise from the mind and do not become wholesome or unwholesome. The four great elements arise from the mind of what is abandoned by seeing and are not abandoned by seeing. What fault is there in this? Treatise: 'Or, if it is accepted, there is no contradiction in principle.' This is the second answer. Allowing the four great elements to be initiated by the mind of what is abandoned by seeing, and being abandoned by seeing, there is no contradiction in principle. Treatise: 'It should not be allowed' to 'therefore, they do not contradict.' This refutes allowing the four great elements to be abandoned by seeing. The four great elements are not defiled, so they are not abandoned by seeing. Because they are defiled (sāsrava, with afflictions), they are not non-abandoned. Because the four great elements are not defiled, they do not contradict clarity (vidyā, clarity) and ignorance (avidyā, ignorance).
論。彼經但據至故不相違。釋通經也。見所斷心不能為近因等起。能為前因等起。據前因等起說因耶見故起耶思惟．耶語．耶業及耶命等。論說近因故不相違。
論。若五識身至外門起故。釋五識唯為隨轉。無分別故不能為轉。外門起故能為隨轉。
論。修斷意識至外門起故。釋修斷意。轉外門起故能為隨轉。
論。修斷意識至外門起故。釋修斷意。識有分別故能為轉外門起故為隨轉。
論。一切無漏至任運轉故。釋無漏．異熟無記非二轉也。無漏唯在定故。異熟生心任運轉故。正理破云。然說無漏。異熟非者。此有大減及太過失。有漏定心亦俱非故(此大減失)諸異熟識但可非轉能為隨轉。何理能遮(大過失也)然經主言。不由加行任運轉故。諸異熟識非轉．隨轉。有餘復言。此唯先業勢力所引余心息位方可現前。故非二種。設此能起身．語表業是何性類。為異熟生。為威儀路。為工巧處。且非異熟生。現加行起故。亦非餘二種。異熟心起故。如是理趣。但可能遮異熟生心為因等起。余心為轉所發表業。異熟生心外門轉故。能為隨轉何理相違。且若無心。表業不轉。許表業轉用異熟識為隨轉因斯有何過。又但應說異熟生心勢微劣故非因等起不應說言不由加行任運轉故。勿生得善亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：彼經只是根據『至』（到達）這一點，所以不相違背。這是解釋貫通經文。見所斷的心不能作為近因等起，但能作為前因等起。根據前因等起，所以說因耶見（邪見，wrong view）而生起耶思惟（邪思惟，wrong thought）、耶語（邪語，wrong speech）、耶業（邪業，wrong action）以及耶命（邪命，wrong livelihood）等。論中說的是近因，所以不相違背。
論：如果五識身至於外門生起，所以……。這是解釋五識只是隨之運轉，因為沒有分別，所以不能作為『轉』（主動的因），因為從外門生起，所以能作為『隨轉』（被動的因）。
論：修斷意識至於外門生起，所以……。這是解釋修斷的意識，從外門生起，所以能作為『隨轉』。
論：修斷意識至於外門生起，所以……。這是解釋修斷的意識，因為有分別，所以能作為『轉』，因為從外門生起，所以能作為『隨轉』。
論：一切無漏至於任運轉，所以……。這是解釋無漏（不受煩惱污染的）、異熟（因果報應的成熟）和無記（非善非惡的）不是兩種『轉』。無漏只在禪定中，異熟生心任由運轉。正理反駁說：然而說無漏和異熟不是『轉』，這有很大的缺失和過度的錯誤。因為有漏的定心也都是如此（這是很大的缺失）。各種異熟識只能不是『轉』，但能作為『隨轉』，有什麼道理能夠阻止呢（這是過度的錯誤）？然而經主說：因為不由加行任由運轉，所以各種異熟識不是『轉』和『隨轉』。還有人說：這只是先前的業力所引導，其餘的心息滅后才能顯現，所以不是兩種『轉』。假設這能生起身語表業（身體和語言的表達行為）是什麼性質的呢？是異熟生、威儀路（日常行為）、還是工巧處（工藝技巧）？首先不是異熟生，因為是現在通過努力而生起的。也不是其餘兩種，因為是異熟心生起的。像這樣的道理，只能阻止異熟生心作為因等起，其餘的心作為『轉』所發表的業。異熟生心從外門運轉，所以能作為『隨轉』，有什麼道理相違背呢？而且如果沒有心，表業就不會運轉。允許表業運轉，用異熟識作為『隨轉』的因，這有什麼過錯呢？又應該只說異熟生心勢力微弱，所以不是因等起，不應該說不由加行任由運轉。不要讓生得的善也……
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: That sutra only relies on the point of 'reaching' (至), so it is not contradictory. This explains and connects the sutra. The mind that is severed by seeing cannot be the proximate cause of arising, but it can be the prior cause of arising. Based on the prior cause of arising, it is said that wrong views (耶見, yéjiàn) give rise to wrong thoughts (耶思惟, yésīwéi), wrong speech (耶語, yéyǔ), wrong actions (耶業, yéyè), and wrong livelihood (耶命, yèmìng), etc. The treatise speaks of the proximate cause, so there is no contradiction.
Treatise: If the five consciousnesses arise at the external sense doors, then... This explains that the five consciousnesses merely follow along, because they lack discrimination, so they cannot be 'turning' (轉, zhuǎn, active cause). Because they arise from the external sense doors, they can be 'following turning' (隨轉, suízhuǎn, passive cause).
Treatise: The consciousness severed by cultivation arises at the external sense doors, so... This explains that the consciousness severed by cultivation, arising from the external sense doors, can be 'following turning'.
Treatise: The consciousness severed by cultivation arises at the external sense doors, so... This explains that the consciousness severed by cultivation, because it has discrimination, can be 'turning'. Because it arises from the external sense doors, it can be 'following turning'.
Treatise: All that is without outflows is due to spontaneous operation, so... This explains that that which is without outflows (無漏, wúlòu, free from defilements), that which is the result of karma (異熟, yìshú, vipāka), and that which is neutral (無記, wújì, avyākrta) are not two kinds of 'turning'. That which is without outflows is only in samādhi (定, dìng, concentration), and the mind born from karma operates spontaneously. The Nyāyānusāra refutes this, saying: However, saying that that which is without outflows and that which is the result of karma are not 'turning' has great deficiencies and excessive errors. Because minds in samādhi that have outflows are also like this (this is a great deficiency). The various consciousnesses that are the result of karma can only not be 'turning', but can be 'following turning'. What reason can prevent this (this is an excessive error)? However, the sutra master says: Because they operate spontaneously without effort, the various consciousnesses that are the result of karma are neither 'turning' nor 'following turning'. Others say: This is only guided by the power of previous karma, and can only appear when other minds have ceased, so it is not two kinds of 'turning'. Suppose these actions of body and speech (身語表業, shēnyǔ biǎoyè, bodily and verbal expressions) that can arise, what is their nature? Are they born from karma, habitual behavior (威儀路, wēiyílù), or skillful activities (工巧處, gōngqiǎochù)? First, they are not born from karma, because they arise now through effort. Nor are they the other two, because they arise from the mind that is the result of karma. Such reasoning can only prevent the mind born from karma from being the cause of arising, and the actions expressed by other minds as 'turning'. The mind born from karma operates from the external sense doors, so it can be 'following turning'. What reason contradicts this? Moreover, if there is no mind, the expressed actions will not operate. Allowing the expressed actions to operate, using the consciousness that is the result of karma as the cause of 'following turning', what fault is there in this? Furthermore, one should only say that the power of the mind born from karma is weak, so it is not the cause of arising, and should not say that it operates spontaneously without effort. Do not let the innate goodness also...
不為因發有表業。亦非加行任運轉故。由此經主有增減失。因復非因。智者應了 俱舍師云。有漏定心理同無漏非轉．隨轉。唯在定言以遮顯故。故不別說。異熟生心雖外門轉。善．惡業感不由加行任運而生。性羸劣故非轉．隨轉。生得善心豈同於彼。一即非從業感。二即其性是強。故亦非難。此即違理。又教相違 婆沙一百一十七云。問異熟生心何故不能作二等起發身．語業耶。答強盛心發身．語業。異熟生心其性羸劣。故不能發。廣如彼說。
論。如是即成至異熟生心。四句分別。如文可解。
論。轉隨轉心定同性不。問二轉心性為同不。
論。此不決定。答不定也。
論。其事云何。問不同事。
論。謂前轉心至隨轉亦爾。指事答也。
論。唯牟尼尊至無萎歇故。明佛不同。婆沙一師二轉同性心。婆沙一百一十七云。此中若善心作轉。即善心作隨轉。若染污心作轉。即染污心作隨轉。若威儀路．工巧處等亦爾。問若威儀心作轉。即彼心作隨轉者。如有行時遇見佛像等起善眼識。或見淫女等起染眼識。如是豈非善．染隨轉起彼業耶 尊者世友說曰。此由覺惠速疾迴轉起增上慢。謂於行位起此眼識。而實行時則善．染心不現在前。若善．染心現在前時。即止不行。此善．染心
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不是因為作為原因而引發了有表業（表現于外的行為），也不是因為加行（有目的的行為）而任其運轉。因此，《俱舍論》的作者有增減的過失，原因也變得既是原因又不是原因。智者應該明白這一點。《俱舍論》的老師說，有漏的禪定心理與無漏的禪定心理相同，不是轉或隨轉。只有在禪定中才說這些，是爲了遮止和顯明。所以沒有特別說明。異熟生心（由業力成熟而產生的心）雖然在外門運轉，但善業和惡業的感受不是由加行任運而生，因為其性質羸弱，所以不是轉或隨轉。生得的善心怎麼能與它們相同呢？一個不是從業感而生，另一個是其性質強大，所以也不是難點。這與道理相違背，也與教義相違背。《大毗婆沙論》第一百一十七卷說，問：為什麼異熟生心不能作為二等起（兩種同時生起的行為）而引發身業和語業呢？答：強盛的心才能引發身業和語業，異熟生心其性質羸弱，所以不能引發。詳細內容如該論所述。 論：這樣就形成了對異熟生心的四句分別。如文中所述可以理解。 論：轉心和隨轉心一定是同一種性質嗎？問：這兩種轉心的性質是相同還是不同呢？ 論：這不一定。答：不一定。 論：事情是怎樣的呢？問：有什麼不同之處呢？ 論：所謂前轉心到隨轉心也是這樣。指著事情回答。 論：只有牟尼尊（釋迦牟尼佛的尊稱）才能達到沒有萎歇的境界。說明佛與衆不同。《大毗婆沙論》的一位老師認為，二轉是同一種性質的心。《大毗婆沙論》第一百一十七卷說，這裡如果善心作為轉，那麼善心就作為隨轉；如果染污心作為轉，那麼染污心就作為隨轉；如果是威儀路（行住坐臥的儀態）、工巧處（技藝）等也是這樣。問：如果威儀心作為轉，那麼那個心就作為隨轉嗎？例如，有人行走時遇見佛像等，生起善的眼識；或者看見**等，生起染污的眼識。這樣難道不是善或染污的隨轉生起那些業嗎？尊者世友說：這是由於覺慧迅速回轉，生起增上慢（錯誤的優越感）。說在行走時生起這種眼識，而實際行走時，善心或染污心並不在眼前。如果善心或染污心在眼前時，就會停止行走。這種善心或染污心
【English Translation】 English version: It is not because of being a cause that manifest karma (actions expressed outwardly) is initiated, nor is it because of intentional effort (purposeful actions) that it is allowed to operate. Therefore, the author of the Abhidharmakośa has the fault of increase and decrease, and the cause becomes both a cause and not a cause. The wise should understand this. The teacher of the Abhidharmakośa says that the mind of defiled concentration is the same as undefiled concentration; it is neither transformation nor subsequent transformation. These are only spoken of in concentration to negate and reveal. Therefore, they are not specifically mentioned. Although the resultant mind (mind arising from the maturation of karma) operates in the external realm, the experience of good and bad karma does not arise from intentional effort, because its nature is weak, so it is neither transformation nor subsequent transformation. How can the naturally arising good mind be the same as them? One does not arise from karmic retribution, and the other's nature is strong, so it is not a difficult point. This contradicts reason and also contradicts the teachings. The Mahāvibhāṣā 117 says, 'Question: Why can't the resultant mind initiate bodily and verbal karma as two simultaneous arising actions? Answer: A strong mind can initiate bodily and verbal karma. The resultant mind is weak in nature, so it cannot initiate them.' The details are as described in that treatise. Treatise: Thus, the fourfold distinction of the resultant mind is formed. It can be understood as described in the text. Treatise: Are the transforming mind and the subsequent transforming mind necessarily of the same nature? Question: Are the natures of these two transforming minds the same or different? Treatise: It is not certain. Answer: It is not certain. Treatise: How is that? Question: What are the differences? Treatise: So-called the former transforming mind to the subsequent transforming mind is also like this. Answering by pointing to the matter. Treatise: Only the Muni (an epithet of Shakyamuni Buddha) can reach the state of no withering. Explaining that the Buddha is different. One teacher in the Mahāvibhāṣā considers the two transformations to be of the same nature. The Mahāvibhāṣā 117 says, 'Here, if a good mind acts as transformation, then the good mind acts as subsequent transformation; if a defiled mind acts as transformation, then the defiled mind acts as subsequent transformation; if it is the case of deportment (manner of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down), skillful activities, etc., it is also like this.' Question: If the mind of deportment acts as transformation, then does that mind act as subsequent transformation? For example, when someone is walking and encounters a Buddha image, etc., a good eye-consciousness arises; or seeing , etc., a defiled eye-consciousness arises. In this way, aren't good or defiled subsequent transformations arising from those karmas? Venerable Vasumitra says: This is due to the rapid turning of wisdom, giving rise to an increase in pride (false sense of superiority). Saying that this eye-consciousness arises during walking, but in actual walking, the good or defiled mind is not present. If the good or defiled mind is present, then the walking will stop. This good or defiled mind
但如伴者。不名等起 復有說者。威儀許容善．染．無記為等起。余如前。即以工巧畫佛像起善。畫女人起染為難。世友通如威儀 復有說者。工巧心發起業時善．染等起。乃至工巧處心轉時其隨轉容有三種。問異熟生心何故不能作二等起發身．語業耶。答強盛心發身．語業。異熟生心其性羸劣故不能發 復有說者。若身．語業異熟生心為二等起而發起者。此身．語業當言是何。為威儀路。為工巧處。為異熟生。若威儀路。或工巧處。異熟生心云何能發。若異熟生。此身．語業應是異熟。然身．語業定非異熟。加行起故。亦不可說為善．染性。異熟生心所等起故。由此異熟生心。不能發身．語業 今婆沙有三師。一師自類為剎那等起。二師威儀剎那等起通三。余同前。第三師威儀．工巧剎那等起通三。余同前 然未見善．染剎那等起通三文。及異熟生心為剎那等起文。此二義皆婆沙無文。雖佛無記心后通善。剎那等起義亦不同。然婆沙無評文。諸小論意不同。取義各別 雜心云。若善轉即善隨轉。不善．無記亦爾。取初師義 此論于轉善等隨轉通三。非婆沙師義 正理論云。異熟生心亦為隨轉。亦非婆沙師義 太法師云俱舍是婆沙中一師義者非也。
論。有餘部說至那伽臥在定。敘異說也。
論。毗婆沙
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 又有人說，就像同行的人一樣，不能稱為『等起』（Samutthana，意為共同生起）。還有一種說法，威儀（Iryapatha，指行住坐臥等姿勢）、許容（Anujānana，指允許、贊同）、善、染（Raga，指貪染）、無記（Avyākrta，指非善非惡的狀態）可以作為『等起』。其餘的說法和前面一樣。例如，通過工巧（Śilpakarma，指工藝技巧）繪製佛像，生起善心；繪製女人像，生起染心，這是很難做到的。世友（Vasumitra，一位論師的名字）認為，這和威儀的情況類似。 又有人說，工巧的心在發起業（Karma，指行為）的時候，善、染等可以作為『等起』。乃至在工巧處，心念轉變的時候，隨著轉變的容貌有三種。問：為什麼異熟生心（Vipāka-citta，指由業力成熟而產生的心）不能作為兩種『等起』來發起身業（Kāya-karma，指身體的行為）和語業（Vāk-karma，指語言的行為）呢？答：強盛的心才能發起身業和語業，而異熟生心的性質羸弱，所以不能發起。 又有人說，如果身業和語業是由異熟生心作為兩種『等起』而發起的，那麼這種身業和語業應該被稱為什麼呢？是威儀路（Iryāpatha-patha，指威儀的道路）？是工巧處？還是異熟生？如果是威儀路或者工巧處，異熟生心怎麼能夠發起呢？如果是異熟生，那麼這種身業和語業應該是異熟（Vipāka，指果報）。然而，身業和語業一定不是異熟，因為它們是由加行（Prayoga，指努力、造作）而產生的。也不能說它們是善性或染性，因為它們是由異熟生心所『等起』的。因此，異熟生心不能發起身業和語業。 現在《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā，指《大毗婆沙論》）中有三位論師。第一位論師認為，自類（Svabhāga，指同類）是剎那『等起』（Kṣaṇika-samutthana，指瞬間生起）。第二位論師認為，威儀和剎那『等起』可以通於三種（指善、染、無記），其餘的說法和前面一樣。第三位論師認為，威儀、工巧和剎那『等起』可以通於三種，其餘的說法和前面一樣。 然而，沒有見到善、染的剎那『等起』可以通於三種的說法，也沒有見到異熟生心作為剎那『等起』的說法。這兩種觀點在《婆沙》中都沒有明確的記載。雖然佛的無記心之後可以通於善，但剎那『等起』的含義也不同。然而，《婆沙》中沒有對此進行評論。各個小論的觀點不同，所取的意義也各不相同。 《雜心》（Abhidharma-samuccaya，指《阿毗達磨集論》）中說，如果善心轉變，那麼就是善心隨之轉變；不善心和無記心也是如此。這是採用了第一位論師的觀點。 此論認為，轉變的善等隨著轉變可以通於三種，這並非《婆沙》論師的觀點。 《正理論》（Abhidharma-kośa-bhāṣya，指《阿毗達磨俱舍論》）中說，異熟生心也可以作為隨轉，這也並非《婆沙》論師的觀點。 太法師（指玄奘法師）說，《俱舍》（Abhidharma-kośa，指《阿毗達磨俱舍論》）是《婆沙》中的一位論師的觀點，這是不對的。 論：有其餘部派說乃至那伽（Nāga，指龍）臥在禪定中。這是敘述不同的說法。 論：《毗婆沙》（Vibhāṣā，指《大毗婆沙論》）
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, some say that just like companions, it cannot be called 'Samutthana' (co-arising). Others say that Iryapatha (manner of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down), Anujānana (permission, approval), wholesome, defiled (Raga, referring to attachment), and neutral (Avyākrta, referring to neither wholesome nor unwholesome states) can be considered as 'Samutthana'. The rest is as before. For example, it is difficult to generate wholesome thoughts when skillfully (Śilpakarma, referring to craftsmanship) drawing a Buddha image, and defiled thoughts when drawing a woman's image. Vasumitra (a commentator's name) considers this similar to Iryapatha. Others say that when the mind of skillfulness initiates karma (Karma, referring to action), wholesome, defiled, etc., can be 'Samutthana'. Even when the mind changes in the skillful activity, the appearance that follows the change is threefold. Question: Why can't Vipāka-citta (resultant consciousness, referring to consciousness arising from the maturation of karma) initiate bodily karma (Kāya-karma, referring to physical action) and verbal karma (Vāk-karma, referring to verbal action) as two 'Samutthana'? Answer: A strong mind can initiate bodily and verbal karma, but the nature of Vipāka-citta is weak, so it cannot initiate them. Others say that if bodily and verbal karma are initiated by Vipāka-citta as two 'Samutthana', then what should these bodily and verbal karma be called? Are they Iryāpatha-patha (the path of deportment)? Are they skillful activities? Or are they Vipāka? If they are Iryāpatha or skillful activities, how can Vipāka-citta initiate them? If they are Vipāka, then these bodily and verbal karma should be Vipāka (result). However, bodily and verbal karma are definitely not Vipāka, because they are produced by Prayoga (effort, exertion). It cannot be said that they are wholesome or defiled in nature, because they are 'Samutthana' by Vipāka-citta. Therefore, Vipāka-citta cannot initiate bodily and verbal karma. Now, there are three commentators in the Vibhāṣā (referring to the Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra). The first commentator believes that Svabhāga (own-class) is Kṣaṇika-samutthana (momentary co-arising). The second commentator believes that Iryapatha and Kṣaṇika-samutthana can apply to the three (wholesome, defiled, and neutral), and the rest is as before. The third commentator believes that Iryapatha, skillfulness, and Kṣaṇika-samutthana can apply to the three, and the rest is as before. However, there is no statement that wholesome and defiled Kṣaṇika-samutthana can apply to the three, nor is there a statement that Vipāka-citta is Kṣaṇika-samutthana. These two views are not explicitly recorded in the Vibhāṣā. Although the Buddha's neutral mind can later lead to wholesome, the meaning of Kṣaṇika-samutthana is also different. However, there is no commentary on this in the Vibhāṣā. The views of the various smaller treatises differ, and the meanings they take are different. The Abhidharma-samuccaya (referring to the Compendium of Abhidharma) says that if a wholesome mind changes, then a wholesome mind follows the change; the same is true for unwholesome and neutral minds. This adopts the view of the first commentator. This treatise believes that the changing wholesome, etc., can apply to the three as they follow the change, which is not the view of the Vibhāṣā commentators. The Abhidharma-kośa-bhāṣya (referring to the Commentary on the Abhidharma-kośa) says that Vipāka-citta can also be a follower, which is also not the view of the Vibhāṣā commentators. The Great Dharma Master (referring to the Venerable Xuanzang) said that the Abhidharma-kośa (referring to the Treasury of Abhidharma) is the view of one commentator in the Vibhāṣā, which is incorrect. Treatise: Some other schools say that even Nāga (referring to dragon) is lying in meditation. This is narrating different views. Treatise: Vibhāṣā (referring to the Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra)
師至通果心起。有部釋頌。與余師不同。謂佛四威儀中皆能入定。非謂恒時定也。故作是說。非無記心。
論。諸有表業至為如隨轉。自此已下問答分別。此即問也。
論。設爾何失。反徴問也。
論。若如轉者至皆能為轉。出如轉過。若如其轉。見所斷心既許為轉。身．邊二見是見所斷有覆無記。既如其轉。即欲界中應有有覆無記表業。即自違宗。或應簡別見所斷中身．邊二見不能為轉。余見所斷能為轉也。
論。若如隨轉至應設劬勞。出如隨轉過。若如隨轉。不善．無記心得戒時。爾時表業應非善性。應設劬勞通如是難。
論。應言如轉至為間隔故。通也。應如修斷近轉心也。
論。若表不由至無記表業。論主與婆沙。通經。出過。正婆沙文婆沙百一十七。問若見所斷心不能作剎那等起發身．語業者。契經所說當云何通。如契經說。諸耶見人所有身．語．意業。若思。若求。若所造作。一切皆得不可愛．不可樂．非悅意果。所以者何。此見暴惡。所謂耶見 答依因等起作如是說。非依剎那等起。是故無過 正理論云。又作是說。若表不由隨轉心力成善等者。則不應言彼經但據前因等起非據剎那。故欲界中定無有覆無記表業 彼謂此說表成善等性決定但由剎那等起力。故見所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 師父到達時，通果（Tongguo，人名）心中產生了疑問。有部（Youbu，佛教部派之一）的解釋和其餘師父不同，認為佛陀在四種威儀（坐、臥、行、立）中都能入定，並非指恒常處於禪定狀態。因此這樣說，並非指無記心（既非善亦非惡的心）。
論：所有表業（通過身語表達的行為）…如同隨之轉變。從這裡開始是問答辨析，這便是提問。
論：如果這樣，會有什麼過失？這是反問。
論：如果如同轉變，…都能成為轉變。指出如同轉變的過失。如果如同其轉變，既然允許見所斷心（通過見道所斷的煩惱相應的心）成為轉變，那麼身見（認為五蘊和合的身體為真實自我的邪見）和邊見（執著于斷或常的極端見解）是見所斷的有覆無記（被煩惱覆蓋的，非善非惡的）心。既然如同其轉變，那麼欲界（佛教六道輪迴中的最低一層）中就應該存在有覆無記的表業，這就自相矛盾了。或者應該區分，見所斷中，身見和邊見不能成為轉變，其餘見所斷的煩惱才能成為轉變。
論：如果如同隨之轉變，…應該施加努力。指出如同隨之轉變的過失。如果如同隨之轉變，不善和無記心得到戒律時，那時的表業應該不是善的性質，應該施加努力來解釋這樣的難題。
論：應該說如同轉變…因為有間隔的緣故。這是通達。應該如同修道所斷的接近轉變的心。
論：如果表業不是由於…無記表業。論主（論典的作者）與婆沙（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）通過經文來解釋，指出過失。正是《婆沙》第一百一十七卷的原文：問：如果見所斷的心不能作為剎那等起（瞬間生起）而引發身語業，那麼契經（佛經）所說應該如何解釋？如契經所說：那些耶見（邪見）之人，所有的身語意業，無論是思考、尋求還是所造作，一切都得到不可愛、不可樂、非悅意的果報。為什麼呢？因為這種見解暴惡，即所謂的邪見。答：依據因等起（由因緣而生起）而這樣說，不是依據剎那等起，所以沒有過失。正理論說：又這樣說，如果表業不是由於隨轉的心力而成就善等性質，那麼就不應該說那部經只是根據前因等起，而不是根據剎那。所以欲界中一定沒有有覆無記的表業。他們認為這種說法表明，表業成就善等性質，完全是由剎那等起的力量決定的，所以見所斷的...
【English Translation】 English version: When the master arrived, Tongguo (a personal name) had doubts in his mind. The interpretation of the Youbu (Sarvastivada, one of the Buddhist schools) differed from that of the other masters, believing that the Buddha could enter Samadhi (a state of meditative consciousness) in all four postures (sitting, lying down, walking, and standing), not meaning that he was constantly in a state of Samadhi. Therefore, it is said in this way, not referring to amanasikara (neutral mind, neither good nor evil).
Treatise: All expressive actions (actions expressed through body and speech)... are like following the transformation. From here onwards is question-and-answer analysis, this is the question.
Treatise: If so, what is the fault? This is a counter-question.
Treatise: If it is like transformation,... all can become transformation. Point out the fault of being like transformation. If it is like its transformation, since it is allowed that the mind severed by view (afflictions corresponding to the mind severed through the path of seeing) becomes transformation, then the self-view (the wrong view of considering the body of the five aggregates as the real self) and the extreme view (the extreme views of clinging to annihilation or permanence) are minds severed by view that are obscured and indeterminate (covered by afflictions, neither good nor evil). Since it is like its transformation, then there should be obscured and indeterminate expressive actions in the desire realm (the lowest level of the six realms of reincarnation in Buddhism), which is self-contradictory. Or it should be distinguished that among those severed by view, self-view and extreme view cannot become transformation, and the remaining afflictions severed by view can become transformation.
Treatise: If it is like following the transformation,... effort should be exerted. Point out the fault of being like following the transformation. If it is like following the transformation, when unwholesome and indeterminate minds receive precepts, then the expressive actions at that time should not be of a wholesome nature, and effort should be exerted to explain such a difficult problem.
Treatise: It should be said that it is like transformation... because of the interval. This is understanding. It should be like the mind severed by cultivation that is close to transformation.
Treatise: If expressive actions are not due to... indeterminate expressive actions. The author of the treatise and the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-maha-vibhāṣā-śāstra) explain through the sutras, pointing out the fault. It is precisely the original text of the 117th volume of the Vibhasa: Question: If the mind severed by view cannot cause the body and speech actions to arise instantaneously, then how should the sutras be explained? As the sutras say: Those with wrong views, all their body, speech, and mind actions, whether thinking, seeking, or creating, all receive undesirable, unpleasant, and disagreeable results. Why? Because this view is violent, namely wrong view. Answer: It is said in this way based on the cause and arising, not based on instantaneous arising, so there is no fault. The Zhengli Treatise says: It is also said that if expressive actions do not achieve wholesome qualities due to the power of the following mind, then it should not be said that that sutra is only based on the cause and arising, not based on the instant. Therefore, there are definitely no obscured and indeterminate expressive actions in the desire realm. They believe that this statement shows that the achievement of wholesome qualities by expressive actions is entirely determined by the power of instantaneous arising, so those severed by view...
斷惑雖為因等起。而欲界定無有覆無記業 此由經主不達我宗所有言義故作是說 此說意言。若見所斷惑為剎那等起與業俱行。是則不應隔修所斷能起表業因等起心。則欲界中何緣無有有覆無記身．語表業。然見所斷惑。尚不能為因。無間引生業俱行識。何能自作剎那等起。說不能作剎那等起。顯不能為近因等起。但有能作近因等起者。此必能為剎那等起故。身見．邊見。雖為遠因引身語表。而由修斷近因勢力成不善根。是故說言彼經但據前因等起非據剎那。故欲界中。定無有覆無記表業。若不爾者。則不應言彼經但據前因等起。前言為顯隔近因故簡近因故。說前因言。故彼此中不達言義。婆沙論云。複次若此眾同分心作能轉。即此眾同分心作隨轉。斯有是處。若此眾同分心作能轉。餘眾同分心作隨轉發身．語業。無有是處。復有說者。亦有是處。謂如有人發願當作五年大會。中間命終。乘斯願力生富貴家。自憶宿命如昔所愿一切皆作。如是則名此眾同分心作能轉。餘眾同分心作隨轉發身．語業。然無評文 今釋。前師說近因等起心。后師說遠因等起心。義不相違故無評也。
俱舍論疏卷第十三
以黃園本一交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第十四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：斷除煩惱雖然是作為『因等起』（hetu-samutthana，原因生起）而存在，但在欲界中，不存在『有覆無記業』（sāvranāvyākrta-karma，有染污的無記業）。這是因為經文的作者不理解我們宗派所說的含義，所以才這樣說。這種說法的意思是，如果認為見所斷的煩惱是與業同時生起的『剎那等起』（ksanika-samutthana，瞬間生起），那麼就不應該間隔修所斷的煩惱，它能生起表業的『因等起心』（hetu-samutthana-citta，原因生起心）。那麼，在欲界中，為什麼沒有『有覆無記』的身語表業呢？然而，見所斷的煩惱，尚且不能作為原因，無間地引生與業同時生起的識，又怎麼能自己作為『剎那等起』呢？說不能作為『剎那等起』，是顯示不能作為『近因等起』（āsanna-hetu-samutthana，鄰近原因生起）。只有能作為『近因等起』的，才能作為『剎那等起』。所以，『身見』（satkāya-drsti，有身見）、『邊見』（antagrāha-drsti，邊執見），雖然作為遠因引生身語表業，但由於修斷的近因勢力，成為不善根。因此說，那部經只是根據前因等起來說的，不是根據剎那等起來說的。所以在欲界中，一定沒有『有覆無記』的表業。如果不是這樣，那麼就不應該說那部經只是根據前因等起來說的。前面說的是爲了顯示間隔近因，所以簡略了近因，說了前因。所以彼此之間不理解言語的含義。《婆沙論》說：『再次，如果這個眾同分心（nikāya-sabhāga-citta，同類心）作為能轉，那麼這個眾同分心就作為隨轉，這是有可能的。如果這個眾同分心作為能轉，其餘眾同分心作為隨轉，發生身語業，這是不可能的。』又有人說：『也是有可能的。比如有人發願要舉辦五年的大會，中間去世了，憑藉這個願力，生在富貴人家，自己回憶起前世的願望，像以前所希望的那樣一切都做。這樣就叫做這個眾同分心作為能轉，其餘眾同分心作為隨轉，發生身語業。』然而沒有評論的文字。現在解釋：前一位論師說的是近因等起心，后一位論師說的是遠因等起心，意義不相違背，所以沒有評論。 《俱舍論疏》卷第十三 以黃園本一交了 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》 《俱舍論疏》卷第十四
【English Translation】 English version: Although the cessation of defilements is considered a 'hetu-samutthana' (cause-origination), in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), there is no 'sāvranāvyākrta-karma' (defiled indeterminate karma). This is because the author of the scripture does not understand the meaning of what our school says, and therefore makes this statement. This statement means that if one considers the defilements to be abandoned by seeing as a 'ksanika-samutthana' (momentary origination) arising simultaneously with karma, then one should not separate the defilements to be abandoned by cultivation, which can give rise to expressive karma, the 'hetu-samutthana-citta' (cause-origination mind). Then, why are there no 'defiled indeterminate' bodily and verbal expressive karmas in the Desire Realm? However, the defilements to be abandoned by seeing cannot even serve as a cause to immediately produce the consciousness arising simultaneously with karma. How can it act as a 'ksanika-samutthana' itself? Saying that it cannot act as a 'ksanika-samutthana' shows that it cannot act as an 'āsanna-hetu-samutthana' (proximate cause-origination). Only that which can act as a 'proximate cause-origination' can act as a 'ksanika-samutthana'. Therefore, 'satkāya-drsti' (view of self), and 'antagrāha-drsti' (view of extremes), although serving as a distant cause for the arising of bodily and verbal expressive karmas, become unwholesome roots due to the power of the proximate cause of cultivation and abandonment. Therefore, it is said that that scripture only speaks according to the prior cause-origination, not according to the momentary origination. Therefore, in the Desire Realm, there is definitely no 'defiled indeterminate' expressive karma. If it were not so, then it should not be said that that scripture only speaks according to the prior cause-origination. The previous statement was to show the separation of the proximate cause, so the proximate cause was abbreviated, and the prior cause was spoken of. Therefore, they do not understand the meaning of the words in each other's statements. The Vibhasa says: 'Furthermore, if this nikāya-sabhāga-citta (mind of commonality) acts as the initiator, then this nikāya-sabhāga-citta acts as the follower. This is possible. If this nikāya-sabhāga-citta acts as the initiator, and other nikāya-sabhāga-citta act as the follower, giving rise to bodily and verbal karma, this is not possible.' Some say: 'It is also possible. For example, someone vows to hold a five-year assembly, and dies in the middle. Relying on this vow, they are born into a wealthy family, and recall their past life's vow, doing everything as they had hoped before. This is called this nikāya-sabhāga-citta acting as the initiator, and other nikāya-sabhāga-citta acting as the follower, giving rise to bodily and verbal karma.' However, there is no commentary text. Now explaining: The former teacher speaks of the proximate cause-origination mind, and the latter teacher speaks of the distant cause-origination mind. The meanings do not contradict each other, so there is no commentary. Abhidharmakośabhāsya-ṭīkā, Volume 13 Completed with the Huangyuan edition Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1822, Abhidharmakośabhāsya-ṭīkā Abhidharmakośabhāsya-ṭīkā, Volume 14
沙門法寶撰
分別業品第四之二
論。傍論已了至表無表相。上來已明二．三．五業及傍論了。自此已下。大文第二明律儀等三。先總標三別。后依章別釋。此半頌第一總標三也。
論曰至非不律儀。列三名也。
論。能遮能滅至差別有幾。自此第二依章別釋。將釋律儀。先釋名。問數。此三律儀。能遮未來惡戒不相續起。能滅已起惡戒。得相續故。故名律儀 非律儀翻此 俱非雙翻 問數可知 此下半頌列三種律儀也。
論曰至謂無漏戒。指三名體言欲等 纏者。如纏市。別解脫戒系屬欲界名欲纏戒。靜慮律儀系屬色界名色纏戒。道生律儀不繫三界名無漏戒。
論。初律儀相差別云何。自此已下有十三段。一明別解脫相。二安立四律儀。三明律儀眾名。四明成就。五明得三律儀。六明善．惡戒邊際。七明近住事。九明所得處。十明支因。十一明惡戒處中。十二明舍。十三明處。此第一明別解脫相也。
論曰至別解脫律儀。列八種名結歸初一 梵云苾芻。唐名乞士等。舊云比丘訛 苾芻尼尼是女聲 梵云式叉摩那。唐言正學。謂學六法。六法者。一不淫。二不盜。三不殺。四不虛誑語。五不飲酒。六不非時食 梵名室羅摩拏路迦。唐名勤策。舊云沙彌者訛略也 勤策女同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 沙門法寶撰
分別業品第四之二
論：傍論已經結束，接下來討論表無表相。前面已經闡明了二業、三業、五業以及相關的傍論。從這裡開始，進入第二大部分，闡明律儀等三種。首先總括地標出這三種，然後按照章節分別解釋。這半首頌是第一部分，總括地標出這三種。
論曰：至非不律儀。這裡列出了三種名稱。
論：能夠遮止、能夠滅除，至差別有幾種？從這裡開始，第二部分按照章節分別解釋。在解釋律儀之前，先解釋名稱，然後是數量。這三種律儀，能夠遮止未來惡戒不相續生起，能夠滅除已經生起的惡戒，使其相續不斷，所以稱為律儀。『非律儀』是它的反面。『俱非』是雙重否定。數量問題可以知道。下面的半首頌列出了三種律儀。
論曰：至謂無漏戒。指出三種名稱的體性。言語中的『欲』等，『纏』的意思就像纏繞市場一樣。別解脫戒系屬於欲界，所以稱為欲纏戒。靜慮律儀系屬於色界和無色界，所以稱為色纏戒。道生律儀不繫屬於三界，所以稱為無漏戒。
論：最初的律儀相的差別是什麼？從這裡開始，有十三段。第一段闡明別解脫相，第二段安立四種律儀，第三段闡明律儀的眾名，第四段闡明成就，第五段闡明獲得三種律儀，第六段闡明善戒和惡戒的邊際，第七段闡明近住事，第九段闡明所得之處，第十段闡明支因，第十一段闡明惡戒的處所，第十二段闡明捨棄，第十三段闡明處所。這是第一段，闡明別解脫相。
論曰：至別解脫律儀。列出八種名稱，最後歸結到最初的一種。梵語『苾芻』(bhiksu)，唐朝稱為乞士等，舊譯『比丘』是訛誤。『苾芻尼』(bhiksuni)中的『尼』是女性的意思。梵語『式叉摩那』(siksamana)，唐朝稱為正學，指學習六法。六法是：一不淫，二不盜，三不殺，四不虛誑語，五不飲酒，六不非時食。梵語『室羅摩拏路迦』(sramanera)，唐朝稱為勤策，舊譯『沙彌』是省略的說法。勤策女也是一樣。
【English Translation】 English version Composed by Sramana Dharmaratna
Chapter Four, Section Two: Distinguishing Karma
Treatise: The side discussions are complete, and now we discuss the aspects of manifested and unmanifested forms. The two, three, and five karmas, along with their related side discussions, have been clarified above. From here onwards, we enter the second major section, clarifying the three types of precepts, namely, the Pratimoksha (律儀), etc. First, we generally outline the three types, and then we explain them separately according to the chapters. This half-verse is the first part, generally outlining the three types.
Treatise says: To 'non-precepts'. This lists the three names.
Treatise: 'Able to prevent, able to extinguish', to 'how many differences are there?' From here onwards, the second part explains them separately according to the chapters. Before explaining the Pratimoksha, we first explain the name and then the number. These three Pratimokshas are able to prevent future evil precepts from arising continuously, and they are able to extinguish already arisen evil precepts, allowing them to continue. Therefore, they are called Pratimoksha. 'Non-Pratimoksha' is the opposite of this. 'Neither' is a double negative. The question of number can be known. The following half-verse lists the three types of Pratimoksha.
Treatise says: To 'called the unconditioned precepts'. It points out the essence of the three names. The 'desire' etc. in the language, 'entanglement' means like entangling the market. The Pratimoksha precepts belong to the desire realm, so they are called desire-entangled precepts. The Samadhi (靜慮) precepts belong to the form and formless realms, so they are called form-entangled precepts. The precepts born from the Path (道) do not belong to the three realms, so they are called unconditioned precepts.
Treatise: 'What are the differences in the characteristics of the initial Pratimoksha?' From here onwards, there are thirteen sections. The first section clarifies the characteristics of the Pratimoksha, the second section establishes the four Pratimokshas, the third section clarifies the names of the Pratimoksha assembly, the fourth section clarifies accomplishment, the fifth section clarifies obtaining the three Pratimokshas, the sixth section clarifies the boundaries of good and evil precepts, the seventh section clarifies the practice of Uposatha (近住), the ninth section clarifies the place of attainment, the tenth section clarifies the causes and conditions, the eleventh section clarifies the location of evil precepts, the twelfth section clarifies abandonment, and the thirteenth section clarifies the location. This is the first section, clarifying the characteristics of the Pratimoksha.
Treatise says: To 'Pratimoksha precepts'. It lists eight names, and finally concludes with the first one. The Sanskrit word 'Bhiksu' (苾芻), in the Tang Dynasty, was called 'beggar' etc. The old translation 'Bhiksu' (比丘) is a corruption. The 'ni' (尼) in 'Bhiksuni' (苾芻尼) is the feminine form. The Sanskrit word 'Siksamana' (式叉摩那), in the Tang Dynasty, was called 'right learning', referring to learning the six dharmas. The six dharmas are: one, no sexual activity; two, no stealing; three, no killing; four, no false speech; five, no drinking alcohol; six, no eating at improper times. The Sanskrit word 'Sramanera' (室羅摩拏路迦), in the Tang Dynasty, was called 'diligent novice', the old translation 'Sramanera' (沙彌) is an abbreviated term. The same applies to female Sramaneras.
舊名沙彌尼。是女聲。訛也 梵云鄔波索迦。唐言近事。舊名優婆塞者訛也。言近事者。婆沙一百二十三云。問何故名為近事。答親近修事諸善法故。謂彼身心狎習善法故名近事。問若爾諸不斷善皆名近事。以彼身心皆修善故。答不爾。此依律儀所攝妙行善法以立名故。問若爾諸律儀皆名近事耶。以彼皆能修律儀善故。答此以在初得名余。律儀更以余緣建立故。有餘師說。親近．承事諸善士故。復有說者親近．承事諸佛法故 梵云鄔波斯迦。唐言近事女。斯是女聲。舊云優婆夷者訛也 梵云鄔波婆沙。唐言近住。婆沙一百二十四云。近阿羅漢住。受此律儀隨學彼故。有說。此近盡受戒住故。有說。此戒近時而住故名近住 於此八中。前五出家戒。后三在家戒。前七盡形受。第八一晝夜。問何故此依別解脫律儀建立。不依靜慮．無漏律儀而建立耶。答此八種戒受心多少不同。故戒緣差別分為八種。受學人別 言定．道律儀但為得彼定七支頓得。不由受心戒緣差別分近事等。然有四禪諸果差別。義各不同。不可一例。
論。雖有八名至相各別故。釋八律儀體唯有四 八者從苾芻．苾芻尼乃至近住 四者苾芻．苾芻尼合 正學．沙彌．沙彌尼合 鄔波斯迦．鄔婆索迦合 近住獨一。此四律儀體各別也。
論。所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 舊名沙彌尼（Śrāmaṇerī，沙彌的女性形式）。是女聲的表達。是一種訛誤。梵文是鄔波索迦（Upāsaka），唐朝時翻譯為近事。舊名優婆塞（Upāsaka）也是一種訛誤。說它是近事，是因為《婆沙論》第一百二十三卷說：『問：為何稱為近事？答：因為親近修習各種善法。』意思是他們的身心習慣於善法，所以稱為近事。問：如果這樣，所有不斷行善的人都可以稱為近事，因為他們的身心都在修習善法。答：不是這樣的。這是依據律儀所包含的微妙善行來命名的。問：如果這樣，所有律儀都可以稱為近事嗎？因為它們都能修習律儀的善行。答：不是的。這是最初獲得時的稱謂，其他的律儀則因其他因緣而建立。』還有其他說法，認為是因為親近、承事各種善士。還有人說是因為親近、承事諸佛的教法。 梵文是鄔波斯迦（Upāsikā），唐朝時翻譯為近事女。斯是女聲的表達。舊稱優婆夷（Upāsikā）也是一種訛誤。梵文是鄔波婆沙（Upavāsa），唐朝時翻譯為近住。《婆沙論》第一百二十四卷說：『接近阿羅漢而住，受持這種律儀，隨之學習。』有人說，這是因為接近完全受戒而住。也有人說，這種戒律只是在特定時間內持守，所以稱為近住。這八種戒律中，前五種是出家戒，后三種是在家戒。前七種是盡形壽受持，第八種是一晝夜受持。問：為什麼這種戒律是依據別解脫律儀而建立的，而不是依據靜慮、無漏律儀而建立的呢？答：因為這八種戒律受持時的心念多少不同，所以戒律的因緣差別分為八種，受學的人也不同。 定、道律儀只是爲了獲得禪定，七支頓然獲得，不是通過受持時的心念和戒律的因緣差別來區分近事等。然而，四禪和各種果位有差別，意義各不相同，不能一概而論。 論：雖然有八種名稱，但它們的相狀各有區別，所以解釋這八種律儀的體性只有四種。八種是指從苾芻（Bhikṣu，比丘） 、苾芻尼（Bhikṣuṇī，比丘尼）乃至近住。四種是指：苾芻、苾芻尼合為一種；正學女（Śikṣamāṇā，式叉摩那）、沙彌（Śrāmaṇera）、沙彌尼合為一種；鄔波斯迦、鄔婆索迦合為一種；近住獨自為一種。這四種律儀的體性各自不同。
【English Translation】 English version Formerly named Śrāmaṇerī (female novice). It's a feminine term. It's a corruption. The Sanskrit term is Upāsaka (layman), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 'attendant'. The old name Upāsaka is also a corruption. It's called 'attendant' because the Vibhāṣā (Mahāvibhāṣā) Śāstra, in its 123rd fascicle, says: 'Question: Why is it called 'attendant'? Answer: Because one closely attends to and cultivates various virtuous dharmas.' It means their body and mind are accustomed to virtuous dharmas, hence the name 'attendant'. Question: If so, all those who constantly do good can be called 'attendant', because their body and mind are cultivating virtuous dharmas. Answer: Not so. This is named based on the wonderful virtuous conduct contained in the precepts. Question: If so, can all precepts be called 'attendant'? Because they can all cultivate the virtuous conduct of precepts. Answer: No. This is the name given at the initial attainment; other precepts are established due to other causes.' Others say it's because of closely attending to and serving various virtuous people. Still others say it's because of closely attending to and serving the teachings of all Buddhas. The Sanskrit term is Upāsikā (laywoman), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 'attendant woman'. This is a feminine term. The old name Upāsikā is also a corruption. The Sanskrit term is Upavāsa (one-day retreat), translated in the Tang Dynasty as 'dwelling nearby'. The Vibhāṣā Śāstra, in its 124th fascicle, says: 'Dwelling near an Arhat, receiving these precepts and learning from them.' Some say it's because of dwelling near complete ordination. Others say these precepts are observed for a limited time, hence the name 'dwelling nearby'. Among these eight precepts, the first five are monastic precepts, and the last three are lay precepts. The first seven are observed for life, and the eighth is observed for one day and one night. Question: Why are these precepts established based on the Prātimokṣa (individual liberation) precepts, and not based on the dhyāna (meditative absorption) or non-outflow precepts? Answer: Because the amount of mindfulness when receiving these eight precepts is different, so the conditions for the precepts are divided into eight types, and the learners are also different. The dhyāna and path precepts are only for attaining dhyāna, and the seven limbs are attained suddenly, not through distinguishing 'attendant' etc. based on the mindfulness and conditions of the precepts when receiving them. However, the four dhyānas and various fruits have differences, and their meanings are different, so they cannot be generalized. Treatise: Although there are eight names, their characteristics are different, so the nature of these eight precepts can be explained as only four types. The eight refer to from Bhikṣu (monk), Bhikṣuṇī (nun) to Upavāsa (one-day retreat). The four refer to: Bhikṣu and Bhikṣuṇī combined as one; Śikṣamāṇā (probationary nun), Śrāmaṇera (male novice), and Śrāmaṇerī combined as one; Upāsaka and Upāsikā combined as one; Upavāsa is unique as one. The nature of these four types of precepts is different.
以者何。問合所以。
論。離苾芻律儀至近事女律儀。釋由同故唯有四也。
論。云何知然。問同所以。
論。由形改轉至非異三體。答同所以。既轉根位唯得舍名不得舍體。故知是一。
論。若從近事至具足頓生。問近事．勤策．苾芻律儀支體同．異。為先四支後加三支如只．雙金錢。五十．二十。即只上加一名之為雙。二十上加三十名五十 為先受四支復受七支具足七支后更頓生非足前四。
論。三種律儀至隨其所應。答三各體別。若是苾芻身中具有三種四支。其體各別。
論。其事云何。問其事。
論。如如求受至遠離有異。答其事也。以三種律儀受緣不同。戒體各別。
論。若無此事至故三各別。此反難也。既舍一時餘二猶在。故知體別。
論。然此三種至便非近事等。前明緣別戒異。此明不相違故。受后不捨前。勿舍苾芻戒便非近事等反難答也。婆沙一百二十四云。問若先不受近事律儀。便受勤策律儀。得勤策律儀不。有說。不得。以近事律儀與此律儀為門。為依。為加行故。有說。不定。若不了知先受近事律儀後方受得勤策律儀。信戒師故受此律儀。彼得律儀。戒師得罪 若彼解了先受近事律儀。后受勤策律儀。是正儀式。但憍慢故不欲受學近
事律儀。作如是言。何用受此近事劣戒。彼憍慢纏心。雖受不得 如說不受近事律儀。而受勤策。如是不受勤策。而受苾芻律儀。廣說亦爾 正理論云。若有勤策受近事律儀。或有苾芻受前二種戒。為受得不 有作是言。此不應責。若前已有。無更受得理。先已得故。若前未有。則非勤策。亦非苾芻。以先不受近事律儀。必無受得勤策戒理。若先不受勤策律儀。亦無受得苾芻戒理。是則不可立彼二名。以此推尋。受應不得 有餘師說。不受前律儀。亦有即能受得后戒理。故持律者作是誦言。雖于先時不受勤策戒。而今但受具足律儀者。亦名善受具足律儀。由此勤策容有受得近事律儀。苾芻容有受得勤策．近事戒理 豈不勤策不應自稱唯愿證知。我是近事。苾芻亦爾。不應自稱唯愿證知。我是前二。非離如是自稱號言有得近事．勤策戒理 此難非理。俱可稱故。謂可稱言我是勤策。亦是近事。唯愿證知。苾芻亦應如是而說。然就勝戒顯彼二名。亦無有失 若爾勤策及苾芻等。亦應受得近住律儀 如得近事許亦何過。然由下劣無欣受者(解云。前說同婆沙前師。后說同婆沙后師。無評文。詳正理意。取后師義)。
論。近事近住至云何安立。已下頌。第二安立四律儀也。
論曰至五飲諸酒。安立近事。
論。若受離八至八食非時食。安立近住也。
論。若受離十至以為第十。立勤策也。
論。若受離一切至苾芻律儀。安立苾芻也。婆沙云。離塗飾香鬘歌舞倡伎。二種同於莊嚴處轉故。離二種。合立一支。又正理云。為引怯怖眾多學處在家有情。顯易受持故於八戒合二為一。如為佛栗氏子略說學處有三(述曰。準此。出家根熟不怖多學處。故開為二也。又在家者覺事生業。亦可令彼畜金銀等。不可此一日夜戒。即舍金等后時重畜。出家之人以乞自活。不畜金等易。及是盡形。故制不畜金銀等也)。
論。別解律儀名差別者。自此已下有一頌。第三明別解律儀差別名也。
論曰至故名尸羅。第一正名也。正理論云。以清涼故名曰尸羅。此中尸羅是平治義。故字相處作是釋言平治義中置尸羅。戒能平險業故得尸羅名(解云。險業是惡戒也。平治熱恨惡戒故名清凈) 此有六名。一名尸羅。二名妙行。三名為業。四名律儀。五名別解。六名業道。
論。智者稱揚故名妙行。釋第二名。
論。所作自體故名為業。第三名也。
論。豈不無表至所作自體。問也。以契經說無表律儀名為不造。亦名不作。既名不作。如何是業。
論。有慚恥者至得所作名。答也。以有無表不造
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如果受持遠離八齋戒，直到非時食，就安立為近住（Upavasa）。 論：如果受持遠離十戒，直到第十條，就安立為勤策（Sramanera）。 論：如果受持遠離一切，直到比丘律儀，就安立為比丘（Bhiksu）。《婆沙論》說：遠離塗飾香鬘歌舞倡伎，因為這兩種都屬於莊嚴的範疇，所以將這兩種合為一支。《正理論》又說：爲了引導那些對眾多學處感到怯懦和害怕的在家有情，所以顯示容易受持，因此在八戒中將兩種合併爲一種。例如，爲了佛栗氏子（Buddhakritsi），簡略地說學處有三條。（述曰：依照這個，出家根器成熟的人不害怕眾多學處，所以分開為兩種。又因為在家者有覺事和生業，也可以讓他們持有金銀等物，但不可在受持一日一夜戒時捨棄金銀等物，之後又重新持有。出家之人以乞食為生，不持有金銀等物容易做到，而且是盡形壽的，所以制定不持有金銀等。） 論：別解律儀（Pratimoksha）名為差別，從這裡開始有一頌，第三說明別解律儀的差別名稱。 論曰：因為清涼的緣故，所以名為尸羅（Śīla）。這是第一個正名。《正理論》說：因為清涼的緣故，所以名為尸羅。這裡尸羅是平治的意思，所以在字相處這樣解釋說，在平治的意義中放置尸羅，戒能平復危險的惡業，所以得到尸羅這個名稱。（解釋說：危險的惡業就是惡戒。平復熱惱和惡戒，所以名為清凈。）這裡有六個名稱：一名尸羅，二名妙行，三名為業，四名律儀，五名別解，六名業道。 論：因為智者稱揚的緣故，所以名為妙行。這是解釋第二個名稱。 論：因為所作的自體，所以名為業。這是第三個名稱。 論：難道不是無表...所作自體？這是提問。因為契經說無表律儀名為不造，也名不作。既然名為不作，如何是業？ 論：因為有慚愧心的人...得到所作的名稱。這是回答。因為有無表，所以不造。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: If one undertakes to abstain from the eight precepts, up to and including abstaining from untimely food, this establishes the Upavasa (close dwelling). Treatise: If one undertakes to abstain from the ten precepts, up to the tenth, this establishes the Sramanera (novice monk). Treatise: If one undertakes to abstain from everything, up to the Bhiksu (monk) precepts, this establishes the Bhiksu. The Vibhasha (Mahavibhasa) says: Abstaining from applying cosmetics, garlands, singing, dancing, and instrumental music, because these two are similar in that they pertain to adornment, therefore these two are combined into one branch. Furthermore, the Nyayapravesa (Nyayapravesa Sutra) says: In order to guide those sentient beings at home who are timid and fearful of many precepts, it is shown to be easy to uphold, therefore in the eight precepts, two are combined into one. For example, for Buddhakritsi (Buddhakritsi), the precepts are briefly explained as three. (Commentary: According to this, those with mature roots who have left home are not afraid of many precepts, therefore they are separated into two. Also, because those at home have awareness of affairs and livelihoods, it is also permissible for them to possess gold and silver, etc., but it is not permissible to abandon gold and silver, etc., when undertaking the one-day and one-night precept, and then re-possess them later. Those who have left home live by begging, and it is easy not to possess gold and silver, etc., and it is for the rest of their lives, therefore it is prescribed not to possess gold and silver.) Treatise: The Pratimoksha (individual liberation) is named 'difference'; from here onwards there is a verse; the third explains the different names of the Pratimoksha. Treatise says: Because of coolness, it is named Śīla (morality). This is the first correct name. The Nyayapravesa Sutra says: Because of coolness, it is named Śīla. Here, Śīla means 'leveling', therefore it is explained in the context of the character's appearance, saying that Śīla is placed in the meaning of leveling; the precepts can level dangerous evil karma, therefore it obtains the name Śīla. (Explanation: Dangerous evil karma is evil precepts. Leveling hot anger and evil precepts, therefore it is named purity.) Here there are six names: one is Śīla, two is Adbhuta-carya (wonderful conduct), three is Karma (action), four is Samvara (restraint), five is Pratimoksha, and six is Karmapatha (path of action). Treatise: Because the wise praise it, it is named Adbhuta-carya. This is explaining the second name. Treatise: Because of the self-nature of what is done, it is named Karma. This is the third name. Treatise: Isn't it that non-manifestation... the self-nature of what is done? This is a question. Because the sutras say that non-manifest restraint is named 'non-creating' and also named 'non-doing'. Since it is named 'non-doing', how is it Karma? Treatise: Because those who have shame... obtain the name of what is done. This is the answer. Because there is non-manifestation, therefore it is non-creating.
惡故名為不作。表思所作故。故無表戒得所作名。
論。有餘釋言至名作無失。敘異說也。從作生故是作果 生後作故是作因 因取果名。果取因名。名作無失 太法師釋云。為求無作發起作業是作因 正起作時發起無作是作果。
論。能防身語故名律儀。第四名也。由此戒力防惡身．語。依法儀式故名律儀。
論。如是應知至無差別名。此釋頌中俱得二字。應知。尸羅．妙行．業．律儀此四種名通初．后位。
論。唯初剎那至及業道名。釋唯初剎那立二種名也。
論。謂受戒時至立別解脫名。釋別解也。正理論云。或初所應修故名別解脫。或彼初起最能超過如獄險惡趣故名別解脫。
論。即于爾時至立業道名。釋業道也。正理論云。亦得名為根本業道。初防身語暢思業故(解云。由如於人游履于道易暢諸身語。業道亦爾。思業游暢義。同名為業道)。
論。故初剎那至根本業道。結名也。
論。從第二念至名為後起。釋第二念已去不名業道不名別解脫也。
論。誰成就何律儀。已下第四明成就也 文中有四。一明成三律儀人。二文便明斷律儀。三因論生論。明意根律儀。四明成就時分。此下一頌明成就三律儀人也。
論曰至乃至近住。此明成就別解
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『惡故名為不作』，因為表現了思慮所產生的行為，所以稱為『不作』。因此，無表戒（Avyaktasila）獲得了『所作』之名。
論：『有餘釋言至名作無失』，這是敘述不同的說法。從『作』產生的結果，是『作果』；產生『作』之後的行為，是『作因』。『因』可以取『果』之名，『果』也可以取『因』之名，所以說『名作無失』。太法師解釋說，爲了追求『無作』而發起的行為是『作因』，正在進行『作』的時候發起的『無作』是『作果』。
論：『能防身語故名律儀』，這是第四個名稱。因為這種戒的力量能夠防止身和語的惡行，依據法和儀式，所以稱為『律儀』（Samvara）。
論：『如是應知至無差別名』，這是解釋頌中的『俱得』二字。應該知道，尸羅（Sila，戒）、妙行（Sadhu-vrata，善行）、業（Karma，行為）、律儀（Samvara，戒律）這四種名稱，可以通用於初位和后位。
論：『唯初剎那至及業道名』，這是解釋為什麼只有最初的剎那才立這兩種名稱。
論：『謂受戒時至立別解脫名』，這是解釋『別解脫』（Pratimoksa）的含義。正理論中說，或者因為最初應當修習，所以稱為『別解脫』；或者因為最初生起時最能夠超越像地獄一樣險惡的趣向，所以稱為『別解脫』。
論：『即于爾時至立業道名』，這是解釋『業道』（Karmapatha）的含義。正理論中說，也可以稱為『根本業道』，因為最初能夠防止身和語，暢通思慮的行為（解釋說，就像人行走在道路上，容易暢通身體和語言一樣，業道也是如此。思慮的行為暢通，意義相同，所以稱為業道）。
論：『故初剎那至根本業道』，這是對名稱的總結。
論：『從第二念至名為後起』，這是解釋從第二個念頭開始，就不稱為『業道』，也不稱為『別解脫』了。
論：『誰成就何律儀』，以下是第四部分，說明成就。文章中有四個部分：第一部分說明成就三種律儀的人；第二部分順便說明斷律儀；第三部分因為論而生論，說明意根律儀；第四部分說明成就的時間。以下一頌說明成就三種律儀的人。
論曰：『至乃至近住』，這說明成就別解脫。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Evil is therefore named 'non-doing' (a-karana)' because it manifests the actions produced by thought. Therefore, Avyaktasila (unmanifested precepts) obtains the name 'doing'.
Treatise: 'Some explain that 'to name is not a loss' (nama-krte na ca nasah)' is to narrate different views. The result arising from 'doing' is the 'fruit of doing' (krta-phala); the action arising after 'doing' is the 'cause of doing' (krta-hetu). 'Cause' can take the name of 'fruit', and 'fruit' can take the name of 'cause', so it is said that 'to name is not a loss'. The Great Dharma Master explains that initiating action in order to seek 'non-doing' is the 'cause of doing'; initiating 'non-doing' when actually doing is the 'fruit of doing'.
Treatise: 'That which can prevent body and speech is called Samvara (restraint)' This is the fourth name. Because the power of this precept can prevent evil actions of body and speech, according to the Dharma and rituals, it is called 'Samvara'.
Treatise: 'Thus, it should be known that there is no difference in name' This explains the word 'both' (ubhe) in the verse. It should be known that Sila (morality), Sadhu-vrata (good conduct), Karma (action), and Samvara (restraint) these four names can be applied to both the initial and subsequent stages.
Treatise: 'Only the initial moment is named both' This explains why only the initial moment establishes these two names.
Treatise: 'That is, at the time of receiving precepts, the name Pratimoksa (individual liberation) is established' This explains the meaning of 'Pratimoksa'. The Nyayanusara-sastra (Treatise Following the Correct Principle) says, 'Or, because it is the first thing that should be practiced, it is called 'Pratimoksa'; or, because its initial arising is most capable of surpassing dangerous and evil destinies like hell, it is called 'Pratimoksa'.
Treatise: 'That is, at that time, the name Karmapatha (path of action) is established' This explains the meaning of 'Karmapatha'. The Nyayanusara-sastra says, 'It can also be called 'fundamental Karmapatha', because it initially prevents body and speech, facilitating the action of thought' (Explanation: Just as when a person walks on a road, it is easy to facilitate the body and speech, so it is with Karmapatha. The action of thought is facilitated, and the meaning is the same, so it is called Karmapatha).
Treatise: 'Therefore, the initial moment is the fundamental Karmapatha' This is a conclusion of the names.
Treatise: 'From the second thought onward, it is called subsequent arising' This explains that from the second thought onward, it is not called 'Karmapatha', nor is it called 'Pratimoksa'.
Treatise: 'Who achieves what Samvara?' The following is the fourth part, explaining achievement. There are four parts in the text: the first part explains the person who achieves the three Samvaras; the second part incidentally explains the breaking of Samvara; the third part, arising from the treatise, explains the Samvara of the mind-basis; the fourth part explains the time of achievement. The following verse explains the person who achieves the three Samvaras.
Treatise says: 'Up to and including the Upavasatha (close dwelling)' This explains the achievement of Pratimoksa.
脫人。
論。外道無有所受戒耶。問也。
論。雖有不名至依著有故。答也。外道受戒求三有故。不名別解脫也。
論。靜慮生者至此亦應然。明成靜慮律儀人也。一切得靜慮及未至者。皆得此律儀。
論。道生律儀至謂學．無學。明成道生律儀人也。
論。於前分別至其二者何。問隨心轉戒也。
論。謂靜慮生至非別解脫。答。二是。一非也。
論。所以者何。徴別解脫非隨心轉所以。
論。異心無心亦恒轉故。答也 異心。謂不善．無記心 無心。謂滅定。
論。靜慮無漏二種律儀。已下半頌。第二明斷律儀。
論曰至名斷律儀。此釋律儀。以能永斷欲纏惡戒及起彼煩惱名斷律儀。此律儀即斷名斷律儀 婆沙一百一十七云。有四種律儀。一別解脫。二靜慮。三無漏。四斷律儀。謂于靜慮．無漏二律儀中。各取少分離欲界染。九無間道中隨轉戒。乃至。問何故唯此名斷律儀。答能與破戒及起破戒煩惱作斷對治故。謂前八無間道中二隨轉戒。唯與起破戒煩惱作斷對治。第九無間道中二隨轉戒。通與破戒及起破戒煩惱作斷對治。依婆沙十七。對治有五。一舍。二斷。三持。四遠分。五厭患。未至定初方便道。與破戒惡作舍對治。初入定時。舍破戒惡成就
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 脫人（Tuoren）。
論：外道（Waidào，指佛教以外的宗教）沒有接受戒律嗎？問。
論：即使有，也不能稱之為至依著，因為他們有所執著。答。外道接受戒律是爲了追求三有（Sānyǒu，指欲有、色有、無色有）的果報，所以不能稱為別解脫（Biéjiětuō，指通過持戒而獲得的解脫）。
論：從靜慮（Jìnglǜ，指禪定）中生起者，也應該如此。說明成就靜慮律儀的人。一切獲得靜慮以及未至定（Wèizhìdìng，指未到地定）的人，都能獲得這種律儀。
論：道生律儀，指的是有學位（Xuéwèi，指還在修學的聖者）和無學位（Wúxuéwèi，指已經證得阿羅漢果位的聖者）。說明成就道生律儀的人。
論：在前文中分別提到的，隨心轉戒（Suíxīnzhuǎnjiè）的兩種情況是什麼？問的是隨心轉戒。
論：指的是靜慮生和無漏生（Wúlòushēng，指無漏智生）。並非別解脫。答：兩種律儀中，靜慮生和無漏生是，別解脫不是。
論：為什麼這樣說？征問別解脫不是隨心轉的原因。
論：因為異心（Yìxīn，指不同的心念）和無心（Wúxīn，指沒有心念的狀態）時，別解脫也會持續存在。答。異心，指的是不善心和無記心（Wújìxīn，指非善非惡的心念）；無心，指的是滅盡定（Mièjìndìng，指一種高級禪定狀態）。
論：靜慮和無漏兩種律儀。以下半頌，第二部分說明斷律儀。
論曰：稱為斷律儀。這是解釋律儀，以能夠永遠斷除欲界的惡戒以及由此產生的煩惱，稱為斷律儀。這種律儀就是斷，所以稱為斷律儀。婆沙（Póshā）一百一十七卷中說：有四種律儀，一是別解脫，二是靜慮，三是無漏，四是斷律儀。指的是在靜慮和無漏兩種律儀中，各自取少部分離開欲界染污。在九無間道（Jiǔwújiàndào，指九種無間斷的修行道）中隨之轉變戒律。乃至。問：為什麼只有這種律儀稱為斷律儀？答：因為它能夠與破戒以及產生破戒煩惱的對治。指的是前八無間道中的兩種隨轉戒，僅僅與產生破戒煩惱的對治。第九無間道中的兩種隨轉戒，既能與破戒對治，也能與產生破戒煩惱對治。依據婆沙十七，對治有五種，一是舍，二是斷，三是持，四是遠分，五是厭患。未至定最初的方便道，與破戒惡作（Èzuò，指因做錯事而產生的後悔）進行舍對治。初入定時，捨棄破戒惡的成就。
【English Translation】 English version Tuoren (Tuoren).
Treatise: Do heretics (Waidào, referring to religions other than Buddhism) not receive precepts? Question.
Treatise: Although they do, it cannot be called the ultimate reliance because they are attached to something. Answer. Heretics receive precepts to seek the fruits of the Three Realms (Sānyǒu, referring to the Desire Realm, Form Realm, and Formless Realm), so it cannot be called Pratimoksha (Biéjiětuō, referring to liberation obtained through upholding precepts).
Treatise: Those born from Dhyana (Jìnglǜ, referring to meditative absorption) should also be like this. Explains the person who has achieved Dhyana precepts. All those who have attained Dhyana and the preliminary stage of Dhyana (Wèizhìdìng, referring to the state before reaching the first Dhyana) obtain these precepts.
Treatise: Morality born of the Path refers to those in the stage of learning (Xuéwèi, referring to holy individuals still in training) and those beyond learning (Wúxuéwèi, referring to holy individuals who have attained Arhatship). Explains the person who has achieved morality born of the Path.
Treatise: What are the two situations of precepts that follow the mind (Suíxīnzhuǎnjiè) mentioned earlier? Asking about precepts that follow the mind.
Treatise: It refers to those born from Dhyana and those born from the unconditioned (Wúlòushēng, referring to birth from unconditioned wisdom). It is not Pratimoksha. Answer: Among the two kinds of precepts, Dhyana-born and unconditioned-born are, but Pratimoksha is not.
Treatise: Why is this so? Inquiring about the reason why Pratimoksha does not follow the mind.
Treatise: Because Pratimoksha continues to exist even with different minds (Yìxīn, referring to different states of mind) and without mind (Wúxīn, referring to the state of no mind). Answer. Different minds refer to unwholesome and neutral minds (Wújìxīn, referring to neither wholesome nor unwholesome minds); without mind refers to cessation meditation (Mièjìndìng, referring to an advanced state of meditative absorption).
Treatise: The two kinds of precepts, Dhyana and unconditioned. The following half-verse, the second part explains the precepts of severance.
Treatise says: Called precepts of severance. This explains the precepts, in that it can permanently sever the evil precepts of the Desire Realm and the afflictions arising from them, it is called precepts of severance. These precepts are severance, so they are called precepts of severance. The 117th fascicle of the Vibhasha (Póshā) says: There are four kinds of precepts, one is Pratimoksha, two is Dhyana, three is unconditioned, and four is precepts of severance. It refers to taking a small part from the Dhyana and unconditioned precepts to leave the defilements of the Desire Realm. The precepts change accordingly in the nine uninterrupted paths (Jiǔwújiàndào, referring to the nine uninterrupted paths of practice). And so on. Question: Why is only this kind of precepts called precepts of severance? Answer: Because it can counteract the breaking of precepts and the afflictions arising from breaking precepts. It refers to the two kinds of precepts that change accordingly in the first eight uninterrupted paths, which only counteract the afflictions arising from breaking precepts. The two kinds of precepts that change accordingly in the ninth uninterrupted path can counteract both the breaking of precepts and the afflictions arising from breaking precepts. According to Vibhasha 17, there are five kinds of counteractions, one is abandonment, two is severance, three is upholding, four is distance, and five is aversion. The initial expedient path of the preliminary stage of Dhyana counteracts the remorse (Èzuò, referring to regret arising from doing wrong) of breaking precepts through abandonment. Upon initially entering Dhyana, the accomplishment of evil of breaking precepts is abandoned.
得故。前八無間道。與起破戒惡煩惱作斷等對治。第九無間道。與破戒惡及起彼煩惱為斷對治。上五禪地。與破戒惡及煩惱。為厭患及持．遠分對治。無色界與破戒惡及煩惱為遠分對治。
論。由此或有至如應當知。四句分別。如文可解。
論。若爾世尊所說略戒。下半頌。第三因論生論明意．根律儀。若律儀唯是無表。何故略戒乃至云意律儀善哉。又契經說眼根律儀。此意及根律儀。以何為自性問。
論。此二自性非無表色。答。
論。若爾是何問也。下半行頌。答也。
論曰至顯勿如次。釋頌文也 言正知．正念合者。合此念．惠為意律儀。合此惠．念為根律儀 合言顯非如次。正知為意律儀。正念為根律儀 正知．正念能防惡故名為律儀。
論。今應思擇表及無表。已下第四明時分也。文中有六。一明成善．惡戒時分。二明成中時分。三明住二戒兼處中時分。四明表時分。五便明惡戒眾名。六四句分別。此文初也。
論曰至恒成現在。釋成現也 住別解脫補特伽羅。明成別解脫人也 未舍已來恒成現世。明定成現世也。
論。此別解脫至遍流至后。釋遍成過去也。住別解脫人。未舍已來初剎那時唯成現在。第二剎那后遍成過去。
論。無散無表至勢微
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此。前八個無間道（Anantarya-marga，無間道：指修行者爲了斷除煩惱，證得解脫而修行的道路，此階段修行沒有間斷）與生起破戒的惡煩惱，作為斷除等的對治。第九個無間道，與破戒的惡行以及生起這些煩惱，作為斷除的對治。上面的五個禪定之地，與破戒的惡行以及煩惱，作為厭惡和持有、遠離的對治。無色界（Arupaloka，無色界：佛教宇宙觀中，超越物質世界的精神存在領域）與破戒的惡行以及煩惱，作為遠離的對治。
論：由此或者有，乃至如應當知。四句分別，如文可解。
論：如果這樣，世尊所說的略戒（Sila，戒：佛教倫理規範），下半頌。第三因論生論明意律儀（Manas-samvara，意律儀：通過控制思想來遵守戒律）、根律儀（Indriya-samvara，根律儀：通過控制感官來遵守戒律）。如果律儀僅僅是無表色（Avijnapti-rupa，無表色：一種不可見的、無意識的物質形式，被認為是戒律的基礎），為什麼略戒乃至說意律儀善哉？又契經（Sutra，契經：佛經）說眼根律儀。這意律儀和根律儀，以什麼為自性（Svabhava，自性：事物自身存在的本質）問。
論：這二者的自性不是無表色。答。
論：如果不是無表色，那是什麼？問。下半行頌。答。
論曰乃至顯勿如次。解釋頌文。言正知（Samprajanya，正知：對自己的行為和意圖保持清晰的覺知）、正念（Smrti，正念：保持對當下的覺察）合者。合此念、慧（Prajna，慧：智慧）為意律儀。合此慧、念為根律儀。合言顯示並非如次。正知為意律儀。正念為根律儀。正知、正念能夠防止惡行，所以名為律儀。
論：現在應該思擇表（Vijnapti，表：可見的行為）和無表。以下第四部分說明時分。文中有六個部分。一、說明成就善、惡戒的時分。二、說明成就中性（Neither good nor bad）的時分。三、說明住於二戒兼處中性的時分。四、說明表色的時分。五、順便說明惡戒的各種名稱。六、四句分別。此文是第一個部分。
論曰乃至恒成現在。解釋成就現在。住在別解脫（Pratimoksa，別解脫：佛教戒律的總稱）的補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅：個體，人）。說明成就別解脫的人。未捨棄以來，恒常成就現在。說明必定成就現在。
論：此別解脫乃至遍流至后。解釋普遍成就過去。住在別解脫的人，未捨棄以來，最初剎那（Ksana，剎那：極短的時間單位）時僅僅成就現在。第二剎那之後，普遍成就過去。
論：無散無表乃至勢微。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore. The first eight Anantarya-margas (Anantarya-marga: the path of practice for practitioners to eliminate afflictions and attain liberation, in which practice is uninterrupted) serve as antidotes to the arising of evil defilements of breaking precepts, such as cutting off. The ninth Anantarya-marga serves as an antidote to cutting off evil deeds of breaking precepts and the arising of those defilements. The five meditation grounds above serve as antidotes to aversion, holding, and distancing from evil deeds of breaking precepts and defilements. The Arupaloka (Arupaloka: the realm of mental existence beyond the material world in Buddhist cosmology) serves as an antidote to distancing from evil deeds of breaking precepts and defilements.
Treatise: From 'Therefore, there may be,' to 'as should be known.' The fourfold distinction can be understood as in the text.
Treatise: If so, what the World Honored One (Bhagavan, 世尊) said about the concise Sila (Sila: Buddhist ethical precepts), the second half of the verse. The third cause-argument treatise explains Manas-samvara (Manas-samvara: guarding the mind) and Indriya-samvara (Indriya-samvara: guarding the senses). If Sila is only Avijnapti-rupa (Avijnapti-rupa: non-revealing form), why does the concise Sila even say that guarding the mind is good? Moreover, the Sutra (Sutra: Buddhist scripture) speaks of guarding the eye sense. What is the Svabhava (Svabhava: intrinsic nature) of this guarding of the mind and guarding of the senses? Question.
Treatise: The Svabhava of these two is not Avijnapti-rupa. Answer.
Treatise: If it is not Avijnapti-rupa, then what is it? Question. The second half of the line of the verse. Answer.
Treatise says, 'to show not in order.' Explaining the verse. The words 'Samprajanya (Samprajanya: clear comprehension) and Smrti (Smrti: mindfulness) combined' mean combining this Smrti and Prajna (Prajna: wisdom) as guarding the mind. Combining this Prajna and Smrti as guarding the senses. The word 'combined' shows that it is not in order. Samprajanya is guarding the mind. Smrti is guarding the senses. Samprajanya and Smrti can prevent evil, therefore they are called Sila.
Treatise: Now we should consider Vijnapti (Vijnapti: revealing action) and Avijnapti. The following fourth part explains the time divisions. There are six parts in the text. First, explaining the time division for accomplishing good and evil Sila. Second, explaining the time division for accomplishing neutral (neither good nor bad). Third, explaining the time division for abiding in the two Sila while also being neutral. Fourth, explaining the time division for Vijnapti. Fifth, conveniently explaining the various names of evil Sila. Sixth, the fourfold distinction. This text is the first part.
Treatise says, 'to constantly becoming present.' Explaining accomplishing the present. Abiding in the Pratimoksa (Pratimoksa: the code of monastic discipline) of the Pudgala (Pudgala: individual). Explaining accomplishing the person of Pratimoksa. Before abandoning it, it is constantly accomplishing the present. Explaining definitely accomplishing the present.
Treatise: This Pratimoksa, to universally flowing to the end. Explaining universally accomplishing the past. Abiding in the person of Pratimoksa, before abandoning it, only accomplishing the present at the first Ksana (Ksana: moment). After the second Ksana, universally accomplishing the past.
Treatise: Without scattered Avijnapti, to weak power.
劣故。此釋不成未來所以。正理論云。前生所得別解脫戒。於今受戒最初剎那。如靜慮律儀。何不成過去 此責非理。此戒與心非同果故。離染心等皆同一果。故彼戒如心得過去生者 又別解脫未曾得故。應如勝品靜慮律儀非初剎那中得過去生者(解云。離染心等者。等取一切有戒定心。皆與戒同一果故 勝品靜慮者。謂無始曾未起者)。
論。如說安住至亦成過去。釋惡戒也。同善律儀成現在世及過去也。
論。諸有獲得至必還得彼故。此釋靜慮律儀成過．未也。正理論云。此中應作簡別而說。以順抉擇分所攝定律儀。初剎那中不成過去。餘生所得命終時舍。今生無容重得彼故。又非一切有情曾起。有涅槃法者。方可有彼故(準此。有涅槃者是有解脫分善已去。解脫分前無容有。暖等戒故應分別說。若暖等俱戒不定成過去。舍已不重得故。若余定戒成過去故。此應簡別說)。
論。一切聖者至先未起故。釋道戒也。唯除最初苦法智忍一剎那中不成過去。爾時未有過去道故。自余聖者乃至未入無餘依前皆成過．未。
論。若有現住至有成現在。釋定．道戒成現在也。正理論云。理應但說在定．道時成現在世。定．道無表不應言住。如住果言唯說果成。非果現起。今但云住。云何得知定．道現
前。非但成就。是故彼說猶令生疑。不能定證成現無表。故應但言在定．道言。雖說住言勞而無用 今詳彼意。前文已說成就去．來。此句正明成就中世。故知說住顯起非成。以非唯成。證成現故。定．道無表隨心轉故。散心現前必無彼故。
論。已辨安住善惡律儀。下半頌。第二成處中無表。
論曰至種類所攝。此釋處中多無無表。若有無表是善．惡類。
論。彼初剎那至說成現在。釋成現在並頌中字。
論。初剎那后至二世無表。釋成二世。如文可解。
論。若有安住律不律儀。自下第三一頌。明住律儀．不律儀人成處中善．不善無表。
論曰至不善無表。此釋住律儀成不善無表。如文可解。
論。住不律儀至諸善無表。釋惡戒成善無表。
論。乃至此二心至通成過現釋成兩世 此二心未斷者。雜心云。至彼纏所纏。盡已盡。當知此即二心止已。無表即斷。與彼不住律不律儀有少不同。
論。已辨無表成表云何。自下第四一頌明成表也。
論曰至恒成現表。此釋表業正作之時恒成現表。
論。初剎那后至如無表釋。釋成過去不成未來。
論。有覆無覆至逆追成者。釋二無記無成過．未。法力劣故 逆謂未來 追謂過去。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 前文所說並非僅僅是成就，因此他的說法仍然令人懷疑，不能確定地證明成就現無表（xiàn wúbiǎo）。所以應該只說在禪定和修行之道中。即使說『住』也勞而無功。現在詳細分析他的意思，前文已經說了成就過去和未來，這句正是說明成就現在。因此可知說『住』只是顯現，並非成就。因為不是僅僅成就，所以能證明成就現在。禪定和修行之道的無表隨心念轉變，散亂心現前必定沒有這些無表。
論：已經辨析了安住善惡律儀（shàn è lǜyí），下面半頌，第二部分說明成就處中無表（chù zhōng wúbiǎo）。
論曰：到種類所攝。這是解釋處中多數沒有無表。如果有無表，就是善或惡的種類。
論：彼初剎那到說成現在。解釋成就現在，並解釋頌中的字。
論：初剎那後到二世無表。解釋成就過去和未來。如文義可以理解。
論：若有安住律不律儀（lǜ bù lǜyí），從下面第三個一頌，說明安住律儀和不律儀的人，成就處中善和不善無表。
論曰：到不善無表。這是解釋安住律儀成就不善無表。如文義可以理解。
論：住不律儀到諸善無表。解釋惡戒成就善無表。
論：乃至此二心到通成過現。解釋成就過去和現在。這兩個心未斷的人，《雜心》（Zá Xīn）中說，到被彼纏所纏，盡了就盡了。應當知道這就是二心停止了，無表也就斷了，與那些不住律不律儀的人有少許不同。
論：已經辨析了無表，成就表業（biǎo yè）是怎樣的呢？從下面第四個一頌說明成就表業。
論曰：到恒成現表。這是解釋表業正在造作的時候，恒常成就現在的表業。
論：初剎那後到如無表釋。解釋成就過去，不成就未來。
論：有覆無覆到逆追成者。解釋兩種無記（wújì）沒有成就過去和未來。因為法的力量弱小。逆是指未來，追是指過去。
論：
【English Translation】 English version: Previously, it was not merely about accomplishment. Therefore, his statement still raises doubts and cannot definitively prove the accomplishment of present avijñapti (xiàn wúbiǎo). Thus, it should only be said to be in samādhi (concentration) and the path of practice. Even saying 'abiding' is laborious and useless. Now, let's analyze his meaning in detail. The previous text has already discussed the accomplishment of the past and future. This sentence precisely explains the accomplishment of the present. Therefore, it can be known that saying 'abiding' is merely a manifestation, not an accomplishment. Because it is not merely accomplishment, it can prove the accomplishment of the present. The avijñapti of samādhi and the path of practice change with the mind's thoughts. When a distracted mind appears, these avijñapti are certainly not present.
Treatise: Having already distinguished the abiding in good and evil śīla (shàn è lǜyí), the second half of the verse below explains the accomplishment of neutral avijñapti (chù zhōng wúbiǎo).
Treatise says: To the extent of being included in categories. This explains that most of the neutral does not have avijñapti. If there is avijñapti, it is of the good or evil category.
Treatise: From the initial kṣaṇa (moment) to saying accomplishment in the present. Explains the accomplishment in the present and explains the words in the verse.
Treatise: After the initial kṣaṇa to avijñapti of the two times. Explains the accomplishment of the past and future. The meaning can be understood as in the text.
Treatise: If there are those who abide in śīla and aśīla (lǜ bù lǜyí), from the third verse below, it explains that those who abide in śīla and aśīla accomplish neutral good and evil avijñapti.
Treatise says: To the extent of non-good avijñapti. This explains that abiding in śīla accomplishes non-good avijñapti. The meaning can be understood as in the text.
Treatise: Abiding in aśīla to all good avijñapti. Explains that evil precepts accomplish good avijñapti.
Treatise: Even to these two minds to universally accomplish the past and present. Explains the accomplishment of the past and present. For those whose two minds have not been severed, the Zá Xīn says, to the extent of being entangled by those entanglements, when they are exhausted, they are exhausted. It should be known that this is when the two minds have ceased, and the avijñapti is also severed, which is slightly different from those who do not abide in śīla and aśīla.
Treatise: Having already distinguished avijñapti, how is the accomplishment of vijñapti-karma (biǎo yè)? From the fourth verse below, it explains the accomplishment of vijñapti-karma.
Treatise says: To the extent of constantly accomplishing present vijñapti. This explains that when vijñapti-karma is being created, it constantly accomplishes present vijñapti.
Treatise: After the initial kṣaṇa to explained like avijñapti. Explains the accomplishment of the past, not the accomplishment of the future.
Treatise: With covered and uncovered to those who retroactively accomplish. Explains that the two kinds of avyākṛta (wújì) do not accomplish the past and future. Because the power of the dharma is weak. 'Retroactively' refers to the future, and 'pursuing' refers to the past.
Treatise:
此法力劣誰之所為。問也。
論。是心所為。答也。
論。若爾有覆至勿成過未。難也。能發之心既成過．未。因何所發之表唯成現在。
論。此責非理至成有差別。答也。表是色法。昧鈍心故。表色依心起故。心等不然。無記表業從劣心起。其力倍劣彼能起心。故心成三世。表唯成現在。
論。如前所說住不律儀。已下半頌。第五明不律儀眾名。
論曰至名不律儀。釋眾名也。以五義不同故立五名也。
論。然業道名至立餘四名。釋名通局。如文可解。
論。或成表業非無表等。下一頌。第六明成表非無表等四句分別。
論曰至所發表業。明成表業非無表也。不住善．惡戒。起下劣思造善．惡業及無記業。皆唯成表不成無表。
論。除有依福及成業道 除有依福及成業道。雖下劣思亦發無表。此第一句。
論。唯成無表至或生已舍。釋成無表非成表也。此第二句。正理論云。豈不已得靜慮異生今表未生。先生已失。亦成無表非表業耶。何故頌中但標于聖非易生者理亦可然。何故釋中標易生者。
論。俱成非句如應當知。第三．四句。如文可知。婆沙一百二十二廣。即煩不錄。
論。說住律儀至由何而得。自下一頌。大文第五明得三律儀
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：這種法力的強弱是由誰造成的？（問） 答：是由心所造成的。（答） 問：如果這樣，那麼『有覆』（指有煩惱覆蓋）會導致『勿成過未』（不應成為過去和未來）的過失。（難）既然能發起的心已經成為過去和未來，為什麼由它所發起的表業（表現于外的行為）只能成為現在？ 答：這種責難是不合理的，最終會造成有差別。（答）表是色法（物質現象），因為心是昧鈍的。表色是依心而起的，所以表色和心的情況不同。無記表業（非善非惡的行為）是從低劣的心產生的，它的力量比能發起它的心還要弱。所以心可以成為三世（過去、現在、未來），而表只能成為現在。 問：如前面所說的『住不律儀』（安住于不持戒的狀態），以下半頌（半首偈頌）。第五部分說明不律儀的各種名稱。 答：論曰（論中說）……名為不律儀。解釋各種名稱。因為有五種意義不同，所以立了五個名稱。 問：然而『業道名』（以業道為名）……立其餘四個名稱。解釋名稱的通用和侷限性。如經文可以理解。 問：或者成就表業而非無表業等。下一頌（下一首偈頌）。第六部分說明成就表業而非無表業等四句的分別。 答：論曰（論中說）……所發表業。說明成就表業而非無表業。不住于善惡戒（不守持善或惡的戒律），產生低劣的思緒，造作善惡業以及無記業，都只能成就表業，不能成就無表業（不表現於外的行為）。 問：『除有依福及成業道』（除了有依靠福德和成就業道的情況）。即使是低劣的思緒也能引發無表業。這是第一句。 問：『唯成無表』（只成就無表業）……『或生已舍』（或者產生后已經捨棄）。解釋成就無表業而非成就表業。這是第二句。《正理論》說：『難道不是已經得到靜慮（禪定）的異生（凡夫），現在表業尚未產生，先生已經失去，也成就無表業而非表業嗎？』為什麼頌中只標明于聖者（聖人），而非容易產生的人，道理也是一樣的。為什麼解釋中標明容易產生的人？ 問：『俱成非句』（同時成就和不成就的句子）『如應當知』（應當如實了知）。第三、四句。如經文可以理解。《婆沙》（《大毗婆沙論》）第一百二十二卷有詳細解釋，這裡就不再贅述。 問：『說住律儀』（說安住于律儀）……『由何而得』（由什麼而獲得）。從下一頌開始。大文第五部分說明獲得三種律儀。
【English Translation】 English version Question: By whom is this inferior power of Dharma created? (Question) Answer: It is created by the mind. (Answer) Question: If that is so, then 'with obscuration' (referring to being covered by afflictions) would lead to the fault of 'not becoming past or future.' (Objection) Since the mind that can initiate has already become past and future, why can the manifested karma (actions expressed outwardly) initiated by it only become present? Answer: This objection is unreasonable and ultimately creates a distinction. (Answer) Manifestation is a form of matter (rupa), because the mind is dull and obscure. Manifestation arises dependent on the mind, so the manifestation and the mind are not the same. Indeterminate manifested karma (neither good nor bad actions) arises from an inferior mind, and its power is even weaker than the mind that initiates it. Therefore, the mind can become the three times (past, present, future), while manifestation can only become the present. Question: As previously stated, 'abiding in non-restraint' (remaining in a state of not upholding precepts), the following half-verse. The fifth section explains the various names of non-restraint. Answer: The treatise says... named non-restraint. Explaining the various names. Because there are five different meanings, five names are established. Question: However, 'the name of karma-path' ... establishes the other four names. Explaining the generality and limitations of the names. As the text can be understood. Question: Or accomplishing manifested karma but not unmanifested karma, etc. The next verse. The sixth section explains the distinction of the four sentences, such as accomplishing manifested karma but not unmanifested karma. Answer: The treatise says... manifested karma. Explaining accomplishing manifested karma but not unmanifested karma. Not abiding in good or bad precepts (not upholding good or bad precepts), generating inferior thoughts, creating good, bad, and indeterminate karma, all can only accomplish manifested karma and cannot accomplish unmanifested karma (actions not expressed outwardly). Question: 'Except for those relying on merit and accomplishing the path of karma' (except for those relying on merit and accomplishing the path of karma). Even inferior thoughts can initiate unmanifested karma. This is the first sentence. Question: 'Only accomplishing unmanifested karma' ... 'or arising and already abandoned.' Explaining accomplishing unmanifested karma but not accomplishing manifested karma. This is the second sentence. The Abhidharmakosha says: 'Isn't it the case that a common being who has already attained dhyana (meditative absorption), now the manifested karma has not yet arisen, and the previous life has already been lost, also accomplishes unmanifested karma but not manifested karma?' Why does the verse only indicate those who are noble (aryas), and not those who easily arise, the principle is also the same. Why does the explanation indicate those who easily arise? Question: 'Both accomplishing and not accomplishing sentences' 'should be known as appropriate.' The third and fourth sentences. As the text can be understood. The Mahavibhasa (the Great Commentary) volume 122 has a detailed explanation, which will not be repeated here. Question: 'Saying abiding in restraint' ... 'by what is it obtained.' Starting from the next verse. The fifth major section explains obtaining the three restraints.
也。
論曰至亦心俱故。此釋得彼心時即得彼戒。
論。彼聲為顯至簡取無漏。釋頌彼。聖。兩字 彼謂前靜慮。靜慮通漏．無漏故 聖。唯簡取無漏。有漏非聖體故。
論。六靜慮地至如后當辨。四根本及中間．初未至無漏定。非上三未至。如后當辨。
論。別解脫律儀至由他教得。釋得別解脫也 從他教者謂能教者他。非一切。然十眾別人皆是他也 等者。等取自然得戒等也。
論。此復二種至餘五種戒二種他。謂別人及眾 四人已上名曰僧伽。戒八眾中苾芻等三從眾得也 補特伽羅是別人。謂餘五種從此得故。若勤策．勤策女從二人得。若近事．近事女近住從一人得。
論。諸毗奈耶至復說等言。別釋等字。
論。何者為十。問也。
論。一由自然至共集受具戒。已下答也 正理論云。自然謂智。以不從師證此智時得具足戒。即是佛及獨覺至盡智時得此戒也 二由入正性離生。謂五苾芻。正理論云。由證見道得具足戒 此即憍陳那等五苾芻也 三由佛命善來苾芻爾時俱戒。謂耶舍等。耶舍此云名譽。正理論云。由本願力佛威加故 四信受佛為大師爾時得戒。謂大迦葉等 五由善巧酬答。謂蘇陀夷。蘇陀夷此云善施。年始七歲善答佛問稱可佛心。雖年未滿二十
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "", "也。", "", '論曰：『至亦心俱故』。此解釋了在獲得彼心時，即獲得彼戒。', "", '論：『彼聲為顯至簡取無漏』。解釋頌文中的『彼』、『聖』兩個字。『彼』指的是前面的靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）。靜慮通於有漏（Sāsrava，有煩惱的）和無漏（Anāsrava，無煩惱的），所以要用『聖』字來簡擇，只取無漏。因為有漏不是聖者的體性。', "", '論：『六靜慮地至如后當辨』。四根本定（catvāri dhyānāni，色界四禪）以及中間定（dhyānāntara，位於初禪和未至定之間的禪定）、初未至定（prathamam anāgamya，未至定的初禪）都是無漏定。不是上三未至定（anāgamya，未至定）。這些將在後面詳細辨析。', "", '論：『別解脫律儀至由他教得』。解釋了獲得別解脫（prātimokṣa，戒律）的方式是『由他教得』。', "", '從他教者，指的是能教導的人是『他』，但不是所有的人。而是指十眾（daśa-varga，比丘受戒時所需的十位僧人）中的別人。『等』字，包括了自然得戒等情況。', "", '論：『此復二種至餘五種戒二種他』。指的是別人和眾。四人以上稱為僧伽（saṃgha，僧團）。戒律中的八眾（aṣṭa-varga，八類僧眾）中，比丘（bhikṣu，男性出家人）等三種是從僧眾處獲得。', "", '補特伽羅（pudgala，人）是別人，指的是其餘五種戒律從此獲得。如果勤策（śrāmaṇera，沙彌）、勤策女（śrāmaṇerikā，沙彌尼）從二人處獲得。如果近事男（upāsaka，優婆塞）、近事女（upāsikā，優婆夷）、近住男（upavāsa，八關齋戒男）、近住女（upavāsa，八關齋戒女）從一人處獲得。', "", '論：『諸毗奈耶至復說等言』。進一步解釋了『等』字。', "", '論：『何者為十？』這是提問。', "", '論：『一由自然至共集受具戒』。以下是回答。', "", '正理論（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya，阿毗達磨俱舍論）中說：『自然指的是智慧。因為不從師而證得此智慧時，就獲得了具足戒（upasampadā，比丘戒）。這就是佛（Buddha，覺者）和獨覺（pratyekabuddha，辟支佛）在盡智（ksaya-jnana，斷盡煩惱的智慧）時獲得此戒。』', "", '二是由入正性離生（samyaktva-nyāmāvakrānti，入正道）。指的是五比丘（pañcavargika，五比丘）。正理論中說：『由證見道（darśanamārga，見道）而獲得具足戒。』', "", '這裡指的是憍陳那（Ājñāta Kauṇḍinya，阿若憍陳如）等五比丘。', "", '三是由佛命『善來比丘』，當時就獲得了戒律。指的是耶舍（Yaśa，耶舍）等。耶舍的意思是名譽。正理論中說：『由本願力，佛的威神加持的緣故。』', "", '四是信受佛為大師，當時就獲得了戒律。指的是大迦葉（Mahākāśyapa，摩訶迦葉）等。', "", '五是由善巧酬答。指的是蘇陀夷（Sudāyin，須達夷）。蘇陀夷的意思是善施。年齡剛七歲，善於回答佛的問題，稱合佛心。雖然年齡未滿二十。', "", "English version:", "", "Also.", "", "Treatise says: 'To also mind together therefore.' This explains that when obtaining that mind, one obtains that precept.", "", "Treatise: 'That sound is to reveal, to simplify and take the unconditioned.' Explains the words 'That' and 'Holy' in the verse. 'That' refers to the preceding Dhyana (meditative absorption). Dhyana is common to both Sāsrava (with outflows, defiled) and Anāsrava (without outflows, undefiled), therefore 'Holy' is used to simplify and only take the unconditioned. Because the conditioned is not the nature of the Holy.", "", "Treatise: 'The six Dhyana grounds, as will be distinguished later.' The four fundamental Dhyanas (catvāri dhyānāni, the four form realm Dhyanas) as well as the intermediate Dhyana (dhyānāntara, the meditation between the first Dhyana and the Anāgamya) and the first Anāgamya (prathamam anāgamya, the first Dhyana of the Anāgamya) are all unconditioned Dhyanas. Not the upper three Anāgamyas (anāgamya, the Anāgamya). These will be distinguished in detail later.", "", "Treatise: 'The Prātimokṣa (individual liberation) vows are obtained through other's teaching.' Explains that the way to obtain Prātimokṣa is 'obtained through other's teaching'.", "", "From other's teaching, refers to the one who can teach is 'other', but not everyone. But refers to others among the ten-fold assembly (daśa-varga, the ten monks required for Bhikṣu ordination). 'Etc.' includes naturally obtaining the precepts etc.", "", "Treatise: 'This again has two kinds, to the remaining five kinds of precepts, two kinds of others.' Refers to others and the Sangha (saṃgha, monastic community). More than four people are called Sangha. Among the eight assemblies (aṣṭa-varga, eight kinds of monastic assemblies) in the precepts, Bhikṣu (bhikṣu, male monastic) and the other two are obtained from the Sangha.", "", "Pudgala (pudgala, person) is other, referring to the remaining five kinds of precepts obtained from this. If Śrāmaṇera (śrāmaṇera, novice monk) and Śrāmaṇerikā (śrāmaṇerikā, novice nun) are obtained from two people. If Upāsaka (upāsaka, lay male devotee), Upāsikā (upāsikā, lay female devotee), Upavāsa (upavāsa, male observing eight precepts), Upavāsa (upavāsa, female observing eight precepts) are obtained from one person.", "", "Treatise: 'All Vinaya (monastic discipline) to again say 'etc.' Further explains the word 'etc.'", "", "Treatise: 'What are the ten?' This is a question.", "", "Treatise: 'One from natural to together gather to receive full precepts.' The following is the answer.", "", "The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Treasury of Abhidharma) says: 'Natural refers to wisdom. Because when one attains this wisdom without a teacher, one obtains the full precepts (upasampadā, Bhikṣu precepts). This is the Buddha (Buddha, the Awakened One) and Pratyekabuddha (pratyekabuddha, Solitary Buddha) obtaining this precept at the time of the exhaustion of knowledge (ksaya-jnana, wisdom of the exhaustion of afflictions).'", "", "Two is from entering the rightness of separation from birth (samyaktva-nyāmāvakrānti, entering the right path). Refers to the five Bhikṣus (pañcavargika, the group of five monks). The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'From attaining the path of seeing (darśanamārga, the path of seeing) one obtains the full precepts.'", "", "This refers to Ājñāta Kauṇḍinya (Ājñāta Kauṇḍinya, Ajnata Kaundinya) and the other five Bhikṣus.", "", "Three is from the Buddha commanding 'Welcome Bhikṣu', at that time one obtains the precepts. Refers to Yaśa (Yaśa, Yasa) etc. Yaśa means fame. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Due to the power of the original vow, and the Buddha's majestic blessing.'", "", "Four is believing and accepting the Buddha as the teacher, at that time one obtains the precepts. Refers to Mahākāśyapa (Mahākāśyapa, Mahakasyapa) etc.", "", "Five is from skillful answering. Refers to Sudāyin (Sudāyin, Sudayin). Sudāyin means good giving. He was only seven years old, and skillfully answered the Buddha's questions, pleasing the Buddha's mind. Although his age was not yet twenty." ] }
。佛令眾僧羯磨受具足戒。善巧酬答別開一緣。非酬答時即發也 言酬答者。佛問彼言。汝家在何處。蘇陀夷答言。三界無家 六由敬受八尊重法。爾時得戒。謂大生主 舊云大愛道者訛也。梵云摩訶波阇波提。摩訶此云大。波阇此云生。波提此云主。是大梵王千名中一名也。眾生多故名曰大生。梵王能生一切眾生。與大生為主。名大生主。從所乞處天神為名。大生主是佛姨母。佛遣阿難為說八尊重法。彼即敬受。爾時得戒。此八是尊大苾芻法。故名八尊重法。舊云八敬。于尼眾中最初出家。廣如律說 七由遣使。得戒。謂法授尼。尼名法授。此尼端政。欲往僧中恐路有難。受具戒時不對大僧。大僧遣尼受法轉與受戒。故名由遣使得具戒也。為護難故別開此緣 八由持律為第五人。謂于邊國以無僧故極少猶須五人。以和上不入眾數餘四成眾。減不成眾。於五人中必信一人持律羯磨。故言持律第五。減五不成。多即不遮 九由十眾。謂于中國僧多之處。極少猶須十人。多亦不遮 十由三說歸佛．法．僧。謂六十賢部眾。佛遣阿羅漢為說三歸受得具戒。
論。如是所得至表業而發。論主制上得戒非定依表發無表也。婆沙一百二十二云。若住別解脫律儀。及住不律儀。現無身表。有二說。一云第二剎那以後。彼初剎那
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：佛陀命令眾僧通過羯磨（Karma，一種宗教儀式）授予具足戒（full monastic ordination）。善於巧妙應對問答，可以特別開許一種因緣。如果不是在應對問答的時候，戒體不會生起。所謂『應對問答』，例如佛陀問他：『你家在哪裡？』蘇陀夷（Sudāyin，人名）回答說：『三界（Three Realms）無家。』 通過敬受八尊重法（Eight Garudhammas），也能得到戒。例如大生主（Mahāprajāpatī，佛陀的姨母）。舊譯『大愛道』是錯誤的。梵文是摩訶波阇波提（Mahāprajāpatī）。摩訶（Mahā）意為『大』，阇（Prajā）意為『生』，波提（pati）意為『主』。這是大梵天王（Mahābrahmā）的千個名字中的一個。因為眾生眾多，所以稱為『大生』。梵天王能生一切眾生，作為大生的主宰，所以名為『大生主』。這是從所乞求處的天神而得名。大生主是佛陀的姨母。佛陀派遣阿難（Ānanda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）為她說八尊重法，她立即敬受，當時就得到了戒。這八條是尊重大比丘（bhikṣu，男性出家人）的戒法，所以名為八尊重法。舊譯為『八敬』。她是尼眾（bhikṣunī，女性出家人）中最初出家的人，詳細情況如律中所說。 七、通過派遣使者也能得到戒。例如法授尼（Dharma-datta-bhikṣunī，比丘尼的名字）。這位比丘尼端莊美麗，擔心前往僧團的路上會有危險。在受具足戒時，不能面對大僧（bhikkhu-saṃgha，比丘僧團）。大僧派遣比丘尼傳授戒法，轉而為她授戒。所以稱為通過派遣使者得到具足戒。爲了保護她免受困難，特別開許了這種因緣。 八、通過持律者作為第五人也能得到戒。例如在邊遠地區，因為沒有僧眾，所以最少也需要五個人。以和尚（Upadhyaya，戒師）不計入僧眾人數，其餘四人組成僧團。少於這個人數就不能組成僧團。在這五人中，必須信任一位持律者來執行羯磨。所以說持律者是第五人。少於五人則不能成事，多於五人則不禁止。 九、通過十眾也能得到戒。例如在中國僧眾多的地方，最少也需要十個人。多於十人也不禁止。 十、通過三說歸佛、法、僧（Buddha, Dharma, Sangha，佛教的三寶）也能得到戒。例如六十賢部眾（Sixty Bhadravargīya Monks）。佛陀派遣阿羅漢（Arhat，已證悟者）為他們說三歸依，他們因此得到了具足戒。 論：像這樣得到的戒，直到表業（vijñapti-karma，身語的表達行為）生起時才算真正得到。論主認為，得到戒並非一定依賴表業和無表業（avijñapti-karma，未表達的行為）。《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第一百二十二卷說：如果安住于別解脫律儀（prātimokṣa-saṃvara，戒律），或者安住于不律儀（非戒律），現在沒有身表（身體的表達）。有兩種說法：一種說法是，從第二個剎那（kṣaṇa，極短的時間單位）以後，第一個剎那...
【English Translation】 English version: The Buddha ordered the Sangha (community of monks) to perform Karma (a religious ritual) to grant the full monastic ordination (upasampadā). Skillful responses to questions can be a special condition for ordination. The precepts are not generated if it is not during the question and answer session. Regarding 'responding to questions,' for example, the Buddha asked him, 'Where is your home?' Sudāyin (name of a person) replied, 'The Three Realms (Triloka) have no home.' One can also obtain ordination by respectfully accepting the Eight Garudhammas (Eight weighty precepts). For example, Mahāprajāpatī (Buddha's aunt). The old translation 'Great Love Path' is incorrect. The Sanskrit is Mahāprajāpatī. Mahā means 'great,' Prajā means 'birth,' and pati means 'lord.' This is one of the thousand names of Mahābrahmā (Great Brahma King). Because there are many sentient beings, it is called 'Great Birth.' The Brahma King can give birth to all sentient beings, and as the lord of great birth, it is called 'Great Birth Lord.' This name is derived from the deity of the place where it was requested. Mahāprajāpatī is the Buddha's aunt. The Buddha sent Ānanda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples) to explain the Eight Garudhammas to her, and she immediately accepted them with respect, and at that time, she obtained ordination. These eight are the precepts respected by great Bhikṣus (ordained male monks), so they are called the Eight Garudhammas. The old translation is 'Eight Respects.' She was the first to be ordained among the Bhikṣunīs (ordained female monks), as detailed in the Vinaya (monastic rules). Seventh, ordination can also be obtained by sending a messenger. For example, Dharma-datta-bhikṣunī (name of a Bhikṣunī). This Bhikṣunī was dignified and beautiful, and she was worried that there would be difficulties on the way to the Sangha. When receiving full ordination, she could not face the great Sangha (bhikkhu-saṃgha, community of monks). The great Sangha sent a Bhikṣunī to transmit the Dharma and in turn ordain her. Therefore, it is called obtaining full ordination by sending a messenger. To protect her from difficulties, this condition was specially allowed. Eighth, ordination can also be obtained by having a Vinaya master as the fifth person. For example, in remote areas, because there is no Sangha, at least five people are needed. With the Upadhyaya (preceptor) not counted in the number of the Sangha, the remaining four form the Sangha. Less than this number cannot form a Sangha. Among these five people, one must trust a Vinaya master to perform Karma. Therefore, it is said that the Vinaya master is the fifth person. Less than five people cannot accomplish the matter, and more than five people are not prohibited. Ninth, ordination can also be obtained through a group of ten. For example, in China, where there are many Sanghas, at least ten people are needed. More than ten people are not prohibited. Tenth, ordination can also be obtained by reciting the Three Refuges (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) three times. For example, the Sixty Bhadravargīya Monks. The Buddha sent Arhats (enlightened beings) to recite the Three Refuges for them, and they therefore obtained full ordination. Treatise: The precepts obtained in this way are not truly obtained until the Vijñapti-karma (expressive actions of body and speech) arises. The author of the treatise believes that obtaining precepts does not necessarily depend on Vijñapti-karma and Avijñapti-karma (unexpressed actions). The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 122, says: If one abides in the Prātimokṣa-saṃvara (code of monastic discipline), or abides in non-discipline, there is currently no bodily expression. There are two views: one view is that from the second Kṣaṇa (an extremely short unit of time) onwards, the first Kṣaṇa...
必有表故。二云彼初剎那亦是所說。有現無身表受不律儀故。滅定中得具戒故 解云。現無身表受不律儀者。謂受事得不律儀 在滅定中得具戒者。謂那舍沙彌第三羯磨入滅定等。又亦容是上法見諦得戒等也 此兩說中后說為正。入無心定時無表業故 婆沙云若住別解脫律儀及不律儀現無身表者 此據現無身表。依過去加行表發者。亦得是現無身表。不得定是欲界無表離表而發 正理四十二云。有餘師說。非於欲界一切無表悉依表生。如得果時五苾芻等 準后師釋。前必應云欲界無表定從表生。正理通余師引證云。然彼先時決定有表 準此論文。正理斷取欲界無表定從表生。若無根本從加行生 然此兩說與婆沙不同 婆沙云。若住別解律儀現無身表。一說據后剎那。一說初容無有。不說從加行生。亦得是住律儀無身表業。即不得是離表而生 有人誤釋謂為同也。此論中雲如是所得別解脫律儀非必定依表業而發 又論云。七善業道若從受生。必皆具表．無表。受生尸羅必依表故。佛及五苾芻別解脫戒。不從受生故不依表。論主存也。故言非必定依表業而發 正理論師不許此義。故云然彼五苾芻等先時決定有表相續不斷。至得果時從彼而發。又論主。亦言非欲界無表離表而生。故知論主說佛及五苾芻得別解脫時身亦有表
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "必有表業的緣故。第二種觀點認為，最初的剎那也是所說的（無表業），因為有現行但沒有身表，受持不律儀的緣故。在滅盡定中可以獲得具足戒的緣故。", "解釋：『現無身表受不律儀者』，是指受戒時得到不律儀（的狀態）。『在滅定中得具戒者』，是指那舍沙彌在第三次羯磨時進入滅盡定等情況。也可能是在修習上法見諦時得到戒等情況。", "這兩種說法中，后一種說法是正確的。因為進入無心定時，沒有表業的緣故。《婆沙論》說，如果安住于別解脫律儀及不律儀，現行時沒有身表，這是根據現行時沒有身表而言。依據過去加行而發的表業，也可以是現行時沒有身表，但不能確定是欲界的無表業離開表業而產生。", "《正理》第四十二卷說：『有其他論師說，並非在欲界一切無表業都依賴表業而生，例如證得果位時的五比丘等。』", "根據后一種論師的解釋，前面應該說『欲界的無表業必定從表業而生』。《正理》引用其他論師的論證說：『然而他們在先前一定有表業。』", "根據這段論文，《正理》斷定欲界的無表業必定從表業而生，如果沒有根本的表業，就從加行而生。", "然而這兩種說法與《婆沙論》不同。《婆沙論》說：『如果安住于別解脫律儀，現行時沒有身表，一種說法是根據後來的剎那，一種說法是最初的剎那可能沒有。』沒有說從加行而生，也可以是安住于律儀而沒有身表業，但不能是離開表業而產生。", "有人錯誤地解釋說這兩種說法相同。此論中說：『像這樣所得的別解脫律儀，並非必定依賴表業而發。』", "又論中說：『七善業道如果從受戒而生，必定都具有表業和無表業，因為受戒而生的尸羅必定依賴表業。』佛陀和五比丘的別解脫戒，不是從受戒而生，所以不依賴表業。論主是保留這種觀點的。所以說『並非必定依賴表業而發』。", "《正理論》的論師不認可這種觀點，所以說：『然而那五比丘等在先前一定有表業相續不斷，直到證得果位時從那裡而發。』而且論主也說『並非欲界的無表業離開表業而生』。由此可知，論主認為佛陀和五比丘得到別解脫時，身體也有表業。", "專有名詞解釋：", "別解脫律儀（Pratimoksha）：佛教戒律，旨在從煩惱中解脫。", "不律儀（Avrata）：違背戒律的行為。", "滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti）：一種高級禪定狀態，停止一切心識活動。", "羯磨（Karma）：業，行為及其結果。", "沙彌（Śrāmaṇera）：佛教出家眾的初級階段。", "尸羅（Śīla）：戒律，道德行為。", "五比丘（Pañcavargika）：佛陀最初的五位弟子。", "婆沙（Vibhasa）：佛教論書，對經文的註釋。", "正理（Nyaya）：佛教邏輯學派。", "苾芻（Bhiksu）：比丘，佛教出家男眾。", "七善業道（Sapta kuśalāni karma-pathāni）：不殺生、不偷盜、不邪淫、不妄語、不兩舌、不惡口、不綺語。", "上法見諦：通過修行獲得對佛法的真知灼見", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", ], "english_translations": [ "English version:", "It must be because of the existence of manifested karma (表業)。 The second view is that the initial moment is also what is being referred to (as non-manifested karma), because there is present action but no bodily manifestation, and because of upholding non-virtuous conduct. It is because one can obtain the complete precepts while in cessation meditation (滅盡定).", "Explanation: 『Present without bodily manifestation, upholding non-virtuous conduct』 refers to obtaining non-virtuous conduct when receiving the precepts. 『Obtaining the complete precepts while in cessation meditation』 refers to situations such as the novice monk Nāga entering cessation meditation during the third karma procedure. It may also refer to obtaining precepts upon seeing the truth through the practice of higher Dharma.", "Among these two views, the latter is correct because there is no manifested karma when entering a state of no-mind. The Vibhasa states, 『If one abides in the Pratimoksha (別解脫律儀) precepts and non-precepts, and there is no bodily manifestation, this is based on the absence of bodily manifestation in the present. Manifested karma arising from past actions can also be present without bodily manifestation, but it cannot be determined that the non-manifested karma of the desire realm arises apart from manifested karma.』", "The Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理) Volume 42 states, 『Some other teachers say that not all non-manifested karma in the desire realm arises dependent on manifested karma, such as the five bhikshus (苾芻) at the time of attaining the fruit.』", "According to the interpretation of the latter teachers, it should be said earlier that 『the non-manifested karma of the desire realm necessarily arises from manifested karma.』 The Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra quotes the arguments of other teachers, saying, 『However, they certainly had manifested karma in the past.』", "According to this text, the Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra concludes that the non-manifested karma of the desire realm necessarily arises from manifested karma. If there is no fundamental manifested karma, it arises from preparatory actions.", "However, these two views differ from the Vibhasa. The Vibhasa states, 『If one abides in the Pratimoksha precepts and there is no bodily manifestation, one view is based on the later moment, and one view is that there may be none in the initial moment.』 It does not say that it arises from preparatory actions; it can also be abiding in the precepts without bodily karma, but it cannot arise apart from manifested karma.", "Some people mistakenly interpret these two views as the same. This treatise states, 『The Pratimoksha precepts obtained in this way do not necessarily arise dependent on manifested karma.』", "The treatise also states, 『If the seven virtuous paths of action arise from receiving precepts, they must all have both manifested and non-manifested karma, because the śīla (尸羅) arising from receiving precepts necessarily depends on manifested karma.』 The Pratimoksha precepts of the Buddha and the five bhikshus did not arise from receiving precepts, so they do not depend on manifested karma. The author of the treatise retains this view. Therefore, it is said that 『they do not necessarily arise dependent on manifested karma.』", "The teachers of the Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra do not accept this view, so they say, 『However, those five bhikshus certainly had a continuous stream of manifested karma in the past, and it arose from that when they attained the fruit.』 Moreover, the author of the treatise also says that 『the non-manifested karma of the desire realm does not arise apart from manifested karma.』 Therefore, it is known that the author of the treatise believes that the Buddha and the five bhikshus also had manifested karma in their bodies when they obtained the Pratimoksha.", "Explanation of Proper Nouns:", "Pratimoksha (別解脫律儀): Buddhist precepts aimed at liberation from afflictions.", "Avrata (不律儀): Actions that violate precepts.", "Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定): An advanced meditative state in which all mental activity ceases.", "Karma (羯磨): Action and its consequences.", "Śrāmaṇera (沙彌): The initial stage of Buddhist monastic life.", "Śīla (尸羅): Precepts, moral conduct.", "Pañcavargika (五比丘): The Buddha's first five disciples.", "Vibhasa (婆沙): Buddhist commentaries on scriptures.", "Abhidharma-nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理): A school of Buddhist logic.", "Bhiksu (苾芻): A Buddhist monk.", "Sapta kuśalāni karma-pathāni (七善業道): The seven virtuous paths of action: abstaining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, divisive speech, harsh speech, and idle chatter.", "Attaining insight into the higher Dharma: Gaining true knowledge and insight into the Buddha's teachings through practice." ] }
論師此釋前．后自違。待重撿文會釋。不可一論同自相牟楯。
論。又此所說至要期而受。自下大文第六明二邊際。文中有二。一明別解脫戒。二明惡戒。此文初也。
論曰至晝夜邊際。明別解脫戒。唯有二邊際。
論。重說晝夜為半月等。此通伏難 難云。若唯有二分齊。何故經中。云或半月或一月受近住戒 通云。說半月等者。此說重受日夜戒。滿半月等名半月等。非是一受經半月等也。如無量壽經云。日日如是受王八戒 即是日日受經半月等也。
論。時名是何法。問時體也。
論。謂諸行增語至立晝．夜名。答也。增語是名。即是有為法光位闇位。立晝夜名。
論。二邊際中至非亦得起。經部難也。盡壽分齊有三道理戒后不生。一依身別故。二別依身中無加行故。三無憶念當受時所遮防故。一晝夜復。或五。或十晝夜等時。何法為障令戒斷訖。
論。必應有法至一晝夜故。有部答也。法性微細唯佛能知。經中既說唯一晝夜。用應有法能為障礙。
論。于如是義至一晝夜戒。經部令有部等尋思經意 經說唯一晝夜者。以所化根難調伏故。且說一晝夜。非謂越一晝夜戒不得生。
論依何教理作如是言。有部反問經部。
論。過此戒生不違理故。經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：論師對前文和後文的解釋自相矛盾，需要重新檢查原文才能解釋清楚。不能讓一個論點自身互相矛盾。
論：前面所說的『到了一定時期才受戒』，以下大段文字的第六部分闡明了兩種邊際（指時間的界限）。這段文字包含兩部分：一是闡明別解脫戒（Pratimoksha，佛教戒律），二是闡明惡戒。這裡是第一部分。
論曰：到晝夜的邊際。闡明別解脫戒只有兩種邊際。
論：重說晝夜是爲了駁斥疑問。疑問是：如果只有兩種時間界限，為什麼經典中說，或者半個月或者一個月受近住戒（Upavasatha，一種戒律）？解釋說：說半個月等，是指重複受持日夜戒，滿了半個月等，就叫做半個月等，而不是一次受戒持續半個月等。例如《無量壽經》中說：『日日如是受王八戒』，就是指每天受持持續半個月等的戒律。
論：『時』這個名稱是什麼法？這是在詢問『時』的本體。
論：是指諸行的增語（附加的名稱），用來建立晝和夜的名稱。這是回答。增語就是名稱，也就是有為法的光明狀態和黑暗狀態，由此建立晝夜的名稱。
論：在兩種邊際中，並非不能生起（戒律）。這是經部的質疑。盡壽（終身）的戒律有三種道理導致戒律之後不再生起：一是依據身體的差別；二是在不同的身體中沒有額外的努力；三是沒有憶念在受戒時所遮止的事項。一個晝夜，或者五個，或者十個晝夜等時間，什麼法能夠障礙，導致戒律斷絕？
論：必定有某種法能夠導致戒律斷絕，因為只有一個晝夜。這是有部的回答。法的性質非常微妙，只有佛才能完全瞭解。經典中既然說只有一個晝夜，就應該有某種法能夠成為障礙。
論：對於這樣的意義，經部讓有部等思考經典的含義。經典說只有一個晝夜，是因為所教化的人根器難以調伏，所以暫且說一個晝夜，並非說超過一個晝夜戒律就不能生起。
論：依據什麼教義和道理說這樣的話？有部反問經部。
論：超過這個時間戒律生起並不違背道理，經部回答。
【English Translation】 English version: The master's interpretation contradicts itself from beginning to end. It needs to re-examine the text to explain it clearly. A theory cannot contradict itself.
Treatise: What was said earlier, 'receiving precepts when the time comes,' the sixth major section below clarifies the two boundaries (referring to time limits). This section contains two parts: one clarifies the Pratimoksha (Buddhist precepts), and the other clarifies evil precepts. This is the first part.
Treatise says: To the boundary of day and night. It clarifies that Pratimoksha precepts only have two boundaries.
Treatise: Repeating day and night is to refute the question. The question is: If there are only two time limits, why does the scripture say that one receives the Upavasatha (a type of precept) for half a month or a month? The explanation is: Saying half a month, etc., refers to repeatedly receiving the precepts of day and night. Being full for half a month, etc., is called half a month, etc., not receiving precepts once lasting for half a month, etc. For example, the Infinite Life Sutra says: 'Every day, one receives the eight kingly precepts in this way,' which means receiving precepts lasting for half a month, etc., every day.
Treatise: What dharma is the name 'time'? This is asking about the substance of 'time'.
Treatise: It refers to the appositional term (additional name) of all phenomena, used to establish the names of day and night. This is the answer. The appositional term is the name, which is the state of light and the state of darkness of conditioned dharmas, thereby establishing the names of day and night.
Treatise: Among the two boundaries, it is not that (precepts) cannot arise. This is the objection from the Sautrantika school. There are three reasons why precepts for life do not arise after the initial reception: first, due to the difference in the body; second, there is no additional effort in different bodies; third, there is no recollection of the matters prohibited at the time of receiving the precepts. For one day and night, or five, or ten days and nights, etc., what dharma can obstruct and cause the precepts to be cut off?
Treatise: There must be some dharma that can cause the precepts to be cut off, because there is only one day and night. This is the answer from the Sarvastivada school. The nature of dharma is very subtle, and only the Buddha can fully understand it. Since the scripture says there is only one day and night, there should be some dharma that can be an obstacle.
Treatise: Regarding this meaning, the Sautrantika school asks the Sarvastivada school, etc., to contemplate the meaning of the scripture. The scripture says there is only one day and night because the roots of those being taught are difficult to subdue, so it is temporarily said to be one day and night, not that precepts cannot arise beyond one day and night.
Treatise: Based on what teachings and reasoning do you say such things? The Sarvastivada school asks the Sautrantika school in return.
Treatise: It is not contrary to reason that precepts arise beyond this time, the Sautrantika school answers.
部答理。
論。毗婆沙者至不許斯義。有部以無教故不許。正理破云。復減於此。何理相違。謂所化根有難調者。已許為說晝夜律儀。何不為調漸難調者。說唯一夜一晝須史。以難調根有多品故。由此知有近住定時。若減若增便不發戒。世尊觀見故唯說此 是故經部與正理師無諍理中橫興諍論。
論。依何邊際得不律儀。已下半頌。第二明惡戒邊際。
論曰。至智人所訶厭業故。明惡戒唯有盡壽無晝夜也。以無對師要期受故。
論。若爾亦無至得不律儀。難。若以無對師受一日夜即無晝．夜。亦無對師要期盡壽。應無盡壽。
論。雖無對師至故不立有。通難。由起畢竟壞善意樂故。得盡壽不律儀。雖起暫時壞善意樂。不對師故不得日．夜不律儀也。雖暫時壞惡意樂心。以對師受得近住戒。若有對師受不律儀。亦令得惡戒。然無受者故不立有。
論。經部師說至阿世耶故。述經部宗。經部說。如善律儀無別實物名為無表也。但于現思上差別防惡功能。所熏習種子功能。假立無表 此不律儀亦應非實。即欲造惡不善意樂相應意思。熏身．語七差別功能熏成種子假名惡戒。由此熏習七思種子。后時善心雖起。名為成就不律儀者。以不捨此惡意樂故 惡意樂者。如意樂一生以殺自活中間
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 部答理（Sarvastivadins）。
論：毗婆沙論師甚至不認可這個觀點。有部宗（Sarvastivada）因為沒有教證而不認可。正理論師反駁說：『再減少一些，有什麼道理相悖呢？』意思是說，對於那些難以調伏的眾生，已經允許為他們宣說晝夜律儀，為什麼不為那些逐漸難以調伏的眾生，宣說唯一一夜一晝的須史（susthita，善住）呢？因為難調伏的根器有很多種。由此可知，近住戒（uposatha）的受持時間，如果減少或增加，就不能引發戒體。世尊觀察到這一點，所以只說了這些。因此，經部師（Sautrantika）和正理論師之間，本無爭論的道理，卻橫生爭論。
論：依據什麼邊際（antah）會得到不律儀（asilavrata，惡戒）？接下來的半頌，第二部分闡明惡戒的邊際。
論曰：因為是智者所呵責厭惡的行為。說明惡戒只有盡壽（yavajjivam，終身）的，沒有晝夜的。因為沒有對師（acarya，阿阇梨）的要期受持。
論：如果這樣，也無法得到不律儀。難：如果以沒有對師的方式受持一日一夜，就沒有晝夜。也沒有對師要期受持盡壽，應該沒有盡壽。
論：雖然沒有對師，因為能發起。所以不成立有。通難：由於發起畢竟斷壞善意的樂，所以得到盡壽不律儀。雖然發起暫時斷壞善意的樂，因為沒有對師，所以不能得到日夜不律儀。雖然暫時斷壞惡意樂心，因為有對師受持，得到近住戒。如果有對師受持不律儀，也會得到惡戒。但是因為沒有受持者，所以不成立有。
論：經部師說，因為阿世耶（asaya，意樂）。敘述經部宗的觀點。經部說：如同善律儀沒有別的實物，名為無表（avijnapti，無表色）。只是在現行思（cetana，思）上，差別防惡的功能，所熏習的種子功能，假立為無表。這種不律儀也應該不是真實的。即想要造惡的不善意樂相應的思，熏身語七支差別功能，熏成種子，假名為惡戒。由此熏習七思種子，之後即使生起善心，也名為成就了不律儀者。因為不捨棄這種惡意樂的緣故。惡意樂，如意樂一生以殺生為活，中間
【English Translation】 English version The Sarvastivadins.
Discussion: The Vaibhashikas (Vibhasha masters) do not even accept this view. The Sarvastivada school does not accept it because there is no scriptural authority. The masters of the Nyaya (logic) school refute this by saying, 'What contradiction is there in reducing it further?' This means that for those beings who are difficult to tame, it is already permitted to teach them the precepts for day and night. Why not teach those who are gradually more difficult to tame the susthita (well-established) for only one night and one day? Because there are many kinds of difficult-to-tame beings. From this, it is known that if the time for taking the uposatha (close dwelling) vow is reduced or increased, the precepts will not be generated. The World-Honored One (Bhagavan) saw this, so he only spoke of these. Therefore, there is no reason for dispute between the Sautrantikas (Sutra school) and the masters of the Nyaya school, yet disputes arise.
Discussion: Based on what boundary (antah) does one obtain asilavrata (non-restraint vows, evil precepts)? The following half-verse, the second part, clarifies the boundaries of evil precepts.
Discussion says: Because it is an action despised and loathed by the wise. It clarifies that evil precepts are only for life (yavajjivam, lifelong), not for day and night. Because there is no commitment to receive them from a teacher (acarya).
Discussion: If that is the case, then one cannot obtain non-restraint vows either. Objection: If one receives them for one day and one night without a teacher, then there is no day and night. And there is no commitment to receive them for life without a teacher, so there should be no lifelong vows.
Discussion: Although there is no teacher, it is established because it can arise. General objection: Because one initiates the intention to completely destroy good will, one obtains lifelong non-restraint vows. Although one initiates the intention to temporarily destroy good will, one cannot obtain day and night non-restraint vows because there is no teacher. Although one temporarily destroys the mind of evil intention, one obtains the uposatha vow because one receives it from a teacher. If one receives non-restraint vows from a teacher, one will also obtain evil precepts. But because there is no one who receives them, it is not established.
Discussion: The Sutra masters say, because of asaya (intention). Describes the view of the Sutra school. The Sutra school says: Just as good precepts have no separate real substance called avijnapti (non-revealing form). It is only on the current thought (cetana) that the function of preventing evil is differentiated, and the function of the seeds that are cultivated is falsely established as avijnapti. These non-restraint vows should also not be real. That is, the thought corresponding to the evil intention to commit evil, cultivates the sevenfold function of body and speech, and cultivates the seeds, falsely named evil precepts. From this cultivation of the seeds of the seven thoughts, even if good thoughts arise later, one is still called one who has accomplished non-restraint vows. Because one does not abandon this evil intention. Evil intention, such as the intention to live by killing throughout one's life, in the middle
。雖行施等起其善業。此殺意樂而不息也 阿世耶。此云意樂 攝大乘論。以欲及勝解為意樂體。亦是思愿。愿體亦同。
論。說一晝夜近住律儀。大文第七明近住戒。于中有三。一明受戒儀式。二明八支所以三明受人不同。此文初也。
論曰至齋竟亦得受。釋受時也。準此論文。先無要期者齋后受戒不得。又準此齋前總名晨旦。正理論云。受此律儀必須晝夜。謂至明旦日初出時。婆沙一百二十四云。一晝．一夜不增．不減。謂清旦時從師受得。至明清旦律儀便舍 乃至 時分定故。光．闇往來易了知故。
論。言下座者至不發律儀。釋受律儀也 若不在下床等。即不恭敬。有慢心故不得律儀。病者雖不曲躬等。無慢心故亦得戒也。
論。此必從師至能不違犯。釋此律儀無自誓受。必從師也。
論。受此戒者至二俱不成。釋從師儀式也。
論。具足受八支至近住不成。釋具支闕不成也 正理論云。具受八支方成近住。隨有所闕近住不成。諸遠離支互相屬故。由是四種離殺等支。於一身中可俱時起。以諸遠離相系屬中或少或多相差別故。
論。受此律儀至如新異故。釋律儀嚴飾異也。富貴者常嚴身具雖復精花。不生憍逸故亦得戒。
論。受此律儀至日初出時。釋戒舍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：即使施行佈施等善行，如果殺生的意念沒有停止，也是徒勞的。阿世耶（Āśaya），這裡指的是意樂。根據《攝大乘論》，意樂的本體是欲和勝解，也可以理解為思愿，其本體相同。
《論》中提到一晝夜的近住律儀。第七大段闡明了近住戒，其中包含三個方面：一是受戒的儀式，二是八支戒的意義，三是受戒者的不同。《論》中的這段文字屬於第一方面。
《論》曰：直到齋戒完畢也可以受戒。這是解釋受戒的時間。根據這段論文，如果事先沒有約定，齋戒后受戒是不允許的。此外，根據這段文字，齋戒前的時間都可以統稱為晨旦。《正理論》中說：受持此律儀必須晝夜，即到第二天太陽初升之時。《婆沙》第一百二十四卷中說：一晝夜不增不減，即清晨時從師父處受戒，到第二天清晨律儀便捨棄。乃至，因為時間分界是固定的，光亮和黑暗的交替容易辨認。
《論》曰：說『下座』等，直到『不發律儀』。這是解釋受持律儀的方式。如果不在下座等處，就是不恭敬，因為有傲慢心，所以不能得到律儀。病人即使不能彎腰等，因為沒有傲慢心，也可以得到戒律。
《論》曰：這必須從師父處，直到『能夠不違犯』。這是解釋此律儀不能自己發誓受持，必須從師父處受持。
《論》曰：受持此戒的人，直到『二者都不成』。這是解釋從師父處受戒的儀式。
《論》曰：具足受持八支戒，直到『近住不成』。這是解釋具足八支戒，缺少任何一支都不能成就近住。《正理論》中說：具足受持八支戒才能成就近住，缺少任何一支都不能成就近住。因為各個遠離支相互關聯。因此，四種遠離殺生等支，可以在同一身心中同時生起。因為各種遠離支相互關聯，或多或少存在差別。
《論》曰：受持此律儀，直到『如同新的一樣』。這是解釋律儀的莊嚴裝飾不同。富貴之人經常裝飾身體，即使裝飾得很精美，也不會因此產生驕傲放逸之心，所以也可以得到戒律。
《論》曰：受持此律儀，直到『太陽初升之時』。這是解釋戒律的捨棄。
【English Translation】 English version: Even if one performs meritorious deeds such as giving, if the intention to kill is not ceased, it is in vain. Āśaya (阿世耶) here refers to 'intention'. According to the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (攝大乘論), the essence of intention is desire and superior understanding, which can also be understood as aspiration, and its essence is the same.
The Treatise mentions the one-day and one-night Uposatha vows. The seventh major section clarifies the Uposatha precepts, which include three aspects: first, the ceremony of taking the precepts; second, the meaning of the eight branches; and third, the differences among those who take the precepts. This passage in the Treatise belongs to the first aspect.
The Treatise says: 'One can take the precepts even after the fast is completed.' This explains the time for taking the precepts. According to this passage, if there is no prior agreement, taking the precepts after the fast is not allowed. Furthermore, according to this passage, the time before the fast can be collectively called 'morning'. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理論) says: 'To observe these precepts, it must be day and night, that is, until the sun rises the next day.' The Mahāvibhāṣā (婆沙) Volume 124 says: 'One day and one night, neither increasing nor decreasing,' that is, receiving the precepts from the teacher in the early morning, and the precepts are abandoned the next early morning. Even to, because the time division is fixed, the alternation of light and darkness is easy to recognize.
The Treatise says: 'Saying 'descend from the seat', etc., until 'not generating the precepts'.' This explains the manner of receiving the precepts. If one is not in a place like a lower seat, it is disrespectful, and because there is arrogance, one cannot obtain the precepts. Even if a sick person cannot bend down, etc., because there is no arrogance, they can still obtain the precepts.
The Treatise says: 'This must be from a teacher, until 'able to not violate'.' This explains that these precepts cannot be taken by self-vow; they must be taken from a teacher.
The Treatise says: 'Those who take these precepts, until 'both are not accomplished'.' This explains the ceremony of receiving the precepts from a teacher.
The Treatise says: 'Fully taking the eight branches, until 'the Uposatha is not accomplished'.' This explains that fully possessing the eight branches, lacking any one of them, the Uposatha cannot be accomplished. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理論) says: 'Only by fully taking the eight branches can the Uposatha be accomplished; lacking any one of them, the Uposatha cannot be accomplished. Because the various abstaining branches are interconnected. Therefore, the four abstaining branches, such as abstaining from killing, can arise simultaneously in the same body. Because the various abstaining branches are interconnected, there are differences in more or less.'
The Treatise says: 'Taking these precepts, until 'as if new'.' This explains the different adornments of the precepts. Wealthy people often adorn their bodies, and even if the adornments are exquisite, they will not generate arrogance and complacency because of it, so they can also obtain the precepts.
The Treatise says: 'Taking these precepts, until 'when the sun rises'.' This explains the abandonment of the precepts.
時也。
論。若不如斯至不得律儀。總釋也。一若不且受。二若不在師下床。三若不從師受。四若不隨師教受。五若不具八支。六若不離嚴飾。七不盡晝夜 七中隨闕一緣不得律儀。但得處中妙行。正理論云。然為令招可愛果故亦應為受。廣如婆沙二十三說。
論。又若如斯至深成有用。明近住利益。
論。言近住者至近盡壽戒住。釋名也。兩釋無評。正理論中兩說如前 又云。有說此戒近時而住(解云。此時促名為近住。以是婆沙第三家釋也)。
論。如是律儀至說此名長養。釋異名也。
論。何緣受此必具八支。自下第二有一頌。明八支所以。
論曰至厭離心故。明八戒有三種支。一尸羅支。二不放逸支。三禁約支。如文可解 正理論云。厭離能證律儀果故。
論。何緣具受如是三支。問 何緣要須具受尸羅等支。
論。若不具支至諸惡業故。答受尸羅支所以。若不受尸羅支。不能離性罪。
論。次離飲酒至諸事業故。答。若不受不放逸支。不能離失念故。若失念忘失應作．不應作事心樂故遂犯尸羅。
論。后離三種至心便離憍。答。若不受禁約支。心便憍舉尋即毀戒。正理論云。謂香鬘等若恒受用。尚順憍慢為犯戒緣。況受新奇曾未受者。故一
【現代漢語翻譯】 時也。
論：如果不如這樣，就不能得到律儀（Vinaya，戒律）。這是總體的解釋。一，如果不接受（戒律）。二，如果不在老師的座位下。三，如果不從老師那裡接受。四，如果不按照老師的教導接受。五，如果不具備八支（Asta-anga，八個組成部分）。六，如果不遠離華麗的裝飾。七，不盡晝夜（持戒）。這七種情況中，只要缺少一種，就不能得到律儀，只能得到處中的妙行。正理論說：『然而，爲了招感可愛的果報，也應該接受（戒律）。』詳細內容如《婆沙論》第二十三卷所說。
論：如果像這樣，就能深深地成就利益。說明近住（Upavasatha，齋戒日）的利益。
論：所說的『近住』，是指接近盡壽戒住。這是對名稱的解釋。兩種解釋都沒有評論。《正理論》中有兩種說法，如前所述。又說：『有人說，此戒是近時而住。』（解釋說：此時短暫，名為近住。這是《婆沙論》第三家的解釋）。
論：像這樣的律儀，被稱為『長養』。這是對不同名稱的解釋。
論：為什麼受持此戒必須具備八支？下面第二頌說明八支的原因。
論曰：爲了厭離（Nirveda，厭倦，脫離）心。說明八戒有三種支：一，尸羅支（Sila-anga，戒律支）。二，不放逸支（Apramada-anga，不放逸支）。三，禁約支（Samyama-anga，約束支）。如文義可以理解。《正理論》說：『厭離能夠證明律儀的果報。』
論：為什麼具足受持這樣的三種支？問：為什麼必須具足受持尸羅等支？
論：如果不具足支，就不能斷絕諸惡業。答：受持尸羅支的原因。如果不受持尸羅支，就不能離開自性罪（Prakriti-savadyata，本性上的罪過）。
論：其次，離開飲酒，是爲了斷絕諸事業。答：如果不受持不放逸支，就不能離開失念（Moha，失去正念）。如果失念，忘記應該做和不應該做的事情，內心就會喜歡，於是就觸犯了尸羅。
論：後來，離開三種（香、鬘、歌舞），內心便能離開憍慢（Mada，驕傲）。答：如果不受持禁約支，內心便會驕傲自大，隨即毀壞戒律。《正理論》說：『所謂的香、鬘等，如果經常受用，尚且順從驕慢，成為犯戒的因緣，更何況是受用新奇的、從未受用過的東西呢？』所以，要遠離。
【English Translation】 Time also.
Treatise: If it is not like this, one cannot obtain Vinaya (discipline). This is a general explanation. 1. If one does not accept (the precepts). 2. If one is not under the teacher's seat. 3. If one does not receive from the teacher. 4. If one does not accept according to the teacher's instructions. 5. If one does not possess the eight limbs (Asta-anga, eight components). 6. If one does not abstain from elaborate adornments. 7. Not completely observing day and night (the precepts). Among these seven, lacking any one condition prevents obtaining the Vinaya, and one can only attain middling excellent conduct. The Nyaya Anusara Shastra (正理論) says: 'However, in order to attract desirable consequences, one should also accept (the precepts).' Detailed explanations are found in the Vibhasa (婆沙) Shastra, volume 23.
Treatise: If it is like this, one can deeply accomplish benefits. Explains the benefits of Upavasatha (近住, observance day).
Treatise: The term 'Upavasatha' refers to dwelling near the precepts until the end of life. This is an explanation of the name. There are no comments on either explanation. The Nyaya Anusara Shastra contains two explanations as mentioned before. It also says: 'Some say that this precept dwells for a short time.' (Explanation: This short time is called Upavasatha. This is the third explanation from the Vibhasa Shastra).
Treatise: Such Vinaya is called 'growth and nourishment'. This is an explanation of a different name.
Treatise: Why is it necessary to possess the eight limbs when receiving this precept? The second verse below explains the reason for the eight limbs.
Treatise says: For the sake of Nirveda (厭離, weariness, detachment). Explains that the eight precepts have three aspects: 1. Sila-anga (尸羅支, the limb of precepts). 2. Apramada-anga (不放逸支, the limb of non-negligence). 3. Samyama-anga (禁約支, the limb of restraint). The meaning can be understood from the text. The Nyaya Anusara Shastra says: 'Weariness can prove the result of Vinaya.'
Treatise: Why fully receive these three limbs? Question: Why is it necessary to fully receive the limbs of Sila, etc.?
Treatise: If one does not possess the limbs, one cannot sever all evil deeds. Answer: The reason for receiving the Sila limb. If one does not receive the Sila limb, one cannot depart from Prakriti-savadyata (自性罪, inherent faults).
Treatise: Secondly, abstaining from drinking alcohol is to sever all activities. Answer: If one does not receive the Apramada limb, one cannot depart from Moha (失念, loss of mindfulness). If one loses mindfulness, forgets what should and should not be done, and the mind enjoys it, then one violates the Sila.
Treatise: Later, abstaining from the three (perfumes, garlands, singing and dancing) allows the mind to depart from Mada (憍慢, pride). Answer: If one does not receive the Samyama limb, the mind becomes arrogant and immediately destroys the precepts. The Nyaya Anusara Shastra says: 'So-called perfumes, garlands, etc., if constantly used, still follow pride and become causes for violating the precepts, let alone using new and never-before-used things.' Therefore, one should abstain.
切種皆應舍離。
論。若有能持至心縱逸故。受齋有二事。一自憶受近住戒。二於世間深生厭離。若非時食二事俱無。
論。有餘師說至分為二故。敘異說也。太法師云是龍樹說。此法師意說。既云齋戒故以不非時食以為體性。除齋余有八種說名齋支。果塗飾香鬘為一。舞歌觀聽為一。食節有八支 齋梵名鄔波婆婆。此翻為齋。或名近住。
論。若作此執至隨行隨作。論主與余師出違經過。若謂余戒有八。齋為第九以為齋體。何故經說離非時食已便作是說此第八支 既言第八。明余唯七。又言支故。明非別立離。非時食以為齋體。不是齋支。
論。若爾至名齋支。余師反問。既齋等八事總是齋支。別立何法以為齋體。
論。總標齋號至應知亦爾。論主答也。如文可解。
論。毗婆沙師至支非靜慮。敘有部宗。準上有如聲故知道支等喻釋文也。
論。如是所說至即正見等支。總責非理。如何自體與自體為支。
論。若謂前生至不具有八支等。破轉計也 正見等若三摩地等。不可即此正見等為道等體。即用此正見為道等支。亦不可說前生正見等。與後生正見等為支。最初念時應無八支故。正理救云。經主於此謬作是責。不可正見等即正見等支。若謂前生正見等為後生正
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『切種皆應舍離』。
論：如果有人能夠以至誠之心，即使是放縱，也能受持齋戒，那麼受齋戒包含兩件事：一是自己憶念受持近住戒（Upavasatha，八關齋戒），二是對世間深深生起厭離之心。如果不是在規定的時間裡進食，那麼這兩件事都不具備。
論：有其他論師說，齋戒分為兩個部分，這是在敘述不同的觀點。太法師說是龍樹（Nagarjuna）菩薩說的。這位法師的意思是說，既然稱為齋戒，那麼就以不非時食作為其體性。除了齋戒之外，其餘的八種行為被稱為齋支。果塗飾香鬘算作一個齋支，舞歌觀聽算作一個齋支，飲食節制共有八個齋支。齋戒的梵文名稱是鄔波婆婆（Upavasatha），這裡翻譯為齋，或者稱為近住。
論：如果有人這樣認為，乃至隨行隨作。論主與其餘論師提出了相反的觀點。如果說其餘的戒律有八條，齋戒是第九條，並以此作為齋戒的本體，那麼為什麼經典在說完離非時食之後，就說這是第八支呢？既然說是第八支，就說明其餘只有七支。又說是支，就說明不是單獨設立離非時食作為齋戒的本體，它不是齋支。
論：如果這樣說，乃至名為齋支。其餘論師反問道：既然齋戒等八件事都是齋支，那麼另外設立什麼法作為齋戒的本體呢？
論：總標齋號，乃至應知亦爾。論主回答說：就像經文所說的那樣可以理解。
論：毗婆沙師，乃至支非靜慮。這是在敘述有部宗的觀點。根據上面所說的，如聲故知道支等，這是用比喻來解釋經文。
論：如是所說，乃至即正見等支。總的來說，這是在責備這種說法不合理。如何能讓自體與自體互為支分呢？
論：如果說前生，乃至不具有八支等。這是在破斥另一種觀點。正見等，或者三摩地（Samadhi，禪定）等，不能說就是道等（指八正道）的本體，也不能用這個正見作為道等的支分。也不能說前生的正見等，與後生的正見等互為支分。因為在最初生起念頭的時候，就不應該具有八支。正理反駁說：經主在這裡錯誤地作出了這樣的責備。不能說正見等就是正見等的支分。如果說前生的正見等是後生的正
【English Translation】 English version 『All kinds of seeds should be abandoned.』
Treatise: If someone is able to uphold the precepts with utmost sincerity, even if indulging, then observing the precepts involves two things: first, one recalls and upholds the Upavasatha (eight precepts); second, one deeply generates a sense of detachment from the world. If one eats at an improper time, then neither of these two things is present.
Treatise: Other teachers say that the precepts are divided into two parts; this is narrating different viewpoints. The Great Dharma Master says that it was said by Nagarjuna. This Dharma Master means that since it is called precepts, then not eating at an improper time is its essence. Apart from the precepts, the remaining eight actions are called the limbs of the precepts. Adorning oneself with fruits, perfumes, and garlands is counted as one limb; dancing, singing, and watching performances are counted as one limb; moderation in eating has eight limbs in total. The Sanskrit name for precepts is Upavasatha, which is translated here as 『fasting』 or 『dwelling nearby』.
Treatise: If someone holds this view, even to acting accordingly. The treatise master and other teachers put forward opposing views. If it is said that the remaining precepts have eight, and the precepts are the ninth, and this is taken as the essence of the precepts, then why does the sutra say, after speaking of abstaining from eating at an improper time, that this is the eighth limb? Since it is said to be the eighth limb, it shows that there are only seven remaining limbs. Moreover, since it is said to be a limb, it shows that abstaining from eating at an improper time is not separately established as the essence of the precepts; it is not a limb of the precepts.
Treatise: If that is the case, even to being called a limb of the precepts. The other teachers ask in return: Since the eight things such as precepts are all limbs of the precepts, then what other dharma is separately established as the essence of the precepts?
Treatise: Generally marking the name of the precepts, even to it should be known to be the same. The treatise master answers: It can be understood as the sutra says.
Treatise: The Vibhasha masters, even to the limbs are not dhyana (meditative absorption). This is narrating the views of the Sarvastivada school. According to what was said above, such as the sound, therefore knowing the limbs of the path, etc., this is using metaphors to explain the sutra.
Treatise: As it is said, even to the limbs are right view, etc. Generally speaking, this is blaming this statement as unreasonable. How can the self and the self be limbs of each other?
Treatise: If it is said that the previous life, even to not having eight limbs, etc. This is refuting another view. Right view, etc., or Samadhi (concentration), etc., cannot be said to be the essence of the path, etc. (referring to the Eightfold Path), nor can this right view be used as a limb of the path, etc. Nor can it be said that the right view, etc., of the previous life are limbs of the right view, etc., of the later life. Because at the time of the initial arising of thought, one should not have eight limbs. Right Reason refutes: The sutra master has mistakenly made such a blame here. It cannot be said that right view, etc., are the limbs of right view, etc. If it is said that the right view, etc., of the previous life are the right view of the later life
見等支。則初剎那聖道等應不具有八支等。非毗婆沙說正見等其體即是正見等支。亦非前生正見等。為後生正見等支。然于俱生正見等八。唯一正見有能尋求諸法相力說名為道。以能尋求是道義故。即此正見覆能隨順正思惟等。故名為支。所餘七支望俱生法能隨順故說名為支。非能尋求不名為道。實義如是。若就假名。餘七皆能長養正見。故思惟等亦得道名。見名道支亦不違理。由此類釋齋戒八支。經主于中何憑說過 俱舍師破云。若就實義。正見但應言是道。是正思惟等支不應言亦道支。既言亦道支還望于道。若就假名。余支亦應名道。何故但言是道支。
論。為唯近事得受近住下半行頌。第三明受近住人別。
論曰至除不知者。釋余亦有。謂受近事及但受三歸等皆得戒也。婆沙一百二十四云。問誰應受此近住律儀。如是說者。亦聖。亦異生。亦近事。亦非近事 未受近事一日夜歸依三寶等者。即是婆沙非近事也。若不受三歸受近住戒不得。除不知者。正理論云。除不知者。由意業力亦發戒故 婆沙三十四云。有說亦得。謂若不知三歸．律儀受之先．后。或復忘誤不受三歸但受律儀。而授者得罪。若有憍慢不受三歸但受律儀。必不發戒。
論。如契經說至鄔波索迦準正理文乘前起也。正理論云。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 見等支（見等支：構成正道的要素）。如果這樣，那麼最初剎那的聖道等就不應具有八支等。但《毗婆沙論》說，正見等（正見等：正確的見解等）的本體就是正見等支。也不是前生的正見等，成為後生的正見等支。然而，在俱生的正見等八支中，只有正見具有能尋求諸法實相的力量，所以被稱為道。因為能夠尋求就是道的意義。這個正見又能隨順正思惟等，所以被稱為支。其餘七支，相對於俱生的法來說，因為能夠隨順，所以被稱為支，但沒有能尋求的力量，所以不被稱為道。真實的意義就是這樣。如果就假名來說，其餘七支都能長養正見，所以思惟等也可以得到道的名稱。見被稱為道支，也不違背道理。由此類推解釋齋戒八支。經主憑什麼在其中妄加評論？ 俱舍師反駁說：『如果就真實的意義來說，正見應該只被稱為道，是正思惟等的支，不應該也稱為道支。既然說也稱為道支，那就是相對於道而言。如果就假名來說，其餘的支也應該稱為道，為什麼只說是道支呢？』
論：爲了只有近事（近事：親近奉事三寶的在家男女）才能受近住（近住：八關齋戒）下半行頌。第三部分說明受近住的人的差別。
論曰：乃至除去不知情的人。解釋其餘的人也可以受戒。也就是說，受了近事戒，以及只受了三歸依等，都可以得到戒。 《婆沙論》第一百二十四卷說：『問：誰應該受持這個近住律儀？』 有人這樣說：『既可以是聖人，也可以是凡夫；既可以是近事，也可以不是近事。』 未受近事戒，只在一日一夜歸依三寶等的人，就是《婆沙論》中說的非近事。如果不受三歸依就受近住戒，是不可以的。除去不知情的人。』 《正理論》說：『除去不知情的人，因為意業的力量也能引發戒體。』 《婆沙論》第三十四卷說：『有人說也可以。』 也就是說，如果不知道三歸依、律儀的先後順序，或者忘記了不受三歸依，只受了律儀，那麼傳授戒的人有罪。如果有人因為驕慢而不受三歸依，只受律儀，那麼一定不會引發戒體。
論：如契經所說，乃至鄔波索迦（鄔波索迦：男居士） 按照《正理論》的文義，是承接前面的內容而提出的。《正理論》說：
【English Translation】 English version: The branch of 'seeing' and so on (seeing, etc.: the elements that constitute the right path). If so, then the holy path, etc., in the initial moment should not possess eight branches, etc. However, the Vibhasa says that the essence of right view, etc. (right view, etc.: correct views, etc.) is the branch of right view, etc. It is also not that the right view, etc., of the previous life becomes the branch of right view, etc., of the subsequent life. However, among the eight branches of co-arisen right view, etc., only right view has the power to seek the characteristics of all dharmas, so it is called the path. Because being able to seek is the meaning of the path. This right view can then follow right thought, etc., so it is called a branch. The remaining seven branches, in relation to the co-arisen dharmas, are called branches because they can follow, but they do not have the power to seek, so they are not called the path. The real meaning is like this. If speaking in terms of provisional names, the remaining seven branches can all nourish right view, so thought, etc., can also obtain the name of the path. It is not unreasonable for seeing to be called a branch of the path. By analogy, explain the eight branches of fasting. What does the author of the sutra rely on to make arbitrary comments in it? The Kosa master refutes: 'If speaking in terms of the real meaning, right view should only be called the path, and it is a branch of right thought, etc., and should not also be called a branch of the path. Since it is said to also be called a branch of the path, that is in relation to the path. If speaking in terms of provisional names, the remaining branches should also be called the path, why only say it is a branch of the path?'
Treatise: For only upasakas (upasakas: lay male and female devotees who closely serve the Three Jewels) to be able to receive the uposatha (uposatha: eight precepts) the second half of the verse. The third part explains the differences in the people who receive the uposatha.
Treatise says: Even removing those who do not know. Explaining that others can also receive the precepts. That is to say, having received the upasaka precepts, and only having taken refuge in the Three Jewels, etc., one can obtain the precepts. Vibhasa volume 124 says: 'Question: Who should uphold these uposatha vows?' Some say: 'It can be a sage or an ordinary person; it can be an upasaka or a non-upasaka.' Those who have not received the upasaka precepts, and only take refuge in the Three Jewels, etc., for one day and one night, are the non-upasakas mentioned in the Vibhasa. If one does not take refuge in the Three Jewels and receives the uposatha precepts, it is not allowed. Except for those who do not know.' The Nyayanusara says: 'Except for those who do not know, because the power of mental karma can also generate the precept body.' Vibhasa volume 34 says: 'Some say it is also possible.' That is to say, if one does not know the order of taking refuge in the Three Jewels and the vows, or forgets to not take refuge in the Three Jewels and only receives the vows, then the one who transmits the precepts is at fault. If someone is arrogant and does not take refuge in the Three Jewels and only receives the vows, then the precept body will definitely not be generated.
Treatise: As the sutra says, even upasaka (upasaka: male lay devotee) According to the meaning of the Nyayanusara, it is proposed by continuing the previous content. The Nyayanusara says:
豈不三歸即成近事。如契經說。乃至。名曰鄔波索迦 此是乘前問也。若有非是近事唯受三歸得近住戒者。豈不受三歸時即名近事 外國師說。但受三歸即名近事 薩婆多說。自稱我是鄔波索迦方名近事。準經所說先歸三寶后稱近事。
論。為但受三歸即成近事。問。為前受三歸即成近事。為至自稱我是鄔波索迦時方名近事。
論。外國諸師說唯此即成。外國師者是迦濕彌羅國外健馱羅國經部諸師說。唯受三歸即成三歸鄔波索迦。說戒相時方得五戒近事名。
論。迦濕彌羅國至則非近事。此是有部宗也。近事唯一要得五戒方名近事。無唯三歸成近事也 四分律云佛為價客。受二歸即名近事。及為婆羅門婦。受二歸時名近事女。其宗別也。
論。若爾應與此經相違。經部難。若無唯受三歸名近事者。即與大名經相違。經說受三歸已自稱云我是鄔波索迦。未說戒相未發戒故。
論。此不相違己發戒故。有部答。既已發戒。非是唯三歸即名鄔波索迦。
論。何時發戒。經部問。已下大文第八明近事。文中有五。一明發戒時。二明支具闕。三近事等成三品因。四便明三歸。五明立支所以。此文初也。
論曰至便發律儀故。釋發戒時也。說三歸時未得戒。自稱近事便發戒也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：難道僅僅受持三歸依就成為近事（Upasaka，優婆塞，即在家男居士）了嗎？正如契經（經文）所說，乃至被稱為『鄔波索迦』。這是對前面問題的追問。如果有人不是近事，只是受持三歸依而得到近住戒（Upavasa，八關齋戒），難道不是在受持三歸依時就成為近事了嗎？外國的老師說，只要受持三歸依就稱為近事。薩婆多（Sarvastivada，一切有部）說，自己稱『我是鄔波索迦』才稱為近事。按照經文所說，先歸依三寶，然後自稱近事。
論：僅僅受持三歸依就能成為近事嗎？問：是先受持三歸依就成為近事，還是到自稱『我是鄔波索迦』時才稱為近事？
論：外國的諸位老師說，僅僅這樣就成為近事。外國的老師指的是迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir，克什米爾）外健馱羅國（Gandhara，犍陀羅）經部（Sautrantika，經量部）的諸位老師。他們認為，僅僅受持三歸依就成為三歸依的鄔波索迦。要等到說戒相時，才能得到五戒近事（Panca-sila Upasaka）的名稱。
論：迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir，克什米爾）乃至不是近事。這是有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）的宗義。近事必須得到五戒才能稱為近事，沒有僅僅受持三歸依就成為近事的說法。四分律（Dharmaguptaka Vinaya，法藏部律）說，佛為價客（商人）受二歸依就稱為近事，以及為婆羅門婦（Brahmin woman）受二歸依時稱為近事女。這是他們的宗義不同。
論：如果這樣，就應該與此經相違背。經部（Sautrantika，經量部）提出疑問：如果沒有僅僅受持三歸依就稱為近事的說法，就與《大名經》（Mahanama Sutta）相違背。《大名經》說，受持三歸依后，自稱『我是鄔波索迦』，沒有說戒相，也沒有發戒。
論：這並不相違背，因為已經發戒了。有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）回答：既然已經發戒，就不是僅僅受持三歸依就稱為鄔波索迦。
論：什麼時候發戒？經部（Sautrantika，經量部）提問：在下面的大段文字第八部分會闡明近事，這段文字有五個方面的內容：一是闡明發戒的時間，二是闡明支分具足或缺失的情況，三是闡明近事等成就三種品級的原因，四是闡明三歸依，五是闡明建立支分的原因。這是這段文字的開頭。
論曰：乃至便發律儀的緣故。解釋發戒的時間。說三歸依時沒有得到戒，自稱近事就發戒了。
【English Translation】 English version: Doesn't the taking of the Three Refuges immediately make one a Upasaka (在家男居士, lay male devotee)? As the sutras say, even to be called 'Upasaka'. This is a follow-up question to the previous one. If someone is not a Upasaka but only takes the Three Refuges and obtains the Upavasa (八關齋戒, eight precepts), isn't he called a Upasaka when he takes the Three Refuges? Foreign teachers say that merely taking the Three Refuges makes one a Upasaka. The Sarvastivada (一切有部) school says that only when one calls himself 'I am a Upasaka' is he called a Upasaka. According to the sutras, one first takes refuge in the Three Jewels and then calls himself a Upasaka.
Treatise: Does merely taking the Three Refuges make one a Upasaka? Question: Does taking the Three Refuges first make one a Upasaka, or is it only when one calls himself 'I am a Upasaka' that he is called a Upasaka?
Treatise: The foreign teachers say that merely this makes one a Upasaka. The foreign teachers refer to the teachers of the Sautrantika (經量部) school in Kashmir (克什米爾) and Gandhara (犍陀羅). They believe that merely taking the Three Refuges makes one a Three-Refuge Upasaka. Only when the characteristics of the precepts are explained can one obtain the name of a Five-Precept Upasaka (Panca-sila Upasaka).
Treatise: Kashmir (克什米爾) and so on, then it is not a Upasaka. This is the doctrine of the Sarvastivada (一切有部) school. A Upasaka must obtain the Five Precepts to be called a Upasaka. There is no such thing as becoming a Upasaka merely by taking the Three Refuges. The Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (法藏部律) says that when the Buddha helped a merchant (價客) take the Two Refuges, he was called a Upasaka, and when he helped a Brahmin woman (婆羅門婦) take the Two Refuges, she was called a Upasika (female lay devotee). This is because their doctrines are different.
Treatise: If so, it should contradict this sutra. The Sautrantika (經量部) school raises a question: If there is no such thing as being called a Upasaka merely by taking the Three Refuges, it contradicts the Mahanama Sutta (《大名經》). The Mahanama Sutta says that after taking the Three Refuges, one calls himself 'I am a Upasaka', without mentioning the characteristics of the precepts or taking the precepts.
Treatise: This does not contradict, because the precepts have already been taken. The Sarvastivada (一切有部) school answers: Since the precepts have already been taken, it is not merely taking the Three Refuges that makes one a Upasaka.
Treatise: When are the precepts taken? The Sautrantika (經量部) school asks: The following large section, the eighth part, will explain the Upasaka. This section has five aspects: first, it explains the time of taking the precepts; second, it explains the completeness or deficiency of the factors; third, it explains the reasons why Upasakas and others achieve three grades; fourth, it explains the Three Refuges; and fifth, it explains the reasons for establishing the factors. This is the beginning of this section.
Treatise says: Even to the reason of then generating the ethical discipline. Explains the time of taking the precepts. One does not obtain the precepts when saying the Three Refuges; one generates the precepts when calling oneself a Upasaka.
論。以經復說至令識堅持。重引余經證。以經自稱我是近事。后復說我從今時乃至命終捨生言故。故知前時已得五戒彼雖已得令了知故。為說捨生等五種戒相令識堅持。
論。如得苾芻至此亦應爾。引喻釋也。如苾芻等於羯磨時已得具戒后說戒相。
論。是故近事必具律儀。結有部也。若別說戒相時得。容有不能持者不發戒。既總受三歸自總稱我是近事即發戒故支必具五。
論頌曰至謂約能持說。自下有三句。第二明支具闕。上兩句問。下一句答。
論曰至能學滿分。引經難也。
論。謂約能持至說能學言。有部通經 言一分等者。先已具得五戒后持一分．少分．多分．滿分不同故分為四 若不爾者。不應言學一分等。應言受一分等。婆沙一百廿三云。答此說持位非說受位。謂於五中。持一不持四名一分。持二不持三名少分。持三持四名多分。具持五名滿。
論。不爾應言受一分等。反難釋也。既言學一分。不言受一分。故知就能持說。
論。理實約受至故名近事。有部定自宗為理實也。
論。如是所執違越契經。經部責有部違經。
論。如何違經。有部反問。
論。謂無經說至捨生言故。經部答違經也。大名經中不說自稱我是近事等言。便發五戒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：爲了通過經文的重複講述，使人認識並堅持戒律，所以再次引用其他經文來證明。因為經文中自己稱『我是近事』（Upasaka，優婆塞，指在家男居士），後來又說『我從今時乃至命終捨生』等語。因此可知，之前已經得到了五戒，雖然已經得到，但爲了讓人瞭解，所以才說捨生等五種戒相，使人認識並堅持。
論：如同得到比丘（Bhiksu，佛教中的出家男眾）戒一樣，這裡也應該如此。這是用比喻來解釋。如同比丘在羯磨（Karma，業）時已經得到具足戒，之後再說戒相。
論：因此，近事必定具有律儀。這是有部的結論。如果分別說戒相時才得到，可能有人不能持戒而不發戒。既然總受三歸，自己總稱『我是近事』，即已發戒，所以五支必定具足。
論頌說：『謂約能持說。』下面有三句。第二句說明支分具足或缺失。上面兩句是提問，下面一句是回答。
論：『能學滿分。』這是引用經文來反駁。
論：『謂約能持』到『說能學言』。有部通過經文說一分等，是因為先已具足得到五戒，之後持一分、少分、多分、滿分不同，所以分為四種。如果不是這樣，不應該說『學一分』等，而應該說『受一分』等。《婆沙論》第一百二十三卷說：『回答說這是說持戒的位次，不是說受戒的位次。』在五戒中，持一戒不持四戒名為一分，持二戒不持三戒名為少分，持三戒持四戒名為多分，具足持五戒名為滿分。
論：『不爾應言受一分等。』這是反駁並解釋。既然說『學一分』，不說『受一分』，所以可知是就能夠持戒來說的。
論：『理實約受』到『故名近事』。有部確定自己的宗派是真實道理。
論：『如是所執違越契經』。經部責備有部違背經文。
論：『如何違經？』有部反問。
論：『謂無經說』到『捨生言故』。經部回答說違背經文。因為《大名經》中沒有說自己稱『我是近事』等語，就能發五戒。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: In order to make people recognize and adhere to the precepts through repeated explanations of the scriptures, other scriptures are cited again for proof. Because the scripture itself states 'I am an Upasaka' (Upasaka, referring to a lay male devotee), and later says 'From this moment until the end of my life, I will give up life,' etc. Therefore, it can be known that the five precepts have already been obtained before. Although they have been obtained, in order to make people understand, the characteristics of the five precepts such as giving up life are explained, so that people can recognize and adhere to them.
Treatise: Just like obtaining the Bhiksu (Buddhist monk) precepts, it should be the same here. This is explained using a metaphor. Just like a Bhiksu already obtains the full precepts during Karma, and then the characteristics of the precepts are explained.
Treatise: Therefore, an Upasaka must have the precepts. This is the conclusion of the Sarvastivada school. If they are only obtained when the characteristics of the precepts are explained separately, it is possible that some people cannot uphold the precepts and do not take them. Since one takes refuge in the Three Jewels in general, and generally calls oneself 'I am an Upasaka,' then the precepts are taken, so the five branches must be complete.
The Treatise verse says: 'It is said in terms of being able to uphold.' There are three sentences below. The second sentence explains the completeness or lack of the branches. The first two sentences are questions, and the last sentence is the answer.
Treatise: 'Able to learn the full portion.' This is quoting the scriptures to refute.
Treatise: 'It is said in terms of being able to uphold' to 'saying able to learn.' The Sarvastivada school says through the scriptures that one portion, etc., is because after having fully obtained the five precepts, upholding one portion, a small portion, a large portion, or the full portion is different, so it is divided into four types. If it were not so, one should not say 'learn one portion,' etc., but should say 'receive one portion,' etc. The 123rd volume of the Vibhasa says: 'The answer is that this refers to the position of upholding the precepts, not the position of receiving the precepts.' Among the five precepts, upholding one and not upholding four is called one portion, upholding two and not upholding three is called a small portion, upholding three or upholding four is called a large portion, and fully upholding five is called the full portion.
Treatise: 'Otherwise, one should say receive one portion, etc.' This is refuting and explaining. Since it says 'learn one portion,' and does not say 'receive one portion,' it can be known that it is said in terms of being able to uphold the precepts.
Treatise: 'In reality, it is about receiving' to 'therefore it is called Upasaka.' The Sarvastivada school determines that its own school is the true principle.
Treatise: 'Such a view contradicts the scriptures.' The Sautrantika school accuses the Sarvastivada school of violating the scriptures.
Treatise: 'How does it violate the scriptures?' The Sarvastivada school asks in return.
Treatise: 'It is said that no scripture says' to 'the reason for giving up life.' The Sautrantika school answers that it violates the scriptures. Because the Mahanama Sutra does not say that one calls oneself 'I am an Upasaka,' etc., and then the five precepts are taken.
。此大名經不說我從今者。乃至命終捨生言故。豈得別將余經不釋近事相經釋近事耶。
論。經如何說。有部問。
論。如大名經至故違越經。解云。經不說故名違越經。如大名經中說近事相。於此經中不說自稱我是近事時得戒。從今捨生言。又不是大名經說故是違越。
論。然余經說至捨生等言。通有部引經也。余經中說我從今等。是其別事。非近事相。
論。設說亦非至已發五戒。縱有部余經說近事相。亦不明瞭。誰能準此不明瞭文。便信前時已發五戒 此破有部先時發戒。
論。又約持犯至乃至廣說。破有部通經也。正理論敘廣牒破已。乃至。且經所說我從今時乃至命終捨生等者。何理。唯說得證凈人非諸異生亦立此誓。諸異生類將受律儀亦有如斯堅固意樂。乃至為救自生命緣。終不虧違所受學處。如斯誓受世現可得。然此文句大名經中現有受持不違正理。故不應舍所誦正文(準此。經部大名經無此文。有部大名經有此文)。設大名經無此文句。於我宗義亦無所違。非我宗言說此文句究竟方發近事律儀。由說自稱我是近事憶持護念便發律儀。以自發言表為弟子。如大迦葉得具足戒。世尊既說鄔波索迦應具受持五種學處。彼說我是鄔波索迦。必具律儀何勞致惑。如稱我是國大軍師
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『這部《大名經》（Mahānāma Sutta）沒有說我從現在開始，乃至生命終結都不會捨棄這些話，怎麼能另外拿其他經典不解釋，反而解釋《近事相經》（Upāsaka Sutta）呢？』 論：『經典是如何說的？』有部（Sarvāstivāda）問道。 論：『如《大名經》所說，乃至違越經典。』解釋說：『經典沒有說，所以叫做違越經典。』例如《大名經》中說了近事（Upāsaka）的相，在這部經中沒有說自稱『我是近事』時就能得到戒，以及『從現在開始，乃至生命終結』這些話。而且不是因為《大名經》說了，所以就是違越。 論：『然而其他經典說了，乃至捨棄生命等話。』這是經部（Sautrāntika）引用經典。其他經典中說『我從現在開始』等等，是其他的事情，不是近事的相。 論：『即使說了，也不是已經發了五戒（Pañca-śīla）。』縱然有部在其他經典中說了近事的相，也不明確。誰能根據這些不明確的文字，就相信之前已經發了五戒？這破斥了有部認為之前就能發戒的觀點。 論：『又根據持戒和犯戒，乃至廣說。』這是破斥有部貫通經典的說法。正理論敘述了廣泛的辯駁之後，乃至：『而且經典所說的「我從現在開始，乃至生命終結」等等，是什麼道理呢？』只說得到證凈（prasāda）的人才能立下這個誓言，難道其他凡夫俗子也能立下這個誓言嗎？其他凡夫俗子將要受持律儀（śīla）時，也有這樣堅固的意樂，乃至爲了保全自己的生命，最終也不會違背所受持的學處（śikṣāpada）。這樣的誓言在世間是可以看到的。然而這些文句在《大名經》中現在就有受持而不違背正理。所以不應該捨棄所誦讀的正確經文（根據這一點，經部的《大名經》沒有這些文字，有部的《大名經》有這些文字）。』假設《大名經》沒有這些文句，對於我宗的義理也沒有什麼違背。不是我宗說說了這些文句，最終才能發起近事律儀。因為說了自稱『我是近事』，憶持護念，就能發起律儀。以自己發言表明是弟子，如同大迦葉（Mahākāśyapa）得到具足戒（upasampadā）。世尊既然說了鄔波索迦（Upāsaka，近事男）應該具足受持五種學處，他們說『我是鄔波索迦』，必定具足律儀，何必疑惑呢？如同稱『我是國之大軍師』。
【English Translation】 English version: 'This Mahānāma Sutta doesn't say 'From this day forth, until the end of my life, I will not abandon these words.' How can one take other sutras and not explain them, but instead explain the Upāsaka Sutta?' Treatise: 'How does the sutra say?' The Sarvāstivāda (the 'all exists' school) asked. Treatise: 'As the Mahānāma Sutta says, even to violating the sutra.' It explains: 'Because the sutra doesn't say it, it's called violating the sutra.' For example, the Mahānāma Sutta speaks of the characteristics of an Upāsaka (lay follower), but this sutra doesn't say that one obtains the precepts by declaring 'I am an Upāsaka' and saying 'From this day forth, until the end of my life.' Moreover, it's not a violation simply because the Mahānāma Sutta says it. Treatise: 'However, other sutras speak of even abandoning life, etc.' This is the Sautrāntika (the 'sutra only' school) quoting a sutra. Other sutras say 'From this day forth,' etc., which are different matters, not the characteristics of an Upāsaka. Treatise: 'Even if it is said, it's not that one has already taken the five precepts (Pañca-śīla).' Even if the Sarvāstivāda speaks of the characteristics of an Upāsaka in other sutras, it's not clear. Who can rely on these unclear texts and believe that one has already taken the five precepts? This refutes the Sarvāstivāda's view that one can take the precepts earlier. Treatise: 'Furthermore, based on upholding and violating precepts, and so on, speaking broadly.' This refutes the Sarvāstivāda's general interpretation of the sutras. The Zhengli Treatise, after extensively refuting, says: 'Moreover, what is the reason for the sutra saying 'From this day forth, until the end of my life,' etc.?' It only says that those who have attained prasāda (faith, serene confidence) can make this vow. Can other ordinary beings also make this vow? When other ordinary beings are about to receive the śīla (moral discipline), they also have such firm intention, even to the point of protecting their own lives, they will ultimately not violate the śikṣāpada (precepts) they have received. Such vows are visible in the world. However, these phrases are present in the Mahānāma Sutta, where they are upheld without violating the correct principle. Therefore, one should not abandon the correct text that is recited (according to this, the Sautrāntika's Mahānāma Sutta does not have these words, while the Sarvāstivāda's Mahānāma Sutta does have these words).' Assuming the Mahānāma Sutta does not have these phrases, it does not contradict the doctrines of my school. It is not that my school says that one can only initiate the Upāsaka precepts after saying these phrases. Because by saying 'I am an Upāsaka,' remembering and protecting the precepts, one can initiate the precepts. By declaring oneself a disciple, like Mahākāśyapa obtaining upasampadā (full ordination). Since the Buddha said that Upāsakas (laymen) should fully uphold the five precepts, if they say 'I am an Upāsaka,' they must possess the precepts, so why doubt it? It's like saying 'I am the great general of the country.'
。彼必具閑兵將事業。依如是喻智者應思 又經主言約持犯戒說 乃至具牒俱舍論文 此全無理。唯對法宗所說理中應問答故。雖知近事必具律儀。而未了知隨犯一種為越一切為一非余。由有此疑故應請問。諸部若有未見此文。於此義中迄今猶諍(諸部有諍為犯一時舍一切。為犯一時舍一也)。若異此者。佛經數言鄔波索迦具五學處。誰有於此已善了知而復懷疑問受多少。設許爾者疑問相違。謂彼本疑受量多少。而問有幾能學學處。答學一分等。豈除本所疑。故彼義中不應問答。經主於此不正尋思。于諍理中懷朋黨執。翻言對法所說義中問不應問。況應為答。
論。若闕律儀至此亦應爾。有部以苾芻等戒為例難也。
論。何緣近事至支量定爾。經部反問有部戒支不同。
論。由佛教力施設故然。有部答也。
論。若爾何緣至非苾芻等。經部引文不同。例釋具支．不具支異。
論。迦濕彌羅國至得成近事。述有部宗也。
論。此近事等一切律儀。已下一句。第三明成三品。
論曰至或成上品。明戒由受心成下．上品。不由依身 凡或有上 無學有下。
論。為有但受至成近事不。問。
論。不成近事除有不知。答。若知應受三歸。慢心不受不得律儀。若不知須
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：他必定具備精通兵法的將領才能成就事業。智者應該像這樣通過比喻來思考。還有經主所說的關於持戒和犯戒的論述，乃至詳細列舉《俱舍論》的論文，這些完全沒有道理。只有在說法宗所說的道理中才應該有問答。雖然知道近事（Upasaka，優婆塞，即在家男居士）必定具備律儀，但並不瞭解隨犯一種是違越一切，還是違越一個而非其餘。由於有這樣的疑問，所以應該請問。各部派如果未曾見過此文，對於這個意義至今還在爭論（各部派爭論的是，犯一次戒是捨棄一切戒，還是隻捨棄一次所犯的戒）。如果不是這樣，佛經多次說到鄔波索迦（Upasaka）具有五學處。誰會對於此已經完全瞭解，卻又懷疑而問受戒的多少呢？如果允許這樣，疑問就互相矛盾了。他們本來懷疑受戒的數量多少，卻問有幾個能學習的學處，回答說學習一部分等等，這怎麼能消除本來的疑惑呢？所以在那個意義中不應該有問答。經主對於此沒有正確地思考，在爭論的道理中懷有偏袒的執著，反而說在說法宗所說的意義中，不應該問的問題卻問了，更何況是回答。
論：如果缺少律儀，到這裡也應該這樣。有部以比丘（Bhiksu，出家男眾）等的戒律為例來責難。
論：憑什麼說近事（Upasaka）的戒支數量一定是這樣呢？經部反問有部的戒支不同。
論：由於佛教的力量施設，所以是這樣。有部回答。
論：如果這樣，為什麼經典引用的不同，例如具支和不具支的差異呢？經部引用不同的經文，用例子來解釋具支和不具支的差異。
論：迦濕彌羅國說，受三歸依就能成為近事（Upasaka）。這是敘述有部的宗義。
論：這個近事（Upasaka）等一切律儀。下一句，第三句說明成就三種品級。
論曰：乃至或者成就上品。說明戒律由於受戒的心而成就下品和上品，不是由於所依的身體。凡夫或者有上品，無學有下品。
論：有沒有隻是受了三歸依，就能成為近事（Upasaka）的呢？問。
論：不能成為近事（Upasaka），除非有不知道的。答：如果知道就應該受三歸依，如果因為傲慢心而不受，就不能得到律儀。如果不知道，就必須...
【English Translation】 English version: He must possess the abilities of a general skilled in military strategy to achieve success. The wise should contemplate in this way through analogies. Furthermore, the Sutra Master's statements regarding upholding and violating precepts, even to the detailed citation of the Abhidharmakośa's treatises, are entirely unreasonable. Only within the doctrines expounded by the Dharma-speaking school should there be questions and answers. Although it is known that a Upasaka (lay male devotee) must possess ethical discipline (Śīla), it is not understood whether violating one precept violates all, or violates only one and not the others. Because of this doubt, one should inquire. If various schools have not seen this text, they are still arguing about this meaning (the various schools argue whether violating one precept abandons all precepts, or only abandons the one violated). If it were not so, the Buddha's sutras repeatedly state that a Upasaka possesses the five training precepts. Who, having fully understood this, would still doubt and ask about the number of precepts received? If this were allowed, the questions would contradict each other. They originally doubted the number of precepts received, but asked how many training precepts can be learned, answering that one learns a portion, etc. How could this dispel the original doubt? Therefore, in that meaning, there should be no questions and answers. The Sutra Master did not properly contemplate this, harboring biased attachments in the debated doctrines, and instead said that in the meaning expounded by the Dharma-speaking school, questions that should not be asked were asked, let alone answered.
Treatise: If ethical discipline is lacking, it should be the same here. The Sarvāstivāda school uses the precepts of a Bhiksu (male monastic) etc. as an example to challenge.
Treatise: Why is it said that the number of precepts for a Upasaka is definitely this? The Sautrāntika school counter-questions the Sarvāstivāda school's different precepts.
Treatise: It is because of the power of the Buddha's teachings that it is established in this way. The Sarvāstivāda school answers.
Treatise: If so, why are the sutra citations different, such as the differences between possessing all precepts and not possessing all precepts? The Sautrāntika school cites different sutras, using examples to explain the differences between possessing all precepts and not possessing all precepts.
Treatise: The country of Kashmir says that taking the three refuges is enough to become a Upasaka. This is a description of the Sarvāstivāda school's doctrine.
Treatise: This Upasaka and all ethical disciplines. The next sentence, the third sentence, explains the accomplishment of three grades.
Treatise says: Even to the point of accomplishing the highest grade. It explains that precepts accomplish the lower and higher grades due to the mind of receiving the precepts, not due to the body on which they are based. Ordinary people may have the highest grade, while those without learning have the lowest grade.
Treatise: Is it possible to become a Upasaka by only taking the three refuges? Question.
Treatise: One cannot become a Upasaka, unless there is ignorance. Answer: If one knows, one should take the three refuges; if one does not take them due to arrogance, one cannot obtain ethical discipline. If one does not know, one must...
受三歸而受者。受者得戒。戒師得罪。婆沙三十四云。歸依有二種。一與律儀俱。二不與律儀俱。與律儀俱者。唯在人趣三洲非余。不與律儀俱者。通余趣處。問若不受三歸而受律儀。彼得律儀不。有說。不得。以受律儀必依三歸。以三歸為門得律儀故。有說。亦得。謂若不知三歸．律儀受之先．后。或復忘誤不受三歸者。受得律儀。而授者得罪。若有憍慢不受三歸但受律儀。彼必不得。問有在母胎或嬰孩位。母等為受三歸．律儀。彼為得．不。答彼無心故不得律儀。然與后受為其因故有此益故先應為受。問彼前生中修何善業今在母腹或嬰孩位。他便為受三歸．律儀。答彼前生恒樂讚歎三歸．凈戒。亦勸無量百千有情。歸依三寶。及受凈戒。或復施他受持三歸．律儀資具。今身獲得如是善利。如契經說。歸依佛者不墮惡趣。生人．天中受諸快樂。問現見世間歸依佛者。亦墮惡趣。或受眾苦。何故世尊作如是說。答若增上心不顧命身歸依佛者得此善利。不說一切故不相違有餘師說。此依已得證凈者說。不說一切。
論。諸有歸依已下一頌。第四便明三歸 此明所歸三寶體性。
論曰至能覺一切。釋所歸依體。佛有無記色身。及有漏功德．無漏功德等。此三種中唯歸成佛無學法。即是唯歸無漏法也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 受了三歸依（皈依佛、法、僧）之後又受戒的人，受戒者可以得戒，但授戒的戒師卻有罪過。《婆沙論》第三十四卷說，歸依有兩種：一種是與律儀（戒律）同時進行的，另一種是不與律儀同時進行的。與律儀同時進行的歸依，只在人趣（人類）的三洲（東勝身洲、南贍部洲、西牛貨洲）才有，其他地方沒有。不與律儀同時進行的歸依，則通行於其他各趣（天、阿修羅、地獄、餓鬼、畜生）。 問：如果未受三歸依就受律儀，那他能得到律儀嗎？ 有人說：不能。因為受律儀必須依靠三歸依，以三歸依為入門才能得到律儀。 也有人說：也能得到。如果不知道三歸依、律儀受持的先後順序，或者忘記了不受三歸依，這樣受了律儀也能得到，但授戒者有罪過。如果有人驕慢而不受三歸依，只受律儀，那他一定得不到。 問：如果有人在母胎中或還是嬰兒，母親等為他受三歸依、律儀，他能得到嗎？ 答：因為他們沒有心識，所以得不到律儀。然而，這為他們將來受戒種下了因，因此有益處，所以應該先為他們受。 問：他們在前世修了什麼善業，今生在母腹中或還是嬰兒，別人就為他們受三歸依、律儀？ 答：他們在前世常常樂於讚歎三歸依、清凈的戒律，也勸導無量百千的有情眾生，歸依三寶，以及受持清凈的戒律，或者佈施他人受持三歸依、律儀的資具，今生才能獲得這樣的善利。如契經所說：『歸依佛的人不會墮入惡趣，會生在人道或天道中享受各種快樂。』 問：現在看到世間歸依佛的人，也有墮入惡趣，或者遭受各種痛苦的，為什麼世尊這樣說呢？ 答：如果以增上心（強烈的信心）不顧惜生命而歸依佛的人，才能得到這種善利。佛陀並不是說所有歸依佛的人都如此，所以並不矛盾。還有其他論師說，這是依據已經得到證凈（清凈的證悟）的人說的，不是說所有的人。 論：諸有歸依已下一頌。第四便明三歸，此明所歸三寶體性。 論曰至能覺一切。解釋所歸依的體性。佛有無記色身（不記為善或惡的色身），以及有漏功德（有煩惱的功德）、無漏功德（沒有煩惱的功德）等。這三種中，唯有歸依成就佛果的無學法（不再需要學習的法），也就是唯有歸依無漏法。
【English Translation】 English version If someone receives the Three Refuges (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) and then receives precepts, the receiver obtains the precepts, but the precept master incurs demerit. The Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa-sastra) 34 says: There are two types of refuge: one is accompanied by vinaya (ethical discipline), and the other is not. Refuge accompanied by vinaya only exists in the three continents of the human realm (Purvavideha, Jambudvipa, Aparagodaniya), not elsewhere. Refuge not accompanied by vinaya is common in other realms. Question: If someone receives vinaya without taking the Three Refuges, do they obtain the vinaya? Some say: No. Because receiving vinaya necessarily relies on the Three Refuges, and one obtains vinaya through the Three Refuges as the gateway. Others say: They can also obtain it. If they do not know the order of receiving the Three Refuges and vinaya, or if they forget to take the Three Refuges, they can still obtain vinaya, but the giver incurs demerit. If someone is arrogant and does not take the Three Refuges but only receives vinaya, they will certainly not obtain it. Question: If someone is in the womb or is an infant, and their mother or others take the Three Refuges and vinaya for them, do they obtain them? Answer: Because they have no mind, they do not obtain vinaya. However, this plants a seed for their future reception, so it is beneficial, and therefore they should be received for them first. Question: What good deeds did they cultivate in their previous life that others take the Three Refuges and vinaya for them when they are in the womb or are infants? Answer: In their previous life, they constantly delighted in praising the Three Refuges and pure precepts, and also encouraged countless hundreds of thousands of sentient beings to take refuge in the Three Jewels and receive pure precepts, or they gave others the means to receive and uphold the Three Refuges and vinaya. In this life, they obtain such benefits. As the sutras say: 'Those who take refuge in the Buddha will not fall into the evil realms, but will be born in the human or heavenly realms and enjoy various pleasures.' Question: Now we see that those in the world who take refuge in the Buddha also fall into the evil realms or suffer various pains. Why did the World Honored One say this? Answer: If those who take refuge in the Buddha with increased (strong) faith, not caring for their lives, will obtain this benefit. The Buddha did not say that everyone who takes refuge in the Buddha would be like this, so there is no contradiction. Other teachers say that this is based on those who have already attained prasada (purified realization), not everyone. Treatise: The following verse is from 'Those who have taken refuge'. The fourth then clarifies the Three Refuges, which clarifies the nature of the Three Jewels to which one takes refuge. The treatise says, 'To be able to awaken everything.' This explains the nature of what one takes refuge in. The Buddha has a avyakrta-rupa (unspecified form body), as well as sasrava-guna (defiled merits), anasrava-guna (undefiled merits), etc. Among these three, one only takes refuge in the asiksa-dharma (no more learning dharma) that accomplishes Buddhahood, which is only taking refuge in the anasrava-dharma (undefiled dharma).
論。何等名為佛無學法。問。
論。謂盡智等至前後等故。答。此唯取盡智．無生智。無學正見智。色身等法。與前未成佛時等故。隨行可知。
論。為歸一佛一切佛耶。問。為歸釋迦一佛。為歸一切諸佛。
論。理實應言至相無異故。答。一切諸佛無學道相更是平等。理合總歸。婆沙三十四云。若歸依一切佛者。如說我是勝觀弟子云何通。答隨依彼佛出家見諦。即說我為彼佛弟子。此說依止不說歸依 又云。佛依法生。法勝於佛。何故先說歸依佛耶。答佛為教主。若佛不說法。不顯現故。先歸佛 複次。如有病者。先訪良醫。次求妙藥。后覓看者。佛如良醫。法如妙藥。僧如善巧看執藥人。故說三歸依如是次第。
論。歸依僧者至不可破故。明歸僧。唯歸學．無學法。此亦唯無漏。
論。為歸一佛僧一切佛僧耶。問通局也。
論。理實通歸至相無異故。答通歸也。
論。然契經說至現見僧寶。釋通經也。佛初成道未有僧寶。為商人受三歸法。佛法現歸。僧指當成。四分律云受二歸 若歸一切僧者。爾時亦有七生預流．不還果等。何不說歸指當來僧令歸依耶。
論。彼經但為至現見僧寶。通也。當來五俱鄰等。是現見僧。餘七生．及過．未等非現見僧。故不相違
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：什麼叫做佛的無學法？問。 論：是指盡智等持前後等等。答：這裡只取盡智、無生智、無學正見智、色身等法，與未成佛時相同。隨行可知。 論：是歸依一佛還是歸依一切佛呢？問：是歸依釋迦牟尼佛一佛，還是歸依一切諸佛？ 論：道理上應該說諸佛的體相沒有差異。答：一切諸佛的無學道相更是平等，理應總歸依。婆沙第三十四卷說：『如果歸依一切佛，如說我是勝觀弟子，如何解釋？』答：隨所依止的佛出家見諦，就說我是那位佛的弟子。這裡說的是依止，不是歸依。又說：『佛依法而生，法勝於佛，為什麼先說歸依佛呢？』答：佛是教主，如果佛不說*法，法就不會顯現，所以先歸依佛。再次，如有病人，先找良醫，再求妙藥，后找看護。佛如良醫，法如妙藥，僧如善巧看護執藥之人。所以說三歸依是這樣的次第。 論：歸依僧，是因為僧眾不可破。說明歸依僧，只歸依有學法和無學法。這裡也只歸依無漏法。 論：是歸依一佛的僧眾，還是一切佛的僧眾呢？問：這是問歸依的範圍是侷限還是普遍。 論：道理上應該普遍歸依，因為僧眾的體相沒有差異。答：是普遍歸依。 論：然而契經上說要現見僧寶。解釋通經。佛最初成道時還沒有僧寶，為商人受三歸法，佛法現在可以歸依，僧指將來成就的僧眾。《四分律》說受二歸。如果歸依一切僧眾，那時也有七生預流果、不還果等，為什麼不說歸依，指未來的僧眾令歸依呢？ 論：那部經只是爲了現見僧寶。是普遍的。當來的五俱鄰等是現見的僧眾，其餘的七生以及過去、未來的僧眾不是現見的僧眾，所以不相違背。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: What are called the Buddha's 'no-more-learning' (無學, Wúxué) dharmas? Question. Treatise: They refer to the cessation-knowledge (盡智, Jìnzhì) and so forth, in their states of meditative absorption (等至, Děngzhì), before and after, and so on. Answer: Here, only cessation-knowledge, non-arising-knowledge (無生智, Wúshēngzhì), the 'no-more-learning' right view knowledge (無學正見智, Wúxué zhèngjiàn zhì), and the physical body (色身, Sèshēn) and other dharmas are taken, as they are the same as before becoming a Buddha. The accompanying practices can be understood accordingly. Treatise: Does one take refuge in one Buddha or all Buddhas? Question: Does one take refuge in Śākyamuni (釋迦, Shìjiā) Buddha alone, or in all the Buddhas? Treatise: In principle, it should be said that the essential nature (至相, Zhìxiàng) of all Buddhas is not different. Answer: The characteristics of the 'no-more-learning' path (無學道相, Wúxué dào xiàng) of all Buddhas are even more equal; it is reasonable to take refuge in them all collectively. The Vibhāṣā (婆沙, Póshā), volume 34, says: 'If one takes refuge in all Buddhas, how is it explained when one says, 'I am a disciple of superior contemplation (勝觀, Shèngguān)'?' Answer: Depending on which Buddha one relies on to leave home and realize the truth (見諦, Jiàndì), one says, 'I am a disciple of that Buddha.' This speaks of reliance, not refuge. It also says: 'The Buddha arises from the Dharma (法, Fǎ), and the Dharma is superior to the Buddha. Why is taking refuge in the Buddha mentioned first?' Answer: The Buddha is the teaching master. If the Buddha does not speak the Dharma, it will not be revealed, so one first takes refuge in the Buddha. Furthermore, like a sick person, one first seeks a good doctor, then seeks excellent medicine, and then seeks a caretaker. The Buddha is like a good doctor, the Dharma is like excellent medicine, and the Saṃgha (僧, Sēng) is like a skillful caretaker who administers the medicine. Therefore, the Three Refuges are spoken of in this order. Treatise: Taking refuge in the Saṃgha is because the Saṃgha is unbreakable. It clarifies that taking refuge in the Saṃgha means only taking refuge in the 'learning' (學, Xué) and 'no-more-learning' dharmas. This also only refers to the unconditioned (無漏, Wúlòu). Treatise: Does one take refuge in the Saṃgha of one Buddha or the Saṃgha of all Buddhas? Question: This asks about the scope, whether it is limited or universal. Treatise: In principle, one should take refuge universally, because the essential nature of the Saṃgha is not different. Answer: It is a universal refuge. Treatise: However, the sūtra (契經, Qìjīng) says to directly see the Saṃgha Jewel (僧寶, Sēngbǎo). This explains the sūtra. When the Buddha first attained enlightenment, there was no Saṃgha Jewel. He taught the three refuges to the merchants. The Buddha and Dharma can be taken refuge in now. The Saṃgha refers to the Saṃgha that will be established in the future. The Four-Part Vinaya (四分律, Sìfēnlǜ) says to take two refuges. If one takes refuge in all the Saṃgha, at that time there were also those with seven more lives before attaining stream-entry (預流, Yùliú), non-returners (不還果, Bùhuánguǒ), and so on. Why not say to take refuge, pointing to the future Saṃgha, and cause them to take refuge? Treatise: That sūtra is only for directly seeing the Saṃgha Jewel. It is universal. The future Five Kauṇḍinyas (五俱鄰, Wǔ Jùlín) and others are the directly seen Saṃgha. The remaining seven-more-lives and the past and future Saṃgha are not the directly seen Saṃgha, so there is no contradiction.
顯宗二十云。僧有多種謂有情人．聲聞．福田．及聖僧等。佛於此內非聲聞僧。可是餘僧自然覺故。今所歸者是聲聞僧中除異生。聖僧除佛。福田僧除異生．佛 準此論文。福田僧通三。聲聞。兼凡。聖僧並佛。佛非聲聞僧是福田．及聖僧攝。
論。歸依法者至故通歸依。明歸依法。此論文毗婆沙意也。三十四云。問歸依法者。為歸依自相續諸蘊滅。為歸依他相續諸蘊滅。為歸依無情數諸蘊滅耶。設爾何失。若但歸依自相續諸蘊滅者。如何不是少分歸依。若亦歸依他相續等。諸蘊滅者。如何但言我歸依法不言一切。又如何說救護義是歸依義。他相續等諸蘊滅。於我無救護義故。答應作是說。歸依自．他相續．及無情數等一切蘊滅。問他相續等諸蘊滅。於我無救護義如何歸依。答彼雖於我無救護義。而彼於他有救護義。救護相等故亦歸依。此依得說。若依自性隨有漏法有爾所故。自．他所得滅無有異。我於一切有漏蘊中得離系故。一切滅於我皆有救護義。
論。若唯無學法至成無間罪。外人難有部也。
論。毗婆沙者至彼隨壞故。引婆沙通難。以破所依能依無漏法壞故。所以損生身。望無漏法得罪。
論。然尋本論至不容前難。論主不信婆沙通自通難也。本論但言無學法能成於佛。不言生身非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 顯宗二十說，僧有多種，包括有情人（指有情眾生）、聲聞（聽聞佛法而悟道的修行者）、福田（能為眾生帶來福報的僧人）、以及聖僧（證得聖果的僧人）等。佛陀不屬於此處的聲聞僧。但可能是其餘的僧人，因為他們是自然覺悟的。現在所歸依的是聲聞僧中除去異生（尚未證果的凡夫），聖僧中除去佛陀。福田僧中除去異生和佛陀。按照此論文，福田僧通於三種：聲聞，兼凡夫。聖僧包括佛陀。佛陀不是聲聞僧，而是屬於福田僧和聖僧的範疇。 論中說，歸依法者，所以才說通歸依。闡明了歸依法的含義。這段論文是依據《毗婆沙論》的觀點。第三十四卷說，問：歸依法，是歸依自身相續的諸蘊的滅盡，還是歸依他人相續的諸蘊的滅盡，還是歸依無情之物的諸蘊的滅盡呢？如果這樣問，會有什麼過失呢？如果僅僅歸依自身相續的諸蘊的滅盡，怎麼能說不是少分歸依呢？如果也歸依他人相續等的諸蘊的滅盡，怎麼能只說『我歸依法』而不說『一切』呢？又怎麼能說救護的意義是歸依的意義呢？他人相續等的諸蘊的滅盡，對我沒有救護的意義啊。應該這樣回答：歸依自身、他人相續、以及無情之物等一切蘊的滅盡。問：他人相續等的諸蘊的滅盡，對我沒有救護的意義，如何歸依呢？答：它們雖然對我沒有救護的意義，但是它們對他人有救護的意義，因為救護的性質相同，所以也歸依。這是依據『得』來說的。如果依據自性，隨有漏法有多少，自身和他人所得的滅就沒有差異。我在一切有漏蘊中得到解脫，所以一切滅對我都有救護的意義。 論中說，如果只有無學法才能成就無間罪。這是外道對有部的詰難。 論中說，《毗婆沙論》的作者，因為他們隨之壞滅。引用《婆沙論》來普遍詰難。因為所依和能依的無漏法壞滅的緣故，所以損害了生身。相對於無漏法來說，就得到了罪過。 論中說，然而尋究本論，不容許之前的詰難。論主不相信《婆沙論》能普遍地自我詰難。本論只是說無學法能夠成就於佛，沒有說生身不是。
【English Translation】 English version: The Manifest Doctrine, volume 20, states that there are various types of Sangha (community of monks), including sentient beings (those with feelings), Śrāvakas (disciples who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings), fields of merit (those who bring blessings to sentient beings), and noble Sangha (those who have attained the stages of enlightenment). The Buddha does not belong to the Śrāvaka Sangha here. But perhaps the rest of the Sangha, because they are naturally enlightened. What is now being taken refuge in is the Śrāvaka Sangha, excluding ordinary beings (those who have not attained any stage of enlightenment), and the noble Sangha, excluding the Buddha. The field of merit Sangha excludes ordinary beings and the Buddha. According to this treatise, the field of merit Sangha encompasses three types: Śrāvakas, including ordinary beings. The noble Sangha includes the Buddha. The Buddha is not a Śrāvaka Sangha, but belongs to the category of field of merit Sangha and noble Sangha. The treatise states that those who take refuge in the Dharma, that's why it is said to take refuge in general. It clarifies the meaning of taking refuge in the Dharma. This treatise is based on the viewpoint of the Vibhasha. Volume 34 states, 'Question: Taking refuge in the Dharma, is it taking refuge in the cessation of the aggregates of one's own continuum, or taking refuge in the cessation of the aggregates of others' continua, or taking refuge in the cessation of the aggregates of inanimate objects? If this is asked, what fault would there be? If one only takes refuge in the cessation of the aggregates of one's own continuum, how can it not be said to be taking refuge in a small part? If one also takes refuge in the cessation of the aggregates of others' continua, etc., how can one only say 'I take refuge in the Dharma' and not say 'everything'? And how can it be said that the meaning of protection is the meaning of taking refuge? The cessation of the aggregates of others' continua, etc., has no meaning of protection for me.' The answer should be: taking refuge in the cessation of all aggregates, including one's own, others' continua, and inanimate objects. Question: The cessation of the aggregates of others' continua, etc., has no meaning of protection for me, how can one take refuge? Answer: Although they have no meaning of protection for me, they have a meaning of protection for others, because the nature of protection is the same, so one also takes refuge. This is based on 'attainment'. If based on self-nature, according to how much defiled Dharma there is, there is no difference between the cessation attained by oneself and others. I attain liberation from all defiled aggregates, so all cessation has a meaning of protection for me. The treatise states, 'If only the Dharma of the non-learner can accomplish the karma of immediate retribution.' This is an objection from outsiders to the Sarvāstivāda school. The treatise states, 'The author of the Vibhasha, because they are destroyed along with it.' Quoting the Vibhasha to universally object. Because the defiled Dharma that is relied upon and that relies is destroyed, therefore the physical body is harmed. Relative to the defiled Dharma, one obtains demerit. The treatise states, 'However, examining the original treatise, the previous objection is not allowed.' The author of the treatise does not believe that the Vibhasha can universally object to itself. The original treatise only states that the Dharma of the non-learner can accomplish the Buddha, it does not say that the physical body is not.
佛身。既是佛出血。于佛得罪。故不容前難。
論。若異此者至非憎非佛。反難有部。若佛．僧身非僧。非佛。唯無漏法是佛．僧者。若佛及僧住世俗心爾時無無漏法。應非僧非佛。
論。又應唯執至成佛無學法。重反難也。現見。飲食等供養比丘身。歸禮生身佛。若謂生身非僧．佛者。飲食等應供養苾芻戒。歸禮佛應唯歸禮佛無學法。不應歸禮佛生身也。
正理論云。今詳經主于本論義未甚研尋。能成佛言已遮佛體攝依身故。謂佛名言依佛義立。唯此所目是真佛體。若佛名言就依身立。于未證得無學法時已有依身應亦名佛。故知佛號不目依身由此依身。非能成佛。故本論說能成佛言。已遮依身亦是佛體已顯佛體唯無學法 乃至 毗婆沙者作是釋言。壞彼所依彼隨壞故。如是釋難深為應理 正理又云。經主乃至爾時學．無學法不現前故。此難不然。非所許故。謂我不許學．無學法唯現在位方成佛．僧。唯言佛．僧得彼法故。得於諸位曾無間斷。寧住世俗心。便非僧非佛。設許現在方成佛．僧。亦無有過。以許彼得其體亦是學．無學故。得一切時常現前故。經主復言。又應唯執成苾芻戒即是苾芻。是我所宗。豈成過失。以得戒故假說依身亦名苾芻。與前義等。是故經主于對法宗不善了知所說文義 婆
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 佛身，既然（破壞）佛身會使佛流血，那麼冒犯佛身就等同於冒犯佛，因此之前的詰難是不成立的。
論：如果與此不同，乃至（認為）非憎恨（者）非佛（者），這是反過來詰難有部（Sarvāstivāda）的觀點。如果佛和僧的身不是僧，也不是佛，只有無漏法（anāsrava-dharma）才是佛和僧，那麼如果佛和僧處於世俗心（laukika-citta）的狀態，那時就沒有無漏法，那麼就應該既不是僧也不是佛。
論：又應該只執著于能成就佛果的無學法（aśaikṣa-dharma），這是再次反駁之前的詰難。現在可以看到，用飲食等供養比丘（bhikṣu）的身，歸依禮拜生身佛（jīvaṃ-buddha），如果說生身不是僧也不是佛，那麼飲食等就應該供養比丘的戒律，歸依佛就應該只歸依佛的無學法，不應該歸依佛的生身。
《正理論》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya）說：現在詳細考察經主的觀點，他對本論的意義還沒有深入研究，『能成佛』這句話已經遮止了佛的身體，因為它攝取了所依之身。所謂佛的名言是依據佛的意義而建立的，只有這個所指才是真正的佛體。如果佛的名言是就所依之身而建立的，那麼在沒有證得無學法的時候，已經有了所依之身，也應該被稱為佛。所以知道佛的稱號不是指所依之身，因此所依之身不是能成佛的。所以本論說『能成佛』這句話，已經遮止了所依之身也是佛體，已經顯示佛體只有無學法。乃至《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa）的作者這樣解釋說：破壞他們所依賴的，他們也隨之被破壞。這樣的解釋非常合理。《正理論》又說：經主乃至（認為）那時學法（śaikṣa-dharma）和無學法不現前，所以這個詰難是不成立的，因為這不是我們所允許的。我們不允許學法和無學法只有在現在的狀態才能成就佛和僧，只是說佛和僧得到了那些法。得到這些法在各個階段都沒有間斷。怎麼能說處於世俗心的狀態，就不是僧也不是佛呢？即使允許只有在現在的狀態才能成就佛和僧，也沒有過失，因為允許他們得到，他們的本體也是學法和無學法。因為得到一切時常現前。經主又說：又應該只執著于成就比丘戒就是比丘，這是我所宗奉的，怎麼能說是過失呢？因為得到了戒律，所以假說所依之身也叫比丘。與前面的意義相同。所以經主對對法宗（Abhidharma）沒有很好地瞭解，所說的文義……婆（…婆）
【English Translation】 English version The Buddha's body. Since causing a Buddha to bleed constitutes harming the Buddha, offending the Buddha's body is equivalent to offending the Buddha. Therefore, the previous challenge is invalid.
Treatise: If it were otherwise, even to the point of considering those who are neither hateful nor Buddhas, this would be a counter-challenge to the Sarvāstivāda school. If the bodies of the Buddha and the Sangha are neither Sangha nor Buddha, and only the unconditioned dharmas (anāsrava-dharma) are Buddha and Sangha, then if the Buddha and the Sangha are in a state of mundane consciousness (laukika-citta), at that time there would be no unconditioned dharmas, and thus they should be neither Sangha nor Buddha.
Treatise: Furthermore, one should only adhere to the unconditioned dharmas (aśaikṣa-dharma) that lead to Buddhahood, which is a reiteration of the previous challenge. It is evident that offering food and other necessities to the body of a bhikṣu (bhikṣu), and taking refuge in and venerating the living Buddha (jīvaṃ-buddha), if it is said that the living body is neither Sangha nor Buddha, then the offerings should be made to the precepts of the bhikṣu, and refuge should only be taken in the unconditioned dharmas of the Buddha, not in the living body of the Buddha.
The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya states: Now, upon detailed examination of the Sūtra Master's view, he has not deeply studied the meaning of this treatise. The statement 'capable of attaining Buddhahood' has already precluded the Buddha's body, because it encompasses the dependent body. The term 'Buddha' is established based on the meaning of Buddha, and only this referent is the true Buddha-nature. If the term 'Buddha' is established based on the dependent body, then even before attaining the unconditioned dharmas, there would already be a dependent body, and it should also be called Buddha. Therefore, it is known that the title 'Buddha' does not refer to the dependent body, and thus the dependent body is not capable of attaining Buddhahood. Therefore, this treatise states that the statement 'capable of attaining Buddhahood' has already precluded the dependent body from being the Buddha-nature, and it has revealed that the Buddha-nature is only the unconditioned dharmas. Even the author of the Vibhasa explains it this way: Destroy what they depend on, and they will be destroyed along with it. Such an explanation is very reasonable. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya also states: The Sūtra Master even believes that at that time, the conditioned dharmas (śaikṣa-dharma) and unconditioned dharmas are not present, so this challenge is invalid, because this is not what we allow. We do not allow that the conditioned dharmas and unconditioned dharmas can only achieve Buddha and Sangha in the present state, but only say that the Buddha and Sangha have attained those dharmas. Attaining these dharmas has never been interrupted at any stage. How can it be said that being in a state of mundane consciousness means one is neither Sangha nor Buddha? Even if it is allowed that only in the present state can one achieve Buddha and Sangha, there is no fault, because it is allowed that they have attained, and their essence is also the conditioned dharmas and unconditioned dharmas. Because attaining is always present at all times. The Sūtra Master also says: Furthermore, one should only adhere to achieving the bhikṣu precepts as being a bhikṣu, which is what I uphold, how can it be said to be a fault? Because one has attained the precepts, it is falsely said that the dependent body is also called a bhikṣu. The meaning is the same as before. Therefore, the Sūtra Master does not have a good understanding of the Abhidharma school, and the meaning of the words spoken...婆(...婆)
雌子部作如是言。補特伽羅是所歸佛。此非應理。所以者何。彼無差別不成歸故。謂歸離系補特伽羅。與歸世尊。有何差別 準上。經部歸生身。有部歸無學法。婆雌子部歸補特伽羅。
論。有餘部說至不共法。敘異說也。此意歸佛身中有漏．無漏有為功德。與上三說不同。大眾部等佛無有漏。與大乘同。上明所歸三寶體也。正理論云。所歸依者謂滅諦全。道諦一分。除獨覺乘菩薩學位無漏功德。何緣彼法非所歸依彼不能救生死怖故。謂諸獨覺不能說法教誡諸有情令離生死怖。菩薩學位不起期心。故亦無能教誡他義。故彼身中學．無學法不能救護。非所歸依。有餘師言。不和合故。不顯了故。如其次第。獨覺．菩薩非所歸依。
論。此能歸依何法為體。問也。
論。語表為體。答也。此出能歸依體。正理論云。此中能歸語表為體。自立誓限為自性故。若並眷屬五蘊為體。以能歸依所有言說。由心等起非離於心。婆沙三十四云。能歸依者。有說名等。有說是語業。有說亦身業。有說是信。應作是說謂是身．語業。及能起心心所法。並諸隨行。如是善五蘊是能歸依體 俱舍同第二師。正理不同婆沙諸師。諸師中無取語業．及心等為體者。應作是說是正義。因何兩論皆不同婆沙正義 有人云。論主故述婆
沙不正義。試後學徒為覺不覺。眾賢尊者不覺斯文還依此釋。若依正解同婆沙評家 此釋非理。論主大有與婆沙不同義。豈皆試後學耶。又但讀婆沙者即覺。何為眾賢不覺。又眾賢兼有隨行能起與俱舍異。如何是同 今詳。三論不同。所以者。有別意也。婆沙通說能歸。所以取身．語等。俱舍言此能歸依者。即此律儀中能歸體也。正理言此中能歸者。亦是律儀中能歸也。皆有別意。此由論乘明受律儀后釋三歸故。此中受律儀三歸能歸以語表為體。以能教先稱受者隨教稱故。若身禮亦不成隨教歸依之法 由此兩論唯取語表業。俱舍據顯略不說心等。正理具述兼明心等。若謂意別合有是非。既無是非。大意是同。據義別也 婆沙通明歸依通身．語等。
論。如是歸依至一切苦故。釋歸依義。歸依救濟為義。由此三寶為依能永解脫一切苦故。以余不能永解脫一切苦故。
論。如是世尊言至能解脫眾苦。下引五行頌證。前兩頌證耶不脫眾苦。后三行證正歸依能脫眾苦 制多者。外道塔廟。
論。是故歸依至為方便門。結也。八眾受律儀必以三歸為門。正理論云。如是歸依救濟為義。他身聖法及善無為。如何能為自身救濟。以歸依彼能息無邊生死苦輪大怖畏故。非如牧豎防護諸牛。提婆達多守餘人等。但令不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：沙門不正義。測試後來的學徒是否覺悟。眾賢尊者如果不能覺悟這些文字，仍然按照這個解釋。如果按照正確的解釋，就和《婆沙論》的評家一樣，這個解釋就不合理。論主（指《俱舍論》的作者世親）有很多和《婆沙論》不同的觀點，難道都是爲了測試後來的學徒嗎？而且如果只是讀《婆沙論》就能覺悟，為什麼眾賢尊者不能覺悟？而且眾賢尊者兼有隨行（指隨行心）能夠發起，這和《俱舍論》不同，怎麼能說是相同呢？現在詳細分析。《三論》（指《中論》、《百論》、《十二門論》）的觀點不同，是因為有不同的用意。《婆沙論》通泛地說能歸依，所以包括身、語等。《俱舍論》說這個能歸依者，就是律儀中能歸的自體。《正理論》說這個能歸者，也是律儀中能歸的自體。都有不同的用意。這是因為論著闡明了受律儀之後解釋三歸的緣故。這裡受律儀的三歸，能歸以語言表達為體，因為能教（指佛的教導）先稱受者，受者隨教而稱。如果用身體禮拜，也不能成為隨教歸依的方法。因此這兩部論只取語言表達的業。《俱舍論》根據顯略，沒有說心等。《正理論》詳細敘述，兼明心等。如果說用意不同，就應該有是非。既然沒有是非，大意是相同的，只是根據意義有所區別。《婆沙論》通泛地說明歸依，包括身、語等。
論：像這樣歸依，直到一切苦的止息。解釋歸依的意義。歸依的意義是救濟。因為三寶是所依，能夠永遠解脫一切痛苦。因為其他的（外道等）不能永遠解脫一切痛苦。
論：像這樣，世尊說，直到能夠解脫眾苦。下面引用五行頌來證明。前兩頌證明邪歸依不能解脫眾苦，后三行證明正確的歸依能夠解脫眾苦。制多（Caitas，梵語）指的是外道的塔廟。
論：因此，歸依是進入佛法的方便之門。這是結論。八眾（比丘、比丘尼、沙彌、沙彌尼、式叉摩那、優婆塞、優婆夷、正學男）受律儀必須以三歸為入門。《正理論》說：像這樣，歸依的意義是救濟。其他身（指佛身）、聖法（指佛法）以及善無為（指涅槃），如何能夠為自身救濟？因為歸依他們能夠止息無邊的生死苦輪大怖畏的緣故。不是像牧童防護牛群，提婆達多守護其他人等，只是讓他們不受到傷害。
【English Translation】 English version: The Shramana (沙門, wandering ascetics) is unjust. Test later disciples to see if they are enlightened. If the Venerable Ones (眾賢尊者) cannot understand these texts, they still rely on this explanation. If according to the correct explanation, it would be the same as the commentators of the Vibhasha (婆沙論, a commentary on the Abhidharma), and this explanation would be unreasonable. The author of the Abhidharmakosha (俱舍論, Treasury of Knowledge), Vasubandhu (世親), has many different views from the Vibhasha, are they all to test later disciples? Moreover, if one can become enlightened just by reading the Vibhasha, why can't the Venerable Ones become enlightened? Furthermore, the Venerable Ones also have accompanying thoughts (隨行心) that can arise, which is different from the Abhidharmakosha, how can they be said to be the same? Now, let's analyze in detail. The views of the Three Treatises (三論, Madhyamaka, Dvadasanikaya, and Sata-sastra) are different because they have different intentions. The Vibhasha generally speaks of the act of taking refuge (能歸依), so it includes body, speech, etc. The Abhidharmakosha says that this act of taking refuge is the very essence of taking refuge within the precepts (律儀). The Nyayanusara (正理論, Following the Principle) says that this act of taking refuge is also the essence of taking refuge within the precepts. They all have different intentions. This is because the treatises explain the Three Refuges (三歸) after clarifying the receiving of precepts. Here, the act of taking refuge in the Three Refuges when receiving precepts takes the form of verbal expression, because the teaching (能教, Buddha's teachings) first addresses the receiver, and the receiver follows the teaching in their expression. If one uses bodily prostration, it cannot become a method of taking refuge that follows the teaching. Therefore, these two treatises only take the karma of verbal expression. The Abhidharmakosha, according to its concise nature, does not mention mind, etc. The Nyayanusara narrates in detail, also clarifying mind, etc. If it is said that the intentions are different, then there should be right and wrong. Since there is no right and wrong, the general meaning is the same, but there are differences according to the meaning. The Vibhasha generally explains that taking refuge includes body, speech, etc.
Treatise: Thus, taking refuge leads to the cessation of all suffering. Explaining the meaning of taking refuge. The meaning of taking refuge is salvation. Because the Three Jewels (三寶, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) are the refuge, they can permanently liberate from all suffering. Because others (external paths, etc.) cannot permanently liberate from all suffering.
Treatise: Thus, the World Honored One (世尊, Buddha) said, until able to liberate from the suffering of the masses. Below, five lines of verses are quoted to prove this. The first two verses prove that wrong refuge cannot liberate from suffering, and the last three lines prove that correct refuge can liberate from suffering. Caitas (制多, Sanskrit) refers to the stupas and temples of external paths.
Treatise: Therefore, taking refuge is the expedient gate for entering the Dharma. This is the conclusion. The eight assemblies (八眾, Bhikshu, Bhikshuni, Shramanera, Shramanerika, Shikshamana, Upasaka, Upasika, and Zhengxuenan) must take the Three Refuges as the gateway to receiving precepts. The Nyayanusara says: Thus, the meaning of taking refuge is salvation. How can the other body (佛身, Buddha's body), the holy Dharma (佛法, Buddha's teachings), and the good unconditioned (涅槃, Nirvana) save oneself? Because taking refuge in them can stop the great fear of the endless cycle of birth and death. It is not like a shepherd protecting cattle, or Devadatta (提婆達多) guarding other people, only preventing them from being harmed.
散。非所歸依。不能令息生死畏故。雖復亦有歸佛．法．僧。然彼不蒙現救濟者。以彼違越佛教理故。如有依王為違王敕王不救濟。此亦應然 有餘師說。彼亦能與後邊善根為種子故。歸依但作正行種子。非即由此能息苦輪。故有歸依未蒙救者 有餘師說。彼雖歸依。未能奉行歸所為故。歸依所為其體是何。謂見四諦。故伽他說。伽他即俱舍五行頌中后三行頌諸有歸依佛等 又云。又佛譬如能示導者。法如安隱所趣方域。僧如同涉正道伴侶 又云。三所歸依有差別者。佛唯無學。法二俱非 二俱非者非學非無學也 僧體貫通學與無學 又佛體是十根少分(謂信等五根。喜．樂．舍．意．具知根也)。僧通十二(加未知當知根。及已知根也)。法體非根。擇滅．涅槃非根攝故 又歸依佛。謂但歸依一有為沙門果(佛亦名羅漢故)。歸依法者。謂通歸依四無為沙門果。歸依僧者謂通歸依四有為沙門果。及四果能趣向。
論。何緣世尊于律儀處。已下。第四明立支所以。文中有三。一明離耶行所以。二明離虛誑語所以。三明離飲酒所以。半頌即初文也 論曰至非非梵行。此有三因此即初文準此非梵行不感惡趣。
論。又欲耶行至離非梵行。第二因也。
論。又諸聖者至謂定不作。第三因也。正理論云。經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 散亂，沒有真正的皈依之處，不能使人止息生死輪迴的恐懼。即使有人皈依佛(Buddha，覺悟者)、法(Dharma，佛法)、僧(Sangha，僧團)，但他們沒有得到當下的救濟，因為他們違背了佛教的教義。這就像依賴國王卻違背國王的命令，國王不會救濟他一樣。有些論師說，皈依也能為他們種下未來獲得善根的種子。皈依只是作為一種正確的行為的種子，並非僅僅通過皈依就能止息痛苦的輪迴。因此，有些人皈依了卻沒有得到救濟。有些論師說，他們雖然皈依了，卻沒有奉行皈依的目的。皈依的目的本質是什麼呢？就是證見四聖諦(Four Noble Truths)。所以《伽他》(Gatha)中說，『伽他』就是《俱舍論》(Abhidharmakosha)五行頌中的后三行頌：『凡是皈依佛、法、僧的……』 又說，佛就像能指示道路的人，法就像安全平靜的目的地，僧就像一同走在正道上的伴侶。 又說，這三者所皈依的對象是有差別的：佛只是無學(Arhat，阿羅漢)果位，法既不是有學也不是無學。『既不是有學也不是無學』，就是指既不是有學位也不是無學位。僧團的本體貫通有學和無學兩種果位。 佛的本體是十根中的少部分（指信根、精進根、念根、定根、慧根這五根，以及喜根、樂根、舍根、意根、具知根）。僧團貫通十二根（加上未知當知根和已知根）。法的本體不是根，因為擇滅(Nirvana，涅槃)、涅槃不屬於根所包含的範圍。 又，皈依佛，就是隻皈依一個有為的沙門果(Sramana-phala，修行者的果位)（佛也稱為阿羅漢）。皈依法，就是普遍皈依四種無為的沙門果。皈依僧，就是普遍皈依四種有為的沙門果，以及能夠趣向四果的修行者。 論：什麼原因導致世尊在律儀之處……以下是第四部分，闡明設立戒律的原因。文章分為三部分：第一部分闡明遠離邪淫的原因，第二部分闡明遠離虛妄語的原因，第三部分闡明遠離飲酒的原因。半頌的內容就是第一部分。論曰：乃至不是非梵行。這裡有三個原因，這就是第一部分。按照這個推論，非梵行不會導致墮入惡趣。 論：又，因為貪慾的邪淫行為……乃至遠離非梵行。這是第二個原因。 論：又，因為諸位聖者……乃至決定不做。這是第三個原因。《正理論》(Abhidharma-nyayanusara)中說：
【English Translation】 English version Scattered, without a true refuge, unable to bring an end to the fear of birth and death. Even if some take refuge in the Buddha (the Awakened One), the Dharma (the teachings), and the Sangha (the monastic community), they do not receive immediate salvation because they violate the Buddha's teachings. This is like relying on a king but disobeying his orders, and the king will not save them. Some teachers say that taking refuge can also plant seeds for future merit. Taking refuge is only a seed for right action; it is not by itself enough to stop the wheel of suffering. Therefore, some who take refuge do not receive salvation. Some teachers say that although they have taken refuge, they have not practiced what refuge entails. What is the essence of taking refuge? It is seeing the Four Noble Truths. Therefore, the Gatha says, 'Gatha' is the last three lines of the five-line verse in the Abhidharmakosha: 'Those who take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha...' It also says that the Buddha is like one who shows the way, the Dharma is like a safe and peaceful destination, and the Sangha is like companions on the right path. It also says that the objects of refuge are different: the Buddha is only the Arhat (one who has attained enlightenment) state of no-more-learning, the Dharma is neither learning nor no-more-learning. 'Neither learning nor no-more-learning' means neither the state of learning nor the state of no-more-learning. The Sangha's essence encompasses both the states of learning and no-more-learning. The Buddha's essence is a small part of the ten roots (referring to the five roots of faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom, as well as the roots of joy, happiness, equanimity, intention, and complete knowledge). The Sangha encompasses twelve roots (adding the root of 'not-yet-knowing-that-one-will-know' and the root of 'having-known'). The Dharma's essence is not a root, because cessation (Nirvana) and Nirvana are not included in the scope of roots. Furthermore, taking refuge in the Buddha means only taking refuge in one conditioned Sramana-phala (fruit of the ascetic life) (the Buddha is also called an Arhat). Taking refuge in the Dharma means universally taking refuge in the four unconditioned Sramana-phala. Taking refuge in the Sangha means universally taking refuge in the four conditioned Sramana-phala, as well as those who can approach the four fruits. Treatise: For what reason did the World-Honored One, in the place of precepts... The following is the fourth part, explaining the reasons for establishing the precepts. The article is divided into three parts: the first part explains the reason for abstaining from sexual misconduct, the second part explains the reason for abstaining from false speech, and the third part explains the reason for abstaining from drinking alcohol. The content of the half-verse is the first part. Treatise says: Even not non-celibacy. There are three reasons here, and this is the first part. According to this inference, non-celibacy does not lead to falling into evil realms. Treatise: Also, because of lustful sexual misconduct... even abstaining from non-celibacy. This is the second reason. Treatise: Also, because all the sages... even deciding not to do it. This is the third reason. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara says:
生聖者亦不行故。離非梵行則不如是。若異此者經生有學應不能持近事性戒(非梵行應是性罪。應不能持性罪。理實亦能持遮罪。謂不飲酒。況性罪也 又解。以是性戒名性罪非五種不作皆是性罪) 于欲邪行一切聖人定得不作名為律儀此不作律儀無有別體。前戒已舍。今生未受故。但是前身曾受五戒。雖復經生更不受戒。欲邪行等必定不作。非梵行即不如是。雖有學曾受具戒。經生舍戒更未受戒。即犯非梵行也 正理論云。若諸近事後復從師要期更受。離非梵行得未曾得此律儀不 有餘師說。得此律儀 有說不得未得律儀。然獲最勝杜多功德名獲最勝遠離法者。謂能遠離淫慾法故 今詳。后解為勝。不得律儀應得別遠離無表。所以者何。離非梵行律儀無獨受者。必以五．十．二百五十．五百等同受得故。此等闕支不發律儀故。
論。諸有先受至得律儀不。問。
論。理實應得至得別解律儀。答。
論。若爾云何后非犯戒。難。自下半頌答也。
論曰至非毀犯前戒。釋頌。如文可解。
論。何緣但制至近事律儀。下半頌。第二明離虛誑語所以。
論。亦由前說至得不作故。答。
論。復有別因。此重問也。
論曰至能防后犯釋頌文也。如文可解。婆沙一百二十三云
。有作是說。離虛誑語易可訪護。非離餘三。謂處在家御僮僕等。難可遠離離間等三。復有說者。作虛誑語業道最重餘三少輕。是故不立。有餘師說。唯虛誑語能破壞僧故立學處。餘三不爾有餘復說。若諸聖者經生不犯立近事戒。聖者經生必定遠離虛誑語業。非余語業所以者何。余語有三。謂從貪．嗔．癡生。經生聖者雖不犯從癡所生。癡見品攝故。聖者已斷。而犯貪．嗔所生。是故不立 更釋如此論。
論。復以何緣至近事律儀立余飲酒為性罪家問。
論。誰言此中不離遮罪。立飲酒為遮罪家答。
論。離何遮罪。重問。
論。謂離飲酒。重答也。
論。何緣于彼至唯遮飲酒。縱是遮罪重問。自下半頌。第三明離飲酒所以。
論曰至令離飲酒。釋所以也。
論。寧知飲酒遮罪攝耶。問。
論。由此中無至能無染心。答。夫性罪者必染心行。為療病時分限飲酒。無染心故非是性罪。
論。豈不先知至即是染心。難也。
論。此非染心至故非染心。答。自知性多飲。自節力飲。豈非知量。染心寧有。
論。諸持律者言至彼飲酒故。敘異說也。佛既唯除性罪。皆開供病比丘。既復有病佛不開酒。故知飲酒是性罪攝。第一證也。
論。又契經說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人這樣說，遠離虛誑語（妄語）是容易檢查和守護的，而遠離其餘三種（離間語、粗惡語、綺語）則不然。因為在家之人要管理奴僕等，很難遠離離間等三種惡語。還有人說，造作虛誑語的業道最重，其餘三種較輕，所以不單獨設立。有其他師父說，只有虛誑語能破壞僧團，所以設立學處，其餘三種則不然。還有人說，如果聖者（證悟者）經歷生死輪迴都不會犯近事戒，聖者經歷生死輪迴必定遠離虛誑語的業，而不是其餘的語業。為什麼呢？因為其餘的語業有三種，即從貪、嗔、癡產生。經歷生死輪迴的聖者雖然不犯從癡所生的語業（因為癡見屬於癡的範疇），但聖者已經斷除了癡見，卻可能犯從貪、嗔所生的語業，所以不單獨設立。更進一步解釋這個論點。
論：又因為什麼緣故，在近事律儀中，將飲酒作為性罪（本質上就是罪）來詢問？
論：誰說這裡不包括遮罪（因某些原因而被禁止的行為）？設立飲酒為遮罪來回答。
論：遠離什麼遮罪？再次提問。
論：即遠離飲酒。再次回答。
論：為什麼對於那些（罪行）只遮止飲酒？即使是遮罪，再次提問。從下面的半頌開始，第三部分闡明了遠離飲酒的原因。
論曰：爲了使人遠離飲酒。解釋了原因。
論：怎麼知道飲酒屬於遮罪的範疇呢？提問。
論：因為這裡沒有（飲酒）能使人沒有染污心。回答。性罪必然伴隨著染污心的行為。爲了治療疾病而有限度地飲酒，因為沒有染污心，所以不是性罪。
論：難道不是先知道（飲酒）就是染污心嗎？反駁。
論：這不是染污心，所以不是染污心。回答。自己知道自己的酒量，自我節制地飲用，難道不是知道分寸嗎？染污心怎麼會產生呢？
論：諸位持律者說，因為他們飲酒的緣故。敘述不同的觀點。佛陀既然只排除了性罪，都允許供給生病的比丘。既然有生病的比丘，佛陀又不允許用酒，所以知道飲酒屬於性罪的範疇。這是第一個證據。
論：又有契經說
【English Translation】 English version: Some say that refraining from false speech (lying) is easy to check and guard against, unlike refraining from the other three (divisive speech, harsh speech, and idle chatter). This is because householders have to manage servants and the like, and it is difficult to refrain from divisive speech and the other two. Others say that the karmic path of committing false speech is the heaviest, while the other three are lighter, so it is not established separately. Some other teachers say that only false speech can destroy the Sangha (monastic community), so a precept is established for it, while the other three are not like that. Still others say that if noble ones (enlightened beings) go through rebirth, they will not violate the Upasaka (lay follower) precepts. Noble ones, going through rebirth, will definitely refrain from the karma of false speech, but not from the other speech karmas. Why is that? Because the other speech karmas are of three kinds, namely those arising from greed, hatred, and delusion. Noble ones going through rebirth, although they do not commit speech karma arising from delusion (because deluded views belong to the category of delusion), noble ones have already cut off deluded views, but they may commit speech karma arising from greed and hatred, so it is not established separately. Let's explain this point further.
Question: And for what reason is the taking of intoxicants established as a 'nature offense' (an offense by its very nature) in the Upasaka precepts?
Answer: Who says that 'prohibitory offenses' (actions forbidden for specific reasons) are not included here? The taking of intoxicants is established as a 'prohibitory offense'.
Question: Refraining from what prohibitory offense? Re-questioning.
Answer: Namely, refraining from taking intoxicants. Re-answering.
Question: Why is it that only the taking of intoxicants is prohibited among those (offenses)? Even if it is a prohibitory offense, re-questioning. From the following half-verse onwards, the third part clarifies the reason for refraining from taking intoxicants.
Statement: In order to make people refrain from taking intoxicants. Explains the reason.
Question: How is it known that the taking of intoxicants belongs to the category of prohibitory offenses?
Answer: Because there is no (taking of intoxicants) here that can make one without defiled thoughts. A 'nature offense' necessarily accompanies actions with defiled thoughts. When drinking intoxicants in limited amounts for the purpose of treating illness, because there are no defiled thoughts, it is not a 'nature offense'.
Question: Isn't it already known that (taking intoxicants) is defiled thought? Objection.
Answer: This is not defiled thought, therefore it is not defiled thought. Knowing one's own capacity for alcohol, drinking with self-restraint, isn't that knowing one's limits? How can defiled thoughts arise?
Statement: The Vinaya masters say, because of their drinking intoxicants. Narrating different views. Since the Buddha only excluded 'nature offenses', he allowed the supply of medicine to sick monks. Since there are sick monks, and the Buddha does not allow the use of alcohol, it is known that the taking of intoxicants belongs to the category of 'nature offenses'. This is the first proof.
Statement: Moreover, the sutras say
至是性罪攝。第二證也。
論。又諸聖者至如殺生等。第三證也。既殺生聖不犯殺等是性罪。飲酒聖不犯故亦是性罪。
論。又經說是身惡行故第四證也。
論。對法諸師言非性罪。立對法宗。
論。然為病者至犯性罪故。通第一證。
論。又令醉亂至所沾量。通第二證。不能飲者。乃至。茅端所沾量酒。亦醉亂故。若開能者此類亂故。所以總遮。
論。又一切聖至量無定故。通第三證。
論。又經說是至皆是性罪故。通第四證。五戒唯此一戒言放逸處餘四不言放逸處者。是性罪故。正理云。何緣此皆性罪。乃至。如為除病知量服毒能令無損。豈是罪耶。故非飲酒皆惡行攝。若為憍逸。或為歡娛。或知醉亂而貪故飲。此等皆托染污心生。約此經中說身惡行。應知此是性罪所攝 準此論文。若染心飲酒是性罪。又準此。染心斷草等亦是性罪。不染心方是遮罪。
論。然說數習墮惡趣者。牒別文也。
論。顯數飲酒至轉增盛故。通別文。有三因。如文可解。
論。如契經說至依何義說。此問。經中依何義名窣羅酒．迷麗耶酒。復皆言末陀及是放逸處耶。
論。醞食成酒至所依處故。已下釋也 醞余物成者。蒲桃等。所以經說三名 酒是放逸處言窣羅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是從自性罪的角度來理解的。這是第二個證據。 論：又如諸聖者，比如殺生等。這是第三個證據。既然殺生聖者不會犯殺生等罪，那麼這就是自性罪。飲酒聖者不犯飲酒罪，所以飲酒也是自性罪。 論：又經中說是身惡行，這是第四個證據。 論：對法諸師說這不是自性罪。這是對法宗的觀點。 論：然而爲了治病等原因，即使犯了自性罪也是可以的。這是對第一個證據的解釋。 論：又因為令人醉亂等原因，要控制飲酒的量。這是對第二個證據的解釋。對於不能飲酒的人，即使是茅草尖端所沾的酒量，也會醉亂。如果允許能飲酒的人隨意飲用，也會導致混亂。所以總的來說要禁止飲酒。 論：又一切聖者，飲酒的量沒有定數。這是對第三個證據的解釋。 論：又經中說是身惡行，所以都是自性罪。這是對第四個證據的解釋。五戒中只有這一條戒律說了『放逸處』，其餘四條沒有說『放逸處』，是因為飲酒是自性罪。正理中說：為什麼這些都是自性罪呢？比如爲了除病，知道劑量地服用毒藥，能夠不造成損害，難道這也是罪嗎？所以不是飲酒都是惡行。如果是爲了驕傲放縱，或者爲了歡娛，或者明知會醉亂而貪圖飲用，這些都是由染污心產生的。根據經中所說，這是身惡行。應該知道這是自性罪所包含的。根據這段論文，如果以染污心飲酒，就是自性罪。又根據這段論文，以染污心折斷草等也是自性罪。不以染污心才是遮罪。 論：然而說多次習染會墮入惡趣，這是指其他的經文。 論：顯示多次飲酒會導致過失不斷增長。這是對其他經文的解釋。有三個原因，如經文所說可以理解。 論：如契經所說，這是依據什麼意義說的？這是提問。經中依據什麼意義將Sura酒（一種穀物酒）、迷麗耶酒（一種水果酒）都稱為末陀（一種麻醉品）及放逸處呢？ 論：用食物釀成酒，這是它所依賴的地方。以下是解釋。用其他東西釀成的酒，比如蒲桃（葡萄）等。所以經中說了三個名字。酒是放逸處，也就是Sura（一種穀物酒）。
【English Translation】 English version: This is understood from the perspective of intrinsically evil actions. This is the second proof. Treatise: Furthermore, like the noble ones, such as killing, etc. This is the third proof. Since noble ones who kill do not commit the sin of killing, etc., this is an intrinsically evil action. Noble ones who drink alcohol do not commit the sin of drinking alcohol, so drinking alcohol is also an intrinsically evil action. Treatise: Furthermore, the sutra says it is an evil bodily action, this is the fourth proof. Treatise: The masters of Abhidharma say it is not an intrinsically evil action. This establishes the Abhidharma school's view. Treatise: However, for those who are ill, even committing an intrinsically evil action is permissible. This addresses the first proof. Treatise: Furthermore, because it causes intoxication, one must control the amount of alcohol consumed. This addresses the second proof. For those who cannot drink alcohol, even the amount of alcohol that clings to the tip of a blade of grass will cause intoxication. If those who can drink alcohol are allowed to drink freely, it will lead to chaos. Therefore, drinking alcohol is generally prohibited. Treatise: Furthermore, for all noble ones, there is no fixed amount of alcohol to drink. This addresses the third proof. Treatise: Furthermore, the sutra says it is an evil bodily action, so all are intrinsically evil actions. This addresses the fourth proof. Among the five precepts, only this precept mentions 'a place of negligence,' while the other four do not mention 'a place of negligence,' because drinking alcohol is an intrinsically evil action. The Nyaya-sutra says: Why are these all intrinsically evil actions? For example, to eliminate illness, knowingly taking a measured dose of poison that does not cause harm, is that a sin? Therefore, not all drinking of alcohol is an evil action. If it is for arrogance, or for pleasure, or knowingly becoming intoxicated and greedily drinking, these are all born from defiled minds. According to what the sutra says, this is an evil bodily action. It should be known that this is included in intrinsically evil actions. According to this treatise, if one drinks alcohol with a defiled mind, it is an intrinsically evil action. Also according to this treatise, cutting grass, etc., with a defiled mind is also an intrinsically evil action. Not with a defiled mind is a prohibitive offense. Treatise: However, saying that repeatedly indulging will lead to falling into evil realms refers to other sutras. Treatise: Showing that repeatedly drinking alcohol will lead to faults constantly increasing. This addresses other sutras. There are three reasons, which can be understood as the sutra says. Treatise: As the sutra says, according to what meaning is this said? This is a question. According to what meaning in the sutra are Sura wine (a type of grain alcohol) and Maireya wine (a type of fruit alcohol) both called Madya (an intoxicant) and a place of negligence? Treatise: Brewing food into alcohol, this is the place it relies on. The following is an explanation. Brewing alcohol from other things, such as grapes, etc. Therefore, the sutra mentions three names. Alcohol is a place of negligence, that is, Sura (a type of grain alcohol).
．迷麗耶。簡檳榔等亦能令醉不制飲也 言末陀者。簡醞食為酒及醞余成變壞。不能醉人者亦不制。飲醞食及余物酒末陀者。無問多少。是放逸所依處。故制令不飲也。
俱舍論疏卷第十四
興福寺慈恩院本交了永賢
保延三年八月十四日夕于東南院點了
今日依中宮御惱于大佛殿有千僧御讀經云云。 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第十五
沙門法寶撰
分別業品第四之三
論。此別解脫至不爾云何。此下一頌。大文第九明三種律儀所從得處 初之從字通其三節。從一切。從二。從現 第三句從字通二節。從根本。從恒時。總有五節。
論曰至後起而得。釋第一節。謂別解脫律儀從一切根本．加行．後起處得。即是殺等加行．根本．後起 太法師取禮僧等加行．說重等後起。此恐非也 婆沙一百二十云。別解脫戒通於業道．加行．後起處得。此是明發戒處。已發戒後方說重等。如何後起是發戒處。取殺等加行．根本．後起為勝。戒防此三位故。
論。從二得者至性罪遮罪。釋第二節。有二種二。謂情．非情。性罪．遮罪 若唯染心發。是性罪攝。如殺生等。若通染．不染。是遮罪攝。如飲酒等 正理論云。于情性
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 迷麗耶（Maireya）：簡檳榔等也能使人醉，不加以節制地飲用。 言末陀（Mada）：指用穀物釀造的酒，以及釀造后剩餘變質的酒。不能使人醉的酒也不加以節制。飲用穀物釀造的酒以及其他物品釀造的酒，無論多少，都是放逸的根源，所以禁止飲用。
《俱舍論疏》卷第十四
興福寺慈恩院版本，交由永賢校對。
保延三年八月十四日傍晚於東南院校對完畢。
今日因中宮身體不適，在大佛殿舉行千僧御讀經儀式。 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第十五
沙門法寶 撰
分別業品第四之三
論：此別解脫乃至不爾云何。此下一頌。大文第九，說明三種律儀的獲得之處。最初的『從』字貫通三個小節：從一切、從二、從現。第三句的『從』字貫通兩個小節：從根本、從恒時。總共有五個小節。
論曰乃至後起而得。解釋第一節。即別解脫律儀從一切根本、加行、後起處獲得。即是殺生等加行、根本、後起。太法師取禮僧等加行，說重等後起，這恐怕是不對的。婆沙一百二十說：別解脫戒通於業道、加行、後起處獲得。這是說明發戒之處。已發戒后才說重等，如何後起是發戒之處？取殺等加行、根本、後起為勝，戒律正是爲了防止這三個階段。
論：從二得者乃至性罪遮罪。解釋第二節。有兩種『二』，即情與非情，性罪與遮罪。如果僅僅是染污心所引發，屬於性罪，如殺生等。如果通於染污與不染污心，屬於遮罪，如飲酒等。《正理論》說：于情性
【English Translation】 English version: Maireya: Even simple betel nuts and the like can cause intoxication if consumed without restraint. Mada: Refers to liquor brewed from grains, as well as spoiled remnants from brewing. Even if it doesn't cause intoxication, it should not be consumed without restraint. Drinking liquor brewed from grains or other substances, regardless of the amount, is a source of heedlessness, therefore it is prohibited.
Kośa-śāstra-vrtti (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) Scroll 14
Xingfu Temple, Ci'en Courtyard Edition, proofread by Yongxian.
Completed proofreading at the Southeast Courtyard on the evening of the 14th day of the 8th month of the 3rd year of Hoen.
Today, due to the Empress's illness, a thousand monks will recite scriptures at the Great Buddha Hall. Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41 No. 1822 Kośa-śāstra-vrtti (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya)
Kośa-śāstra-vrtti (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) Scroll 15
Composed by Śrāmaṇa (Buddhist monk) Fabao
Chapter 4, Section 3: Analysis of Karma
Treatise: 'This Prātimokṣa (code of monastic discipline) up to 'If not, how?' The following verse, the ninth major section, explains the sources from which the three types of ethical discipline are obtained. The initial 'from' (from) connects all three subsections: from all, from two, from the present. The 'from' in the third sentence connects two subsections: from the root, from the constant. There are a total of five subsections.
Treatise: 'From what is initiated and obtained.' Explains the first subsection. Namely, the Prātimokṣa (code of monastic discipline) is obtained from all root, preparatory, and subsequent actions. That is, the preparatory, root, and subsequent actions of killing, etc. The Great Dharma Master takes preparatory actions such as bowing to the Sangha (monastic community), and speaks of subsequent actions such as heavy (punishments). This is probably incorrect. The Vibhāṣā (commentary) 120 says: 'The Prātimokṣa (code of monastic discipline) is connected to the path of karma, preparatory actions, and subsequent actions.' This explains the place of generating the precepts. Only after the precepts have been generated are heavy (punishments) mentioned. How can subsequent actions be the place of generating the precepts? Taking preparatory, root, and subsequent actions such as killing is superior, because the precepts prevent these three stages.
Treatise: 'Those obtained from two, up to intrinsic and prohibitive offenses.' Explains the second subsection. There are two types of 'two': sentient and non-sentient, intrinsic offenses and prohibitive offenses. If it is only generated by a defiled mind, it is included in intrinsic offenses, such as killing. If it is connected to both defiled and non-defiled minds, it is included in prohibitive offenses, such as drinking alcohol. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise Following the Course of Reason) says: 'Regarding sentient nature'
罪謂殺生等。遮謂女人同室宿等 非情性罪謂盜外財。遮謂掘地壞生草等。
論。從現得者至有情處故。釋第三節。即離七惡業根本．加行．後起得別解脫戒。七惡業道及加行．後起。既有情所依．所止處。發戒亦合同。過去．未來非是有情。非依處。及非止處故。于現在蘊．界．處得 正理論云。有情處者。謂諸有情。及諸有情所依．止處。現蘊．處．界。內者即是有情所依。外者名為有情所止。非過未故(解云。有情即是六界之總名。所依即是內蘊界。有情所止者。即是外器．草．木．及財．食。此等皆是現在假聚。非過未故) 婆沙一百二十云。彼別解脫戒唯于現在有情數蘊．界．處得不於過未。墮法數故。
論。若得靜慮至況從遮罪。釋第四節。正理論云。若得靜慮．無漏律儀。應知但從根本業道。以定中唯有根本業道故。非從前後近分而得。以在定位唯有根本。在不定位中無此律儀故(解云。此由六禪地中靜慮及無漏。與欲惡戒作斷治等。翻此故有二種律儀。惡戒既唯根本七支 此亦唯根本業道。散心非彼斷等對治。由斯無有此類律儀。非如別解脫從別緣制)。
論。從恒時者至蘊處界得。釋第五節 正理論云。從恒時者。謂從過去．現在．未來．蘊．處．界得。如與此戒為共有心(解
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：罪是指殺生等行為。遮是指與女人同室而宿等行為。非情性罪是指盜取他人財物。遮是指挖掘土地、破壞生長的草木等行為。
論：從現在所得，乃至有情之處的緣故。解釋第三節。即是遠離七種惡業的根本、加行（準備階段）、後起（完成階段）而得到的別解脫戒。七種惡業道以及加行、後起，既是有情所依之處，也是有情所止之處，因此發戒也相同。過去、未來不是有情，不是所依之處，也不是所止之處，所以在現在的蘊（skandha，構成個體的要素）、界（dhātu，構成要素的類別）、處（āyatana，感覺器官與對像）才能得到（戒）。正理論說：『有情處』是指諸有情，以及諸有情所依、所止之處，即現在的蘊、處、界。內者即是有情所依，外者名為有情所止。不是過去和未來的緣故。（解釋說：有情即是六界（地、水、火、風、空、識）的總稱。所依即是內蘊界。有情所止，即是外在的器物、草木以及財物、食物。這些都是現在假和合而成的，不是過去和未來的緣故。）婆沙一百二十說：『彼別解脫戒唯于現在有情數蘊、界、處得，不於過去未來，因為墮入法數（dharma-saṃkhyā）的緣故。
論：如果得到靜慮（dhyāna，禪定）乃至何況是從遮罪而得。解釋第四節。正理論說：『如果得到靜慮、無漏律儀（anāsrava-śīla，無煩惱的戒律），應當知道只是從根本業道而得。因為在禪定中只有根本業道，不是從前後近分（輔助行為）而得。因為在定位中只有根本，在不定位中沒有此律儀的緣故。』（解釋說：這是由於六禪地中的靜慮以及無漏，與欲惡戒作為斷除和對治等。翻轉此故有兩種律儀。惡戒既然只有根本七支，此也只有根本業道。散心不是彼斷除等對治，因此沒有此類律儀，不像別解脫戒是從別的因緣制定的）。
論：從恒常時，乃至蘊處界得。解釋第五節。正理論說：『從恒常時』，是指從過去、現在、未來、蘊、處、界而得。如與此戒為共有心（citta，心識）
【English Translation】 English version: 'Sin' refers to actions such as killing. 'Prohibition' refers to actions such as lodging in the same room with a woman. 'Non-sentient sin' refers to stealing external property. 'Prohibition' refers to digging the earth and destroying growing grass, etc.
Treatise: 'From what is obtained in the present, up to the place of sentient beings.' Explanation of the third section: This refers to obtaining the Prātimokṣa (individual liberation vow) by abstaining from the root, preparatory actions, and subsequent actions of the seven evil karmas. The seven evil paths of karma, as well as the preparatory and subsequent actions, are both the place where sentient beings rely and where they dwell. Therefore, the generation of the vow is also the same. The past and future are not sentient beings, not places of reliance, and not places of dwelling. Therefore, it is in the present skandhas (aggregates), dhātus (elements), and āyatanas (sense bases) that one obtains (the vow). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise Following the Principles) says: 'The place of sentient beings' refers to all sentient beings, as well as the places where sentient beings rely and dwell, namely, the present skandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus. The internal is where sentient beings rely, and the external is called where sentient beings dwell. It is not the past or future. (Explanation: 'Sentient beings' is the general name for the six dhātus (earth, water, fire, wind, space, and consciousness). 'Reliance' refers to the internal skandhas and dhātus. 'Where sentient beings dwell' refers to external objects, grass, trees, as well as wealth and food. These are all temporary aggregates of the present, not of the past or future.) The Mahāvibhāṣā (Great Commentary), volume 120, says: 'That Prātimokṣa vow is only obtained in the present sentient beings' skandhas, dhātus, and āyatanas, not in the past or future, because it falls into the category of dharma-saṃkhyā (enumeration of dharmas).'
Treatise: 'If one obtains dhyāna (meditative absorption), up to how much more so from prohibited sins.' Explanation of the fourth section: The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'If one obtains dhyāna or anāsrava-śīla (undefiled morality), one should know that it is only obtained from the root karmic paths. Because in dhyāna there are only root karmic paths, not from the preceding or following proximate actions. Because in the state of samādhi (concentration) there is only the root, and in the state of non-samādhi there is no such morality.' (Explanation: This is because the dhyāna and anāsrava in the six dhyāna grounds act as severance and counteraction against the evil vows of desire. Reversing this, there are two kinds of morality. Since evil vows only have the root seven branches, this also only has the root karmic paths. Scattered mind is not the counteraction of severance, etc., therefore there is no such morality, unlike the Prātimokṣa vow which is established from other conditions.)
Treatise: 'From constant time, up to obtaining in the skandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus.' Explanation of the fifth section: The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'From constant time' refers to obtaining from the past, present, and future skandhas, āyatanas, and dhātus, such as having a shared citta (mind/consciousness) with this vow.
云。既心緣三世斷彼惡戒。所得律儀亦于彼處發) 太法師云。理實而言。過去蘊．處．界自發過去定．道心俱戒。現在蘊．界．處自發現在定．道心俱戒。未來蘊．處．界自發未來定．道心俱戒。以戒從現在有情處得故。三世各別發 以定．道心通三世一時得。故戒亦三世一時得。故言從三世蘊．處．界得。故正理論。云從恒時者。謂從過去．未來．現在蘊．處．界得。如與此戒為俱有心。法師此釋誤也 若如法師此釋。即是得恒時。非是恒時得。即與共有心別。如何論云如俱有心 又云以戒現在有情處得故。若爾與別解律儀何別。
論。由此差別至加行．後起。已下四句分別。第一句是得別解律儀非定．道。第二句是得定．道非別解。第三俱句。第四俱非。如文可解。
論。非於正得至防護過現。正婆沙文云。正得三種戒時。現無七支不善。言從現根本處得者。不分明也。應言從現起業處得。處是起業道處 正理論云。有言非得善律儀時可有現在惡業道等。故應別立此四句文。謂應說言。有一類法于彼唯得別解律儀非二律儀。乃至廣說。第一句者。謂于現在得前後近分及遮罪遠離。余隨所應皆如是說(準此。加行．後起者是惡業加行．後記。非是受戒時加行．後起)。于業道等處置業道等聲。故前四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：云：如果心緣於過去、現在、未來三世，斷除那些惡戒，那麼所獲得的律儀也會在那些時候生起。太法師說：理實而言，過去的蘊、處、界會自然生起過去禪定、道心所伴隨的戒律；現在的蘊、處、界會自然生起現在禪定、道心所伴隨的戒律；未來的蘊、處、界會自然生起未來禪定、道心所伴隨的戒律。因為戒是從現在的有情處獲得的，所以三世各自生起。因為禪定、道心貫通三世，可以一時獲得，所以戒也可以三世一時獲得。因此說從三世的蘊、處、界獲得。所以《正理論》說從恒時獲得，是指從過去、未來、現在的蘊、處、界獲得，如同與此戒為俱有心。法師的這種解釋是錯誤的。如果像法師這樣解釋，就是得到恒時，而不是恒時得到，就與共有心不同了。如何《論》中說如同俱有心？又說因為戒從現在的有情處獲得，如果是這樣，那與別解脫律儀有什麼區別？ 論：由此差別至加行、後起。以下四句分別說明。第一句是得到別解脫律儀，而不是禪定、道。第二句是得到禪定、道，而不是別解脫律儀。第三句是兩者都得到。第四句是兩者都得不到。如文義可解。 論：非於正得至防護過現。正婆沙文說：正在獲得三種戒時，現在沒有七支不善。說從現在根本處獲得，不明確。應該說從現在生起業處獲得。處是生起業道的處所。《正理論》說：有人說在沒有得到善律儀時，可能會有現在的惡業道等，所以應該另外設立這四句文。應該說：有一類法，對於他們來說，只是得到別解脫律儀，而不是兩種律儀。乃至廣說。第一句是指在現在得到前後近分以及遮罪遠離。其餘的都應該像這樣說（按照這個，加行、後起是指惡業的加行、後記，而不是受戒時的加行、後起）。在業道等處安置業道等聲。所以前面四句。
【English Translation】 English version: It is said: If the mind is connected to the three times (past, present, and future), cutting off those evil precepts, then the precepts obtained will also arise at those times. The Great Dharma Master said: In reality, the past skandhas (aggregates) , ayatanas (sense bases), and dhatus (elements) will naturally give rise to precepts accompanied by past samadhi (concentration) and path-mind; the present skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus will naturally give rise to precepts accompanied by present samadhi and path-mind; the future skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus will naturally give rise to precepts accompanied by future samadhi and path-mind. Because precepts are obtained from sentient beings in the present, they arise separately in the three times. Because samadhi and path-mind pervade the three times and can be obtained simultaneously, precepts can also be obtained simultaneously in the three times. Therefore, it is said that they are obtained from the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus of the three times. Therefore, the Zheng Lilun (Treatise on Correct Principles) says that obtaining from the constant time means obtaining from the past, future, and present skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus, just like having a co-existent mind with this precept. This explanation by the Dharma Master is incorrect. If it is explained as the Dharma Master does, it means obtaining the constant time, not obtaining at the constant time, which is different from having a shared mind. How can the Treatise say it is like having a co-existent mind? Furthermore, it is said that because precepts are obtained from sentient beings in the present, what is the difference between this and the Pratimoksha (individual liberation) precepts? The Treatise: 'From this difference to preparatory actions and subsequent actions.' The following four sentences explain separately. The first sentence means obtaining the Pratimoksha precepts, but not samadhi and the path. The second sentence means obtaining samadhi and the path, but not the Pratimoksha precepts. The third sentence means obtaining both. The fourth sentence means obtaining neither. The meaning can be understood from the text. The Treatise: 'Not in the proper attainment to guarding against past and present.' The Zheng Poposha (Correct Extensive Commentary) says: 'When properly obtaining the three types of precepts, there are no seven unwholesome branches in the present.' Saying that it is obtained from the fundamental place in the present is not clear. It should be said that it is obtained from the place where actions arise in the present. The place is the place where the path of action arises. The Zheng Lilun says: 'Some say that when not obtaining the wholesome precepts, there may be present evil karmic paths, etc.,' therefore, these four sentences should be established separately. It should be said: 'There is a type of dharma that, for them, only obtains the Pratimoksha precepts, but not the two types of precepts.' And so on. The first sentence refers to obtaining the preceding and following proximate divisions and avoiding prohibited offenses in the present. The rest should be said in the same way (according to this, preparatory actions and subsequent actions refer to the preparatory actions and subsequent records of evil karma, not the preparatory actions and subsequent actions at the time of receiving precepts). Place the sound of karmic paths, etc., in the place of karmic paths, etc. Therefore, the preceding four sentences.
句義亦無失。由如是理亦通防護過．現業道等。非唯防未來。以業道等聲。說彼依處故。若異此者。則應但說防護未來。律儀但能防未來罪令不起故。非防過．現。已滅。已生。律儀于彼無防用故。
論。諸有獲得至異相云何。下一頌。第十明律不律儀支。因。多．少。
論曰至支因說不定。總釋有情必同支。因不定。八種律儀必普緣一切有情處發。支即不定。或四。或七。因或上．中．下等。
論。支不定者至名律儀支故。釋支不定。比丘．比丘尼具有七支。余戒唯有身三．語一。謂五戒．八戒．十戒不同。四根本業道名律儀支故。
論。因不定者至后三因說。釋因不定。因有二種。一無貪．無瞋．無癡三因。二上．中．下三因 若無貪等三因。若就體明別。即三因所發戒別。若就人明戒。無一住律儀者。不從三因發律儀者。必俱起故 若上．中．下因。無一住律儀者。發一種戒從三因發。上．中．下心不併起故。若就別戒。別時。即容有也 頌中言支。因。不定者。就上．中．下因說。
論。或有一類至勤策戒。句數分別。如文可解。
論。無有不遍至不全息故。釋定遍有情無不遍也。若一切眾生中。留一有情擬行殺．盜．淫等。戒總不發。以惡意樂不全息故。
論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 句子的意義也不會有偏差。由於這樣的道理，也同樣可以防護過去和現在的業道等，不僅僅是防護未來。因為'業道等'這個詞語，說明了律儀所依賴的處所。如果不是這樣，那就應該只說防護未來。律儀只能防止未來的罪惡生起，而不能防止過去和現在的罪惡。因為已經滅除和已經產生的罪惡，律儀對它們沒有防護作用。
論：諸有獲得至異相云何。下一頌。第十明律不律儀支。因。多．少。
論曰至支因說不定。總釋有情必同支。因不定。八種律儀必普緣一切有情處發。支即不定。或四。或七。因或上．中．下等。
論：支不定者至名律儀支故。解釋支的不確定性。比丘（bhiksu，男性出家人）和比丘尼（bhiksuni，女性出家人）具有七支。其餘的戒律只有身三和語一，例如五戒、八戒和十戒的不同。四根本業道被稱為律儀支。
論：因不定者至后三因說。解釋因的不確定性。因有兩種：一是無貪（alobha，不貪婪）、無瞋（advesa，不嗔恨）、無癡（amoha，不愚癡）三種因；二是上、中、下三種因。如果沒有貪等三種因，如果就本體來區分，就是三種因所引發的戒律的差別。如果就人來說明戒律，沒有一個人安住于律儀，因為不從三種因引發律儀的人，這三種因必定同時生起。如果是上、中、下三種因，沒有一個人安住于律儀，因為發出一種戒律是從三種因發出的，上、中、下三種心不會同時生起。如果就個別的戒律和個別的時間來說，也是有可能的。頌中說支和因不確定，是就上、中、下三種因來說的。
論：或有一類至勤策戒。句數分別。如文可解。
論：無有不遍至不全息故。解釋確定遍及一切有情，沒有不遍及的情況。如果在一切眾生中，留下一個有情打算進行殺、盜、淫等行為，那麼戒律總的來說就不會生起，因為惡意和快樂沒有完全停止。
論
【English Translation】 English version: The meaning of the sentence will not be lost either. Due to such a principle, it also applies to protecting against past and present karmic paths, not just protecting against the future. Because the term 'karmic paths, etc.,' indicates the place upon which the precepts rely. If it were otherwise, then it should only be said to protect against the future. The precepts can only prevent future sins from arising, but cannot prevent past and present sins. Because for sins that have already been extinguished and already arisen, the precepts have no protective function.
Treatise: 'Those who have attained, up to what different aspects?' The next verse. The tenth explains the branches and causes of precepts and non-precepts, whether they are many or few.
Treatise says: Regarding branches and causes, it is not fixed. Generally explaining, sentient beings must have the same branches. The causes are not fixed. The eight kinds of precepts must universally arise in relation to all sentient beings. The branches are not fixed, being either four or seven. The causes may be superior, middling, or inferior, etc.
Treatise: 'Branches are not fixed' means up to 'called the branch of precepts.' Explaining the uncertainty of the branches. Bhiksus (male monastic) and bhiksunis (female monastic) have seven branches. The remaining precepts only have three of body and one of speech, such as the differences between the five precepts, eight precepts, and ten precepts. The four fundamental karmic paths are called the branches of precepts.
Treatise: 'Causes are not fixed' means up to 'explaining the latter three causes.' Explaining the uncertainty of the causes. There are two kinds of causes: first, the three causes of non-greed (alobha, non-attachment), non-hatred (advesa, non-aversion), and non-delusion (amoha, non-ignorance); second, the three causes of superior, middling, and inferior. If there are not the three causes of non-greed, etc., if distinguishing based on the essence, then there are differences in the precepts arising from the three causes. If explaining the precepts based on the person, there is no one who abides in the precepts, because for those who do not generate precepts from the three causes, these three causes must arise simultaneously. If it is the three causes of superior, middling, and inferior, there is no one who abides in the precepts, because generating one kind of precept arises from the three causes, and the minds of superior, middling, and inferior do not arise simultaneously. If considering individual precepts and individual times, it is possible. The verse says that branches and causes are not fixed, referring to the three causes of superior, middling, and inferior.
Treatise: 'Or there is a class' up to 'Sramanera precepts.' The number of sentences is distinguished, as can be understood from the text.
Treatise: 'There is no non-pervasion' up to 'not completely ceasing.' Explaining that it is certain to pervade all sentient beings, there is no non-pervasion. If among all sentient beings, one sentient being is left intending to commit killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, etc., then the precepts in general will not arise, because evil intention and pleasure have not completely ceased.
Treatise
。若人不作至別解脫律儀。釋全息惡意樂也。若不作五種定限。則惡意樂全息。若作五種定限隨有一定。則惡意不息。
論。謂有情支處時緣定。列五名也。
論。有情定者至當離殺等。釋有情定。若言家獸不殺。野獸即殺。非怨不殺。怨即殺等。是有情定。
論。言支定者至當持不犯。釋支定也。謂若五戒．二百五十戒等。于中。隨簡一戒云不能持。即不戒發。
論。言處定者至當離殺等。釋處定也。謂我若於自國即不殺等。若於他國即行殺等。名處定也。
論。言時定者至能離殺等。釋時定也。唯近住限一日夜。余戒皆從盡形。若限年月戒即不發。
論。言緣定者至能離殺等。釋緣定也。如文可解。
論。如是受者至相似妙行。總結也。若作上五種定限。律儀不發。但得妙行。諸經中說得戒者。是引接言。
論。于非所能境如何得律儀。問也。若於此有情能殺等發願不殺等。可得律儀。他方聖人．及上界地所有眾生。於此一切必定不能殺。如何于彼得不殺等。此不殺等不由受心不行殺等。
論。由普于有情至故得律儀。答也。以發起增上於一切眾生不損命意樂故。於一切眾生得於律儀。
論。毗婆沙師至有得舍過。敘婆沙釋也 婆沙反釋。若唯于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果有人沒有受持別解脫律儀（Pratimoksha，佛教戒律），那麼他的惡意樂（evil intention）就會完全顯現。如果沒有設定五種限定條件，那麼惡意樂就會完全顯現。如果設定了五種限定條件中的任何一種，那麼惡意就不會完全顯現。
論：所謂有情（sentient beings）的限定、對象的限定、處所的限定、時間的限定，以及因緣的限定，這裡列出這五種名稱。
論：所謂有情限定，是指『應當遠離殺生』等等。這是解釋有情限定。例如，如果說家養的牲畜不殺，但野獸就殺；對沒有仇怨的人不殺，但對有仇怨的人就殺等等，這就是有情限定。
論：所謂對像限定，是指『應當堅持不犯』。這是解釋對像限定。例如，如果對於五戒（five precepts）、二百五十戒（250 precepts）等等，在其中隨便選擇一條戒律說不能持守，那麼就不能生起戒體。
論：所謂處所限定，是指『應當遠離殺生』等等。這是解釋處所限定。例如，如果說我在自己的國家就不殺生等等，如果在其他國家就進行殺生等等，這就叫做處所限定。
論：所謂時間限定，是指『能夠遠離殺生』等等。這是解釋時間限定。只有近住戒（Upavasatha，八關齋戒）限定為一日一夜，其餘的戒律都是盡形壽受持。如果限定為年月，戒體就不能生起。
論：所謂因緣限定，是指『能夠遠離殺生』等等。這可以按照字面意思理解。
論：像這樣受戒的人，只能得到相似的妙行（excellent conduct）。這是總結。如果設定了上述五種限定條件，律儀（vows）就不能生起，只能得到妙行。各種經典中說得到戒律的人，是引導性的說法。
論：對於不能做到的境界，如何能得到律儀？這是提問。如果對於此處的有情能夠殺害等等，發願不殺害等等，就可以得到律儀。對於他方世界的聖人以及上界的所有眾生，在此處是一定不能殺害的，如何能對他們得到不殺害等等的戒律呢？這種不殺害等等，不是因為受戒的心，也不是因為沒有進行殺害等等。
論：因為普遍對於有情發起增上意樂（increased intention），所以能得到律儀。這是回答。因為發起增上意樂，對於一切眾生都不損害他們的生命，所以對於一切眾生都能得到律儀。
論：毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika，論師）說，有得到和捨棄的過失。這是敘述婆沙的解釋。婆沙反駁說，如果只對……
【English Translation】 English version: If someone does not undertake the Pratimoksha (code of monastic discipline), their evil intention will be fully manifested. If the five limitations are not made, then the evil intention will be fully manifested. If any one of the five limitations is made, then the evil intention will not be fully manifested.
Treatise: The so-called limitation of sentient beings, the limitation of objects, the limitation of places, the limitation of time, and the limitation of conditions are listed here as these five names.
Treatise: The so-called limitation of sentient beings refers to 'one should refrain from killing,' and so on. This explains the limitation of sentient beings. For example, if one says that domestic animals are not killed, but wild animals are killed; those without enmity are not killed, but those with enmity are killed, and so on, this is the limitation of sentient beings.
Treatise: The so-called limitation of objects refers to 'one should adhere to and not violate.' This explains the limitation of objects. For example, if regarding the five precepts, the 250 precepts, and so on, one chooses any one precept and says that it cannot be upheld, then the precepts cannot be generated.
Treatise: The so-called limitation of places refers to 'one should refrain from killing,' and so on. This explains the limitation of places. For example, if one says that in one's own country, one does not kill, and so on, but in other countries, one engages in killing, and so on, this is called the limitation of places.
Treatise: The so-called limitation of time refers to 'one is able to refrain from killing,' and so on. This explains the limitation of time. Only the Upavasatha (eight precepts) is limited to one day and one night; the remaining precepts are upheld for the duration of one's life. If it is limited to months and years, the precepts cannot be generated.
Treatise: The so-called limitation of conditions refers to 'one is able to refrain from killing,' and so on. This can be understood literally.
Treatise: Those who receive the precepts in this way can only obtain similar excellent conduct. This is a summary. If the above five limitations are made, the vows cannot be generated, and only excellent conduct can be obtained. The statement in various sutras that one obtains the precepts is a guiding statement.
Treatise: How can one obtain the vows in a realm where it is impossible to do so? This is a question. If one makes a vow not to kill those sentient beings here whom one is capable of killing, then one can obtain the vows. For the sages of other worlds and all beings in the upper realms, it is certain that one cannot kill them here. How can one obtain the precepts of not killing them? This not killing is not because of the mind of receiving the precepts, nor because one has not engaged in killing, and so on.
Treatise: Because of universally generating increased intention towards sentient beings, one can obtain the vows. This is the answer. Because of generating increased intention, not harming the lives of all sentient beings, one can obtain the vows towards all sentient beings.
Treatise: The Vaibhashika (commentator) says that there is the fault of obtaining and abandoning. This is a narration of the Vaibhashika's explanation. The Vaibhashika refutes, saying that if only towards...
能殺等境得律儀者。如此處羊是能殺境。上界天非是能殺境。於此生中。或有天作羊時應處得戒。羊作天時應舍于戒非此得舍緣。如何得舍。婆沙一百一十七第二師釋。大同此論。
論。彼說不然至例亦應爾。難婆沙釋。若能境有增．減。即戒有得．舍。如草有生．枯。戒亦應增．減。
論。彼言不爾至性不同故。婆沙釋也。能．不能境。同一情性。若殺．不殺。境有增．減。戒有得．舍。生草變枯其性有異。若生草枯損無罪故。戒無得．舍。
論。若爾有情至於理不然。重破釋也。若謂生草后枯不同故戒無減者。有情般涅槃已既無前性。如何不減。此是論主述古問．答。雜心論中亦同此論。
論。前所說因於理為善．斷取前解不全舍惡意樂故因。
論。若爾前佛至無減前過。敘婆沙問答也。此是其問。
論。以一切佛至無減前過。答也 婆沙一百二十云。問若別解脫律儀唯于現在有情處得。非於去．來蘊．界．處者。則諸如來應正等覺律儀不等。所以者何。過去諸佛出現世時。無量有情為律儀境。彼有情類已入涅槃。釋迦牟尼于彼境上不得律儀。今釋迦佛出現世時。無量有情為律儀境。彼有情類已入涅槃。慈氏如來於彼境上不得律儀。境有寬．狹。律儀亦爾。豈不諸佛律儀不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 能殺境界而獲得律儀的人。（能殺境：指可以進行殺生的對象或環境。律儀：指戒律，此處指通過持戒而獲得的道德規範。）例如，此處的羊是能殺境，上界天（指色界和無色界的天界）不是能殺境。在此生中，或許有天人轉世為羊時，應該在此處獲得戒律；羊轉世為天人時，應該捨棄戒律，但這不是獲得和捨棄戒律的因緣。如何才能獲得和捨棄戒律呢？《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百一十七卷第二師的解釋，大體上與此論相同。
論：他們那樣說是不對的，以至於其他例子也應該如此。（論：指論主的觀點。）難：反駁。《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》的解釋：如果能殺境有增加或減少，那麼戒律的獲得和捨棄也會隨之發生。就像草有生長和枯萎，戒律也應該有增加和減少。
論：他們說不是這樣的，因為性質不同。（論：指論主的觀點。）《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》的解釋：能殺境和不能殺境，具有相同的情性。如果殺生和不殺生的對象有增加或減少，戒律的獲得和捨棄就會隨之發生。而生草變為枯草，其性質已經不同。如果枯萎的草沒有損害，就沒有罪過，所以戒律沒有獲得和捨棄。
論：如果這樣，有情（指有情識的生命）至於理不合。（論：指論主的觀點。）再次破斥之前的解釋：如果說生草後來枯萎不同於之前，所以戒律沒有減少，那麼有情般涅槃（指入滅，不再輪迴）后，既然已經沒有之前的性質，為什麼戒律不減少呢？這是論主闡述古人的問答。《雜心論》中也與此論相同。
論：之前所說的因，在道理上是好的。斷取之前的解釋，不完全捨棄惡意樂的緣故。（惡意樂：指喜歡作惡的心。）
論：如果這樣，之前的佛（指過去的佛）……沒有減少之前的過失。（論：指論主的觀點。）敘述《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》的問答。這是提問。
論：因為一切佛……沒有減少之前的過失。（論：指論主的觀點。）回答。《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百二十卷說：問：如果別解脫律儀（指能夠脫離煩惱的戒律）只在現在的有情處獲得，而不是在過去、未來蘊（指構成生命的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）、界（指十八界，即六根、六塵、六識）、處（指十二處，即六根和六塵）中獲得，那麼諸如來應正等覺（指佛的果位）的律儀就不平等。為什麼呢？過去諸佛出現於世時，無量的有情是律儀的對象。那些有情已經進入涅槃。釋迦牟尼（Sakyamuni）在那些對像上無法獲得律儀。現在釋迦佛（Sakyamuni）出現於世時，無量的有情是律儀的對象。那些有情已經進入涅槃。慈氏如來（Maitreya）在那些對像上無法獲得律儀。對像有寬有窄，律儀也是如此。難道諸佛的律儀不是……
【English Translation】 English version Those who obtain precepts based on the realm of what can be killed. For example, here, a sheep is a realm where killing is possible, while the heavens of the upper realms (referring to the heavens of the Form Realm and Formless Realm) are not realms where killing is possible. In this life, perhaps when a deva (heavenly being) is reborn as a sheep, they should obtain precepts in this situation; when a sheep is reborn as a deva, they should relinquish the precepts, but this is not the cause for obtaining or relinquishing precepts. How are precepts obtained and relinquished? The second teacher's explanation in the 117th fascicle of the Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra is largely the same as this treatise.
Treatise: Their saying is not correct, to the extent that other examples should also be like this. (Treatise: refers to the view of the treatise master.) Objection: Refutation. The explanation in the Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra: If the realm of what can be killed increases or decreases, then the obtaining and relinquishing of precepts will also occur accordingly. Just as grass has growth and withering, precepts should also increase and decrease.
Treatise: They say it is not like that because the nature is different. (Treatise: refers to the view of the treatise master.) The explanation in the Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra: The realm of what can be killed and the realm of what cannot be killed have the same nature. If the objects of killing and not killing increase or decrease, the obtaining and relinquishing of precepts will occur accordingly. However, when green grass turns into withered grass, its nature is already different. If withered grass causes no harm, there is no offense, so there is no obtaining or relinquishing of precepts.
Treatise: If that is the case, it is not reasonable regarding sentient beings. (Treatise: refers to the view of the treatise master.) Again refuting the previous explanation: If it is said that green grass later withering is different from before, so precepts do not decrease, then after a sentient being attains parinirvana (referring to entering extinction, no longer reincarnating), since it no longer has its previous nature, why do precepts not decrease? This is the treatise master elaborating on the questions and answers of the ancients. The Samuccaya-abhidharma-hrdaya also agrees with this treatise.
Treatise: The cause previously stated is good in principle. Partially adopting the previous explanation, not completely abandoning the cause of delighting in evil. (Delighting in evil: refers to the mind that enjoys doing evil.)
Treatise: If that is the case, the previous Buddhas (referring to the Buddhas of the past)... did not diminish the previous faults. (Treatise: refers to the view of the treatise master.) Narrating the questions and answers of the Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra. This is the question.
Treatise: Because all Buddhas... did not diminish the previous faults. (Treatise: refers to the view of the treatise master.) The answer. The 120th fascicle of the Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra says: Question: If the Pratimoksha precepts (referring to the precepts that can liberate from afflictions) are only obtained in the present sentient beings, and not in the past and future skandhas (referring to the five aggregates that constitute life: form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness), dhatus (referring to the eighteen dhatus, namely the six sense organs, six sense objects, and six consciousnesses), and ayatanas (referring to the twelve ayatanas, namely the six sense organs and six sense objects), then the precepts of the Tathagatas, Arhats, Samyaksambuddhas (referring to the fruit of Buddhahood) are not equal. Why? When the past Buddhas appeared in the world, countless sentient beings were the objects of the precepts. Those sentient beings have already entered nirvana. Sakyamuni (Sakyamuni) cannot obtain precepts based on those objects. Now, when Sakyamuni (Sakyamuni) appears in the world, countless sentient beings are the objects of the precepts. Those sentient beings have already entered nirvana. Maitreya (Maitreya) cannot obtain precepts based on those objects. The objects are wide and narrow, and the precepts are also like that. Could it be that the precepts of the Buddhas are not...
等(此是各別發戒家難) 答應作是說。律儀境界雖有多．少。而律儀體前．后無異。俱從一切有情境處總髮得故(此第一師境別戒同答) 有作是說。三世如來律儀不等亦無有失 問若爾施設論說當云何通。如彼說。一切如來應正等覺皆悉平等。答由三事等故名平等。一修行等。謂諸如來皆於過去三無數劫勤修四種波羅蜜多究竟圓滿得菩提故。二利益等。謂諸如來等於無量應化有情作利樂事此究竟故。三法身等。謂諸如來皆具十力．四無所畏．三念住．大悲．十八不共等勝功德故。由此三義故言平等。非律儀體無多．少異。又由根等故說等言。以一切如來皆住上品根故。又由戒等。一切如來皆得上品戒故 此是別別有情戒各別也 有餘師說。一切如來應正等覺所有律儀。皆於一切有情處得故說等言。非體無異。謂過去佛律儀所從諸有情境。設今猶在。釋迦牟尼從彼境上亦得律儀。然無此理。釋迦如來應正等覺律儀所從諸有情境。設當在者。慈氏如來從彼境上亦得律儀。然無此理。故說等言亦無有失(此第三師意。前後佛所發戒境各別不同。如一有情前年住現在蘊。與今年住現在蘊體各別故。前佛戒境至於后佛必無此理。假設至今亦能發戒。以力停故名之為等。今論主同第三釋也) 又次下文云。此中有說。彼七支戒
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 等（這是針對不同受戒者所遇到的障礙）。應該這樣回答：律儀的範圍雖然有多有少，但律儀的本體在前後並沒有不同。都是從一切有情眾生的境界處總括而發起的（這是第一位論師的觀點，認為境界不同但戒體相同）。 有人這樣說：三世如來的律儀不等同，也沒有過失。 問：如果這樣，施設論中的說法應該如何解釋？施設論中說：一切如來應正等覺都是平等的。 答：由於三件事平等，所以稱為平等。一是修行平等，即諸如來都在過去無數劫中勤修四種波羅蜜多，最終圓滿而證得菩提。二是利益平等，即諸如來平等地為無量應化的有情眾生做利益安樂之事，並且達到究竟。三是法身平等，即諸如來都具備十力（Tathāgata-bala，如來十種力量）、四無所畏（catu-vaiśāradya，四種無所畏懼的品質）、三念住（smṛtyupasthāna，三種念住）、大悲（mahākaruṇā，偉大的慈悲）和十八不共法（aṣṭādaśa āveṇikadharma，十八種不共的功德）等殊勝功德。由於這三方面的意義，所以說平等，而不是律儀的本體沒有多少的差異。又因為根器等原因，所以說『等』。因為一切如來都安住于上品根器。又因為戒律等原因，一切如來都得到上品戒。 這是針對不同有情眾生的戒律各自不同。 有其他論師說：一切如來應正等覺的所有律儀，都是在一切有情眾生處獲得的，所以說『等』，而不是本體沒有差異。即過去佛的律儀所從來的那些有情眾生的境界，假設現在還在，釋迦牟尼（Śākyamuni）也能從那些境界上獲得律儀。但沒有這個道理。釋迦如來應正等覺的律儀所從來的那些有情眾生的境界，假設將來還在，彌勒（Maitreya）如來也能從那些境界上獲得律儀。但沒有這個道理。所以說『等』也沒有過失（這是第三位論師的觀點，認為前後佛所發的戒律境界各自不同。例如一個有情眾生前年住在現在的蘊，和今年住在現在的蘊，本體是各自不同的。前佛的戒律境界到了后佛那裡必定沒有這個道理。假設至今也能發起戒律，因為力量停止了，所以稱為『等』。現在的論主同意第三種解釋）。 又，接下來的經文中說：這裡有人說，那七支戒。
【English Translation】 English version Etc. (These are individual difficulties in the precepts). The response should be made as follows: Although the scope of the precepts may vary in quantity, the essence of the precepts remains the same before and after. They are all generally initiated from the realm of all sentient beings (This is the view of the first teacher, stating that although the realms differ, the precepts are the same). Some say that the precepts of the Buddhas of the three times are not equal, but there is no fault in this. Question: If so, how should the statements in the Establishment Treatise be reconciled? As it says there: All Tathāgatas, perfectly enlightened ones, are equal. Answer: They are called equal because of three equal aspects. First, equality in practice, meaning that all Tathāgatas diligently cultivate the four Pāramitās (pāramitā，perfections) for countless kalpas (kalpa，an aeon) in the past, ultimately perfecting them and attaining Bodhi (bodhi，enlightenment). Second, equality in benefiting, meaning that all Tathāgatas equally perform acts of benefit and happiness for countless beings who should be transformed, and this is ultimate. Third, equality in Dharmakāya (dharmakāya，the body of the Dharma), meaning that all Tathāgatas possess the ten powers (Tathāgata-bala), the four fearlessnesses (catu-vaiśāradya), the three establishments of mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna), great compassion (mahākaruṇā), and the eighteen unshared qualities (aṣṭādaśa āveṇikadharma), among other excellent virtues. It is because of these three meanings that they are said to be equal, not that there is no difference in the essence of the precepts. Also, it is said to be 'equal' because of faculties and so on. Because all Tathāgatas abide in superior faculties. Also, because of precepts and so on, all Tathāgatas attain superior precepts. This refers to the precepts being different for each sentient being. Some other teachers say that all the precepts of all Tathāgatas, perfectly enlightened ones, are obtained from all sentient beings, so they are said to be 'equal', not that their essence is without difference. That is, if the realms of those sentient beings from which the precepts of past Buddhas originated still exist now, Śākyamuni (Śākyamuni) could also obtain precepts from those realms. But there is no such reason. If the realms of those sentient beings from which the precepts of Śākyamuni Tathāgata, perfectly enlightened one, originated were to exist in the future, Maitreya (Maitreya) Tathāgata could also obtain precepts from those realms. But there is no such reason. Therefore, saying 'equal' is also without fault (This is the view of the third teacher, who believes that the realms of the precepts initiated by the Buddhas before and after are different from each other. For example, the aggregates in which a sentient being dwells in the present year are different from the aggregates in which they dwelt in the previous year. The realm of the precepts of the former Buddha will certainly not exist for the latter Buddha. Assuming that precepts can still be initiated even now, they are called 'equal' because the power has stopped. The current commentator agrees with the third explanation). Furthermore, the following text says: Here some say that those seven-branch precepts.
一一於一切有情處得而所得是一(云云。同前第一師)有說。此七支戒一一於一切有情處得而所得各異。如有情數量。所得戒亦爾(此師所說一一有情各得七支。三善根同。是第二師也) 有餘師說。別解脫律儀隨因差別成二十一。此中有說。二十一種。一一於一切有情處得而所得不異(云云) 有說。此二十一種。一一於一切有情處得而所得各異。如有情數量。所得戒亦爾(已上三牒說皆無評文也) 下文又云。問有于外物中得律儀不。若有得者。所得律儀應有增．減。謂生草枯時。酒味壞時。應減。即彼生時。熟時。應增(云云) 如是說者。于外法中亦得律儀 問若爾律儀應有增．減 答無增．減。以總得故。謂此律儀總於一切生草等上得一無表。而世間無有無生草等時。總於一切蒲桃等酒。則不壞時得一無表。世間無有無諸酒時。是故律儀無有增．減 準此評文。故知一切有情上同發七支為正。又準道理此說為正。所以得知。且如眾生無邊。即有無邊七支無表。此等無表非俱有因。各別四大所造。一念戒體既無邊故。能造四大又多於戒。是對礙法。如何六尺之身容爾所四大。故知總髮于理為善。
論。已說從彼至例此應知。此下明不律儀支．因。如文可解 婆沙一百一十七云。如是說者律儀漸得非不律
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於在一切有情處獲得和所得的戒律，一種說法是：每一條七支戒（Saptāṅga-śīla，七種戒律）在一切有情處獲得和所得都是一樣的。（與前面第一位老師的說法相同） 另一種說法是：這七支戒，每一條在一切有情處獲得和所得都是不同的。就像有情數量有多少，所得的戒律也就有多少。（這位老師認為每一個有情各自獲得七支戒，三種善根相同，這是第二位老師的說法） 還有其他老師說：別解脫律儀（Prātimokṣa-śīla，防止惡行的戒律）隨著因緣的差別，可以分為二十一種。其中一種說法是：這二十一種戒律，每一種在一切有情處獲得和所得都是一樣的。 另一種說法是：這二十一種戒律，每一種在一切有情處獲得和所得都是不同的。就像有情數量有多少，所得的戒律也就有多少。（以上三種說法都沒有評論） 下文又說：『問：能否從外物中獲得律儀？如果可以獲得，那麼所得的律儀應該有增減。比如，生草枯萎時，酒的味道變壞時，律儀應該減少；而草生長時，酒成熟時，律儀應該增加。』 這樣說的人認為，也能從外在事物中獲得律儀。 『問：如果這樣，律儀應該有增減嗎？』 『答：沒有增減。因為是總的獲得。也就是說，這種律儀總是在一切生草等事物上獲得一種無表色（Avijñapti-rūpa，無法被感知的色法）。而世間沒有沒有生草等事物的時候。總是在一切蒲桃等酒沒有變壞的時候獲得一種無表色。世間沒有沒有各種酒的時候。所以律儀沒有增減。』 根據這段評論，可知在一切有情身上共同發起七支戒是正確的。而且根據道理，這種說法也是正確的。為什麼這樣說呢？比如眾生無邊無際，就有無邊無際的七支無表色。這些無表色不是俱有因（Sahabhū-hetu，同時存在的因），而是各自由四大（Mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）所造。一念戒體既然是無邊的，那麼能造的四大又多於戒。這是有障礙的法，如何能容納在六尺之身中？所以可知總的發起戒律在道理上是好的。 論：已經說了從彼至例此應知。下面說明不律儀支（Aśīla-aṅga，不持戒的因素）和因。如文可解。婆沙（Vibhāṣā，註釋）一百一十七說：『這樣說的人認為律儀是逐漸獲得的，而不是不律儀。』
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the acquisition and attainment of precepts in relation to all sentient beings, one view is: each of the seven branches of precepts (Saptāṅga-śīla, seven kinds of precepts) is acquired and attained in the same way in relation to all sentient beings. (Same as the first teacher mentioned earlier) Another view is: each of these seven branches of precepts is acquired and attained differently in relation to all sentient beings. Just as there are many sentient beings, so too are the precepts attained. (This teacher believes that each sentient being individually attains the seven branches of precepts, with the three roots of goodness being the same; this is the second teacher's view) Still other teachers say: the Prātimokṣa-śīla (precepts for preventing evil deeds) can be divided into twenty-one kinds depending on the differences in conditions. One view among these is: each of these twenty-one kinds of precepts is acquired and attained in the same way in relation to all sentient beings. Another view is: each of these twenty-one kinds of precepts is acquired and attained differently in relation to all sentient beings. Just as there are many sentient beings, so too are the precepts attained. (The above three statements have no commentary) The text further states: 'Question: Can precepts be obtained from external objects? If they can be obtained, then the precepts obtained should increase or decrease. For example, when fresh grass withers, when the taste of wine spoils, the precepts should decrease; and when grass grows, when wine matures, the precepts should increase.' Those who say this believe that precepts can also be obtained from external things. 'Question: If so, should the precepts increase or decrease?' 'Answer: There is no increase or decrease. Because it is a general attainment. That is to say, this precept is generally obtained on all fresh grass and other things as a non-manifest form (Avijñapti-rūpa, imperceptible form). And there is no time in the world when there is no fresh grass or other things. It is generally obtained on all grapes and other wines when they have not spoiled as a non-manifest form. There is no time in the world when there are no various wines. Therefore, the precepts do not increase or decrease.' According to this commentary, it is known that it is correct to jointly initiate the seven branches of precepts on all sentient beings. Moreover, according to reason, this statement is also correct. Why is this so? For example, since sentient beings are boundless, there are boundless seven branches of non-manifest forms. These non-manifest forms are not co-existent causes (Sahabhū-hetu, simultaneously existing causes), but are each created by the four great elements (Mahābhūta, earth, water, fire, wind). Since the precept body of a single thought is boundless, the four great elements that can create it are even more numerous than the precepts. This is an obstructive dharma; how can it be contained in a six-foot body? Therefore, it is known that initiating precepts in general is good in terms of reason. Treatise: It has been said 'from that to this, it should be known'. Below explains the factors and causes of non-precepts (Aśīla-aṅga, factors of not upholding precepts). As the text can be understood. The Vibhāṣā (commentary) one hundred and seventeen says: 'Those who say this believe that precepts are gradually obtained, not non-precepts.'
儀所以者何。律儀難得。以難得故漸受．漸得不律儀易得。以易得故頓得．頓受。
論。此中何名至名不律儀者。簡住不律儀人。謂屠羊等但起盡壽。恒有害心名住不律儀者。若限以年月起于害心。不名住不律儀者。
論。由彼一類至名不律儀者。此釋名也。有兩釋。一以住不律儀事業故。二成就不律儀故。
論。言屠羊者至當知亦爾。重釋也。為活命故要期盡壽恒欲害羊名屠羊者。余典刑等亦要期盡壽恒有害意名典刑者。
論。遍於有情至得不律儀。敘婆沙問答也 于中有二。一難普於一切有情得不律儀。二難發一切支。此即初難。
論。由彼至親至有損害心。答也。由彼作害一切羊意樂故。至親作羊亦起害心。故。普于彼得不律儀。
論。既知至親至可有害心。重難也。本欲害羊既知至親。現不是羊。如何于彼可有害心。
論。又聖必無至得不律儀。引聖難也。至親可為羊。于彼得惡戒。聖無作羊理。如何得惡戒。
論。若觀未來至得不律儀。又重難也。至親有未來羊體觀彼有害得惡戒。羊等有未來聖．親體觀彼未來無害心。應不于羊得惡戒。
論。于羊等現身至得不律儀。答也。既于現羊起噁心。如何不得不律儀。
論。于母等現身至應求異理
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：什麼是律儀的意義？答：律儀難以獲得。因為難以獲得，所以需要逐漸地接受、逐漸地獲得。不律儀容易獲得。因為容易獲得，所以能夠立刻獲得、立刻接受。
論：這裡什麼叫做『至名不律儀』？這是爲了區分安住于不律儀的人。例如屠羊者等，只要生起終身的、持續的有害心，就叫做安住于不律儀的人。如果限定於某年某月才生起有害心，就不能叫做安住于不律儀的人。
論：『由彼一類至名不律儀者』，這是解釋名稱。有兩種解釋：一是由於安住于不律儀的事業的緣故；二是成就了不律儀的緣故。
論：『言屠羊者至當知亦爾』，這是重複解釋。爲了活命，約定終身持續想要傷害羊，叫做屠羊者。其餘如典刑（指獄吏或劊子手）等，也是約定終身持續懷有害意，叫做典刑者。
論：『遍於有情至得不律儀』，這是敘述《婆沙論》中的問答。其中有兩個難點：一是難以普遍地對一切有情眾生獲得不律儀；二是難以發起一切（不律儀的）支分。這裡是第一個難點。
論：『由彼至親至有損害心』，這是回答。由於他們生起傷害一切羊的意樂，即使是至親變成羊，也會生起害心。因此，普遍地對他們獲得不律儀。
論：『既知至親至可有害心』，這是重複提問。本來想要傷害羊，既然知道是至親，現在又不是羊，怎麼能對他們生起害心呢？
論：『又聖必無至得不律儀』，這是引用聖者來提出疑問。至親可能會變成羊，對他們可以得到惡戒。聖者沒有變成羊的道理，怎麼能得到惡戒呢？
論：『若觀未來至得不律儀』，這是再次提問。至親有未來變成羊的可能，觀察他們（未來是羊）而生起害心，可以得到惡戒。羊等有未來成為聖者、親人的可能，觀察他們（未來是聖者、親人）而沒有害心，那麼不應該對羊得到惡戒。
論：『于羊等現身至得不律儀』，這是回答。既然對現在的羊生起噁心，怎麼能得不到不律儀呢？
論：『于母等現身至應求異理』，如果對母親等現在的身體生起噁心就能得到不律儀，那麼就應該另外尋求道理（來解釋為什麼不能對母親等生噁心）。
【English Translation】 English version Question: What is the meaning of 'Śīla' (律儀, moral discipline)? Answer: 'Śīla' is difficult to obtain. Because it is difficult to obtain, it is gradually received and gradually acquired. 'Aśīla' (不律儀, lack of moral discipline) is easy to obtain. Because it is easy to obtain, it can be obtained and received immediately.
Treatise: What is meant here by 'to the extent of being named lack of moral discipline'? This is to distinguish those who dwell in lack of moral discipline. For example, butchers of sheep, etc., as long as they generate a lifelong, continuous harmful intention, are called those who dwell in lack of moral discipline. If the harmful intention is limited to a certain year or month, they are not called those who dwell in lack of moral discipline.
Treatise: 'From that category to the extent of being named lack of moral discipline,' this is an explanation of the name. There are two explanations: one is because of the activity of dwelling in lack of moral discipline; the other is because of the accomplishment of lack of moral discipline.
Treatise: 'The term 'butcher of sheep' to 'should also be known as such,' this is a repeated explanation. For the sake of survival, making a lifelong commitment to continuously wanting to harm sheep is called a butcher of sheep. Others, such as executioners (典刑), etc., also making a lifelong commitment to continuously harboring harmful intentions are called executioners.
Treatise: 'Pervading sentient beings to obtaining lack of moral discipline,' this is a narration of the questions and answers in the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論). Among them, there are two difficulties: one is the difficulty of universally obtaining lack of moral discipline towards all sentient beings; the other is the difficulty of initiating all (branches of) lack of moral discipline. This is the first difficulty.
Treatise: 'From that close relative to having harmful intentions,' this is the answer. Because they generate the intention to harm all sheep, even if a close relative becomes a sheep, they will generate harmful intentions. Therefore, they universally obtain lack of moral discipline towards them.
Treatise: 'Having known the close relative to being able to have harmful intentions,' this is a repeated question. Originally wanting to harm a sheep, having known that it is a close relative, and now it is not a sheep, how can they generate harmful intentions towards them?
Treatise: 'Moreover, a sage certainly does not to obtain lack of moral discipline,' this is using a sage to raise a question. A close relative might become a sheep, and one can obtain evil precepts towards them. A sage has no reason to become a sheep, how can they obtain evil precepts?
Treatise: 'If observing the future to obtaining lack of moral discipline,' this is questioning again. A close relative has the possibility of becoming a sheep in the future, observing them (as a sheep in the future) and generating harmful intentions, one can obtain evil precepts. Sheep, etc., have the possibility of becoming sages or relatives in the future, observing them (as sages or relatives in the future) and not having harmful intentions, then one should not obtain evil precepts towards sheep.
Treatise: 'Towards the present body of sheep, etc., to obtaining lack of moral discipline,' this is the answer. Since one generates evil intentions towards the present sheep, how can one not obtain lack of moral discipline?
Treatise: 'Towards the present body of a mother, etc., to one should seek a different reason,' if one can obtain lack of moral discipline by generating evil intentions towards the present body of a mother, etc., then one should seek another reason (to explain why one cannot generate evil intentions towards a mother, etc.).
。難絕也。于羊現身有惡意不觀當身現不發不律儀。但觀現羊發不律儀 于現至親無有惡意。應不觀當羊發不律儀 此二既等。應求異理 正理救云。如是等例于理不齊。無善意樂故。有惡意樂故。謂彼正受不律儀時。無正思惟調善意樂我當不害一切有情。有邪思惟兇勃意樂。我當普害一切有情。事雖主羊噁心寬遍。是故容有觀未來羊。于現聖．親亦發惡戒。非觀來世聖及至親。于現羊身不發惡戒。
論。又屠羊等至具支不律儀。第二難發一切也。
論。彼遍損善至故得具支。答也。彼遍損七支善意樂故。得七支不律儀。
論。若爾彼人至具發七支。重難也。如有先受二．三學處不捨此善。后屠羊者豈得七支。今詳。此人不發惡戒但得處中。不遍損惡意樂故。
論。毗婆沙者至不律儀人。述有部宗也。
論。經部諸師至唯除八戒述經部宗。彼宗善．惡戒七支不具于境不遍。皆容名住律儀．不律儀人。唯除八戒。彼宗八戒必具支故。
論。由隨彼量至互相遮故。如先受五戒發願唯殺或兼盜等。由隨彼量唯違不殺生等得殺生等不律儀。不可亦遮不妄語等。隨所期限互相遮故。由此善．惡二戒俱得缺支。亦得名為住二戒者。如說犯戒不捨者亦名犯戒。亦名持戒 正理論云。若汝意謂如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 難絕也。（難以斷絕）對於羊顯現身形，如果有惡意，不觀察當下之身，就不會引發不律儀。（不律儀：佛教術語，指違反戒律的行為）但觀察顯現的羊，就會引發不律儀。對於現在的至親之人沒有惡意，就不應該觀察未來的羊而引發不律儀。這兩種情況既然相等，就應該尋求不同的道理。正確的道理是這樣解釋的：像這樣的例子在道理上是不一致的，因為有無善意的意樂。因為有惡意的意樂。意思是說，當他正式接受不律儀時，沒有正確的思惟和調善的意樂，想著『我將不傷害一切有情』，而是有邪惡的思惟和兇猛的意樂，想著『我將普遍傷害一切有情』。事情雖然主要針對羊，但噁心寬泛而普遍，所以容許觀察未來的羊。對於現在的聖者和親人，也會引發惡戒，但不會觀察來世的聖者和至親。對於現在的羊身，不會引發惡戒。
論：又屠羊等達到具支不律儀。（具支不律儀：指具備所有構成不律儀的要素）第二難點是，是否會引發一切不律儀？
論：他們普遍損害善意樂，所以得到具支。（善意樂：指行善的意願和喜樂）回答是：他們普遍損害七支善意樂，所以得到七支不律儀。
論：如果這樣，那個人達到具發七支。（七支：構成不律儀的七個要素）這是重新提出的難點。如果有人先接受了二、三學處（學處：戒律），沒有捨棄這些善行，後來又屠羊，難道會得到七支不律儀嗎？現在詳細分析，這個人不會引發惡戒，只能得到處中，因為沒有普遍損害惡意樂。
論：毗婆沙者說，這是不律儀之人。（毗婆沙者：佛教論師，精通毗婆沙論）這是在陳述有部宗（有部：佛教部派之一）的觀點。
論：經部諸師說，只有八戒除外。（經部：佛教部派之一）這是在陳述經部宗的觀點。他們宗派認為，善戒和惡戒的七支不完備，對於所緣境不普遍，都可以稱為安住律儀（律儀：遵守戒律的行為）或不律儀之人，只有八戒除外，因為他們宗派認為八戒必須具備所有要素。
論：由於隨順那個量，所以互相遮止。例如，先接受了五戒，發願只殺生，或者兼盜竊等。由於隨順那個量，只違反不殺生等戒，得到殺生等不律儀，不可能也遮止不妄語等戒，因為隨所設定的期限，互相遮止。由此，善戒和惡戒都可能缺少要素，也可以稱為安住二戒者。正如所說，犯戒而不捨棄的人，也可以稱為犯戒，也可以稱為持戒。《正理論》說，如果你的意思是說，像...
【English Translation】 English version: It is difficult to sever. If there is ill intent towards a sheep appearing, not observing the present body, one does not generate non-restraint. But observing the appearing sheep, one generates non-restraint. If there is no ill intent towards present close relatives, one should not observe future sheep and generate non-restraint. Since these two are equal, one should seek a different reason. The correct reason is explained thus: such examples are not consistent in reason, because there is no wholesome intention, and because there is malevolent intention. That is to say, when one formally undertakes non-restraint, there is no correct thought or well-adjusted intention, thinking, 'I shall not harm all sentient beings,' but rather there is perverse thought and fierce intention, thinking, 'I shall universally harm all sentient beings.' Although the matter is mainly directed at the sheep, the evil mind is broad and pervasive, so it is permissible to observe future sheep. Towards present saints and relatives, one also generates evil precepts, but one does not observe future saints and close relatives. Towards the present body of the sheep, one does not generate evil precepts.
Treatise: Furthermore, slaughtering sheep, etc., reaches complete-limbed non-restraint. The second difficulty is, does it generate all non-restraints?
Treatise: They universally harm wholesome intentions, therefore they attain complete-limbed. The answer is: they universally harm the seven limbs of wholesome intention, therefore they attain seven-limbed non-restraint.
Treatise: If that is so, that person reaches complete generation of seven limbs. This is a re-raised difficulty. If someone first receives two or three training precepts, without abandoning these wholesome deeds, and later slaughters sheep, how could they attain seven limbs? Now, in detail, this person does not generate evil precepts, but only attains a neutral state, because they do not universally harm malevolent intention.
Treatise: The Vibhasha masters say, this is a person of non-restraint. This is stating the view of the Sarvastivada school.
Treatise: The Sutra masters say, only excluding the eight precepts. This is stating the view of the Sautrantika school. Their school believes that the seven limbs of wholesome and evil precepts are incomplete, and not pervasive in their object, so they can all be called persons abiding in restraint or non-restraint, only excluding the eight precepts, because their school believes that the eight precepts must possess all limbs.
Treatise: Because following that measure, they mutually obstruct. For example, one first receives the five precepts, vowing only to kill, or also to steal, etc. Because following that measure, one only violates the precept of not killing, etc., and attains the non-restraint of killing, etc. It is impossible to also obstruct the precept of not lying, etc., because according to the set limit, they mutually obstruct. Therefore, both wholesome and evil precepts may lack limbs, and one can also be called one who abides in two precepts. As it is said, one who violates precepts without abandoning them can also be called one who violates precepts, and also one who upholds precepts. The Nyayanusara says, if you mean, like...
善律儀有不具支。此亦應爾。謂如有受近事．近住．勤策律儀雖不具支。而亦得彼缺支攝戒。受不律儀亦應如是。此例非等。律儀．不律儀用功。不用功。得有異故。謂諸善戒要藉用功。善阿世耶方能受得。以難得故。理數必應非受一時總得一切。若諸惡戒不藉用功。惡阿世耶便能受得。非難得故。理數必應隨受一時總得一切。以于欲界不善力強。惡阿世耶任運而起造諸重惡。不待用功。善阿世耶易毀壞故。隨受一種便總得余。善則不然。故例非等。理見穢草不用功生。要設劬勞嘉苗方起。
論。已說從彼至未說當說。自下有一頌。第十一明得惡戒．處中方便。
論曰至便發惡戒。釋由二因得諸不律儀 由二因得。一者生在不律儀家。由先現行殺等加行．者。二雖復生在余家。由初要期受殺等事便發惡戒。婆沙一百一十七有三說不同。或有說者。亦由受得。謂手執殺具誓從今日乃至命終常作此業以自活命。爾時便得此不律儀。復有說者。雖執殺具自立誓言。然彼不得此不律儀。由二緣得。一由作業。二由受事。由作業者。謂生不律儀家最初作彼殺生等業。爾時便得此不律儀。由受事者。謂生余家為活命故懷殺害心。往屠羊等不律儀所。作是誓言。我從今者乃至命終。常作汝等所作事業以自活命。爾時便得
此不律儀。復有說者。此亦最初作彼事業時方乃獲得此不律儀。此論依第二師義 雜心．正理亦同此。
論。得余無表至諸福業事。已下釋得余處中無表由三因也。此是初因。謂由田也。不簡心之輕重。但初施園等即發無表。
論。二者由受至常施食等。第二因也 等者。等施衣等及惡業等 此由受者。不簡輕．重及未作業。要期誓受即發無表。
論。三由重行至行善行惡。第三因也。此業無依及非誓受。必須重行乃發無表。
論。由此三因起余無表。總結三因。
論。如是已說至未說當說。自下第十二明舍差別 于中有五。一舍別解。二舍道．定。三舍惡戒。四舍處中。五舍非色。
論。且云何舍別解律儀。下兩行頌。第一明舍別解脫律儀也。前一行頌明四．五緣舍戒。后一行頌敘異說也。
論曰至根調伏故。釋律儀總名也。
論。唯除近住至由四緣舍。此先釋七眾有四緣。后釋近住有五緣也。
論。一由意樂至舍學處故 由意樂者。簡狂亂等 對有解人。簡對狂亂及畜生等 發有表業者。謂自云我從今已后不復能持等。此言與受戒時相違故舍。
論。二由棄捨眾同分故。此命終舍。舍所依故。
論。三由二形俱時生故。此是所依變故。二形
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這種不是『不律儀』（apratisamvara，非戒律）。還有一種說法是，只有在最初從事那些行為時，才會獲得這種『不律儀』。這個論點是依據第二位論師的觀點。《雜心論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）和《正理經》（Tattvarthasutra）也持有相同的觀點。
論：『得余無表至諸福業事』。以下解釋獲得其他『處中無表』（neither meritorious nor demeritorious latent karmic force）的三種原因。這是第一個原因，即由於『田』（kshetra，福田）的緣故。不考慮心的輕重，只要最初佈施園林等，就會引發『無表』。
論：『二者由受至常施食等』。這是第二個原因。『等』字包括佈施衣服等以及惡業等。這取決於接受者。不考慮輕重以及是否已經造作，只要發誓接受，就會引發『無表』。
論：『三由重行至行善行惡』。這是第三個原因。這種業既沒有所依，也不是發誓接受的，必須重複進行才會引發『無表』。
論：『由此三因起余無表』。總結以上三種原因。
論：『如是已說至未說當說』。從下面開始，第十二部分闡明『舍』（tyaga，放棄）的差別。其中有五種：一、舍『別解脫律儀』（pratimosksa-samvara，別解脫戒）；二、舍『道』（marga，道）和『定』（samadhi，禪定）；三、舍『惡戒』（duhsila，惡戒）；四、舍『處中』（neither meritorious nor demeritorious）；五、舍『非色』（arupa，無色界）。
論：『且云何舍別解律儀』。下面兩行頌文，第一行闡明舍『別解脫律儀』。前一行頌文闡明四種或五種因緣導致舍戒，后一行頌文敘述不同的說法。
論曰：『至根調伏故』。解釋『律儀』的總名稱。
論：『唯除近住至由四緣舍』。這裡先解釋七眾（在家男女居士，出家男女沙彌，沙彌尼，式叉摩那，比丘，比丘尼）有四種因緣舍戒，然後解釋『近住』（upavasatha，八關齋戒）有五種因緣舍戒。
論：『一由意樂至舍學處故』。『由意樂者』，排除狂亂等情況。『對有解人』，排除對狂亂者和畜生等。『發有表業者』，指自己說『我從今以後不能再持戒』等。這種說法與受戒時所說的話相反，因此舍戒。
論：『二由棄捨眾同分故』。這是命終時舍戒，因為捨棄了所依。
論：『三由二形俱時生故』。這是所依發生變化。生出兩種性別的性器官。
【English Translation】 English version: This is not 『apratisamvara』 (non-restraint). There are also those who say that this 『apratisamvara』 is only obtained when initially engaging in those activities. This argument is based on the view of the second teacher. The Abhidharmasamuccaya and Tattvarthasutra also hold the same view.
Treatise: 『Obtaining other neutral latent karmic force to all meritorious deeds』. The following explains the three causes for obtaining other 『neither meritorious nor demeritorious latent karmic force』. This is the first cause, namely due to the 『field』 (kshetra, field of merit). Without considering the lightness or heaviness of the mind, as long as one initially donates gardens, etc., latent karmic force is generated.
Treatise: 『Secondly, due to receiving to constantly giving food, etc.』 This is the second cause. 『Etc.』 includes donating clothes, etc., and evil deeds, etc. This depends on the recipient. Without considering lightness or heaviness and whether or not it has already been done, as long as one vows to receive, latent karmic force is generated.
Treatise: 『Thirdly, due to repeated actions to performing good and evil』. This is the third cause. This karma has no basis and is not vowed to be received. It must be repeatedly performed to generate latent karmic force.
Treatise: 『From these three causes, other latent karmic force arises』. Summarizing the above three causes.
Treatise: 『As has been said, to what has not been said should be said』. From below, the twelfth part clarifies the differences in 『abandonment』 (tyaga). Among them are five: 1. Abandoning 『pratimosksa-samvara』 (individual liberation vows); 2. Abandoning 『marga』 (path) and 『samadhi』 (meditative concentration); 3. Abandoning 『duhsila』 (evil precepts); 4. Abandoning 『neutral』 (neither meritorious nor demeritorious); 5. Abandoning 『arupa』 (formless realm).
Treatise: 『How is pratimosksa-samvara abandoned?』 The following two lines of verse, the first line clarifies abandoning 『pratimosksa-samvara』. The previous line of verse clarifies the four or five conditions that lead to abandoning the precepts, and the following line of verse narrates different views.
Treatise says: 『To the root is subdued』. Explaining the general name of 『restraint』.
Treatise: 『Except for upavasatha to abandoning by four conditions』. Here, it first explains that the seven assemblies (laymen and laywomen, novice monks and nuns, probationary nuns, monks, and nuns) have four conditions for abandoning the precepts, and then explains that 『upavasatha』 (eight precepts) has five conditions for abandoning the precepts.
Treatise: 『Firstly, due to intention to abandoning the precepts』. 『Due to intention』 excludes situations such as madness. 『To someone who understands』 excludes those who are mad and animals. 『Generating manifest karma』 refers to saying 『From now on, I can no longer uphold the precepts』, etc. This statement contradicts what was said when taking the precepts, therefore abandoning the precepts.
Treatise: 『Secondly, due to abandoning the shared nature of the assembly』. This is abandoning the precepts at the time of death, because the basis is abandoned.
Treatise: 『Thirdly, due to the simultaneous birth of two forms』. This is a change in the basis. The sexual organs of two genders are born.
非是戒所依故。
論。四由所因善根斷故。此是所因斷故舍。戒之所因。所謂三種善根。善根既斷戒亦隨舍。
論。舍近住戒至由五緣舍。釋近住戒等五緣舍。加過期限。
論。何緣舍戒由此五緣。問也。
論。與受相違至過期限故。答也。受時言能持。舍時言不能持。故是相違。餘四可解。
論。有餘部說至苾芻律儀。述經部計 言。墮罪者。謂四重罪墮地獄故名為墮也。此說犯重亦舍戒故。
論。有餘部言至皆止息故。述法密部計。此同婆沙持律者計。此加法滅戒亦舍故。
論。迦濕彌羅國至謂持犯戒。述有部計 非犯一邊罪一切律儀應遍舍故。釋所以也 非犯餘罪有斷尸羅者。有兩釋。一云邊罪是非邊罪之餘。非犯余邊罪令非邊罪有斷尸羅。二云餘罪者。是不犯之餘。非犯餘罪令不犯者有斷尸羅。
論。如有財者至但名富人。喻顯可知。
論。若爾何緣至立他勝名。經部難也。本以有戒名苾芻。名沙門。名釋迦子 戒是苾芻體。沙門性。既佛言非苾芻等。壞滅墮落立他勝名。犯四重禁既名他勝。如何得有成苾芻戒。
論。依勝義苾芻密意作是說。有部答也 言非苾芻等。非勝義苾芻。勝義苾芻謂諸聖者。
論。此言兇勃。經部責也。
論兇勃者何。有部反問。
論。謂於世尊至為犯重罪緣。經部答也。有二兇勃。一解了義經令成不了。二與多煩惱者為犯重罪緣。
論。寧知此言是了義說。有部問也。
論。由律自釋至是了義說。經部答也 言。名想者。身是俗人名號苾芻故言名想苾芻 言。自稱者。是具戒比丘犯重之人實非苾芻。而自稱言我是苾芻。故言自稱苾芻 言乞丐者。出家之人以乞自活。故名乞丐苾芻 言破惑者。謂諸聖者得無漏道真破惑故。故名破惑苾芻。破惑苾芻即勝義苾芻 律既自釋。犯重之人實非苾芻自稱苾芻。明知犯重無有戒體 此義中言非苾芻者。謂非白四羯磨苾芻非約勝義言非苾芻。若犯重人先是勝義。後由犯重成非勝義可得說言依勝義說言非苾芻。非犯重人先是勝義。後由犯重成非勝義。何得釋言依勝義苾芻言非苾芻 經言犯重非苾芻者。謂非白四羯磨受具足戒苾芻 勝義苾芻謂得見道已上。此無退故 非為勝義苾芻故敘五偏七聚 五偏七聚者。是白四羯磨苾芻犯重之人 既先是白四羯磨受具足戒。今破此戒名非苾芻 故是非白四羯磨苾芻。非先是勝義今非勝義 如何言就勝義苾芻言非苾芻。故知此經是了義說。
論。然彼所說至犯重亦然。破有部成立也 大師立喻如多羅樹若被斷頭必不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：什麼是兇勃（xiōng bó，指惡劣的行為）？有部（yǒu bù，佛教部派之一，即說一切有部）反問道。 論：是指對於世尊（shì zūn，佛陀的尊稱）犯下極其嚴重的罪行的因緣。經部（jīng bù，佛教部派之一）回答說。有兩種兇勃：一是將了義經（liǎo yì jīng，指究竟、明確表達佛陀真實意圖的經典）弄成不了義（bù liǎo yì，指非究竟、需要進一步解釋的經典），二是與多煩惱者結緣，成為犯下嚴重罪行的因緣。 論：憑什麼知道這些話是了義之說？有部問道。 論：根據律藏（lǜ zàng，佛教戒律的彙編）的自我解釋，這些就是了義之說。經部回答說。所謂『名想』（míng xiǎng），是因為這個人原本是世俗之人，卻有名號為比丘（bǐ qiū，佛教出家男眾），所以說是名想比丘。所謂『自稱』（zì chēng），是指已經受具足戒（jù zú jiè，佛教最高的戒律）的比丘，犯了重罪，實際上已經不是比丘，卻自稱說『我是比丘』，所以說是自稱比丘。所謂『乞丐』（qǐ gài），是指那些出家之人，以乞討為生，所以叫做乞丐比丘。所謂『破惑』（pò huò），是指那些聖者（shèng zhě，指證悟真理的人），得到了無漏道（wú lòu dào，指沒有煩惱的修行道路），真正地破除了迷惑，所以叫做破惑比丘。破惑比丘就是勝義比丘（shèng yì bǐ qiū，指在勝義諦上真正的比丘）。律藏既然已經自我解釋，犯了重罪的人實際上不是比丘，卻自稱比丘，這明明知道犯了重罪就沒有戒體（jiè tǐ，指戒律的體性）。 這段話中說『非比丘』，是指非白四羯磨比丘（bái sì jié mó bǐ qiū，指通過白四羯磨儀式受戒的比丘），不是從勝義諦（shèng yì dì，指最高的真理層面）上說非比丘。如果犯重罪的人先前是勝義比丘，後來因為犯重罪而變成非勝義比丘，可以說依據勝義諦說『非比丘』。如果犯重罪的人先前不是勝義比丘，後來因為犯重罪而變成非勝義比丘，怎麼能解釋說依據勝義比丘說『非比丘』呢？ 經中說犯重罪的『非比丘』，是指非通過白四羯磨受具足戒的比丘。勝義比丘是指得到見道（jiàn dào，指證悟真理的第一個階段）以上的人，因為他們不會退轉。 不是爲了勝義比丘才敘述五偏七聚（wǔ piān qī jù，指比丘所犯的五種偏罪和七種聚罪）。五偏七聚是指白四羯磨比丘犯重罪的人。 既然先前是白四羯磨受具足戒的比丘，現在破了此戒，所以叫做非比丘。所以說，是非白四羯磨比丘，不是先前是勝義比丘，現在不是勝義比丘。 怎麼能說就勝義比丘而言『非比丘』呢？所以知道這部經是了義之說。 論：然而他們所說的直到犯重罪也是這樣。這是爲了駁破有部的立論。大師（dà shī，指佛陀）所立的比喻就像多羅樹（duō luó shù，一種棕櫚樹），如果被砍斷了頭，必定不能……
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: What is 'fierce flourishing' (xiōng bó, referring to evil deeds)? The Sarvāstivāda (yǒu bù, one of the Buddhist schools) countered. Treatise: It refers to the causes and conditions for committing extremely serious offenses against the World-Honored One (shì zūn, a respectful title for the Buddha). The Sautrāntika (jīng bù, one of the Buddhist schools) replied. There are two kinds of 'fierce flourishing': one is to turn definitive sutras (liǎo yì jīng, sutras that directly and clearly express the Buddha's true intention) into non-definitive ones (bù liǎo yì, sutras that are not definitive and require further explanation), and the other is to associate with those with many afflictions, becoming a cause for committing serious offenses. Treatise: How do you know that these words are definitive teachings? The Sarvāstivāda asked. Treatise: According to the self-explanation of the Vinaya (lǜ zàng, the collection of Buddhist monastic rules), these are definitive teachings. The Sautrāntika replied. The so-called 'name-thought' (míng xiǎng) is because this person was originally a secular person but has the title of Bhikṣu (bǐ qiū, a Buddhist monk), so it is called a 'name-thought' Bhikṣu. The so-called 'self-proclaimed' (zì chēng) refers to a Bhikṣu who has received full ordination (jù zú jiè, the highest level of Buddhist precepts), has committed a serious offense, and is actually no longer a Bhikṣu, but claims, 'I am a Bhikṣu,' so it is called a 'self-proclaimed' Bhikṣu. The so-called 'beggar' (qǐ gài) refers to those who have left home and live by begging, so they are called 'beggar' Bhikṣus. The so-called 'destroyer of delusion' (pò huò) refers to those noble ones (shèng zhě, those who have realized the truth) who have attained the unconditioned path (wú lòu dào, the path of practice without defilements) and have truly destroyed delusion, so they are called 'destroyer of delusion' Bhikṣus. 'Destroyer of delusion' Bhikṣus are true Bhikṣus in the ultimate sense (shèng yì bǐ qiū, true Bhikṣus in the ultimate truth). Since the Vinaya has already explained itself, a person who has committed a serious offense is actually not a Bhikṣu but claims to be a Bhikṣu, it is clear that committing a serious offense means there is no precept-substance (jiè tǐ, the essence of the precepts). In this passage, saying 'not a Bhikṣu' refers to not being a Bhikṣu ordained through the white four-karmas procedure (bái sì jié mó bǐ qiū, a Bhikṣu ordained through the white four-karmas ritual), not saying 'not a Bhikṣu' from the perspective of ultimate truth (shèng yì dì, the highest level of truth). If a person who commits a serious offense was previously a Bhikṣu in the ultimate sense, and later becomes a non-ultimate Bhikṣu due to committing a serious offense, it can be said that 'not a Bhikṣu' is spoken based on the ultimate truth. If a person who commits a serious offense was not previously a Bhikṣu in the ultimate sense, and later becomes a non-ultimate Bhikṣu due to committing a serious offense, how can it be explained that 'not a Bhikṣu' is spoken based on the ultimate Bhikṣu? The sutra says that 'not a Bhikṣu' who commits a serious offense refers to not being a Bhikṣu who has received full ordination through the white four-karmas procedure. A Bhikṣu in the ultimate sense refers to those who have attained the stage of seeing the path (jiàn dào, the first stage of realizing the truth) and above, because they do not regress. The five transgressions and seven clusters (wǔ piān qī jù, referring to the five kinds of transgressions and seven kinds of offenses committed by Bhikṣus) are not described for the sake of Bhikṣus in the ultimate sense. The five transgressions and seven clusters refer to those who are Bhikṣus ordained through the white four-karmas procedure and have committed serious offenses. Since they were previously Bhikṣus who received full ordination through the white four-karmas procedure, now that they have broken these precepts, they are called 'not Bhikṣus.' Therefore, it is said that they are not Bhikṣus ordained through the white four-karmas procedure, not that they were previously Bhikṣus in the ultimate sense and are now not Bhikṣus in the ultimate sense. How can it be said that 'not a Bhikṣu' is spoken in terms of the ultimate Bhikṣu? Therefore, it is known that this sutra is a definitive teaching. Treatise: However, what they say is the same even up to committing a serious offense. This is to refute the Sarvāstivāda's establishment. The analogy established by the Master (dà shī, referring to the Buddha) is like a Tala tree (duō luó shù, a type of palm tree), if its head is cut off, it will certainly not...
復能生長廣大。諸苾芻等犯重亦然。大師此喻顯犯一邊余戒不復生長廣大。汝今言非犯一邊一切律儀應遍舍者。是徴詰大師 正理救云。豈斷一多羅樹頭。即餘三不能生長廣大。喻．法非等。
論。大師此中喻顯何義。有部問也。
論。意顯于戒至一切律儀。經部答也。意顯犯重舍一切戒。
論。又犯重之人至驅儐眾中。經部又引教證(毗訶羅者。義為寺也)。
論。實非苾芻至其相如何。經部問有部也。
論。隨相是何體必應有。有部答也。
論。以世尊說至四污道沙門。有部引文證也。婆沙六十六解云。勝道謂佛自能覺故。一切獨覺應知亦爾。示道謂身子等。命道謂居學位。污道者謂犯重之人(言準陀者。舊云純陀此云稚小)。
論。雖有此說至火輪死人。經部通也。此是假名苾芻。非有實也。
論。若犯重人至授學比丘。有部難也。若犯重人非比丘者。如何佛說盡身學悔授學比丘。
論。不說犯重人至制立如是。經部通也。梵名波羅夷此名他勝罪。惡是善他。惡勝於善。名為他勝。若初犯重。無有一念覆藏之心。不成他勝罪即不捨戒。若一念已上覆藏。即成他勝罪即舍戒。
論。若犯他勝至出家受戒。有部難也。若犯重罪以無戒故不名比丘。何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 復能生長廣大。諸苾芻（bhiksu，比丘）等犯重亦然。大師此喻顯犯一邊余戒不復生長廣大。汝今言非犯一邊一切律儀應遍舍者。是徴詰大師。正理救云。豈斷一多羅樹頭。即餘三不能生長廣大。喻．法非等。
論。大師此中喻顯何義。有部問也。
論。意顯于戒至一切律儀。經部答也。意顯犯重舍一切戒。
論。又犯重之人至驅儐眾中。經部又引教證(毗訶羅（vihara），義為寺也)。
論。實非苾芻至其相如何。經部問有部也。
論。隨相是何體必應有。有部答也。
論。以世尊說至四污道沙門。有部引文證也。婆沙六十六解云。勝道謂佛自能覺故。一切獨覺應知亦爾。示道謂身子等。命道謂居學位。污道者謂犯重之人(言準陀（Cunda）者。舊云純陀此云稚小)。
論。雖有此說至火輪死人。經部通也。此是假名苾芻。非有實也。
論。若犯重人至授學比丘。有部難也。若犯重人非比丘者。如何佛說盡身學悔授學比丘。
論。不說犯重人至制立如是。經部通也。梵名波羅夷（Parajika）此名他勝罪。惡是善他。惡勝於善。名為他勝。若初犯重。無有一念覆藏之心。不成他勝罪即不捨戒。若一念已上覆藏。即成他勝罪即舍戒。
論。若犯他勝至出家受戒。有部難也。若犯重罪以無戒故不名比丘。何
【English Translation】 English version It can grow extensively. The same applies to bhiksus (bhiksu, monks) who commit grave offenses. This analogy from the Master illustrates that if one offense is committed, the remaining precepts will no longer grow extensively. If you now say that not committing one offense means that all vows should be completely abandoned, you are challenging the Master. The Correct Principle responds: Does cutting off one branch of a palmyra tree mean that the remaining three cannot grow extensively? The analogy and the Dharma are not equivalent.
Treatise: What meaning does the Master illustrate with this analogy? The Sarvastivadins ask.
Treatise: It illustrates that with regard to precepts, up to all vows. The Sautrantikas answer. It illustrates that committing a grave offense means abandoning all precepts.
Treatise: Furthermore, those who commit grave offenses, up to being expelled from the assembly. The Sautrantikas further cite scriptural evidence (vihara, meaning monastery).
Treatise: If one is truly not a bhiksu, what is their characteristic? The Sautrantikas ask the Sarvastivadins.
Treatise: Whatever the characteristic, there must be a corresponding entity. The Sarvastivadins answer.
Treatise: Because the World-Honored One spoke of the four defiled paths of sramanas. The Sarvastivadins cite scriptural evidence. The Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa) explains in its sixty-sixth section: 'The superior path refers to the Buddha, because he can awaken himself. All Pratyekabuddhas should be understood likewise. The path of instruction refers to Sariputra and others. The path of life refers to those residing in the stage of learning. The defiled path refers to those who have committed grave offenses.' (Cunda, formerly translated as Chunda, means 'young and small').
Treatise: Although there is this saying, up to a fiery wheel and a dead person. The Sautrantikas clarify. This is a nominally called bhiksu, not a real one.
Treatise: If a person who commits a grave offense, up to a novice monk. The Sarvastivadins challenge. If a person who commits a grave offense is not a bhiksu, how can the Buddha say to learn repentance for the rest of one's life and to ordain a novice monk?
Treatise: It does not say that a person who commits a grave offense, up to establishing such. The Sautrantikas clarify. The Sanskrit name is Parajika, which means 'defeat by others.' Evil is the other of good. Evil overcomes good, hence the name 'defeat by others.' If one initially commits a grave offense and has no thought of concealment, it does not constitute a Parajika offense, and one does not abandon the precepts. If one conceals it for even a single thought, it constitutes a Parajika offense, and one abandons the precepts.
Treatise: If one commits a Parajika offense, up to leaving home and receiving ordination. The Sarvastivadins challenge. If one commits a grave offense and is not called a bhiksu because they have no precepts, how can...
不重為受具足戒。既不許受故知不捨。
論。由彼相續至重出家故。經部釋也。如文可解。
論。於此無義至如是類比丘。經部戲有部也 正理論云。經主釋言。雖有此說。而彼唯有餘沙門相故名沙門。如被燒材。假鸚鵡㭰。涸池。敗種。火輪。死人。此但有言所引眾喻皆無能故 以諸材木少被火燒。世間說名被燒材木。非全成炭名被燒材。若謂隨燒全分．一分二種皆許名被燒材。則喻及法二俱猶豫。喻于所喻無證功能 名涸池中容有少水。但無池用故立涸名。設水全無亦名涸者。同前猶豫于證無能 由此已遮死人．敗種。謂雖猶有少種功能。而諸世間亦說敗種。或雖不敗。被損功能不復生芽。亦名敗種 有同死法亦名死人。故契經中言放逸者常死 假鸚鵡㭰。及旋火輪二喻。皆違契經所說 沙門有四更無第五。若唯形相得名沙門。如世有人須沙門相矯設方便作沙門形。應名沙門說為第五。非彼假㭰．及旋火輪。可得說名㭰．輪余相。非實㭰．輪為其先故。如是應有先非沙門作沙門形立為第五。然佛說四無第五言。為止如斯相沙門執。故引眾喻皆無證能。
論。正法滅時至無有舍義。破異說也。如文可了 有人云。以今說戒羯磨未止息故。故知未滿千年者 非也。
論。靜慮無漏二律儀等。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不應重複授予具足戒（Bhikkhu ordination）。既然不允許重複受戒，由此可知之前的戒體並未捨棄。
論：因為他的相續（Samtāna）已經經歷過一次出家。這是經部的解釋，文義淺顯易懂。
論：在此處沒有意義……如同這類比丘。這是經部和有部的觀點。《正理論》中說，經部的主張是：雖然有這樣的說法，但他們只有沙門的表相，所以被稱為沙門，就像被燒的木材、假的鸚鵡、乾涸的池塘、壞掉的種子、旋轉的火輪、死人一樣。這些比喻都不能成立，因為它們都缺乏效力。
諸如木材被稍微燒了一下，世間就稱之為被燒的木材，而不是完全燒成炭才叫被燒的木材。如果說燒掉全部或一部分都可以稱為被燒的木材，那麼比喻和所要說明的道理都會變得含糊不清。這個比喻對於所要證明的道理沒有證明作用。
名為乾涸的池塘中可能還有少量的水，但因為失去了池塘的作用，所以才被稱為乾涸。假設完全沒有水也稱為乾涸，那麼也會出現和之前一樣的含糊不清，對於證明沒有作用。
由此已經駁斥了死人和壞掉的種子。即使還有少許種子功能，世間也會稱之為壞掉的種子。或者即使沒有壞掉，但功能受損，無法發芽，也被稱為壞掉的種子。
有類似死亡狀態的也被稱為死人。所以契經中說，放逸的人常常處於死亡狀態。
假的鸚鵡和旋轉的火輪這兩個比喻，都違背了契經所說。
沙門只有四種，沒有第五種。如果僅僅因為外形就稱為沙門，就像世間有人偽裝成沙門的樣子，假裝方便地做沙門的行為，就應該被稱為沙門，成為第五種沙門。但假的鸚鵡和旋轉的火輪，不能被稱為鸚鵡或火輪的其他形態，因為它們不是真正的鸚鵡或火輪。同樣，應該有先不是沙門的人，通過偽裝成沙門的樣子，而被認為是第五種沙門。然而，佛陀說只有四種沙門，沒有第五種，是爲了阻止人們執著于這種只有外表的沙門。所以，這些比喻都沒有證明能力。
論：正法滅亡的時候……沒有捨棄的意義。這是爲了駁斥其他的說法。文義淺顯易懂。有人說：因為現在說戒的羯磨（Karma，業）還沒有停止，所以知道還沒有滿一千年。這是不對的。
論：靜慮（Dhyāna，禪定）、無漏（Anāsrava，無煩惱）這兩種律儀等等。
【English Translation】 English version It is not permitted to grant the Bhikkhu ordination again. Since it is not allowed to receive the precepts again, it is known that the previous precepts have not been abandoned.
Treatise: Because his Samtāna (continuum of consciousness) has already experienced one ordination. This is the explanation of the Sautrāntika school, and the meaning of the text is easy to understand.
Treatise: Here it is meaningless... like this kind of Bhikkhu. This is the view of the Sautrāntika and Sarvāstivāda schools. The Nyāyānusāra says that the master of the Sutra says: Although there is this saying, they only have the appearance of a Śrāmaṇa (monk), so they are called Śrāmaṇa, just like burnt wood, a fake parrot, a dried-up pond, a bad seed, a rotating fire wheel, and a dead person. These metaphors are all untenable because they all lack efficacy.
For example, if wood is slightly burned, the world calls it burnt wood, not that it is completely burned into charcoal before it is called burnt wood. If it is said that burning all or part of it can be called burnt wood, then the metaphor and the principle to be explained will become ambiguous. This metaphor has no proof function for the principle to be proved.
A pond called a dried-up pond may still have a small amount of water, but because it has lost the function of a pond, it is called dried-up. Suppose that if there is no water at all, it is also called dried-up, then the same ambiguity as before will occur, and it will have no effect on proof.
From this, the dead and bad seeds have been refuted. Even if there is still a little seed function, the world will call it a bad seed. Or even if it is not bad, but the function is damaged and cannot germinate, it is also called a bad seed.
Those who have a similar state of death are also called dead people. Therefore, the Sutra says that those who are negligent are often in a state of death.
The two metaphors of fake parrots and rotating fire wheels both violate what the Sutra says.
There are only four types of Śrāmaṇa, there is no fifth type. If one is called a Śrāmaṇa only because of his appearance, just like someone in the world pretends to be a Śrāmaṇa and pretends to conveniently do the behavior of a Śrāmaṇa, he should be called a Śrāmaṇa and become the fifth type of Śrāmaṇa. However, fake parrots and rotating fire wheels cannot be called other forms of parrots or fire wheels, because they are not real parrots or fire wheels. Similarly, there should be people who are not Śrāmaṇa first, but are considered the fifth type of Śrāmaṇa by pretending to be Śrāmaṇa. However, the Buddha said that there are only four types of Śrāmaṇa, and there is no fifth type, in order to prevent people from clinging to this Śrāmaṇa who only has an appearance. Therefore, these metaphors have no ability to prove.
Treatise: When the True Dharma is destroyed... there is no meaning of abandoning. This is to refute other claims. The meaning of the text is easy to understand. Someone said: Because the Karma (action) of reciting the precepts has not stopped now, so we know that it has not been a thousand years. This is not right.
Treatise: The two kinds of precepts of Dhyāna (meditation) and Anāsrava (without outflows), etc.
自下一頌。第二明舍靜慮．無漏。
論曰至還退失時。明定二舍。一易地舍。二由退舍。
論。等言為顯至殊勝善根。釋頌等字。暖等善根是殊勝善根。異生亦許命終舍故。然四善根雖皆殊勝。然唯前三有命終舍。世第一法及增上忍無命終舍。定入聖故 正理彈云。舍眾同分。及離染時亦舍暖等及退分定。為攝此故彼說等言。經主釋中應加離染 俱舍師救云。雖離第九品染能捨退分。離前八品即不能捨。離染名總恐有所濫。故我不說。異生若成暖等善根 命終定舍離。雖少故說 又解略而不論 今詳。后解為勝。若總說舍色界善法。有四緣舍。一由易地。二由退失。三由命終。四由離染 五事論中說有二舍。謂易地及退者。略也。
論。如色界中至與色界異。類釋無色善也。無色地中無四善根無命終舍。與色界別 唯無律儀與色界異者。說其四蘊。與色界同。非是欲說有四善根。
論。無漏善法至勝果道故。明無漏三緣舍。如文可解 道．定共戒與別解脫戒舍不同者。得緣異故 別解脫戒由作法得。有作法舍 由善心得。有斷善舍 依男．女得。二形生舍 依同分得。有命終舍 依時分受。有時分舍 定．道共戒依善心得。如舍定．道。戒亦爾故。正理論云。經主於此應說二緣。以得果言攝
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 下一頌解釋了捨棄靜慮和無漏（Anāsrava，指沒有煩惱的善法）。
論曰：從『還退失時』到結尾，闡明了定的兩種捨棄方式：一是易地舍（改變所處禪定地），二是由於退失而捨棄。
論：『等』字是爲了彰顯殊勝善根（Viśeṣa-kuśala-mūla，指暖、頂、忍、世第一法四種善根）。解釋頌中的『等』字。暖等善根是殊勝的善根，因為異生（Pṛthag-jana，指凡夫）在命終時也會捨棄。然而，雖然四善根都殊勝，但只有前三種有命終舍。世第一法（Laukikāgradharma）和增上忍（Adhyadhi-kṣānti）沒有命終舍，因為它們決定會進入聖道。
正理彈云：捨棄眾同分（Sabhāga，指同類眾生的共性）以及離染時，也會捨棄暖等善根以及退分定。爲了涵蓋這些情況，所以使用了『等』字。經主在解釋中應該加上離染。俱舍師辯護說：雖然離第九品染能捨退分，但離前八品就不能捨。『離染』這個名稱太籠統，恐怕會引起混淆，所以我沒有說。異生如果成就暖等善根，命終時一定會捨棄，即使數量很少，所以才說。
另一種解釋是，（經主）省略了而不論述。現在看來，后一種解釋更為合理。如果總的說捨棄善法，有四種因緣：一是由易地，二是由退失，三是由命終，四是由離染。《五事論》中說有兩種捨棄，即易地和退失，這是省略的說法。
論：如（此處原文有缺失）中到結尾，類似於解釋無色善法。無色地中沒有四善根，沒有命終舍，與（此處原文有缺失）不同。只有無律儀與（此處原文有缺失）不同，說的是它的四蘊，與（此處原文有缺失）相同，並不是說有四善根。
論：從『無漏善法』到『勝果道故』，闡明了無漏的三種因緣捨棄，如文中所述可以理解。道共戒（Mārga-samvara，指與道相應的戒律）和定共戒（Dhyāna-samvara，指與禪定相應的戒律）與別解脫戒（Prātimokṣa-saṃvara，指聲聞乘的戒律）的捨棄不同，是因為得到的因緣不同。別解脫戒通過作法得到，有作法舍；由善心得，有斷善舍；依據男、女得到，有二形生舍；依據同分得到，有命終舍；依據時分受持，有時分舍。定共戒和道共戒依據善心得，如同捨棄定和道一樣，戒也如此。正理論云：經主在此應該說兩種因緣，因為『得果』一詞已經涵蓋了。
【English Translation】 English version: The following verse explains abandoning of Dhyāna (meditative absorption) and Anāsrava (undefiled, referring to wholesome dharmas free from afflictions).
Treatise states: From 'when returning to loss' to the end, it clarifies the two ways of abandoning Samādhi (concentration): one is easy-ground abandonment (changing the state of meditative absorption), and the other is abandonment due to regression.
Treatise: The word 'etc.' is to highlight the superior wholesome roots (Viśeṣa-kuśala-mūla, referring to the four wholesome roots of warmth, peak, forbearance, and the highest mundane dharma). It explains the word 'etc.' in the verse. The wholesome roots such as warmth are superior wholesome roots because even ordinary beings (Pṛthag-jana, referring to common people) abandon them at the time of death. However, although all four wholesome roots are superior, only the first three have abandonment at the time of death. The highest mundane dharma (Laukikāgradharma) and increased forbearance (Adhyadhi-kṣānti) do not have abandonment at the time of death because they are destined to enter the holy path.
The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise Following the Principle) criticizes: Abandoning the commonality of beings (Sabhāga, referring to the common nature of beings of the same kind) and when leaving defilement, one also abandons the wholesome roots such as warmth and the regressive Samādhi. To encompass these situations, the word 'etc.' is used. The Sūtra Master should add leaving defilement in the explanation. The Kośa Master defends: Although leaving the ninth level of defilement can abandon the regressive part, leaving the first eight levels cannot abandon it. The name 'leaving defilement' is too general and may cause confusion, so I did not say it. If ordinary beings achieve wholesome roots such as warmth, they will definitely abandon them at the time of death, even if it is a small amount, so it is said.
Another explanation is that (the Sūtra Master) omitted it and did not discuss it. Now it seems that the latter explanation is more reasonable. If we generally talk about abandoning wholesome dharmas, there are four conditions: one is due to changing ground, two is due to regression, three is due to death, and four is due to leaving defilement. The Pañcavastuka (Five Matters Treatise) says that there are two abandonments, namely changing ground and regression, which is an abbreviated statement.
Treatise: As in ** (original text missing) to the end, similar to explaining formless wholesome dharmas. In the formless realm, there are no four wholesome roots, and there is no abandonment at the time of death, which is different from ** (original text missing). Only the non-restrained behavior is different from ** (original text missing), which refers to its four aggregates, which are the same as ** (original text missing), and it is not saying that there are four wholesome roots.
Treatise: From 'undefiled wholesome dharmas' to 'because of the path of superior fruit', it clarifies the three conditions for abandoning undefiled dharmas, which can be understood as described in the text. The difference between the precepts shared by the path (Mārga-samvara, referring to precepts corresponding to the path) and the precepts shared by Samādhi (Dhyāna-samvara, referring to precepts corresponding to Samādhi) and the Prātimokṣa-saṃvara (referring to the precepts of the Śrāvakayāna) is because the conditions for obtaining them are different. The Prātimokṣa-saṃvara is obtained through rituals, and there is abandonment through rituals; it is obtained through wholesome mind, and there is abandonment through cutting off wholesome roots; it is obtained based on male and female, and there is abandonment through being of two genders; it is obtained based on commonality, and there is abandonment at the time of death; it is received based on time, and there is abandonment at the end of the time. The precepts shared by Samādhi and the precepts shared by the path are obtained based on wholesome mind, just like abandoning Samādhi and the path, so are the precepts. The Abhidharmakośa-nyāya-bhāṣya (Commentary on the Treasury of Abhidharma) says: The Sūtra Master should say two conditions here, because the term 'obtaining the fruit' already encompasses it.
練根。位必還得果。棄捨鈍果勝果道故 又云。我於此中應少分別。若舍見道及道類智。當知但由得果非退。若不動法無學俱無。所餘無漏容有具二種 俱舍師救云。論主別說得果．練根二種舍者。若得果舍據同類舍。如從預流至一來果。若是鈍根舍前鈍道得果鈍道。若是利根舍前利道得果利道若練根舍據異類舍。如舍鈍道得利道故。雖轉根位必亦得果。非同類舍不名得果。論主別說練根舍者意在於此。如五事論亦立三種。故彼論云。問無漏律儀何緣故得。何緣故舍。答與道俱得。無全舍者。若隨分舍則由三緣。一由退故。二由得果故。三由轉根故 今詳。得果即是果異而性同。練根即是果同而性異。練根之時雖得果。果同故名練根。得果之時雖性同。由果異故名得果。正理不得此意故妄彈也。若謂練根亦得果故不別說練根。六時得無為中。因何得果之外別說練根。二因既別。如何說同。
論。如是已說舍諸律儀。已下半頌。第三明舍惡戒。
論曰至舍所依故。第一舍也。此與舍律儀同。
論。二由得戒至勢力強故。明第二舍 婆沙一百一十七開為二舍。一受別解脫律儀。二得靜慮律儀。餘二同此論總有四緣也。此與舍別解脫不同。別解脫無得惡戒舍。受不律儀先舍戒故。入作法舍中。善法易舍。
不待惡戒生前時即舍故。惡戒難捨。至善戒生時方得舍故。
論。三由相續至所依變故。第三舍也。與舍戒同。
論。住惡戒者至病終難愈。釋惡戒無作法舍必至善戒。所以善戒有斷善根舍。惡戒無斷不善根舍者。善戒．惡戒性相違故。斷善根者非是于先定成惡戒故。至斷因時戒便斷也。若加行．善發戒。斷善加行．舍。若生得善發戒。隨彼斷上．中．下舍戒。斷欲不善根時。要有修慧加行．道時。有定共戒。此戒與彼惡戒相違。已舍戒故不至斷不善根。故無斷不善根舍也。
論。不律儀者至為名處中者。問也。若有惡戒因受近住舍此惡戒。明相生時近住既舍。得惡戒不。若得惡戒名不律儀者。若不得惡戒名處中者。
論。有餘師說至赤滅青生。此師說。得惡戒。非是正義。
論。有餘師言至依表得故。第二師不得惡戒。此是正義 正理論取前師為正。故論云。前說應理。先受戒時惡阿世耶非永舍故。依前表業惡戒還起 俱舍師救云。諸論皆說得戒舍。此既得戒。寧容不捨。后不更作。如何更起。故知后說為正 今詳。離前二緣后暫作殺等亦是處中。然正理師所釋非理。善戒處中。皆無中舍離前得緣而重得者。如何惡戒即不如是。
論。處中無表舍復云何。自下半頌。第四明舍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為惡戒不會在生起之前就捨棄，所以惡戒難以捨棄；只有當至善的戒律生起時，才能捨棄惡戒。
論：第三種舍戒的情況，是因為相續（samtan）轉變到所依（asraya）轉變的緣故，這與舍戒相同。
論：持有惡戒的人，直到生病終老都難以痊癒。解釋：惡戒的無作法（aprativijnapti）捨棄，必定是由於生起了善戒。為什麼善戒會有斷善根（kusalamula）而捨棄的情況，而惡戒卻沒有斷不善根（akusalamula）而捨棄的情況呢？因為善戒和惡戒的性質和狀態是相反的。斷善根的人，並不是因為先前已經確定成就了惡戒，而是到了斷善根的因緣時，戒律便會斷除。如果是通過加行（prayoga）而生起的善戒，斷除善的加行就會舍戒；如果是生來就具有的善戒，隨著他斷除上、中、下品的善根，就會舍戒。當斷除欲界的不善根時，必須要有修慧（bhavana-prajna）的加行和道（marga）的時候，才會有定共戒（dhyana-samvara）。這種戒律與惡戒是相反的，因為已經捨棄了惡戒，所以不會導致斷除不善根，因此沒有斷不善根而舍戒的情況。
論：不持律儀的人，被稱為處中者（neither virtuous nor unvirtuous）。問：如果有人因為受持近住戒（uposatha-samvara）而捨棄了惡戒，那麼在黎明到來、近住戒捨棄時，他還會得到惡戒嗎？如果得到惡戒，那麼他就應該被稱為不律儀者；如果得不到惡戒，那麼他就應該被稱為處中者。
論：有其他論師說：就像紅色消失，青色產生一樣。這位論師認為，會得到惡戒。但這並不是正確的觀點。
論：有其他論師說：因為是依靠表業（vijnapti-karma）而得到的。第二位論師認為，不會得到惡戒。這才是正確的觀點。正理論（Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra）採納了前一位論師的觀點，認為是正確的。所以論中說：『前一種說法是合理的』，因為先前受戒時所產生的惡阿世耶（asaya，意樂）並沒有被永久捨棄，所以依靠先前的表業，惡戒還會再次生起。俱舍論師（Abhidharmakosa-karika）辯解說：各種論典都說有得戒和舍戒，既然已經得到了戒律，怎麼能容許不捨棄呢？之後沒有再造作惡業，又怎麼會再次生起呢？所以可知后一種說法才是正確的。現在詳細分析，如果離開前兩種因緣，之後暫時造作殺生等惡業，也只是處中者。然而正理師的解釋是不合理的。善戒和處中者，都沒有離開先前的得戒因緣而重新得到戒律的情況，為什麼惡戒就可以這樣呢？
論：處中者的無表（avijnapti）捨棄又是怎麼回事呢？從下面的半頌開始，第四部分說明舍戒。
【English Translation】 English version: Because evil precepts are not abandoned before they arise, evil precepts are difficult to abandon; only when supremely good precepts arise can evil precepts be abandoned.
Treatise: The third type of abandonment is due to the transformation of the continuum (samtan) to the transformation of the basis (asraya), which is the same as abandoning precepts.
Treatise: One who abides by evil precepts is difficult to heal even until sickness and death. Explanation: The non-manifestation (aprativijnapti) of evil precepts is abandoned, necessarily due to the arising of good precepts. Why is it that good precepts have abandonment due to the severance of wholesome roots (kusalamula), while evil precepts do not have abandonment due to the severance of unwholesome roots (akusalamula)? Because the nature and characteristics of good and evil precepts are contrary. One who severs wholesome roots is not because they had previously established evil precepts, but when the cause for severing wholesome roots arrives, the precepts are severed. If good precepts arise through effort (prayoga), abandoning the effort of goodness abandons the precepts; if good precepts are innate, then as they sever superior, middling, or inferior wholesome roots, they abandon the precepts. When severing the unwholesome roots of the desire realm, there must be the effort of cultivation wisdom (bhavana-prajna) and the path (marga) at that time, then there will be meditative precepts (dhyana-samvara). These precepts are contrary to evil precepts, because evil precepts have already been abandoned, so it does not lead to the severance of unwholesome roots, therefore there is no abandonment of precepts due to the severance of unwholesome roots.
Treatise: One who does not uphold discipline is called neither virtuous nor unvirtuous (neither virtuous nor unvirtuous). Question: If someone abandons evil precepts because they observe the one-day vows (uposatha-samvara), then when dawn arrives and the one-day vows are abandoned, do they still obtain evil precepts? If they obtain evil precepts, then they should be called undisciplined; if they do not obtain evil precepts, then they should be called neither virtuous nor unvirtuous.
Treatise: Some other teachers say: Just as red disappears and blue arises. This teacher believes that evil precepts are obtained. But this is not the correct view.
Treatise: Some other teachers say: Because they are obtained based on expressive actions (vijnapti-karma). The second teacher believes that evil precepts are not obtained. This is the correct view. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra adopts the view of the former teacher as correct. Therefore, the treatise says: 'The former view is reasonable,' because the evil intention (asaya) that arose when taking the precepts previously was not permanently abandoned, so based on the previous expressive actions, evil precepts will arise again. The Abhidharmakosa-karika argues: Various treatises say that there is obtaining and abandoning of precepts, since the precepts have already been obtained, how can it be allowed not to abandon them? If no further evil actions are committed, how can they arise again? Therefore, it can be known that the latter view is correct. Now, upon detailed analysis, if one temporarily commits killing, etc., after being apart from the previous two conditions, they are still neither virtuous nor unvirtuous. However, the explanation of the Nyayanusara-sastra is unreasonable. Good precepts and those who are neither virtuous nor unvirtuous do not have the situation of re-obtaining precepts after being apart from the previous conditions for obtaining them, why should evil precepts be like this?
Treatise: How is the non-manifestation (avijnapti) of one who is neither virtuous nor unvirtuous abandoned? From the following half-verse, the fourth part explains the abandonment of precepts.
處中無表。
論曰至棄先所受。第一舍也 正理論云。一由受心斷壞故舍。謂先誓受。恒于某時敬禮制多。及讚歎等。今作是念后更不為。彼阿世耶從茲便息。由彼棄捨本意樂故 或復別作勢用增強與先現行相違事業本意樂息無表便斷 后說雖有相違作業。然以意息故舍。與前同俱得名為受心斷壞 婆沙名意樂息。雜心名悕望止。名異義同。
論。二由勢力至盡時便止。第二緣也。正理論云。二由勢力斷壞故舍。謂由凈信。煩惱。勢力所引無表。彼二限勢若斷壞時無表便舍。如所放箭及陶家輪(已上同俱舍論)故軌範師作如是說。由等起力所引發故。雖舍加行．及阿世耶。無表或容盡壽隨轉。乃至。發起極猛利纏捶擊禽獸應知亦爾。或先立限齊爾所時今限勢過無表便斷 引軌範師釋前限勢。故知同前 無表或容盡壽隨轉等者。同文故來。意取限勢過斷也。婆沙一百二十二云大意亦同。有人。不得論意妄為會釋。
論。三由作業至后更不作。第三緣也 正理論云。三由作業斷壞故舍。謂雖不捨根本受心。然更不為所受作業。唯除妄念而不作者。以此無表期加行．生。絕加行．時無表便舍 解云 不捨根本受心者。不言我從今去不復作所受作業。至時不作爾時舍也。如不捨戒而不能持。處中易舍與戒不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
處在中性狀態時，無表業會消失。
論述說，直到放棄先前所接受的（誓願），這是第一種捨棄的方式。《正理論》中說，第一種是由於受心斷壞而捨棄。例如，先前發誓要經常在某個時間敬禮支提（制多，梵文：caitya，意為佛塔或聖地），以及讚歎等等。現在心想以後不再這樣做，那麼這種意樂（阿世耶，梵文：āśaya，意為意圖、傾向）就會停止。由於他捨棄了原本的意樂。或者，另外產生一種更強大的力量，與先前現行的事業相違背，原本的意樂停止，無表業便會斷滅。后一種說法雖然有相違背的作業，但因為意樂停止而捨棄，與前一種情況一樣，都可以稱為受心斷壞。《婆沙論》中稱為意樂息滅，《雜心論》中稱為希望停止，名稱不同，意義相同。
論述說，第二種是由於勢力耗盡時便停止，這是第二種因緣。《正理論》中說，第二種是由於勢力斷壞而捨棄。例如，由凈信、煩惱的勢力所引發的無表業，這兩種勢力的期限一旦斷壞，無表業便會捨棄。如同射出的箭和陶工的輪子（以上與《俱舍論》相同）。所以軌範師（老師）這樣說，由於等起力（動機的力量）所引發，即使捨棄了加行（行為）和阿世耶（意樂），無表業或許還能持續到壽命終結。乃至，發起極其猛烈的嗔恨心捶打禽獸，也應該知道是同樣的道理。或者，先前設定了期限，到那個時候為止，現在期限已過，無表業便會斷滅。引用軌範師的解釋來說明前面的期限，所以知道與前面相同。無表業或許還能持續到壽命終結等等，因為文句相同所以引用過來，意思是取其期限過後便斷滅。《婆沙論》第一百二十二卷說，大意也相同。有人不理解論述的意義，妄加解釋。
論述說，第三種是由於作業停止，以後不再做，這是第三種因緣。《正理論》中說，第三種是由於作業斷壞而捨棄。例如，雖然不捨棄根本的受心，但不再做所接受的作業，除非是妄念而不做的情況。因為這種無表業是期望加行而產生的，一旦斷絕加行的時候，無表業便會捨棄。解釋說，不捨棄根本受心，是指不說『我從今以後不再做所接受的作業』，到時間不做的時候，那時便捨棄了。如同不捨棄戒律卻不能持守，處在中性狀態時容易捨棄，與戒律不同。
【English Translation】 English version:
When in a neutral state, unmanifest karma (wu biao, 無表) ceases.
The treatise states, 'Until abandoning what was previously accepted.' This is the first type of abandonment. The Zheng Li Lun (正理論, Treatise on the Correct Principle) says, 'First, abandonment occurs due to the destruction of the mind of acceptance (shou xin, 受心).' For example, previously vowing to regularly pay respects to a caitya (制多, caitya, meaning stupa or sacred place) at a certain time, and to offer praise, etc. Now, thinking 'I will no longer do this,' that intention (a shi ye, 阿世耶, āśaya, meaning intention, inclination) ceases. Because he abandons the original intention. Or, another stronger force arises, contradicting the previously existing action, the original intention ceases, and the unmanifest karma is cut off. The latter statement, although there are contradictory actions, is abandoned because the intention ceases. Similar to the previous situation, it can be called the destruction of the mind of acceptance. The Vibhasa (婆沙) calls it the cessation of intention, and the Za Xin Lun (雜心論) calls it the cessation of hope. The names are different, but the meaning is the same.
The treatise states, 'Second, it ceases when the power is exhausted.' This is the second condition. The Zheng Li Lun says, 'Second, abandonment occurs due to the destruction of power.' For example, the unmanifest karma generated by the power of pure faith or afflictions. Once the limit of these two powers is broken, the unmanifest karma is abandoned. Like an arrow that has been shot and a potter's wheel (the above is the same as the Abhidharmakośa). Therefore, the guifan shi (軌範師, teacher) says, 'Because it is generated by the power of motivation (deng qi li, 等起力), even if the preparatory actions (jia xing, 加行) and āśaya are abandoned, the unmanifest karma may continue to the end of life.' Even initiating extremely fierce anger to beat birds and beasts should be understood in the same way. Or, previously setting a limit until that time, now that the limit has passed, the unmanifest karma is cut off. Quoting the guifan shi's explanation to illustrate the previous limit, so it is known to be the same as before. 'The unmanifest karma may continue to the end of life,' etc., is quoted because the sentences are the same, meaning that it is taken to mean that it is cut off after the limit has passed. The one hundred and twenty-second volume of the Vibhasa says that the general meaning is also the same. Some people do not understand the meaning of the treatise and make wild interpretations.
The treatise states, 'Third, it is due to the cessation of action, no longer doing it.' This is the third condition. The Zheng Li Lun says, 'Third, abandonment occurs due to the destruction of action.' For example, although the fundamental mind of acceptance is not abandoned, the accepted action is no longer performed, unless it is a case of not doing it due to delusion. Because this unmanifest karma is expected to arise from preparatory actions, once the preparatory actions are cut off, the unmanifest karma is abandoned. The explanation says, 'Not abandoning the fundamental mind of acceptance' means not saying 'I will no longer do the accepted action from now on.' When the time comes and it is not done, then it is abandoned. Like not abandoning the precepts but not being able to uphold them, it is easy to abandon in a neutral state, unlike the precepts.
同。若舍受心及不作業皆舍無表。有人。戒中問答似不得意。
論。四由事物至罝網等事。第四舍也 正理論云。本由彼事引無表生。彼事壞時無表便斷。婆沙．雜心其意亦同。
論。五由壽命至有轉易故。第五舍也。諸論皆同。
論。六由善根至所引無表。第六舍也。諸論皆同 正理云。六由依根斷壞故舍。謂起加行斷善．惡時。各舍彼根所引無表。非至斷善得靜慮時方舍處中善．惡無表。以羸劣故起加行．時便舍處中．善．惡無表。如何經主於此義中。說第六緣名為斷善。若作是說。斷善加行．亦名斷善。為第六緣。是則應言。靜慮加行亦名靜慮。便成七緣。靜慮加行．中舍惡無表故。應言根者通善．惡根。所說斷言是斷加行。由依根斷為第六緣。此釋頌文。于理無失 準此論文。六緣皆通善．惡 有人作俱舍釋云。理實頌中所說根斷如正理說。而於長行偏言斷善。影顯斷惡。或可。論主試後學徒。為覺．不覺 此釋不及不釋。於六位中舍于無表表亦同舍。有善．不善業不發無表。舍即不同。然舍處中不至斷善斷惡根本者。以易舍故同加行善。又受戒時于加行．位亦合舍彼處中不善。以與受心正相違故。爾時愿不造惡故同受心斷壞舍 別解脫等與處中戒舍不同者。如應可知。
論。欲非
色善至舍復云何。自下有一頌。第五明欲非色善。及餘一切非色染法捨得緣也。
論曰至二生上界。釋非色善法舍由二緣。加行．善斷善加行．舍亦名斷善舍也。
正理論云。應言少分亦離染舍。如憂根等非色善法 解云。等者。等取惡作。惡作定與憂相應故。
論。三界一切至非余方便釋非色染法唯一緣也。唯有對治道能捨也。
論。善惡律儀何有情有。自下有兩行頌。第十三明所依處。
論曰至具二形者。釋不律儀成就處．人 非北洲。辨處 非二形等。辨人。此善．噁心不增上故無善．惡戒。
論。律儀亦爾至容有律儀。釋成律儀也。三洲男．女與惡戒同。更加天趣。謂道．定戒。
論。復以何緣至非律儀依。問也。
論。由經律中至鄔婆索迦。引經說也。
論。毗奈耶中至非彼類有。引律證也。
論。復由何理彼無律儀。前雖引教。未說其理。今更重問。有何理故彼無律儀。
論。由二所依至慚愧心故。此答理也。
論。若爾何故無不律儀。問也。若以煩惱增上戒正思擇無堪能故無律儀者。何故復無不律儀耶。
論。彼于惡中至相翻立故。答也。
論。北俱盧人至善戒惡戒。此釋北洲無所以也。
論。猛利慚
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『色善至舍復云何』（如何捨棄對色界的善的執著）？下面有一頌（偈頌）。第五（頌）說明欲界並非色界的善，以及其餘一切非色界的染污法捨棄和獲得的因緣。
論曰：『至二生上界』（直到二禪天之上）。解釋非色界的善法捨棄由兩種因緣：加行（努力）和善斷（善巧地斷除）。善加行捨棄也稱為斷善捨棄。
正理論云：『應言少分亦離染舍』（應該說少部分也離開了染污而捨棄）。如憂根（憂愁的根本）等非色界的善法。解云：『等者』（等等），等取惡作（後悔）。惡作必定與憂愁相應。
論：『三界一切至非余方便』（三界的一切，沒有其他方便）。解釋非色界的染污法只有一種因緣：唯有對治道（唯一的對治方法）才能捨棄。
論：『善惡律儀何有情有』（善惡律儀存在於哪些有情眾生中）？下面有兩行頌（偈頌）。第十三（頌）說明所依之處。
論曰：『至具二形者』（直到具有二種性別的）。解釋不律儀（非戒）成就的處所和人。『非北洲』（不是北俱盧洲），辨別處所。『非二形等』（不是雙性人等），辨別人物。這是因為善惡心不增上，所以沒有善惡戒。
論：『律儀亦爾至容有律儀』（律儀也是如此，容許有律儀）。解釋成就律儀。三洲（三大部洲）的男人和女人與惡戒相同。更加天趣（天道）。指道戒和定戒。
論：『復以何緣至非律儀依』（又以什麼因緣，他們沒有律儀所依）？問。
論：『由經律中至鄔婆索迦』（由於經律中說，直到優婆塞）。引用經文說明。
論：『毗奈耶中至非彼類有』（在毗奈耶中說，不是他們那一類所有）。引用戒律證明。
論：『復由何理彼無律儀』（又有什麼道理他們沒有律儀）？前面雖然引用了教義，但沒有說明其中的道理。現在再次提問，有什麼道理他們沒有律儀？
論：『由二所依至慚愧心故』（由於兩個所依，直到慚愧心）。這是回答其中的道理。
論：『若爾何故無不律儀』（如果這樣，為什麼沒有不律儀）？問。如果因為煩惱增上，戒的正思擇沒有堪能，所以沒有律儀，那麼為什麼又沒有不律儀呢？
論：『彼于惡中至相翻立故』（他們在惡中，直到相反地建立）。答。
論：『北俱盧人至善戒惡戒』（北俱盧洲人，直到善戒惡戒）。這是解釋北俱盧洲沒有的原因。
論：『猛利慚』（強烈的慚愧）。
English version: 『色善至舍復云何』 (How does one relinquish attachment to the goodness of the Form Realm)? Below is a verse. The fifth (verse) explains that the Desire Realm is not the goodness of the Form Realm, and the conditions for relinquishing and attaining all other non-Form Realm defiled dharmas.
Treatise says: 『至二生上界』 (Up to the second dhyana realm). Explains that the relinquishment of non-Form Realm good dharmas is due to two conditions: effort (application) and skillful cutting off (skillful severance). The relinquishment through skillful effort is also called the relinquishment through severance of goodness.
The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『應言少分亦離染舍』 (It should be said that a small portion is also relinquished by separating from defilement). Such as the root of sorrow (the root of sadness) and other non-Form Realm good dharmas. Explanation says: 『等者』 (etc.), etc. includes regret (remorse). Regret is necessarily associated with sorrow.
Treatise: 『三界一切至非余方便』 (Everything in the Three Realms, there is no other means). Explains that the defiled dharmas of the non-Form Realm have only one condition: only the antidote path (the only antidote) can relinquish them.
Treatise: 『善惡律儀何有情有』 (In which sentient beings do good and evil precepts exist)? Below are two lines of verse. The thirteenth (verse) explains the place of reliance.
Treatise says: 『至具二形者』 (Up to those with two genders). Explains the place and person where non-precepts (non-discipline) are accomplished. 『非北洲』 (Not Uttarakuru), distinguishing the place. 『非二形等』 (Not hermaphrodites, etc.), distinguishing the person. This is because good and evil minds do not increase, so there are no good or evil precepts.
Treatise: 『律儀亦爾至容有律儀』 (Precepts are also like that, allowing for the existence of precepts). Explains the accomplishment of precepts. Men and women of the three continents (three major continents) are the same as evil precepts. Adding the heavenly realm (realm of gods). Refers to the precepts of the path and samadhi.
Treatise: 『復以何緣至非律儀依』 (Furthermore, by what cause do they not rely on precepts)? Question.
Treatise: 『由經律中至鄔婆索迦』 (Because the sutras and vinaya say, up to Upasaka). Citing the sutras to explain.
Treatise: 『毗奈耶中至非彼類有』 (In the Vinaya it says, not belonging to their category). Citing the Vinaya to prove.
Treatise: 『復由何理彼無律儀』 (Furthermore, by what reason do they not have precepts)? Although the teachings were cited earlier, the reason was not explained. Now asking again, what is the reason they do not have precepts?
Treatise: 『由二所依至慚愧心故』 (Due to two reliances, up to the mind of shame and remorse). This is answering the reason.
Treatise: 『若爾何故無不律儀』 (If so, why are there no non-precepts)? Question. If it is because afflictions increase, and the correct contemplation of precepts is not capable, so there are no precepts, then why are there no non-precepts?
Treatise: 『彼于惡中至相翻立故』 (They, in evil, up to establishing the opposite). Answer.
Treatise: 『北俱盧人至善戒惡戒』 (The people of Uttarakuru, up to good and evil precepts). This explains the reason why Uttarakuru does not have them.
Treatise: 『猛利慚』 (Intense shame).
【English Translation】 English version: 『色善至舍復云何』 (How does one relinquish attachment to the goodness of the Form Realm)? Below is a verse. The fifth (verse) explains that the Desire Realm is not the goodness of the Form Realm, and the conditions for relinquishing and attaining all other non-Form Realm defiled dharmas.
Treatise says: 『至二生上界』 (Up to the second dhyana realm). Explains that the relinquishment of non-Form Realm good dharmas is due to two conditions: effort (application) and skillful cutting off (skillful severance). The relinquishment through skillful effort is also called the relinquishment through severance of goodness.
The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『應言少分亦離染舍』 (It should be said that a small portion is also relinquished by separating from defilement). Such as the root of sorrow (the root of sadness) and other non-Form Realm good dharmas. Explanation says: 『等者』 (etc.), etc. includes regret (remorse). Regret is necessarily associated with sorrow.
Treatise: 『三界一切至非余方便』 (Everything in the Three Realms, there is no other means). Explains that the defiled dharmas of the non-Form Realm have only one condition: only the antidote path (the only antidote) can relinquish them.
Treatise: 『善惡律儀何有情有』 (In which sentient beings do good and evil precepts exist)? Below are two lines of verse. The thirteenth (verse) explains the place of reliance.
Treatise says: 『至具二形者』 (Up to those with two genders). Explains the place and person where non-precepts (non-discipline) are accomplished. 『非北洲』 (Not Uttarakuru), distinguishing the place. 『非二形等』 (Not hermaphrodites, etc.), distinguishing the person. This is because good and evil minds do not increase, so there are no good or evil precepts.
Treatise: 『律儀亦爾至容有律儀』 (Precepts are also like that, allowing for the existence of precepts). Explains the accomplishment of precepts. Men and women of the three continents (three major continents) are the same as evil precepts. Adding the heavenly realm (realm of gods). Refers to the precepts of the path and samadhi.
Treatise: 『復以何緣至非律儀依』 (Furthermore, by what cause do they not rely on precepts)? Question.
Treatise: 『由經律中至鄔婆索迦』 (Because the sutras and vinaya say, up to Upasaka). Citing the sutras to explain.
Treatise: 『毗奈耶中至非彼類有』 (In the Vinaya it says, not belonging to their category). Citing the Vinaya to prove.
Treatise: 『復由何理彼無律儀』 (Furthermore, by what reason do they not have precepts)? Although the teachings were cited earlier, the reason was not explained. Now asking again, what is the reason they do not have precepts?
Treatise: 『由二所依至慚愧心故』 (Due to two reliances, up to the mind of shame and remorse). This is answering the reason.
Treatise: 『若爾何故無不律儀』 (If so, why are there no non-precepts)? Question. If it is because afflictions increase, and the correct contemplation of precepts is not capable, so there are no precepts, then why are there no non-precepts?
Treatise: 『彼于惡中至相翻立故』 (They, in evil, up to establishing the opposite). Answer.
Treatise: 『北俱盧人至善戒惡戒』 (The people of Uttarakuru, up to good and evil precepts). This explains the reason why Uttarakuru does not have them.
Treatise: 『猛利慚』 (Intense shame).
愧至不律儀故。釋惡趣無律儀．不律儀也。
論。又扇搋等至嘉苗穢草。重釋扇搋等也。
論。若爾何故至近住齋戒。違經難也。
論。此得妙行至唯人天有。答也。勸進彼故言受八支近住。理實但得處中妙行。
論。然唯人具至靜慮無漏。釋人中具三也。
論。若生欲天至彼必非有。釋靜慮律儀欲．色天有。無色天無。此二天通現行．成就。
論。無漏律儀至必不現起。釋無漏律儀。欲．色天中除梵王及無想天。自余天皆現起。及成。無色天中唯成就。不得現起。聖人不生色界二天。無色界無色故。
論。因辨諸業性相不同。已下大文第三明經中說業不同。已下總有十二類業。此半頌明善等三業。
論曰至濟眾苦故。釋善業也。
論。不安隱業至性相違故。釋不善業。
論。非前二業至善不善故。釋無記業。安故名善。不安故名不善。非二故名無記。不可記為安．不安故。
論。又經中說至其相云何。如文可解。自下有一頌半。第二明福等三業。
論。曰至說名不動。釋福業三業也。欲界善業果益有情故名福。不善業果損有情故名非福。上二界善說名不動。
論。豈不世尊至名為動故。問也。
論。由下三定至說名不動。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因愧疚而未能守護好律儀的緣故。這解釋了惡趣眾生沒有律儀和不律儀。
論：又如扇搋（指閹人）等，如同嘉苗中的穢草。這是再次解釋扇搋等。
論：如果這樣，為何要說近住齋戒？這是對經文的提問。
論：這是獲得妙行的原因，只有人天才能獲得。這是回答。勸勉精進，所以說受持八支近住。實際上只是獲得了處中的妙行。
論：然而只有人具備靜慮和無漏。這是解釋人中具備這三種。
論：如果生於欲界天，那麼他們必定沒有。這是解釋靜慮律儀在欲界天和色界天存在，而在無色界天不存在。這兩個天界都包括現行和成就。
論：無漏律儀必定不會現起。這是解釋無漏律儀。在欲界天和色界天中，除了梵王天和無想天，其餘天都現起和成就。在無色界天中，只有成就，不能現起。聖人不生於這兩個天界，因為沒有無色。
論：因為要辨別諸業的性質和相狀的不同。以下是第三大段，說明經中所說的業的不同。以下總共有十二類業。這半頌說明善等三種業。
論曰：爲了救濟眾生的痛苦。這是解釋善業。
論：不安穩的業，性質和相狀是相反的。這是解釋不善業。
論：不是前兩種業，既非善也非不善。這是解釋無記業。安穩的稱為善，不安穩的稱為不善。不是這兩種，所以稱為無記。不可記為安穩或不安穩。
論：又經中說，它的相狀如何？如經文所說的那樣可以理解。下面有一頌半，第二部分說明福等三種業。
論曰：稱為不動。這是解釋福業三種業。欲界的善業，果報利益有情，所以稱為福。不善業，果報損害有情，所以稱為非福。上二界的善業，稱為不動。
論：難道世尊不也稱為動嗎？這是提問。
論：由於下三定，所以稱為不動。
【English Translation】 English version Due to shame, the precepts were not properly guarded. This explains why beings in the evil realms lack both precepts and non-precepts.
Treatise: Furthermore, like eunuchs (扇搋), they are like weeds among good seedlings. This is a further explanation of eunuchs, etc.
Treatise: If that's the case, why mention the observance of the Eight Precepts (近住齋戒)? This is a question raised against the sutra.
Treatise: This is to attain excellent conduct, which only humans and devas (天) can achieve. This is the answer. To encourage diligence, it is said to observe the Eight Precepts. In reality, it is merely attaining a middling excellent conduct.
Treatise: However, only humans possess both meditative concentration (靜慮) and non-outflow (無漏). This explains that humans possess these three.
Treatise: If born in the desire realm heavens (欲天), then they certainly do not have it. This explains that meditative concentration precepts exist in the desire realm and form realm heavens (色天), but not in the formless realm heavens (無色天). Both of these realms include both manifestation and attainment.
Treatise: Non-outflow precepts will certainly not manifest. This explains non-outflow precepts. In the desire realm and form realm heavens, except for the Brahma heavens (梵王) and the Non-Perception heavens (無想天), all other heavens manifest and attain. In the formless realm heavens, there is only attainment, not manifestation. Sages are not born in these two realms because there is no form or formlessness.
Treatise: Because of distinguishing the different natures and characteristics of various karmas. The following is the third major section, explaining the differences in karma as described in the sutras. In total, there are twelve types of karma. This half-verse explains the three types of karma: good, etc.
Treatise says: To relieve the suffering of beings. This explains good karma.
Treatise: Unstable karma, its nature and characteristics are opposite. This explains unwholesome karma.
Treatise: Not the previous two karmas, neither good nor unwholesome. This explains indeterminate karma (無記業). Stable is called good, unstable is called unwholesome. Not either of these two, so it is called indeterminate. It cannot be recorded as stable or unstable.
Treatise: Furthermore, the sutra says, what is its characteristic? It can be understood as the sutra says. Below is one and a half verses, the second part explaining the three types of meritorious karma (福業), etc.
Treatise says: Called immovable. This explains the three types of meritorious karma. Wholesome karma in the desire realm benefits sentient beings, so it is called meritorious. Unwholesome karma harms sentient beings, so it is called non-meritorious. Wholesome karma in the upper two realms is called immovable.
Treatise: Doesn't the World Honored One (世尊) also called moving? This is a question.
Treatise: Due to the lower three concentrations (定), it is called immovable.
答也。初禪有尋．伺等。第二禪有喜等。第三禪有樂 出．入息等故名為動。今言不動據感得不動異熟也。
論。如何有動定招無動異熟。難也。
論。雖此定中至立不動名。此釋難也。如文可解 正理論云。應知此中由於因果相屬愚故造非福業。以非福業純染污故。要依粗重相續無明。由此無明現在前位。不能信解因．果相屬。是故發起諸非福行 由真實義愚故。造福及不動業。真實義者。謂四聖諦。若於彼愚諸異生類于善心位亦得間起。由此勢力令於三界不如實知其性皆苦。起福．不動行為後有因。若已見諦者即無是事。乘先行力漸離染時。如次。得生欲．色．無色 解云。異生於世俗因．果相屬愚故造非福業。于真實義愚故造福．及不動業。若已見諦者不愚因．果相屬故不造非福業。不愚真實義故不造福．不動業。故言若已見諦者則無是事。然乘先異生時福．及不動行力漸離染時。如次得生欲色．無色 若準此文。聖人不造感生引異熟業。聖人亦造善．不善．不動滿業故。
論。又經中說至其相云何。自下有三行頌。第三明順樂受等三業也。
論曰至苦樂受故。明順三受業處通局也。如文可解。
論。非此諸業至此中名受。釋疑難也 此中受言受及資糧總受聲說 正理論云。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 答：初禪有尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，精細的思考）等心理活動。第二禪有喜（Piti，喜悅）等心理活動。第三禪有樂（Sukha，快樂），出入息（呼吸）等，這些都被稱為『動』。現在所說的『不動』，是指通過禪定所感得的不動異熟果報。
論：為什麼有『動』的禪定，卻能招感『不動』的異熟果報？這是個難題。
論：雖然在這種禪定中...乃至...建立『不動』之名。這是爲了解釋這個難題。文義容易理解。《正理論》說：應該知道，這裡由於對因果關係的愚昧，所以造作非福業（不善業）。因為非福業是純粹染污的，所以要依賴粗重的相續無明（根本的迷惑）。由於這種無明在目前起作用，不能信解因果關係，因此發起各種非福行。由於對真實義（四聖諦）的愚昧，所以造作福業（善業）和不動業（無色界定業）。真實義指的是四聖諦。如果對四聖諦愚昧，各種異生（凡夫）在善心位也可能間斷地生起煩惱。由於這種力量，使得他們對三界的本質不能如實地瞭解，認為其本質都是苦的，從而發起福業和不動業，作為後有的原因。如果已經證悟真諦的人，就不會有這種情況。憑藉先前修行的力量，逐漸遠離染污時，依次得生欲界、色界、無色界。《解》說：異生由於對世俗因果關係的愚昧，所以造作非福業；由於對真實義的愚昧，所以造作福業和不動業。如果已經證悟真諦的人，就不會愚昧因果關係，所以不造作非福業；不愚昧真實義，所以不造作福業和不動業。所以說，如果已經證悟真諦的人，就不會有這種情況。然而，憑藉先前異生時所修的福業和不動業的力量，在逐漸遠離染污時，依次得生欲界、色界、無色界。如果按照這段文字，聖人不會造作感生引異熟的業。聖人也會造作善、不善、不動的圓滿業。
論：又經中說...乃至...它的相狀如何？下面有三行頌文，第三行說明順樂受等三種業。
論曰：乃至...苦樂受的緣故。說明順三種感受的業的處所和範圍。文義容易理解。
論：不是這些業...乃至...這裡稱為『受』。這是爲了解釋疑難。這裡所說的『受』，是指感受以及資糧，都用『受』這個詞來概括。《正理論》說：
【English Translation】 Answer: The first Dhyana (Ch'an) has Vitarka (coarse thought) and Vicara (subtle thought), etc. The second Dhyana has Piti (joy), etc. The third Dhyana has Sukha (happiness), in-and-out breathing, etc., hence they are called 'moving'. Now, 'immovable' refers to the immutable Vipaka (result) obtained through Samadhi (meditative absorption).
Treatise: How can a 'moving' Samadhi bring about an 'immovable' Vipaka? This is a difficult question.
Treatise: Although in this Samadhi... up to... establishing the name 'immovable'. This is to explain the difficulty. The meaning is easily understood. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: It should be known that here, due to ignorance of the relationship between cause and effect, non-meritorious karma (unwholesome actions) is created. Because non-meritorious karma is purely defiled, it relies on the coarse and continuous Avidya (ignorance). Because this Avidya is present, one cannot believe in the relationship between cause and effect, and therefore initiates various non-meritorious actions. Due to ignorance of the true meaning (the Four Noble Truths), meritorious karma (wholesome actions) and immovable karma (karma of the Formless Realm) are created. The true meaning refers to the Four Noble Truths. If one is ignorant of them, various ordinary beings may intermittently generate afflictions even in a state of wholesome mind. Due to this power, they cannot truly understand the nature of the Three Realms, believing that their nature is all suffering, and thus initiate meritorious and immovable karma as the cause of future existence. If one has already seen the Truth, this will not happen. Relying on the power of previous practice, when gradually separating from defilements, one will be born in the Desire Realm, Form Realm, and Formless Realm in that order. Explanation: Ordinary beings create non-meritorious karma due to ignorance of the worldly cause-and-effect relationship; they create meritorious and immovable karma due to ignorance of the true meaning. If one has already seen the Truth, one will not be ignorant of the cause-and-effect relationship, so one will not create non-meritorious karma; one will not be ignorant of the true meaning, so one will not create meritorious and immovable karma. Therefore, it is said that if one has already seen the Truth, this will not happen. However, relying on the power of meritorious and immovable actions performed in previous lives as ordinary beings, when gradually separating from defilements, one will be born in the Desire Realm, Form Realm, and Formless Realm in that order. If we follow this text, a Sage does not create karma that leads to rebirth and attracts Vipaka. Sages also create good, bad, and immovable complete karma.
Treatise: Moreover, the Sutra says... up to... what is its appearance? Below are three lines of verses, the third line explaining the three types of karma that accord with pleasant feelings, etc.
Treatise says: up to... because of pleasant and painful feelings. It explains the location and scope of the karma that accords with the three types of feelings. The meaning is easily understood.
Treatise: It is not these karmas... up to... here it is called 'feeling'. This is to explain the difficulty. Here, the word 'feeling' refers to both the feeling itself and the resources, all encompassed by the word 'feeling'. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says:
業非唯感受異熟。如何總得順受業名。諸業為因所感異熟皆似於受得受名故。所以者何。彼皆如受為身益．損．及平等故。
論。有餘師說至異熟果故。敘異說也。此師意說。三禪已下亦有順不苦不樂受業。以中間定唯不苦不樂受故。彼定所招唯自地故。故知唯能招順．非二受 若異此者。此中間定應無異熟。即違不善善有漏定是異熟因也 或應無業者。中定既有意思。不可無業。故知。定有順．非二業。
論。有餘師說至樂根異熟。又敘異說。此師中定初禪根本地。同一地故感根本地樂受。
論。有說此業不感受果。此師意說。唯感色不感心果。此二師皆說下地無順不苦不樂受業。
論。二說俱與本論相違。論主總非后二說也。
論。故本論言至善無尋業。引文證也。本論言。頗有業感心受異熟非身受耶。曰有。謂善無尋業 無尋業者。是中間定已上感心受故。非不感受。唯感心受故非根本地樂受 問此中三受作論。根本地喜．樂受總名樂受。雖不感依身樂受感意樂受。豈違本論答。此中意說不感身受。明知。中間定業不感初定根本地果。上不感下故。若能感喜根。何為不感依身樂受。由此兩師俱違本論。
論。又本論說至俱時熟故。此文證欲界中有順三受業。唯欲界中有此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 並非只有感受才能產生異熟果報（Vipāka，果報）。為什麼總的來說，這些業被稱為順受業呢？因為所有以諸業為因而感得的異熟果，都類似於感受，所以才得到『受』這個名稱。為什麼這麼說呢？因為它們都像感受一樣，對身體有益處、損害或者平等無影響。 論：『有其他老師說，直到異熟果。』這是在敘述另一種說法。這位老師的意思是說，在三禪（Third Dhyana）及以下，也有順不苦不樂受的業。因為中間定（intermediate dhyana）只有不苦不樂受。那個定所招感的果報只屬於自身所處的層次。所以，可以知道它只能招感順受，而不是兩種感受。如果不是這樣，那麼這個中間定就應該沒有異熟果報，這就違背了不善、善的有漏定是異熟因的說法。或者應該說沒有業，因為中間定有意思活動，不可能沒有業。所以，可以知道這個定有順受和非二受的業。 論：『有其他老師說，直到樂根異熟。』這是又敘述另一種說法。這位老師認為，中間定和初禪（First Dhyana）根本地是同一層次的，所以感得根本地的樂受。 論：『有人說這種業不感受果報。』這位老師的意思是說，這種業只感得色法（Rūpa，物質現象）的果報，不感得心法（Citta，精神現象）的果報。這兩位老師都認為，下層境界沒有順不苦不樂受的業。 論：『這兩種說法都與本論相違背。』論主總的否定了后兩種說法。 論：『所以本論說，直到善無尋業。』這是引用經文來證明。本論說：『有沒有業感得心受的異熟果報，而不是身受的呢？』回答是：『有。就是善無尋業（good no-search karma）。』無尋業，指的是中間定以上所感得的心受。所以不是不感受，只是感得心受，而不是根本地的樂受。問：這裡的三受作論，根本地的喜受、樂受總稱為樂受。即使不感得依附於身體的樂受，但感得意樂受，難道不違背本論嗎？答：這裡的意思是不感得身受。明確知道，中間定的業不感得初禪根本地的果報。因為上層境界不感得下層境界的果報。如果能感得喜根，為什麼不感得依附於身體的樂受呢？由此可見，這兩位老師的說法都違背了本論。 論：『又本論說，直到俱時熟故。』這段經文證明了欲界（Kāmadhātu，慾望界）中有順三種感受的業。只有欲界中有這種情況。
【English Translation】 English version: It is not only feeling that produces Vipāka (result of karma). Why are these karmas generally called agreeable-feeling karmas? Because all Vipāka arising from karma as a cause are similar to feeling, hence the name 'feeling' is given. Why is this so? Because they are all like feeling, beneficial, harmful, or neutral to the body. Treatise: 'Some other teachers say, up to the Vipāka result.' This is narrating another view. This teacher means that in the Third Dhyana and below, there are also karmas of agreeable-neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. Because the intermediate dhyana only has neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. The result of that dhyana only belongs to its own level. Therefore, it can be known that it can only produce agreeable feeling, not both feelings. If this is not the case, then this intermediate dhyana should have no Vipāka, which contradicts the statement that unwholesome and wholesome contaminated dhyana are the cause of Vipāka. Or it should be said that there is no karma, because the intermediate dhyana has mental activity, it is impossible to have no karma. Therefore, it can be known that this dhyana has agreeable feeling and non-dual feeling karmas. Treatise: 'Some other teachers say, up to the Vipāka of the root of pleasure.' This is again narrating another view. This teacher believes that the intermediate dhyana and the fundamental ground of the First Dhyana are on the same level, so they experience the pleasure of the fundamental ground. Treatise: 'Some say that this karma does not experience the result.' This teacher means that this karma only experiences the result of Rūpa (material phenomena), not the result of Citta (mental phenomena). Both of these teachers believe that there is no agreeable-neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling karma in the lower realms. Treatise: 'Both of these views contradict the original treatise.' The author of the treatise generally denies the latter two views. Treatise: 'Therefore, the original treatise says, up to good no-search karma.' This is quoting scripture to prove it. The original treatise says: 'Is there any karma that experiences the Vipāka of mental feeling, but not physical feeling?' The answer is: 'Yes. That is good no-search karma.' No-search karma refers to the mental feeling experienced above the intermediate dhyana. So it is not that there is no feeling, but only mental feeling is experienced, not the pleasure of the fundamental ground. Question: Here, the three feelings are discussed, and the joy and pleasure of the fundamental ground are collectively called pleasure. Even if the pleasure attached to the body is not experienced, but the mental pleasure is experienced, does it not contradict the original treatise? Answer: The meaning here is that physical feeling is not experienced. It is clearly known that the karma of the intermediate dhyana does not experience the result of the fundamental ground of the First Dhyana. Because the upper realm does not experience the result of the lower realm. If the root of joy can be experienced, why not experience the pleasure attached to the body? From this, it can be seen that the views of both of these teachers contradict the original treatise. Treatise: 'Also, the original treatise says, up to the simultaneous ripening.' This passage proves that in the Kāmadhātu (desire realm), there are karmas that accord with the three feelings. Only the desire realm has this situation.
三業同時受故。婆沙一百一十八云。頗有順樂受等三業非前非后受異熟果耶。答有 此中。非前者。遮過去。非後者。遮未來。受異熟果者。謂三果同於一剎那頃受異熟果。依此立問。是以答。有 謂順樂受業色者。此業能感人．天九處。除聲。惡趣四處謂色．香．味．觸。順苦受業心．心所法者。此業能感苦受．及彼相應異熟。順不苦不樂受業心不相應行者。此業能感人．天四類異熟。謂命根．眾同分．得．生住老無常。惡趣二類異熟。謂得．生住老無常。又順樂受業心不相應行者。此業能感人．天四類異熟。謂命根．眾同分．得．生住老無常。惡趣二類異熟。謂得．生住老無常。順苦受業色者。此業能感惡趣九處。除聲。人天四處。謂色．香．味．觸。順不苦不樂受業心．心所法者。此業能感不苦不樂受及彼相應異熟。又順樂受業心．心所者。此業能感樂受．及彼相應異熟。順苦受業心不相應行者。此業能感惡趣四類異熟。謂命根．眾同分．得．生住老無常。人天二類異熟。謂得．生住老無常。順不苦不樂受業色者。此業能感人．天九處。除聲。惡趣四處謂色．香．味．觸 正理破云。此亦非證。以本論中說三界業如三受故。然非三界所繫諸業可俱時受。此亦應然。而本論言有三界業俱時熟者。為欲試驗于對法宗
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『三業同時受故』。《婆沙》一百一十八卷說：『有沒有順樂受等三種業，不是前也不是后，同時感受異熟果呢？』回答是：『有』。這裡，『非前者』，是遮止過去；『非後者』，是遮止未來；『受異熟果者』，是指三種果報在同一剎那間同時感受異熟果。依據這個情況而提出問題，所以回答是『有』。 所謂順樂受的業，如果是色法，這種業能夠感得人、天九處（除了聲塵之外的色、香、味、觸、身、意、眼、耳、鼻），以及惡趣四處（色、香、味、觸）。順苦受的業，如果是心法、心所法，這種業能夠感得苦受以及與苦受相應的異熟果報。順不苦不樂受的業，如果是心不相應行法，這種業能夠感得人、天四類異熟果報（命根、眾同分、得、生住老無常），以及惡趣二類異熟果報（得、生住老無常）。 又，順樂受的業，如果是心不相應行法，這種業能夠感得人、天四類異熟果報（命根、眾同分、得、生住老無常），以及惡趣二類異熟果報（得、生住老無常）。順苦受的業，如果是色法，這種業能夠感得惡趣九處（除了聲塵之外的色、香、味、觸、身、意、眼、耳、鼻），以及人天四處（色、香、味、觸）。順不苦不樂受的業，如果是心法、心所法，這種業能夠感得不苦不樂受以及與不苦不樂受相應的異熟果報。 又，順樂受的業，如果是心法、心所法，這種業能夠感得樂受以及與樂受相應的異熟果報。順苦受的業，如果是心不相應行法，這種業能夠感得惡趣四類異熟果報（命根、眾同分、得、生住老無常），以及人天二類異熟果報（得、生住老無常）。順不苦不樂受的業，如果是色法，這種業能夠感得人、天九處（除了聲塵之外的色、香、味、觸、身、意、眼、耳、鼻），以及惡趣四處（色、香、味、觸）。 《正理》駁斥說：『這也不能作為證據，因為《本論》中說三界（Kāmadhātu, Rūpadhātu, Arūpadhātu）的業就像三種感受一樣。然而，並非三界所繫的諸業可以同時感受果報，這裡也應該如此。而《本論》說有三界業同時成熟，是爲了試驗對法宗（Abhidharma）的觀點。』
【English Translation】 English version: 'Because the three karmas are received simultaneously.' The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙, Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) Volume 118 says: 'Is there any karma of pleasant feeling, etc., where the three karmas are neither before nor after, but simultaneously receive the Vipāka (異熟果, Vipāka) result?' The answer is: 'Yes.' Here, 'not before' excludes the past; 'not after' excludes the future; 'receiving the Vipāka result' refers to the three results being received simultaneously in one kṣaṇa (剎那, kṣaṇa). The question is based on this situation, so the answer is 'Yes'. That is, if the karma of pleasant feeling is rūpa (色, rūpa), this karma can cause humans and gods to experience nine places (excluding sound, namely form, smell, taste, touch, body, mind, eye, ear, nose), and the four places of the evil realms (form, smell, taste, touch). If the karma of painful feeling is mental phenomena (citta 心, citta and caitasika 心所法, caitasika), this karma can cause painful feeling and its corresponding Vipāka result. If the karma of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling is citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra (心不相應行, citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra), this karma can cause four types of Vipāka results for humans and gods (life force, commonality of species, attainment, origination, duration, decay, impermanence), and two types of Vipāka results for the evil realms (attainment, origination, duration, decay, impermanence). Furthermore, if the karma of pleasant feeling is citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra, this karma can cause four types of Vipāka results for humans and gods (life force, commonality of species, attainment, origination, duration, decay, impermanence), and two types of Vipāka results for the evil realms (attainment, origination, duration, decay, impermanence). If the karma of painful feeling is rūpa, this karma can cause the nine places of the evil realms (excluding sound, namely form, smell, taste, touch, body, mind, eye, ear, nose), and the four places of humans and gods (form, smell, taste, touch). If the karma of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling is citta and caitasika, this karma can cause neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling and its corresponding Vipāka result. Furthermore, if the karma of pleasant feeling is citta and caitasika, this karma can cause pleasant feeling and its corresponding Vipāka result. If the karma of painful feeling is citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra, this karma can cause four types of Vipāka results for the evil realms (life force, commonality of species, attainment, origination, duration, decay, impermanence), and two types of Vipāka results for humans and gods (attainment, origination, duration, decay, impermanence). If the karma of neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling is rūpa, this karma can cause the nine places of humans and gods (excluding sound, namely form, smell, taste, touch, body, mind, eye, ear, nose), and the four places of the evil realms (form, smell, taste, touch). The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) refutes: 'This cannot be used as evidence, because the Mūla-karika (本論, Mūla-karika) says that the karma of the three realms (Kāmadhātu 欲界, Rūpadhātu 色界, Arūpadhātu 無色界) is like the three feelings. However, not all karmas associated with the three realms can be experienced simultaneously; it should be the same here. The Mūla-karika says that the karma of the three realms matures simultaneously in order to test the views of the Abhidharma (對法, Abhidharma) school.'
解．不解故。或於增上果說受異熟聲。色．無色思資下異熟令其久住故作是言。順三受業文亦容作此釋。故彼所引非定證因 婆沙一百一十八云。頗有三界業非前非后受異熟果耶。答有乃至廣說。此中道理應答言無。以異熟果界地斷故。而言有者有何理耶。有說。此中以問非理是故隨彼作非理答。何故須作非理問耶。欲試驗他故 廣引事云云 復有說者。依增上果為此問答。亦不違理。以三界業容有一時受此果故 廣引事云云。又云 由此道理今於此中依增上果作此問．答。亦不違理。以增上果一切界地無隔斷故 (已上)若作俱舍師救云。準婆沙第二十解傍生．鬼趣異熟因中雲。心．心所法者樂．喜．舍受。及相應法。準此論文。故知。許欲界有順舍受業。三業同時受者。亦得是異熟果。非唯作增上果。及非定是為試驗他故作非理問答。
論。此業為善不善耶。問也。
論。是善而劣。答也 問上地舍受勝善能感。何故三定已下舍受劣善所感耶 答勝．劣有二。一異地辨勝．劣。二當地異受辨勝．劣。若同地有三受。樂勝。舍受劣。下樂上地舍。舍勝。樂是劣。如欲界分三受。樂勝。舍是劣。欲樂對初舍。舍勝。欲樂劣。婆沙一百一十五云。問何故舍根唯善業感非不善耶。答舍根行相漸細寂靜。智者所
樂故善業感。諸不善業性是粗動故。不能感舍受異熟。
論。若爾便與至名為善業。難也。
論。應知彼據多分為言。釋也。理實善至三。有順二受業。多分順樂受故。言善至三名順樂受業也。
論。此業與受至順樂受等。難也。意業通與三受相應。而體是思非是受性。身．語二業以色為體。既與受殊。如何說名順受之業。
論。業與樂受至利益樂受。此第一通難也。業之與受體性雖殊。而能為因引樂受生故名為順受。資助令生名為利益。
論。或復此業是樂所受。第二釋也。業與果力。受是其果。領業功能名樂所受。
論。彼樂如何能受于業。徴也。業是思等。受領隨觸。如何說樂能受于業。
論。樂是此業異熟果故。第一釋也。即是果受于因名之為受。
論。或復彼樂至樂異熟故。第二釋也。前釋因與果故果受于因。后釋果為因取名為所受。
論。如順浴散至應知亦爾。喻顯可知。
論。總說順受至順樂受等。已下釋第三行頌。如文可解。
論。如是三業至其相云何。自下第四明四業也 于中有六。一明四種果業。二明四業差別。三明中有造業。四明定受果相。五明現法果業。六明業即受果 此一行頌明四果業。上兩句分業為四。下兩句敘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：樂受是善業所感的果報。因為不善業的性質是粗重躁動的，所以不能感得舍受（upeksa-vedana，不苦不樂的感受）作為異熟果（vipaka，成熟的果報）。
論：如果這樣說，那麼將善業稱為『至』（指能感樂受的業）就存在困難。
論：應當知道，這裡是就大多數情況而言的。解釋：實際上，善業能感三種感受（苦、樂、舍），其中有順於兩種感受的業。因為大多數是順於樂受的，所以說善業能感三種感受，稱為順樂受業。
論：這種業與感受之間，如何能說是順於樂受等等呢？難點：意業普遍與三種感受相應，但其本體是思（cetanā，意志），而不是感受的性質。身業和語業以色（rupa，物質）為本體，既然與感受不同，又如何能說它們是順於感受的業呢？
論：業與樂受之間，如何能說是利益樂受呢？這是第一個普遍的難點。業與感受的體性雖然不同，但能作為引發樂受產生的因，所以稱為順受。資助令樂受產生，稱為利益。
論：或者說，這種業是樂受所領受的。這是第二種解釋。業與果之間存在力量關係，感受是業的果。領受業的功能，稱為樂受所受。
論：那麼，樂受如何能領受業呢？提問：業是思等（cetanādi，意志等），感受是隨著觸（sparsa，接觸）而產生的。如何能說樂受能領受業呢？
論：樂受是這種業的異熟果。這是第一種解釋。即是果領受因，稱之為受。
論：或者說，這種樂受是樂的異熟果。這是第二種解釋。前一種解釋是因果關係，果領受因。后一種解釋是果作為因，取名為所受。
論：比如順浴散（一種香料），道理應該知道也是如此。比喻顯而易見。
論：總的說來，順受等等，是解釋第三行頌文。如文義可以理解。
論：像這樣，三種業等等，它們的相狀是怎樣的呢？從下面第四部分開始，闡明四種業。其中有六個方面：一、闡明四種果業；二、闡明四種業的差別；三、闡明中有（antarabhava，中陰身）造業；四、闡明定受果的相狀；五、闡明現法果業；六、闡明業即是受果。這一行頌文闡明四種果業。上面兩句將業分為四種，下面兩句敘述。
【English Translation】 English version: Pleasant feeling (sukha-vedana) is the result of wholesome actions (kusala-karma). Because unwholesome actions (akusala-karma) are by nature coarse and agitated, they cannot produce indifferent feeling (upeksa-vedana) as a result of maturation (vipaka).
Treatise: If that's the case, then it's difficult to call wholesome actions 'supreme' (meaning capable of producing pleasant feeling).
Treatise: It should be understood that this is speaking in terms of the majority of cases. Explanation: In reality, wholesome actions can produce three kinds of feeling (suffering, pleasure, indifference), among which there are actions that accord with two kinds of feeling. Because the majority accord with pleasant feeling, it is said that wholesome actions can produce three kinds of feeling, and are called actions that accord with pleasant feeling.
Treatise: How can these actions and feelings be said to accord with pleasant feeling, etc.? Difficulty: Mental actions (mano-karma) universally correspond to three kinds of feeling, but their essence is volition (cetanā), not the nature of feeling. Bodily actions (kaya-karma) and verbal actions (vak-karma) have form (rupa) as their essence. Since they are different from feeling, how can it be said that they are actions that accord with feeling?
Treatise: How can actions and pleasant feeling be said to benefit pleasant feeling? This is the first general difficulty. Although the nature of actions and feelings are different, they can serve as the cause for the arising of pleasant feeling, so they are called according with feeling. Aiding and assisting in the arising is called benefiting.
Treatise: Or, these actions are what is experienced by pleasant feeling. This is the second explanation. There is a relationship of power between actions and results, and feeling is the result of actions. Experiencing the function of actions is called what is experienced by pleasant feeling.
Treatise: Then, how can pleasant feeling experience actions? Question: Actions are volition, etc., and feeling arises along with contact (sparsa). How can it be said that pleasant feeling can experience actions?
Treatise: Pleasant feeling is the matured result of these actions. This is the first explanation. That is, the result experiences the cause, and it is called experiencing.
Treatise: Or, that pleasant feeling is the matured result of pleasure. This is the second explanation. The previous explanation is the relationship of cause and effect, the result experiences the cause. The latter explanation is the result as the cause, and it is named what is experienced.
Treatise: Just like fragrant bath powder (a type of fragrance), the principle should be understood to be the same. The analogy is clear and understandable.
Treatise: Generally speaking, according with feeling, etc., is explaining the third line of the verse. The meaning can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Like this, the three kinds of actions, etc., what are their characteristics? From the fourth part below, the four kinds of actions are explained. Among them are six aspects: 1. Explaining the four kinds of resultant actions; 2. Explaining the differences between the four kinds of actions; 3. Explaining the actions created in the intermediate state (antarabhava); 4. Explaining the characteristics of definitely experienced results; 5. Explaining the immediately effective actions; 6. Explaining that actions are the same as experiencing the result. This line of verse explains the four kinds of resultant actions. The first two lines divide actions into four kinds, and the last two lines describe them.
異說。也。
論曰至立不定名。總分三業為二謂定．不定。
論。定復有三至總成四種。開二為四。此中所明不定者。非三時定受總名不定。
論。或有欲令至合成五種。述異說也。此師分不定業為二。謂于異熟有定．不定。合為五業。于異熟定．不定者。一此業雖定三時。受不定故名不定業。然隨於一時定受異熟。二此業非唯三時不定。受異熟果亦不定也。
論。順現法受至后次第熟。釋三時定業也。后次第受業雖有多生。總合為一。
論。有餘師說至異熟果少。述經部異說。此師意說。業力強故於現生受。現業既強如何唯感現生促果。
論。毗婆沙師至麥方結實。有部不許此師義也。
論。譬喻者說至亦有二種。此師說。現等四業各分為二。故成四句。合為八業。五業家唯分不定為二種。一異熟決定。二異熟不決定。業相難知。今應廣引毗婆沙文。婆沙云。問諸順現法受業定於現法受耶。順生．順后為問亦爾。譬喻者說。此不決定。以一切業此可轉故。乃至無間業亦可令轉。問若爾何故說名順現法受業等耶。彼作是說。諸順現法受業不定於現法中受異熟果。若受者定於現法非余。故名順現法受業。順生．順后所說亦爾 準此師。受時不定名不定業 阿毗達摩諸論師言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 異說。也。
論曰至立不定名。總分三業為二，謂定、不定。
論。定復有三至總成四種。開二為四。此中所明不定者。非三時定受總名不定。
論。或有欲令至合成五種。述異說也。此師分不定業為二。謂于異熟（Vipāka，果報）有定、不定。合為五業。于異熟定、不定者。一此業雖定三時。受不定故名不定業。然隨於一時定受異熟。二此業非唯三時不定。受異熟果亦不定也。
論。順現法受至后次第熟。釋三時定業也。后次第受業雖有多生。總合為一。
論。有餘師說至異熟果少。述經部異說。此師意說。業力強故於現生受。現業既強如何唯感現生促果。
論。毗婆沙師至麥方結實。有部不許此師義也。
論。譬喻者說至亦有二種。此師說。現等四業各分為二。故成四句。合為八業。五業家唯分不定為二種。一異熟決定。二異熟不決定。業相難知。今應廣引毗婆沙文。婆沙云。問諸順現法受業定於現法受耶。順生、順后為問亦爾。譬喻者說。此不決定。以一切業此可轉故。乃至無間業（Ānantarika-karma，五逆罪）亦可令轉。問若爾何故說名順現法受業等耶。彼作是說。諸順現法受業不定於現法中受異熟果。若受者定於現法非余。故名順現法受業。順生、順后所說亦爾。準此師。受時不定名不定業。阿毗達摩（Abhidharma，論藏）諸論師言
【English Translation】 English version Different opinions. Also.
The treatise says, 'Up to establishing the name of the undetermined.' It broadly divides the three karmas into two categories: determined and undetermined.
The treatise says, 'The determined further has three, totaling four types.' Dividing two into four. What is clarified here as 'undetermined' is not a general name for the three-time determined reception.
The treatise says, 'Some wish to make it up to five types.' This describes a different opinion. This teacher divides undetermined karma into two: determined and undetermined with respect to Vipāka (fruition). Combining them, there are five karmas. Regarding determined and undetermined with respect to Vipāka: 1. Although this karma is determined in the three times, its reception is undetermined, hence it is called undetermined karma. However, it is definitely received as Vipāka at one time. 2. This karma is not only undetermined in the three times, but its reception of Vipāka is also undetermined.
The treatise says, 'Karma to be experienced in the present life, up to ripening in subsequent order.' This explains the determined karma of the three times. Although karma to be experienced in subsequent order has many lives, it is generally combined into one.
The treatise says, 'Some other teachers say, up to the Vipāka being small.' This describes a different opinion from the Sautrāntikas (Sūtra School). This teacher means to say that because the power of karma is strong, it is experienced in the present life. Since present karma is so strong, how can it only cause a short-lived result in the present life?
The treatise says, 'The Vaibhāṣikas (Vibhasa School), up to the wheat forming grains.' The Sarvāstivādins (Everything Exists School) do not accept this teacher's meaning.
The treatise says, 'The Exemplifiers say, up to also having two types.' This teacher says that the four karmas, such as present karma, are each divided into two, thus forming four sentences, combining into eight karmas. The five-karma school only divides the undetermined into two types: 1. Vipāka is determined. 2. Vipāka is undetermined. The characteristics of karma are difficult to know. Now, we should broadly quote the Vaibhāṣa text. The Vibhasa says, 'Question: Are all karmas to be experienced in the present life definitely experienced in the present life? The same question applies to those to be experienced in the next life and those to be experienced in subsequent lives.' The Exemplifiers say that this is not definite, because all karmas can be transformed, even Ānantarika-karma (karma of immediate retribution) can be transformed. Question: If so, why are they called karmas to be experienced in the present life, etc.? They say that karmas to be experienced in the present life are not definitely experienced as Vipāka in the present life. If they are experienced, they are definitely in the present life and not in others. The same is said for those to be experienced in the next life and those to be experienced in subsequent lives. According to this teacher, undetermined time of reception is called undetermined karma. The Abhidharma (collection of treatises) teachers say
。諸順現法受業。決定順於現法中受故。名順現法受業。順生．順后所說亦爾。是故若問。何故名順現法受業乃至順后次受業。應以此答。復有餘師說五種業。謂現．生．后唯各一種。順不定受業中復有二種。一異熟決定。二異熟不決定。四種業中異熟決定業此不可轉。順不定受業中。異熟不決定業。此業可轉 復有餘師說八種業。謂順現法受業有二種。一異熟決定。二異熟不決定。順次生受業．順后次受．順不定受業。亦各有二。一異熟決定。二異熟不決定。是謂八業。于中諸異熟定業此不可轉。諸異熟不定業皆可轉。為轉此故受持禁戒等。是故此中應作四句。
論。於此所說業差別中。已下兩頌第二明四業差別。
論曰至四業相故。論主評取四業為正。此中唯顯時定．不定。釋經所說四業相故。故知時定即是順現等三。不定即是第四不定業也 正理云。此中唯顯順樂等業于現等時有定．不定。釋經所說順現受等四業相殊。故定業中分為三種。並不定業合而為四。是說為善。理必無有異熟不定時分定業。時定唯是異熟定中位差別故。非離異熟別有時體。如何時定非異熟耶。此中但依異熟定業得果位差別立順現等故。若謂有業於時定者。謂熟必在此時非余。若越此時畢竟不受。故於時定非於異熟。此于異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『諸順現法受業』（Dharma that leads to experiencing the result in the present life）是指決定在現世中承受果報的業，所以稱為『順現法受業』。『順生』（leading to the next life）、『順后』（leading to subsequent lives）所說的也是同樣的道理。因此，如果有人問：『為什麼叫做順現法受業乃至順后次受業？』就應該這樣回答。 還有其他老師說有五種業，即現、生、后各只有一種，而『順不定受業』（leading to an indeterminate time of experiencing the result）中又有兩種：一種是異熟（Vipāka，果報）決定的，一種是異熟不決定的。在這四種業中，異熟決定的業是不可轉變的，而順不定受業中，異熟不決定的業是可以轉變的。 還有其他老師說有八種業，即順現法受業有兩種：一種是異熟決定的，一種是異熟不決定的。順次生受業、順后次受業、順不定受業也各有兩種：一種是異熟決定的，一種是異熟不決定的。這就是所謂的八種業。其中，所有異熟決定的業都是不可轉變的，所有異熟不決定的業都是可以轉變的。爲了轉變這些業，才需要受持禁戒等。因此，這裡應該作四句分別。 論：在以上所說的業的差別中，接下來的兩頌是第二部分，說明四種業的差別。 論曰：到『四業相故』。論主評論並採納四種業的說法是正確的。這裡只顯示了時間的決定與不決定，解釋了經中所說的四種業的相狀。所以可知，時間決定就是順現等三種業，不決定就是第四種不定業。 正理云：這裡只顯示了順樂等業在現世等時間中，有決定與不決定。解釋了經中所說的順現受等四種業的相狀差別。所以將決定業分為三種，與不決定業合起來成為四種，這種說法是好的。道理上必定沒有異熟不決定但時間決定的業。時間決定只是異熟決定中的位次差別，並非脫離異熟而另有時體。如果時間決定不是異熟，那麼如何解釋呢？這裡只是依據異熟決定的業，在得果的位次差別上，才立為順現等。如果說有業在時間上是決定的，是指果報必定在這個時候成熟，而不是其他時候。如果超過了這個時間，就畢竟不會承受果報。所以，時間決定並非異熟決定。這在異
【English Translation】 English version: 'Dharmas that lead to experiencing the result in the present life' (Zhū Shùn Xiàn Fǎ Shòu Yè) refer to karma that is definitely experienced in the present life, hence the name 'Dharmas that lead to experiencing the result in the present life'. The same principle applies to 'leading to the next life' (Shùn Shēng) and 'leading to subsequent lives' (Shùn Hòu). Therefore, if someone asks, 'Why are they called Dharmas that lead to experiencing the result in the present life, and so on, up to Dharmas that lead to subsequent lives?', this is how you should answer. Furthermore, some teachers say there are five types of karma: only one each for the present life, the next life, and subsequent lives, while within 'karma leading to an indeterminate time of experiencing the result' (Shùn Bù Dìng Shòu Yè), there are two types: one with definite Vipāka (異熟, result), and one with indefinite Vipāka. Among these four types of karma, karma with definite Vipāka is irreversible, while within karma leading to an indeterminate time of experiencing the result, karma with indefinite Vipāka is reversible. Furthermore, some teachers say there are eight types of karma: two types of karma leading to experiencing the result in the present life: one with definite Vipāka, and one with indefinite Vipāka. Karma leading to experiencing the result in the next life, karma leading to experiencing the result in subsequent lives, and karma leading to an indeterminate time of experiencing the result also each have two types: one with definite Vipāka, and one with indefinite Vipāka. These are the so-called eight types of karma. Among them, all karma with definite Vipāka is irreversible, and all karma with indefinite Vipāka is reversible. To transform these karmas, one needs to uphold precepts and so on. Therefore, four distinctions should be made here. Treatise: Among the distinctions of karma mentioned above, the following two verses are the second part, explaining the distinctions of the four types of karma. Treatise says: Up to 'because of the four aspects of karma' (sì yè xiāng gù). The author of the treatise comments and adopts the view that the four types of karma are correct. Here, only the definiteness and indefiniteness of time are shown, explaining the characteristics of the four types of karma mentioned in the sutra. Therefore, it can be known that definite time is the three types of karma: leading to the present, etc., and indefinite is the fourth type: indeterminate karma. 'Zheng Li Yun' (正理云) says: Here, it only shows that karma leading to pleasure, etc., has definiteness and indefiniteness in the present and other times. It explains the differences in the characteristics of the four types of karma, such as karma leading to experiencing the result in the present. Therefore, dividing definite karma into three types and combining it with indefinite karma to make four types is a good explanation. In principle, there must be no karma with indefinite Vipāka but definite time. Definite time is only a difference in position within definite Vipāka, and there is no separate entity of time apart from Vipāka. If definite time is not Vipāka, then how can it be explained? Here, it is only based on karma with definite Vipāka that the positions of obtaining results are differentiated, and thus established as leading to the present, etc. If it is said that there is karma that is definite in time, it means that the result must mature at this time and not at other times. If this time is exceeded, the result will definitely not be experienced. Therefore, definite time is not definite Vipāka. This is in
熟亦應決定。義相似故。相似者何。謂如於時有或非理。而名時分定如是于熟有或非理。應名異熟定 或復應許二俱不定。是故若業於時分定。彼于異熟亦應決定。若於異熟名不定者。彼於時分亦應不定。由此理故定無八業。以于諸業中有不定義者。應總立一順不定受。所以者何。義相似故。謂如熟定。時不定業。時不定故既共許為順不定受。如是時定熟不定業。熟不定故何不許為順不定受。故譬喻者於此義中安立八業極為雜亂 準上論文。五業亦非正義 又云 譬喻者說。順現受業等。于餘生中亦得受異熟。然隨初熟位立順現等名。非但如名招爾所果。謂彼意說。諸所造業若從此生即能為因與異熟果者名順現法受。若從次生方能為因與異熟者名順次生受。若越次生從第三生方與異熟者名順后次受。何緣彼作如是說耶。勿強力業異熟少故。彼執非善。所以者何。彼業先時已生異熟。中間間斷異熟復生。理必不然。如種芽故。若謂無間而生後身。應無死生業無異故。或身無異應數死生。又一業招二．三生等。是諸果相為異。為同。相若異者。應如別業所感相續非一業果。或一業果。其相應同。應說何緣前．后相別。若謂滿業助力使然。應唯一生前後有別。現見。引業所引一生。雖有眾多滿業果異。而引業一。但名一生。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：業的成熟也應當是確定的，因為意義相似的緣故。什麼是相似呢？就是說，如同在時間上，有時有不合道理的情況，卻名為『時分定』（時間確定），同樣，在成熟方面，有時也有不合道理的情況，應當名為『異熟定』（果報成熟確定）。或者應當承認兩者都不確定。因此，如果業在時間上是確定的，那麼它在果報成熟上也應當是確定的；如果說業在果報成熟上是不確定的，那麼它在時間上也應當是不確定的。由於這個道理，確定沒有八種業，因為在各種業中，有不確定的業，應當總共設立一種『順不定受』（果報不確定受報的業）。為什麼這樣說呢？因為意義相似的緣故。如同成熟是確定的，而時間不確定的業，因為時間不確定，已經被共同認為是『順不定受』，那麼時間是確定的，而成熟不確定的業，因為成熟不確定，為什麼不認為是『順不定受』呢？所以，譬喻者（指分別說部）在這個意義中安立八種業，是非常雜亂的。按照上面的論文，五種業也不是正確的定義。 又說：『譬喻者』說，『順現受業』（現世受報的業）等，在其他生中也可能受異熟果報，只是隨著最初成熟的階段，而立『順現』等名稱，並非僅僅如名稱所招感的果報那樣。他們的意思是說，各種所造的業，如果從此生就能作為原因，給予異熟果報的，名為『順現法受』；如果從次生才能作為原因，給予異熟果報的，名為『順次生受』；如果超過次生，從第三生才給予異熟果報的，名為『順后次受』。為什麼他們要這樣說呢？因為害怕強有力的業，其異熟果報太少。他們的執著是不好的。為什麼這樣說呢？因為那個業在先前已經產生了異熟果報，中間間斷，異熟果報又產生，道理上一定不是這樣的，如同種子發芽一樣。如果說沒有間隔而產生後世，那麼就應該沒有死亡和出生，因為業沒有不同；或者身體沒有不同，應該多次死亡和出生。又一個業招感二、三生等，這些果報的相狀是不同的，還是相同的？如果相狀是不同的，那麼應該如同其他業所感召的相續，不是一個業的果報；或者一個業的果報，其相狀是相同的，應該說為什麼前後的相狀不同。如果說是『滿業』（輔助業）的助力造成的，那麼應該只有一生，前後有差別。現在看到，『引業』（牽引業）所牽引的一生，雖然有眾多『滿業』的果報不同，而『引業』只有一個，只能稱為一生。
【English Translation】 English version: The maturation of karma should also be definite, because the meanings are similar. What is similar? It means that, just as in time, there are sometimes unreasonable situations, yet it is called 'time-definite' (time is fixed), similarly, in terms of maturation, there are sometimes unreasonable situations, and it should be called 'Vipaka-definite' (the maturation of karmic retribution is fixed). Or it should be admitted that both are indefinite. Therefore, if karma is definite in time, then it should also be definite in its maturation; if it is said that karma is indefinite in its maturation, then it should also be indefinite in time. Because of this reason, it is certain that there are not eight types of karma, because among the various karmas, there are indefinite karmas, and one should establish a 'sequence of indefinite reception' (karma whose retribution is uncertain). Why is this said? Because the meanings are similar. Just as the maturation is definite, but the time is indefinite, because the time is indefinite, it has been commonly recognized as 'sequence of indefinite reception', then the time is definite, but the maturation is indefinite, because the maturation is indefinite, why not recognize it as 'sequence of indefinite reception'? Therefore, the Sarvastivadins (the Exemplifiers) establishing eight types of karma in this meaning is extremely chaotic. According to the above thesis, five types of karma are also not the correct definition. Furthermore, it is said: 'The Exemplifiers' say that 'karma to be experienced in the present life' (Dṛṣṭadharmavedanīya-karma) etc., may also receive Vipaka (karmic retribution) in other lives, but only according to the initial stage of maturation, the names 'present' etc. are established, not just like the retribution that the name invokes. Their meaning is that, various karmas created, if from this life can be the cause and give Vipaka, it is called 'karma to be experienced in the present life'; if from the next life can be the cause and give Vipaka, it is called 'karma to be experienced in the next life' (Upapadya-vedanīya-karma); if beyond the next life, from the third life, it gives Vipaka, it is called 'karma to be experienced in subsequent lives' (Aparāparyāyavedanīya-karma). Why do they say this? Because they are afraid that the powerful karma has too little Vipaka. Their attachment is not good. Why is this said? Because that karma has already produced Vipaka in the past, and after an interval, Vipaka is produced again, it is certainly not like this in principle, just like a seed sprouting. If it is said that the next life is produced without interruption, then there should be no death and birth, because the karma is not different; or the body is not different, there should be multiple deaths and births. Also, one karma attracts two or three lives, etc., are the appearances of these retributions different or the same? If the appearances are different, then it should be like the continuum attracted by other karmas, not the retribution of one karma; or the retribution of one karma, its appearance is the same, it should be said why the appearances before and after are different. If it is said that it is caused by the assistance of 'supplementary karma' (Pūraṇa-karma), then there should be only one life, with differences before and after. Now it is seen that one life attracted by 'leading karma' (Ākṣepaka-karma), although there are many different retributions of 'supplementary karma', the 'leading karma' is only one, and it can only be called one life.
此亦應然。無別因故。相若同者。應是一生非一生中前．后相等。而可見有前．後生殊。此亦應然。一業果故(云云多破略而不錄) 又云 勿強力業異熟果少。此亦非證。所以者何。非要果多業名強力。順現受業名強力者。能速得果故立此名。又若執業要感多果方得名強。則感輪王異熟果業。望感佛業。應說名強。感多果故。若感佛業妙故名強。是則名強業有多種。以業強理有多品故。謂或有業果近名強。或由果多。或由果妙。然順現受果近故名強。寧以強名證感多果 又云 又譬喻者說。一切業乃至無間皆悉可轉。若無間業不可轉者。應無有能越第一有 乃至 此亦但是虛妄僻執。以無間業異熟分位二俱決定有頂不然。故所引例無能證力。若有頂業皆不可轉。起彼定者應定招生。是則無容起彼定已證無學果。及般涅槃。若一切業皆可轉者。世尊不應說有定業。
論。頗有四業至俱時究竟。此明四業容俱造也。
論。幾業能引至先業引故。明現不能引眾同分。婆沙一百一十四云。問幾業能引眾同分。幾能滿耶。或有說者。二能引眾同分亦能滿。謂順次生受業。順后次受業。二能滿眾同分不能引。謂順現法受業。順不定受業。復有說者三能引眾同分。亦能滿。謂除順現法受。一能滿眾同分不能引。謂順現
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這也應該是這樣。沒有其他原因。如果（前一生和后一生）相似相同，那麼應該在同一生中，前後的狀態是相等的。但我們可以看到前後出生的狀態是不同的。這也應該是這樣，因為只有一個業的果報。（以下省略了許多駁斥，不再記錄） 又說：『不要認為強力的業所產生的異熟果就少。』 這也不能作為證據。為什麼呢？並非一定要產生很多果報的業才能稱為強力。而是指那些能迅速獲得果報的『順現受業』才被稱為強力。如果認為業必須要感生很多果報才能稱為強，那麼感生輪王異熟果的業，與感生佛的業相比，應該被稱為強，因為它感生了更多的果報。如果說感生佛的業因為殊勝而被稱為強，那麼『強』這個概念對於業來說就有多種含義，因為業的『強』有多種原因。例如，有的業因為果報臨近而被稱為強，有的因為果報多，有的因為果報殊勝。然而，順現受業因為果報臨近所以被稱為強。怎麼能用『強』這個名稱來證明它感生了更多的果報呢？ 又說：『譬喻者說，一切業，乃至無間業（指五逆重罪，會立即墮入地獄的業），都可以轉變。如果無間業不能轉變，那麼應該沒有人能夠超越第一有（指非想非非想處天）。』 這也只是一種虛妄的偏執。因為無間業的異熟果和分位都是決定的，而有頂天（指非想非非想處天）的情況並非如此。所以引用的例子沒有證明力。如果所有有頂天的業都不能轉變，那麼發起這種禪定的人應該必定會感生果報。這樣一來，就無法在發起這種禪定后證得無學果（指阿羅漢果），以及般涅槃（指徹底解脫）。如果一切業都可以轉變，那麼世尊就不應該說有定業（指果報不可改變的業）。 論：是否有可能四種業同時達到究竟？這說明四種業有可能同時造作。 論：幾種業能夠牽引（眾同分，指眾生共同的業果）？因為先前的業牽引的緣故。這說明現世的業不能牽引眾同分。《婆沙論》第一百一十四卷說：『問：幾種業能夠牽引眾同分？幾種能夠圓滿？』 有人說：『兩種業能夠牽引眾同分，也能夠圓滿，即順次生受業和順后次受業。』 兩種業能夠圓滿眾同分，但不能牽引，即順現法受業和順不定受業。』 又有人說：『三種業能夠牽引眾同分，也能夠圓滿，即除了順現法受業之外的所有業。』 一種業能夠圓滿眾同分，但不能牽引，即順現法受業。
【English Translation】 English version: This should also be the case. There is no other reason. If (the previous life and the subsequent life) are similar and the same, then in the same life, the previous and subsequent states should be equal. But we can see that the states of previous and subsequent births are different. This should also be the case because there is only one karma's result. (Many refutations are omitted below and will not be recorded) It is also said: 'Do not think that the ripened fruit produced by strong karma is small.' This cannot be used as evidence either. Why? It is not necessary for karma that produces many fruits to be called strong. Rather, it refers to those 'karma of experiencing in the present life' that can quickly obtain results, which are called strong. If it is believed that karma must produce many fruits to be called strong, then the karma that produces the ripened fruit of a Chakravartin King should be called strong compared to the karma that produces a Buddha, because it produces more fruits. If the karma that produces a Buddha is called strong because it is excellent, then the concept of 'strong' has multiple meanings for karma, because there are multiple reasons for the 'strength' of karma. For example, some karma is called strong because its fruit is near, some because its fruit is abundant, and some because its fruit is excellent. However, karma of experiencing in the present life is called strong because its fruit is near. How can the name 'strong' be used to prove that it produces more fruits? It is also said: 'The Parable-makers say that all karma, even the karma of immediate retribution (referring to the five heinous crimes that immediately lead to hell), can be transformed. If the karma of immediate retribution cannot be transformed, then no one should be able to transcend the Highest Existence (referring to the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception).' This is also just a false and biased view. Because the ripened fruit and divisions of the karma of immediate retribution are both determined, while the situation in the Highest Heaven (referring to the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception) is not like this. Therefore, the cited example has no power to prove. If all the karma of the Highest Heaven cannot be transformed, then those who initiate this samadhi should definitely experience the results. In this case, it would be impossible to attain the fruit of non-learning (referring to the fruit of Arhat) and Parinirvana (referring to complete liberation) after initiating this samadhi. If all karma can be transformed, then the World Honored One should not say that there is fixed karma (referring to karma whose results cannot be changed). Treatise: Is it possible for four types of karma to reach completion at the same time? This explains that it is possible to create four types of karma simultaneously. Treatise: How many karmas can attract (the common share, referring to the common karmic results of sentient beings)? Because the previous karma attracts. This explains that the karma of the present life cannot attract the common share. The Vibhasha Shastra, Volume 114, says: 'Question: How many karmas can attract the common share? How many can fulfill it?' Some say: 'Two karmas can attract the common share and also fulfill it, namely karma of experiencing in the next life and karma of experiencing in subsequent lives.' Two karmas can fulfill the common share but cannot attract it, namely karma of experiencing in the present life and karma of experiencing in an uncertain time.' Others say: 'Three karmas can attract the common share and also fulfill it, namely all karmas except karma of experiencing in the present life.' One karma can fulfill the common share but cannot attract it, namely karma of experiencing in the present life.
法受。復有欲令順法現受業亦能引眾同分。若作是說。此四種業皆能引眾同分滿眾同分。此論同婆沙第二說 有人。以此論文證唯同分是引果者非。此中問業幾能引眾同分。不言幾業招引果。非為定證。正理等云。幾是引果。謂命根．眾同分。此文為定。如異熟因中引文。
論。何界何趣至皆容造四。釋造處也。
論。總開如是至余皆得造。釋差別也。
論。不退姓名堅至可造餘二。釋凡．聖不退造業異也。
論。異生不退至一切處無遮。重釋異生不造生聖不造生．后所以也。
論。然諸聖者至如后當辨。釋得果位利鈍同不造生．后也。聖人已離欲染得阿那含果。離有頂染得阿羅漢果退不經生。縱是退性不造生．后。
論。住中有位至亦造云何。自下一頌第三明中有造業。論曰至定．不定業。釋中有中造二十二業。如文可解。
論。應知如是至業所引故。釋中有所造十一位受名現業也 問中有定業唯是順現法受。中有不定業於何時受 答亦容余身受也。正理論云。類同分者。謂人等類非趣非生。以約趣．生中有．生有同分異故 若十一種不定業。或此身十一位受。或余身十一位受(已上論文) 問何故中有唯造順現受業不造余也 答一解。亦能造余。此中但欲明十一種業
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法受（karma to be experienced in the present life）。還有一種觀點認為，順法現受業（karma to be experienced in accordance with the Dharma in the present life）也能引導眾同分（community of beings sharing similar characteristics）。如果這樣說，這四種業（指順現法受業等四種業）都能引導眾同分，並使眾同分圓滿。這種說法與《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第二卷的觀點相同。有人用這段經文來證明只有眾同分是引導果報的，這是不對的。因為這裡問的是幾種業能引導眾同分，而不是問幾種業能招引果報，所以不能作為確定的證據。《正理論》（Nyaya Sutra）等經論說，什麼是引導果報的？是命根（life force）和眾同分。這段經文才是確定的證據，就像異熟因（vipaka-hetu，cause of different maturation）中的引文一樣。
論：在哪個界（dhatu，realm）、哪個趣（gati，path of rebirth）中，都能造作這四種業？這是解釋造業的處所。
論：總的來說，像這樣，其餘的都能造作。這是解釋差別。
論：不退（avaivartika，non-regressing）的姓名堅固者，可以造作其餘兩種業。這是解釋凡夫和聖者在造業上的不同。
論：異生（prthagjana，ordinary beings）不退者，在一切處都沒有遮止。這是再次解釋異生不造作生業（karma leading to rebirth），聖者不造作生業和后業（karma leading to future lives）的原因。
論：然而，諸位聖者，就像後面將要辨析的那樣。這是解釋獲得果位（phala，fruition）的利根和鈍根在不造作生業和后業上的相同之處。聖人已經離開了欲染（desire），獲得了阿那含果（Anagamin，Non-Returner）。離開了有頂染（attachment to the Formless Realm），獲得了阿羅漢果（Arhat，Worthy One），退轉后不再經歷生死。即使是退轉的性質，也不造作生業和后業。
論：住在中有（antarabhava，intermediate state）的眾生，也造作，這是怎麼回事？下面一頌是第三個方面，說明中有造業。論曰：定業（niyata-karma，fixed karma）和不定業（aniyata-karma，unfixed karma）。這是解釋中有中造作的二十二種業。如經文所說，可以理解。
論：應當知道，像這樣，因為是業所引導的。這是解釋中有所造作的十一種業，受名為現業（karma experienced in the present life）。問：中有的定業只是順現法受（karma to be experienced in accordance with the Dharma in the present life）嗎？中有的不定業在什麼時候受報？答：也可能在其他身體中受報。《正理論》說：類同分（sajatiya-sabhaga，similarity in kind）是指人等種類，不是趣（gati，path of rebirth）也不是生（jati，birth）。因為就趣和生而言，中有和生有的同分是不同的。如果十一種不定業，或者在此身十一位受報，或者在余身十一位受報（以上是論文）。問：為什麼中有隻造作順現受業，而不造作其他的業呢？答：一種解釋是，也能造作其他的業。這裡只是想說明十一種業。
【English Translation】 English version '法受 (Dharma-experienced karma).' Furthermore, there is the view that '順法現受業 (karma to be experienced in accordance with the Dharma in the present life)' can also lead to '眾同分 (community of beings sharing similar characteristics).' If this is said, these four types of karma (referring to the four types of karma such as '順現法受業') can all lead to '眾同分' and fulfill '眾同分.' This view is the same as the second volume of the 'Vibhasa (婆沙論).' Some people use this passage to prove that only '眾同分' is the guide to retribution, which is incorrect. Because the question here is how many types of karma can lead to '眾同分,' not how many types of karma can attract retribution, so it cannot be used as definite evidence. The 'Nyaya Sutra (正理論)' and other scriptures say, what guides retribution? It is '命根 (life force)' and '眾同分.' This passage is definite evidence, just like the citation in 'vipaka-hetu (異熟因, cause of different maturation).'
Treatise: In which '界 (dhatu, realm)' and which '趣 (gati, path of rebirth)' can these four types of karma be created? This explains the place of creating karma.
Treatise: Generally speaking, like this, the rest can be created. This explains the differences.
Treatise: Those with '不退 (avaivartika, non-regressing)' names are firm and can create the remaining two types of karma. This explains the differences between ordinary beings and sages in creating karma.
Treatise: '異生 (prthagjana, ordinary beings)' who are non-regressing have no restrictions in all places. This re-explains the reasons why ordinary beings do not create '生業 (karma leading to rebirth),' and sages do not create '生業' and '后業 (karma leading to future lives).'
Treatise: However, the sages, as will be discussed later. This explains the similarities between those with sharp and dull faculties who have attained '果位 (phala, fruition)' in not creating '生業' and '后業.' Sages have already left '欲染 (desire)' and attained '阿那含果 (Anagamin, Non-Returner).' Having left '有頂染 (attachment to the Formless Realm),' they have attained '阿羅漢果 (Arhat, Worthy One),' and after regression, they no longer experience birth and death. Even if it is a regressing nature, they do not create '生業' and '后業.'
Treatise: Beings residing in '中有 (antarabhava, intermediate state)' also create karma, how is this? The following verse is the third aspect, explaining karma created in '中有.' Treatise says: '定業 (niyata-karma, fixed karma)' and '不定業 (aniyata-karma, unfixed karma).' This explains the twenty-two types of karma created in '中有.' As the scripture says, it can be understood.
Treatise: It should be known that, like this, it is because it is guided by karma. This explains the eleven types of karma created in '中有,' named '現業 (karma experienced in the present life).' Question: Is the fixed karma in '中有' only '順現法受 (karma to be experienced in accordance with the Dharma in the present life)?' When is the unfixed karma in '中有' experienced? Answer: It may also be experienced in other bodies. The 'Nyaya Sutra' says: '類同分 (sajatiya-sabhaga, similarity in kind)' refers to categories such as humans, not '趣 (gati, path of rebirth)' or '生 (jati, birth).' Because in terms of '趣' and '生,' the '同分' of '中有' and '生有' are different. If the eleven types of unfixed karma are experienced in this body in eleven positions, or in other bodies in eleven positions (the above is the treatise). Question: Why does '中有' only create '順現受業' and not create other karma? Answer: One explanation is that it can also create other karma. Here, we just want to explain the eleven types of karma.
是順現受故。不說余也 二解。中有之中唯求此生有身不求余身故。唯造順現法業不造生．后。色界中有既有善心。故知亦造順現受業。然無諸位略而不論 問此論云。中生一同分者是何同分。若是四生同分。中有是化。生有是胎等。若五趣同分。中有非趣。若類同分。中．生類別。今言一者為是何耶 答一業引故同分是一。非謂生．趣．類同分一。
論。諸定受業其相云何。自下一頌。第四明定受業相。
論曰至功德田起。此釋善．惡定受業也。謂造業有三種一重心。謂雖不恒作及於劣境。皆得定受。二恒作。雖是劣心及非勝境。亦得定受。三于增上功德田起。雖是劣心及非恒作。亦得定受。論。功德田者至所起諸業。釋功德田 勝果謂羅漢等 勝定謂慈定等 僧謂通凡．聖。
論。或於父母至余非定受。釋唯不善定業相也。除上定業餘非定受。
論。現法受業其相云何。自下一頌。第五明現法果業相。
論。曰至其類非一。釋由田也。
論。由意勝者至事亦非一。釋由意殊勝也。
論。或生此地至招現法果。釋不定招現果也。有位不定定受之業定轉此業于現法受更不重生於此地受。
論。若有餘位至受異熟果。釋位定之業不可轉故障離染也 若於現受之餘。即
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為是順現受（Śun-xian-shou）的緣故，所以不說其他的。第二種解釋是：在中有的階段，只尋求此生的有身，不尋求其他的身，所以只造作順現法業，不造作來生和後世的業。中有既然有善心，所以可知也造作順現受業。然而因為沒有諸位，所以省略而不論。問：此論說，中生（Zhong-sheng）和一同分（Yi-tong-fen）是什麼同分？如果是四生（Si-sheng）的同分，中有是化生，有生是胎生等。如果是五趣（Wu-qu）的同分，中有不是趣。如果是類同分，中生和有生類別不同。現在說『一』，這是什麼意思呢？答：因為一個業力牽引的緣故，所以同分是一，不是說生、趣、類同分是一。 論：諸定受業（Zhu-ding-shou-ye）的相是什麼樣的？下面一頌，第四說明定受業相。 論曰至功德田起。這是解釋善和惡的定受業。造業有三種情況會成為定受：一是重心，即使不經常做，以及對於低劣的對境，都能得到定受。二是恒常做，即使是低劣的心以及不是殊勝的對境，也能得到定受。三是在增上的功德田（Gong-de-tian）中生起，即使是低劣的心以及不是恒常做，也能得到定受。論：功德田是指什麼？至所起諸業。解釋功德田。殊勝的果是指羅漢（Luohan）等，殊勝的定是指慈定（Ci-ding）等，僧是指包括凡夫和聖人。 論：或者對於父母至其餘非定受。這是解釋唯有不善的定業相。除了上面的定業，其餘的不是定受。 論：現法受業（Xian-fa-shou-ye）的相是什麼樣的？下面一頌，第五說明現法果業相。 論：曰至其類非一。這是由田（Tian）造成的。 論：由意勝者至事亦非一。這是由意殊勝造成的。 論：或者生於此地至招現法果。這是解釋不一定招感現世的果報。有位不定的定受之業，一定會轉變此業，在現法中受報，更不會重新生於此地受報。 論：若有其餘位至受異熟果。這是解釋位已定的業不可轉變，因為有障礙，遠離了染污。如果在現受之外，即
【English Translation】 English version: It is because of 'Śun-xian-shou' (immediately experienced result), therefore, nothing else is mentioned. The second explanation is: In the intermediate state (Zhong-you), one only seeks a body in this life and does not seek other bodies. Therefore, one only creates 'Śun-xian-fa-ye' (karma leading to immediate results) and does not create karma for future lives. Since the intermediate being (Zhong-you) has a good mind, it is known that they also create karma leading to immediate experience. However, because there are no various positions, it is omitted and not discussed. Question: This treatise says, what is the 'Yi-tong-fen' (same category) that the intermediate being (Zhong-sheng) shares? If it is the same category as the four types of birth (Si-sheng), the intermediate being is a transformation birth, and the being with a body is a womb birth, etc. If it is the same category as the five realms (Wu-qu), the intermediate being is not a realm. If it is the same category as the class, the intermediate being and the being with a body are different classes. Now, what does 'one' mean here? Answer: Because one karma leads to it, the same category is one. It does not mean that birth, realm, and class are the same. Treatise: What are the characteristics of 'Zhu-ding-shou-ye' (definitely experienced karma)? The following verse, the fourth, explains the characteristics of definitely experienced karma. The treatise says: '...to arising in a field of merit.' This explains the definitely experienced karma of good and evil. There are three situations in which creating karma becomes definitely experienced: First, heavy intention: even if it is not done frequently and is directed towards an inferior object, one can obtain definitely experienced karma. Second, constant action: even if it is with an inferior mind and not a superior object, one can also obtain definitely experienced karma. Third, arising in an increasing field of merit (Gong-de-tian): even if it is with an inferior mind and not done frequently, one can also obtain definitely experienced karma. Treatise: What is meant by 'field of merit'? '...to all the karma that arises.' Explains the field of merit. Superior result refers to 'Luohan' (arhats), etc. Superior concentration refers to 'Ci-ding' (loving-kindness concentration), etc. 'Sangha' refers to both ordinary and noble beings. Treatise: '...or towards parents to other non-definitely experienced.' This explains the characteristics of only unwholesome definitely experienced karma. Except for the above definitely experienced karma, the rest are not definitely experienced. Treatise: What are the characteristics of 'Xian-fa-shou-ye' (karma experienced in the present life)? The following verse, the fifth, explains the characteristics of karma with results in the present life. Treatise: '...to its types are not one.' This is caused by the field (Tian). Treatise: '...by the superiority of intention to the matter is also not one.' This is caused by the superiority of intention. Treatise: '...or born in this land to inviting results in the present life.' This explains that it is not certain to invite results in the present life. Karma with a position that is not fixed and is definitely experienced will definitely transform this karma and be experienced in the present life, and will no longer be reborn in this land to be experienced. Treatise: '...if there are other positions to experiencing different matured results.' This explains that karma with a fixed position cannot be transformed because there are obstacles, and one is separated from defilement. If it is outside of present experience, then
是生．后定業。由業力故必定無有永離染義。暫離染義。于理無違。後退容還生於此地。然非果位不能生故。
論。若於異熟至不受異熟。釋位熟俱不定者。由離染故總不受也。
論。何田起業定即受耶。自下一頌。第六明即受果業。
論曰至定即受果。總釋由田即受果也 于如是類功德田者。即是頌中六種功德田也。
論。功德田者謂佛上首僧。釋第一也。此僧眾中佛為上首 正理論云。佛若非僧攝。契經何故作如是言。汝等若能以少施物。如次供養佛上首僧。于僧田獲得周遍清凈福正理又云。僧有多種。謂有情人。聲聞。福田。及聖僧等。佛於此內非聲聞僧。可是餘僧。自然覺故(自然覺故。非聲聞也)。
論。約補特伽羅至還復出者。釋第一人也(以寂靜故。福速也)。
論。二從無諍出至相續而轉。釋第二人也(以無量增上利益意樂隨逐故。福速也)。
論。三從慈定出至相續而轉。釋第三人也(以無量安樂意樂隨逐故。福速)。
論。四從見道出至凈身續起釋第四人也(以斷見惑故。得能速果也)。
論。五從修道至凈身續起。釋第五人也(以斷修惑故。得福速也)。
論。故說此五至能招即果。總結上也。若於上六田有損得非愛即果。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『是生』指獲得果位后，已經確定了的業。由於業力的緣故，必定無法永遠脫離染污的含義，但暫時脫離染污的含義，在道理上沒有違背。之後退轉，容許再次生於此地。然而，並非果位就不能產生（退轉），所以會再生。
論：如果從異熟果報到不受異熟果報，解釋了果位、成熟與否都不確定的情況，是因為遠離染污的緣故，總的來說是不受果報。
論：在什麼樣的福田中造業，必定會立即受到果報呢？下面一頌將說明第六種立即受果的業。
論曰：到必定立即受到果報。總的解釋是由於福田的緣故，會立即受到果報。對於像這樣型別的功德田，就是頌中所說的六種功德田。
論：功德田指的是以佛為首的僧眾。解釋第一種。在這個僧眾中，佛是上首。正理論中說：如果佛不被僧眾所包含，那麼契經為什麼會這樣說：『你們如果能夠用少量的施捨物品，依次供養以佛為上首的僧眾，在僧田中獲得周遍清凈的福報』？正理又說：僧眾有多種，包括有情眾生、聲聞眾、福田眾以及聖僧等。佛在此之中不是聲聞僧，而是其餘的僧眾，因為是自然覺悟的（因為是自然覺悟的，所以不是聲聞）。
論：關於補特伽羅（pudgala，人）到還會再次出現的情況。解釋第一種人（因為寂靜的緣故，福報來得快）。
論：第二種是從無諍定（arana-samadhi）中出來，到相續不斷地運轉。解釋第二種人（因為有無量增上的利益意樂隨逐的緣故，福報來得快）。
論：第三種是從慈定（maitri-samadhi）中出來，到相續不斷地運轉。解釋第三種人（因為有無量安樂的意樂隨逐的緣故，福報來得快）。
論：第四種是從見道（darshana-marga）中出來，到清凈的身體相續生起。解釋第四種人（因為斷除了見惑的緣故，能夠得到快速的果報）。
論：第五種是從修道（bhavana-marga）中出來，到清凈的身體相續生起。解釋第五種人（因為斷除了修惑的緣故，得到福報迅速）。
論：所以說這五種情況能夠招感立即的果報。總結以上。如果在以上六種福田中，有損害，就會得到不喜歡的立即果報；如果有...
【English Translation】 English version: 'Is sheng' (是生) refers to the karma that has been determined after attaining the fruit position. Due to the power of karma, it is certain that there is no meaning of permanently being free from defilement, but the meaning of temporarily being free from defilement is not contrary to reason. After regressing, it is permissible to be born in this land again. However, it is not that one cannot arise (regress) from the fruit position, so one will be reborn.
Treatise: If, from the fruition of karma to not receiving the fruition of karma, it explains the situation where the position and maturity are both uncertain, it is because of being free from defilement that one generally does not receive the fruition.
Treatise: In what field of merit does creating karma definitely result in immediate retribution? The following verse will explain the sixth type of karma that immediately bears fruit.
Treatise says: To definitely receive the fruit immediately. The general explanation is that due to the field of merit, one will immediately receive the fruit. For such types of fields of merit, these are the six types of fields of merit mentioned in the verse.
Treatise: The field of merit refers to the Sangha (monastic community) with the Buddha at its head. Explaining the first type. In this Sangha, the Buddha is the head. The Nyayanusara-sastra (正理論) says: If the Buddha is not included in the Sangha, then why does the sutra say: 'If you can offer a small amount of alms to the Sangha with the Buddha at its head, you will obtain pervasive and pure merit in the field of the Sangha'? The Nyayanusara-sastra also says: There are many types of Sangha, including sentient beings, Sravakas (聲聞, Hearers), fields of merit, and the noble Sangha. The Buddha is not a Sravaka Sangha within this, but rather the remaining Sangha, because of being naturally awakened (because of being naturally awakened, therefore not a Sravaka).
Treatise: Regarding the Pudgala (補特伽羅, person) to the situation where they reappear. Explaining the first type of person (because of tranquility, the merit comes quickly).
Treatise: The second is emerging from the arana-samadhi (無諍定, non-contentious concentration) to continuously turning. Explaining the second type of person (because of the immeasurable increasing intention of benefit following, the merit comes quickly).
Treatise: The third is emerging from the maitri-samadhi (慈定, loving-kindness concentration) to continuously turning. Explaining the third type of person (because of the immeasurable intention of happiness following, the merit comes quickly).
Treatise: The fourth is emerging from the darshana-marga (見道, path of seeing) to the continuous arising of a pure body. Explaining the fourth type of person (because of cutting off the delusions of view, one can obtain quick results).
Treatise: The fifth is emerging from the bhavana-marga (修道, path of cultivation) to the continuous arising of a pure body. Explaining the fifth type of person (because of cutting off the delusions of cultivation, one obtains merit quickly).
Treatise: Therefore, it is said that these five situations can attract immediate retribution. Summarizing the above. If there is harm in the above six fields of merit, one will receive undesirable immediate retribution; if there is...
益得愛即果 正理論云。從如是五初出位中。乘前所修勝功德勢。心猶反顧專念不舍。諸根寂靜特異於常。世．出世間定．不定福。無能勝伏映奪彼者。故說此五名功德田。
論。若從余定至非勝福田。釋非即果因也。
論。異熟果中至亦有云何。自下一頌。大文第五明身．心受業。
論曰至尋伺俱故。釋唯感心受。無尋伺地無身受也。以五識定與尋．伺相應故。已上諸地無尋．伺故。無五識也。
論。諸不善業至如前已辯。釋唯感身受業。不善唯招五識相應苦受果故。
論。有情心狂何識因處。自下一頌。第六明心狂識因處也。
論曰至無分別故。此釋心狂唯意識也。分別錯亂名曰心狂。五識無分別故無心狂。
論。由五因故至能令心狂。第一因也。由六種業果令心狂也 此由因時令他失念。得異熟果心亦失念。名曰心狂。如文可解。
論。二由驚怖至遂致心狂。第二因也。
論。三由傷害至遂致心狂。第三因也。
論。四由乖違至故致心狂。第四因也。
論。五由愁憂至如婆私等。第五因也 婆沙一百二十六。如契經說。婆私瑟搋。婆羅門女。喪六子故心發狂亂。露形馳走。見世尊已還得本心。
論。若在意識至非異熟耶。問也。前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『益得愛即果』，《正理論》中說：『從這樣的五種最初的出位中，憑藉先前所修的殊勝功德的力量，心仍然回頭顧念，專心不捨。諸根寂靜，特別異於平常。世間和出世間的定和不定的福報，沒有能夠勝過和掩蓋它們的。』所以說這五種叫做功德田（產生功德的殊勝之處）。
論：『如果從其他的定到達非殊勝福田。』解釋：『非』就是『果』的『因』。
論：『在異熟果中』到『也有，為什麼？』下面一頌，大文第五，說明身、心感受業。
論曰：『到尋伺俱故。』解釋：只感受心受。無尋伺的地方沒有身受。因為五識定與尋、伺相應。以上各地沒有尋、伺，所以沒有五識。
論：『諸不善業』到『如前已辯。』解釋：只感受身受業。不善業只招感與五識相應的苦受果。
論：『有情心狂，什麼識是其因處？』下面一頌，第六，說明心狂的識因處。
論曰：『到無分別故。』這裡解釋心狂只是意識。分別錯亂叫做心狂。五識沒有分別，所以沒有心狂。
論：『由五種原因』到『能令心狂。』這是第一種原因。由六種業果使心狂。這是由於因時使他人失去正念，得到異熟果時心也失去正念，叫做心狂。如文義可以理解。
論：『二由驚怖』到『遂致心狂。』這是第二種原因。
論：『三由傷害』到『遂致心狂。』這是第三種原因。
論：『四由乖違』到『故致心狂。』這是第四種原因。
論：『五由愁憂』到『如婆私等。』這是第五種原因。《婆沙》一百二十六說，如契經所說，婆私瑟搋（Vasistha），婆羅門女，因為喪失六個兒子，心發狂亂，裸露身體奔跑。見到世尊后，才恢復了本心。
論：『如果在意識』到『非異熟耶？』這是提問。前面
【English Translation】 English version 'The benefit obtained is the fruit.' The Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya says: 'From such five initial stages of emergence, relying on the power of the superior merits cultivated previously, the mind still looks back, focusing intently and not abandoning. The senses are tranquil, exceptionally different from usual. Worldly and otherworldly, fixed and unfixed blessings, none can overcome or overshadow them.' Therefore, these five are said to be fields of merit (auspicious places that generate merit).
Treatise: 'If one goes from other samadhi to a non-superior field of merit.' Explanation: 'Non-' is the 'cause' of the 'fruit'.
Treatise: 'In the maturation fruit' to 'also exist, why?' The following verse, the fifth major section, explains the karma experienced by body and mind.
Treatise: 'To both vitarka (initial application of thought) and vicara (sustained application of thought).' Explanation: Only mental feeling is experienced. There is no bodily feeling in places without vitarka and vicara. Because the five consciousnesses' samadhi is associated with vitarka and vicara. The realms above do not have vitarka and vicara, therefore, there are no five consciousnesses.
Treatise: 'All unwholesome karma' to 'as previously explained.' Explanation: Only karma that causes bodily feeling is experienced. Unwholesome karma only brings about the result of painful feeling associated with the five consciousnesses.
Treatise: 'If a sentient being is mentally deranged, what consciousness is the cause?' The following verse, the sixth, explains the causal location of consciousness in mental derangement.
Treatise: 'To without discrimination.' This explains that mental derangement is only in consciousness. Confused discrimination is called mental derangement. The five consciousnesses do not have discrimination, therefore, there is no mental derangement.
Treatise: 'Due to five causes' to 'can cause mental derangement.' This is the first cause. Mental derangement is caused by six types of karmic results. This is because, at the time of the cause, one causes others to lose mindfulness; when the maturation fruit is obtained, the mind also loses mindfulness, which is called mental derangement. The meaning can be understood from the text.
Treatise: 'Two, due to fright' to 'consequently leads to mental derangement.' This is the second cause.
Treatise: 'Three, due to harm' to 'consequently leads to mental derangement.' This is the third cause.
Treatise: 'Four, due to discord' to 'therefore leads to mental derangement.' This is the fourth cause.
Treatise: 'Five, due to sorrow and worry' to 'like Vasistha and others.' This is the fifth cause. The Mahavibhasa, one hundred and twenty-six, says, as the sutra says, Vasistha (Vasistha), a Brahmin woman, because of the loss of six sons, became mentally deranged, running naked. After seeing the World Honored One, she regained her original mind.
Treatise: 'If it is in consciousness' to 'is it not maturation?' This is a question. Previously
言心受非不善果。今說心狂業異熟起。豈不相違。
論。不說心狂至故說為狂。答也。由前六種惡因。感不平等大令心狂亂。非心狂亂故即異熟果。故不相違。
論。如是心狂至不染污心。釋心狂心亂。寬狹不同為四句也。亂心謂染心。通狂．不狂。狂心謂失念。通染．不染。由此不同成其四句。如文可解。
論。除北俱盧洲至世傳有文。釋狂處也。
論。欲界聖中至證法性故。明欲界聖人唯除諸佛有心狂也。五因之中唯有四大乖適無餘四因。如文可解。
論。又經中說至其相云何。自下半頌第七明曲．穢．濁業。論曰至瞋貪所生。總釋三業各有曲等三業。
論。謂依諂生至諂曲類故。別釋曲也 正理云。實曲是見。故契經言。實曲者何。謂諸惡見諂是彼類故得曲名。從此所生身．語．意業。曲為因故果受因名。是故世尊說彼為曲。
論。若依瞋生至嗔穢類故。別釋穢也 又正理云。嗔名穢者。謂嗔現前。如熱鐵丸隨所投處便能燒害自．他身．心。諸煩惱中為過最重。故薄伽梵重立穢名。是諸穢中之極穢故。從瞋所生身．語．意業穢為因故。果受因名。是故世尊說彼為穢。
論。若依貪生至貪濁類故。別釋濁也 正理論云。貪名濁者。謂貪現前染著所緣。是染性故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：如果說心所感受的並非不善的果報，但現在又說心狂亂是業的異熟果所引起的，這難道不是自相矛盾嗎？
答：論中並沒有說心狂亂就是異熟果，所以才說是『狂』。這是爲了回答前面的問題。由於前述的六種惡因，感得不平等的大種，從而導致心狂亂。但心狂亂本身並不是異熟果，所以並不矛盾。
問：像這樣，心狂亂和心亂有什麼區別呢？
答：這是爲了解釋心狂亂和心亂的範圍寬窄不同，分為四種情況。心亂指的是染污心（Klista-citta），包括狂亂和不狂亂兩種情況。狂心指的是失去正念（Moha），包括染污和不染污兩種情況。由此不同，構成了四種情況，如原文所述，可以理解。
答：除了北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）之外，其他地方都有心狂亂的情況，這是世俗流傳的說法。
答：欲界（Kāmadhātu）的聖者中，除了諸佛（Buddha）之外，都有可能出現心狂亂的情況，因為他們還沒有完全證得法性（Dharmata）。在五種原因中，只有四大不調和（Catudhatu-vaishamya）這一種原因，沒有其餘四種原因。如原文所述，可以理解。
問：另外，經中說曲、穢、濁業，它們的相狀是什麼呢？
答：下面用半頌（Gatha）的第七個偈頌來說明曲、穢、濁業。總的解釋是這三種業各有曲、穢、濁三種。
答：依靠諂媚（Maya）而產生的業，就是諂曲的同類。正理（Nyaya）中說，真實的曲是邪見（Mithyadrishti）。所以契經（Sutra）中說：『真實的曲是什麼？』就是指各種惡見。諂媚是邪見的同類，所以可以稱為曲。從此所產生的身、語、意業，因為曲是其原因，所以果報也因此而得名。因此，世尊（Bhagavan）說它們是曲。
答：如果依靠嗔恨（Dvesha）而產生的業，就是嗔穢的同類。正理中又說，嗔恨被稱為穢，是因為嗔恨現前時，就像熾熱的鐵丸，無論投向何處，都能燒害自己和他人的身心。在各種煩惱（Klesha）中，嗔恨的過患最為嚴重。所以薄伽梵（Bhagavan）特別設立了穢這個名稱，因為它是各種穢中最極端的穢。從嗔恨所產生的身、語、意業，因為穢是其原因，所以果報也因此而得名。因此，世尊說它們是穢。
答：如果依靠貪婪（Lobha）而產生的業，就是貪濁的同類。正理論中說，貪婪被稱為濁，是因為貪婪現前時，會染著所緣的對象，因為它具有染污的性質。
【English Translation】 English version Question: If it is said that what the mind experiences is not an unwholesome result, but now it is said that mental derangement arises from the maturation of karma, isn't this contradictory?
Answer: The treatise does not say that mental derangement is itself the result of maturation, which is why it is called 'derangement.' This is to answer the previous question. Due to the six kinds of evil causes mentioned earlier, unequal great elements are experienced, leading to mental derangement. However, mental derangement itself is not the result of maturation, so there is no contradiction.
Question: In this way, what is the difference between mental derangement and mental confusion?
Answer: This is to explain the different scopes of mental derangement and mental confusion, dividing them into four cases. Mental confusion refers to a defiled mind (Klista-citta), including both deranged and non-deranged states. Deranged mind refers to loss of mindfulness (Moha), including both defiled and non-defiled states. These differences constitute the four cases, as described in the original text, which can be understood.
Answer: Except for Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru), mental derangement occurs in other places, according to popular tradition.
Answer: Among the saints in the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), except for the Buddhas (Buddha), mental derangement may occur because they have not yet fully realized the Dharma-nature (Dharmata). Among the five causes, only the imbalance of the four great elements (Catudhatu-vaishamya) exists, without the other four causes. As described in the original text, it can be understood.
Question: Furthermore, the sutras speak of crooked, impure, and turbid karma. What are their characteristics?
Answer: The seventh verse of the half-verse (Gatha) below explains crooked, impure, and turbid karma. The general explanation is that each of these three karmas has crookedness, impurity, and turbidity.
Answer: Karma arising from deceit (Maya) is of the same kind as crookedness. The Nyaya (Nyaya) says that true crookedness is wrong view (Mithyadrishti). Therefore, the Sutra (Sutra) says: 'What is true crookedness?' It refers to various evil views. Deceit is of the same kind as wrong view, so it can be called crooked. The actions of body, speech, and mind arising from this, because crookedness is their cause, the result is also named accordingly. Therefore, the Bhagavan (Bhagavan) said that they are crooked.
Answer: If karma arises from hatred (Dvesha), it is of the same kind as impurity. The Nyaya also says that hatred is called impurity because when hatred is present, it is like a hot iron ball, burning and harming the body and mind of oneself and others wherever it is thrown. Among all the afflictions (Klesha), the fault of hatred is the most serious. Therefore, the Bhagavan specially established the name impurity because it is the most extreme of all impurities. The actions of body, speech, and mind arising from hatred, because impurity is their cause, the result is also named accordingly. Therefore, the Bhagavan said that they are impure.
Answer: If karma arises from greed (Lobha), it is of the same kind as turbidity. The Nyaya treatise says that greed is called turbidity because when greed is present, it clings to the object of attachment because it has the nature of defilement.
。從彼生等。準前應釋 更有兩翻出曲．穢．濁業。與此論不同。恐繁不述。
俱舍論疏卷第十五
交了
保延三年八月十九日于東南院東廊點了
衰老法師覺樹
以黃園古本一交了 義證 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第十六
沙門法寶撰
分別業品第四之四
論。又經中說至其相云何。自此已下有四頌半。第八明經中黑黑等四業 文中有三。一明業體。二明斷異。三述異說 此一頌半。明四業體。先問。后答。此即問也。
論曰至說黑黑等四。此釋建立四業意也 業果性不同者。謂黑黑等三業 所治能治殊者。有漏業為所治。無漏為能治 性是體性。類是種類。性．類不同分為四業。
論。諸不善業至不可意故。釋黑黑業。因染污故名黑。果不可意名黑。
論。色界善業至是可意故。因離惡故名白。果可意故名白。
論。何故不言至則說非余。釋無色善雖因．果俱白不說所以也。
論。然契經中至非愛果雜故。釋黑白業也。因以惡所雜故。果以非愛雜故。
論。此黑白名至互相違故。釋雜名也 言黑白者。就相續立。非一業亦黑。亦白。非異熟亦可意．亦不可意。善．惡可意
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：從彼處產生等等，按照前面的方式解釋。還有兩種不同的翻譯，指出曲、穢、濁業，與此論不同，恐怕過於繁瑣，不再贅述。
《俱舍論疏》卷第十五
校對完畢
保延三年八月十九日于東南院東廊校對完畢
衰老法師覺樹
以黃園古本校對完畢 義證 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第十六
沙門法寶撰
分別業品第四之四
論：又經中說，至於它的相是什麼？從這裡以下有四頌半。第八，說明經中的黑黑等四業。文中有三部分：一，說明業的本體；二，說明斷除的差異；三，敘述不同的說法。這一頌半，說明四業的本體。先提問，后回答，這就是提問。
論曰：至於說黑黑等四。這是解釋建立四業的意義。業果的性質不同，是指黑黑等三種業。所治和能治不同，有漏業是被治理的，無漏業是能治理的。性是體性，類是種類。體性和種類不同，分為四業。
論：諸不善業，至於不可意故。解釋黑黑業。因為染污的緣故，稱為黑。果報不可意的緣故，稱為黑。
論：**善業，至於可意故。因為遠離惡的緣故，稱為白。果報可意的緣故，稱為白。
論：為什麼不說，至於則說非余。解釋無色善雖然因和果都是白，但不說的原因。
論：然而契經中，至於非愛果雜故。解釋黑白業。因為與惡混合的緣故，果報與非可愛的事物混合的緣故。
論：此黑白名，至於互相違故。解釋雜名的含義。說'黑白'，是就相續而言。不是一個業既是黑的，又是白的。不是異熟果既是可意的，又是不可以的。善和惡是可意的
【English Translation】 English version: 'From their arising,' etc., should be explained as before. Furthermore, there are two different translations that point out crooked, defiled, and turbid karma, which differ from this treatise. Fearing prolixity, they will not be elaborated upon.
'Kusha-ron-sho' (Commentary on the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) Volume 15
Proofread
Proofread on the 19th day of the 8th month of the 3rd year of Hoen at the East Corridor of the Southeast Temple.
Old Dharma Master Kakuju (Awakened Tree)
Proofread against the old Huangyuan edition. Evidence of Meaning. Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1822, 'Kusha-ron-sho'
'Kusha-ron-sho' Volume 16
Composed by Shramana (Buddhist monk) Hōbō (Dharma Treasure)
Chapter 4, Part 4: Analysis of Karma
Treatise: Moreover, the sutras say, 'As to its characteristics, what are they?' From here onwards, there are four and a half verses. Eighth, explaining the four karmas of black-black, etc., in the sutras. There are three parts to the text: 1. Explaining the substance of karma; 2. Explaining the differences in cessation; 3. Narrating different views. This one and a half verses explains the substance of the four karmas. First a question, then an answer; this is the question.
Treatise says: As to speaking of the four black-black, etc. This explains the meaning of establishing the four karmas. The nature of karmic results being different refers to the three karmas of black-black, etc. The governed and the governing being different: defiled karma is governed, undefiled is governing. 'Nature' is intrinsic nature, 'category' is kind. Different in nature and category, they are divided into four karmas.
Treatise: All unwholesome karmas, as to 'unpleasant result'. Explaining black-black karma. Because of being defiled, it is called 'black'. Because the result is unpleasant, it is called 'black'.
Treatise: **Wholesome karma, as to 'pleasant result'. Because of being apart from evil, it is called 'white'. Because the result is pleasant, it is called 'white'.
Treatise: Why not say, as to 'then speaking of no other'. Explaining why formless goodness, although both cause and effect are white, is not spoken of.
Treatise: However, in the sutras, as to 'mixed with non-loved result'. Explaining black-white karma. Because of being mixed with evil, the result is mixed with non-loved things.
Treatise: This name of black-white, as to 'mutually contradictory'. Explaining the meaning of mixed names. Saying 'black-white' is established in terms of continuity. It is not that one karma is both black and white. It is not that the matured result is both pleasant and unpleasant. Good and evil are pleasant.
．不可意互相違故。然由相續與黑雜故。即欲界業名為黑白。
論。豈不惡業果至名為白黑。難也。善為惡業雜善名為黑白。惡為善業雜惡應名白黑。
論。不善業果至惡勝善故。答也。于地獄中不善業果。不為善業果之所雜也。欲界善果。定為不善業果所雜。六慾天中有不善果故。以欲界散地惡勝善故。惡必雜善。善不雜惡 正理論云。此難非理。以欲界中不善數行力能伏善。故彼苦果雜樂異熟。欲界善劣無有功能陵伏不善。故彼樂果亦無功能雜苦異熟。故惡業果得純黑名。
論。諸無漏業至白異熟故。釋第四業。如文可了。
論。此非白言至性相違故。釋疑難也。非黑言是了義說。非白言是密意說。以不能招白異熟故。經密意說名非白業。準經及本論。是純白法也。
論。諸無漏業至不爾云何。自下兩頌第二明斷異也。
論曰至唯盡純黑。釋斷黑黑業也。四法智忍斷欲四諦所斷不善業故。斷欲修斷前八品思唯斷不善業故。此上十二皆自性斷非所緣斷也。
論。離欲界染至不善業故。此一品思斷二業也。斷黑一分斷雜業全斷黑是自性及所緣斷。斷白唯所緣斷。自性斷品品斷。所緣斷第九品斷。
論。離四靜慮至純白業盡。釋斷白白業也。此唯所緣斷故唯于自地第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不可意的果報互相違背的緣故。然而由於（善業和惡業）相續並且與黑色（惡業）相雜的緣故，才說欲界的業是黑白的（混合業）。 論：難道不是惡業的果報成熟時才稱為白黑（混合業）嗎？這是難點。善業與惡業相雜的善業才稱為黑白（混合業）。惡業與善業相雜的惡業應該稱為白黑（混合業）。 論：不善業的果報成熟時，惡的力量勝過善的緣故。答：在地獄中，不善業的果報不會與善業的果報相雜。欲界的善果，必定會與不善業的果報相雜，因為六慾天中也有不善的果報。因為欲界散地的惡的力量勝過善的緣故，惡必定會與善相雜，而善不會與惡相雜。《正理論》說：這種責難沒有道理。因為在欲界中，不善的力量強大，能夠壓伏善，所以它的苦果會夾雜著快樂的異熟果。欲界的善的力量弱小，沒有能力凌駕于不善之上，所以它的樂果也沒有能力夾雜著痛苦的異熟果。所以惡業的果報才得到純黑的名稱。 論：諸無漏業乃至白色的異熟果的緣故。解釋第四種業，如經文所說的那樣就可以理解了。 論：這並非是說白色乃至（與黑色）自性相違背的緣故。解釋疑問。並非說黑色是了義說（究竟的說法），並非說白色是密意說（隱藏的說法），因為它不能招感白色的異熟果。經中密意地說它不是白業。根據經文和本論，它是純白的法。 論：諸無漏業乃至不然的話，又該如何解釋呢？從下面兩頌開始，第二部分說明斷除異熟果。 論曰乃至唯有窮盡純黑（業）。解釋斷除黑黑業。四法智忍（苦法智忍、集法智忍、滅法智忍、道法智忍）斷除欲界四諦所斷的不善業的緣故。斷除欲界修所斷的前八品思惑，從而斷除不善業的緣故。以上十二種都是自性斷，不是所緣斷。 論：離開欲界的染污乃至不善業的緣故。這一品思惑斷除兩種業。斷除黑色（業）的一部分，斷除雜業的全部，斷除黑色（業）是自性斷和所緣斷。斷除白色（業）只是所緣斷。自性斷是按品斷除，所緣斷是在第九品斷除。 論：離開四靜慮乃至純白業窮盡。解釋斷除白白業。這只是所緣斷，所以在自己的地界第九品斷除。
【English Translation】 English version Because the undesirable results contradict each other. However, because of the continuity (of good and bad karma) and the mixture with black (bad karma), the karma of the desire realm is called black and white (mixed karma). Treatise: Isn't it when the result of bad karma matures that it is called black and white (mixed karma)? This is a difficult point. Only good karma mixed with bad karma is called black and white (mixed karma). Bad karma mixed with good karma should be called white and black (mixed karma). Treatise: When the result of unwholesome karma matures, the power of evil surpasses the power of good. Answer: In hell, the result of unwholesome karma will not be mixed with the result of wholesome karma. The wholesome result of the desire realm will definitely be mixed with the result of unwholesome karma, because there are also unwholesome results in the six desire heavens. Because the power of evil in the scattered lands of the desire realm surpasses the power of good, evil will definitely be mixed with good, while good will not be mixed with evil. The Zheng Li Lun (正理論, Treatise on the Correct Principle) says: This criticism is unreasonable. Because in the desire realm, the power of unwholesome actions is strong and can subdue good, so its painful result will be mixed with the pleasant result of maturation. The power of good in the desire realm is weak and has no ability to override unwholesome, so its pleasant result also has no ability to mix with the painful result of maturation. Therefore, the result of bad karma obtains the name of pure black. Treatise: All non-outflow karma, up to the reason for the white result of maturation. Explaining the fourth type of karma, it can be understood as the sutra text says. Treatise: This is not to say that white is even because it contradicts the nature (of black). Explaining the doubt. It is not said that black is a definitive statement (ultimate teaching), nor is it said that white is a hidden statement (concealed teaching), because it cannot attract the white result of maturation. The sutra implicitly says that it is not white karma. According to the sutra and this treatise, it is pure white dharma. Treatise: All non-outflow karma, up to otherwise, how should it be explained? Starting from the following two verses, the second part explains the cutting off of different results of maturation. Treatise says up to only exhausting pure black (karma). Explaining the cutting off of black-black karma. The four Dharma-jnana-ksanti (四法智忍, the four knowledges and acceptances of Dharma) cut off the unwholesome karma cut off by the four noble truths of the desire realm. Cutting off the first eight stages of thought delusions cut off by cultivation in the desire realm, thereby cutting off unwholesome karma. The above twelve are all self-nature cutting off, not object-related cutting off. Treatise: Leaving the defilements of the desire realm up to the reason for unwholesome karma. This one stage of thought delusion cuts off two types of karma. Cutting off a part of black (karma), cutting off all of the mixed karma, cutting off black (karma) is self-nature cutting off and object-related cutting off. Cutting off white (karma) is only object-related cutting off. Self-nature cutting off is cutting off by stage, object-related cutting off is cutting off in the ninth stage. Treatise: Leaving the four dhyanas (靜慮, meditative absorptions) up to the exhaustion of pure white karma. Explaining the cutting off of white-white karma. This is only object-related cutting off, so it is cut off in the ninth stage of one's own realm.
九品斷。斷雖通相應．俱有此中辨業故故說思也。
論。何緣諸地至能斷非余。問也。
論。以諸善法至未離系故。答也 自性斷者。謂結法及結一果法並得。斷彼得時名之為斷。斷已不復能起現前 所緣斷者。斷能緣盡名之為斷。斷已容得起現在前 由斯黑黑業品品別斷。雜．白二業第九品斷。唯所緣斷。
頌曰。已下有一行頌。第三述異說也。
論曰至名黑白業。此師意。以地獄唯不善感故。順彼受業名為純黑 欲界余趣通二異熟故。順彼善．惡諸業名雜業也 此二業以因從果名黑．雜也。
論。有餘師說至故名俱業。此師意。以欲見道所斷無善雜故名純黑業。欲修所斷善不善雜總名雜業 婆沙一百一十四云。如是說者一切不善業皆名黑黑異熟業。由欲界中不善強盛。不為善法之所陵雜。以不善法能伏能斷自地善故。善業羸劣而為不善之所陵雜。以欲界善不能斷不善故 正理破前師云。如是所說前已遮遣。謂善無能雜不善故。破后師云。此亦非理。二所斷中俱有業不能感異熟果故(見道中身．邊見相應思。修道中無記業。不能感異熟果)。
論。又經中說有三牟尼。已下一頌。第九明三牟尼．三清凈也。論曰至二業比知。釋立三牟尼所以也 牟尼。此云寂默。無學身．語二
【現代漢語翻譯】 九品斷（jiǔ pǐn duàn）：通過九個品級來斷除煩惱。斷除雖然普遍相應，但在此中辨別業的性質，所以說是思（sī，思惑）。
論：什麼原因導致只有諸地（zhū dì，指色界和無色界的各個禪定層次）才能斷除煩惱，而不是其他的層次？這是提問。
論：因為諸善法（zhū shàn fǎ）直到未離系（wèi lí xì，未脫離束縛）的緣故。這是回答。自性斷（zì xìng duàn）是指結法（jié fǎ，煩惱的結使）以及結一果法（jié yī guǒ fǎ，與煩惱結使相關的法）一同被斷除，獲得斷除這些法的時候就叫做斷。斷除之後，這些法不再能夠生起現行。所緣斷（suǒ yuán duàn）是指斷除能緣（néng yuán，作為認識對象的境界）的盡頭，就叫做斷。斷除之後，這些法仍然有可能生起現行。因此，黑黑業（hēi hēi yè，純粹的惡業）是按照品級來分別斷除的，而雜業（zá yè，善惡混合的業）和白業（bái yè，純粹的善業）則是在第九品斷除，僅僅是所緣斷。
頌曰：下面有一行頌文，第三是敘述不同的說法。
論曰：直到名為黑白業（hēi bái yè）。這位論師的意思是，因為地獄（dì yù）只有不善業才能感果，所以順應地獄所感受的業，就叫做純黑。欲界（yù jiè）其餘的趣（qù，指眾生所去的處所）通向兩種不同的異熟果（yì shú guǒ，果報），所以順應善惡諸業，叫做雜業。這兩種業，是從因上稱呼果，所以叫做黑、雜。
論：有其餘的論師說，所以叫做俱業（jù yè）。這位論師的意思是，因為欲界見道（yù jiè jiàn dào）所斷的沒有善的雜染，所以叫做純黑業。欲界修道（yù jiè xiū dào）所斷的善與不善的雜染，總稱為雜業。《婆沙（pó shā）》第一百一十四卷說：『這樣說來，一切不善業都叫做黑黑異熟業，因為在欲界中，不善業強盛，不被善法所侵凌雜染，因為不善法能夠制伏和斷除自身所處的層次的善法。善業羸弱，反而被不善法所侵凌雜染，因為欲界的善法不能斷除不善法。』正理論（zhèng lǐ lùn）駁斥前面的論師說：『像這樣所說的，前面已經遮止駁斥過了，就是說善法沒有能力雜染不善法。』駁斥後面的論師說：『這也是不合理的，因為在二所斷（èr suǒ duàn，見道所斷和修道所斷）中，都有業不能感得異熟果（yì shú guǒ），（見道中的身見、邊見相應的思，修道中的無記業，不能感得異熟果）。』
論：又經中說有三牟尼（sān móu ní）。下面有一頌。第九是說明三牟尼、三清凈（sān qīng jìng）。論曰：直到二業比知（èr yè bǐ zhī）。解釋建立三牟尼的原因。牟尼（móu ní），這裡的意思是寂默（jì mò）。無學（wú xué）的身語二業
【English Translation】 Ninefold Severance (jiǔ pǐn duàn): Severance through nine grades. Although severance is universally corresponding, it is said to be 'thought' (sī, afflictions of thought) because of distinguishing the nature of karma within this context.
Treatise: What is the reason that only the realms (zhū dì, referring to the various levels of dhyana in the Form and Formless Realms) can sever afflictions, and not other levels? This is a question.
Treatise: Because all wholesome dharmas (zhū shàn fǎ) are until not separated from bondage (wèi lí xì, not liberated from fetters). This is the answer. Self-nature severance (zì xìng duàn) refers to the afflictive bonds (jié fǎ, the fetters of affliction) and the dharmas that result in a single consequence related to those bonds (jié yī guǒ fǎ) being severed together. The moment of obtaining the severance of these dharmas is called severance. After severance, these dharmas can no longer arise in manifestation. Object-related severance (suǒ yuán duàn) refers to the severance of the end of what can be cognized (néng yuán, the realm as an object of cognition), which is called severance. After severance, these dharmas may still arise in manifestation. Therefore, black-black karma (hēi hēi yè, purely unwholesome karma) is severed separately according to grade, while mixed karma (zá yè, karma mixed with good and bad) and white karma (bái yè, purely wholesome karma) are severed in the ninth grade, only as object-related severance.
Verse: Below is a line of verse, the third is narrating different views.
Treatise: Until it is called black and white karma (hēi bái yè). This master's intention is that because only unwholesome karma can result in retribution in hell (dì yù), the karma experienced in accordance with hell is called purely black. The remaining destinies (qù, referring to the places where sentient beings go) in the Desire Realm (yù jiè) lead to two different kinds of ripened results (yì shú guǒ, karmic retributions), so the various wholesome and unwholesome karmas in accordance with them are called mixed karma. These two kinds of karma are named black and mixed from the perspective of the cause referring to the result.
Treatise: Some other masters say, so it is called combined karma (jù yè). This master's intention is that because what is severed by the Path of Seeing (jiàn dào) in the Desire Realm (yù jiè) has no wholesome admixture, it is called purely black karma. The wholesome and unwholesome admixtures severed by the Path of Cultivation (xiū dào) in the Desire Realm are collectively called mixed karma. The Vibhasha (pó shā), volume 114, says: 'In this way, all unwholesome karma is called black-black ripened karma because in the Desire Realm, unwholesome karma is strong and not defiled by wholesome dharmas, because unwholesome dharmas can subdue and sever the wholesome dharmas of their own level. Wholesome karma is weak and is instead defiled by unwholesome karma because the wholesome dharmas of the Desire Realm cannot sever unwholesome dharmas.' The Nyayanusara (zhèng lǐ lùn) refutes the previous master, saying: 'What has been said in this way has already been refuted and rejected, that is, wholesome dharmas have no ability to defile unwholesome dharmas.' It refutes the latter master, saying: 'This is also unreasonable because in the two severances (èr suǒ duàn, what is severed by the Path of Seeing and what is severed by the Path of Cultivation), there is karma that cannot result in ripened fruit (yì shú guǒ) (the thought associated with the view of self and the view of extremes in the Path of Seeing, and the neutral karma in the Path of Cultivation, cannot result in ripened fruit).'
Treatise: Also, the sutras say there are three Munis (sān móu ní). Below is a verse. The ninth is explaining the three Munis and the three purities (sān qīng jìng). Treatise: Until the two karmas are compared and known (èr yè bǐ zhī). Explaining the reason for establishing the three Munis. Muni (móu ní) here means silence (jì mò). The body and speech karmas of the No-Learner (wú xué)
業名身．語牟尼。意牟尼。是無學意非意業也。以真實牟尼唯是意故。身．語二業比知心故。能比．所比總名牟尼 正理論云。由身．語業離眾惡故可以比知。意業于中無能比用。唯能所比合立牟尼。
論。又身語業至故名牟尼。第二釋也。身．語二業有無表故名為遠離。意業非遠離故不名牟尼。
論。何故牟尼唯在無學。問也。
論。以阿羅漢至永寂靜故答也。煩惱言。無學總無。非有學故。
論。諸身．語意至名為清凈。此釋第二三清凈也。即三妙行。若無漏者。永離一切惡行煩惱垢故。若有漏者。暫離一切惡行煩惱垢故。名為清凈 婆沙一百一十七云。問妙行．清凈．寂默有何差別 復有說者。義亦差別。謂善巧作義是妙行義。體潔白義是清凈義。離癡亂義是寂默義 復有說者。能感愛果故名妙行。不雜煩惱故名清凈。究竟靜息故名寂默 正理第二釋云。或此力能引起無漏勝義清凈故立凈名。若謂此亦能引煩惱垢故。謂作煩惱等無間緣。是即不應名清凈者。此亦非理。善心起時非為染心起加行故。染心無間無漏不生。有漏善心能引無漏。故有漏善得清凈名。順無漏心能除穢故。
論。說此二者至耶清凈故。述教意也。
論。又經中說有三惡行。已下一頌。第十明三惡行．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『業名身』（行為被稱為身）、『語牟尼』（語言上的聖者）、『意牟尼』（思想上的聖者），這是指無學之人的意業，而非指非意業。因為真正的聖者唯有通過意念才能體現，而身和語兩種行為只能用來推測內心。能推測和被推測的，總合起來才稱為聖者（牟尼）。《正理論》中說，由於身和語的行為遠離各種惡行，因此可以通過它們來推測內心。而意業本身無法作為推測的工具，只有能被推測的和用來推測的合在一起才能構成聖者（牟尼）。
論：又，身語業達到某種程度才能被稱為聖者（牟尼）。這是第二種解釋。身和語兩種行為，因為有表和無表之分，所以可以稱為遠離（惡行）。而意業並非遠離（惡行），所以不能稱為聖者（牟尼）。
論：為什麼聖者（牟尼）只存在於無學之人中？這是提問。
論：因為阿羅漢（Arhat）達到永遠的寂靜狀態。這是回答。煩惱，是指無學之人完全沒有煩惱，因為他們不是有學之人。
論：各種身、語、意行為，被稱為清凈。這是解釋第二種和第三種清凈，也就是三種妙行。如果是無漏的，那麼就永遠遠離一切惡行和煩惱垢；如果是有漏的，那麼就暫時遠離一切惡行和煩惱垢，這被稱為清凈。《婆沙》第一百一十七卷中說，妙行、清凈、寂默有什麼區別？還有一種說法是，它們的含義也有區別。善巧地作為是妙行的含義，本體潔白是清凈的含義，遠離癡亂是寂默的含義。還有一種說法是，能夠感得可愛的果報，所以稱為妙行；不夾雜煩惱，所以稱為清凈；最終靜止休息，所以稱為寂默。《正理論》第二種解釋說，或者這種力量能夠引起無漏的殊勝清凈，所以立名為清凈。如果說這種力量也能引起煩惱垢，因為它是產生煩惱等的無間緣，所以不應該稱為清凈，這種說法也是不合理的。因為善心生起時，不是爲了染心生起而努力，染心生起時，無漏心就不會生起。有漏的善心能夠引導無漏心，所以有漏的善可以得到清凈的名稱，因為它順應無漏心，能夠去除污穢。
論：說這兩種，是爲了說明教義，也就是耶清凈的緣故。
論：又，經中說有三種惡行。下面是一首偈頌。第十說明三種惡行。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Karma named body', 'speech Muni' (sage in speech), 'mind Muni' (sage in mind), refers to the intention of those who are beyond learning (non-learners), not non-intentional karma. Because the true Muni is only manifested through intention, while actions of body and speech can only be used to infer the mind. That which infers and that which is inferred, taken together, are called Muni. The Nyāyānusāra (Treatise on Following the Right Principle) says that because the actions of body and speech are free from all evils, they can be used to infer the mind. But intention itself cannot be used as a tool for inference; only that which can be inferred and that which infers together constitute Muni.
Treatise: Furthermore, the actions of body and speech must reach a certain level to be called Muni. This is the second explanation. The actions of body and speech, because they have manifestation and non-manifestation, can be called 'distancing' (from evil). But intention is not 'distancing' (from evil), so it cannot be called Muni.
Treatise: Why does Muni only exist in those who are beyond learning (non-learners)? This is a question.
Treatise: Because Arhats (Arhat) reach a state of eternal tranquility. This is the answer. 'Afflictions' refers to the fact that those who are beyond learning have no afflictions at all, because they are not learners.
Treatise: Various actions of body, speech, and mind are called purity. This explains the second and third types of purity, which are the three excellent conducts. If it is unconditioned (anāsrava), then it is forever free from all evil deeds and defilements of afflictions; if it is conditioned (sāsrava), then it is temporarily free from all evil deeds and defilements of afflictions, which is called purity. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (Great Commentary) Volume 117 says, what are the differences between excellent conduct, purity, and quiescence? Another explanation is that their meanings are also different. Skillfully acting is the meaning of excellent conduct, the purity of essence is the meaning of purity, and being free from delusion and confusion is the meaning of quiescence. Another explanation is that being able to reap desirable rewards is called excellent conduct; not being mixed with afflictions is called purity; and ultimately ceasing and resting is called quiescence. The second explanation in the Nyāyānusāra says that perhaps this power can give rise to the unconditioned, supreme purity, so it is named purity. If it is said that this power can also give rise to defilements of afflictions, because it is the immediate cause of the arising of afflictions, etc., then it should not be called purity, this statement is also unreasonable. Because when a wholesome mind arises, it is not striving for the arising of a defiled mind; when a defiled mind arises, the unconditioned mind will not arise. The conditioned wholesome mind can guide the unconditioned mind, so the conditioned wholesome can obtain the name of purity, because it conforms to the unconditioned mind and can remove defilements.
Treatise: Saying these two is to explain the teachings, which is why it is called 'Ya purity'.
Treatise: Furthermore, the sutras say that there are three evil deeds. The following is a verse. The tenth explains the three evil deeds.
三妙行也。
論曰至別有體故。釋三惡行體也 一切不善身．語意業者。即是通取飲酒等業。及前．后近分故言一切 身語意業者。簡諸非業 復有三種非意業貪．瞋．邪見者。顯非業中唯取貪．瞋．邪見也。
論。譬喻者言至為意業故。述異說也。彼師引故思經證貪．瞋．邪見是意業也。
論。若爾則應至合成一體。有部難也。貪．瞋．邪見兩宗共許是煩惱故。此若是業業與煩惱合成一體。無明應即行。愛．取即有。業障應即是煩惱障。
論。許有煩惱至斯有何失。譬喻反問有部師也。
論。毗婆沙師說至成大過失。引婆沙師出過失也 正理論云。正理者何。謂若煩惱即是業者。十二緣起．及三障等差別應無。由此證知貪等非業。
論。然契經說至為門轉故。通故思經。文易可了 正理通云。是業資糧故亦名業。如漏資糧亦名漏等。
論。由此能感至故名惡行。此釋名也。此持業釋。
論。三妙行者至無瞋正見。釋三妙行。翻三惡行為三妙行 即 一切善業者。謂不飲酒等．及禮讚等離前．后近分．及根本業 婆沙一百一十七云。問為三妙行攝三寂默。三寂默攝三妙行耶。答應作四句 有妙行非寂默。謂除無學身．語妙行。余身．語妙行及一切意妙行 有寂默非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
三妙行也是如此。
論中說：『因為有各自不同的體性。』這是解釋三種惡行的體性。『一切不善的身、語、意業』，指的是包括飲酒等的行為，以及之前、之後的近似行為，所以說『一切』。『身語意業』，是爲了區分那些不是業的行為。『復有三種非意業，即貪、瞋、邪見』，是爲了表明在非業中只取貪、瞋、邪見。
論中說：『譬喻者說……作為意業。』這是敘述不同的觀點。那位老師引用《故思經》來證明貪、瞋、邪見是意業。
論中說：『如果這樣，那麼就應該……合成為一體。』這是有部的責難。貪、瞋、邪見兩宗都承認是煩惱。如果這些是業，那麼業與煩惱就合為一體。無明就應該立即是行，愛、取就立即是有，業障就應該立即是煩惱障。
論中說：『允許有煩惱……這有什麼過失？』這是譬喻者反問有部師。
論中說：『毗婆沙師說……造成大過失。』這是引用《婆沙論》來說明過失。《正理論》說：『什麼是正理？』意思是如果煩惱就是業，那麼十二緣起以及三障等的差別就應該不存在。由此可知貪等不是業。
論中說：『然而契經說……作為門徑的轉變。』這是爲了貫通《故思經》，文義容易理解。《正理論》貫通說：『是業的資糧，所以也稱為業。』如同有漏的資糧也稱為有漏等。
論中說：『由此能夠感生……所以名為惡行。』這是解釋名稱。這是持業釋。
論中說：『三妙行，即……無瞋正見。』這是解釋三妙行。將三種惡行翻轉為三種妙行。即『一切善業』，指的是不飲酒等，以及禮讚等，遠離之前、之後的近似行為，以及根本的業。《婆沙論》第一百一十七卷說：『問：是三妙行包含三寂默，還是三寂默包含三妙行呢？』答：應該作四句：有妙行不是寂默，指的是除了無學（Asekha）的身、語妙行之外，其餘的身、語妙行以及一切意妙行；有寂默不是
【English Translation】 English version
The three excellent conducts are also like this.
The treatise says: 'Because they have separate entities.' This explains the nature of the three evil conducts. 'All unwholesome actions of body, speech, and mind' refers to including actions such as drinking alcohol, as well as the proximate actions before and after, hence the term 'all'. 'Actions of body, speech, and mind' is to distinguish those that are not actions. 'Furthermore, there are three non-mental actions, namely greed (lobha), hatred (dvesha), and wrong view (mithya-drishti),' to indicate that among non-actions, only greed, hatred, and wrong view are taken.
The treatise says: 'The example-givers say... as mental action.' This is narrating different views. That teacher cites the Sutra on Volition (故思經) to prove that greed, hatred, and wrong view are mental actions.
The treatise says: 'If that is the case, then it should... be combined into one entity.' This is a criticism from the Sarvastivadins (有部). Both schools of thought agree that greed, hatred, and wrong view are afflictions (kleshas). If these are actions, then actions and afflictions would be combined into one entity. Ignorance (avidya) should immediately be action (samskara), craving (trishna) and grasping (upadana) should immediately be existence (bhava), and karmic obscurations should immediately be afflictive obscurations.
The treatise says: 'Allowing there to be afflictions... what fault is there in this?' This is the example-giver asking the Sarvastivadin in return.
The treatise says: 'The Vibhasha masters say... causing great faults.' This is citing the Vibhasha to illustrate the faults. The Nyayanusara-shastra (正理論) says: 'What is right reason?' It means that if afflictions were actions, then the differences between the twelve links of dependent origination (十二緣起) and the three obscurations (三障) etc., should not exist. From this, it is known that greed etc. are not actions.
The treatise says: 'However, the sutras say... as a transformation of the gateway.' This is to connect the Sutra on Volition (故思經), the meaning of the text is easy to understand. The Nyayanusara-shastra (正理論) connects by saying: 'It is the resource for action, therefore it is also called action.' Just as the resource for outflows (asrava) is also called outflows etc.
The treatise says: 'Because it is able to cause... therefore it is called evil conduct.' This is explaining the name. This is a karmadharaya compound.
The treatise says: 'The three excellent conducts, namely... non-hatred and right view.' This is explaining the three excellent conducts. Reversing the three evil conducts into the three excellent conducts. That is, 'all wholesome actions,' referring to not drinking alcohol etc., as well as prostrations and praises etc., being apart from the proximate actions before and after, and the fundamental actions. The Vibhasha, volume 117, says: 'Question: Do the three excellent conducts encompass the three silences (寂默), or do the three silences encompass the three excellent conducts?' Answer: It should be answered with four possibilities: There are excellent conducts that are not silences, referring to the bodily and verbal excellent conducts of the non-learners (Asekha) (無學), the remaining bodily and verbal excellent conducts, and all mental excellent conducts; there are silences that are not
妙行。謂無學心 有妙行亦寂默。謂無學身．語妙行 有非妙行非寂默。謂除前相 為三妙行攝三清凈。三清凈攝三妙行耶。答隨其事展轉相攝 為三清凈攝三寂默。三寂默攝三清凈耶。答應作四句 有清凈非寂默。謂除無學身．語清淨餘身．語清凈。及一切意清凈。此復云何。謂學．非學非無學身．語清凈。及三種意清凈。以意寂默唯無學心故 有寂默非清凈。謂無學心非業性故 有清凈亦寂默。謂無學身．語清凈 有非清凈非寂默。除前相。
論。正見耶見至如何成善惡問也。
論。能與損益為根本故。答也。由正見故后益眾生。由邪見故后損眾生。
論。又經中說有十業道。已下一頌。第十一明十業道也 一明業體。二釋業名。三義便明斷善。四明業道俱轉。五就處成業。六明業道三果 就明業體中。一正明業道體。二明業道差別。此一頌明業道體也。
論曰至攝前惡行。此出十業道體 粗易知者。謂根本業道也。
論。不攝何等惡妙行耶。此即問也。
論。且不善中至令遠離故。說不攝身業也。
論。語惡業道至後起及輕。說不攝語業也 輕者。輪王。北洲。染心歌等。于無人處粗惡語等。及闕緣不成等。
論。意惡業道至及輕貪等。釋意業道。思是其業
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 妙行。指無學之心，具有微妙的行持，也是寂靜無為的。指無學之身、語的微妙行持。有非微妙行持也非寂靜無為的，指排除前面所說的那些情況。為三種微妙行持所包含的三種清凈，是三種清凈包含三種微妙行持嗎？回答是根據具體情況，它們之間可以相互包含。為三種清凈包含三種寂靜無為，是三種寂靜無為包含三種清凈嗎？應該分為四種情況來回答：有清凈而非寂靜無為的，指排除無學之身、語的清凈之外的其餘身、語清凈，以及一切意清凈。這又是指什麼呢？指有學、非學非無學之身、語清凈，以及三種意清凈。因為意的寂靜無為僅僅存在於無學之心。有寂靜無為而非清凈的，指無學之心不是業的性質。有清凈也是寂靜無為的，指無學之身、語的清凈。有非清凈也非寂靜無為的，指排除前面所說的那些情況。
論。正見（Samyag-dṛṣṭi，正確的見解）和邪見（Mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）如何形成善與惡？這是提問。
論。因為能夠帶來利益或損害是根本原因。這是回答。由於正見，以後能利益眾生；由於邪見，以後會損害眾生。
論。另外，經中說有十業道（Daśa karmapatha，十種行為的道路）。以下一頌，第十一說明十業道。一說明業的本體，二解釋業的名稱，三從義理上說明斷善，四說明業道同時運轉，五就處所成就業，六說明業道的三種果報。就說明業的本體中，一正面說明業道的本體，二說明業道的差別。這一頌說明業道的本體。
論曰至攝前惡行。這裡闡述了十業道的本體，粗略容易理解的是根本的業道。
論。不包含哪些不善的微妙行持呢？這是提問。
論。暫且說不善中，爲了使人遠離，所以說不包含身業。
論。語惡業道至後起及輕。說明不包含語業。輕微的，指轉輪王（cakravartin，擁有統治世界的理想君主），北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，四大部洲之一，以享樂著稱），染心歌唱等。在沒有人的地方說粗惡的語言等，以及缺少因緣不能成就等。
論。意惡業道至及輕貪等。解釋意業道。思是其業。
【English Translation】 English version 'Sublime conduct' refers to the mind of the non-learner (Aśaikṣa, 無學), which possesses subtle practices and is also tranquil and quiescent. 'Sublime conduct' refers to the subtle practices of the body and speech of the non-learner. There are also non-sublime conducts that are neither tranquil nor quiescent, referring to the exclusion of the aforementioned situations. Are the three purities encompassed by the three sublime conducts, or do the three purities encompass the three sublime conducts? The answer is that they can encompass each other depending on the specific circumstances. Do the three purities encompass the three quiescences, or do the three quiescences encompass the three purities? The answer should be divided into four cases: There is purity that is not quiescence, referring to the purity of body and speech other than that of the non-learner, as well as all purity of mind. What does this refer to? It refers to the purity of body and speech of the learner (Śaikṣa, 有學), non-learner and neither-learner-nor-non-learner, as well as the three types of purity of mind, because the quiescence of mind exists only in the mind of the non-learner. There is quiescence that is not purity, referring to the mind of the non-learner not being of the nature of karma. There is purity that is also quiescence, referring to the purity of body and speech of the non-learner. There is neither purity nor quiescence, referring to the exclusion of the aforementioned situations.
Treatise: How do Right View (Samyag-dṛṣṭi) and Wrong View (Mithyā-dṛṣṭi) form good and evil? This is a question.
Treatise: Because being able to bring benefit or harm is the fundamental reason. This is the answer. Due to Right View, one will benefit sentient beings in the future; due to Wrong View, one will harm sentient beings in the future.
Treatise: Furthermore, the sutra says there are ten paths of action (Daśa karmapatha). The following verse, the eleventh, explains the ten paths of action. First, it explains the substance of karma; second, it explains the names of karma; third, it explains the severance of good from the perspective of meaning; fourth, it explains the simultaneous operation of the paths of action; fifth, it explains the accomplishment of karma based on location; sixth, it explains the three retributions of the paths of action. Regarding the explanation of the substance of karma, first, it directly explains the substance of the paths of action; second, it explains the differences in the paths of action. This verse explains the substance of the paths of action.
Treatise says to encompass previous evil deeds. This elucidates the substance of the ten paths of action; those that are coarse and easy to understand are the fundamental paths of action.
Treatise: What kind of unwholesome subtle practices are not included? This is the question.
Treatise: For the time being, in unwholesome [actions], in order to make people stay away from it, it is said that body karma is not included.
Treatise: Evil speech karma to subsequent arising and lightness. It is said that speech karma is not included. 'Lightness' refers to the Wheel-Turning King (cakravartin, ideal universal ruler), Uttarakuru (one of the four continents, known for its pleasures), singing with defiled mind, etc. Speaking coarse and evil words in places where there are no people, etc., and not being able to accomplish due to lack of conditions, etc.
Treatise: Evil mental karma to and light greed etc. Explains mental karma. Thought is its karma.
非思道故 輕貪等者。謂輪王時。及北洲人貪等。非粗顯故不名業道。
論。善業道中至施供養等。明十善業道體。身善業道中於身妙行不攝一分。謂加行．後起。及余善身業即離飲酒。斷生草等．施供養等。
論。語善業道至謂愛語等。釋語業也。
論。意善業道至謂諸善思。釋意業道。婆沙一百一十二。引集異門及施設論 問。為身三惡行攝一切身惡行。為一切身惡行攝身三惡行耶。答一切攝三。非三攝一切。不攝者何。謂非斷命。以手杖等捶擊有情。及非耶行於所應行作不凈行。起飲酒等諸放逸業。由不正知．失念受用諸飲食等。及不能避諸犯戒者。諸如是等所起身業非三所攝。問諸犯戒者無量。云何能避。雖復舍此還近彼故。答所在皆有。欲離實難。能不隨染是為真避。故有說言。身雖在遠而隨彼習即名親近。身雖在近不隨彼習即名遠離。問為語四惡行攝一切語惡行。為一切攝四。答一切攝四。非四攝一切。謂如有一獨處空閑作如是說。無有惠施。無有親愛。無有祠祀。如是等語惡行。世間有情不生領解。非四所攝。問為意三惡行攝一切意惡行。為一切意惡行攝意三惡行耶 乃至 不攝者何。謂貪慾．瞋恚．邪見俱生受．想．行識非三所攝。彼論中意惡行攝四蘊自性。如是施設五蘊自性為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『非思道故，輕貪等者』，指的是輪王時期以及北俱盧洲的人的貪慾等行為。因為它們不明顯，所以不被稱為業道。
『論。善業道中至施供養等』，闡明了十善業道的本體。在身善業道中，『于身妙行』沒有包含全部，指的是加行、後起，以及其他善良的身業，例如遠離飲酒、斷生草等，以及佈施供養等。
『論。語善業道至謂愛語等』，解釋了語業。
『論。意善業道至謂諸善思』，解釋了意業道。《婆沙》第一百一十二卷引用《集異門足論》和《施設論》：
問：是身的三種惡行包含了一切身惡行，還是一切身惡行包含了身的三種惡行？答：一切身惡行包含了身的三種惡行，但身的三種惡行不包含一切身惡行。不包含的是什麼？例如，不是殺生，而是用手杖等捶打有情；以及不是邪淫，而是在應該行淫的地方做了不凈的行為；以及因為飲酒等而產生的各種放逸行為；由於不正知、失念而受用各種飲食等；以及不能避開各種犯戒的人。這些行為所產生的身業，不是身的三種惡行所包含的。
問：犯戒的人數不勝數，怎麼能避開呢？即使捨棄了這個人，還會接近那個人。答：到處都有犯戒的人，想要遠離他們確實很難。能夠不被他們污染，才是真正的避開。所以有人說，身體即使遠離，但如果學習他們的行為，也算是親近；身體即使靠近，但不學習他們的行為，也算是遠離。
問：是語的四種惡行包含了一切語惡行，還是一切語惡行包含了語的四種惡行？答：一切語惡行包含了語的四種惡行，但語的四種惡行不包含一切語惡行。例如，如果有人獨自在空閑的地方說：『沒有佈施，沒有親愛，沒有祭祀』等等，這些語言惡行，世間的有情不能理解，所以不被語的四種惡行所包含。
問：是意的三種惡行包含了一切意惡行，還是一切意惡行包含了意的三種惡行？……（乃至）……不包含的是什麼？例如，與貪慾、嗔恚、邪見同時產生的受、想、行、識，不被意的三種惡行所包含。在那部論中，意惡行包含了四蘊的自性。這樣施設五蘊的自性為……
【English Translation】 English version 'Not thinking of the path, lightly greedy, etc.' refers to the greed, etc., of people during the time of the Wheel-Turning King (Chakravartin) and the people of Uttarakuru (Northern Continent). Because they are not obvious, they are not called karma paths.
'Treatise. Among the good karma paths, up to giving offerings, etc.' clarifies the essence of the ten good karma paths. In the good karma path of body, 'excellent bodily conduct' does not encompass everything, referring to the preliminary actions, subsequent actions, and other virtuous bodily actions, such as abstaining from drinking alcohol, cutting living plants, etc., and giving offerings, etc.
'Treatise. The good karma path of speech, up to loving speech, etc.' explains the karma of speech.
'Treatise. The good karma path of mind, up to virtuous thoughts, etc.' explains the karma path of mind. 《Vibhasha》, Volume 112, quotes 《Sangiti Paryaya》 and 《Prajnapati》:
Question: Do the three evil actions of body encompass all evil actions of body, or do all evil actions of body encompass the three evil actions of body? Answer: All evil actions of body encompass the three evil actions of body, but the three evil actions of body do not encompass all evil actions of body. What is not encompassed? For example, not killing, but striking sentient beings with a staff, etc.; and not sexual misconduct, but performing impure acts in places where sexual acts should be performed; and various negligent actions arising from drinking alcohol, etc.; using various foods, etc., due to not knowing properly and being unmindful; and not avoiding various precept-breakers. The bodily actions arising from these actions are not encompassed by the three evil actions of body.
Question: The number of precept-breakers is countless, how can one avoid them? Even if one abandons this person, one will still approach that person. Answer: Precept-breakers are everywhere, and it is indeed difficult to avoid them. Being able to not be contaminated by them is true avoidance. Therefore, some say that even if the body is far away, but if one learns their behavior, it is considered close; even if the body is close, but if one does not learn their behavior, it is considered far away.
Question: Do the four evil actions of speech encompass all evil actions of speech, or do all evil actions of speech encompass the four evil actions of speech? Answer: All evil actions of speech encompass the four evil actions of speech, but the four evil actions of speech do not encompass all evil actions of speech. For example, if someone alone in a secluded place says: 'There is no giving, no affection, no sacrifice,' etc., these evil actions of speech are not understood by sentient beings in the world, so they are not encompassed by the four evil actions of speech.
Question: Do the three evil actions of mind encompass all evil actions of mind, or do all evil actions of mind encompass the three evil actions of mind? ... (and so on) ... What is not encompassed? For example, the feeling (vedana), perception (samjna), mental formations (samskara), and consciousness (vijnana) that arise simultaneously with greed (lobha), hatred (dvesha), and wrong view (mithya-drishti) are not encompassed by the three evil actions of mind. In that treatise, evil actions of mind encompass the nature of the four aggregates (skandha). Thus, the nature of the five aggregates (skandha) is established as...
諸惡行 問何故名惡行。惡行有何義。答可厭毀故名惡。游履依處故名行。可厭毀故名惡者。如有說言惡妻子。惡衣食等 游履依處故名行者。謂如斷生命粗惡語瞋恚行有情處等意善業道于意妙行不攝一分謂諸善思。即無彰無貪等。應更檢文 有人三解未有一當。
論。十業道中前七業道。下第二明業道差別 于中有五。一就表．無表明。二就三根明。三明業道依處。四問答分別。五明業道相 就初有二。前一頌明根本有表．無表。后三句明加行．後起有表．無表。此一行頌即初文也。
論曰至自表無故。明六惡業道也。若遣他作唯有無表。
論。若有自作至彼便死等。明自作定有表．無表也。
論。後方死等至唯無表故。明後死唯無表。以加行是方便故。
論唯欲耶行至如自生喜。明欲邪行必具二也。
論。七善業道至必依表故。明善業中若從受生定有表．無表也 言。受生者。簡非受生及道．定色。受生有二。一者處中。謂別受遠離定有表及無表。二受律儀。即容平發。然定依自身表業而發。自身定有表及無表。
論。靜慮無漏至而得生故。明定．道生唯無表也。
論。加行後起如根本耶。自下三句明加行．後起表．無表也。
論曰至異此即無。釋加行
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諸惡行：問：為何稱為『惡行』？『惡行』有何含義？答：因其令人厭惡、招致毀壞，故名『惡』。因其遊走、依附之處，故名『行』。令人厭惡、招致毀壞，故名『惡』，例如人們常說的『惡妻子』、『惡衣食』等。遊走、依附之處，故名『行』，例如斷生命、粗惡語、瞋恚等行為，以及有情眾生所處的境地等。意善業道中，于意妙行不包含一部分，即指那些善良的思緒，也就是無嗔、無貪等。應進一步查閱經文。 有人對此有三種解釋，但沒有一種是正確的。
論：在十業道中，前七種是惡業道。下面第二部分闡明業道的差別。其中有五點：一、就表業（manifest action）和無表業（unmanifest action）進行說明；二、就三種根本煩惱（三根）進行說明；三、說明業道的依處；四、通過問答進行分別；五、說明業道的相狀。首先就表業和無表業進行說明，其中又分為兩部分：第一頌說明根本的業有表業和無表業；后三句說明加行（preparatory action）和後起（subsequent action）有表業和無表業。這一行頌就是第一部分的內容。
論曰：……直至『自表無故』，說明六種惡業道。如果指使他人去做，則只有無表業。
論：若有自作……直至『彼便死等』，說明自己做，必定有表業和無表業。
論：後方死等……直至『唯無表故』，說明之後才死，只有無表業。因為加行是方便。
論：唯欲耶行……直至『如自生喜』，說明邪淫必定具備表業和無表業。
論：七善業道……直至『必依表故』，說明善業中，如果是從受戒而生，必定有表業和無表業。言：『受生者』，是爲了區分非受戒而生以及道（path）、定（meditation）所生的色（form）。受生有兩種：一是處中，即特別受持遠離，必定有表業和無表業；二是受律儀，即容許剃髮。然而，禪定是依靠自身表業而生起，自身必定有表業和無表業。
論：靜慮無漏……直至『而得生故』，說明禪定和無漏（non-outflow）唯有無表業。
論：加行後起如根本耶？下面三句說明加行和後起的表業和無表業。
論曰：……直至『異此即無』，解釋加行。
【English Translation】 English version All Evil Actions: Question: Why are they called 'evil actions'? What is the meaning of 'evil actions'? Answer: Because they are detestable and lead to destruction, they are called 'evil'. Because of the places they roam and depend on, they are called 'actions'. Being detestable and leading to destruction is why they are called 'evil', such as when people say 'evil wife', 'evil clothing and food', etc. The places they roam and depend on are why they are called 'actions', such as the acts of taking life, harsh speech, anger, and the realms where sentient beings dwell. Among the meritorious mental actions (意善業道), the excellent mental actions (于意妙行) do not include a portion, referring to those virtuous thoughts, which are non-anger, non-greed, etc. The texts should be further examined. Some people have three interpretations of this, but none of them are correct.
Treatise: Among the ten paths of action (十業道), the first seven are evil paths of action. The second part below clarifies the differences in the paths of action. There are five points: 1. Explaining in terms of manifest action (表業) and unmanifest action (無表業); 2. Explaining in terms of the three root afflictions (三根); 3. Explaining the basis of the paths of action; 4. Differentiating through questions and answers; 5. Explaining the characteristics of the paths of action. First, explaining in terms of manifest and unmanifest action, which is further divided into two parts: The first verse explains that the fundamental actions have both manifest and unmanifest action; the last three sentences explain that preparatory action (加行) and subsequent action (後起) have both manifest and unmanifest action. This one-line verse is the content of the first part.
Treatise says: ... up to 'because of self-manifestation being absent (自表無故)', explaining the six evil paths of action. If one instructs others to do it, there is only unmanifest action.
Treatise: If one does it oneself ... up to 'they then die (彼便死等)', explaining that if one does it oneself, there is definitely manifest and unmanifest action.
Treatise: Only dying later ... up to 'only unmanifest action (唯無表故)', explaining that only dying later has only unmanifest action, because preparatory action is a means.
Treatise: Only sexual misconduct (唯欲耶行) ... up to 'like generating joy oneself (如自生喜)', explaining that sexual misconduct necessarily possesses both manifest and unmanifest action.
Treatise: The seven virtuous paths of action ... up to 'necessarily relying on manifestation (必依表故)', explaining that among virtuous actions, if it arises from receiving precepts, there is definitely manifest and unmanifest action. The term 'arising from receiving (受生者)' is to distinguish from those not arising from receiving precepts, as well as form (色) arising from the path (道) and meditation (定). There are two types of arising from receiving: one is being in the middle, meaning specially upholding abstinence, which definitely has manifest and unmanifest action; the other is receiving the monastic code (律儀), which allows shaving the head. However, meditation arises relying on one's own manifest action, and one's own self definitely has manifest and unmanifest action.
Treatise: Serene contemplation (靜慮) and non-outflow (無漏) ... up to 'and thus being born (而得生故)', explaining that serene contemplation and non-outflow only have unmanifest action.
Treatise: Are preparatory and subsequent actions like the fundamental ones? The following three sentences explain the manifest and unmanifest actions of preparatory and subsequent actions.
Treatise says: ... up to 'other than this, there is none (異此即無)', explaining preparatory action.
中重心即有無表。異此則無無表 其表定有。若無表業非加行故。
論。後起翻前至異此便無。釋後起中定有無表。以根本業道無簡輕．重發無表故 表業不定。若起隨前屠割等事即有表業。若不起者表業即無。
論。於此義中至後起位耶。因其義便問加行．後起位也。
論。且不善中至殺生加行。明殺加行位也。
論。隨此表業至二由果滿。明根本業道 言。彼正命終此剎那頃表無表業是謂殺生根本業道者。一由加行。謂運手足等。二由果滿。謂所殺命斷。
論。此剎那后至殺生後起。明後起也。
論。餘六業道至準例應說。類釋餘六。準例可知。
論。貪．瞋．邪見至後起差別。明意三業道無加行．後起 正理論云。有餘師說貪．瞋．邪見若現在前即名業道。故無加行．後起差別。如是說者亦具三分。有不善思于貪．瞋等能為前．后助伴事故。
論。此中應說至為死後耶。進退問也。
論。若爾何失。反徴問也。若死有成。若死後成。進退何失。
論。二俱有過。兩關出過也。
論。若所殺生至彼業道成。出住死有成業道過。何為此時不成業道。以所殺者住死有時命猶在故。
論。若所殺生至根本業道。此出后成業道過也 于中有二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 中重心（Madhyamaka, 中觀學派的核心觀點）即有無表（avyaktakarma, 無表業）。如果不是這樣，就沒有無表業，而表業（vyaktakarma, 表業）一定是存在的。如果無表業不是由加行（prayoga, 事先的準備行為）產生的，
論：後來產生的行為如果與之前的行為不同，那麼無表業就不存在。解釋：在後來產生的行為中，無表業是確定的，因為根本業道（mūlakarma-patha, 根本業道）不會因為輕重而簡化，從而產生無表業。表業是不確定的。如果隨之前的行為，比如屠宰等，就會有表業。如果沒有隨之前的行為，那麼表業就沒有。
論：在這個意義中...直到後起位（pascatkriya, 完成後的行為）嗎？因為這個意義，所以問加行和後起位。
論：且在不善中...直到殺生加行。說明殺生加行位。
論：隨此表業...直到二由果滿。說明根本業道。說：當這個人正命終（samyak-marana, 正常死亡）的那個剎那，表業和無表業就是所謂的殺生根本業道。一是由加行，比如運用手腳等。二是由果滿，比如所殺的生命斷絕。
論：此剎那后...直到殺生後起。說明後起。
論：其餘六業道...直到準例應說。用類似的方法解釋其餘六種業道，可以類推得知。
論：貪（lobha, 貪慾）、瞋（dvesa, 嗔恚）、邪見（mithyadṛṣṭi, 錯誤的見解）...直到後起差別。說明意三業道（manaskarma-patha, 意業道）沒有加行和後起。正理論說：有其他老師說，貪、瞋、邪見如果現在生起，就叫做業道，所以沒有加行和後起的差別。這樣說的人也認為具有三分，因為有不善的思慮對於貪、瞋等能作為前後的助伴。
論：此中應說...直到為死後耶？這是進退的提問。
論：如果這樣，有什麼過失？這是反問。如果死亡時成就，或者死亡后成就，進退有什麼過失？
論：二者都有過失。這是兩方面都指出過失。
論：如果所殺的眾生...直到彼業道成。指出住死有（sthiti-marana-bhava, 住有和死有）成就業道的過失。為什麼這個時候不能成就業道？因為所殺的眾生在住死有的時候，生命還在。
論：如果所殺的眾生...直到根本業道。這是指出后成就業道的過失。于其中有二。
【English Translation】 English version The middle way (Madhyamaka) is the expression of existence and non-existence (avyaktakarma). If it is different from this, then there is no unexpressed action, and the expressed action (vyaktakarma) must exist. If the unexpressed action is not due to preparatory action (prayoga),
Treatise: Later arising reverses the former, so if it is different from this, then there is nothing. Explanation: In the later arising, there is definitely unexpressed action, because the fundamental path of action (mūlakarma-patha) is not simplified due to lightness or heaviness, thus producing unexpressed action. Expressed action is uncertain. If it arises following the previous action, such as slaughtering, then there is expressed action. If it does not arise, then there is no expressed action.
Treatise: In this meaning... until the subsequent action (pascatkriya)? Because of this meaning, the question is about preparatory and subsequent actions.
Treatise: And in non-virtue... until the preparatory action of killing. Explaining the stage of preparatory action of killing.
Treatise: Following this expressed action... until the two are fulfilled by the result. Explaining the fundamental path of action. Saying: When that person dies correctly (samyak-marana), at that moment, the expressed and unexpressed actions are what is called the fundamental path of action of killing. One is due to preparatory action, such as moving hands and feet. Two is due to the fulfillment of the result, such as the severing of the life of the one killed.
Treatise: After this moment... until the subsequent action of killing. Explaining the subsequent action.
Treatise: The remaining six paths of action... until it should be explained by analogy. Explaining the remaining six by analogy, it can be known by analogy.
Treatise: Greed (lobha), hatred (dvesa), wrong view (mithyadṛṣṭi)... until the difference in subsequent action. Explaining that the three mental paths of action (manaskarma-patha) have no preparatory or subsequent actions. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Some teachers say that if greed, hatred, and wrong view arise now, they are called paths of action, so there is no difference in preparatory and subsequent actions. Those who say this also believe it has three parts, because there are unwholesome thoughts that can serve as prior and subsequent companions for greed, hatred, etc.
Treatise: In this, it should be said... until after death? This is a question of advancing and retreating.
Treatise: If so, what is the fault? This is a counter-question. If it is accomplished at the time of death, or if it is accomplished after death, what is the fault in advancing and retreating?
Treatise: Both have faults. This points out the faults on both sides.
Treatise: If the being killed... until that path of action is accomplished. Pointing out the fault of the path of action being accomplished in the state of existence and death (sthiti-marana-bhava). Why is the path of action not accomplished at this time? Because the life of the being killed is still present in the state of existence and death.
Treatise: If the being killed... until the fundamental path of action. This points out the fault of the path of action being accomplished later. In it, there are two.
。一違前說過。二違婆沙釋。此即第一過也。正理通云。決定死後業道方成。而前所言正命終者。于已往事卻說現聲。如有大王自遠已至。而問今者從何所來 或此于因假說為果。謂所殺者正命終時。能殺有情加行表業于殺有用非業道表。此業道表續加行生。彼所引故名加行果。然因於殺有勝功能。是故於因假說為果。實非業道說業道聲 豈不此時表業有用。即應立此為業道耶 非要有能方成業道。勿無表業失業道名。此于殺中有何功用。如無表業。表亦應然。又理不應立加行表即為業道。所殺有情于命終位命猶有故。要加行表與所殺生命俱時滅。彼死有後無同類命。一剎那中表．無表業可成業道。此後念表于殺無能尚非殺生。何況是罪。但應無表得業道名。雖無殺能是殺果故 豈不后表理亦應然 殺表為因所引起故。謂由加行果圓滿時。此二俱成根本業道。雖於他命斷此二無能。而有取當來非愛果用。暢殺思故名殺業道。
論。又應違害至根本未息故。第二過也 若命終以後能殺生者業道方成。即違婆沙釋本論也。婆沙既言於後起以加行聲說。故知前時已成根本。若謂前時未成根本。即於此位成根本者。婆沙應言于根本以加行聲說。
論。如無有過至說加行聲。論主正婆沙。釋文可知 正理論云。如本
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：一、違背了前面所說的。二、違背了《婆沙論》的解釋。這就是第一個過失。正理論中說：『決定在死後，殺生的業道才能成立。』而前面所說的『正命終者』，是對已過去的事情卻用現在的語氣來說。就像有大王從遠處已經到達，卻問他現在從哪裡來一樣。或者這是把原因假說為結果，意思是說被殺者正命終時，能殺有情的加行表業對於殺生有用，但不是業道表。這個業道表隨著加行而生，因為它所引發的緣故，所以叫做加行果。然而，因為它對於殺生有殊勝的功能，所以把原因假說為結果，實際上不是業道，卻說成業道的聲音。難道不是此時表業有用，就應該把這個立為業道嗎？不是非要有能力才能成為業道，否則無表業就會失去業道的名稱。這個表業對於殺生有什麼功用呢？就像無表業一樣，表業也應該如此。而且，不應該把加行表業立即立為業道。因為被殺的有情在命終的時候，生命仍然存在。要加行表業與被殺的生命同時滅亡，在他死後沒有同類的生命，在一剎那中，表業和無表業才能成為業道。此後的念頭表業對於殺生沒有能力，尚且不是殺生，更何況是罪呢？但應該是無表業得到業道的名稱，雖然沒有殺生的能力，但它是殺生的結果。難道不是後面的表業也應該如此嗎？殺表是因為所引起，意思是說由加行果圓滿的時候，這兩個都成為根本業道。雖然對於他人的生命斷絕，這兩個都沒有能力，但有取當來非可愛果的功用，暢快殺生的思慮，所以叫做殺生業道。 論：又應該違害到根本沒有停止的緣故，這是第二個過失。如果命終以後能殺生，業道才能成立，就違背了《婆沙論》的解釋和本論。婆沙論既然說在後起用加行的聲音來說，所以知道前時已經成為根本。如果說前時沒有成為根本，就在這個位置成為根本，婆沙論應該說在根本用加行的聲音來說。 論：如沒有過失到說加行聲，論主正婆沙。釋文可知。正理論云：如本
【English Translation】 English version: First, it contradicts what was said before. Second, it contradicts the interpretation of the 'Vibhasa'. This is the first fault. The 'Nyaya-anusara' says: 'Only after death is the path of karma of killing established.' But what was said before, 'one who dies rightly,' uses the present tense to describe past events. It's like asking a great king who has already arrived from afar, 'Where are you coming from now?' Or this is falsely stating the cause as the result, meaning that when the killed being dies rightly, the active expression of the one who can kill is useful for killing, but it is not the expression of the path of karma. This expression of the path of karma arises with the activity, and because it is what it causes, it is called the fruit of activity. However, because it has a superior function for killing, the cause is falsely stated as the result. In reality, it is not the path of karma, but it is spoken of as the sound of the path of karma. Isn't it that the expression of karma is useful at this time, so this should be established as the path of karma? It is not necessary to have the ability to become the path of karma, otherwise the non-expression of karma would lose the name of the path of karma. What function does this expression have for killing? Just like the non-expression of karma, the expression should also be the same. Moreover, it is not appropriate to immediately establish the active expression as the path of karma. Because the being being killed still has life at the time of death. The active expression and the life being killed must perish at the same time. After his death, there is no similar life. In an instant, the expression and non-expression of karma can become the path of karma. The subsequent thought expression has no ability to kill, and is not even killing, let alone a sin? But it should be the non-expression of karma that gets the name of the path of karma. Although it does not have the ability to kill, it is the result of killing. Shouldn't the subsequent expression also be the same? The expression of killing is caused by what is caused, meaning that when the fruit of activity is complete, these two become the fundamental path of karma. Although these two have no ability to cut off the lives of others, they have the function of taking the future non-desirable fruit, and the thought of killing is pleasant, so it is called the path of killing karma. Treatise: Moreover, it should violate the reason that the root has not stopped, which is the second fault. If one can kill after death, the path of karma can be established, which violates the interpretation of the 'Vibhasa' and this treatise. Since the 'Vibhasa' says to use the sound of activity to speak of what arises later, it is known that the root has already been established before. If it is said that the root has not been established before, and it is established in this position, the 'Vibhasa' should say to use the sound of activity to speak of the root. Treatise: As there is no fault in saying the sound of activity, the author of the treatise corrects the 'Vibhasa'. The meaning of the interpretation is knowable. The 'Nyaya-anusara' says: As the original
論說。頗有已害生殺生未滅耶。曰有。如已斷生命彼加行未息。此言何義。此中義者。以殺生時起殺加行總有三種。一唯由內。謂拳擊等。二唯由外。謂擲石等。三俱由二。謂揮刀等。於此三種殺加行中。有所殺生命雖已斷。而能殺者生想未除。故於殺生不捨加行。由此本論作如是言。如已斷生命彼加行未息。于殺加行說殺生聲。故得說為殺生未滅 此亦業道后。如何名加行 毗婆沙師作如是釋。此於後起說加行聲。所以者何。以能殺者殺加行想猶未息故。于所殺生已命終想猶未生故。立加行名 如何但言此於後起。應作是說。及於根本。所以者何。以所殺者次死有後一剎那時。及此後時多剎那頃。能殺加行皆容未息。是故應言。此於後起及於根本說加行聲 無勞復說及於根本。以於後分聲亦攝根本故。要于所殺死有後時。能殺方成殺生根本。豈不根本及真後分。皆于所殺死有後生俱可名為殺生後分。是故應信。毗婆沙師于本論言極為善釋。
論。若爾於時至根本業道。問也。
論。何為不成。此反問也。
論。以無用故。答也。
論。無表於此至根本業道。引例答也。
論。又諸業道至為殺加行。明十業道為殺生加行也。
論。殺怨敵已至殺生後起。明十業道為殺生後起也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：有人說，即使已經害死了生命，殺生的行為也未停止，是這樣嗎？ 答：是的。例如，已經斷絕了生命，但殺生的行為（加行）卻沒有停止。 問：這是什麼意思？ 答：這裡的含義是，在殺生的時候，發起的殺生行為總共有三種：一是完全由內心發起的，比如拳擊等；二是完全由外力發起的，比如投擲石頭等；三是內外共同作用的，比如揮刀等。在這三種殺生行為中，雖然被殺的生命已經斷絕，但能殺的人殺生的念頭（生想）卻沒有消除，所以對於殺生沒有停止行為（加行）。因此，《本論》這樣說：『已經斷絕了生命，但殺生的行為卻沒有停止。』對於殺生的行為，稱之為殺生，所以可以說殺生的行為沒有停止。 這也是業道之後。如何稱之為加行呢？ 毗婆沙師這樣解釋：這是對於後來生起的行為，稱之為加行。為什麼呢？因為能殺的人殺生的念頭還沒有停止，對於被殺的生命已經死亡的想法還沒有產生，所以建立加行的名稱。 為什麼只說『這是對於後來生起的』，應該這樣說：『以及對於根本的』。為什麼呢？因為對於被殺的人，在臨死（次死有）之後的一剎那，以及此後多個剎那的時間裡，能殺的行為都可能沒有停止。所以應該說：『這是對於後來生起的以及對於根本的，稱之為加行。』 不必再說『以及對於根本的』，因為在後來的部分中也包含了根本。要在被殺的人死亡之後，能殺的行為才能構成殺生的根本。難道不是根本和真正的後來部分，都是在被殺的人死亡之後產生的，都可以稱之為殺生的後來部分嗎？所以應該相信，毗婆沙師對於《本論》的解釋非常精妙。
論：如果這樣，那麼什麼時候達到根本業道？（問） 論：為什麼不能成立？（反問） 論：因為沒有作用。（答） 論：無表於此達到根本業道。（舉例回答） 論：還有，各種業道都是殺生的行為。（說明十業道是殺生的行為） 論：殺怨敵之後是殺生的後起。（說明十業道是殺生的後起）
【English Translation】 English version Question: Is it the case that even after a life has been harmed and killed, the act of killing has not ceased? Answer: Yes. For example, life has been terminated, but the act (karma-forming action, karman) of killing has not ceased. Question: What does this mean? Answer: The meaning here is that when killing occurs, there are three types of killing actions (kāya-karma) in total: one is solely from within, such as punching; two are solely from external forces, such as throwing stones; and three are from both, such as wielding a knife. Among these three types of killing actions, although the life that is killed has been terminated, the thought of killing (saṃjñā) in the one who kills has not been eliminated, so the action of killing (karman) has not ceased. Therefore, the Abhidharma states: 'Life has been terminated, but the act of killing has not ceased.' The act of killing is referred to as killing, so it can be said that the act of killing has not ceased. This is also after the path of action (karma-patha). How is it called an action (karman)? The Vaibhāṣika masters explain it this way: This is called an action (karman) with respect to what arises later. Why? Because the thought of killing in the one who kills has not yet ceased, and the thought that the life that is killed has already died has not yet arisen, so the name of action (karman) is established. Why only say 'This is with respect to what arises later'? It should be said: 'And with respect to the root.' Why? Because for the one who is killed, in the moment after death (cuticitta), and for many moments after this, the action of killing may not have ceased. Therefore, it should be said: 'This is called an action (karman) with respect to what arises later and with respect to the root.' It is not necessary to say 'and with respect to the root,' because the root is also included in the later part. Only after the one who is killed has died can the action of killing constitute the root of killing. Are not the root and the true later part both produced after the one who is killed has died, and can both be called the later part of killing? Therefore, it should be believed that the Vaibhāṣika masters' explanation of the Abhidharma is extremely well done.
Question: If so, when does one reach the root path of action (karma-patha)? (Question) Question: Why is it not established? (Rhetorical question) Answer: Because it is useless. (Answer) Statement: Non-manifestation (avijñapti) reaches the root path of action (karma-patha) here. (Giving an example to answer) Statement: Also, all paths of action (karma-patha) are actions of killing (karman). (Clarifying that the ten paths of action are actions of killing) Statement: After killing an enemy is the subsequent arising of killing. (Clarifying that the ten paths of action are the subsequent arising of killing)
論。所餘業道如應當知。類釋余也。
論。貪等不應至未作事故。釋意三業道非加行也 正理論云。有餘師說。貪等不應能為加行。非唯心起加行即成。未作事故。如是說者。貪等雖非所作業性。然彼貪等緣境生時非無力用。由有力用得加行名。方便引生諸業道故 準正理論。貪等亦作加行為正。
論。又經中說至問余亦爾。問。三根生十業道也。
論。非諸業道至云何不同。問也 自下有三句。第二明三根生。
論曰至故作是說。總明不善業道一一。三根生也。
論。殺生加行至皆從癡起。明殺三根生也。
論。偷盜加行至起盜加行。明盜三根生也。
論。耶淫加行至從癡所生。此明耶淫三根為加行也。
論。虛誑語等至類前應說。明語四業。貪．瞋類前 從癡所生下別釋也。
論。然虛誑語至起虛誑語。明虛誑語從癡生也。
論。離間語等至加行從癡生。明餘三語從癡生也。
論。貪瞋等三至從三亦爾。明貪等三從三根生。
論。已說不善從三根生。已下半頌。第二明善業道三善根生也。
論曰至共相應故。明善業道加行．根本．後起皆從三善根生。皆是善心所等起故。從因等起心名之為善。善心與三善根相應故。由
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：剩餘的業道應該如何理解？這部分內容是對前面內容的補充解釋。
論：貪等煩惱不應該直接導致未完成的行為。解釋：這意味著身、語、意三業道並非僅僅是加行（prayoga，準備階段）。《正理論》中說：『有其他論師認為，貪等煩惱不應能成為加行，因為僅僅是心中生起貪念，加行並不能立即完成，因為實際的行為尚未發生。』如此說來，貪等煩惱雖然本身不是所要完成的行為，但當這些煩惱緣于外境生起時，並非毫無作用。由於它們具有力量和作用，因此可以被稱作加行，因為它們方便地引導和引發各種業道。』 按照《正理論》的觀點，貪等煩惱也可以被認為是加行，這是正確的。
論：此外，經文中說...（省略原文）...問：三種煩惱之根（貪、嗔、癡）能產生十種不善業道嗎？
論：並非所有的業道...（省略原文）...問：它們之間有什麼不同？（這是提問） （以下有三句話，第二句說明三種煩惱之根的產生。）
論曰：...（省略原文）...所以這樣說。總的來說，不善業道中的每一種都是由三種煩惱之根產生的。
論：殺生的加行...（省略原文）...都從癡（moha，愚癡）產生。說明殺生是由三種煩惱之根產生的。
論：偷盜的加行...（省略原文）...產生偷盜的加行。說明偷盜是由三種煩惱之根產生的。
論：邪淫的加行...（省略原文）...從癡所生。這說明邪淫的加行也是由三種煩惱之根產生的。
論：虛誑語等...（省略原文）...與前面類似，應該這樣解釋。說明語的四種惡業，貪和嗔與前面類似。（從癡所生以下分別解釋。）
論：然而，虛誑語...（省略原文）...產生虛誑語。說明虛誑語是從癡產生的。
論：離間語等...（省略原文）...加行是從癡產生的。說明其餘三種惡語是從癡產生的。
論：貪、嗔等三種...（省略原文）...從三種煩惱之根也是如此。說明貪等三種煩惱是從三種煩惱之根產生的。
論：已經說了不善業是從三種煩惱之根產生的。以下是半頌，第二部分說明善業道是從三種善根產生的。
論曰：...（省略原文）...共同相應。說明善業道的加行、根本和後起都是從三種善根產生的，因為它們都是由善心所等產生的。從因等生起的心被稱為善，因為善心與三種善根相應。因此...
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: The remaining paths of karma should be understood as they should be. This section is a supplementary explanation.
Treatise: Defilements such as greed should not lead to uncompleted actions. Explanation: This means that the three paths of karma of body, speech, and mind are not merely prayoga (preparatory stages). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Some other teachers say that defilements such as greed should not be able to be prayoga, because merely the arising of greed in the mind does not immediately complete the prayoga, because the actual action has not yet occurred.' Thus, although defilements such as greed are not themselves the actions to be completed, when these defilements arise in relation to external objects, they are not without effect. Because they have power and effect, they can be called prayoga, because they conveniently guide and induce various paths of karma.' According to the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, defilements such as greed can also be considered prayoga, which is correct.
Treatise: Furthermore, the sutras say... (omitting the original text)... Question: Can the three roots of affliction (greed, hatred, and delusion) produce the ten unwholesome paths of karma?
Treatise: Not all paths of karma... (omitting the original text)... Question: What are the differences between them? (This is a question) (Below are three sentences, the second sentence explains the arising of the three roots of affliction.)
Treatise says: ... (omitting the original text)... Therefore, it is said in this way. In general, each of the unwholesome paths of karma is produced by the three roots of affliction.
Treatise: The prayoga of killing... (omitting the original text)... all arise from moha (delusion). Explaining that killing is produced by the three roots of affliction.
Treatise: The prayoga of stealing... (omitting the original text)... produces the prayoga of stealing. Explaining that stealing is produced by the three roots of affliction.
Treatise: The prayoga of sexual misconduct... (omitting the original text)... arises from delusion. This explains that the prayoga of sexual misconduct is also produced by the three roots of affliction.
Treatise: False speech, etc.... (omitting the original text)... Similar to the previous, it should be explained in this way. Explaining the four evil karmas of speech, greed and hatred are similar to the previous. (The following explains separately from what arises from delusion.)
Treatise: However, false speech... (omitting the original text)... produces false speech. Explaining that false speech arises from delusion.
Treatise: Divisive speech, etc.... (omitting the original text)... The prayoga arises from delusion. Explaining that the remaining three evil speeches arise from delusion.
Treatise: Greed, hatred, etc., three... (omitting the original text)... It is also the same from the three roots of affliction. Explaining that the three defilements such as greed arise from the three roots of affliction.
Treatise: It has already been said that unwholesome karma arises from the three roots of affliction. The following is a half-verse, the second part explains that wholesome paths of karma arise from the three wholesome roots.
Treatise says: ... (omitting the original text)... correspond together. Explaining that the prayoga, root, and subsequent arising of wholesome paths of karma all arise from the three wholesome roots, because they are all produced by wholesome mental factors, etc. The mind arising from causes, etc., is called wholesome, because the wholesome mind corresponds to the three wholesome roots. Therefore...
此諸善業道皆從三根生也。
論。此善三位其相云何。問也。
論。謂遠離前至即善後起。答也 此有兩意。一離惡加行者。即是離殺生加行名善加行。根本．後起亦爾。二離惡加行者。謂離惡前方便。如欲受戒離惡前方便來入戒壇周匝禮僧等。根本．後起亦爾。
論。且如勤策至皆名從起。指事釋也 親教。梵名和上 羯磨。此云辨事 四依。謂常乞食。樹下坐。著糞掃衣。食塵棄藥 及余依前根本隨轉起作．持等表業及無表業皆名後起。
論。如先所說非諸業道。已下一頌半。明三根究竟不善業道。
論曰至此三成故。明瞋．貪究竟三業道也。
論。耶見究竟至現前成故。明癡究竟耶見業道。
論。虛誑離間至此三成故。明語三業道三根究竟 有人三解。一云近因等起。二云剎那等起。三云通二等起。自評云。三解中初解非理。后之二解俱可為正 今詳論意。是剎那等起不通余解。所以知然。思俱轉中雲二俱轉者。謂瞋心時究竟殺業。若起貪位成不與取。或欲邪行。三俱轉者。謂以瞋心於屬他生俱時殺．盜。若爾所說偷盜業道。由貪究竟理應不成。依不異心所作究竟故作是說。決制應知 準上論文。究竟即是俱轉時也 又正理云。貪．瞋等三一一皆由癡根究竟。非無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所有這些善業道都從三種根本（三根）產生。
論：這三種善的階段（善三位）的相狀是怎樣的呢？（問）
論：指的是遠離之前的惡行，直至善行開始，以及之後的行為。（答）這裡有兩種含義：一是遠離作惡的加行，也就是遠離殺生的加行，這被稱為善的加行；根本和後起也是如此。二是遠離作惡的加行，指的是遠離作惡的前方便，比如想要受戒，遠離作惡的前方便，來到戒壇，向僧眾周匝禮拜等等；根本和後起也是如此。
論：比如勤策（śrāmaṇera，沙彌），直至都名為從（善）而起。（指事釋）親教師，梵文名為Upādhyāya（和上）。羯磨（karma），這裡的意思是辨事。四依，指的是常乞食、樹下坐、著糞掃衣、食塵棄藥。以及其餘依照之前的根本而隨之轉變生起的作為、持戒等表業和無表業，都名為後起。
論：如先前所說，不是所有的業道。（已下一頌半）說明三種根本究竟的不善業道。
論曰：直至這三種成就的緣故。說明嗔（dveṣa，憎）、貪（rāga，貪愛）究竟的三種業道。
論：邪見（mithyā-dṛṣṭi）究竟直至現前成就的緣故。說明癡（moha，愚癡）究竟的邪見業道。
論：虛誑、離間直至這三種成就的緣故。說明語的三種業道的三種根本究竟。有人有三種解釋：一是說近因等起，二是說剎那等起，三是說通二等起。我（自評）認為，三種解釋中第一種不合理，后兩種都可以認為是正確的。現在詳細考察論的意義，是剎那等起，不通用於其他解釋。之所以知道是這樣，是因為在思俱轉中說二俱轉，指的是嗔心時究竟的殺業；如果生起貪心，就成就了不與取（adattādāna，偷盜），或者欲邪行（kāma-mithyācāra，邪淫）。三俱轉，指的是以嗔心對於屬於他人的生命，同時進行殺、盜。如果這樣說，那麼所說的偷盜業道，由於貪心究竟，理應不能成立。因為是依靠不異的心所作的究竟，所以這樣說，決斷制定應該知道。依照上面的論文，究竟就是俱轉的時候。又《正理》說，貪、嗔等三種，每一種都是由癡根究竟，沒有例外。
【English Translation】 English version: All these paths of wholesome actions arise from the three roots (tri-mūla).
Treatise: What are the characteristics of these three stages of goodness (śubha-sthiti)? (Question)
Treatise: It refers to distancing oneself from previous evil actions, until wholesome actions begin, and subsequent actions. (Answer) This has two meanings: First, distancing oneself from the preparatory actions of evil, which means distancing oneself from the preparatory actions of killing, which is called the preparatory action of goodness; the root and subsequent actions are also the same. Second, distancing oneself from the preparatory actions of evil, which refers to distancing oneself from the preliminary means of evil, such as wanting to take precepts, distancing oneself from the preliminary means of evil, coming to the ordination platform, circumambulating and bowing to the Sangha, etc.; the root and subsequent actions are also the same.
Treatise: For example, a novice monk (śrāmaṇera), up to all are called arising from (goodness). (Indicating the matter and explaining) The preceptor, in Sanskrit, is called Upādhyāya. Karma (karma), here it means discerning matters. The four supports (catvāri-niśraya), refer to always begging for food, sitting under a tree, wearing discarded rags, and eating discarded medicine. And the remaining actions that arise following the previous root, such as actions, upholding precepts, etc., both physical and non-physical actions, are all called subsequent actions.
Treatise: As previously stated, not all paths of action. (The following one and a half verses) explain the ultimate unwholesome paths of action of the three roots.
Treatise says: Up to the reason why these three are accomplished. Explains the ultimate three paths of action of anger (dveṣa) and greed (rāga).
Treatise: Ultimate wrong view (mithyā-dṛṣṭi) up to the reason why it is accomplished in the present. Explains the ultimate wrong view path of action of delusion (moha).
Treatise: Falsehood, divisive speech up to the reason why these three are accomplished. Explains the ultimate three roots of the three paths of action of speech. Some people have three explanations: First, they say it is arising from proximate cause; second, they say it is arising from a moment; third, they say it is arising from both. I (self-assessment) think that among the three explanations, the first is unreasonable, and the latter two can be considered correct. Now, examining the meaning of the treatise in detail, it is arising from a moment, and does not apply to other explanations. The reason for knowing this is that in the co-arising of thought, it is said that the co-arising of two refers to the ultimate act of killing when anger arises; if greed arises, it accomplishes not taking what is given (adattādāna), or sexual misconduct (kāma-mithyācāra). The co-arising of three refers to killing and stealing the life of another simultaneously with anger. If this is the case, then the mentioned path of action of stealing, due to the ultimate greed, should not be established. Because it is the ultimate action done relying on a non-different mental state, that is why it is said, and the decisive determination should be known. According to the above treatise, ultimate is the time of co-arising. Also, the Nyāyasūtra says that each of the three, greed, anger, etc., is ultimately rooted in delusion, without exception.
癡者此三起故。有餘於此作是釋言。即說此法由此究竟。自體生時即業道故。彼理窮故作如是釋。然實貪等正現前時。幸有癡根能為究竟。何緣不許執自體耶。餘業道中他究竟故 準上論文。與業同時名究竟也。此等皆取自作不異心。非謂遣他及自作后便成不異心等。準上論文。剎那等起名為究竟。此等皆頌中雲。瞋由瞋究竟。貪由貪究竟。與正理論初師不同。同第二師。
論。諸惡業道何處起耶。自下半頌。第三明業道起處。
論曰至四處而生。總釋頌也。謂前三根究竟中四節業道。三．三．一．三隨其次第。有情．眾具．名色．名身等處起也。
論。謂殺等三至名身等處起。此別釋也 殺必于有情想成殺業道。緣假有情非名色等 粗惡語但緣有情發語。叱吒等欲令切其心腐 嗔謂有情相違損害之心成其業道。非於無情成業道也。由此三種業道有情處起 盜謂他財竊取。即是於他眾具起他物想 邪行謂于妻．妾等。亦是眾具 貪謂他物屬己想。亦是眾具。故三業道眾具處起 邪見業道撥無因果。不緣假有情。亦非眾具。但緣五蘊．四諦因．果。故言名色處起 虛誑語等皆緣異名．句．文令他異解。故言名身等處起。此等皆是從多。非不少分亦緣余法。
論。有起加行至業道罪耶。此下第四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：愚癡之人由此三種原因生起（惡業）。有些人對此作出解釋說，正是因為說了這種法，（惡業）才得以究竟。自體產生之時，即是業道。他們因為窮盡了這種道理，才這樣解釋。然而實際上，當貪等煩惱真正現前時，幸好有愚癡這個根本才能使（惡業）究竟。有什麼理由不允許執著自體呢？因為其他的業道是由他（愚癡）來究竟的。按照上面的論文，與業同時發生就叫做究竟。這些都是取自『自作不異心』（認為自己所作與實際情況沒有差異的心態）。並非說遣除他人或者自己做了之後，就變成了不異心等等。按照上面的論文，剎那間生起就叫做究竟。這些都如頌中所說：『嗔由嗔究竟，貪由貪究竟』。這與《正理論》的第一位論師不同，而與第二位論師相同。
論：各種惡業道在何處生起呢？從下面的半頌開始，第三部分說明業道生起之處。
論曰：到四處而生。這是對頌的總解釋。指的是前面三種根本（貪、嗔、癡）究竟中所包含的四種業道。三、三、一、三，按照這個順序，分別在有情（sentient beings）、眾具（possessions）、名色（nama-rupa，name and form，精神和物質）、名身（nama-kaya，name and body，名稱和身體）等處生起。
論：所謂殺等三種（業道）到名身等處生起。這是分別解釋。殺業必定是在有情想（認為對象是有情）的情況下才能構成殺業道。因為假立的有情並非名色等。粗惡語只是針對有情而發出的語言，叱責等是爲了使其內心受到傷害。嗔恚是指對有情產生違逆和損害之心，才能構成業道，對無情之物不會構成業道。因此，這三種業道是在有情處生起。盜竊是指竊取他人的財物，也就是對他人的眾具產生『這是他物』的想法。邪淫是指對妻子、妾等，也是眾具。貪婪是指將他人的財物想成是自己的，也是眾具。所以這三種業道是在眾具處生起。邪見業道是否定因果，不針對假立的有情，也不是眾具，只是針對五蘊（skandhas，五蘊）、四諦（Four Noble Truths，四聖諦）的因和果。所以說是名色處生起。虛誑語等都是通過不同的名稱、語句、文字，使他人產生錯誤的理解。所以說是在名身等處生起。這些都是從多數情況來說的，並非說少部分情況也只針對這些法。
【English Translation】 English version: The deluded person arises from these three causes (evil deeds). Some people explain this by saying that it is because this Dharma (teaching) is spoken that (evil deeds) are brought to completion. When the self arises, it is the path of karma. They explain it this way because they have exhausted this reasoning. However, in reality, when greed and other afflictions truly manifest, fortunately, the root of delusion is able to bring (evil deeds) to completion. What reason is there not to allow attachment to the self? Because other paths of karma are brought to completion by it (delusion). According to the above treatise, occurring simultaneously with karma is called completion. These are all taken from the 'self-made non-different mind' (the mindset that one's actions are no different from the actual situation). It is not to say that eliminating others or doing it oneself then becomes a non-different mind, etc. According to the above treatise, arising in an instant is called completion. These are all as the verse says: 'Anger is completed by anger, greed is completed by greed.' This is different from the first teacher in the Nyāyānusāra, but the same as the second teacher.
Treatise: Where do the various paths of evil karma arise? Starting from the following half-verse, the third part explains where the paths of karma arise.
Treatise says: Arising in four places. This is a general explanation of the verse. It refers to the four paths of karma contained in the completion of the previous three roots (greed, anger, delusion). Three, three, one, three, in that order, arise in sentient beings (sattva), possessions (parikara), nama-rupa (name and form), nama-kaya (name and body), etc., respectively.
Treatise: The so-called three (paths of karma) such as killing arise in nama-kaya etc. This is a separate explanation. The karma of killing must be formed with the thought of sentient beings (thinking the object is a sentient being). Because the falsely established sentient being is not nama-rupa etc. Harsh speech is only language directed at sentient beings, scolding etc. is to cause harm to their hearts. Anger refers to the mind of opposition and harm towards sentient beings, which can form the path of karma; it does not form the path of karma towards inanimate objects. Therefore, these three paths of karma arise in the place of sentient beings. Stealing refers to stealing the property of others, that is, having the thought of 'this is another's object' towards the possessions of others. Adultery refers to wives, concubines, etc., which are also possessions. Greed refers to thinking of the property of others as one's own, which is also possessions. Therefore, these three paths of karma arise in the place of possessions. The path of karma of wrong view denies cause and effect, and is not directed at falsely established sentient beings, nor is it possessions, but is directed at the five skandhas (aggregates), the causes and effects of the Four Noble Truths. Therefore, it is said to arise in the place of nama-rupa. False speech etc. all cause others to have wrong understanding through different names, sentences, and words. Therefore, it is said to arise in the place of nama-kaya etc. These are all from the majority of cases, not that a small part is only directed at these dharmas.
問答分別。
論曰至俱死前死。釋不成業道也。
論。何緣如是至理不應然。釋不成業道。如文可解。
論。若有多人至殺生業道。已下第二半頌。明他殺成自業道。
論曰至亦成殺罪。釋他殺生自成業也。
論。唯除若有至故無殺罪。明他殺生自不成也。如文可解。
論。今次應辨至殺生相者。自下有四半頌明成不善業相 此半行頌。明成殺業道相。具三緣成殺生。一由故思。二由他想。三不誤殺 或開為四。殺生為一緣也 雜心論云有欲殺生心。當此論故思 眾生想。當此論他想 第三緣殺生。與此論不同。此論云不誤殺 直言殺生若不簡誤。但斷前命兼上二緣即成殺罪。此據無簡別心 不誤殺者。如有欲殺強人誤殺尪人不成業道。此據有簡別殺。據義不同。義不相違。
論曰至殺生業道。此據簡別心殺不誤方成業道。
論。有猶豫殺亦成業道。此無簡別心殺。但殺眾生即成業道 雜心據此但言殺生。
論。于剎那滅蘊如何成殺生。正量部問也。問意云 如有部宗云有為蘊剎那自滅不待客因。如何成殺 謂過去已滅．現在自滅。未來未至。
論。息風名生至鈴聲名殺。答也。息風名生。令息后念不續名為殺。非是令前念滅名之為殺 如滅燈光鈴聲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：什麼是『至俱死前死』？ 答：這是爲了解釋不成業道的情況。
問：為什麼會這樣，這樣的道理不應該成立？ 答：這是爲了解釋不成業道的情況。如文中所述，可以理解。
問：如果有多人蔘與，最終導致殺生業道的形成？ 答：以下第二半頌，說明他人殺生，自己也成就業道。
問：即使不是自己親手殺的，也會構成殺罪嗎？ 答：這是爲了解釋他人殺生，自己也成就業道的情況。
問：除非有特殊情況，否則不會構成殺罪？ 答：這是爲了說明他人殺生，自己不成就業道的情況。如文中所述，可以理解。
問：現在應該辨別什麼才是殺生相？ 答：自下有四半頌，說明成就惡業之相。此半行頌，說明成就殺業道之相。具備三個條件才能成就殺生：一是由故思（有意識地思考），二是由他想（認為對方是眾生），三是不誤殺（不是誤殺）。或者可以分為四個條件，將殺生本身作為一個條件。雜心論（Abhidharmasamuccaya）中說，有欲殺生的心，相當於此論中的『故思』；認為對方是眾生，相當於此論中的『他想』；第三個條件是殺生，與此論不同。此論說的是『不誤殺』，直接說殺生，如果不區分誤殺，只要斷絕前一念的生命，加上前兩個條件，就構成殺罪。這是根據沒有區分的心而言的。『不誤殺』是指，比如想殺強盜，卻誤殺了弱者，這樣不構成業道。這是根據有區分的殺而言的。雖然說法不同，但義理上並不矛盾。
問：只有具備簡別心（區分對象的心）並且不是誤殺，才能構成殺生業道嗎？ 答：這是根據具備簡別心，並且不是誤殺，才能成就業道。
問：有猶豫的殺，也會構成業道嗎？ 答：這是指沒有簡別心的殺，只要殺了眾生，就構成業道。雜心論（Abhidharmasamuccaya）根據這一點，只說是殺生。
問：剎那滅（ksana-bhanga）的蘊（skandha），如何構成殺生？ 答：這是正量部（Sammitīya）的提問。問題的意思是，如果如有部宗（Sarvāstivāda）認為有為蘊（conditioned aggregates）是剎那自滅，不依賴外在因素，那麼如何構成殺生？因為過去已經滅了，現在正在自滅，未來還沒有到來。
問：什麼是『息風名生』，什麼是『**名殺』？ 答：這是回答。『息風名生』，讓氣息停止，使後續的念頭不再延續，這叫做殺。不是讓前一念滅亡叫做殺。如同熄滅燈光一樣。
【English Translation】 English version Question: What does 'dying before reaching death' mean? Answer: This is to explain situations where the path of karma is not completed.
Question: Why is it like this? Such a principle shouldn't be valid. Answer: This is to explain situations where the path of karma is not completed. As explained in the text, it can be understood.
Question: If multiple people are involved, ultimately leading to the formation of the path of killing karma? Answer: The second half of the verse below explains that when others kill, one also accumulates karma.
Question: Even if one doesn't kill with their own hands, does it still constitute the sin of killing? Answer: This is to explain that when others kill, one also accumulates karma.
Question: Unless there are special circumstances, it doesn't constitute the sin of killing? Answer: This is to explain that when others kill, one does not accumulate karma. As explained in the text, it can be understood.
Question: Now, what should be distinguished as the characteristics of killing? Answer: From below, there are four half-verses explaining the characteristics of accumulating unwholesome karma. This half-line verse explains the characteristics of completing the path of killing karma. Three conditions must be met to complete killing: first, intentional thought (故思); second, the thought of the other as a sentient being (他想); and third, not killing by mistake (不誤殺). Or it can be divided into four conditions, with killing itself as one condition. The Abhidharmasamuccaya (雜心論) says that having the intention to kill is equivalent to 'intentional thought' in this treatise; thinking of the other as a sentient being is equivalent to 'other thought' in this treatise; the third condition is killing, which is different from this treatise. This treatise speaks of 'not killing by mistake.' Directly saying killing, if one doesn't distinguish mistaken killing, as long as one cuts off the life of the previous thought, plus the first two conditions, it constitutes the sin of killing. This is based on having no discriminating mind. 'Not killing by mistake' refers to, for example, wanting to kill a robber but mistakenly killing a weak person, which does not constitute the path of karma. This is based on killing with discrimination. Although the statements are different, the meanings are not contradictory.
Question: Only with a discriminating mind (簡別心) and not killing by mistake can the path of killing karma be completed? Answer: This is based on having a discriminating mind and not killing by mistake to complete the path of karma.
Question: Does killing with hesitation also constitute the path of karma? Answer: This refers to killing without a discriminating mind; as long as one kills a sentient being, it constitutes the path of karma. The Abhidharmasamuccaya (雜心論), based on this, only speaks of killing.
Question: How can the aggregates (skandha) that are destroyed in an instant (ksana-bhanga) constitute killing? Answer: This is a question from the Sammitīya (正量部). The meaning of the question is, if the Sarvāstivāda (如有部宗) believes that conditioned aggregates (有為蘊) are self-destroyed in an instant and do not depend on external factors, then how can killing be constituted? Because the past has already been destroyed, the present is being self-destroyed, and the future has not yet arrived.
Question: What is 'cessation of wind called birth,' and what is '** called killing'? Answer: This is the answer. 'Cessation of wind called birth' means stopping the breath, causing subsequent thoughts to no longer continue, which is called killing. It is not causing the previous thought to be destroyed that is called killing. It is like extinguishing a lamp.
名殺者。正量部同許燈焰．鈴聲剎那自滅不待客因。吹燈令滅。執鈴斷聲。但令后念不生。非令前滅。故引共許為喻。
論。或復生者至殺罪所觸。第二釋也。命根為生。后解為正。與正量等同故 婆沙一百一十八云。問殺何蘊名殺生。過去耶。未來耶。現在耶。過去已滅。未來未至。現在不住。悉無殺義。云何名殺。答殺未來蘊非過去．現在。問未來未至云何可殺。答彼住現在遮未來世諸蘊和合說名為殺。由遮他蘊和合生緣故得殺罪。有說。殺現在．未來蘊但非過去。問未來可爾。現在不住。設彼不殺亦自然滅。云何殺耶。答斷彼勢用說名為殺。所以者何。先現在蘊雖不住而滅。然不能令后蘊不續。今現在蘊不住而滅。則能令其後蘊不續。故於現蘊亦得殺罪 既無評文。義亦兼通 又婆沙云。問諸蘊中何蘊可殺。于彼得罪。有說。色蘊所以者何。唯色可為杖等所觸故。有說。五蘊。問四蘊無觸云何可殺。答彼依色轉。色蘊壞時彼便不轉故亦名殺。如瓶破時乳等亦失。又都於五蘊起噁心而殺。故於彼得殺罪 又婆沙云。問殺壽盡者得殺罪不。答若此剎那壽應盡即爾時加害者不得殺罪。若由加害乃至一剎那壽住不生法皆得殺罪。況多剎那。
論。此所斷命為屬於誰。執我宗問。
論。謂命若無彼便死
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『名殺者』（Those who are named as killers）。正量部（Pudgalavada, 一個佛教部派，主張存在不可說的「補特伽羅」，即個體）同樣認為燈焰的剎那（ksana, 佛教時間概念，極短的時間單位）是自滅的，不需要外在的因素。吹滅燈，使之熄滅；握住鈴鐺，使之斷絕聲音。只是讓后念不生起，而不是讓前念滅亡。所以引用共同認可的例子來比喻。
論：或者說，眾生觸犯殺罪（killing offense）。這是第二種解釋。命根（jīvitendriya, 生命的本能）被認為是生命。后一種解釋是正確的，因為它與正量部（Pudgalavada）的觀點相同。《婆沙論》（Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra）第一百一十八卷說：『問：殺哪個蘊（skandha, 構成個體的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）被稱為殺生？是過去蘊、未來蘊還是現在蘊？過去蘊已經滅亡，未來蘊尚未到來，現在蘊不停留，都沒有殺的意義。那怎麼能稱為殺呢？』答：殺的是未來蘊，而不是過去蘊和現在蘊。問：未來蘊尚未到來，怎麼能殺呢？答：它停留在現在，阻止未來世的諸蘊和合，這被稱為殺。由於阻止了其他蘊的和合生緣，所以得到殺罪。』有人說：『殺的是現在蘊和未來蘊，但不是過去蘊。』問：未來蘊可以這樣說，但現在蘊不停留，即使不殺它也會自然滅亡，怎麼能說是殺呢？答：斷絕它的勢用，這被稱為殺。為什麼這麼說呢？因為先前的現在蘊雖然不停留而滅亡，但不能阻止后蘊的延續。現在，現在蘊不停留而滅亡，就能阻止后蘊的延續。所以對於現在蘊也得到殺罪。』既然沒有評判性的文字，那麼這個意義也是可以兼顧的。
《婆沙論》又說：『問：諸蘊中哪個蘊可以被殺？對於它得到罪過？』有人說：『是色蘊（rūpa-skandha, 物質的要素）。』為什麼這麼說呢？因為只有色蘊可以被棍棒等觸及。有人說：『是五蘊。』問：四蘊沒有觸覺，怎麼能被殺呢？答：它們依賴於色蘊而運轉。當色蘊壞滅時，它們便不再運轉，所以也稱為殺。就像瓶子破裂時，牛奶等也會失去一樣。』又說：『完全是對五蘊生起噁心而殺，所以對於它們得到殺罪。』
《婆沙論》又說：『問：殺壽命將盡的人，能得到殺罪嗎？』答：如果在這個剎那壽命就應該終結，那麼加害者不得殺罪。如果由於加害，乃至一剎那壽命得以延續，不生起死亡之法，都得到殺罪。更何況是延續多個剎那呢？』
論：所斷絕的生命屬於誰？這是執我宗（認為存在『我』的宗派）的提問。
論：如果生命不存在，那他就會死亡。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Those who are named as killers.』 The Pudgalavada (a Buddhist school that asserts the existence of an inexpressible 『pudgala,』 or individual) also agrees that the moment (ksana, a very short unit of time in Buddhism) of a lamp flame is self-extinguishing and does not require external causes. Blowing out a lamp causes it to extinguish; holding a bell stops its sound. It only prevents the arising of subsequent thoughts, not the extinction of previous ones. Therefore, a commonly accepted example is used as a metaphor.
Treatise: Or, beings commit the killing offense. This is the second explanation. The life force (jīvitendriya, the instinct of life) is considered life. The latter explanation is correct because it is the same as the view of the Pudgalavada. The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 118, says: 『Question: Killing which skandha (the five aggregates that constitute an individual: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) is called killing a living being? Is it the past skandha, the future skandha, or the present skandha? The past skandha has already ceased, the future skandha has not yet arrived, and the present skandha does not stay; none of them have the meaning of killing. So how can it be called killing?』 Answer: Killing the future skandha, not the past or present skandha. Question: The future skandha has not yet arrived, how can it be killed? Answer: It stays in the present, preventing the combination of future skandhas, which is called killing. Because it prevents the conditions for the combination and arising of other skandhas, one incurs the killing offense.』 Some say: 『Killing the present and future skandhas, but not the past skandha.』 Question: The future skandha can be said that way, but the present skandha does not stay; even if it is not killed, it will naturally cease. How can it be called killing? Answer: Cutting off its potential is called killing. Why is that? Because the previous present skandha, although it does not stay and ceases, cannot prevent the continuation of subsequent skandhas. Now, the present skandha does not stay and ceases, and it can prevent the continuation of subsequent skandhas. Therefore, one also incurs the killing offense for the present skandha.』 Since there is no critical text, this meaning can also be considered inclusive.
The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra also says: 『Question: Among the skandhas, which skandha can be killed? For which does one incur the offense?』 Some say: 『It is the form skandha (rūpa-skandha, the element of matter).』 Why is that? Because only the form skandha can be touched by sticks, etc. Some say: 『It is the five skandhas.』 Question: The four skandhas have no touch, how can they be killed? Answer: They depend on the form skandha to function. When the form skandha is destroyed, they no longer function, so it is also called killing. Just like when a bottle is broken, milk, etc., will also be lost.』 It is also said: 『It is entirely out of evil intent towards the five skandhas that one kills, so one incurs the killing offense for them.』
The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra also says: 『Question: Can one incur the killing offense for killing someone whose lifespan is about to end?』 Answer: If the lifespan should end at that moment, then the perpetrator does not incur the killing offense. If, due to the harm, even a moment of lifespan is extended, and the law of death does not arise, one incurs the killing offense. How much more so if it is extended for multiple moments?』
Treatise: To whom does the life that is cut off belong? This is a question from the school that holds to the existence of a self (those who believe in the existence of a 『self』).
Treatise: If life does not exist, then he will die.
者。無我者答。正理云。謂命若無彼便死者。即是此命所依附身。
論。既標第六非我而誰。執我宗難。第六轉聲必有所屬。若非屬我。所屬者誰。
論。破我論中當廣思擇。指下釋也。
論。故薄伽梵至其理決然。引經證命所屬是身非是我也。
論。離系者言至亦被燒害。敘外道計破也。
論。若爾汝等至有苦他罪。引例破也。所引例者。皆是無心欲苦他者。
論。又所殺者至能殺得罪。汝引火為例。無心觸火而被火燒。亦應同火燒其所合。所殺得罪非能殺人。
論。又遣他殺至教觸火者。例火教他無罪難也。
論。又諸木等至亦害生故。同人無心得罪難也。
論。又非但喻立義可成。夫立義法須有宗．因。非唯立喻義可成也。婆沙一百一十九云。頗有故思害眾生命后不受遠離而於一切有情得防護耶。答有。如起殺加行中間證見法性。此顯不因受諸學處。但由入正性離生時得不作律儀。昔有釋種名掣迦。先是世尊祖父僮僕 乃至 佛應彼機為說法要。諸子聞已亦證離生。得預流果。生凈法眼。深心歡喜瞻仰世尊。時林野中無量蟲鹿沖諸機阱死傷非一。由聖道力令諸子等殺生業道無表不生。問殺何等生於加行位可入聖道。有作是說。殺傍生等。但非殺人。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：『無我』（Anatta，佛教術語，指沒有永恒不變的『我』）的觀點是誰提出的？ 答：『無我』的觀點是由佛教提出的。正理（Nyaya，古印度哲學流派）認為，如果『命』（jiva，生命）不存在，那麼身體就會死亡，因此，身體是『命』所依附的。
論：既然已經明確了第六識（意識）不是『我』，那麼誰才是『我』呢？這是那些執著于『我』的宗派提出的難題。第六識的聲音必然有所歸屬，如果不是屬於『我』，那麼屬於誰呢？
論：關於破除『我』的理論，應當深入思考，這將在後面的解釋中詳細說明。
論：因此，薄伽梵（Bhagavan，佛陀的尊稱）說，其道理是確鑿無疑的。引用經典來證明『命』所依附的是身體，而不是『我』。
論：離系者（Jainas，耆那教徒）說，火也會被燒燬。這是對外道的觀點的敘述和駁斥。
論：如果這樣，那麼你們也會有使他人受苦的罪過。這是通過舉例來進行駁斥。所舉的例子都是無意使他人受苦的情況。
論：此外，被殺者會因此受苦，而殺人者會因此獲罪。你們用火來做例子，無意中接觸到火而被燒傷，也應該像火燒燬與其接觸的東西一樣。被殺者受苦，而不是殺人者獲罪。
論：此外，指使他人殺人，就像教唆他人接觸火一樣，是無罪的，這是一種反駁。
論：此外，木頭等物體也會無意中傷害生命，因此也應該像人一樣因此獲罪。
論：此外，不能僅僅通過比喻來成立論點。要成立一個論點，必須要有宗（命題）、因（理由），不能僅僅通過比喻來成立論點。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第一百一十九卷說：『有沒有故意傷害眾生的生命，之後卻不受遠離，反而對一切有情眾生得到保護的情況呢？』回答是：『有。』例如，在開始殺戮行為的過程中，證悟了法性。這表明不需要接受各種學處（戒律），僅僅通過進入正性離生（證悟）時，就能獲得不作律儀（不造惡業）的能力。過去有一位釋迦族人名叫掣迦（Cetaka），先前是世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）祖父的僕人，乃至佛陀應他的根機為他說法要。他的兒子們聽了之後也證悟了離生，獲得了預流果（須陀洹），生起了清凈的法眼，內心深感歡喜，瞻仰世尊。當時，在林野中，無數的蟲鹿衝入各種陷阱，死傷無數。由於聖道的威力，使得這些兒子們的殺生業道無表（潛在的業力）不生起。問：殺害什麼樣的眾生，在加行位（修行階段）可以進入聖道？有人說，殺害傍生（畜生）等，但不能殺人。有人
【English Translation】 English version Question: Who propounded the view of 'Anatta' (non-self, the Buddhist concept of no permanent self)? Answer: The view of 'Anatta' was propounded by Buddhism. Nyaya (an ancient Indian philosophical school) states that if 'jiva' (life) does not exist, then the body will die; therefore, the body is what 'jiva' relies on.
Treatise: Now that it is clear that the sixth consciousness (consciousness) is not 'self', then who is 'self'? This is a difficult question posed by those sects that cling to 'self'. The voice of the sixth consciousness must belong to something. If it does not belong to 'self', then to whom does it belong?
Treatise: Regarding the theory of refuting 'self', one should think deeply, which will be explained in detail in the following explanations.
Treatise: Therefore, the Bhagavan (the Blessed One, an honorific for the Buddha) said that the reason is undoubtedly true. Citing scriptures to prove that what 'life' relies on is the body, not 'self'.
Treatise: The Jainas say that fire is also burned. This is a narration and refutation of the views of external paths.
Treatise: If so, then you will also have the sin of causing others to suffer. This is refuted by giving examples. The examples given are all cases of unintentionally causing others to suffer.
Treatise: Furthermore, the killed suffers because of it, and the killer is guilty because of it. You use fire as an example. Unintentionally touching fire and being burned should be like fire burning what it touches. The killed suffers, not the killer is guilty.
Treatise: Furthermore, instructing others to kill is like instigating others to touch fire, which is innocent. This is a rebuttal.
Treatise: Furthermore, objects such as wood also unintentionally harm life, so they should also be guilty like humans.
Treatise: Furthermore, a proposition cannot be established solely through analogy. To establish a proposition, there must be a subject (thesis) and a reason (cause). A proposition cannot be established solely through analogy. The Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise), volume one hundred and nineteen, says: 'Is there a situation where one intentionally harms the lives of sentient beings, but afterwards is not kept away, but instead obtains protection for all sentient beings?' The answer is: 'Yes.' For example, in the process of initiating killing actions, one realizes the nature of reality. This shows that there is no need to accept various precepts (disciplines). Merely by entering the state of rightness and detachment (enlightenment), one can obtain the ability to not create ethical restraints (not create evil karma). In the past, there was a Shakya named Cetaka, who was previously a servant of the Buddha's grandfather, and even the Buddha responded to his capacity and spoke the Dharma to him. After hearing it, his sons also realized detachment, obtained the stream-enterer fruit (Sotapanna), and generated pure Dharma eyes, feeling deeply joyful and gazing at the Buddha. At that time, in the forest, countless insects and deer rushed into various traps, and many were killed or injured. Due to the power of the holy path, the killing karma of these sons did not arise as unmanifested (latent karmic force). Question: What kind of beings can be killed in the stage of application (practice) to enter the holy path? Some say that killing animals, etc., but not killing people. Some
作是說。亦通殺人。唯除已起無間加行。故作是說。如應殺加行而於中間證見法性。一百一十八云。頗有未害生殺生未滅。此業異熟定生地獄耶。答有。如作無間業加行時命終。其事云何。謂如有人慾害其母。適起加行。或為官司所獲。或母有力反害其子。或母福德天神為殺其子墮地獄而母猶存。或起加行致母必死。而便中悔自害其命亦生地獄。如害母如是造余無間應知亦爾。
論。已分別殺生當辨不與取。自下半頌。第二述成盜相。
論曰至不與取罪。辨盜相也。有分別．無分別應如殺說。不誤．故思流至後門。一發盜故思。二於他物中。三起他物想。四起盜加行。五不誤而取令屬己身 若他物己物想欲盜四．誤盜五等皆非業道。
論。若有盜取至望守護者。此兩釋中前解為勝。正理論云。有說。此罪于能護人。則彼自盜應無有罪。是故前說于理為勝。婆沙一百一十三多解。評取佛處得罪。
論。若有掘取至余例應思 迴轉物者。即云比丘物等。正理云。若盜他人及象．馬等出所住處業道方成。婆沙論云。若取兩國中間伏藏。若轉輪王出現世時輪王處得。若無輪王都無處得(今詳。應于兩國王處得。地兩國共故也)。
論。已辨不與取當辨欲邪行。自下半頌。第三述成欲邪行。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
這樣說，也包括殺人。除非已經開始了無間業的加行（無間加行指直接導致無間地獄果報的行為準備階段）。所以這樣說。如果應該殺的加行在中間證悟了法性。第一百一十八卷說，『有沒有未害生命，殺生未滅，此業的異熟果報必定會墮入地獄的？』回答是『有』。例如在造作無間業的加行時死亡。這件事是怎樣的呢？例如有人想要殺他的母親，剛開始加行，或者被官府抓獲，或者母親有力氣反過來殺了兒子，或者母親有福德，天神殺了她的兒子，導致兒子墮入地獄而母親仍然活著，或者開始加行導致母親必死，但隨即後悔自殺了，也會墮入地獄。像殺母親一樣，造作其他的無間業也應該知道是這樣的。
論：已經分別了殺生，接下來應當辨析不與取（未經允許取走他人財物）。從下面的半頌開始。第二部分陳述構成盜竊罪的要素。
論曰：至不與取罪，辨別盜竊的相狀。有分別和無分別應該像殺生那樣解釋。不誤解，盜竊的故意持續到最後完成。一、發起盜竊的故意。二、針對他人的財物。三、產生那是他人財物的想法。四、開始盜竊的加行。五、沒有誤解地拿取，使財物歸屬於自己。如果認為是他人的財物，但想盜竊四種東西，誤盜五種東西等，都不是業道（導致惡果的行為途徑）。
論：如果有盜取行為，直到希望有人守護這些財物。這兩種解釋中，前一種解釋更好。《正理論》說：『有人說，這種罪過是針對能夠守護財物的人。那麼，盜竊自己守護的財物就應該沒有罪過。』因此，前一種說法在道理上更勝一籌。《婆沙論》第一百一十三卷有多種解釋，評論說從佛陀處拿取東西會得罪。
論：如果有挖掘行為，直到其餘的情況應該思考。轉移物品的人，例如僧侶的物品等。《正理論》說：『如果盜取他人以及大象、馬等，移出所居住的地方，業道才能成立。』《婆沙論》說：『如果拿取兩國中間的伏藏，如果在轉輪王出現於世時，在轉輪王所統治的地方才能獲得。如果沒有轉輪王，任何地方都不能獲得（現在詳細分析，應該在兩個國王的地方獲得，因為土地是兩國共有的）。』
論：已經辨析了不與取，接下來應當辨析欲邪行（不正當的性行為）。從下面的半頌開始。第三部分陳述構成欲邪行的要素。
【English Translation】 English version:
It is said in this way, and it also includes killing. Except when the 'anantarika-karma prayoga' (anantarika-karma prayoga refers to the preparatory stage of actions that directly lead to the retribution of Avici hell) has already begun. Therefore, it is said in this way. If the 'prayoga' that should lead to killing is interrupted by the realization of 'dharmata' (the nature of reality). Chapter 118 says, 'Is there any case where life has not been harmed, killing has not ceased, yet the 'vipaka' (result) of this karma is certain to lead to hell?' The answer is 'Yes.' For example, when one dies while performing the 'prayoga' of an 'anantarika-karma'. What is the matter? For example, someone wants to kill his mother, just starting the 'prayoga', or is caught by officials, or the mother has the strength to kill her son in return, or the mother has merit, and a deva kills her son, causing the son to fall into hell while the mother still lives, or starting the 'prayoga' that will certainly lead to the mother's death, but then repents and commits suicide, will also fall into hell. Just like killing the mother, it should be known that creating other 'anantarika-karma' is also like this.
Treatise: Having distinguished killing, one should next distinguish 'adattadana' (taking what is not given). Starting from the following half-verse. The second part states the elements that constitute the sin of stealing.
Treatise says: To 'adattadana' sin, distinguish the characteristics of stealing. 'With discrimination' and 'without discrimination' should be explained like killing. 'Without mistake', the intention of stealing continues until the end is completed. 1. Arousing the intention to steal. 2. Targeting the property of others. 3. Generating the thought that it is the property of others. 4. Starting the 'prayoga' of stealing. 5. Taking without mistake, making the property belong to oneself. If one thinks it is the property of others, but wants to steal four things, mistakenly stealing five things, etc., are not 'karma-patha' (pathways of action leading to consequences).
Treatise: If there is stealing, until hoping that someone will guard these properties. Among these two explanations, the former explanation is better. The 'Nyayanusara-sastra' says: 'Some say that this sin is directed at the person who can guard the property. Then, stealing the property that one guards should not be a sin.' Therefore, the former saying is superior in reason. The 'Mahavibhasa-sastra', Chapter 113, has multiple explanations, commenting that taking things from the Buddha incurs sin.
Treatise: If there is digging, until the remaining situations should be considered. Those who transfer objects, such as the objects of monks, etc. The 'Nyayanusara-sastra' says: 'If one steals others, as well as elephants, horses, etc., and moves them out of the place where they live, the 'karma-patha' can be established.' The 'Mahavibhasa-sastra' says: 'If one takes the hidden treasure in the middle of two countries, if a 'cakravartin' (wheel-turning king) appears in the world, it can be obtained in the place ruled by the 'cakravartin'. If there is no 'cakravartin', it cannot be obtained anywhere (now in detail analysis, it should be obtained in the place of the two kings, because the land is shared by the two countries).'
Treatise: Having distinguished 'adattadana', one should next distinguish 'kama-mithyacara' (sexual misconduct). Starting from the following half-verse. The third part states the elements that constitute 'kama-mithyacara'.
論曰至亦犯邪行。總開四種行．不應行。如文可解。
論。有說若夫至方謂非時。敘異說。無評文也。
論。既不誤言至而非業道 非道等者。等取非處．非時等 誤皆不成業道也。
論。若於此他婦至成業道耶。問也。
論。有說亦成至於余究竟故。兩說無評。正理亦同。
論。于苾芻尼至得業道耶。問也。
論。此從國王至況出家者。答也 此論引自妻．妾為例。而釋從國王得。更無異解 正理論云。苾芻尼等。如有戒妻若有侵凌亦成業道。有說。此罪于所住王。以能護持及不許故。若王自犯。業道亦成。故前所說于理為勝。
論。若於童女至得業道耶。問也。
論。若已許他至皆于王得。答也 此。謂童女 余。謂他妻等 雖于別人得罪。一切並於王處得罪。不忍許故。此與正理不違。通說于王。別即不定。正理據別。此中說通。婆沙一百一十三云。問于寄客女人行不凈行。彼于誰得罪。如是說者。于王處得。問于貨女行不凈行。于誰得罪。答若有與價。都無處得。若不與價。于王處得。
論。已辨欲耶行當辨虛誑語。自下第四明虛誑語 于中有二。前半頌。正明成虛誑語相。后一頌。非見．聞．覺．知。
論曰至成虛誑語。正釋具緣成業
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論曰：乃至也犯邪行（kāma-micchācāra，意為不正當的性行為）。總共列出四種不應有的行為，如文中所述，可以理解。 論：有人說，只有在非時（a-samaya，意為不適當的時間）進行性行為才算邪行。這裡只是敘述不同的觀點，沒有進行評論。 論：既然沒有說錯，乃至不是業道（karma-patha，意為行為的道路），非道等，『等』字包括非處（a-sthāna，意為不適當的地點）、非時等。錯誤的行為都不能構成業道。 論：如果對別人的妻子進行性行為，是否構成業道？這是個問題。 論：有人說，也構成業道，因為已經達到了最終的性行為。這兩種說法沒有評論，但正理（nyāya，意為正確的道理）也是相同的。 論：如果對苾芻尼（bhikṣuṇī，意為比丘尼，女性出家人）進行性行為，是否構成業道？這是個問題。 論：這從國王（rājan，意為統治者）的情況可以推及出家人的情況。這是個回答。這裡引用自己的妻子、妾作為例子，解釋從國王那裡獲得罪過。沒有其他的解釋。正理論說：對於比丘尼等，如果像有戒律的妻子一樣受到侵犯，也構成業道。有人說：這種罪過在於所居住的國王，因為國王有能力保護並且不允許這種行為。如果國王自己犯了這種行為，業道也成立。所以前面所說的在道理上更為優勝。 論：如果對童女進行性行為，是否構成業道？這是個問題。 論：如果已經許配給他人，那麼所有的罪過都歸於國王。這是個回答。『此』指的是童女，『余』指的是他人的妻子等。雖然對別人犯了罪，但一切罪過都歸於國王，因為國王沒有容忍這種行為。這與正理不相違背。普遍來說，罪過歸於國王，但具體情況不一定。正理是根據具體情況，這裡說的是普遍情況。《婆沙論》第一百一十三卷說：問：對寄宿的女人進行不凈行（brahmacarya，意為不潔凈的行為），罪過歸於誰？回答說：歸於國王。問：對妓女進行不凈行，罪過歸於誰？回答說：如果給了錢，則不歸於任何人；如果不給錢，則歸於國王。 論：已經辨析了欲邪行（kāma-micchācāra，意為不正當的性行為），接下來應當辨析虛誑語（mṛṣā-vāda，意為虛假的言語）。下面第四部分闡明虛誑語。其中有兩頌，前半頌正確地闡明了構成虛誑語的相狀，后一頌闡明了非見、聞、覺、知。 論曰：乃至構成虛誑語。正確地解釋了具備因緣而構成業。
【English Translation】 English version Commentary: Even committing wrong sexual conduct is a transgression. It generally outlines four types of actions that should not be done, which can be understood as stated in the text. Treatise: Some say that only engaging in sexual activity at an inappropriate time is considered wrong sexual conduct. This narrates different views without commentary. Treatise: Since it is not a mistake to say that it is not a path of action, 'not the path,' etc., 'etc.' includes inappropriate places, inappropriate times, etc. Mistakes do not constitute a path of action. Treatise: If one engages in sexual activity with another's wife, does it constitute a path of action? This is a question. Treatise: Some say it also constitutes a path of action because it reaches the ultimate sexual act. These two views are without commentary, but the correct principle is the same. Treatise: If one engages in sexual activity with a bhikṣuṇī (female monastic), does it constitute a path of action? This is a question. Treatise: This can be inferred from the case of the king to that of renunciates. This is an answer. This treatise cites one's own wife and concubine as examples to explain obtaining the offense from the king. There is no other explanation. The Correct Principle Treatise says: For bhikṣuṇīs, etc., if they are violated like a wife under vows, it also constitutes a path of action. Some say: This offense lies with the residing king because he has the ability to protect and does not permit such actions. If the king himself commits such an act, the path of action is also established. Therefore, what was said earlier is superior in principle. Treatise: If one engages in sexual activity with a virgin, does it constitute a path of action? This is a question. Treatise: If she has already been promised to another, then all offenses fall upon the king. This is an answer. 'This' refers to a virgin, 'other' refers to another's wife, etc. Although the offense is committed against another person, all offenses fall upon the king because he does not tolerate such actions. This does not contradict the Correct Principle. Generally speaking, the offense falls upon the king, but the specific situation is not fixed. The Correct Principle is based on specific situations, while this speaks of the general situation. Vibhāṣā Volume 113 says: Question: If one engages in impure conduct with a woman lodging as a guest, against whom is the offense committed? It is said that it is committed against the king. Question: If one engages in impure conduct with a prostitute, against whom is the offense committed? Answer: If payment is given, it is not committed against anyone. If payment is not given, it is committed against the king. Treatise: Having discussed wrong sexual conduct, we should next discuss false speech. The fourth part below clarifies false speech. There are two verses in it. The first half of the verse correctly clarifies the characteristics of constituting false speech, and the second verse clarifies non-seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing. Commentary: Up to constituting false speech. Correctly explains that having the conditions constitutes karma.
道也。一于所說義異想發言。二及所誑者。解所說義。三染心。四不誤。具此四緣成虛誑語。
論。若所誑者至此言是何。問也。
論。是雜穢語。答也。雜穢語寬。余所不攝即雜穢語攝。
論。既虛誑語至何時成業道。問也。
論。與最後字至皆此加行。答也 有二時成。一最後字俱生表聲。及無表業。二隨何時所誑解義表．無表業成此業道 后解為勝。解不定故。
論。所言解義至能解名解。兩關問也。
論。若爾何失。問兩關失也。
論。若據已聞至可名能解。出兩關失也。
論善言義者至名為能解。釋兩關難也。取正聞時故通表．無表難 善言義者無迷亂緣故。通然未了知難也。
論。如無有失應取為宗。論主評取正聞能解成業道也。
論。經說諸言至名為聖言 經中有十六言。八非聖言。八是聖言 八非聖言。是虛誑語。謂定見等言不見等 八聖言。是實語。謂見等言見等。依集異門論第十二加。有實已見等起不見等想言我已見等。如是雖名非聖言。而不名不見言見等。彼實已見等故 又云 有實不見等而起見等想言我不見等。如是雖名非聖言。而不名見言不見等。彼實不見等故 又云 有實已見等起不見等想。而言我不見等。如是雖名聖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 道（Dào）：構成虛誑語需要四個條件：一、對於所說之義，心懷異想而發言；二、以及被欺騙的對象能夠理解所說之義；三、懷有染污之心；四、沒有說錯。具備這四個條件，就構成了虛誑語。
論：如果被欺騙者…（問）到：『這句話是什麼意思？』（問）
論：是雜穢語。（答）雜穢語的範圍很寬泛，凡是其他類別不包括的，都屬於雜穢語。
論：既然是虛誑語…（問）到：『什麼時候構成業道？』（問）
論：與最後一個字…（答）到：『都是此加行。』（答）有兩種情況會構成業道：一是最後一個字說出時，同時產生表色聲和無表業；二是無論何時，只要被欺騙者理解了所說之義，表業和無表業就構成此業道。后一種解釋更為合理，因為理解的時間不確定。
論：所言『解義』…（問）到：『能夠理解才叫做理解。』（兩關問）
論：如果這樣，會有什麼過失？（問）問的是兩關的過失。
論：如果根據已經聽聞…（答）到：『可以稱作能夠理解。』（答）指出兩關的過失。
論：善於理解言語意義的人…（答）到：『稱作能夠理解。』（答）解釋兩關的難題。因為取的是正確聽聞的時候，所以能貫通表業和無表業的難題。善於理解言語意義的人，沒有迷惑顛倒的因緣，所以能貫通雖然聽聞但未完全了知的難題。
論：如果（這樣）沒有過失，就應該採納作為宗義。論主評論說，採納正確聽聞且能理解，才能構成業道。
論：經中說，各種言語…（答）到：『稱作聖言。』經中有十六種言語，八種不是聖言，八種是聖言。八種非聖言，是虛誑語，例如明明看見卻說沒看見等等。八種聖言，是實語，例如看見就說看見等等。依據《集異門論》（Jíyìmén lùn）第十二的補充，有實際上已經看見等等，卻產生沒看見等等的想法，說『我已看見等等』。像這樣雖然稱為非聖言，但不稱為『沒看見』而說『看見』等等，因為他實際上已經看見等等。又說，有實際上沒看見等等，卻產生看見等等的想法，說『我沒看見等等』。像這樣雖然稱為非聖言，但不稱為『看見』而說『沒看見』等等，因為他實際上沒看見等等。又說，有實際上已經看見等等，卻產生沒看見等等的想法，卻說『我沒看見等等』。像這樣雖然稱為聖言。
【English Translation】 English version: Dào: Four conditions are required to constitute false speech: First, regarding the meaning of what is said, having different thoughts and speaking; second, and the person being deceived is able to understand the meaning of what is said; third, having a defiled mind; fourth, not speaking mistakenly. Possessing these four conditions constitutes false speech.
Treatise: If the person being deceived... (Question) asks: 'What does this statement mean?' (Question)
Treatise: It is mixed and impure speech. (Answer) The scope of mixed and impure speech is very broad; anything not included in other categories belongs to mixed and impure speech.
Treatise: Since it is false speech... (Question) asks: 'When does it constitute a path of karma?' (Question)
Treatise: With the last word... (Answer) says: 'All of this is additional action.' (Answer) There are two situations in which it constitutes a path of karma: First, when the last word is spoken, both expressive sound and non-expressive karma arise simultaneously; second, whenever the person being deceived understands the meaning of what is said, expressive karma and non-expressive karma constitute this path of karma. The latter explanation is more reasonable because the time of understanding is uncertain.
Treatise: The so-called 'understanding the meaning'... (Question) asks: 'Being able to understand is called understanding.' (Two-fold question)
Treatise: If so, what fault would there be? (Question) The question is about the fault of the two aspects.
Treatise: If based on what has already been heard... (Answer) says: 'It can be called being able to understand.' (Answer) Points out the fault of the two aspects.
Treatise: One who is good at understanding the meaning of words... (Answer) says: 'Is called being able to understand.' (Answer) Explains the difficulty of the two aspects. Because it takes the time of correct hearing, it can penetrate the difficulty of expressive karma and non-expressive karma. One who is good at understanding the meaning of words does not have the causes of confusion and delusion, so it can penetrate the difficulty of hearing but not fully understanding.
Treatise: If (this way) there is no fault, it should be adopted as the doctrine. The treatise master comments that adopting correct hearing and being able to understand constitutes the path of karma.
Treatise: The sutras say that various words... (Answer) says: 'Are called sacred words.' There are sixteen kinds of words in the sutras, eight are not sacred words, and eight are sacred words. The eight non-sacred words are false speech, such as clearly seeing but saying one did not see, etc. The eight sacred words are truthful speech, such as seeing and saying one saw, etc. According to the supplement in the twelfth chapter of the Saṃgīti-paryāya (Jíyìmén lùn), there are those who have actually seen, etc., but generate the thought of not seeing, etc., and say 'I have seen, etc.' Although this is called non-sacred speech, it is not called 'not seeing' but saying 'seeing,' etc., because they have actually seen, etc. It also says that there are those who have actually not seen, etc., but generate the thought of seeing, etc., and say 'I have not seen, etc.' Although this is called non-sacred speech, it is not called 'seeing' but saying 'not seeing,' etc., because they have actually not seen, etc. It also says that there are those who have actually seen, etc., but generate the thought of not seeing, etc., and say 'I have not seen, etc.' Although this is called sacred speech.
言。而不名不見言不見等。彼實已見等故 又云 有實不見起見等想言我見等。雖名聖言。而不名見言見等。實不見故 準此論文。違想順境非聖言攝。違境順想是聖言攝。若想說於一見中有四。一實見見想言見。二實不見見想言見。三實不見不見想言不見。四實見不見想言不見。此四皆是聖言所攝。翻此四種名非聖言 聞．覺．知境應知亦爾。若想說四境。有十六聖言。十六非聖言。所以順境．違想是非聖言。有誑心故。所以順想．違境是聖言無誑心故。婆沙一百七十云。問何故此語名非聖耶。答以不善故名非聖。複次于非聖相續中現前故名非聖。複次非聖所成故名非聖。複次非聖所說故名非聖。複次非聖由此得非聖名故名非聖 聖言翻上。諸釋可知。
論。何等名為所見等相。自下一頌因八義便明見．聞．覺．知。
論曰至偏立覺名。述婆沙釋義也。婆沙一百二十一云。見．聞．覺．知是根非識。然舉識者。顯眼等根必由識助方能取境。以同分根能有作用非彼同分故。問何故眼等三識所受各立一種。而鼻．舌．身三識所受合立一種名為覺耶。尊者世友說曰。三識所緣皆唯無記。境無記故根立覺名。又以三根唯取至境與境合故立以覺名。大德說言。唯此三根境界鈍昧猶如死屍。故能發識說名為覺 此論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 說，但不稱為『不見』、『言不見』等，因為實際上已經看見等。又說，有實際上沒有看見，卻產生『見』等想法，並說『我見』等，雖然名為聖言，但不稱為『見言』、『見』等，因為實際上沒有看見。依照此論文，違背實境而順從想法，不屬於聖言所攝；違背想法而順從實境，屬於聖言所攝。如果就想法來說，在『一見』中有四種情況：一是實際看見，有看見的想法，並說看見；二是實際沒有看見，有看見的想法，並說看見；三是實際沒有看見，沒有看見的想法，並且不說看見；四是實際看見，沒有看見的想法，並且不說看見。這四種情況都屬於聖言所攝。與這四種情況相反的，稱為非聖言。聽、覺、知三種情況，應該知道也是如此。如果就想法來說四種境界，有十六種聖言，十六種非聖言。所以，順應實境而違背想法的是非聖言，因為有欺誑之心；所以，順應想法而違背實境的是聖言，因為沒有欺誑之心。《婆沙論》第一百七十卷說：『問：為什麼這種言語稱為非聖言呢？答：因為不善的緣故，稱為非聖。其次，在非聖的相續中顯現的緣故，稱為非聖。其次，由非聖所成就的緣故，稱為非聖。其次，由非聖所說的緣故，稱為非聖。其次，非聖由此得到非聖的名稱的緣故，稱為非聖。』聖言與上述相反。各種解釋可以類推得知。
論：什麼叫做所見等相？下面一頌因為八種意義的方便，闡明見、聞、覺、知。
論曰至偏立覺名。敘述《婆沙論》的解釋。《婆沙論》第一百二十一卷說：見、聞、覺、知是根而不是識。然而舉出識，是爲了顯示眼等根必須依靠識的幫助才能獲取境界。因為同分根能夠有作用，而不是彼同分。問：為什麼眼等三種識所感受的，各立一種名稱，而鼻、舌、身三種識所感受的，合立一種名稱，稱為覺呢？尊者世友說：三種識所緣的都是無記（avyākrta，不善不惡），因為境界是無記的，所以根立名為覺。又因為三種根只取近的境界，與境界相合，所以立名為覺。大德說：只有這三種根的境界遲鈍昏昧，猶如死屍，所以能夠引發識，說名為覺。此論
【English Translation】 English version: It speaks, but it is not called 'not seeing', 'speaking of not seeing', etc., because it has actually seen, etc. Furthermore, it says, 'There is actually not seeing, but arising thoughts of seeing, and speaking of 'my seeing', etc.' Although it is called sacred speech (聖言, shèng yán), it is not called 'seeing speech', 'seeing', etc., because it has actually not seen. According to this treatise, going against reality and conforming to thoughts is not included in sacred speech; going against thoughts and conforming to reality is included in sacred speech. If speaking in terms of thoughts, in 'one seeing' there are four situations: first, actually seeing, having thoughts of seeing, and speaking of seeing; second, actually not seeing, having thoughts of seeing, and speaking of seeing; third, actually not seeing, not having thoughts of seeing, and not speaking of seeing; fourth, actually seeing, not having thoughts of seeing, and not speaking of seeing. These four situations are all included in sacred speech. The opposite of these four types is called non-sacred speech. Hearing, feeling, and knowing should also be understood in the same way. If speaking in terms of thoughts about the four realms, there are sixteen sacred speeches and sixteen non-sacred speeches. Therefore, conforming to reality and going against thoughts is non-sacred speech, because there is a deceiving mind; therefore, conforming to thoughts and going against reality is sacred speech, because there is no deceiving mind. The Vibhasa (婆沙, Póshā) Volume 170 says: 'Question: Why is this speech called non-sacred? Answer: Because it is not good, it is called non-sacred. Secondly, because it appears in the continuum of the non-sacred, it is called non-sacred. Thirdly, because it is accomplished by the non-sacred, it is called non-sacred. Fourthly, because it is spoken by the non-sacred, it is called non-sacred. Fifthly, because the non-sacred obtains the name of non-sacred from this, it is called non-sacred.' Sacred speech is the opposite of the above. The various explanations can be understood by analogy.
Treatise: What are called the characteristics of seeing, etc.? The following verse explains seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing through the convenience of eight meanings.
Treatise says up to 'establishing the name of feeling'. It narrates the explanation of the Vibhasa. The Vibhasa Volume 121 says: 'Seeing, hearing, feeling, and knowing are roots (根, gēn) and not consciousnesses (識, shí). However, mentioning consciousnesses is to show that the roots of the eye, etc., must rely on the assistance of consciousnesses to be able to grasp objects. Because the similar-division root (同分根, tóng fēn gēn) is able to have a function, and not that similar-division. Question: Why are the perceptions of the three consciousnesses of the eye, etc., each established with a different name, while the perceptions of the three consciousnesses of the nose, tongue, and body are combined into one name called feeling? Venerable Vasumitra (世友, Shìyǒu) said: The objects of the three consciousnesses are all indeterminate (無記, wújì), because the realm is indeterminate, the root is established with the name of feeling. Also, because the three roots only take near objects and combine with the objects, it is established with the name of feeling. The Great Master said: Only the realms of these three roots are dull and obscure, like a corpse, so they are able to generate consciousnesses and are said to be feeling.' This treatise
言無記性。是世友義。如死無覺。是大德義。此論說識意欲取根。如婆沙釋。
論。何證知然。問。如何理教證知眼見．耳聞．意知三識覺耶。
論。由經理證。略答也。
論。言由經者至不爾大德。引經證眼見也 欲等七句此是貪之異名 阿賴耶者。此云執藏 尼延底者。此云執取。或云趣入。或云沉滯 大母答言不爾大德者。貪是別相煩惱。必不于不曾見色不當見色等起貪等故言不爾。
論。諸所有聲至不爾大德。重引經證耳聞．意知。廣說乃至。同前眼見。
論。復告大母至何名所覺。此證能覺是三識也。前告鬘母云。眼見．耳聞．意知。雖不言三識能覺。復告鬘母。所見．所聞．所知．所覺。既離所見聞．知。外別立所覺。故知三境是其所覺。能覺即是鼻．舌．身三。若不許三是所覺者。色．聲．法境定非所覺。是所見．所聞．所知境故。汝將何境為所覺耶。
論。又香．味．觸。在所見等外。既非所覺。
論。于彼三境應不起言是名為理。前是經文。后是理也。
論。此證不成。論主總非經．理。
論。且經非證至愛．非愛相。釋經非證。佛告鬘母。經不欲決判此是眼唯見。耳唯聞。意唯知等四所言相。此經欲令鬘母於六境中。及於見等四言事中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『言無記性』，這是世友（Vasumitra）的定義。如同死者沒有感覺，這是大德（Mahādeva）的定義。此論述說，識、意、欲取根，如《婆沙論》所解釋。
論：有什麼證據可以證明這一點？ 問：如何從理和教義上證明眼見、耳聞、意知是三種識的覺知作用呢？
論：通過經典和道理來證明。（這是簡略的回答）
論：所說的『由經』，直到『不爾大德』，這是引用經典來證明眼見。『欲』等七句，這是貪的各種名稱。『阿賴耶』（Ālaya），這裡的意思是執藏。『尼延底』（Niyanti），這裡的意思是執取，或者說是趣入，或者說是沉滯。大母回答說『不爾大德』，意思是貪是一種特殊的煩惱，一定不會對不曾見過的顏色、不應當見到的顏色等生起貪念，所以說『不爾』。
論：『諸所有聲』，直到『不爾大德』，再次引用經典來證明耳聞、意知。廣泛地解釋，乃至與前面的眼見相同。
論：佛陀再次告訴大母，直到『何名所覺』，這證明了能覺知的是三種識。之前告訴鬘母（Mālā），眼見、耳聞、意知，雖然沒有說三種識能覺知，但再次告訴鬘母，所見、所聞、所知、所覺，既然從所見聞知之外，另外設立所覺，因此可知三種境是其所覺。能覺知的就是鼻、舌、身三種識。如果不允許這三種是所覺，那麼色、聲、法三種境一定不是所覺，因為它們是所見、所聞、所知之境。你將什麼境作為所覺呢？
論：而且香、味、觸，在所見等之外，既然不是所覺。
論：對於那三種境，不應該說『是名為理』。前面是經文，後面是道理。
論：這個證明不成立。論主總的否定了經典和道理。
論：且說經典不是證據，直到『愛、非愛相』。解釋經典不是證據。佛陀告訴鬘母，經典不是要決斷判定這個是眼唯見，耳唯聞，意唯知等四種言語的相。這部經是要讓鬘母在六種境中，以及在見等四種言語的事情中。
【English Translation】 English version 'Speech without memory' is Vasumitra's definition. Like a dead person without sensation, this is Mahādeva's definition. This treatise states that consciousness, mind, and the desire to grasp the roots are as explained in the Vibhāṣā.
Treatise: What evidence proves this? Question: How can it be proven through reason and doctrine that seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear, and knowing with the mind are the perceptive functions of the three consciousnesses?
Treatise: It is proven through scriptures and reason. (This is a brief answer.)
Treatise: The statement 'by scripture,' up to 'not so, Mahādeva,' this is quoting scripture to prove seeing with the eye. The seven phrases beginning with 'desire' are various names for greed. 'Ālaya' (Ālaya) here means 'to store.' 'Niyanti' (Niyanti) here means 'to grasp,' or 'to approach,' or 'to be immersed.' The great mother's response, 'not so, Mahādeva,' means that greed is a specific affliction and will certainly not arise towards colors that have never been seen, colors that should not be seen, etc. Therefore, she says 'not so.'
Treatise: 'All sounds,' up to 'not so, Mahādeva,' again quoting scripture to prove hearing with the ear and knowing with the mind. Explaining extensively, even to the point of being the same as the previous explanation of seeing with the eye.
Treatise: The Buddha again tells the great mother, up to 'what is called perception,' this proves that what is capable of perceiving are the three consciousnesses. Previously telling Māla (Mālā), seeing with the eye, hearing with the ear, and knowing with the mind, although it was not said that the three consciousnesses are capable of perceiving, again telling Māla, what is seen, what is heard, what is known, what is perceived, since apart from what is seen, heard, and known, what is perceived is separately established, therefore it can be known that the three realms are what is perceived. What is capable of perceiving are the three consciousnesses of nose, tongue, and body. If these three are not allowed to be what is perceived, then the three realms of form, sound, and dharma are certainly not what is perceived, because they are the realms of what is seen, heard, and known. What realm would you take as what is perceived?
Treatise: Moreover, smell, taste, and touch, apart from what is seen, etc., are certainly not what is perceived.
Treatise: Regarding those three realms, it should not be said 'this is called reason.' The former is scripture, the latter is reason.
Treatise: This proof is not established. The treatise master generally denies scripture and reason.
Treatise: Let's say that scripture is not evidence, up to 'love, non-love aspects.' Explaining scripture is not evidence. The Buddha tells Māla that the scripture does not intend to definitively judge that this is only seen by the eye, only heard by the ear, only known by the mind, etc., the four aspects of speech. This scripture intends to have Māla, within the six realms, and within the four aspects of speech such as seeing, etc.
。知但有所見等言。不應于境上增益愛．非愛相。愛．非愛相但是自心妄增益也。
論。若爾何故名所見等。有部問也。
論。有餘師說至名為所知。此引經部余師釋也。
論。於五境中至亦為無理。五根證五境總名所見。若他傳說五境等名為所聞。若內心以種種理比度所許名所覺。若意現證名為所知(準此意識比知名覺。證知名知。由此五境皆容具四)。第六法境非五根現證故。不得名所見。有餘三也。可傳聞．比知．證知故。由此覺名目意比知。非無所目。香．味等三既許有四言說。非無言說。經有別意。經非證也。覺名有所目。三境有言說。理非證也。
論。先軌範師至名為所知。論主敘經部師義也。正理論云。今謂經主唯申自執。非我許此經判所言相故。但言經證三根所取名為所覺起所覺言(告大母經。色名所見。聲名所聞。法名所知。復言所覺。故知即是三根)。故我師宗隨此經立所見等相。于理無違(依大母經立所見等相。于理無違也)。雖說為遮于彼增益愛．非愛相。非不應理。言六四別於理不然。前經．后經義相似故(前經者佛告大母。汝意云何。諸有色非汝眼見等。后經是復告大母。汝等四中應知所見。唯有所見等。經部釋云。前是六境。后是見等四境。正理不許由經別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：要知道，之所以說『有所見』等等，是不應該在所見之境上增加喜愛或不喜愛的想法。喜愛或不喜愛的想法，都只是自己內心的虛妄增益。
論：如果這樣，為什麼稱作『所見』等等呢？這是有部宗的提問。
論：有其他老師說……乃至稱作『所知』。這裡引用經部宗其他老師的解釋。
論：在五境中……乃至也說不通。五根所證的五境總稱為『所見』。如果其他傳說五境等稱為『所聞』。如果內心以種種道理比量推度所認可的稱為『所覺』。如果意識現量證知的稱為『所知』（依此，意識比量推知稱為『覺』，現量證知稱為『知』。由此五境都容許具備四種）。第六法境不是五根現量證知的緣故，不得稱為『所見』。其餘三種可以傳聞、比知、證知。由此『覺』這個名稱是指向意根比量推知的，並非沒有所指。香、味等三種既然允許有四種言說，並非沒有言說。經典有其他含義。經典不是現量證知。『覺』這個名稱有所指。三種境有言說。道理不是現量證知。
論：先前的軌範師……乃至稱作『所知』。論主敘述經部宗老師的義理。正理論說：現在我認為經部宗只是闡述自己的主張，並非我認可這部經典判別言語相狀的緣故。只是說經典證明三根所取名為『所覺』，發起『所覺』的言語（《告大母經》說：色名為所見，聲名為所聞，法名為所知。又說『所覺』，所以知道『所覺』就是三根）。所以我宗隨順這部經典建立『所見』等等的相狀，在道理上沒有違背（依據《大母經》建立『所見』等等的相狀，在道理上沒有違背）。雖然說是爲了遮止在那上面增加喜愛或不喜愛的想法，並非不合道理。說六境和四境的差別在道理上是不對的。前一部經典和后一部經典義理相似的緣故（前一部經典是佛告誡大母：你的意思如何？諸所有色不是你眼所見等等。后一部經典是又告誡大母：你們四種之中應當知道『所見』，唯有所見等等。經部宗解釋說：前一部經典是六境，后一部經典是見等等四境。正理論不認可因為經典不同而有所區別）。
【English Translation】 English version: Know that the reason for saying 'what is seen' etc., is that one should not add liking or disliking to the object of sight. Liking or disliking are merely false additions from one's own mind.
Treatise: If that is the case, why are they called 'what is seen' etc.? This is a question from the Sarvastivada school.
Treatise: Other teachers say... up to being called 'what is known'. This quotes the explanation of other teachers from the Sautrantika school.
Treatise: Among the five objects... even that is unreasonable. The five objects verified by the five roots are collectively called 'what is seen'. If others transmit that the five objects etc. are called 'what is heard'. If the mind uses various reasons to infer and approve, it is called 'what is felt'. If the consciousness directly verifies, it is called 'what is known' (according to this, inferring with consciousness is called 'feeling', directly verifying is called 'knowing'. Therefore, the five objects can all possess the four). The sixth object, the dharma object, is not directly verified by the five roots, so it cannot be called 'what is seen'. The remaining three can be transmitted, inferred, and verified. Therefore, the name 'feeling' refers to what is inferred by the mind root, it is not without reference. Since the three, such as smell and taste, are allowed to have four kinds of speech, they are not without speech. The sutra has other meanings. The sutra is not direct verification. The name 'feeling' has a reference. The three objects have speech. Reason is not direct verification.
Treatise: The previous preceptor... up to being called 'what is known'. The author of the treatise narrates the meaning of the teachers of the Sautrantika school. The Nyaya-anushara-shastra says: Now I think that the master of the Sutra only expounds his own views, not that I approve of this Sutra judging the appearance of speech. It only says that the Sutra proves that what is taken by the three roots is called 'what is felt', initiating the speech of 'what is felt' (The Sutra of Admonishing the Great Mother says: Form is called what is seen, sound is called what is heard, dharma is called what is known. It also says 'what is felt', so it is known that 'what is felt' is the three roots). Therefore, my school follows this Sutra to establish the appearances of 'what is seen' etc., which is not contrary to reason (Establishing the appearances of 'what is seen' etc. according to the Sutra of the Great Mother is not contrary to reason). Although it is said to prevent adding liking or disliking to it, it is not unreasonable. Saying that the difference between the six objects and the four objects is not right in reason. The previous Sutra and the later Sutra have similar meanings (The previous Sutra is the Buddha admonishing the Great Mother: What do you think? Are all forms not seen by your eyes etc.? The later Sutra is again admonishing the Great Mother: Among the four of you, you should know 'what is seen', only what is seen etc. The Sautrantika school explains: The previous Sutra is the six objects, the later Sutra is the four objects such as seeing etc. The Nyaya-anushara-shastra does not approve of the difference because of the different Sutras).
意)。我見此經所說義者。謂教大母。如於三時色等境中。若不見等。不希求故。欲等不生。如是若知所見等境唯有所見等。欲等亦不生。欲等但由自分別故。我隨經義解此經文。非如經主隨自分別(準經有兩種不生欲等。一不見色等。二知所見色等但有色相無愛．非愛相。前經明不見故無慾等。后經知所見等無愛．非愛相。故不生欲。兩經前．后同明不生欲等。非是前經明六境。后經明四所見等境。廣引大母領解頌證) 又云。又何意趣朋彼二師違理教釋。而偏憎背毗婆沙者順理教言。且彼二師所釋違教。所見等相佛于經中於色等境分明別說。而彼棄捨異建立故。亦與隨教正理相違(經分明說色名所見。聲名所聞。法名所知。隨教理唯香．味．觸是所覺。二師所立違大母經。無別教證。翻明為正也)。說五境中各具有四。第六境上唯有三等。然法最可立所見名。非聲等中可名所見。如言佛見去．來世等。此皆意識不共境故。曾無聖教言耳見聲。鼻見香等。如何五境皆名所見唯非第六。又彼自說。若意現證名為所知。法既所知。應名所見。現所證故。猶如色等。此有何理唯五所證立所見名 聲．香．味．觸名為所見無經妄立。法不名所見違經說無 又立比量。法定是所見。現所證故。猶如色等。就他宗比量 前師云。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：我的理解是，這部經所說的意義在於教導大母（Mahaprajapati，佛陀的姨母及養母）。例如，在三種時期的色等境界中，如果不見（不執著于所見），不希求，那麼慾望等就不會產生。同樣，如果知道所見等境界僅僅是所見等，慾望等也不會產生。慾望等只是由於自己的分別而產生。我根據經義來解釋這部經文，而不是像經主那樣隨自己的分別（按照經文，有兩種不生慾望等的情況：一是不見色等，二是知道所見色等只有色相，沒有可愛或不可愛之相。前一部經說明因為不見，所以沒有慾望等。后一部經說明知道所見等沒有可愛或不可愛之相，所以不產生慾望。兩部經前後都說明不生慾望等，而不是前一部經說明六境，后一部經說明四所見等境。廣泛引用大母的領悟頌來證明）。 又說，為什麼那兩位老師違背了合理的教義解釋，而偏偏憎恨毗婆沙者（Vaibhashika，說一切有部論師）順應道理的教言呢？而且那兩位老師的解釋違背了教義，佛陀在經中對所見等相，在色等境界中分明地分別說明。而他們卻拋棄了這些，另外建立，所以也與隨順教義的正理相違背（經文分明地說，色名為所見，聲名為所聞，法名為所知。按照教義的道理，只有香、味、觸是所覺。兩位老師所立的觀點違背了大母經，沒有其他的教證，反而顯明大母經是正確的）。他們說五境中各自具有四種，第六境上只有三種等。然而，法最可以被立為所見之名，而不是在聲等中可以被稱為所見。例如說，佛見到過去、未來世等，這些都是意識不共的境界。從來沒有聖教說耳朵見到聲音，鼻子見到香等。為什麼五境都名為所見，唯獨第六境不是？而且他們自己說，如果意識現前證得，就名為所知。法既然是所知，就應該名為所見，因為是現前所證得的，就像色等一樣。這有什麼道理呢？只有五種所證立為所見之名，聲、香、味、觸名為所見，這是沒有經文依據的妄立。法不名為所見，這是違背經文的說法。又立比量（anumana，推理），法必定是所見，因為是現前所證得的，就像色等一樣。這是就他宗的比量。前一位老師說。
【English Translation】 English version: My understanding of the meaning of this sutra is to teach Mahaprajapati (Buddha's aunt and foster mother). For example, in the realms of form, etc., in the three times, if one does not see (not attached to what is seen), and does not crave, then desires, etc., will not arise. Similarly, if one knows that the realms of what is seen, etc., are merely what is seen, etc., then desires, etc., will also not arise. Desires, etc., arise only from one's own discriminations. I interpret this sutra according to the meaning of the sutra, and not according to my own discriminations like the sutra master (according to the sutra, there are two situations in which desires, etc., do not arise: one is not seeing form, etc., and the other is knowing that what is seen, etc., has only the characteristic of form, without the characteristic of being lovable or unlovable. The previous sutra explains that because one does not see, there are no desires, etc. The latter sutra explains that knowing that what is seen, etc., has no lovable or unlovable characteristics, therefore desires do not arise. Both sutras, before and after, explain that desires, etc., do not arise, rather than the previous sutra explaining the six realms, and the latter sutra explaining the four realms of what is seen, etc. Widely quoting Mahaprajapati's verse of understanding to prove it). Furthermore, why do those two teachers violate the reasonable interpretation of the teachings, and instead hate the Vaibhashikas (Sarvastivada school masters) who follow the reasonable words of the teachings? Moreover, the interpretations of those two teachers violate the teachings. The Buddha clearly and distinctly explained the characteristics of what is seen, etc., in the realms of form, etc., in the sutras. But they abandon these and establish something else, so they also contradict the correct reasoning that follows the teachings (the sutra clearly says that form is called what is seen, sound is called what is heard, and dharma is called what is known. According to the reasoning of the teachings, only smell, taste, and touch are what is felt. The views established by the two teachers violate the Mahaprajapati Sutra, and there is no other teaching to prove it, but instead it clarifies that the Mahaprajapati Sutra is correct). They say that each of the five realms has four, and the sixth realm has only three, etc. However, dharma can most appropriately be established as the name of what is seen, rather than being called what is seen in sound, etc. For example, it is said that the Buddha sees the past and future lives, etc., these are all realms that are not shared by consciousness. There has never been a sacred teaching that says the ear sees sound, the nose sees smell, etc. Why are the five realms all called what is seen, but not the sixth realm? Moreover, they themselves say that if consciousness directly realizes it, it is called what is known. Since dharma is what is known, it should be called what is seen, because it is directly realized, just like form, etc. What is the reason for this? Only the five that are realized are established as the name of what is seen, and it is a false establishment without sutra evidence to say that sound, smell, taste, and touch are called what is seen. It is against the sutra to say that dharma is not called what is seen. Furthermore, they establish an inference (anumana), dharma must be what is seen, because it is directly realized, just like form, etc. This is an inference based on the other's view. The previous teacher said.
五根現所證境名為所見。既許法亦是現所證。如何非見 又后師釋。自內所受及自所證名為所知。若爾眼見何緣非是自內所受。是則所見應即所知。又所覺．知應無差別。俱是意識自所證故。又諸比量．現量為先。達正理人皆所共許。若比量境方名所覺。不應所覺在所知先。故彼二師義無端緒。
論。且止傍言至布灑他時。三重問答如文可解。
論。若不動身至應設劬勞。論主難。欲無無表離表而生。若不動身。亦不發語。既無表業。無表從何可得。於此切難應設劬勞 正理論云。經主於此作如是難。若不動身。亦不發語。欲無無表離表而生。此二如何得成業道。于如是難應設劬勞。彼謂實無表無表業豈容不立此二業道。彼亦應辨觸二罪因。非但起惡思有大過失故。若要依身．語二門轉思起欲殺．誑心。即應成逆。彼不成者仙等應同。既不動身。亦不發語。如何成業道。及依身．語門。應設劬勞釋如是難。然我且釋布灑他時。如由動身能表語義生語業道。若身不動能表語義業道亦生。然說戒時彼有所犯。默然表凈令眾減知。如何不生妄語業道。仙人意憤義等教他。彼于有情心無所顧。非人敬彼知有噁心。動身為殺彼生業道。仙以何表令鬼知心。彼由意憤身．語必變。或由咒咀必動身．語。有餘師說。非於
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官）直接體驗到的境界稱為『所見』。既然你們也承認法也是直接體驗到的，為什麼法不是『見』呢？另外，後來的論師解釋說，自己內心感受到的和自己親自證悟到的稱為『所知』。如果是這樣，眼見之物為什麼不是自己內心感受到的呢？那麼，『所見』應該就是『所知』了。而且，『所覺』和『知』應該沒有差別，因為它們都是意識自己所證悟到的。此外，各種比量（推理）都以現量（直接感知）為基礎，這是通達正理的人都共同承認的。如果比量的境界才稱為『所覺』，那麼『所覺』就不應該在『所知』之前了。所以，那兩位論師的說法毫無道理。
論：暫且停止題外話，關於布灑他（Posadha，佛教僧侶舉行的懺悔儀式）時的三重問答，文中的意思可以理解。
論：如果身體不動，就應該努力解釋。論主提出疑問：想要產生無表業（avijñapti-karma，一種無形的業力），又不想通過表業（vijñapti-karma，通過身語表現出來的業力）產生。如果不動身體，也不說話，既然沒有表業，無表業從何而來？對於這個關鍵的疑問，應該努力解釋。正理論中說：經主對此提出這樣的疑問：如果不動身體，也不說話，想要產生無表業，又不想通過表業產生，這兩種情況怎麼能成就業道（karma-patha，導致善惡果報的行為）呢？對於這樣的疑問，應該努力解釋。他們認為，如果實際上沒有無表業，怎麼能不建立這兩種業道呢？他們也應該辨別觸犯兩種罪的原因，因為不僅僅是產生惡念就有很大的過失。如果要依靠身語二門來轉變思緒，產生想要殺害或欺騙的心，那就應該構成逆罪（ānantarika-karma，五種極重的罪行）。他們沒有構成逆罪，是因為仙人等也應該一樣。既然不動身體，也不說話，怎麼能成就業道，以及依靠身語二門呢？應該努力解釋這樣的疑問。然而，我暫且解釋布灑他時的情況。就像通過動身體能夠表達語義，從而產生語業道一樣，如果身體不動，能夠表達語義，業道也會產生。然而，在說戒律時，他們有所違犯，默不作聲地表示清凈，讓大家減少了解。怎麼不會產生妄語業道呢？仙人心懷憤怒，用類似的方式教唆他人。他們對有情（sentient beings，有情眾生）毫不顧惜。非人（non-human beings，非人）敬畏他們，知道他們心懷惡意。動身體是爲了殺害，他們產生了業道。仙人通過什麼方式讓鬼知道他們的心意呢？他們因為憤怒，身語必定會發生變化，或者通過咒語必定會動身語。有其他論師說，不是對……
【English Translation】 English version: That which is directly experienced by the five roots (the five sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) is called 'what is seen' (所見). Since you also admit that dharma (法, law, teaching) is also directly experienced, why is dharma not 'seeing'? Furthermore, later masters explain that what is received within oneself and what is personally realized is called 'what is known' (所知). If that is the case, why is what is seen by the eye not received within oneself? Then, 'what is seen' should be the same as 'what is known'. Moreover, 'what is perceived' (所覺) and 'knowing' (知) should be no different, because they are both personally realized by consciousness itself. In addition, all inferences (比量) are based on direct perception (現量), which is commonly acknowledged by those who understand right reasoning. If only the realm of inference is called 'what is perceived', then 'what is perceived' should not precede 'what is known'. Therefore, the views of those two masters are groundless.
Treatise: Let us stop digressing. The triple question and answer regarding the Posadha (布灑他, a Buddhist confessional ceremony) can be understood from the text.
Treatise: If the body does not move, one should make an effort to explain. The treatise master raises the question: wanting to generate non-manifest karma (avijñapti-karma, 無表業, a type of invisible karmic force) without arising from manifest karma (vijñapti-karma, 表業, karma expressed through body and speech). If the body does not move and one does not speak, since there is no manifest karma, from where can non-manifest karma be obtained? One should make an effort to explain this crucial question. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: The sutra master raises this question: If the body does not move and one does not speak, wanting to generate non-manifest karma without arising from manifest karma, how can these two accomplish the path of karma (karma-patha, 業道, actions leading to good or bad consequences)? One should make an effort to explain such a question. They believe that if there is actually no non-manifest karma, how can these two paths of karma not be established? They should also distinguish the causes of committing two offenses, because it is not only having evil thoughts that is a great fault. If one must rely on the doors of body and speech to transform thoughts and generate the desire to kill or deceive, then it should constitute a heinous crime (ānantarika-karma, 逆罪, one of the five extremely grave offenses). They do not constitute a heinous crime because immortals and others should be the same. Since the body does not move and one does not speak, how can one accomplish the path of karma and rely on the doors of body and speech? One should make an effort to explain such a question. However, I will temporarily explain the situation during Posadha. Just as moving the body can express meaning and generate the path of speech karma, if the body does not move but can express meaning, the path of karma will also arise. However, when reciting the precepts, they have violated something, silently indicating purity, causing everyone to reduce their understanding. How can the path of false speech karma not arise? The immortal harbors anger and instigates others in a similar way. They have no regard for sentient beings (sentient beings, 有情眾生). Non-human beings (non-human beings, 非人) revere them, knowing that they harbor malicious intentions. Moving the body is for killing, and they have generated the path of karma. How do the immortals let the ghosts know their intentions? Because of their anger, their body and speech must change, or they must move their body and speech through mantras. Other masters say that it is not to...
欲界一切無表悉依表生。如得果時。五苾芻等得別解脫戒。不善亦應然。然彼先時決定有表。余亦應爾。仙如前說。布灑他時得妄語者。謂不清凈詐入僧中坐現威儀。或有所說此謂先表。余應思之。
論。已辨虛誑語當辨餘三語。自下有一頌半。明餘三語成道業相。
論曰至流至此中。釋壞他語相。一染心欲壞他。二解義。三不誤。若他壞．不壞俱成壞他語。若他不壞不成壞他語。應無壞聖。正領解時壞與不壞此成業道。
論。若以染心至業道方成。釋粗惡語。一以染心。二發非愛語毀呰於他。三前人解義。四不誤。所罵解時成其業道。
論。一切染心至流至此中。釋雜穢語。于中有二釋。一切染心所發諸語名雜穢語。染心所發皆是雜穢。唯前語字流至此中。解義．不誤與前不同。前人不解誤亦成故。此則前之三語通有二名。離前三語唯名雜穢。
論。有餘師說至及耶論等。第二釋也。前之三語從別得名。離前三語染心所發名雜穢語。
論。佞謂謟佞至所執言詞。此重釋也。如文可解。
論。等謂染心至雜穢語收。釋頌等字。如文可解。
論。輪王現時至雜穢語收。問也。
論。由彼語從至非預染心。答也。有二。一以非染故。二以輕故。此初也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 欲界的一切無表業都依賴於表業而生起。例如，證得果位時，五比丘（Pañcavargika-bhikkhu，佛陀最初度化的五位弟子）等獲得別解脫戒（Prātimokṣa，又稱波羅提木叉，佛教戒律的總稱），不善業也應該如此。然而，他們在先前必定有表業。其餘的情況也應該如此。仙人如前所述。在布薩（Poṣadha，佛教的齋戒儀式）時犯妄語的人，指的是不清凈的人，詐入僧團中，裝模作樣，或者說了某些話，這指的是先前的表業。其餘的情況應該仔細思考。
論：已經辨析了虛誑語，現在應當辨析其餘三種語。下面有一頌半，說明其餘三種語成就道業的相狀。
論曰：至流至此中。解釋壞他語的相狀。一、以染污心想要破壞他人。二、對方理解了話語的含義。三、沒有理解錯誤。如果他人被破壞或沒有被破壞，都成就壞他語。如果他人沒有被破壞，則不成就壞他語。這樣一來，應該沒有破壞聖者的說法。在正確領會理解的時候，破壞與不破壞，都成就業道。
論：若以染心至業道方成。解釋粗惡語。一、以染污心。二、發出不悅耳的語言譭謗他人。三、對方理解了話語的含義。四、沒有理解錯誤。被罵的人理解的時候，成就其業道。
論：一切染心至流至此中。解釋雜穢語。其中有兩種解釋。一切由染污心所發出的語言，都叫做雜穢語。由染污心所發出的都屬於雜穢語。只有前面的『語』字流至此中。理解含義、沒有理解錯誤與前面不同。因為前面的人不理解或理解錯誤也成就（業），因此這樣說。那麼，前面的三種語都通有二個名稱。離開前面的三種語，只叫做雜穢語。
論：有餘師說至及耶論等。這是第二種解釋。前面的三種語是從個別方面得名。離開前面的三種語，由染污心所發出的叫做雜穢語。
論：佞謂謟佞至所執言詞。這是重複解釋。如文義可以理解。
論：等謂染心至雜穢語收。解釋頌中的『等』字。如文義可以理解。
論：輪王現時至雜穢語收。這是提問。
論：由彼語從至非預染心。這是回答。有二個方面。一、因為不是染污心。二、因為輕微。這是第一個方面。
【English Translation】 English version All unmanifest karmas of the Desire Realm arise dependent on manifest karmas. For example, when attaining the fruit, the five Bhikshus (Pañcavargika-bhikkhu, the first five disciples of the Buddha) and others obtain the Prātimokṣa (the code of monastic rules). Unwholesome deeds should also be like this. However, they must have had prior manifest karmas. The same should apply to the rest. As the Immortal has said before. Those who utter falsehoods during Poṣadha (the Buddhist observance day) are those who are impure, falsely enter the Sangha (the Buddhist monastic community), put on airs, or say something; this refers to prior manifest karmas. The rest should be carefully considered.
Treatise: Having distinguished false speech, we should now distinguish the remaining three kinds of speech. Below is one and a half verses, explaining the characteristics of the remaining three kinds of speech that accomplish the path.
Treatise says: To flow to this middle. Explains the characteristics of malicious speech. 1. With a defiled mind, wanting to harm others. 2. Understanding the meaning. 3. Without misunderstanding. If others are harmed or not harmed, both accomplish malicious speech. If others are not harmed, then malicious speech is not accomplished. In that case, there should be no harming of the saints. When correctly understanding, harming or not harming both accomplish the path of karma.
Treatise: If with a defiled mind to the path of karma is accomplished. Explains harsh speech. 1. With a defiled mind. 2. Uttering unpleasant words to slander others. 3. The other person understands the meaning of the words. 4. Without misunderstanding. When the person being scolded understands, it accomplishes the path of karma.
Treatise: All defiled minds to flow to this middle. Explains frivolous speech. There are two explanations. All words uttered with a defiled mind are called frivolous speech. All that is uttered with a defiled mind is frivolous. Only the preceding word 'speech' flows to this middle. Understanding the meaning and without misunderstanding are different from before. Because if the person before does not understand or misunderstands, it also accomplishes (karma), therefore it is said. Then, the preceding three kinds of speech all have two names in common. Apart from the preceding three kinds of speech, it is only called frivolous speech.
Treatise: Some other teachers say to and the treatise, etc. This is the second explanation. The preceding three kinds of speech are named from individual aspects. Apart from the preceding three kinds of speech, what is uttered with a defiled mind is called frivolous speech.
Treatise: Slander means flattery to the words held. This is a repeated explanation. It can be understood as the text says.
Treatise: Etc. means defiled mind to frivolous speech is included. Explains the word 'etc.' in the verse. It can be understood as the text says.
Treatise: When the Wheel-Turning King appears to frivolous speech is included. This is a question.
Treatise: Because that speech from to not previously defiled mind. This is the answer. There are two aspects. 1. Because it is not a defiled mind. 2. Because it is slight. This is the first aspect.
論。有餘師言至不成業道故。第二釋也 正理論云。薄塵類故不引無表。非無無表可業道攝。
論。已辨語三當辨意三。明意三業道具緣成也。
論曰至名貪業道。釋成第一業道相也。惡欲他財名貪業道。自余貪心不成業道。
論。有餘師言至總說欲愛。余師引五蓋經證一切貪此貪業道。
論。有說欲愛至成貪業道。此師以粗品為業道。不簡貪財及貪餘事。正理論云。此世間貪雖皆名貪非皆業道。由前已說諸惡行中攝取粗品。為業道故。唯於他物起惡欲貪名貪業道。若異此者貪著己物業道應成。輪王．北洲為難亦爾 準正理文。第一．第三二說為正。
論。于有情類至名嗔業道。釋成第二業道相也。要于有情為傷害事。如是瞋恚方成業道。自余嗔者皆非業道。
論。于善惡等至邪見業道。釋成第三業道相也。
論。如經說至阿羅漢。已下引經廣釋頌中等字攝也。總有十一不同。一無施與。二無愛樂。三無祠祀 婆沙九十八解此三云。一解無差別同顯一義故。二解云 外論者言。無施與者。謂無施三類福。無愛樂者。謂無施別婆羅門福。無祠祀者。謂無施眾婆羅門福(外論更有多說。如彼廣說)。內論者言。無施與者。謂無過去福。無愛樂者。謂無未來福。無祠祀者。謂無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：有些老師說，（語言上的）遺留影響達不到構成業道（karma path）的程度，這是第二種解釋。 正理論說：因為（語言上的）細微塵埃般的（影響），所以不會引發無表（無形的業），但並非沒有無表，可以被業道所攝取。
論：已經辨析了語三（三種語言行為），接下來應當辨析意三（三種意念行為）。闡明意三的業，需要工具和因緣才能成就。
論曰：……名為貪業道。解釋成就第一種業道的相狀。惡意貪求他人的財物，名為貪業道。其餘的貪心不能構成業道。
論：有些老師說……總括來說就是欲愛（desire and attachment）。其他老師引用五蓋經（經文名稱）來證明一切貪都屬於這種貪業道。
論：有種說法認為，欲愛……構成貪業道。這位老師認為粗品（粗重的行為）才是業道，不區分貪財和貪其他事物。正理論說：世間的貪雖然都叫做貪，但並非都能構成業道。因為之前已經說過，在各種惡行中，攝取粗品作為業道。只有對他人之物生起惡意貪求，才名為貪業道。如果不是這樣，貪著自己的財物也應該構成業道。輪王（轉輪聖王，擁有統治世界的輪寶的國王）和北洲（四大部洲之一，以享樂為主）的情況也是如此。按照正理論的文義，第一種和第三種說法是正確的。
論：對於有情眾生……名為嗔業道。解釋成就第二種業道的相狀。一定要對有情眾生做出傷害的事情，這樣的嗔恚才能構成業道。其餘的嗔怒都不是業道。
論：對於善惡等……邪見業道。解釋成就第三種業道的相狀。
論：如經所說……阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）。以下引用經文廣泛解釋頌中的『等』字所包含的內容。總共有十一種不同：一、沒有施與（giving）；二、沒有愛樂（loving）；三、沒有祠祀（sacrificing）。 婆沙（Vibhasa，論書名稱）第九十八解釋這三種情況說：一種解釋認為沒有差別，共同顯示一個意義。另一種解釋說：外道論者說，沒有施與，是指沒有佈施三種福田；沒有愛樂，是指沒有佈施給特定的婆羅門（Brahman，印度教祭司）的福；沒有祠祀，是指沒有佈施給眾多的婆羅門的福（外道論者還有很多說法，如彼處廣說）。內道論者說，沒有施與，是指沒有過去的福；沒有愛樂，是指沒有未來的福；沒有祠祀，是指沒有
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: Some teachers say that the remaining influence (of speech) does not reach the level of constituting a karma path, this is the second explanation. 'The Treatise on Correct Reasoning' says: Because of the subtle dust-like (influence of speech), it does not induce non-manifestation (invisible karma), but it is not that there is no non-manifestation that can be included in the karma path.
Treatise: Having already distinguished the three verbal actions, next we should distinguish the three mental actions. Clarifying that the karma of the three mental actions requires tools and conditions to be accomplished.
Treatise says: ... is called the karma path of greed. Explaining the characteristics of the first karma path. Maliciously coveting the wealth of others is called the karma path of greed. Other forms of greed do not constitute a karma path.
Treatise: Some teachers say ... in general, it is desire and attachment. Other teachers cite the 'Sutra of the Five Coverings' (sutra name) to prove that all greed belongs to this karma path of greed.
Treatise: Some say that desire and attachment ... constitutes the karma path of greed. This teacher considers coarse actions to be the karma path, without distinguishing between greed for wealth and greed for other things. 'The Treatise on Correct Reasoning' says: Although all greed in the world is called greed, not all of it constitutes a karma path. Because it has been said before that among all evil deeds, coarse actions are taken as the karma path. Only malicious greed for the possessions of others is called the karma path of greed. If it were otherwise, greed for one's own possessions should also constitute a karma path. The cases of the Wheel-Turning King (Chakravartin, a king who possesses the wheel jewel to rule the world) and the Northern Continent (one of the four continents, mainly focused on enjoyment) are also similar. According to the meaning of 'The Treatise on Correct Reasoning', the first and third statements are correct.
Treatise: Towards sentient beings ... is called the karma path of anger. Explaining the characteristics of the second karma path. It is necessary to do harm to sentient beings, only such anger constitutes a karma path. Other forms of anger are not karma paths.
Treatise: Regarding good and evil, etc. ... the karma path of wrong view. Explaining the characteristics of the third karma path.
Treatise: As the sutra says ... Arhat (Arhat, a saint who has attained Nirvana). The following quotes from the sutras extensively explain what is included in the 'etc.' in the verse. There are a total of eleven differences: 1. No giving; 2. No loving; 3. No sacrificing. 'Vibhasa' (Vibhasa, treatise name) ninety-eighth explains these three situations by saying: One explanation believes that there is no difference, jointly showing one meaning. Another explanation says: Outsiders say that no giving means not giving to the three fields of merit; no loving means not giving merit to specific Brahmins (Brahman, Hindu priests); no sacrificing means not giving to many Brahmins (outsiders have many other sayings, as explained there). Insiders say that no giving means no past merit; no loving means no future merit; no sacrificing means no
現在福。複次無施與者。謂無身業福。無愛樂者。謂無語業福。無祠祀者。謂無意業福(云云多解) 四無妙行無惡行者。總撥妙行惡行也(已上四是謗因邪見。見集所斷) 五無妙行惡行業所感果異熟 此謗果邪見見苦所斷 六無此世間 七無彼世間(此通謗因．果見苦．集斷) 婆沙釋云。問他世是不現見謗無可爾。此世現見何故言無。答彼諸外道無明所盲于現見事亦復非撥。不應責無明者愚盲者墮坑。復有說者。彼諸外道但謗因果不謗法體。無此世者。謂無此世為他世因。或無此世為他世果。無他世者。謂無他世為此世因。或無他世為此世果 八無母 九無父(此二是謗因耶見) 婆沙釋云。問世間父母皆所現見。彼如何見謗言無耶。答一解同前。一解。有說。彼諸外道。謗無父．母感子之業。不謗其體。或有說者。彼諸外道謗父．母義。不謗其體(若尋苦因而謗。是見集斷。今謗因不尋苦因而謗是見苦斷。如戒取等) 十無化生有情。婆沙釋云。有諸外道作如是說。諸有情生因現在精血等事。無有無緣忽然生者。譬如芽生必因種子．水．火．時節。無有無緣而得生者。故定無有化生有情。或有說者。化生有情所謂中有。無此世他世者。謗無生有。無化生有情者。謗無中有(云云多解。此亦可通謗因果也) 十
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 現在福（指現世的福報）。再次，『無施與者』，是指沒有身業的福報。 『無愛樂者』，是指沒有語業的福報。 『無祠祀者』，是指沒有意業的福報（等等，多種解釋）。 『四無妙行無惡行者』，是總括否定妙行和惡行（以上四種是誹謗因果的邪見，是見惑所斷）。 『五無妙行惡行業所感果異熟』，這是誹謗果報的邪見，是見苦所斷。 『六無此世間』，『七無彼世間』（這兩種見解貫通誹謗因果，是見苦和見集所斷）。 《婆沙論》解釋說：有人問，『他世』是不容易親眼見到的，所以誹謗它還可以理解。但『此世』是親眼可見的，為什麼也說沒有呢？ 回答說，那些外道被無明所矇蔽，對於親眼見到的事物也加以否定。不應該責怪無明者和愚昧者掉入坑中。還有一種說法是，那些外道只是誹謗因果，而不是誹謗法體的存在。 『無此世』，是指沒有此世作為他世的因，或者沒有此世作為他世的果。 『無他世』，是指沒有他世作為此世的因，或者沒有他世作為此世的果。 『八無母』，『九無父』（這兩種是誹謗因果的邪見）。 《婆沙論》解釋說：有人問，世間的父母都是親眼可見的，他們怎麼會誹謗說沒有呢？ 回答說，一種解釋同前。另一種解釋是，有人說，那些外道誹謗沒有父母能感生子女的業力，而不是誹謗父母的形體。 或者有人說，那些外道誹謗父母的意義，而不是誹謗父母的形體（如果追尋苦的因由而加以誹謗，是見集所斷。現在誹謗因，但不追尋苦的因由而誹謗，是見苦所斷，如戒禁取等）。 『十無化生有情』。《婆沙論》解釋說：有些外道這樣說，一切有情的產生都是因為現在的精血等事物，沒有無緣無故突然產生的。 譬如芽的生長必定是因為種子、水、火、時節等條件，沒有無緣無故就能生長的。所以一定沒有化生有情。 或者有人說，化生有情就是指中有（中陰身）。『無此世他世者』，是誹謗沒有生有（生命的開始）。『無化生有情者』，是誹謗沒有中有（等等，多種解釋。這也可以貫通誹謗因果）。 十
【English Translation】 English version 『Now, there is no merit.』 Again, 『no giver』 means there is no merit from bodily actions. 『No lover』 means there is no merit from verbal actions. 『No sacrificer』 means there is no merit from mental actions (and so on, with multiple interpretations). 『Four, there are no virtuous actions, no evil actions』 is a general denial of both virtuous and evil actions (the above four are wrong views that slander causality, severed by the path of seeing). 『Five, there is no fruition of results from virtuous or evil actions』 This is a wrong view that slanders consequences, severed by seeing suffering. 『Six, there is no this world.』 『Seven, there is no other world』 (These generally slander cause and effect, severed by seeing suffering and seeing origination). The Vibhasa explains: Someone asks, 『The other world is not directly seen, so slandering it is understandable. But this world is directly seen, so why say there is none?』 The answer is, those heretics are blinded by ignorance and deny even what is directly seen. One should not blame the ignorant and foolish for falling into a pit. Another explanation is that those heretics only slander cause and effect, not the existence of phenomena themselves. 『No this world』 means there is no this world as the cause of the other world, or no this world as the result of the other world. 『No other world』 means there is no other world as the cause of this world, or no other world as the result of this world. 『Eight, no mother.』 『Nine, no father』 (These two are wrong views that slander causality). The Vibhasa explains: Someone asks, 『The parents in the world are all directly seen. How can they slander and say there are none?』 The answer is, one explanation is the same as before. Another explanation is, some say that those heretics slander the karmic force of parents producing children, not their physical bodies. Or some say that those heretics slander the meaning of father and mother, not their physical bodies (If one slanders by seeking the cause of suffering, it is severed by seeing origination. Now, slandering the cause without seeking the cause of suffering is severed by seeing suffering, such as adherence to precepts and rituals). 『Ten, there are no beings born spontaneously.』 The Vibhasa explains: Some heretics say that all beings are born from present sperm and blood, etc. There is no such thing as being born suddenly without a cause. For example, the sprouting of a sprout must be due to seeds, water, fire, and seasons. There is no such thing as being born without a cause. Therefore, there are definitely no spontaneously born beings. Or some say that spontaneously born beings refer to the intermediate state (antarabhava). 『No this world or other world』 is slandering the absence of birth. 『No spontaneously born beings』 is slandering the absence of the intermediate state (and so on, with multiple interpretations. This can also generally slander cause and effect). Ten
一世間無有沙門。或婆羅門。或阿羅漢。此是謗聖邪見。見道所斷。
論。彼經具顯至等言攝后。總結可知。婆沙等言更說謗滅邪見。廣如彼說。
俱舍論疏卷第十六
保延三年八月二十二日午後于東廊禪公舊居點了
目暗貧僧覺樹
以黃園本一交了 義證
交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第十七
沙門法寶撰
分別業品第四之五
論。如是已辨至名業道。已下半頌。大文第二。釋業道之名。
論曰至而造作故。釋后貪．瞋．邪見三業道也。貪等體非是業。與思相應思是業性。依貪等轉。依貪等行。依貪勢力而造作故。如人依道。由此貪等體雖非業。是業道也。
論。前七是業至立業道名。釋前七業道。前七業道是業性。故名之為業。思業依託為境轉故名業道也。此七是業。是業之道。立業道名。
論。故於此中至俱極成故。釋此中業道名通兩類。前七具二。謂業。業道。后三唯一。謂但業道。雖不同類。而一業道名通兩處。余故兩類總得名為業道 如世典者。正理論云。世記論也 世記論中亦不同類。而一為余得通名故。如在天．地類別同名形等。
論。離殺等七至類此應釋。類
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『一世間無有沙門（Śrāmaṇa，指出家修道者）。或婆羅門（Brāhmaṇa，指祭司階層）。或阿羅漢（Arhat，指斷盡煩惱，證得解脫的聖者）。』這種說法是誹謗聖者的邪見，是見道所要斷除的。
論：彼經文詳盡地顯示，用『等』字涵蓋後面的內容，總結起來就可以明白。婆沙（Vibhāṣā，指《大毗婆沙論》）等論典更進一步說明了誹謗滅盡的邪見，詳細內容如那些論典所說。
《俱舍論疏》卷第十六
保延三年八月二十二日午後于東廊禪公舊居點了
目暗貧僧覺樹
以黃園本一交了 義證
交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第十七
沙門法寶撰
分別業品第四之五
論：像這樣已經辨析完畢，以下半頌解釋『業道』的名稱，這是第二大段。
論曰：因為依著貪、瞋、邪見而造作。解釋後面的貪、瞋、邪見這三種業道。貪等本身不是業，與思相應的思才是業的體性。因為依著貪等而轉動，依著貪等而行動，依著貪等的勢力而造作，就像人依著道路一樣。因此，貪等本身雖然不是業，卻是業道。
論：前面的殺生等七種是業的體性，因此立名為業道。解釋前面的七種業道。前面的七種業道是業的體性，所以稱之為業。思業依託這些為境界而轉動，所以名為業道。這七種是業，是業的道路，因此立名為業道。
論：因此，在這裡，業道的名稱可以通用於兩類。解釋這裡業道的名稱可以通用於兩類。前面的七種兼具兩種含義，既是業，又是業道。後面的三種只有一種含義，只是業道。雖然不同類別，但一個業道的名稱可以通用於兩處。其餘的緣故，兩類總共可以稱為業道。如世間典籍所說。正理論說的是《世記論》。《世記論》中也有不同類別，但一個可以為其餘的通用名稱，如在天、地類別中，都同名為形等。
論：離開殺生等七種，像這樣來解釋。
【English Translation】 English version 'There is no Śrāmaṇa (ascetic, one who strives), or Brāhmaṇa (priest), or Arhat (one who has attained liberation) in the world.' This is a slanderous and heretical view against the saints, which is to be eradicated by the path of seeing (Darśanamārga).
Treatise: The scripture fully reveals, using 'etc.' to encompass the following content, which can be understood by summarizing. The Vibhāṣā (Mahāvibhāṣā) and other treatises further explain the heretical view of slandering extinction, as detailed in those treatises.
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Volume 16
Proofread at the former residence of Zen Master in the East Corridor on the afternoon of the 22nd day of the 8th month of the 3rd year of Hoen.
By the visually impaired and impoverished monk Kakuju.
Checked against the Huangyuan edition - Gizon.
Checked. Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1822, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Volume 17
Composed by Śrāmaṇa Hōbō
Chapter 4, Part 5: Analysis of Karma
Treatise: Having thus analyzed, the following half-verse explains the name 'Karma-path'. This is the second major section.
Treatise: Because they are created based on greed, hatred, and wrong views. This explains the three Karma-paths of greed, hatred, and wrong views. Greed, etc., are not Karma in themselves; the thought (cetanā) associated with them is the nature of Karma. Because they operate based on greed, etc., act based on greed, etc., and are created by the power of greed, etc., just as people rely on a road. Therefore, although greed, etc., are not Karma in themselves, they are Karma-paths.
Treatise: The preceding seven, such as killing, etc., are the nature of Karma, hence the name Karma-path. This explains the preceding seven Karma-paths. The preceding seven Karma-paths are the nature of Karma, so they are called Karma. The Karma of thought relies on these as objects and operates, so they are called Karma-paths. These seven are Karma, the path of Karma, hence the name Karma-path.
Treatise: Therefore, here, the name Karma-path can be applied to both categories. This explains that the name Karma-path here can be applied to both categories. The preceding seven have both meanings: they are both Karma and Karma-paths. The latter three have only one meaning: they are only Karma-paths. Although they are different categories, one name of Karma-path can be applied to both places. For the remaining reasons, both categories can be collectively called Karma-paths. As the secular texts say. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra speaks of the Lokasaṃgraha-śāstra (Treatise on Worldly Matters). In the Lokasaṃgraha-śāstra, there are also different categories, but one can be a common name for the others, such as in the categories of heaven and earth, they are both commonly called form, etc.
Treatise: Leaving aside the seven, such as killing, etc., this should be explained in this way.
不善業道釋善業道。
論。此加行．後起何緣非業道問也。加行．後起應名業道。思亦緣彼為境轉故。
論。為此依此至異此不然。答也。此有三答。正理論云。理亦應說。而不說者。為本。依本彼方轉故(述曰。為根本起加行。依根本有後起。本得此名。末不名道) 第二解云。根本粗顯說粗品為業道 第三釋云。令內．外物有減．增故。如．殺．盜等令物增．減。前．后二分不爾。由此二分不名業道。婆沙一百一十三云。所居名外。壽等名內 婆沙云。問何故名業道。答思名業。業所游履究竟而轉為業道 問若爾一切無記。
論。應問彼師。論主意云。非此是我義。因何問我。應問彼師。
論。然亦可言至皆名業道。論主為彼師釋。此貪．瞋等是惡趣因。因是道義。與惡趣為道 或貪．瞋等互相因起。更互相乘皆名業道也。
論。如是所說至差別云何。已下兩頌。第三義便明斷善根。
論曰至能斷善根。此舉初句答。前問。諸斷善根由何業道 答云。唯上品邪見業道此釋能斷。
論。若爾何緣至最初所除。難也。若謂唯邪見斷善根者。即違本論云何上品不善根。謂能斷善根者。不善根體謂貪．瞋．癡。邪見非不善根如何說能斷善根。
論。由不善根至被賊燒村
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 不善業道解釋善業道。
論：加行（karma performed before the main action）和後起（karma performed after the main action）為何不是業道（path of action）？這是提問。加行和後起也應被稱為業道，因為思（thought, intention）也以它們為對像而運轉。
論：『為此依此至異此不然』，這是回答。這裡有三種解釋。正理論說：『理應也說，但不說，是因為根本（root action）。加行依根本而起，後起依根本而有，根本因此得名，末（加行和後起）不得名道。』（述曰：因為根本生起加行，依根本有後起，根本因此得名，末不名為道。）第二種解釋是：根本粗顯，所以說粗品為業道。第三種解釋是：使內外之物有減損或增益。如殺生、偷盜等，使事物增減，前（加行）、后（後起）二分不是這樣，因此二分不名為業道。』婆沙（Vibhasha）一百一十三說：『所居住的地方名為外，壽命等名為內。』婆沙說：『問：為何名為業道？答：思名為業，業所游履究竟而轉，是為業道。』問：如果這樣，一切無記（neutral karma）……
論：應問彼師。論主的意思是：『這不是我的觀點，為何問我？應問彼師。』
論：然而也可以說『至皆名業道』。論主為彼師解釋：此貪（greed）、瞋（hatred）等是惡趣（evil realms）之因，因是道的意義，與惡趣為道。或者貪、瞋等互相因起，更互相乘，都名為業道。
論：如是所說至差別云何？以下兩頌，第三義便明斷善根（severance of roots of good）。
論曰至能斷善根。此舉初句答前問：諸斷善根由何業道？答云：唯上品邪見（extreme wrong view）業道。此解釋能斷。
論：若爾何緣至最初所除？這是提問。如果說唯邪見斷善根，就違背本論：『云何上品不善根，謂能斷善根者』。不善根的體是貪、瞋、癡（ignorance），邪見不是不善根，如何說能斷善根？
論：由不善根至被賊燒村。
【English Translation】 English version Explaining the wholesome paths of action (善業道) by contrasting them with the unwholesome paths of action (不善業道).
Treatise: Why are the preliminary actions (加行) and subsequent actions (後起) not considered paths of action (業道)? This is a question. The preliminary and subsequent actions should also be called paths of action because thought (思, intention) also operates with them as its objects.
Treatise: 'For this, based on this, up to different from this is not so.' This is the answer. There are three explanations here. The Zhengli Lun (正理論) says: 'It should also be said in principle, but it is not said because of the root action (根本). The preliminary action arises based on the root, and the subsequent action exists based on the root. The root thus obtains this name, but the end (preliminary and subsequent actions) is not called a path.' (Commentary: Because the root gives rise to the preliminary action, and the subsequent action exists based on the root, the root thus obtains this name, but the end is not called a path.) The second explanation is: the root is coarse and obvious, so the coarse category is said to be the path of action. The third explanation is: it causes internal and external things to decrease or increase. For example, killing and stealing cause things to increase or decrease, but the preliminary and subsequent parts are not like this, so these two parts are not called paths of action.' The Vibhasha (婆沙) one hundred and thirteen says: 'The place where one lives is called external, and lifespan etc. are called internal.' The Vibhasha says: 'Question: Why is it called a path of action? Answer: Thought is called action, and what the action traverses and ultimately turns into is the path of action.' Question: If so, all neutral karma (無記)...
Treatise: One should ask that teacher. The treatise master's meaning is: 'This is not my view, why ask me? One should ask that teacher.'
Treatise: However, it can also be said 'up to all are called paths of action.' The treatise master explains for that teacher: These greed (貪), hatred (瞋), etc. are the causes of evil realms (惡趣), and cause is the meaning of path, being a path to evil realms. Or greed, hatred, etc. arise mutually, and further multiply each other, all are called paths of action.
Treatise: As has been said, up to what is the difference? The following two verses, the third meaning then clearly explains the severance of roots of good (斷善根).
Treatise says up to being able to sever roots of good. This cites the first sentence to answer the previous question: By what paths of action are the roots of good severed? The answer is: Only the path of action of extreme wrong view (上品邪見). This explains being able to sever.
Treatise: If so, what reason up to initially eliminated? This is a question. If it is said that only wrong view severs roots of good, then it contradicts the original treatise: 'What is the highest unwholesome root, namely that which can sever roots of good?' The substance of unwholesome roots is greed, hatred, and ignorance (癡), wrong view is not an unwholesome root, how can it be said to be able to sever roots of good?
Treatise: From unwholesome roots up to a village being burned by thieves.
。答。于能引處說所引業。
論。何等善根為此所斷。問所斷善。
論。謂唯欲界至先不成故。答也。將欲斷善欲界中思。色．無色善先退不成。邪見不能斷上界善等。
論。施設足論至三界善根。難不斷上二界善根。
論。依上善根至非彼器故。斷欲善。上二界善得更遠故。此身不是上善器故。
論。何緣唯斷生得善根。問欲界加行不斷所以。
論。加行善根先已退故。答。正理論云。加行善根將斷善時最初舍故。
論。緣何邪見能斷善根。問也。
論。謂定撥無至彼果異熟。答也。正理論云。此斷善根何因何位。謂有一類先成暴惡意樂隨眠。后逢惡友緣力所資。轉復增盛故。善根減不善根增。後起撥因撥果邪見。令一切善皆悉隱沒。由此相續離善而住。此因。此位斷諸善根。
論。有餘師說至解脫道別。敘異斷。分撥因果邪見。二道別也。
論。有餘師說至勢力劣故。敘異師說。無漏緣．他界緣．隨眠緣中不增。唯相應中增。由力劣故不能斷善。
論。如是說者至有強力故。述正義。煩惱不定。有準因中增者亦得至上品。強力故。無漏緣．他界緣亦至上品能斷善根。
論。有餘師說至見所斷惑。敘異說也。
論。如是說者至邪
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：答：在能夠引用的地方說明所引用的業。
論：什麼善根會被此所斷？問的是所斷的善。
論：指的是隻有欲界的善根，因為色界和無色界的善根先前已經退失不成。這是回答。想要斷除善根，只能斷欲界中的思。色界和無色界的善根先前已經退失不成。邪見不能斷除上界的善等。
論：《施設足論》（Śāsana-pada-śāstra）中說，斷三界的善根。這是爲了反駁不能斷上二界善根的觀點。
論：依據上界的善根，因為不是它們的器皿。斷除欲界的善根，上二界的善根可以更加長遠。這個身體不是上界善根的器皿。
論：為什麼只斷生得的善根？問的是為什麼不斷欲界的加行善根。
論：因為加行善根先前已經退失。回答。《正理論》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya）中說，加行善根在將要斷除善根的時候，最初就被捨棄。
論：什麼樣的邪見能夠斷除善根？這是提問。
論：指的是決定否定，乃至否定彼果的異熟果報。這是回答。《正理論》中說，這種斷善根是什麼原因，在什麼階段發生的？說的是有一類人，先前已經形成了強烈的惡意樂隨眠（anusaya，潛在的煩惱傾向），後來遇到惡友，被外緣的力量所資助，轉而更加增盛。所以善根減少，不善根增加。後來生起否定因果的邪見，使一切善都隱沒。由此相續離開善而住。這是斷除諸善根的原因和階段。
論：有其他老師說，乃至解脫道不同。敘述不同的斷法。區分否定因果的邪見，以及二道（指有漏道和無漏道）的不同。
論：有其他老師說，乃至勢力弱小。敘述其他老師的說法。無漏緣、他界緣、隨眠緣中不增長。只有在相應緣中增長。因為力量弱小，所以不能斷除善根。
論：像這樣說的人，乃至有強大的力量。陳述正確的觀點。煩惱是不定的。有在準因中增長的，也可以達到上品。因為有強大的力量。無漏緣、他界緣也可以達到上品，能夠斷除善根。
論：有其他老師說，乃至見所斷惑。敘述不同的說法。
論：像這樣說的人，乃至邪...
【English Translation】 English version: Answer: Explain the karma being referred to in the place where it can be referred to.
Treatise: What kind of wholesome roots are severed by this? Asking about the wholesome roots that are severed.
Treatise: It refers only to the wholesome roots of the desire realm, because the wholesome roots of the form and formless realms have already declined and ceased to exist. This is the answer. If one wants to sever wholesome roots, one can only sever the thought (cetanā) in the desire realm. The wholesome roots of the form and formless realms have already declined and ceased to exist. Wrong views cannot sever the wholesome roots of the upper realms, etc.
Treatise: The Śāsana-pada-śāstra says that the wholesome roots of the three realms are severed. This is to refute the view that the wholesome roots of the upper two realms cannot be severed.
Treatise: Based on the wholesome roots of the upper realms, because they are not vessels for them. Severing the wholesome roots of the desire realm allows the wholesome roots of the upper two realms to be more distant. This body is not a vessel for the wholesome roots of the upper realms.
Treatise: Why are only the wholesome roots acquired at birth severed? Asking why the wholesome roots of effort in the desire realm are not severed.
Treatise: Because the wholesome roots of effort have already declined. Answer: The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says that the wholesome roots of effort are abandoned first when wholesome roots are about to be severed.
Treatise: What kind of wrong view can sever wholesome roots? This is a question.
Treatise: It refers to definitively denying, even denying the different maturation (vipāka) results of those causes. This is the answer. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says, what is the cause and stage of this severance of wholesome roots? It says that there are some people who have already formed strong malicious pleasure latent tendencies (anusaya), and later encounter evil friends, and are aided by the power of external conditions, and become even more intensified. Therefore, wholesome roots decrease and unwholesome roots increase. Later, wrong views that deny cause and effect arise, causing all wholesome qualities to be obscured. Because of this, the continuum dwells apart from wholesomeness. This is the cause and stage of severing all wholesome roots.
Treatise: Some other teachers say, even the path of liberation is different. Narrating different severances. Distinguishing the wrong views that deny cause and effect, and the difference between the two paths (referring to the contaminated and uncontaminated paths).
Treatise: Some other teachers say, even the power is weak. Narrating the views of other teachers. There is no increase in the uncontaminated condition, the other realm condition, and the latent tendency condition. It only increases in the associated condition. Because the power is weak, it cannot sever wholesome roots.
Treatise: Those who say this, even have strong power. Stating the correct view. Afflictions are uncertain. Those that increase in the quasi-causal condition can also reach the superior grade. Because there is strong power. The uncontaminated condition and the other realm condition can also reach the superior grade and sever wholesome roots.
Treatise: Some other teachers say, even the afflictions severed by view. Narrating different views.
Treatise: Those who say this, even wrong...
見所斷。述正義也。
論。若作是說至名斷善根。引本論證九品斷善正也。既有最後所舍者。亦有前品舍者。故知非一品斷。
論若爾彼文至能斷善根者。余師引本論難。本論既云上品不善根能斷善根。故知唯一品斷。本論二文便自相違。
論。彼依究竟至名能斷善根。答。由上品不善根能斷下下品善根。由斯故說上品不善根能斷善根 正理云乘前為問。其理已成。謂此乘前所斷微善。即問能斷上不善根。前微善根既下品攝。后能斷者理上品收。故於中不勞徴難。
論。有餘師言至如見道中。敘異說也。
論。如是說者通出不出者。述正義也。
論。有餘師說至末易舍故。敘異說。彼師意說。因其善根發得律儀。律儀是末。善根是本。末舍易本。故先舍也。
論。如是說者至品類同故。述正義也。正理論云。諸律儀果有從加行。有從生得善心所生。若從加行善心生者。律儀先舍。后斷善根。然斷善根加行．根本皆名斷善根。依此故說斷善根位舍諸律儀。若從生得善心生者。隨斷何品能生善根。所生律儀爾時便舍。舍能等起。彼隨舍故。
論。為在何處能斷善根。問處所也。
論。人趣三洲至阿世耶故。
答阿世耶者。此云意樂。
論。有餘師說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 見所斷。述正義也。
論：如果這樣說，直到名為斷善根。引用本論來證明九品斷善是正確的。既然有最後所捨棄的，也有前面品位捨棄的。所以知道不是一品斷。
論：如果這樣，那些經文直到能斷善根者。其他老師引用本論來反駁。本論既然說上品不善根能斷善根，所以知道只有一品斷。本論的兩段經文就自相矛盾了。
論：那是依據究竟直到名為能斷善根。回答：由於上品不善根能斷下下品善根。因此才說上品不善根能斷善根。《正理》中說，乘前為問，其理已成。意思是說，此前所斷的微小善根，就是問能斷上品不善根。之前的微小善根既然屬於下品，之後能斷的理應屬於上品。所以在中間不需多加詰難。
論：有其他老師說，直到如見道中。敘述不同的說法。
論：這樣說的人，包括出家和不出家的人。陳述正確的意義。
論：有其他老師說，直到最後容易捨棄的緣故。敘述不同的說法。那位老師的意思是說，因為善根而生起律儀。律儀是末，善根是本。捨棄末容易，所以先捨棄律儀。
論：這樣說的人，直到品類相同緣故。陳述正確的意義。《正理論》中說，各種律儀的果報，有的從加行（指有意的努力）產生，有的從生得的善心所產生。如果從加行善心產生，律儀先捨棄，然後斷善根。然而斷善根的加行和根本都名為斷善根。依據這個緣故說，在斷善根的階段捨棄各種律儀。如果從生得的善心產生，隨著斷哪一品能生善根，所生的律儀那時就捨棄。捨棄能引發（律儀）的（善心），（律儀）隨著（善心）捨棄。
論：在什麼地方能夠斷善根？提問斷善根的處所。
論：人趣的三洲，直到阿世耶（ā shì yē）(意樂)的緣故。
回答：阿世耶（ā shì yē）(意樂)的意思是意樂。
論：有其他老師說
【English Translation】 English version: Seeing what is to be severed. Stating the correct meaning.
Treatise: If it is said like this, until it is called severing the roots of goodness. Quoting the original treatise to prove that severing the roots of goodness in nine grades is correct. Since there are those who are finally abandoned, there are also those who abandon the previous grades. Therefore, it is known that it is not severing in one grade.
Treatise: If so, those texts until those who can sever the roots of goodness. Other teachers quote the original treatise to refute. Since the original treatise says that the supreme unwholesome roots can sever the roots of goodness, it is known that only one grade is severed. The two texts of the original treatise contradict each other.
Treatise: That is based on the ultimate until it is called being able to sever the roots of goodness. Answer: Because the supreme unwholesome roots can sever the lowest grades of wholesome roots. Therefore, it is said that the supreme unwholesome roots can sever the roots of goodness. The Nyāyānusāra says that asking before riding is to establish the principle. It means that the subtle wholesome roots severed before, are asking about being able to sever the supreme unwholesome roots. Since the previous subtle wholesome roots are included in the lower grades, the subsequent ability to sever should be included in the supreme grades. Therefore, there is no need to add difficulties in the middle.
Treatise: Other teachers say, until as in the path of seeing. Narrating different views.
Treatise: Those who say this include both renunciates and non-renunciates. Stating the correct meaning.
Treatise: Other teachers say, until because it is easier to abandon the end. Narrating different views. The teacher's meaning is that because the precepts arise from the roots of goodness. The precepts are the end, and the roots of goodness are the origin. It is easier to abandon the end, so the precepts are abandoned first.
Treatise: Those who say this, until because the categories are the same. Stating the correct meaning. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that the fruits of various precepts arise from either intentional effort or innate wholesome mental factors. If they arise from intentional wholesome mental factors, the precepts are abandoned first, and then the roots of goodness are severed. However, both the intentional effort and the fundamental act of severing the roots of goodness are called severing the roots of goodness. Based on this, it is said that in the stage of severing the roots of goodness, all precepts are abandoned. If they arise from innate wholesome mental factors, then whichever grade that can generate wholesome roots is severed, the precepts generated at that time are abandoned. Abandoning what can initiate (the precepts), (the precepts) are abandoned along with (the wholesome mental factors).
Treatise: Where can the roots of goodness be severed? Asking about the location of severing the roots of goodness.
Treatise: In the three continents of the human realm, until because of āśaya (inclination).
Answer: Āśaya (ā shì yē) (inclination) means intention.
Treatise: Other teachers say
至唯贍部洲敘異說也。
論若爾便違至東西洲亦爾。破異師也。兩洲若不斷善因何極少成八根耶。
論。如是斷善依何類身。問。
論。唯男女身志意定故。答。扇搋等身志意不定。不能斷善。
論。有餘師說至皆昧鈍故。敘異說也。
論。若爾便違至男根亦爾。破異說。男．女既同極少八根。
故知皆能斷善。
論為何行者能斷善根。問行者也。
論唯見行人至如惡趣故。答也。
論此善根斷其體是何。問體也。
論善斷應知至非得為體。答也。
論。善根斷已由何復續。問續善也。
論由疑有見至名續善根。答也。婆沙三十五云。誰住疑心續。誰住正見續。有作是說。轉身續者住疑心續。現法續者住正見續。評曰應作是說。此不決定 又云若 善根續便能起耶 評曰應作是說。此不決定 正理論云。謂續善位。或由因力。或依善友。有于因果欻復生疑。所招後世為無為有。有于因果欻生正見。定有後世先執是邪。爾時善根成就得還起不成就得滅名續善根 述曰。夫言疑者必有．無二緣不定名之為疑。或先有後無。或後有。若先有後無。能生邪見不能續善。若先無後有。能生正見此能續善。故正理云。所招後世為無為有。此論云。此或
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於在閻浮提洲（Jambudvipa，人所居住的四大洲之一）敘述不同的觀點。
論：如果這樣，就違背了東西洲的情況也是如此的說法。這是爲了駁斥不同的觀點。如果兩洲不斷絕善因，為什麼極少能成就八根（指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意、末那、阿賴耶八識）呢？
論：像這樣斷絕善根是依據哪一類身呢？（問）
論：唯有男女之身，因為他們的意志堅定。（答）扇搋（Pandaka，指不能行男事的男人）等身，因為他們的意志不堅定，所以不能斷絕善根。
論：有其他論師說……都昏昧遲鈍的緣故。（敘述不同的觀點）
論：如果這樣，就違背了男根的情況也是如此的說法。（駁斥不同的觀點）男人和女人既然同樣極少成就八根，所以可知他們都能斷絕善根。
論：什麼樣的行者能夠斷絕善根呢？（問行者）
論：唯有見到行人才會斷絕善根，就像惡趣一樣。（答）
論：這善根斷絕，它的本體是什麼呢？（問本體）
論：善根斷絕，應當知道……不是以獲得為本體。（答）
論：善根斷絕之後，由什麼而再次延續呢？（問延續善根）
論：由懷疑有見……名為延續善根。（答）《婆沙論》第三十五卷說：『誰住在疑心中延續？誰住在正見中延續？』有人這樣說：『轉身延續的人住在疑心中延續，現法延續的人住在正見中延續。』評論說：『應當這樣說，這不一定。』又說：『如果善根延續，便能生起嗎？』評論說：『應當這樣說，這不一定。』《正理論》說：『所謂延續善根的階段，或者由於因的力量，或者依靠善友，有的人對於因果忽然又產生懷疑，所招感的後世是無還是有；有的人對於因果忽然產生正見，確定有後世，先前執著的是邪見。』這時善根成就，得到恢復生起，不成就，得到滅亡，名為延續善根。』述曰：『所謂懷疑，必定有有和無兩種緣而不確定，才稱之為懷疑。或者先前有而後來無，或者後來有。如果先前有而後來無，能生邪見，不能延續善根；如果先前無而後來有，能生正見，這能延續善根。』所以《正理論》說：『所招感的後世是無還是有。』此論說：『這或者……』
【English Translation】 English version Regarding the narration of different views in Jambudvipa (the continent where humans reside).
Treatise: If that's the case, it contradicts the statement that the same applies to the eastern and western continents. This is to refute different views. If the two continents do not sever the roots of goodness, why is it so rare to attain the eight faculties (referring to the eight consciousnesses: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, Manas, and Alaya)?
Treatise: On what kind of body does this severance of good roots depend? (Question)
Treatise: Only on the bodies of men and women, because their will is firm. (Answer) The bodies of Pandakas (men who cannot perform sexual acts), etc., because their will is not firm, cannot sever the roots of goodness.
Treatise: Some other teachers say... because they are all dull and slow. (Narrating different views)
Treatise: If that's the case, it contradicts the statement that the same applies to the male organ. (Refuting different views) Since men and women are equally rare in attaining the eight faculties, it is known that they can all sever the roots of goodness.
Treatise: What kind of practitioner can sever the roots of goodness? (Question about practitioners)
Treatise: Only seeing practitioners will sever the roots of goodness, just like the evil realms. (Answer)
Treatise: What is the substance of this severed root of goodness? (Question about substance)
Treatise: The severance of the root of goodness, it should be known... is not based on attainment. (Answer)
Treatise: After the root of goodness is severed, by what is it continued again? (Question about continuing the root of goodness)
Treatise: By doubting the existence of views... it is called continuing the root of goodness. (Answer) The 35th volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Who dwells in doubt to continue? Who dwells in right view to continue?' Some say: 'Those who continue by changing bodies dwell in doubt to continue, those who continue in the present Dharma dwell in right view to continue.' The commentary says: 'It should be said like this, this is not certain.' It also says: 'If the root of goodness continues, can it arise?' The commentary says: 'It should be said like this, this is not certain.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'The stage of continuing the root of goodness, either due to the power of cause, or relying on good friends, some suddenly have doubts about cause and effect again, what is summoned in the future life is whether it is non-existent or existent; some suddenly have right view about cause and effect, determining that there is a future life, previously clinging to wrong views.' At this time, the root of goodness is accomplished, obtaining recovery and arising, not accomplished, obtaining extinction, is called continuing the root of goodness.' The commentary says: 'So-called doubt, there must be two conditions of existence and non-existence that are uncertain, then it is called doubt. Either there was existence before and non-existence later, or there was existence later. If there was existence before and non-existence later, it can generate wrong views and cannot continue the root of goodness; if there was non-existence before and existence later, it can generate right views, this can continue the root of goodness.' Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'What is summoned in the future life is whether it is non-existent or existent.' This treatise says: 'This perhaps...'
應有者。亦是先執為無。后或應有。
論有餘師言九品漸續。述異說也。
論如是說者至氣力漸增。述正義也。婆沙云。評曰應作是說。九品頓續漸次現前。乃至。應從地獄死當生地獄者。三品善根得亦在身成就。亦現在前。當生傍生．鬼六品。當生人．天九品。
論。于現身中能續善不。問續善也。
論。亦有能續至非餘位故。答。有兩類。若不造逆斷善根者。于現世中亦有能續。若造逆人斷善根者。于現世中定不能續。彼人定於地獄將死及將受生時續。準此文證。地獄生時雖續善根。續善根已受地獄也。造逆之人定至生有經劫等故。
論言將生者至謂彼將死。釋將生．將死 彼死者即是于地獄中將死時續。
論。若由因力至應知亦爾。此釋二時續善異所以。
論。又意樂壞至應知亦爾。釋不造逆人現世續善現續善不同所以。婆沙云。若於地獄中有中。受斷善根邪見異熟果者。彼于地獄生時續。若不受者死時續。彼果盡故能續善根。所以者何。如邪見與善根相妨。彼果亦爾。若依施設論說。一切斷善皆非現續 正理論云。謂世有人撥無後世名意樂壞。而不隨彼意樂所作非加行壞。見壞。戒不壞。見壞。戒亦壞。斷善根者應知亦爾。非劫將壞及劫初成有斷善根。壞器世間
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 對於『應有者』，也是先執著于『無』，之後或許才認為『應有』。
論述有餘師的觀點，認為九品是逐漸相續的。這是在敘述不同的說法。
論述『如是說者』到『氣力漸增』，這是在敘述正確的含義。《婆沙論》說：『評論說，應該這樣說，九品是頓然相續，逐漸顯現。』乃至『應該從地獄死去，將要生到地獄的人，三品善根得以在身成就，也現在前。將要生到傍生、鬼道的是六品，將要生到人、天道的是九品。』
論：『在現身中能夠相續善根嗎？』這是在問相續善根的問題。
論：『也有能夠相續，直到不是其餘位置的。』答：有兩類情況。如果不造作逆罪，不斷善根的人，在現世中也有能夠相續善根的。如果造作逆罪，斷善根的人，在現世中一定不能相續善根。這些人一定在地獄將要死去以及將要受生的時候相續善根。』根據這段文字可以證明，地獄受生的時候雖然相續善根，相續善根之後仍然要受地獄的苦。造作逆罪的人一定會到生有（bhava，生命存在）經歷劫數等等。
論說『將生者』到『謂彼將死』，解釋『將生』、『將死』。那些死去的人，就是在地獄中將要死去的時候相續善根。
論：『如果由於因的力量，應該知道也是這樣。』這是解釋兩個時候相續善根的不同原因。
論：『又，意樂（āśaya，意圖）壞了，應該知道也是這樣。』解釋不造作逆罪的人在現世相續善根，和現在相續善根的不同原因。《婆沙論》說：『如果在地獄中有中有（antarābhava，中陰身），承受斷善根邪見異熟果報的人，他們在地獄受生的時候相續善根。如果不承受的人，在死去的時候相續善根。因為他們的果報已經窮盡，所以能夠相續善根。』原因是什麼呢？就像邪見和善根互相妨礙一樣，邪見的果報也是這樣。如果依照《施設論》的說法，一切斷善根的人都不是現在相續。』《正理論》說：『所謂世間有人撥無後世，名叫意樂壞。而不隨順那些意樂所作的，不是加行壞。見壞，戒不壞。見壞，戒也壞。斷善根的人應該知道也是這樣。不是劫將要壞滅以及劫初形成的時候有斷善根，壞滅器世間（bhājana-loka，物質世界）。』
【English Translation】 English version Regarding 'those who should have,' they initially cling to 'non-existence,' and only later perhaps acknowledge 'existence.'
The treatise discusses the view of teachers who hold that the nine grades of beings are gradually continuous. This is a narration of differing opinions.
The treatise discusses 'those who say thus' up to 'gradually increasing strength.' This is a narration of the correct meaning. The Vibhasa says: 'The commentary says, it should be said thus: the nine grades are suddenly continuous, gradually manifesting. ' Even 'those who should die in hell and be born in hell, the three grades of wholesome roots are attained and accomplished in their bodies, and also manifest. Those who will be born in the realms of animals and ghosts have six grades, and those who will be born in the realms of humans and gods have nine grades.'
The treatise asks: 'In the present life, can one continue wholesome roots?' This is a question about continuing wholesome roots.
The treatise answers: 'There are those who can continue until it is not another position.' There are two types of cases. If one does not commit heinous offenses and sever wholesome roots, one can continue wholesome roots in the present life. If one commits heinous offenses and severs wholesome roots, one definitely cannot continue wholesome roots in the present life. Such people definitely continue wholesome roots when they are about to die in hell or about to be born there.' According to this passage, although one continues wholesome roots at the time of birth in hell, one still experiences the suffering of hell after continuing wholesome roots. Those who commit heinous offenses will certainly reach the state of existence (bhava) and experience kalpas (aeons) etc.
The treatise says 'those who are about to be born' up to 'meaning they are about to die,' explaining 'about to be born' and 'about to die.' Those who die are those who continue wholesome roots when they are about to die in hell.
The treatise says: 'If it is due to the power of causes, it should be known that it is also thus.' This explains the different reasons for continuing wholesome roots at the two times.
The treatise says: 'Moreover, if the intention (āśaya) is ruined, it should be known that it is also thus.' This explains the different reasons for those who do not commit heinous offenses continuing wholesome roots in the present life, and continuing wholesome roots now. The Vibhasa says: 'If there are beings in the intermediate state (antarābhava) in hell who are experiencing the fruition of severed wholesome roots and wrong views, they continue wholesome roots at the time of birth in hell. If they are not experiencing it, they continue wholesome roots at the time of death. Because their fruition is exhausted, they can continue wholesome roots.' What is the reason? Just as wrong views hinder wholesome roots, so does the fruition of wrong views. According to the Establishment Treatise, all those who have severed wholesome roots do not continue them in the present.' The Treatise on Correct Principles says: 'It refers to people in the world who deny the afterlife, which is called ruined intention. What is done not in accordance with those intentions is not ruined action. View is ruined, precepts are not ruined. View is ruined, precepts are also ruined. It should be known that those who have severed wholesome roots are also thus. There is no severing of wholesome roots when a kalpa (aeon) is about to be destroyed or when a kalpa is just beginning, destroying the vessel world (bhājana-loka).'
增上力故。相續潤故。行妙行者不斷善根。以心堅牢有所樂故。
論。有斷善根至謂除前相。已下四句分別 布剌拏。此云滿。舊云富樓那。訛也。此人斷善而不造逆。故非邪定。是第一句 未生怨即是阿阇世王。造逆故是邪定(依大乘非邪定)信三寶故不斷善根。是第二句 天授舊云提婆提多。此人破僧。出佛身血。殺阿羅漢。故是邪定。亦斷善根。故是俱句 俱非可知 正理論云。斷善邪見。破僧妄語。當知定招無間異熟。余無間業或招無間。或招所餘地獄異熟。依婆沙三十五更有問答。施設論說。若害蟻卵無少悔心。應說是人斷三界善。問若現法中續善根者。彼命終已生地獄耶。答彼不決定生於地獄。唯有轉身續善根者定生地獄。問若現法中續善根者。彼現身能入正性離生不。評曰應作是說。彼能引起順抉擇分。亦后能入正性離生。乃至能得阿羅漢果。問殺斷善人。與害蟻卵。何者罪重。評曰應作是說。若依罰罪殺斷善人。得罪為重。得邊罪故。若依業道害蟻卵重。以彼成就諸善法故。問於何處受斷善根果。答于無間地獄受彼異熟果(與正理亦同)問斷善邪見於眾同分為但能滿。亦能引耶。答亦能牽引。亦能圓滿。有作是說。但能圓滿不能牽引。所以者何。業能牽引眾同分故。評曰。如前說好。邪見相應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：由於增長的力量，以及（善根）相續滋潤的緣故，修行妙行的人不會斷絕善根，因為他們的心堅定牢固，並且有所喜樂。
論：關於斷善根，以下四句分別解釋了布剌拏（Purana，意為『滿』，舊譯『富樓那』是訛傳）的情況。此人斷了善根，但沒有造下逆罪，因此不屬於邪定。這是第一句。
未生怨（Ajatasattu）就是阿阇世王（Ajatasattu）。他造下逆罪，因此屬於邪定（依據大乘觀點，不屬於邪定）。因為他信奉三寶，所以沒有斷絕善根。這是第二句。
天授（Devadatta，舊譯提婆達多）這個人破壞僧團，使佛陀流血，殺害阿羅漢，因此屬於邪定，也斷絕了善根。所以是『俱』句（既是邪定，又斷善根）。
『俱非』的情況可以依此類推得知。《正理論》說，斷善根的邪見，破壞僧團的妄語，應當知道必定招感無間地獄的異熟果報。其餘的無間業，或者招感無間地獄的果報，或者招感其餘地獄的異熟果報。依據《婆沙論》第三十五卷，還有問答。《施設論》說，如果殺害螞蟻卵，沒有絲毫悔恨之心，應當說這個人斷絕了三界的善根。問：如果現在世續善根的人，他命終之後會墮入地獄嗎？答：他不一定墮入地獄。只有轉身續善根的人必定墮入地獄。問：如果現在世續善根的人，他現在身能夠進入正性離生（證入聖道）嗎？評曰：應當這樣說，他能夠引起順抉擇分（趨向解脫的善根），以後也能進入正性離生，乃至能夠證得阿羅漢果。問：殺斷善根的人，與殺害螞蟻卵，哪一個罪過更重？評曰：應當這樣說，如果依據罰罪（法律），殺斷善根的人，罪過更重，因為觸犯了邊罪（重罪）。如果依據業道（因果），殺害螞蟻卵更重，因為他成就了諸善法。問：在什麼地方承受斷善根的果報？答：在無間地獄承受他的異熟果報（與《正理論》相同）。問：斷善根的邪見，對於眾同分（同類眾生的相似性）來說，是隻能圓滿（已有的惡業），還是也能牽引（新的惡業）？答：既能牽引，也能圓滿。有人這樣說，只能圓滿，不能牽引。為什麼呢？因為業能夠牽引眾同分。評曰：像前面所說的那樣好，邪見相應。
【English Translation】 English version: Due to the power of increase and the continuous nourishment (of good roots), those who practice sublime conduct do not sever their good roots, because their minds are firm and they find joy in it.
Treatise: Regarding the severing of good roots, the following four sentences respectively explain the case of Purana (meaning 'full,' the old translation 'Fúlóunà' is a corruption). This person severed his good roots but did not commit heinous crimes, therefore he does not belong to the category of fixed negativity. This is the first sentence.
Ajatasattu (meaning 'unborn enemy') is King Ajatasattu. He committed heinous crimes, therefore he belongs to the category of fixed negativity (according to the Mahayana view, he does not belong to fixed negativity). Because he believes in the Three Jewels, he has not severed his good roots. This is the second sentence.
Devadatta (meaning 'God-given') destroyed the Sangha, caused the Buddha to bleed, and killed an Arhat, therefore he belongs to the category of fixed negativity and has also severed his good roots. Therefore, it is the 'both' sentence (both fixed negativity and severed good roots).
The case of 'neither' can be known by analogy. The Nyāyānusāra says that the wrong view of severing good roots, the false speech of destroying the Sangha, one should know that it will definitely bring about the Vipaka (result) of uninterrupted hell. The remaining uninterrupted karmas, either bring about the result of uninterrupted hell, or bring about the Vipaka of the remaining hells. According to the Mahavibhasa, volume thirty-five, there are further questions and answers. The Abhidharmaprakaranapada-sastra says that if one harms ant eggs without the slightest remorse, it should be said that this person has severed the good roots of the three realms. Question: If a person continues good roots in the present life, will he be born in hell after his death? Answer: He is not necessarily born in hell. Only those who turn around and continue good roots will definitely be born in hell. Question: If a person continues good roots in the present life, can he enter the Rightness of Separation from Birth (enter the stream) in his present body? Comment: It should be said that he can arouse the part of the path that leads to liberation, and later he can also enter the Rightness of Separation from Birth, and even attain the fruit of Arhat. Question: Killing a person who has severed good roots, and harming ant eggs, which is the heavier sin? Comment: It should be said that if based on punishment, killing a person who has severed good roots is a heavier sin, because it violates the border sin (serious sin). If based on the path of karma (cause and effect), harming ant eggs is heavier, because he has accomplished all good dharmas. Question: Where does one receive the result of severing good roots? Answer: In the uninterrupted hell, one receives his Vipaka (result) (the same as the Nyāyānusāra). Question: The wrong view of severing good roots, for the commonality of beings (the similarity of beings of the same kind), can it only fulfill (existing evil karma), or can it also attract (new evil karma)? Answer: It can both attract and fulfill. Some say that it can only fulfill and cannot attract. Why? Because karma can attract the commonality of beings. Comment: What was said earlier is good, corresponding to wrong view.
有思業故。邪見與彼同一果故。
論。已乘義便至與思俱轉。自下一頌。大文第四明業道俱轉。
論曰至從一唯至八。此總舉不善業道從一唯至八。不至九．十。不善業道不併起故。既言與思俱轉。定是思業道同剎那義。不容異解。
論。一俱轉者至隨一究竟。此釋一俱轉。無身．語七。貪等三中隨一現起。若先加行造惡色業。不染心時隨一究竟 正理論云。貪等余染及不染心現在前時隨一究竟 此論略故不說貪等余染。正理云。有餘師說。身三業道。一一思俱轉。謂殺．盜．邪淫 破云 理不應然。邪淫必亦。無遣他為故。必貪竟究故。殺．盜自為。亦必二故。設據遣他作應差別言謂于究竟時貪等不起 此論文。前說貪究竟等據自作業。今說思俱轉通遣他作。
論。二俱轉者至或雜穢語。釋二俱轉。如文可解。正理彈云。經主於此作如是言。謂嗔心時究竟殺業。若起貪位成不與取。或欲邪行。或雜穢語。此亦非理。若自究竟。則應于殺無勞說瞋。此更無容余究竟故。于盜．邪行說貪亦然。說起貪時成雜穢語。此言闕減。容三成故。若先加行。于究竟時。一一應言貪等隨一。
論。三俱轉者至俱時殺盜。嗔．殺．盜三業道俱時轉也。
論。若爾所說至理應不成。難也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為有思業的緣故，邪見與它具有相同的果報。
論：已經順著意義的方便到達了與思緒一同運轉的部分。下面一頌，是第四大段，闡明業道一同運轉。
論：從一唯至八。這裡總括地指出不善業道從一唯至八，不會達到九或十。因為不善業道不會同時並起。既然說與思緒一同運轉，那一定是思業道在同一剎那的意義，不容許其他解釋。
論：一俱轉，是指無身、語七支，貪等三者中，隨一現起。如果先前通過加行造作了惡色業，在不染心的時候，隨一究竟。《正理論》說：『貪等其餘染心以及不染心現在前的時候，隨一究竟。』此論因為簡略，所以沒有說貪等其餘染心。《正理論》說：『有其他老師說，身三業道，一一與思緒一同運轉，即殺、盜、邪淫。』駁斥說：『理應不然。邪淫必定也是，因為沒有遣使他人去做的緣故，必定是貪慾究竟的緣故。殺、盜是自己做的，也必定是兩種原因。假設根據遣使他人去做的情況，應該區別地說，在究竟的時候，貪等不起。』此論文，前面說貪慾究竟等，是根據自己作業的情況。現在說思緒一同運轉，可以通用於遣使他人去做的情況。
論：二俱轉，如文義可以理解。 《正理論》反駁說：『經主在這裡這樣說，說嗔心的時候究竟殺業，如果生起貪心就構成不與取，或者想要邪行，或者雜穢語。』這也是沒有道理的。如果是自己究竟，那麼對於殺業就不需要說嗔心了，因為這裡沒有容納其他究竟的餘地。對於盜、邪行說貪心也是這樣。說生起貪心的時候構成雜穢語，這種說法缺少了，因為可以有三種構成。如果先前加行，在究竟的時候，一一應該說貪等隨一。
論：三俱轉，是指嗔、殺、盜三種業道同時運轉。
論：如果這樣，那麼所說的道理應該不能成立。這是難點。
【English Translation】 English version: Because there is intentional karma (思業), wrong views (邪見) share the same consequences with it.
Treatise: Having conveniently reached the point of co-occurring with thought (思) in meaning, the following verse is the fourth major section, clarifying the co-occurrence of karma paths (業道).
Treatise: From one only to eight. This generally indicates that unwholesome karma paths range from one only to eight, not reaching nine or ten, because unwholesome karma paths do not arise simultaneously. Since it is said to co-occur with thought, it must mean that intentional karma paths occur in the same instant, allowing no other interpretation.
Treatise: 'One co-occurs' means that among the seven of body and speech, and the three of greed (貪) etc., any one arises. If one previously engages in and creates evil physical karma, then when the mind is not defiled, any one is completed. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: 'When greed and other defilements, as well as undefiled minds, are present, any one is completed.' This treatise is brief, so it does not mention greed and other defilements. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Some other teachers say that each of the three physical karma paths co-occurs with thought, namely killing (殺), stealing (盜), and sexual misconduct (邪淫).' Refutation: 'It should not be so. Sexual misconduct must also be, because there is no sending others to do it, and it must be the completion of greed. Killing and stealing are done by oneself, and there must also be two reasons. If based on sending others to do it, it should be differentiated by saying that greed etc. do not arise at the time of completion.' This text, earlier, said that the completion of greed etc. is based on one's own actions. Now it says that co-occurrence with thought can apply to sending others to do it.
Treatise: 'Two co-occur' can be understood from the text. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra refutes: 'The author here says that when there is anger, the karma of killing is completed; if greed arises, it constitutes taking what is not given, or wanting sexual misconduct, or mixed impure speech.' This is also unreasonable. If it is completed by oneself, then there is no need to mention anger in relation to killing, because there is no room for other completions here. It is the same for saying greed in relation to stealing and sexual misconduct. Saying that mixed impure speech is constituted when greed arises is incomplete, because there can be three constituents. If one previously engages, then at the time of completion, one should say that any one of greed etc. occurs.
Treatise: 'Three co-occur' means that the three karma paths of anger, killing, and stealing occur simultaneously.
Treatise: If so, then what is said should not be established. This is a difficulty.
論。依不異心至決判應知。依不異心造二業說。若異心自作兩業究竟必異。
論。若先加行至隨二究竟。三俱轉也。若先加行言非唯遣他。自作亦得。如先作殺加行。後方死等。或先燃火后燒物等。或先發言后他解等。如是等類。
論。四俱轉者至隨三究竟。四俱轉也。
論。如是五六七皆如理應知者。準釋可知。
論。八俱轉者至俱時究竟。釋八俱轉。
論。后三業道至故無九十。釋唯至八所以。以貪．瞋．邪見不俱起故。
論。如是已說至遮一八五。結前起后。若兼分別受遠離即有俱轉。如文可解。
論三俱轉者至無七色善。明三俱轉。
論。四俱轉者至勤策律儀。明四俱轉。
論。六俱轉者至得上三戒。明六俱轉。上三戒有四業。前五識有二。故成六也。
論。七俱轉者至得苾芻戒。明七俱轉。善意識有三。三種戒有四。一種七也 言。惡．無記心現在前得苾芻戒。第二也七 不言無心得苾芻戒者。此明思俱轉。無心得戒非此所明。不與思俱轉故。
論。九俱轉者至現在前時。明九俱轉。善五識苾芻戒七一種九也 依無色盡．無生智。得苾芻戒。意善二除正見。苾芻戒七二種九也。準此。正受戒容得無學 或靜慮攝盡．無生智現在前時。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：依據不異心（Aviparita-citta，指沒有改變的心）來判斷，應當知道決斷。依據不異心造作兩種業（karma，行為），這是說如果心意改變，自己所作的兩種業最終必然不同。
論：如果先有加行（prayoga，預備行為），隨後兩種業同時究竟，那麼三種業會同時運轉。如果說先有加行，並非僅僅是遣使他人，自己做也可以。例如，先做了殺生的加行，之後對方才死亡等等。或者先點燃火焰，之後才燒燬物品等等。或者先發出言語，之後他人理解等等。像這些類似的例子。
論：四種業同時運轉，隨後三種業同時究竟，那麼四種業會同時運轉。
論：像這樣，五種、六種、七種業同時運轉，都應當如理如實地瞭解，參照解釋就可以明白。
論：八種業同時運轉，同時究竟，這是解釋八種業同時運轉。
論：後面的三種業道（karmapatha，行為的道路），因此沒有九種、十種業同時運轉的情況。這是解釋為什麼只有最多八種業同時運轉的原因。因為貪（lobha，貪婪）、瞋（dvesha，嗔恨）、邪見（mithya-drishti，錯誤的見解）不會同時生起。
論：像這樣已經說了，遮止一種、八種、五種業同時運轉的情況。這是總結前面，引出後面的內容。如果兼顧分別受持遠離，那麼就會有同時運轉的情況，如經文所說可以理解。
論：三種業同時運轉，沒有七種有色的善業。這是說明三種業同時運轉。
論：四種業同時運轉，是精勤策勵律儀（shila，戒律）。這是說明四種業同時運轉。
論：六種業同時運轉，是得到上三戒（adhisila，更高的戒律）。這是說明六種業同時運轉。上三戒有四種業，前五識（panca-vijnana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺）有兩種業，所以成就了六種業。
論：七種業同時運轉，是得到苾芻戒（bhikshu-shila，比丘戒）。這是說明七種業同時運轉。善意識（kusala-citta，善良的意識）有三種業，三種戒有四種業，總共七種業。說噁心（akusala-citta，不善的意識）、無記心（avyakrita-citta，非善非惡的意識）現在前時得到苾芻戒，這是第二種七種業同時運轉的情況。沒有說無心（acitta，沒有意識）能得到苾芻戒，這是說明與思（cetana，意志）同時運轉的情況。無心得到戒律不是這裡所要說明的，因為它不與思同時運轉。
論：九種業同時運轉，是現在前時。這是說明九種業同時運轉。善的五識和苾芻戒七種，總共九種業。依據無色盡（arupa-samapatti，無色界的禪定）、無生智（anutpada-jnana，不生之智）得到苾芻戒。意善（mano-kusala，意念上的善良）兩種，除去正見（samyag-drishti，正確的見解），苾芻戒七種，總共九種業。依此推斷，正式受戒可以得到無學（asaiksha，無學果位）。或者靜慮（dhyana，禪定）攝盡、無生智現在前時。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: According to the unwavering mind (Aviparita-citta, referring to a mind that has not changed), one should know the judgment. It is said that two karmas (actions) are created based on the unwavering mind. If the mind changes, the two karmas done by oneself will ultimately be different.
Treatise: If there is preliminary action (prayoga, preparatory action) first, and then two karmas are simultaneously completed, then three karmas will operate simultaneously. If it is said that there is preliminary action first, it is not only about sending others, but one can also do it oneself. For example, first doing the preliminary action of killing, and then the other person dies, etc. Or first lighting a fire, and then burning objects, etc. Or first uttering words, and then others understand, etc. Such kinds of examples.
Treatise: When four karmas operate simultaneously, and then three karmas are simultaneously completed, then four karmas will operate simultaneously.
Treatise: In this way, the simultaneous operation of five, six, and seven karmas should all be understood according to reason and reality, which can be understood by referring to the explanation.
Treatise: The simultaneous operation of eight karmas, completed simultaneously, explains the simultaneous operation of eight karmas.
Treatise: The latter three paths of karma (karmapatha, paths of action), therefore, there are no cases of nine or ten karmas operating simultaneously. This explains why only up to eight karmas operate simultaneously. Because greed (lobha, avarice), hatred (dvesha, aversion), and wrong views (mithya-drishti, incorrect views) do not arise simultaneously.
Treatise: Having said this, it precludes the simultaneous operation of one, eight, and five karmas. This summarizes the previous and introduces the following content. If one also upholds and avoids separation, then there will be simultaneous operation, as can be understood from the text.
Treatise: When three karmas operate simultaneously, there are no seven colored wholesome karmas. This clarifies the simultaneous operation of three karmas.
Treatise: When four karmas operate simultaneously, it is diligent effort in moral discipline (shila, precepts). This clarifies the simultaneous operation of four karmas.
Treatise: When six karmas operate simultaneously, it is obtaining the three higher precepts (adhisila, higher precepts). This clarifies the simultaneous operation of six karmas. The three higher precepts have four karmas, and the first five consciousnesses (panca-vijnana, the five senses of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) have two karmas, thus achieving six karmas.
Treatise: When seven karmas operate simultaneously, it is obtaining the Bhikshu precepts (bhikshu-shila, monastic vows for monks). This clarifies the simultaneous operation of seven karmas. Wholesome consciousness (kusala-citta, virtuous consciousness) has three karmas, and the three types of precepts have four karmas, totaling seven karmas. It is said that when unwholesome mind (akusala-citta, non-virtuous consciousness) and neutral mind (avyakrita-citta, neither virtuous nor non-virtuous consciousness) are present, one obtains the Bhikshu precepts, which is the second case of seven karmas operating simultaneously. It is not said that one can obtain the Bhikshu precepts without mind (acitta, without consciousness), which clarifies the simultaneous operation with intention (cetana, volition). Obtaining precepts without mind is not what is being clarified here, because it does not operate simultaneously with intention.
Treatise: When nine karmas operate simultaneously, it is when they are present. This clarifies the simultaneous operation of nine karmas. The wholesome five consciousnesses and the seven Bhikshu precepts total nine karmas. Based on the formless attainments (arupa-samapatti, formless meditations) and the knowledge of non-arising (anutpada-jnana, knowledge of non-origination), one obtains the Bhikshu precepts. The two types of mental wholesomeness (mano-kusala, mental virtue), excluding right view (samyag-drishti, correct view), and the seven Bhikshu precepts total nine karmas. Based on this, formally receiving precepts can lead to obtaining the state of no-more-learning (asaiksha, state of an Arhat). Or when meditative absorption (dhyana, meditation) is fully encompassed and the knowledge of non-arising is present.
爾時意二道共戒七三種九也。
論。十俱轉者至得苾芻戒。善意識三戒。復有七一種十也。
論。或餘一切至心正起位。有七支隨轉色七正見相應心有三二種十也。所以言正見相應簡盡．無生智無正見故。
論。別據顯相至有一八五。結別前顯相。引下通相。
論。一俱轉者至得一支遠離。明一俱轉。此是有人不能具受五戒等。但發願期心唯不殺等。正起業時惡．無記心現在前故唯有一。
論。五俱轉者至得二支等。明五俱轉。此亦是期心唯受二支。善意識現前故有五也 等者等取善五識現在前得三支。惡．無記心現前得五支也。
論。八俱轉者至得五支等。此亦是期受五意復有三。故成八也 等者取五識現前受六支 此上所明皆是同時俱。非前．后俱。若直明與思俱轉。即不合取無心位。彼無思故。若兼說業俱轉。即通無心位。爾時亦有業俱轉故。婆沙．雜心乘明思俱轉便兼明業俱轉故通說無心。此論及正理。唯說思俱轉。故不說無心。已上論文。正理有破。俱舍有救。非要法相略而不述。
論。善惡業道於何界趣處。已下有三頌。第五明處成業道也。
論曰至故有嗔恚。明十不善業中。此三那落迦中通現行．成就。
論。貪及邪見至現見業果故。明意二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 爾時意二道共戒七三種九也。
論。十俱轉者至得苾芻戒（bhiksu戒）。善意識三戒。復有七一種十也。
論。或餘一切至心正起位。有七支隨轉色七正見相應心有三二種十也。所以言正見相應簡盡．無生智無正見故。
論。別據顯相至有一八五。結別前顯相。引下通相。
論。一俱轉者至得一支遠離。明一俱轉。此是有人不能具受五戒等。但發願期心唯不殺等。正起業時惡．無記心現在前故唯有一。
論。五俱轉者至得二支等。明五俱轉。此亦是期心唯受二支。善意識現前故有五也 等者等取善五識現在前得三支。惡．無記心現前得五支也。
論。八俱轉者至得五支等。此亦是期受五意復有三。故成八也 等者取五識現前受六支 此上所明皆是同時俱。非前．后俱。若直明與思俱轉。即不合取無心位。彼無思故。若兼說業俱轉。即通無心位。爾時亦有業俱轉故。婆沙（Vibhasa）．雜心乘明思俱轉便兼明業俱轉故通說無心。此論及正理。唯說思俱轉。故不說無心。已上論文。正理有破。俱舍（Abhidharmakosa）有救。非要法相略而不述。
論。善惡業道於何界趣處。已下有三頌。第五明處成業道也。
論曰至故有嗔恚。明十不善業中。此三那落迦（naraka）中通現行．成就。
論。貪及邪見至現見業果故。明意二
【English Translation】 English version At that time, the two paths of intention, together with the precepts, are seven types, three kinds, and nine.
Treatise: 'Ten simultaneously arising' refers to attaining the Bhiksu (bhiksu) precepts. Good consciousness has three precepts. Furthermore, there are seven types, one kind, and ten.
Treatise: 'Or all the rest' refers to the position of sincerely arising mind. There are seven branches that follow the transformation of form, and the mind corresponding to the seven right views has three types, two kinds, and ten. The reason for saying 'corresponding to right view' is to exhaustively exclude because non-arising wisdom does not have right view.
Treatise: 'Specifically based on manifest characteristics' refers to having one, eight, and five. Concluding the distinct manifest characteristics before, and introducing the common characteristics below.
Treatise: 'One simultaneously arising' refers to attaining one branch of separation. Explaining one simultaneously arising. This is because some people cannot fully receive the five precepts, etc., but only make a vow to refrain from killing, etc. When the action arises, evil and non-recollective minds are present, therefore there is only one.
Treatise: 'Five simultaneously arising' refers to attaining two branches, etc. Explaining five simultaneously arising. This is also because they only intend to receive two branches. Good consciousness is present, therefore there are five. 'Etc.' includes taking the good five consciousnesses as present, attaining three branches. Evil and non-recollective minds being present, attaining five branches.
Treatise: 'Eight simultaneously arising' refers to attaining five branches, etc. This is also because they intend to receive five, and the intention has three more, therefore it becomes eight. 'Etc.' includes taking the five consciousnesses as present, receiving six branches. All that is explained above is simultaneously together, not before and after together. If it directly explains that it arises together with thought, then it does not include the mindless state, because there is no thought there. If it also explains that it arises together with karma, then it includes the mindless state, because at that time there is also karma arising together. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa) and Samyuktabhidharmahṛdaya-śāstra explain that arising together with thought also includes explaining arising together with karma, therefore it generally speaks of the mindless state. This treatise and the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra only speak of arising together with thought, therefore they do not speak of the mindless state. The above is the text of the treatise. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra has refutations, and the Abhidharmakosa (Abhidharmakosa) has defenses. The essential Dharma characteristics are briefly omitted and not described.
Treatise: In what realm, destination, and place are good and evil karmic paths? Below are three verses. The fifth explains that the place completes the karmic path.
Treatise says: 'Therefore there is anger.' Explaining that among the ten non-virtuous karmas, these three generally manifest and are accomplished in the Naraka (naraka).
Treatise: 'Greed and wrong views' refers to seeing the karmic results in the present. Explaining the two of intention.
唯成就。無可愛境故貪不現行。現見業果故邪見不現行。于地獄中無離欲故。雖不現行定成就也。
論。業盡死故至無離間語。明餘五不善業無現行．成就也。此色業道若無現行亦不成就 此地獄中總有三例。一通現行．成就。謂粗惡語．雜穢語及嗔。二唯成就。謂貪．邪見。三不現行亦不成就。謂身三語二離間語．虛誑語。
論。北俱盧洲至無惡意樂故。明意三不善業道唯成就不現行。他物已想名貪業道。既不攝我所故無貪也。身．心剛強欲惱害他名為嗔恚。既身．心柔軟無惱害事故無嗔也。不信因果作惡意樂名為邪見。無惡意樂無邪見也。此三離欲舍故。北洲無離欲故定有成就。
論。唯雜穢語至染心歌詠。明雜穢通現及成。
論。無惡意樂故至隨其所應。無身業三。如文可解 身心軟故及無用故隨其所應者。正理論云。無誑心故無虛誑語。或無用也。常和穆故無離間語。言清美故無粗惡語。北俱盧洲有三例。一意三業道唯成就不現行。二雜穢語通成就．現行。三身三業道．語三業道不成就亦不現行。
論。彼人云何至並愧而別。問．答分別可解。
論。除前地獄至皆通成現。明除前二處余趣．處中十不善業道皆通現．成。明其同。
論。然有差別至二種俱有。明差
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 唯有成就。因為沒有可愛的境界，所以貪慾不會顯現。因為能清楚地看到業報的結果，所以邪見不會顯現。在地獄中沒有離欲，所以雖然不顯現，但成就仍然存在。
論：因為業盡而死，所以直到沒有離間語。說明其餘五種不善業沒有顯現，也沒有成就。這種色業道如果沒有顯現，也不會成就。這個地獄中總共有三種情況。第一種是既顯現又成就，指的是粗惡語、雜穢語和嗔恚。第二種是隻有成就，指的是貪慾和邪見。第三種是不顯現也沒有成就，指的是身的三種（殺生、偷盜、邪淫）和語的兩種（離間語、虛誑語）。
論：在北俱盧洲，直到沒有惡意快樂，說明意的三種不善業道只有成就而不顯現。把別人的東西當成自己的，叫做貪業道。既然不包括『我所』，所以沒有貪慾。身體和心理都很強硬，想要惱害他人，叫做嗔恚。既然身體和心理都很柔軟，沒有惱害的事情，所以沒有嗔恚。不相信因果，以作惡為快樂，叫做邪見。沒有惡意快樂，就沒有邪見。這三種都因為離欲而捨棄。北俱盧洲沒有離欲，所以一定有成就。
論：只有雜穢語，直到用染污的心歌詠，說明雜穢語既有顯現，也有成就。
論：因為沒有惡意快樂，直到隨其所應。沒有身的三種（殺生、偷盜、邪淫）。如文字所說可以理解。身體和心理都很柔軟，以及沒有用處，隨其所應指的是，《正理論》中說，因為沒有欺騙的心，所以沒有虛誑語。或者沒有用處。因為總是和睦，所以沒有離間語。因為言語清美，所以沒有粗惡語。北俱盧洲有三種情況。第一種是意的三種業道只有成就而不顯現。第二種是雜穢語既有成就，也有顯現。第三種是身的三種業道和語的三種業道既沒有成就，也沒有顯現。
論：那個人怎麼樣，直到並愧而別。問答分別可以理解。
論：除了前面的地獄，直到都通成就和顯現。說明除了前面兩個地方，其餘的趣和處中，十種不善業道都有成就和顯現。說明它們的相同之處。
論：然而有差別，直到兩種都有。說明差別。
【English Translation】 English version Only accomplishment remains. Because there are no lovely objects, greed does not manifest. Because the results of karma are clearly seen, wrong views do not manifest. There is no detachment from desire in hell, so although it does not manifest, accomplishment is still present.
Treatise: Because death occurs when karma is exhausted, up to the absence of divisive speech. This explains that the other five unwholesome karmas do not manifest or accomplish. If this physical karma path does not manifest, it will not be accomplished. There are three examples in this hell. The first is both manifestation and accomplishment, referring to harsh speech, frivolous speech, and anger. The second is only accomplishment, referring to greed and wrong views. The third is neither manifestation nor accomplishment, referring to the three physical (killing, stealing, sexual misconduct) and two verbal (divisive speech, false speech).
Treatise: In Uttarakuru (North Kurus), up to the absence of malicious joy, it explains that the three mental unwholesome karma paths only accomplish but do not manifest. Considering others' belongings as one's own is called the karma path of greed. Since it does not include 'what is mine', there is no greed. Being physically and mentally rigid, wanting to harm others, is called anger. Since the body and mind are soft and there is no harm, there is no anger. Not believing in cause and effect, taking pleasure in doing evil, is called wrong view. Without malicious joy, there is no wrong view. These three are abandoned because of detachment from desire. Since there is no detachment from desire in Uttarakuru (North Kurus), there is definitely accomplishment.
Treatise: Only frivolous speech, up to singing with a defiled mind, explains that frivolous speech has both manifestation and accomplishment.
Treatise: Because there is no malicious joy, up to as appropriate. There are no three physical actions (killing, stealing, sexual misconduct). As the text says, it can be understood. The body and mind are soft, and there is no use for them. 'As appropriate' refers to what the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: because there is no deceitful mind, there is no false speech. Or there is no use for it. Because there is always harmony, there is no divisive speech. Because the speech is clear and beautiful, there is no harsh speech. There are three examples in Uttarakuru (North Kurus). The first is that the three mental karma paths only accomplish but do not manifest. The second is that frivolous speech has both accomplishment and manifestation. The third is that the three physical karma paths and the three verbal karma paths neither accomplish nor manifest.
Treatise: How is that person, up to separating with shame. The questions and answers can be understood separately.
Treatise: Except for the previous hell, up to all have both accomplishment and manifestation. It explains that except for the previous two places, in the remaining realms and places, the ten unwholesome karma paths have both accomplishment and manifestation. It explains their similarities.
Treatise: However, there are differences, up to both types exist. It explains the differences.
別也。如文可解。
論。雖諸天眾至其命方斷。正理論云。有餘師說天亦殺天。雖天身支斷已還出。斬首．中截則不更生。故欲天中有殺業道。
論。已說不善至謂成就現行。明不善已明善道意三善業道三界．五趣皆通現成。
論。身語七支至靜慮律儀。明七善業。於此二處決定成就定不現行 準此論文。生無想天定不入定。以七善業定不現行故。
論。然聖隨依至皆得成就。明聖人在無色界成就過．未不同。過去唯成曾起。未來五地皆得成就。正理論云。然聖隨依何靜慮地。曾起．曾滅無漏尸羅。生無色時成彼過去。若未來世六地皆成。二處皆無現起義者。無色唯有四蘊性故。無想有情無定心故 若無色無學定不成就過去七支。得無學果舍向道故。無學身中必不起故。無色有學兩說不同。婆沙一百二十二云。問若諸學者以世俗道得不還果。曾不現起無漏律儀。便生無色彼云何成就過去身無表業 若不成就。何故此文作如是說。若諸學者生無色界成就過去身無表耶 有作是說。亦有學者生無色界不成就過去身無表業。然此文中但依成就者說。是以無過 有餘師說。得聖果已必起勝果。聖道現前故。諸學者生無色界。必定成就過去身無表業。一百三十二．一百三十四皆同兩說。今詳二說。后說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
別也。如同文字可以解釋的那樣。
論：即使諸天眾的壽命將盡時才會斷絕。《正理論》中說：『有其他老師說天人也會互相殘殺。』即使天人的身體被砍斷，肢體也會再生。但如果是斬首或身體被截斷，則不會再生。因此，欲界天中有殺生的惡業道。
論：已經說了不善業，直到成就現行。說明了不善業之後，也說明了善業道。意三善業道在三界（欲界、色界、無色界）、五趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）中都能夠成就現行。
論：身語的七支善業，直到靜慮律儀。說明了七種善業，在這兩個地方決定成就，但一定不會現行。根據這段論文，生到無想天的眾生一定不會入定，因為七種善業一定不會現行。
論：然而聖人隨其所依的禪定地，都能成就。說明了聖人在無色界成就過去和未來的業不同。過去只成就曾經生起的業，未來五地都能成就。《正理論》中說：『然而聖人隨其所依的哪個靜慮地，曾經生起、曾經滅去的無漏尸羅（戒律），生到無色界時，成就那些過去的業。如果是未來世，六地都能成就。』這兩個地方都沒有現起之義，是因為無色界只有四蘊（色、受、想、行）的性質，無想有情沒有禪定之心。如果無色界的無學聖人一定不成就過去的七支善業，因為得到無學果位后，就捨棄了趨向果位的道路，無學聖人的身中必定不會生起這些善業。無色界的有學聖人有兩種不同的說法。《婆沙論》第一百二十二卷中說：『問：如果一些學者以世俗道得到不還果（阿那含果），曾經沒有現起無漏律儀，便生到無色界，他們如何成就過去的身無表業？如果不成就，為什麼這段經文會這樣說：如果一些學者生到無色界，成就過去的身無表業？』有人這樣說：也有一些學者生到無色界，不成就過去的身無表業。然而這段經文中只是依據成就者來說，因此沒有過失。有其他老師說：得到聖果后，必定會生起殊勝的果報，因為聖道現前。因此，一些學者生到無色界，必定成就過去的身無表業。』第一百三十二卷和第一百三十四卷都相同，有兩種說法。現在詳細考察這兩種說法，后一種說法更好。
【English Translation】 English version:
'Also.' As the text can be interpreted.
Treatise: Even when the life of the heavenly beings is about to end, it is only then that it ceases. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Treasury of Metaphysics) says: 'Some other teachers say that heavenly beings also kill each other.' Even if the limbs of a heavenly being are cut off, they will regenerate. But if the head is cut off or the body is severed in the middle, they will not be reborn. Therefore, in the desire realm, there is the evil karma path of killing.
Treatise: Having spoken of unwholesome karma, up to the point of achieving its manifestation. After explaining unwholesome karma, it also explains the path of wholesome karma. The three wholesome karma paths of intention can be achieved in all three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm) and five destinies (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, gods).
Treatise: The seven branches of bodily and verbal wholesome karma, up to the dhyāna (meditative absorption) precepts. It explains the seven wholesome karmas, which are definitely achieved in these two places, but will certainly not manifest. According to this treatise, beings born in the Asañjñāsattva (non-percipient heaven) will certainly not enter samādhi (meditative concentration), because the seven wholesome karmas will certainly not manifest.
Treatise: However, the ārya (noble ones), depending on the dhyāna ground they rely on, can all achieve them. It explains that the ārya in the arūpadhātu (formless realm) achieve different past and future karmas. In the past, only the karmas that have arisen are achieved, and in the future, the five grounds can all be achieved. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'However, depending on which dhyāna ground the ārya relies on, the anāsrava śīla (non-outflow precepts) that have arisen and ceased, when born in the arūpadhātu, achieve those past karmas. If it is the future, the six grounds can all be achieved.' These two places have no meaning of manifestation, because the arūpadhātu only has the nature of the four skandhas (aggregates), and the Asañjñāsattva beings have no dhyāna mind. If the arhat (one who is worthy) of the arūpadhātu certainly does not achieve the past seven branches of wholesome karma, because after attaining the arhat fruit, they abandon the path towards the fruit, and these wholesome karmas will certainly not arise in the body of the arhat. There are two different views on the śaikṣa (one under training) of the arūpadhātu. The Mahāvibhāṣā (Great Commentary) volume 122 says: 'Question: If some learners attain the anāgāmin (non-returner) fruit through mundane paths, and have never manifested anāsrava vinaya (non-outflow discipline), and are born in the arūpadhātu, how do they achieve the past kāya-avijñapti-karma (non-revealing bodily karma)? If they do not achieve it, why does this text say: If some learners are born in the arūpadhātu, they achieve the past kāya-avijñapti-karma?' Some say: There are also some learners who are born in the arūpadhātu and do not achieve the past kāya-avijñapti-karma. However, this text only speaks according to those who achieve it, so there is no fault. Other teachers say: After attaining the ārya fruit, superior results will definitely arise, because the ārya-mārga (noble path) is present. Therefore, some learners who are born in the arūpadhātu will definitely achieve the past kāya-avijñapti-karma.' Volumes 132 and 134 are the same, with two views. Now, after examining these two views in detail, the latter view is better.
為正。一百三十四第二師后結文云。是故本論說言。若諸學者生無色界成就過去．未來所造業色。若於彼得阿羅漢果。成就未來所造色。非過去所造色。若謂不爾。本論應說學者生無色界有不成過去所造色 前師通此文云此文俱依成就者說。是以無過。然前師不釋本論。何故不盡理說。但據一邊而說。無所以也。但據一邊既無切理應順本論。故此論及正理皆同本論說。不言無色有學有不成過去七支。
論。余界趣處至及成就。此明除無色界余界。除無想處。余處中除地獄．北洲。七善業道故所除也。
論。然有差別至皆具二種。此明異也。鬼．傍生有離律儀處中業道。色界唯有道．定律儀所起身．語善業。不成業道。三洲有起三律儀及處中。欲天有道．定律儀．處中二種。
論。不善善業道所得果云何。下一頌。第六明十業道三果差別。
論曰至增上別故。總列三果名也。
論。謂於十種至是異熟果。釋十惡業道異熟果也。
論。從彼生已至等流果別。明等流果。自受其果以損他因故名等流。
論。人中短壽至是殺等流。問。善趣命根無問短．長是善業果。如何短命是殺等流果也。
論。不言人壽至令不久住。答。正理云。理應釋言。不說人壽是殺異熟。但應說言
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 為正。《一百三十四第二師后結文》說：『因此，本論說，如果諸位還在學習的人，生於無色界，沒有成就過去、未來所造的業色，如果他們在那裡證得阿羅漢果，就成就未來所造的色，而非過去所造的色。』如果說不是這樣，本論應該說，還在學習的人，生於無色界，有未成就過去所造的色。前一位論師解釋這段文字說，這段文字都是依據成就者而說的，因此沒有過失。然而，前一位論師沒有解釋本論，為什麼不完全按照道理來說，只根據一邊來說，沒有道理啊。只根據一邊既然不合道理，就應該順從本論。因此，這個論以及《正理》都和本論的說法相同，不說無色界的有學之人，有未成就過去七支的。
論：『其餘界、趣、處，乃至成就。』這說明除了無色界，除了無想處，其餘的處所中，除了地獄、北俱盧洲，七種善業道，因此被排除。
論：『然而有差別，乃至都具有兩種。』這說明不同之處。鬼、傍生有離開律儀的處所中的業道，無色界只有道、定律儀所起身、語的善業，沒有成就業道。三洲有發起三種律儀以及處中的。欲天有道、定律儀、處中兩種。
論：『不善、善業道所得的果是什麼？』下一頌，第六說明十業道三種果的差別。
論曰：『乃至增上別故。』總共列出三種果的名稱。
論：『所謂對於十種，乃至是異熟果。』解釋十惡業道的異熟果。
論：『從那裡生出以後，乃至等流果的差別。』說明等流果。自己承受其果，因為損害他人的原因，所以叫做等流。
論：『人中短壽，乃至是殺的等流。』問：善趣的命根，無論短長，都是善業的果報，為什麼短命是殺的等流果呢？
論：『不言人壽，乃至令不久住。』答：《正理》說：『應該解釋說，不說人壽是殺的異熟果，但應該說』
【English Translation】 English version: It is correct. The concluding text of the 'One Hundred and Thirty-Fourth Second Teacher' states: 'Therefore, this treatise says, if those learners are born in the Arūpadhātu (realm of no form) (formless realm) and have not achieved the past and future karmic rūpa (form/matter) they created, if they attain Arhatship there, they achieve the future karmic rūpa they created, but not the past karmic rūpa. If it is said that it is not so, this treatise should say that learners born in the Arūpadhātu have unachieved past karmic rūpa.' The former teacher explains this text by saying that this text is based on those who have achieved, so there is no fault. However, the former teacher did not explain this treatise. Why not speak entirely according to reason, but only according to one side? There is no reason for it. Since only according to one side is unreasonable, it should follow this treatise. Therefore, this treatise and the Nyāyānusāra (Following the Path of Reasoning) both say the same as this treatise, not saying that the arūpin (formless beings) śaikṣa (trainee) have unachieved past seven aṅgas (factors).
Treatise: 'The remaining realms, destinies, places, and achievements.' This explains that apart from the Arūpadhātu, apart from the Asaṃjñisattvabhava (realm of non-perception), in the remaining places, apart from Naraka (hell) and Uttarakuru (Northern Continent), the seven kuśala-karmapatha (wholesome courses of action) are therefore excluded.
Treatise: 'However, there are differences, and all have both kinds.' This explains the differences. Preta (ghosts) and tiryagyoni (animals) have karmapatha in places away from saṃvara (restraint), the Arūpadhātu only has wholesome actions of body and speech arising from mārga (path), niyama (regulation), and saṃvara, and does not achieve karmapatha. The three continents have the arising of three saṃvara and madhyama (intermediate). The kāmadeva (desire realm gods) have two kinds of mārga, niyama, and madhyama.
Treatise: 'What are the fruits obtained from unwholesome and wholesome karmapatha?' The next verse, the sixth, explains the differences in the three fruits of the ten karmapatha.
Treatise says: 'Even to the extent of the difference in adhipati (dominance).' The names of the three fruits are listed in total.
Treatise: 'That is to say, with regard to the ten kinds, even to the extent of being vipākaphala (result of maturation).' Explains the vipākaphala of the ten akuśala-karmapatha (unwholesome courses of action).
Treatise: 'After being born from there, even to the extent of the difference in niṣyandaphala (result in accordance with the cause).' Explains the niṣyandaphala. One receives its fruit because of harming others, hence the name niṣyanda (flowing forth).
Treatise: 'Short life in humans, even to the extent of being the niṣyanda of killing.' Question: The life-force of the sugati (good realms), whether short or long, is the result of wholesome karma. Why is short life the niṣyandaphala of killing?
Treatise: 'It does not say human lifespan, even to the extent of not dwelling long.' Answer: The Nyāyānusāra says: 'It should be explained by saying that it does not say that human lifespan is the vipāka of killing, but it should say'
是殺生業近增上果。謂雖人壽是善業招。而由殺生增上力故。令彼相續唯經少時。以欲界中不善勝善。有增上力能伏善故 若爾何故說名等流果。顯增上果中有最近故。若二俱立增上果名。則不顯果有近．遠別。若謂不然。如何不善以修所斷無覆無記為等流果。與理無違。是故可言即人短壽是殺生業所引等流。
論。此十所得增上果者至增上果別。第三明增上果。由殺生故光澤鮮少。壞他光澤故 不與取故多遭霜．雹(損他物故)。欲邪行故多諸塵埃(污他名故)。虛誑語故多諸臭穢(誑他人不欲聞。故應更檢)。離間語故所居險曲(親番往來難故)。粗惡語故田多荊棘等(語傷人等故)。雜穢語故時儀變改(是說非故)。貪故果少(欲減他物故)。嗔故果辣(辛辣如嗔故)。邪見故果少或無(輕即果少。重即果無)。
論。為一殺業至更有餘。問。
論。有餘師言至後感此等流。此師說同業也。
論。有餘復言至根本眷屬。此說別。
論。此中所說至假說等流。釋疑妨也。五果之中。若親異熟。疏即增上。此中別說等流果者。據果與因相似說也。
論。此十何緣各招三果。問。
論。且初殺業至如理應思。答也。
論。由此應準至如理應說。翻不善三果說善三果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 是殺生之業所帶來的增上果。雖然人的壽命是由善業所招感，但由於殺生的增上力，使得壽命相續的時間非常短暫。因為在欲界中，不善的力量勝過善的力量，具有增上力，能夠壓伏善業。如果這樣，為什麼又說它是等流果呢？這是爲了顯示增上果中也有最接近的。如果將二者都稱為增上果，就不能顯示果有遠近的差別。如果說不是這樣，那麼修所斷的無覆無記（既不善也不惡，不障礙解脫）如何作為不善的等流果呢？這在道理上沒有衝突。因此，可以說人的短壽就是殺生之業所引生的等流果。
論：這十種業所獲得的增上果是……（至）……增上果的差別。第三部分說明增上果。由於殺生，導致光澤鮮少，因為破壞了他人的光澤。由於不與取（偷盜），導致經常遭受霜雹，因為損害了他人的財物。由於欲邪行（不正當的性行為），導致多諸塵埃，因為玷污了他人的名聲。由於虛誑語（說謊），導致多諸臭穢，因為欺騙他人，說了他人不願聽的。由於離間語（挑撥離間），導致所居住的地方險峻彎曲，因為親友往來困難。由於粗惡語（惡語傷人），導致田地裡多荊棘等，因為言語傷害他人。由於雜穢語（無意義的廢話），導致時令節氣變改，因為說了不該說的話。由於貪（貪婪），導致果實稀少，因為想要減少他人的財物。由於嗔（嗔恨），導致果實辛辣，就像嗔恨一樣。由於邪見（錯誤的見解），導致果實稀少或沒有，輕微的邪見導致果實稀少，嚴重的邪見導致沒有果實。
論：為一個殺生之業……（至）……更有其餘？問。
論：有其餘師說……（至）……後感此等流。這位論師說這是同類的業。
論：有其餘人又說……（至）……根本眷屬。這是說不同的情況。
論：這裡所說的……（至）……假說等流。這是爲了解釋疑惑和妨難。在五種果報之中，如果是親近的，就是異熟果；如果是疏遠的，就是增上果。這裡特別說明等流果，是根據果和因相似而說的。
論：這十種業為什麼各自招感三種果報？問。
論：且先說殺生之業……（至）……如理應思。這是回答。
論：由此應該參照……（至）……如理應說。這是翻過來說不善的三種果報，來說善的三種果報。
【English Translation】 English version It is the Adhipati-phala (增上果, dominant result) of the act of killing. Although human lifespan is the result of wholesome karma, due to the dominant force of killing, it causes that continuity to be very short. Because in the Desire Realm, unwholesome forces are stronger than wholesome forces, having the dominant power to subdue wholesome karma. If so, why is it called Nisyanda-phala (等流果, result in accordance with the cause)? This is to show that among Adhipati-phala, there is the closest one. If both are established as Adhipati-phala, then the difference between near and far results will not be shown. If it is said that it is not so, how can the eradicated-by-cultivation, non-defiled, and neutral (無覆無記) be the Nisyanda-phala of unwholesome deeds? There is no contradiction in principle. Therefore, it can be said that the short lifespan of a person is the Nisyanda-phala caused by the act of killing.
Treatise: The Adhipati-phala obtained from these ten are... (to)... the difference of Adhipati-phala. The third part explains Adhipati-phala. Due to killing, the luster is diminished, because it destroys the luster of others. Due to not giving what is not given (stealing) (不與取), one often encounters frost and hail, because it harms the property of others. Due to sexual misconduct (欲邪行), there is much dust and dirt, because it污玷ishes the reputation of others. Due to false speech (虛誑語), there is much stench and filth, because it deceives others, saying what others do not want to hear. Due to divisive speech (離間語), the place of residence is dangerous and winding, because it is difficult for relatives and friends to come and go. Due to harsh speech (粗惡語), the fields have many thorns, etc., because speech hurts others. Due to frivolous speech (雜穢語), the seasons change, because one says what should not be said. Due to greed (貪), the fruit is scarce, because one wants to reduce the property of others. Due to anger (嗔), the fruit is spicy, like anger. Due to wrong views (邪見), the fruit is scarce or non-existent; slight wrong views lead to scarce fruit, and serious wrong views lead to no fruit.
Treatise: For one act of killing... (to)... is there more? Question.
Treatise: Some teachers say... (to)... later feel this Nisyanda-phala. This teacher says it is the same kind of karma.
Treatise: Some others say again... (to)... fundamental relatives. This speaks of different situations.
Treatise: What is said here... (to)... hypothetical Nisyanda-phala. This is to explain doubts and obstacles. Among the five results, if it is close, it is Vipaka-phala (異熟果, result of maturation); if it is distant, it is Adhipati-phala. The special explanation of Nisyanda-phala here is based on the similarity between the result and the cause.
Treatise: Why do these ten karmas each attract three results? Question.
Treatise: Let's first talk about the act of killing... (to)... one should think reasonably. This is the answer.
Treatise: From this, one should refer to... (to)... one should speak reasonably. This is to turn around and talk about the three results of unwholesome deeds, and then talk about the three results of wholesome deeds.
。正理論云。理實殺時能令所殺受苦命斷壞失威光。令他苦故生於地獄。斷他命故人中壽短。先是加行果。后是根本果。根本．近分俱名殺生。由壞威光感惡外具。是故殺業得三種果。余惡業道如理應思。準二論說因別。為正。
論。又契經說八邪支。已下有一行頌。大文十一。別明邪命 翻八聖道八邪支者。婆沙四十五云。問此八邪支。幾欲界系。幾色界。幾無色界。答邪見．邪精進．邪念．邪定．通三界系。邪思惟．邪語．邪業．邪命唯欲．色界系。色界中唯初定。上地無故 問此八邪支者幾見所斷。幾修所斷。答一見所斷。謂邪見。三修所斷。謂邪語．業．命。餘四通見．修斷。
論曰至由資具屬他。釋貪生重故別名邪命。
論。有餘師執至非資命故。敘異說也。
論。此違經故至翻此應知。引經破余師說。正理云。何緣業中先身後語。於八道支內先語後身。以業中隨粗．細說。道支次第據順相生故。契經言尋．伺已發語。
論。如前所言果有五種。已下當品之中大文第三。雜明諸業。就中。有十。一明業得果。二釋本論業。三明引．滿因。四明三重障。五明三時障。六明菩薩相。七明施戒修。八明順三分。九明印體。十明法異名 就第一明業得果中。一總明諸業得五果。二三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《正理論》說：實際上，殺戮發生時，能夠使被殺者承受痛苦、生命斷絕、威光壞滅。因為使他人痛苦，所以會墮入地獄。因為斷絕他人生命，所以在人世間壽命短促。先前的行為是加行果，之後的結果是根本果。根本和近分都稱為殺生。由於破壞威光，會感得惡劣的外在環境。因此，殺生的行為會得到三種果報。其餘的惡業道，應當按照這個道理去思考。根據二論的說法，原因是不同的，這是正確的。
論：此外，契經中說了八邪支。下面有一行頌文。大文共有十一項，分別闡明邪命。翻譯八聖道和八邪支。《婆沙論》第四十五卷說：問：這八邪支，有多少屬於欲界系？有多少屬於色界？有多少屬於無色界？答：邪見、邪精進、邪念、邪定，通於三界系。邪思惟、邪語、邪業、邪命，只屬於欲界和色界系。色界中只有初禪，因為上地沒有。問：這八邪支中，有多少是見所斷？有多少是修所斷？答：一種是見所斷，即邪見。三種是修所斷，即邪語、邪業、邪命。其餘四種，通於見所斷和修所斷。
論曰：乃至由於資具屬於他人。解釋貪婪產生嚴重後果，所以特別稱為邪命。
論：有其他論師認為乃至不是資助生命的原因。這是敘述不同的說法。
論：這違背了經文，乃至翻譯這個應該知道。引用經文來駁斥其他論師的說法。《正理論》說：為什麼在業中先說身而後說語，而在八道支內先說語而後說身？因為在業中是按照粗細來說的，道支的次第是根據順次相生的關係。契經說尋和伺之後才發出語言。
論：如前所言，果有五種。下面當品之中，大文第三，雜明諸業。其中有十項：一、闡明業的果報；二、解釋本論的業；三、闡明引業和滿業的因；四、闡明三重障礙；五、闡明三時障礙；六、闡明菩薩的相；七、闡明佈施、持戒、修行；八、闡明順三分；九、闡明印的體性；十、闡明法的不同名稱。在第一項闡明業的果報中，一、總的闡明諸業得到五種果報；二、三
【English Translation】 English version: The Nyāyānusāra states: 'In reality, when killing occurs, it can cause the one being killed to experience suffering, the termination of life, and the destruction of their radiance. Because it causes suffering to others, one is born in hell. Because it severs the lives of others, one's lifespan in the human realm is shortened. The preceding action is the adhikāra-phala (result of preparation), and the subsequent result is the mūla-phala (root result). Both the root and proximate actions are called killing. Due to the destruction of radiance, one experiences adverse external conditions. Therefore, the act of killing yields three types of results. Other evil paths of action should be contemplated in accordance with this principle. According to the two treatises, the cause is different, which is correct.'
Furthermore, the sūtras speak of the Eight Wrong Branches. Below is a verse. There are eleven major topics, separately clarifying Wrong Livelihood. Translating the Eight Noble Paths and the Eight Wrong Branches. Vibhāṣā 45 states: 'Question: Of these Eight Wrong Branches, how many belong to the Desire Realm, how many to the Form Realm, and how many to the Formless Realm? Answer: Wrong View, Wrong Effort, Wrong Mindfulness, and Wrong Concentration are common to the Three Realms. Wrong Thought, Wrong Speech, Wrong Action, and Wrong Livelihood belong only to the Desire and Form Realms. In the Form Realm, only the First Dhyāna (meditative absorption), because the higher realms do not have them. Question: Of these Eight Wrong Branches, how many are abandoned by seeing, and how many are abandoned by cultivation? Answer: One is abandoned by seeing, namely Wrong View. Three are abandoned by cultivation, namely Wrong Speech, Wrong Action, and Wrong Livelihood. The remaining four are common to both abandonment by seeing and abandonment by cultivation.'
The treatise states: 'Even due to possessions belonging to others.' Explaining that greed produces serious consequences, hence it is specifically called Wrong Livelihood.
The treatise states: 'Some other teachers hold that even it is not a cause of supporting life.' This is narrating different views.
The treatise states: 'This contradicts the sūtras, even translating this should be known.' Citing the sūtras to refute the views of other teachers. The Nyāyānusāra states: 'Why, in actions, is the body mentioned before speech, while in the Eightfold Path, speech is mentioned before the body? Because in actions, it is according to the grossness and subtlety, while the order of the path branches is according to the sequence of arising. The sūtras say that speech is uttered after vitarka (initial application of thought) and vicāra (sustained application of thought).'
As previously stated, there are five types of results. In the following section, the third major topic is the miscellaneous clarification of various actions. Among them, there are ten items: 1. Clarifying the results of actions; 2. Explaining the actions in this treatise; 3. Clarifying the causes of projecting and completing actions; 4. Clarifying the three obstructions; 5. Clarifying the three time obstructions; 6. Clarifying the characteristics of a Bodhisattva; 7. Clarifying giving, morality, and cultivation; 8. Clarifying the three divisions of accordance; 9. Clarifying the nature of the seal; 10. Clarifying the different names of the dharma. In the first item, clarifying the results of actions, 1. Generally clarifying that various actions obtain five types of results; 2. 3.
性相對果。三三世相對果。四諸地相對果。五三學相對果。六三斷相對果 此下兩頌。第一總明諸業得五果也。
論曰至有漏無漏。釋二種斷道。無間道力引起斷得名能證斷。無間道起正斷惑得名為能斷 解脫道正證斷得名為能證。不斷惑得不名能斷 無間道具二能故得斷道名。此有二種謂有漏．無漏。
論。有漏道業至唯除前生。明有漏斷道具五果也 言。俱有者。謂俱生法 言。解脫者。謂無間生即解脫道 言。所修者。謂未來修 斷。謂擇滅。由道力故彼得方起。余文可解 增上果言除前生者。后是前因。前非後果。無取．與故。正理有一師說。擇滅亦是道增上果。道增上力能證彼故 說非擇滅是心果故。離此更無餘果義故。
論。即斷道中至謂除異熟。明無漏斷道。如文可知。
論。余有漏善至例此應釋。釋余有漏善及不善果。有漏故有異熟。非斷道故無離系。
論 謂余無漏至及離系。釋非斷道余無漏業。
論。已總分別諸業有果。已下一頌。第一三性相對明果。
論曰至后例應知。此釋最後三門。頌中雲皆如次應知。此言遍前門也。且善．不善．無記三法辨有果數 頌中雲初。即是善業對善業有四果 二即善對不善 三即善對無記。后例同前。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 性相對果：指本性（自性）相對所產生的果報。 三三世相對果：指過去、現在、未來三世相互作用所產生的果報。 四諸地相對果：指在不同修行階段（諸地）相互作用所產生的果報。 五三學相對果：指戒、定、慧三學相互作用所產生的果報。 六三斷相對果：指斷除貪、嗔、癡三毒相互作用所產生的果報。 以下兩頌（偈頌），第一頌總括說明各種業力所能獲得的五種果報。 論曰：至有漏無漏。解釋兩種斷道。無間道（Anantarya-marga）的力量引發斷滅，因此得名『能證斷』。無間道生起時，直接斷除迷惑，因此得名『能斷』。 解脫道（Vimukti-marga）直接證得斷滅，因此得名『能證』。如果不能斷除迷惑，就不能稱為『能斷』。 無間道兼具兩種『能』，所以得到『斷道』的名稱。這有兩種，即有漏（Sasrava）和無漏（Anasrava）。 論：有漏道業至唯除前生。說明有漏的斷道具有五種果報。『俱有』，指的是俱生法（Sahaja-dharma）。 『解脫』，指的是無間道生起后緊接著產生的解脫道。 『所修』，指的是未來所修習的。 『斷』，指的是擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha）。由於道的力量，擇滅才能生起。其餘文字可以自行理解。 增上果（Adhipati-phala）中說『除前生』，是因為後世是前世的原因，但前世不是後世的果報。因為沒有取和與的關係。《正理》中有一位論師說，擇滅也是道的增上果，因為道的力量能夠證得擇滅。 說非擇滅（Apratisankhya-nirodha）是心的果報，因為除了這個之外，沒有其他的果報意義。 論：即斷道中至謂除異熟。說明無漏的斷道。如文字所說即可理解。 論：余有漏善至例此應釋。解釋其餘有漏的善業和不善業的果報。因為是有漏，所以有異熟果（Vipaka-phala）；因為不是斷道，所以沒有離系果（Visamyoga-phala）。 論：謂余無漏至及離系。解釋不是斷道的其餘無漏業。 論：已總分別諸業有果。以下一頌，第一是三種性質（善、不善、無記）相對來說明果報。 論曰：至后例應知。這是解釋最後三個門類。頌中說『皆如次應知』，這句話適用於前面的所有門類。先就善、不善、無記這三種法來辨別它們所具有的果報數量。頌中說『初』，指的是善業對善業有四種果報。『二』指的是善業對不善業。『三』指的是善業對無記業。後面的情況可以類推。 論。
【English Translation】 English version: Nature in relation to result: Refers to the result produced by the interaction of inherent nature (svabhava). Three times in relation to result: Refers to the result produced by the interaction of the past, present, and future. Four grounds in relation to result: Refers to the result produced by the interaction of different stages of practice (bhumis). Five three learnings in relation to result: Refers to the result produced by the interaction of the three learnings of morality (sila), concentration (samadhi), and wisdom (prajna). Six three severances in relation to result: Refers to the result produced by the interaction of severing the three poisons of greed (raga), hatred (dvesha), and delusion (moha). The following two verses, the first verse generally explains the five results that various karmas can obtain. Treatise says: To with outflows and without outflows. Explains the two types of paths of severance. The power of the immediate path (Anantarya-marga) gives rise to severance, hence it is named 'able to realize severance'. When the immediate path arises, it directly severs delusion, hence it is named 'able to sever'. The path of liberation (Vimukti-marga) directly realizes severance, hence it is named 'able to realize'. If it cannot sever delusion, it cannot be called 'able to sever'. The immediate path possesses both 'abilities', so it obtains the name 'path of severance'. There are two types of these, namely with outflows (Sasrava) and without outflows (Anasrava). Treatise: Karma of the path with outflows to only excluding the previous life. Explains that the path of severance with outflows possesses five results. 'Co-existent' refers to co-arisen dharmas (Sahaja-dharmas). 'Liberation' refers to the path of liberation that arises immediately after the immediate path. 'What is cultivated' refers to what will be cultivated in the future. 'Severance' refers to selective cessation (Pratisankhya-nirodha). Due to the power of the path, selective cessation can arise. The remaining text can be understood on its own. In the dominant result (Adhipati-phala), it says 'excluding the previous life' because the later life is the cause of the previous life, but the previous life is not the result of the later life. Because there is no taking and giving relationship. In the Nyayanusara, one teacher says that selective cessation is also the dominant result of the path, because the power of the path can realize selective cessation. It is said that non-selective cessation (Apratisankhya-nirodha) is the result of the mind, because there is no other meaning of result besides this. Treatise: Namely, in the path of severance to namely excluding the ripening. Explains the path of severance without outflows. It can be understood as the text says. Treatise: Remaining wholesome with outflows to this should be explained by analogy. Explains the results of the remaining wholesome and unwholesome karmas with outflows. Because it has outflows, it has the result of ripening (Vipaka-phala); because it is not the path of severance, it does not have the result of separation (Visamyoga-phala). Treatise: Namely, remaining without outflows to and separation. Explains the remaining karmas without outflows that are not the path of severance. Treatise: Already generally distinguished that karmas have results. The following verse, the first is to explain the results in relation to the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral). Treatise says: To later examples should be known. This explains the last three categories. The verse says 'all should be known in order', this statement applies to all the previous categories. First, regarding the three dharmas of wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral, distinguish the number of results they possess. The verse says 'first', which refers to wholesome karma having four results in relation to wholesome karma. 'Second' refers to wholesome karma in relation to unwholesome karma. 'Third' refers to wholesome karma in relation to neutral karma. The later cases can be inferred by analogy. Treatise.
謂初善業至及離系。以善對三性也。
論。中不善業至除離系以不善對三性明果 論等流雲何。問。不善如何以無記為等流果。
論。謂遍行不善至為等流故。答。謂苦諦下身．邊二見是無記。與自諦下不善為同類因．遍行因．等流果。與余斷不善為遍行因等流果也。
論。后無記業至除異熟及離系。無記對三性明果多．少。不善等流果如前釋。
論。已辨三性。已下有一頌。第三三世明果。
論曰至為果別者。總牒也。
論。謂過去業至非后業果故。離系果非三世故。非此中明。未來及除等流。無前．后故。所以三果 相應．俱有．能作．異熟因等。通三世故。所以有三。異熟果必前．后故。現在與現在除異熟。
論。已辨三世。已下半頌。第四明地相對果。
論曰至不遮等流。釋頌文也。同地四果除離系。地無攝故 有漏異地有二果。異地無等流．及異熟故 等無間相生故有士用。增上果寬故有增上 無漏異地加等流。異地有同類因故。
論。已辨諸地。下一頌。第五學等相對果。
論曰至為果別者總牒也。
論。謂學業至及等流。以學對三明果。離系．異熟非是學及無學故除之 以非二亦三果。除等流加離系。
論。無學業至為五
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 謂初善業至及離系。以善對三性也。
論。中不善業至除離系以不善對三性明果。論等流雲何。問。不善如何以無記為等流果。
論。謂遍行不善至為等流故。答。謂苦諦下身．邊二見是無記。與自諦下不善為同類因．遍行因．等流果。與余斷不善為遍行因等流果也。
論。后無記業至除異熟及離系。無記對三性明果多．少。不善等流果如前釋。
論。已辨三性。已下有一頌。第三三世明果。
論曰至為果別者。總牒也。
論。謂過去業至非后業果故。離系果非三世故。非此中明。未來及除等流。無前．后故。所以三果相應．俱有．能作．異熟因等。通三世故。所以有三。異熟果必前．后故。現在與現在除異熟。
論。已辨三世。已下半頌。第四明地相對果。
論曰至不遮等流。釋頌文也。同地四果除離系。地無攝故。有漏異地有二果。異地無等流．及異熟故。等無間相生故有士用。增上果寬故有增上。無漏異地加等流。異地有同類因故。
論。已辨諸地。下一頌。第五學等相對果。
論曰至為果別者總牒也。
論。謂學業至及等流。以學對三明果。離系．異熟非是學及無學故除之。以非二亦三果。除等流加離系。
論。無學業至為五
【English Translation】 English version It refers to the initial wholesome karma up to and including '離系' (Li Xi, liberation). 'Wholesome' is contrasted with the three natures (三性, san xing).
Treatise: Intermediate unwholesome karma up to the exclusion of '離系' (Li Xi, liberation), with 'unwholesome' contrasted with the three natures, clarifying the result. Treatise: What about the outflow (等流, deng liu)? Question: How can unwholesome karma have '無記' (wu ji, neutral) as its outflow result?
Treatise: It refers to pervasive unwholesome karma up to being the outflow. Answer: It refers to the two views of '身' (shen, self) and '邊' (bian, extreme) under the '苦諦' (ku di, truth of suffering), which are neutral. They are the cause of the same kind, the pervasive cause, and the outflow result with the unwholesome karma under their own truth. They are the pervasive cause and outflow result with the remaining severed unwholesome karma.
Treatise: Subsequent neutral karma up to the exclusion of '異熟' (yi shu, vipaka) and '離系' (Li Xi, liberation). 'Neutral' is contrasted with the three natures, clarifying the result's quantity (much or little). The outflow result of unwholesome karma is explained as before.
Treatise: The three natures have been distinguished. Below is a verse. The third clarifies the result in relation to the three times (三世, san shi).
Treatise says up to 'for the difference in results'. This is a general summary.
Treatise: It refers to past karma up to not being the result of subsequent karma. The result of '離系' (Li Xi, liberation) is not of the three times, so it is not clarified here. The future and the exclusion of outflow, because there is no before or after. Therefore, the three results—corresponding, co-existent, capable, and '異熟因' (yi shu yin, vipaka cause) etc.—are common to the three times. Therefore, there are three. The '異熟果' (yi shu guo, vipaka result) must be before and after. The present with the present excludes '異熟' (yi shu, vipaka).
Treatise: The three times have been distinguished. Below is half a verse. The fourth clarifies the result in relation to the grounds (地, di).
Treatise says up to 'does not preclude outflow'. This explains the verse. The four results of the same ground exclude '離系' (Li Xi, liberation), because the ground does not encompass it. The two results of different grounds with outflows. Different grounds do not have outflow and '異熟' (yi shu, vipaka). Because of the uninterrupted arising of equality, there is effort. Because the increasing result is broad, there is increase. Different grounds without outflows add outflow. Different grounds have the cause of the same kind.
Treatise: The grounds have been distinguished. Below is a verse. The fifth clarifies the result in relation to the learners etc.
Treatise says up to 'for the difference in results'. This is a general summary.
Treatise: It refers to the karma of learners up to and including outflow. 'Learner' is contrasted with the three, clarifying the result. '離系' (Li Xi, liberation) and '異熟' (yi shu, vipaka) are excluded because they are neither learner nor non-learner. Because it is neither of the two, there are also three results. Outflow is excluded and '離系' (Li Xi, liberation) is added.
Treatise: The karma of non-learners up to five.
果。以無學對三明果。無學非無間道故望非二無離系故。余義準前。
論。已辨學等。已下一行半頌。第六以見斷等相對辨果。
論曰至為果別者。總牒也。
論。初見所斷業至謂增上。以見斷對三門。如見斷法非無為。非異熟果體。對除二果 修所斷法唯非無為。故對之除一果。見道望修道有遍行因故有等流果。無間相生故有士用果。有不善故有異熟果。不障礙故有增上果。非斷道故無離系果 以非所斷法。非無間相生故無士用果。無同類．遍行因故無等流果。非所斷非異熟故無異熟果。見斷非道故無離系果。不障礙故有增上果。
論。中修所斷業至及等流。修斷對三明果也。修所斷有斷道故有離系果。餘思可解。
論。后非所斷業至除異熟。非所斷法對三明果。已上諸門若具釋所以。即費多言論。非為全要。但法略有功者即自解之。
論。皆如次者至略法應爾。釋頌中最下云皆如次應知也。
論。因辨諸業應復問言。已下一頌。大文第二。釋本論三業。
論曰至作意所生。此師說。不善．有覆無記身．語意業名不應作。
論。有餘師言至不合世俗禮儀。第二師釋。兼取無覆無記無軌則二業意業即發身．語者。皆名不應作也。
論。與此相翻名應作
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 果。以無學對三明果。無學（指已證得阿羅漢果位，不再需要學習的人）以三明果（宿命明、天眼明、漏盡明）相對。無學因為不是無間道（指斷除煩惱障的道路）的緣故，所以期望不是二無離系果（指見所斷和修所斷的離系果）。其餘意義參照前面的解釋。
論：已經辨析了學等。下面一行半頌。第六，以見斷等相對辨析果。
論曰：至為果別者。總括說明。
論：最初，見所斷業（指通過見道斷除的煩惱）至謂增上（指增上果）。以見斷對三門。如見斷法不是無為法，不是異熟果體。對除二果。修所斷法（指通過修道斷除的煩惱）唯獨不是無為法，所以對其排除一果。見道望修道有遍行因（指普遍存在的因），所以有等流果（指相似相續的果）。無間相生（指無間斷地相續產生）所以有士用果（指由作用力產生的果）。有不善的緣故，所以有異熟果（指由業力成熟的果）。不障礙的緣故，所以有增上果（指增上助長的果）。不是斷道的緣故，所以沒有離系果（指脫離束縛的果）。以非所斷法（指不是通過斷除而證得的法），不是無間相生的緣故，所以沒有士用果。沒有同類因、遍行因的緣故，所以沒有等流果。不是所斷的，不是異熟的緣故，所以沒有異熟果。見斷不是道，所以沒有離系果。不障礙的緣故，所以有增上果。
論：中間，修所斷業至及等流。修斷對三明果也。修所斷有斷道的緣故，所以有離系果。其餘意思可以理解。
論：最後，非所斷業至除異熟。非所斷法對三明果。以上各種門類如果詳細解釋原因，就會花費很多言論，不是完全必要的。但對於容易理解的法，就自己解釋。
論：皆如次者至略法應爾。解釋頌中最下說皆如次應知。
論：因辨諸業應復問言。下面一頌。大文第二。解釋本論三業。
論曰：至作意所生。此師說。不善、有覆無記（指被無明覆蓋，無法記清的）身、語、意業名為不應作。
論：有餘師言至不合世俗禮儀。第二師解釋。兼取無覆無記（指沒有無明覆蓋，可以記清的）無軌則二業意業即發身、語者。都名為不應作也。
論：與此相翻名應作
【English Translation】 English version: The fruition. The state of No-More-Learning is contrasted with the three kinds of clear knowledge. Because the state of No-More-Learning (Arhatship, the state of one who no longer needs to learn) is not the path of immediate consequence (the path that directly cuts off defilements), it is not expected to have the two kinds of fruition of separation (fruition of separation from what is abandoned by the path of seeing and the path of cultivation). The remaining meanings can be understood by referring to the previous explanations.
Treatise: The learning and other stages have already been distinguished. The following one and a half verses. Sixth, the fruitions are distinguished in relation to what is abandoned by seeing, etc.
Treatise says: 'To distinguish the fruitions' is a general summary.
Treatise: Initially, the karma abandoned by seeing (afflictions abandoned by the path of seeing) to what is called the dominant cause (Adhipati-phala). What is abandoned by seeing is contrasted with the three doors. For example, what is abandoned by seeing is not unconditioned, nor is it the entity of the fruition of maturation. It excludes two kinds of fruition. What is abandoned by cultivation (afflictions abandoned by the path of cultivation) is only not unconditioned, so it excludes one kind of fruition. The path of seeing, in relation to the path of cultivation, has a pervasive cause (a cause that extends everywhere), so it has the fruition of outflow (Nisyanda-phala, the result of a cause that is similar to itself). Because of immediate arising, it has the fruition of effort (Purusakara-phala, the result of one's actions). Because there is unwholesomeness, there is the fruition of maturation (Vipaka-phala, the result of karma). Because it does not obstruct, there is the fruition of the dominant cause. Because it is not the path of abandonment, there is no fruition of separation. Because it is not what is abandoned, and because it does not arise immediately, there is no fruition of effort. Because there is no cause of the same kind or pervasive cause, there is no fruition of outflow. Because it is not what is abandoned and not the fruition of maturation, there is no fruition of maturation. What is abandoned by seeing is not the path, so there is no fruition of separation. Because it does not obstruct, there is the fruition of the dominant cause.
Treatise: In the middle, the karma abandoned by cultivation to and the fruition of outflow. What is abandoned by cultivation is contrasted with the three kinds of clear knowledge. Because what is abandoned by cultivation has the path of abandonment, it has the fruition of separation. The remaining meanings can be understood.
Treatise: Finally, the karma not abandoned to excluding the fruition of maturation. What is not abandoned is contrasted with the three kinds of clear knowledge. If the reasons for the above various categories were explained in detail, it would involve much discussion and would not be entirely necessary. However, for the dharmas that are easy to understand, explain them yourself.
Treatise: 'All in order' to 'the abbreviated dharma should be so'. Explaining the lowest part of the verse, it says 'all in order should be known'.
Treatise: Because of distinguishing the karmas, one should ask again. The following verse. The second major section. Explaining the three karmas in this treatise.
Treatise says: 'To arising from intention'. This teacher says. Unwholesome, obscured and unspecified (morally neutral but associated with defilements) actions of body, speech, and mind are called 'should not be done'.
Treatise: 'Some other teachers say' to 'not conforming to worldly etiquette'. The second teacher explains. Also including unspecified (morally neutral) actions of body and speech that are without rules, and mental actions that initiate body and speech actions. All are called 'should not be done'.
Treatise: What is the opposite of this is called 'should be done'.
業者。標應作業 論有說善業至作意所生。第一師釋。
論。有餘師言至亦名應作。業也。
論。俱違前二至二說差別。釋第三也。隨二師所說。違前二者名為第三。正理云。若依世俗后亦可然。若就勝義前說為善。謂唯善業名為應作。唯諸染業名不應作。無覆無記身．語．意業。名非應作非不應作。然非一切不應作業皆惡行攝。唯有不善是惡性故得惡行名。以招愛果名為妙行。招非愛果名為惡行。有覆無記雖是不應作。而非惡行攝。由此所行決定不能招愛．非愛果故。
論。為由一業但引一生為引多生。已下半頌。大文第三。明引．滿業。
論曰至方說名生。標有部宗。釋頌文也。
論若爾至多受快樂。經部等難。
論。彼由一業至獲大富樂。答也。
論復有說者至熟有先後。第二師答。
論故非一業至多業所引。總結多釋。
論。勿眾同分分分差別者。與多業引一生果出過。若多業引一生。眾同分前．后因別故。果應隨因分分有別。正理出過云。若說一生由多業引。或說一業能引多生。如是二言于理何失 且初有失。謂一生中前業果終后業果起。業．果別故應有死生。或應多生無死．生理。業果終起如一生故 二俱有過。一本有中應有眾多死．生有故。
或應乃至無餘涅槃中間永無死及生故。何緣定限一趣處中有異業果生。便有生死有異業果起而無死生。一業果終餘業果起。理定應立有死有生 乃至廣說。
論。雖但一業至后填眾辨。明一業為引多業圓滿。
論。是故雖有至多缺減者。明由多業圓故。滿業不同身形有異也。
論。如是二類其體是何。下半頌。第三問非業也。謂二定及得。
論曰至非俱有故。明二定也。無想定招無想異熟及無想天五蘊果 滅盡定招非想四蘊果也。
論。得亦無力至非一果故。釋得也。婆沙十九云。問得受何異熟果耶。答諸得受色．心．心所．心不相應行異熟果。色者謂色．香．味．觸。非五色根。彼業果故。心．心所法者。謂苦受．樂受．不苦不樂受。及彼相應法。心不相應行者。謂諸得．生老住無常 又云問諸造業者。為先造引眾同分業。為造滿眾同分業耶 如是說者。此則不定。或有先造引業后造滿業。或有先造滿業后造引業。隨造業者意樂起故。
論。薄伽梵下一行頌。大文第四明三障也。
論曰至名為業障。出障體也 噁心出佛身血者。謂殺心若作打。心不成逆也 此五逆業。破僧妄語。出佛身血殺加行。余殺根本。廣如五逆釋。
論。煩惱有二至名煩惱障。明煩惱障體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：或者應當（認為），乃至（眾生）在無餘涅槃（nirvana，徹底寂滅的狀態）中間，永遠沒有死亡和出生，所以（不應該問）為什麼一定要限定一類去處，（認為）中有（antarabhava，中陰身）有不同的業果產生，便有生死，有不同的業果生起卻沒有死亡和出生，一個業果終結另一個業果生起。（正確的）道理應當確立為有死亡有出生，乃至廣說。
論：雖然只是一個業（karma，行為），到後來填補眾多（果報），說明一個業是引導眾多業圓滿。
論：所以即使有（的業）多有缺少，說明由於眾多業圓滿的緣故，滿業（pūraṇa-karma，圓滿業）不同，身形也有差異。
論：像這樣兩類（定和得），它們的體性是什麼？下半頌（說明）。第三（問）不是業，是指二定（samāpatti，禪定）和得（prāpti，獲得）。
論曰：乃至不是都有的緣故，說明二定。無想定（asaṃjñā-samāpatti，無想定）招感無想異熟（vipāka，果報）以及無想天（Asañjñā-deva，無想天）的五蘊（pañca-skandha，色、受、想、行、識）果報；滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti，滅盡定）招感非想（Nasaññāsaññāyatana，非想非非想處天）的四蘊（缺少色蘊）果報。
論：得也沒有力量，乃至不是一個果報的緣故，解釋得。婆沙（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）十九（卷）說：問：得（prāpti，獲得）承受什麼樣的異熟果報呢？答：諸得承受色、心、心所、心不相應行（citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra，不相應行）的異熟果報。色是指色、香、味、觸，不是五色根（pañca indriya，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身），因為那是業的果報。心、心所法是指苦受、樂受、不苦不樂受，以及與它們相應的法。心不相應行是指諸得、生、老、住、無常。又說：問：諸造業者，是先造引眾同分業（janaka-nikāya-sabhāga-karma，能引起眾同分之業），還是先造滿眾同分業（pūraka-nikāya-sabhāga-karma，能圓滿眾同分之業）呢？這樣說，這則是不定的。或者有先造引業后造滿業，或者有先造滿業后造引業，隨著造業者的意樂（adhyāśaya，意願）生起。
論：薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）下一行頌，大文第四（部分）說明三障（trīṇi āvaraṇāni，三種障礙）。
論曰：乃至名為業障（karma-āvaraṇa，業障），說明業障的體性。噁心出佛身血者，是指殺心，如果只是作出打的行為，不能構成逆罪。這五逆業（pañcānantarya，五逆罪），破僧（saṃgha，僧團），妄語，出佛身血（rudhirotpāda，令佛出血）是殺的加行（prayoga，預備行為），其餘殺是根本（mūla，根本行為）。詳細的（解釋）如五逆（的）解釋。
論：煩惱有二，乃至名煩惱障（kleśa-āvaraṇa，煩惱障），說明煩惱障的體性。
【English Translation】 English version: Or it should be (considered) that, even until (beings) are in complete nirvana (nirvana, the state of complete extinction), there is never death and birth, so (it should not be asked) why it is necessary to limit to one type of destination, (thinking that) in the intermediate state (antarabhava, the intermediate existence) different karma results arise, then there is birth and death, different karma results arise but there is no death and birth, one karma result ends and another karma result arises. The (correct) principle should be established as having death and having birth, and so on.
Treatise: Although it is only one karma (karma, action), it later fills in many (retributions), explaining that one karma is to guide many karmas to completion.
Treatise: Therefore, even if there are (karmas) that are many and lacking, it explains that because of the completion of many karmas, the complete karma (pūraṇa-karma, fulfilling karma) is different, and the body shape is also different.
Treatise: What is the nature of these two types (of samāpatti and prāpti)? The second half of the verse (explains). The third (question) is not karma, it refers to the two samāpattis (samāpatti, meditative attainments) and prāpti (prāpti, attainment).
Treatise says: Even to the reason that not all exist, explaining the two samāpattis. The asaṃjñā-samāpatti (asaṃjñā-samāpatti, non-perceptual attainment) attracts the vipāka (vipāka, fruition) of non-perception and the five skandhas (pañca-skandha, form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness) of the Asañjñā-deva (Asañjñā-deva, the Heaven of Non-Perception); the nirodha-samāpatti (nirodha-samāpatti, cessation attainment) attracts the four skandhas (lacking the form skandha) of the Nasaññāsaññāyatana (Nasaññāsaññāyatana, the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception).
Treatise: Attainment also has no power, even to the reason that it is not a single result, explaining prāpti. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa, Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) 19 (chapter) says: Question: What kind of vipāka does prāpti (prāpti, attainment) receive? Answer: All attainments receive the vipāka of form, mind, mental factors, and citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra, non-associated formations). Form refers to form, smell, taste, and touch, not the five indriyas (pañca indriya, eye, ear, nose, tongue, body), because that is the result of karma. Mental and mental factors refer to painful feeling, pleasant feeling, neither painful nor pleasant feeling, and the corresponding dharmas. Non-associated formations refer to all attainments, birth, aging, dwelling, impermanence. It also says: Question: Do those who create karma first create janaka-nikāya-sabhāga-karma (janaka-nikāya-sabhāga-karma, karma that generates commonality), or do they first create pūraka-nikāya-sabhāga-karma (pūraka-nikāya-sabhāga-karma, karma that fulfills commonality)? Saying this, this is uncertain. Some first create generating karma and then create fulfilling karma, or some first create fulfilling karma and then create generating karma, according to the intention (adhyāśaya, volition) of the karma creator.
Treatise: The verse following Bhagavan (Bhagavān, the World-Honored One), the fourth major section explains the three hindrances (trīṇi āvaraṇāni, three obstructions).
Treatise says: Even to the name karma-āvaraṇa (karma-āvaraṇa, karma hindrance), explaining the nature of karma hindrance. 'Wicked mind drawing blood from the Buddha's body' refers to the intention to kill; if it is only the act of hitting, it does not constitute a heinous crime. These five heinous crimes (pañcānantarya, five heinous offenses), destroying the sangha (saṃgha, monastic community), false speech, drawing blood from the Buddha's body (rudhirotpāda, causing the Buddha to bleed) is the preparatory act (prayoga, preliminary action) of killing, the rest of killing is the fundamental (mūla, root action). Detailed (explanation) is as (in) the explanation of the five heinous crimes.
Treatise: Afflictions are two, even to the name kleśa-āvaraṇa (kleśa-āvaraṇa, affliction hindrance), explaining the nature of affliction hindrance.
。無問上．下。但數行者名煩惱障。令對治道無便生故。
論。全三惡趣至名異熟障。出異熟障體。
論。此障何法者。問所障法。
論。謂障聖道及障聖道加行善根。答所障法。
論。又業障中至易見易知。通極難也。正理論云。何故名障。能障聖道及道資糧並離染故 非唯無間是業障體。所有定業能障見諦。一切皆應是業障攝。謂有諸業造作增長。能感惡趣．卵生．濕生．女身。人．天第八有等。並感大梵順后受業。或色．無色一處二生有。此皆無入見諦理。何緣不說是業障收 見此類中有非定故。謂如是業種類中。皆有強緣可令迴轉。不障聖道及道資糧。故於此中雖有少業不可轉者。不立為障。無間種類皆不可轉。故唯於此立為業障。毗婆沙說。此五因緣易見．易知說為業障。謂處．趣．生果及補特伽羅 處謂此五定以母等為起處故 趣謂此五定以地獄為所趣故 生謂此五定無間生感異熟故 果謂此五決定能招非愛果故 補特伽羅。謂此五逆依行重惑。補特伽羅共了此人能害母等。餘業不爾。不立為障。余障廢立如應當知 問曰。何故梵天非聖所生。起戒取處不起聖道加行。因何不立為異熟障 答曰。以離染故非障也。非如北洲．無想．三惡趣中不能離染。婆沙一百一十五說五因緣云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：沒有關於上界或地獄的提問，只是說修行者的名稱是煩惱障（Klesha-avarana），因為它使得對治煩惱的道路難以產生。
論：完全的三惡趣（Tri-apaya）乃至名稱為異熟障（Vipaka-avarana），這是爲了說明異熟障的本體。
論：此障是什麼法？這是在詢問所障礙的法。
論：所謂障礙聖道（Arya-marga）以及障礙聖道加行（Prayoga）的善根。這是在回答所障礙的法。
論：又在業障（Karma-avarana）中，乃至容易見到和容易知道。這是普遍而言極其困難的。正理論說：『為什麼稱為障？因為它能障礙聖道以及聖道的資糧，並且遠離染污。』並非只有無間業（Anantarya-karma）是業障的本體。所有能障礙見諦（Darshana-satya）的定業（Niyata-karma），一切都應當被認為是業障所攝。所謂有些業，造作增長，能感得惡趣、卵生、濕生、女身、人、天第八有等，並且感得大梵天（Mahabrahma）的順后受業（Aparaparyavedaniya-karma），或者色界、無色界一處二生有。這些都無法進入見諦的道理。為什麼不說這是業障所攝？』因為這類業中有非決定的緣故。所謂在這樣的業種類中，都有強大的因緣可以使其迴轉，不障礙聖道以及聖道的資糧。因此，在這些業中，雖然有少部分業是不可轉變的，也不將其立為障。無間業的種類都是不可轉變的，所以只將這些立為業障。毗婆沙（Vibhasa）說：這五種因緣容易見到、容易知道，所以說為業障。所謂處、趣、生果以及補特伽羅（Pudgala）。處，是指這五種定以母親等為起始之處。趣，是指這五種定以地獄為所趣之處。生，是指這五種定無間地產生感得異熟果報。果，是指這五種決定能招致非可愛的果報。補特伽羅，是指這五逆罪（Anantarya）依賴於強烈的煩惱。補特伽羅共同瞭解這個人能夠加害母親等。其餘的業不是這樣，所以不立為障。其餘的障礙的建立或廢除，應當如實了知。』問：『為什麼梵天（Brahma）不是聖人所生，在起戒禁取見（Shila-vrata-paramarsha）之處不起聖道加行，為什麼不將其立為異熟障？』答：『因為遠離染污的緣故，不是障礙。不像北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）、無想天（Asanjnasattva）、三惡趣中不能遠離染污。』婆沙一百一十五說五種因緣說
【English Translation】 English version: There is no question about the upper or lower realms, but only the name of the practitioner is mentioned as Klesha-avarana (afflictive obscuration), because it makes it difficult for the path of counteracting afflictions to arise.
Treatise: The entirety of the three evil destinies (Tri-apaya), up to the name Vipaka-avarana (resultant obscuration), is to explain the substance of Vipaka-avarana.
Treatise: What dharma is this obscuration? This is asking about the dharma that is being obscured.
Treatise: It obstructs the Noble Path (Arya-marga) and the roots of virtue that are the preliminary practices (Prayoga) for the Noble Path. This is answering what dharma is being obscured.
Treatise: Furthermore, within Karma-avarana (karmic obscuration), it is easy to see and easy to know. It is generally extremely difficult. The Nyayānusāra-śāstra says: 'Why is it called an obscuration? Because it can obstruct the Noble Path and the resources for the path, and because it is far from defilement.' It is not only Anantarya-karma (deeds with immediate retribution) that is the substance of Karma-avarana. All fixed karma (Niyata-karma) that can obstruct the vision of truth (Darshana-satya) should all be considered as included in Karma-avarana. So-called karmas that are created and increased can cause rebirth in evil destinies, as oviparous, viviparous, and moisture-born beings, in a female body, or as humans or gods in the eighth existence, and can also cause Aparaparyavedaniya-karma (karma to be experienced later) in the Great Brahma (Mahabrahma), or in the realms of form and formlessness, where there are two births in one place. These cannot enter the principle of seeing the truth. Why not say that these are included in Karma-avarana?' Because there are non-deterministic factors in this type of karma. Within such types of karma, there are strong conditions that can cause them to turn around and not obstruct the Noble Path and the resources for the path. Therefore, although there are some karmas within these that cannot be transformed, they are not established as obscurations. The types of Anantarya-karma are all untransformable, so only these are established as Karma-avarana. The Vibhasa says: These five causes and conditions are easy to see and easy to know, so they are called Karma-avarana. These are place, destination, birth result, and Pudgala (individual). Place means that these five are definitely initiated with the mother, etc., as the starting place. Destination means that these five are definitely destined for hell. Birth means that these five definitely produce the result of Vipaka (ripening) without interruption. Result means that these five definitely cause undesirable results. Pudgala means that these five heinous crimes rely on strong afflictions. The Pudgala commonly understands that this person can harm the mother, etc. Other karmas are not like this, so they are not established as obscurations. The establishment or abandonment of other obscurations should be known as they are.' Question: 'Why is Brahma (Brahma) not born from a noble person, and why does he not initiate the preliminary practices for the Noble Path in the place where he takes hold of Shila-vrata-paramarsha (clinging to precepts and vows)? Why not establish this as Vipaka-avarana?' Answer: 'Because it is far from defilement, it is not an obscuration. It is not like in Uttarakuru (Uttarakuru), the realm of Asanjnasattva (non-perception), and the three evil destinies, where one cannot be far from defilement.' The Vibhasa one hundred and fifteen says five causes and conditions say
。一自性故。謂此五種性是決定極重惡業。二趣。三生。四果。五人。同此論不說處也。準正理論。一義立煩惱障謂數行。一義立異熟障定不能離染。婆沙一百一十五云。問余洲亦有異熟。如扇搋等。此中何故不說。答此中應說。而不說者。當知此是有餘之說。是以前說此中三障皆有餘說(準此論及婆沙。皆云障聖道及聖道加行名之為障。而不說梵王。是有餘說。若準正理。加離染義即是決定) 復有說。此中但說決定為障。彼非決定。由彼有情所有異熟。或有為障。或不為障。是以不說。正理四十三云。豈不三洲處．扇搋等身非聖道器故異熟障攝 無如是理。以于彼生引業所牽同分相續。可成男等為聖道器。唯三惡趣．無想．北洲。決定無容證聖道義。故唯于彼立異熟障 此釋同婆沙第二釋。扇搋等若前是男身等可入聖道。謂除去等。及先是有根后無根等先非二形后二形等。或先扇搋等后非扇搋等。如有黃門。好救牛黃門事現身變成男等。有說彼處唯居異生。余處皆容與聖者共。不說是異熟障攝 此釋即有梵王難也。梵王亦唯是異生故。此應以有餘說通。
論。此三障中至后輕於前。明三障輕．重。
論。此無間名為目何義。問名也。
論約異熟果至無間隔義。答也。此唯據受異熟中間無隔名為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：一、自性故（因為自性）。指的是這五種性是決定性的極重惡業。二、趣（去處）。三、生（生命）。四、果（結果）。五、人（人）。這些都和《俱舍論》中沒有說到的地方一樣。按照《正理論》的說法，一種觀點認為煩惱障是數行（多次修行），另一種觀點認為異熟障是決定不能脫離染污的。婆沙論第一百一十五卷說：『問：其他洲也有異熟，比如扇搋（黃門）等，為什麼這裡不說？』答：『這裡應該說，但是沒有說，應當知道這是有餘之說。』所以前面說這裡的三障都有有餘之說（按照此論和婆沙論，都說障礙聖道和聖道加行叫做障，而不說梵王，是有餘之說。如果按照《正理論》，加上脫離染污的意義就是決定性的）。 還有一種說法，這裡只說決定性的障礙，那些不是決定性的。因為那些有情的所有異熟，或者成為障礙，或者不成為障礙，所以不說。《正理論》第四十三卷說：『難道三洲處、扇搋等的身不是聖道的器皿，所以被異熟障所攝嗎？』沒有這樣的道理。因為在那些地方出生，被引業所牽引的同分相續，可以成為男等，成為聖道的器皿。只有三惡趣、無想天、北俱盧洲，決定沒有證得聖道的可能性，所以只在那些地方設立異熟障。這種解釋和婆沙論的第二種解釋相同。扇搋等如果先前是男身等，可以進入聖道，指的是除去等，以及先前有根後來沒有根等，先前不是二形後來是二形等，或者先前是扇搋等後來不是扇搋等。比如有黃門，好好地救助牛，黃門的事蹟顯現，身體變成男等。有人說那些地方只居住著異生（凡夫），其他地方都容許和聖者共處，所以不說這是異熟障所攝。這種解釋就有了梵王的難題。梵王也只是異生啊。這應該用有餘之說來解釋。 論：這三種障礙中，到後來一個比前一個輕。說明三種障礙的輕重。 論：這無間（沒有間隔）叫做什麼意思？問的是名稱。 論：根據異熟果（果報）來說，是無間隔的意思。回答。這只是根據接受異熟果中間沒有間隔來說的。
【English Translation】 English version: Firstly, 'Svabhava-hetu' (because of inherent nature). This refers to the five kinds of nature that are definitively heavy evil karma. Secondly, 'Gati' (destination). Thirdly, 'Janma' (birth). Fourthly, 'Phala' (result). Fifthly, 'Pudgala' (person). These are the same as the places not mentioned in the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya. According to the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, one view is that kleśa-āvaraṇa (affliction-obscuration) is 'saṃkhyā-caryā' (numerical practice), and another view is that vipāka-āvaraṇa (result-obscuration) is definitely unable to be separated from defilement. Vibhāṣā, volume one hundred and fifteen, says: 'Question: Do other continents also have vipāka, such as eunuchs (paṇḍaka)? Why are they not mentioned here?' Answer: 'They should be mentioned here, but they are not. It should be known that this is a remainder.' Therefore, it was said earlier that the three obscurations here all have remainders (according to this treatise and the Vibhāṣā, both say that what obstructs the noble path and the practice of the noble path is called obscuration, but not mentioning Brahmā is a remainder. If according to the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, adding the meaning of separating from defilement is definitive). Another explanation is that only definitive obscurations are mentioned here, and those that are not definitive are not. Because the vipāka of those sentient beings either becomes an obstruction or does not become an obstruction, so it is not mentioned. Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, volume forty-three, says: 'Are not the bodies of the three continents, eunuchs, etc., not vessels for the noble path, so they are included in vipāka-āvaraṇa?' There is no such reason. Because those born in those places, drawn by karma that leads to rebirth, the commonality of the continuum can become male, etc., and become vessels for the noble path. Only the three evil realms, the realm of non-perception, and Uttarakuru are definitively without the possibility of attaining the noble path, so vipāka-āvaraṇa is only established in those places. This explanation is the same as the second explanation in the Vibhāṣā. Eunuchs, etc., if they were previously male, etc., can enter the noble path, referring to removal, etc., and those who previously had roots and later had no roots, etc., those who were previously not hermaphrodites and later were hermaphrodites, etc., or those who were previously eunuchs and later were not eunuchs, etc. For example, there are eunuchs who diligently help cows, and the deeds of the eunuchs appear, and their bodies become male, etc. Some say that only ordinary beings (pṛthagjana) live in those places, and other places all allow coexistence with noble ones, so it is not said that this is included in vipāka-āvaraṇa. This explanation has the difficulty of Brahmā. Brahmā is also just an ordinary being. This should be explained with the remainder. Treatise: Among these three obscurations, the latter is lighter than the former. Clarifying the lightness and heaviness of the three obscurations. Treatise: What is the meaning of calling this 'anantara' (without interval)? Asking about the name. Treatise: According to the vipāka-phala (result of retribution), it means without interval. Answering. This is only based on the fact that there is no interval between receiving the vipāka-phala.
無間。
論。或造此業至名無間。第二釋也。前約業招其果無有間隔。后就假者證此生無間定墮地獄。俱是中間無隔故名無間。
論。彼有無間至故名沙門。此說如無間道名沙門。由此道有滅惡故。與滅惡法合名為沙門 此業有無間果及有無間法合名為無間 若人名無間由有無間業無間必入地獄。
有此無間業。與此無間業合名無間者。
論。三障應知何趣中有。已下一頌。就趣等分別三障。
論曰至非扇搋等。述處及人。
論。所以者何。問也。
論。即前所說至無逆所以。答。即前所說無斷善．不律儀所以。即是此中無逆所以。
論。又彼父母至觸無間罪。述異師釋。正理論云。鬼及傍生亦準扇搋等釋。
論。然大德說至如聰慧馬。述異說也 聰慧馬者。如說有馬。人慾取其種遂染其母。色異於常令其行欲。後知是母斷勢而永死。
論。若有人害至心境劣故。明異趣境劣不成逆也。婆沙廣有問答。
論。已辨業障至唯無想處。明余障通五趣也。三惡趣全是異熟障。人唯北洲。天唯無想。其煩惱障無文簡別。故知五趣全有。◎
俱舍論疏卷第十七 沙門法寶撰
保延三年八月二十四日秉燭點了
此卷落失不可說盡。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 無間（Avīci）。
論：或者造作此業以至於名為無間（Avīci）。這是第二種解釋。前面是就所造的業招感其果報沒有間隔而言，後面是就假立的補特伽羅（Pudgala）證實此人一旦產生無間業必定墮入地獄。兩者都是中間沒有間隔，所以名為無間（Avīci）。
論：他們具有無間（Avīci）的…所以名為沙門（Śrāmaṇa）。這是說如同無間道（Avīci-mārga）名為沙門（Śrāmaṇa），因為此道具有滅除惡行的作用。與滅除惡行之法相結合，就名為沙門（Śrāmaṇa）。此業具有無間（Avīci）的果報，以及具有無間（Avīci）之法相結合，名為無間（Avīci）。如果有人名為無間（Avīci），因為他具有無間（Avīci）業，必定會墮入地獄。
具有此無間（Avīci）業，與此無間（Avīci）業相結合，名為無間（Avīci）者。
論：三障（traya āvaraṇa）應當知道在哪個趣（gati）中存在？以下一頌，就趣（gati）等分別三障（traya āvaraṇa）。
論曰：乃至非扇搋（paṇḍaka）等。敘述了處所和人。
論：為什麼呢？這是提問。
論：即前面所說的…沒有違逆的原因。回答：即前面所說的沒有斷絕善根、沒有不律儀的原因。這就是此中沒有違逆的原因。
論：又，那些父母…觸犯無間罪（ānantarika-karma）。敘述了異師的解釋。《正理論》說：鬼和傍生也參照扇搋（paṇḍaka）等來解釋。
論：然而，大德說…如同聰慧的馬。敘述了不同的說法。聰慧的馬是說，比如有馬，人想要取得它的品種，於是染其母馬，使它的顏色異於平常，讓它行淫慾。後來知道那是它的母親，於是斷其勢而永死。
論：如果有人殺害…因為心境低劣的緣故。說明不同趣（gati）的心境低劣，不能構成逆罪。《婆沙論》中有廣泛的問答。
論：已經辨明了業障（karmāvaraṇa）…唯有無想處（asaṃjñi-samāpatti）。說明其餘的障礙通於五趣（pañca-gataya）。三惡趣全是異熟障（vipāka-āvaraṇa）。人唯有北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）。天唯有無想處（asaṃjñi-samāpatti）。其煩惱障（kleśāvaraṇa）沒有經文簡別，所以知道五趣（pañca-gataya）全部都有。
《俱舍論疏》卷第十七 沙門法寶撰
保延三年八月二十四日秉燭點了
此卷落失，不可說盡。
【English Translation】 English version Avīci.
Treatise: Or, having created this karma, it leads to the name Avīci (uninterrupted). This is the second explanation. The former refers to the fact that the karma created brings about its result without interruption. The latter is based on the hypothetical person (Pudgala) proving that once a person generates Avīci karma, they are destined to fall into hell. Both have no interruption in between, so they are called Avīci.
Treatise: They possess Avīci… therefore they are called Śrāmaṇa. This says that just as the Avīci-mārga (uninterrupted path) is called Śrāmaṇa, because this path has the function of extinguishing evil deeds. Combined with the Dharma of extinguishing evil deeds, it is called Śrāmaṇa. This karma has the result of Avīci, and combined with the Dharma of Avīci, it is called Avīci. If someone is named Avīci, it is because they possess Avīci karma and will certainly fall into hell.
Having this Avīci karma, combined with this Avīci karma, is called Avīci.
Treatise: In which gati (realm) should the three āvaraṇa (hindrances) be known to exist? The following verse distinguishes the three āvaraṇa (hindrances) based on gati (realm) etc.
Treatise says: Even not paṇḍaka (eunuch) etc. Describes the place and the person.
Treatise: Why is that? This is a question.
Treatise: That is, the aforementioned… the reason for no transgression. Answer: That is, the aforementioned reason for not cutting off roots of good, and no non-restraint. This is the reason for no transgression here.
Treatise: Also, those parents… commit ānantarika-karma (unforgivable crimes). Describes the explanation of other teachers. The Nyāyānusāra says: Ghosts and animals are also explained with reference to paṇḍaka (eunuch) etc.
Treatise: However, the great worthy said… like an intelligent horse. Describes different views. An intelligent horse is like saying there is a horse, and someone wants to obtain its breed, so they dye its mother, making its color different from usual, and make it engage in sexual desire. Later, knowing that it was its mother, they cut off its potency and it died forever.
Treatise: If someone kills… because of the inferiority of the mind and environment. Explains that the mind and environment of different gati (realms) are inferior, and cannot constitute a transgression. The Mahāvibhāṣā has extensive questions and answers.
Treatise: The karmāvaraṇa (karmic obscuration) has already been distinguished… only the asaṃjñi-samāpatti (state of non-perception). Explains that the remaining hindrances are common to the pañca-gataya (five realms). The three evil realms are entirely vipāka-āvaraṇa (resultant obscuration). Humans only have Uttarakuru (Northern Kurus). Devas only have asaṃjñi-samāpatti (state of non-perception). The kleśāvaraṇa (afflictive obscuration) has no textual distinction, so it is known that all pañca-gataya (five realms) have it.
Commentary on the Abhidharmakośa, Volume 17, written by Śrāmaṇa Dharmadeva.
Holding a candle and proofreading on the 24th day of the 8th month of the 3rd year of Hoen.
This volume is lost and cannot be fully described.
予齡及六十奈俱舍學何 角樹 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第十八
沙門法寶撰
分別業品第四之六
◎論。於前所辨已下。第二別明業障。就中有六。一出業體。二別明僧破。三明成逆緣。四明加行定。五明重罪中大過。六明無間類 此一行頌第一明業障體。
論曰至是虛誑語。出五逆業體。天授知五法實非是道。誑無知比丘說是道。故是妄語。餘四身業。出佛身血是加行。餘三是殺根本。
論。既是虛誑語何緣名破僧。問也。
論。因受果名或能破故。答。因虛誑語彼僧破故。誑語是因。僧破是果。因取果名名為破僧 或能破者。以虛誑語有其力用能破僧故名破僧也。從用為名名為破僧。
論。若爾僧破其體是何。此下第二明僧破體。就中有五。一僧破體及成人。二能破成時．處。三具緣成破僧。四破二種僧別。五無破法輪時。此一頌第一明僧破及成人也。
論曰至行蘊所攝。出破僧體。此釋破僧是不和合。無覆無記。行蘊所攝。婆沙一百一十六評曰。隨住六識隨住五受皆能破僧。問僧破以何為自性。答以不和合。無覆無記不相應行為自性。是不相應行蘊所攝。即余處說。復有所餘如是種類不相應行 準此論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 予年已六十，奈何學習《俱舍論》？——角樹
《俱舍論疏》卷第十八
沙門法寶 撰
分別業品第四之六
◎論：在前文辨析之後，接下來第二部分是分別闡明業障。其中有六個方面：一是說明業的本體，二是分別說明破僧（Sangha-bheda，僧團分裂）之罪，三是說明構成逆罪的因緣，四是說明加行（prayoga，預備行為）的決定，五是說明重罪中的重大過失，六是說明無間業（ānantarika-karma，立即受報的罪業）的種類。這一行頌文是第一部分，說明業障的本體。
論曰：乃至是虛誑語。說明五逆業（pañcānantarya，五種立即受報的罪業）的本體。天授（Devadatta，提婆達多）明知五法（指提婆達多所立的五項苦行）實際上並非正道，卻欺騙無知的比丘說是正道，所以這是妄語。其餘四種是身業（kāya-karma，身體所造的業）。出佛身血是加行，其餘三種是殺害的根本。
論：既然是虛誑語，為何稱作破僧？這是提問。
論：因受果名，或能破故。回答：因為虛誑語導致僧團破裂。虛誑語是因，僧團破裂是果，因為因導致果，所以稱作破僧。或者說，因為虛誑語具有能夠破壞僧團的力量，所以稱作破僧。從作用的角度命名，稱作破僧。
論：如果這樣，破僧的本體是什麼？接下來第二部分說明破僧的本體。其中有五個方面：一是破僧的本體以及成就之人，二是能夠破僧的成就之時和處所，三是具足因緣才能構成破僧，四是兩種僧團破裂的區別，五是沒有法輪（dharma-cakra，佛法）轉動之時。這一頌文是第一部分，說明破僧以及成就之人。
論曰：乃至行蘊所攝。說明破僧的本體。這裡解釋破僧是不和合，無覆無記（anivṛtāvyākṛta，非善非惡），行蘊（saṃskāra-skandha，行蘊）所攝。婆沙（Vibhāṣā，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第一百一十六評曰：隨住六識（ṣaḍ-vijñāna-kāya，六種識），隨住五受（pañca vedanā，五種感受）都能破僧。問：僧破以什麼為自性？答：以不和合，無覆無記不相應行（viprayukta-saṃskāra，不相應行）為自性，是不相應行蘊所攝。即其他地方所說：還有其他如此種類的不相應行。準此論。
【English Translation】 English version: At sixty, how should I study the Kośa? - Corner Tree
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Scroll 18
Composed by the Śramaṇa (Buddhist monk) Dharmapāla
Chapter 4, Section 6: Discrimination of Karma
◎ Treatise: Following the previous analysis, the second part separately elucidates karmic obstacles. There are six aspects: first, explaining the substance of karma; second, separately explaining the offense of Sangha-bheda (division of the monastic community); third, explaining the conditions that constitute a Niraya (hell realm) offense; fourth, explaining the determination of preparatory actions (prayoga); fifth, explaining the major faults among grave offenses; and sixth, explaining the types of ānantarika-karma (karma with immediate retribution). This verse is the first part, explaining the substance of karmic obstacles.
Treatise says: Up to 'it is false speech.' Explains the substance of the five ānantarika-karma (actions leading to immediate retribution). Devadatta (提婆達多) knew that the five doctrines (the five ascetic practices established by Devadatta) were not truly the path, yet he deceived ignorant bhikṣus (monks) by saying they were the path. Therefore, this is false speech. The remaining four are bodily actions (kāya-karma). Drawing blood from a Buddha is a preparatory action; the remaining three are the root of killing.
Treatise: Since it is false speech, why is it called Sangha-bheda? This is a question.
Treatise: Named after the result it causes, or because it can cause division. Answer: Because false speech leads to the division of the Sangha. False speech is the cause, and the division of the Sangha is the result. It is named Sangha-bheda because the cause leads to the result. Or, it is named Sangha-bheda because false speech has the power to divide the Sangha. It is named Sangha-bheda from the perspective of its function.
Treatise: If so, what is the substance of Sangha-bheda? The second part below explains the substance of Sangha-bheda. There are five aspects: first, the substance of Sangha-bheda and the person who commits it; second, the time and place when Sangha-bheda can be accomplished; third, the conditions that must be met for Sangha-bheda to occur; fourth, the distinction between the division of two types of Sangha; and fifth, when the dharma-cakra (wheel of Dharma) is not turning. This verse is the first part, explaining Sangha-bheda and the person who commits it.
Treatise says: Up to 'included in the saṃskāra-skandha (aggregate of mental formations).' Explains the substance of Sangha-bheda. Here, Sangha-bheda is explained as disharmony, anivṛtāvyākṛta (neither wholesome nor unwholesome), and included in the saṃskāra-skandha. The Vibhāṣā (Great Commentary) says in its 116th assessment: The six consciousnesses (ṣaḍ-vijñāna-kāya) and the five feelings (pañca vedanā) can all cause Sangha-bheda. Question: What is the nature of Sangha-bheda? Answer: Its nature is disharmony, anivṛtāvyākṛta, and non-associated formations (viprayukta-saṃskāra); it is included in the viprayukta-saṃskāra. That is, as stated elsewhere, there are other such types of non-associated formations. According to this treatise.
文。不和合性即是非得無別體也。所以得知。準婆沙六十。評曰退自性者。是不成就。無覆無記。即是非得。心不相應行蘊所攝。即在復有所餘如是類法心不相應中攝。退與順退法異 順退法以一切不善．有覆無記為自性。如僧破與破僧罪異。僧破以不和合為自性。無覆無記。心不相應行蘊所攝 準此論說。退即在復有所餘如是類法心不相應中攝 與僧破同退既更無別法。即是非得。故知僧破不和合性。即是同欲．同忍非得。無別體性。
論豈成無間。問。既是無覆無記豈成無間罪。
論。如是僧破至是無間果答。如是無覆無記僧破因妄語生。妄語是無間罪。僧破之因。僧破不和合性。是妄語無間之果。果雖無記。因是不善故成無間。
論。非能破者至所破僧眾所成。明成僧破人。僧破是所破僧成也。
論。此能破人何所成就。下一頌。第二明能成無間罪等。
論曰至語表無表業。此釋能破體 前問云。此能破人何所成就 答云。此能破人成破僧罪 誑語為性。明十業道中是虛誑語 即僧破俱生語表無表業者。明成時也。
論。此必無間至不必生於無間。答第二．第三問。破僧果熟．何處．幾時 答云 無間大地獄中。答處 經一中劫。答時 便明余逆處不定也。
正理
論云。然此不經一大劫者。欲界無有此壽量故。一中劫時亦不滿足。經說天授人壽四萬歲時。來生人中證獨覺菩提故。然不違背壽一劫言。一劫少分中立一劫名故。現有一分亦立全名。如言此日我有障礙。或如說言賊燒村等。
論。若作多逆至同感一生。問。五逆俱是次生受。如何一時同受五果。
論。隨彼罪增至五倍重苦。答也。正理論云。若造多逆。初一已招無間獄生。余應無果。無無果失。造多逆人唯一能引。余助滿故。隨彼罪增苦還增劇。謂由多逆感地獄中大柔軟身。多猛苦具。受二．三．四．五倍重苦。或無中夭。受苦多時。如何可言余應無果 今詳。異熟因果通於三世。故知因果相屬性定。五逆果體各別不同。若感色身諸根並感平為增上令所招果身大柔軟。所生苦受時促品增。平起相續經一劫等 若依成實論。若一劫受苦。乃至若造五逆五劫同受。余后四劫從初為名生報。多同經部一業感多身。多業感一身 若依正量部。若造乃至五逆。五劫受苦。于中初是生報。后四劫是后報。各各別感 若依大乘。對法論第八云。問若造多無間業者。于無間生中雲何得受其異熟。答於一生中頓受一切所得異熟。無有過失。所以者何。若造眾多無間業者。所感身形最極柔軟。所有苦具眾多猛利。由此頓受種
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論中說：『然而，這並非經歷一個大劫（kalpa，時間單位）的原因是，欲界（kāmadhātu，佛教宇宙觀中的一個界）沒有這樣的壽命。即使一個中劫（antarakalpa，小劫）的時間也不足以滿足。』經中說，天授（Devadatta，人名）在人壽四萬歲時，來生於人間證得獨覺菩提（pratyekabuddha-bodhi，不依賴他人教導而獨自證悟的智慧）。因此，這並不違背『壽命一劫』的說法，因為在一個劫的少部分中，可以設立一個劫的名稱。現在有一部分，也可以設立完整的名稱，例如說『今天我有障礙』，或者像說『強盜燒燬村莊』等。
論：如果造作多種逆罪，導致共同感受一生。問：五逆（pañcānantarya，五種極重的罪行）都是次生受報，如何一時共同承受五種果報？
論：隨著罪業的增加，會感受到五倍的劇烈痛苦。答：正理論中說：『如果造作多種逆罪，最初一個已經招感無間地獄（Avīci，八大地獄中最苦之處）的果報，其餘的應該沒有果報。』沒有沒有果報的過失，造作多種逆罪的人，只有一種能夠引發果報，其餘的幫助圓滿。隨著罪業的增加，痛苦還會加劇。這是因為多種逆罪感得在地獄中巨大柔軟的身體，以及眾多猛烈的苦具，承受二倍、三倍、四倍、五倍的劇烈痛苦，或者沒有中途夭折，承受長時間的痛苦。怎麼能說其餘的應該沒有果報呢？』現在詳細分析，異熟（vipāka，果報）的因果貫通三世（過去、現在、未來）。因此，可知因果的相互屬性是確定的。五逆的果報體性各自不同。如果感得色身，諸根（indriya，感覺器官）也一同感得，並且平等地作為增上緣，使所招感的果報身體巨大柔軟，所生的苦受時間縮短，品類增加，平等地生起相續，經歷一個劫等。如果依據成實論（Satyasiddhi-śāstra），如果一個劫承受痛苦，乃至如果造作五逆，五個劫一同承受。其餘后四個劫從最初的劫開始命名為生報。多數與經部（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）相同，一業感得多身，多業感得一身。如果依據正量部（Saṃmitīya，佛教部派之一），如果造作乃至五逆，五個劫承受痛苦。其中最初的是生報，后四個劫是后報，各自單獨感得。如果依據大乘（Mahāyāna，佛教宗派之一），對法論（Abhidharma-samuccaya）第八卷說：『問：如果造作多種無間業（ānantarya-karma，會導致立即墮入無間地獄的罪業）的人，在無間地獄的果報中，如何能夠承受其異熟？答：在一生中，同時承受一切所應得的異熟，沒有過失。』為什麼呢？如果造作眾多無間業的人，所感得的身形最為柔軟，所有的苦具眾多而猛烈，因此同時承受各種痛苦。
【English Translation】 English version: The treatise says: 'However, this is not because it lasts for one great kalpa (an aeon, a unit of time), because the desire realm (kāmadhātu, one of the realms in Buddhist cosmology) does not have such a lifespan. Even the duration of one intermediate kalpa (antarakalpa, a small kalpa) is not sufficient.' The sutra says that Devadatta (a person's name) was born among humans when human lifespan was forty thousand years, and attained Pratyekabuddha-bodhi (self-enlightenment, enlightenment attained independently without relying on the teachings of others). Therefore, this does not contradict the statement 'lifespan of one kalpa,' because a fraction of a kalpa can be named as a kalpa. Even a present fraction can be given a complete name, such as saying 'Today I have obstacles,' or like saying 'Thieves burned the village,' etc.
Treatise: If multiple heinous crimes are committed, leading to experiencing a shared lifetime. Question: The five heinous crimes (pañcānantarya, the five gravest offenses) all result in retribution in the next life. How can one simultaneously experience the five retributions at once?
Treatise: As the sins increase, one experiences five times the intense suffering. Answer: The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'If one commits multiple heinous crimes, the first one has already caused rebirth in Avīci hell (the most painful of the eight great hells), the rest should have no retribution.' There is no fault of having no retribution. Of those who commit multiple heinous crimes, only one can trigger the retribution, the rest help to fulfill it. As the sins increase, the suffering intensifies. This is because multiple heinous crimes cause one to have a large, soft body in hell, and numerous fierce instruments of suffering, enduring two, three, four, or five times the intense suffering, or without dying prematurely, enduring suffering for a long time. How can it be said that the rest should have no retribution?' Now, in detail, the cause and effect of vipāka (retribution) pervade the three times (past, present, future). Therefore, it can be known that the mutual attributes of cause and effect are certain. The nature of the retributions of the five heinous crimes are each different. If one experiences a physical body, the sense faculties (indriya, sensory organs) are also experienced together, and equally act as a contributing factor, causing the resulting body to be large and soft, the suffering experienced to be shortened in time, and the categories to increase, arising continuously, lasting for a kalpa, etc. According to the Satyasiddhi-śāstra, if one endures suffering for one kalpa, even if one commits the five heinous crimes, one endures them together for five kalpas. The remaining four kalpas are named as the retribution of birth from the initial kalpa. Most agree with the Sautrāntika school (a Buddhist school), that one karma causes multiple bodies, and multiple karmas cause one body. According to the Saṃmitīya school (a Buddhist school), if one commits even the five heinous crimes, one endures suffering for five kalpas. Among them, the first is the retribution of birth, and the latter four kalpas are subsequent retributions, each experienced separately. According to Mahāyāna (a Buddhist tradition), the Abhidharma-samuccaya, volume eight, says: 'Question: If one commits multiple ānantarya-karmas (deeds that lead to immediate rebirth in Avīci hell), how can one experience their vipāka in the retribution of Avīci hell? Answer: In one lifetime, one simultaneously experiences all the vipāka one deserves, without fault.' Why? If one commits numerous ānantarya-karmas, the body one experiences is extremely soft, and all the instruments of suffering are numerous and fierce, therefore one simultaneously endures all kinds of suffering.
種大苦。又次下文云。於此業中從初熟位。建立順現法受等名。不唯受此一位異熟 乃至 若作是說。即善順訶怨心經。如彼經言。由無間業于那落迦中數數死生受大苦異熟(準此論文。同經部。正量部說。大乘亦許一業引多生多業引一生也) 問準此對法。前後相違 答有兩釋 一釋。前隨轉理門同有部相說。后依大乘。若不爾者。前說一生以多倍受苦。如何后說經多劫耶。二釋。準此即若造多逆于多劫中多倍受苦。由互相資成大苦故。非唯五倍一生受畢 問若爾何故立世經云。釋迦如來於第九住劫出世。天授造三逆入地獄。至第十劫減。至四萬歲時。來生人中證獨覺菩提。天授造三逆罪。準訶怨心經。合受三劫罪。因何不滿一劫得獨覺耶。若謂立世經同有部故是小乘經。訶怨心經同正量部等。因何不是小乘經也。兩文相違。立世經說文極分明。不可通釋。訶怨心經容可釋也 于地獄中數死．生者。似死．生故名為生．死。如等活地獄 又準智論。天授入地獄中猶如拍鞠。如何三劫入于地獄。彼宗應思 今詳有部義宗。若造余趣次生定受業者。不造五逆。若造余逆生餘地獄。不造破僧。若先造破僧后造余逆。皆入阿鼻。
論。誰於何處能破于誰。已下一頌。第三明具成緣成破等。
論曰至言無威故。明
能破人也。正理四十三云。要大比丘必非在家．比丘尼等。以彼依止無威德故唯見行人非愛行者。以惡意樂極堅深故。于染．凈品俱躁動故。婆沙一百一十六大意亦同。
論。要異處破至對必無能。明破處也 言。異處者。謂羯阇尸梨沙山。此云象頭山。山頂如象頭故。在鷲峰山北可三四里。同一界內。天授住彼而破僧故。非對大師(師在鷲峰山。應撿文)。舊云伽耶山者訛也。以羯阇之與伽耶聲相近故。故謬傳爾 然西方別有伽耶山。去鷲峰一百五十餘里。非同一界。非破僧處。
論。唯破異生至說愚夫言。明所破僧也。正理云。唯破異生非破聖者。他不能引得證凈故。有說得忍亦不可破。由決定忍佛所說故。
論。要所破僧至在如是時。明正破時。同忍佛教名為和合。忍有異佛．及別佛教名為僧破。正忍之時是僧破時。亦是結彼破僧罪時。婆沙一百一十六云。齊何當言法輪僧破。有多釋。如是說者。若由意樂誓受余師。謂彼愚癡諸比丘眾。由定意樂。發如是心。作如是語。提婆達多是我大師。非佛世尊。齊此當言法輪僧壞。
論。此夜必和不經宿住者。明破已經幾時。真諦師云。日將暮時破。至夜三更還復和合。故言此夜必和不經宿住。
論。如是名曰至壞僧和合故。總結上也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 能破壞僧團的人。《正理》第四十三卷說，要成為能破僧的比丘，必定不是在家眾、比丘尼等，因為他們依止的對象沒有威德，只能看到修行人，看不到喜愛修行的人。因為他們的惡意和慾望極其深重，所以對於染污和清凈的事物都躁動不安。《婆沙》第一百一十六卷的大意也相同。
論：要在不同的地方破僧，直到面對面，才可能成功。這是說明破僧的地點。言：不同的地方，指的是羯阇尸梨沙山（Kajasiras Mountain），這裡叫做象頭山，因為山頂像象頭。在鷲峰山（鷲峰山，Grdhrakuta Mountain）北面大約三四里，在同一個結界內。提婆達多（Devadatta）住在那裡，並且在那裡破僧。不是面對大師（佛陀）（佛陀在鷲峰山。應該查閱原文）。舊說是伽耶山（Gaya Mountain）是錯誤的，因為羯阇和伽耶的聲音相近，所以錯誤地流傳下來。然而，西方另有伽耶山，距離鷲峰山一百五十多里，不在同一個結界內，不是破僧的地方。
論：只能破壞凡夫僧，不能破壞聖者僧。這是說明所破的僧團。《正理》說，只能破壞凡夫僧，不能破壞聖者僧，因為其他人不能引導他們得到清凈的證明。有人說，得到忍位（Kshanti）的人也不能被破壞，因為忍位是佛陀所決定的。
論：要所破的僧團，在這樣的時間。這是說明正式破僧的時間。共同認可佛教的教義，叫做和合僧。認可不同的佛陀或不同的佛教教義，叫做僧破。正式認可不同教義的時候，就是僧破的時候，也是結下破僧罪的時候。《婆沙》第一百一十六卷說，到什麼時候才能說法輪僧破？有很多解釋。有人這樣說，如果由於意樂而發誓接受其他老師，認為那些愚癡的比丘眾，由於堅定的意樂，發出這樣的心，說這樣的話：提婆達多是我的大師，不是佛世尊。到這個時候，就可以說法輪僧壞。
論：這個晚上必定和合，不會經過一夜。這是說明破僧已經過了多久。真諦（Paramārtha）法師說，在日落時破僧，到夜裡三更又恢復和合，所以說這個晚上必定和合，不會經過一夜。
論：像這樣叫做破壞僧團的和合。這是總結以上的內容。
【English Translation】 English version: It is possible to break up the Sangha. The forty-third volume of the 'Nyāyānusāra' states that a Bhikshu who breaks up the Sangha must not be a layperson or a Bhikshuni, etc., because those they rely on lack the power and virtue, and they only see practitioners but not those who love practice. Because their malice and desires are extremely deep, they are agitated by both defiled and pure things. The main idea of the one hundred and sixteenth volume of the 'Vibhasa' is also the same.
Commentary: To break up the Sangha in a different place, it must be done face-to-face to be successful. This clarifies the location of breaking up the Sangha. 'Different place' refers to Kajasiras Mountain (羯阇尸梨沙山, Elephant Head Mountain), which is called Elephant Head Mountain because the top of the mountain resembles an elephant's head. It is located about three or four li north of Grdhrakuta Mountain (鷲峰山, Vulture Peak Mountain), within the same boundary. Devadatta (提婆達多) lived there and broke up the Sangha there. It is not facing the Master (Buddha) (the Buddha is at Grdhrakuta Mountain. The text should be checked). The old saying that it was Gaya Mountain (伽耶山) is a mistake because the sounds of 'Kaja' and 'Gaya' are similar, so it was mistakenly passed down. However, there is another Gaya Mountain in the West, more than one hundred and fifty li away from Grdhrakuta Mountain, not within the same boundary, and not a place for breaking up the Sangha.
Commentary: Only the Sangha of ordinary beings can be broken, not the Sangha of sages. This clarifies the Sangha that is being broken up. The 'Nyāyānusāra' says that only the Sangha of ordinary beings can be broken, not the Sangha of sages, because others cannot lead them to obtain proof of purity. Some say that those who have attained Kshanti (忍位, forbearance) cannot be broken either, because Kshanti is determined by the Buddha.
Commentary: The Sangha to be broken up, at such a time. This clarifies the time of formally breaking up the Sangha. Common recognition of Buddhist teachings is called a harmonious Sangha. Recognizing different Buddhas or different Buddhist teachings is called breaking up the Sangha. The time of formally recognizing different teachings is the time of breaking up the Sangha, and also the time of incurring the sin of breaking up the Sangha. The one hundred and sixteenth volume of the 'Vibhasa' says, when can it be said that the Dharma wheel Sangha is broken? There are many explanations. Some say that if, due to intention, one vows to accept another teacher, thinking that those foolish Bhikshus, due to firm intention, utter such a thought and say such words: 'Devadatta is my master, not the Buddha, the World Honored One.' At this time, it can be said that the Dharma wheel Sangha is broken.
Commentary: This night will surely be reconciled, not staying overnight. This clarifies how long the breaking up of the Sangha has lasted. Master Paramārtha (真諦) said that the Sangha was broken up at sunset, and reconciled again at midnight, so it is said that this night will surely be reconciled, not staying overnight.
Commentary: This is called destroying the harmony of the Sangha. This summarizes the above.
正理云。謂由僧壞邪道轉時。聖道被遮暫時不轉。言邪道者。提婆達多妄說五事為出離道。一者不應受用乳等(等取酪。等四味)二者斷肉。三者斷鹽。四者應被不截衣服。五者應居聚落邊寺。眾若忍許彼所說時名破法輪。亦名僧破。婆沙一百一十六云。云何五法。一者盡壽著糞掃衣。二者盡壽常乞食。三者盡壽唯一坐食。四者盡壽常居迥露地。五者盡壽不食一切魚肉血味鹽蘇乳等(不同正理亦可相似)。
論。何洲人幾。已下一行頌。第四明破處及幾人破。
論曰至過此無限。明處及人數。所以極少猶須九人。四人成眾。邪．正二眾合有八人。一人為佛故九人也 余洲無佛豈得言我是佛。人不信也 頌中言等。顯過九人其數無限。
論。唯破羯磨至故亦言等。明破羯磨僧。正理云。於何時分容有破僧．破羯磨僧。從結界后迄今亦有。至法未滅。破法輪僧除六時分。婆沙云。問破僧時佛在眾不。答佛時住彼界內而不在眾。云何知耶。曾聞。提婆達多欲破僧時。佛以慈愍故呵制之言。提婆達多汝勿破僧。勿起極重惡不善業。勿趣非愛大苦果處。佛雖如是慇勤呵制。而彼都無止息之心。爾時世尊起正智見審觀前際。勿我昔時破他眷屬。即自觀見。昔我無量無數劫前。曾破壞他仙人眷屬。彼業異熟今現在
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
正理中說，由於僧團破壞，邪道得以傳播時，聖道會被遮蔽，暫時無法弘揚。所說的邪道，是指提婆達多妄稱五事為解脫之道：一是不得食用乳等（等指酪，等四味），二是斷肉，三是斷鹽，四是應穿未剪裁的衣服，五是應居住在聚落邊緣的寺廟。如果僧眾認可他所說的，就稱為破法輪，也稱為破僧。《婆沙論》第一百一十六卷說：什麼是五法呢？一是盡一生穿糞掃衣，二是盡一生常行乞食，三是盡一生只坐著吃一餐，四是盡一生常住在空曠的露天地方，五是盡一生不吃一切魚肉血味鹽蘇乳等（與《正理》所說不同，但也有些相似之處）。
論：何洲人幾？以下一行頌。第四說明破僧的處所和需要幾個人來破僧。
論曰至過此無限。說明破僧的處所和人數。之所以最少也需要九個人，是因為四人才能成眾，邪眾和正眾加起來有八人，再加上一位佛，所以需要九人。其他洲沒有佛，怎麼能說『我是佛』呢？人們不會相信的。頌中說『等』，表明超過九人，其人數是無限的。
論：唯破羯磨至故亦言等。說明破羯磨僧。《正理》中說：在什麼時候允許有破僧、破羯磨僧的情況呢？從結界之後到現在也有，直到佛法未滅。破法輪僧的情況除了六時之外。《婆沙論》中說：問：破僧的時候，佛在僧眾中嗎？答：佛當時住在那個區域內，但不在僧眾中。怎麼知道的呢？曾經聽說，提婆達多想要破僧的時候，佛以慈悲之心呵斥他說：『提婆達多，你不要破僧，不要造作極重的惡不善業，不要趣向非可愛的大苦果之處。』佛雖然這樣慇勤地呵斥，但他都沒有停止的心。那時世尊以正智觀察前因，想到『我過去是否破壞過他人的眷屬？』於是自己觀察到，過去無量無數劫前，我曾經破壞過他人的仙人眷屬，那個業的異熟現在顯現。
【English Translation】 English version:
The Nyāyānusāra says that when the Saṃgha (community of monks) is destroyed and the heretical paths spread, the holy path is obscured and temporarily cannot be promoted. The so-called heretical path refers to Devadatta (a cousin of the Buddha who became his rival) falsely claiming that five things are the path to liberation: first, one should not consume milk, etc. (etc. refers to curds, etc., the four tastes); second, abstain from meat; third, abstain from salt; fourth, one should wear uncut clothes; fifth, one should live in temples on the edge of settlements. If the Saṃgha approves of what he says, it is called breaking the Dharma wheel, also called breaking the Saṃgha. Mahāvibhāṣā Volume 116 says: What are the five dharmas? First, to wear discarded rags for life; second, to always beg for food for life; third, to eat only one meal while seated for life; fourth, to always live in open, exposed places for life; fifth, to not eat any fish, meat, blood, salt, butter, milk, etc. for life (different from Nyāyānusāra, but also somewhat similar).
Treatise: How many people from which continent? The following is a verse. The fourth explains the place of breaking the Saṃgha and how many people are needed to break the Saṃgha.
The treatise says, 'To beyond this limit.' It explains the place and number of people for breaking the Saṃgha. The reason why at least nine people are needed is that four people are needed to form a group, and the heretical and orthodox groups together have eight people, plus one Buddha (enlightened one), so nine people are needed. Other continents have no Buddhas, how can one say 'I am the Buddha'? People will not believe it. The word 'etc.' in the verse shows that the number exceeds nine people and is unlimited.
The treatise says, 'Only breaking the karma...' hence the word 'etc.' It explains breaking the karma Saṃgha. The Nyāyānusāra says: When is it permissible to have cases of breaking the Saṃgha and breaking the karma Saṃgha? From after the boundary was established until now, there have been such cases, until the Dharma has not perished. Breaking the Dharma wheel Saṃgha is an exception during the six periods. The Mahāvibhāṣā says: Question: When the Saṃgha is broken, is the Buddha in the Saṃgha? Answer: The Buddha was living within that area at that time, but not in the Saṃgha. How do we know this? It was once heard that when Devadatta wanted to break the Saṃgha, the Buddha rebuked him with compassion, saying: 'Devadatta, do not break the Saṃgha, do not create extremely heavy evil and unwholesome karma, do not go to the place of unlovable great suffering.' Although the Buddha rebuked him so earnestly, he had no intention of stopping. At that time, the World Honored One observed the past cause with correct wisdom, thinking, 'Did I break the community of others in the past?' Then he observed himself and saw that in the past, countless kalpas ago, I had broken the community of others, the hermits, and the fruition of that karma is now manifesting.
前。觀見是已知此僧眾定當破壞。便入靜室默然宴坐。提婆達多便破壞僧。故知世尊在於界內而不在眾 婆沙一百六。問破羯磨僧破法輪僧。有何差別。答破羯磨者。謂一界內有二部僧。各各別住作布灑他羯磨說戒。破法輪者。謂立異師．異道。如提婆達多言我是大師非沙門喬答磨。五法是道非喬答磨所說八支聖道。
論。於何時分。已下一頌。第五明無破法輪僧時。
論曰至無破法輪。明六位無破法輪僧。婆沙云。非初．後者。由此二時諸比丘眾。于聖教中和合一味。不可破壞 非於二皰未出時者。謂聖教中未生戒．見二種皰時 非未和合共結界時者。要一界內有二部僧別住異忍方名破僧故 非未建立第一雙者。謂未建立第一雙時。定無能破法輪僧者。諸佛法爾皆有第一雙賢聖弟子。若有破壞法輪僧已。不經日夜。此第一雙還令和合 非於大師涅槃後者。若於大師般涅槃后。作如是言我是大師非如來者。咸共責言。大師在世汝何不言我是大師。今涅槃后乃作是語。是故決定於此六時法輪不壞。于所餘時法輪可壞。
論。非破法輪至有此事故。明破僧由業。正理論云。於此賢劫迦葉波佛時。釋迦牟尼曾破他眾 故婆沙云。自觀見昔。我無量無數劫前曾破壞他仙人眷屬 問因何二說不同。答有兩事。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：之前，（佛陀）觀察到這個僧團註定要分裂，便進入靜室默然禪坐。提婆達多（Devadatta，人名，意為『天授』）便破壞了僧團。因此可知世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀的尊稱）雖然身處界內，但並不在僧眾之中。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百零六卷中說：請問，破壞羯磨僧（karma-sangha，指進行羯磨儀式的僧團）和破壞法輪僧（dharma-cakra-sangha，指奉行佛法的僧團）有什麼區別？回答是：破壞羯磨者，是指在一個結界（sima，僧團活動的範圍）內有兩部分僧人，各自獨立居住，進行布薩（posadha，每半月舉行的誦戒儀式）和羯磨（karma，僧團的事務處理）。破壞法輪者，是指樹立不同的老師和不同的道路。例如提婆達多說：『我是大師，不是沙門喬答摩（Śrāmaṇa Gautama，釋迦牟尼佛出家后的稱謂）。五法（pañca dharmāḥ，提婆達多提出的五項戒律）才是正道，不是喬答摩所說的八支聖道（aṣṭāṅga-mārga，八正道）。』
論：在什麼時候不會出現破壞法輪僧的情況？接下來的頌文第五點說明了沒有破壞法輪僧的時期。
論曰：直到『無破法輪』，說明六種情況下不會出現破壞法輪僧的情況。《婆沙論》中說：『不是最初和最後的時候』，因為在這兩個時期，所有的比丘（bhikṣu，出家男子）僧眾在聖教（buddha-śāsana，佛教的教法）中和合一致，不可破壞。『不是在兩種皰未出現時』，是指聖教中沒有產生戒律和見解兩種『皰』的時候。『不是在未和合共同結界時』，是因為必須在一個結界內有兩部分僧人分別居住，持有不同的見解，才稱為破僧。『不是在未建立第一雙時』，是指沒有建立第一雙（prathamau yugalau，指最初證悟的兩位弟子）的時候，一定沒有能夠破壞法輪僧的人。諸佛的規律都是有第一雙賢聖弟子。如果有人破壞法輪僧，不用經過日夜，這第一雙弟子就會使其恢復和合。『不是在大師涅槃之後』，如果在大師般涅槃（parinirvāṇa，佛陀的圓寂）之後，有人說『我是大師，不是如來（Tathāgata，佛陀的稱號之一）』，大家會一起責備他說：『大師在世的時候你為什麼不說你是大師？現在涅槃之後才這樣說。』因此可以確定在這六種情況下法輪不會被破壞。在其餘的時間裡，法輪可能會被破壞。
論：從『非破法輪』到『有此事故』，說明破僧是由業力造成的。《正理論》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）中說：在這個賢劫（bhadrakalpa，現在這個時代）迦葉波佛（Kāśyapa Buddha，過去七佛之一）時期，釋迦牟尼（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼佛）曾經破壞過其他僧眾。所以《婆沙論》中說：自己觀察到過去無量無數劫之前，我曾經破壞過其他仙人的眷屬。問：為什麼有兩種不同的說法？答：有兩種情況。
【English Translation】 English version: Previously, (the Buddha) observed that this sangha (saṃgha, monastic community) was destined to be destroyed, so he entered a quiet room and sat in silent meditation. Devadatta (Devadatta, a proper name, meaning 'God-given') then destroyed the sangha. Therefore, it is known that the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, an epithet of the Buddha) was within the boundary but not among the assembly. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa) in its one hundred and sixth fascicle says: Question: What is the difference between destroying a karma-sangha (karma-sangha, a sangha performing karma rituals) and destroying a dharma-cakra-sangha (dharma-cakra-sangha, a sangha practicing the Dharma)? The answer is: Destroying karma refers to having two groups of monks within one boundary (sima, the area of activity of the sangha), each living separately, performing posadha (posadha, a fortnightly recitation of precepts) and karma (karma, the affairs of the sangha). Destroying dharma-cakra refers to establishing different teachers and different paths. For example, Devadatta said: 'I am the master, not Śrāmaṇa Gautama (Śrāmaṇa Gautama, the title of Shakyamuni Buddha after he left home). The five dharmas (pañca dharmāḥ, the five precepts proposed by Devadatta) are the right path, not the eightfold noble path (aṣṭāṅga-mārga, the Eightfold Path) spoken by Gautama.'
Treatise: At what time will there be no destruction of the dharma-cakra-sangha? The following verse, the fifth point, explains the period when there is no destruction of the dharma-cakra-sangha.
Treatise says: Until 'no destruction of the dharma-cakra', it explains that there are six situations in which there will be no destruction of the dharma-cakra-sangha. The Vibhasa says: 'Not the beginning and the end', because during these two periods, all the bhikshus (bhikṣu, ordained men) of the sangha are in harmony and unity in the Buddha-śāsana (buddha-śāsana, the teachings of Buddhism), and cannot be destroyed. 'Not when the two pustules have not yet appeared', refers to when the two types of 'pustules' of precepts and views have not yet arisen in the Buddha-śāsana. 'Not when they have not yet united to establish a boundary together', because it is necessary to have two groups of monks living separately within one boundary, holding different views, to be called the destruction of the sangha. 'Not when the first pair has not yet been established', refers to when the first pair (prathamau yugalau, referring to the first two disciples who attained enlightenment) has not been established, there will definitely be no one who can destroy the dharma-cakra-sangha. The rule of all Buddhas is that there is a first pair of virtuous and holy disciples. If someone destroys the dharma-cakra-sangha, without passing day or night, this first pair of disciples will restore it to harmony. 'Not after the Great Master's parinirvāṇa', if after the Great Master's parinirvāṇa (parinirvāṇa, the Buddha's passing away), someone says 'I am the master, not the Tathāgata (Tathāgata, one of the titles of the Buddha)', everyone will rebuke him, saying: 'Why didn't you say you were the master when the Master was alive? Now you say this after his parinirvāṇa.' Therefore, it can be determined that in these six situations, the dharma-cakra will not be destroyed. At other times, the dharma-cakra may be destroyed.
Treatise: From 'no destruction of the dharma-cakra' to 'there is this reason', it explains that the destruction of the sangha is caused by karma. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) says: In this bhadrakalpa (bhadrakalpa, the present era), during the time of Kāśyapa Buddha (Kāśyapa Buddha, one of the seven Buddhas of the past), Śākyamuni (Śākyamuni, Shakyamuni Buddha) once destroyed other sanghas. Therefore, the Vibhasa says: I observed myself that in the past, countless kalpas ago, I had destroyed the retinue of other immortals. Question: Why are there two different statements? Answer: There are two situations.
二論各引一證 又釋。婆沙日月劫故云無量無數劫。
論。且止傍論。下一行半頌。大文第三明逆緣也。
論曰至故成逆罪。釋成逆緣。父母是恩田。餘三是德田。身是德依故壞成逆。正理云。若有父母子初生時為殺棄于豺狼路等。或於胎內方便欲殺。由定業力子不命終。彼有何恩棄之成逆。彼定由有不活等畏。于子事急起欲殺心。然棄等時必懷悲愍數數緣子愛戀纏心。若棄此恩下逆罪觸。為顯逆罪有下．中．上。故說棄恩皆成逆罪。或由母等田器法然。設彼無恩但害其命。必應無間生地獄中。諸聰慧人咸作是說。世尊於法了達根源作如是言。但應深信。
論。父母形轉殺成逆耶。問也。
論。逆罪亦成至謂父轉形。明父．母轉根殺亦成逆。依止一故 然父．母轉作畜生。殺不成逆。
論。設有女人至能長成故。明從生本成逆也。正理論云。害其養者成無間同類。
論。若於父母至謂余而殺。明誤不成逆罪。婆沙中雲。遣使父母行時殺。若父母坐殺。不成逆罪。如是等但舉本心不同。皆不成逆。
論。若一加行至勢力強故。明兩境同處。起一加行。殺於二類。表唯從強。無表具二。
論。尊者妙音至極微成故。此師意說。表亦有二。正理論云。今觀彼意。表有多微
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二論各引一證，又作解釋。《婆沙論》中說，因為日月經歷無數劫，所以稱為無量無數劫（kalpa）。
《論》：暫且停止旁論。下面一行半頌文，是大文中的第三部分，闡明逆緣。
《論》說：直至因此構成逆罪。解釋構成逆緣。父母是恩田（merit field of gratitude），其餘三種是德田（merit field of virtue）。身體是德行的依處，所以破壞身體構成逆罪。《正理》中說：如果父母在孩子初生時，就將他拋棄在豺狼出沒的路上，或者在胎內就想方設法要殺死他，由於孩子有既定的業力而沒有死去，那麼父母有什麼恩情可言，以至於拋棄他們會構成逆罪呢？這是因為父母必定是由於害怕孩子無法存活等原因，在緊急情況下才產生了想要殺死孩子的心。然而，在拋棄孩子等行為發生時，父母必定懷有悲憫之心，無數次地思念孩子，愛戀之情纏繞心間。如果捨棄這種恩情，就會觸犯下等逆罪。爲了顯示逆罪有下、中、上之分，所以說捨棄恩情都會構成逆罪。或者由於母親等是田器（field vessel），這是自然規律。假設父母沒有恩情，但殺害了他們的性命，必定會毫無間斷地墮入地獄之中。所有聰明人都這樣說。世尊（Śākyamuni）對於法的根源徹底明瞭，所以這樣說。我們只需深信不疑。
《論》：父母的形體轉變后，殺害他們還會構成逆罪嗎？這是提問。
《論》：逆罪也會成立，直至說父親轉變了形體。說明父親、母親轉變了形體后，殺害他們也構成逆罪。因為所依止的對象是一樣的。然而，如果父親、母親轉世成了畜生，殺害他們就不構成逆罪。
《論》：假設有女人，直至能夠將孩子養大成人。說明從生命之本源開始，就構成逆罪。《正理論》中說：殺害養育自己的人，與犯下無間罪（ānantarika-karma）的人屬於同一類。
《論》：如果對父母，直至說是誤殺。說明誤殺不構成逆罪。《婆沙論》中說：派遣使者去父母行走的路上殺害他們，或者父母坐在那裡被誤殺，都不構成逆罪。像這些情況，只是因為本心不同，所以都不構成逆罪。
《論》：如果一個行為，直至勢力強大。說明在兩個對象都在同一處的情況下，產生了一個行為，殺害了兩種對象。表明只從勢力強大的對象來判斷，不會同時具備兩種罪行。
《論》：尊者妙音，直至極微細的成分構成。這位論師的意思是說，表色（vijñapti）也有兩種。《正理論》中說：現在觀察他的意思，表色由多種極微細的成分構成。
【English Translation】 English version Two treatises each cite one proof, and further explain. The Vibhāṣā states that because the sun and moon have passed through countless kalpas (aeons), it is called immeasurable and countless kalpas.
The Treatise: Let's stop the digression. The following one and a half verses are the third part of the main text, clarifying the adverse conditions.
The Treatise says: Up to the point of forming a heinous crime. Explaining the formation of adverse conditions. Parents are the field of gratitude (merit field of gratitude), the remaining three are fields of virtue (merit field of virtue). The body is the basis of virtue, so destroying the body constitutes a heinous crime. The Nyāyānusāra says: If parents abandon their child at birth on a path frequented by jackals and wolves, or attempt to kill the child while in the womb, but the child does not die due to their fixed karma, what kindness have the parents shown that abandoning them would constitute a heinous crime? This is because the parents must have feared for the child's survival, and in a moment of desperation, conceived the intention to kill the child. However, when abandoning the child, they must have felt compassion, repeatedly thinking of the child, their hearts entangled with love. If this kindness is abandoned, it constitutes a lower-level heinous crime. To show that heinous crimes have lower, middle, and upper levels, it is said that abandoning kindness constitutes a heinous crime. Or, because mothers and others are field vessels (field vessel), this is the natural law. Supposing they have no kindness, but their lives are taken, they will inevitably fall into hell without interruption. All wise people say this. The World Honored One (Śākyamuni) thoroughly understood the root of the Dharma, so he said this. We should simply have deep faith.
The Treatise: If the parents' form has changed, does killing them still constitute a heinous crime? This is a question.
The Treatise: A heinous crime can still be committed, up to the point of saying that the father's form has changed. This clarifies that if the father or mother's form has changed, killing them still constitutes a heinous crime, because the object of reliance is the same. However, if the father or mother is reborn as a beast, killing them does not constitute a heinous crime.
The Treatise: Suppose a woman, up to the point of being able to raise the child to adulthood. This clarifies that from the very origin of life, it constitutes a heinous crime. The Nyāyānusāra says: Harming those who nurture you is the same as committing an ānantarika-karma (unpardonable crime).
The Treatise: If towards parents, up to the point of saying accidental killing. This clarifies that accidental killing does not constitute a heinous crime. The Vibhāṣā says: Sending a messenger to kill the parents on their way, or accidentally killing the parents while they are sitting, does not constitute a heinous crime. In these cases, it is only because the original intention is different, so they do not constitute a heinous crime.
The Treatise: If one action, up to the point of strong force. This clarifies that if two objects are in the same place, and one action arises, killing both objects, it is determined only by the object with the stronger force, and does not possess both crimes.
The Treatise: Venerable Myōon, up to the point of extremely subtle components. This teacher's intention is that vijñapti (representation) also has two aspects. The Nyāyānusāra says: Now observing his intention, vijñapti is composed of many extremely subtle components.
。有逆罪收。有餘罪攝。
論。若害阿羅漢至亦成逆罪。無簡別心者。定起殺意無簡別心。此是羅漢我即不殺。正理論云。有于阿羅漢無阿羅漢想。亦無決定解此非阿羅漢。無簡別故害成逆罪。非於父母全與此同。以易識知。而不識者雖行殺害。無棄恩心。阿羅漢人無別標相。既難識是。亦難知非。故漫心殺亦成無間 此應成下。境勝非全不成逆罪。
論。若有害父至依止一故。釋依一緣異。於一身上雖有恩．德二田。依止身一故成一逆罪。應說重逆。
論。若爾喻說至謂害父殺阿羅漢。引譬喻經難。佛在世。南印度國有一國王。以國委付太子始欠持。往室羅筏歸佛出家得阿羅漢果。太子無道專行非法暴亂百姓。有舊老臣至父王所具陳上事。請王還國示誨太子。父王許請遂還本國。太子佞臣恐被誅戮佞太子言。父王今欲還來奪太子位。請遣一使在路殺。太子納此佞言遂遣使殺。父王知業因緣應合子殺甘心受死。佛知斯事遣弟子告彼太子始欠持言。汝已造二逆。謂害父殺阿羅漢 始欠持此言頂髻。
論。彼顯一逆至呵責彼罪。通難也。
論。若於佛所至無間則無。明以殺心出血方成逆罪。正理論云。打心出血無間則無。無決定心壞福田故。婆沙四句分別 有出血不成逆。謂以打心出血
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有些罪行會被歸為逆罪（anantarika-karma，指五種會導致立即轉世到無間地獄的罪行），有些罪行則會被減輕。
論：如果殺害阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者），即使沒有明確的辨別心，也構成逆罪。因為殺意已定，沒有區分『這是阿羅漢，我不殺』的想法。正如《正理論》所說，有人對阿羅漢沒有阿羅漢的認知，也沒有確定這不是阿羅漢的明確判斷，因為沒有辨別，所以殺害構成逆罪。這與殺害父母的情況不完全相同，因為父母容易辨認，即使不認識而行殺害，也沒有捨棄恩情的心。而阿羅漢沒有特別的標誌，既難以識別是，也難以識別不是，所以漫不經心地殺害也構成無間罪。這應歸於下述情況：對像殊勝，並非完全不能構成逆罪。
論：如果殺害父親，是因為恩情和德行都依止於同一個身體。解釋是，雖然在一個身體上有恩情和田地兩種關係，但因為依止於同一個身體，所以構成一個逆罪。應該說是重大的逆罪。
論：如果這樣說，那麼譬喻的說法是指殺害父親和殺害阿羅漢。引用譬喻經典來反駁。佛陀在世時，南印度國有一位國王，將國家委託給太子始欠持（Sikhin，頂髻）。始欠持前往室羅筏（Sravasti），跟隨佛陀出家並證得阿羅漢果。太子無道，專行非法，暴亂百姓。有舊老臣向父王稟告此事，請求國王回國教誨太子。父王答應了請求，於是回到本國。太子的佞臣害怕被誅殺，就對太子說：『父王現在要回來奪取您的太子之位，請派一個使者在路上殺了他。』太子聽信了佞臣的話，於是派使者去殺害父王。父王知道這是業力因緣，應該被兒子所殺，甘心受死。佛陀知道這件事後，派弟子告訴太子始欠持說：『你已經造了兩個逆罪，即殺害父親和殺害阿羅漢。』始欠持，此言意為頂髻。
論：這顯示了一個逆罪，是爲了呵責他的罪行。這是普遍的反駁。
論：如果在佛陀那裡，以殺心出血才構成逆罪，否則就不構成無間罪。明確說明以殺心使佛陀出血才構成逆罪。《正理論》說：『打佛出血，如果沒有決定的殺心，則不構成無間罪，因為破壞了福田。』《婆沙論》有四句分別：有些出血不構成逆罪，比如以打的心使佛出血。
【English Translation】 English version: Some offenses are included in the anantarika-karma (the five heinous crimes that lead to immediate rebirth in Avici hell), while other offenses are mitigated.
Treatise: If one harms an Arhat (a perfected being who has attained Nirvana), it constitutes an anantarika-karma even without a clear intention to discriminate. Because the intention to kill is firm, without the thought 'This is an Arhat, I will not kill.' As the Nyāyānusāra states, someone may not recognize an Arhat as such, nor have a definite understanding that this is not an Arhat. Because there is no discrimination, the killing constitutes an anantarika-karma. This is not entirely the same as harming one's parents, because parents are easily recognizable, and even if one kills them without recognizing them, there is no abandonment of gratitude. Arhats have no special marks, making it difficult to recognize them as such, and difficult to know that they are not. Therefore, killing them inadvertently also constitutes an Avici (uninterrupted) karma. This should be attributed to the following situation: the object is superior, and it is not entirely impossible to constitute an anantarika-karma.
Treatise: If one harms one's father, it is because both gratitude and virtue rely on the same body. The explanation is that although there are two relationships, gratitude and merit, on one body, because they rely on the same body, it constitutes one anantarika-karma. It should be said to be a grave anantarika-karma.
Treatise: If that is the case, then the metaphorical saying refers to killing one's father and killing an Arhat. Use the metaphorical sutra to refute. When the Buddha was in the world, there was a king in South India who entrusted the country to his son, Sikhin (one with a topknot). Sikhin went to Sravasti, followed the Buddha to become a monk, and attained Arhatship. The prince was unprincipled, engaged in illegal activities, and caused unrest among the people. An old minister reported this to the father king and requested the king to return to the country to teach the prince. The father king agreed to the request and returned to his country. The prince's flatterers, fearing being punished, said to the prince, 'The father king is now returning to seize your position as prince. Please send a messenger to kill him on the road.' The prince listened to the flatterers and sent a messenger to kill his father. The father king knew that this was karmic cause and effect, that he should be killed by his son, and willingly accepted death. When the Buddha learned of this, he sent a disciple to tell Prince Sikhin, 'You have committed two anantarika-karmas, namely killing your father and killing an Arhat.' Sikhin means 'one with a topknot.'
Treatise: This shows one anantarika-karma, in order to rebuke his crimes. This is a general refutation.
Treatise: If one draws blood from the Buddha with the intention to kill, it constitutes an anantarika-karma; otherwise, it does not constitute an Avici karma. It is clearly stated that drawing blood from the Buddha with the intention to kill constitutes an anantarika-karma. The Nyāyānusāra says, 'Drawing blood from the Buddha, if there is no determined intention to kill, does not constitute an Avici karma, because it destroys the field of merit.' The Mahavibhasa has four distinctions: Some drawing of blood does not constitute an anantarika-karma, such as drawing blood from the Buddha with the intention to strike.
有不出血成逆。謂以殺打佛。令血處成二分而不出皮 或俱句。如殺心出佛身血 或有俱非。除上爾所。
論。若殺加行時至無殺加行故。明加行時非阿羅漢無逆罪也。
論。若造無間加行不可轉。已下半行頌。第四明加行定無離染等。
論曰至與彼定相違故。若作逆加行必定成者。中間決定無離染得果。定生地獄故。余殺等加行中間。若聖道生。業道不起。轉作聖人相續定不合成殺業等故。準此。或容彼命雖斷業道不成。或由道力令命不斷 正理四十三云。然我所宗無間加行總說有二。一近。二遠。于中近者不可轉故。本論依之而興問答。謂有于母起害加行。才擊無間母命未終。或母力強反害其子。或為王等擒捉而殺。或子壽儘自致命終。本論依斯作如是說(頗有未害生殺生未滅。此業異熟定生地獄耶。曰有。如作無間業加行位命終)。于中遠者。由尚未至不可轉位容有可轉。若不爾者。世尊應說無間加行亦無間罪。譬喻者言。五無間業尚有可轉。況彼加行 乃至廣說。
論。于諸惡行無間業中下一頌。第五明重罪大果。
論曰至障世生天解脫道故。明破僧罪大 了法非法者。天授知佛是一切智。八正是真。自非一切智。五法妄也 顛倒顯示者。誑其愚者。顯真是妄。示妄是真等。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 有不出血而構成逆罪的情況。指的是以殺害行為攻擊佛陀（Buddha），導致佛陀身體出血的地方裂為兩半，但沒有傷及面板。或者兩者都具備，例如懷著殺心使佛陀身體出血。或者兩者都不具備，以上所說的這些情況除外。
論：如果在實施殺害行為的過程中，由於沒有繼續實施殺害行為，因此可以明確，在實施殺害行為時，如果對像不是阿羅漢（Arhat），就不會構成逆罪。
論：如果造作了不可逆轉的無間業（karma）的加行，以下半行偈頌說明了第四點，即加行一旦確定，就不可能脫離染污等。
論曰：因為這與既定的結果相違背。如果造作了逆罪的加行，並且必定會成功，那麼在此期間絕對不可能脫離染污而獲得果位，因為必定會墮入地獄。對於其他的殺害等加行，如果在中間產生了聖道，那麼業道就不會生起。如果轉而成為聖人，那麼相續就不會構成殺業等。依此推斷，或許會出現這種情況：即使對方的生命終結，業道也不會構成；或者由於道的力量，使對方的生命不會終結。《正理》第四十三卷說：『然而我所宗認為，無間加行總的來說有兩種：一是近，二是遠。其中，近的加行是不可逆轉的。』本論就是依據這一點而提出問答。例如，有人對母親產生了加害的意圖，剛一擊打，母親的生命還沒有終結，或者母親的力量強大，反而傷害了兒子，或者被國王等人擒獲並殺害，或者兒子壽命已盡，自己結束了生命。本論就是依據這些情況而作如此的說法（是否有人在沒有殺害生命的情況下，或者在生命沒有滅盡的情況下，此業的異熟果必定會使其墮入地獄呢？答：有。例如，在造作無間業的加行階段命終）。其中，遠的加行，由於尚未達到不可逆轉的階段，因此有可能發生轉變。如果不是這樣，世尊（世尊）應該說無間加行也構成無間罪。譬喻者說，五無間業尚且有可能轉變，更何況是加行呢？』乃至廣說。
論：在各種惡行和無間業中，下一首偈頌說明了第五點，即重罪會帶來巨大的果報。
論曰：因為這會障礙世間眾生獲得生天和解脫的道路。明確了破僧罪的嚴重性。了知正法和非法的人，指的是天授（Devadatta），他知道佛陀（Buddha）是一切智者，八正道（Eightfold Path）是真實的，自己不是一切智者，五法是虛妄的。顛倒顯示，指的是欺騙愚昧的人，顯示真實是虛妄的，顯示虛妄是真實等等。
【English Translation】 English version: There are cases where a Reversal (Ānantarika-karma) is completed without bloodshed. This refers to attacking the Buddha (Buddha) with the intention to kill, causing the area where the Buddha's body bleeds to split into two, but without breaking the skin. Or both conditions are met, such as having the intention to kill and causing the Buddha's body to bleed. Or neither condition is met, except for the cases mentioned above.
Treatise: If, during the act of killing, there is no further action to complete the killing, it is clear that if the target is not an Arhat (Arhat) at the time of the action, a Reversal is not constituted.
Treatise: If an irreversible preparatory act (karma) for an Intermediately Ripening Karma (Ānantarika-karma) is committed, the following half-verse explains the fourth point: once the preparatory act is determined, it is impossible to be free from defilements, etc.
Treatise says: Because this contradicts the established result. If a preparatory act for a Reversal is committed and is certain to succeed, then it is absolutely impossible to be free from defilements and attain fruition during this period, because one will certainly fall into hell. For other preparatory acts such as killing, if the Noble Path arises in the middle, then the path of karma will not arise. If one transforms into a saint, then the continuum will not constitute the karma of killing, etc. Based on this, it may happen that even if the other person's life ends, the path of karma will not be constituted; or due to the power of the Path, the other person's life will not end. The forty-third volume of the Nyāyānusāra says: 'However, according to my school, there are two types of Intermediately Ripening Karma preparatory acts: near and far. Among them, the near preparatory act is irreversible.' This treatise raises questions and answers based on this point. For example, someone has the intention to harm their mother, and as soon as they strike, the mother's life has not ended, or the mother's strength is strong and harms the son instead, or they are captured and killed by the king, etc., or the son's lifespan is exhausted and ends their own life. This treatise makes such statements based on these situations (Is there anyone who, without killing a life, or without the life being extinguished, will certainly fall into hell due to the fruition of this karma? Answer: Yes. For example, one dies during the preparatory stage of committing an Intermediately Ripening Karma). Among them, the far preparatory act, because it has not yet reached the irreversible stage, may be transformed. If this were not the case, the World-Honored One (世尊) should say that the preparatory act for an Intermediately Ripening Karma also constitutes an Intermediately Ripening Karma. The metaphor-makers say that the five Intermediately Ripening Karmas can still be transformed, let alone the preparatory act?' and so on.
Treatise: Among all evil deeds and Intermediately Ripening Karmas, the following verse explains the fifth point: heavy sins bring great retribution.
Treatise says: Because this obstructs sentient beings from attaining rebirth in heaven and the path to liberation. It clarifies the severity of the sin of splitting the Sangha. The person who knows the Dharma and non-Dharma refers to Devadatta (Devadatta), who knows that the Buddha (Buddha) is omniscient, the Eightfold Path (Eightfold Path) is true, and that he himself is not omniscient, and the five dharmas are false. Showing things in reverse refers to deceiving ignorant people, showing the true as false, and showing the false as true, etc.
此無間中為最大罪 一由傷毀佛法身故。二由障世生天。解脫道故。出大罪所以 正理云。謂僧已破乃至未合。力能遮遏諸異生等。未入正定令不得入。若已入正定令不得余果。若已得余果令不得離染。若已得離染令不證漏盡。習定。溫誦。思等業息。
論。謂僧已破至罪為最重。釋是最大罪因。
論。余無間罪至恩等少故。明余逆輕．重次第 第五。謂出佛身血 第三謂殺阿羅漢 第一。謂殺母 第二。謂殺父 恩等少故者。釋漸輕所以。
論。若爾何故至邪見最大。難也。若破僧罪大者。破僧語業 何故身．語．意罰入地獄名為三罰。經說意罰為最重 不說語業。
論。據五無間至說邪見重。答。據義不同不相違也。
論。或依大果至如次說重。第二釋 據招大果。破僧為重 據仙人意憤害多有情。意業為重 據能斷善根。邪見為重。
論。感第一有至說世善言。明善中大果。有二。一世善。二出世善。世善感第一有思。出世善謂金剛喻定相應思也。
論。為唯無間罪定生地獄。已下一半頌。第六明無間同類。
論曰至是五逆同類。正理論云。言同類者。是相似義 今詳。相似是得罪相似。謂此五同類得罪與所似罪輕．重相似名為同類 如次與五無間同類 奪
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此無間罪中，以破僧之罪為最大，原因有二：一是因為傷毀了佛法身（Dharmakāya），二是因為障礙了眾生往生天界和獲得解脫的道路。之所以說是大罪，正如《正理》所說：『當僧團已經被破壞但尚未彌合時，有能力阻止其他凡夫俗子等，未進入正定者令不得入，已入正定者令不得獲得其他果位，已得其他果位者令不得離染，已得離染者令不得證得漏盡。修習禪定、溫習經文、思維修行等事業因此止息。』
論：『當僧團已經被破壞以至於罪為最重。』解釋這是最大罪的原因。
論：『其餘無間罪以至於恩德等較少。』闡明其餘逆罪輕重的次第：第五是出佛身血，第三是殺阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得無學果位的聖者），第一是殺母，第二是殺父。『恩德等較少』，解釋了罪行逐漸減輕的原因。
論：『如果這樣，為何說邪見最大？』這是提問。如果破僧的罪最大，那麼破僧是語業（Vāc-karma，語言行為），為何身、語、意（Kāya-vāc-citta）的懲罰中，墮入地獄被稱為三種懲罰，而經典卻只說意業（Citta-karma，思想行為）最為嚴重，而不說語業？
論：『根據五無間罪以至於說邪見重。』回答：根據意義不同，並不矛盾。
論：『或者依據大果以至於如次第說重。』第二種解釋：根據招致大果報來說，破僧罪為重；根據仙人因憤怒而傷害眾多有情眾生來說，意業為重；根據能夠斷絕善根來說，邪見為重。
論：『感得第一有以至於說世間善言。』闡明善業中最大的果報。有兩種：一是世間善，二是出世間善。世間善感得第一有思，出世間善指的是金剛喻定（Vajropama Samādhi）相應的思。
論：『是否只有無間罪必定生於地獄？』以下半頌。第六，闡明無間罪的同類。
論曰：『以至於這五逆是同類。』《正理論》說：『所說的同類，是相似的意思。』現在詳細解釋，相似是指得罪的相似。這五種同類罪，其得罪與所相似的罪的輕重相似，稱為同類。如次第與五無間罪是同類，奪取。
【English Translation】 English version: Among these deeds leading to uninterrupted suffering (Avīci), the greatest sin is that of dividing the Sangha (Buddhist monastic community), for two reasons: first, because it harms and destroys the Dharmakāya (the body of the Dharma, the ultimate nature of reality); second, because it obstructs beings from being reborn in the heavens and from attaining the path to liberation. The reason it is considered a great sin is as stated in the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra: 'When the Sangha has been broken but not yet reconciled, those who have the power to prevent other ordinary beings, preventing those who have not entered into right concentration from entering, preventing those who have entered into right concentration from attaining other fruits, preventing those who have attained other fruits from detachment, and preventing those who have attained detachment from realizing the exhaustion of outflows (āsrava). The activities of practicing meditation, reciting scriptures, and contemplating the Dharma are thereby ceased.'
Treatise: 'When the Sangha has been broken, the sin is the heaviest.' This explains the cause of the greatest sin.
Treatise: 'The remaining deeds leading to uninterrupted suffering are lesser because of the lesser degree of kindness, etc.' It clarifies the order of severity of the remaining heinous crimes: fifth is drawing blood from the body of a Buddha, third is killing an Arhat (one who has attained the state of no more learning), first is killing one's mother, and second is killing one's father. 'Lesser degree of kindness, etc.' explains the reason for the gradual lessening of the severity of the sins.
Treatise: 'If that is so, why is wrong view considered the greatest?' This is a question. If the sin of dividing the Sangha is the greatest, then dividing the Sangha is a verbal action (Vāc-karma), why is it that among the punishments of body, speech, and mind (Kāya-vāc-citta), falling into hell is called the three punishments, but the scriptures only say that mental action (Citta-karma) is the most serious, and do not mention verbal action?
Treatise: 'According to the five deeds leading to uninterrupted suffering, wrong view is said to be the most serious.' Answer: According to the difference in meaning, there is no contradiction.
Treatise: 'Or, according to the great result, they are said to be serious in order.' Second explanation: According to incurring great karmic results, dividing the Sangha is serious; according to the anger of the sages causing harm to many sentient beings, mental action is serious; according to being able to sever roots of virtue, wrong view is serious.
Treatise: 'Experiencing the first existence is said to be worldly good.' Clarifies the greatest karmic result among good deeds. There are two types: worldly good and supramundane good. Worldly good leads to the first existence of thought, supramundane good refers to the thought corresponding to the Vajropama Samādhi (Diamond-like Samadhi).
Treatise: 'Is it only the deeds leading to uninterrupted suffering that necessarily lead to rebirth in hell?' The following half-verse. Sixth, clarifies the similar types of deeds leading to uninterrupted suffering.
Treatise: 'These five heinous crimes are of the same type.' The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'What is meant by the same type is the meaning of similarity.' Now, to explain in detail, similarity refers to the similarity in incurring sin. These five types of similar sins, their incurring sin is similar in severity to the sins they resemble, and are called the same type. In order, they are of the same type as the five deeds leading to uninterrupted suffering, taking away.
僧和合緣者。謂奪僧資具等。
論。有異熟業於三時中。已下半頌。大文第五明三時極障。
論曰至皆極為障。明第一障。
論。若有將得至現法受業。明第二障。前三惡趣業唯是生．后。定不言順現法受。此中通二性業。除順現法受。得不還果。不越現果故。
論。若有將得至二喻如前明第三障。除順現受如前釋。
論。如上所言住定菩薩。已下大文第六明菩薩業。就中有四。一明住定位。二修相業。三供養佛數。四明六度滿 此一頌第一明住定位。
論曰至立住定名。此即說百劫修相報業時名為住定 住定有六。一定生善趣。二定生富貴家等。三定具根。四定為男身。五定憶宿命。六善無退屈。
論。以從此時至大婆羅家。釋前二定也。婆羅此云豪族。
論。于貴家中至有受扇搋等身。釋第三．第四定。
論。生生常能至常無退屈。釋后二定。自此已后自性恒知。非是前時全不知也。
論。謂于利樂至目彼菩薩。重釋無退屈 苦有二種。一自行苦。二他惱苦。於此二苦皆能堪忍。謂于利樂有情事中。眾苦逼身皆能堪忍者。通二種苦 言。雖他種種至目彼菩薩。重釋因他惱苦心不退也。
論。由彼大士至皆能荷負。釋他惡行違逆不退所以。由
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『僧和合緣』指的是破壞僧團和諧的行為，例如奪取僧侶的資具等。
論：『有異熟業於三時中』以下半頌，大文第五，闡明三種時節的極大障礙。
論曰至皆極為障：闡明第一種障礙。
論：『若有將得至現法受業』，闡明第二種障礙。前述三種惡趣業僅僅是來世或更後世才受報的業，一定不會是順現法受業。這裡所說的業通指兩種性質的業，除了順現法受業。證得不還果（Anagami-phala）的聖者，不會超越現世的果報。
論：『若有將得至二喻如前』，闡明第三種障礙。除了順現法受業，解釋如前。
論：『如上所言住定菩薩』以下，大文第六，闡明菩薩的業。其中有四點：一、闡明住定之位；二、修習相好之業；三、供養佛的數量；四、闡明六度圓滿。這一頌闡明第一點，即住定之位。
論曰至立住定名：這說明菩薩在百劫中修習相好，獲得果報時，稱為住定。住定有六種：一、必定生於善趣；二、必定生於富貴之家等；三、必定具足諸根；四、必定為男身；五、必定憶念宿命；六、善法永不退轉。
論：『以從此時至大婆羅家』，解釋前兩種住定。婆羅（Brahmana），這裡指豪族。
論：『于貴家中至有受扇搋等身』，解釋第三、第四種住定。
論：『生生常能至常無退屈』，解釋后兩種住定。從這時以後，菩薩的自性恒常了知，而不是像之前那樣完全不知曉。
論：『謂于利樂至目彼菩薩』，再次解釋無退屈。苦有兩種：一、自己承受的苦；二、他人帶來的惱害。對於這兩種苦，菩薩都能堪忍。所謂在利益安樂有情的事情中，即使眾苦逼身也能堪忍，指的是通達兩種苦。言：『雖他種種至目彼菩薩』，再次解釋因為他人惱害而心不退轉。
論：『由彼大士至皆能荷負』，解釋菩薩對於他人惡行違逆而不退轉的原因。因為菩薩...
【English Translation】 English version 'Causes of disharmony in the Sangha' refer to actions that disrupt the harmony of the monastic community, such as depriving monks of their requisites.
Treatise: 'Having resultant karma in the three times...' The following half-verse begins the fifth major section, which elucidates the extreme hindrances in the three times.
Treatise: '...to all are extreme hindrances': This clarifies the first hindrance.
Treatise: 'If one has acquired...to karma to be experienced in the present life': This clarifies the second hindrance. The aforementioned three types of karma leading to evil destinies are only those that ripen in future lives or later. They are definitely not karma to be experienced in the present life. Here, the karma refers to both types, except for karma to be experienced in the present life. One who attains the fruit of non-returning (Anagami-phala) does not transcend the fruition in the present life.
Treatise: 'If one has acquired...to the two similes as before': This clarifies the third hindrance. The explanation is the same as before, except for karma to be experienced in the present life.
Treatise: 'As mentioned above, the Bodhisattva abiding in stability...' The following begins the sixth major section, which elucidates the karma of a Bodhisattva. There are four aspects: 1. Clarifying the state of abiding in stability; 2. Cultivating the karma of auspicious marks; 3. The number of Buddhas offered to; 4. Clarifying the perfection of the six perfections (Paramitas). This verse clarifies the first aspect, the state of abiding in stability.
Treatise: '...to establishing the name of abiding in stability': This explains that when a Bodhisattva cultivates auspicious marks for a hundred eons and receives the resultant karma, it is called abiding in stability. There are six aspects of abiding in stability: 1. Definitely being born in a good realm; 2. Definitely being born into a wealthy family, etc.; 3. Definitely having complete faculties; 4. Definitely being born as a male; 5. Definitely remembering past lives; 6. Goodness never regressing.
Treatise: 'From this time...to a great Brahmana family': This explains the first two aspects of abiding in stability. Brahmana here refers to a noble family.
Treatise: 'In a noble family...to having a eunuch's body, etc.': This explains the third and fourth aspects of abiding in stability.
Treatise: 'Life after life, always able...to always without regression': This explains the last two aspects of abiding in stability. From this time onwards, the Bodhisattva's nature is constantly aware, unlike before when they were completely unaware.
Treatise: 'Regarding benefiting and delighting...to calling that Bodhisattva': This re-explains non-regression. There are two types of suffering: 1. Suffering endured by oneself; 2. Suffering caused by others' harm. The Bodhisattva can endure both types of suffering. 'Regarding benefiting and delighting sentient beings, even when afflicted by various sufferings, they can endure' refers to understanding both types of suffering. 'Although others...to calling that Bodhisattva' re-explains that the mind does not regress due to harm from others.
Treatise: 'Because that great being...to all can bear': This explains why the Bodhisattva does not regress in the face of others' evil actions and opposition. Because the Bodhisattva...
無退故頌中名堅。正理云。豈不未修妙相業位菩提心不退。應立住定名。何故要修妙相業位菩薩方受住定位名。爾時人．天方共知故。先時但為諸天所知。或於爾時趣等覺定。先唯等覺決定非余 解云。先時唯有決定趣等覺。非有餘六定也。
論。修妙相業其相云何。下一頌。第二明修妙相業。
論曰至最明利故。此中總六門。一修處。二依身。三對境。四明慧。五明時嚴。六明數。此即第一明處。
論。唯是男子至女等位故。明依身也。正理云。殊妙相業必依凈身方能引起。
論。唯現對佛至非聞修類。明境及慧。修佛相故對佛方成。勝故非聞及生得慧。散故非修。
論。唯余百劫至法應如是。明修時也 法應如是。減則不足。多則無用也。
論。唯薄伽梵至妙相業成。明今佛以精進故超九劫也。
論。是故如來至但言九十一劫者。引經證超九劫也。
論。宿舊師說至如前所辨。敘經部異說 四過失者。謂惡趣．貧家．粗業．缺支女身 二功德者。謂憶宿命今得不退。
論。一一妙相百福莊嚴。相福數也。正理云。此中百思名為百福。謂將造一一妙相業時先起五十思凈治身器。其次方起引一相業。於後復起五十善思。莊嚴引業令得圓滿 五十思者。依十業
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無退故頌中名堅』（因為不退轉所以在頌文中被稱為堅固）。《正理》中說：『難道不是未修習妙相業位（sumyaglakshana-karma-sthāna）的菩提心（bodhicitta）不退轉，就應該安立住定（avaivartika）之名嗎？為何要修習妙相業位的菩薩（bodhisattva）才能接受住定位之名？』因為那時人、天才能共同知曉。先前只是諸天所知。或者在那時趣向等覺定（samyaksambodhi-niyata）。先前只有等覺決定，沒有其他的。解釋說：先前只有決定趣向等覺，沒有其餘的六種定。
論：修習妙相業，其相如何？下一頌說明修習妙相業。
論曰至最明利故。這裡總共有六個方面：一、修習之處；二、所依之身；三、所對之境；四、所明之慧；五、所明之時嚴；六、所明之數。這是第一，說明修習之處。
論：唯是男子至女等位故。說明所依之身。《正理》中說：『殊妙的相業必須依靠清凈之身才能引起。』
論：唯現對佛至非聞修類。說明所對之境和智慧。因為修習佛相，所以面對佛才能成就。因為殊勝，所以不是聽聞和生得的智慧。因為散亂，所以不是修習得來的。
論：唯余百劫至法應如是。說明修習的時間。法應如此，減少則不足，增多則無用。
論：唯薄伽梵至妙相業成。說明現在的佛因為精進的緣故，超越了九劫。
論：是故如來至但言九十一劫者。引用經文證明超越九劫。
論：宿舊師說至如前所辨。敘述經部的不同說法。四種過失是指：惡趣、貧家、粗業、缺支女身。兩種功德是指：憶起宿命，今得不退。
論：一一妙相百福莊嚴。說明相和福的數量。《正理》中說：『這裡的一百思被稱為百福。意思是說，將要造作每一個妙相業時，先發起五十思來凈治身器，其次才發起引生一個相業，之後再發起五十善思，莊嚴引業，使其圓滿。』五十思是依據十業。
【English Translation】 English version 'It is named firm in the verse because of non-regression.' The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Shouldn't the bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment) that has not cultivated the excellent marks and qualities (sumyaglakshana-karma-sthāna) not regress, and should be established with the name of avaivartika (non-regressing)? Why is it that only a bodhisattva (enlightenment being) who has cultivated the excellent marks and qualities receives the name of avaivartika?' Because only then will humans and gods commonly know it. Previously, it was only known by the gods. Or at that time, one proceeds towards the samyaksambodhi-niyata (certainty of perfect enlightenment). Previously, only the certainty of perfect enlightenment existed, not others. Explanation: Previously, there was only the certainty of proceeding towards perfect enlightenment, not the other six certainties.
Treatise: Having cultivated the excellent marks and qualities, what are its characteristics? The next verse explains the cultivation of excellent marks and qualities.
Treatise says to the most clear and sharp. Here, there are six aspects in total: 1. The place of cultivation; 2. The body relied upon; 3. The object faced; 4. The wisdom illuminated; 5. The adornment of time illuminated; 6. The number illuminated. This is the first, explaining the place of cultivation.
Treatise: Only a man to the position of a woman, etc. Explains the body relied upon. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Extraordinary and wonderful marks and qualities must rely on a pure body to be aroused.'
Treatise: Only directly facing the Buddha to not being a class of hearing and cultivation. Explains the object faced and wisdom. Because cultivating the marks of the Buddha, it can only be accomplished by facing the Buddha. Because it is superior, it is not wisdom gained from hearing or birth. Because it is scattered, it is not gained from cultivation.
Treatise: Only the remaining hundred kalpas (eons) to the Dharma should be thus. Explains the time of cultivation. The Dharma should be thus; less is insufficient, and more is useless.
Treatise: Only the Bhagavan (Blessed One) to the accomplishment of excellent marks and qualities. Explains that the current Buddha surpassed nine kalpas because of diligence.
Treatise: Therefore, the Tathāgata (Thus Come One) to only saying ninety-one kalpas. Quotes the scriptures to prove surpassing nine kalpas.
Treatise: The old teachers say to as previously explained. Narrates the different views of the Sautrāntika school. The four faults refer to: evil destinies, poor families, coarse occupations, and defective female bodies. The two merits refer to: remembering past lives and attaining non-regression in this life.
Treatise: Each excellent mark is adorned with a hundred blessings. Explains the number of marks and blessings. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Here, a hundred thoughts are called a hundred blessings. It means that when about to create each excellent mark and quality, one first generates fifty thoughts to purify the body, then generates the karma to produce one mark, and then generates fifty good thoughts to adorn the karma, making it complete.' The fifty thoughts are based on the ten karmas.
道一一業道各起五思。且依最初離殺業道有五思者。一離殺思。二勸導思。三讚美思。四隨喜思。五迴向思。謂回所修向解脫故。乃至正見各五亦然 有餘師言。依十業道各起下等五品善思。前後各然如熏靜慮 有餘師說。依十業道各起五思。一加行凈。二根本凈。三後起凈。四非尋害。五念攝受 復有師言。一一相業各為緣佛。未曾習思。具百現前而為嚴飾。
論。何等名為一一福量。問也。
論。有說唯除近佛菩薩至唯佛乃知。答也。有三答。如文可解 正理論云。百福一一其量云何。有說。以依三無數劫增長功德所整合身。發起如斯無數殊勝福德量。唯佛知 同此論后釋 有說。若由業增上力得為帝釋。王二欲天自在而轉。是一福量 余同此論 婆沙一百七十七云。評曰。如是所說。皆是淳凈意樂方便。讚美菩薩福量。然皆未得其實。如實義者。菩薩所起一一福量。無量無邊。以菩薩三無數劫積集圓滿諸波羅蜜多已。所引思愿極廣大故。唯佛能知非余所測。
論。今我大師。已下一頌。第三明供佛數。于中有二。一明供養佛數。二明所逢佛名。此即初也。
論曰至七萬七千佛。釋三劫供養數量異也。
論。三無數劫下一行頌。第二明逢佛名。
論曰至名為寶髻。明逆次三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 道一道（karma path）一業道各生起五種思（thought）。且依據最初的離殺業道，有五種思：一、離殺思，二、勸導思，三、讚美思，四、隨喜思，五、迴向思。所謂迴向，是指將所修的功德迴向于解脫。乃至正見（right view）的五種思也是如此。有些老師認為，依據十業道（ten karmic paths），每一種都生起下、中、上等五品善思（wholesome thought），前後都是如此，就像熏習靜慮（dhyana）。有些老師說，依據十業道，每一種都生起五種思：一、加行凈（purity of preparation），二、根本凈（purity of the basis），三、後起凈（purity of the subsequent action），四、非尋害（non-harming thought），五、念攝受（mindful acceptance）。還有老師說，每一個相業（characteristic karma）都以佛為緣，即使未曾習思，也具備百種現前，以此來莊嚴修飾。
論：什麼叫做一一福量（measure of merit）？這是提問。
論：有人說，只有接近佛的菩薩（Bodhisattva），乃至只有佛才能知道。這是回答。有三種回答，如文中所述可以理解。《正理論》說：『百福（hundred merits）的每一個福量是多少？』有人說：『依靠三無數劫（three countless eons）增長的功德所整合的身，發起如此無數殊勝的福德量，只有佛才能知道。』《正理論》後面也有類似的解釋。有人說：『如果由於業（karma）的增上力而成為帝釋（Indra），或者成為在二欲天（two desire realms）中自在轉生的國王，這就是一個福量。』其餘的與《正理論》相同。《婆沙論》第一百七十七卷說：『評論說，這些所說的，都是純凈的意樂（intention）和方便（skillful means），讚美菩薩的福量，然而都沒有得到其實質。如實的意義是，菩薩所生起的每一個福量，都是無量無邊的。因為菩薩在三無數劫中積累圓滿了諸波羅蜜多（paramitas），所引發的思愿極其廣大，只有佛才能知道，不是其他人所能測量的。』
論：現在我的大師，以下一頌，第三說明供佛數（number of Buddhas offered to）。其中有二：一、說明供養佛的數量，二、說明所遇到的佛名。這是第一個。
論曰：乃至七萬七千佛。解釋了三劫（three kalpas）供養數量的差異。
論：三無數劫下一行頌，第二說明遇到的佛名。
論曰：乃至名為寶髻（Ratnakuta）。說明逆次三
【English Translation】 English version Each and every karma path gives rise to five thoughts. Taking the initial abstaining from killing karma path as an example, there are five thoughts: 1. The thought of abstaining from killing. 2. The thought of encouraging others to abstain from killing. 3. The thought of praising those who abstain from killing. 4. The thought of rejoicing in others' abstaining from killing. 5. The thought of dedicating the merit of abstaining from killing. Dedication means dedicating the merit of one's practice towards liberation. The same applies to the five thoughts of right view.
Some teachers say that based on the ten karma paths, each gives rise to five grades of wholesome thoughts: inferior, medium, and superior. The beginning and the end are the same, like perfuming meditative absorption (dhyana). Some teachers say that based on the ten karma paths, each gives rise to five thoughts: 1. Purity of preparation. 2. Purity of the basis. 3. Purity of the subsequent action. 4. Non-harming thought. 5. Mindful acceptance. Still other teachers say that each characteristic karma takes the Buddha as its object. Even if one has not practiced thinking about it, it possesses a hundred manifestations that adorn it.
Treatise: What is meant by the measure of each and every merit (punya)? This is a question.
Treatise: Some say that only Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva) close to the Buddha, and ultimately only the Buddha, know. This is the answer. There are three answers, which can be understood as stated in the text. The Abhidharmanyayanusara says: 'What is the measure of each of the hundred merits?' Some say: 'The body accumulated from the merit increased over three countless eons (asamkhyeya-kalpa) gives rise to such countless and extraordinary measures of merit, which only the Buddha knows.' The Abhidharmanyayanusara also has a similar explanation later. Some say: 'If, due to the power of karma (karma), one becomes Indra (Indra), or a king who freely transmigrates in the two desire realms (kama-dhatu), that is one measure of merit.' The rest is the same as in the Abhidharmanyayanusara. The Mahavibhasa, volume 177, says: 'Commentary: These statements are all pure intentions (citta) and skillful means (upaya) that praise the measure of a Bodhisattva's merit, but they have not grasped its true essence. The true meaning is that each measure of merit generated by a Bodhisattva is immeasurable and boundless. Because the Bodhisattva has accumulated and perfected all the perfections (paramitas) over three countless eons, the aspirations they generate are extremely vast, which only the Buddha can know and others cannot fathom.'
Treatise: Now, my master, the following verse, the third explains the number of Buddhas offered to. There are two aspects: 1. Explaining the number of Buddhas offered to. 2. Explaining the names of the Buddhas encountered. This is the first.
Treatise says: Up to seventy-seven thousand Buddhas. Explains the difference in the number of offerings in the three kalpas.
Treatise: The following verse after three countless eons, the second explains the names of the Buddhas encountered.
Treatise says: Up to the name Ratnakuta (Ratnakuta). Explains the reverse order of the three
無數劫最後逢佛名也。
論。最初發心至一一同彼。明三無數劫最初佛也。正理論云。初無數劫首逢釋迦佛 乃至 世尊為陶師子于彼佛所起殷凈心。涂以香油。浴以香水。設供養已發弘誓願。愿我當作佛。一如今世尊 余同此論準此論文者。正法還得千年為定。逢釋迦佛當大乘種解脫分善 佛滅已來今多說不同。大分一千五百年已上 廣述如別章。
論。我釋迦菩薩於何位中。已下兩行頌。第四明菩薩六度圓滿時不同也。
論曰至施修習圓滿。此中圓滿有四節。此即第一節施圓滿也。
論。若時菩薩至戒忍圓滿。第二節也 正理論云。忍圓滿者。于彼有情心無忿故。戒圓滿者。不起害他身．語業故。心無忿故身．語無惡。故無忿時戒．忍圓滿。
論。若時菩薩至修習圓滿。第三節也。婆沙一百七十七云。問此相異熟業經于幾時修習圓滿。答多分經百大劫。唯除釋迦菩薩。以釋迦菩薩極精進故超九大劫。但經九十一劫修習圓滿。便得無上正等菩提。其事云何。如契經說。過去有佛號曰底砂。或曰補砂。彼佛有二菩薩弟子勤修梵行。一名釋迦牟尼。二名梅怛儷藥。爾時彼佛觀二弟子誰先根熟。即如實知慈氏先熟。能寂后熟。復觀二士所化有情誰根先熟。又如實知釋迦所化應先根熟。知已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『無數劫最後逢佛名也。』
論：最初發心至一一同彼。明三無數劫最初佛也。《正理論》云：『初無數劫首逢釋迦佛（釋迦牟尼佛，佛教創始人）……乃至世尊為陶師子于彼佛所起殷凈心。涂以香油，浴以香水，設供養已發弘誓願：愿我當作佛，一如今世尊。』余同此論準此論文者，正法還得千年為定。逢釋迦佛當大乘種解脫分善。佛滅已來今多說不同，大分一千五百年已上，廣述如別章。
論：我釋迦菩薩（指釋迦牟尼成佛前的菩薩身份）於何位中？已下兩行頌，第四明菩薩六度（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）圓滿時不同也。
論曰至施修習圓滿。此中圓滿有四節，此即第一節施圓滿也。
論：若時菩薩至戒忍圓滿。第二節也。《正理論》云：『忍圓滿者，于彼有情心無忿故；戒圓滿者，不起害他身、語業故。』心無忿故身、語無惡，故無忿時戒、忍圓滿。
論：若時菩薩至修習圓滿。第三節也。《婆沙》一百七十七云：『問：此相異熟業經于幾時修習圓滿？答：多分經百大劫，唯除釋迦菩薩。以釋迦菩薩極精進故超九大劫，但經九十一劫修習圓滿，便得無上正等菩提（佛教最高覺悟）。』其事云何？如契經說：『過去有佛號曰底砂（佛名），或曰補砂（佛名）。彼佛有二菩薩弟子勤修梵行，一名釋迦牟尼（釋迦牟尼佛），二名梅怛儷藥（彌勒菩薩）。爾時彼佛觀二弟子誰先根熟，即如實知慈氏（彌勒菩薩的別稱）先熟，能寂（釋迦牟尼佛的別稱）后熟。復觀二士所化有情誰根先熟，又如實知釋迦所化應先根熟。知已
【English Translation】 English version: 'The final encounter with a Buddha's name after countless kalpas.'
Commentary: From the initial aspiration to being identical in every way. This clarifies the first Buddha in the first of the three countless kalpas. The Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya states: 'In the first countless kalpa, he first encountered Shakyamuni Buddha (Shakyamuni Buddha, the founder of Buddhism)... until the World-Honored One was a potter's son, and at that Buddha's place, he arose with sincere and pure mind. He anointed with fragrant oil, bathed with fragrant water, made offerings, and made a great vow: 'May I become a Buddha, just like this World-Honored One.' The rest is the same as this treatise. According to this treatise, the Proper Dharma still has a thousand years as its limit. Encountering Shakyamuni Buddha is the seed of the Mahayana path to liberation. Since the Buddha's passing, there are many different views, but generally, it is more than one thousand five hundred years. A detailed account is in a separate chapter.
Commentary: In what stage was our Shakyamuni Bodhisattva (referring to Shakyamuni's status as a Bodhisattva before becoming a Buddha)? The following two lines of verse clarify the difference in when the Bodhisattva's six perfections (generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom) are fulfilled.
The treatise says: '...to the complete cultivation of generosity.' This completeness has four sections; this is the first section, the completeness of generosity.
Commentary: 'When the Bodhisattva reaches the completeness of morality and patience.' This is the second section. The Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya states: 'The completeness of patience is because there is no anger in his mind towards sentient beings; the completeness of morality is because he does not engage in harmful actions of body and speech.' Because there is no anger in his mind, his body and speech are without evil. Therefore, when there is no anger, morality and patience are complete.
Commentary: 'When the Bodhisattva reaches the completeness of cultivation.' This is the third section. The Mahavibhasa 177 states: 'Question: When is this karma of differing characteristics completely cultivated? Answer: Mostly after a hundred great kalpas, except for Shakyamuni Bodhisattva. Because Shakyamuni Bodhisattva was extremely diligent, he surpassed nine great kalpas, but after ninety-one kalpas, he completely cultivated it and attained Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (the highest enlightenment in Buddhism).' How is this so? As the sutra says: 'In the past, there was a Buddha named Tishya (name of a Buddha), or Pushya (name of a Buddha). That Buddha had two Bodhisattva disciples who diligently practiced pure conduct, one named Shakyamuni (Shakyamuni Buddha), and the other named Maitreya (Maitreya Bodhisattva). At that time, that Buddha observed which of the two disciples' roots were ripe first, and he truly knew that Maitreya (another name for Maitreya Bodhisattva) was ripe first, and the Silent One (another name for Shakyamuni Buddha) was ripe later. He further observed which sentient beings to be transformed by the two were ripe first, and he truly knew that those to be transformed by Shakyamuni should be ripe first. Having known this,
即念。我今云何令彼機感相會遇耶。然令一人速熟則易。非令多人。作是念已便告釋迦。吾欲遊山汝可隨去。爾時彼佛取尼師檀隨路先往。既至山上入吠琉璃龕。敷尼師檀結跏趺坐。入火界定經七晝夜。受妙喜樂威光熾然。釋迦須臾亦往山上。處處尋佛如犢求母。展轉遇至彼龕室前。歘然見佛威儀端肅光明照曜。專誠懇發喜嘆不堪於行。無間忘下一足瞻仰尊顏目不暫舍經七晝夜。以一伽陀贊彼佛曰。天．地．此界．多聞室。逝宮．天處．十方無。丈夫牛王大沙門。尋地．山．林遍無等。如是贊已便超九劫。于慈氏前得無上覺 問近佛地菩薩必于名．句．文身。得未曾得巧妙自在。應以別頌異門贊佛。何故經七晝夜。唯以一頌而贊佛耶 答菩薩爾時思愿勝故不重文頌。若改文頌則思愿不淳。複次菩薩爾時怖畏散亂。如頌差別心亦異故。云何而得一心流注。複次菩薩顯已心無厭倦。能於一頌新新發起勝思愿故 問何故慈氏菩薩自根先熟。所化后熟。釋迦菩薩則與此相違耶 答慈氏菩薩多自饒益少饒益他。釋迦菩薩多饒益他少自饒益。是故皆與所化不併 解讚頌云 天地。總舉。謂天上．地中 此界。謂此三千大千世界 多聞。謂毗沙門天宮。此即敬信名流十方故曰多聞 逝宮。謂梵王宮。以彼梵王計彼為常。佛為對治彼常
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：隨即（慈氏菩薩）心想：『我如今要如何使那些眾生的根機與佛的感應相遇合呢？』然而讓一個人迅速成熟比較容易，不是讓很多人。這樣想著，便告訴釋迦（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼）說：『我想要遊山，你可以跟隨我去。』當時，那位佛（定光佛）拿著尼師檀（Niṣīdana，坐具）沿著路先去了。到達山上后，進入吠琉璃（Vaiḍūrya，一種寶石）龕室，鋪開尼師檀，結跏趺坐（盤腿而坐）。進入火界定（Samādhi，禪定）經過七個晝夜，感受微妙的喜樂，威光熾盛。釋迦（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼）不久也來到山上，到處尋找佛，像小牛尋找母牛一樣。輾轉相遇來到那個龕室前，忽然看見佛威儀端莊肅穆，光明照耀。專心誠懇地發出喜悅的讚歎，無法停止行走，不停地忘下一隻腳，瞻仰佛的尊容，眼睛不曾片刻離開，經過七個晝夜。用一個伽陀（Gāthā，偈頌）讚美那位佛說：『天上、地下、此界、多聞室（指毗沙門天宮），逝宮（指梵天宮）、天處、十方無，丈夫牛王大沙門（指佛），尋地、山、林遍無等。』這樣讚美后，便超越九劫（Kalpa，極長的時間單位），在慈氏（Maitreya，彌勒菩薩）前得到無上覺悟。 問：接近佛地的菩薩，必定對於名、句、文身（指語言文字的各個方面）得到前所未有的巧妙自在，應該用特別的頌歌，不同的方式讚美佛，為什麼經過七個晝夜，只用一個頌歌讚美佛呢？ 答：菩薩當時思念願力殊勝，所以不重複文句頌揚。如果改變文句頌揚，那麼思念願力就不純粹。其次，菩薩當時害怕散亂，像頌歌有差別，心也會不同，怎麼能得到一心專注呢？再次，菩薩顯示自己心無厭倦，能夠對於一個頌歌，不斷地新新發起殊勝的思念願力。 問：為什麼慈氏（Maitreya，彌勒菩薩）菩薩自己根機先成熟，所教化的人後成熟，釋迦（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼）菩薩卻與此相反呢？ 答：慈氏（Maitreya，彌勒菩薩）菩薩多自我饒益，少饒益他人，釋迦（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼）菩薩多饒益他人，少自我饒益，所以都與所教化的人不同時成熟。 解釋讚頌的含義：天地，總括地說，指天上、地下。此界，指此三千大千世界。多聞，指毗沙門（Vaiśravaṇa，四大天王之一）天宮，這是因為敬信他的名聲流傳十方，所以叫做多聞。逝宮，指梵王宮，因為那些梵王認為那裡是永恒的，佛爲了對治他們的這種常 見。
【English Translation】 English version: Immediately (Maitreya Bodhisattva) thought: 'How can I now make the faculties of those beings meet with the response of the Buddha?' However, it is easier to make one person mature quickly than to make many. Thinking this, he told Śākyamuni (釋迦牟尼, the historical Buddha): 'I want to travel in the mountains, you can follow me.' At that time, that Buddha (Dīpaṃkara Buddha) took his Niṣīdana (尼師檀, sitting cloth) and went ahead along the road. Having arrived at the mountain, he entered a Vaiḍūrya (吠琉璃, a type of gemstone) chamber, spread out the Niṣīdana, and sat in the lotus position (sitting cross-legged). He entered the fire-element Samādhi (禪定, meditative state) for seven days and nights, experiencing subtle joy, his majestic light blazing. Śākyamuni (釋迦牟尼, the historical Buddha) soon also came to the mountain, searching for the Buddha everywhere, like a calf seeking its mother. Eventually, he encountered the chamber and suddenly saw the Buddha's dignified and solemn demeanor, his light shining brightly. He sincerely and earnestly expressed joyful praise, unable to stop walking, constantly forgetting to put down one foot, gazing at the Buddha's尊容 (honorable appearance), his eyes never leaving for a moment, for seven days and nights. He praised that Buddha with a Gāthā (伽陀, verse): 'Heaven, earth, this realm, the Chamber of Much Hearing (referring to the palace of Vaiśravaṇa), the Palace of Departure (referring to the Brahma palace), heavenly abodes, nowhere in the ten directions, the heroic bull-king great Śramaṇa (referring to the Buddha), searching the earth, mountains, and forests, there is no equal.' After praising in this way, he transcended nine Kalpas (劫, extremely long units of time) and attained unsurpassed enlightenment before Maitreya (慈氏, the future Buddha). Question: A Bodhisattva close to the Buddha-ground must have attained unprecedented skillful mastery over name, phrase, and literary form (referring to all aspects of language and writing). He should praise the Buddha with special hymns and different methods. Why did he praise the Buddha with only one verse for seven days and nights? Answer: The Bodhisattva's thoughts and vows were supreme at that time, so he did not repeat literary phrases in praise. If he changed the literary phrases in praise, then his thoughts and vows would not be pure. Secondly, the Bodhisattva was afraid of distraction at that time. Just as the hymns are different, the mind will also be different. How could he attain single-minded concentration? Furthermore, the Bodhisattva showed that his mind was not weary, and he was able to constantly generate new and supreme thoughts and vows from one verse. Question: Why did Maitreya (慈氏, the future Buddha) Bodhisattva's own faculties mature first, while those he taught matured later, whereas Śākyamuni (釋迦牟尼, the historical Buddha) Bodhisattva was the opposite? Answer: Maitreya (慈氏, the future Buddha) Bodhisattva mostly benefited himself and benefited others less, while Śākyamuni (釋迦牟尼, the historical Buddha) Bodhisattva mostly benefited others and benefited himself less. Therefore, they both did not mature at the same time as those they taught. Explanation of the meaning of the praise: 'Heaven and earth' refers generally to above the heavens and below the earth. 'This realm' refers to this three-thousand great-thousand world. 'Much Hearing' refers to the palace of Vaiśravaṇa (毗沙門, one of the Four Heavenly Kings), because his name of reverence and faith is spread in the ten directions, so he is called 'Much Hearing'. 'The Palace of Departure' refers to the Brahma palace, because those Brahma kings consider that place to be eternal, and the Buddha, in order to counteract their view of permanence, revealed impermanence.
計故。故名逝宮。逝宮無常義 又解逝宮所謂人宮。人宮速歸磨滅故言逝宮 天處。謂除多聞室及逝宮所餘天處 十方無。謂不但此三千大千世界中無。亦十方無 乃至丈夫牛王大沙門 我亦尋地．山．林遍無與我世尊等者 又解言。多聞室欲界天中舉初天中一顯餘三天。及顯上五天。即六慾天 宮色界天中舉初一天。顯餘二天。及顯已上諸天 天處。謂無色界天處。余同前解(應撿。已上是光釋也)。
論。若時菩薩至修習圓滿。第四節也。至金剛定是果滿。盡智爾時生相在故。無生智等已除障故 婆沙一百七十八總有三說。第三評家云。如是說者。此等所說皆依一時一行增上說為圓滿。如實義者。得盡智時此四波羅蜜多方得圓滿。此論同婆沙第二師說 又正理云。住金剛喻定。齊此定慧波羅蜜多修習圓滿。理應此位無間方圓。得盡智時此方滿故 住金剛定即是得盡智時。復言此位無間方圓滿。得盡智時此方滿故。準此文意。應是已得名得。應撿抄釋。若作此釋。前說住金剛喻定。即是因位。
論。能到自所往至波羅蜜多。釋六波羅蜜名。正理云。別別能到圓德彼岸故此六名波羅蜜多。
論。契經說有三福業事。已下明施．戒．修也。就中有二。一略。二廣 此一行頌。略明三類之體性。下文自
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 計故。因此得名逝宮（死亡之處）。逝宮意味著無常。另一種解釋是，逝宮指的是人宮（人類居住的地方）。人宮迅速走向磨滅，所以稱為逝宮。天處，指的是除了多聞室（學習佛法的地方）和逝宮之外的其他天界之處。十方無，指的是不僅在此三千大千世界中沒有，十方世界也沒有。乃至丈夫（偉丈夫），牛王（牛中之王），大沙門（偉大的出家人），我尋遍了大地、山林，也沒有找到與世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）相等的人。另一種解釋是，多聞室是欲界天中的初禪天，舉一例以顯示其餘三天，以及顯示上面的五天，即六慾天。宮天中舉初一天，顯示其餘二天，以及顯示以上的諸天。天處，指的是無天處。其餘解釋與前相同（應檢查，以上是光的解釋）。
論：如果菩薩達到修習圓滿的階段，這是第四節的內容。達到金剛定（堅固不壞的禪定）是果位的圓滿。因為盡智（知一切法盡的智慧）在此時產生，無生智（證悟不生不滅的智慧）等已經去除了障礙。婆沙（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）第一百七十八卷總共有三種說法。第三種評論家說：如果這樣說，這些說法都是依據一時一行增上來說是圓滿。如實義者，得到盡智時，這四種波羅蜜多（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進）才能得到圓滿。此論與婆沙第二師的說法相同。又《正理》（《阿毗達磨順正理論》）說：安住于金剛喻定（如金剛般堅固的禪定），到此為止，定慧波羅蜜多（禪定和智慧的圓滿）修習圓滿。理應在這個位置無間斷地圓滿。得到盡智時，這才算圓滿。安住于金剛定，即是得到盡智時。又說這個位置無間斷地圓滿，得到盡智時，這才算圓滿。根據這段文字的意思，應該是已得到才能稱為得到。應檢查抄釋。如果這樣解釋，前面說的安住于金剛喻定，就是因位。
論：能夠到達自己所要到達的波羅蜜多。解釋六波羅蜜（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）的名稱。《正理》說：分別能夠到達圓滿功德的彼岸，因此這六個被稱為波羅蜜多。
論：契經（佛經）說有三種福業事。以下闡明佈施、持戒、修行。其中分為兩部分：一是略說，二是廣說。這一行頌，簡略地說明了這三類（佈施、持戒、修行）的體性。下文將詳細說明。
【English Translation】 English version: It is named '逝宮' (Shì Gōng) [Palace of Passing] because of calculation. Therefore, it is named '逝宮' (Shì Gōng). '逝宮' (Shì Gōng) means impermanence. Another explanation is that '逝宮' (Shì Gōng) refers to '人宮' (Rén Gōng) [Palace of Humans]. '人宮' (Rén Gōng) quickly returns to annihilation, hence it is called '逝宮' (Shì Gōng). '天處' (Tiān Chù) [Heavenly Abode] refers to the heavenly abodes other than '多聞室' (Duō Wén Shì) [Hall of Extensive Learning] and '逝宮' (Shì Gōng). '十方無' (Shí Fāng Wú) [Nonexistent in the Ten Directions] means that it does not only not exist in this three thousand great thousand worlds, but also does not exist in the ten directions. Even a '丈夫' (Zhàng Fū) [Great Man], '牛王' (Niú Wáng) [King of Cows], '大沙門' (Dà Shā Mén) [Great Ascetic], I have searched all over the earth, mountains, and forests, and there is no one equal to my '世尊' (Shì Zūn) [World-Honored One]. Another explanation is that '多聞室' (Duō Wén Shì) is the first dhyana heaven in the desire realm, citing one to show the remaining three heavens, and to show the five heavens above, which are the six desire heavens. In the '宮天' (Gōng Tiān), the first heaven is cited to show the remaining two heavens, and to show the heavens above. '天處' (Tiān Chù) refers to the '無天處' (Wú Tiān Chù). The rest of the explanation is the same as before (should be checked, the above is the explanation of light).
Treatise: If a Bodhisattva reaches the stage of complete practice, this is the content of the fourth section. Reaching '金剛定' (Jīn Gāng Dìng) [Vajra Samadhi] is the completion of the fruit. Because '盡智' (Jìn Zhì) [Exhaustive Knowledge] arises at this time, '無生智' (Wú Shēng Zhì) [Knowledge of Non-Arising] etc. have already removed the obstacles. The '婆沙' (Pó Shā) [Abhidharma Mahāvibhāṣā Śāstra] in the one hundred and seventy-eighth volume has three statements in total. The third commentator says: If it is said like this, these statements are all based on one time and one practice to say that it is complete. In the true meaning, these four '波羅蜜多' (Bō Luó Mì Duō) [Paramitas] (giving, morality, patience, diligence) can only be completed when '盡智' (Jìn Zhì) is obtained. This treatise is the same as the second teacher's statement in '婆沙' (Pó Shā). Also, the '正理' (Zhèng Lǐ) [Abhidharmakośabhāṣya] says: Abiding in '金剛喻定' (Jīn Gāng Yù Dìng) [Vajra-like Samadhi], up to this point, the practice of '定慧波羅蜜多' (Dìng Huì Bō Luó Mì Duō) [Samadhi and Wisdom Paramita] is complete. It is reasonable to be complete at this position without interruption. It is only complete when '盡智' (Jìn Zhì) is obtained. Abiding in '金剛定' (Jīn Gāng Dìng) is the time when '盡智' (Jìn Zhì) is obtained. It is also said that this position is complete without interruption, and it is only complete when '盡智' (Jìn Zhì) is obtained. According to the meaning of this text, it should be called obtained only after it has been obtained. The copied explanation should be checked. If this explanation is made, the previously said abiding in '金剛喻定' (Jīn Gāng Yù Dìng) is the causal position.
Treatise: Able to reach the '波羅蜜多' (Bō Luó Mì Duō) to which one wants to reach. Explaining the names of the six '波羅蜜多' (Bō Luó Mì Duō) (giving, morality, patience, diligence, meditation, wisdom). The '正理' (Zhèng Lǐ) says: Separately able to reach the other shore of complete merit, therefore these six are called '波羅蜜多' (Bō Luó Mì Duō).
Treatise: The '契經' (Qì Jīng) [Sutra] says that there are three meritorious deeds. The following explains giving, morality, and practice. It is divided into two parts: one is brief, and the other is detailed. This line of verse briefly explains the nature of these three categories (giving, morality, and practice). The following text will explain in detail.
釋。
論曰至非業非事。略釋頌意。舉十業道類釋福業事也。十業道中十皆是道。思所託故。前七是業亦道。是業性故。思所託故 后三唯道。思所託故。非業性故 此中大同小異 善故名福。通身．語業．思．及相應法 思所託名事。即唯身．語 造作名業。謂身．語及思 準此道理。身．語通三。思唯業．福。思相應法唯得名福 修類中慈唯名福事。無嗔善根相應思所託故名之為事。體是善故名之為福。非思．及身語性不名為業。
論。且施類中至唯受福名。于施類中。論其施體。以身．語業及無貪相應思．及俱有為體 于中身．語二業。善故名福。作故名業。思所依門故名為事 彼等起思。善故名福。作故名業。非思所依託門故非事 思俱有法。善故名福。非作故非業。非思依託門故非事。
論。戒類既唯至具受福業事名。指戒釋也。戒唯七支為體。善故名福。作故名業。思所託故名事。更無餘句。
論。修類中慈至唯受福名。指修類中慈釋。慈以無瞋善根為體。無嗔善根善故名福。此相應思以無嗔與樂為門轉故亦名為事。非業性故不名為業 慈俱思戒唯名福業者。善故名福。作故名業。相應之思不依戒轉。不名為事 言。余俱有法唯受福名者。非作故。非思所託故。慈等準此皆應思
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 釋（解釋）。
論曰：至非業非事（論中說：乃至不是業也不是事）。 略釋頌意（簡要解釋頌文的含義）：舉十業道類釋福業事也（舉出十業道來分類解釋福業和事）。十業道中十皆是道（十業道中，每一個都是道），思所託故（因為它們都是由思所引發的）。前七是業亦道（前七種既是業也是道），是業性故（因為它們具有業的性質），思所託故（也是由思所引發的）。后三唯道（后三種只是道），思所託故（因為它們是由思所引發的），非業性故（但不是業的性質）。此中大同小異（這裡面有大的相同點，也有小的不同點），善故名福（因為是善的，所以稱為福），通身．語業．思．及相應法（包括身、語業、思以及與思相應的法）。思所託名事（由思所引發的稱為事），即唯身．語（也就是隻有身和語）。造作名業（造作的行為稱為業），謂身．語及思（包括身、語和思）。準此道理（按照這個道理），身．語通三（身和語包含三種含義），思唯業．福（思只有業和福兩種含義），思相應法唯得名福（與思相應的法只能稱為福）。修類中慈唯名福事（在修習的種類中，慈只能稱為福和事），無嗔善根相應思所託故名之為事（因為與無嗔善根相應的思所引發，所以稱為事），體是善故名之為福（本體是善的，所以稱為福），非思．及身語性不名為業（不是思以及身語的性質，所以不稱為業）。
論：且施類中至唯受福名（論中說：在佈施的種類中，只能接受福的名稱）。 于施類中（在佈施的種類中），論其施體（討論佈施的本體），以身．語業及無貪相應思．及俱有為體（以身、語業以及與無貪相應的思，以及共同存在的法為本體）。于中身．語二業（其中身和語兩種業），善故名福（因為是善的，所以稱為福），作故名業（因為是造作的，所以稱為業），思所依門故名為事（因為是思所依的門徑，所以稱為事）。彼等起思（那些發起佈施的思），善故名福（因為是善的，所以稱為福），作故名業（因為是造作的，所以稱為業），非思所依託門故非事（不是思所依託的門徑，所以不是事）。思俱有法（與思共同存在的法），善故名福（因為是善的，所以稱為福），非作故非業（因為不是造作的，所以不是業），非思依託門故非事（不是思所依託的門徑，所以不是事）。
論：戒類既唯至具受福業事名（論中說：戒的種類只能完全接受福、業、事的名稱）。 指戒釋也（這裡是指戒的解釋）。戒唯七支為體（戒只有七支作為本體），善故名福（因為是善的，所以稱為福），作故名業（因為是造作的，所以稱為業），思所託故名事（因為是由思所引發的，所以稱為事），更無餘句（沒有其他的解釋了）。
論：修類中慈至唯受福名（論中說：在修習的種類中，慈只能接受福的名稱）。 指修類中慈釋（這裡是指修習種類中的慈的解釋）。慈以無嗔善根為體（慈以無嗔善根作為本體），無嗔善根善故名福（無嗔善根因為是善的，所以稱為福）。此相應思以無嗔與樂為門轉故亦名為事（與此相應的思，以無嗔給予快樂作為門徑而運轉，所以也稱為事），非業性故不名為業（因為不是業的性質，所以不稱為業）。慈俱思戒唯名福業者（與慈共同存在的思和戒只能稱為福和業），善故名福（因為是善的，所以稱為福），作故名業（因為是造作的，所以稱為業），相應之思不依戒轉（相應的思不依賴於戒而運轉），不名為事（所以不稱為事）。言：余俱有法唯受福名者（說：其餘共同存在的法只能接受福的名稱），非作故（因為不是造作的），非思所託故（因為不是思所引發的）。慈等準此皆應思（慈等等都應該按照這個道理來思考）。
【English Translation】 English version Explanation.
Treatise says: To neither karma nor action. Briefly explaining the meaning of the verse: Listing the ten paths of karma to classify and explain meritorious karma and action. Among the ten paths of karma, all ten are paths, because they are all initiated by thought. The first seven are both karma and paths, because they have the nature of karma and are initiated by thought. The last three are only paths, because they are initiated by thought but do not have the nature of karma. There are major similarities and minor differences here. Because it is good, it is called merit, encompassing body, speech, karma, thought, and corresponding dharmas. What is initiated by thought is called action, which is only body and speech. Creating is called karma, referring to body, speech, and thought. According to this principle, body and speech encompass three meanings. Thought only encompasses karma and merit. Dharmas corresponding to thought can only be called merit. In the category of cultivation, loving-kindness is only called merit and action, because it is initiated by thought corresponding to the root of non-anger, hence it is called action. Because its essence is good, it is called merit. Because it is not thought or the nature of body and speech, it is not called karma.
Treatise: Furthermore, in the category of giving, to only receiving the name of merit. In the category of giving, discussing the substance of giving, it takes the karma of body and speech, thought corresponding to non-greed, and co-existent dharmas as its substance. Among them, the two karmas of body and speech, because they are good, are called merit; because they are actions, they are called karma; because they are the gateway relied upon by thought, they are called action. The thought that initiates them, because it is good, is called merit; because it is an action, it is called karma; because it is not a gateway relied upon by thought, it is not action. Dharmas co-existent with thought, because they are good, are called merit; because they are not actions, they are not karma; because they are not a gateway relied upon by thought, they are not action.
Treatise: The category of precepts completely receives the names of merit, karma, and action. Referring to the explanation of precepts. Precepts only have seven branches as their substance. Because they are good, they are called merit; because they are actions, they are called karma; because they are initiated by thought, they are called action. There are no other explanations.
Treatise: In the category of cultivation, loving-kindness only receives the name of merit. Referring to the explanation of loving-kindness in the category of cultivation. Loving-kindness takes the root of non-anger as its substance. Because the root of non-anger is good, it is called merit. The corresponding thought, because it operates with non-anger giving happiness as its gateway, is also called action. Because it is not the nature of karma, it is not called karma. Thought and precepts co-existent with loving-kindness are only called merit and karma, because they are good, they are called merit; because they are actions, they are called karma; the corresponding thought does not rely on precepts to operate, so it is not called action. Saying: The remaining co-existent dharmas only receive the name of merit, because they are not actions, and because they are not initiated by thought. Loving-kindness and so on should all be considered according to this principle.
擇。
論。或福業名至福加行故。述異說也 為成彼三起福加行者。謂為成施．戒．修。起身．語業加行名福業。即是作福之業。亦是根本非唯加行。如為殺生起殺加行。此于根本亦名加行。非唯前加行也。
論。有說至福業轉故。此師唯取思為福業。不取身．語。第二師唯取身．語不取思也。初釋通取思及身．語為福業也。
論。何法名施施招何果。此下第二廣明施等 就中有三。一明佈施。二明戒修。三明法施 就第一明佈施中有九。一明施及果。二明施益差別。三明施果別因。四明施福最勝。五明施果無量。六明業輕重相。七明造作增長。八明施制多福。九明果由內心 此一行頌第一明施果也。
論曰至是真施體。此簡施物。以身．語業及等起思為施體也。
論。或由怖畏至此具名施。此就舍有二種。一為怖畏等舍物與人。二為供養他。前不名施為供養饒益於他方名為施。
論。具名何謂至總立以施名。正出施體。謂正施時身．語二業。及無貪俱能起此聚總名為施。引頌可知 就頌中言剎那者。是同剎那也。謂無貪俱能起此聚同一剎那善蘊總名為施。非唯身．語。
論應知如是至財富為果。明施果也 當。謂生後果 現。謂現法果 理實當果亦通內身及解脫等。正
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：或者因為福業被稱為至福加行，這是在闡述不同的觀點。爲了成就這三種福業而產生的加行，指的是爲了成就佈施、持戒、修習而產生的身語業加行，這被稱為福業。這既是根本，也是加行，不僅僅是加行。例如，爲了殺生而產生的殺生加行，這對於根本的殺生行為來說，也既是根本，也是加行，不僅僅是前期的加行。 論：有人說，思是福業的轉變。這位論師只認為思是福業，不包括身語。第二位論師只認為身語是福業，不包括思。最初的解釋是思和身語都屬於福業。 論：什麼法被稱為佈施？佈施會招致什麼果報？接下來第二部分詳細闡述佈施等。其中有三部分：一是闡述佈施，二是闡述持戒和修習，三是闡述法施。在第一部分闡述佈施中，有九個方面：一是闡述佈施及其果報，二是闡述佈施利益的差別，三是闡述佈施果報不同的原因，四是闡述佈施的福德最為殊勝，五是闡述佈施的果報無量，六是闡述業的輕重之相，七是闡述造作和增長，八是闡述佈施能制止更多的惡業，九是闡述果報由內心決定。這一行頌詞是第一部分闡述佈施果報。 論曰：這是真正的佈施體。這裡簡化了佈施的物品，以身語業以及等起思作為佈施的本體。 論：或者因為恐懼等原因而捨棄，這被稱為施捨。這裡關於捨棄有兩種情況：一是由於恐懼等原因而將物品給予他人，二是為供養他人。前者不稱為佈施，爲了供養和饒益他人，才稱為佈施。 論：具名是什麼意思？總的來說，這被稱為佈施。正確地闡述了佈施的本體，指的是在真正佈施的時候，身語二業，以及無貪的心理，能夠引發這些行為，總的來說被稱為佈施。可以參考頌詞來理解。頌詞中提到的『剎那』，指的是同一個剎那。指的是無貪的心理能夠引發這些行為，在同一個剎那，善的蘊聚總的來說被稱為佈施，不僅僅是身語。 論：應該知道，像這樣，財富是果報。闡述了佈施的果報。當，指的是生后的果報。現，指的是現世的果報。實際上，當來的果報也包括內在的身心以及解脫等。 正
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: Or because meritorious actions are called supreme meritorious practices, this is describing different viewpoints. To accomplish these three meritorious actions, the practices of body, speech, and mind arising to accomplish giving, discipline, and cultivation are called meritorious actions. This is both fundamental and a practice, not just a practice. For example, the practice of killing arising to commit killing is both fundamental and a practice for the fundamental act of killing, not just a preliminary practice. Treatise: Some say that thought is the transformation of meritorious action. This teacher only considers thought as meritorious action, not including body and speech. The second teacher only considers body and speech as meritorious action, not including thought. The initial explanation is that both thought and body and speech are considered meritorious actions. Treatise: What dharma is called giving? What result does giving bring about? The second part below elaborates on giving, etc. There are three parts: first, explaining giving; second, explaining discipline and cultivation; and third, explaining dharma giving. In the first part explaining giving, there are nine aspects: first, explaining giving and its results; second, explaining the differences in the benefits of giving; third, explaining the different causes of the results of giving; fourth, explaining that the merit of giving is the most supreme; fifth, explaining that the results of giving are immeasurable; sixth, explaining the relative weight of actions; seventh, explaining creation and growth; eighth, explaining that giving can prevent more evil actions; and ninth, explaining that the results are determined by the mind. This line of verse is the first part explaining the results of giving. Treatise says: This is the true essence of giving. This simplifies the objects of giving, taking the actions of body and speech and the thoughts that arise as the essence of giving. Treatise: Or because of fear, etc., abandoning is called giving. Here, there are two kinds of abandonment: first, giving things to others due to fear, etc.; second, giving for the sake of offering to others. The former is not called giving; only giving for the sake of offering and benefiting others is called giving. Treatise: What is meant by 'complete name'? Generally speaking, this is called giving. It correctly explains the essence of giving, referring to the actions of body and speech at the time of true giving, and the mind without greed, which can initiate these actions, is generally called giving. It can be understood by referring to the verse. The 'moment' mentioned in the verse refers to the same moment. It refers to the mind without greed being able to initiate these actions, and in the same moment, the accumulation of good is generally called giving, not just body and speech. Treatise: It should be known that, in this way, wealth is the result. It explains the results of giving. 'Future' refers to the results after birth. 'Present' refers to the results in this life. In reality, the future results also include the inner body and mind, as well as liberation, etc. Correct
理云。應知如是施類福業事。迴向解脫亦得離系果。而且就近決定為言。且說能招大財富果。依何立此大財富名。以財妙廣不可奪故。角勝等施。毒刺所傷。雖施而無大財富果。
論。言施類福者至準此應釋。解類是體也。如葉類器以葉為體。草類舍以草為體。
論。為何所益而行施耶。已下半頌。第二明施益差別。
論曰至恭敬報恩。四句差別可知。
論。前已總明施招大富。已下。第三明施果別因。先總列三因。后別釋三。此半頌總列三因。
論。且由施主差別云何。下一行頌。第二明施主別。
論曰至與果有異。明施主有德行施果多也。正理云。或有施主于因果中得決定信。或有施主于因果中心懷猶豫。或有施主率爾隨欲。或有施主具凈尸羅。或少虧違。或全無戒。或有施主于佛教法具足多聞。或有少聞。或無聞等。而行慧施由施主具信．戒．聞．等差別功德故名主異。由主異故施成差別。由施差別得果有異。
論。諸有施主至及火等壞。明四施別故四果異。
論。由所施財差別云何。下一頌。第二明財異。故得果別也 此中財者。是資生身財。非是集異門足第十六說七財也 七財者。一信。二戒。三慚。四愧。五聞。六舍。七惠。此聖財資法身也。非此所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 理云：應當知道像這樣的佈施行為所產生的福德，如果迴向于解脫，也能得到離系的果報。而且就近來說，可以確定地說，佈施能夠招感巨大的財富果報。那麼，依據什麼來確立這『大財富』的名稱呢？因為這種財富美好、廣大且不可被奪走。而像角勝（一種比賽）之類的佈施，或者被毒刺所傷的情況下的佈施，即使佈施了，也不會有大財富的果報。
論：『言施類福者』到『準此應釋』，解釋了『類』是本體的意思。比如葉類的器皿，以葉為本體；草類的房屋，以草為本體。
論：爲了什麼利益而行佈施呢？以下半頌，第二部分說明佈施利益的差別。
論曰：到『恭敬報恩』，這四句的差別是顯而易見的。
論：前面已經總體說明了佈施能夠招感大財富，以下，第三部分說明佈施果報的差別原因。先總體列出三個原因，然後分別解釋這三個原因。這半頌總體列出了三個原因。
論：且由施主差別云何？下一行頌，第二部分說明施主的差別。
論曰：到『與果有異』，說明施主有德行，佈施的果報就多。正理云：或者有施主對於因果深信不疑，或者有施主對於因果心懷猶豫，或者有施主隨意而為，或者有施主具備清凈的戒律，或者稍微違犯，或者完全沒有戒律，或者有施主對於佛教的教法具足多聞，或者少聞，或者沒有聽聞等等。而行慧施，由於施主具備信心、戒律、聽聞等差別功德，所以稱為施主不同。由於施主不同，所以佈施就有了差別。由於佈施的差別，得到的果報也有不同。
論：諸有施主到『及火等壞』，說明四種佈施的差別，所以四種果報也不同。
論：由所施財差別云何？下一頌，第二部分說明財物的不同，所以得到的果報也不同。這裡所說的財物，是資養色身的財物，而不是《集異門足論》第十六所說的七種財物。七財是：一、信（śraddhā），二、戒（śīla），三、慚（hrī），四、愧（apatrāpya），五、聞（śruta），六、舍（tyāga），七、慧（prajñā）。這七種聖財是資養法身的，不是這裡所說的財物。
【English Translation】 English version: Li Yun: It should be known that the meritorious deeds of such acts of giving, if dedicated to liberation, can also attain the fruit of detachment. Moreover, to speak definitively in the near term, it can be said that giving can attract the result of great wealth. So, based on what is the name 'great wealth' established? Because this wealth is beautiful, vast, and cannot be taken away. But giving in competitions (such as a wrestling match), or giving when injured by poisonous thorns, even if given, will not have the result of great wealth.
Treatise: 'The statement that giving is a type of merit' to 'interpret this accordingly' explains that 'type' is the essence. For example, a vessel made of leaves has leaves as its essence; a house made of grass has grass as its essence.
Treatise: For what benefit is giving practiced? The following half-verse, the second part, explains the differences in the benefits of giving.
Treatise says: To 'respectful repayment of kindness', the differences in these four sentences are obvious.
Treatise: Previously, it was generally explained that giving can attract great wealth. Below, the third part explains the different causes of the results of giving. First, the three causes are listed in general, and then the three are explained separately. This half-verse lists the three causes in general.
Treatise: Moreover, how does the difference in the giver affect the result? The next line of verse, the second part, explains the difference in the giver.
Treatise says: To 'the results are different', it explains that if the giver has virtuous conduct, the results of giving will be greater. The Treatise on Reason says: 'Or there are givers who have firm faith in cause and effect, or there are givers who have doubts about cause and effect, or there are givers who act casually according to their desires, or there are givers who possess pure precepts, or slightly violate them, or have no precepts at all, or there are givers who are well-versed in the teachings of Buddhism, or have little knowledge, or have no knowledge, and so on. And practice giving with wisdom, because the giver possesses different merits such as faith (śraddhā), precepts (śīla), learning (śruta), etc., so it is called a difference in the giver. Because of the difference in the giver, the giving becomes different. Because of the difference in giving, the results obtained are also different.'
Treatise: All givers to 'and destruction by fire, etc.', explains the differences in the four types of giving, so the four types of results are also different.
Treatise: How does the difference in the object given affect the result? The next verse, the second part, explains that the difference in wealth leads to different results. The wealth mentioned here is the wealth that nourishes the physical body, not the seven types of wealth mentioned in the sixteenth chapter of the Sangitisutra. The seven treasures are: 1. Faith (śraddhā), 2. Morality (śīla), 3. Shame (hrī), 4. Remorse (apatrāpya), 5. Learning (śruta), 6. Generosity (tyāga), 7. Wisdom (prajñā). These seven noble treasures nourish the Dharma body, not the wealth referred to here.
明。
論曰至妙色等果。略釋因果相對。理實所施亦有于聲。此中財施據衣食等。故說四境略不言聲。非異熟故。衣等四境。成。食三境成故。又聲非報。無相對故。略而不論。
論。謂所施財至皆有差別。別釋也。色感好色。香感好名。味感眾愛。觸感自身。據一邊而說。理實觸亦得好．香．觸也。然業果差別。唯佛能知。
論。由所施田差別云何。下半頌。第三明田別也。
論曰至施果有殊。總略釋也。
論。由趣別者至受千倍果。別釋趣犯戒人以是人趣故勝狗千倍。非為有德有苦。
論。由苦別者至不可取量。別釋苦異。客．行．長病等田有苦故。施得福多 七有依者。一羈客。二行人。三病人。四侍病。五施園林。六常食。七隨時施。
論。由恩別者至億倍果等。別釋恩．德別。如父．母．熊．鹿等恩。持戒人是德別。如本生經說。菩薩本生曾為一熊在深山中。爾時有人入山採薪。遇雪飢寒。熊將收養余命得存。天晴路通其人下山。遇見獵師。示彼熊處。共來加害分取肉時兩手便墮。婆沙一百十四引經說 菩薩本生曾作鹿王。角白如雪。其毛九色。昔有一人。為水漂溺或出或沒。鹿入河中救此人命。其人得活。王訪此鹿。若有知處加以重賞。此人示處將欲殺時其
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
明。
論曰至妙色等果。略釋因果相對。理實所施亦有于聲。此中財施據衣食等。故說四境略不言聲。非異熟故。衣等四境。成。食三境成故。又聲非報。無相對故。略而不論。
譯：關於佈施能獲得微妙的色等果報，這是簡略地解釋了因果的相對關係。實際上，所佈施的也包括聲音。這裡所說的財施，主要指衣食等物，所以只說了四種境界（色、香、味、觸），而略去了聲音，因為聲音不是異熟果。衣等四種境界可以成就果報，食物可以成就三種境界的果報。而且，聲音不是報應，沒有相對性，所以簡略地不討論。
論。謂所施財至皆有差別。別釋也。色感好色。香感好名。味感眾愛。觸感自身。據一邊而說。理實觸亦得好．香．觸也。然業果差別。唯佛能知。
譯：所佈施的財物，各有差別。這是分別解釋。佈施美好的顏色，能感得美好的顏色；佈施美好的香氣，能感得美好的名聲；佈施美好的味道，能感得眾人的愛戴；佈施美好的觸感，能感得自身舒適。這是從一個方面來說的。實際上，觸感也能帶來美好的香氣和觸感。然而，業果的差別，只有佛才能完全瞭解。
論。由所施田差別云何。下半頌。第三明田別也。
譯：由於所佈施的福田不同，果報也會有差別。這是下半頌的內容，第三部分說明福田的差別。
論曰至施果有殊。總略釋也。
譯：總的來說，由於福田的差別，佈施的果報也會不同。這是總括性的簡略解釋。
論。由趣別者至受千倍果。別釋趣犯戒人以是人趣故勝狗千倍。非為有德有苦。
譯：由於所施對像所屬的趣（類別）不同，果報也會不同，例如，向破戒的人佈施，因為這個人屬於人道，所以勝過向狗佈施千倍。這並不是因為破戒之人有德行或受苦。
論。由苦別者至不可取量。別釋苦異。客．行．長病等田有苦故。施得福多 七有依者。一羈客。二行人。三病人。四侍病。五施園林。六常食。七隨時施。
譯：由於所施對像所受的痛苦不同，果報也會不同，其福報之大不可估量。這是分別解釋痛苦的差別。例如，向羈旅的客人、行人、長期患病的人等佈施，因為他們有痛苦，所以得到的福報更多。七種可以作為依靠的佈施對象是：一、羈旅的客人；二、行人；三、病人；四、照顧病人的人；五、佈施園林；六、常時提供食物；七、隨時佈施。
論。由恩別者至億倍果等。別釋恩．德別。如父．母．熊．鹿等恩。持戒人是德別。如本生經說。菩薩本生曾為一熊在深山中。爾時有人入山採薪。遇雪飢寒。熊將收養余命得存。天晴路通其人下山。遇見獵師。示彼熊處。共來加害分取肉時兩手便墮。婆沙一百十四引經說 菩薩本生曾作鹿王。角白如雪。其毛九色。昔有一人。為水漂溺或出或沒。鹿入河中救此人命。其人得活。王訪此鹿。若有知處加以重賞。此人示處將欲殺時其
譯：由於所施對像對自己有恩情，果報也會不同，甚至可以獲得億倍的果報。這是分別解釋恩情和德行的差別。例如，父母、熊、鹿等對我們有恩情。持戒的人是有德行的人。如本生經所說，菩薩過去曾是一隻熊，住在深山中。當時，有一個人進山砍柴，遇到下雪，又饑又寒。熊收留並養活了他，使他得以保全性命。天晴路通后，這個人下山，遇見獵人，指出了熊的住處，和獵人一起來加害熊。當他們分割熊的肉時，這個人的雙手就掉下來了。《大毗婆沙論》第一百一十四卷引用經文說，菩薩過去曾做鹿王，角白如雪，毛有九種顏色。過去有一個人，被水淹沒，時隱時現。鹿王跳入河中救了這個人，使他得以活命。國王尋找這隻鹿王，說如果有人知道鹿王的住處，就給予重賞。這個人指出了鹿王的住處，當人們要殺鹿王的時候...
【English Translation】 English version:
Explanation.
The treatise says, 'To the subtle color and other fruits.' This briefly explains the relativity of cause and effect. In reality, what is given also includes sound. Here, material giving refers to clothing, food, and the like. Therefore, the four realms (color, smell, taste, touch) are mentioned, but sound is omitted because it is not a Vipaka (異熟, result of action). The four realms like clothing can achieve results. Food can achieve results in three realms. Also, sound is not a retribution, so there is no relativity, hence it is briefly not discussed.
The treatise says, 'The wealth given all has differences.' This is a separate explanation. Color senses good color. Fragrance senses good name. Taste senses popular love. Touch senses oneself. This is according to one aspect. In reality, touch can also obtain good fragrance and touch. However, the differences in karmic results can only be known by the Buddha.
The treatise says, 'What are the differences due to the field of giving?' The second half of the verse. The third explains the difference in fields.
The treatise says, 'The results of giving are different.' This is a general and brief explanation.
The treatise says, 'Due to the difference in destination, one receives a thousandfold result.' This separately explains that a person who breaks precepts is superior to a dog by a thousandfold because they are in the human realm. This is not because they have virtue or are suffering.
The treatise says, 'Due to the difference in suffering, it is impossible to measure.' This separately explains the difference in suffering. Giving to fields with suffering, such as guests, travelers, and those with chronic illnesses, yields more merit. The seven who have support are: 1. Stranded guests. 2. Travelers. 3. Sick people. 4. Those attending to the sick. 5. Giving gardens and forests. 6. Regular food. 7. Giving at any time.
The treatise says, 'Due to the difference in kindness, one receives a billionfold result, etc.' This separately explains the difference in kindness and virtue. Such as the kindness of parents, bears, deer, etc. Those who uphold precepts are different in virtue. As the Jataka (本生經, birth story) says, the Bodhisattva (菩薩, enlightened being) was once a bear in the deep mountains. At that time, a person entered the mountains to collect firewood and encountered snow, hunger, and cold. The bear took him in and cared for him, and his life was preserved. When the weather cleared and the road was open, the person went down the mountain and met a hunter. He showed the hunter where the bear was, and they came together to harm the bear. When they were dividing the bear's meat, both of his hands fell off. The Mahavibhasa (婆沙, commentary) 114 quotes a sutra (經, scripture) saying that the Bodhisattva was once a deer king with horns as white as snow and fur of nine colors. Once, a person was drowning in the water, sometimes appearing and sometimes disappearing. The deer entered the river and saved this person's life. The person was saved. The king sought this deer, saying that if anyone knew where the deer was, they would be heavily rewarded. This person showed where the deer was, and when they were about to kill the deer...
人著癩。王問所由便不殺鹿。因乃發心。本生經說也。
論。于諸施福最勝者何。已下。第四半行頌明施最勝。
論曰至此為最勝。有三類。一離染施離染。能所德俱上故。二菩薩行施為利樂一切有情故。此由德及意樂故。三以莊嚴心施。為得涅槃最上義。此即初也。
論。若諸菩薩至亦為最勝。此第二也。
論。除此更有至亦為最勝。此第三也。
論。八施者何至而行慧施。列八名便釋莊嚴心也。正理云爲嚴心者。謂為引發信等聖財故行慧施。資助心者。謂欲滅除諸慳吝垢而行慧施。資瑜伽者。謂求定樂展轉生因而行慧施。謂由施故便得無悔。展轉乃至心一境性。得上義者。謂得涅槃。由初舍財。乃至展轉一切生死皆能捨故。又行慧施是勝生因。依此能引發證涅槃法故。
論。隨至施者至故不別釋。逐難重釋。
論。如契經說施預流向其果無量。已下一頌。第五明施果無量。
論曰至名最後生。明此五人雖非聖者。亦同聖得無量福。雜心第八云。施此五種人得大果。何以故。父母長育生身恩故。病者無所依怙。增悲心故。說法者增長法身故。示人善．惡故。近佛地者積集功德廣攝眾生故。
論。法師四田中是何田所攝。問。
論。是恩田攝。答。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有人得了麻風病。國王問明原因后，便不再殺鹿。因此發起了善心。這是《本生經》里說的。
論：在各種佈施的福德中，什麼是最殊勝的呢？以下第四行半頌文說明佈施最為殊勝。
論曰：到這裡為止是最殊勝的。有三種：一是離染施（指沒有貪嗔癡的佈施），離染的佈施，能施者、所施物、功德都殊勝。二是菩薩行施（菩薩爲了利益一切有情眾生而進行的佈施），因為有殊勝的功德和意樂。三是以莊嚴心施（爲了獲得涅槃這種最上的意義而進行的佈施），這也就是第一種。
論：如果諸菩薩（指菩薩的佈施），也最為殊勝。這是第二種。
論：除了這些更有（指以莊嚴心施），也最為殊勝。這是第三種。
論：八施是什麼（指八種莊嚴心的佈施）？列出八個名稱，便是解釋莊嚴心。正理說：『爲了莊嚴心的人，是爲了引發信心等聖財而進行慧施。』資助心的人，是想要滅除各種慳吝的污垢而進行慧施。資瑜伽的人，是尋求禪定的快樂，輾轉產生原因而進行慧施。因為通過佈施，便能獲得無悔，輾轉乃至心一境性。得上義的人，是獲得涅槃。因為最初捨棄財物，乃至輾轉一切生死都能捨棄。』又，進行慧施是殊勝的生因，依靠這個能引發證得涅槃的法。
論：隨（順著）佈施者，所以不另外解釋。順著提問重新解釋。
論：如契經所說，佈施預流向（Srotapanna-phala，入流果）其果無量。以下一頌，第五說明佈施的果報無量。
論曰：到名為最後生（指一來果），說明這五種人雖然不是聖者，也同樣能像聖者一樣得到無量的福報。《雜心》第八說：『佈施給這五種人能得到大的果報。為什麼呢？父母長養生育身體有恩德的緣故。病人沒有依靠，增加悲心的緣故。說法的人增長法身的緣故。指示人善惡的緣故。接近佛地的人積聚功德廣泛攝受眾生的緣故。』
論：法師（Dharma Master）在四種田中屬於哪種田所攝？問。
論：是恩田所攝。答。
【English Translation】 English version A person contracted leprosy. The king, upon inquiring into the cause, ceased killing deer. Consequently, he developed a virtuous intention. This is recounted in the Jataka tales.
Treatise: Among all meritorious acts of giving, what is the most supreme? The following half-verse in the fourth line elucidates the supremacy of giving.
Treatise says: Up to this point, it is the most supreme. There are three categories: First, giving free from defilements (referring to giving without greed, hatred, or delusion), where the giver, the object given, and the merit are all superior. Second, the giving of a Bodhisattva (a Bodhisattva's giving for the benefit and happiness of all sentient beings), due to its superior merit and intention. Third, giving with an adorned mind (giving with the intention of attaining Nirvana, the ultimate meaning), which is the first type.
Treatise: If Bodhisattvas (referring to the giving of Bodhisattvas), it is also the most supreme. This is the second type.
Treatise: Besides these, there is more (referring to giving with an adorned mind), it is also the most supreme. This is the third type.
Treatise: What are the eight givings (referring to the eight types of giving with an adorned mind)? Listing the eight names explains the adorned mind. The Hetu-vidya-nyaya says: 'For those who adorn the mind, it is to perform the giving of wisdom in order to generate the sacred wealth of faith, etc.' Those who assist the mind are those who wish to eliminate the defilements of stinginess and perform the giving of wisdom. Those who assist yoga are those who seek the joy of samadhi, generating causes in succession through giving. Because through giving, one can obtain no regret, gradually leading to a one-pointed mind. Those who attain the supreme meaning are those who attain Nirvana. Because initially, one relinquishes wealth, and gradually, one can relinquish all of samsara.' Furthermore, performing the giving of wisdom is a superior cause of birth, relying on which one can generate the Dharma to realize Nirvana.
Treatise: Following the giver, so there is no separate explanation. Re-explaining according to the question.
Treatise: As the sutra says, giving to a Stream-enterer (Srotapanna-phala) has immeasurable results. The following verse, the fifth, explains that the results of giving are immeasurable.
Treatise says: Up to the name 'last birth' (referring to Once-returner), it explains that although these five types of people are not sages, they can still obtain immeasurable blessings like sages. The Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya-sastra, chapter 8, says: 'Giving to these five types of people can obtain great results. Why? Because parents have the kindness of nurturing and giving birth to the body. The sick have no reliance, increasing compassion. Those who expound the Dharma increase the Dharma body. Those who show people good and evil. Those who are close to the Buddha-land accumulate merit and widely embrace sentient beings.'
Treatise: Among the four fields, which field does a Dharma Master (Dharma Master) belong to? Question.
Treatise: It belongs to the field of gratitude. Answer.
論。所以者何。徴。
論。為諸世間至便招無量果。釋所以也。
論。欲知諸業輕重相者。已下一行頌。第六明由六因業輕重也。
論曰至如是如是。釋六因也。
論。或有諸業至例此應思。明輕重相也。或有唯由後起成重。如盜佛得已供養後起即輕。得已銷鑄其罪即重根本。余文可解。
論。若有六因至非最輕重。明三結也。六上最重。六下最輕。隨闕少．多。非極上．下。
論。如契經說有二種業。已下一頌。第七明造作增長業。由五因故業名增長。一由審思。二由圓滿。三無對治。四有伴。五招異熟。
論曰至非率爾思作。釋第一因。若全不思。及率爾思。但名造作不名增長。若審思造者。名為增長。
論。由滿故者至亦增長名。釋第二因。或三惡行若一業墮惡趣。若二墮惡趣。若三墮惡趣。若十惡業。若一業道墮惡趣。若二業道墮惡趣。若乃至十業道墮惡趣。未至墮惡趣前皆名造作。不名增長。若至墮惡無問少．多皆名增長。
論。由無惡作至無對治業。明第三因。
論。由有伴故至定異異熟。明第四．第五因。
論。善翻此應知。翻上不善。即是善造作增長。
論。異此諸業唯名造作者。若有五因名為增長。若無五因但
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：這是什麼原因呢？徵詢。 論：爲了世間的一切，最方便的是招致無量的果報。解釋原因。 論：想要知道各種業的輕重之相，看下面一行頌文。第六點說明由六個原因導致業的輕重。 論曰：像這樣這樣。解釋六個原因。 論：或者有些業，例如這樣這樣，可以依此類推思考。說明輕重之相。或者有些業僅僅由於後來的行為而變得嚴重。例如，偷盜佛物後進行供養，後來的行為使罪減輕；偷盜后銷燬鑄造，其罪就變得嚴重，這是根本。其餘的文字可以理解。 論：如果具備六個原因，例如這樣這樣，就不是最輕或最重。說明三種結論。六個條件都具備是最重，六個條件都不具備是最輕。隨著缺少條件的多少，不是極上或極下。 論：如契經所說，有兩種業。看下面一頌。第七點說明造作增長業，由於五個原因，業被稱為增長。一是由審慎思考；二是由圓滿；三是沒有對治；四是有伴；五是招致不同的異熟果報。 論曰：不是草率地思考而做。解釋第一個原因。如果完全不思考，或者草率地思考，只能稱為造作，不能稱為增長。如果審慎思考而造作，就稱為增長。 論：由於圓滿的緣故，例如這樣這樣，也稱為增長。或許是三種惡行，如果一個業墮入惡趣，如果兩個業墮入惡趣，如果三個業墮入惡趣，如果是十種惡業，如果一個業道墮入惡趣，如果兩個業道墮入惡趣，如果乃至十個業道墮入惡趣，在未墮入惡趣之前都稱為造作，不稱為增長。如果到了墮入惡趣，無論多少都稱為增長。 論：由於沒有惡作，例如這樣這樣，是沒有對治的業。說明第三個原因。 論：由於有伴的緣故，例如這樣這樣，必定會產生不同的異熟果報。說明第四、第五個原因。 論：善業反過來也應該知道。與上述不善業相反，就是善的造作增長。 論：與此不同，這些業只能稱為造作。如果具備五個原因，就稱為增長；如果沒有五個原因，就只稱為造作。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: What is the reason for this? A question. Treatise: For all the worlds, the most convenient thing is to invite immeasurable consequences. Explaining the reason. Treatise: If you want to know the relative weight of various karmas, look at the following verse. The sixth point explains that the weight of karma is due to six causes. Treatise says: Like this, like that. Explaining the six causes. Treatise: Or some karmas, such as this, such as that, can be thought of by analogy. Explaining the relative weight. Or some karmas become heavy only due to subsequent actions. For example, stealing from the Buddha (Buddha: the awakened one) and then making offerings, the subsequent actions lighten the sin; stealing and then destroying it, the sin becomes heavy, this is fundamental. The rest of the text can be understood. Treatise: If there are six causes, such as this, such as that, it is neither the lightest nor the heaviest. Explaining the three conclusions. Having all six conditions is the heaviest, having none of the six conditions is the lightest. Depending on how many conditions are missing, it is neither the extreme top nor the extreme bottom. Treatise: As the sutra (Sutra: Buddhist scriptures) says, there are two kinds of karma. Look at the following verse. The seventh point explains the karma of creation and increase, because of five causes, karma is called increase. One is due to careful thought; two is due to completeness; three is without antidote; four is with companions; five is inviting different results. Treatise says: Not thinking and acting rashly. Explaining the first cause. If you don't think at all, or think rashly, it can only be called creation, not increase. If you create with careful thought, it is called increase. Treatise: Because of completeness, such as this, such as that, it is also called increase. Perhaps it is the three evil deeds, if one karma falls into the evil realms, if two karmas fall into the evil realms, if three karmas fall into the evil realms, if it is the ten evil karmas, if one path of karma falls into the evil realms, if two paths of karma fall into the evil realms, if even ten paths of karma fall into the evil realms, before falling into the evil realms, they are all called creation, not increase. If it reaches falling into the evil realms, no matter how little or how much, it is called increase. Treatise: Because there is no remorse, such as this, such as that, it is karma without antidote. Explaining the third cause. Treatise: Because of having companions, such as this, such as that, it will definitely produce different results. Explaining the fourth and fifth causes. Treatise: The opposite of good should also be known. The opposite of the above unwholesome karma is wholesome creation and increase. Treatise: Different from this, these karmas can only be called creation. If there are five causes, it is called increase; if there are not five causes, it is only called creation.
名造作。
論。如前所明未離欲等。已下半頌。第八明施制多福也。
論曰至有舍類福。釋施制多唯有舍類福。
論。彼既不受福由何生者。問。
論。復以何因至不受不生。反問。
論。不受於他無攝益故者。外人答也。
論。此非定證至應不生福。反難外人也。
論。是故應許至如修慈等。舉頌結成。
論。謂如有一至福由自心生。重廣釋也。
論。豈不唐捐此施敬業。外人難。若福既由自心生者。但起心供養其福即生。何用施財及申敬禮。有德已滅。豈不唐捐。
論。不爾發業心方勝故者。答外人也。若不發業唯敬養心。心即劣也。
論。謂如有一至非但起心。舉喻也。
論。如是大師至非但起心。合法也。
論。若於善田殖施業種。下半頌。第九明果由內心。
論曰至種果有倒。舉喻也 末度迦。是果名。其形如棗。樹似皂莢樹 賃婆。大小如苦練子 二果此土無故不譯。
論。如是施主至或果全無。合法也。由可令果全無。非全顛倒。此舉大體。如江南為橘。江北為枳。亦由田也。此類少別。非全顛倒也。
論。施類福業事傍論已了。已下大文第二明戒．修也。就中。一明戒。二明修。三明戒．修果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名造作。
論：如前所明未離欲等。已下半頌。第八明施制多福也（通過佈施佛塔等產生的福報）。
論曰至有舍類福：解釋施制多（通過佈施佛塔等）唯有舍類福。
論：彼既不受福由何生者？問：既然接受佈施的佛塔本身並不能感受福報，那麼福報從何而來？（提問）
論：復以何因至不受不生？反問：又是什麼原因導致佛塔不能感受福報，從而福報不會產生？（反問）
論：不受於他無攝益故者：外人答也：因為佛塔不能接受其他東西，所以沒有攝取利益的功能。（外人的回答）
論：此非定證至應不生福：反難外人也：這並不是確定的證據，不能證明佛塔就不能產生福報。（反駁外人）
論：是故應許至如修慈等：舉頌結成：所以應該承認，就像修習慈心一樣。（總結）
論：謂如有一至福由自心生：重廣釋也：比如有一個人，他的福報是由自己的心產生的。（進一步解釋）
論：豈不唐捐此施敬業？外人難：如果福報既然是由自心產生，那麼只要起心供養，福報就會產生，何必施捨財物和表達敬意呢？有功德的人已經滅度，這樣做豈不是白費功夫？（外人的質疑）
論：不爾發業心方勝故者：答外人也：不是這樣的，因為發起行動的心才更殊勝。（回答外人）
論：謂如有一至非但起心：舉喻也：比如有一個人，不僅僅是動了念頭。（舉例說明）
論：如是大師至非但起心：合法也：就像大師一樣，不僅僅是動了念頭。（合乎道理）
論：若於善田殖施業種：下半頌。第九明果由內心：如果能在好的福田中播種佈施的種子。（下半頌，第九點說明果報由內心決定）
論曰至種果有倒：舉喻也：說明種子和果實有顛倒的情況。（舉例說明）末度迦（Maduka）：是果名，其形如棗。樹似皂莢樹。賃婆（Nimba）：大小如苦楝子。二果此土無故不譯。
論：如是施主至或果全無：合法也：就像佈施的人，或者果報完全沒有。（合乎道理）因為可以令果報完全沒有，並非完全顛倒。這裡舉的是大概的情況，就像江南的橘子，到了江北就變成了枳。也是因為環境的原因，這類情況略有差別，並非完全顛倒。
論：施類福業事傍論已了。已下大文第二明戒．修也：關於佈施這類福德事業的旁論已經結束。下面進入第二大部分，說明戒和修。就中：一明戒，二明修，三明戒．修果：其中：一是說明戒，二是說明修，三是說明戒和修的果報。
【English Translation】 English version: Name fabrication.
Treatise: As previously explained, not being separated from desire, etc. The following is the second half of the verse. The eighth point explains the merit of constructing stupas (Shih Chih Duo Fu) (merit generated by donating to stupas, etc.).
Treatise says to have the merit of giving: Explains that donating to stupas (Shih Chih Duo) only has the merit of giving.
Treatise: Since they do not receive merit, from where does it arise? Question: Since the stupa itself, which receives the donation, cannot feel merit, from where does the merit come from? (Question)
Treatise: What is the reason that they do not receive and do not arise? Counter-question: What is the reason that the stupa cannot feel merit, and therefore merit does not arise? (Counter-question)
Treatise: Because they do not receive and have no benefit for others: Answer from an outsider: Because the stupa cannot receive other things, it has no function of receiving benefits. (Outsider's answer)
Treatise: This is not definite proof that merit should not arise: Refutation of the outsider: This is not definite proof and cannot prove that the stupa cannot generate merit. (Refuting the outsider)
Treatise: Therefore, it should be admitted, like cultivating loving-kindness, etc.: Concluding the verse: Therefore, it should be admitted, just like cultivating loving-kindness. (Conclusion)
Treatise: It is said that one's merit arises from one's own mind: Further explanation: For example, a person's merit arises from their own mind. (Further explanation)
Treatise: Wouldn't this offering and reverence be in vain? Outsider's difficulty: If merit arises from one's own mind, then as long as one has the intention to make offerings, merit will arise. Why is it necessary to give wealth and express reverence? The virtuous one has already passed away, wouldn't this be a waste of effort? (Outsider's question)
Treatise: No, because the mind that initiates action is superior: Answering the outsider: It is not like that, because the mind that initiates action is more superior. (Answering the outsider)
Treatise: It is said that one does not merely have the intention: Giving an analogy: For example, a person does not merely have the intention. (Giving an example)
Treatise: Thus, the great master does not merely have the intention: It is reasonable: Just like the great master, he does not merely have the intention. (It is reasonable)
Treatise: If one plants the seeds of giving in a good field: The second half of the verse. The ninth point explains that the result is determined by the mind: If one can sow the seeds of giving in a good field of merit. (The second half of the verse, the ninth point explains that the result is determined by the mind)
Treatise says to plant seeds and the fruits are inverted: Giving an analogy: Explains that there are cases where the seeds and fruits are inverted. Maduka (末度迦): is the name of a fruit, its shape is like a jujube. The tree is like a locust tree. Nimba (賃婆): is about the size of a chinaberry. These two fruits are not available in this land, so they are not translated.
Treatise: Thus, the giver may have no fruit at all: It is reasonable: Just like the giver, or the fruit may be completely absent. (It is reasonable) Because it can cause the fruit to be completely absent, not completely inverted. This is a general case, just like oranges in Jiangnan become trifoliate oranges in Jiangbei. It is also due to environmental reasons, these types of situations are slightly different, not completely inverted.
Treatise: The side discussion on the meritorious deeds of giving has ended. The following is the second major section, explaining precepts and cultivation. Among them: First, explaining precepts; second, explaining cultivation; third, explaining the results of precepts and cultivation: Among them: One is to explain precepts, two is to explain cultivation, and three is to explain the results of precepts and cultivation.
。此一頌第一明戒。
論曰至但立遮名。釋性罪．遮罪俱名犯戒體。頌于性罪立犯戒名。遮罪名遮。不名犯戒。先釋犯戒及遮。后釋離也。
論。離性及遮俱說名戒。此後釋離。離此二罪名為戒也。
論。此各有二至為自性故。明戒有表．無表為體。
論。已略辨戒至亦不清凈。明凈．不凈戒。
論。言四德者至非勝生故。別釋四德。
論。等言為顯至五迴向寂。釋頌等字顯有異說。
論。有餘師說至永離業惑垢故。敘異說也。
論。已辨戒類修類當辨。已下半頌。第二明修類也。
論曰至自性俱有。釋頌等引善也。
論。脩名何義至獨名修。釋修義也。
論。前辨施福。已下半頌。第三明戒修果也。
論曰至就勝說修。明二果別。若兼勝．劣二果無別。若就勝說。戒感生天。修得解脫。
論。經說四人能生梵福。已下。大文第二明梵福量 馱都。此云性。如來體性 余文可解 十勝行者。即四梵福中十善業道 真諦云。謂前四梵福更加六種。一為救父命舍自身命。二為救母命舍自身命。三為救如來命舍自身命。四于正法中出家。五教人出家。六未轉法輪請轉法輪。正理四十云。已離欲者修四無量。生上界天受劫壽樂。若未離欲建
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這一頌首先闡明了戒律。
論曰：直到只是設立遮止之名。解釋說，性罪（根本戒，如殺盜淫妄）和遮罪（為防止性罪而設的戒條，如飲酒）都稱為犯戒體。頌文說對於性罪設立犯戒之名，遮罪則稱為遮，不稱為犯戒。先解釋犯戒和遮，然後解釋離。
論：離開性罪和遮罪，都可稱為戒。這之後解釋離，離開這兩種罪就稱為戒。
論：這各有兩種，直到因為是自性。說明戒有表色（可見的行爲規範）和無表色（內心的約束力）作為其體。
論：已經簡略地辨別了戒，直到也不清凈。說明清凈和不清凈的戒。
論：所說的四德，直到不是殊勝的果報。分別解釋四德。
論：『等』字是爲了顯示，直到五種迴向寂滅。解釋頌文中的『等』字，顯示有不同的說法。
論：有其他老師說，直到永遠脫離業和煩惱的垢染。敘述不同的說法。
論：已經辨別了戒的種類，接下來應當辨別修的種類。以下是半頌，第二部分闡明修的種類。
論曰：直到自性都具有。解釋頌文中的『等』，引導向善。
論：修的含義是什麼？直到獨自稱為修。解釋修的含義。
論：前面辨別了施的福報。以下是半頌，第三部分闡明戒和修的果報。
論曰：直到就殊勝的方面來說修。說明兩種果報的區別。如果兼顧殊勝和劣等的兩種果報，就沒有區別。如果就殊勝的方面來說，持戒感得生天的果報，修禪則能獲得解脫。
論：經中說四種人能夠產生梵福。以下是大文的第二部分，闡明梵福的量。馱都（Dhatu），這裡的意思是『性』，指如來的體性。其餘的文字可以理解。十勝行，就是四梵福中的十善業道。真諦（Paramārtha）說，是指前面的四梵福再加上六種：一是爲了救父親的性命而捨棄自己的性命，二是爲了救母親的性命而捨棄自己的性命，三是爲了救如來的性命而捨棄自己的性命，四是在正法中出家，五是教導他人出家，六是未轉法輪時請佛轉法輪。《正理》第四十卷說，已經離欲的人修四無量心，生到上界天享受劫壽的快樂。如果未離欲，建立……
【English Translation】 English version: This verse primarily elucidates the precepts.
Treatise says: Up to merely establishing the name of prohibition. Explaining that both 'nature sins' (fundamental precepts, such as killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, and lying) and 'prohibitory sins' (precepts established to prevent nature sins, such as drinking alcohol) are both called the 'body of committing precepts'. The verse states that for nature sins, the name 'committing precepts' is established, while prohibitory sins are called 'prohibition' but not 'committing precepts'. First, explain 'committing precepts' and 'prohibition', then explain 'separation'.
Treatise: Separating from both nature sins and prohibitory sins can be called 'precepts'. This explains 'separation' afterward; separating from these two types of sins is called 'precepts'.
Treatise: Each of these has two aspects, up to because it is self-nature. Explaining that precepts have 'manifest form' (visible behavioral norms) and 'non-manifest form' (internal restraints) as their essence.
Treatise: Having briefly distinguished the precepts, up to also not pure. Explaining pure and impure precepts.
Treatise: The so-called four virtues, up to not superior rebirth. Explaining the four virtues separately.
Treatise: The word 'etc.' is to show, up to fivefold dedication to quiescence. Explaining the word 'etc.' in the verse, showing that there are different interpretations.
Treatise: Some other teachers say, up to forever separating from the defilements of karma and afflictions. Narrating different interpretations.
Treatise: Having distinguished the types of precepts, the types of cultivation should be distinguished next. The following is the second half of the verse, elucidating the types of cultivation.
Treatise says: Up to all having self-nature. Explaining the 'etc.' in the verse, guiding towards goodness.
Treatise: What is the meaning of 'cultivation'? Up to solely called cultivation. Explaining the meaning of 'cultivation'.
Treatise: Previously, the blessings of giving were distinguished. The following is the second half of the verse, the third part elucidating the results of precepts and cultivation.
Treatise says: Up to speaking of cultivation in terms of superiority. Explaining the difference between the two results. If both superior and inferior results are considered, there is no difference. If speaking in terms of superiority, upholding precepts results in rebirth in the heavens, while practicing meditation leads to liberation.
Treatise: The sutra says that four types of people can generate Brahma blessings. The following is the second major section, elucidating the measure of Brahma blessings. Dhatu (馱都) here means 'nature', referring to the essence of the Tathagata (如來). The remaining text can be understood. The ten superior practices are the ten wholesome karmic paths within the four Brahma blessings. Paramārtha (真諦) says that it refers to the previous four Brahma blessings plus six more: first, sacrificing one's own life to save one's father's life; second, sacrificing one's own life to save one's mother's life; third, sacrificing one's own life to save the Tathagata's life; fourth, renouncing the household life in the correct Dharma; fifth, teaching others to renounce the household life; sixth, requesting the Buddha to turn the wheel of Dharma when it has not yet been turned. The Treatise on Correct Reasoning, volume 40, says that those who have already separated from desire cultivate the four immeasurables and are reborn in the upper realm heavens, enjoying kalpa-long lifespans. If one has not separated from desire, establishing...
窣堵波。造寺。和僧。能勤修習慈等加行。彼亦如修無量根本。感劫天樂 豈不前說欲界無有善業。能招一劫異熟。無一善業猶如不善。唯一剎那能招劫壽 依如是理故作是說。然於一事發起多思次第能招劫量天樂。謂于彼死復于中生。故劫樂言無違前失(準上論文。欲界善業亦不招一中劫壽)。
論。財施已說法施云何。自下一頌。第三明法施。
論曰至自他大福。釋無倒無染成法施。正理論云。若能如實為諸有情。以無染心辨契經等。令生正解名為法施 說如實言。顯法施主于契經等解無顛倒 說無染言。顯法施主不希利養恭敬．名譽。不爾便為自他俱損 契經等者。等餘十一。即顯契經乃至論議。婆沙二十九出法供養體云。評曰應作是說。若說法語。若能發語心．心所法。若受者聞已生未曾有善巧覺慧。皆此自性。如是法供養總用五蘊以為自性 又釋財供養體云 評曰應作是說。若所舍財若能捨財者。身．語二業。若能發彼心．心所法。若受者受已諸根大種造色增長。皆此自性。此與法供養意同 今詳。意論法施．財施．法供養．財供養。義有少別。應檢婆沙財．法施文 正理論云。言契經者。謂能總攝容納隨順世俗．勝義堅實理言。如是契經是佛所說。或佛弟子佛許故說 言應頌者。謂以勝妙緝
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『窣堵波』（Stupa，佛塔）。建造寺廟。供養僧眾。能夠勤奮修習慈心等加行。他們也像修習無量根本一樣，能感得一劫的天界快樂。難道不是之前說過欲界沒有善業，能夠招感一劫的異熟果報嗎？沒有一種善業像不善業那樣，僅僅一個剎那就能招感一劫的壽命。依據這樣的道理，所以才這樣說。然而，對於一件事發起多次思惟，次第能夠招感一劫的天界快樂。意思是說，在那裡死亡后又在那裡出生。所以說『劫樂』並沒有違背之前的說法（按照上面的論文，欲界的善業也不能招感一中劫的壽命）。
論：財施已經說完了，那麼法施是怎樣的呢？從下面的頌文開始，第三部分闡明法施。
論曰：乃至自他大福。解釋無顛倒、無染污的成就法施。『正理論』中說：如果能夠如實地為眾生，以沒有染污的心辨別契經等，令眾生生起正確的理解，就叫做『法施』。說『如實』，顯示法施的主持者對於契經等的理解沒有顛倒。說『無染』，顯示法施的主持者不希望得到利養、恭敬、名譽，否則就會自他俱損。『契經等』，包括其餘的十一種，即顯示契經乃至論議。《婆沙》第二十九卷中關於法供養的本體說：評論說，應該這樣說，如果說法語，如果能夠發起語心、心所法，如果接受者聽了之後生起未曾有過的善巧覺慧，都是此自性。像這樣的法供養，總共用五蘊作為自性。又解釋財供養的本體說：評論說，應該這樣說，如果所舍的財物，如果能夠舍財的人的身語二業，如果能夠發起他們的心、心所法，如果接受者接受后諸根大種造色增長，都是此自性。這與法供養的意義相同。現在詳細考察，意論法施、財施、法供養、財供養，意義上稍有差別。應該檢查《婆沙》中關於財施、法施的文句。《正理論》中說：所說的『契經』，是指能夠總攝、容納、隨順世俗、勝義堅實理的言語。這樣的契經是佛所說，或者佛的弟子因為佛的允許而說的。所說的『應頌』，是指用勝妙的
【English Translation】 English version: 『Stupa』 (Buddhist pagoda). Building temples. Supporting the Sangha (monastic community). Being able to diligently practice loving-kindness and other preliminary practices. They, like cultivating immeasurable roots, can experience the happiness of a kalpa (aeon) in the heavenly realms. Wasn't it previously said that there are no virtuous deeds in the desire realm that can bring about the fruition of a kalpa? No virtuous deed is like an unwholesome deed, where a single moment can bring about the lifespan of a kalpa. Based on this reasoning, it is said in this way. However, repeatedly contemplating a single matter can gradually bring about the happiness of a kalpa in the heavenly realms. This means that after dying there, one is born there again. Therefore, the term 『kalpa of happiness』 does not contradict the previous statement (according to the above thesis, virtuous deeds in the desire realm also cannot bring about the lifespan of one intermediate kalpa).
Treatise: Material giving has already been discussed, so what about Dharma giving? Starting from the following verse, the third part elucidates Dharma giving.
Treatise says: Up to the great benefit of oneself and others. Explaining the faultless and undefiled accomplishment of Dharma giving. 『Nyāyānusāra-śāstra』 says: If one can truthfully, for sentient beings, discern the Sutras (discourses of the Buddha) etc. with an undefiled mind, causing them to generate correct understanding, this is called 『Dharma giving』. Saying 『truthfully』 shows that the giver of Dharma has no inverted understanding of the Sutras etc. Saying 『undefiled』 shows that the giver of Dharma does not hope for gain, respect, or fame; otherwise, it would be harmful to both oneself and others. 『Sutras etc.』 includes the other eleven, which shows the Sutras up to the discussions. The 29th volume of the 『Vibhāṣā』 says regarding the substance of Dharma offering: It is commented that it should be said in this way: if one speaks Dharma words, if one can generate the mind and mental factors of speech, if the receiver, upon hearing it, generates unprecedented skillful wisdom, all of this is its nature. Such Dharma offering uses the five aggregates as its nature in total. It also explains the substance of material offering: It is commented that it should be said in this way: if the wealth that is given, if the physical and verbal actions of the giver, if one can generate their mind and mental factors, if the sense faculties and great elements of the receiver increase after receiving it, all of this is its nature. This has the same meaning as Dharma offering. Now, upon detailed examination, the meaning of Dharma giving, material giving, Dharma offering, and material offering are slightly different. One should examine the sentences about material giving and Dharma giving in the 『Vibhāṣā』. 『Nyāyānusāra-śāstra』 says: The so-called 『Sutras』 refers to words that can comprehensively gather, contain, and accord with the mundane and ultimate, solid principles. Such Sutras are spoken by the Buddha, or spoken by the Buddha's disciples with the Buddha's permission. The so-called 『verses』 refers to using excellent
句言詞。隨述贊前契經所說。有說亦是不了義經 言記別者。謂隨余問酬答辨析。如波羅衍拏等中辨或諸所有辨曾．當．現真實義言皆名記別。有說是佛諸了義 經言諷頌者。謂以勝妙緝句言詞。非隨述前。而為讚詠。或二．三．四．五．六句等 言自說者。謂不因請。世尊欲令正法久住。睹希奇事。悅意自說。妙辨等流。如說此那伽由彼那伽等 言緣起者。謂說一切起說所由。多是調伏相應論道。彼由緣起之所顯故 言譬喻者。為令曉悟所說義宗。廣引多門比例開示。如長喻等契經所說。有說此是除諸菩薩。說餘本行能有所證。示所化言 言本事者。謂說自昔展轉傳來。不顯說人談所說事 言本生者。謂說菩薩本所行行。或依過去事起諸言論。即由過去事言論究竟是名本事。如曼馱多經。若依現在事起諸言論。要由過去事言論究竟。是名本生。如邏剎私經 言方廣者。謂以正理廣辨諸法。以一切法性相眾多。非廣言詞不能辨故 亦名廣破。由此廣言能破極堅無智暗故 或名無比。由此廣言理趣幽博。余無比故 有說此廣辨大菩提資糧 言希法者。謂於此中唯說希奇出世間法。由此能正顯三乘希有故 有餘師說。辨三寶言世所罕聞故名希法 言論議者。謂于上說諸分義中。無倒顯示。釋難抉擇 有說于經所說深義。已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『句言詞』（Geya）：指隨文複述讚美之前的契經（Sutra）所說內容。有的說法認為這也是不了義經（Neyartha Sutra）。 『記別』（Vyakarna）：指根據其他提問進行回答和辨析。例如在《波羅衍拏經》（Parayana）等經典中辨析過去、未來、現在的真實意義，都稱為記別。有的說法認為是佛陀所說的了義經（Nitartha Sutra）。 『諷頌』（Gatha）：指用優美精妙的語句進行讚詠，並非隨文複述之前的內容。可以是兩句、三句、四句、五句、六句等。 『自說』（Udana）：指不因他人請求，世尊（Bhagavan）爲了讓正法（Dharma）長久住世，看到稀奇的事情，心生喜悅而自然宣說。例如『此那伽由彼那伽』等。 『緣起』（Nidana）：指講述一切生起的因由。多是與調伏相應的論道，因為這些道理是由緣起所顯現。 『譬喻』（Avadana）：爲了使人明白所說義理的宗旨，廣泛引用多種方式進行比喻開示。例如《長喻經》（Dirghagama Sutra）等契經所說。有的說法認為，這是除了菩薩（Bodhisattva）之外，講述其他本行能夠有所證悟，以此來開示所化之人。 『本事』（Itivrttaka）：指講述自古以來輾轉相傳的故事，不明顯地說出人物，只談論所說的事情。 『本生』（Jataka）：指講述菩薩過去所行的行為，或者依據過去的事情引發言論。由過去的事情使言論最終成立，這稱為本事。例如《曼馱多經》（Mandhata Sutra）。如果依據現在的事情引發言論，必須由過去的事情使言論最終成立，這稱為本生。例如《邏剎私經》（Rakshasi Sutra）。 『方廣』（Vaipulya）：指用正確的道理廣泛辨析諸法（Dharma）。因為一切法的體性和現象眾多，不用廣博的言辭就無法辨析。 也稱為『廣破』，因為廣博的言辭能夠破除極其堅固的無知黑暗。 或者稱為『無比』，因為廣博的言辭道理深奧，沒有其他可以相比。 有的說法認為，這是廣泛辨析大菩提（Mahabodhi）的資糧。 『希法』（Adbhuta-dharma）：指其中只說稀奇的出世間法（Lokottara-dharma）。因此能夠正確地顯示三乘（Triyana）的稀有之處。 有其他論師認為，辨析三寶（Triratna）的言論是世間罕見的，所以稱為希法。 『論議』（Upadesha）：指在上文所說的各種分類的意義中，沒有顛倒地顯示、解釋疑難、作出決斷。 有的說法認為，對於經典所說的深奧意義，已經……
【English Translation】 English version: 'Geya': Refers to following and praising what is said in the previous Sutras. Some say that these are also Neyartha Sutras (Sutras of indirect meaning). 'Vyakarna': Refers to answering and analyzing based on other questions. For example, analyzing the true meaning of the past, future, and present in classics such as the 'Parayana' is called Vyakarna. Some say that these are Nitartha Sutras (Sutras of definitive meaning) spoken by the Buddha. 'Gatha': Refers to praising with beautiful and exquisite sentences, not following and repeating the previous content. It can be two, three, four, five, or six sentences, etc. 'Udana': Refers to the Bhagavan (World Honored One) speaking spontaneously without being asked, in order to make the Dharma (teachings) last long in the world, seeing rare and wonderful things, and feeling joyful. For example, 'This Naga from that Naga,' etc. 'Nidana': Refers to explaining the causes of all arising. It is mostly about doctrines corresponding to taming, because these doctrines are revealed by Nidana (causation). 'Avadana': In order to make people understand the purpose of the doctrines, various methods are widely used for analogy and explanation. For example, as described in Sutras such as the 'Dirghagama Sutra'. Some say that this is to explain to those who are to be transformed, except for Bodhisattvas (enlightenment beings), that other fundamental practices can lead to enlightenment. 'Itivrttaka': Refers to telling stories that have been passed down from ancient times, without explicitly mentioning the characters, only talking about the things that are said. 'Jataka': Refers to telling the past deeds of the Bodhisattva, or starting discussions based on past events. The establishment of the discussion by past events is called Itivrttaka. For example, the 'Mandhata Sutra'. If the discussion is initiated based on current events, it must be established by past events, which is called Jataka. For example, the 'Rakshasi Sutra'. 'Vaipulya': Refers to widely analyzing all Dharmas (teachings) with correct reasoning. Because the nature and phenomena of all Dharmas are numerous, they cannot be analyzed without extensive words. It is also called 'extensive destruction' because extensive words can destroy the extremely solid darkness of ignorance. Or it is called 'incomparable' because the doctrines of extensive words are profound and there is nothing else to compare with. Some say that this is to extensively analyze the resources for Mahabodhi (great enlightenment). 'Adbhuta-dharma': Refers to only talking about rare Lokottara-dharmas (transcendental teachings) in it. Therefore, it can correctly show the rarity of the Triyana (Three Vehicles). Other teachers believe that the discussion of the Triratna (Three Jewels) is rare in the world, so it is called Adbhuta-dharma. 'Upadesha': Refers to displaying, explaining difficulties, and making decisions without inversion in the meanings of the various categories mentioned above. Some say that for the profound meaning of the Sutras, already...
見真者。或余智人。隨理辨釋。亦名論議 即此名曰摩怛理迦。釋余經義時此為本母故 此又名為阿毗達磨。以能現對諸法相故。無倒顯示諸法相故 如是所說十二分教。略說應知。三藏所攝 言三藏者。一素怛纜藏。二毗奈耶藏。三阿毗達磨藏 如是三藏差別云何。未種善根。未欣勝義。令種．欣故為說契經。已種．已欣。令熟相續作所作故為說調伏。已熟．已作令悟解脫。正方便故為說對法 或以廣．略清妙文詞。綴緝雜染及清凈法。令易解了名為契經。宣說修行尸羅軌則凈命方便。名為調伏。善能顯示諸契經中深義趣言名為對法 或依增上心戒．慧學所興論道。如其次第。名為契經．調伏．對法 或素怛纜藏是力等流。以諸經中所說義理。畢竟無有能屈伏故。毗奈耶藏是大悲等流。辨說尸羅濟惡趣故。阿毗達磨藏是無畏等流。真法相中能善安立。問答抉擇無所畏故。如是等類三藏不同。毗婆沙中已廣分別。
論。前已別釋三福業事。已下一頌。大文第八明三分善。
論曰至可愛果善。釋順福分也。正理論云。謂感世間人．天等中愛果種子。由此力故能感世間高族．大家．大富．妙色．輪王．帝釋．魔王．梵王。如是等類諸可愛果 準上論文。福．不動業名順福分。
論。順解脫分至有涅槃法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 見真者（能夠真正見到真理的人）。或者其他有智慧的人，能夠依據道理進行辨析解釋，這也叫做論議。這也就是所謂的摩怛理迦（本母），在解釋其他經義的時候，這是根本依據。這又叫做阿毗達磨（對法），因為它能夠直接呈現諸法的體相，無顛倒地顯示諸法的體相。像這樣所說的十二分教，簡略地說，應當知道它被三藏所攝。所說的三藏，一是素怛纜藏（經藏），二是毗奈耶藏（律藏），三是阿毗達磨藏（論藏）。這三藏的差別是什麼呢？對於沒有種下善根、沒有欣樂殊勝意義的人，爲了讓他們種下善根、欣樂殊勝意義，所以宣說契經（佛經）。對於已經種下善根、已經欣樂殊勝意義的人，爲了讓他們成熟相續，完成應該做的事情，所以宣說調伏（戒律）。對於已經成熟、已經完成應該做的事情的人，爲了讓他們領悟解脫的正當方法，所以宣說對法（論藏）。或者用廣博、簡略、清凈微妙的文詞，綴集雜染和清凈的法，使人容易理解，這叫做契經。宣說修行尸羅（戒律）的軌則和清凈生活的方法，這叫做調伏。善於顯示各種契經中深奧意義和趣味的言辭，這叫做對法。或者依據增上心學、戒學、慧學所產生的論道，按照順序，分別叫做契經、調伏、對法。或者素怛纜藏（經藏）是力量的等流，因為各種經中所說的義理，最終沒有能夠被屈服的。毗奈耶藏（律藏）是大悲的等流，辨別宣說戒律，救濟惡趣的眾生。阿毗達磨藏（論藏）是無畏的等流，在真實的法相中能夠很好地安立，問答抉擇沒有畏懼。像這樣等等，三藏各有不同，在《毗婆沙論》中已經廣泛地分別說明。
論：前面已經分別解釋了三福業事，下面一頌，是第八個大段，說明三分善。
論曰：到可愛果善，解釋順福分。正理論說：『是指能夠感得世間人、天等中的可愛果報的種子。憑藉這種力量，能夠感得世間高貴的家族、富裕的大家、巨大的財富、美妙的容色、轉輪聖王、帝釋天、魔王、梵王，像這樣等等各種可愛果報。』根據上面的論文，福業、不動業叫做順福分。
論：順解脫分到有涅槃法。
【English Translation】 English version The one who sees the truth (the one who can truly see the truth). Or other wise individuals who can analyze and explain according to reason are also called debaters. This is what is called Mātṛkā (the Mother), which is the fundamental basis when explaining the meaning of other scriptures. This is also called Abhidharma (Counter-Dharma), because it can directly present the characteristics of all dharmas and display the characteristics of all dharmas without distortion. The twelve divisions of teachings spoken in this way, briefly speaking, should be known to be included in the Three Piṭakas. The so-called Three Piṭakas are: first, the Sūtra Piṭaka; second, the Vinaya Piṭaka; and third, the Abhidharma Piṭaka. What are the differences between these Three Piṭakas? For those who have not planted good roots and have not rejoiced in the supreme meaning, the Sūtras (Kha-ching) are preached to enable them to plant good roots and rejoice in the supreme meaning. For those who have already planted good roots and have already rejoiced in the supreme meaning, the Vinaya (Discipline) is preached to enable them to mature and continue, and to accomplish what should be done. For those who have already matured and have already accomplished what should be done, the Abhidharma (Counter-Dharma) is preached to enable them to understand the right method of liberation. Or, using broad, concise, pure, and subtle words, collecting defiled and pure dharmas to make them easy to understand is called Sūtra. Explaining the rules of practicing Śīla (precepts) and the methods of pure living is called Vinaya. Being good at showing the profound meanings and interesting words in various Sūtras is called Abhidharma. Or, according to the discourses arising from the superior mind, precepts, and wisdom, they are called Sūtra, Vinaya, and Abhidharma in that order. Or, the Sūtra Piṭaka is the outflow of power, because the meanings spoken in the various scriptures can never be subdued. The Vinaya Piṭaka is the outflow of great compassion, distinguishing and explaining the precepts to save sentient beings from evil destinies. The Abhidharma Piṭaka is the outflow of fearlessness, being able to establish well in the true characteristics of dharmas, and being fearless in answering questions and making decisions. In this way, the Three Piṭakas are different, and they have been widely explained in the Vibhāṣā.
Treatise: The three meritorious deeds have been explained separately before. The following verse is the eighth major section, explaining the three kinds of goodness.
Treatise says: 'To the good of the beloved fruit', explaining the part of favorable fortune. The Zhengli Theory says: 'It refers to the seeds that can sense the beloved fruits in the human and heavenly realms of the world. With this power, it can sense noble families, wealthy families, great wealth, wonderful colors, Wheel-Turning Kings, Emperor Śakra, Demon Kings, Brahma Kings, and so on, all kinds of beloved fruits.' According to the above thesis, meritorious deeds and immovable deeds are called favorable fortune.
Treatise: The part of favorable liberation leads to the Dharma of Nirvana.
。準世親菩薩意。種解脫分善名有涅槃法。未種者名無涅槃法。
論。若有聞說至先有種子。明涅槃法人相。
論。順抉擇分至后當廣釋。指后賢聖品說。
論。如世間所說書印算文數。已下一頌。大文第九明書等體。
論曰至受想等法。總出五法體。
論。此中書印至五蘊為體。明書印體同。婆沙一百二十六云。此中書者。非所造字。但是所有能成字。故說名書(此是書分色非不相應) 又云。此中印者。非所造印。但是所有能造印法。此能成印故說為印 又正理云。非諸字像即名為書。所雕印文即名為印。然由業造字像．印文。應知名為此中書．印。
論。次算及文至五蘊為體。明算．文體。算謂稱九九八十一等。文謂善巧安布五聲等。婆沙云。此中算者。非謂所算一．十．百．千等。但是所有能算之法故說為算 又云。此中詩者。非所述詠。但是所有能成詠法。此能成詠故說為詩(詩即文也)。
論。后數應知至能數法故。明數也。勝論數德句義攝。大乘所數不相應攝。此宗所數不別立法。
論。今應略辨諸法異名。下一頌。大文第十明法異名。
論曰至故頌不辨。準此妙．劣。處中自成。正理云。即有漏善．無覆無記總名為中。
論。諸有為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：根據世親菩薩的觀點，已經種下解脫分善根的，就稱為有涅槃法；沒有種下的，就稱為無涅槃法。
論：如果有人聽到說…直到…先有種子。這是在說明具有涅槃法的人的特徵。
論：順抉擇分…直到…後面應當廣泛解釋。這是指後面賢聖品的內容。
論：如世間所說書、印、算、文、數…以下一頌。這是第九大段，說明書等的本體。
論曰：…直到…受、想等法。這是總括地說明五法的本體。
論：這裡所說的書、印…直到…以五蘊為本體。這是說明書和印的本體相同。《婆沙論》第一百二十六卷說：這裡所說的書，不是指已經造出來的字，而是指所有能夠成就字的（能力），所以稱為書（這是書的分位，屬於色法，但非不相應行）。又說：這裡所說的印，不是指已經造出來的印，而是指所有能夠造印的法，這種法能夠成就印，所以稱為印。又《正理》說：不是那些字形就叫做書，也不是雕刻的印文就叫做印，而是由於業力所造的字形和印文，應當知道這就是這裡所說的書和印。
論：其次是算和文…直到…以五蘊為本體。這是說明算和文的本體。算，是指稱說九九八十一等。文，是指善巧地安排五聲等。《婆沙論》說：這裡所說的算，不是指所算的個、十、百、千等，而是指所有能夠計算的法，所以稱為算。又說：這裡所說的詩，不是指所說的歌詠，而是指所有能夠成就歌詠的法，這種法能夠成就歌詠，所以稱為詩（詩就是文）。
論：後面的數，應當知道…直到…能夠數法的緣故。這是說明數。勝論的數包含在德句義中，大乘所說的數包含在不相應行中。本宗所說的數，不另外設立。
論：現在應當簡略地辨別諸法的不同名稱。以下一頌。這是第十大段，說明法的不同名稱。
論曰：…直到…所以頌中沒有辨別。根據這個，妙、劣、處中自然成立。《正理》說：有漏善和無覆無記總稱為中。
論：諸有為（梵文：saṃskṛta，指有生滅變化的法）
【English Translation】 English version: According to the intention of Bodhisattva Vasubandhu (Śāntarakṣita), those who have planted the roots of wholesome qualities associated with liberation are said to possess the Dharma of Nirvana (Nirvāṇa, the ultimate goal of Buddhism), while those who have not planted them are said to lack the Dharma of Nirvana.
Treatise: 'If someone hears it said…' up to '…seeds exist beforehand.' This clarifies the characteristics of a person who possesses the Dharma of Nirvana.
Treatise: 'The sequential part of ascertainment…' up to '…will be extensively explained later.' This refers to the content of the subsequent section on the Noble Ones (Ārya).
Treatise: 'Like the worldly teachings of writing, seals, arithmetic, literature, and numbers…' followed by a verse. This is the ninth major section, clarifying the essence of writing, etc.
Treatise says: '…up to… feeling, conception, etc.' This generally outlines the essence of the five dharmas.
Treatise: 'Here, writing and seals…' up to '…take the five aggregates (Skandha) as their essence.' This clarifies that the essence of writing and seals is the same. The Vibhāṣā (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣa-śāstra) 126 says: 'Here, writing does not refer to the characters that have been created, but rather to all that is capable of forming characters, hence it is called writing (this is the division of writing, belonging to the form aggregate (Rūpa), but not non-associated).' It also says: 'Here, a seal does not refer to the seal that has been created, but rather to all the dharmas capable of creating a seal. This is capable of forming a seal, hence it is called a seal.' Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'It is not that the shapes of the characters are called writing, nor that the carved seal marks are called seals. Rather, due to the karma (Karma, action driven by intention which leads to future consequences) that creates the shapes of the characters and the seal marks, it should be known that these are what are referred to here as writing and seals.'
Treatise: 'Next, arithmetic and literature…' up to '…take the five aggregates as their essence.' This clarifies the essence of arithmetic and literature. Arithmetic refers to reciting 'nine times nine is eighty-one,' etc. Literature refers to skillfully arranging the five sounds, etc. The Vibhāṣā says: 'Here, arithmetic does not refer to the numbers being calculated, such as one, ten, hundred, thousand, etc., but rather to all the dharmas capable of calculating, hence it is called arithmetic.' It also says: 'Here, poetry does not refer to the verses being recited, but rather to all the dharmas capable of forming verses. This is capable of forming verses, hence it is called poetry (poetry is literature).'
Treatise: 'The subsequent number should be known…' up to '…because it is the dharma that can count.' This clarifies number. The number in the Vaiseṣika (one of the six major schools of ancient Indian philosophy) is included in the categories of quality, substance, and definition. The number spoken of in Mahayana (one of the two main existing branches of Buddhism) is included in non-associated formations. The number spoken of in this school is not established separately.
Treatise: 'Now, we should briefly distinguish the different names of dharmas.' Followed by a verse. This is the tenth major section, clarifying the different names of dharmas.
Treatise says: '…up to… therefore, it is not distinguished in the verse.' Based on this, excellent, inferior, and neutral are naturally established. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Defiled wholesome and neutral without obstruction are collectively called neutral.'
Treatise: All conditioned (Saṃskṛta) things
善至義準已成。釋善眾名。
論。何故無為不名為習。問。
論。不可數習至此無果故。答。
論。解脫涅槃至義準已成。明無為異名也。
俱舍論疏卷第十八
保延三年八月晦日午上于南家東面點了此卷文落失等
非言談所及
老法師記之 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第十九
沙門法寶撰
分別隨眠品第五之一
行相微細隨縛隨增是隨眠義。此品廣明名分別隨眠品。雖亦明纏．垢。隨眠本故品初先述。所以業后明隨眠者。業因惑故能招諸有。業別。惑通。故先明業。后釋隨眠。
論。前言世別至隨眠有幾。此品文中大分為二。一明惑體用。二明斷不同。就前門中又分為四。一明隨眠。二雜明諸惑。三義門分別四別明五蓋 明隨眠中。一明體數。二逐要例釋。三緣縛等別 體數門中。一明六隨眠。二明經說七。三分六為十。四分九十八 此一行頌有二義。一明業賴隨眠方能感有。二明六隨眠。先牒前為問起。次舉頌答。后長行釋。此即問也 問中有二。一問業賴隨眠。二問隨眠體數 頌中四句。上句答前問。下三句答后問。
論。曰至無感有能。釋初句也。所以業離隨眠無感有能。以諸隨眠
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 善的達到，意義的標準已經成立。解釋善的各種名稱。
論：為什麼『無為』不被稱為『習』？問。
論：因為無法計數的修習到達這裡沒有結果。答。
論：解脫和涅槃，達到意義的標準已經成立。說明『無為』的別名。
《俱舍論疏》卷第十八
保延三年八月最後一日午時，在南家東面點校了此卷，記錄了文字遺漏等情況。
非言語所能及
老法師 記 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第十九
沙門法寶 撰
分別隨眠品第五之一
行相微細，隨逐繫縛，隨逐增長，是隨眠的意義。此品廣泛闡明，名為『分別隨眠品』。雖然也闡明了纏（chán，煩惱的粗顯表現）、垢（gòu，染污），但因為隨眠是根本，所以品初先敘述。之所以在業之後闡明隨眠，是因為業是惑（huò，迷惑）的原因，能夠招感諸有（yǒu，存在）。業是各別的，惑是共通的，所以先闡明業，后解釋隨眠。
論：前面說『世別』，直到『隨眠有幾種』。此品文中大體分為二部分：一是闡明惑的體和用，二是闡明斷除的不同。在前面一部分中又分為四部分：一是闡明隨眠，二是雜亂地闡明各種惑，三是從義理方面進行分別，四是分別闡明五蓋（wǔ gài，五種覆蓋心性的障礙）。在闡明隨眠中，一是闡明體和數量，二是根據要點舉例解釋，三是從緣、縛等方面進行區別。在體和數量方面，一是闡明六隨眠，二是闡明經中所說的七隨眠，三是將六隨眠分為十，四是將九隨眠分為九十八。這一行頌有二重含義：一是闡明業依賴隨眠才能感生諸有，二是闡明六隨眠。先引用前面的話作為提問，然後舉出頌文回答，最後用長行解釋。這就是提問。
問中有二：一是問業依賴隨眠，二是問隨眠的體和數量。頌中的四句，上面一句回答前面的問題，下面三句回答後面的問題。
論：說『曰』，直到『沒有感生諸有的能力』。解釋第一句。之所以說業離開隨眠就沒有感生諸有的能力，是因為各種隨眠
【English Translation】 English version The attainment of good, the standard of meaning has been established. Explaining the various names of good.
Treatise: Why is 'Asamskrta' (無為, non-conditioned) not called '習' (habituation)? Question.
Treatise: Because countless practices reaching this point have no result. Answer.
Treatise: Liberation and Nirvana, the standard of meaning has been established. Explaining the different names of 'Asamskrta'.
Commentary on the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, Volume 18
On the last day of August, in the third year of Hoen (保延), at noon, this volume was proofread on the east side of the South House, and textual omissions were recorded.
Beyond the reach of words
Recorded by the old Dharma Master Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1822, Commentary on the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya
Commentary on the Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, Volume 19
Composed by Sramana (沙門, Buddhist monk) Fabao (法寶)
Chapter 5: Analysis of the Anusayas (隨眠, latent tendencies) - Part 1
Subtle in their manifestations, following and binding, following and increasing, this is the meaning of Anusaya. This chapter extensively elucidates, hence the name 'Analysis of the Anusayas'. Although it also elucidates the Klesa-paryavasthanas (纏, coarse manifestations of afflictions) and the Maku (垢, defilements), because Anusaya is fundamental, it is described first at the beginning of the chapter. The reason why Anusaya is elucidated after Karma (業, action) is because Karma is the cause of afflictions and can bring about all Bhavas (有, existences). Karma is distinct, afflictions are common, so Karma is elucidated first, and then Anusaya is explained.
Treatise: The previous statement 'Distinction of Worlds' up to 'How many kinds of Anusayas are there?' This chapter is broadly divided into two parts: one elucidates the substance and function of afflictions, and the other elucidates the differences in their elimination. The first part is further divided into four sections: one elucidates Anusaya, two elucidates various afflictions in a mixed manner, three distinguishes from the perspective of meaning, and four specifically elucidates the Five Hindrances (五蓋). In the elucidation of Anusaya, one elucidates the substance and number, two explains examples based on key points, and three distinguishes from the aspects of conditions, bonds, etc. Regarding substance and number, one elucidates the six Anusayas, two elucidates the seven Anusayas mentioned in the Sutras, three divides the six Anusayas into ten, and four divides the nine Anusayas into ninety-eight. This verse has two meanings: one elucidates that Karma relies on Anusaya to generate Bhavas, and two elucidates the six Anusayas. First, the previous statement is quoted as a question, then the verse is given as an answer, and finally, it is explained in prose. This is the question.
There are two questions: one asks about Karma relying on Anusaya, and the other asks about the substance and number of Anusayas. In the four lines of the verse, the first line answers the previous question, and the last three lines answer the latter question.
Treatise: Saying '曰' (namely), up to 'without the ability to generate Bhavas'. Explaining the first line. The reason why it is said that Karma without Anusaya has no ability to generate Bhavas is because various Anusayas
是有本故。
論。何故隨眠能為有本。問所以也。
論。諸煩惱現起能為十事故。總答也。
論。一堅根本。自此已下釋十事也。正理論云。令得堅牢。對治遠故。述曰。由得不捨隨眠數起。若無其得煩惱不生。故得為本。煩惱數起對治遠故。令得牢固名堅根本。
論。二立相續正理論云。能數令余連續起故。
論。三治自田。正理論云。令所依止順彼住故 述曰。令所依身順能依故。
論。四引等流。正理論云。能引如自隨煩惱故 述曰。能引相似隨煩惱故。
論。五發業有。正理論云。發起能招後有業故。
論。六攝自具。正理論云。能數數攝起非理作意故。
論。七述所緣。正理論云。能害自身正覺慧故。
論。八導識流。正理論云。於後有所緣能引發識故 述曰。能引後有結生識也。及引染識數緣境也。
論。九越善品。正理論云。令諸善法皆退失故。
論。十廣縛義至自界地故。正理論云。令不能越自界．自地。以能長養染污界故 述曰。界是因義。煩惱現行能令染法。因增長故名長養染污界 或長養自界染污。故不能越自界也。
論。由此隨眠至有感有能。總結答也。正理論云。雖離染者亦造善業。而無勢力能感後有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 是有本故。
論：什麼原因使得隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在傾向）能成為『有』（bhava，存在）的根本？這是提問的原因。
論：因為諸煩惱的現起能成為十種事故。這是總體的回答。
論：一、堅根本。以下是對十種事故的解釋。《正理論》說：『使其獲得堅牢，因為對治遙遠。』 述曰：由於獲得不捨棄隨眠的緣故而數數生起。如果沒有獲得，煩惱就不會產生。所以，獲得是根本。煩惱數數生起，對治遙遠，使得獲得牢固，名為堅根本。
論：二、立相續。《正理論》說：『能夠數數令其餘煩惱連續生起。』
論：三、治自田。《正理論》說：『令所依止的身心順應煩惱而安住。』 述曰：令所依的身心順應能依的煩惱。
論：四、引等流。《正理論》說：『能夠引生如自己一樣的隨煩惱。』 述曰：能夠引生相似的隨煩惱。
論：五、發業有。《正理論》說：『發起能夠招感後有的業。』
論：六、攝自具。《正理論》說：『能夠數數攝取生起非理作意（ayoniso-manasikara，不如理的思維）。』
論：七、述所緣。《正理論》說：『能夠損害自身正覺的智慧。』
論：八、導識流。《正理論》說：『對於後有的所緣，能夠引發識。』 述曰：能夠引生後有的結生識（patisandhi-vinnana，轉世的意識）。以及引生染污的識數數緣境。
論：九、越善品。《正理論》說：『令諸善法都退失。』
論：十、廣縛義至自界地故。《正理論》說：『令不能超越自界、自地，因為能夠長養染污的界。』 述曰：界是因的意思。煩惱現行能夠令染法因增長，所以名為長養染污界。或者說，長養自界的染污，所以不能超越自界。
論：由此隨眠乃至有感有能。這是總結性的回答。《正理論》說：『即使是離染者也造作善業，但沒有勢力能夠感得後有。』
【English Translation】 English version It is because there is a root.
Treatise: What is the reason that Anusaya (latent tendencies of afflictions) can be the root of 'bhava' (existence)? This is the reason for the question.
Treatise: Because the arising of all afflictions can be the cause of ten events. This is the general answer.
Treatise: 1. Strengthening the root. The following is an explanation of the ten events. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Making it obtain firmness, because the antidote is far away.' Commentary: Because of obtaining and not abandoning the arising of Anusaya. If there is no obtaining, afflictions will not arise. Therefore, obtaining is the root. The frequent arising of afflictions and the remoteness of the antidote make the obtaining firm, which is called strengthening the root.
Treatise: 2. Establishing continuity. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Being able to repeatedly cause other afflictions to arise continuously.'
Treatise: 3. Cultivating its own field. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Making the body and mind that are relied upon conform to and abide in the afflictions.' Commentary: Making the body and mind that are relied upon conform to the afflictions that rely on them.
Treatise: 4. Drawing forth similar flows. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Being able to draw forth secondary afflictions (upaklesha) like itself.' Commentary: Being able to draw forth similar secondary afflictions.
Treatise: 5. Generating karmic existence. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Initiating karma that can attract future existence.'
Treatise: 6. Collecting its own equipment. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Being able to repeatedly collect and generate inappropriate attention (ayoniso-manasikara, unwholesome thought).'
Treatise: 7. Describing the object. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Being able to harm one's own wisdom of right awakening.'
Treatise: 8. Guiding the flow of consciousness. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Regarding the object of future existence, being able to initiate consciousness.' Commentary: Being able to initiate the rebirth consciousness (patisandhi-vinnana, consciousness at rebirth) of future existence. And initiating defiled consciousness that repeatedly cognizes objects.
Treatise: 9. Transgressing wholesome qualities. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Causing all wholesome dharmas to decline.'
Treatise: 10. Broadening the meaning of bondage to one's own realm and ground. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Making it impossible to transcend one's own realm and ground, because it can nourish the defiled realm.' Commentary: Realm means cause. The present activity of afflictions can cause the cause of defiled dharmas to increase, so it is called nourishing the defiled realm. Or, nourishing the defilement of one's own realm, so one cannot transcend one's own realm.
Treatise: Therefore, Anusaya, up to having the ability to experience existence. This is a concluding answer. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Even those who are free from defilement also create wholesome karma, but they do not have the power to experience future existence.'
述曰。上言有者。並據引果。若據發業感有。即唯異生。若據資助舊業結當生有。即通有學。由此三乘無學不受後有。
論。此略應知至無明見疑。此釋頌下三句也。此根本煩惱略即分六。行．部．界分即九十八。今且舉六。故言此略應知差別有六乃至見疑。
論。頌說亦言至義如后辨。別釋頌中置亦意也。如衣有潤塵埃隨著。貪潤于境嗔亦隨增。非唯于嗔慢等亦爾。故言亦慢。
論。及聲顯六體各不同。別釋頌中置及意也。及。是相違釋。欲顯六種隨眠體性相違各別不同。故置及字。
論。若諸隨眠體唯有六。下一行頌。第二會經七也頌中有四句。初一句答增七所以。貪分二故。第二句指所增貪。第三句釋有貪。第四句釋立有因也。緣內起故說內為有。知上二界非是解脫。
論曰至故經說七。釋初句也。如文可解。
論。何等為七。問名體也。
論。一欲貪隨眠至七疑隨眠。列七名也。
論。欲貪隨眠至徴問亦爾。兩關徴問 經部師宗現行名纏。種名隨眠 大眾部等隨眠體是不相應行。即是欲貪之隨眠 有部欲貪即隨眠 前二屬主。有部持業。
論。若爾何失。反問二釋也。
論。二俱有過。難二宗也。
論。若欲貪體至並隨眠斷。此與有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 述曰：上面說『有』，都是根據已經產生的果報來說的。如果根據發起業力而感受『有』，那就只有異生（指凡夫）。如果根據資助舊業而結生當來之『有』，那就通於有學（指聖者）。因此，三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的無學（指阿羅漢）不會再受後有。
論：『此略應知至無明見疑』，這是解釋頌文下面的三句。這些根本煩惱，略說分為六種。按照行、部、界來分，就是九十八種。現在暫且舉出六種，所以說『此略應知差別有六乃至見疑』。
論：『頌說亦言至義如后辨』，這是分別解釋頌文中設定『亦』字的用意。比如衣服潮濕，塵埃就會隨之附著。貪愛滋潤于境界，嗔恚也會隨之增長。不僅僅是嗔恚，慢等也是如此。所以說『亦慢』。
論：『及聲顯六體各不同』，這是分別解釋頌文中設定『及』字的用意。『及』，是表示相違的意思。顯示六種隨眠的體性相互違背，各自不同。所以設定『及』字。
論：『若諸隨眠體唯有六』，下一行頌文是第二會經的第七頌，頌文中有四句。第一句回答增加七種的原因，因為貪分為兩種。第二句指明所增加的貪。第三句解釋『有貪』（bhava-rāga）。第四句解釋建立『有』的原因。因為緣于內在而生起，所以說內在為『有』。知道上面二界（指色界和無色界）不是解脫。
論曰：『至故經說七』，這是解釋第一句。如文義可以理解。
論：『何等為七？』，這是提問七種隨眠的名稱和體性。
論：『一欲貪隨眠至七疑隨眠』，這是列出七種隨眠的名稱。
論：『欲貪隨眠至徴問亦爾』，這是兩方面的提問。經部師認為，現行叫做纏（paryavasthāna），種子叫做隨眠（anuśaya）。大眾部等認為，隨眠的體是不相應行。也就是欲貪的隨眠。有部認為，欲貪就是隨眠。前兩種是屬主釋，有部是持業釋。
論：『若爾何失？』，這是反問兩種解釋的過失。
論：『二俱有過』，這是責難兩種宗派的觀點。
論：『若欲貪體至並隨眠斷』，這與有部
【English Translation】 English version: Statement: The above statement about 'existence' (bhava) is based on the already produced result. If it is based on generating karma and experiencing 'existence', then it is only for ordinary beings (prthag-jana). If it is based on supporting old karma and resulting in future 'existence', then it applies to those with learning (śaikṣa). Therefore, the Arhats (arahant) of the three vehicles (triyāna) do not experience future existence.
Treatise: 'This briefly should be known, up to ignorance and doubt' (avidyā-vicikitsā). This explains the last three lines of the verse. These fundamental afflictions (mūla-kleśa), briefly speaking, are divided into six types. According to conduct (carita), category (prakṛti), and realm (dhātu), they are ninety-eight types. Now, let's mention six for the moment, so it says 'This briefly should be known, the differences are six, up to ignorance and doubt'.
Treatise: 'The verse says also, the meaning will be explained later'. This separately explains the intention of placing the word 'also' (api) in the verse. For example, if clothes are damp, dust will adhere to them. Greed nourishes the object, and hatred also increases accordingly. It's not just hatred, but also pride (māna) and so on. Therefore, it says 'also pride'.
Treatise: 'The word 'and' (ca) shows that the six entities are each different'. This separately explains the intention of placing the word 'and' in the verse. 'And' indicates opposition. It shows that the nature of the six latent tendencies (anuśaya) are mutually opposed and each different. Therefore, the word 'and' is placed.
Treatise: 'If the nature of all latent tendencies is only six', the next line of the verse is the seventh verse of the second assembly of sutras, and there are four lines in the verse. The first line answers the reason for adding seven, because greed is divided into two. The second line indicates the greed that is added. The third line explains 'craving for existence' (bhava-rāga). The fourth line explains the reason for establishing 'existence'. Because it arises from within, it is said that the inner is 'existence'. Knowing that the two upper realms (rūpa-dhātu and arūpa-dhātu) are not liberation.
Treatise says: 'Therefore, the sutra speaks of seven', this explains the first line. The meaning can be understood as in the text.
Treatise: 'What are the seven?', this asks about the names and nature.
Treatise: 'One, latent tendency of desire-greed (kāma-rāga-anuśaya), up to seven, latent tendency of doubt (vicikitsā-anuśaya)', this lists the names of the seven latent tendencies.
Treatise: 'Latent tendency of desire-greed, up to the inquiry is also like this', this is a two-sided inquiry. The Sautrāntika school believes that the manifest is called entanglement (paryavasthāna), and the seed is called latent tendency (anuśaya). The Mahāsāṃghika school and others believe that the nature of latent tendency is non-associated formations (viprayukta-saṃskāra). That is, the latent tendency of desire-greed. The Sarvāstivāda school believes that desire-greed is the latent tendency. The first two are possessive compounds, and the Sarvāstivāda school is a determinative compound.
Treatise: 'If so, what is the fault?', this is a counter-question about the faults of the two explanations.
Treatise: 'Both have faults', this criticizes the views of the two schools.
Treatise: 'If the nature of desire-greed, up to and including the cutting off of latent tendencies', this is in agreement with the Sarvāstivāda school.
部出違經。言。于欲貪經說能正遣除並隨眠斷。由體各別故有並言。若纏即隨眠。何須並字。
論。若是欲貪至三根相應。此與經部出過失。若謂欲貪之隨眠者。即同大眾部等是心不相應。若爾即違本論所說欲貪隨眠與喜．樂．舍三根相應。
論。毗婆沙師至即是隨眠。述有部宗也。
論。豈不違經。舉經難也。
論。無違經失至並隨縛故。此通經也。正理論云。又即彼經言並隨眠斷者。顯欲貪纏無餘斷義。謂斷八品修所斷時。一品隨眠猶能隨縛。為顯體斷說正遣除。並隨眠斷言。顯隨縛皆盡 述曰。雖斷前品。后品隨縛。斷前品時是正遣除。並后總斷是隨縛斷。
論。或經于得至立苦等想。第二釋經也。火體非苦。以能生苦假立苦名。隨眠之得雖非隨眠。得隨眠故。經于彼得假立隨眠。斷貪之時名正遣除。並得斷故云並隨眠斷。
論。阿毗達磨至是相應法。會經從論。經就假說得為隨眠。論據實論。即貪為體。由此故說隨眠即是心相應法。
論。何理為證知定相應。重徴有部也。
論。以諸隨眠至非不相應。述法勝論師釋也。具在雜心論中。正理論云。經主此中先敘尊者法勝所說 以諸隨眠是相應也。文中有三。一順釋。二反成。三順結。此文初也。以三因證定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：在《部出違經》（名稱待考）中說，能夠真正去除欲貪並斷除隨眠（anusaya，潛在的煩惱），因為它們本體各不相同，所以用了『並』字。如果纏（paryavasthana，顯現的煩惱）就是隨眠，為什麼還要用『並』字？
答：如果說欲貪與喜、樂、舍這三種根相應，這與經部（Sautrantika）的觀點有衝突。如果認為欲貪的隨眠與大眾部（Mahasanghika）等相同，是心不相應法（citta-viprayukta-dharma），那麼就違背了本論所說欲貪隨眠與喜、樂、舍三根相應的說法。
答：毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika）的觀點是，隨眠就是隨眠。這是在陳述有部（Sarvastivada）的宗義。
問：難道不違背經文嗎？這是用經文來質問。
答：沒有違背經文的過失，因為『並』是隨縛（anubandha）的緣故。這可以解釋經文。正理論中說：『又，那部經中說『並隨眠斷』，是爲了顯示欲貪纏完全斷除的意義。意思是說，在斷除八品修所斷（bhavana-pahatabba）時，一品隨眠仍然能夠隨縛。爲了顯示本體斷除，所以說『正遣除』。『並隨眠斷』這句話，顯示隨縛都已斷盡。』意思是說，即使斷除了前面的品類，後面的品類仍然會隨縛。斷除前面品類的時候是『正遣除』，連同後面的品類一起總斷，就是『隨縛斷』。
答：或者，經文是就『得』（prapti，獲得）來說的，從而建立苦等想（duhkha-samjna，苦想等等）。這是第二種解釋經文的方法。火的本體不是苦，因為能夠產生苦，所以假立為苦名。隨眠的『得』雖然不是隨眠本身，但因為獲得了隨眠，所以經文就將『得』假立為隨眠。斷除貪的時候叫做『正遣除』，因為連同『得』一起斷除，所以說『並隨眠斷』。
答：阿毗達磨（Abhidharma）認為，隨眠是心相應法（citta-samprayukta-dharma）。這是從論的角度來解釋經文。經文是就假立的角度來說『得』是隨眠，而論則是據實而論，認為貪才是本體。因此說隨眠是心相應法。
問：有什麼理由可以證明隨眠一定是心相應法？這是重新質問有部。
答：因為各種隨眠都是心所有法（caitasika-dharma），不是不相應法（citta-viprayukta-dharma）。這是法勝論師（Dharmatrata）的解釋。詳細內容在《雜心論》（Samuccaya）中。正理論中說：『經主（Sutrakara）在這裡首先敘述了尊者法勝所說，各種隨眠都是相應法。』這段文字有三層含義：一是順著解釋，二是反過來論證，三是順著總結。這段文字是第一層含義。用三個理由來證明隨眠一定是心相應法。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: In the Bu Chu Wei Jing (title to be verified), it is said that one can truly eliminate desire-attachment and sever anusaya (latent defilements), and because their entities are different, the word 'and' is used. If paryavasthana (manifest defilements) is the same as anusaya, why is the word 'and' needed?
Answer: If it is said that desire-attachment is associated with the three roots of joy, pleasure, and equanimity, this conflicts with the view of the Sautrantika school. If it is thought that the anusaya of desire-attachment is the same as that of the Mahasanghika school, which is a citta-viprayukta-dharma (mind-independent dharma), then it contradicts the statement in this treatise that the anusaya of desire-attachment is associated with the three roots of joy, pleasure, and equanimity.
Answer: The view of the Vaibhashika masters is that anusaya is anusaya. This is stating the doctrine of the Sarvastivada school.
Question: Does it not contradict the sutra? This is using the sutra to question.
Answer: There is no fault of contradicting the sutra, because 'and' is due to anubandha (subsequent binding). This can explain the sutra. The Nyayanusara-sastra says: 'Also, that sutra says 'and the severance of anusaya' to show the meaning of the complete severance of desire-attachment. It means that when severing the eight categories of bhavana-pahatabba (defilements to be eliminated by cultivation), one category of anusaya can still bind subsequently. To show the severance of the entity, it is said 'truly eliminate'. The phrase 'and the severance of anusaya' shows that all subsequent bindings are exhausted.' It means that even if the previous category is severed, the subsequent category will still bind. Severing the previous category is 'truly eliminate', and severing the subsequent categories together is 'severance of subsequent binding'.
Answer: Or, the sutra speaks in terms of prapti (attainment), thereby establishing duhkha-samjna (the perception of suffering, etc.). This is the second way to explain the sutra. The entity of fire is not suffering, but because it can produce suffering, it is falsely established as the name of suffering. Although the 'attainment' of anusaya is not anusaya itself, because anusaya is attained, the sutra falsely establishes 'attainment' as anusaya. Severing greed is called 'truly eliminate', and because it is severed together with 'attainment', it is said 'and the severance of anusaya'.
Answer: The Abhidharma believes that anusaya is a citta-samprayukta-dharma (mind-associated dharma). This is explaining the sutra from the perspective of the treatise. The sutra speaks from the perspective of falsely establishing 'attainment' as anusaya, while the treatise speaks according to reality, believing that greed is the entity. Therefore, it is said that anusaya is a mind-associated dharma.
Question: What reason proves that anusaya must be a mind-associated dharma? This is re-questioning the Sarvastivada school.
Answer: Because all anusayas are caitasika-dharmas (mental factors), not citta-viprayukta-dharmas (mind-independent dharmas). This is the explanation of Dharmatrata. The details are in the Samuccaya. The Nyayanusara-sastra says: 'The Sutrakara (author of the sutra) first narrates what the venerable Dharmatrata said, that all anusayas are associated dharmas.' This passage has three meanings: first, explaining in accordance; second, arguing in reverse; and third, concluding in accordance. This passage is the first meaning. Three reasons are used to prove that anusaya must be a mind-associated dharma.
是相應。一染惱心故。二覆障心故。三能違善故。此舉三因也 謂諸隨眠能染惱心。釋第一因 未生善不生。釋第二因。由覆障心令善不起 已生善退失。釋第三因。由能違善故令善退失 故隨眠體非不相應。結成也。
論。若不相應至恒現前故。次反釋也。若相應法是隨眠者。起時能覆障善令不得生。若不起時善心容起。若隨眠體是不相應。即恒相續在身不斷。若能障善。善無起時。以不相應恒現前故。
論。既諸善法至是相應法。結成也。
論。此皆非證。總非三因也。
論。所以者何。有部問也。
論。若許隨眠至是隨眠所為。大眾部等釋所以也。我宗若許隨眠是不相應者。即上三事是纏所為。不許上三事是隨眠所為。
論。然經部師所說最善。論主評取經部義也。
論。經部於此所說如何。大眾部等問也。
論。彼說欲貪至即名纏故。答。經部宗也 然隨眠體非心相應。異其有部 非不相應。異大眾部。
論。何名為睡。問也。
論。謂不現行種子隨逐。答也。
論。何名為覺。問也。
論。謂諸煩惱現起纏心。答也。
論。何等名為煩惱種子。問也。
論。謂自體上至能生煩惱。答也。謂熏在自體。能生當果差別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 是相應的。第一，因為染污惱亂心識；第二，因為覆蓋障礙心識；第三，因為能夠違背善法。這裡列舉了三個原因。
所謂的諸隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式）能夠染污惱亂心識。這是對第一個原因的解釋。
未產生的善法不能產生。這是對第二個原因的解釋。由於覆蓋障礙心識，使得善法不能生起。
已經產生的善法退失。這是對第三個原因的解釋。由於能夠違背善法，使得善法退失。所以，隨眠的體性並非不相應。
論：如果是不相應的，就會恒常現前。這是反過來解釋。如果相應法是隨眠，那麼在生起時能夠覆蓋障礙善法，使之不能產生。如果不生起時，善心還有可能生起。如果隨眠的體性是不相應的，就會恒常相續存在於身中，不會斷絕。如果能夠障礙善法，那麼善法就沒有生起的時候，因為不相應的隨眠恒常現前。
論：既然諸善法……是相應法。這是總結。
論：這些都不是證據。這是總的否定了三個原因。
論：為什麼呢？這是有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派之一）的提問。
論：如果承認隨眠……是隨眠所為。這是大眾部（Mahasamghika，佛教部派之一）等解釋原因。我宗如果承認隨眠是不相應的，那麼以上三件事是纏（Paryavasthana，煩惱的粗顯形式）所為，不承認以上三件事是隨眠所為。
論：然而經部師（Sautrantika，佛教部派之一）所說最為善妙。這是論主讚賞經部的觀點。
論：經部對此所說如何？這是大眾部等提問。
論：他們說欲貪……即名為纏。這是回答，是經部的觀點。然而隨眠的體性並非心相應，這與有部不同；也並非不相應，這與大眾部不同。
論：什麼叫做睡（Middha，睡眠）？這是提問。
論：叫做不現行的種子隨逐。這是回答。
論：什麼叫做覺（Vitaraka，尋）？這是提問。
論：叫做諸煩惱現起纏心。這是回答。
論：什麼叫做煩惱種子（Klesa-bija，煩惱的種子）？這是提問。
論：叫做在自體上……能夠產生煩惱。這是回答。叫做熏習在自體上，能夠產生當來的果報差別。
【English Translation】 English version: They are associated. First, because they defile and disturb the mind; second, because they cover and obstruct the mind; third, because they can oppose the good. These are the three reasons listed.
The so-called Anusayas (latent forms of afflictions) can defile and disturb the mind. This is an explanation of the first reason.
Undeveloped good does not arise. This is an explanation of the second reason. Because of covering and obstructing the mind, good does not arise.
Developed good is lost. This is an explanation of the third reason. Because of being able to oppose the good, good is lost. Therefore, the nature of Anusaya is not unassociated.
Treatise: If they are unassociated, they are constantly present. This is an explanation from the opposite perspective. If associated dharmas are Anusayas, then when they arise, they can cover and obstruct the good, preventing it from arising. If they do not arise, good mind can still arise. If the nature of Anusaya is unassociated, then it will constantly continue in the body without ceasing. If it can obstruct the good, then there is no time for the good to arise, because unassociated Anusayas are constantly present.
Treatise: Since all good dharmas... are associated dharmas. This is a conclusion.
Treatise: These are not evidence. This is a general negation of the three reasons.
Treatise: Why is that? This is a question from the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school).
Treatise: If it is admitted that Anusayas... are what Anusayas do. This is an explanation of the reason by the Mahasamghika (a Buddhist school) and others. If our school admits that Anusayas are unassociated, then the above three things are what Paryavasthanas (manifest forms of afflictions) do, and we do not admit that the above three things are what Anusayas do.
Treatise: However, what the Sautrantika (a Buddhist school) masters say is the most excellent. This is the treatise master praising the view of the Sautrantika.
Treatise: What do the Sautrantikas say about this? This is a question from the Mahasamghika and others.
Treatise: They say that desire and greed... are called Paryavasthanas. This is the answer, which is the view of the Sautrantika. However, the nature of Anusaya is not associated with the mind, which is different from the Sarvastivada; nor is it unassociated, which is different from the Mahasamghika.
Treatise: What is called Middha (sleep)? This is a question.
Treatise: It is called the accompanying of non-manifest seeds. This is the answer.
Treatise: What is called Vitaraka (initial application of thought)? This is a question.
Treatise: It is called the arising of all afflictions entangling the mind. This is the answer.
Treatise: What are called Klesa-bija (seeds of afflictions)? This is a question.
Treatise: They are called that on the self... which can produce afflictions. This is the answer. It is called being perfumed on the self, which can produce the differences in future retribution.
功能名為種子。功能不同名為差別。
論。如念種子至功能差別。論主引二喻破大眾部。此第一也。準正理論。兼破有部。大眾部許由煩惱力。別有隨眠心不相應名煩惱種 念種即是所證智生功能差別無別體性 今引共許念種例破隨眠。
論。又如芽等至功能差別。引第二喻破。此二喻破隨眠是不相應也。
論。若執煩惱至不可得故。此合兩喻同隨眠也。俱因薰習並是種子。一有體性是不相應。一無體性但是功能差別。差別因緣不可得也。正理論云。又所立喻如念種子。是證智生。能生當念功能差別。亦不相似。以我宗言念種子者。即于證智后初重緣。實念從先證智俱起念生。能生后時憶智俱念。此。顯即念前．后相引。為能赴感差別功能。彼。自體俱生。無別實煩惱從前纏起。能生后纏可名隨眠煩惱種子。故喻於法相去極遙(已上論文) 二說法別。詳順正理論。此文二喻亦對有部。詳論主釋。前證智位總聚熏成名別種子功能差別。種子功能差別。能生智．念后聚法也。由前位智慧決斷故。同時念記令后位念記憶分明。前位總立智名。后位總立念稱。親證境心名之為智。後記不忘名之爲念。
論。若爾六六至有貪隨眠故。有部違經難也。經言於樂受有貪隨眠。故知即是貪相應也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 功能名為種子（bīja）。功能不同名為差別（viśeṣa）。
論：如果從唸的種子（smṛti-bīja）到功能的差別（kārya-viśeṣa）。論主引用兩個比喻來破斥大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）。這是第一個比喻。參照《順正理論》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra），也兼破有部（Sarvāstivāda）。大眾部認為由煩惱的力量，另外存在一種與心不相應的隨眠（anuśaya），名為煩惱種（kleśa-bīja）。唸的種子就是所證的智慧（jñāna）產生的功能差別，沒有別的自體。 現在引用大家共同認可的唸的種子為例，來破斥隨眠。
論：又如從芽（aṅkura）等，到功能的差別。引用第二個比喻來破斥。這兩個比喻破斥隨眠是不與心相應的。
論：如果認為煩惱直到不可得的緣故。這是將兩個比喻合起來，與隨眠相同。都是因為熏習（vāsanā）而成為種子。一個是具有自體，是不與心相應的；一個是沒有自體，只是功能的差別。差別的因緣是不可得的。《順正理論》說：又所立的比喻，如唸的種子，是證智所生，能產生當下的唸的功能差別，也不相似。因為我宗認爲念的種子，就是在證智之後，初次重新緣取。真實的念從先前的證智一同生起，能產生後來的憶智和念。這顯示了唸的前後互相牽引，成為能夠赴感的功能差別。而他們（有部）是自體俱生，沒有別的真實的煩惱從先前的纏（paryavasthāna）生起，能夠產生後來的纏，可以稱為隨眠煩惱的種子。所以比喻和法相去甚遠（以上是論文）。 二、說法不同。詳細見《順正理論》。此文的兩個比喻也是針對有部。詳細見論主的解釋。先前的證智位，總聚熏習成為不同的種子功能差別。種子功能差別，能夠產生智慧和唸的后聚法。由於前位的智慧能夠決斷，所以同時的念記使得后位的念記憶分明。前位總立為智名，后位總立爲念稱。親證境界的心名為智，後來記不忘記名爲念。
論：如果這樣，六六（ṣaṭ ṣaṭ）直到有貪隨眠（rāga-anuśaya）的緣故。這是有部違背佛經的責難。佛經說對於樂受（sukha-vedanā）有貪隨眠，所以知道它就是與貪相應的。
【English Translation】 English version Function is called seed (bīja). Different functions are called distinction (viśeṣa).
Treatise: As in the case from the seed of mindfulness (smṛti-bīja) to the distinction of function (kārya-viśeṣa). The treatise master uses two metaphors to refute the Mahāsāṃghika school. This is the first. According to the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, it also refutes the Sarvāstivāda school. The Mahāsāṃghika school asserts that due to the power of afflictions, there is another latent tendency (anuśaya) that is not associated with the mind, called the seed of affliction (kleśa-bīja). The seed of mindfulness is the distinction of function produced by the wisdom (jñāna) that is realized; it has no separate entity. Now, the commonly accepted example of the seed of mindfulness is used to refute latent tendencies.
Treatise: Also, as in the case from sprout (aṅkura) etc., to the distinction of function. The second metaphor is used to refute. These two metaphors refute that latent tendencies are not associated with the mind.
Treatise: If it is held that afflictions until the reason they cannot be obtained. This combines the two metaphors, which are the same as latent tendencies. Both become seeds because of conditioning (vāsanā). One has an entity and is not associated with the mind; the other has no entity and is only a distinction of function. The cause and condition of distinction cannot be obtained. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Also, the established metaphor, such as the seed of mindfulness, is produced by realized wisdom, and can produce the distinction of function of the present mindfulness, which is also not similar. Because our school believes that the seed of mindfulness is the first re-cognition after realized wisdom. Real mindfulness arises together with the previous realized wisdom, and can produce later recollection-wisdom and mindfulness. This shows that the previous and subsequent mindfulness attract each other, becoming the distinction of function that can respond to stimuli. They (Sarvāstivāda) are co-arisen with the entity itself, and there is no other real affliction arising from the previous entanglements (paryavasthāna), which can produce later entanglements, and can be called the seed of latent affliction. Therefore, the metaphor and the Dharma are extremely far apart (the above is the treatise). Second, the teachings are different. See the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra for details. The two metaphors in this text are also directed at the Sarvāstivāda school. See the treatise master's explanation for details. The previous position of realized wisdom, the total accumulation of conditioning becomes the distinction of different seed functions. The distinction of seed functions can produce the later aggregates of wisdom and mindfulness. Because the wisdom of the previous position can make decisions, the simultaneous mindfulness record makes the mindfulness memory of the later position clear. The previous position is generally established as the name of wisdom, and the later position is generally established as the name of mindfulness. The mind that personally realizes the realm is called wisdom, and the later remembering without forgetting is called mindfulness.
Treatise: If so, the six six (ṣaṭ ṣaṭ) until the latent tendency of greed (rāga-anuśaya). This is the Sarvāstivāda school's accusation of violating the sutra. The sutra says that there is a latent tendency of greed for pleasant feeling (sukha-vedanā), so it is known that it is associated with greed.
論。經但說有至何所違害。經部釋也。
論。於何時有。有部問也。
論。于彼睡時至立隨眠想。經部答也。有二釋。一是睡時。二因立果名。想即名之別稱。謂于現在位。纏立隨眠稱。
論。傍論且止應辨正論者。正釋頌文也。
論。言貪分二謂欲有貪。正釋頌也。
論。此中有貪至二界中貪。出有貪體也。
論。此名何因唯于彼立。問也。三界俱名為有。何故上二界貪獨名有貪。
論。彼貪多托至立有貪名者。釋也。于中有二。一以多於內門轉故名為有貪。二為遮彼解脫想故上二界名有。此即初也。
論。又由有人至非真解脫。第二釋也。前以上界緣內有故名為有貪。后以止邪執故。于上二界立有貪名。
論。此中自體至立有貪名。釋自體名有。等至．及所依身俱是自體。非是外境。有有多種。如說三有即是三界。此中言有。謂是自體。上二界貪多味自體。非味著境離欲貪故。唯于上二立有貪名。
論。既說有貪至不別顯示。釋頌唯說有貪。不釋欲貪所以既多緣自體名為有貪。準知多緣外境名欲貪也。
論。即上所說。下一頌。第三依本論分六為十。問起。頌答。如文可解。
論曰至五疑。此中見分為五故成十也。列名可知。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：經文但說『有』，究竟違背了什麼？經部（Sautrāntika）的解釋。
論：『有』在何時存在？有部（Sarvāstivāda）的提問。
論：在他們睡眠時，直到建立隨眠想。經部（Sautrāntika）的回答。有兩種解釋：一是睡眠時；二是因立果之名，『想』即是『名』的別稱。指的是在現在的狀態，煩惱被建立為隨眠的稱呼。
論：旁論暫且停止，應該辨明正論。這是對頌文的正式解釋。
論：說『貪』分為兩種，即欲貪和有貪。這是對頌的正式解釋。
論：這裡所說的『有貪』，指的是在色界和無色界中的貪。這是說明『有貪』的本體。
論：因為什麼原因，唯獨在彼處建立『有貪』之名？這是提問。三界都可稱為『有』，為什麼只有上二界的貪獨稱為『有貪』？
論：因為彼貪大多依賴於自身，所以建立『有貪』之名。這是解釋。關於『有』有兩種解釋：一是因為它更多地在內在的門徑中運轉，所以稱為『有貪』；二是爲了遮止他們對解脫的錯誤想法，所以上二界稱為『有』。這是第一種解釋。
論：又因為有人認為...並非真正的解脫。這是第二種解釋。前一種解釋認為上界貪緣于內在的『有』，所以稱為『有貪』。后一種解釋是爲了阻止錯誤的執著，所以在上二界建立『有貪』之名。
論：這裡所說的自體...所以建立『有貪』之名。這是解釋自體名為『有』。等至（Samāpatti），以及所依之身，都是自體，不是外境。『有』有多種，如所說的三有，即是三界。這裡所說的『有』，指的是自體。上二界的貪大多執著于自體，而不是執著于外境，因為已經遠離了欲貪，所以唯獨在上二界建立『有貪』之名。
論：既然說了『有貪』...不分別顯示。這是解釋頌文只說了『有貪』，沒有說『欲貪』的原因。既然大多緣于自體名為『有貪』，那麼可以推知大多緣于外境的就叫做『欲貪』。
論：即上面所說的。下一頌。第三，依據本論將六種分為十種。這是提問的開始。頌文的回答，如文字所能理解的。
論曰...五疑。這裡見分為五種，所以成為十種。列出的名稱可以理解。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: The Sutra only speaks of 'bhava' (existence); what does it contradict? This is the explanation of the Sautrāntika school.
Treatise: When does 'bhava' exist? This is a question from the Sarvāstivāda school.
Treatise: During their sleep, up to the establishment of the latent disposition (anuśaya) thought. This is the answer of the Sautrāntika school. There are two explanations: one is during sleep; the other is naming based on cause and effect. 'Thought' (saṃjñā) is another name for 'name' (nāma). It refers to the state in the present, where afflictions are established as the designation of latent dispositions.
Treatise: Let's stop the digression and clarify the main argument. This is the formal explanation of the verse.
Treatise: Saying 'greed' (rāga) is divided into two, namely desire-greed (kāma-rāga) and existence-greed (bhava-rāga). This is the formal explanation of the verse.
Treatise: The 'existence-greed' mentioned here refers to greed in the Form Realm (Rūpadhātu) and Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu). This explains the substance of 'existence-greed'.
Treatise: For what reason is the name 'existence-greed' established only there? This is a question. All three realms can be called 'existence' (bhava), so why is greed in the upper two realms uniquely called 'existence-greed'?
Treatise: Because that greed mostly relies on oneself, the name 'existence-greed' is established. This is the explanation. Regarding 'existence' (bhava), there are two explanations: one is because it operates more within the internal gateways, it is called 'existence-greed'; the other is to prevent their wrong ideas about liberation, so the upper two realms are called 'existence'. This is the first explanation.
Treatise: Also, because some people think... it is not true liberation. This is the second explanation. The previous explanation considered that greed in the upper realms is conditioned by internal 'existence', so it is called 'existence-greed'. The latter explanation is to prevent wrong attachments, so the name 'existence-greed' is established in the upper two realms.
Treatise: The self-nature (ātma-bhāva) mentioned here... so the name 'existence-greed' is established. This explains that self-nature is called 'existence'. Samāpatti (attainment), as well as the body on which it relies, are all self-nature, not external objects. There are many kinds of 'existence' (bhava), such as the three existences (tribhava), which are the three realms. The 'existence' mentioned here refers to self-nature. Greed in the upper two realms mostly clings to self-nature, not clinging to external objects, because it has already departed from desire-greed, so the name 'existence-greed' is uniquely established in the upper two realms.
Treatise: Since 'existence-greed' has been mentioned... it is not separately shown. This explains why the verse only mentions 'existence-greed' and not 'desire-greed'. Since mostly conditioned by self-nature is called 'existence-greed', then it can be inferred that mostly conditioned by external objects is called 'desire-greed'.
Treatise: That is what was said above. The next verse. Thirdly, according to this treatise, six are divided into ten. This is the beginning of the question. The answer of the verse, as the text can be understood.
Treatise: ...five doubts. Here, views are divided into five, so they become ten. The listed names can be understood.
論。又即所說至余等如欲說。此下第四依本論分六為九十八也。文中有三。一開九十八。二明忍智斷。三五見別相。此為初也。問起頌答。如文可解。
論曰至成九十八。總釋頌也。
論。謂於六中至如前已辨。六中一見。行解不同分為五見。如前已辨。
論。即此所辨至無色三界。此總釋部．界也。
論。且於欲界至十七七八四。此就欲界五部惑數也。苦十。集．滅各七。道八。修四。成三十六。故云如次十七七八四。
論。即上五部至三十六種。此就部辨 部。謂部類各分 余文可解。
論。前三十二至彼方斷故。分見．修也 才見諦時即斷名見所斷。由見斷不待修故名見所斷 數數習道彼方斷故名修所斷。要待修習方始斷故名修所斷。
論。如是已顯至及修所斷。此辨五部通局。如文可解。
論。此中何相至名修所斷。辨貪等四惑五斷相也。正理論云。經主於此自問答言。此中何相見苦所斷。乃至何相是修所斷。若緣見此所斷為境名見此所斷。餘名修所斷。此不應理。所以者何。遍行隨眠緣五部故。則見苦．集所斷隨眠。亦應通是見集苦等所斷。又見滅道所斷隨眠。緣非所斷法。當言何所斷。故彼非善立所斷相。應言若見緣苦為境名為見苦。即是苦法．苦
【現代漢語翻譯】 論：又如前面所說，至於其餘等等，如果想要解說，以下第四部分是依據本論分為九十八使。文中包含三個部分：一是展開九十八使，二是闡明忍智斷，三是五見的差別相狀。這是第一部分，通過問答頌的形式展開，文義可以理解。
論曰：總括地解釋頌文，成就九十八使。
論：在六種情況中，一種是見，因為行為理解不同，所以分為五見，如前文已經辨析。
論：即此所辨，直至無色三界。這是總括地解釋部和界。
論：且於欲界，乃至十七七八四。這是就欲界的五部煩惱數量而言。苦諦下有十使，集諦和滅諦各有七使，道諦有八使，修道有四使，總共三十六使。所以說依次是十七七八四。
論：即以上五部，乃至三十六種。這是就部來辨別部類。所謂『部』，是指部類各自區分。其餘文義可以理解。
論：前三十二使，乃至在彼方斷除的緣故。這是區分見所斷和修所斷。在剛剛證得見諦的時候就斷除的，稱為見所斷。因為見所斷不需要等待修習就能斷除，所以稱為見所斷。通過反覆修習道才能在彼方斷除的，稱為修所斷。需要等待修習才能開始斷除，所以稱為修所斷。
論：像這樣已經顯示，乃至以及修所斷。這是辨別五部煩惱的共通性和侷限性。文義可以理解。
論：這其中什麼相狀，乃至稱為修所斷？這是辨別貪等四種煩惱的五種斷除相狀。《正理論》說，經主在此處自己提問回答說：『這其中什麼相狀是見苦所斷？』乃至『什麼相狀是修所斷？』如果緣于見到此所斷為境界，就稱為見此所斷，其餘的稱為修所斷。這種說法不應道理。為什麼呢？因為遍行隨眠緣於五部，那麼見苦、集所斷的隨眠，也應該共通地是見集苦等所斷。又見滅、道所斷的隨眠，緣于非所斷法，應當說是屬於什麼所斷呢？所以那種建立所斷相的說法並不完善。應該說如果見到緣苦為境界，就稱為見苦，也就是苦法、苦。
【English Translation】 Treatise: Furthermore, as previously mentioned, regarding the rest, etc., if one wishes to explain, the fourth part below is based on the treatise and divided into the ninety-eight anusayas (tendencies). The text contains three parts: first, the unfolding of the ninety-eight anusayas; second, the clarification of forbearance, wisdom, and cessation; and third, the distinct characteristics of the five views. This is the first part, unfolded through questions and answers in verse form, and the meaning of the text can be understood.
Treatise says: This is a general explanation of the verse, accomplishing the ninety-eight anusayas.
Treatise: Among the six situations, one is 'view' (dṛṣṭi). Because of different understandings of behavior, it is divided into the five views, as previously analyzed.
Treatise: That which has been distinguished here extends to the Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu), the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), and the Form Realm (Rūpadhātu). This is a general explanation of the divisions (bhāga) and realms (dhātu).
Treatise: Moreover, in the Desire Realm, it is seventeen, seven, eight, and four. This refers to the number of afflictions in the five categories (bhāga) of the Desire Realm. There are ten anusayas under the Truth of Suffering (Duḥkha satya), seven each under the Truth of Origin (Samudaya satya) and the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha satya), eight under the Truth of the Path (Mārga satya), and four under cultivation (bhāvanā), totaling thirty-six. Therefore, it is said that they are seventeen, seven, eight, and four in order.
Treatise: That is, the above five categories, up to thirty-six types. This is to distinguish the categories (bhāga) by category. The term 'category' (bhāga) refers to the separate divisions of each category. The rest of the text can be understood.
Treatise: The first thirty-two, up to those that are eliminated on that side (the path of cultivation). This distinguishes what is abandoned by seeing (darśana-heya) from what is abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya). That which is abandoned immediately upon attaining the vision of truth (darśana) is called 'abandoned by seeing'. Because what is abandoned by seeing does not require cultivation to be abandoned, it is called 'abandoned by seeing'. That which is abandoned on that side (the path of cultivation) through repeated practice of the path is called 'abandoned by cultivation'. It requires waiting for cultivation to begin before it can be abandoned, so it is called 'abandoned by cultivation'.
Treatise: As has been shown, up to and including what is abandoned by cultivation. This distinguishes the commonality and limitations of the five categories of afflictions. The meaning of the text can be understood.
Treatise: What characteristic is there among these, up to what is called 'abandoned by cultivation'? This distinguishes the five aspects of abandonment of the four afflictions such as greed. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that the master of the sutra asks and answers himself here: 'What characteristic is abandoned by seeing under the Truth of Suffering?' up to 'What characteristic is abandoned by cultivation?' If it takes as its object the abandonment seen here, it is called 'abandoned by seeing here'; the rest is called 'abandoned by cultivation'. This statement is unreasonable. Why? Because the pervasive latent tendencies (sarvatraga anuśaya) are related to the five categories, then the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing under the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of Origin should also be commonly abandoned by seeing under the Truth of Origin and the Truth of Suffering. Furthermore, the latent tendencies abandoned by seeing under the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of the Path are related to non-abandoned dharmas. What should be said about what is abandoned? Therefore, that establishment of the characteristics of what is abandoned is not perfect. It should be said that if seeing takes suffering as its object, it is called seeing suffering, which is the dharma of suffering, suffering.
類智．忍。此二所斷總說名為見苦所斷。乃至見道所斷亦然。數習名修。謂見跡者為得上義。于苦等智數數重習說名為修。此道所除名修所斷。是名為善立所斷相 有人敘俱舍師救云。正理論師謬解我文。謂唯緣此諦所斷為境。名見此諦所斷。故以他部緣及無漏緣為難。應作此言。若緣見此諦為境。若緣見此諦所斷為境。名見此諦所斷。他部緣惑。及無漏緣。應知即是若緣見此為境所攝。以緣諦故。作此解釋非異我說 今詳。此釋未為遣難。釋云謬解我文。詳其所解。正理依文。此釋加字豈加字為是。依文為謬 又云。他部緣惑。及無漏緣。應知即是若緣見此為境所攝。以緣諦故者。無漏緣惑。及苦．集下邪見．疑．無明自界緣可爾。以親緣諦故。見此諦時斷。故苦．集下他界緣惑為是何攝。此惑非緣見此所斷及見此諦。斷時不見彼所緣故。若謂雖不見彼所緣。見此諦斷故名見此斷者。此即應總名見此斷。見此諦時。親迷。重緣皆頓斷故。何因加文 今詳。正理妄彈斥者。俱舍此中辨五斷相者。欲界貪．瞋．慢。及此相應無明五斷相也。此四煩惱。若修道斷通緣別事。若見道斷四諦皆雖重緣惑起。即從所緣分其四斷。由此論云若緣見此．所斷為境。名見此所斷。餘名修所斷。正理論師誤解俱舍遂妄彈斥 問何以得知苦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 類智（kileśa-jñāna，煩惱之智）、忍（kṣānti，安忍）。這二者所斷的，總的來說稱為見苦所斷。乃至見道所斷也是這樣。數習名為修（bhāvanā，修行）。意思是說，見跡者爲了得到上義，對於苦等之智數數重複修習，這被稱為修。此道所除的，名為修所斷。這被稱為善巧地安立了所斷的相。 有人敘述俱舍師的救濟之說：『正理論師錯誤地理解了我的文句，認為只有緣此諦所斷為境，才名為見此諦所斷。所以用他部緣和無漏緣來作為詰難。應該這樣說，如果緣見此諦為境，或者緣見此諦所斷為境，才名為見此諦所斷。他部緣惑，以及無漏緣，應該知道就是若緣見此為境所攝。因為緣諦的緣故。』這樣解釋並非與我的說法不同。 現在詳細考察，這種解釋並沒有消除詰難。解釋說正理論師錯誤地理解了他的文句，詳細考察他所理解的，正理是依據文句的。這種解釋是加上了字，難道加上字就是正確的，依據文句就是錯誤的嗎？ 又說：『他部緣惑，以及無漏緣，應該知道就是若緣見此為境所攝，因為緣諦的緣故。』無漏緣惑，以及苦、集下的邪見、疑、無明自界緣可以這樣說，因為親緣諦的緣故，見此諦時斷。那麼苦、集下他界緣惑應該歸於何處？此惑並非緣見此所斷以及見此諦，斷時不見彼所緣的緣故。如果說雖然不見彼所緣，見此諦斷，所以名為見此斷，那麼這就應該總名為見此斷，見此諦時，親迷、重緣都頓斷的緣故。為何要加上文句？ 現在詳細考察，正理是胡亂地彈斥。俱舍在此辨別五斷相，指的是欲界貪、瞋、慢，以及與此相應的無明五斷相。這四種煩惱，如果修道斷，通緣別事；如果見道斷，四諦都雖然重複緣惑而起，就從所緣來區分其四斷。因此論說如果緣見此、所斷為境，才名為見此所斷，其餘名為修所斷。正理論師誤解了俱舍，於是胡亂地彈斥。 問：憑什麼得知苦
【English Translation】 English version Kileśa-jñāna (Knowledge of Afflictions), and kṣānti (Forbearance). What is severed by these two is generally called 'what is severed by seeing suffering'. It is the same even for what is severed by the path of seeing. Repeated practice is called bhāvanā (cultivation). This means that those who see the trace, in order to attain the superior meaning, repeatedly practice the knowledge of suffering, etc.; this is called cultivation. What is removed by this path is called 'what is severed by cultivation'. This is called skillfully establishing the characteristics of what is to be severed. Someone narrates the saving words of the Kośa master: 'The masters of the Nyāyānusāra misinterpret my text, thinking that only what is objectified by what is severed by seeing this truth is called 'what is severed by seeing this truth'. Therefore, they use the conditions of other schools and the conditions of non-outflow as objections. It should be said like this: if one conditions seeing this truth as the object, or if one conditions seeing what is severed by this truth as the object, then it is called 'what is severed by seeing this truth'. The afflictions conditioned by other schools, and the conditions of non-outflow, should be known as being included in 'if one conditions seeing this as the object'. Because of conditioning the truth.' This explanation is not different from my statement. Now, upon detailed examination, this explanation does not eliminate the objections. The explanation says that the masters of the Nyāyānusāra misinterpreted his text. Upon detailed examination of what he understood, the Nyāyānusāra is based on the text. This explanation adds words; is adding words correct, and relying on the text incorrect? Furthermore, it says: 'The afflictions conditioned by other schools, and the conditions of non-outflow, should be known as being included in 'if one conditions seeing this as the object', because of conditioning the truth.' The afflictions conditioned by non-outflow, and the self-realm conditions of wrong views, doubt, and ignorance under suffering and origination, can be said like this, because they directly condition the truth, and are severed when seeing this truth. Then, where should the afflictions conditioned by other-realm under suffering and origination be categorized? These afflictions do not condition seeing what is severed by this, nor do they condition seeing this truth, because what is conditioned is not seen at the time of severance. If it is said that although what is conditioned is not seen, it is severed when seeing this truth, so it is called 'what is severed by seeing this', then this should be generally called 'what is severed by seeing this', because at the time of seeing this truth, direct confusion and repeated conditions are all severed immediately. Why add words? Now, upon detailed examination, the Nyāyānusāra is recklessly criticizing. The Kośa, in distinguishing the five characteristics of severance here, refers to the five characteristics of severance of greed, hatred, pride in the desire realm, and the ignorance corresponding to them. These four afflictions, if severed by the path of cultivation, generally condition other matters; if severed by the path of seeing, although the four truths repeatedly condition afflictions to arise, the four severances are distinguished from what is conditioned. Therefore, the treatise says that if one conditions seeing this, what is severed as the object, then it is called 'what is severed by seeing this', and the rest is called 'what is severed by cultivation'. The masters of the Nyāyānusāra misunderstood the Kośa, and thus recklessly criticized. Question: How is it known that suffering
．集諦下貪．嗔．慢等。唯重緣起不親緣諦 答準識身足論第十一云。頗有色界見所斷心。決定唯緣有覆無記法耶。曰有。謂色界系見苦．集所斷不遍隨眠相應心。及色界系見滅．道所斷有漏緣隨眠 今詳。隨眠見諦斷者應有四句。有唯緣諦。謂邪見．疑．獨頭無明。有唯重緣。謂貪．嗔．慢．及彼相應無明。有兼二種謂見．戒取等。第四句可知。
論。如是六中至說九十八。結總數。如文可解 問九地。五部。各各有異。何緣於此就界不同建立隨眠非就地異 答由離界貪建立遍知．沙門果故。謂立此二由斷隨眠。此斷隨眠界非地故。不就地建立隨眠 又釋。雖一界中諸地不同。同界隨眠性少相似。故就界分。不就地說。上界無嗔如前已釋。
論。於此所辨至智所害故。明九十八見。修斷也。
論。如前所說。此下一行頌。第二明忍所斷有定．不定。智斷唯定不同。婆沙五十一云。前行義。一不共。二畢竟。三最初 不共前行者。謂若諸煩惱通三界系。唯見所斷有二句。非想一地唯見所斷唯聖人斷。下八地通二人。聖者斷唯見斷。異生斷唯修斷。此以非想地見斷為前行(以見道不共先答) 畢竟前行者。若諸煩惱唯欲界系。通於五部。彼修為前行有二句。或修所斷。或見．修所斷。修所斷者是決定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：集諦（Dukkha-samudaya-satya，苦之集起真諦）下的貪（lobha，貪婪）、嗔（dosa，嗔恨）、慢（māna，傲慢）等煩惱，僅僅是『重緣』，而不是『親緣諦』。問題：回答依據《識身足論》第十一卷的說法：『是否存在見所斷的心，決定只緣于有覆無記法？』回答：『存在。』也就是『系見苦諦（Dukkha-satya，苦之真諦）、集諦（Dukkha-samudaya-satya，苦之集起真諦）所斷的不遍隨眠（anubandha，潛在的煩惱）相應的心，以及系見滅諦（Nirodha-satya，滅之真諦）、道諦（Mārga-satya，道之真諦）所斷的有漏緣隨眠。』現在詳細分析，隨眠由見諦所斷的情況應有四種情況：第一種，只緣于諦，比如邪見（mithyā-dṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）、疑（vicikitsa，懷疑）、獨頭無明（moha，愚癡）。第二種，只『重緣』，比如貪（lobha，貪婪）、嗔（dosa，嗔恨）、慢（māna，傲慢）以及與它們相應的無明（moha，愚癡）。第三種，兼具兩種情況，比如見取（dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa，執取不正見）和戒禁取（śīla-vrata-parāmarśa，執取不正戒）等。第四種情況可以類推得知。 論：像這樣六種煩惱總共加起來，就說是九十八種隨眠。總結總數，如原文所說可以理解。問題：九地（nine realms of existence）、五部（five categories of afflictions）各有不同，為什麼在這裡根據界（dhātu，界）的不同來建立隨眠，而不是根據地的不同？回答：因為要通過斷離界貪來建立遍知（parijñā，完全的理解）和沙門果（śrāmaṇya-phala，出家修行的果位）。也就是說，建立這二者是因為斷除了隨眠，而斷除隨眠是根據界而不是地，所以不根據地來建立隨眠。另一種解釋是：雖然同一界中各地不同，但同一界的隨眠性質比較相似，所以根據界來劃分，而不是根據地來說。上界沒有嗔恨，前面已經解釋過了。 論：在這裡所辨析的，直到被智所斷，說明九十八種見是修所斷的。 論：如前面所說。這下面一行頌，第二是說明忍所斷的有定和不定，智斷只有定，這二者不同。《婆沙論》第五十一卷說：前行的意義，一是不共，二是畢竟，三是最初。不共前行是指：如果諸煩惱通於三界系，只有見所斷的有兩種情況：非想非非想處地（naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñāyatana，既非有想也非無想處）只有見所斷，只有聖人才能斷除。下八地通於二種人，聖者斷除的只是見所斷，異生斷除的只是修所斷。這裡以非想非非想處地的見斷作為前行（因為見道不共，先回答）。畢竟前行是指：如果諸煩惱只是欲界系，通於五部，那麼修所斷作為前行有兩種情況：或者只是修所斷，或者既是見所斷又是修所斷。只是修所斷的是決定的。
【English Translation】 English version: Greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), pride (māna), etc., under Dukkha-samudaya-satya (the truth of the arising of suffering), are only 'secondary conditions' (重緣) and not 'primary conditions related to the truth' (親緣諦). Question: The answer is based on the eleventh volume of the Vijñānakāyaśāstra: 'Is there a mind severed by view that is definitely conditioned only by obscured and indeterminate dharmas?' Answer: 'Yes.' That is, 'the mind associated with the non-pervasive latent tendencies (anubandha) severed by the view of Dukkha-satya (the truth of suffering) and Dukkha-samudaya-satya (the truth of the arising of suffering), and the contaminated latent tendencies conditioned by the view of Nirodha-satya (the truth of cessation) and Mārga-satya (the truth of the path).' Now, in detail, the latent tendencies severed by the view of the truth should have four cases: First, only conditioned by the truth, such as wrong view (mithyā-dṛṣṭi), doubt (vicikitsa), and independent ignorance (moha). Second, only 'secondary conditions', such as greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), pride (māna), and the ignorance (moha) associated with them. Third, both cases, such as view-attachment (dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa) and adherence to precepts and vows (śīla-vrata-parāmarśa). The fourth case can be inferred. Treatise: Like these six kinds of afflictions added together, they are said to be ninety-eight latent tendencies. Summarizing the total number, as the original text says, it can be understood. Question: The nine realms of existence (nine realms of existence) and the five categories of afflictions (five categories of afflictions) are different, so why are latent tendencies established here according to the difference of realms (dhātu) instead of according to the difference of realms? Answer: Because the establishment of complete understanding (parijñā) and the fruit of a śrāmaṇa (śrāmaṇya-phala) is based on severing greed for realms. That is, the establishment of these two is because of severing latent tendencies, and the severing of latent tendencies is based on realms rather than realms, so latent tendencies are not established according to realms. Another explanation is: Although the realms are different in the same realm, the nature of the latent tendencies in the same realm is relatively similar, so they are divided according to realms instead of according to realms. There is no hatred in the upper realms, as has been explained before. Treatise: What is analyzed here, until it is severed by wisdom, shows that the ninety-eight views are severed by cultivation. Treatise: As mentioned before. The next verse explains that what is severed by forbearance is definite and indefinite, and what is severed by wisdom is only definite, which is different. The fifty-first volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: The meaning of the preliminary practice is, first, non-common, second, ultimately, and third, initial. Non-common preliminary practice refers to: If all afflictions are connected to the three realms, only what is severed by view has two cases: the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñāyatana) is only severed by view, and only sages can sever it. The lower eight realms are common to two kinds of people, and what sages sever is only severed by view, and what ordinary beings sever is only severed by cultivation. Here, the view-severance of the realm of neither perception nor non-perception is taken as the preliminary practice (because the path of seeing is not common, answer first). Ultimate preliminary practice refers to: If all afflictions are only connected to the realm of desire and are common to the five categories, then what is severed by cultivation as the preliminary practice has two cases: either only severed by cultivation, or both severed by view and severed by cultivation. What is only severed by cultivation is definite.
。若聖若凡皆修所斷故。見斷不定。聖斷是見斷。凡斷是修斷。修斷決定故先答。以五門中是最後故名畢竟前行 最初前行者。若諸煩惱通三界系通五部。彼見為前行有三句。非想見所斷唯聖人斷。唯無漏道斷。唯見斷為第一句。已下八地非唯見斷故不合立。不例修道修道下地唯修斷故。所以合立修所斷。通下八地皆修所斷通凡聖斷。非想一地唯聖人斷。唯無漏道斷。以同唯修斷。合立為一為第二句。不例見道以有一定故非第三句。以與下合立凡．聖漏．無漏不定故非第一句。下八地見所斷唯不定故為第三句。問前行是何義 答先立義先答義。是前行義。如最初前行先立見所斷。次立修所斷。后立不定。此依婆沙所立次第也。
論曰至方能斷故。釋上兩句。忍所斷者是見所斷。有頂地中唯見非修。以世俗智不能斷故。
論。餘八地攝至智所斷故。釋第三句。下八地通．二斷。若聖人才見諦理即便斷故。不容至修。凡夫不見諦理必賴數修方能斷故。
論。智所害至智所斷故。此釋第四句。明智所斷即修所斷。此唯修斷不通見斷。
論。有餘師說至見所斷惑。已下敘異師執婆沙九十云。或復有執。異生不能斷見所斷隨眠。有餘復執。異生不能斷諸隨眠。唯能制伏。婆沙五十一云。謂譬喻者作如是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果聖人和凡夫都能通過修行斷除煩惱，那麼『見斷』（Dṛṣṭi-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）就是不確定的。聖人斷除的是『見斷』，凡夫斷除的是『修斷』（Bhāvanā-heya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）。因為『修斷』是確定的，所以先回答。因為它在五門中是最後一個，所以稱為『畢竟前行』（atyanta-pūrvagamana）。 最初的前行是：如果諸煩惱通於三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）的繫縛，通於五部（五種煩惱分類），那麼，以『見』（Dṛṣṭi，見解）作為前行，有三種情況。『非想非非想處』（Naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñāyatana）的見所斷，只有聖人才能斷除，只有無漏道（anāsrava-mārga）才能斷除，只有『見斷』是第一種情況。下面的八地（指欲界到無所有處）並非只有『見斷』，所以不合並設立。不類比修道，因為修道下地只有『修斷』，所以合併設立『修所斷』。通於下八地都是『修所斷』，通於凡夫和聖人斷除。『非想非非想處』一地只有聖人才能斷除，只有無漏道才能斷除。因為它與『唯修斷』相同，所以合併爲一種，作為第二種情況。不類比見道，因為它有一定的性質，所以不是第三種情況。因為它與下地合併，凡夫、聖人、有漏、無漏不確定，所以不是第一種情況。下八地的見所斷是不確定的，所以是第三種情況。 問：『前行』（pūrvagamana）是什麼意思？答：先建立意義，先回答意義，這就是『前行』的意義。例如，最初的前行，先建立『見所斷』，其次建立『修所斷』，最後建立不確定的。這是依據《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）所建立的次第。 論曰：乃至才能斷除的緣故。解釋上面兩種情況。『忍所斷』（kṣānti-heya）就是『見所斷』。『有頂地』（Bhavāgra，非想非非想處）中只有『見』而不是『修』，因為世俗的智慧不能斷除。 論：其餘八地包含乃至智慧所斷的緣故。解釋第三種情況。下八地通於『二斷』（見斷和修斷）。如果聖人才能見到真諦的道理，立即斷除，不允許到修道。凡夫不見真諦的道理，必須依靠多次修行才能斷除。 論：智慧所害乃至智慧所斷的緣故。這解釋第四種情況。說明智慧所斷就是『修所斷』。這隻有『修斷』，不通於『見斷』。 論：有其餘師說乃至見所斷的迷惑。以下敘述其他師的執著。《婆沙論》第九十卷說：或者有人執著，異生（prthagjana，凡夫）不能斷除『見所斷』的隨眠（anuśaya，煩惱的潛在形式）。有的人又執著，異生不能斷除諸隨眠，只能制伏。《婆沙論》第五十一卷說：譬喻者（Dārṣṭāntika）這樣認為。
【English Translation】 English version: If both saints and ordinary beings can sever afflictions through cultivation, then 'Dṛṣṭi-heya' (what is severed by the path of seeing) is uncertain. What saints sever is 'Dṛṣṭi-heya', and what ordinary beings sever is 'Bhāvanā-heya' (what is severed by the path of cultivation). Because 'Bhāvanā-heya' is definite, it is answered first. Because it is the last among the five categories, it is called 'atyanta-pūrvagamana' (ultimate preliminary practice). The initial preliminary practice is: If all afflictions are connected to the bonds of the three realms (Trailokya, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm) and connected to the five categories (five classifications of afflictions), then, taking 'Dṛṣṭi' (view) as the preliminary practice, there are three cases. What is severed by view in the 'Naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñāyatana' (the realm of neither perception nor non-perception) is only severed by saints, only severed by the unconditioned path (anāsrava-mārga), and only 'Dṛṣṭi-heya' is the first case. The eight realms below (referring to the desire realm to the realm of nothingness) are not only 'Dṛṣṭi-heya', so they are not combined and established. It is not analogous to the path of cultivation, because the lower realms of the path of cultivation are only 'Bhāvanā-heya', so 'Bhāvanā-heya' is combined and established. All the lower eight realms are 'Bhāvanā-heya', and they are severed by both ordinary beings and saints. The realm of 'Naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñāyatana' is only severed by saints, and only severed by the unconditioned path. Because it is the same as 'only Bhāvanā-heya', it is combined into one, as the second case. It is not analogous to the path of seeing, because it has a definite nature, so it is not the third case. Because it is combined with the lower realms, ordinary beings, saints, conditioned, and unconditioned are uncertain, so it is not the first case. What is severed by view in the lower eight realms is uncertain, so it is the third case. Question: What is the meaning of 'pūrvagamana' (preliminary practice)? Answer: First establish the meaning, first answer the meaning, this is the meaning of 'pūrvagamana'. For example, the initial preliminary practice, first establish 'Dṛṣṭi-heya', then establish 'Bhāvanā-heya', and finally establish the uncertain. This is based on the order established by the 'Vibhāṣā' (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra). The treatise says: Up to the point where it can be severed. Explaining the above two cases. 'Kṣānti-heya' (what is severed by forbearance) is 'Dṛṣṭi-heya'. In the 'Bhavāgra' (the peak of existence, the realm of neither perception nor non-perception), there is only 'Dṛṣṭi' and not 'Bhāvanā', because worldly wisdom cannot sever it. The treatise: The remaining eight realms include up to what is severed by wisdom. Explaining the third case. The lower eight realms are connected to the 'two severances' (severance by seeing and severance by cultivation). If saints can see the truth, they immediately sever it, not allowing it to reach the path of cultivation. Ordinary beings do not see the truth, and must rely on repeated cultivation to sever it. The treatise: What is harmed by wisdom up to what is severed by wisdom. This explains the fourth case. Clarifying that what is severed by wisdom is 'Bhāvanā-heya'. This is only 'Bhāvanā-heya', not connected to 'Dṛṣṭi-heya'. The treatise: Some other teachers say up to the delusion severed by view. The following narrates the attachments of other teachers. The ninetieth fascicle of the 'Vibhāṣā' says: Or some are attached, ordinary beings (prthagjana) cannot sever the latent forms of afflictions (anuśaya) that are 'Dṛṣṭi-heya'. Some others are attached, ordinary beings cannot sever all latent forms of afflictions, they can only subdue them. The fifty-first fascicle of the 'Vibhāṣā' says: The Dārṣṭāntikas (those who use analogies) think in this way.
說。異生不能斷諸煩惱。
論。如大分別至諸見現行。引兩經證。可知。
論。謂於前際至諸見未斷者。引梵網經六十二見中全常。一分常等。證凡夫不斷見惑所以。
為證者。六十二見中前際分別中十八。謂四遍常論。四一分常論。二無因生論。四有邊等論。四不死憍亂論 后際分別見有四十四。謂十六有想論。八無想論。八非有想非無想論。七斷滅論。五現法涅槃論 依過去起分別見名前際。依未來起分別見名后際依現在世不定。或是過去後故名后。未來前故名前 四遍常論者。一由憶劫。謂由能憶一壞成劫．或二．或三．乃至八．十。彼便執我。世間。俱常。二由憶生。謂由能憶一生．或二．或三．乃至．百．千生事。彼便執我．世間俱常。三由見死生。謂由天眼見諸有情死時生時。諸蘊相續。由斯便執我．及世間俱常。四由尋．伺。謂由如是虛妄尋．伺。執我．世間俱常住。此四遍常常見為性 四一分常者。一由大梵。謂從梵世來生此間。由得宿住隨念通故。作如是執。我等皆是大梵天王化作。梵王能化在彼常住。我等所化故是無常。二由大種或心。謂聞大梵說大種．或心隨一是常。便作是執。我以大梵天王為量。世間一分常住。一分無常。三極戲忘念天。謂有先從戲忘天沒來生此間由得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：異生（指凡夫，未開悟的眾生）不能斷除各種煩惱嗎？
答：如《大分別經》所說，直至各種邪見現行。引經文兩處可以證明。
答：指的是對於過去際（過去的時間）乃至各種邪見未斷除的人。《梵網經》中六十二見，包括全常論、一分常論等，可以證明凡夫不能斷除見惑的原因。
爲了證明這一點，六十二見中，對於過去際的分別有十八種：四種遍常論，四種一分常論，兩種無因生論，四種有邊等論，四種不死憍亂論。對於未來際的分別見有四十四種：十六種有想論，八種無想論，八種非有想非無想論，七種斷滅論，五種現法涅槃論。依據過去而產生的分別見稱為前際，依據未來而產生的分別見稱為后際。依據現在世則不確定，或者屬於過去之後，所以稱為后際；或者屬於未來之前，所以稱為前際。
四種遍常論是：一、由於憶劫（回憶過去劫數）。即由於能夠回憶一個壞劫、成劫，或者兩個、三個，乃至八個、十個劫數。他們便執著于『我』和『世間』都是常住不變的。二、由於憶生（回憶過去生世）。即由於能夠回憶一生、或者二生、或者三生，乃至百生、千生的事情。他們便執著于『我』和『世間』都是常住不變的。三、由於見死生（看見眾生死和生）。即由於天眼看見各種有情死亡和出生的時候，諸蘊（五蘊，即色、受、想、行、識）相續不斷。因此便執著于『我』和『世間』都是常住不變的。四、由於尋伺（虛妄的思考）。即由於這樣虛妄的尋伺，執著于『我』和『世間』都是常住不變的。這四種遍常論以常見為特性。
四種一分常論是：一、由於大梵（大梵天）。即從梵世（梵天界）來到人間，由於得到宿住隨念通（回憶過去世的神通）的緣故，作出這樣的執著：『我們都是大梵天王所化作的。梵天王能夠化生，他在那裡是常住不變的，我們是被他所化生的，所以是無常的。』二、由於大種或心（地、水、火、風四大種或心）。即聽聞大梵天說四大種或者心是常住的，便作出這樣的執著：『我以大梵天王為標準，世間一部分是常住的，一部分是無常的。』三、極戲忘念天（沉迷於嬉戲而忘記正念的天人）。即有先前從戲忘天（沉迷於嬉戲而忘記正念的天界）死亡後來到人間，由於得到
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Can 'I-sheng' (異生) (referring to ordinary beings, unenlightened beings) not sever all afflictions?
Answer: As stated in the 'Da Fen Bie Jing' (大分別經), until various wrong views manifest. Citing two scriptures can prove this.
Answer: It refers to those who have not severed various wrong views regarding the 'qian ji' (前際) (past time). The 'Fan Wang Jing' (梵網經) (Brahmajala Sutra) contains sixty-two views, including the 'quan chang lun' (全常論) (theory of complete permanence), 'yi fen chang lun' (一分常論) (theory of partial permanence), etc., which can prove the reason why ordinary people cannot sever the delusions of views.
To prove this, among the sixty-two views, there are eighteen kinds of distinctions regarding the past: four kinds of 'bian chang lun' (遍常論) (theories of pervasive permanence), four kinds of 'yi fen chang lun' (一分常論) (theories of partial permanence), two kinds of 'wu yin sheng lun' (無因生論) (theories of causeless origination), four kinds of 'you bian deng lun' (有邊等論) (theories of finite limits), and four kinds of 'bu si jiao luan lun' (不死憍亂論) (theories of immortal confusion). There are forty-four kinds of views distinguishing the future: sixteen kinds of 'you xiang lun' (有想論) (theories of perception), eight kinds of 'wu xiang lun' (無想論) (theories of non-perception), eight kinds of 'fei you xiang fei wu xiang lun' (非有想非無想論) (theories of neither perception nor non-perception), seven kinds of 'duan mie lun' (斷滅論) (theories of annihilation), and five kinds of 'xian fa nie pan lun' (現法涅槃論) (theories of present-life Nirvana). Distinctions based on the past are called 'qian ji' (前際), and distinctions based on the future are called 'hou ji' (后際). Distinctions based on the present are uncertain, either belonging to after the past, hence called 'hou ji' (后際); or belonging to before the future, hence called 'qian ji' (前際).
The four kinds of 'bian chang lun' (遍常論) (theories of pervasive permanence) are: 1. Due to 'yi jie' (憶劫) (recollection of kalpas). That is, due to being able to recall one 'huai jie' (壞劫) (kalpa of destruction), 'cheng jie' (成劫) (kalpa of formation), or two, three, up to eight, ten kalpas. They then cling to the belief that 'I' and 'the world' are permanent. 2. Due to 'yi sheng' (憶生) (recollection of births). That is, due to being able to recall one birth, or two, or three, up to hundreds, thousands of lives. They then cling to the belief that 'I' and 'the world' are permanent. 3. Due to 'jian si sheng' (見死生) (seeing death and birth). That is, due to the divine eye seeing various sentient beings dying and being born, the 'yun' (蘊) (skandhas, i.e., form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness) continue uninterrupted. Therefore, they cling to the belief that 'I' and 'the world' are permanent. 4. Due to 'xun si' (尋伺) (false thinking). That is, due to such false thinking, they cling to the belief that 'I' and 'the world' are permanent. These four kinds of 'bian chang lun' (遍常論) (theories of pervasive permanence) have permanence as their characteristic.
The four kinds of 'yi fen chang lun' (一分常論) (theories of partial permanence) are: 1. Due to 'da fan' (大梵) (Great Brahma). That is, coming from the 'fan shi' (梵世) (Brahma world) to the human world, due to obtaining the 'su zhu sui nian tong' (宿住隨念通) (supernatural power of recollecting past lives), they make such a clinging: 'We are all transformed by the Great Brahma King. The Brahma King can transform and remains permanent there. We are transformed by him, so we are impermanent.' 2. Due to 'da zhong huo xin' (大種或心) (the great elements or mind). That is, hearing the Great Brahma say that the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) or mind are permanent, they make such a clinging: 'I take the Great Brahma King as the standard. Part of the world is permanent, and part is impermanent.' 3. 'Ji xi wang nian tian' (極戲忘念天) (devas who are extremely playful and forget mindfulness). That is, there are those who previously died from the 'xi wang tian' (戲忘天) (heaven of playfulness and forgetfulness) and came to the human world, due to obtaining
宿住通故。便作是執。諸有不極遊戲忘失念者在彼常住。我等由極遊戲忘念。從彼處沒故是無常。四由意憤天。亦同上(是四一分常亦常見為體)二無因論者。一從無想沒來生此間。由得宿住通故。能憶出無想心。及后諸位。而不能憶出心已前諸位。而作是言。我本無而起。二虛妄尋．伺。謂尋思之即身前位所受既皆能憶。前生若有彼所更事。即此身中亦應能憶。既不能憶。故知彼無。邪見攝也 等者。等取四有邊。四不死矯亂論 此上所有已離欲染。于欲界法起上見者 非色界惑緣欲界生。于欲界境已離貪故。定是欲界諸見未斷者。結證也。
論。毗婆沙師至提婆達多。述有部釋。有部計。離欲貪並斷見惑。起此見時暫退欲染。如提婆達多得根本定故能為變化。退色定故食阇王唾等。
論。由行有殊。已下一行頌。第三釋五見差別也。
論曰執我及我所是薩迦耶見。此異名也。
論。壞故名薩至方執我故。論主引經部釋。如文可解。正理破云。若爾何用標以薩聲。但迦耶聲足遮常故。則應但立迦耶見名。無法是常而可聚集。何用身上標以壞聲。
論。毗婆沙者至名薩迦耶。論主引有部釋也。有部不許緣無起慮。心．心所法必托有法為所緣故。經部宗說。許緣無法亦得生心。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『宿住通』（能回憶前世的神通）的緣故，便產生這樣的執著：那些沒有過度沉迷於嬉戲而忘失正念的眾生，常常安住于彼處。我們因為過度沉迷於嬉戲而忘失正念，所以從彼處逝沒，因此是無常的。四、由於『意憤天』（一種天界），也與上述情況相同（這四種都以『一分是常』的常見為本體）。 二、『無因論』者：一、從『無想天』（一種天界）逝沒後來到此世間，由於獲得『宿住通』的緣故，能夠回憶起『無想心』以及其後的各個階段，卻不能回憶起『無想心』之前的各個階段，於是就說：『我本是無而生起的』。二、虛妄地尋求、伺察。認為如果能尋思到自身前世所受的種種，既然都能回憶，那麼前生如果有什麼經歷的事情，那麼在這個身體中也應該能夠回憶起來。既然不能回憶，所以知道前生是沒有的。這是邪見所攝。 『等』字，包括了『四有邊論』（認為世界有邊際的理論）和『四不死矯亂論』（以模棱兩可的言辭來逃避問題，避免觸及死亡的理論）。以上這些都是已經遠離了欲染，對於欲界法生起殊勝見解的人。 並非因為煩惱的緣故而緣于欲界而生，因為對於欲界之境已經遠離了貪慾。一定是對於欲界的各種見解還沒有斷除的人，這是結論性的證明。 論：『毗婆沙師』（《大毗婆沙論》的作者）直到『提婆達多』（Devadatta，佛陀的堂兄弟，以反對佛陀而聞名）的例子，這是在敘述有部的解釋。有部認為，遠離欲貪並且斷除了見惑，生起這種見解的時候，暫時退失了欲染。如同提婆達多得到『根本定』（禪定的一種）的緣故，能夠進行變化。退失了色界禪定的緣故，食用阿阇世王（Ajatasattu，古印度摩揭陀國國王）的唾液等等。 論：由於行為的差別。以下一行頌文，是第三種解釋五見的差別。 論曰：執著于『我』以及『我所』（屬於我的事物）是『薩迦耶見』（Satkayadristi，有身見）。這是它的異名。 論：因為會壞滅所以叫做『薩』，直到執著於我。論主引用經部的解釋，如同文中所說可以理解。『正理』（《阿毗達摩順正理論》）駁斥說：如果這樣，為什麼要用『薩』這個字呢？僅僅用『迦耶』（Kaya，身體）這個字就足以遮止常住了。那麼就應該隻立『迦耶見』這個名稱。沒有什麼是常住不變而可以聚集的，為什麼要用身體上的壞滅來標示呢？ 論：『毗婆沙』的作者直到『薩迦耶』。論主引用有部的解釋。有部不允許緣于沒有的事物而生起思慮。心和心所法必定依託于存在的事物作為所緣的緣故。經部的宗義認為，允許緣于沒有的事物也能夠生起心。
【English Translation】 English version Due to the power of 『Past Life Awareness』 (宿住通, ability to recall past lives), they develop this attachment: those beings who do not excessively indulge in play and lose mindfulness constantly reside in that place. We, because of excessively indulging in play and losing mindfulness, have perished from that place, therefore we are impermanent. Four, due to the 『Wrathful Gods』 (意憤天, a type of celestial being), it is also the same as above (these four all take the common view of 『a portion is permanent』 as their essence). Two, those who hold the 『Causelessness Theory』 (無因論): One, having died from the 『Realm of Non-Perception』 (無想天, a realm of existence) and been reborn in this world, due to obtaining 『Past Life Awareness』 (宿住通), they are able to recall the 『mind of non-perception』 and the stages after it, but are unable to recall the stages before the 『mind of non-perception』, and thus say: 『I originally arose from nothing.』 Two, falsely seeking and examining. They believe that if they can contemplate the experiences received in their previous life, since they can recall them, then if there were any events experienced in the previous life, they should also be able to recall them in this body. Since they cannot recall them, they know that the previous life did not exist. This is included in wrong views. The word 『etc.』 (等) includes the 『Theory of Finite World』 (四有邊論, the theory that the world has boundaries) and the 『Four Evasive Answers』 (四不死矯亂論, using ambiguous language to evade questions and avoid touching on the topic of death). All of the above are those who have already distanced themselves from desire and have developed superior views regarding the Dharma of the Desire Realm. It is not because of afflictions that they arise in dependence on the Desire Realm, because they have already distanced themselves from greed for the objects of the Desire Realm. It must be that those who have not yet severed the various views of the Desire Realm, this is a conclusive proof. Treatise: The 『Vaibhashika masters』 (毗婆沙師, authors of the Mahavibhasa) up to the example of 『Devadatta』 (提婆達多, a cousin of the Buddha, known for opposing him), this is narrating the explanation of the Sarvastivadins. The Sarvastivadins believe that, having distanced themselves from desire and severed the afflictions of views, when this view arises, they temporarily regress from desire. Just as Devadatta, because he obtained the 『Fundamental Concentration』 (根本定, a type of meditative state), was able to perform transformations. Because he regressed from the concentration of the Form Realm, he consumed the saliva of King Ajatasattu (阿阇世王, king of Magadha in ancient India), etc. Treatise: Due to the differences in actions. The following verse line is the third explanation of the differences between the five views. Treatise says: Attachment to 『self』 and 『what belongs to self』 (我所, things that are mine) is 『Satkayadristi』 (薩迦耶見, view of a real self). This is its synonym. Treatise: Because it is subject to destruction, it is called 『Sat』 (薩), until attachment to self. The author of the treatise quotes the explanation of the Sautrantikas, as it can be understood from the text. The Nyayanusara refutes, saying: If that is the case, why use the word 『Sat』? The word 『Kaya』 (迦耶, body) alone is sufficient to prevent the notion of permanence. Then only the name 『Kayadristi』 should be established. There is nothing that is permanent and can be accumulated, why mark it with the destruction of the body? Treatise: The author of the 『Vaibhasha』 up to 『Satkayadristi』. The author of the treatise quotes the explanation of the Sarvastivadins. The Sarvastivadins do not allow thoughts to arise in dependence on non-existent things. Mental states and mental factors must rely on existing things as their objects. The doctrine of the Sautrantikas allows the arising of mind in dependence on non-existent things.
論。諸見但緣至五取蘊起。釋唯我見名有身所以。先釋所以。后引文證。如文可解 然此我見毗婆沙論。若就蘊說。或為二十。或六十五。若就界．處。即有多種 就蘊二十者。分別行緣蘊。不分別所起處。即有二十 言分別行緣蘊者。行謂行解。緣謂所緣。將五蘊為所緣分其行緣。蘊各有四。一是我見。三是所見。一謂色與我作僮僕。即系屬於我。二謂色與我作纓絡莊嚴我也。三色與我作器。器中有我故。一一蘊有四行緣合為二十。雖為三種行緣。不說此所起處。名分別行緣蘊不分別所起處也 若分別所起處即成六十五者。謂色三種所。與受我為僮僕．瓔珞．器。乃至於識亦有三種。三四十二。並計為我總為十三。五蘊各有十三成六十五。就處．界作法如理應思。
論。即于所執至斷常邊故。執邊見也。緣邊起執名為邊執。邊執即見名邊執見。
論。于實有體至名為邪見。釋邪見也。
論。一切妄見至余增益故。釋唯此一見名邪所以 如旃荼羅皆名執惡。于中甚者名惡執惡。婆沙第九云。問何故邪見不緣虛空．及非擇滅。答若法是蘊。是蘊因。是蘊滅。是蘊對治。邪見即緣。虛空．非擇滅。非蘊等故。彼不緣也 又云。問撥無虛空非擇滅者。為緣何法。答即緣虛空．非擇滅名。所以者何。撥無彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：論：各種錯誤的見解都因執著於五取蘊（panchopadanakkhandha，構成經驗的五種聚合：色、受、想、行、識）而產生。解釋將『唯我見』（sakkayaditthi，認為五蘊中存在真實不變的『我』的錯誤見解）稱為『有身見』（attaditthi，執著于自我的見解）的原因。先解釋原因，后引用經文來證明，經文字身容易理解。然而，這種『我見』在《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）中，如果就蘊（khandha，聚合）來說，可以分為二十種或六十五種；如果就界（ayatana，感覺器官和對像）和處（dhatu，元素）來說，則有多種分類。 就蘊分為二十種的情況是：分別行緣蘊（對五蘊的行相和所緣進行分別），而不分別所生之處，這樣就有二十種。所謂『分別行緣蘊』，『行』指的是行解（對事物進行理解和判斷的活動），『緣』指的是所緣（被行解所認識的對象）。將五蘊作為所緣，分別其行緣。每個蘊各有四種行緣：一是『我見』，三是『所見』。一是認為色蘊（rupa，物質形態）與『我』（atta，自我）作僮僕，即隸屬於我；二是認為色蘊與我作瓔珞，莊嚴我；三是認為色蘊與我作器，因為器中有我。每個蘊都有四種行緣，合起來就是二十種。雖然有三種行緣，但不說明這些行緣所生之處，這就叫做『分別行緣蘊，不分別所起處』。 如果分別所生之處，就會形成六十五種情況。例如，色蘊有三種所（與受我為僮僕、瓔珞、器），乃至識蘊（vinnana，意識）也有三種。三乘以四等於十二，再加上計為『我』的總共十三種。五蘊各有十三種，合起來就是六十五種。就處和界的作法，應該如理思維。 論：這就是執著于所執之物，最終導致斷見（ucchedaditthi，認為生命死後完全斷滅的錯誤見解）和常見（sassataditthi，認為存在永恒不變的自我的錯誤見解）的緣故。執著于邊見（anta-grahaditthi，執著于極端觀點的見解）。因為執著于邊見而產生的執著，稱為邊執。邊執本身就是一種見解，所以稱為邊執見。 論：對於真實存在的實體，卻認為不存在，這被稱為邪見（micchaditthi，否定因果、業報等真理的錯誤見解）。解釋邪見。 論：一切虛妄的見解，都是因為對其他事物進行增益的緣故。解釋為什麼只有這種見解被稱為邪見。例如，所有旃荼羅（candala，印度種姓制度中的賤民）都被稱為『執惡』，其中最惡劣的被稱為『惡執惡』。《婆沙》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第九卷中說：『問：為什麼邪見不緣虛空（akasa，沒有阻礙的空間）和非擇滅（nirodha-asamapatti，通過智慧力量達到的滅盡狀態）？答：如果一個法是蘊，是蘊的因，是蘊的滅，是蘊的對治，邪見就會緣它。虛空和非擇滅不是蘊等，所以邪見不緣它們。』 又說：『問：撥無虛空和非擇滅的人，緣的是什麼法？答：緣的就是虛空和非擇滅的名。為什麼呢？因為撥無它們。』
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: All wrong views arise from attachment to the five aggregates of clinging (panchopadanakkhandha, the five aggregates that constitute experience: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). Explaining why the 'view of self' (sakkayaditthi, the wrong view that there is a real and unchanging 'self' in the five aggregates) is called 'view of having a body' (attaditthi, the view of clinging to a self). First explain the reason, then cite the scriptures to prove it, the scriptures themselves are easy to understand. However, this 'view of self' in the Vibhasa (Vibhasa, a Buddhist treatise), if speaking in terms of aggregates (khandha, aggregates), can be divided into twenty or sixty-five kinds; if speaking in terms of realms (ayatana, sense organs and objects) and elements (dhatu, elements), then there are many kinds. The case of dividing into twenty kinds in terms of aggregates is: distinguishing the aggregates of action and condition (distinguishing the characteristics and objects of the five aggregates), without distinguishing the place of origin, then there are twenty kinds. The so-called 'distinguishing the aggregates of action and condition', 'action' refers to understanding and judgment, 'condition' refers to the object of understanding. Taking the five aggregates as the object, distinguish their actions and conditions. Each aggregate has four kinds of actions and conditions: one is the 'view of self', and three are 'what is seen'. One is to think that the aggregate of form (rupa, material form) serves as a servant to the 'self' (atta, self), that is, subordinate to me; the second is to think that the aggregate of form serves as a garland to adorn me; the third is to think that the aggregate of form serves as a vessel for me, because there is a self in the vessel. Each aggregate has four kinds of actions and conditions, which together make twenty kinds. Although there are three kinds of actions and conditions, it does not explain where these actions and conditions arise, which is called 'distinguishing the aggregates of action and condition, not distinguishing the place of origin'. If the place of origin is distinguished, sixty-five kinds of situations will be formed. For example, the aggregate of form has three places (serving me as a servant, garland, and vessel), and even the aggregate of consciousness (vinnana, consciousness) also has three kinds. Three times four equals twelve, plus the total of thirteen kinds counted as 'self'. Each of the five aggregates has thirteen kinds, which together make sixty-five kinds. The method of acting on realms and elements should be thought about reasonably. Treatise: This is because clinging to what is clung to, eventually leading to the annihilation view (ucchedaditthi, the wrong view that life is completely annihilated after death) and the eternalist view (sassataditthi, the wrong view that there is an eternal and unchanging self). Clinging to extreme views (anta-grahaditthi, the view of clinging to extreme viewpoints). The clinging that arises from clinging to extreme views is called extreme clinging. Extreme clinging itself is a view, so it is called the view of extreme clinging. Treatise: Considering that a real entity does not exist is called wrong view (micchaditthi, the wrong view that denies the truth of cause and effect, karma, etc.). Explaining wrong view. Treatise: All false views are due to adding to other things. Explaining why only this view is called wrong view. For example, all candalas (candala, untouchables in the Indian caste system) are called 'clinging to evil', and the most evil among them are called 'evil clinging to evil'. The ninth volume of Vibhasa (Vibhasa, a Buddhist treatise) says: 'Question: Why does wrong view not cling to space (akasa, unobstructed space) and non-selective cessation (nirodha-asamapatti, the state of extinction achieved through the power of wisdom)? Answer: If a dharma is an aggregate, is the cause of an aggregate, is the cessation of an aggregate, is the antidote to an aggregate, wrong view will cling to it. Space and non-selective cessation are not aggregates, etc., so wrong view does not cling to them.' It also says: 'Question: What do those who deny space and non-selective cessation cling to? Answer: They cling to the names of space and non-selective cessation. Why? Because they deny them.'
者。非深重心如謗雜染．清凈事故。問此是何智。答此是欲界修所斷中無覆無記邪行相智 準此。不染無知不是染．善。
論。於劣謂勝至總名見取。此釋見取也。有漏名劣。無漏謂勝。以其有漏同是無漏名見取也。
論。理實應立至但名見取。正理一釋同此論。又云。或見勝故但舉見名。以見為初取余法故。此是見為所取名見取。即是見之取義。
論。于非因道至名戒禁取。此釋戒禁取也。
論。如大自在至妄起道執。指事別釋。謂或有計大自在等。投水．火等種種邪行為生天因及佛法中唯受持戒。及諸外道計數．相應智。並計我等非解脫道妄起道執。皆名戒禁取 正理論。釋生天因名增上生道。解脫因名為決定勝道。
論。理實應立至但名戒禁取。正理一釋同此論文。如前除等。或戒禁勝。是故但立戒禁取名。
論。是謂五見自體應知。結也。
論。若非於因至非見集斷 此即問也。何故於自在等起于因見。此是迷因。何非集斷。
頌曰至故唯見苦斷。答也。上兩句牒。第三句釋所以。第四句結也。
論曰至因執亦斷。釋第三句。釋所以也。正理釋云。于自在等非因計因。彼必不能觀察深理。但于自在等諸蘊粗果義。妄謂是常．一．我作者。此為上首方
執為因。是故此執見苦所斷。謂執我者是有身見。于苦果義妄執為我。故現觀苦我見即除無我智生。非於后位。若有身見。見集等斷。于相續中我見隨故。即無我智應不得生。以見唯法時我見則滅故。無我智起我見已除。然有身見於自在等相續法中。計一我已。次即于彼相續法上。起邊執見計度為常。由此應知。于自在等法。常我二執唯見苦所斷。由此已顯滅邊執見 乃至 見苦諦時二見既滅。于自在等非因計因。隨二見生。亦俱時滅。故說計因執。唯見苦所斷。然于非道計為道中。若違見道強則見道所斷 正理此文。是婆沙論第一百九十意亦同不錄。
論。若爾有執至不應見苦斷。論主難有部也。計自在等從常倒生是見苦斷。投水．火等非常倒生。如何本論說見苦斷。
論。然本論說至是見苦斷。引本論證是見苦斷。
論。迷苦諦故。有部答也。解云。此所迷境雖通苦．集。苦果是粗。集因是細。迷其粗果執為因道故見苦斷。
論。有大過失至皆迷苦故。自此已下有其四難。一太過失難。二無別相難。三即執見疑難。四集滅邪見難 此即第一大過失難。迷苦諦故是見苦斷。有太過失。五部所斷緣有漏惑。皆迷苦故應皆見苦斷 正理救云。唯見苦所斷。緣牛戒等故。但計粗果為彼因故。由此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 執著是產生原因。因此，這種執見是苦諦所斷除的。所謂執著于『我』，就是有身見（Sākāyadṛṣṭi，認為五蘊和合的身體為真實的我）。在苦果的意義上錯誤地執著為『我』，所以在現觀苦諦時，我見立即被去除，無我智（Anātma-jñāna，認識到沒有永恒不變的『我』的智慧）產生，而不是在之後的階段。如果存在有身見，那麼見集諦等斷除煩惱時，在我見仍然存在的情況下，無我智就不應該產生。因為只有在見到諸法實相時，我見才會滅除。因此，無我智生起時，我見已經被去除。然而，有身見在自在天（Īśvara，一種神祇）等相續法中，計度有一個『我』之後，接著就在這些相續法上，產生邊執見（Antagrahadṛṣṭi，執著于斷常二邊的錯誤見解），計度為常。由此應該知道，對於自在天等法，常我二執唯有見苦諦才能斷除。由此已經顯示，滅除邊執見……乃至……見苦諦時，這兩種見解既然滅除，那麼對於自在天等非因計因的執著，隨著這兩種見解的產生，也會同時滅除。所以說，計因執唯有見苦諦才能斷除。然而，對於非道計為道的情況，如果違背見道的勢力強大，那麼就是見道所斷除。《正理》中的這段文字，與《婆沙論》第一百九十卷的意思相同，這裡就不再贅述。 論：如果這樣，有執著……直到……不應該見苦諦斷除。論主是在為有部（Sarvāstivāda，一切有部）提出疑問。計度自在天等是從常顛倒產生的，這是見苦諦所斷除的。而投水、火等不是從常顛倒產生的，為什麼本論說這是見苦諦所斷除的？ 論：然而本論說……直到……是見苦諦斷除。引用本論來證明這是見苦諦所斷除的。 論：迷惑于苦諦的緣故。有部在回答。解釋說：這裡所迷惑的境界雖然貫通苦諦和集諦，但苦果是粗顯的，集因是細微的。因為迷惑于粗顯的苦果，執著為產生原因的道，所以是見苦諦所斷除的。 論：有很大的過失……直到……都是迷惑于苦諦的緣故。從這裡開始，有四個難點。一是太過失難，二是無別相難，三是即執見疑難，四是集滅邪見難。這即是第一個太過失難。因為迷惑于苦諦的緣故，所以是見苦諦所斷除的，這有太大的過失。五部所斷除的緣于有漏法的煩惱，都是因為迷惑于苦諦的緣故，應該都是見苦諦所斷除的。《正理》救釋說：唯有見苦諦所斷除的，是緣于牛戒等，因為只是將粗顯的苦果計度為產生原因的緣故。由此。
【English Translation】 English version: Attachment is the cause. Therefore, this attachment is severed by the perception of suffering (Duḥkha-satya). The so-called attachment to 'self' is the view of the existence of a body (Sākāyadṛṣṭi, the view that the aggregation of the five skandhas is a real self). Erroneously clinging to the meaning of the result of suffering as 'self', therefore, upon the direct realization of suffering, the view of self is immediately removed, and the wisdom of no-self (Anātma-jñāna, the wisdom that recognizes the absence of a permanent, unchanging 'self') arises, not at a later stage. If the view of the existence of a body is present, then when severing afflictions by perceiving the origin (Samudaya-satya) etc., with the view of self still remaining, the wisdom of no-self should not arise. Because only when seeing the true nature of phenomena, the view of self is extinguished. Therefore, when the wisdom of no-self arises, the view of self has already been removed. However, the view of the existence of a body, in the continuum of Īśvara (Īśvara, a deity) etc., after conceiving of a 'self', then on those continua, the extreme view (Antagrahadṛṣṭi, the erroneous view clinging to the extremes of permanence and annihilation) arises, considering it as permanent. From this, it should be known that for phenomena such as Īśvara, the two attachments of permanence and self are only severed by the perception of suffering. From this, it has been shown that the elimination of the extreme view... and so on... When perceiving the truth of suffering, since these two views are extinguished, then the clinging to non-causes as causes, such as Īśvara etc., along with the arising of these two views, will also be extinguished simultaneously. Therefore, it is said that the clinging to causes is only severed by the perception of suffering. However, in the case of considering non-paths as paths, if the force opposing the path of seeing is strong, then it is severed by the path of seeing. This passage in the Nyāyānusāraśāstra is the same in meaning as the 190th fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā, so it will not be repeated here. Treatise: If that is so, having attachment... until... should not be severed by the perception of suffering. The author of the treatise is raising a question for the Sarvāstivāda (Sarvāstivāda, the 'all exists' school). Considering Īśvara etc. as arising from the inverted view of permanence, this is severed by the perception of suffering. But throwing oneself into water, fire, etc. does not arise from the inverted view of permanence, so why does this treatise say that it is severed by the perception of suffering? Treatise: However, this treatise says... until... is severed by the perception of suffering. Quoting this treatise to prove that it is severed by the perception of suffering. Treatise: Because of being deluded about the truth of suffering. The Sarvāstivāda is answering. The explanation is: Although the object of delusion here pervades both the truth of suffering and the truth of origin, the result of suffering is coarse, and the cause of origin is subtle. Because of being deluded about the coarse result of suffering, clinging to it as the path that produces the cause, therefore it is severed by the perception of suffering. Treatise: There is a great fault... until... all are deluded about suffering. From here on, there are four difficulties. First, the difficulty of excessive fault; second, the difficulty of no distinct characteristic; third, the difficulty of immediate attachment, view, and doubt; fourth, the difficulty of wrong views about origin and cessation. This is the first difficulty of excessive fault. Because of being deluded about the truth of suffering, therefore it is severed by the perception of suffering, this has a great fault. The afflictions severed by the five parts, which are based on defiled dharmas, are all because of being deluded about the truth of suffering, so they should all be severed by the perception of suffering. The Nyāyānusāraśāstra explains: Only what is severed by the perception of suffering is based on cow vows etc., because it is only considering the coarse result of suffering as the cause. From this.
已遮經主所難迷苦諦故有太過失。緣有漏惑皆迷苦故。以非一切緣有漏惑。皆以苦果為所緣故。如何得有太過失耶 有人敘俱舍釋云。苦下戒禁緣有漏。即于果處生。余有漏惑亦于有漏。寧非果處起 今詳。此是重述前難。此破未得正理論意。且如集下邪見。尋苦因謗。雖緣有漏非迷苦果。如何例同緣牛戒等 又正理釋云。若違見道強。則見道所斷 此意欲說牛戒等但迷苦果即計為道。不尋余義。非如計迷道邪見為如理覺。此即先由執余為清凈因。今將無道為如理覺。此雖所緣是其苦諦。迷道諦義強非見苦斷。正理既言但計粗果為彼因故。已遮余斷更兼異義。因何難令兼其餘義惑。同但計粗果惑耶。
論。復有何相至迷苦諦故。此即第二無別相難。汝宗戒禁通苦．道斷。復有何相別戒禁取。可說彼為見道所斷。諸緣見道所斷法生。彼亦應名迷苦諦故。應見苦斷 正理救云。此難不然。以于苦諦見為無常等非彼對治故。非見苦諦無常等時。能治非道計為道執故彼道執非見苦斷。由此亦遮見集所斷。由見因等非彼治故。謂非於集見因等時。能治非道。計為道執。要于道諦見道等時。方能治彼非道道執。故彼迷執應見道斷 又云。然于非道計為道中。若違見道強。即見道所斷 又云。非道計道有二類故。一緣戒禁等。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果因為經主所難的迷苦諦（duhkha satya，關於苦的真理）的緣故，就會有太過失（ati prasanga，邏輯上的過度延伸）的過失。因為緣于有漏惑（sasrava klesha，與煩惱相關的）都迷惑于苦，但並非所有緣于有漏惑都以苦果為所緣（alambana，對像），怎麼會有太過失的過失呢？
有人敘述《俱舍論》的解釋說：『苦諦之下的戒禁取（silavrata paramarsa，執著于戒律和苦行）緣于有漏，即在果處生起。其餘有漏惑也在有漏中，難道不是在果處生起嗎？』
現在詳細分析，這實際上是重述之前的難題。這種駁斥並沒有理解正理論的意圖。比如集諦（samudaya satya，關於苦的起源的真理）之下的邪見（mithya drishti，錯誤的見解），尋找苦因並加以誹謗，雖然緣于有漏，但並非迷惑于苦果，怎麼能和緣于牛戒等同等看待呢？
此外，《正理》解釋說：『如果違背見道（darshana marga，見道的道路）的力量強大，那麼就會被見道所斷。』
這裡的意圖是想說牛戒等只是迷惑于苦果，就認為它是道，不尋求其他的意義。不像計迷道邪見那樣，認為無道為如理覺（yatha bhuta jnana，如實的智慧）。這首先是由於執著于其他事物為清凈因，現在將無道視為如理覺。雖然所緣是苦諦，但迷惑道諦（marga satya，關於道路的真理）的意義更強，所以不是見苦斷（苦諦所斷）。《正理》既然說只是認為粗果是它們的原因，就已經排除了其他的斷除，更兼有不同的意義。為什麼還要強求兼有其他意義的迷惑，和只是認為粗果的迷惑相同呢？ 論：還有什麼相（lakshana，特徵）可以用來區分戒禁取，以至於迷惑于苦諦呢？這實際上是第二個無別相難（ananya lakshana，沒有獨特特徵的難題）。你們宗派的戒禁取既可以被苦諦所斷，也可以被道諦所斷，還有什麼相可以用來區分戒禁取，可以說它是見道所斷呢？所有緣于見道所斷法而生起的，它們也應該被稱為迷惑于苦諦，應該被見苦斷。
《正理》辯護說：『這種責難是不成立的。因為對於苦諦，認為它是無常（anitya，無常）等等，並不是它們的對治（pratipaksha，對抗）。』因此，在見到苦諦的無常等時，不能夠對治將非道（asat marga，錯誤的道路）視為道的執著，因此那種道執不是見苦斷。由此也排除了見集所斷（集諦所斷），因為見到因等等並不是它們的對治。也就是說，並非在見到集諦的因等等時，就能夠對治將非道視為道的執著。只有在道諦中見到道等等時，才能夠對治非道道執，因此那種迷惑的執著應該被見道所斷。
《正理》又說：『然而，在將非道視為道中，如果違背見道的力量強大，那麼就會被見道所斷。』
《正理》又說：『將非道視為道有兩種型別，一種是緣于戒禁等。』
【English Translation】 English version: If, because of the difficulty posed by the Sutra Master regarding delusion about the duhkha satya (Truth of Suffering), there is the fault of ati prasanga (overextension), it is because all afflictions (kleshas) associated with contaminated existence (sasrava) are deluded about suffering. However, not all afflictions associated with contaminated existence take suffering as their object (alambana). How then can there be the fault of overextension?
Someone narrates the explanation from the Abhidharmakosha, saying: 'The adherence to asceticism and rituals (silavrata paramarsa) under the Truth of Suffering is associated with contaminated existence, arising in the realm of the result. Other afflictions associated with contaminated existence also arise in contaminated existence. Are they not arising in the realm of the result?'
Now, upon detailed examination, this is actually a restatement of the previous difficulty. This refutation does not grasp the intention of the Nyaya Sutra. For example, the wrong view (mithya drishti) under the Truth of Origin (samudaya satya), which seeks the cause of suffering and slanders it, although associated with contaminated existence, is not deluded about the result of suffering. How can it be equated with adherence to cow-vows, etc.?
Furthermore, the Nyaya Sutra explains: 'If the opposition to the Path of Seeing (darshana marga) is strong, then it is severed by the Path of Seeing.'
The intention here is to say that cow-vows, etc., are merely deluded about the result of suffering, and thus consider it to be the path, without seeking other meanings. It is not like the wrong view that is deluded about the path, considering the non-path to be true knowledge (yatha bhuta jnana). This is initially due to clinging to something else as a cause of purity, and now considering the non-path to be true knowledge. Although the object is the Truth of Suffering, the delusion about the meaning of the Truth of the Path (marga satya) is stronger, so it is not severed by seeing the Truth of Suffering. Since the Nyaya Sutra states that it merely considers the coarse result to be their cause, it has already excluded other severances, and further includes different meanings. Why then insist that the afflictions that include other meanings be the same as the afflictions that merely consider the coarse result? Text: What other characteristic (lakshana) can be used to distinguish adherence to asceticism and rituals, such that it is deluded about the Truth of Suffering? This is actually the second difficulty of having no distinct characteristic (ananya lakshana). In your school, adherence to asceticism and rituals can be severed by both the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Path. What other characteristic can be used to distinguish adherence to asceticism and rituals, such that it can be said to be severed by the Path of Seeing? All that arises from what is severed by the Path of Seeing should also be called deluded about the Truth of Suffering and should be severed by seeing the Truth of Suffering.
The Nyaya Sutra defends: 'This objection is not valid, because seeing impermanence (anitya), etc., in the Truth of Suffering is not their antidote (pratipaksha).』 Therefore, when seeing the impermanence, etc., of the Truth of Suffering, one cannot counteract the clinging to the non-path (asat marga) as the path. Therefore, that clinging to the path is not severed by seeing the Truth of Suffering. This also excludes what is severed by seeing the Truth of Origin, because seeing the cause, etc., is not their antidote. That is, it is not that when seeing the cause, etc., of the Truth of Origin, one can counteract the clinging to the non-path as the path. Only when seeing the path, etc., in the Truth of the Path can one counteract the clinging to the non-path as the path. Therefore, that deluded clinging should be severed by the Path of Seeing.
The Nyaya Sutra also says: 'However, in considering the non-path as the path, if the opposition to the Path of Seeing is strong, then it is severed by the Path of Seeing.'
The Nyaya Sutra also says: 'There are two types of considering the non-path as the path, one is associated with asceticism and rituals, etc.'
二緣親迷道。緣戒禁等違悟道信。力不如緣親迷道者。緣戒禁等者。行相極粗故。不遠隨遂故。意樂不堅故。少設劬勞即便斷滅 緣親迷道與此相違。由此應知。非道計道諸戒禁取有二類別。一見苦斷。二見道斷 光師敘俱舍釋云。兩種戒禁俱緣有漏。俱非道計道。何故一于果處起。一非果處起。義既是齊。應俱果起。若俱果起。相還無別。違道徒言 今詳。此釋重述前難。不成斥救。正理救意。同緣有漏非道計道。緣戒禁等違通道力劣。行相極粗不遠隨遂。意樂不堅。見苦諦時即便先斷 緣親迷道者。與此相違。由此見道諦時方能斷。或此釋同緣苦諦非道計道是同。一見苦斷。一見道斷。所以今還將同緣苦諦。但非道計道為難。何成破斥。
論。又緣道諦至理亦不成。此是第三即執見．疑難。若邪見等撥疑于道。如何即執此見．疑等以為其道。若謂執余。即非緣邪見等。正理釋云。此戒禁取體非不成。以許有于謗道邪見執為能證永清凈道。由彼計為如理解故。謂彼先以余解脫道蘊在心中后執非謗真道邪見為如理覺。言如理者。彼謂撥疑真解脫道是不顛倒。以如理故執為凈因。由此得成戒禁取體。彼心所蘊余解脫道非見道所斷。戒禁取所緣以彼唯緣自部法故。道有多類于理無失 有人敘俱舍釋云。亦有戒禁即執
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 二緣親近而迷惑正道（Nirvana）。緣于戒律禁令等而違背領悟正道的信心。力量不如緣于親近而迷惑正道的人。緣于戒律禁令等的人，行為表現極其粗糙，不能長久隨順，意志不堅定，稍微遇到困難就中斷了。緣于親近而迷惑正道的人，情況與此相反。由此應該知道，將非正道視為正道的各種戒律禁令執取有兩類：一類是見苦諦時斷除的，一類是見道諦時斷除的。
光師在《俱舍論》的解釋中說，兩種戒律禁令都緣于有漏法（有煩惱的世間法），都將非正道視為正道。為什麼一個在果位處生起，一個不在果位處生起？意義既然相同，應該都在果位處生起。如果都在果位處生起，相狀還是沒有區別，違背了正道的說法。
現在詳細分析，這種解釋是重述之前的難題，不能算是駁斥和補救。正理的補救意思是，同樣緣于有漏法，同樣將非正道視為正道，緣于戒律禁令等違背了信奉正道的力量，行為表現極其粗糙，不能長久隨順，意志不堅定，所以在見苦諦時就先斷除了。緣于親近而迷惑正道的人，情況與此相反，因此在見道諦時才能斷除。或者這種解釋認為，同樣緣于苦諦，同樣將非正道視為正道是相同的，一個在見苦諦時斷除，一個在見道諦時斷除。所以現在仍然用同樣緣于苦諦，但將非正道視為正道來發難，怎麼能算是破斥呢？ 論：又緣于道諦的至理也不成立。這是第三種，即執著于見解和疑惑的詰難。如果邪見等否定懷疑正道，怎麼能執著于這種見解和疑惑，並將其視為正道？如果說執著于其他的，那就不是緣于邪見等了。《正理》的解釋是，這種戒禁取的本體並非不能成立，因為允許有人將誹謗正道的邪見執著為能夠證得永恒清凈的道路。因為他們認為這是如理的理解。也就是說，他們先將其他的解脫道蘊藏在心中，然後執著于並非誹謗真正正道的邪見，認為是如理的覺悟。所說的『如理』，是指他們認為否定懷疑真正的解脫道是不顛倒的，因為是如理的，所以執著為清凈的原因。由此就成立了戒禁取的本體。他們心中所蘊藏的其他的解脫道，不是見道所斷除的，戒禁取所緣的，因為他們只緣于自己宗派的法，正道有很多種類，在道理上沒有缺失。有人敘述《俱舍論》的解釋說，也有戒律禁令就是執著于...
【English Translation】 English version: The two kinds of conditions lead to being misled on the path. Conditions related to precepts and prohibitions violate the faith in enlightenment. The power is not as strong as those misled by close association. Those related to precepts and prohibitions have extremely coarse behaviors, cannot follow for long, and have weak willpower, so they are interrupted as soon as they encounter difficulties. Those misled by close association are the opposite. From this, it should be known that there are two categories of taking non-paths as paths: one is cut off when seeing the suffering truth (Dukkha Satya), and the other is cut off when seeing the path truth (Marga Satya).
Master Guang said in his commentary on the Abhidharmakosa (俱舍論): Both kinds of precepts and prohibitions are related to contaminated dharmas (with afflictions), and both regard non-paths as paths. Why does one arise at the fruit stage and the other does not? Since the meanings are the same, they should both arise at the fruit stage. If they both arise at the fruit stage, the characteristics are still indistinguishable, which contradicts the teachings of the path.
Now, in detail, this explanation is a restatement of the previous difficulty and cannot be regarded as a refutation and remedy. The meaning of the correct reasoning is that, similarly related to contaminated dharmas and similarly regarding non-paths as paths, those related to precepts and prohibitions violate the power of faith in the path, have extremely coarse behaviors, cannot follow for long, and have weak willpower, so they are cut off first when seeing the suffering truth. Those misled by close association are the opposite, so they can only be cut off when seeing the path truth. Or this explanation believes that it is the same to be related to the suffering truth and to regard non-paths as paths, one is cut off when seeing the suffering truth, and the other is cut off when seeing the path truth. So now, it is still difficult to use the same relationship with the suffering truth, but regarding non-paths as paths, how can it be regarded as a refutation? Treatise: Furthermore, the ultimate truth related to the path truth is also not established. This is the third kind, which is the challenge of clinging to views and doubts. If wrong views and the like deny and doubt the path, how can one cling to these views and doubts and regard them as the path? If one says that one clings to other things, then it is not related to wrong views and the like. The explanation of the Correct Reasoning is that the substance of this precept-taking is not impossible to establish, because it is permissible for someone to cling to the wrong view of slandering the path as the path that can attain eternal purity. Because they think this is a rational understanding. That is to say, they first store other paths of liberation in their hearts, and then cling to the wrong view that does not slander the true path, thinking it is a rational awakening. The so-called 'rational' means that they think that denying and doubting the true path of liberation is not inverted, and because it is rational, they cling to it as the cause of purity. From this, the substance of precept-taking is established. The other paths of liberation stored in their hearts are not cut off by seeing the path, because they only relate to the dharmas of their own sect, and there are many kinds of paths, so there is no fault in reasoning. Someone narrated the explanation of the Abhidharmakosa (俱舍論), saying that there are also precepts and prohibitions that are clinging to...
凈因見苦所斷。此亦即執為。何非苦斷。若不即執彼。執余為凈因。是即應無見道所斷 今詳。此釋不得上意先蘊余解脫道在於自心。謂執八道之外所有邪道。此非能撥八道見．疑。此應言是苦所斷。將撥疑道諦為如理覺是見道斷。不違苦等行。違道等行故。及是所緣斷故。因何將前已釋之難。更重難耶。
論。又若有緣至應更思擇。此即第四難也。謂有先以余解脫更蘊在心中。后執謗真解脫邪見為如理覺。以如理故執為凈因。如前道下應成戒取 正理釋云。無如是理。總許解脫是常是寂。執謗彼心為清凈因理不成故。如許涅槃體實．非實。謂若希求解脫方便彼應必定許有解脫諸許解脫決定有者。必應許彼體是常寂。若不許爾。不應希求。如正法中於涅槃體。雖有謂實謂非實異。而同許彼是常是寂。故於非撥俱見為過。如是若有以余解脫蘊在心中。彼必總許涅槃常寂。由此不執謗解脫見為如理解。故見滅所斷戒禁取定無 又如天授雖總計有常寂涅槃。而離八支別計五法為解脫道 外道所計理亦應然。是故有於八支聖道能謗邪見。謂如理覺。無于謗滅謂如理解。以戒禁等自體行相與聖道殊無謂涅槃常寂。體相有差別者。是故無滅與道同義。
述曰。此以計能證道有多故。謗于正道執余邪道為清凈因。謂此邪
見為如理道。內．外二道同計涅槃是常。是寂。若撥滅無即不別計得滅之道。由此不執謗滅邪見為如理覺。集諦亦爾。內．外諸道。欲斷苦因而修斷道。若謗因無。必不更計有餘斷道。由此不執謗集邪見為清凈因。由此集．滅所斷無戒取也 有人敘俱舍釋云。如撥無道應無能證。雖撥無道。計有餘道能證。何妨雖撥無集．滅。計有餘集．滅為其斷．證 今詳。此救非俱舍釋。不應理故。撥道有二。一許有苦及有苦滅。撥于正道別執邪道為清凈因。將撥道見為如理覺。助執邪道名清凈因是戒取攝。二撥無道及無苦滅。此撥無道。即無能證。計為苦因及有苦滅修道斷．證。若無集．滅修道何用。無斷．證故。別計非滅以為真滅撥涅槃者。此是見取。若將邪見為如理覺。此順見取何得名道。若將非集而名集者。此是邪智非戒取攝不同凈因名戒取也。何得將此名為戒取。故救無理。
論。如前所說常我倒生。已下一行頌。大文第二逐難釋也。文中有三。一明四倒。二七九慢。三未斷不行。此文第一明四倒也。
論曰至以為我倒。是異師義。
論。有說我倒攝身見全。婆沙正義 正理論云。如是所說是一師宗。然毗婆沙決定義者。約部分別十二見中。唯二見．半是顛倒體。謂有身見苦見取全。邊執見中取計常
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：認為邪道是正確的道路。內道和外道都認為涅槃是常、是寂靜的。如果否定了涅槃，就不會再去尋求其他的解脫之道。因此，不執著于誹謗涅槃的邪見，認為那是正確的覺悟。集諦（duji諦，苦的根源）也是如此。內道和外道的修行者，爲了斷除痛苦的根源而修習斷除痛苦的道路。如果否定了痛苦的根源，就不會再去尋求其他的斷除痛苦的道路。因此，不執著于誹謗集諦的邪見，認為那是清凈的根源。因此，對於集諦和滅諦（mie諦，苦的止息）所要斷除的，沒有戒禁取見（jiejinqujian，執著于錯誤的戒律和苦行）。 有人解釋《俱舍論》（jushelun）說，如果否定了道路，就應該沒有人能夠證悟。即使否定了道路，也可以認為有其他的道路能夠證悟，這有什麼妨礙呢？即使否定了集諦和滅諦，也可以認為有其他的集諦和滅諦可以斷除和證悟。 現在仔細分析，這種辯解並非《俱舍論》的解釋，因為不合道理。否定道路有兩種情況：一是承認有痛苦和痛苦的止息，但否定正道，而執著于邪道，認為那是清凈的根源。將否定正道的見解認為是正確的覺悟，助長執著于邪道的行為，這屬於戒禁取見。二是否定道路以及痛苦的止息。這種否定道路，就是否定了證悟的可能性。認為有痛苦的根源以及痛苦的止息，並修習道路來斷除和證悟。如果沒有集諦和滅諦，修習道路有什麼用呢？因為沒有可以斷除和證悟的東西。將不是涅槃的東西認為是真正的涅槃，否定涅槃，這是見取見（jianqujian，執著于錯誤的見解）。如果將邪見認為是正確的覺悟，這是順應見取見，怎麼能稱之為道路呢？如果將不是集諦的東西稱為集諦，這是邪惡的智慧，不屬於戒禁取見，不同於將清凈的根源稱為戒禁取見。怎麼能將這種行為稱為戒禁取見呢？所以這種辯解沒有道理。
論：如前所說常我倒生。已下一行頌。大文第二逐難釋也。文中有三。一明四倒。二七九慢。三未斷不行。此文第一明四倒也。
論曰至以為我倒。是異師義。
論：有說我倒攝身見全。婆沙正義 正理論云。如是所說是一師宗。然毗婆沙決定義者。約部分別十二見中。唯二見．半是顛倒體。謂有身見苦見取全。邊執見中取計常
【English Translation】 English version: To regard a wrong path as the right path. Both internal and external paths consider Nirvana (niepan, cessation of suffering) to be permanent and tranquil. If one denies Nirvana, one will not seek other paths to liberation. Therefore, one does not cling to the heretical view of slandering Nirvana, considering it to be the correct enlightenment. The Samudaya Satya (jidi, the truth of the origin of suffering) is also like this. Practitioners of both internal and external paths cultivate the path of cessation in order to eliminate the root of suffering. If one denies the root of suffering, one will not seek other paths to eliminate suffering. Therefore, one does not cling to the heretical view of slandering the Samudaya Satya, considering it to be the pure origin. Therefore, regarding what is to be eliminated by the Samudaya Satya and Nirodha Satya (mie諦, the truth of the cessation of suffering), there is no Shila-vrata-paramarsa (jiejinqujian, clinging to wrong precepts and asceticism). Someone explains the Abhidharmakosa (jushelun) by saying that if one denies the path, there should be no one who can attain enlightenment. Even if one denies the path, one can still think that there are other paths that can lead to enlightenment. What is the hindrance? Even if one denies the Samudaya Satya and Nirodha Satya, one can still think that there are other Samudaya Satya and Nirodha Satya that can be eliminated and attained. Now, upon careful analysis, this defense is not an explanation of the Abhidharmakosa, because it is unreasonable. There are two situations of denying the path: first, acknowledging that there is suffering and the cessation of suffering, but denying the right path and clinging to the wrong path, considering it to be the pure origin. Regarding the view of denying the right path as the correct enlightenment, and promoting clinging to the wrong path, this belongs to Shila-vrata-paramarsa. Second, denying the path and the cessation of suffering. This denial of the path is the denial of the possibility of enlightenment. Thinking that there is a root of suffering and the cessation of suffering, and cultivating the path to eliminate and attain them. If there is no Samudaya Satya and Nirodha Satya, what is the use of cultivating the path? Because there is nothing to be eliminated and attained. Considering something that is not Nirvana to be the true Nirvana, denying Nirvana, this is Drsti-paramarsa (jianqujian, clinging to wrong views). If one considers a heretical view to be the correct enlightenment, this is in accordance with Drsti-paramarsa, how can it be called a path? If one calls something that is not the Samudaya Satya the Samudaya Satya, this is evil wisdom, and does not belong to Shila-vrata-paramarsa, unlike calling the pure origin Shila-vrata-paramarsa. How can this behavior be called Shila-vrata-paramarsa? Therefore, this defense is unreasonable.
Treatise: As previously stated, the inverted view of permanence and self arises. The following line is a verse. The second major section explains the difficulties one by one. There are three parts in the text: first, clarifying the four inversions; second, the seven or nine types of pride; third, non-practice due to non-severance. This text is the first, clarifying the four inversions.
Treatise says to regard as self-inversion. This is the meaning of a different teacher.
Treatise: Some say that self-inversion encompasses the entirety of Satkayadristi (身見, view of self). Vibhasa's correct meaning. The Zhengli Treatise says: What has been said is the doctrine of one teacher. However, the definitive meaning of the Vibhasa is that, according to the partial distinction of the twelve views, only two and a half views are the essence of inversion. Namely, Satkayadristi and Dukkha-dristi (苦見, view of suffering) are complete. In the view of extremes, taking permanence into account.
分。斷．常二見行相互違。故可說言二體各別。諸計我論者。即執我于彼有自在力是我所見。此即我見由二門轉 準此論文后說為正。
論。我倒如何攝我所見。前師問也。既我見．我所見。二見不同。如何我倒攝我所見耶。
論。如何不攝。后師反責不攝所以。
論。由倒經故至是我所見。釋不全攝所以。既我見．所見。經釋不同。如何我倒即攝我所。
論。此即我見由二門轉。順釋也。執色是我門名我見。色屬我門是我所見。
論。是我屬我至見亦應別。反難也。是我名我見。是第一轉聲。屬我名我所見。是第六轉聲。即謂兩見非是異門說一。謂是條然別見由我如此是第三轉聲。為我如此是第四轉聲。應由我是一見。為我是一見。
論。何故余惑至非顛倒體。廢立四倒體。諸煩惱中且立三因。于中取勝為顛倒體。具其三因。及中勝者。諸煩惱中唯二見．半。具其三因。謂一向倒。推度性故。妄增養故。及體增勝。一向倒簡戒禁取緣少凈故。正理論云。謂戒禁取非一向倒。所計容有能離欲染等故。少分別時得清凈故 解云諸外道等所計苦行。能離染等故得別時少分凈故。及內道中計唯持戒以為其道。亦是少分別時得清凈故。非是計道諦邪見．疑等。以為其道。名少分別時得清
凈也。彼如理覺非凈因故 二推度性故。簡余非見煩惱 妄增益簡斷見．邪見。所言勝者。簡餘三諦所斷見取。正理論云。餘部見取非增勝故。
論。若爾何故至非我亦然外難。若倒四何故經說倒有十二。常等四倒皆有想．心．見三種倒故。
論。理實應知至行相同故。通外難云。理實唯見是其顛倒。想．心隨見亦立倒名。
論。若爾何故不說受等。外難云。想．心．見相應隨見亦名倒。受等見相應隨見名受倒。
論。彼於世間至故經不說。此是婆沙通外難云。世間極成想．心顛倒。不言受倒隨世間說想．心倒。不說受也 正理論云。不爾想．心非推度故。隨見倒力亦立倒名。與見相應行相同故。然非受等亦如想．心可立倒名。有別因故。謂于無常等起常等見時。必由境中取常等相。能取相者是想。非余。故立倒名。非於受等。又治倒慧亦立想名。謂無常等行中說為無常等想。由慧與想近相資故相從立名。受等不爾。由所依力有倒推．增。取境相成。故心名倒。如契經說。心引世間于惑瀑流處處漂溺 解云。由見依於心有倒推求．及妄增益故成顛倒。心為倒依亦名顛倒。
論。如是諸倒至見所斷故。釋十二倒唯見斷也。想心雖非是見。與見相應故亦是見所斷 云預流斷。異后說也。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『凈也。彼如理覺非凈因故』：這是說，如理作意（正確的覺知）不是不凈的起因。 『二推度性故。簡余非見煩惱』：因為想和心具有推度的性質，所以可以區分于其他非由『見』產生的煩惱。 『妄增益簡斷見．邪見。所言勝者。簡餘三諦所斷見取。正理論云。餘部見取非增勝故。』：通過虛妄的增益可以區分斷見和邪見。這裡所說的『勝』，是爲了區分其他三諦所斷的見取。正如《正理論》所說，其他宗派的見取不是最殊勝的。
『論。若爾何故至非我亦然外難。若倒四何故經說倒有十二。常等四倒皆有想．心．見三種倒故。』：如果這樣，為什麼會產生『非我亦然』這樣的外部詰難？如果只有四種顛倒，為什麼經典中說有十二種顛倒？因為常、樂、我、凈這四種顛倒，每一種都包含想顛倒、心顛倒和見顛倒這三種。
『論。理實應知至行相同故。通外難云。理實唯見是其顛倒。想．心隨見亦立倒名。』：實際上應該知道，想和心與見的行相相同。這是爲了迴應外部的詰難，實際上只有『見』才是真正的顛倒，想和心只是隨順於『見』，因此也被稱為顛倒。
『論。若爾何故不說受等。外難云。想．心．見相應隨見亦名倒。受等見相應隨見名受倒。』：如果這樣，為什麼不說受等顛倒？這是外部的詰難，想、心、見與『見』相應，所以隨順於『見』也被稱為顛倒。受等與『見』相應，隨順於『見』，可以稱為受顛倒。
『論。彼於世間至故經不說。此是婆沙通外難云。世間極成想．心顛倒。不言受倒隨世間說想．心倒。不說受也 正理論云。不爾想．心非推度故。隨見倒力亦立倒名。與見相應行相同故。然非受等亦如想．心可立倒名。有別因故。謂于無常等起常等見時。必由境中取常等相。能取相者是想。非余。故立倒名。非於受等。又治倒慧亦立想名。謂無常等行中說為無常等想。由慧與想近相資故相從立名。受等不爾。由所依力有倒推．增。取境相成。故心名倒。如契經說。心引世間于惑瀑流處處漂溺 解云。由見依於心有倒推求．及妄增益故成顛倒。心為倒依亦名顛倒。』：因為想和心在世間廣為人知，所以經典中沒有說受顛倒。這是《婆沙論》用來回應外部詰難的說法，世間普遍認為存在想顛倒和心顛倒，不說受顛倒是因為隨順世間的說法，只說想顛倒和心顛倒，而不說受顛倒。《正理論》認為不是這樣的，想和心並非推度，而是隨順於『見』的顛倒力量，因此也被稱為顛倒，因為它們與『見』相應，行相相同。然而，受等不能像想和心那樣被立為顛倒，因為有其他原因。例如，當對無常等事物產生常等見解時，必然要從境界中提取常等之相，而能夠提取這些相的是想，而不是其他。因此，想可以被立為顛倒，而受等則不能。此外，能夠對治顛倒的智慧也被稱為想，例如在無常等行中，說為無常等想，這是因為智慧與想相互資助，因此相互借用名稱。受等則不是這樣。由於所依的力量，產生了顛倒的推求和增益，從而成就了對境界的執取，因此心也被稱為顛倒。正如契經所說，『心引導世間在迷惑的瀑流中處處漂溺』。解釋說，由於『見』依賴於心，從而產生顛倒的推求和虛妄的增益，因此成就了顛倒。心作為顛倒的所依，也被稱為顛倒。
『論。如是諸倒至見所斷故。釋十二倒唯見斷也。想心雖非是見。與見相應故亦是見所斷 云預流斷。異后說也。此』：像這樣，所有的顛倒都是由『見』所斷的。解釋說，十二種顛倒都是由『見』所斷的。想和心雖然不是『見』，但因為它們與『見』相應，所以也是由『見』所斷的。這裡說預流果斷除顛倒，與後面的說法不同。
【English Translation】 English version: '凈也. 彼如理覺非凈因故' (jing ye. bi ru li jue fei jing yin gu): This means that proper reflection (correct awareness) is not the cause of impurity. '二推度性故. 簡余非見煩惱' (er tui du xing gu. jian yu fei jian fan nao): Because thought and mind have the nature of inference, they can be distinguished from other afflictions not arising from 'view'. '妄增益簡斷見．邪見. 所言勝者. 簡餘三諦所斷見取. 正理論云. 餘部見取非增勝故' (wang zeng yi jian duan jian, xie jian. suo yan sheng zhe. jian yu san di suo duan jian qu. zheng li lun yun. yu bu jian qu fei zeng sheng gu): Through false augmentation, one can distinguish between nihilistic views and heretical views. The 'superior' mentioned here is to distinguish it from other views and attachments severed by the three truths. As the Nyāyapraveśa (Correct Reasoning Treatise) says, the views and attachments of other schools are not the most superior.
'論. 若爾何故至非我亦然外難. 若倒四何故經說倒有十二. 常等四倒皆有想．心．見三種倒故' (lun. ruo er he gu zhi fei wo yi ran wai nan. ruo dao si he gu jing shuo dao you shi er. chang deng si dao jie you xiang, xin, jian san zhong dao gu): If so, why does the external difficulty of 'not-self is also so' arise? If there are only four inversions, why does the scripture say there are twelve inversions? Because each of the four inversions—permanence, bliss, self, and purity—contains three types of inversions: thought inversion, mind inversion, and view inversion.
'論. 理實應知至行相同故. 通外難云. 理實唯見是其顛倒. 想．心隨見亦立倒名' (lun. li shi ying zhi zhi xing xiang tong gu. tong wai nan yun. li shi wei jian shi qi dian dao. xiang, xin sui jian yi li dao ming): In reality, it should be known that thought and mind have the same characteristics as view. This is to respond to the external difficulty. In reality, only 'view' is the true inversion. Thought and mind merely follow 'view', so they are also called inversions.
'論. 若爾何故不說受等. 外難云. 想．心．見相應隨見亦名倒. 受等見相應隨見名受倒' (lun. ruo er he gu bu shuo shou deng. wai nan yun. xiang, xin, jian xiang ying sui jian yi ming dao. shou deng jian xiang ying sui jian ming shou dao): If so, why are feelings, etc., not mentioned? This is an external difficulty. Thought, mind, and view are in accordance with 'view', so they are also called inversions following 'view'. Feelings, etc., are in accordance with 'view', so they can be called feeling inversions following 'view'.
'論. 彼於世間至故經不說. 此是婆沙通外難云. 世間極成想．心顛倒. 不言受倒隨世間說想．心倒. 不說受也 正理論云. 不爾想．心非推度故. 隨見倒力亦立倒名. 與見相應行相同故. 然非受等亦如想．心可立倒名. 有別因故. 謂于無常等起常等見時. 必由境中取常等相. 能取相者是想. 非余. 故立倒名. 非於受等. 又治倒慧亦立想名. 謂無常等行中說為無常等想. 由慧與想近相資故相從立名. 受等不爾. 由所依力有倒推．增. 取境相成. 故心名倒. 如契經說. 心引世間于惑瀑流處處漂溺 解云. 由見依於心有倒推求．及妄增益故成顛倒. 心為倒依亦名顛倒' (lun. bi yu shi jian zhi gu jing bu shuo. ci shi po sha tong wai nan yun. shi jian ji cheng xiang, xin dian dao. bu yan shou dao sui shi jian shuo xiang, xin dao. bu shuo shou ye. zheng li lun yun. bu er xiang, xin fei tui du gu. sui jian dao li yi li dao ming. yu jian xiang ying xing xiang tong gu. ran fei shou deng yi ru xiang, xin ke li dao ming. you bie yin gu. wei yu wu chang deng qi chang deng jian shi. bi you jing zhong qu chang deng xiang. neng qu xiang zhe shi xiang. fei yu. gu li dao ming. fei yu shou deng. you zhi dao hui yi li xiang ming. wei wu chang deng xing zhong shuo wei wu chang deng xiang. you hui yu xiang jin xiang zi gu xiang cong li ming. shou deng bu er. you suo yi li you dao tui, zeng. qu jing xiang cheng. gu xin ming dao. ru qi jing shuo. xin yin shi jian yu huo pu liu chu chu piao ni. jie yun. you jian yi yu xin you dao tui qiu, ji wang zeng yi gu cheng dian dao. xin wei dao yi yi ming dian dao): Because thought and mind are widely known in the world, the scriptures do not mention feeling inversions. This is the explanation from the Vibhāṣā (Commentary) to respond to the external difficulty. The world generally recognizes the existence of thought inversions and mind inversions. The reason for not mentioning feeling inversions is to follow the world's way of speaking, only mentioning thought inversions and mind inversions, and not mentioning feeling inversions. The Nyāyapraveśa (Correct Reasoning Treatise) argues that this is not the case. Thought and mind are not inferences, but they follow the power of 'view's' inversion, so they are also called inversions because they are in accordance with 'view' and have the same characteristics. However, feelings, etc., cannot be established as inversions like thought and mind because there are other reasons. For example, when one generates views of permanence, etc., towards impermanent things, one must extract the characteristics of permanence, etc., from the object, and the one who can extract these characteristics is thought, not others. Therefore, thought can be established as an inversion, but feelings, etc., cannot. Furthermore, the wisdom that cures inversions is also called thought. For example, in the practice of impermanence, etc., it is said to be the thought of impermanence, etc. This is because wisdom and thought mutually assist each other, so they borrow names from each other. Feelings, etc., are not like this. Due to the power of the basis, there are inverted inferences and augmentations, which accomplish the grasping of objects. Therefore, the mind is also called an inversion. As the sutra says, 'The mind leads the world to drift everywhere in the torrent of delusion.' The explanation is that because 'view' relies on the mind, there are inverted inferences and false augmentations, thus accomplishing the inversion. The mind, as the basis of inversion, is also called an inversion.
'論. 如是諸倒至見所斷故. 釋十二倒唯見斷也. 想心雖非是見. 與見相應故亦是見所斷 云預流斷. 異后說也. 此' (lun. ru shi zhu dao zhi jian suo duan gu. shi shi er dao wei jian duan ye. xiang xin sui fei shi jian. yu jian xiang ying gu yi shi jian suo duan. yun yu liu duan. yi hou shuo ye. ci): Like this, all inversions are severed by 'view'. It is explained that the twelve inversions are only severed by 'view'. Although thought and mind are not 'view', because they are in accordance with 'view', they are also severed by 'view'. Here it says that the stream-enterer severs inversions, which is different from what is said later.
是有部正義。
論。有餘部說至寧起欲貪。此敘異說。婆沙云。是分別論者。彼計想．心．見三皆是顛倒。有想．心．倒見不相應。婆沙正義。見是顛倒。亦名為倒。想．心假名為倒。實非顛倒。想．心二倒實見相應。彼師所計十二倒中我．常。想．心．見六倒。及樂．凈。見二倒。此八唯見道斷。樂．凈。想．心四倒通見．修斷。若謂樂．凈。想．心。四顛倒不通修斷唯見斷者。未離欲聖。既已斷樂．凈。二倒。因何于不凈之境而取凈相。無樂之中而求於樂起貪慾也。
論。毗婆沙師不許此義。已下有三。一反難破異部。二順釋成自宗。三正通異部難。
論。若有樂凈至有起欲貪故。此第一反難破異部也。
論。由契經說至是倒非余。此第二順釋成自宗也。
論。然聖有時至畫藥叉迷亂。第三正通異部難。此由其境實非樂．凈。似於樂．凈。聖者率爾于境起貪。若諦觀時即知不凈等如旋火輪．畫藥叉等。實非輪．鬼。率爾見時謂是輪．鬼。若諦觀時知非輪鬼。
論。若爾。已下有三節。一論主引慶喜頌難。二引餘部釋。三通前引經證十二倒是見諦斷。論主不許有部十二倒唯見斷故。所以不救。
論。若爾何故至貪息心便凈。第一引頌云。若十二倒唯見道斷。何故阿難為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 是有部（Sarvāstivāda）的正義。
論：有餘部（Śeṣa）說乃至寧起欲貪。這是敘述不同的說法。《婆沙》（Vibhāṣā）說：『這是分別論者（Vibhajyavādin）。』他們認為想（saṃjñā）、心（citta）、見（dṛṣṭi）三種都是顛倒。有想、心，倒見不相應。《婆沙》的正義是：見是顛倒，也名為倒。想、心假名為倒，實際不是顛倒。想、心二倒實際與見相應。那位論師所認為的十二倒中，我（ātman）、常（nitya）。想、心、見六倒，以及樂（sukha）、凈（śubha）。見二倒。這八種唯有見道才能斷除。樂、凈。想、心四倒，通見、修斷。如果說樂、凈。想、心。四顛倒不通修斷，唯有見斷才能斷除，那麼未離欲的聖者，既然已經斷除了樂、凈二倒，為何在不凈的境界中卻取凈相？在無樂之中而求於樂，生起貪慾呢？
論：毗婆沙師（Vibhāṣā masters）不認可這種說法。以下有三點：一、反駁詰難其他部派。二、順應解釋，成就自己的宗義。三、正面疏通其他部派的詰難。
論：如果說有樂凈乃至有生起貪慾的緣故。這是第一點，反駁詰難其他部派。
論：由於契經說乃至是倒，不是其他的。這是第二點，順應解釋，成就自己的宗義。
論：然而聖者有時乃至畫藥叉（yakṣa）使人迷亂。這是第三點，正面疏通其他部派的詰難。這是因為其境界實際不是樂、凈，但類似於樂、凈。聖者倉促地對境界生起貪慾。如果仔細觀察時，就知道不凈等同於旋轉的火輪、畫的藥叉等。實際不是輪、鬼。倉促看見時，認為是輪、鬼。如果仔細觀察時，就知道不是輪鬼。
論：如果這樣，以下有三節：一、論主引用慶喜（Ānanda）的頌來詰難。二、引用其他部派的解釋。三、疏通前面引用的經文，證明十二倒是在見諦時斷除的。論主不認可有部的十二倒唯有見斷才能斷除，所以不救。
論：如果這樣，為何乃至貪息心便凈？第一點，引用頌說：如果十二倒唯有見道才能斷除，為何阿難（Ānanda）爲了
【English Translation】 English version The Correct Meaning According to the Sarvāstivāda School (Sarvāstivāda).
Treatise: The Śeṣa school says that even to the point of arising desire and greed. This narrates a different view. The Vibhāṣā says: 'These are the Vibhajyavādins.' They consider that perception (saṃjñā), mind (citta), and view (dṛṣṭi) are all inversions. There are perception and mind, but inverted views are not associated. The correct meaning of the Vibhāṣā is: view is an inversion and is also called an inversion. Perception and mind are falsely called inversions, but in reality, they are not inversions. The two inversions of perception and mind are actually associated with view. Among the twelve inversions considered by that teacher, self (ātman) and permanence (nitya), the six inversions of perception, mind, and view, as well as pleasure (sukha) and purity (śubha), the two inversions of view, these eight can only be eliminated by the path of seeing. The four inversions of pleasure, purity, perception, and mind are eliminated through both the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. If it is said that the four inversions of pleasure, purity, perception, and mind are not eliminated through cultivation but only through the path of seeing, then why would a saint who has not yet abandoned desire, having already eliminated the two inversions of pleasure and purity, still grasp at the aspect of purity in an impure realm? Why would they seek pleasure in the absence of pleasure, giving rise to desire and greed?
Treatise: The Vibhāṣā masters do not accept this meaning. There are three points below: First, refuting and challenging other schools. Second, explaining in accordance with and establishing one's own doctrine. Third, directly resolving the challenges of other schools.
Treatise: If it is said that there is pleasure and purity, even to the point of arising desire and greed. This is the first point, refuting and challenging other schools.
Treatise: Because the sutras say that it is an inversion and not something else. This is the second point, explaining in accordance with and establishing one's own doctrine.
Treatise: However, sometimes even a saint is confused by a painted yakṣa (yakṣa). This is the third point, directly resolving the challenges of other schools. This is because the realm is actually not pleasure or purity, but it resembles pleasure and purity. A saint hastily arises desire and greed towards the realm. If one observes carefully, one will know that impurity is like a revolving fire wheel, a painted yakṣa, etc. It is actually not a wheel or a ghost. When seen hastily, it is thought to be a wheel or a ghost. If one observes carefully, one will know that it is not a wheel or a ghost.
Treatise: If that is the case, there are three sections below: First, the treatise master quotes Ānanda's verse to challenge. Second, quotes the explanations of other schools. Third, explains the previously quoted sutra, proving that the twelve inversions are eliminated at the time of seeing the truth. The treatise master does not accept that the twelve inversions of the Sarvāstivāda school can only be eliminated by the path of seeing, so he does not defend it.
Treatise: If that is the case, why does the mind become pure when greed ceases? The first point, quoting the verse, says: If the twelve inversions can only be eliminated by the path of seeing, why did Ānanda (Ānanda) for
辨自在說頌。由有想亂倒等 辨自在既是聖人。若無其想倒。因何言由有想亂倒故。汝心焦熱等。正理釋云。非我等言欲貪映蔽想無亂倒。但作是言。非諸亂倒皆名顛倒。所以然者。見倒俱行亂倒想．心方名倒故。若諸亂倒皆成倒者。則諸煩惱皆應成倒。諸阿羅漢游衢路時。想亂倒力心便述謬或想亂倒見繩謂蛇。故亂倒中少分立倒。以要最勝方立倒名。最勝因緣如前已辨。故有染想。學位現行非得倒名。何所違害 又經不說彼辨自在定居學位。為證不成。
論。說預流已斷倒者。為除疑故作如是言。勿諸世間見預流者。以花嚴體。用香薰衣。貯畜珍財。耽淫嗜味。便疑顛倒仍未全除。無知覆心故為此事。為除如是世間所疑。故說預流諸倒已斷 或預流者已斷無別。隨信．法行。有斷．未斷。顯定已斷故說預流(已上論文) 解云言論說者。是本論說。或預流者已斷無別。隨信．隨法行。有斷．未斷者。聖人中說次第。謂隨信．隨法行。及預流向。俱在見道十五心。于中至苦類智第四心已前未斷八倒。后十一心已斷八倒。前後同是隨信．行等有斷．不斷別。不得言隨信．法行。及預流向自已斷八倒。一切預流果皆已斷八倒無別不斷。故說預流不說前位。余文可解。
論。故有餘師至學未全斷。引經部余師釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 辨自在說頌：『由於有想亂倒等，辨自在（菩薩名號）既是聖人。』如果辨自在沒有這些想亂倒，為何說『由於有想亂倒故』呢？『汝心焦熱等』，《正理釋》解釋說：『並非我們說欲貪映蔽想沒有亂倒，只是說，並非所有的亂倒都叫做顛倒。』之所以這樣說，是因為見倒和亂倒同時存在，心中才會產生顛倒。如果所有的亂倒都成為顛倒，那麼所有的煩惱都應該成為顛倒。阿羅漢在街上行走時，由於想亂倒的力量，心中可能會產生謬誤的想法，或者因為想亂倒而將繩子看成蛇。因此，在亂倒中，只有少部分可以被認為是顛倒，只有最殊勝的才能被立為顛倒之名。最殊勝的因緣如前所述。因此，有染污之想，在有學位的人身上現行，不能被認為是顛倒，這又有什麼妨礙呢？而且，經典中沒有說辨自在安住在學位，這不能作為證據。
論：說預流（須陀洹，初果聖人）已經斷除了顛倒，是爲了消除疑惑而說的。不要讓世間人看到預流，用鮮花裝飾身體，用香薰衣服，儲藏珍貴的財物，沉迷於淫慾和美味，就懷疑顛倒仍然沒有完全消除，因為無知矇蔽了內心才做這些事情。爲了消除世間人的這種疑惑，所以說預流已經斷除了諸倒。或者說，預流已經斷除了無別，隨信行、隨法行，有斷除和未斷除的區別，爲了顯示已經確定斷除，所以說預流。（以上是論文）解釋說：『言論說』，指的是本論所說。『或者說，預流已經斷除了無別，隨信行、隨法行，有斷除和未斷除的區別』，在聖人中說明次第，指的是隨信行、隨法行，以及預流向，都在見道的十五心中。其中，在苦法智忍到苦類智第四心之前，還沒有斷除八倒，之後十一個心已經斷除了八倒。前後都是隨信行等，有斷除和未斷除的區別。不能說隨信行、隨法行，以及預流向自己已經斷除了八倒。一切預流果都已斷除八倒，沒有不斷除的。所以說預流，而不說前面的位次。其餘的文字可以自己理解。
論：所以有其他老師認為，至學（有學位）還沒有完全斷除，引用經部其他老師的解釋。
【English Translation】 English version: The Verse Spoken by Bianzizai (Avalokitesvara): 'Because of having thought, confusion, and inversion, Bianzizai (name of a Bodhisattva) is already a sage.' If Bianzizai did not have these thought, confusion, and inversion, why say 'because of having thought, confusion, and inversion'? 'Your heart is burning with anxiety, etc.' The 'Commentary on Correct Reasoning' explains: 'It is not that we say desire and greed do not obscure thought and there is no confusion and inversion, but we are only saying that not all confusions and inversions are called perversions.' The reason for this is that only when perverse views and confusions occur together does the mind produce perversion. If all confusions and inversions were to become perversions, then all afflictions should become perversions. When Arhats walk on the streets, due to the power of thought, confusion, and inversion, erroneous thoughts may arise in their minds, or they may mistake a rope for a snake due to thought, confusion, and inversion. Therefore, among confusions and inversions, only a small part can be considered perversions, and only the most supreme can be established as the name of perversion. The most supreme causes and conditions have been explained before. Therefore, having defiled thoughts manifest in those with learning (those in the stage of learning) cannot be considered perversion. What harm does this cause? Moreover, the sutras do not say that Bianzizai abides in the stage of learning, which cannot be used as evidence.
Treatise: Saying that Srotapannas (stream-enterers, the first fruit of the path) have already cut off perversions is said to eliminate doubts. Do not let people in the world see Srotapannas adorning their bodies with flowers, perfuming their clothes with incense, storing precious wealth, indulging in lust and delicious flavors, and then suspect that perversions have not been completely eliminated, because ignorance obscures their minds and they do these things. To eliminate such doubts of the world, it is said that Srotapannas have already cut off all perversions. Or, Srotapannas have already cut off without distinction, those who follow faith and those who follow the Dharma have differences in cutting off and not cutting off. To show that they have definitely cut off, it is said that Srotapannas (the above is the treatise). The explanation says: 'The statement' refers to what is said in this treatise. 'Or, Srotapannas have already cut off without distinction, those who follow faith and those who follow the Dharma have differences in cutting off and not cutting off,' this explains the order among the sages, referring to those who follow faith, those who follow the Dharma, and those who are progressing towards Srotapanna, all of whom are in the fifteen moments of the path of seeing. Among them, before the fourth moment of the wisdom of suffering in the realm of desire, the eight perversions have not been cut off, and after the eleven moments, the eight perversions have been cut off. Before and after are all those who follow faith, etc., with differences in cutting off and not cutting off. It cannot be said that those who follow faith, those who follow the Dharma, and those who are progressing towards Srotapanna have already cut off the eight perversions themselves. All Srotapanna fruits have cut off the eight perversions, without any that have not been cut off. Therefore, it is said that Srotapannas, and not the previous stages. The rest of the text can be understood by oneself.
Treatise: Therefore, other teachers believe that those with learning (those in the stage of learning) have not completely cut off, citing the explanations of other teachers in the Sutra Pitaka.
。此師四種見倒是見所斷。想．心各四通見．修斷。述此師釋破有部義。
論。如是八種至不違彼經者。第三通經。十二倒唯見斷經也。謂此八倒雖通修斷。于修道中要由見諦方能斷故。名見聖諦斷。
論。為唯見隨眠。已下第二明七．九慢也。頌中上一句明七．九慢。次一句明二斷。下兩句引例釋 長行中有三節。一釋七慢。二釋九慢。三明二斷。
論曰至七邪慢。此下釋七慢。由慢有七．九。先釋於七。擬后九故言旦也。
論。令心高舉至故分七種。此如釋見。慧能推求總立見名。行轉不同分其多種。行謂行解。轉謂起也。令心高舉總立慢名。于有境界行解不同分為七慢 正理論云。有愚癡者。先於有事．非有事中。挍量自．他心生高舉。說名為慢。由行．轉異分為七種 解云。有事謂稱境。無事謂不稱境。
論。於劣于等至總說為慢。正理論云。豈不此二俱于境中。如實而轉。不應成慢。方劣言勝。方等言等。稱量而知。何失名慢 于可愛事心生愛染。如實而轉。如何成貪。此既耽求諸可意事。無有顛倒。應非煩惱。然由此起能染惱心。既許成貪。是煩惱性。如是雖實勝。劣處生。而能令心高舉染惱名慢煩惱。于理何失故先略述慢總相中說托有．非有二俱容起慢。如於處．非處
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這位老師的四種見解都是見所斷（見所斷：通過見道才能斷除的煩惱）。想蘊和心蘊各有四種，通過見道和修道斷除。下面敘述這位老師解釋破斥有部（有部：佛教部派之一，主張一切法實有）的觀點。
論：像這樣八種都是不違背那些經典記載的。第三種是通經（通經：通達經義）。十二種顛倒只有見斷經中才有。意思是這八種顛倒雖然也通修斷（修斷：通過修道才能斷除的煩惱），但在修道中必須通過見諦（見諦：證悟真理）才能斷除，所以稱為見聖諦斷。
論：爲了只是見隨眠（見隨眠：潛藏在心中的，由見惑產生的煩惱習氣），下面第二部分說明七慢和九慢。頌文中的上一句說明七慢和九慢，下一句說明二斷（二斷：見斷和修斷）。下面兩句引用例子來解釋。長行中有三節：一是解釋七慢，二是解釋九慢，三是說明二斷。
論曰：到七邪慢。下面解釋七慢。因為慢有七種和九種，先解釋七種，爲了擬合後面的九種所以說旦也。
論：使內心高舉到所以分為七種。這就像解釋見一樣，智慧能夠推求，總的建立一個見的名稱。行為和運轉不同，分為多種。行是指行為理解，轉是指生起。使內心高舉，總的建立一個慢的名稱。在有境界的情況下，行為理解不同，分為七慢。《正理論》中說：有愚癡的人，先在有事和非有事中，比較自己和他人，內心產生高舉，這叫做慢。由於行為和運轉的差異，分為七種。解釋說：有事是指符合實際情況，無事是指不符合實際情況。
論：對於不如自己的和與自己相等的，總的說是慢。《正理論》中說：難道這兩種不是都在境界中，如實地運轉嗎？不應該成為慢。認為不如自己的人勝過自己，認為和自己相等的人與自己相等，稱量而知道，有什麼過失而叫做慢呢？對於可愛的事物，內心產生愛染，如實地運轉，怎麼會成為貪呢？這既然是貪求各種可意的事物，沒有顛倒，應該不是煩惱。然而由此產生能夠染污惱亂內心的作用，既然允許成為貪，是煩惱的性質。像這樣即使是真實的勝過或不如，產生的地方，而能夠使內心高舉染污惱亂，叫做慢煩惱。在道理上有什麼過失呢？所以先簡略地敘述慢的總相中說，依託有和非有，兩種情況都可能產生慢，例如在處和非處。
【English Translation】 English version: This teacher's four kinds of views are all 'seen-to-be-abandoned' (見所斷, Jian suo duan: afflictions that can be eliminated through the path of seeing). The skandhas of thought and mind each have four types, which are abandoned through the paths of seeing and cultivation. The following describes this teacher's explanation refuting the Sarvāstivāda (有部, You bu: one of the early Buddhist schools, asserting the reality of all dharmas).
Treatise: These eight kinds are not contrary to those scriptures. The third is 'understanding the scriptures' (通經, Tong jing: being well-versed in the meaning of the scriptures). The twelve inversions are only found in the 'seen-to-be-abandoned' scriptures. This means that although these eight inversions are also related to 'cultivation-to-be-abandoned' (修斷, Xiu duan: afflictions that can be eliminated through the path of cultivation), they must be abandoned through 'seeing the truth' (見諦, Jian di: realizing the truth) in the path of cultivation, so they are called 'abandoned by seeing the noble truth'.
Treatise: In order to address only the latent tendencies of views (見隨眠, Jian suimian: latent afflictions arising from wrong views), the second part below explains the seven and nine kinds of conceit. The first line of the verse explains the seven and nine kinds of conceit, and the next line explains the two abandonments (二斷, Er duan: abandonment through seeing and abandonment through cultivation). The following two lines cite examples to explain. There are three sections in the prose: first, explaining the seven kinds of conceit; second, explaining the nine kinds of conceit; and third, explaining the two abandonments.
Treatise says: To the seven wrong conceits. The following explains the seven kinds of conceit. Because there are seven and nine kinds of conceit, the seven kinds are explained first, in order to prepare for the nine kinds later, hence the saying 'dan ye'.
Treatise: Causing the mind to be arrogant, hence dividing into seven kinds. This is like explaining 'seeing'. Wisdom can investigate and establish a general name for 'seeing'. Different actions and operations are divided into many types. 'Action' refers to behavioral understanding, and 'operation' refers to arising. Causing the mind to be arrogant establishes a general name for 'conceit'. In the presence of objects, different behavioral understandings are divided into seven kinds of conceit. The Nyāyapraveśa says: Some foolish people first compare themselves with others in matters that exist and do not exist, and arrogance arises in their minds, which is called conceit. Due to differences in action and operation, it is divided into seven kinds. The explanation says: 'Existing matters' refers to conforming to reality, and 'non-existing matters' refers to not conforming to reality.
Treatise: Regarding those inferior to oneself and equal to oneself, it is generally called conceit. The Nyāyapraveśa says: Aren't these two operating in accordance with reality in the realm of objects? They should not become conceit. Considering those inferior to oneself as superior, and considering those equal to oneself as equal, measuring and knowing, what fault is there in calling it conceit? When love and attachment arise in the mind towards lovable things, operating in accordance with reality, how can it become greed? Since this is craving for various desirable things without inversion, it should not be an affliction. However, it gives rise to the function of defiling and disturbing the mind, and since it is allowed to become greed, it is the nature of affliction. In this way, even if it is truly superior or inferior, the place where it arises can cause the mind to be arrogant, defiling, and disturbing, which is called the affliction of conceit. What fault is there in principle? Therefore, it is first briefly stated in the general characteristics of conceit that relying on existence and non-existence, both situations can give rise to conceit, such as in appropriate and inappropriate situations.
憤恚俱名瞋。
論。于等於勝至總名過慢。此慢過前慢故名為過慢。正理論云。於他殊勝族．明等中。謂已勝．等名為過慢。
論。于勝謂勝名慢過慢。此慢過於過慢名慢過慢。舊論云過過慢也。
論。於五取蘊至名為我慢。執我起慢名為我慢。正理云。於五取蘊執我．我所。心便高舉名為我慢。由此證知。于未缺減有身見位。可言有我想．心二倒非缺減時。
論。于未證得至名增上慢。正理論云。于未證得地道斷等殊勝得中。謂已證得名增上慢 未得．得言。其義何別。前得．后得。義不異故 此言為顯未得德得得後有得。宗所許故 解云。得後有得者。即是得德上得也。
論。于多分勝至名為卑慢。正理論云。諸有在家。或出家者。於他工巧．尸羅等德多分勝中。謂己少劣心生高舉。名為卑慢。此中於己心高舉者。於他多勝謂己少劣。有增己故亦說為高 準上論文。卑慢亦有高處。其慢稱境無高處也。
論。于無德中至名為邪慢。正理論云。言無德者。謂諸惡行違功德故立無德名。猶如不善。彼于成此無德法中。謂己有斯殊勝功德。恃惡高舉。故名邪慢(已上論文) 其增上慢所緣境者。若執此法不生為德。即緣此不生法為境。若執此劣法以為勝德。即緣此劣法為境。故婆
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『憤』和『恚』都叫做『瞋』（嗔怒）。
論：對於等於或勝過自己的人，總稱為『過慢』（過度驕慢）。這種慢比前面的慢更甚，所以稱為『過慢』。《正理論》說：『在種族、聰明等方面勝過他人時，認為自己已經勝過或等於他們，這叫做過慢。』
論：對於勝過自己的人，認為自己勝過他們，這叫做『慢過慢』（比過慢更甚的驕慢）。這種慢比『過慢』更甚，所以稱為『慢過慢』。舊論中也稱之為『過過慢』。
論：對於五取蘊（色、受、想、行、識），執著為『我』，從而產生驕慢，這叫做『我慢』（以自我為中心的驕慢）。執著于『我』而生起的驕慢稱為『我慢』。《正理論》說：『對於五取蘊，執著為『我』和『我所』（我所有的），內心便會高舉，這叫做我慢。』由此可以得知，在沒有減少或缺失有身見（薩迦耶見，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）的情況下，可以說有『我想』和『心』兩種顛倒，而不是在減少或缺失的時候。
論：對於未曾證得的境界，認為自己已經證得，這叫做『增上慢』（未證言證的驕慢）。《正理論》說：『對於未曾證得的諸如地、道、斷等殊勝功德，認為自己已經證得，這叫做增上慢。』『未得』和『得』這兩個詞，它們的意義有什麼區別呢？前一個『得』和后一個『得』，意義沒有不同嗎？這裡說『未得德得』，是爲了顯示在得到功德之後還有得到，這是宗派所認可的。解釋說：『得到之後還有得到，指的就是在得到功德之上又得到功德。』
論：在很多方面勝過自己的人面前，認為自己稍微差一點，這叫做『卑慢』（自卑而產生的驕慢）。《正理論》說：『有些在家或出家的人，在他人于工巧、戒律等功德方面大大勝過自己的情況下，認為自己稍微差一點，內心卻生起高舉，這叫做卑慢。』這裡說對於自己內心高舉，是因為在他人很多方面勝過自己的情況下，認為自己稍微差一點，有抬高自己的成分，所以也說是高。按照上面的論文，卑慢也有高的地方，這種慢所針對的境界沒有高的地方。
論：在沒有功德的情況下，認為自己有功德，這叫做『邪慢』（不正當的驕慢）。《正理論》說：『所說的沒有功德，是指各種惡行違背功德，所以立名為無功德，就像不善一樣。那些成就這些無功德法的人，認為自己有這種殊勝的功德，依仗惡行而高舉，所以叫做邪慢。』（以上是論文）增上慢所緣的境界，如果執著于某種法不生為功德，就以這種不生法為境界；如果執著于某種低劣的法為殊勝的功德，就以這種低劣的法為境界。所以婆沙論中說……
【English Translation】 English version 『Wrath』 and 『resentment』 are both called 『krodha』 (anger).
Treatise: Regarding those who are equal to or superior to oneself, it is generally called 『atimāna』 (excessive pride). This pride is greater than the previous pride, hence it is called 『atimāna』. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『When one is superior to others in terms of lineage, intelligence, etc., and thinks that one has already surpassed or is equal to them, this is called atimāna.』
Treatise: Regarding those who are superior to oneself, thinking that one is superior to them is called 『mānātimāna』 (pride exceeding pride). This pride is greater than 『atimāna』, hence it is called 『mānātimāna』. The old treatise also calls it 『atyatimāna』 (excessive excessive pride).
Treatise: Regarding the five skandhas of grasping (pañcopādānaskandha) (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), clinging to 『self』 and thereby generating pride is called 『asmimāna』 (I-am-pride). The pride that arises from clinging to 『self』 is called 『asmimāna』. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『Regarding the five skandhas of grasping, clinging to 『self』 and 『what belongs to self』 (mine), the mind then becomes elevated, this is called asmimāna.』 From this, it can be known that in the position where the view of a real self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi) (the view that the body composed of the five aggregates is the real self) has not diminished or is lacking, it can be said that there are two inversions of 『I-thought』 and 『mind』, rather than when it is diminished or lacking.
Treatise: Regarding what has not been attained, thinking that one has already attained it is called 『adhimāna』 (presumptuous pride). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『Regarding the superior attainments of the stages of the path, cessation, etc., that have not been attained, thinking that one has already attained them is called adhimāna.』 What is the difference in meaning between the words 『unattained』 and 『attained』? Are the meanings of the former 『attained』 and the latter 『attained』 not different? This statement 『unattained virtue attained』 is to show that there is attainment after attaining virtue, which is accepted by the school. The explanation says: 『Attainment after attainment refers to attaining virtue upon virtue.』
Treatise: In the presence of those who are greatly superior to oneself, thinking that one is slightly inferior is called 『avamāna』 (false humility). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『Some laypeople or renunciants, when others greatly surpass them in skills, morality, etc., think that they are slightly inferior, but their minds give rise to elevation, this is called avamāna.』 Here, it is said that the mind is elevated because, in the presence of others who are greatly superior, one thinks that one is slightly inferior, which has the element of elevating oneself, so it is also said to be high. According to the above treatise, avamāna also has a high aspect. The object that this pride is directed towards does not have a high aspect.
Treatise: In the absence of virtue, thinking that one has virtue is called 『mithyāmāna』 (false pride). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『What is said to be without virtue refers to various evil deeds that contradict virtue, so it is named without virtue, just like unwholesomeness. Those who accomplish these dharmas without virtue think that they have this superior virtue, relying on evil deeds and becoming elevated, so it is called mithyāmāna.』 (The above is the treatise). The object of adhimāna is that if one clings to a certain dharma not arising as virtue, then this non-arising dharma is taken as the object; if one clings to a certain inferior dharma as superior virtue, then this inferior dharma is taken as the object. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā says...
沙四十三云。若起增上慢我生已盡。此何所緣。答 乃至 此即緣生 乃至 我生已盡者。隨於何蘊作生想。此即緣生者。緣所盡生即有漏蘊。問此增上慢亦應能緣慢者所執有漏道行。何故但說緣所盡生。答亦應說彼。而不說者應知此中是有餘說 複次緣道行者唯修所斷。緣所盡生通五部慢。此中但說能遍緣者 複次有漏道行亦是生攝。故說緣生 有餘師說。所執道行說名為生。能生慢故。此慢但說能盡生道。彼說非理。后依梵行已立等慢不說緣生故。此慢緣所盡生不違理故(準上論文。緣道及所盡生)又云。若起增上慢我梵行已立 此即緣彼心．心所法 已上本論文。已下婆沙釋 梵行已立者。隨於何處作梵行想。諸阿羅漢于學道名已立。于無學道名今立。此即緣彼心．心所法者。此增上慢緣彼所執有漏道行。無漏梵行非彼境故 已上論文 又婆沙云。問誰起幾種增上慢耶。有說異生起五種。謂于勝品有漏善根。及預流等四沙門果。預流起四。除第一 于預流勝根亦起增上慢 一來起三除前二。不還起二除前三。諸阿羅漢無增上慢。有說。異生起九種。謂于勝品有漏善根。及於無漏四向四果。預流七除前二。一來向六。一來果五。不還向四。不還果三除前六。阿羅漢向起二除前七。阿羅漢果無增上慢。預流向無起增
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 《舍利弗阿毗曇論》第四十三篇說：『如果生起增上慢，認為「我的生死已經終結」，這是以什麼為所緣？』 回答：乃至『這即是緣生』，乃至『我的生死已經終結』，是隨於哪個蘊產生生的想法。『這即是緣生』，是指所緣的已盡之生，即是有漏蘊。 問：這種增上慢也應該能夠緣慢者所執著的有漏道行，為什麼只說緣所盡之生？ 答：也應該說彼（有漏道行），而不說的原因應該知道這是有省略的說法。再次，緣道行者只是修所斷的煩惱。緣所盡之生通於五部的慢。這裡只說能普遍緣的。 再次，有漏道行也是生所攝。所以說緣生。有其他老師說，所執著的道行說名為生，因為它能生慢。這種慢只說能盡生的道。他們的說法不合理。因為後來依據梵行已經建立的等慢，不說緣生。這種慢緣所盡之生不違背道理。（準照上面的論文，緣道及所盡之生） 又說：『如果生起增上慢，認為「我的梵行已經建立」，這即是緣彼心、心所法。』 以上是本論文。以下是《大毗婆沙論》的解釋：『梵行已經建立』，是指隨於何處產生梵行的想法。諸阿羅漢于學道名為已立，于無學道名今立。『這即是緣彼心、心所法』，是指這種增上慢緣彼所執著的有漏道行。無漏梵行不是它的境界。 以上是論文。 《大毗婆沙論》又說：問：誰生起幾種增上慢呢？有的人說，異生（指凡夫）生起五種，即對於勝品的有漏善根，以及預流（Srotapanna，入流者）等四沙門果。預流生起四種，除去第一種。對於預流的勝根也生起增上慢。一來（Sakrdagamin，一來者）生起三種，除去前兩種。不還（Anagamin，不還者）生起兩種，除去前三種。諸阿羅漢（Arhat，阿羅漢）沒有增上慢。有的人說，異生生起九種，即對於勝品的有漏善根，以及對於無漏的四向四果。預流生起七種，除去前兩種。一來向生起六種。一來果生起五種。不還向生起四種。不還果生起三種，除去前六種。阿羅漢向生起兩種，除去前七種。阿羅漢果沒有增上慢。預流向沒有生起增上慢。
【English Translation】 English version: The Shastra 43 says: 'If one arises with adhimana (增上慢, conceit) thinking, 'My birth is exhausted,' what is the object of this?' Answer: Up to 'This is conditioned arising,' up to 'My birth is exhausted,' it follows from which skandha (蘊, aggregate) does the thought of birth arise. 'This is conditioned arising' refers to the exhausted birth that is conditioned, which is the contaminated skandha. Question: This adhimana should also be able to take as its object the contaminated path practiced by those who are conceited. Why only speak of exhausted birth as the object? Answer: It should also speak of that (contaminated path), but the reason for not speaking of it should be understood as an abbreviated statement. Furthermore, those who take the path as their object are only those who sever afflictions through cultivation. Taking exhausted birth as the object encompasses the conceit of the five categories. Here, only that which can be universally taken as an object is spoken of. Furthermore, the contaminated path is also included within birth. Therefore, it is said to be conditioned arising. Some other teachers say that the practiced path that is clung to is called birth because it can give rise to conceit. This conceit only speaks of the path that can exhaust birth. Their explanation is unreasonable because later, based on the established sameness of conduct, it does not speak of conditioned arising. This conceit taking exhausted birth as its object does not contradict reason. (According to the above treatise, the object is the path and exhausted birth.) It also says: 'If one arises with adhimana thinking, 'My brahmacharya (梵行, pure conduct) is established,' this takes as its object the mind and mental factors.' The above is the original treatise. The following is the explanation from the 《Mahavibhasa》: 'Brahmacharya is established' refers to the thought of brahmacharya arising in any place. For arhats (阿羅漢, enlightened being), the name is already established in the path of learning, and the name is now established in the path of no-more-learning. 'This takes as its object the mind and mental factors' refers to this adhimana taking as its object the contaminated path that is clung to. Uncontaminated brahmacharya is not its realm. The above is the treatise. The 《Mahavibhasa》 also says: Question: Who arises with how many kinds of adhimana? Some say that ordinary beings (異生, non-holy beings) arise with five kinds, namely, regarding the superior contaminated wholesome roots and the four fruits of sramanas (沙門, ascetic) such as srotapanna (預流, stream-enterer). Srotapannas arise with four kinds, excluding the first. They also arise with adhimana regarding the superior roots of srotapannas. Sakrdagamins (一來, once-returner) arise with three kinds, excluding the first two. Anagamins (不還, non-returner) arise with two kinds, excluding the first three. Arhats have no adhimana. Some say that ordinary beings arise with nine kinds, namely, regarding the superior contaminated wholesome roots and the four paths and four fruits of the uncontaminated. Srotapannas arise with seven kinds, excluding the first two. Sakrdagami-destined arise with six kinds. Sakrdagami-fruition arise with five kinds. Anagami-destined arise with four kinds. Anagami-fruition arise with three kinds, excluding the first six. Arhat-destined arise with two kinds, excluding the first seven. Arhat-fruition has no adhimana. Srotapanna-destined do not arise with adhimana.
上慢義。評曰。聖者亦于勝有漏善起增上慢故。六聖者如前所起各復增一(六聖者。謂預流果至阿羅漢向。預流向不起故。阿羅漢果無慢也) 問得忍善根等起增上慢謂為聖道。此慢是何界一說是色界。不應作是說。未離下染故。不起上染故(準此論文。未得根本禪緣未至定不起上染也) 一說欲界系。問若爾欲界無順抉擇分忍。此何所緣。答欲界雖無順抉擇分。而有彼相似善根。此增上慢緣彼而起。欲界具有一切功德相似法故(準此論文。未離欲染于未至定起貪等者。俱于相似善上起也。應檢定品也) 問增上慢。邪慢。俱于未得處起。云何差別 答覆次增上慢于等功德。或勝功德處起。邪慢都無功德處起 複次增上慢內．外道俱起。邪慢唯外道起 複次增上慢。異生．聖者俱起。邪慢唯異生起。是謂差別 七慢見．修所斷。諸說不同 評曰應作是說。七慢皆通見．修所斷 問我慢邪慢云何通修所斷 答有身見．及邪見。於五部法執我．我所。及撥為無。此後或緣見苦所斷法。起我慢．及邪慢。或乃至緣修所斷法。起我慢．及邪慢。故此二慢通修所斷 七慢三界兩說不同。評曰。色．無色界亦具七慢 問彼無校量種姓等義。寧有卑慢等 答彼雖無有校量種等。而有比度定等功德 評曰應作是說。非卑慢等要比度他勝
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 上慢義：評述說，聖者也會對殊勝的有漏善法生起增上慢。六種聖者（六聖者：指預流果到阿羅漢向。因為預流向不會生起慢心，阿羅漢果位也沒有慢心）如前所述，各自生起的慢心又增加一層。 問：如果獲得忍善根等，卻生起增上慢，認為這是聖道，那麼這種慢心屬於哪個界？一種說法是屬於色界。不應該這樣說，因為還沒有脫離地獄的染污，所以不會生起上界的染污（根據這段論文，如果還沒有得到根本禪定，因緣沒有達到禪定，就不會生起上界的染污）。 另一種說法是屬於欲界。問：如果這樣，欲界沒有順抉擇分忍，那麼這種增上慢緣于什麼而生起？答：欲界雖然沒有順抉擇分，但有與之相似的善根。這種增上慢緣于這些相似的善根而生起。因為欲界具有一切功德的相似法（根據這段論文，如果還沒有脫離欲界的染污，對未至定生起貪心等，都是對相似的善法生起。應該檢查禪定品）。 問：增上慢和邪慢都是在未得到相應功德的情況下生起，它們有什麼區別？答：增上慢是對等同或勝過的功德生起，而邪慢是對完全沒有功德的情況生起。 其次，增上慢內外道都會生起，而邪慢只有外道才會生起。 再次，增上慢異生（凡夫）和聖者都會生起，而邪慢只有異生才會生起。這就是它們的區別。 關於七慢（七慢：慢、過慢、慢過慢、我慢、增上慢、卑慢、邪慢）是見所斷還是修所斷，有不同的說法。 評述說，應該這樣認為：七慢都通於見所斷和修所斷。 問：我慢和邪慢為什麼也通於修所斷？答：有身見以及邪見，在五部法（五部法：苦法智、集法智、滅法智、道法智、修法智）中執著我、我所，或者否定為沒有。此後，或者緣于見苦所斷的法，生起我慢和邪慢；或者乃至緣于修所斷的法，生起我慢和邪慢。因此，這兩種慢通於修所斷。 關於七慢存在於三界（三界：欲界、色界、無色界）的兩種說法不同。評述說，色界和無色界也具有七慢。 問：色界和無色界沒有校量種姓等的意義，怎麼會有卑慢等？答：它們雖然沒有校量種姓等，但有比較禪定等功德。 評述說，應該這樣認為：卑慢等不一定要比較他人的殊勝之處。
【English Translation】 English version: The Meaning of Excessive Pride: It is commented that even sages can develop excessive pride towards superior meritorious deeds associated with outflows (有漏善). The six types of sages (六聖者: referring to those from Stream-enterer to the Path of Arhat. Because the Path of Stream-entry does not give rise to pride, and the Fruit of Arhat has no pride) each increase their pride by one level, as previously mentioned. Question: If one attains the root of good deeds of forbearance (忍善根) and develops excessive pride, considering it the noble path, to which realm does this pride belong? One view is that it belongs to the Form Realm (色界). This should not be said, because one has not yet detached from the defilements of the lower realm, so one cannot develop the defilements of the higher realm (according to this treatise, if one has not attained the fundamental dhyana (根本禪定) and the conditions for samadhi (定) have not been met, one cannot develop the defilements of the higher realm). Another view is that it belongs to the Desire Realm (欲界). Question: If so, the Desire Realm does not have the forbearance of accordance with decisive understanding (順抉擇分忍), so what does this excessive pride arise from? Answer: Although the Desire Realm does not have the divisions of accordance with decisive understanding, it has similar roots of goodness. This excessive pride arises from these similar roots of goodness. Because the Desire Realm possesses similar aspects of all meritorious qualities (according to this treatise, if one has not detached from the defilements of the Desire Realm and develops greed towards the preliminary stage of samadhi (未至定), it is also arising from similar good deeds. The chapter on samadhi should be examined). Question: What is the difference between excessive pride and wrong pride, both of which arise when one has not attained the corresponding qualities? Answer: Excessive pride arises towards equal or superior qualities, while wrong pride arises when there are no qualities at all. Furthermore, excessive pride arises in both internal and external paths, while wrong pride arises only in external paths. Furthermore, excessive pride arises in both ordinary beings and sages, while wrong pride arises only in ordinary beings. This is the difference between them. There are different views on whether the seven types of pride (七慢: pride, excessive pride, more excessive pride, conceit, excessive pride, false pride, wrong pride) are abandoned by seeing or by cultivation. It is commented that it should be said that all seven types of pride are connected to both what is abandoned by seeing and what is abandoned by cultivation. Question: How are conceit and wrong pride connected to what is abandoned by cultivation? Answer: The view of a self and wrong views, in the five aggregates of the law (五部法: the wisdom of suffering, the wisdom of origination, the wisdom of cessation, the wisdom of the path, the wisdom of cultivation), cling to 'I' and 'mine', or deny their existence. Thereafter, one may develop conceit and wrong pride based on what is abandoned by seeing suffering; or even develop conceit and wrong pride based on what is abandoned by cultivation. Therefore, these two types of pride are connected to what is abandoned by cultivation. There are two different views on the existence of the seven types of pride in the three realms (三界: Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm). It is commented that the Form Realm and the Formless Realm also possess the seven types of pride. Question: The Form Realm and the Formless Realm do not have the meaning of comparing lineage, etc., so how can they have false pride, etc.? Answer: Although they do not have the comparison of lineage, etc., they have the comparison of the qualities of samadhi, etc. It is commented that it should be said that false pride, etc., do not necessarily require comparing the superiority of others.
劣而起。無始時來數習力故。雖生上界亦有現行。是故三界皆具七慢。
論。然本論說慢類有九。自此已下第二釋慢類也。正理論云。類是品類義。即慢之差別。
論。一我勝慢類至無劣我慢類。列九名也 我勝。即是從過慢離出 二我等。即是慢中離出 三我劣。即卑慢中離出 四有勝我。即是卑慢中離出 五有等我。即是慢中離出 六有劣我。即是過慢中離出 七無勝我。慢中離出 八無等我。過慢中離出 九無劣我。是卑慢中離出。
論。如是九種至過慢卑慢屬當三慢。如是三慢若從我生。行解次第有殊成三三類 今詳三慢。我慢．慢類別者。不因見生但名三慢。唯恃我陵人名為我慢。從見生慢行解勝劣不同名為慢類。
論。于多分勝至而自尊重。問答分別也。正理論云。無劣我慢類。高舉如何成。謂有如斯于自所樂勝有情聚。雖於己身知極下劣。而自尊重。如呈瑞者。或旃荼羅。彼雖自知世所共惡。然于呈瑞執所作時。尊重自身故成高舉。
論。如是且依至勝境別故。解云。言我勝者。謂我勝他。此有三種。觀劣境勝是慢。觀等境勝是過慢。觀勝境勝是慢過慢。餘八準此 今詳二釋。發智論略。品類足廣。
論。如是七慢何所斷耶。已下明二斷。
論。一切皆通
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 從低劣處生起。這是因為無始以來串習的力量。即使生於上界，也仍然會有現行。因此，三界都具備七慢。
論：然而本論說慢的種類有九種。從這裡開始是第二部分，解釋慢的種類。正理論說：『類』是品類的意思，也就是慢的差別。
論：一、我勝慢類 至 九、無劣我慢類。這裡列出了九種名稱。我勝，是從過慢中分離出來的。二、我等，是從慢中分離出來的。三、我劣，是從卑慢中分離出來的。四、有勝我，是從卑慢中分離出來的。五、有等我，是從慢中分離出來的。六、有劣我，是從過慢中分離出來的。七、無勝我，是從慢中分離出來的。八、無等我，是從過慢中分離出來的。九、無劣我，是從卑慢中分離出來的。
論：像這樣九種慢類 至 過慢、卑慢屬於這三種慢。像這樣三種慢如果從我生起，在行解的次第上有所不同，就形成了三三類。現在詳細解釋這三種慢。我慢、慢類別，不是因為見而生，只是名為三種慢。僅僅憑藉『我』而輕視他人，名為我慢。從見而生的慢，在行解上勝劣不同，名為慢類。
論：對於大部分勝者 至 而自我尊重。這是問答分別。正理論說：『無劣我慢類，高舉如何成立？』意思是說，有些人對於自己所喜歡的殊勝有情聚集之處，即使自己知道極其低劣，卻仍然自我尊重，就像呈瑞者（呈瑞，不知道具體含義）。或者旃荼羅（Candala，古印度社會中從事被認為不潔職業的種姓）。他們雖然自己知道被世人所厭惡，但在呈瑞或從事自身職業時，尊重自身，因此形成了高舉。
論：像這樣且依據 至 殊勝境界的差別。解釋說：『我勝』，是指我勝過他人。這有三種情況：觀察低劣的境界而認為自己殊勝，這是慢；觀察相等的境界而認為自己殊勝，這是過慢；觀察殊勝的境界而認為自己殊勝，這是慢過慢。其餘八種情況依此類推。現在詳細比較這兩種解釋，發智論（Jnanaprasthana Sastra）比較簡略，品類足論（Prakaranapada Sastra）比較詳細。
論：像這樣七慢要斷除什麼呢？以下說明二種斷除。
論：一切都共通。
【English Translation】 English version It arises from inferiority. This is due to the power of habitual practice from beginningless time. Even if born in the upper realms, it still manifests. Therefore, all three realms possess the seven types of conceit (sapta-mana).
Treatise: However, this treatise states that there are nine types of conceit. From here onwards is the second part, explaining the types of conceit. The Nyaya Theory (Nyaya-siddhanta) says: 'Type' means category, which is the difference in conceit.
Treatise: 1. Conceit of being superior (ati-mana) to 9. Conceit of not being inferior (una-mana). Here are listed the nine names. 'Superior' (ati-mana) is separated from excessive conceit (adhimana). 2. 'Equal' (sadrsa-mana) is separated from conceit (mana). 3. 'Inferior' (hina-mana) is separated from false humility (avamana). 4. 'Having superiority' (asti-ati-mana) is separated from false humility (avamana). 5. 'Having equality' (asti-sadrsa-mana) is separated from conceit (mana). 6. 'Having inferiority' (asti-hina-mana) is separated from excessive conceit (adhimana). 7. 'Not superior' (nasti-ati-mana) is separated from conceit (mana). 8. 'Not equal' (nasti-sadrsa-mana) is separated from excessive conceit (adhimana). 9. 'Not inferior' (nasti-hina-mana) is separated from false humility (avamana).
Treatise: Like these nine types of conceit to Excessive conceit (adhimana) and false humility (avamana) belong to these three conceits. Like these three conceits, if they arise from 'I' (atman), there are differences in the order of practice and understanding, thus forming three times three categories. Now, let's explain these three conceits in detail. 'I-conceit' (atma-mana) and 'types of conceit' (mana-jati) are not born from views, but are merely called three conceits. Relying solely on 'I' to belittle others is called 'I-conceit' (atma-mana). Conceit born from views, with differences in superiority and inferiority in practice and understanding, is called 'types of conceit' (mana-jati).
Treatise: Regarding the majority of superiors to and self-respect. This is a question and answer analysis. The Nyaya Theory (Nyaya-siddhanta) says: 'How is the category of conceit of not being inferior (nasti-hina-mana) established?' It means that some people, regarding the gathering of superior sentient beings that they like, even if they know they are extremely inferior, still respect themselves, like the 'presenter of auspicious signs' (呈瑞者, Cheng Rui Zhe, meaning unclear). Or the Candala (Candala, an untouchable caste in ancient Indian society). Although they know they are despised by the world, they respect themselves when presenting auspicious signs or engaging in their own professions, thus forming self-exaltation.
Treatise: Like this, and based on to the difference in superior realms. Explanation: 'Superior' (ati-mana) means 'I am superior to others'. There are three situations: observing an inferior realm and considering oneself superior is conceit (mana); observing an equal realm and considering oneself superior is excessive conceit (adhimana); observing a superior realm and considering oneself superior is conceit-excessive conceit (mana-adhimana). The remaining eight situations are analogous. Now, let's compare these two explanations in detail. The Jnanaprasthana Sastra (發智論) is concise, while the Prakaranapada Sastra (品類足論) is detailed.
Treatise: Like this, what do the seven conceits eliminate? The following explains the two eliminations.
Treatise: Everything is common.
見修所斷。正理論云。理實應言七皆通二。故能安穩作如是言。我色等中不隨執我。然于如是五取蘊中。有我慢愛隨眠未斷 解云。能安穩。是有學聖者。既自云已斷我執未斷我慢愛。故知我慢愛修所斷。今詳我慢五斷別者。緣五斷法起我愛慢。即隨所緣分其五斷。雖我見亦緣五斷法起。由觀苦．無我行中。行．得二修能違我見不違我慢。故我見唯苦。我慢通餘四斷 又我見頓緣共相惑故。我慢別緣自相惑故。
論。諸修所斷至而聖定不行。明有雖未斷而不行也。
論。如殺生纏。已下引喻釋也。于中引三喻一殺生纏等。二無有愛。三有愛一分。此皆是修所斷而定不行。慢亦如是。有雖修斷而定不行。聖人定不行殺．盜．淫．誑故。所以發彼業．惑。雖是修斷。決定不行。
論。無有名何法至名無有愛。婆沙二十七云。無有者。謂眾同分無常。緣此起愛名無有愛。是故此愛唯修所斷。以眾同分唯修斷故 正理論云。豈不見所斷亦有無常無有愛。何緣唯修所斷 實亦見斷。且隨經說。謂契經中說有三愛。欲愛。有愛。無有愛三。於此經中說無有愛。取緣眾同分無常為境者。貪求異熟相續斷故。如契經言。一類苦逼作如是念。愿我死後斷壞無有。無病樂哉。今且據斯說唯修斷。非見所斷無無有愛。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於修所斷。
《正理論》說：『實際上應該說七種煩惱都通於二界。』所以能安穩地說：『我在色等五蘊中不執著於我。』然而，在這五取蘊中，有我慢和愛隨眠尚未斷除。
解釋說：『能安穩』是指有學位的聖者。既然自己說已經斷除了我執，但尚未斷除我慢和愛，因此可知我慢和愛是修所斷。
現在詳細分析我慢的五種斷法差別：緣於五種斷法生起我愛慢，就隨著所緣的對象區分這五種斷法。雖然我見也緣於五種斷法生起，但通過觀察苦、無我行中，行和得兩種修習能違揹我見，卻不能違揹我慢。因此，我見只屬於苦諦所斷，而我慢通於其餘四諦所斷。
此外，我見是頓然緣于共相而迷惑，而我慢是分別緣于自相而迷惑。
論：諸修所斷，乃至聖者決定不行。說明有些煩惱雖然未斷，但聖者決定不會去做。
論：如殺生纏。以下是引用比喻來解釋。其中引用了三個比喻：一是殺生纏等，二是無有愛（Uccheda-tanha，斷滅愛），三是有愛（Bhava-tanha，有身愛）的一部分。這些都是修所斷，但聖者決定不會去做。我慢也是如此，有些雖然通過修習斷除了，但聖者決定不會去做。聖人決定不會去做殺、盜、淫、妄等行為。所以，發起這些行為的業和煩惱，雖然是修所斷，但聖者決定不會去做。
論：無有名何法，乃至名為無有愛？
《婆沙論》第二十七卷說：『無有』是指眾同分（Nikayasabhaga，同類性）的無常。緣於此生起的愛，稱為無有愛。因此，這種愛唯是修所斷，因為眾同分唯是修所斷。
《正理論》說：『難道沒有見到所斷的煩惱中也有無常和無有愛嗎？為什麼說唯是修所斷呢？』
實際上，見所斷中也有。這裡只是隨順經文的說法。經文中說有三種愛：欲愛（Kama-tanha，欲愛），有愛，無有愛。在這部經中說無有愛，是取緣于眾同分的無常為境界的愛，貪求異熟相續斷滅的緣故。如經文所說：一類人被痛苦逼迫，產生這樣的念頭：『愿我死後斷滅，什麼都沒有，沒有病痛，真是快樂啊！』現在暫且根據這個說法，認為唯是修所斷，並非見所斷中沒有無有愛。
【English Translation】 English version Regarding what is abandoned by cultivation.
The Tattvartha Sutra says: 'In reality, it should be said that all seven afflictions are connected to both realms.' Therefore, one can confidently say: 'I do not cling to 'I' in the skandhas such as form.' However, within these five aggregates of clinging, there are still latent tendencies of conceit and attachment that have not been severed.'
The explanation is: 'Confidently' refers to a noble one who is still learning. Since they themselves say that they have severed the ego-grasping but have not yet severed conceit and attachment, it is known that conceit and attachment are abandoned by cultivation.
Now, analyzing in detail the five distinctions of conceit: When conceit and attachment arise in relation to the five dharmas to be abandoned, these five abandonments are distinguished according to the object they relate to. Although ego-view also arises in relation to the five dharmas to be abandoned, through contemplating suffering and no-self, the practice of 'practice' and 'attainment' can counteract ego-view but not conceit. Therefore, ego-view is only abandoned through the truth of suffering, while conceit is connected to the other four truths.
Furthermore, ego-view is suddenly deluded by the general characteristics, while conceit is separately deluded by the specific characteristics.
Treatise: All that is abandoned by cultivation, up to the point where the noble one definitely does not engage in it. This clarifies that there are things that, although not yet abandoned, the noble one definitely will not do.
Treatise: Like the entanglement of killing. The following uses metaphors to explain. Among them, three metaphors are cited: first, the entanglement of killing, etc.; second, Uccheda-tanha (annihilationist craving); third, a portion of Bhava-tanha (craving for existence). These are all abandoned by cultivation, but the noble one definitely will not do them. Conceit is also like this; some things, although abandoned through cultivation, the noble one definitely will not do. Noble ones definitely do not engage in killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, or lying. Therefore, the karma and afflictions that initiate these actions, although abandoned by cultivation, the noble one definitely will not do.
Treatise: What dharma is called Uccheda-tanha (annihilationist craving)?
The Mahavibhasa (Great Commentary) Volume 27 says: 'Uccheda (annihilation)' refers to the impermanence of Nikayasabhaga (community of beings, or commonality of kind). The craving that arises in relation to this is called Uccheda-tanha. Therefore, this craving is only abandoned by cultivation, because Nikayasabhaga is only abandoned by cultivation.
The Tattvartha Sutra says: 'Have you not seen that among the afflictions to be abandoned, there are also impermanence and Uccheda-tanha? Why do you say that it is only abandoned by cultivation?'
In reality, it is also abandoned by view. Here, we are simply following the sutra's explanation. The sutra says there are three types of craving: Kama-tanha (sense-craving), Bhava-tanha (craving for existence), and Uccheda-tanha (annihilationist craving). In this sutra, Uccheda-tanha is said to be the craving that takes the impermanence of Nikayasabhaga as its object, because it craves for the cessation of the maturation of the continuum. As the sutra says: A certain type of person, oppressed by suffering, has the thought: 'May I be annihilated after death, may there be nothing, may there be no sickness, how blissful!' For now, we will temporarily rely on this explanation and consider it only abandoned by cultivation, and not that there is no Uccheda-tanha among what is abandoned by view.
今詳正理。此無有愛通緣一切取蘊無有起愛。皆名無有愛 其于煩惱愛滅不生。此是善欲如何成愛 不求擇滅唯愛不生。如何成善法欲。由執法斷此愛方生。此由見增。聖人不起 此論中說三界無常通其二釋 若一切三界無常。即同正理 若謂三界眾同分無常。即同婆沙。準下文此諸纏愛一切皆緣修所斷故。知此論同婆沙也。
論。有愛一分至大龍王等。釋有愛一分也。謂愛勝畜生等身。此緣修所斷。是修所斷。聖人必不生惡趣愛故亦不行。言即顯一切聖人不生惡處。
論。此諸纏愛至唯修所斷。總結上義。
論。已說慢類。下一行頌。第三釋不斷不起所以。長行牒釋如文可解 問一切染法皆用見所斷為因。如何獨此由斷見．疑畢竟不起 答此是別緣增義。不同余遍行因等。生於果法因。有遠。有近。此與見．疑連續而起。是近因故。見．疑若斷即永不行。余染污見．疑因遠雖斷亦行。
論。九十八隨眠中至亦是遍行攝。已下大文第三明緣系等別 于中有十一。一明遍行。二九上緣。三無漏緣。四二隨增。五明二性。六明世縛七明斷離系。八緣識隨眠。九有隨眠心。十明起次。十一明起因。此文初也。
論曰至立遍行名。長行釋中有二。一明十一遍惑。二明九上緣惑。此文初也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 現在詳細分析正確的道理。這裡所說的『無有愛』是指普遍地對一切五取蘊（Panca-upadanakkhandha，構成存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）沒有貪愛，沒有生起貪愛。都叫做『無有愛』。對於煩惱，貪愛滅盡不再生起。這是一種善的意願，怎麼會變成貪愛呢？不尋求寂滅（Nirvana，涅槃），只是貪愛不生起，怎麼能成為善法欲呢？由於斷除了對法的執著，這種貪愛才得以產生。這是由於錯誤的見解增長所致。聖人不會生起這種貪愛。 此論中說三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）無常，貫通了兩種解釋。如果說一切三界都是無常的，那就和《正理經》（Nyayasutra）的觀點相同。如果說三界中的眾生種類是無常的，那就和《大毗婆沙論》（Mahavibhasa）的觀點相同。參照下文，這些纏縛的貪愛都是通過修所斷而斷除的，因此可知此論的觀點與《大毗婆沙論》相同。 論：『有愛一分至大龍王等。』解釋了『有愛』的一部分。指的是貪愛低劣的畜生等身體。這種貪愛是通過修所斷而斷除的。是修所斷。聖人必定不會生起墮入惡趣的貪愛，因此也不會去做會導致墮入惡趣的事情。這句話就顯示了一切聖人不會生於惡處。 論：『此諸纏愛至唯修所斷。』總結了上面的意義。 論：『已說慢類。』下一行是頌文。第三個解釋是不間斷、不生起的原因。長行文字解釋如文所示，可以理解。問：一切染污法都是用見所斷作為原因，為什麼唯獨這種（貪愛）由於斷除了見和疑（Vicikiccha，懷疑）就畢竟不再生起呢？答：這是特別的因緣增長的意義。不同於其餘普遍存在的因等。生於果法的因，有遠的，有近的。這種（貪愛）與見和疑連續而起，是近因的緣故。見和疑如果斷除了就永遠不會再發生。其餘染污的見和疑，因緣較遠，即使斷除了也會發生。 論：『九十八隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式）中至亦是遍行攝。』以下是大的段落，第三個部分是說明因緣關係等的差別。其中有十一個方面：一是說明遍行，二是九種上緣，三是無漏緣，四是兩種隨增，五是說明兩種性質，六是說明世間束縛，七是說明斷離系，八是緣識隨眠，九是有隨眠心，十是說明生起的次第，十一是說明生起的原因。這段文字是第一個方面。 論曰：『至立遍行名。』長行解釋中有兩個方面：一是說明十一種遍行惑，二是說明九種上緣惑。這段文字是第一個方面。
【English Translation】 English version Now, let's analyze the correct principles in detail. 'Absence of craving' here refers to the universal absence of craving for all five aggregates of clinging (Panca-upadanakkhandha, the five elements constituting existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness), without the arising of craving. All of these are called 'absence of craving'. Regarding afflictions, craving is extinguished and no longer arises. This is a wholesome desire, how could it become craving? Not seeking cessation (Nirvana), but merely the non-arising of craving, how can it become wholesome Dharma-desire? It is because of severing attachment to the Dharma that this craving can arise. This is due to the increase of wrong views. Sages do not generate this craving. This treatise speaks of the impermanence of the Three Realms (Trailokya, the Desire Realm, the Form Realm, and the Formless Realm), encompassing two interpretations. If it is said that all Three Realms are impermanent, then it is the same as the view of the Nyayasutra. If it is said that the species of beings in the Three Realms are impermanent, then it is the same as the view of the Mahavibhasa. Referring to the following text, these entangling cravings are all severed through cultivation, therefore it is known that the view of this treatise is the same as the Mahavibhasa. Treatise: 'A portion of craving extends to the Great Dragon Kings, etc.' This explains a portion of 'craving'. It refers to craving for the inferior bodies of animals, etc. This craving is severed through cultivation. It is severed through cultivation. Sages will certainly not generate craving that leads to falling into evil destinies, therefore they will not engage in actions that lead to falling into evil destinies. This statement reveals that all sages are not born in evil places. Treatise: 'These entangling cravings are only severed through cultivation.' This summarizes the above meaning. Treatise: 'The category of conceit has been discussed.' The next line is a verse. The third explanation is the reason for non-interruption and non-arising. The prose explanation is as the text shows, and can be understood. Question: All defiled dharmas use what is severed by view as the cause, why is it that only this (craving) ceases to arise completely due to the severing of view and doubt (Vicikiccha, skepticism)? Answer: This is the meaning of a special condition increasing. It is different from other universally present causes, etc. The cause that gives rise to the resulting dharma has distant and near causes. This (craving) arises continuously with view and doubt, and is therefore a near cause. If view and doubt are severed, then it will never occur again. Other defiled views and doubts, the causes are distant, and even if they are severed, they will still occur. Treatise: 'Among the ninety-eight latent tendencies (Anusaya, the latent forms of afflictions), it is also included in the universally present.' The following is a large section, the third part is explaining the differences in causal relationships, etc. Among them, there are eleven aspects: first, explaining the universally present; second, the nine superior conditions; third, the unconditioned condition; fourth, the two augmentations; fifth, explaining the two natures; sixth, explaining worldly bondage; seventh, explaining the severance of ties; eighth, latent tendencies related to consciousness; ninth, the mind with latent tendencies; tenth, explaining the order of arising; eleventh, explaining the cause of arising. This text is the first aspect. Treatise: 'To establish the name of the universally present.' There are two aspects in the prose explanation: first, explaining the eleven universally present delusions; second, explaining the nine superior conditions of delusion. This text is the first aspect.
明遍隨眠名體也。婆沙五十八中唯十一隨眠具其三義。一謂遍緣自界地五部。二遍隨眠五部。三遍為因生五部 相應法但有二。俱有法唯一。雖闕一．二皆得遍名。自余諸法皆無三義。相應無明如所相應。不共無明不與余煩惱雜。不雜即是不相應義 正理論云。何故唯于見苦．集斷諸隨眠內有遍行耶 唯此普緣諸有漏法。意樂無別。勢力堅牢。故能為因遍生五部。見滅見道所斷隨眠。唯有能緣有漏一分。所緣有別。勢不堅牢。不能為因遍生五部。故唯前二部有遍行隨眠 何緣得知。修斷染法以見所斷遍行為因 如何不知。世間現見。有我見者。由我見力外境貪增。我見若無。便於外境貪微薄故 又由至教。如說云何見斷為因法。謂諸染污法。又說。云何無記為因法。謂不善法．無記有為法。
論。此中所言至或世間因。問也。
論。不說頓說至能頓緣五部。答也。以五部合緣名緣一切 正理論云。此遍行名為目何義。且於一切有漏法中。能周遍緣是遍行義。謂上所說三十三隨眠。自界地中各能緣五部。雖有于受偏起我執。而此非唯緣自身受。以兼緣此種類法故。若起邪見謂所修行。妙行．惡行皆空無果。此亦非唯緣自身業。總撥一切業生果能。由此準知余遍緣義。貪等煩惱唯托見．聞．所思量事方得現起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『明遍隨眠』（Míng biàn suímián，指明了地普遍存在的潛在煩惱）的名稱和本體是什麼？《婆沙論》（Póshā lùn）第五十八卷中，只有十一種隨眠（suímián，潛在煩惱）具備這三重含義：第一，普遍緣于自界地五部（zì jiè dì wǔ bù，指自身所處的界和地的五種分類）；第二，普遍隨眠於五部；第三，普遍作為因產生五部。相應法（xiāngyìng fǎ，與心識相應的心理現象）只有兩種，俱有法（jùyǒu fǎ，同時存在的法）只有一種。即使缺少其中一、二種，都可以稱為『遍』。其餘諸法都不具備這三重含義。與無明（wúmíng，無知）相應的，就像它所相應的法一樣。不共無明（bù gòng wúmíng，不共有的無明）不與其他煩惱混雜，不混雜就是不相應的含義。 《正理論》（Zhènglǐ lùn）說：『為什麼只有在見苦（jiàn kǔ，通過觀察苦諦而斷除的煩惱）、見集（jiàn jí，通過觀察集諦而斷除的煩惱）所斷的隨眠中才有遍行（biànxíng，普遍執行的）呢？』因為只有這些能普遍緣于所有有漏法（yǒulòu fǎ，有煩惱的法），意樂（yìlè，意願和傾向）沒有差別，勢力堅固，所以能作為因普遍產生五部。見滅（jiàn miè，通過觀察滅諦而斷除的煩惱）、見道（jiàn dào，通過觀察道諦而斷除的煩惱）所斷的隨眠，只能緣于有漏法的一部分，所緣的對象有差別，勢力不堅固，不能作為因普遍產生五部。所以只有前兩部有遍行隨眠。 『憑什麼得知，修斷（xiū duàn，通過修行斷除的煩惱）的染法（rǎnfǎ，染污的法）以見所斷的遍行為因呢？』『怎麼會不知道呢？世間上可以清楚地看到，有我見（wǒ jiàn，認為有「我」的錯誤見解）的人，由於我見的力量，對外境的貪愛會增加。如果我見沒有了，那麼對外境的貪愛就會很微薄。』又由於至教（zhì jiào，佛陀的教誨），如經中所說：『什麼叫做見斷為因法？就是指諸染污法。』又說：『什麼叫做無記為因法？就是指不善法、無記有為法。』 論：這裡所說的『至』或者『世間因』，是提問。 論：不說『頓說』，能頓緣五部。這是回答。因為五部合起來緣，就叫做緣一切。《正理論》說：『這個遍行名稱是爲了說明什麼意義呢？』首先，在一切有漏法中，能夠周遍緣取，這就是遍行的意義。指上面所說的三十三種隨眠，在各自的界地中，都能緣於五部。即使有人對感受（shòu，感覺）偏執地產生我執，但這並非僅僅緣于自身的感受，而是兼緣了這類法。如果有人產生邪見（xié jiàn，錯誤的見解），認為所修行的妙行（miàoxíng，好的行為）、惡行（èxíng，壞的行為）都是空無結果的，這也不是僅僅緣于自身的業（yè，行為），而是總的否定一切業生果的能力。由此可以類推其他的遍緣的含義。貪等煩惱只有依託見、聞、所思量的事物才能顯現出來。
【English Translation】 English version What are the name and substance of 『Ming bian suimian』 (明遍隨眠, Clearly pervasive latent afflictions)? In the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra (婆沙論, Póshā lùn), Chapter 58, only eleven suimian (隨眠, latent afflictions) possess these three meanings: First, they universally cognize the five categories of their own realm and ground (自界地五部, zì jiè dì wǔ bù, referring to the five categories of one's own realm and ground); second, they universally lie latent in the five categories; third, they universally act as the cause for the arising of the five categories. Associated dharmas (相應法, xiāngyìng fǎ, mental phenomena that are associated with consciousness) have only two, and co-existent dharmas (俱有法, jùyǒu fǎ, simultaneously existing dharmas) have only one. Even if one or two of these are lacking, they can still be called 『pervasive』 (bian 遍). All other dharmas do not possess these three meanings. Avidya (無明, wúmíng, ignorance) that is associated is like the dharma it is associated with. Non-common avidya (不共無明, bù gòng wúmíng, non-common ignorance) does not mix with other afflictions; not mixing is the meaning of not being associated. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論, Zhènglǐ lùn) says: 『Why is it that only among the suimian that are severed by seeing suffering (見苦, jiàn kǔ, afflictions severed by observing the truth of suffering) and seeing origination (見集, jiàn jí, afflictions severed by observing the truth of origination) are there pervasive-acting ones (bianxing 遍行)?』 It is because only these universally cognize all contaminated dharmas (有漏法, yǒulòu fǎ, dharmas with afflictions), their intentions (意樂, yìlè, intentions and inclinations) are not different, and their power is firm and strong, so they can act as the cause for the universal arising of the five categories. The suimian that are severed by seeing cessation (見滅, jiàn miè, afflictions severed by observing the truth of cessation) and seeing the path (見道, jiàn dào, afflictions severed by observing the truth of the path) can only cognize a portion of contaminated dharmas, the objects they cognize are different, and their power is not firm and strong, so they cannot act as the cause for the universal arising of the five categories. Therefore, only the first two categories have pervasive-acting suimian. 『How is it known that the contaminated dharmas that are severed by cultivation (修斷, xiū duàn, afflictions severed through cultivation) take the pervasive-acting ones that are severed by seeing as their cause?』 『How can it not be known? It is clearly seen in the world that those who have the view of self (我見, wǒ jiàn, the erroneous view of a 'self') will have their craving for external objects increase due to the power of the view of self. If the view of self is absent, then the craving for external objects will be very weak.』 Furthermore, due to the supreme teachings (至教, zhì jiào, the Buddha's teachings), as it is said in the scriptures: 『What is called a dharma caused by what is severed by seeing? It refers to all contaminated dharmas.』 It is also said: 『What is called a dharma caused by what is neutral? It refers to unwholesome dharmas and neutral conditioned dharmas.』 The Treatise says: The 『supreme』 or 『worldly cause』 mentioned here is a question. The Treatise says: It does not say 『suddenly says,』 but it can suddenly cognize the five categories. This is the answer. Because the five categories are combined to be cognized, it is called cognizing everything. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『What meaning does this name 「pervasive-acting」 aim to explain?』 First, among all contaminated dharmas, being able to universally cognize is the meaning of pervasive-acting. It refers to the thirty-three suimian mentioned above, which, in their respective realms and grounds, can all cognize the five categories. Even if someone has a biased attachment to feelings (受, shòu, sensations) and generates the view of self, this is not merely cognizing one's own feelings, but also cognizing this kind of dharma. If someone generates a wrong view (邪見, xié jiàn, incorrect view) and believes that the virtuous actions (妙行, miàoxíng, good actions) and evil actions (惡行, èxíng, bad actions) they cultivate are all empty and without results, this is not merely cognizing one's own karma (業, yè, actions), but generally denying the ability of all karma to produce results. From this, one can infer the meaning of other pervasive cognitions. Afflictions such as greed can only manifest by relying on things that are seen, heard, and thought about.
。以于妻等起貪等時。緣顯非形。緣形非顯。故知貪等皆非遍緣。已上論文 準此。戒禁取等亦得頓緣五部法也。計苦行等以為因時。爾時亦總緣身中五部法等。
論。雖爾遍行至應亦遍行。經部難也。此意遍行非唯十一。亦以愛慢為遍行也。
論。若爾頓緣至何所斷耶。有部反難。
論。應言修所斷至見力引故。經部答也。
論。毗婆沙師至不說自成。論主結宗也。正理論云。此難不然。雖見力起。而此二種。分限緣故。謂雖是處我見等行。是處必應起我愛慢。而不可說愛慢頓緣。先已說為自相惑故。是故遍行唯此十一。余非準此不說自成。
論。於十一中至緣下隨眠。自此已下第二明九上緣隨眠。正理論云。上言正明上界．上地。兼顯無有緣下隨眠。緣下則應遍知。界壞。上境勝故。緣無此失。且欲見苦所斷邪見。謗色．無色苦果為無。見取于中執為最勝。戒取于彼非因計因。疑懷猶豫。無明不了。見集所斷如應當說。色緣無色例此應知。準界應思約地分別。
論。此九雖能至準界應思。明上緣通局。如文可解。上地．自地不合緣者。以有隨增無隨增。故。
論。生在欲界至不緣上界地。外難也。
論。不執彼為至身見起故。答也。婆沙十八云。何故此二不緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：當對妻子等生起貪慾等心時，所緣的是顯色而非形狀，所緣的是形狀而非顯色。因此可知貪慾等都不是普遍地緣取一切。以上的論文可以作為依據，戒禁取等也可以頓然緣取五部法。如果認為苦行等是（解脫的）因，那麼那時也會總括地緣取身中的五部法等。
論：即使如此，遍行煩惱也應該普遍地行於一切。經部對此提出疑問。這裡的意思是，遍行煩惱不僅僅是十一種，也包括愛和慢這兩種。
論：如果這樣，頓然緣取（五部法）的煩惱在什麼情況下才能斷除呢？有部反過來提出疑問。
論：應該說是由修所斷，因為是由見的力量所引發的。經部回答說。
論：毗婆沙師的觀點是，不說自明。論主總結說。《正理論》說：這個疑問是不成立的。雖然是由見的力量生起，但這兩種（愛和慢）有各自的範圍和所緣。也就是說，雖然在有我見等行的地方，必然會生起我愛和我慢，但不能說愛和慢是頓然緣取的，因為之前已經說過它們是自相迷惑的。因此，遍行煩惱只有這十一種，其餘的不能以此類推，不說自明。
論：在這十一種（遍行煩惱）中，緣取地獄隨眠。從這裡開始，第二部分說明九種上界緣取隨眠。《正理論》說：上，明確指上界、上地，也表明沒有緣取地獄隨眠的情況。如果緣取地獄，就應該普遍知曉，（下）界就會壞滅。因為上界的境界殊勝，所以緣取上界沒有這種過失。例如，想要見苦所斷的邪見，就誹謗色界、無色界的苦果為不存在；見取則執著于（色界、無色界的苦果）為最殊勝；戒禁取則認為（色界、無色界的苦果）的非因是因；疑則心懷猶豫，無明則不了知。見集所斷的（煩惱），應該像（見苦所斷）那樣說明。色界緣取無色界的情況，可以依此類推。根據界來思考，也應該根據地來分別。
論：這九種（上界隨眠）雖然能夠（緣取），可以參照界來思考。說明上界緣取的範圍和通局，如文中所說可以理解。上地和自地不應該互相緣取，因為有隨增和無隨增的緣故。
論：如果生在欲界，就不緣取上界地。外人提出疑問。
論：因為不執著于彼（上界地）為（我），所以沒有身見生起。回答說。《婆沙》第十八卷說：為什麼這兩種（身見和戒禁取）不緣取（上界）？
【English Translation】 English version: When greed and other emotions arise towards one's wife, etc., what is cognized is manifest form (顯色, xiǎn sè) and not shape, and what is cognized is shape and not manifest form. Therefore, it is known that greed and other emotions do not universally cognize everything. The above discussion can be used as a basis; the adherence to precepts and asceticism (戒禁取, jiè jìn qǔ), etc., can also suddenly cognize the five categories of dharmas (五部法, wǔ bù fǎ). If one considers ascetic practices, etc., as the cause (of liberation), then at that time, one will also comprehensively cognize the five categories of dharmas, etc., within the body.
Treatise: Even so, pervasive afflictions (遍行, biàn xíng) should also universally operate in everything. The Sautrantikas (經部, Jīng bù) raise a question about this. The meaning here is that pervasive afflictions are not only eleven, but also include love (愛, ài) and pride (慢, màn).
Treatise: If so, under what circumstances can afflictions that suddenly cognize (the five categories of dharmas) be eliminated? The Sarvastivadins (有部, Yǒu bù) counter with a question.
Treatise: It should be said that they are eliminated by cultivation (修所斷, xiū suǒ duàn) because they are induced by the power of view (見力引, jiàn lì yǐn). The Sautrantikas respond.
Treatise: The Vaibhashikas' (毗婆沙師, Pí pó shā shī) view is that it is self-evident without saying. The author concludes. The Nyayanusara (正理論, Zhèng lǐ lùn) says: This question is not valid. Although they arise from the power of view, these two (love and pride) have their own scope and objects. That is, although in places where self-view (我見, wǒ jiàn) and other activities exist, self-love and self-pride will necessarily arise, it cannot be said that love and pride are suddenly cognized, because it has been said before that they are self-deluding. Therefore, pervasive afflictions are only these eleven; the rest cannot be inferred from this, and it is self-evident without saying.
Treatise: Among these eleven (pervasive afflictions), they cognize the latent tendencies (隨眠, suí mián) of the lower realm. From here onwards, the second part explains the nine upper realms that cognize latent tendencies. The Nyayanusara says: 'Upper' clearly refers to the upper realm and upper plane, and also indicates that there is no cognition of the latent tendencies of the lower realm. If one cognizes the lower realm, one should universally know it, and the (lower) realm will be destroyed. Because the realm of the upper realm is superior, there is no such fault in cognizing the upper realm. For example, if one wants to have a wrong view (邪見, xié jiàn) that is eliminated by seeing suffering, one slanders the suffering results of the Form Realm (色界, Sè jiè) and Formless Realm (無色界, Wú sè jiè) as non-existent; the adherence to views (見取, jiàn qǔ) then clings to (the suffering results of the Form Realm and Formless Realm) as the most superior; the adherence to precepts and asceticism (戒取, jiè qǔ) then considers the non-cause (of the suffering results of the Form Realm and Formless Realm) as the cause; doubt (疑, yí) then harbors hesitation, and ignorance (無明, wú míng) then does not understand. The (afflictions) that are eliminated by seeing the origin (of suffering) should be explained as (those eliminated by seeing suffering). The situation of the Form Realm cognizing the Formless Realm can be inferred from this. Based on the realm, one should also consider distinguishing according to the plane.
Treatise: Although these nine (upper realm latent tendencies) are able to (cognize), one can refer to the realm to consider. Explaining the scope and generality of the upper realm's cognition, as can be understood from the text. The upper plane and one's own plane should not mutually cognize, because there is increase and no increase.
Treatise: If one is born in the Desire Realm (欲界, Yù jiè), one does not cognize the upper realm plane. An outsider raises a question.
Treatise: Because one does not cling to that (upper realm plane) as (self), there is no arising of self-view (身見, shēn jiàn). The answer is given. The Mahavibhasa (婆沙, Pó shā), volume eighteen, says: Why do these two (self-view and adherence to precepts and asceticism) not cognize (the upper realm)?
他界耶。複次此二見唯于粗法轉故。謂此二見唯于粗顯現見諸蘊。執我．我所。及計斷．常。若生欲界。於色．無色界微細諸蘊不能現見。故不執為我．我所等 正理論云。身．邊見何緣不緣上界．地。緣他界地執我．我所。及計斷．常。理不成故謂非於此界．此地中生他界．地蘊中有計為我。執有二我理不成故。執我不成故。執我所不成。所執必依我執起故。邊見隨從有身見生。故亦無容緣他界．地。由此唯九緣上理成 有餘師言。身．邊二見愛力起故。取有執受為已有故。以現見法為境界故。必不上緣。
論。若爾至是何見攝。問。
論。對法者言至是邪智攝。引對法答。
論。何緣所餘至而非見耶。難也。
論。以宗為量故作是說。答也。正理答此難云。以欲界生不作是執。我是大梵。亦不執言梵是我所故非身見。身見無故。邊見亦無。邊見必隨身見起故。非有餘見作此行相。故是身見所引邪智。諸作是說。生欲界中緣梵計常此非邊見。於劣計勝是見取攝。彼說非理。違本論故。如本論說。無常見常。是邊見中常邊見攝 準上論所釋。邪智即是不染污邪行相智。不與疑等煩惱相應。行相異故。又非貪等別相煩惱相應。不上緣故。無覆無記亦緣于上故 有人云。疑相應邪智。及緣梵王名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 他界嗎？而且這兩種見解只在粗顯的法上起作用。也就是說，這兩種見解只在粗顯可見的諸蘊上，執著于『我』（Ātman，靈魂、真我）和『我所』（Ātmīya，屬於我的），以及計度斷滅（uccheda）和常恒（śāśvata）。如果生在欲界（Kāmadhātu， desire realm），就不能現見色界（Rūpadhātu，form realm）和無色界（Arūpadhātu，formless realm）微細的諸蘊。所以不執著它們為『我』、『我所』等等。《正理論》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）說：『有身見（satkāya-dṛṣṭi，belief in a self）和邊見（antagrāha-dṛṣṭi，belief in extremes）為什麼不緣于上界、地？緣於他界、地，執著『我』、『我所』，以及計度斷滅、常恒，道理上是不成立的。』也就是說，並非在此界、此地中，生於他界、地的蘊中，就計度為『我』。執著有兩個『我』，道理上是不成立的。執著『我』不成立，執著『我所』也不成立。因為所執著的一定依賴於『我』執而生起。邊見隨著有身見而生，所以也沒有可能緣於他界、地。由此，只有九緣上（指九種煩惱能緣于上界）的道理成立。有些老師說：『有身見和邊見是由於愛（tṛṣṇā，craving）的力量而生起的，因為執取有執受的法為自己所有，以現見的法為境界，所以一定不會緣于上界。』 論：如果是這樣，那麼這是什麼見所攝？問。 論：對法者說，這是邪智（mithyā-jñāna，false knowledge）所攝。引用對法來回答。 論：為什麼其餘的不是見呢？難。 論：因為以宗義為標準，所以這樣說。答。《正理論》回答這個難題說：『因為欲界眾生不會作這樣的執著：『我是大梵（Mahābrahmā，great Brahma）。』也不會執著說『梵是我所。』所以不是有身見。沒有有身見，也就沒有邊見。邊見必定隨著有身見而生起。沒有其餘的見會作這樣的行相，所以這是有身見所引發的邪智。』那些這樣說的人：『生在欲界中，緣于梵天而計度為常恒，這不是邊見，而是於劣計勝，屬於見取（dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa，grasping at views）所攝。』他們的說法是不合理的，違背了本論。如本論所說：『無常見常，是邊見中常邊見所攝。』按照上面的論述所解釋，邪智就是不染污的邪行相智，不與疑（vicikicchā，doubt）等煩惱相應，因為行相不同。又不是貪（rāga，greed）等別相煩惱相應，因為不上緣。無覆無記（anivṛtāvyākṛta，non-afflictive indeterminate）也緣于上界。有人說：『疑相應的邪智，以及緣于梵王（Brahmā，Brahma king）的名。』
【English Translation】 English version Is it another realm? Moreover, these two views only operate on coarse dharmas. That is, these two views only grasp at the coarse, manifest aggregates (skandha), clinging to 'self' (Ātman, soul, true self) and 'what belongs to self' (Ātmīya, belonging to me), and calculating annihilation (uccheda) and permanence (śāśvata). If one is born in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, desire realm), one cannot directly perceive the subtle aggregates of the form realm (Rūpadhātu, form realm) and formless realm (Arūpadhātu, formless realm). Therefore, one does not cling to them as 'self,' 'what belongs to self,' and so on. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Why do the view of self (satkāya-dṛṣṭi, belief in a self) and the extreme views (antagrāha-dṛṣṭi, belief in extremes) not pertain to the upper realms and planes? Clinging to 'self' and 'what belongs to self' in relation to other realms and planes, and calculating annihilation and permanence, is logically untenable.' That is, it is not the case that in this realm, on this plane, one is born into the aggregates of another realm or plane and calculates them as 'self.' Clinging to two 'selves' is logically untenable. If clinging to 'self' is untenable, then clinging to 'what belongs to self' is also untenable, because what is clung to necessarily arises based on the clinging to 'self.' Extreme views arise following the view of self, so there is also no possibility of pertaining to other realms and planes. Therefore, only the principle of nine conditions pertaining to the upper realms (referring to nine afflictions that can pertain to the upper realms) is established. Some teachers say: 'The view of self and extreme views arise due to the power of craving (tṛṣṇā, craving), because they grasp at dharmas that are possessed as belonging to oneself, taking directly perceived dharmas as their object, so they will certainly not pertain to the upper realms.' Question: If that is the case, then what view does this belong to? Question. Answer: Those who uphold the Abhidharma say that this belongs to false knowledge (mithyā-jñāna, false knowledge). Citing the Abhidharma to answer. Question: Why are the others not views? Difficulty. Answer: Because it is said based on the standard of doctrine. Answer. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya answers this difficulty by saying: 'Because beings in the desire realm do not make such clinging, saying, 'I am Mahābrahmā (great Brahma).' Nor do they cling to 'Brahma is what belongs to me.' Therefore, it is not the view of self. Without the view of self, there are also no extreme views. Extreme views necessarily arise following the view of self. No other views would act in this way, so this is false knowledge induced by the view of self.' Those who say: 'Being born in the desire realm, calculating permanence in relation to Brahma, this is not an extreme view, but rather considering the inferior as superior, belonging to grasping at views (dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa, grasping at views).' Their statement is unreasonable, contradicting the original treatise. As the original treatise says: 'Considering impermanence as permanent is included in the extreme view of permanence among the extreme views.' According to the explanation of the above treatise, false knowledge is non-afflicted knowledge with a false aspect, not corresponding to afflictions such as doubt (vicikicchā, doubt), because the aspects are different. Nor does it correspond to specific afflictions such as greed (rāga, greed), because it does not pertain to the upper realms. Non-afflicted indeterminate (anivṛtāvyākṛta, non-afflictive indeterminate) also pertains to the upper realms. Some say: 'False knowledge corresponding to doubt, and the name pertaining to Brahmā (Brahma king).'
者 恐非論意。
論。為遍行體至如理應辨。如文可解。
論。九十八隨眠中至靜凈勝性故。已下第三明無漏緣。有三行頌。前一行頌出無漏緣體。第二一行頌明緣地通局。第三行頌明貪等非無漏緣。
論曰至準此自成。釋第一行頌。如文可解。
論。於此六中至諸行擇滅。釋第二行頌上兩句也。滅諦諸地不互為因。唯緣自地。正理論云。謂若有法此地愛所潤。此地身見執為我．我所。彼諸法滅還為此地見滅所斷邪見所緣 乃至 彼由耽著此地行故。若聞說有此地行滅。便起此地邪見撥無。非上行中有下耽著。寧下邪見撥彼滅無。雖界地相望因果隔絕。而九地苦．集展轉相牽。又生．依．立因更互為因故。一地邪見容有緣多滅。無相牽及相因理。故謗滅邪見唯緣自地滅。乃至 善智不由耽著引起。緣多地滅于理何違。然善智生觀諸行過。審觀過已希求彼滅。故一地智緣多地境。且如暖等以總行相觀諸行過欣求彼滅。不應執彼同於邪見。于所緣境有分限緣。迷．悟理殊不應為例。謂修觀者觀自地中過失所惱欣自地滅。由此亦能觀於他地諸行出離過失功德。故善智起悟境理通容有頓緣多地行滅。諸邪見起于境迷謬。固執所隔不能總緣。
論。緣道諦者至以類同故。釋第二行下兩句也。六地
【現代漢語翻譯】 者：恐怕不符合本論的意旨。
論：因為遍行蘊的體性，以至於如理作意應當辨明。如同文義可以理解。
論：在九十八隨眠（九十八種煩惱）中，乃至靜止清凈殊勝的體性。以下第三部分闡明無漏的緣。有三行頌文。前一行頌文闡述無漏緣的體性。第二一行頌文闡明緣的地域範圍。第三行頌文闡明貪等煩惱不是無漏緣。
論曰：乃至依此自成。解釋第一行頌文。如同文義可以理解。
論：在這六種之中，乃至諸行的擇滅（通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）。解釋第二行頌文的上兩句。滅諦（涅槃）的各個地之間不互為因。只緣于自身的地。正理論說：『如果有一個法被此地的愛所滋潤，被此地的身見（認為身體是真實存在的錯誤觀念）執著為我、我所（屬於我的）。那麼這些法的滅，還為此地的見滅所斷的邪見所緣。』乃至『他們由於耽著此地的行蘊，如果聽說有此地行蘊的滅，便會生起此地的邪見，否定其存在。沒有上地行蘊中有對下地行蘊的耽著，哪裡會有下地的邪見否定上地行蘊的滅無呢？』雖然界地之間，因果關係隔絕。而九地（欲界、色界、無色界九個層次）的苦、集（苦諦和集諦）輾轉相牽連。又因為生、依、立因更互為因的緣故。一地的邪見容許緣于多種滅。沒有相牽連以及互為因的道理。所以誹謗滅的邪見只緣于自身地的滅。乃至善的智慧不是由耽著引起的，緣于多地的滅在道理上有什麼違背呢？然而善的智慧生起，觀察諸行的過患，審視觀察過患之後，希望達到寂滅。不應該執著他們等同於邪見。對於所緣的境界有分界限的緣。迷惑和覺悟的道理不同，不應該作為例子。所謂修觀者觀察自身地中的過失所惱，欣求自身地的寂滅。由此也能觀察其他地的諸行出離過失的功德。所以善的智慧生起，覺悟境界的道理，通常容許有頓然緣于多地行滅的情況。諸邪見生起于境界的迷惑謬誤。固執所隔不能總緣。
論：緣于道諦（通往涅槃的道路）的人，因為種類相同。解釋第二行頌文的下兩句。六地
【English Translation】 Objection: This probably does not align with the intent of the treatise.
Treatise: Because the nature of the pervasive aggregates, to the extent that rational attention should be discerned. As the text can be understood.
Treatise: Among the ninety-eight predispositions (ninety-eight kinds of afflictions), up to the nature of stillness, purity, and superiority. The third part below elucidates the conditions for non-outflow. There are three lines of verses. The first line of verses describes the nature of the non-outflow conditions. The second line of verses clarifies the scope of the conditions' location. The third line of verses clarifies that afflictions such as greed are not non-outflow conditions.
Treatise says: Up to this is self-established. Explaining the first line of verses. As the text can be understood.
Treatise: Among these six, up to the cessation of actions through discernment (achieving tranquility through wise choice). Explaining the upper two lines of the second verse. The various realms of cessation (Nirvana) do not mutually cause each other. They only condition their own realm. The Proper Theory states: 'If there is a dharma (law/phenomenon) that is nourished by the love of this realm, and is clung to as 'I' or 'mine' by the self-view (the mistaken notion that the body is real) of this realm, then the cessation of these dharmas is also conditioned by the wrong view that is severed by the cessation of view of this realm.' Up to 'They, due to their attachment to the actions of this realm, if they hear about the cessation of actions of this realm, will give rise to the wrong view of this realm, denying its existence. There is no attachment to lower realms in the actions of higher realms, so how could the wrong view of lower realms deny the non-existence of the cessation of those higher realms?' Although the realms are separated by causal relationships. However, the suffering and accumulation (suffering and its causes) of the nine realms (the nine levels of desire realm, form realm, and formless realm) are interconnected. Moreover, because the causes of birth, reliance, and establishment mutually cause each other. The wrong view of one realm can condition multiple cessations. There is no reason for interconnection or mutual causation. Therefore, the wrong view that slanders cessation only conditions the cessation of its own realm. Up to Good wisdom is not caused by attachment, what contradiction is there in conditioning the cessation of multiple realms? However, good wisdom arises, observing the faults of actions, and after carefully examining the faults, hopes to achieve cessation. One should not cling to them as being the same as wrong views. There are limited conditions for the objects conditioned. The principles of delusion and enlightenment are different and should not be taken as examples. Those who cultivate contemplation observe the troubles caused by faults in their own realm and rejoice in the cessation of their own realm. From this, they can also observe the merits of liberation from the faults of the actions of other realms. Therefore, the arising of good wisdom, the principle of enlightenment of the realm, usually allows for the sudden conditioning of the cessation of actions in multiple realms. The arising of wrong views is due to delusion and error in the realm. Obstinately separated, they cannot condition everything.
Treatise: Those who condition the path to cessation (the path to Nirvana), because they are of the same kind. Explaining the lower two lines of the second verse. Six realms
法智品道。雖有治欲．治余不同。皆欲邪見所緣。以同是法智類故。九地類智品道。若治此地。及有治余。皆為八地邪見所緣。以同是類智類故。
論。何故緣滅至六九同類。問也。
論。以諸地道互相因故。答也。道互為因果。邪見謗果亦謗其因。謗因亦謗其果。滅非展轉為因。亦非為依生起。唯謗自地不及上下。
論。雖法．類智至非欲三所緣。釋伏難也。難云。若互為因邪見即緣類智．法智亦互為因。何故欲界邪見唯緣法智。上界邪見唯緣類智 答云。雖法．類智品道亦互相因。而類智品道不治欲界故。類智品道非欲三所緣。
論。法智品既能至各三所緣。外難也。法智品道既能治色．無色。應為彼八地各三所緣。
論。非此皆能至非彼對治故。答也。有二道理。一以四諦中初二諦非彼對治故。二以見．修道中見道初不治故。此文第一初也。
論。亦非全能至彼非所緣。第二初也。
論。即由此因至非能對治故。此釋遍惑通緣諸地所以 境互為緣因簡異於滅。異地雖非親因。得為緣因。唯除因緣余因容作。滅非互為因。故唯緣自地。苦．集互為緣因。故通緣上地 非能對治故。簡道諦。道以諸地互為因。邪見通緣異地道。亦對治各別故。法．類邪見緣各別。苦．集
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 法智品中說道：雖然有對治欲界煩惱和對治其他煩惱的不同，但都是欲界邪見所緣取的對象，因為它們同屬於法智的範疇。 九地類智品中說道：如果對治此地（指九地中的某地）的煩惱，以及對治其他煩惱，都是第八地邪見所緣取的對象，因為它們同屬于類智的範疇。
論：為什麼緣滅的邪見只緣自地，而緣苦集的邪見能緣至六地、九地？這是提問。
論：因為諸地的道互相為因。這是回答。道互相為因果，邪見如果誹謗果，也會誹謗其因；誹謗因，也會誹謗其果。而滅並非輾轉為因，也不是作為所依而生起，所以邪見誹謗滅，只能緣自地，不能緣上下地。
論：雖然法智和類智品中的道也互相為因，但類智品中的道不能對治欲界煩惱，所以類智品中的道不是欲界三種邪見所緣取的對象。這是解釋之前的疑問。疑問是：如果互相為因，那麼邪見就應該緣取類智、法智，因為它們也互相為因。為什麼欲界邪見只緣取法智，上界邪見只緣取類智？回答是：雖然法智和類智品中的道也互相為因，但類智品中的道不能對治欲界煩惱，所以類智品中的道不是欲界三種邪見所緣取的對象。
論：法智品既然能夠對治色界、無色界的煩惱，就應該被彼八地（指色界和無色界的八個地）的邪見各自緣取三種。這是外來的詰難。
論：並非如此，因為四諦中的初二諦（苦、集）不是彼地所要對治的，而且見道最初不能對治。這是回答。這裡有兩個道理：一是四諦中的初二諦（苦、集）不是彼地所要對治的；二是見道最初不能對治。這是第一點最初的含義。
論：也不是完全能夠緣取，因為彼地不是所緣取的對象。這是第二點最初的含義。
論：正因為這個原因，所以普遍的迷惑能夠緣取諸地。這是解釋普遍的迷惑能夠緣取諸地的原因。境互相為緣因，這與滅有所不同。異地雖然不是親因，但可以作為緣因。除了因緣之外，其餘的因都可以作為緣因。滅不是互相為因，所以只能緣取自地。苦、集互相為緣因，所以能夠普遍緣取上地。因為不能對治，所以簡別于道諦。道以諸地互相為因，邪見普遍緣取異地的道，也對治各自的煩惱，所以法智、類智的邪見緣取對像各不相同。苦、集。
【English Translation】 English version: The 'Wisdom of Dharma' chapter states: Although there are differences in subduing desires and subduing other afflictions, they are all objects of attachment for the wrong views of the desire realm, because they belong to the category of 'Wisdom of Dharma'. The 'Wisdom of Categories' chapter of the nine realms states: If one subdues the afflictions of this realm (referring to a specific realm among the nine) and subdues other afflictions, they are all objects of attachment for the wrong views of the eighth realm, because they belong to the category of 'Wisdom of Categories'.
Treatise: Why do wrong views that arise from the cessation (of suffering) only attach to their own realm, while wrong views that arise from suffering and its origin can attach to six or nine realms? This is a question.
Treatise: Because the paths of the various realms are mutually causal. This is the answer. The paths are mutually cause and effect. If wrong views slander the effect, they also slander the cause; if they slander the cause, they also slander the effect. However, cessation is not a cause in a chain of causation, nor does it arise as a basis. Therefore, wrong views that slander cessation can only attach to their own realm and cannot attach to realms above or below.
Treatise: Although the paths in the 'Wisdom of Dharma' and 'Wisdom of Categories' chapters are also mutually causal, the paths in the 'Wisdom of Categories' chapter cannot subdue the afflictions of the desire realm. Therefore, the paths in the 'Wisdom of Categories' chapter are not objects of attachment for the three wrong views of the desire realm. This explains the previous question. The question is: If they are mutually causal, then wrong views should attach to 'Wisdom of Categories' and 'Wisdom of Dharma', because they are also mutually causal. Why do wrong views of the desire realm only attach to 'Wisdom of Dharma', while wrong views of the upper realms only attach to 'Wisdom of Categories'? The answer is: Although the paths in the 'Wisdom of Dharma' and 'Wisdom of Categories' chapters are also mutually causal, the paths in the 'Wisdom of Categories' chapter cannot subdue the afflictions of the desire realm. Therefore, the paths in the 'Wisdom of Categories' chapter are not objects of attachment for the three wrong views of the desire realm.
Treatise: Since the 'Wisdom of Dharma' chapter can subdue the afflictions of the form and formless realms, it should be attached to by the three wrong views of each of the eight realms (referring to the eight realms of the form and formless realms). This is an external challenge.
Treatise: This is not the case, because the first two truths (suffering and its origin) among the four noble truths are not what those realms need to subdue, and also because the path of seeing initially cannot subdue. This is the answer. There are two reasons: first, the first two truths (suffering and its origin) among the four noble truths are not what those realms need to subdue; second, the path of seeing initially cannot subdue. This is the initial meaning of the first point.
Treatise: It is also not completely able to attach, because that realm is not the object of attachment. This is the initial meaning of the second point.
Treatise: Precisely because of this reason, pervasive delusion can attach to all realms. This explains why pervasive delusion can attach to all realms. The fact that objects are mutually causal as conditions is different from cessation. Although different realms are not direct causes, they can serve as conditional causes. Except for causal conditions, other causes can serve as conditional causes. Cessation is not mutually causal, so it can only attach to its own realm. Suffering and its origin are mutually causal as conditions, so they can universally attach to the upper realms. Because it cannot subdue, it is distinguished from the truth of the path. The path is mutually causal among the realms, and wrong views universally attach to the paths of different realms, and also subdue their respective afflictions, so the objects of attachment for the wrong views of 'Wisdom of Dharma' and 'Wisdom of Categories' are different. Suffering and its origin.
二諦非是能治。無簡別故。所以邪見通能緣上 問法智品道有六地別。唯未至地能斷欲惑。未至地中分其四道。唯無間道能斷欲惑。如何欲界邪見。能緣六地法智品道。類智準此。上不治下等。正理論云。如是過綱理實皆無。法．類相望。種類別故。法．類智品治類同故。互相因故。互相緣故。謂法智品道。同是欲界中緣道諦惑對治種類。此同類道由互相因。互相緣故。設非對治亦欲緣道煩惱所緣。類智品道與法智品雖互相因。由對治門種類別故。不相緣故。非欲緣道煩惱所緣。準此。已遮色．無色界緣道煩惱。亦應能緣治色．無色法智品過。謂於此中。雖有少分法智品道。能治上界少分煩惱亦互相因。而由治門種類別故。與類智品不相緣故。非上緣道煩惱所緣。於九地中類智品道。由一種類展轉相因。更互相緣治類同故。雖非對治。而可總為上八地中緣道惑境。
論。何緣貪瞋慢至非無漏緣。問也。
論。以貪隨眠至不緣無漏。如文可解。
論。九十八隨眠中至相應故隨增。已下第三明二隨增。別一行半頌明所緣隨增。後半行頌明相應隨增。
論曰至自地法故。釋遍行隨眠所緣隨增。
論。所餘五部至為所緣故。除遍行所餘五部。即是苦．集不遍滅道修道。一切隨眠。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二諦（Satya-dvaya，真諦和俗諦）並非能起對治作用的，因為沒有簡別的緣故。所以邪見能夠普遍緣于上界。問：法智品（Dharma-jnana-ksanti）的道有六地（bhumi）的差別，只有未至地（Anagamyaphala）能夠斷除欲惑（kama-klesha）。未至地中又分其四道（catvari-marga），唯有無間道（anantarya-marga）能夠斷除欲惑。那麼，欲界的邪見如何能夠緣於六地法智品道？類智（Anvaya-jnana）可以依此類推。上界不能對治地獄等等。《正理論》（Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra）說：『這樣的過失綱領實際上是沒有的。』法智和類智相互觀望，因為種類有差別。法智品和類智品對治種類相同，互相為因，互相為緣。也就是說，法智品道，同樣是欲界中緣道諦惑（marga-satya-klesha）的對治種類。這種同類道由於互相為因，互相為緣的緣故，即使不是對治，也是欲界緣道煩惱所緣。類智品道與法智品道雖然互相為因，但由於對治的門徑種類有差別，所以不互相為緣，不是欲界緣道煩惱所緣。依此類推，已經遮止了色界（rupa-dhatu）、無色界（arupa-dhatu）緣道煩惱，也應該能夠緣于對治色界、無色界的法智品過失。也就是說，於此之中，雖然有少分法智品道，能夠對治上界少分煩惱，也互相為因，但由於對治的門徑種類有差別，與類智品不互相為緣，不是上界緣道煩惱所緣。在九地（nava-bhumi）中，類智品道，由於一種種類輾轉相因，更加互相為緣，對治種類相同，即使不是對治，也可以總括為上八地中緣道惑的境界。
論：什麼緣故貪（raga）、嗔（dvesha）、慢（mana）乃至不是無漏（anasrava）所緣？這是提問。
論：因為貪隨眠（raga-anusaya）乃至不緣無漏。如文義可以理解。
論：九十八隨眠（astanavatisati-anusaya）中乃至相應故隨增。以下第三部分說明二隨增（dvi-anuvrddhi）。前一行半的頌文說明所緣隨增（alambana-anuvrddhi），後半行的頌文說明相應隨增（samprayukta-anuvrddhi）。
論曰乃至自地法故。解釋遍行隨眠（sarvatraga-anusaya）的所緣隨增。
論：其餘五部（panca-bhaga）乃至為所緣故。除去遍行，其餘五部，就是苦（duhkha）、集（samudaya）不遍、滅（nirodha）、道（marga）、修道（bhavana-marga）的一切隨眠。
【English Translation】 English version The two truths (Satya-dvaya, conventional and ultimate truths) are not able to act as antidotes because there is no distinction. Therefore, wrong views can universally relate to the higher realms. Question: The path of Dharma-jnana-ksanti (knowledge of Dharma) has six levels (bhumi) of difference, and only the Anagamyaphala (stage of non-returning) can sever the defilements of the desire realm (kama-klesha). Within the Anagamyaphala, there are four paths (catvari-marga), and only the anantarya-marga (path of immediate consequence) can sever the defilements of the desire realm. So, how can the wrong views of the desire realm relate to the path of Dharma-jnana-ksanti of the six realms? Anvaya-jnana (subsequent knowledge) can be inferred by analogy. The higher realms cannot counteract the lower realms, and so on. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra (Treatise on Following the Principles of Abhidharma) says: 'Such a framework of faults does not actually exist.' Dharma-jnana and Anvaya-jnana observe each other because the categories are different. The Dharma-jnana and Anvaya-jnana counteract the same categories, are mutually causal, and mutually related. That is to say, the path of Dharma-jnana is also a type of antidote in the desire realm that relates to the defilements of the path of truth (marga-satya-klesha). This similar path, due to mutual causation and mutual relation, even if it is not an antidote, is still related to the afflictions of the path of desire. Although the path of Anvaya-jnana and the path of Dharma-jnana are mutually causal, they do not relate to each other because the categories of antidotes are different, and they are not related to the afflictions of the path of desire. By analogy, it has already prevented the defilements of the path of the form realm (rupa-dhatu) and the formless realm (arupa-dhatu) from being able to relate to the faults of the Dharma-jnana that counteract the form and formless realms. That is to say, within this, although there is a small part of the path of Dharma-jnana that can counteract a small part of the afflictions of the higher realms and are mutually causal, they are not related to the path of Anvaya-jnana because the categories of antidotes are different, and they are not related to the afflictions of the path of the higher realms. In the nine realms (nava-bhumi), the path of Anvaya-jnana, due to one type of mutual causation, is even more mutually related, and the categories of antidotes are the same. Even if it is not an antidote, it can be summarized as the realm of the afflictions of the path in the upper eight realms.
Treatise: For what reason are greed (raga), hatred (dvesha), pride (mana), and so on, not related to the unconditioned (anasrava)? This is a question.
Treatise: Because the latent tendency of greed (raga-anusaya) does not relate to the unconditioned. The meaning can be understood as in the text.
Treatise: Among the ninety-eight latent tendencies (astanavatisati-anusaya), they increase accordingly because they are associated. The third part below explains the two increases (dvi-anuvrddhi). The first one and a half lines of the verse explain the increase of the object (alambana-anuvrddhi), and the last half line of the verse explains the increase of association (samprayukta-anuvrddhi).
Treatise says: Up to the Dharma of one's own realm. Explains the increase of the object of the pervasive latent tendencies (sarvatraga-anusaya).
Treatise: The remaining five categories (panca-bhaga) are the objects. Excluding the pervasive, the remaining five categories are all the latent tendencies of suffering (duhkha), accumulation (samudaya) that are not pervasive, cessation (nirodha), path (marga), and the path of cultivation (bhavana-marga).
此據總說至無隨增義。前是總說無簡別故。若別說者。遍行隨眠有上緣者。無所緣隨增。不遍隨眠無漏緣者。無所緣隨增。
論。所以者何。問也。
論。無漏上境至及相違故。以二義故不隨增也。
論。謂若有法至非所緣隨增。釋初義也。先喻后法 境如其衣 濕同愛等 埃塵如惑。
論。住下地心至非謂隨眠。遮外難也。謂有愛樂上地及無漏法。是善法欲非是煩惱。
論。聖道涅槃至足不隨住。釋第二義。先法后喻 石喻其境 足喻隨眠。
論。有說隨眠至非所隨增。敘異說也 前釋。隨增謂諸隨眠於此法中隨住增長。即是隨轉增惛滯義。如有潤田種子增長 后釋。隨增是隨順義。無漏。上境。不順隨眠 如風病者服乾澀藥。病者于藥非所隨增。藥喻所增境。病者喻隨眠。論。已約所緣至標未斷言。已下釋相應隨增。如文可解 正理論云。如何隨眠于相應法及所緣境有隨增義。先軌範師作如是說。如城邑側有雜穢聚。糞．水．土等所共合成。於此聚中由糞惡失令水．土等亦成不凈。由水等力令糞轉增。更互相依皆甚可惡。如是。煩惱相應聚中。由煩惱力染心．心所。煩惱由彼勢力轉增。更互相依皆成穢污。此聚相續穢污漸增。亦令隨行生等成染 已上明相應隨增 如豬犬等
居雜穢聚。生極耽樂眠戲其中。糞穢所涂轉增不凈。復由豬等穢聚漸增。如是所緣自地有漏。由煩惱力有漏義成。彼復有能順煩惱力。令其三品相似漸增 已上明有漏緣隨增。犬喻境界。糞喻煩惱 如滑凈人誤墮穢聚。雖觸糞穢。而非所增。人亦無能增彼穢聚。如是無漏．異界地法。雖亦被煩惱所緣。而彼相望互無增義。此緣無漏．異地隨眠。但由相應有隨增理 準上論文。又令生等成染。亦令隨增俱有 又云。去．來隨眠有隨增不。應言定有。能發得故。若異此者。諸異生類無染心位應離隨眠。然世尊言幼稚童子嬰孩眠病。雖無染欲。而有欲貪隨眠隨增。故說隨眠乃至未斷 若彼已斷。則無所緣．相應隨增。隨眠定有 彼猶不失隨眠相故。謂由對治壞其勢力。故不隨增。然彼隨眠體相不失故言猶有 或據曾．當有此用故。今雖無用亦號隨眠。如失國王猶存王號。工匠停作其名尚存 解云言隨眠者是遂行者增惛滯義。隨眠雖斷亦名隨眠。一雖無用以有體故。二以曾．當有用名為隨眠。以曾．當名因斷隨眠也。
論。頗有隨眠至遍行隨眠。問答可知。
論。九十八隨眠中。自下一行頌。第四二性分別。
論曰至彼定無故。釋上二界隨眠唯無記也。解云。以上二界無苦異熟。證無不善因 他逼惱因彼定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 處於雜亂污穢的聚集地，生活在極度貪戀享樂和嬉戲的環境中，被糞便污穢塗抹反而更加不乾淨。又因為豬等動物的穢物聚集而逐漸增多。像這樣，所緣取的自地有漏法，由於煩惱的力量而成為有漏的意義。這些有漏法又能夠順應煩惱的力量，使其三品（指欲界、色界、無色界三種煩惱）相似地逐漸增長。以上說明有漏的所緣會隨之增長，用狗比喻境界，用糞便比喻煩惱。 就像一個乾淨的人不小心掉進糞堆里，雖然接觸了糞便，但糞便並不會因此增多。人也不能增加糞堆的數量。同樣，無漏法和異地的法，即使也被煩惱所緣取，但它們之間相互沒有增長的意義。這種所緣無漏法和異地的隨眠，僅僅因為相應才會有隨之增長的道理。參照上面的論文，又使眾產生為染污，也使隨眠一同增長。 又有經文說：『過去和未來的隨眠是否會隨之增長？』應該說肯定會增長，因為它們能夠引發（煩惱）產生。如果不是這樣，那麼那些異生類（指不同種類的眾生）在沒有染污心的時候，就應該脫離隨眠。然而，世尊說，年幼的兒童和生病的嬰兒，即使沒有染污的慾望，也有對慾望的貪戀隨眠隨之增長。所以說隨眠乃至沒有斷除，如果隨眠已經被斷除，那麼就沒有所緣和相應隨之增長，隨眠一定是存在的。因為它們仍然沒有失去隨眠的相狀。這是因為通過對治力破壞了它們的力量，所以不會隨之增長。然而，這些隨眠的體相沒有失去，所以說仍然存在。或者根據曾經和將來有這種作用的緣故，現在即使沒有作用，也稱為隨眠。就像失去國王地位的人仍然保留著國王的稱號，工匠停止工作，他的名字仍然存在。』解釋說，『隨眠』的意思是『隨順而行』，增加昏沉滯礙的意義。隨眠即使斷除也稱為隨眠，一是雖然沒有作用，但有體性存在；二是以曾經和將來有作用而稱為隨眠。以曾經和將來的名義作為斷除隨眠的原因。 論：是否有一種隨眠達到遍行隨眠的程度？問答可知。 論：在九十八種隨眠中，從自下一行頌開始，第四是二性的分別。 論曰至彼定無故：解釋了以上二界（色界和無色界）的隨眠只有無記性。解釋說：以上二界沒有苦的異熟果報，證明沒有不善的因，也沒有他人逼迫惱害的因，因為在那裡必定沒有這些。
【English Translation】 English version Dwelling in a mixed and impure gathering, living amidst extreme indulgence in pleasure and play, further defiled by the application of excrement, which only increases the impurity. Moreover, the accumulation of filth from pigs and other creatures gradually increases. Thus, the objects of perception (所緣) in one's own realm (自地) are tainted with outflows (有漏), becoming imbued with the meaning of outflow due to the power of afflictions (煩惱). These outflows, in turn, can align with the power of afflictions, causing the three categories (referring to the afflictions of the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm) to similarly increase gradually. The above explains how tainted objects of perception increase accordingly, with the dog symbolizing the realm (境界) and excrement symbolizing afflictions. Just as a clean person accidentally falls into a pile of excrement, although they come into contact with it, the excrement does not increase as a result. Nor can the person increase the amount of excrement. Similarly, undefiled (無漏) dharmas and dharmas of different realms, even if they are perceived by afflictions, do not have a mutual relationship of increase. This perception of undefiled dharmas and latent tendencies (隨眠) of different realms only has the principle of increase through association (相應). Referring to the above treatise, it also causes beings to become defiled and causes latent tendencies to increase together. Furthermore, there is a saying: 'Do past and future latent tendencies increase accordingly?' It should be said that they definitely increase, because they can trigger the arising (of afflictions). If this were not the case, then those different kinds of beings (異生類, referring to different types of sentient beings) should be free from latent tendencies when they do not have a defiled mind. However, the World Honored One (世尊) said that young children and sick infants, even if they do not have defiled desires, still have the latent tendency of greed for desires increasing accordingly. Therefore, it is said that latent tendencies persist until they are not severed. If latent tendencies have already been severed, then there is no object of perception or association that increases accordingly, and latent tendencies must exist. This is because they still have not lost the characteristic of latent tendencies. This is because their power has been destroyed through antidotes (對治力), so they do not increase accordingly. However, the essence of these latent tendencies has not been lost, so it is said that they still exist. Or, based on the reason that they once had and will have this function, they are still called latent tendencies even if they have no function now. Just as a person who has lost the position of king still retains the title of king, and a craftsman who has stopped working still retains his name.' The explanation says that 'latent tendency' means 'following along,' increasing the meaning of dullness and stagnation. Even if latent tendencies are severed, they are still called latent tendencies, firstly because although they have no function, they have an essence; secondly, they are called latent tendencies because they once had and will have a function. The name of 'once had' and 'will have' is the reason for severing latent tendencies. Treatise: Is there a latent tendency that reaches the extent of pervasive latent tendency? The answer can be known through questions and answers. Treatise: Among the ninety-eight latent tendencies, starting from the next line of the verse, the fourth is the distinction of two natures. Treatise says: 'Because there is definitely no such thing there.' This explains that the latent tendencies of the above two realms (the form realm and the formless realm) are only indeterminate (無記性). The explanation says: The above two realms do not have the result of suffering, proving that there is no unwholesome cause, nor is there a cause of others' oppression and annoyance, because there is definitely none of these there.
無故。證無苦異熟 有苦果者。方是不善因。彼無苦果故無不善。
論。身邊二見至亦無記性。已下明身邊二見。及相應癡是無記也。
論。所以者何。徴是無記所以 答中有三節。一釋我常見。二釋斷見。三雙釋二見。
論。此與施等至施戒等故。第一節也。
論。執斷邊見至我所當不有。是第二節。
論。又此二見至他有情故。是第三節也。
論。若爾貪求至例亦應然。論主破第三節釋。
論。先軌範師至是不善性。敘經部釋經部我見通分別起及俱生。如禽獸等無有分別。分別起者是不善。俱生者是無記。與大乘同 有部宗我見唯有分別起無俱生。無分別者如禽獸等執自．他者。是不染無知非我見也。
論。余欲界系至皆不善性。如文可解。
論。于上所說。已下大文第三明傍論也 于中有三。一明不善根。二明無記根。三明四記論。此文初也。
論曰至故頌不說。謂欲界一切五部所斷貪．嗔。五部一切不善癡。不善根攝。故經說為三不善根。唯不善。煩惱。為不善法根。立不善根 余則不爾。所餘煩惱非不善根。義準已成。故頌不說 正理四十九云。豈不一切已生惡法皆為后因非唯三種(問也) 無越三理。以不善根翻對善根而建立故。何緣不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 無故。證明沒有苦的異熟果，有苦果的，才是惡因。它沒有苦果，所以不是惡。
論：身邊二見（薩迦耶見和邊見）也是無記性的。以下說明身邊二見以及相應的癡是無記。
論：為什麼呢？這是提問無記的原因。回答中有三節。一是解釋我常見（認為『我』是常存不變的），二是解釋斷見（認為人死後一切皆無），三是同時解釋這兩種見解。
論：這種見解與佈施等行為聯繫在一起，是因為施捨和持戒等原因。這是第一節。
論：執著于斷滅邊見，認為『我』將來會不存在。這是第二節。
論：而且這兩種見解會影響到其他有情（眾生）。這是第三節。
論：如果這樣，那麼貪求也應該如此。論主駁斥第三節的解釋。
論：先前的軌範師（經部師）說，這是不善的性質。敘述經部的解釋，經部的我見分為分別生起和俱生兩種。像禽獸等沒有分別心，分別生起的我見是不善的，俱生的我見是無記的。這與大乘的觀點相同。有部宗認為我見只有分別生起，沒有俱生。沒有分別心的，像禽獸等執著于自己和他人的，是不染污的無知，不是我見。
論：其餘欲界系的煩惱，都是不善的性質。如文字所表達的意思一樣可以理解。
論：對於以上所說的，以下是第三大段，說明傍論。其中有三點：一是說明不善根，二是說明無記根，三是說明四記論。這段文字是第一點。
論曰：所以頌中沒有說。指的是欲界一切五部所斷的貪、嗔，五部一切不善的癡，都屬於不善根。所以經中說為三種不善根。只有不善的煩惱，才是惡法的根源，才稱為不善根。其餘的則不是這樣。其餘的煩惱不是不善根。這個意思已經明確，所以頌中沒有說。《正理》第四十九卷說：難道不是一切已經產生的惡法都是後來的原因，而不僅僅是三種嗎？（這是提問）沒有超出三種道理。因為不善根是與善根相對而建立的。為什麼不...
【English Translation】 English version: Without cause. To prove there is no Vipaka (fruition) of suffering. Only that which has the fruit of suffering is an unwholesome cause. Since that has no fruit of suffering, it is not unwholesome.
Treatise: The two views of Sakkayaditthi (belief in a self) and Ditthiparamasa (holding extreme views) are also indeterminate. The following explains that the two views of Sakkayaditthi and Ditthiparamasa, and the corresponding ignorance, are indeterminate.
Treatise: Why is that? This is a question about the reason for indeterminacy. The answer has three sections. The first explains the Sassataditthi (eternalism), the second explains the Ucchedaditthi (annihilationism), and the third explains both views together.
Treatise: This is connected with giving, etc., because of giving, morality, etc. This is the first section.
Treatise: Holding the view of annihilation, thinking 'I will not exist in the future.' This is the second section.
Treatise: Moreover, these two views affect other sentient beings. This is the third section.
Treatise: If so, then craving should also be the same. The author of the treatise refutes the explanation of the third section.
Treatise: The former teacher (the Sautrantika master) said that this is an unwholesome nature. Narrating the Sautrantika's explanation, the Sautrantika's view of self is divided into two types: arising from discrimination and arising simultaneously. Like animals, etc., which have no discrimination, the view of self arising from discrimination is unwholesome, and the view of self arising simultaneously is indeterminate. This is the same as the Mahayana view. The Sarvastivada school believes that the view of self only arises from discrimination and does not arise simultaneously. Those without discrimination, like animals, etc., who are attached to themselves and others, are non-defiled ignorance, not the view of self.
Treatise: The remaining afflictions of the Desire Realm are all of an unwholesome nature. It can be understood as the text expresses.
Treatise: Regarding what has been said above, the following is the third major section, explaining the side discussion. There are three points: first, explaining the unwholesome roots; second, explaining the indeterminate roots; and third, explaining the fourfold classification. This text is the first point.
Treatise says: Therefore, the verse does not mention it. It refers to the greed and hatred that are severed by all five parts of the Desire Realm, and all the unwholesome ignorance of the five parts, which are all included in the unwholesome roots. Therefore, the Sutra says that there are three unwholesome roots. Only unwholesome afflictions are the root of evil dharmas, and are called unwholesome roots. The rest are not like this. The remaining afflictions are not unwholesome roots. This meaning is already clear, so the verse does not mention it. The Abhidharmakosabhasya, volume 49, says: Isn't it that all evil dharmas that have already arisen are the cause of later ones, not just the three types? (This is a question.) There is no going beyond the three principles. Because unwholesome roots are established in contrast to wholesome roots. Why not...
建立不慢等善根。佛於法中知而建立。有餘師說。五識身中無惡慢等可翻對故 解云。三善根通五識。翻十煩惱。煩惱中貪．嗔．癡三。通六識。五見．疑．慢不通六識。故不立根。此解略而義盡。更有五義。同婆沙一百一十二廢立。云此三具足五義故立為根。一通五部。二遍六識。三是隨眠性。四能起粗惡身．語業。五作斷善根牢強加行。是故猶立為不善根 通五部。遮見．疑 遍六識。又遮慢 隨眠性。遮纏．垢等 能發粗惡身．語業。作斷善根牢強加行者。示現根義 又隨所應總遮諸法。恐煩不述。
論。于上所說無記惑中。已下一行半頌。第二明無記根。
論曰至亦無記根攝。述有部義 無記愛。謂取上二界一切愛也 無記癡。謂取上二界一切癡。及欲界身．邊二見相應癡 無記慧。取三界有覆一切無記慧為無記根 此三皆遍自地五部。及隨所有識體是無記。與無記為因故名無記根。故正理論云。謂諸無記愛．癡．慧三。一切應知無記根攝。慧根通攝有覆．無覆。根是因義。無覆無記慧亦能為因故無記根攝。此三有力生諸無記。
論。何緣疑慢非無記根。問也。
論。疑二趣轉至故彼非根。答也。以慢及疑。雖有無記亦能為因生無記法無根相故。不立為根 正理論曰。根相如是隱於
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 建立不慢等不善根。佛在佛法中明瞭這些並加以確立。有其他論師說，前五識中沒有惡、慢等可以對應轉變的，所以不能建立為不善根。解釋說，三種善根可以通於前五識，用來對治十種煩惱。煩惱中的貪、嗔、癡三種，通於六識。五見（身見、邊見、邪見、見取見、戒禁取見）、疑、慢不通於六識，所以不建立為不善根。這種解釋簡略而意義完備。還有五種意義，與《婆沙論》第一百一十二卷中關於廢立的說法相同，認為這三種不善根具備五種意義，所以可以建立為不善根：一、通於五部（見苦所斷、見集所斷、見滅所斷、見道所斷、修道所斷）。二、遍於六識。三、是隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態）的性質。四、能引發粗惡的身語業。五、能作為斷善根的牢固而強烈的加行。因此仍然可以建立為不善根。通於五部，是爲了遮止五見和疑。遍於六識，又遮止了慢。隨眠的性質，遮止了纏（八纏：無慚、無愧、嫉、慳、悔、眠、掉舉、昏沉）、垢等。能引發粗惡的身語業，作為斷善根的牢固而強烈的加行，這是爲了顯示不善根的意義。此外，還可以根據具體情況總括地遮止各種法，但恐怕過於繁瑣，所以不詳細敘述。
論：對於上面所說的無記惑中，下面一行半的頌文，第二部分說明無記根。
論曰：乃至也屬於無記根所攝。這是在闡述有部的觀點。無記愛，指的是對上二界（色界和無色界）一切事物的愛。無記癡，指的是對上二界一切事物的愚癡，以及欲界中與身見（Sakkāya-ditthi）和邊見（Antagāhika-ditthi）相應的愚癡。無記慧，指的是三界中所有有覆無記的智慧，都屬於無記根。這三種都遍於各自地界的五部，並且隨其所有的識體都是無記的，與無記法互為因，所以稱為無記根。因此，《正理論》中說：『應該知道，一切無記的愛、癡、慧三種，都屬於無記根所攝。』慧根可以總攝有覆無記和無覆無記。根是因的意思，無覆無記的智慧也能作為因，所以屬於無記根所攝。這三種具有力量，能夠產生各種無記法。
論：為什麼疑和慢不是無記根？這是提問。
論：疑在兩種趣中流轉，所以它們不是根。這是回答。因為慢和疑，雖然有無記的性質，也能作為因產生無記法，但是沒有根的特性，所以不建立為根。《正理論》說：根的特性是隱微的。
【English Translation】 English version Establishing unwholesome roots such as non-faith and pride. The Buddha, within the Dharma, understands and establishes these. Some other teachers say that within the five consciousnesses, there are no evils or pride that can be transformed, therefore they cannot be established as unwholesome roots. The explanation is that the three wholesome roots can pervade the five consciousnesses, used to counteract the ten afflictions. Among the afflictions, greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha) pervade the six consciousnesses. The five views (Sakkāya-ditthi, Antagāhika-ditthi, wrong view, holding to wrong views, holding to wrong precepts), doubt (vicikicchā), and pride (māna) do not pervade the six consciousnesses, therefore they are not established as unwholesome roots. This explanation is concise and complete in meaning. There are also five meanings, the same as the establishment and rejection in the 112th fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, which states that these three unwholesome roots possess five meanings, therefore they can be established as unwholesome roots: 1. Pervading the five categories (that which is abandoned by seeing the truth of suffering, the truth of origin, the truth of cessation, the truth of the path, and that which is abandoned by cultivation). 2. Pervading the six consciousnesses. 3. Being of the nature of latent afflictions (anuśaya). 4. Being able to generate coarse and evil bodily and verbal actions. 5. Acting as a firm and strong effort to sever wholesome roots. Therefore, they can still be established as unwholesome roots. Pervading the five categories is to prevent the five views and doubt. Pervading the six consciousnesses further prevents pride. The nature of latent afflictions prevents the entanglements (eight entanglements: shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, jealousy, stinginess, regret, sleepiness, restlessness, and torpor), defilements, etc. Being able to generate coarse and evil bodily and verbal actions, acting as a firm and strong effort to sever wholesome roots, this is to show the meaning of unwholesome roots. In addition, various dharmas can be generally prevented as appropriate, but I am afraid it would be too cumbersome, so I will not describe them in detail.
Treatise: Regarding the non-defiled ignorance mentioned above, the following one and a half lines of verse, the second part explains the non-defiled roots.
Treatise says: Even are included in the non-defiled roots. This is elaborating the Sarvāstivāda's viewpoint. Non-defiled attachment (araga) refers to the attachment to all things in the upper two realms (form realm and formless realm). Non-defiled ignorance (moha) refers to the ignorance of all things in the upper two realms, as well as the ignorance corresponding to the view of self (Sakkāya-ditthi) and extreme views (Antagāhika-ditthi) in the desire realm. Non-defiled wisdom (pañña) refers to all obscured non-defiled wisdom in the three realms, which belongs to the non-defiled roots. These three all pervade the five categories of their respective realms, and their respective consciousness bodies are non-defiled, and they are the cause of non-defiled dharmas, so they are called non-defiled roots. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'It should be known that all three types of non-defiled attachment, ignorance, and wisdom are included in the non-defiled roots.' The root of wisdom can encompass both obscured and unobscured non-defiled wisdom. Root means cause, and unobscured non-defiled wisdom can also be a cause, so it belongs to the non-defiled roots. These three have the power to generate various non-defiled dharmas.
Treatise: Why are doubt and pride not non-defiled roots? This is a question.
Treatise: Doubt revolves in two destinies, so they are not roots. This is the answer. Because pride and doubt, although they have a non-defiled nature and can also be the cause of generating non-defiled dharmas, do not have the characteristics of roots, so they are not established as roots. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: The characteristics of roots are subtle.
土下故名為根。是體下垂上生苗義。此三如彼故亦名根。余非隨眠。或無勝用。故不立根 解云。十隨眠中無記五見即慧中攝。貪即是愛。無明即癡。疑．慢無根相。嗔不通無記。由此唯三立無記根。忿等非隨眠性。故不立根 問若爾無覆無記亦非隨眠性。何故立根 答無記慧中有是隨眠性故。忿等不爾。
論。外方諸師至遮善惡故。敘外方師義。此師十隨眠中。是無記者皆立為根。嗔唯不善。由斯不取。
論。何緣此四立無記根。問立四所以。
論。以諸愚夫至為無記根。答也。準此師意說。此四能生無記染法故立為根 正理論云。彼作是言無覆無記慧力劣故非無記根。根義必依堅牢立故。由慢力故。諸瑜伽師退失百千殊勝功德。故慢力勝立無記根。此四能生無記染法。已上論文 此說無覆無記力劣慢力強者。破婆沙師也 無記愛．慢。唯上二界 無記見者。上二界五見。欲界身．邊見 無記癡者。上二界全。欲界與身．邊見相應者 婆沙云。問何故西方諸師立慢為無記根 答彼說力堅強義是根義。慢力堅強故立為根。謂瑜伽師所謂退失百千善品皆由慢力 問何故此國諸師不立為根耶 答此說下義是根義。慢令心舉。于下不順故不立根 問何故此國諸師立無覆無記慧為無記根 答此說為依因義是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『土下』（Tuxia）故名為『根』（root，指無記根）。是體性向下沉淪，向上生出苗芽的含義。這三種（無記貪、無記見、無記癡）就像那樣，所以也稱為『根』。其餘的（無記隨眠）不是隨眠，或者沒有強大的作用，所以不設立為『根』。 解釋說：十隨眠中，無記的五見（薩迦耶見（Satkayadristi，身見）、邊執見（Antagrahadristi，邊見）、邪見（Mithyadristi，邪見）、見取見（Dristiparమర్శadristi，見取見）、戒禁取見（Silavrataparamarsadristi，戒禁取見））包含在『慧』（prajna，智慧）中。『貪』（raga，貪）就是『愛』（愛）。『無明』（avidya，無明）就是『癡』（moha，愚癡）。『疑』（vicikitsa，疑）和『慢』（mana，慢）沒有『根』的相狀。『嗔』（dvesa，嗔）不通於無記。因此只設立這三種為無記根。『忿』（krodha，忿）等不是隨眠的體性，所以不設立為『根』。 問：如果這樣，無覆無記（anavaranavyakrta，無覆無記）也不是隨眠的體性，為什麼設立為『根』？ 答：無記的『慧』中有是隨眠的體性，『忿』等不是這樣。 論：外方的諸位論師堅持遮止善惡，所以敘述外方論師的觀點。這位論師認為，十隨眠中，凡是無記的都設立為『根』。『嗔』只是不善，因此不取。 論：什麼緣故這四種（無記愛、無記見、無記癡、無覆無記慧）設立為無記根？問設立這四種的原因。 論：因為那些愚昧的人……作為無記根。回答也。依照這位論師的觀點說，這四種能夠產生無記的染污法，所以設立為『根』。 《正理論》說：他們這樣說，無覆無記的『慧』力量弱，所以不是無記根。『根』的意義必定依靠堅固的力量來設立。由於『慢』的力量，那些瑜伽師退失成百上千殊勝的功德，所以『慢』的力量強大，設立為無記根。這四種能夠產生無記的染污法。以上是論文的內容。 這裡說無覆無記力量弱，『慢』的力量強，是破斥《婆沙論》的論師的觀點。無記的『愛』和『慢』，只存在於上二界（色界和無色界）。 無記的『見』，是上二界的五見，以及欲界的身見和邊見。 無記的『癡』，是上二界的全部，以及欲界與身見和邊見相應的『癡』。 《婆沙論》說：問：什麼緣故西方的諸位論師設立『慢』為無記根？ 答：他們說，力量堅強是『根』的意義。『慢』的力量堅強，所以設立為『根』。所謂瑜伽師退失成百上千的善品，都是由於『慢』的力量。 問：什麼緣故這個國家的諸位論師不設立『慢』為『根』呢？ 答：這裡說向下沉淪是『根』的意義。『慢』使心高舉，對於向下不順從，所以不設立為『根』。 問：什麼緣故這個國家的諸位論師設立無覆無記的『慧』為無記根？ 答：這裡說作為所依的因是『根』的意義。
【English Translation】 English version 'Tuxia' is therefore named 'root' (referring to the root of avyakrta). It means that the substance sinks downwards and sprouts upwards. These three (avyakrta raga, avyakrta dristi, avyakrta moha) are like that, so they are also called 'roots'. The rest (avyakrta anusaya) are not anusaya, or do not have strong functions, so they are not established as 'roots'. It is explained that among the ten anusaya, the avyakrta five views (Satkayadristi (view of self), Antagrahadristi (extreme view), Mithyadristi (wrong view), Dristiparమర్శadristi (view of holding views), Silavrataparamarsadristi (view of holding precepts)) are included in 'prajna' (wisdom). 'Raga' (greed) is 'love' (love). 'Avidya' (ignorance) is 'moha' (delusion). 'Vicikitsa' (doubt) and 'mana' (pride) do not have the appearance of 'roots'. 'Dvesa' (hatred) does not apply to avyakrta. Therefore, only these three are established as avyakrta roots. 'Krodha' (anger) etc. are not the nature of anusaya, so they are not established as 'roots'. Question: If so, anavaranavyakrta (uncovered avyakrta) is also not the nature of anusaya, why is it established as a 'root'? Answer: There is the nature of anusaya in avyakrta 'prajna', 'krodha' etc. are not like this. Treatise: The masters of foreign lands insist on preventing good and evil, so they describe the views of the masters of foreign lands. This master believes that among the ten anusaya, all avyakrta are established as 'roots'. 'Dvesa' is only unwholesome, so it is not taken. Treatise: What is the reason why these four (avyakrta raga, avyakrta dristi, avyakrta moha, anavaranavyakrta prajna) are established as avyakrta roots? Ask the reason for establishing these four. Treatise: Because those ignorant people... as avyakrta roots. The answer is also. According to this master's point of view, these four can produce avyakrta defiled dharmas, so they are established as 'roots'. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: They say that the power of uncovered avyakrta 'prajna' is weak, so it is not an avyakrta root. The meaning of 'root' must rely on strong power to establish. Due to the power of 'mana', those yogis lose hundreds of thousands of excellent merits, so the power of 'mana' is strong and it is established as an avyakrta root. These four can produce avyakrta defiled dharmas. The above is the content of the thesis. Here it is said that the power of uncovered avyakrta is weak, and the power of 'mana' is strong, which is the view of the master who refutes the Vibhasa. Avyakrta 'raga' and 'mana' only exist in the upper two realms (Rupadhatu and Arupadhatu). Avyakrta 'dristi' is the five views of the upper two realms, and the view of self and extreme view of the Kamadhatu. Avyakrta 'moha' is all of the upper two realms, and the 'moha' of the Kamadhatu that corresponds to the view of self and extreme view. The Vibhasa says: Question: What is the reason why the masters of the West establish 'mana' as an avyakrta root? Answer: They say that strong power is the meaning of 'root'. The power of 'mana' is strong, so it is established as a 'root'. The so-called yogis losing hundreds of thousands of good qualities are all due to the power of 'mana'. Question: What is the reason why the masters of this country do not establish 'mana' as a 'root'? Answer: Here it is said that sinking downwards is the meaning of 'root'. 'Mana' makes the mind high, and it does not obey downwards, so it is not established as a 'root'. Question: What is the reason why the masters of this country establish uncovered avyakrta 'prajna' as an avyakrta root? Answer: Here it is said that being the cause of reliance is the meaning of 'root'.
根義。無覆無記慧為依因勝故立為根 問何故西方諸師不立為根 答彼說力堅強義是根義。無覆無記慧勢力微劣故不立根 問何故此彼國師俱不立疑為無記根 答俱說定住義是根義。疑不定住。二門轉故。不立為根。如是說者。如善．不善根俱有三種。無記亦應爾。又如不善慢不立不善根。無記慢亦應爾。故無記根唯三者善 正理論云。上座於此作如是言。無無記根。無聖教故。善．惡猛利起必由根。無記微劣不由功用任運而起。何藉根為(已上座立二義不立根也。一無教二微劣) 正理破云。無聖教言。且為非理。無記煩惱有極成故。謂何緣故。少分染起籍同類根。少分不爾。無記染法有同類根。是染法故。如不善法。又何定執此無聖教。非彼上座耳所未聞。便可撥言此非聖教。無量聖教皆已滅沒。上座不聞。豈非聖教。然于古昔諸大論師皆共詳論無記根義。故知必有聖教明文。標以總名無別名數。由斯諍論或四。或三。又聖教中處處說有記．無記法。又處處說記．無記法從根而生 乃至 故不應言此無聖教(已上破無教也)。又微劣法轉。應計為由根力生非猛利者。是故非彼所立理趣能遮我等立無記根(已上破理)。
論。諸契經中。下有一行頌。因論生論。明四記論。
論曰至舍置記。長行中有三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 根義：無覆無記慧（既非善也非惡的智慧）因為是殊勝的依因，所以被立為根。 問：為什麼西方的諸位法師不將其立為根呢？ 答：他們說，力量堅強才是根的含義。無覆無記慧勢力微弱，所以不被立為根。 問：為什麼此國和彼國的法師都不立疑為無記根呢？ 答：他們都說，定住才是根的含義。疑是不定住的，在兩種狀態間轉換，所以不被立為根。如果這樣說，就像善根和不善根都有三種一樣，無記也應該有三種。又像不善的慢不被立為不善根一樣，無記的慢也應該如此。所以說無記根只有三種是正確的。 《正理論》說：上座對此有這樣的說法，沒有無記根，因為沒有聖教的依據。善和惡的猛烈生起必定由根而來，無記微弱，不由功用，任運而起，何必需要根呢？（以上是上座立的兩個不立根的理由：一，沒有聖教依據；二，力量微弱） 《正理論》反駁說：沒有聖教依據的說法，是不合理的。無記煩惱是極其明確存在的。為什麼少分染污的生起需要同類根，少分不需要呢？無記染法有同類根，因為它也是染法，就像不善法一樣。又憑什麼一定認為這個沒有聖教依據呢？難道僅僅是因為那位上座沒有聽說過，就可以說這個不是聖教嗎？無量的聖教都已經滅沒了，上座沒有聽說過，難道就不是聖教了嗎？然而在古代，諸位大論師都共同詳細討論過無記根的含義，所以可知必定有聖教的明文，只是用總名來標示，沒有特別的名目。因此，對於無記根的爭議，有四種或三種的說法。而且聖教中處處都說有記法和無記法，又處處都說有記法和無記法是從根而生的…… 乃至，所以不應該說這個沒有聖教依據（以上是反駁沒有聖教依據的說法）。而且微弱法的轉變，應該認為是由於根的力量而生，而不是猛烈的。所以，他們所立的理由不能阻止我們立無記根（以上是反駁力量微弱的說法）。 論：諸契經中，下面有一行頌，因論生論，說明四種記論。 論曰：至舍置記。長行中有三。
【English Translation】 English version The meaning of 'root': Non-defiled and indeterminate wisdom (wisdom that is neither good nor evil) is established as a root because it is a superior dependent cause. Question: Why do the Western masters not establish it as a root? Answer: They say that the meaning of 'root' is strong power. Non-defiled and indeterminate wisdom has weak power, so it is not established as a root. Question: Why do the masters of both this country and that country not establish doubt as an indeterminate root? Answer: They all say that 'fixed abiding' is the meaning of 'root'. Doubt is not fixed abiding; it alternates between two states, so it is not established as a root. If it is said this way, just as there are three types of wholesome and unwholesome roots, there should also be three types of indeterminate roots. Also, just as unwholesome pride is not established as an unwholesome root, indeterminate pride should also be the same. Therefore, it is correct to say that there are only three types of indeterminate roots. The Nyāyānusāra says: The Elder stated the following regarding this: there is no indeterminate root because there is no scriptural basis. The fierce arising of wholesome and unwholesome [dharmas] must come from a root. Indeterminate [dharmas] are weak, arise spontaneously without effort, so what need is there for a root? (The above are the two reasons the Elder gives for not establishing a root: 1. no scriptural basis; 2. weak power) The Nyāyānusāra refutes: The statement 'no scriptural basis' is unreasonable. Indeterminate afflictions are extremely well-established. Why is it that the arising of a small portion of defilement requires a root of the same type, while a small portion does not? Indeterminate defiled dharmas have a root of the same type because they are also defiled dharmas, just like unwholesome dharmas. Also, why is it definitively held that this has no scriptural basis? Just because that Elder has not heard of it, can it be denied that this is scripture? Countless scriptures have already perished; just because the Elder has not heard of them, does that mean they are not scriptures? However, in ancient times, all the great masters discussed the meaning of indeterminate roots in detail, so it can be known that there must be explicit scriptural texts, but they are indicated by a general name, without a specific name. Therefore, regarding the dispute over indeterminate roots, there are four or three views. Moreover, the scriptures everywhere say that there are determinate and indeterminate dharmas, and everywhere say that determinate and indeterminate dharmas arise from roots... And so forth, therefore it should not be said that this has no scriptural basis (the above is a refutation of the statement that there is no scriptural basis). Moreover, the transformation of weak dharmas should be considered to arise from the power of the root, rather than being fierce. Therefore, the reasons they establish cannot prevent us from establishing indeterminate roots (the above is a refutation of the statement that the power is weak). Treatise: In the sutras, there is a verse below, from discussion arises discussion, clarifying the four types of replies. Treatise says: To the reply of abandonment. There are three in the prose section.
。一敘婆沙釋。二本論諸師釋。三依經釋 就婆沙釋中有四。一舉數。二列名。三牒釋。四問答分別。此則舉數列名。
論。此四如次至謂答四問。將欲釋記先列問也 此四如次者。此四記如次對問也 如有問者 問死是一向記 問生是分別記 問勝是反詰記 我一異是舍置記 等者。等后兩句釋 正理論云。等言為攝有約異門(有就異門即兩宗釋也) 記有四者。謂答四問(答問不同名為四記)。
論。若作是問至白黑等性。廣牒釋也。如文可解。
論。如何舍置而立記名。已下。問答分別。先難第四記。準前三記。以答為記。既言舍置即是不答如何名記。
論。以記彼問言此不應記故。答。此舍置言非全無記。亦記彼問言不應答故 正理答此問云。以說此中如所應故。謂此亦說應舍置言。應置問中應言應置。若作余語。記便不成(準此。亦有言也)。
論。有作是說至非一切當生。難第二也。如有問言若死者生不。一向記言非一切當生。此之答問何須分別。
論。然問者言至仍未解故。答也。答問者欲令彼解。若一向記非一切當生。仍未解故不成記也。正理云。豈不如彼生聞梵志問世尊言。喬答摩氏我有親愛。先已命終。今欲為其施所信食。彼為得此所施食耶。世尊告言。
此非一向。若汝親愛。生於如是餓鬼族中有得此食。既許彼是應分別記。此中亦問一切死者皆當生耶。於此亦應不一向記。應為分別。有煩惱者生。非無煩惱者。如何此非應分別記。
論。又作是說至如識因果。難第三記。但應一向記言亦勝亦劣。如問識為果為因。應一向記亦果亦因。
論。然彼問者至應反詰記。答也 然彼問者一向為問者。謂問人趣為勝。或云爲劣。此名一向為問 非一向記故應成分別者。若有一向為問非一向答。應分別答 但此應詰問意所方故此名為應反詰記者。答此一向問。應為分別記。由不知問者所方。故先反詰然後分別。從先得名名為反詰。若兩向問即應一向記。如有問言人趣勝．劣應一向記亦勝亦劣 問若爾何故前釋反詰記云。人為勝．劣應反詰記為何所方。正理論云。於人趣中差別問故應差別記。謂有問言人趣為勝。此應反詰。汝何所方。問劣亦應如是反詰。若雙問者應一向記亦勝亦劣。非於此中勝劣雙問。但隨問一說一為聲。意顯別問為勝為劣。故此問成應反詰記。
論。又作是說至云何名記。問也。
論。然彼所問至如何不名記。答也。解云第四記詳諸經．論。或記言不應記。亦是答第四。或全不答。亦是記第四問。今此中雲。記言不可記也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這並非一概而論。如果你的親人，生於那樣的餓鬼道中，或許能得到這些食物。既然允許佈施給他們，就應該分別記錄。這裡也問到，一切死者都會轉生嗎？對此也應該不一概而論地記錄，而應該分別說明。有煩惱者會轉生，沒有煩惱者則不會。為什麼說這並非應該分別記錄呢？
論：又有人這樣說，就像認識因果一樣，第三種記錄方式很難。但應該一概而論地記錄，說既是殊勝的也是低劣的。例如問，識是果還是因？應該一概而論地記錄，既是果也是因。
論：然而提問者，應該反問記錄。回答是：然而提問者，是一概而論地提問。例如問，人道是殊勝的，或者說是低劣的。這叫做一概而論地提問。如果不是一概而論地記錄，就應該分別說明。如果有一概而論地提問，而不是一概而論地回答，就應該分別回答。但這裡應該詰問提問者的意圖，因此這叫做應該反問記錄。回答這種一概而論的提問，應該分別記錄。由於不知道提問者所指的方向，所以先反問，然後分別說明。從先前的行為得名，叫做反問。如果是雙向提問，就應該一概而論地記錄。例如有人問，人道是殊勝的還是低劣的，應該一概而論地記錄，既是殊勝的也是低劣的。問：如果是這樣，為什麼前面解釋反問記錄時說，人為殊勝還是低劣，應該反問記錄他所指的方向？《正理論》說，在人道中的差別提問，所以應該差別記錄。例如有人問，人道是殊勝的，這應該反問，你所指的方向是什麼？問：問低劣也應該這樣反問嗎？如果雙向提問，就應該一概而論地記錄，既是殊勝的也是低劣的。如果不是在這裡殊勝和低劣雙向提問，只是隨著提問說一個方面，意在顯示分別提問是殊勝還是低劣。因此這種提問成立，應該反問記錄。
論：又有人這樣說，什麼是記錄？問。
論：然而他所問的，如何不叫做記錄？答。解釋說，第四種記錄方式詳細地記載在各種經論中。或者記錄說不應該記錄，這也是第四種回答。或者完全不回答，也是第四種提問的記錄。現在這裡說，記錄說不可記錄。
【English Translation】 English version This is not always the case. If your loved ones are born in such a hungry ghost realm, they may receive this food. Since it is permissible to give to them, it should be recorded separately. Here, it is also asked whether all the dead will be reborn. This should also not be recorded categorically, but should be explained separately. Those with afflictions will be reborn, while those without afflictions will not. Why is it said that this should not be recorded separately?
Treatise: Some say that, like recognizing cause and effect, the third type of recording is difficult. But it should be recorded categorically, saying that it is both superior and inferior. For example, if asked whether consciousness (識) [consciousness, awareness] is a result or a cause, it should be recorded categorically that it is both a result and a cause.
Treatise: However, the questioner should counter-question to record. The answer is: However, the questioner asks categorically. For example, asking whether the human realm is superior or inferior. This is called asking categorically. If it is not recorded categorically, it should be explained separately. If there is a categorical question, but not a categorical answer, it should be answered separately. But here, the intention of the questioner should be questioned, so this is called counter-questioning to record. Answering this categorical question should be recorded separately. Because the direction the questioner is pointing to is not known, first counter-question and then explain separately. It is named counter-questioning from the previous action. If it is a two-way question, it should be recorded categorically. For example, if someone asks whether the human realm is superior or inferior, it should be recorded categorically that it is both superior and inferior. Question: If so, why did the previous explanation of counter-questioning to record say that whether humans are superior or inferior should be counter-questioned to record what direction they are pointing to? The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) [Commentary Following the Principles of Reasoning] says that because of the difference in questions within the human realm, it should be recorded differently. For example, if someone asks whether the human realm is superior, this should be counter-questioned, 'What direction are you pointing to?' Question: Should asking about inferiority also be counter-questioned in this way? If it is a two-way question, it should be recorded categorically that it is both superior and inferior. If it is not a two-way question about superiority and inferiority here, but only one aspect is mentioned according to the question, the intention is to show that the separate questions are about whether it is superior or inferior. Therefore, this question is established and should be counter-questioned to record.
Treatise: Some say, what is called recording? Question.
Treatise: However, what he asked, how is it not called recording? Answer. The explanation says that the fourth type of recording is described in detail in various sutras and treatises. Or recording that it should not be recorded is also the fourth type of answer. Or not answering at all is also the recording of the fourth type of question. Now here it says, recording that it cannot be recorded.
論。對法諸師。已下述本論等釋。
論。一向記者至契實義故。述第一記。
論。分別記者至欲說者何。述第二記。好心問但如是分別即令自解。
論。反詰記者至無便求非。述第三記。若有諂心請問意欲求非。應但反問不須分別問責其源默然而住。或反問令其自記無便求非。為兩釋。非對二人。
論。豈不二中至成問記耶。難也。本宗釋其問記。今言請故非問。反詰故非記。如何名分別。反詰。二問記耶。
論。如有請言至豈非記道。答也。正理論云。如是分別至究竟時。便令問者了所問義。故此分別記相即成。由此已遮有作是難於分別后既更無容有餘記言不應成記。以即分別說為記故。謂分別時。問者自了所欲問義。分別終時。已能影顯所記義故。由是分別記相得成。未分別時彼未能解。分別已解故名為記。此于能記立以記名 反詰終時已能影顯所記義故。由是亦應許此反詰即名為記。由反詰言記彼問故。有作是難。此記亦不成。記后無容有餘記言故。問俱不與問相相應。請言愿尊為我說法。此不成問但應名請。此中所難應準前遮。然此與前有差別者。謂若反詰令彼自然有正解生方得名記。如契經說。我還問汝。如汝所忍應如實答。又如經說。汝意云何。色為無常。為是常等。非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：論：對於法義的諸位大師，已經在下面闡述了本論等的解釋。 論：『一向記』（ekaṃsa-vyākaraṇīya，直接回答），是因為與真實意義相契合的緣故。這是在闡述第一種『記』（vyākaraṇīya，解答）。 論：『分別記』（vibhajja-vyākaraṇīya，分別解答），是爲了說明想要說什麼。這是在闡述第二種『記』。善意提問，只要這樣分別解答，就能讓他自己理解。 論：『反詰記』（paṭipucchā-vyākaraṇīya，反問解答），是爲了不讓他有機可乘，尋求過失。這是在闡述第三種『記』。如果有人懷著諂媚之心請問，意圖尋求過失，應該只是反問，不需要分別解答，問責他的動機，然後保持沉默。或者反問，讓他自己意識到，沒有機會尋求過失。這是兩種解釋。不是針對兩個人。 論：難道不是在兩種『記』中，成就了『問記』（pucchā-vyākaraṇīya，通過提問來解答）嗎？這是責難。本宗解釋這是『問記』。現在說是『請』，所以不是『問』。因為是反詰，所以不是『記』。如何稱之為『分別』？反詰是兩種『問記』嗎？ 論：如果有人請問說：『愿尊者為我說法』，這難道不是『記道』（vyākaraṇīya-mārga，解答的途徑）嗎？這是回答。正理論說：『像這樣分別解答，直到最終，就能讓提問者明白所提問的意義。』因此，這種分別解答的相狀就成立了。由此已經遮止了有人這樣責難：在分別解答之後，既然沒有容納其他『記』的餘地，就不應該成就『記』。因為就是把分別解答說成是『記』。意思是說，在分別解答的時候，提問者自己明白了想要提問的意義。分別解答結束的時候，已經能夠隱約地顯示所要解答的意義。因此，分別解答的相狀得以成立。在沒有分別解答的時候，他不能理解。分別解答之後，他理解了，所以稱為『記』。這是對於能『記』（vyākaraṇīya，解答者）的人，賦予了『記』（vyākaraṇīya，解答）的名稱。反詰結束的時候，已經能夠隱約地顯示所要解答的意義。因此，也應該允許這種反詰就稱為『記』。因為通過反詰的言語，記錄了他的提問。有人這樣責難：這種『記』也不能成立。因為在『記』之後，沒有容納其他『記』的餘地。提問都不與提問的相狀相應。『請』是說：『愿尊者為我說法。』這不能成為提問，只能稱為『請』。這裡所責難的，應該按照前面的方式來遮止。然而這與前面有差別的地方在於，如果反詰使他自然產生正確的理解，才能稱為『記』。如契經所說：『我還問你，你應該如實地回答你所能忍受的。』又如經所說：『你認為怎麼樣？色是無常，還是常等？』不是。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: The masters of Dharma have already expounded the explanations of this treatise and others below. Treatise: 'Direct answer' (ekaṃsa-vyākaraṇīya), is because it accords with the true meaning. This is expounding the first type of 'answer' (vyākaraṇīya). Treatise: 'Analytical answer' (vibhajja-vyākaraṇīya), is to explain what one wants to say. This is expounding the second type of 'answer'. A well-intentioned question, simply answering analytically like this will allow him to understand on his own. Treatise: 'Counter-questioning answer' (paṭipucchā-vyākaraṇīya), is to prevent him from taking advantage and seeking faults. This is expounding the third type of 'answer'. If someone asks with a flattering mind, intending to seek faults, one should only counter-question, without needing to answer analytically, questioning his motives, and then remain silent. Or counter-question, allowing him to realize on his own that there is no opportunity to seek faults. These are two explanations. It is not directed at two people. Treatise: Isn't it that in the two types of 'answers', the 'questioning answer' (pucchā-vyākaraṇīya) is accomplished? This is a criticism. Our school explains this as a 'questioning answer'. Now it is said to be a 'request', so it is not a 'question'. Because it is counter-questioning, it is not an 'answer'. How is it called 'analytical'? Is counter-questioning two types of 'questioning answers'? Treatise: If someone asks, saying: 'May the venerable one explain the Dharma for me', isn't this the 'path of answering' (vyākaraṇīya-mārga)? This is a response. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Answering analytically like this, until the end, will allow the questioner to understand the meaning of what is being asked.' Therefore, the characteristic of this analytical answer is established. From this, it has already been prevented that someone criticizes: After the analytical answer, since there is no room for other 'answers', it should not accomplish an 'answer'. Because the analytical answer is said to be the 'answer'. It means that during the analytical answer, the questioner himself understands the meaning of what he wants to ask. At the end of the analytical answer, it is already able to vaguely reveal the meaning of the answer. Therefore, the characteristic of the analytical answer is established. Before the analytical answer, he cannot understand. After the analytical answer, he understands, so it is called an 'answer'. This is giving the name 'answer' (vyākaraṇīya) to the one who can 'answer' (vyākaraṇīya). At the end of the counter-questioning, it is already able to vaguely reveal the meaning of the answer. Therefore, it should also be allowed that this counter-questioning is called an 'answer'. Because through the words of counter-questioning, his question is recorded. Someone criticizes: This 'answer' cannot be established either. Because after the 'answer', there is no room for other 'answers'. The questions do not correspond to the characteristic of the question. 'Request' is saying: 'May the venerable one explain the Dharma for me.' This cannot become a question, it can only be called a 'request'. What is criticized here should be prevented according to the previous method. However, the difference between this and the previous is that if the counter-questioning naturally produces a correct understanding in him, then it can be called an 'answer'. As the sutra says: 'I will also ask you, you should truthfully answer what you can endure.' Also, as the sutra says: 'What do you think? Is form impermanent, or permanent, etc.?' It is not.
佛於此自為分別。但由反詰令彼自解。豈不此中名佛為記。若能記者。默無所言。令他解生。名最勝記。
論。若爾應俱是反詰記。難也。如有請言為我說道。此名問道。由反詰記彼所問即是記道。若爾者前問。后問。俱是反詰記。因何于中有分別記。
論。不爾問意至無分別故。問意有記無分別。名反詰記。
論。舍置記者至不應為說。釋舍置記。準前可解。
論。今依契經至但應舍置。已下第三依經釋也。
論。云何有問至應反詰記。釋第三記。如文可解。
論。云何有問至但應舍置。釋第四記。此等皆帶我問故所以舍置。
俱舍論疏卷第十九
保延三年九月十五日午後點了于南新屋點之 角樹 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二十
沙門法寶撰
分別隨眠品第五之二
論。諸有情類於此事中。已下大文第六明世縛事通局。于中有四。一世縛通局。二證三世有。三建立三世。四破三世有 此下兩頌第一明世縛通局。此中意說。能系三世。對所繫三世辨系通局。今言事者。是所繫事。於此事中。隨眠隨增者名之為系。若不隨增。不名為系。其隨增者非要現緣。雖在過未。若未斷位皆是隨增。隨增
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 佛陀在此處親自進行分辨，但通過反問的方式讓對方自己理解。難道不是在此處稱佛陀的回答為『記』（vyākaraṇa，預言、記別）嗎？如果能夠『記』，沉默不語，讓對方自己產生理解，這被稱為最殊勝的『記』。
論：如果這樣，那麼都應該是反問『記』，這是難以成立的。例如有人請求說：『請為我講說道理。』這稱為提問。通過反問，他所問的即是『記』道。如果這樣，那麼前一個問題和后一個問題，都應該是反問『記』，為何其中有分別『記』呢？
論：不是這樣的，提問的意圖在於沒有分別的緣故。提問的意圖在於『記』沒有分別，這稱為反問『記』。
論：捨棄『記』者，乃至不應該為他說。解釋捨棄『記』，參照前面的解釋即可理解。
論：現在依據契經，乃至但應該捨棄。以下第三部分是依據經典來解釋。
論：如何提問，乃至應該反問『記』。解釋第三種『記』，如經文所說即可理解。
論：如何提問，乃至但應該捨棄。解釋第四種『記』。這些都帶有『我』的提問，因此應該捨棄。
《俱舍論疏》卷第十九
保延三年九月十五日午後點了于南新屋點之 角樹 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十
沙門法寶撰
分別隨眠品第五之二
論：諸有情類於此事中。以下大段文字第六部分說明世間繫縛之事普遍與否。其中有四點：一、世間繫縛的普遍性；二、證明三世存在；三、建立三世；四、破斥三世存在。以下兩頌是第一點，說明世間繫縛的普遍性。這裡的意思是說，能夠繫縛三世，針對所繫縛的三世來辨別繫縛的普遍性。現在所說的『事』，是所繫縛之事。於此事中，隨眠（anuśaya，煩惱的潛在形式）隨著增長，這稱為『系』（bandhana，束縛）。如果不隨著增長，不稱為『系』。那些隨著增長的，並非一定要現在顯現。即使在過去或未來，如果還沒有斷除，都是隨著增長的。隨著增長
【English Translation】 English version: The Buddha personally distinguishes here, but leads them to understand on their own through questioning. Isn't it the case that the Buddha's response is called 'vyākaraṇa' (prediction, prophecy) here? If one is capable of 'vyākaraṇa', remaining silent and allowing others to generate understanding is called the most excellent 'vyākaraṇa'.
Treatise: If that's the case, then all should be questioning 'vyākaraṇa', which is difficult to establish. For example, if someone requests, 'Please explain the doctrine to me,' this is called asking a question. Through questioning, what they ask is precisely 'vyākaraṇa' of the path. If that's the case, then both the previous and subsequent questions should be questioning 'vyākaraṇa'. Why is there a distinguishing 'vyākaraṇa' among them?
Treatise: It's not like that; the intention of the question lies in the absence of distinction. The intention of the question lies in 'vyākaraṇa' without distinction, which is called questioning 'vyākaraṇa'.
Treatise: Abandoning 'vyākaraṇa', even to the point of not speaking to them. Explaining abandoning 'vyākaraṇa', it can be understood by referring to the previous explanation.
Treatise: Now, based on the sutras, even to the point of simply abandoning. The following third part explains based on the scriptures.
Treatise: How to ask a question, even to the point of questioning 'vyākaraṇa'. Explaining the third type of 'vyākaraṇa', it can be understood as explained in the text.
Treatise: How to ask a question, even to the point of simply abandoning. Explaining the fourth type of 'vyākaraṇa'. These all carry questions of 'self', therefore they should be abandoned.
Kośa-ṭīkā (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā) Volume 19
Pointed at South New House on the afternoon of September 15th, the 3rd year of Hoen. Kakiju Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41 No. 1822 Kośa-ṭīkā
Kośa-ṭīkā Volume 20
Composed by Śramaṇa Dharmaratna
Chapter 5.2: Analysis of Latent Afflictions
Treatise: Among all sentient beings, in this matter. The following sixth major section explains the universality of worldly bondage. There are four points within it: 1. The universality of worldly bondage; 2. Proving the existence of the three times; 3. Establishing the three times; 4. Refuting the existence of the three times. The following two verses are the first point, explaining the universality of worldly bondage. The meaning here is that what can bind the three times is distinguished in terms of the universality of bondage in relation to the three times that are bound. What is now called 'matter' is the matter that is bound. In this matter, the anuśaya (latent forms of afflictions) increases, which is called 'bandhana' (bondage). If it does not increase, it is not called 'bandhana'. Those that increase do not necessarily have to manifest in the present. Even in the past or future, if they have not been severed, they are all increasing. Increasing
有二。一相應隨增。二所緣隨增。于未斷位。一切隨眠于自相應。相無差別皆隨增也。于自所緣。相無差別遍隨增也。所緣定故。不可說言于自所緣有遍．不遍。雖諸煩惱有自相．共相。意識．五識。緣境寬狹力用不同。遍自所緣相無差別。若將能系三世隨眠。對其所繫隨於何事。辨三世惑系．不繫別。于中即有遍．不遍異 有人浪釋。恐煩不述 此兩行頌。前一行半明自相惑。後半行頌明共相惑。就前文中。前三句明過．現六識自相惑。后三句簡未來意．五不同。頌首云若於此事中未斷七字。流至於下明系通局。必不斷故。
論曰至流至後門。此雖總分隨眠有二。即是釋頌若於此事中未斷七字。
論。若此事中至定遍起故。明過．現六識自相惑系境不同。
論。若未來世至皆能繫縛。此釋意識相應自相惑也。貪．瞋．慢三雖在未來。遍自所緣常恒決定。于未斷然常系所緣。要因見聞方能現起。故於三世非定遍行。正理論云。貪．瞋．慢三是自相惑。如前已辨。諸聖教中處處見有分明文證。且如經言。佛告衣袋母。汝眼於色若不見時。彼色為緣起欲貪不。不爾大德。乃至廣說。又契經說。佛告大母。汝意云何。諸所有色。非汝眼見。非汝曾見。非汝當見。非希求見。汝為因比起欲起貪起親起愛等不
。不爾大德。乃至廣說(已上論文) 以貪．瞋．慢起不定故。於此事中但是已生未斷即系此事。然於此中有系三世。亦得名為遍三世也。過去貪等。不能遍系三世一切有漏法盡。現在隨其所緣廣狹不同。但起即系。雖有通緣三世法者。亦無現在貪等能緣三世有漏法盡。若未來世意識相應別相煩惱。依總類說即緣三世有漏法盡。雖此不繫即彼系故。非不亦有唯系過去及未來者。如一類貪唯系此眼識及相應法性決定者。此識不生。此豈不唯緣未來也法。準此亦有唯緣過．現世。亦有通系三世法者。過去．現在若生未斷。即系現在．過去不見聞境。不為一切過去．現在貪等繫縛。
論。未來五識至亦能系三世。釋五識相應惑也。若已生即系意與五同。故不別說。意識相應貪等。生與不生皆容遍行三世法也。五識相應生唯自世。不生遍三。所以別說 不生遍三者。此由五識依．緣必同時故。生必同時。不生即容境界三世。以色等境行於三世不待識故。識若生。時必待境故。雖世不同。性縛定故 于中有二。或令所緣歷其三世或於一所緣參差不定。分其三世。今應指事作斯問答 問頗有於此一色事中。此但指此事不問三世。即此事中三世貪等。於此事中為系不 答過去．現在貪．瞋．慢等。緣此事生未斷即系。若過去．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『不爾，大德，乃至廣說（以上論文）。』因為貪、嗔、慢生起不定，所以在此事中，只要已生起而未斷除，就被繫縛於此事。然而，在此事中，有繫縛三世的情況，也可以稱為遍及三世。過去的貪等，不能遍及繫縛三世一切有漏法。現在的貪等，隨著所緣的廣狹不同，只要生起就被繫縛。雖然有能通緣三世法的，也沒有現在的貪等能緣三世有漏法盡。如果未來世意識相應的別相煩惱，依據總類來說，就能緣三世有漏法盡。雖然這個不繫縛，但因為那個被繫縛，所以並非沒有隻繫縛過去和未來的情況。例如，有一類貪只繫縛此眼識及相應法，如果自性決定，此識不生，這豈不是隻緣未來法嗎？準此，也有隻緣過去、現在世的，也有通繫縛三世法的。過去、現在如果生起而未斷除，就被繫縛于現在、過去不見聞的境界，不被一切過去、現在的貪等繫縛。 論：未來五識乃至也能繫縛三世。解釋五識相應的迷惑。如果已經生起，就和意識一樣繫縛三世，所以不另外說明。意識相應的貪等，生起與不生起都可能遍行三世法。五識相應的貪等，生起只在自身所處的世，不生起則遍及三世，所以要分別說明。不生起則遍及三世，這是因為五識的所依和所緣必定同時，生起必定同時。不生起就容許境界遍及三世，因為色等境界行於三世，不依賴於識。識如果生起，時間必定依賴於境界。雖然世不同，但自性繫縛是確定的。其中有兩種情況：或者使所緣經歷三世，或者於一個所緣參差不定，分屬三世。現在應該指明具體的事物來作這樣的問答。問：是否對於此一色事中（這裡只指這件事，不問三世），即這件事中的三世貪等，對於這件事中是否被繫縛？答：過去、現在的貪、嗔、慢等，緣這件事生起而未斷除，就被繫縛。如果過去、
【English Translation】 English version: 'No, great worthy, and so on, extensively explained (as per the above treatise).' Because greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), and pride (mana) arise uncertainly, in this matter, as long as they have arisen but are not yet severed, they are bound to this matter. However, within this matter, there is the binding of the three times (past, present, future), which can also be called pervasive throughout the three times. Past greed, etc., cannot pervasively bind all conditioned (with outflows, sāsrava) dharmas of the three times. Present greed, etc., varies in scope depending on what is cognized, but as soon as it arises, it binds. Although there are those that can cognize dharmas of the three times, there is no present greed, etc., that can cognize all conditioned dharmas of the three times. If future consciousness (vijnana) corresponding to specific afflictions (kleshas), based on general categories, it can cognize all conditioned dharmas of the three times. Although this is not bound, because that is bound, it is not that there are no cases of only binding the past and future. For example, a type of greed only binds this eye-consciousness (caksu-vijnana) and corresponding dharmas. If its nature is determined, this consciousness does not arise; isn't this only cognizing future dharmas? Similarly, there are those that only cognize the past and present, and there are those that bind dharmas of all three times. If the past and present have arisen but are not yet severed, they are bound to the unseen and unheard realms of the present and past, and are not bound by all past and present greed, etc. Treatise: Future five consciousnesses (panca-vijnana) can even bind the three times. This explains the delusion corresponding to the five consciousnesses. If it has already arisen, it binds the three times like the mind-consciousness (mano-vijnana), so it is not explained separately. Greed, etc., corresponding to mind-consciousness, whether arising or not, can pervade the dharmas of the three times. Greed, etc., corresponding to the five consciousnesses, only arises in its own time, and does not pervade the three times if it does not arise, so it needs to be explained separately. 'Does not pervade the three times if it does not arise' means that the basis and object of the five consciousnesses must be simultaneous, so arising must be simultaneous. If it does not arise, then the realm can pervade the three times, because realms such as form (rupa) exist in the three times and do not depend on consciousness. If consciousness arises, time must depend on the realm. Although the times are different, the binding nature is definite. There are two situations: either the object of cognition experiences the three times, or the object of cognition is inconsistent and belongs to the three times. Now, we should point to specific things to ask and answer this question. Question: Is it the case that within this one matter of form (here, only referring to this matter, not asking about the three times), that the greed, etc., of the three times in this matter, are bound to this matter? Answer: Past and present greed, hatred, pride, etc., arising from this matter and not yet severed, are bound. If past,
現在貪．瞋．慢等緣余法生。不繫此事。及雖緣此一色事生。被對治道斷即不繫。繫有一種。隨已生不斷。不繫二類。謂不緣此生。及緣已斷。此即通其六識。自相煩惱皆同此也。若在未來即有差別。意識相應定系此事。未來必有眾多貪等。于所緣定性系此故。由此未來生與不生。皆有遍行。生與不生皆有系此一色事故。若眼識相應諸可生者名系自世。不名遍行。諸不生者定有一類系此事也。同色境中於一剎那。必有總．別眾多識故。眾多識中唯一得生。余不生故。無有過．現一色事中。不為未來眾多不生眼識相應貪等系者。由此不生名為遍行。見．疑．無明過去．未來定系此一事也。此由二世皆遍行故。于現起者若緣即系。不緣不繫。由此婆沙歷六句等。作問答云。於此事中頗有過去愛結系。而有未來愛結系耶。未來愛結系。而為過去愛結系耶。此應順前句答。如是但有過去愛結系。必為未來愛結系也。所以名為順前句者歷六句。一一句中皆有兩句問答。此同前句故名順前句也。亦名稱前句答。第二句問云。頗有未來愛結系亦為過去愛結系耶。答云。若前不生生者已斷即不繫。若前生不斷即系。此言斷．不斷望未來非等品說。愛有三品。於此一色事中容有三品愛。不緣此一色事生緣餘事生。緣餘事起此三品愛。皆不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 現在貪（tan，貪婪）．瞋（chen，嗔恨）．慢（man，傲慢）等緣其他法而生起，則不繫縛於此事。以及雖然緣於此一色法事生起，但被對治道所斷除，也不繫縛。繫縛有一種，隨已生起而不間斷。不繫縛有兩類，謂不緣於此生起，以及緣于已斷除的。這適用於六識。自相煩惱也與此相同。若在未來則有差別。意識相應必定繫縛於此事，未來必定有眾多貪等，對於所緣必定繫縛於此，因此未來生起與不生起，都有遍行。生起與不生起都繫縛於此一色法事。若眼識相應，諸可生起者名為繫縛于自身，不名為遍行。諸不生起者必定有一類繫縛於此事。在同一色境中，於一剎那，必定有總相、別相眾多識，眾多識中只有一種能夠生起，其餘不生起，沒有過去、現在一色法事中，不為未來眾多不生眼識相應的貪等所繫縛的。因此不生起名為遍行。見（jian，邪見）．疑（yi，懷疑）．無明（wuming，無明）過去、未來必定繫縛於此一事。這是因為二世都是遍行。對於現起者，若緣即繫縛，不緣則不繫縛。因此《婆沙》（Posha）歷經六句等，作問答說：『於此事中，是否有過去愛結（aijie，愛結）繫縛，而有未來愛結繫縛呢？未來愛結繫縛，而為過去愛結繫縛呢？』這應順前句回答。如是但有過去愛結繫縛，必定為未來愛結繫縛。所以名為順前句者，歷經六句，一句一句中都有兩句問答，這與前句相同，故名順前句。也稱前句答。第二句問：『是否有未來愛結繫縛也為過去愛結繫縛呢？』答：『若前不生，生者已斷即不繫縛，若前生不斷即繫縛。』此言斷、不斷，望未來非等品說。愛有三品，於此一色法事中容有三品愛，不緣此一色法事生，緣其他事生，緣其他事起，此三品愛，都不。
【English Translation】 English version Now, greed (tan), hatred (chen), pride (man), etc., arise dependent on other dharmas, then they are not bound to this matter. And even if they arise dependent on this one form-matter, but are severed by the antidotal path, they are also not bound. Binding has one kind, which follows what has already arisen without ceasing. Non-binding has two kinds, namely, not arising dependent on this, and arising dependent on what has been severed. This applies to the six consciousnesses. The afflictions of self-nature are also the same as this. If it is in the future, then there is a difference. Consciousness in association is definitely bound to this matter, and in the future there will definitely be many instances of greed, etc., which are definitely bound to this object of cognition. Therefore, whether arising or not arising in the future, there is pervasiveness. Whether arising or not arising, they are all bound to this one form-matter. If it is eye-consciousness in association, those that can arise are called bound to oneself, and are not called pervasive. Those that do not arise definitely have one kind that is bound to this matter. In the same form-realm, in one instant, there must be many consciousnesses of general and specific characteristics. Among the many consciousnesses, only one can arise, and the rest do not arise. There is no past or present form-matter that is not bound by the greed, etc., associated with the many future non-arising eye-consciousnesses. Therefore, not arising is called pervasive. Wrong view (jian), doubt (yi), ignorance (wuming) in the past and future are definitely bound to this one matter. This is because both the two times are pervasive. For those that are presently arising, if they are conditioned, then they are bound; if they are not conditioned, then they are not bound. Therefore, the Vibhasa goes through six sentences, etc., and asks: 'In this matter, is there past attachment-knot (aijie) binding, and future attachment-knot binding? Is future attachment-knot binding, and past attachment-knot binding?' This should be answered according to the previous sentence. Thus, if there is only past attachment-knot binding, it is definitely future attachment-knot binding. The reason why it is called following the previous sentence is that it goes through six sentences, and in each sentence there are two questions and answers, which is the same as the previous sentence, so it is called following the previous sentence. It is also called answering the previous sentence. The second sentence asks: 'Is there future attachment-knot binding also past attachment-knot binding?' The answer is: 'If what did not arise before, and what arises has been severed, then it is not bound; if what arose before has not been severed, then it is bound.' This statement of severed and not severed refers to the future and is not of equal quality. Attachment has three qualities. In this one form-matter, there may be three qualities of attachment. Not arising dependent on this one form-matter, arising dependent on other matters, arising dependent on other matters, these three qualities of attachment are not.
系此一色事。若前不。生不繫。理合通於三品。前生已斷不繫。此於三品中。或是上品。或是中品。或上．中合說。必非下品。已說未來系故。斷惑必三世同斷故。若過去世下品斷者。未來三品皆斷。不可言有未來愛結系故。理定如上。若前生不斷即系者。此亦通其三品。理必應爾 婆沙五十八歷六問云。若於此事有過去愛結系。亦有未來耶 答如是 設有未來複有過去耶 答若前生未斷即系。若前未生設生已斷則不繫 問若時過去愛結已斷。即時未來愛結亦已斷。若時過去愛結未斷。即時未來愛結亦未斷。今何故說若前生未斷則系。若前未生設生已斷則不繫耶 外國諸師作如是說。若前生未斷則系者。說中三品結。若前未生則不繫者。說下三品結。設生已斷則不繫者。說上三品結。迦濕彌羅國諸論師言。若前生未斷即系者。說九品結。若前未生則不繫者。說后三品結。設生已斷則不繫者。說前六品結。如過去前六品愛結已斷。未來亦爾。后三品愛結。雖未斷而未生故。在未來為系非過去。此中意說。若於此事有未來愛結未斷。亦有前生愛結未斷。即於此事亦有過去愛結系義。若於此事雖有未來愛結未斷。而前於此愛結未生。雖余處生。而於此事亦名未生。設生已斷。即於此事無有過去愛結系義 已上第一句。理實品
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於這一『色事』（Rūpadhātu，色界的事物）。如果前世沒有『生』（utpāda，產生），則不會被『系』（bandhana，束縛）。這個道理適用於三品（trayas-prakārah，三種品類）。前世已經斷除，則不會被束縛。這在三品中，或是上品（agrya，最好的），或是中品（madhyama，中等的），或上、中合說。必定不是下品（hīna，低劣的）。因為已經說了未來會被束縛。斷除迷惑必定是三世同時斷除。如果過去世下品斷除，未來三品都會斷除。不能說有未來的『愛結』（prīti-samyojana，愛慾的束縛）。道理必定如上所述。如果前世不斷除就被束縛，這也適用於三品。道理必定如此。 『婆沙』（Vibhāṣā，論書名）第五十八卷記載了六個問題：『如果對於這件事有過去世的愛結束縛，也有未來世的嗎？』回答：『是的。』『假設有未來世的，又有過去世的嗎？』回答：『如果前世沒有斷除就被束縛。如果前世沒有產生，假設產生后已經斷除，則不會被束縛。』 問：『如果過去世的愛結已經斷除，即時未來世的愛結也已經斷除。如果過去世的愛結沒有斷除，即時未來世的愛結也沒有斷除。現在為什麼說如果前世沒有斷除就被束縛，如果前世沒有產生，假設產生后已經斷除，則不會被束縛呢？』外國的諸位論師這樣說：『如果前世沒有斷除就被束縛，說的是中三品結。如果前世沒有產生則不會被束縛，說的是下三品結。假設產生后已經斷除則不會被束縛，說的是上三品結。』 『迦濕彌羅國』（Kashmir，地名）的諸位論師說：『如果前世沒有斷除就被束縛，說的是九品結。如果前世沒有產生則不會被束縛，說的是后三品結。假設產生后已經斷除則不會被束縛，說的是前六品結。』如同過去世前六品愛結已經斷除，未來世也是如此。后三品愛結，雖然沒有斷除，但因為沒有產生，所以在未來世是被束縛，不是過去世。這裡的意思是說，如果對於這件事有未來世的愛結沒有斷除，也有前世的愛結沒有斷除，那麼對於這件事也有過去世的愛結束縛的含義。如果對於這件事雖然有未來世的愛結沒有斷除，而前世對於這件事愛結沒有產生，雖然在其他地方產生，但對於這件事也叫做沒有產生。假設產生后已經斷除，那麼對於這件事就沒有過去世的愛結束縛的含義。 以上是第一句。『理實品』（Yathābhūta，如實品）
【English Translation】 English version Concerning this one 『Rūpadhātu』 (form realm) matter. If in the previous life there was no 『utpāda』 (arising), then there is no 『bandhana』 (bondage). This principle applies to the 『trayas-prakārah』 (three categories). If it has been severed in the previous life, then there is no bondage. This, among the three categories, is either the 『agrya』 (supreme), or the 『madhyama』 (intermediate), or a combination of the supreme and intermediate. It is definitely not the 『hīna』 (inferior). Because it has already been said that there will be bondage in the future. The severing of delusion must be simultaneous in the three times. If the inferior category is severed in the past life, then all three categories will be severed in the future. It cannot be said that there will be future 『prīti-samyojana』 (bonds of affection). The principle is definitely as stated above. If one is bound without severing in the previous life, then this also applies to the three categories. The principle must be so. The fifty-eighth volume of the 『Vibhāṣā』 (commentary) records six questions: 『If there is a past life's bond of affection concerning this matter, is there also a future life's?』 The answer is: 『Yes.』 『Suppose there is a future life's, is there also a past life's?』 The answer is: 『If it was not severed in the previous life, then there is bondage. If it did not arise in the previous life, and supposing it was severed after arising, then there is no bondage.』 Question: 『If the past life's bond of affection has been severed, then the future life's bond of affection is also severed at the same time. If the past life's bond of affection has not been severed, then the future life's bond of affection has also not been severed at the same time. Why is it now said that if it was not severed in the previous life, then there is bondage, and if it did not arise in the previous life, and supposing it was severed after arising, then there is no bondage?』 The various teachers of foreign countries say this: 『If it was not severed in the previous life, then there is bondage, referring to the middle three categories of bonds. If it did not arise in the previous life, then there is no bondage, referring to the lower three categories of bonds. Supposing it was severed after arising, then there is no bondage, referring to the upper three categories of bonds.』 The various teachers of 『Kashmir』 (a place name) say: 『If it was not severed in the previous life, then there is bondage, referring to the nine categories of bonds. If it did not arise in the previous life, then there is no bondage, referring to the last three categories of bonds. Supposing it was severed after arising, then there is no bondage, referring to the first six categories of bonds.』 Just as the first six categories of bonds of affection in the past life have been severed, so it is in the future life. Although the last three categories of bonds of affection have not been severed, because they have not arisen, they are bondage in the future life, not in the past life. The meaning here is that if there is a future life's bond of affection that has not been severed concerning this matter, and there is also a previous life's bond of affection that has not been severed, then concerning this matter there is also the meaning of the past life's bond of affection being bondage. If, concerning this matter, although there is a future life's bond of affection that has not been severed, and the bond of affection concerning this matter did not arise in the previous life, although it arose elsewhere, it is also called not arising concerning this matter. Supposing it was severed after arising, then concerning this matter there is no meaning of the past life's bond of affection being bondage. The above is the first sentence. 『Yathābhūta』 (The Chapter on Reality).
數應如前說。然婆沙云。若生未斷即系說九品者據具縛說。若前不生即不繫及生者已斷即不繫。皆據斷六品說。即當一來果。此據有系故非不還果等。此以余處生名不繫故。非是已斷。斷故非具縛。若前未生則不繫者。說后三品據一來說。設生已斷即不繫者。說前六品亦是一來。應更思之 若於此事有過去愛結系亦有現在耶 答若現在前 設有現在復有過去耶 答若前生未斷等(云云如前。已上第二句) 若於此事有未來愛結系亦有現在耶 答若現在前。設有現在復有未來耶 答。如是(已上第三句) 若於此事 有過去愛結系。亦有未來．現在耶 答未來必系。現在若現在前 設有未來．現在。復有過去耶 答若前生未斷等(已上第四句) 若於此事有未來愛結系。亦有過去．現在耶 答此中有四句(隨其所應) 設有過去．現在。復有未來耶 答如是(已上第五句) 若於此事有現在愛結系。亦有過去．未來耶 答未來必系。過去若前生未斷等。設過去．未來複有現在耶 答若現在前(已上第六句) 如愛結歷六應知。恚．慢．嫉．慳非遍行無明結歷六亦爾 迷自相結義相似故。如見歷六應知。取疑等歷六亦爾。迷共相結義相似故。雖有廣狹而亦相類(已上歷六句) 若於此事有過去愛結。亦有過去恚結系耶 答
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 數量應該如前面所說的那樣。然而，《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說，如果（眾生）在（欲界）還沒有斷除（煩惱），就被說成是系屬於九品（煩惱）的，這是根據具有束縛（的眾生）來說的。如果之前沒有生起（煩惱），那麼就是不繫屬於（欲界），以及已經斷除了（煩惱）的生者也是不繫屬於（欲界）的，這都是根據斷除了六品（煩惱）來說的，也就是當於一來果（Sakrdagamin，二果阿羅漢）。這是根據有繫縛的緣故，所以不是不還果（Anagamin，三果阿羅漢）等。這是因為在其他地方生起（煩惱）被稱為不繫縛的緣故，不是已經斷除了（煩惱）。因為斷除了（煩惱），所以不是具有束縛。如果之前沒有生起（煩惱）則不繫縛，這是說后三品（煩惱）根據一來果來說的。假設生起（煩惱）已經斷除則不繫縛，這是說前六品（煩惱）也是一來果。應該更深入地思考這個問題。 如果對於這件事，有過去的愛結（Raga-samyojana，貪愛之結）繫縛，也有現在的（愛結繫縛）嗎？答：如果現在（的愛結）現前。 假設有現在的（愛結），又有過去的（愛結）嗎？答：如果前生（的愛結）沒有斷除等等（內容如前所述。以上是第二句）。 如果對於這件事，有未來的愛結繫縛，也有現在的（愛結繫縛）嗎？答：如果現在（的愛結）現前。假設有現在的（愛結），又有未來的（愛結）嗎？答：是的（以上是第三句）。 如果對於這件事，有過去的愛結繫縛，也有未來的、現在的（愛結繫縛）嗎？答：未來（的愛結）必定繫縛。現在（的愛結），如果現在（的愛結）現前。假設有未來的、現在的（愛結），又有過去的（愛結）嗎？答：如果前生（的愛結）沒有斷除等等（以上是第四句）。 如果對於這件事，有未來的愛結繫縛，也有過去的、現在的（愛結繫縛）嗎？答：這其中有四句（根據其所應）。假設有過去的、現在的（愛結），又有未來的（愛結）嗎？答：是的（以上是第五句）。 如果對於這件事，有現在的愛結繫縛，也有過去的、未來的（愛結繫縛）嗎？答：未來（的愛結）必定繫縛。過去（的愛結），如果前生（的愛結）沒有斷除等等。假設過去的、未來的（愛結），又有現在的（愛結）嗎？答：如果現在（的愛結）現前（以上是第六句）。 應該知道，愛結經歷這六種情況。嗔恚（Dvesa，憎恨）、慢（Mana，傲慢）、嫉妒（Irsya，嫉妒）、慳吝（Matsarya，吝嗇）這些非普遍存在的煩惱，以及無明結（Avidya-samyojana，無明之結）經歷這六種情況也是如此。迷惑于自相之結（迷自相結）的意義相似，所以像見（Dristi，邪見）經歷這六種情況一樣，應該知道。取（Upadana，執取）、疑（Vicikitsa，懷疑）等經歷這六種情況也是如此。迷惑于共相之結（迷共相結）的意義相似的緣故。雖然有廣狹的差別，但也彼此類似（以上是經歷六種情況）。 如果對於這件事，有過去的愛結，也有過去的嗔恚結（Dvesa-samyojana，嗔恚之結）繫縛嗎？答：
【English Translation】 English version: The quantity should be as previously stated. However, the Vibhasa says that if (a being) has not yet severed (afflictions) in (the desire realm), then it is said to be bound by the nine grades (of afflictions), which is according to those who are fully bound. If (afflictions) have not arisen before, then one is not bound to (the desire realm), and those who have severed (afflictions) are also not bound to (the desire realm), which is according to those who have severed the six grades (of afflictions), that is, corresponding to the Sakrdagamin (Once-Returner, second Arhat fruit). This is because of being bound, so it is not the Anagamin (Non-Returner, third Arhat fruit) and so on. This is because arising (afflictions) in other places is called not being bound, not because (afflictions) have already been severed. Because (afflictions) have been severed, one is not fully bound. If (afflictions) have not arisen before, then one is not bound, which refers to the latter three grades (of afflictions) according to the Once-Returner. Suppose arising (afflictions) have been severed, then one is not bound, which refers to the former six grades (of afflictions) also being the Once-Returner. This should be considered further. If, with regard to this matter, there is a past Raga-samyojana (attachment-fetter, love-bond), is there also a present one? Answer: If the present one is manifest. Suppose there is a present one, is there also a past one? Answer: If the past one has not been severed, and so on (as previously stated. The above is the second sentence). If, with regard to this matter, there is a future Raga-samyojana, is there also a present one? Answer: If the present one is manifest. Suppose there is a present one, is there also a future one? Answer: Yes (The above is the third sentence). If, with regard to this matter, there is a past Raga-samyojana, are there also future and present ones? Answer: The future one is certainly bound. The present one, if the present one is manifest. Suppose there are future and present ones, is there also a past one? Answer: If the past one has not been severed, and so on (The above is the fourth sentence). If, with regard to this matter, there is a future Raga-samyojana, are there also past and present ones? Answer: There are four possibilities in this (according to what is appropriate). Suppose there are past and present ones, is there also a future one? Answer: Yes (The above is the fifth sentence). If, with regard to this matter, there is a present Raga-samyojana, are there also past and future ones? Answer: The future one is certainly bound. The past one, if the past one has not been severed, and so on. Suppose there are past and future ones, is there also a present one? Answer: If the present one is manifest (The above is the sixth sentence). It should be known that the Raga-samyojana goes through these six situations. Dvesa (hatred), Mana (pride), Irsya (jealousy), Matsarya (stinginess), these non-pervasive afflictions, and Avidya-samyojana (ignorance-fetter) also go through these six situations. The meaning of being deluded about the self-aspect fetter (迷自相結) is similar, so like Dristi (wrong view) going through these six situations, it should be known. Upadana (grasping), Vicikitsa (doubt), etc., also go through these six situations. The meaning of being deluded about the common-aspect fetter (迷共相結) is similar. Although there are differences in breadth, they are also similar to each other (The above is going through six situations). If, with regard to this matter, there is a past Raga-samyojana, is there also a past Dvesa-samyojana (aversion-fetter)?
若前生未斷則系等 設有過去恚結系復有過去愛結系耶(已上小七第一句) 若於此事有過去愛結系。亦有未來恚結系耶 設有未來恚結系。復有過去愛結系耶(第二句) 若於此事有過去愛結系。亦有現在恚結系耶 設有現在恚結系。復有過去愛結系耶(第三句) 若於此事有過去愛結系。亦有過去．現在恚結系耶(答此中有四句) 設有．過去．現在恚結系。復有過去愛結系耶(已上第四句) 若於此事有過去愛。亦有未來．現在恚耶(答此中有三句) 設有未來．現在恚結。復有過去愛結系耶(已上第五句) 若於此事有過去愛結。亦有過去．未來恚結耶(答此中有三句) 設有過去．未來恚結復有過去愛結系耶(已上第六句) 若於此事有過去愛結系。亦有過去．未來．現在恚結系耶 答此中有五句。設有過去．未來．現在恚結系。復有過去愛結系耶(已上第七句) 如對恚結系。對嫉．慳結亦爾。以愛對彼作小七句。如小七大七亦爾。差別者以二對一。乃至以八對一。謂以過去愛結。恚結。先對過去慢結。次對未來次對現在次對過去現在。次對未來．現在。次對過去．未來。復對過去．未來．現在 問一行歷六。小七。大七。有何差別 答覆次以不相似法。對不相似法。作問答。不以世定故名一行。以相似
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 若前世沒有斷除，那麼就存在束縛等等。假設存在過去的嗔恚（huì，憤怒）之結的束縛，那麼也存在過去的愛戀之結的束縛嗎？（以上是小七的第一句） 如果對於這件事存在過去的愛戀之結的束縛，那麼也存在未來的嗔恚之結的束縛嗎？假設存在未來的嗔恚之結的束縛，那麼也存在過去的愛戀之結的束縛嗎？（第二句） 如果對於這件事存在過去的愛戀之結的束縛，那麼也存在現在的嗔恚之結的束縛嗎？假設存在現在的嗔恚之結的束縛，那麼也存在過去的愛戀之結的束縛嗎？（第三句） 如果對於這件事存在過去的愛戀之結的束縛，那麼也存在過去、現在的嗔恚之結的束縛嗎？（回答這個問題中有四句）假設存在過去、現在的嗔恚之結的束縛，那麼也存在過去的愛戀之結的束縛嗎？（以上是第四句） 如果對於這件事存在過去的愛戀，那麼也存在未來、現在的嗔恚嗎？（回答這個問題中有三句）假設存在未來、現在的嗔恚之結，那麼也存在過去的愛戀之結的束縛嗎？（以上是第五句） 如果對於這件事存在過去的愛戀之結，那麼也存在過去、未來的嗔恚之結嗎？（回答這個問題中有三句）假設存在過去、未來的嗔恚之結，那麼也存在過去的愛戀之結的束縛嗎？（以上是第六句） 如果對於這件事存在過去的愛戀之結的束縛，那麼也存在過去、未來、現在的嗔恚之結的束縛嗎？回答這個問題中有五句。假設存在過去、未來、現在的嗔恚之結的束縛，那麼也存在過去的愛戀之結的束縛嗎？（以上是第七句） 如同對治嗔恚之結的束縛一樣，對治嫉妒、慳吝（qiān lìn，吝嗇）之結的束縛也是如此。用愛戀來對治它們，做成小七句。如同小七一樣，大七也是如此。差別在於用二對一，乃至用八對一。所謂用過去的愛戀之結、嗔恚之結，先對治過去的慢（màn，傲慢）之結，然後對治未來，然後對治現在，然後對治過去現在，然後對治未來、現在，然後對治過去、未來，再對治過去、未來、現在。 問：一行、小七、大七，有什麼差別？答：再次，用不相似的法，對治不相似的法，做成問答。不以世俗來定論，所以叫做一行。以相似……
【English Translation】 English version If the previous life was not severed, then there exist bonds and so on. If there exists a bond of past hatred (anger), does there also exist a bond of past love? If in this matter there exists a bond of past love, does there also exist a bond of future hatred? If there exists a bond of future hatred, does there also exist a bond of past love? If in this matter there exists a bond of past love, does there also exist a bond of present hatred? If there exists a bond of present hatred, does there also exist a bond of past love? If in this matter there exists a bond of past love, does there also exist a bond of past and present hatred? (There are four sentences in this answer) If there exists a bond of past and present hatred, does there also exist a bond of past love? If in this matter there exists past love, does there also exist future and present hatred? (There are three sentences in this answer) If there exists a bond of future and present hatred, does there also exist a bond of past love? If in this matter there exists a bond of past love, does there also exist past and future hatred? (There are three sentences in this answer) If there exists past and future hatred, does there also exist a bond of past love? If in this matter there exists a bond of past love, does there also exist a bond of past, future, and present hatred? There are five sentences in this answer. If there exists a bond of past, future, and present hatred, does there also exist a bond of past love? Just as the bonds of hatred are counteracted, so too are the bonds of jealousy and stinginess (miserliness). Use love to counteract them, making the 'Small Seven' sentences. Just as with the 'Small Seven', so too with the 'Large Seven'. The difference lies in using two against one, up to using eight against one. That is, using the bonds of past love and hatred, first counteract the past bond of arrogance (pride), then counteract the future, then counteract the present, then counteract the past and present, then counteract the future and present, then counteract the past and future, and then counteract the past, future, and present. Question: What is the difference between 'One Line', 'Small Seven', and 'Large Seven'? Answer: Furthermore, using dissimilar dharmas to counteract dissimilar dharmas, create questions and answers. Not defining it by worldly standards, therefore it is called 'One Line'. With similar...
法對相似法作問答。以世定故名歷六。以不相似法對不相似法作問答。以世定以一對一故名小七。以相似法對不相似法作問答。以世定以二對一。乃至以八對一。故名大七。是謂差別。若共相惑即不同此答 頗有過去見結系亦未來也答曰。如是 頗有未來見結系亦過去耶 答曰。如是 此是以等問等。述可句答。若過去．未來對現在其過去．未來定系。現在若生即系。
論。所餘一切至能系此事。此釋共相惑也 見疑無明者。無明是不共無明。相應無明如所相應說。此見．疑等過去．未來。皆遍系三世。現在不定。由此過．未皆是遍行。遍行三世故。今更總述。意識相應未來貪等。若生．不生皆是遍行。遍行三世故。過．現不定。五識相應貪等。唯未來不生是遍行。遍行三世故。過．現及生。定非遍行。共相煩惱。過去．未來皆是遍行。遍行三世故。現在不定。皆不對自所緣境說遍不遍。論應辨諸事至及離系耶。經部問也。若有過．未即合是常。過．未若無。不可說系及不繫也。
論。毗婆沙師至諸相合故。述有部宗 去．來定有而非是常 立宗 由與有為諸相合故 立因。
論。為此所立決定增明。已下一頌。第二引理教證三世有也。
論曰三世實有。此立宗也。
論。所以者何。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：以相似法對相似法作問答。因為以『世』（時間）來確定，所以稱為『歷六』。以不相似法對不相似法作問答。因為以『世』來確定，以一對一的關係，所以稱為『小七』。以相似法對不相似法作問答。因為以『世』來確定，以二對一，乃至以八對一，所以稱為『大七』。這就是差別所在。如果共同的相狀使人迷惑，就不同於這種回答。\n\n有人問：『有沒有過去所見的煩惱結縛，也能夠繫縛未來？』回答說：『是的。』\n\n又問：『有沒有未來所見的煩惱結縛，也能夠繫縛過去？』回答說：『是的。』這是以相同的問題對相同的問題，用肯定的語句回答。如果過去、未來相對於現在，那麼過去、未來必定繫縛。現在如果產生，也就被繫縛。\n\n論：其餘一切都能繫縛這件事。這是解釋共同相狀的迷惑。\n\n『見、疑、無明』中的無明，是不共無明。相應的無明，如所相應的情況所說。這種見、疑等煩惱，在過去、未來都普遍繫縛三世。現在則不一定。因此過去、未來都是遍行煩惱。因為遍行於三世。現在再總括敘述：與意識相應的未來貪等煩惱，無論產生與否，都是遍行煩惱。因為遍行於三世。過去、現在則不一定。與五識相應的貪等煩惱，只有未來不產生才是遍行煩惱。因為遍行於三世。過去、現在以及產生，一定不是遍行煩惱。共同相狀的煩惱，過去、未來都是遍行煩惱。因為遍行於三世。現在則不一定。這些都不是針對自身所緣境來說遍不遍。\n\n論：應該辨別諸事，以及離系嗎？這是經部的提問。如果存在過去、未來，就等同於常。如果過去、未來不存在，就不可說繫縛與不繫縛。\n\n論：毗婆沙師說，諸相聚合的緣故。這是敘述有部的宗義。\n\n過去、未來必定存在，但不是常。——這是立宗。\n\n因為與有為法的諸相聚合的緣故。——這是立因。\n\n論：爲了這個所立的宗義，決定增明。以下一頌，第二是引用理證和教證來證明三世存在。\n\n論曰：三世是真實存在的。——這是立宗。\n\n論：為什麼呢？ English version: Question and answer based on similar dharmas. Because it is determined by 'time' (世), it is called 'Li Liu' (歷六). Question and answer based on dissimilar dharmas. Because it is determined by 'time', and it is a one-to-one relationship, it is called 'Xiao Qi' (小七). Question and answer based on similar dharmas against dissimilar dharmas. Because it is determined by 'time', with a two-to-one relationship, up to an eight-to-one relationship, it is called 'Da Qi' (大七). This is the difference. If common characteristics cause confusion, then this answer is different.\n\nSomeone asks: 'Is there a past view-bond (見結 - Jian Jie) that can also bind the future?' The answer is: 'Yes.'\n\nAgain, someone asks: 'Is there a future view-bond that can also bind the past?' The answer is: 'Yes.' This is asking the same question with the same question, answering with an affirmative statement. If the past and future are relative to the present, then the past and future are certainly bound. If the present arises, it is also bound.\n\nTreatise: All the rest can bind this matter. This explains the confusion of common characteristics.\n\n'View (見 - Jian), Doubt (疑 - Yi), Ignorance (無明 - Wu Ming)'—the ignorance here is uncommon ignorance. Corresponding ignorance is as described in the corresponding situation. These views, doubts, etc., in the past and future, universally bind the three times (三世 - San Shi). The present is uncertain. Therefore, the past and future are all pervasive afflictions. Because they pervade the three times. Now, to summarize: future greed, etc., that are associated with consciousness, whether they arise or not, are all pervasive afflictions. Because they pervade the three times. The past and present are uncertain. Greed, etc., that are associated with the five consciousnesses, only the future not arising is a pervasive affliction. Because it pervades the three times. The past, present, and arising are definitely not pervasive afflictions. Afflictions with common characteristics, the past and future are all pervasive afflictions. Because they pervade the three times. The present is uncertain. These are not discussed in terms of pervasiveness or non-pervasiveness in relation to their own objects.\n\nTreatise: Should one distinguish between various matters and liberation (離系 - Li Xi)? This is a question from the Sautrantika school (經部 - Jing Bu). If the past and future exist, it is equivalent to permanence. If the past and future do not exist, it cannot be said to be bound or unbound.\n\nTreatise: The Vaibhashika masters (毗婆沙師 - Pi Po Sha Shi) say, because of the aggregation of various characteristics. This is a description of the Sarvastivada school's (有部 - You Bu) doctrine.\n\nThe past and future certainly exist, but are not permanent. - This is establishing the thesis.\n\nBecause they are aggregated with the characteristics of conditioned dharmas (有為法 - You Wei Fa). - This is establishing the reason.\n\nTreatise: For this established thesis, to definitely clarify. The following verse, the second is to cite logical proofs and scriptural proofs to prove the existence of the three times.\n\nTreatise says: The three times are truly existent. - This is establishing the thesis.\n\nTreatise: Why is that?
【English Translation】 English version: Question and answer based on similar dharmas. Because it is determined by 'time' (世 - Shì), it is called 'Li Liu' (歷六). Question and answer based on dissimilar dharmas. Because it is determined by 'time', and it is a one-to-one relationship, it is called 'Xiao Qi' (小七). Question and answer based on similar dharmas against dissimilar dharmas. Because it is determined by 'time', with a two-to-one relationship, up to an eight-to-one relationship, it is called 'Da Qi' (大七). This is the difference. If common characteristics cause confusion, then this answer is different.
Someone asks: 'Is there a past view-bond (見結 - Jian Jie) that can also bind the future?' The answer is: 'Yes.'
Again, someone asks: 'Is there a future view-bond that can also bind the past?' The answer is: 'Yes.' This is asking the same question with the same question, answering with an affirmative statement. If the past and future are relative to the present, then the past and future are certainly bound. If the present arises, it is also bound.
Treatise: All the rest can bind this matter. This explains the confusion of common characteristics.
'View (見 - Jian), Doubt (疑 - Yi), Ignorance (無明 - Wu Ming)'—the ignorance here is uncommon ignorance. Corresponding ignorance is as described in the corresponding situation. These views, doubts, etc., in the past and future, universally bind the three times (三世 - San Shi). The present is uncertain. Therefore, the past and future are all pervasive afflictions. Because they pervade the three times. Now, to summarize: future greed, etc., that are associated with consciousness, whether they arise or not, are all pervasive afflictions. Because they pervade the three times. The past and present are uncertain. Greed, etc., that are associated with the five consciousnesses, only the future not arising is a pervasive affliction. Because it pervades the three times. The past, present, and arising are definitely not pervasive afflictions. Afflictions with common characteristics, the past and future are all pervasive afflictions. Because they pervade the three times. The present is uncertain. These are not discussed in terms of pervasiveness or non-pervasiveness in relation to their own objects.
Treatise: Should one distinguish between various matters and liberation (離系 - Li Xi)? This is a question from the Sautrantika school (經部 - Jing Bu). If the past and future exist, it is equivalent to permanence. If the past and future do not exist, it cannot be said to be bound or unbound.
Treatise: The Vaibhashika masters (毗婆沙師 - Pi Po Sha Shi) say, because of the aggregation of various characteristics. This is a description of the Sarvastivada school's (有部 - You Bu) doctrine.
The past and future certainly exist, but are not permanent. - This is establishing the thesis.
Because they are aggregated with the characteristics of conditioned dharmas (有為法 - You Wei Fa). - This is establishing the reason.
Treatise: For this established thesis, to definitely clarify. The following verse, the second is to cite logical proofs and scriptural proofs to prove the existence of the three times.
Treatise says: The three times are truly existent. - This is establishing the thesis.
Treatise: Why is that?
問教理也。
論。由契經中世尊說故。引教答也。
論。謂世尊說至勤修厭舍。引第一經證過去有也。
論。若未來色至勤斷欣求。引經證未來有也。
論。又具二緣至應闕二緣。引第二經證。若去．來是無。緣去．來識應闕所緣緣。即違經說識二緣生。
論。已依聖教至證有去來。結前起后。如文易了。
論。以識起時至識亦應無。第一理也。
論。又已謝業至有現因在。第二理也。
論。由此教理至二世實有。結自宗也。詳薩婆多過．未體有。不同現在之有。過．未體無。不同兔角之無。若同現在。應非過．未。若如兔角。即應不能作境生心 正理論云。謂立去．來非如現有。亦非如彼馬角等無 又云。為境生覺是真有相。譬喻論言。旋火輪我二覺生時境非有故。若一切覺皆有所緣。是則應無勝解作意。又諸世間夢中翳目兩月識等境非有故。正理救云。謂輪覺生非全無境。即火㷮色速于余方周旋而生為此覺境。然火㷮色體實非輪。而覺生時謂為輪者。是覺于境行相顛倒。非此輪覺緣無境生。我覺亦應準此而釋。謂此我覺即緣色等蘊為境故。唯有行相非我謂我顛倒而生。非謂所緣亦有顛倒。勝解作意準此應起。謂瑜伽師見少相已。自勝解力。于所見中起廣行相生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：關於教理的提問。
答：根據契經中世尊的說法，這是引用教義來回答。
答：世尊說要勤修厭舍（通過精勤修行，對世間生起厭離和捨棄之心）。這是引用第一部經來證明過去是存在的。
答：如果未來的色（未來的物質現象）要勤斷欣求（通過精勤修行，斷除對未來的貪求），這是引用經文來證明未來是存在的。
答：如果具備兩種因緣（名色）才能生識，那麼缺少兩種因緣（名色）就應該無法生識。這是引用第二部經來證明。如果過去和未來不存在，那麼緣於過去和未來的識就應該缺少所緣緣（生起意識所依賴的客觀對像），這與經中所說『識由二緣而生』相違背。
答：已經依據聖教證明了過去和未來是存在的，這是承上啟下。文義容易理解。
答：如果意識生起時，過去和未來不存在，那麼意識也應該不存在。這是第一個理由。
答：另外，已經消逝的業（行為）仍然能夠產生影響，所以有現在的因存在。這是第二個理由。
答：由此教義和道理可以得出結論，過去和未來都是真實存在的。這是總結本宗的觀點。詳細來說，薩婆多部（一切有部）認為過去和未來的體是存在的，但不同於現在的存在。過去和未來不是沒有體性，也不同於兔角（虛無之物）的沒有。如果和現在一樣，就不應該被稱為過去和未來。如果像兔角一樣，就不能作為所緣境生起意識。《正理論》說：『建立過去和未來，不是像現在一樣存在，也不是像馬角一樣完全不存在。』又說：『作為所緣境生起覺知，這是真實存在的相。』《譬喻論》說：『旋轉的火輪和我（個人）的兩種覺知生起時，所緣境並非真實存在。』如果一切覺知都必須有所緣，那麼就不應該有勝解作意（通過深刻理解而產生的專注）。另外，世間夢中、翳目（眼病）所見的兩月等，其所緣境並非真實存在。《正理論》解釋說：『輪的覺知生起並非完全沒有所緣境，而是火的快速旋轉形成了這種覺知的所緣境。然而，火的體性並非輪，而覺知生起時認為是輪，這是覺知對於所緣境的行相顛倒，並非輪的覺知緣于不存在的境而生起。』我的覺知也應該按照這個來解釋，即我的覺知是緣於色等五蘊為境，只是行相上將非我執著為我，這是顛倒的，並非所緣境也有顛倒。勝解作意也應該按照這個來生起，即瑜伽師看到少許相之後，憑藉自己的勝解力，在所見之中生起廣大的行相。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: A question concerning doctrine.
Answer: Based on what the World-Honored One said in the sutras, this is answering by quoting the teachings.
Answer: The World-Honored One said to diligently cultivate revulsion and renunciation (through diligent practice, generate a sense of revulsion and abandonment towards the world). This is quoting the first sutra to prove that the past exists.
Answer: If future form (future material phenomena) is to be diligently severed from desire (through diligent practice, cut off craving for the future), this is quoting the sutras to prove that the future exists.
Answer: If two conditions (nama and rupa, name and form) are required for consciousness to arise, then the absence of two conditions (nama and rupa) should prevent consciousness from arising. This is quoting the second sutra to prove it. If the past and future do not exist, then consciousness arising from the past and future should lack the objective support (the objective condition upon which consciousness depends), which contradicts the sutra that says 'consciousness arises from two conditions'.
Answer: Having already proven the existence of the past and future based on the sacred teachings, this connects the preceding and introduces the following. The meaning of the text is easily understood.
Answer: If the past and future do not exist when consciousness arises, then consciousness should also not exist. This is the first reason.
Answer: Furthermore, actions (karma) that have already passed can still produce effects, so there is a present cause. This is the second reason.
Answer: From these teachings and reasons, it can be concluded that the past and future are truly existent. This is summarizing the view of our school. In detail, the Sarvastivadins (the 'All Exists' school) believe that the substance of the past and future exists, but it is different from the existence of the present. The past and future are not without substance, nor are they like a rabbit's horn (a non-existent thing). If they were the same as the present, they should not be called the past and future. If they were like a rabbit's horn, they could not serve as objects for the arising of consciousness. The Abhidharmakosabhasya says: 'Establishing the past and future is not like the existing present, nor is it like the non-existence of a horse's horn.' It also says: 'To serve as an object for the arising of awareness is the characteristic of true existence.' The * दृष्टान्त * says: 'When the awareness of a rotating fire wheel and the awareness of 'I' (self) arise, the objects are not truly existent.' If all awareness must have an object, then there should be no adhimoksha (decisive cognition) and manaskara (attention). Furthermore, the objects in dreams and the double moons seen by those with eye disease are not truly existent. The Abhidharmakosabhasya explains: 'The awareness of a wheel arising is not completely without an object, but rather the rapid rotation of the fire creates the object for this awareness. However, the substance of the fire is not a wheel, but when awareness arises, it is perceived as a wheel. This is the awareness's distorted perception of the object, not that the awareness of the wheel arises from a non-existent object.' The awareness of 'I' should also be explained in this way, that is, the awareness of 'I' takes the five skandhas (aggregates) such as form as its object, but it is only the aspect of clinging to what is not self as self that is distorted, not that the object is also distorted. Adhimoksha and manaskara should arise in this way, that is, a yogi, after seeing a small sign, uses their power of adhimoksha to generate a vast aspect within what is seen.
如是覺。此覺即緣諸蘊為境。住空閑者作如是言。如是相生是勝定果。謂勝定力于定位中引廣相生。如所變化夢緣過去曾所更境。如人夢中見兔有角。曾於異處。見兔。見角。今于夢中由心惛倒。謂於一處和合追憶 由根有翳取境不明。故於境中起顛倒解。行相雖倒。境實非無。以翳目人要有色處見種種色。非全無色 異此。則應無色處見 謂眼識生但見一月。由根變異發識不明。迷亂覺生謂有多月。非謂此覺緣非有生。即以月輪為所緣境。若不爾者。無處應見。既無月處此識不生。故此即緣月輪為境。更有立破。恐繁不述。
論。若自謂是至非此部攝。簡別宗也。分別說部者。說義有是有非。更須分別故。名分別說部。舊婆沙云毗婆阇婆提訛也。新婆沙云毗婆阇縛地。毗婆此云分別。縛地此云說。宗輪論云。飲光部計。若業果已熟則無。果未熟則有 彼計同分別說部。
論。今此部中差別有幾。自下一頌。第三建立三世。
論曰至非體有異。此敘法救釋也。三世法。體無別。類有異也。
論。如破金器至非舍顯色。舉喻顯也。
論。如是諸法至非捨得體。此法合也。如金是一。改瓶為瓫。舍瓶得瓫。非得舍金。
論。尊者妙音至離過．未相。此述第二計也。妙音意說。諸有為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如是覺（如此的覺悟）。此覺即緣諸蘊（skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）為境。住空閑者作如是言：『如是相生是勝定果（殊勝禪定的結果）。』謂勝定力于定位中引廣相生，如所變化夢緣過去曾所更境。如人夢中見兔有角，曾於異處見兔、見角，今于夢中由心惛倒，謂於一處和合追憶。由根有翳（眼有翳障）取境不明，故於境中起顛倒解。行相雖倒，境實非無。以翳目人要有色處見種種色，非全無色。異此，則應無色處見。謂眼識生但見一月，由根變異發識不明，迷亂覺生謂有多月，非謂此覺緣非有生，即以月輪為所緣境。若不爾者，無處應見。既無月處此識不生，故此即緣月輪為境。更有立破，恐繁不述。 論：若自謂是至非此部攝。簡別宗也。分別說部者，說義有是有非，更須分別故，名分別說部。舊婆沙云毗婆阇婆提（Vibhajyavadin）訛也。新婆沙云毗婆阇縛地（Vibhajyavadin）。毗婆此云分別，縛地此云說。《宗輪論》云：飲光部（Kasyapiya）計，若業果已熟則無，果未熟則有。彼計同分別說部。 論：今此部中差別有幾？自下一頌。第三建立三世。 論曰至非體有異。此敘法救釋也。三世法，體無別，類有異也。 論：如破金器至非舍顯色。舉喻顯也。 論：如是諸法至非捨得體。此法合也。如金是一，改瓶為瓫，舍瓶得瓫，非得舍金。 論：尊者妙音至離過．未相。此述第二計也。妙音意說，諸有為（conditioned phenomena）
【English Translation】 English version: Thus is the awareness. This awareness takes the skandhas (aggregates of existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) as its object. Those dwelling in solitude say thus: 'Such arising is the result of superior samadhi (concentration).' It means the power of superior samadhi, within the state of concentration, induces extensive arising, like a dream that transforms and relies on past experiences. For example, in a dream, one sees a rabbit with horns, having seen a rabbit and horns in different places before. Now, in the dream, due to mental confusion, one recalls and combines them in one place. Because the sense organs are obscured (eyes have cataracts), the perception of objects is unclear, thus giving rise to distorted understanding of the object. Although the appearance is distorted, the object is not entirely non-existent. For a person with cataracts, in a place with color, they will see various colors, not a complete absence of color. Otherwise, one should see in a place without color. It is said that when eye consciousness arises, one only sees one moon, but due to the alteration of the sense organs, the arising of consciousness is unclear, and a confused awareness arises, thinking there are multiple moons. This does not mean that this awareness arises from something non-existent; it takes the lunar disc as its object. If not, there would be nowhere to see it. Since there is no place with the moon, this consciousness would not arise. Therefore, this awareness takes the lunar disc as its object. There are further arguments for and against, but I will not elaborate to avoid prolixity. Treatise: 'If one claims to be, it is not included in this school.' This distinguishes the schools. The Vibhajyavadin (School of Distinctions) speaks of meanings that are both existent and non-existent, requiring further distinction, hence the name Vibhajyavadin. The old Vibhasa calls it 'Vipashyavadin,' which is a corruption. The new Vibhasa calls it 'Vibhajyavadin.' 'Vibhajya' means 'distinction,' and 'vadin' means 'speaker.' The Samayabhedoparacanacakra states: 'The Kasyapiya (Drinkers of Light) school believes that if the result of karma is ripe, it is non-existent; if the result is not ripe, it is existent.' Their view is the same as the Vibhajyavadin. Treatise: 'How many differences are there in this school?' The following verse. Third, establishing the three times (past, present, future). Treatise says to not have different entities. This narrates Dharma's rescue explanation. The three times of Dharma, the entities are not different, the categories are different. Treatise: 'Like breaking a golden vessel to not lose the manifest color.' This uses a metaphor to illustrate. Treatise: 'Thus all dharmas to not lose the obtained entity.' This combines the dharmas. Like gold is one, changing a bottle into a pot, discarding the bottle and obtaining the pot, not discarding and obtaining the gold. Treatise: 'Venerable Myo-on to be apart from the past and future aspects.' This narrates the second calculation. Myo-on's intention says, all conditioned phenomena
法有三種相。謂過去．現在．未來。正與一合。二不名離。從合得名。不從不離。
論。如人正染至不名離染。舉喻顯也。
論。尊者世友至非體有異。此述第三計也。此師意說。諸有為法有其三位。謂過去．現在．未來法。體是一。隨位名異。
論。如運一籌至置千名千。舉喻顯也。
論。尊者覺天至立名有異。此述第四計也。彼師意說。待過．現故名為未來。待現．未故名為過去。待過．未故名為現在。
論。如一女人名母名女。舉喻顯也。
論。此四種說一切有中。已下論主評彈也。
論。第一執法至外道朋中。出第一師同外道過也。
論。第二所立至三世相故。出第二師世雜亂過也。
論。人于妻室至何義為同。出法．喻不同過也。
論。第四所立至類亦應然。出第四計過也。過去中有前後三剎那。對前二應名未來。對后二應名過去。對前後應名現在。現在對前兩剎那應名未來。對后兩念應名過去。對前後．念后應名現。未來類思。
論。故此四中第三最善。評第三計也。
論。以約作用至非體有殊。出善所以也。
論。此已具知至何謂去．來。第四破三世有也。此經部難也。
論。豈不前言約作用立。有部答也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 法有三種狀態（相）：過去、現在、未來。它們真實地結合在一起，如果認為它們是分離的，那就錯了。狀態的名稱是從結合中產生的，而不是從分離中產生的。
論：就像一個人正在染色，直到不再被稱為未染色一樣。這是用比喻來闡明。
論：尊者世友認為，過去、現在、未來法的體性並沒有不同。這是對第三種觀點的陳述。這位論師的意思是說，所有有為法都有三種狀態：過去、現在、未來。它們的體性是相同的，只是隨著狀態的不同而名稱不同。
論：就像移動一個籌碼，放在不同的位置就有了不同的數值一樣。這是用比喻來闡明。
論：尊者覺天認為，由於依賴過去和現在，所以稱為未來；由於依賴現在和未來，所以稱為過去；由於依賴過去和未來，所以稱為現在。這是對第四種觀點的陳述。那位論師的意思是說，依賴於過去和現在的緣故，所以才有了未來的說法；依賴於現在和未來的緣故，所以才有了過去的說法；依賴於過去和未來的緣故，所以才有了現在的說法。
論：就像一個女人，既可以被稱為母親，也可以被稱為女兒一樣。這是用比喻來闡明。
論：以上四種說法，都出自一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的論師。以下是論主的評論和駁斥。
論：第一種觀點執著於法的實體，與外道（Tīrthika）的觀點相同。指出第一位論師的觀點與外道相同。
論：第二種觀點認為，過去、現在、未來三種狀態混雜在一起。指出第二位論師的觀點導致了三世的混亂。
論：如果一個人對妻子做某些事，那麼法和比喻有什麼相同之處呢？指出法和比喻的不同之處。
論：第四種觀點也會導致類似的錯誤。指出第四種觀點的錯誤。過去的狀態中有前、中、后三個剎那（kṣaṇa），相對於前兩個剎那，應該被稱為未來；相對於后兩個剎那，應該被稱為過去；相對於前後兩個剎那，應該被稱為現在。現在相對於前面的兩個剎那，應該被稱為未來；相對於後面的兩個剎那，應該被稱為過去；相對於前後兩個剎那，應該被稱為現在。未來也可以這樣類推。
論：因此，在這四種觀點中，第三種觀點最好。評論第三種觀點。
論：因為它是根據作用來區分的，而不是根據體性的不同來區分的。說明第三種觀點好的原因。
論：如果已經知道了這些，那麼什麼是過去和未來呢？這是第四種觀點對三世存在的駁斥。這是經部（Sautrāntika）的詰難。
論：難道前面不是說過，是根據作用來建立的嗎？這是有部（Sarvāstivāda）的回答。
【English Translation】 English version The Dharma has three characteristics (lakṣaṇas): past, present, and future. They truly exist in conjunction, and it is incorrect to consider them separate. The names of the states arise from their combination, not from their separation.
Treatise: It is like a person being dyed until they are no longer called undyed. This is illustrated with a metaphor.
Treatise: Venerable Vasumitra (Shi You) believes that the nature of the past, present, and future dharmas is not different. This is a statement of the third view. This teacher means that all conditioned dharmas have three states: past, present, and future. Their nature is the same, only the names differ according to the state.
Treatise: It is like moving a counter; placing it in different positions gives it different numerical values. This is illustrated with a metaphor.
Treatise: Venerable Buddhadeva (Jue Tian) believes that because of dependence on the past and present, it is called the future; because of dependence on the present and future, it is called the past; because of dependence on the past and future, it is called the present. This is a statement of the fourth view. That teacher means that because of dependence on the past and present, there is the saying of the future; because of dependence on the present and future, there is the saying of the past; because of dependence on the past and future, there is the saying of the present.
Treatise: It is like a woman who can be called both a mother and a daughter. This is illustrated with a metaphor.
Treatise: The above four views all come from the Sarvāstivāda teachers. The following are the treatise master's comments and refutations.
Treatise: The first view clings to the substance of the Dharma and is the same as the view of the Tīrthikas (外道). It points out that the first teacher's view is the same as that of the Tīrthikas.
Treatise: The second view holds that the three states of past, present, and future are mixed together. It points out that the second teacher's view leads to confusion of the three times.
Treatise: If a person does certain things to his wife, then what is the similarity between the Dharma and the metaphor? It points out the difference between the Dharma and the metaphor.
Treatise: The fourth view also leads to similar errors. It points out the error of the fourth view. In the past state, there are three kṣaṇas (剎那): before, middle, and after. Relative to the first two kṣaṇas, it should be called the future; relative to the last two kṣaṇas, it should be called the past; relative to the front and back two kṣaṇas, it should be called the present. The present, relative to the previous two kṣaṇas, should be called the future; relative to the following two kṣaṇas, it should be called the past; relative to the front and back two kṣaṇas, it should be called the present. The future can also be inferred in this way.
Treatise: Therefore, among these four views, the third view is the best. Comments on the third view.
Treatise: Because it is distinguished according to function, not according to the difference in nature. Explains the reason why the third view is good.
Treatise: If these are already known, then what are the past and the future? This is the fourth view's refutation of the existence of the three times. This is the challenge of the Sautrāntika (經部).
Treatise: Didn't it say earlier that it was established according to function? This is the Sarvāstivāda's (有部) answer.
論。若爾現在至有何作用。經部難也。
論。彼豈不能取果與果。有部答也。雖無見色等用。而有取果．與果用也。
論。是則過去至世相應雜。經部難也。汝以取果．與果以為作用者。過去同類異熟因等。唯能與果不能取果。現在異熟因等。唯能取果不能與果。此即作用半有。半無。應名現在。亦名過．未。一世之中有三世故。世雜亂也。正理救云。我宗說作用者謂是取果。取果之用定在現在。自餘力用並是功能。我宗然作用有無立其三世。非功能也 今詳。正理若作此釋。即有等無間緣現在取果違婆沙過。
論。已略推徴次當廣破。自下。第四一頌廣破。文有四節。一破用分三世。二破與有為相合。三通引二經。四破二理。
論曰至時有時無。釋頌上句何礙用三字 若說法自體恒有者。牒有部計也 應一切時能起作用。難有部也 汝計有用名現在。無用名過．未者。用依于體。體既恒有。用亦應然。誰礙此用時有。時無。
論。若謂眾緣至許常有故。牒救非也。眾緣和合即有作用。眾緣未合即無作用。由此作用時有時無。此救非理。即此眾緣亦許常有。由何得有和合．不和合時。
論又此作用至有餘作用。重破也。若作用有名現在。無名去．來。此去．來．今由何
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如果這樣，現在（adya）（指現在的時間）還有什麼作用？經部（Sautrāntika）對此提出質疑。 論：難道它不能取果和與果嗎？有部（Sarvāstivāda）回答說：雖然沒有見色等作用，但有取果和與果的作用。 論：這樣的話，過去（atīta）就會與世（loka）相應混雜。經部提出質疑：你以取果和與果作為作用，過去的同類異熟因等，只能與果而不能取果；現在的異熟因等，只能取果而不能與果。這就是作用一半有，一半無。應該名為現在，也名為過去、未來（anāgata）。一個世中存在三個世，所以世就混雜了。正理（Nyāya）救釋說：我宗所說的作用是指取果，取果的作用一定在現在。其餘的力用都是功能。我宗以作用的有無來確立三世，而不是功能。現在詳細分析，如果正理作出這樣的解釋，那麼等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya）現在取果就違背了《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）。 論：已經略微推究，接下來應當廣泛破斥。從下面開始，第四部分用一頌來廣泛破斥。文有四個部分：一、破斥作用分為三世；二、破斥與有為相合；三、引用兩部經；四、破斥兩種道理。 論曰：到有時有時無。解釋頌的上句『何礙用三字』。如果說法自體恒常存在，這是照錄有部的觀點。應該在一切時候都能產生作用，這是對有部的責難。你認為有用名為現在，無用名為過去、未來，用依賴於體，體既然恒常存在，用也應該如此。誰妨礙這個用有時有，有時無呢？ 論：如果認為眾緣和合就有作用，眾緣未和合就沒有作用，因此作用有時有時無。這是照錄救釋，但這是不對的。因為這些眾緣也被認為是恒常存在的，怎麼會有和合、不和合的時候呢？ 論：又，這個作用有名現在，無名過去、未來。這個過去、現在、未來是由什麼決定的呢？還有其他的作用嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: Discussion: If so, what is the function of the present (adya) (referring to present time)? The Sautrāntika school questions this. Discussion: Can it not take effect and give effect? The Sarvāstivāda school answers: Although there is no function such as seeing form, there is the function of taking effect and giving effect. Discussion: In that case, the past (atīta) will be mixed up with the world (loka) accordingly. The Sautrāntika school raises a question: You take 'taking effect' and 'giving effect' as functions. The past homogeneous vipāka-hetu (resultant cause) and so on can only give effect but cannot take effect; the present vipāka-hetu and so on can only take effect but cannot give effect. This means that the function is half existent and half non-existent. It should be called the present, and also called the past and the future (anāgata). There are three times in one world, so the worlds are mixed up. The Nyāya school offers a solution: What our school refers to as function is 'taking effect', and the function of 'taking effect' is definitely in the present. The remaining forces are all functions. Our school establishes the three times based on the existence or non-existence of function, not based on function. Now, upon detailed analysis, if the Nyāya school makes such an explanation, then the immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya) taking effect in the present contradicts the Vibhāṣā. Discussion: Having briefly investigated, next we should extensively refute. From below, the fourth part uses one verse to extensively refute. The text has four sections: 1. Refuting the division of function into three times; 2. Refuting the combination with conditioned existence; 3. Quoting two sutras; 4. Refuting two reasons. Discussion says: 'Until sometimes existent and sometimes non-existent.' Explaining the upper sentence of the verse 'What hinders the use of the three words'. If the dharma's self-nature is said to be constantly existent, this is a direct quote of the Sarvāstivāda's view. It should be able to produce function at all times, this is a criticism of the Sarvāstivāda. You believe that having function is called the present, and not having function is called the past and the future. Function depends on the substance, and since the substance is constantly existent, the function should also be so. Who hinders this function from being sometimes existent and sometimes non-existent? Discussion: If it is thought that function exists when various conditions are combined, and function does not exist when various conditions are not combined, therefore function is sometimes existent and sometimes non-existent. This is a direct quote of the solution, but it is not correct. Because these various conditions are also considered to be constantly existent, how can there be times of combination and non-combination? Discussion: Also, this function is named the present when it exists, and named the past and the future when it does not exist. What determines this past, present, and future? Is there any other function?
作用。此釋頌上句下三字。用云何也 用字兩向用。向上何礙用。向下用云何也。
論。若此作用至作用是有救也。
論。則無為故至法名去來。此破轉救也。若作用非去．來．今而得言有。即有二過。一同無為過。二建立宗過也。
論。若許作用至有此過先。有部救也。即是釋頌第二句無異二字。
論。若爾所立至世義不成。破也。釋頌第二句下三字。世便壞也。
論。何為不成。有部反問也。
論。以有為法至名過去。出三世不成所以也。
論。彼復應說至名為已滅。釋頌第三句也。若謂法體如現在有先何所闕彼未有故名未已生。后復闕何彼已無故名為已滅。
論。故不許法至皆不成立。此總結也。已上破就作用分三世也。
論。然彼所說至生滅理無故。第二破有為相合也。
論。許體恒有至所未曾有。破也。
論。依如是義至此真自在作。引頌破也。文中有三。一生滅理無破。雖與相合。體常有故生滅理無。二性．體無別破。體．性無別。體常性無常所未曾有故。第三頌結也。如文可知。
論。又彼所言至如現實有。此第三通引二經也。就中有二。一通世尊說有去．來。二通世尊二緣生識此即初也。經部師云。我等亦說有去．來．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：作用。此釋頌上句下三字。用『云何』也。『用』字兩向用。向上何礙用。向下用云何也。
論：若此作用至作用是有救也。
論：則無為故至法名去來。此破轉救也。若作用非去、來、今而得言有。即有二過。一同無為過。二建立宗過也。
論：若許作用至有此過先。有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）救也。即是釋頌第二句『無異』二字。
論：若爾所立至世義不成。破也。釋頌第二句下三字。『世便壞』也。
論：何為不成。有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）反問也。
論：以有為法至名過去。出三世不成所以也。
論：彼復應說至名為已滅。釋頌第三句也。若謂法體如現在有先何所闕彼未有故名未已生。后復闕何彼已無故名為已滅。
論：故不許法至皆不成立。此總結也。已上破就作用分三世也。
論：然彼所說至生滅理無故。第二破有為相合也。
論：許體恒有至所未曾有。破也。
論：依如是義至此真自在作。引頌破也。文中有三。一生滅理無破。雖與相合。體常有故生滅理無。二性、體無別破。體、性無別。體常性無常所未曾有故。第三頌結也。如文可知。
論：又彼所言至如現實有。此第三通引二經也。就中有二。一通世尊說有去、來。二通世尊二緣生識此即初也。經部師云。我等亦說有去、來。
【English Translation】 English version: Action. This explains the last three words of the first line of the verse. What does 'action' mean? The word 'action' is used in two directions. What prevents its use upwards? What does 'action' mean downwards?
Treatise: If this action leads to action, there is a remedy.
Treatise: Then, because of non-action, the law is named 'gone and come'. This refutes the reversed remedy. If action is said to exist without going, coming, or being present, there are two faults: first, the fault of being the same as non-action; second, the fault of establishing a doctrine.
Treatise: If action is permitted until this fault exists first. The Sarvastivada (一切有部) school offers a remedy. This explains the words 'no difference' in the second line of the verse.
Treatise: If so, what is established until the worldly meaning is not achieved. Refutation. Explains the last three words of the second line of the verse. 'The world is then destroyed'.
Treatise: Why is it not achieved? The Sarvastivada (一切有部) school asks in return.
Treatise: Because conditioned dharmas lead to the name 'past'. Explains why the three times are not achieved.
Treatise: They should also say that it leads to the name 'already ceased'. Explains the third line of the verse. If it is said that the substance of the dharma is like the present, what was lacking before? Because it did not exist, it is called 'not yet born'. What is lacking later? Because it no longer exists, it is called 'already ceased'.
Treatise: Therefore, it is not permitted that dharmas lead to all being unestablished. This is the conclusion. The above refutation is based on dividing the three times according to action.
Treatise: However, what they say leads to the principle of no arising and ceasing. The second refutation is the combination of conditioned characteristics.
Treatise: Permitting the substance to be constant leads to what has never existed. Refutation.
Treatise: According to this meaning, it leads to this true self-mastery. Quoting a verse for refutation. There are three points in the text: first, the refutation of the principle of no arising and ceasing. Although combined with characteristics, because the substance is constant, there is no principle of arising and ceasing. Second, the refutation of no difference between nature and substance. There is no difference between substance and nature. Because the substance is constant and the nature is impermanent, what has never existed. The third verse concludes. As can be known from the text.
Treatise: Moreover, what they say leads to being like the reality that exists. This is the third general quotation from two sutras. There are two points: first, generally, the World-Honored One speaks of going and coming. Second, generally, the World-Honored One speaks of consciousness arising from two conditions. This is the first point. The Sutra School teacher says, 'We also speak of going and coming.'
今。謂曾有等名為有也。過去有因。未來有果。故名為有 又解。現有果故知過去有因。現有因故知未來有果。不同有部去．來如現實有。
論。誰言彼有如現在世。有部不許也。
論。非如現在彼有云何。經部反問也。
論。彼有去．來二世自性。有部答也。
論。此復應詰至是去．來性。若三世俱有。如何可言不是現在是去．來性。經部破有部也。
論。故說彼有至非體實有。經部述自宗非有部也。
論。世尊為遮至有無法故。經部述經實無。說有意也。有聲通顯有．無法故。
論。如世間說至其義亦應爾。喻合也。如世間說。有燈前日無。有燈昨日無。說有燈無時。豈有燈耶。爾時無燈而言有燈。故知有聲非唯顯于有法 有燈已滅。亦準於此 既言已滅。即是無燈而言燈。故知于無說有。
論。若不爾者去．來性不成。經部師云。若不如我說有曾有名有當有名有。如有部立三世有體。去．來性不成。同有體故。
論。若爾何緣至而猶是有。有部引經難也。若謂去．來全無體者。何故世尊說業過去。而猶是有 故知去．來非無。
論。豈彼不許至密說為有。經部通經也。過去造業之時。熏相續中有與果功能。現在身中密說已成能熏為有。
論。若不爾者至過去豈成。經部反難有部也。若過去業於今現實有性。過去豈成應名現在。
論。理必應爾至本無等言。經部引勝義空經所說也。若去．來眼根有實性者。經不應言本無今有有已還無。
論。若謂此言至義已成立。經部逆破有部通經 有部通云。本無者。本無現在今有現在。本有今無者。本有現在今無現在 作如是救此非理也。以現在性與彼眼根體無別故。若無現世性即無眼根。此即顯去．來無眼根體義已成立。
論。又彼所說至體實有者。牒有部引第二經通也。
論。應共尋思至作所緣境。經部兩關徴有部也。
論。若法如意至不應正理。破前關如意作能生緣也。如識緣未來百千劫后當有彼法。或當亦無。彼既未有作用。如何能生今時識也。又涅槃性違一切有漏法生。如何為緣生能緣識。
論。若法但能至亦是所緣。此述第二關與經部同也。
論。若無如何成所緣境。有部難也。過去．未來。汝經部宗既說為無。如何得成識所緣境。
論。我說彼有如成所緣。經部答也。緣過．未境如緣現在成所緣也。
論。如何成所緣。有部未得答意重問也 或是難也。去．來既無。如何成所緣。
論。謂曾有當有至當有亦爾。經部釋難也。若謂過
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：論：如果不是這樣，那麼到達過去怎麼能成立？經部對有部提出反駁。如果過去的業在現在是真實存在的，那麼過去怎麼能成立，應該叫做現在。
論：道理必定應該是這樣，直到『本來沒有』等等這些話。經部引用《勝義空經》所說。如果過去、未來的眼根具有真實自性，那麼經中不應該說『本來沒有現在才有，有了以後又沒有』。
論：如果說這些話直到意義已經成立。經部反過來駁斥有部對經文的解釋。有部解釋說：『本來沒有』，是指本來沒有現在，現在才有現在；『本來有現在，現在沒有』，是指本來有現在，現在沒有現在。這樣解釋是不合理的。因為現在的性質與那個眼根的本體沒有區別。如果沒有現在的性質，就沒有眼根。這說明過去、未來沒有眼根本體的意義已經成立。
論：還有他們所說的直到本體真實存在。這是有部引用第二部經文來解釋。
論：應該共同思考直到作為所緣境。經部用兩個問題來質問有部。
論：如果法像如意寶珠一樣直到不合道理。這是駁斥前一個問題，即如意寶珠作為能生之緣。比如意識緣取未來百千劫后將要存在的法，或者將要不存在的法。那個法既然還沒有作用，怎麼能生起現在的意識呢？還有，涅槃的性質與一切有漏法相違背，怎麼能作為緣生起能緣的意識呢？
論：如果法只是能夠直到也是所緣。這是陳述第二個問題，與經部的觀點相同。
論：如果沒有，怎麼能成為所緣境？有部提出疑問。過去、未來，你們經部宗既然說是沒有，怎麼能成為意識的所緣境？
論：我說它們有，就像成為所緣境一樣。經部回答。緣取過去、未來的境界就像緣取現在一樣成為所緣境。
論：怎麼能成為所緣境？有部沒有理解對方的回答，再次提問，或者說是反駁。過去、未來既然沒有，怎麼能成為所緣境？
論：所謂曾經有，將要有，直到將要有也是這樣。經部解釋疑問。如果說過去
English version: Treatise: If it were not so, how could reaching the past be established? The Sautrantika (Jingbu) school refutes the Sarvastivada (Youbu) school. If past karma has real existence in the present, how could the past be established? It should be called the present.
Treatise: The principle must be so, up to the words 'originally non-existent' etc. The Sautrantika school quotes what is said in the Paramartha-sunyata Sutra (Sheng Yi Kong Jing). If past and future sense organs of sight had real nature, the sutra should not say 'originally non-existent, now existent, having existed, then non-existent again'.
Treatise: If it is said that these words up to the meaning is already established. The Sautrantika school refutes the Sarvastivada school's interpretation of the sutra. The Sarvastivada school explains: 'Originally non-existent' means originally there was no present, now there is present; 'Originally existent, now non-existent' means originally there was present, now there is no present. Such an explanation is unreasonable. Because the nature of the present is not different from the substance of that eye-organ. If there is no nature of the present, there is no eye-organ. This shows that the meaning of the past and future having no eye-organ substance is already established.
Treatise: Also, what they said up to the substance is truly existent. This is the Sarvastivada school quoting the second sutra to explain.
Treatise: We should think together up to acting as the object. The Sautrantika school questions the Sarvastivada school with two questions.
Treatise: If a dharma is like a wish-fulfilling jewel up to it is not reasonable. This refutes the previous question, that the wish-fulfilling jewel acts as a productive cause. For example, consciousness cognizes a dharma that will exist after hundreds of thousands of kalpas in the future, or a dharma that will not exist. Since that dharma has not yet had any function, how can it produce the present consciousness? Also, the nature of Nirvana contradicts the arising of all defiled dharmas, how can it be a condition for producing the cognizing consciousness?
Treatise: If a dharma can only up to it is also an object. This states the second question, which is the same as the Sautrantika school's view.
Treatise: If there is not, how can it become an object? The Sarvastivada school asks. Past and future, since your Sautrantika school says they are non-existent, how can they become the object of consciousness?
Treatise: I say they exist, just like becoming an object. The Sautrantika school answers. Cognizing past and future realms is like cognizing the present, becoming an object.
Treatise: How can it become an object? The Sarvastivada school did not understand the answer and asked again, or rather, refuted. Since the past and future do not exist, how can they become objects?
Treatise: So-called once existed, will exist, up to will exist is also like this. The Sautrantika school explains the question. If it is said that the past
【English Translation】 Treatise: If it were not so, how could reaching the past be established? The Sautrantika (Jingbu) school refutes the Sarvastivada (Youbu) school. If past karma has real existence in the present, how could the past be established? It should be called the present.
Treatise: The principle must be so, up to the words 'originally non-existent' etc. The Sautrantika school quotes what is said in the Paramartha-sunyata Sutra (Sheng Yi Kong Jing). If past and future sense organs of sight had real nature, the sutra should not say 'originally non-existent, now existent, having existed, then non-existent again'.
Treatise: If it is said that these words up to the meaning is already established. The Sautrantika school refutes the Sarvastivada school's interpretation of the sutra. The Sarvastivada school explains: 'Originally non-existent' means originally there was no present, now there is present; 'Originally existent, now non-existent' means originally there was present, now there is no present. Such an explanation is unreasonable. Because the nature of the present is not different from the substance of that eye-organ. If there is no nature of the present, there is no eye-organ. This shows that the meaning of the past and future having no eye-organ substance is already established.
Treatise: Also, what they said up to the substance is truly existent. This is the Sarvastivada school quoting the second sutra to explain.
Treatise: We should think together up to acting as the object. The Sautrantika school questions the Sarvastivada school with two questions.
Treatise: If a dharma is like a wish-fulfilling jewel up to it is not reasonable. This refutes the previous question, that the wish-fulfilling jewel acts as a productive cause. For example, consciousness cognizes a dharma that will exist after hundreds of thousands of kalpas in the future, or a dharma that will not exist. Since that dharma has not yet had any function, how can it produce the present consciousness? Also, the nature of Nirvana contradicts the arising of all defiled dharmas, how can it be a condition for producing the cognizing consciousness?
Treatise: If a dharma can only up to it is also an object. This states the second question, which is the same as the Sautrantika school's view.
Treatise: If there is not, how can it become an object? The Sarvastivada school asks. Past and future, since your Sautrantika school says they are non-existent, how can they become the object of consciousness?
Treatise: I say they exist, just like becoming an object. The Sautrantika school answers. Cognizing past and future realms is like cognizing the present, becoming an object.
Treatise: How can it become an object? The Sarvastivada school did not understand the answer and asked again, or rather, refuted. Since the past and future do not exist, how can they become objects?
Treatise: So-called once existed, will exist, up to will exist is also like this. The Sautrantika school explains the question. If it is said that the past
．未同現有者。何故追憶彼時。但憶曾．有之相 逆觀亦爾。
論。謂如曾現在至未來為有。重廣釋也。
論。若如現有至其理自成。經部進退責有部也。若謂去．來如現有。應成現世。若體現無不同現在。則應許有緣無境識其理自成。
論。若謂去．來至非散亂故。經部牒有部轉計破也。若謂去．來同現在有。但現在色極微聚集。未來．過去極微散亂與現不同。名為過．未者。汝緣過．未色時不取散相。故知不是聚．散有異。
論。又若彼色至乃至廣說。經部條有部轉計破也。又若去．來色同現在有。唯有極微散亂為異。即極微色無聚．散故應是其常。又色唯應極微聚散竟無少分。別名生滅 是則遵崇邪命者論。三同外道過也 棄背善逝至乃至廣說。四違經過也。
論。又非受等至已生時相。受等不成三世過也。
論。若如現有至理亦自成。經部兩關徴也。
論。若體全無至應是所緣。即有部反難經部也。若謂去．來全無體性。仍是所緣。第十三處。十九界等。此能識為何所緣。
論。諸有達無至為何所緣。經部反難有部也。若謂第十三處是無非所緣境。達無十三處者。若不緣無。為何所緣。
論。若謂即緣至彼名為無。破有部轉計。若謂但緣十三處名為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『未同現有者。何故追憶彼時。但憶曾．有之相 逆觀亦爾。』——如果過去和未來與現在不同，為何還要追憶過去？只能回憶起『曾經存在』的相狀，反過來看未來也是一樣。
『論。謂如曾現在至未來為有。重廣釋也。』——論述認為，如同曾經存在、現在存在，直到未來也存在，這是進一步廣泛地解釋。
『論。若如現有至其理自成。經部進退責有部也。若謂去．來如現有。應成現世。若體現無不同現在。則應許有緣無境識其理自成。』——論述認為，如果過去和未來如同現在一樣存在，那麼就應該成為現在世。如果它們的體性與現在沒有不同，那就應該承認有緣于『無』的境界的意識，這個道理自然成立。這是經部對有部的質問。
『論。若謂去．來至非散亂故。經部牒有部轉計破也。若謂去．來同現在有。但現在色極微聚集。未來．過去極微散亂與現不同。名為過．未者。汝緣過．未色時不取散相。故知不是聚．散有異。』——論述認為，如果過去和未來與現在一樣存在，只是現在的色（Rupa）由極微（paramāṇu）聚集而成，而未來和過去的極微是散亂的，與現在不同，所以稱為過去和未來。那麼，你緣於過去和未來的色時，並不取其散亂之相，由此可知，不是聚集和散亂的差異。
『論。又若彼色至乃至廣說。經部條有部轉計破也。又若去．來色同現在有。唯有極微散亂為異。即極微色無聚．散故應是其常。又色唯應極微聚散竟無少分。別名生滅 是則遵崇邪命者論。三同外道過也 棄背善逝至乃至廣說。四違經過也。』——論述認為，如果過去和未來的色與現在一樣存在，只有極微的散亂是差異，那麼極微的色沒有聚集和散亂，就應該是常恒的。而且，色應該只是極微的聚集和散亂，沒有少分其他的生滅。這就是遵從邪命者的理論，與外道相同。拋棄了善逝（Sugata，佛陀），違背了佛經。
『論。又非受等至已生時相。受等不成三世過也。』——論述認為，受（Vedanā）等不是在已經產生時才顯現其相，受等不能成立三世。
『論。若如現有至理亦自成。經部兩關徴也。』——論述認為，如果如同現在一樣存在，這個道理自然成立。這是經部提出的兩個關鍵問題。
『論。若體全無至應是所緣。即有部反難經部也。若謂去．來全無體性。仍是所緣。第十三處。十九界等。此能識為何所緣。』——論述認為，如果過去和未來完全沒有體性，仍然是所緣，那麼第十三處（無色界），十九界（界）等，這個能識（vijñāna）以什麼為所緣？這是有部反駁經部。
『論。諸有達無至為何所緣。經部反難有部也。若謂第十三處是無非所緣境。達無十三處者。若不緣無。為何所緣。』——論述認為，如果第十三處是『無』，不是所緣境，那麼通達『無』的第十三處的人，如果不緣于『無』，又緣于什麼？這是經部反駁有部。
『論。若謂即緣至彼名為無。破有部轉計。若謂但緣十三處名為』——論述認為，如果只是緣于第十三處，就稱之為『無』。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Not the same as what exists now. Why recall that time? Only remember the aspect of 'having once existed'. The reverse is also true.' - If the past and future are not the same as the present, why recall the past? One can only recall the aspect of 'having once existed,' and the same applies in reverse to the future.
'Treatise. Saying that like the past and present, it exists into the future. A further and broader explanation.' - The treatise argues that just as something existed in the past and exists now, it will continue to exist into the future. This is a further and broader explanation.
'Treatise. If like the present, the principle is self-evident. The Sautrāntika school questions the Vaibhāṣika school back and forth. If it is said that the past and future are like the present, they should become the present world. If their essence is no different from the present, then it should be admitted that there is consciousness that cognizes a realm of 'non-existence,' and this principle is self-evident.' - The treatise argues that if the past and future exist like the present, then they should become the present world. If their essence is no different from the present, then it should be admitted that there is consciousness that cognizes a realm of 'non-existence,' and this principle is self-evident. This is the Sautrāntika school questioning the Vaibhāṣika school.
'Treatise. If it is said that the past and future are not scattered. The Sautrāntika school refutes the Vaibhāṣika school's changed argument. If it is said that the past and future exist like the present, but the present's rūpa (form) is a collection of paramāṇu (ultimate particles), while the future and past's paramāṇu are scattered, differing from the present, and thus called past and future, then when you cognize the past and future's rūpa, you do not perceive the scattered aspect. Therefore, it is known that it is not a difference of collection and scattering.' - The treatise argues that if the past and future exist like the present, but the present's form is a collection of ultimate particles, while the future and past's ultimate particles are scattered, differing from the present, and thus called past and future, then when you cognize the past and future's form, you do not perceive the scattered aspect. Therefore, it is known that it is not a difference of collection and scattering.
'Treatise. Moreover, if that form... and so on. The Sautrāntika school refutes the Vaibhāṣika school's changed argument point by point. Moreover, if the past and future's form is the same as the present, with only the scattering of ultimate particles as the difference, then the ultimate particle's form, without collection and scattering, should be constant. Furthermore, form should only be the collection and scattering of ultimate particles, without any small part having a separate name of arising and ceasing. This is then following the theory of the Ajivikas (fatalists), with the fault of being the same as external paths. Abandoning the Sugata (Buddha)... and so on. The fourth is violating the scriptures.' - The treatise argues that if the past and future's form is the same as the present, with only the scattering of ultimate particles as the difference, then the ultimate particle's form, without collection and scattering, should be constant. Furthermore, form should only be the collection and scattering of ultimate particles, without any small part having a separate name of arising and ceasing. This is then following the theory of the fatalists, with the fault of being the same as external paths. Abandoning the Buddha, violating the scriptures.
'Treatise. Moreover, not vedanā (feeling), etc., until the aspect of when it has already arisen. Vedanā, etc., cannot establish the three times.' - The treatise argues that feeling, etc., do not only manifest their aspect when they have already arisen; feeling, etc., cannot establish the three times.
'Treatise. If like the present, the principle is also self-evident. The Sautrāntika school raises two key questions.' - The treatise argues that if it exists like the present, this principle is also self-evident. This is the Sautrāntika school raising two key questions.
'Treatise. If the essence is completely non-existent, it should be what is cognized. This is the Vaibhāṣika school counter-arguing against the Sautrāntika school. If it is said that the past and future have no essence at all, but are still what is cognized, then the thirteenth realm (the formless realm), the nineteen dhātus (elements), etc., what does this consciousness cognize?' - The treatise argues that if the past and future have no essence at all, but are still what is cognized, then the thirteenth realm (the formless realm), the nineteen elements, etc., what does this consciousness cognize? This is the Vaibhāṣika school counter-arguing against the Sautrāntika school.
'Treatise. Those who attain non-existence... what is cognized? The Sautrāntika school counter-arguing against the Vaibhāṣika school. If it is said that the thirteenth realm is non-existence and not a cognizable object, then those who attain the thirteenth realm of non-existence, if they do not cognize non-existence, what do they cognize?' - The treatise argues that if the thirteenth realm is 'non-existence' and not a cognizable object, then those who attain the thirteenth realm of non-existence, if they do not cognize non-existence, what do they cognize? This is the Sautrāntika school counter-arguing against the Vaibhāṣika school.
'Treatise. If it is said that it only cognizes... it is called non-existence. Refuting the Vaibhāṣika school's changed argument. If it is said that it only cognizes the thirteenth realm, it is called'
境者。十三處名是有。今言無者。此乃是撥彼名為無。非稱當也。
論。若又緣聲至為何所緣。經部反徴有部也。
論。若謂即緣至應更發聲。第一關責也。
論。若謂聲無至如何謂無。第二關責也。
論。若謂去．來至其體一故。第三責也。
論。若有少分至有非有境。結成經部義。
論。然菩薩說至無是處者。經部通經也。有部難云。若許緣無能生識者。何故菩薩說世間所無。我知我見無有是處。菩薩既言世間所無。即是無法 我知我見無是處者。即是知見無法無是處也。
論。意說他人至方觀為有。此正通經也。意說。他人懷增上慢。亦于非有妄取現有之相謂為有也。此是世間所無 而言知見我于有方觀為有。唯于有知見。不觀無為有 故言世間所無我知．我見無是處也。
論。若異此者至或有差別。經部出異經部計。不許有緣無識過。若一切覺皆有所緣。既稱境知。何緣得為有為無猶豫不定。或言是色．非色。差別。
論。理必應然至無上是無上。經部重引經印成也。經既言便知有是有。非有是非有。故知非有亦是識境 已上通二經竟 已下破二理也。
論。由此彼說至亦不成因類。破第一理也。
論。又彼所言至理亦不然。經部條第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：『境』（Viṣaya）指的是什麼？答：『十三處』（Trayodaśa-āyatanāni）被稱為『有』（asti）。現在說『無』（nāsti），這只是否定了它們的存在，並非指它們本來就應該是『無』。
論：如果又緣于聲音，那麼所緣的是什麼？這是經部（Sautrāntika）對有部（Sarvāstivāda）的反駁。
論：如果說立即緣于聲音，那麼應該再次發出聲音。這是第一重責難。
論：如果說聲音沒有，那麼如何說是沒有？這是第二重責難。
論：如果說過去和未來，那麼它們的本體是一樣的。這是第三重責難。
論：如果有一小部分，那麼就有非有之境。總結了經部的觀點。
論：然而，菩薩說世間所無，沒有這樣的地方。這是經部對經文的解釋。有部反駁說：如果允許緣于『無』能產生意識，那麼為什麼菩薩說世間所沒有的，『我知道我見沒有這樣的地方』。菩薩既然說世間所沒有，那就是沒有法，『我知道我見沒有這樣的地方』，那就是知見沒有法，沒有這樣的地方。
論：意思是說，其他人懷著增上慢，對於非有的事物妄取現有的表象，認為它存在。這是世間所沒有的。而說知見，我對於『有』才認為是『有』，只對于『有』才有知見，不把『無』看作『有』。所以說世間所沒有的，『我知道我見沒有這樣的地方』。
論：如果不是這樣，或者有差別。經部提出了與經部不同的觀點，不承認有緣于『無』產生意識的過失。如果一切覺知都有所緣，既然稱為『境』知，那麼怎麼會對於『有為』（saṃskṛta）和『無為』（asaṃskṛta）猶豫不定，或者說是『色』（rūpa），或者說『非色』（arūpa），有這樣的差別呢？
論：道理必定應該是這樣，『無上』（anuttara）就是『無上』。經部再次引用經文來印證。經文既然說，便知道『有』是『有』，『非有』是『非有』，所以知道『非有』也是意識的境。以上是解釋兩部經文完畢。以下是破斥兩種理。
論：因此，他們的說法，也不能成立因類。這是破斥第一種理。
論：而且他們所說的，道理也不對。經部條第
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is meant by 'object' (Viṣaya)? Answer: The 'thirteen bases' (Trayodaśa-āyatanāni) are called 'existent' (asti). Now, when we say 'non-existent' (nāsti), this merely denies their existence, it does not mean that they should inherently be 'non-existent'.
Treatise: If one again cognizes sound, what is being cognized? This is the Sautrāntika's counter-argument to the Sarvāstivāda.
Treatise: If it is said that one immediately cognizes sound, then sound should be produced again. This is the first refutation.
Treatise: If it is said that sound does not exist, then how can it be said to not exist? This is the second refutation.
Treatise: If it is said that the past and the future, then their essence is the same. This is the third refutation.
Treatise: If there is a small part, then there is an object that is non-existent. This concludes the Sautrāntika's view.
Treatise: However, the Bodhisattva said that there is no such place in the world. This is the Sautrāntika's explanation of the scripture. The Sarvāstivāda objects: If it is allowed that cognizing 'non-existence' can generate consciousness, then why did the Bodhisattva say that there is no such thing in the world, 'I know, I see that there is no such place'? Since the Bodhisattva said that there is no such thing in the world, that is, there is no dharma. 'I know, I see that there is no such place' means that knowledge and seeing have no dharma, there is no such place.
Treatise: The meaning is that others, harboring excessive pride, mistakenly take the appearance of the non-existent as existent, thinking it exists. This is what is not in the world. And to say knowledge and seeing, I only consider 'existent' as 'existent', only have knowledge and seeing of 'existent', and do not regard 'non-existent' as 'existent'. Therefore, it is said that there is no such thing in the world, 'I know, I see that there is no such place'.
Treatise: If it is not like this, or there is a difference. The Sautrāntika presents a view different from the Sautrāntika, not admitting the fault of consciousness arising from cognizing 'non-existence'. If all awareness has an object, since it is called 'object' knowledge, then how can one be hesitant and uncertain about 'conditioned' (saṃskṛta) and 'unconditioned' (asaṃskṛta), or say it is 'form' (rūpa) or 'formless' (arūpa), having such differences?
Treatise: The principle must be like this, 'supreme' (anuttara) is 'supreme'. The Sautrāntika quotes the scripture again to confirm it. Since the scripture says, one knows that 'existent' is 'existent', 'non-existent' is 'non-existent', so one knows that 'non-existent' is also an object of consciousness. The above is the completion of explaining the two scriptures. The following is the refutation of the two reasons.
Treatise: Therefore, their statement cannot establish the category of cause. This is the refutation of the first reason.
Treatise: Moreover, what they said is also not reasonable. Sautrāntika section
二理非也。如有部計。業現在取果 落謝過去世與果。若業過去是無。誰能與果。
論。非經部師至當廣顯示。述經部計異有部也。經部不同有部計過去業能生當果。經部宗計。業現在時業為先故。引相續身中轉變差別種子令當果生。種現在有。業是曾有。果當有也。
論。若執實有過去．未來。牒有部計出不成因果過也。
論。則一切時至有何功能。第一業無用過也。
論。若謂能生至其理自成。第二違自宗過也。
論。若一切法至能生功能。第三無因用過也。
論。又應顯成至有必不滅。第四同外道過也。
論。若謂能令果成現在。牒救也。救云。雖一切法一切時有。然非一切法一切時現在。令法現在是因作用。
論。如何令果成現在耶。經部重問有部也。
論。若謂引令至余方所。牒計也。
論。則所引果其體應常。第一過也。
論。又無色法當如何引。第二過也。
論。又此所引應體本無。第三過也。
論。若謂但令至其理自成。第四失宗過也。已前諸難。正理論中皆悉有救。恐煩不述。
論。是故此說至非為善說。總結有部非也。
論。若欲善說至所說而說。示善說相也。
論。經如何說。有部問也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二理非也。如果如有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部，佛教部派之一）的觀點，認為業在現在取果，那麼已經落謝的過去世的業如何給予果報？如果業已經過去，是無，那麼誰能給予果報呢？
論：這並非經部（Sautrantika，佛教部派之一，主張一切法皆由因緣和合而生，無實體）的至當廣顯之說。這是敘述經部與有部的不同之處。經部不同於有部，不認為過去的業能夠產生未來的果報。經部的宗義認為，業在現在時，因為業是先決條件，所以能夠引導相續身中的轉變差別種子，使未來的果報產生。種子現在存在，業是曾經存在，果是將來存在。
論：如果執著於過去和未來是真實存在的，這是針對有部的主張，指出其不能成立因果關係的過失。
論：那麼一切時間都存在，還有什麼功能呢？這是第一種過失，即業沒有作用。
論：如果說能夠產生，那麼這個道理自然成立。這是第二種過失，即違背自己的宗義。
論：如果一切法在一切時間都存在，那麼還有什麼能夠產生的功能呢？這是第三種過失，即沒有因的作用。
論：又應該明顯地成立，存在必定不會滅亡。這是第四種過失，即與外道相同。
論：如果說能夠使果報成為現在，這是有部的辯解。辯解說，雖然一切法在一切時間都存在，但並非一切法在一切時間都是現在。使法成為現在是因的作用。
論：如何使果報成為現在呢？這是經部再次詢問有部。
論：如果說引導到其餘的地方，這是有部的計較。
論：那麼所引導的果報，其本體應該永遠存在。這是第一種過失。
論：又無色法應當如何引導呢？這是第二種過失。
論：又這種所引導的，其本體應該是本來不存在的。這是第三種過失。
論：如果說只是使它成為現在，那麼這個道理自然成立。這是第四種過失，即失去宗義。以前的各種責難，在《正理論》中都有救解，恐怕繁瑣，所以不敘述。
論：因此，這種說法不是好的說法。總結有部的觀點是錯誤的。
論：如果想要善說，就應該按照所說的那樣去說。這是展示善說的相貌。
論：經是如何說的呢？這是有部的提問。
【English Translation】 English version The two principles are not correct. If, according to the Sarvastivada's (Everything Exists school, one of the Buddhist schools) view, karma takes effect in the present, how can karma from the past, which has already ceased, give rise to results? If karma has passed and is non-existent, who can give rise to the result?
Treatise: This is not the most appropriate and widely expounded view of the Sautrantika (one of the Buddhist schools, which advocates that all dharmas arise from causes and conditions and have no substance). This describes the differences between the Sautrantika and the Sarvastivada. The Sautrantika differs from the Sarvastivada in that it does not believe that past karma can produce future results. The Sautrantika's doctrine believes that karma in the present, because karma is a prerequisite, can guide the transformation and differentiation of seeds in the continuous body, causing future results to arise. The seed exists now, the karma existed in the past, and the result will exist in the future.
Treatise: If one clings to the idea that the past and future are truly existent, this is directed at the Sarvastivada's claim, pointing out the fault that it cannot establish the relationship of cause and effect.
Treatise: Then everything exists at all times, what function is there? This is the first fault, that karma has no function.
Treatise: If it is said that it can produce, then this principle is naturally established. This is the second fault, that it contradicts one's own doctrine.
Treatise: If all dharmas exist at all times, then what function is there to produce? This is the third fault, that there is no function of cause.
Treatise: Moreover, it should be clearly established that existence will certainly not perish. This is the fourth fault, that it is the same as external paths (non-Buddhist schools).
Treatise: If it is said that it can make the result become present, this is the Sarvastivada's defense. The defense says that although all dharmas exist at all times, not all dharmas are present at all times. Making a dharma present is the function of the cause.
Treatise: How does one make the result become present? This is the Sautrantika questioning the Sarvastivada again.
Treatise: If it is said that it leads to other places, this is the Sarvastivada's calculation.
Treatise: Then the result that is led should be eternally existent in its essence. This is the first fault.
Treatise: Moreover, how should formless dharmas be led? This is the second fault.
Treatise: Moreover, this that is led should be originally non-existent in its essence. This is the third fault.
Treatise: If it is said that it only makes it become present, then this principle is naturally established. This is the fourth fault, that it loses its doctrine. All the previous criticisms have been resolved in the Abhidharmakosha, but I will not describe them for fear of being tedious.
Treatise: Therefore, this statement is not a good statement. In conclusion, the Sarvastivada's view is wrong.
Treatise: If one wants to speak well, one should speak according to what is said. This is showing the appearance of good speech.
Treatise: How does the sutra speak? This is the Sarvastivada's question.
。
論。如契經言至而說有言。經部引經答也。
論。若去．來無至及離系耶。有部難也。經說去．來有能系．所繫。如何說無。
論。彼所生因至得離系名。經部答也 過去煩惱熏相續中有其種子。即此種子是過去果未來世因。有彼果故言有過去。有彼因故言有未來 能系煩惱。能緣去．來。煩惱有故說有去．來。非實有體 所繫縛事。隨眠種子斷故得離系名。雖無去．來。而有去．來煩惱。及所緣事。及離染名也。
論。毗婆沙師至便撥為無。論主先破有部后說存也。
論。有異門故至多剎那故。此明教意甚深隨其異門立名各別。
論。有異門故至即色等滅。此時即一法上說生說滅。
論。有異門故至現在世滅。此明法體雖同世別名異。未來世生現在世滅。
論。有異門故至世所攝故。此明世是總名。生法有別。名生為世標總名也。
論。有異門故至多剎那故。此明未來多念總名為世。生唯是一。故言世中有生。廣如婆沙七十六釋。
論。傍論已了。已下大文第七明斷離系。
論。今應思擇至彼已斷耶。問也。
論若事離系至斷非離系。略答也。
論。其事云何。問也 頌答可知。
論曰至如是應知。于中有其兩類。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
論：正如契經所說，才說有『有』的說法。經部引用契經來回答。
論：如果過去、未來沒有『至』和『離系』，那是什麼？有部提出疑問。經中說過去、未來有能繫縛和所繫縛。怎麼能說沒有呢？
論：由彼所生之因，才能得到『離系』的名稱。經部回答說：過去煩惱熏習相續中有其種子。這個種子是過去果，是未來世的因。因為有彼果，所以說有過去。因為有彼因，所以說有未來。能繫縛的煩惱，能緣於過去、未來。因為有煩惱，所以說有過去、未來，但並非實有自體。所繫縛的事，隨眠（anusaya）的種子斷滅，所以得到『離系』的名稱。雖然沒有過去、未來，但有過去、未來的煩惱，以及所緣的事，以及離染的名稱。
論：毗婆沙師說，便否定為沒有。論主先破斥有部，然後說存在。
論：因為有不同的門徑，乃至因為有多剎那。這說明教義深刻，隨著不同的門徑而建立不同的名稱。
論：因為有不同的門徑，乃至即色等滅。此時即在一個法上說生說滅。
論：因為有不同的門徑，乃至現在世滅。這說明法體雖然相同，但因為世別而名稱不同。未來世生，現在世滅。
論：因為有不同的門徑，乃至為世所攝。這說明『世』是總名。生法有區別，稱生為『世』，是標示總名。
論：因為有不同的門徑，乃至因為有多剎那。這說明未來多唸的總名稱為『世』。生唯獨一個，所以說『世』中有生。詳細內容如《婆沙論》第七十六釋。
論：傍論已經結束。以下是第七大段，說明斷離系。
論：現在應該思考，乃至彼已斷滅了嗎？提問。
論：如果事情離系，乃至斷滅並非離系。簡略回答。
論：那件事是什麼？提問。頌文回答，可知。
論曰：乃至如是應該知道。其中有兩類，一類是……
【English Translation】 English version:
Treatise: As the sutra says, it is only then that one speaks of 'existence.' The Sautrantikas (Sautrāntika) cite the sutra in response.
Treatise: If the past and future do not have 'arrival' and 'freedom from bondage (visaṃyoga),' then what is it? The Sarvāstivādins (Sarvāstivāda) raise a question. The sutra says that the past and future have that which can bind and that which is bound. How can you say that they do not exist?
Treatise: Because of the cause produced by that, one obtains the name 'freedom from bondage.' The Sautrantikas answer: In the continuum of past afflictions, there are seeds. These seeds are the past result and the cause of the future world. Because there is that result, it is said that there is the past. Because there is that cause, it is said that there is the future. Afflictions that can bind can grasp the past and future. Because there are afflictions, it is said that there is the past and future, but they do not have a real substance. The things that are bound: because the seeds of latent tendencies (anusaya) are cut off, one obtains the name 'freedom from bondage.' Although there is no past and future, there are the afflictions of the past and future, as well as the objects grasped, and the name of being free from defilement.
Treatise: The Vaibhāṣika (Vaibhāṣika) masters say, and then deny that it exists. The author of the treatise first refutes the Sarvāstivādins, and then says that it exists.
Treatise: Because there are different approaches, and even because there are many instants. This explains that the teachings are profound, and different names are established according to different approaches.
Treatise: Because there are different approaches, and even because form (rūpa) and so on cease. At this time, one speaks of arising and ceasing on the same dharma.
Treatise: Because there are different approaches, and even the present world ceases. This explains that although the substance of the dharma is the same, the names are different because of the difference in time. The future world arises, and the present world ceases.
Treatise: Because there are different approaches, and even because it is included in the world. This explains that 'world' is a general name. The arising of dharmas is different, and calling arising 'world' is to indicate the general name.
Treatise: Because there are different approaches, and even because there are many instants. This explains that the general name for many thoughts in the future is 'world.' Arising is only one, so it is said that there is arising in the 'world.' The details are as explained in the seventy-sixth explanation of the Mahāvibhāṣā.
Treatise: The side discussion is finished. The following is the seventh major section, explaining the cutting off of freedom from bondage.
Treatise: Now we should consider, and even has it been cut off? A question.
Treatise: If a thing is free from bondage, and even cutting off is not freedom from bondage. A brief answer.
Treatise: What is that thing? A question. The verse answers, it can be known.
Treatise: And even thus it should be known. Among them there are two categories, one is...
謂見道苦智已生集智未生見苦所斷結。及一果並得。已自性斷證得無為。而為見集所斷遍行隨眠繫縛。猶未離系 二修道九品煩惱。隨下．中道生。九品結及一果得事中。前品已舍其得。自性斷訖證得無為。而為下品等煩惱繫縛故。猶被系也 言未永斷者。簡已斷也。若有先離欲惑入見道者。於此位中即不繫故 能緣此者。簡不緣也。謂他界緣等 及者。正理解云。及聲兼明前前已斷後后未斷。皆能系義。
論。何事有幾隨眠隨增。此下大文第八明惑隨增。就中有三。一明隨增事。二明單緣識。三明重緣識。此下將明隨增先問也 若隨事別答便費多言。已下明略答法。夫分所緣境有十六。即三界五部為十五。更加無漏有十六別。能緣識十六。謂三界五部無漏。此下三行頌。明十六識對十六境多少不同也。
論曰至皆容緣故。明欲界見苦。見集。修所斷三位也。此各五識緣。謂自界三即見苦。見集。修所斷法。見苦．集遍行能緣他部故。修道有漏善心。能緣他部故。滅．道所斷唯緣自部。故不能緣也。若色界修所斷善心及無漏心。皆緣欲界有漏法故。無色界善不緣欲界故。一切染心不下緣故。由此欲界見苦．集。修斷三法唯五識緣。
論。若色界系至皆容緣故。色界三種唯八識緣。為欲三種緣。謂苦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 意思是說，在見道位上，苦智（Kshanti-jnana，忍智）已經生起，集智（Samudaya-jnana，集諦之智）尚未生起時，見苦所斷的煩惱（Klesha，煩惱）以及一果（指預流果，Srotapanna-phala）都已經證得，並且已經通過自性斷（Svabhavaprahana，自性斷除）證得了無為（Asamskrita，無為法）。但是，仍然被見集所斷的遍行隨眠（Sarvatraga-anusaya，遍行隨眠）所繫縛，尚未解脫。 二是指修道位上的九品煩惱（Nava-klesa-prakarah，九品煩惱），隨著下品、中品的道而生起。在九品結（Nava-bandhana，九結）以及一果的證得過程中，前面的品已經捨棄了它的證得，自性斷已經完成，並且證得了無為。但是，仍然被下品等煩惱所繫縛，所以仍然是被繫縛的狀態。 『言未永斷者』，是爲了區分已經斷除的情況。如果有人先離開了欲界的迷惑而進入見道位，那麼在這個位置上就不會被繫縛。 『能緣此者』，是爲了區分不能緣的情況。例如，其他界的緣等。 『及者』，是正確理解的關鍵。『及』字兼明瞭前前已經斷除，後後尚未斷除，都具有繫縛的意義。
論：什麼事物有多少隨眠隨之增長？下面這段大的經文第八部分闡明了迷惑的隨增。其中有三點：一是闡明隨增的事物，二是闡明單緣識（Ekagraha-vijnana，單緣識），三是闡明重緣識（Punargraha-vijnana，重緣識）。下面將要闡明隨增，先提出問題。 如果按照事物分別回答，就會花費很多言語。下面闡明簡略回答的方法。所緣境（Alambana，所緣）的區分有十六種，即三界五部（Tri-dhatu-panca-bhaga，三界五部）為十五種，再加上無漏（Anasrava，無漏法），共有十六種差別。能緣識（Vijnana，識）也有十六種，即三界五部無漏。下面三行頌文闡明了十六識對於十六境的多少不同。
論曰至皆容緣故：闡明欲界見苦（Dukkha-darshana-heya，見苦所斷）、見集（Samudaya-darshana-heya，見集所斷）、修所斷（Bhavana-heya，修所斷）三個位次。這三個位次各自有五識（Panca-vijnana，五識）緣。即自界的三種，也就是見苦、見集、修所斷法。見苦、見集的遍行（Sarvatraga，遍行）能夠緣其他部，所以修道的有漏善心（Sasrava-kusala-citta，有漏善心）能夠緣其他部。滅（Nirodha，滅諦）、道（Marga，道諦）所斷的只能緣自部，所以不能緣其他部。如果修所斷的善心以及無漏心，都能緣欲界的有漏法，因為無漏善（Anasrava-kusala，無漏善）不緣欲界。一切染心（Klista-citta，染污心）不向下緣。由此，欲界的見苦、見集、修斷三種法只有五識能緣。
論：如果被繫縛，直到都能緣故。三種只有八識能緣。因為欲界的三種緣，即苦
【English Translation】 English version: It means that in the stage of seeing the path (Darshana-marga), when the knowledge of suffering (Kshanti-jnana) has arisen, and the knowledge of origination (Samudaya-jnana) has not yet arisen, the afflictions (Klesha) severed by seeing suffering, as well as the attainment of the fruit of once-entering (Srotapanna-phala), have already been attained, and the unconditioned (Asamskrita) has been realized through self-nature abandonment (Svabhavaprahana). However, one is still bound by the pervasive latent tendencies (Sarvatraga-anusaya) severed by seeing origination, and has not yet been liberated. Secondly, it refers to the nine grades of afflictions (Nava-klesa-prakarah) in the stage of cultivation, which arise along with the inferior and intermediate paths. In the process of attaining the nine bonds (Nava-bandhana) and the fruit of once-entering, the previous grades have already abandoned their attainment, self-nature abandonment has been completed, and the unconditioned has been realized. However, one is still bound by the inferior grades of afflictions, and therefore remains in a state of being bound. 『言未永斷者』 (The statement 'not yet permanently severed') is to distinguish it from the case where it has already been severed. If someone has first left the delusions of the desire realm and entered the stage of seeing the path, then in this position, they will not be bound. 『能緣此者』 (Those who can cognize this) is to distinguish it from the case where they cannot cognize it. For example, cognitions of other realms, etc. 『及者』 (The word 'and') is key to correct understanding. The word 'and' also clarifies that the former has been severed, and the latter has not yet been severed, both having the meaning of binding.
Treatise: What things have how many latent tendencies increasing along with them? The eighth part of this large text below clarifies the increase of delusion. There are three points: first, clarifying the things that increase along with it; second, clarifying single-cognizing consciousness (Ekagraha-vijnana); and third, clarifying repeated-cognizing consciousness (Punargraha-vijnana). Below, we will clarify the increase, first posing the question. If we were to answer separately according to things, it would take many words. Below, we clarify the method of brief answering. The distinctions of objects of cognition (Alambana) are sixteen, namely, the three realms and five categories (Tri-dhatu-panca-bhaga) are fifteen, plus the unconditioned (Anasrava), there are sixteen distinctions. There are also sixteen kinds of cognizing consciousness (Vijnana), namely, the three realms, five categories, and the unconditioned. The three lines of verse below clarify the differences in the number of sixteen consciousnesses in relation to the sixteen objects.
Treatise says to all can cognize: Clarifies the three positions of the desire realm: what is severed by seeing suffering (Dukkha-darshana-heya), what is severed by seeing origination (Samudaya-darshana-heya), and what is severed by cultivation (Bhavana-heya). Each of these three positions has five consciousnesses (Panca-vijnana) cognizing. Namely, the three of its own realm, which are the laws severed by seeing suffering, seeing origination, and cultivation. The pervasive (Sarvatraga) of seeing suffering and seeing origination can cognize other categories, so the wholesome mind with outflows (Sasrava-kusala-citta) of cultivation can cognize other categories. What is severed by cessation (Nirodha) and path (Marga) can only cognize its own category, so it cannot cognize other categories. If the wholesome mind severed by cultivation and the mind without outflows can all cognize the laws with outflows of the desire realm, because the wholesome without outflows (Anasrava-kusala) does not cognize the desire realm. All defiled minds (Klista-citta) do not cognize downwards. Therefore, only the five consciousnesses can cognize the three laws of the desire realm: what is severed by seeing suffering, seeing origination, and cultivation.
Treatise: If bound, until all can cognize. The three kinds can only be cognized by eight consciousnesses. Because the three kinds of the desire realm cognize, namely, suffering
．集斷有九上緣故。修斷有漏善能上緣故。自界能緣如前可知。總有六種。無色界空處無間道修斷善心。總緣四禪故。無漏苦．集類忍智等皆能緣故。無色四斷不緣下故。滅．道所斷緣自部故。由此唯有八識緣也。
論。若無色系至皆容緣故。準前色界加無色苦．集所斷由斯成十 言容緣者。此容有不緣。非決定緣。論。見滅見道至十一識緣。已下明三界見滅．道所斷也。若欲界者六識。乃至十者十一識緣。皆增自識。不增二者。滅．道所斷不互緣故。
論。若無漏法至皆容緣故。三界中各后三 無漏第十者。見滅．道無漏緣隨眠。各緣自諦無漏法。修斷善心通緣滅．道二諦。及非諦無漏法。無漏心通緣滅．道諦無漏法。不緣非諦。故此十心皆緣無漏 於此十中亦有不緣故言容也。
論。為攝前義至能為十識境。此兩行頌重述前義。如文可解。
論。如是了知至略示方隅。自下正明系事隨眠多少也。
論。且有問言至無漏第七。此就二十二根中樂根作法。迦延婆沙中。就二十二作法。先問眼根。次問單緣識。后問重緣識。此就樂根作法。先問樂根。次問單緣識。后問重緣識。此即先問樂根隨增多少。將釋樂隨增之義。應先知樂根十六法中通其七種。謂欲界唯修斷。唯五識相應故。色界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 集所斷的煩惱有九種上緣的原因。修所斷的有漏善法能夠上緣的原因。自界能夠緣的情況如前所述。總共有六種情況：無所有處無間道修所斷的善心，總共緣四禪的境界。無漏的苦類忍、集類忍、苦類智、集類智等都能緣故。無色界的四種斷法不緣地獄故。滅諦和道諦所斷的煩惱緣自部故。因此只有八識能夠緣。
論：如果無色界系（的煩惱）乃至都容許緣故。按照前面的（規則），加上無色界的苦所斷和集所斷，由此成為十種。言語中說的『容緣』，是指容許有不緣的情況，並非決定緣。論：見滅諦和見道諦乃至十一識能夠緣。以下說明三界的見滅諦和見道諦所斷的煩惱。如果欲界是六識，乃至十者是十一識能夠緣，都增加自識。不增加二者，是因為滅諦和道諦所斷的煩惱不互相緣故。
論：如果無漏法乃至都容許緣故。三界中各自後三種（情況）。無漏第十種情況：見滅諦和見道諦的無漏法緣隨眠，各自緣自諦的無漏法。修所斷的善心通緣滅諦和道諦二諦，以及非諦的無漏法。無漏心通緣滅諦和道諦的無漏法，不緣非諦。因此這十種心都緣無漏法。在這十種心中也有不緣的情況，所以說是『容緣』。
論：爲了概括前面的意義，乃至能夠作為十識的境界。這兩行頌重述前面的意義。如文義可以理解。
論：像這樣瞭解，乃至略微指示方向。從下面開始正式說明系事隨眠的多少。
論：且有提問說，乃至無漏第七。這是就二十二根中的樂根作法。迦延婆沙中，就二十二根作法。先問眼根，再問單緣識，后問重緣識。這裡就樂根作法。先問樂根，再問單緣識，后問重緣識。這也就是先問樂根隨增多少，將要解釋樂隨增的意義，應該先知道樂根在十六法中通其七種。說欲界唯有修所斷，因為只有五識相應。
【English Translation】 English version The afflictions severed by Samudaya (集, accumulation, cause of suffering) have nine reasons for upper connections. The wholesome dharmas severed by cultivation (修) are able to have upper connections. The ability to connect within one's own realm is as previously described. In total, there are six types: the wholesome mind severed by cultivation in the Station of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception (無所有處, Ākiṃcanyāyatana) in the immediate path (無間道, anantarya-marga), which connects with all four dhyanas (禪, meditation). The uncontaminated (無漏, anāsrava) suffering-class forbearance (苦類忍, duhkha-anvaya-ksanti), accumulation-class forbearance (集類忍, samudaya-anvaya-ksanti), suffering-class wisdom (苦類智, duhkha-anvaya-jnana), accumulation-class wisdom (集類智, samudaya-anvaya-jnana), etc., are all able to connect. The four severances of the Formless Realm (無色界, Arūpadhātu) do not connect with the lower realms. The afflictions severed by Nirodha (滅, cessation) and Marga (道, path) connect with their own division. Therefore, only eight consciousnesses are able to connect.
Treatise: If the Formless Realm series (of afflictions) even allows connection. According to the previous (rules), adding the afflictions severed by suffering and accumulation in the Formless Realm, thus forming ten types. The term 'allows connection' means that it allows for the possibility of not connecting, not a definite connection. Treatise: Seeing Nirodha (見滅, drsta-nirodha) and seeing Marga (見道, drsta-marga) even eleven consciousnesses are able to connect. The following explains the afflictions severed by seeing Nirodha and seeing Marga in the three realms. If it is the Desire Realm (欲界, Kamadhatu), it is six consciousnesses, and even if it is ten, it is eleven consciousnesses that are able to connect, all increasing their own consciousness. Not increasing by two is because the afflictions severed by Nirodha and Marga do not connect with each other.
Treatise: If uncontaminated dharmas even allow connection. The last three (situations) in each of the three realms. The tenth uncontaminated situation: the uncontaminated dharmas of seeing Nirodha and seeing Marga connect with the latent tendencies (隨眠, anusaya), each connecting with the uncontaminated dharmas of their own truth. The wholesome mind severed by cultivation connects with both Nirodha and Marga truths, as well as uncontaminated dharmas that are not truths. The uncontaminated mind connects with the uncontaminated dharmas of Nirodha and Marga truths, not connecting with non-truths. Therefore, these ten minds all connect with uncontaminated dharmas. Among these ten, there are also situations where they do not connect, so it is said 'allows connection'.
Treatise: In order to summarize the previous meaning, even able to be the object of ten consciousnesses. These two lines of verse restate the previous meaning. The meaning can be understood as in the text.
Treatise: Understanding in this way, even briefly indicating the direction. From below, it formally explains the amount of afflictions associated with the realms.
Treatise: And there is a question saying, even the seventh uncontaminated. This is making a dharma (作法, karana) based on the pleasure root (樂根, sukha-indriya) among the twenty-two roots. In Katyayana's Vibhasa (迦延婆沙, Katyayana-Vibhasa), making a dharma based on the twenty-two roots. First asking about the eye root (眼根, caksu-indriya), then asking about the single-connecting consciousness, then asking about the multiple-connecting consciousness. Here making a dharma based on the pleasure root. First asking about the pleasure root, then asking about the single-connecting consciousness, then asking about the multiple-connecting consciousness. This is also first asking how much the pleasure root increases, and in order to explain the meaning of the increase of pleasure, one should first know that the pleasure root connects with seven of the sixteen dharmas. Saying that only the afflictions severed by cultivation exist in the Desire Realm, because only the five consciousnesses are associated.
五部。第三禪樂根意識相應通五部故。無漏第七。依第三禪入無漏觀樂相應故。無色界唯舍受故無樂根。所以十六法中唯通七也。
論。一切無漏至隨眠隨增。正明樂根隨眠隨增。先簡無漏。后明六種。欲界修斷樂根。欲界修斷四隨眠隨增。並苦．集下。十一遍行隨眠隨增。色界第三禪地三十一隨眠隨增。九十八隨眠中欲界十五。色界三十一。總有四十六隨眠隨增。
論。若有問言至隨眠隨增。問單緣識。
論。應觀此識至皆能緣樂根。將釋隨增。先須知單緣識。十六法中通幾法。應知通十二。謂欲界四。除見滅斷。此由樂根通有漏．無漏。有漏樂根五識相應。此是欲苦．集諦攝故。通苦．集所斷識緣。樂修道斷故。通修斷意識緣。依第三禪法智品道。道諦攝故。欲界見道斷無漏緣隨眠緣。滅諦非樂根。及見滅所斷中惑。不與樂根相應。故見滅所斷。不能緣樂根。由斯欲界唯四部也。色界五部皆能緣樂根。樂根通五部故。五部皆能緣也。無色界二即見道諦及修所斷。見道諦者。謂無漏緣惑能緣。依第三禪類智品道。修所斷者。謂有漏善心能緣無漏樂根。即無我觀等 無漏第十二者。通緣三諦樂根故。
論。此隨所應至隨眠隨增。正明隨增多少也。欲界四部除見滅斷。即二十九隨眠隨增。色界
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：五部。因為第三禪的樂根意識與五部相應。無漏第七。因為依據第三禪進入無漏觀時與樂相應。無色界沒有樂受，只有舍受，所以沒有樂根。因此，在十六法中只通達七法。
論：一切無漏至隨眠隨增。這裡主要說明樂根的隨眠隨增。先簡別無漏，后說明六種情況。欲界修斷的樂根，與欲界修斷的四種隨眠隨增，以及苦諦、集諦下的十一種遍行隨眠隨增。色界第三禪地有三十一種隨眠隨增。在九十八種隨眠中，欲界有十五種，色界有三十一種，總共有四十六種隨眠隨增。
論：若有問言至隨眠隨增。這裡問的是單緣識。
論：應觀此識至皆能緣樂根。爲了解釋隨增，首先要知道單緣識。在十六法中通達幾種法？應該知道通達十二種。即欲界的四種，除去見滅斷。這是因為樂根通於有漏和無漏。有漏樂根與五識相應。這是因為屬於欲界苦諦、集諦所攝，所以通於苦諦、集諦所斷的識緣。樂根通過修道斷，所以通於修斷的意識緣。依據第三禪法智品道，屬於道諦所攝。欲界見道斷的無漏緣隨眠緣。滅諦不是樂根，以及見滅所斷中的迷惑，不與樂根相應。所以見滅所斷，不能緣樂根。因此欲界只有四部。色界五部都能緣樂根。因為樂根通於五部，所以五部都能緣。無色界二部，即見道諦和修所斷。見道諦，指的是無漏緣惑能夠緣。依據第三禪類智品道。修所斷，指的是有漏善心能夠緣無漏樂根，即無我觀等。無漏第十二，通於緣三諦的樂根。
論：此隨所應至隨眠隨增。這裡主要說明隨增的多少。欲界四部除去見滅斷，即二十九種隨眠隨增。色界
【English Translation】 English version: Five categories. Because the pleasure-root consciousness of the Third Dhyana corresponds to the five categories. The seventh is unconditioned (無漏). Because entering unconditioned contemplation based on the Third Dhyana is associated with pleasure. The Formless Realm (無色界) has no pleasure sensation, only neutral sensation, so there is no pleasure-root. Therefore, among the sixteen dharmas, only seven are accessible.
Treatise: 'All unconditioned...' to '...latent tendencies increase.' This mainly explains the increase of latent tendencies associated with the pleasure-root. First, it distinguishes the unconditioned, then explains the six types. The pleasure-root that is severed through cultivation in the Desire Realm (欲界) is associated with the four latent tendencies severed through cultivation in the Desire Realm, as well as the eleven pervasive latent tendencies under the Suffering Truth (苦諦) and Origin Truth (集諦). The Third Dhyana ground of the Form Realm (色界) has thirty-one latent tendencies that increase. Among the ninety-eight latent tendencies, the Desire Realm has fifteen, and the Form Realm has thirty-one, totaling forty-six latent tendencies that increase.
Treatise: 'If one asks...' to '...latent tendencies increase.' This asks about the single-object-cognizing consciousness (單緣識).
Treatise: 'One should observe this consciousness...' to '...all can condition the pleasure-root.' To explain the increase, one must first know the single-object-cognizing consciousness. How many dharmas are accessible among the sixteen dharmas? One should know that twelve are accessible. Namely, the four of the Desire Realm, excluding the cessation of seeing (見滅斷). This is because the pleasure-root is accessible to both conditioned (有漏) and unconditioned. The conditioned pleasure-root corresponds to the five consciousnesses. This is because it is included in the Suffering Truth and Origin Truth of the Desire Realm, so it is accessible to the consciousnesses conditioned by what is severed by the Suffering Truth and Origin Truth. The pleasure-root is severed through the path of cultivation, so it is accessible to the consciousnesses conditioned by what is severed through cultivation. Based on the Dharma-wisdom category of the Third Dhyana, it is included in the Path Truth (道諦). The unconditioned conditioned by what is severed by the path of seeing in the Desire Realm conditions the latent tendencies. Cessation Truth (滅諦) is not a pleasure-root, and the delusions among what is severed by the cessation of seeing are not associated with the pleasure-root. Therefore, what is severed by the cessation of seeing cannot condition the pleasure-root. Therefore, the Desire Realm only has four categories. The five categories of the Form Realm can all condition the pleasure-root. Because the pleasure-root is accessible to the five categories, all five categories can condition it. The two categories of the Formless Realm, namely the Path Truth of seeing and what is severed through cultivation. The Path Truth of seeing refers to the unconditioned conditioned by delusions that can condition. Based on the Analogical-wisdom category of the Third Dhyana. What is severed through cultivation refers to the conditioned wholesome mind that can condition the unconditioned pleasure-root, namely the contemplation of no-self, etc. The twelfth unconditioned is accessible to the pleasure-root that conditions the three truths.
Treatise: 'This, according to what is appropriate...' to '...latent tendencies increase.' This mainly explains the amount of increase. The four categories of the Desire Realm, excluding the cessation of seeing, namely twenty-nine latent tendencies that increase. The Form Realm
有為緣除見滅斷三。謂邪見．疑．無明。總二十八隨眠也。無色界二部。謂見道所斷七。修道斷三。及苦．集下遍行十一。二十一隨眠也。樂根緣識總有七十八隨眠隨增也。
論。若復有問言至能緣緣樂根。此第三明重緣識也。將釋隨增。先須知緣緣樂根識。十六法通其幾種。總十四識能緣緣樂識。十二如前單緣識。更加無色見苦．集斷二種。加滿十四。所以單緣即除見苦．見集所斷。重緣即取者。由苦．集所斷遍行隨眠。不能緣無漏樂根。及不緣下樂根故。所以重緣即能者。以遍行隨眠緣一切有漏法。修斷善心能緣無漏樂根。見道所斷邪見．疑．無明。亦緣無漏樂根。此等皆為苦．集下遍行隨眠緣故。所以重緣即兼苦．集所斷也。
論。此隨所應至隨眠隨增。正明隨增也。欲．色如上。無色四部加見苦．集所斷。此於前單緣識隨眠數上。更加不遍各二隨眠也。
論。準此方隅余應思擇。準此樂根欲知隨增。先觀此法。十六種中是何所攝。然後易知隨眠多少。
論。若心由彼名有隨眠。已下一頌。第九明有隨眠心也。
論曰至心差別故。分有隨眠心有二也。一有染心斷與不斷皆名有隨眠心。二無染心據隨增名有隨眠。斷已不名有隨眠也。
論。于中有染至恒相應故。釋有染也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『有為緣』去除『見』、『滅』、『斷』三種。指的是邪見（錯誤的見解）、疑（懷疑）、無明（對真理的無知）。總共有二十八種隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態）。 『無』二部。指的是見道（證悟真理的道路）所斷的七種，修道（修行之路）所斷的三種，以及苦諦（痛苦的真理）、集諦（痛苦根源的真理）下遍行（普遍存在的）的十一種。總共有二十一種隨眠。 樂根（快樂的感受）緣識（意識）總共有七十八種隨眠隨增（煩惱的增長）。
論：如果有人問到『能緣緣樂根』，這是第三個說明重複緣識（重複地緣取意識）。爲了解釋隨增，首先要知道緣緣樂根識（緣取緣樂根的意識）在十六法（十六種心識）中包含哪幾種。總共有十四種識能緣緣樂識（能緣取緣樂根的意識）。十二種如前述的單緣識（單獨緣取的意識），再加上無色界（沒有物質的界）見苦（對苦諦的見解）、集（對集諦的見解）所斷的兩種。加起來共十四種。之所以單緣識排除了見苦、見集所斷的，而重緣識（重複緣取的意識）包含，是因為苦、集所斷的遍行隨眠（普遍存在的煩惱的潛在狀態）不能緣無漏樂根（沒有煩惱的快樂的根源），也不緣地獄的樂根。所以重緣識能緣取的原因是，遍行隨眠緣取一切有漏法（有煩惱的法），修道所斷的善心能緣無漏樂根，見道所斷的邪見、疑、無明，也能緣無漏樂根。這些都是因為苦、集下遍行隨眠緣取的緣故。所以重緣識也兼顧了苦、集所斷的。
論：『此隨所應』到『隨眠隨增』，正是說明隨增。欲界（慾望的界）、色界（物質的界）如上所述。無色界四部加上見苦、集所斷的。這在前面單緣識的隨眠數量上，又加上了不普遍存在的各兩種隨眠。
論：根據這個方法，其餘的應該思考選擇。根據這個樂根，想要知道隨增，首先觀察這個法在十六種中屬於哪一種，然後就容易知道隨眠的多少。
論：『若心由彼名有隨眠』以下一頌，第九個說明有隨眠心（有煩惱潛在狀態的心）。
論曰：到『心差別故』，區分有隨眠心有兩種。第一種是有染心（被煩惱污染的心），斷與不斷都叫做有隨眠心。第二種是無染心（沒有被煩惱污染的心），根據隨增的情況，叫做有隨眠心，斷了之後就不叫做有隨眠心了。
論：『于中有染』到『恒相應故』，解釋有染心。
【English Translation】 English version 'Having conditioned causes' removes 'views', 'cessation', and 'severance' three. These refer to false views (wrong understandings), doubt (uncertainty), and ignorance (lack of knowledge of the truth). In total, there are twenty-eight kinds of anusaya (latent tendencies of defilements). 'Without' two categories. These refer to the seven severed by the path of seeing (the path of realizing the truth), the three severed by the path of cultivation (the path of practice), and the eleven universally present under the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha) and the Truth of the Origin of Suffering (Samudaya). In total, there are twenty-one kinds of anusaya. The root of pleasure (pleasant feeling) associated with consciousness has a total of seventy-eight kinds of anusaya that increase (the growth of defilements).
Treatise: If someone asks about 'that which can condition the conditioning of the root of pleasure', this is the third explanation of repeatedly conditioning consciousness. In order to explain the increase, one must first know which of the sixteen dharmas (sixteen types of consciousness) are included in the consciousness that conditions the conditioning of the root of pleasure. In total, there are fourteen types of consciousness that can condition the conditioning of the root of pleasure. Twelve are like the previously mentioned single conditioning consciousness, plus the two severed by seeing the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Origin of Suffering in the formless realm (the realm without material form). Adding up to fourteen. The reason why single conditioning consciousness excludes those severed by seeing the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Origin of Suffering, while repeated conditioning consciousness includes them, is because the universally present anusaya severed by the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Origin of Suffering cannot condition the unconditioned root of pleasure (the root of pleasure without defilements), nor does it condition the lower realm's root of pleasure. The reason why repeated conditioning consciousness can condition is that the universally present anusaya conditions all conditioned dharmas (dharmas with defilements), the wholesome mind severed by the path of cultivation can condition the unconditioned root of pleasure, and the false views, doubt, and ignorance severed by the path of seeing can also condition the unconditioned root of pleasure. These are all because the universally present anusaya under the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Origin of Suffering conditions them. Therefore, repeated conditioning consciousness also includes those severed by the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Origin of Suffering.
Treatise: 'This according to what is appropriate' to 'anusaya increases', this is precisely explaining the increase. The desire realm (Kama-dhatu), the form realm (Rupa-dhatu) are as mentioned above. The four categories of the formless realm plus those severed by seeing the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Origin of Suffering. This adds two anusaya that are not universally present to the number of anusaya of the previously mentioned single conditioning consciousness.
Treatise: According to this method, the rest should be considered and chosen. According to this root of pleasure, if you want to know the increase, first observe which of the sixteen types this dharma belongs to, and then it will be easy to know the amount of anusaya.
Treatise: 'If the mind is named as having anusaya because of that' below is a verse, the ninth explanation of the mind with anusaya (the mind with latent tendencies of defilements).
Treatise says: To 'because of the difference in mind', distinguishing the mind with anusaya has two types. The first type is the mind with defilements (a mind contaminated by defilements), whether severed or not, it is called a mind with anusaya. The second type is the mind without defilements (a mind not contaminated by defilements), according to the situation of increase, it is called a mind with anusaya, after being severed, it is no longer called a mind with anusaya.
Treatise: 'In this having defilements' to 'always corresponding', explaining the mind with defilements.
以與隨眠相應故名有隨眠。斷與不斷恒相應故。斷與不斷名有隨眠心也。
論。若無染者至名有隨眠故。釋無染也。不染有漏心據隨眠隨增故名有隨眠。由斯未斷名有隨眠。斷已不名有隨眠也。
論。如上所說十種隨眠。自下第十明起次也。
論曰至乃至廣說。從無明生疑也。
論。從此猶預至必憎嫌故。釋疑後生邪見等也。正理更有兩種次第。恐煩不述。
論。有餘師說至見為境故。敘異說也。若生見斷瞋。應如余師說。通生修道瞋。亦緣他相續。
論。如是且依至前後無定。此明起不定也。正理論云。諸隨眠起無定次第。可一切后。一切生故。
論。諸煩惱起由幾因緣。自下一頌。第十一明起因緣也。
論曰至加行三力。明三因也。將起欲貪纏時。由未斷貪得為因力。即由得力令貪生故。如正理說。又云。三緣故說未斷未遍知。謂得未斷故。對治未生故。未遍知境故 順欲貪境現在前故。是境界力 緣彼非理作意起故。是加行也。
論。余煩惱起類此應知。類貪亦有三力。
論。謂此且據至阿羅漢等。明有具緣及唯一緣亦起煩惱。然無三緣總無起煩惱也。
論。即上所說至其體云何。此下大文第二雜明諸惑 文中有三。一明漏等四門。二明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為與隨眠（Sui Mian，煩惱的潛在狀態）相應，所以稱為『有隨眠』。斷除與未斷除（煩惱）恒常相應，斷除與未斷除稱為『有隨眠心』。
論：如果無染者（沒有煩惱的人）...稱為『有隨眠』的原因。解釋『無染』。不染污的有漏心（仍然受煩惱影響的心）因為隨眠的增長而稱為『有隨眠』。因此，未斷除（煩惱）稱為『有隨眠』，斷除后就不稱為『有隨眠』了。
論：如上所說十種隨眠（Shi Zhong Sui Mian，十種根本煩惱），下面第十（部分）說明生起的次第。
論曰...乃至廣說。從無明（Wu Ming，對真理的無知）產生疑（Yi，懷疑）。
論：從此猶豫...必定憎嫌的原因。解釋懷疑之後產生邪見（Xie Jian，錯誤的見解）等。正理（Zheng Li，正確的道理）還有兩種次第，恐怕繁瑣，不敘述。
論：有其餘師說...以見為境界的原因。敘述不同的說法。如果產生見斷（Jian Duan，通過見道斷除的煩惱）的瞋（Chen，嗔恨），應該如其餘師所說，也通於產生修道（Xiu Dao，通過修道斷除的煩惱）的瞋，也緣於他人的相續（Xiang Xu，心識的連續）。
論：如是且依...前後無定。此說明生起沒有定準。正理論（Zheng Li Lun）說：『諸隨眠的生起沒有固定的次第，可以在一切之後，一切都生起。』
論：諸煩惱的生起由幾種因緣？下面一頌，第十一（部分）說明生起的因緣。
論曰...加行三力。說明三種因。將要生起欲貪纏（Yu Tan Chan，對慾望的貪著）時，由於未斷貪得（Wei Duan Tan De，未斷除貪慾的獲得）作為因力，即由獲得的力量使貪慾生起。如正理所說。又說：『三種緣故說未斷、未遍知，謂得未斷故，對治未生故，未遍知境故。』順應欲貪的境界現在前的原因，是境界力。緣于彼非理作意（Fei Li Zuo Yi，不如理的思維）生起的原因，是加行。
論：其餘煩惱的生起，依此類推應該知道。類似於貪慾也有三種力量。
論：謂此且據...阿羅漢（A Luo Han，已證得解脫的聖者）等。說明有具足因緣以及唯一因緣也生起煩惱。然而沒有三種因緣，總不會生起煩惱。
論：即上所說...其體云何？此下大文第二（部分）雜明諸惑（Za Ming Zhu Huo，混合說明各種迷惑），文中有三：一、說明漏等四門；二、說明...
【English Translation】 English version: Because it is associated with Sui Mian (latent tendencies of afflictions), it is called 'having Sui Mian'. Constant association with being severed and not being severed (of afflictions), being severed and not being severed is called 'mind having Sui Mian'.
Treatise: If there were no defilements... the reason for being called 'having Sui Mian'. Explains 'no defilements'. The defiled mind with outflows (mind still influenced by afflictions) is called 'having Sui Mian' because of the increase of Sui Mian. Therefore, not having severed (afflictions) is called 'having Sui Mian', after severing, it is not called 'having Sui Mian'.
Treatise: As mentioned above, the ten types of Sui Mian (Shi Zhong Sui Mian, ten fundamental afflictions), the tenth (part) below explains the order of arising.
Treatise says... and so on. From Wu Ming (ignorance of the truth) arises Yi (doubt).
Treatise: From this hesitation... the reason for certainly hating and disliking. Explains that after doubt arises Xie Jian (wrong views) and so on. Zheng Li (correct reasoning) also has two kinds of order, fearing it is cumbersome, it will not be described.
Treatise: Some other teachers say... the reason for taking views as the object. Narrates different views. If Chen (hatred) of Jian Duan (afflictions severed by the path of seeing) arises, it should be as the other teachers say, also generally producing Chen of Xiu Dao (afflictions severed by the path of cultivation), also conditioned by the continuum of others (Xiang Xu, the continuity of consciousness).
Treatise: Thus, just relying on... no fixed order before and after. This explains that arising has no fixed standard. Zheng Li Lun (Treatise on Correct Reasoning) says: 'The arising of all Sui Mian has no fixed order, can be after everything, everything arises.'
Treatise: By how many causes and conditions do all afflictions arise? The verse below, the eleventh (part) explains the causes and conditions of arising.
Treatise says... exertion of three forces. Explains the three causes. When about to arise Yu Tan Chan (attachment to desires), because of Wei Duan Tan De (not severing the attainment of greed) as the force of cause, that is, by the power of attainment causing greed to arise. As Zheng Li says. Also says: 'For three reasons it is said not severed, not completely known, meaning the attainment is not severed, the antidote has not arisen, the object is not completely known.' The reason for the object conforming to desire and greed appearing before, is the force of the object. The reason for arising from inappropriate attention (Fei Li Zuo Yi, non-rational thinking) to that, is exertion.
Treatise: The arising of other afflictions, by analogy, should be known. Similar to greed, there are also three forces.
Treatise: Saying this just relies on... A Luo Han (Arhat, a saint who has attained liberation) and so on. Explains that having complete causes and conditions as well as only one cause and condition also gives rise to afflictions. However, without three causes and conditions, afflictions will generally not arise.
Treatise: That is, what was said above... what is its substance? Below this, the second major section (part) explains various confusions (Za Ming Zhu Huo, mixed explanation of various confusions), there are three sections in the text: One, explaining the four gates of outflows and so on; Two, explaining...
結等六門。三明五蓋 就明漏等四門。一出體。二釋名。此下四頌出體門也。
論曰至各二十六。此出欲漏。有漏。體也。欲界根本煩惱三十六。十纏合有四十六。除五無明。四十一物總名欲漏。色．無色界根本煩惱各有三十一。合有六十二。各除五無明。總有五十二物總名有漏。
論。豈不彼有至何故不說。外人難也。欲界具十纏十纏俱欲漏。上界有二纏因何非有漏。又違品類足說。彼說。有漏並煩惱纏 今於此中何故不說。
論。迦濕彌羅國至不自在故。此引婆沙答也。一以少故。二以不自在故。所以不說。
論。何緣合說至為一有漏。問也。
論。同無記性至名有漏義。答也。三因故合說。一同無記性故。二同內門轉故。三同依定地生故。又指前隨眠品初釋有貪名。則是此中名有漏義。正理破云。彼界煩惱亦于外門。有緣色．聲．觸境轉故。謂此應言。何緣合說二界煩惱為一有漏。同無記故。同對治故。同定地故合一。俱舍師救云。雖彼上界亦外門轉。言內門約多分說。如言色界豈無受等。
論。準此三界至為無明漏。出無明漏體也。既欲漏。有漏。皆不取無明為體。故知三界十五無明。義準已立為無明漏。由此頌中但言無明諸有本。不言三界十五無明為無明漏。以說欲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 結等六門。三明五蓋 就明漏等四門。一出體。二釋名。此下四頌出體門也。
論曰至各二十六。此出欲漏（kāma-āsava，對欲界的執著和煩惱）。有漏（bhava-āsava，對存在的執著和煩惱）。體也。欲界根本煩惱三十六。十纏合有四十六。除五無明。四十一物總名欲漏。色．無色界根本煩惱各有三十一。合有六十二。各除五無明。總有五十二物總名有漏。
論。豈不彼有至何故不說。外人難也。欲界具十纏十纏俱欲漏。上界有二纏因何非有漏。又違品類足說。彼說。有漏並煩惱纏 今於此中何故不說。
論。迦濕彌羅國至不自在故。此引婆沙答也。一以少故。二以不自在故。所以不說。
論。何緣合說至為一有漏。問也。
論。同無記性至名有漏義。答也。三因故合說。一同無記性故。二同內門轉故。三同依定地生故。又指前隨眠品初釋有貪名。則是此中名有漏義。正理破云。彼界煩惱亦于外門。有緣色．聲．觸境轉故。謂此應言。何緣合說二界煩惱為一有漏。同無記故。同對治故。同定地故合一。俱舍師救云。雖彼上界亦外門轉。言內門約多分說。如言無色豈無受等。
論。準此三界至為無明漏。出無明漏（avijjā-āsava，對真理的無知和迷惑）體也。既欲漏。有漏。皆不取無明為體。故知三界十五無明。義準已立為無明漏。由此頌中但言無明諸有本。不言三界十五無明為無明漏。以說欲
【English Translation】 English version The six gates such as fetters. The three kinds of knowledge and the five hindrances clarify the four gates such as outflows. First, defining the substance. Second, explaining the name. The following four verses explain the gate of defining the substance.
The treatise says up to twenty-six each. This defines the substance of kāma-āsava (sensuality outflow). bhava-āsava (existence outflow). The fundamental afflictions of the desire realm are thirty-six. Combined with the ten fetters, there are forty-six. Excluding the five forms of ignorance, the forty-one items are collectively called kāma-āsava. The fundamental afflictions of the form and formless realms are thirty-one each. Combined, there are sixty-two. Excluding the five forms of ignorance from each, the total of fifty-two items are collectively called bhava-āsava.
Treatise: 'Why aren't they mentioned, since they exist there?' This is a question from an outsider. The desire realm possesses the ten fetters, and all ten fetters are kāma-āsava. The upper realms have two fetters, so why aren't they bhava-āsava? This also contradicts what the Prakaraṇapāda says. It says, 'bhava-āsava includes afflictions and fetters.' Why aren't they mentioned here?
Treatise: 'The country of Kashmir...' This quotes the Vibhāṣā to answer. First, because they are few. Second, because they are not independent. Therefore, they are not mentioned.
Treatise: 'Why are they combined and spoken of as one bhava-āsava?' This is a question.
Treatise: 'Because they share the nature of being indeterminate...' This is the answer. They are combined and spoken of for three reasons. First, because they share the nature of being indeterminate. Second, because they both operate within the internal gate. Third, because they both arise from the meditative grounds. Furthermore, it refers to the initial explanation of 'greed' in the chapter on latent tendencies. This is what is meant by 'bhava-āsava'. The Nyāyānusāra criticizes, saying, 'The afflictions of those realms also operate in the external gate, because they are related to the objects of form, sound, and touch.' It should be said, 'Why are the afflictions of the two realms combined and spoken of as one bhava-āsava? Because they share the nature of being indeterminate, because they share the same antidotes, and because they share the same meditative grounds, they are combined as one.' The Kośa master defends, saying, 'Although the upper realms also operate in the external gate, the term 'internal gate' refers to the majority. For example, how can the formless realm be without feeling, etc.?'
Treatise: 'According to this, the three realms...' This defines the substance of avijjā-āsava (ignorance outflow). Since neither kāma-āsava nor bhava-āsava take ignorance as their substance, it is known that the fifteen forms of ignorance in the three realms are established as avijjā-āsava by implication. Therefore, this verse only says 'ignorance is the root of all existence,' and does not say that the fifteen forms of ignorance in the three realms are avijjā-āsava, because it speaks of desire.
漏。有漏。已顯十五無明為無明漏故。
論。何緣唯此別立漏名。問也。何緣欲漏。有漏。皆諸煩惱共立為一。唯此無明獨立為無明漏耶。
論。無明能為諸有本故。舉頌答也 無明是三有本者。此由無明起諸煩惱業等故名為有本。非是十二支中無明本也。十二支中無明通用諸煩惱為體故。正理論云。唯此別立漏名。為顯無明過患勝故。謂獨能作生死根本。如契經說。無明為因生於貪染。乃至廣說。此豈是無明支耶。
論。瀑流及軛至及有軛。上出三漏體。此明瀑流．及軛體類同三漏。同用十纏．九十八隨眠為體。欲界十纏．三十六隨眠中。除無明．及見。名欲瀑流及欲軛。上二界六十二中。除見．無明為有瀑流．及有軛。
論。析出諸見至合立為漏。釋離合所以也。由見猛利。瀑流等中別立為一。令住名漏。見性猛利不順住故於漏之中與余合立。無明有本故別立無明瀑流軛等。
論。如是已顯至各有五。此示體多少也。欲界三十六隨眠。除五無明．十二種見。總除十七。余有十九並十纏。總有二十九物。名欲瀑流。上二界隨眠六十二。除十無明二十四見。余有二十八物。名有瀑流。三界各十二見。合有三十六物。為見瀑流。三界十五無明。為無明瀑流。
論。應知四軛與瀑流
同。此類釋四軛也。四軛各別物數多少。一一皆與四瀑流同。
論。四取應知體同四軛。類釋四取。此說體同開合有差別也。
論。然欲我語至與前軛別。前明體同。此明開合別也。
論。即前欲軛至名戒禁取。別出體也。如文可知。
論。何緣別立戒禁取耶。問也。何緣四取別立戒禁取耶。
論。由此獨為至為清凈道故。答也。以二因故所以別立。由非道計道。舍其真道為聖道怨。在家之眾。妄計自餓為生天道。而不行十善。諸出家眾。直以破衣．粗食舍可愛境。二百五十戒等。為真實道。不知是助道緣。而不修行三十七品。
論。何緣無明不別立取。問也。何緣無明與余合立不別立耶。
論。能取諸有至合立為取。答也。取諸有故名之為取。由無明不了相。故彼非能取。及非猛利故。但可與余合立為取。已上依有部釋。
論。然契經說至應知亦爾。此述經部宗也 欲軛云何。經中問也 謂諸欲中者。謂眾多貪慾之中。或諸五欲境中 欲貪至纏壓於心者。上明欲貪眾名 纏。於心。明欲貪過患。是名欲軛。經說貪名軛也。經中說眾名者示多過患 有軛．見軛應知亦爾。亦以欲貪為體。故正理云。此于愛體說三軛名 然唯言三者。無明軛等似言以無明為體。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 同上。這些也解釋了四軛（caturyoga，束縛）的含義。四軛各自包含的物質數量有多少呢？它們與四瀑流（caturogha，四種煩惱的洪流）完全相同。 論：四取（caturādāna，四種執取）應知其本體與四軛相同。類似於解釋四軛，這裡說明本體相同，只是開合有所差別。 論：然而，『欲』、『我語』等與之前的軛有所區別。之前說明的是本體相同，這裡說明的是開合的差別。 論：即前文所說的『欲軛』等，被稱為『戒禁取』（śīlavrataparāmarśa，執著于錯誤的戒律和苦行）。這是特別指出了它的本體。如經文所說，可以理解。 論：為何要特別設立戒禁取呢？這是提問。為何在四取中特別設立戒禁取呢？ 論：因為只有它能成為通往清凈道的障礙。這是回答。因為有兩個原因，所以特別設立戒禁取。因為它將非正道視為正道，背離了真正的道路，成為聖道的仇敵。在家的信徒，錯誤地認為自餓是通往天界的道路，而不去行十善業。出家的僧侶，僅僅依靠破舊的衣服、粗糙的食物來捨棄可愛的境界，以及二百五十條戒律等，就認為是真實的道路，卻不知道這些只是助道的因緣，而不去修行三十七道品。 論：為何無明（avidyā，無知）不單獨設立為取呢？這是提問。為何無明與其他的執取合併設立，而不單獨設立呢？ 論：因為它能執取諸有（bhava，存在），所以合併設立為取。這是回答。因為執取諸有，所以稱為取。由於無明不能明瞭事物的真相，所以它不能單獨成為執取，而且力量也不夠強大，因此只能與其他的執取合併設立為取。以上是依據有部（Sarvāstivāda，一切有部）的解釋。 論：然而，契經（sūtra，佛經）說……應知也是如此。這是敘述經部（Sautrāntika，經量部）的宗義。『欲軛』是什麼呢？這是經中的提問。 所謂『諸欲中』，是指眾多的貪慾之中，或者指五欲（pañcakāmaguṇa，色、聲、香、味、觸五種感官慾望）的境界之中。『欲貪……纏繞於心』，上面說明了欲貪的眾多名稱，『纏繞於心』，說明了欲貪的過患。這被稱為欲軛。經中說貪就是軛。經中說眾多名稱，是爲了顯示其眾多的過患。『有軛』、『見軛』（dṛṣṭiyoga，邪見之軛）應知也是如此。也是以欲貪為本體。所以《正理》中說，這是在愛的本體上說了三種軛的名稱。然而只說了三種，是因為『無明軛』等似乎是以無明為本體。
【English Translation】 English version: The same as above. These also explain the meaning of the four yokes (caturyoga, bonds). How many material elements does each of the four yokes contain? They are exactly the same as the four floods (caturogha, four floods of defilements). Treatise: The four graspings (caturādāna, four types of clinging) should be understood as having the same essence as the four yokes. Similar to explaining the four yokes, this explains that the essence is the same, but there are differences in aggregation and division. Treatise: However, 'desire,' 'my speech,' etc., are different from the previous yokes. The previous explanation was about the same essence, while this explanation is about the difference in aggregation and division. Treatise: That is, the 'desire yoke' mentioned earlier is called 'clinging to rules and rituals' (śīlavrataparāmarśa, clinging to wrong precepts and asceticism). This specifically points out its essence. As the scripture says, it can be understood. Treatise: Why is clinging to rules and rituals specifically established? This is a question. Why is clinging to rules and rituals specifically established among the four graspings? Treatise: Because it alone can become an obstacle to the path of purification. This is the answer. Because of two reasons, clinging to rules and rituals is specifically established. Because it regards the wrong path as the right path, deviates from the true path, and becomes an enemy of the holy path. Lay followers mistakenly believe that self-mortification is the path to heaven, without practicing the ten wholesome deeds. Monks rely solely on tattered clothes, coarse food to abandon desirable realms, and the two hundred and fifty precepts, etc., and consider them to be the true path, without knowing that these are only auxiliary conditions for the path, and without practicing the thirty-seven factors of enlightenment. Treatise: Why is ignorance (avidyā, ignorance) not established as a separate grasping? This is a question. Why is ignorance combined with other graspings and not established separately? Treatise: Because it can grasp all existences (bhava, existence), it is combined and established as grasping. This is the answer. Because it grasps all existences, it is called grasping. Because ignorance cannot clearly understand the truth of things, it cannot become a separate grasping on its own, and its power is not strong enough, so it can only be combined with other graspings and established as grasping. The above is based on the explanation of the Sarvāstivāda (everything exists school). Treatise: However, the sūtra (sūtra, Buddhist scripture) says... it should be known to be the same. This is a description of the doctrine of the Sautrāntika (sūtra school). What is the 'desire yoke'? This is a question in the sūtra. What is meant by 'in all desires' refers to the many desires, or the realm of the five desires (pañcakāmaguṇa, the five sense pleasures of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch). 'Desire-greed...entangles the mind,' the above explains the many names of desire-greed, 'entangles the mind,' explains the faults of desire-greed. This is called the desire yoke. The sūtra says that greed is the yoke. The sūtra says many names to show its many faults. 'Existence yoke' and 'view yoke' (dṛṣṭiyoga, yoke of wrong views) should also be known to be the same. It also takes desire-greed as its essence. Therefore, the Nyāyasūtra says that these are three names of yokes spoken of in the essence of love. However, only three are mentioned because 'ignorance yoke' etc. seem to take ignorance as their essence.
論。又余經說至名欲等取。引第二經證四取總以欲貪為體也。正理論云。此不相違。經意別故。乃至佛觀所化機行所須。于多體中且略舉一。又如經說。若斷一法我能保汝得不還果。一法者。謂薩迦耶見。非唯斷此得不還果。又如說無明能蓋有情類。然于余處說蓋有五。此經亦爾。隨所化生。現相續中為愛所惱。故略為彼說愛無失 已上釋也 欲．有二軛可略舉愛。愛彼攝故。見軛云何。愛與見軛性各別故 已上難也 舉亦無失以見軛名依訓釋門通二義故。若見即軛名為見軛。如無明軛。若於見軛名為見軛。猶如有軛。佛令佛子知二義故。雖亦于愛立見軛名。而亦無失。
論。如是已辨隨眠並纏。自下一頌。第二釋名。上兩句有四義釋隨眠也。第三一句釋餘四義。下句結也。
論曰至故名微細。釋頌微細字也。正理論云。是故聖者阿難陀言。我今不知于同梵行起慢心不。不說全無。以慢隨眠行相微細。彼尚不了慢心有無。況諸異生。余例應爾 有釋。彼于剎那極微。亦有隨增故名微細。
論。二隨增者至增惛滯故。釋頌第二義也。正理論云。如何煩惱有于所緣．相應隨增 問也 境增隨眠無疑不問。隨眠增境．及相應法。難解故問 如前已辨 指前古師釋也 或如怨害伺求瑕隙。及如見毒。應知
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：此外，其他經典中說到，對於名、欲等事物產生執取。引用第二部經典來證明，四種執取總體上以欲貪為本體。《正理論》說：『這並不矛盾，因為經典的意圖不同。』乃至佛陀觀察所教化眾生的根性和行為所需，在多種本體中暫且簡略地舉出一個。又如經典所說：『如果斷除一種法，我能保證你獲得不還果。』這一種法，指的是薩迦耶見（身見，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）。並非僅僅斷除這個才能獲得不還果。又如說無明（對事物真相的迷惑）能夠覆蓋有情眾生。然而在其他地方說，覆蓋有五種。這部經典也是如此，隨著所教化的眾生，現在相續中被愛所惱，所以簡略地為他們說愛沒有過失。』以上是解釋。 欲、有二軛可以簡略地舉出愛，因為愛包含它們。見軛又是什麼呢？愛和見軛的性質各自不同。以上是提問。 舉出愛也沒有過失，因為見軛這個名稱，依據訓釋的門徑，可以通達兩種含義。如果見就是軛，就稱為見軛，如無明軛。如果對於見是軛，就稱為見軛，猶如『有軛』。佛陀讓佛弟子瞭解這兩種含義。即使也對於愛建立見軛這個名稱，也沒有過失。 論：像這樣已經辨析了隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態）和纏（煩惱的現行狀態）。下面一頌，第二是解釋名稱。上面兩句有四種含義來解釋隨眠。第三句解釋其餘四種含義，下句是總結。 論曰：乃至所以稱為微細，是解釋頌中的『微細』二字。《正理論》說：『因此聖者阿難陀說：我現在不知道對於同梵行的人是否生起慢心。』不是說完全沒有，因為慢隨眠的行相非常微細，他尚且不瞭解慢心是否存在，更何況是各種凡夫俗子。其餘的例子也應該如此。有人解釋說，對於極微小的剎那，也有隨眠增長，所以稱為微細。 論：第二，隨增，乃至增長昏滯，是解釋頌中的第二種含義。《正理論》說：『煩惱如何在所緣境和相應法上隨之增長？』這是提問。對於境增長隨眠，無疑義，所以不問。隨眠增長境以及相應法，難以理解，所以提問。如前已經辨析。』指出了前代古師的解釋。或者像怨家伺機尋找過失，以及像見毒，應當知道。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: Furthermore, other sutras speak of attachment to things like name and desire. Quoting the second sutra to prove that the four attachments are generally based on desire and greed. The Zhengli Lun (Treatise on Correct Principles) says: 'This is not contradictory, because the intention of the sutras is different.' Even to the point that the Buddha observes the faculties and practices needed by those being taught, and temporarily mentions one among many entities. Also, as the sutra says: 'If you cut off one dharma, I can guarantee that you will attain the state of non-return.' This one dharma refers to Sakkaya-ditthi (belief in a self, the view that the five aggregates are a real self). It is not only by cutting this off that one attains the state of non-return. Also, it is said that ignorance (Avidya, delusion about the true nature of things) can cover sentient beings. However, in other places it is said that there are five coverings. This sutra is also like this, depending on the sentient beings being taught, who are now troubled by love in their continuum, so it is briefly said to them that love has no fault.' The above is an explanation. The two yokes of desire and existence can be briefly mentioned as love, because love includes them. What about the yoke of views? The natures of love and the yoke of views are different. The above is a question. Mentioning love is also not a fault, because the name 'yoke of views', according to the method of explanation, can encompass two meanings. If the view is the yoke, it is called the 'yoke of views', like the 'yoke of ignorance'. If it is for the view that it is a yoke, it is called the 'yoke of views', just like 'having a yoke'. The Buddha allows his disciples to understand these two meanings. Even if the name 'yoke of views' is also established for love, there is no fault. Treatise: In this way, the anusaya (latent tendencies of defilements) and paryavasthana (manifestations of defilements) have been distinguished. The following verse, the second is to explain the name. The above two lines have four meanings to explain anusaya. The third line explains the remaining four meanings, and the last line is a conclusion. Treatise says: Even to the point that it is called subtle, is explaining the word 'subtle' in the verse. The Zhengli Lun says: 'Therefore, the venerable Ananda said: I do not know now whether I have arisen pride towards those practicing the Brahma-viharas (divine abidings).』 It is not said that there is none at all, because the characteristics of the mana-anusaya (latent tendency of pride) are very subtle, he still does not understand whether pride exists or not, let alone the various ordinary beings. The remaining examples should be like this. Some explain that even for extremely small moments, there is an increase in anusaya, so it is called subtle. Treatise: Second, increase, even to the point of increasing dullness, is explaining the second meaning in the verse. The Zhengli Lun says: 'How do defilements increase in relation to the object and the corresponding dharmas?' This is a question. There is no doubt about the increase of anusaya in relation to the object, so it is not asked. It is difficult to understand the increase of the object and the corresponding dharmas in relation to anusaya, so it is asked. As previously distinguished.' Points out the explanation of the ancient masters. Or like enemies seeking faults, and like seeing poison, it should be known.
煩惱于自所緣有隨增義 亦如熱鐵丸能令水熱。及如觸毒。應知煩惱于自相應有隨增義 已上文釋所緣．相應。義別喻異前是所緣。后是相應 二皆同乳母。令嬰兒隨增。乳母能令嬰兒增長。及令伎藝漸次積集。所緣．相應令諸煩惱相續增長及得積集 前明煩惱增境．及相應法。此明境．及相應增煩惱也。
論。言隨逐者至常為過患。釋頌第三義也。正理論云。謂無始來於相續中起得隨逐。
論。不作加行至故名隨轉。釋頌第四義也。正理論云。極難離故。如四日瘧及鼠毒等。有說。隨縛謂得恒隨。如海水所隨空行影。
論。由如是義故名隨眠。結釋名也。正理論云。由此所說諸因緣故。十種煩惱立隨眠名 此上二論結隨眠名。皆非訓詞門釋。但是十種煩惱有上四義立隨眠名 有人云。微細是眠義。后三是隨義 非也。所以得知。此論亦是由如是義故名隨眠。正理論云。由此所說諸因緣故。十種煩惱立隨眠名 故知但是過失多故立隨眠名。非是四中取訓詞釋。正理別有訓詞門故。正理論云。依訓詞門釋此名者。謂隨流者相續中眠故名隨眠。或隨勝者相續中眠故名隨眠。即是趣入如實解位為惛迷義。或有獄中長時隨逐覆有情類故名隨眠。
論。稽留有情至故名為漏。上總釋名。如堤塘漏水有其
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：煩惱對於其所緣境具有增長的意義，就像燒紅的鐵丸能使水變熱一樣。又如接觸毒物，應當知道煩惱對於與其相應的法也具有增長的意義。以上文段解釋了所緣和相應的含義，它們的意義不同，比喻也不同，前面是所緣，後面是相應。二者都像乳母一樣，使嬰兒增長。乳母能使嬰兒增長，並使技藝逐漸積累。所緣和相應使各種煩惱相續增長並得以積累。前面說明了煩惱增長的對境以及相應的法，這裡說明了對境以及相應能增長煩惱。
論：『言隨逐者至常為過患』，解釋偈頌的第三個意義。正理論說：『指無始以來在相續中生起並獲得的隨逐。』
論：『不作加行至故名隨轉』，解釋偈頌的第四個意義。正理論說：『極其難以脫離，就像四日瘧和鼠毒等。』有人說：『隨縛是指恒常隨逐，就像海水所隨的空行影。』
論：『由如是義故名隨眠』，總結解釋名稱。正理論說：『由於以上所說的各種因緣，十種煩惱被立為隨眠之名。』以上兩論總結了隨眠的名稱，都不是從訓釋詞義的角度來解釋。只是因為十種煩惱具有以上四種意義，所以立為隨眠之名。有人說：『微細是眠的含義，后三種是隨的含義。』不是這樣的。為什麼知道呢？因為此論也是『由如是義故名隨眠』。正理論說：『由於以上所說的各種因緣，十種煩惱被立為隨眠之名。』所以知道只是因為過失多，所以立為隨眠之名，不是從四種意義中選取來訓釋詞義。正理論另外有訓釋詞義的角度。正理論說：『如果從訓釋詞義的角度來解釋這個名稱，就是指隨順流轉者在相續中眠伏，所以名為隨眠。或者隨順殊勝者在相續中眠伏，所以名為隨眠，也就是對於趣入如實解位的昏迷。或者在牢獄中長時間隨逐覆蓋有情眾生，所以名為隨眠。』
論：『稽留有情至故名為漏』，以上是總的解釋名稱，就像堤壩漏水一樣。
【English Translation】 English version: Afflictions have the meaning of increasing with regard to their objects (所緣, suo yuan) of attachment, just as a red-hot iron ball can heat water. And like touching poison, it should be known that afflictions also have the meaning of increasing with regard to the dharmas (法, dharma) that are associated with them. The above paragraphs explain the meanings of objects of attachment and association; their meanings are different, and the metaphors are also different. The former is the object of attachment, and the latter is the association. Both are like wet nurses, causing infants to grow. Wet nurses can cause infants to grow and gradually accumulate skills. Objects of attachment and association cause various afflictions to continuously increase and be accumulated. The former explains the objects of attachment that increase afflictions and the associated dharmas, and this explains that objects of attachment and association can increase afflictions.
Treatise: 'The statement 'following' to 'always be a fault' explains the third meaning of the verse. The Zhengli Lun (正理論, Zhengli Lun) says: 'It refers to the following that arises and is obtained in the continuum from beginningless time.'
Treatise: 'Not performing effort' to 'therefore it is called following' explains the fourth meaning of the verse. The Zhengli Lun says: 'It is extremely difficult to get rid of, like quartan malaria and rat poison.' Some say: 'Following bondage refers to constant following, like the shadow of a sky-goer following the sea water.'
Treatise: 'Because of such meaning, it is called latent tendency (隨眠, suimian)' summarizes and explains the name. The Zhengli Lun says: 'Because of the various causes and conditions mentioned above, the ten afflictions are given the name latent tendency.' The above two treatises summarize the name latent tendency, but neither explains it from the perspective of etymological interpretation. It is only because the ten afflictions have the above four meanings that they are given the name latent tendency. Some say: 'Subtle is the meaning of latency, and the latter three are the meanings of following.' This is not the case. How do we know? Because this treatise also says 'Because of such meaning, it is called latent tendency.' The Zhengli Lun says: 'Because of the various causes and conditions mentioned above, the ten afflictions are given the name latent tendency.' Therefore, we know that it is only because of the abundance of faults that it is given the name latent tendency, and it is not selected from the four meanings to interpret the etymology. The Zhengli Lun has another perspective of etymological interpretation. The Zhengli Lun says: 'If we interpret this name from the perspective of etymological interpretation, it refers to those who follow the flow and lie dormant in the continuum, so it is called latent tendency. Or those who follow the superior and lie dormant in the continuum, so it is called latent tendency, which is the confusion for entering the position of true understanding. Or those who follow and cover sentient beings in prison for a long time, so it is called latent tendency.'
Treatise: 'Detaining sentient beings' to 'therefore it is called outflows (漏, lou)' The above is a general explanation of the name, just like water leaking from a dam.
二義。一者住義即是留住生死之義。二是流義即是于生死中流轉 於六瘡門泄過無窮者。正明漏也。
論。極漂善品故名瀑流。總釋瀑流名也。
論。和合有情故名為軛。總釋軛名。令有情與界．趣．生共和合故名軛。猶如車軛。正理論云。于界．趣．生和合名軛。
論。能為依執故名為取。總釋取名也。能與執取三有自體為依故。正理論云。執取彼彼自體名取 已上有部釋也。
論。若善釋者應作是言。已下。論主釋也。
論諸境界中至說名為漏。此釋漏也。
論。若勢增上至難違拒故。釋瀑流也。
論。于現行時至故名為軛。此釋軛也。
論。執欲等故說名為取。或謂以愛執取四法名為四取。◎
俱舍論疏卷第二十
交了
保延三年九月十九日朝于南新房點了 可久樹 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二十一
沙門法寶撰
分別隨眠品第五之三
◎論。如是已辨至為復有餘。結前四門生後門也 問意云。隨眠並纏。世尊就過差別說為漏．瀑流．軛等。為唯有爾所過名。為更有餘義立異名耶 此下第二半頌更立五義。垢非纏．隨眠故別為一門。
論曰至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二義：一是『住』義，即是留住生死的意義；二是『流』義，即是在生死中流轉。『於六瘡門泄過無窮者』，正是說明漏失。
論：極度漂流善品，所以名為『瀑流』（Ogha，指使人漂流於輪迴的強大力量）。總的解釋『瀑流』這個名稱。
論：和合有情，所以名為『軛』（Yoga，束縛）。總的解釋『軛』這個名稱。使有情與界（Dhatu，界）、趣（Gati，趣）、生（Jati，生）共同和合，所以名為『軛』，猶如車軛。《正理論》說：『于界、趣、生和合，名為軛。』
論：能作為依處和執取，所以名為『取』（Upadana，執取）。總的解釋『取』這個名稱。能與執取三有自體作為依處。 《正理論》說：『執取彼彼自體，名取。』以上是有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）的解釋。
論：如果善於解釋，應當這樣說。以下是論主的解釋。
論：諸境界中，乃至說名為『漏』（Asrava，煩惱的流出）。這是解釋『漏』。
論：如果勢力增長，乃至難以違抗，所以解釋為『瀑流』。
論：于現行時，乃至所以名為『軛』。這是解釋『軛』。
論：執著欲等，所以說名為『取』。或者說以愛執取四法，名為四取（Cattaro Upadanani，四種執取）。
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十
交了
保延三年九月十九日朝于南新房點了 可久樹 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十一
沙門法寶 撰
分別隨眠品第五之三
論：像這樣已經辨明，乃至是否還有其餘。總結前面的四門，引出後面的門。問的意思是：隨眠（Anusaya，隨眠）和纏（Paryavasthana，纏）。世尊就過患的差別，說為漏、瀑流、軛等。是隻有這些過患的名稱，還是更有其他意義而立不同的名稱呢？以下第二半頌，更立五義。垢（Mala，垢）不是纏、隨眠，所以特別作為一門。
論曰至
【English Translation】 English version Two meanings: First, the meaning of 'abiding,' which is the meaning of remaining in birth and death; second, the meaning of 'flowing,' which is the flowing within birth and death. 'Those who exhaust endlessly through the six sense-doors' precisely explain leakage (Asrava).
Treatise: Because it extremely washes away virtuous qualities, it is called 'Ogha' (torrent, a powerful force that makes beings drift in Samsara). This is a general explanation of the name 'Ogha'.
Treatise: Because it unites sentient beings, it is called 'Yoga' (yoke, bondage). This is a general explanation of the name 'Yoga'. It causes sentient beings to be jointly united with Dhatu (realm), Gati (course of rebirth), and Jati (birth), therefore it is called 'Yoga,' like a cart yoke. The Nyayānusāra says: 'Being united with Dhatu, Gati, and Jati is called Yoga.'
Treatise: Because it can serve as a support and grasping, it is called 'Upadana' (grasping). This is a general explanation of the name 'Upadana'. It can serve as a support for grasping the self-nature of the three existences. The Nyayānusāra says: 'Grasping this and that self-nature is called Upadana.' The above is the explanation of the Sarvastivada school.
Treatise: If one is good at explaining, one should say it this way. The following is the explanation of the treatise master.
Treatise: Among all realms, even to the point of being called 'Asrava' (outflow, leakage of defilements). This explains 'Asrava'.
Treatise: If the power increases, even to the point of being difficult to resist, therefore it is explained as 'Ogha'.
Treatise: At the time of manifestation, even to the point of being called 'Yoga'. This explains 'Yoga'.
Treatise: Because of attachment to desires, etc., it is called 'Upadana'. Or it is said that grasping the four dharmas with love is called the Four Upadanas (Cattaro Upadanani, four types of grasping).
Kosa Commentary, Scroll 20
Completed
Checked at Nan-Shin-Bo on the morning of the 19th day of the 9th month of the 3rd year of Hoen. Kakyuju Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1822, Kosa Commentary
Kosa Commentary, Scroll 21
Composed by the Shramana Dharmapala
Chapter 5, Section 3: Analysis of Latent Defilements
Treatise: Having thus already distinguished, even to whether there is anything else. Concluding the previous four topics and introducing the following topic. The meaning of the question is: Anusaya (latent defilements) and Paryavasthana (entanglements). The World-Honored One, based on the differences in faults, spoke of them as Asrava, Ogha, Yoga, etc. Are there only these names for faults, or are there other meanings for establishing different names? The following second half-verse establishes five more meanings. Mala (stain, impurity) is not an entanglement or latent defilement, so it is specifically made into a separate topic.
Treatise says
復說五種。列五名也。一結。二縛。三隨眠。四隨煩惱。五纏。
論。且結云何。自下五義並垢有六數也。此下五行半頌。第一明結。于中三種。一九結。二五下分結。三五上分結。此兩頌半明九結也。
論曰至九慳結。列九名也。
論。此中愛結至當辨其相。出愛結也。所以九種總名結者。正理論云。于境于生有繫縛能。故名為結。或有此故。令諸有情合衆多苦。故名為結。是眾苦惱安足處故。此中愛結。謂三界貪。此就所依及所緣說 依三界身。緣三界境。未離三界染之貪。名三界貪 所言貪者。謂有心所樂可意相所攝受行。即于諸有及諸有具。所起樂著。說名為貪。何緣此貪說名為愛。此染心所隨樂境故 余隨所應當辨其相者。謂恚結等。如余處釋當辨其相 正理釋云。恚謂于違想。及別離欲所攝受行中。令心憎背慢謂七慢。如前已釋言無明結者。謂三界無知。此約所依非所緣故。以諸無漏法不墮界故。無明亦用彼為所緣故。此廣分別如緣起中。見結．取結。俱邪推度相。別顯彼相廣如五見中。於前分別邊執見處說計為我有漏行中計斷計常名邊執見。于中斷見名何所目。謂執死後行不續生。豈不此即是撥後有邪見。雖有此責。現見世間。有行相同而體差別。如慈與愛體異行同。如何行同而體
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 再說五種繫縛。這裡列出五種名稱：一、結（Samyojana），二、縛（Bandhana），三、隨眠（Anusaya），四、隨煩惱（Upaklesha），五、纏（Paryavasthana）。
論：首先什麼是結？從下面的五種意義來看，都屬於垢，共有六種。 下面的五行半頌文，第一部分闡明結。其中有三種：一、九結，二、五下分結，三、五上分結。這兩頌半文闡明九結。
論曰：到九慳結，列出九種名稱。
論：這裡，愛結（Raga-samyojana）到應當辨別其相，是指出愛結。為什麼九種總稱為結呢？《正理論》說：對於境界和生存有繫縛的能力，所以稱為結。或者因為有這些結，使得有情眾生結合眾多痛苦，所以稱為結。結是眾多苦惱安立之處。這裡所說的愛結，是指三界（Trailokya）的貪愛。這是就所依和所緣來說的——依三界之身，緣三界之境，沒有離開三界染污的貪愛，稱為三界貪。所說的貪，是指心所（Caitasika）對於可意之相所產生的執取行為，也就是對於各種存在（Bhava）以及存在的工具（Bhava-vastu）所產生的樂著，稱為貪。為什麼這種貪稱為愛呢？因為這種染污的心所隨著所喜愛的境界而生起。其餘的，應當根據情況辨別其相，比如嗔結（Pratigha-samyojana）等，如同其他地方的解釋，應當辨別其相。《正理釋》說：嗔是指對於違逆之想以及別離之慾所產生的執取行為中，令心憎恨背離。慢（Mana）是指七慢，如前已解釋。所說的無明結（Avidya-samyojana），是指三界的無知。這是就所依而不是所緣來說的，因為各種無漏法（Anasrava-dharma）不屬於三界。無明也用無漏法作為所緣。這種廣泛的分別如同緣起（Pratitya-samutpada）中那樣。見結（Drishti-samyojana）、取結（Shila-vrata-paramarsa-samyojana），都是邪推度的相。詳細地顯示它們的相，如同五見（Panca-drishti）中那樣。在前面分別的邊執見（Antagrahadrishti）處說，計為我（Atman）的有漏行中，計斷計常稱為邊執見。于中斷見，用什麼來指代呢？是指執著死後行為不再延續到下一生。難道這不是撥無後有的邪見嗎？雖然有這樣的責難，但現在看到世間有行為相同而體性不同的情況，如同慈（Maitri）與愛，體性不同而行為相同。為什麼行為相同而體性不同呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Again, there are five kinds of bondages. Here are the five names: 1. Attachment (Samyojana), 2. Bondage (Bandhana), 3. Latent tendencies (Anusaya), 4. Secondary defilements (Upaklesha), 5. Entanglements (Paryavasthana).
Treatise: First, what is attachment? From the following five meanings, all belong to defilements, totaling six. The following five and a half verses, the first part clarifies attachment. Among them, there are three types: 1. Nine attachments, 2. Five lower fetters, 3. Five higher fetters. These two and a half verses clarify the nine attachments.
Treatise says: Up to the nine selfish attachments, listing the nine names.
Treatise: Here, 'attachment (Raga-samyojana)' to 'should distinguish its characteristics' refers to pointing out attachment. Why are the nine collectively called attachments? The Nyayanusara says: 'It has the ability to bind to objects and existence, therefore it is called attachment. Or because of these attachments, sentient beings are bound to numerous sufferings, therefore it is called attachment. Attachment is the place where numerous sufferings are established.' The attachment mentioned here refers to the craving of the three realms (Trailokya). This is in terms of what it relies on and what it takes as its object—relying on the bodies of the three realms, taking the realms of the three realms as its object, the craving that has not left the defilement of the three realms is called the craving of the three realms. What is called craving refers to the mental factor (Caitasika) that arises from the pleasant aspects of desirable objects, that is, the pleasure and attachment that arise towards various existences (Bhava) and the tools of existence (Bhava-vastu) are called craving. Why is this craving called love? Because this defiled mental factor arises along with the beloved object. The rest should be distinguished according to the situation, such as aversion attachment (Pratigha-samyojana), etc., as explained elsewhere, its characteristics should be distinguished. The Nyayanusara explains: 'Aversion refers to the mind's hatred and turning away in the grasping behavior arising from thoughts of opposition and the desire for separation.' Conceit (Mana) refers to the seven conceits, as explained earlier. What is called ignorance attachment (Avidya-samyojana) refers to the ignorance of the three realms. This is in terms of what it relies on rather than what it takes as its object, because the various unconditioned dharmas (Anasrava-dharma) do not belong to the three realms. Ignorance also uses unconditioned dharmas as its object. This extensive distinction is like that in dependent origination (Pratitya-samutpada). View attachment (Drishti-samyojana) and adherence to rites and rituals attachment (Shila-vrata-paramarsa-samyojana) are both aspects of wrong inference. To show their characteristics in detail is like that in the five views (Panca-drishti). In the previously distinguished extreme view (Antagrahadrishti), it is said that in the conditioned actions that are considered as self (Atman), considering annihilation or permanence is called extreme view. What is used to refer to the view of annihilation in between? It refers to the attachment to the belief that actions do not continue to the next life after death. Although there is such a criticism, it is now seen that there are cases in the world where actions are the same but their nature is different, just as loving-kindness (Maitri) and love are different in nature but the same in action. Why are actions the same but their nature is different?
差別。如起加行欲饒益他。若屬染心從愛所起。若從慈起屬不染心。是謂行同而體差別。如是於行見不續生。從邪方便生。此屬斷見。離方便而起生此屬邪見。亦是行同而體差別。此斷．常生方便如六十二見中說。
論。見結謂三見取結謂二取。此分五見為二結也。
論。依如是理至隨眠隨增。下別引本論問答。此即問 頗有見相應法者。謂見取．戒取相應法。以此二取是五見中二見故 為愛結系非見結系非不有見隨眠隨增者。謂為九結中愛結系。不為九結中見結系也。而為十隨眠中見隨眠隨增也。
論。曰有。答也。
論。云何。重問。
論。集智已生至彼隨增故。廣引 謂。集智已生滅智未生。見滅見道二取相應法。出法體時也。集智已生時。謂已斷苦．集遍行隨眠故。苦．集下身．邊二見。及邪見。此三見結已斷故。不能系滅．道下二取相應法。滅．道下有邪見。是不遍見結。緣無漏故。不緣滅．道下二取相應法。亦不與相應。由此不為見結系也。而為滅．道下貪緣故。為愛結所緣系也。五見俱名見隨眠故。二取即是見隨眠攝。與彼相應故有相應隨增。亦容緣故有所緣隨增。
論。何緣三見至為取結耶問也。
論。三見．二取至立為二結。答也。有二義故分見為二
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：差別在於，例如發起加行想要饒益他人，如果是屬於染污心，是從愛慾所生起；如果是從慈悲心生起，就屬於不染污心。這就是所謂的行為相同而本體有差別。像這樣，對於行見的不連續生起，如果是從邪方便生起，這屬於斷見；如果是離開方便而生起，這屬於邪見。這也是行為相同而本體有差別。這種斷見、常見生起方便的情況，就像六十二見（指外道所持的六十二種錯誤的見解）中所說的那樣。
論：見結（Dṛṣṭi-saṃyojana，五下分結之一，指身見、邊見、邪見）是指三種見，取結（Grahaṇa-saṃyojana，指見取、戒禁取）是指兩種取。這是將五種見分為兩種結。
論：依據這樣的道理，直到隨眠隨增。下面分別引用本論的問答。這也就是問：有沒有與見相應的法？是指與見取、戒禁取相應的法。因為這兩種取是五見中的兩種見。是否為愛結（Rāga-saṃyojana，貪愛之結）所繫縛，而非見結所繫縛，但並非沒有見隨眠（Dṛṣṭi-anuśaya，潛在的見煩惱）隨之增長？是指被九結（指愛結、恚結、慢結、無明結、見結、取結、疑結、嫉結、慳結）中的愛結所繫縛，而不是被九結中的見結所繫縛。但是卻被十隨眠（指貪隨眠、嗔隨眠、慢隨眠、無明隨眠、見隨眠、疑隨眠、有愛隨眠、身見隨眠、邊見隨眠、邪見隨眠）中的見隨眠所隨之增長。
論：曰有。這是回答。
論：云何？這是重複提問。
論：集智（Samudaya-jñāna，對集諦的智慧）已經生起，直到滅智（Nirodha-jñāna，對滅諦的智慧）尚未生起，見滅（Dṛṣṭi-nirodha，斷除見惑）見道（Dṛṣṭi-mārga，見道的智慧）二取相應的法。這是指出法體的時機。在集智已經生起的時候，是指已經斷除了苦諦（Duḥkha-satya）和集諦（Samudaya-satya）的遍行隨眠（Paridhāvanā-anuśaya，指在三界中普遍存在的煩惱）。苦諦和集諦之下的身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我）、邊見（Antagrāha-dṛṣṭi，執著于斷常二邊的見解）以及邪見（Mithyā-dṛṣṭi，否定因果的見解）。這三種見結已經斷除，所以不能繫縛滅諦和道諦之下的兩種取相應的法。滅諦和道諦之下有邪見，是不遍見的見結。因為緣于無漏法（Anāsrava-dharma，超越煩惱的法），不緣于滅諦和道諦之下的兩種取相應的法，也不與之相應。因此不被見結所繫縛。但是因為滅諦和道諦之下有貪愛作為緣，所以被愛結所緣而繫縛。五見都名為見隨眠，兩種取也就是見隨眠所攝。與它們相應，所以有相應隨增，也容許作為所緣，所以有所緣隨增。
論：什麼緣故三種見和兩種取不立為一見結，而立為兩種取結呢？這是提問。
論：三種見和兩種取，因此立為兩種結。這是回答。因為有兩種意義，所以將見分為兩種。
【English Translation】 English version: The difference lies in, for example, initiating an action to benefit others. If it arises from a defiled mind, it originates from desire; if it arises from compassion, it belongs to an undefiled mind. This is what is meant by the same action but different essence. Similarly, regarding the discontinuous arising of views, if it arises from wrong means, it belongs to the annihilationist view (Uccheda-dṛṣṭi); if it arises without means, it belongs to the heretical view (Mithyā-dṛṣṭi). This is also the same action but different essence. The arising of these annihilationist and eternalist views (Śāśvata-dṛṣṭi) through means is as described in the sixty-two views (referring to the sixty-two wrong views held by non-Buddhists).
Treatise: The fetter of views (Dṛṣṭi-saṃyojana, one of the five lower fetters, referring to the view of self, extreme views, and heretical views) refers to three views, and the fetter of grasping (Grahaṇa-saṃyojana, referring to the grasping of views and the grasping of precepts and vows) refers to two kinds of grasping. This is the division of the five views into two fetters.
Treatise: According to this principle, up to the latent tendencies increasing. Below, the questions and answers from the original treatise are cited separately. This is asking: Are there any dharmas corresponding to views? It refers to dharmas corresponding to the grasping of views and the grasping of precepts and vows. Because these two kinds of grasping are two of the five views. Is it bound by the fetter of love (Rāga-saṃyojana, the fetter of attachment), but not bound by the fetter of views, yet there is no latent tendency of views (Dṛṣṭi-anuśaya, the latent afflictions of views) that increases? It refers to being bound by the fetter of love among the nine fetters (referring to the fetters of love, hatred, pride, ignorance, views, grasping, doubt, jealousy, and stinginess), but not bound by the fetter of views among the nine fetters. However, it is increased by the latent tendency of views among the ten latent tendencies (referring to the latent tendencies of greed, hatred, pride, ignorance, views, doubt, attachment to existence, view of self, extreme views, and heretical views).
Treatise: 'Yes.' This is the answer.
Treatise: 'How?' This is a repeated question.
Treatise: The wisdom of origination (Samudaya-jñāna, wisdom regarding the truth of origination) has already arisen, until the wisdom of cessation (Nirodha-jñāna, wisdom regarding the truth of cessation) has not yet arisen, the dharmas corresponding to the cessation of views (Dṛṣṭi-nirodha, the eradication of afflictive views) and the path of views (Dṛṣṭi-mārga, the wisdom of the path) two kinds of grasping. This is pointing out the timing of the emergence of the dharma body. When the wisdom of origination has already arisen, it refers to having already severed the pervasive latent tendencies (Paridhāvanā-anuśaya, referring to the afflictions that are universally present in the three realms) of the truth of suffering (Duḥkha-satya) and the truth of origination (Samudaya-satya). The view of self (Satkāya-dṛṣṭi, the view that the aggregate of the five skandhas is a real self), extreme views (Antagrāha-dṛṣṭi, clinging to the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism), and heretical views (Mithyā-dṛṣṭi, views that deny cause and effect) under the truth of suffering and the truth of origination. These three fetters of views have already been severed, so they cannot bind the dharmas corresponding to the two kinds of grasping under the truth of cessation and the truth of the path. There are heretical views under the truth of cessation and the truth of the path, which are not pervasive views. Because they are based on unconditioned dharmas (Anāsrava-dharma, dharmas that transcend afflictions), they are not based on the dharmas corresponding to the two kinds of grasping under the truth of cessation and the truth of the path, nor do they correspond to them. Therefore, they are not bound by the fetter of views. However, because there is attachment under the truth of cessation and the truth of the path as a condition, they are bound by the fetter of love. All five views are called latent tendencies of views, and the two kinds of grasping are included in the latent tendencies of views. Corresponding to them, there is a corresponding increase, and it is also permissible to be based on them, so there is an increase based on what is based on.
Treatise: For what reason are the three views and the two kinds of grasping not established as one fetter of views, but established as two kinds of grasping fetters? This is a question.
Treatise: The three views and the two kinds of grasping, therefore, are established as two kinds of fetters. This is the answer. Because there are two meanings, the views are divided into two kinds.
結。一為物等。二為取等。如文可解。正理論云。說此物等於義何益。于結義中見有益故。此言意說。如貪．瞋等一一獨能成一結事。三見．二取。各十八物和合各成一結事故。若異此者。應說五見各為一結如貪．瞋等故見．及取各十八物。共立一結方敵貪等。若爾身見．邊見．見取有十八物。戒取．邪見十八亦然。豈非物等。不爾。本釋其理決定。所以者何。以取等故。三見等所取。二取等能取。
論。何故纏中至非余纏耶。問也。
論。二唯不善至故唯立二。答也。十纏中慳．嫉．忿．覆四纏。自力起。唯不善。慳．嫉入結。忿．覆非結 若立八纏除忿．覆二唯有慳．嫉二纏。自力起。唯不善。余纏皆闕二義。無慚．無愧。唯不善。非自力起。悔通善．惡。唯自力起。余。二皆無。睡眠．掉舉．惛沈。
論。若纏唯八至亦具兩義故。難也。若纏有八。唯慳．嫉。具二復立為結義即無違 許纏有十。忿．覆具二而不入結。慳．嫉具二因何入結。故釋非理。
論。由此若許至及自部故。更為別釋也 應言嫉慳過失尤重者。是總句 謂此二種數現行故者。釋尤重義 正理論云。應作是釋。唯嫉．慳二過失尤重。故十纏中立二為結。由此二種數現行故。謂生欲界雖有九．六．三結．無結。而經唯
說嫉．慳二結。惱亂人．天。謂雖生在二善趣中。而為賤貪重苦所軛。現見。卑賤及諸乏財。乃至極親亦不敬愛。又二遍顯隨煩惱故。謂隨煩惱總有二種。一戚俱行。二歡俱行。嫉．慳遍顯如是二相。又此二能惱二部故。謂在家眾于財位中。由嫉及慳極為惱亂。若出家眾于教行中。由嫉及慳極為惱亂。或能惱天．阿素洛眾。謂因色味極相擾亂。或此能惱人．天二眾。如世尊告憍尸迦言。由嫉．慳結人．天惱亂。或此二能惱自．他眾。謂由嫉故惱亂他朋。由內懷慳惱亂自侶。故十纏內立二為結。
論。佛于余處依差別門。此下兩頌第二明五下分結也。
論曰至防邏人故。此敘第一釋也。此師意以欲界名為下分。順益欲界故名順下分結。后二不令出。前三卻令入。舉喻可知。
論。有餘師說至順下分名。第二釋也。此師意說。下有二種。一下有情。謂諸異生。二地獄。謂欲界。由前三故不超下有情。由后二故不超地獄。
論。諸得預流至斷三結耶。問也。預流果斷身見．邊見．戒取．見取．疑．邪．見六種煩惱。何故經說斷三結故得預流果。
論。理實應言至但說斷三。略開二門答前難也。佛依此故略說三也。
論。謂所斷中至攝彼三門。牒前門釋見所斷惑總有三類。唯一。通二。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 說嫉（嫉妒）和慳（吝嗇）這兩種結（煩惱的束縛），會惱亂人道和天道眾生。這是因為即使他們生在人天善趣之中，也會被卑賤和貪婪的沉重痛苦所束縛。現實中可以看到，卑賤和缺乏財富的人，乃至最親近的人也不會尊敬愛護他們。而且，嫉妒和慳吝這兩種遍行顯現隨煩惱，隨煩惱總共有兩種：一種是與憂戚相伴隨，一種是與歡喜相伴隨。嫉妒和慳吝普遍顯現這兩種狀態。此外，這兩種煩惱能惱亂兩類群體：在家眾在財富和地位方面，會因為嫉妒和慳吝而極度苦惱；出家眾在教法修行方面，會因為嫉妒和慳吝而極度苦惱。或者，它們能惱亂天眾和阿素洛（非天）眾，因為色和味的享受而極度擾亂。或者，這兩種煩惱能惱亂人道和天道兩類眾生，正如世尊告訴憍尸迦（帝釋天）所說，由於嫉妒和慳吝的束縛，人道和天道眾生都感到苦惱。或者，這兩種煩惱能惱亂自己和他人，因為嫉妒而惱亂他人的朋友，因為內心懷有慳吝而惱亂自己的同伴。因此，在十纏（十種根本煩惱）中，特別設立嫉妒和慳吝這兩種結。
論：佛在其他地方依據差別之門（不同的角度）來闡述。下面兩頌是第二部分，說明五下分結（導致眾生流轉于欲界的五種煩惱）。
論曰：至防邏人故。這是敘述第一種解釋。這位論師認為，欲界被稱為下分，順益欲界的煩惱被稱為順下分結。后兩種（嫉妒和慳吝）不讓人出離欲界，前三種（身見、戒禁取見、疑）卻讓人進入欲界。用比喻可以理解。
論：有餘師說至順下分名。這是第二種解釋。這位論師認為，下有兩種：一下有情，指各種異生（凡夫）；二地獄，指欲界。由於前三種煩惱，眾生不能超越下有情；由於后兩種煩惱，眾生不能超越地獄。
論：諸得預流至斷三結耶。這是提問。預流果（須陀洹果）斷除身見、邊見、戒取、見取、疑、邪見這六種煩惱。為什麼經典上說斷除三種結（身見、戒禁取見、疑）就能證得預流果呢？
論：理實應言至但說斷三。這是略開二門來回答前面的難題。佛陀依據這個原因，所以簡略地說斷除三種結。
論：謂所斷中至攝彼三門。這是依照前面的門來解釋。見所斷惑（通過見道斷除的煩惱）總共有三類：唯一類，共通類。
【English Translation】 English version It speaks of the two fetters of jealousy (jealousy) and miserliness (stinginess). They trouble beings in the realms of humans and gods. This is because even if they are born in the two good realms of humans and gods, they are still bound by the heavy suffering of baseness and greed. It is evident that those who are base and lack wealth are not respected or loved even by their closest relatives. Moreover, these two pervasive manifestations are accompanying afflictions. There are two types of accompanying afflictions in general: one that accompanies sorrow and one that accompanies joy. Jealousy and miserliness universally manifest these two aspects. Furthermore, these two can trouble two groups: householders are extremely troubled by jealousy and miserliness in matters of wealth and status; renunciants are extremely troubled by jealousy and miserliness in matters of teaching and practice. Or, they can trouble the gods and Asuras (non-gods), causing extreme disturbance due to the enjoyment of form and taste. Or, these two afflictions can trouble both humans and gods, as the World-Honored One told Kausika (Indra), 'Due to the fetters of jealousy and miserliness, humans and gods are troubled.' Or, these two can trouble oneself and others, because jealousy troubles the friends of others, and harboring miserliness inwardly troubles one's own companions. Therefore, among the ten entanglements (ten fundamental afflictions), jealousy and miserliness are specifically established as two fetters.
Treatise: The Buddha expounds based on the gate of differentiation (different perspectives) in other places. The following two verses are the second part, explaining the five lower fetters (the five afflictions that cause beings to transmigrate in the desire realm).
Treatise says: To the reason of guarding people. This is the narration of the first explanation. This teacher believes that the desire realm is called the lower division, and the afflictions that benefit the desire realm are called the fetters that accord with the lower division. The latter two (jealousy and miserliness) do not allow people to leave the desire realm, while the former three (self-view, adherence to rules and rituals, doubt) cause people to enter the desire realm. It can be understood by analogy.
Treatise: Some other teachers say to the name of according with the lower division. This is the second explanation. This teacher believes that there are two types of lower: one is lower beings, referring to various ordinary beings (common people); the other is the lower realm, referring to the desire realm. Due to the first three afflictions, beings cannot transcend lower beings; due to the latter two afflictions, beings cannot transcend the lower realm.
Treatise: All those who attain Stream-enterer to cut off three fetters. This is a question. The Stream-enterer fruit (Sotapanna) cuts off six types of afflictions: self-view, extreme view, adherence to rules and rituals, adherence to views, doubt, and wrong view. Why do the scriptures say that attaining the Stream-enterer fruit is due to cutting off three fetters (self-view, adherence to rules and rituals, and doubt)?
Treatise: In reality, it should be said to only say cutting off three. This is briefly opening two doors to answer the previous difficulty. The Buddha relies on this reason, so he briefly says cutting off three fetters.
Treatise: Speaking of what is cut off to include those three doors. This is explaining according to the previous door. The afflictions to be cut off by seeing the truth (afflictions cut off through the path of seeing) are generally of three types: one unique type, and one common type.
通四部故。謂身．邊見唯苦下。戒取通苦．道。見取．邪見．疑通四部說。身見攝一部。戒取攝二部。疑攝四部。
論。又所斷中至已說斷六。第二釋也。見斷煩惱三隨三轉。所隨是能隨根。說彼所隨即兼能隨 故說斷三已說斷六者。雙結兩釋。
論。有作是釋至故說斷三。敘異說也 謂由身見怖畏解脫不欲發趣者。恐得涅槃我斷故不欲發趣 由戒禁取依執邪道者。非道計道名戒取故 由疑于道深懷猶豫者。疑于正道是道。非道。故佛偏說三兼亦顯余。故但說三不說六也。
論。佛于余經如順下分。已下一頌。第三明五上分結也。
論曰至名順上分。結釋也。此以不超上界順益上界故名順上分結。則是上界為上分也。正理論云。如是五種體有八物。掉舉等三二界別故 上二界別成六 唯修所斷名順上分。順益上分故名順上分結。要斷見所斷彼方現行故。見所斷惑未永斷時。亦能資彼令順下分 故未斷見惑時。上界二貪及掉舉．慢．無明。有力資令卻生地獄 故要永斷見所斷惑方現行者名順上分 又云。于少是結。謂聖者于少非結。謂異生有位是結。謂已離欲貪。有位非結。謂未離欲貪 又云。掉舉擾惱三摩地故。于順上分建立為結。即由此理順上分中不說惛沈。順等持故 婆沙云。問何故唯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 通達四部（四種不同的經典或教義）的含義是：身見（認為五蘊和合的身體為真實自我的錯誤觀念）、邊見（執著于斷滅或常恒兩種極端的錯誤見解）只在苦諦下斷除。戒禁取（錯誤地認為持守不正當的戒律和禁忌可以獲得解脫）通於苦諦和道諦。見取（認為自己持有的見解才是最正確的）和邪見（否定因果、輪迴等真理的錯誤見解）以及疑（對佛法真理的懷疑）通於四部（四諦）。身見只攝屬於一部（一類煩惱）。戒禁取攝屬於二部（兩類煩惱）。疑攝屬於四部（四類煩惱）。
《論》中說，『又所斷中』到『已說斷六』，這是第二種解釋。見斷（通過見道斷除的煩惱）的煩惱隨著三種煩惱（身見、邊見、邪見）而轉。『所隨』是能隨的根本。說『彼所隨』，就兼顧了能隨的含義。所以說斷除三種煩惱，就等於已經說了斷除六種煩惱。這是雙重總結兩種解釋。
《論》中說，『有作是釋』到『故說斷三』，這是敘述不同的解釋。有人認為，由於身見而害怕解脫，不願趨向涅槃的人，是恐怕得到涅槃后『我』（自我）會斷滅，所以不願趨向涅槃。由於戒禁取而執著于邪道的人，把非正道當作正道，這就叫做戒禁取。由於疑而對道深懷猶豫的人，懷疑正道是否真的是道，或者是否是錯誤的道路。所以佛陀偏重於說三種煩惱，也兼顧顯示了其餘的煩惱。因此只說三種煩惱，而不說六種煩惱。
《論》中說，佛在其他的經典中，例如《順下分》等，以下是一首偈頌。這是第三個部分，說明五上分結（導致眾生停留在色界和無色界的五種煩惱）。
《論》中說，『論曰』到『名順上分』，這是解釋五上分結。這是因為不超越上界，反而順益上界，所以叫做順上分結。這裡的『上界』指的是色界和無色界。正理論中說，這五種煩惱，體性上有八種事物。因為掉舉（心神不定）、慢（傲慢）、無明（對真理的無知）在兩個界別中有所不同。上二界（色界和無色界）的差別成就了六種。只有修所斷（通過修道斷除的煩惱）才能稱為順上分。順益上分，所以叫做順上分結。必須要斷除見所斷的煩惱，這些煩惱才能顯現。在見所斷的迷惑沒有被永遠斷除的時候，也能資助它們，使它們順於下分。所以在沒有斷除見惑的時候，上界（色界和無色界）的兩種貪慾以及掉舉、慢、無明，有力量資助它們，使它們重新生於地獄。所以必須要永遠斷除見所斷的迷惑，才能顯現的煩惱才叫做順上分。又說，對於少分來說是結，指的是聖者對於少分來說不是結。指的是異生（凡夫）在有地位的時候是結。指的是已經離開了欲貪。有地位的時候不是結，指的是還沒有離開欲貪。又說，掉舉擾亂三摩地（禪定），所以在順上分中建立為結。就是因為這個道理，在順上分中不說惛沈（精神萎靡）。順於等持（保持平靜的心境）。《婆沙論》中說，問：為什麼只
【English Translation】 English version To understand the meaning of the four divisions (four different scriptures or teachings) is this: 'Sakkayaditthi' (the false view that the body, composed of the five aggregates, is the real self) and 'antagrahaditthi' (the wrong view of clinging to either annihilation or permanence) are only eliminated under the 'Dukkha Satya' (Truth of Suffering). 'Silabbataparamasa' (the wrong belief that adhering to improper precepts and prohibitions can achieve liberation) is common to 'Dukkha' (suffering) and 'Magga' (the path). 'Ditthupadana' (the clinging to one's own views as the most correct) and 'Micchaditthi' (wrong views that deny the truth of causality, reincarnation, etc.) and 'Vicikiccha' (doubt about the truth of the Buddha's teachings) are common to the four divisions (the Four Noble Truths). 'Sakkayaditthi' only belongs to one division (one type of affliction). 'Silabbataparamasa' belongs to two divisions (two types of afflictions). 'Vicikiccha' belongs to four divisions (four types of afflictions).
In the 'Treatise', from 'Furthermore, among what is to be eliminated' to 'already explained the elimination of six', this is the second explanation. The afflictions eliminated by 'Ditthipahatabba' (afflictions eliminated through the path of seeing) revolve around three afflictions ('Sakkayaditthi', 'antagrahaditthi', and 'Micchaditthi'). 'What is followed' is the root of what can follow. Saying 'what is followed by them' also takes into account the meaning of what can follow. Therefore, saying the elimination of three afflictions is equivalent to already saying the elimination of six afflictions. This is a double summary of the two explanations.
In the 'Treatise', from 'Some make this explanation' to 'therefore explain the three', this is a narration of different explanations. Some believe that those who fear liberation due to 'Sakkayaditthi' and are unwilling to approach Nirvana are afraid that 'I' (self) will be annihilated upon attaining Nirvana, so they are unwilling to approach Nirvana. Those who cling to wrong paths due to 'Silabbataparamasa' regard non-right paths as right paths, which is called 'Silabbataparamasa'. Those who deeply hesitate about the path due to 'Vicikiccha' doubt whether the right path is truly the path or whether it is a wrong path. Therefore, the Buddha emphasizes explaining the three afflictions, also taking into account the display of the remaining afflictions. Therefore, only three afflictions are mentioned, not six.
In the 'Treatise', the Buddha, in other scriptures such as 'Anusamyojana' (lower fetters), etc., the following is a verse. This is the third part, explaining the five higher fetters (the five afflictions that cause beings to remain in the Form Realm and Formless Realm).
In the 'Treatise', from 'The Treatise says' to 'called higher fetters', this is an explanation of the five higher fetters. This is because they do not transcend the higher realms but instead benefit them, so they are called higher fetters. Here, 'higher realms' refers to the Form Realm and Formless Realm. The 'Nyayanusara-sastra' says that these five afflictions have eight entities in nature. Because 'uddhacca' (restlessness), 'mana' (conceit), and 'avijja' (ignorance of the truth) differ in the two realms. The differences in the upper two realms (Form Realm and Formless Realm) accomplish six. Only what is eliminated by cultivation ('Bhavanapahatabba') can be called higher fetters. Benefiting the higher realms, so they are called higher fetters. It is necessary to eliminate the afflictions eliminated by seeing ('Ditthipahatabba') for these afflictions to manifest. When the delusions eliminated by seeing have not been permanently eliminated, they can also assist them, causing them to be in accordance with the lower fetters. Therefore, when the delusions of seeing have not been eliminated, the two desires of the upper realms (Form Realm and Formless Realm), as well as restlessness, conceit, and ignorance, have the power to assist them, causing them to be reborn in the lower realms. Therefore, the afflictions that can only manifest when the delusions eliminated by seeing have been permanently eliminated are called higher fetters. It is also said that it is a fetter for the few, referring to the fact that it is not a fetter for the sages in the few. It refers to the fact that it is a fetter for ordinary beings when they have a position. It refers to those who have left desire. It is not a fetter when they have a position, referring to those who have not left desire. It is also said that restlessness disturbs 'Samadhi' (meditative concentration), so it is established as a fetter in the higher fetters. It is for this reason that dullness is not mentioned in the higher fetters. It is in accordance with 'Samahita' (maintaining a calm state of mind). The 'Vibhasa' says, Question: Why only
修所斷立為順上分結 答令趣上生名順上分。見所斷結亦令墮下。故不立為順上分結。複次上人所行名順上分。上人是聖非諸異生。見所斷結唯異生起。故不立為順上分結。于聖者中。唯不還者所起諸結。立順上分 問因論生論。何故預流及一來者所起諸結。非順上分。答順上分者。謂趣上生。預流．一來所起諸結。亦令生下。故不立為順上分結。
論。已辨結縛云何。此下一句。明三縛也。
論曰至作此定說。釋也。繫縛有情名之為縛。何緣唯說此三為縛。由三受故。約自相續有相應．所緣隨增。若他相續唯所緣也。正理論云。以能繫縛故立縛名。即是能遮趣離染義。結．縛二相雖無差別。而依本母說縛有三。一者貪縛。二者嗔縛。三者癡縛。所餘諸結品類同故。攝在三中。謂五見．疑同癡品類慢．慳二結貪品類同。嫉結同嗔。皆三結攝。又為顯示已見諦者。余所應作故說三縛。通縛六識身置生死獄故。又佛偏為覺慧劣者。顯粗相煩惱故但說三縛 有餘師說。由隨三受勢力所引。說縛有三。謂貪多分于自樂受。所緣．相應二種隨增。少分亦于不苦不樂。于自他苦及他樂舍。唯有一種所緣隨增。嗔亦多分于自苦受。所緣．相應二種隨增。少分亦于不苦不樂。于自．他樂及他苦舍。唯有一種所緣隨增。癡亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：修所斷的煩惱被立為順上分結（能使眾生向上界投生的煩惱）嗎？ 答：能使眾生趣向更高層生命形態的煩惱才被稱為順上分結。見所斷的煩惱也會使眾生墮落到較低的生命形態，因此不被立為順上分結。 進一步說，只有聖者所經歷的才被稱為順上分。這裡的聖者指的是不還果的聖人，而不是凡夫俗子。見所斷的煩惱只是凡夫俗子才會生起的，因此不被立為順上分結。在聖者中，只有不還果的聖人所生起的煩惱才被立為順上分結。 問：根據論的推論，為什麼預流果（Sotapanna）和一來果（Sakadagami）的聖人所生起的煩惱不是順上分結呢？ 答：順上分指的是能使眾生向上界投生的煩惱。預流果和一來果的聖人所生起的煩惱也會使眾生墮落到較低的生命形態，因此不被立為順上分結。
論：已經辨析了結（Kleshas）和縛（Bandhanas），接下來一句經文闡明了三種縛。
論曰：直到『作出此定說』，這是解釋。繫縛有情眾生的稱為縛。為什麼只說這三種是縛呢？因為有三種感受（受，Vedana）的緣故。就自身的相續來說，有相應和所緣兩種隨增；就他人的相續來說，只有所緣隨增。《正理論》中說：『因為能夠繫縛，所以立名為縛。』這就是能夠遮蔽趣向離染的意義。結和縛的兩種相雖然沒有差別，但是根據根本的論母，說縛有三種：一是貪縛（Raga-bandhana），二是嗔縛（Dvesha-bandhana），三是癡縛（Moha-bandhana）。其餘的各種結，因為品類相同，所以被攝在這三種之中。也就是說，五見（五種錯誤的見解，如身見、邊見等）、疑（Vicikitsa）和癡（Moha）屬於同一品類；慢（Mana）和慳（Matsarya）兩種結和貪（Raga）屬於同一品類；嫉（Irshya）結和嗔（Dvesha）屬於同一品類，都被這三種結所包含。此外，爲了顯示已經見諦的聖者還應該做什麼，所以說了三種縛。這三種縛能夠束縛六識身，使其處於生死輪迴的牢獄之中。而且，佛陀特別為覺悟智慧較弱的人，顯示粗顯的煩惱相，所以只說了三種縛。 有其他老師說，由於隨順三種感受的勢力所引導，所以說縛有三種。貪（Raga）大多與自身的樂受相應，所緣和相應兩種隨增；少部分也與不苦不樂的感受相應；對於自身和他人的苦受以及他人的樂受和舍受，只有一種所緣隨增。嗔（Dvesha）也大多與自身的苦受相應，所緣和相應兩種隨增；少部分也與不苦不樂的感受相應；對於自身和他人的樂受以及他人的苦受和舍受，只有一種所緣隨增。癡（Moha）也是……
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Are the afflictions severed by cultivation established as fetters conforming to the higher realms (afflictions that cause beings to be reborn in higher realms)? Answer: Only those afflictions that lead beings towards higher forms of life are called fetters conforming to the higher realms. The afflictions severed by view also cause beings to fall into lower forms of life, therefore they are not established as fetters conforming to the higher realms. Furthermore, only what is experienced by the noble ones is called conforming to the higher realms. Here, the noble ones refer to the non-returners (Anagami), not ordinary beings. The afflictions severed by view only arise in ordinary beings, therefore they are not established as fetters conforming to the higher realms. Among the noble ones, only the afflictions that arise in the non-returners are established as fetters conforming to the higher realms. Question: Based on the reasoning of the treatise, why are the afflictions that arise in the stream-enterers (Sotapanna) and once-returners (Sakadagami) not fetters conforming to the higher realms? Answer: Conforming to the higher realms refers to afflictions that cause beings to be reborn in higher realms. The afflictions that arise in the stream-enterers and once-returners also cause beings to fall into lower forms of life, therefore they are not established as fetters conforming to the higher realms.
Treatise: Having distinguished between afflictions (Kleshas) and fetters (Bandhanas), the following verse clarifies the three fetters.
Treatise says: Until 'making this definitive statement,' this is an explanation. That which binds sentient beings is called a fetter. Why are only these three said to be fetters? Because of the three feelings (Vedana). In terms of one's own continuum, there are both corresponding and object-related augmentations; in terms of others' continuums, there is only object-related augmentation. The Nyayasutra says: 'Because it is able to bind, it is established as a fetter.' This is what is able to obscure the meaning of moving towards detachment. Although there is no difference between the two aspects of afflictions and fetters, according to the fundamental treatise, it is said that there are three fetters: first, the fetter of greed (Raga-bandhana); second, the fetter of hatred (Dvesha-bandhana); and third, the fetter of delusion (Moha-bandhana). The remaining various afflictions, because they are of the same category, are included within these three. That is to say, the five views (five kinds of wrong views, such as the view of self, the view of extremes, etc.), doubt (Vicikitsa), and delusion (Moha) belong to the same category; the two afflictions of pride (Mana) and stinginess (Matsarya) belong to the same category as greed (Raga); the affliction of jealousy (Irshya) belongs to the same category as hatred (Dvesha), and all are encompassed by these three fetters. Furthermore, in order to show what the noble ones who have already seen the truth should still do, the three fetters are spoken of. These three fetters are able to bind the six consciousnesses, causing them to be in the prison of samsara. Moreover, the Buddha especially for those with weaker wisdom of awakening, reveals the coarse aspect of afflictions, so only the three fetters are spoken of. Some other teachers say that because of being guided by the power of following the three feelings, it is said that there are three fetters. Greed (Raga) mostly corresponds to one's own pleasant feeling, with both object-related and corresponding augmentations; a small part also corresponds to neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling; for one's own and others' painful feelings, and others' pleasant feelings and neutral feeling, there is only one object-related augmentation. Hatred (Dvesha) also mostly corresponds to one's own painful feeling, with both object-related and corresponding augmentations; a small part also corresponds to neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling; for one's own and others' pleasant feelings, and others' painful feelings and neutral feeling, there is only one object-related augmentation. Delusion (Moha) is also...
多分于自舍受。所緣．相應二種隨增。少分亦於樂受．苦受。於他一切受唯所緣增。是故世尊依多分理。說隨三受建立三縛。何類貪等遮趣離染說名為縛。謂唯現行。若異此者皆成三故。則應畢竟遮趣離染 后釋同俱舍。前釋三縛通一切煩惱等。偏說三者。是余染法之本母故。說三亦攝余也。
論。已分別縛隨眠雲何。自下一句。第三明隨眠。
論曰至如前已說。指前說也。
論。隨眠既已說隨煩惱云何。自下半頌。第四明隨煩惱。
論曰至如雜事中。釋頌文也。根本煩惱亦名隨煩惱。以隨心為惱亂事故。此即心為所隨。煩惱為能隨 復有此余異諸煩惱忿等染污心所是行蘊攝。隨煩惱起故亦名隨煩惱。此是根本煩惱為所隨。忿等為能隨也。非是忿等不名煩惱。但隨他故。廣說如法蘊足論第九卷雜事品中說。
論。后當略論纏煩惱垢攝者。生下文也。下明纏．垢。先辨其纏故言且也。自下有兩行半頌。第五明纏。前一行頌出纏名體。后一頌半明纏從生。
論曰至更加忿覆。敘異說也。準經說欲貪纏為緣。故知根本煩惱亦名為纏 品類足八。毗婆沙十。正理論云。如是十種繫縛含識。置生死獄故名為纏。或十為因起諸惡行。令拘惡趣故名為纏。
論。無慚無愧如前已釋。指前
根品釋也。
論。嫉謂於他至如前已辨。此釋嫉．慳．惡作指前。
論。眠謂令心至亦如前釋。釋眠．掉舉．惛沈指前釋也。悔通善．惡唯取不善。眠通三性唯取染污為纏 正理論云。令心昧略。惛沈相應不能持身。是為眠相。眠雖亦有惛不相應。此唯辨纏故作是說 又云。眠不與加行善相應性相違故。唯生得善。性羸劣故 通不善．有覆無記 又云。無覆無記唯異熟生。起工巧等眠便壞故。有餘師說。于眠位中亦有威儀．工巧心起。然非初位彼可即行。於後夢中方可行故 婆沙三十七云。無覆無記者。謂威儀．工巧．異熟生。非通果。威儀者如夢中自謂行等。工巧者如夢中自謂畫等。異熟生者如夢中除前所說余無記轉。有餘師說。唯異熟生是睡眠中無覆無記。以心惛昧不發身．語。故無威儀．及工巧性。
論。除嗔及害至說名為覆。釋忿覆也。
論。於此所說至是疑等流。自下釋十纏是根本煩惱等流。由此名隨煩惱。不名煩惱。
論。有說覆是至如其次第。敘異說。如文可知。
論。余煩惱垢其相云何。自下一行半頌。第六明六垢也。前之半頌出垢名．體。后一頌明從生。
論曰至名煩惱垢。此說是煩惱之垢也 相粗故別與垢名。釋六垢相也。別釋相可解 正理論云。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 根品釋也。
論：嫉妒的定義如前所述。這裡解釋嫉妒、慳吝、惡作，都指向之前的解釋。
論：睡眠使心昏昧，也如前解釋。這裡解釋睡眠、掉舉、惛沉，都指向之前的解釋。悔恨通於善與惡，但這裡只取不善的。睡眠通於三性（善、惡、無記），但這裡只取染污的作為纏縛。正理論說：『使心昏昧，與惛沉相應，不能支援身體，這就是睡眠的相狀。』睡眠雖然也有不與惛沉相應的，但這裡只辨析纏縛，所以這樣說。又說：『睡眠不與加行善相應，因為性質相違。』所以只有生得善。因為性質羸弱。通於不善、有覆無記。又說：『無覆無記只有異熟生，因為發起工巧等時，睡眠便會壞滅。』有其他師父說：『在睡眠狀態中，也有威儀、工巧心生起。』但不是最初的階段，因為那時不能立即行動。在後來的夢中才能行動。婆沙論第三十七卷說：『無覆無記，指的是威儀、工巧、異熟生。不通於果報。威儀，比如夢中自己認為在行走等。工巧，比如夢中自己認為在繪畫等。異熟生，比如夢中除了前面所說的，其餘的無記轉動。』有其他師父說：『只有異熟生是睡眠中的無覆無記。因為心昏昧，不引發身語，所以沒有威儀及工巧的性質。』
論：除了嗔恚和損害，其餘的都說名為覆藏。解釋忿和覆。
論：這裡所說的，是疑惑的等流。從下面開始解釋十纏是根本煩惱的等流。因此名為隨煩惱，不名為煩惱。
論：有人說覆藏是如其次第。敘述不同的說法。如文可知。
論：其餘煩惱垢的相狀如何？從下面一行半的偈頌開始。第六說明六垢。前半頌說明垢的名稱和體性。後半頌說明從何處產生。
論曰：名為煩惱垢。這裡說的是煩惱的垢染。因為相狀粗重，所以特別給予垢的名稱。解釋六垢的相狀。分別解釋相狀可以理解。正理論說：
【English Translation】 English version: Explanation of the Root Chapter.
Treatise: 'Jealousy' is as previously defined. This explains that jealousy, stinginess, and regret all refer back to previous explanations.
Treatise: 'Sleep' causes the mind to be obscured, also as previously explained. This explains that sleep, agitation, and torpor all refer back to previous explanations. Remorse is common to both good and evil, but here only the unwholesome is taken. Sleep is common to the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral), but here only the defiled is taken as an entanglement. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra says: 'Causing the mind to be obscured, corresponding to torpor, unable to support the body, this is the characteristic of sleep.' Although sleep may also not correspond to torpor, this only analyzes entanglements, so it is said this way. It also says: 'Sleep does not correspond to the wholesome of effort, because their natures are contradictory.' Therefore, it only has innate goodness. Because its nature is weak. It is common to unwholesome and obscured-neutral. It also says: 'Unobscured-neutral is only the result of maturation, because when initiating skillful activities, sleep will be destroyed.' Other teachers say: 'In the state of sleep, there are also dignified and skillful thoughts arising.' But not in the initial stage, because then one cannot act immediately. One can only act in later dreams. The Mahavibhasa Volume 37 says: 'Unobscured-neutral refers to dignified conduct, skillful activities, and the result of maturation. It does not extend to the fruition. Dignified conduct is like thinking one is walking in a dream. Skillful activities are like thinking one is painting in a dream. The result of maturation is like the remaining neutral movements in a dream, except for what was previously mentioned.' Other teachers say: 'Only the result of maturation is unobscured-neutral in sleep. Because the mind is obscured, it does not initiate bodily or verbal actions, so there is no dignified conduct or skillful activity.'
Treatise: Except for anger and harm, the rest are said to be coverings. Explains resentment and concealment.
Treatise: What is said here is the outflow of doubt. From below, it explains that the ten entanglements are the outflow of the fundamental afflictions. Therefore, they are called secondary afflictions, not afflictions.
Treatise: Some say that concealment is in sequential order. Narrates different views. As the text can be understood.
Treatise: What are the characteristics of the remaining defilements of affliction? From the following half-line verse. The sixth explains the six stains. The first half of the verse explains the names and nature of the stains. The second half of the verse explains from where they arise.
Treatise says: They are called defilements of affliction. This speaks of the defilements of affliction. Because their characteristics are coarse, they are specially given the name 'stain'. Explains the characteristics of the six stains. Separately explaining the characteristics can be understood. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra says:
恨與忿相有差別者。如樺皮火。其相猛利。而餘勢弱說名為忿。如冬室熱。其相輕微。而餘勢強說名為恨。由此故有說恨相言。忿息已續生令心濁名恨 又釋誑名云 謂先籌度設此方便。令彼后時生顛倒解故名為誑。然世間說。為利為名現相惑他。名為誑者。諸誑所引身．語業事。是誑果故假立誑名如以通名說通果事。
論。於此六種至諸見等流。釋六垢從根本煩惱等流。如文可解。論。此垢及纏至隨煩惱名。釋十纏六垢名隨煩惱所以。
論。此垢及纏為何所斷。此下大文第三義門分別。就中有五。一三斷。二三性。三三界。四六識。五五受相應 此一頌三斷分別也。
論曰至見此諦所斷。謂無慚．無愧．惛沈．掉舉．睡眠。此五。通與見．修所斷煩惱相應故。通見．修斷也。
論。余嫉．慳悔至名自在起。明唯修斷。如文可解。
論。此隨煩惱誰通何性。下半頌。第二三性分別也。
論曰至皆唯不善。明眠．惛．掉三。在欲界中。身．邊見相應是無記。余是不善。自余纏．垢皆不善性。
論。上二界中至無記性攝。明上二界唯無記也。
論。此隨煩惱誰何界系。下半頌。第三界系分別也。
論曰至今復重辨。釋諂．誑通二地所以。如文可解。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 恨與忿（krodha，憤怒）的差別在於：比如樺樹皮燃燒的火焰，其最初的勢頭猛烈，但後續的餘力微弱，這被稱為忿（krodha，憤怒）；又如冬天房間里的熱氣，其最初的感受輕微，但後續的餘力強大，這被稱為恨（upanaha，怨恨）。因此，有人說恨（upanaha，怨恨）的相狀是，忿（krodha，憤怒）平息后持續不斷地產生，使內心渾濁，這被稱為恨（upanaha，怨恨）。另外，對於『誑（maya，虛偽）』的解釋是：預先籌劃設定某種方便，使對方在之後產生顛倒的理解，因此稱為誑（maya，虛偽）。然而世俗的說法是，爲了利益或名聲，顯現虛假的表象迷惑他人，這被稱為誑（maya，虛偽）。各種虛偽行為所引發的身語行為，是虛偽的結果，因此假借『誑（maya，虛偽）』這個名稱來指代虛偽的結果，就像用通名來指代通名的結果一樣。 論：對於這六種（隨煩惱），直到諸見等流（ditthi-samanantara），解釋六垢（upaklesha，隨煩惱）是從根本煩惱等流而出，如經文的字面意思可以理解。論：這些垢（upaklesha，隨煩惱）和纏（paryavasthana，纏縛）直到隨煩惱的名稱，解釋了十纏（dasa paryavasthana）和六垢（upaklesha，隨煩惱）之所以被稱為隨煩惱的原因。 論：這些垢（upaklesha，隨煩惱）和纏（paryavasthana，纏縛）應該如何斷除？以下是大的科判第三義門分別，其中有五部分：一、三斷（三種斷除）；二、三性（三種性質）；三、三界（三個界）；四、六識（六個識）；五、五受相應（與五種感受相應）。這一頌是關於三斷（三種斷除）的分別。 論曰：乃至見此諦所斷，指的是無慚（ahrikya，無慚）、無愧（anapatrapya，無愧）、惛沉（styana，昏沉）、掉舉（auddhatya，掉舉）、睡眠（middha，睡眠）。這五種（隨煩惱），普遍與見所斷（darshana-prahātavya）和修所斷（bhavana-prahātavya）的煩惱相應，因此是通於見斷和修斷的。 論：其餘的嫉（irshya，嫉妒）、慳（matsarya，慳吝）、悔（kukritya，追悔）乃至名為自在起，說明它們僅僅是修所斷（bhavana-prahātavya）的。如經文的字面意思可以理解。 論：這些隨煩惱（upaklesha，隨煩惱）哪些是通於什麼性質的？下半頌是關於第二三性（三種性質）的分別。 論曰：乃至皆唯不善，說明睡眠（middha，睡眠）、惛沉（styana，昏沉）、掉舉（auddhatya，掉舉）這三種（隨煩惱），在欲界（kama-dhatu）中，與身見（satkayadrishti，身見）和邊見（antagrahadrishti，邊見）相應時是無記（avyakrta，無記），其餘情況是不善（akushala，不善）。其餘的纏（paryavasthana，纏縛）和垢（upaklesha，隨煩惱）都是不善的性質。 論：在上二界（色界和無色界）中，乃至無記性攝，說明在上二界（色界和無色界）中，這些隨煩惱僅僅是無記（avyakrta，無記）的。 論：這些隨煩惱（upaklesha，隨煩惱）與哪個界系相關？下半頌是關於第三界系（三個界系）的分別。 論曰：至今復重辨，解釋了諂（sathya，諂媚）和誑（maya，虛偽）通於二地（欲界和色界）的原因。如經文的字面意思可以理解。 論：
【English Translation】 English version The difference between Krodha (anger) and Upanaha (resentment): For example, the flame of burning birch bark, its initial momentum is fierce, but the subsequent residual force is weak, this is called Krodha (anger); like the heat in a winter room, its initial feeling is slight, but the subsequent residual force is strong, this is called Upanaha (resentment). Therefore, some say that the characteristic of Upanaha (resentment) is that it continues to arise after Krodha (anger) has subsided, making the mind turbid, this is called Upanaha (resentment). In addition, the explanation of 'Maya (deceit)' is: to plan and set up a certain expedient in advance, so that the other party will have a reversed understanding later, therefore it is called Maya (deceit). However, the worldly saying is that for the sake of profit or fame, showing false appearances to confuse others is called Maya (deceit). The physical and verbal actions caused by various deceitful behaviors are the result of deceit, so the name 'Maya (deceit)' is borrowed to refer to the result of deceit, just like using a common name to refer to the result of a common name. Treatise: Regarding these six (secondary afflictions), up to Ditthi-samanantara (views and their outflows), it explains that the six Upakleshas (secondary afflictions) are outflows from the root afflictions, as can be understood from the literal meaning of the text. Treatise: These Upakleshas (secondary afflictions) and Paryavasthanas (entanglements) up to the name of secondary afflictions, explain the reason why the ten Paryavasthanas (entanglements) and six Upakleshas (secondary afflictions) are called secondary afflictions. Treatise: How should these Upakleshas (secondary afflictions) and Paryavasthanas (entanglements) be eliminated? The following is the third category of meaning, with five parts: 1. Three eliminations (tri-prahana); 2. Three natures (tri-svabhava); 3. Three realms (tri-dhatu); 4. Six consciousnesses (sad-vijnana); 5. Correspondence with five feelings (panca-vedana-samprayukta). This verse is about the distinction of the three eliminations (tri-prahana). Treatise: Up to 'eliminated by seeing this truth', it refers to Ahrikya (shamelessness), Anapatrapya (lack of embarrassment), Styana (lethargy), Auddhatya (restlessness), and Middha (sleep). These five (secondary afflictions) are universally associated with afflictions that are eliminated by seeing (darshana-prahātavya) and eliminated by cultivation (bhavana-prahātavya), therefore they are common to both elimination by seeing and elimination by cultivation. Treatise: The remaining Irshya (jealousy), Matsarya (stinginess), Kukritya (remorse), up to being named 'arising freely', indicate that they are only eliminated by cultivation (bhavana-prahātavya). As can be understood from the literal meaning of the text. Treatise: Which of these secondary afflictions (upaklesha) are common to what nature? The second half of the verse is about the distinction of the three natures (tri-svabhava). Treatise: Up to 'all are only unwholesome', it explains that Middha (sleep), Styana (lethargy), and Auddhatya (restlessness), in the Kama-dhatu (desire realm), are indeterminate (avyakrta) when associated with Satkayadrishti (view of self) and Antagrahadrishti (extreme views), and the rest are unwholesome (akushala). The remaining Paryavasthanas (entanglements) and Upakleshas (secondary afflictions) are all of an unwholesome nature. Treatise: In the upper two realms (rupa-dhatu and arupa-dhatu), up to 'included in the indeterminate nature', it explains that in the upper two realms (rupa-dhatu and arupa-dhatu), these secondary afflictions are only indeterminate (avyakrta). Treatise: Which realm is related to these secondary afflictions (upaklesha)? The second half of the verse is about the distinction of the three realms (tri-dhatu). Treatise: Up to 'now explaining again', it explains the reason why Sathya (flattery) and Maya (deceit) are common to the two planes (desire realm and form realm). As can be understood from the literal meaning of the text. Treatise:
惛掉憍三至唯欲界系。十纏六垢之中。諂．誑通二地。惛．掉．憍三通三界。此五如前已辨。自餘十一唯欲界系。
論。已辨隨眠及隨煩惱。此下一頌。第四六識分別也。
論曰至無容起故。明唯意識。相應有三種。一見所斷。二慢．睡眠。三自力起隨煩惱地。此三種或五識無容起也。
論。所餘一切至皆容起故。釋通六識者。謂修所斷貪．瞋．無明。及無慚無愧．惛沈．掉舉。及大煩惱地所攝隨煩惱。依六識身起。
論。如先所辨樂等五受。自下有四行頌。第二明受相應。就中有二。一明本惑。二明隨惑。此兩頌第一明本惑。
論曰至遍六識故。明貪．瞋．無明三相應也。如文可解。
論。邪見通與至罪福業故。此釋邪見。受相應也。先造罪者。后謂無因果。心則生歡喜。先造福者。后謂無因果。心則生戚。
論。疑憂相應至心愁戚故。釋疑。受相應也。疑心猶豫求決定智。正疑之時于境不決故生憂戚。
論。餘四見慢至唯意地故。明四見．慢相應也。以歡行轉唯意地故不通樂受。正理論云。有餘師說。不應此五。唯喜相應。現見此五現行位中亦有憂故。謂世現見。執有我者。亦自感傷。我受苦故。執我斷者亦生憂戚。故契經言。諸愚夫類於我斷壞心生驚恐。執
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 掉舉（Kaukṛtya，一種精神上的躁動）和憍（Māna，驕傲）只與欲界（Kāmadhātu，感官慾望的領域）相關聯。十纏（Daśa bandhanāni，十種束縛）和六垢（Ṣaṭ mala，六種污垢）之中，諂（Śāṭhya，虛偽）和誑（Māya，欺騙）通於二地（指欲界和色界）。掉舉、惛沉（Styāna，精神上的遲鈍）和憍慢通於三界（Tridhātu，欲界、色界和無色界）。這五種煩惱如前文已經辨析過。其餘的十一種煩惱只與欲界相關聯。
論：已經辨析了隨眠（Anuśaya，潛在的煩惱）和隨煩惱（Upakleśa，次要的煩惱）。下面一頌，是第四和第六識（即眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識和意識）的分別。
論曰：乃至沒有容起的機會。說明只有意識（Manovijñāna，思維的意識）。與意識相應的有三種情況：一是見所斷（Dṛṣṭi-heya，通過見道斷除的煩惱），二是慢（Māna，驕傲）和睡眠（Middha，昏睡），三是自力生起的隨煩惱地（Upakleśa-bhūmi，次要煩惱的生起之地）。這三種情況，前五識（即眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識和身識）沒有生起的機會。
論：其餘的一切，乃至都有生起的機會。解釋通於六識（Ṣaḍ vijñāna kāya，六種意識）的情況：即修所斷（Bhāvanā-heya，通過修道斷除的煩惱）的貪（Lobha，貪婪）、瞋（Dveṣa，嗔恨）、無明（Avidyā，無知），以及無慚（Āhrīkya，無恥）無愧（Anapatrāpya，無愧）、惛沉（Styāna，精神上的遲鈍）、掉舉（Kaukṛtya，精神上的躁動），以及大煩惱地（Mahāklesa-bhūmi，主要煩惱的生起之地）所攝的隨煩惱，都依六識身而生起。
論：如先前所辨析的樂等五受（Pañca vedanā，五種感受，即樂受、苦受、喜受、憂受、舍受）。下面有四行頌，第二是說明與感受的相應。其中有二：一是說明根本惑（Mūlakleśa，根本煩惱），二是說明隨惑（Upakleśa，次要煩惱）。這兩頌的第一頌是說明根本惑。
論曰：乃至遍於六識。說明貪、瞋、無明三種煩惱的相應。如文義可以理解。
論：邪見（Mithyādṛṣṭi，錯誤的見解）通於，乃至罪福業（Karma，行為）的果報。這是解釋邪見與感受的相應。先前造罪的人，後來認為沒有因果報應，心中則生歡喜。先前造福的人，後來認為沒有因果報應，心中則生憂戚。
論：疑（Vicikitsā，懷疑）與憂（Daurmanasya，憂愁）相應，乃至心中愁戚。這是解釋疑與感受的相應。疑心猶豫，尋求決定的智慧。正在懷疑的時候，對於所懷疑的境不確定，所以產生憂愁。
論：其餘的四見（四種錯誤的見解，即身見、邊見、見取見、戒禁取見）和慢（Māna，驕傲），乃至只有意地（Manobhūmi，意識的層面）。說明四見和慢的相應。因為歡行轉，只有意地，所以不通於樂受。正理論說：有其他論師說，不應說這五種煩惱，只有喜（Prīti，喜悅）相應。現在見到這五種煩惱現行的時候，也有憂愁。世間現在見到，執著有我的人，也自己感到傷感，因為我受苦的緣故。執著我斷滅的人，也生憂愁。所以契經說：諸愚夫類，對於我的斷壞，心中生驚恐。執著
【English Translation】 English version: Distraction (Kaukṛtya, mental restlessness) and pride (Māna, arrogance) are associated only with the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, the realm of sensory desires). Among the ten fetters (Daśa bandhanāni, ten bonds) and six defilements (Ṣaṭ mala, six impurities), flattery (Śāṭhya, hypocrisy) and deceit (Māya, deception) are common to the two realms (referring to the desire realm and the form realm). Distraction, torpor (Styāna, mental dullness), and pride are common to the three realms (Tridhātu, the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm). These five afflictions have been analyzed previously. The remaining eleven afflictions are associated only with the desire realm.
Treatise: The latent tendencies (Anuśaya, dormant afflictions) and secondary afflictions (Upakleśa, minor afflictions) have been analyzed. The following verse distinguishes between the fourth and sixth consciousnesses (i.e., eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, and mind consciousness).
Treatise says: Up to the point where there is no opportunity for arising. It explains that only mind consciousness (Manovijñāna, the consciousness of thinking) is involved. There are three situations associated with mind consciousness: first, afflictions to be abandoned by seeing (Dṛṣṭi-heya, afflictions eliminated through the path of seeing); second, pride (Māna, arrogance) and sleep (Middha, drowsiness); and third, the realm of secondary afflictions arising from one's own power (Upakleśa-bhūmi, the place where minor afflictions arise). In these three situations, the first five consciousnesses (i.e., eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, and body consciousness) have no opportunity to arise.
Treatise: Everything else, up to the point where there is an opportunity for arising. It explains the situations common to the six consciousnesses (Ṣaḍ vijñāna kāya, the six types of consciousness): namely, greed (Lobha, craving), hatred (Dveṣa, aversion), ignorance (Avidyā, delusion) to be abandoned by cultivation (Bhāvanā-heya, afflictions eliminated through the path of cultivation), as well as shamelessness (Āhrīkya, lack of shame), lack of embarrassment (Anapatrāpya, lack of remorse), torpor (Styāna, mental dullness), distraction (Kaukṛtya, mental restlessness), and the secondary afflictions included in the realm of major afflictions (Mahāklesa-bhūmi, the place where major afflictions arise), all arise based on the six consciousnesses.
Treatise: As previously analyzed, the five feelings (Pañca vedanā, five types of feelings, i.e., pleasant feeling, painful feeling, joyful feeling, sorrowful feeling, and neutral feeling). Below are four lines of verse, the second of which explains the association with feelings. There are two aspects to this: first, explaining the root afflictions (Mūlakleśa, fundamental afflictions), and second, explaining the secondary afflictions (Upakleśa, minor afflictions). The first verse of these two explains the root afflictions.
Treatise says: Up to pervading the six consciousnesses. It explains the association of the three afflictions: greed, hatred, and ignorance. The meaning can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Wrong view (Mithyādṛṣṭi, incorrect view) is common to, up to the retribution of sinful and meritorious actions (Karma, actions). This explains the association of wrong view with feelings. Those who previously committed sins, later think there is no cause and effect, and then joy arises in their minds. Those who previously created merit, later think there is no cause and effect, and then sorrow arises in their minds.
Treatise: Doubt (Vicikitsā, skepticism) is associated with sorrow (Daurmanasya, sadness), up to the point of mental distress. This explains the association of doubt with feelings. A doubtful mind hesitates, seeking decisive wisdom. At the time of doubting, one is uncertain about the object of doubt, and therefore sorrow arises.
Treatise: The remaining four views (four incorrect views, i.e., view of self, extreme view, view of holding to views, view of holding to precepts) and pride (Māna, arrogance), up to only the mind ground (Manobhūmi, the level of consciousness). It explains the association of the four views and pride. Because of the joyful activity, it is only in the mind ground, so it is not associated with pleasant feeling. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Other teachers say that it should not be said that these five afflictions are only associated with joy (Prīti, delight). Now it is seen that when these five afflictions are manifest, there is also sorrow. It is now seen in the world that those who cling to the existence of a self also feel sadness because they suffer. Those who cling to the annihilation of the self also experience sorrow. Therefore, the sutras say: All foolish beings are terrified in their hearts at the destruction of the self. Clinging to
自苦行為凈勝者。內心必懷極愁戚故。已之聞．智．族等下劣。每為他人所輕凌者。與慢俱起必有戚故。由是此五亦憂相應。彼說不然。異心起故。謂自感傷我受苦者。此但緣苦而自感傷。當於爾時不執有我。若起我見現在前時。於我必應有歡行轉。懷斷見者見斷德故。不因斷相而生驚恐。懷常見者于斷生怖。然生怖位則不計常。執自苦行為凈勝者。必異心中緣自所受種種苦事而生愁戚。若執苦行為凈勝時。必應生歡。見彼德故。為他輕凌而生戚者。如是憂戚必在異心。誰有為他輕凌生戚。而即起慢侮蔑於他。故五。喜俱誠為善說。
論。已約別相至必住舍受。明諸惑皆舍受相應。如文可解。
論。欲界既爾至諸受相應。釋上地也。
論。若諸地中至故不別說。重廣述也。初禪有四識。受有喜．樂．舍。喜意。樂三。舍通二禪已上唯有意識。二禪有喜．舍二受。三禪有樂．舍二受。四禪已上唯有舍受。上地煩惱隨其所應通四識一識。即與彼識所有諸受相應 顯宗二十七云。何緣二疑俱不決定。而上得與喜．樂相應。非欲界疑。喜受俱起 以諸煩惱在離欲地。雖不決定。亦不憂戚。雖懷疑網。無廢情怡。如在人間求得所愛。雖多勞倦。而生樂想 又說色界喜．樂。與疑得相應者。俱寂靜故。依平等義
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果有人認為通過自我折磨可以獲得純凈和勝利，那麼他的內心必然充滿極度的憂愁，因為他無法真正理解解脫之道。那些因為出身、智慧或家族地位低下而經常被他人輕視的人，當他們生起傲慢之心時，必然伴隨著憂愁，因為他們試圖通過傲慢來掩蓋內心的痛苦。因此，這五種情況（自苦、卑賤、傲慢等）都與憂愁相應。 有人可能會反駁說，這種說法不對，因為不同的心境會產生不同的感受。例如，當一個人感到自己正在受苦時，他只是因為痛苦本身而感到悲傷，而不是因為執著于『我』。如果『我見』（認為存在永恒不變的自我）生起，那麼這個人應該感到快樂，因為他認為『我』是永恒的。懷有斷見（認為一切都會徹底消失）的人，因為看到了斷滅的『好處』，所以不會因為斷滅的景象而感到驚恐。而懷有常見（認為一切都是永恒不變的）的人，則會因為斷滅而感到恐懼。然而，當一個人感到恐懼時，他就不會認為一切都是永恒的。 那些認為通過自我折磨可以獲得純凈和勝利的人，實際上是在不同的心境中，因為他們執著于自己所遭受的各種痛苦，並因此而產生憂愁。如果他們真的認為自我折磨可以帶來純凈和勝利，那麼他們應該感到快樂，因為他們看到了這種行為的『好處』。那些因為被他人輕視而感到憂愁的人，他們的憂愁必然是在不同的心境中產生的。因為，誰會因為被他人輕視而感到憂愁，同時又會傲慢地輕視他人呢？因此，說這五種情況都與喜樂相應，才是正確的說法。 論：前面已經通過具體的例子說明了，所有的煩惱都與舍受相應，這一點可以通過經文來理解。 論：既然欲界是這樣，那麼色界和無色界也是如此，這解釋了上面的內容。 論：如果在各個禪定境界中，煩惱與不同的感受相應，那麼為什麼不分別說明呢？這是爲了更廣泛地闡述。初禪有四種意識，感受有喜、樂、舍三種。喜、意、樂三種感受。舍受可以通達二禪及以上境界，只有意識存在。二禪有喜、舍兩種感受。三禪有樂、舍兩種感受。四禪及以上境界只有舍受。上界的煩惱根據情況，可以與四種意識或一種意識相應，即與該意識所具有的所有感受相應。顯宗二十七說：為什麼兩種疑惑（疑和猶豫）都不會導致不確定，而上界（色界和無色界）的疑惑卻可以與喜、樂相應？因為欲界的疑惑不會與喜受同時生起。因為在離欲地（色界和無色界），即使有疑惑，也不會感到憂愁。即使被疑惑之網所困擾，也不會失去內心的平靜和喜悅。就像在人間追求所愛之物一樣，即使非常勞累，也會感到快樂。還有一種說法是，喜和樂與疑惑相應，是因為它們都處於寂靜的狀態，依據的是平等之義。
【English Translation】 English version: If someone believes that purity and victory can be attained through self-mortification, their heart must be filled with extreme sorrow, because they cannot truly understand the path to liberation. Those who are often despised by others because of their low birth, wisdom, or family status, when they arise arrogance, it must be accompanied by sorrow, because they try to cover up the pain in their hearts through arrogance. Therefore, these five situations (self-mortification, lowliness, arrogance, etc.) are all corresponding to sorrow. Someone might argue that this statement is incorrect, because different states of mind will produce different feelings. For example, when a person feels that they are suffering, they are only sad because of the pain itself, not because of attachment to 'I'. If 'I-view' (the belief that there is an eternal and unchanging self) arises, then this person should feel happy, because they think 'I' is eternal. Those who hold annihilationism (the belief that everything will completely disappear), because they see the 'benefits' of annihilation, will not be frightened by the sight of annihilation. Those who hold eternalism (the belief that everything is eternal and unchanging) will be afraid of annihilation. However, when a person feels fear, they will not think that everything is eternal. Those who believe that purity and victory can be attained through self-mortification are actually in different states of mind, because they are attached to the various sufferings they have suffered, and therefore produce sorrow. If they really think that self-mortification can bring purity and victory, then they should feel happy, because they see the 'benefits' of this behavior. Those who feel sorrow because they are despised by others, their sorrow must be produced in different states of mind. Because, who would feel sorrow because they are despised by others, and at the same time arrogantly despise others? Therefore, it is correct to say that these five situations are all corresponding to joy. Treatise: The foregoing has explained through specific examples that all afflictions are corresponding to equanimity, which can be understood through the scriptures. Treatise: Since this is the case in the desire realm, so is the form realm and the formless realm, which explains the above content. Treatise: If in the various meditative states, afflictions are corresponding to different feelings, then why not explain them separately? This is to elaborate more broadly. The first Dhyana (meditative state) has four consciousnesses, and the feelings are joy, happiness, and equanimity. Joy, intention, and happiness are three kinds of feelings. Equanimity can reach the second Dhyana and above, and only consciousness exists. The second Dhyana has two kinds of feelings: joy and equanimity. The third Dhyana has two kinds of feelings: happiness and equanimity. The fourth Dhyana and above only have equanimity. The afflictions of the upper realms can correspond to four kinds of consciousness or one kind of consciousness according to the situation, that is, corresponding to all the feelings that the consciousness has. The Twenty-seventh of Abhidharmasamuccaya says: Why don't the two doubts (doubt and hesitation) lead to uncertainty, but the doubts in the upper realms (form realm and formless realm) can correspond to joy and happiness? Because the doubts in the desire realm do not arise at the same time as joy. Because in the desire-free land (form realm and formless realm), even if there are doubts, they will not feel sorrow. Even if they are trapped by the net of doubt, they will not lose their inner peace and joy. Just like pursuing what you love in the human world, even if you are very tired, you will feel happy. There is also a saying that joy and happiness are corresponding to doubt, because they are both in a state of tranquility, based on the meaning of equality.
建立相應。既等寂靜。相應無失。如欲喜根。非處生故相不寂靜。疑即不然。由此喜．疑無相應理。謂世現見。有貧賤人 乃至 匱食。乏衣。復為重擔之所鎮壓。雖遭此等種種艱辛。而有歡娛歌舞嘯詠或見他苦而反生歡。如是喜根有非處起。疑即不爾故無等義。由不等故無相應理 有說色界雖復懷疑。而於疑中生善品相。故彼得與喜．樂相應 謂彼現見。諸離欲者多分因疑能引正定 有說初二．三靜慮中與疑俱生。應全無受。故但應與本性受俱。
論。已辨煩惱諸受相應。自下有兩行頌。第二明隨煩惱受相應也。
論曰至唯意地故。嫉．悔．忿．惱．害．恨六隨煩惱。唯戚行轉故憂根相應。唯意地故。非苦相應。正理論云。有餘師說。惱喜相應見取等流 故下破。
論。慳喜相應至極相似故。此注別有文。憂相應。慳得即喜。慳。不得即憂。已上注。
論。誑諂眠覆至憂戚心行。此四通二行故憂．喜相應。唯意地故非苦．樂相應 或時以歡喜心行諂．誑．眠．覆。即與喜相應 或時以憂戚心行此四種。即憂相應 正理論有餘師言。既說誑是貪等流故。但應歡行。不應說與憂根相應。是歡等流。不應戚故。又正誑時不應戚故。或應說誑是癡等流。
論。憍喜樂相應至與喜相應。釋憍通
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 建立相應。既然已經達到寂靜的狀態，那麼相應的狀態就不會有缺失。比如『欲喜根』（指與慾望相關的喜受），因為不是在適當的處所產生，所以其狀態不是寂靜的。如果懷疑，就不是這樣了。因此，喜和疑沒有相應的道理。因為世間常見，有貧窮困苦，乃至缺乏食物、缺少衣物的人，又被沉重的負擔所壓迫。雖然遭遇這些種種艱辛，卻仍然有歡娛歌舞、吟嘯歌詠的情況，或者看到他人的痛苦反而產生歡喜。像這樣，『喜根』（指喜受）有在不適當的處所產生的，而懷疑卻不是這樣，所以沒有等同的意義。因為不等同，所以沒有相應的道理。有人說，即使是懷疑，在懷疑之中也會產生善良的品性，所以它可以與喜、樂相應。因為他們現在看到，很多遠離慾望的人，大多因為懷疑而能夠引發正確的禪定。有人說，在初禪、二禪、三禪中，如果與懷疑同時產生，應該完全沒有感受，所以只應該與本性上的感受同時產生。
論：已經辨析了煩惱與各種感受的相應關係。下面有兩行頌文，第二行說明隨煩惱與感受的相應關係。
論曰：嫉、悔、忿、惱、害、恨這六種隨煩惱，因為只有憂戚的心行在運轉，所以與憂根相應，因為只在意識層面，所以不與苦相應。《正理論》說：有其他老師說，惱與喜相應，是見取的等流。所以下面要破斥這種觀點。
論：慳與喜相應，乃至極其相似。此處的註釋另有文章。憂與慳相應，得到就喜，得不到就憂。以上是註釋。
論：誑、諂、眠、覆這四種，貫通兩種心行，所以與憂、喜相應。因為只在意識層面，所以不與苦、樂相應。有時以歡喜的心行來行諂、誑、眠、覆，就與喜相應。有時以憂戚的心行來行這四種，就與憂相應。《正理論》有其他老師說，既然說誑是貪的等流，就只應該是歡喜的心行，不應該說與憂根相應。因為是歡喜的等流，不應該是憂戚的。而且，在真正行誑的時候，不應該是憂戚的。或者應該說誑是癡的等流。憍與喜樂相應，乃至與喜相應。解釋憍貫通。
【English Translation】 English version Establishment of correspondence. Since a state of tranquility has been reached, the corresponding state will not be lost. For example, 『desire-joy root』 (referring to the joy associated with desire), because it does not arise in the appropriate place, its state is not tranquil. If there is doubt, it is not like this. Therefore, joy and doubt do not have a corresponding principle. Because it is commonly seen in the world that there are people who are poor and distressed, even lacking food and clothing, and are oppressed by heavy burdens. Although they encounter all kinds of hardships, there are still instances of joyful entertainment, singing and dancing, or rejoicing at the suffering of others. Like this, 『joy root』 (referring to the feeling of joy) arises in inappropriate places, but doubt is not like this, so there is no equal meaning. Because they are not equal, there is no corresponding principle. Some say that even with doubt, good qualities can arise within the doubt, so it can correspond with joy and pleasure. Because they now see that many who are detached from desire can induce correct samadhi mostly because of doubt. Some say that in the first, second, and third dhyanas (meditative states), if doubt arises simultaneously, there should be no feeling at all, so it should only arise simultaneously with the feeling of its own nature.
Treatise: The correspondence between afflictions and various feelings has been analyzed. Below are two lines of verse, the second line explaining the correspondence between secondary afflictions and feelings.
Treatise says: Jealousy, regret, anger, annoyance, harm, and resentment, these six secondary afflictions, because only the mind of sorrow and distress is operating, correspond to the root of sorrow, and because they are only in the realm of consciousness, they do not correspond to suffering. The Nyāyānusāra (Treatise Following the Path of Reasoning) says: Other teachers say that annoyance corresponds to joy and is an outflow of holding wrong views. Therefore, this view will be refuted below.
Treatise: Stinginess corresponds to joy, even to the point of being extremely similar. There is a separate article for the commentary here. Sorrow corresponds to stinginess; if one gets what one wants, there is joy; if one does not get what one wants, there is sorrow. The above is the commentary.
Treatise: Deceit, flattery, torpor, and concealment, these four penetrate two kinds of mental activity, so they correspond to sorrow and joy. Because they are only in the realm of consciousness, they do not correspond to suffering and pleasure. Sometimes, one engages in flattery, deceit, torpor, and concealment with a joyful mind, which corresponds to joy. Sometimes, one engages in these four with a sorrowful and distressed mind, which corresponds to sorrow. The Nyāyānusāra (Treatise Following the Path of Reasoning) has other teachers who say that since deceit is said to be an outflow of greed, it should only be a joyful activity and should not be said to correspond to the root of sorrow. Because it is an outflow of joy, it should not be sorrowful. Moreover, one should not be sorrowful when actually engaging in deceit. Or it should be said that deceit is an outflow of ignorance. Conceit corresponds to joy and pleasure, even to the point of corresponding to joy. Explaining that conceit penetrates.
三界也。歡行轉故不與憂根相應。唯意地故。下地不與樂根相應。通上地故至第三禪與樂相應。
論。此上所說至遍相應故。自前所釋諸隨煩惱。皆遍與舍受相應。三禪已下增盛如前說。相續斷時皆舍相應。四禪已上若盛。若欲斷時。皆舍相應。地法無餘受故。又舍與歡．戚。六識上下諸地一切無遮皆遍相應。譬如無明遍與諸煩惱相應也。
論。余無慚愧至地法攝故。釋餘四也。此四遍與五受相應。無慚．無愧不善地故。通與一切不善相應。不善通六識。五受故。惛沈．掉舉是大煩惱地故。通與一切染心相應。一切染心通五六識受．上下地故。由此通與五受相應。
論。所說煩惱隨煩惱中。自下一頌。大文第四明五蓋也。
論曰至五疑蓋。引經列名體也。
論。此中所說至通三界耶。問也。惛．掉．及疑既通三界。為唯取欲。為通上耶。
論。應知此三至非色無色。答也。以唯不善立為五蓋。上非不善故不立蓋正理論云。為顯惛沈．掉舉二種。唯欲界者有立為蓋。故與眠．悔和合而立。眠．悔唯是欲界系故。為顯眠．悔唯染污者有得蓋名。故與惛沈．掉舉二種和合而立。惛．掉唯是染污性故。疑準前四在欲可知。
論。何故惛眠至合立一耶。問也。
論。食治用同
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）中，由於歡喜之行轉變，因此不與憂根相應。唯在意地（Manodhatu）才有憂根。下地不與樂根相應，因為通往上地，直到第三禪才與樂相應。
論：以上所說達到普遍相應，因此之前所解釋的各種隨煩惱，都普遍與舍受相應。三禪以下增盛的情況如前所述。相續斷滅時都與舍受相應。四禪以上，無論是增盛還是想要斷滅時，都與舍受相應，因為該地沒有其餘的感受。而且，舍受與歡、戚，六識上下各地一切無遮，都普遍相應，譬如無明普遍與各種煩惱相應一樣。
論：其餘的無慚、無愧等屬於地法所攝。解釋其餘四種。這四種普遍與五受相應。無慚、無愧是不善地，因此普遍與一切不善相應。不善通於六識和五受。惛沉、掉舉是大煩惱地，因此普遍與一切染心相應。一切染心通於五六識受和上下地，因此普遍與五受相應。
論：所說的煩惱和隨煩惱中，下面一頌是大文第四，說明五蓋。
論曰：到五疑蓋。引用經文列出名稱和體性。
論：這裡所說的惛沉、掉舉和疑，既然通於三界，是隻取欲界，還是通於上界？這是提問。
論：應當知道這三種不是色界和無色界。這是回答。因為只有不善才立為五蓋，上界不是不善，所以不立蓋。《正理論》說：『爲了顯示惛沉、掉舉這兩種只有欲界才有，所以立為蓋，因此與睡眠、追悔和合而立。睡眠、追悔只是欲界系。爲了顯示睡眠、追悔只有染污者才有資格稱為蓋，所以與惛沉、掉舉兩種和合而立。惛沉、掉舉只是染污性。』疑可以參照前四種，在欲界可知。
論：為什麼惛沉和睡眠要合立為一蓋呢？這是提問。
論：食治用相同。
【English Translation】 English version In the Trailokya (Three Realms: Kāmadhātu (desire realm), Rūpadhātu (form realm), Arūpadhātu (formless realm)), due to the transformation of joyful conduct, it does not correspond with the root of sorrow. It is only in the Manodhatu (mind element) that the root of sorrow exists. The lower realms do not correspond with the root of joy because they lead to the upper realms, and it is only in the third Dhyana (meditative state) that there is correspondence with joy.
Treatise: What has been said above reaches universal correspondence, therefore, all the secondary afflictions explained earlier universally correspond with equanimity. The intensification below the third Dhyana is as previously stated. When the continuum is severed, it corresponds with equanimity. Above the fourth Dhyana, whether intensifying or intending to sever, it corresponds with equanimity because that realm has no other feelings. Moreover, equanimity universally corresponds with joy and sorrow, and all unobstructed states in the upper and lower realms of the six consciousnesses, just as ignorance universally corresponds with all afflictions.
Treatise: The remaining shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, etc., are included in the ground dharmas. Explaining the remaining four. These four universally correspond with the five feelings. Shamelessness and lack of embarrassment are unwholesome grounds, therefore they universally correspond with all unwholesomeness. Unwholesomeness pervades the six consciousnesses and the five feelings. Listlessness and excitement are great affliction grounds, therefore they universally correspond with all defiled minds. All defiled minds pervade the five and six consciousness feelings and the upper and lower realms, therefore they universally correspond with the five feelings.
Treatise: Among the afflictions and secondary afflictions mentioned, the following verse is the fourth major section, explaining the five hindrances.
Treatise says: To the five doubts hindrance. Quoting the sutras to list the names and nature.
Treatise: Since the listlessness, excitement, and doubt mentioned here pervade the three realms, do they only pertain to the desire realm, or do they also pervade the upper realms? This is a question.
Treatise: It should be known that these three do not belong to the form or formless realms. This is the answer. Because only unwholesomeness is established as the five hindrances, the upper realms are not unwholesome, so hindrances are not established. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Following the Logic Treatise) says: 'To show that listlessness and excitement only exist in the desire realm, they are established as hindrances, therefore they are combined with sleep and regret. Sleep and regret are only bound to the desire realm. To show that only the defiled have the qualification to be called hindrances for sleep and regret, they are combined with listlessness and excitement. Listlessness and excitement are only of a defiled nature.' Doubt can be understood in the desire realm by referring to the previous four.
Treatise: Why are listlessness and sleep combined into one hindrance? This is a question.
Treatise: The food, treatment, and function are the same.
至食非食同。此略答也。
論。何等名為至心性沈昧。釋惛．眠蓋。食．及非食．事用同也。
論。掉悔雖二至二合為一。釋掉．悔三事同。並總結也。如文可解。正理答此問云。欲貪蓋食謂可愛相。此蓋對治謂不凈想。瞋恚蓋食謂可憎相。此蓋對治謂慈善根。疑蓋食謂三世。如契經說。於過去世生如是疑。乃至廣說。此蓋對治。謂若有能如實觀察緣性緣起 餘二蓋食等如俱舍說 又云。或貪．瞋．疑是滿煩惱。一一能荷一覆蓋用。惛．眠．掉．悔．非滿煩惱。二合方荷一覆蓋用 此同婆沙等擔義是蓋義。
論。諸煩惱等至唯說此五。問也。
論。唯此於五至建立為蓋。答也。正理論問云。此五名蓋其義云何。謂決定能覆障聖道．聖道加行。故立蓋名。若爾所應諸煩惱等皆得名蓋。一切皆能覆障聖道．及加行故。如世尊告諸苾芻言。若為一法所覆障者。則不能了眼是無常。一法謂貪。乃至廣說。一一別說如雜事中。何故世尊說蓋唯五 理實應爾。然佛世尊。于立蓋門唯說五者。唯此於五蘊能為勝障故 準上問答。釋蓋名應言能覆障聖道．及加行名蓋 或覆五蘊故名蓋也。
論。若作如是至應先慧障故。難也。
論依如是理至怖畏掉悔。述異師說障也。此問答蓋前後。如文可解。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『至食非食同』。這是簡略的回答。
論：什麼叫做『至心性沈昧』？解釋為惛沉、睡眠蓋。飲食和非飲食，它們的作用是相同的。
論：掉舉和後悔雖然是兩種，但兩者合起來算作一個蓋。解釋掉舉、後悔這三件事的作用是相同的。以上是總結。如文義可以理解。正理對此問題的回答是：欲貪蓋的食是可愛的相，對此蓋的對治是不凈想。瞋恚蓋的食是可憎的相，對此蓋的對治是慈悲的根本。疑蓋的食是三世，如契經所說，對於過去世產生這樣的懷疑，乃至廣說。對此蓋的對治是，如果有人能夠如實地觀察緣性緣起。其餘兩個蓋的食等，如《俱舍論》所說。又說：或者貪、瞋、疑是滿煩惱，每一個都能承擔一個覆蓋的作用。惛沉、睡眠、掉舉、後悔，不是滿煩惱，兩個合起來才能承擔一個覆蓋的作用。這與《婆沙論》等所說的『擔』的意義相同，都是蓋的意義。
論：在諸多的煩惱等等之中，只說了這五種（蓋）。這是提問。
論：只有這五種對於五蘊能成為殊勝的障礙，所以建立為蓋。這是回答。正理論中提問：這五種被稱為蓋，它們的意義是什麼？回答是：它們決定能夠覆蓋和障礙聖道以及聖道的加行，所以立名為蓋。如果這樣，那麼所有的煩惱等都應該可以被稱為蓋，因為一切都能覆蓋和障礙聖道以及加行。如世尊告訴諸位比丘說：如果被一種法所覆蓋和障礙，就不能了知眼是無常。一種法指的是貪，乃至廣說。一一分別在《雜事》中說明。為什麼世尊只說了五蓋？理應如此。然而佛世尊，在建立蓋的門類時只說了五種，是因為只有這五種對於五蘊能成為殊勝的障礙。根據上面的問答，解釋蓋的名稱應該說能夠覆蓋和障礙聖道以及加行，這叫做蓋。或者說，覆蓋五蘊，所以叫做蓋。
論：如果作這樣的說法，那麼應該先有慧障的緣故。這是責難。
論：依據這樣的道理，乃至怖畏掉悔。這是敘述其他論師所說的障礙。此問答蓋的前後，如文義可以理解。 （註：五蘊(pañca-khandha)：色蘊、受蘊、想蘊、行蘊和識蘊；聖道(ārya-mārga)：八正道；加行(prayoga)：為達到目標所做的努力；俱舍論(Abhidharmakośakārikā)：一部重要的佛教論著；婆沙論(Vibhasa)：佛教論書；比丘(bhikkhu)：佛教出家人）
【English Translation】 English version 'To food and non-food are the same.' This is a brief answer.
Treatise: What is called 'complete mind being obscured'? It explains torpor and sleep as coverings. Food and non-food, their functions are the same.
Treatise: Though agitation and regret are two, they are combined as one covering. It explains that agitation and regret, these three things, have the same function. The above is a summary. The meaning can be understood from the text. The Correct Principle answers this question by saying: The food for the covering of desire and greed is the lovable aspect; the antidote to this covering is the contemplation of impurity. The food for the covering of anger and hatred is the hateful aspect; the antidote to this covering is the root of loving-kindness. The food for the covering of doubt is the three times, as the sutra says, 'In the past, such doubts arose,' and so on. The antidote to this covering is if one can truly observe the nature of conditions and dependent origination. The food for the remaining two coverings, etc., is as explained in the Abhidharmakośakārikā. It also says: 'Or greed, anger, and doubt are complete afflictions; each can bear the function of one covering. Torpor, sleep, agitation, and regret are not complete afflictions; two combined can bear the function of one covering.' This is the same as the meaning of 'burden' in the Vibhasa, which is the meaning of covering.
Treatise: Among all the afflictions, etc., only these five (coverings) are mentioned. This is a question.
Treatise: Only these five can become superior obstacles to the five aggregates, so they are established as coverings. This is the answer. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra asks: These five are called coverings, what is their meaning? The answer is: They definitely cover and obstruct the Noble Path and the practice leading to the Noble Path, so they are named coverings. If so, then all afflictions, etc., should be called coverings, because all can cover and obstruct the Noble Path and the practice leading to it. As the World-Honored One told the monks: 'If one is covered and obstructed by one dharma, then one cannot understand that the eye is impermanent.' The one dharma refers to greed, and so on. Each is explained separately in the Miscellaneous Matters. Why did the World-Honored One only mention the five coverings? It should be so. However, the Buddha, in establishing the categories of coverings, only mentioned five because only these five can become superior obstacles to the five aggregates. According to the above question and answer, the explanation of the name 'covering' should be that which can cover and obstruct the Noble Path and the practice leading to it is called a covering. Or, covering the five aggregates is called a covering.
Treatise: If such a statement is made, then there should first be an obstacle of wisdom. This is a refutation.
Treatise: According to this principle, even fear, agitation, and regret. This is a description of the obstacles according to other teachers. The question and answer about the coverings before and after this can be understood from the text. (Note: pañca-khandha: The five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness; ārya-mārga: The Noble Eightfold Path; prayoga: Effort made to achieve a goal; Abhidharmakośakārikā: An important Buddhist text; Vibhasa: Buddhist treatise; bhikkhu: Buddhist monk)
然此論意。取惛沈障定。掉舉障慧。正理不許。恐煩不錄。
論。有餘別說至唯有此五。述有餘師立五因也。正理破此師云。乍可枉謗當聖慈尊。以聖慈尊猶一生隔未證無等大乘智故。寧可枉謗現能寂尊。彼說何緣名枉謗佛。以彼所說前後相違。及與契經理相違故。如何彼說前後相違。謂若欲貪．瞋恚二蓋現起能障將入定心。障既現前何能入定。若別修治伏已入者。則不應言正入定位。于止．及觀不能正習。又不能習止．及觀者。云何名為正入定位。又彼所說正入定言。為聞．思所成。為修所成定若言我說聞．思所成名正入定。則不應說后出定位思擇法時。聞．思所成有分別故即思擇法。何待出時。若說我言修所成。定名正入定。理亦不然。修所成心正現前位。惛眠．掉悔何容現前。若不現前。寧障止觀。如何彼說經．理相違。謂彼所言惛．眠。掉．悔。如其次第障奢摩他．毗缽舍那。違前教．理。故。彼所說唯立五因。無有功能證蓋唯五。由此前說理善。可依 何故無明不立為蓋。不說成故。如契經說。無明所覆。覆即是蓋。有餘師說。等荷擔者立諸蓋中。無明於中所荷偏重。是故不說。若立無明為一蓋者。一切煩惱所荷障。能合比無明猶不能及。故不立在諸蓋聚中 慢復何緣不立為蓋。以有由慢能修勝法。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 然而，這個論點的意思是，昏沉會障礙禪定，掉舉會障礙智慧，這在正理上是不被允許的。恐怕過於繁瑣，所以不詳細記錄。
論：『還有其他說法』直到『只有這五種』。這是在陳述其他學派主張有五種障礙。正理反駁這個學派說：『這簡直是在誣衊當來下生的彌勒慈尊（Maitreya，未來佛）。』因為彌勒慈尊還隔著一生，尚未證得無等等的大乘智慧。更何況是誣衊現在能夠寂滅的佛陀（現能寂尊指釋迦牟尼佛）。他們說為什麼稱之為誣衊佛陀呢？因為他們所說的前後矛盾，並且與經文和道理相違背。他們所說的如何前後矛盾呢？如果說欲貪和瞋恚這兩種蓋障現起，能夠障礙即將進入禪定的心，那麼既然障礙已經現前，又怎麼能夠入定呢？如果說是通過特別的修行來調伏，已經進入禪定的人，那麼就不應該說『正入定位』，因為他們不能正確地修習止（奢摩他，Samatha，止息）和觀（毗缽舍那，Vipassana，內觀）。又不能修習止和觀的人，怎麼能稱為『正入定位』呢？而且他們所說的『正入定』，是聞思所成，還是修所成？如果他們說聞思所成的定叫做『正入定』，那麼就不應該說在出定后思擇法的時候，因為聞思所成已經有分別，所以可以直接思擇法，何必等到出定之後？如果他們說修所成的定叫做『正入定』，那麼道理也不對。修所成的心正在現前的時候，昏沉、睡眠、掉舉、後悔怎麼可能現前呢？如果不現前，又怎麼能障礙止觀呢？他們所說的又如何與經文和道理相違背呢？他們所說的昏沉、睡眠、掉舉、後悔，按照次序分別障礙奢摩他（止）和毗缽舍那（觀），這與之前的教義和道理相違背。所以，他們所說的隻立五種障礙，沒有能力證明蓋障只有五種。因此，之前所說的道理是正確的，可以依從。
為什麼無明（Avidya，對事物真相的迷惑）不被立為蓋障呢？因為經中沒有這樣說。如經文說，『無明所覆』，覆就是蓋障。有其他學派說，因為在承擔重擔的人所立的各種蓋障中，無明所承擔的偏重，所以不說。如果立無明為一種蓋障，那麼一切煩惱所承擔的障礙，加起來也比不上無明。所以不把無明立在各種蓋障之中。慢（Mana，傲慢）又為什麼不被立為蓋障呢？因為有些人可以通過慢來修習殊勝的佛法。
【English Translation】 English version: However, the meaning of this argument is that torpor obstructs Samadhi (定, meditative concentration), and agitation obstructs wisdom, which is not permitted by the principle of rightness. Fearing it would be too cumbersome, it is not recorded in detail.
Treatise: 'There are other explanations' up to 'only these five.' This is stating that other schools establish five hindrances. The principle of rightness refutes this school, saying: 'This is simply slandering the future Buddha, Maitreya (彌勒慈尊, the Benevolent One).』 Because Maitreya is still one lifetime away and has not yet attained the unequaled Great Vehicle wisdom. How much more so is it slandering the Buddha who is presently capable of quiescence (現能寂尊, the present capable of quiescence, referring to Shakyamuni Buddha). Why, they ask, is it called slandering the Buddha? Because what they say is self-contradictory and contradicts the scriptures and reason. How is what they say self-contradictory? If desire and anger, these two coverings, arise and can obstruct the mind about to enter Samadhi, then how can one enter Samadhi when the obstruction is already present? If one cultivates and subdues them separately, and has already entered, then one should not say 'just entering the position.' Because they cannot correctly practice cessation (Samatha, 奢摩他, calming the mind) and insight (Vipassana, 毗缽舍那, seeing things as they really are). Moreover, how can one who cannot practice cessation and insight be called 'just entering the position'? Furthermore, is what they say 'just entering Samadhi' attained through hearing and thinking, or through cultivation? If they say that the Samadhi attained through hearing and thinking is called 'just entering Samadhi,' then they should not say that when contemplating the Dharma after emerging from Samadhi, because what is attained through hearing and thinking already has discrimination, one can directly contemplate the Dharma, why wait until after emerging from Samadhi? If they say that the Samadhi attained through cultivation is called 'just entering Samadhi,' then that reasoning is also incorrect. When the mind attained through cultivation is presently manifest, how can torpor, sleep, agitation, and regret possibly arise? If they do not arise, how can they obstruct cessation and insight? How does what they say contradict the scriptures and reason? What they say, that torpor, sleep, agitation, and regret obstruct Samatha (cessation) and Vipassana (insight) in that order, contradicts the previous teachings and reason. Therefore, what they say, establishing only five hindrances, has no power to prove that there are only five hindrances. Thus, what was said earlier is correct and can be relied upon.
Why is ignorance (Avidya, 無明, delusion) not established as a hindrance? Because it is not mentioned in the scriptures. As the scriptures say, 'covered by ignorance,' and covering is a hindrance. Other schools say that among the various hindrances established by those who bear burdens, ignorance bears a particularly heavy burden, so it is not mentioned. If ignorance were established as a hindrance, then the obstructions borne by all afflictions combined would not equal ignorance. Therefore, ignorance is not established among the various hindrances. Why is pride (Mana, 慢, arrogance) not established as a hindrance? Because some people can cultivate superior Dharma through pride.
為蓋義劣不立蓋中。有餘師言。夫為蓋者令心趣下。慢則不然。以能令心趣上法。故非慢有力能壓伏心令其趣下。故不立蓋 諸見何故不立蓋中。見諸有情。闕無我見者。雖執有我。而能離染故 有說。諸見慧為體故。性捷利故。不順蓋義。為蓋必與此義相違。隨煩惱中余不立蓋。準前所說應如理思。上二界惑不立蓋者。離三界染初非障故。初為障故建立蓋名。又上界惑唯無記故。蓋唯不善。如前已說。
論。今應思擇至斷由何因。自此已下。大文第二明斷。文中有六。一明斷因。二明對治。三明斷所從。四因論明四道五明斷重得。六明斷遍知。此文第一明斷因也 于中有三。一頌前問答。二舉頌文。三長行釋。此文頌前問也。問意他界緣惑。見自界苦．集時。斷不見所緣。見所緣時不斷 滅．道有漏緣。見滅．道斷時。不見惑所緣。見苦．集時見彼惑所緣。而彼不斷 此兩種惑斷由何因。
論。非要遍知所緣故斷。答也。
論曰至無漏緣。此明遍知所緣故斷。見苦．集斷自界緣。及見滅．道斷無漏緣。由能斷道遍知煩惱所緣故斷。苦．集貪．嗔．慢等。雖不親述諦理足上而起。然所緣境是苦．集故。苦．集忍起緣苦．集諦。彼即斷故。雖有二義。從遍知所緣斷也。此苦．集自界緣言。此說欲界。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為蓋（Pali: nivarana，障礙）的意義是低劣的，所以慢（pride）不被列入蓋中。有其他老師說，蓋的作用是使心趨向低劣，而慢則不然，因為它能使心趨向高尚的法。因此，慢沒有力量壓伏心使其趨向低劣，所以不被列為蓋。 各種見（wrong views）為什麼不被列入蓋中？因為看到有情缺少無我見（anatman-darsana）時，即使他們執著于有我（atman），也能遠離染污。 有一種說法是，各種見以慧（prajna，智慧）為體性，性質敏捷銳利，不符合蓋的意義。成為蓋必定與此義相違背。隨煩惱（upaklesa，次要的煩惱）中其餘不被列為蓋的，應該按照前面所說的道理來思考。上二界（色界和無色界）的迷惑不被列為蓋，是因為它們最初不是障礙，最初作為障礙才建立蓋的名稱。而且上界的迷惑只有無記（avyakrta，非善非惡），而蓋只有不善（akusala），如前所述。
論：現在應該思考斷除由什麼原因導致。從這裡開始，是第二大段，闡明斷除。這段中有六個部分：一、闡明斷除的原因；二、闡明對治；三、闡明從哪裡斷除；四、因論闡明四道（catvari-marga）；五、闡明斷除后是否會重新獲得；六、闡明斷除的遍知。這段是第一部分，闡明斷除的原因。其中有三個部分：一、總結前面的問答；二、舉出頌文；三、長行解釋。這段是總結前面的提問。提問的意思是，他界（其他界）緣的迷惑，在見到自界（自身所處的界）的苦（duhkha，痛苦）、集（samudaya，痛苦的根源）時斷除，而沒有見到所緣（alambana，對像）；見到所緣時卻不斷除。 滅（nirodha，寂滅）、道（marga，通往寂滅的道路）是有漏（sasrava，有煩惱）緣。見到滅、道斷除時，沒有見到迷惑的所緣；見到苦、集時，見到那些迷惑的所緣，但那些迷惑卻不斷除。這兩種迷惑的斷除是由什麼原因導致的？
論：並非一定要遍知所緣才能斷除。這是回答。
論曰：乃至無漏緣。這闡明了遍知所緣才能斷除。見到苦、集斷除自界緣，以及見到滅、道斷除無漏緣，是因為能斷之道遍知煩惱的所緣才能斷除。苦、集的貪（raga，貪慾）、嗔（dvesa，嗔恨）、慢（mana，驕慢）等，雖然沒有親自陳述諦理，但足以依附其上而生起。然而，所緣的境是苦、集，所以苦、集忍（duhkha-ksanti，對苦的忍耐）生起時緣于苦、集諦（duhkha-satya，苦諦）。那時就斷除了。雖然有兩種意義，但從遍知所緣的角度來說是斷除的。這裡說的苦、集自界緣，是指欲界（kama-dhatu）。
【English Translation】 English version Because the meaning of 'coverings' (Pali: nivarana, hindrances) is inferior, pride (mana) is not included among the coverings. Some other teachers say that the function of a covering is to make the mind tend downwards, but pride is not like that, because it can make the mind tend towards higher dharmas. Therefore, pride does not have the power to subdue the mind and make it tend downwards, so it is not established as a covering. Why are the various views (wrong views) not included among the coverings? Because when seeing sentient beings lacking the view of no-self (anatman-darsana), even if they are attached to a self (atman), they can still be free from defilements. One explanation is that the various views have wisdom (prajna) as their essence, and their nature is quick and sharp, which does not accord with the meaning of a covering. To be a covering must contradict this meaning. Regarding the remaining secondary defilements (upaklesa) that are not established as coverings, one should contemplate according to the principles stated earlier. The afflictions of the upper two realms (rupa-dhatu and arupa-dhatu) are not established as coverings because they were not initially obstacles to abandoning the three realms. The name 'covering' is established because they were initially obstacles. Moreover, the afflictions of the upper realms are only indeterminate (avykrta, neither good nor bad), while coverings are only unwholesome (akusala), as previously stated.
Treatise: Now we should consider by what cause abandonment occurs. From here onwards is the second major section, explaining abandonment. There are six parts in this section: 1. Explaining the cause of abandonment; 2. Explaining the antidotes; 3. Explaining from where abandonment occurs; 4. Explaining the Four Paths (catvari-marga) based on the Treatise; 5. Explaining whether what is abandoned can be regained; 6. Explaining the complete knowledge of abandonment. This section is the first part, explaining the cause of abandonment. There are three parts within it: 1. Summarizing the previous questions and answers; 2. Citing the verse; 3. Explaining in prose. This section summarizes the previous questions. The meaning of the question is that afflictions related to other realms, when seeing the suffering (duhkha) and origin (samudaya) of one's own realm, are abandoned without seeing the object (alambana); when seeing the object, they are not abandoned. Extinction (nirodha) and the path (marga) are conditioned (sasrava). When seeing the abandonment of extinction and the path, one does not see the object of the afflictions; when seeing suffering and origin, one sees the object of those afflictions, but those afflictions are not abandoned. By what cause is the abandonment of these two types of afflictions brought about?
Treatise: It is not necessary to completely know the object in order to abandon it. This is the answer.
Treatise says: Up to the unconditioned object. This explains that abandonment occurs because of completely knowing the object. Seeing the suffering and origin, abandoning the object of one's own realm, and seeing extinction and the path, abandoning the unconditioned object, is because the path that abandons is able to completely know the object of the afflictions. Greed (raga), hatred (dvesa), pride (mana), etc., related to suffering and origin, although they do not personally state the truth, are sufficient to arise based on it. However, the object is suffering and origin, so when the forbearance of suffering (duhkha-ksanti) arises, it is related to the truth of suffering (duhkha-satya). At that time, it is abandoned. Although there are two meanings, from the perspective of completely knowing the object, it is abandoned. Here, the phrase 'object of one's own realm of suffering and origin' refers to the desire realm (kama-dhatu).
若色．無色他界他地緣。亦是遍知所緣斷也。以苦．集類忍起時。遍知上二界故。此中有三斷。一自界緣貪．慢等。二上界緣見．疑等。三自界緣見．疑。雖三類不同。苦．集類忍皆遍知彼所緣故。從遍知所緣故斷。正理論云。一由遍知所緣故斷。謂欲界系見苦．集。斷自界緣惑。色．無色見苦．集。斷所有諸惑。以上二界他界地緣。亦由遍知所緣斷故。緣苦．集諦類智忍生。俱能頓觀二界境故。及通三界見滅．道斷無漏緣惑。如是諸惑皆由遍智所緣斷故。
論。二由斷彼至彼隨斷故。明第二斷也。正理論云。二由斷彼能緣故斷。謂欲界系他界緣惑。以欲界系見苦．集斷自界緣惑。能緣于彼此惑。于彼能作依持。依持斷時彼隨斷故。如羸病者卻倚而立。去所倚時彼隨倒故。如何于彼能作依持。由此于彼能為因故。豈不此即說由害因故斷。實爾。此彼但是異名。然為止濫故作是說。謂欲界惑自他界緣。皆有此彼互為因義。然無此彼展轉相緣。故於此中說能緣斷。欲令易了唯他界緣。由斷此因彼便隨斷。
論。三由斷彼至彼隨斷故。明第三斷也。正理論云。如羸病者杖策而行。去彼杖時彼隨倒故。何緣於此所斷惑中。有斷能緣故說所緣斷。如緣欲苦．集起現觀時。有斷所緣故說能緣斷。如緣諸滅．道起現觀時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 若（對於）色界（Rūpadhātu，色界，佛教宇宙觀中的一個世界）和無色界（Arūpadhātu，無色界，佛教宇宙觀中的一個世界）的他界他地之緣，也是通過遍知所緣而斷除的。因為在苦類智忍（duḥkha-anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti，對苦諦的隨順智）和集類智忍（samudaya-anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti，對集諦的隨順智）生起時，能夠遍知以上二界之故。此處有三種斷除：一是斷除自界之緣的貪（rāga，貪慾）、慢（māna，我慢）等；二是斷除上界之緣的見（dṛṣṭi，邪見）、疑（vicikitsā，懷疑）等；三是斷除自界之緣的見、疑。雖然這三類不同，但苦類智忍和集類智忍都能遍知它們所緣之境，因此是從遍知所緣而斷除。正如《正理論》（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya，一部重要的佛教論著）所說：一是由遍知所緣而斷除，即欲界（Kāmadhātu，欲界，佛教宇宙觀中的一個世界）所繫的見苦（duḥkha-darśana，對苦諦的見解）、見集（samudaya-darśana，對集諦的見解），斷除自界之緣的惑（kleśa，煩惱）。色界和無色界的見苦、見集，斷除所有諸惑，因為以上二界是他界他地之緣，也是由遍知所緣而斷除。緣于苦諦和集諦的類智忍生起，能夠同時觀二界之境。以及通於三界（Trailokya，佛教宇宙觀中的三個世界：欲界、色界、無色界）的見滅（nirodha-darśana，對滅諦的見解）、見道（mārga-darśana，對道諦的見解），斷除無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱）之緣的惑。像這樣的諸惑，都是由遍智所緣而斷除。 論：二是由斷彼至彼隨斷故，闡明第二種斷除。正如《正理論》所說：二是由斷彼能緣故斷，即欲界所繫的他界緣惑。以欲界所繫的見苦、見集斷除自界緣惑，能夠緣于彼此之惑，對於彼惑能夠作為依持。依持斷除時，彼惑隨之斷除。如同虛弱的病人靠著東西站立，去掉所靠之物時，他便隨之倒下。如何對於彼惑能夠作為依持？因為由此對於彼惑能夠作為因。難道這不就是說由損害因故斷除嗎？確實如此。此和彼只是不同的名稱。然而爲了防止混淆，才這樣說。即欲界惑的自他界緣，都有此和彼互為因的意義。然而沒有此和彼輾轉相緣，因此在此中說能緣斷，是爲了容易理解，唯有他界緣，由斷除此因，彼便隨之斷除。 論：三是由斷彼至彼隨斷故，闡明第三種斷除。正如《正理論》所說：如同虛弱的病人拄著枴杖行走，去掉那枴杖時，他便隨之倒下。什麼緣故在此所斷的惑中，有斷除能緣而說所緣斷？如緣于欲界苦諦和集諦生起現觀（abhisamaya，現觀，佛教修行中的一種證悟）時，有斷除所緣而說能緣斷？如緣于諸滅諦和道諦生起現觀時。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, the conditions of other realms and other planes of the Realm of Form (Rūpadhātu) and the Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu) are also severed through the object of pervasive knowledge. Because when the forbearance of knowledge in accordance with suffering (duḥkha-anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti) and the forbearance of knowledge in accordance with origination (samudaya-anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti) arise, they can pervasively know the above two realms. Here, there are three severances: first, severing greed (rāga), pride (māna), etc., which are conditions of one's own realm; second, severing views (dṛṣṭi), doubt (vicikitsā), etc., which are conditions of the upper realms; third, severing views and doubt, which are conditions of one's own realm. Although these three categories are different, the forbearance of knowledge in accordance with suffering and the forbearance of knowledge in accordance with origination can pervasively know their objects, and therefore they are severed through the object of pervasive knowledge. As the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, a major Buddhist treatise) says: One is severed through the object of pervasive knowledge, namely, the views of suffering (duḥkha-darśana) and origination (samudaya-darśana) associated with the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), severing the afflictions (kleśa) that are conditions of one's own realm. The views of suffering and origination of the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm sever all afflictions, because the conditions of the above two realms are those of other realms and other planes, and they are also severed through the object of pervasive knowledge. When the forbearance of knowledge in accordance with the truths of suffering and origination arises, it can simultaneously observe the realms of the two realms. And the views of cessation (nirodha-darśana) and the path (mārga-darśana) that penetrate the three realms (Trailokya) sever the afflictions that are conditions of the unconditioned (anāsrava). Such afflictions are all severed through the object of pervasive knowledge. Treatise: 'Secondly, it is severed by severing that, and then this is consequently severed,' clarifying the second type of severance. As the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Secondly, it is severed by severing that which is capable of conditioning,' namely, the afflictions associated with the Desire Realm that are conditions of other realms. By severing the views of suffering and origination associated with the Desire Realm, the afflictions that are conditions of one's own realm are severed, and they are capable of conditioning each other. When the support is severed, those afflictions are consequently severed. It is like a weak person standing by leaning on something; when the support is removed, he consequently falls. How can they be a support for each other? Because they can be a cause for each other. Does this not mean that it is severed by harming the cause? Indeed. 'This' and 'that' are just different names. However, to prevent confusion, it is said this way. That is, the afflictions of the Desire Realm that are conditions of one's own and other realms have the meaning of 'this' and 'that' being causes for each other. However, there is no mutual conditioning between 'this' and 'that,' so it is said here that the conditioning is severed, to make it easy to understand, only the conditions of other realms are severed, and by severing this cause, that is consequently severed. Treatise: 'Thirdly, it is severed by severing that, and then this is consequently severed,' clarifying the third type of severance. As the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'It is like a weak person walking with a cane; when the cane is removed, he consequently falls.' What is the reason that among the afflictions severed here, there is the severance of that which is capable of conditioning, and it is said that the object of conditioning is severed? For example, when direct realization (abhisamaya) arises in relation to the truths of suffering and origination of the Desire Realm, there is the severance of the object of conditioning, and it is said that the conditioning is severed? For example, when direct realization arises in relation to the truths of cessation and the path.
。雖實爾時此彼俱斷。而由所斷有勝有劣。故勝斷時言劣隨斷。謂若於彼惑所緣中。無漏慧生。能為對治彼惑名勝。所餘名劣。何緣彼惑偏得勝名。于彼所緣無漏慧起。專為敵彼發功用故。依如是義故可說言。緣欲苦．集所起現觀。于自所斷煩惱等中。以自界緣為勝怨敵。緣諸滅．道所起現觀。于自所斷煩惱等中。以無漏緣為勝怨敵。由勝斷故余劣隨斷 解云。見苦．集斷自界緣。名見彼所緣斷。據根本也。理實亦通所緣斷故斷。
論。若修所斷。已下。可解。正理論云。豈不一切見所斷惑斷時。亦由對治道起以若此部對治道生。則此部中諸惑斷故。理實應爾。然於此中。為顯三界修所斷惑。無不皆由九品道斷。治道決定故說此言。見所斷中。唯有頂惑對治決定。如前已辨 解云。有頂唯見斷修道唯無漏斷。故名決定 又云。或見所斷諸惑斷時。方便定三。故就別說。修所斷惑能斷方便。不決定故。就總而說。解云。修所斷若觀苦．集諦斷。即是見彼所緣。若觀滅．道諦斷。即不見所緣。若世俗道斷。即無間道見所緣。解脫道不見所緣。由不定故說由對治。見道三斷義即決定。故就別說。
論。所言對治總有幾種。已下半行頌。第二明四種對治也。
論曰至得更遠故。釋前三對治也 言斷對治者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：雖然實際上那時此二者（勝與劣）同時斷除，但由於所斷的煩惱有強弱之分，因此在勝者斷除時，才說劣者也隨之斷除。也就是說，如果對於某個煩惱的所緣境，生起了無漏智慧，能夠作為該煩惱的對治，那麼這個煩惱就被稱為『勝』，其餘的則稱為『劣』。為什麼那個煩惱特別得到『勝』的名稱呢？因為對於那個所緣境，無漏智慧生起，專門爲了對治它而發揮作用。依據這樣的意義，所以可以說，緣于欲界的苦、集二諦所生起的現觀，對於自己所斷的煩惱等來說，以自界（欲界）的所緣境作為最強的怨敵；緣于滅、道二諦所生起的現觀，對於自己所斷的煩惱等來說，以無漏的所緣境作為最強的怨敵。由於勝者斷除，其餘劣者也隨之斷除。解釋說：見苦諦、集諦而斷除煩惱，是斷除自界所緣境的煩惱，這被稱為見彼所緣斷，這是就根本而言的。實際上也通於所緣斷而斷除煩惱。 論：如果修所斷，以下可以解釋。《正理論》說：難道不是一切見所斷的煩惱斷除時，也是由對治道生起嗎？如果此部的對治道生起，那麼此部中的各種煩惱就會斷除。道理上確實應該如此。然而，在這裡，爲了顯示三界修所斷的煩惱，沒有不是由九品道斷除的，因為對治道是決定的，所以才這樣說。見所斷的煩惱中，只有有頂天的煩惱對治是決定的，如前已經辨明。解釋說：有頂天的煩惱只有見斷和修道才能斷除，而且只有無漏才能斷除，所以稱為決定。又說：或者見所斷的各種煩惱斷除時，方便、定、三昧是不同的，所以就個別來說。修所斷的煩惱能夠斷除的方便是不決定的，所以就總體來說。解釋說：修所斷的煩惱如果觀察苦、集諦而斷除，那就是見彼所緣境；如果觀察滅、道諦而斷除，那就是不見所緣境；如果是世俗道斷除，那就是無間道見所緣境，解脫道不見所緣境。由於不決定，所以說由對治。見道的三斷的意義是決定的，所以就個別來說。 論：所說的對治總共有幾種？以下半行頌，第二是說明四種對治。 論曰至得更遠故。解釋前三種對治。所說的斷對治是：
【English Translation】 English version: Although in reality, both the superior and inferior are severed at the same time, due to the difference in strength between the afflictions being severed, it is said that when the superior is severed, the inferior is also severed accordingly. That is, if non-defiled wisdom arises in the object of a certain affliction, and can act as a counterforce to that affliction, then that affliction is called 'superior,' and the rest are called 'inferior.' Why does that affliction particularly receive the name 'superior'? Because for that object, non-defiled wisdom arises, specifically to counteract it and exert its function. Based on this meaning, it can be said that the direct realization arising from suffering and accumulation (苦．集 ku, ji) in the desire realm (欲界 yu jie), for the afflictions etc. that it severs, takes the object of its own realm as the strongest enemy; the direct realization arising from cessation and the path (滅．道 mie, dao), for the afflictions etc. that it severs, takes the non-defiled object as the strongest enemy. Because the superior is severed, the remaining inferior is severed accordingly. Explanation: Severing afflictions by seeing suffering and accumulation is severing afflictions of one's own realm, which is called severing by seeing that object. This is in terms of the root. In reality, it also applies to severing afflictions by severing the object. Treatise: If what is severed by cultivation, the following can be explained. The Nyāyānusāra says: Isn't it the case that when all afflictions severed by seeing are severed, it is also due to the arising of the counterforce path? If the counterforce path of this category arises, then the various afflictions in this category will be severed. In principle, it should indeed be so. However, here, in order to show that the afflictions severed by cultivation in the three realms (三界 san jie) are all severed by the ninefold path, because the counterforce path is definite, that is why it is said this way. Among the afflictions severed by seeing, only the counterforce to the afflictions of the peak of existence (有頂 you ding) is definite, as has been explained before. Explanation: The afflictions of the peak of existence can only be severed by seeing and cultivation, and only by the non-defiled, so it is called definite. It also says: Or, when the various afflictions severed by seeing are severed, the means, concentration, and samadhi are different, so it is discussed separately. The means by which afflictions severed by cultivation can be severed are not definite, so it is discussed generally. Explanation: If afflictions severed by cultivation are severed by observing suffering and accumulation, then that is seeing that object; if they are severed by observing cessation and the path, then that is not seeing the object; if they are severed by the worldly path, then the path of immediate succession sees the object, and the path of liberation does not see the object. Because it is not definite, it is said to be by counterforce. The meaning of the three severances of the path of seeing is definite, so it is discussed separately. Treatise: How many kinds of counterforces are there in total? The following half-line verse, the second is to explain the four kinds of counterforces. Treatise says: To obtain further distance, explaining the first three counterforces. What is said about the severance counterforce is:
謂無間道正斷惑得故 二持對治。謂此無間后解脫道。持彼所斷此品染法斷得故。準此。得染法無為。非是由同部同品所緣縛斷故得無為也。故正理云。一斷對治。謂道親能斷諸惑得。即無間道。二持對治。謂道初與斷得俱生。即解脫道。由如是道持斷得故。令諸惑得不相續生。
論。有餘師說至得更遠故。述異說也。準此。諸道更無異釋。有人云。持對治隱顯合論。即通四道。以皆能持彼斷得故。遠分對治。若隱顯合論。亦通四道。以皆能令彼所斷惑得更遠故 此是抑度作義。無所憑據。
論。四厭患對治至深生厭患。辨第四對治也。此上次第是婆沙本義。若依婆沙十七。有舍對治。如舍破戒惡等。與此不同。
論。然此對治至起精進道。論主以前釋厭患在後。非是義便故改於前。然厭患對治多分在加行道。所以前說。理實不定。或於無間道前。或在勝進道后。無間．解脫道中。緣苦．集諦。亦得名為厭患對治加行道亦不定。或一加行至無學果。或二。或多。由不定故。婆沙說在勝進道后。此論從多說在無間道前。
論。諸惑若斷為定從何。第三半行頌明斷所從。
論曰至不復生故。明煩惱得永斷。故令遠離所緣。令于所緣不復生故。婆沙二十二云。然此中說。諸隨眠于所緣可斷。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『謂無間道正斷惑得故』：意思是說，無間道（Anantarya-marga，直接證悟真諦之道）能夠真正斷除煩惱，從而獲得解脫。 『二持對治。謂此無間后解脫道。持彼所斷此品染法斷得故。準此。得染法無為。非是由同部同品所緣縛斷故得無為也。故正理云。一斷對治。謂道親能斷諸惑得。即無間道。二持對治。謂道初與斷得俱生。即解脫道。由如是道持斷得故。令諸惑得不相續生。』：第二種是對治的保持。指的是在無間道之後的解脫道（Vimukti-marga，從煩惱中解脫之道），它保持著無間道所斷除的該品類的染污之法的斷滅。由此可以推知，獲得染污之法的無為（Asamskrta，不生不滅的境界），不是因為相同部類或相同品類的所緣（Alambana，認識對像）的束縛斷滅而獲得的。因此，《正理》（Nyaya-sastra）中說：第一種是斷滅對治，指的是能夠直接斷除各種煩惱的道，也就是無間道；第二種是保持對治，指的是道最初生起時就與斷滅的獲得同時產生，也就是解脫道。由於這樣的道保持著斷滅的獲得，所以使得各種煩惱的獲得不再相續生起。
『論。有餘師說至得更遠故。述異說也。準此。諸道更無異釋。有人云。持對治隱顯合論。即通四道。以皆能持彼斷得故。遠分對治。若隱顯合論。亦通四道。以皆能令彼所斷惑得更遠故 此是抑度作義。無所憑據。』：論中說，有其他論師認為……使得煩惱的獲得更加遙遠。這是在敘述不同的觀點。由此可以推知，各種道沒有其他的解釋。有人說，保持對治如果隱顯結合來討論，那麼就貫通四道（加行道、無間道、解脫道、勝進道），因為它們都能夠保持斷滅的獲得。遙遠分離的對治，如果隱顯結合來討論，也貫通四道，因為它們都能夠使得所斷除的煩惱的獲得更加遙遠。這是一種強行推測的解釋，沒有任何依據。
『論。四厭患對治至深生厭患。辨第四對治也。此上次第是婆沙本義。若依婆沙十七。有舍對治。如舍破戒惡等。與此不同。』：論中說，第四種是對治是厭患對治……產生深深的厭惡。這是在辨析第四種對治。這裡的次第是《婆沙》（Vibhasa）的原本含義。如果按照《婆沙》第十七卷，還有舍對治，例如捨棄破戒的惡行等等，與這裡所說的不同。
『論。然此對治至起精進道。論主以前釋厭患在後。非是義便故改於前。然厭患對治多分在加行道。所以前說。理實不定。或於無間道前。或在勝進道后。無間．解脫道中。緣苦．集諦。亦得名為厭患對治加行道亦不定。或一加行至無學果。或二。或多。由不定故。婆沙說在勝進道后。此論從多說在無間道前。』：論中說，然而這種對治……生起精進之道。論主以前的解釋是將厭患對治放在後面，現在改到前面，並不是因為義理上更方便。然而，厭患對治大部分是在加行道（Prayoga-marga，為證悟而努力的道）中。所以前面這樣說。但實際上並不確定，或者在無間道之前，或者在勝進道（Visesa-marga，殊勝之道）之後。在無間道和解脫道中，緣于苦諦（Dukkha-satya，苦的真諦）和集諦（Samudaya-satya，苦的根源的真諦），也可以稱為厭患對治。加行道也不確定，或者一次加行就達到無學果（Arhatship，阿羅漢果），或者兩次，或者多次。由於不確定，所以《婆沙》說在勝進道之後。此論從多數情況來說，放在無間道之前。
『論。諸惑若斷為定從何。第三半行頌明斷所從。』：論中說，各種煩惱如果斷滅，確定是從哪裡開始的？第三句半頌說明了斷滅的起始。
『論曰至不復生故。明煩惱得永斷。故令遠離所緣。令于所緣不復生故。婆沙二十二云。然此中說。諸隨眠于所緣可斷。』：論中說……不再生起。說明煩惱的獲得被永遠斷除。所以要使之遠離所緣，使得對於所緣不再生起。 《婆沙》第二十二卷說，然而這裡說的是，各種隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在形式）是可以從所緣上斷除的。
English version: 『Said Anantarya-marga rightly severs the acquisition of defilements』: This means that the Anantarya-marga (the path of immediate realization of truth) can truly sever defilements, thereby attaining liberation. 『The second is the holding of counteractions. This refers to the Vimukti-marga after the Anantarya-marga, which holds the severance of the defiled dharmas of that category that have been severed. Accordingly, the unconditioned (Asamskrta) of defiled dharmas is attained, not because the bonds of objects of the same category or same type are severed. Therefore, the Nyaya-sastra says: The first is the severance of counteractions, referring to the path that can directly sever the acquisition of all kinds of defilements, which is the Anantarya-marga. The second is the holding of counteractions, referring to the path that arises simultaneously with the attainment of severance, which is the Vimukti-marga. Because this path holds the attainment of severance, it prevents the acquisition of all kinds of defilements from arising continuously.』
『Treatise: Some other teachers say…making the acquisition even more distant. This is narrating different views. Accordingly, there are no other interpretations of the various paths. Some say that the holding of counteractions, if discussed in a combined hidden and manifest way, then it pervades the four paths (Prayoga-marga, Anantarya-marga, Vimukti-marga, Visesa-marga), because they can all hold the attainment of severance. The counteraction of distant separation, if discussed in a combined hidden and manifest way, also pervades the four paths, because they can all make the acquisition of the severed defilements even more distant. This is a forced interpretation with no basis.』
『Treatise: The fourth counteraction is the counteraction of aversion…generating deep aversion. This is distinguishing the fourth counteraction. The order here is the original meaning of the Vibhasa. According to Vibhasa XVII, there is also the counteraction of abandonment, such as abandoning the evil of breaking precepts, etc., which is different from what is said here.』
『Treatise: However, this counteraction…arises the path of diligence. The author of the treatise previously explained aversion later, but now changes it to earlier, not because it is more convenient in terms of meaning. However, the counteraction of aversion is mostly in the Prayoga-marga. That's why it was said earlier. But in reality, it is not fixed, either before the Anantarya-marga or after the Visesa-marga. In the Anantarya-marga and Vimukti-marga, focusing on the Dukkha-satya and Samudaya-satya can also be called the counteraction of aversion. The Prayoga-marga is also not fixed, either one practice reaches Arhatship, or two, or many. Because it is not fixed, the Vibhasa says it is after the Visesa-marga. This treatise, from the majority of cases, puts it before the Anantarya-marga.』
『Treatise: If all defilements are severed, from where is it determined? The third half-verse explains the origin of severance.』
『Treatise: …no longer arises. It explains that the acquisition of defilements is permanently severed. Therefore, it is made to be far from the object, so that it no longer arises for the object. Vibhasa XXII says, however, that it is said here that all latent tendencies (Anusaya) can be severed from the object.』
【English Translation】 English translation line 1 English translation line 2
非於相應者。依心名有隨眠義說。不依隨增義說。以隨增義俱可斷故。
論。斷未來惑至云何說斷。論主難也。若令不生名之為斷。應唯斷未來。如何亦斷過去。
論。若謂頌說至定何所從。遮釋也。頌說從所緣言。意顯遍知所緣斷者。準前四種方便。非唯遍知所緣斷。亦有能緣斷。故斷等三種斷也。從其所緣義即不定。
論。自相續中至究竟斷故。論主自為有部釋出斷所從也。由無間道力。令自相續煩惱得斷。由得斷故。過去．未來於其所緣。無隨增力。不能繫縛于所緣境。由斯他相續中諸煩惱。及一切色．不染污法。亦名為斷。不為自相續中煩惱縛故。準正理釋。一切煩惱斷。皆由見彼煩惱所緣斷。是其根本。余之三斷是其末也。故正理云。諸惑永斷定從所緣。以于所緣遍知力故。令惑永斷。如前已說。然惑所緣總有二種。謂有系事。及無系事。緣有系事為境諸惑。及從此惑力所引生。不緣此事為境諸惑 解云。緣有系是自界緣。或力引生不緣此事為境諸惑是及他界緣惑。如是二惑。於一有情現相續中。引起諸得。設無染污心現在前。此得恒行無有間斷。為去．來世諸惑果因(已上緣有系事) 如是應知。緣無系事為境諸惑。及因此惑勢力所引。隨後現行不緣此事為境諸惑。所引起得類亦同前
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 並非對於相應的法。是依心而立名，說有隨眠的意義，不是依隨增的意義來說。因為隨增的意義，（煩惱）都是可以斷除的。
論：斷除未來之惑，乃至說如何斷除？這是論主的提問。如果說使之不生叫做斷，那麼應該只斷除未來之惑，如何也能斷除過去之惑呢？
論：如果說頌文說到，乃至從何處決定？這是遮止和解釋。頌文是從所緣說的，意在顯示通過遍知所緣而斷除煩惱。參照前面的四種方便，不僅僅是通過遍知所緣來斷除，也有通過能緣來斷除的。所以有斷、等斷三種斷除。從其所緣的意義來說，即是不定的。
論：在自相續中，乃至究竟斷除的緣故。這是論主自己為有部解釋斷除的依據。由於無間道的力量，使得自相續中的煩惱得以斷除。由於得到斷除的緣故，過去、未來對於其所緣，沒有隨增的力量，不能繫縛于所緣境。因此，他相續中的諸煩惱，以及一切色、不染污法，也名為斷除，因為不為自相續中的煩惱所束縛。參照《正理》的解釋，一切煩惱的斷除，都是由於見到彼煩惱的所緣斷除，這是其根本。其餘的三種斷除是其末。所以《正理》說：『諸惑的永斷必定是從所緣開始，因為對於所緣有遍知力的緣故，使得惑永斷。』如前已說。然而惑的所緣總共有兩種，即有系事（與煩惱相聯繫的事物），以及無系事（與煩惱無聯繫的事物）。緣有系事為境的諸惑，以及從此惑的力量所引發產生的，不緣此事為境的諸惑——解釋說：緣有系是自界緣，或者力量引發產生不緣此事為境的諸惑是及他界緣惑。像這樣的兩種惑，在一個有情的現相續中，引起諸得（獲得）。假設沒有染污心現在面前，此得恒常執行沒有間斷，作為過去、未來世諸惑的果因（以上是緣有系事）。 像這樣應該知道，緣無系事為境的諸惑，以及因此惑勢力所引發，隨後現行不緣此事為境的諸惑，所引起的得的種類也與前面相同。
【English Translation】 English version Not in relation to corresponding dharmas. It is based on the mind to establish the name, speaking of the meaning of latent tendencies (Skt: anusaya), not speaking of the meaning of increase. Because in the meaning of increase, (afflictions) can all be eliminated.
Treatise: Eliminating future delusions, and even saying how to eliminate them? This is the treatise master's question. If making them not arise is called elimination, then only future delusions should be eliminated. How can past delusions also be eliminated?
Treatise: If it is said that the verse speaks of, and even from where is it determined? This is to prevent and explain. The verse speaks from the object of perception (Skt: alambana), intending to show that afflictions are eliminated through pervasive knowledge of the object of perception. Referring to the previous four methods, it is not only through pervasive knowledge of the object of perception that elimination occurs, but also through the subject of perception (Skt: adhipati). Therefore, there are three types of elimination: elimination, equal elimination, etc. From the meaning of its object of perception, it is uncertain.
Treatise: In one's own continuum, and even because of ultimate elimination. This is the treatise master himself explaining the basis of elimination for the Sarvastivada school. Due to the power of the path of immediate succession (Skt: anantarya-marga), the afflictions in one's own continuum can be eliminated. Because of obtaining elimination, the past and future, in relation to their objects of perception, have no increasing power and cannot bind to the object of perception. Therefore, the afflictions in other's continuums, as well as all forms (Skt: rupa) and non-defiled dharmas, are also called eliminated, because they are not bound by the afflictions in one's own continuum. Referring to the explanation in the Abhidharmakosha, the elimination of all afflictions is due to seeing the elimination of the object of perception of those afflictions, which is its root. The remaining three eliminations are its branches. Therefore, the Abhidharmakosha says: 'The permanent elimination of all delusions must begin from the object of perception, because of the power of pervasive knowledge of the object of perception, which causes the permanent elimination of delusions.' As previously stated. However, there are two types of objects of perception of delusions: those that are connected to afflictions (Skt: asrava), and those that are not connected to afflictions (Skt: anasrava). The delusions that take connected things as their object, and those that are generated from the power of these delusions, that do not take these things as their object—the explanation says: taking connected things as the object is the object of one's own realm, or the delusions that are generated by power and do not take these things as their object are the delusions of other realms. These two types of delusions, in the present continuum of a sentient being, give rise to gains (Skt: labha). Even if there is no defiled mind present, these gains constantly operate without interruption, serving as the cause of the fruits of delusions in the past and future lives (the above is about things connected to afflictions). It should be known that the delusions that take unconnected things as their object, and those that are generated by the power of these delusions, that subsequently manifest and do not take these things as their object, the types of gains that arise are the same as before.
緣無系事為境諸惑。是滅．道下無漏緣惑。此惑勢力所引。乃至言不緣此事為境諸惑。是滅．道下有漏緣 言為去．來惑果因者。謂此諸得在現世時。是過去惑等流性故。說之為果。是未來惑生緣性故說之為因 有得可生。無得不生 然此諸得與斷對治等流諸得現行相違。能持去．來所斷諸惑故。令一切緣此事惑。及緣余惑相續而轉。緣此事境諸斷對治等流起時惑得便絕。所得諸惑于自所緣。雖體猶有。而由因．果得永絕故。可說名斷(由道知自界緣惑境故。他界緣亦斷。由道知無漏緣惑境故。有漏緣亦斷) 以于少境若未遍知。緣此境惑。及因此惑力所引起緣余境惑。所引去．來惑果因得。現相續中無間而轉。若於少境得遍知時。惑所引得便不復轉。故知惑斷定從所緣 準上道理證知。惑斷定從所緣。要由道見此根本惑所緣境故。余緣此境惑斷。及所引惑斷故。故知惑斷定從所緣斷 然於此中雖惑與道無俱行理。而道觀見苦等境故。諸惑便斷。此義難了。應舉喻明。譬如有人為鼠所嚙。雖無熱悶迷亂等時。而由熱等因毒在身。故恒名有病者。非無病人。要服毒相違阿揭陀藥方名無病者。非有病人。雖阿揭陀與熱等病。不俱時在一身中行。而阿揭陀威德力故。滅身中毒熱等不生。說阿揭陀能除眾病。如是聖道。雖與
諸惑不俱時在一身中行。而聖道生威德力故。滅果．因得諸惑不生。能令行者身器清凈惑不續故。說名為斷 準上論文。應知從所緣可令諸惑斷。非是自身中結法。及一果等。由斷同部同品能縛故得無為也。是由治道見惑所緣斷其得故。于其所緣不復現縛。亦斷過．未性縛之用。準此論文。即是自身結法。及一果等。由道力故。令果．因得斷。于所緣境無縛能故。名之為斷。不是不被他緣縛故。名之為斷。婆沙亦爾。非是明斷所緣縛得無為義也。因何古今諸德誤解此文。
論。所言遠分遠性有幾。已下第四明四遠也。
論曰至亦名為遠者。釋相遠也。雖同一聚極相鄰近。以相不同故亦名為遠。
論。二治遠性至亦名為遠。釋第二遠也。如持．犯戒雖同在一身處極相近。同無表色相又非遠。能治．所治性不同故。亦名為遠。
論。三處遠性至亦名為遠。釋第三處遠也。如東．西海。同在一世界中。同是水故相又非遠。同現在故時又非遠。東．西處隔故名為遠。
論。四時遠性至亦名為遠。如過．未世雖復俱依一法上立。相非是遠。處亦無隔。時分隔故亦名為遠。
論。望何說遠。論主問也。
望現在世。有部答也。
無間已滅及正生時與現相鄰如何名遠。論主難也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 諸多的迷惑不會同時在一個人的身上發生作用。但是聖道（Arya-marga）產生威德之力，因此能滅除（諸惑的）果和因，使得各種迷惑不再產生，能夠使修行者的身心清凈，因為迷惑不再延續，所以被稱為『斷』。根據上面的論文，應該知道（諸惑）是從所緣境上被斷除的，而不是自身中的結縛之法，以及單一的果等等。由於斷除了同部、同品的能縛之法，因此證得了無為法（Asamskrta）。這是由於修習對治之道，見惑（Dristi-heya）的所緣境被斷除，因此對於該所緣境不再產生束縛，也斷除了過去和未來的能縛之用。根據此論文，（斷除的）就是自身結縛之法，以及單一的果等等。由於道的力量，使得果和因被斷除，對於所緣境沒有了束縛的能力，因此被稱為『斷』。而不是因為不被其他因緣束縛，才被稱為『斷』。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）也是這樣認為的，不是說明斷除所緣境的束縛就能證得無為法的意義。為何古今的諸位大德會誤解此文呢？
論：所說的遠分、遠性有幾種？以下第四部分說明四種遠。
論曰：乃至也稱為遠，解釋相遠。即使在同一個聚集體中，極其相鄰近，因為相狀不同，所以也稱為遠。
論：二、治遠性乃至也稱為遠。解釋第二種遠。例如持戒和犯戒，雖然同在一個身體中，處所極其相近，同爲無表色（Avijnapti-rupa），相狀也並非遙遠，但是能對治和所對治的性質不同，所以也稱為遠。
論：三、處遠性乃至也稱為遠。解釋第三種處遠。例如東海和西海，同在一個世界中，同是水，所以相狀並非遙遠，同是現在，所以時間也並非遙遠，但是東西處所相隔，所以稱為遠。
論：四、時遠性乃至也稱為遠。例如過去世和未來世，雖然都依附於同一個法之上而成立，相狀並非遙遠，處所也沒有間隔，但是時間分隔，所以也稱為遠。
論：望什麼而說遠？論主提問。
望現在世。有部（Sarvastivada）回答。
無間已滅以及正在生起之時，與現在相鄰，如何稱為遠？論主反駁。
【English Translation】 English version Various afflictions do not operate simultaneously within one person. However, the Noble Path (Arya-marga) generates power and virtue, thereby extinguishing the fruit and cause (of afflictions), preventing the arising of various afflictions. It enables the practitioner's body and mind to be pure, as afflictions no longer continue, hence it is called 'severance'. According to the above treatise, it should be understood that (afflictions) are severed from the object of cognition (Alambana), not from the binding dharmas within oneself, nor from a single fruit, etc. Because the binding of the same category and type is severed, unconditioned reality (Asamskrta) is attained. This is because by practicing the path of counteraction, the object of cognition of the afflictions of view (Dristi-heya) is severed, thus no longer generating bondage towards that object of cognition, and also severing the binding function of the past and future. According to this treatise, what is (severed) is the binding dharma within oneself, as well as a single fruit, etc. Due to the power of the path, the fruit and cause are severed, and there is no longer the ability to bind the object of cognition, hence it is called 'severance'. It is not called 'severance' because it is not bound by other conditions. The Vibhasa also holds this view; it does not explain that severing the bondage of the object of cognition leads to the attainment of unconditioned reality. Why have the virtuous ones of the past and present misunderstood this text?
Treatise: How many kinds of distance and remoteness are there? The following fourth section explains the four distances.
Treatise says: Even called distance, explains distance in appearance. Even if they are in the same aggregate and extremely close to each other, they are also called distance because their appearances are different.
Treatise: Two, distance in antidote, even called distance. Explains the second distance. For example, upholding precepts and violating precepts, although they are in the same body and extremely close in location, and both are non-revealing form (Avijnapti-rupa), and their appearances are not far apart, they are also called distance because the nature of the antidote and what is to be treated are different.
Treatise: Three, distance in location, even called distance. Explains the third distance in location. For example, the Eastern Sea and the Western Sea are in the same world, and both are water, so their appearances are not far apart, and both are present, so their time is not far apart, but they are called distance because the Eastern and Western locations are separated.
Treatise: Four, distance in time, even called distance. For example, the past and future, although they are both established based on the same dharma, their appearances are not far apart, and there is no separation in location, but they are also called distance because they are separated by time.
Treatise: In relation to what is distance spoken of? The author of the treatise asks.
In relation to the present. The Sarvastivada answers.
The immediately ceased and the just arising are adjacent to the present, how can they be called distance? The author of the treatise refutes.
由世性別故得遠名。
非久曾當方得名遠。有部答也。
若爾現在亦應得遠名以望去．來世性亦別故。論主難也 解云。去．來與現性不同。過去．未來得名遠。現在亦與去．來別。現在亦應得遠名。
論。若謂去．來法無作用故名為遠者。諸無為法作用既無。云何名近。若謂由現遍得無為故名近者。去．來二世例亦應然。虛空無為如何名近。乃至。不應一向說名為遠。上來皆是論主遮轉計也。
論。若依正理至去．來已舍法自相故。論主述經部義釋時遠也。
論。等言為明舉事未盡者。四遠之中。此略舉故義未盡也。正理釋云。與現相鄰如何名遠。彼非一切五識境故。亦非一分意識境故。或時分中有作用者說名為近。過去．未來定無作用。故說名遠。不可難言諸無為法永無作用應名為遠。以時遠近依時而立。故於三時。若有作用說名為近。若無作用說名為遠。諸無為法越一切時。如何約時難令成遠。如處遠近依處而立。非處不然。若難無為相有異故應成相遠。理亦無遮相遠貫通一切法故。若爾何故無為名近。且虛空體遍一切處。相無礙故說名為近。非擇滅體不由功用。於一切體一切處時皆可得故。說名為近。擇滅無為諸有精進正修行者。斷諸惑時。於一切體無有差別。速證
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 由於世（時間）和性別（種類）的差別，才會有『遠名』（遙遠之名）的說法。 如果不是很久以前曾經存在，就不能得到『名遠』（名聲遠揚）的說法。有部宗這樣回答。 論主反駁：如果這樣，那麼現在也應該因為與過去、未來世的性別不同而得到『遠名』。論主提出了疑問。解釋說：過去、未來與現在的性質不同，所以過去、未來可以得到『名遠』。現在也與過去、未來不同，所以現在也應該得到『遠名』。 論：如果說過去、未來的法沒有作用，所以稱為『遠』，那麼諸無為法（沒有生滅變化的法）的作用既然也沒有，為什麼稱為『近』？如果說因為現在普遍可以得到無為法，所以稱為『近』，那麼過去、未來二世也應該如此。虛空（ākāśa）無為法如何稱為『近』？因此，不應該一概地說名為『遠』。以上都是論主爲了遮止對方的轉計。 論：如果依據正理，過去、未來已經捨棄了法的自相，所以是『時遠』（時間遙遠）。論主闡述經部宗的意義來解釋時間上的遙遠。 論：『等』字是爲了表明還有未盡的事例。在四遠（四種遙遠）之中，這裡只是簡略地舉例，所以意義還沒有完全表達。正理的解釋是：與現在相鄰，為什麼稱為『遠』？因為它們不是一切五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）的境界，也不是一部分意識（mano-vijñāna）的境界。或者說，在某個時間段內有作用的，就稱為『近』。過去、未來一定沒有作用，所以稱為『遠』。不能反駁說，諸無為法永遠沒有作用，應該稱為『遠』。因為時間的遠近是依據時間而建立的，所以在三時（過去、現在、未來）中，如果有作用就稱為『近』，如果沒有作用就稱為『遠』。諸無為法超越一切時間，如何用時間來責難使之成為『遠』？如同處所的遠近是依據處所而建立的，不是處所就不能這樣說。如果責難說，無為法的相有差異，所以應該成為『相遠』（相狀遙遠），這個道理也沒有什麼可以遮止的，因為相狀的遙遠貫通一切法。如果這樣，為什麼無為法稱為『近』？暫且說虛空的本體遍及一切處所，相沒有障礙，所以稱為『近』。非擇滅（asaṃkhyāta-nirodha）的本體不由功用，在一切本體、一切處所、一切時間都可以得到，所以稱為『近』。擇滅（pratisamkhyā-nirodha）無為法，那些精進如法修行的人，在斷除諸惑的時候，對於一切本體沒有差別，迅速證得。
【English Translation】 English version 『Dūra-nāma』 (distant name) is obtained because of the difference in 『loka』 (time) and 『gotra』 (gender/species). If it had not existed a long time ago, it could not obtain the term 『nāma-dūra』 (name far away/distant fame). This is the answer of the Sarvāstivāda school. The author refutes: If that is the case, then the present should also obtain 『dūra-nāma』 because of the difference in gender/species from the past and future. The author raises a question. The explanation is: The past and future are different in nature from the present, so the past and future can obtain 『nāma-dūra』. The present is also different from the past and future, so the present should also obtain 『dūra-nāma』. If it is said that the past and future dharmas have no function, so they are called 『dūra』 (distant), then since the function of all unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharmas) is also absent, why are they called 『āsanna』 (near)? If it is said that because unconditioned dharmas can be universally obtained in the present, they are called 『āsanna』, then the past and future two times should also be the same. How can space (ākāśa), an unconditioned dharma, be called 『āsanna』? Therefore, it should not be said uniformly that it is called 『dūra』. The above are all the author's attempts to prevent the opponent's counter-arguments. If according to right reason, the past and future have already abandoned the self-characteristics of dharmas, so it is 『kāla-dūra』 (distant in time). The author explains the meaning of the Sautrāntika school to explain the distance in time. The word 『ādi』 (etc.) is to indicate that there are still unmentioned examples. Among the four distances (catasro dūratās), this is only a brief example, so the meaning has not been fully expressed. The explanation of right reason is: Being adjacent to the present, why is it called 『dūra』? Because they are not the realm of all five consciousnesses (pañca-vijñānas) (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness), nor are they the realm of a part of consciousness (mano-vijñāna). Or, those that have function in a certain period of time are called 『āsanna』. The past and future certainly have no function, so they are called 『dūra』. It cannot be refuted that all unconditioned dharmas never have function and should be called 『dūra』. Because the distance in time is established according to time, so in the three times (past, present, future), if there is function, it is called 『āsanna』, and if there is no function, it is called 『dūra』. All unconditioned dharmas transcend all time, how can time be used to challenge and make them 『dūra』? Just as the distance in place is established according to place, it cannot be said so if it is not a place. If it is challenged that the characteristics of unconditioned dharmas are different, so they should become 『lakṣaṇa-dūra』 (distant in characteristics), there is nothing to prevent this reason, because the distance in characteristics pervades all dharmas. If so, why are unconditioned dharmas called 『āsanna』? For the time being, the substance of space pervades all places, and the characteristics are unobstructed, so it is called 『āsanna』. The substance of asaṃkhyāta-nirodha (non-selective cessation) is not due to effort, and can be obtained in all substances, all places, and all times, so it is called 『āsanna』. The asaṃskṛta-dharma of pratisamkhyā-nirodha (selective cessation), those who diligently practice the Dharma, when they cut off all afflictions, have no difference in all substances and quickly attain realization.
得故。說名為近。無為名近理趣既然 而經主說。去．來二世例亦應然 謂在去．來靜慮等法。如無為法等。速得故亦應近者。由先釋理為例不成。無多有情於一切體。無有差別共得義故。或許例然亦無有失。如一切法雖互相望相有異故皆名相遠。而依余理許說少分名近無失。如是去．來雖約時分無作用故皆名時遠。而依余理許說少分名近無失。非依余理名為遠故。與相．時分遠義相違 經主此中作如是說。若依正理應說去．來離法自相故名為遠。未來未得法自相故。過去已舍法自相故 彼說偏與正理相違。諸自相無皆非遠性。此成遠性必有自相。遠性攝故。如余遠性。謂見所餘相違性等是遠性攝。自相非無。既許去．來是遠性攝。必應許彼自相非無。說自相無而名遠性。故彼偏與正理相違。
論。前言惑斷由治道生至有重得耶。第五一頌明重得。
論曰至彼勝得義者。總明惑無再斷。無為有重得也。
論。所言重得總有幾時。問起也。
論總有六時。答六數也。
何等為六問六位也。
論。謂治道起至重起勝得。答六位也。治道果四。練根為六。正理論云。若據住此能證離系。目無間道。若據住此正證離系。目解脫道。
論。然諸離系至唯具二時。述不同也。
論。謂欲界系至具六時得者。此據次第者說 見三諦斷。是預流果前。自治為一。四果為四。及練根故有六時也。
論。色無色界至除預流果者。明五時也。以道類智時是得預流果故。后治生得果唯有五時。欲修五品預流果后雖存治生。果闕一故同五時得。
論。第六離系至除前二故。明四時得也。
論。第九離系至除前三故。明三時得也。
論。有頂第九至即得果故。明二時得也。
論。如是且就容有至除預流等故者。前說六時等。據容有鈍根次第者說。若說利根。即除練根。前六．五．四．三．二位皆除一故。即有五．四．三．二．一。若超越二果。即除預流。若超越三果。即除預流．一來。若鈍根次第。通取世俗道。得即有七時。若利根次第及超越。通世俗道。即有六時等。然治生時有其二種。世俗治生是正斷惑。無漏治生即有二種一者斷惑無間．解脫。二者重印。隨重印道亦得名為無間．解脫。超越忍智亦得名為無間．解脫故。煩惱先斷亦名遠分。又正理論云。隨離少多入聖道者。彼得離系。隨其所應有具六時。乃至。唯一以利根故 又六十一云。依根本地起暖等善根。彼於此生必定得見諦。以利根故厭有深故 準正理。超越是利根也。詳其隨信行人入見道有七十三人。故知
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：論：關於欲界系（Kāmadhātu-saṃyojana，與欲界相關的束縛）至具六時得者，這是根據次第漸進的情況來說的。見三諦斷（satya-darśana-prahāṇa，通過見三種真諦而斷除煩惱），這是在預流果（Srotaāpanna-phala，入流果）之前。自治為一，四果（catvāri phalāni，四種果位）為四，以及爲了練根（indriya-bhāvanā，修習根器）的緣故，所以有六時。
論：色無**（Rūpadhātu，色界）至除預流果者，說明了五時。因為在道類智（dharmajñāna-kṣānti，對法類的忍智）時，是獲得預流果的時刻。之後，治生得果只有五時。如果修五品，即使在預流果之後仍然存在治生，但因為果位缺少一個，所以與五時得相同。
論：第六離系（saṃyojana-prahāṇa，斷除束縛）至除前二故，說明了四時得。
論：第九離系至除前三故，說明了三時得。
論：有頂第九（Bhavāgra，有頂天）至即得果故，說明了二時得。
論：像這樣且就容有至除預流等故者，前面說的六時等，是根據容有鈍根次第的情況來說的。如果說利根（tīkṣṇa-indriya，根器銳利），就除去了練根。前六、五、四、三、二位都除掉一個，所以就有五、四、三、二、一。如果超越二果，就除去了預流果。如果超越三果，就除去了預流果、一來果（Sakṛdāgāmin-phala，一來果）。如果是鈍根次第，就通取世俗道（laukika-mārga，世間道），得到就有七時。如果是利根次第以及超越，通世俗道，就有六時等。然而，治生時有兩種：世俗治生是真正斷惑，無漏治生（anāsrava-mārga，無漏道）有兩種，一是斷惑無間、解脫，二是重印。隨著重印道，也可以被稱為無間、解脫。超越忍智也可以被稱為無間、解脫。煩惱先斷也可以稱為遠分。又正理論說，隨著離開多少而進入聖道的人，他們得到離系，根據他們的情況，有具六時，乃至唯一，因為是利根的緣故。又六十一說，依靠根本地（mūla-bhūmi，根本地）生起暖等善根，他們在此生必定得見諦（satya-darśana，見真諦），因為是利根的緣故，厭離有深。準正理，超越是利根。詳細考察隨信行人（anusraddhārin，隨信行者）入見道有七十三人，可知。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: Regarding 'belonging to the desire realm' (Kāmadhātu-saṃyojana, the fetters associated with the desire realm) to 'those who attain with six times,' this is spoken according to the gradual sequence. 'Seeing the three truths and abandoning' (satya-darśana-prahāṇa, abandoning afflictions through seeing the three truths) is before the Stream-enterer fruit (Srotaāpanna-phala, the fruit of entering the stream). 'Self-governing as one,' the four fruits (catvāri phalāni, the four fruits of the path) are four, and because of training the faculties (indriya-bhāvanā, cultivating the faculties), there are six times.
Treatise: 'The form realm' (Rūpadhātu, the realm of form) to 'excluding the Stream-enterer fruit' explains the five times. Because at the time of knowledge of the dharma class (dharmajñāna-kṣānti, the forbearance of knowledge of the dharma class), it is the moment of attaining the Stream-enterer fruit. Afterwards, cultivating to attain the fruit only has five times. If cultivating the five stages, even if cultivation remains after the Stream-enterer fruit, because one fruit is missing, it is the same as attaining with five times.
Treatise: 'The sixth abandonment' (saṃyojana-prahāṇa, abandonment of fetters) to 'excluding the previous two' explains attaining with four times.
Treatise: 'The ninth abandonment' to 'excluding the previous three' explains attaining with three times.
Treatise: 'The ninth of the peak of existence' (Bhavāgra, the peak of existence) to 'immediately attaining the fruit' explains attaining with two times.
Treatise: 'Like this, and just in terms of possibly having' to 'excluding the Stream-enterer, etc.' The previously mentioned six times, etc., are spoken according to the possibility of having a dull faculty in sequence. If speaking of sharp faculties (tīkṣṇa-indriya, sharp faculties), then training the faculties is excluded. The previous six, five, four, three, two positions all exclude one, so there are five, four, three, two, one. If transcending two fruits, then the Stream-enterer fruit is excluded. If transcending three fruits, then the Stream-enterer and Once-returner (Sakṛdāgāmin-phala, the fruit of once-returning) are excluded. If it is a dull faculty in sequence, then the worldly path (laukika-mārga, mundane path) is generally taken, and attaining has seven times. If it is a sharp faculty in sequence and transcendence, generally taking the worldly path, there are six times, etc. However, there are two types of cultivation: worldly cultivation is truly abandoning afflictions, and the unconditioned cultivation (anāsrava-mārga, the unconditioned path) has two types: one is abandoning afflictions without interruption and liberation, and the other is re-imprinting. Following the re-imprinting path, it can also be called without interruption and liberation. Transcending forbearance and knowledge can also be called without interruption and liberation. Afflictions abandoned earlier can also be called distant part. Also, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says, 'Those who enter the noble path according to the amount of leaving, they attain abandonment, according to their situation, having six times, up to only one, because of sharp faculties.' Also, sixty-one says, 'Relying on the fundamental ground (mūla-bhūmi, the fundamental ground) to generate good roots such as warmth, they will certainly see the truth (satya-darśana, seeing the truth) in this life, because of sharp faculties and deep aversion to existence.' According to the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, transcendence is a sharp faculty. Examining in detail that seventy-three people enter the path of seeing as followers of faith (anusraddhārin, follower of faith), it can be known.
超越雖利根。非是利種。所以重起無間．解脫。以二乘鈍故。欲起后道必依前道次第而起。諸佛超次第起。正理論云。諸有先離無所有染入聖道者。唯除菩薩。余亦定於二界一切修斷離系得無漏得。彼皆必於二界修斷自勝果道遍現前故。如是理趣以何證知。說聖者生第四靜慮已上諸地定成樂根。及說聖者生於無色定有色貪盡斷遍知得故。菩薩何緣不亦如是。不由加行。一切功德能現前故。如滅定等。謂聲聞．獨覺無自在功力能超間起諸對治道。欲證后道必藉前道以為加行方能證故 準此。重修對治道。即是更重修印。證無間．解脫道也。與四道不違。婆沙一師。鱗覺佛同菩薩。又準正理論。已至果位更不卻修此果向道。如先離欲超得阿那含果已。不更卻起欲斷對治亦不更得斷欲無為。乃至。得羅漢果畢竟不得。以先無無漏得故。無得可舍。后亦不得。準阿那含果。超越一來義亦準此。故正理論云。先斷六品入見諦者。彼見所斷六品離系。亦五時得。除一如前。彼修所斷六品離系。唯世俗道治生時得。必不起彼無漏對治。是一來果向道攝故。非住果時起彼向道。以住勝果不起劣故 那含準此。已後起印證見道得見道六品。不起修道六品故。不得修道六品無為。超越那含若依根本入見諦者。彼欲界見所斷九品離系亦一時得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 超越雖利根（具有敏銳根器的人）。非是利種（但不是殊勝的種子）。所以重起無間（因此需要重新生起無間道，指斷煩惱的智慧）．解脫（和解脫道，指斷煩惱后的解脫）。以二乘鈍故（因為聲聞乘和緣覺乘根器遲鈍）。欲起后道必依前道次第而起（想要生起更高的道，必須按照次第依賴前面的道而生起）。諸佛超次第起（諸佛可以超越次第而生起）。 《正理論》云（《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說）：『諸有先離無所有染入聖道者（那些先斷除了無所有處染而進入聖道的人），唯除菩薩（除了菩薩之外），余亦定於二界一切修斷離系得無漏得（其餘的人也必定在色界和無色界的一切修所斷煩惱的斷除和解脫中獲得無漏的獲得）。彼皆必於二界修斷自勝果道遍現前故（他們都必定在色界和無色界的修所斷煩惱的斷除中，使自己殊勝的果道完全顯現的緣故）。如是理趣以何證知（這樣的道理用什麼來證明呢）？說聖者生第四靜慮已上諸地定成樂根（說聖者生在第四禪及以上的諸地，必定成就樂根），及說聖者生於無色定有色貪盡斷遍知得故（以及說聖者生在無色定中，對色界的貪慾完全斷除並普遍知曉而獲得）。菩薩何緣不亦如是（菩薩為什麼不也是這樣呢）？不由加行（因為菩薩）一切功德能現前故（不需要通過額外的努力，一切功德都能顯現的緣故）。如滅定等（就像滅盡定等等）。謂聲聞．獨覺無自在功力能超間起諸對治道（意思是說，聲聞和緣覺沒有自在的功力能夠超越次第或間斷地生起各種對治道）。欲證后道必藉前道以為加行方能證故（想要證得更高的道，必須憑藉前面的道作為加行才能證得的緣故）。 準此（根據這個）。重修對治道（重新修習對治道），即是更重修印（就是再次重新修習印證），證無間．解脫道也（來證得無間道和解脫道）。與四道不違（與四道不相違背）。婆沙一師（《大毗婆沙論》中的一位論師），鱗覺佛同菩薩（認為鱗覺佛與菩薩相同）。又準正理論（又根據《正理論》）。已至果位更不卻修此果向道（已經達到果位的人，不再回頭修習此果的向道）。如先離欲超得阿那含果已（例如，先斷除了欲界的煩惱，超越而證得阿那含果之後），不更卻起欲斷對治（不再回頭生起斷除欲界煩惱的對治），亦不更得斷欲無為（也不再獲得斷除欲界煩惱的無為）。乃至（乃至）。得羅漢果畢竟不得（證得阿羅漢果之後，就畢竟不能再獲得）。以先無無漏得故（因為先前沒有無漏的獲得）。無得可舍（就沒有可以捨棄的）。后亦不得（後來也無法獲得）。準阿那含果（參照阿那含果）。超越一來義亦準此（超越一來果的道理也參照這個）。 故正理論云（所以《正理論》中說）：『先斷六品入見諦者（先斷除了六品煩惱而進入見道的人），彼見所斷六品離系（他們見所斷的六品煩惱的解脫），亦五時得（也是在五個時段獲得的），除一如前（除了一個時段與之前相同）。彼修所斷六品離系（他們修所斷的六品煩惱的解脫），唯世俗道治生時得（只有在世俗道生起對治的時候獲得）。必不起彼無漏對治（必定不會生起無漏的對治），是一來果向道攝故（因為這是屬於一來果的向道）。非住果時起彼向道（不是在安住于果位的時候生起那個向道）。以住勝果不起劣故（因為安住于殊勝的果位，就不會生起低劣的道）。』 那含準此（阿那含果參照這個）。已後起印證見道得見道六品（已經在後面生起印證，見道獲得了見道的六品）。不起修道六品故（因為沒有生起修道的六品），不得修道六品無為（就不能獲得修道的六品無為）。超越那含若依根本入見諦者（超越阿那含果，如果依據根本定而進入見道的人），彼欲界見所斷九品離系亦一時得（他們欲界見所斷的九品煩惱的解脫也是一時獲得的）。
【English Translation】 English version Transcending, though with sharp faculties (those with keen faculties). It is not a superior seed (but not a superior seed). Therefore, re-arising of the immediate (therefore, the need to re-arise the immediate path, referring to the wisdom that cuts off afflictions) and liberation (and the path of liberation, referring to liberation after cutting off afflictions). Because the two vehicles are dull (because the Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha vehicles are dull). Wanting to arise the later path, one must rely on the previous path in order (wanting to arise a higher path, one must rely on the previous path in sequence). Buddhas transcend the sequential arising (Buddhas can transcend the sequence and arise). The Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'Those who first depart from the defilements of the realm of nothingness and enter the holy path (those who first cut off the defilements of the realm of nothingness and enter the holy path), except for Bodhisattvas (except for Bodhisattvas), the rest are also certain to obtain the unconditioned attainment in all the severance and liberation of the afflictions to be cultivated in the two realms (the realm of form and the formless realm) (the rest are also certain to obtain the unconditioned attainment in the severance and liberation of all the afflictions to be cultivated in the realm of form and the formless realm). They must all fully manifest the path of the superior fruit in the severance of cultivation in the two realms (they must all fully manifest the path of their superior fruit in the severance of cultivation in the realm of form and the formless realm). How is such a principle known (how is such a principle known)? It is said that the holy ones born in the fourth dhyana and above are certain to achieve the root of joy (it is said that the holy ones born in the fourth dhyana and above are certain to achieve the root of joy), and it is said that the holy ones born in the formless samadhi have completely severed and universally known the greed for form (and it is said that the holy ones born in the formless samadhi have completely severed and universally known the greed for form). Why are Bodhisattvas not also like this (why are Bodhisattvas not also like this)? Because without effort (because Bodhisattvas) all merits can manifest (all merits can manifest without extra effort). Like the cessation samadhi, etc. (like the cessation samadhi, etc.). It means that Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas do not have the power to freely transcend and intermittently arise the various antidotal paths (it means that Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas do not have the power to freely transcend and intermittently arise the various antidotal paths). Wanting to realize the later path, one must rely on the previous path as an effort to realize it (wanting to realize the later path, one must rely on the previous path as an effort to realize it).' According to this (according to this). Re-cultivating the antidotal path (re-cultivating the antidotal path) is to re-cultivate the seal (is to re-cultivate the seal again), to prove the immediate and liberation path (to prove the immediate and liberation path). It does not contradict the four paths (it does not contradict the four paths). A teacher in the Mahavibhasa (a teacher in the Mahavibhasa), considers the Scaled-Aware Buddha to be the same as a Bodhisattva (considers the Scaled-Aware Buddha to be the same as a Bodhisattva). Also, according to the Abhidharmasamuccaya (also, according to the Abhidharmasamuccaya). Having reached the fruit position, one does not turn back to cultivate the path towards this fruit (having reached the fruit position, one does not turn back to cultivate the path towards this fruit). For example, having first departed from desire and transcended to attain the Anagamin fruit (for example, having first cut off the afflictions of the desire realm and transcended to attain the Anagamin fruit), one does not turn back to arise the antidote to severing desire (one does not turn back to arise the antidote to severing desire), nor does one obtain the unconditioned state of severing desire (nor does one obtain the unconditioned state of severing desire). Even (even). Attaining the Arhat fruit is ultimately unattainable (attaining the Arhat fruit is ultimately unattainable). Because there was no unconditioned attainment before (because there was no unconditioned attainment before). There is nothing to abandon (there is nothing to abandon). Later, it is also unattainable (later, it is also unattainable). According to the Anagamin fruit (according to the Anagamin fruit). The meaning of transcending the Sakrdagamin fruit is also according to this (the meaning of transcending the Sakrdagamin fruit is also according to this). Therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says (therefore, the Abhidharmasamuccaya says): 'Those who first sever six categories and enter the path of seeing (those who first sever six categories and enter the path of seeing), their liberation from the six categories severed by seeing (their liberation from the six categories severed by seeing) is also attained in five times (is also attained in five times), except for one as before (except for one as before). Their liberation from the six categories severed by cultivation (their liberation from the six categories severed by cultivation) is only attained when the worldly path arises to cure (is only attained when the worldly path arises to cure). They will certainly not arise the unconditioned antidote (they will certainly not arise the unconditioned antidote), because it is included in the path towards the Sakrdagamin fruit (because it is included in the path towards the Sakrdagamin fruit). It is not when dwelling in the fruit that they arise that path towards it (it is not when dwelling in the fruit that they arise that path towards it). Because dwelling in the superior fruit, they do not arise the inferior (because dwelling in the superior fruit, they do not arise the inferior).' The Anagamin fruit is according to this (the Anagamin fruit is according to this). Having later arisen the seal to prove the path of seeing, they attain the six categories of the path of seeing (having later arisen the seal to prove the path of seeing, they attain the six categories of the path of seeing). Because they do not arise the six categories of the path of cultivation (because they do not arise the six categories of the path of cultivation), they do not attain the unconditioned state of the six categories of the path of cultivation (they do not attain the unconditioned state of the six categories of the path of cultivation). Transcending the Anagamin fruit, if one enters the path of seeing based on the fundamental samadhi (transcending the Anagamin fruit, if one enters the path of seeing based on the fundamental samadhi), their liberation from the nine categories severed by seeing in the desire realm is also attained at once (their liberation from the nine categories severed by seeing in the desire realm is also attained at once).
。如前應知。根本非欲斷對治故。若依未至。若依根本。彼修所斷九品離系。亦一時得。必不起彼無漏對治。是不還果向道攝故。根本地雖起見道。非對治故不得欲界無為 又云。前言斷欲六品．九品入見諦者。彼先修斷六．九離系無無漏得。為永不得。暫不得耶。應決定言彼永不得。豈不證得阿羅漢時。必得先時見．修所斷一切離系諸無漏得。若彼先時所斷離繫有無漏得。今時舍者于彼今應得無漏得。若先無者。今時亦無得離系時。唯自治起。及舍劣道得勝時故 問離欲得根本。根本非欲斷對治。起見道時不得欲無為。離下三禪得第四。第四非是下對治。依四起見道。亦應不得下三地無為 答正理論云。謂設先離無所有染。隨依何地入見諦時。必得二界諸見所斷無漏斷治。彼見所斷。是一斷治頓所斷故。上地見道現在前時。必修未來下地道故。下靜慮遍能為上斷治故 解云。上地道所斷惑。下地道遍能斷故。上地道所斷之惑。即皆是下地道能斷也。起上地道修下地道。是同治修。下地道。所斷惑上地道非皆能斷。故下地道不修上道 正理又云。豈不已離無所有處染。依第三定等入見諦時。應修未來上地見道。同爲有頂斷對治故 不爾。未離此地染者。即依此地入見諦時。自及上諸地見諦所斷。見一一諦時。能頓斷故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如前文所說應該知道的。根本定並非爲了斷除對治（duìzhì，antidote）而存在。如果依靠未至定（wèizhì dìng，preliminary concentration），或者依靠根本定（gēnběn dìng，fundamental concentration），那麼通過修行所斷除的九品離系（jiǔ pǐn líxì，nine grades of detachment）也會一時獲得。必定不會生起那些無漏對治（wúlòu duìzhì，undefiled antidote），因為這是不還果向道（bùhuánguǒ xiàngdào，path of non-returning）所包含的。根本地（gēnběn dì，fundamental plane）雖然生起見道（jiàndào，path of seeing），但不是對治，所以不能得到欲界無為（yùjiè wúwéi，unconditioned state of the desire realm）。 又說，前面所說的斷除欲界六品（yùjiè liù pǐn，six grades of desire realm）或九品（jiǔ pǐn，nine grades）而進入見諦（jiàndì，seeing the truth）的人，他們先前通過修行斷除的六品或九品離系（liù pǐn líxì，six grades of detachment）沒有無漏得（wúlòu dé，undefiled attainment），是永遠不能得到，還是暫時不能得到呢？應該肯定地說他們永遠不能得到。難道不是在證得阿羅漢（āluóhàn，arhat）的時候，必定得到先前見道（jiàndào，path of seeing）和修道（xiūdào，path of cultivation）所斷除的一切離系（yīqiè líxì，all detachment）的無漏得（wúlòu dé，undefiled attainment）嗎？如果他們先前所斷除的離系（líxì，detachment）有無漏得（wúlòu dé，undefiled attainment），現在捨棄了，那麼現在應該得到無漏得（wúlòu dé，undefiled attainment）。如果先前沒有，那麼現在也沒有。得到離系（líxì，detachment）的時候，只是自己生起，以及捨棄低劣的道（dào，path）而得到殊勝的道（dào，path）的緣故。 問：離開欲界（yùjiè，desire realm）而得到根本定（gēnběn dìng，fundamental concentration），根本定（gēnběn dìng，fundamental concentration）不是斷除欲界（yùjiè，desire realm）的對治（duìzhì，antidote）。生起見道（jiàndào，path of seeing）的時候，不能得到欲界無為（yùjiè wúwéi，unconditioned state of the desire realm）。離開下三禪（xià sān chán，lower three dhyanas）而得到第四禪（dì sì chán，fourth dhyana），第四禪（dì sì chán，fourth dhyana）不是下三禪（xià sān chán，lower three dhyanas）的對治（duìzhì，antidote）。依靠第四禪（dì sì chán，fourth dhyana）生起見道（jiàndào，path of seeing），也應該不能得到下三地（xià sān dì，lower three planes）的無為（wúwéi，unconditioned）。 答：《正理論》（Zhènglǐlùn，Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）中說，假設先前離開了無所有處染（wúsuǒyǒuchù rǎn，taint of the sphere of nothingness），無論依靠哪個地（dì，plane）進入見諦（jiàndì，seeing the truth）的時候，必定得到二界（èr jiè，two realms）的見所斷（jiàn suǒ duàn，abandoned by seeing）的無漏斷治（wúlòu duànzhì，undefiled antidote）。那些見所斷（jiàn suǒ duàn，abandoned by seeing），是一斷治（yī duànzhì，one antidote）頓所斷（dùn suǒ duàn，abandoned suddenly）的緣故。上地（shàngdì，higher plane）的見道（jiàndào，path of seeing）現在前的時候，必定修行未來下地（xiàdì，lower plane）的道（dào，path）的緣故。下靜慮（xià jìnglǜ，lower dhyana）普遍能夠作為上地（shàngdì，higher plane）的斷治（duànzhì，antidote）的緣故。 解釋說，上地（shàngdì，higher plane）的道（dào，path）所斷除的迷惑，下地（xiàdì，lower plane）的道（dào，path）普遍能夠斷除的緣故。上地（shàngdì，higher plane）的道（dào，path）所斷除的迷惑，也就是下地（xiàdì，lower plane）的道（dào，path）能夠斷除的。生起上地（shàngdì，higher plane）的道（dào，path）修行下地（xiàdì，lower plane）的道（dào，path），是同治修（tóngzhì xiū，cultivation with the same antidote）。下地（xiàdì，lower plane）的道（dào，path）所斷除的迷惑，上地（shàngdì，higher plane）的道（dào，path）並非都能斷除，所以下地（xiàdì，lower plane）的道（dào，path）不修行上地（shàngdì，higher plane）的道（dào，path）。 《正理論》（Zhènglǐlùn，Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）又說，難道不是已經離開了無所有處染（wúsuǒyǒuchù rǎn，taint of the sphere of nothingness），依靠第三定（dì sān dìng，third dhyana）等進入見諦（jiàndì，seeing the truth）的時候，應該修行未來上地（shàngdì，higher plane）的見道（jiàndào，path of seeing），同樣作為有頂（yǒudǐng，peak of existence）的斷對治（duàn duìzhì，antidote for abandonment）的緣故嗎？ 不是這樣的。沒有離開此地（cǐdì，this plane）的染污的人，就是依靠此地（cǐdì，this plane）進入見諦（jiàndì，seeing the truth）的時候，自己以及上地（shàngdì，higher plane）的見諦（jiàndì，seeing the truth）所斷除的，見一一諦（jiàn yīyī dì，seeing each truth）的時候，能夠頓斷（dùn duàn，suddenly abandon）的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version: As should be known from what was previously stated. The fundamental concentration (gēnběn dìng) is not for the sake of severing antidotes (duìzhì). If relying on the preliminary concentration (wèizhì dìng), or relying on the fundamental concentration (gēnběn dìng), then the nine grades of detachment (jiǔ pǐn líxì) severed through cultivation will also be obtained at once. It will certainly not give rise to those undefiled antidotes (wúlòu duìzhì), because this is included in the path of non-returning (bùhuánguǒ xiàngdào). Although the fundamental plane (gēnběn dì) gives rise to the path of seeing (jiàndào), it is not an antidote, so it cannot obtain the unconditioned state of the desire realm (yùjiè wúwéi). Furthermore, it is said that those who, as mentioned earlier, sever the six grades (liù pǐn) or nine grades (jiǔ pǐn) of the desire realm (yùjiè) and enter the seeing of truth (jiàndì), do not have undefiled attainment (wúlòu dé) of the six or nine grades of detachment (liù pǐn líxì) that they previously severed through cultivation. Is it that they can never obtain it, or that they cannot obtain it temporarily? It should be definitively said that they can never obtain it. Isn't it the case that when one attains arhatship (āluóhàn), one must obtain all the undefiled attainments (yīqiè líxì) of all the detachments (wúlòu dé) that were previously severed by the path of seeing (jiàndào) and the path of cultivation (xiūdào)? If the detachments (líxì) that they previously severed have undefiled attainment (wúlòu dé), and they now abandon them, then they should now obtain undefiled attainment (wúlòu dé). If they did not have it before, then they do not have it now either. When obtaining detachment (líxì), it is only because one's own arises, and because one abandons an inferior path (dào) and obtains a superior path (dào). Question: Having departed from the desire realm (yùjiè) and obtained the fundamental concentration (gēnběn dìng), the fundamental concentration (gēnběn dìng) is not an antidote (duìzhì) for severing the desire realm (yùjiè). When giving rise to the path of seeing (jiàndào), one cannot obtain the unconditioned state of the desire realm (yùjiè wúwéi). Having departed from the lower three dhyanas (xià sān chán) and obtained the fourth dhyana (dì sì chán), the fourth dhyana (dì sì chán) is not an antidote (duìzhì) for the lower three dhyanas (xià sān chán). Relying on the fourth dhyana (dì sì chán) to give rise to the path of seeing (jiàndào), one should also not be able to obtain the unconditioned (wúwéi) of the lower three planes (xià sān dì). Answer: The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Zhènglǐlùn) says that if one has previously departed from the taint of the sphere of nothingness (wúsuǒyǒuchù rǎn), then when entering the seeing of truth (jiàndì) relying on any plane (dì), one must obtain the undefiled antidote (wúlòu duànzhì) of what is abandoned by seeing (jiàn suǒ duàn) in the two realms (èr jiè). Those abandoned by seeing (jiàn suǒ duàn) are abandoned suddenly by one antidote (yī duànzhì) (dùn suǒ duàn). When the path of seeing (jiàndào) of the higher plane (shàngdì) is present, one must cultivate the path (dào) of the future lower plane (xiàdì). The lower dhyana (xià jìnglǜ) is universally able to serve as an antidote (duànzhì) for the higher plane (shàngdì). It is explained that the delusions severed by the path (dào) of the higher plane (shàngdì) can be universally severed by the path (dào) of the lower plane (xiàdì). The delusions severed by the path (dào) of the higher plane (shàngdì) are precisely what the path (dào) of the lower plane (xiàdì) can sever. Giving rise to the path (dào) of the higher plane (shàngdì) and cultivating the path (dào) of the lower plane (xiàdì) is cultivation with the same antidote (tóngzhì xiū). The delusions severed by the path (dào) of the lower plane (xiàdì) cannot all be severed by the path (dào) of the higher plane (shàngdì), so the path (dào) of the lower plane (xiàdì) does not cultivate the path (dào) of the higher plane (shàngdì). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Zhènglǐlùn) also says, isn't it the case that having already departed from the taint of the sphere of nothingness (wúsuǒyǒuchù rǎn), when entering the seeing of truth (jiàndì) relying on the third dhyana (dì sān dìng) and so on, one should cultivate the path of seeing (jiàndào) of the future higher plane (shàngdì), as it is also an antidote for abandonment (duàn duìzhì) for the peak of existence (yǒudǐng)? It is not like that. For those who have not departed from the defilement of this plane (cǐdì), when entering the seeing of truth (jiàndì) relying on this plane (cǐdì), what is severed by the seeing of truth (jiàndì) of oneself and the higher plane (shàngdì), when seeing each truth (jiàn yīyī dì), one is able to abandon it suddenly (dùn duàn).
。如有未離第四定染。依第四定入見諦時。頓斷五地見所斷染。乃至未離初靜慮染。依初靜慮入見諦時。頓斷八地見所斷染。上地曾無斷下地故。非第四等與第三等。所對治法一切皆同。由是已離第三等染。依第三等入見諦時。雖上地能治自上地。而非與下所治恒同。故依下時不能修上 又云 諸異生位以世俗道斷見所斷所有離系。唯由下地見道勢力。于自．上地無漏得起。謂依上地見道現前。必修未來下地見道。由彼勢力于下離系。得無漏得非上地故。由此學位。定應遍於色．無色攝見斷離系得無漏得。非欲理成。欲唯未至地見道所斷故(已上釋也) 豈不應如第四定等非第三等下地對治。然第四等見道現前。能修未來下地所攝一切見道。由彼道力于諸下地見斷離系得無漏得。如是根本雖非欲治。然根本地見道現前。應修未來未至地攝一切見道。由彼道力。應于欲界見斷離系得無漏得(已上難也根本不斷欲。不得欲界斷。上地不斷下。如何得下斷也) 此例不齊。見道有二。一欲界對治。二上界對治。欲治有三。謂斷對治。厭患對治。遠分對治。色無色治三種亦然。欲治三中。初斷對治唯未至攝。余通六地。上治三種皆通六地。然上二界斷治見道。唯能對治自．上地染。余治見道亦治下地。上地雖非下地斷治。而上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果還沒有斷除第四禪定（catuttha jhāna samāpatti）的染污，依靠第四禪定進入見諦（dassanā），就能頓斷五地（pañca bhūmikā）見所斷的染污。乃至如果還沒有斷除初禪（paṭhama jhāna）的染污，依靠初禪進入見諦時，就能頓斷八地見所斷的染污。因為上地從來沒有斷除下地的情況，所以第四禪定等和第三禪定等不同，所對治的法並非完全相同。因此，已經斷除了第三禪定等染污，依靠第三禪定等進入見諦時，雖然上地能夠對治自身上地的染污，但並非與下地所對治的恒常相同，所以依靠下地時不能修習上地。 又說：『各種異生位（pṛthag-jana）以世俗道（laukika-mārga）斷除見所斷的所有離系（visamyoga），唯獨依靠下地見道的勢力，才能在自身和上地生起無漏（anāsrava）。』也就是說，依靠上地見道現前，必定修習未來下地的見道，由於那種勢力，對於下地的離系，才能獲得無漏得（anāsrava-prāpti），而不是上地。由此，作為有學位的聖者，必定應當普遍地於色界（rūpadhātu）、無色界（arūpadhātu）攝受見斷的離系，獲得無漏得，而不是欲界（kāmadhātu），這個道理是成立的，因為欲界只有未至定地（anāgamya-bhūmi）的見道所斷的緣故（以上是解釋）。 難道不應該像第四禪定等那樣，不是第三禪定等下地的對治嗎？然而第四禪定等見道現前，能夠修習未來下地所攝的一切見道，由於那種道力，對於各種下地見斷的離系，獲得無漏得。像這樣，根本定（mūla-jhāna）雖然不是欲界的對治，然而根本定地見道現前，應當修習未來未至定地所攝的一切見道，由於那種道力，應當對於欲界見斷的離係獲得無漏得（以上是詰難，根本不斷欲界，就不能得到欲界的斷除，上地不斷下地，如何得到下地的斷除呢）？ 這個例子不齊等。見道有二種：一是欲界對治，二是上界對治。欲界對治有三種：謂斷對治、厭患對治、遠分對治。色界、無色界的對治三種也是這樣。欲界對治的三種中，最初的斷對治唯獨未至定地所攝，其餘通於六地。上界對治的三種都通於六地。然而上二界的斷治見道，唯獨能夠對治自身和上地的染污，其餘的對治見道也能對治下地。上地雖然不是下地的斷治，而上
【English Translation】 English version: If one has not yet abandoned the defilements of the fourth Jhāna Samāpatti (catuttha jhāna samāpatti), when entering the Path of Seeing (dassanā) based on the fourth Jhāna, one can instantly sever the defilements that are to be abandoned by seeing in the five realms (pañca bhūmikā). Even if one has not yet abandoned the defilements of the first Jhāna (paṭhama jhāna), when entering the Path of Seeing based on the first Jhāna, one can instantly sever the defilements that are to be abandoned by seeing in the eight realms. Because the higher realms never sever the lower realms, the fourth Jhāna and so on are different from the third Jhāna and so on; the dharmas they counteract are not entirely the same. Therefore, having already abandoned the defilements of the third Jhāna and so on, when entering the Path of Seeing based on the third Jhāna and so on, although the higher realm can counteract the defilements of its own higher realm, it is not always the same as what the lower realm counteracts. Therefore, one cannot cultivate the higher realm when relying on the lower realm. It is also said: 'Various ordinary beings (pṛthag-jana), using mundane paths (laukika-mārga) to sever all the disjunctions (visamyoga) that are to be abandoned by seeing, can only generate the unconditioned (anāsrava) in themselves and the higher realms by relying on the power of the Path of Seeing in the lower realm.' That is, relying on the Path of Seeing in the higher realm, one must cultivate the future Path of Seeing in the lower realm. Because of that power, one can obtain the unconditioned attainment (anāsrava-prāpti) for the disjunctions in the lower realm, but not in the higher realm. Therefore, as a learner (śaikṣa), one must universally embrace the disjunctions that are to be abandoned by seeing in the Form Realm (rūpadhātu) and the Formless Realm (arūpadhātu), obtaining the unconditioned attainment, but not in the Desire Realm (kāmadhātu). This principle is established because the Desire Realm is only severed by the Path of Seeing in the Unreached Concentration Realm (anāgamya-bhūmi) (the above is an explanation). Shouldn't it be like the fourth Jhāna and so on, which are not the counteractions of the lower realms like the third Jhāna and so on? However, when the Path of Seeing of the fourth Jhāna and so on manifests, it can cultivate all the future Paths of Seeing contained in the lower realms. Because of that power of the path, one can obtain the unconditioned attainment for the disjunctions that are to be abandoned by seeing in the various lower realms. In this way, although the fundamental Jhāna (mūla-jhāna) is not the counteraction of the Desire Realm, when the Path of Seeing of the fundamental Jhāna manifests, one should cultivate all the future Paths of Seeing contained in the Unreached Concentration Realm. Because of that power, one should obtain the unconditioned attainment for the disjunctions that are to be abandoned by seeing in the Desire Realm (the above is a challenge; if the fundamental does not sever the Desire Realm, one cannot obtain the severance of the Desire Realm; if the higher realm does not sever the lower realm, how can one obtain the severance of the lower realm)? This example is not equal. There are two types of Path of Seeing: one is the counteraction of the Desire Realm, and the other is the counteraction of the higher realms. There are three types of counteractions for the Desire Realm: namely, severance counteraction, aversion counteraction, and remote part counteraction. The three types of counteractions for the Form Realm and the Formless Realm are also like this. Among the three types of counteractions for the Desire Realm, the initial severance counteraction is only contained in the Unreached Concentration Realm, while the rest are common to the six realms. The three types of counteractions for the higher realms are all common to the six realms. However, the severance and counteraction Path of Seeing of the upper two realms can only counteract the defilements of itself and the higher realms, while the other counteraction Paths of Seeing can also counteract the lower realms. Although the higher realm is not the severance counteraction of the lower realm, the higher
見道現在前時。遍修未來下地見道。下與上地同所治故。無有欲界斷治見道。能與根本同一所治。可根本地見道現前。能修未來未至地攝欲見斷法斷治見道。由彼道力。能于欲界見斷離系得無漏得。故彼所引為例不齊(已上釋也) 又云。諸根本地欲界厭患遠分對治。色．無色界三種對治見道現前。還修未來未至地攝。如是二種三種對治。非由未來欲界厭遠對治力故。便於欲界見斷離系。得無漏得。唯斷對治力能斷系得故。諸先離欲。若依未至入見諦者。欲界厭患遠分對治見道現前。亦修未來欲斷對治。欲斷對治地道正現在前故。由如是理。非先離欲入見諦者。皆于欲界見斷離系。得無漏得。諸先離欲入見諦者。畢竟無容於欲修斷所有離系。得無漏得以未至攝欲界修斷斷對治收無漏修道。于不還果身中現前。及未來修俱非理故。理無容有不還果身中有一來．不還二向道故。諸有先離無所有染入聖道者。唯除菩薩。余亦定於二界一切修斷離系得無漏得。彼皆必於二界修斷。自勝果道遍現前故。如是理趣以何證知。說聖者生第四靜慮以上諸地定成樂根。及說聖者生於無色。定有色貪盡斷。遍知得故 一斷欲見道不與上地同斷。依根本地雖修未至。俱修餘二對治。不修斷對治。依未至等斷初禪等惑。必與上地同一道斷。由斯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 當見道（Darsanamarga）現在前時，普遍修習未來下地的見道。因為下地與上地共同治理的緣故，沒有欲界（Kāmadhātu）的斷治見道，能夠與根本地（Mūlabhūmi）同一所治。可以根本地的見道現前，能夠修習未來未至地（Anāgamya）所攝的欲界見斷法（Dṛṣṭi-heya）的斷治見道。由於那個道的力量，能夠對於欲界的見斷離系（Dṛṣṭi-heya-visamyoga）獲得無漏得（Anāsrava-prāpti）。所以那個所引用的例子是不齊的（以上是解釋）。 又說，諸根本地對於欲界的厭患遠分對治（Adhimukti-dūraṅgama-pratipakṣa），以及色界（Rūpadhātu）、無色界（Arūpadhātu）三種對治的見道現前，還修習未來未至地所攝的，像這樣二種三種對治，不是由於未來欲界的厭遠對治力的緣故，便對於欲界的見斷離系，獲得無漏得。唯有斷對治力能夠斷系得的緣故。諸先離欲（Vītarāga），如果依據未至地（Anāgamya）進入見諦（Satya-darśana）者，欲界的厭患遠分對治見道現前，也修習未來欲斷對治。因為欲斷對治地道正現在前的緣故。由於這樣的道理，不是先離欲進入見諦者，都在欲界的見斷離系，獲得無漏得。諸先離欲進入見諦者，畢竟沒有可能對於欲修斷（Bhāvanā-heya）的所有離系，獲得無漏得，以未至地所攝的欲界修斷斷對治（Bhāvanā-heya-pratipakṣa）收取無漏修道（Anāsrava-bhāvanāmārga），在不還果（Anāgāmi-phala）身中現前，以及未來修習都是不合理的緣故。道理上沒有可能在不還果身中有一來（Sakṛdāgāmi）、不還（Anāgāmi）二向道（Mārga）的緣故。諸有先離無所有染（Ākiñcanyāyatana-rāga）進入聖道（Ārya-mārga）者，唯除菩薩（Bodhisattva），其餘也必定於二界（指色界和無色界）一切修斷離係獲得無漏得。他們都必定於二界修斷，自勝果道（Svaviśiṣṭa-phala-mārga）普遍現前的緣故。這樣的道理以什麼來證明呢？說聖者（Ārya）生於第四靜慮（Caturtha-dhyāna）以上諸地必定成就樂根（Sukha-indriya），以及說聖者生於無色界，必定有色貪（Rūpa-rāga）盡斷，普遍知得的緣故。 一斷欲見道不與上地同斷。依根本地雖修未至，俱修餘二對治。不修斷對治。依未至等斷初禪等惑。必與上地同一道斷。由斯
【English Translation】 English version: When the Darsanamarga (Path of Seeing) is presently manifest, one universally cultivates the Darsanamarga of future lower realms. Because the lower realms and upper realms are governed together, there is no Dṛṣṭi-heya (abandoning by seeing) Darsanamarga of the Kāmadhātu (Desire Realm) that can be governed in the same way as the Mūlabhūmi (Fundamental Ground). It is possible that when the Darsanamarga of the Fundamental Ground is presently manifest, one can cultivate the Dṛṣṭi-heya-pratipakṣa (antidote to be abandoned by seeing) Darsanamarga of the Desire Realm, which is included in the future Anāgamya (Unreached). Due to the power of that path, one can obtain Anāsrava-prāpti (untainted attainment) for the Dṛṣṭi-heya-visamyoga (separation from what is to be abandoned by seeing) of the Desire Realm. Therefore, the cited example is not uniform (the above is an explanation). Furthermore, it is said that when the Adhimukti-dūraṅgama-pratipakṣa (antidote of aversion and distancing) for the Desire Realm, and the Darsanamarga of the three antidotes of the Rūpadhātu (Form Realm) and Arūpadhātu (Formless Realm) are presently manifest, one still cultivates the two or three antidotes included in the future Anāgamya. It is not because of the power of the future aversion and distancing antidote of the Desire Realm that one obtains Anāsrava-prāpti for the Dṛṣṭi-heya-visamyoga of the Desire Realm. Only the power of the antidote to abandonment can sever the attainment of bondage. Those who have previously become Vītarāga (free from desire), if they enter Satya-darśana (seeing the truth) based on the Anāgamya, when the Darsanamarga of the aversion and distancing antidote of the Desire Realm is presently manifest, they also cultivate the future antidote to abandonment of desire. Because the path of the antidote to abandonment of desire is presently manifest. Due to this reason, not all those who have previously become free from desire and enter seeing the truth obtain Anāsrava-prāpti for the Dṛṣṭi-heya-visamyoga of the Desire Realm. Those who have previously become free from desire and enter seeing the truth, ultimately have no possibility of obtaining Anāsrava-prāpti for all the Bhāvanā-heya-visamyoga (separation from what is to be abandoned by cultivation), taking the Bhāvanā-heya-pratipakṣa (antidote to be abandoned by cultivation) of the Desire Realm included in the Anāgamya to collect the Anāsrava-bhāvanāmārga (untainted path of cultivation), which is presently manifest in the body of the Anāgāmi-phala (Non-Returning Fruit), and future cultivation is unreasonable. It is logically impossible for there to be both the Sakṛdāgāmi (Once-Returning) and Anāgāmi (Non-Returning) paths in the body of the Anāgāmi-phala. Those who have previously become free from Ākiñcanyāyatana-rāga (attachment to the realm of no-thingness) and enter the Ārya-mārga (Noble Path), except for Bodhisattva (Enlightenment Being), will also certainly obtain Anāsrava-prāpti for all the Bhāvanā-heya-visamyoga of the two realms (referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm). They will all certainly cultivate abandonment in the two realms, because the Svaviśiṣṭa-phala-mārga (path of self-superior fruit) is universally manifest. How is this reasoning known? It is said that Ārya (Noble Ones) born in the Caturtha-dhyāna (Fourth Dhyana) and above will certainly achieve Sukha-indriya (the root of pleasure), and it is said that Ārya born in the Formless Realm will certainly have completely severed Rūpa-rāga (attachment to form), and have obtained universal knowledge. The Darsanamarga of abandoning desire is not abandoned together with the upper realms. Although one cultivates the Anāgamya based on the Fundamental Ground, one cultivates the other two antidotes together, but does not cultivate the antidote to abandonment. Based on the Anāgamya, etc., one abandons the afflictions of the First Dhyana, etc., and must abandon them with the same path as the upper realms. Due to this.
依上地道修下對治 二上二界修斷不合治故。依第二禪已上道得修下地。不修斷治。超越者勝果道中必修斷治。以是後果向故。其道必須次第修故 三諸後果道已上必不卻起前向道也。以無用故。準此。超者未必次第。亦得超起上道。以超越那含等不起向中下地斷治道。即起初禪斷治道等故 有人。於此作問答云。已斷斷治既不現行。如何名為自對治起。前言自治唯是無間．解脫道故。解云。似自治故名為自治。或自斷治得現行故。名自治生。非斷治起。或此所言自治生者。非要斷治。遠厭治起亦自治生 今詳論意。自治生者有其二種。一正斷惑。二不斷惑。正斷惑者。如前四道。不斷惑者。謂無漏道。擬儀無間．解脫。起勝果道。如先所斷惑煩惱品次第所起之道。名自治道。非是正斷。亦可望正斷惑名為遠分對治。擬儀無間．解脫。不同余勝進道。名自治生也。
論。即諸離系至此于果上立因名故。已下第六明斷遍知。先明遍知有二。一智遍知。謂無漏智慧遍知苦等四聖諦故。二斷遍知。體即離系 問能遍知故名為遍知。是智異名。如何目斷 答是智果故。如業．解果。謂契經說六處名業。是業果故。又說無為應果名解。是解果故。如是遍知目斷無失 問若爾忍果應非遍知 答忍皆是智眷屬故。于忍所為立智
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 一下地道修習對治：二禪及以上境界的修習，不包含對下地煩惱的斷除和對治，因此不屬於這種情況。依據第二禪及以上境界的道，可以修習下地的法門，但不修習斷除和對治。超越修習者在殊勝果位之道中，必定修習斷除和對治，因為這是趨向更高果位的緣故，其修道必須按次第進行。 二、殊勝果位之道以上，必定不會退回修習之前的趨向果位之道，因為沒有用處。依此推斷，超越修習者未必按次第修習，也可以超越修習更高層次的道。因為超越阿那含等果位者，不會再修習趨向下地或中地的斷除和對治之道，而是直接修習初禪的斷除和對治之道等。 三、有人對此提出疑問：已經斷除的斷治法門既然不再現行，如何稱之為『自對治』生起？之前說『自治』僅僅是無間道和解脫道。解釋說：類似於自治，所以稱為自治。或者說，自斷治法門能夠現行，所以稱為自治生起，並非斷治本身生起。或者說，這裡所說的『自治生』，並非一定要斷治，遠離厭惡的對治生起也算是自治生。 現在詳細分析論中的意思，自治生起有兩種：一是真正斷除迷惑，二是不斷除迷惑。真正斷除迷惑，如之前的四道。不斷除迷惑，指的是無漏道，模擬無間道和解脫道，生起殊勝果位之道，如同先前所斷除的迷惑煩惱的品類次第所生起的道，稱為自治道，並非是真正斷除。也可以看作是相對於真正斷除迷惑而言的遠分對治，模擬無間道和解脫道，不同於其他的殊勝精進之道，所以稱為自治生起。
論：即是說，諸離系（指斷除煩惱的聖者）到達這裡，在果位上建立因的名稱。以下第六部分說明斷遍知。首先說明遍知有兩種：一是智遍知，指的是無漏智慧能夠普遍知曉苦等四聖諦。二是斷遍知，其體性就是離系。 問：能夠普遍知曉，所以稱為遍知，這是智慧的別名。為什麼說是斷？ 答：因為這是智慧的果報。如同『業』和『解』的果報。比如契經中說六處名為業，是因為它是業的果報。又說無為應果名為解，是因為它是解的果報。這樣，用遍知來指代斷除，沒有過失。 問：如果這樣，忍的果報應該不是遍知？ 答：忍都是智慧的眷屬，所以在忍所起的作用上安立智慧之名。
【English Translation】 English version: 1. Based on the higher grounds to cultivate the lower antidotes: The cultivation of the second Dhyana and above does not include the severance and antidotes for the lower realms, thus it does not belong to this category. Based on the path of the second Dhyana and above, one can cultivate the lower Dharmas, but not the severance and antidotes. Those who transcend must cultivate severance and antidotes in the path of superior fruition, because it is the cause of progressing towards higher fruition, and its cultivation must be in order. 2. The path of superior fruition and above will certainly not regress to cultivate the previous path of progressing towards fruition, because it is useless. By this analogy, those who transcend do not necessarily cultivate in order, and can also transcend to cultivate higher-level paths. Because those who transcend Anagami and other fruitions will no longer cultivate the severance and antidotes of the lower or middle realms, but directly cultivate the severance and antidotes of the first Dhyana, etc. 3. Someone raises a question about this: Since the severance and antidotes that have already been severed no longer manifest, how can it be called 'self-antidote' arising? It was previously said that 'self-governance' is only the immediate path and the path of liberation. The explanation is: similar to self-governance, so it is called self-governance. Or, the self-severance and antidotes can manifest, so it is called self-governance arising, not the severance and antidotes themselves arising. Or, the 'self-governance arising' mentioned here does not necessarily require severance and antidotes; the arising of antidotes that are far from aversion is also considered self-governance arising. Now, analyzing the meaning of the treatise in detail, there are two types of self-governance arising: one is truly severing delusion, and the other is not severing delusion. Truly severing delusion refers to the previous four paths. Not severing delusion refers to the unconditioned path, simulating the immediate path and the path of liberation, giving rise to the path of superior fruition, just like the path arising from the categories of delusion and afflictions that were previously severed in order, which is called the self-governance path, not true severance. It can also be regarded as a distant antidote relative to the true severance of delusion, simulating the immediate path and the path of liberation, different from other superior progressive paths, so it is called self-governance arising.
Treatise: That is to say, when those who are detached (referring to the saints who have severed afflictions) reach here, they establish the name of the cause on the fruition. The sixth part below explains the severance of pervasive knowledge (斷遍知 duàn biàn zhī). First, it explains that there are two types of pervasive knowledge: one is intellectual pervasive knowledge (智遍知 zhì biàn zhī), which refers to the unconditioned wisdom that can universally know the Four Noble Truths (苦等四聖諦 kǔ děng sì shèng dì), such as suffering. The second is the severance of pervasive knowledge, whose essence is detachment (離系 lí xì). Question: Because it can universally know, it is called pervasive knowledge, which is another name for wisdom. Why is it said to be severance? Answer: Because it is the fruit of wisdom. Like the fruit of 'karma' (業 yè) and 'liberation' (解 jiě). For example, the sutras say that the six sense bases are called karma because they are the fruit of karma. It is also said that the unconditioned response fruit is called liberation because it is the fruit of liberation. In this way, there is no fault in using pervasive knowledge to refer to severance. Question: If so, shouldn't the fruit of forbearance not be pervasive knowledge? Answer: Forbearance is all a member of the retinue of wisdom, so the name of wisdom is established on the function of forbearance.
作名。如臣所為亦名王作。或金剛喻定等持相應無漏智力。能總集諸斷無漏離系得故。忍果爾時亦成智果故。又漸得果等得一來．不還忍果無漏離系得已成智果故。
論。為一切斷立一遍知。已下問答分斷為九。文中有六。一分斷為九。二明六對果。三明建立緣。四明成就位。五明總集處。六明得舍。此一行半頌分斷為九也。
論曰至立三遍知。此釋初句。總答九也。謂見六修三。
論。且三界系至立六云何。且問見斷。
論。謂欲界系至立三遍知。答也。謂欲界見苦．見集合一遍知。見滅．道各一遍知。合成三也。
論。如欲界三至六種遍知。類釋上二界也。上二界亦同欲界。苦．集合一。滅．道各一。合成三也 如是名為三界見諦所斷法斷六種遍知者。總結。
論。餘三界系至三云何。問修斷。
論。謂欲界系至並前立故。答也。斷欲修斷第九品時。立一遍知。名五下分結盡遍知。所以不名欲貪盡。名五下分結盡者。以爾時度界．得果集遍知故。集遍知法並前立故。
論。色界所繫至三種遍知。答上二界也。離色界染名色愛盡者。爾時不集遍知。唯以色界修道斷無為為體故 斷無色染名一切結盡遍知者。爾時度界及得果故集遍知也。爾時次第者。以三界一切擇
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 命名。例如，臣所做之事也被稱為『王作』。或者，與金剛喻定（Vajra-like Samadhi，一種堅固不壞的禪定）相應的無漏智力，能夠總集所有斷除煩惱的無漏離系之『得』（prapti，獲得）。因此，忍果（ksanti-phala，安忍之果）在那時也成就為智果。此外，漸次獲得的果位，例如得一來果（sakrdagamin，一來果）和不還果（anagamin，不還果）的安忍之果，其無漏離系之『得』已經成就為智果。
論：爲了一切斷除煩惱，建立『一遍知』（ekavijnana，一次徹底的了知）。以下問答部分將『斷』分為九種。文中包含六個方面：一、將『斷』分為九種；二、闡明六對果；三、闡明建立的因緣；四、闡明成就的位次；五、闡明總集之處；六、闡明『得』與『舍』。這一行半頌文將『斷』分為九種。
論曰：至立三遍知。這是解釋第一句，總回答九種『斷』。即見斷六種，修斷三種。
論：且三界系至立六云何。首先提問見斷。
論：謂欲界系至立三遍知。這是回答。即欲界見苦諦（duhkha-satya，苦諦）、見集諦（samudaya-satya，集諦）各一遍知，見滅諦（nirodha-satya，滅諦）、見道諦（marga-satya，道諦）各一遍知，合起來是三種。
論：如欲界三至六種遍知。這是類比解釋上二界（色界和無色界）。上二界也和欲界相同，苦、集各一，滅、道各一，合起來是三種。像這樣稱為三界見諦所斷法斷六種遍知。這是總結。
論：餘三界系至三云何。提問修斷。
論：謂欲界系至並前立故。這是回答。斷除欲界修斷第九品時，建立一遍知，名為五下分結盡遍知（panca-orambhagiya-samyojana-prahana-ekavijnana，斷除五下分結的遍知）。之所以不稱為『欲貪盡』，而稱為『五下分結盡』，是因為那時度越了界（dhatu，界），並且獲得果位，總集了遍知。總集遍知之法與之前建立的遍知合併。
論：所繫至三種遍知。這是回答上二界。離開染，名為色愛盡（rupa-raga-ksaya，色愛盡）者，那時不總集遍知，僅僅以**修道斷除無為法（asamskrta-dharma，無為法）作為本體。斷除無色染，名為一切結盡遍知（sarva-samyojana-prahana-ekavijnana，斷除一切結的遍知）者，那時度越了界，並且獲得果位，因此總集了遍知。那時次第是，以三界一切擇滅
【English Translation】 English version It is named. For example, what a servant does is also called 'King's work.' Or, the undefiled wisdom power corresponding to Vajra-like Samadhi (Vajra-like Samadhi, an indestructible samadhi) can collectively gather all the 'attainments' (prapti, acquisition) of undefiled detachment from afflictions. Therefore, the fruit of forbearance (ksanti-phala, the fruit of patience) also becomes the fruit of wisdom at that time. Furthermore, the gradually obtained fruits, such as the fruit of once-returner (sakrdagamin, once-returner) and the fruit of non-returner (anagamin, non-returner), the undefiled detachment 'attainments' of the fruit of forbearance have already become the fruit of wisdom.
Treatise: For all severances, establish 'one complete knowledge' (ekavijnana, one complete understanding). The following question-and-answer section divides 'severance' into nine types. There are six aspects in the text: 1. Dividing 'severance' into nine types; 2. Clarifying the six pairs of fruits; 3. Clarifying the conditions for establishment; 4. Clarifying the stages of accomplishment; 5. Clarifying the place of collective gathering; 6. Clarifying 'attainment' and 'abandonment.' This one and a half verse divides 'severance' into nine types.
Treatise says: To establish three complete knowledges. This explains the first sentence, generally answering the nine types. That is, six types of severance by seeing and three types of severance by cultivation.
Treatise: And the Three Realms are bound to establish six, how? First, ask about severance by seeing.
Treatise: Namely, the Desire Realm is bound to establish three complete knowledges. This is the answer. That is, in the Desire Realm, one complete knowledge each for seeing the truth of suffering (duhkha-satya, the truth of suffering) and seeing the truth of origination (samudaya-satya, the truth of origination), and one complete knowledge each for seeing the truth of cessation (nirodha-satya, the truth of cessation) and seeing the truth of the path (marga-satya, the truth of the path), totaling three.
Treatise: Like the three in the Desire Realm to six kinds of complete knowledge. This is an analogous explanation of the upper two realms (the Form Realm and the Formless Realm). The upper two realms are also the same as the Desire Realm, one each for suffering and origination, and one each for cessation and the path, totaling three. Thus, it is called the six kinds of complete knowledge of the severance of dharmas severed by seeing the truth in the Three Realms. This is the conclusion.
Treatise: The remaining Three Realms are bound to three, how? Asking about severance by cultivation.
Treatise: Namely, the Desire Realm is bound to establish together with the previous one. This is the answer. When severing the ninth grade of severance by cultivation in the Desire Realm, one complete knowledge is established, called the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters (panca-orambhagiya-samyojana-prahana-ekavijnana, complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters). The reason it is not called 'exhaustion of desire-greed' but 'exhaustion of the five lower fetters' is because at that time, it transcends the realm (dhatu, realm) and attains the fruit, collectively gathering complete knowledge. The dharma of collectively gathering complete knowledge is combined with the previously established complete knowledge.
Treatise: The bound to three kinds of complete knowledge. This is the answer for the upper two realms. Separating from the stain of , it is called the exhaustion of form-desire (rupa-raga-ksaya, exhaustion of form-desire), at that time, complete knowledge is not collectively gathered, only using the unconditioned dharma (asamskrta-dharma, unconditioned dharma) severed by the path of cultivation as its essence. Severing the stain of the Formless Realm, it is called the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of all fetters (sarva-samyojana-prahana-ekavijnana, complete knowledge of the exhaustion of all fetters), at that time, it transcends the realm and attains the fruit, therefore collectively gathering complete knowledge. The order at that time is, with all selective cessations of the Three Realms
滅無為為體故。名一切結盡也 如是名為已下。是總結也。
論。以何因緣至非見所斷。問也。何故見斷無為兩界合立為三。修道無為兩界各立為一。
論。以修所斷治不同故。答也。斷見惑時二界合斷。同用一道對治是同。斷修惑時二界別斷。對治不同各別立也。由此遍知合開有異。
論。如是所立至幾何道果。已下兩行半頌。第二明六對果異也。依婆沙有八對十六門。六對如此論。更有兩對治。此論已重故不述。
論曰至是修道果故。此釋忍．智果多少也。忍果有六。智果有三。如文可知。婆沙六十三云。問幾是見道果。答六謂前六。有說七謂前七。問幾是修道果。答三謂后三。問幾是忍果。答應說如見道果。問幾是智果。答應說如修道果 兩說無評 問兩說之中何者為正 答據義別立並不違理。六據次第。七兼超越。所以諸論多說得六。不說七者。有二因緣。一根本建立遍知。就次第者立故。二合說方成故。謂超越者雖得五下分結盡遍知。爾時不得色．無色道諦下遍知。爾時集遍知故。於前位中唯有其五。即超越者極多。唯成五遍知也。次第之人多成六種。兩人合說故成其七。若據次第。唯六者正。若兼超越決定有七。若不爾者。超越人至道類智時。所得遍知為名何物。不可說彼得上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為滅盡無為作為本體，所以稱為一切結的止息。像這樣稱為『已下』，是總結。
論：以什麼因緣達到非見所斷？（問）為什麼見斷的無為和兩界合起來立為三，而修道的無為和兩界各自立為一？
論：因為修所斷的對治不同。（答）斷見惑時，二界合併斷除，因為使用同一種道來對治，所以是相同的。斷修惑時，二界分別斷除，因為對治不同，所以各自設立。由此普遍可知合併和分開是有差異的。
論：像這樣所設立的，達到多少道果？（以下兩行半頌）第二說明六對果的差異。依據《婆沙論》，有八對十六門。六對就像此論所說。還有兩對對治，此論因為已經重複所以不再敘述。
論曰：達到是修道果的緣故。這是解釋忍、智果的多少。忍果有六種，智果有三種，如文可知。《婆沙論》第六十三卷說：『問：有多少是見道果？答：六種，就是前面的六種。有說七種，就是前面的七種。問：有多少是修道果？答：三種，就是後面的三種。問：有多少是忍果？答：應該說如同見道果。問：有多少是智果？答：應該說如同修道果。』兩種說法沒有評判。問：兩種說法之中哪一種是正確的？答：根據意義分別設立，並不違背道理。六種是根據次第，七種是兼顧超越。所以各種論典大多說得到六種，不說七種，有兩個因緣：一是根本建立普遍認知，就次第而立；二是合併來說才能成立。所謂超越者，即使得到五下分結（klesha，煩惱）的止息普遍認知，那時也得不到色界（rupa-dhatu）和無色界（arupadhatu）道諦（marga-satya）下的普遍認知，因為那時是集諦（samudaya-satya）的普遍認知。所以在前面的階段中只有五種，也就是超越者最多隻能成就五種普遍認知。次第修習的人大多成就六種。兩人合併來說就成就七種。如果根據次第，只有六種是正確的。如果兼顧超越，就一定有七種。如果不是這樣，超越的人到達道類智（dharmajñāna-ksānti）時，所得到的普遍認知應該稱為什麼？不能說他得到上……
【English Translation】 English version: Because extinction and non-action (wuwei) is taken as the substance, it is called the cessation of all fetters (kleshas). What is called 'hereafter' is a summary.
Treatise: By what causes and conditions does one reach what is not severed by view? (Question) Why are the non-action (wuwei) and the two realms (dhatu) severed by view combined and established as three, while the non-action (wuwei) and the two realms (dhatu) of the path of cultivation are each established as one?
Treatise: Because the remedies for what is severed by cultivation are different. (Answer) When severing the delusions of view, the two realms (dhatu) are severed together, because the same path is used to remedy them, so they are the same. When severing the delusions of cultivation, the two realms (dhatu) are severed separately, because the remedies are different, so they are established separately. From this, it is universally known that combining and separating have differences.
Treatise: How many fruits of the path are established in this way? (The following two and a half lines are a verse) The second explains the differences in the fruits of the six pairs. According to the Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra, there are eight pairs and sixteen doors. The six pairs are as described in this treatise. There are two more pairs of remedies, but this treatise does not describe them because they have already been repeated.
Treatise says: Reaching is the cause of the fruit of cultivation. This explains the quantity of the fruits of forbearance (ksanti) and wisdom (jnana). There are six fruits of forbearance (ksanti), and three fruits of wisdom (jnana), as can be known from the text. The sixty-third volume of the Abhidharma Mahavibhasa Sastra says: 'Question: How many are the fruits of the path of seeing? Answer: Six, which are the previous six. Some say seven, which are the previous seven. Question: How many are the fruits of the path of cultivation? Answer: Three, which are the latter three. Question: How many are the fruits of forbearance (ksanti)? Answer: It should be said as the fruits of the path of seeing. Question: How many are the fruits of wisdom (jnana)? Answer: It should be said as the fruits of the path of cultivation.' There is no commentary on the two sayings. Question: Which of the two sayings is correct? Answer: According to the meaning, separate establishments do not violate the principle. Six are according to the order, and seven include transcendence. Therefore, most treatises say that six are obtained, and do not say seven, for two reasons: one is that the fundamental establishment is universal cognition, which is established according to the order; the other is that it can only be established by combining them. The so-called transcendent person, even if he obtains the cessation of the five lower fetters (klesha) and universal cognition, at that time he does not obtain the universal cognition under the truth of suffering (duhkha-satya) of the form realm (rupa-dhatu) and the formless realm (arupadhatu), because at that time it is the universal cognition of the truth of origination (samudaya-satya). Therefore, in the previous stage there are only five, that is, the transcendent person can at most achieve five universal cognitions. People who cultivate in order mostly achieve six. The two people combined achieve seven. If according to the order, only six are correct. If transcendence is included, there are definitely seven. If not, when the transcendent person reaches the knowledge of the dharma (dharmajñāna-ksānti), what should the universal cognition obtained be called? It cannot be said that he has obtained the upper...
界道下遍知。爾時集遍知故。亦不可說不得遍知。評家云。菩薩．獨覺。爾時得五下分結盡遍知故。亦不可說是智果。爾時忍為無間道故。亦不可說上界見斷是客。欲界修斷為主遍知。不名欲貪盡故遍知。既名五順下分結斷。欲貪即是順界下。上二界見惑兼順界下有情下及防邏故。俱順下分。𤏅為主客亦不可以是第三說故不是正義。婆沙上下無此例故。第二說正例非一故。亦不可多論說為正。諸論多據次第說故。如俱舍雖說有六。而得舍中舍五得一。謂五下分結盡遍知。故知俱舍許是忍果等。據次第說言得六也。亦不可言得名不得體。隨所得者即是體故。亦不可說得體不具故不名得。超越那含得羅漢時。亦得一切結盡遍知故。獨覺．菩薩依根本禪得五下分結盡遍知故。此釋決定無煩多解。順婆沙評家義故。
論。如何忍果說為遍知。問也。
論。諸忍皆是至同一果故。答也。有二義。一以忍是智眷屬故假名為智二以智．忍同一果故 同一果者。有兩釋。一無間．解脫同一果故。二忍所得者至不還．阿羅漢果。亦為智果故。應依后釋。正理．婆沙皆同有此釋。
論。今次應辨至煩惱等故。此釋第二對也 就第二對中。先釋未至。后釋根本。此釋未至也。謂此地能斷三界煩惱。所以具得九遍知也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 界道下遍知。爾時，因為聚集了遍知，所以不可說不得遍知。評家說，菩薩、獨覺，爾時因為獲得了五下分結（Orambhagiya Samyojana，束縛眾生於欲界的五種煩惱）的斷盡遍知，所以也不可說是智果。爾時，忍為無間道（Anantarya-marga，直接斷除煩惱的道路）的緣故，也不可說上界見斷是客，欲界修斷為主遍知。不名為欲貪盡故遍知，既然名為五順下分結斷，欲貪即是順界下。上二界見惑兼順界下有情下及防邏的緣故，都順下分。𤏅為主客也不可以此第三說，所以不是正義。婆沙上下沒有此例子的緣故，第二說正例非一的緣故，也不可多論說為正。諸論多根據次第說的緣故，如俱舍雖然說有六，而得舍中舍五得一，說五下分結盡遍知，所以知道俱舍許是忍果等，根據次第說而言得六也。也不可說得名不得體，隨所得者即是體故。也不可說得體不具故不名得，超越那含（Anagamin，不還果）得阿羅漢（Arhat，無學）時，也得一切結盡遍知故。獨覺、菩薩依靠根本禪得五下分結盡遍知故。此解釋決定沒有煩多解釋，順婆沙評家的意義的緣故。
論：如何忍果說為遍知？問。
論：諸忍都是至同一果的緣故。答。有兩個意義：一是以忍是智眷屬的緣故，假名為智；二是以智、忍同一果的緣故。同一果者，有兩個解釋：一是無間道、解脫道同一果的緣故；二是忍所得者至不還、阿羅漢果，也為智果的緣故。應該依據后一個解釋，正理、婆沙都同樣有此解釋。
論：今次應辨至煩惱等故。此解釋是第二對。就第二對中，先解釋未至，后解釋根本。此解釋未至也。說此地能斷三界煩惱，所以具得九遍知也。
【English Translation】 English version 'The all-knowing that pervades the lower realms.' At that time, because of the gathering of all-knowing, it cannot be said that one does not attain all-knowing. The commentators say that Bodhisattvas and Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Realizers), at that time, because they have attained the complete all-knowing of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters (Orambhagiya Samyojana, the five fetters that bind beings to the desire realm), it cannot be said that it is the fruit of wisdom. At that time, because forbearance (ksanti) is the immediate path (Anantarya-marga, the path that directly cuts off defilements), it cannot be said that the severance of views in the upper realms is secondary, and the severance of cultivation in the desire realm is the primary all-knowing. It is not called all-knowing because of the exhaustion of desire-attachment; since it is called the severance of the five lower fetters, desire-attachment is in accordance with the lower realm. The views and delusions of the upper two realms, along with the lower beings and defenses of the desire realm, all accord with the lower fetters. To consider 𤏅 as primary and secondary cannot be explained by this third way, so it is not the correct meaning. Because there is no such example in the Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra) above and below, and because the second explanation has more than one correct example, it cannot be said that many treatises are correct. Because many treatises are based on sequential explanations, such as the Abhidharmakosa, although it speaks of six, in the attainment of abandonment, one abandons five and attains one, saying that the complete all-knowing of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters, so it is known that the Abhidharmakosa allows it to be the fruit of forbearance, etc., speaking of attaining six according to the sequential explanation. It cannot be said that one attains the name but not the substance, because whatever is attained is the substance. It cannot be said that one does not attain the name because the substance is not complete, because when one transcends the Anagamin (Non-Returner) and attains Arhatship (Arhat, one who is worthy), one also attains the complete all-knowing of the exhaustion of all fetters. Because Pratyekabuddhas and Bodhisattvas rely on fundamental dhyana (meditation) to attain the complete all-knowing of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters, this explanation is definitely without troublesome further explanations, because it accords with the meaning of the Vibhasa commentators.
Treatise: How can the fruit of forbearance be said to be all-knowing? Question.
Treatise: Because all forbearances lead to the same fruit. Answer. There are two meanings: first, because forbearance is a member of the wisdom family, it is falsely named wisdom; second, because wisdom and forbearance have the same fruit. Those with the same fruit have two explanations: first, because the immediate path and the path of liberation have the same fruit; second, because what is attained by forbearance leads to the fruit of Anagamin and Arhat, it is also the fruit of wisdom. One should rely on the latter explanation; both the Nyaya and the Vibhasa have this explanation.
Treatise: Now we should discuss defilements, etc. This explanation is the second pair. Within the second pair, first explain 'not yet arrived,' then explain the fundamental. This explains 'not yet arrived.' It says that this ground can sever the defilements of the three realms, so it fully attains the nine all-knowing.
論。根本靜慮至未至果故。此第二釋靜慮根本果也。就中有二。一述正義。二述妙音義。此述正義也。依婆沙宗。上地道不許斷下惑。下能斷上。依根本靜慮唯斷上界惑。不斷欲惑。其得修諸道。若依未至見道能修三界見道斷治。不修修道欲斷治也。若依根本四靜慮。皆通修上二界斷治。以同治故。不修欲界見．修斷治。以非同治故。所得無為得系屬斷治道故。所以靜慮根本唯五遍知。正理五十六云。豈不依止根本靜慮入見諦時。亦修未來依未至地欲斷治道。得斷治故亦應證彼欲見斷法斷無漏離系得。寧說根本唯得五果 此責不然。爾時所修依未至地斷對治者。唯色。無色斷對治故。根本地道。既不能為欲斷對治。彼現起位。如何能修欲斷治道。由彼所修未至斷治唯治上界。故果唯五 婆沙六十三云。問幾是根本靜慮果。答五。謂第二．第四．第六．及后二。有說第二．第四．及后三為五 婆沙無評。何者為正。此論同何 有人解云。前師所以說得第六不說第七者。據全得彼第六體故。后師所以言得第七不言第六者。據能得彼第七名故。且奪第六與第七名。五下分中雖于欲界見．修所斷不得遍知。能斷上界見斷三結。總相而言五中得三。以少從多。得第七名。若作此解。各據一義並不相違。俱舍說五。或同婆沙前
【現代漢語翻譯】 論：根本靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）能達到未至定（Upacarasamadhi，近分定）的果位，因此這是對第二禪定的根本果的解釋。其中分為兩部分：一是闡述正義，二是闡述妙音的觀點。這裡闡述的是正義。 根據《大毗婆沙論》的宗義，上地的道不能斷除下地的煩惱，而下地的道卻能斷除上地的煩惱。因此，依靠根本靜慮只能斷除上界的煩惱，而不能斷除欲界的煩惱。如果獲得修習諸道的資格，那麼如果依靠未至定和見道，就能修習三界的見道，從而斷除煩惱，但不能修習修道來斷除欲界的煩惱。如果依靠根本四靜慮，那麼就能普遍修習上二界的斷除煩惱的對治法，因為它們是相同的對治法。但不能修習欲界的見道和修道的斷除煩惱的對治法，因為它們不是相同的對治法。所獲得的無為法，是由於系屬於斷除煩惱的對治道。所以，靜慮的根本只有五種遍知。 《阿毗達磨俱舍論》第五十六卷說：『難道不是依靠根本靜慮進入見諦（Darshana-satya，見真諦）時，也修習未來依靠未至地的欲界斷除煩惱的對治道嗎？因為獲得了斷除煩惱的對治，也應該證得那欲界見斷法的斷除無漏離系得（Visamyoga-pratilabdhi，離系得）。為什麼說根本靜慮只能獲得五種果位呢？』 這種責難是不對的。因為那時所修習的依靠未至地的斷除煩惱的對治，只是色界和無色界的斷除煩惱的對治。根本地的道，既然不能作為欲界斷除煩惱的對治，那麼在它現起的時候，如何能修習欲界斷除煩惱的對治道呢？由於它所修習的未至定的斷除煩惱的對治，只是對治上界，所以果位只有五種。 《大毗婆沙論》第六十三卷說：『問：有幾種是根本靜慮的果？答：五種，即第二禪、第四禪、第六禪以及后兩種。』有人說：『第二禪、第四禪以及后三種是五種。』《大毗婆沙論》沒有對此進行評論。哪一種說法是正確的？這個論典與哪一種說法相同？ 有人解釋說：『前一位老師之所以說獲得第六禪而不說獲得第七禪，是因為完全獲得了第六禪的體性。后一位老師之所以說獲得第七禪而不說獲得第六禪，是因為能夠獲得第七禪的名稱。』且奪取第六禪與第七禪的名稱。五下分結（Avarabhagiya Samyojana，五下分結）中，雖然對於欲界的見道和修道所斷的煩惱不能獲得遍知，但能斷除上界的見斷三結。總的來說，五種果位中獲得了三種。以少從多，獲得了第七禪的名稱。如果這樣解釋，那麼各自根據一種意義，並不互相違背。《阿毗達磨俱舍論》說五種，或許與《大毗婆沙論》的前一種說法相同。
【English Translation】 Treatise: Fundamental Dhyana (meditative absorption) can attain the fruit of Upacarasamadhi (access concentration), hence this is an explanation of the fundamental fruit of the second Dhyana. It is divided into two parts: first, stating the correct meaning; second, stating the view of Wonderful Sound. This is stating the correct meaning. According to the tenets of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, the path of the higher realm is not allowed to sever the afflictions of the lower realm, while the path of the lower realm can sever the afflictions of the higher realm. Therefore, relying on fundamental Dhyana, one can only sever the afflictions of the upper realms, but not the afflictions of the desire realm. If one obtains the qualification to practice various paths, then if one relies on Upacarasamadhi and the path of seeing (Darshana-marga), one can practice the path of seeing of the three realms, thereby severing afflictions, but one cannot practice the path of cultivation (Bhavana-marga) to sever the afflictions of the desire realm. If one relies on the four fundamental Dhyanas, then one can universally practice the antidotes to severing afflictions of the upper two realms, because they are the same antidotes. But one cannot practice the antidotes to severing afflictions of the path of seeing and the path of cultivation of the desire realm, because they are not the same antidotes. The unconditioned dharma (Asamskrta Dharma) that is obtained is due to being related to the path of antidotes for severing afflictions. Therefore, the fundamental of Dhyana only has five kinds of pervasive knowledge. The Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, volume 56, says: 'Isn't it the case that when relying on fundamental Dhyana to enter the Darshana-satya (truth of seeing), one also practices the future antidote to severing afflictions of the desire realm, relying on the Upacarasamadhi? Because one obtains the antidote to severing afflictions, one should also realize the Visamyoga-pratilabdhi (cessation of bondage) of the desire realm's afflictions severed by the path of seeing. Why is it said that fundamental Dhyana can only obtain five kinds of fruits?' This criticism is incorrect. Because the antidote to severing afflictions that is practiced at that time, relying on the Upacarasamadhi, is only the antidote to severing afflictions of the form realm and the formless realm. Since the path of the fundamental ground cannot serve as the antidote to severing afflictions of the desire realm, how can it practice the path of antidotes to severing afflictions of the desire realm when it arises? Because the antidote to severing afflictions of the Upacarasamadhi that it practices only treats the upper realms, the fruits are only five kinds. The Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, volume 63, says: 'Question: How many are the fruits of fundamental Dhyana? Answer: Five kinds, namely the second Dhyana, the fourth Dhyana, the sixth Dhyana, and the latter two.' Some say: 'The second Dhyana, the fourth Dhyana, and the latter three are five kinds.' The Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra does not comment on this. Which statement is correct? Which statement does this treatise agree with? Someone explains: 'The reason why the former teacher said that one obtains the sixth Dhyana but not the seventh Dhyana is because one completely obtains the nature of the sixth Dhyana. The reason why the latter teacher said that one obtains the seventh Dhyana but not the sixth Dhyana is because one is able to obtain the name of the seventh Dhyana.' And seize the names of the sixth Dhyana and the seventh Dhyana. Among the five lower fetters (Avarabhagiya Samyojana), although one cannot obtain pervasive knowledge of the afflictions severed by the path of seeing and the path of cultivation of the desire realm, one can sever the three fetters severed by the path of seeing of the upper realms. Generally speaking, one obtains three out of the five fruits. Taking the few from the many, one obtains the name of the seventh Dhyana. If explained in this way, then each is based on one meaning and does not contradict each other. The Abhidharmakosa-bhasya says five kinds, perhaps agreeing with the former statement of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra.
師。或同婆沙后師。文不別顯。隨同無失 今詳。此釋未成分別。婆沙自有分明評文。正理．俱舍亦有明文。因何浪釋。婆沙六十三成就遍知中雲。問獨覺學位為成就幾。答部行喻者如聲聞說。麟角喻者如菩薩說 此與正理不同。正理同聲聞不同菩薩。無超越道故。論意各別不應和合。必若欲釋應云。麟喻獨覺有其二類。一猛利根。一少鈍于上。于猛利根者如菩薩說。少劣上者起次第道 又云。問菩薩見聖位成就幾耶。答有多說。一云如預流向。一說見斷中唯得色．無色苦．集．滅二遍知。不得欲界三遍知 又問。菩薩何時得色愛盡遍知。一說道類智位即得。更有兩解。評曰不應作是說。無一念頃得果．向故。應作是說。菩薩聖位決定不得色．無色界見道斷法斷遍知。及色愛盡遍知。總集遍知故。無容修彼斷對治故 準此評家。依根本地得五下分結盡遍知集遍智故。此即是婆沙評家以後說為正。正理五十六得舍中雲。超越人若依未至。舍五得一。謂五下分結盡。若依根本。舍二得一。謂五下分結盡 準此。正理同婆沙評家。亦以後師道為正。及許見道忍果得五下分結盡遍知也。俱捨得舍中雲。超越人舍五得一。謂五下分結盡遍知。正理云。應言依未至定舍五得一。以依根本舍二得一故 準此。俱舍許見道及忍果亦得五
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 師：或許與《婆沙論》的後來的論師觀點相同，文字上沒有特別明顯的區別，跟隨他們也沒有什麼錯漏。現在仔細分析，這種解釋並沒有形成明確的區分。《婆沙論》本身就有明確的評判文字。《正理》和《俱舍論》中也有明確的說明，為何要隨意解釋呢？ 《婆沙論》第六十三卷關於成就遍知中說：『問：獨覺的學位的成就有哪些？』答：『部行喻的獨覺，如同聲聞所說；麟角喻的獨覺，如同菩薩所說。』這與《正理》的觀點不同。《正理》認為獨覺如同聲聞，不同於菩薩，因為沒有超越道。各論的意圖不同，不應該混為一談。如果一定要解釋，應該說：『麟喻的獨覺有兩種，一種是根器猛利的，一種是稍微遲鈍的。對於根器猛利的，如同菩薩所說；對於稍微遲鈍的，則修習次第道。』 《婆沙論》又說：『問：菩薩見聖位時成就哪些？』答：『有多種說法。一種說法如同預流向。』另一種說法是，見斷中只能獲得色界、無色界的苦、集、滅二遍知，不能獲得欲界的三遍知。又問：菩薩何時獲得色愛盡遍知？一種說法是在道類智位立即獲得。還有兩種解釋。評判說：不應該這樣說，因為沒有一念之間同時獲得果和向的。應該這樣說：菩薩在聖位決定不能獲得色界、無色界的見道斷法斷遍知，以及色愛盡遍知，因為是總集遍知。沒有修習斷除對治的餘地。』 根據這個評判家的觀點，依靠根本地獲得五下分結盡遍知，因為是集遍智。這正是《婆沙論》評判家以後來的說法為正確。《正理》第五十六卷關於得舍中說：『超越人如果依靠未至定，捨棄五種煩惱，獲得一種，即五下分結盡。如果依靠根本定，捨棄兩種煩惱，獲得一種，即五下分結盡。』根據這個，《正理》與《婆沙論》評判家的觀點相同，也以後來的說法為正確，並且允許見道忍果獲得五下分結盡遍知。《俱舍論》關於得舍中說：『超越人捨棄五種煩惱，獲得一種，即五下分結盡遍知。』《正理》說：『應該說依靠未至定捨棄五種煩惱，獲得一種，因為依靠根本定捨棄兩種煩惱，獲得一種。』根據這個，《俱舍論》允許見道以及忍果也獲得五下分結
【English Translation】 English version: The teacher: Perhaps agrees with the later teachers of the Vibhasa (commentary on the Abhidharma), the wording is not particularly distinct, and there is no loss in following them. Now, upon careful analysis, this explanation does not form a clear distinction. The Vibhasa itself has clear critical texts. The Nyayanusara (Following the Correct Principle) and the Abhidharmakosa (Treasury of Abhidharma) also have clear statements, so why interpret it arbitrarily? The sixty-third volume of the Vibhasa on the accomplishment of pervasive knowledge states: 'Question: What are the accomplishments of the Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha) stage?' Answer: 'The Pratyekabuddha of the group-traveling type is as the Sravaka (Hearer) says; the Pratyekabuddha of the rhinoceros-horn type is as the Bodhisattva (Enlightenment Being) says.' This differs from the view of the Nyayanusara. The Nyayanusara considers the Pratyekabuddha to be like the Sravaka, not like the Bodhisattva, because there is no path of transcendence. The intentions of each treatise are different and should not be confused. If one must explain, one should say: 'The rhinoceros-horn Pratyekabuddha has two types, one with sharp faculties and one slightly duller. For those with sharp faculties, it is as the Bodhisattva says; for those slightly inferior, they cultivate the gradual path.' The Vibhasa also says: 'Question: When a Bodhisattva sees the holy stage, what is accomplished?' Answer: 'There are many views. One view is like the stage of approaching stream-entry (Srotapatti-phala).' Another view is that in the seeing-abandonment, one can only obtain the two pervasive knowledges of suffering, origination, and cessation of the form and formless realms, and cannot obtain the three pervasive knowledges of the desire realm. Also, when does a Bodhisattva obtain the pervasive knowledge of the exhaustion of desire-attachment? One view is that it is obtained immediately at the stage of knowledge of the path of others. There are two other explanations. The critique says: It should not be said this way, because there is no moment in which one simultaneously obtains the fruit and the approach. It should be said this way: A Bodhisattva at the holy stage definitely cannot obtain the seeing-abandonment of the form and formless realms, nor the pervasive knowledge of the exhaustion of desire-attachment, because it is a total pervasive knowledge. There is no room to cultivate the abandonment of the antidote.' According to this critic, relying on the fundamental ground, one obtains the pervasive knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters, because it is the pervasive knowledge of accumulation. This is precisely the Vibhasa critic taking the later view as correct. The fifty-sixth volume of the Nyayanusara on gaining and losing states: 'If a transcendent person relies on the unreached concentration, they abandon five afflictions and gain one, which is the exhaustion of the five lower fetters. If they rely on the fundamental concentration, they abandon two afflictions and gain one, which is the exhaustion of the five lower fetters.' According to this, the Nyayanusara agrees with the Vibhasa critic, also taking the later view as correct, and allowing the seeing-path forbearance-fruit to obtain the pervasive knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters. The Abhidharmakosa on gaining and losing states: 'A transcendent person abandons five afflictions and gains one, which is the pervasive knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters.' The Nyayanusara says: 'It should be said that relying on the unreached concentration, one abandons five afflictions and gains one, because relying on the fundamental concentration, one abandons two afflictions and gains one.' According to this, the Abhidharmakosa allows the seeing-path and the forbearance-fruit to also obtain the five
下分結盡遍知。亦以後說為正。此即是文。憑何文意。以前說亦得為正。又於此時具二緣故定集遍知。不應此時得第六遍知。此即是理。故知前師全無理趣。忍果智果．見道果．修道果。二說容據次第．超越義別。靜慮根本果前師定非。無異端故。此是得體不盡。非是得名不得體也。此如超越二果。不得前六品修道無為。及依根本地得阿那含果。后得阿羅漢果時。皆得體不盡。豈是得名不得體耶。由此論中亦應二說。此既不爾。彼云何然。婆沙六十三云。問若已離色染入正性離生者。彼何時得色愛盡遍知。一說道類智時。評曰不應作是說。非住果時名住向故。有說彼后若離空無邊處染。爾時乃得色愛盡遍知。謂彼爾時修未來無漏諸靜慮地彼斷對治故。彼亦不應作如是說。爾時但修未來無漏諸靜慮地。無色對治非色對治故。又說。得阿羅漢果。金剛喻定現在前時。乃得此色愛盡遍知。彼亦不應作如是說。爾時諸斷總集為一。名一切結盡遍知。如何說得色愛盡遍知。應作是說。彼定從果起勝進道現在前時。方乃得此色愛盡遍知。若不許彼決定從果起勝果道現在前者。諸已離第三靜慮染。依下地入正性離生。道類智時得第三果。既不起勝果道現在前。彼若命終生第四靜慮。或無色界。應不成就無漏樂根。若爾便違十門納息。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 下分結（lower fetters）完全斷盡時，才能普遍知曉。也以後一種說法為正確。這正是經文的含義。憑藉什麼經文的意義呢？因為前一種說法也可以被認為是正確的。而且在此時具備兩種因緣，所以確定是集遍知（Samudaya-parijñā，對苦集滅道四聖諦中「集」的遍知）。不應該在這個時候獲得第六遍知（第六種智慧）。這就是道理。所以知道之前的說法完全沒有道理。忍果智果（Kṣānti-phala-jñāna，忍位之果的智慧）、見道果（Darśana-mārga-phala，見道之果）、修道果（Bhāvanā-mārga-phala，修道之果），兩種說法可以根據次第和超越的意義來區分。靜慮（Dhyāna，禪定）根本果（Mūla-phala，根本之果）之前的說法肯定是不對的，因為沒有不同的觀點。這是獲得本體不完全，而不是隻獲得名稱而沒有獲得本體。這就像超越兩種果位。不能獲得前六品修道無為（前六品修道所證的無為法），以及依靠根本地（Mūla-bhūmi，根本禪定之地）獲得阿那含果（Anāgāmin，不還果）。之後獲得阿羅漢果（Arhat，無學果）時，都是獲得本體不完全。難道是隻獲得名稱而沒有獲得本體嗎？由此論中也應該有兩種說法。既然不是這樣，那他們又怎麼會這樣認為呢？ 《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）第六十三卷說：『問：如果已經脫離色界染（Rūpadhātu-rāga）而進入正性離生（Samyaktva-nyāma-avakrānti，入聖道之位）的人，他什麼時候才能獲得色愛盡遍知（Rūpa-rāga-parijñā-kṣaya，對色界貪愛的斷盡的遍知）？』一種說法是道類智（Dharmajñāna-kṣānti，類智忍）時。評論說：不應該這樣說。因為住在果位時不能稱為住在向位（Phala-stha，果位；Mārga-stha，向位）。有人說，在那之後如果脫離空無邊處染（Ākāśānantyāyatana-rāga，空無邊處之貪），那時才能獲得色愛盡遍知。意思是說，那時他修未來無漏的各種靜慮地，因為他斷除了對治。但也不應該這樣說。因為那時只是修未來無漏的各種靜慮地，是對治無色界（Arūpadhātu，無色界）的，而不是對治色界的。還有人說，獲得阿羅漢果，金剛喻定（Vajropama-samādhi，金剛喻定）現在前時，才能獲得這種色愛盡遍知。但也不應該這樣說。因為那時各種斷滅總集為一，名為一切結盡遍知（Sarva-saṃyojana-prahāṇa-parijñā，對一切煩惱結的斷盡的遍知），怎麼能說是獲得色愛盡遍知呢？應該這樣說，他一定是從果位生起殊勝的勝進道（Viśeṣa-mārga，殊勝之道）現在前時，才能獲得這種色愛盡遍知。如果不允許他決定是從果位生起殊勝的勝果道（Viśeṣa-phala-mārga，殊勝之果之道）現在前，那麼已經脫離第三靜慮染（Tṛtīya-dhyāna-rāga，第三禪之貪），依靠下地（Adhobhūmi，較低的禪定地）進入正性離生，道類智時獲得第三果（Tṛtīya-phala，第三果，即阿那含果）。既然不生起殊勝的果道現在前，如果他命終生到第四靜慮（Caturtha-dhyāna，第四禪），或者沒有**（Āvaraṇa，覆蓋），應該不能成就無漏樂根（Anāsrava-sukha-indriya，無漏的樂受根）。如果這樣，就違背了十門納息（Daśa-dvāra-nissaraṇa，十門出離）。』
【English Translation】 English version Complete knowledge arises when the lower fetters (Adhobhāgīya-saṃyojana) are completely eradicated. The latter explanation is considered correct. This is the meaning of the text. What textual meaning supports this? Because the former explanation could also be considered correct. Moreover, at this time, possessing two conditions, it is determined to be Samudaya-parijñā (knowledge of the origin of suffering). It is not appropriate to attain the sixth knowledge at this time. This is the reason. Therefore, it is known that the previous teacher's view is entirely without reason. Kṣānti-phala-jñāna (knowledge of the fruit of forbearance), Darśana-mārga-phala (fruit of the path of seeing), and Bhāvanā-mārga-phala (fruit of the path of cultivation) – the two explanations can be distinguished based on the order and the meaning of transcendence. The previous teacher's explanation before the fundamental fruit of Dhyāna (meditation) is definitely incorrect because there is no different view. This is incomplete attainment of the substance, not merely obtaining the name without the substance. This is like transcending two fruits. One cannot obtain the unconditioned state of the first six grades of the path of cultivation, nor attain the Anāgāmin fruit (non-returner) by relying on the fundamental ground. Later, when attaining the Arhat fruit (arahant), there is incomplete attainment of the substance. Is it merely obtaining the name without the substance? Therefore, there should also be two explanations in this treatise. Since it is not so, how can they think that way? The Vibhāṣā (Mahāvibhāṣā) Volume 63 says: 'Question: If someone has already detached from the desire for the Realm of Form (Rūpadhātu-rāga) and entered the rightness of separation from birth (Samyaktva-nyāma-avakrānti), when will they attain the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of desire for the Realm of Form (Rūpa-rāga-parijñā-kṣaya)?' One explanation is at the time of Dharmajñāna-kṣānti (knowledge of the dharma of others). The commentary says: 'It should not be said this way, because one dwelling in the fruit is not called dwelling in the path.' Some say that after that, if they detach from the desire for the Sphere of Infinite Space (Ākāśānantyāyatana-rāga), then they will attain the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of desire for the Realm of Form. This means that at that time, they cultivate future unconditioned Dhyāna grounds, because they sever the counteracting forces. But it should not be said this way either, because at that time, they are only cultivating future unconditioned Dhyāna grounds, which counteract the Realm of No-Form (Arūpadhātu), not the Realm of Form. Others say that when attaining the Arhat fruit, when the Vajropama-samādhi (diamond-like concentration) is present, then they attain this complete knowledge of the exhaustion of desire for the Realm of Form. But it should not be said this way either, because at that time, all severances are collectively unified, called the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of all fetters (Sarva-saṃyojana-prahāṇa-parijñā), how can it be said to be attaining the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of desire for the Realm of Form? It should be said that they definitely attain this complete knowledge of the exhaustion of desire for the Realm of Form when the superior path of advancement (Viśeṣa-mārga) arises from the fruit. If it is not allowed that the superior fruit path (Viśeṣa-phala-mārga) arises from the fruit, then those who have already detached from the desire for the Third Dhyāna (Tṛtīya-dhyāna-rāga), relying on the lower ground (Adhobhūmi) to enter the rightness of separation from birth, and attain the third fruit (Tṛtīya-phala, Anāgāmin) at the time of Dharmajñāna-kṣānti, since the superior fruit path does not arise, if they die and are born in the Fourth Dhyāna (Caturtha-dhyāna), or without ** (Āvaraṇa), they should not accomplish the unconditioned root of happiness (Anāsrava-sukha-indriya). If so, it would violate the ten gates of liberation (Daśa-dvāra-nissaraṇa).'
如說誰成就樂根。答若生遍凈。若生遍凈下。若聖者生遍凈上。勿有此失。故必應許諸得果已。彼定從果起勝果道。爾時方名得色愛盡遍知。
論。所言八者至彼見道果。第二述妙音義。就中有二。一明根本靜慮有欲斷治。二明欲修斷唯在未至。此即初也。準正理論五十六。一師亦同彼師計根本禪起見道時決定起四法智忍故。故知能斷欲界煩惱。諸有先離欲界染者。依根本地入見諦時得修別道引無漏得故。由此亦得欲界見道三果。此非正義。
論。除順下分結至斷對治故。明根本地無慾界修道斷對治也。以依根本不起斷欲修惑無間．解脫道故。亦不修下斷對治故。彼師意以依第四禪入見道修六地斷治。修道不爾。正理破云。此不成證。謂所修地雖復不同。然俱唯修上界治故。
論。中間靜慮如根本說。類釋中間禪也。
論。今次應辨至遍說知果故。明第三對也。依世俗道容依空處近分離第四禪染得色愛盡遍知。依上近分。無離色染之義故。唯空處近分得一果也。下三根本依無漏道。皆容斷非想染得一切結盡遍知。由此三地根本亦得一也。非想無能斷非想惑及下惑義故。此地中無遍知果。
論。今次應辨與世俗道至三界法故。明第四對也。世俗道不能別斷欲．色．無色見惑。由此不得見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如經中所說，誰能成就樂根？ 答：如果眾生生於遍凈天（Subhakrtsna，色界第三禪天），或者生於遍凈天地獄，又或者聖者生於遍凈天上界，就不會有這種過失。所以必須承認，那些已經證得果位的人，必定會從果位生起更殊勝的果道。那時才能稱為證得了色愛盡的遍知（Sarvaraga-parijnana）。
論：前面所說的八種情況，直到證得見道果。第二部分闡述妙音的意義，其中包含兩點：一是說明根本靜慮（Dhyana，禪那）具有斷除欲界煩惱的對治力；二是說明欲界修惑的斷除只在未至定（Upacarasamadhi）中進行。以上是第一點。根據《阿毗達磨順正理論》第五十六卷，有一位論師也同意這樣的觀點，即在根本禪中生起見道時，必定會生起四法智忍（Dharma-jnana-ksanti）。因此可知，根本禪能夠斷除欲界煩惱。那些先前已經脫離欲界染污的人，依靠根本地進入見諦時，能夠通過修習其他道來引導無漏智的生起。由此也能證得欲界見道的三種果位。但這並非正確的觀點。
論：除了順下分結（Avarabhagiya-samyojana，導致眾生投生於地獄的五種煩惱結縛）之外，根本地沒有斷除欲界修道煩惱的對治力。因為依靠根本地，不會生起斷除欲界修惑的無間道（Anantarya-marga）和解脫道（Vimukti-marga）。因此，也不會修習斷除地獄煩惱的對治法。那位論師認為，依靠第四禪進入見道，可以修習六地的斷除對治。但修道的情況並非如此。《阿毗達磨順正理論》駁斥說：這不能作為證據。因為所修習的地的確不同，但都是修習上界的對治法。
論：中間靜慮（Dhyana，禪那）的情況與根本靜慮類似。這是對中間禪的類比解釋。
論：現在應該辨析，直到普遍宣說證得果位。這是說明第三種情況的對應關係。依靠世俗道，可以依靠空無邊處定（Akasanantyayatana）的近分定（Upacarasamadhi）來脫離第四禪的染污，從而證得色愛盡的遍知。依靠上界的近分定，沒有脫離色界染污的意義，因此只有空無邊處定的近分定可以證得一種果位。下三根本地依靠無漏道，都可以斷除非想非非想處天（Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana）的染污，從而證得一切結盡的遍知。因此，這三地的根本地也可以證得一種果位。非想非非想處天沒有能力斷除非想非非想處天的煩惱以及地獄煩惱的意義，因此，此地中沒有遍知果。
論：現在應該辨析，與世俗道相關，直到三界法。這是說明第四種情況的對應關係。世俗道不能分別斷除欲界、色界、無色界的見惑，因此不能證得見道。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: As it is said, who achieves the root of pleasure (Sukha-mula)? Answer: If beings are born in Subhakrtsna (the third Dhyana heaven of the form realm), or born below Subhakrtsna, or if sages are born above Subhakrtsna, there will be no such fault. Therefore, it must be admitted that those who have attained the fruit (Phala) will certainly arise from the fruit to a more excellent path of fruit. At that time, it can be called the Sarvaraga-parijnana (complete knowledge of the exhaustion of attachment to form).
Treatise: The eight cases mentioned earlier extend to the attainment of the fruit of the path of seeing (Darshana-marga-phala). The second part explains the meaning of 'wonderful sound,' which includes two points: first, it explains that the fundamental Dhyana has the power to counteract and eliminate desires; second, it explains that the elimination of desires in the realm of desire only occurs in Upacarasamadhi (access concentration). The above is the first point. According to the Abhidharmakoshabhasya, Volume 56, one teacher also agrees with the view that when the path of seeing arises in the fundamental Dhyana, the four Dharma-jnana-ksanti (endurances of knowledge of the Dharma) will definitely arise. Therefore, it is known that the fundamental Dhyana can eliminate the afflictions of the desire realm. Those who have previously detached themselves from the defilements of the desire realm can, by relying on the fundamental ground, attain the arising of non-outflow wisdom when entering the path of seeing by cultivating other paths. From this, they can also attain the three fruits of the path of seeing in the desire realm. But this is not the correct view.
Treatise: Except for the Avarabhagiya-samyojana (the five lower fetters that cause beings to be reborn in the lower realms), the fundamental ground does not have the power to counteract and eliminate the afflictions of the path of cultivation in the desire realm. Because by relying on the fundamental ground, the Anantarya-marga (path of immediate consequence) and Vimukti-marga (path of liberation) for eliminating the afflictions of the path of cultivation in the desire realm will not arise. Therefore, the counteracting of the elimination of lower realm afflictions is not cultivated. That teacher believes that by relying on the fourth Dhyana to enter the path of seeing, one can cultivate the counteracting of the elimination of the six grounds. But the situation of cultivation is not like this. The Abhidharmakoshabhasya refutes this, saying: This cannot be used as evidence. Because although the grounds cultivated are indeed different, they are all cultivating the counteracting of the upper realms.
Treatise: The intermediate Dhyana is similar to the fundamental Dhyana. This is an analogous explanation of the intermediate Dhyana.
Treatise: Now it should be analyzed, up to the universal proclamation of attaining the fruit. This is to explain the correspondence of the third situation. By relying on the worldly path, one can rely on the Upacarasamadhi of Akasanantyayatana (the sphere of infinite space) to detach from the defilements of the fourth Dhyana, thereby attaining the Sarvaraga-parijnana. By relying on the Upacarasamadhi of the upper realms, there is no meaning of detaching from the defilements of the form realm, so only the Upacarasamadhi of Akasanantyayatana can attain one fruit. The lower three fundamental grounds can all rely on the non-outflow path to eliminate the defilements of Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana (the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception), thereby attaining the Sarvaklesha-parijnana (complete knowledge of the exhaustion of all defilements). Therefore, the fundamental grounds of these three grounds can also attain one fruit. Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana does not have the meaning of being able to eliminate the afflictions of Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana and the afflictions of the lower realms, so there is no fruit of complete knowledge in this ground.
Treatise: Now it should be analyzed, in relation to the worldly path, up to the Dharma of the three realms. This is to explain the correspondence of the fourth situation. The worldly path cannot separately eliminate the afflictions of the path of seeing in the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm, so it cannot attain the path of seeing.
道忍果。有漏亦不能斷非想修惑。由此不得一切結盡。六行能斷欲．色修染。所以得五下分結盡。及色愛盡。聖道能別斷見．修三界惑故。由斯得九。
論。今次應辨與法類智至得后二果。第五對也。如文可解。
論。今次應辨與法類智同品至通攝知及忍故。第六對也 此中言同品者兼忍說也 又云。類智同品果五者。謂類忍果三。謂上二界見斷三也 類智果二。謂上二界修斷也。此據次第者說。下文云。舍五得順下分結盡遍知者。說超越也。若合說二種應言得六。婆沙六十三云。問幾是類智品果。答五。謂第二．第四．第六及后二。有說六。謂第二．第四．第六．及后三 婆沙前師據次第。后師兼超越。二師不相違也。此論亦爾。據次第五。據超越亦許得五下分遍知。所以得知。得舍中雲。舍五得五下分結盡遍知故。正理亦云。舍二得一也。婆沙更有兩對。一見道．修道果。二靜慮無色果。以重故此論不說。
論。何故一一斷不別立遍知唯就如前九位建立。問也。此下一行頌。第三明建立遍知緣也 何故一一斷者。此是見道八諦。修道八十一品。一一斷不立遍知。非謂隨系事量立遍知也。故正理論云。何緣一一道所得斷。不各各立為一遍知 若依婆沙．雜心等。見道四緣。修道五緣。此論見道三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：道忍果（Dāoren guǒ，指通過道忍獲得的果位）。有漏的智慧無法斷除非想非非想處的修惑（xiūhuò，指修行過程中產生的迷惑），因此無法完全斷除一切煩惱結縛。六行觀（liù xíng guān，佛教修行方法，觀無常、苦、空、無我等）能夠斷除欲界和色界的修所斷惑（xiū suǒ duàn huò，通過修行才能斷除的煩惱），所以能夠斷除五下分結（wǔ xià fēn jié，指五種束縛眾生於欲界的煩惱結縛）以及色愛（sè ài，對色界的貪愛）。聖道（shèng dào，指達到解脫的道路）能夠分別斷除見惑（jiàn huò，知見上的迷惑）和修惑，以及三界（sān jiè，指欲界、色界、無色界）的煩惱，因此能夠獲得九地（jiǔ dì，指修行所達到的九個層次）。
論：現在接下來應該辨析與法類智（fǎ lèi zhì，兩種智慧，指對佛法的理解和對世俗事物的理解）相關的，直到獲得后二果（hòu èr guǒ，指阿那含果和阿羅漢果）的內容。這是第五種對應關係，如經文所示，可以理解。
論：現在接下來應該辨析與法類智同品（tóng pǐn，指同一型別的智慧）相關的，直到通達攝知和忍（rěn，指忍辱）的內容。這是第六種對應關係。這裡所說的『同品』也包括了忍。另外，有人說，類智同品所獲得的果位有五種，指的是類忍果（lèi rěn guǒ，指通過類智和忍辱獲得的果位）的三種，即上二界（shàng èr jiè，指色界和無色界）的見所斷惑（jiàn suǒ duàn huò，通過見道斷除的煩惱）的三種。類智果（lèi zhì guǒ，指通過類智獲得的果位）有兩種，即上二界的修所斷惑。這是按照次第來說的。下文說『舍五得順下分結盡遍知』，說的是超越的情況。如果合起來說這兩種情況，應該說獲得六種。婆沙（pó shā，《大毗婆沙論》）第六十三卷說：『問：有多少是類智品果？答：五種，即第二、第四、第六以及后兩種。』有人說六種，即第二、第四、第六以及后三種。婆沙的前一位論師是按照次第來說的，后一位論師兼顧了超越的情況，兩位論師的說法並不矛盾。此論也是如此，按照次第是五種，按照超越的情況也允許獲得五下分結盡遍知。如何得知呢？從『得舍』中可以看出，『舍五得五下分結盡遍知』。正理論（zhèng lǐ lùn，《阿毗達磨順正理論》）也說『舍二得一』。婆沙還有兩種對應關係，一是見道（jiàn dào，指證悟真理的道路）和修道的果位，二是靜慮（jìng lǜ，指禪定）和無色界的果位。因為內容比較複雜，所以此論沒有提及。
論：為什麼每一個斷除的煩惱不單獨設立遍知（biàn zhī，指完全知曉），而只在前面所說的九個位置上建立遍知呢？這是提問。下面一行頌文，第三說明建立遍知的因緣。『為什麼每一個斷除的煩惱』，指的是見道的八諦（bā dì，指苦、集、滅、道四聖諦的八種觀察）和修道的八十一種品類（bā shí yī zhǒng pǐn lèi，指修道過程中需要斷除的八十一種煩惱）。每一個斷除的煩惱都不單獨設立遍知，並不是說要根據所繫的事物和數量來設立遍知。所以正理論說：『為什麼每一個道所獲得的斷除，不各自設立為一遍知？』如果按照婆沙、雜心等論典的說法，見道有四種因緣，修道有五種因緣，此論見道有三種因緣。
【English Translation】 English version: Dāoren guǒ (道忍果, the fruit attained through Dāoren, the Path of Patience). Leaky (with outflows) wisdom cannot sever the afflictions of cultivation in the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception. Therefore, one cannot attain the complete exhaustion of all fetters. The Six Practices (liù xíng guān, contemplating impermanence, suffering, emptiness, non-self, etc.) can sever the defilements of cultivation in the Desire and Form Realms, thus attaining the exhaustion of the Five Lower Fetters (wǔ xià fēn jié, the five fetters that bind beings to the Desire Realm) and the exhaustion of desire for the Form Realm (sè ài, attachment to the Form Realm). The Holy Path (shèng dào, the path to liberation) can separately sever the afflictions of view (jiàn huò, afflictions arising from incorrect views) and cultivation, as well as the afflictions of the Three Realms (sān jiè, the Desire Realm, the Form Realm, and the Formless Realm), thus attaining the Nine Grounds (jiǔ dì, the nine levels of meditative attainment).
Treatise: Now, we should next discuss what is related to Dharma-Category Wisdom (fǎ lèi zhì, two types of wisdom, understanding of Buddhist teachings and understanding of worldly matters), up to attaining the latter two fruits (hòu èr guǒ, the Anāgāmin and Arhat fruits). This is the fifth correspondence, which can be understood as explained in the text.
Treatise: Now, we should next discuss what is related to the same category as Dharma-Category Wisdom (tóng pǐn, wisdom of the same type), up to thoroughly encompassing knowledge and patience (rěn, forbearance). This is the sixth correspondence. Here, 'same category' also includes patience. Furthermore, it is said that the fruits attained through the same category as Category Wisdom are five, referring to the three fruits of Category Patience (lèi rěn guǒ, the fruits attained through Category Wisdom and Patience), namely the three afflictions severed by view in the Upper Two Realms (shàng èr jiè, the Form and Formless Realms). The fruits of Category Wisdom (lèi zhì guǒ, the fruits attained through Category Wisdom) are two, namely the afflictions severed by cultivation in the Upper Two Realms. This is according to the sequential order. The text below says, 'Relinquishing five, one attains the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the Lower Fetters,' which refers to transcendence. If we combine these two, we should say that one attains six. The Vibhāṣā (pó shā, the Mahāvibhāṣā) Chapter 63 says: 'Question: How many are the fruits of the Category Wisdom category? Answer: Five, namely the second, fourth, sixth, and the last two.' Some say six, namely the second, fourth, sixth, and the last three. The former teacher of the Vibhāṣā speaks according to the sequential order, while the latter teacher includes transcendence. The two teachers do not contradict each other. This treatise is also like this. According to the sequential order, it is five. According to transcendence, it is also permissible to attain the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the Five Lower Fetters. How do we know this? From the 'attaining and relinquishing' it can be seen that 'relinquishing five, one attains the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the Five Lower Fetters.' The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (zhèng lǐ lùn, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) also says, 'Relinquishing two, one attains one.' The Vibhāṣā also has two more correspondences: one is the fruit of the Path of Seeing (jiàn dào, the path of seeing the truth) and the Path of Cultivation, and the other is the fruit of Dhyāna (jìng lǜ, meditation) and the Formless Realm. Because the content is complex, this treatise does not mention them.
Treatise: Why are separate complete knowledges (biàn zhī, complete understanding) not established for each severance, but only established in the nine positions mentioned earlier? This is a question. The verse below explains the conditions for establishing complete knowledge. 'Why are separate complete knowledges not established for each severance?' refers to the eight truths (bā dì, the eight aspects of the Four Noble Truths) of the Path of Seeing and the eighty-one categories (bā shí yī zhǒng pǐn lèi, the eighty-one types of afflictions to be severed in the Path of Cultivation) of the Path of Cultivation. Separate complete knowledges are not established for each severance; it is not that complete knowledges are established according to the things and quantities involved. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'Why is a separate complete knowledge not established for each severance attained on the path?' According to the Vibhāṣā, Tattvasiddhi, and other treatises, the Path of Seeing has four conditions, and the Path of Cultivation has five conditions. This treatise has three conditions for the Path of Seeing.
緣。修道四緣。以俱系離即是俱因滅時故 問何故三緣四緣方立遍知 答此顯永斷相故正理論云。何緣一一道所得斷。不各各立為一遍知。以永斷時說遍知故。如契經說。吾今為汝宣說遍知。乃至廣說。此中何等名為遍知。謂貪永斷。嗔永斷。癡永斷。乃至廣說。說永斷言。顯所得斷都無隨縛方名遍知。云何名為有隨縛斷。云何名為無隨縛斷。斷具三種。或四種緣。名無隨縛。不具名有。謂或有斷。雖得離系得。而闕余得故容非是永舍。或復有斷。余得雖生。未缺堅牢生死之首。以八地染雖數曾離未能缺彼故。還墮惡趣獄。或復有斷。雖亦缺彼。而余煩惱繫縛未除。于永斷義未得圓滿。或復有斷。余縛亦除。而猶未能越所屬界。以同類惑未斷無餘。于永斷義亦未圓滿。如是諸斷名有隨縛。是故於彼不立遍知。唯九位中三．四緣具斷無隨縛可立遍知。
論曰至闕即不爾。明見道三緣。顯永斷義 有漏法斷雖多體者。隨系事量。無為亦爾 雖多位者。謂見道八。及修道八十一也 而四緣故但於九位立九遍知也 且由三緣立六忍果者。其實忍果亦通第七。據次第說故言忍六 言三緣者。一得無漏離系得。二缺有頂故。三滅雙因故。雜心論等有四緣。更加俱系離也。
論。如異生位至不名遍知。此指事釋也。于中
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：緣。修道有四種緣。因為俱生煩惱的繫縛已經斷離，也就是俱生煩惱的因已經滅除的緣故。問：為什麼需要三種或四種緣才能成立遍知（Parijnana，完全的知）？答：這是爲了顯示永斷的相狀。《正理論》中說：『為什麼對每一種道所得的斷，不各自成立為一遍知？』因為在永斷的時候才說遍知。如契經所說：『我現在為你們宣說遍知，』乃至廣說。這其中什麼叫做遍知？就是貪永斷、嗔永斷、癡永斷，乃至廣說。說『永斷』，顯示所得的斷完全沒有隨縛才能稱為遍知。什麼叫做有隨縛的斷？什麼叫做無隨縛的斷？斷除具備三種或四種緣，就叫做無隨縛，不具備就叫做有隨縛。也就是說，或者有的斷，雖然得到了離系得（Visamyoga-prapti，解脫的獲得），但缺少其他的獲得，所以可能不是永遠的捨棄。或者有的斷，其他的獲得雖然已經生起，但還沒有斷絕堅牢的生死之首，因為八地的染污雖然多次斷離，但未能斷絕它，所以還會墮入惡趣地獄。或者有的斷，雖然也斷絕了生死之首，但其他的煩惱繫縛還沒有去除，對於永斷的意義還沒有得到圓滿。或者有的斷，其他的繫縛也已經去除，但仍然未能超越所屬的界，因為同類的迷惑沒有斷除乾淨，對於永斷的意義也沒有得到圓滿。像這樣的各種斷，就叫做有隨縛。因此，對於這些斷不成立遍知。只有在九個位次中，三種或四種緣都具備，斷除沒有隨縛，才可以成立遍知。 論中說，從見道的三種緣，可以明顯地顯示永斷的意義。有漏法的斷，如果是多種自性，就隨繫縛的事物數量而定，無為法也是這樣。雖然是多個位次，指的是見道的八個，以及修道的八十一個。但因為四種緣的緣故，只在九個位次成立九個遍知。暫且由三種緣成立六個忍果，實際上忍果也通達第七個，根據次第來說，所以說忍有六個。所說的三種緣是：一、得到無漏離系得；二、缺少有頂的緣故；三、滅除雙重原因的緣故。《雜心論》等有四種緣，更加上俱系離。 論中說，如異生位，不名為遍知。這是指事解釋。在其中。
【English Translation】 English version: Cause. There are four causes for cultivation. Because the bonds of co-arisen afflictions have been severed, which means the cause of co-arisen afflictions has been extinguished. Question: Why are three or four causes needed to establish Parijnana (complete knowledge)? Answer: This is to show the aspect of permanent severance. The Nyayanusara says: 'Why is it that for each severance obtained by the path, a Parijnana is not established individually?' Because Parijnana is spoken of at the time of permanent severance. As the sutra says: 'I will now explain Parijnana to you,' and so on. What is called Parijnana in this context? It is the permanent severance of greed, the permanent severance of hatred, the permanent severance of delusion, and so on. The term 'permanent severance' indicates that only when the obtained severance has no remaining bonds can it be called Parijnana. What is called severance with remaining bonds? What is called severance without remaining bonds? Severance that possesses three or four causes is called without remaining bonds; severance that does not possess them is called with remaining bonds. That is to say, some severance, although it obtains Visamyoga-prapti (the attainment of detachment), lacks other attainments, so it may not be a permanent abandonment. Or some severance, although other attainments have arisen, has not severed the firm head of samsara (cycle of rebirth), because the defilements of the eighth ground, although repeatedly severed, have not been able to sever it, so it still falls into the evil realms of hell. Or some severance, although it has also severed the head of samsara, has not removed the bonds of other afflictions, so it has not attained completeness in the meaning of permanent severance. Or some severance, although other bonds have also been removed, has still not been able to transcend the realm to which it belongs, because similar delusions have not been completely severed, so it has also not attained completeness in the meaning of permanent severance. Such severances are called with remaining bonds. Therefore, Parijnana is not established for them. Only in the nine positions, when three or four causes are complete and severance has no remaining bonds, can Parijnana be established. The treatise states that the three causes of the path of seeing clearly show the meaning of permanent severance. The severance of conditioned dharmas, if they are of multiple natures, depends on the quantity of the bound objects; so it is with unconditioned dharmas. Although there are multiple positions, referring to the eight of the path of seeing and the eighty-one of the path of cultivation, because of the four causes, only nine Parijnanas are established in nine positions. For the time being, six forbearance-fruits are established by three causes; in reality, the forbearance-fruit also penetrates the seventh, but according to the order, it is said that there are six forbearances. The three causes mentioned are: first, obtaining the unconditioned Visamyoga-prapti; second, lacking the cause of the peak of existence; third, extinguishing the dual causes. The Samayuktabhidharmahrdaya and others have four causes, adding co-arisen detachment. The treatise states, 'Like the position of an ordinary being, it is not called Parijnana.' This is an explanation referring to the matter. Within it.
有三位。此第一在凡位也。闕二緣故不立遍知。一未有無漏得。二未缺有頂 言缺有頂者。于彼地中有五部惑未斷一分為未缺。
論。若聖位中至未滅雙因。第二位也。苦類忍現行以前。雖得無漏得得無為。爾時非想五部惑俱成就故不名為缺 言雙因者。謂自部自品因名自因。自部他品及他部全名為他因。聖斷見惑九品。同一品斷故。若斷自部自品。即斷自部他品。不由自部他品不成遍知。但由他部不成遍知。修道所斷但由自部他品不成遍知。不由他部不成遍知。以必先斷他部因故。由此婆沙見道以他部為一因。修道以他品為一因也。所以但立雙因不。立俱系者。正理論云。雙因．俱系雖依一物 一物者俱是據斷立也 而系與因其義各異。謂於五部令起名因。即于其中能縛名系(系因義別也)且苦智生集智未生。二部雖無互令起力。而有展轉能為因性。見集斷惑縛義如本。見苦所斷縛義都無故。非滅雙因。即是離俱系。又不可說因義即系。以無漏緣惑不繫他聚故。由此我宗二種俱說。今不說者。但可說言說此彼自成。不可言無異。體．義寬故。且說雙因(體寬者。謂相應．俱有法等。義寬者。謂同類．遍行。相應．俱有義皆是因也)。
論。至苦類智集法忍位至諸遍行因故。第三位。爾時具二闕一不成遍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有三種情況。第一種情況是在凡夫位。由於缺少兩種緣故，不能成立遍知。一是未獲得無漏之得（Anāsrava-prāpti），二是未缺少有頂（Bhavāgra）。所謂缺少有頂，是指在有頂地中，五部煩惱（五部：見苦所斷、見集所斷、見滅所斷、見道所斷、修道所斷）還有一部分未斷盡，因此不能算作缺少有頂。
論：如果在聖位中，直到未滅雙因（Dvi-hetu），這是第二種情況。在苦類忍（Dharma-kṣānti）現行之前，雖然獲得了無漏之得，也獲得了無為（Asaṃskṛta），但此時非想非非想處（Naiva-saṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana）的五部煩惱都還存在，因此不能稱為缺少。所謂雙因，是指自部自品之因稱為自因，自部他品以及他部全部稱為他因。聖者斷見惑（Darśana-heya）有九品，同一品斷除。如果斷除了自部自品，也就斷除了自部他品，不是因為自部他品不能成就遍知，而是因為他部不能成就遍知。修道所斷（Bhāvanā-heya）只是因為自部他品不能成就遍知，不是因為他部不能成就遍知，因為必定先斷除他部之因。因此，《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）認為見道以他部為一因，修道以他品為一因。為什麼隻立雙因，而不立俱系（Sahabhū-saṃyoga）呢？《正理論》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）說，雙因和俱系雖然依據同一事物（同一事物是指根據斷除而立），但繫縛和因的意義各不相同。使五部煩惱生起稱為因，在其中能夠束縛稱為系（繫縛和因的意義不同）。例如，苦智（Dharma-jñāna）生起而集智（Samudaya-jñāna）未生起，二部煩惱雖然沒有互相使之生起的力量，但有輾轉能為因的性質。見集所斷煩惱的繫縛意義如前所述，見苦所斷煩惱的繫縛意義完全沒有，所以不是滅雙因，也就是遠離俱系。又不能說因的意義就是繫縛，因為無漏（Anāsrava）不能繫縛其他聚合的煩惱。因此，我宗兩種都說。現在不說，只是可以說說此彼自然成就，不能說沒有差異。體寬和義寬的緣故。姑且說說雙因（體寬是指相應法、俱有法等，義寬是指同類因、遍行因，相應法、俱有法的意義都是因）。
論：直到苦類智（Dharma-jñāna）到集法忍（Samudaya-dharma-kṣānti）位，到達諸遍行因（Sarvatraga-hetu）的緣故，這是第三種情況。此時具備兩種條件，缺少一種條件，不能成就遍知。
【English Translation】 English version: There are three situations. The first is in the position of ordinary beings (Pṛthagjana). Due to the lack of two conditions, complete knowledge (Sarvajñāna) cannot be established. First, there is no attainment of the unconditioned attainment (Anāsrava-prāpti). Second, there is no lack of the peak of existence (Bhavāgra). The so-called lack of the peak of existence means that in that realm, one part of the five categories of afflictions (five categories: those abandoned by seeing suffering, those abandoned by seeing origin, those abandoned by seeing cessation, those abandoned by seeing the path, and those abandoned by cultivation) has not been completely eliminated, so it cannot be considered a lack of the peak of existence.
Treatise: If in the position of a noble one (Ārya), up to the non-extinction of the two causes (Dvi-hetu), this is the second situation. Before the manifestation of the forbearance regarding the category of suffering (Dharma-kṣānti), although the unconditioned attainment has been obtained, and the unconditioned (Asaṃskṛta) has also been obtained, at this time, the five categories of afflictions in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception (Naiva-saṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana) are all still present, so it cannot be called a lack. The so-called two causes refer to the cause of one's own category and own type, which is called the self-cause, and the other types of one's own category and all of the other categories are called other causes. The afflictions abandoned by seeing (Darśana-heya) are abandoned in nine grades by the noble ones, and the same grade is abandoned. If one's own category and own type are abandoned, then the other types of one's own category are also abandoned. It is not because the other types of one's own category cannot achieve complete knowledge, but because the other categories cannot achieve complete knowledge. The afflictions abandoned by cultivation (Bhāvanā-heya) cannot achieve complete knowledge only because of the other types of one's own category, not because of the other categories, because the cause of the other categories must be abandoned first. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā considers the other categories as one cause in the path of seeing, and the other types as one cause in the path of cultivation. Why are only two causes established, and not co-existing connections (Sahabhū-saṃyoga)? The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that although the two causes and co-existing connections are based on the same thing (the same thing refers to being established based on abandonment), the meanings of bondage and cause are different. Causing the five categories of afflictions to arise is called a cause, and being able to bind within them is called a connection (the meanings of connection and cause are different). For example, when the knowledge of suffering (Dharma-jñāna) arises but the knowledge of origin (Samudaya-jñāna) has not arisen, although the two categories of afflictions do not have the power to cause each other to arise, they have the nature of being able to be causes in turn. The meaning of the bondage of the afflictions abandoned by seeing the origin is as described before, and the meaning of the bondage of the afflictions abandoned by seeing suffering is completely absent, so it is not the two causes of extinction, which means being away from co-existing connections. Also, it cannot be said that the meaning of cause is the same as bondage, because the unconditioned (Anāsrava) cannot bind the afflictions of other aggregates. Therefore, our school speaks of both. Now, not speaking of it only means that it can be said that this and that are naturally accomplished, and it cannot be said that there is no difference. Because the substance is broad and the meaning is broad. Let's talk about the two causes for now (the broadness of substance refers to corresponding dharmas, co-existing dharmas, etc., and the broadness of meaning refers to similar causes, pervasive causes, and the meanings of corresponding dharmas and co-existing dharmas are all causes).
Treatise: Until the knowledge of the category of suffering (Dharma-jñāna) reaches the forbearance regarding the dharma of origin (Samudaya-dharma-kṣānti), due to reaching all pervasive causes (Sarvatraga-hetu), this is the third situation. At this time, two conditions are met, and one condition is lacking, so complete knowledge cannot be achieved.
知。
論。至后法智至建立遍知。此明具緣位也。至集法智。集類智。滅法智。滅類智。道法智。道類智。於此六位三緣具故。建立遍知 問超越者第四．第五心項雙因先滅。苦法智位得無漏得。苦類智位又缺有頂。三緣既具。何故不立遍知 答建立遍知。據次第者作法。其超越者當次第者立遍知位。方立遍知。於前位中雖具三緣。不立遍知。
論。具由四緣至皆全離故。此明修道四緣也 問因何見道立三不立越界。修道立越界耶。答見道遍知唯是染法上無為故。至斷雙因永斷相顯。彼同縛煩惱皆已斷故。修道煩惱不緣此故。修道遍知以染．不染無為為體。雖斷雙因等。由有同類煩惱未斷。斷相未顯不立遍知 問準下文云舍五得一謂五下結盡遍知。正理又云。依根本禪舍二得一。謂五下分結盡遍知 準此。五下分結盡亦是忍果。何故但言智果三也。又準婆沙六十三。成就遍知中雲。不還果成就一。謂五順下分結盡。從道類智。或離欲染第九解脫道。乃至未起彼勝果道名不還果。彼成就一五順下分結盡遍知。又評家云。應作是說。菩薩聖位決定不得色．無色界見道所斷法斷遍知．及色愛盡遍知。總集遍知故。無容修彼斷對治故 準此第七亦有忍果。因何但言忍果六也 答建立門唯據次第故。言智果三．忍果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 知。
論。至於后得法智到建立遍知（sarvajnata）。這說明具緣位。 至於集法智、集類智、滅法智、滅類智、道法智、道類智。在這六個位次上，因為三種因緣都具備，所以建立遍知。 問：超越者第四、第五心項的雙因先滅。苦法智位得到無漏得。苦類智位又缺少有頂。三種因緣既然具備，為什麼不建立遍知？ 答：建立遍知，是根據次第者作法。對於超越者，應當在次第者建立遍知位時，才建立遍知。在前面的位次中，即使具備三種因緣，也不建立遍知。
論。具由四緣到皆完全脫離的緣故。這說明修道的四種因緣。 問：為什麼見道建立三種遍知，而不建立越界遍知？修道建立越界遍知呢？ 答：見道遍知只是染法，上面沒有無為法的緣故。到斷雙因時，永斷的相狀顯現。那些同縛的煩惱都已經斷除的緣故。修道的煩惱不緣於此的緣故。修道遍知以染、不染和無為法為本體。即使斷除了雙因等，由於有同類的煩惱沒有斷除，斷除的相狀沒有顯現，所以不建立遍知。 問：按照下文所說，捨棄五種，得到一種，指的是五下分結（panca orabhagiya samyojana）盡的遍知。正理又說，依靠根本禪，捨棄兩種，得到一種，指的是五下分結盡的遍知。 按照這些說法，五下分結盡也是忍的果報。為什麼只說智的果報有三種呢？又按照《婆沙》第六十三，成就遍知中說，不還果（anagami-phala）成就一種，指的是五順下分結盡。從道類智，或者離欲染的第九解脫道，乃至沒有生起那殊勝果道，名為不還果。他們成就一種五順下分結盡的遍知。又評論家說，應當這樣說，菩薩聖位決定不得色界、無色界見道所斷法斷的遍知，以及色愛盡的遍知。總集遍知的緣故。沒有容納修彼斷對治的緣故。 按照這些說法，第七種也有忍的果報。為什麼只說忍的果報有六種呢？ 答：建立門只根據次第的緣故。所以說智的果報有三種，忍的果報有六種。
【English Translation】 English version Knowing.
Treatise. As for the subsequent Dharma-knowledge up to the establishment of pervasive knowledge (sarvajnata). This clarifies the position of possessing the necessary conditions. As for the Dharma-knowledge of arising, the knowledge of kinds of arising, the Dharma-knowledge of cessation, the knowledge of kinds of cessation, the Dharma-knowledge of the path, the knowledge of kinds of the path. In these six positions, because the three conditions are all complete, pervasive knowledge is established. Question: For those who transcend, the dual causes of the fourth and fifth mental factors are extinguished first. In the position of the Dharma-knowledge of suffering, the unconditioned attainment is obtained. In the position of the knowledge of kinds of suffering, the peak of existence is lacking. Since the three conditions are complete, why is pervasive knowledge not established? Answer: The establishment of pervasive knowledge is based on the method of those who follow the sequence. For those who transcend, pervasive knowledge should be established when those who follow the sequence establish the position of pervasive knowledge. In the previous positions, even if the three conditions are complete, pervasive knowledge is not established.
Treatise. Possessing the four conditions up to the reason why all are completely separated. This clarifies the four conditions of the path of cultivation. Question: Why does the path of seeing establish three pervasive knowledges but not the trans-realm pervasive knowledge? Why does the path of cultivation establish the trans-realm pervasive knowledge? Answer: The pervasive knowledge of the path of seeing is only defiled Dharma, and there is no unconditioned Dharma above it. When the dual causes are severed, the characteristic of permanent severance appears. Because those co-bound afflictions have already been severed. The afflictions of the path of cultivation do not condition this. The pervasive knowledge of the path of cultivation takes defiled, undefiled, and unconditioned Dharmas as its substance. Even if the dual causes, etc., are severed, because there are similar afflictions that have not been severed, the characteristic of severance has not appeared, so pervasive knowledge is not established. Question: According to the following text, 'abandoning five and obtaining one' refers to the pervasive knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters (panca orabhagiya samyojana). The Correct Principle also says, 'relying on the fundamental dhyana, abandoning two and obtaining one' refers to the pervasive knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters. According to these statements, the exhaustion of the five lower fetters is also a result of forbearance. Why is it only said that there are three results of knowledge? Also, according to Vibhasa sixty-three, in the accomplishment of pervasive knowledge, it is said that the non-returner fruit (anagami-phala) accomplishes one, which refers to the exhaustion of the five lower fetters that accord with the lower realms. From the knowledge of kinds of the path, or the ninth liberation path of detachment from desire, until that superior fruit path has not arisen, it is called the non-returner fruit. They accomplish one pervasive knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters that accord with the lower realms. Also, the commentator says, 'It should be said that the Bodhisattva's holy position definitely does not obtain the pervasive knowledge of the severance of the Dharma severed by the path of seeing in the realm of form and the formless realm, and the pervasive knowledge of the exhaustion of love of form. Because of the pervasive knowledge of total collection. There is no room for cultivating the counter-agent to sever that. According to these statements, the seventh also has the result of forbearance. Why is it only said that there are six results of forbearance? Answer: The establishment gate is only based on the sequence. Therefore, it is said that there are three results of knowledge and six results of forbearance.
六也。
論。有立離俱系至方可建立。述雜心論等釋也。若依彼立。見道四緣修道五緣。
論。此離俱系至而不別說。述自不立意也。雖五緣中離俱系。與滅雙因．及越界緣。雖義有異亦合別立。然說此俱因離時。即成俱系離等。雖義有異。用無別故而不別說。
論。雖諸越界位至未立遍知。釋疑難也。若雙因滅時必離俱系。用無別故唯立四緣。越界之時必雙因離。如何雙因離外。別立越界。答云。雖越界時必俱系因。離色．無色界離下三地惑時。雖滅雙因。而未越界。由此別立越界緣。非如離雙因必定俱系離。若是俱系離。必定離雙因。
論。誰成就幾遍知。自下有一行頌。第四明成就遍知果也。
論曰至亦未成就。明不成就。有二位。一一切凡夫。二見道五心。謂從苦法忍至集法忍時不成遍知。
論。至集法智至便成就。五明見道十五心前五心不成遍知。后十心成就五也。
論。住修道位至皆成就六。此明修道。若未離欲。若離欲退。皆成就六。未集遍知故。
論。至全離欲至亦一如前。明修道有學。未得色愛集遍知位唯成一也。集遍知故。準此論云。或先離欲從道類智未起色盡勝果道。前唯成一遍知。謂五下分盡。故知超越亦得五下分結盡遍知。及禪根本果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 六也。
論：如果要有立離俱系（Lili Jujie，指事物之間的分離和聯繫）的說法，必須達到一定的程度才可以建立。這是在解釋《雜心論》等論著。如果按照他們的說法，見道（Jiandao，佛教修行中的見道位）需要四種因緣，修道（Xiudao，佛教修行中的修道位）需要五種因緣。
論：這裡沒有單獨說明離俱系，這是在闡述自己不立此說的意思。雖然五緣中有離俱系，與滅雙因（Mie Shuangyin，指滅除兩種原因）以及越界緣（Yuejie Yuan，指超越界限的因緣）相似，雖然意義上有所不同，也應該合併單獨建立。然而，在說俱因（Juyin，共同的原因）和離時，就成了俱系離等。雖然意義上有所不同，但作用沒有區別，所以沒有單獨說明。
論：雖然諸越界位（Zhu Yuejie Wei，指超越界限的各個階段）沒有建立遍知（Bianzhi，普遍的認知）。這是在解釋疑問。如果雙因滅除時必定是離俱系，因為作用沒有區別，所以只建立四種因緣。越界的時候必定是雙因分離，如何在雙因分離之外，單獨建立越界？回答說：雖然越界時必定是俱系因，在離開色界（Sejie，佛教三界之一，色界）和無色界（Wusejie，佛教三界之一，無色界），離開下三地（Xia San Di，指欲界之下的三個層次）的迷惑時，雖然滅除了雙因，但還沒有越界。因此單獨建立越界緣。不像離開雙因必定是俱系離，如果是俱系離，必定離開雙因。
論：誰成就幾種遍知？下面有一行頌文。第四是說明成就遍知的果報。
論曰：直到亦未成就。這是說明不成就。有兩種情況：一是所有的凡夫（Fanfu，指未開悟的普通人），二是見道的五心（Wu Xin，指見道位的五個心念）。即從苦法忍（Kufaren，對苦諦的忍可）到集法忍（Jifaren，對集諦的忍可）時，不能成就遍知。
論：直到集法智（Jifazhi，對集諦的智慧）時便成就。第五是說明見道的十五心中，前五心不能成就遍知，后十心成就五種遍知。
論：住在修道位直到皆成就六。這是說明修道。如果未離開欲界（Yujie，佛教三界之一，欲界），或者離開欲界後退轉，都成就六種遍知。因為沒有聚集遍知。
論：直到全離欲直到亦一如前。這是說明修道有學（Youxue，指還在學習的修行者），未得到色愛集遍知（Seai Ji Bianzhi，對色界之愛的聚集遍知）的階段，只成就一種遍知。因為聚集了遍知。按照這個論述，或者先離開欲界，從道類智（Daoleizhi，對道諦的類比智慧）未生起色盡勝果道（Sejin Sheng Guodao，色界滅盡的殊勝果道）之前，只成就一種遍知，即五下分結（Wu Xiafenjie，指欲界中的五種束縛）滅盡。因此可知，超越也可以得到五下分結滅盡的遍知，以及禪定根本果（Chan Ding Genben Guo，禪定的根本果報）。
【English Translation】 English version Six.
Treatise: The establishment of 'separation and connection' (Lili Jujie) requires reaching a certain level. This explains commentaries like the Miscellaneous Abhidharma Heart Treatise. According to them, the path of seeing (Jiandao) requires four conditions, and the path of cultivation (Xiudao) requires five conditions.
Treatise: The 'separation and connection' is not separately explained here, indicating the author's intention not to establish this view. Although 'separation and connection' is among the five conditions, it is similar to the 'dual cause of cessation' (Mie Shuangyin) and the 'condition of transcending realms' (Yuejie Yuan). Although there are differences in meaning, they should be combined and established separately. However, when speaking of 'co-existing cause' (Juyin) and 'separation', it becomes 'separation of connection', etc. Although there are differences in meaning, the function is not different, so it is not explained separately.
Treatise: Although the various stages of transcending realms (Zhu Yuejie Wei) have not established 'universal knowledge' (Bianzhi). This is to clarify doubts. If the 'dual cause' is extinguished, there must be 'separation and connection'. Because the function is not different, only four conditions are established. When transcending realms, the 'dual cause' must be separated. How can 'transcending realms' be established separately from the separation of the 'dual cause'? The answer is: Although 'transcending realms' necessarily involves the 'co-existing cause', when leaving the realm of form (Sejie) and the formless realm (Wusejie), and leaving the delusions of the lower three planes (Xia San Di), although the 'dual cause' is extinguished, the realm has not been transcended. Therefore, the 'condition of transcending realms' is established separately. It is not like the separation of the 'dual cause' which necessarily involves 'separation of connection'. If there is 'separation of connection', there must be separation of the 'dual cause'.
Treatise: Who achieves how many kinds of 'universal knowledge'? Below is a verse. The fourth section explains the result of achieving 'universal knowledge'.
Treatise says: Until also not achieved. This explains non-achievement. There are two situations: one is all ordinary beings (Fanfu), and the other is the five thoughts of the path of seeing (Wu Xin). That is, from the 'acceptance of the truth of suffering' (Kufaren) to the 'acceptance of the truth of origination' (Jifaren), 'universal knowledge' cannot be achieved.
Treatise: Until the 'wisdom of the truth of origination' (Jifazhi) is achieved. The fifth section explains that among the fifteen thoughts of the path of seeing, the first five thoughts cannot achieve 'universal knowledge', and the last ten thoughts achieve five kinds of 'universal knowledge'.
Treatise: Residing in the path of cultivation until all achieve six. This explains the path of cultivation. If one has not left the desire realm (Yujie), or if one regresses after leaving the desire realm, one achieves six kinds of 'universal knowledge', because 'universal knowledge' has not been accumulated.
Treatise: Until completely leaving desire until also the same as before. This explains that a trainee (Youxue) on the path of cultivation, before obtaining the stage of 'accumulated universal knowledge of form-love' (Seai Ji Bianzhi), only achieves one kind of 'universal knowledge', because 'universal knowledge' has been accumulated. According to this treatise, if one first leaves the desire realm, before the 'wisdom of the category of the path' (Daoleizhi) arises from the 'superior path of the exhaustion of form' (Sejin Sheng Guodao), one only achieves one kind of 'universal knowledge', that is, the exhaustion of the five lower fetters (Wu Xiafenjie). Therefore, it can be known that transcendence can also obtain the 'universal knowledge' of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters, and the fundamental result of meditative concentration (Chan Ding Genben Guo).
五中。見道二修道三為正。
論。有色愛者至名如前說。明有學位成二遍知也。
論。住無學位至永盡遍知。明無學位也。集遍知故唯成就一。即三界一切有漏法。擇滅無為為體。
論。何緣不還至立一遍知。自下半頌。第五明集遍知也。長行釋如文可解。婆沙六十二云。複次要具二義處方總集遍知。一者於三界中隨越一界。二者於五趣四生中隨盡一種。得初二果。二義俱闕。離色染時。有一闕一。得不還果時。二義無闕。一越欲界。二盡人趣胎生。得阿羅漢果時。亦具二義。一越無色界。二盡天趣化生 正理論云。所言集者是合一義。若於無色分離染故得預流果。全離染故得阿羅漢果 分謂見道。全兼修道 若於欲界分離染故得一來果。全離染故得不還果(分離。謂修道六品。全離。謂修道九品也)。若於色界分離全離。俱不得果。唯於二處具足二緣。謂得果時亦即越界。故阿羅漢．及不還果。集所得斷立一遍知。爾時總起一味得故。餘二果時得雖一味。而未越界。色愛盡時雖是越界。無一味得。故於彼位不集遍知。要具二緣方總集故。
論。誰舍誰得幾種遍知。已下半行頌。第六明得舍遍知也。
論曰至離欲退。此中先明舍。后明得。舍中有舍一。舍二。舍五。舍六。無舍三．四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 五種（五種成就）。見道、修道、為正（見道位和修道位，以修道位為主要）。
論：『有色愛者』至『名如前說』。說明有學位成就二種遍知。
論：『住無學位』至『永盡遍知』。說明無學位也。集遍知故，唯成就一種。即三界一切有漏法，以擇滅無為為體。
論：『何緣不還』至『立一遍知』。自下半頌，第五說明集遍知也。長行解釋如文可解。《婆沙》六十二云：『複次，要具二義處方總集遍知。一者於三界中隨越一界，二者於五趣四生中隨盡一種，得初二果。二義俱闕，離色染時，有一闕一。得不還果時，二義無闕，一越欲界，二盡人趣胎生。得阿羅漢果時，亦具二義，一越無（無色界），二盡天趣化生。』正理論云：『所言集者是合一義。若於無色分離染故得預流果，全離染故得阿羅漢果。分謂見道，全兼修道。若於欲界分離染故得一來果，全離染故得不還果（分離，謂修道六品。全離，謂修道九品也）。若於（色界）分離全離，俱不得果。唯於二處具足二緣，謂得果時亦即越界。故阿羅漢及不還果，集所得斷立一遍知。爾時總起一味得故。餘二果時得雖一味，而未越界。色愛盡時雖是越界，無一味得。故於彼位不集遍知。要具二緣方總集故。』
論：『誰舍誰得幾種遍知』。已下半行頌，第六說明得舍遍知也。
論曰至離欲退。此中先明舍，后明得。舍中有舍一，舍二，舍五，舍六。無舍三、四。
【English Translation】 English version Five kinds (five kinds of achievements). The path of seeing, the path of cultivation, are the main (the path of seeing and the path of cultivation, with the path of cultivation being the main one).
Treatise: 'Those who have attachment to form' to 'names as previously stated'. Explains that those with learning achieve two kinds of pervasive knowledge.
Treatise: 'Dwelling in the state of no-learning' to 'eternal exhaustion of pervasive knowledge'. Explains the state of no-learning as well. Because of the accumulation of pervasive knowledge, only one kind is achieved. That is, all conditioned dharmas of the three realms, with cessation through discrimination as their substance.
Treatise: 'Why not return' to 'establish one pervasive knowledge'. From the latter half of the verse, the fifth explains the accumulation of pervasive knowledge. The long explanation is understandable from the text. The Vibhasa sixty-two says: 'Furthermore, it is necessary to have two meanings in order to completely accumulate pervasive knowledge. First, in the three realms, one transcends one realm. Second, in the five destinies and four births, one exhausts one kind, attaining the first two fruits. If both meanings are lacking, when separating from attachment to form, one is lacking one. When attaining the fruit of non-return, both meanings are complete, one transcends the desire realm, and two exhausts the human destiny of womb-born beings. When attaining the fruit of Arhat, both meanings are also complete, one transcends the formless realm, and two exhausts the heavenly destiny of transformation-born beings.' The Nyayanusara says: 'The so-called accumulation is the meaning of combining one. If one separates from attachment in the formless realm, one attains the fruit of stream-enterer. If one completely separates from attachment, one attains the fruit of Arhat. Separation refers to the path of seeing, complete includes the path of cultivation. If one separates from attachment in the desire realm, one attains the fruit of once-returner. If one completely separates from attachment, one attains the fruit of non-returner (separation refers to the six qualities of the path of cultivation, complete separation refers to the nine qualities of the path of cultivation). If one separates or completely separates in the rupa-dhatu (form realm), one does not attain any fruit. Only in two places are two conditions complete, that is, when attaining the fruit, one also transcends the realm. Therefore, the Arhat and the non-returner, the accumulation of what is attained is established as one pervasive knowledge. At that time, one arises with one taste of attainment. In the other two fruits, although the attainment is of one taste, one has not yet transcended the realm. When the attachment to form is exhausted, although one has transcended the realm, there is no one taste of attainment. Therefore, in that position, pervasive knowledge is not accumulated. It is necessary to have two conditions in order to completely accumulate.'
Treatise: 'Who abandons, who attains, how many kinds of pervasive knowledge'. From the latter half of the verse, the sixth explains the attainment and abandonment of pervasive knowledge.
Treatise: From 'says' to 'retreat from desire'. Here, abandonment is explained first, then attainment. In abandonment, there is abandonment of one, abandonment of two, abandonment of five, abandonment of six. There is no abandonment of three or four.
。此即第一明舍一也。于中有三位。謂從無學退舍一切結盡遍知。色愛盡退舍色愛盡遍知。全離欲退舍五下分結盡遍知也。於此三位各舍於一。
論。言舍二者至得阿羅漢時。明舍二也。于中有二位。一謂不還已離色愛退起欲纏舍二。謂色愛盡及五下分盡。二謂若得阿羅漢果亦舍二。如前說。準正理論。依根本禪入見道者亦舍二。謂色．無色見苦．集遍知一。見滅遍知一。集遍知故不得道下遍知。
論。言舍五者至舍前五故。明舍五也。此是欲界見三。無色界見苦．集所斷。及見滅斷。集遍知故不得見道斷也。準上舍二舍五。故知二論超越忍果。亦得五下分結盡遍知。前文言得六者。標次第也。準此文。俱舍．正理皆云舍五。或言舍二。故知禪根本果。見道二修道三為正。
論。言舍六者至得離欲時。明舍六也。即是見道六遍知也。
論。得亦然者至唯除得五．已下明得也。得同其舍有一．二．六。故言亦然。唯除得五。從多言亦也。
論。言得一者至起色纏退。明得一也 謂得未得者。即是次第者斷見道惑得六遍知也。及進斷修惑于位位中漸得一故。及從無學起色纏退得五下分結盡遍知。
論。言得二者至諸纏退時。明得二也。謂得色愛盡。及五下分結盡二也。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這就是第一種明舍一（Ming She Yi，指通過智慧捨棄一種煩惱）的情況。其中有三種情況：第一種是從無學位退轉，捨棄一切煩惱的盡遍知（Jin Bian Zhi，指完全瞭解煩惱已盡的狀態）；第二種是色愛（Se Ai，指對色界的貪愛）已盡退轉，捨棄色愛盡遍知；第三種是完全離欲，退轉並捨棄五下分結（Wu Xia Fen Jie，指導致眾生投生於欲界的五種煩惱）的盡遍知。在這三種情況下，各自捨棄一種。
論：說到舍二（She Er，指捨棄兩種煩惱）的情況，直到獲得阿羅漢（A luo han，佛教修行所能達到的最高果位）時，是明舍二。其中有兩種情況：第一種是不還果（Bu Huan Guo，指不再返回欲界受生的果位）的聖者，已經脫離了色愛，退轉而生起欲界的煩惱，捨棄兩種煩惱，即色愛已盡和五下分結已盡；第二種是如果獲得阿羅漢果，也捨棄兩種煩惱，如前所述。根據《正理論》（Zheng Li Lun），依靠根本禪（Gen Ben Chan，指四禪八定中的禪定）進入見道（Jian Dao，指證悟真理的最初階段）的人也捨棄兩種煩惱，即色界和無色界的見苦遍知（Jian Ku Bian Zhi，指對苦諦的全面瞭解）和見集遍知（Jian Ji Bian Zhi，指對集諦的全面瞭解），以及見滅遍知（Jian Mie Bian Zhi，指對滅諦的全面瞭解）。因為已經有了集遍知，所以不會得到道下遍知（Dao Xia Bian Zhi，指低於道位的遍知）。
論：說到舍五（She Wu，指捨棄五種煩惱）的情況，直到捨棄前五種煩惱，是明舍五。這是指欲界的見道所斷的三種煩惱，以及有身見（You Shen Jian，認為五蘊之身是真實存在的錯誤觀念）、戒禁取見（Jie Jin Qu Jian，執著于不正確的戒律和修行方法）、疑（Yi，對佛法真理的懷疑），以及無色界的見苦和見集所斷的煩惱，以及見滅所斷的煩惱。因為已經有了集遍知，所以不會得到見道所斷的煩惱。根據上面舍二和舍五的情況，可知《二論》（Er Lun，指俱舍論和正理論）超越了忍果（Ren Guo，指忍位的果位），也能得到五下分結盡遍知。前面說得到六種遍知，是標明次第。根據這段文字，《俱舍論》（Ju She Lun）和《正理論》都說捨棄五種煩惱，或者說捨棄兩種煩惱，因此可知禪定的根本果位，見道二，修道三是正確的。
論：說到舍六（She Liu，指捨棄六種煩惱）的情況，直到獲得離欲時，是明舍六。這就是見道的六種遍知。
論：得到也是這樣，直到除了得到五種遍知以下，是說明得到的情況。得到的情況與捨棄的情況相同，有一、二、六種，所以說『也是這樣』。除了得到五種遍知，從多數來說也是這樣。
論：說到得一（De Yi，指得到一種遍知）的情況，直到生起色界煩惱退轉，是說明得一。所謂得到未得到的，就是次第斷除見道惑，得到六種遍知。以及進一步斷除修道惑，在各個階段中逐漸得到一種遍知。以及從無學位生起色界煩惱退轉，得到五下分結盡遍知。
論：說到得二（De Er，指得到兩種遍知）的情況，直到各種煩惱退轉時，是說明得二。是指得到色愛已盡和五下分結盡這兩種遍知。
【English Translation】 English version: This is the first 'Ming She Yi' (Ming She Yi, referring to abandoning one affliction through wisdom). There are three situations within it: The first is retreating from the state of no-more-learning, abandoning the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of all fetters (Jin Bian Zhi, referring to the complete understanding of the state where afflictions are exhausted); the second is the exhaustion of desire for the realm of form having retreated, abandoning the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of desire for the realm of form; the third is completely detached from desire, retreating and abandoning the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters (Wu Xia Fen Jie, referring to the five afflictions that cause beings to be reborn in the realm of desire). In these three situations, each abandons one.
Treatise: Speaking of the situation of 'She Er' (She Er, referring to abandoning two afflictions), until the time of attaining Arhatship (A luo han, the highest state attainable in Buddhist practice), it is 'Ming She Er'. There are two situations within it: The first is a non-returner (Bu Huan Guo, referring to the state of no longer being reborn in the realm of desire) who has already detached from desire for the realm of form, retreating and arising with afflictions of the realm of desire, abandoning two afflictions, namely the exhaustion of desire for the realm of form and the exhaustion of the five lower fetters; the second is if one attains the fruit of Arhatship, one also abandons two afflictions, as mentioned before. According to the Nyayanusara (Zheng Li Lun), one who enters the path of seeing (Jian Dao, referring to the initial stage of realizing the truth) relying on fundamental dhyana (Gen Ben Chan, referring to the dhyana in the four dhyanas and eight samadhis) also abandons two afflictions, namely the knowledge of suffering (Jian Ku Bian Zhi, referring to the complete understanding of the truth of suffering) and the knowledge of origination (Jian Ji Bian Zhi, referring to the complete understanding of the truth of origination) in the realm of form and the formless realm, as well as the knowledge of cessation (Jian Mie Bian Zhi, referring to the complete understanding of the truth of cessation). Because one already has the knowledge of origination, one will not obtain the knowledge below the path (Dao Xia Bian Zhi, referring to the knowledge below the path).
Treatise: Speaking of the situation of 'She Wu' (She Wu, referring to abandoning five afflictions), until abandoning the first five afflictions, it is 'Ming She Wu'. This refers to the three afflictions severed by the path of seeing in the realm of desire, namely the view of a self (You Shen Jian, the mistaken notion that the five aggregates are a real self), attachment to precepts and rituals (Jie Jin Qu Jian, attachment to incorrect precepts and practices), and doubt (Yi, doubt about the truth of the Buddha's teachings), as well as the afflictions severed by the knowledge of suffering and the knowledge of origination in the formless realm, and the afflictions severed by the knowledge of cessation. Because one already has the knowledge of origination, one will not obtain the afflictions severed by the path of seeing. According to the above situations of abandoning two and abandoning five, it can be known that the Two Treatises (Er Lun, referring to the Abhidharmakosa and the Nyayanusara) surpass the fruit of forbearance (Ren Guo, referring to the fruit of forbearance), and can also obtain the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters. The previous statement of obtaining six knowledges is to indicate the order. According to this passage, both the Abhidharmakosa (Ju She Lun) and the Nyayanusara say to abandon five afflictions, or to abandon two afflictions, therefore it can be known that the fundamental fruit of dhyana, the two of the path of seeing, and the three of the path of cultivation are correct.
Treatise: Speaking of the situation of 'She Liu' (She Liu, referring to abandoning six afflictions), until obtaining detachment from desire, it is 'Ming She Liu'. This is the six knowledges of the path of seeing.
Treatise: Obtaining is also the same, until except for obtaining the five knowledges below, it is explaining the situation of obtaining. The situation of obtaining is the same as the situation of abandoning, having one, two, and six, therefore it is said 'is also the same'. Except for obtaining the five knowledges, from the majority it is also the same.
Treatise: Speaking of the situation of 'De Yi' (De Yi, referring to obtaining one knowledge), until the arising of desire for the realm of form retreating, it is explaining 'De Yi'. What is called obtaining what has not been obtained is the gradual severing of the afflictions of the path of seeing, obtaining the six knowledges. And further severing the afflictions of the path of cultivation, gradually obtaining one knowledge in each stage. And retreating from the state of no-more-learning with the arising of desire for the realm of form, obtaining the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the five lower fetters.
Treatise: Speaking of the situation of 'De Er' (De Er, referring to obtaining two knowledges), until the retreating of various afflictions, it is explaining 'De Er'. It refers to obtaining the two knowledges of the exhaustion of desire for the realm of form and the exhaustion of the five lower fetters.
言得六者謂退不還者。得見道六遍知也 已下結文。可知。
俱舍論疏卷第二十一
一交了
保延三年九月二十四申時點了
覺樹 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二十二
沙門法寶撰
分別賢聖品第六之一
云賢聖者。說文云。有多才行。謂之為賢。桂苑珠叢云。無事不通。謂之為聖。依仁王經。地前為賢。地上名聖。經云三賢．十聖故。依此論云。聖謂已得無漏道生。遠諸惡法故名為聖。獲得畢竟離系得故。準上經．論。七方便位名之為賢。苦忍已上名之為聖。此品廣明故。名分別賢聖。所以隨眠品后明者。前品明斷。當其滅諦。道為聖體。聖即道諦。道為滅因。故后明也。
論。如是已說至其相云何。結前起后。結前斷果。起后滅因。此品大文有三。一明道體性。二明道所觀。三就道辨人。此下一行頌。明道體性也。
論曰至亦有漏耶。結前由見．修道。今問二道有漏．無漏。
論。見道應知至修道通二。答。見道唯無漏。修道通漏．無漏也。
論。所以者何。徴前釋所以。
論。見道速能至故通二種。答。見道速能治三界故。第一因也 頓斷九品見所斷故。第二因也。由此二因唯是無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『言得六者謂退不還者』，是指獲得見道六遍知（見道：佛教修行的一個階段，指初次證悟真理；六遍知：對苦、集、滅、道四聖諦的六種認知）而退轉不再前進的人。以下是總結性的文字，可以理解。
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十一
一交了
保延三年九月二十四申時點了
覺樹 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十二
沙門法寶撰
分別賢聖品第六之一
什麼是賢聖呢？《說文》中說，具有多種才能和德行的人，稱為賢。《桂苑珠叢》中說，沒有不通達的事物，稱為聖。依據《仁王經》，地前菩薩稱為賢，地上菩薩稱為聖。《仁王經》中說有三賢十聖。依據此論（《俱舍論》），聖是指已經獲得無漏道（無漏道：超越煩惱的修行道路）的產生，遠離各種惡法，因此稱為聖。因為獲得了究竟的離系得（離系得：脫離束縛的成就）。參照上面的經和論，七方便位（七方便位：指修行過程中的七個階段）稱為賢，苦忍（苦忍：對苦諦的忍耐和接受）以上稱為聖。此品廣泛地闡明賢聖，因此名為分別賢聖。之所以在隨眠品（隨眠品：討論潛在煩惱的章節）之後闡明，是因為前一品闡明了斷滅，對應于滅諦（滅諦：四聖諦之一，指煩惱止息的境界）。道為聖體的根本，聖即是道諦（道諦：四聖諦之一，指通往解脫的道路）。道是滅的因，所以之後闡明。
論中說：『如是已說』到『其相云何』，是總結前文，開啟後文。總結前面斷滅的果，開啟後面滅的因。此品的大致內容有三點：一是闡明道的體性，二是闡明道所觀照的對象，三是就道來辨別人。下面一行頌文，闡明道的體性。
論中說：『見道應知』到『亦有漏耶』，是總結前面由見道和修道。現在提問這兩種道是有漏（有漏：指有煩惱和業力的）還是無漏。
論中說：『見道應知』到『修道通二』，回答說：見道唯是無漏，修道則通於有漏和無漏。
論中說：『所以者何』，是徵詢前面所說的原因。
論中說：『見道速能』到『故通二種』，回答說：見道能夠快速地對治三界（三界：欲界、色界、無色界）的煩惱，這是第一個原因。能夠頓斷九品見所斷（九品見所斷：指見道所能斷除的九種煩惱），這是第二個原因。由於這兩個原因，見道唯是無漏。
【English Translation】 English version 'Those who have attained the six aspects of '言得六者謂退不還者' (Yan de liu zhe wei tui bu huan zhe) are those who, having gained the sixfold knowledge of the Path of Seeing (見道, Jian Dao: the stage in Buddhist practice of initial realization of truth; 六遍知, Liu Bian Zhi: the six types of cognition regarding the Four Noble Truths of suffering, its origin, cessation, and the path), regress and do not advance further. The following is concluding text and can be understood.
《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā》, Scroll 21
Completed
Completed at the time of Shen (申, 3-5 PM) on the 24th day of the 9th month of the 3rd year of Hoen (保延)
Kakuju (覺樹) Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 41, No. 1822, 《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā》
《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā》, Scroll 22
Composed by Śramaṇa Fabao (沙門法寶)
Chapter Six, Part One: Distinguishing the Worthy and the Sage (分別賢聖品第六之一)
What are the Worthy and the Sage? The 'Shuowen' (《說文》) says that those with many talents and virtues are called Worthy. The 'Guiyuan Zhucong' (《桂苑珠叢》) says that those who are unobstructed in all matters are called Sages. According to the 'Renwang Sutra' (《仁王經》), those before the Bhumi (地, stages of Bodhisattva development) are called Worthy, and those on the Bhumi are called Sages. The sutra speaks of the Three Worthies and the Ten Sages. According to this treatise (《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya》), a Sage is one who has attained the arising of the unconditioned path (無漏道, Wulou Dao: the path of practice that transcends afflictions), and is far from all evil dharmas, hence the name Sage, because they have attained the ultimate detachment (離系得, Li Xi De: the attainment of freedom from bondage). According to the above sutra and treatise, the Seven Expedient Positions (七方便位, Qi Fangbian Wei: seven stages in the process of cultivation) are called Worthy, and those above Kṣānti of Suffering (苦忍, Ku Ren: the endurance and acceptance of the truth of suffering) are called Sages. This chapter extensively elucidates the Worthy and the Sage, hence the name 'Distinguishing the Worthy and the Sage'. The reason it is explained after the Chapter on Latent Afflictions (隨眠品, Suimian Pin: chapter discussing latent afflictions) is that the previous chapter explained cessation, corresponding to the Truth of Cessation (滅諦, Mie Di: one of the Four Noble Truths, referring to the state of cessation of suffering). The Path is the essence of the Sage, and the Sage is the Truth of the Path (道諦, Dao Di: one of the Four Noble Truths, referring to the path leading to liberation). The Path is the cause of cessation, hence it is explained afterward.
The treatise says: 'Having spoken thus' to 'What is its nature?', it concludes the previous and initiates the following. It concludes the fruit of the previous cessation and initiates the cause of the following cessation. The main points of this chapter are three: first, to elucidate the nature of the Path; second, to elucidate what the Path contemplates; and third, to distinguish people based on the Path. The following verse elucidates the nature of the Path.
The treatise says: 'The Path of Seeing should be known' to 'Is it also conditioned?', it concludes the previous by the Path of Seeing and the Path of Cultivation. Now it asks whether these two paths are conditioned (有漏, Youlou: having afflictions and karma) or unconditioned.
The treatise says: 'The Path of Seeing should be known' to 'The Path of Cultivation encompasses both', answering that the Path of Seeing is only unconditioned, while the Path of Cultivation encompasses both conditioned and unconditioned.
The treatise says: 'What is the reason?', it inquires about the reason for what was said earlier.
The treatise says: 'The Path of Seeing quickly' to 'hence it encompasses both', answering that the Path of Seeing can quickly cure the afflictions of the Three Realms (三界, Sanjie: the Desire Realm, the Form Realm, and the Formless Realm), this is the first reason. It can instantly sever the nine categories of afflictions severed by the Path of Seeing (九品見所斷, Jiu Pin Jian Suo Duan: the nine types of afflictions that can be severed by the Path of Seeing), this is the second reason. Because of these two reasons, the Path of Seeing is only unconditioned.
漏。非世間道有此功能。故唯無漏結成也。修道非速斷三界惑。非頓斷九品。有異見道故通有漏 正理彈云。所說見道唯無漏因。謂一剎那斷九品故。此因非證。有漏亦能一剎那中斷五部故。豈能頓斷便無漏攝 今詳。正理所彈不當。其斷惑者 九品頓斷難。必用無漏道 五部合斷易。凡位唯合斷 九品頓斷難。見道頓斷九。所以唯無漏 我以九品頓斷為因。何為將五部合斷為難。
論。如向所說由見諦故至其相云何。自下第二明道所觀。自下明道境。文中有二。一明四諦。二明二諦。此一行頌明四諦也。
論曰至說苦．集諦。文中有二。一明四諦名體。二明四諦次第。此文指前明名體。如文可解。
論。四諦次第如彼說耶。問。四諦次第如界品中。先說道諦。次說滅諦。后說苦．集。如是次第耶。
論。不爾者。答。
論。云何者。徴。
論。如今所列至三滅四道。答今此次第。
論。四諦自體亦有異耶。問四諦體。其體亦同次第與前異耶。
論。不爾者。答。
云何。問。
論。如先所辨至說亦然聲。答也。頌中言亦然者。顯體同前說。
論。四諦何緣如是次第。問先苦。后道。次第所以。
論。隨現觀位至後方說果。答。先順答。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 漏。非世間道有此功能。故唯無漏結成也。修道非速斷三界惑。非頓斷九品。有異見道故通有漏。
正理彈云：『所說見道唯無漏因。謂一剎那斷九品故。』此因非證。有漏亦能一剎那中斷五部故。豈能頓斷便無漏攝？
今詳。正理所彈不當。其斷惑者，九品頓斷難。必用無漏道。五部合斷易。凡位唯合斷。九品頓斷難。見道頓斷九。所以唯無漏。我以九品頓斷為因。何為將五部合斷為難？
論：如向所說由見諦故至其相云何？自下第二明道所觀。自下明道境。文中有二。一明四諦（catvāri-āryasatyāni）。二明二諦（dve satye）。此一行頌明四諦也。
論曰至說苦諦（duḥkha-satya）、集諦（samudaya-satya）。文中有二。一明四諦名體。二明四諦次第。此文指前明名體。如文可解。
論：四諦次第如彼說耶？問：四諦次第如界品中。先說道諦（mārga-satya）。次說滅諦（nirodha-satya）。后說苦、集。如是次第耶？
論：不爾者。答。
論：云何者？徴。
論：如今所列至三滅四道。答今此次第。
論：四諦自體亦有異耶？問四諦體。其體亦同次第與前異耶？
論：不爾者。答。
云何？問。
論：如先所辨至說亦然聲。答也。頌中言亦然者。顯體同前說。
論：四諦何緣如是次第？問先苦。后道。次第所以。
論：隨現觀位至後方說果。答。先順答。
【English Translation】 English version: Leakage. Non-worldly paths do not have this function. Therefore, only non-leakage is formed. Cultivating the path does not quickly cut off the delusions of the Three Realms, nor does it abruptly cut off the Nine Grades. Because of different views on the path, it generally includes leakage.
The Nyāyānusāra refutes, saying: 'The path of seeing that is spoken of is solely the cause of non-leakage, meaning it cuts off the Nine Grades in an instant.' This cause is not proof. Leakage can also interrupt the Five Categories in an instant. How can abrupt cutting off be included in non-leakage?
Now, in detail, the Nyāyānusāra's refutation is inappropriate. As for cutting off delusions, abruptly cutting off the Nine Grades is difficult and requires the non-leakage path. Combining and cutting off the Five Categories is easy. Ordinary positions only combine and cut off. Abruptly cutting off the Nine Grades is difficult. The path of seeing abruptly cuts off nine, so it is solely non-leakage. I use abruptly cutting off the Nine Grades as the cause. Why use combining and cutting off the Five Categories as a difficulty?
Treatise: As previously stated, due to seeing the truth, what is its appearance? The second part below explains what the path observes. Below explains the realm of the path. There are two parts in the text: first, explaining the Four Noble Truths (catvāri-āryasatyāni); second, explaining the Two Truths (dve satye). This one line of verse explains the Four Noble Truths.
Treatise says up to explaining the Truth of Suffering (duḥkha-satya) and the Truth of Accumulation (samudaya-satya). There are two parts in the text: first, explaining the names and entities of the Four Noble Truths; second, explaining the order of the Four Noble Truths. This text refers to the former, explaining the names and entities, which can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Is the order of the Four Noble Truths as described there? Question: Is the order of the Four Noble Truths as in the chapter on realms, first speaking of the Truth of the Path (mārga-satya), then speaking of the Truth of Cessation (nirodha-satya), and then Suffering and Accumulation? Is that the order?
Treatise: Not so. Answer.
Treatise: What is it? Inquiry.
Treatise: As listed now, up to three cessations and four paths. Answer: This is the current order.
Treatise: Are the entities of the Four Noble Truths also different? Question: The entities of the Four Noble Truths, are their entities the same, and is the order different from before?
Treatise: Not so. Answer.
What is it? Question.
Treatise: As previously explained, up to saying 'also so'. Answer. The phrase 'also so' in the verse shows that the entities are the same as previously stated.
Treatise: What is the reason for the Four Noble Truths being in this order? Question: First suffering, then the path, what is the reason for the order?
Treatise: According to the position of direct perception, the result is spoken of later. Answer. First, a compliant answer.
后反釋。如文可解。
論。然或有法至先後次第。乘明四諦。辨三次第。如四念住。身．受．心．法者隨起次第。如四正勝但隨言便。起非定爾。今此四諦隨現觀位先後次第。
論。何緣現觀次第必然。問現觀也。
論。加行位中如是觀故。答也。
論。何緣加行必如是觀。問加行也。
論。謂若有法至苦即苦諦。答先觀苦所以。
論。次復觀苦至因即集諦。答以苦后觀集所以。
論。次復觀苦至道即道諦。答苦．集后觀滅．道次第。
論。如見病已至后求良藥。舉喻顯也。
論。契經亦說至苦．集滅．道。引經證。如文可解。
論。故加行位至縱馬奔馳。此合法也。婆沙七十七。問此四聖諦云何建立。為依實事。為依因．果。為依現觀。若依實事。諦應有三苦．集一物故。若依因．果。諦應有五道有因．果故。若依現觀。諦應有八上下八諦故 應言四諦依因果立。道因．果性合立一故。謂無漏合因性．果性。皆是能趣苦有世間生老病死。究竟滅行故合立一 問若爾有漏因性．果性。皆是能趣苦有世間生老病死。流轉集行亦應合立。諦應有三。答雖爾。行相有別有總。是故建立聖諦唯四。謂于有漏果性有四行相。有漏因性有四行相。于無漏道因性．果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 后反釋。如文可解。
論。然或有法至先後次第。乘明四諦（Satya，真諦）。辨三次第。如四念住（catuḥsmṛtyupasthāna，四種專注的修行）。身（kāya，身體）．受（vedanā，感受）．心（citta，心識）．法（dharma，法）者隨起次第。如四正勝但隨言便。起非定爾。今此四諦隨現觀位先後次第。
論。何緣現觀次第必然。問現觀也。
論。加行位中如是觀故。答也。
論。何緣加行必如是觀。問加行也。
論。謂若有法至苦即苦諦（duḥkha-satya，苦諦）。答先觀苦所以。
論。次復觀苦至因即集諦（samudaya-satya，集諦）。答以苦后觀集所以。
論。次復觀苦至道即道諦（mārga-satya，道諦）。答苦．集后觀滅（nirodha-satya，滅諦）．道次第。
論。如見病已至后求良藥。舉喻顯也。
論。契經亦說至苦．集滅．道。引經證。如文可解。
論。故加行位至縱馬奔馳。此合法也。婆沙七十七。問此四聖諦云何建立。為依實事。為依因．果。為依現觀。若依實事。諦應有三苦．集一物故。若依因．果。諦應有五道有因．果故。若依現觀。諦應有八上下八諦故 應言四諦依因果立。道因．果性合立一故。謂無漏合因性．果性。皆是能趣苦有世間生老病死。究竟滅行故合立一 問若爾有漏因性．果性。皆是能趣苦有世間生老病死。流轉集行亦應合立。諦應有三。答雖爾。行相有別有總。是故建立聖諦唯四。謂于有漏果性有四行相。有漏因性有四行相。于無漏道因性．果
【English Translation】 English version Later, explain the meaning by reversing the order. The text can be understood as it is.
Treatise: However, there may be laws that have a sequential order. Relying on the Four Noble Truths (Satya), distinguish the three sequences. For example, the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (catuḥsmṛtyupasthāna): body (kāya), feeling (vedanā), mind (citta), and phenomena (dharma) follow the order in which they arise. Like the Four Right Exertions, they simply follow the convenience of speech, and their arising is not fixed. Now, these Four Noble Truths follow the sequential order of the stages of direct realization.
Treatise: What is the reason that the sequence of direct realization is necessarily so? This is a question about direct realization.
Treatise: Because one contemplates in this way in the stage of application. This is the answer.
Treatise: What is the reason that application must be contemplated in this way? This is a question about application.
Treatise: It means that if there is a law, reaching suffering is the Truth of Suffering (duḥkha-satya). This answers why suffering is contemplated first.
Treatise: Next, contemplating suffering, reaching the cause is the Truth of the Origin of Suffering (samudaya-satya). This answers why the origin is contemplated after suffering.
Treatise: Next, contemplating suffering, reaching the path is the Truth of the Path (mārga-satya). This answers the sequence of contemplating cessation (nirodha-satya) and the path after suffering and origin.
Treatise: It is like seeing a disease and then seeking a good medicine. This is an analogy to illustrate.
Treatise: The sutras also say that it reaches suffering, origin, cessation, and path. This is citing scripture as evidence. The text can be understood as it is.
Treatise: Therefore, the stage of application is like a galloping horse. This is the application of the law. Vibhasa 77. Question: How are these Four Noble Truths established? Are they based on actual events, or based on cause and effect, or based on direct realization? If based on actual events, there should be three truths because suffering and origin are one thing. If based on cause and effect, there should be five truths because the path has cause and effect. If based on direct realization, there should be eight truths, with eight truths above and below. It should be said that the Four Noble Truths are established based on cause and effect. The cause and effect nature of the path are combined into one because the unconditioned combines the cause nature and effect nature. All are the ultimate cessation practices that lead to suffering, the worldly birth, old age, sickness, and death. Therefore, they are combined into one. Question: If so, the conditioned cause nature and effect nature are all the worldly birth, old age, sickness, and death that lead to suffering. The flowing origin practices should also be combined. There should be three truths. Answer: Although it is so, the characteristics are different and general. Therefore, only four noble truths are established. That is, there are four characteristics in the conditioned effect nature, and four characteristics in the conditioned cause nature. In the unconditioned path, the cause nature and effect
性。總有四行相故 有作是說。以三緣故建立四諦。一實事故。二因．果故。三謗．信故。實事故者。謂此四諦實事有二。一者有漏。二者無漏。因．果故者。謂有漏事有因．果性。分苦．集二。無漏有二。一有因性．果性。二有果性。無因性。有因．果性立為道諦。有果性無因性立為滅諦。問何故有漏事因性．果性。各立一諦。無漏道中因性．果性。合立一諦。答緣彼謗．信。有別．總故。謂于有漏因性．果性。各別起謗。一于果性謗實非苦。二于因性謗實非集。生信亦別。于無漏道因性．果性。總起一謗。謂謗非道。總生一信謂信是道。是故三緣建立四諦 復有說者。依現觀立四諦。上下雖八。行相同者合立為一。
論。此現觀名為目何義。問名目也。
論。應知此目現等覺義。答 言現觀者。現謂現前。觀謂等覺。即是正覺境也。
論。何緣說此唯是無漏。問也。
論。對向涅槃至故得正名。答 對向涅槃。是對向果義。即是真道正覺境故。云對觀義 此覺真凈故得正名者。明無漏覺方得名正。
論。應知此中至非物有異。出苦．集諦體。此苦．集體。即是一切有取五蘊。一一之中有因義．果義。果名為苦。因名為集。
論。滅．道二諦物亦有殊。出滅．道諦體 滅。是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 性。總共有四種行相的緣故，有人這樣說：基於三種原因建立四諦（Satya，真理）。一是實事，二是因果，三是謗信（誹謗與信仰）。 實事是指：這四諦所包含的真實事物有兩種，一是有漏（有煩惱），二是無漏（無煩惱）。 因果是指：有漏的事物具有因果的性質，分為苦諦（Dukkha Satya，痛苦的真理）和集諦（Samudaya Satya，痛苦根源的真理）兩種。無漏的事物也有兩種，一是有因性和果性，二是有果性而無因性。具有因性和果性的，建立為道諦（Marga Satya，解脫的真理）；具有果性而無因性的，建立為滅諦（Nirodha Satya，止息的真理）。 問：為什麼有漏的事物，因性和果性各自建立為一個諦？而無漏的道中，因性和果性卻合立為一個諦？ 答：因為對於它們的誹謗和信仰，有區別和總體的不同。對於有漏的因性和果性，人們分別產生誹謗。一是誹謗果性，認為實際上不是苦；二是誹謗因性，認為實際上不是集。而生起的信仰也是分別的。對於無漏的道，人們總體上產生一種誹謗，即誹謗它不是道；總體上產生一種信仰，即信仰它是道。因此，基於這三種原因建立四諦。 還有一種說法，是依據現觀（Abhisamaya，現證）建立四諦。上下雖然有八個（指四諦各自的因和果），但行相相同的就合立為一個。 論：這種現觀，名稱是什麼含義？問的是名稱的意義。 論：應當知道，這個名稱是現等覺的含義。答：所謂現觀，現是指現前，觀是指等覺，也就是正覺的境界。 論：什麼緣故說這個現觀唯是無漏的？問。 論：因為對向涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）才能得到正確的名稱。答：對向涅槃，是對向果的意義，也就是真實道的正覺境界，所以稱為對觀的意義。這種覺悟是真凈的，所以得到正確的名稱，說明無漏的覺悟才能稱為正。 論：應當知道，這裡面苦諦和集諦的體性沒有差別。指出苦諦和集諦的體性。這苦諦和集諦，就是一切有取五蘊（Skandha，蘊）。在每一個蘊中，都有因的意義和果的意義。果稱為苦，因稱為集。 論：滅諦和道諦的體性也有不同。指出滅諦和道諦的體性。滅，是
【English Translation】 English version Nature. There are always four aspects, hence some say that the Four Noble Truths (Satya) are established based on three reasons: firstly, reality; secondly, cause and effect; and thirdly, defamation and faith. Reality refers to the fact that the real things contained in these Four Noble Truths are of two kinds: one is defiled (with afflictions), and the other is undefiled (without afflictions). Cause and effect refer to the fact that defiled things have the nature of cause and effect, divided into the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya) and the Truth of the Origin of Suffering (Samudaya Satya). Undefiled things are also of two kinds: one has both causal and resultant nature, and the other has resultant nature but no causal nature. That which has both causal and resultant nature is established as the Truth of the Path (Marga Satya); that which has resultant nature but no causal nature is established as the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha Satya). Question: Why are the causal and resultant natures of defiled things each established as a separate Truth? And why are the causal and resultant natures in the undefiled Path combined into one Truth? Answer: Because the defamation and faith towards them are different and overall. People separately generate defamation towards the causal and resultant natures of defiled things. Firstly, they defame the resultant nature, thinking it is not actually suffering; secondly, they defame the causal nature, thinking it is not actually the origin. The faith that arises is also separate. Towards the undefiled Path, people generally generate one defamation, that is, defaming it as not being the Path; they generally generate one faith, that is, believing it is the Path. Therefore, the Four Noble Truths are established based on these three reasons. There is another saying that the Four Noble Truths are established based on direct realization (Abhisamaya). Although there are eight above and below (referring to the cause and effect of each of the Four Noble Truths), those with the same aspects are combined into one. Treatise: What is the meaning of the name of this direct realization? Asking about the meaning of the name. Treatise: It should be known that this name means direct perfect enlightenment. Answer: The so-called direct realization, 'direct' means present, and 'realization' means perfect enlightenment, which is the realm of perfect enlightenment. Treatise: For what reason is it said that this direct realization is only undefiled? Question. Treatise: Because it is directed towards Nirvana, it can obtain the correct name. Answer: Directed towards Nirvana is the meaning of directed towards the result, which is the realm of perfect enlightenment of the true path, so it is called the meaning of direct realization. This enlightenment is truly pure, so it obtains the correct name, indicating that only undefiled enlightenment can be called correct. Treatise: It should be known that there is no difference in the nature of the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Origin of Suffering here. Pointing out the nature of the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Origin of Suffering. This Truth of Suffering and Truth of the Origin of Suffering are all the five aggregates (Skandha) with attachment. In each aggregate, there is the meaning of cause and the meaning of effect. The effect is called suffering, and the cause is called origin. Treatise: The nature of the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of the Path are also different. Pointing out the nature of the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of the Path. Cessation is
擇滅無為 道。是有為無漏。故物有殊。
論。何義經中說為聖諦。問名也。四諦既實。凡聖應同。何義經中說為聖諦。
論。是聖者諦故得聖名。答。聖者將為諦。故名為聖諦。
論。于非聖者此豈成妄。難。此之四諦于非聖者。豈非實苦乃至實道。是虛妄耶。如何此四唯名聖諦。
論。於一切是諦至顛倒見故。答也。苦真是苦。集真是因。乃至滅苦之道。是名真道。于聖。于凡。義恒如是。然唯聖者。苦見實苦。乃至道見實道。故名聖諦。凡夫苦計為樂。道計非道。顛倒見故。不名凡諦。
論。如有頌言至非聖說為樂。引教證也。正理論云。然四諦理無有差別。在聖在凡皆如實故。依能見者偏立聖名。或義意言。唯諸聖者。於四諦理。以聖行觀於一切時行相無別。聖行．諦理極相稱故。以諦隨行立聖諦名。非如世間六非聖行。先觀此地為靜等三。后復觀為粗等三相。非相稱故不隨彼名。或義意言。唯諸聖者於四諦理。以聖智觀。一得正決定。無還不定理。故諦隨智得聖諦名。即由此理聖智觀諦。得立苦．集．滅．道智名。凡智雖能見四諦理得決定已。容不定故。諦不隨彼得凡諦名。由此但應名世俗智 問何故虛空．非擇滅。非諦所攝。婆沙七十七云。若法是苦(苦諦)是苦因(集
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 擇滅無為（Nirvana obtained through wisdom）是道。是有為（conditioned）無漏（free from outflows）。故事物有差別。
論：經中為何說為聖諦（Arya Satya）？問的是名稱的由來。四諦（Four Noble Truths）既然是真實的，凡夫和聖人應該相同，為何經中說為聖諦？
論：因為是聖者的真理，所以得名聖諦。答：聖者將此視為真理，所以名為聖諦。
論：對於非聖者，這難道不是虛妄嗎？難：這四諦對於非聖者，難道不是真實的苦，乃至真實的道嗎？是虛妄的嗎？為何這四諦唯獨名為聖諦？
論：對於一切都是真理，直至顛倒見（inverted views）的緣故。答：苦（Dukkha）真是苦，集（Samudaya）真是因，乃至滅苦之道（Nirodha-marga）是名真道。對於聖者，對於凡夫，道理恒常如此。然而唯有聖者，苦見為實苦，乃至道見為實道，故名聖諦。凡夫苦計為樂，道計非道，因為顛倒見的緣故，不名為凡諦。
論：如有頌言，直至非聖說為樂。引教證也。《正理論》云：『然而四諦的道理沒有差別，在聖者和凡夫都是如實的。』依據能見者而偏立聖名。或者義意說，唯有諸聖者，對於四諦的道理，以聖行（noble conduct）觀察，在一切時行相沒有差別。聖行和諦理極其相稱的緣故，以諦隨行而立聖諦名。不像世間六種非聖行，先觀察此地為靜等三種，之後又觀察為粗等三種相，因為不相稱的緣故，不隨彼名。或者義意說，唯有諸聖者對於四諦的道理，以聖智（noble wisdom）觀察，一旦得到正確的決定，沒有返回不定的道理，所以諦隨智而得聖諦名。即由此理，聖智觀諦，得以建立苦智（Dukkha-jnana）、集智（Samudaya-jnana）、滅智（Nirodha-jnana）、道智（Marga-jnana）之名。凡夫的智慧雖然能見四諦的道理，得到決定后，容許不定，所以諦不隨彼而得凡諦名。由此只應名為世俗智。 問：為何虛空（Akasa）、非擇滅（Apratisamkhya-nirodha）不被四諦所攝？《婆沙論》第七十七卷云：『如果法是苦（苦諦），是苦因（集諦）』
【English Translation】 English version Nirvana obtained through wisdom (Pratisamkhya-nirodha) is the path. It is conditioned (with outflows). Therefore, things are different.
Question: Why is it called 'Noble Truth' (Arya Satya) in the scriptures? This is a question about the origin of the name. Since the Four Noble Truths (Chatvari Arya Satyani) are real, shouldn't ordinary people and sages be the same? Why do the scriptures refer to them as 'Noble Truths'?
Answer: Because it is the truth of the noble ones, it is called 'Noble Truth'. The noble ones regard this as truth, so it is called 'Noble Truth'.
Question: Isn't this false for non-noble ones? Objection: Aren't these Four Truths, even for non-noble ones, truly suffering, and even the true path? Is it false? Why are these Four Truths only called 'Noble Truths'?
Answer: It is truth for everyone, up to the reason of inverted views. Suffering (Dukkha) is truly suffering, the origin (Samudaya) is truly the cause, and the path to the cessation of suffering (Nirodha-marga) is the true path. For the noble ones and for ordinary people, the principle is always the same. However, only the noble ones see suffering as true suffering, and even see the path as the true path, hence the name 'Noble Truths'. Ordinary people consider suffering as pleasure and the path as non-path, because of inverted views, so it is not called 'ordinary truths'.
Argument: As a verse says, up to non-noble ones calling it pleasure. Quoting scriptural proof. The Tattvartha Sutra says: 'However, the principle of the Four Truths has no difference; it is real for both noble ones and ordinary people.' Based on the one who can see, the name 'noble' is established. Or, the meaning is that only the noble ones, regarding the principle of the Four Truths, observe with noble conduct (arya-acarya), and at all times the characteristics are no different. Because noble conduct and the principle of truth are extremely consistent, the name 'Noble Truth' is established by truth following conduct. It is not like the six non-noble conducts in the world, first observing this place as the three of stillness, etc., and then observing the three aspects of coarseness, etc., because they are not consistent, they do not follow that name. Or, the meaning is that only the noble ones, regarding the principle of the Four Truths, observe with noble wisdom (arya-jnana), and once a correct decision is obtained, there is no returning to uncertainty, so the name 'Noble Truth' is obtained by truth following wisdom. That is, for this reason, noble wisdom observing truth allows the establishment of the names of the wisdom of suffering (Dukkha-jnana), the wisdom of origin (Samudaya-jnana), the wisdom of cessation (Nirodha-jnana), and the wisdom of the path (Marga-jnana). Although the wisdom of ordinary people can see the principle of the Four Truths, after obtaining a decision, it allows uncertainty, so truth does not follow them to obtain the name 'ordinary truths'. Therefore, it should only be called mundane wisdom. Question: Why are space (Akasa) and cessation through lack of wisdom (Apratisamkhya-nirodha) not included in the Four Truths? The 77th volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says: 'If a dharma is suffering (the Truth of Suffering), it is the cause of suffering (the Truth of the Origin)'
諦)是苦盡(滅諦)是苦對治者(道諦)世尊立為諦。虛空．非擇滅。非苦。非苦因。非苦盡。非苦對治。是故世尊不立為諦 更有多釋不及此釋。
論。有餘師說至聖非聖諦。述異計也。經部等師。執滅．道諦唯是聖諦。唯聖證故。苦．集二諦通凡聖。俱成就故。婆沙七十七。問有四行相觀生死果。何故此果但名苦諦不名非常等。複次苦相不共。唯有漏法是苦非余故名苦諦。非常等三是余共相。謂非常相三諦皆有。空．非我相遍一切法。故此不名非常等諦 問有四行相觀生死因。何故此因但名集諦。複次集相但于有漏法。有招集生死非無漏故。因．生．緣相無漏亦有。聖道亦有因．生．緣故。集不共故立以諦名 問有四行相觀于涅槃。何故涅槃唯名滅諦。不名靜等三種諦耶。複次滅名不共故立諦名。滅名唯顯究竟滅故。靜名濫定。妙．離濫道。故不名為靜妙．離諦 問有四行相觀于聖道。何故聖道但名道諦。不名如等三種諦耶。複次道名唯顯趣涅槃路。故立諦名。如濫正理。行通有漏。出通涅槃。故此不名如．行．出諦。
論。唯受一分是苦自體。自下一行頌偏明苦諦。
論曰至亦無有失。長行釋也。先總釋。后別釋 有三苦性。諸有漏法與此三苦合故總名苦諦。
論。此中可意至故名為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 諦（Satya，真諦）是苦盡（滅諦，Nirodha-satya，苦的止息）是苦對治者（道諦，Marga-satya，達到滅苦的道路），世尊（Bhagavan）立為諦。虛空（Akasa）、非擇滅（Apratisamkhya-nirodha）非苦，非苦因，非苦盡，非苦對治。是故世尊不立為諦。更有多種解釋，但都不及此解釋。
論：有其他老師說，至聖（Arahant）非聖諦。這是在敘述不同的觀點。經部（Sautrantika）等老師認為，滅諦、道諦唯是聖諦，因為只有聖者才能證得。苦諦（Duhkha-satya）、集諦（Samudaya-satya）則通於凡聖，因為凡夫和聖者都能成就。婆沙（Vibhasa）第七十七問：有四種行相觀察生死果，為何此果只名為苦諦，而不名為非常等？另外，苦相是不共的，只有有漏法（Sasrava-dharma）是苦，其他不是，所以名為苦諦。非常等三種是其餘共相，所謂非常相，三諦皆有。空（Sunyata）、非我（Anatta）相遍一切法，因此不名為非常等諦。問：有四種行相觀察生死因，為何此因只名為集諦？另外，集相只在有漏法中才有，能招集生死，而無漏法（Anasrava-dharma）沒有。因、生、緣相無漏也有，聖道也有因、生、緣，集是不共的，所以立為諦名。問：有四種行相觀察涅槃（Nirvana），為何涅槃只名為滅諦，不名為靜等三種諦？另外，滅名是不共的，所以立為諦名。滅名只顯示究竟的滅，靜名容易與禪定混淆，妙、離容易與道混淆，所以不名為靜妙、離諦。問：有四種行相觀察聖道，為何聖道只名為道諦，不名為如等三種諦？另外，道名只顯示趣向涅槃的道路，所以立為諦名。如容易與正理混淆，行通於有漏，出通於涅槃，因此不名為如、行、出諦。
論：只有領受一分是苦的自體。自下一行頌偏明苦諦。
論曰：乃至亦無有失。這是長行的解釋。先總的解釋，後分別解釋。有三種苦性，諸有漏法與這三種苦合在一起，所以總名為苦諦。
論：此中可意乃至故名為
【English Translation】 English version: 'Satya' (Truth) is the cessation of suffering (Nirodha-satya, Truth of Cessation), and the treatment of suffering (Marga-satya, Truth of the Path) is what the World-Honored One (Bhagavan) established as Truth. 'Akasa' (Space), 'Apratisamkhya-nirodha' (Unconditioned Cessation) are not suffering, not the cause of suffering, not the cessation of suffering, and not the treatment of suffering. Therefore, the World-Honored One did not establish them as Truths. There are many other explanations, but none are as good as this one.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that the 'Arahant' (Worthy One) is not a Noble Truth. This is describing different views. Teachers of the 'Sautrantika' (Sutra School) and others hold that the 'Nirodha-satya' (Truth of Cessation) and 'Marga-satya' (Truth of the Path) are only Noble Truths because only the noble ones can realize them. The 'Duhkha-satya' (Truth of Suffering) and 'Samudaya-satya' (Truth of Origin) are common to both ordinary beings and noble ones because both can achieve them. The 'Vibhasa' (Great Commentary), in question seventy-seven, asks: There are four aspects of observing the fruit of birth and death. Why is this fruit only called the Truth of Suffering and not called impermanent, etc.? Furthermore, the characteristic of suffering is unique; only 'Sasrava-dharma' (defiled dharmas) is suffering, not others, so it is called the Truth of Suffering. The three characteristics of impermanence, etc., are common characteristics. The characteristic of impermanence is present in all three truths. The characteristics of 'Sunyata' (Emptiness) and 'Anatta' (Non-self) pervade all dharmas, so they are not called the Truths of impermanence, etc. Question: There are four aspects of observing the cause of birth and death. Why is this cause only called the Truth of Origin? Furthermore, the characteristic of origin is only present in defiled dharmas, which can cause birth and death, but not in 'Anasrava-dharma' (undefiled dharmas). The characteristics of cause, birth, and condition are also present in undefiled dharmas. The Noble Path also has cause, birth, and condition. Origin is unique, so it is established as the name of Truth. Question: There are four aspects of observing 'Nirvana' (Cessation). Why is 'Nirvana' only called the Truth of Cessation and not called the three truths of tranquility, etc.? Furthermore, the name of cessation is unique, so it is established as the name of Truth. The name of cessation only reveals ultimate cessation. The name of tranquility is easily confused with 'Dhyana' (meditative absorption). The terms wonderful and detachment are easily confused with the Path, so they are not called the Truths of tranquility, wonderful, or detachment. Question: There are four aspects of observing the Noble Path. Why is the Noble Path only called the Truth of the Path and not called the three truths of suchness, etc.? Furthermore, the name of the Path only reveals the road leading to 'Nirvana', so it is established as the name of Truth. Suchness is easily confused with correct reasoning. Practice is common to defiled dharmas, and emergence is common to 'Nirvana', so they are not called the Truths of suchness, practice, or emergence.
Treatise: Only receiving a portion is the self-nature of suffering. The verse below mainly clarifies the Truth of Suffering.
Treatise says: Even up to there is no loss. This is an explanation in prose. First, a general explanation, then separate explanations. There are three natures of suffering. All defiled dharmas are combined with these three sufferings, so they are collectively called the Truth of Suffering.
Treatise: Here, agreeable even up to therefore it is called
苦。別釋也。此中可意有漏行法。與樂受合。名為壞苦。非可意行法。與苦受合。名為苦苦。除此二受合外所餘有漏行法。與舍受合故名為行苦。
論。何謂為可意非可意余。問也。前言可意行等與壞苦合等。何謂為可意行等。
論。謂樂等三受至得可意等名。答。由樂受力具順樂受行名為可意。乃至由舍受力合順舍受行名所餘非可意非不可意行。
論。所以者何。徴所以樂受等名壞苦等性。
論。若諸樂受至非常即是苦。答也。先答三受成苦所以。后答順苦所以。此文初也。謂樂受成苦。以壞時苦故。如契經言。諸樂受生時樂。住時樂。壞時苦。故未壞之前生．住皆樂。至壞之時方名為苦。故知樂由壞成苦 若諸苦受由體成苦性。如契經言。諸苦受生時苦。住時苦。故既生．住皆苦。故知由體成苦性 若不苦不樂受由行成苦性。所以名行。眾緣造故。如契經言。非常即是苦。既言非常即是苦。故知不苦不樂受。非是前二。即是由行成苦。正理論云。有漏無常無非是苦。
論。如受順受諸行亦然。第二釋順受諸行與受義同。正理論云。然薄伽梵。契經中言。苦受生時住時苦者。由彼苦受性是苦故。壞時樂者。苦受壞時設無樂受。由苦受息似樂顯現故亦名樂。于相續 息位立以壞名故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 苦。另一種解釋是，令人喜愛的有漏行法（Samskrta-dharma，指受業力影響的事物）與樂受（Sukha-vedana，快樂的感受）結合，這被稱為壞苦（Viparinama-duhkha，變壞之苦）。不令人喜愛的行法與苦受（Duhkha-vedana，痛苦的感受）結合，這被稱為苦苦（Duhkha-duhkha，苦上加苦）。除了這兩種感受的結合之外，其餘的有漏行法與舍受（Upeksa-vedana，不苦不樂的感受）結合，因此被稱為行苦（Samskara-duhkha，行蘊之苦）。
論：什麼是令人喜愛的、不令人喜愛的以及其餘的？這是提問。前面說令人喜愛的行法等與壞苦結合等，什麼是令人喜愛的行法等？
論：是指樂受等三種感受，以至於獲得令人喜愛的名稱。這是回答。由於樂受的力量，具備順應樂受的行法，被稱為令人喜愛的。乃至由於舍受的力量，結合順應舍受的行法，被稱為其餘的，既非令人喜愛的也非不令人喜愛的行法。
論：為什麼這樣說？這是征問為什麼樂受等被稱為壞苦等的性質。
論：如果各種樂受乃至無常，那就是苦。這是回答。先回答三種感受成為苦的原因，后回答順應苦的原因。這是本文的開始。意思是樂受成為苦，因為壞滅時是苦的緣故。如契經（Sutra，佛經）所說：『各種樂受，生起時是樂，住留時是樂，壞滅時是苦。』因此在未壞滅之前，生起和住留都是樂，到壞滅的時候才稱為苦。所以知道樂是由壞滅而成為苦。如果各種苦受，由其本體而成為苦的性質。如契經所說：『各種苦受，生起時是苦，住留時是苦。』因此既然生起和住留都是苦，所以知道是由本體而成為苦的性質。如果不苦不樂受，由行蘊而成為苦的性質。為什麼稱為行？因為是眾緣造作的緣故。如契經所說：『無常就是苦。』既然說無常就是苦，所以知道不苦不樂受，不是前兩種，而是由行蘊而成為苦。正理論（Abhidharma-nyayanusara，論書名）說：『有漏、無常、無我的就是苦。』
論：如感受順應感受，各種行法也是這樣。第二種解釋是順應感受的各種行法與感受的意義相同。正理論說：『然而薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊），在契經中說，苦受生起時、住留時是苦，是因為那苦受的性質就是苦的緣故。壞滅時是樂，是說苦受壞滅時，即使沒有樂受，由於苦受的止息，類似快樂的顯現，所以也稱為樂。在相續的止息位置上，建立壞滅的名稱。』
【English Translation】 English version Suffering. Another explanation: Agreeable contaminated activities (Samskrta-dharma, conditioned phenomena influenced by karma), when combined with pleasant feeling (Sukha-vedana, the feeling of happiness), are called the suffering of change (Viparinama-duhkha). Disagreeable activities, when combined with painful feeling (Duhkha-vedana, the feeling of pain), are called the suffering of suffering (Duhkha-duhkha). Apart from the combination of these two feelings, the remaining contaminated activities, when combined with neutral feeling (Upeksa-vedana, the feeling of neither pleasure nor pain), are called the suffering of conditioning (Samskara-duhkha).
Treatise: What are agreeable, disagreeable, and the remaining? This is a question. Earlier it was said that agreeable activities, etc., are combined with the suffering of change, etc. What are agreeable activities, etc.?
Treatise: It refers to the three feelings of pleasant, etc., to the extent of obtaining the name of agreeable. This is the answer. Due to the power of pleasant feeling, activities that accord with pleasant feeling are called agreeable. And so on, due to the power of neutral feeling, activities that combine with and accord with neutral feeling are called the remaining, neither agreeable nor disagreeable activities.
Treatise: Why is this so? This is questioning why pleasant feeling, etc., are called the nature of the suffering of change, etc.
Treatise: If all pleasant feelings, even to impermanence, are suffering. This is the answer. First, answer the reason why the three feelings become suffering, and then answer the reason for according with suffering. This is the beginning of the text. It means that pleasant feeling becomes suffering because it is suffering at the time of cessation. As the Sutra (Sutra, Buddhist scripture) says: 'All pleasant feelings are pleasant when they arise, pleasant when they remain, and suffering when they cease.' Therefore, before cessation, arising and remaining are all pleasant, and only at the time of cessation is it called suffering. So it is known that pleasure becomes suffering due to cessation. If all painful feelings, by their nature, become the nature of suffering. As the Sutra says: 'All painful feelings are suffering when they arise, and suffering when they remain.' Therefore, since arising and remaining are all suffering, it is known that they become the nature of suffering by their nature. If neither painful nor pleasant feelings, by conditioning, become the nature of suffering. Why is it called conditioning? Because it is created by various causes. As the Sutra says: 'Impermanence is suffering.' Since it is said that impermanence is suffering, it is known that neither painful nor pleasant feelings are not the former two, but become suffering by conditioning. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara (Abhidharma-nyayanusara, name of a treatise) says: 'Contaminated, impermanent, and without self are suffering.'
Treatise: As feelings accord with feelings, so do all activities. The second explanation is that activities that accord with feelings have the same meaning as feelings. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara says: 'However, the Bhagavan (Bhagavan, the World-Honored One) said in the Sutra that painful feeling is suffering when it arises and remains because the nature of that painful feeling is suffering. Cessation is pleasure, which means that when painful feeling ceases, even if there is no pleasant feeling, because the cessation of painful feeling is like the appearance of pleasure, it is also called pleasure. The name of cessation is established in the position of the cessation of continuity.'
苦受息時名苦受壞(非剎那壞)乃至樂受生時住時樂者。由彼樂受性是樂故。壞時苦者。謂諸有情。未離染時。心恒求樂。於樂壞位起憂愁等。故說樂受為壞苦性。樂受壞時設無苦受。似苦顯現亦有為苦。不苦不樂受。生時住時皆非苦非樂。性是彼故。即彼壞時。苦．樂隨一容現前故。可言俱有苦．樂壞時無容有二。故佛於此作別異說。謂無智苦智生為樂。以於此受無智增廣。此受無明所隨增故。由無智故。惡趣等中具有無邊行苦生起。極微細故甚為難覺。唯聖能覺。故有頌言 所引頌文與此論同。
論。有餘師釋至名行苦性。敘異說也。此師意說。三苦皆是持業釋。不同有部壞已生苦等名為壞等。
論。應知此中至行苦故苦。釋伏難也。伏難意云。若諸有漏眾緣造故。性是無常皆行苦者。可意不可意亦應是行苦。如何說為壞苦．苦苦。釋云。可意法有壞．行二苦。壞苦不共。行苦是共。不可意法有苦苦．行苦二義。苦苦不共。行苦是共。依不共理。說壞苦苦苦。理實一切皆是行苦。
論。此唯聖者至緣極生厭怖。引頌證也。
論。以諸愚夫至於有頂蘊。明凡厭上品苦苦。不及聖人厭下品行苦。
論。道諦亦應至有為性故。難也。前釋云。不苦樂受由行成苦。眾緣造故。如契經言。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 當苦受停止時，稱之為苦受的壞滅（並非剎那壞滅），乃至樂受生起和存在時，體驗到快樂。因為樂受的本性就是快樂。當樂受壞滅時感到痛苦，指的是那些尚未脫離染污的有情，他們的心總是追求快樂，當快樂消失時，便會產生憂愁等情緒。因此說樂受具有壞苦的性質。樂受壞滅時，即使沒有苦受，類似痛苦的顯現也可能成為痛苦。不苦不樂受，在生起和存在時，既非痛苦也非快樂，因為其本性如此。當它壞滅時，痛苦或快樂中的任何一種都可能出現，因此可以說同時具有苦和樂的壞滅。佛陀對此作了特別的說明，即無智慧的苦產生時是苦，有智慧時則轉為樂。因為對於這種感受，無智慧會使其增長，這種感受被無明所伴隨增長。由於無智慧，惡趣等之中會產生無邊的行苦，極其細微難以察覺，只有聖者才能覺察。所以有頌文說（所引頌文與此論相同）。
論：有其他老師解釋說，三苦都是持業釋（一種語法結構），不同於有部的壞已生苦等稱為壞等。
論：應當知道，這裡所說的行苦，是因為有漏法由眾緣所造，其本性是無常，所以是行苦。解釋了之前的疑問。疑問是：如果一切有漏法都是由眾緣所造，其本性是無常，都是行苦，那麼可意和不可意之法也應該是行苦，為什麼說為壞苦和苦苦呢？解釋說：可意之法有壞苦和行苦兩種。壞苦是不共的，行苦是共有的。不可意之法有苦苦和行苦兩種。苦苦是不共的，行苦是共有的。依據不共的道理，說壞苦和苦苦。實際上一切都是行苦。
論：只有聖者才能對行苦產生極大的厭惡。引用頌文來證明。
論：愚夫對於有頂天的蘊，也感到厭惡。說明凡夫厭惡的是上品（程度深）的苦苦，不如聖人厭惡下品（程度淺）的行苦。
論：道諦也應該是有為法，因為它也是眾緣所造。這是個疑問。之前的解釋說，不苦不樂受因為行而成為苦，因為它也是眾緣所造。如契經所說。
【English Translation】 English version When the cessation of painful feeling is called the destruction of painful feeling (not momentary destruction), even when pleasant feeling arises and exists, one experiences pleasure. Because the nature of pleasant feeling is pleasure. When pleasant feeling is destroyed, it is painful, referring to sentient beings who have not yet detached from defilements. Their minds always seek pleasure, and when pleasure disappears, they experience sorrow and other emotions. Therefore, it is said that pleasant feeling has the nature of 'suffering of change' (viparinama-dukkha). When pleasant feeling is destroyed, even if there is no painful feeling, a manifestation similar to pain can also become suffering. Neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, in its arising and existence, is neither painful nor pleasant, because its nature is such. When it is destroyed, either pain or pleasure may appear, so it can be said to have the destruction of both pain and pleasure. The Buddha made a special explanation of this, that is, the suffering arising from non-wisdom is suffering, but with wisdom, it transforms into pleasure. Because for this feeling, non-wisdom increases it, and this feeling is accompanied and increased by ignorance (avidya). Due to non-wisdom, boundless suffering of existence (samskara-dukkha) arises in the evil realms, which is extremely subtle and difficult to perceive, only the noble ones (aryas) can perceive it. Therefore, there is a verse that says (the quoted verse is the same as in this treatise).
Treatise: Some other teachers explain that the three sufferings are all 'possessive determinative compounds' (karmadharaya), different from the Sarvastivadins' 'suffering that has already arisen' etc., which are called 'destruction' etc.
Treatise: It should be known that the 'suffering of existence' (samskara-dukkha) mentioned here is because conditioned phenomena (samskrta dharmas) are produced by various causes and conditions, and their nature is impermanent, so it is 'suffering of existence'. This explains the previous question. The question is: If all conditioned phenomena are produced by various causes and conditions, and their nature is impermanent, and are all 'suffering of existence', then agreeable and disagreeable phenomena should also be 'suffering of existence', why are they called 'suffering of change' (viparinama-dukkha) and 'suffering of suffering' (duhkha-duhkha)? The explanation is: Agreeable phenomena have both 'suffering of change' and 'suffering of existence'. 'Suffering of change' is uncommon, and 'suffering of existence' is common. Disagreeable phenomena have both 'suffering of suffering' and 'suffering of existence'. 'Suffering of suffering' is uncommon, and 'suffering of existence' is common. Based on the uncommon aspect, we speak of 'suffering of change' and 'suffering of suffering'. In reality, everything is 'suffering of existence'.
Treatise: Only the noble ones (aryas) can generate extreme aversion to 'suffering of existence'. Quoting a verse to prove it.
Treatise: Ordinary people (pudgalas) also feel aversion to the aggregates (skandhas) of the peak of existence (bhavagra). This explains that ordinary people are averse to the 'suffering of suffering' (duhkha-duhkha) of the highest degree, which is not as good as the noble ones (aryas) being averse to the 'suffering of existence' (samskara-duhkha) of the lowest degree.
Treatise: The Truth of the Path (marga-satya) should also be conditioned (samskrta), because it is also produced by various causes and conditions. This is a question. The previous explanation said that neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling becomes suffering because of existence (samskara), because it is also produced by various causes and conditions. As the sutra says.
非常即是苦。如受順受。亦爾。準此。道諦亦是有為。眾緣造故。性非常故。有為性故。應行苦攝。
論。道諦非苦至眾苦盡故。論主引余師釋也。聖道雖是無常。能引眾苦盡故。不違聖心不名為苦。所以得知是余師釋。正理論云。有餘師言。聖道非苦。以能違逆是苦相故。非聖道起違逆聖心。由此能令眾苦盡故。
論。若觀諸有為至唯顯有漏。引例釋也。道諦有為無漏。擇滅無為涅槃寂靜。苦是有為有漏。有其擇滅名涅槃寂靜。經中說觀諸有為涅槃寂靜者。亦由先見此有為。是有漏苦故。后觀苦滅為寂靜。故知。經言有為故苦。此有為言唯顯有漏。
論。若諸法中至苦為聖諦。問也。
論。有一類釋至計癰為樂。敘有部異師釋。此釋意。樂少。苦多。從多名苦。
論。有餘於此至說樂亦名苦。鳩摩邏多釋也。樂受體非是苦。以三因故名為苦。一能為苦因故。二能集眾苦故。三有苦希樂故。由此三因說樂為苦。
論。理實應言至為諦非樂。述有部正釋。聖觀三有．及樂受等。皆是苦者。以行苦同故總名苦諦。
論。如何亦觀樂受為苦。問也。
論。由性非常至一如苦受。答。樂受與余有漏同是無常。觀彼樂受違逆聖心故名為苦。不取樂受適悅之相。如以苦觀觀色等
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：『非常即是苦。如受順受。亦爾。準此。道諦亦是有為（saṃskṛta，指由因緣和合而成的），眾緣造故。性非常故。有為性故。應行苦攝。』 論：『道諦非苦至眾苦盡故。』論主引余師釋也。聖道雖是無常，能引眾苦盡故。不違聖心不名為苦。所以得知是余師釋。正理論云。有餘師言。聖道非苦。以能違逆是苦相故。非聖道起違逆聖心。由此能令眾苦盡故。 論：『若觀諸有為至唯顯有漏。』引例釋也。道諦有為無漏。擇滅無為涅槃寂靜（nirvāṇa-śānti，指通過智慧選擇而達到的寂靜狀態）。苦是有為有漏。有其擇滅名涅槃寂靜。經中說觀諸有為涅槃寂靜者。亦由先見此有為。是有漏苦故。后觀苦滅為寂靜。故知。經言有為故苦。此有為言唯顯有漏。 論：『若諸法中至苦為聖諦。』問也。 論：『有一類釋至計癰為樂。』敘有部異師釋。此釋意。樂少。苦多。從多名苦。 論：『有餘於此至說樂亦名苦。』鳩摩邏多釋也。樂受體非是苦。以三因故名為苦。一能為苦因故。二能集眾苦故。三有苦希樂故。由此三因說樂為苦。 論：『理實應言至為諦非樂。』述有部正釋。聖觀三有．及樂受等。皆是苦者。以行苦同故總名苦諦。 論：『如何亦觀樂受為苦。』問也。 論：『由性非常至一如苦受。』答。樂受與余有漏同是無常。觀彼樂受違逆聖心故名為苦。不取樂受適悅之相。如以苦觀觀色等
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: 'Impermanence is suffering. It is the same with agreeable feelings. Accordingly, the Path Truth (mārga-satya) is also conditioned (saṃskṛta), created by numerous causes and conditions. Because its nature is impermanent and conditioned, it should be included within the suffering of change (saṃskāra-duḥkha).' Treatise: 'The Path Truth is not suffering, because it leads to the cessation of all suffering.' The author cites the explanation of another teacher. Although the Noble Path is impermanent, it can lead to the cessation of all suffering. It does not contradict the noble mind and is therefore not called suffering. The fact that this is the explanation of another teacher can be known from the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra, which says: 'Some teachers say that the Noble Path is not suffering, because it can oppose the aspect of suffering. The Noble Path does not give rise to opposition to the noble mind. Therefore, it can cause all suffering to cease.' Treatise: 'If one observes all conditioned things, it only reveals the afflicted.' This is explained by example. The Path Truth is conditioned and un-afflicted. Cessation through discrimination (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) is unconditioned, nirvāṇa-śānti (涅槃寂靜, the quiescence of nirvāṇa). Suffering is conditioned and afflicted. Its cessation through discrimination is called nirvāṇa-śānti. The sutra says that observing all conditioned things is nirvāṇa-śānti because one first sees that these conditioned things are afflicted suffering. Then, one observes the cessation of suffering as quiescence. Therefore, it is known that the sutra says conditioned things are suffering. This statement of conditioned things only reveals the afflicted. Treatise: 'If among all dharmas, suffering is the Noble Truth?' This is a question. Treatise: 'One type of explanation considers a boil as pleasure.' This describes the explanation of a dissenting teacher of the Sarvāstivāda school. The meaning of this explanation is that there is little pleasure and much suffering. It is called suffering because of the greater amount. Treatise: 'Others say that pleasure is also called suffering.' This is the explanation of Kumāralāta. The substance of pleasurable feeling is not suffering. It is called suffering for three reasons: first, it can be a cause of suffering; second, it can accumulate all suffering; third, there is a desire for pleasure in suffering. For these three reasons, pleasure is said to be suffering. Treatise: 'In reality, it should be said that it is the Truth, not pleasure.' This describes the correct explanation of the Sarvāstivāda school. The noble ones observe the three realms of existence and pleasurable feelings as suffering because they share the same suffering of change. Therefore, they are collectively called the Truth of Suffering. Treatise: 'How can pleasurable feelings also be observed as suffering?' This is a question. Treatise: 'Because its nature is impermanent, it is the same as suffering.' Answer: Pleasurable feelings, like other afflicted things, are impermanent. Observing those pleasurable feelings contradicts the noble mind, so they are called suffering. One does not take the aspect of pleasurable feelings as pleasant. It is like observing form, etc., with the contemplation of suffering.
時。取色等上余違逆相。名之為苦。非彼苦相。一如苦受。
論。有漏樂受至此釋非理。論主破邏多釋。先總非。后別破也。
論。能為苦因至豈關於苦。計因非苦行破。
論。又諸聖者至為苦受因。蘊非是苦因破。
論。又經復說行苦何用。行苦無用破。
論。若由非常至行相何別。外難。若無常故苦。即無常行應亦是苦行。二種行相有何差別。
論。生滅法故至能引苦行相。答也。生滅法故是非常行相。違聖心故是苦行相。但見非常知違聖心。此是非常行相引苦行相。非二同也。
論。有餘部師至受唯是苦。述大眾部。及經部異師計也。
論。云何知然。有部徴。
論。由教理故。大眾部答。
論。云何由教。有部問也。
論。如世尊言至名為顛倒。引三經答。
論。云何由理。問理也。
論。以諸樂因至理亦應然。答理也。以此樂因不定為理。既此樂因後生其苦。故知根本亦是苦因。初微不覺第一理也。
論。又治苦時至定無實樂。以治苦故方生樂覺。故離重苦時謂輕苦為樂。實無樂受。第二理也。
論。對法諸師至此言應理。論主評取有部宗也。
論。云何知然。大眾部問。
論。且應反徴至有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 時，執取色等蘊，產生與聖道相違背的顛倒之相，這被稱作『苦』（Dukkha，痛苦）。但並非色等蘊本身就是苦相，這就像苦受（Dukkha-vedana，痛苦的感受）一樣。
論：有漏的樂受（Sukha-vedana，快樂的感受）至此被解釋為非真理。論主破斥邏多（Logata，人名）的解釋，先總的否定，後分別破斥。
論：能成為苦因的至難道與苦無關？這是通過否定『因非苦』的觀點來破斥。
論：又，諸聖者至是苦受之因。這是通過否定『蘊不是苦因』的觀點來破斥。
論：又，經中又說行苦（Sankhara-dukkha，行蘊之苦），那還有什麼用？這是通過否定『行苦無用』的觀點來破斥。
論：如果因為無常（Anitya，變化）就是苦，那麼無常行（Anityata，無常的性質）和苦行（Dukkha-laksana，苦的行相）有什麼區別？這是外人的提問：如果因為無常的緣故就是苦，那麼無常的行相也應該是苦的行相，這兩種行相有什麼差別？
論：因為是生滅法（Utpada-vyaya，生起和滅去）的緣故至能引發苦的行相。這是回答：因為是生滅法的緣故，所以是無常的行相；因為違背聖者的心意，所以是苦的行相。僅僅見到無常，就知道違背聖者的心意。這是無常的行相，能引發苦的行相，兩者並非相同。
論：有其餘部派的老師至受唯是苦。這是敘述大眾部（Mahasanghika，佛教部派名）和經部（Sautrantika，佛教部派名）的不同見解。
論：怎麼知道是這樣呢？有部（Sarvastivada，佛教部派名）提出疑問。
論：因為教證和理證的緣故。大眾部回答。
論：什麼是教證呢？有部問。
論：如世尊所說至名為顛倒。引用三部經來回答。
論：什麼是理證呢？問理證。
論：因為諸樂的因至理也應該這樣。回答理證：因為這些樂的因並不確定。既然這些樂的因後來會產生苦，所以知道根本也是苦因。最初細微的覺察不到，這是第一條理證。
論：又，在治療苦的時候至一定沒有真實的樂。因為在治療苦的時候才產生樂的覺受，所以在脫離重苦的時候，認為輕微的苦是樂，實際上沒有樂受。這是第二條理證。
論：對法諸師至此言應理。論主評論並採納有部的宗義。
論：怎麼知道是這樣呢？大眾部問。
論：且應該反問至有
【English Translation】 English version At the time of grasping at the skandhas (aggregates) such as form, etc., a reversed appearance arises that is contrary to the noble path. This is called 'suffering' (Dukkha). However, it is not that the skandhas such as form are themselves the appearance of suffering, just like painful feeling (Dukkha-vedana).
Treatise: The defiled pleasant feeling (Sukha-vedana) is explained here as not being the ultimate truth. The author of the treatise refutes Logata's explanation, first with a general negation, and then with specific refutations.
Treatise: That which can be the cause of suffering – how can it be unrelated to suffering? This is refuted by negating the view that 'the cause is not suffering'.
Treatise: Furthermore, the noble ones – is the cause of painful feeling. This is refuted by negating the view that 'the skandhas are not the cause of suffering'.
Treatise: Moreover, the sutras also speak of the suffering of conditioned existence (Sankhara-dukkha), so what is the use? This is refuted by negating the view that 'the suffering of conditioned existence is useless'.
Treatise: If suffering arises because of impermanence (Anitya), then what is the difference between the characteristic of impermanence (Anityata) and the characteristic of suffering (Dukkha-laksana)? This is an external question: If suffering arises because of impermanence, then the characteristic of impermanence should also be the characteristic of suffering. What is the difference between these two characteristics?
Treatise: Because it is a phenomenon of arising and ceasing (Utpada-vyaya) – it can lead to the characteristic of suffering. This is the answer: Because it is a phenomenon of arising and ceasing, it is the characteristic of impermanence; because it goes against the mind of the noble ones, it is the characteristic of suffering. Merely seeing impermanence is knowing that it goes against the mind of the noble ones. This is the characteristic of impermanence, which can lead to the characteristic of suffering; the two are not the same.
Treatise: Some other schools of teachers – feeling is only suffering. This describes the different views of the Mahasanghika (a Buddhist school) and the Sautrantika (a Buddhist school).
Treatise: How do we know this is so? The Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school) asks.
Treatise: Because of scriptural and logical proofs. The Mahasanghika answers.
Treatise: What are the scriptural proofs? The Sarvastivada asks.
Treatise: As the World Honored One said – is called reversed. Quoting three sutras to answer.
Treatise: What are the logical proofs? Asking about logical proofs.
Treatise: Because the causes of pleasure – the principle should also be so. Answering with logical proofs: Because these causes of pleasure are not definite. Since these causes of pleasure later produce suffering, it is known that the root is also the cause of suffering. Initially, it is subtle and not perceived; this is the first logical proof.
Treatise: Furthermore, when treating suffering – there is definitely no real pleasure. Because the feeling of pleasure arises only when treating suffering, so when escaping from great suffering, slight suffering is considered pleasure, but in reality, there is no pleasant feeling. This is the second logical proof.
Treatise: The teachers of Abhidharma – this statement is reasonable. The author of the treatise comments on and adopts the tenets of the Sarvastivada school.
Treatise: How do we know this is so? The Mahasanghika asks.
Treatise: It should be countered with a question – there is
樂應成。三對反徴。
論。若謂可愛至非可愛故。論主牒救。既先為可愛。后非可愛故。故知可愛亦非是實。便證樂受無實理成。
論。不爾可愛至是非愛法。論主通難。樂自相實可愛。聖人以此受是放逸處故。要由廣大功力所成。變壞無常故非可愛。非彼自相非可愛也。
論。若彼自體至有實樂受。論主兩重反難成有部宗。既受自相能生可愛。以其異門觀受為苦。故知樂受自相可愛非體是苦。
論。然世尊言至作如是說。引經證也。佛說一切皆是苦者。依行．壞二苦門說。苦受有二。謂苦苦．行苦。樂受有行．壞二義。舍受唯有行義。若依行苦門觀三受皆苦。依壞苦門樂受亦苦 觀受自相苦受是苦。餘二非苦 佛自釋言。我依諸行皆是無常。及諸有為皆是變壞。密作是說。諸所有受無非是苦。故知以行苦門密說為苦。此經不依苦苦而作是說。
論。若由自相至實有三受。此論主引經難大眾部也。慶喜既言。余經說有三受不言密意。故知說三受經非密意也。慶喜既言。依何密意此經復言諸所有受無非是苦。故知說諸受苦經是密意也。
論。世尊既言至非真了義。前舉問證。后舉答證。說諸受苦。非了義也。
論。又契經言至變壞法故。通第二經。經言以苦觀樂受者。樂受
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 樂應成。三對反徵。
論：如果認為可愛最終會變成不可愛，論主引用對方的觀點進行辯駁。既然先前是可愛，後來變得不可愛，因此可知可愛也不是真實的。這樣就證明了樂受沒有真實性的道理。
論：如果不是這樣，可愛本身就是非愛法。論主通過分析來駁斥這種觀點。樂受的自性確實是可愛，但聖人認為這種感受是放逸的根源，而且必須通過巨大的努力才能獲得，並且會變壞無常，所以說它不是可愛。但這並不是說樂受的自性就是不可愛。
論：如果樂受的自體能夠產生可愛，論主用雙重反駁來駁斥有部宗的觀點。既然樂受的自效能夠產生可愛，又用不同的角度觀察樂受是痛苦的，因此可知樂受的自性是可愛，但其本質是苦。
論：然而，世尊說……，這是引用經文來證明。佛說一切皆是苦，是依據行苦和壞苦兩種角度來說的。苦受有兩種，即苦苦和行苦。樂受有行苦和壞苦兩種含義。舍受只有行苦的含義。如果依據行苦的角度觀察，三種感受都是苦。如果依據壞苦的角度觀察，樂受也是苦。觀察感受的自性，苦受是苦，其餘兩種不是苦。佛親自解釋說，我是依據諸行都是無常，以及諸有為法都是變壞的道理，秘密地這樣說：所有感受沒有不是苦的。因此可知，這是用行苦的角度秘密地說一切皆苦。這部經不是依據苦苦的角度來說的。
論：如果由於自性……，這是論主引用經文來駁斥大眾部的觀點。慶喜既然說，其他經中說有三種感受，沒有說是密意，因此可知說三種感受的經不是密意。慶喜既然說，依據什麼密意這部經又說所有感受沒有不是苦的，因此可知說諸受皆苦的經是密意。
論：世尊既然說……，不是真正的了義。前面舉出問來證明，後面舉出答來證明。說諸受皆苦，不是了義。
論：又，契經說……，是變壞之法。這是解釋第二部經。經中說用苦來觀察樂受，是因為樂受
【English Translation】 English version It accords with reason. Threefold counter-arguments.
Treatise: If it is argued that what is lovable eventually becomes unlovable, the treatise master cites the opponent's view to refute it. Since it was lovable before and later becomes unlovable, it is known that lovableness is not real either. This proves the principle that pleasurable feeling has no reality.
Treatise: If it is not so, lovableness itself is a non-love dharma. The treatise master refutes this view through analysis. The self-nature of pleasurable feeling is indeed lovable, but the sages consider this feeling to be a source of heedlessness, and it must be achieved through great effort and is subject to change and impermanence, so it is said to be unlovable. But this does not mean that the self-nature of pleasurable feeling is unlovable.
Treatise: If the very nature of pleasurable feeling can generate lovableness, the treatise master uses a double refutation to refute the Sarvastivada school's view. Since the self-nature of pleasurable feeling can generate lovableness, and from a different perspective, feeling is observed as suffering, it is known that the self-nature of pleasurable feeling is lovable, but its essence is suffering.
Treatise: However, the World Honored One said... This is quoting scriptures to prove the point. The Buddha said that everything is suffering, based on the perspectives of suffering of formation (行苦, xing ku) and suffering of decay (壞苦, huai ku). There are two types of painful feeling: suffering of suffering (苦苦, ku ku) and suffering of formation. Pleasurable feeling has two meanings: suffering of formation and suffering of decay. Indifferent feeling only has the meaning of suffering of formation. If observed from the perspective of suffering of formation, all three feelings are suffering. If observed from the perspective of suffering of decay, pleasurable feeling is also suffering. Observing the self-nature of feeling, painful feeling is suffering, and the other two are not suffering. The Buddha himself explained, 'I secretly said this based on the principle that all formations are impermanent and all conditioned dharmas are subject to change and decay: all feelings are nothing but suffering.' Therefore, it is known that this is secretly saying that everything is suffering from the perspective of suffering of formation. This sutra is not based on the perspective of suffering of suffering.
Treatise: If due to self-nature... This is the treatise master quoting scriptures to refute the Mahasamghika school's view. Since Ananda (慶喜, Qing Xi) said that other sutras say there are three feelings and do not say it is a secret meaning, it is known that the sutra saying there are three feelings is not a secret meaning. Since Ananda said, 'According to what secret meaning does this sutra say that all feelings are nothing but suffering?' it is known that the sutra saying all feelings are suffering is a secret meaning.
Treatise: Since the World Honored One said... it is not the true definitive meaning. The question is raised first to prove, and then the answer is raised to prove. Saying that all feelings are suffering is not the definitive meaning.
Treatise: Also, the sutra says... is the dharma of change and decay. This is explaining the second sutra. The sutra says to observe pleasurable feeling with suffering because pleasurable feeling
有二。一自相門。是可愛故是樂性。二依異門。無常．變壞是苦性。佛令異門觀為苦故。非自相門觀為苦也。
論。然觀樂時至觀樂為苦。釋伏難也。若自相是樂。異門是苦。何故世尊教觀異門。不觀自相。答云。若觀自相增貪等故。觀異門時能得解脫。故令觀苦不令觀樂。
論。如何知此自相是樂。大眾部問。
論。如有頌言至故說受皆苦。引頌異門說樂為苦。舉頌答也。
論。又契經言至此別意說。通第三經。
論。以諸世間至無實理成。釋別意說所以。以諸世間樂少苦多。而謂總樂故名為顛倒。非全無樂而謂為樂成顛倒也。諸有亦以樂少苦多一向謂樂。名顛倒也。
論。若受自相至有何勝利。論主反難大眾部師。一切諸受自相是樂說皆是苦。為欲除貪。一切諸受自相是苦。佛說為樂有何勝利。
論。若謂世尊至乃至廣說。論主牒救破也。世尊說受皆苦言我密意。于觀五受說如實言。故知皆苦是異門。五受是自性。非是隨俗說。引二經證。如文可解。
論。又佛如何至分別說三反問也。苦受是一。如何法同因分別說三。
論。若謂世間至上等樂覺。論主縱計破。若謂世間于下苦起樂覺。上苦謂苦。中苦謂舍。隨彼說者。樂亦三品不同。應于下苦起上樂覺
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有兩種。一是自相門（Svalaksana-dvara，從事物自身性質的角度），因為可愛所以是樂的性質。二是依異門（Viparyaya-dvara，從事物變化的角度），因為無常、變壞所以是苦的性質。佛陀教導我們從異門的角度觀察，認為它是苦，而不是從自相門的角度觀察，認為它是苦。
論：然而，觀察快樂的時候，最終會觀察到快樂也是苦。這是爲了解釋之前的疑問。如果自相是樂，異門是苦，為什麼世尊教導我們觀察異門，而不觀察自相呢？回答是：如果觀察自相，會增長貪慾等煩惱，而觀察異門時，能夠獲得解脫。所以佛陀教導我們觀察苦，而不教導我們觀察樂。
論：如何知道這自相是樂呢？大眾部（Mahasamghika）提出了疑問。
論：如頌所說，乃至說受皆是苦。引用頌文，從異門的角度說明樂也是苦。這是用頌文來回答問題。
論：又如契經所說，這是另一種含義的說法。這是貫通第三種經文的說法。
論：因為世間，乃至沒有真實的道理成立。這是解釋另一種含義的說法的原因。因為世間的快樂少而痛苦多，卻認為總體上是快樂的，所以稱為顛倒。並非完全沒有快樂卻認為快樂，才構成顛倒。有些人也因為快樂少而痛苦多，就一概認為快樂，這叫做顛倒。
論：如果受的自相，乃至有什麼勝利？論主反過來質問大眾部的老師。如果一切諸受的自相是樂，卻說一切都是苦，是爲了去除貪慾。那麼一切諸受的自相是苦，佛陀卻說它是樂，有什麼勝利呢？
論：如果說世尊，乃至廣說。論主引用對方的觀點進行駁斥。世尊說一切受都是苦，說『我』有密意。在觀察五受時，說的是如實之言。所以知道說一切皆苦是從異門的角度說的，五受是自性，不是隨順世俗的說法。引用兩部經文來證明，文義容易理解。
論：又佛陀如何，乃至分別說三種？這是反問。苦受只有一種，為什麼法相同，卻因為因緣不同而分別說成三種？
論：如果說世間，乃至上等樂覺。論主順著對方的思路進行駁斥。如果說世間對於下等的苦產生樂的感受，對於上等的苦認為是苦，對於中等的苦認為是舍。如果隨順他們的說法，樂也有三種不同的品類，那麼應該對於下等的苦產生上等的樂的感受。
【English Translation】 English version: There are two aspects. First, the Svalaksana-dvara (self-characteristic door), because it is lovable, it is the nature of pleasure. Second, the Viparyaya-dvara (door of change), because it is impermanent and decaying, it is the nature of suffering. The Buddha teaches us to observe from the Viparyaya-dvara, considering it as suffering, not from the Svalaksana-dvara, considering it as suffering.
Treatise: However, when observing pleasure, one eventually observes that pleasure is also suffering. This is to explain the previous doubt. If the self-characteristic is pleasure, and the change is suffering, why does the World-Honored One teach us to observe the change, and not observe the self-characteristic? The answer is: if one observes the self-characteristic, it will increase greed and other afflictions, while observing the change can lead to liberation. Therefore, the Buddha teaches us to observe suffering, and not to observe pleasure.
Treatise: How do we know that this self-characteristic is pleasure? The Mahasamghika (Great Assembly School) raised a question.
Treatise: As the verse says, even to say that all sensations are suffering. Quoting the verse, from the perspective of change, it is explained that pleasure is also suffering. This is answering the question with a verse.
Treatise: Also, as the sutra says, this is another meaning of saying. This is a statement that connects the third sutra.
Treatise: Because the world, even to the point of not establishing a real principle. This explains the reason for another meaning of saying. Because there is little pleasure and much suffering in the world, but it is thought to be overall pleasure, so it is called inverted. It is not that there is no pleasure at all, but thinking of it as pleasure constitutes inversion. Some people also think of it as pleasure because there is little pleasure and much suffering, which is called inversion.
Treatise: If the self-characteristic of sensation, even to what victory? The treatise master questions the Mahasamghika teacher in return. If the self-characteristic of all sensations is pleasure, but it is said that all are suffering, it is to remove greed. Then if the self-characteristic of all sensations is suffering, but the Buddha says it is pleasure, what victory is there?
Treatise: If you say that the World-Honored One, even to the point of speaking extensively. The treatise master refutes by quoting the other party's view. The World-Honored One said that all sensations are suffering, saying 'I' have a secret intention. When observing the five sensations, he speaks truthfully. So we know that saying all is suffering is from the perspective of change, and the five sensations are the self-nature, not following the worldly saying. Quoting two sutras to prove it, the meaning of the text is easy to understand.
Treatise: Also, how does the Buddha, even to the point of separately speaking of three? This is a rhetorical question. Suffering sensation is only one, why is the Dharma the same, but it is separately spoken of as three because of different causes?
Treatise: If you say that the world, even to the point of superior pleasure sensation. The treatise master refutes by following the other party's line of thought. If you say that the world produces a sensation of pleasure from inferior suffering, considers superior suffering as suffering, and considers intermediate suffering as equanimity. If we follow their saying, pleasure also has three different categories, then we should produce a sensation of superior pleasure from inferior suffering.
。中苦起中樂。上苦起下樂覺。
論。又受殊勝至徴問亦爾第二苦不成過。受勝境時有何下苦於中起樂。若受勝境時有下苦者。如是受境已滅未生。既于爾時無有下苦。即應樂覺轉更增勝。爾時上等眾苦都無有故。
論。又下品受至如何應理。第三顛倒過也。三受之中分明猛利。唯苦．樂二。舍受闇昧。若下品苦現在前時。許是樂受即是分明。中品苦受現在前時。許是舍受即是闇昧。下受分明。中受闇昧。其義顛倒故成過也。正理論云。執下分明。中翻闇昧誰有智者能忍此執。
論。又下三定至樂等三受。此第四違因．果過也。正理云。又定漸勝執苦漸增。于非理中誰過於此。
論。故不應依至樂等三受。總結非也。
論。又契經說至少分實樂。第五違經過。如文可解。
論。如是且辨至為證不成。結破引教不成證。
論。所立理言亦不成證。次破理也。
論。且以諸樂因至非不決定。破樂因不定。謂觀所依身份位差別。外境方為樂因。或唯苦因。非唯外境。如所依患冷暖為樂因。所依患熱冷為樂因。翻此苦因。苦．樂之因非唯外境。亦依身份為苦．樂因。分位決定因亦定也。
論。如世間火至決定理成。舉喻顯也。如文可解。
論。又三靜慮中至能
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：中等苦生起時，會感受到中等程度的快樂。上等苦生起時，會感受到下等程度的快樂。
論：此外，如果以同樣的方式提問關於殊勝至極的感受，那麼第二個過失，即『苦不成』的過失，依然存在。如果在感受殊勝境界時，存在低等的痛苦從中生起快樂，那麼當這種感受殊勝境界的狀態已經滅去，而新的狀態尚未生起時，既然在那時沒有低等的痛苦，那麼快樂的感受就應該更加增強，因為那時沒有上等的各種痛苦。
論：此外，如何才能合理地解釋下品感受呢？這就是第三個過失，即『顛倒』的過失。在三種感受中，明顯而強烈的只有苦和樂兩種，而舍受則比較隱晦。如果下品的苦現在顯現，卻認為是樂受，那就是把分明的東西當成不分明的東西。如果中品的苦現在顯現，卻認為是舍受，那就是把分明的東西當成隱晦的東西。下品感受是分明的，中品感受是隱晦的，這種說法在意義上是顛倒的，因此構成了過失。《正理論》說：『認為下品感受是分明的，中品感受反而隱晦，有智慧的人誰能容忍這種觀點呢？』
論：此外，在下三禪定（指初禪、二禪、三禪）中，將苦、樂、舍三種感受執著為樂等三種感受，這是第四個過失，即違背因果關係的過失。《正理論》說：『又認為禪定逐漸殊勝，痛苦卻逐漸增加，在不合道理的事情中，還有什麼比這更過分的呢？』
論：所以，不應該依據苦、樂、舍三種感受來執著為樂等三種感受。總結來說，這種觀點是不正確的。
論：此外，《契經》中說有極少分的真實快樂，這是第五個過失，即違背經文的過失。經文的含義可以自行理解。
論：以上只是辨析了以經文為證是不成立的。總結來說，引用的教證不能成立。
論：所提出的理論依據也不能成立。接下來駁斥理論依據。
論：首先，以各種快樂的因緣來說，並非是不確定的。駁斥快樂的因緣是不確定的觀點。觀察所依賴的身體部位的差別，外在的境界才能成為快樂的因緣，或者僅僅是痛苦的因緣。並非只有外在的境界才是快樂的因緣，例如，所依賴的身體患有寒冷，那麼溫暖就是快樂的因緣；所依賴的身體患有炎熱，那麼寒冷就是快樂的因緣。反過來，溫暖和寒冷也可能是痛苦的因緣。痛苦和快樂的因緣並非只有外在的境界，也依賴於身體部位而成為痛苦和快樂的因緣。部位決定了，因緣也就確定了。
論：例如世間的火，通過比喻來顯明這個道理。經文的含義可以自行理解。
論：此外，在三靜慮（指初禪、二禪、三禪）中，能夠……
【English Translation】 English version: When moderate suffering arises, one experiences moderate pleasure. When supreme suffering arises, one experiences inferior pleasure.
Treatise: Furthermore, if the same question is asked regarding the most supreme and subtle feeling, then the second fault, the fault of 'suffering not arising,' still persists. If, when experiencing a supreme state, there is inferior suffering arising from it as pleasure, then when that state of experiencing the supreme has ceased and a new state has not yet arisen, since there is no inferior suffering at that time, then the feeling of pleasure should increase even more, because there are no supreme sufferings at that time.
Treatise: Furthermore, how should one reasonably explain inferior feelings? This is the third fault, the fault of 'inversion.' Among the three feelings, only suffering and pleasure are clear and intense, while neutral feeling (upeksha) is obscure. If inferior suffering is presently manifest, but it is considered pleasure, then one is taking what is clear as unclear. If moderate suffering is presently manifest, but it is considered neutral feeling, then one is taking what is clear as obscure. Inferior feeling is clear, while moderate feeling is obscure; this statement is inverted in meaning, and therefore constitutes a fault. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'To consider inferior feeling as clear, while moderate feeling is obscure, who with wisdom can tolerate this view?'
Treatise: Furthermore, in the lower three dhyānas (referring to the first, second, and third dhyānas), to cling to the three feelings of suffering, pleasure, and equanimity as the three feelings of pleasure, etc., this is the fourth fault, the fault of violating the cause-and-effect relationship. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Furthermore, to think that dhyāna gradually becomes more supreme, but suffering gradually increases, in unreasonable matters, what is more excessive than this?'
Treatise: Therefore, one should not rely on the three feelings of suffering, pleasure, and equanimity to cling to the three feelings of pleasure, etc. In conclusion, this view is incorrect.
Treatise: Furthermore, the Sūtra says that there is a very small portion of real pleasure; this is the fifth fault, the fault of violating the scriptures. The meaning of the text can be understood by oneself.
Treatise: The above has only analyzed that using the scriptures as proof is not established. In conclusion, the cited teachings cannot be established.
Treatise: The proposed theoretical basis also cannot be established. Next, refute the theoretical basis.
Treatise: First, regarding the causes of various pleasures, it is not uncertain. Refuting the view that the causes of pleasure are uncertain. Observing the differences in the parts of the body that are relied upon, external states can become the cause of pleasure, or merely the cause of suffering. It is not only external states that are the cause of pleasure; for example, if the body that is relied upon suffers from cold, then warmth is the cause of pleasure; if the body that is relied upon suffers from heat, then cold is the cause of pleasure. Conversely, warmth and cold can also be the cause of suffering. The causes of suffering and pleasure are not only external states, but also depend on the parts of the body to become the cause of suffering and pleasure. Once the part is determined, the cause is also determined.
Treatise: For example, worldly fire, use an analogy to clarify this principle. The meaning of the text can be understood by oneself.
Treatise: Furthermore, in the three dhyānas (referring to the first, second, and third dhyānas), being able to...
生苦故。破苦因不定也。或下三定皆有樂受無其苦受。三定之中生樂之因。豈不決定。
論。又彼所說至起於樂覺。破治苦生樂。受勝境時不治苦故。應無樂覺。
論。設許爾時至生極樂覺。此縱破也。
論。又靜慮樂至準前應說。此破上地無苦治也。
論。又彼所說至應知亦爾。此破易脫生樂因。于初易肩分位之時有實樂生。若異此者。初易之後應漸樂增。以前重苦后漸微故 易脫威儀生於樂者。亦準此釋。
論。若先無苦至生於苦覺。大眾部難。若初易肩時無有苦者。因何於後時中匆生苦覺。
論。由身變易至實有理成。答也。如酒隨其時分生甘．酢味。豈酒甘．酢于先已有。
論。由．此定知至如應名苦。已上總結苦諦體也。
論。即苦行體亦名集諦。依有部宗出集諦體也。自此已下別釋集諦。
論。此說必定至愛為集故。經部師引經難也。
論。經就勝故至亦是集諦。有部通經。
論。如是理趣由何證知。經部徴也。
論。余契經中至名補特伽羅。有部引經證。非唯取愛為集諦。兼業．無明為集諦故。故知說愛就勝而說。
論。又契經說至說有取識。釋五種子。有二釋 第一釋云。一根。二莖。三枝。四節。五子。喻有取
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 生苦的緣故。破斥苦因不一定。或者下三禪定都有樂受而沒有苦受。三禪定中產生快樂的原因，難道不確定嗎？
論：又他們所說的，直到產生樂覺。破斥用樂來對治苦的產生。在感受殊勝境界時，不以苦來對治，所以應該沒有樂覺。
論：假設允許那時，直到產生極樂覺。這只是縱容的破斥。
論：又靜慮的快樂，直到按照前面應該說。這是破斥上地沒有苦來對治。
論：又他們所說的，直到應該知道也是這樣。這是破斥容易脫離產生快樂的原因。在最初容易移動肩膀的時刻，有真實的快樂產生。如果不是這樣，最初移動之後應該逐漸快樂增加。因為之前是沉重的苦，之後逐漸輕微的緣故，容易脫離威儀而產生快樂的，也按照這個解釋。
論：如果先前沒有苦，直到產生苦覺。大眾部的詰難。如果最初移動肩膀時沒有苦，為什麼在之後的時間中忽然產生苦覺？
論：由於身體的變易，直到真實有道理成立。這是回答。如同酒隨著時間的變化產生甘甜、酸澀的味道。難道酒的甘甜、酸澀在先前就已經存在了嗎？
論：由此一定知道，直到相應地稱為苦。以上總結了苦諦的體性。
論：即苦行之體也名為集諦（hetu-samudaya）。這是依據有部宗（Sarvāstivāda）說明集諦的體性。從這裡開始分別解釋集諦。
論：這裡說必定，直到愛為集諦的緣故。經部師（Sautrāntika）引用經典來詰難。
論：經典就殊勝的方面說，也是集諦。有部宗解釋經典。
論：這樣的道理趣味，由什麼來證明呢？經部師的征問。
論：其餘的契經中，直到名為補特伽羅（pudgala，人）。有部宗引用經典來證明。不是僅僅取愛為集諦，兼有業（karma）、無明（avidyā）為集諦的緣故。所以知道說愛只是就殊勝的方面來說。
論：又契經說，直到說有取識。解釋五種子。有兩種解釋。第一種解釋說：一根，二莖，三枝，四節，五子。比喻有取。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the suffering of birth. Refuting that the cause of suffering is not fixed. Or the lower three dhyanas (dhyāna, meditation) all have pleasurable feelings but not suffering. In the three dhyanas, isn't the cause of pleasure definite?
Treatise: Furthermore, what they said, until the arising of pleasurable sensation. Refuting using pleasure to counteract the arising of suffering. When experiencing superior states, not counteracting suffering, therefore there should be no pleasurable sensation.
Treatise: Supposing it is allowed at that time, until the arising of extreme pleasurable sensation. This is merely a permissive refutation.
Treatise: Furthermore, the pleasure of meditative concentration, until it should be said according to the previous. This is refuting that there is no suffering to counteract in the higher realms.
Treatise: Furthermore, what they said, until it should be known to be the same. This is refuting the cause of easily escaping and generating pleasure. At the moment of initially easily moving the shoulder, there is real pleasure arising. If it is not like this, after the initial movement, the pleasure should gradually increase. Because previously it was heavy suffering, and later it gradually becomes slight, those who easily escape the dignified posture and generate pleasure, should also be explained according to this.
Treatise: If there was no suffering beforehand, until the arising of the sensation of suffering. The Mahasanghika's (Mahāsaṃghika) challenge. If there was no suffering when initially moving the shoulder, why does the sensation of suffering suddenly arise later?
Treatise: Due to the change of the body, until it is truly established with reason. This is the answer. Just as wine produces sweet and sour tastes according to the time. Did the sweetness and sourness of the wine already exist beforehand?
Treatise: From this, it is certainly known, until it is appropriately called suffering. The above summarizes the nature of the Truth of Suffering (duhkha-satya).
Treatise: The very nature of ascetic practices is also called the Truth of Arising (hetu-samudaya). This is according to the Sarvastivada (Sarvāstivāda) school explaining the nature of the Truth of Arising. From here onwards, the Truth of Arising is explained separately.
Treatise: Here it says definitely, until because love is the Truth of Arising. The Sautrantika (Sautrāntika) master cites the sutras to challenge.
Treatise: The sutras speak of the superior aspect, it is also the Truth of Arising. The Sarvastivada school explains the sutras.
Treatise: By what is such a reasoned interest proven? The Sautrantika's question.
Treatise: In other sutras, until it is called a person (pudgala). The Sarvastivada school cites the sutras to prove. It is not only taking love as the Truth of Arising, but also karma (karma) and ignorance (avidyā) are the Truth of Arising. Therefore, it is known that saying love is merely speaking of the superior aspect.
Treatise: Furthermore, the sutras say, until it says there is grasping consciousness. Explaining the five seeds. There are two explanations. The first explanation says: one, root; two, stem; three, branch; four, node; five, seed. Analogous to grasping.
識 第二釋云。五種子者。謂五趣種子 說有取識。取是煩惱。有煩惱識為五趣因名有取識 既契經中不言喻說。后釋為正。此證經中非唯說愛。
論。又彼經說至說四識住。即彼經說置地界中。此即別名說四識住。彼五種子置地界中。喻五取識四識住也。此即煩惱．及識四蘊取識為因。非唯是愛。
論。故經所說是密意言。契經中說愛為集諦。即是從強密意言也。
論。阿毗達磨依法相說。依法相說即苦行法因義是集。即是一切有漏諸行名為集諦。
論。然經中說至及彼因因。會彼兩經說不同也 愛為因故者。偏說起因 業．愛．無明者。具說三因。業為生因。愛為起因。無明為因因。愛為業因。無明與愛能為因故。故曰因因。
論。云何知爾。問也。
論。業為生因至經所說故。答也。
論。又彼經中至有緒故者。此是大因緣法門經 言後行者。是行支等 等者。等取后十支。皆次第說 有因有緣及有緒者。即是前支為因。為緣．及緒也。婆沙二十三云。如大因緣法門經說。佛告阿難老死有如是因。有如是緣。有如是緒 乃至廣說。婆沙從后說。此論從前說。
論。為別建立至及四識住。有取識如種子。四識住如田。
論。故非唯愛為集諦體。有部結也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『識』，在第二釋中解釋說，五種子指的是五趣（Pañca-gati，五種輪迴的去處，即地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）的種子。說有取識，『取』是煩惱。具有煩惱的識作為五趣的因，稱為有取識。既然契經中沒有用比喻來說明，那麼後來的解釋是正確的。這證明了經典中不僅僅說了愛。
論：又那部經說到四識住（Catur-vijñāna-sthiti，四種識的住處）。就是那部經說將五種子置於地界中。這是用另一種名稱來說四識住。那五種子置於地界中，比喻五取識和四識住。這就是煩惱以及識的四蘊以取識為因，不僅僅是愛。
論：所以經中所說是密意之言。契經中說愛為集諦（Samudaya-satya，苦的根源的真理），這是從強調的角度說的密意之言。
論：阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）依照法相（Dharma-lakṣaṇa，法的特徵）說，依照法相說，苦行法（Duhkha-nirodha-gāminī-pratipadā，導致苦滅之道）的因的意義就是集。就是說一切有漏的諸行（有煩惱的行為）名為集諦。
論：然而經中說到以及彼因的因，是爲了調和兩部經的不同說法。『愛為因故』，是偏重於說生起的因。『業（Karma，行為）、愛（Tṛṣṇā，渴愛）、無明（Avidyā，無知）』，是完整地說了三種因。業為生因，愛為起因，無明為因的因。愛是業的因，無明與愛能夠作為因，所以說是因的因。
論：怎麼知道是這樣呢？這是提問。
論：業為生因，直到經所說故。這是回答。
論：又那部經中說到有緒故。這是大因緣法門經（Mahā-nidāna-sūtra）。『後行者』，是指行支等。『等者』，是等取後面的十支，都是依次序說的。『有因有緣及有緒者』，就是說前面的支為因，為緣以及緒。婆沙（Vibhāṣā，註釋）第二十三卷說：如大因緣法門經所說，佛告訴阿難（Ānanda，佛陀的十大弟子之一）：老死有這樣的因，有這樣的緣，有這樣的緒，乃至廣說。婆沙是從後面說的，此論是從前面說的。
論：爲了分別建立以及四識住。有取識如種子，四識住如田地。
論：所以不僅僅是愛作為集諦的本體。這是有部的結論。
【English Translation】 English version 'Consciousness'. The second explanation states that the five seeds refer to the seeds of the five destinies (Pañca-gati, the five realms of rebirth: hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods). It speaks of consciousness with grasping, where 'grasping' is affliction. Consciousness with affliction as the cause of the five destinies is called consciousness with grasping. Since the sutras do not explain it through metaphors, the later explanation is correct. This proves that the sutras do not only speak of craving.
Treatise: Furthermore, that sutra speaks of the four abodes of consciousness (Catur-vijñāna-sthiti, the four foundations of consciousness). That very sutra speaks of placing the five seeds in the earth element. This is another name for speaking of the four abodes of consciousness. Placing the five seeds in the earth element is a metaphor for the five grasping consciousnesses and the four abodes of consciousness. This means that affliction and the four aggregates of consciousness have grasping consciousness as their cause, not just craving.
Treatise: Therefore, what is spoken in the sutra is a statement with hidden meaning. The sutra speaks of craving as the truth of the origin (Samudaya-satya, the truth of the origin of suffering), which is a statement with hidden meaning from the perspective of emphasis.
Treatise: The Abhidharma (collection of philosophical texts) explains according to the characteristics of dharmas (Dharma-lakṣaṇa, characteristics of phenomena). According to the characteristics of dharmas, the meaning of the cause of the path leading to the cessation of suffering (Duhkha-nirodha-gāminī-pratipadā, the path to the cessation of suffering) is the origin. That is to say, all conditioned actions (actions with afflictions) are called the truth of the origin.
Treatise: However, the sutra speaks of and the cause of that cause, in order to reconcile the different statements of the two sutras. 'Craving as the cause' emphasizes the cause of arising. 'Karma (action), craving (Tṛṣṇā, thirst), ignorance (Avidyā, lack of knowledge)' fully states the three causes. Karma is the cause of birth, craving is the cause of arising, and ignorance is the cause of the cause. Craving is the cause of karma, and ignorance and craving can both be causes, so it is called the cause of the cause.
Treatise: How is it known to be so? This is a question.
Treatise: Karma is the cause of birth, up to 'as stated in the sutra'. This is the answer.
Treatise: Furthermore, that sutra speaks of 'having a sequence'. This is the Great Discourse on Dependent Origination (Mahā-nidāna-sūtra). 'Those that follow' refers to the limb of existence, etc. 'Etc.' includes the following ten limbs, all of which are explained in order. 'Having a cause, having a condition, and having a sequence' means that the preceding limb is the cause, the condition, and the sequence. The Vibhāṣā (commentary) volume twenty-three states: As stated in the Great Discourse on Dependent Origination, the Buddha told Ānanda (one of the Buddha's ten great disciples): Old age and death have such a cause, such a condition, and such a sequence, and so on. The Vibhāṣā speaks from the end, while this treatise speaks from the beginning.
Treatise: In order to separately establish and the four abodes of consciousness. Consciousness with grasping is like a seed, and the four abodes of consciousness are like a field.
Treatise: Therefore, craving is not the only entity of the truth of the origin. This is the conclusion of the Sarvāstivāda school.
。
論。何法名生何法名起。經部問。
論。界趣生等至應知亦爾。答。界．趣等異。品類不同。由業差別出現名生。愛但令起非差別因。論舉喻顯。如文可知。
論。愛為起因何理為證。經部問也。
論。離愛後有至定隨愛故。有部第一指事答也。
論。又由愛故至馳趣後有。此即第二引例釋也。
論。又取後身至如我愛者。此即第三以勝釋也。
論。由此理證愛為起因。此總結也。
論。如是世尊說諦有四。已下一頌。第二明二諦也。
論曰至衣等亦爾。就瓶．衣明世俗諦。破顯非實也。
論。又若有物至火等亦爾。此以慧析顯非實也。
論。即於此物至名世俗諦。此釋非實而名諦也。就世俗理實有非虛名世俗諦。
論。若物異此至名勝義諦。明勝義諦相。
論。如色等物至受等亦然。指事釋也。
論。此真實有至名勝義諦。釋名勝義諦所以。
論。先軌範師至名世俗諦。述經部中異師釋。此師意說。正智取境不顛倒故名勝義諦。非正智取境非實名世俗諦。
論。已辨諸諦應說云何。已下。當品大丈第三就位辨人。文中有三。一明聖道加行。二就三道辨人。三明諸道差別 就明聖道加行中。一總標加行門。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：什麼法被稱為『生』（birth），什麼法被稱為『起』（arising）？經部（Sautrantika）提問。
論：界（dhātu，元素界）、趣（gati，輪迴的去處）、生（jāti，出生）等等，應當知道也是如此。答：界、趣等等不同，品類不同，由於業（karma，行為）的差別而出現，名為『生』。愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）只是令其生起的原因，而非差別的根本原因。論中舉出譬喻來顯示，如文中所說。
論：愛作為生起的原因，有什麼道理可以證明？經部問。
論：離開愛之後，就不會有後有（punarbhava，再次存在），必定隨順於愛。有部（Sarvāstivāda）首先直接指出事實來回答。
論：又因為愛的緣故，眾生會馳趣於後有。這是第二點，引用例子來解釋。
論：又執取後身的，就像我愛自己一樣。這是第三點，用更強的理由來解釋。
論：由此道理可以證明，愛是生起的原因。這是總結。
論：如是，世尊（Śākyamuni，釋迦牟尼）說諦（satya，真理）有四。以下一頌，第二部分闡明二諦（two truths）。
論曰：乃至衣服等等也是如此。就瓶子、衣服來說明世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya，世俗諦），破除並顯示其並非真實。
論：又如果有什麼東西，用智慧分析，就像火等等也是如此。這是用智慧分析來顯示其並非真實。
論：即於此物，假立名稱，名為世俗諦。這是解釋非真實而名為諦。就世俗的道理來說，真實存在，並非虛假，名為世俗諦。
論：如果事物與此不同，超越了世俗的認知，名為勝義諦（paramārtha-satya，勝義諦）。闡明勝義諦的相。
論：如色（rūpa，色蘊）等事物，受（vedanā，受蘊）等等也是如此。指明事物來解釋。
論：此真實存在，不依賴於世俗的認知，名為勝義諦。解釋名為勝義諦的原因。
論：先前的軌範師（ācārya，老師）說，正智（samyag-jñāna，正確的智慧）所取的境界不顛倒，名為勝義諦。非正智所取的境界並非真實，名為世俗諦。這是敘述經部中不同老師的解釋。這位老師的意思是說，正智所取的境界不顛倒，所以名為勝義諦；非正智所取的境界並非真實，所以名為世俗諦。
論：已經辨明了諸諦，應當說什麼是修行的方法。以下，是本品的大綱，第三部分就修行的位次來辨別人。文中分為三部分：一、闡明聖道加行（ādikarmika，最初的修行）；二、就三道（three paths）來辨別人；三、闡明諸道的差別。就闡明聖道加行中，首先總標加行門。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: What dharma (law, teaching) is called 'birth' (jāti), and what dharma is called 'arising' (samudaya)? The Sautrantika (Sūtra school) asks.
Treatise: Realms (dhātu), destinies (gati), birth (jāti), etc., should be understood likewise. Answer: Realms, destinies, etc., are different, categories are different. Due to the differences in karma (action), appearance is called 'birth'. Craving (tṛṣṇā) is only the cause of arising, not the fundamental cause of differentiation. The treatise gives metaphors to illustrate, as can be seen in the text.
Treatise: What reason proves that craving is the cause of arising? The Sautrantika asks.
Treatise: After leaving craving, there will be no further existence (punarbhava), it will definitely follow craving. The Sarvāstivāda (the school of 'all exists') first directly points out the fact to answer.
Treatise: Also, because of craving, beings rush towards further existence. This is the second point, citing examples to explain.
Treatise: Also, grasping the future body is like loving myself. This is the third point, explaining with a stronger reason.
Treatise: From this reasoning, it can be proven that craving is the cause of arising. This is the conclusion.
Treatise: Thus, the Blessed One (Śākyamuni Buddha) spoke of the Four Noble Truths (satya). The following verse is the second part, clarifying the Two Truths.
Treatise: Even clothes, etc., are the same. Taking a vase and clothes as examples to explain conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya), refuting and showing that they are not real.
Treatise: Also, if there is anything, analyzed with wisdom, like fire, etc., it is the same. This is using wisdom analysis to show that it is not real.
Treatise: That is, for this thing, a name is provisionally established, called conventional truth. This explains that it is called truth even though it is not real. In terms of conventional reasoning, it truly exists and is not false, so it is called conventional truth.
Treatise: If something is different from this, transcending conventional cognition, it is called ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya). Clarifying the characteristics of ultimate truth.
Treatise: Like form (rūpa), feeling (vedanā), etc., are the same. Pointing out things to explain.
Treatise: This truly exists, not relying on conventional cognition, it is called ultimate truth. Explaining the reason for the name ultimate truth.
Treatise: The previous teacher (ācārya) said that the object taken by right knowledge (samyag-jñāna) is not inverted, so it is called ultimate truth. The object taken by non-right knowledge is not real, so it is called conventional truth. This is describing the explanation of different teachers in the Sautrantika school. The meaning of this teacher is that the object taken by right knowledge is not inverted, so it is called ultimate truth; the object taken by non-right knowledge is not real, so it is called conventional truth.
Treatise: Having distinguished the truths, what should be said is the method of practice. The following is the outline of this chapter, the third part distinguishes people based on the stages of practice. The text is divided into three parts: 1. Clarifying the preliminary practices (ādikarmika) of the Noble Path; 2. Distinguishing people based on the Three Paths; 3. Clarifying the differences between the paths. In clarifying the preliminary practices of the Noble Path, first, the general heading of the preliminary practices.
二明凈身．器。三廣明七加行。此下一行頌總標加行。正理論云。求見聖諦初業地中所習行儀極為繁廣。欲遍解者當於眾聖所集觀行諸論中求。以要言之。初修行者應于解脫具深意樂觀涅槃德背生死過。先應方便親近善友。善友能為眾行本故。具聞等力得善友名。譬如良醫 乃至廣說。
論曰至起修所成慧。述次第也。先鬚髮心將趣見諦。第二安住清凈尸羅。第三求順見諦聞。第四思惟。第五習定。即是先住于戒。后修三慧。
論。此中三慧差別云何。問三慧相。
論。毗婆沙師至三慧亦爾。引婆沙答。聞慧緣名。思慧名．義。修慧唯義。引喻可知。
論。有言若爾至聞修所成。破婆沙釋。準論有言。即是論主引別師破。
論。今詳三相至名修所成。此是論主立三相。謂依聞。依思。依修所生三慧別也。
論。說所成言至食草所成。釋所成名。因聞所成者。是其因義也。如人命因食。牛因草等 正理論云。此三慧相差別云何。謂如次緣名俱義境。理實三慧于成滿時。一切皆唯緣義為境 加行位時聞緣名。思緣名．義。修緣義也。婆沙四十二評曰應作是說。三慧皆通十六行相及余行相。然聞．思所成慧。自力故無未來修。他力故有未來修。修所成慧。自力故有未來修。三慧皆通四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二、明凈其身，準備好作為法器的身體。 三、廣泛地闡明七加行（sapta prayoga）。下面一行頌文總括了加行。 《正理論》說：『爲了證見聖諦，最初在修行之地上所學習的行儀非常繁多。想要全面瞭解的人，應當在眾多聖者所集結的觀行論著中尋求。簡要地說，初修行者應當對解脫具有深刻的意樂，觀察涅槃的功德，背離生死的過患。首先應當方便地親近善友，因為善友是所有修行的根本。具備聽聞等能力才能獲得善友之名，譬如良醫……』乃至廣說。
論曰：『乃至生起修所成的智慧。』這是敘述次第。首先必須發心，將要趣向見諦；第二，安住于清凈的戒律；第三，尋求順應見諦的聽聞；第四，思惟；第五，習定。這就是先安住于戒，然後修習三種智慧。
論：『這三種智慧的差別是什麼？』這是提問三種智慧的體相。
論：『毗婆沙師……乃至三種智慧也是如此。』這是引用《毗婆沙論》的回答：聞慧緣于名，思慧緣于名和義，修慧只緣于義。引用的比喻可以理解。
論：『有人說，如果這樣……乃至聞所成和修所成。』這是破斥《毗婆沙論》的解釋。準論中的『有人說』，就是論主引用其他論師的觀點來破斥。
論：『現在詳細分析三種體相……乃至名修所成。』這是論主建立三種體相，即依據聽聞、依據思惟、依據修習所產生的三種智慧的差別。
論：『說「所成」這個詞……乃至食草所成。』這是解釋『所成』的含義。因聽聞所成，是它的原因意義。如同人的生命依賴食物，牛依賴草等。《正理論》說：『這三種智慧的體相差別是什麼？』回答是：依次緣于名、俱義境。實際上，三種智慧在成就圓滿時，一切都只是緣于義作為境界。加行位時，聞慧緣于名，思慧緣于名和義，修慧緣于義。《婆沙論》第四十二評說：應當這樣說，三種智慧都通達十六行相以及其餘行相。然而，聞所成和思所成的智慧，因為自身力量的緣故，沒有未來的修習；因為他力的緣故，有未來的修習。修所成的智慧，因為自身力量的緣故，有未來的修習。三種智慧都通達四……』
【English Translation】 English version Two, purify the body, preparing it as a vessel (器, vessel) for the Dharma. Three, extensively elucidate the seven applications (sapta prayoga, seven applications). The following verse summarizes the applications. The Nyāyānusāra (正理論) says: 'To see the noble truths, the practices learned in the initial stage of cultivation are extremely numerous. Those who wish to understand them thoroughly should seek them in the collected treatises on contemplation by many sages. In short, the initial practitioner should have a deep intention for liberation, observe the merits of Nirvāṇa, and turn away from the faults of birth and death. First, one should conveniently draw near to good friends, because good friends are the root of all practices. Having the power of hearing, etc., one obtains the name of a good friend, like a good doctor...' and so on.
The treatise says: '...until the wisdom arising from cultivation is produced.' This describes the order. First, one must generate the aspiration to approach the seeing of truth; second, abide in pure morality; third, seek hearing that accords with the seeing of truth; fourth, contemplate; fifth, practice meditation. This is to first abide in morality and then cultivate the three wisdoms.
Treatise: 'What are the differences between these three wisdoms?' This asks about the characteristics of the three wisdoms.
Treatise: 'The Vaibhāṣika masters... even the three wisdoms are the same.' This quotes the Vibhāṣā (毗婆沙論)'s answer: Wisdom from hearing is based on name (名, nāma), wisdom from thinking is based on name and meaning (義, artha), and wisdom from cultivation is based only on meaning. The cited analogy is understandable.
Treatise: 'Some say, if that is so... even wisdom from hearing and cultivation.' This refutes the Vibhāṣā (毗婆沙論)'s explanation. According to the treatise, 'some say' is the treatise master quoting the views of other masters to refute.
Treatise: 'Now, analyzing the three characteristics in detail... even name is produced by cultivation.' This is the treatise master establishing the three characteristics, namely the differences between the three wisdoms arising from reliance on hearing, reliance on thinking, and reliance on cultivation.
Treatise: 'Saying 'produced'... even produced by eating grass.' This explains the meaning of 'produced.' Being produced by hearing is its causal meaning. Just as a person's life depends on food, a cow depends on grass, etc. The Nyāyānusāra (正理論) says: 'What are the differences in the characteristics of these three wisdoms?' The answer is: they successively rely on name, both meaning and name, and the realm of meaning. In reality, when the three wisdoms are accomplished and perfected, all are only based on meaning as the object. During the stage of application, wisdom from hearing is based on name, wisdom from thinking is based on name and meaning, and wisdom from cultivation is based on meaning. The forty-second commentary of the Vibhāṣā (毗婆沙論) says: It should be said that the three wisdoms all penetrate the sixteen aspects and other aspects. However, the wisdom produced by hearing and thinking, because of its own power, has no future cultivation; because of the power of others, it has future cultivation. The wisdom produced by cultivation, because of its own power, has future cultivation. The three wisdoms all penetrate four...'
念住。思所成慧二根相應。謂喜．及舍。
論。諸有欲于修精勤學者。此下三行頌。第二明凈身．器。
論曰至三住四聖種列三因名也。
論。身遠離者至由喜足少欲。釋初因也 離相雜住者。謂雜惡友也。此離相雜住。及離不善尋二。易可得成。由喜足少欲。正理論云。此二由何易可成者。由於衣等。喜足少欲。諸有多求資生具者。晝狎惡朋侶。夜起惡尋思。由此無容令心得定。
論。言喜足者至無大欲。釋次因也 無不喜足者。謂所得多．少粗之與妙無不喜足 無大欲者。謂不求多。不求妙也。
論。所無二種差別云何。問。無不喜足及無大欲。所無二種差別云何。
論。對法諸師至名大欲。此述對法諸師釋。正理論釋云。謂于已得妙多衣等恨不得此倍妙。倍多。即於此中顯等倍勝更欣欲故名不喜足。若於未得妙多衣等希求得故名大欲。諸所有物足能治苦。若更多求便越善品。是此中義如契經言。隨有所得身安樂者。令心易定及能說法故有希求治苦物者。是為助道。非為過失。
論。豈不更求至便應不成。此破對法諸師釋也。豈不更求名不喜足。與大欲應無差別。以此俱緣未得境故。
論。是故此中至應知差別。論主自為無過釋。于已得不妙．不多不生歡喜知
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 念住（Smṛti-upasthāna）。思所成慧（cintāmayī prajñā）二根相應，指的是喜（prīti）和舍（upekṣā）。
論：那些想要精勤修習的人，接下來的三行頌文，第二部分闡明了清凈的身和器物。
論曰：到三住四聖種（trīṇi sthitāni catvāra āryavaṃśāḥ）列出了三種原因的名稱。
論：身遠離者，到由喜足少欲（santosa alpecchatā），解釋了第一個原因。離相雜住者，指的是雜居於惡友之中。這種遠離相雜住，以及遠離不善尋（akuśala vitarka）這兩種情況，容易成就，因為喜足少欲。正理論中說，這兩種情況因何容易成就呢？因為對於衣服等，喜足少欲。那些貪求更多生活資具的人，白天親近惡友，夜晚生起惡尋思，因此沒有辦法讓心安定。
論：言喜足者，到無大欲，解釋了第二個原因。無不喜足者，指的是對於所得的多或少，粗糙或精妙，沒有不滿足的。無大欲者，指的是不追求更多，不追求更好。
論：所無二種差別云何？問：無不喜足和無大欲，這兩種所無的差別是什麼？
論：對法諸師，到名大欲，這裡敘述了對法諸師的解釋。正理論解釋說，對於已經得到的精妙或眾多的衣服等，遺憾沒有得到更加精妙或更加眾多，因此在這種情況下，顯示出等倍勝更加欣求，所以叫做不喜足。如果對於未得到的精妙或眾多的衣服等，希望得到，所以叫做大欲。所有能夠滿足的物品足以治療痛苦，如果更多地追求，就會超越善的品性。這就是其中的含義，如契經所說，隨有所得，身體安樂的人，容易讓心安定，並且能夠說法，所以有希望治療痛苦的物品的人，這是爲了幫助修道，不是過失。
論：豈不更求，到便應不成，這裡駁斥了對法諸師的解釋。難道不是更加追求就叫做不喜足嗎？這和大欲應該沒有差別，因為這兩種情況都緣于未得到的境界。
論：是故此中，到應知差別，論主自己爲了沒有過失而解釋說，對於已經得到的不精妙或不眾多，不生起歡喜，要知道。
【English Translation】 English version Mindfulness (Smṛti-upasthāna). The two roots corresponding to wisdom born of reflection (cintāmayī prajñā) are joy (prīti) and equanimity (upekṣā).
Treatise: For those who wish to diligently practice, the following three lines of verse, the second part clarifies the pure body and requisites.
Treatise says: To the three abodes and four noble lineages (trīṇi sthitāni catvāra āryavaṃśāḥ) lists the names of the three causes.
Treatise: 'Bodily seclusion' to 'due to contentment and few desires (santosa alpecchatā),' explains the first cause. 'Living apart from association' refers to living among bad friends. This separation from association and separation from unwholesome thoughts (akuśala vitarka) are easily accomplished because of contentment and few desires. The Nyāyānusāra says, 'Why are these two easily accomplished?' Because with regard to clothing, etc., there is contentment and few desires. Those who crave more necessities of life associate with bad friends during the day and arise with unwholesome thoughts at night, therefore there is no way to calm the mind.
Treatise: 'Contentment' to 'no great desire,' explains the second cause. 'No discontent' refers to being content with whatever is obtained, whether much or little, coarse or fine. 'No great desire' refers to not seeking more, not seeking better.
Treatise: 'What is the difference between the two absences?' Question: What is the difference between the absence of discontent and the absence of great desire?
Treatise: 'The Dharma masters of Abhidharma' to 'called great desire,' here narrates the explanation of the Dharma masters of Abhidharma. The Nyāyānusāra explains, 'Regretting not obtaining even finer or more numerous clothes, etc., than what has already been obtained, therefore, in this case, showing an even greater desire for what is equal, double, or superior, is called discontent. If one hopes to obtain finer or more numerous clothes, etc., that have not yet been obtained, it is called great desire. All things that can satisfy are sufficient to cure suffering, but if one seeks more, one will exceed the qualities of goodness. This is the meaning of this, as the sutra says, 'Those who are physically comfortable with what they have can easily calm their minds and be able to speak the Dharma, so those who hope to cure suffering have things, this is to help the path, not a fault.'
Treatise: 'Isn't further seeking' to 'then it should not be accomplished,' here refutes the explanation of the Dharma masters of Abhidharma. Isn't further seeking called discontent? This should be no different from great desire, because both are related to the realm of what has not been obtained.
Treatise: 'Therefore, in this case' to 'one should know the difference,' the treatise master himself explains without fault, not generating joy for what has already been obtained that is not fine or not numerous, one should know.
足心故名不喜足。于未得衣服等事。求妙。求多。名為大欲。此境別心異。非是同也。
論。喜足少欲至欲貪為性。此明能治。及明所治。界系體性廣狹不同。故正理論云。謂欲界系善心相應喜足．少欲。是欲界系。二界無漏例此應說。所治二種唯欲界系。以何證知。色．無色界亦有能治喜足．少欲。以現見有生在欲界從色．無色等引起時。所治二種現行遠故。能治二種現行增故。
論。能生眾聖至謂樂斷修。釋后因也。先釋聖種名。后出聖種體。正理論云。如無色中雖無怨境。而亦得有無瞋善根。故無色中雖無衣等。而亦得有無貪善根。如彼不貪身。亦不貪資具。故無色界具四聖種。受欲聖者于聖種中有阿世耶。而無加行眾聖種故。名為聖種。聖眾皆從此四生故。展轉承嗣次第不絕。前為后種。世所極成。眾聖法身。皆從於衣生喜足等力所引起。是聖族姓得聖種名 婆沙一百八十一云。問樂斷．樂修有何差別。答樂斷煩惱。樂修聖道。複次無間道名樂斷。解脫道名樂修。複次見道名樂斷。修道名樂修。複次樂斷者顯諸忍。樂修者顯諸智 正理論云。斷謂離系。修謂聖道。樂謂于彼情深欣慕。即是欣慕滅及道義。或樂斷之脩名樂斷修。即是欣慕滅之道義。為證惑滅樂修道故。
論。如何亦用無貪為
體。問也。
論。以能棄捨有欲貪故。答也。正理論云。豈不第四亦能治瞋等。則應亦以無瞋等為性。非無此義。然以前三為資糧故。前三唯是無貪性故。此亦自能對治貪故。從顯偏說 問聖種何故唯是喜足。非是少欲亦聖種耶。答婆沙一百八十一云。少欲于未來處未得事轉。喜足於現在處已得事轉。不取現在一迦履沙缽拏為難。非於未來轉輪王位以喜足難故。立為聖種(述曰缽拏此云錢。一迦履沙。當十六貝珠。八十貝珠當一缽拏十六缽拏名迦履沙缽拏雜心論翻迦履沙缽拏。為一錢謬也)。正理答云。以少欲者。容於衣等物。有希求故。謂有意樂性下劣者。于未得境不敢多求。設已得多。容求不歇。見喜足者。少有所得。尚不更求。況復多得。故唯喜足建立聖種或為遮止苦行者欲不說少欲以為聖種。非彼外道心有勝欲。恒有劣欲重相續故。或隨所得生歡喜心。不更希求。名為喜足。斷樂欲樂此為最勝。欲界有情多樂欲樂。此樂欲樂違出家心。于離惑中令心闇鈍能障梵行。靜慮現前為過最深。喜足能治故。唯喜足建立聖種。非於未得多衣等中。起希求時心生歡喜。何況于少。是故少欲于能對治樂欲樂中。非最勝故。不立聖種。 問 緣衣服等所生喜足。如何可說是無漏耶 答 誰言如是喜足是無漏。若爾聖種寧
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 體。問：什麼是體？ 論：因為能夠捨棄對存在的慾望和貪婪。答：這是回答。正理論說：難道第四種（聖種）不能對治嗔恨等嗎？如果這樣，也應該以無嗔恨等為自性。並非沒有這個道理。然而，因為前三種（聖種）是資糧的緣故。前三種僅僅是無貪的自性。第四種（喜足）也能自己對治貪婪。所以從顯現上偏重說明。 問：為什麼聖種僅僅是喜足（滿足於已得之物），而不是少欲（減少慾望）也是聖種呢？答：婆沙（《大毗婆沙論》）第一百八十一卷說：少欲是對未來處尚未得到的事物產生（減少）慾望。喜足是對現在處已經得到的事物感到滿足。不以現在的一迦履沙缽拏（錢幣單位）為難，因為不會對未來轉輪王（擁有統治世界的君主）的地位以喜足為難。所以立為聖種（述曰：缽拏，這裡說是錢。一迦履沙，相當於十六貝珠。八十貝珠相當於一缽拏，十六缽拏名為迦履沙缽拏。《雜心論》翻譯迦履沙缽拏為一錢，是錯誤的）。正理（《阿毗達磨順正理論》）回答說：因為少欲的人，可能對衣服等物品，還有希求的緣故。意思是說，意樂（意願和愛好）性質下劣的人，對於未得到的境界不敢多求。假設已經得到很多，可能求取不停止。看到喜足的人，稍微有所得，尚且不再求取，何況是得到更多。所以只有喜足才能建立為聖種。或者爲了阻止苦行者（極端禁慾主義者）的慾望，不說少欲作為聖種。因為那些外道（非佛教徒）心中有強烈的慾望，總是存在低劣的慾望持續不斷。或者隨著所得之物生起歡喜心，不再希望得到更多，這叫做喜足。斷除對快樂的慾望是最殊勝的。欲界（充滿慾望的世界）的有情（眾生）大多貪圖快樂的慾望。這種快樂的慾望違背出家人的心，在遠離迷惑中使心昏暗遲鈍，能夠障礙梵行（清凈的行為）。（如果）靜慮（禪定）現前，（這種障礙）最為嚴重。喜足能夠對治（這種障礙），所以只有喜足才能建立為聖種。不是在未得到更多衣服等物品時，生起希望求取的心而生歡喜。何況是（已經）很少。因此，少欲在能夠對治快樂的慾望中，不是最殊勝的，所以不立為聖種。 問：緣于衣服等所產生的喜足，如何可以說是無漏（沒有煩惱）的呢？答：誰說這樣的喜足是無漏的？如果這樣，聖種怎麼...
【English Translation】 English version Body. Question: What is 'body'? Treatise: Because one is able to abandon desires and greed for existence. Answer: This is the answer. The Nyāyānusāra (Following the Path of Reasoning) says: 'Isn't it the case that the fourth (Noble Lineage) can also counteract anger, etc.? If so, it should also be characterized by non-anger, etc.' It's not that there isn't this reason. However, because the first three (Noble Lineages) are the resources. The first three are solely of the nature of non-greed. This fourth (contentment) can also counteract greed itself. Therefore, it is explained with emphasis on what is manifest. Question: Why is it that the Noble Lineage is only santuṣṭi (contentment), and not alpecchatā (fewness of desires) also a Noble Lineage? Answer: The Vibhāṣā (Great Commentary), volume one hundred and eighty-one, says: 'Alpecchatā operates with respect to things not yet obtained in the future. Santuṣṭi operates with respect to things already obtained in the present. It is not difficult to be content with one kārṣāpaṇa (a coin unit) in the present, because it is not difficult to be content with the position of a cakravartin (universal monarch) in the future. Therefore, it is established as a Noble Lineage.' (Note: Paṇa here is said to be money. One kārṣā is equivalent to sixteen cowrie shells. Eighty cowrie shells are equivalent to one paṇa, and sixteen paṇa are called kārṣāpaṇa. The Abhidharma-samuccaya (Compendium of Abhidharma) translates kārṣāpaṇa as one coin, which is a mistake.) The Nyāyānusāra answers: 'Because those with few desires may still have desires for things like clothing.' This means that those with inferior intention and inclination do not dare to ask for much in realms not yet obtained. Even if they have obtained much, their seeking may not stop. Seeing those who are content, they do not seek further even if they have obtained little, let alone if they have obtained more. Therefore, only contentment is established as a Noble Lineage. Or, in order to prevent the desires of ascetics (extreme renunciates), alpecchatā is not spoken of as a Noble Lineage. Because those non-Buddhists have strong desires in their minds, and always have inferior desires that continue heavily. Or, giving rise to joy in accordance with what is obtained, and not hoping to obtain more, is called contentment. Cutting off the desire for pleasure is the most excellent. Sentient beings in the Desire Realm (the world full of desires) mostly crave the desire for pleasure. This desire for pleasure goes against the mind of a renunciate, making the mind dull and obscure in leaving behind delusion, and is able to obstruct pure conduct. If dhyāna (meditative absorption) is present, (this obstruction) is the most serious. Contentment is able to counteract (this obstruction), so only contentment is established as a Noble Lineage. It is not that when one has not obtained more clothing, etc., one gives rise to joy in the mind when hoping to obtain it. How much less so when one has (already) little. Therefore, alpecchatā is not the most excellent in being able to counteract the desire for pleasure, so it is not established as a Noble Lineage. Question: How can the contentment that arises from things like clothing be said to be anāsrava (free from outflows)? Answer: Who said that such contentment is anāsrava? If so, how can the Noble Lineage...
皆通無漏由彼增上所生聖道彼所引故。從彼為名。故言聖種皆通無漏。不作是言。緣衣服等所有喜足皆通無漏。少欲無漏準此應釋(述曰。名聖道為喜足等者。以喜足等所引生故。上界具四。應準此釋)。
論。為顯何義立四聖種。問也。
論。以諸弟子至解脫非久。答也。
論。何故安立如是二事。問。何故安立生具事業二種事也。
論。為欲對治至說四聖種。答。由於飲食．衣服．臥具．有．無有愛生愛著故。為治四愛故聖種唯四。
論。即依此義至說第四聖種。第二釋。前三是我所。第四是自身。前三是暫息。第四是永斷。問于藥喜足。何非聖種。正理答云。不說于彼有愛生故。為治愛生建立聖種。經唯說有四種愛生。是故於藥不立聖種。或即攝在前三中故。謂藥有在衣服中攝(如患冷以椒裹腹等)。有在飲食中攝(如患熱多食葛粉等)。有在臥具中攝(如冷人臥具多著椒等)。故於藥喜足。不別立聖種。或若於中引憍等過。對治彼故建立聖種。于藥無引憍等過生。故聖種無于藥喜足。或一切人皆受用者。于彼喜足可立聖種。非彼尊者縛矩羅等。曾無有病受用藥故。或一切時應受用者。于彼喜足可立聖種。非一切時受用藥故(縛矩羅者。舊云薄矩羅也)。婆沙一百八十一云。皆
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所有通往無漏的功德，都是由於那些增長的殊勝之道（聖道）所產生的，並且是被它們所引導的。因此，以它們的名字來命名，所以說聖種都通往無漏。但不能說，對於衣服等的需求感到滿足，就都通往無漏。對於少欲無漏的解釋，也應該按照這個原則來理解。（述曰：將聖道稱為喜足等，是因為喜足等所引導和產生的。上界具備四種聖種，應該按照這個原則來解釋）。
論：爲了闡明什麼意義而設立四聖種？（問）
論：爲了讓弟子們能夠儘快解脫。（答）
論：為什麼安立這樣的兩種事情？（問：為什麼安立生具和事業這兩種事情？）
論：爲了對治…直到宣說四聖種。（答：由於對飲食、衣服、臥具、有、無有產生貪愛和執著，爲了對治這四種貪愛，所以聖種只有四種。）
論：就是依據這個意義…直到宣說第四聖種。（第二種解釋：前三種是『我所』，第四種是『自身』。前三種是暫時止息，第四種是永遠斷除。）問：為什麼對藥物的喜足不是聖種？正理的回答是：因為沒有說對藥物會產生貪愛。爲了對治貪愛的產生才建立聖種。經中只說了有四種貪愛的產生，所以對於藥物不設立聖種。或者說，藥物的喜足已經包含在前面的三種之中了。例如，藥物有的包含在衣服中（比如患了寒病用花椒包裹腹部等），有的包含在飲食中（比如患了熱病多吃葛粉等），有的包含在臥具中（比如怕冷的人在臥具中多放花椒等）。所以對於藥物的喜足，不單獨設立聖種。或者，如果在其中會引發驕慢等過失，爲了對治這些過失才建立聖種。而對於藥物，沒有引發驕慢等過失的產生，所以聖種中沒有對藥物的喜足。或者，如果所有的人都會受用的東西，對於它的喜足可以設立為聖種。但並非所有尊者，比如縛矩羅（Bhakkula，舊譯薄矩羅），從來沒有生病而受用藥物。或者，應該是所有時間都需要受用的東西，對於它的喜足才可以設立為聖種。但並非所有時間都需要受用藥物。婆沙一百八十一中說，所有...
【English Translation】 English version: All faultless (anāsrava) merits arise from the superior path (ārya-mārga) that is enhanced and guided by them. Therefore, they are named after them, hence it is said that the Holy Lineages (ārya-vaṃśa) all lead to the faultless. However, it cannot be said that contentment (saṃtuṣṭi) with clothing, etc., all leads to the faultless. The explanation of desiring little (alpecchatā) and faultlessness should be understood according to this principle. (Commentary: The Holy Path is called contentment, etc., because it is guided and produced by contentment, etc. The upper realms possess four Holy Lineages, which should be explained according to this principle.)
Treatise: For what meaning are the four Holy Lineages established? (Question)
Treatise: To enable disciples to attain liberation quickly. (Answer)
Treatise: Why are these two things established? (Question: Why are the two things of birth and activity established?)
Treatise: To counteract… until the four Holy Lineages are spoken of. (Answer: Because of attachment and clinging arising from food, clothing, bedding, existence, and non-existence. To counteract these four attachments, there are only four Holy Lineages.)
Treatise: Based on this meaning… until the fourth Holy Lineage is spoken of. (Second explanation: The first three are 『mine,』 the fourth is 『self.』 The first three are temporary cessation, the fourth is permanent severance.) Question: Why is contentment with medicine not a Holy Lineage? The correct reasoning answers: Because it is not said that attachment arises towards medicine. Holy Lineages are established to counteract the arising of attachment. The scriptures only speak of the arising of four kinds of attachment, therefore, a Holy Lineage is not established for medicine. Or, contentment with medicine is already included in the previous three. For example, some medicine is included in clothing (such as wrapping the abdomen with peppercorns for cold), some is included in food (such as eating more kudzu powder for heat), and some is included in bedding (such as putting more peppercorns in the bedding for cold people). Therefore, contentment with medicine is not separately established as a Holy Lineage. Or, if it leads to faults such as arrogance, Holy Lineages are established to counteract those faults. But with medicine, there is no arising of faults such as arrogance, so there is no Holy Lineage for contentment with medicine. Or, if it is something that everyone uses, contentment with it can be established as a Holy Lineage. But not all venerable ones, such as Bhakkula (Bhakkula), have ever been sick and used medicine. Or, it should be something that needs to be used at all times, then contentment with it can be established as a Holy Lineage. But medicine does not need to be used at all times. The Vibhāṣā (Mahāvibhāṣā) one hundred and eighty-one says, all...
墮三界及不墮界。問色界無飲食。無色界無前三。云何三界皆具四種。答彼雖無食等。而有彼喜足功德。有說由地獄具四種故。展轉引生上界者亦具四種。尊者世友作如是說。上界雖無食等。而有彼對治。然對治有四種。謂斷對治。厭患對治。持對治。遠分對治。色界于食等具四對治。欲界有三除斷。準此。解脫道後起欲善。亦名遠分等。無色界有二。謂持及遠分 準此。后道與無為得。俱皆名持也。
論。如是已說修所依器。自下第三明七加行。文即有七。此一行頌。第一明五停心位。文中有二。先總明入修二門。后別釋二門。此文初也。
論曰至能正入修。略說二要門也。入修要門有多種故。諸有情類行別眾多故。入修門亦有多種。廣即眾多。次有五種。謂多貪不凈。多瞋慈悲。多癡緣起。著我六界。尋伺持息。然就多分最略二門。一不凈觀。二持息念。故唯此二名曰要門。不凈治貪。持息治尋。從多分說各能治一。然實不凈亦持尋等。持息亦能治多貪等。故正理云。就近治門說不凈觀能治貪病。非不治余。息念治尋。應知亦爾。然持息念緣無差別微細境故。所緣系屬自相續故。非如不凈觀緣多外境故能止亂尋。
論。有餘師言至治彼無能。敘二師異說也。
論。此中先應辨不凈觀已下
【現代漢語翻譯】 墮三界及不墮界：問：無飲食，無觸，無前三，云何三界皆具四種？答：彼雖無食等，而有彼喜足功德。有說由地獄具四種故，展轉引生上界者亦具四種。尊者世友（Vasumitra）作如是說：上界雖無食等，而有彼對治。然對治有四種，謂斷對治、厭患對治、持對治、遠分對治。觸于食等具四對治。欲界有三除斷。準此，解脫道後起欲善，亦名遠分等。無觸有二，謂持及遠分。準此，后道與無為得，俱皆名持也。
論：如是已說修所依器。自下第三明七加行。文即有七。此一行頌。第一明五停心位。文中有二。先總明入修二門。后別釋二門。此文初也。
論曰：至能正入修。略說二要門也。入修要門有多種故。諸有情類行別眾多故。入修門亦有多種。廣即眾多。次有五種。謂多貪不凈，多瞋慈悲，多癡緣起，著我六界，尋伺持息。然就多分最略二門。一不凈觀，二持息念。故唯此二名曰要門。不凈治貪，持息治尋。從多分說各能治一。然實不凈亦持尋等。持息亦能治多貪等。故正理云：『就近治門說不凈觀能治貪病，非不治余。息念治尋，應知亦爾。』然持息念緣無差別微細境故，所緣系屬自相續故，非如不凈觀緣多外境故能止亂尋。
論：有餘師言：至治彼無能。敘二師異說也。
論：此中先應辨不凈觀已下
【English Translation】 Concerning the realms of those who fall into the Three Realms and those who do not fall into realms: Question: There is no food, no touch, and none of the first three. How can all three realms possess the four kinds? Answer: Although they lack food, etc., they possess the merit of contentment. Some say that because the lower realm possesses the four kinds, it gradually gives rise to the upper realm, which also possesses the four kinds. Venerable Vasumitra (世友) said: Although the upper realm lacks food, etc., it possesses their antidotes. However, there are four kinds of antidotes: the antidote of cessation, the antidote of aversion, the antidote of maintenance, and the antidote of remoteness. Touch possesses the four antidotes for food, etc. The desire realm has three, excluding cessation. According to this, the wholesome desires that arise after the path of liberation are also called remoteness, etc. There are two kinds of no-touch: maintenance and remoteness. According to this, the subsequent path and the attainment of the unconditioned are both called maintenance.
Treatise: Having already discussed the vessel on which practice relies, the third section below explains the seven applications. There are seven sections in the text. This one verse explains the stage of the Five Grounds for Steadiness of Mind. There are two parts to the text: first, a general explanation of the two gates of entering practice, and then a separate explanation of the two gates. This is the beginning of the text.
Treatise says: 'To be able to rightly enter practice' briefly explains the two essential gates. Because there are many essential gates for entering practice, and because the practices of sentient beings are diverse, there are also many gates for entering practice. Broadly speaking, there are many. Next, there are five kinds: for those with much greed, impurity; for those with much anger, loving-kindness; for those with much delusion, dependent origination; for those attached to self, the six elements; for those with discursive thought, mindfulness of breathing. However, based on the majority, the two most concise gates are: first, contemplation of impurity; second, mindfulness of breathing. Therefore, only these two are called essential gates. Contemplation of impurity cures greed, and mindfulness of breathing cures discursive thought. Speaking from the majority, each can cure one. However, in reality, contemplation of impurity also maintains discursive thought, etc., and mindfulness of breathing can also cure much greed, etc. Therefore, the Proper Principle says: 'Speaking from the perspective of the nearest cure, contemplation of impurity can cure the disease of greed, but it does not not cure others. Mindfulness of breathing cures discursive thought; it should be understood that it is the same.' However, because mindfulness of breathing focuses on subtle objects without difference, and because the object of focus belongs to one's own continuum, it can stop disordered thoughts, unlike contemplation of impurity, which focuses on many external objects.
Treatise: Some other teachers say: 'To cure them is impossible.' This narrates the different views of two teachers.
Treatise: Among these, one should first distinguish the contemplation of impurity below.
。第二別釋二門一明不凈觀。二明持息念。就前門中。一不凈觀相。二義門分別。此兩行頌即初門也。
論曰至四供奉貪。述四貪也 顯色貪者。謂妙青黃等 形色貪者。謂好形狀等 妙觸貪者。謂妙軟．滑等 供奉貪者。謂妙俯．仰等。
論。緣青瘀等至無四貪境。此明能治四種貪也。緣青瘀境。翻美妙青等故。緣被豺．狼等食。翻端正相故。緣蟲．蛆等。翻美妙觸故。緣尸不動。翻供奉事等。此四不凈觀。各治一種貪。若觀骨瑣能治四貪。見骨瑣時無妙顯色。及妙形色。妙觸。妙威儀。等故。依正理論。此說鈍根。正理論云。對治四貪依二思擇。一觀內尸。二觀外尸。謂利根者先於內身皮為邊際。足上頂下週遍觀察令心厭患 為欲伏治顯色貪者。應專隨念內身份中膿．血．脂．精．涎．洟．髓腦．大．小便等變異顯色。及應隨念眾病所生內身皮上變異顯色。黃．白．青．黑．如雲如煙。斑駁黧黯不明不凈。由此令心極生厭患。便能伏治緣顯色貪。以知此身為如是等非愛顯色所依止處。故於一切皆得離染 為欲伏治形色貪者。應別觀察諸內身支是發毛等三十六物。聚集安立和合所成。離此都無手等形色。復以勝解分割身支為二或多。散擲于地。種種禽獸爭共食啖。骨肉零落。支體分離。由此令心極生厭
患。便能伏治緣形色貪 為欲伏治妙觸貪者。應以勝解除去皮肉。唯觀骸骨澀如瓦礫。由此令心極生厭患。便能伏治緣妙觸貪 為欲伏治供奉貪者。應以勝解觀察內身。如眠．醉．悶．瘨癇病等。不能自在運動身支。如老病時。或至．未至。被如是事纏縛其身。又觀內身不自在。行無不繫屬眾緣故生。于中都無少許身份。可為供奉威儀所依。徒妄執為能供奉者。彼決定有能供奉事。然供奉名所目義者。謂以彼彼身份為緣。決定能為舞歌笑睇唅啼戲等威儀事業。觀彼事業。都無定性。如箜篌等所發音曲。一切皆類幻化所為。由此令心極生厭患。便能伏治緣供奉貪是名利根。初習業者。思所成慧。觀察內身。能伏四貪令不現起。若鈍根者。由根鈍故煩惱猛利難可摧伏。藉外緣力方能伏治。故先明瞭觀察外尸。漸令自心煩惱摧伏。謂彼初欲觀外尸時。先起慈心往施身處。如世尊說。初修行者欲求方便速滅欲貪。當起慈心之憺怕路精勤修習。乃至廣說。至彼處已。為欲伏治四種貪故。應如四種憺怕路經。修不凈觀觀外尸相以況內身。彼相既然。此亦應爾。由此方便漸能令心亦于內身深生厭患。便能伏治前說四貪。由於內身見自性故。為不凈觀速得成滿。應修八相伏治四貪 為欲伏治顯色貪故。修青瘀相及黃．赤相 為欲伏治形
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：患。便能伏治緣形色貪（因形狀和顏色產生的貪慾）。為欲伏治妙觸貪（對美妙觸感的貪慾）者，應以勝解（殊勝的理解）除去皮肉，唯觀骸骨，粗澀如瓦礫。由此令心極生厭患，便能伏治緣妙觸貪。為欲伏治供奉貪（對供養和侍奉的貪慾）者，應以勝解觀察內身，如眠、醉、悶、瘨癇病等，不能自在運動身支，如老病時。或至、未至，被如是事纏縛其身。又觀內身不自在，行無不繫屬眾緣故生，于中都無少許身份，可為供奉威儀所依，徒妄執為能供奉者。彼決定有能供奉事，然供奉名所目義者，謂以彼彼身份為緣，決定能為舞歌笑睇唅啼戲等威儀事業。觀彼事業，都無定性，如箜篌等所發音曲，一切皆類幻化所為。由此令心極生厭患，便能伏治緣供奉貪。是名利根（根器銳利）。初習業者，思所成慧（通過思考獲得的智慧），觀察內身，能伏四貪令不現起。若鈍根（根器遲鈍）者，由根鈍故煩惱猛利難可摧伏，藉外緣力方能伏治。故先明瞭觀察外尸，漸令自心煩惱摧伏。謂彼初欲觀外尸時，先起慈心往施身處，如世尊說，初修行者欲求方便速滅欲貪，當起慈心之憺怕路（寂靜的道路）精勤修習，乃至廣說。至彼處已，為欲伏治四種貪故，應如四種憺怕路經，修不凈觀（對身體不凈的觀想），觀外尸相以況內身。彼相既然，此亦應爾。由此方便漸能令心亦于內身深生厭患，便能伏治前說四貪。由於內身見自性故，為不凈觀速得成滿，應修八相伏治四貪。為欲伏治顯色貪（對外在顏色的貪慾）故，修青瘀相（身體青腫腐爛的景象）及黃、赤相。為欲伏治形 現代漢語譯本：
【English Translation】 English version: Suffering. Then one can subdue and control greed arising from forms and colors. To subdue and control greed for exquisite touch, one should use superior understanding to remove skin and flesh, and only contemplate the bones, rough and coarse like rubble. By this, the mind will generate extreme aversion, and one can subdue and control greed for exquisite touch. To subdue and control greed for offerings and service, one should use superior understanding to observe the inner body, such as in states of sleep, drunkenness, stupor, epilepsy, etc., unable to freely move the limbs, like in old age or sickness. Whether arrived or not yet arrived, the body is bound by such things. Furthermore, observe that the inner body is not self-governing; all actions arise dependent on numerous conditions. Within it, there is not the slightest part that can be relied upon for offerings and dignified conduct; it is futile to cling to the idea of being able to make offerings. There are definitely things that can be offered, but what is meant by the term 'offering' is that, dependent on various parts of the body, one can definitely perform dignified actions such as dancing, singing, laughing, glancing, sniffing, crying, and playing. Observe that these actions have no fixed nature, like the sounds and melodies produced by a konghou (a Chinese harp) and other instruments; all are like illusory creations. By this, the mind will generate extreme aversion, and one can subdue and control greed for offerings and service. This is called sharp faculties. Those who are newly learning should use wisdom gained through contemplation to observe the inner body, which can subdue the four types of greed and prevent them from arising. If one has dull faculties, due to the dullness of their faculties, afflictions are fierce and difficult to subdue; only by relying on external conditions can they be subdued and controlled. Therefore, one should first clearly observe an external corpse, gradually causing the mind's afflictions to be subdued. When one initially intends to contemplate an external corpse, one should first generate loving-kindness and go to a place where bodies are given as alms, as the World Honored One said: 'A beginner who seeks a convenient way to quickly eliminate desire should diligently practice cultivating loving-kindness on the path of tranquility,' and so on, extensively explained. Having arrived at that place, in order to subdue and control the four types of greed, one should, according to the four types of 'path of tranquility' sutras, practice the contemplation of impurity, observing the appearance of an external corpse to compare it to one's own inner body. If that appearance is such, then this one should also be like that. By this method, one can gradually cause the mind to also generate deep aversion towards the inner body, and thus subdue and control the aforementioned four types of greed. Because one sees the self-nature in the inner body, in order for the contemplation of impurity to be quickly accomplished and fulfilled, one should cultivate the eight aspects to subdue and control the four types of greed. To subdue and control greed for attractive colors, one should contemplate the appearance of lividity and swelling, as well as yellow and red appearances. To subdue and control form English version:
色貪故。修被食相及分離相 為欲伏治妙觸貪故修破壞相及骸骨相 為欲伏治供奉貪故。修膀脹相及膿爛相。許緣骨瑣修不凈觀通能伏治如是四貪。以一骨瑣中具離四貪境。
論。故應且辨至令不現行。釋不凈觀不斷煩惱。斷煩惱是共相作意。及遍緣一地方斷煩惱。此骨瑣觀勝解作意少分緣故。不斷煩惱。唯能制伏令不現行。正理論云。觀自身中三十六物。此等名為依自實觀。由與自相作意相應。是故不能永斷煩惱。依勝解力假想思惟諸不凈相。此非顛倒作意所攝。以與煩惱性相違故。夫顛倒者。本所欲為不能成辨。此隨所欲能伏煩惱如何顛倒。若謂此境非皆是骨謂皆是骨。寧非倒者。理亦不然。如應解故。謂諸于杌起人覺者。不作是解。我今于杌以人相觀故是顛倒。今觀行者作如是思。諸境界中雖非皆骨。我今為伏諸煩惱故。應以勝解遍觀為骨。既隨所欲如應而解能伏煩惱。寧是顛倒。此觀勢力能伏煩惱令暫不行。既有如斯巧方便力。如何非善。是故無有如所難失。
論。然瑜伽師至三超作意。明不凈觀有三位。此列三位。后牒釋也。
論。謂觀行者至初習業位。釋第一位。
論。為令略觀至已熟修位。明第二位。
論。為令略觀至超作意位。明第三位。
論。有不凈觀至有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為對色（rūpa，物質、形態）的貪著，所以修習被食相和分離相；爲了降伏和治理對妙觸（phusana，美好的觸覺）的貪著，所以修習破壞相和骸骨相；爲了降伏和治理供奉的貪著，所以修習膀脹相和膿爛相。允許緣于骨瑣（atthika-sangghata，鎖狀的骨骼）修習不凈觀，普遍能夠降伏和治理這四種貪著，因為一個骨瑣中具備了遠離四種貪著的境界。
論：所以應當辨明，直至令煩惱不現行。解釋說，不凈觀不能斷除煩惱，斷除煩惱是共相作意，以及普遍緣於一個地方斷除煩惱。這個骨瑣觀是勝解作意，只是少分地緣于境界，所以不能斷除煩惱，只能制伏煩惱，使之不現行。《正理論》說，觀察自身中的三十六種不凈之物，這些稱為依于自身真實的觀察，由於與自相作意相應，所以不能永遠斷除煩惱。依靠勝解的力量，假想思惟各種不凈之相，這並非顛倒作意所攝，因為它與煩惱的性質相反。顛倒的人，原本想要做的不能成功。而這種觀想隨其所欲，能夠降伏煩惱，怎麼是顛倒呢？如果說這個境界並非都是骨頭，卻認為都是骨頭，難道不是顛倒嗎？道理也不是這樣，應當如實理解。比如那些把樹樁看成人的人，不會這樣想：我現在把樹樁看成人相，所以是顛倒。現在觀行者這樣思惟：各種境界中雖然並非都是骨頭，我現在爲了降伏各種煩惱，應當以勝解普遍觀想為骨頭。既然隨其所欲，如實理解，能夠降伏煩惱，怎麼是顛倒呢？這種觀想的力量能夠降伏煩惱，使之暫時不行。既然有如此巧妙方便的力量，怎麼不是善呢？所以沒有你所提出的過失。
論：然而瑜伽師，直至三超作意。說明不凈觀有三個階段，這裡列出這三個階段，後面會解釋。
論：所謂觀行者，直至初習業位。解釋第一階段。
論：爲了令略觀，直至已熟修位。說明第二階段。
論：爲了令略觀，直至超作意位。說明第三階段。
論：有不凈觀，直至有
【English Translation】 English version: Because of greed for rūpa (form, matter), one cultivates the perception of being eaten and the perception of separation; in order to subdue and manage greed for phusana (pleasant touch), one cultivates the perception of destruction and the perception of skeletons; in order to subdue and manage greed for offerings, one cultivates the perception of bloating and the perception of putrefaction. It is permissible to cultivate the impurity contemplation based on atthika-sangghata (skeletal chains), which can universally subdue and manage these four types of greed, because a single skeletal chain contains the realm of being away from the four types of greed.
Treatise: Therefore, it should be clarified until the afflictions do not manifest. It is explained that the impurity contemplation cannot cut off afflictions; cutting off afflictions is the common characteristic attention, and universally focusing on one place to cut off afflictions. This skeletal chain contemplation is a resolution attention, only partially focusing on the realm, so it cannot cut off afflictions, but can only subdue afflictions, preventing them from manifesting. The Nyāyānusāra says, 'Observing the thirty-six impure things in oneself, these are called observing reality based on oneself. Because it corresponds to the self-characteristic attention, it cannot permanently cut off afflictions.' Relying on the power of resolution, falsely imagining and contemplating various impure appearances, this is not included in the inverted attention, because it is contrary to the nature of afflictions. Those who are inverted cannot accomplish what they originally intended. But this contemplation, according to one's wishes, can subdue afflictions, how can it be inverted? If it is said that this realm is not all bones, but one thinks it is all bones, is that not inverted? The reasoning is not so; it should be understood accordingly. For example, those who perceive a person in a tree stump do not think, 'I am now viewing the tree stump as a person, so it is inverted.' Now the practitioner thinks, 'Although not all realms are bones, I should universally contemplate them as bones with resolution in order to subdue various afflictions.' Since it is according to one's wishes, understanding accordingly, and able to subdue afflictions, how can it be inverted? The power of this contemplation can subdue afflictions, causing them to temporarily cease. Since there is such skillful and expedient power, how can it not be good? Therefore, there is no fault as you have pointed out.
Treatise: However, the yogi, up to the three surpassing attentions. It explains that the impurity contemplation has three stages. These three stages are listed here, and will be explained later.
Treatise: The so-called practitioner, up to the initial practice stage. Explains the first stage.
Treatise: In order to make the brief contemplation, up to the stage of practiced cultivation. Explains the second stage.
Treatise: In order to make the brief contemplation, up to the surpassing attention stage. Explains the third stage.
Treatise: There is impurity contemplation, up to there is
差別故。四句分別也。已熟非自在小。未熟是自在小。緣自身是所緣小。緣至海非所緣小 有所緣小非自在小者。謂已熟修。緣自身也 有自在小非所緣小謂未熟修。所緣至海 有自在小亦所緣小。謂未熟。唯緣自身 有非自在小亦非所緣小。謂已熟修緣至海也。已熟等中。已熟是第一句。未熟是第二句。未熟是第三句。已熟是第四句。所緣中雲。自身是第一句。至海是第二句。更自身是第三句。更至海是第四句。具足作文應言。自身至海。自身至海。闕一重也。
論。此不凈觀何性幾地。已下一行頌。第二義門分別。
論曰至無貪為性。此出體也。婆沙四十一師云。是慧。一師云。是厭。評曰。此不凈觀無貪為性。非慧非厭所以者何。對治貪故。若並眷屬。四蘊．五蘊為性 正理論云。若不凈觀應是慧者。理亦不然。觀所順故。謂不凈觀能近治貪故。應正以無貪為性。貪因凈相由觀力除。故說無貪為觀所。順諸不凈觀皆是無貪。非諸無貪皆不凈觀。唯能伏治顯色等貪。方說名為此觀體故。此約自性。若兼隨行。具以四蘊．五蘊為性。
論。通依十地至中間欲界。明依地也。
論。唯緣欲界至由此已成。此明所緣境界別也 依十地者。以此十地皆容能緣欲界色故。故婆沙云。以無色界無緣色
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 差別在於所緣和自在。四句分別說明如下：『已熟』（已經熟練的不凈觀）是非自在小，『未熟』（尚未熟練的不凈觀）是自在小。緣自身是不凈觀的『所緣小』，緣至海（觀想範圍至大海）是非『所緣小』。 有所緣小非自在小的情況，指的是已經熟練的修行者，觀想自身的不凈。 有自在小非所緣小的情況，指的是尚未熟練的修行者，觀想範圍至大海的不凈。 有自在小也是所緣小的情況，指的是尚未熟練的修行者，只觀想自身的不凈。 有非自在小也非所緣小的情況，指的是已經熟練的修行者，觀想範圍至大海的不凈。在『已熟等中』，『已熟』是第一句，『未熟』是第二句，『未熟』是第三句，『已熟』是第四句。在『所緣中』，『自身』是第一句，『至海』是第二句，『更自身』是第三句，『更至海』是第四句。完整地表達應該是：自身至海，自身至海，缺少一重意思。
論：此不凈觀（Asubha meditation）的體性是什麼？屬於哪幾地？下面一行頌文是第二義門的分別。
論曰：以無貪為體性。這是說明它的體。婆沙（Vibhasa）的四十一師說，是不凈觀是慧。一師說，是不凈觀是厭。評論說：此不凈觀以無貪為體性，不是慧也不是厭。為什麼呢？因為能對治貪慾。如果加上眷屬，則以四蘊、五蘊為體性。正理論說：如果說不凈觀應該是慧，道理也不對。因為不凈觀是觀所隨順的。也就是說，不凈觀能夠近似地對治貪慾，所以應該以無貪為體性。貪慾的起因是凈相，通過觀想的力量去除，所以說無貪是觀所隨順的。所有不凈觀都是無貪，但不是所有無貪都是不凈觀。只有能夠降伏和對治顯色等貪慾的，才被稱作此觀的體性。這是從自性的角度來說。如果兼顧隨行，則具足以四蘊、五蘊為體性。
論：通於十地，乃至中間欲界。這是說明所依的禪定地。
論：唯緣欲界，乃至由此已成。這是說明所緣的境界差別。依於十地，是因為這十地都能夠緣欲界的色。所以婆沙說：以無**無緣色。
【English Translation】 English version The difference lies in the object of focus and self-mastery. The four sentences are explained separately as follows: 'Already familiar' (Asubha meditation that is already familiar) is non-self-mastery small, 'not yet familiar' (Asubha meditation that is not yet familiar) is self-mastery small. Focusing on oneself is the 'object of focus small' of Asubha meditation, focusing on the sea (the scope of visualization extends to the sea) is non-'object of focus small'. The situation where there is an object of focus small but not self-mastery small refers to a practitioner who is already familiar, contemplating the impurity of oneself. The situation where there is self-mastery small but not an object of focus small refers to a practitioner who is not yet familiar, contemplating the impurity with the scope extending to the sea. The situation where there is both self-mastery small and also an object of focus small refers to a practitioner who is not yet familiar, only contemplating the impurity of oneself. The situation where there is neither self-mastery small nor an object of focus small refers to a practitioner who is already familiar, contemplating the impurity with the scope extending to the sea. In 'already familiar, etc.', 'already familiar' is the first sentence, 'not yet familiar' is the second sentence, 'not yet familiar' is the third sentence, and 'already familiar' is the fourth sentence. In 'object of focus', 'oneself' is the first sentence, 'to the sea' is the second sentence, 'again oneself' is the third sentence, and 'again to the sea' is the fourth sentence. The complete expression should be: oneself to the sea, oneself to the sea, lacking one layer of meaning.
Treatise: What is the nature of this Asubha meditation (Asubha meditation)? Which levels (bhumi) does it belong to? The verse in the following line is the distinction of the second meaning gate.
Treatise says: Taking non-greed as its nature. This explains its substance. The forty-one teachers of Vibhasa (Vibhasa) say that Asubha meditation is wisdom. One teacher says that Asubha meditation is aversion. Commentary says: This Asubha meditation takes non-greed as its nature, it is neither wisdom nor aversion. Why? Because it can counteract greed. If the retinue is included, then it takes the four aggregates and five aggregates as its nature. The Treatise on Right Reason says: If Asubha meditation should be wisdom, the reasoning is also not correct. Because Asubha meditation is what the contemplation accords with. That is to say, Asubha meditation can approximately counteract greed, so it should take non-greed as its nature. The cause of greed is the appearance of purity, which is removed by the power of contemplation, so it is said that non-greed is what the contemplation accords with. All Asubha meditations are non-greed, but not all non-greed are Asubha meditations. Only those that can subdue and counteract greed for manifest forms, etc., are called the nature of this contemplation. This is from the perspective of self-nature. If both the accompanying factors are considered, then it fully takes the four aggregates and five aggregates as its nature.
Treatise: Common to the ten levels, up to the intermediate desire realm. This explains the meditative states on which it relies.
Treatise: Only focusing on the desire realm, up to this is already accomplished. This explains the difference in the object of focus. Relying on the ten levels is because these ten levels can all focus on the form of the desire realm. Therefore, Vibhasa says: Without **, there is no object of focus on form.
法不凈觀故。所緣境者。唯是欲界顯．形色也。不緣諸入。以唯緣色故。是緣義不緣名也。正理論云。此不凈觀力能遍緣欲界所攝一切色處。若謂尊者阿泥律陀不能觀天以為不凈。舍利子等於佛色身亦不能觀以為不凈。如何此觀遍緣欲色。此難不然。勝無滅者。能觀天色為不凈故佛能觀佛微妙色身謂不凈故。由是此觀定能遍緣欲色為境。由此已顯緣義非名 上已顯成通緣三性。
論。唯人趣生至況余界生。明依身也。正理論云。初習業者唯依人趣能生此觀非北俱盧。天趣中無青瘀等故不能初起先於此起後生彼處亦得現前。此觀行相唯不凈轉。是善性故。體應是凈。約行相故說為不凈。是身念住攝。加行非根本。雖與喜．樂．舍三根相應。而厭俱行。如苦集忍智 故婆沙云。問何處起此不凈觀耶。答唯人三洲能初現起。天趣中無有青瘀等相。故六慾天唯能後起。有說。初．后皆唯人起。六慾天中無青瘀等不凈相故都不現起 婆沙二說無評家也。正理同前師此論同后師。
論。既亦不凈名唯不凈行相。明行相也。
論。隨在何世至通緣三世。明緣世也。勝解作意唯于現境假想緣故不緣過．未。如五識等唯緣現境。若過去緣過去 若現在緣現在。若未來生法緣未來。若不生法緣三世也。
論。既唯
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 由於修習法不凈觀的緣故，所緣的境界，僅僅是欲界的顯色和形色。不緣其他的諸入（ayatana，處），因為僅僅緣於色法。這是緣義，而不是緣名。正理論中說：『這種不凈觀的力量能夠普遍地緣取欲界所攝的一切色處。』如果有人說，尊者阿泥律陀（Aniruddha）不能觀天人的身體為不凈，舍利子（Sariputra）等人對於佛陀的色身也不能觀為不凈，那麼如何說這種觀想能夠普遍地緣取欲界的色法呢？這種質疑是不成立的。具有殊勝且沒有止滅的人，能夠觀天人的色身為不凈，佛陀也能夠觀佛陀微妙的色身為不凈。因此，這種觀想必定能夠普遍地緣取欲界的色法作為境界。由此已經顯示，所緣的是義而不是名。上面已經顯示，這種觀想能夠普遍地緣取三種自性（三性：善、惡、無記）。 論：唯有人趣的眾生，乃至何況其餘各界的眾生。說明這種觀想是依身而起的。正理論中說：『最初修習這種業的人，唯有依靠人趣才能生起這種觀想，在北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）則不能。因為天趣中沒有青瘀等不凈的現象，所以不能最初生起這種觀想；先在人趣生起，之後生到天趣也能現前。』這種觀想的行相唯有不凈的轉變，因為是善的自性。體應該是清凈的，因為是就其行相來說，所以說為不凈。這是身念住（kayasmrti-upasthana）所攝，是加行而不是根本。雖然與喜根、樂根、舍根三種根相應，但是與厭惡之心共同生起，如同苦集忍智。所以《婆沙論》中說：『問：在何處生起這種不凈觀呢？答：唯有人間的三洲能夠最初現起。天趣中沒有青瘀等相，所以六慾天唯能後起。』有的人說：『最初和之後都唯有人趣才能生起。六慾天中沒有青瘀等不凈的現象，所以都不能現起。』《婆沙論》的兩種說法沒有評判者。正理論的觀點與前一種說法相同，此論的觀點與后一種說法相同。 論：既然也只是不凈，名稱也只是不凈的行相。說明這種觀想的行相。 論：無論在哪個時代，乃至普遍地緣取三世。說明這種觀想所緣的時代。勝解作意唯有對於現在的境界進行假想緣取，所以不緣過去和未來。如同五識等，僅僅緣取現在的境界。如果是過去緣過去，如果是現在緣現在，如果是未來生法緣未來，如果是不生法緣三世。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of practicing the contemplation of impurity (asubha-bhavana), the object of focus (alambana) is solely the visible form (varna) and shape (samsthana) of the desire realm (kama-dhatu). It does not focus on the other sense bases (ayatana), because it focuses only on form. This is focusing on the meaning (artha), not on the name (nama). The Tattvartha-sutra states: 'This power of the contemplation of impurity can universally focus on all the sense objects of form included in the desire realm.' If it is said that the Venerable Aniruddha cannot contemplate the body of a deva (god) as impure, and Sariputra and others cannot contemplate the Buddha's body as impure, how can this contemplation universally focus on the forms of the desire realm? This objection is not valid. Those who are superior and without cessation can contemplate the form of a deva as impure, and the Buddha can contemplate the Buddha's subtle form as impure. Therefore, this contemplation can definitely universally focus on the forms of the desire realm as its object. This has already shown that what is focused on is the meaning, not the name. It has been shown above that this contemplation can universally focus on the three natures (tri-svabhava: wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral). Treatise: Only beings in the human realm, and even more so beings in other realms. This explains that this contemplation arises based on the body. The Tattvartha-sutra states: 'Those who initially practice this karma can only generate this contemplation based on the human realm, not in Uttarakuru. Because there are no phenomena such as lividity (blue-green discoloration) in the deva realms, this contemplation cannot initially arise there; it arises first in the human realm, and then can manifest when born in those realms.' The aspect of this contemplation is only the transformation of impurity, because it is of a wholesome nature. Its essence should be pure, but it is called impure because of its aspect. This is included in the mindfulness of the body (kaya-smrti-upasthana), and is an auxiliary practice (prayoga), not a fundamental one. Although it is associated with the three roots of joy (priti), pleasure (sukha), and equanimity (upeksha), it arises together with aversion (dvesha), like the forbearance-wisdom (ksanti-jnana) of suffering and origination. Therefore, the Vibhasa states: 'Question: Where does this contemplation of impurity arise? Answer: Only in the three continents of the human realm can it initially manifest. Because there are no signs of lividity etc. in the deva realms, the six desire heavens can only generate it later.' Some say: 'It arises only in the human realm, both initially and later. Because there are no impure phenomena such as lividity in the six desire heavens, it does not manifest at all.' There are two views in the Vibhasa, and there is no commentator. The Tattvartha-sutra's view is the same as the former, and this treatise's view is the same as the latter. Treatise: Since it is only impurity, the name is only the aspect of impurity. This explains the aspect of this contemplation. Treatise: No matter in which age, it universally focuses on the three times. This explains the time that this contemplation focuses on. Conceptual understanding (adhimoksa) only speculatively focuses on the present object, so it does not focus on the past and future. Like the five consciousnesses (panca-vijnana), it only focuses on the present object. If it is the past, it focuses on the past; if it is the present, it focuses on the present; if it is a future arising dharma, it focuses on the future; if it is a non-arising dharma, it focuses on the three times.
勝解至唯是有漏。述唯有漏所以。無漏行相十六行也。非是勝解作意相應。既唯勝解。明非無漏。論。通離染得至未曾得故。明二得也。正理論云。離彼彼地染得彼彼定時。亦即獲得彼地此觀。離染得已於後後時。亦由加行令得現起。未離染者唯加行得。此中一切聖。最後有異生。皆通未曾。余唯曾得 毗婆沙云。加行得．離染得。生得者有加行得。有離染得 非是生得。離染得者。謂離染時而修得故。加行現在前故。佛無加行得。獨覺下加行。聲聞或中加行。或上加行。異生上加行現在前 曾得未曾得者。通曾得未曾得。聖者。菩薩後有異生。通曾得未曾得。余異生唯曾得(述曰。聖者謂一切聖人。異生中有二。一菩薩後有異生。二自余異生。菩薩異生與聖人同。自余異生唯曾得也)。
論。說不凈觀相差別已。自下第二明持息念。此下一行頌九門明意念也。
論曰至令出身義。此第一釋入出息名。先入后出者。以初生時。入息先故。
論。慧由念力至如念住故。第二釋自性也。實是慧性。而言念者。念力持慧故。于境分明所作事成如念住故 依正理論。辨屬身風略有六種。一入息風。二出息風。三發語風。四除棄風。五隨轉風。六動身風 發語風者。謂有別風。是欲為先展轉所引。發語心起所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 勝解（adhimoksha，深刻的理解）僅限於有漏（sāsrava，與煩惱相關的）。解釋其僅為有漏的原因是，無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱的）行相（ākāra，方面）有十六種，而勝解並非與這些行相的作意（manasikāra，心理活動）相應。既然只是勝解，就表明它不是無漏的。 論中說，通過離染（virāga，去除雜染）可以獲得未曾獲得的境界，這表明有兩種獲得方式。《正理論》中說，在離開某個地的雜染時，可以獲得該地的定時（samādhi，禪定），也就是獲得該地的這種觀（darśana，見）。離染獲得之後，在隨後的時間裡，也可以通過加行（prayoga，努力）使其現起。未離染者只能通過加行獲得。這裡面，一切聖者（ārya，證悟者）和最後有異生（pṛthagjana，凡夫）都包括未曾獲得的情況，其餘的異生則只是曾獲得。 《毗婆沙論》中說，獲得方式有加行得和離染得。生得者有加行得，也有離染得。非生得者是離染得，指的是在離染時通過修行而獲得，因為加行現在前。佛沒有加行得，獨覺（pratyekabuddha，緣覺）是下加行，聲聞（śrāvaka，聲聞）或者中加行，或者上加行，異生是上加行現在前。曾得和未曾得的情況是，通於曾得和未曾得。聖者、菩薩（bodhisattva，菩薩）和後有異生，通於曾得和未曾得。其餘的異生只有曾得（述曰：聖者指一切聖人，異生中有兩種：一是菩薩後有異生，二是其餘異生。菩薩異生與聖人相同，其餘異生只有曾得）。 論中在說明不凈觀（aśubha-saṃjñā，對不凈之物的觀想）的相差別之後，接下來第二部分說明持息念（ānāpānasmṛti，對呼吸的覺知）。下面一行頌文用九個方面來說明意念。 論中說，慧由念力乃至令出身義。這是第一部分解釋入出息的名稱。先入后出是因為初生時，入息在前。 論中說，慧由念力乃至如念住故。這是第二部分解釋自性。實際上是慧的性質，而說是念，是因爲念力能夠支援慧，對於境界分明，所做的事情能夠成就，就像念住（smṛtyupasthāna，四念住）一樣。依據《正理論》，辨別屬於身體的風大致有六種：一是入息風，二是出息風，三是發語風，四是除棄風，五是隨轉風，六是動身風。發語風是指有一種特別的風，是以慾望為先導，輾轉所引發的，當發語心生起時。
【English Translation】 English version Adhimoksha (profound understanding) is limited to the sāsrava (with outflows, associated with afflictions). The reason it is said to be only sāsrava is that the ākāras (aspects) of anāsrava (without outflows, free from afflictions) are sixteen, and adhimoksha does not correspond to the manasikāra (mental activity) of these aspects. Since it is only adhimoksha, it indicates that it is not anāsrava. The treatise states that one can attain what has not been attained through virāga (dispassion, removal of defilements), indicating two ways of attainment. The Nyāyānusāra states that upon leaving the defilements of a certain ground, one attains the samādhi (meditative absorption) of that ground, which is to say, one attains that darśana (vision). Having attained it through dispassion, one can also cause it to arise later through prayoga (effort). Those who have not left the defilements can only attain it through prayoga. Here, all āryas (noble ones, enlightened beings) and the last-existence pṛthagjana (ordinary beings, worldlings) include cases of what has not been attained, while the remaining pṛthagjanas only include what has been attained. The Vibhasa states that there are attainments through prayoga and attainments through virāga. Those who are born with it have attainments through prayoga and attainments through virāga. Those who are not born with it attain it through virāga, referring to attaining it through practice at the time of leaving defilements, because prayoga is present. Buddhas do not have attainments through prayoga. Pratyekabuddhas (solitary realizers) have lower prayoga, śrāvakas (hearers) have either middle or upper prayoga, and pṛthagjanas have upper prayoga present. The cases of what has been attained and what has not been attained are common to both. Āryas, bodhisattvas (enlightenment beings), and pṛthagjanas in their last existence are common to both. The remaining pṛthagjanas only have what has been attained (Commentary: Āryas refer to all noble ones. Among pṛthagjanas, there are two types: bodhisattvas in their last existence and the remaining pṛthagjanas. Bodhisattva pṛthagjanas are the same as āryas, while the remaining pṛthagjanas only have what has been attained). After explaining the differences in aspects of aśubha-saṃjñā (contemplation of the impure), the treatise next explains ānāpānasmṛti (mindfulness of breathing). The following verse explains mindfulness in nine aspects. The treatise states, 'Wisdom arises from the power of mindfulness, up to the meaning of causing the breath to exit.' This is the first part explaining the names of incoming and outgoing breaths. Entering before exiting is because at the time of initial birth, the incoming breath comes first. The treatise states, 'Wisdom arises from the power of mindfulness, up to being like smṛtyupasthāna (the four foundations of mindfulness).' This is the second part explaining the nature. In reality, it is the nature of wisdom, but it is called mindfulness because the power of mindfulness supports wisdom, is clear about the object, and the task is accomplished, just like smṛtyupasthāna. According to the Nyāyānusāra, there are roughly six types of wind belonging to the body: first, the incoming breath; second, the outgoing breath; third, the speech wind; fourth, the expelling wind; fifth, the circulating wind; sixth, the body-moving wind. The speech wind refers to a special wind that is led by desire and induced through transformation, arising when the mind of speech arises.
令增盛。生從臍處流轉沖喉。擊異熟生長養大種。引等流性風大種生。鼓動．齒．唇．舌．腭差別。由此勢力引起未來顯名．句．文造色自性。此在口內。名語亦業。流出外時。但名為語(準上論文。異熟大種。長養大種。唯是擊鼓。不是造聲。喉等流大種。能造業聲。既有出外但名為語。準此亦有離質聲也) 隨轉風者。謂有別風。遍隨身支諸毛孔轉。由此故得隨轉風名。此不依心。但依業力隨身孔隙自然流行。由此能除依孔隙住腐敗污垢諸臭穢物 動身風者。謂有別風。能擊動身引起表業。應知此起以心為因。遍諸身支能為擊動(餘風可解。不勞引釋)。
論。通依五地至故不俱起。第三明依地也。由持息念唯舍相應。四禪無息。所以唯在前三近分。及在欲界．中間靜慮喜．樂二受。能順引尋及違專注不與俱起。
論。有說根本至息無有故。救異說也。
論。此定緣風至除北俱盧洲第四．第五明所緣境及依身也。婆沙云。言所依者。唯在欲界非色．無色。有餘師說。依欲．色界非無色界。然初起時必依欲界。
論。通離染得及加行得。第六明二得也。此論通二得。正理論云。唯加行得非離染得。未離染者定由加行現在前故。非離染得地所攝故。已說皆是近分地攝非根本故。又此念唯是勝
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 令其增盛。氣息從臍部流轉，衝擊喉嚨，撞擊異熟所生、滋養四大種（地、水、火、風）。牽引等流性的風大種產生，鼓動牙齒、嘴唇、舌頭、上顎的差別。由此產生的力量引起未來顯現的名、句、文，創造聲音的自性。這些都在口內發生，名為語亦業。流出體外時，則只名為語（參照以上論文，異熟大種、長養大種，只是撞擊鼓動，不是創造聲音。喉嚨等流大種，能夠創造業聲。既然有流出體外但名為語，參照此理，也有離開物質的聲）。
隨轉風，是指有一種特別的風，遍隨身體各處毛孔運轉。因此得到隨轉風的名稱。這種風不依賴於心，只是依靠業力，隨著身體的孔隙自然流行。因此能夠去除依附於孔隙的腐敗污垢等臭穢之物。
動身風，是指有一種特別的風，能夠擊動身體，引起表業。應當知道這種風的產生以心為因，遍佈身體各處，能夠進行擊動（其餘的風可以理解，不需要引用解釋）。
論：普遍依於五地，所以不會同時生起。第三說明所依之地。由於持息念唯與舍受相應，四禪沒有氣息，所以只在前三禪的近分，以及在欲界、中間靜慮的喜、樂二受中。能夠順應牽引尋，以及違背專注，所以不與尋同時生起。
論：有人說根本定沒有氣息的緣故。這是爲了駁斥不同的說法。
論：此定所緣的風，除了北俱盧洲。第四、第五說明所緣的境界以及所依的身體。婆沙論說：『所依之處，唯在欲界，不在色界、無色界。』有其他論師說：『依于欲界、非無色界。』然而最初生起時必定依于欲界。
論：普遍通過離染獲得以及加行獲得。第六說明兩種獲得方式。此論普遍包含兩種獲得方式。《正理論》說：『唯通過加行獲得，不通過離染獲得。』未離染者，禪定由於加行而現在前。不是離染所得之地所攝。已經說了都是近分地所攝，不是根本定。而且此念只是殊勝的。
【English Translation】 English version: To cause it to increase. Breath flows from the navel, impacting the throat, striking the Vipaka (result of karma) born and nourishing Mahabhuta (great elements). It draws forth the wind Mahabhuta of equal flow nature, stimulating the differences of teeth, lips, tongue, and palate. From this power arises the future manifestation of name, sentence, and word, creating the self-nature of sound. These occur within the mouth, named 'speech is karma'. When flowing outward, it is merely named 'speech' (referring to the above treatise, Vipaka-born Mahabhuta and nourishing Mahabhuta only strike and drum, not creating sound. The throat's equal flow Mahabhuta can create karma sound. Since there is flowing outward but merely named 'speech', according to this principle, there is also sound apart from matter).
The 'following-moving wind' refers to a special wind that circulates throughout the pores of the body. Hence, it receives the name 'following-moving wind'. This wind does not rely on the mind but solely on the power of karma, naturally flowing through the body's pores. Therefore, it can remove the decaying filth and foul odors residing in the pores.
The 'body-moving wind' refers to a special wind that can strike the body, causing physical actions. It should be known that its arising is caused by the mind, pervading all parts of the body and capable of striking (the remaining winds are understandable and do not require explanation).
Treatise: Universally relying on the five grounds, therefore they do not arise simultaneously. The third explains the ground of reliance. Because mindfulness of breathing is only associated with the feeling of equanimity, and the four Dhyanas (meditative states) have no breath, it is only in the proximate concentrations of the first three Dhyanas, and in the feelings of joy and pleasure in the desire realm and intermediate Dhyana. It can accord with and draw forth investigation, and contradict concentration, so it does not arise simultaneously with investigation.
Treatise: Some say that the fundamental concentration has no breath. This is to refute different views.
Treatise: This Samadhi (meditative state) takes wind as its object, except for Uttarakuru (a continent in Buddhist cosmology). The fourth and fifth explain the object of focus and the body of reliance. The Vibhasa (commentary) says: 'The place of reliance is only in the desire realm, not in the form realm or formless realm.' Some other teachers say: 'It relies on the desire realm, not the formless realm.' However, when it first arises, it must rely on the desire realm.
Treatise: Universally attained through detachment and through effort. The sixth explains the two types of attainment. This treatise universally includes both types of attainment. The Nyayanusara-sastra (treatise) says: 'Only attained through effort, not through detachment.' Those who have not detached from desire, Samadhi manifests due to effort. It is not included in the ground attained through detachment. It has already been said that all are included in the proximate concentration ground, not the fundamental concentration. Moreover, this mindfulness is only superior.
加行引故。不應說此有離染得 俱舍師救云。滅定中雲佛無一德非離染得。又離非想第九品染三乘之人。盡智初心修九地中有漏功德。又中間定離染地攝。此等豈非離染得耶。
論。唯與真實作意相應。第七二作意門也。正理論云。有說亦通勝解作意 正理后說同婆沙．雜心。前說同此論。
論。正法有情至微細法故。第八明外道不能起也。獨覺及佛自能起。聲聞因說方能起也。微細法故。復無說故。外道不能而自起也。正理論云。外道無有。無說者故。彼不能覺微細法故。此與我執極相違故。彼我執有故此念無。
論。此相圓滿至五轉六凈。第九明圓滿因。此列六因名也。
論。數謂繫心至極聚散故。釋第一名也。
論。然於此中至名為正數。明三失也。正理論云。雜亂失者。於五入數為出。於五出數為入 準此論文。入出別數合為十也 又云。或三失者。一太緩失。二太急失。三散亂失。太緩失者。謂由加行太慢緩故。便有懈怠．惛．睡纏心。或復縱心馳散外境。太急失者。謂由加行太躁急故。便令身．心不平等起。若時力勵數入出息。息被逼迫便令身中不和風起。由此風故初令身支諸脈洪散。此風增位能引病生 乃至廣說損益之相。散亂失者。謂由心散便為一切煩惱摧伏 又云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為有加行（prayoga，預備行為）的緣故，不應該說這種禪定（samadhi）的獲得是與離染無關的。俱舍師救（Kosasastri Trata）說，在滅盡定（nirodha-samapatti）中，佛陀（Buddha）沒有一種功德不是通過離染而獲得的。此外，在非想非非想處（naivasamjnanasamjnatayatana）第九品中，三乘（triyana）之人通過斷除煩惱，在盡智（ksayajnana）的最初階段，修習九地（navabhumi）中有漏的功德。還有中間定（antarabhava-samapatti）也屬於離染地所攝。這些難道不是通過離染而獲得的嗎？
論：只有與真實的作意（yathabhutamanaskara）相應，才是第七個二作意門（dvidha-manaskara-mukha）。正理論（Nyayanusara-sastra）說，也有人認為也包括勝解作意（adhimukti-manaskara）。正理（Nyaya）後來的說法與婆沙（Vibhasa）、雜心（Abhidharmasamuccaya）相同，之前的說法與此論相同。
論：因為正法（saddharma）有情（sattva）乃至微細法（sukshma-dharma）的緣故，這是第八個說明外道（tirthika）不能生起的原因。獨覺（pratyekabuddha）和佛陀自己能夠生起，聲聞（sravaka）因為聽聞說法才能夠生起。因為是微細法，又沒有說法者，所以外道不能自己生起。正理論說，外道沒有，因為沒有說法者。他們不能覺悟微細法，因為這與他們的我執（atmagraha）極度相違背。他們有我執，所以沒有這種正念（smrti）。
論：此相圓滿乃至五轉六凈（panca-vivarta-sat-visuddhi），這是第九個說明圓滿的原因。這裡列出了六個原因的名稱。
論：數，是指繫心（citta-bandhana）乃至極聚散的緣故。這是解釋第一個名稱。
論：然而，在此之中乃至名為正數（samyak-samkhya），這是說明三種過失。正理論說，雜亂的過失是指，在五入息（panca-pranasvasa）中數出息（ucchvasa），在五出息中數入息（pranavas）。按照這個論文，入息和出息分別計數，合起來是十。又說，或者三種過失是指，一、太緩的過失；二、太急的過失；三、散亂的過失。太緩的過失是指，因為加行太慢，所以會有懈怠、昏沉、睡眠纏繞內心，或者放縱心識馳散到外境。太急的過失是指，因為加行太急躁，就會使身心不平等。如果用力勉強地數入出息，呼吸被逼迫，就會使身體中不調和的風生起。由於這種風的緣故，最初會使身體的各個脈絡洪散。這種風增強，能夠引發疾病。乃至廣說其損益之相。散亂的過失是指，因為心散亂，就會被一切煩惱摧伏。又說
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the presence of prayoga (preparatory actions), it should not be said that the attainment of this samadhi (concentration) is unrelated to detachment. The Kosa master Trata (Kosasastri Trata) said that in nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment), the Buddha (Buddha) does not have a single virtue that was not obtained through detachment. Furthermore, in the ninth section of Naivasamjnanasamjnatayatana (the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception), individuals of the three vehicles (triyana), through the elimination of defilements, cultivate meritorious deeds with outflows in the nine grounds (navabhumi) at the initial stage of ksayajnana (knowledge of destruction). Moreover, antarabhava-samapatti (intermediate existence attainment) is also included within the realm of detachment. Are these not obtained through detachment?
Treatise: Only when it corresponds with yathabhutamanaskara (true or realistic attention) is it the seventh dvidha-manaskara-mukha (twofold gate of attention). The Nyayanusara-sastra (Treatise Following the Course of Reasoning) says that some also consider it to include adhimukti-manaskara (resolute attention). The later statement of Nyaya (Reasoning) is the same as Vibhasa (Exposition) and Abhidharmasamuccaya (Compendium of Abhidharma), while the earlier statement is the same as this treatise.
Treatise: Because of the presence of saddharma (true Dharma) and sattva (sentient beings), even sukshma-dharma (subtle dharmas), this is the eighth explanation of why tirthikas (non-Buddhists) cannot arise it. Pratyekabuddhas (Solitary Buddhas) and Buddhas themselves can arise it, while sravakas (hearers) can only arise it through hearing the Dharma. Because it is a subtle dharma and there is no one to explain it, tirthikas cannot arise it on their own. The Nyayanusara-sastra says that tirthikas do not have it because there is no one to explain it. They cannot awaken to subtle dharmas because this is extremely contradictory to their atmagraha (belief in a self). They have a belief in a self, so they do not have this smrti (mindfulness).
Treatise: This aspect is complete, up to panca-vivarta-sat-visuddhi (five transformations and six purifications). This is the ninth explanation of the cause of completeness. Here, the names of the six causes are listed.
Treatise: Samkhya (counting) refers to citta-bandhana (binding the mind), even to the reason for extreme aggregation and dispersion. This is the explanation of the first name.
Treatise: However, within this, up to being called samyak-samkhya (correct counting), this is the explanation of the three faults. The Nyayanusara-sastra says that the fault of confusion refers to counting exhalations (ucchvasa) as inhalations (pranavas) among the five inhalations (panca-pranasvasa), and counting inhalations as exhalations among the five exhalations. According to this treatise, counting inhalations and exhalations separately adds up to ten. It also says that the three faults are: 1. the fault of being too slow; 2. the fault of being too fast; 3. the fault of being scattered. The fault of being too slow refers to how, because the preparatory actions are too slow, there will be sloth, drowsiness, and sleepiness entangling the mind, or allowing the mind to wander and scatter to external objects. The fault of being too fast refers to how, because the preparatory actions are too rushed, it will cause the body and mind to be unequal. If one forcefully counts inhalations and exhalations, the breath will be forced, causing disharmonious winds to arise in the body. Because of this wind, it will initially cause the various channels of the body to become swollen and dispersed. This wind, when increased, can lead to the generation of illness, and so on, extensively explaining the aspects of harm and benefit. The fault of being scattered refers to how, because the mind is scattered, it will be overwhelmed by all afflictions. It also says
。凡數息時。應先數入。以初生位入息在先。乃至死時出息最後。如是覺察死．生位故。于無常相漸能修習。
論。若十中間至乃至得定。明有失者令重數也。
論。隨謂繫心至念恒隨逐。第二釋隨也。就隨之中有隨入者。有隨出者。此明入也。
論。若念息出至念恒隨逐。明隨出也。
論。有餘師說至或吠嵐婆。敘異說也 吠嵐婆者。是鐵圍山間風。真諦師云。言吠嵐者此云恒起。即是運轉日．月風也。
論。此不應理至作意俱故。論主破也。此念非是假相作意。如何得至吠嵐風者。正理論云。經主於此斥彼師言。此念真實作意俱起。不應念息至風輪等。彼言息念根本。雖與實作意俱。中間有餘勝解作意相應起者。為令真實作意速成。故於中間起斯假相。雖爾。無有出息念失。以息念加行意樂不歇故 俱舍師云。此念加行亦真實故。諸論中言通假想者。皆非正義。
論。止謂繫念至為損為益。第三釋止也。
論。觀謂觀察至以為境故。第四釋觀也。
論。轉謂移轉至世第一法。第五釋轉。
論。凈謂升進入見道等。第六釋凈也 凈。謂無漏見道 等者。等取修道無學道也。
論。有餘師說至方名凈。敘異說也。前師無漏已前名轉。無漏已去名凈。后
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：當進行數息時，應該先數入息，因為初生時的入息在先，乃至死亡時的出息最後。像這樣覺察死亡和出生的位置，就能逐漸修習無常的現象。
論：如果（在數息的）十個中間，乃至得到禪定，發現有遺漏的，就應該重新計數。
論：『隨』是指繫心于（呼吸），念頭恒常跟隨。這是第二種解釋『隨』。在『隨』之中，有隨入（息）者，有隨出（息）者，這裡說明的是隨入（息）。
論：如果念頭跟隨氣息呼出，念頭恒常跟隨。說明的是隨出（息）。
論：有其他老師說，（念頭可以遠到）吠嵐婆（Vailambha，鐵圍山間的風）。這是敘述不同的說法。吠嵐婆（Vailambha）是鐵圍山間的風。真諦（Paramārtha）法師說，『吠嵐』的意思是『恒起』，也就是運轉日月之風。
論：這種說法不應道理，因為（念頭）與作意（manasikara，心理活動）同時發生。這是論主的駁斥。這種念頭不是虛假的作意，怎麼能到達吠嵐風呢？正理論（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）說，經主在這裡駁斥那位老師的說法，這種念頭是與真實的作意同時生起的，不應該念氣息到風輪等。那位老師說，氣息念頭的根本，雖然與真實的作意同時，但中間有其他的勝解作意（adhimokṣa-manasikara，殊勝的理解）相應生起，爲了讓真實的作意快速成就，所以在中間生起這種虛假的現象。即使這樣，也沒有出息念頭的遺失，因為氣息念頭的加行（prayoga，努力）和意樂（chanda，意願）沒有停止。俱舍（Vasubandhu）師說，這種念頭的加行也是真實的。諸論中說（念頭）是通向假想的，都不是正確的意義。
論：『止』是指繫念（于呼吸），（觀察呼吸）是為有損還是有益。這是第三種解釋『止』。
論：『觀』是指觀察（呼吸），（將呼吸）作為所觀察的境。這是第四種解釋『觀』。
論：『轉』是指移轉（心念），（從凡夫地）到達世第一法（laukikāgradharma，世間最高的善法）。這是第五種解釋『轉』。
論：『凈』是指升進，進入見道（darśana-mārga，證悟真理的道路）等。這是第六種解釋『凈』。『凈』是指無漏的見道。『等』是指等取修道（bhāvanā-mārga，通過修行斷除煩惱的道路）和無學道（aśaikṣa-mārga，不再需要學習的道路）。
論：有其他老師說，（從凡夫地）到達世第一法才叫做『轉』，（從見道）到達無學道才叫做『凈』。這是敘述不同的說法。前一位老師認為，無漏（anāsrava，沒有煩惱）之前叫做『轉』，無漏之後叫做『凈』。后一位老師認為，
【English Translation】 English version: When practicing mindfulness of breathing, one should first count the inhalation, because the initial inhalation at birth comes first, and the final exhalation at death comes last. By being aware of the positions of death and birth in this way, one can gradually cultivate the perception of impermanence.
Treatise: If, in the middle of the ten (breaths), up to the attainment of dhyana (meditative state), a loss is noticed, one should recount.
Treatise: 'Following' means focusing the mind (on the breath), with the thought constantly following. This is the second explanation of 'following.' Within 'following,' there is following the in-breath and following the out-breath; this explains following the in-breath.
Treatise: If the thought follows the breath as it goes out, the thought constantly follows. This explains following the out-breath.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that (the thought can reach as far as) Vailambha (the wind between the iron mountains). This is a narration of a different view. Vailambha is the wind between the iron mountains. Master Paramārtha says that 'Vailambha' means 'constantly arising,' which is the wind that moves the sun and moon.
Treatise: This view is not reasonable, because (the thought) arises simultaneously with manasikara (attention). This is the treatise master's refutation. This thought is not a false attention; how could it reach the Vailambha wind? The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says that the sutra master here refutes that teacher's statement, saying that this thought arises simultaneously with real attention; one should not think of the breath reaching the wind wheel, etc. That teacher says that the root of breath-mindfulness, although simultaneous with real attention, has other adhimokṣa-manasikara (superior understanding) arising in between; in order to quickly achieve real attention, this false phenomenon arises in between. Even so, there is no loss of mindfulness of the out-breath, because the effort (prayoga) and intention (chanda) of breath-mindfulness do not cease. Master Vasubandhu says that the effort of this thought is also real. The statements in various treatises that (the thought) leads to imagination are not the correct meaning.
Treatise: 'Stopping' means focusing the mind (on the breath), (observing the breath) to see whether it is harmful or beneficial. This is the third explanation of 'stopping.'
Treatise: 'Observing' means observing (the breath), (taking the breath) as the object of observation. This is the fourth explanation of 'observing.'
Treatise: 'Turning' means shifting (the mind), (from the state of an ordinary person) to reach the highest mundane dharma (laukikāgradharma). This is the fifth explanation of 'turning.'
Treatise: 'Purifying' means advancing, entering the path of seeing (darśana-mārga). This is the sixth explanation of 'purifying.' 'Purifying' refers to the path of seeing, which is without outflows (anāsrava). 'Etc.' includes the path of cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga) and the path of no more learning (aśaikṣa-mārga).
Treatise: Some other teachers say that reaching the highest mundane dharma (laukikāgradharma) is called 'turning,' and reaching the path of no more learning (aśaikṣa-mārga) is called 'purifying.' This is a narration of a different view. The previous teacher considered that before being without outflows (anāsrava) is called 'turning,' and after being without outflows is called 'purifying.' The latter teacher considered that
師至有煩惱得來名轉。斷煩惱得盡名凈也。
論。為攝六相至轉凈相差別。以頌攝持前六相也。
論。息相差別云何應知。已下一行頌。六門明息也。
論曰至一分攝故。第一隨身繫也。
論。此出入息至皆不轉故。第二門也。於四位中息不轉也。
論。謂要身中至方得轉故。述具二緣息方轉也。正理論云。言四緣者。一入出息所依身。二毛孔開。三風道通。四入出息地粗心現前。於此四中隨有所闕息便不轉。無心定中心無有故。生無色界四種皆無故息不轉。處卵胎中羯剌藍等(等取六處。未具之前) 毛孔未開。風道未通故息不轉。若處卵胎．羯剌藍位。入出息轉。則應躁動。身微薄故便應散壞(此中應說。無出入息所依身也) 頞部曇等位身雖漸厚。而無孔隙故息不轉 準此已后位身孔隙開息轉也 又云。入第四定毛孔不開。無現粗心故息不轉。何緣但說入定非生 問也 但言入定生彼已成 答也 又云。若入世俗第四靜慮身無毛孔其理可然。以彼定能引彼地攝微密大種充滿身故。若入無漏第四定時。此身如何亦無毛孔。以彼但引隨所生地大種。現前造無表故 彼無漏定所引大種雖生處攝。而極微密與彼相似。故無有過 泰法師云。以此文證。故知。造無漏戒四大。隨身大小遍滿
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 師父達到有煩惱的狀態，被稱為『轉』（Zhuan，輪迴）。斷除煩惱，達到完全止息的狀態，被稱為『凈』（Jing，清凈）。
論：爲了概括六相，以偈頌來把握『轉』（Zhuan，輪迴）和『凈』（Jing，清凈）相的差別，用偈頌來概括前面的六相。
論：止息相的差別應該如何理解？下面一行偈頌，用六個方面來說明止息。
論曰：到『一分攝故』。第一是隨身繫。
論：此出入息到『皆不轉故』。這是第二門。在四種狀態中，氣息不運轉。
論：說的是在身體中，才能運轉。敘述具備兩種因緣氣息才能運轉。正理論說，所說的四種因緣是：一、入出息所依賴的身體；二、毛孔打開；三、風道暢通；四、入出息的粗顯心識現前。在這四種條件中，任何一個缺失，氣息便不能運轉。無心定中，心識不存在，所以氣息不運轉。出生時沒有**，四種條件都不具備，所以氣息不運轉。在卵胎中，羯剌藍等（Kalala，受精卵）（等取六處，在未具備之前），毛孔沒有打開，風道沒有暢通，所以氣息不運轉。如果在卵胎、羯剌藍（Kalala，受精卵）位，入出息運轉，就應該躁動，身體微薄，便應該散壞（這裡應該說，沒有出入息所依賴的身體）。頞部曇（Arbuda，凝滑位）等位，身體雖然逐漸增厚，但是沒有孔隙，所以氣息不運轉。依照這個推斷，之後的位，身體孔隙打開，氣息運轉。又說，進入第四禪定，毛孔沒有打開，沒有粗顯的心識，所以氣息不運轉。為什麼只說入定，不說出生？問。只說入定，出生已經完成。答。又說，如果進入世俗的第四靜慮，身體沒有毛孔，這個道理是可信的，因為那個禪定能夠引導那個地的微密大種充滿身體。如果進入無漏的第四定時，這個身體如何也沒有毛孔？因為那個禪定只是引導隨所出生地的大種，現前造作無表業。那個無漏定所引導的大種雖然是出生地所攝，但是極其微密，與那個相似，所以沒有過失。泰法師說，用這個文證，所以知道，造作無漏戒的四大，隨著身體的大小遍滿。
【English Translation】 English version: When a master reaches a state of having afflictions, it is called 'Zhuan' (轉, Rebirth). When afflictions are severed and a state of complete cessation is reached, it is called 'Jing' (凈, Purity).
Treatise: In order to summarize the six aspects, the differences between the 'Zhuan' (轉, Rebirth) and 'Jing' (凈, Purity) aspects are grasped with verses, using verses to summarize the preceding six aspects.
Treatise: How should the differences in the cessation aspect be understood? The following line of verse explains cessation in six aspects.
Treatise says: To 'being contained in one part'. The first is dependence on the body.
Treatise: This incoming and outgoing breath to 'all do not turn'. This is the second gate. In the four states, the breath does not circulate.
Treatise: It is said that it is only within the body that it can circulate. It describes that breath can only circulate when two conditions are met. The Zheng Li Lun (正理論, Treatise on Correct Principles) says that the four conditions are: 1. The body on which incoming and outgoing breath depends; 2. The pores are open; 3. The wind passage is clear; 4. The manifest consciousness of incoming and outgoing breath is present. If any of these four conditions are missing, the breath cannot circulate. In the mindless samadhi, consciousness does not exist, so the breath does not circulate. At birth, there is no **, and all four conditions are not met, so the breath does not circulate. In the womb, in the Kalala (羯剌藍, fertilized egg) stage (including the six places, before they are fully formed), the pores are not open, and the wind passage is not clear, so the breath does not circulate. If incoming and outgoing breath circulated in the womb, in the Kalala (羯剌藍, fertilized egg) stage, there should be agitation, and the body is thin, so it should scatter and break (here it should be said that there is no body on which incoming and outgoing breath depends). In the Arbuda (頞部曇, gelatinous stage) stage, although the body gradually thickens, there are no pores, so the breath does not circulate. According to this inference, in the later stages, the body pores open, and the breath circulates. It is also said that when entering the fourth Dhyana (禪定, meditation), the pores are not open, and there is no manifest coarse consciousness, so the breath does not circulate. Why only talk about entering samadhi and not about birth? Question. Only talk about entering samadhi, birth is already completed. Answer. It is also said that if one enters the mundane fourth Dhyana (禪定, meditation), it is reasonable that the body has no pores, because that samadhi can guide the subtle great elements of that realm to fill the body. If one enters the Anāsrava (無漏, undefiled) fourth Dhyana (禪定, meditation), how can this body also have no pores? Because that samadhi only guides the great elements of the realm of birth, manifesting unmanifested karma. Although the great elements guided by that Anāsrava (無漏, undefiled) samadhi are contained in the realm of birth, they are extremely subtle and similar to that, so there is no fault. Dharma Master Tai said that this text proves that the four great elements that create the Anāsrava (無漏, undefiled) precepts fill the body according to its size.
身中。一具四大造七支戒。隨大多少各各別造。道戒既爾。定戒亦然 今詳。此釋義不如是。隨心轉戒心俱有因。身大小不定故。或患．不患手．足等故。故知四大多少不定。豈得隨彼大種戒少戒多雖長養大遍一身中。何必皆能造無表色 又云。若生彼地身無毛孔。如何生彼能發語言 問也 非發語言要由毛孔。但由頷動亦得發聲。如機關聲豈由毛孔。有餘師說。生於彼地咽喉以上亦有毛孔。有說。生彼能發語心現在前時暫開毛孔 詳其後說。皆非正也。彼由總得無毛孔身。如何隨緣有毛孔也。
論。出第四定等至息最後出。述息入出先後也。
論。息有情數攝有情身份故。第三情數．非情數門也。準此出身非出入息非有情故。
論。非有執受與根相離故。第四執受非執受門也。正理論云。非有執受以息闕減執受相故。身中雖有有執受風。而此息風唯無執受。
論。是等流性至無如是相。第五五類門也。如文可解。
論。唯自上地心至通果心境故。已下第六明心境也。準此論文。身生上地唯得起下地威儀．通果心。然此中說是意識。不說三識。說觀息故。借下識起上地威儀．通果。但緣所發業事及所化事等。不緣上地風也。無覆無記心總不緣上地息。正理論云。持息念成滿相云何。應
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 身中。一具四大（地、水、火、風）造七支戒（七種戒律）。隨四大多少，各各別造。道戒（通往解脫的戒律）既然如此，定戒（禪定相關的戒律）也是一樣。今詳，此解釋義理不如是。隨心轉戒，心俱有因。身體大小不定，或者患病，或者手、足等有異。故知四大多少不定。豈能隨彼大種（四大）戒少戒多？雖長養大遍一身中，何必皆能造無表色（無法直接觀察到的業力）？又云，若生彼地身無毛孔，如何生彼能發語言？問也。非發語言要由毛孔，但由頷動亦得發聲。如機關聲豈由毛孔？有餘師說，生於彼地咽喉以上亦有毛孔。有說，生彼能發語心現在前時暫開毛孔。詳其後說，皆非正也。彼由總得無毛孔身，如何隨緣有毛孔也。
論。出第四定等至息最後出。述息入出先後也。
論。息有情數攝有情身份故。第三情數．非情數門也。準此出身非出入息非有情故。
論。非有執受與根相離故。第四執受非執受門也。正理論云。非有執受以息闕減執受相故。身中雖有有執受風，而此息風唯無執受。
論。是等流性至無如是相。第五五類門也。如文可解。
論。唯自上地心至通果心境故。已下第六明心境也。準此論文。身生上地唯得起下地威儀．通果心。然此中說是意識。不說三識。說觀息故。借下識起上地威儀．通果。但緣所發業事及所化事等。不緣上地風也。無覆無記心總不緣上地息。正理論云。持息念成滿相云何。應 English version: In the body, the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) constitute the seven branches of precepts (seven types of moral discipline), each created according to the abundance of the elements. Just as the precepts leading to liberation (道戒, Daojie) are formed, so too are the precepts related to meditation (定戒, Dingjie). Now, upon closer examination, this interpretation is not entirely accurate. The transformation of precepts follows the mind, and the mind is the cause. The size of the body is not fixed; it may be afflicted by illness, or the hands and feet may be different. Therefore, the quantity of the four great elements is not fixed. How can the amount of precepts be determined by the abundance of these elements? Although they nourish and pervade the entire body, it does not necessarily mean that they can all create unmanifested karma (無表色, Wubiaose)? Furthermore, it is said that if one is born in a realm where the body has no pores, how can one speak? This is a question. Speech does not necessarily require pores; it can also be produced by the movement of the jaw. Like the sound of a machine, does it come from pores? Some teachers say that those born in that realm have pores above the throat. Others say that when the mind to speak arises, pores temporarily open. Upon closer examination, the latter explanations are not correct. If one is born with a body that generally lacks pores, how can pores appear depending on conditions?
Treatise: Emerging from the fourth Dhyana (定, Ding) and reaching cessation, the last breath exits. This describes the sequence of inhalation and exhalation.
Treatise: Breath is included in the category of sentient beings because it is part of the sentient being's body. This is the third category: sentient and non-sentient. According to this, the body emerging is not the same as the breath entering and exiting, and is therefore not sentient.
Treatise: It is not possessed of apprehension because it is separate from the roots (根, Gen). This is the fourth category: possessed of apprehension and not possessed of apprehension. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論, Zhengli Lun) says: 'It is not possessed of apprehension because the absence of breath diminishes the aspect of apprehension.' Although there is wind possessed of apprehension in the body, this breath is only without apprehension.
Treatise: It is of the nature of outflowing (等流性, Dengliuxing) and does not have such characteristics. This is the fifth category: the five types. The meaning is clear from the text.
Treatise: Only the mind from the higher realms reaches the state of the fruition of realization (通果心境, Tongguoxinjing). The sixth section below clarifies the mind and its object. According to this treatise, when the body is born in a higher realm, it can only initiate the deportment and fruition of realization of the lower realm. However, this speaks of consciousness (意識, Yishi), not the three consciousnesses. It speaks of observing the breath. Borrowing the lower consciousness to initiate the deportment and fruition of realization of the higher realm, it only conditions the karmic actions and beings to be transformed. It does not condition the wind of the higher realm. The mind that is neither obscured nor indeterminate does not condition the breath of the higher realm at all. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'How is the aspect of the perfection of mindfulness of breathing achieved? It should'
【English Translation】 In the body, the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind) constitute the seven branches of precepts (seven types of moral discipline), each created according to the abundance of the elements. Just as the precepts leading to liberation (道戒, Daojie) are formed, so too are the precepts related to meditation (定戒, Dingjie). Now, upon closer examination, this interpretation is not entirely accurate. The transformation of precepts follows the mind, and the mind is the cause. The size of the body is not fixed; it may be afflicted by illness, or the hands and feet may be different. Therefore, the quantity of the four great elements is not fixed. How can the amount of precepts be determined by the abundance of these elements? Although they nourish and pervade the entire body, it does not necessarily mean that they can all create unmanifested karma (無表色, Wubiaose)? Furthermore, it is said that if one is born in a realm where the body has no pores, how can one speak? This is a question. Speech does not necessarily require pores; it can also be produced by the movement of the jaw. Like the sound of a machine, does it come from pores? Some teachers say that those born in that realm have pores above the throat. Others say that when the mind to speak arises, pores temporarily open. Upon closer examination, the latter explanations are not correct. If one is born with a body that generally lacks pores, how can pores appear depending on conditions? Treatise: Emerging from the fourth Dhyana (定, Ding) and reaching cessation, the last breath exits. This describes the sequence of inhalation and exhalation. Treatise: Breath is included in the category of sentient beings because it is part of the sentient being's body. This is the third category: sentient and non-sentient. According to this, the body emerging is not the same as the breath entering and exiting, and is therefore not sentient. Treatise: It is not possessed of apprehension because it is separate from the roots (根, Gen). This is the fourth category: possessed of apprehension and not possessed of apprehension. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論, Zhengli Lun) says: 'It is not possessed of apprehension because the absence of breath diminishes the aspect of apprehension.' Although there is wind possessed of apprehension in the body, this breath is only without apprehension. Treatise: It is of the nature of outflowing (等流性, Dengliuxing) and does not have such characteristics. This is the fifth category: the five types. The meaning is clear from the text. Treatise: Only the mind from the higher realms reaches the state of the fruition of realization (通果心境, Tongguoxinjing). The sixth section below clarifies the mind and its object. According to this treatise, when the body is born in a higher realm, it can only initiate the deportment and fruition of realization of the lower realm. However, this speaks of consciousness (意識, Yishi), not the three consciousnesses. It speaks of observing the breath. Borrowing the lower consciousness to initiate the deportment and fruition of realization of the higher realm, it only conditions the karmic actions and beings to be transformed. It does not condition the wind of the higher realm. The mind that is neither obscured nor indeterminate does not condition the breath of the higher realm at all. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'How is the aspect of the perfection of mindfulness of breathing achieved? It should'
作是言。若觀行者注想觀息微細徐流。謂想遍身如筒一穴。息風連續如貫末尼。不能動身。不發身識。齊此應說持息念成。◎
俱舍論疏卷第二十二
覺樹霜月十四夜半點了
理真
以黃園古本一交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二十三
沙門法寶撰
分別賢聖品第六之二
◎論。如是已說至復何所修。下三頌第三明四念住也。前兩頌明別相念住。后一頌明總相念住。此兩行頌明別相也。
論曰至修四念住。此總釋修念住意 奢摩他者。此云止 毗缽舍那。此云觀。正理論云。已修成止以為所依。為觀速成修四念住。非不得定者能如實見故 詳其論意。五停心觀為止散動偏修于止。爾時假想觀骨瑣等。一相住心名之為止。四念住觀取身．受．心．法差別之相。又于身中。而取種種差別之相。除其四倒。生如實見故名為觀。
論。如何修習四念住耶。問。
論。謂以自．共相至名為共相。答也。正理論云。以自相．共相觀身．受．心．法。謂修觀者。專心一趣。以自．共相於身等境。一一別觀修四念住。分別此法與所餘法有差別義名觀自相。分別此法與所餘法無差別義名觀共相 且身念住觀自相者。謂觀
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這樣說：如果觀行者專注地觀想呼吸，使其微細緩慢地流動，就像觀想整個身體如同一個只有一個孔的竹筒，呼吸的氣息連續不斷，如同用線貫穿的摩尼寶珠（mani，珍寶）。達到呼吸時身體不能移動，也不會引發身體的感知，就可以說已經成就了持息念。◎
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十二
覺樹霜月十四夜半點了
理真
以黃園古本一校了 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十三
沙門法寶 撰
分別賢聖品第六之二
◎論：像這樣已經說了……到……又修習什麼呢？下面的三頌是第三部分，說明四念住（catuḥsmṛtyupasthāna，四種專注的修行）。前面的兩頌說明別相念住（distinctive aspect mindfulness），後面一頌說明總相念住（general aspect mindfulness）。這兩行頌說明別相。
論曰……到……修四念住。這是總的解釋修習念住的意義。奢摩他（śamatha）的意思是止（calm abiding）。毗缽舍那（vipaśyanā）的意思是觀（insight）。《正理論》說：『已經修成止作為所依，爲了觀能夠快速成就，所以修習四念住。』因為沒有得到禪定的人不能如實地觀察。詳細考察論的意義，五停心觀（five kinds of contemplation to stop the mind）是爲了止息散亂而偏重修習止。那時，假想觀骨鎖等，一心專注於一個對象，這叫做止。四念住觀取身（body）、受（feeling）、心（mind）、法（dharma）差別之相。又在身體中，選取種種差別之相，去除四倒（four perversions），產生如實的見解，所以叫做觀。
論：如何修習四念住呢？問。
論：所謂以自相（own-characteristic）……共相（common-characteristic）……名為共相。答。《正理論》說：『以自相、共相觀身、受、心、法。』意思是說，修觀的人，專心一意，以自相、共相對於身等境界，一一分別地觀察，修習四念住。分別此法與其他法有差別意義，叫做觀自相。分別此法與其他法沒有差別意義，叫做觀共相。且身念住觀自相，就是觀……
【English Translation】 English version Thus it is said: If a practitioner observes and contemplates the breath, making it flow subtly and slowly, contemplating the entire body as if it were a bamboo tube with only one hole, the breath flowing continuously like mani (jewel) beads strung on a thread, to the point where the body cannot move and no bodily consciousness arises, then it can be said that the mindfulness of breathing has been accomplished. ◎
Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā) Volume 22
Completed at midnight on the fourteenth night of the frost month at the Bodhi Tree
Li Zhen
Proofread once against the old Huangyuan edition Taishō Tripiṭaka Volume 41, No. 1822, Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā
Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā Volume 23
Composed by the Śrāmaṇa Dharmaratna
Chapter Six, Part Two: Discrimination of the Worthy and the Holy
◎ Treatise: Having spoken thus... to... what else is cultivated? The following three verses are the third part, explaining the four smṛtyupasthānas (foundations of mindfulness). The first two verses explain the distinctive aspect mindfulness, and the last verse explains the general aspect mindfulness. These two lines of verses explain the distinctive aspects.
Treatise says... to... cultivate the four smṛtyupasthānas. This is a general explanation of the meaning of cultivating mindfulness. Śamatha (calm abiding) means cessation. Vipaśyanā (insight) means observation. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Having cultivated śamatha as a basis, in order for vipaśyanā to be quickly accomplished, one cultivates the four smṛtyupasthānas.' This is because those who have not attained samādhi (concentration) cannot see things as they truly are. Examining the meaning of the treatise in detail, the five kinds of contemplation to stop the mind are for stopping distraction and are biased towards the cultivation of śamatha. At that time, falsely contemplating bone skeletons, etc., focusing the mind on one object is called śamatha. The four smṛtyupasthānas observe the distinctive characteristics of the body, feelings, mind, and dharmas. Furthermore, within the body, one takes various distinctive characteristics, removes the four perversions, and generates true insight, so it is called vipaśyanā.
Treatise: How are the four smṛtyupasthānas cultivated? Question.
Treatise: So-called own-characteristic... common-characteristic... is called common-characteristic. Answer. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'One observes the body, feelings, mind, and dharmas with own-characteristics and common-characteristics.' This means that the practitioner, with focused attention, observes each of the body, etc., with own-characteristics and common-characteristics, cultivating the four smṛtyupasthānas. Distinguishing that this dharma has a different meaning from other dharmas is called observing the own-characteristic. Distinguishing that this dharma has no different meaning from other dharmas is called observing the common-characteristic. Furthermore, the body smṛtyupasthāna observing the own-characteristic is observing...
察身內．外十處自性各別。從眼至觸。一一皆有處。自相故。如是于彼各別法中。有正智生。名觀自相。此自相觀得成滿時。有道色起。爾時方立自相種性身念住名。此亦遍知彼法自相。由此各別有正智生。非諸境中總生一智。有說。非此自相觀中觀無表色。以無表色與無色品極相似故。有說。此觀亦觀無表。有道色生故。次身念住觀共相者。謂觀察身一一處相。雖有差別。而身相同。又于爾時觀十一處。俱是色相無有差別。謂皆不越大種所造。如是于彼一類法中。有正智生。名觀共相。此共相觀得成滿時。有道色起。爾時方立共相種姓身念住名。此亦遍知彼法共相。由此總有一正智生。非諸境中各生一智(言道色者是定境色)。
論。身自性者至除三餘法。出身．受．心．法自性。
論。傳說在定至如應當知。述成滿也 如應知者。隨其所應如是應分分可別分析。各各別觀名成滿位。正理論云 前說與此論同 或如前說觀究竟相。謂後後位善根增長。如畦中水泛溢漫流。有說。歘然非愛相起。此有二種。其二者何。一能發瞋。二令不樂。此中但有令不樂相。以所習事。若未自在。為求成滿故起欣樂。此于所習已得自在。止息希求故無欣樂。
論。何等名為四念住體。問也。
論。此四念住
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：觀察身體內部和外部的十個部位，它們的自性（svalaksana）各自不同。從眼根到觸覺，每一個都有其處所，因為它們各自具有獨特的自相（svalaksana）。像這樣，在這些各自不同的法（dharma）中，生起正確的智慧，這被稱為觀察自相。當這種自相觀修習圓滿時，會有道色（marga-rupa）生起。那時，才確立名為自相種性的身念住（kaya-smrtyupasthana）。這也普遍地了知那些法的自相。因此，從這些各自不同的法中生起正確的智慧，而不是在所有境界中總括地生起一種智慧。（有人）說，在這種自相觀中，不觀察無表色（avijnapti-rupa），因為無表色與無色界（arupa-dhatu）的法非常相似。也有人說，這種觀察也觀察無表色，因為有道色生起。接下來，身念住觀察共相（samanya-laksana）是指，觀察身體的每一個部位的相，雖然有差別，但身體的整體是相同的。而且，在那個時候，觀察十一個部位，都是色相，沒有差別，即都不超出四大種（maha-bhuta）所造。像這樣，在這些同一類別的法中，生起正確的智慧，這被稱為觀察共相。當這種共相觀修習圓滿時，會有道色生起。那時，才確立名為共相種性的身念住。這也普遍地了知那些法的共相。因此，總括地生起一種正確的智慧，而不是在所有境界中各自生起一種智慧（所說的道色是指禪定境界中的色）。 論：身體的自性是指，去除受（vedana）、心（citta）、法（dharma）的自性，剩餘的法就是身體的自性。 論：傳說在禪定中，應當如實地了知。敘述（自相觀和共相觀）的成就圓滿。如實地了知是指，根據其所應當，像這樣應該分分可別地分析，各自個別地觀察，這被稱為成就圓滿的階段。《正理論》說：前面所說的與此論相同。或者如前面所說，觀察究竟的相，即後後階段善根增長，就像田埂中的水氾濫漫流。有人說，突然生起非可愛的相。這有兩種，這兩種是什麼？一是能引發嗔恨，二是令人不快樂。這裡只有令人不快樂的相，因為所習的事情，如果尚未自在，爲了求得成就圓滿，所以會生起欣樂。而對於所習的事情已經得到自在，止息了希求，所以沒有欣樂。 論：什麼叫做四念住（catuh-smrtyupasthana）的體（rupa）？這是提問。 論：這四念住...
【English Translation】 English version: Observing the ten internal and external locations of the body, their individual self-natures (svalaksana) are distinct. From the eye to touch, each has its own place because they each possess a unique self-characteristic (svalaksana). In this way, within these distinct dharmas, correct wisdom arises, which is called observing the self-characteristic. When this self-characteristic contemplation is perfected, path-form (marga-rupa) arises. At that time, the mindfulness of body (kaya-smrtyupasthana) named after the self-characteristic lineage is established. This also universally knows the self-characteristics of those dharmas. Therefore, correct wisdom arises from these distinct dharmas, rather than a single wisdom arising generally in all realms. (Some) say that in this self-characteristic contemplation, unmanifest form (avijnapti-rupa) is not observed, because unmanifest form is very similar to the dharmas of the formless realm (arupa-dhatu). Others say that this contemplation also observes unmanifest form, because path-form arises. Next, the mindfulness of body observing the common characteristic (samanya-laksana) refers to observing the characteristics of each part of the body. Although there are differences, the body as a whole is the same. Moreover, at that time, observing the eleven locations, all are form-characteristics, without difference, that is, they do not exceed what is created by the four great elements (maha-bhuta). In this way, within these same category of dharmas, correct wisdom arises, which is called observing the common characteristic. When this common characteristic contemplation is perfected, path-form arises. At that time, the mindfulness of body named after the common characteristic lineage is established. This also universally knows the common characteristics of those dharmas. Therefore, a single correct wisdom arises generally, rather than a single wisdom arising individually in all realms (the so-called path-form refers to the form in the realm of meditative concentration). Treatise: The self-nature of the body refers to, removing the self-nature of feeling (vedana), mind (citta), and dharma, the remaining dharmas are the self-nature of the body. Treatise: It is said that in meditative concentration, one should know as it actually is. Describing the accomplishment and perfection (of self-characteristic and common characteristic contemplation). Knowing as it actually is refers to, according to what is appropriate, it should be analyzed separately and distinctly in this way, and observed individually, which is called the stage of accomplishment and perfection. The Nyayānusāra says: What was said earlier is the same as this treatise. Or, as said earlier, observing the ultimate characteristic, that is, in the later stages, the roots of goodness increase, like water overflowing and spreading in a paddy field. Some say that suddenly an unlovable characteristic arises. There are two kinds of this, what are these two kinds? One is capable of causing anger, and the other causes unhappiness. Here, there is only the characteristic of causing unhappiness, because if the thing being practiced is not yet mastered, in order to seek accomplishment and perfection, joy arises. But for the thing being practiced that has already been mastered, the desire is stopped, so there is no joy. Treatise: What is called the substance (rupa) of the four mindfulnesses (catuh-smrtyupasthana)? This is a question. Treatise: These four mindfulnesses...
至所緣別故。答也。
論。自性念住至三種念住。此牒第一自性釋也。即聞．思．修三慧為體。即以此三慧名三念住 言自性者。簡所緣．相雜以慧為體名為自性。非如相雜．及彼所緣非是念住。與念住雜。及為所緣。從其自性名爲念住。
論。相雜念住至諸法為體。牒餘二念住釋。慧俱有法及與慧體。互相雜故總名相雜念住 所緣念住。是慧所緣。亦攝於慧。以慧所緣諸法故。
論。寧知自性是慧非余。問。
論。經說于身至循觀用故。答。以契經中說循身觀等非慧不能。故知念住以慧為體。
論。何緣于慧立念住名。問。體既是慧。因何名念。
論。毗婆沙師至由楔力持。答。慧由念持。慧名念住。此之果慧從因念名。故正理論云。寧智慧住要由念力。以有念者慧增明故。
論。理實應言至便住不謬。論主釋也。慧令念住。得念住名。慧是其因。念住為果。慧名念住。因受果名。引二經證。如文可解。正理論師通其兩釋 梵名阿尼律陀此云無滅。
論。然有經言至愛心法滅。通伏難也。伏難意云。若四念住以慧為性。何故言由食．觸．名色．作意故集。滅亦如是。
論。應知彼說至得安住故。此即通也。此經言。身．受．心．法者。是所緣念住。所以緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 至所緣別故（因為所緣的對象不同）。答也（以下是回答）。
論（以下是論述）。自性念住至三種念住（從自性念住到三種念住）。此牒第一自性釋也（這是對第一種自性念住的解釋）。即聞．思．修三慧為體（就是以聽聞、思考、修習這三種智慧為本體）。即以此三慧名三念住（就用這三種智慧來命名三種念住）。言自性者（說到自性），簡所緣．相雜以慧為體名為自性（是簡別于所緣念住和相雜念住，以智慧為本體才稱為自性念住）。非如相雜．及彼所緣非是念住（不像相雜念住以及它們所緣的對象不是念住的本體）。與念住雜（與念住相雜），及為所緣（以及作為所緣的對象），從其自性名爲念住（從它們的自性上來說，才稱爲念住）。
論（以下是論述）。相雜念住至諸法為體（從相雜念住到以諸法為本體）。牒餘二念住釋（這是對剩餘兩種念住的解釋）。慧俱有法及與慧體（與智慧共同存在的法以及智慧的本體），互相雜故總名相雜念住（因為互相混雜，所以總稱為相雜念住）。所緣念住（所緣念住），是慧所緣（是智慧所緣的對象），亦攝於慧（也包含在智慧之中），以慧所緣諸法故（因為智慧所緣的是諸法）。
論（以下是論述）。寧知自性是慧非余（憑什麼知道自性念住是智慧而不是其他）？問（這是提問）。
論（以下是論述）。經說于身至循觀用故（經典上說，對於身體等進行觀察，是因為有遵循觀察的作用）。答（這是回答）。以契經中說循身觀等非慧不能（因為契經中說，遵循身體等進行觀察，沒有智慧是做不到的），故知念住以慧為體（所以知道念住是以智慧為本體）。
論（以下是論述）。何緣于慧立念住名（為什麼對於智慧建立念住這個名稱）？問（這是提問）。體既是慧（本體既然是智慧），因何名念（為什麼叫做念）？
論（以下是論述）。毗婆沙師至由楔力持（毗婆沙師說，是由楔子的力量來保持）。答（這是回答）。慧由念持（智慧由念來保持），慧名念住（智慧被稱爲念住）。此之果慧從因念名（這種作為結果的智慧，是從作為原因的念來命名的）。故正理論云（所以《正理論》說），寧智慧住要由念力（寧可讓智慧安住，也要依靠唸的力量），以有念者慧增明故（因為有唸的人，智慧會更加增進和明亮）。
論（以下是論述）。理實應言至便住不謬（實際上應該說，慧令念住，這樣安住才不會有錯謬）。論主釋也（這是論主的解釋）。慧令念住（智慧使念安住），得念住名（得到念住的名稱）。慧是其因（智慧是它的原因），念住為果（念住是它的結果）。慧名念住（智慧被稱爲念住），因受果名（原因是接受了結果的名稱）。引二經證（引用兩部經來證明），如文可解（就像經文可以解釋的那樣）。正理論師通其兩釋（《正理論》的論師貫通了這兩種解釋）。梵名阿尼律陀（梵文名字是Aniruddha），此云無滅（這裡翻譯成無滅）。
論（以下是論述）。然有經言至愛心法滅（然而有經典說，由食物、觸覺、名色、作意而集起，愛心和法滅）。通伏難也（這是爲了消除疑問）。伏難意云（消除疑問的意思是），若四念住以慧為性（如果四念住是以智慧為自性），何故言由食．觸．名色．作意故集（為什麼說由食物、觸覺、名色、作意而集起）？滅亦如是（滅也是這樣）。
論（以下是論述）。應知彼說至得安住故（應該知道，那部經說的是所緣念住，所以能夠安住）。此即通也（這就是解釋）。此經言（這部經說），身．受．心．法者（身體、感受、心、法），是所緣念住（是所緣念住）。所以緣（所以緣于）
【English Translation】 至所緣別故 (Because the objects of focus are different). 答也 (This is the answer).
論 (The following is a treatise). 自性念住至三種念住 (From 'Self-nature Mindfulness' to the 'Three Mindfulnesses'). 此牒第一自性釋也 (This explains the first, 'Self-nature Mindfulness'). 即聞．思．修三慧為體 (It takes the three wisdoms of hearing, thinking, and cultivating as its essence). 即以此三慧名三念住 (These three wisdoms are named the 'Three Mindfulnesses'). 言自性者 (Speaking of 'Self-nature'), 簡所緣．相雜以慧為體名為自性 (It distinguishes 'Self-nature' from 'Object-related' and 'Mixed' mindfulnesses; only when wisdom is the essence is it called 'Self-nature Mindfulness'). 非如相雜．及彼所緣非是念住 (Unlike 'Mixed Mindfulness' and its objects, which are not the essence of mindfulness). 與念住雜 (Mixed with mindfulness), 及為所緣 (and serving as objects of focus), 從其自性名爲念住 (it is called 'Mindfulness' based on its self-nature).
論 (The following is a treatise). 相雜念住至諸法為體 (From 'Mixed Mindfulness' to 'Taking all Dharmas as its Essence'). 牒餘二念住釋 (This explains the remaining two mindfulnesses). 慧俱有法及與慧體 (The dharmas that exist together with wisdom, as well as the essence of wisdom), 互相雜故總名相雜念住 (are mixed together, hence the general name 'Mixed Mindfulness'). 所緣念住 (Object-related Mindfulness), 是慧所緣 (is what wisdom focuses on), 亦攝於慧 (and is also included in wisdom), 以慧所緣諸法故 (because wisdom focuses on all dharmas).
論 (The following is a treatise). 寧知自性是慧非余 (How do we know that 'Self-nature' is wisdom and not something else)? 問 (This is a question).
論 (The following is a treatise). 經說于身至循觀用故 (The sutras say that observing the body, etc., is because of the function of following observation). 答 (This is the answer). 以契經中說循身觀等非慧不能 (Because the sutras say that following the observation of the body, etc., cannot be done without wisdom), 故知念住以慧為體 (therefore, we know that mindfulness takes wisdom as its essence).
論 (The following is a treatise). 何緣于慧立念住名 (Why is the name 'Mindfulness' established for wisdom)? 問 (This is a question). 體既是慧 (Since the essence is wisdom), 因何名念 (why is it called 'Mindfulness')?
論 (The following is a treatise). 毗婆沙師至由楔力持 (The Vibhasha masters say that it is maintained by the power of a wedge). 答 (This is the answer). 慧由念持 (Wisdom is maintained by mindfulness), 慧名念住 (wisdom is called 'Mindfulness'). 此之果慧從因念名 (This wisdom, as a result, is named after the mindfulness that is its cause). 故正理論云 (Therefore, the Nyayanusara says), 寧智慧住要由念力 (It is better for wisdom to abide, relying on the power of mindfulness), 以有念者慧增明故 (because for those who have mindfulness, wisdom increases and becomes brighter).
論 (The following is a treatise). 理實應言至便住不謬 (In reality, it should be said that wisdom causes mindfulness to abide, so that abiding is not mistaken). 論主釋也 (This is the explanation of the treatise master). 慧令念住 (Wisdom causes mindfulness to abide), 得念住名 (and obtains the name 'Mindfulness'). 慧是其因 (Wisdom is its cause), 念住為果 (mindfulness is its result). 慧名念住 (Wisdom is called 'Mindfulness'), 因受果名 (because the cause receives the name of the result). 引二經證 (Citing two sutras as proof), 如文可解 (as the text can explain). 正理論師通其兩釋 (The masters of the Nyayanusara connect these two explanations). 梵名阿尼律陀 (The Sanskrit name is Aniruddha), 此云無滅 (here translated as 'non-extinction').
論 (The following is a treatise). 然有經言至愛心法滅 (However, there are sutras that say that it arises from food, touch, name and form, and volition, and the extinction of love and mind). 通伏難也 (This is to eliminate doubts). 伏難意云 (The meaning of eliminating doubts is), 若四念住以慧為性 (If the Four Mindfulnesses take wisdom as their nature), 何故言由食．觸．名色．作意故集 (why is it said that they arise from food, touch, name and form, and volition)? 滅亦如是 (Extinction is also like this).
論 (The following is a treatise). 應知彼說至得安住故 (It should be known that that sutra speaks of object-related mindfulness, so it can abide). 此即通也 (This is the explanation). 此經言 (This sutra says), 身．受．心．法者 (body, feeling, mind, and dharma), 是所緣念住 (are object-related mindfulness). 所以緣 (Therefore, focusing on)
身等名爲念住。以慧于彼身等得住故。身等名為身等念住。食等與身等為因。故食等集身等。非說自性念住。
論。又念住別至各有三種。此就自．他．俱相續中。分四念住各為三也。故正理論云。身等念住各有三種。緣內．外．俱有差別故。且身念住有三種中。緣自相續說名為內。緣他身等說名為外。雙緣二種說為內．外。以有我愛而慢緩者。應觀內身猶如外故(準正理論他相續中緣他身等等者。等取非相續。此論文略不言等也)。
論。此四念住說次隨生。述次第也。
論。生復何緣次第如是。問生次也。
論。隨境粗者應先觀故。第一釋也。正理論云。或隨所緣粗細生故。然非由此心最後觀。法中涅槃極微細故。
論。或諸欲貪至如是次第。第二釋。如文可解。
論。此四念住至不增不減。此釋念住唯有四也。以對四倒立四念住。倒唯四故念住亦四。正理復云。對治四食。
論。四中三種至名為雜緣。此述雜緣．不雜緣也。
論。如是熟修雜緣身等。下一行頌明總相也。
論曰至苦空非我。此即釋也。正理論云。雜緣法念住總有四種。二三四五蘊為境別故。唯總緣五名此所修。彼居此中修四行相。總觀一切身．受．心．法。所謂非常．苦．空．非我。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
『身等』被稱為『念住』（smṛtyupasthāna，四念住）。因為以智慧在『身等』上安住的緣故，所以『身等』被稱為『身等念住』。『食等』與『身等』互為因緣，所以說『食等』聚集了『身等』，而不是說自性念住。
論：此外，念住各自又有三種差別。這是就自身、他人、俱相續中，將四念住各自分為三種。所以《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，『身等念住』各有三種，因為緣于內在、外在、俱有而有差別。而且，『身念住』有三種，緣于自身相續的，稱為『內』；緣於他人身等的，稱為『外』；同時緣于兩種的，稱為『內外』。對於有我愛且慢心懈怠的人，應該觀察自身如同外物一樣（依照《阿毗達磨順正理論》，在他人相續中，緣於他人身等等，『等』字也包括非相續。這段論文省略了『等』字）。
論：這四念住的順序是隨順產生的。這是敘述次第。
論：為什麼產生的順序是這樣的呢？這是提問產生的順序。
論：因為隨著所緣境的粗顯程度，應該先觀察粗顯的。這是第一種解釋。《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，或者隨著所緣境的粗細而產生。然而，並非因此心最後只觀察法，因為法中的涅槃極其微細。
論：或者因為諸欲貪等，所以是這樣的順序。這是第二種解釋。如文義可理解。
論：這四念住不多也不少。這是解釋念住只有四種。因為爲了對治四顛倒而設立四念住，顛倒只有四種，所以念住也只有四種。《阿毗達磨順正理論》又說，對治四食。
論：四種念住中，三種是雜緣，稱為雜緣。這是敘述雜緣和不雜緣。
論：像這樣熟練地修習雜緣的身等。下面一行頌文說明總相。
論曰：觀察身等為無常、苦、空、非我。這是解釋。 《阿毗達磨順正理論》說，雜緣法念住總共有四種，因為以二、三、四、五蘊為境而有差別。只有總緣五蘊才稱為此處所修。他在其中修習四種行相，總觀一切身、受、心、法，即所謂無常、苦、空、非我。
【English Translation】 English version:
『Body etc.』 are called 『smṛtyupasthāna』 (foundations of mindfulness). Because one dwells on 『body etc.』 with wisdom, 『body etc.』 are called 『foundations of mindfulness of body etc.』 『Food etc.』 are the cause of 『body etc.』, therefore it is said that 『food etc.』 gather 『body etc.』, not that it is the nature of mindfulness itself.
Treatise: Furthermore, each of the foundations of mindfulness has three distinctions. This is based on dividing the four foundations of mindfulness into three categories each, according to self, other, and both continuums. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says that 『foundations of mindfulness of body etc.』 each have three types, because of the differences in what is cognized as internal, external, and both. Moreover, among the three types of 『foundation of mindfulness of body』, that which is cognized as one』s own continuum is called 『internal』; that which is cognized as the body etc. of others is called 『external』; that which is cognized as both is called 『internal and external』. For those who have self-love and are slow due to arrogance, they should observe their own body as if it were an external object (according to the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya, in the continuum of others, 『etc.』 in 『body etc. of others』 also includes non-continuum. This passage omits 『etc.』).
Treatise: The order in which these four foundations of mindfulness are taught follows their arising. This is a description of the sequence.
Treatise: Why does their arising follow this order? This is a question about the order of arising.
Treatise: Because one should first observe what is coarse among the objects. This is the first explanation. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says, or they arise according to the coarseness or subtlety of what is cognized. However, it is not because of this that the mind ultimately only observes the Dharma, because nirvāṇa in the Dharma is extremely subtle.
Treatise: Or because of desires and greed etc., the order is like this. This is the second explanation. The meaning can be understood from the text.
Treatise: These four foundations of mindfulness are neither more nor less. This explains that there are only four foundations of mindfulness. Because the four foundations of mindfulness are established to counteract the four inversions, and there are only four inversions, therefore there are only four foundations of mindfulness. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya also says that they counteract the four foods.
Treatise: Among the four, three are mixed objects, called mixed objects. This describes mixed and unmixed objects.
Treatise: Like this, one skillfully cultivates the mixed objects of body etc. The verse below explains the general characteristics.
Treatise says: Observe body etc. as impermanent, suffering, empty, and not-self. This is the explanation. The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says that there are a total of four types of mixed object Dharma foundations of mindfulness, because of the differences in taking two, three, four, or five aggregates as objects. Only taking all five aggregates as objects is called what is cultivated here. He cultivates four aspects within it, observing all body, feeling, mind, and Dharma, namely impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and not-self.
然于修習此念住時。有餘善根能為方便。彼應次第修令現前。謂彼已熟修雜緣法念住。將欲修習此念住時。先應總緣修無我行。次觀生滅。次觀緣起。以觀行者先觀諸行從因生滅。便於因果相屬觀門。易趣入故。或有欲令先觀緣起。此後引起緣三義觀。此觀無間修七處善。於七處善得善巧故。能于先來諸所見境。立因果諦次第觀察。如是熟修智及定已。便能安立順現觀諦。謂欲．上界苦等各別。于如是八隨次第觀。修未曾修十六行相。彼由聞慧於八諦中。初起如斯十六行觀。如隔薄絹睹見眾色。齊此名為聞慧圓滿。思所成慧準此應說。次於生死深生厭患。欣樂涅槃寂靜功德。此後多引厭觀現前。方便勤修漸增漸勝。引起如是能順抉擇。思所成攝最勝善根。即所修總緣共相法念住(準上論文。即是三義七處等后。起總相念住入暖法也。三義觀者。即蘊．處．界三科義也。七處善者。如實知色苦。色集。色滅趣。色滅行。色味。色患。及色出離。如實知受．想．行．識七亦爾。如實知色是四智。知謂法類智。世智苦智問何故七處善中再說前三。一說道諦。複次三諦有邊故再說。道諦無邊故不再說。複次前四處善說見道位。見道必具觀四諦故。故具說四。后三處善說修道位。修道位中所修聖道。即是道諦。未必具觀四聖諦故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 在修習這種念住（Sati-patthana，四念住之一）時，如果還有其他善根可以作為輔助，那麼應該依次修習，使其顯現。也就是說，如果已經熟練地修習了雜緣法念住，當想要修習這種念住時，首先應該總的觀照修習無我之行（Anatta，佛教教義，指沒有永恒不變的『我』）。然後觀察生滅（Arising and Ceasing），接著觀察緣起（Paticcasamuppada，佛教基本理論，指事物相互依存的產生）。因為觀行者首先觀察諸行（Sankhara，佛教術語，指所有有為法）從因生滅，所以容易進入因果相屬的觀門。 或者有人希望先觀察緣起，然後引起緣三義觀（Khandha, Ayatana, Dhatu，蘊、處、界）。在這種觀修之後，修習七處善（Seven kinds of knowing rightly），因為對七處善非常熟練，所以能夠對先前所見到的境界，建立因果諦（Causality and Truth）的次第觀察。像這樣熟練地修習智慧和禪定之後，就能安立順現觀諦（Anuloma-ñāṇa，隨順智）。也就是說，分別觀察欲界和上界的苦等，像這樣按照次第觀察八種隨（Eight kinds of following），修習未曾修習的十六行相（Sixteen aspects of the Four Noble Truths）。 由於聽聞慧（Sutamaya panna，通過聽聞獲得的智慧）在八諦（Eight Truths）中，最初生起這樣的十六行觀，就像隔著薄絹看到各種顏色一樣。達到這種程度，就叫做聽聞慧圓滿。思所成慧（Cintamaya panna，通過思考獲得的智慧）也應該按照這個標準來說明。接下來，對於生死輪迴（Samsara）深深地厭惡，欣樂涅槃（Nibbana）寂靜的功德。此後，多多引發厭觀（Disgust contemplation）顯現，方便地勤奮修習，逐漸增長，越來越殊勝，引起能夠順應抉擇（Determination）的，思所成攝的最殊勝的善根。 這就是所修的總緣共相法念住（根據上面的論文，就是在三義、七處等之後，生起總相念住，進入暖法（Usma-gata，四加行位的第一個階段））。三義觀，就是蘊、處、界三科義。七處善，就是如實地知色（Rupa，物質）是苦，色集（Samudaya，苦的生起），色滅趣（Nirodha，苦的止息），色滅行（Magga，導致苦止息的道路），色味（Assada，樂味），色患（Adinava，過患），以及色出離（Nissarana，從色中解脫）。如實地知受（Vedana，感受）、想（Sanna，知覺）、行（Sankhara，意志）、識（Vinnana，意識）七種也是這樣。如實地知色是四智（Four kinds of wisdom）。知，指的是法類智（Dhamma-ñāṇa，法智）和世智（Sammuti-ñāṇa，世俗智）苦智（Dukkha-ñāṇa，苦智）。問：為什麼七處善中再次說前三？答：一次說道諦（Truth of the Path）。而且，前三諦（Three Truths）有邊際，所以再次說。道諦沒有邊際，所以不再說。而且，前四處善說的是見道位（Sotapatti-magga，入流道）。見道必定具備觀四諦，所以完整地說四諦。后三處善說的是修道位（Bhavana-magga，修道）。修道位中所修的聖道，就是道諦，未必具備觀四聖諦。
【English Translation】 English version When cultivating this mindfulness (Sati-patthana, one of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness), if there are other wholesome roots (kusala-mula) that can serve as aids, they should be cultivated in sequence to bring them to manifestation. That is, if one has already skillfully cultivated the mindfulness of mixed-condition phenomena, when intending to cultivate this mindfulness, one should first generally contemplate and cultivate the practice of no-self (Anatta, Buddhist doctrine referring to the absence of a permanent, unchanging 'self'). Then observe arising and ceasing (Arising and Ceasing), and then observe dependent origination (Paticcasamuppada, the fundamental Buddhist theory referring to the interdependent arising of phenomena). Because the practitioner first observes that all conditioned phenomena (Sankhara, Buddhist term referring to all conditioned things) arise and cease from causes, it is easier to enter the gate of contemplation of the relationship of cause and effect. Or some may wish to first observe dependent origination, and then arouse the contemplation of the three aspects of existence (Khandha, Ayatana, Dhatu, aggregates, sense bases, and elements). After this contemplation, cultivate the seven kinds of knowing rightly (Seven kinds of knowing rightly), because one is very skilled in the seven kinds of knowing rightly, one is able to establish a sequential observation of causality and truth (Causality and Truth) on the previously seen realms. Having skillfully cultivated wisdom and meditation in this way, one can then establish the knowledge conforming to insight (Anuloma-ñāṇa, knowledge conforming to insight). That is, separately observe suffering etc. in the desire realm and the upper realms, and observe the eight kinds of following (Eight kinds of following) in this sequence, cultivating the sixteen aspects (Sixteen aspects of the Four Noble Truths) that have not been cultivated before. Due to the wisdom gained through hearing (Sutamaya panna, wisdom gained through hearing) initially arising such a sixteen-aspect contemplation in the Eight Truths (Eight Truths), it is like seeing various colors through a thin silk. Reaching this level is called the perfection of wisdom gained through hearing. The wisdom gained through thinking (Cintamaya panna, wisdom gained through thinking) should also be explained according to this standard. Next, one deeply loathes the cycle of birth and death (Samsara), and rejoices in the merits of the tranquility of Nirvana (Nibbana). Thereafter, frequently evoke the contemplation of disgust (Disgust contemplation) to manifest, diligently cultivate with skillful means, gradually increasing and becoming more and more excellent, arousing the most excellent wholesome roots included in the wisdom gained through thinking that can conform to determination (Determination). This is the mindfulness of phenomena of the general characteristics of all conditioned things that is cultivated (according to the above thesis, it is after the three aspects, the seven kinds of knowing rightly, etc., that the mindfulness of general characteristics arises, entering the stage of warmth (Usma-gata, the first stage of the four preparatory stages)). The contemplation of the three aspects is the meaning of the three categories of aggregates, sense bases, and elements. The seven kinds of knowing rightly are: truly knowing that form (Rupa, matter) is suffering, the arising of suffering (Samudaya, the arising of suffering), the cessation of suffering (Nirodha, the cessation of suffering), the path leading to the cessation of suffering (Magga, the path leading to the cessation of suffering), the gratification in suffering (Assada, gratification), the danger in suffering (Adinava, danger), and the escape from suffering (Nissarana, escape from suffering). Truly knowing that feeling (Vedana, feeling), perception (Sanna, perception), volition (Sankhara, volition), and consciousness (Vinnana, consciousness) are also like this. Truly knowing that form is the four kinds of wisdom (Four kinds of wisdom). Knowing refers to the knowledge of the law (Dhamma-ñāṇa, knowledge of the law) and the worldly knowledge (Sammuti-ñāṇa, conventional knowledge) and the knowledge of suffering (Dukkha-ñāṇa, knowledge of suffering). Question: Why are the first three mentioned again in the seven kinds of knowing rightly? Answer: Once the Truth of the Path (Truth of the Path) is mentioned. Moreover, the first three truths (Three Truths) have boundaries, so they are mentioned again. The Truth of the Path has no boundaries, so it is not mentioned again. Moreover, the first four kinds of knowing rightly refer to the stage of the path of seeing (Sotapatti-magga, the path of stream-entry). The path of seeing must possess the contemplation of the Four Noble Truths, so the Four Noble Truths are fully mentioned. The last three kinds of knowing rightly refer to the stage of the path of cultivation (Bhavana-magga, the path of cultivation). The noble path cultivated in the stage of the path of cultivation is the Truth of the Path, and it does not necessarily possess the contemplation of the Four Noble Truths.
。但說於三) 婆沙第二云。若順次第說功德者。此中應先說不凈觀。或息念等。次說念住。次三義觀。次七處善。次說暖法。次說頂法(準此論文。即念住後起三義觀。及七處善。而入暖也) 今詳。婆沙與正理論．此論別者。入行次第。五停心后。別緣念住后。起總緣入于暖法。於此中間修三義觀。及七處善。兼緣起等。將入暖時從總念入。婆沙以念處重故。舉先念處不舉后也。此論略故不述中間。正理少具兼說三位。故此三論。義不相違。
論。修此觀已生何善根。已下第四明暖等四善根。即七方便中后四方便 就中。一明善根體等。二明善根差別。三明勝利。四明轉趣五明修果久近。此三行頌明體等也。
論曰至名為暖法。明從總相生暖法也。此從思慧或修慧生。故正理論云。若有先離欲界染者。依色界攝修所成慧。厭患生處欣樂涅槃。多厭行俱作意。次第能引異類暖善根生。諸有先時未離欲染。依思所成慧。引暖善根生。
論。此法如暖至故名為暖。釋暖名也。無漏道諦猶如於火。燒煩惱薪。至此位初得火前相故名為暖法。
論。此暖善根至十六行相。明諦行也。以時長故。而能具觀四聖諦境。及十六行。準減緣中。此觀四諦。於一一諦觀四行已方易諦也。又正理論云。是總緣共
相法念住差別。共法念住。雖緣有漏觀為苦．空．無常．非我。初位先起苦四行相。后觀集諦。于理無違。
論。觀苦聖諦至如后當辨。此列十六行相名也。正理論云。然諸暖法雖緣四諦。而從多分說厭行俱。以起彼時蘊想多故 準此論文。在暖位時偏觀苦．集。
論。此暖善根至更立異名。此明從暖入頂位也。正理論云。行者修習此暖善根下．中．上品。漸次增進。于佛所說苦．集．滅．道。生隨順信觀察諸有。恒為猛盛焰所焚燒。於三寶中信為上首。有修所成順抉擇分次善根起。名為頂法。是總緣共相法念住差別。
論。動善根中至說名為頂。釋頂名也。于中有二 一以退墮動善根中勝故名頂。如人頭頂 二以進退兩際名頂。猶如山首。故名為頂。正理論云。頂聲顯此是最勝處。如吉祥事至成辨時。世間說為此人至頂。動善中勝故名為頂。
論。此亦如暖至十六行相。明觀諦行相同前暖法。
論。如是暖頂至唯法念住。雙明二善。初安足時行修。唯雜緣法念住也。正理論云。初安足時唯法念住。后增進位四皆現前 述曰。別緣觀劣不能易位。總觀力勝能易位故。由斯初位皆法念住。
論。以何義故至四聖諦跡。此即是釋初安足也。
論。后增進時具四念住。釋安足后
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 相法念住的差別。共法念住，即使緣于有漏之法，觀其為苦、空、無常、非我，最初的階段先產生苦的四種行相，之後觀察集諦（苦的根源），在道理上沒有衝突。
論：觀察苦聖諦（duhkha-satya）乃至如後面將要辨析的。這裡列舉了十六種行相的名稱。正理論中說：『然而各種暖法（ushmagata）雖然緣於四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni），但從大多數情況來說，厭離的行相同時出現，因為生起這些行相時，蘊（skandha）的想念更多。』根據這段論文，在暖位時偏重觀察苦諦和集諦。
論：這個暖善根乃至更立異名。這說明從暖位進入頂位。正理論中說：『修行者修習這個暖善根的下品、中品、上品，逐漸增進，對於佛所說的苦、集、滅、道（duhkha-samudaya-nirodha-mārga），產生隨順的信心，觀察諸有，恒常被猛烈的火焰所焚燒，在三寶（triratna）中以信為首。有修所成的順抉擇分次善根生起，名為頂法（mūrdhan），是總緣共相法念住的差別。』
論：動善根中乃至說名為頂。這是解釋頂的名稱。其中有兩種含義：一是由於在退墮的動善根中勝出，所以名為頂，如同人的頭頂；二是以進退兩個階段的交界處名為頂，猶如山頂。所以名為頂。正理論中說：『頂這個聲音顯示這是最殊勝的地方，如同吉祥的事情到了成就的時候，世間人說這個人到達了頂峰。在動善中勝出，所以名為頂。』
論：這個也像暖法一樣，具有十六種行相。說明觀察四諦的行相與之前的暖法相同。
論：像這樣，暖位和頂位乃至唯有法念住。這裡同時說明了暖位和頂位這兩種善根。最初安住時，所修的行相只是雜緣於法念住。正理論中說：『最初安住時，唯有法念住，之後增進的階段，四種念住都同時出現。』述曰：別緣的觀察力量弱，不能改變位置；總觀的力量強大，能夠改變位置。因此最初的階段都是法念住。
論：以什麼意義，安立在四聖諦的足跡上？這就是解釋最初安住。
論：之後增進時，具足四念住。解釋安住之後。
【English Translation】 English version The differences in the mindfulness of phenomena (相法念住, dharma-smṛtyupasthāna). The common mindfulness of phenomena, even when focused on conditioned phenomena (有漏, sāsrava), observes them as suffering (苦, duhkha), emptiness (空, śūnya), impermanence (無常, anitya), and non-self (非我, anātman). In the initial stage, the four aspects of suffering arise first, and then the origin of suffering (集諦, samudaya-satya) is observed, which is not contradictory in principle.
Treatise: Observing the noble truth of suffering (苦聖諦, duhkha-satya) will be discussed later. This lists the names of the sixteen aspects. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: 'Although the heat dharmas (暖法, ushmagata) are focused on the four noble truths (四諦, catvāri āryasatyāni), they are mostly accompanied by aspects of aversion because the thought of the aggregates (蘊, skandha) is more prevalent when these aspects arise.' According to this text, the observation of the truth of suffering and the truth of origin is emphasized during the stage of heat.
Treatise: This root of good of heat, and even establishing different names. This explains the transition from the stage of heat to the stage of summit. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Practitioners cultivate the inferior, intermediate, and superior qualities of this root of good of heat, gradually progressing and developing faith in the Buddha's teachings of suffering, origin, cessation, and path (苦、集、滅、道, duhkha-samudaya-nirodha-mārga). They observe that all existences are constantly burned by fierce flames, and faith in the Three Jewels (三寶, triratna) is paramount. The sequential roots of good of the part of ascertainment in accordance with cultivation arise, called the summit dharma (頂法, mūrdhan), which is the difference in the mindfulness of phenomena that generally focuses on common characteristics.'
Treatise: In the root of good of movement, and even saying the name is summit. This explains the name of summit. There are two meanings: first, it is called summit because it excels in the declining root of good of movement, like the top of a person's head; second, the boundary between progress and regress is called summit, like the top of a mountain. Therefore, it is called summit. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'The sound of summit shows that this is the most excellent place, just as when an auspicious event reaches completion, people in the world say that this person has reached the summit. It is called summit because it excels in the root of good of movement.'
Treatise: This is also like the heat dharma, with sixteen aspects. It explains that the observation of the aspects of the four truths is the same as the previous heat dharma.
Treatise: Like this, the heat and summit stages, and even only the mindfulness of phenomena. This simultaneously explains the two roots of good of heat and summit. When initially dwelling, the practice is only mixedly focused on the mindfulness of phenomena. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'When initially dwelling, there is only the mindfulness of phenomena, and in the subsequent stage of progress, all four mindfulnesses appear simultaneously.' It is stated: Separate observation is weak and cannot change the position; general observation is strong and can change the position. Therefore, the initial stage is all mindfulness of phenomena.
Treatise: With what meaning is it established on the footprints of the four noble truths (四聖諦, catvāri āryasatyāni)? This explains the initial dwelling.
Treatise: In the subsequent stage of progress, it is complete with the four mindfulnesses. It explains after dwelling.
。下．中．上中。或唯觀色。或唯觀受。或復總觀。皆無遮也。
論。諸先所得至欽重心故。此釋曾得不重起也。正理論云。以勝加行引此善根。故已得中不生欽重。然此頂法雖緣四諦。緣三寶信多分現行。
論。此頂善根至名為忍法。此釋從頂生於忍也。
論。於四諦理至名為忍法。釋忍名也。前位善根於四諦理亦能忍可。此最勝故偏立忍名。又於前位雖又忍可。有退墮故。此位無退。偏得忍名 問若爾第一亦應亦忍。正理論云。世第一法雖于聖諦亦能忍可。無間必能入見道故。必無退墮。而不具觀四聖諦理。此具觀故偏得忍名。故偏說此名順諦忍。
論。此忍善根至與前有別。此明念住通局別也。正理論云。此與見道漸相似故。以見道位中唯法念住故。
論。然此忍法至相鄰接故。此明三忍境不同也。下．中忍具觀上．下八諦各具四行。上忍唯欲苦諦一行一剎那也。
論。由此義準至無簡別故。類釋。暖．頂具觀八諦十六行相。以此三位無簡別故。
論。謂瑜伽師至名中忍位。釋。漸減行。及減所緣。至唯緣欲苦諦一行二剎那前。名中品忍。準此論云於色．無色對治道等。一一聖諦行相．所緣。漸減漸略。故知下忍緣上．下八諦各具四行相。減色．無色道聖諦下一行
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：下品、中品、上品中品（指忍位中的不同層次）。或者僅僅觀察色蘊（Rupa，物質），或者僅僅觀察受蘊（Vedana，感受），或者總括地觀察一切（指五蘊）。這些都沒有遮止（指沒有限制觀察的對象）。
論：因為對於先前所獲得的（善根）生起極大的尊重和重視。這是解釋曾經獲得過的（善根）不會重新生起（退失）。《正理論》中說：因為以殊勝的加行（Adhicitta-samadhi，增上心學）引導這些善根，所以在已經獲得的（善根）中不會產生輕視和不重視。然而，這種頂法（Agradharmas，四加行位的第二位）雖然緣於四聖諦（Arya-satyani，苦、集、滅、道），但緣於三寶（Triratna，佛、法、僧）的信心多分現行。
論：這種頂善根（指頂位所生的善根）最終被稱為忍法（Ksanti，忍）。這是解釋從頂位產生了忍位。
論：對於四聖諦的道理能夠安忍認可，最終被稱為忍法。這是解釋忍的名稱。前一位的善根對於四聖諦的道理也能安忍認可，但因為這個（忍位）最殊勝，所以特別建立忍的名稱。而且，對於前一位（暖位、頂位）雖然也有忍可，但有退墮的可能性。這個忍位沒有退墮，所以特別得到忍的名稱。問：如果這樣，那麼世第一法（Laukikagradharma，世間第一法）也應該稱為忍。正理論中說：世第一法雖然對於聖諦也能忍可，而且無間（Anantara，立即）必定能夠進入見道（Darshana-marga，見道），必定沒有退墮。但是，它不具足觀四聖諦的道理。這個（忍位）具足觀四聖諦的道理，所以特別得到忍的名稱。所以特別說這個（忍位）名為順諦忍（Anulomiki-ksanti，隨順諦忍）。
論：這種忍善根與前面的（善根）有所區別。這是說明念住（Smrtyupasthana，四念住）的通局差別。《正理論》中說：這個（忍位）與見道漸漸相似，因為在見道位中只有法念住（Dharma-smrtyupasthana，法念住）。
論：然而，這種忍法與（見道）相鄰接。這是說明三忍（下忍、中忍、上忍）的境界不同。下品忍、中品忍具足觀察上方和下方的八諦，各自具足四行相（Akara，行相）。上品忍僅僅觀察欲界苦諦的一行相，只有一個剎那（Ksana，極短的時間單位）。
論：由此義理可以類推，沒有簡別。類比解釋：暖位、頂位具足觀察八諦的十六行相。因為這三個位（暖位、頂位、忍位）沒有簡別。
論：所謂的瑜伽師（Yogacara，瑜伽行者）最終到達中忍位。解釋：逐漸減少行相，以及減少所緣。最終僅僅緣于欲界苦諦的一行相，兩個剎那之前，名為中品忍。根據這個論述，對於色界、無色界的對治道等等，每一個聖諦的行相、所緣，逐漸減少，逐漸簡略。所以知道下品忍緣于上方和下方的八諦，各自具足四行相。減少色界、無色界道聖諦的一行相。
【English Translation】 English version: Inferior, middle, and superior-middle (referring to different levels within the forbearance stage). Either solely observing Rupa (form), or solely observing Vedana (feeling), or comprehensively observing everything (referring to the five skandhas). None of these are prohibited (meaning there are no restrictions on the object of observation).
Treatise: Because of the utmost respect and importance attached to the previously attained (wholesome roots). This explains that once attained (wholesome roots) will not arise again (decline). The Nyāyānusāra states: Because these wholesome roots are guided by superior application, contempt and disregard do not arise in what has already been attained. However, although this summit dharma (Agradharmas, the second of the four preparatory stages) is based on the Four Noble Truths (Arya-satyani, suffering, origin, cessation, path), faith in the Three Jewels (Triratna, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) is mostly manifest.
Treatise: This summit wholesome root (referring to the wholesome root arising from the summit stage) is ultimately called forbearance (Ksanti). This explains that forbearance arises from the summit stage.
Treatise: Being able to patiently accept the principles of the Four Noble Truths is ultimately called forbearance. This explains the name of forbearance. The wholesome roots of the previous stage can also patiently accept the principles of the Four Noble Truths, but because this (forbearance stage) is the most superior, the name of forbearance is specifically established. Moreover, although there is also acceptance in the previous stage (warmth stage, summit stage), there is the possibility of decline. This forbearance stage has no decline, so it specifically obtains the name of forbearance. Question: If so, then the World's Supreme Dharma (Laukikagradharma, the supreme mundane dharma) should also be called forbearance. The Nyāyānusāra states: Although the World's Supreme Dharma can also patiently accept the Noble Truths, and without interruption (Anantara, immediately) will certainly enter the Path of Seeing (Darshana-marga, the path of vision), and there is certainly no decline. However, it does not fully observe the principles of the Four Noble Truths. This (forbearance stage) fully observes the principles of the Four Noble Truths, so it specifically obtains the name of forbearance. Therefore, it is specifically said that this (forbearance stage) is called Anulomiki-ksanti (acquiescent forbearance).
Treatise: This forbearance wholesome root is different from the previous (wholesome roots). This explains the difference in scope of mindfulness (Smrtyupasthana, the four foundations of mindfulness). The Nyāyānusāra states: This (forbearance stage) is gradually similar to the Path of Seeing, because in the Path of Seeing there is only Dharma-smrtyupasthana (mindfulness of dharma).
Treatise: However, this forbearance is adjacent to (the Path of Seeing). This explains that the realms of the three forbearances (inferior forbearance, middle forbearance, superior forbearance) are different. Inferior forbearance and middle forbearance fully observe the eight truths above and below, each possessing four aspects (Akara). Superior forbearance only observes one aspect of the Truth of Suffering in the Desire Realm, for only one moment (Ksana, an extremely short unit of time).
Treatise: From this principle, it can be inferred that there is no distinction. Analogical explanation: The warmth stage and the summit stage fully observe the sixteen aspects of the eight truths. Because there is no distinction between these three stages (warmth stage, summit stage, forbearance stage).
Treatise: The so-called Yogacara (Yogacara, practitioner of Yoga) ultimately reaches the middle forbearance stage. Explanation: Gradually reducing the aspects, and reducing the object of focus. Ultimately, only focusing on one aspect of the Truth of Suffering in the Desire Realm, two moments before, is called middle forbearance. According to this treatise, regarding the antidotes to the Form Realm and Formless Realm, etc., the aspects and objects of focus of each Noble Truth are gradually reduced and simplified. Therefore, it is known that inferior forbearance focuses on the eight truths above and below, each possessing four aspects. Reducing one aspect of the Truth of the Path in the Form Realm and Formless Realm.
已去。名為中忍。減道行盡名減所緣。次減欲界道下行已。乃至欲界苦下三行各減行．所緣已。唯一行二念名為中忍。婆沙第五云。複次以忍位中。或時以十二行相觀察聖諦。或時以八行相觀察聖諦。或時以四行相觀察聖諦(解云。或時十二行者。除道諦四行。或時八行者。除滅道各四行。或時四行相者。除．滅．道．集各四行相 又釋或時十二行者。四諦各除一行。或時八行者。四諦各除二行。或時四行者。四諦各除三行。準七處善第二遍觀色等除道。以此文證。前解為勝 若依后釋即無文證。準正理文。七處善在總相念前。準婆沙一師云。在見．修道。又婆沙云。七處善觀色有四智。法類苦俗。又準婆沙有漏智觀諦總名俗智。無漏智觀諦名苦．集等。準上文諦七處善通有漏．無漏也) 婆沙一百九十云。問何等補特伽羅依空行入見道。何等補特伽羅。依無愿入見道。答若見行者依空行入。若愛行者依無愿入。唯除菩薩。雖是愛行而依空入(解云。見行著我故依空入。愛行人著有故依苦．無常入也。菩薩悲心多故名為愛行。為化眾生不厭有也) 又見行人有其二種。著我見者依非我行入。我所見者依空行相入。諸愛行人亦有二種。我慢增者依非常行入。懈怠增者依苦行相入(解云。別知身無常．不自恃起慢。若知其
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 已去（指已通過某個階段）。名為中忍（Mrdv-indriya，鈍根）。減道行盡名減所緣（所緣，對像）。其次，減欲界道下行已（欲界，Kāmadhātu，指眾生輪迴的慾望界；道，mārga，指解脫的道路；下行，較低的行相），乃至欲界苦下三行各減行．所緣已（苦，duhkha，指痛苦；行，ākāra，指行相；所緣，alambana，指所緣境），唯一行二念名為中忍。 《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第五卷說：『再者，在忍位中，有時以十二行相觀察聖諦（satya，真理），有時以八行相觀察聖諦，有時以四行相觀察聖諦。』（解釋說：有時十二行相者，除去道諦（mārga-satya，通往解脫的真理）的四行相。有時八行相者，除去滅諦（nirodha-satya，寂滅的真理）和道諦各自的四行相。有時四行相者，除去滅諦、道諦、集諦（samudaya-satya，苦的根源的真理）和苦諦各自的四行相。又解釋說，有時十二行相者，四諦各自除去一行相。有時八行相者，四諦各自除去二行相。有時四行相者，四諦各自除去三行相。參照《七處善》第二遍觀色等除去道諦。以此文證，前一種解釋更為優勝。若依據后一種解釋，則沒有文獻可以證明。參照《正理》的文句，《七處善》在總相念之前。參照《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》中一位論師的說法，在見道（darśana-mārga，見真理的道路）和修道（bhāvanā-mārga，修行的道路）中。又《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》說，《七處善》觀色有四智（jñāna，智慧）：法智（dharma-jñāna）、類智（anvaya-jñāna）、苦智（duhkha-jñāna）、俗智（samvrti-jñāna）。又參照《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》，有漏智（sāsrava-jñāna，受煩惱影響的智慧）觀察諦的總相名為俗智，無漏智（anāsrava-jñāna，不受煩惱影響的智慧）觀察諦名為苦智、集智等。參照以上文句，《七處善》通於有漏和無漏。』 《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》第一百九十卷說：『問：什麼樣的補特伽羅（pudgala，個體）依靠空行（śūnyatā-ākāra，空性的行相）進入見道？什麼樣的補特伽羅依靠無願行（apranihita-ākāra，無愿的行相）進入見道？答：若是見行者（drsti-carita，以知見為主的人）依靠空行進入，若是愛行者（rāga-carita，以貪愛為主的人）依靠無願行進入。唯有菩薩（bodhisattva，追求覺悟的眾生）例外，雖然是愛行者，卻依靠空行進入。』（解釋說：見行者執著於我，所以依靠空行進入。愛行者執著于有，所以依靠苦、無常進入。菩薩的悲心多，所以名為愛行者，爲了教化眾生而不厭棄有。） 又見行者有兩種：執著於我見者依靠非我行（anātman-ākāra，非我的行相）進入，執著於我所見者依靠空行相進入。諸愛行者也有兩種：我慢增盛者依靠非常行（anitya-ākāra，無常的行相）進入，懈怠增盛者依靠苦行相進入。（解釋說：如果知道身體是無常的，不應因此而自恃，生起我慢。如果知道其……）
【English Translation】 English version: Gone. Named Mrdv-indriya (鈍根, dull faculties). The reduction of the path's activity is called the reduction of the object (所緣, alambana). Next, having reduced the lower activities of the path in the Desire Realm (欲界, Kāmadhātu, the realm of desire where beings transmigrate; 道, mārga, the path to liberation; 下行, lower activities), and even having reduced the activities and objects of the three lower activities of suffering (苦, duhkha, suffering; 行, ākāra, activities; 所緣, alambana, object) in the Desire Realm, the single activity with two thoughts is called Mrdv-indriya. The fifth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Furthermore, in the position of forbearance (忍位), sometimes the noble truths (satya, truth) are observed with twelve aspects, sometimes the noble truths are observed with eight aspects, and sometimes the noble truths are observed with four aspects.' (Explanation: Sometimes the twelve aspects are those that exclude the four aspects of the Truth of the Path (mārga-satya, the truth of the path to liberation). Sometimes the eight aspects are those that exclude the four aspects of the Truth of Cessation (nirodha-satya, the truth of cessation) and the Truth of the Path respectively. Sometimes the four aspects are those that exclude the four aspects of the Truth of Cessation, the Truth of the Path, the Truth of the Origin (samudaya-satya, the truth of the origin of suffering), and the Truth of Suffering respectively. Another explanation is that sometimes the twelve aspects are those where each of the four truths excludes one aspect. Sometimes the eight aspects are those where each of the four truths excludes two aspects. Sometimes the four aspects are those where each of the four truths excludes three aspects. Refer to the second contemplation of form etc. in the Sevenfold Goodness (七處善) which excludes the Truth of the Path. Based on this text, the former explanation is superior. If based on the latter explanation, there is no textual evidence to prove it. Refer to the text of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, the Sevenfold Goodness is before the general contemplation. Also, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says that according to one teacher, it is in the Path of Seeing (darśana-mārga, the path of seeing the truth) and the Path of Cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga, the path of cultivation). Also, the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says that the Sevenfold Goodness observing form has four wisdoms (jñāna, wisdom): Dharma-wisdom (dharma-jñāna), Anvaya-wisdom (anvaya-jñāna), Suffering-wisdom (duhkha-jñāna), and Conventional-wisdom (samvrti-jñāna). Also, according to the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, the wisdom with outflows (sāsrava-jñāna, wisdom influenced by afflictions) observing the general aspect of the truths is called Conventional-wisdom, and the wisdom without outflows (anāsrava-jñāna, wisdom not influenced by afflictions) observing the truths is called Suffering-wisdom, Origin-wisdom, etc. According to the above text, the Sevenfold Goodness is common to both with and without outflows.' The one hundred and ninetieth volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Question: What kind of individual (pudgala, individual) enters the Path of Seeing relying on the aspect of emptiness (śūnyatā-ākāra, the aspect of emptiness)? What kind of individual enters the Path of Seeing relying on the aspect of wishlessness (apranihita-ākāra, the aspect of wishlessness)? Answer: If it is a person of the seeing disposition (drsti-carita, a person who is primarily driven by views), they enter relying on the aspect of emptiness. If it is a person of the desire disposition (rāga-carita, a person who is primarily driven by desire), they enter relying on the aspect of wishlessness. Only Bodhisattvas (bodhisattva, a being who seeks enlightenment) are exceptions; although they are people of the desire disposition, they enter relying on the aspect of emptiness.' (Explanation: People of the seeing disposition are attached to self, so they enter relying on the aspect of emptiness. People of the desire disposition are attached to existence, so they enter relying on suffering and impermanence. Bodhisattvas have much compassion, so they are called people of the desire disposition, and they do not reject existence in order to teach sentient beings.) Also, there are two kinds of people of the seeing disposition: those who are attached to the view of self enter relying on the aspect of non-self (anātman-ākāra, the aspect of non-self), and those who are attached to the view of what belongs to self enter relying on the aspect of emptiness. There are also two kinds of people of the desire disposition: those whose pride is increased enter relying on the aspect of impermanence (anitya-ākāra, the aspect of impermanence), and those whose laziness is increased enter relying on the aspect of suffering. (Explanation: If one knows that the body is impermanent, one should not rely on this and become arrogant. If one knows that...)
苦相。精進求出也) 西方德光論師。解減行雲。上下八諦各四行相。如名次第擬儀相當皆相系屬。如於后時應以欲界苦諦下無常行相入見道者。于自諦下從後向前。先除非我。次空。后苦 若以苦行擬入見道。先除非我。次空。后無常 若以空行擬入見道。先除非我。次苦。后無常 若以非我擬入見道。先除空。次苦。后無常。除欲苦諦四行既爾。除上道諦四行亦然。余準此例。恐繁不具 德光所解事太繁雜。既無論文。何理知定相系屬耶。如我見增者。為治我故起非我行者。何別理于滅等下。偏起離等行。先觀滅等諦耶 今為一釋從聞．思觀四諦時。於一一諦皆具四行。如名次第于上道諦等。後起者先滅。先起者后減。我見增者偏起非我。自餘三行隨次而減。中．上忍．及第一法同此一行。即以此行入于見道于理無違。
論。從此位無間至不相續故。明從中忍生上忍也。
論。上品忍無間至唯一剎那。明從上品忍生世第一法。及明世第一與增上忍緣．行相同。
論。此有漏故至世第一法。此釋名也。
論。有士用力至故名最勝。釋妨難也。婆沙第三云。此心．心所于余世法為都勝故說名第一。為分勝故名第一耶。設爾何失。若都勝故名第一者。此豈能勝現觀邊世俗智。然現觀邊所修世俗
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：苦相（Dukkha-lakshana，痛苦的特徵。精進地尋求解脫）。西方德光（Gunaprabha）論師解釋『減行』時說，上下八諦（四聖諦，即苦、集、滅、道，每一諦又分上界和地獄）各有四種行相（Anitya無常、Dukkha苦、Sunyata空、Anatma無我），如名稱的次第一樣，擬議的儀軌也相當，而且互相聯繫。例如，如果有人在之後想以欲界苦諦（Kama-dhatu Dukkha-satya）下的無常行相（Anitya-lakshana）進入見道（Darshana-marga），那麼在他自己的諦下，從後向前，先去除『我』（Atma），然後是『空』（Sunyata），最後是『苦』（Dukkha）。 如果以『苦』行（Dukkha-lakshana）擬議進入見道，先去除『我』，然後是『空』，最後是『無常』。 如果以『空』行（Sunyata-lakshana）擬議進入見道，先去除『我』，然後是『苦』，最後是『無常』。 如果以『非我』行（Anatma-lakshana）擬議進入見道，先去除『空』，然後是『苦』，最後是『無常』。去除欲界苦諦的四種行相既然如此，去除上界道諦（Urdhva-dhatu Marga-satya）的四種行相也是這樣。其餘的可以參照這個例子，因為繁瑣就不一一列舉了。 德光（Gunaprabha）所解釋的事情太繁雜了，既沒有依據經文，又憑什麼道理知道一定是這樣相互聯繫的呢？例如，如果我見（Atma-drishti）增長的人，爲了對治『我』而生起『非我』行（Anatma-lakshana），那麼在滅諦（Nirodha-satya）等之下，為什麼一定要生起『離』等行相（Viveka-lakshana）呢？為什麼要先觀察滅諦等呢？ 現在我來解釋一種方法：從聽聞、思考、觀察四諦（四聖諦）時，在每一個諦都具備四種行相，如名稱的次第一樣，在上界道諦等之後生起的先滅除，先生起的后減少。我見增長的人偏重於生起『非我』（Anatma），其餘三種行相隨著次第而減少。中忍（Madhyama-kshanti）、上忍（Urdhva-kshanti）以及第一法（Agra-dharma）與此一行相同，即以此行進入見道，在道理上沒有違背。 論：從此位無間至不相續故，說明從中忍（Madhyama-kshanti）生起上忍（Urdhva-kshanti）。 論：上品忍無間至唯一剎那，說明從上品忍（Urdhva-kshanti）生起世第一法（Laukikagradharma），以及說明世第一法（Laukikagradharma）與增上忍（Adhikakshanti）的緣（Hetu）、行相（Akara）相同。 論：此有漏故至世第一法，這是解釋名稱。 論：有士用力至故名最勝，這是解釋妨難。婆沙（Vibhasa）第三卷說：此心、心所（Citta-caitta）對於其餘世間法都是最殊勝的，所以稱為『第一』。是因為部分殊勝所以稱為『第一』嗎？如果這樣，有什麼缺失？如果因為都是殊勝所以稱為『第一』，那麼這怎麼能勝過現觀邊（Abhisamaya）的世俗智（Samvriti-jnana）呢？然而現觀邊所修的世俗
【English Translation】 English version: Dukkha-lakshana (The characteristic of suffering. To diligently seek liberation). The Western master Gunaprabha, in explaining 'reduced practice,' said that the eight truths (the Four Noble Truths, namely suffering, accumulation, cessation, and the path, each truth further divided into upper and lower realms) each have four aspects (Anitya impermanence, Dukkha suffering, Sunyata emptiness, Anatma non-self), just as the order of the names suggests, the proposed rituals are also corresponding and interconnected. For example, if someone later wants to enter the path of seeing (Darshana-marga) through the aspect of impermanence (Anitya-lakshana) under the truth of suffering in the desire realm (Kama-dhatu Dukkha-satya), then in their own truth, from back to front, they should first remove 'self' (Atma), then 'emptiness' (Sunyata), and finally 'suffering' (Dukkha). If one intends to enter the path of seeing through the aspect of 'suffering' (Dukkha-lakshana), first remove 'self,' then 'emptiness,' and finally 'impermanence.' If one intends to enter the path of seeing through the aspect of 'emptiness' (Sunyata-lakshana), first remove 'self,' then 'suffering,' and finally 'impermanence.' If one intends to enter the path of seeing through the aspect of 'non-self' (Anatma-lakshana), first remove 'emptiness,' then 'suffering,' and finally 'impermanence.' Since the removal of the four aspects of the truth of suffering in the desire realm is like this, the removal of the four aspects of the truth of the path in the upper realm (Urdhva-dhatu Marga-satya) is also like this. The rest can be referred to this example, and will not be listed one by one because of the complexity. Gunaprabha's explanation is too complicated, and there is no basis in the scriptures, and what reason is there to know that they are necessarily interconnected in this way? For example, if a person whose self-view (Atma-drishti) is increasing arises the practice of 'non-self' (Anatma-lakshana) to counteract 'self,' then under the truth of cessation (Nirodha-satya) etc., why must the practice of 'separation' (Viveka-lakshana) etc. arise? Why should one first observe the truth of cessation etc.? Now I will explain one method: when hearing, thinking, and observing the Four Noble Truths, each truth has four aspects, just as the order of the names suggests, those that arise after the truth of the path in the upper realm etc. are first extinguished, and those that arise first are reduced later. A person whose self-view is increasing focuses on arising 'non-self' (Anatma), and the remaining three aspects decrease in order. Middle forbearance (Madhyama-kshanti), upper forbearance (Urdhva-kshanti), and the first dharma (Agra-dharma) are the same as this practice, that is, entering the path of seeing through this practice, which is not contrary to reason. Treatise: From this position without interruption to non-continuity, it explains that upper forbearance (Urdhva-kshanti) arises from middle forbearance (Madhyama-kshanti). Treatise: Supreme forbearance without interruption to only one moment, it explains that the mundane supreme dharma (Laukikagradharma) arises from supreme forbearance (Urdhva-kshanti), and it explains that the mundane supreme dharma (Laukikagradharma) and increasing forbearance (Adhikakshanti) have the same cause (Hetu) and aspect (Akara). Treatise: This is contaminated, therefore it is the mundane supreme dharma, this is an explanation of the name. Treatise: With the effort of a man, therefore it is called the most excellent, this is an explanation of the objection. The third volume of Vibhasa says: This mind and mental factors (Citta-caitta) are the most excellent compared to other mundane dharmas, so it is called 'supreme'. Is it called 'supreme' because it is partially excellent? If so, what is the deficiency? If it is called 'supreme' because it is all excellent, then how can this surpass the mundane wisdom (Samvriti-jnana) on the side of direct realization (Abhisamaya)? However, the mundane cultivated on the side of direct realization
智是見道眷屬。見道慧力殊勝。此法不爾。又此豈勝雜修靜慮。然彼等至及所感生。不共異生。此法不爾。又此豈勝初盡智時所修善根。然修彼時離一切障。所依清凈。此法不爾。又此豈勝空空．無愿無愿．無相無相。三三摩地。然彼尚能厭惡聖道。況于有漏。此法不爾。若分勝故名第一者。暖．頂．忍等應亦名第一。各勝彼彼下位善根故。有作是說。此法都勝故名第一。然約能開聖道門說。非據一切。謂現觀邊世俗智等。雖有如前所說勝事。然皆無力開聖道門。此法獨能。是故都勝。或有說者。此法于餘一切事勝故名第一。謂現觀邊世俗智等所有勝事皆由此成。所以者何。彼諸勝事若無此法開聖道門體尚不修。況有勝用。要由此法開聖道門方修彼體乃有勝用。彼諸勝事既由此成。故此于餘一切事勝。有餘師說。此法分勝故名第一。問若爾暖等應亦名第一。答彼於二分中俱非最勝故。謂世善法總有二分。一依異生。二依聖者。世第一法。雖于聖者世俗智等不名最勝。而於異生所得善中皆最勝故。所以獨立第一法也 無評家也 問若爾未來修者。不能為等無間緣引聖道生。應非第一 答婆沙第二云。彼雖不作等無間緣。而能隨順已起得故。譬如苾芻與僧欲法。諸餘僧事亦得成立 問世第一法隨轉色．心不相應行。彼既不
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：智慧是見道的眷屬（輔助因素）。見道的智慧力量殊勝。但此法（世第一法）並非如此。此外，此法難道勝過雜修的靜慮（禪定）嗎？然而，那些等至（禪定狀態）及其所感生的果報，不與凡夫共有。此法並非如此。此外，此法難道勝過初盡智（證得阿羅漢果時所生的智慧）時所修的善根嗎？然而，修習彼時，遠離一切障礙，所依（身心）清凈。此法並非如此。此外，此法難道勝過空空三摩地（證悟空性的禪定）、無愿無愿三摩地（斷除愿求的禪定）、無相無相三摩地（不執著于相的禪定）這三種三摩地嗎？然而，它們尚且可能厭惡聖道，更何況是有漏法（有煩惱的法）。此法並非如此。如果因為部分殊勝而稱為第一，那麼暖位（四加行位的第一個階段）、頂位（四加行位的第二個階段）、忍位（四加行位的第三個階段）等也應該被稱為第一，因為它們各自勝過其下位的善根。有人這樣說，此法完全殊勝，所以稱為第一。然而，這是就其能夠開啟聖道之門而言，並非就一切方面而言。也就是說，現觀邊世俗智等，雖然有如前所說的殊勝之處，但都沒有力量開啟聖道之門。唯獨此法能夠，所以完全殊勝。或者有人說，此法在其他一切事情上殊勝，所以稱為第一。也就是說，現觀邊世俗智等所有殊勝之處，都由此法成就。為什麼這樣說呢？因為那些殊勝之處，如果沒有此法開啟聖道之門，其本體尚且不能修習，更何況有殊勝的作用。必須由此法開啟聖道之門，才能修習其本體，進而有殊勝的作用。那些殊勝之處既然由此法成就，所以此法在其他一切事情上殊勝。有其他老師說，此法部分殊勝，所以稱為第一。問：如果這樣，那麼暖位等也應該被稱為第一。答：因為它們在兩個方面都不是最殊勝的。也就是說，世間善法總共有兩個方面：一是依于異生（凡夫），二是依于聖者。世第一法，雖然在聖者的世俗智等方面不被稱為最殊勝，但在異生所得的善法中都是最殊勝的，所以獨立成為第一法。沒有評判家。問：如果這樣，那麼未來修習者，不能作為等無間緣（直接引發後續狀態的條件）引導聖道產生，應該不是第一法。答：婆沙（《大毗婆沙論》）第二卷說，他們雖然不作為等無間緣，但能夠隨順已經生起的功德。譬如比丘參與僧團的欲法（僧團事務），其他僧團事務也能因此成立。問：世第一法隨轉於色法、心法、不相應行法。它們既然不", "能為等無間緣引聖道生。應非第一 答彼是實有。有作用故。如眼識等。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等無間緣引聖道生。而是實有。有作用故。又如聖道。雖不為等
作等無間緣。云何得名世第一法 婆沙第二答云。彼雖不作等無間緣。而能隨順。由彼與此心．心所法。一起。一住。一滅。一果。一等流。一異熟。親近故。
論。如是暖等至重現前故。此出體也。取俱有法。然除彼得。婆沙第三云。問何故沙門果得是沙門果。而世第一法得非世第一法耶。答沙門果成就所顯故。沙門果得是沙門果。世第一法等無間緣所顯故。彼得既非等無間緣。亦不隨順如彼生等故。彼得非世第一法。暖．頂．忍得亦非暖等。勿得聖已重現前故。有說得亦是世第一法。有餘師說。彼俱起得是世第一法。評曰若彼俱起。若後起得。一切皆非世第一法種類同故。暖等亦爾。是故初說為善。問何故世第一法生等。是世第一法而得非耶。答生等與彼同一果。相隨行不相離。常和合無前後。相與所相未嘗相離。由此亦是世第一法。得與彼法不同一果。不相隨行。性相離不和合。或前或后。得與所得有時相離。譬如樹皮或時離樹。是故得非世第一法。暖．頂．忍得亦復如是 正理論云。然以見諦不許暖等重現在前。已見諦者。加行現前成無用故 今為一釋。前果非是後向道攝。向後起得不違理故。暖等是彼聖道加行。道後起暖等是違理故。又得聖不捨暖。果後起暖過。得果舍前向果后無向得。
論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 作為等無間緣（samanantarapratyaya，直接且無間斷的條件）。如何得名『世第一法』（laukikāgradharma，世間最高的法）？《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第二捲回答說：『它雖然不作為等無間緣，但能夠隨順。因為它與此心、心所法（citta-caitta，心和心理活動）一起生起、一起安住、一起滅去，具有相同的果、相同的等流（nisyanda，相似的因果關係）、相同的異熟（vipāka，成熟的果報），並且非常親近。』
論：像這樣，暖位（usmagata，四加行位的第一個階段）等至（samāpatti，禪定）重新顯現的緣故。這是指出它的體性。取俱有法（sahabhava-dharma，同時存在的法），然而排除它們的『得』（prāpti，獲得）。《婆沙論》第三卷說：『問：為什麼沙門果得（sramanyaphala-prapti，證得沙門果）是沙門果，而世第一法得不是世第一法呢？答：因為沙門果得是成就所顯現的，所以沙門果得是沙門果。世第一法得是等無間緣所顯現的，但它的『得』既不是等無間緣，也不隨順像它一樣的生起等，所以它的『得』不是世第一法。暖、頂（murdhan，四加行位的第二個階段）、忍（ksanti，四加行位的第三個階段）的『得』也不是暖等，以免已經證得聖果的人，暖等又重新顯現。』有人說，『得』也是世第一法。有其他老師說，與它們一起生起的『得』是世第一法。評論說：無論是與它們一起生起的，還是後來生起的『得』，一切都不是世第一法，因為種類相同。暖等也是如此。所以最初的說法是好的。問：為什麼世第一法的生等（utpada，生起）是世第一法，而『得』不是呢？答：因為生等與它具有相同的果，相互隨行，不相分離，常常和合，沒有前後，所相與能相未曾相離，因此也是世第一法。『得』與彼法不同一果，不相互隨行，體性相離，不和合，或者在前，或者在後，『得』與所得有時相離，譬如樹皮有時離開樹。所以『得』不是世第一法。暖、頂、忍的『得』也是如此。《正理論》（Nyāyānusāra-śāstra）說：『然而，因為見諦（darśana-satya，見真諦）不許可暖等重新顯現在前，已經見諦的人，加行（prayoga，修行）顯現在前成為無用。』現在作一個解釋：前果不是後向道所攝，向後生起『得』不違背道理。暖等是彼聖道加行，道後生起暖等是違背道理的。又證得聖果不捨棄暖位，果後生起暖位是過失。證得果位捨棄前向，果后沒有向的『得』。
論
【English Translation】 English version Acting as the immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya). How does one get the name 'Highest mundane dharma' (laukikāgradharma)? The second Vibhasa (Vibhasa) answers: 'Although it does not act as the immediately preceding condition, it can accord with it. Because it arises together, abides together, and ceases together with this mind and mental factors (citta-caitta), having the same result, the same outflow (nisyanda), the same maturation (vipāka), and is very close.'
Treatise: Thus, because the warmth stage (usmagata) and other samadhis (samāpatti) reappear. This points out its substance. It takes co-existent dharmas (sahabhava-dharma), but excludes their 'attainment' (prāpti). The third Vibhasa says: 'Question: Why is the attainment of the fruit of a Sramana (sramanyaphala-prapti) the fruit of a Sramana, but the attainment of the highest mundane dharma is not the highest mundane dharma? Answer: Because the attainment of the fruit of a Sramana is manifested by accomplishment, the attainment of the fruit of a Sramana is the fruit of a Sramana. The attainment of the highest mundane dharma is manifested by the immediately preceding condition, but its 'attainment' is neither the immediately preceding condition nor does it accord with its arising, etc., so its 'attainment' is not the highest mundane dharma. The 'attainments' of warmth, peak (murdhan), and forbearance (ksanti) are also not warmth, etc., lest those who have already attained the holy fruit should have warmth, etc., reappear.' Some say that 'attainment' is also the highest mundane dharma. Other teachers say that the 'attainment' that arises together with them is the highest mundane dharma. Comment: Whether it arises together with them or arises later, none of the 'attainments' are the highest mundane dharma, because they are of the same kind. The same is true of warmth, etc. Therefore, the initial statement is good. Question: Why are the arising, etc. (utpada) of the highest mundane dharma the highest mundane dharma, but 'attainment' is not? Answer: Because arising, etc. have the same result as it, follow each other, are not separated, are always in harmony, have no before or after, and the object and subject have never been separated, so it is also the highest mundane dharma. 'Attainment' does not have the same result as that dharma, does not follow each other, is separate in nature, is not in harmony, is either before or after, and 'attainment' and what is attained are sometimes separated, just as the bark of a tree sometimes leaves the tree. Therefore, 'attainment' is not the highest mundane dharma. The 'attainments' of warmth, peak, and forbearance are also the same. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra) says: 'However, because seeing the truth (darśana-satya) does not allow warmth, etc. to reappear, for those who have already seen the truth, the practice (prayoga) appearing before them becomes useless.' Now, let's give an explanation: The previous fruit is not included in the path towards the later fruit, and the 'attainment' arising after the path does not violate the principle. Warmth, etc. are the practice of that holy path, and the warmth, etc. arising after the path violate the principle. Moreover, attaining the holy fruit does not abandon the warmth stage, and the warmth stage arising after the fruit is a fault. Attaining the fruit abandons the previous path, and there is no 'attainment' of the path after the fruit.
Treatise
。此中暖法至未來。四明暖最初行得二修行相多少。于最初位進善根故。於三諦唯雜緣法念住。得修通總．別觀故修四念住。修自諦行相故通四行也。不傍修故無十六行也。于滅諦唯不雜緣法念住。無身．受．心故。二修唯法念住。不傍修故不修余諦四念住也。
論。由此種姓至方能修故。釋不傍修所以 言同分者。謂同諦也。
論。后增進位至未來十六。明暖增進位行．得修也。三諦皆有色．受．心．法故。非初易位。容現別觀色．受．心等故。云隨一念住現在修也。雖能傍修余諦念處。數不過四故言四也 隨一行現在修未來十六者。以傍修余諦也。緣滅諦無餘念住故。法念住現在修。傍修余諦故未來四也。行修初后皆同法念。
論。由此種性至亦能修故。釋得傍修所以。如文可解。
論。頂初安足至未來十六。明頂初入位也。初進異位故行修唯法念。進位不簡行故 隨一行相修。未來四及十六者。許傍修故。四諦同故合說也。
論。后增進時至未來十六。明增進位許別現也。隨一念處現在修。未來四等如暖中釋。三諦不同故別釋也。
論。忍初安足至未來十六。明忍位也。婆沙一百八十八云。問何故忍初及后皆法念住。答以忍近見道故相似見道(述曰。然一切皆似見道)。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 此中暖法（Uṣmagata，四善根之一，意為『暖』）直至未來。四明暖（指四種明瞭的『暖』位）最初修行得二種修行相，有多少？于最初位增進善根的緣故，於三諦（指苦、集、滅三諦）唯有雜緣法念住（Dharmanupassanā-smṛtyupasthāna，四念住之一，意為『法隨觀』）。得修通總、別觀的緣故，修四念住。修自諦行相的緣故，通達四行（指四種修行方式）。不傍修的緣故，沒有十六行（指十六種修行方式）。于滅諦（Nirodha-satya，四聖諦之一，意為『滅諦』）唯有不雜緣法念住，沒有身、受、心，所以二修唯有法念住。不傍修的緣故，不修其餘諦的四念住。
論：由此種姓（Gotra，意為『種姓』）直至方能修的緣故。解釋不傍修的原因。言同分者，謂同諦也。
論：后增進位直至未來十六。說明暖增進位的行、得修。三諦皆有色、受、心、法，並非初易位，容許顯現別觀色、受、心等，所以說隨一念住現在修。雖然能夠傍修其餘諦的念處，數量不過四，所以說四也。隨一行現在修未來十六者，以傍修其餘諦。緣滅諦沒有其餘念住的緣故，法念住現在修，傍修其餘諦的緣故，未來四也。行修初后都相同於法念。
論：由此種性直至亦能修的緣故。解釋得傍修的原因。如文可解。
論：頂初安足直至未來十六。說明頂（Mūrdhan，四善根之一，意為『頂』）初入位。初進異位的緣故，行修唯有法念。進位不簡行的緣故，隨一行相修。未來四及十六者，允許傍修的緣故。四諦相同，所以合說。
論：后增進時直至未來十六。說明增進位允許別現。隨一念處現在修，未來四等如暖中解釋。三諦不同，所以分別解釋。
論：忍初安足直至未來十六。說明忍（Kṣānti，四善根之一，意為『忍』）位。婆沙（Vibhāṣā，意為『廣解』）一百八十八云：問：何故忍初及后皆法念住？答：以忍近見道故相似見道（述曰：然一切皆似見道）。
【English Translation】 English version: Here, the Uṣmagata (heat, one of the four roots of good) extends to the future. In the initial practice of the fourfold Uṣmagata, how many aspects of practice are attained? Because of advancing good roots in the initial stage, only the mixed-cause Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna (mindfulness of Dharma, one of the four foundations of mindfulness) is present in the three truths (suffering, accumulation, and cessation). Because of attaining the practice of general and specific contemplation, the four smṛtyupasthānas are practiced. Because of practicing the aspects of one's own truth, the four practices are comprehended. Because there is no collateral practice, there are no sixteen practices. In Nirodha-satya (truth of cessation, one of the four noble truths), only the unmixed-cause Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna is present. Because there is no body, sensation, or mind, only the Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna is practiced in the two practices. Because there is no collateral practice, the four smṛtyupasthānas of the other truths are not practiced.
Treatise: Because of this Gotra (lineage, potential for enlightenment) until one is able to practice. Explaining the reason for no collateral practice. 'Same division' means the same truth.
Treatise: The later advancing stage extends to the future sixteen. Explaining the practice and attainment in the advancing stage of Uṣmagata. The three truths all have form, sensation, mind, and Dharma. It is not the initial easy stage, and it allows for the manifestation of separate contemplation of form, sensation, mind, etc. Therefore, it is said that one practices one smṛtyupasthāna in the present. Although one can collaterally practice the smṛtyupasthānas of the other truths, the number does not exceed four, hence the saying 'four'. The one practice that is practiced in the present and the future sixteen is because of collaterally practicing the other truths. Because there are no other smṛtyupasthānas related to Nirodha-satya, the Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna is practiced in the present, and because of collaterally practicing the other truths, it is four in the future. The practice is the same in the beginning and the end as the Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna.
Treatise: Because of this Gotra until one is also able to practice. Explaining the reason for attaining collateral practice. The meaning is clear in the text.
Treatise: The initial placement of Mūrdhan (peak, one of the four roots of good) extends to the future sixteen. Explaining the initial entry into the stage of Mūrdhan. Because of the initial advancement to a different stage, the practice is only the Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna. Because the advancing stage does not simplify the practice, one practices according to one aspect. The future four and sixteen are because collateral practice is allowed. The four truths are the same, so they are discussed together.
Treatise: The later advancing time extends to the future sixteen. Explaining that separate manifestation is allowed in the advancing stage. One practices one smṛtyupasthāna in the present, and the future four, etc., are explained as in Uṣmagata. The three truths are different, so they are explained separately.
Treatise: The initial placement of Kṣānti (patience, one of the four roots of good) extends to the future sixteen. Explaining the stage of Kṣānti. The Vibhāṣā (exegesis) one hundred and eighty-eight says: Question: Why is it that both the beginning and the end of Kṣānti are Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna? Answer: Because Kṣānti is close to the path of seeing, it is similar to the path of seeing (Commentary: However, everything is similar to the path of seeing).
論。然于增進至不修彼行相。明中上忍隨所減緣不修彼行。正理釋云。謂具緣四。具修十六。若緣三．二．一。如次修十二．八．四。
論。世第一法至似見道故。明世第一修行多少也。似見道故。無異分修故。不修余行故。婆沙云。問頗有住一剎那頃。當得世第一法非彼所緣耶 當得彼所緣非世第一法耶 當得世第一法及彼所緣耶 不當得世第一法及彼所緣耶 答有住增上忍時應作四句。且依未至定入正性離生者。住增上忍時當得世第一法。非彼所緣者。謂未至定所攝世第一法中。除緣當現在前所依世第一法。諸緣所餘境世第一法 當得彼所緣非世第一法者。謂上五地所攝世第一法中。緣當現在前所依世第一法 當得世第一法及彼所緣者。謂未至定所攝世第一法中。緣當現在前所依世第一法 不當得世第一法及彼所緣者。謂上五地所攝世第一法中。除緣當現在前所依世第一法。諸緣所餘境世第一法。如依未至定餘五地亦爾(述曰。此說得修世第一法。有緣不同。若行修者必總緣也。所依者世第一法所依身也。是欲界身故亦是所緣。亦當得也。所緣者即是欲界一切有漏法也。于中若是所依即亦是當所得。自余所緣皆非所得。諸世第一法若同地等皆得修故。諸異地等決定不得也) 問頗有成就世間第一法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：然而，即使在增進到不修習那些行相時，也仍然存在。明中上忍（Mingzhongshangren）隨所減少的因緣而不修習那些行相。《正理釋》（Zhenglishi）中說：『具有四種因緣，就修習十六種行相。如果只有三種、兩種、一種因緣，就依次修習十二種、八種、四種行相。』 論：世第一法（Shidiyifa）乃至相似於見道（jiandao）的緣故。說明世第一法修行的多少。因為相似於見道，所以沒有異分修，也不修習其餘的行相。《婆沙》（Posha）中說：『問：是否有人住在一剎那（chana）的短暫時間裡，能夠得到世第一法，但不是他所緣的呢？是否有人能夠得到他所緣的，但不是世第一法呢？是否有人能夠得到世第一法以及他所緣的呢？是否有人不能夠得到世第一法以及他所緣的呢？答：有人住在增上忍（zengshangren）時，應當作四句分別。』且依據未至定（weizhiding）進入正性離生（zhengxinglisheng）的人，住在增上忍時，能夠得到世第一法，但不是他所緣的。這是指未至定所攝的世第一法中，除了緣當現在前所依的世第一法，其餘所緣的境界世第一法。能夠得到他所緣的，但不是世第一法，這是指上五地（shangwudi）所攝的世第一法中，緣當現在前所依的世第一法。能夠得到世第一法以及他所緣的，這是指未至定所攝的世第一法中，緣當現在前所依的世第一法。不能夠得到世第一法以及他所緣的，這是指上五地所攝的世第一法中，除了緣當現在前所依的世第一法，其餘所緣的境界世第一法。如同依據未至定，其餘五地也是這樣。（述曰：這是說得到修習世第一法，有因緣的不同。如果行修的人必定總緣。所依是指世第一法所依的身。因為是欲界身，所以也是所緣，也應當得到。所緣是指欲界一切有漏法。其中如果是所依，也就是應當得到的。其餘所緣都不是得到的。諸世第一法如果同地等，都可以修習，諸異地等，決定不能得到。）問：是否有人成就世間第一法？
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: However, it exists even when progressing to the point of not practicing those aspects. Mingzhongshangren (Clear Superior Endurance) does not practice those aspects according to the reduced conditions. The Zhenglishi (Commentary on the Treatise on Right Reason) says: 'Having four conditions, one practices sixteen aspects. If there are three, two, or one conditions, one practices twelve, eight, or four aspects respectively.' Treatise: Shidiyifa (The First Dharma in the World) up to the reason of resembling jiandao (the Path of Seeing). It explains the amount of practice of Shidiyifa. Because it resembles the Path of Seeing, there is no dissimilar practice, and one does not practice the remaining aspects. The Posha (Vibhasa) says: 'Question: Is there someone who, dwelling for a moment (chana), can attain Shidiyifa, but it is not what they cognize? Is there someone who can attain what they cognize, but it is not Shidiyifa? Is there someone who can attain Shidiyifa and what they cognize? Is there someone who cannot attain Shidiyifa and what they cognize? Answer: When someone dwells in Zengshangren (Superior Endurance), one should make four distinctions.' Moreover, based on someone entering Zhengxinglisheng (Righteousness Separated from Birth) through Weizhiding (Meditation of Non-Regression), when dwelling in Superior Endurance, one can attain Shidiyifa, but it is not what they cognize. This refers to, within the Shidiyifa encompassed by Weizhiding, excluding the Shidiyifa that is the basis of what is cognized when it appears in the present, the Shidiyifa of the remaining realms of what is cognized. One can attain what they cognize, but it is not Shidiyifa; this refers to, within the Shidiyifa encompassed by the upper five realms (shangwudi), the Shidiyifa that is the basis of what is cognized when it appears in the present. One can attain Shidiyifa and what they cognize; this refers to, within the Shidiyifa encompassed by Weizhiding, the Shidiyifa that is the basis of what is cognized when it appears in the present. One cannot attain Shidiyifa and what they cognize; this refers to, within the Shidiyifa encompassed by the upper five realms, excluding the Shidiyifa that is the basis of what is cognized when it appears in the present, the Shidiyifa of the remaining realms of what is cognized. Just as based on Weizhiding, the remaining five realms are also like this. (Commentary: This says that attaining the practice of Shidiyifa has different conditions. If one practices, one must cognize everything. The basis refers to the body on which Shidiyifa relies. Because it is the body of the desire realm, it is also what is cognized, and one should also attain it. What is cognized refers to all contaminated dharmas of the desire realm. Among them, if it is the basis, then it is also what should be attained. The remaining things that are cognized are not attained. If the various Shidiyifa are of the same realm, then one can practice them; if they are of different realms, then one definitely cannot attain them.) Question: Is there someone who achieves the First Dharma in the World?
不成就彼離系得耶。答應作四句 成就世第一法。不成就彼離系得者。謂若依此地入正性離生彼未離此地染 成就彼離系得不成就世第一法者。謂若依此地入正性離生彼命終生上地 成就世第一法亦成就彼離系得者。謂若依此地入正性離生。彼已離此地染不命終生上地 不成就世第一法亦不成就彼離系得者。謂若未能入正性離生位有餘依彼有漏離系得作如是言 問頗有聖者。成就世第一法不成就彼離系得耶 答應作四句 成就世第一法不成就彼離系得者。謂若依此地入正性離生彼未離此地染 成就彼離系得不成就世第一法者。謂若依此地入正性離生。彼命終生次上地 成就世第一法亦成就彼離系得者。謂若依此地入正性離生。彼已離此地染不命終生上地 不成就世第一法亦不成就彼離系得者。謂若依此地入正性離生。彼命終超次上地生余上地。有餘依一切世第一法。及彼一切離系得 作如是言。問頗有成就世第一法不成就彼離系得耶。答應作四句 第一句者。謂若依未至定。或初靜慮。靜慮中間入正性離生。彼未離初靜慮染 第二句者。謂若依此地入正性離生。彼命終生上地。若未得世第一法生欲．色界已離初靜慮染及生空無邊處 第三句者。謂若依此地入正性離生已。離初靜慮染不命終生上地 第四句者。謂除前相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：是否成就了世第一法（Lokagradharma，指世間最高的善法），卻沒有成就彼離系得（visaṃyoga-prāpti，指脫離煩惱的獲得）呢？ 答：可以分為四種情況： 成就世第一法，卻沒有成就彼離系得的人，是指如果依據此地（指某個禪定層次）進入正性離生（niyāma-avakrānti，指進入聖道），但他還沒有脫離此地的染污。 成就彼離系得，卻沒有成就世第一法的人，是指如果依據此地進入正性離生，他命終後生到更高的地界。 既成就世第一法，也成就彼離系得的人，是指如果依據此地進入正性離生，他已經脫離此地的染污，並且沒有命終生到更高的地界。 既沒有成就世第一法，也沒有成就彼離系得的人，是指如果還沒有進入正性離生的階段，還有煩惱的殘餘，但他已經獲得了有漏的離系得。可以這樣說。 問：是否有些聖者，成就了世第一法，卻沒有成就彼離系得呢？ 答：可以分為四種情況： 成就世第一法，卻沒有成就彼離系得的人，是指如果依據此地進入正性離生，但他還沒有脫離此地的染污。 成就彼離系得，卻沒有成就世第一法的人，是指如果依據此地進入正性離生，他命終後生到緊接著的更高地界。 既成就世第一法，也成就彼離系得的人，是指如果依據此地進入正性離生，他已經脫離此地的染污，並且沒有命終生到更高的地界。 既沒有成就世第一法，也沒有成就彼離系得的人，是指如果依據此地進入正性離生，他命終后超越緊接著的地界，生到其他的更高地界。還有煩惱殘餘的一切世第一法，以及他們的一切離系得。 可以這樣說。問：是否有人成就了世第一法，卻沒有成就彼離系得呢？ 答：可以分為四種情況： 第一種情況是指，如果依據未至定（anāgamya，指未到地定）或者初靜慮（prathama-dhyāna，指色界初禪）、靜慮中間（dhyānāntara，指禪定中間位）進入正性離生，但他還沒有脫離初靜慮的染污。 第二種情況是指，如果依據此地進入正性離生，他命終後生到更高的地界。如果沒有得到世第一法，就生到欲界（kāmadhātu，指欲界）。已經脫離了初靜慮的染污，並且生到空無邊處（ākāśānantyāyatana，指無色界空無邊處定）。 第三種情況是指，如果依據此地進入正性離生后，已經脫離了初靜慮的染污，並且沒有命終生到更高的地界。 第四種情況是指，排除以上的情況。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Is it that one achieves Lokagradharma (the highest mundane dharma), but does not achieve visaṃyoga-prāpti (the attainment of detachment)? Answer: Four possibilities can be distinguished: One who achieves Lokagradharma but does not achieve visaṃyoga-prāpti is one who, relying on this ground (referring to a certain level of meditative concentration), enters niyāma-avakrānti (entry into the right course, i.e., the path of the noble ones), but has not yet detached from the defilements of this ground. One who achieves visaṃyoga-prāpti but does not achieve Lokagradharma is one who, relying on this ground, enters niyāma-avakrānti, and upon death, is reborn in a higher realm. One who achieves both Lokagradharma and visaṃyoga-prāpti is one who, relying on this ground, enters niyāma-avakrānti, has already detached from the defilements of this ground, and does not die and get reborn in a higher realm. One who achieves neither Lokagradharma nor visaṃyoga-prāpti is one who has not yet entered the stage of niyāma-avakrānti, still has residual defilements, but has attained contaminated visaṃyoga-prāpti. It can be said in this way. Question: Are there any noble ones who achieve Lokagradharma but do not achieve visaṃyoga-prāpti? Answer: Four possibilities can be distinguished: One who achieves Lokagradharma but does not achieve visaṃyoga-prāpti is one who, relying on this ground, enters niyāma-avakrānti, but has not yet detached from the defilements of this ground. One who achieves visaṃyoga-prāpti but does not achieve Lokagradharma is one who, relying on this ground, enters niyāma-avakrānti, and upon death, is reborn in the next higher realm. One who achieves both Lokagradharma and visaṃyoga-prāpti is one who, relying on this ground, enters niyāma-avakrānti, has already detached from the defilements of this ground, and does not die and get reborn in a higher realm. One who achieves neither Lokagradharma nor visaṃyoga-prāpti is one who, relying on this ground, enters niyāma-avakrānti, and upon death, transcends the next higher realm and is reborn in another higher realm. All Lokagradharma with residual defilements, and all their visaṃyoga-prāpti. It can be said in this way. Question: Is there anyone who achieves Lokagradharma but does not achieve visaṃyoga-prāpti? Answer: Four possibilities can be distinguished: The first possibility is that if, relying on anāgamya (the state of being close to but not yet attained to the first dhyāna), or prathama-dhyāna (the first dhyāna of the form realm), or dhyānāntara (the intermediate state of dhyāna), one enters niyāma-avakrānti, but has not yet detached from the defilements of the first dhyāna. The second possibility is that if, relying on this ground, one enters niyāma-avakrānti, and upon death, is reborn in a higher realm. If one has not attained Lokagradharma, one is reborn in kāmadhātu (the desire realm). Having already detached from the defilements of the first dhyāna, and is reborn in ākāśānantyāyatana (the sphere of infinite space in the formless realm). The third possibility is that if, relying on this ground, after entering niyāma-avakrānti, one has already detached from the defilements of the first dhyāna, and does not die and get reborn in a higher realm. The fourth possibility is that it excludes the previous cases.
。
論。已辨所生善根體相。下三頌第三明善根差別。
論曰至抉擇分名。此第一問也。
論。決謂決斷至四諦相故。答抉擇名也。由諸聖道能斷疑故名為決斷。以能分別四諦相故名為簡擇。即諸聖道名抉擇也。
論。分謂分段至抉擇分名。此釋分名。一切聖道皆名抉擇。此所順者。唯是見道故言分也。是故此名順抉擇分。
論。此四為緣至順抉擇分。釋順名也。此四為緣引抉擇一分。亦能順益抉擇一分故。故此四種得順彼名。
論。如是四種至等引地故。此即第二三慧分別。近見道故非聞．思也。
論。四中前二至獨是上品。此即第三各隨一義以分品也。如文可解。
論。此四善根至遍知斷故。此即第四明依地也。此四善根修慧為體。是見道眷屬。欲界無修故。無色界無見道故。所以不通欲界．無色。又無色心不緣欲故 欲界先應遍知斷者。更釋無色無見道也。以欲先應遍知斷故。見道必先緣欲界。無色不緣欲故無見道。所以欲界先遍知斷。正理論云。於三界中彼最粗故。
論。此四善根至增背有故。第五明果也。此門在頌無文。因明依地便釋異熟。
論。或聲為顯至及欲七地。釋頌中或七字也。
論。此四善根至除北俱慮。第六明依身別。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：前面已經辨明了所生善根的體性和相狀。下面三頌經文的第三部分，闡明善根的差別。
論：『決謂決斷至抉擇分名』，這是第一個問題。
論：『決』，意味著決斷，直至四諦（satya，佛教基本教義，包括苦、集、滅、道）的相狀，所以稱為『抉擇』。由於各種聖道（ārya-mārga，達到解脫的途徑）能夠斷除疑惑，因此稱為『決斷』。因為它能夠分別四諦的相狀，所以稱為『簡擇』。這些聖道就叫做『抉擇』。
論：『分謂分段至抉擇分名』，這是解釋『分』的含義。一切聖道都稱為『抉擇』。這裡所順應的，僅僅是見道（darśana-mārga，證悟真理的道路），所以稱為『分』。因此，這個名稱是『順抉擇分』。
論：『此四為緣至順抉擇分』，這是解釋『順』的含義。這四種善根作為因緣，能夠引生抉擇的一部分，也能順益抉擇的一部分。因此，這四種善根才得到『順』這個名稱。
論：『如是四種至等引地故』，這是第二，用三慧（tri-vidyā，三種智慧，即聞慧、思慧、修慧）來分別。因為接近見道，所以不是聞慧（śruta-mayī prajñā，聽聞佛法而獲得的智慧）和思慧（cintā-mayī prajñā，通過思考獲得的智慧）。
論：『四中前二至獨是上品』，這是第三，各自隨順一個含義來劃分品級。如同經文所能解釋的那樣。
論：『此四善根至遍知斷故』，這是第四，闡明所依之『地』（bhūmi，修行所處的層次）。這四種善根以修慧（bhāvanā-mayī prajñā，通過修行獲得的智慧）為體性，是見道的眷屬。欲界（kāma-dhātu，眾生有情慾的世界）沒有修慧，無色界（ārūpya-dhātu，沒有物質的純精神世界）沒有見道，所以不包括欲界和無色界。而且無色界的心識不緣于欲界，欲界應該先遍知斷除。進一步解釋無色界沒有見道的原因。因為欲界應該先遍知斷除，見道必定先緣于欲界。無色界不緣于欲界，所以沒有見道。因此，欲界先遍知斷除。正理論中說：『在三界（tri-dhātu，欲界、色界、無色界）中，欲界是最粗糙的。』
論：『此四善根至增背有故』，這是第五，闡明果報。這個部分在頌文中沒有明確的文字，因為闡明所依之『地』，就解釋了異熟果（vipāka-phala，由業力成熟而產生的果報）。
論：『或聲為顯至及欲七地』，解釋頌文中的『或七』這幾個字。
論：『此四善根至除北俱慮』，這是第六，闡明所依之『身』（kāya，身體）的差別。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: The nature and characteristics of the roots of good generated have already been distinguished. The third of the following three verses elucidates the differences in the roots of good.
Treatise: '』Decision means discernment to the name of the Division of Decision』 This is the first question.
Treatise: 'Decision' means discernment up to the characteristics of the Four Noble Truths (satya, the fundamental teachings of Buddhism, including suffering, its origin, cessation, and the path). Therefore, it is called 'Decision'. Because the various Noble Paths (ārya-mārga, the path to liberation) can eliminate doubts, they are called 'Discernment'. Because it can distinguish the characteristics of the Four Noble Truths, it is called 'Selection'. These Noble Paths are called 'Decision'.
Treatise: 'Division means segmentation to the name of the Division of Decision'. This explains the meaning of 'Division'. All Noble Paths are called 'Decision'. What is being aligned with here is only the Path of Seeing (darśana-mārga, the path of realizing the truth), so it is called 'Division'. Therefore, this name is 'Part of Alignment with Decision'.
Treatise: 'These four as conditions to the Part of Alignment with Decision'. This explains the meaning of 'Alignment'. These four roots of good, as conditions, can lead to a part of decision and can also benefit a part of decision. Therefore, these four types obtain the name 'Alignment'.
Treatise: 'These four types to the Ground of Equanimity'. This is the second, distinguishing with the Three Wisdoms (tri-vidyā, the three types of wisdom: wisdom from hearing, wisdom from thinking, and wisdom from cultivation). Because it is close to the Path of Seeing, it is not the Wisdom from Hearing (śruta-mayī prajñā, wisdom gained from hearing the Dharma) and the Wisdom from Thinking (cintā-mayī prajñā, wisdom gained through contemplation).
Treatise: 'Among the four, the first two to solely the superior grade'. This is the third, each following one meaning to divide the grades. As the text can explain.
Treatise: 'These four roots of good to the complete knowledge and abandonment'. This is the fourth, elucidating the 'Ground' (bhūmi, the level of practice) on which it depends. These four roots of good take the Wisdom from Cultivation (bhāvanā-mayī prajñā, wisdom gained through practice) as their essence and are the retinue of the Path of Seeing. The Desire Realm (kāma-dhātu, the world of beings with desires) does not have Wisdom from Cultivation, and the Formless Realm (ārūpya-dhātu, the purely spiritual world without matter) does not have the Path of Seeing, so it does not include the Desire Realm and the Formless Realm. Moreover, the consciousness of the Formless Realm does not relate to the Desire Realm, and the Desire Realm should first completely know and abandon. Further explaining why the Formless Realm does not have the Path of Seeing. Because the Desire Realm should first completely know and abandon, the Path of Seeing must first relate to the Desire Realm. The Formless Realm does not relate to the Desire Realm, so there is no Path of Seeing. Therefore, the Desire Realm is first completely known and abandoned. The Treatise on Right Principle says: 'Among the three realms (tri-dhātu, the Desire Realm, the Form Realm, and the Formless Realm), the Desire Realm is the coarsest.'
Treatise: 'These four roots of good to the increase and opposition'. This is the fifth, elucidating the result. This part does not have explicit text in the verse; because the 'Ground' on which it depends is elucidated, the result of maturation (vipāka-phala, the result arising from the ripening of karma) is explained.
Treatise: 'The word 'or' to show to the seven grounds of desire'. Explaining the words 'or seven' in the verse.
Treatise: 'These four roots of good to excluding Uttarakuru'. This is the sixth, elucidating the differences in the 'body' (kāya, the physical body) on which it depends.
所以善根唯依九處。正理釋云。唯依欲九身。容入離生故。
論。前三善根至一剎那故。此第七明初．後起正理論云。有餘師說。若於先時曾已修治此四加行。彼于天處皆得初起 然無評也。婆沙第七云。問何故天中不能初起。答彼處無勝厭離等作意故。問惡趣中有勝厭離等作意。何故不起此善根耶。答惡趣中無勝依身故。若有勝厭離等作意。亦有勝依身者則能初起。人中具二故能初起。
論。此四善根至非擇滅故。此即第八明男．女得別。正理論云。此四善根唯依男．女。前三男．女俱通得二。第四女身亦得二種。勿后得男身不成暖等故。依男唯得男身善根。聖轉至餘生亦不為女故。暖．頂．忍位容有轉形故。二依善根展轉為因性。世第一法依女身者。能為二因。女得聖已容有轉得男身理故 婆沙第七云。問此暖．頂．忍．世第一法依何身起。答依男．女身。問依女身得女身所起暖。為亦得男身所起暖耶。答得。如得暖。得頂．忍亦爾。問依男身得男身所起暖。為亦得女身所起暖耶。答得。如得暖得頂。得忍亦爾。女身於女身所起暖亦得。亦在身亦成就。亦現在前。于男身所得暖得。而不在身成就。不現在前。如說暖法頂．忍亦爾。男身於男身所起暖亦得。亦在身亦成就。亦現在前。于女身所起暖得。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 所以，善根僅僅依賴於九處。《正理釋》解釋說：『僅僅依賴於欲界的九種身，因為能夠容納從離生而來的善根。』
論：前三種善根乃至一剎那的生滅。《正理論》第七卷闡明了初起和後起。有其他老師說：『如果先前已經修習過這四種加行，那麼他們在天界也能初次生起這些善根。』然而，這種說法沒有得到評判。《婆沙論》第七卷說：『問：為什麼在天界不能初次生起這些善根？答：因為天界沒有殊勝的厭離等作意。問：惡趣中有殊勝的厭離等作意，為什麼不能生起這些善根呢？答：因為惡趣中沒有殊勝的所依之身。』如果既有殊勝的厭離等作意，又有殊勝的所依之身，那麼就能初次生起這些善根。人界兼具這兩種條件，所以能夠初次生起。
論：這四種善根乃至非擇滅。《正理論》第八卷闡明了男身和女身的不同。這四種善根僅僅依賴於男身和女身。前三種善根，男身和女身都可以獲得兩種。第四種善根，女身也可以獲得兩種，以免後來獲得男身後不能成就暖等善根。依賴男身只能獲得男身的善根，因為聖者轉生到其他生命形態也不會變成女身。暖位、頂位、忍位可能發生形體的轉變。兩種所依之身的善根可以互相作為因性。如果世第一法依賴於女身，那麼就能作為兩種因。因為女身證得聖果后，有可能轉生為男身。《婆沙論》第七卷說：『問：暖、頂、忍、世第一法依賴於什麼身而生起？答：依賴於男身和女身。問：依賴於女身獲得女身所生起的暖法，是否也能獲得男身所生起的暖法？答：能獲得。如同獲得暖法一樣，獲得頂法和忍法也是如此。問：依賴於男身獲得男身所生起的暖法，是否也能獲得女身所生起的暖法？答：能獲得。如同獲得暖法一樣，獲得頂法和忍法也是如此。女身對於女身所生起的暖法，既能獲得，又存在於身中，既能成就，又能現前。對於男身所獲得的暖法，能獲得，但不存在於身中，不能成就，也不能現前。』如同暖法一樣，頂法和忍法也是如此。男身對於男身所生起的暖法，既能獲得，又存在於身中，既能成就，又能現前。對於女身所生起的暖法，能獲得。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, roots of good (善根) rely solely on nine locations. The Zheng Li Shi (正理釋, Commentary on the Nyāyapraveśa) explains: 'Solely relying on the nine bodies of the desire realm (欲界), because they can accommodate roots of good arising from detachment (離生).'
Treatise: The first three roots of good, up to a single moment (剎那). The seventh chapter of the Zheng Li Lun (正理論, Treatise on Correct Reasoning) clarifies initial and subsequent arising. Some other teachers say: 'If one has previously cultivated these four preparatory practices (加行), then they can initially arise in the heavens.' However, this view is not evaluated. The seventh chapter of the Vibhasa (婆沙, Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) says: 'Question: Why can't they initially arise in the heavens? Answer: Because there is no superior aversion (厭離) and attention (作意) in that realm. Question: There is superior aversion and attention in the evil realms (惡趣), why don't these roots of good arise? Answer: Because there is no superior supporting body (依身) in the evil realms.' If there is both superior aversion and attention, and a superior supporting body, then these roots of good can initially arise. Humans possess both conditions, so they can initially arise.
Treatise: These four roots of good, up to non-selective cessation (非擇滅). The eighth chapter of the Zheng Li Lun clarifies the difference between male and female bodies. These four roots of good rely solely on male and female bodies. The first three roots of good, both male and female bodies can attain two. The fourth root of good, female bodies can also attain two, lest after obtaining a male body, they cannot accomplish warmth (暖) and other roots of good. Relying on a male body, one can only attain the roots of good of a male body, because a sage (聖) transmigrating to other life forms will not become female. There may be transformation of form in the positions of warmth, peak (頂), and forbearance (忍). The roots of good of the two supporting bodies can be mutually causal. If the highest mundane dharma (世第一法) relies on a female body, then it can serve as two causes, because a female body, having attained sainthood, may transform and attain a male body. The seventh chapter of the Vibhasa says: 'Question: Upon what body do warmth, peak, forbearance, and the highest mundane dharma arise? Answer: Upon male and female bodies. Question: Relying on a female body to attain the warmth arising from a female body, can one also attain the warmth arising from a male body? Answer: One can. Just as one attains warmth, so too does one attain peak and forbearance. Question: Relying on a male body to attain the warmth arising from a male body, can one also attain the warmth arising from a female body? Answer: One can. Just as one attains warmth, so too does one attain peak and forbearance. A female body, regarding the warmth arising from a female body, can both attain it, be in the body, accomplish it, and be present. Regarding the warmth attained by a male body, one can attain it, but it is not in the body, cannot be accomplished, and is not present.' Just as with warmth, so too with peak and forbearance. A male body, regarding the warmth arising from a male body, can both attain it, be in the body, accomplish it, and be present. Regarding the warmth arising from a female body, one can attain it.
而不在身成就。不現在前。如說暖說頂說忍亦爾。女身所起暖與女身所起暖為因。與男身所起暖亦為因。如說暖說頂說忍亦爾。男身所起暖與男身所起暖為因。不與女身所起暖為因。所以者何。勝非劣因。彼是劣故。如說暖說頂說忍亦爾 今詳三論。前三善根。男．女各得二。依善根同也。準正理．俱舍。皆云第四女身亦得二種。故知即是多道家也。若一道家。其道是一。依男身故名依男身道。依女身故名依女身道。依女身所得世第一法。唯得依女身。不容依男身。如何得名依男身道。既言得二。故知與婆沙同是非一道也。然婆沙．正理為因不同。意各別也。正理準聖道等為因作論故。說互為因也。如依男．女聖道互得為因。及余有漏聞．思．修慧。及生得善．染污法等。皆男．女互得為因。不云依女劣也。因何四善即云劣也。故不取婆沙之義。言互為因。正理婆沙處非唯一 有人三釋不巧還同未解。恐繁不述。對讀即知 然準婆沙多道家。阿羅漢等依一身起道。得修欲界九依身道。不以身非擇滅故不修彼能依道。今二論皆以聖人無作女故。不得女世第一法者。意難解也。深法師以違此理故。此中言得。不言修也。此中得者。是法后得。謂依女身所起世第一法。轉為男身亦依男身得。依男身所起世第一法。不得轉為女
身。得女身非擇滅故。今依婆沙論。釋四善根得與道不同。不可為例。道即重得。四善不然。道不隨依男．女身說其勝劣。四善即隨男．女說有勝劣。豈得例道。今得亦爾。與得道異故。非擇滅即不得也。
論。聖依此地至遷生上地。此下第九明其舍也。此明聖人失地舍。遷生上地名為失地。是失暖等所依地也。如身在欲界依初禪得暖。生初定時不捨暖也。生第二定名遷生上地。
論。異生於地至亦由退舍。明凡舍也。異生命終舍此善根。若生上地及自下地。但命終時即舍暖等。前二善根是可退故。異生亦退非是聖也。
論。由死退舍至異生亦無退。此明凡．聖舍定異也。此亦應言世第一法異生亦無命終舍也。舍．得既據生相時說。此中說舍皆是同時。謂正命終等。非得生至生相故。
論。依根本地至極猛利故。第十依根本必定得聖。正理論云。依根本地起暖等善根。彼於此生必定得見諦。以利根故厭有深故。依未至．中間起暖等者。於此生不必得入見諦(述曰。由止．觀不均厭有不深。止．觀不均心又不利) 有餘師說。依根本定起暖等者。此生必定得至涅槃。厭有深故 準婆沙。暖．頂依根本。亦不退。未至．中間即有退也。婆沙第六云。依根本地起暖等者。現身必入正性離生。所以者
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：身。因為獲得女身並非通過非擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha，一種通過智慧力量實現的滅盡）而得。現在依據《大毗婆沙論》，解釋四善根的獲得與道不同，不可作為例子。道可以重複獲得，而四善根則不然。道不隨所依的男身或女身而說其勝劣，而四善根則隨男身或女身而有勝劣。怎麼能與道相比呢？現在（四善根的）獲得也是如此，與獲得道不同，所以非擇滅就不能獲得（四善根）。
論：聖者依此地（指欲界或色界的根本定地）乃至遷生上地。此下第九（段）說明其舍（指捨棄善根）。這裡說明聖人失去地（指失去善根）和舍（指捨棄善根）。遷生上地名為失去地，是失去暖等所依之地。例如，身在欲界，依初禪獲得暖位，生到初禪定時，不捨棄暖位。生到第二禪定時，名為遷生上地。
論：異生（指凡夫）于地乃至亦由退舍。說明凡夫舍（指捨棄善根）。凡夫命終時捨棄此善根。如果生到上地以及自下地，但命終時就捨棄暖等。前二善根（指暖位和頂位）是可以退失的，所以異生也會退失，不是聖者。
論：由死退舍乃至異生亦無退。這裡說明凡夫和聖者舍（指捨棄禪定）的不同。這裡也應該說世第一法，異生也沒有命終舍（的情況）。舍和得既然是根據生相時說的，這裡所說的舍都是同時的，指正命終等。不是獲得生到生相的緣故。
論：依根本地乃至極猛利故。第十（段）說明依根本定必定得聖果。正理論說，依根本地發起暖等善根，他們在此生必定得見諦（Darsana-marga，見道）。因為利根，厭離有（Bhava，存在）很深。依未至定（Akanistha，無所有處定）、中間定發起暖等的人，在此生不一定能入見諦（述曰：因為止觀不均，厭離有不深，止觀不均，心也不利）。有其他師說，依根本定發起暖等的人，此生必定能達到涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）。因為厭離有很深。按照《大毗婆沙論》，暖位和頂位依根本定，也不會退失，未至定和中間定就會退失。《大毗婆沙論》第六卷說，依根本地發起暖等的人，現身必定入正性離生（Samyaktva-niyata，入聖道）。為什麼呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Body. Because obtaining a female body is not due to Pratisankhya-nirodha (cessation through the power of wisdom). Now, according to the Mahavibhasa, the attainment of the four roots of good is different from the path and cannot be taken as an example. The path can be attained repeatedly, but the four roots of good cannot. The path does not speak of superiority or inferiority based on whether it relies on a male or female body, while the four roots of good do have superiority or inferiority based on male or female bodies. How can they be compared to the path? The attainment (of the four roots of good) is also like this now, different from attaining the path, so Pratisankhya-nirodha cannot attain (the four roots of good).
Treatise: A sage relies on this ground (referring to the fundamental meditative ground of the desire realm or the form realm) and even transmigrates to a higher ground. The ninth (section) below explains its abandonment (referring to the abandonment of good roots). This explains the sage's loss of ground (referring to the loss of good roots) and abandonment (referring to the abandonment of good roots). Transmigrating to a higher ground is called losing ground, which is the ground on which warmth and so on rely. For example, if the body is in the desire realm and attains warmth by relying on the first dhyana (meditative absorption), it does not abandon warmth when it is born into the first dhyana. Being born into the second dhyana is called transmigrating to a higher ground.
Treatise: An ordinary being (referring to a common person) on the ground and even abandons it through regression. This explains the abandonment (referring to the abandonment of good roots) by ordinary beings. When an ordinary being's life ends, they abandon this good root. If they are born into a higher ground or from a lower ground, they abandon warmth and so on when their life ends. The first two good roots (referring to the stage of warmth and the stage of summit) can be regressed from, so ordinary beings also regress, they are not sages.
Treatise: Abandonment through death and even ordinary beings do not regress. This explains the difference in abandonment (referring to the abandonment of meditative states) between ordinary beings and sages. Here, it should also be said that even for the highest mundane dharma (Lokagradharma), ordinary beings do not have abandonment at the end of life (situations). Since abandonment and attainment are spoken of based on the time of arising, the abandonment spoken of here is all simultaneous, referring to the moment of death, etc. It is not because of attaining arising to the arising phase.
Treatise: Relying on the fundamental ground and even because it is extremely vigorous. The tenth (section) explains that one who relies on fundamental concentration will definitely attain sagehood. The Nyayanusara says that those who rely on the fundamental ground to generate good roots such as warmth will definitely attain the path of seeing (Darsana-marga, the path of insight) in this life. Because they have sharp faculties and a deep aversion to existence (Bhava, existence). Those who rely on the Akanistha (Akanistha, the realm of neither perception nor non-perception) and intermediate concentration to generate warmth and so on may not necessarily enter the path of seeing in this life (commentary: because cessation and contemplation are not balanced, aversion to existence is not deep, and cessation and contemplation are not balanced, the mind is also not sharp). Some other teachers say that those who rely on fundamental concentration to generate warmth and so on will definitely reach Nirvana (Nirvana, liberation) in this life. Because they have a deep aversion to existence. According to the Mahavibhasa, warmth and summit relying on fundamental concentration will also not regress, while Akanistha and intermediate concentration will regress. The sixth volume of the Mahavibhasa says that those who rely on the fundamental ground to generate warmth and so on will definitely enter the state of being fixed on the right path (Samyaktva-niyata, fixed on the right path) in this life. Why is that?
何。彼由聖道引暖等故。依未至定．靜慮中間起暖等者。此則不定。所以者何。彼由暖等引聖道故(解云。根本地止．觀均平厭生死苦。欣上聖道勝未至等故。起暖等定入聖道。未至．中間觀多止少。由宿習暖等力故引起聖道。由此二地得有遲速)。
論。若先舍已至大功用成故。第十一明得非先也 以未曾熟修者。加行善根得來時投。非如余有漏定無始熟修 大功用成故。所以重起之時。必大功用方能起也。正理論云。由先舍已後重得時。亦大劬勞方得起故。于先所舍不歡敬故。
論。若先已得至還從本修。第十二明舍已重起。故婆沙云。問若餘生中即起頂者。從何作意無間起耶。答如起暖時所有作意。如說從暖起頂。從頂起忍亦爾。問若爾何故說暖無間起頂。頂無間起忍耶。答依一身中相續起者。作如是說。然非一切。
論。失退二舍至失不必然。第十三明二舍同異 失謂生上地。及舍眾同分。生上地命終心定無染也。舍眾同分舍不定。或染心命終。或不染心命終。若退舍必起染心。由此故言退必起過。失不必然。不必然言顯不定也。既捨得名退。故此二退非得為性論。得此善根有何勝利。下一頌第三明有勝利。
論曰至必至涅槃故。此第一明暖勝利。
論。若爾何殊順解脫分。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：什麼情況？因為通過聖道（āryamārga）引導暖位等善根的緣故嗎？如果依據未至定（anāgamya-samādhi）、靜慮中間定（dhyāna-antarika）而生起暖位等善根，這就不一定了。為什麼呢？因為他們通過暖位等善根引導聖道的緣故（解釋說：在根本定地，止觀達到平衡，厭惡生死的痛苦，欣求上品的聖道勝過未至定等，因此生起暖位等定而進入聖道。未至定、中間定觀多止少，由於宿世修習暖位等善根的力量，因此引起聖道。由此二地，證得聖道有遲速的差別）。
論：如果先捨棄已經證得的善根，因為要成就更大的功用。第十一說明證得不是先決的。因為對於未曾熟練修習的人來說，加行善根在得來的時候才投入修習，不像其餘有漏定那樣無始以來就熟練修習。因為要成就更大的功用，所以重新生起的時候，必須有很大的功用才能生起。正理論說：因為先捨棄之後重新證得的時候，也需要很大的努力才能生起，對於先前所捨棄的善根沒有歡喜恭敬的緣故。
論：如果先前已經證得善根，還要從根本重新修習。第十二說明捨棄之後重新生起。所以《婆沙論》說：問：如果在其他生中立即生起頂位善根，從什麼作意無間生起呢？答：就像生起暖位善根時所有的作意一樣。就像所說的從暖位生起頂位，從頂位生起忍位也是這樣。問：如果這樣，為什麼說暖位無間生起頂位，頂位無間生起忍位呢？答：依據一身中相續生起的情況，才這樣說。然而並非一切情況都是如此。
論：失位和退位的兩種捨棄，到失位不必然。第十三說明兩種捨棄的同異。失位是指生到上地，以及捨棄眾同分。生到上地命終時，心一定是無染的。捨棄眾同分，捨棄的情況不一定，或者以染污心命終，或者以不染污心命終。如果退位，必定生起染污心。因此說退位必定會產生過失，失位不必然。不必然這個詞顯示不確定。既然捨棄才得名為退，所以這兩種退位不是以證得為自性的。論：證得這種善根有什麼殊勝的利益？下一頌第三說明有殊勝的利益。
論曰：必定到達涅槃的緣故。這是第一說明暖位的殊勝利益。
論：如果這樣，那和順解脫分（mokṣabhāgīya）有什麼區別？
【English Translation】 English version: Question: What is the reason? Is it because the warm stage (ūṣmagata) and other roots of good are guided by the Noble Path (āryamārga)? If the warm stage and other roots of good arise based on the Anāgamya-samādhi (未至定, the Unreached Concentration) and the Dhyāna-antarika (靜慮中間定, the Intermediate Dhyana), then this is not certain. Why? Because they guide the Noble Path through the warm stage and other roots of good (Explanation: In the fundamental meditative ground, cessation and contemplation are balanced, loathing the suffering of birth and death, and rejoicing in the superior Noble Path surpassing the Anāgamya-samādhi, etc. Therefore, the warm stage and other concentrations arise, entering the Noble Path. In the Anāgamya-samādhi and the Intermediate Dhyana, contemplation is more, and cessation is less. Due to the power of past habitual practice of the warm stage, etc., the Noble Path is aroused. From these two grounds, the attainment of the Noble Path has differences in speed).
Treatise: If one first abandons what has been attained, it is because of the accomplishment of great function. The eleventh clarifies that attainment is not prior. Because for those who have not practiced skillfully, the roots of good from the preparatory practice are invested when they are obtained, unlike other contaminated concentrations that have been practiced skillfully since beginningless time. Because of the accomplishment of great function, when one arises again, it is necessary to have great function to be able to arise. The Treatise on Right Reason says: Because when one abandons first and then attains again, it also requires great effort to be able to arise, because one does not rejoice or respect what was previously abandoned.
Treatise: If one has already attained, one must still cultivate from the root. The twelfth clarifies arising again after abandoning. Therefore, the Vibhāṣā says: Question: If in another life, one immediately arises in the summit stage (mūrdhan), from what attention does one arise without interval? Answer: Like the attention that one has when arising in the warm stage. Just as it is said that one arises from the warm stage to the summit stage, and from the summit stage to the forbearance stage (kṣānti), it is also like that. Question: If so, why is it said that the warm stage arises without interval to the summit stage, and the summit stage arises without interval to the forbearance stage? Answer: It is said in this way based on those who arise continuously in one body. However, it is not always the case.
Treatise: The two abandonments of loss and regression, to the loss is not necessary. The thirteenth clarifies the similarities and differences between the two abandonments. Loss refers to being born in a higher realm, and abandoning the commonality of beings. When one is born in a higher realm and dies, the mind is certainly undefiled. Abandoning the commonality of beings, the situation of abandoning is uncertain, either dying with a defiled mind or dying with an undefiled mind. If one regresses, one will certainly arise with a defiled mind. Therefore, it is said that regression will certainly produce faults, while loss is not necessary. The word 'not necessary' indicates uncertainty. Since abandoning is called regression, these two regressions are not of the nature of attainment. Treatise: What are the superior benefits of attaining this root of good? The next verse, the third, clarifies that there are superior benefits.
Treatise says: Because one will certainly reach Nirvāṇa. This is the first to clarify the superior benefits of the warm stage.
Treatise: If so, what is the difference between this and the preparatory stages of liberation (mokṣabhāgīya)?
問。順解脫分善亦必得涅槃。暖既與同。有何殊也。
論。若無障礙至行相同故。答。定得涅槃。二種雖同近遠異也。順解脫分極疾第三生得聖。順抉擇極疾即此生得。正理論云。是等引地勝善根故(解云。解脫分是散地善。此是定善與散異)。
論。若得頂法至不斷善根。此第二明頂勝利 言而增者后必兼前。正理論。加觀察三寶殊勝功德為門。引生凈信心故。若得頂已不斷善根。如何經說天授退頂。由彼曾起近頂善根。依未得退蜜作是說。
論。若得忍時至不墮惡趣。此第三明忍勝利也。
論。然頌但說至如先已辨。釋頌中略意無退指前說也。
論。此位不墮至業煩惱故。明不墮惡趣所以也。正理論云。得惡趣生非擇滅故。
論。若至忍位至得不生法故。明至忍位得不生也。此開六章復牒釋也。
論。趣謂諸惡趣至見所斷惑。此牒釋也。
論。此于下上位至上忍方得。明六不生得不同也。正理論云。少分生者。謂卵．濕生。由此二生多愚昧故。處謂無想．大梵．北洲。無想大焚僻見處故。北俱盧洲無現觀故。身謂扇搋等多諸煩惱故。有謂第八等聖必不受故。見所斷惑必不起故。
論。得世第一法至正性離生。此第四明第一勝利。
論。頌雖不說至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：順解脫分（Anuloma-moksha-bhagiya，順應解脫分）的善根也必定能得到涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）嗎？暖位（Ushmagata，位名）既然與順解脫分相同，那有什麼區別呢？
論：如果沒有障礙，直至修行相同，所以回答是：必定能得到涅槃。這兩種雖然相同，但有遠近的差別。順解脫分最快第三生才能證得聖果，順抉擇分最快就是這一生證得。《正理論》說：『這是等引地（Samahita-bhumi，禪定之地）殊勝的善根。』（解釋說：解脫分是散地（Vikshipta-bhumi，散亂之地）的善根，這是定地（Samahita-bhumi，禪定之地）的善根，與散地的善根不同）。
論：如果得到頂法（Murddhan，位名）直至不斷善根，這第二段說明頂法的勝利。『而言而增』是指後面必定包含前面。《正理論》說：『加上觀察三寶（Triratna，佛法僧）殊勝的功德作為入門，引生清凈的信心。』如果得到頂法后不斷善根，為什麼經中說提婆達多（Devadatta，人名）會退失頂法？因為他曾經生起接近頂法的善根，依據未得到頂法而退失的情況作這樣的說法。
論：如果得到忍位（Ksanti，位名）時直至不墮惡趣，這第三段說明忍位的勝利。
論：然而頌文只是說直至如先前已經辨明。解釋頌文中的略意是沒有退失，指前面所說的情況。
論：此位不墮落直至業和煩惱的緣故。說明不墮惡趣的原因。《正理論》說：『得到惡趣的生是非擇滅（Apratisankhya-nirodha，非數滅），所以不墮惡趣。』
論：如果到忍位直至得到不生法（Anutpada-dharma，無生法），說明到忍位得到不生法。這裡開啟六種不生，又再次解釋。
論：趣是指諸惡趣直至見所斷惑（Drshti-heya-klesha，見惑）。這是再次解釋。
論：此于下上位直至上忍方能得到。說明六種不生得到的不同。《正理論》說：『少分生是指卵生和濕生。因為這兩種生類大多愚昧。處是指無想天（Asanjnika-deva，無想天）、大梵天（Mahabrahma，大梵天）和北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，北俱盧洲）。無想天和大梵天是邪見之處，北俱盧洲沒有現觀。身是指閹人等，多諸煩惱的緣故。有是指第八有等，聖者必定不會再受生，見所斷惑必定不會再起。』
論：得到世第一法（Laukikagradharma，世第一法）直至正性離生（Samyaktva-niyata，入正性離生）。這第四段說明世第一法的勝利。
論：頌文雖然沒有說直至……
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Does the root of good of Anuloma-moksha-bhagiya (conformity with liberation) necessarily lead to Nirvana (extinction)? Since Ushmagata (heat stage) is the same, what is the difference?
Treatise: If there are no obstacles, until the practice is the same, therefore the answer is: one will definitely attain Nirvana. Although the two are the same, there is a difference in distance. Anuloma-moksha-bhagiya can attain sainthood in the third life at the fastest, and Shun-jue-ze-fen (conformity with discernment) can attain it in this life at the fastest. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra says: 'This is the superior root of good in the Samahita-bhumi (place of concentration).' (Explanation: The root of good of Anuloma-moksha-bhagiya is the good of Vikshipta-bhumi (place of distraction), and this is the good of Samahita-bhumi (place of concentration), which is different from the good of Vikshipta-bhumi).
Treatise: If one obtains Murddhan (summit stage) until the root of good is not cut off, this second section explains the victory of Murddhan. 'And increasing' means that the latter must include the former. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra says: 'Adding the observation of the supreme merits of the Triratna (Three Jewels: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha) as an entry point, it leads to the generation of pure faith.' If one does not cut off the root of good after obtaining Murddhan, why does the sutra say that Devadatta (name of a person) will regress from Murddhan? Because he once generated the root of good close to Murddhan, this statement is made based on the situation of not obtaining Murddhan and regressing.
Treatise: If one obtains Ksanti (forbearance stage) until one does not fall into the evil realms, this third section explains the victory of Ksanti.
Treatise: However, the verse only says until as has already been explained previously. The brief meaning in the explanation of the verse is that there is no regression, referring to what was said earlier.
Treatise: In this position, one does not fall until the causes of karma and afflictions. This explains the reason for not falling into the evil realms. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra says: 'Obtaining birth in the evil realms is due to Apratisankhya-nirodha (non-discriminating cessation), so one does not fall into the evil realms.'
Treatise: If one reaches the Ksanti stage until one obtains Anutpada-dharma (the dharma of non-arising), it explains that one obtains the dharma of non-arising at the Ksanti stage. Here, six types of non-arising are opened up and explained again.
Treatise: 'Gati (course)' refers to all evil realms until Drsti-heya-klesha (afflictions to be abandoned by seeing). This is a re-explanation.
Treatise: This is obtained from the lower to the upper position until the upper Ksanti. It explains the difference in obtaining the six types of non-arising. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara-sastra says: 'A small portion of births refers to oviparous and moisture-born beings. Because these two types of beings are mostly ignorant. 'Place' refers to Asanjnika-deva (the heaven of non-perception), Mahabrahma (the Great Brahma heaven), and Uttarakuru (the Northern Kurus). The heaven of non-perception and the Great Brahma heaven are places of wrong views, and the Northern Kurus do not have direct perception. 'Body' refers to eunuchs, etc., because of many afflictions. 'Existence' refers to the eighth existence, etc., which the saints will definitely not be reborn into, and the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing will definitely not arise.'
Treatise: Obtaining Laukikagradharma (the supreme mundane dharma) until Samyaktva-niyata (fixed in rightness). This fourth section explains the victory of the supreme mundane dharma.
Treatise: Although the verse does not say until...
無命終舍。此釋頌中略命終舍意。
論。何緣唯此至舍異生性故。明唯世第一能入離生。世第一法住現在時。與苦法智忍為等無間緣。引至生相。名為入也。世第一法如無間道。苦法智忍如解脫道。此二共舍異生性也。婆沙第二云。如是說者。世第一法住時名入。問若爾異生應即聖者。入聖道故。答無如是過。世第一法至住位時。苦法智忍在正生時。未成就故不名聖者。苦法智忍雖未已生。以在正生名等無間。世第一法。爾時為彼等無間緣故名為入(述曰。至生。得次第故名等無間也)。
論。此四善根各有三品。下一頌第四明三乘轉也。
論曰至得成佛義。明暖．頂可轉。忍不可轉。婆沙第七云。轉聲聞種姓順解脫分。起獨覺及佛種姓順解脫分。轉獨覺種姓順解脫分。起聲聞及佛種姓順解脫分。若起佛種姓順解脫分已。則不可轉。極猛利故 又三十一云。非如聲聞極利根者經六十劫。非如獨覺極利根者唯經百劫 準上論文若二乘若勤修者。定百劫．六十劫定得涅槃。非謂不修。所以得知。婆沙第七云。或有人種順解脫分善根已。或經一劫。或經百劫。或經千劫。流轉生死而不能起順抉擇分。或復有人起順抉擇分善根已。或經一生。或經百生。或經千生。流轉生死而不能入正性離生(已上論文)
【現代漢語翻譯】 無命終舍：這裡解釋的偈頌中，省略了命終舍（death relinquishing）的含義。
論：為什麼只有世第一法（highest mundane dharma）才能進入離生（separation from birth）？說明只有世第一法才能進入離生。世第一法安住于現在時，與苦法智忍（acceptance of the knowledge of suffering）作為等無間緣（immediately preceding condition）。引導至生相（characteristic of birth），稱為『入』。世第一法如同無間道（path of immediate consequence），苦法智忍如同解脫道（path of liberation）。這兩者共同捨棄異生性（nature of ordinary beings）。《婆沙論》第二卷說：『這樣說來，世第一法安住時稱為『入』。』問：『如果這樣，異生應該立即成為聖者，因為他們進入了聖道。』答：『沒有這樣的過失。世第一法到達安住位時，苦法智忍正處於生起之時，尚未成就，因此不稱為聖者。苦法智忍雖然尚未完全生起，但因為它正處於生起之時，所以稱為等無間。世第一法，在那時作為它的等無間緣，因此稱為『入』。（述曰：到達生起，得到次第，因此稱為等無間。）』
論：這四善根（four roots of good）各有三品（three grades）。下一頌的第四句說明三乘（three vehicles）的轉變。
論曰：直到獲得成佛的意義。說明暖位（stage of warmth）、頂位（stage of peak）可以轉變，忍位（stage of acceptance）不可轉變。《婆沙論》第七卷說：『轉變聲聞（śrāvaka）種姓的順解脫分（part leading to liberation），生起獨覺（pratyekabuddha）以及佛（buddha）種姓的順解脫分。轉變獨覺種姓的順解脫分，生起聲聞以及佛種姓的順解脫分。如果生起佛種姓的順解脫分后，則不可轉變，因為極其猛利。』又《婆沙論》第三十一卷說：『不像聲聞中最利根者需要經歷六十劫（kalpa），不像獨覺中最利根者只需要經歷一百劫。』根據以上論文，如果二乘（two vehicles）或者勤奮修行者，必定在一百劫或六十劫后獲得涅槃（nirvana），並非指不修行。為什麼知道呢？《婆沙論》第七卷說：『或者有人種植了順解脫分的善根后，或者經過一劫，或者經過百劫，或者經過千劫，在生死（saṃsāra）中流轉而不能生起順抉擇分（part leading to definite understanding）。或者又有人生起了順抉擇分的善根后，或者經過一生，或者經過百生，或者經過千生，在生死中流轉而不能進入正性離生（rightness of separation from birth）。』（以上論文）
【English Translation】 『Wu Ming Zhong She』 (舍): This explanation of the verse omits the meaning of 『death relinquishing』.
Treatise: Why is it only the 『Shi Di Yi Fa』 (世第一法, highest mundane dharma) that can enter 『Li Sheng』 (離生, separation from birth)? It explains that only 『Shi Di Yi Fa』 can enter 『Li Sheng』. 『Shi Di Yi Fa』 abides in the present moment, with 『Ku Fa Zhi Ren』 (苦法智忍, acceptance of the knowledge of suffering) as the 『Deng Wu Jian Yuan』 (等無間緣, immediately preceding condition). Leading to the 『Sheng Xiang』 (生相, characteristic of birth), it is called 『Ru』 (入, entering). 『Shi Di Yi Fa』 is like the 『Wu Jian Dao』 (無間道, path of immediate consequence), and 『Ku Fa Zhi Ren』 is like the 『Jie Tuo Dao』 (解脫道, path of liberation). These two together relinquish the 『Yi Sheng Xing』 (異生性, nature of ordinary beings). The second volume of the 『Vibhasha』 (婆沙) says: 『Saying it this way, when 『Shi Di Yi Fa』 abides, it is called 『Ru』.』 Question: 『If so, ordinary beings should immediately become sages, because they have entered the path of sages.』 Answer: 『There is no such fault. When 『Shi Di Yi Fa』 reaches the abiding position, 『Ku Fa Zhi Ren』 is in the process of arising, not yet accomplished, therefore it is not called a sage. Although 『Ku Fa Zhi Ren』 has not yet fully arisen, because it is in the process of arising, it is called 『Deng Wu Jian』. 『Shi Di Yi Fa』, at that time, serves as its 『Deng Wu Jian Yuan』, therefore it is called 『Ru』. (Commentary: Reaching arising, obtaining sequence, therefore it is called 『Deng Wu Jian』.)』
Treatise: These 『Si Shan Gen』 (四善根, four roots of good) each have 『San Pin』 (三品, three grades). The fourth line of the next verse explains the transformation of the 『San Cheng』 (三乘, three vehicles).
Treatise says: Until obtaining the meaning of attaining Buddhahood. It explains that the 『Nuan Wei』 (暖位, stage of warmth) and 『Ding Wei』 (頂位, stage of peak) can be transformed, but the 『Ren Wei』 (忍位, stage of acceptance) cannot be transformed. The seventh volume of the 『Vibhasha』 says: 『Transforming the 『Sheng Wen』 (聲聞, śrāvaka) lineage』s 『Shun Jie Tuo Fen』 (順解脫分, part leading to liberation), giving rise to the 『Du Jue』 (獨覺, pratyekabuddha) and 『Fo』 (佛, buddha) lineage』s 『Shun Jie Tuo Fen』. Transforming the 『Du Jue』 lineage』s 『Shun Jie Tuo Fen』, giving rise to the 『Sheng Wen』 and 『Fo』 lineage』s 『Shun Jie Tuo Fen』. If the 『Fo』 lineage』s 『Shun Jie Tuo Fen』 has arisen, then it cannot be transformed, because it is extremely intense.』 Also, the thirty-first volume of the 『Vibhasha』 says: 『Unlike the most sharp-witted among the 『Sheng Wen』 who need to go through sixty 『kalpas』 (劫), unlike the most sharp-witted among the 『Du Jue』 who only need to go through one hundred 『kalpas』.』 According to the above texts, if the 『Er Cheng』 (二乘, two vehicles) or diligent practitioners, will definitely attain 『Nirvana』 (涅槃) after one hundred or sixty 『kalpas』, it does not mean not practicing. How do we know? The seventh volume of the 『Vibhasha』 says: 『Or someone has planted the roots of good of 『Shun Jie Tuo Fen』, or after one 『kalpa』, or after one hundred 『kalpas』, or after one thousand 『kalpas』, they transmigrate in 『Samsara』 (生死) and cannot give rise to 『Shun Jue Ze Fen』 (順抉擇分, part leading to definite understanding). Or someone has given rise to the roots of good of 『Shun Jue Ze Fen』, or after one life, or after one hundred lives, or after one thousand lives, they transmigrate in 『Samsara』 and cannot enter 『Zheng Xing Li Sheng』 (正性離生, rightness of separation from birth).』 (Above texts)
然說頂位已前可轉者。聲聞若不轉。即經六十劫定得涅槃。若轉者。即不定也。獨覺不轉者。百劫定得涅槃。若轉者即不定 又準正理云。菩薩專求利他事故。為欲拔濟無邊有情。弘誓莊嚴經無量劫。故往惡趣如遊園苑。若不爾者無成佛義。此論復云。是故定無得成佛義。準此若不能往惡趣。不得成佛。由此論說。忍已上不許迴心。前二善根許迴心也。
論。聲聞種姓至故說為余。釋頌。云三謂暖．頂．忍三。余謂獨覺種姓。在佛乘外故言余也。
論。麟角佛言至自乘覺故。此明二人不可轉也。獨覺有二。一部行。二麟角。部行如聲聞說有可轉。麟角如佛不可轉也。一坐便成自乘覺故。此明二人不轉意也。
論。第四靜慮至無上覺所依。此釋二人依第四禪所以。
論。此中覺言至是菩提性故。此釋二種覺。謂果菩提。即是覺故。
論。言一坐者至乃至菩提。此敘二說不起坐也。一說從暖位。一說不凈觀。正理論云。依第四禪。從身念處至盡．無生。唯於一坐能次第起。故麟角喻及佛種姓。暖等善根皆不可轉。余文可解。準之。一坐已后說不可轉。與婆沙不同。是論意別。或是婆沙前文以是利根一義故不轉。此中兼一坐二義不轉。非是欲許前位轉也。
論。頗有此生創修加行。下
一頌第五明修果久近。
論曰至乃至得解脫。明極三生也。涅槃名解脫。分是因義。此善順彼與彼作因。故此善名順解脫分。聲聞種姓極速三生。獨覺四生。
論。譬如下種至傳說如是。舉喻顯也。正理論云。極速三生方得解脫。謂初生殖順解脫分。次產生就。第三生起順抉擇分即入聖道。若謂第二生起順抉擇分。第三生入聖乃至得解脫。彼言便與前說相違。謂依根本地起暖等者。彼必於此生得入見諦。或彼應許極速二生。謂第二生依根本地起暖等者。彼于現生必入聖道得解脫故 俱舍師救云。依根本地起暖等者。必於前生已起暖等。或可第四生者方能依根本起。
論。順解脫分至順解脫分。明體性也。在欲界故非修所成。而由思愿攝。起身．語。亦得名為順解脫分。勝唯意業。兼取身．語。故以三業為其體性。乃至少分施一食持一戒等。但深樂涅槃。願力所持故。便名種殖解脫分善。
論。殖順解脫分至如應無故。明殖處也。天厭心劣。惡趣慧微。北洲二劣。故不能修。
論。遇佛出世至亦遇獨覺。明殖緣也。準此論。余時不能種殖 遇佛出者。或親見佛。或遇教法。知生死可厭。知涅槃可忻故。能種殖解脫分也。正理論云。有佛出世。若無佛時。俱能種殖順解脫分。婆沙第七云。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 一頌第五，闡明修習成果所需時間的長短。
論曰：從開始修習到最終獲得解脫，最多需要三個生命週期。涅槃（Nirvana）被稱為解脫（解脫）。『分』是因的意思。這種善行順應涅槃，並作為涅槃的因，因此這種善行被稱為順解脫分（順解脫分，即順向解脫的部分）。聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛陀教誨而證悟的修行者）種姓的人最快需要三個生命週期，而獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依賴他人教導而獨自證悟的修行者）需要四個生命週期。
論：譬如播下種子到收穫果實，正如傳說所說的那樣。這是用比喻來顯明道理。正理論（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）中說，最快需要三個生命週期才能獲得解脫。第一生種下順解脫分，第二產生就順解脫分，第三生髮起順抉擇分（順抉擇分，即順向于決定的部分），從而進入聖道。如果說第二生髮起順抉擇分，第三生進入聖道乃至獲得解脫，那麼這種說法就與之前的說法相矛盾。如果說依靠根本地（根本地，指禪定的基礎）生起暖位（暖位，指修行過程中出現的初步徵兆）等，那麼他們必定在此生就能證入見諦（見諦，即見到真理）。或者他們應該承認最快只需要兩個生命週期，即第二生依靠根本地生起暖位等，那麼他們在此生必定能進入聖道並獲得解脫。俱舍師（Abhidharmakośa的學者）辯護說，依靠根本地生起暖位等的人，必定在前一生已經生起暖位等，或者可能需要第四生才能依靠根本地生起暖位。
論：順解脫分，闡明其體性。因為它存在於欲界（Kāmadhātu，眾生對感官享樂有強烈慾望的界域），所以不是通過修行成就的，而是由思愿（思愿，即思考和願望）所攝持，通過身語（身語，即身體和語言的行為）表現出來，也可以被稱為順解脫分。其中，意業（意業，即思想的行為）最為殊勝，同時也包括身語。因此，以身語意三業為其體性。哪怕只是少分地佈施一餐食物、持守一條戒律等，只要深深地喜愛涅槃，並由願力所支援，就可以被稱為種殖解脫分善（種殖解脫分善，即種下解脫的善根）。
論：種殖順解脫分，闡明其地點。天界（Deva，天神居住的界域）眾生厭離心不足，惡趣（Durgati，指地獄、餓鬼、畜生三惡道）眾生智慧微弱，北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru，四大部洲之一，以享樂為主）的眾生也有兩種不足，因此不能修習。
論：遇到佛陀出世，或者遇到獨覺。闡明種殖的因緣。根據此論，其他時候不能種殖。遇到佛陀出世，或者親眼見到佛陀，或者遇到佛陀的教法，知道生死是可厭惡的，知道涅槃是可欣求的，因此能夠種殖解脫分。正理論中說，無論佛陀出世與否，都能種殖順解脫分。婆沙論（Mahāvibhāṣā）第七卷中說。
【English Translation】 English version Verse 5 explains how long it takes to cultivate and achieve results.
The treatise states: 'From the beginning until liberation is attained,' indicating a maximum of three lifetimes. Nirvana (Nirvana) is called liberation (解脫). 'Part' signifies cause. This wholesome action accords with Nirvana and acts as its cause; therefore, this wholesome action is called a 'portion conducive to liberation' (順解脫分, śun-jie-tuo-fen, a portion that leads towards liberation). Those of the Śrāvaka (聲聞, those who attain enlightenment by hearing the Buddha's teachings) lineage attain it in a maximum of three lifetimes, while Pratyekabuddhas (獨覺, those who attain enlightenment independently) require four.
The treatise states: 'Like planting a seed until the fruit is obtained, as the saying goes.' This illustrates the principle with a metaphor. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理論) says that liberation is attained in a maximum of three lifetimes. In the first lifetime, one plants the portion conducive to liberation; in the second, one perfects it; and in the third, one arises the portion of definite choice (順抉擇分, śun-jue-ze-fen, a portion that leads towards definite decision), thereby entering the path of the noble ones. If it were said that the portion of definite choice arises in the second lifetime and one enters the path of the noble ones and attains liberation in the third, that statement would contradict the previous one. If one relies on the fundamental ground (根本地, the basis of meditation) to generate warmth (暖位, a preliminary sign in practice) and so on, then they must attain the vision of truth (見諦, seeing the truth) in this lifetime. Or they should admit that a maximum of two lifetimes is sufficient, meaning that if one relies on the fundamental ground to generate warmth and so on in the second lifetime, then they will certainly enter the path of the noble ones and attain liberation in this lifetime. The Kośa masters (Abhidharmakośa scholars) defend by saying that those who rely on the fundamental ground to generate warmth and so on must have already generated warmth and so on in the previous lifetime, or perhaps it takes four lifetimes to rely on the fundamental ground to arise.
The treatise states: 'The portion conducive to liberation,' clarifying its nature. Because it exists in the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, 欲界, the realm where beings have strong desires for sensory pleasures), it is not achieved through cultivation but is governed by thought and aspiration (思愿, thinking and aspiration), expressed through body and speech (身語, actions of body and speech), and can also be called a portion conducive to liberation. Among these, mental action (意業, actions of the mind) is the most excellent, but it also includes body and speech. Therefore, it takes the three actions of body, speech, and mind as its nature. Even a small act of giving a meal, upholding a single precept, etc., as long as one deeply loves Nirvana and is supported by the power of aspiration, can be called planting wholesome roots conducive to liberation (種殖解脫分善, zhǒng-zhí-jie-tuo-fen-shan, planting the roots of goodness for liberation).
The treatise states: 'Planting the portion conducive to liberation,' clarifying its location. Beings in the heavens (Deva, 天界, the realm of gods) lack sufficient aversion, beings in the evil realms (Durgati, 惡趣, the three evil paths of hell, hungry ghosts, and animals) have weak wisdom, and beings in Uttarakuru (北俱盧洲, one of the four continents, characterized by pleasure) also have two deficiencies, so they cannot cultivate.
The treatise states: 'Encountering a Buddha's appearance,' or encountering a Pratyekabuddha. Clarifying the conditions for planting. According to this treatise, one cannot plant at other times. Encountering a Buddha's appearance means either seeing the Buddha in person or encountering the Buddha's teachings, knowing that birth and death are repulsive and knowing that Nirvana is desirable, therefore being able to plant the portion conducive to liberation. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that one can plant the portion conducive to liberation whether a Buddha appears or not. The Mahāvibhāṣā (婆沙論) states in its seventh volume.
問此善根為在意地。為五識身。答在意地非五識身 問此善根為加行得。為離染得。為生得耶。答唯加行得。有說亦是生得。評曰前說者好。加行起故 問此善根依何身起。答亦依男身。亦依女身 問為因何事種此善根。答或因施。或因戒。或因聞。而不決定。所以者何。意樂異故。謂或有人因施一摶食。或乃至一凈齒木。即能種殖解脫種子。如戰達羅等。彼隨所施皆作是言。愿我因斯定得解脫。或有雖設無遮大會。而不能種解脫種子。如無暴惡等。彼隨所施皆求世間富貴名稱。不求解脫。或有受持一晝一夜八分齊戒。即能種解脫種子。或有受持盡眾同分別解脫戒。而不能種解脫種子。或有讀誦四句伽陀。即能種殖解脫種子。或有善通三藏文義。而不能種解脫種子 問誰決定能種此順解脫分善根。答若有增上意樂。欣求涅槃。厭背生死者。隨起少分施戒聞善。即能決定種此善根。若無增上意樂。欣求涅槃。厭背生死者。雖起多分施戒聞善。而亦不能種此善根。順解脫分亦有六種。謂退法種姓。乃至不動法種姓。轉退法種姓順解脫分。起思法種姓順解脫分。乃至轉堪達種姓順解脫分。起不動法種姓順解脫分。
論。已因便說至復生何道。下大文第二就三道辨人 于中有三。一明見道。二明修道。三無學道 就見道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：這種善根存在於意地（manas-bhumi，意識的層面）還是五識身（panca-vijnana-kaya，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感官的集合）？答：存在於意地，而非五識身。問：這種善根是通過加行（prayoga，努力修行）獲得，還是通過離染（viraga，脫離煩惱）獲得，還是生來就有的？答：唯有通過加行獲得。有人說也是生來就有的。評判說，前一種說法更好，因為善根是由於加行才產生的。問：這種善根依何身而生起？答：既依男身，也依女身。問：因為什麼事情而種下這種善根？答：或者因為佈施（dana），或者因為持戒（sila），或者因為聽聞（sruta），但不確定。為什麼呢？因為意樂（adhyasaya，意願和動機）不同。比如，有的人因為佈施一小團食物，甚至一根乾淨的牙籤，就能種下解脫（moksa）的種子，如戰達羅（Candra）等人。他們無論佈施什麼，都這樣說：『愿我因此必定得到解脫。』有的人即使舉辦盛大的無遮大會（panchavarsa-maha，五年一度的大布施），也不能種下解脫的種子，如無暴惡（Niravadya）等人。他們無論佈施什麼，都求世間的富貴和名聲，不求解脫。有的人受持一晝一夜的八分齋戒（astanga-samvara，八條戒律），就能種下解脫的種子。有的人受持所有共同分別解脫戒（pratimoksa，別解脫戒），也不能種下解脫的種子。有的人讀誦四句偈頌（gatha，詩偈），就能種下解脫的種子。有的人精通三藏（tripitaka，經、律、論三部分）的文義，也不能種下解脫的種子。問：誰能決定種下這種順解脫分善根（moksa-bhagiya-kusala，有助於解脫的善根）？答：如果有人具有增上意樂（adhimatra-adhyasaya，強烈的意願），欣求涅槃（nirvana，寂滅），厭背生死（samsara，輪迴），那麼即使只做少分的佈施、持戒、聽聞等善行，就能決定種下這種善根。如果沒有增上意樂，欣求涅槃，厭背生死，那麼即使做了大量的佈施、持戒、聽聞等善行，也不能種下這種善根。順解脫分也有六種，即退法種姓（parihanadharma-gotra，容易退轉的根器），乃至不動法種姓（akopyadharma-gotra，不會退轉的根器）。轉退法種姓順解脫分，生起思法種姓順解脫分（thitimadharma-gotra，能安住于善法的根器），乃至轉堪達種姓順解脫分（bhedanadharma-gotra，能證悟的根器），生起不動法種姓順解脫分。 論：已經說了因，就順便說到復生何道。下面大的第二部分就三道辨別人，其中有三：一、明見道（darsana-marga，見道的開悟）；二、明修道（bhavana-marga，修道的修行）；三、無學道（asaiksa-marga，無學道的境界）。就見道而言。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Is this root of good located in the manas-bhumi (mind-ground, the level of consciousness) or the panca-vijnana-kaya (five aggregates of consciousness, the collection of the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch)? Answer: It is located in the manas-bhumi, not in the panca-vijnana-kaya. Question: Is this root of good obtained through prayoga (effort, diligent practice), through viraga (dispassion, detachment from afflictions), or is it innate? Answer: It is obtained only through prayoga. Some say it is also innate. The commentary says that the former view is better, because the root of good arises due to prayoga. Question: Upon what body does this root of good arise? Answer: It arises upon both male and female bodies. Question: Because of what actions is this root of good planted? Answer: Either because of dana (generosity, giving), or because of sila (morality, ethical conduct), or because of sruta (learning, hearing the Dharma), but it is not definite. Why is that? Because the adhyasaya (intention, motivation) is different. For example, some people, because of giving a handful of food, or even a clean toothpick, can plant the seed of moksa (liberation, release), like Candra (name of a person) and others. Whatever they give, they say, 'May I definitely attain liberation because of this.' Some people, even if they hold a grand panchavarsa-maha (unobstructed assembly, a great offering every five years), cannot plant the seed of liberation, like Niravadya (name of a person) and others. Whatever they give, they seek worldly wealth and fame, not liberation. Some people, by upholding the astanga-samvara (eight precepts, eight-fold vows) for one day and one night, can plant the seed of liberation. Some people, by upholding all the pratimoksa (individual liberation vows, monastic vows), cannot plant the seed of liberation. Some people, by reciting a four-line gatha (verse, poem), can plant the seed of liberation. Some people, although well-versed in the meaning of the Tripitaka (three baskets, the three divisions of the Buddhist canon), cannot plant the seed of liberation. Question: Who can definitely plant this moksa-bhagiya-kusala (wholesome roots conducive to liberation, part of liberation)? Answer: If someone has adhimatra-adhyasaya (supreme intention, strong aspiration), seeking nirvana (cessation, extinguishment), and turning away from samsara (cyclic existence, rebirth), then even if they perform only a small amount of dana, sila, sruta, and other good deeds, they can definitely plant this root of good. If they do not have adhimatra-adhyasaya, seeking nirvana, and turning away from samsara, then even if they perform a large amount of dana, sila, sruta, and other good deeds, they cannot plant this root of good. There are also six types of moksa-bhagiya, namely parihanadharma-gotra (lineage of easily declining Dharma, those prone to regression), up to akopyadharma-gotra (lineage of non-declining Dharma, those who do not regress). Turning the parihanadharma-gotra moksa-bhagiya, arises thitimadharma-gotra (lineage of abiding Dharma, those who can abide in goodness) moksa-bhagiya, up to turning the bhedanadharma-gotra (lineage of penetrative Dharma, those capable of realization) moksa-bhagiya, arises akopyadharma-gotra moksa-bhagiya. Treatise: Having spoken of the cause, we will now speak of which path one is reborn into. The second major section distinguishes people according to the three paths, among which there are three: 1. Clarifying the darsana-marga (path of seeing, the enlightenment of the path of seeing); 2. Clarifying the bhavana-marga (path of cultivation, the practice of the path of cultivation); 3. Asaiksa-marga (path of no more learning, the state of no more learning). Regarding the path of seeing.
中復分兩段。一明十六心。二依位建立 就明十六心中。一正明十六心。二明十六依地。三明忍．智次第。四明見．修道別 此三頌第一明十六心也。
論曰至如花果樹。明世第一法生苦法智忍。四善中忍是有漏性。今此中忍性是無漏。恐濫前忍舉法智果。顯是無漏與前忍別。正理釋云。說無漏言為欲簡別世第一法所從世忍。此無漏忍以欲苦法為其所緣名苦法忍。謂于苦法無始時來。身見所迷執我．我所。今創見彼唯苦法性。忍可現前名苦法忍。此能引后苦法智生。是彼智生障之對治故。複名為苦法智忍。
論。即此名入至正性決定故。此釋苦法忍異名。忍初入故偏得入名。
論。經說正性至故名離生。此釋正性離生名也。故婆沙云。複次見所斷惑。令諸有情墮諸惡趣受諸劇苦。譬如生食久在身中。能作種種極苦惱事。是故此惑說名為生。見道能滅故名離生。複次有身見等剛強難伏。如狩𢤱悷故說名生。見道能滅故名離生。複次一切煩惱。或諸貪愛。能令善根不得成熟。及令諸有潤令起過皆名為生。見道起已摧彼勢力。令不復為增上生過。由此見道獨名離生。
論。能決趣涅槃至得聖者名。釋決定名及入名也。謂見道能決趣涅槃。決了諦相得決定名。至見道初說名為入。此忍生已得聖者名。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在將內容分為兩部分。第一部分闡明十六心（指見道位中的十六個剎那）。第二部分是依據果位建立（修道位的各個階段）。
在闡明十六心部分，又分為四個小部分。第一部分是正式闡明十六心。第二部分是闡明十六心所依賴的地位。第三部分是闡明忍（苦法忍等）和智（苦法智等）的次第。第四部分是闡明見道和修道的區別。接下來的三頌是第一部分，闡明十六心。
論曰：例如花果樹（舉例說明）。闡明世第一法生起苦法智忍（Kṣānti-jñāna-anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti，對苦諦之智的無生忍）。四善根中的忍是有漏的性質。現在這裡所說的忍是無漏的性質。爲了避免與前面的有漏忍相混淆，所以舉出法智的果，來顯示這是無漏的，與前面的忍有所區別。《正理釋》中說：『說無漏，是爲了簡別世第一法所依的世間忍。』這個無漏忍以欲界苦法作為它所緣的對象，稱為苦法忍（苦法忍）。也就是說，對於苦法，從無始以來，被身見所迷惑，執著於我、我所。現在開始見到它只是苦法的性質，認可並現前，所以稱為苦法忍。這個苦法忍能夠引導後面的苦法智（苦法智）生起，是那個苦法智生起的障礙的對治，所以又稱為苦法智忍（Kṣānti-jñāna-dharma-kṣānti）。
論：即此名入正性決定故（因此也稱為趣入正性決定）。這是解釋苦法忍的異名。因為忍是最初的趣入，所以特別得到『入』這個名稱。
論：經說正性離生故名離生（經典中說因為趣入正性離生，所以稱為離生）。這是解釋『正性離生』這個名稱。所以《婆沙論》中說：『其次，見所斷的惑，使有情墮入各種惡趣，遭受各種劇烈的痛苦，譬如生食長久地留在身體中，能夠產生各種極度痛苦的事情。因此，這些惑被稱為『生』。見道能夠滅除這些惑，所以稱為『離生』。其次，有身見等剛強難以調伏，如野獸般難以馴服，所以稱為『生』。見道能夠滅除這些惑，所以稱為『離生』。其次，一切煩惱，或者各種貪愛，能夠使善根不能成熟，以及使各種有漏法滋潤而生起過患，都稱為『生』。見道生起后，摧毀這些煩惱的勢力，使它們不再成為增上生起過患的原因。因此，見道獨自被稱為『離生』。』
論：能決趣涅槃至得聖者名（能夠決斷趣向涅槃，乃至獲得聖者的名稱）。這是解釋『決定』這個名稱以及『入』這個名稱。也就是說，見道能夠決斷趣向涅槃，決了諦相，所以得到『決定』這個名稱。乃至見道最初被稱為『入』。這個忍生起后，就獲得了聖者的名稱。
【English Translation】 English version: Now, the content is divided into two parts. The first part elucidates the sixteen cittas (referring to the sixteen moments in the path of seeing). The second part is the establishment based on the positions (the various stages of the path of cultivation).
Within the elucidation of the sixteen cittas, there are four sub-parts. The first part is the formal elucidation of the sixteen cittas. The second part is the elucidation of the grounds upon which the sixteen cittas rely. The third part is the elucidation of the sequence of kṣānti (such as the Dharma-kṣānti of suffering) and jñāna (such as the Dharma-jñāna of suffering). The fourth part is the elucidation of the difference between the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. The following three gāthās are the first part, elucidating the sixteen cittas.
Treatise says: For example, a flowering and fruiting tree (used as an illustration). It elucidates that the highest mundane dharma gives rise to the Kṣānti-jñāna-anutpāda-dharma-kṣānti (the forbearance of non-origination of the knowledge of the truth of suffering). The kṣānti in the four roots of goodness is of the nature of being with outflows. Now, the kṣānti spoken of here is of the nature of being without outflows. In order to avoid confusion with the previous kṣānti with outflows, the fruit of Dharma-jñāna is cited to show that this is without outflows and different from the previous kṣānti. The Nyāyānusāra explains: 'Saying 'without outflows' is to distinguish it from the mundane forbearance upon which the highest mundane dharma relies.' This kṣānti without outflows takes the suffering of the desire realm as its object, and is called the Dharma-kṣānti of suffering (Dukkha-dharma-kṣānti). That is to say, regarding suffering, from beginningless time, being deluded by the view of self, clinging to 'I' and 'mine'. Now, for the first time, seeing that it is only the nature of suffering, acknowledging and making it present, therefore it is called the Dharma-kṣānti of suffering. This Dharma-kṣānti is able to lead to the arising of the Dharma-jñāna of suffering (Dukkha-dharma-jñāna) later, and is the antidote to the obstruction of the arising of that Dharma-jñāna, so it is also called the Kṣānti-jñāna-dharma-kṣānti.
Treatise: That is also called entering into the certainty of rightness (therefore it is also called entering into the certainty of rightness). This is an explanation of the different name of the Dharma-kṣānti of suffering. Because kṣānti is the initial entry, it particularly obtains the name 'entry'.
Treatise: The sutra says that because of departing from birth in rightness, it is called departing from birth (the sutra says that because of entering into the departure from birth in rightness, it is called departing from birth). This is an explanation of the name 'departure from birth in rightness'. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Secondly, the afflictions severed by seeing cause sentient beings to fall into various evil destinies, suffering various severe pains, just as raw food remains in the body for a long time, able to produce various extremely painful things. Therefore, these afflictions are called 'birth'. The path of seeing is able to extinguish these afflictions, so it is called 'departure from birth'. Secondly, the view of self and others are stubborn and difficult to subdue, like wild beasts difficult to tame, so they are called 'birth'. The path of seeing is able to extinguish these afflictions, so it is called 'departure from birth'. Thirdly, all afflictions, or various forms of craving, are able to prevent the roots of goodness from maturing, and cause various outflows to be nourished and give rise to faults, all of which are called 'birth'. After the path of seeing arises, it destroys the power of these afflictions, so that they no longer become the cause of the increasing arising of faults. Therefore, the path of seeing alone is called 'departure from birth'.'
Treatise: Able to decisively proceed towards nirvāṇa, even obtaining the name of a sage (able to decisively proceed towards nirvāṇa, even obtaining the name of a sage). This is an explanation of the name 'decisive' and the name 'entry'. That is to say, the path of seeing is able to decisively proceed towards nirvāṇa, decisively understanding the characteristics of the truths, so it obtains the name 'decisive'. Even the path of seeing is initially called 'entry'. After this kṣānti arises, one obtains the name of a sage.
是故此忍名入正性離生亦複名入正性決定。
論。此在未來至如燈及生相。燈生時正能滅暗。住時已滅生相。生時正能生法。住時已生。苦法智忍亦于生時滅異生性。住時已滅。
論。有餘師說至舍異生性。敘異說也。
論。此義不然至世間法故。難也。異生性與世第一法。俱是世間有漏諸法。如何第一法能捨異生性。
論。性相違故至能害怨命。通也。雖同世間性相違故。如同是人上怨肩上。雖依怨肩能害怨命。世第一法與異生性。雖同世間。依異生效能舍異生。故正理云。性相違故依彼能捨。如上怨肩而害怨命。
論。有餘師說至解脫道故。異師說也。婆沙第一云。有餘師言。世第一法。苦法智忍。更互相資舍異生性。謂世第一法與異生性。雖恒相違。而力劣故不能獨舍。由此引生苦法智忍。共相助力舍異生性。譬如羸人依因健者。更相助力能伏怨家。由此因緣。世第一法如無間道。苦法智忍如解脫道。舍異生性。
論。此忍無間至名苦類智。此明下上苦法類忍智相生也。
論。最初證知至而證境故。此釋法類忍智名也。
論。如緣苦諦至名道類智。準苦諦釋餘三諦。
論。如是次第至聖諦現觀。結總名也。此十六心總名現觀。現謂現前。觀謂實觀。正
【現代漢語翻譯】 是故，此忍名為入正性離生（Ruzhengxinglisheng，進入正確的性質，脫離凡夫俗子的狀態），也名為入正性決定（Ruzhengxingjueding，進入正確的性質，獲得堅定的信念）。
論：此（忍）在未來，就像燈和生相（Shengxiang，事物產生的狀態）。燈產生時，正能滅除黑暗；住留時，已經滅除了黑暗。生相產生時，正能生起法（Dharma，佛法）；住留時，已經生起了法。苦法智忍（Ku fazhi ren，對苦諦的智慧和忍耐）也是在產生時滅除異生性（Yishengxing，凡夫的性質），住留時已經滅除了異生性。
論：有其他論師說，（世第一法）能捨棄異生性。這是敘述不同的說法。
論：此義不然，因為（它們都是）世間法。這是反駁。異生性與世第一法（Shidiyifa，世間最高的善法），都是世間有漏的諸法，如何世第一法能捨棄異生性？
論：因為性質相反，（所以能捨棄異生性），就像能傷害怨敵的性命。這是通達。雖然同是世間法，但性質相反。如同是人，怨敵在肩膀上，雖然依靠怨敵的肩膀，能傷害怨敵的性命。世第一法與異生性，雖然同是世間法，但依靠異生性，能捨棄異生性。所以正理說，因為性質相反，依靠它能捨棄。如同在怨敵的肩膀上而傷害怨敵的性命。
論：有其他論師說，（世第一法和苦法智忍）是解脫道。這是其他論師的說法。婆沙（Posha）第一中說：有其他論師說，世第一法、苦法智忍，互相資助，捨棄異生性。意思是世第一法與異生性，雖然恒常相反，但力量弱小，不能獨自捨棄。因此引生苦法智忍，共同互相幫助，捨棄異生性。譬如瘦弱的人依靠強健的人，互相幫助，能降伏怨家。由此因緣，世第一法如無間道（Wujian dao，直接通往解脫的道路），苦法智忍如解脫道，捨棄異生性。
論：此忍無間，名為苦類智（Ku leizhi，對苦諦的類比智慧）。這是說明下位和上位苦法類忍智（Ku fa lei ren zhi，對苦諦的法則和類比的忍和智慧）的相生關係。
論：最初證知，而證境故。這是解釋法類忍智（Fa lei ren zhi，對法則和類比的忍和智慧）的名稱。
論：如緣苦諦，名為道類智（Dao lei zhi，對道諦的類比智慧）。按照苦諦來解釋其餘三諦。
論：如是次第，聖諦現觀（Shengdi xian guan，對四聖諦的直接觀察）。這是總結總的名稱。這十六心（Shiliu xin，十六種心識）總稱為現觀。現，是現前；觀，是實觀，正確的觀察。
【English Translation】 Therefore, this forbearance is called 'Entering the Correct Nature, Separating from Birth' (Ruzhengxinglisheng, entering the correct nature, separating from the state of ordinary beings), and is also called 'Entering the Correct Nature, Determination' (Ruzhengxingjueding, entering the correct nature, obtaining firm conviction).
Treatise: This (forbearance) in the future is like a lamp and the arising characteristic (Shengxiang, the state of things arising). When a lamp arises, it can directly extinguish darkness; when it abides, it has already extinguished darkness. When the arising characteristic arises, it can directly generate Dharma (Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha); when it abides, it has already generated Dharma. The forbearance of the wisdom of the Dharma of Suffering (Ku fazhi ren, wisdom and patience regarding the truth of suffering) also extinguishes the nature of an ordinary being (Yishengxing, the nature of a common person) when it arises, and has already extinguished it when it abides.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that (the Highest Worldly Dharma) can abandon the nature of an ordinary being. This is a narration of different views.
Treatise: This meaning is not correct, because (they are both) worldly dharmas. This is a refutation. The nature of an ordinary being and the Highest Worldly Dharma (Shidiyifa, the highest good dharma in the world) are both worldly, defiled dharmas. How can the Highest Worldly Dharma abandon the nature of an ordinary being?
Treatise: Because their natures are contradictory, (it can abandon the nature of an ordinary being), just like being able to harm the life of an enemy. This is a general explanation. Although they are both worldly dharmas, their natures are contradictory. It is like a person with an enemy on their shoulder; although relying on the enemy's shoulder, they can harm the enemy's life. The Highest Worldly Dharma and the nature of an ordinary being, although both are worldly dharmas, by relying on the nature of an ordinary being, one can abandon the nature of an ordinary being. Therefore, the correct principle says that because their natures are contradictory, relying on it, one can abandon it. It is like harming the enemy's life while on the enemy's shoulder.
Treatise: Some other teachers say that (the Highest Worldly Dharma and the Forbearance of the Wisdom of the Dharma of Suffering) are the path to liberation. This is the view of other teachers. The first volume of the Vibhasha (Posha) says: Some other teachers say that the Highest Worldly Dharma and the Forbearance of the Wisdom of the Dharma of Suffering mutually assist each other in abandoning the nature of an ordinary being. This means that although the Highest Worldly Dharma and the nature of an ordinary being are always contradictory, their power is weak and they cannot abandon it alone. Therefore, the Forbearance of the Wisdom of the Dharma of Suffering is generated, and they mutually assist each other in abandoning the nature of an ordinary being. It is like a weak person relying on a strong person, mutually assisting each other, and being able to subdue an enemy. Because of this cause and condition, the Highest Worldly Dharma is like the Path of Immediate Succession (Wujian dao, the path directly leading to liberation), and the Forbearance of the Wisdom of the Dharma of Suffering is like the Path of Liberation, abandoning the nature of an ordinary being.
Treatise: Immediately after this forbearance, it is called the Wisdom of Analogy of Suffering (Ku leizhi, wisdom by analogy regarding the truth of suffering). This explains the relationship of mutual generation between the lower and upper Forbearance and Wisdom of the Dharma of Suffering by Analogy (Ku fa lei ren zhi, forbearance and wisdom regarding the principles and analogies of the truth of suffering).
Treatise: Initially realizing, and because of realizing the object. This explains the name of the Forbearance and Wisdom of Analogy of the Dharma (Fa lei ren zhi, forbearance and wisdom regarding the principles and analogies of the Dharma).
Treatise: Like contemplating the Truth of Suffering, it is called the Wisdom of Analogy of the Path (Dao lei zhi, wisdom by analogy regarding the truth of the path). Explain the remaining three truths according to the Truth of Suffering.
Treatise: In this order, the Direct Observation of the Noble Truths (Shengdi xian guan, direct observation of the Four Noble Truths). This is a summary of the general name. These sixteen minds (Shiliu xin, sixteen types of consciousness) are collectively called Direct Observation. 'Direct' means directly present; 'Observation' means true observation, correct observation.
理論云。如是次第有十六心。總說名為聖諦現觀。以於三界四聖諦境。次第現前如實觀故。既於三界四聖諦境。旋環紛擾作意思惟。寧不能為現觀障礙。初習業地于諸諦境。多返旋環已淳熟故。
論。此中餘部至唯頓現觀。敘大眾部計。與大乘同。
論。然彼意趣至無差別故。有部師云。無差別故。為是見現觀。為是事現觀。為是緣現觀。應更推尋。
論。詳諸現觀至名事現觀。述三現觀體各別也。
論。見苦諦時至謂斷證修。此明現觀具多少也。見苦諦時。苦忍智等名見緣現觀。見緣苦諦故。亦名事現觀。以知苦諦故。知苦。斷集。證滅。修道。名事現觀。見苦之時既知是苦是事現觀。于集諦有斷事。于滅諦有證事。于道諦有修事。故言於三諦有事現觀。
論。若諸諦中至行相別故。有部出頓見現觀過。四諦行相各別不同。如何一念能頓觀耶。
論。若言以一至見苦諦等。此是縱計與出過。汝若以一無我行相總見四諦。則不應用苦．無常等見苦諦等也。
論。如是便與至相應擇法。出違經過。若如是以一無我行。於一念中頓觀四諦。如是便與契經相違。以契經言以苦行相思惟苦等。乃至以道行相思惟道等。若頓現觀便違此文。
論。若言此經至如見修故。破通經
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 理論上說，像這樣次第生起十六種心念，總的來說就叫做聖諦現觀（聖諦的如實觀照）。因為對於三界（欲界、色界、無色界）四聖諦（苦、集、滅、道）的境界，能夠次第顯現如實的觀照。既然對於三界四聖諦的境界，反覆地、紛亂地進行意思的思惟，難道不會成為現觀的障礙嗎？因為最初學習的時候，對於各種諦理的境界，需要多次反覆地思惟，這樣才能達到純熟的程度。
論：關於這一點，其他部派甚至主張只有頓現觀（一次性地證悟）。這裡敘述大眾部的觀點，他們與大乘佛教的觀點相同。
論：然而他們的意趣是，沒有差別。有部（說一切有部）的論師說：因為沒有差別，那麼這是見現觀（通過見解的現觀），還是事現觀（通過實踐的現觀），還是緣現觀（通過因緣的現觀）呢？應該進一步推究。
論：詳細考察各種現觀，名稱是事現觀。這裡敘述了三種現觀的體性各自不同。
論：在觀察苦諦的時候，苦忍智等稱為見緣現觀。因為觀察到苦諦的因緣，所以也稱為事現觀。因爲了解了苦諦的緣故。知苦（瞭解苦諦），斷集（斷除集諦），證滅（證得滅諦），修道（修習道諦），稱為事現觀。在觀察苦諦的時候，既然已經知道這是苦，就是事現觀。對於集諦有斷除的事情，對於滅諦有證得的事情，對於道諦有修習的事情，所以說對於三諦有事現觀。
論：如果在各種諦理中，行相（特徵）不同。有部提出了頓見現觀的過失。四諦的行相各自不同，怎麼可能在一念之間就能頓悟呢？
論：如果說用一個無我行相來總括地觀察四諦，那麼就不應該用苦、無常等來觀察苦諦等了。這是假設對方的觀點並指出其過失。如果你用一個無我行相來總括地觀察四諦，那麼就不應該用苦、無常等來觀察苦諦等等。
論：這樣就與契經（佛經）中相應的擇法（選擇法門）相違背。這是指出違背經典的過失。如果像這樣用一個無我行，在一念之中頓悟四諦，那麼就與契經相違背。因為契經上說，用苦的行相來思惟苦等，乃至用道的行相來思惟道等。如果頓現觀成立，就違背了這段經文。
論：如果說這部經就像見和修一樣。這是爲了駁斥那些認為頓現觀與經典不符的觀點。
【English Translation】 English version: Theoretically, in this sequence, sixteen thoughts arise, which are collectively called 'Saintly Truth Abhisamaya' (the true contemplation of the Saintly Truths). This is because, concerning the realms of the Three Worlds (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm) and the Four Noble Truths (Suffering, Accumulation, Cessation, Path), true contemplation manifests sequentially. Since one repeatedly and confusedly contemplates the realms of the Three Worlds and the Four Noble Truths, wouldn't this become an obstacle to Abhisamaya? Because in the initial stages of learning, one needs to repeatedly contemplate the realms of the various Truths to achieve proficiency.
Treatise: Regarding this point, other schools even advocate for only 'Sudden Abhisamaya' (instantaneous enlightenment). Here, the view of the Mahasanghika school is described, which is the same as the view of Mahayana Buddhism.
Treatise: However, their intention is that there is no difference. The teachers of the Sarvastivada school say: Because there is no difference, is this 'Seeing Abhisamaya' (Abhisamaya through seeing), or 'Action Abhisamaya' (Abhisamaya through practice), or 'Condition Abhisamaya' (Abhisamaya through conditions)? It should be further investigated.
Treatise: Examining the various Abhisamayas in detail, the name is 'Action Abhisamaya'. Here, it describes that the nature of the three Abhisamayas is different from each other.
Treatise: When observing the Truth of Suffering, 'Suffering Endurance Wisdom' and so on are called 'Seeing Condition Abhisamaya'. Because one observes the conditions of the Truth of Suffering, it is also called 'Action Abhisamaya'. Because one understands the Truth of Suffering. 'Knowing Suffering' (understanding the Truth of Suffering), 'Cutting off Accumulation' (cutting off the Truth of Accumulation), 'Realizing Cessation' (realizing the Truth of Cessation), 'Cultivating the Path' (cultivating the Truth of the Path) are called 'Action Abhisamaya'. When observing the Truth of Suffering, since one already knows that this is suffering, it is 'Action Abhisamaya'. Regarding the Truth of Accumulation, there is the matter of cutting off; regarding the Truth of Cessation, there is the matter of realizing; regarding the Truth of the Path, there is the matter of cultivating. Therefore, it is said that regarding the three Truths, there is 'Action Abhisamaya'.
Treatise: If in the various Truths, the 'characteristics' (features) are different. The Sarvastivada school points out the fault of 'Sudden Seeing Abhisamaya'. The characteristics of the Four Truths are different from each other, how is it possible to have a sudden enlightenment in one thought?
Treatise: If you say that you use one characteristic of 'no-self' to comprehensively observe the Four Truths, then you should not use suffering, impermanence, etc., to observe the Truth of Suffering, etc. This is assuming the other party's point of view and pointing out its fault. If you use one characteristic of 'no-self' to comprehensively observe the Four Truths, then you should not use suffering, impermanence, etc., to observe the Truth of Suffering, etc.
Treatise: In this way, it contradicts the corresponding 'Dharma selection' (selection of Dharma methods) in the sutras (Buddhist scriptures). This is pointing out the fault of violating the scriptures. If, like this, you use one characteristic of 'no-self' to suddenly enlighten the Four Truths in one thought, then it contradicts the sutras. Because the sutras say that one should contemplate suffering, etc., with the characteristic of suffering, and so on, up to contemplating the path with the characteristic of the path. If 'Sudden Abhisamaya' is established, it violates this passage.
Treatise: If you say that this sutra is like seeing and cultivating. This is to refute those who think that 'Sudden Abhisamaya' does not conform to the scriptures.
也。由先見諦作十六行觀。修道如見故亦十六。
論。若彼復謂至理亦無失。縱計無失。實不一時頓見四諦。見一苦諦時。于餘三諦得自在故。名頓現觀。理即無違。
論。然于如是至別應思擇。明起．不起。指別釋也。
論。若彼復謂至有事現觀故。此許異計。無有失也。
論。依見現觀至經有別喻。引三經證漸現觀。一善授經。即此所引。正理論云。如善授經。佛告長者。於四聖諦非頓現觀。必漸現觀。廣說乃至。無處無容。于苦聖諦未現觀已。能現觀集。如是乃至。無處無容。于滅聖諦未現觀已。能現觀道。如是慶喜經。及一苾芻經。二經所說意皆同此。三經一一各各有別喻(善授者。蘇揭多。舊雲鬚達。然彼長者請問世尊。諦現觀時為漸為頓。世尊告曰。非頓必漸。四聖諦境自相別故慶喜經．一苾芻經問答皆同。然所舉喻各各不同。善授經作如是說。佛告長者。於四聖諦非頓現觀必漸現觀。以四聖諦相各別故。猶如世間造臺觀者。必先筑基。次方疊壁。次上樑栿。后以板覆。此四前後必不俱時。無處無容未筑基訖便疊于壁乃至廣說。第二經云。猶如蹬上四橫梯時。先蹬最初方蹬第二。無處無容不蹬最初。而蹬第二。乃至廣說。第三經云。喻如蹬上四級階時。先蹬最初方蹬第二無處無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也。由先見諦（dṛṣṭi-satya，對真諦的洞見）作十六行觀（ṣoḍaśākāra，十六種觀行）。修道如見故亦十六。
論：若他們又說至理也沒有缺失。縱然認為沒有缺失，實際上不能一時頓見四諦（catvāri āryasatyāni，四種聖諦）。見一苦諦（duḥkha-satya，苦諦）時，對於其餘三諦得到自在的緣故，名為頓現觀（ekābhisamaya，一次性證悟）。道理上沒有違背。
論：然而對於如此至極的差別應當思擇，明起與不起。指明差別並加以解釋。
論：如果他們又說至有事現觀的緣故，這裡允許不同的觀點，沒有缺失。
論：依據見現觀，經文中有不同的比喻。引用三部經來證明漸現觀（kramābhisamaya，漸次證悟）。一是《善授經》（Sudatta-sūtra），就是這裡引用的。《正理論》中說：『如《善授經》，佛告訴長者，對於四聖諦不是頓現觀，必定是漸現觀。』廣泛地說乃至，沒有地方沒有餘地，在苦聖諦沒有現觀完畢之前，能夠現觀集諦（samudaya-satya，集諦）。像這樣乃至，沒有地方沒有餘地，在滅聖諦（nirodha-satya，滅諦）沒有現觀完畢之前，能夠現觀道諦（mārga-satya，道諦）。像這樣，《慶喜經》（Nanda-sūtra）和《一苾芻經》（Ekabhikṣu-sūtra），兩部經所說的意思都與此相同。三部經各自都有不同的比喻。（善授，蘇揭多（Sugata），舊譯為須達。然而那位長者請問世尊，諦現觀時是漸還是頓，世尊告訴他說：『不是頓而是漸，因為四聖諦的境界自相有差別。』《慶喜經》、《一苾芻經》的問答都相同。然而所舉的比喻各自不同。《善授經》作這樣的說法：佛告訴長者，對於四聖諦不是頓現觀必定是漸現觀，因為四聖諦的相各不相同。猶如世間建造樓臺的人，必定先筑地基，然後才堆砌墻壁，然後才上樑，最後用木板覆蓋。這四個步驟的前後必定不能同時進行。沒有地方沒有餘地在沒有筑好地基之前就堆砌墻壁，乃至廣泛地說。第二部經說：猶如登上四個橫梯時，先登上最初的梯子，然後才登上第二個梯子。沒有地方沒有餘地不登上最初的梯子，而登上第二個梯子，乃至廣泛地說。第三部經說：比喻猶如登上四個臺階時，先登上最初的臺階，然後才登上第二個臺階，沒有地方沒有餘地不登上最初的臺階，而登上
【English Translation】 English version: Also. Based on the initial insight into the Truth (dṛṣṭi-satya), one performs the sixteen aspects of contemplation (ṣoḍaśākāra). Cultivating the path is like seeing, hence also sixteen.
Treatise: If they further argue that the ultimate truth also has no flaw, even if one concedes no flaw, in reality, one cannot simultaneously and instantly see the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni). When seeing one Truth of Suffering (duḥkha-satya), because one attains freedom regarding the remaining three Truths, it is called instantaneous realization (ekābhisamaya). There is no contradiction in principle.
Treatise: However, regarding such ultimate distinctions, one should contemplate whether clarity arises or does not arise. This clarifies the distinctions.
Treatise: If they further argue that it is because of the realization of an existing event, this allows for different views, and there is no flaw.
Treatise: Based on the realization through seeing, the sutras have different metaphors. Three sutras are cited to prove gradual realization (kramābhisamaya). One is the Sudatta-sūtra (善授經), which is cited here. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'As in the Sudatta-sūtra, the Buddha told the elder that the Four Noble Truths are not realized instantaneously but must be realized gradually.' Speaking extensively, there is no place, no room, to realize the Truth of Origin (samudaya-satya) before realizing the Truth of Suffering. Likewise, there is no place, no room, to realize the Truth of the Path (mārga-satya) before realizing the Truth of Cessation (nirodha-satya). Similarly, the Nanda-sūtra (慶喜經) and the Ekabhikṣu-sūtra (一苾芻經) convey the same meaning. Each of the three sutras has different metaphors. (Sudatta, Sugata (蘇揭多), was formerly translated as Sudatta (須達). However, that elder asked the World-Honored One whether the realization of the Truths is gradual or instantaneous. The World-Honored One told him: 'It is not instantaneous but gradual because the realms of the Four Noble Truths have distinct characteristics.' The questions and answers in the Nanda-sūtra and the Ekabhikṣu-sūtra are the same. However, the metaphors used are different. The Sudatta-sūtra says: The Buddha told the elder that the Four Noble Truths are not realized instantaneously but must be realized gradually because the characteristics of the Four Noble Truths are different. It is like a person building a pavilion in the world, who must first build the foundation, then stack the walls, then place the beams, and finally cover it with boards. These four steps cannot happen simultaneously. There is no place, no room, to stack the walls before the foundation is built, and so on extensively. The second sutra says: It is like climbing four horizontal rungs of a ladder, one first climbs the first rung and then climbs the second rung. There is no place, no room, to climb the second rung without climbing the first rung, and so on extensively. The third sutra says: It is like climbing four steps, one first climbs the first step and then climbs the second step. There is no place, no room, to climb the first step without climbing the
容不蹬最初而蹬第二。乃至廣說。依如是喻必漸非頓)。
論。若謂有經至密意說故。又牒救通。如文可解。
論。已辨現觀具十六心。下半頌第二明依地同。
論曰至如先已說。釋文可知。
論。何緣必有如是忍智。下半頌第三明忍智次第。
論曰至驅賊閉戶。釋十六心無間解脫。約斷惑得無能隔礙。釋無間道。與離系得俱時起故。釋解脫道 驅賊。喻無間道斷惑令得出身故 閉戶。喻解脫道持擇滅得令惑不入身。故正理論云。經主釋言。約斷惑得無能隔礙故名無間道。已解脫惑得與離系得俱時起故名解脫道。若爾解脫道。亦應名無間。約與離系得俱亦無能隔礙故。應作是釋。無間隔故名為無間。無間即道名無間道。是無同類道能為間隔。令于解脫道不為緣義。諸無間道唯一剎那。諸解脫道或相續故。于自所治諸煩惱得已得解脫。與彼斷得俱時起道名解脫道。自所治言欲顯何義。苦類忍等諸無間道亦與他所治離系得俱生。勿彼亦名解脫道故。
論。若謂第二至已斷疑智牒計破也。正理論云。若苦法忍后即有苦類忍。與前忍果斷得俱生。餘位亦然。斯有何失。若爾此位緣欲苦等。已斷疑智應不得生。許此不生復有何過。於後修位。我已知苦等諸決定智應不得生。于苦等境中。先
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：就像人爬梯子，一定是先踩第一級臺階，然後才能踩第二級臺階。這裡乃至可以廣泛地說明，依據這樣的比喻，證悟一定是漸悟而不是頓悟（容不蹬最初而蹬第二。乃至廣說。依如是喻必漸非頓）。
論：如果有人說，有經典是密意說的（若謂有經至密意說故）。又重複之前的解釋來消除疑惑（又牒救通）。就像經文字身可以解釋的那樣（如文可解）。
論：已經辨析了現觀具有十六剎那心（已辨現觀具十六心）。下面半頌說明所依之地的相同（下半頌第二明依地同）。
論曰：就像之前已經說過的（至如先已說）。解釋經文就可以明白（釋文可知）。
論：為什麼一定會有這樣的忍智（何緣必有如是忍智）？下面半頌第三說明忍智的次第（下半頌第三明忍智次第）。
論曰：就像驅趕盜賊和關閉門戶（至驅賊閉戶）。解釋十六剎那心的無間道和解脫道，是就斷除煩惱和獲得解脫來說的，煩惱斷除后，就沒有什麼能阻礙了。解釋無間道，是說它和離系得（Vimukti-prāpti，解脫之得）同時生起。解釋解脫道，驅趕盜賊，比喻無間道斷除煩惱，使修行者得以解脫；關閉門戶，比喻解脫道保持和選擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha，擇滅）的獲得，使煩惱不再進入身心。正理論（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）中說，經主解釋說，就斷除煩惱和獲得解脫來說，沒有什麼能阻礙的，所以叫做無間道；已經解脫煩惱，解脫之得（Vimukti-prāpti）和離系得（Vimukti-prāpti）同時生起，所以叫做解脫道。如果這樣，解脫道也應該叫做無間道，就和離系得（Vimukti-prāpti）同時生起來說，也沒有什麼能阻礙的。應該這樣解釋，沒有間隔，所以叫做無間；無間就是道，叫做無間道。這種無間道沒有同類的道可以作為間隔，使得它不能成為解脫道的因緣。所有的無間道都只有一個剎那，所有的解脫道卻可以相續不斷。對於自己所要對治的各種煩惱，已經獲得解脫，和斷除這些煩惱的獲得同時生起的道，叫做解脫道。自己所要對治，這句話想要說明什麼呢？苦法忍等各種無間道，也和其他所要對治的離系得（Vimukti-prāpti）同時生起，不要讓它們也被叫做解脫道。
論：如果有人說，在苦法忍（Kṣānti-dharma-jñāna，苦法智忍）之後，緊接著就是苦類忍（Kṣānti-anvaya-jñāna，苦類智忍），和前一個忍的果，也就是斷得（Prahāṇa-prāpti，斷得）同時生起，其他情況也是這樣，這有什麼不對嗎？（若謂第二至已斷疑智牒計破也）。正理論（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya）中說，如果苦法忍（Kṣānti-dharma-jñāna，苦法智忍）之後緊接著就是苦類忍（Kṣānti-anvaya-jñāna，苦類智忍），和前一個忍的果，也就是斷得（Prahāṇa-prāpti，斷得）同時生起，其他情況也是這樣，這有什麼過失？如果這樣，在這個階段，緣于欲界苦等，已經斷除的疑智（Vicikitsa-jñana，疑智）應該不能生起。允許這個不生起又有什麼過錯？在後面的修道位，我已經知道苦等各種決定智（Nirnaya-jñana，決定智）應該不能生起。在苦等境界中，先
【English Translation】 English version: Just as one climbs a ladder, one must first step on the first rung before stepping on the second. This can be extensively explained, and according to this analogy, enlightenment must be gradual and not sudden (Rūpaṃ na tyajati prathamato dvitīyaṃ tyajati. Yāvad vistareṇa brūyāt. Evaṃ dṛṣṭāntena krameṇa bhavet na yugapad).
Treatise: If it is said that some sutras are spoken with hidden meanings (Yadi brūyāt sūtrāṇi sandhyābhāṣitāni). And then repeat the previous explanation to dispel doubts (Punaḥ samādhānaṃ dīpayati). Just as the text itself can be explained (Yathā śāstraṃ vyākhyeyam).
Treatise: It has already been analyzed that direct perception has sixteen moments of mind (Adhigamaḥ ṣoḍaśacittakṣaṇayuktaḥ). The second half of the verse below explains the sameness of the ground on which it depends (Adhaḥ ślokaḥ dvitīyaḥ bhūmisamatām āha).
Treatise says: Just as it has been said before (Yathā pūrvam uktam). The explanation of the text will make it clear (Śāstravyākhyānena jñāyate).
Treatise: Why must there be such forbearance and wisdom (Kasmāt evaṃ kṣāntijñānam avaśyam bhavet)? The third half of the verse below explains the order of forbearance and wisdom (Adhaḥ ślokaḥ tṛtīyaḥ kṣāntijñānakramam āha).
Treatise says: Just like driving away thieves and closing doors (Yathā corān nirākurvanti dvārāṇi ca pidadhāti). Explaining the uninterrupted path (Ānantarya-mārga) and the liberation path (Vimukti-mārga) of the sixteen moments of mind, it is in terms of cutting off afflictions and attaining liberation. After the afflictions are cut off, there is nothing that can hinder it. Explaining the uninterrupted path (Ānantarya-mārga), it is said that it arises simultaneously with the attainment of detachment (Vimukti-prāpti). Explaining the liberation path (Vimukti-mārga), driving away thieves is like the uninterrupted path (Ānantarya-mārga) cutting off afflictions, allowing the practitioner to be liberated; closing doors is like the liberation path (Vimukti-mārga) maintaining and choosing the attainment of cessation (Pratisankhya-nirodha), preventing afflictions from entering the body and mind. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that the master of the sutra explains that, in terms of cutting off afflictions and attaining liberation, there is nothing that can hinder it, so it is called the uninterrupted path (Ānantarya-mārga); having already been liberated from afflictions, the attainment of liberation (Vimukti-prāpti) and the attainment of detachment (Vimukti-prāpti) arise simultaneously, so it is called the liberation path (Vimukti-mārga). If so, the liberation path (Vimukti-mārga) should also be called the uninterrupted path (Ānantarya-mārga), in terms of arising simultaneously with the attainment of detachment (Vimukti-prāpti), there is nothing that can hinder it. It should be explained this way: without interruption, it is called uninterrupted; the uninterrupted is the path, called the uninterrupted path (Ānantarya-mārga). This uninterrupted path (Ānantarya-mārga) has no similar path that can serve as an interruption, preventing it from becoming a cause for the liberation path (Vimukti-mārga). All uninterrupted paths (Ānantarya-mārga) have only one moment, while all liberation paths (Vimukti-mārga) can be continuous. For the various afflictions that one needs to counteract, having already attained liberation, the path that arises simultaneously with the attainment of cutting off these afflictions is called the liberation path (Vimukti-mārga). What does the phrase 'that one needs to counteract' want to explain? The various uninterrupted paths (Ānantarya-mārga) such as the forbearance of suffering, also arise simultaneously with the attainment of detachment (Vimukti-prāpti) that others need to counteract, lest they also be called liberation paths (Vimukti-mārga).
Treatise: If someone says that after the forbearance of the dharma of suffering (Kṣānti-dharma-jñāna), there immediately follows the forbearance of the category of suffering (Kṣānti-anvaya-jñāna), and the result of the previous forbearance, which is the attainment of cutting off (Prahāṇa-prāpti), arises simultaneously, and other situations are the same, is there anything wrong with this? (Yadi brūyāt dvitīyaṃ yāvat vicikitsājñānaṃ chinnam iti dīpayati). The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says that if the forbearance of the dharma of suffering (Kṣānti-dharma-jñāna) is immediately followed by the forbearance of the category of suffering (Kṣānti-anvaya-jñāna), and the result of the previous forbearance, which is the attainment of cutting off (Prahāṇa-prāpti), arises simultaneously, and other situations are the same, is there any fault? If so, at this stage, with regard to the realm of desire and suffering, the wisdom of doubt (Vicikitsa-jñana) that has already been cut off should not arise. What is wrong with allowing this not to arise? In the later stage of cultivation, I already know that the various decisive wisdoms (Nirnaya-jñana) such as suffering should not arise. In the realm of suffering, first
未生智故。若於先位未有智生。后已知言便成無義。
論。若謂見位至九結聚相違。此外難也。以本論說四法類智。及修所斷。以為九結。此九皆言是智斷故。故知見位非忍斷惑。
論。此難不然至名王所作。有部通也。
論此十六心皆見諦理。下半頌第四明見．修道別。
論。曰至故修道攝。此明見道．修道異也。忍名為見。智名為智。至十五心見八諦周。於一一諦皆未曾見。最初見故名為見諦。見諦周故。無未曾見未見諦故。雖知八諦未得周盡。于上地道未起智故。今明見道不明智道故無有失。若說智道十六方周。由言見道故至十五。十六重見故名為修。如余修道重見諦故。
論。豈不爾時至未見今見。此外難也。道類忍時不能自見。至道類智方見此忍。亦是初見何非見道。
論。此中約諦至此畦未刈。論主釋也。約諦作法不約剎那。已見上地無邊之道。唯餘一念未見今見。豈得從少名未見諦。正理論云。爾時通見曾．未曾見故無有失。
論。又道類智至非見道攝。又重釋也。立比量云。第十六心定是修道。以四果攝等。此立因也。如余修道。此舉喻也。正理論云。謂見道位唯修未來自同類境智及行相。道類智位如余修道。通修未來同．異類境智及行相故修道攝。若
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『未生智故。若於先位未有智生。后已知言便成無義。』 如果因為沒有生起智慧的緣故，如果在之前的階段沒有智慧產生，那麼之後所說的『已知』就變得沒有意義了。
『論。若謂見位至九結聚相違。此外難也。以本論說四法類智。及修所斷。以為九結。此九皆言是智斷故。故知見位非忍斷惑。』 如果有人認為見道的階段與九結的聚集相違背，這是另外一種詰難。因為本論述說了四法類智，以及修道所斷的煩惱，作為九結。這九結都說是智慧所斷的，因此可知見道的階段並非以忍來斷除迷惑。
『論。此難不然至名王所作。有部通也。』 這個詰難是不成立的，乃至『名王所作』，這是有部的普遍觀點。
『論此十六心皆見諦理。下半頌第四明見．修道別。』 這十六個心念都見證了真理。下半頌的第四句闡明了見道和修道的區別。
『論。曰至故修道攝。此明見道．修道異也。忍名為見。智名為智。至十五心見八諦周。於一一諦皆未曾見。最初見故名為見諦。見諦周故。無未曾見未見諦故。雖知八諦未得周盡。于上地道未起智故。今明見道不明智道故無有失。若說智道十六方周。由言見道故至十五。十六重見故名為修。如余修道重見諦故。』 這裡說明了見道和修道的不同。『忍』被稱為『見』，『智』被稱為『智』。直到第十五個心念，才算周遍地見到了八諦（苦、集、滅、道）。對於每一諦，之前都未曾見過，因為是最初見到，所以稱為『見諦』。因為見諦已經周遍，所以沒有未曾見過的，沒有未見諦的。雖然知道了八諦，但還沒有完全周遍，因為對於上地的道，還沒有生起智慧。現在闡明的是見道，而不是智道，所以沒有缺失。如果說智道要到第十六個心念才周遍，因為說的是見道，所以到第十五個心念為止。第十六個心念是重複地見到，所以稱為『修』，如同其他的修道，是重複地見到真諦。
『論。豈不爾時至未見今見。此外難也。道類忍時不能自見。至道類智方見此忍。亦是初見何非見道。』 難道不是在那個時候，才從『未見』變為『今見』嗎？這是另外一種詰難。道類忍（Dharmakirti）的時候不能自己見到，直到道類智（Dharmakirti-jnana）才能見到這個忍。這也是最初見到，為什麼不是見道呢？
『論。此中約諦至此畦未刈。論主釋也。約諦作法不約剎那。已見上地無邊之道。唯餘一念未見今見。豈得從少名未見諦。正理論云。爾時通見曾．未曾見故無有失。』 這裡是根據諦（Satya）來討論，而不是根據剎那（Kshana）。已經見到了上地無邊的道，只剩下一個念頭未見，現在見到了。難道能因為缺少這一點點，就說沒有見到真諦嗎？《正理論》說，那個時候普遍地見到了曾經見過和未曾見過的，所以沒有缺失。
『論。又道類智至非見道攝。又重釋也。立比量云。第十六心定是修道。以四果攝等。此立因也。如余修道。此舉喻也。正理論云。謂見道位唯修未來自同類境智及行相。道類智位如余修道。通修未來同．異類境智及行相故修道攝。若』 又是關於道類智（Dharmakirti-jnana）是否屬於見道的再次解釋。建立比量說：第十六個心念一定是修道，因為它被四果（Srotapanna, Sakrdagamin, Anagamin, Arhat）所包含等等。這是立因。如同其他的修道，這是舉例說明。《正理論》說，見道位僅僅修習未來與自身同類的境、智和行相。道類智（Dharmakirti-jnana）的階段如同其他的修道，普遍地修習未來同類和異類的境、智和行相，所以屬於修道。如果
【English Translation】 English version: 『未生智故。若於先位未有智生。后已知言便成無義。』 Because of the absence of arising wisdom. If in the prior stage there is no wisdom arising, then the subsequent statement of 『already knowing』 becomes meaningless.
『論。若謂見位至九結聚相違。此外難也。以本論說四法類智。及修所斷。以為九結。此九皆言是智斷故。故知見位非忍斷惑。』 If it is argued that the stage of seeing contradicts the aggregation of the nine fetters (Nava-samyojana), this is another difficulty. Because this treatise discusses the four Dharma-categories of wisdom (Dharma-jnana) and the afflictions severed by cultivation (Bhavana-prahata), considering them as the nine fetters. All nine are said to be severed by wisdom, therefore it is known that the stage of seeing is not severing delusions by forbearance (Ksanti).
『論。此難不然至名王所作。有部通也。』 This difficulty does not hold, up to 『made by a famous king.』 This is the common view of the Sarvastivada school.
『論此十六心皆見諦理。下半頌第四明見．修道別。』 These sixteen moments of mind all see the truth. The fourth line of the second half of the verse clarifies the distinction between the path of seeing (Darshana-marga) and the path of cultivation (Bhavana-marga).
『論。曰至故修道攝。此明見道．修道異也。忍名為見。智名為智。至十五心見八諦周。於一一諦皆未曾見。最初見故名為見諦。見諦周故。無未曾見未見諦故。雖知八諦未得周盡。于上地道未起智故。今明見道不明智道故無有失。若說智道十六方周。由言見道故至十五。十六重見故名為修。如余修道重見諦故。』 This clarifies the difference between the path of seeing (Darshana-marga) and the path of cultivation (Bhavana-marga). 『Forbearance (Ksanti)』 is called 『seeing (Darshana),』 『wisdom (Jnana)』 is called 『wisdom (Jnana).』 Up to the fifteenth moment of mind, the eight noble truths (Arya-satyani) are seen completely. For each truth, it has never been seen before. Because it is the first time seeing, it is called 『seeing the truth (Satya-darshana).』 Because seeing the truth is complete, there is nothing unseen, no truth not seen. Although the eight truths are known, they are not yet completely pervasive, because wisdom has not arisen regarding the path of the higher realms. Now we are clarifying the path of seeing, not the path of wisdom, so there is no loss. If it is said that the path of wisdom is complete only at the sixteenth moment, because we are speaking of the path of seeing, it goes up to the fifteenth. The sixteenth is seeing again, so it is called 『cultivation (Bhavana),』 just like other cultivation paths, it is seeing the truth again.
『論。豈不爾時至未見今見。此外難也。道類忍時不能自見。至道類智方見此忍。亦是初見何非見道。』 Isn't it at that time that one goes from 『not seeing』 to 『now seeing』? This is another difficulty. At the time of Dharma-category forbearance (Dharma-ksanti), one cannot see oneself. Only at the time of Dharma-category wisdom (Dharma-jnana) can one see this forbearance. This is also the first time seeing, so why isn't it the path of seeing?
『論。此中約諦至此畦未刈。論主釋也。約諦作法不約剎那。已見上地無邊之道。唯餘一念未見今見。豈得從少名未見諦。正理論云。爾時通見曾．未曾見故無有失。』 Here, the discussion is based on the truth (Satya), not on the moment (Kshana). One has already seen the boundless path of the higher realms. Only one thought remains unseen, and now it is seen. How can one say that one has not seen the truth because of this small amount? The Nyayanusara says that at that time, one universally sees what has been seen and what has not been seen, so there is no loss.
『論。又道類智至非見道攝。又重釋也。立比量云。第十六心定是修道。以四果攝等。此立因也。如余修道。此舉喻也。正理論云。謂見道位唯修未來自同類境智及行相。道類智位如余修道。通修未來同．異類境智及行相故修道攝。若』 This is another explanation regarding whether Dharma-category wisdom (Dharma-jnana) belongs to the path of seeing. Establishing a syllogism: the sixteenth moment of mind is definitely the path of cultivation (Bhavana-marga), because it is included in the four fruits (Srotapanna, Sakrdagamin, Anagamin, Arhat), etc. This establishes the reason. Like other paths of cultivation, this is an example. The Nyayanusara says that the stage of the path of seeing only cultivates future objects, wisdom, and characteristics of the same category as oneself. The stage of Dharma-category wisdom (Dharma-jnana), like other paths of cultivation, universally cultivates future objects, wisdom, and characteristics of the same and different categories, so it belongs to the path of cultivation. If
謂見道有種種類。如或有時唯修無漏。有時通修有漏．無漏。如是應許有時唯修自同類境智及行相。有時通修同異類境智及行相。此例不然。唯修同境種種類故(此文亦證修俗智唯修同諦行相也)。
論。然道類智至所斷斷故。通伏難也。難云。若道類智是修道者。何不如余修道鈍根有退。答云。以任持見道所斷斷故。見道不退。此亦不退。
論。即由此故至太過失者。難云。即由任持見道斷故是見道者。有太過失。後果道中皆能任持見所斷斷。乃至無學亦應見道攝。任持見道斷故。
論。何緣七智亦見道攝。問。何緣七智重見諦理。非是修道亦見道攝。
論。見諸諦理至亦見道攝。答。七智雖重見諦理。以于未見中間起故見未究竟故非修道。
論。已說見修二道生異。已下第二依位建立。于中有二。一就見道立。二就修道立。此一行半頌就見道立 于中建立隨信．隨法前三果．向。總立五人。大乘此五人從四善根立。
論。曰至隨法行者。分十五心利．鈍為二聖人。
論。由信隨行至隨行義故。釋隨信行名。先以信地為首。行隨信起名隨信行。此釋行名 彼有隨信行。名隨信行者。釋人也 或由串習此隨信行以成其性故名隨信行者。第二釋人 彼先信他隨行義故者。總
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：關於見道（Darśanamārga）有各種不同的情況。例如，有時只修習無漏（anāsrava）法，有時則同時修習有漏（sāsrava）和無漏法。同樣地，應該允許有時只修習與自身同類的境界、智慧和行相，有時則同時修習同類和異類的境界、智慧和行相。但這個例子是不成立的，因為修習世俗智（lokasaṃvṛti-jñāna）時，只修習同一諦理的行相（ākāra）。（這段文字也證明了修習世俗智時，只修習同一諦理的行相。） 論：然而，道類智（dharmajñāna-kṣānti）能夠斷除所應斷的煩惱，因此可以通伏（克服）困難。有人提問：如果道類智是修道者，為什麼不像其他修道鈍根者一樣會退轉？回答是：因為它能夠任持見道（Darśanamārga）所斷的煩惱，見道不會退轉，因此它也不會退轉。 論：正因為如此，才不會有過失。有人提問：僅僅因為能夠任持見道所斷的煩惱，就說是見道者，這會有過失。因為後來的果道（phalā-mārga）中，都能任持見道所斷的煩惱，乃至無學（aśaikṣa）位也應該被歸為見道，因為他們也能任持見道所斷的煩惱。 論：為什麼七智（sapta jñānāni）也屬於見道？問：為什麼七智重複見到真諦的道理，而不是修道，卻也被歸為見道？ 論：因為見到諸諦理，所以也屬於見道。答：七智雖然重複見到真諦的道理，但因為它們是在未見（真諦）的中間生起，見解尚未究竟，所以不是修道。 論：以上已經說明了見道和修道在生起上的差異。接下來第二部分是依據果位進行建立，其中分為兩部分：一是就見道而建立，二是就修道而建立。下面這一行半的頌文是就見道而建立的，其中建立了隨信行（anuśraddhā-vihārin）、隨法行（anudharma-vihārin）以及前三個果位和趨向果位的行者，總共五種人。在大乘佛教中，這五種人是從四善根（catvāri kuśala-mūlāni）建立的。 論：說…直到隨法行者。將具有十五種心識的利根者和鈍根者分為兩種聖人。 論：由於信隨行…直到隨行之義。解釋隨信行（anuśraddhā-vihārin）的名稱。首先以信地（śraddhā-bhūmi）為首，行為隨著信而生起，所以稱為隨信行。這是解釋『行』的名稱。那些具有隨信行的人，被稱為隨信行者。這是解釋『人』。或者由於串習這種隨信行而形成其性格，所以稱為隨信行者。這是第二種解釋『人』。他們首先相信他人，然後隨之而行，這就是隨行之義。
【English Translation】 English version: It is said that there are various kinds of Darśanamārga (見道, path of seeing). For example, sometimes only the anāsrava (無漏, without outflows) is cultivated, and sometimes both the sāsrava (有漏, with outflows) and anāsrava are cultivated together. Similarly, it should be allowed that sometimes only the realms, wisdom, and aspects of the same kind as oneself are cultivated, and sometimes the realms, wisdom, and aspects of both the same and different kinds are cultivated together. However, this example is not valid, because when cultivating lokasaṃvṛti-jñāna (世俗智, conventional wisdom), only the aspects (ākāra) of the same truth are cultivated. (This passage also proves that when cultivating conventional wisdom, only the aspects of the same truth are cultivated.) Treatise: However, dharmajñāna-kṣānti (道類智, knowledge of the law of cessation) severs what should be severed, thus overcoming difficulties. Objection: If dharmajñāna-kṣānti is a cultivator of the path, why does it not regress like other dull-rooted cultivators? Answer: Because it sustains the severances of what is severed by Darśanamārga (見道, path of seeing), Darśanamārga does not regress, therefore it does not regress either. Treatise: Precisely because of this, there is no fault of excess. Objection: Just because it can sustain the severances of what is severed by Darśanamārga, it is said to be a practitioner of Darśanamārga, there would be a fault of excess. Because in the subsequent phalā-mārga (果道, path of fruition), all can sustain the severances of what is severed by Darśanamārga, even the aśaikṣa (無學, no more learning) should be included in Darśanamārga, because they can also sustain the severances of what is severed by Darśanamārga. Treatise: Why are the sapta jñānāni (七智, seven knowledges) also included in Darśanamārga? Question: Why do the seven knowledges repeatedly see the truth of the Four Noble Truths, and are not the path of cultivation, but are also included in Darśanamārga? Treatise: Because they see the truths, they are also included in Darśanamārga. Answer: Although the seven knowledges repeatedly see the truth of the Four Noble Truths, because they arise in the middle of not yet seeing (the truth), and the seeing is not yet complete, therefore they are not the path of cultivation. Treatise: The differences in the arising of Darśanamārga and the path of cultivation have been explained above. The second part below is established according to the stages, which is divided into two parts: one is established based on Darśanamārga, and the other is established based on the path of cultivation. This one and a half lines of verse below are established based on Darśanamārga, in which the anuśraddhā-vihārin (隨信行, one who follows by faith), anudharma-vihārin (隨法行, one who follows by dharma), and the first three fruits and those who are heading towards the fruits are established, a total of five types of people. In Mahayana Buddhism, these five types of people are established from the catvāri kuśala-mūlāni (四善根, four roots of virtue). Treatise: Saying... until the anudharma-vihārin. Divides the sharp-witted and dull-witted who have fifteen types of consciousness into two types of sages. Treatise: Because of faith following practice... until the meaning of following practice. Explains the name anuśraddhā-vihārin (隨信行, one who follows by faith). First, taking śraddhā-bhūmi (信地, ground of faith) as the head, the practice arises following faith, so it is called anuśraddhā-vihārin. This explains the name of 'practice'. Those who have anuśraddhā-vihārin are called anuśraddhā-vihārin. This explains the 'person'. Or because of the habitual practice of this anuśraddhā-vihārin, their character is formed, so they are called anuśraddhā-vihārin. This is the second explanation of 'person'. They first believe in others, and then follow them, this is the meaning of following practice.
釋隨信行名。由先所作但隨他語不自披教。
論。準此應釋至隨行義故準上釋隨信行人。釋隨法行亦爾。以法為首隨行義故名隨法行。婆沙五十四云。何故名隨信行者。答由彼依信。隨信行。故名隨信行。謂依有漏信。隨無漏信行。依有轉信。隨解脫信行。依有系信。隨離系信行。由信為先得入聖道。如是種類補特伽羅。從本以來性多信故。若聞他勸汝應務農以自存活。彼不思察我為應作。為不應作。我為能作。為不能作。為有宜便。為無宜便。聞已便作。或聞他勸汝應商估。或應事王。或應習學書．算．印等種種伎藝。以自存活。亦不思察。廣說乃至。聞已便作。乃至。出家等亦爾。問何故名隨法行。答由彼依法。隨法行故。名隨法行。謂依有漏法。隨無漏法行。依有轉法。隨解脫法行。依有系法。隨離系法行。由慧為先得入聖道。如是種類補特伽羅。從本已來性多慧故。若聞他勸汝應務農以自存活。彼便思察我為應作。不應作等。
論。即二聖者至趣初果故。具縛斷五品來十五心中名初果向。向初果故。
論。言初果者至必初得故。釋初果名 言。必初得者。簡超越第二第三果也。彼雖初得。非必定初故。
論。若先已斷至此第二故。已斷六．七．八品。十五心中立第二果向。向第二果
故 遍得果中第二果故者。超越得者雖初得果。遍得果中是第二故。
論。若先已斷至數準前釋。明第三向。如文可解。如是隨信．隨法行者。由先具縛斷惑有殊。數別各成七十三種。
論。次依修道道類智時。已下第二依修道立。文中有二。一明第十六心。二明住果非向。此一行頌第一門也。
論曰至今住不還果。釋前三向至十六心住果。
論。阿羅漢果至雖有頂故。明第四果無初得也。大乘對法論中有從初果超取羅漢。
論。至住果位至今名見至。明至十六心隨信隨法二人。轉名信解．見至。信解鈍根。見至利根。
論。此二聖者至見至名別。釋二人名也。信增故名信解。見增故名見至。正理云。諸鈍根者先名隨信行。今名信解。由信增上力勝解顯故(從他生解故鈍根。解進至果方名解脫)。諸利根者先名隨法行。今名見至。正見顯故(披教生解。先見后至果故名為見至)。
論。何緣先斷欲界修惑。下一頌。第二明住果非向。
論曰至不名後向。總答。由未起勝果道故但名住果。正理論云。又非得果時即有勝果道所斷煩惱離系得生。道類忍不能斷彼系得故。
論。然諸先斷至定成樂根。釋。先斷一品等於此生中定起勝果道。若不爾者。先離色界染得阿
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 故，『遍得果中第二果故』者：超越得（Laukikābhinirhāreṇa，指以世間道超越證得）者，雖初得果（prathama-phala，指初果，即預流果），但『遍得果中』是第二故。
論：若先已斷（指已斷煩惱），至數準前釋。明第三向（anāgāmi-pratipannaka，指不還向）。如文可解。如是隨信（śraddhānusārin，指隨信行者）、隨法行者（dharmānusārin，指隨法行者），由先具縛（bandhana，指煩惱的束縛）斷惑有殊，數別各成七十三種。
論：次依修道道類智時，已下第二依修道立。文中有二：一明第十六心（指金剛喻定），二明住果非向。此一行頌第一門也。
論曰：至今住不還果（anāgāmi-phala，指不還果）。釋前三向至十六心住果。
論：阿羅漢果（arhat-phala，指阿羅漢果）至雖有頂故。明第四果無初得也。大乘對法論中有從初果超取羅漢。
論：至住果位至今名見至（dṛṣṭi-prāpta，指見至）。明至十六心隨信隨法二人，轉名信解（śraddhā-vimukta，指信解）．見至。信解鈍根，見至利根。
論：此二聖者至見至名別。釋二人名也。信增故名信解，見增故名見至。正理云：諸鈍根者先名隨信行，今名信解。由信增上力勝解顯故（從他生解故鈍根。解進至果方名解脫）。諸利根者先名隨法行，今名見至。正見顯故（披教生解。先見后至果故名為見至）。
論：何緣先斷欲界修惑。下一頌。第二明住果非向。
論曰：至不名後向。總答。由未起勝果道故但名住果。正理論云：又非得果時即有勝果道所斷煩惱離系得生。道類忍不能斷彼系得故。
論：然諸先斷至定成樂根。釋。先斷一品等於此生中定起勝果道。若不爾者。先離**染得阿
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, 『because it is the second fruit among those who attain the fruit universally』: Although those who attain through transcendence (Laukikābhinirhāreṇa) initially attain the fruit (prathama-phala, the first fruit, i.e., stream-enterer fruit), it is the second because it is 『among those who attain the fruit universally.』
Treatise: If one has already severed (referring to having already severed afflictions), the calculation up to the number is explained as before. Explaining the third path (anāgāmi-pratipannaka, the path of no returner). It can be understood as the text states. Thus, those who follow by faith (śraddhānusārin) and those who follow by Dharma (dharmānusārin), due to the differences in severing afflictions while still bound (bandhana, the bondage of afflictions), each separately become seventy-three types.
Treatise: Next, relying on the wisdom of the path of cultivation, the second part below is established based on the path of cultivation. There are two points in the text: first, explaining the sixteenth moment of consciousness (referring to the Vajropama-samādhi); second, explaining that abiding in the fruit is not the path. This one line is the first section.
Treatise says: Up to now, abiding in the fruit of no return (anāgāmi-phala). Explaining the previous three paths up to the sixteenth moment of consciousness, abiding in the fruit.
Treatise: The fruit of Arhat (arhat-phala) up to 『although there is the peak of existence.』 Explaining that there is no initial attainment of the fourth fruit. In the Mahāyāna Abhidharma texts, there are cases of transcending from the first fruit to directly attain Arhatship.
Treatise: Up to 『abiding in the fruit position, it is now called dṛṣṭi-prāpta (見至, one who has attained through vision).』 Explaining that the two, the follower by faith and the follower by Dharma, up to the sixteenth moment of consciousness, are renamed śraddhā-vimukta (信解, one liberated by faith) and dṛṣṭi-prāpta. The śraddhā-vimukta has dull faculties, and the dṛṣṭi-prāpta has sharp faculties.
Treatise: These two noble ones up to 『the name dṛṣṭi-prāpta is different.』 Explaining the names of the two. Because faith increases, they are called śraddhā-vimukta; because vision increases, they are called dṛṣṭi-prāpta. The Nyāyānusāra says: Those with dull faculties are first called followers by faith, and now called śraddhā-vimukta. Because the power of increasing faith makes understanding manifest (because understanding arises from others, they are dull. Only when understanding advances to the fruit are they called liberated). Those with sharp faculties are first called followers by Dharma, and now called dṛṣṭi-prāpta. Because right view is manifest (understanding arises from teaching. Because they first see and then attain the fruit, they are called dṛṣṭi-prāpta).
Treatise: Why does one first sever the afflictions of cultivation in the desire realm? The next verse. The second explains that abiding in the fruit is not the path.
Treatise says: Up to 『it is not called the subsequent path.』 General answer: Because the superior path of the fruit has not arisen, it is only called abiding in the fruit. The Nyāyānusāra says: Moreover, it is not that at the time of attaining the fruit, the separation from attachment to the afflictions severed by the superior path of the fruit arises. Because the forbearance of the path of knowledge cannot sever that attachment.
Treatise: However, those who first sever up to 『will definitely develop the faculty of joy.』 Explanation: Severing one grade first is equal to definitely arising the superior path of the fruit in this life. If not, having first separated from desire for **染 and attained A
那含果。生於無色應不成就樂根。本論既言定成樂根。故知定起勝果道也。準此。前二向道亦決定起 所以定起者。正理釋云彼障已斷必欣彼故。障已斷道易現前故。婆沙一百七十一云。頗有無漏四靜慮漸得耶。答有。以聖者離下地染。及有起勝果道時漸次得故。三無色為問亦爾 準此文。起勝果必漸次也。
論。如是已依先具倍離。已下大文第二就修惑漸次分別聖位。先明障道品數。后就位分人。此半行頌第一門也。
論曰至九品亦然。明地地中失．德。各分九品。
論。失德如何至理亦應然。明九分品粗．細相對。
論。白法力強至小燈能滅。明斷道強能斷障也。
論。已辨失德差別九品。第二歷位辨人。于中有四。一明預流七生。二明一來向．果。三明不還向．果。四明無學向．果。此半行頌第一明預流七生。
論曰至七返生義。釋極七返生。極是最多。亦容中間不滿七也。謂人．天各七合十四生。若兼中有二十八生。
論。諸無漏道至說名預流。釋預流名。諸無漏道趣向涅槃故名為流。即是聖道名之為流。最初至得名之為預。舊名入流。預是入之差別名也。彼七返人預聖道流故名預流。
論。此預流名至應名預流。進退徴也。若預流名目初得道。即初見道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：『那含果』（Anagamiphala，不還果）。如果眾生生於無色界，就不應成就樂根。但本論既然說禪定能成就樂根，由此可知禪定能生起殊勝的果道。依此推斷，之前的二向道（斯陀洹向、阿那含向）也必定生起。之所以必定生起，正理釋中解釋說，因為障礙已經斷除，必定欣樂於此；障礙已斷，道就容易現前。毗婆沙論第一百七十一卷說：『有沒有無漏的四禪漸次獲得的情況呢？』回答是：『有。因為聖者遠離下地的染污，以及有生起殊勝果道的時候，會漸次獲得。』三無色定（空無邊處定、識無邊處定、無所有處定）的提問也是如此。依據這段經文，生起殊勝的果必定是漸次的。
論：『如是已依先具倍離。』以下大文第二部分，就修惑的漸次來分別聖位。先說明障礙道的品數，然後就位來區分人。這半行頌是第一門。
論曰：『至九品亦然。』說明地地之中，失和得各自分為九品。
論：『失德如何至理亦應然。』說明九品中粗和細是相對的。
論：『白法力強至小燈能滅。』說明斷道的強大力量能夠斷除障礙。
論：『已辨失德差別九品。』第二部分，歷位來辨別人。其中有四部分：一、說明預流（Srotapanna，入流者）七生；二、說明一來向（Sakrdagami-pratipannaka，一來曏者）和一來果（Sakrdagami，一來果者）；三、說明不還向（Anagami-pratipadaka，不還向者）和不還果（Anagami，不還果者）；四、說明無學向（Arhat-pratipadaka，阿羅漢曏者）和無學果（Arhat，阿羅漢果者）。這半行頌是第一部分，說明預流七生。
論曰：『至七返生義。』解釋最多七次往返生死的含義。『極』是最多，也容許中間不滿七次往返。指的是在人道和天道各七次，合起來是十四生。如果加上中有（Antarabhava，中陰身），就是二十八生。
論：『諸無漏道至說名預流。』解釋預流這個名稱。各種無漏道趣向涅槃，所以稱為『流』，也就是聖道稱為『流』。最初證得聖道，稱為『預』。舊譯為『入流』，『預』是『入』的差別名稱。那些七次往返生死的人，預入了聖道之流，所以稱為預流。
論：『此預流名至應名預流。』這是進退的質問。如果預流這個名稱是指初次得道，也就是初次見道。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Anagamiphala』 (Anagamiphala, the fruit of Non-Returning). If beings are born in the Formless Realm, they should not achieve the root of pleasure. However, since this treatise states that Samadhi (concentration) can achieve the root of pleasure, it is known that Samadhi can generate the superior path of fruition. Based on this, the previous two paths (Stream-Enterer and Once-Returner) will also definitely arise. The reason for this certainty is explained in the commentary of the 『Nyayanusara-sastra』 (正理釋): 『Because the obstacles have been removed, there is certain joy in it; with the obstacles removed, the path easily manifests.』 The 『Mahavibhasa-sastra』 (毗婆沙論), volume 171, states: 『Are there cases where one gradually attains the Four Dhyanas (四禪, meditative states) without outflows?』 The answer is: 『Yes. Because the noble ones are separated from the defilements of the lower realms, and when there is the arising of the superior path of fruition, they gradually attain them.』 The question regarding the Three Formless Samadhis (三無色定, the Samadhi of the Realm of No-thingness, the Samadhi of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception) is also the same. According to this text, the arising of the superior fruit must be gradual.
Treatise: 『Thus, having relied on the previously possessed, doubling the separation.』 The second major section below distinguishes the stages of sainthood based on the gradual nature of the afflictions of cultivation. First, it explains the categories of obstacles to the path, and then it distinguishes people based on their stages. This half-line verse is the first section.
Treatise says: 『Up to the nine grades as well.』 It explains that within each realm, loss and gain are each divided into nine grades.
Treatise: 『How can loss and gain be so? Reason should also be so.』 It explains that the coarse and fine aspects of the nine grades are relative.
Treatise: 『The power of white dharma is strong, even a small lamp can be extinguished.』 It explains that the strong power of the path of cutting off can cut off obstacles.
Treatise: 『Having distinguished the nine grades of differences in loss and gain.』 The second part distinguishes people by going through the stages. There are four parts: 1. Explaining the seven rebirths of the Stream-Enterer (Srotapanna, 入流者); 2. Explaining the Once-Returner (Sakrdagami-pratipannaka, 一來曏者) and the fruit of the Once-Returner (Sakrdagami, 一來果者); 3. Explaining the Non-Returner (Anagami-pratipadaka, 不還向者) and the fruit of the Non-Returner (Anagami, 不還果者); 4. Explaining the Arhat (Arhat-pratipadaka, 阿羅漢曏者) and the fruit of the Arhat (Arhat, 阿羅漢果者). This half-line verse is the first part, explaining the seven rebirths of the Stream-Enterer.
Treatise says: 『Up to the meaning of seven returns of birth.』 It explains the meaning of at most seven returns of birth and death. 『Most』 means the maximum, also allowing for less than seven returns in between. It refers to seven times in the human realm and seven times in the heavenly realm, totaling fourteen rebirths. If the intermediate existence (Antarabhava, 中陰身) is included, it is twenty-eight rebirths.
Treatise: 『All the paths without outflows, up to being called Stream-Enterer.』 It explains the name Stream-Enterer. All the paths without outflows lead to Nirvana, so they are called 『stream,』 which is the holy path called 『stream.』 The initial attainment of the holy path is called 『entering.』 The old translation is 『entering the stream,』 『entering』 is a different name for 『stream.』 Those who return to birth and death seven times enter the stream of the holy path, so they are called Stream-Enterers.
Treatise: 『This name Stream-Enterer, up to should be called Stream-Enterer.』 This is a question of advancement and retreat. If the name Stream-Enterer refers to the initial attainment of the path, it is the initial seeing of the path.
。第八人地應名預流。若初得果名為預流。即超越第二．三果應名預流。
論。此預流名至故名預流。答也。遍得一切是次第人。此初得果建立此名。一來．不還非定初得。若超越者即是初得。若次第者即非初得。故名預流。
論。何緣此名不目第八。問也。何緣此名不目初向。此是最初預聖流故。
論。以要至得至不目第八。答也。以三因緣不目第八。
論。彼從此後至所說如是。釋七生也。理實人．天各七為十四生。各加中有為二十八。各七等故名為七生。如七處善五蘊各七有三十五處。但名七處以數等故。如七葉樹別別七故非唯七葉。
論。若爾何故至第八有義。難。經言無容受第八有。如何得說二十八生。
論。此契經意至中有應無。答。上是順解。下是反答。
論。若爾上流至無第八生。難。若一趣說無第八生。上流那含極有頂者。應一天趣無第八生。
論。依欲界說故無有過。答。欲界人．天一趣各七。無第八生。
論。此何為證至非合受七。責證也。
論。以契經說至不應固執。引兩經證。一引有部等經。二引飲光部經 有部等說天七及人。故知人．天各七 飲光部經。復分明說於人．天各受七生。教既分別。不應固執。
論。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：第八人以地為依據，應被稱為預流（Srota-apanna，入流者）。如果初果被稱為預流，那麼超越了第二果（一來果，Sakrdagamin）和第三果（不還果，Anagamin）的人也應該被稱為預流。
論：這個預流的名稱是因為到達了（聖道）才被稱為預流。這是回答。普遍獲得一切（果位）的是次第修行的人。這個名稱是為初果建立的。一來果和不還果並非一定是初得。如果是超越者，那就是初得；如果是次第修行者，那就不是初得。所以（只有初果）被稱為預流。
論：為什麼這個名稱不指第八人（指有學位的最後階段）？這是提問。為什麼這個名稱不指最初的趨入（聖道）？因為這是最初進入聖者之流。
論：因為要到達才能獲得，所以不指第八人。這是回答。因為三個因緣，所以不指第八人。
論：他從此之後直到所說的那樣。這是解釋七生。實際上，人道和天道各有七生，合起來是十四生。如果各加上中有（Bardo，中陰身），那就是二十八生。因為各有七生，所以稱為七生。就像七處善，五蘊（Skandha）各有七，共有三十五處，但稱為七處，因為數量相等。就像七葉樹，每一株都有七片葉子，所以不僅僅是七片葉子。
論：如果這樣，為什麼直到第八有意義？這是提問。經中說沒有容納第八有的地方，怎麼能說有二十八生呢？
論：這個契經的意思是直到中有應該沒有。這是回答。上面是順著解釋，下面是反駁。
論：如果這樣，上流直到沒有第八生。這是提問。如果只在一個趣（Gati，道）中說沒有第八生，那麼上流阿那含（Anagamin，不還者）和到達有頂天的人，應該在一個天趣中沒有第八生。
論：依據欲界（Kama-dhatu）來說，所以沒有過失。這是回答。欲界的人道和天道，一個趣各有七生，沒有第八生。
論：這有什麼證據直到不是合起來接受七生？這是責問證據。
論：因為契經說直到不應該固執。這是引用兩部經來證明。一部引用有部（Sarvastivada）等的經典，另一部引用飲光部（Kasyapiya）的經典。有部等說天道有七生，人道也有七生，所以知道人道和天道各有七生。飲光部的經典又明確地說在人道和天道各接受七生。教義既然分別說明，就不應該固執。
論：
【English Translation】 English version: The eighth person, based on the ground, should be called a Srota-apanna (stream-enterer). If the first fruit is called Srota-apanna, then those who have surpassed the second fruit (Sakrdagamin, once-returner) and the third fruit (Anagamin, non-returner) should also be called Srota-apanna.
Treatise: This name 'Srota-apanna' is so-called because of reaching (the holy path). This is the answer. Universally obtaining everything (the fruits) is for those who practice in order. This name is established for the first fruit. Sakrdagamin and Anagamin are not necessarily the first attainment. If it is a surpasser, then it is the first attainment; if it is a sequential practitioner, then it is not the first attainment. Therefore, (only the first fruit) is called Srota-apanna.
Treatise: Why does this name not refer to the eighth person (referring to the final stage of a learner)? This is a question. Why does this name not refer to the initial entering (the holy path)? Because this is the initial entering into the stream of the noble ones.
Treatise: Because one must reach to attain, it does not refer to the eighth person. This is the answer. Because of three reasons, it does not refer to the eighth person.
Treatise: He, from then on, until what is said like that. This explains the seven births. In reality, the human realm and the heavenly realm each have seven births, totaling fourteen births. If each is added with the Bardo (intermediate state), then it is twenty-eight births. Because each has seven births, it is called seven births. Just like the seven abodes of goodness, each of the five Skandhas (aggregates) has seven, totaling thirty-five abodes, but it is called seven abodes because the numbers are equal. Just like the seven-leaf tree, each tree has seven leaves, so it is not just seven leaves.
Treatise: If so, why is it meaningful until the eighth existence? This is a question. The sutra says there is no room to accommodate the eighth existence, how can one say there are twenty-eight births?
Treatise: The meaning of this sutra is until the Bardo should not exist. This is the answer. The above is explaining in accordance, the below is refuting.
Treatise: If so, the upward stream until there is no eighth birth. This is a question. If it is only said in one Gati (realm) that there is no eighth birth, then the upward-flowing Anagamin (non-returner) and those who reach the peak of existence, should not have an eighth birth in one heavenly realm.
Treatise: Based on the Kama-dhatu (desire realm), so there is no fault. This is the answer. The human realm and the heavenly realm in the desire realm, one Gati each has seven births, there is no eighth birth.
Treatise: What is the evidence for this until it is not combined to receive seven births? This is questioning the evidence.
Treatise: Because the sutra says until one should not be attached. This is quoting two sutras to prove. One quotes the Sarvastivada (everything exists school) and other sutras, and the other quotes the Kasyapiya (drinking light school) sutra. The Sarvastivada etc. say that the heavenly realm has seven births, and the human realm also has seven births, so it is known that the human realm and the heavenly realm each have seven births. The Kasyapiya sutra also clearly says that in the human realm and the heavenly realm each receives seven births. Since the teachings are explained separately, one should not be attached.
Treatise:
於人趣得至還於天趣。明七生滿處。
論。何緣彼無受第八有。問也。
論。相續齊此至第四日瘧。答也。婆沙云。如七步蛇。四大力故不減七步。由毒力故不越七步 第四日瘧者。即隔日瘧。
論。又彼有餘至不證圓寂。更以七結釋也。正理破云。若謂聖道種類爾故。如為七步毒蛇所螫。此喻不然。壽量定者過此齊限亦得住故 又余於此作是釋言。由彼有餘七結在故。謂二下分五上分結。此亦無能證唯七有。唯貪．嗔結引七有故。又無契經說不還者受極七有。又無經說五上分結引欲界生。故彼所言無能證力。但由法爾極受七生。于中不應強申理趣 述曰。準上論文。不破論主。是破婆沙異師釋也。此論但敘有部多解不自立義 今詳。七步蛇喻。亦是以法爾毒力不越七步。受報定者自是別緣。如說火能燒。水能溺等。皆能殺人。而樹提不燒唸佛不溺。豈疑火燒．水溺之喻 以七結故欲有七生。此釋無理。若謂以有七結即有欲七生。若有五結應有五生在。又家家等三人亦有七結。因何生唯三等耶。婆沙四十六云。七生天上七生人中者 此依圓滿預流而說。故人．天有等受七生。然有預流人．天生別。謂或天七人六。或人七天六。或天六人五。乃至。或天二人一。或人二天一 太法師以此文不言人一天
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 於人趣得到達，最終還是會回到天趣（天道）。這清楚地表明，最多經歷七次生死輪迴，就會達到涅槃。
論：為什麼他們（不還果）不會再受第八次有（輪迴）？（這是提問）
論：因為相續到此為止，最多經歷第四日瘧（隔日瘧）。（這是回答）《婆沙論》中說：『就像七步蛇一樣，因為四大（地、水、火、風）的力量，不會少於七步；又因為毒的力量，不會超過七步。』第四日瘧，就是隔日瘧。
論：此外，他們還有剩餘的煩惱，所以不能證得圓寂。（這裡用七結來解釋）《正理論》駁斥說：『如果說是因為聖道的種類是這樣的，就像被七步毒蛇咬傷一樣，這個比喻是不恰當的。因為壽命是確定的，超過這個期限也可以存活。』還有人這樣解釋說：『因為他們還有剩餘的七結存在，也就是二下分結（身見結、戒禁取見結、疑結）和五上分結（色貪結、無色貪結、掉舉結、慢結、無明結）。』這種說法也不能證明只能有七次輪迴。只有貪結和嗔結才會引發七次輪迴。而且也沒有契經說不還果會受最多七次輪迴。也沒有經文說五上分結會引發欲界（六道輪迴中的欲界天、人間、阿修羅道、畜生道、餓鬼道、地獄道）的生命。所以他們的說法沒有證明的力量。只是因為法爾（事物本性如此），最多接受七次生命。其中不應該強行解釋理趣。』述記中說：『根據上面的論文，不是駁斥論主，而是駁斥《婆沙論》中不同的解釋。』這個論只敘述了有部的多種解釋，沒有自己確立義理。
現在詳細分析，七步蛇的比喻，也是因為法爾的毒力不會超過七步。接受果報是確定的，這是另外的因緣。就像說火能燃燒，水能淹沒等等，都能殺人。但是樹提（人名）不會被燒死，唸佛的人不會被淹死。難道要懷疑火燒、水淹的比喻嗎？
因為有七結，所以有欲界七次生命。這種解釋沒有道理。如果說因為有七結，所以有欲界七次生命，那麼有五結就應該有五次生命。而且家家（一來果），一間（一來果），種姓家（一來果）等三人也有七結，為什麼只會有三次等輪迴呢？《婆沙論》第四十六卷中說：『七次生在天上，七次生在人間。』這是根據圓滿的預流果（須陀洹果）而說的。所以人道和天道各有最多七次生命。然而預流果的人道和天道生命次數不同。有的是天道七次，人道六次；有的是人道七次，天道六次；有的是天道六次，人道五次；乃至有的是天道兩次，人道一次；有的是人道兩次，天道一次。』太法師根據這段經文，沒有說人道一次，天道一次。
【English Translation】 English version Having attained the human realm, one eventually returns to the heavenly realm (Deva realm). This clearly indicates that after a maximum of seven lives, one will attain Nirvana.
Question: Why do they (Anagami) not undergo an eighth existence (rebirth)?
Answer: Because the continuum ends here, at most experiencing the 'fourth-day malaria' (tertian fever). The Vibhasha states: 'Like a seven-step snake, due to the power of the four elements (earth, water, fire, and wind), it will not be less than seven steps; and due to the power of its venom, it will not exceed seven steps.' The 'fourth-day malaria' is tertian fever.
Furthermore, they still have remaining afflictions, thus they cannot attain complete Nirvana. (Here, the seven bonds are used to explain). The Nyaya-anusara refutes: 'If it is said that the nature of the noble path is such, like being bitten by a seven-step poisonous snake, this analogy is inappropriate. Because if the lifespan is fixed, one can still live beyond this limit.' Others explain: 'Because they still have the remaining seven bonds, namely the two lower bonds (Sakkayaditthi (self-view), Silabbata-paramasa (clinging to rites and rituals), Vicikiccha (doubt)) and the five higher bonds (Rupa-raga (lust for material existence), Arupa-raga (lust for immaterial existence), Uddhacca (restlessness), Mana (conceit), Avijja (ignorance)).' This explanation cannot prove that there are only seven rebirths. Only greed and hatred cause seven rebirths. Moreover, there is no sutra stating that Anagamis undergo a maximum of seven rebirths. Nor is there any sutra stating that the five higher bonds cause rebirth in the desire realm (the realm of desire in the cycle of rebirth, including the heavens of desire, the human realm, the Asura realm, the animal realm, the hungry ghost realm, and the hell realm). Therefore, their statement has no power of proof. It is simply because of Dharma-nature (the inherent nature of things) that one receives a maximum of seven lives. One should not forcefully interpret the principle within it.' The commentary states: 'According to the above text, it is not refuting the author of the treatise, but refuting the different interpretations in the Vibhasha.' This treatise only narrates the various interpretations of the Sarvastivada school and does not establish its own meaning.
Now, upon detailed analysis, the analogy of the seven-step snake is also because the venom's inherent power does not exceed seven steps. Receiving retribution is fixed, and this is a separate cause. Just as it is said that fire can burn and water can drown, both can kill. But Suddhi (name of a person) was not burned, and those who recite the Buddha's name are not drowned. Should we doubt the analogy of fire burning and water drowning?
Because there are seven bonds, there are seven lives in the desire realm. This explanation is unreasonable. If it is said that because there are seven bonds, there are seven lives in the desire realm, then having five bonds should result in five lives. Moreover, the Sakadagami (once-returner) such as 'family to family', 'one interval', and 'lineage family' also have seven bonds, so why do they only have three rebirths? The forty-sixth volume of the Vibhasha states: 'Seven rebirths in the heavens, seven rebirths in the human realm.' This is according to the complete Stream-enterer (Sotapanna). Therefore, the human and heavenly realms each have a maximum of seven lives. However, the number of lives in the human and heavenly realms for Stream-enterers differs. Some have seven lives in the heavens and six in the human realm; some have seven lives in the human realm and six in the heavens; some have six lives in the heavens and five in the human realm; and so on, down to two lives in the heavens and one in the human realm, or two lives in the human realm and one in the heavens.' The Great Dharma Master, based on this text, did not mention one life in the human realm and one life in the heavens.
一。即謂無須陀洹受一生者。及引涅槃經．成實論為證 又云。若人．天各一生即是一來果．此皆非證 婆沙云。人．天有等受七生者。然有預流人．天生別等受七生者。唯說七生。理亦合說六．五．四．三．二．一生等。又謂若有一生定業。即斷六品取一來者。此亦非理。斷煩惱緣有差別故。若謂定約生斷惑者。即應無有惑斷不斷不定之人。又預流人應無減七。定無第八即斷惑故。若先受一生后斷煩惱如何不許。涅槃。成實。非此宗義。縱有明文亦不成證。受七生者。中間雖有聖道現前。以餘業持不證圓寂者。此說有七生定業之力持故不證圓寂。唯一生定業經生無業力持令不證圓寂。
論。至第七有至苾芻形相。釋不逢佛得羅漢果。由無學道力。形自出家故。法爾自得苾芻形相。婆沙四十六云。如是說者。彼法爾成佛弟子相乃得極果。如五百仙人。在伊師迦山中修道。本是聲聞。出無佛世。獼猴為現佛弟子相。彼皆學之證獨覺果。無學不受外道相故。
論。有言彼往余道出家。第二釋也。正理破云。理不應然。往余道者。由惡見力邪業轉故 準此。不破論主。破余師也。
論。云何名為無退墮法。問。云何預流亦名不退墮法。
論。以不生長至俱清凈故。答也 以不生長退墮業故者。不造
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 一、關於須陀洹（Sotapanna，入流果）只受一生的問題，以及引用《涅槃經》（Nirvana Sutra）、《成實論》（Satyasiddhi Shastra）作為證據的問題。又說，如果人和天各受一生，那就是一來果（Sakadagami，一還果），這些都不是證據。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說，人和天有等同於受七生的。然而，有預流（Sotapanna，入流者）的人和天，因為生處不同，等同於受七生。只說七生，道理上也應該包括六、五、四、三、二、一生等情況。又說，如果有一生定業，就斷了六品煩惱而證一來果，這也是不合理的。因為斷煩惱的因緣有差別。如果說一定按照生的次數來斷惑，那就應該沒有惑斷、不斷、不確定的人。而且，預流者也不應該沒有減少到七生的，一定沒有第八生，因為已經斷惑了。如果先受一生，然後斷煩惱，為什麼不允許呢？《涅槃經》、《成實論》不是本宗的義理，即使有明確的文字，也不能作為證據。受七生的人，中間即使有聖道現前，因為有剩餘的業力支援，所以不能證得圓寂。這是說有七生定業的力量支援，所以不能證得圓寂。只有一生定業，經過一生就沒有業力支援，從而不能證得圓寂。 論：到了第七生，有成為比丘（Bhikkhu，出家僧侶）的形相。解釋說，不遇到佛也能得到阿羅漢果（Arhat，無學果），因為有無學道的緣故，形體自然出家，自然而然地得到比丘的形相。《婆沙論》第四十六卷說，這樣說來，他自然而然地成就佛弟子的相貌，才能得到最高的果位。就像五百仙人在伊師迦山中修行，本來是聲聞（Sravaka，聲聞乘修行者），出生在沒有佛的時代，獼猴為他們示現佛弟子的相貌，他們都學習這些相貌，證得了獨覺果（Pratyekabuddha，緣覺）。無學不會接受外道的相貌。 論：有人說他前往其他道出家，這是第二種解釋。《正理論》（Nyayanusara）駁斥說，道理上不應該是這樣。前往其他道，是因為惡見的力量和邪業的轉變的緣故。按照這個說法，不是駁斥論主，而是駁斥其他法師。 論：什麼叫做無退墮法？問：為什麼預流也叫做不退墮法？ 論：因為不生長到俱清凈的緣故。答：因為不造作生長退墮的業的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version: I. Regarding the issue of a Sotapanna (入流果, Stream-enterer) only experiencing one more life, and the citation of the Nirvana Sutra (涅槃經) and the Tattvasiddhi Shastra (成實論) as evidence. Furthermore, it is said that if humans and devas each experience one more life, then that is a Sakadagami (一來果, Once-returner), but these are not valid proofs. The Vibhasa (婆沙論) states that humans and devas may equally experience seven lives. However, there are Sotapannas among humans and devas who, due to differences in their birth, equally experience seven lives. While only seven lives are mentioned, it is logically consistent to include six, five, four, three, two, and one life as well. Furthermore, the notion that having a fixed karma for one life leads to the severance of the six categories of defilements and the attainment of the Sakadagami state is also unreasonable, because the conditions for severing defilements vary. If it is asserted that the severance of defilements is determined by the number of lives, then there should be no individuals whose defilements are severed, not severed, or uncertain. Moreover, a Sotapanna should not have fewer than seven lives, as there will definitely not be an eighth life because defilements have already been severed. If one experiences one life first and then severs defilements, why is it not allowed? The Nirvana Sutra and the Tattvasiddhi Shastra do not represent the doctrines of this school, and even if they contain explicit statements, they cannot be used as evidence. Those who experience seven lives, even if the noble path manifests in between, are unable to attain complete Nirvana due to the support of remaining karma. This indicates that the power of fixed karma for seven lives prevents the attainment of Nirvana. Only in the case of fixed karma for one life is there no karmic support after that one life to prevent the attainment of Nirvana. Treatise: By the seventh life, there is the appearance of a Bhikkhu (比丘, Buddhist monk). It is explained that one can attain Arhatship (阿羅漢果, the fruit of no more learning) without encountering a Buddha because of the power of the path of no more learning. The form naturally becomes a renunciant, and naturally attains the appearance of a Bhikkhu. Vibhasa, volume 46, states: 'According to this explanation, they naturally achieve the appearance of a disciple of the Buddha and then attain the ultimate fruit. Like the five hundred immortals who practiced the path in Mount Ishika, they were originally Sravakas (聲聞, Hearers) who were born in an age without a Buddha. A monkey manifested the appearance of a disciple of the Buddha for them, and they all learned from it and attained the fruit of a Pratyekabuddha (獨覺果, Solitary Buddha). Those who have no more learning do not accept the appearance of non-Buddhists.' Treatise: Some say that they go to other paths to become renunciants; this is the second explanation. The Nyayanusara (正理論) refutes this, saying that it should not be so. Going to other paths is due to the power of wrong views and the transformation of evil karma. According to this, it is not refuting the author of the treatise, but refuting other teachers. Treatise: What is called the Dharma of Non-Regression? Question: Why is a Sotapanna also called the Dharma of Non-Regression? Treatise: Because they do not grow to complete purity. Answer: Because they do not create karma that grows and causes regression.
新引惡趣業也 違彼生長業與果故者。舊招惡趣不定業者不能與果。若有定業不得預流 強盛善根鎮彼身故者。無漏業也 加行意樂俱清凈故者。得不作戒也。
論。諸有決定至亦能浮。引文舉喻證也。
論。經說預流果至苦邊際名。依經起問。
論。依齊此生至所謂涅槃。以兩義答。
論。如何涅槃可說所作。問也。
論。許彼得障至謂毀臺觀。答也。
論。餘位亦有至是故不說。正理論云。非聖亦有極七返生。相續成就得涅槃義。然非決定。是故不說。婆沙一百二十云。問諸預流者為有現智。能自審知已盡地獄．傍生．餓鬼險惡趣坑。而自知耶。答不知。若爾何故得知。答信佛語故(云云多釋)。
俱舍論疏卷第二十三
保延三年七月□□日午時切句了于東南院東廊畢功 羊僧覺樹
（別筆）
以興福寺慈恩院本一交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二十四
沙門法寶撰
分別賢聖品第六之三
論。已辨住果至一來向果。下一頌。第二明一來向果。
論曰至轉名家家。釋家家也。從住預流進向後果。斷第六品無間道來。總名一來果．向 于中有二。若具緣者亦名家家。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『新引惡趣業也，違彼生長業與果故者』：新近引發的會導致墮入惡趣的業，是因為它違背了那些能使善業增長並帶來果報的業。 『舊招惡趣不定業者不能與果。若有定業不得預流，強盛善根鎮彼身故者』：過去招感的會導致墮入惡趣但不確定的業，不能帶來果報。如果存在確定的惡趣業，那麼這個人就不能證得預流果（Srotapanna，須陀洹），因為他強大的善根鎮伏著他的身心。 『無漏業也，加行意樂俱清凈故者』：這是指無漏業，因為其加行（實際行動）和意樂（動機）都是清凈的。 『得不作戒也』：這是指獲得了不作戒（一種防止惡行的戒律）。
『論。諸有決定至亦能浮。引文舉喻證也』：論中說，即使是註定要沉沒的東西也能浮起來。這是引用經文並用比喻來證明。
『論。經說預流果至苦邊際名。依經起問』：論中說，經典中提到預流果（Srotapanna-phala，須陀洹果）是到達苦的邊際的名稱。這是依據經典提出的問題。
『論。依齊此生至所謂涅槃。以兩義答』：論中說，依據達到此生的終結，乃至所謂的涅槃（Nirvana，涅槃）。這是用兩種含義來回答。
『論。如何涅槃可說所作。問也』：論中說，如何能說涅槃（Nirvana，涅槃）是可以被『做』出來的？這是一個問題。
『論。許彼得障至謂毀臺觀。答也』：論中說，允許他獲得障礙，比如毀壞臺觀（高臺和樓閣）。這是一個回答。
『論。餘位亦有至是故不說』：論中說，在其他階段也有類似的情況，所以不說。正理論說：『非聖者也有最多七次往返生死，相續成就而獲得涅槃的意義，但並非是確定的，所以不說。』 婆沙論第一百二十卷說：『問：那些證得預流果（Srotapanna，須陀洹）的人，是否有現智，能夠自己審知已經脫離了地獄、傍生、餓鬼這些險惡的趣向，並且自己知道呢？答：不知道。如果不知道，那麼他們怎麼知道的呢？答：因為相信佛陀的教導。』（後面還有很多解釋）。
俱舍論疏卷第二十三 保延三年七月□□日午時切句了于東南院東廊畢功 羊僧覺樹
（別筆） 以興福寺慈恩院本一交了 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二十四 沙門法寶撰 分別賢聖品第六之三
『論。已辨住果至一來向果。下一頌。第二明一來向果』：論中說，已經辨析了安住于果位，直到一來向果（Sakrdagami-pratipannaka，斯陀含向）。下一頌，第二部分闡明一來向果。
『論曰至轉名家家。釋家家也。從住預流進向後果。斷第六品無間道來。總名一來果．向 于中有二。若具緣者亦名家家』：論中說，轉變而名為家家（kula-kula，家家）。解釋家家（kula-kula，家家）的含義。從安住于預流果（Srotapanna-phala，須陀洹果）進步到向於後果。斷除第六品的無間道而來。總稱為一來果（Sakrdagami-phala，斯陀含果）和一來向（Sakrdagami-pratipannaka，斯陀含向）。其中有兩種情況。如果具備因緣，也稱為家家（kula-kula，家家）。
【English Translation】 English version: 'New induced evil destiny karma, because it contradicts the karma of growth and fruition': Newly induced karma that leads to evil destinies is because it contradicts those karmas that allow good deeds to grow and bring about fruition. 'Old induced uncertain evil destiny karma cannot give fruition. If there is definite karma, one cannot attain Srotapanna (stream-enterer), because strong good roots suppress that body': Past induced karma that leads to evil destinies but is uncertain cannot bring about fruition. If there is definite evil destiny karma, then that person cannot attain the Srotapanna fruit (Srotapanna, stream-enterer), because their strong good roots suppress their body and mind. 'Unleaked karma, because both the effort and intention are pure': This refers to unleaked karma, because both the effort (actual action) and intention (motivation) are pure. 'Obtaining the non-committing precept': This refers to obtaining the non-committing precept (a precept to prevent evil deeds).
'Treatise: All that is destined to sink can also float. Quoting scripture to prove with metaphor': The treatise says that even things destined to sink can float. This is quoting scripture and using a metaphor to prove it.
'Treatise: The scripture says the Srotapanna fruit is named the boundary of suffering. Question based on scripture': The treatise says that the scripture mentions the Srotapanna-phala (Srotapanna fruit, stream-enterer fruit) as the name for reaching the boundary of suffering. This is a question based on scripture.
'Treatise: Based on reaching the end of this life, up to so-called Nirvana. Answering with two meanings': The treatise says that based on reaching the end of this life, up to so-called Nirvana (Nirvana, enlightenment). This is answering with two meanings.
'Treatise: How can Nirvana be said to be something 'made'? Question': The treatise says, how can it be said that Nirvana (Nirvana, enlightenment) can be 'made'? This is a question.
'Treatise: Allowing him to obtain obstacles, such as destroying platforms and towers. Answer': The treatise says, allowing him to obtain obstacles, such as destroying platforms and towers. This is an answer.
'Treatise: There are also similar situations in other stages, so it is not mentioned': The treatise says that there are also similar situations in other stages, so it is not mentioned. The Zhengli Theory says: 'Non-sages also have a maximum of seven rebirths, continuously achieving the meaning of Nirvana, but it is not definite, so it is not mentioned.' The Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, volume 120, says: 'Question: Do those who have attained the Srotapanna fruit (Srotapanna, stream-enterer) have present wisdom, able to examine themselves and know that they have escaped the dangerous realms of hell, animals, and hungry ghosts, and know it themselves? Answer: They do not know. If they do not know, then how do they know? Answer: Because they believe in the Buddha's teachings.' (There are many more explanations later).
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Volume 23 Completed cutting sentences at the southeast courtyard east corridor at noon on July □□, the third year of Hoen. Sheep Monk Kakuju
(Separate brush) One copy was handed over at Kofuku-ji Jion-in Temple Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41 No. 1822 Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Volume 24 Composed by Shramana Dharma Treasure Chapter Six, Section Three: Distinguishing the Worthy and the Saints
'Treatise: Already distinguished the dwelling fruit up to the Sakrdagami-pratipannaka fruit. The next verse. The second clarifies the Sakrdagami-pratipannaka fruit': The treatise says that it has already distinguished dwelling in the fruit, up to the Sakrdagami-pratipannaka (once-returner aspirant). The next verse, the second part clarifies the Sakrdagami-pratipannaka fruit.
'Treatise says up to changing the name to kula-kula. Explaining kula-kula. From dwelling in the Srotapanna fruit progressing towards the subsequent fruit. Cutting off the uninterrupted path of the sixth category. Generally named Sakrdagami-phala and Sakrdagami-pratipannaka. There are two situations within it. If one has the conditions, it is also named kula-kula': The treatise says, transforming and naming it kula-kula (householder to householder). Explaining the meaning of kula-kula (householder to householder). From dwelling in the Srotapanna-phala (Srotapanna fruit, stream-enterer fruit) progressing towards the subsequent fruit. Cutting off the uninterrupted path of the sixth category. Generally called Sakrdagami-phala (Sakrdagami fruit, once-returner fruit) and Sakrdagami-pratipannaka (Sakrdagami aspirant, once-returner aspirant). There are two situations within it. If one has the conditions, it is also called kula-kula (householder to householder).
若不具緣但名為向。家家之名由三緣具 將釋三緣。先標。后釋。此文標也。
論。一由斷惑至三．二生故。釋也。斷三．四品不言一．二．五者。以趣果心強故。若斷五必斷六。及無斷一．二品而命終者。故婆沙五十三云。謂瑜伽師得初果已。為斷欲界修所斷結。起大加行。必無未斷一大品結有死生故。如斷五品必無未斷第六品結有死生義。家家等三有死生故。此中偏說。婆沙六十四云。生欲界聖者有三事命終。一全離染。二全退。三分離染而命終。異生但有二事命終。一全離染。二全退。無分離染而命終者。生色界聖者有二事命終。一全離染。二分離染。無有退者。色．無色界無退義故。異生但有一事。謂全離染。彼無退故。無分離染而命終故。生無色界聖者．異生。應知亦爾。問何故聖者有分離染而命終。異生不爾。答以諸聖者有無漏定。任持相續令極堅固。異生但有世俗諸定。任持相續非極堅固(云云多釋) 問婆沙三十二云。預流者趣一來果時。不起定者。加行道時。于欲界六生得非擇滅。若起定者。要至第六無間道時。于欲六生得非擇滅 若斷五必斷六者。何故出定斷惑。不至第五品無間道。六生得非擇滅 答無斷五品不退。於此命終為家家等。不進為一來。於此位中而命終者。故出定者。不至第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果不是因緣具足，就只能說是趨向于（果位）。之所以稱為『家家』（Ekavicika，一種果位），是因為具備三種因緣。下面將解釋這三種因緣，先標出，后解釋。這段文字就是標出。
論：一是由斷除（欲界修所斷）三品（煩惱）至（死後）二生故。這是解釋。斷除三、四品（煩惱）不說一、二、五品（煩惱）的原因，是因為趨向果位的心很強烈。如果斷除五品（煩惱），必定斷除六品（煩惱），並且沒有斷除一、二品（煩惱）而命終的情況。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）第五十三卷說：『所謂的瑜伽師（Yogacara，修行者）得到初果（Sotapanna，須陀洹）后，爲了斷除欲界修所斷的煩惱，發起大的加行（努力），一定沒有未斷除一大品結（煩惱）而有死生的。』如同斷除五品（煩惱）必定沒有未斷除第六品結（煩惱）而有死生的道理一樣。『家家』等（聖者）有三有（欲有、色有、無色有）的死生。這裡偏重說明。《婆沙論》第六十四卷說：『生於欲界的聖者有三種情況命終：一是完全離染（煩惱），二是完全退轉，三是分離染（煩惱）而命終。異生（凡夫）只有兩種情況命終：一是完全離染（煩惱），二是完全退轉，沒有分離染（煩惱）而命終的情況。生於色界的聖者有兩種情況命終：一是完全離染（煩惱），二是分離染（煩惱），沒有退轉的情況。因為色界、無色界沒有退轉的含義。異生只有一種情況，就是完全離染（煩惱），因為他們沒有退轉，也沒有分離染（煩惱）而命終的情況。生於無色界的聖者、異生，應該知道也是這樣。』問：為什麼聖者有分離染（煩惱）而命終的情況，異生卻不是這樣？答：因為諸聖者有無漏定（Anasrava-samadhi，沒有煩惱的禪定），任持相續，使其極其堅固。異生只有世俗的各種禪定，任持相續，並非極其堅固（等等多種解釋）。問：《婆沙論》第三十二卷說：『預流者（Srotapanna，須陀洹）趨向一來果（Sakadagamin，斯陀含）時，不起定者，在加行道（準備階段）時，對於欲界的六生（六種可能的轉生之處）得到非擇滅（Asamkhata-nirodha，通過智慧力量實現的滅盡）。如果起定者，要到第六無間道（無間斷地修行）時，對於欲界的六生得到非擇滅。』如果斷除五品（煩惱）必定斷除六品（煩惱），那麼為什麼出定斷惑，不至於第五品無間道，六生得到非擇滅？答：沒有斷除五品（煩惱）而不退轉，於此命終成為『家家』等（聖者），不進取成為一來果（Sakadagamin，斯陀含），於此位中而命終的人，所以出定者，不至於第五品無間道。
【English Translation】 English version: If the conditions are not complete, it can only be said to be directed towards (the fruit). The reason it is called 'Ekavicika' (a type of fruit) is because it possesses three conditions. Now, these three conditions will be explained, first labeled, then explained. This text is the labeling.
Treatise: One is due to the cutting off of (three categories of afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation in the desire realm) up to (death and) two rebirths. This is the explanation. The reason for cutting off three or four categories (of afflictions) without mentioning one, two, or five categories (of afflictions) is because the mind directed towards the fruit is very strong. If one cuts off five categories (of afflictions), one will certainly cut off six categories (of afflictions), and there is no case of dying without cutting off one or two categories (of afflictions). Therefore, the Vibhasa (Buddhist treatise), volume 53, says: 'The so-called Yogacara (practitioner) who has attained the first fruit (Sotapanna) initiates great effort in order to cut off the afflictions to be abandoned through cultivation in the desire realm, and there is certainly no death and rebirth without cutting off one major category of fetters (afflictions).' Just as there is no death and rebirth without cutting off the sixth category of fetters (afflictions) if one cuts off five categories (of afflictions). 'Ekavicika' and others (saints) have death and rebirth in the three realms of existence (desire realm, form realm, formless realm). This is emphasized here. Vibhasa, volume 64, says: 'A saint born in the desire realm dies in three ways: one is complete detachment (from afflictions), two is complete regression, and three is dying while separating from defilement (afflictions). Ordinary beings (worldlings) die in only two ways: one is complete detachment (from afflictions), and two is complete regression, without dying while separating from defilement (afflictions). A saint born in the form realm dies in two ways: one is complete detachment (from afflictions), and two is dying while separating from defilement (afflictions), without regression. Because the form realm and formless realm have no meaning of regression. Ordinary beings have only one way, which is complete detachment (from afflictions), because they do not regress and do not die while separating from defilement (afflictions). It should be known that it is the same for saints and ordinary beings born in the formless realm.' Question: Why do saints die while separating from defilement (afflictions), but ordinary beings do not? Answer: Because the saints have Anasrava-samadhi (undefiled concentration), which sustains the continuum and makes it extremely firm. Ordinary beings only have worldly concentrations, which sustain the continuum but are not extremely firm (and so on, with many explanations). Question: Vibhasa, volume 32, says: 'When a Srotapanna (stream-enterer) is directed towards the Sakadagamin (once-returner) fruit, if one does not arise from concentration, then during the preparatory stage, one attains Asamkhata-nirodha (cessation through wisdom) for the six births (six possible places of rebirth) in the desire realm. If one arises from concentration, then one attains Asamkhata-nirodha for the six births in the desire realm at the sixth uninterrupted path (uninterrupted practice).' If cutting off five categories (of afflictions) necessarily cuts off six categories (of afflictions), then why does cutting off afflictions outside of concentration not lead to Asamkhata-nirodha for the six births at the fifth category of the uninterrupted path? Answer: There is no one who does not regress after cutting off five categories (of afflictions) and dies in this state to become an 'Ekavicika' and so on (saints), and does not advance to become a Sakadagamin (once-returner), and dies in this position, so those who come out of concentration do not reach the fifth category of the uninterrupted path.
五品得六生非擇滅者。以容退故。二由成根。謂三．四品對治道也。三由受生。更受欲有三．二生故。
論。頌中但說至故不具說。釋頌略也。以先說住預流果。後進斷修惑。此類必定成無漏根故頌不說。
論。然復應說至或過此故。釋不說成根說生數也。若唯說斷三．四品惑名為家家。不說受三．二生者。以有雖斷三．四品惑若增進時生不定故。若至一來一間。即生少也。若得現般涅槃。即全無也。若作上流那含。及卻退者。此即復過三．二生也。若進。若退。即非家家。故置生言欲簡此類。非如治根義決定也。
論。何緣此無至未越界故。此釋難也。何緣一來向。斷五定斷六。不還向斷八不斷九耶。此未越界。彼越界故極為障礙。故容斷八不斷九也。
論。應知總有至或二或三。釋天家家。或一天處受三．二生。或二或三天處受三生等。
論。二人家家至或二或三。釋人家家。或一洲處受三．二生。或二．或三洲處受三生等。論中既云家家總二。謂天及人。以此故知。二攝一切家家盡也。正理論云。應知總有二種家家。若天家家受三生者。人間受二天上受三。受二生者。人一天二 今詳文意。明家家二生者。即于天上二生等。不是天一人一合為二生。若合為二生。即與一來無別。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 五品（五種品類）阿羅漢獲得六次生死輪迴，並非通過『非擇滅』（asaṃkhata-nirodha，不依智慧力，自然止息煩惱）而證得。因為他們有可能退轉。第二種情況是由於成就『根』（indriya，信、精進、念、定、慧五種能力）。指的是第三、第四品（下下品、下中品）煩惱的對治道。第三種情況是由於『受生』（punarbhava，再次投生）。他們會再次在欲界中有三次或兩次的投生。
論：頌文中只說了『至』（adbhuta，奇特）的原因，沒有完全說明。這是對頌文的簡略解釋。因為之前已經說過安住于預流果（srotaāpanna-phala，入流果）的聖者，之後會進一步斷除修惑（bhāvanā-hetuka，修道所斷的煩惱）。這類聖者必定會成就無漏根（anāsrava-indriya，不被煩惱污染的五根），所以頌文中沒有提及。
論：然而，還應該說明……或者超過這個次數的原因。這是解釋為什麼不說成就『根』，而說『生數』（jāti-saṃkhyā，投生次數）。如果只說斷除第三、第四品煩惱的聖者稱為『家家』（kulaṃkula，于諸有中，一家至一家），而不說他們會受三次或兩次投生，那是因為有些人雖然斷除了第三、第四品煩惱，但如果他們繼續精進修行，投生的次數就不確定了。如果達到『一來』（sakṛdāgāmin，一來果）的境界，只間隔一次投生。如果證得『現般涅槃』（diṣṭadharmanirvāṇa，現世證得涅槃），那就完全沒有投生了。如果成為『上流那含』（ūrdhvasrotas-anāgāmin，從色界上方凈居天歿，漸生至有頂天而取滅度），或者退轉的人，這種情況就超過了三次或兩次投生。如果精進或退轉，就不是『家家』了。所以加上『生』這個詞是爲了區分這些情況，而不是像對治『根』那樣是確定的。
論：為什麼這裡沒有……沒有超越界限的原因？這是解釋疑問。為什麼一來向（sakṛdāgāmi-pratipannaka，一來向）的聖者，斷除第五品煩惱必定斷除第六品，而不還向（anāgāmi-pratipannaka，不還向）的聖者，斷除第八品煩惱卻不一定斷除第九品呢？這是因為前者沒有超越界限，後者超越了界限，障礙極大。所以可以斷除第八品煩惱而不一定斷除第九品。
論：應該知道總共有……或者兩次或者三次。這是解釋天上的『家家』。或者在一個天處（deva-nikāya，天眾所居之處）接受三次或兩次投生，或者在兩個或三個天處接受三次投生等等。
論：人間的『家家』……或者兩次或者三次。這是解釋人間的『家家』。或者在一個洲處（dvīpa，大陸）接受三次或兩次投生，或者在兩個或三個洲處接受三次投生等等。論中既然說『家家』總共有兩種，即天上的和人間的。由此可知，這兩種包含了所有的『家家』。正理論（Abhidharmakośabhāṣya，阿毗達磨俱舍論）說：『應該知道總共有兩種家家。如果是天上的家家接受三次投生，那麼人間接受兩次，天上接受三次。如果接受兩次投生，那麼人間一次，天上一次。』現在詳細分析文意，明確『家家』接受兩次投生，指的是在天上兩次投生等等。而不是天上一次，人間一次合為兩次投生。如果合為兩次投生，就與『一來』沒有區別了。
【English Translation】 English version Those of the five grades (pañca-prakāra, five types) who attain six rebirths do not do so through 'non-selective cessation' (asaṃkhata-nirodha, cessation without wisdom). It is because they are liable to regress. The second case is due to the accomplishment of 'roots' (indriya, faculties). This refers to the path of counteracting the third and fourth grades (lower and middle grades) of afflictions. The third case is due to 'rebirth' (punarbhava, renewed existence). They will again have three or two rebirths in the desire realm (kāmadhātu).
Treatise: The verse only mentions the reason 'to' (adbhuta, wonderful), without fully explaining it. This is a brief explanation of the verse. Because it was previously stated that those who abide in the stream-enterer fruit (srotaāpanna-phala, the fruit of entering the stream), will further sever the afflictions of cultivation (bhāvanā-hetuka, afflictions severed by cultivation). Such individuals will certainly accomplish non-outflow roots (anāsrava-indriya, undefiled faculties), so the verse does not mention it.
Treatise: However, it should also be explained... or the reason for exceeding this number. This explains why it does not speak of accomplishing 'roots,' but speaks of the 'number of births' (jāti-saṃkhyā, number of rebirths). If only those who sever the third and fourth grades of afflictions are called 'family-to-family' (kulaṃkula, from family to family), and it is not said that they will undergo three or two rebirths, it is because although some have severed the third and fourth grades of afflictions, if they continue to cultivate diligently, the number of their rebirths is uncertain. If they reach the state of 'once-returner' (sakṛdāgāmin, once-returner), there is only one intervening rebirth. If they attain 'visible-dharma nirvana' (diṣṭadharmanirvāṇa, nirvana in this life), then there are no rebirths at all. If they become 'upper-stream non-returners' (ūrdhvasrotas-anāgāmin, non-returners who ascend to higher realms), or regress, then this exceeds three or two rebirths. If they progress or regress, they are not 'family-to-family.' Therefore, the word 'birth' is added to distinguish these cases, rather than being as definite as counteracting 'roots.'
Treatise: Why is there no... reason for not crossing the boundary here? This explains the difficulty. Why is it that a once-returner aspirant (sakṛdāgāmi-pratipannaka, aspirant to once-returning) who severs the fifth grade of afflictions necessarily severs the sixth, while a non-returner aspirant (anāgāmi-pratipannaka, aspirant to non-returning) who severs the eighth grade of afflictions does not necessarily sever the ninth? This is because the former has not crossed the boundary, while the latter has crossed the boundary, which is a great obstacle. Therefore, it is possible to sever the eighth grade of afflictions without necessarily severing the ninth.
Treatise: It should be known that there are in total... either two or three. This explains the 'family-to-family' in the heavens. Either they receive three or two rebirths in one heaven realm (deva-nikāya, abode of gods), or they receive three rebirths in two or three heaven realms, and so on.
Treatise: The 'family-to-family' in the human realm... either two or three. This explains the 'family-to-family' in the human realm. Either they receive three or two rebirths in one continent (dvīpa, continent), or they receive three rebirths in two or three continents, and so on. Since the treatise says that there are two types of 'family-to-family' in total, namely those in the heavens and those in the human realm, it can be known that these two encompass all 'family-to-family.' The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, Treasury of Abhidharma) says: 'It should be known that there are two types of family-to-family in total. If the family-to-family in the heavens receives three rebirths, then they receive two in the human realm and three in the heavens. If they receive two rebirths, then they receive one in the human realm and one in the heavens.' Now, analyzing the meaning of the text in detail, it is clear that 'family-to-family' receiving two rebirths refers to receiving two rebirths in the heavens, and so on. It is not one in the heavens and one in the human realm combined as two rebirths. If it is combined as two rebirths, then there is no difference from the 'once-returner.'
亦證二生家家天二人一不是天．人各二。又婆沙三十六云。七生天上七生人中者。此依圓滿預流而說。故人．天有等受七生。然有預流人．天生別。謂天七人六。或人七天六。或天六人五。或人六天五。或天五人四。或人五天四。或天四人三。或人四天三。或天三人二。或人三天二。或天二人一。或人二天一。此中且說極多生者故說預流人天各七 準此論文。唯說天二人一等就不同說。亦有天二人二等義亦無違 又準有部。斷惑唯分九品。不言有斷半品惑等。又準家家。若斷三品余有三生。若斷四品余有二生。即是斷上三四品惑。此非唯減一生半生。正理論云。若有七生不必滿七。非家家位中間涅槃何類所攝 攝屬七生。七中極聲顯極多故。由此已顯生未滿前得般涅槃。亦是彼攝。根最鈍者具經七生。非諸利根生定滿七 準此故知。經生斷惑是七生攝。準上論文。家家言斷三．四品惑餘三．二者。亦據極說。此中非無滅三．二生。若斷三品經一生已。總斷余結入涅槃者。亦是三生家家攝也。二生家家其義亦爾 詳諸經。論說二家家。謂天家家人家家者。若等不等生者皆得名人天家家。若等生者據得道及涅槃者為名。若不等生者據生多感處為名。斷三四品餘三．二生者。據根本者說。言天一人二等。據不滿三．二生斷惑
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 也證明了二生家家（指證得預流果后，還要在人、天兩道中各受生一次）的天、人各一，而不是天、人各二。另外，《婆沙論》第三十六卷說，『七生天上七生人中』，這是依據圓滿的預流（Sotapanna，須陀洹）果位而說的。所以，人、天各有等同的七次受生。然而，預流之人、天受生次數也有差別，比如天七人六，或者人七天六，或者天六人五，或者人六天五，或者天五人四，或者人五天四，或者天四人三，或者人四天三，或者天三人二，或者人三天二，或者天二人一，或者人二天一。這裡只是說了最多受生次數的情況，所以說預流果位的人、天各有七次受生。 根據這些論述，只說天、人各一等情況，是就不同情況而言。也有天、人各二等情況，這也沒有矛盾。另外，根據有部（Sarvastivada）的觀點，斷除煩惱只分為九品，沒有說斷除半品煩惱等情況。又根據家家（Ekavicika，一種預流果位）的說法，如果斷除了三品煩惱，還剩下三生；如果斷除了四品煩惱，還剩下二生。這就是斷除了上三品或上四品煩惱。這並非僅僅減少一生或半生。《正理論》說，如果有七生，不一定滿七生，如果在家家位中間就涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅），屬於哪一類呢？ 屬於七生類。七生是極多的意思，表示極多的受生。由此已經表明，在受生未滿之前就證得般涅槃，也屬於七生類。根器最鈍的人需要經歷七生，並非所有利根者受生一定滿七次。根據這些，可知經歷受生斷除煩惱屬於七生類。根據上面的論述，家家位說斷除三、四品煩惱，還剩下三、二生，也是就最多情況而言。這裡並非沒有滅三、二生的情況。如果斷除了三品煩惱，經歷一生之後，完全斷除剩餘的煩惱而入涅槃，也屬於三生家家類。二生家家的情況也是如此。 詳細考察各種經論，關於二家家（Dvikula，一種預流果位）的說法，有天家家和人家家。無論是等生還是不等生，都可以稱為人天家家。如果是等生，根據證得道果和涅槃的情況來命名。如果是不等生，根據受生較多的地方來命名。說斷除三、四品煩惱，還剩下三、二生，是根據根本煩惱來說的。說天、人各一等情況，是根據不滿三、二生就斷除煩惱的情況來說的。
【English Translation】 English version It also proves that the 'two-lives-at-most' (Ekavicika, a type of Stream-enterer who will be reborn at most two more times) have one life in the heavens and one life among humans, not two lives in each. Furthermore, the 36th volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says, 'Seven rebirths in the heavens and seven rebirths among humans,' which is said according to the complete Stream-enterer (Sotapanna). Therefore, humans and gods each have an equal seven rebirths. However, there are differences in the number of rebirths for Stream-enterers among humans and gods. For example, seven rebirths in the heavens and six among humans, or seven among humans and six in the heavens, or six in the heavens and five among humans, or six among humans and five in the heavens, or five in the heavens and four among humans, or five among humans and four in the heavens, or four in the heavens and three among humans, or four among humans and three in the heavens, or three in the heavens and two among humans, or three among humans and two in the heavens, or two in the heavens and one among humans, or two among humans and one in the heavens. Here, only the cases with the maximum number of rebirths are mentioned, so it is said that Stream-enterers have seven rebirths each in the heavens and among humans. According to these treatises, only mentioning cases such as one life each in the heavens and among humans refers to different situations. There are also cases such as two lives each in the heavens and among humans, which is not contradictory. Furthermore, according to the Sarvastivada school, the eradication of afflictions is only divided into nine categories, without mentioning the eradication of half a category of afflictions, etc. Also, according to the 'one-family-at-most' (Ekavicika) teaching, if three categories of afflictions are eradicated, three rebirths remain; if four categories of afflictions are eradicated, two rebirths remain. This means eradicating the upper three or upper four categories of afflictions. This is not merely reducing one or half a rebirth. The Tattvartha-sastra says, 'If there are seven rebirths, they do not necessarily have to be fully seven. If one attains Nirvana (Nirvana, cessation) in the middle of the 'one-family-at-most' stage, to which category does it belong?' It belongs to the seven-rebirth category. 'Seven' signifies the maximum, indicating the greatest number of rebirths. From this, it is already clear that attaining Parinirvana (Parinirvana, complete cessation) before the rebirths are completed also belongs to that category. Those with the dullest faculties need to experience seven rebirths, but not all those with sharp faculties necessarily complete seven rebirths. According to this, it is known that eradicating afflictions through rebirths belongs to the seven-rebirth category. According to the above treatises, the 'one-family-at-most' teaching says that eradicating three or four categories of afflictions leaves three or two rebirths, which also refers to the maximum cases. It does not mean that there are no cases of extinguishing three or two rebirths. If one eradicates three categories of afflictions and, after experiencing one rebirth, completely eradicates the remaining afflictions and enters Nirvana, it also belongs to the three-rebirth 'one-family-at-most' category. The meaning of the two-rebirth 'one-family-at-most' is similar. Examining various sutras and treatises in detail, regarding the 'two-families-at-most' (Dvikula, a type of Stream-enterer who will be reborn at most into two families) teaching, there are 'heavenly-family-at-most' and 'human-family-at-most'. Whether the rebirths are equal or unequal, they can be called 'human-and-heavenly-families-at-most'. If the rebirths are equal, the naming is based on the attainment of the path and Nirvana. If the rebirths are unequal, the naming is based on the place with more rebirths. Saying that eradicating three or four categories of afflictions leaves three or two rebirths is based on the fundamental afflictions. Saying that there is one life in the heavens and one among humans, etc., is based on the situation where afflictions are eradicated before completing three or two rebirths.
者說 問何故說斷上品惑減生即多。斷中下惑減生漸少。又減生對惑相對如何 答準具惑七生斷三餘三。斷四餘二。斷六餘一。準配可知。然非克定。既斷七八品俱有半生。故知余品通融亦非克定。然預流者具九品惑受於七生。一一生中九品惑潤。具六品惑受三生者。一一生中用六品潤。不分品別。潤生不同。然此但由煩惱多少生有增減。古今妄釋增減生義。亦煩不述。然所受生。若多若少。所有牽引之業。在凡時造。非聖位也。正理論云。此三．二生由異生位造作及增長。感三．二生業。非諸聖者于聖位中。更能新作牽後有業。以背生死向涅槃故。由此契經說。諸聖者唯受故業更不造新 婆沙五十三云。一師造。一師不造。兩說之中。然無評也。準正理引經不造為正 五凈居天。若造新業。不造新業。后當分別 今應更述具緣多少。在凡位中先斷三．四。于住果位闕于治根。若次第人斷三．四品生未定者。闕三．二生。七生之人至第四生。復雖三．二生。闕三．四品惑。三生家家至第二生。非二生家家斷三品惑故。
論。即預流者至貪嗔癡故。此釋一來向果。如文可解。
論。已辨一來至向果差別。下一頌。第三明不還向．果也。
論曰至義如前釋。釋一間也。三緣具者名為一間。若闕一．二．
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人問：『為什麼說斷除上品煩惱，減少的生命就多；斷除中下品煩惱，減少的生命就逐漸減少？』又，減少的生命與煩惱的相對關係是怎樣的？ 回答：按照具備煩惱和生命的關係，具備七品煩惱，斷除三品，剩餘三品；斷除四品，剩餘二品；斷除六品，剩餘一品。按照這個標準可以推知。然而，這並非絕對不變的。既然斷除七品或八品煩惱，都可能有半個生命，由此可知，剩餘的品類也並非絕對不變。但是，預流（Srotapanna，入流果）具備九品煩惱，承受七個生命。每一個生命中，九品煩惱都起潤生的作用。具備六品煩惱，承受三個生命的人，每一個生命中用六品煩惱潤生，不區分品類差別。潤生的不同，只是由於煩惱的多少導致生命有增減。古今對增減生命的解釋有很多錯誤，這裡就不一一敘述了。但是，所承受的生命，無論是多是少，所有牽引的業力，都是在凡夫位時造作的，不是在聖位。 《正理論》（Abhidharmakosha）說：『這三個或兩個生命，是由異生位（指凡夫位）造作和增長，感得三個或兩個生命的業。不是聖者在聖位中，更能新造牽引後有的業，因為他們背離生死，趨向涅槃。』由此，《契經》（Sutra）說，諸聖者只承受過去的業，更不造新的業。 《婆沙》（Vibhasa）第五十三卷說：『一種說法是造新業，一種說法是不造新業。』兩種說法中，沒有評判。按照《正理論》引用的經文，不造新業是正確的。 五凈居天（Suddhavasa）是否造新業，以後再分別。 現在應該進一步敘述具備因緣的多少。在凡夫位中，先斷除三品或四品煩惱，在住果位時，缺少對治根本煩惱。如果是次第修行的人，斷除三品或四品煩惱，生命未定的人，缺少三個或兩個生命。七生的人到第四生，即使還有三個或兩個生命，也缺少三品或四品煩惱。三生家家（Kula-kula）到第二生，不是二生家家斷除三品煩惱的緣故。
《論》（Abhidharma）說：『即預流（Srotapanna，入流果）到貪嗔癡的階段。』這解釋了一來向果（Sakrdagami-pratipannaka，一來向）的情況，如文義可以理解。
《論》（Abhidharma）說：『已經辨別了一來（Sakrdagami，一來果）到向果的差別。』下一頌，第三說明不還向（Anagami-pratipannaka，不還向）、果（Anagami，不還果）的情況。
《論曰》（Abhidharma）說：『意義如前解釋。』解釋『一間』（Antara）的意思。三種因緣具備的，稱為『一間』。如果缺少一種或兩種……
【English Translation】 English version: Someone asked: 'Why is it said that cutting off the upper-grade afflictions reduces more lives, while cutting off the middle and lower-grade afflictions gradually reduces fewer lives?' Also, what is the relationship between the reduction of lives and the relative afflictions? Answer: According to the relationship between possessing afflictions and lives, possessing seven afflictions, cutting off three, leaving three; cutting off four, leaving two; cutting off six, leaving one. This standard can be inferred. However, this is not absolutely fixed. Since cutting off seven or eight afflictions may have half a life, it is known that the remaining categories are also not absolutely fixed. However, a Stream-enterer (Srotapanna) possesses nine afflictions and endures seven lives. In each life, the nine afflictions act to moisten life. A person with six afflictions who endures three lives uses six afflictions to moisten life in each life, without distinguishing between categories. The difference in moistening life is only due to the amount of affliction leading to an increase or decrease in life. There are many erroneous interpretations of increasing or decreasing life in ancient and modern times, which will not be described here one by one. However, whether the lives endured are many or few, all the karma that pulls them is created in the position of an ordinary person, not in the position of a sage. The Abhidharmakosha says: 'These three or two lives are created and increased by the position of a different being (referring to the position of an ordinary person), resulting in the karma of three or two lives. It is not that sages in the position of a sage can create new karma that pulls later existence, because they turn away from birth and death and move towards Nirvana.' Therefore, the Sutra says that the sages only endure past karma and do not create new karma. Volume 53 of the Vibhasa says: 'One theory is that new karma is created, and one theory is that new karma is not created.' Among the two theories, there is no judgment. According to the scriptures quoted in the Abhidharmakosha, not creating new karma is correct. Whether the Five Pure Abodes (Suddhavasa) create new karma will be discussed later. Now, the amount of complete conditions should be further described. In the position of an ordinary person, first cut off three or four afflictions. When residing in the fruit position, there is a lack of treating the root afflictions. If it is a person who practices in sequence, cutting off three or four afflictions, the life of a person whose life is undetermined lacks three or two lives. A person with seven lives reaches the fourth life, and even if there are three or two lives, there is a lack of three or four afflictions. The three-life family (Kula-kula) reaches the second life, not because the two-life family cuts off three afflictions.
The Abhidharma says: 'That is, the Stream-enterer (Srotapanna) reaches the stage of greed, anger, and delusion.' This explains the situation of the Once-returner-on-the-way (Sakrdagami-pratipannaka), which can be understood as the meaning of the text.
The Abhidharma says: 'The difference between the Once-returner (Sakrdagami) and the one on the way to the fruit has been distinguished.' The next verse, the third, explains the situation of the Non-returner-on-the-way (Anagami-pratipannaka) and the fruit (Anagami).
The Abhidharma says: 'The meaning is as explained before.' Explaining the meaning of 'interval' (Antara). Those with three conditions are called 'interval'. If one or two are missing...
三皆非一間攝。頌不說治根如前家家釋。
論。如何一品惑至異熟地故。釋一品惑障得不還。不同一來一品不障。猶如業品三時極障。謂將入忍。及得不還．阿羅漢果斷煩惱時。越彼等流．異熟地故。
論。間謂間隔至說名一間。此釋一間名也。正理論云。所言間者是隙異名。謂彼位中由有一隙容一生故。未得涅槃 有一間者說名一間者。此則釋人名一間也。
論。即斷修惑至不還果向。此釋不還向也。不還向有兩種。緣不具者但名不還向。三緣具者亦名一間。
論。先斷三四至無漏根故。釋闕緣也。若有依根本地入見道等。定現般者。至此位時。雖成無漏及斷惑等。由闕生故非是家家及一間也。
論。若斷第九至生欲界故。釋不還果。如文可知。
論。此或名曰至總集斷故。釋異名也。雖超越者。先斷二后斷三。次第者先斷三后斷二。兩種不同。至得果時俱集五下分結盡無為一味得故。故二種不還皆得名為五下分結斷。
論。依不還位諸契經中。自此下明不還差別。于中有七。一明七種不還。二明九種不還。三明七善士趣。四明非上界。五明雜修。六明凈居。七明身證。此兩頌第一明七不還也。
論曰至名為上流。不還有七。且對列五名略釋五名。如文可解。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『三皆非一間攝』，頌文沒有像前面那樣逐家解釋『治根』（斷除煩惱的根本）。
論：為什麼說一品惑能導致異熟地？ 解釋：斷除一品惑障能證得不還果（Anāgāmin，不再返回欲界）。這與一來果（Sakṛdāgāmin，還需返回欲界一次）不同，一來果的一品惑障並不阻礙證果。這就像業品在三個時間段極大地阻礙證果一樣，即在將要進入忍位（Kṣānti，無生法忍）時，以及證得不還果、阿羅漢果（Arhat，斷盡煩惱）斷除煩惱時，超越了與這些果位相應的等流果（Nisyanda-phala，與因相似的果報）和異熟果（Vipāka-phala，不同類的果報）。
論：『間謂間隔』到『說名一間』，這是解釋『一間』（Ekāntara，一生）這個名稱。正理論中說：『所說的間，是隙的另一種說法。』意思是說，在這種狀態中，由於存在一個空隙，還容許一生，所以沒有證得涅槃（Nirvāṇa，寂滅）。『有一間者說名一間者』，這是解釋作為人的『一間』。
論：『即斷修惑』到『不還果向』，這是解釋『不還向』（Anāgāmi-pratipannaka，趣向不還果的修行者）。不還向有兩種：因緣不具足的，只稱為不還向；三種因緣具足的，也稱為『一間』。
論：『先斷三四』到『無漏根故』，這是解釋缺少因緣的情況。如果有人依靠根本地（本來的禪定境界）進入見道（Darśana-mārga，初果的證悟之路）等，決定在此生般涅槃（Parinirvāṇa，完全的涅槃），到達這個階段時，雖然成就了無漏（Anāsrava，沒有煩惱）以及斷惑等，但由於缺少了『生』這個因緣，所以不是家家（Kulaṃkula，生於多個家庭）和一間。
論：『若斷第九』到『生欲界故』，這是解釋不還果。如文中所說，容易理解。
論：『此或名曰』到『總集斷故』，這是解釋不同的名稱。雖然有超越者，先斷二品惑，后斷三品惑；也有次第者，先斷三品惑，后斷二品惑。這兩種情況不同，但到達得果時，都是總集五下分結（Orambhāgīya-saṃyojana，導致眾生流轉于欲界的五種煩惱）斷盡，證得無為（Asaṃskṛta，不生不滅的真如）一味的境界，所以兩種不還都可以稱為五下分結斷。
論：『依不還位諸契經中』，從這裡開始說明不還的差別。其中有七種：一、說明七種不還；二、說明九種不還；三、說明七善士趣；四、說明非上界；五、說明雜修；六、說明凈居；七、說明身證。這兩頌是第一，說明七不還。
論曰：到『名為上流』。不還有七種。這裡先對列五種名稱，簡略地解釋這五種名稱。如文中所說，容易理解。
【English Translation】 English version 『The three are not all included in Ekāntara (one-interval)』. The verse does not explain 『treating the root』 (eradicating the root of afflictions) like the previous explanations for each type.
Treatise: How can a single category of delusion lead to the realm of resultant maturation (Vipāka-bhūmi)? Explanation: Eradicating one category of delusion-hindrance allows one to attain the Anāgāmin fruit (non-returner, who does not return to the desire realm). This is different from the Sakṛdāgāmin (once-returner, who returns to the desire realm once), whose one category of delusion-hindrance does not impede the attainment of the fruit. It is like the category of karma that greatly hinders the attainment of the fruit in three time periods, namely, when one is about to enter the stage of Kṣānti (forbearance, the stage of non-origination of phenomena), and when one attains the Anāgāmin fruit and the Arhat fruit (one who has extinguished all afflictions) and eradicates afflictions, surpassing the corresponding Nisyanda-phala (resultant effect, a result similar to the cause) and Vipāka-phala (result of maturation, a dissimilar result).
Treatise: 『Interval means separation』 to 『called one-interval』, this explains the name 『Ekāntara』 (one-interval, one life). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 『The so-called interval is another name for gap.』 It means that in this state, because there is a gap that allows for one more life, one has not attained Nirvāṇa (extinction). 『One who has one interval is called one-interval』, this explains 『Ekāntara』 as a person.
Treatise: 『Immediately eradicating the afflictions of cultivation』 to 『towards the Anāgāmin fruit』, this explains 『towards the Anāgāmin fruit』 (Anāgāmi-pratipannaka, a practitioner heading towards the Anāgāmin fruit). There are two types of those heading towards the Anāgāmin fruit: those who lack the necessary conditions are only called heading towards the Anāgāmin fruit; those who have the three necessary conditions are also called 『Ekāntara』.
Treatise: 『First eradicating three or four』 to 『because of the unconditioned root』, this explains the situation of lacking conditions. If someone relies on the fundamental ground (original state of meditative concentration) to enter the path of seeing (Darśana-mārga, the path to the first fruit) and is determined to attain Parinirvāṇa (complete Nirvāṇa) in this life, when reaching this stage, although they have achieved the unconditioned (Anāsrava, without afflictions) and eradicated afflictions, because they lack the condition of 『birth』, they are neither Kulaṃkula (family to family, born into multiple families) nor Ekāntara.
Treatise: 『If eradicating the ninth』 to 『because of being born in the desire realm』, this explains the Anāgāmin fruit. As the text says, it is easy to understand.
Treatise: 『This is also called』 to 『because of collectively eradicating』, this explains the different names. Although there are those who surpass, first eradicating two categories of afflictions and then eradicating three categories of afflictions; there are also those who proceed in order, first eradicating three categories of afflictions and then eradicating two categories of afflictions. These two situations are different, but when attaining the fruit, they all collectively eradicate the five lower fetters (Orambhāgīya-saṃyojana, the five afflictions that cause beings to transmigrate in the desire realm), and attain the state of unconditioned (Asaṃskṛta, the uncreated, unconditioned reality) of one flavor, so both types of non-returners can be called the eradication of the five lower fetters.
Treatise: 『According to the sutras in the position of non-return』, from here onwards, it explains the differences of non-return. Among them, there are seven types: 1. Explaining the seven types of non-return; 2. Explaining the nine types of non-return; 3. Explaining the seven good destinations; 4. Explaining not being in the upper realms; 5. Explaining mixed practice; 6. Explaining the pure abodes; 7. Explaining body witness. These two verses are the first, explaining the seven types of non-return.
Treatise: to 『called upstream』. There are seven types of non-return. Here, five names are listed and briefly explained. As the text says, it is easy to understand.
論。言中般者至便般涅槃。釋中般也。正理論云。言中般者。謂有一類補特伽羅。已於生結得非擇滅。起結不爾。彼于欲界遇逼惱緣之所逼惱。便能自勉修斷余結殊勝加行。加行未滿遇捨命緣。遂致命終。由起結力受色中有。厭多苦故。乘前起道進斷余結。成阿羅漢得般涅槃 乃至 唯欲界沒受色中有便般涅槃得中般名。非色界沒。何緣有學未離欲貪。無中有中般涅槃者。欲界中有依身微劣。于多事業無堪能故。住本有位於欲界法尚難越度。況中有中能越欲界至得應果。多事業者。謂越三界。及永斷除二種煩惱。並得二三沙門果證。住中有位無如是能 又此地中有得般涅槃。唯起此地中所有聖道。初靜慮地中有位中。般涅槃者。唯起自地根本靜慮聖道現前。非未至．中間。難令現前故。在中有位依身微劣。要易起者方能現前 又唯欲界沒往色界生有．中有中。般涅槃者。非色界沒生色界者。以色界中無災害故。若本有位有餘障緣不得涅槃。中有亦爾。
論。言生般者至謂有餘依。釋生般也。中般涅槃兼無餘依。生般涅槃唯有餘依。順正理論。言生般者。謂有一類補特伽羅。由先具造順起生業。及增長故。欲界沒已受色界生。由具勤修速進道故。生已不久成阿羅漢。盡其壽量方般涅槃。約有餘依說為生般。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：所說的中般者，是指到達中陰身階段便般涅槃。這是對中般的一種解釋。《正理論》中說：『所說的中般者，是指有一類補特伽羅（pudgalas，人），他們已經對生結（bhava-samyojana，對存在的束縛）獲得了非擇滅（pratisankhya-nirodha，通過智慧的斷滅），但對起結（upapatti-samyojana，再生的束縛）則不然。他們在欲界（kama-dhatu，慾望界）遇到逼惱的因緣所逼迫，便能勉力修行，斷除剩餘的結，進行殊勝的加行（prayoga，努力）。加行尚未圓滿，便遇到捨命的因緣，於是命終。由於起結的力量，他們會受生於色界（rupa-dhatu，色界）的中陰身（antarabhava，中有的存在）。因為厭惡諸多痛苦，他們便憑藉之前的起道（arambhana-marga，開始的道路）進一步斷除剩餘的結，成就阿羅漢（arhat，應供），獲得般涅槃（parinirvana，完全的涅槃）。』乃至『只有欲界死亡后受生於色界中陰身才能般涅槃，才能獲得中般之名。不是色界死亡。為什麼有學（saiksa，還在學習的人）沒有脫離欲貪，就沒有在中陰身中般涅槃的呢？因為欲界的中陰身所依之身微弱，對於諸多事業沒有能力勝任。住在本有位（svabhava-avastha，本來的存在狀態）尚且難以超越欲界法，更何況在中陰身中能夠超越欲界而證得應果（arhat-phala，阿羅漢果）。』諸多事業是指超越三界（tri-dhatu，三個界：欲界、色界、無色界），以及永遠斷除兩種煩惱（klesha，煩惱），並獲得二三種沙門果證（sramana-phala，沙門的果位）。住在中陰身位沒有這樣的能力。而且此地（bhumi，層次）的中陰身獲得般涅槃，只能生起此地的中所有聖道（arya-marga，聖者的道路）。初禪地（prathama-dhyana-bhumi，初禪的境界）的中陰身位中，般涅槃者，只能生起自地的根本禪（mula-dhyana，根本的禪定）的聖道現前，而不是未至定（anagamya-samadhi，未至定）、中間定（antarala-samadhi，中間定）。因為難以令其現前。在中陰身位，所依之身微弱，必須容易生起的才能現前。而且只有欲界死亡后往生色界有、中陰身中，才能般涅槃。不是色界死亡後生色界者。因為色界中沒有災害。如果在本有位有剩餘的障礙因緣而不能獲得涅槃，中陰身也是如此。 論：所說的生般者，是指具有剩餘依。這是對生般的一種解釋。中般涅槃兼有無餘依（nirupadhisesa，無剩餘依），生般涅槃只有有餘依（sopadhisesa，有剩餘依）。《順正理論》說：『所說的生般者，是指有一類補特伽羅，由於先前具足造作順起生業（upapatti-karma，導致再生的業），並且增長的緣故，欲界死亡后受生於色界。由於具足勤奮修行，迅速精進的緣故，生后不久便成就阿羅漢。盡其壽量才般涅槃。』這是就具有剩餘依而說的生般。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: 'The one who attains parinirvana in between' refers to attaining parinirvana at the stage of the intermediate existence (antarabhava). This is an explanation of 'in-between parinirvana'. The Nyayanusara-sastra says: 'The one who attains parinirvana in between refers to a certain type of pudgala (person) who has already attained pratisankhya-nirodha (cessation through wisdom) of the bhava-samyojana (fetter of existence), but not of the upapatti-samyojana (fetter of rebirth). When they encounter distressing conditions in the kama-dhatu (desire realm), they can strive to cultivate and sever the remaining fetters through superior prayoga (effort). Before the prayoga is complete, they encounter the condition of abandoning life and thus die. Due to the power of the upapatti-samyojana, they are born in the rupa-dhatu (form realm) intermediate existence. Because they are disgusted with much suffering, they rely on the previous arambhana-marga (path of commencement) to further sever the remaining fetters, attain arhatship (worthy one), and achieve parinirvana (complete nirvana).' Furthermore, 'Only those who die in the kama-dhatu and are born in the rupa-dhatu intermediate existence can attain parinirvana and be called 'in-between parinirvana'. Not those who die in the rupa-dhatu. Why is it that a saiksa (learner) who has not yet abandoned desire-attachment does not attain parinirvana in the intermediate existence? Because the body relied upon in the kama-dhatu intermediate existence is weak and incapable of many activities. Remaining in the original state of existence, it is already difficult to transcend the laws of the kama-dhatu, let alone transcend the kama-dhatu in the intermediate existence and attain the arhat-phala (fruit of arhatship).' 'Many activities' refers to transcending the tri-dhatu (three realms: desire, form, and formless realms), permanently severing the two types of klesha (afflictions), and attaining the second or third sramana-phala (fruit of a recluse). Remaining in the intermediate existence, one does not have such abilities. Moreover, in the intermediate existence of this bhumi (level), one can only generate the arya-marga (noble path) belonging to this level to attain parinirvana. In the intermediate existence of the first dhyana (meditative absorption) level, those who attain parinirvana can only generate the mula-dhyana (root dhyana) arya-marga of their own level, not the anagamya-samadhi (unreached concentration) or antarala-samadhi (intermediate concentration), because it is difficult to make them manifest. In the intermediate existence, the body relied upon is weak, so only what is easily generated can manifest. Furthermore, only those who die in the kama-dhatu and are reborn in the rupa-dhatu existence or intermediate existence can attain parinirvana, not those who die in the rupa-dhatu and are born in the rupa-dhatu, because there are no calamities in the rupa-dhatu. If there are remaining obstacles in the original state of existence that prevent one from attaining nirvana, the same is true in the intermediate existence. Treatise: 'The one who attains parinirvana upon birth' refers to having remaining upadhi (substratum of existence). This is an explanation of 'parinirvana upon birth'. 'In-between parinirvana' includes both nirupadhisesa (parinirvana without remainder) and sopadhisesa (parinirvana with remainder), while 'parinirvana upon birth' only has sopadhisesa. The Nyayanusara-sastra says: 'The one who attains parinirvana upon birth refers to a certain type of pudgala who, due to previously accumulating and increasing upapatti-karma (karma leading to rebirth), is reborn in the rupa-dhatu after dying in the kama-dhatu. Because they diligently cultivate and quickly advance on the path, they attain arhatship soon after birth. They attain parinirvana only after exhausting their lifespan.' This is what is meant by 'parinirvana upon birth' in terms of having remaining upadhi.
非才生已便般無餘。彼舍壽中。無自在故 準此論文。于生般復作如是釋。不于中般復作是釋。故知中有般涅槃者。得有餘已即般無餘。
論。有餘師說至無自在故。此破異師說也。
論。有行般者至無速進道故。釋有行也。由此唯有勤修道故名為有行。復由無有速進道故在生般后。
論。無行般者至速進道故。釋無行也。雖無速進與有行同。無勤修故在有行后。正理論云。謂若一類先欲界中依不息加行三摩地力。斷五下分結成不還果。後生色界經于多時。還能進修前種類道成阿羅漢。名有行般。無行般者。與此相違。
論。有說此二至太過失故。破異說也。七種不還皆悉。緣彼有為．無為得涅槃故。應皆名為有行．無行。由此故言有太過失。
論。然契經中至與理相應。此則評取經部宗也。
論。有速進道至便般涅槃。述經部義。無行有速進道利根應先。有行無速進道鈍根應后。無行無功用得利故應先有行多功用得鈍故應后。生般涅槃得最速進最上品道。在無行前此以生般證有行般合在后也。正理論云。然有經說無行在先。亦有經中先說有行。時既無異。隨說無違。有行可尊故我先說 準此論文。有行．無行在生般后。即二相望不定前後。
論。言上流者至方般涅槃。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『非才生已便般無餘。彼舍壽中。無自在故』：意思是說，那些並非通過努力修行而證得果位的人，在生命終結時才能證入無餘涅槃（nirvana，佛教術語，指完全寂滅的狀態）。因為他們在有生之年，沒有獲得自在解脫的能力。 『準此論文。于生般復作如是釋。不于中般復作是釋。故知中有般涅槃者。得有餘已即般無餘』：根據這部論著，『生般』（saṃsāra-nirvāṇa，佛教術語，指在輪迴中證得涅槃）可以這樣解釋，但『中般』（antarā-parinirvāṇa，佛教術語，指在中陰身階段證得涅槃）不能這樣解釋。因此，可以知道，那些在中陰身階段證得涅槃的人，在獲得有餘涅槃（sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa，佛教術語，指證得涅槃但仍有殘餘煩惱的狀態）后，立即證入無餘涅槃。 『論。有餘師說至無自在故。此破異師說也』：論中『有其他老師說…沒有自在的緣故』，這是爲了駁斥其他學派的觀點。 『論。有行般者至無速進道故。釋有行也。由此唯有勤修道故名為有行。復由無有速進道故在生般后』：論中『有行般』（sasrāva-parinirvāṇa，佛教術語，指通過修行證得涅槃）是因為他們必須通過精勤修行才能證得，所以稱為『有行』。又因為他們沒有快速證道的途徑，所以排在『生般』之後。 『論。無行般者至速進道故。釋無行也。雖無速進與有行同。無勤修故在有行后』：論中『無行般』（anāsrava-parinirvāṇa，佛教術語，指不通過修行證得涅槃）是指雖然他們沒有快速證道的途徑，這一點與『有行』相同，但他們不需要精勤修行，所以排在『有行』之後。正理論中說：『如果有一類修行者，先在欲界中依靠不間斷的精進修行三摩地（samādhi，佛教術語，指禪定）的力量，斷除了五下分結（pañca orambhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni，佛教術語，指導致眾生輪迴于欲界的五種煩惱），證成了不還果（anāgāmin，佛教術語，指不再返回欲界受生的果位）。後來在經中經過很長時間，還能繼續修習之前的道，最終證成阿羅漢（arhat，佛教術語，指斷盡一切煩惱，證得解脫的聖者），這叫做有行般。無行般則與此相反。』 『論。有說此二至太過失故。破異說也。七種不還皆悉。緣彼有為．無為得涅槃故。應皆名為有行．無行。由此故言有太過失』：論中『有人說這兩種…太過失的緣故』，這是爲了駁斥另一種說法。因為七種不還果的修行者，都是通過有為法（saṃskṛta，佛教術語，指因緣和合而成的法）或無為法（asaṃskṛta，佛教術語，指非因緣和合而成的法）而證得涅槃，所以都應該被稱為『有行』或『無行』，因此說這種說法有太過寬泛的過失。 『論。然契經中至與理相應。此則評取經部宗也』：論中『然而契經中…與道理相應』，這是在評論並採納經部宗（Sautrāntika，佛教部派之一）的觀點。 『論。有速進道至便般涅槃。述經部義。無行有速進道利根應先。有行無速進道鈍根應后。無行無功用得利故應先有行多功用得鈍故應后。生般涅槃得最速進最上品道。在無行前此以生般證有行般合在后也。正理論云。然有經說無行在先。亦有經中先說有行。時既無異。隨說無違。有行可尊故我先說 準此論文。有行．無行在生般后。即二相望不定前後』：論中『有快速證道的…便證入涅槃』，這是在闡述經部宗的觀點。『無行』有快速證道的途徑，所以利根者應該先證得；『有行』沒有快速證道的途徑，所以鈍根者應該后證得。『無行』不需要功用就能獲得利益，所以應該先證得；『有行』需要很多功用才能獲得利益，所以應該后證得。『生般涅槃』能獲得最快速、最上品的道，所以在『無行』之前。這裡用『生般』來證明『有行般』應該放在後面。正理論中說：『然而有的經中說『無行』在先，也有的經中先說『有行』。既然時間上沒有差別，那麼怎麼說都沒有違背。『有行』值得尊敬，所以我先說。』根據這部論著，『有行』和『無行』在『生般』之後，也就是說，這二者之間沒有固定的先後順序。 『論。言上流者至方般涅槃』：論中『所說的上流』（ūrdhvasrotas，佛教術語，指從色界上方流向更上方，最終證得涅槃的修行者）是指... English version: 『Non-skillfully born, they then attain complete nirvana. In that abandoned life, there is no freedom.』 This means that those who have not attained the fruit through diligent practice can only enter complete nirvana (nirvana, a Buddhist term referring to the state of complete cessation) at the end of their lives because they do not have the ability to attain liberation and freedom during their lifetime. 『According to this treatise, 『saṃsāra-nirvāṇa』 is explained in this way, but 『antarā-parinirvāṇa』 is not explained in this way. Therefore, it can be known that those who attain nirvana in the intermediate state immediately enter complete nirvana after obtaining sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa.』 According to this treatise, 『birth-nirvana』 can be explained in this way, but 『intermediate nirvana』 cannot be explained in this way. Therefore, it can be known that those who attain nirvana in the intermediate state immediately enter complete nirvana after obtaining residual nirvana. 『The treatise says, 『Some other teachers say… because there is no freedom.』 This refutes the views of other schools.』 The statement in the treatise, 『Some other teachers say… because there is no freedom,』 is to refute the views of other schools. 『The treatise says, 『Those who attain nirvana through practice… because there is no quick path.』 This explains 『nirvana through practice.』 Because they must attain it through diligent practice, it is called 『practice.』 And because they do not have a quick path to attainment, it is placed after 『birth-nirvana.』 『The treatise says, 『Those who attain nirvana without practice… because there is a quick path.』 This explains 『nirvana without practice.』 Although they do not have a quick path, which is the same as 『practice,』 they do not need diligent practice, so it is placed after 『practice.』 The Proper Theory says: 『If there is a type of practitioner who, first in the desire realm, relies on the power of uninterrupted diligent practice of samadhi (samādhi, a Buddhist term referring to meditation) to cut off the five lower fetters (pañca orambhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni, Buddhist term referring to the five afflictions that cause beings to be reborn in the desire realm) and attain the fruit of non-return (anāgāmin, a Buddhist term referring to the state of no longer returning to be born in the desire realm). Later, in the sutra, after a long time, they can continue to practice the previous path and finally attain arhatship (arhat, a Buddhist term referring to a saint who has cut off all afflictions and attained liberation), this is called nirvana through practice. Nirvana without practice is the opposite of this.』 『The treatise says, 『Some say these two… because of the fault of being too broad.』 This refutes another saying. Because all seven types of non-returners attain nirvana through conditioned (saṃskṛta, a Buddhist term referring to phenomena that arise from causes and conditions) or unconditioned (asaṃskṛta, a Buddhist term referring to phenomena that do not arise from causes and conditions) dharmas, they should all be called 『practice』 or 『non-practice,』 therefore it is said that this saying has the fault of being too broad.』 『The treatise says, 『However, in the sutras… it is consistent with reason.』 This is commenting on and adopting the views of the Sautrāntika school (Sautrāntika, one of the Buddhist schools).』 『The treatise says, 『Having a quick path… then attain nirvana.』 This explains the meaning of the Sautrāntika school. 『Non-practice』 has a quick path, so those with sharp faculties should attain it first; 『practice』 does not have a quick path, so those with dull faculties should attain it later. 『Non-practice』 obtains benefits without effort, so it should be attained first; 『practice』 requires much effort to obtain benefits, so it should be attained later. 『Birth-nirvana』 can obtain the quickest and most supreme path, so it is before 『non-practice.』 Here, 『birth-nirvana』 is used to prove that 『nirvana through practice』 should be placed later. The Proper Theory says: 『However, some sutras say that 『non-practice』 comes first, and some sutras say that 『practice』 comes first. Since there is no difference in time, there is no contradiction in saying either way. 『Practice』 is worthy of respect, so I say it first.』 According to this treatise, 『practice』 and 『non-practice』 are after 『birth-nirvana,』 that is, there is no fixed order between the two.』 『The treatise says, 『The so-called upstreamer』 (ūrdhvasrotas, a Buddhist term referring to a practitioner who flows from the form realm upwards to a higher realm and eventually attains nirvana) refers to...』
【English Translation】 English version: 『Non-skillfully born, they then attain complete nirvana. In that abandoned life, there is no freedom.』 This means that those who have not attained the fruit through diligent practice can only enter complete nirvana (nirvana, a Buddhist term referring to the state of complete cessation) at the end of their lives because they do not have the ability to attain liberation and freedom during their lifetime. 『According to this treatise, 『saṃsāra-nirvāṇa』 is explained in this way, but 『antarā-parinirvāṇa』 is not explained in this way. Therefore, it can be known that those who attain nirvana in the intermediate state immediately enter complete nirvana after obtaining sopadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa.』 According to this treatise, 『birth-nirvana』 can be explained in this way, but 『intermediate nirvana』 cannot be explained in this way. Therefore, it can be known that those who attain nirvana in the intermediate state immediately enter complete nirvana after obtaining residual nirvana. 『The treatise says, 『Some other teachers say… because there is no freedom.』 This refutes the views of other schools.』 The statement in the treatise, 『Some other teachers say… because there is no freedom,』 is to refute the views of other schools. 『The treatise says, 『Those who attain nirvana through practice… because there is no quick path.』 This explains 『nirvana through practice.』 Because they must attain it through diligent practice, it is called 『practice.』 And because they do not have a quick path to attainment, it is placed after 『birth-nirvana.』 『The treatise says, 『Those who attain nirvana without practice… because there is a quick path.』 This explains 『nirvana without practice.』 Although they do not have a quick path, which is the same as 『practice,』 they do not need diligent practice, so it is placed after 『practice.』 The Proper Theory says: 『If there is a type of practitioner who, first in the desire realm, relies on the power of uninterrupted diligent practice of samadhi (samādhi, a Buddhist term referring to meditation) to cut off the five lower fetters (pañca orambhāgiyāni saṃyojanāni, Buddhist term referring to the five afflictions that cause beings to be reborn in the desire realm) and attain the fruit of non-return (anāgāmin, a Buddhist term referring to the state of no longer returning to be born in the desire realm). Later, in the **sutra, after a long time, they can continue to practice the previous path and finally attain arhatship (arhat, a Buddhist term referring to a saint who has cut off all afflictions and attained liberation), this is called nirvana through practice. Nirvana without practice is the opposite of this.』 『The treatise says, 『Some say these two… because of the fault of being too broad.』 This refutes another saying. Because all seven types of non-returners attain nirvana through conditioned (saṃskṛta, a Buddhist term referring to phenomena that arise from causes and conditions) or unconditioned (asaṃskṛta, a Buddhist term referring to phenomena that do not arise from causes and conditions) dharmas, they should all be called 『practice』 or 『non-practice,』 therefore it is said that this saying has the fault of being too broad.』 『The treatise says, 『However, in the sutras… it is consistent with reason.』 This is commenting on and adopting the views of the Sautrāntika school (Sautrāntika, one of the Buddhist schools).』 『The treatise says, 『Having a quick path… then attain nirvana.』 This explains the meaning of the Sautrāntika school. 『Non-practice』 has a quick path, so those with sharp faculties should attain it first; 『practice』 does not have a quick path, so those with dull faculties should attain it later. 『Non-practice』 obtains benefits without effort, so it should be attained first; 『practice』 requires much effort to obtain benefits, so it should be attained later. 『Birth-nirvana』 can obtain the quickest and most supreme path, so it is before 『non-practice.』 Here, 『birth-nirvana』 is used to prove that 『nirvana through practice』 should be placed later. The Proper Theory says: 『However, some sutras say that 『non-practice』 comes first, and some sutras say that 『practice』 comes first. Since there is no difference in time, there is no contradiction in saying either way. 『Practice』 is worthy of respect, so I say it first.』 According to this treatise, 『practice』 and 『non-practice』 are after 『birth-nirvana,』 that is, there is no fixed order between the two.』 『The treatise says, 『The so-called upstreamer』 (ūrdhvasrotas, a Buddhist term referring to a practitioner who flows from the form realm upwards to a higher realm and eventually attains nirvana) refers to...』
釋上流也。于中有二。一總釋。二別釋。此文總釋 言上流者。是上行義。前生般者雖生上界。即彼生處而般涅槃更不上生。無上行義。故生般等不名上流。若生色界要轉生上。皆名上流。有上行故。
論。即此上流至為極處故。開為二也。由因．果別分二上流。謂樂定．慧有差別故 由因別者。樂慧上流有雜修定。樂．定上流無雜修定 由果別者。樂慧上流生色究竟。不生無色。樂定上流生有頂天。不生凈居。既言二天為極處故。亦容生下凈居．無色。若不爾者。下四凈居．下三無色。應無羅漢是半超也。
論。謂若於靜慮至方般涅槃。此第一釋樂慧上流。
論。即此復有至遍沒異故。開樂慧為三也。謂全超．半超．一切處沒。
論。言全超者至是全超義。釋第一也。與正理同。
論。言半超者至一導師故。釋第二也。與正理同。
論。言遍沒者至故名遍沒。釋第三也。與正理同。婆沙一百七十四云。問如說退住初靜慮生梵眾天。作全超．半超．一切處沒上流。彼若退住第二靜慮生少光天。退住第三靜慮生少凈天。退住第四靜慮生無雲天等。彼亦得作全超．半超．一切處沒上流不耶 有說不得。以生梵世。于上不還所應生處無缺減故。依彼建立全超．半超．一切處沒。若退生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 解釋上流。其中分為兩部分：一是總的解釋，二是分別解釋。這段文字是總的解釋。 所說的『上流』，是向上行進的意思。之前所說的般涅槃者，雖然生於上界，但就在那所生之處般涅槃，不再向上生，沒有向上行進的意義。因此，生般等不能稱為上流。如果生於**要轉生到更高的境界，都稱為上流，因為有向上行進的緣故。
論：因此，這上流到達最極之處，所以分為兩種。由於因和果的差別，分為兩種上流，即樂定和慧有差別。 由於因的差別：樂慧上流有雜修定，樂定上流沒有雜修定。 由於果的差別：樂慧上流生於色究竟天（Rupadhatu），不生於無色界（Arupadhatu）。樂定上流生於有頂天（Bhavagra），不生於凈居天（Suddhavasa）。既然說這兩種天為最極之處，也容許生於較低的凈居天和無色界。如果不是這樣，下四禪的凈居天和下三禪的無色界，應該沒有阿羅漢，那就是半超了。
論：如果對於靜慮（Dhyana）…才般涅槃，這是第一種解釋，即樂慧上流。
論：這又分為三種，因為遍沒不同。將樂慧分為全超、半超、一切處沒。
論：所說的『全超』…是全超的意義。解釋第一種。與《正理》相同。
論：所說的『半超』…一位導師。解釋第二種。與《正理》相同。
論：所說的『遍沒』…所以稱為遍沒。解釋第三種。與《正理》相同。《婆沙》第一百七十四卷說：問：如所說，退住于初禪，生於梵眾天（Brahmakayika），作為全超、半超、一切處沒的上流。如果他們退住于第二禪，生於少光天（Abhassara）；退住于第三禪，生於少凈天（Parittasubha）；退住于第四禪，生於無雲天（Anabhraka）等，他們也可以作為全超、半超、一切處沒的上流嗎？有人說不可以。因為生於梵世，對於上界不還果（Anagami）所應生之處沒有缺少。依據此建立全超、半超、一切處沒。如果退生
【English Translation】 English version Explaining 『Superior Stream』. It is divided into two parts: one is the general explanation, and the other is the separate explanation. This text is the general explanation. The so-called 『Superior Stream』 (上流) means going upwards. Those who attain Parinirvana (般涅槃) in the previous life, although born in the upper realms, attain Parinirvana in that very place of birth and do not ascend further, lacking the meaning of upward movement. Therefore, those who attain Parinirvana in such a way are not called Superior Stream. If one is born and must be reborn in higher realms, they are all called Superior Stream because they have the cause of upward movement.
Treatise: Therefore, this Superior Stream reaches the ultimate point, so it is divided into two types. Due to the difference between cause and effect, it is divided into two Superior Streams, namely, the difference between blissful concentration (樂定) and wisdom (慧). Due to the difference in cause: the Superior Stream of bliss and wisdom has mixed practice of concentration; the Superior Stream of bliss and concentration does not have mixed practice of concentration. Due to the difference in effect: the Superior Stream of bliss and wisdom is born in Akanistha (色究竟天), and is not born in the Formless Realm (無色界). The Superior Stream of bliss and concentration is born in Bhavagra (有頂天), and is not born in the Pure Abodes (凈居天). Since it is said that these two heavens are the ultimate points, it also allows birth in the lower Pure Abodes and the Formless Realm. If it were not so, there should be no Arhats (阿羅漢) in the lower four Pure Abodes and the lower three Formless Realms, which would be a 『half-transcendence』.
Treatise: If one attains Parinirvana through Dhyana (靜慮)..., this is the first explanation, namely, the Superior Stream of bliss and wisdom.
Treatise: This is further divided into three types because the 『complete immersion』 (遍沒) is different. Bliss and wisdom are divided into 『complete transcendence』 (全超), 『half-transcendence』 (半超), and 『immersion in all places』 (一切處沒).
Treatise: The so-called 『complete transcendence』... is the meaning of complete transcendence. Explaining the first type. It is the same as the Nyayanusara.
Treatise: The so-called 『half-transcendence』... one guide. Explaining the second type. It is the same as the Nyayanusara.
Treatise: The so-called 『immersion in all places』... therefore it is called 『immersion in all places』. Explaining the third type. It is the same as the Nyayanusara. The Mahavibhasa (婆沙) Volume 174 says: Question: As it is said, those who regress from the first Dhyana and are born in the Brahmakayika heaven (梵眾天), are considered Superior Streams of complete transcendence, half-transcendence, and immersion in all places. If they regress from the second Dhyana and are born in the Abhassara heaven (少光天); regress from the third Dhyana and are born in the Parittasubha heaven (少凈天); regress from the fourth Dhyana and are born in the Anabhraka heaven (無雲天), etc., can they also be considered Superior Streams of complete transcendence, half-transcendence, and immersion in all places? Some say no. Because they are born in the Brahma world, there is no deficiency in the places where Anagamis (不還果) should be born in the upper realms. Based on this, complete transcendence, half-transcendence, and immersion in all places are established. If they regress and are born
上地處便缺減故。不依彼立全超等 有說彼亦得名半超。以超少分中間處故 有說亦得具名三種。彼說從欲界沒隨生何處。即于彼上所應生處。亦可施設全超．半超．一切處沒故 問若不還者欲界沒生無色界。亦得作全超等不 有說不得 有說彼亦得名半超 有說彼亦具名三種。此中所以皆如前釋 雖無評文。后二說正。攝人盡故。又上不至色究竟等。亦此三攝。下不從初定故亦此攝。即於此中復說為超。于理無失。若通生處已下。即但名半超。若唯說生處已上。亦有全超義。既有遍沒及半超者。故知。先於欲界得雜修已。後生色界經六七生亦得。由先習故後起雜修。正理論云。言遍沒者。謂於色界愛味多故。一切處生。由彼遍於四靜慮地十六處所。一一皆有下等愛味。為感生緣。從梵眾天一一處所一生沒已。至色究竟。方般涅槃故名遍沒。由此義準。初靜慮中大梵所居非是別處。即是第二梵輔天攝。若異此者。大梵所居僻見處故。一導師故。必無聖者于中受生。遍沒．半超應無差別。
論。無不還者至況有生於下。釋不還義。與婆沙同。
論。應知此謂至般涅槃者。結樂慧也。
論。余于靜慮至方般涅槃。釋樂定也。
論。二上流中至有差別故。釋二名也。
論。二上流者至極七返
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：因為上面的地方有所缺少和減少的緣故，所以不依據那些地方建立『全超等』（Sarvatikrama，完全超越）的說法嗎？ 答：有人說，那些地方也可以被稱為『半超』（Arthatikrama，部分超越），因為它們超越了少部分，處於中間的位置。 也有人說，那些地方也可以完整地被稱為三種（全超、半超、一切處沒）。他們的意思是，從欲界死後，無論生到哪裡，就在那個地方所應該出生的地方，也可以安立『全超』、『半超』、『一切處沒』的說法。 問：如果是不還者（Anāgāmin，不再返回欲界者）從欲界死後，生到無色界，也可以被認為是『全超』等嗎？ 答：有人說不可以。 也有人說，他們也可以被稱為『半超』。 還有人說，他們也可以完整地被稱為三種。這些說法的原因都和前面解釋的一樣。 雖然沒有評判性的文字，但后兩種說法是正確的，因為它們涵蓋了所有的人。而且，從上面不能到達色究竟天（Akaniṣṭha）等地方，也被這三種說法所涵蓋。從下面不能從初禪開始，也被這三種說法所涵蓋。就在這裡面再次說為『超』，在道理上沒有錯誤。如果包括了所生的處所以下，就只稱為『半超』。如果只說了所生的處所以上，也有『全超』的意義。既然有『遍沒』（Sarvaparikṣaya，完全滅盡）和『半超』，所以知道，先在欲界獲得了雜修（Miśraka），後來生到色界，經過六七次生死也可以獲得。因為先前的習氣，後來才能生起雜修。《正理論》說：『所說的遍沒，是因為對於色界的愛味很重，所以在一切處所出生。因為他們對於四靜慮地（caturbhyo dhyānebhyas，四種禪定）的十六個處所，每一個都有下等的愛味，作為感生的因緣，從梵眾天（Brahma-pāriṣadya）的每一個處所，一生死後，直到色究竟天，才般涅槃（Parinirvāṇa，完全的涅槃），所以叫做遍沒。』由此義理推斷，初禪中的大梵天（Mahābrahmā）所居住的地方不是別處，就是第二梵輔天（Brahma-purohita）所攝。如果不是這樣，大梵天所居住的地方因為是邪見之處，又只有一個導師，必定沒有聖者在那裡受生，『遍沒』和『半超』應該沒有差別。
論：沒有不還者…到…何況有生於下。解釋了不還者的含義，和《婆沙論》相同。
論：應該知道這指的是…到…般涅槃者。總結了樂慧。
論：其餘在靜慮中…到…才般涅槃。解釋了樂定。
論：在二種上流中…到…有差別的原因。解釋了兩種名稱。
論：二種上流者…到…最多七次返回。
English version: Question: Is it because the places above are deficient and diminished that the term 'Sarvatikrama' (complete transcendence) is not established based on those places? Answer: Some say that those places can also be called 'Arthatikrama' (partial transcendence) because they transcend a small part and are in an intermediate position. Others say that those places can also be fully called all three (Sarvatikrama, Arthatikrama, Sarvaparikṣaya). Their meaning is that after dying from the desire realm, no matter where they are born, in the place where they should be born, the terms 'Sarvatikrama', 'Arthatikrama', and 'Sarvaparikṣaya' can also be established. Question: If an Anāgāmin (non-returner) dies from the desire realm and is born in the formless realm, can they also be considered 'Sarvatikrama', etc.? Answer: Some say no. Others say that they can also be called 'Arthatikrama'. Still others say that they can also be fully called all three. The reasons for these statements are the same as explained earlier. Although there is no critical text, the latter two statements are correct because they cover all people. Moreover, not being able to reach Akaniṣṭha (the highest form realm) from above is also covered by these three statements. Not being able to start from the first dhyāna (meditative absorption) from below is also covered by these three statements. Saying 'transcendence' again within this is not wrong in principle. If the place of birth and below are included, it is only called 'Arthatikrama'. If only the place of birth and above are mentioned, there is also the meaning of 'Sarvatikrama'. Since there are 'Sarvaparikṣaya' (complete extinction) and 'Arthatikrama', it is known that after first obtaining Miśraka (mixed practice) in the desire realm, they can also obtain it after being born in the form realm and going through six or seven lives. Because of previous habits, mixed practice arises later. The Zheng Lilun says: 'The so-called Sarvaparikṣaya is because of the strong taste for the form realm, so they are born in all places. Because they have inferior tastes for each of the sixteen places of the four dhyānas (caturbhyo dhyānebhyas), as a cause for rebirth, after one death from each place of the Brahma-pāriṣadya (Brahma's retinue), they attain Parinirvāṇa (complete Nirvana) only in Akaniṣṭha, so it is called Sarvaparikṣaya.' From this meaning, it can be inferred that the place where Mahābrahmā (Great Brahma) resides in the first dhyāna is not a separate place, but is included in the second Brahma-purohita (Brahma's ministers). If this is not the case, because the place where Mahābrahmā resides is a place of wrong views and there is only one teacher, there must be no sages born there, and there should be no difference between 'Sarvaparikṣaya' and 'Arthatikrama'.
Treatise: No Anāgāmin... to... let alone being born below. Explains the meaning of Anāgāmin, which is the same as the Vibhāṣā.
Treatise: It should be known that this refers to... to... those who attain Parinirvāṇa. Summarizes the joy of wisdom.
Treatise: The rest in dhyāna... to... only then attain Parinirvāṇa. Explains the joy of samādhi.
Treatise: In the two types of upward flow... to... the reason for the difference.
Treatise: The two types of upward flow... to... at most seven returns.
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Is it because the places above are deficient and diminished that the term 'Sarvatikrama' (complete transcendence) is not established based on those places? Answer: Some say that those places can also be called 'Arthatikrama' (partial transcendence) because they transcend a small part and are in an intermediate position. Others say that those places can also be fully called all three (Sarvatikrama, Arthatikrama, Sarvaparikṣaya). Their meaning is that after dying from the desire realm, no matter where they are born, in the place where they should be born, the terms 'Sarvatikrama', 'Arthatikrama', and 'Sarvaparikṣaya' can also be established. Question: If an Anāgāmin (non-returner) dies from the desire realm and is born in the formless realm, can they also be considered 'Sarvatikrama', etc.? Answer: Some say no. Others say that they can also be called 'Arthatikrama'. Still others say that they can also be fully called all three. The reasons for these statements are the same as explained earlier. Although there is no critical text, the latter two statements are correct because they cover all people. Moreover, not being able to reach Akaniṣṭha (the highest form realm) from above is also covered by these three statements. Not being able to start from the first dhyāna (meditative absorption) from below is also covered by these three statements. Saying 'transcendence' again within this is not wrong in principle. If the place of birth and below are included, it is only called 'Arthatikrama'. If only the place of birth and above are mentioned, there is also the meaning of 'Sarvatikrama'. Since there are 'Sarvaparikṣaya' (complete extinction) and 'Arthatikrama', it is known that after first obtaining Miśraka (mixed practice) in the desire realm, they can also obtain it after being born in the form realm and going through six or seven lives. Because of previous habits, mixed practice arises later. The Zheng Lilun says: 'The so-called Sarvaparikṣaya is because of the strong taste for the form realm, so they are born in all places. Because they have inferior tastes for each of the sixteen places of the four dhyānas (caturbhyo dhyānebhyas), as a cause for rebirth, after one death from each place of the Brahma-pāriṣadya (Brahma's retinue), they attain Parinirvāṇa (complete Nirvana) only in Akaniṣṭha, so it is called Sarvaparikṣaya.' From this meaning, it can be inferred that the place where Mahābrahmā (Great Brahma) resides in the first dhyāna is not a separate place, but is included in the second Brahma-purohita (Brahma's ministers). If this is not the case, because the place where Mahābrahmā resides is a place of wrong views and there is only one teacher, there must be no sages born there, and there should be no difference between 'Sarvaparikṣaya' and 'Arthatikrama'.
Treatise: No Anāgāmin... to... let alone being born below. Explains the meaning of Anāgāmin, which is the same as the Vibhāṣā.
Treatise: It should be known that this refers to... to... those who attain Parinirvāṇa. Summarizes the joy of wisdom.
Treatise: The rest in dhyāna... to... only then attain Parinirvāṇa. Explains the joy of samādhi.
Treatise: In the two types of upward flow... to... the reason for the difference.
Treatise: The two types of upward flow... to... at most seven returns.
生。釋二上流未至色究竟天及有頂天。皆容中間般涅槃也。如生二．三．四天等處中間般涅槃者。是半超攝。雖不隔越。以超生故亦名半超。
論。此五名為行色界者。此即總結行色界也。
論。行無色者至有差別故。釋樂定也。差別有四。謂生般．有行．無行．上流。準此論文。行色界中有二種別。一得雜修生五凈居。二不得雜修生色界已後生無色 行無色者。在欲界中離色染已生於無色。即是樂定有二種也。一生色界已生於無色。二不生色界生於無色。
論。此並前五至並前六為七。結七數也。即是一中般。二生般。三有行般。四無行般。五行色上流。六行無色上流。七現般。若加轉生即有八種。現般分二即有九種。若不生色界。雖有轉生亦名現般。或開為二 正理又云。或應總立九種不還。謂現涅槃分為二種。一于先位善辨聖旨。二臨終時方能善辨 總成八種。更加轉生故成九種 言轉生者。謂於前生已得預流。或一來果。於今生內方得不還。前現般言唯目現世。初得入聖至涅槃者。
論。於行色界五不還中。下一頌。第二明九不還也。
論曰至有差別故。此分那含為三別也。謂中般．生般．上流為三。
論。云何三種至對所顯故。此分中般為三別也。
論。生般
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 生。指色界二禪以上，未到達色究竟天（Rūpāgrahāgra-deva，色界頂層天）及有頂天（Akanistha，最高的天界）。這些地方都可能出現中間般涅槃（Antarāparinirvāyin，于中途入滅）。如同生於二禪、三禪、四禪等處而中間般涅槃者，屬於半超攝（half-transcending）。雖然沒有隔越，但因為是超越而生，也稱為半超。
論：這五種稱為行者（those who travel to the ）。這是對行**的總結。
論：行無色者（those who travel to the formless realms）乃至有差別故。解釋樂定（those who delight in meditative absorption）。差別有四種，即生般（Upapadyaparinirvāyin，生后般涅槃）、有行（Sasaṃskāraparinirvāyin，有功用般涅槃）、無行（Asaṃskāraparinirvāyin，無功用般涅槃）、上流（Ūrdhvasrotas，上行流）。根據這段論文，行中有兩種區別。一是通過雜修而生於五凈居天（Śuddhāvāsa，清凈居天）；二是不通過雜修，生於之後又生於無色界。行無色者，在欲界中已經離開了對色界的貪染，而生於無色界，這就是樂定的兩種情況。一是生於之後生於無色界，二是不生於而生於無色界。
論：此並前五乃至並前六為七。總結七種數量。即是一中般（Antarāparinirvāyin，中間般涅槃），二生般（Upapadyaparinirvāyin，生后般涅槃），三有行般（Sasaṃskāraparinirvāyin，有功用般涅槃），四無行般（Asaṃskāraparinirvāyin，無功用般涅槃），五行色上流（Ūrdhvasrotas，上行流），六行無色上流（Ūrdhvasrotas，上行流），七現般（Drstaparinirvāyin，現世般涅槃）。如果加上轉生，就有八種。現般分為兩種，就有九種。如果不生**，即使有轉生，也稱為現般。或者可以分為兩種。《正理》又說：或者應該總共建立九種不還（Anāgāmin，不還果）。將現涅槃分為兩種：一是在先前的位置上善於辨別聖旨，二是臨終時才能善於辨別。總共形成八種，加上轉生就成為九種。所說的轉生，是指在前一生已經獲得了預流果（Srotāpanna，入流果），或一來果（Sakrdāgāmin，一來果），在今生內才獲得不還果（Anāgāmin，不還果）。前面所說的現般，僅僅指現世，最初獲得入聖道直到涅槃的人。
論：在行**五不還中。下一頌。第二說明九種不還。
論曰乃至有差別故。這裡將那含（Anāgāmin，不還果）分為三種區別，即中般（Antarāparinirvāyin，中間般涅槃）、生般（Upapadyaparinirvāyin，生后般涅槃）、上流（Ūrdhvasrotas，上行流）這三種。
論：云何三種乃至對所顯故。這裡將中般（Antarāparinirvāyin，中間般涅槃）分為三種區別。
論：生般（Upapadyaparinirvāyin，生后般涅槃）
【English Translation】 English version 『Born.』 Refers to those above the second Dhyana (meditative state) in the Realm of Form (Rūpadhātu), but not yet reaching Akanistha (the highest heaven) and the Summit of Existence (Bhavāgra). All these places allow for Intermediate Nirvana (Antarāparinirvāyin, one who attains Nirvana in between). Those who attain Intermediate Nirvana in the second, third, or fourth Dhyana heavens are considered half-transcending (half-transcending). Although there is no intervening realm, it is also called half-transcending because of being born through transcendence.
Treatise: These five are called 『those who travel to the .』 This is a summary of those who travel to the .
Treatise: 『Those who travel to the Formless Realms』 up to 『because there are differences.』 Explains those who delight in meditative absorption. There are four differences: namely, Upapadyaparinirvāyin (one who attains Nirvana after being born), Sasaṃskāraparinirvāyin (one who attains Nirvana with effort), Asaṃskāraparinirvāyin (one who attains Nirvana without effort), and Ūrdhvasrotas (one who goes upstream). According to this text, there are two distinctions among those who travel to the . First, those who attain the five Pure Abodes (Śuddhāvāsa) through mixed practices. Second, those who do not attain through mixed practices, but after attaining ** are born in the Formless Realm. Those who travel to the Formless Realms, having abandoned attachment to the Realm of Form in the Desire Realm, are born in the Formless Realm. These are the two types of those who delight in meditative absorption. First, those who are born in the Formless Realm after attaining . Second, those who are not born in ** but are born in the Formless Realm.
Treatise: 『These together with the previous five』 up to 『together with the previous six make seven.』 Summarizes the seven types. Namely, one is Antarāparinirvāyin (Intermediate Nirvana), two is Upapadyaparinirvāyin (Nirvana after being born), three is Sasaṃskāraparinirvāyin (Nirvana with effort), four is Asaṃskāraparinirvāyin (Nirvana without effort), five is Ūrdhvasrotas (going upstream) in the Realm of Form, six is Ūrdhvasrotas (going upstream) in the Formless Realm, and seven is Drstaparinirvāyin (Nirvana in this life). If we add rebirth, there are eight types. If Drstaparinirvāyin (Nirvana in this life) is divided into two, there are nine types. If one is not born in , even with rebirth, it is called Drstaparinirvāyin (Nirvana in this life). Or it can be divided into two. The Nyāyānusāraśāstra (正理) also says: Or we should establish nine types of Anāgāmin (non-returner) in total. Drstaparinirvāyin (Nirvana in this life) is divided into two types: one is skilled in discerning the holy teachings in the previous state, and the other is only skilled in discerning at the time of death. In total, there are eight types, and adding rebirth makes nine types. Rebirth refers to those who have already attained the Srotāpanna (stream-enterer) or Sakrdāgāmin (once-returner) fruit in the previous life, and only attain the Anāgāmin (non-returner) fruit in this life. The previously mentioned Drstaparinirvāyin (Nirvana in this life) only refers to the present life, those who initially attain the holy path up to Nirvana.
Treatise: 『Among the five Anāgāmin (non-returner) who travel to the **.』 The next verse. The second explains the nine types of Anāgāmin (non-returner).
Treatise says up to 『because there are differences.』 Here, the Anāgāmin (non-returner) is divided into three distinctions, namely, Antarāparinirvāyin (Intermediate Nirvana), Upapadyaparinirvāyin (Nirvana after being born), and Ūrdhvasrotas (going upstream).
Treatise: 『How are the three types』 up to 『because of what is being revealed.』 Here, Antarāparinirvāyin (Intermediate Nirvana) is divided into three distinctions.
Treatise: Upapadyaparinirvāyin (Nirvana after being born)
涅槃至名為生般。此分生般為三別也。
論。于上流中至有差別故。此分上流為三別也。
論。然諸三種至無雜亂失。此中般中。速是才生中有。非速是次。經久是后 生般中初生即般是速。有行是次。無行是后 上流三全超是速。半超是次。遍沒是遲。
論。如是三種至經久不同。明分三九因也。
論。且總成三至根差別故。此總分三由三因也。唯有起業是中般。有起．生業是生般。有起．生．后業是上流 又下煩惱是中般。中煩惱是生般。上煩惱是上流 又上根是中。中根是生。下根上流。
論。此三一一至成三九別。此明三九三也。中般分三。由根．惑別。其業是同。無生有起故。生般三種亦由根惑有三。不由業也。同有起．生．業故。后三具由惑．業．根也。根．惑可知。業有三者。全超唯有順后受業一生。半超有順后業次多。一切處沒順后受業最多。故言亦由順后受業有差別故分成三種 下結可知。
論。若爾何故諸契經中。下一頌。第三明七善士趣。
論曰至且立為一。列七數也。生中二般各三為六。更加上流足前為七。
論。何獨依此至有學聖者。問也。何故唯不還立七善士趣。不依前果立善士趣。
論。趣是行義至余即不然。第一答也。趣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 涅槃（Nirvana，指解脫）至名為生般（upapadyaparinirvāyin，中有入涅槃）。此分生般為三別也。
論：于上流中至有差別故。此分上流為三別也。
論：然諸三種至無雜亂失。此中般中。速是才生中有。非速是次。經久是后。生般中初生即般是速。有行是次。無行是后。上流三全超是速。半超是次。遍沒是遲。
論：如是三種至經久不同。明分三九因也。
論：且總成三至根差別故。此總分三由三因也。唯有起業是中般。有起．生業是生般。有起．生．后業是上流。又下煩惱是中般。中煩惱是生般。上煩惱是上流。又上根是中。中根是生。下根上流。
論：此三一一至成三九別。此明三九三也。中般分三。由根．惑別。其業是同。無生有起故。生般三種亦由根惑有三。不由業也。同有起．生．業故。后三具由惑．業．根也。根．惑可知。業有三者。全超唯有順后受業一生。半超有順后業次多。一切處沒順后受業最多。故言亦由順后受業有差別故分成三種。下結可知。
論：若爾何故諸契經中。下一頌。第三明七善士趣。
論曰至且立為一。列七數也。生中二般各三為六。更加上流足前為七。
論：何獨依此至有學聖者。問也。何故唯不還（Anāgāmin，不還果）立七善士趣。不依前果立善士趣。
論：趣是行義至余即不然。第一答也。趣
【English Translation】 English version Nirvana (Nirvana, referring to liberation) is supremely called upapadyaparinirvāyin (one who attains Nirvana in the intermediate state). This upapadyaparinirvāyin is divided into three types.
Treatise: Because there are differences in the higher streams. Therefore, this higher stream is divided into three types.
Treatise: However, these three types are without confusion or loss. Among these, in the intermediate Nirvana, 'fast' refers to one who attains Nirvana immediately after birth in the intermediate state. 'Not fast' refers to the next. 'Prolonged' refers to the last. Among those who attain Nirvana after birth, 'immediate birth and Nirvana' is fast. 'With effort' is next. 'Without effort' is last. Among the three higher streams, 'complete transcendence' is fast. 'Half transcendence' is next. 'Complete immersion' is slow.
Treatise: These three types differ in duration. This clarifies the causes of the three nines.
Treatise: Generally, the three are formed due to differences in roots. This general division into three is due to three causes. Only arising karma is intermediate Nirvana. Having arising and birth karma is birth Nirvana. Having arising, birth, and subsequent karma is the higher stream. Also, lower afflictions are intermediate Nirvana. Middle afflictions are birth Nirvana. Higher afflictions are the higher stream. Also, superior roots are intermediate. Middle roots are birth. Inferior roots are the higher stream.
Treatise: Each of these three forms three nines separately. This clarifies the three nines. Intermediate Nirvana is divided into three due to differences in roots and afflictions. Their karma is the same because there is arising without birth. The three types of birth Nirvana are also due to three types of roots and afflictions, not due to karma. Because they all have arising and birth karma. The latter three are fully due to afflictions, karma, and roots. Roots and afflictions are understandable. There are three types of karma: complete transcendence has only one lifetime of karma to be experienced in the future. Half transcendence has more karma to be experienced in the future. Complete immersion has the most karma to be experienced in the future. Therefore, it is said that they are divided into three types due to differences in karma to be experienced in the future. The conclusion below is understandable.
Treatise: If so, then why in the sutras. The next verse. The third clarifies the seven good person's paths.
Treatise says to establish as one. List the seven numbers. The two Nirvanas in birth and intermediate each have three, making six. Adding the higher stream completes the seven.
Treatise: Why only rely on this to the learned noble ones? Question. Why only establish the seven good person's paths for the Anāgāmin (Non-Returner). Do not establish the good person's paths based on the previous fruit.
Treatise: 'Path' means 'practice', and the rest is not. The first answer. Path
是行義。不還之人唯行善故名善士趣。前二向．果雖行善業。兼有不善與凡無別。由此不得善趣之名。
論。又唯七種至立善士趣。第二釋也。前就行善名為善趣。此就上行故名善趣。唯不還果唯向上行。不復還下。前之向果。皆于欲界來往生也。雖一間人唯有一生。或上或下。非唯上生。故不名為善士趣也 二釋之中后將為勝。若唯行善名為善趣。無學之人亦唯行善。因何不取。婆沙一百七十五云。問如生．不生各有三種。上流亦爾。謂全超．半超．一切處沒。何故合說一耶 答生．不生各是一有相續。于中分位差別難知。欲令知故各說三種。上流三種生數自辨。差別易知。是故但隨上行義勝合說一種 複次生與不生一期時促。於差別義唯有爾所易可建立。是故分三。上流時長差別多種。分齊難辨。故合立一。複次生與不生亦有等義。上流亦有別義。欲以二文互相顯故。作如是說 複次生與不生。善士趣相現前易了。以彼速趣般涅槃故。各分為三。其上流者。善士趣相微隱難知。以彼尚經多生死故。但合說一(生謂生般等。不生謂中般)。
論。若爾何故至乃至廣說。引經難也。準經亦取一切有學。因何唯取第三果耶。
論。諸餘有學至往上界故。答也。諸餘有學。就於殺等五種惡中。皆獲得畢
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這是行義（行為的意義）。不再還回來的人，唯有行善的緣故，才被稱為善士趣（好的去處）。前面的初果向、二果向雖然也行善業，但兼有不善，與凡夫沒有區別。因此不得善趣之名。
論：又唯有七種（人）才能建立善士趣。這是第二種解釋。前面是就行善而名為善趣，這裡是就向上行而名為善趣。唯有不還果（三果）才能唯向上行，不再還向下。前面的初果向、二果向，都在欲界來往生死。即使是一間人（一種不還果），也只有一生，或者向上或者向下，並非唯有向上生。所以不名為善士趣。兩種解釋之中，后一種更為殊勝。如果唯有行善才名為善趣，無學之人（阿羅漢）也唯有行善，為何不取？《婆沙論》第一百七十五卷說：問：如生（生般，即生后立即入滅）、不生（中般，即死後于中陰身入滅）各有三種，上流（指從色界或無色界繼續向上修行）也是如此，即全超（完全超越）、半超（超越一半）、一切處沒（在所有地方都消失）。為何合說為一種？答：生、不生各是一有相續（一種生命延續），其中分位的差別難以知曉，爲了讓人知曉，所以各說三種。上流的三種，生數（生命數量）自然可以分辨，差別容易知曉，所以只隨向上行的意義殊勝而合說一種。複次，生與不生一期時間短促，在差別意義上只有那些容易建立的，所以分為三種。上流時間長，差別多種，分界難以分辨，所以合立為一種。複次，生與不生也有等同的意義，上流也有區別的意義，想要用兩種文義互相顯明，所以這樣說。複次，生與不生，善士趣的相貌現前容易瞭解，因為他們迅速趣向般涅槃的緣故，所以各分為三種。而上流者，善士趣的相貌微隱難以知曉，因為他們還要經歷多次生死，所以只合說一種（生指生般等，不生指中般）。
論：如果這樣，為何乃至廣說？這是引用經文來發難。按照經文也應取一切有學（還在學習的聖者），為何唯取第三果（不還果）？
論：其餘的有學乃至往上界的緣故。這是回答。其餘的有學，就殺等五種惡中，都獲得了畢（完全的停止）。
【English Translation】 English version: This is the meaning of action (the significance of behavior). Those who do not return, only because they perform good deeds, are called 'Sugati' (good destination). The Srota-apanna-magga (stream-enterer path) and Sakadagami-magga (once-returner path) before, although they also perform good deeds, also have unwholesome deeds, which are no different from ordinary people. Therefore, they do not obtain the name of 'Sugati'.
Treatise: Furthermore, only seven types (of people) can establish the 'Sugati'. This is the second explanation. The previous one was based on performing good deeds being called 'Sugati', this one is based on going upwards being called 'Sugati'. Only the Anagami-phala (non-returner fruition) can only go upwards, and no longer return downwards. The previous Srota-apanna-magga and Sakadagami-magga, both come and go in the desire realm. Even the Ekabija (one-seed, a type of non-returner), only has one life, either upwards or downwards, not only upwards. Therefore, they are not called 'Sugati'. Among the two explanations, the latter is considered superior. If only performing good deeds is called 'Sugati', then the Arahants (those who have nothing more to learn) also only perform good deeds, why not include them? The Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra, volume 175, says: Question: Just as 'born' (born and immediately enter Nirvana) and 'unborn' (enter Nirvana in the intermediate state) each have three types, so does 'upstream' (referring to continuing to practice upwards from the form realm or formless realm), namely complete transcendence, half transcendence, and disappearance in all places. Why are they combined into one? Answer: 'Born' and 'unborn' each are a continuation of existence, and the differences in their divisions are difficult to know. In order to make them known, each is described in three types. The three types of 'upstream', the number of lives can be naturally distinguished, and the differences are easy to know. Therefore, only the meaning of going upwards is considered superior and combined into one. Furthermore, the time period of 'born' and 'unborn' is short, and only those differences that are easy to establish are divided into three types. The time of 'upstream' is long, and the differences are many, and the boundaries are difficult to distinguish, so it is established as one. Furthermore, 'born' and 'unborn' also have equal meanings, and 'upstream' also has different meanings. In order to use the two meanings to illuminate each other, it is said in this way. Furthermore, 'born' and 'unborn', the appearance of 'Sugati' is easy to understand, because they quickly go towards Parinirvana, so each is divided into three types. As for those who go 'upstream', the appearance of 'Sugati' is subtle and difficult to know, because they still have to experience many births and deaths, so it is only combined into one (born refers to born and immediately enter Nirvana, etc., unborn refers to enter Nirvana in the intermediate state).
Treatise: If so, why even extensively explain? This is quoting the sutra to raise a difficulty. According to the sutra, all those who are still learning (Saints who are still learning) should also be included, why only take the third fruition (Anagami-phala)?
Treatise: Because the remaining learners go to the upper realms. This is the answer. The remaining learners, in the five evils such as killing, have all obtained complete cessation.
竟不作律儀。不善煩惱多分斷故。如是異門亦得善士趣也。今此經中七善趣。然唯行善不行惡故。唯往上界異門唯立七種。非余有學。婆沙云。問行無色不還。於行色界不還。有五事勝。謂界勝．地勝．斷煩惱勝．損減蘊勝．三摩缽底勝。何故不立為善士趣 有說。若粗顯易了立善士趣。彼不顯了是故不說 又云。問何故阿羅漢非善士趣 複次趣上生者立善士趣。阿羅漢無生。是故不立 複次趣上果者立善士趣。阿羅漢即是上果。更無上果可趣。是故不立。
論諸在聖位曾經生者。下一頌第四明非生上界。
論曰至般涅槃故。釋。欲界經生聖人。決定不往上界處生。以先了苦受欲界生。其生短促尚難可忍。上界命長深厭不往。故得那含已。由厭不上生。必于現身般涅槃也。
論。若於色界至極有頂者。此明色界經生聖人。以厭心劣容上生也。
論。然天帝釋至佛亦不遮。釋疑難也。以天帝釋緣五死相極生憂苦。來歸世尊死相才除。便作是言為令喜故。又觀遮彼無多益故。佛不遮止。
論。即此已經至練根並退。此釋經欲生及經上生。皆無練根及無退也。
論。何緣不許至有練根並退。問也。
論。以必無故。答也。
論。何緣必無。重問。
論。經生習根至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 竟不造作律儀（vinaya，戒律）。因為不善的煩惱大多已經斷除。像這樣通過不同的途徑也能達到善士的境界。現在這部經中有七種善趣。然而，因為只行善而不作惡，所以只有前往上界的途徑才設立七種。不包括其他的有學（śaikṣa，還在學習的人）。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）中說：問：行於無色界的不還者（anāgāmin，不來果），在行於色界的不還者之上，有五件事勝出，即界勝、地勝、斷煩惱勝、損減蘊勝、三摩缽底（samāpatti，等至）勝。為什麼不將他們立為善士趣呢？有人說，如果粗顯易懂，就立為善士趣，那些不明顯，所以不說。又說：問：為什麼阿羅漢（arhat，無學）不是善士趣呢？再者，趣向向上生者才立為善士趣。阿羅漢沒有來生，所以不立。再者，趣向上果者才立為善士趣。阿羅漢即是上果，更沒有上果可以趣向，所以不立。
論：諸位在聖位曾經生者。下一頌第四說明非生上界。
論曰：直至般涅槃（parinirvāṇa，完全的涅槃）的緣故。色界（rūpadhātu，物質界）經生聖人，決定不往上界處生。因為他們已經瞭解了苦，受夠了欲界（kāmadhātu，慾望界）的生，其生命短暫尚且難以忍受，上界壽命長久，深深厭惡而不前往。所以得到阿那含（anāgāmin，不還果）之後，因為厭惡不上生，必定在現身般涅槃。
論：如果對於色界（rūpadhātu，物質界）乃至極有頂者。這說明色界（rūpadhātu，物質界）經生聖人，因為厭離心較弱，容許向上生。
論：然而天帝釋（Śakra，帝釋天）乃至佛陀也不遮止。這是爲了解釋疑難。因為天帝釋（Śakra，帝釋天）緣於五死相而極生憂苦，來歸世尊，死相才消除，便說這些話是爲了令他歡喜。又觀察到遮止他也沒有多大益處，所以佛陀不遮止。
論：即此已經直至練根並退。這是解釋經中說的欲生以及經上生，都沒有練根以及退轉的情況。
論：什麼緣故不允許直至有練根並退？這是提問。
論：因為必定沒有的緣故。這是回答。
論：什麼緣故必定沒有？再次提問。
論：經生習根直至
【English Translation】 English version They do not engage in vinaya (rules of conduct). Because most of the unwholesome afflictions have been severed. In this way, through different paths, one can also attain the state of a virtuous person. In this sutra, there are seven virtuous destinies. However, because they only perform good deeds and do not commit evil, only the paths leading to the upper realms are established as seven. This does not include other śaikṣas (those still in training). The Vibhasa says: Question: An anāgāmin (non-returner) who practices in the formless realm surpasses an anāgāmin who practices in the form realm in five aspects: superior realm, superior ground, superior severance of afflictions, superior reduction of aggregates, and superior samāpatti (attainment). Why are they not established as virtuous destinies? Some say that if it is crude, obvious, and easy to understand, it is established as a virtuous destiny; those that are not obvious are not mentioned. Furthermore, it is said: Question: Why is an arhat (worthy one) not a virtuous destiny? Moreover, those who aspire to be born upwards are established as virtuous destinies. An arhat has no rebirth, so they are not established. Furthermore, those who aspire to the upper fruit are established as virtuous destinies. An arhat is the upper fruit; there is no higher fruit to aspire to, so they are not established.
Treatise: Those who have been born in the holy state. The fourth verse below explains that they are not born in the upper realms.
Treatise says: Because of parinirvāṇa (complete nirvana). Saints who are born in the rūpadhātu (form realm) will definitely not be born in the upper realms. Because they have already understood suffering and have had enough of being born in the kāmadhātu (desire realm), where life is short and difficult to endure. Life in the upper realms is long, and they deeply厭惡it and do not go there. Therefore, after attaining anāgāmin (non-returner), because they厭惡not being born upwards, they will definitely attain parinirvāṇa in this life.
Treatise: If one is in the rūpadhātu (form realm) up to the peak of existence. This explains that saints who are born in the rūpadhātu (form realm) are allowed to be born upwards because their aversion is weaker.
Treatise: However, Śakra (lord of devas) and even the Buddha do not prevent it. This is to explain the difficulties. Because Śakra (lord of devas) experiences extreme sorrow and suffering due to the five signs of death, he comes to the World-Honored One, and the signs of death are only removed when he speaks these words to please him. Furthermore, observing that preventing him would not be of much benefit, the Buddha does not prevent him.
Treatise: That is, those who have already practiced and regressed. This explains that those who desire to be born and those who are born upwards do not have the practice of strengthening their roots or regressing.
Treatise: What is the reason for not allowing the practice of strengthening the roots and regressing? This is a question.
Treatise: Because it is definitely not possible. This is the answer.
Treatise: What is the reason why it is definitely not possible? This is another question.
Treatise: Those who are born and practice their roots until
所依止故。二義答也。正理論云。以曾經生。于自相續蘊積聖道極堅牢故。及得殊勝所依身故。由此彼無練根退理。
論。何緣有學至般涅槃者。問也。
論。以彼聖道至無如是能。此廣答也。如文可解。
論。前說上流雜修靜慮。下一頌第五明雜修靜慮。
論曰至最勝故。此明雜修次第意也。必先修第四後方修下禪。以四禪止．觀均故名為樂行。第四靜慮樂行勝故先修彼定。
論。如是雜修至或是不還。此明雜修靜慮人也。
論。彼必先入至加行成滿。此明雜修加行成也。
論。次復唯從至根本圓成。此明雜修根本成也。
論。前二剎那至以解脫道。此明無間．解脫別也。即二無漏一有漏三剎那心。先從無漏入有漏此二剎那。如無間道正斷障故。第三從有漏入無漏一剎那。已斷障故如解脫道。從其無漏入有漏易。從其有漏入無漏難故。立二無間一解脫道。
論。如是雜修至下三靜慮。明先．后也。先應修彼第四。成滿後方修下三靜慮也 問由雜修故。有往凈居不還全超．半超．等。未知見至亦有此等色不 答亦有。謂彼先住信解種姓雜修靜慮。然後退失。謂彼懼於后復有退時。便修練根成見至姓。從欲界沒生色界中。乘前後能雜修靜慮。故六種姓皆有上流
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『所依止故。』這是用兩個理由來回答。正理論中說：『因為曾經生過，所以在自身的相續中蘊積了極其堅固的聖道，以及獲得了殊勝的所依之身。』因此，他們沒有退失根性的道理。
『論：什麼原因導致有學之人證得般涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃）？』這是提問。
『論：因為他們的聖道達到了無法再進一步的程度。』這是詳細的回答。如字面意思可以理解。
『論：前面說了上流和雜修靜慮（Dhyana，禪定），下面一頌的第五部分說明雜修靜慮。』
『論曰：達到最殊勝的境界。』這說明了雜修的次第。必須先修第四禪，然後才能修習較低的禪定。因為四禪的止（Samatha，止觀）和觀（Vipassana，內觀）都很均衡，所以稱為樂行。第四靜慮的樂行最為殊勝，所以先修習那個禪定。
『論：像這樣雜修，或者是不還（Anagamin，不還果）。』這說明了雜修靜慮的人。
『論：他們必定先進入，直到加行（Prayoga，修行）圓滿。』這說明了雜修的加行成就。
『論：然後又僅僅從，直到根本圓成。』這說明了雜修的根本成就。
『論：前兩個剎那（Ksana，瞬間），直到以解脫道。』這說明了無間道（Anantarya-marga，無間道）和解脫道（Vimukti-marga，解脫道）的區別。也就是兩個無漏（Anasrava，無漏）和一個有漏（Sasrava，有漏）的三剎那心。先從無漏進入有漏，這是兩個剎那。如同無間道正在斷除障礙的緣故。第三個剎那從有漏進入無漏。因為已經斷除了障礙，所以如同解脫道。從無漏進入有漏容易，從有漏進入無漏困難，所以設立兩個無間道和一個解脫道。
『論：像這樣雜修，直到下三靜慮。』說明了先後順序。應該先修習第四禪，成就圓滿后才能修習下三靜慮。 問：由於雜修的緣故，有往生凈居天（Suddhavasa，凈居天）的不還者，有全超、半超等等。不知道見至（Drsti-prapta，見至）是否也有這些情況？答：也有。就是那些先前安住于信解種姓（Adhimukti，信解）的人，雜修靜慮，然後退失。他們害怕以後再次退失，於是修習練根，成為見至種姓。從欲界（Kama-dhatu，欲界）死後，生於**中。憑藉前後的能力雜修靜慮。所以六種姓都有上流。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Because of what is relied upon.' This answers with two reasons. The Abhidharmakosha says: 'Because they have been born before, they have accumulated extremely firm holy paths in their own continuums, and because they have obtained excellent dependent bodies.' Therefore, they have no reason to regress in their faculties.
'Question: What causes a learner to attain Parinirvana (complete Nirvana)?' This is a question.
'Answer: Because their holy path has reached a point where it cannot be further advanced.' This is a detailed answer. It can be understood as it is written.
'Discussion: The previous section discussed the upward flow and mixed cultivation of Dhyana (meditative absorption). The fifth verse below explains mixed cultivation of Dhyana.'
'Discussion: Reaching the most excellent state.' This explains the order of mixed cultivation. One must first cultivate the fourth Dhyana before cultivating the lower Dhyanas. Because the Samatha (calm abiding) and Vipassana (insight) of the four Dhyanas are balanced, it is called easy practice. The easy practice of the fourth Dhyana is the most excellent, so one should first cultivate that Dhyana.
'Discussion: Cultivating in this way, or a non-returner (Anagamin).' This explains the person who cultivates mixed Dhyana.
'Discussion: They must first enter, until the Prayoga (application) is complete.' This explains the accomplishment of the Prayoga of mixed cultivation.
'Discussion: Then only from, until the fundamental is complete.' This explains the fundamental accomplishment of mixed cultivation.
'Discussion: The first two Ksana (moments), until the path of liberation.' This explains the difference between the Anantarya-marga (path of immediate consequence) and the Vimukti-marga (path of liberation). That is, two Anasrava (untainted) and one Sasrava (tainted) moments of mind. First, from the Anasrava entering the Sasrava, these are two moments. It is like the Anantarya-marga directly cutting off obstacles. The third moment is from the Sasrava entering the Anasrava. Because the obstacles have been cut off, it is like the Vimukti-marga. It is easy to go from the Anasrava to the Sasrava, and difficult to go from the Sasrava to the Anasrava, so two Anantarya-margas and one Vimukti-marga are established.
'Discussion: Cultivating in this way, until the lower three Dhyanas.' This explains the order. One should first cultivate the fourth Dhyana, and after it is accomplished, then cultivate the lower three Dhyanas. Question: Because of mixed cultivation, there are non-returners who are born in the Suddhavasa (Pure Abodes), and there are those who completely transcend, half transcend, etc. I don't know if those who are Drsti-prapta (attained through vision) also have these situations? Answer: They also have them. That is, those who previously resided in the lineage of Adhimukti (faith-liberated), cultivated mixed Dhyana, and then regressed. They feared that they would regress again in the future, so they cultivated the strengthening of their faculties and became of the Drsti-prapta lineage. After dying in the Kama-dhatu (desire realm), they are born in . Relying on their previous and subsequent abilities, they cultivate mixed Dhyana. Therefore, all six lineages have upward flow.
。然無退生下三定者。
論。先於欲界至雜修靜慮。明先．後起 問此雜修定何法為體 答五蘊為體。然於此中婆沙正義。諸世俗智與四法．四類八智間雜而修。
論。雜修靜慮至起煩惱退。此明雜修所為意也。以三緣故雜修靜慮。
論。謂不還中至起煩惱退。明利．鈍不同。學．無學異具緣別也。
論。雜修靜慮為生凈居。下半頌。第六明凈居有五。
論曰至品差別故。分五品也。
論。此中初品至第五品十五。明成品也。一念無漏。一念有漏。一念無漏。此之三心初成滿時名為下品。重起三心名第二品。更起三心成第三品。四遍五遍重起三心。名第四品．第五品也。即是熏修力漸勝義。由此初三。二六。三九。四有十二。五十五也。
論。如是五品至令感凈居。明由果相屬雖有多心。然唯有漏感凈居也。
論。有餘師言至感五凈居。敘異說。由信增故感初凈居。乃至由慧增故感后凈居。正理論云。感五凈居。為由業力。為雜修力。若是業力。雜修靜慮則為唐捐。若雜修力。與品類足所說相違。如彼論說。雜修靜慮及由業故。生凈居天。諸所有處等名非異生法。乃至此中決定俱由二力。以隨闕一不生彼故。
論。經說不還有名身證。下半頌。第七明身證不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：然而，沒有從下三禪定退轉的情況。
論：先在欲界達到雜修靜慮（混合修習的禪定）。說明先生起和後起。 問：這種雜修定以什麼法為本體？ 答：以五蘊（色、受、想、行、識）為本體。然而，在此之中，《婆沙論》的正義是，各種世俗智慧與四法（法智、類智、他心智、世俗智）、四類（苦法智、集法智、滅法智、道法智）八智相互交雜而修習。
論：雜修靜慮直到生起煩惱退失。這說明雜修所要達到的目的。因為三種原因而雜修靜慮。
論：所謂不還者，直到生起煩惱退失。說明根器的利鈍不同，有學和無學不同，具備的因緣也有差別。
論：雜修靜慮是爲了往生凈居天（色界第四禪天的五凈居天）。下半頌。第六說明凈居天有五種。
論曰：因為品類的差別，所以分為五品。
論：這其中，初品直到第五品十五。說明成就的品級。一念無漏（沒有煩惱），一念有漏（有煩惱），一念無漏。這三種心最初成就圓滿時，稱為下品。重新生起三種心，名為第二品。再次生起三種心，成就第三品。四遍五遍重新生起三種心，名為第四品、第五品。這就是熏修的力量逐漸殊勝的含義。因此，最初是三，二是六，三是九，四有十二，五是十五。
論：像這樣五品，直到令眾生感得凈居天的果報。說明由於果報的相互關聯，雖然有很多心念，但只有有漏的業才能感得凈居天。
論：有其他論師說，直到感得五凈居天。敘述不同的說法。由於信心的增長，感得初禪凈居天。乃至由於智慧的增長，感得后禪凈居天。《正理論》說，感得五凈居天，是由業力所致，還是由雜修的力量所致？如果是業力所致，那麼雜修靜慮就白費功夫了。如果是雜修的力量所致，就與《品類足論》所說的相違背。如該論所說，雜修靜慮以及由於業的緣故，往生凈居天。所有這些地方等名稱不是異生法（凡夫的法），乃至這裡決定是由兩種力量共同作用。因為缺少任何一種力量都不能往生到那裡。
論：經中說不還者有名為身證。下半頌。第七說明身證不。
【English Translation】 English version: However, there is no regression from the lower three Dhyana（meditative states）.
Treatise: First, in the desire realm, one attains mixed cultivation of Samatha-vipassana（calm abiding and insight meditation）. This explains the prior and subsequent arising. Question: What Dharma（teachings or laws） is the substance of this mixed cultivation Samatha-vipassana? Answer: The five Skandhas（aggregates of existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness） are the substance. However, in this context, the correct meaning according to the Vibhasa（commentary） is that various mundane wisdoms are cultivated in conjunction with the four wisdoms (Dharma wisdom, inferential wisdom, wisdom of others' minds, and conventional wisdom) and the four categories (wisdom of suffering, wisdom of origin, wisdom of cessation, and wisdom of the path), totaling eight wisdoms.
Treatise: Mixed cultivation Samatha-vipassana until the arising of afflictions and regression. This explains the purpose of mixed cultivation. Mixed cultivation Samatha-vipassana is practiced for three reasons.
Treatise: The so-called Non-returner, until the arising of afflictions and regression. This explains the differences in sharpness and dullness of faculties, the differences between those still learning and those who have completed learning, and the differences in the conditions they possess.
Treatise: Mixed cultivation Samatha-vipassana is for being born in the Pure Abodes (Śuddhāvāsa). The second half of the verse. Sixth, it explains that there are five Pure Abodes.
Treatise says: Because of the differences in categories, they are divided into five grades.
Treatise: Among these, the first grade until the fifteenth of the fifth grade. This explains the grades of accomplishment. One moment of non-outflow (anāsrava, without defilements), one moment of outflow (sāsrava, with defilements), one moment of non-outflow. When these three minds are first accomplished and complete, it is called the lower grade. Re-arising three minds is called the second grade. Again arising three minds accomplishes the third grade. Four times and five times re-arising three minds are called the fourth grade and the fifth grade. This is the meaning of the power of cultivation gradually becoming superior. Therefore, the first is three, the second is six, the third is nine, the fourth has twelve, and the fifth is fifteen.
Treatise: Like these five grades, until they cause one to experience the result of the Pure Abodes. It explains that although there are many thoughts due to the mutual relationship of results, only defiled karma can cause one to experience the Pure Abodes.
Treatise: Some teachers say, until one experiences the five Pure Abodes. Narrating different views. Due to the increase of faith, one experiences the first Pure Abode. And so on, due to the increase of wisdom, one experiences the later Pure Abodes. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra（Treatise on Following the Right Principle） says, experiencing the five Pure Abodes, is it due to the power of karma or the power of mixed cultivation? If it is due to the power of karma, then mixed cultivation Samatha-vipassana is in vain. If it is due to the power of mixed cultivation, it contradicts what is said in the Dharmaskandha（Collection of Factors）. As that treatise says, mixed cultivation Samatha-vipassana and due to karma, one is born in the Pure Abode heavens. All these places and names are not the Dharma of ordinary beings, and even here it is determined that it is due to the combined power of both. Because lacking either one, one cannot be born there.
Treatise: The Sutra says that the Non-returner is also called a body-witness (kāya-sākṣin). The second half of the verse. Seventh, it explains that the body-witness does not.
還。
論曰至故名身證。即不還果具八解脫。以身中有滅盡定得。轉名身證。由身證得似涅槃法故名身證。
論。如何說彼但名身證。問。如何說彼不名心證。但名身證。
論。以心無故依身生故。答。以心無故不名心證。以滅定得依身生故名為身證。婆沙五十三。問何故名身證。答以身證八解脫。未以慧盡諸漏故名身證。問何故名慧解脫。答由彼以慧盡諸漏。未以身證八解脫故。
論。理實應言至身寂靜故。論主正前釋。理實應言。彼不還人從滅定起初起之時。得先未得唯有識心而身寂靜。便作是思惟。此滅盡定最為寂靜。極似涅槃。如是思慧及身。證得身之寂靜故名身證。此是由起得證身寂靜。及智現前。證得身寂靜故。故名身證。
論。契經說有至不說身證。問也。正理論云。謂世尊告給孤獨言。長者當知。福田有二。一者有學。二者無學。有學十八。無學唯九 何等十八。四向．三果．隨信．隨法行．信解脫．見至．家家．一間．中般．生般．有行．無行．上流 九種無學。六種姓．不退法．慧解脫．俱解脫。
論。依因無故至說有學差別。答也 依因。無漏法。立學及無學人 滅定。有漏。非學非無學故。非是因 身證雖立別人。無依因故。佛不別說為福田。正理論
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 還（Anāgāmin，不還果）：
論曰：至於稱為『身證』(Kāyasākṣin，以身證得者)，是指不還果位的人具備八解脫(Aṣṭavimokṣa)。因為他們以身證得滅盡定(Nirodhasamāpatti)，所以轉而被稱為『身證』。由於以身證得類似於涅槃(Nirvāṇa)的法，所以稱為『身證』。
論：為什麼說他們僅僅被稱為『身證』？ 問：為什麼說他們不被稱為『心證』，而僅僅被稱為『身證』？
論：因為心沒有（作用），依靠身體而生起（滅盡定）。 答：因為心沒有（作用），所以不被稱為『心證』。因為通過滅盡定而獲得，並且依靠身體而生起（滅盡定），所以稱為『身證』。《婆沙論》(Vibhāṣā)第五十三卷說：『為什麼稱為『身證』？』回答說：『因為他們以身證得八解脫，但尚未以智慧斷盡諸漏(Āsrava)，所以稱為『身證』。』問：『為什麼稱為『慧解脫』(Prajñāvimukta)？』回答說：『因為他們以智慧斷盡諸漏，但尚未以身證得八解脫。』
論：實際上應該說……因為身體寂靜的緣故。 論主正確地解釋了前面的內容：實際上應該說，那些不還果位的人從滅盡定中起身，最初起身的時候，獲得先前未曾獲得的唯有識的心，而身體是寂靜的。他們便這樣思惟：『這滅盡定最為寂靜，極其類似於涅槃。』像這樣的思惟以及身體，證得了身體的寂靜，所以稱為『身證』。這是由於從滅盡定起身而證得身體的寂靜，以及智慧現前，證得身體的寂靜的緣故，所以稱為『身證』。
論：契經(Sūtra)說有……但沒有說『身證』。 問：也是。《正理論》(Abhidharmakośabhāṣya)說：世尊(Bhagavān)告訴給孤獨(Anāthapiṇḍika)長者說：『長者，你應該知道，福田(Puṇyakṣetra)有兩種：一種是有學(Śaikṣa)，一種是無學(Aśaikṣa)。有學有十八種，無學只有九種。』什麼是十八種有學呢？四向(Catvāri Pratipattimārgāḥ，四種趣向果位的修行者)、三果(Trīṇi Phalāni，三種果位)、隨信行(Śraddhānusārin，隨信仰而行者)、隨法行(Dharmānusārin，隨法而行者)、信解脫(Śraddhāvimukta，由信仰而解脫者)、見至(Dṛṣṭiprāpta，以見證而達到者)、家家(Kolaṃkola，一家家者，指須陀洹果，還要經歷二三生才能證阿羅漢果者)、一間(Ekavīcika，一間者，指須陀洹果，還要經歷一生才能證阿羅漢果者)、中般(Antarāparinirvāyin，中般涅槃者，指在臨終前入滅者)、生般(Upapadya Parinirvāyin，生般涅槃者，指在來世入滅者)、有行(Sasaṃkhāra，有行者，指需要努力才能入滅者)、無行(Asaṃkhāra，無行者，指不需要努力就能入滅者)、上流(Ūrdhvasrotas，上流者，指從色界到無色界，不斷向上投生者)。九種無學是：六種姓(Ṣaḍ Gotrāṇi，六種阿羅漢的姓)、不退法(Avinipātadharman，不退轉者)、慧解脫(Prajñāvimukta，以智慧解脫者)、俱解脫(Ubhayatobhāgavimukta，俱解脫者)。
論：因為沒有所依之因……所以（佛）沒有說有學的差別。 答：也是。所依之因，是指無漏法(Anāsrava-dharma)。建立有學和無學的人，是因為滅盡定是有漏(Sāsrava)的，既非有學也非無學，所以不是（建立有學和無學的）原因。身證雖然可以建立為不同的人，但因為沒有所依之因，所以佛沒有特別說他們是福田。《正理論》如是說。
【English Translation】 English version: Anāgāmin (Non-Returner):
Treatise says: As for being called 'Kāyasākṣin' (one who attains through the body), it refers to those in the Anāgāmin stage who possess the eight liberations (Aṣṭavimokṣa). Because they attain cessation through the body (Nirodhasamāpatti), they are thus referred to as 'Kāyasākṣin'. Because they attain a state similar to Nirvāṇa through the body, they are called 'Kāyasākṣin'.
Treatise: Why are they said to be only called 'Kāyasākṣin'? Question: Why are they not called 'Cittasākṣin' (one who attains through the mind), but only called 'Kāyasākṣin'?
Treatise: Because the mind is absent, and (cessation) arises relying on the body. Answer: Because the mind is absent, they are not called 'Cittasākṣin'. Because it is attained through cessation, and (cessation) arises relying on the body, they are called 'Kāyasākṣin'. The Vibhāṣā, volume 53, says: 'Why are they called 'Kāyasākṣin'?' The answer is: 'Because they attain the eight liberations through the body, but have not yet exhausted all the outflows (Āsrava) through wisdom, they are called 'Kāyasākṣin'.' Question: 'Why are they called 'Prajñāvimukta' (liberated by wisdom)?' The answer is: 'Because they exhaust all the outflows through wisdom, but have not yet attained the eight liberations through the body.'
Treatise: In reality, it should be said... because the body is tranquil. The treatise master correctly explains the preceding content: In reality, it should be said that those in the Anāgāmin stage, when arising from cessation, at the very beginning of arising, attain a mind that is only consciousness, which they had not attained before, while the body is tranquil. They then contemplate thus: 'This cessation is the most tranquil, extremely similar to Nirvāṇa.' Such contemplation and the body, having attained the tranquility of the body, are called 'Kāyasākṣin'. This is because of attaining the tranquility of the body upon arising from cessation, and because wisdom is present, attaining the tranquility of the body, hence they are called 'Kāyasākṣin'.
Treatise: The Sūtra says there are... but does not mention 'Kāyasākṣin'. Question: Indeed. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: The Bhagavan told the elder Anāthapiṇḍika: 'Elder, you should know that there are two kinds of fields of merit (Puṇyakṣetra): one is the Śaikṣa (learner), and the other is the Aśaikṣa (no-learner). There are eighteen kinds of Śaikṣa, and only nine kinds of Aśaikṣa.' What are the eighteen kinds of Śaikṣa? The four paths (Catvāri Pratipattimārgāḥ, four types of practitioners approaching the fruition), the three fruits (Trīṇi Phalāni, three types of fruition), the follower of faith (Śraddhānusārin), the follower of Dharma (Dharmānusārin), the liberated by faith (Śraddhāvimukta), the attained by sight (Dṛṣṭiprāpta), Kolamkola (one who goes from family to family, referring to a stream-enterer who still has to experience two or three more lives to attain Arhatship), Ekavīcika (one with one interval, referring to a stream-enterer who still has to experience one more life to attain Arhatship), Antarāparinirvāyin (one who attains Nirvāṇa in between, referring to one who enters extinction before death), Upapadya Parinirvāyin (one who attains Nirvāṇa upon rebirth, referring to one who enters extinction in the next life), Sasaṃkhāra (one with effort, referring to one who needs effort to enter extinction), Asaṃkhāra (one without effort, referring to one who does not need effort to enter extinction), Ūrdhvasrotas (one who goes upstream, referring to one who is reborn upwards from the form realm to the formless realm). The nine kinds of Aśaikṣa are: the six lineages (Ṣaḍ Gotrāṇi, six lineages of Arhats), the one of non-regression (Avinipātadharman, one who does not regress), the liberated by wisdom (Prajñāvimukta), the liberated in both ways (Ubhayatobhāgavimukta).'
Treatise: Because there is no dependent cause... therefore (the Buddha) did not speak of the differences of the Śaikṣa. Answer: Indeed. The dependent cause refers to the unconditioned Dharma (Anāsrava-dharma). Establishing the Śaikṣa and Aśaikṣa is because cessation is conditioned (Sāsrava), neither Śaikṣa nor Aśaikṣa, therefore it is not the reason (for establishing the Śaikṣa and Aśaikṣa). Although Kāyasākṣin can be established as different people, because there is no dependent cause, the Buddha did not specifically say that they are fields of merit. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says thus.
云。以佛觀見有學．無學。由斷及根有殊勝故。能生勝果名為福田。然諸不還所得滅定是有漏故。不可說言自性解脫故名清凈。彼所依身猶有煩惱未永斷故。不可說言相續解脫故名清凈。故不約成彼立有學福田。無學位中有漏功德。雖非自性解脫所收。相續解脫故名清凈。由此亦能生殊勝果。是故約定及根差別。說九應果皆名福田(述曰由此有學不取身證。無學取俱解脫也)。
論。不還差別至數成多千。以根．地諸德分別。
論。其義云何。問也。
論。且如中般至五百九十二。明乘數也。
論。云何如是。問成二千等所以。
論。且於一處至九百六十。已下乘成數也。五種不還總成一萬二千九百六十差別不同人也。
論。已辨第三向果差別。已下大文第三明無學道 于中有五。一無學向果。二諸門辨道。三盡等相生。四明諸道果。五六種羅漢。此兩行頌第一門也。
論曰至阿羅漢向。明第四向。從斷初禪惑至非想第九無間。總是第四果．向。第九無間道別明金剛定。所以但言至八品也。
論。即此所說至最為勝故。釋定名也。此定堅銳。喻若金剛。無一隨眠不能破故。先已破故不破一切。猶如大明能破細闇。亦能破粗非唯破細。若為小明先已破故。唯破于細不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：云：以佛的智慧觀察，有學（Śaikṣa，還在學習的修行者）和無學（Arhat，已完成學習的修行者），由於斷除煩惱的程度和根基不同，能夠產生殊勝的果報，因此被稱為福田（Puṇyakṣetra，積功德的田地）。然而，那些不還者（Anāgāmin，不再返回欲界的修行者）所獲得的滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti，一種止息所有心識活動的禪定）是有漏的（Sāsrava，仍有煩惱殘留），因此不能說其自性解脫，所以不能稱為清凈。他們所依止的身體仍然有煩惱沒有徹底斷除，因此不能說其相續解脫，所以不能稱為清凈。因此，不以成就彼者為標準來建立有學福田。無學位的修行者所具有的有漏功德，雖然不是自性解脫所包含的，但因為是相續解脫，所以稱為清凈。由此也能產生殊勝的果報。因此，根據禪定和根基的差別，說九種應果（指預流果到阿羅漢果的九個階段）都稱為福田（這裡說明有學不取身證，無學取俱解脫）。
論：不還者的差別，乃至數量達到成千上萬，是因為根基、所處的地（Bhūmi，指禪定的層次）以及各種功德的不同而區分的。
論：其含義是什麼？這是提問。
論：例如，中般（Antarāparinirvāyin，中般涅槃者，指在死後中陰階段證得涅槃的不還者）乃至有五百九十二種。這是說明乘（Yāna，交通工具，比喻修行方法）的數量。
論：為什麼會這樣？這是提問為什麼會成就二千等數量。
論：例如，在一個地方乃至有九百六十種。以下是說明乘所成就的數量。五種不還者總共有12960種差別，指不同的人。
論：已經辨明了第三向果（指不還向和不還果）的差別。以下是大的科判，第三部分說明無學道，其中有五個方面：一、無學向果；二、諸門辨道；三、盡等相生；四、說明諸道果；五、六種阿羅漢。這兩行頌是第一方面。
論曰：乃至阿羅漢向（Arhattva-pratipannaka，趣向阿羅漢果的修行者），說明第四向（指阿羅漢向）。從斷除初禪的迷惑，乃至非想非非想處的第九無間道（指金剛喻定），都是第四果（指阿羅漢果）和阿羅漢向。第九無間道特別說明金剛定（Vajropama-samādhi，像金剛一樣堅固銳利的禪定）。所以只說達到第八品（指八地菩薩），是因為金剛喻定能斷除一切煩惱。
論：就是這裡所說的，乃至最為殊勝的緣故。這是解釋金剛定的名稱。此定堅固銳利，比喻像金剛一樣，沒有一種隨眠（Anuśaya，煩惱的潛在形式）不能破除。先前已經破除了煩惱，所以不是破除一切煩惱。猶如大的光明能夠破除細微的黑暗，也能破除粗重的黑暗，不是隻能破除細微的黑暗。如果是小的光明，先前已經破除了細微的黑暗，所以只能破除細微的黑暗。
【English Translation】 English version: Cloud: With the Buddha's wisdom, observing the Śaikṣa (those still learning) and Arhat (those who have completed learning), due to the differences in the degree and foundation of eliminating afflictions, they can produce superior results, therefore they are called Puṇyakṣetra (fields of merit). However, the Nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment) obtained by the Anāgāmin (non-returners) is Sāsrava (with outflows), so it cannot be said to be self-liberated, therefore it cannot be called pure. The body they rely on still has afflictions that have not been completely eliminated, so it cannot be said to be continuously liberated, therefore it cannot be called pure. Therefore, the Śaikṣa field of merit is not established based on the attainment of that state. The Sāsrava merits possessed by those in the state of Arhat, although not included in self-liberation, are called pure because they are continuously liberated. From this, superior results can also be produced. Therefore, based on the differences in samādhi and foundation, it is said that the nine stages of the fruit of Arhat (referring to the nine stages from Stream-enterer to Arhat) are all called fields of merit (this explains that the Śaikṣa does not take body-witness, and the Arhat takes both liberation).
Treatise: The differences among the Anāgāmin, even to the point of reaching thousands, are distinguished by differences in foundation, Bhūmi (levels of samādhi), and various merits.
Treatise: What is the meaning of this? This is a question.
Treatise: For example, the Antarāparinirvāyin (one who attains Nirvāṇa in the intermediate state after death) has as many as 592 types. This explains the number of Yāna (vehicles, metaphors for practice methods).
Treatise: Why is it like this? This is asking why the number of attainments reaches 2,000, etc.
Treatise: For example, in one place, there are as many as 960 types. The following explains the number of attainments achieved by the Yāna. There are a total of 12,960 differences among the five types of Anāgāmin, referring to different people.
Treatise: The differences between the third path and fruit (referring to the Anāgāmi-mārga and Anāgāmi-phala) have already been distinguished. The following is a large section, the third part explaining the path of the Arhat, which has five aspects: 1. The path and fruit of the Arhat; 2. Discriminating the path through various gates; 3. The arising of cessation, etc.; 4. Explaining the fruits of the various paths; 5. The six types of Arhat. These two lines of verse are the first aspect.
Treatise says: Up to the Arhattva-pratipannaka (one who has entered the path of Arhat), explains the fourth path (referring to the Arhat-mārga). From cutting off the delusion of the first Dhyāna, up to the ninth uninterrupted path of neither perception nor non-perception (referring to the Vajropama-samādhi), all are the fourth fruit (referring to the Arhat-phala) and the path of the Arhat. The ninth uninterrupted path specifically explains the Vajropama-samādhi (diamond-like samādhi). The reason for only saying reaching the eighth stage (referring to the eighth Bhūmi of a Bodhisattva) is that the Vajropama-samādhi can cut off all afflictions.
Treatise: That is, what is said here, even because it is the most superior. This explains the name of the Vajropama-samādhi. This samādhi is firm and sharp, like a diamond, and there is no Anuśaya (latent form of affliction) that it cannot break. It has already broken afflictions before, so it does not break all afflictions. Just as great light can break subtle darkness, it can also break coarse darkness, not just subtle darkness. If it is small light, it has already broken subtle darkness before, so it can only break subtle darkness.
破粗也。一切惑中。非想修斷第九品惑最細難斷。此無間道既斷此惑。故知一切無間道中。此無間道名為最勝 問非想見惑九地中亦是最細。見道能斷應喻金剛 答彼九品惑可一品斷。故知彼惑勢力微劣。見道既為劣惑喻對治。知非能破一切隨眠。若有破能。見道起時。何礙不破自余煩惱。故彼不得金剛喻名。又諸惑中無事易斷。見道治彼。知非極上。由此不立金剛喻名。
論。金剛喻定至通依九地。明定多種。此定以四類智滅．道法智。此六智中隨一現前。及十六行中隨一現前。然緣苦．集諦唯以非想地蘊為所緣。滅．道法智唯緣欲界滅．道。此上所說更無異論 然滅．道類智說有差別 一說諸地道唯總無別。滅唯別緣無總緣 二說諸地道及滅皆別緣 三說諸地道總緣。滅總．別緣。由此不同成其多種。
論故說此定至有五十二。此初師結一地數也。
論。謂苦．集類智至相應有八。釋苦．集智必緣有頂所以。唯緣有頂斷有頂惑故。苦．集是厭行。不可厭下斷上惑故。
論。滅．道法智至相應有八。釋滅．道法智八行。皆能斷非想惑所以。緣下滅．道斷上惑者。緣下滅．道勝上地故。
論。滅類智至合三十二。釋滅許別緣也。緣八地滅。一一各有四行相應。合三十二。滅諸地斷故。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『破粗也』(Pocuye)：在所有煩惱中，『非想修斷』(Feixiang xiuduan)的第九品煩惱最為細微難以斷除。這個『無間道』(wujian dao)既然能斷除這種煩惱，因此可知在所有『無間道』(wujian dao)中，這個『無間道』(wujian dao)被稱為最殊勝的。 問：『非想見惑』(Feixiang jianhuo)在九地中也是最細微的，『見道』(jian dao)能夠斷除它，應該比喻為金剛。 答：那九品煩惱可以一品一品地斷除，因此可知那些煩惱的勢力微弱。『見道』(jian dao)既然是針對微弱煩惱的比喻對治，可知它不能破除一切隨眠。如果它有破除能力，『見道』(jian dao)生起時，為什麼不能破除其餘煩惱？因此它不能得到金剛的比喻名稱。而且在所有煩惱中，沒有比『見道』(jian dao)更容易斷除的，『見道』(jian dao)對治它們，可知它不是最極上的。因此不建立金剛的比喻名稱。
論：『金剛喻定』(jingangyu ding)到達通，依靠九地。說明禪定有多種。這個禪定以四類智滅、道法智。這六智中，隨一現前，以及十六行中隨一現前。然而緣苦、集諦，唯以『非想地蘊』(Feixiang diyun)為所緣。滅、道法智唯緣欲界滅、道。以上所說更沒有不同議論。 然而滅、道類智的說法有差別：一說諸地道唯總無別，滅唯別緣無總緣；二說諸地道及滅皆別緣；三說諸地道總緣，滅總、別緣。由此不同成就多種。
論：所以說這個禪定達到有五十二。這是初師總結一地之數。
論：所謂苦、集類智，直到相應有八。解釋苦、集智必定緣有頂的原因。唯緣有頂，斷有頂惑的緣故。苦、集是厭行，不可厭下斷上惑的緣故。
論：滅、道法智，直到相應有八。解釋滅、道法智八行，都能斷『非想惑』(Feixiang huo)的原因。緣下滅、道斷上惑的原因是，緣下滅、道勝過上地的緣故。
論：滅類智，直到合三十二。解釋滅允許別緣。緣八地滅，一一各有四行相應，合三十二。滅諸地斷的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version 'Pocuye': Among all afflictions, the ninth grade of afflictions to be severed by cultivation in the 'Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception' (Feixiang xiuduan) is the most subtle and difficult to sever. Since this 'Path of Immediate Consecution' (wujian dao) can sever this affliction, it is known that among all 'Paths of Immediate Consecution' (wujian dao), this 'Path of Immediate Consecution' (wujian dao) is called the most supreme. Question: The 'Delusion of Views in the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception' (Feixiang jianhuo) is also the most subtle in the Nine Grounds. The 'Path of Seeing' (jian dao) can sever it, so it should be compared to a diamond. Answer: Those nine grades of afflictions can be severed one grade at a time, so it is known that the power of those afflictions is weak. Since the 'Path of Seeing' (jian dao) is a metaphor for the antidote to weak afflictions, it is known that it cannot destroy all latent tendencies. If it had the ability to destroy, when the 'Path of Seeing' (jian dao) arises, why wouldn't it destroy the remaining afflictions? Therefore, it cannot obtain the name of the diamond metaphor. Moreover, among all afflictions, there is nothing easier to sever than those severed by the 'Path of Seeing' (jian dao). Since the 'Path of Seeing' (jian dao) treats them, it is known that it is not the most supreme. Therefore, the diamond metaphor name is not established.
Treatise: The 'Diamond-like Samadhi' (jingangyu ding) reaches penetration, relying on the Nine Grounds. It explains that there are many kinds of samadhi. This samadhi uses the Four Kinds of Wisdom of Extinction and the Wisdom of the Dharma of the Path. Among these six wisdoms, any one may appear, as well as any one of the Sixteen Aspects. However, when contemplating the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of Accumulation, it only takes the 'Aggregates of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception' (Feixiang diyun) as its object. The Wisdom of Extinction and the Wisdom of the Dharma of the Path only contemplate the Extinction and the Path of the Desire Realm. There are no further different opinions on what has been said above. However, there are differences in the explanation of the Wisdom of Extinction and the Wisdom of the Path: One says that the Paths of all Grounds are only general and not specific, and Extinction is only specifically conditioned and not generally conditioned; the second says that the Paths and Extinction of all Grounds are all specifically conditioned; the third says that the Paths of all Grounds are generally conditioned, and Extinction is both generally and specifically conditioned. These differences lead to many kinds.
Treatise: Therefore, it is said that this samadhi reaches fifty-two. This is the initial teacher's conclusion of the number of one ground.
Treatise: The so-called Wisdom of Suffering and the Wisdom of Accumulation, until there are eight corresponding. It explains the reason why the Wisdom of Suffering and the Wisdom of Accumulation must be conditioned by the Peak of Existence. It is only conditioned by the Peak of Existence because it severs the afflictions of the Peak of Existence. Suffering and Accumulation are practices of aversion, so it is impossible to use aversion to the lower to sever the afflictions of the higher.
Treatise: The Wisdom of Extinction and the Wisdom of the Dharma of the Path, until there are eight corresponding. It explains the reason why the eight aspects of the Wisdom of Extinction and the Wisdom of the Dharma of the Path can all sever the 'Afflictions of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception' (Feixiang huo). The reason for conditioning the Extinction and the Path of the lower to sever the afflictions of the higher is that conditioning the Extinction and the Path of the lower surpasses the higher ground.
Treatise: The Wisdom of Extinction, until it combines to thirty-two. It explains that Extinction is allowed to be specifically conditioned. It is conditioned by the Extinction of the eight grounds, each with four corresponding aspects, combining to thirty-two. It is because it extinguishes the severing of all grounds.
無因果故。如隨眠品說。由此諸地唯別無總。
論。道類智至必總緣故。釋道必總緣也。緣八地道總有四行相應有四。以治八地類智品道同類相因必總緣故。緣滅唯別。緣道即不爾。以類同故。互相因故。
論。如未至攝至應知亦爾。類釋餘五地以緣境同故數亦不異。
論。空處二十八至互為因故。釋上三地數漸減也。無色不緣下地。故無法智除八行也。不緣四靜慮滅。又餘十六行總除二十四行。由此唯有二十八。識處更減四行。二十四。無所有處更減識處四。所以唯二十。
論。有說此定至增二十八。第二師釋。有八十種。此師八地道別緣故。加前二十八行有八十也。
論。如未至應知亦爾。類釋餘五地也。
論。空處四十至二十四。明無色漸減。空處無二法智。及除四滅．四道。總十諦一一有四故除四十。識處減八。謂滅．道各四故三十二。無所有處又更除八。故二十四也。
論。復有欲令至增百一十二。第三師說。此師除滅與初師同。緣滅有異。許總別緣故。別緣如前。總緣者兩兩合成七。三三合成六。四四合成五。五五合成四。六六合成三。七七合成二。八地合緣成一。總有二十八諦。諦有四行。總計一百一十二行。加初五十二。總有一百六十四。此一百六十四
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為沒有因果關係。正如《隨眠品》所說。因此，各個地（bhumi）的境界是各自獨立的，沒有總括性的聯繫。
論：道類智（dharmajñāna-kṣānti）乃至必定總括地緣故。解釋了道類智必定總括地緣的道理。緣於八地（aṣṭabhūmika）的道，總共有四種行相（ākāra）相應，共有四種。爲了對治八地的類智品道（jñāna-kṣānti-mārga），同類相因，必定總括地緣故。緣于滅（nirodha）是各自獨立的。緣于道則不是這樣。因為種類相同，互相為因的緣故。
論：如未至定（anāgamya-samāpatti）所攝，乃至應知也是這樣。類比解釋其餘五地，因為所緣的境界相同，所以數量也沒有差異。
論：空無邊處定（ākāśānantyāyatana-samāpatti）二十八，乃至互相為因的緣故。解釋了上三地（無色界）的數量逐漸減少的原因。無色界（ārūpyadhātu）不緣下地（adhastādbhūmi），所以沒有法智（dharmajñāna），去除了八種行相。不緣四靜慮滅（catasraḥ dhyāna-nirodha）。又其餘十六種行相總共去除了二十四種行相。因此只有二十八種。識無邊處定（vijñānānantyāyatana-samāpatti）又減少了四種行相，剩下二十四種。無所有處定（ākiṃcanyāyatana-samāpatti）又減少了識無邊處定的四種行相，所以只有二十種。
論：有人說此定乃至增加二十八。第二位論師的解釋。有八十種。這位論師認為八地的道是分別緣的緣故。加上前面的二十八種行相，共有八十種。
論：如未至定應知也是這樣。類比解釋其餘五地。
論：空無邊處四十，乃至二十四。闡明了無色界逐漸減少的情況。空無邊處沒有二法智，以及去除了四滅（catasraḥ nirodha）、四道（catvāraḥ mārga）。總共十諦（satya），每一諦有四種行相，所以去除了四十種。識無邊處減少了八種，即滅、道各有四種，所以是三十二種。無所有處又去除了八種，所以是二十四種。
論：又有人想要乃至增加一百一十二。第三位論師說。這位論師去除滅與第一位論師相同。緣滅有所不同。允許總緣和別緣的緣故。別緣如前所述。總緣是指兩兩合成七，三三合成六，四四合成五，五五合成四，六六合成三，七七合成二，八地合緣成一。總共有二十八諦。每一諦有四種行相。總計一百一十二種行相。加上最初的五十二種，總共有一百六十四種。這一百六十四種
【English Translation】 English version: Because there is no cause and effect. As stated in the 'Chapter on Latent Afflictions' (Sui眠品). Therefore, the realms of each ground (bhumi) are independent and have no overarching connection.
Treatise: The Knowledge of the Dharma in the Category of the Path (dharmajñāna-kṣānti) necessarily encompasses all grounds. This explains the reason why the Knowledge of the Dharma in the Category of the Path necessarily encompasses all grounds. When contemplating the Path in the Eight Grounds (aṣṭabhūmika), there are a total of four aspects (ākāra) in correspondence, making a total of four. In order to counteract the Knowledge of the Dharma in the Category of the Path in the Eight Grounds (jñāna-kṣānti-mārga), due to the similarity of causes, it necessarily encompasses all grounds. Contemplating cessation (nirodha) is independent. Contemplating the Path is not like this, because the categories are the same and they are mutually causal.
Treatise: Just as with the Attainment of the Non-Returner (anāgamya-samāpatti), it should be understood that it is the same. This analogously explains the remaining five grounds, because the objects of contemplation are the same, so the numbers are also not different.
Treatise: The Emptiness of Infinite Space (ākāśānantyāyatana-samāpatti) has twenty-eight, and so on, because they are mutually causal. This explains why the numbers of the upper three grounds (the Formless Realm) gradually decrease. The Formless Realm (ārūpyadhātu) does not contemplate the lower grounds (adhastādbhūmi), so there is no Knowledge of the Dharma (dharmajñāna), and eight aspects are removed. It does not contemplate the cessation of the four dhyanas (catasraḥ dhyāna-nirodha). Furthermore, the remaining sixteen aspects are removed, totaling twenty-four aspects. Therefore, there are only twenty-eight. The Infinity of Consciousness (vijñānānantyāyatana-samāpatti) further reduces four aspects, leaving twenty-four. The Nothingness (ākiṃcanyāyatana-samāpatti) further reduces four aspects from the Infinity of Consciousness, so there are only twenty.
Treatise: Some say that this samadhi increases by twenty-eight. This is the explanation of the second teacher. There are eighty types. This teacher believes that the paths of the eight grounds are contemplated separately. Adding the previous twenty-eight aspects, there are eighty in total.
Treatise: Just as with the Attainment of the Non-Returner, it should be understood that it is the same. This analogously explains the remaining five grounds.
Treatise: The Emptiness of Infinite Space has forty, and so on, down to twenty-four. This clarifies the gradual reduction in the Formless Realm. The Emptiness of Infinite Space does not have the two Knowledges of the Dharma, and it removes the four cessations (catasraḥ nirodha) and the four paths (catvāraḥ mārga). In total, there are ten truths (satya), and each truth has four aspects, so forty are removed. The Infinity of Consciousness reduces eight, namely four each for cessation and path, so there are thirty-two. The Nothingness further removes eight, so there are twenty-four.
Treatise: Furthermore, some want to increase by one hundred and twelve. This is according to the third teacher. This teacher removes cessation in the same way as the first teacher. There is a difference in contemplating cessation. It allows for both general and specific contemplation. Specific contemplation is as described earlier. General contemplation refers to combining two by two to make seven, three by three to make six, four by four to make five, five by five to make four, six by six to make three, seven by seven to make two, and the eight grounds combined to contemplate as one. In total, there are twenty-eight truths. Each truth has four aspects. In total, there are one hundred and twelve aspects. Adding the initial fifty-two, there are a total of one hundred and sixty-four. These one hundred and sixty-four
。必不併生。隨一現起。
論。如未至攝至應知亦然。類釋餘五地。緣境同故。同一百六十四也。
論。空處五十二至無所有處二十四。釋無色也。空處唯緣四地滅。總別十諦四十行。道類四行。苦．集八行。總五十二。識處緣三地滅。總別六諦二十四行。苦．集．道類十二行。合有三十六。無所有處緣二地滅。總別有三諦十二行。苦．集．道類十二行。總二十四也 總九地有一千九十六金剛喻定不同。隨依一種皆能斷非想第九品惑 問三說中何說為正 答正理論云。彼俱非理。道必總緣。滅唯別緣。前已辨故 道必總緣。破第二師滅唯別緣故破第三師。即是初說為正。婆沙二十八評云。如是說者。依未至定有百六十四金剛喻定 準此。即是第三為正。即是婆沙許總別緣滅。正理唯別緣。論意各別不可和會。
論。若就種姓至如理應思。且就一人分別。依其後說。有一千九十六金剛喻定。若就種姓又成六倍。如是根等分別如理應思。
論。此定既能至盡智令起。明金剛喻定引生盡智。
論。金剛喻定至故名盡智。釋盡智名。由與諸盡得最初生故。名為盡智。
論如是盡智至得無學名。釋無學也。為得別果。所應學者名為有學。諸阿羅漢雖為得利根及諸功德。有所應學。然無為得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不會同時生起，而是隨其中一個現起。
論：如果未至定和攝定，應該知道也是這樣。用類似的方法解釋其餘五地，因為所緣的境界相同，都是一百六十四個。
論：空無邊處五十二個，到無所有處二十四個。這是解釋無色界。空無邊處只緣四地的滅，總別十諦四十行，道類四行，苦、集八行，總共五十二個。識無邊處緣三地的滅，總別六諦二十四行，苦、集、道類十二行，合起來有三十六個。無所有處緣二地的滅，總別有三諦十二行，苦、集、道類十二行，總共二十四個。總共九地有一千零九十六個金剛喻定不同，隨便依靠一種都能斷非想非非想處天的第九品惑。問：三種說法中哪種說法是正確的？答：正理論說，它們都不合理。道必須總緣，滅只能別緣，前面已經辨析過了。道必須總緣，破斥第二種說法；滅只能別緣，破斥第三種說法。也就是說第一種說法是正確的。《婆沙》第二十八卷評論說：『這樣說的人，依據未至定有一百六十四個金剛喻定。』按照這個說法，就是第三種說法是正確的。也就是說，《婆沙》允許總別緣滅，而《正理論》只允許別緣。論的意義各自不同，無法調和。
論：如果就種姓來說，到應該如理思維。暫且就一個人來分別，依據後面的說法，有一千零九十六個金剛喻定。如果就種姓來說，又成了六倍。像根等分別，應該如理思維。
論：這個定既然能夠到盡智生起，說明金剛喻定能夠引生盡智。
論：金剛喻定到所以叫做盡智。解釋盡智的名稱。因為與諸漏盡得到最初的生起，所以叫做盡智。
論：像這樣盡智到得到無學之名。解釋無學。爲了得到別的果，所應該學習的叫做有學。諸阿羅漢雖然爲了得到利根以及各種功德，有所應該學習，但是沒有爲了得到
【English Translation】 English version: They will not arise simultaneously, but rather one of them will arise at a time.
Treatise: If it is the case for the Near Attainment Samadhi (未至定) and the Acquired Samadhi (攝定), it should be known that it is the same. Explain the remaining five grounds in a similar way, because the objects they cognize are the same, all being one hundred and sixty-four.
Treatise: The Sphere of Infinite Space (空無邊處) has fifty-two, up to the Sphere of No-Thingness (無所有處) which has twenty-four. This explains the Formless Realm. The Sphere of Infinite Space only conditions the cessation of the four grounds, with a total of forty practices for the ten truths in general and specific aspects, four practices for the Path category, and eight practices for Suffering and Accumulation, totaling fifty-two. The Sphere of Infinite Consciousness (識無邊處) conditions the cessation of the three grounds, with a total of twenty-four practices for the six truths in general and specific aspects, and twelve practices for Suffering, Accumulation, and the Path category, totaling thirty-six. The Sphere of No-Thingness conditions the cessation of the two grounds, with a total of twelve practices for the three truths in general and specific aspects, and twelve practices for Suffering, Accumulation, and the Path category, totaling twenty-four. In total, the nine grounds have one thousand and ninety-six different Vajra-like Samadhis (金剛喻定), and relying on any one of them can sever the ninth grade of delusion in the Realm of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception (非想非非想處天). Question: Among the three explanations, which one is correct? Answer: The Treatise on Right Reason (正理論) says that none of them are reasonable. The Path must condition all aspects, while Cessation can only condition specific aspects, as has been discussed earlier. The Path must condition all aspects, refuting the second explanation; Cessation can only condition specific aspects, refuting the third explanation. That is to say, the first explanation is correct. The Vibhasa (婆沙) comments in the twenty-eighth chapter: 'Those who say this, based on the Near Attainment Samadhi, have one hundred and sixty-four Vajra-like Samadhis.' According to this, the third explanation is correct. That is to say, the Vibhasa allows both general and specific conditioning of Cessation, while the Treatise on Right Reason only allows specific conditioning. The meanings of the treatises are different and cannot be reconciled.
Treatise: If we consider it from the perspective of lineage, up to one should contemplate it as it should be. For now, let's differentiate based on one person. According to the later explanation, there are one thousand and ninety-six Vajra-like Samadhis. If we consider it from the perspective of lineage, it becomes six times that amount. One should contemplate the distinctions of faculties and so on as it should be.
Treatise: Since this Samadhi is able to lead to the arising of Exhaustion Knowledge (盡智), it shows that the Vajra-like Samadhi can induce the arising of Exhaustion Knowledge.
Treatise: The Vajra-like Samadhi leads to, therefore it is called Exhaustion Knowledge. Explaining the name of Exhaustion Knowledge. Because it is the initial arising in relation to the exhaustion of all outflows, it is called Exhaustion Knowledge.
Treatise: Thus, Exhaustion Knowledge leads to obtaining the name of No More Learning (無學). Explaining No More Learning. Those who should learn in order to obtain a different result are called those with learning (有學). Although Arhats (阿羅漢) should learn in order to obtain sharp faculties and various merits, they do not learn in order to obtain
別果所應學故。名為無學。舍其鈍果得利果者。即是得前所舍之果。非是別異得果。不名為學。
論。即此唯應至阿羅漢名。釋應供也。阿羅漢亦名應供。即彼盡智。與一切盡得俱生故。名為盡智。正理論云。或此盡言顯一切盡。謂第九品及前余惑皆得擇滅故。名為盡智 即盡智已去皆不為別果學故。總名無學。即此應為他事。應受供養。故亦名阿羅漢。
論。義準已成至皆名有學。準無學釋有學也。
論。何緣前七得有學名。重問。
論。為得漏盡常樂學故。答。為得漏盡以簡練根等。
論。學要有三至為三自體。出學體。有學之人依此三種求漏盡也。
論。若爾異生應名有學。難也。異生亦求漏盡有戒．定．慧。應名有學。
論不爾至失正學故。釋也。有二因 一未如實見故者。四善根中雖見諦理。不如實見。不分明故 二忍位已前容退失故。
論。由此善逝至重說學言。引經重說學言。顯不退也。
論。聖者住本性如何名有學。問也。婆沙一百七十六云。謂學住本性有二因緣名住本性。一守賢善性而無退轉。二守自分德而不進修 此中住本性是第二也 或可。非是婆沙二釋。此住本性是有漏心。既以無漏為學。聖者住本有漏性心。既無無漏學。如何名
有學。
論。學意未滿故至常隨遂故。答也。有兩因 一雖暫無無漏學。學意未滿名為有學。如行者暫息不名已到而名行者 二無漏學得常隨遂故。由得學法名為有學。
論學法雲何。問學法也。
論。謂有學者無漏有為法。答學法也。
論。無學法雲何。問無學法。
論。謂無學者無漏有為法。答無學法。
論。云何涅槃不名為學。問。因何有學法唯取有為無漏。簡去涅槃。
論。無學異生亦成就故。答也。擇滅無為。若是有學。因何異生無學皆得成就。若是有學即雜亂也。
論。此復何緣不名無學。問也。
論有學．異生亦成就故。答也。有學．異生皆成擇滅。若是無學即雜亂也。
論。如是有學至阿羅漢果。總分學．無學為八人也。由向．及果各有四故。此即以所成法向．果別故。說人別也。
論。名雖有八至不離前果故。釋。雖就所成就法分人有八。然實能成人有五種。謂初果向．及第四果各有一人。第二果向．及住初果同是一人。住第二果及第三向亦同一人。住第三果及第四向。亦同一人也。由此實人唯有五別。
論。此依漸次至非前果攝。釋超越與次第不同。若超越者。第二果．向非初果攝。第三果．向非第二果攝。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有學。
論：因為學習的意願尚未滿足，所以會經常跟隨（善知識）並最終成就（目標）。這是對『有學』的解釋。有兩種原因：一，雖然暫時沒有無漏的學問，但因為學習的意願尚未滿足，所以稱為『有學』。就像行走的人暫時休息，不能稱為已經到達目的地，而仍然稱為『行走的人』。二，因為獲得了無漏的學問，並且這種學問能夠經常跟隨並最終成就目標。由於獲得了『學法』，所以稱為『有學』。
論：什麼是『學法』？這是在詢問『學法』是什麼。
論：所謂的『學法』，是指有學者所擁有的無漏有為法。這是對『學法』的回答。
論：什麼是『無學法』？這是在詢問『無學法』是什麼。
論：所謂的『無學法』，是指無學者所擁有的無漏有為法。這是對『無學法』的回答。
論：為什麼涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）不稱為『學』？這是在詢問，為什麼『有學法』只選取有為（Saṃskṛta）無漏（Anāsrava），而排除涅槃。
論：因為無學（Aśaikṣa）的異生（Pṛthagjana，凡夫）也能成就涅槃。這是對上述問題的回答。擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha）是無為（Asaṃskṛta）法。如果涅槃是『有學』法，那麼為什麼異生和無學者都能成就它呢？如果涅槃是『有學』法，那就太混亂了。
論：那麼，又是什麼原因使得涅槃不稱為『無學』呢？這是在提問。
論：因為有學和異生也能成就涅槃。這是對上述問題的回答。有學和異生都能成就擇滅。如果涅槃是『無學』法，那就太混亂了。
論：像這樣，從有學到阿羅漢果（Arhat），總共將學和無學分為八種人。這是因為『向』（path）和『果』（fruit）各有四種。這是根據所成就的法，以及『向』和『果』的差別，來說明人的差別。
論：雖然名義上有八種，但實際上並沒有脫離前面的果位。解釋：雖然就所成就的法來區分，人有八種，但實際上能夠成就的人只有五種。即初果向（Srotaāpanna-pratipannaka）和第四果（Arhat）各有一人，第二果向（Sakṛdāgāmi-pratipannaka）和住在初果（Srotaāpanna）的是同一人，住在第二果（Sakṛdāgāmi）和第三果向（Anāgāmi-pratipannaka）也是同一人，住在第三果（Anāgāmi）和第四果向（Arhat-pratipannaka）也是同一人。因此，實際上只有五種人的差別。
論：這是依據漸次到達的情況，而不是前面的果位所包含的。解釋：超越和次第不同。如果是超越的情況，那麼第二果向就不包含在初果中，第三果向也不包含在第二果中。
【English Translation】 English version Having Learning.
Treatise: Because the intention of learning is not yet fulfilled, one constantly follows (a good teacher) and eventually achieves (the goal). This is the explanation of 'Having Learning'. There are two reasons: First, although temporarily without non-outflow learning, because the intention of learning is not yet fulfilled, it is called 'Having Learning'. Just like a traveler resting temporarily cannot be called having arrived at the destination, but is still called 'traveler'. Second, because one has obtained non-outflow learning, and this learning can constantly follow and eventually achieve the goal. Because one has obtained the 'Learning Dharma', it is called 'Having Learning'.
Treatise: What is 'Learning Dharma'? This is asking what 'Learning Dharma' is.
Treatise: The so-called 'Learning Dharma' refers to the non-outflow conditioned (Saṃskṛta) Dharma possessed by those who are learning. This is the answer to 'Learning Dharma'.
Treatise: What is 'No-Learning Dharma'? This is asking what 'No-Learning Dharma' is.
Treatise: The so-called 'No-Learning Dharma' refers to the non-outflow conditioned Dharma possessed by those who have no more to learn (Aśaikṣa). This is the answer to 'No-Learning Dharma'.
Treatise: Why is Nirvana (Nirvana, extinction) not called 'Learning'? This is asking why 'Learning Dharma' only selects conditioned (Saṃskṛta) non-outflow (Anāsrava) Dharma, and excludes Nirvana.
Treatise: Because even the uninstructed ordinary beings (Pṛthagjana, common people) who are without learning can achieve Nirvana. This is the answer to the above question. Cessation through discrimination (Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) is unconditioned (Asaṃskṛta). If Nirvana is 'Having Learning' Dharma, then why can ordinary beings and those without learning achieve it? If Nirvana is 'Having Learning' Dharma, it would be too confusing.
Treatise: Then, what is the reason that Nirvana is not called 'No-Learning'? This is asking.
Treatise: Because those with learning and ordinary beings can also achieve Nirvana. This is the answer to the above question. Those with learning and ordinary beings can achieve cessation through discrimination. If Nirvana is 'No-Learning' Dharma, it would be too confusing.
Treatise: Like this, from having learning to the fruit of Arhat (Arhat), learning and no-learning are divided into eight types of people in total. This is because the 'path' (path) and 'fruit' (fruit) each have four types. This is based on the Dharma that is achieved, and the difference between 'path' and 'fruit', to explain the difference in people.
Treatise: Although there are eight in name, in reality, they do not deviate from the previous fruit. Explanation: Although people are divided into eight types based on the Dharma that is achieved, in reality, there are only five types of people who can achieve. That is, the Stream-enterer path attainer (Srotaāpanna-pratipannaka) and the Arhat (Arhat) each have one person, the Once-returner path attainer (Sakṛdāgāmi-pratipannaka) and the Stream-enterer (Srotaāpanna) are the same person, the Once-returner (Sakṛdāgāmi) and the Non-returner path attainer (Anāgāmi-pratipannaka) are also the same person, and the Non-returner (Anāgāmi) and the Arhat path attainer (Arhat-pratipannaka) are also the same person. Therefore, in reality, there are only five types of people.
Treatise: This is based on the situation of gradual arrival, not included in the previous fruit. Explanation: Transcendence and sequence are different. If it is a situation of transcendence, then the Once-returner path attainer is not included in the Stream-enterer, and the Non-returner path attainer is not included in the Once-returner.
論。如前所說修道二種。已下大文第二諸門辨道 就中有五。一地由道離染。二道引離系得。三道離地通局。四近分攝道別。五世俗道緣行。此半行頌第一門也。
論曰至治自地故。釋。有頂染唯無漏斷。夫有漏道斷惑者。皆是次上地。斷下地惑。自地不能治自地故。有頂無上地故。唯無漏斷。
論。自地煩惱至不治自地。釋自地道不能斷自地惑所以。正理論云。何緣下地起世俗道不能對治上地隨眠。上地定非下地世俗厭行斷道所緣境故。非厭下地能離上染。上地望下極微妙故。由此證知。唯無漏力能離有頂。其理善成。
論。離餘八地至俱能離故。釋餘地也。
論。既通由二離八地染。下半行頌。第二明道引二離系得。
論曰至同所作故。明有學二道俱引二得 由二種道同所作故者。是修二道因也 同所作者。是同治也。廣如下智品釋。
論。有餘師釋至煩惱不成故。敘異說也。此師不立修因。但證知有。謂有舍無漏得煩惱不成。故知由有漏得能持斷也。
論謂有學聖至成彼煩惱。指事釋也。如有學聖先以無漏道離無所有處煩惱。后依四禪練根至解脫道。舍前鈍果及向。唯得四禪已下不還果道上三無色。若無先修有漏道得無為者。無漏得舍有漏得。無煩惱應成。既不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如前所說，修道有兩種。接下來是正文的第二部分，辨析諸門之道，其中有五點：一、地由道離染；二、道引離系得；三、道離地通局；四、近分攝道別；五、世俗道緣行。這半行頌是第一門的內容。
論曰：至於治理自身的地界。解釋：有頂天的染污只能通過無漏智來斷除。凡是通過有漏道斷除惑業的，都是在更高的地界斷除較低地界的惑業，自身的地界無法治理自身的地界。有頂天因為沒有更高的地界，所以只能通過無漏智來斷除。
論：自身地界的煩惱無法治理自身的地界。解釋：自身地界的道無法斷除自身地界的惑業的原因。《正理論》中說：為什麼較低地界生起的世俗道無法對治較高地界的隨眠煩惱？因為較高地界的禪定不是較低地界的世俗厭行斷道所能緣的境界。不是厭離較低地界就能脫離較高地界的染污，因為較高地界相對於較低地界來說極其微妙。由此可以證明，只有無漏的力量才能脫離有頂天的染污，這個道理才能成立。
論：脫離其餘八地的染污，都能脫離。解釋：其餘的地界。
論：既然通過兩種方式都能脫離八地的染污。下半行頌是第二部分，闡明道引導脫離束縛的獲得。
論曰：至於相同的作用。闡明有學位的兩種道都能引導兩種獲得。因為兩種道具有相同的作用。相同的作用是指相同的治理作用。詳細內容見《下智品》的解釋。
論：有其他論師解釋說，煩惱無法成立。敘述不同的觀點。這位論師不立修因，只是證明它的存在。認為如果捨棄無漏智而獲得煩惱是不成立的，因此可知通過有漏智的獲得能夠保持斷除的狀態。
論：所謂有學的聖者，成就那些煩惱。指明事例並解釋。例如有學的聖者先用無漏道脫離了無所有處的煩惱，之後依靠四禪練根達到解脫道，捨棄了之前的鈍果和趨向，只獲得了四禪以下的不還果道和以上的三無色定。如果沒有先前修習有漏道而獲得無為法，無漏的獲得捨棄了有漏的獲得，不應該有煩惱產生。既然不是
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: As previously stated, there are two types of cultivation paths. The following is the second major section, 'Discriminating the Paths through Various Gates,' which contains five points: 1. Realms are purified from defilements by the path; 2. The path leads to the attainment of liberation from bondage; 3. The scope of the path's separation from realms; 4. Distinguishing paths based on proximate divisions; 5. The conditions for worldly paths.
Treatise says: As for governing one's own realm. Explanation: The defilements of the Peak of Existence (Bhavagra, 有頂) can only be severed by non-outflow wisdom (Anasrava-jnana, 無漏智). Those who sever afflictions through outflow paths (Sāsrava-mārga, 有漏道) do so by severing the afflictions of lower realms from higher realms; one's own realm cannot govern itself. Because the Peak of Existence has no higher realm, it can only be severed by non-outflow wisdom.
Treatise: The afflictions of one's own realm cannot govern one's own realm. Explanation: The reason why the path of one's own realm cannot sever the afflictions of one's own realm is explained in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理論): Why is it that the worldly path arising from a lower realm cannot counteract the latent afflictions (Anusaya, 隨眠) of a higher realm? Because the samadhi (定) of a higher realm is not an object that can be cognized by the worldly practice of aversion (厭行) and severance (斷道) of a lower realm. It is not by being averse to a lower realm that one can be liberated from the defilements of a higher realm, because the higher realm is extremely subtle compared to the lower realm. From this, it can be proven that only the power of non-outflow can liberate one from the Peak of Existence, and this principle can be established.
Treatise: Separating from the defilements of the remaining eight realms, all can be separated. Explanation: The remaining realms.
Treatise: Since one can separate from the defilements of the eight realms through two means. The second half of the verse is the second section, clarifying that the path leads to the attainment of liberation from bondage.
Treatise says: As for the same function. Clarifying that the two paths of the stage of learning (Śaikṣa, 有學) both lead to the two attainments. Because the two paths have the same function. The same function refers to the same governing function. Detailed content can be found in the explanation of the Lower Wisdom Chapter (下智品).
Treatise: Some other teachers explain that afflictions cannot be established. Narrating different views. This teacher does not establish the cause of cultivation, but only proves its existence. Believing that if one abandons non-outflow wisdom and attains afflictions, it cannot be established. Therefore, it can be known that the attainment through outflow wisdom can maintain the state of severance.
Treatise: The so-called Śaikṣa (有學) saints, accomplish those afflictions. Pointing out the example and explaining. For example, a Śaikṣa saint first uses the non-outflow path to separate from the afflictions of the Realm of Nothingness (Ākiṃcanyāyatana, 無所有處), and then relies on the four dhyanas (四禪) to cultivate the roots to reach the path of liberation, abandoning the previous dull fruit and tendency, only attaining the non-returning fruit (Anāgāmi-phala, 不還果) of the four dhyanas and the three formless realms above. If there was no previous cultivation of the outflow path to attain the unconditioned (Asaṃskṛta, 無為), and the non-outflow attainment abandoned the outflow attainment, there should be no afflictions arising. Since it is not
成煩惱。明知有有漏得。
論。此證非理至不成惑故。論主破也。此因不定。亦有共許無有二得煩惱不起。
論。謂如分離至故不成證。指事破也。非想地惑共許無有漏得。練根舍時雖無二得。煩惱不起共許異生生上地時。下地煩惱斷得都無。下地煩惱亦不得起。故不成證。正理論云。此二雖無煩惱斷得。而勝進故遮惑得生。彼亦應然。故證非理。由此但可作如是言。二道于中所作同故。隨一現起引二得生。不可說言為成斷故。
論。既說聖者至無漏斷得準釋。異生斷惑唯有漏得。聖斷見道有頂唯無漏得 言聖。簡異生 離八。簡有頂 修簡見道論。由何地道離何地染。已下一行頌。第三明道離地通局。
論曰至已離故。明諸無漏道唯未至定。能離自．下．及上地染。自余諸地唯離自．上地染。欲界無道故依上未至斷。自余諸無漏唯在根本地中非未至故。離下地染方得上地。由此上地不能斷下。
論。諸有漏道至已離故。明有漏道唯近分定能斷下地。不能斷自．及上地惑。自地煩惱所隨增故。不能斷自地惑。勢力劣故不能斷上。起上地根本已離下故。唯未至斷。
論。諸依近分離下地染。已下一行頌。第四明近分攝道別。
論曰至謂欲八定。明能斷有八。即四靜慮．四無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：成為煩惱。明明知道有有漏的『得』（prapti，獲得）。
論：這個證明是不合理的，因為它不能構成迷惑的原因。論主的駁斥。這個因是不確定的。也有共同認可的，沒有『有』和『二』的『得』，煩惱也不會生起。
論：比如分離…因此不能構成證明。這是指事駁斥。非想非非想處天的迷惑，共同認可沒有有漏的『得』。練根舍時，雖然沒有『二得』，煩惱不生起，共同認可異生（prthag-jana，凡夫）生到上地時，下地的煩惱斷了，『得』都沒有了，下地的煩惱也不會生起。所以不能構成證明。《正理論》說：『這兩種雖然沒有煩惱斷的『得』，但因為勝進，遮止迷惑的『得』產生。』那裡也應該這樣。所以證明是不合理的。因此只能這樣說：兩種道在其中所起的作用相同，隨便哪一種現起，都會引生兩種『得』。不能說爲了成就斷除。
論：既然說了聖者…無漏斷的『得』，可以參照解釋。異生斷惑只有有漏的『得』，聖者斷見道和有頂天只有無漏的『得』。說『聖』，是爲了區別異生；離開八地，是爲了區別有頂天；修，是爲了區別見道。論：由哪個地的道，離開哪個地的染？下面一行頌。第三說明道離開地的普遍性和侷限性。
論曰：…已經離開的緣故。說明諸無漏道只有未至定（anagamin，不還果）能離開自地、下地和上地的染。其餘諸地只能離開自地和上地的染。欲界沒有道，所以依靠上面的未至定斷除。其餘諸無漏道只在根本定中，不是未至定，所以離開下地的染才能到上地。因此上地不能斷下地。
論：諸有漏道…已經離開的緣故。說明有漏道只有近分定（upacarasamadhi，近分定）能斷下地，不能斷自地和上地的迷惑。因為自地的煩惱所隨順增長，所以不能斷自地的迷惑。因為勢力弱，所以不能斷上地的。生起上地的根本定，已經離開了下地的緣故，只有未至定能斷。
論：諸依靠近分…離開下地染。下面一行頌。第四說明近分所攝的道差別。
論曰：…所謂欲界八定。說明能斷的有八種，即四靜慮（dhyana，禪定）、四無量。
【English Translation】 English version: Become afflictions. Clearly knowing there is a 'prapti' (attainment) of the contaminated.
Treatise: This proof is unreasonable because it cannot constitute the cause of delusion. The treatise master refutes it. This cause is uncertain. There is also a common agreement that without the 'attainment' of 'being' and 'two', afflictions will not arise.
Treatise: For example, separation... therefore it cannot constitute proof. This is a refutation by pointing to the matter. The delusions of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception are commonly agreed to have no contaminated 'attainment'. When training the roots and abandoning, although there is no 'two attainments', afflictions do not arise. It is commonly agreed that when a common being (prthag-jana, ordinary person) is born in a higher realm, the afflictions of the lower realm are cut off, and there is no 'attainment', and the afflictions of the lower realm will not arise. Therefore, it cannot constitute proof. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Although these two have no 'attainment' of cutting off afflictions, they prevent the 'attainment' of delusion from arising because of superior progress.' It should be the same there. Therefore, the proof is unreasonable. Therefore, it can only be said that the functions of the two paths are the same in it, and whichever one manifests, it will lead to the arising of two 'attainments'. It cannot be said that it is for the sake of accomplishing cutting off.
Treatise: Since it is said that the noble one... the 'attainment' of uncontaminated cutting off can be explained by analogy. The cutting off of delusions by common beings only has contaminated 'attainment', and the cutting off of the Path of Seeing and the Peak of Existence by noble ones only has uncontaminated 'attainment'. Saying 'noble' is to distinguish it from common beings; leaving the eight realms is to distinguish it from the Peak of Existence; practice is to distinguish it from the Path of Seeing. Treatise: From which realm's path does one leave which realm's defilement? The following line is a verse. The third explains the universality and limitations of the path leaving the realm.
Treatise says: ...because it has already left. It explains that only the anagamin (non-returning) of the Unreached Concentration can leave the defilement of its own realm, the lower realm, and the upper realm. The other realms can only leave the defilement of their own realm and the upper realm. The Desire Realm has no path, so it relies on the above Unreached Concentration to cut off. The other uncontaminated paths are only in the fundamental concentration, not the Unreached Concentration, so they can only reach the upper realm by leaving the defilement of the lower realm. Therefore, the upper realm cannot cut off the lower realm.
Treatise: All contaminated paths... because it has already left. It explains that only the upacarasamadhi (access concentration) of the contaminated path can cut off the lower realm, and cannot cut off the delusions of its own realm and the upper realm. Because the afflictions of its own realm are followed and increased, it cannot cut off the delusions of its own realm. Because its power is weak, it cannot cut off the upper realm. The fundamental concentration of the upper realm has already left the lower realm, so only the Unreached Concentration can cut off.
Treatise: All those who rely on access... leave the defilement of the lower realm. The following line is a verse. The fourth explains the differences in the paths included in access.
Treatise says: ...so-called eight concentrations of the Desire Realm. It explains that there are eight that can cut off, namely the four dhyana (meditative absorptions) and the four immeasurables.
色。所離有九。謂欲界及八定。
論。初三近分至非即近分。明初．二．三．定不定。上五定入根本。
論。近分根本至必入根本。釋所以也。下三地未至與根本地。受不同故。轉入異受少艱難故。若欣上心強即入根本。若欣劣者即不能入 第四靜慮及四無色未至．根本同一舍受。離下地染必欣上故。所以上地定入根本。
論。諸出世道無間．解脫。已下一行頌。第五明世道俗緣．行。
論曰至隨一行相。明六行相。無間．解脫。上．下緣異 隨一行言。顯斷惑時無間．解脫。非定起三。隨起一行皆能斷惑。婆沙六十四云。問無間道中何行相后。起解脫道何相行耶。評曰此事不定。從粗行相無間道。后容起靜等三種行相為解脫道。苦等亦爾。以此六種有漏行相。隨離染者所樂起故。問以世俗道離諸染時。無間解脫各緣何地。評曰如是諸說。雖各能生弟子覺慧。而最初說于理為善。謂九無間道皆緣欲界。九解脫道皆緣初定。所以者何以世俗道離欲染時。厭下欣上方能離故。如離欲染離上七地染。應知亦爾。問世俗無間．解脫道中。一一能修幾種行相。答諸異生者離欲染時。九無間道中修苦等三行相。八解脫道中具修六行相。后解脫道中即修此六行相。亦修未來初靜慮地無邊行相。如是乃至。離
【現代漢語翻譯】 色（Rūpa，物質）。所要脫離的有九種，即欲界以及八種禪定。
論：初禪、二禪、三禪的近分定乃至非想非非想處定即是近分定。說明初禪、二禪、三禪的禪定不定。上面的五種禪定進入根本定。
論：從近分定到根本定必定進入根本定。解釋這樣做的原因。下三地（指欲界、初禪、二禪）的未至定與根本地的感受不同。因為轉變進入不同的感受比較困難。如果欣喜上等的心強烈，就進入根本定。如果喜歡低劣的，就不能進入。第四禪以及四無色定的未至定、根本定都是同一舍受（Upekkhā，不苦不樂的感受）。脫離下地的染污必定欣喜上等，所以上地的禪定進入根本定。
論：諸出世道（指超越世間的道路）的無間道（Anantarika-magga，無間斷地生起智慧的道路）、解脫道（Vimutti-magga，從煩惱中解脫的道路）。以下是一行頌。第五說明世間道的俗緣、行相。
論曰：乃至隨一種行相。說明六種行相。無間道、解脫道，上緣、下緣不同。隨一種行相說，顯示斷惑的時候，無間道、解脫道並非一定同時生起三種行相。隨生起一種行相都能斷惑。《婆沙》六十四說：『問：無間道中什麼行相之後，生起解脫道什麼行相呢？』評議說：『這件事不一定。從粗的行相的無間道之後，可以生起靜等三種行相作為解脫道。苦等也是這樣。』因為這六種有漏的行相，隨著離染者所喜歡而生起。問：以世俗道脫離各種染污的時候，無間道、解脫道各自緣于哪個地？評議說：『像這樣的各種說法，雖然各自能夠產生弟子們的覺慧，但是最初的說法在理上是好的。』所謂九無間道都緣于欲界，九解脫道都緣于初禪。為什麼呢？因為以世俗道脫離欲染的時候，厭惡下等，欣喜上等才能脫離。像脫離欲染一樣，脫離上面七地的染污，應該知道也是這樣。問：世俗的無間道、解脫道中，每一種能夠修幾種行相？答：各種異生（指凡夫）脫離欲染的時候，九無間道中修苦等三種行相，八解脫道中具修六種行相。后解脫道中即修這六種行相，也修未來初靜慮地無邊的行相。像這樣乃至，脫離
【English Translation】 Rūpa (Form). There are nine things to be detached from, namely the desire realm and the eight dhyānas (meditative states).
Treatise: The preparatory stage of the first, second, and third dhyānas, up to the Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception dhyāna, are the preparatory stages. It explains that the dhyānas of the first, second, and third dhyānas are not fixed. The upper five dhyānas enter the fundamental dhyāna.
Treatise: From the preparatory stage to the fundamental stage, one must enter the fundamental stage. This explains the reason for doing so. The feelings of the preliminary stages of the lower three realms (desire realm, first dhyāna, second dhyāna) are different from those of the fundamental realm. Because it is difficult to transition into different feelings. If the mind is strongly pleased with the higher, it enters the fundamental stage. If one likes the inferior, one cannot enter. The preliminary and fundamental stages of the fourth dhyāna and the four formless dhyānas all have the same feeling of equanimity (Upekkhā). To detach from the defilements of the lower realms, one must be pleased with the higher, so the dhyānas of the higher realms enter the fundamental stage.
Treatise: The Anantarika-magga (path of immediate consequence) and Vimutti-magga (path of liberation) of all supramundane paths. The following is a verse. The fifth explains the mundane conditions and practices of the worldly path.
Treatise: Up to following one aspect. It explains the six aspects. The Anantarika-magga and Vimutti-magga have different conditions above and below. 'Following one aspect' shows that when cutting off delusions, the Anantarika-magga and Vimutti-magga do not necessarily arise with three aspects simultaneously. Whichever aspect arises can cut off delusions. The Vibhāṣā (commentary) sixty-four says: 'Question: After what aspect in the Anantarika-magga does the Vimutti-magga arise with what aspect?' The commentary says: 'This is not fixed. After the Anantarika-magga of the coarse aspect, the three aspects of tranquility, etc., can arise as the Vimutti-magga. The same is true for suffering, etc.' Because these six conditioned aspects arise according to what the one who is detaching from defilements likes. Question: When detaching from various defilements with the worldly path, what realm does the Anantarika-magga and Vimutti-magga each condition? The commentary says: 'Although these various explanations can each generate wisdom in the disciples, the initial explanation is good in principle.' That is, the nine Anantarika-magga all condition the desire realm, and the nine Vimutti-magga all condition the first dhyāna. Why? Because when detaching from desire with the worldly path, one can detach by disliking the lower and liking the higher. Just as detaching from desire, it should be known that detaching from the defilements of the upper seven realms is also the same. Question: In the worldly Anantarika-magga and Vimutti-magga, how many aspects can each cultivate? Answer: When various ordinary beings detach from desire, they cultivate the three aspects of suffering, etc., in the nine Anantarika-magga, and they fully cultivate the six aspects in the eight Vimutti-magga. In the later Vimutti-magga, they cultivate these six aspects, and they also cultivate the boundless aspects of the future first dhyāna realm. Like this, up to detaching from
無所有處染。隨其所應當知亦爾。若諸聖者修六行相如異生說。更加有漏無漏十六行相。聖者若離初定乃至無所有處。唯修無漏十六行相。余如前說。問何故初定近分。通修有漏．無漏十六行相。上地近分唯修無漏耶。答初定近分有聖行相故。能通修有漏．無漏十六聖行相。上地近分無聖行相故。唯能修無漏行相。問現在如前說。未來修者為何所緣。答離欲染時。九無間道中所修未來粗等三行相。唯緣欲界。八解脫道中所修未來粗等三行相。緣欲界．及初定。靜等三行相唯緣初定。最後解脫道中所修未來粗等三行相。通緣三界。靜等三行相。緣初定乃至非想非非想處。乃至。離第四靜慮染時。乃至。最後解脫道中所修未來粗等三行相。及靜等三行相。緣空無邊處。乃至。非想非非想處。余同前地。問何故最後解脫道中所修未來靜慮所攝粗等行相。通緣三界。無色所攝粗等行相。唯緣無色界耶。答靜慮地中有遍緣智。能緣自地．下地．上地。無色地中無遍緣智。唯緣自．上不緣下地。故無色不修緣下地行相。
論。非寂靜故至翻此應釋。明六行名義也。正理論云。諸下地中由多掉舉。寂靜微劣故名為粗。雖大劬勞暫令掉舉勢用微劣。仍不能引美妙樂生。故名為苦。有極多種災害拘礙。及能覆障令無功能見出離方。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『無所有處染』（Akincannayatana-raga，對無所有處天的貪染）。隨其所應當知道的也是如此。如果聖者修習六行相，如同凡夫所說，再加上有漏和無漏的十六行相。聖者如果離初禪乃至無所有處，只修無漏的十六行相，其餘的如同前面所說。 問：為什麼初禪近分定（Prathamadhyana-upacara）能夠通修有漏和無漏的十六行相，而上地近分定只能修無漏的呢？ 答：因為初禪近分定有聖者的行相，所以能夠通修有漏和無漏的十六聖行相。上地近分定沒有聖者的行相，所以只能修無漏的行相。 問：現在修習的情況如前面所說，那麼未來修習者所緣的是什麼呢？ 答：在離欲染時，九個無間道（Nava anantarya-marga）中所修的未來粗等三種行相，只緣欲界。八個解脫道（Asta vimukti-marga）中所修的未來粗等三種行相，緣欲界和初禪。靜等三種行相只緣初禪。最後的解脫道中所修的未來粗等三種行相，通緣三界。靜等三種行相，緣初禪乃至非想非非想處（Nevasannanasannayatana）。 乃至，在離第四禪染時，乃至，最後的解脫道中所修的未來粗等三種行相，以及靜等三種行相，緣空無邊處（Akasanantyayatana），乃至非想非非想處。其餘的與前地相同。 問：為什麼最後的解脫道中所修的未來靜慮所攝的粗等行相，能夠通緣三界，而無色所攝的粗等行相，只能緣無色界呢？ 答：因為靜慮地中有遍緣智，能夠緣自地、下地和上地。無色地中沒有遍緣智，只能緣自地和上地，不能緣下地。所以無色界不修緣下地的行相。 論：『非寂靜故』乃至『翻譯此應解釋』，說明六行相的名稱和意義。正理論說：在下地中，由於掉舉（Audhatya）過多，寂靜微弱，所以稱為『粗』。即使付出很大的努力暫時使掉舉的勢頭減弱，仍然不能引生美妙的快樂，所以稱為『苦』。有極多種的災害拘礙，以及能夠覆蓋和障礙，使人沒有能力見到出離的方法。
【English Translation】 English version 'Akincannayatana-raga' (attachment to the Realm of Nothingness). It should be understood that it is the same in its respective cases. If the noble ones cultivate the six aspects as the ordinary beings say, they further add the sixteen aspects of defiled and undefiled. If the noble ones depart from the first Dhyana up to the Realm of Nothingness, they only cultivate the sixteen undefiled aspects; the rest is as previously stated. Question: Why is it that the Prathamadhyana-upacara (proximity to the first Dhyana) can cultivate both the defiled and undefiled sixteen aspects, while the higher realms' proximity can only cultivate the undefiled? Answer: Because the Prathamadhyana-upacara has the aspects of the noble ones, it can cultivate both the defiled and undefiled sixteen noble aspects. The higher realms' proximity does not have the aspects of the noble ones, so it can only cultivate the undefiled aspects. Question: The present cultivation is as previously stated. What do future cultivators focus on? Answer: When departing from the attachment to desire, the three future aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the nine Anantarya-margas (paths of immediate consequence) only focus on the Desire Realm. The three future aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the eight Vimukti-margas (paths of liberation) focus on the Desire Realm and the first Dhyana. The three aspects of tranquility, etc., only focus on the first Dhyana. The three future aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the final Vimukti-marga focus on all three realms. The three aspects of tranquility, etc., focus on the first Dhyana up to the Nevasannanasannayatana (Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception). And so on, when departing from the attachment to the fourth Dhyana, and so on, the three future aspects of coarseness, etc., and the three aspects of tranquility, etc., cultivated in the final Vimukti-marga focus on the Akasanantyayatana (Realm of Infinite Space), up to the Nevasannanasannayatana. The rest is the same as the previous realm. Question: Why is it that the aspects of coarseness, etc., included in the future Dhyana cultivated in the final Vimukti-marga can focus on all three realms, while the aspects of coarseness, etc., included in the Formless Realm can only focus on the Formless Realm? Answer: Because in the Dhyana realm there is pervasive wisdom that can focus on its own realm, the lower realm, and the higher realm. In the Formless Realm, there is no pervasive wisdom; it can only focus on its own and the higher realms, not the lower realm. Therefore, the Formless Realm does not cultivate aspects that focus on the lower realm. Treatise: 'Because it is not tranquil' up to 'translating this should be explained,' clarifies the names and meanings of the six aspects. The Zhengli Theory says: In the lower realms, due to excessive Audhatya (restlessness), tranquility is weak, so it is called 'coarse.' Even if great effort is made to temporarily reduce the momentum of restlessness, it still cannot produce wonderful happiness, so it is called 'suffering.' There are extremely many disasters and constraints, as well as things that can cover and obstruct, making one unable to see the way to liberation.
故名為障。諸上地中不作功用。掉舉微劣故名為靜。不設劬勞掉舉微劣。引生勝樂故名為妙。于下地中所有災害。能決定見心不生欣。及能越彼故名為離。應知此中已兼顯示無間．解脫行相。各三相翻而生如其次第。謂無間道緣下為粗。解脫道中緣上為靜。余相翻起如次應知。然離染時起則不定。世俗無間及解脫道。能離下等九品染故。應知亦有九品差別 正理論云。離第四靜慮八解脫道未來所修粗等三行。緣第四定及緣空處。然非合緣。以界別故 自余同婆沙。此中一類譬喻論師。為欲顯成分別論義作如是說。無有異生實斷煩惱。有退失故。與大乘同。
論。傍論已了應辨本義。下一行頌。大文第三明盡等相生。
論曰至無學正見生。明先不動羅漢盡智后即生無生智。不生盡智．無學正見智。
論。除不動法至后容退故。明除先不動盡智后。或更生盡智。或生無學正見智。準正理論意。若鈍根者。盡智．無學正見智俱時而得。若先不動。盡智．無生智．無學正見智俱時而得。在因位中先所求者于先起也。
論。前不動種姓至或無學正見。釋頌略不說無生智後起無學正見智也。正理．此論明無學故說無漏智相生。不說生俗智也。理實亦容生其俗智。故婆沙一百二云。此中時愛心解脫阿羅漢。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此被稱為『障』（obstacle）。在上地（higher realms）中，不需要特別努力（不作功用）。因為掉舉（restlessness）非常微弱，所以稱為『靜』（tranquil）。因為不需要費力，掉舉非常微弱，能引生殊勝的快樂，所以稱為『妙』（sublime）。對於下地（lower realms）中的所有災害，能確定地看到，心中不生歡喜，並且能夠超越它們，所以稱為『離』（detached）。應該知道，這裡已經兼帶顯示了無間道（path of immediate consequence）和解脫道（path of liberation）的行相。各自的三種相翻轉而生起，如其次第。也就是說，無間道緣于下地，認為是粗糙的（粗-coarse）。解脫道中緣于上地，認為是寂靜的（靜-tranquil）。其餘的相翻轉生起，應該依次類推。然而，在脫離染污時，生起是不定的。世俗的無間道和解脫道，能夠脫離下等九品染污，因此應該知道也有九品差別。《正理論》說，脫離第四靜慮（fourth dhyana）的八解脫道，未來所修的粗等三種行相，緣于第四定（fourth concentration）以及緣于空處（sphere of emptiness）。但不是合起來緣，因為界限不同。《婆沙論》中其餘部分相同。這裡有一類譬喻論師，爲了顯明和成就分別論的意義，這樣說：沒有異生（non-Buddhist）真正斷除煩惱，因為有退失的緣故，這與大乘（Mahayana）相同。
論：旁論已經結束，應該辨明本義。下一行頌文。大文第三，說明盡智（knowledge of exhaustion）等相生。
論曰：直到無學正見（non-learning right view）生起。說明先是不動羅漢（immovable arhat）的盡智，然後立即生起無生智（knowledge of non-arising）。不生起盡智和無學正見智。
論：除了不動法（immovable dharma）直到後來可能退失的緣故。說明除了先不動的盡智之後，或者再生起盡智，或者生起無學正見智。根據《正理論》的意義，如果是鈍根者，盡智和無學正見智同時獲得。如果先是不動，盡智、無生智、無學正見智同時獲得。在因位（causal stage）中，先前所求的先產生。
論：先前不動的種姓（lineage）直到或者無學正見。解釋頌文，略去不說無生智後生起無學正見智。《正理》和此論說明無學，所以說無漏智（untainted knowledge）相生。不說生起世俗智（mundane knowledge）。實際上也可能生起世俗智。所以《婆沙論》第一百零二卷說，這時愛心解脫的阿羅漢（arhat liberated by love and compassion）。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is called an 'obstacle'. In the higher realms, no effort is made. Because restlessness is very subtle, it is called 'tranquil'. Because no effort is required, and restlessness is very subtle, it gives rise to supreme bliss, so it is called 'sublime'. Regarding all the calamities in the lower realms, one can see them with certainty, without generating joy in the mind, and can transcend them, so it is called 'detached'. It should be known that this also implicitly shows the characteristics of the path of immediate consequence and the path of liberation. Their respective three aspects arise in reverse order. That is, the path of immediate consequence is related to the lower realm and is considered coarse. In the path of liberation, it is related to the upper realm and is considered tranquil. The remaining aspects arise in reverse order, and should be understood accordingly. However, when detaching from defilements, the arising is uncertain. The mundane path of immediate consequence and the path of liberation can detach from the lower nine grades of defilements, so it should be known that there are also nine grades of differences. The Nyayanusara says that the three aspects of coarseness, etc., cultivated in the future by the eight paths of liberation from the fourth dhyana, are related to the fourth concentration and related to the sphere of emptiness. But they are not related together, because the realms are different. The rest is the same as in the Vibhasa. Here, a certain class of exemplifiers, in order to clarify and accomplish the meaning of the separation theory, say this: No non-Buddhist truly cuts off afflictions, because there is the possibility of regression, which is the same as in Mahayana.
Treatise: The digression is over, and the main meaning should be clarified. The next verse. The third major section explains the arising of the knowledge of exhaustion, etc.
Treatise says: Until the non-learning right view arises. It explains that first the knowledge of exhaustion of the immovable arhat arises, and then immediately the knowledge of non-arising arises. The knowledge of exhaustion and the non-learning right view do not arise.
Treatise: Except for the immovable dharma, because it may regress later. It explains that except for the knowledge of exhaustion of the previously immovable, either the knowledge of exhaustion arises again, or the non-learning right view arises. According to the meaning of the Nyayanusara, if one is of dull faculties, the knowledge of exhaustion and the non-learning right view are obtained simultaneously. If one is previously immovable, the knowledge of exhaustion, the knowledge of non-arising, and the non-learning right view are obtained simultaneously. In the causal stage, what was previously sought arises first.
Treatise: The previously immovable lineage until or the non-learning right view. It explains the verse, omitting the statement that the non-learning right view arises after the knowledge of non-arising. The Nyayanusara and this treatise explain the non-learning, so they speak of the arising of untainted knowledge. They do not speak of the arising of mundane knowledge. In reality, it is also possible for mundane knowledge to arise. Therefore, the one hundred and second fascicle of the Vibhasa says that at this time, the arhat liberated by love and compassion.
金剛喻定唯一剎那。盡智流注長時相續。從盡智出。或起無學正見。或起世俗心。不動心解脫阿羅漢。金剛喻定．及盡智唯一剎那。無生智流注長時相續。從無生智出。或起無學正見。或起世俗心。一切阿羅漢皆修無學正見。圓滿而非一切皆現在前 此與正理少異。正理云。無生智或剎那。或相續。時解脫起盡智亦爾 述曰。正理克實說。婆沙對前金剛喻定等說故。偏說相續不說剎那。
論。前說四果是誰果耶。已下大文第四明諸道果。一沙門性．果．數。二立四果因緣。三明中間二果。四沙門果異名。五明沙門果依身。此中第一門也。
論曰至故名沙門。明沙門也 諸無漏道是沙門性者。出沙門體 懷此道者名曰沙門者。明人名沙門 以能勤勞息煩惱故者。釋沙門名。引經可知。
論。異生不能至非真沙門。釋異生非沙門也。正理論云。由此異生雖能已斷無所有處染。而非真沙門。以諸過失尚有餘故。暫時靜息非究竟故。
論。有為無為是沙門果。出沙門果體。
論。契經說此至八十一解脫道。明數也。
論。諸無間道至士用果故。辨有為果差別。諸無間道唯是沙門性。諸解脫道亦是沙門。有為果體是彼等流．士用果故 準此論文。解脫道既言亦沙門果者。亦無為果 或可。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『金剛喻定』（Vajropamasamadhi，一種堅固的禪定）只有一剎那。『盡智』（ksaya-jnana，斷盡煩惱的智慧）的流注是長時間相續的。從『盡智』生起，或者生起『無學正見』（asaiksa-samyagdristi，不再需要學習的正見），或者生起世俗心。不動心解脫的阿羅漢（Arhat，已證解脫的聖者），其『金剛喻定』及『盡智』只有一剎那，『無生智』（anutpada-jnana，證悟不生不滅的智慧）的流注是長時間相續的。從『無生智』生起，或者生起『無學正見』，或者生起世俗心。一切阿羅漢都修習『無學正見』，是圓滿的，但並非一切時候都顯現。這與《正理》的觀點稍有不同。《正理》說，『無生智』或者是一剎那，或者是相續的，時解脫者生起『盡智』也是如此。述曰：《正理》是如實地陳述，而《婆沙》是針對前面的『金剛喻定』等而說的，所以偏重說相續，而沒有說剎那。
論：前面所說的四果（srota-apanna, sakrd-agamin, anagamin, arhat，預流果、一來果、不還果、阿羅漢果）是誰的果位呢？以下是第四大段，闡明各種道果。一、沙門（sramana，勤息）的性質、果位、數量。二、建立四果的因緣。三、闡明中間的二果。四、沙門果的異名。五、闡明沙門果所依之身。這是其中的第一部分。
論曰：乃至故名沙門。闡明沙門。各種無漏道（anasrava-marga，沒有煩惱的道）是沙門性，這是指出沙門的本體。懷有此道的人，名叫沙門，這是說明人名為沙門。因為能夠勤勞地止息煩惱，這是解釋沙門的名字。引用經典就可以知道。
論：異生（prthag-jana，凡夫）不能達到，所以不是真正的沙門。這是解釋異生不是沙門。《正理論》說，由此異生雖然能夠斷除無所有處（akincanyayatana，一種禪定境界）的染污，但不是真正的沙門，因為各種過失還有剩餘，只是暫時的靜息，不是究竟的。
論：有為（samskrta，有生滅變化的事物）和無為（asamskrta，沒有生滅變化的事物）是沙門果。這是指出沙門果的本體。
論：契經（sutra，佛經）說此乃至八十一解脫道（vimoksa-marga，通往解脫的道路）。這是說明數量。
論：各種無間道（anantarya-marga，直接斷除煩惱的道）乃至士用果（purusakara-phala，由人的努力而產生的果報）故。辨別有為果的差別。各種無間道只是沙門性。各種解脫道也是沙門，有為果的本體是彼等流、士用果。根據這段論文，解脫道既然說是沙門果，也就是無為果。或者可以這樣理解。
【English Translation】 English version 『Vajropamasamadhi』 (diamond-like concentration) lasts only for a moment. The flow of 『ksaya-jnana』 (wisdom of exhaustion, the wisdom of ending defilements) continues for a long time. Arising from 『ksaya-jnana』, either 『asaiksa-samyagdristi』 (non-learning right view, the right view that requires no further learning) arises, or a mundane mind arises. An Arhat (one who has attained liberation) liberated by unwavering mind, their 『Vajropamasamadhi』 and 『ksaya-jnana』 last only for a moment, while the flow of 『anutpada-jnana』 (wisdom of non-arising, the wisdom of realizing non-arising and non-ceasing) continues for a long time. Arising from 『anutpada-jnana』, either 『asaiksa-samyagdristi』 arises, or a mundane mind arises. All Arhats cultivate 『asaiksa-samyagdristi』, which is complete, but not always manifest. This differs slightly from the view of the 『Nyaya』. The 『Nyaya』 says that 『anutpada-jnana』 is either momentary or continuous, and the same is true for the arising of 『ksaya-jnana』 for those liberated in time. Commentary: The 『Nyaya』 states it factually, while the 『Vibhasa』 speaks in relation to the preceding 『Vajropamasamadhi』 etc., so it emphasizes continuity and does not mention momentariness.
Treatise: Whose fruits are the four fruits (srota-apanna, sakrd-agamin, anagamin, arhat, stream-enterer, once-returner, non-returner, Arhat) mentioned earlier? The following is the fourth major section, clarifying the various fruits of the path. 1. The nature, fruits, and number of a 『sramana』 (one who strives). 2. Establishing the causes and conditions for the four fruits. 3. Clarifying the two intermediate fruits. 4. Different names for the fruits of a 『sramana』. 5. Clarifying the body upon which the fruits of a 『sramana』 depend. This is the first part of it.
Treatise says: Up to therefore named 『sramana』. Clarifying 『sramana』. The various 『anasrava-marga』 (undefiled paths, paths without defilements) are the nature of a 『sramana』, which points out the substance of a 『sramana』. One who possesses this path is called a 『sramana』, which explains that the name of a person is 『sramana』. Because they can diligently cease defilements, this explains the name 『sramana』. It can be understood by referring to the sutras.
Treatise: Ordinary beings (prthag-jana, common people) cannot reach it, so they are not true 『sramanas』. This explains that ordinary beings are not 『sramanas』. The 『Nyaya-sutra』 says that although ordinary beings can eliminate the defilements of the 『akincanyayatana』 (sphere of nothingness, a state of meditative absorption), they are not true 『sramanas』 because various faults still remain, and the quiescence is only temporary, not ultimate.
Treatise: 『Samskrta』 (conditioned, things that arise and cease) and 『asamskrta』 (unconditioned, things that do not arise and cease) are the fruits of a 『sramana』. This points out the substance of the fruits of a 『sramana』.
Treatise: The sutras (sutra, Buddhist scriptures) say this up to eighty-one 『vimoksa-marga』 (paths to liberation, roads to freedom). This explains the number.
Treatise: The various 『anantarya-marga』 (paths of immediate result, paths that directly cut off defilements) up to 『purusakara-phala』 (fruit of human effort, the result produced by human exertion). Distinguishing the differences in conditioned fruits. The various 『anantarya-marga』 are only the nature of a 『sramana』. The various 『vimoksa-marga』 are also 『sramana』, and the substance of conditioned fruits is their outflow and the 『purusakara-phala』. According to this treatise, since the 『vimoksa-marga』 are said to be the fruits of a 『sramana』, they are also unconditioned fruits. Or it can be understood this way.
亦者亦沙門性。所以名果者。以是沙門等流．士用二果性故。
論。一一擇滅至士用果故。辨無為果。
論。如是合成八十九種。總結數也。
論。若爾世尊何不具說。已下一行頌。第二明立四果因緣。
論。曰至無常等故。明具五因立四果也 謂總一得得諸斷故者。正理云。謂一果得。總得先來所得斷故(述曰。此說前向果中所得無為至今果位。總一果得。得無為故非是眾多無為同一得得) 婆沙一百四十一云。問何故名沙門果。答無倒勇勵息除染法名曰沙門。是諸沙門所引所證名沙門果。
論。於四果位至故佛不說。準此論文。唯此四位及練根者。有此五因。餘位無也。由此練根亦名得果。
論。若唯凈道是沙門性。已下一行頌。第三明中間二果。
論曰至斷五下分結。明有漏斷修惑得二果時。兼用唯無漏道斷見惑無為同一果得。成一果故。由此從多名沙門果。
論。又世俗道至沙門果體。第二釋也。諸聖者世俗道斷惑之時。必兼無漏斷得持故。從無漏得名沙門果體 退不命終者。據得果位。非是向位。
論。此沙門性有異名耶。下兩行頌。第四明沙門果異名。
論曰至諸煩惱故。明真沙門性。亦名婆羅門。婆羅門名為凈行。以能遣除諸煩惱故名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『亦者亦沙門性』。意思是說，這也是沙門（Śrāmaṇa，指出家修道者）的性質。『所以名果者』。之所以稱為『果』，是因為它是沙門等流果和士用果兩種性質的緣故。
論：『一一擇滅至士用果故』。辨別無為果。
論：『如是合成八十九種』。這是總結數量。
論：『若爾世尊何不具說』。下面一行頌文，第二點說明建立四果的因緣。
論：『曰至無常等故』。說明具備五種原因才能建立四果。『謂總一得得諸斷故者』。《正理》中說：『謂一果得，總得先來所得斷故』（述曰：這是說前向果位中所得的無為法，到如今的果位，總以一果的獲得，而獲得無為法，所以不是眾多無為法以同一種獲得而獲得）。《婆沙》第一百四十一卷中說：『問：何故名沙門果？答：無倒、勇勵、息除染法，名叫沙門。是諸沙門所引導、所證得，名叫沙門果。』
論：『於四果位至故佛不說』。根據這段論文，只有這四個果位以及練根者，才有這五種原因，其餘果位沒有。因此，練根也叫做得果。
論：『若唯凈道是沙門性』。下面一行頌文，第三點說明中間的二果。
論曰：『至斷五下分結』。說明以有漏的斷修惑，而獲得二果時，兼用唯有無漏道斷見惑的無為法，以同一種果的獲得，成就一個果。因此，從多的方面來說，叫做沙門果。
論：『又世俗道至沙門果體』。第二種解釋。諸聖者以世俗道斷惑的時候，必定兼有無漏的斷得持，因此，從無漏的獲得而名為沙門果體。『退不命終者』。這是根據得果位來說的，不是向位。
論：『此沙門性有異名耶』。下面兩行頌文，第四點說明沙門果的異名。
論曰：『至諸煩惱故』。說明真正的沙門性，也叫做婆羅門（Brāhmaṇa，指修行達到最高境界的人）。婆羅門名為凈行，因為它能夠去除各種煩惱，所以得名。
【English Translation】 English version: '亦者亦沙門性 (yì zhě yì shāmén xìng)'. This means that this is also the nature of a Śrāmaṇa (沙門, one who renounces home life and practices the Dharma). '所以名果者 (suǒyǐ míng guǒ zhě)'. The reason it is called 'fruit' (果) is because it has the nature of both the Śrāmaṇa-nisyanda-phala (沙門等流果, fruit of the Śrāmaṇa's outflow) and the puruṣakāra-phala (士用果, fruit of human effort).
Treatise: '一一擇滅至士用果故 (yī yī zé miè zhì shì yòng guǒ gù)'. Discriminating the unconditioned fruit.
Treatise: '如是合成八十九種 (rú shì hé chéng bāshíjiǔ zhǒng)'. This is a summary of the numbers.
Treatise: '若爾世尊何不具說 (ruò ěr shìzūn hé bù jù shuō)'. The following verse explains the causes and conditions for establishing the Four Fruits.
Treatise: '曰至無常等故 (yuē zhì wúcháng děng gù)'. Explaining that having five causes is necessary to establish the Four Fruits. '謂總一得得諸斷故者 (wèi zǒng yī dé dé zhū duàn gù zhě)'. The Zhengli says: 'Meaning that with the attainment of one fruit, one attains all the previously attained cessations.' (述曰: This says that the unconditioned dharmas attained in the previous path of fruition are now attained in the current fruition, and the attainment of one fruit attains the unconditioned, so it is not that many unconditioned dharmas are attained with the same attainment.) The Vibhasa (婆沙) Volume 141 says: 'Question: Why is it called the fruit of a Śrāmaṇa? Answer: Being without error, courageous, diligent, and eliminating defilements is called a Śrāmaṇa. What is guided and realized by these Śrāmaṇas is called the fruit of a Śrāmaṇa.'
Treatise: '於四果位至故佛不說 (yú sì guǒ wèi zhì gù fó bù shuō)'. According to this text, only these four stages of fruition and those who refine their roots have these five causes; other stages do not. Therefore, refining the roots is also called attaining the fruit.
Treatise: '若唯凈道是沙門性 (ruò wéi jìng dào shì shāmén xìng)'. The following verse explains the two intermediate fruits.
Treatise says: '至斷五下分結 (zhì duàn wǔ xià fēn jié)'. Explaining that when one attains the two fruits by severing the afflictions of the Form and Formless Realms with conditioned means, one also uses the unconditioned path to sever the afflictions of the view, and the unconditioned dharmas are attained with the same attainment, thus accomplishing one fruit. Therefore, from the perspective of the many, it is called the fruit of a Śrāmaṇa.
Treatise: '又世俗道至沙門果體 (yòu shì sú dào zhì shāmén guǒ tǐ)'. The second explanation. When the noble ones sever afflictions with the mundane path, they must also have the unconditioned severance and attainment, therefore, it is named the body of the Śrāmaṇa fruit from the unconditioned attainment. '退不命終者 (tuì bù mìng zhōng zhě)'. This is based on the stage of attaining the fruit, not the path.
Treatise: '此沙門性有異名耶 (cǐ shāmén xìng yǒu yì míng yé)'. The following two verses explain the different names of the Śrāmaṇa fruit.
Treatise says: '至諸煩惱故 (zhì zhū fánnǎo gù)'. Explaining that the true Śrāmaṇa nature is also called a Brāhmaṇa (婆羅門, one who has reached the highest state of spiritual attainment). A Brāhmaṇa is called pure conduct because it can eliminate all afflictions, hence the name.
為凈行。
論。即此亦說至亦名清涼。明亦名梵輪。正理論云。寂默沖虛蕭然名梵。佛具此德故立梵名。既自覺悟。為令他覺。轉此授彼。故名梵輪。
論。即於此中至故名法輪。明諸沙門性唯取見道為法輪也。以作似輪故。
論。見道如何與彼相似。問也。
論。由速行等至似世間輪。明有五義似輪也。正理論云。如聖王輪旋環不息。見道亦爾。無中歇故。如聖王輪行用速疾。見道亦爾。舍苦等境取集等故。此則顯示見四聖諦必不俱時。如聖王輪降伏未伏鎮壓已伏。見道亦爾。能見未見。能斷未斷。已見斷者無迷退故。如聖王輪上下回轉。見道又爾。觀上苦等已。觀下苦等故。由此見道獨名法輪。
論。尊者妙音至故名法輪。述異說也。
論。寧知法輪唯是見道。問也。
論。憍陳那等至正法輪故。答也。既憍陳那等見道生時未起修道。即名已轉正法輪故。故知唯說見道。
論。云何三轉十二行相。問也。因明法輪。問三轉法輪。
論。此苦聖諦至十二行相。答也。謂 此苦諦者。是顯示轉。顯示四諦相也 此應遍知者。是勸發轉。動令遍知苦也 此已遍知。引證轉。此苦聖諦我已遍知 于集聖諦應言。此集聖諦此應永斷。此已永斷 此滅聖諦此應作證。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 為凈行。
論：即此也說，甚至也名為清涼（指遠離煩惱的清凈狀態）。明也名為梵輪（指佛法的傳播）。《正理論》說：寂靜、空虛、沖淡，蕭條自然，名為梵（指清凈寂滅的境界）。佛陀具足這種德行，所以立名為梵。既然自己覺悟了，爲了使他人覺悟，輾轉相授，所以名為梵輪（指佛陀的教法如輪子般輾轉相傳）。
論：即於此中，甚至名為法輪（指佛陀的教法如輪子般轉動）。說明諸位沙門（指出家修道者）的本性，只取見道（指初次證悟真理的階段）作為法輪。因為它像輪子一樣運轉。
論：見道如何與輪子相似？（這是）提問。
論：由於快速執行等，所以與世間的輪子相似。說明有五種意義與輪子相似。《正理論》說：如同聖王的輪寶旋轉不停息，見道也是這樣，沒有中斷的時候。如同聖王的輪寶執行快速，見道也是這樣，捨棄痛苦等境界，而取證集諦（指苦的根源）等。這顯示了見四聖諦（指苦、集、滅、道四條真理）必定不是同時發生的。如同聖王的輪寶降伏未降伏的，鎮壓已降伏的，見道也是這樣，能見到未見到的，能斷除未斷除的，已經見到並斷除的就不會迷惑退轉。如同聖王的輪寶上下回轉，見道也是這樣，觀察上面的苦等，又觀察下面的苦等。因此，見道獨自被稱為法輪。
論：尊者妙音（指一位有名的佛教論師）等說，所以名為法輪。這是敘述不同的說法。
論：憑什麼知道法輪唯獨是見道？（這是）提問。
論：憍陳那（指佛陀最初的五位弟子之一）等，乃至正法輪（指正確的佛法之輪）。（這是）回答。既然憍陳那等見道產生時，還沒有開始修道，就名為已經轉了正法輪。所以知道（法輪）唯獨是指見道。
論：什麼是三轉十二行相？（這是）提問。因為說明法輪，所以問三轉法輪。
論：此苦聖諦（指關於苦的真理），乃至十二行相（指對四聖諦的十二種認識）。（這是）回答。所謂『此是苦諦』，是顯示轉（指最初的開示），顯示四諦的相狀。『此應遍知』，是勸發轉（指勸勉修行者去了解），勸勉（修行者）普遍瞭解苦。『此已遍知』，是引證轉（指用自身的證悟來證明），這個苦聖諦我已經普遍瞭解。對於集聖諦（指關於苦的根源的真理）應該說：『此是集聖諦』，『此應永斷』，『此已永斷』。對於滅聖諦（指關於滅苦的真理）應該說：『此應作證』。
【English Translation】 English version: For pure conduct.
Treatise: It is also said here that it is also named 'Coolness' (referring to the pure state of being free from afflictions). It is also named 'Brahma Wheel' (referring to the propagation of the Buddha's teachings). The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Quiet, empty, and serene, naturally called Brahma (referring to the pure and tranquil realm).' The Buddha possesses this virtue, so it is named Brahma. Since he has awakened himself, in order to awaken others, he transmits this to others, so it is named Brahma Wheel (referring to the Buddha's teachings being transmitted like a wheel).'
Treatise: In this, it is even named Dharma Wheel (referring to the Buddha's teachings turning like a wheel). It explains that the nature of all śramaṇas (referring to renunciates practicing the path) only takes the Path of Seeing (referring to the stage of initial realization of the truth) as the Dharma Wheel. Because it acts like a wheel.
Treatise: How is the Path of Seeing similar to a wheel? (This is) a question.
Treatise: Because of its rapid movement, etc., it is similar to a worldly wheel. It explains that there are five meanings similar to a wheel. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Like the wheel of a holy king that revolves without ceasing, so is the Path of Seeing, without interruption. Like the wheel of a holy king that moves swiftly, so is the Path of Seeing, abandoning the realm of suffering, etc., and taking up the samudaya satya (truth of the origin of suffering), etc.' This shows that seeing the Four Noble Truths (referring to the four truths of suffering, origin, cessation, and path) does not necessarily happen simultaneously. Like the wheel of a holy king that subdues the unsubdued and suppresses the already subdued, so is the Path of Seeing, able to see the unseen, able to cut off the uncut, and those who have seen and cut off will not be confused and regress. Like the wheel of a holy king that turns up and down, so is the Path of Seeing, observing the suffering, etc., above, and then observing the suffering, etc., below. Therefore, the Path of Seeing alone is called the Dharma Wheel.
Treatise: The Venerable Myo-on (referring to a famous Buddhist commentator), etc., say, so it is named Dharma Wheel. This is narrating different views.
Treatise: How is it known that the Dharma Wheel is only the Path of Seeing? (This is) a question.
Treatise: Kauṇḍinya (referring to one of the Buddha's first five disciples), etc., up to the Right Dharma Wheel (referring to the correct wheel of the Dharma). (This is) an answer. Since Kauṇḍinya, etc., when the Path of Seeing arose, had not yet begun the Path of Cultivation, it is named that the Right Dharma Wheel has already been turned. Therefore, it is known that (the Dharma Wheel) only refers to the Path of Seeing.
Treatise: What are the three turnings and twelve aspects? (This is) a question. Because of explaining the Dharma Wheel, the question is about the three turnings of the Dharma Wheel.
Treatise: 'This is the duḥkha satya (truth of suffering),' up to the twelve aspects (referring to the twelve perceptions of the Four Noble Truths). (This is) an answer. What is called 'This is the duḥkha satya,' is the showing turning (referring to the initial exposition), showing the aspects of the Four Truths. 'This should be fully understood,' is the exhortation turning (referring to encouraging practitioners to understand), exhorting (practitioners) to fully understand suffering. 'This has been fully understood,' is the attestation turning (referring to using one's own realization to prove), this duḥkha satya I have already fully understood. Regarding the samudaya satya (truth of the origin of suffering), it should be said: 'This is the samudaya satya,' 'This should be completely cut off,' 'This has been completely cut off.' Regarding the nirodha satya (truth of the cessation of suffering), it should be said: 'This should be realized.'
此已作證 此道聖諦此應修。此已修 一．一三轉合成十二 別別發生眼智明覺者。婆沙七十九云。眼者謂法智忍。智者謂法智。明者謂類智忍。覺者謂類智(準此論文。唯見道也)複次。眼是觀見義。智是決斷義。明是照了義。覺是驚察義(準此釋亦得通修道)。
論。如是三轉至七處善等。明諦十二。故名十二行相。理實有四十八也。如眼．色為二法。乃至意．法為二。實十二。七處善五蘊各七。總有三十五。而言二法及七處也。
論。由此三轉至所說如是。顯三轉次第結歸宗也。
論。若爾三轉至立法輪名。論主破婆沙通三道也。
論。是故唯應至可應正理。論主斷取余師義也。此師說。十二行相所有教法三週說法名為三轉。準正理論。是余師義。正理論云。有說此教名為法輪。轉至他身令解義故。此但方便非真法輪。如余雜染無勝能故。
論。如何三轉。問也。既以教法為輪者。如何三轉。
論。三週轉故。答也。
論。如何具足十二行相。問也。
論。三週循歷四聖諦故。總答也。
論。謂此是苦至此已修習。重釋也。第一週顯示四諦。第二週勸知苦。斷集。證滅。修道。第三週引己為證。我已知．斷．證．修。
論。云何名轉。重問余師
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『此已作證，此道聖諦此應修』——這已經被證實，這條道路是神聖的真理，應該去修行。 『此已修』——這已經被修行。 『一．一三轉合成十二』——每一次的三轉合起來構成了十二行相。 『別別發生眼智明覺者』——分別產生眼、智、明、覺。 《婆沙論》第七十九卷說：『眼者謂法智忍（Dharmajñānakṣānti，對法之智的忍受）。智者謂法智（Dharmajñāna，對法之智）。明者謂類智忍（Anvaya-jñānakṣānti，對類比之智的忍受）。覺者謂類智（Anvaya-jñāna，對類比之智）。』（按照這個論文，唯有見道才能如此） 再者，『眼』是觀見之義，『智』是決斷之義，『明』是照了之義，『覺』是驚察之義。（按照這個解釋，也可以貫通修道）
論：像這樣三轉到達七處善等，闡明了諦的十二行相，所以叫做十二行相。實際上有四十八種。 例如，眼和色是二法，乃至意和法是二法，實際上有十二種。七處善和五蘊各有七種，總共有三十五種，但經文中只說了二法和七處善。
論：由此三轉到達所說的『如是』，顯示了三轉的次第，最終歸結到宗旨。
論：如果這樣，三轉到達立法輪名，論主駁斥了《婆沙論》中貫通三道的說法。
論：因此，唯應至可應正理，論主否定了其他老師的觀點。這位老師說：十二行相的所有教法，通過三週說法，稱為三轉。按照《正理論》，這是其他老師的觀點。《正理論》說：有人說這種教法名為法輪，因為它能傳遞到他人身上，使他人理解。但這只是一種方便說法，並非真正的法輪，因為它像其他的雜染一樣，沒有殊勝的能力。
論：如何三轉？這是提問。既然以教法為輪，那麼如何進行三轉？
論：三週轉故。這是回答。
論：如何具足十二行相？這是提問。
論：三週循歷四聖諦故。這是總體的回答。
論：謂此是苦至此已修習。這是重複解釋。第一週顯示四諦（catvāri-ārya-satyāni，四聖諦）。第二週勸導人們認知苦（duḥkha，苦），斷除集（samudaya，集），證得滅（nirodha，滅），修習道（mārga，道）。第三週引用自己作為證明，『我已知、斷、證、修』。
論：云何名轉？這是再次詢問其他老師。
【English Translation】 English version: 'This has been witnessed, this path is the noble truth, this should be cultivated' - This has been verified, this path is the sacred truth and should be practiced. 'This has been cultivated' - This has been practiced. 'One, one, three turns combine into twelve' - Each set of three turns combines to form the twelve aspects. 'Separately arising eye, wisdom, clarity, awareness' - Separately producing eye, wisdom, clarity, and awareness. The Vibhasa (Mahāvibhāṣa，大毗婆沙論) Volume 79 says: 'Eye refers to Dharmajñānakṣānti (法智忍，the acceptance of the wisdom of the Dharma). Wisdom refers to Dharmajñāna (法智，the wisdom of the Dharma). Clarity refers to Anvaya-jñānakṣānti (類智忍，the acceptance of analogous wisdom). Awareness refers to Anvaya-jñāna (類智，analogous wisdom).' (According to this treatise, only the path of seeing is like this) Furthermore, 'eye' means seeing, 'wisdom' means deciding, 'clarity' means illuminating, and 'awareness' means startling observation. (According to this explanation, it can also apply to the path of cultivation)
Treatise: Like this, the three turns reach the seven good places, etc., clarifying the twelve aspects of the truths, so it is called the twelve aspects. In reality, there are forty-eight. For example, eye and form are two dharmas, and so on until mind and dharma are two. In reality, there are twelve. The seven good places and the five aggregates each have seven, totaling thirty-five, but the text only mentions two dharmas and the seven good places.
Treatise: From these three turns to the saying 'thus', it shows the order of the three turns, ultimately concluding in the purpose.
Treatise: If so, the three turns reach the name of establishing the Dharma wheel, the author refutes the Vibhasa's (Mahāvibhāṣa，大毗婆沙論) claim of encompassing the three paths.
Treatise: Therefore, it should only reach what is reasonable, the author rejects the views of other teachers. This teacher says: all the teachings of the twelve aspects, through the three rounds of teaching, are called the three turns. According to the Nyāyānusāraśāstra (正理論), this is the view of other teachers. The Nyāyānusāraśāstra (正理論) says: some say this teaching is called the Dharma wheel because it can be transmitted to others, enabling them to understand. But this is just a convenient way of speaking, not a true Dharma wheel, because it, like other defilements, does not have superior power.
Treatise: How are there three turns? This is a question. Since the teaching is taken as a wheel, how are there three turns?
Treatise: Because of the three rounds of turning. This is the answer.
Treatise: How are the twelve aspects fully present? This is a question.
Treatise: Because the four noble truths (catvāri-ārya-satyāni，四聖諦) are followed in three rounds. This is the general answer.
Treatise: Saying 'this is suffering' to 'this has been cultivated'. This is a repeated explanation. The first round shows the four truths (catvāri-ārya-satyāni，四聖諦). The second round encourages people to recognize suffering (duḥkha，苦), cut off accumulation (samudaya，集), realize cessation (nirodha，滅), and cultivate the path (mārga，道). The third round uses oneself as proof, 'I have known, cut off, realized, and cultivated'.
Treatise: What is called 'turning'? This is asking other teachers again.
。
論。由此法門至令解義故。答也。轉自相續十二行法。往他相續令解義故。名之為轉。
論。或諸聖道至故名已轉。論主第二釋也。第一釋印取余師義。此釋通取三道為法輪也。五比丘等已至轉初故名已轉。正理論云。毗婆沙師本意。總說一切聖道皆名法輪。以說三轉三道攝故。於他相續見道生時。已至轉初故名已轉。然唯見道是法輪初。故說法輪唯是見道。諸天神類即就最初言轉法輪。不依二道。然諸師多說見道名法輪。以地空天神唯依此說故。曾無說三道皆名法輪故。唯見道具前所說法輪義故。雖諸見道皆名法輪。而憍陳那身中先轉。故經說彼見道生時名轉法輪。非余不轉。憍陳那等見道生時。說名世尊轉法輪者。意顯彼等得轉法輪本由世尊。故推在佛。令所化者生尊重故。如是則說如來法輪轉至他身故名為轉 若異此者。天神應說菩提樹下佛轉法輪。不應唱言世尊今在婆羅胝斯國。轉無上法輪。故轉授他此中名轉 有說此教名為法輪。轉至他身令解義故。此但方便非真法輪。如余雜染無勝能故。
論。何沙門果何界得。此下一行頌。第五明沙門果依．界。
論曰至依三界身。明前三果唯依欲界九依身得。謂六慾天及三天下。第四果通依三界身。謂欲九依。色界十六依。無色四。總
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
論：由此法門能夠使人理解意義，所以說是『轉』。答：這是因為『轉』是指將自相續的十二行法，傳遞到他人的相續中，使他人也能理解其意義，所以稱為『轉』。
論：或者說，諸聖道到達（他人相續）的緣故，稱為『已轉』。論主第二種解釋。第一種解釋是採用其他論師的觀點。這種解釋則將三種聖道都視為法輪。五比丘等人已經到達（他人相續）開始轉法輪的階段，所以稱為『已轉』。《正理論》說：毗婆沙師的本意是，總的來說，一切聖道都可以稱為法輪，因為（法輪）包含了三轉和三道。在他人的相續中，見道生起時，就已經到達開始轉法輪的階段，所以稱為『已轉』。然而，只有見道是法輪的開始，所以說法輪僅僅是見道。諸天神類是就最初（轉法輪）而言說『轉法輪』，不依據二道。然而，許多論師都說見道名為法輪，因為地居天神和空居天神都依據這種說法。從來沒有說過三道都名為法輪的。只有見道具備前面所說的法輪的意義。雖然各種見道都可以稱為法輪，但是憍陳那（Kaundinya，五比丘之一）身中首先轉法輪，所以經中說他見道生起時名為轉法輪，並非其餘（人）不轉法輪。憍陳那等人見道生起時，說名為世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀的稱號）轉法輪，意思是顯示他們能夠轉法輪，根本上是由於世尊。所以歸功於佛陀，使所教化的人產生尊重心。這樣說來，就是說如來的法輪轉至他人之身，所以名為『轉』。如果不是這樣，天神應該說菩提樹下佛轉法輪，不應該唱言世尊現在在婆羅胝斯國（Varanasi，古印度城市名），轉無上法輪。所以，轉授給他人，這裡稱為『轉』。有人說這種教法名為法輪，轉至他人之身，使他人理解其意義。這只是一種方便說法，並非真正的法輪，如同其餘雜染（的事物）沒有殊勝的能力。
論：什麼沙門果（Śrāmaṇa-phala，修行證果）在什麼界（Dhātu，領域）中獲得？下面一行頌，第五說明沙門果所依據的（身體）和界。
論曰：……依據三界身。說明前三果只能依據欲界（Kāmadhātu）的九依身獲得，即六慾天和三天下。第四果（阿羅漢果）則可以依據三界身獲得，即欲界的九依身、色界的十六依身和無色界的四依身。總共……
【English Translation】 English version:
Treatise: Because this Dharma gate leads to understanding, it is called 'turning'. Answer: 'Turning' refers to transferring the twelve aspects of Dharma from one's own continuum to another's, enabling them to understand its meaning, hence it is called 'turning'.
Treatise: Or, because the noble paths arrive (in another's continuum), it is called 'already turned'. This is the second explanation by the treatise master. The first explanation adopts the view of other teachers. This explanation considers all three noble paths as the Dharma wheel. The five Bhikshus (Pañcavargika, the first five disciples of the Buddha) and others have reached the stage of beginning to turn the Dharma wheel (in another's continuum), hence it is called 'already turned'. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: The original intention of the Vaibhāṣika masters is that, generally speaking, all noble paths can be called the Dharma wheel, because (the Dharma wheel) encompasses the three turnings and the three paths. When the path of seeing arises in another's continuum, it has already reached the stage of beginning to turn the Dharma wheel, hence it is called 'already turned'. However, only the path of seeing is the beginning of the Dharma wheel, so it is said that the Dharma wheel is only the path of seeing. The gods and deities speak of 'turning the Dharma wheel' in terms of the very beginning (of turning the Dharma wheel), not based on the two paths. However, many teachers say that the path of seeing is called the Dharma wheel, because the earth-dwelling and sky-dwelling deities rely on this saying. There has never been a saying that all three paths are called the Dharma wheel. Only the path of seeing possesses the meaning of the Dharma wheel as described earlier. Although various paths of seeing can be called the Dharma wheel, Kaundinya (one of the first five disciples) first turned the Dharma wheel in his body, so the sutra says that when his path of seeing arose, it was called turning the Dharma wheel, not that the others did not turn the Dharma wheel. When the path of seeing arose in Kaundinya and others, it was said that the Bhagavan (the Blessed One, a title for the Buddha) turned the Dharma wheel, meaning to show that their ability to turn the Dharma wheel was fundamentally due to the Bhagavan. Therefore, it is attributed to the Buddha, causing those who are being taught to generate respect. In this way, it is said that the Tathagata's (Tathāgata, 'one who has thus gone', an epithet of the Buddha) Dharma wheel turns to another's body, hence it is called 'turning'. If it were not so, the gods should say that the Buddha turned the Dharma wheel under the Bodhi tree, and should not proclaim that the Bhagavan is now in Varanasi (an ancient Indian city), turning the unsurpassed Dharma wheel. Therefore, transferring it to others is called 'turning' here. Some say that this teaching is called the Dharma wheel, turning to another's body, enabling them to understand its meaning. This is only an expedient, not the true Dharma wheel, like other defilements without superior ability.
Treatise: What Śrāmaṇa-phala (fruits of the ascetic life) are obtained in what Dhātu (realm)? The following verse, the fifth, clarifies the (body) and realm upon which the Śrāmaṇa-phala depend.
Treatise: ...depending on bodies in the three realms. It clarifies that the first three fruits can only be obtained depending on the nine dependent bodies of the desire realm (Kāmadhātu), namely the six heavens of desire and the three continents. The fourth fruit (Arhatship) can be obtained depending on bodies in the three realms, namely the nine dependent bodies of the desire realm, the sixteen dependent bodies of the form realm, and the four dependent bodies of the formless realm. In total...
二十九依身。得阿羅漢果。
論。前之二果至非依上得。問也。
論。由理教故。總答也。
論。且理云何。問理也。
論。依上界身至不還果義。答理也。離欲界染得第三果。若次第者必依欲身離欲界染。先得果已方得生上。若超越者必依見道得第三果。見道必依欲界身起故。第三果唯依欲界。
論。何緣上界必無見道。問上界無見道所以。
論。且無色中至能得見道。答所以也。夫見道者必因聞教。及先緣欲界苦等。無色界身不能聞教。不緣下故。不依彼身起見道也。色界異生。一著勝樂故。二無苦受。不生厭心故。不能起見道。見道必因厭心起故。
論。教復云何。問教也。
論。由經說故至上界定無。引經證也 經言有五補特伽羅。即五不還 此處通達者。通達即見道異名。此處者。是欲界 彼處究竟者。是上二界得涅槃也。◎
俱舍論疏卷第二十四
霜月二十日午上點了
（別筆）
以興福寺慈恩院本一交了□□ 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二十五
沙門法寶撰
分別賢聖品第六之四
◎論。如前所說至亦有云何。已下大文第五明六種姓。一明六種羅漢。二
【現代漢語翻譯】 二十九、依身。得阿羅漢果（Arhat fruit，佛教修行達到的最高境界）。
論：之前的二果（指斯陀含和阿那含果）不是依靠上界身而獲得的。這是提問。
論：因為有道理和教證的緣故。這是總的回答。
論：且說道理是什麼？這是詢問道理。
論：依靠上界身可以獲得不還果（Anagamin fruit，佛教四果中的第三果）的意義。這是回答道理。離開欲界染污可以獲得第三果。如果按照次第修行，必定依靠欲界身離開欲界染污，先獲得果位，然後才能生到上界。如果是超越次第修行，必定依靠見道（Darshana-marga，佛教修行道路的最初階段）獲得第三果，而見道必定依靠欲界身才能生起。所以第三果只能依靠欲界身獲得。
論：為什麼上界必定沒有見道？這是詢問上界沒有見道的原因。
論：且說無色界中，不能獲得見道。這是回答原因。見道必定是因為聽聞教法，以及先前緣于欲界的苦等。沒有肉身就不能聽聞教法，不緣于地獄，所以不能依靠上界身生起見道。異生（Prthagjana，凡夫）一方面執著于殊勝的快樂，另一方面沒有苦受，不生起厭離之心，所以不能生起見道。見道必定是因為厭離之心才能生起。
論：教證又是什麼？這是詢問教證。
論：因為經中這樣說，所以上界必定沒有。這是引用經文來證明。經中說有五種補特伽羅（Pudgala，人），即五種不還果。此處通達的人，通達就是見道的異名。此處指的是欲界。彼處究竟的人，指的是在上二界獲得涅槃（Nirvana，佛教的最終目標）。
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十四
霜月二十日午上點了
（別筆）
以興福寺慈恩院本一交了□□ 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十五
沙門法寶撰
分別賢聖品第六之四
論：如前所說，也有這樣的說法嗎？以下是第五大段，闡明六種姓。一是闡明六種阿羅漢，二是...
【English Translation】 Twenty-ninth, depending on the body, one attains the Arhat fruit (the highest state of attainment in Buddhism).
Treatise: The previous two fruits (referring to Sakradagamin and Anagamin fruits) are not attained by relying on the bodies of the upper realms. This is a question.
Treatise: Because of reason and scriptural authority. This is a general answer.
Treatise: What is the reason? This is asking about the reason.
Treatise: Relying on the bodies of the upper realms, one can attain the meaning of the Anagamin fruit (the third of the four fruits in Buddhism). This is answering the reason. By separating from the defilements of the desire realm, one can attain the third fruit. If one cultivates in sequence, one must rely on the body of the desire realm to separate from the defilements of the desire realm, first attaining the fruit, and then being born in the upper realms. If one cultivates beyond the sequence, one must rely on the path of seeing (Darshana-marga, the initial stage of the Buddhist path) to attain the third fruit, and the path of seeing must arise by relying on the body of the desire realm. Therefore, the third fruit can only be attained by relying on the desire realm.
Treatise: Why is there definitely no path of seeing in the upper realms? This is asking about the reason why there is no path of seeing in the upper realms.
Treatise: In the formless realm, one cannot attain the path of seeing. This is answering the reason. The path of seeing must be due to hearing the teachings and previously being connected to the suffering of the desire realm. Without a physical body, one cannot hear the teachings, and without being connected to the lower realm, one cannot arise the path of seeing by relying on the bodies of the upper realms. Ordinary beings (Prthagjana, common people) on one hand are attached to superior pleasure, and on the other hand do not experience suffering, and do not generate a sense of aversion, so they cannot arise the path of seeing. The path of seeing must arise because of a sense of aversion.
Treatise: What is the scriptural authority? This is asking about the scriptural authority.
Treatise: Because the sutras say so, there is definitely none in the upper realms. This is quoting the sutras to prove it. The sutras say there are five types of Pudgala (person), which are the five types of Anagamin. Those who understand here, understanding is another name for the path of seeing. 'Here' refers to the desire realm. Those who attain ultimate liberation there, refers to attaining Nirvana (the ultimate goal of Buddhism) in the upper two realms.
Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā, Volume 24
Checked at noon on the 20th day of Frost Month
(Separate note)
One copy completed from the Kōfuku-ji Jion'in edition □□ Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 41, No. 1822, Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā
Kośa-śāstra-ṭīkā, Volume 25
Composed by Śramaṇa Dharmapāla
Chapter 6, Section 4: Distinguishing the Worthy and the Saints
Treatise: As mentioned before, is there also such a saying? The following is the fifth major section, explaining the six lineages. First, explaining the six types of Arhats, second...
明六種學．凡。三明三種退別。四明六退果時等。五明練根不同。六明九種無學 就初門中。一明六種種姓。二明六種先後。三明從姓果退。此一行半頌明六種姓。
論曰至六不動法。列六種姓名也。
論。於此六中至及心解脫故。釋先學位是信解脫。今至無學名時愛心解脫。恒時愛護所得法故名時愛。及心解脫煩惱縛故名心解脫。有學無心解脫。利根羅漢時愛。此具二故立此名也。
論。亦說名為至方入定故。釋異名也。以要待時得解脫故。名時解脫。如盛蘇瓶。略去初盛字但名蘇瓶 由此待時。已下釋待時也。婆沙一百一云。時雖有多。略有六種。一得好衣時。二得好食時。三得好臥具時。四得好處所時。五得好說法時。六得好補特伽羅時。乃至廣說。待六種時得心解脫故名時解脫 又云。云何時愛心解脫。答時解脫阿羅漢盡智．或無學正見智相應心。勝解．已勝解．當勝解。云何不動心解脫。答不動法阿羅漢盡智．無生智．或無學正見智相應心。勝解．已勝解．當勝解 此中盡．無生智無學正見相應心者。簡別有學及有漏心勝解者謂現在。已勝解者謂過去。當勝解者。謂未來。此即簡異無為解脫。顯二解脫唯以無漏心相應勝解為自性 又云。此二解脫各有二種。一名心解脫。離貪愛故。二名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 現在開始解釋六種學，總共有六個部分。第一部分解釋六種姓（Gotra），第二部分解釋六種姓的先後順序，第三部分解釋從姓到果位的退轉。第四部分解釋六種退轉的果位時間等等。第五部分解釋利根（Sharp faculties）和鈍根（Dull faculties）的不同。第六部分解釋九種無學（Arhat）。首先，在第一部分中：第一點解釋六種種姓，第二點解釋六種姓的先後順序，第三點解釋從種姓到果位的退轉。下面這一行半的偈頌解釋了六種種姓。
論曰：到六不動法（Acaladhamma）。這裡列出了六種姓的名稱。
論：在這六種姓中，解釋先前的學位是信解脫（Saddhadhimutta）。現在到達無學（Asekha）的階段，稱為時愛心解脫（Samayavimutta）。因為總是愛護所得到的法，所以稱為時愛。以及因為心解脫了煩惱的束縛，所以稱為心解脫。有學位的人沒有心解脫。利根的阿羅漢（Arhat）有時愛。因為同時具備這兩種，所以建立這個名稱。
論：也說名為時解脫（Samayavimutta），因為要等待時機才能入定。解釋了不同的名稱。因為必須要等待時機才能得到解脫，所以稱為時解脫。就像裝滿酥油的瓶子，省略了最初的『裝滿』字，只稱為酥油瓶。由此等待時機。下面解釋等待時機。婆沙（Vibhasa）一百一中說：時機雖然有很多種，但大致有六種。一是得到好衣服的時機，二是得到好食物的時機，三是得到好臥具的時機，四是得到好住所的時機，五是得到好的說法（Dharma talk）的時機，六是得到好的補特伽羅（Pudgala，person）的時機。乃至廣說。等待這六種時機才能得到心解脫，所以稱為時解脫。又說：什麼時候是時愛心解脫？回答是時解脫的阿羅漢，具有盡智（knowledge of extinction）或與無學正見智（right view of no more learning）相應的心。勝解（conviction）、已勝解、當勝解。什麼是不動心解脫（Akuppacitta-vimutta）？回答是不動法的阿羅漢，具有盡智、無生智（knowledge of no arising），或與無學正見智相應的心。勝解、已勝解、當勝解。這裡，盡智、無生智與無學正見相應的心，是爲了區別有學（Sekkha）和有漏（tainted）的心。勝解是指現在，已勝解是指過去，當勝解是指未來。這就可以區分于無為（unconditioned）的解脫，顯示這兩種解脫僅僅以無漏（untainted）心相應的勝解為自性。又說：這兩種解脫各有兩種，一名心解脫，因為離開了貪愛；二名……
【English Translation】 English version: Now begins the explanation of the six types of learners, comprising six sections in total. The first section explains the six Gotras (lineages), the second explains the order of these six Gotras, and the third explains the regression from Gotra to fruition. The fourth section explains the time of fruition for the six types of regression, and so on. The fifth section explains the differences between sharp and dull faculties. The sixth section explains the nine types of Arhats (non-learners). Firstly, within the first section: the first point explains the six Gotras, the second explains the order of the six Gotras, and the third explains the regression from Gotra to fruition. The following one and a half verses explain the six Gotras.
Treatise says: Up to the six Acaladhamma (immovable dharmas). Here lists the names of the six Gotras.
Treatise: Among these six, explains that the previous degree is Saddhadhimutta (faith-liberated). Now reaching the stage of Asekha (no more learning), it is called Samayavimutta (time-liberated). Because one always cherishes the Dharma (teachings) obtained, it is called 'time-loving'. And because the mind is liberated from the bonds of afflictions, it is called 'mind-liberated'. Those with learning do not have mind-liberation. Arhats with sharp faculties sometimes have love. Because it possesses both, this name is established.
Treatise: It is also said to be called Samayavimutta (time-liberated), because one must wait for the right time to enter Samadhi (meditative absorption). Explains the different names. Because one must wait for the right time to attain liberation, it is called 'time-liberated'. Like a jar filled with ghee (clarified butter), omitting the initial word 'filled', it is simply called a ghee jar. Hence, waiting for the right time. The following explains waiting for the right time. Vibhasa (commentary) one hundred and one says: Although there are many kinds of times, there are roughly six. First, the time to get good clothes; second, the time to get good food; third, the time to get good bedding; fourth, the time to get a good dwelling; fifth, the time to get a good Dharma talk; sixth, the time to get a good Pudgala (person). And so on. Waiting for these six times to attain mind-liberation, hence it is called 'time-liberated'. Also says: When is Samayavimutta (time-liberated)? The answer is an Arhat who is time-liberated, possessing knowledge of extinction or a mind corresponding to the right view of no more learning. Conviction, already convinced, about to be convinced. What is Akuppacitta-vimutta (immovable mind-liberated)? The answer is an Arhat of immovable Dharma, possessing knowledge of extinction, knowledge of no arising, or a mind corresponding to the right view of no more learning. Conviction, already convinced, about to be convinced. Here, the mind corresponding to the knowledge of extinction, knowledge of no arising, and the right view of no more learning, is to distinguish it from the mind of those with learning and the tainted mind. Conviction refers to the present, already convinced refers to the past, and about to be convinced refers to the future. This distinguishes it from the unconditioned liberation, showing that these two liberations are only characterized by conviction corresponding to the untainted mind. Also says: These two liberations each have two types, one is called mind-liberation, because it is free from greed and attachment; the second is called...
慧解脫。離無明故 又一釋云。依搖小道而得解脫故名時解脫。猶小道者。謂若極速第一生中種善根。第二生中令成就。第三生中得解脫。余不決定依廣大道而得解脫名不時解脫。廣大道者。謂極遠聲聞乘經六十劫而得解脫。如舍利子。獨覺乘經百劫而得解脫。如麟角喻。佛乘經三無數劫而得解脫。
論。不動法性至及心解脫故。釋前見至。無學位名不動心解脫 頌中言復者。以不動法性六種姓中是最後故。但言其後表是不動。即此不動以無退動故名不動。貪等盡故名心解脫。
論。亦說名為至和合時故。釋亦名不時解脫。三摩地等不待勝緣時。得現前故名不時也。煩惱盡故名心解脫。
論。或依暫時至無退墮時故。述異釋也。暫時解脫有退墮時。以有此時名時解脫。畢竟解脫無退墮時。以無此時名不時解脫。
論。此從學位見至姓生。釋本名也。前時解脫先說從生后說異名。不時解脫先說異名后說從生者。作頌文便。
論。如是所明六種羅漢。已下半行頌。第二明六種先後。
論曰至隨應當說。明六種姓中。若無學位中。是退法者。必定先是有學位退種姓也。若無學位思法種姓即不定。或是學位退法。至無學位練根至思。或是從學思種。生乃至不動。或有先來是學位中不動姓
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『慧解脫』，因為遠離無明（avidyā）的緣故。另一種解釋是，依靠搖動的小道而獲得解脫，因此稱為『時解脫』。所謂小道，是指在極快的第一世中種下善根，第二世中使其成就，第三世中獲得解脫。其餘則不確定。依靠廣大的道而獲得解脫，稱為『不時解脫』。所謂廣大道，是指極遠的聲聞乘，經過六十劫而獲得解脫，如舍利子（Śāriputra）；獨覺乘，經過一百劫而獲得解脫，如麟角喻；佛乘，經過三大無數劫而獲得解脫。
論：『不動法性』乃至『及心解脫故』。解釋前面所說的『見至』。無學位稱為『不動心解脫』。頌文中所說的『復』字，是因為不動法性在六種姓中是最後一種。只說在其後，表明是不動。即此不動，因為沒有退動，所以稱為『不動』。因為貪等煩惱斷盡，所以稱為『心解脫』。
論：『亦說名為至和合時故』。解釋也稱為『不時解脫』。三摩地（samādhi）等不等待殊勝的因緣時，就能現前，所以稱為『不時』。因為煩惱斷盡，所以稱為『心解脫』。
論：『或依暫時至無退墮時故』。這是另一種解釋。暫時解脫有退墮的時候，因為有這個『時』，所以稱為『時解脫』。畢竟解脫沒有退墮的時候，因為沒有這個『時』，所以稱為『不時解脫』。
論：『此從學位見至姓生』。解釋本來的名稱。前面說『時解脫』，先說從生，后說異名。『不時解脫』，先說異名，后說從生，是爲了使頌文便於寫作。
論：『如是所明六種羅漢』。以下半行頌，第二說明六種的先後。
論曰：『至隨應當說』。說明六種姓中，如果在無學位中，是退法者，必定先是有學位的退種姓。如果在無學位是思法種姓，就不一定，或者是有學位的退法，到無學位練根到思法，或者是從有學位的思種姓產生，乃至不動，或者有先來就是有學位中的不動姓。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Wisdom Liberation' (慧解脫), because of being apart from ignorance (avidyā). Another explanation is, relying on the shaking small path to attain liberation, therefore it is called 'Timely Liberation' (時解脫). The so-called small path refers to planting good roots in the extremely fast first life, making them accomplished in the second life, and attaining liberation in the third life. The rest is uncertain. Relying on the vast path to attain liberation is called 'Untimely Liberation' (不時解脫). The so-called vast path refers to the extremely distant Śrāvakayāna, attaining liberation after sixty kalpas, like Śāriputra (舍利子); the Pratyekabuddhayāna, attaining liberation after one hundred kalpas, like the rhinoceros horn analogy; the Buddhayāna, attaining liberation after three asamkhyeya kalpas.
Treatise: 'Immovable Dharma-nature' (不動法性) up to 'and because of mind liberation' (及心解脫故). Explains the aforementioned 'Faith-follower' (見至). The state of no-more-learning is called 'Immovable Mind Liberation' (不動心解脫). The word 'again' (復) in the verse is because the immovable Dharma-nature is the last of the six lineages. Only saying 'after it' indicates immovability. This immovability, because there is no regression, is called 'immovable'. Because greed and other afflictions are exhausted, it is called 'mind liberation'.
Treatise: 'Also said to be the time of attainment and harmony' (亦說名為至和合時故). Explains that it is also called 'Untimely Liberation'. Samādhi (三摩地) and others do not wait for superior conditions to manifest, therefore it is called 'untimely'. Because afflictions are exhausted, it is called 'mind liberation'.
Treatise: 'Or relying on temporary up to the time of no regression' (或依暫時至無退墮時故). This is another explanation. Temporary liberation has a time of regression, because there is this 'time', it is called 'Timely Liberation'. Ultimate liberation has no time of regression, because there is no this 'time', it is called 'Untimely Liberation'.
Treatise: 'This arises from the Faith-follower lineage in the state of learning' (此從學位見至姓生). Explains the original name. The aforementioned 'Timely Liberation' first speaks of arising from, then speaks of a different name. 'Untimely Liberation' first speaks of a different name, then speaks of arising from, in order to make the verse easier to write.
Treatise: 'The six types of Arhats thus explained' (如是所明六種羅漢). The following half-line verse, secondly explains the order of the six types.
Treatise says: 'Up to explain as appropriate' (至隨應當說). Explains that among the six lineages, if in the state of no-more-learning, one is a regressing person, then one must first be a regressing lineage in the state of learning. If in the state of no-more-learning one is a Dharma-thinking lineage, it is not certain, or one is a regressing person in the state of learning, up to refining the roots to Dharma-thinking in the state of no-more-learning, or arising from the Dharma-thinking lineage in the state of learning, up to immovability, or one has been an immovable lineage in the state of learning from the beginning.
。或是退性。或是思等。至無學位練根至不動也。
論。言退法者至非思法等。釋退法也。正理論云。謂彼獲得如是類根安住此根。與退緣會便退所得。無退緣者便般涅槃。或有精勤進得勝姓。
論。言思法者至恒思自害。釋思法也。正理論云。恒作是思。勿遇病等便於正念有所忘失。于加行中致有慢緩。由此慢緩令我有退。由斯籌慮起自害思。或由艱辛方逮勝位觀諸財寶。乃至廣說。
論。言護法者至喜自防護。釋護法也。正理論云。謂有一類恒於時愛解脫中繫念現前。專精護。彼作是念言。我且未能修習練根達安住法。但於時愛心解脫中。能不放逸精勤防護。如是種類名為護法。
論。安住法者至亦不增進。釋安住也。正理意同。
論。堪達法者至速達不動。釋堪達也。正理亦同。
論。不動法者彼必無退。釋不動也。正理論云。謂有一類根性殊勝於行自在。于斷煩惱隨煩惱中得方便智。不為一切隨順退法之所傾動乃至廣說。
論。此六種姓至具二加行。釋六種姓差別所以 恒時。謂動行 尊重。謂勇猛 退種闕二。是鈍根。思種二根少利。第三唯恒時。第四唯尊重。第五雖具而是鈍根。第六具二而利根。
論。退法種性至通三界皆有。明五種姓名據容有非即
【現代漢語翻譯】 或者有退轉的根性（退性）。或者有思法的根性（思等）。直到無學位的練根，最終達到不動的境界（不動也）。
論：』說退法者』直到』非思法等』，解釋的是退法。 《正理論》中說：』所謂獲得了某種根性，安住於此根性，如果遇到退轉的因緣就會退轉所得。如果沒有退轉的因緣，就會般涅槃。或者有人精勤進取，得到更殊勝的根性。』
論：』說思法者』直到』恒思自害』，解釋的是思法。 《正理論》中說：』經常這樣思考：不要遇到疾病等，以至於對正念有所忘失，在修行中導致懈怠緩慢。由於這種懈怠緩慢，使我退轉。由於這樣的考慮，產生了自我損害的想法。或者由於艱辛才獲得殊勝的地位，觀察各種財寶，乃至廣說。』
論：』說護法者』直到』喜自防護』，解釋的是護法。 《正理論》中說：』所謂有一類人，經常在時愛解脫中繫念現前，專心精進地守護。他們這樣想：我還沒有能夠修習練根，達到安住的境界，只能在時愛心解脫中，不放逸地精勤防護。』這樣的種類稱為護法。
論：』安住法者』直到』亦不增進』，解釋的是安住。 《正理論》的意義相同。
論：』堪達法者』直到』速達不動』，解釋的是堪達。 《正理論》也相同。
論：』不動法者』，他們必定不會退轉，解釋的是不動。 《正理論》中說：』所謂有一類人，根性殊勝，對於修行自在，對於斷除煩惱和隨煩惱，得到方便的智慧，不被一切隨順退轉之法所動搖，乃至廣說。』
論：這六種根性，具備兩種加行，解釋六種根性的差別所在。恒時，指的是動行。尊重，指的是勇猛。退種缺少兩種，是鈍根。思種兩種根性稍微有利。第三種只有恒時。第四種只有尊重。第五種雖然具備兩種，但是是鈍根。第六種具備兩種而且是利根。
論：退法種性，通於三界都有。說明五種姓名根據容許有，並非就是。
【English Translation】 Or those who are of a regressive nature (Retrogression). Or those who are of a thoughtful nature (Thinking). Until the practice of roots at the stage of no-learning, ultimately reaching the state of immovability (Immovable).
Treatise: 'Saying those who regress' until 'not thinking', explains regression. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'So-called those who have obtained such a type of root, abiding in this root, if they encounter conditions for regression, they will regress from what they have obtained. If there are no conditions for regression, they will attain Parinirvana. Or some diligently advance and obtain a more superior nature.'
Treatise: 'Saying those who think' until 'constantly thinking of self-harm', explains thinking. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Constantly thinking like this: do not encounter illness, etc., so that there is forgetfulness of right mindfulness, leading to slowness and laxity in practice. Due to this slowness and laxity, it causes me to regress. Due to such considerations, thoughts of self-harm arise. Or due to hardship, one attains a superior position, observing various treasures, and so on.'
Treatise: 'Saying those who protect' until 'delighting in self-protection', explains protection. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'So-called those of a certain type who constantly keep mindfulness present in the liberation of time-love, diligently protecting it. They think like this: I have not yet been able to practice and train the roots to reach the state of abiding, but only in the liberation of time-love can I diligently protect myself without negligence.' Such types are called protectors.
Treatise: 'Those who abide' until 'also do not increase', explains abiding. The meaning of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra is the same.
Treatise: 'Those who are capable of attaining' until 'quickly attaining immovability', explains capability. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra is also the same.
Treatise: 'Those who are immovable', they will certainly not regress, explains immovability. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'So-called those of a certain type whose root nature is superior, who are at ease in practice, and who have obtained expedient wisdom in cutting off afflictions and secondary afflictions, are not shaken by all conditions conducive to regression, and so on.'
Treatise: These six types of nature possess two types of practice, explaining the differences in the six types of nature. Constant, refers to moving practice. Respect, refers to courage. The regressive type lacks both, and is a dull root. The thinking type has two roots that are slightly beneficial. The third type only has constancy. The fourth type only has respect. The fifth type, although possessing both, is a dull root. The sixth type possesses both and is a sharp root.
Treatise: The regressive nature is common to all three realms. Explaining that the five names are based on what is permissible, not what is.
如名定有退等。三界具有六種種姓。而於上界無退練根。
論。若執退者至故唯有二。明若退等定退者。即唯欲界具六種性。不應通上界。以是無退等故。
論。如是六種阿羅漢中。已下半行頌。第三明從姓．果退。
論曰至皆有退義。明六種姓不動種姓決定不退。前五種姓容有退義。有退義言顯非決定。
論。于中后四至最居下故。明五中退法一種無退姓義。以最下故。餘四皆容退性義以即下姓可容退故。
論。五種皆有從果退義。釋。前五種姓皆容得有從果退義。非決定也。
論。雖俱有退至所成堅故。退姓．退果並非先也。謂先學位是退種姓。至無學位練根進成思種姓等。此種性等有退種姓及退果義。若先學位是思種姓。至無學位進思護等有退種姓。至思種姓無退果義。及退思種姓義。學．無學道所成堅故。護等準此。婆沙一百八十二云。尊者設摩達多說。退阿羅漢時。唯得未來先所舍學果。不得過去。所以者何。以彼畢竟不現前故。上地沒生下亦爾 又云。摩訶僧祇說。預流果有退。
論。若諸有學至所成堅固。乘便釋世．出世道所持不退。
論。若住此位至必亦無退。明無學．有學二。先位中是其退法至修道位中。從退至思等。從思至護等。此新進得。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 如名而定，是否有退轉等情況。三界（欲界、色界、無色界）具有六種種姓（隨信行、隨法行、信解、見至、身證、慧解脫）。但在上界（色界、無色界）沒有退練根的情況。
論：如果執著于有退轉，那麼到達的境界就只有兩種。明確如果退轉等同於確定退轉，那麼就只有欲界具備六種種姓，不應包括上界。因為上界沒有退轉等情況。
論：像這樣六種阿羅漢中，以下半行頌文。第三說明從種姓、果位的退轉。
論曰：到都有退轉的含義。明確六種種姓中，不動種姓決定不會退轉。前五種種姓容許有退轉的含義。『有退義』說明並非是決定的。
論：其中后四種姓到最居下位。明確五種姓中，退法一種沒有退姓的含義。因為是最下位。其餘四種都容許有退轉的性質，因為是下位種姓，可以容許退轉的緣故。
論：五種都有從果位退轉的含義。解釋：前五種種姓都容許有從果位退轉的含義，並非是決定的。
論：雖然都有退轉到所成就的堅固。退種姓、退果位並非是先前的。意思是先前的學位是退種姓，到無學位練根進成思種姓等。這種種姓等有退種姓以及退果位的含義。如果先前的學位是思種姓，到無學位進思護等有退種姓。到思種姓沒有退果位的含義。以及退思種姓的含義。學道、無學道所成就的堅固。護等依此類推。《婆沙》一百八十二卷說：尊者設摩達多說，退阿羅漢時，只能得到未來先前所捨棄的學果，不能得到過去的。為什麼呢？因為那畢竟不會再現前。上地死亡而生到下地也是這樣。又說：摩訶僧祇說，預流果有退轉。
論：如果諸有學到所成就的堅固。順便解釋世間道、出世間道所持有的不會退轉。
論：如果住在此位到必定也沒有退轉。明確無學、有學二者。先前的位置是其退法到修道位中。從退到思等，從思到護等。這是新進得到的。
【English Translation】 English version Whether names determine the existence of regression, etc. The Three Realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm) possess six kinds of lineages (faith-follower, dharma-follower, faith-liberated, vision-attained, body-witness, wisdom-liberated). However, in the upper realms (Form Realm, Formless Realm), there is no regression from root-training.
Treatise: If one insists on regression, then the attained states are only two. Clarifying that if regression is definite, then only the Desire Realm possesses the six lineages, and it should not include the upper realms, because they do not have regression, etc.
Treatise: Among these six kinds of Arhats, the following half-verse. Thirdly, it explains regression from lineage and fruition.
Treatise says: To all have the meaning of regression. Clarifying that among the six lineages, the immovable lineage definitely does not regress. The first five lineages may have the meaning of regression. 'May have the meaning of regression' indicates that it is not definite.
Treatise: Among them, the latter four to the lowest position. Clarifying that among the five lineages, the regression-dharma one does not have the meaning of regression from lineage, because it is the lowest. The remaining four all allow the nature of regression, because it is a lower lineage, allowing regression.
Treatise: All five have the meaning of regression from fruition. Explanation: The first five lineages all allow the meaning of regression from fruition, but it is not definite.
Treatise: Although both have regression to the firmness of what is achieved. Regression from lineage and regression from fruition are not prior. It means that the prior stage of learning is the regression lineage, to the non-learning stage of root-training, advancing to the thought lineage, etc. These lineages, etc., have the meaning of regression from lineage and regression from fruition. If the prior stage of learning is the thought lineage, to the non-learning stage, advancing to thought-protection, etc., there is regression from lineage. To the thought lineage, there is no meaning of regression from fruition, and the meaning of regression from the thought lineage. The firmness achieved by the path of learning and non-learning. Protection, etc., are analogous to this. The one hundred and eighty-second volume of the Vibhasa says: Venerable Sariputra said that when an Arhat regresses, he can only obtain the future learning-fruition that he previously abandoned, and cannot obtain the past one. Why? Because it will never appear again. It is the same when dying in the upper realm and being born in the lower realm. Also, the Mahasanghika says that the Stream-enterer fruition has regression.
Treatise: If all those with learning to the firmness of what is achieved. Conveniently explains that what is held by the worldly and supramundane paths does not regress.
Treatise: If one dwells in this position to there is definitely no regression. Clarifying the two, non-learner and learner. The prior position is its regression-dharma to the stage of cultivation. From regression to thought, etc., from thought to protection, etc. This is newly obtained.
種性有容退義。無學有學二。先位中住思護。住堪達種性。至無學位必無退義。經二道持。皆不退故。
論。此所得果至有退果義。明若先位退種姓有退果義。若先位是思等姓無退果義。
論。又亦無退至退預流果。明雖凡位中是退法。得預流果亦必定無退。
論。由此應果至一一增故。明先是退姓至應果增進根者。退法有三。思四。護五。住六。堪達七也。
論。思法等四至應是進非退。明先是退姓至無學進至思等。後退果時。還住退性不住思等。
論。何緣定無退先果者。下明初果無退所以。此即問也。
論。以見所斷至必無退理。答也。以見所斷依無事故唯無也。此有三重。第一我體無故名為無事。第二謂有身見依我處轉。我體既無名依無事。第三見斷余惑以我見為根身見不退亦無退理。
論。若爾應說此惑緣無。難也。身見依我。我體既無。應緣無起。
論。非此緣無至不如實緣。答也。身見既依身起。即是以苦諦為境。如不如實知謂苦法為我。
論。諸煩惱中誰不如是。難也。貪．瞋．慢等皆緣諦境不如實知。應名無事。何獨見惑。
論。雖皆如是至與修斷別。釋也。雖皆以諦為境不如實知。而有差別。以修斷惑各永有可意．不可意別。于
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 種性（gotra）有容許退轉的含義。有學（śaikṣa）和無學（aśaikṣa）兩種。先位中，住（sthita-gotra）、思（acala-gotra）、護（rakṣita-gotra）。住種性堪能達到。到達無學位必定沒有退轉的含義。經由二道（見道、修道）保持，都是不退轉的緣故。
論：此所得到的果位，有退果的含義。說明如果先位退種姓，有退果的含義。如果先位是思等姓，沒有退果的含義。
論：又也沒有退轉，直到退預流果（srotaāpanna-phala）。說明即使凡位中是退法，得到預流果也必定沒有退轉。
論：由此應果，直到一一增進的緣故。說明先是退姓，直到應果增進根器的人。退法有三種，思四種，護五種，住六種，堪達七種。
論：思法等四種，直到應是增進而非退轉。說明先是退姓，直到無學增進到思等。後來退果時，還住在退性，不住在思等。
論：什麼緣故決定沒有退轉先果的人？下面說明初果（srotaāpanna-phala）沒有退轉的原因。這是提問。
論：以見所斷（darśana-heya）直到必定沒有退轉的道理。回答。以見所斷依靠無事，所以唯有無。這有三重。第一，我體沒有的緣故，名為無事。第二，說有身見（satkāya-dṛṣṭi）依靠我處轉。我體既然沒有，名為依靠無事。第三，見斷的其餘惑，以我見為根本，身見不退，也沒有退轉的道理。
論：如果這樣，應該說此惑緣無。難。身見依靠我。我體既然沒有，應該緣無而起。
論：不是此緣無，直到不如實緣。回答。身見既然依靠身而起，就是以苦諦（duḥkha-satya）為境。如不如實知，說苦法為我。
論：諸煩惱中誰不如是？難。貪（rāga）、瞋（dveṣa）、慢（māna）等都緣諦境不如實知。應該名為無事。為何唯獨見惑？
論：雖都如此，直到與修斷（bhāvanā-heya）不同。解釋。雖都以諦為境不如實知。而有差別。以修斷惑各自永遠有可意、不可意之別。于
【English Translation】 English version Gotra (種性) has the meaning of allowing regression. There are two types: Śaikṣa (有學) and Aśaikṣa (無學). In the initial stage, there are Sthita-gotra (住), Acala-gotra (思), and Rakṣita-gotra (護). Sthita-gotra is capable of attainment. Reaching the state of Aśaikṣa certainly has no meaning of regression, because it is maintained through the two paths (見道 and 修道), and both are non-regressing.
Treatise: The fruit obtained here has the meaning of regressing from the fruit. It explains that if the initial stage is a regressing Gotra, it has the meaning of regressing from the fruit. If the initial stage is Acala-gotra etc., it has no meaning of regressing from the fruit.
Treatise: Furthermore, there is no regression until regressing from the Srotaāpanna-phala (預流果). It explains that even if one is a regressing Dharma in the ordinary stage, attaining the Srotaāpanna-phala certainly has no regression.
Treatise: Therefore, the fruit of the Ārya (應果) is due to each progressive increase. It explains that initially, it is a regressing Gotra, until the person with the capacity to progress to the fruit of the Ārya. There are three types of regressing Dharma, four types of Acala, five types of Rakṣita, six types of Sthita, and seven types of capable attainment.
Treatise: The four types of Acala Dharma, etc., should be progressive rather than regressive. It explains that initially, it is a regressing Gotra, until the Aśaikṣa progresses to Acala, etc. Later, when regressing from the fruit, one still resides in the regressing nature and does not reside in Acala, etc.
Treatise: What is the reason for the certainty of no regression from the prior fruit? The following explains the reason for no regression from the Srotaāpanna-phala. This is a question.
Treatise: Because what is severed by seeing (見所斷) certainly has no reason for regression. This is the answer. Because what is severed by seeing relies on nothing, therefore there is only nothing. This has three aspects. First, because the self-entity does not exist, it is called nothing. Second, it is said that Satkāya-dṛṣṭi (有身見) relies on the place of the self to turn. Since the self-entity does not exist, it is called relying on nothing. Third, the remaining delusions severed by seeing take the view of self as the root. Since Satkāya-dṛṣṭi does not regress, there is no reason for regression.
Treatise: If that is the case, it should be said that this delusion arises from nothing. Objection. Satkāya-dṛṣṭi relies on the self. Since the self-entity does not exist, it should arise from nothing.
Treatise: It is not that this arises from nothing, until it is not truly relied upon. Answer. Since Satkāya-dṛṣṭi arises from the body, it takes Duḥkha-satya (苦諦) as its object. For example, not truly knowing, saying that the Dharma of suffering is the self.
Treatise: Among all the afflictions, who is not like this? Objection. Rāga (貪), Dveṣa (瞋), Māna (慢), etc., all rely on the object of truth and do not truly know. They should be called nothing. Why only the delusions severed by seeing?
Treatise: Although they are all like this, until they are different from what is severed by cultivation (修斷). Explanation. Although they all take truth as their object and do not truly know, there are differences. Because the delusions severed by cultivation each have eternally agreeable and disagreeable distinctions. In
所緣境此相非無。名為有事。見所斷惑計我斷．常。非諸諦境有我等相。與修道別。名為無事。
論。謂於色等至依無事惑。別釋見道煩惱名無事也。
論。若修所斷至依有事惑。別釋修惑名依有事。
論。又見斷惑至依無事惑。重釋見惑名依無事。
論。修所斷惑至依有事惑。重釋修惑名依有事。
論又見斷惑至名依有事。此以理為無事。事為有事也。因釋見惑不退。廣有事．無事惑。
論。諦理真實至有失念退。第二釋見惑不退。前釋由惑所緣無事．有事。斷有退．不退別。此釋由所知境理事不同。退．不退別。
論。或修斷惑至定無退義。此釋以起惑審慮．不審慮別明退不退也。
論。經部師說至彼說應理。論主評取經部釋也。
論。云何知然。有部問也。論由教理故。論主答也。
論如何由教。有部問也。
論。經言苾芻至非阿羅漢。引兩經證。聖慧實斷惑不退也。阿羅漢果不退故。佛不敕令應不放逸。
論。雖有經言至從此退故。論主通經。言利養亦障阿羅漢而不說退阿羅漢。但說退現法樂住。引不動心解脫證。
論。若謂有退至故名為愛。論主通時愛心解脫經也。
論。有說此定至故不名愛。重釋時愛。應果性
是解脫。又已得故。更不希求。不得名為時愛。故知時愛現法樂也。
論。若應果性至有可退理。重引前經反難釋也。
論。由此證知至如理應思。順成一切應果皆是不動。然利．鈍根于現法樂有退．不退。立退．不退法。及思．護等。正理廣成立應果有退也。
論。不退安住不動何別。問三別也。
論。非練根得至亦無退理。答不退．不動二別相也。
論。安住法者至三種差別。答安住相也 是不退等三種差別。總結也。
論。然喬底迦至阿羅漢果。論主通經。有部謂。喬底迦退應果重得 經部宗。喬底迦學位數退深自厭等。臨命終時得阿羅漢果。
論。又增十經至再說應果。經言一法應起。謂愛心解脫。一法應證。謂不動心解脫 經部計不動心解脫是應果也。若不爾者。何再說應果。
論。又曾無處至但說不應證。明無經說應果名應起破也。
論。又說鈍根至為顯何義。無義破也。
論。若為顯彼至最所應起。進退縱奪破也。
論。故時解脫非應果性。總結也。
論。若爾何故說時解脫應果。有部問也。既時解脫非應果體。何故說有時解脫阿羅漢也。
論。謂有應果至名不時解脫。經部答也。據待時不待。得定立名也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：是解脫（vimoksha，從煩惱中解脫）。又因為已經得到解脫，所以不再希求。不得稱為時愛（samaya-prīti，有條件的愛）。因此可知，時愛是現法樂（dṛṣṭa-dharma-sukha，今生之樂）。
論：如果應果（arhatship，阿羅漢果位）的性質竟然有退轉的可能，那麼就再次引用之前的經典來反駁並解釋。
論：由此可以證明，如理應思（yoniso manasikāra，如理作意）能順成一切應果都是不動的。然而，對於利根（tīkṣṇa-indriya，根器敏銳者）和鈍根（mṛdu-indriya，根器遲鈍者）來說，對於現法樂有退轉和不退轉。建立退轉和不退轉法，以及思（cintana，思考）、護（rakṣaṇa，守護）等，正理廣泛地成立應果有退轉。
論：不退安住（aparihāṇadharma，不退法）和不動（acalā，不動）有什麼區別？問：有三種區別。
論：不是通過修習根（indriya-bhāvanā，根的修習）而得到的，也沒有退轉的道理。答：不退和不動這兩種是有區別的。
論：安住法（sthita-dharma，安住之法）是指三種差別。答：安住的相（lakṣaṇa，特徵）是不退等三種差別。總結。
論：然而，喬底迦（Jyotika，人名）證得了阿羅漢果。論主貫通經典。有部（Sarvāstivāda，一切有部）認為，喬底迦退轉了應果，然後又重新獲得。經部宗（Sautrāntika，經量部）認為，喬底迦在學位（śaikṣa-bhūmi，有學地）上有所退轉，深感厭惡等，臨命終時才證得阿羅漢果。
論：又《增十經》（Ekottarāgama，增一阿含經）中說，再次說到應果。經中說，一種法應該生起，指的是愛心解脫（prīti-citta-vimoksha，因喜悅而得的心解脫）；一種法應該證得，指的是不動心解脫（akuppa-citta-vimoksha，不可動搖的心解脫）。經部認為不動心解脫就是應果。如果不是這樣，為什麼要再次說應果？
論：又從來沒有在任何地方說過應果應該生起，只是說不應該證得。說明沒有經典說應果名為應起，這是破斥。
論：又說鈍根，是爲了顯示什麼意義？這是無意義的破斥。
論：如果爲了顯示他們最應該生起，這是進退縱奪的破斥。
論：所以，時解脫（sāmayika-vimoksha，有時解脫）不是應果的性質。總結。
論：如果是這樣，為什麼說時解脫是應果？有部提問。既然時解脫不是應果的本體，為什麼說有時解脫的阿羅漢呢？
論：說有應果，是因為等待時機和不等待時機，根據是否需要等待而建立名稱，所以稱為不時解脫（asāmayika-vimoksha，無時解脫）。經部回答。
【English Translation】 English version: It is liberation (vimoksha, release from afflictions). And because it has already been attained, there is no further seeking. It cannot be called conditioned love (samaya-prīti, conditional affection). Therefore, it is known that conditioned love is present-life happiness (dṛṣṭa-dharma-sukha, happiness in this very life).
Treatise: If the nature of arhatship (arhatship, the fruit of an Arhat) could possibly regress, then the previous sutra is cited again to refute and explain.
Treatise: From this, it can be proven that proper reflection (yoniso manasikāra, appropriate attention) ensures that all arhatships are immutable. However, for those with sharp faculties (tīkṣṇa-indriya, keen faculties) and dull faculties (mṛdu-indriya, dull faculties), there is regression and non-regression regarding present-life happiness. Establishing the laws of regression and non-regression, as well as thought (cintana, thinking), protection (rakṣaṇa, guarding), etc., the correct principle widely establishes that arhatship can regress.
Treatise: What is the difference between non-regressing abiding (aparihāṇadharma, the quality of not declining) and immovability (acalā, unshakeable)? Question: There are three differences.
Treatise: It is not attained through cultivating the faculties (indriya-bhāvanā, cultivation of the senses), and there is no reason for regression. Answer: The two, non-regression and immovability, are different.
Treatise: Abiding Dharma (sthita-dharma, the Dharma of abiding) refers to three kinds of differences. Answer: The characteristic (lakṣaṇa, characteristic) of abiding is the three kinds of differences, such as non-regression. Conclusion.
Treatise: However, Jyotika (Jyotika, a personal name) attained the fruit of an Arhat. The author understands the sutras thoroughly. The Sarvāstivāda (Sarvāstivāda, the 'All Exists' school) believes that Jyotika regressed from arhatship and then re-attained it. The Sautrāntika school (Sautrāntika, the Sutra school) believes that Jyotika regressed in the stage of learning (śaikṣa-bhūmi, the stage of a trainee), felt deep aversion, etc., and attained the fruit of an Arhat at the time of his death.
Treatise: Furthermore, the Ekottarāgama (Ekottarāgama, the 'Increased by One' Agama) says that arhatship is mentioned again. The sutra says that one Dharma should arise, referring to liberation through joy (prīti-citta-vimoksha, liberation of mind through joy); one Dharma should be realized, referring to liberation of the immovable mind (akuppa-citta-vimoksha, liberation of the unshakeable mind). The Sautrāntika school considers liberation of the immovable mind to be arhatship. If it were not so, why would arhatship be mentioned again?
Treatise: Furthermore, it has never been said anywhere that arhatship should arise, but only that it should not be realized. This clarifies that no sutra says that arhatship is called 'should arise,' which is a refutation.
Treatise: Furthermore, saying 'dull faculties,' what meaning is being revealed? This is a meaningless refutation.
Treatise: If it is to reveal that they should arise the most, this is a refutation through advancing and retreating.
Treatise: Therefore, conditioned liberation (sāmayika-vimoksha, liberation dependent on conditions) is not the nature of arhatship. Conclusion.
Treatise: If that is so, why is conditioned liberation said to be arhatship? The Sarvāstivāda asks. Since conditioned liberation is not the essence of arhatship, why are there said to be Arhats with conditioned liberation?
Treatise: Saying that there is arhatship is because of waiting for the right time and not waiting for the right time. The name is established based on whether or not it is necessary to wait, so it is called unconditioned liberation (asāmayika-vimoksha, liberation independent of conditions). The Sautrāntika answers.
論。阿毗達磨至非理作意故。此引對法。隨眠由三處起。應果既不具三處知不退。
論。若謂彼據至因不具生。經部縱救破也。
論。是名由教總結教也。
論。如何由理。有部問也。
論。若阿羅漢至是名由理。經部答也。
論。若爾應釋炭喻契經。已下有部引經救也。
論。如說多聞至阿羅漢果。引炭喻證有退也。
論。由此經言至臨入涅槃。有部以言臨入涅槃。故知是應果也。
論。余契經中至名應果力。第二證是應果也。
論。又此經說至是阿羅漢。第三證退是羅漢也。
論。實復所說是阿羅漢。經部記引後文於一切順漏已能永吐已得清涼準此後文是阿羅漢。
論。然彼乃至至容起煩惱。有部立前。乃至於行住時由失容起煩惱。有學說故無有失。后成無學即無退義。
論。毗婆沙師至亦有退義。述有部宗也。依宗輪論。大眾部等。預流果有退應果不退 經部。預流．應果俱不退 有部。預流不退應果有退。
論。唯阿羅漢種姓有六。已下半行頌。第二明六種學．凡。
論曰至彼為先故。明有學．異生亦有六種種姓。應果凡．學六性以為先故。
論。然見道位至如無學位。明異生．見道．修道三位中。見道無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）認為這是由於非理作意（ayoniso-manasikara，不如理的作意）。這裡引用對法藏的觀點，認為隨眠（anusaya，煩惱的潛在傾向）由三個方面生起。如果已經證得阿羅漢果（Arhat），就不具備這三個生起隨眠之處，因此不會退轉。
論：如果有人認為上述觀點是根據…，因為不具備生起隨眠的因，所以不會退轉。經部（Sautrantika）對此進行了辯駁。
論：這被稱為通過教證（agama，佛陀的教導）來總結教義。
論：如何通過理證（yukti，邏輯推理）來證明？有部（Sarvastivada）提出了疑問。
論：如果阿羅漢…，這被稱為通過理證來證明。經部回答了這個問題。
論：如果這樣，應該如何解釋《炭喻經》（Angara Sutta）？以下是有部引用經典來辯護。
論：如經中所說，多聞…阿羅漢果。引用《炭喻經》來證明阿羅漢果存在退轉的可能性。
論：由於這部經中說…臨入涅槃（parinirvana，完全的解脫）。有部認為，經文說『臨入涅槃』，因此可以知道這是指阿羅漢果。
論：其他經典中…名為阿羅漢果的力量。這是第二個證據，證明這是指阿羅漢果。
論：此外，這部經說…是阿羅漢。這是第三個證據，證明退轉的是阿羅漢。
論：實際上所說的是阿羅漢。經部記錄並引用了後面的經文，『對於一切順漏（anuloma，隨順煩惱）的事物，已經能夠永遠捨棄，已經獲得清涼』，根據這段經文，可以判斷這是阿羅漢。
論：然而，他們甚至…容易生起煩惱。有部提出了先前的觀點，認為甚至在行走、站立時，由於失去（正念），也容易生起煩惱。因為有學（saiksa，還在學習的修行者）這樣說，所以沒有失去（正念）的情況。後來成為無學（asaiksa，已經完成學習的修行者），就沒有退轉的意義。
論：毗婆沙師（Vibhasha masters，論師）…也有退轉的意義。這是對有部宗義的闡述。根據《宗輪論》（Samayabhedoparacanacakra），大眾部（Mahasamghika）等宗派認為，預流果（Srotapanna，入流果）有退轉，阿羅漢果不退轉。經部認為，預流果和阿羅漢果都不會退轉。有部認為，預流果不退轉，阿羅漢果有退轉。
論：只有阿羅漢的種姓有六種。以下半行是偈頌。第二部分闡明了六種有學和凡夫的種姓。
論曰：…以他們為先導。闡明了有學和異生（prthagjana，凡夫）也有六種種姓。阿羅漢果的凡夫和有學六種姓是作為先導的。
論：然而，在見道位（darshana-marga，見道位）…如同無學位（asaiksa-bhumi，無學位）。闡明了異生、見道、修道（bhavana-marga，修道位）三個階段中，見道沒有…
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: The Abhidharma (Abhidharma, collection of treatises) considers this to be due to ayoniso-manasikara (irrational attention, improper attention). This quotes the Abhidharma, stating that anusaya (latent tendencies of defilements, dormant defilements) arise from three sources. If one has attained Arhatship (Arhat), they do not possess these three sources for the arising of anusaya, therefore they do not regress.
Treatise: If it is argued that the above view is based on… because the causes for the arising of anusaya are not present, therefore there is no regression. The Sautrantika (Sautrantika school) refutes this.
Treatise: This is called summarizing the doctrine through agama (scriptural authority, the Buddha's teachings).
Treatise: How is it proven through yukti (reasoning, logical reasoning)? The Sarvastivada (Sarvastivada school) raises the question.
Treatise: If an Arhat… this is called proving it through yukti. The Sautrantika answers the question.
Treatise: If so, how should the Angara Sutta (Angara Sutta, Charcoal Simile Sutta) be explained? The following is the Sarvastivada quoting the sutra to defend their position.
Treatise: As it is said in the sutra, the learned… Arhatship. Quoting the Angara Sutta to prove that there is a possibility of regression from Arhatship.
Treatise: Because this sutra says… about to enter parinirvana (parinirvana, complete liberation). The Sarvastivada believes that the phrase 'about to enter parinirvana' indicates that it refers to Arhatship.
Treatise: In other sutras… called the power of Arhatship. This is the second piece of evidence proving that it refers to Arhatship.
Treatise: Furthermore, this sutra says… is an Arhat. This is the third piece of evidence proving that the one who regresses is an Arhat.
Treatise: What is actually said is that it is an Arhat. The Sautrantika records and quotes the later text, 'Regarding all things that accord with defilements (anuloma, in accordance with defilements), they have been able to permanently abandon them, and have attained coolness.' Based on this passage, it can be judged that this is an Arhat.
Treatise: However, they even… easily give rise to defilements. The Sarvastivada presents the previous view, arguing that even while walking or standing, due to losing (mindfulness), defilements can easily arise. Because a saiksa (one still learning, a trainee) says this, there is no situation of losing (mindfulness). Later, becoming an asaiksa (one who has completed learning, one beyond training), there is no meaning of regression.
Treatise: The Vibhasha masters (Vibhasha masters, commentators)… also have the meaning of regression. This is an explanation of the Sarvastivada's doctrine. According to the Samayabhedoparacanacakra (Samayabhedoparacanacakra, Treatise on the Different Schools of Buddhism), the Mahasamghika (Mahasamghika school) and other schools believe that the Srotapanna (stream-enterer, the fruit of stream-entry) regresses, while the Arhat does not regress. The Sautrantika believes that neither the Srotapanna nor the Arhat regresses. The Sarvastivada believes that the Srotapanna does not regress, but the Arhat regresses.
Treatise: Only the lineage of Arhats has six types. The following half-line is a verse. The second part clarifies the six types of trainees and ordinary beings.
Treatise: … taking them as the lead. It clarifies that trainees and prthagjana (ordinary beings, common people) also have six types of lineages. The six lineages of ordinary beings and trainees of Arhatship are taken as the lead.
Treatise: However, in the stage of the path of seeing (darshana-marga, the path of seeing)… like the stage of no-more-learning (asaiksa-bhumi, the stage of no-more-learning). It clarifies that among the three stages of ordinary beings, the path of seeing, and the path of cultivation (bhavana-marga, the path of cultivation), the path of seeing has no…
練根。凡位．修位皆有練根。如無學也。婆沙第七云。順解脫分亦有六種。謂退性等。轉順退解脫種姓起思法等。轉思等性亦爾。轉聲聞．起獨覺及佛。轉獨覺起聲聞及佛。若佛種姓順解脫分已即不可轉。極猛利故。亦說抉擇分有六種性。
論。如契經說我說由斯所往四種增上心。已下一行頌。第三明三退不同。四種增上心所。謂四靜慮 此問意。經說不動心解脫退現法樂住。不動法果。今問因何不動退現法樂住。即以三退答。
論曰至不現在前。釋三退也。如文可解。
論。於此三中至已得位故。述人具退多少不同。如文可解。
論。約受用退至無相違過。釋通不動 言退現法樂者。據受用退說。
論。無退論者至不應為難 無退論者。謂經部等。諸無漏解脫皆名不退。如何經中說六種姓。如前通云。據有漏現法樂說。
論。諸阿羅漢既許退果。已下一行頌。第四明退果時等。
論曰至可委信處。明退果不命終也。婆沙六十一云。複次根本果位具五因緣。一舍曾得道。二得未曾得道。三證結斷一味得。四頓得八智。五一時修十六行相。故退果時未還得。無命終理。向中不爾。故退彼時雖未還得。有命終義 正理論云。誰有退。誰無退耶 修不凈觀入聖道者。容有退失。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 練根：凡是果位和修位都有練根。例如無學（arhat, 阿羅漢）位。如《婆沙論》（Vibhasa, 一部佛教論書）第七卷所說：『順解脫分（anuloma-nirvedha-bhagiya, 順於解脫的部分）也有六種，即退性等。轉順退解脫種姓（gotra, 種姓）而生起思法等。轉思等性也是如此。轉聲聞（sravaka, 聲聞）而生起獨覺（pratyekabuddha, 獨覺）以及佛（buddha, 佛）。轉獨覺而生起聲聞以及佛。如果佛的種姓順解脫分已經生起，那就不可轉變，因為極其猛利。』也有說抉擇分（nirvedha-bhagiya, 抉擇分）有六種性。
論：如契經所說，我說由這些所往的四種增上心（adhipati-citta, 增上心）。以下一行頌。第三說明三種退的不同。四種增上心所，即四靜慮（dhyana, 靜慮）。此問的含義是，經中說不動心解脫（akuppa-ceto-vimutti, 不動心解脫）退失現法樂住（drstadharma-sukha-vihara, 現法樂住），不動法果（akuppa-dharma-phala, 不動法果）。現在問為什麼不動會退失現法樂住，即以三種退來回答。
論曰：至不現在前。解釋三種退。如文義可理解。
論：於此三中至已得位故。敘述人們具有的退失多少不同。如文義可理解。
論：約受用退至無相違過。解釋通不動。所說的『退現法樂』，是根據受用退失來說的。
論：無退論者至不應為難。無退論者，指經部（Sautrantika, 經量部）等。所有無漏解脫（anasrava-vimoksa, 無漏解脫）都稱為不退。為什麼經中說六種姓？如前文所說，是根據有漏現法樂來說的。
論：諸阿羅漢既然允許退果。以下一行頌。第四說明退果的時間等。
論曰：至可委信處。說明退果不會命終。《婆沙論》第六十一卷說：『再次，根本果位具足五種因緣：一是捨棄曾經得到的道，二是得到未曾得到的道，三是證得結斷一味，四是頓得八智，五是一時修習十六行相。』因此，退果時未還得，沒有命終的道理。向中不是這樣，因此退彼時雖然未還得，有命終的意義。《正理論》（Abhidharma-nyayanusara, 阿毗達磨順正理論）說：『誰有退，誰無退呢？』修不凈觀（asubha-bhavana, 不凈觀）入聖道者，容許有退失。
【English Translation】 English version Root Practice: All stages of attainment and practice involve root practice. For example, the stage of No-More-Learning (arhat). As the seventh volume of the Vibhasa states: 'The anuloma-nirvedha-bhagiya (part conforming to liberation) also has six types, namely, the nature of regression, etc. Transforming the gotra (lineage) of anuloma-nirvedha-bhagiya and giving rise to thinking methods, etc. The transformation of thinking nature, etc., is also the same. Transforming a sravaka (hearer) and giving rise to a pratyekabuddha (solitary buddha) and a buddha (enlightened one). Transforming a pratyekabuddha and giving rise to a sravaka and a buddha. If the buddha lineage's anuloma-nirvedha-bhagiya has already arisen, then it cannot be transformed because it is extremely intense.' It is also said that the nirvedha-bhagiya (part leading to penetration) has six natures.
Treatise: As the sutra says, I speak of the four adhipati-citta (dominant minds) by which one proceeds. The following verse explains the three types of regression. The four adhipati-citta are the four dhyana (meditative absorptions). The meaning of this question is that the sutra says that akuppa-ceto-vimutti (unshakable liberation of mind) regresses from drstadharma-sukha-vihara (dwelling in happiness in the present life), and akuppa-dharma-phala (unshakable dharma fruit). Now, the question is why does the unshakable regress from dwelling in happiness in the present life, which is answered by the three types of regression.
Treatise says: To not being present. Explains the three types of regression. The meaning can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Among these three, to because of having attained the position. Describes the different amounts of regression that people have. The meaning can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Regarding the regression of enjoyment, to without contradictory fault. Explains the general unshakable. The 'regression of happiness in the present life' is spoken of in terms of the regression of enjoyment.
Treatise: Those who argue for no regression, to should not be questioned. Those who argue for no regression refer to the Sautrantika (sutra school), etc. All anasrava-vimoksa (untainted liberation) are called non-regressing. Why does the sutra speak of six lineages? As mentioned earlier, it is spoken of in terms of tainted happiness in the present life.
Treatise: Since all arhats are allowed to regress from the fruit. The following verse explains the time of regression from the fruit, etc.
Treatise says: To a trustworthy place. Explains that regressing from the fruit does not lead to death. The sixty-first volume of the Vibhasa says: 'Furthermore, the fundamental fruit position is complete with five causes: first, abandoning the path that was once attained; second, attaining the path that was never attained; third, realizing the severance of fetters in one taste; fourth, suddenly attaining the eight wisdoms; fifth, simultaneously practicing the sixteen aspects.' Therefore, at the time of regressing from the fruit, it has not yet been attained, so there is no reason for death. It is not like this in the middle, so although it has not yet been attained at the time of regressing from that, there is a meaning of death. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara (Following the Principle of Abhidharma) says: 'Who has regression, and who does not have regression?' Those who cultivate asubha-bhavana (contemplation of impurity) and enter the holy path are allowed to have regression.
修持息念入聖道者。必無退失。尊重止．觀無貪．癡增。如次應知有退．無退 何界何趣容有退耶 唯欲三洲有退。六慾天處得聖果者有說利根故無有退。以有勝智慧制伏心。背妙欲境入聖道故 有說退者由闕資緣。或所依身不平等故。六慾天處二事並無有鈍根隨信行姓生彼得聖。亦無退理 又云。諸有退者為起惑退。為先退已或方現前 品類足論由三因起惑。謂未斷等 通云 此據具緣。亦有闕者何心無間起惑退耶。且從無學起惑退者。若起色纏．無色纏退。唯從自地順退分定相應善心無間而起。非住欲界有上地攝無覆無記心現在前。唯除通果。然無從彼退。豈不順退分各于自地離染時舍。如何無學者未退起惑彼心現前 理實如是。然順住分品有三。一少順退。二少順進。三守自位。前言自地順退分定。即順住分中少分。順退者少順退故得順退名。然此定心與守自位多相涉故。順住分攝。諸有未失順退分者。彼心無間煩惱現前。若舍彼心從順住攝少順退者。起順煩惱退。故於文義無所相違。若起欲纏而退失者。從自地善．無覆無記二心無間皆容現前。諸從學位智惑退者。起色．無色煩惱。退時若先全離此地染者。唯從此地順退分定相應善心無間而起。若未全離此地染者。從此地攝善。及染污二心無間。皆容現前。起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 修習息念而進入聖道的人，必定不會退失。尊重止（Samatha，奢摩他，意為止息）和觀（Vipassanā，毗婆舍那，意為內觀）能使人無貪、無癡，這些都應依次瞭解，關於退失與不退失。 什麼界、什麼趣會有退失呢？只有欲界的三洲（指東勝身洲、南贍部洲、西牛貨洲）有退失。六慾天（Kāmadhātu，欲界天）之處，得到聖果的人，有人說因為他們根器銳利，所以沒有退失，因為他們有殊勝的智慧來制伏內心，背離美妙的欲境而進入聖道。 也有人說退失是因為缺乏資糧和因緣，或者所依之身不平等。六慾天之處，這兩種情況都沒有。即使是鈍根、隨信行（Saddhānusārin，隨信行者）的人，生在那裡得到聖果，也沒有退失的道理。 又說，所有退失的人，是因為生起迷惑而退失，還是先退失之後才顯現出來？《品類足論》（Dharmaskandha，佛教論書）說，由三種原因生起迷惑，即未斷等。 總的來說，這是根據具足因緣的情況而言，也有缺少因緣的情況。什麼心無間地生起迷惑而退失呢？且從無學（Arhat，阿羅漢）生起迷惑而退失的情況來說，如果生起色纏（rūpārāga，色界貪）和無色纏（arūpārāga，無色界貪）而退失，唯有從自地順退分定（指與退分相應的禪定）相應的善心無間地生起。不是住在欲界，有上地所攝的無覆無記心（既非善亦非惡的心）現在前，除非是通果（指具有神通的阿羅漢）。然而沒有從那裡退失的。難道不是順退分在各自的離染時已經捨棄了嗎？為什麼無學者未退失而生起迷惑，那個心會現前呢？ 道理確實是這樣。然而順住分（指與住分相應的禪定）有三種：一是少順退，二是少順進，三是守自位。前面所說的自地順退分定，就是順住分中的少部分。順退是因為少部分順著退失，所以得到順退的名字。然而這種定心與守自位有很多關聯，所以屬於順住分。那些沒有失去順退分的人，他們的心無間地煩惱現前。如果捨棄了那個心，從順住分攝的少順退的人，生起順煩惱而退失。所以對於文義沒有什麼相違背的地方。如果生起欲纏而退失，從自地的善心和無覆無記心兩種心無間地都可能現前。那些從學位（指有學位的聖者，如須陀洹、斯陀含、阿那含）的智惑（指智慧上的迷惑）退失的人，生起色界和無色界的煩惱。退失的時候，如果先完全離開了此地的染污，唯有從此地順退分定相應的善心無間地生起。如果未完全離開此地的染污，從此地所攝的善心和染污心兩種心無間地都可能現前。生起……
【English Translation】 English version Those who cultivate mindfulness and enter the Holy Path will certainly not regress. Respect for Samatha (止, cessation) and Vipassanā (觀, insight) increases freedom from greed and delusion. It should be understood accordingly regarding regression and non-regression. In what realm and what destiny is regression possible? Only the three continents of the desire realm (referring to Pūrvavideha, Jambudvīpa, and Aparagodānīya) have regression. In the six desire heavens (Kāmadhātu), those who attain the Holy Fruit, some say that because they have sharp faculties, they do not regress, because they have superior wisdom to subdue the mind, turn away from delightful sensual pleasures, and enter the Holy Path. Others say that regression is due to a lack of resources and conditions, or because the body relied upon is not equal. In the six desire heavens, these two conditions do not exist. Even those with dull faculties, who are followers of faith (Saddhānusārin), born there and attain the Holy Fruit, have no reason to regress. Furthermore, it is said that all those who regress do so because of arising delusion, or whether they regress first and then it manifests. The Dharmaskandha (品類足論, a Buddhist treatise) says that delusion arises from three causes, namely, non-severance, etc. Generally speaking, this is based on the condition of having complete causes and conditions, and there are also cases where causes and conditions are lacking. What mind arises without interruption, causing delusion and regression? Let's consider the case of an Arhat (無學, one beyond learning) regressing due to arising delusion. If they regress due to arising attachment to the form realm (rūpārāga) and the formless realm (arūpārāga), it only arises without interruption from a wholesome mind corresponding to the regressive aspect of their own realm. It is not that one dwells in the desire realm, and a neutral mind (neither good nor bad) included in the higher realm is present, except for the fruit of supernormal powers. However, there is no regression from there. Isn't it that the regressive aspect is abandoned at the time of detachment in each of their respective realms? Why would that mind be present when an Arhat, who has not regressed, arises delusion? The truth is indeed so. However, the progressive aspect (順住分) has three aspects: one is slightly regressive, the second is slightly progressive, and the third is maintaining one's position. The previously mentioned regressive aspect of one's own realm is a small part of the progressive aspect. Regression is because a small part is inclined towards regression, hence the name regressive. However, this state of mind has much connection with maintaining one's position, so it belongs to the progressive aspect. Those who have not lost the regressive aspect, their minds are immediately filled with afflictions. If they abandon that mind, those who are slightly regressive, included in the progressive aspect, regress due to arising afflictions. Therefore, there is no contradiction in the meaning of the text. If one regresses due to arising attachment to the desire realm, both wholesome and neutral minds of one's own realm may be present without interruption. Those who regress from the wisdom and delusion of the stage of learning (referring to the noble ones who are still learning, such as Sotāpanna, Sakadāgāmin, Anāgāmin), arise afflictions of the form and formless realms. At the time of regression, if one has completely left the defilements of this realm, it only arises without interruption from a wholesome mind corresponding to the regressive aspect of this realm. If one has not completely left the defilements of this realm, both wholesome and defiled minds included in this realm may be present without interruption. Arising...
欲界而退失者。若先全離欲界系染。從自地善．無覆無記二心無間皆容現前。若未全離欲界染者。從欲界善．染．無覆無記三心無間皆容現前。若未現前獲得清凈靜慮．無色。必無能起色．無色纏退失所得。彼或從彼無間起欲纏退失所得。若現前得清凈靜慮。猶未現前得凈無色。必無能起無色纏退。起欲．色纏退失所得。若已現前獲得清凈靜慮．無色。通起欲．色．無色界纏退失所得。諸有退失先所得時。若起上纏現在前退不生下善。不成下惑。若起下纏現在前退定失上善。定成上惑。復有欲令要失退已。后時對境惑方現前 婆沙六十一。問退起煩惱不。一說起煩惱。一說不起。評曰。此二說中前說為善。要起煩惱現在前時。乃成退失勝功德故。此說退位。若退性者。不必要起煩惱現前不退。無學位有退性者故。
論。又住果位至雖蹶不仆。明退果不造退果事業。
論。如上所言有練根得。下有兩行頌。第五明練根不同。婆沙六十七云。若不還果依彼地得。即依彼地而後轉根。或依餘地。然勝非劣 又六十八云。頗有退預流果而不成見所斷結耶。答有。謂退勝種姓時 又云。暖．頂．忍世第一法。此是聖道近加行故。緣諦行相似聖道故。依身及定同見道故。前位不爾故。不立六種性。亦有轉根義。謂轉退
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 若從欲界退失，如果先前已完全斷離欲界系的染污，那麼從自地的善心、無覆無記心這兩種心中，任何一種都可能無間斷地現前。如果尚未完全斷離欲界染污，那麼從欲界的善心、染污心、無覆無記心這三種心中，任何一種都可能無間斷地現前。如果未曾現前獲得清凈的靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）、無色定（Arūpa-samāpatti，無色界的禪定），必定無法生起色界、無色界系的退失所得。他或許從這些禪定無間斷地生起欲界系的退失所得。如果現前已獲得清凈的靜慮，但尚未現前獲得清凈的無色定，必定無法生起無色界系的退失，只能生起欲界、色界系的退失所得。如果已經現前獲得清凈的靜慮、無色定，那麼就能生起欲界、色界、無色界系的退失所得。當諸位退失先前所得時，如果生起上界的煩惱現在前，退失就不會生起地獄的善法，也不會成就地獄的迷惑。如果生起地獄的煩惱現在前，退失必定會失去上界的善法，必定會成就上界的迷惑。還有人希望在失去退失之後，之後面對境界時，迷惑才顯現出來。《婆沙論》第六十一卷：問：退失是否會生起煩惱？一種說法是會生起煩惱，一種說法是不會生起煩惱。評論說：這兩種說法中，前一種說法更好。因為只有在生起煩惱現在前時，才能成就退失殊勝功德。這裡說的是退失的位次。如果是退失的自性，不必要生起煩惱現在前也會退失，因為無學位的人也有退失的自性。
《論》：又安住于果位，即使跌倒也不會仆倒。說明退失果位不會造作退失果位的事業。
《論》：如上所說，有人通過練根而得。下面有兩行頌文。第五句說明練根的不同。《婆沙論》第六十七卷說：如果不還果（Anāgāmin，不還者）依彼地而得，就依彼地而後轉根，或者依餘地，但殊勝的不會變為低劣的。《婆沙論》第六十八卷說：有沒有退失預流果（Srotāpanna，須陀洹）而不成就見所斷結的呢？答：有。就是退失殊勝種姓的時候。又說：暖位（Uṣmagata，暖位）、頂位（Mūrdhan，頂位）、忍位（Kṣānti，忍位）、世第一法（Laukikāgradharma，世第一法），這些都是聖道的近加行，因為緣于諦理而行，與聖道相似，依靠身和定，與見道相同。前位不是這樣，所以不立六種性。也有轉根的意義，就是轉退。
【English Translation】 English version If one regresses from the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu), if they have previously completely detached from the defilements of the Desire Realm, then from their own plane's wholesome (kusala), non-obscured neutral (avyākrta), both types of mind can arise without interruption. If they have not completely detached from the defilements of the Desire Realm, then from the Desire Realm's wholesome, defiled (kliṣṭa), and non-obscured neutral minds, all three types can arise without interruption. If one has not presently attained pure meditative absorption (Dhyana), or formless attainments (Arūpa-samāpatti), they definitely cannot generate the loss of attainment associated with the Form Realm (Rūpadhātu) or Formless Realm. They might, without interruption from those attainments, generate the loss of attainment associated with the Desire Realm. If one has presently attained pure meditative absorption, but has not yet presently attained pure formless attainments, they definitely cannot generate the loss of attainment associated with the Formless Realm; they can only generate the loss of attainment associated with the Desire Realm and Form Realm. If one has already presently attained pure meditative absorption and formless attainments, then they can generate the loss of attainment associated with the Desire Realm, Form Realm, and Formless Realm. When those who have regressed lose what they had previously attained, if the afflictions of a higher realm arise presently, the regression will not generate wholesome qualities in a lower realm, nor will it perfect the delusions of a lower realm. If the afflictions of a lower realm arise presently, the regression will definitely lose the wholesome qualities of a higher realm, and will definitely perfect the delusions of a higher realm. Furthermore, some desire that only after the loss of regression, when facing an object, will delusion manifest. Vibhāṣā, Vol. 61: Question: Does regression arise with afflictions? One view says it arises with afflictions; another says it does not. Commentary: Among these two views, the former is better, because only when afflictions arise presently can the loss of superior merit be accomplished. This speaks of the stage of regression. As for the nature of regression, it is not necessary for afflictions to arise presently for regression to occur, because those in the state of no-more-learning (Arhatship) also have the nature of regression.
The Treatise states: 'Moreover, abiding in the fruition, even if one stumbles, they do not fall.' This clarifies that regressing from the fruition does not create actions that lead to regression from the fruition.
The Treatise states: 'As mentioned above, some attain through cultivating their faculties.' Below are two lines of verse. The fifth line clarifies the differences in cultivating faculties. Vibhāṣā, Vol. 67, states: 'If one attains the fruit of Non-Returning (Anāgāmin) based on that plane, then they transform their faculties based on that plane, or based on another plane, but the superior does not become inferior.' Furthermore, Vol. 68 states: 'Is it possible to regress from the fruit of Stream-Enterer (Srotāpanna) without perfecting the fetters severed by seeing?' Answer: 'Yes, it is, namely, when regressing from a superior lineage.' It also states: 'Warmth (Uṣmagata), Peak (Mūrdhan), Forbearance (Kṣānti), and the World's Supreme Dharma (Laukikāgradharma) are the proximate preparatory practices for the Noble Path, because they are practiced in relation to the Truths, are similar to the Noble Path, and rely on the body and meditative absorption, being the same as the Path of Seeing. The previous stages are not like this, so the six natures are not established. There is also the meaning of transforming faculties, namely, transforming regression.'
暖種姓相起思法暖 乃至 轉堪達根起不動法暖種性根。轉聲聞暖起獨覺暖。轉聲聞．獨覺暖起佛暖種性根。如說暖位頂亦爾。忍位有異。謂轉退法種性起思法忍。漸次乃至。轉堪達忍種性根。起不動法忍種姓根。轉聲聞忍起獨覺忍。無轉聲聞．獨覺忍種姓根起佛忍義。所以者何。忍超惡趣。諸得忍者于惡趣得非擇滅。菩薩有時乘大願力。生諸惡趣饒益有情。故二乘忍位無趣佛乘理。有說獨覺暖．頂。亦不轉趣佛乘。評曰。部行喻者。暖．頂位中轉趣佛乘。不違理故。由此前說于理為善。學．無學位轉根加行道。通曾得．未曾得。無間．解脫道雖未曾得。加行道通漏．及無漏。未來修亦爾。無間．解脫道一向無漏。未來修者亦一向無漏。無學第九解脫通漏．及無漏爾時隨應修三界善根故。
論曰至所成堅故。明無學練根。
論。有學位中至上相違故。明有學練根 上相違者。謂非學．無學二道持也。
論。彼加行道諸位名一。明學．無學加行道各一。
論。如是無間至非增上故。明練根無間解脫唯用無漏道。正理論云。我所承稟諸大論師咸言。練根皆為遮遣見．修斷惑力所引發。無覆無記無知現行故。學位中修練根者。正為遮遣見惑所發。無學位中修練根者。正為遮遣修惑所發。如斷彼能發
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 從暖位種姓的思法暖開始，乃至轉變為堪達根的起不動法暖種姓根。轉聲聞暖位到獨覺暖位。轉聲聞和獨覺暖位到佛暖種姓根。正如所說的暖位，頂位也是如此。忍位有所不同，指的是從退法種姓轉變為思法忍。逐漸乃至轉變為堪達忍種姓根，起不動法忍種姓根。轉聲聞忍到獨覺忍。沒有轉聲聞和獨覺忍種姓根而起佛忍的道理。為什麼呢？因為忍超越了惡趣。所有獲得忍的人，對於惡趣獲得了非擇滅（永遠脫離惡趣）。菩薩有時憑藉大願力，生於各種惡趣來饒益有情。因此，二乘（聲聞乘和獨覺乘）的忍位沒有趣向佛乘的道理。有人說獨覺的暖位和頂位，也不轉趣佛乘。評論說，以部行喻來說，暖位和頂位中轉趣佛乘，不違背道理。因此，前面所說的在道理上是好的。學位的轉根加行道，包括曾經獲得和未曾獲得。無間道和解脫道雖然未曾獲得，加行道包括有漏和無漏。未來修習也是如此。無間道和解脫道一向是無漏的。未來修習也一向是無漏的。無學位的第九解脫道包括有漏和無漏，因為那時隨應修習三界善根的緣故。
論中說：『達到所成就的堅固。』說明無學位的練根。
論中說：『在有學位中，達到與上相違的緣故。』說明有學位的練根。『上相違』指的是非學道和非無學道所持有的。
論中說：『那些加行道的各個位都名為一。』說明學道和無學道的加行道各自只有一個。
論中說：『像這樣，無間道達到非增上的緣故。』說明練根的無間道和解脫道只使用無漏道。《正理論》說：『我所承稟的各位大論師都說，練根都是爲了遮遣見斷惑和修斷惑的力量所引發的無覆無記的無知現行。』在學位中修習練根的人，正是爲了遮遣見惑所引發的。在無學位中修習練根的人，正是爲了遮遣修惑所引發的。就像斷除那些能引發的惑。
【English Translation】 English version From the 'thinking-of-Dharma' heat (warmth) of the warm-stage lineage, up to the root of the 'unmoving-Dharma' heat (warmth) of the 'capable-of-attainment' lineage. Transforming from the Hearer's (Śrāvaka) heat (warmth) to the Solitary Buddha's (Pratyekabuddha) heat (warmth). Transforming from the Hearer's and Solitary Buddha's heat (warmth) to the Buddha's heat (warmth) lineage root. As said of the heat (warmth) stage, so too is the peak stage. The forbearance stage is different, referring to transforming from the 'liable-to-decline' lineage to the 'thinking-of-Dharma' forbearance. Gradually up to transforming into the root of the 'capable-of-attainment' forbearance lineage, arising the root of the 'unmoving-Dharma' forbearance lineage. Transforming Hearer's forbearance to Solitary Buddha's forbearance. There is no meaning of transforming Hearer's and Solitary Buddha's forbearance lineage root to arising Buddha's forbearance. Why? Because forbearance transcends the evil destinies. Those who attain forbearance obtain non-selective cessation (asaṃskṛta-nirodha) from the evil destinies. Bodhisattvas sometimes rely on great vows to be born in various evil destinies to benefit sentient beings. Therefore, the forbearance stage of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) has no reason to proceed to the Buddha Vehicle (Buddhayanā). Some say that the Solitary Buddha's heat (warmth) and peak also do not transform to proceed to the Buddha Vehicle. Comment: According to the example of the 'section-practice', transforming to proceed to the Buddha Vehicle in the heat (warmth) and peak stages does not contradict reason. Therefore, what was said earlier is good in terms of reason. The path of application of root transformation in the stages of learning (śaikṣa) and no-more-learning (aśaikṣa) includes both those who have attained it and those who have not. Although the immediate path (anantarya-marga) and the liberation path (vimukti-marga) have not been attained, the path of application includes both defiled (sāsrava) and undefiled (anāsrava). The future practice is also the same. The immediate path and the liberation path are always undefiled. The future practice is also always undefiled. The ninth liberation of the no-more-learning stage includes both defiled and undefiled, because at that time, one practices the roots of goodness of the three realms accordingly.
The treatise says: 'Reaching the firmness of what is accomplished.' Explains the root-training of the no-more-learning stage.
The treatise says: 'In the stage of learning, reaching the contradiction with the above.' Explains the root-training of the stage of learning. 'Contradiction with the above' refers to what is held by the paths of neither learning nor no-more-learning.
The treatise says: 'Those positions of the path of application are all named as one.' Explains that the paths of application of learning and no-more-learning each have only one.
The treatise says: 'Like this, the immediate path reaches the non-increase.' Explains that the immediate path and liberation path of root-training only use the undefiled path. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'All the great teachers I have received teachings from say that root-training is all for preventing the ignorance that is unassociated with affliction and neutral, which is manifested by the power of the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing and cultivation.' Those who practice root-training in the stage of learning are precisely for preventing what is manifested by the afflictions to be abandoned by seeing. Those who practice root-training in the stage of no-more-learning are precisely for preventing what is manifested by the afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation. Like cutting off those that can manifest them.
惑時。所起無間．解脫多少。如是如是。斷彼所發無知現行。道數亦爾。是故無學修練根時。用九無間．九解脫道。學位練根二道各一。然見．修惑所發無智。隨所障殊有多品類。故轉退等成思等時。諸道現前各有所遣。由此無有超得勝性 又云。以何等故名為練根。調練諸根令增長故。謂道力故令根相續。舍下得中。舍中得上。漸漸增勝名為練根。故練根名目轉根義。雖八解脫漸得勝根。而由本心求勝性故。未得勝性不前劣。如得後果方舍前向。若聖位中得勝種性。必舍前劣。暖等位中修練根者。但得勝性劣性不行。名為轉根。非舍劣得。
論。依謂身地至謂除后三。此明依也。依謂有二種。一依身。學．無學同依三洲身。余無退故。若有退處。可有練根。余處無退故無練根。亦依地。無學依九。有學依六。
論。所以者何至但依六地。釋所以也。無學練根如得應果。故通九地。有學練根舍鈍果．及向。唯得利果。有學前果唯依未至。第三不還通依六地不依無色。如見道故。由此學位修練根者。若住果道。加行等三皆果道攝。若住勝果道。加行．無間勝果道攝。解脫道果攝。住無學位修練根者。加行等三唯果道攝。諸住果位修練根時。舍果得果。住勝果位修練根時。舍二得果。又諸聖位修練根時。與本
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『惑時』（Klesha samaya，煩惱生起時）。所生起的『無間』（Anantarya，無間道）。『解脫』（Vimoksha，解脫道）有多少？像這樣，像這樣。斷除那些由『無知』（Avidya，無明）所引發的現行。道的數量也是如此。因此，『無學』（Arhat，阿羅漢）在修練根時，使用九個『無間道』（Anantarya-marga，無間道）和九個『解脫道』（Vimoksha-marga，解脫道）。『有學位』（Saiksha，有學）修練根時，兩種道各一個。然而，由『見惑』（Darshana-heya，見所斷惑）和『修惑』（Bhavana-heya，修所斷惑）所引發的『無智』（Ajñana，無智），隨著所障礙的不同，有多種品類。因此，在『轉根』（Indriya-parivrtti，轉根）、『退』（Parihana，退）等成為『思惑』（Bhavana-heya，修所斷惑）等時，各種道現前，各自有所遣除。由此，沒有超越而獲得殊勝性質的情況。又說，因為什麼緣故稱為『練根』（Indriya-parivrtti，練根）？調練諸根，使之增長的緣故。意思是說道的力量使諸根相續，捨棄下品而得到中品，捨棄中品而得到上品，漸漸增勝，稱為『練根』（Indriya-parivrtti，練根）。所以，『練根』（Indriya-parivrtti，練根）這個名稱是轉變根性的意思。雖然八解脫漸次獲得殊勝的根，但由於本心追求殊勝的性質，未得到殊勝的性質就不會退轉到較差的狀態。如同得到果位后才捨棄之前的趨向。如果在聖位中得到殊勝的種性，必定捨棄之前的較差狀態。在『暖位』（Ushmagata，暖位）等位中修練根的人，只是得到殊勝的性質，較差的性質不行，稱為『轉根』（Indriya-parivrtti，轉根），不是捨棄較差的而得到殊勝的。 論：『依謂身地』（Ashraya uchyate kayabhumi，所依指的是身和地），至『謂除后三』（Uchyate vyavadhi trini，指的是排除后三地）。這說明了所依。所依有兩種：一是依身，『有學』（Saiksha，有學）和『無學』（Arhat，阿羅漢）都依三洲身，其餘沒有退轉的緣故。如果有退轉的地方，就可以有練根。其餘地方沒有退轉，所以沒有練根。也依地，『無學』（Arhat，阿羅漢）依九地，『有學』（Saiksha，有學）依六地。 論：『所以者何』（Tasya artha kim，這是什麼意思）至『但依六地』（Kevalam ashritya shadbhumika，僅僅依靠六地）。解釋原因。『無學』（Arhat，阿羅漢）練根如同得到應果，所以通於九地。『有學』（Saiksha，有學）練根，捨棄鈍果以及趨向，唯獨得到利果。『有學』（Saiksha，有學）的前果唯獨依靠未至定。第三果不還通於依靠六地，不依靠無色界，如同見道。由此，『有學位』（Saiksha，有學）修練根的人，如果住在果道，加行等三種都是果道所攝。如果住在殊勝果道，加行、無間是殊勝果道所攝，解脫道是果道所攝。住在『無學位』（Arhat，阿羅漢）修練根的人，加行等三種唯獨是果道所攝。諸位住在果位修練根時，捨棄果而得到果。住在殊勝果位修練根時，捨棄二者而得到果。又諸位聖者修練根時，與本性
【English Translation】 English version 『Klesha samaya』 (惑時, time of affliction): How many 『Anantarya』 (無間, immediate path) and 『Vimoksha』 (解脫, liberation path) arise? It is like this, like this. Severing the active manifestations of 『Avidya』 (無知, ignorance) that are produced. The number of paths is also the same. Therefore, when an 『Arhat』 (無學, one beyond learning) cultivates the roots, they use nine 『Anantarya-marga』 (無間道, immediate paths) and nine 『Vimoksha-marga』 (解脫道, liberation paths). When a 『Saiksha』 (有學位, one still learning) cultivates the roots, there is one of each path. However, the 『Ajñana』 (無智, non-wisdom) produced by 『Darshana-heya』 (見惑, afflictions to be abandoned by seeing) and 『Bhavana-heya』 (修惑, afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation) has many categories depending on the obstruction. Therefore, when 『Indriya-parivrtti』 (轉根, transformation of faculties), 『Parihana』 (退, regression), etc., become 『Bhavana-heya』 (修惑, afflictions to be abandoned by cultivation), various paths manifest, each eliminating something. Because of this, there is no surpassing and attaining superior qualities. It is also said, for what reason is it called 『Indriya-parivrtti』 (練根, cultivation of faculties)? It is because of training the faculties to make them grow. It means that the power of the path causes the faculties to continue, abandoning the lower and attaining the middle, abandoning the middle and attaining the upper, gradually increasing and becoming superior, which is called 『Indriya-parivrtti』 (練根, cultivation of faculties). Therefore, the name 『Indriya-parivrtti』 (練根, cultivation of faculties) means transforming the nature of the faculties. Although the eight liberations gradually attain superior faculties, because the original mind seeks superior qualities, it does not regress to an inferior state before attaining superior qualities. It is like abandoning the previous direction only after attaining the fruit. If one attains a superior nature in the holy position, one must abandon the previous inferior state. Those who cultivate the roots in the 『Ushmagata』 (暖位, heat stage) and other stages only attain superior qualities, and the inferior qualities do not function, which is called 『Indriya-parivrtti』 (轉根, transformation of faculties), not abandoning the inferior and attaining the superior. Treatise: 『Ashraya uchyate kayabhumi』 (依謂身地, the support is said to be the body and the ground), up to 『Uchyate vyavadhi trini』 (謂除后三, it refers to excluding the last three grounds). This explains the support. There are two kinds of support: one is the body, 『Saiksha』 (有學, one still learning) and 『Arhat』 (無學, one beyond learning) both rely on the bodies of the three continents, because there is no regression in the others. If there is a place of regression, there can be cultivation of the roots. There is no regression in other places, so there is no cultivation of the roots. It also relies on the ground, 『Arhat』 (無學, one beyond learning) relies on nine grounds, and 『Saiksha』 (有學, one still learning) relies on six grounds. Treatise: 『Tasya artha kim』 (所以者何, what is the meaning of this) up to 『Kevalam ashritya shadbhumika』 (但依六地, only relying on the six grounds). Explaining the reason. 『Arhat』 (無學, one beyond learning) cultivating the roots is like attaining the corresponding fruit, so it is common to the nine grounds. 『Saiksha』 (有學, one still learning) cultivating the roots, abandoning the dull fruit and the tendency, only attains the beneficial fruit. The previous fruit of 『Saiksha』 (有學, one still learning) only relies on the unreached concentration. The third fruit of non-returner commonly relies on the six grounds, not relying on the formless realm, like the path of seeing. Therefore, when a 『Saiksha』 (有學位, one still learning) cultivates the roots, if they dwell in the path of the fruit, the preparatory practices and the other two are all included in the path of the fruit. If they dwell in the path of the superior fruit, the preparatory practices and the immediate path are included in the path of the superior fruit, and the liberation path is included in the path of the fruit. When those who dwell in the 『Arhat』 (無學位, state beyond learning) cultivate the roots, the preparatory practices and the other two are only included in the path of the fruit. When all those who dwell in the state of the fruit cultivate the roots, they abandon the fruit and attain the fruit. When they dwell in the state of the superior fruit, they abandon both and attain the fruit. Also, when all the holy ones cultivate the roots, they are with the original nature.
得果地。或同。或異。謂初．二果依地必同。不還．應果依地不定。或依本地。或上或下有差別者。若諸不還依下練根。不得上果。阿羅漢不爾。如本得果故 準此論文。依根本地入見道者。亦修練根。不還依上得果。依下修練根故。婆沙六十七評家云。應作是說。若於上地已得自在。而依下地學轉根等。亦得上地無漏果道。然轉根時不得無色。彼定無有不還果故。
正理據于上地不自在者。婆沙得上果者。據自在說。不相違也。
論。諸無學位補特伽羅。已下半行頌。第六明九種無學。
論曰至名二覺者。答前數也。
論。由下下等至成九種差別。答前由何也。
論。學．無學位有七聖者。已下一行頌。大文第二明攝諸聖 就中有三。一建立七人名。二慧．俱解脫名。三學．無學名滿。此一行頌第一門也。
論曰至隨法行名。明見道二人依前加行時。依他信故名隨信行。依教法故名隨法行。
論。依根不同至信解見至。明修道二人。鈍信根增名信解脫。利慧根增立見至名。
論。依得滅定至滅盡定故。于不還果中得滅定者。別名身證。
論。依解脫異至立俱解脫。明無學位二人據解脫不同分二由。
論。此名雖七至不時解脫。明體唯六。即是利．鈍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 得果地（獲得果位的處所）。或者相同，或者不同。意思是初果（Sotapanna，須陀洹）、二果（Sakadagamin，斯陀含）必定在同一處所獲得。不還果（Anagamin，阿那含）、阿羅漢果（Arhat，阿羅漢）獲得的處所不一定。或者在原來的處所，或者在更高或更低的處所，有差別。如果諸位不還果修行者在較低的處所修習利根，就不能獲得更高的果位。阿羅漢不是這樣，如同原本獲得果位一樣。根據這篇論文，在根本處所進入見道（見諦之道）的人，也修習利根。不還果依憑更高的處所獲得果位，依憑較低的處所修習利根。婆沙（Vibhasa，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第六十七卷的評家說，應該這樣說：如果在更高的處所已經獲得自在，而依憑較低的處所學習轉根等，也能獲得更高處所的無漏果道（沒有煩惱的果位）。然而轉根的時候不能獲得無色界的果位，因為那裡沒有不還果。
正理論（Abhidharmakosabhasyam，阿毗達磨俱舍論）認為在上地不自在的人，婆沙認為得上果的人，是根據自在來說的，不相違背。
論：諸位無學位的補特伽羅（Pudgala，補特伽羅，指有情）。以下半行頌。第六，說明九種無學。
論曰：到名為二覺者。回答前面的數目。
論：由下下等，至成九種差別。回答前面由什麼造成的。
論：學、無學位有七聖者。以下一行頌。大文第二，說明攝諸聖。其中有三點：一，建立七人名；二，慧解脫、俱解脫名；三，學、無學名滿。這一行頌是第一門。
論曰：到隨法行名。說明見道的兩個人，依憑前面的加行時，依憑他人的信心，所以叫做隨信行；依憑教法，所以叫做隨法行。
論：依根不同，到信解見至。說明修道的兩個人，鈍的信根增長，叫做信解脫；利的慧根增長，建立見至名。
論：依得滅定，到滅盡定故。在不還果中獲得滅盡定的人，特別叫做身證。
論：依解脫異，到立俱解脫。說明無學位的兩個人，根據解脫的不同分為兩種。
論：此名雖七，到不時解脫。說明體只有六種，就是利根和鈍根。
【English Translation】 English version The place of attaining the fruit. It may be the same or different. That is, the first fruit (Sotapanna) and the second fruit (Sakadagamin) must be attained in the same place. The non-returning fruit (Anagamin) and the Arhat fruit (Arhat) are not necessarily attained in the same place. They may be attained in the original place, or in a higher or lower place, with differences. If those non-returning fruit practitioners cultivate sharp roots in a lower place, they cannot attain higher fruits. Arhats are not like this, as they attain the fruit as originally obtained. According to this treatise, those who enter the path of seeing (the path of perceiving truth) in the fundamental place also cultivate sharp roots. The non-returning fruit relies on a higher place to attain the fruit, and relies on a lower place to cultivate sharp roots. The commentators in Vibhasa (Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra) Volume 67 say that it should be said that if one has already attained freedom in a higher place, and relies on a lower place to learn the transformation of roots, etc., one can also attain the unconditioned fruit path (the fruit without afflictions) of the higher place. However, one cannot attain the fruit of the formless realm when transforming roots, because there is no non-returning fruit there.
The Abhidharmakosabhasyam (Treasury of Abhidharma) considers those who are not free in the higher realm, while the Vibhasa considers those who attain the higher fruit, based on freedom, which is not contradictory.
Treatise: The Pudgalas (Pudgala, individuals) in the state of no-more-learning. The following half-verse. Sixth, explaining the nine types of no-more-learning.
Treatise says: To be named the two awakened ones. Answer to the previous number.
Treatise: From the lowest to the lowest, to form nine kinds of differences. Answer to what caused the previous one.
Treatise: Learners and no-more-learners have seven sages. The following verse. The second major section explains the collection of all sages. Among them are three points: one, establishing the names of the seven people; two, the names of wisdom-liberation and both-liberation; three, the names of learners and no-more-learners are complete. This verse is the first gate.
Treatise says: To be named follower of the Dharma. Explaining that the two people in the path of seeing, relying on the previous preliminary practices, rely on the faith of others, so they are called follower of faith; relying on the teachings, so they are called follower of the Dharma.
Treatise: Depending on the different roots, to faith-understanding and vision-attainment. Explaining the two people in the path of cultivation, the dull root of faith increases, called faith-liberation; the sharp root of wisdom increases, establishing the name of vision-attainment.
Treatise: Depending on attaining cessation, to the state of cessation. Those who attain cessation in the non-returning fruit are specially called body-witness.
Treatise: Depending on the difference in liberation, to establishing both-liberation. Explaining that the two people in the state of no-more-learning are divided into two types according to the difference in liberation.
Treatise: Although this name is seven, to liberation out of season. Explaining that the substance is only six types, which are sharp roots and dull roots.
二人。三位各二故體唯六 身證即是信解．見至 慧解脫俱解脫即是時解脫．不動也。
論。應知此中至如理應思。已下乘數文可知。
論。何等名俱及慧解脫。下半行頌。第二重釋二解脫也。
論曰至得解脫故。釋二解脫異名。婆沙五十四。問曰有先得阿羅漢果后得滅定。彼于解脫障何等心解脫有滿耶。無漏耶。有說有漏。以無漏心得盡智時已解脫故。評曰應作是說。有漏．無漏俱得解脫。所以者何。解脫有二種。一者行世解脫。二者在身解脫。彼未得滅定時入．出心不得行世。不得行世故不得在身。若得滅定入．出定心行世．在身。如俱解脫依義立名。前五立名亦應依義立 正理論云。何等名為解脫障體。諸阿羅漢心已解脫。而更求解脫。為解脫彼障。謂于所障諸解脫中。有劣無知無覆無記效能障解脫。是解脫障體。于彼彼界得離染時。雖已無餘斷而起解脫。彼不行時方名解脫彼。有餘師說。此解脫障。即以于諸定不自在為體。有餘師說。此解脫障。即以諸定不得為體。有餘師說。于彼加行不勤求故。不聽聞故。不數習故。解脫不生。即此名為解脫障體。初說應理。所以者何。必有少法力能為障。令彼于定不自在轉。若不爾者。彼有何緣于諸定中不得自在。不得定者必有所因。不可說言即因不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 二人。三位各有兩種不同的身體，總共有六種。 身證（Kaya-sakshi，通過身體體驗證得真理）即是信解（Shraddha-vimukta，通過信仰獲得解脫）、見至（Drishti-prapta，通過見解獲得解脫）。慧解脫（Prajna-vimukta，通過智慧獲得解脫）和俱解脫（Ubhayato-bhaga，通過智慧和禪定兩者獲得解脫）即是時解脫（Samaya-vimukta，在特定時間獲得解脫）、不動（Acala，不再退轉的解脫）。 論：應該知道，從『如理應思』開始，以下關於乘數的內容可以通過文字理解。 論：什麼叫做俱解脫和慧解脫？下半行頌文，第二次解釋兩種解脫。 論曰：爲了獲得解脫的緣故。解釋兩種解脫的不同名稱。《婆沙論》第五十四卷：問：有人先獲得阿羅漢果（Arhat-phala，斷盡煩惱的果位）后獲得滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti，一種高級禪定）。那麼，對於解脫的障礙，他的心解脫是有漏的還是無漏的？有人說是『有漏』的，因為以無漏心獲得盡智（Ksaya-jnana，斷盡煩惱的智慧）時已經解脫了。評：應該這樣說，有漏和無漏都獲得了解脫。為什麼呢？解脫有兩種：一是行世解脫，二是在身解脫。他未獲得滅盡定時，入定和出定的心不能行世，不能行世就不能在身。如果獲得滅盡定，入定和出定的心就能行世和在身。如同俱解脫依意義而立名，前五種立名也應該依意義而立。正理論說：什麼叫做解脫障的本體？諸位阿羅漢的心已經解脫，但還要尋求進一步的解脫，是爲了解脫那些障礙。所謂對於所障礙的諸種解脫，有劣等的、無知的、無覆無記性的效能障礙解脫，這就是解脫障的本體。在各個界（Dhatu，構成世界的元素）獲得離染時，雖然已經完全斷除了煩惱，但生起解脫。他們不行的時候才叫做解脫。有其他老師說，這種解脫障，就是以對於諸禪定不自在為本體。有其他老師說，這種解脫障，就是以諸禪定不得為本體。有其他老師說，因為對於彼加行不勤奮尋求，不聽聞，不經常修習，解脫不生起，這就是解脫障的本體。最初的說法是合理的。為什麼呢？必定有少許法力能夠成為障礙，使他們對於禪定不能自在運轉。如果不是這樣，他們有什麼緣故在諸禪定中不能自在？不得禪定必定有所原因，不能說就是因為不。
【English Translation】 English version Two. Each of the three has two different bodies, making a total of six. Kaya-sakshi (body witness, attaining truth through bodily experience) is Shraddha-vimukta (liberated by faith, attaining liberation through faith) and Drishti-prapta (attained by view, attaining liberation through view). Prajna-vimukta (liberated by wisdom, attaining liberation through wisdom) and Ubhayato-bhaga (liberated in both ways, attaining liberation through both wisdom and meditation) are Samaya-vimukta (liberated in time, attaining liberation at a specific time) and Acala (immovable, irreversible liberation). Treatise: It should be known that, starting from 'as it should be considered', the following content about the number of vehicles can be understood through the text. Treatise: What are called Ubhayato-bhaga and Prajna-vimukta? The second half of the verse explains the two liberations for the second time. Treatise says: For the sake of attaining liberation. Explaining the different names of the two liberations. Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosa-bhasya, Volume 54: Question: Someone first attains the Arhat-phala (fruit of Arhatship, the state of complete liberation from defilements) and then attains Nirodha-samapatti (cessation attainment, an advanced state of meditation). Then, regarding the obstacles to liberation, is his mind liberation defiled or undefiled? Some say it is 'defiled', because when the undefiled mind attains Ksaya-jnana (knowledge of exhaustion, the wisdom of completely eradicating defilements), it has already been liberated. Comment: It should be said that both defiled and undefiled attain liberation. Why? There are two types of liberation: one is liberation in the world, and the other is liberation in the body. Before he attains Nirodha-samapatti, the mind entering and exiting the samadhi cannot function in the world, and if it cannot function in the world, it cannot be in the body. Just as Ubhayato-bhaga is named according to its meaning, the naming of the previous five should also be based on their meaning. The Treatise on Right Reason says: What is the substance of the obstacle to liberation? The minds of all Arhats have already been liberated, but they still seek further liberation in order to liberate those obstacles. The so-called obstacles to liberation are those inferior, ignorant, uncovered, and unspecified properties that can obstruct liberation. This is the substance of the obstacle to liberation. When one attains detachment in each realm (Dhatu, elements constituting the world), although one has completely eradicated defilements, liberation arises. They are called liberated only when they are not functioning. Other teachers say that this obstacle to liberation is essentially the lack of freedom in all samadhis. Other teachers say that this obstacle to liberation is essentially the inability to attain all samadhis. Other teachers say that because one does not diligently seek, does not listen, and does not frequently practice the application, liberation does not arise, and this is called the obstacle to liberation. The initial statement is reasonable. Why? There must be a small amount of power that can become an obstacle, preventing them from freely operating in samadhi. If this were not the case, for what reason would they not be free in all samadhis? Not attaining samadhi must have a cause; it cannot be said that it is simply because of not.
得。自體不應還因自故。或煩惱障亦應可說。即以應果不得為性。彼既不然。此云何。阿羅漢果亦由於加行不勤求等體不得生。豈便無別煩惱障體。故后三說皆不應理。又無漏心亦有從此名得解脫。由約在身及約行世說解脫故。謂要解脫解脫障時。方起在身及行世故。
論。如世尊說五煩惱斷。下一行頌。第三明學．無學滿。
論曰至未離欲染。明學位三滿具．闕 三滿者。一根滿謂利根。二果滿謂得不還。三定滿謂得滅定。見至利根故得根滿。未得不還。故非果滿。未得滅定故非定滿。
論。有有學者乃至得滅盡定。如文可解。
論。無有學者至亦得滿名。明有學中無有得定根滿非果滿。向得定滿者。必果滿故。及根．定滿者。亦如上釋。
論。諸無學者至亦立滿名。釋無學不別說果滿。以皆果滿故。
論。有但由根至已得滅盡定。明由根．定得滿名。于中有三句。第一句但由根。第二句但由定。第三句由根定。如文可解。
論。廣說諸道差別無量。已下第三大文明諸道差別 就中。一明道差別。二明四種通行。三明菩提分法。四明四種證凈。五明正脫．正智。六明厭離通局。此一行頌第一明四道也。
論曰至謂三餘道。略出道體。
論。道義云何。問道
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『得』（Dhih）啊，自體不應該反過來成為自身的原因。否則，煩惱障（Klesha-avarana）也應該可以這樣說，即以應得的果報不能作為其本性。既然那樣是不成立的，那麼這個道理又該如何解釋呢？阿羅漢果（Arhat-phala）也是由於加行（prayoga）不勤奮尋求等等原因而無法產生，難道因此就沒有別的煩惱障的本體了嗎？所以後面三種說法都是不合理的。而且，無漏心（anasrava-citta）也有從此獲得解脫的說法，這是因為根據其在身（kaya）以及在世間行（loka-caritra）的情況來說解脫的緣故。也就是說，只有在解脫了障礙解脫的障礙時，才會在身以及在世間行中顯現。
論：如世尊（Bhagavan）所說，五煩惱斷（panca klesa prahana）。下一行頌，第三說明學（saiksa）、無學（asiksa）的圓滿。
論曰：直至未離欲染（viraga），說明有學位（saiksa-bhumi）的三種圓滿具足和欠缺。三種圓滿是：一、根滿（indriya-paripurna），指利根（tikshnendriya）；二、果滿（phala-paripurna），指得到不還果（anagami-phala）；三、定滿（samadhi-paripurna），指得到滅盡定（nirodha-samapatti）。見至（drsti-prapta）是利根，所以得到根滿。未得到不還果，所以不是果滿。未得到滅盡定，所以不是定滿。
論：有有學者，乃至得到滅盡定，如文義可以理解。
論：無有學者，乃至也得到圓滿的名稱。說明有學中沒有得到定滿而根滿卻不是果滿的情況。想要得到定滿的人，必定是果滿的緣故。以及根滿、定滿的人，也如上面的解釋。
論：諸無學者，乃至也建立圓滿的名稱。解釋無學不另外說明果滿，因為都是果滿的緣故。
論：有隻是由於根，乃至已經得到滅盡定。說明由於根、定得到圓滿的名稱。其中有三句。第一句是隻是由於根，第二句是隻是由於定，第三句是由於根和定。如文義可以理解。
論：廣泛地說，諸道的差別無量。以下第三大段說明諸道的差別。其中，一、說明道的差別；二、說明四種通行（pratipatti）；三、說明菩提分法（bodhipaksika-dharma）；四、說明四種證凈（pratisaranasuddhi）；五、說明正脫（samyak-vimukti）、正智（samyak-jnana）；六、說明厭離（nirveda）的通局。這一行頌第一說明四道。
論曰：乃至說三種其餘的道。簡略地說出道體。
論：道的意義是什麼？提問。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Gains' (Dhih), the self should not in turn be the cause of itself. Otherwise, afflictive obstructions (Klesha-avarana) should also be able to be said in this way, that is, the deserved result cannot be its nature. Since that is not established, then how should this principle be explained? The Arhat fruit (Arhat-phala) is also unable to arise due to non-diligent seeking in practice (prayoga), etc. Does this mean that there is no other entity of afflictive obstructions? Therefore, the latter three statements are all unreasonable. Moreover, the unconditioned mind (anasrava-citta) is also said to attain liberation from this, because liberation is spoken of in terms of its presence in the body (kaya) and its conduct in the world (loka-caritra). That is to say, only when the obstacles to liberation are liberated, will it manifest in the body and in worldly conduct.
Treatise: As the World Honored One (Bhagavan) said, the five afflictions are cut off (panca klesa prahana). The next line of verse, the third explains the perfection of the learner (saiksa) and the non-learner (asiksa).
Treatise says: Until not separated from desire (viraga), it explains the three perfections of the stage of learning (saiksa-bhumi), complete and incomplete. The three perfections are: first, perfection of faculties (indriya-paripurna), referring to sharp faculties (tikshnendriya); second, perfection of fruition (phala-paripurna), referring to attaining the fruit of non-returner (anagami-phala); third, perfection of concentration (samadhi-paripurna), referring to attaining cessation attainment (nirodha-samapatti). One who has attained the vision (drsti-prapta) has sharp faculties, so they attain perfection of faculties. Not having attained the fruit of non-returner, so it is not perfection of fruition. Not having attained cessation attainment, so it is not perfection of concentration.
Treatise: There are learners, even to attaining cessation attainment, as the text can be understood.
Treatise: There are non-learners, even to also attaining the name of perfection. It explains that among learners, there is no case of attaining perfection of concentration and perfection of faculties but not perfection of fruition. Those who want to attain perfection of concentration must have perfection of fruition. And those with perfection of faculties and perfection of concentration are also as explained above.
Treatise: All non-learners, even to also establishing the name of perfection. It explains that non-learners do not separately explain perfection of fruition, because all have perfection of fruition.
Treatise: There are those who only due to faculties, even to already attaining cessation attainment. It explains that due to faculties and concentration, the name of perfection is attained. There are three sentences in it. The first sentence is only due to faculties, the second sentence is only due to concentration, and the third sentence is due to faculties and concentration. As the text can be understood.
Treatise: Broadly speaking, the differences of the paths are immeasurable. The following third major section explains the differences of the paths. Among them, first, it explains the differences of the paths; second, it explains the four kinds of practice (pratipatti); third, it explains the limbs of enlightenment (bodhipaksika-dharma); fourth, it explains the four kinds of purity of reliance (pratisaranasuddhi); fifth, it explains right liberation (samyak-vimukti) and right knowledge (samyak-jnana); sixth, it explains the scope of aversion (nirveda). This line of verse first explains the four paths.
Treatise says: Even to speaking of the three remaining paths. Briefly speaking of the entity of the path.
Treatise: What is the meaning of the path? Asking.
義也。
論。謂涅槃路至涅槃果故。有兩釋道義。道是路之名。趣涅槃路名之為乘。是所依運動之義。有所追求必依。于道。依此四道求涅槃故。
論。解脫勝進如何名道。問也。加行．無間趣向涅槃可名為道。解脫已至。勝進已過。如何名道。
論有三釋。第一云。與加行等道類同故。是道轉上品故。
論。或前前力至後後故。第二釋也。前前至后皆是道義。
論。或能趣入無餘依故。第三解也。解脫．勝進亦得道名。已趣無餘故。正理論云。三乘賢聖涉此夷途。速達二種涅槃界故。
論。道于余處立通行名。已下一行頌。第二明通行。
論曰至任運轉故。釋樂通也 通是道之別名。不多艱辛任運轉故釋樂名也。正理論云。任運轉故如乘船筏。
論。道依無色至觀增止減。釋苦通行。正理論云。雖道非苦。苦受相應艱辛轉故亦名為苦。如依陸路乘馬等行。艱辛轉者。由此地中止．觀雖俱而增．減故 此依地立苦．樂名也。
論。即此樂苦至翻此名速。釋遲速也。此依根立遲．速名也。此上遲．速之名在道非人。
論。或遲鈍者至速此相違。此釋遲．速之名從人非道。正理論云。此行五蘊．四蘊為性。由色定．無色定別。而名通者。顯慧勝故。偏立見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 義，指的是道路。
論：之所以說涅槃之路能到達涅槃的果位，是因為『道』有兩種解釋。『道』是道路的名稱，通往涅槃的道路被稱為『乘』，是所依賴和運動的含義。有所追求必定要依賴於道路，依靠這四種道路來尋求涅槃。
論：解脫和勝進如何能被稱為『道』？這是提問。加行和無間趣向涅槃可以被稱為『道』，但解脫已經到達，勝進已經過去，如何還能被稱為『道』呢？
論：有三種解釋。第一種是，因為它們與加行等道路屬於同一類別，是道路向上品轉變的緣故。
論：或者說，因為前前階段的力量能達到後後階段。這是第二種解釋。前前階段到達後後階段，都屬於『道』的含義。
論：或者說，因為它們能夠趣入無餘依涅槃。這是第三種解釋。解脫和勝進也可以被稱為『道』，因為它們已經趣向無餘依涅槃。《正理論》中說，三乘的賢聖行走在這條平坦的道路上，能夠迅速到達兩種涅槃的境界。
論：『道』在其他地方也被稱為『通行』。下面一行頌文，第二點說明『通行』。
論曰：乃至能夠輕鬆運轉。解釋了『樂通』。『通』是『道』的別名，因為不費力氣，能夠輕鬆運轉，所以解釋為『樂』。《正理論》中說，能夠輕鬆運轉，就像乘坐船筏一樣。
論：『道』依賴於無色界，乃至觀察增、止、減。解釋了『苦通行』。《正理論》中說，雖然『道』本身不是苦，但與苦受相應，艱難地運轉，所以也稱為苦。就像在陸地上騎馬行走一樣，因為艱難地運轉。這是因為在此地，止和觀雖然都有，但有增有減。這是依據地來建立苦和樂的名稱。
論：即此樂和苦，乃至翻轉這個名稱為『速』。解釋了遲緩和快速。這是依據根器來建立遲緩和快速的名稱。這裡所說的遲緩和快速，指的是道路的狀態，而不是人。
論：或者說，遲鈍的人感到遲緩，快速的人感到快速，這與前者相反。這是解釋遲緩和快速的名稱是從人而不是從道路的角度來說的。《正理論》中說，這種修行以五蘊或四蘊為體性，因為色界定和無色界定的不同，所以稱為『通』，這是因為智慧殊勝的緣故，所以特別強調『見』。
【English Translation】 English version 義也 (yi ye): Meaning, referring to the path.
論 (Lun): Treatise. It is said that the path of Nirvana leads to the fruit of Nirvana because '道 (Dao)' has two interpretations. '道 (Dao)' is the name of the road, and the road leading to Nirvana is called '乘 (Cheng)', which means reliance and movement. If there is something to pursue, it must rely on the road, relying on these four paths to seek Nirvana.
論 (Lun): How can 解脫 (Jietuo, liberation) and 勝進 (Shengjin, superior progress) be called '道 (Dao)'? This is a question. 加行 (Jiaxing, preparatory practice) and 無間 (Wujian, immediate) approaching Nirvana can be called '道 (Dao)', but 解脫 (Jietuo) has already been reached, and 勝進 (Shengjin) has already passed, how can they still be called '道 (Dao)'?
論 (Lun): There are three explanations. The first is because they belong to the same category as 加行 (Jiaxing) and other paths, and it is because the path is transformed into a superior quality.
論 (Lun): Or it can be said that because the power of the previous stage can reach the later stage. This is the second explanation. The previous stage reaching the later stage all belong to the meaning of '道 (Dao)'.
論 (Lun): Or it can be said that because they can approach 無餘依涅槃 (Wuyuyi Niepan, Nirvana without remainder). This is the third explanation. 解脫 (Jietuo) and 勝進 (Shengjin) can also be called '道 (Dao)' because they have already approached 無餘依涅槃 (Wuyuyi Niepan). The Zhengli Lun says that the virtuous sages of the three vehicles walk on this flat road and can quickly reach the realm of the two kinds of Nirvana.
論 (Lun): '道 (Dao)' is also called '通行 (Tongxing, passage)' in other places. The following line of verse, the second point explains '通行 (Tongxing)'.
論曰 (Lun Yue): It is said that it can be easily operated. Explained '樂通 (Letong, easy passage)'. '通 (Tong)' is another name for '道 (Dao)', because it is effortless and can be easily operated, so it is explained as '樂 (Le, easy)'. The Zhengli Lun says that it can be easily operated, just like riding a boat.
論 (Lun): '道 (Dao)' relies on the formless realm, and even observes increase, cessation, and decrease. Explained '苦通行 (Kutongxing, difficult passage)'. The Zhengli Lun says that although '道 (Dao)' itself is not suffering, it is associated with suffering and operates with difficulty, so it is also called suffering. Just like riding a horse on land, because it operates with difficulty. This is because in this place, although both cessation and observation are present, there are increases and decreases. This is based on the ground to establish the names of suffering and ease.
論 (Lun): That is, this ease and suffering, and even turning this name into '速 (Su, fast)'. Explained slowness and speed. This is based on the faculties to establish the names of slowness and speed. The slowness and speed mentioned here refer to the state of the road, not the person.
論 (Lun): Or it can be said that a slow person feels slow, and a fast person feels fast, which is the opposite of the former. This is to explain that the names of slowness and speed are from the perspective of the person rather than the road. The Zhengli Lun says that this practice takes the five aggregates or four aggregates as its nature. Because of the difference between the form realm concentration and the formless realm concentration, it is called '通 (Tong)', which is because wisdom is superior, so it particularly emphasizes '見 (Jian, view)'.
名。如見道邊諸世俗智金剛喻定。亦以五蘊．四蘊為體。立相定名。
論。道亦名為菩提分法。已下第三。頌明菩提分法 于中有六。一舉數釋名。二出體性。三釋念住等。四明增位前後。五明漏．無漏別。六明依地有異。此一行頌第一舉數釋名。
論曰至八聖道支。舉數釋名也。
論。盡無生智至此二名覺。釋菩提名 菩提。此名為覺。有二義。一如睡覺故。二覺知故 無明睡皆永斷故者。是如睡覺 及如實知已作已事者。盡智覺知 不復作故者。無生智覺知。
論。三十七法至菩提分法。釋三十七名菩提分所以。
論。此三十七體各別耶。已下一行頌。第二齣體。
論曰至餘九同前。明十法為體。此出體也。婆沙九十五有三說。一說同此論。一說開戒為二。以十一法為體。一師開為三。謂正語．正業．正命。此論合說以十法體。開合雖異於理無違 問何故唯十為體 婆沙廢立 問何故一切色中唯無表色有立覺分非余色耶 答正語．業．命隨順聖道勢用偏增故立覺分。余色不爾 又戒能為谷。余色不爾 又正理云。何緣表業不立覺分。覺分唯是順定善法心俱無表有勝順能。表業不然。是故不立 問何故不立心為菩提分法。複次心於雜染．清凈品中。勢用均等。菩提分法于清凈
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 名。例如見到道邊的諸世俗智金剛喻定（Vajropama-samadhi，比喻如金剛般堅固的禪定）。也以五蘊（Skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）、四蘊為本體，建立相定名。 論：道也稱為菩提分法（Bodhipaksika-dharmas，通往覺悟的三十七種修行方法）。以下第三部分，用偈頌闡明菩提分法。其中有六個方面：一、列舉數量並解釋名稱；二、闡述本體；三、解釋念住等；四、闡明增進的次第；五、闡明有漏和無漏的區別；六、闡明依于不同地（Bhumi，修行層次）而有所不同。這一行偈頌是第一方面，列舉數量並解釋名稱。 論曰：乃至八聖道支（Aryastangika-marga，達到解脫的八正道）。這是列舉數量並解釋名稱。 論：盡無生智（Ksaya-jnana, Anutpada-jnana，知曉煩惱已盡和不再生起的智慧）乃至這兩個名稱為覺（Bodhi，覺悟）。解釋菩提的名稱。菩提，這個名稱為覺悟，有兩個含義：一、如從睡眠中醒來；二、覺知。無明（Avidya，對事物真相的無知）之睡眠皆已永遠斷除，這是如從睡眠中醒來。以及如實知曉已作之事，盡智覺知不再造作。 論：三十七法（Saptatrimsat-dharma，三十七種修行方法）乃至菩提分法。解釋三十七名稱為菩提分的原因。 論：這三十七法的本體各不相同嗎？以下一行偈頌，第二方面闡述本體。 論曰：乃至其餘九種與前相同。闡明十法為本體。這是闡述本體。婆沙（Vibhasa，註釋）九十五有三種說法：一種說法與此論相同；一種說法將戒分為二，以十一法為本體；一位論師分為三種，即正語、正業、正命。此論合併來說，以十法為本體。分合雖然不同，但道理上沒有違背。問：為什麼唯獨十法為本體？婆沙有廢立之說。問：為什麼一切色法中唯獨無表色（Avijnapti-rupa，不可見的色法）可以建立覺分，而不是其餘色法？答：正語、正業、正命隨順聖道的勢用特別增強，所以建立覺分。其餘色法不是這樣。又，戒能成為根本，其餘色法不是這樣。又，《正理》說：為什麼表業（Vijnapti-karma，可見的行為）不建立覺分？覺分只是順應禪定的善法，與心俱生的無表色具有殊勝的順應能力，表業不是這樣，所以不建立。問：為什麼不建立心為菩提分法？再者，心在雜染和清凈的品類中，勢用均等，而菩提分法傾向於清凈。
【English Translation】 English version: Name. For example, the Vajropama-samadhi (Vajropama-samadhi, a samadhi as firm as diamond) of worldly wisdom seen by the roadside. It also establishes the name of the samadhi based on the five Skandhas (Skandha, the five aggregates constituting individual existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) or four Skandhas as its substance. Treatise: The path is also called Bodhipaksika-dharmas (Bodhipaksika-dharmas, the thirty-seven practices leading to enlightenment). The third part below explains the Bodhipaksika-dharmas in verses. There are six aspects: 1. Enumerating the numbers and explaining the names; 2. Explaining the substance; 3. Explaining the mindfulness, etc.; 4. Explaining the order of advancement; 5. Explaining the difference between defiled and undefiled; 6. Explaining the differences based on different Bhumis (Bhumi, levels of practice). This line of verse is the first aspect, enumerating the numbers and explaining the names. Treatise says: Up to the Eightfold Noble Path (Aryastangika-marga, the eightfold path to liberation). This is enumerating the numbers and explaining the names. Treatise: Ksaya-jnana and Anutpada-jnana (Ksaya-jnana, Anutpada-jnana, the wisdom of knowing that afflictions are exhausted and no longer arise) up to these two names are Bodhi (Bodhi, enlightenment). Explaining the name of Bodhi. Bodhi, this name is enlightenment, has two meanings: 1. Like waking up from sleep; 2. Knowing. The sleep of ignorance (Avidya, ignorance of the true nature of things) is completely and permanently cut off, which is like waking up from sleep. And truly knowing what has been done, Ksaya-jnana knows that nothing more will be done. Treatise: The thirty-seven dharmas (Saptatrimsat-dharma, the thirty-seven practices) up to the Bodhipaksika-dharmas. Explaining the reason why the thirty-seven names are called Bodhipaksika. Treatise: Are the substances of these thirty-seven dharmas different from each other? The following line of verse is the second aspect, explaining the substance. Treatise says: Up to the remaining nine are the same as before. Explaining that ten dharmas are the substance. This is explaining the substance. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa, commentary) ninety-five has three explanations: one explanation is the same as this treatise; one explanation divides the precepts into two, with eleven dharmas as the substance; one teacher divides it into three, namely right speech, right action, and right livelihood. This treatise combines them and says that ten dharmas are the substance. Although the division and combination are different, there is no contradiction in principle. Question: Why are only ten dharmas the substance? The Vibhasa has the theory of abolishing and establishing. Question: Why is it that among all forms, only non-revealing form (Avijnapti-rupa, invisible form) can establish the factors of enlightenment, and not other forms? Answer: Right speech, right action, and right livelihood especially enhance the power of following the Noble Path, so the factors of enlightenment are established. Other forms are not like this. Also, precepts can be the root, other forms are not like this. Also, the Nyaya says: Why are revealing actions not established as factors of enlightenment? The factors of enlightenment are only good dharmas that accord with samadhi, and the non-revealing form that arises with the mind has a superior ability to accord with it. Revealing actions are not like this, so they are not established. Question: Why is the mind not established as a Bodhipaksika-dharma? Furthermore, the mind has equal power in both defiled and pure categories, while the Bodhipaksika-dharmas tend towards purity.
品。勢用偏增。是故不立。複次菩提分法輔佐菩提。心王不應輔佐于覺。如王無有輔佐臣義。問大地法中何故但立念．定．慧．受為菩提分法。答念．定．慧三順清凈品勢用增上。菩提分法亦復如是。故攝此三。受于雜染．清凈品中。勢用俱勝。故亦立為菩提分法 有餘師說。受于雜染勢用雖勝。而於凈品作饒益事。如旃荼羅性雖鄙劣。而與豪族作饒益事。故亦立為菩提分法。想．思．觸．欲于雜染品。勢用偏增。故不立為菩提分法。于假想觀勝解偏增。菩提分順真實觀。是故勝解非彼所攝 有餘師說。菩提分法學位偏增。至無學位勝解方勝。故不立為菩提分法。作意于境義不相應。故亦不立 有餘師說。初取境時作意力勝。至境相續彼力漸微。菩提分法要取境已多時方有。義不相應故亦不立 問何故三受皆通無漏。唯立喜為菩提分法。答樂．舍二受無彼相故。複次菩提分法行相猛利。樂．舍遲鈍故俱不立 複次無漏樂受為輕安樂所覆損故。舍為行舍所覆損故。相不明瞭。故不立為菩提分法 問大善地法中何但立信．精進．輕安．行．舍四種。為菩提分法耶 答由此四種順菩提勝故。偏立為菩提分法。謂趣菩提信為上首。將起眾行信為初基。故立信為菩提分法。精進遍策趣菩提行。令速趣向三乘菩提。故亦為菩提分法
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 品。如果勢用偏向增長，因此不設立。再次，菩提分法是輔助菩提的，心王不應該輔助覺悟，就像國王沒有輔助的臣子一樣。問：在大地法中，為什麼只設立念（憶念，Sati）、定（禪定，Samadhi）、慧（智慧，Prajna）、受（感受，Vedana）為菩提分法？答：念、定、慧三種在清凈品中，其勢用增長最為顯著，菩提分法也是如此，所以攝取這三種。受在雜染品和清凈品中，其勢用都非常顯著，所以也設立為菩提分法。有些老師說，受在雜染品中勢用雖然顯著，但對於清凈品也有饒益的作用，就像旃荼羅（賤民）的身份雖然卑賤，但也能給豪族帶來利益一樣，所以也設立為菩提分法。想（想像，Samjna）、思（思考，Cetanā）、觸（接觸，Sparśa）、欲（慾望，Chanda）在雜染品中，其勢用偏向增長，所以不設立為菩提分法。對於假想觀，勝解（adhimoksha）偏向增長，而菩提分法順應真實觀，因此勝解不被其所攝。有些老師說，菩提分法在有學位時增長顯著，到了無學位時勝解才顯著，所以不設立勝解為菩提分法。作意（manasikara）在取境時，其意義不相應，所以也不設立為菩提分法。有些老師說，最初取境時，作意的力量強大，但隨著境界的持續，其力量逐漸減弱，而菩提分法需要在取境之後很長時間才能產生，意義不相應，所以也不設立為菩提分法。問：為什麼三種受都通於無漏，唯獨設立喜（Priti）為菩提分法？答：樂（Sukha）、舍（Upeksha）兩種受沒有喜的相狀。再次，菩提分法的行相猛利，而樂、舍遲鈍，所以都不設立。再次，無漏的樂受被輕安樂所覆蓋和減損，舍被行舍所覆蓋和減損，相狀不明顯，所以不設立為菩提分法。問：在大善地法中，為什麼只設立信（Śrāddhā）、精進（Vīrya）、輕安（Prasrabdhi）、行（行動，Karma）、舍（Upeksha）四種為菩提分法呢？答：因為這四種順應菩提最為殊勝，所以特別設立為菩提分法。所謂趣向菩提，信為首要，將要發起各種修行，信是最初的基礎，所以設立信為菩提分法。精進普遍策勵趣向菩提的修行，使之迅速趨向三乘菩提，所以也是菩提分法。
【English Translation】 English version: Chapter. If the power and function are inclined to increase, therefore it is not established. Furthermore, the limbs of enlightenment assist enlightenment, and the mind-king should not assist awakening, just as a king has no assisting ministers. Question: In the dharmas of the great earth, why are only mindfulness (Sati), concentration (Samadhi), wisdom (Prajna), and feeling (Vedana) established as limbs of enlightenment? Answer: Mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom are the three that increase most in power and function in the pure qualities, and so it is with the limbs of enlightenment, therefore these three are included. Feeling, in both defiled and pure qualities, has superior power and function, so it is also established as a limb of enlightenment. Some teachers say that although feeling has superior power and function in defiled qualities, it also benefits pure qualities, just as a Chandala (outcaste), though of lowly nature, can benefit a noble family, so it is also established as a limb of enlightenment. Conception (Samjna), thought (Cetanā), contact (Sparśa), and desire (Chanda) have power and function that are inclined to increase in defiled qualities, so they are not established as limbs of enlightenment. For imagined contemplation, conviction (adhimoksha) is inclined to increase, but the limbs of enlightenment accord with true contemplation, therefore conviction is not included among them. Some teachers say that the limbs of enlightenment increase predominantly in the stage of learning, and conviction is superior only in the stage of no-more-learning, so conviction is not established as a limb of enlightenment. Attention (manasikara) is not appropriate in meaning when taking an object, so it is also not established. Some teachers say that when first taking an object, the power of attention is strong, but as the object continues, its power gradually diminishes, while the limbs of enlightenment require a long time after taking an object to arise, so it is not appropriate in meaning and is not established. Question: Why do the three feelings all connect to the unconditioned, but only joy (Priti) is established as a limb of enlightenment? Answer: Pleasure (Sukha) and equanimity (Upeksha) do not have the characteristics of joy. Furthermore, the characteristics of the limbs of enlightenment are vigorous, while pleasure and equanimity are slow, so neither is established. Furthermore, unconditioned pleasure is covered and diminished by the pleasure of pliancy, and equanimity is covered and diminished by the equanimity of action, so their characteristics are not clear, and they are not established as limbs of enlightenment. Question: In the dharmas of the great wholesome earth, why are only faith (Śrāddhā), diligence (Vīrya), pliancy (Prasrabdhi), action (Karma), and equanimity (Upeksha) established as limbs of enlightenment? Answer: Because these four are most conducive to enlightenment, they are especially established as limbs of enlightenment. In approaching enlightenment, faith is paramount, and in initiating various practices, faith is the initial foundation, so faith is established as a limb of enlightenment. Diligence universally encourages practices that approach enlightenment, causing them to quickly approach the enlightenment of the three vehicles, so it is also a limb of enlightenment.
。輕安調適對治惛沈。助觀品勝。行舍平等對治掉舉。助止品勝。菩提分法止．觀為主。故俱立為菩提分法。慚．愧等六。散善品中勢用雖勝。而於定善勢力微劣。故不立為菩提分法。以菩提分定善攝故。余大不善地法二。大煩惱地六。小煩惱地法十。及不定地中貪．瞋．慢．疑。並順雜染故皆不立。睡眠．惡作雖亦通善。唯是生得。菩提分法是加行善 又正理論云。何緣不立不相應行以為覺分 彼于助覺無別勝能。不相應故。非如無表雖不相應。而於道輪有為轂用。故於覺分不別建立 問三無為法何故不立 解云順菩提分必須起用。無為無用。是故不立。由斯廢立故唯十種是菩提分。余皆不立。又正理論云。何緣不立信為覺故道支。初發趣時信用增上。已入聖位在覺．道支。信于爾時勢用漸劣。故不立在覺．道支中。何緣于覺支立喜．輕安．舍。非亦立在彼道支中。彼偏順覺。不順道故。云何順覺。且修道中地地各修九品勝覺。如如於諦數數覺悟。如是如是發生勝喜。由聖勝喜后樂觀諦。如人掘地獲寶生喜故。后樂更掘。故喜于覺順力增。要由輕安息諸事務。及由舍力令心平等。方能于境審諦覺察。故立安．舍在覺支中。云何此三不順於道。速疾運轉是聖道義。此于速運少有相違。並能令心安隱住故。何緣于道立尋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：輕安調適可以對治惛沈（精神昏昧沉重），有助於觀品（觀行的品類）的殊勝。行舍平等（行為上的捨棄和內心的平等）可以對治掉舉（心神不定），有助於止品（止息的品類）的殊勝。菩提分法（趨向覺悟的組成部分）以止和觀為主，所以都將它們立為菩提分法。慚（對不善行為感到羞恥）和愧（害怕不善行為帶來的後果）等六種善法，在散善品（不集中的善行）中作用雖然強大，但對於定善（集中的善行）的勢力微弱，所以不將它們立為菩提分法，因為菩提分法包含在定善之中。其餘的大不善地法（產生不善行為的心理活動）兩種，大煩惱地法（主要的煩惱）六種，小煩惱地法（次要的煩惱）十種，以及不定地法（不確定的心理活動）中的貪（貪婪）、瞋（嗔恨）、慢（傲慢）、疑（懷疑），都順從雜染（各種煩惱的污染），所以都不將它們立為菩提分法。睡眠和惡作（後悔）雖然也通於善，但只是生得（天生的），菩提分法是加行善（通過努力獲得的善）。 《正理論》中說：『為什麼不將不相應行（既非色法也非心法的存在）立為覺分（覺悟的組成部分）呢？』因為它們對於幫助覺悟沒有特別殊勝的能力，因為它們不相應。不像無表色（無法表達的物質），雖然不相應，但對於道輪（修道的程序）有作為車轂的作用。所以對於覺分不特別建立。問：三種無為法（無生、無滅、無住的法）為什麼不立為覺分？答：順應菩提分必須起作用，而無為法沒有作用，所以不立。由於這些原因，所以只有十種是菩提分，其餘都不立。 《正理論》中又說：『為什麼不將信（信心）立為覺悟的緣故的道支（八正道的分支）呢？』最初發起修行時，信心作用增強。已經進入聖位，在覺和道支中，信心在那時作用逐漸減弱，所以不立在覺和道支中。為什麼在覺支中建立喜（喜悅）、輕安（身心輕快安適）、舍（捨棄），而不也立在道支中呢？因為它們偏向于順應覺悟，不順應道。怎樣順應覺悟呢？在修道中，每一地都修習九品殊勝的覺悟。像這樣，如如對於真諦數數覺悟，像這樣像這樣發生殊勝的喜悅。由於聖勝的喜悅，然後樂觀真諦，就像人挖地獲得寶物而生喜悅，所以之後更樂於挖掘。所以喜對於覺悟的順應力量增強。要通過輕安來止息各種事務，以及通過舍的力量使內心平等，才能對於境界審慎地覺察。所以建立安和舍在覺支中。怎樣說這三種不順應于道呢？迅速運轉是聖道的意義，這三種對於迅速運轉稍微有些相違背，並且能夠使內心安穩住止。為什麼在道支中建立尋
【English Translation】 English version: Tranquility and pliancy (leanness) adjust and counteract sloth and torpor, aiding the superiority of the contemplation category. Equanimity in conduct (behavior) counteracts restlessness, aiding the superiority of the cessation category. The limbs of enlightenment (Bodhipaksa-dharmas) are primarily cessation and contemplation, hence both are established as limbs of enlightenment. Shame (Hri) and embarrassment (Apatrapya), along with the other six wholesome mental factors, although potent in the category of scattered wholesome deeds, are weak in the power of concentrated wholesome deeds. Therefore, they are not established as limbs of enlightenment, as the limbs of enlightenment are included within concentrated wholesome deeds. The remaining two of the great unwholesome mental factors, the six of the great afflictive mental factors, the ten of the minor afflictive mental factors, and the greed (Lobha), hatred (Dvesha), pride (Mana), and doubt (Vicikitsa) among the indeterminate mental factors, all accord with defilement and are therefore not established as limbs of enlightenment. Sleep (Middha) and regret (Kaukuttya), although also common to wholesome states, are only naturally acquired. The limbs of enlightenment are wholesome deeds acquired through effort. Furthermore, the Nyayanusara-sastra states: 'Why are the non-associated formations not established as limbs of enlightenment?' Because they do not have a distinct superior ability to aid enlightenment, as they are non-associated. Unlike non-revealing form (Avijnapti-rupa), although non-associated, it has the function of a hub for the wheel of the path. Therefore, it is not separately established as a limb of enlightenment. Question: Why are the three unconditioned dharmas (Asamskrta-dharmas) not established? Answer: To accord with the limbs of enlightenment, one must initiate action. The unconditioned is without action, therefore it is not established. Due to these reasons for establishing and rejecting, only ten are limbs of enlightenment, and the rest are not established. Furthermore, the Nyayanusara-sastra states: 'Why is faith (Sraddha) not established as a limb of the path for the sake of enlightenment?' Initially, when embarking on practice, faith's function increases. Having already entered the stage of a noble one, in the limbs of enlightenment and the path, faith's function gradually weakens at that time. Therefore, it is not established in the limbs of enlightenment and the path. Why are joy (Priti), tranquility (Prasrabdhi), and equanimity (Upeksha) established in the limbs of enlightenment, but not also established in the limbs of the path? Because they are biased towards according with enlightenment, not according with the path. How do they accord with enlightenment? In cultivating the path, in each stage, one cultivates the nine grades of superior enlightenment. Just as one repeatedly awakens to the truth, in that way, superior joy arises. Due to the joy of sacred victory, one then observes the truth with optimism, like a person digging the ground and obtaining treasure, giving rise to joy, so one is more joyful to dig further. Therefore, joy's strength in according with enlightenment increases. One must rely on tranquility to cease all affairs, and rely on the power of equanimity to make the mind equal, in order to carefully discern the object. Therefore, tranquility and equanimity are established in the limbs of enlightenment. How do these three not accord with the path? Rapid movement is the meaning of the sacred path. These three are slightly contrary to rapid movement and can cause the mind to abide in peace. Why is investigation (Vitarka) established in the limbs of the path
及戒。于覺支中非亦立彼。彼偏順道不順覺故。云何順道。且見道中尋策正見。令于上．下八諦境中。速疾觀察。戒為轂成見道輪。令于諦速疾迴轉。故尋及戒俱立道支。此復云何不順於覺。且尋于諦不寂靜轉。故尋于覺少有相違。覺是相應。有所緣境所依行相。戒此相違故。覺支不建立彼。通運為道不可為例 何緣聖種不立覺支 正理論云。覺支通道．俗。聖種唯道故不立也。
論。念住等三名無別屬。此下一行頌。第三明念住等。
論曰至慧勤及定。釋。此三品從勝出體。
論。何緣于慧立念住名。問。實是其慧。因何名念。
論。毗婆沙師至持令住故。述婆沙釋。
論。理實由慧至已廣成立。論主述自釋指前釋也。
論。何故說勤名為正斷。問。體既是勤。何名正斷。
論。于正修習至斷解怠故。答也。
論。或名正勝至此最勝故。釋異名也。婆沙一百四十一云。問此四何緣說為正斷。答由此四種能正斷故。問前二可爾。后二云何。答以初為名故無有失。或此四種皆有斷義。謂前二斷煩惱障。后二斷所知障。修善法時斷無知故。暫斷．永斷俱名斷故。有處說此名為正勝。無倒策發成勝事故 問何故惡不善法已生者說令斷。未生者說令不生。答已生於自相續已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：以及戒律。在覺支（bodhyanga，證悟的構成要素）中，為什麼不也設立它們呢？因為它們偏向于順應道支（marga，八正道），而不順應覺支。如何順應道支呢？例如在見道（darśanamārga，見真理之道）中，尋（vitarka，思考）和戒律能匡正正見（samyag-dṛṣṭi，正確的見解），使之在上界和地獄的八諦（arya-satya，四聖諦）境界中，迅速地觀察。戒律如同車輪的輪轂，成就見道之輪，使之在真理中迅速回轉。因此，尋和戒律都被設立為道支。這又如何不順應覺支呢？因為尋在真理中並非寂靜地運轉，所以尋與覺支略有相違。覺是相應的，具有所緣境（alambana，對像）的所依行相（ākāra，狀態）。戒律與此相違，因此覺支中不設立它們。通途的運用不能作為例子。為什麼聖種（ārya-vaṃśa，高尚的血統）不被設立為覺支呢？《正理論》（Abhidharmakośa，阿毗達摩俱舍論）說，覺支通於道和俗，而聖種唯屬於道，所以不設立。
論：念住（smṛtyupasthāna，正念）、正斷（samyak-pradhāna，正精進）和正定（samyak-samādhi，正定）這三個名稱沒有特別的歸屬。下面一行頌文，第三部分闡明念住等。
論曰：乃至慧、勤和定。釋：這三品是從殊勝之處顯現其體性。
論：為什麼對於慧（prajñā，智慧）設立念住之名？問：實際上是智慧，為什麼稱爲念住？
論：毗婆沙師（Vaibhāṣika，毗婆沙宗）說：保持令其安住的緣故。述：婆沙的解釋。
論：理實上由慧，乃至已經廣泛成立。論主闡述自己的解釋，指向之前的解釋。
論：為什麼說勤名為正斷？問：體性既然是勤，為什麼名為正斷？
論：對於正確地修習，乃至斷除懈怠的緣故。答：這是回答。
論：或者名為正勝，乃至此處最為殊勝的緣故。釋：這是解釋不同的名稱。《婆沙論》（Mahāvibhāṣā，大毗婆沙論）第一百四十一卷說：問：這四種為什麼被稱為正斷？答：因為這四種能夠正確地斷除。問：前兩種可以這樣說，后兩種又如何呢？答：因為以最初的為名，所以沒有過失。或者這四種都具有斷除的含義，即前兩種斷除煩惱障（kleśāvaraṇa，煩惱的障礙），后兩種斷除所知障（jñeyāvaraṇa，對所知事物的障礙）。修習善法時，斷除無知（ajñāna，無明）的緣故。暫時的斷除和永久的斷除都可以稱為斷除。有些地方說這名為正勝，無倒地策勵發起成就殊勝事業的緣故。問：為什麼對於已經生起的惡不善法，說要令其斷除；對於未生起的，說要令其不生起？答：已經生起的在自己的相續（saṃtāna，心流）中已經...
【English Translation】 English version: And precepts (śīla). Why are they not also established among the limbs of enlightenment (bodhyanga)? Because they tend to accord with the path (marga), not with enlightenment. How do they accord with the path? For example, in the path of seeing (darśanamārga), investigation (vitarka) and precepts rectify right view (samyag-dṛṣṭi), enabling it to quickly observe the realms of the eight truths (arya-satya) in the upper and lower realms. Precepts are like the hub of a wheel, completing the wheel of the path of seeing, enabling it to quickly revolve in the truth. Therefore, investigation and precepts are both established as limbs of the path. How do they not accord with enlightenment? Because investigation does not operate quietly in the truth, so investigation is slightly contrary to enlightenment. Enlightenment is associated, having the characteristic of relying on an object (alambana). Precepts are contrary to this, therefore they are not established in the limbs of enlightenment. Common usage cannot be taken as an example. Why is the noble lineage (ārya-vaṃśa) not established as a limb of enlightenment? The Abhidharmakośa says that the limbs of enlightenment are common to both the path and the mundane, while the noble lineage belongs only to the path, so it is not established.
Treatise: The three names, mindfulness (smṛtyupasthāna), right effort (samyak-pradhāna), and right concentration (samyak-samādhi), do not have separate attributions. The following line of verse, the third part, clarifies mindfulness and so on.
Treatise says: Up to wisdom, effort, and concentration. Explanation: These three qualities manifest their nature from their superior aspects.
Treatise: Why is the name mindfulness established for wisdom (prajñā)? Question: It is actually wisdom, why is it called mindfulness?
Treatise: The Vaibhāṣika says: Because of maintaining and causing it to abide. Narration: The explanation of the Vibhāṣā.
Treatise: In reality, due to wisdom, up to having been widely established. The author of the treatise narrates his own explanation, pointing to the previous explanation.
Treatise: Why is effort called right exertion? Question: Since the nature is effort, why is it called right exertion?
Treatise: Because of correctly practicing, up to cutting off laziness. Answer: This is the answer.
Treatise: Or it is called right victory, up to being the most excellent here. Explanation: This is explaining different names. The Mahāvibhāṣā volume one hundred and forty-one says: Question: Why are these four called right exertion? Answer: Because these four can correctly cut off. Question: The first two are acceptable, but what about the latter two? Answer: Because it is named after the first, there is no fault. Or these four all have the meaning of cutting off, that is, the first two cut off the afflictive obscurations (kleśāvaraṇa), and the latter two cut off the cognitive obscurations (jñeyāvaraṇa). When cultivating good dharmas, it is because ignorance (ajñāna) is cut off. Temporary cutting off and permanent cutting off can both be called cutting off. Some places say that this is called right victory, because it undividedly encourages the arising of excellent deeds. Question: Why is it said that for evil and unwholesome dharmas that have already arisen, one should cause them to be cut off; for those that have not yet arisen, one should cause them not to arise? Answer: Those that have already arisen are already in one's own continuum (saṃtāna)...
有作用故說令斷。未生者于自相續未有作用故說令不生(云云解多) 問所修諸善隨爾所生。即爾所滅。無有生已過一剎那。有停住義。如何乃言于已生善法。為令安住不忘倍修增廣耶。答應知此中說二分善法。謂順住分。順勝進分。令安住不忘者。說順住分。令倍修增廣者。說順勝進分。俱依相續展轉勝進說安住。故無有失 問欲界有惡不善法。可說有四。云何上界亦說有四耶。答彼雖過惡不具。而具有彼功德。有說彼無所謂。而有能謂 乃至 問靜慮可爾。無色云何。答無色雖無壞對治。而有持及遠分對治 問學位可爾。有惡不善法故。無學云何。答彼雖無過惡生。而有功德。有說雖無所治。而有能治。謂多種對治如前說 問涅槃精進何正斷攝。有說初正斷攝。以永斷。即涅槃時作四事故。
論。何緣于定立神足名。問也。實是其定。何緣名神足。
論。諸靈妙德所依止故。答也。現大身等諸靈妙德。名之為神。所依止義名之為足。
論。有餘師說至足謂欲等。述異釋也。
論。彼應覺分至增欲心故。論主破也。婆沙說有十一。謂慧．定．信．念．喜．舍．輕．安．及戒分二。今言欲．勤．心．觀為神足體。勤．觀先有。雖不加數。欲．心先無。應更加二至十三也。
論。又違聖
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：因為有作用才說要斷除。對於未生的惡法，在自身的相續中還沒有產生作用，所以才說要令其不生。（以上解釋了很多） 問：所修的各種善法，隨著它的產生，也就隨著滅去。沒有產生后停留超過一剎那的情況。為什麼說對於已經產生的善法，要令其安住不忘，並且加倍地修習，使其增長廣大呢？ 答：應當知道這裡說的是善法的兩個方面，即順於安住的部分和順於勝進的部分。令其安住不忘，說的是順於安住的部分；令其加倍修習增長廣大，說的是順於勝進的部分。都是依靠相續輾轉勝進來說安住，所以沒有過失。 問：欲界有惡和不善法，可以說有四種。為什麼上界也說有四種呢？ 答：上界雖然沒有過惡，但是具有過惡的功德。有人說上界沒有所謂的『所謂』，但是有能說『所謂』的能力。 乃至 問：靜慮可以這樣解釋，無色界又該如何解釋呢？ 答：無色界雖然沒有壞的對治，但是有持和遠分的對治。 問：有學位可以這樣解釋，因為有惡和不善法。無學位又該如何解釋呢？ 答：無學位雖然沒有過惡的產生，但是有功德。有人說雖然沒有所治，但是有能治，即多種對治，如前面所說。 問：涅槃的精進屬於哪個正斷呢？有人說是屬於最初的正斷，因為永斷，即涅槃時，會產生四種作用。 論：因為什麼原因在禪定上建立神足的名稱？這是提問。實際上是禪定，為什麼叫做神足呢？ 論：因為是各種靈妙功德所依止的地方。這是回答。顯現大身等各種靈妙功德，稱之為神。作為所依止的意思，稱之為足。 論：有其他老師說，足指的是欲等。這是敘述不同的解釋。 論：他們應該覺悟到，這是爲了增長慾望心。這是論主的駁斥。婆沙說有十一種，即慧、定、信、念、喜、舍、輕、安，以及戒分為二。現在說欲、勤、心、觀為神足的本體。勤和觀本來就有，雖然不增加數量。欲和心本來沒有，應該增加二，達到十三種。 論：又違背聖...
【English Translation】 English version: Question: It is said to sever because there is a function. For the unarisen, there is no function in one's own continuum, therefore it is said to prevent it from arising. (The above explains a lot) Question: The various virtuous deeds that are cultivated arise and then cease. There is no such thing as remaining for more than a moment after arising. How can it be said that for virtuous deeds that have already arisen, one should cause them to abide without forgetting, and cultivate them repeatedly to increase and expand them? Answer: It should be known that here we are speaking of two aspects of virtuous deeds, namely, the aspect of abiding and the aspect of progressing. Causing them to abide without forgetting refers to the aspect of abiding; causing them to cultivate repeatedly to increase and expand refers to the aspect of progressing. Both rely on the continuum to progress and advance, so there is no fault. Question: In the desire realm, there are evil and unwholesome dharmas, which can be said to be four types. Why are there also said to be four types in the upper realms? Answer: Although the upper realms do not have evil, they possess the merits of evil. Some say that the upper realms do not have what is 'said', but they have the ability to say 'said'. Etc. Question: This can be explained for the dhyanas (meditative absorptions), but how about the formless realms? Answer: Although the formless realms do not have destructive antidotes, they have sustaining and distant antidotes. Question: This can be explained for those in the stage of learning (śaikṣa), because they have evil and unwholesome dharmas. How about those in the stage of no-more-learning (aśaikṣa)? Answer: Although those in the stage of no-more-learning do not have the arising of evil, they have merits. Some say that although there is nothing to be overcome, there is the ability to overcome, namely, various antidotes, as mentioned earlier. Question: To which right exertion does the diligence of Nirvana belong? Some say it belongs to the initial right exertion, because of the permanent severance, that is, at the time of Nirvana, four actions arise. Treatise: For what reason is the name 'divine feet' established for samadhi (concentration)? This is a question. It is actually samadhi, so why is it called 'divine feet'? Treatise: Because it is the support for all spiritual and wondrous virtues. This is the answer. Manifesting great bodies and other spiritual and wondrous virtues is called 'divine'. The meaning of being the support is called 'feet'. Treatise: Some other teachers say that 'feet' refers to desire, etc. This is a description of different interpretations. Treatise: They should realize that this is to increase the mind of desire. This is the treatise master's refutation. The Vibhasha says there are eleven, namely, wisdom (prajñā), concentration (samādhi), faith (śraddhā), mindfulness (smṛti), joy (prīti), equanimity (upekṣā), lightness (laghutā), ease (praśrabdhi), and precepts (śīla) divided into two. Now it is said that desire (chanda), effort (vyāyāma), mind (citta), and investigation (vīmāṃsā) are the essence of the divine feet. Effort and investigation already exist, so although the number is not increased. Desire and mind did not exist before, so two should be added, reaching thirteen. Treatise: It also contradicts the holy...
說至等持名足。出違經失。婆沙一百四十一云。問若三摩地是神亦足。應立一。或應立五。何故說四耶。答唯三摩地立為神足。從四因生故說為四。謂加行位。或由欲力引發等持令其現起。廣說乃至。或由觀力引令現起。由加行位四法隨增令等持起故得定位。於一等持建立四種 問此四何緣說名神足。答諸所思求。法所欲斷。一切如意故名為神。引發于神故名神足。然此神用略有二種。一世俗所忻。二聖者所樂。若分一為多。合多為一。此等名為世俗所欣。若於世間諸可意事不住順相。于諸世間不可意事不住違相。於此二事。安住于舍．正念．正智。此名為賢聖所樂。復有三種神用。一運身。二勝解。三意勢 或復五種神用。一業。二異熟。三變現。四具德。五發心。業謂中有。異熟謂祚會等。變謂依定。具德神用者。謂四神足。發心神用者。謂天龍等。五神用中此說具德。
論。何緣信等至后名為力。問。同是一信。如何信先說為根。后名為力。
論。由此五法至分先後故。答也。先下。后勝。故先名根。后名力也。
論。又依可屈伏不可屈伏故。第二釋也。先可屈伏。但名根不得名力。復不可屈伏。是力義故名為力也。
論。信等何緣如是次第。問。五力等。先信。次進。復慧等。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 說到等持（Samadhi，禪定）被稱為神足（Iddhipāda，如意足）。出自違經失誤。《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論）第一百四十一卷說：『問：如果三摩地（Samadhi，禪定）是神（神通）也是足（基礎），應該隻立一個，或者應該立五個，為什麼說四個呢？』答：唯有三摩地（Samadhi，禪定）被立為神足（Iddhipāda，如意足），因為它從四個因緣產生，所以說為四個。這四個是：加行位（修行階段），或者由欲力（chanda，意願力）引發等持（Samadhi，禪定）使其顯現；廣泛地說，乃至由觀力（vimamsa，觀察力）引發使其顯現。由於加行位（修行階段）的四種法隨之增長，使等持（Samadhi，禪定）生起，因此得到定位。在一個等持（Samadhi，禪定）上建立四種。 問：這四個因緣為什麼被稱為神足（Iddhipāda，如意足）？答：因為所有思求的法和想要斷除的，一切都如意，所以名為神（神通）。引發于神（神通），所以名為神足（Iddhipāda，如意足）。然而這種神（神通）的用處略有二種：一是世俗所欣喜的，二是聖者所樂於的。如果將一分為多，將多合為一，這些名為世俗所欣喜的。如果在世間諸可意的事物上不住于順相（順應之相），在世間不可意的事物上不住于違相（違逆之相），對於這兩種事物，安住于舍（平靜）、正念（正確的念頭）、正智（正確的智慧），這名為賢聖所樂於的。又有三種神（神通）的用處：一是運身（移動身體），二是勝解（殊勝的理解），三是意勢（意念的力量）。或者又有五種神（神通）的用處：一是業（karma，行為），二是異熟（vipāka，果報），三是變現（transformation，變化顯現），四是具德（possessing virtues，具有功德），五是發心（generating the aspiration，發起菩提心）。業（karma，行為）是指中有（antarabhava，中陰身），異熟（vipāka，果報）是指祚會等，變（transformation，變化）是指依靠禪定（Samadhi，禪定）。具德（possessing virtues，具有功德）的神（神通）用，是指四神足（Iddhipāda，如意足）。發心（generating the aspiration，發起菩提心）的神（神通）用，是指天龍等。五種神（神通）用中，這裡說的是具德（possessing virtues，具有功德）。 論：為什麼信等在至（到達）之後被稱為力（bala，力量）？問：同樣是一個信（śraddhā，信心），為什麼信（śraddhā，信心）先前說為根（indriya，根），後來名為力（bala，力量）？ 論：因為這五法（信、精進、念、定、慧）有到達的先後順序。答：是的。先前是下劣的，後來是殊勝的，所以先前名為根（indriya，根），後來名為力（bala，力量）。 論：又因為依于可屈伏和不可屈伏的緣故。這是第二種解釋。先前是可以被屈伏的，只能名為根（indriya，根），不能名為力（bala，力量）。後來是不可被屈伏的，是力（bala，力量）的意義，所以名為力（bala，力量）。 論：信等為什麼是這樣的次第？問：五力（bala，力量）等，先是信（śraddhā，信心），其次是精進（vīrya，努力），然後是慧（prajñā，智慧）等。
【English Translation】 English version Speaking of Samadhi (等持) being called Iddhipāda (神足). It comes from errors in the scriptures. The Vibhāṣā (婆沙論), volume 141, says: 'Question: If Samadhi (三摩地) is both a divine power (神) and a foundation (足), should only one be established, or should five be established? Why are four mentioned?' Answer: Only Samadhi (三摩地) is established as Iddhipāda (神足) because it arises from four causes, hence the mention of four. These four are: the stage of application (加行位), or the Samadhi (等持) is induced by the power of desire (欲力) causing it to manifest; broadly speaking, even to the point where it is induced by the power of observation (觀力) causing it to manifest. Because the four dharmas of the stage of application (加行位) increase accordingly, causing Samadhi (等持) to arise, it attains stability. Four types are established upon one Samadhi (等持).' 'Question: Why are these four causes called Iddhipāda (神足)?' Answer: Because all sought-after dharmas and those that one wishes to eliminate are all as desired, hence the name 'divine power' (神). Inducing this divine power (神), hence the name Iddhipāda (神足). However, the use of this divine power (神) is roughly of two types: one is that which is pleasing to the worldly, and the other is that which is enjoyed by the noble ones. If one divides one into many, or combines many into one, these are called pleasing to the worldly. If, in worldly matters that are agreeable, one does not dwell on the conforming aspect (順相), and in worldly matters that are disagreeable, one does not dwell on the opposing aspect (違相), and in these two matters, one dwells in equanimity (舍), right mindfulness (正念), and right wisdom (正智), this is called that which is enjoyed by the virtuous and noble ones. There are also three uses of divine power (神): one is moving the body (運身), two is superior understanding (勝解), and three is the power of intention (意勢). Or there are five uses of divine power (神): one is karma (業), two is vipāka (異熟), three is transformation (變現), four is possessing virtues (具德), and five is generating the aspiration (發心). Karma (業) refers to the intermediate state (中有), vipāka (異熟) refers to feasts and gatherings, transformation (變現) refers to relying on Samadhi (禪定). The divine power (神) of possessing virtues (具德) refers to the four Iddhipādas (四神足). The divine power (神) of generating the aspiration (發心) refers to devas, nāgas, etc. Among the five uses of divine power (神), here it speaks of possessing virtues (具德). Treatise: Why are faith, etc., called powers (力) after reaching (至)? Question: Since it is the same faith (信), why is faith (信) first called a root (根) and later called a power (力)? Treatise: Because these five dharmas (faith, effort, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom) have a sequence of arrival. Answer: Yes. The former is inferior, and the latter is superior, so the former is called a root (根) and the latter is called a power (力). Treatise: Also, because it depends on being subduable and unsubduable. This is the second explanation. The former is subduable, and can only be called a root (根), not a power (力). The latter is unsubduable, which is the meaning of power (力), so it is called a power (力). Treatise: Why is the order of faith, etc., like this? Question: The five powers (力), etc., first is faith (信), then effort (精進), then wisdom (慧), etc.
論。謂于因果至如是次第。答也。如文可解 問何緣此五名根。名力。答能生善法故名為根。能破惡法故名為力 有說。不可傾動名根。能摧伏他名力 有說。勢用增上義是根。不可屈伏義是力。若以位別六下位名根。上位名力。若以實義一一位中皆具此二 問何故此七名覺支耶 答覺謂究竟覺。即盡．無生智。或如實覺即無漏慧。七為彼分故。故名為支 問何故此八名道支。答所履通達故。名為八道。是彼分故。故名為支。
論。當言何位何覺分增。已下一行頌。第四明增位前後。
論曰至說念住增 正理論云。謂此位中為息顛倒。由念勢力。于身等境自相．共相。能審了知壞二種愚。慧用勝故。
論。暖法位中至說正斷增 正理論云。謂此位中見生死過涅槃功德。遂能勇猛發勤精進。不墮生死速趣涅槃。勤用勝故。
論。頂法位中至說神足增 正理論云。謂此位中能制心識趣不退位。終不遺乏信等善根。定用勝故。
論。忍法位中至故說根增 正理論云。謂此位中永息惡趣。終不退墮速入離生。增上義成根義勝故。
論。第一位中至故說力增 正理論云。謂此位中不為煩惱之所屈伏。力義勝故。雖忍位中亦容如是。然非決定是故不說。或此位中不為一切余異生法之中所
屈伏。故於此位力義偏增。
論。修道位中至說覺支增 正理論云。或此中斷九品惑。數數道覺故。覺支義增。
論。見道位中至說道支增 正理論云。見道位中所有道義。皆具之故說道支增。謂尋求依。及通往趣。二義具故說名為道。見道位中二義最勝。謂見道位聖慧初生。如實尋求諦理勝故。又於此位不起期能速疾行往趣勝故。
論。然契經中至非修次第。明經說次第也。
論。八中正見至所說如是。明支體也。
論。有餘於此至立念住等。述異說也。
論。謂修行者至說在最初。釋念住在初所以。
論。由此勢力至說為第二。明正斷也。
論。由精進故至說在第三。明神足也。
論。勝定為依至說為第四。明五根也。
論。根義既立至說為。第五明五力也。
論。于見道位至四聖諦故。明七覺也。
論。通於二位至涅槃城故。明道支通見．修也。
論。如契經說至亦修圓滿。異師引二經證八聖道支通見．修位。以經說八道支與七覺支同時圓滿。故知非世見道中也。
論。又契經說至通依二位說。引第二經證。以說如實言者喻四諦。苦實苦等。是如實者言 依本路速行出者。喻令修習八聖道支。既出生死前後同依一路。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 屈伏（Kufu，人名）。因此在這個階段，力量和意義更加顯著。
論：在修道位中，覺支（bojjhaṅga，菩提的組成部分）的增長最為顯著。《正理論》中說：『或者在此階段中斷九品惑（navakaklesa，九種煩惱）。因為反覆修習道覺，所以覺支的意義增長。』
論：在見道位中，道支（maggaṅga，道的組成部分）的增長最為顯著。《正理論》中說：『見道位中所有的道義都具備，所以說道支增長。』 所謂的『道』，是指尋求所依和通往目標這兩個意義都具備。見道位中這兩個意義最為殊勝。也就是說，在見道位中，聖慧（ariya-paññā，神聖的智慧）初生，如實地尋求真理最為殊勝。又在這個階段，不需長期努力就能迅速地到達目標，這種能力非常殊勝。
論：然而，契經（sutta，佛經）中說的次第並非修行的次第。這是爲了闡明經文所說的次第。
論：八支中的正見（sammā-diṭṭhi，正確的見解）等，所說的就是這樣。這是爲了闡明支體的含義。
論：有些人認為，在此設立念住（sati-paṭṭhāna，四念住）等。這是爲了陳述不同的觀點。
論：所謂的修行者，一開始就說念住。這是爲了解釋念住為何在最初。
論：通過這種力量，接著說正斷（samma-ppadhana，四正勤），這是爲了闡明正斷。
論：由於精進（viriya，努力），接著說神足（iddhi-pāda，四神足），這是爲了闡明神足。
論：以殊勝的禪定為依靠，接著說五根（pañcindriya，五根），這是爲了闡明五根。
論：根的意義既然已經確立，接著說五力（pañca-bala，五力），這是爲了闡明五力。
論：在見道位中，因為證悟四聖諦（cattāri ariyasaccāni，四聖諦），所以闡明七覺支（satta bojjhaṅgā，七覺支）。
論：通於見道位和修道位，是爲了到達涅槃城（Nibbana，寂滅之城），這是爲了闡明道支通於見道和修道。
論：如契經所說，也修習圓滿。不同的老師引用兩部經來證明八聖道支（ariya aṭṭhaṅgika magga，八聖道）通於見道和修道。因為經中說八道支與七覺支同時圓滿，所以知道不是世俗的見道。
論：又契經說，通於見道和修道位來說。引用第二部經來證明。因為說如實言者比喻四諦（catu-ariya-sacca，四聖諦），苦的真實等，就是如實者所說的話。依靠本路迅速行走而出者，比喻修習八聖道支。既然出生死，前後都依靠同一條道路。
【English Translation】 English version Kufu (name of a person). Therefore, at this stage, strength and meaning are significantly increased.
Treatise: In the stage of cultivation, the increase of the 'bojjhaṅga' (factors of enlightenment) is most significant. The 'Treatise on Right Principles' says: 'Or, at this stage, the nine categories of delusion are interrupted. Because of repeatedly cultivating the factors of enlightenment, the meaning of the 'bojjhaṅga' increases.'
Treatise: In the stage of seeing the path, the increase of the 'maggaṅga' (factors of the path) is most significant. The 'Treatise on Right Principles' says: 'All the meanings of the path are present in the stage of seeing the path, therefore it is said that the 'maggaṅga' increases.' The so-called 'path' refers to having both the meaning of seeking reliance and reaching the goal. These two meanings are most excellent in the stage of seeing the path. That is to say, in the stage of seeing the path, 'ariya-paññā' (noble wisdom) is newly born, and seeking the truth as it is, is most excellent. Also, at this stage, the ability to quickly reach the goal without long-term effort is very excellent.
Treatise: However, the order mentioned in the 'sutta' (scriptures) is not the order of practice. This is to clarify the order mentioned in the scriptures.
Treatise: The 'sammā-diṭṭhi' (right view) among the eight factors, etc., is what is said in this way. This is to clarify the meaning of the limbs.
Treatise: Some people think that establishing 'sati-paṭṭhāna' (four foundations of mindfulness) etc. here is to state different views.
Treatise: The so-called practitioner initially speaks of 'sati-paṭṭhāna'. This is to explain why 'sati-paṭṭhāna' is at the beginning.
Treatise: Through this power, then 'samma-ppadhana' (four right exertions) is mentioned, which is to clarify 'samma-ppadhana'.
Treatise: Because of 'viriya' (effort), then 'iddhi-pāda' (four bases of power) is mentioned, which is to clarify 'iddhi-pāda'.
Treatise: Relying on excellent 'samadhi' (concentration), then 'pañcindriya' (five faculties) are mentioned, which is to clarify the five faculties.
Treatise: Since the meaning of the faculties has been established, then 'pañca-bala' (five powers) are mentioned, which is to clarify the five powers.
Treatise: In the stage of seeing the path, because of realizing the 'cattāri ariyasaccāni' (four noble truths), the 'satta bojjhaṅgā' (seven factors of enlightenment) are explained.
Treatise: Passing through the stage of seeing the path and the stage of cultivation is to reach 'Nibbana' (city of Nirvana), which is to clarify that the path factors pass through the stage of seeing the path and the stage of cultivation.
Treatise: As the scriptures say, it is also cultivated to perfection. Different teachers cite two scriptures to prove that the 'ariya aṭṭhaṅgika magga' (noble eightfold path) passes through the stage of seeing the path and the stage of cultivation. Because the scriptures say that the eight path factors and the seven factors of enlightenment are perfected at the same time, it is known that it is not the worldly view of the path.
Treatise: Also, the scriptures say that it is said to pass through the stage of seeing the path and the stage of cultivation. The second scripture is cited to prove it. Because saying that the one who speaks truthfully is a metaphor for the 'catu-ariya-sacca' (four noble truths), the truth of suffering, etc., is what the one who speaks truthfully says. The one who relies on the original path and walks out quickly is a metaphor for cultivating the noble eightfold path. Since birth and death rely on the same path before and after.
故知見．修同八聖道。若不爾者法喻不同 所說喻者。如契經說。有諸商侶乘船入海。至一海諸有羅剎女。現可愛形誘諸商侶。漸入己城各配一女。時經多日。空中天神告商侶曰。今此城內非是人類。皆是羅剎幻惑故爾。不久之間皆被食啖。即為宣說如是之言 於此城中皆悉受苦。此喻苦諦 汝勿貪染。此喻集諦 急求出城此喻滅諦 急急覓出道。此喻道諦 宣如實言者喻四聖諦。顯見道也 空中天神復告商侶。可依本路速行出去。今此本路。喻令修習八聖道支。正顯修道。過去諸佛。悉依此修道本路而出生死。若欲求出生死海者。可依過去諸佛本路速行出之。求速出者。當勤修習八聖道支。以此故知。亦通修道。
論。隨增位說次第既然。已下一行頌。第五明漏．無漏。
論曰至有漏．無漏。釋頌可知。正理論云。一切覺分皆助菩提。唯此獨標覺支名者。以最鄰近菩提果故。由此理趣證七覺支。應知但依治有頂說。此為上首類治下地。唯于無漏立覺支名。若不許然。寧不通二。或於一切菩提分中。依近菩提立覺支號。道中修道。位近菩提。性近菩提。唯是無漏。故無漏修方立覺支名見道位中八道支勝故。此一向無漏性攝。雖正見等亦通有漏。然彼不得聖道支名。聖道支名目無漏故。又諸論者許覺分法覺
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因此，知見和修行都與八聖道（Arya Ashtanga Marga）相同。如果不是這樣，法和譬喻就不相同了。所說的譬喻是，如契經所說，有一些商人乘船入海，到達一個海島，那裡有羅剎女（Rakshasi，女妖）。她們顯現出可愛的形象來誘惑這些商人，逐漸地將他們引入自己的城市，並給每個人都分配一個女子。時間過了很久，空中的天神告訴這些商人說：『現在這個城市裡居住的不是人類，全部都是羅剎的幻化。不久之後，你們都會被她們吃掉。』於是為他們宣說了這樣的話：『在這個城市中，你們都將遭受痛苦。』這比喻苦諦（Dukkha Satya，苦的真諦）。『你們不要貪戀染著。』這比喻集諦（Samudaya Satya，苦的根源的真諦）。『趕快尋求出城之路。』這比喻滅諦（Nirodha Satya，滅苦的真諦）。『趕快尋找道路。』這比喻道諦（Magga Satya，通往滅苦之道的真諦）。宣說真實之語，比喻四聖諦（Chatur Arya Satya）。這顯示了見道（Darshana-marga）的道理。空中的天神又告訴這些商人說：『可以沿著原來的路快速離開。』現在這條原來的路，比喻要修習八聖道支（Ashtanga）。這正是顯示修道（Bhavana-marga）。過去的諸佛（Buddha），都是依靠這條修道的道路而出生死的。如果想要從生死之海中解脫出來，就可以依靠過去諸佛的道路快速離開。想要快速離開的人，應當勤奮修習八聖道支。因此可知，這也貫通修道。
論：隨著增位而說，次第就是這樣。下面一行頌文，第五說明有漏（Sasrava，有煩惱的）和無漏（Anasrava，無煩惱的）。
論曰：乃至有漏、無漏。解釋頌文就可以知道了。《正理論》說：『一切覺分（Bodhipaksika-dharmas，菩提分法）都幫助菩提（Bodhi，覺悟），唯獨這裡標明覺支（Bodhyanga，菩提的組成部分）的名字，是因為它最接近菩提果（Bodhi-phala，覺悟的果實）的緣故。』由此道理可以證明七覺支（Sapta Bodhyanga），應當知道只是依據對治有頂（Bhavagra，三界之頂）而說的。這是以上首來類推對治下地。只有在無漏中才建立覺支的名字。如果不允許這樣，難道不能貫通二者嗎？或者在一切菩提分中，依據接近菩提而立覺支的名稱。道中修道，位近菩提，性近菩提，唯獨是無漏。所以只有無漏的修行才立覺支的名字。見道位中八道支殊勝的緣故，這完全是無漏的性質所攝。雖然正見（Samyag-drishti）等也貫通有漏，但它們不能得到聖道支（Aryamarga-anga）的名字。聖道支的名字是指無漏的緣故。』又，諸位論者允許覺分法覺
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, both knowledge and practice are the same as the Eightfold Noble Path (Arya Ashtanga Marga). If not, the Dharma and the metaphor would be different. The metaphor being spoken of is, as the sutra says, there were merchants who sailed into the sea and arrived at an island where there were Rakshasi (female demons). They manifested lovely forms to seduce the merchants, gradually leading them into their city and assigning each one a woman. After a long time, a deity in the sky told the merchants: 'The inhabitants of this city are not human beings, but all illusions of Rakshasas. Before long, you will all be eaten by them.' Thus, he spoke these words to them: 'In this city, you will all suffer.' This is a metaphor for the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya). 'Do not be greedy and attached.' This is a metaphor for the Truth of the Origin of Suffering (Samudaya Satya). 'Quickly seek a way out of the city.' This is a metaphor for the Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (Nirodha Satya). 'Quickly find a path.' This is a metaphor for the Truth of the Path to the Cessation of Suffering (Magga Satya). Speaking truthfully is a metaphor for the Four Noble Truths (Chatur Arya Satya). This reveals the principle of the Path of Seeing (Darshana-marga). The deity in the sky further told the merchants: 'You can quickly leave along the original path.' Now, this original path is a metaphor for cultivating the Eightfold Noble Path (Ashtanga). This precisely reveals the Path of Cultivation (Bhavana-marga). The Buddhas (Buddha) of the past all relied on this path of cultivation to be born out of samsara. If you want to be liberated from the sea of samsara, you can quickly leave by relying on the path of the Buddhas of the past. Those who want to leave quickly should diligently cultivate the Eightfold Noble Path. Therefore, it can be known that this also pervades the Path of Cultivation.
Treatise: Speaking according to the increasing stages, the order is thus. The verse below, the fifth, explains the defiled (Sasrava, with afflictions) and undefiled (Anasrava, without afflictions).
The treatise says: 'Up to defiled and undefiled.' Understanding the explanation of the verse is sufficient. The Tattvartha Sutra says: 'All factors of enlightenment (Bodhipaksika-dharmas, wings to awakening) assist Bodhi (enlightenment), but only here is the name Bodhyanga (limb of enlightenment) specified because it is closest to the fruit of Bodhi (Bodhi-phala, the fruit of enlightenment).' From this reasoning, it can be proven that the Seven Factors of Enlightenment (Sapta Bodhyanga) should be understood as being spoken of only in relation to counteracting the peak of existence (Bhavagra, the summit of the three realms). This is using the head to infer the treatment of the lower realms. Only in the undefiled is the name Bodhyanga established. If this is not allowed, wouldn't it be able to pervade both? Or, among all the factors of enlightenment, the name Bodhyanga is established based on proximity to Bodhi. Cultivation within the path, the stage is close to Bodhi, the nature is close to Bodhi, and it is solely undefiled. Therefore, only undefiled practice establishes the name Bodhyanga. Because the eight limbs of the path are superior in the stage of the Path of Seeing, this is entirely encompassed by the nature of the undefiled. Although Right View (Samyag-drishti) etc. also pervade the defiled, they cannot obtain the name Noble Limb of the Path (Aryamarga-anga). The name Noble Limb of the Path refers to the undefiled.' Furthermore, the commentators allow the Dharma of the factors of enlightenment to be
支后說定是無漏。若說在前便通二種。既覺支後方說道支。故八道支一向無漏。所依通二。義準已成。謂覺分中前位增者。彼於後位勢用亦增。后位增者非於前位。故毗婆沙師作如是說。從初業位至盡．無生念住常增。乃至廣說。
論。此三十七何地有幾。已下有兩行頌。第六明依地也。
論曰至猶疑慮故。明初禪．根本．未至別也。
論。第二靜慮至各三十六。釋二定二地各三十六者。謂未至除喜。二定除尋故。各三十六。
論。第三第四至各三十五。釋二地同。余文可解。然四念住必不併生。以一慧分四念住故。應諸地中若據同時即各除三。雖慧定等一法義分。據義不同亦不除數。故正理云。初根本定雖容有三十七。然實三十四。
論。覺支轉時必得證凈。已下兩行頌。大文第四明四證凈。舊云四不壞信。
論曰至聖戒證凈。列四名也。此四證凈以二法為體。一信。二戒 信分為三。謂信佛．信法．信僧。戒是道俱無漏戒也 所信佛者。謂佛無學法。法者謂無我理等。正理論云。於何等法如何而得法證凈耶。謂唯于苦者達唯有法無實有情。生決定信。如是次第見集諦時。亦唯如前得二證凈。達唯集法能為苦因。無內士夫。生決定信。從此無間見滅諦時。亦如前得二證凈。達
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 支后說決定是無漏（不被煩惱污染）。如果說在覺支之前，便通於有漏和無漏兩種情況。既然在覺支之後才說道支，所以八道支一向是無漏的。它們所依賴的基礎則通於有漏和無漏兩種情況。這個道理可以這樣理解：在覺分中，如果前面的階段有所增長，那麼在後面的階段，其勢用也會增長；而後面的階段有所增長，不一定在前面的階段也有所增長。所以毗婆沙師這樣說：從最初的修行階段到證得盡智（煩惱已盡的智慧）和無生智（不再產生煩惱的智慧），念住常常增長，乃至更廣的說法。 論：這三十七道品在哪些地（禪定境界）中有多少？下面有兩行頌文，第六說明所依據的禪定境界。 論曰：到『猶疑慮故』，說明初禪、根本定（根本禪定）、未至定（未至禪定）的區別。 論：第二靜慮（二禪）到『各三十六』。解釋二禪和二地各有三十六道品，是因為未至定去除了喜（喜受），二禪去除了尋（尋伺），所以各有三十六道品。 論：第三第四到『各三十五』。解釋這兩個禪定境界相同。其餘的文字可以理解。然而，四念住必定不會同時生起，因為一個智慧可以分為四念住。因此，在各個禪定境界中，如果就同時而言，就各自去除三個。雖然智慧、禪定等是一個法的不同方面，但根據意義不同，也不去除數量。所以《正理論》說：最初的根本定雖然容許有三十七道品，但實際上只有三十四道品。 論：覺支轉時必定得到證凈（四種清凈的信心）。下面兩行頌文，大文第四說明四證凈，舊譯為四不壞信。 論曰：到『聖戒證凈』。列出四種名稱。這四種證凈以兩種法為體：一是信，二是戒。信分為三種，即信佛、信法、信僧。戒是與道相應的無漏戒。所信的佛，是指佛的無學法（無須再學的法）。法，是指無我之理等。《正理論》說：對於什麼樣的法，如何才能得到法證凈呢？即唯有對於苦諦，通達只有法而沒有真實的有情，生起決定的信心。像這樣次第見到集諦時，也像前面一樣得到二種證凈，通達只有集法能作為苦的原因，沒有內在的主宰者，生起決定的信心。從此無間見到滅諦時，也像前面一樣得到二種證凈，通達
【English Translation】 English version: It is said that after the limbs of enlightenment (覺支, bojjhaṅga), it is definitely unconditioned (無漏, anāsrava). If it is said before the limbs of enlightenment, then it applies to both conditioned and unconditioned states. Since the limbs of the path (道支, maggāṅga) are spoken of after the limbs of enlightenment, therefore the eight limbs of the path are always unconditioned. What they rely on applies to both. The meaning is thus established: in the limbs of enlightenment, if the earlier stage increases, then in the later stage, its power also increases; but if the later stage increases, it does not necessarily mean that the earlier stage also increases. Therefore, the Vaibhāṣika masters say: from the initial stage of practice to the attainment of the knowledge of exhaustion (盡智, kṣayajñāna) and the knowledge of non-arising (無生智, anutpādajñāna), the mindfulness (念住, smṛtyupasthāna) constantly increases, and so on. Treatise: In which grounds (地, bhūmi) are these thirty-seven factors present, and how many are there? Below are two lines of verse, the sixth explaining the grounds they rely on. Treatise says: Up to 'because of doubt and hesitation,' explaining the differences between the first dhyāna (初禪), the fundamental concentration (根本定, mūla-samādhi), and the preliminary concentration (未至定, anāgamya-samādhi). Treatise: The second meditative absorption (第二靜慮, dvitīya-dhyāna) to 'each thirty-six.' Explaining that the second dhyāna and the two grounds each have thirty-six factors is because the preliminary concentration lacks joy (喜, prīti), and the second dhyāna lacks initial thought (尋, vitarka), hence each has thirty-six factors. Treatise: The third and fourth to 'each thirty-five.' Explaining that these two grounds are the same. The remaining text can be understood. However, the four mindfulnesses (四念住, catvāri smṛtyupasthānāni) definitely do not arise simultaneously, because one wisdom (慧, prajñā) is divided into four mindfulnesses. Therefore, in each ground, if considered simultaneously, three should be removed. Although wisdom, concentration, etc., are aspects of one dharma (法, dharma), the numbers are not reduced because of the different meanings. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: although the initial fundamental concentration may contain thirty-seven factors, in reality, there are only thirty-four. Treatise: When the limbs of enlightenment turn, one will definitely attain the four kinds of pure faith (證凈, prasāda). Below are two lines of verse, the fourth major section explaining the four kinds of pure faith, formerly translated as the four indestructible faiths (四不壞信, catvāri avaiśāradyāni). Treatise says: Up to 'pure precepts.' Listing the four names. These four kinds of pure faith have two dharmas as their essence: one is faith (信, śraddhā), and the other is precepts (戒, śīla). Faith is divided into three, namely faith in the Buddha, faith in the Dharma, and faith in the Saṅgha. Precepts are the unconditioned precepts associated with the path. The Buddha in whom one believes refers to the Buddha's state of no-more-learning (無學法, aśaikṣa-dharma). The Dharma refers to the principle of no-self (無我, anātman), etc. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: Regarding what kind of dharma, how does one attain the purity of faith in the Dharma? That is, only regarding suffering (苦, duḥkha), one realizes that there are only dharmas and no real sentient beings, and generates resolute faith. Similarly, when seeing the origin (集, samudaya), one also attains the two kinds of purity of faith as before, realizing that only the dharmas of origin can be the cause of suffering, and there is no internal agent, and generates resolute faith. Immediately after this, when seeing cessation (滅, nirodha), one also attains the two kinds of purity of faith as before, realizing
唯滅法是真涅槃。誠可遵求。生決定信。從此次後見道諦時。兼于佛．僧得二證凈。于佛相續諸無學法得佛證凈。于僧相續學．無學法得僧證凈。兼言為顯見道諦時亦得聖戒及法證凈。達唯道法是證滅目。誠可遵求。生決定信 準上信法。不緣教也。言僧者。謂以佛為師因教得道總名為僧。不簡道俗但取無漏。
論。且見道位至亦得證凈。明見諦證凈多少不同。見三諦雖不同。即于爾時唯法證凈。即信俱戒名戒證凈。見道諦現行唯得唯緣法證凈。得修未來有別緣佛無學法。及菩薩二根。辟支三根。及四向果。各不同故。名佛法僧不壞證凈。即信俱戒名戒證凈。
論。兼言為顯至及戒證凈。釋頌兼也。
論。然所信法至皆得法證凈。明總．別法。三諦唯道通總．別。由此緣四諦時皆有法證凈。
論。聖所愛戒至無不亦得。明戒證凈四諦皆有。
論。由所信別至故唯有二。明信三不同。分信為三。實體唯信。戒復為一。故體唯二。
論。如是四種至非證凈故。明唯無漏。
論。為依何義立證凈名。問立名也。
論。如實覺知至皆名凈。答也。如實覺知四聖諦理。釋證也 信妙尸羅是凈。答凈。
論。離不信垢破戒垢故。釋二得凈名所以。
論。由證得凈立
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 唯有滅盡之法才是真正的涅槃（Nirvana）。確實值得遵從和追求，並對此生起堅定的信心。從此次之後，當見到道諦（Mārga-satya）時，同時對於佛（Buddha）、僧（Sangha）獲得兩種證凈（prasāda）。對於佛相續的諸無學法（aśaikṣa-dharma）獲得佛證凈，對於僧相續的有學（śaikṣa）和無學法獲得僧證凈。『兼言』是爲了表明在見到道諦時，也能獲得聖戒（ārya-śīla）和法證凈。通達唯有道法才是證得滅諦（Nirodha-satya）的目標，確實值得遵從和追求，並對此生起堅定的信心——這類似於上述的信法，但不緣于教法。所說的『僧』，是指以佛為老師，因教法而得道，總稱為僧。不區分在家或出家，只取無漏法（anāsrava）。
論：即使在見道位也能獲得證凈，說明見諦（darśana-satya）的證凈有多少不同。雖然見到三諦（satya）有所不同，但在那時只有法證凈。即信心和戒律同時存在，稱為戒證凈。見到道諦現行時，只能獲得唯有緣於法的證凈。獲得修道位未來有別緣于佛的無學法，以及菩薩（Bodhisattva）的二根，辟支佛（Pratyekabuddha）的三根，以及四向果（phala）的各不相同，因此稱為佛法僧不壞證凈。即信心和戒律同時存在，稱為戒證凈。
論：『兼言』是爲了表明……以及戒證凈，解釋了頌文中的『兼』字。
論：然而所信之法……都能獲得法證凈，說明了總法和別法。三諦唯有道諦通於總法和別法。因此，當緣於四諦（catvāri ārya-satyāni）時，都有法證凈。
論：聖者所喜愛的戒律……沒有不能獲得的，說明戒證凈在四諦中都有。
論：由於所信的不同……所以只有兩種，說明了信的三種不同。將信分為三種，但實體只有信。戒律又為一種，所以實體只有兩種。
論：像這樣四種……不是證凈的緣故，說明只有無漏法。
論：依據什麼意義而立證凈之名？這是在詢問立名的依據。
論：如實覺知……都名為凈，這是回答。如實覺知四聖諦的道理，解釋了『證』的含義。相信妙尸羅（śīla）是清凈的，回答了『凈』的含義。
論：遠離不信的垢染和破戒的垢染的緣故，解釋了獲得凈名的原因。
論：由於證得清凈而立名。
【English Translation】 English version Only the Dharma of cessation is true Nirvana (Nirvana). It is truly worthy of following and seeking, and generating firm faith in it. From this point forward, when one sees the Truth of the Path (Mārga-satya), one simultaneously obtains two kinds of pure conviction (prasāda) in the Buddha (Buddha) and the Sangha (Sangha). Regarding the non-learning dharmas (aśaikṣa-dharma) in the Buddha's continuum, one obtains pure conviction in the Buddha. Regarding the learning (śaikṣa) and non-learning dharmas in the Sangha's continuum, one obtains pure conviction in the Sangha. The term 'simultaneously' is to show that when one sees the Truth of the Path, one also obtains the noble precepts (ārya-śīla) and pure conviction in the Dharma. Understanding that only the Dharma of the Path is the goal of attaining the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha-satya), it is truly worthy of following and seeking, and generating firm faith in it—this is similar to the aforementioned faith in the Dharma, but it is not based on teachings. The term 'Sangha' refers to those who take the Buddha as their teacher and attain the path through teachings, collectively called the Sangha. It does not distinguish between lay or ordained, but only takes the unconditioned (anāsrava).
Treatise: Even in the stage of seeing the path, one can obtain pure conviction, indicating that the pure conviction of seeing the truth (darśana-satya) varies in quantity. Although seeing the three truths (satya) differs, at that time, there is only pure conviction in the Dharma. That is, when faith and precepts exist simultaneously, it is called pure conviction in precepts. When the Truth of the Path is manifest, one can only obtain pure conviction that is solely based on the Dharma. Obtaining the future conditioned dharmas of the path of cultivation that are different from the Buddha's non-learning dharmas, as well as the two roots of Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva), the three roots of Pratyekabuddhas (Pratyekabuddha), and the different results of the four stages (phala), hence it is called the indestructible pure conviction in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. That is, when faith and precepts exist simultaneously, it is called pure conviction in precepts.
Treatise: The term 'simultaneously' is to show... and pure conviction in precepts, explaining the word 'simultaneously' in the verse.
Treatise: However, the Dharma that is believed... all obtain pure conviction in the Dharma, explaining the general and specific dharmas. Among the three truths, only the Truth of the Path is common to both general and specific dharmas. Therefore, when one contemplates the Four Noble Truths (catvāri ārya-satyāni), there is pure conviction in the Dharma.
Treatise: The precepts beloved by the noble ones... there is nothing that cannot be obtained, indicating that pure conviction in precepts exists in all Four Noble Truths.
Treatise: Because of the difference in what is believed... therefore there are only two, explaining the three differences in faith. Faith is divided into three, but the substance is only faith. Precepts are also one, so the substance is only two.
Treatise: These four kinds... are not the cause of pure conviction, indicating that only unconditioned dharmas exist.
Treatise: Based on what meaning is the name 'pure conviction' established? This is asking about the basis for establishing the name.
Treatise: Truly knowing... are all called pure, this is the answer. Truly knowing the principles of the Four Noble Truths, explaining the meaning of 'conviction'. Believing that excellent morality (śīla) is pure, answering the meaning of 'pure'.
Treatise: Because of being away from the defilement of disbelief and the defilement of breaking precepts, explaining the reason for obtaining the name of purity.
Treatise: Because of attaining purity, the name is established.
證凈名。合釋證凈名。由慧證諦得凈信凈戒名證凈。
論。如出觀時至次第如是。明四次第。
論。如何出時現起次第。問出時次第。
論。謂出觀位至正信三寶。釋出觀位現知次第。
論。猶如良醫至病方除故。舉喻顯也。
論或四種至及所乘乘。第二喻也。
論。經言學位成就八支。已下第五明正智．解脫 于中有四。一明正智時。二明解脫時。三明道斷障時。四明斷離義。此兩行頌第一門也。
論曰至可立解脫智。釋立解脫名及智名所以。如多繩雖解多縛。唯有一縛不名解脫者。此明正解脫得名。非無解脫體可說有解脫智者。此明解脫智也。
論。無學已脫至故唯成八。結無學有十支。有學唯八支。
論。解脫體有至依有為故。明無學解脫有為．無為。解脫中以勝解有為解脫支體。
論。支攝解脫至此解脫蘊。復開解脫支為心．慧二解脫。正理亦開時．不時解脫。即二解脫五分法身蘊中是解脫蘊。此上所明二種解脫。皆通中勝解為體。有部宗也。
論。若爾不應至非唯勝解。經部引經難有部也。經中既言心從貪離。故知非唯勝解。論。若爾是何者。有部問也。
論。有餘師說至名解脫蘊。經部余師釋。即以心王名解脫體。正理救云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 證凈名。合起來解釋『證凈名』。由於通過智慧驗證真諦，獲得清凈的信心和清凈的戒律，這被稱為『證凈』。
論：就像出禪觀的時候，次第就是這樣。說明四種次第。
論：如何在出禪觀的時候顯現次第？問的是出禪觀的次第。
論：指的是從出禪觀的位次，到對三寶產生真正的信心。解釋出禪觀的位次，顯現知見的次第。
論：就像好的醫生，直到病根被去除。用比喻來顯明。
論：或者四種（譬喻），以及所乘坐的交通工具。這是第二個比喻。
論：經文說，在『學位』中成就八支（anga）。下面第五部分說明『正智』（samyag-jñana）和『解脫』（vimukti），其中有四個方面：一是說明『正智』的時候；二是說明『解脫』的時候；三是說明『道』斷除障礙的時候；四是說明斷除和遠離的意義。這兩行頌是第一部分。
論曰：直到可以建立『解脫智』。解釋建立『解脫』的名稱以及『智』的名稱的原因。例如，許多繩索雖然解開了許多束縛，但只有一種束縛不被稱為『解脫』。這說明了真正的『解脫』得名。如果不存在『解脫』的本體，那麼就不能說存在『解脫智』。這說明了『解脫智』。
論：無學（asaikṣa）已經脫離，所以只有八支。總結說，無學有十支，有學只有八支。
論：『解脫』的本體存在，因為它依賴於有為法（saṃskṛta）。說明無學的『解脫』是有為法和無為法（asaṃskṛta）。在『解脫』中，以勝解（adhimokṣa）作為有為『解脫支』的本體。
論：『支』包含『解脫』，這屬於『解脫蘊』（vimukti-skandha）。再次將『解脫支』分為心解脫和慧解脫兩種。正理也區分了時解脫和不時解脫。這兩種『解脫』在五分法身蘊中屬於『解脫蘊』。以上所說明的兩種『解脫』，都以勝解為本體。這是有部宗（Sarvāstivāda）的觀點。
論：如果這樣，就不應該只是勝解。經部（Sautrāntika）引用經文來反駁有部。經文中既然說心從貪慾中脫離，所以知道不僅僅是勝解。 論：如果這樣，那是什麼呢？有部反問。
論：有其他老師說，稱為『解脫蘊』。經部其他老師的解釋，就是用心王（citta-svāmin）作為『解脫』的本體。正理救護說
【English Translation】 English version Explaining the Name of Purification. Together explaining 'Name of Purification'. Because of verifying the truth through wisdom, obtaining pure faith and pure precepts is called 'Purification'.
Treatise: Just like when emerging from contemplation, the sequence is like this. Explaining the four sequences.
Treatise: How does the sequence appear when emerging from contemplation? Asking about the sequence of emerging from contemplation.
Treatise: It refers to the position of emerging from contemplation, to generating true faith in the Three Jewels (Triratna). Explaining the position of emerging from contemplation, revealing the sequence of knowledge.
Treatise: Just like a good doctor, until the root of the disease is removed. Using a metaphor to illustrate.
Treatise: Or four kinds (of metaphors), as well as the vehicle being ridden. This is the second metaphor.
Treatise: The sutra says, in the 'stage of learning' (śaikṣa-bhūmi), the eight limbs (aṣṭāṅga) are accomplished. Below, the fifth part explains 'Right Knowledge' (samyag-jñana) and 'Liberation' (vimukti), in which there are four aspects: first, explaining the time of 'Right Knowledge'; second, explaining the time of 'Liberation'; third, explaining the time when the 'Path' cuts off obstacles; fourth, explaining the meaning of cutting off and separation. These two lines of verse are the first part.
Treatise says: Until 'Liberation Knowledge' can be established. Explaining the reason for establishing the name of 'Liberation' and the name of 'Knowledge'. For example, although many ropes have untied many bonds, only one bond is not called 'Liberation'. This explains the true 'Liberation' obtaining its name. If the substance of 'Liberation' does not exist, then it cannot be said that there exists 'Liberation Knowledge'. This explains 'Liberation Knowledge'.
Treatise: The non-learner (asaikṣa) has already been liberated, so there are only eight limbs. Concluding that the non-learner has ten limbs, and the learner only has eight limbs.
Treatise: The substance of 'Liberation' exists because it relies on conditioned phenomena (saṃskṛta). Explaining that the 'Liberation' of the non-learner is conditioned (saṃskṛta) and unconditioned (asaṃskṛta). In 'Liberation', taking conviction (adhimokṣa) as the substance of the conditioned 'Liberation limb'.
Treatise: 'Limb' includes 'Liberation', which belongs to the 'Liberation Aggregate' (vimukti-skandha). Again, dividing the 'Liberation limb' into two kinds: mind liberation and wisdom liberation. Right Reason also distinguishes between liberation in time and liberation out of time. These two kinds of 'Liberation' belong to the 'Liberation Aggregate' in the fivefold Dharma-body aggregates. The two kinds of 'Liberation' explained above all take conviction as their substance. This is the view of the Sarvāstivāda school.
Treatise: If so, it should not be only conviction. The Sautrāntika school quotes the sutra to refute the Sarvāstivāda school. Since the sutra says that the mind is liberated from greed, it is known that it is not only conviction. Treatise: If so, what is it? The Sarvāstivāda school asks in return.
Treatise: Other teachers say that it is called the 'Liberation Aggregate'. The explanation of other teachers of the Sautrāntika school is that the mind-lord (citta-svāmin) is taken as the substance of 'Liberation'. Right Reason defends by saying
。此不成證。謂經亦說。云何心清凈最勝。謂離諸欲惡不善法。乃至。安住第四靜慮。于等持蘊未滿為滿。已滿為攝修 即名等持。如由欲等眾行功能。令諸等持圓滿而起。等持圓滿名心 欲勤等非心離垢 清凈。等持令心離穢濁。非心離垢即名等持如是由欲等勢力。令解脫蘊圓滿而生。圓滿說心解脫。解脫令心離穢濁。故非離垢即名解脫。故乘所立不違契經。
論。如是已說至盡無生智。第二正智也。正智即是前說盡．無生智。如實正知我生已盡等故。
論。心於何世正明解脫。下半行頌。第二明解脫時。
論曰至此心生故。明無學心生時得解脫也。先由煩惱得障不至生時。今得正斷故得生也。此就顯說言煩惱得。理實亦通色．無色業。故正理云。說障解脫者非唯煩惱障。色．無色界滅生果業。亦是爾時所脫障故。此業亦障阿羅漢得。由此古昔諸大論師咸作是言。業于得忍．不還．應果。極為障礙。
論。金剛喻定至名已解脫．明正斷障．已斷障。及正解脫已解脫時。
論。未生無學至行身世故。明諸無學心當於爾時同得解脫。本論唯說生者。所以也 問有學無漏心至生時。豈不亦由障得解脫。因何本論不說此耶論。答正理云。雖諸學心亦于生位從障解脫。而論但說初無學心生時脫
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：這不能作為證據。因為經書中也說，『什麼是最殊勝的心清凈？』就是遠離各種慾望、罪惡和不善之法，乃至安住在第四禪定中，對於尚未圓滿的等持蘊使其圓滿，已經圓滿的則加以攝持修習——這就叫做等持。如同通過慾望等各種行為的功能，使各種等持圓滿而生起，等持圓滿就叫做心。慾望、勤奮等不是心，而是離垢清凈。等持使心遠離污穢，但並非離垢就叫做等持。如同通過慾望等的力量，使解脫蘊圓滿而生起，圓滿就叫做心解脫。解脫使心遠離污穢，所以並非離垢就叫做解脫。因此，宗派所立的觀點並不違背契經。
論：像這樣已經說了直至盡智、無生智（Anutpāda-jñāna）。這是第二種正智。正智就是前面所說的盡智和無生智，因為如實地正確了知『我生已盡』等等。
論：心在什麼時候真正明白解脫？下半首偈頌說明了解脫的時間。
論曰：直至此心生起，說明無學心生起時得到解脫。先前由於煩惱的障礙而無法到達生起之時，現在因為已經正確地斷除了煩惱，所以才能得到生起。這裡就顯而易見地說了煩惱的『得』（prāpti）。實際上也包括色界（Rūpadhātu）、無色界（Arūpadhātu）的業。所以《正理》中說：『說障礙解脫，不僅僅是煩惱的障礙，色界、無色界的滅生果業，也是在那個時候所脫離的障礙。』這種業也會障礙阿羅漢（Arhat）的獲得。因此，古代的各位大論師都這樣說：業對於獲得忍位（kṣānti）、不還果（Anāgāmin）、阿羅漢果（Arhattva）是極大的障礙。
論：金剛喻定（Vajropama-samādhi）直至名為已解脫，說明正確斷除障礙、已經斷除障礙，以及正確解脫、已經解脫的時間。
論：未生起的無學心直至行蘊（saṃskāra-skandha）的世間，說明各位無學心應當在那個時候一同得到解脫。本論只說了生起者，原因是什麼呢？問：有學的無漏心（anāsrava-citta）直至生起之時，難道不也是因為障礙的解脫嗎？為什麼本論沒有說這個呢？論：答，《正理》中說：『雖然各位有學心也在生起的時候從障礙中解脫，但是本論只說了最初的無學心生起時解脫。』
【English Translation】 English version: This is not a valid proof. Because the scriptures also say, 'What is the most supreme pureness of mind?' It is to be apart from all desires, evils, and unwholesome dharmas, up to abiding in the fourth dhyana (catuttha-jhāna). For the samadhi-skandha (samādhi-skandha) that is not yet complete, make it complete; for the one that is already complete, gather and cultivate it—this is called samadhi. Just as through the function of various actions such as desire, all kinds of samadhi arise in completeness, the completeness of samadhi is called mind. Desire, diligence, etc., are not the mind, but are pure from defilements. Samadhi makes the mind free from impurities, but not being free from defilements is called samadhi. Just as through the power of desire, etc., the liberation-skandha (vimutti-skandha) arises in completeness, completeness is called liberation of mind. Liberation makes the mind free from impurities, so not being free from defilements is called liberation. Therefore, the established view of the school does not contradict the sutras.
Treatise: Thus, it has been said up to the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising (Anutpāda-jñāna). This is the second right knowledge. Right knowledge is the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising mentioned earlier, because it truly and correctly knows 'my birth is exhausted,' etc.
Treatise: When does the mind truly understand liberation? The second half of the verse explains the time of liberation.
Treatise says: Up to this mind arising, it explains that liberation is attained when the non-learning mind arises. Previously, due to the obstruction of afflictions, it could not reach the time of arising; now, because the afflictions have been correctly severed, it can attain arising. Here, it clearly states the 'attainment' (prāpti) of afflictions. In reality, it also includes the karma of the Form Realm (Rūpadhātu) and the Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu). Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Saying the liberation from obstructions is not only the obstruction of afflictions; the karma of the Form Realm and the Formless Realm that causes birth and death is also the obstruction that is removed at that time.' This karma also obstructs the attainment of Arhatship (Arhattva). Therefore, ancient great masters all said this: Karma is a great obstacle to attaining the stage of forbearance (kṣānti), the state of Non-Returner (Anāgāmin), and the fruit of Arhatship.
Treatise: The Vajra-like Samadhi (Vajropama-samādhi) up to being called already liberated, explains the time of correctly cutting off obstructions, having already cut off obstructions, and correctly liberating, having already liberated.
Treatise: The non-arisen non-learning mind up to the world of the aggregate of formations (saṃskāra-skandha), explains that all non-learning minds should attain liberation together at that time. The treatise only speaks of those who arise; what is the reason? Question: Does not the learning non-outflow mind (anāsrava-citta) also attain liberation from obstructions up to the time of arising? Why does the treatise not say this? Treatise: Answer, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Although all learning minds also liberate from obstructions at the time of arising, the treatise only speaks of the liberation when the first non-learning mind arises.'
者。據無餘斷證解脫故。又此唯說純解脫故。此中有心是自性解脫。非相續解脫。四句可解。
論。諸世俗心從何解脫者。問世俗心解脫時也。
論。亦即從彼遮心生障者。答也。應果身中諸有漏法得解脫時。即從彼遮無學心生障解脫 又釋。即從此遮有漏心生障解脫。如熏禪等諸有漏心。從彼定障而得解脫。
論。未解脫位此豈不生者。問也。此有漏心未解脫位豈不生也。因何說言從障解脫。
論。雖有已生不似今者。答。未離障前。雖有漏心有已生者。而不似今已離障者。
論。彼何所以者。何問也。
論。與惑得俱此後若生無俱惑得。答也。前已生者與惑得俱。今若生者無其惑得。
論。道於何位令生障斷。此下半行頌。第三道斷障時。
論曰至離障同故。釋道雖障與斷或不同。離障。生．未生皆離障。障同無故。正理云。如世現見開水路時。近水遠水皆離其障。如是既見能斷惑道身中已生。亦應可說近心遠心皆得解脫。
論。經說三界。已下一行頌。第四明無為解脫斷．離．滅三界別也。
論曰至無為解脫者。釋經中三界。即是前二解脫中無為解脫。體一無為。就三義別立三名也。正理七十二云。就三界體約假有異。若就實事無有差別。云何
名為約假有異。謂離貪結名為離界。斷餘八結名為斷界。滅餘一切貪等諸結所繫事體名為滅界。何緣三界如是差別。謂有漏法總略有三。者能系而非能染。二者能系亦是能染。三者非二順系染法故。斷此三所證無為。如次名為斷等三界(述曰。言結。遍一果等貪自性貪等無為名離界。餘八然法自性斷結等無為名為斷界。余往上緣縛斷時名為余滅界。即此九結及一果等望他即是滅。望自即離斷。色不染法一向是滅非總定別故云假也。今詳正理俱不盡理。此之三體各別不相纏染法一向約自即八結名斷。貪名離也。余法諸結無一名滅。此釋三別。于理為勝。若不爾。即三雜亂。然言假者此三無為其性無別。皆得名為斷。名者是假非實也。離滅也就三有漏分三名)。
論。若事能厭必能離耶。此下一行頌。大文第六明厭離也。
論曰至余即不然。釋厭也。
論。四諦境中至皆得離名。釋離也。
論。廣陜有殊故成四句者。厭通斷惑不斷惑是廣。唯緣苦．集是陜。離通四是廣。唯是斷惑故陜也。
論。有厭非離至非離染故者。第一句也。即超越人緣苦．集智．忍。及諸加行．解脫．勝進道所有智也。
論。有離非厭至能離染故。第二句也。第三．四句如應可知。前說是厭非厭等者。謂是超
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：名為約假有異。說斷除貪的煩惱結縛名為離界（Vitaraga-dhatu，離貪界）。斷除其餘八種煩惱結縛名為斷界（Visamyoga-dhatu，離系界）。滅除其餘一切貪等煩惱結縛所繫的事物自體，名為滅界（Nirodha-dhatu，滅界）。為何三界有這樣的差別呢？因為有漏法總的來說有三種：第一種是能繫縛但不能染污的；第二種是既能繫縛也能染污的；第三種是非前兩種，順著繫縛和染污的法。斷除這三種所證得的無為法，依次名為斷等三界。（述曰：所說的結，普遍存在於同一果位等的貪的自性，貪等無為法名為離界。其餘八種染污法的自性，斷結等無為法名為斷界。其餘往上攀緣的束縛斷除時名為余滅界。即此九結及一果等，相對於其他來說就是滅，相對於自身來說就是離斷。色不染污法一向是滅，並非總的確定，所以說是假。現在詳細考察正理，都不完全合乎道理。這三種體性各自不同，不互相纏繞，染污法一向約自身來說，八結名為斷，貪名為離。其餘法諸結沒有一個名為滅。這種解釋三種差別的說法，在道理上是更勝一籌的。如果不是這樣，那麼三種就會雜亂。然而說假，是因為這三種無為法的體性沒有差別，都可以名為斷，名只是假而非實。離滅也就三有漏法分三種名稱）。
論：如果事物能夠令人厭惡，就一定能夠使人脫離嗎？下面一行頌文，是大文第六，說明厭離。
論曰至余即不然。解釋厭。
論：在四諦（catuh-satya，四聖諦）的境界中至都可得到離的名稱。解釋離。
論：廣狹有差別，所以形成四句。厭通於斷惑和不斷惑，是廣。唯獨緣于苦諦（duhkha-satya）和集諦（samudaya-satya），是狹。離通於四諦，是廣。唯獨是斷惑，所以是狹。
論：有厭而非離至非離染故。第一句。即超越之人緣于苦諦、集諦的智、忍，以及各種加行、解脫、勝進道所有的智慧。
論：有離而非厭至能離染故。第二句。第三、四句可以相應地知道。前面所說是厭非厭等，說的是超越。
【English Translation】 English version: It is named differently based on convention. It is said that the abandonment of the bond of greed is called Vitaraga-dhatu (the sphere of detachment from desire). The severing of the remaining eight bonds is called Visamyoga-dhatu (the sphere of detachment from bonds). The extinction of the substantial entity bound by all remaining bonds such as greed is called Nirodha-dhatu (the sphere of cessation). Why are these three spheres different in this way? Because, generally speaking, conditioned dharmas are of three types: the first can bind but cannot defile; the second can both bind and defile; and the third is neither of the previous two, but conforms to binding and defiling dharmas. The unconditioned dharmas attained by severing these three are successively called the three spheres of severance, etc. (Commentary: The 'bonds' that are spoken of, universally exist in the nature of greed, etc., in the same fruition, etc. The unconditioned dharma of greed, etc., is called Vitaraga-dhatu. The nature of the remaining eight defiled dharmas, the unconditioned dharma of severing bonds, etc., is called Visamyoga-dhatu. The remaining upwardly clinging bonds, when severed, are called the remaining Nirodha-dhatu. That is, these nine bonds and one fruition, etc., are extinction relative to others, and severance relative to oneself. Form, which is not a defiled dharma, is always extinction, and is not generally fixed, so it is said to be conventional. Now, upon detailed examination, the correct reasoning does not fully accord with the principle. These three entities are each different and do not entangle each other. Defiled dharmas are always spoken of in relation to oneself, the eight bonds are called severance, and greed is called detachment. The remaining dharmas have no single bond called extinction. This explanation of the three differences is superior in reason. If it were not so, then the three would be confused. However, it is said to be conventional because the nature of these three unconditioned dharmas is not different, and all can be called severance; the name is only conventional and not real. Detachment and extinction also divide the three conditioned dharmas into three names.)
Treatise: If something is capable of causing aversion, is it necessarily capable of causing detachment? The following verse is the sixth major section, explaining aversion and detachment.
Treatise says to the rest is not so. Explaining aversion.
Treatise: Within the realm of the Four Noble Truths (catuh-satya) to all can obtain the name of detachment. Explaining detachment.
Treatise: The broad and narrow have differences, so four sentences are formed. Aversion is common to severing afflictions and not severing afflictions, which is broad. Only focusing on the Truth of Suffering (duhkha-satya) and the Truth of Origin (samudaya-satya) is narrow. Detachment is common to the four truths, which is broad. Only severing afflictions is narrow.
Treatise: There is aversion but not detachment to not detaching from defilement. The first sentence. That is, the wisdom and forbearance of those who transcend, focusing on the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of Origin, as well as all practices, liberation, progressive paths, and all wisdom.
Treatise: There is detachment but not aversion to being able to detach from defilement. The second sentence. The third and fourth sentences can be known accordingly. What was said earlier about aversion and non-aversion, etc., refers to transcendence.
越法忍。及諸見。修道中加行．解脫．勝進道攝智也。超越人不合或斷或已斷故。加行．解脫．勝進道非斷治故。
俱舍論疏卷第二十五 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二十六
沙門法寶撰
分別智品第七之一
分別智品者。惠于曾見決斷名智。或求見境意樂止息。加行奢緩說名為智。智類不同不過十種。此品廣明故名分別。智即是道。道是滅因。前賢聖明道所成人。此品明智述人所因道。先果后因。故此明智。
論。前品初說至為有智非見耶。結前起后。頌答可知。自下準此皆不述也 就此品中大文分二。一明智差別。二明智成德 就前門中復分為七。一明忍．智．見別。二明十智相異三明建立十智。四明法．智斷別。五明十智行相。第六義門分別。第七廣明修智。此一頌第一明忍．智．見別。
論曰至推度性故。此明聖忍非智攝也。立以聖名簡有漏忍 自所斷疑者。簡異部疑也。與疑得俱故不名智。正理論云。或求見境意樂止息。加行奢緩說名為智。諸忍正起推度意樂加行猛利故非智攝(已上論文)。
論盡與無生至不推度故。明盡．無生非見性也。
論。所餘皆通至推度性故。明所餘智皆通智．見。已斷自疑故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『越法忍』以及各種『見』，包含在修道過程中的『加行道』（ preparatory path ）、『解脫道』（ path of liberation ）、『勝進道』（ path of surpassing progress ）所包含的智慧中。超越之人不會結合或者斷除或者已經斷除這些『見』，因為『加行道』、『解脫道』、『勝進道』並非斷除煩惱的對治法。
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十五 大正藏第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十六
沙門法寶 撰
分別智品第七之一
『分別智品』，是指對於曾經見過的（事物）進行決斷的智慧。或者說，尋求見境的意樂止息，加上修行過程中的舒緩，可以稱之為智慧。智慧的種類不同，但不會超過十種。此品廣泛闡明智慧，所以稱為『分別』。智慧即是道，道是滅（涅槃）的原因。前面已經闡明了聖人通過修行道所成就的（境界），此品闡明智慧，敘述人們成就（聖人）的原因——道。先說果，后說因，所以此品闡明智慧。
論：前一品最初說『乃至為有智非見耶』，這是總結前文，開啟後文。頌文的回答可以知曉。從下文開始，都按照這個原則，不再贅述。在此品中，大體分為兩部分：一是闡明智慧的差別，二是闡明智慧成就的功德。在第一部分中，又分為七個方面：一是闡明『忍』（ forbearance ）、『智』（ wisdom ）、『見』（ view ）的區別；二是闡明十種智慧的相互差異；三是闡明建立十種智慧；四是闡明『法智』（ knowledge of Dharma ）、『智』斷除煩惱的區別；五是闡明十種智慧的行相；六是義理方面的分別；七是廣泛闡明修習智慧。這一頌是第一方面，闡明『忍』、『智』、『見』的區別。
論曰：乃至推度性故。這裡闡明聖人的『忍』不屬於『智』的範疇。用『聖』這個名稱是爲了區別有漏的『忍』。『自所斷疑者』，是爲了區別其他部派的疑惑。因為『忍』與疑惑同時產生，所以不稱為『智』。《正理論》說：『或者說，尋求見境的意樂止息，加上修行過程中的舒緩，可以稱之為智慧。』各種『忍』在生起時，推度意樂的加行猛利，所以不屬於『智』的範疇（以上是論文）。
論：盡與無生乃至不推度故。闡明『盡智』（ knowledge of extinction ）和『無生智』（ knowledge of non-arising ）不是『見』的性質。
論：所餘皆通乃至推度性故。闡明其餘的智慧都通於『智』和『見』。因為已經斷除了自身的疑惑。
【English Translation】 English version 'Kṣānti' (forbearance) that transcends the Dharma, and all 'views' are included in the wisdom encompassed by the 'Prayoga-mārga' (path of application), 'Vimokṣa-mārga' (path of liberation), and 'Viśeṣa-mārga' (path of special progress) in the path of cultivation. Those who have transcended do not combine, sever, or have already severed these 'views' because the 'Prayoga-mārga', 'Vimokṣa-mārga', and 'Viśeṣa-mārga' are not antidotes for severing afflictions.
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 25 Taishō Tripiṭaka, Volume 41, No. 1822, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā, Volume 26
Composed by Śramaṇa Dharmapāla
Chapter 7, Part 1: Analysis of Wisdom
The 'Analysis of Wisdom' chapter refers to the wisdom that decisively judges what has been seen before. Alternatively, the cessation of the intention to seek an object of sight, coupled with a relaxed approach in practice, can be called wisdom. The types of wisdom differ, but do not exceed ten. This chapter extensively elucidates wisdom, hence the name 'Analysis'. Wisdom is the path, and the path is the cause of extinction (Nirvana). The previous chapter clarified the achievements of the saints through the practice of the path. This chapter clarifies wisdom, narrating the path that causes people to achieve (sainthood). First, the result is discussed, then the cause, hence this chapter clarifies wisdom.
Treatise: The previous chapter initially stated 'up to whether there is wisdom but not view'. This summarizes the previous text and initiates the following text. The answers in the verses are knowable. From the following text onwards, this principle will be followed, and there will be no further elaboration. In this chapter, there are two main sections: one clarifies the differences in wisdom, and the other clarifies the merits achieved by wisdom. In the first section, there are seven aspects: one clarifies the differences between 'kṣānti' (forbearance), 'jñāna' (wisdom), and 'dṛṣṭi' (view); two clarifies the mutual differences between the ten types of wisdom; three clarifies the establishment of the ten types of wisdom; four clarifies the differences between 'Dharma-jñāna' (knowledge of Dharma) and the wisdom that severs afflictions; five clarifies the characteristics of the ten types of wisdom; six is the analysis of meanings; seven extensively clarifies the cultivation of wisdom. This verse is the first aspect, clarifying the differences between 'kṣānti', 'jñāna', and 'dṛṣṭi'.
Treatise says: up to the nature of deliberation. This clarifies that the 'kṣānti' of the saints does not belong to the category of 'jñāna'. The term 'saintly' is used to distinguish it from the defiled 'kṣānti'. 'Those whose doubts are severed by themselves' is to distinguish them from the doubts of other schools. Because 'kṣānti' arises simultaneously with doubt, it is not called 'jñāna'. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'Or, the cessation of the intention to seek an object of sight, coupled with a relaxed approach in practice, can be called wisdom.' The application of deliberation in various 'kṣānti' is vigorous when they arise, so they do not belong to the category of 'jñāna' (the above is the treatise).
Treatise: Kṣaya-jñāna (knowledge of extinction) and anutpāda-jñāna (knowledge of non-arising) up to the reason of non-deliberation. Clarifies that kṣaya-jñāna and anutpāda-jñāna are not the nature of 'view'.
Treatise: The remaining all connect up to the nature of deliberation. Clarifies that the remaining wisdoms all connect to 'jñāna' and 'dṛṣṭi'. Because self-doubt has already been severed.
是智攝。推度性故故名為見。非初見故不名為忍。
論。諸有漏惠至世正見為六。明有漏惠皆得名智。所見境中非初見故。婆沙四十四云。無一有情於一切境。無始時來非有漏惠數數觀之。故有漏惠皆是智攝(已上論文) 即是通染不染一切有漏諸惠。皆名為智。雖五識緣唸唸不同。緣同類故亦名為智。又所取境無始時來。用有漏惠數數觀故。除五識身相應諸惠。所餘善惠皆名為見。即是世間正見攝也。諸染惠中唯五名見。一切無記皆非見也。
論。如是所說至並惠性攝。此明有漏及無漏惠。於一切處皆得名惠。以此皆能簡擇法故。
論。智有幾種相別云何。此下第二明十智相別 於此文中復分為四。一明十智名．體別。二明三智成九智。三明九智成十智。四明盡．無生相別。此兩行頌明十智名體別。
論曰至性差別故。此列智名。先束為二 論。如是二智至分法．類別。此開二智為三智也。
論。三中世俗至四諦為境。此明三智境各別也。正理釋云。前有漏智總名世俗。瓶．衣等物性可毀壞。顯在俗情故名世俗。此智多取世俗境故。多順世間俗事轉故。從多建立世俗智名。非無取勝義順勝義事轉。然是愛境無勝功能息內眾惑。故非無漏 又云。有漏．無漏二智何別。無漏于境行相明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 是智所攝。因為是推度的性質，所以叫做『見』。因為不是最初的見，所以不叫做『忍』。
論：所有有漏的智慧，達到世間正見，共有六種。說明有漏的智慧都可以叫做『智』。因為在所見的境界中，不是最初的見。婆沙第四十四卷說：『沒有一個有情對於一切境界，從無始以來沒有用有漏的智慧多次觀察過。』所以有漏的智慧都屬於智所攝。（以上是論文）也就是貫通染污和不染污的一切有漏的智慧，都可以叫做『智』。即使五識所緣的唸唸不同，因為所緣的同類，也可以叫做『智』。而且所取的境界從無始以來，用有漏的智慧多次觀察過，所以除了五識身相應的各種智慧，其餘的善的智慧都可以叫做『見』，也就是世間正見所攝。各種染污的智慧中只有五種叫做『見』，一切無記的智慧都不是『見』。
論：像這樣所說的，直到並惠的性質所攝。這說明有漏和無漏的智慧，在一切處都可以叫做『惠』，因為這些都能簡擇法。
論：智有幾種，它們的相有什麼區別？這以下第二部分說明十智的相的區別。在這段文字中又分為四個部分：一、說明十智的名稱和體性的區別；二、說明三智如何構成九智；三、說明九智如何構成十智；四、說明盡智和無生智的相的區別。這兩行頌說明十智的名稱和體性的區別。
論曰：直到性差別故。這裡列出智的名稱，先總括為二。 論：像這樣兩種智，直到分法和類別。這是把兩種智展開為三種智。
論：三種智中，世俗智直到以四諦為境界。這說明三種智的境界各自不同。正理釋解釋說：前面的有漏智總稱為世俗智。瓶子、衣服等物的性質可以毀壞，顯現在世俗的情感中，所以叫做世俗。這種智多取世俗的境界，多順應世間的俗事運轉，所以從多數方面建立世俗智的名稱。並非沒有取勝義，順應勝義的事運轉。然而這是愛境，沒有殊勝的功能來止息內心的各種迷惑，所以不是無漏智。又說：有漏智和無漏智有什麼區別？無漏智對於境界的行相明瞭。
【English Translation】 English version: It is included in Jnana (智, wisdom). Because it is of the nature of inference, it is called 'Dṛṣṭi' (見, view). Because it is not the initial view, it is not called 'Kṣānti' (忍, forbearance).
Treatise: All contaminated wisdom (有漏惠), up to the mundane right view (世間正見), are sixfold. It explains that all contaminated wisdom can be called 'Jnana'. Because in the seen realm, it is not the initial view. Vibhāṣā (婆沙) 44 says: 'There is not a single sentient being who, towards all realms, from beginningless time, has not repeatedly observed with contaminated wisdom.' Therefore, all contaminated wisdom is included in Jnana. (The above is from the treatise.) That is, all contaminated wisdom, whether defiled or undefiled, is called 'Jnana'. Even though the objects of the five consciousnesses (五識) differ from moment to moment, because they are of the same category, they can also be called 'Jnana'. Moreover, the taken realm has been repeatedly observed with contaminated wisdom from beginningless time. Therefore, except for the wisdom associated with the five consciousnesses, the remaining wholesome wisdom can be called 'Dṛṣṭi', which is included in the mundane right view. Among the various defiled wisdoms, only five are called 'Dṛṣṭi', and all indeterminate wisdoms are not 'Dṛṣṭi'.
Treatise: As said, up to being included in the nature of Prajñā (惠, wisdom). This explains that contaminated and uncontaminated wisdom can be called 'Prajñā' everywhere, because they can all discern the Dharma (法).
Treatise: How many kinds of Jnana are there, and what are their differences? The second part below explains the differences in the ten Jnanas. In this passage, it is further divided into four parts: 1. Explaining the differences in the names and natures of the ten Jnanas; 2. Explaining how the three Jnanas constitute the nine Jnanas; 3. Explaining how the nine Jnanas constitute the ten Jnanas; 4. Explaining the differences in the characteristics of Kṣaya-jñāna (盡智, knowledge of exhaustion) and Anutpāda-jñāna (無生智, knowledge of non-arising). These two lines of verse explain the differences in the names and natures of the ten Jnanas.
Treatise says: Up to the difference in nature. Here, the names of Jnana are listed, first summarized into two. Treatise: Like these two Jnanas, up to the division of Dharma and categories. This is to expand the two Jnanas into three Jnanas.
Treatise: Among the three Jnanas, Samvṛti-jñāna (世俗智, conventional knowledge) up to taking the Four Noble Truths (四諦) as its realm. This explains that the realms of the three Jnanas are different from each other. The commentary of Nyāyānusāra (正理釋) explains: The preceding contaminated Jnana is generally called Samvṛti-jñāna. The nature of things like bottles and clothes can be destroyed, appearing in mundane emotions, so it is called Samvṛti. This Jnana mostly takes mundane realms, mostly following the mundane affairs of the world, so the name Samvṛti-jñāna is established from the majority. It is not that it does not take the ultimate meaning and follow the affairs of the ultimate meaning. However, it is a realm of love, without the excellent function of stopping the inner delusions, so it is not uncontaminated Jnana. It also says: What is the difference between contaminated and uncontaminated Jnana? Uncontaminated Jnana is clear about the characteristics of the realm.
利。彼有漏惠與此相違。如竭地羅．余木二炭于所燒練勢用不同及勝劣香能熏用別。炎鐵草火熱勢有殊。二智相望差別亦爾。
論即于如是三種智中。下一頌。第二開成九智也。
論曰至滅．道四智。此明法．類就境成四。兼前法．類覆成六智。若兼世俗總有七智。
論。如是六智至名盡無生。此明六智至無學位。成盡．無生總成九智。
論。此二初生至為境界故。明盡．無生初生之者。唯緣有頂四蘊為境。唯此二智通其多念。初念唯緣有頂苦．集。余異緣也。若不爾者。何故以初簡後生也。
論。金剛喻定境同此耶。問也。
論。緣苦．集同緣滅．道異。答也。準此論文。金剛喻定。唯緣非想四蘊為境。同初盡故。
論。於前所說九種智中。下兩頌。第三開成十智。
論曰至余即不然。明於法．類．道．世俗中離出他心非苦．集．滅．及盡．無生。
論。此智于境至及去來心。此明他心三決定相。
論。勝心有三至勝位者心。明不能知三緣心也。唯知等．劣故。正理云。然他心智．及所知境．根．地既殊。知亦有異。所智有漏心．心所法。曾．未曾得。各有十五。謂欲．四靜慮各下．中．上根。能知但除欲界三品。曾．未曾得各有十二。所知無漏及
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 利。彼有漏惠與此相違。如同燒竭地羅（Kadira，一種樹木）和其餘木材所成的兩種炭，在燃燒和鍛造時的效用不同，以及優劣香料的薰香效果也有區別。火焰、鐵和草火的熱力也有差異。兩種智慧相比，差別也是如此。
論：在如是三種智慧中，下一頌，第二開成九智。
論曰：至滅、道四智。這說明法智（Dharma-jnana）和類智（Anvaya-jnana）就所觀境界而言，成就四種智慧。加上之前的法智和類智，共成就六種智慧。如果加上世俗智（Samvriti-jnana），總共有七種智慧。
論：如是六智至名盡無生。這說明六種智慧達到無學位的境界，成就盡智（Ksaya-jnana）和無生智（Anutpada-jnana），總共成就九種智慧。
論：此二初生至為境界故。說明盡智和無生智初生之時，唯以有頂天的四蘊為境界。只有這兩種智慧貫通多個念頭。最初的念頭唯以有頂天的苦、集為所緣。其餘的念頭則緣于不同的境界。如果不是這樣，為何要用『初』來限定後生的念頭呢？
論：金剛喻定（Vajropamasamadhi）的境界與此相同嗎？問。
論：緣苦、集相同，緣滅、道不同。答。根據這段論文，金剛喻定唯以非想非非想處的四蘊為境界，與初生的盡智相同。
論：於前所說九種智中，下兩頌，第三開成十智。
論曰：至余即不然。說明在法智、類智、道智（Marga-jnana）、世俗智中，除了他心智（Paracitta-jnana）以外，不能觀苦、集、滅，以及盡智、無生智。
論：此智于境至及去來心。這說明他心智的三種決定相。
論：勝心有三至勝位者心。說明不能知三種緣心，只能知同等和低劣的心。正理云：然而他心智以及所知的境界、根、地既然不同，所知也有差異。所知的有漏心和心所法，曾得和未曾得的各有十五種，即欲界和四禪定各有下、中、上根。能知者只能除去欲界的三品，曾得和未曾得的各有十二種。所知的無漏
【English Translation】 English version: Benefit. The defiled wisdom is contrary to this. Just as the two charcoals made from Kadira (a type of tree) and other woods differ in their effectiveness during burning and forging, and the incense from superior and inferior fragrances have different effects. The heat from flames, iron, and grass fires also vary. The difference between the two types of wisdom is similar.
Treatise: Among these three types of wisdom, the next verse, the second, reveals the formation of nine wisdoms.
Treatise says: To the four wisdoms of cessation and the path. This explains that Dharma-jnana (wisdom of the Dharma) and Anvaya-jnana (sequential wisdom) achieve four wisdoms in terms of the observed realm. Adding the previous Dharma-jnana and Anvaya-jnana, a total of six wisdoms are achieved. If Samvriti-jnana (conventional wisdom) is added, there are a total of seven wisdoms.
Treatise: These six wisdoms reach the state where the names 'exhaustion' and 'non-arising' are used. This explains that the six wisdoms reach the state of no-more-learning, achieving Ksaya-jnana (wisdom of exhaustion) and Anutpada-jnana (wisdom of non-arising), for a total of nine wisdoms.
Treatise: These two, when first arising, have the realm of... This explains that when Ksaya-jnana and Anutpada-jnana first arise, they only take the four aggregates of the peak of existence as their realm. Only these two wisdoms penetrate multiple thoughts. The initial thought only takes the suffering and accumulation of the peak of existence as its object. The remaining thoughts are related to different realms. If this were not the case, why would 'first' be used to qualify the later arising thoughts?
Treatise: Is the realm of Vajropamasamadhi (diamond-like samadhi) the same as this? Question.
Treatise: The object of suffering and accumulation is the same, but the object of cessation and the path is different. Answer. According to this text, Vajropamasamadhi only takes the four aggregates of neither perception nor non-perception as its realm, which is the same as the initial Ksaya-jnana.
Treatise: Among the nine wisdoms mentioned earlier, the following two verses, the third, reveal the formation of ten wisdoms.
Treatise says: The rest are not like that. This explains that among Dharma-jnana, Anvaya-jnana, Marga-jnana (wisdom of the path), and Samvriti-jnana, other than Paracitta-jnana (wisdom of others' minds), one cannot observe suffering, accumulation, cessation, as well as Ksaya-jnana and Anutpada-jnana.
Treatise: This wisdom, regarding the realm, reaches the past and future minds. This explains the three definitive characteristics of Paracitta-jnana.
Treatise: Superior minds have three... to the mind of those in superior positions. This explains that one cannot know the three types of conditioned minds, but can only know equal and inferior minds. The Nyayasutra says: However, since the wisdom of others' minds, as well as the known realm, faculties, and grounds are different, the knowledge is also different. The defiled mind and mental factors that are known, whether previously attained or not, each have fifteen types, namely the desire realm and the four dhyanas, each with inferior, intermediate, and superior faculties. The knower can only exclude the three categories of the desire realm, each with twelve types, whether previously attained or not. The undefiled that is known
彼能知。皆除欲三。各有十二。且諸有漏曾．未曾得下根所攝他心智生。隨其所應。能知下地三根心品。自地下根中品亦知自地中品。上品總了自．下地三。無漏下根他心智起。唯知自地．下地下根。中亦知中。上兼知上。何緣有漏．無漏智生。知下地心多少有異。有漏三品可一身成。無漏隨根立聖者別。尚無有一成二品根。況有成三。故有差別。如何說一補特伽羅。成九品道斷九品惑。此道差別非根有異。由因漸長后道轉增。如次能令多品惑斷。或諸種性各有九品。成一九品必不成余。故前後言無相違失。故依上地起下根心。有上根心依下地起地．根互勝必不相知。地位．位根相對亦爾 婆沙論云。問初靜慮他心智。于欲界四靜慮通果心．心所法能知幾種。有作是說。能知四種。所以者何。一切皆是欲界攝故。復有說者。唯能知初靜慮通果不知餘三。所以者何。如不知因。果亦爾故 又婆沙云問靜慮中間心．心所法。何地智慧知耶。有作是說。初靜慮上品智慧知。復有說者。第二靜慮下品智慧知。評曰應作是說。初靜慮三品智皆能知。所以者何。一地攝故(已上論文)。
論。此智不知至為境界故。明此不知去．來因也。
論。又法．類品至為所緣故。明法．類智不相緣也。以類分智非欲道故。法智不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 他能夠知道。所有去除慾望的三種根器，每種根器各有十二種品類。並且，所有有漏（指有煩惱）的眾生，曾經或未曾獲得下等根器所攝的他心智生起時，根據他們各自相應的根器，能夠知道下等地（指比自己低的禪定層次）的三種根器的心識品類。自己下等根器中的中品，也能知道自己所處層次的中品。上品則完全瞭解自己和下等地的三種根器。無漏（指無煩惱）的下等根器所生的他心智，只能知道自己和下等地的下等根器。中等根器也能知道中等根器。上等根器則兼知上等根器。為什麼有漏和無漏的智慧生起時，所能知道的下地心識的多少會有差異呢？因為有漏的三品根器可以在同一人身上成就，而無漏則隨著根器的不同而區分聖者。尚未有人能成就兩種品級的根器，更何況是三種。所以才有差別。如何解釋說一個補特伽羅（Pudgala，指人）成就九品道，斷除九品惑呢？這是因為道的差別並非根器不同所致，而是因為因逐漸增長，後來的道也隨之增長，從而能夠依次斷除多種品級的惑。或者說，各種種性各有九品，成就一種九品，必定不能成就其他的。所以前後的說法沒有矛盾之處。因此，依靠上地生起下等根器的心識，或者有上等根器的心識依靠下地生起，地位和根器互相勝過時，必定不能互相知曉。地位和地位之間，根器和根器之間相對也是如此。《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）說：『問：初禪的他心智，對於欲界（Kāmadhātu，指有情眾生居住，且有食慾、性慾的世間）和四禪（catū ধ্যানāni，指色界中的四種禪定）的通果心（指神通的果報之心）和心所法（Caitasika，指與心同時生起和存在的心理現象）能夠知道幾種？』有人這樣說：『能夠知道四種。』為什麼呢？因為一切都屬於欲界所攝。另有人說：『只能知道初禪的通果，不能知道其餘三種。』為什麼呢？因為如果不知道因，也就不知道果。』又《婆沙論》說：『問：靜慮中間（指位於初禪和二禪之間的禪定狀態）的心和心所法，是哪個層次的智慧能夠知道呢？』有人這樣說：『是初禪的上品智慧能夠知道。』另有人說：『是第二禪的下品智慧能夠知道。』評論說：『應該這樣說，初禪的三品智慧都能夠知道。』為什麼呢？因為屬於同一地所攝的緣故（以上是論文）。 論：這種智慧不能知曉，是因為它以『至』為境界的緣故。說明這種不知曉是針對過去和未來的因。 論：又法智（Dharmajñāna，指知曉諸法體性的智慧）和類智（Anvayajñāna，指隨順法智而產生的智慧）的品類，是因為它們以『為所緣』的緣故。說明法智和類智不能互相作為所緣。因為類智不是欲界之道，所以法智不...
【English Translation】 English version He is able to know. All three roots that eliminate desire, each with twelve categories. Furthermore, all sentient beings with outflows (referring to afflictions), who have or have not attained the lower root, when the mind-reading wisdom arises, according to their respective roots, are able to know the mind categories of the three roots of the lower realm (referring to lower levels of meditative absorption). The middle grade of one's own lower root can also know the middle grade of one's own level. The superior grade completely understands the three roots of oneself and the lower realms. The mind-reading wisdom arising from the non-outflow (referring to without afflictions) lower root can only know the lower root of oneself and the lower realms. The middle grade can also know the middle grade. The superior grade also knows the superior grade. Why is there a difference in the amount of lower realm minds that can be known when outflow and non-outflow wisdom arise? Because the three grades of outflow roots can be achieved in one person, while the non-outflow is distinguished by the different roots of the sages. No one has yet achieved two grades of roots, let alone three. Therefore, there is a difference. How can it be explained that a Pudgala (person) achieves the nine grades of the path and cuts off the nine grades of delusion? This is because the difference in the path is not due to different roots, but because the cause gradually increases, and the later path also increases accordingly, thereby being able to sequentially cut off multiple grades of delusion. Or, each species has nine grades, and achieving one nine-grade will definitely not achieve the others. Therefore, the previous and subsequent statements are not contradictory. Therefore, relying on the upper realm to generate the mind of the lower root, or having the mind of the upper root relying on the lower realm to arise, when the position and root surpass each other, they will definitely not be able to know each other. The same is true for the relative positions between positions and roots between roots. The Vibhasa (Vibhasa) says: 'Question: The mind-reading wisdom of the first Dhyana (first meditative state), how many kinds of the mind and mental factors of the resultant mind of the supernormal powers of the desire realm (Kāmadhātu, the realm where sentient beings live and have desires for food and sex) and the four Dhyanas (catū ध्यानāni, the four meditative states in the form realm) can it know?' Some say: 'It can know four kinds.' Why? Because everything is included in the desire realm. Others say: 'It can only know the resultant power of the first Dhyana and cannot know the other three.' Why? Because if you don't know the cause, you also don't know the effect.' Also, the Vibhasa says: 'Question: Which level of wisdom can know the mind and mental factors of the intermediate Dhyana (the meditative state between the first and second Dhyana)?' Some say: 'The superior wisdom of the first Dhyana can know.' Others say: 'The inferior wisdom of the second Dhyana can know.' The commentary says: 'It should be said that the three grades of wisdom of the first Dhyana can all know.' Why? Because they belong to the same realm (the above is the thesis). Treatise: This wisdom cannot know because it takes 'to the extreme' as its boundary. This explains that this unknowing is directed at the causes of the past and future. Treatise: Also, the categories of Dharma-knowledge (Dharmajñāna, the wisdom that knows the nature of all dharmas) and Anvaya-knowledge (Anvayajñāna, the wisdom that arises following Dharma-knowledge) are because they take 'as the object'. This explains that Dharma-knowledge and Anvaya-knowledge cannot take each other as objects. Because Anvaya-knowledge is not the path of the desire realm, Dharma-knowledge does not...
緣。以法分智非上道故。類智不緣。雖滅．道法智亦治上修惑非全分故。類智不緣。
論。此他心智至此智所緣。明見道中無他心智。見道亦容為他心境。
論。若諸有情至見道位心。此即總標聲聞．獨覺預修加行知見道心。
論。彼諸有情至初二念心。此別明聲聞知法分心。
論。若為更知至非知見道。此明聲聞加行劣故。經多剎那加行方成。雖亦能知第十六心。其第十六心非見道攝。
論。麟喻法分至下加行故。此別明獨覺知法．類心。
論。有說知初二及第十五心。述異師說獨覺心知。正理論云。有說麟喻知四剎那。謂初二心．第八．十四。此言應理。所以者何。許從知初二念心已。唯隔五念知第八心。若復更修法分加行經五念頃加行應成。何不許知第十四念。有餘亦說。知四剎那。謂初二念心．第十一．二(已上論文)。
論。世尊欲知至一切能知。明佛無加行能知一切 問何故無漏他心智體。唯是道智非余智耶 答正理云。以無漏智決定不能知他有漏心．心所故(述曰。此即苦．集智而不能知) 他身無漏心．心所法。細故。勝故。非已有漏他心智境。其理可然。何緣己身無漏他心智。不能知他有漏心．心所。于有漏境無漏智生行相．所緣異此智故。謂無漏智
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 緣。以法智和類智所緣的境界不同，而且法智並非完全屬於上乘之道，所以類智不緣法智所緣的境界。雖然滅盡智和道智也能對治上界的煩惱，但並非完全屬於上乘之道，所以類智不緣滅盡智和道智所緣的境界。
論：這種他心智所能了知的境界，表明在見道位中沒有他心智。見道位的心識也可以成為他心智所觀察的對象。
論：如果說諸位有情乃至見道位的心，這總的標明了聲聞（Śrāvaka，聽聞佛法者）、獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依師教，自己覺悟者）預先修習加行，從而了知見道的心。
論：他們這些有情乃至初二念心，這是分別說明聲聞了知法智的部分心念。
論：如果爲了進一步了知乃至非知見道，這說明聲聞的加行比較薄弱，經過多個剎那的加行才能成就。即使也能了知第十六個心念，但這個第十六個心念並不屬於見道所攝。
論：麟喻（Rishyasringa，印度神話人物，此處比喻獨覺）的法智乃至下品加行的緣故，這是分別說明獨覺了知法智和類智的心。
論：有人說，了知最初的兩個以及第十五個心念。這是敘述其他論師關於獨覺心智的說法。《正理論》中說，有人說麟喻了知四個剎那，即最初的兩個心念、第八個和第十四個。這種說法是合理的。為什麼呢？因為允許從了知最初兩個心念之後，只間隔五個心念就了知第八個心念。如果再修習法智的加行，經過五個心念的時間，加行就應該成就了。為什麼不允許了知第十四個心念呢？還有人說，了知四個剎那，即最初的兩個心念、第十一個和第十二個（以上是論文內容）。
論：世尊想要了知乃至一切都能了知，說明佛不需要加行就能了知一切。問：為什麼無漏的他心智的體性，唯獨是道智而不是其他的智慧呢？答：《正理論》中說，因為無漏的智慧絕對不能了知他人有漏的心和心所（Citta-caitasika，心理活動）。（述曰：這就是苦智和集智不能了知的原因）他人身上的無漏心和心所法，因為過於細微和殊勝，不是自己有漏的他心智所能觀察的境界，這個道理是可信的。那麼，為什麼自己身上的無漏他心智，不能了知他人有漏的心和心所呢？因為對於有漏的境界，無漏智的生起行相和所緣與這種智慧不同。也就是說，無漏智的……
【English Translation】 English version Condition. Because the objects of Dharma-knowledge and Inferential-knowledge are different, and because Dharma-knowledge does not entirely belong to the superior path, Inferential-knowledge does not cognize the objects of Dharma-knowledge. Although Extinction-knowledge and Path-knowledge can also subdue afflictions of the higher realms, they do not entirely belong to the superior path, so Inferential-knowledge does not cognize the objects of Extinction-knowledge and Path-knowledge.
Treatise: This range of what can be known by other-minds-knowledge clarifies that there is no other-minds-knowledge in the Seeing Path (Darśana-mārga, the path of seeing the truth). The mind of the Seeing Path can also be an object for other-minds-knowledge.
Treatise: If all sentient beings up to the mind of the Seeing Path, this generally indicates that Śrāvakas (hearers), and Pratyekabuddhas (solitary realizers) pre-cultivate the application to know the mind of the Seeing Path.
Treatise: Those sentient beings up to the first two moments of mind, this separately clarifies that Śrāvakas know the mind of the Dharma-knowledge division.
Treatise: If in order to further know up to not knowing the Seeing Path, this clarifies that the application of Śrāvakas is inferior, and it takes many moments of application to achieve. Even if they can know the sixteenth moment of mind, that sixteenth moment of mind is not included in the Seeing Path.
Treatise: Because of the Dharma-knowledge of the Unicorn-like (Rishyasringa, a mythical figure in India, used here as a metaphor for a solitary realizer) up to the inferior application, this separately clarifies that solitary realizers know the mind of Dharma-knowledge and Inferential-knowledge.
Treatise: Some say, knowing the first two and the fifteenth moments of mind. This narrates the views of other teachers regarding the mind-knowledge of solitary realizers. The Nyāyānusāra says, some say the Unicorn-like knows four moments, namely the first two moments of mind, the eighth, and the fourteenth. This statement is reasonable. Why? Because it is allowed that from knowing the first two moments of mind, only five moments are skipped to know the eighth moment of mind. If one further cultivates the application of Dharma-knowledge, after five moments of time, the application should be accomplished. Why is it not allowed to know the fourteenth moment of mind? Others also say, knowing four moments, namely the first two moments of mind, the eleventh, and the twelfth (the above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: The World-Honored One wants to know up to being able to know everything, clarifying that the Buddha can know everything without application. Question: Why is the nature of uncontaminated other-minds-knowledge only Path-knowledge and not other wisdoms? Answer: The Nyāyānusāra says, because uncontaminated wisdom absolutely cannot know the contaminated mind and mental factors (Citta-caitasika, mental activities) of others. (Commentary: This is why Suffering-knowledge and Accumulation-knowledge cannot know.) The uncontaminated mind and mental factors of others, because they are too subtle and superior, are not the objects that one's own contaminated other-minds-knowledge can observe. This reasoning is credible. Then, why can't one's own uncontaminated other-minds-knowledge know the contaminated mind and mental factors of others? Because for contaminated objects, the arising aspect and object of uncontaminated wisdom are different from this wisdom. That is to say, uncontaminated wisdom...
緣有漏時。必是總緣厭背行相。是故決定不能別緣他心．心所成他心智。以諸聖智緣有漏時。必于所緣深生厭背。樂總棄捨不樂別觀。緣無漏時生欣樂故。既總觀已亦樂別觀。如有見聞非所愛事。總緣便舍不樂別緣。于所愛中即不如是。總見聞已亦樂別緣。是故於他有漏心等。必無聖智一一別觀成緣有漏心。無漏他心智以他心智決定。於他心．心所法別別知故。豈不亦有三念住攝苦．集忍智(述曰。若無漏智不能別緣。因何苦．集智是三念住攝者別緣心受心所耶)雖有。而非但緣一法。緣多體故(述曰。他心智起緣一法而不能緣二三心等。三念住攝緣多心等由此緣多非別緣攝也)。
論。盡無生智二智何別。已下一行頌。第四明二智相別。
論曰至是名盡智。明盡智相也 智見明覺解惠光觀。此即總列智之異名 決斷名智。推求名見。離闇名明。悟理名覺。了達名解。擇法名惠。光謂現照。觀謂觀察。此即名雖異。其體一也。故正理云。豈不二智非見性攝。如何乃言智．見．明等。有作是釋。乘言便故。然實二智是於後時所起見因故亦名見。謂離盡智后出觀時。必不現行審察見故。先不動性及后練根得不動時。離無生智后審察見亦不現行。故此見名從果而立。或如見故假立見名。如立光名現照轉故。光是
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：當緣取有漏法時，必然是總相緣取，並厭惡背離這種行相。因此，絕對不可能分別緣取他人的心和心所法，從而成就他心智。因為諸聖者的智慧在緣取有漏法時，必定對所緣境深深厭惡背離，喜歡總體捨棄，不喜歡分別觀察，而緣取無漏法時則生起欣樂之心。既然已經總體觀察，也樂於分別觀察。比如，如果見到或聽到不喜愛的事情，就會總體捨棄，不喜歡分別緣取。對於喜愛的事物則不是這樣，總體見到或聽到后，也樂於分別緣取。因此，對於他人的有漏心等，必定沒有聖智一一分別觀察，從而成就緣取有漏心的他心智。無漏的他心智，因為他心智必定能分別了知他人的心和心所法。難道沒有三念住所攝的苦、集忍智嗎？（述曰：如果無漏智不能分別緣取，那麼苦、集智作為三念住所攝，為何能分別緣取心、受、心所呢？）雖然有，但並非只緣取一種法，而是緣取多種法。（述曰：他心智生起時，緣取一種法，而不能緣取二三種心等。三念住所攝的智慧緣取多種心等，因此緣取多種法，不屬於分別緣取。） 論：盡智（Kshaya-jnana，斷盡煩惱的智慧）和無生智（Anutpada-jnana，不再生起煩惱的智慧）這兩種智慧有什麼區別？下面一行頌文，第四部分說明兩種智慧的差別。 論曰至是名盡智。說明盡智的相狀。智、見、明、覺、解、慧、光、觀，這些是總括列舉智慧的不同名稱。決斷名為智，推求名為見，離暗名為明，悟理名為覺，了達名為解，擇法名為慧，光是指顯現照耀，觀是指觀察。這些名稱雖然不同，但其體性是一樣的。所以《正理》中說：難道兩種智慧不是見性的範疇嗎？為什麼說智、見、明等？有人這樣解釋，是爲了順應言辭的方便。但實際上，兩種智慧是後來生起的見的因，所以也稱為見。意思是說，離開盡智后出觀時，必定不現行審察之見。先前的不動性和後來修習根器得到不動時，離開無生智后，審察之見也不現行。因此，這種見的名稱是從結果而建立的。或者像見一樣，假立為見名。如同建立光的名，是因為顯現照耀的緣故，光是...
【English Translation】 English version: When consciousness is directed towards conditioned existence (Samskrta-dharma), it is invariably characterized by a general perception and an aversion to such a state. Therefore, it is definitively impossible to separately perceive the minds and mental factors of others, thereby attaining the 'wisdom of knowing others' minds' (Paracitta-jnana). This is because when the wisdom of the noble ones (Aryas) is directed towards conditioned existence, they inevitably develop a deep aversion to the object of perception, preferring to abandon it entirely rather than observe it separately. Conversely, when directed towards unconditioned existence (Asamskrta-dharma), they experience joy and delight. Having observed it generally, they also delight in observing it separately. For example, if one sees or hears something unpleasant, one will abandon it entirely, disinclined to perceive it separately. However, this is not the case with things one loves; having seen or heard them generally, one also delights in perceiving them separately. Therefore, with regard to the conditioned minds of others, there is certainly no noble wisdom that observes each one separately, thereby attaining the 'wisdom of knowing the conditioned mind'. The unconditioned 'wisdom of knowing others' minds' exists because it definitively knows the minds and mental factors of others separately. Are there not the 'wisdoms of endurance' (Ksanti-jnana) of suffering and origin, which are included within the three foundations of mindfulness (Smrtyupasthana)? (Commentary: If unconditioned wisdom cannot perceive separately, then why can the wisdoms of suffering and origin, included within the three foundations of mindfulness, separately perceive mind, sensation, and mental factors?) Although they exist, they do not perceive only one dharma, but rather many. (Commentary: 'Wisdom of knowing others' minds' arises perceiving one dharma, but cannot perceive two or three minds, etc. The wisdoms included within the three foundations of mindfulness perceive many minds, etc., therefore perceiving many dharmas, and not included within separate perception.) Treatise: What is the difference between the 'wisdom of exhaustion' (Kshaya-jnana) and the 'wisdom of non-arising' (Anutpada-jnana)? The following verse, the fourth part, explains the difference between the two wisdoms. The treatise says, '...this is called the wisdom of exhaustion.' This explains the characteristics of the 'wisdom of exhaustion'. 'Wisdom' (Jnana), 'seeing' (Darsana), 'clarity' (Abhasa), 'awakening' (Bodhi), 'understanding' (Avabodha), 'intelligence' (Prajna), 'light' (Prabha), 'observation' (Upalabdhi) – these are the general enumeration of different names for wisdom. 'Determination' is called wisdom, 'investigation' is called seeing, 'freedom from darkness' is called clarity, 'realization of truth' is called awakening, 'thorough understanding' is called understanding, 'discrimination of dharmas' is called intelligence, 'light' refers to manifestation and illumination, 'observation' refers to contemplation. Although these names are different, their essence is the same. Therefore, the Nyayasutra says: Are not the two wisdoms within the category of the nature of seeing? Why then are wisdom, seeing, clarity, etc., mentioned? Some explain it this way, for the sake of convenience of speech. But in reality, the two wisdoms are the cause of seeing that arises later, so they are also called seeing. That is to say, when emerging from contemplation after the 'wisdom of exhaustion', the seeing of careful examination will certainly not manifest. The previous immovability and the subsequent cultivation of faculties to attain immovability, when emerging from contemplation after the 'wisdom of non-arising', the seeing of careful examination will also not manifest. Therefore, this name of seeing is established from the result. Or, like seeing, the name of seeing is provisionally established. Just as the name of light is established because of the manifestation and illumination, light is...
色處智體非光。照用如光名光無失。如是二智實非見體。現照如見立以見名(已上論文) 論。云何無生智至是名無生智。明無生智行。盡智知已知苦．斷集．證滅．修道。若無生智知不退也。故云已知等。不應更知等。故正理云。何緣論說無生智中復作是言。我已知苦等。理但應說不復更知等。二行不應俱時轉故。若次第轉。前與盡智無差別故不應重說。應知此說意為遣疑。恐有生疑。如時解脫先起盡智后得無生。如是應許不時解脫先起無生后得盡智。為顯一切盡智先起故。復先說已知等言。或先但言我已知等。顯時解脫唯有盡智。后復重言我已知等。顯不時解脫盡後起無生。故雖重言。而無有失。無生智者。何謂無生。正理師言。謂非擇滅有無生故。此智得生智托無生名無生智。滅雖常有。而得非常。得彼滅時此智方轉。要由得起方名有滅。于有滅位此智方生。或無生言目彼滅得。如涅槃得亦名涅槃(已上論文)。
論。如何無漏智可作如是知。問也。諸無漏智不過十六行相。我已知苦等非十六行。如何能作如是知也。
論。迦濕彌羅至二智差別。論主引婆沙釋。本論意謂從盡智出后得智中。能知我已知苦等。若從無生智后出。后得智中。即能知我不復更知苦等由此證知。二無漏智力用有別。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 色處的智慧本體並非光。其照了和作用如同光，因此稱之為『光』，這並沒有錯失其本質。同樣，盡智（Kṣayajñāna）和無生智（Anutpādajñāna）的本體實際上並非『見』。它們顯現照了的作用如同『見』，因此立名為『見』。（以上是論文內容） 論：什麼是無生智，以至於被稱為『無生智』？這是爲了闡明無生智的行相。盡智了知『已知苦、已斷集、已證滅、已修道』。如果無生智知道這些，就不會退轉。所以說『已知』等。不應該再知等。因此《正理經》（Nyāyabhāṣya）說：『為何論述無生智時，又說「我已知苦」等？理應只說「不復更知」等。』因為兩種行相不應同時運作。如果次第運作，那麼前一種與盡智就沒有差別，因此不應重複說。應該知道，這樣說是爲了消除疑惑。恐怕有人會疑惑，如同有時解脫是先起盡智后得無生智，那麼是否應該允許不時解脫是先起無生智后得盡智？爲了顯示一切盡智都是先起的，所以再次先說「已知」等。或者先只說「我已知」等，顯示時解脫只有盡智。後來又重複說「我已知」等，顯示不時解脫是盡智之後才起無生智。所以雖然重複說了，但並沒有過失。無生智，什麼是『無生』？正理師說：『所謂非擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha）有無生故。』此智得以生起，是依託于無生，所以名為無生智。滅雖然常有，但『得』非常。得到彼滅時，此智才運作。必須由『得』生起，才能稱為『有滅』。在『有滅』的位子上，此智才生起。或者『無生』是指彼滅的『得』，如同涅槃的『得』也稱為涅槃。（以上是論文內容） 論：如何無漏智（Anāsravajñāna）可以作如是知？這是提問。諸無漏智不超過十六行相。『我已知苦』等並非十六行相，如何能作如是知呢？ 論：迦濕彌羅（Kashmir）的論師解釋了盡智和無生智的差別。論主引用《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā）的解釋。本論的意思是，從盡智生起之後，在後得智（Pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna）中，能夠知道『我已知苦』等。如果從無生智之後生起，在後得智中，就能知道『我不復更知苦』等。由此證明，兩種無漏智的力用是有差別的。
【English Translation】 English version The wisdom-essence of the sense-sphere is not light. Its illumination and function are like light, hence it is called 'light,' and this does not miss its essence. Similarly, the essence of Kṣayajñāna (智, Exhaustion Knowledge) and Anutpādajñāna (無生智, Non-arising Knowledge) is not actually 'seeing.' Their manifested illumination is like 'seeing,' hence they are named 'seeing.' (The above is the content of the treatise) Treatise: What is Anutpādajñāna, such that it is called 'Anutpādajñāna'? This is to clarify the aspects of Anutpādajñāna. Kṣayajñāna knows 'suffering is known, accumulation is abandoned, cessation is realized, the path is cultivated.' If Anutpādajñāna knows these, there will be no regression. Therefore, it says 'already known' etc. It should not know again etc. Therefore, the Nyāyabhāṣya (正理經) says: 'Why, when discussing Anutpādajñāna, does it again say "I have already known suffering" etc.? It should only say "no longer knowing" etc.' Because the two aspects should not operate simultaneously. If they operate sequentially, then the former is no different from Kṣayajñāna, so it should not be repeated. It should be known that this saying is to dispel doubts. Lest someone doubt, just as sometimes liberation through time arises with Kṣayajñāna first and then obtains Anutpādajñāna, should we allow liberation without time to arise with Anutpādajñāna first and then obtain Kṣayajñāna? To show that all Kṣayajñāna arises first, it is said again first 'already known' etc. Or first only say 'I have already known' etc., showing that liberation through time only has Kṣayajñāna. Later, it is repeated again 'I have already known' etc., showing that liberation without time arises with Anutpādajñāna after Kṣayajñāna. So although it is repeated, there is no fault. Anutpādajñāna, what is 'non-arising'? The Nyāya master says: 'So-called Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (非擇滅, Cessation through discrimination) has non-arising.' This wisdom is able to arise, relying on non-arising, so it is called Anutpādajñāna. Although cessation is constant, 'attainment' is not. When that cessation is attained, this wisdom then operates. It must arise from 'attainment' to be called 'having cessation.' In the position of 'having cessation,' this wisdom then arises. Or 'non-arising' refers to the 'attainment' of that cessation, just as the 'attainment' of Nirvāṇa is also called Nirvāṇa. (The above is the content of the treatise) Treatise: How can Anāsravajñāna (無漏智, Uncontaminated Knowledge) know in this way? This is a question. All Anāsravajñāna does not exceed the sixteen aspects. 'I have already known suffering' etc. are not the sixteen aspects, how can it know in this way? Treatise: The Kashmir (迦濕彌羅) masters explained the difference between Kṣayajñāna and Anutpādajñāna. The treatise master quotes the explanation of the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論). The meaning of this treatise is that after Kṣayajñāna arises, in Pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna (后得智, Knowledge attained afterwards), one can know 'I have already known suffering' etc. If it arises after Anutpādajñāna, in Pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna, one can know 'I no longer know suffering' etc. From this, it is proven that the power and function of the two Anāsravajñāna are different.
論。有說無漏至智亦是見。述異釋也。
論。如是十智至六少分。明十智相攝 俗智一全。謂俗智。一少分。謂他心智 法．類智各攝一全。謂法．類智 七少分。謂四諦盡無生他心智 苦集滅智各攝一全。謂各自智 四少分。謂法．類．盡．無生智 道智攝一全。謂自智 五少分。加他心智 他心智一全。謂自智 四少分。謂俗．道．法．類智 盡無生智各一全。謂自智 六少分。謂四諦．法．類智。
論。何緣二智建立為十。下一頌。第四建立十智。
論曰至為自性故。第一建立世俗智。以世俗智性可破壞多知世諦故。就自性名世俗智。
論。二對治故至欲．上界故。第二對治故立法．類智。對治欲界非法故名法智。對治上界非法亦應名法智。不可重名法智。但可名類。以是對治非法．類故。
論。三行相故至體無別故。第三建立苦．集智也。此由苦．集體一用分。不由境別。但以行相不同。分其二智。
論。四行相境故至俱有別故。第四建立滅．道智也。滅．道二諦體行俱別。由此所緣．行相不同。分其二智。
論。五加行故至立他心智名。第五建立他心智也。正理論更引脅尊者釋。引此智生。要先知心後方知所。從初但立他心智名。引此智時修何加行。先應觀
【現代漢語翻譯】 論：有人說無漏至智也是一種見解。這是述異的解釋。
論：像這樣，十智互相包含，以下說明：世俗智（Lokasamvrti-jnana，指了解世俗諦的智慧）包含一個完整的，即世俗智本身；以及一個少部分，即他心智（Paracitta-jnana，指了解他人內心的智慧）。法智（Dharma-jnana，指了解欲界四諦的智慧）和類智（Anvaya-jnana，指了解色界和無色界四諦的智慧）各自包含一個完整的，即法智和類智本身；以及七個少部分，即四諦的盡智（Ksaya-jnana，指證得阿羅漢果時生起的智慧）和無生智（Anutpada-jnana，指確認不再有煩惱生起的智慧），以及他心智。苦智（Dukkha-jnana，指了解苦諦的智慧）和集智（Samudaya-jnana，指了解集諦的智慧）各自包含一個完整的，即各自的智慧本身；以及四個少部分，即法智、類智、盡智和無生智。道智（Marga-jnana，指了解道諦的智慧）包含一個完整的，即其自身的智慧；以及五個少部分，加上他心智。他心智包含一個完整的，即其自身的智慧；以及四個少部分，即世俗智、道智、法智和類智。盡智和無生智各自包含一個完整的，即其自身的智慧；以及六個少部分，即四諦智、法智和類智。
論：為何兩種智慧要建立為十種？以下一頌說明。第四，建立十智。
論曰：乃至為自性故。第一，建立世俗智。因為世俗智的自性可以被破壞，並且能夠廣泛瞭解世俗諦。因此，就其自性而言，稱為世俗智。
論：二，對治故，乃至欲界、上界故。第二，因為對治的緣故，建立法智和類智。爲了對治欲界的非法，所以稱為法智。爲了對治上界的非法，也應該稱為法智。但是，不能重複稱為法智，只能稱為類智。因為這是對治非法之『類』的緣故。
論：三，行相故，乃至體無別故。第三，建立苦智和集智。這是因為苦諦和集諦的體性作用是相同的，不是因為境界不同。只是因為行相不同，所以分為兩種智慧。
論：四，行相境故，乃至俱有別故。第四，建立滅智和道智。滅諦和道諦的體性和行相都不同。因此，由於所緣和行相不同，所以分為兩種智慧。
論：五，加行故，乃至立他心智名。第五，建立他心智。正理論引用脅尊者的解釋。引生此智，必須先知道對方的心，然後才能知道對方的想法。因此，最初只建立他心智這個名稱。引發此智時，應該修習什麼加行？首先應該觀察。
【English Translation】 Treatise: Some say that unconditioned supreme wisdom is also a kind of seeing. This is a different interpretation.
Treatise: Thus, the ten wisdoms encompass each other, as explained below: Conventional wisdom (Lokasamvrti-jnana, wisdom that understands conventional truth) encompasses one whole, which is conventional wisdom itself; and a small part, which is the wisdom of knowing others' minds (Paracitta-jnana, wisdom that understands the minds of others). Dharma-wisdom (Dharma-jnana, wisdom that understands the Four Noble Truths in the Desire Realm) and Anvaya-wisdom (Anvaya-jnana, wisdom that understands the Four Noble Truths in the Form and Formless Realms) each encompass one whole, which are Dharma-wisdom and Anvaya-wisdom themselves; and seven small parts, which are the Exhaustion-wisdom (Ksaya-jnana, wisdom arising upon attaining Arhatship) and Non-arising-wisdom (Anutpada-jnana, wisdom confirming no further arising of afflictions) of the Four Noble Truths, and the wisdom of knowing others' minds. Suffering-wisdom (Dukkha-jnana, wisdom that understands the truth of suffering) and Accumulation-wisdom (Samudaya-jnana, wisdom that understands the truth of the origin of suffering) each encompass one whole, which are their respective wisdoms themselves; and four small parts, which are Dharma-wisdom, Anvaya-wisdom, Exhaustion-wisdom, and Non-arising-wisdom. Path-wisdom (Marga-jnana, wisdom that understands the truth of the path) encompasses one whole, which is its own wisdom; and five small parts, plus the wisdom of knowing others' minds. The wisdom of knowing others' minds encompasses one whole, which is its own wisdom; and four small parts, which are conventional wisdom, Path-wisdom, Dharma-wisdom, and Anvaya-wisdom. Exhaustion-wisdom and Non-arising-wisdom each encompass one whole, which is their own wisdom; and six small parts, which are the wisdoms of the Four Noble Truths, Dharma-wisdom, and Anvaya-wisdom.
Treatise: Why are two wisdoms established as ten? The following verse explains. Fourth, the establishment of the ten wisdoms.
Treatise says: Up to 'because of its nature'. First, conventional wisdom is established. Because the nature of conventional wisdom can be destroyed and it can widely understand conventional truths. Therefore, in terms of its nature, it is called conventional wisdom.
Treatise: Second, because of counteracting, up to 'Desire Realm and Upper Realms'. Second, because of counteracting, Dharma-wisdom and Anvaya-wisdom are established. To counteract the non-Dharma of the Desire Realm, it is called Dharma-wisdom. To counteract the non-Dharma of the Upper Realms, it should also be called Dharma-wisdom. However, it cannot be repeatedly called Dharma-wisdom, it can only be called Anvaya-wisdom. Because it counteracts the 'category' of non-Dharma.
Treatise: Third, because of characteristics, up to 'the substance is not different'. Third, Suffering-wisdom and Accumulation-wisdom are established. This is because the nature and function of the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of Accumulation are the same, not because the realms are different. Only because the characteristics are different, they are divided into two wisdoms.
Treatise: Fourth, because of characteristics and realms, up to 'both have differences'. Fourth, Cessation-wisdom and Path-wisdom are established. The nature and characteristics of the Truth of Cessation and the Truth of the Path are different. Therefore, because the objects and characteristics are different, they are divided into two wisdoms.
Treatise: Fifth, because of practice, up to 'establish the name of the wisdom of knowing others' minds'. Fifth, the wisdom of knowing others' minds is established. The Abhidharmakosha quotes the explanation of Venerable H脅. To generate this wisdom, one must first know the other person's mind, and then know their thoughts. Therefore, initially only the name 'wisdom of knowing others' minds' is established. When generating this wisdom, what practice should be cultivated? First, one should observe.
察色之顯．形。所樂言音表心差別。謂彼行者初修業時。為欲審知他心差別。先審觀察自身顯．形。所樂言音因何有別。遂知顯等差別由心。次複審觀他身顯等。亦由心異有差別生。由此後時離欲身念。調柔清凈引勝定生。依定發生有威德智。此智真實照見他心。如明珠中。種種色縷差別之相。瞭然可得。是名修世俗他心智加行。若修無漏他心智時。以觀非常等苦智為加行。此加行位通緣色．心。至成滿時緣心非色(已上論文)。
論。六事辦故至最初生故。第六建立盡智。于見苦。斷集。證滅。修道事辦身中。最初生故名為盡智。
論。七因圓故至為因生故。明無生智。自身一切聖道。與此為因名因圓滿。因滿故別立無生智。
論。如上所言法智類智。已下一行頌。第四明法．類治不同也。
論曰至無能治欲。釋頌文也。正理論云。何緣唯有滅．道法智兼治上界。非苦．集耶。所緣寂靜出離同故。謂欲．上滅。及能治道。展轉相望相無別故。以諸擇滅皆善．皆常。一切聖道皆能出離。所緣苦．集。欲．上不同。少．多細．粗上．下別故。又苦．集智緣所厭境。無容厭彼於此離貪 乃至滅．道二智不緣厭境。緣下治上亦無過失。又如不凈觀。及欣涅槃欲。謂不凈觀緣欲界境。唯能令心厭背欲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 觀察外表的顯現和形態（顯．形），以及喜好的言語聲音，可以瞭解心的差別。這是說修行者在最初修行時，爲了審慎地瞭解他人心的差別，首先審視觀察自身的外顯和形態（顯．形），以及喜好的言語聲音，因何而有差別。於是知道外顯等差別是由心造成的。其次再審視觀察他人身的外顯等，也是由於心不同而產生差別。由此之後，離開對欲的執著，身念變得調柔清凈，從而引發殊勝的禪定。依靠禪定而生起具有威德的智慧。這種智慧真實地照見他人的心，就像在明珠中，各種顏色的絲線差別之相，清晰明瞭。這叫做修習世俗的他心智的加行。如果修習無漏的他心智時，以觀察無常等苦的智慧作為加行。這種加行位可以同時緣於色法和心法。到成就圓滿時，則只緣於心法，不緣於色法（以上是論文內容）。 論：六件事完成的緣故，乃至最初生起的緣故。第六是建立盡智。在見苦、斷集、證滅、修道這四件事在自身中完成，並且是最初生起的緣故，稱為盡智。 論：七個因緣圓滿的緣故，乃至作為因緣生起的緣故。闡明無生智。自身的一切聖道，與此無生智作為因緣，稱為因緣圓滿。因為因緣圓滿的緣故，特別建立無生智。 論：如上面所說的法智和類智。以下一行頌文。第四是闡明法智和類智的不同。 論曰：乃至沒有能夠對治慾望的。解釋頌文。正理論說：為什麼只有滅智和道智兼能對治上界（色界和無色界），而苦智和集智不能呢？因為所緣的寂靜和出離是相同的。也就是說，欲界的滅和上界的滅，以及能夠對治的道，相互之間沒有差別。因為所有的擇滅都是善的、常的，一切聖道都能夠出離。而苦智和集智所緣的苦和集，欲界和上界不同，有少和多、細和粗、上和下的區別。而且苦智和集智緣的是所厭惡的境界，無法厭惡它而對此離貪。乃至滅智和道智不緣厭惡的境界，緣地獄而對治上界也沒有過失。又如不凈觀和欣求涅槃的慾望，不凈觀緣的是欲界的境界，只能使心厭背慾望。
【English Translation】 English version: Observing the manifestation and form (rupa) of appearance, and the sounds of speech that one enjoys, one can understand the differences in minds. This means that when a practitioner initially cultivates, in order to carefully understand the differences in others' minds, they first examine and observe their own manifestations and forms (rupa), and the sounds of speech that they enjoy, and why there are differences. Thus, they know that the differences in appearance, etc., are caused by the mind. Secondly, they further examine and observe the manifestations, etc., of others' bodies, which also arise from differences in minds. From this point on, abandoning attachment to desire, the mindfulness of the body becomes gentle and pure, thereby inducing the arising of superior samadhi (concentration). Relying on samadhi, wisdom with power and virtue arises. This wisdom truly illuminates the minds of others, just like in a clear gem, the differences in strands of various colors are clearly discernible. This is called cultivating the preliminary practice of mundane knowledge of others' minds. If one cultivates non-outflow knowledge of others' minds, one uses the wisdom of observing impermanence, etc., as suffering as the preliminary practice. This preliminary practice position can simultaneously focus on both form and mind. When it reaches completion, it only focuses on the mind, not on form (the above is the content of the treatise). Treatise: Because six things are accomplished, up to the reason for the initial arising. The sixth is establishing the Exhaustion Knowledge (盡智, J盡zhi). Because the four things of seeing suffering, cutting off accumulation, realizing cessation, and cultivating the path are accomplished in oneself, and it is the first to arise, it is called Exhaustion Knowledge. Treatise: Because seven causes are complete, up to the reason for arising as a cause. Explaining the Non-Arising Knowledge (無生智, Wusheng zhi). All the noble paths in oneself, with this Non-Arising Knowledge as the cause, are called the completion of causes. Because the causes are complete, the Non-Arising Knowledge is specially established. Treatise: As mentioned above, the Knowledge of Dharma (法智, Fazhi) and the Knowledge of Kind (類智, Leizhi). The following line of verse. The fourth is to clarify the difference between the Knowledge of Dharma and the Knowledge of Kind. Treatise says: Up to not being able to subdue desire. Explaining the verse. The Zhengli Theory says: Why is it that only the Knowledge of Cessation and the Knowledge of the Path can subdue the upper realms (form realm and formless realm), but the Knowledge of Suffering and the Knowledge of Accumulation cannot? Because the object of focus, tranquility and liberation, are the same. That is to say, the cessation of the desire realm and the cessation of the upper realms, and the path that can subdue them, are not different from each other. Because all selective cessations are good and constant, and all noble paths can lead to liberation. But the suffering and accumulation that the Knowledge of Suffering and the Knowledge of Accumulation focus on are different in the desire realm and the upper realms, with differences in few and many, subtle and coarse, upper and lower. Moreover, the Knowledge of Suffering and the Knowledge of Accumulation focus on the objects that are disliked, and it is impossible to dislike them and abandon greed for them. Up to the Knowledge of Cessation and the Knowledge of the Path do not focus on disliked objects, and there is no fault in focusing on the lower realm to subdue the upper realm. Also, like the contemplation of impurity and the desire for Nirvana, the contemplation of impurity focuses on the objects of the desire realm and can only make the mind disgusted with desire.
界。欣涅槃欲現在前時。普能令心厭背三界。如是緣欲苦．集智生。唯能令心離欲界染。緣欲界法滅．道智生。普令心離三界染。故許滅．道法智品增。乃至得成金剛喻定。由此大聖妙善了知。依全治門立法．類智。
論。於此十智中誰有何行相。已下第五明十智行相 文中有三。一明十智行相。二明無漏行相。三明行相體緣。此兩行半頌第一門也。
論曰至后當廣釋。此明法．類智具十六行相。以有四法．四類智故。
論。世智有此至自共相等故。明世智行相 有此者。謂此十六行相。即燸．頂．忍具十六行相。世第一唯苦下行相 及更有餘能緣一切法自共相等者。謂五停心觀。總別念。十二緣。緣十八界無我觀等。總別之相。
論。苦等四智至四種行相。明四諦智各有自諦四種行相。
論。他心智中至十六所攝。明他心智行相。無漏他心如道智說。有漏他心。如心．心所法自相境。故行相亦爾。非十六行相所攝。
論。如是二種至不緣想等。此明取別境也。若無漏。若有漏。二種他心。皆唯但緣一法為境。
論。若爾何故至有貪心等。難也。若唯取心不取心所。何為經說了有貪心。貪是心所。心是心王。豈非取二。
論。非俱時取至取衣及垢。通也。心之與貪
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 當欣求涅槃的意願即將顯現時，普遍能使內心厭離三界（欲界、色界、無色界）。像這樣，緣于欲界的苦、集智生起，只能使內心遠離欲界的染污。緣于欲界法的滅、道智生起，普遍能使內心遠離三界的染污。因此，允許滅、道法智的品類增長，乃至最終成就金剛喻定（一種堅固的禪定）。由此，偉大的聖者能夠巧妙而透徹地瞭解，依據完整的對治法門來建立法智、類智。 論：在此十智中，誰具有什麼樣的行相？以下第五部分闡明十智的行相。文中有三個部分：一是闡明十智的行相，二是闡明無漏智的行相，三是闡明行相的體性和所緣。這兩行半頌是第一部分的內容。 論曰：乃至後面將詳細解釋。這裡闡明法智、類智具備十六種行相，因為有四種法智、四種類智的緣故。 論：世俗智具有這些，乃至自共相等。闡明世俗智的行相。具有這些，指的是這十六種行相。即燸（暖位）、頂（頂位）、忍（忍位）具備十六種行相。世第一（世第一位）唯有苦下的行相。以及更有其他的能夠緣取一切法的自相、共相等性質的，指的是五停心觀（不凈觀、慈悲觀、因緣觀、數息觀、唸佛觀），總相和別相的觀法，十二因緣觀，緣取十八界（六根、六塵、六識）的無我觀等等。總相和別相的觀法。 論：苦等四智，乃至四種行相。闡明四諦智各自具有其所對應的諦理的四種行相。 論：他心智中，乃至十六所攝。闡明他心智的行相。無漏的他心智，如道智所說。有漏的他心智，如心、心所法的自相境，所以行相也是如此。不被十六種行相所攝。 論：如是二種，乃至不緣想等。這裡闡明取別境。無論是無漏的，還是有漏的，兩種他心智，都僅僅只是緣取一個法作為所緣境。 論：若是這樣，為什麼經典中說了有貪心等？這是提問。如果僅僅是取心，而不取心所，為什麼經典中說了有貪心？貪是心所。心是心王。難道不是取了兩個嗎？ 論：不是同時取，乃至取衣及垢。這是解釋。心和貪不是同時取。
【English Translation】 English version: When the desire to rejoice in Nirvana is about to manifest, it can universally cause the mind to be disgusted with the Three Realms (Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm). In this way, when the wisdom of suffering and accumulation arises in relation to the Desire Realm, it can only cause the mind to be detached from the defilements of the Desire Realm. When the wisdom of cessation and the path arises in relation to the Dharma of the Desire Realm, it can universally cause the mind to be detached from the defilements of the Three Realms. Therefore, the categories of the wisdom of cessation and the path are allowed to increase, until the Vajra-like Samadhi (an indestructible state of meditation) is finally achieved. From this, the Great Sage can skillfully and thoroughly understand that the Dharma-wisdom and Category-wisdom are established based on the complete methods of treatment. Treatise: Among these ten wisdoms, who possesses what kind of aspects? The following fifth section elucidates the aspects of the ten wisdoms. There are three parts in the text: first, elucidating the aspects of the ten wisdoms; second, elucidating the aspects of the unconditioned wisdom; and third, elucidating the nature and object of the aspects. These two and a half verses are the content of the first part. Treatise says: And will be explained in detail later. This clarifies that Dharma-wisdom and Category-wisdom possess sixteen aspects because there are four types of Dharma-wisdom and four types of Category-wisdom. Treatise: Worldly wisdom possesses these, up to self-commonality and so on. Clarifying the aspects of worldly wisdom. Possessing these refers to these sixteen aspects. That is, the Warmth (Heated Stage), Peak (Peak Stage), and Patience (Patience Stage) possess sixteen aspects. The World's First (World's First Stage) only has the aspects under suffering. And there are other abilities to grasp the self-characteristics, common characteristics, and so on of all dharmas, referring to the Five Stopping-the-Mind Contemplations (Contemplation of Impurity, Contemplation of Compassion, Contemplation of Conditioned Arising, Contemplation of Counting Breaths, Contemplation of Buddha Recitation), the general and specific aspects of contemplation, the contemplation of the Twelve Links of Dependent Origination, the contemplation of no-self in the Eighteen Realms (six sense organs, six sense objects, six consciousnesses), and so on. The general and specific aspects of contemplation. Treatise: The four wisdoms of suffering, etc., up to four kinds of aspects. Clarifying that each of the Four Noble Truths wisdoms possesses four kinds of aspects corresponding to its respective truth. Treatise: In the wisdom of knowing others' minds, up to included in the sixteen. Clarifying the aspects of the wisdom of knowing others' minds. The unconditioned wisdom of knowing others' minds is as described in the Path-wisdom. The conditioned wisdom of knowing others' minds is like the self-characteristic realm of mind and mental factors, so the aspects are also like that. It is not included in the sixteen aspects. Treatise: These two kinds, up to not grasping thoughts, etc. Here, clarifying grasping separate objects. Whether unconditioned or conditioned, both kinds of wisdom of knowing others' minds only grasp one dharma as the object. Treatise: If so, why do the scriptures say there is greed, etc.? This is a question. If only the mind is grasped and not the mental factors, why do the scriptures say there is greed? Greed is a mental factor. The mind is the mind-king. Isn't it grasping two? Treatise: Not grasping simultaneously, up to grasping clothing and dirt. This is an explanation. The mind and greed are not grasped simultaneously.
別念心取。如取衣時不即取垢。
論。有貪心者至唯貪所繫。泛明有貪心二也。有貪相應名有貪心。斷與不斷俱名有貪心。余有漏心為貪所繫。名有貪心。若斷貪已不名有貪。此總釋也。
論。有說經言至應得離貪名。述婆沙一師釋也。此師唯說貪相應心名有貪心。對治貪善心名離貪心。若不取治貪名離貪心。取貪不相應名離貪心者。瞋等相應心不與貪相應。故應名離貪心。
論。若爾有心至離癡亦爾。論主破此師說也。若謂治貪名離貪心。不治貪不染污心。不與貪相應故。非有貪心。不治貪故。非離貪心。此二心攝心不盡。余師所說貪所繫故名有貪心。貪不繫者名離貪心。此即攝心盡。有癡等亦爾。論主取此師為正。此即類釋瞋．癡心也。
論。毗婆沙師至相應起故。述婆沙釋聚．散心。
論。西方諸師至說名為散。述健馱羅國師釋。
論。此不應理至道智有部。破西方師釋。一以理破。二違本論破。諸染污心與眠相應故名聚心。染污故應名散心。此則一心有二心過。此違理也。若謂聚心是眠相應。是即唯是欲界有漏心。即違本論類智．道智二智知也。類智知上界。道智知無漏道故(已上第四對)。
論。沉心者至相應起故(第五對也)。
論少心者至所好習故
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不要執著於心去尋求。比如拿衣服的時候，不是立刻就去清除污垢。
論：有貪心的人，最終會被貪慾所束縛。泛泛地說明有貪心有兩種情況。與貪慾相應的，叫做『有貪心』。斷除與未斷除貪慾的，都叫做『有貪心』。其餘的有漏之心被貪慾所束縛，叫做『有貪心』。如果斷除了貪慾，就不叫做『有貪心』。這是總體的解釋。
論：有人說經中講到，應該得到遠離貪慾的名稱。這是《大毗婆沙論》中一位論師的解釋。這位論師只說與貪慾相應的心叫做『有貪心』。對治貪慾的善心叫做『離貪心』。如果不採取對治貪慾的方法，就叫做『離貪心』。採取與貪慾不相應的方法，叫做『離貪心』。那麼，與嗔恨等相應的心，因為不與貪慾相應，所以應該叫做『離貪心』。
論：如果這樣說，有心…遠離愚癡也是這樣。論主駁斥這位論師的說法。如果說對治貪慾叫做『離貪心』，那麼不採取對治貪慾，也沒有被染污的心，因為不與貪慾相應，所以不是『有貪心』；因為沒有對治貪慾，所以不是『離貪心』。這兩種心不能完全涵蓋所有心。其他論師所說，被貪慾所束縛的叫做『有貪心』，不被貪慾束縛的叫做『離貪心』，這樣就能完全涵蓋所有心。有愚癡等也是這樣。論主認為這種說法是正確的。這是類比解釋嗔恨、愚癡之心。
論：《毗婆沙論》的論師解釋聚集和散亂的心，是因為它們相互相應而生起。
論：西方各地的論師說，（散亂的心）叫做『散』。這是健馱羅國論師的解釋。
論：這種說法不合理…有部宗的道智。駁斥西方論師的解釋。第一，從道理上駁斥。第二，從違背本論的角度駁斥。各種染污的心與睡眠相應，所以叫做『聚集心』。因為染污，所以應該叫做『散亂心』。這樣，一顆心就有了兩種心的過失。這是不合道理的。如果說聚集心是與睡眠相應，那麼就只是欲界有漏之心，這就違背了本論中類智（Anvaya-jnana）和道智（Marga-jnana）這兩種智慧的認知。類智認知上界，道智認知無漏之道（Arya-marga）。（以上是第四對）。
論：沉沒的心…是因為它們相互相應而生起（第五對）。
論：狹小心量的人…因為他們喜歡並習慣於這樣做。
【English Translation】 English version: Do not seek by clinging to the mind. For example, when taking clothes, one does not immediately remove the dirt.
Treatise: Those with greedy minds are ultimately bound by greed. Generally speaking, there are two types of greedy minds. That which is associated with greed is called 'having a greedy mind.' Whether greed is severed or not, both are called 'having a greedy mind.' Other defiled minds that are bound by greed are called 'having a greedy mind.' If greed has been severed, it is not called 'having a greedy mind.' This is the general explanation.
Treatise: Some say that the sutras speak of attaining the name of being free from greed. This is the explanation of one teacher in the Mahavibhasa. This teacher only says that the mind associated with greed is called 'having a greedy mind.' The virtuous mind that counteracts greed is called 'being free from greed.' If one does not adopt a method to counteract greed, it is called 'being free from greed.' Adopting a method that is not associated with greed is called 'being free from greed.' Then, minds associated with hatred, etc., because they are not associated with greed, should be called 'being free from greed.'
Treatise: If that is the case, having a mind... being free from delusion is also like that. The author of the treatise refutes this teacher's statement. If it is said that counteracting greed is called 'being free from greed,' then a mind that does not counteract greed and is not defiled, because it is not associated with greed, is not 'having a greedy mind'; because it does not counteract greed, it is not 'being free from greed.' These two types of minds cannot completely encompass all minds. Other teachers say that that which is bound by greed is called 'having a greedy mind,' and that which is not bound by greed is called 'being free from greed,' so that all minds can be completely encompassed. Having delusion, etc., is also like that. The author of the treatise considers this statement to be correct. This is an analogous explanation of minds of hatred and delusion.
Treatise: The Vibhasa teachers explain concentrated and scattered minds as arising from mutual association.
Treatise: Teachers in the West say that (scattered mind) is called 'scattered.' This is the explanation of the teacher from Gandhara.
Treatise: This is not reasonable... the Path Knowledge (Marga-jnana) of the Sarvastivada school. Refuting the explanation of the Western teachers. First, refuting from the perspective of reason. Second, refuting from the perspective of contradicting the original treatise. Various defiled minds are associated with sleep, so they are called 'concentrated minds.' Because they are defiled, they should be called 'scattered minds.' In this way, one mind has the fault of having two minds. This is unreasonable. If it is said that the concentrated mind is associated with sleep, then it is only the defiled mind of the desire realm, which contradicts the knowledge of the Anvaya-jnana and Marga-jnana in this treatise. Anvaya-jnana knows the upper realms, and Marga-jnana knows the undefiled path (Arya-marga). (The above is the fourth pair).
Treatise: A sinking mind... because they arise from mutual association (the fifth pair).
Treatise: Those with narrow minds... because they like and are accustomed to doing so.
。第一釋也。
論。或由根價至故名少大。第二釋也(已上第六對)。
論。染心根少至得少大名。已下重釋諸句 極二相應者。或癡相應謂忿等或二相應。謂貪．瞋．癡。無三相應者。余句可解。乃至 由此染善得少大名。總結第六對也。
論。掉心者至能治彼故。第七對也。
論。不靜靜心應知亦爾。此類釋也(第八對也)。
論。不定心者至能治彼故(第九對也)。
論。不修心者至容有二修故(第十對也)。
論。不解脫心者至容解脫故(第十一對也) 婆沙一百九十廣釋十一對心。略心即是此聚心也。一百八十九云。問何故此中不說他心智。答他心智知他相續心．心所法。此中如實智。知自相續心．心所法。是故不說 廣如彼釋。婆沙評家義當此中所破。
論。如是所釋至諸句別義。論主總非前師釋也。
論。如何此釋不順契經。有部問也。
論。經言此心至有觀無止。答違經也。經說聚心惛．眠俱行故。
論。豈不前說至通聚散過。有部引前違理破也。
論。雖說非理至是散心故。西方師通前難也。雖說眠相應染心。亦聚．亦散過。我西方師不說眠相應染心為散心。但名聚心。復有何過。
論。豈不又說本論相違。有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 第一種解釋。 論：或者因為根的價值高低而稱為少或大。這是第二種解釋（以上是第六對）。 論：染污心因為根少而達到，所以得到少或大的名稱。以下重新解釋各個句子。『極二相應者』：或者與癡相應，比如忿等；或者二者相應，比如貪、瞋、癡。『無三相應者』：其餘句子可以理解。乃至『由此染善得到少大名』：總結第六對。 論：掉舉心能對治靜心，所以是靜心。這是第七對。 論：不靜心和靜心，應該知道也是這樣。這是同類的解釋（第八對）。 論：不定心能對治定心，所以是定心（第九對）。 論：不修心，容許有二種修，所以是修心（第十對）。 論：不解脫心，容許解脫，所以是解脫心（第十一對）。《婆沙論》第一百九十卷廣泛解釋了這十一對心。略心就是此聚心。《婆沙論》第一百八十九卷說：『問：為什麼這裡不說他心智（paracitta-jñāna，知他人心的智慧）？答：他心智知道他人相續的心、心所法（citta-caitta，心和心所）。這裡如實智（yathābhūta-jñāna，如實了知真相的智慧）知道自己相續的心、心所法。所以不說。』詳細內容如彼處解釋。《婆沙論》的評家之義，應當是此處所破斥的。 論：像這樣解釋，是爲了區分各個句子的不同含義。論主總的來說否定了前人的解釋。 論：為什麼這種解釋不符合契經（sūtra，佛經）？有部（Sarvāstivāda，一切有部）提出疑問。 論：經中說此心有觀而無止。這是違背經文的。經中說聚心與惛沉、睡眠一同發生。 論：難道前面不是說過，通達聚心和散心有過失嗎？有部引用前面的說法，認為這在道理上是相違背的。 論：雖然說不是沒有道理，但這是散心。西方師（Western teacher）解釋了前面的難題。雖然說與睡眠相應的染污心，既是聚心，也是散心，有過失。我西方師不說與睡眠相應的染污心是散心，只稱之為聚心。又有什麼過失呢？ 論：難道又說這與本論相違背嗎？有部
【English Translation】 English version: The first explanation. Treatise: Or it is called small or large because of the value of the root. This is the second explanation (the above is the sixth pair). Treatise: Defiled mind attains the name of small or large because the root is small. The following re-explains the sentences. 'Extremely two corresponding' means either corresponding to ignorance, such as anger, etc.; or two corresponding, such as greed, hatred, and ignorance. 'Without three corresponding' means the remaining sentences can be understood. Up to 'Therefore, defiled goodness attains the name of small or large': summarizing the sixth pair. Treatise: Distracted mind can counteract the quiet mind, so it is a quiet mind. This is the seventh pair. Treatise: Unquiet mind and quiet mind, it should be known that it is also like this. This is a similar explanation (the eighth pair). Treatise: Undetermined mind can counteract the determined mind, so it is a determined mind (the ninth pair). Treatise: Uncultivated mind, it is permissible to have two cultivations, so it is a cultivated mind (the tenth pair). Treatise: Unliberated mind, it is permissible to have liberation, so it is a liberated mind (the eleventh pair). The 190th fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra extensively explains these eleven pairs of minds. The condensed mind is this aggregated mind. The 189th fascicle of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra says: 'Question: Why is the mind-reading wisdom (paracitta-jñāna, wisdom of knowing others' minds) not mentioned here? Answer: Mind-reading wisdom knows the minds and mental factors (citta-caitta, mind and mental factors) of others' continuums. Here, the wisdom of knowing things as they are (yathābhūta-jñāna, wisdom of knowing the truth as it is) knows the minds and mental factors of one's own continuum. Therefore, it is not mentioned.' Detailed content is as explained there. The meaning of the commentators of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra should be what is refuted here. Treatise: Explaining it like this is to distinguish the different meanings of each sentence. The author of the treatise generally denies the explanations of the predecessors. Treatise: Why does this explanation not conform to the sūtras (sūtra, Buddhist scriptures)? The Sarvāstivāda (Sarvāstivāda, the 'All Exists' school) raises a question. Treatise: The sūtra says that this mind has contemplation but no cessation. This is contrary to the scriptures. The sūtra says that the aggregated mind occurs together with dullness and sleep. Treatise: Didn't you say earlier that there is a fault in understanding the aggregated mind and the scattered mind? The Sarvāstivāda quotes the previous statement, considering this to be contrary to reason. Treatise: Although it is said that it is not without reason, but this is a scattered mind. The Western teacher (Western teacher) explains the previous difficulty. Although it is said that the defiled mind corresponding to sleep is both an aggregated mind and a scattered mind, there is a fault. My Western teacher does not say that the defiled mind corresponding to sleep is a scattered mind, but only calls it an aggregated mind. What fault is there then? Treatise: Are you also saying that this contradicts the original treatise? The Sarvāstivāda
部引前違教破也。謂本論說法．類．世俗．道智．知故。
論。寧違論文不違經說。西方師通本論不得故。云寧違論文不違經說。
論。如何不辨諸句別義。有部問也。
論。謂依此釋至八異相故。西方師答也。
論。依我所釋至八句別義。有部總不許是不辨經中八句別也。
論。謂雖散等至別立八名。有部重廣釋也。
論。既不能通至理亦不成。西方師難。既不能通我前引經云。云何內聚謂心若與昏眠俱行等文。所釋八句義別不成。
論。又若沉心至名非時修。西方師重引破有部八句也。若沉心即掉心者。經不應說沈．掉非時修覺支別。說所為沈．掉修覺支別。明知沈．掉心異。
論。豈修覺支有散別理。有部難也。豈修覺支有散別修引經為難。若有別修。可有修三不修三別。既無別修之理。如何有修．不修者。
論。此據作意至故無有失。西方師答。經言修者是欲脩名修。非正修也。欲脩名修故散別無有失也。
論。豈不我說至我說體一。有部通經說。懈怠增者經說沉心。掉舉增者經說掉心。沈．掉舉常相應故我說體一。
論。隨自意語至意不如是。西方師總非不得經意。正理論曰。此彼二經意各別故。此經中說有貪等心。為令知心染．凈
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 部引前違教破也。這是指有部引用的內容與之前的教義相違背，從而導致了破斥。這裡所說的本論，指的是說法、類、世俗、道智、知這幾個方面的原因。
論：寧可違背論文也不違背經文的說法。這是因為西方師沒有通達本論的含義，所以才說寧可違背論文也不違背經文。
論：如何不分辨各個句子的不同含義？這是有部的提問。
論：這是指依照這種解釋，會產生八種不同的相。這是西方師的回答。
論：依照我所解釋的，這八個句子的含義是不同的。有部完全不承認，認為這是沒有分辨經文中八個句子的不同含義。
論：這是指即使是散亂等，也應該分別設立八個名稱。這是有部再次廣泛地解釋。
論：既然不能通達，那麼道理也就不成立。這是西方師的責難。既然不能通達我之前引用的經文，比如『云何內聚謂心若與昏眠俱行』等文，那麼所解釋的八個句子的含義就不能成立。
論：如果沉心就是掉心，那麼經文中不應該說沉和掉在非適當時機修習覺支是不同的。經文中說爲了沉和掉而修習覺支是不同的，這明明知道沉心和掉心是不同的。
論：難道修習覺支有散亂和分別的道理嗎？這是有部的責難。難道修習覺支有散亂和分別的修習，引用經文來責難。如果有分別的修習，那麼就可以有修習三種而不修習三種的區別。既然沒有分別修習的道理，那麼怎麼會有修習和不修習的區別呢？
論：這是根據作意，所以沒有過失。這是西方師的回答。經文中所說的修習，是指想要修習才叫做修習，而不是真正的修習。因為想要修習才叫做修習，所以散亂和分別就沒有過失。
論：難道我沒有說過我說的是體一嗎？這是有部通過經文來說明。懈怠增加的時候，經文說的是沉心。掉舉增加的時候，經文說的是掉心。沉和掉常常相應，所以我說的是體一。
論：隨順自己的意思說話，這是不符合經文的含義的。西方師總的否定了有部，認為他們沒有得到經文的含義。《正理論》說，這是因為這兩部經的含義各自不同。這部經中說有貪等心，是爲了讓人知道心的染污和清凈。
【English Translation】 English version The 'Bu Yin Qian Wei Jiao Po Ye' (部引前違教破也). This refers to the fact that the content cited by the Sarvāstivāda (有部) school contradicts the previous teachings, thus leading to refutation. The 'Ben Lun' (本論) mentioned here refers to the aspects of 'Shuo Fa' (說法, explanation), 'Lei' (類, category), 'Shi Su' (世俗, conventional truth), 'Dao Zhi' (道智, knowledge of the path), and 'Zhi' (知, knowledge).
Argument: It is better to contradict the treatise than to contradict the sutra. This is because the Western Master (西方師) did not understand the meaning of the treatise, so he said it is better to contradict the treatise than to contradict the sutra.
Argument: How can one not distinguish the different meanings of each sentence? This is a question from the Sarvāstivāda (有部) school.
Argument: This refers to the fact that according to this interpretation, eight different aspects will arise. This is the Western Master's answer.
Argument: According to my interpretation, the meanings of these eight sentences are different. The Sarvāstivāda (有部) school completely denies this, believing that it is a failure to distinguish the different meanings of the eight sentences in the sutra.
Argument: This refers to the fact that even for distraction (散亂) etc., eight names should be established separately. This is the Sarvāstivāda (有部) school explaining it again extensively.
Argument: Since it cannot be understood, then the reasoning is not established. This is the Western Master's criticism. Since you cannot understand the sutra I quoted earlier, such as 'How is internal gathering defined? It means the mind is accompanied by drowsiness,' etc., then the meaning of the eight sentences you explained cannot be established.
Argument: If lethargy (沉心) is the same as agitation (掉心), then the sutra should not say that lethargy and agitation are different when practicing the limbs of enlightenment (覺支) at inappropriate times. The sutra says that practicing the limbs of enlightenment for lethargy and agitation is different, which clearly shows that lethargy and agitation are different.
Argument: Is there a reason for distraction and separation in practicing the limbs of enlightenment? This is the Sarvāstivāda (有部) school's criticism. Is there separate practice for distraction and separation in practicing the limbs of enlightenment? They use the sutra to criticize. If there is separate practice, then there can be a distinction between practicing three and not practicing three. Since there is no reason for separate practice, how can there be a distinction between practicing and not practicing?
Argument: This is based on attention (作意), so there is no fault. This is the Western Master's answer. The 'practice' mentioned in the sutra means wanting to practice is called practice, not actual practice. Because wanting to practice is called practice, there is no fault in distraction and separation.
Argument: Didn't I say that what I said is of one essence (體一)? This is the Sarvāstivāda (有部) school explaining through the sutra. When lethargy increases, the sutra says it is lethargy. When agitation increases, the sutra says it is agitation. Lethargy and agitation are often corresponding, so I say it is of one essence.
Argument: Speaking according to one's own meaning does not conform to the meaning of the sutra. The Western Master generally denied the Sarvāstivāda (有部) school, believing that they did not understand the meaning of the sutra. The 'Zheng Li Lun' (正理論) says that this is because the meanings of these two sutras are different. This sutra says there is greed (貪) etc. in the mind, in order to let people know the defilement and purity of the mind.
品別。謂為如實了知諸心黑品．白品差別理趣。說有貪心．離貪心心。彼經中說聚心．散心。為令了知修神足障。由彼經說自審己心勿太沉。勿太舉勿內聚勿外散。謂彼行者修神足時。應自審察修神足障。此心懈怠。此心掉舉。此心惛眠。此於色等非理作意所引流散。此．彼經意所為既殊。不可引彼經遮釋此經相。彼經但說修神足時。心於內外太聚．散失。不欲分別心染．凈相。此經所說與彼相違。雖諸染心皆有怠等。為顯諸染過失差別。隨其增位立沈等心。立策等心。應知翻此。故我宗釋符順契經。亦善分別諸心異相(述曰。此經者。謂明十一對心。彼經者是西方師引難有部經也)。
論。前說一切至貪系是何義。論主述西方部徴有部前釋。貪系故名為有貪心。貪系是何義 論主前依婆沙正義。正存貪所繫。后依經部破貪繫心。
論。若貪得隨故至貪所緣故。已下進退徴。如文可解。
論。若不許彼至可成有漏。遮轉計也。
論。若謂由為至癡所緣故。又遮轉計。
論。然他心智至名有貪心。又重破有部釋也。
論。若爾云何。有部反問也。
論。今詳經意至名離貪等。論主破有部存西方師釋。
論。若爾何故至不還墮三有。有部難也。若與貪相應名有貪心。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 品類區別。這是爲了如實瞭解各種心的黑品（不善的方面）、白品（善良的方面）的差別和道理。經中說有貪心、離貪心。那部經中說聚心、散心，是爲了讓人瞭解修習神足的障礙。因為那部經中說要自我審視內心，不要太沉溺，不要太浮躁，不要向內收縮，不要向外散亂。意思是說，修行者在修習神足的時候，應該自我審察修習神足的障礙：這個心是否懈怠，這個心是否掉舉，這個心是否昏沉睡眠，這個心是否被對色等事物的不合理作意所引導而流散。這部經和那部經的意圖不同，不能用那部經來否定這部經的解釋。那部經只是說修習神足的時候，心在內外太收縮、散失，不是要分別心的染污和清凈的相狀。這部經所說的與那部經相反。雖然各種染污的心都有懈怠等問題，但爲了顯示各種染污過失的差別，根據它們程度的加重而立為沉等心，立為策等心，應該知道與此相反。所以我宗的解釋符合契經，也善於分別各種心的不同相狀（述曰：這部經是指明十一對心的經，那部經是西方師引用的難有部經）。
論：前面說的一切到貪系是什麼意思？論主敘述西方部的觀點，質疑有部之前的解釋：因為被貪所繫縛，所以叫做有貪心。被貪所繫縛是什麼意思？論主之前依據《婆沙論》的正義，認為確實存在被貪所繫縛。後來依據經部，破斥貪繫心。
論：如果貪得隨順，到貪所緣故。以下是進退的質疑，可以按照文義理解。
論：如果不允許那種說法，到可以成為有漏。這是爲了阻止改變說法。
論：如果說因為是為，到癡所緣故。又是爲了阻止改變說法。
論：然而他心智，到名有貪心。又是重新破斥有部的解釋。
論：如果這樣，那怎麼說？有部反問。
論：現在詳細考察經文的意思，到名離貪等。論主破斥有部，保留西方師的解釋。
論：如果這樣，為什麼到不還墮三有？有部提出疑問。如果與貪相應叫做有貪心，那麼...
【English Translation】 English version Distinguishing Categories. This is to truly understand the differences and principles of the 'black' (unwholesome) and 'white' (wholesome) qualities of various minds. The sutra speaks of minds with greed and minds without greed. That sutra speaks of concentrated and scattered minds, in order to understand the hindrances to cultivating the psychic powers (神足, shenzu). Because that sutra says to examine one's own mind, not to be too sunk, not to be too agitated, not to be inwardly contracted, not to be outwardly scattered. It means that when a practitioner is cultivating the psychic powers, they should examine the hindrances to cultivating the psychic powers: whether the mind is lazy, whether the mind is agitated, whether the mind is drowsy, whether the mind is scattered by unwholesome attention to form, etc. The intentions of this sutra and that sutra are different, so that sutra cannot be used to negate the explanation of this sutra. That sutra only speaks of the mind being too contracted or scattered internally and externally when cultivating the psychic powers, not to distinguish the defiled and pure aspects of the mind. What this sutra says is the opposite of that sutra. Although all defiled minds have laziness, etc., in order to show the differences in the faults of various defilements, minds are established as sunk, etc., according to the degree of their increase, and minds are established as striving, etc., and it should be understood that the opposite is true. Therefore, my school's explanation is in accordance with the sutras and is also good at distinguishing the different aspects of various minds (述曰: This sutra refers to the sutra that clarifies the eleven pairs of minds, and that sutra is the Difficult-to-Have-Section sutra quoted by the Western Teacher).
Treatise: What is the meaning of everything mentioned earlier up to 'bound by greed'? The treatise master narrates the viewpoint of the Western Section, questioning the previous explanation of the Sarvastivadins (有部, youbu): because it is bound by greed, it is called a mind with greed. What does it mean to be bound by greed? The treatise master previously relied on the correct meaning of the Mahavibhasa (婆沙論, Posha Lun), believing that being bound by greed truly exists. Later, relying on the Sautrantika (經部, jingbu), he refuted the mind bound by greed.
Treatise: If greed is obtained accordingly, up to 'because of the object of greed'. The following are questions of advancement and retreat, which can be understood according to the meaning of the text.
Treatise: If that statement is not allowed, up to 'can become afflicted'. This is to prevent changing the statement.
Treatise: If it is said that because it is for, up to 'because of the object of delusion'. This is again to prevent changing the statement.
Treatise: However, the knowledge of others' minds, up to 'is called a mind with greed'. This is again to refute the Sarvastivadin's explanation.
Treatise: If so, how to explain? The Sarvastivadins ask in return.
Treatise: Now, examining the meaning of the sutra in detail, up to 'is called without greed, etc.'. The treatise master refutes the Sarvastivadins and retains the explanation of the Western Teacher.
Treatise: If so, why up to 'does not fall back into the three realms of existence'? The Sarvastivadins raise a question. If being in accordance with greed is called a mind with greed, then...
心即無有離貪義。恒相應故。如何經說有離貪．瞋．癡心。不還墮三有。
論。依離得說故無有過。論主通也。
論。豈不於前至不相應故。有部破論主也。
論。若依此意至有癡等故。論主通也。
論。且止傍論應述本宗。已下述其本宗義也。
論。此所明他心至能緣行相不。問也。
論。俱不能取至能緣行相。答也。不取所緣．能緣行相。
論。不爾他心智至能自緣失。反難釋也。若不如上所釋不知所緣及能緣行相。即有二失。若知他心所緣。即有他心智緣色等境。及自知過。若知他心能緣行相者。即自知失。自心是彼他心能緣行相故。故婆沙九十九云。又他心智但緣他心不緣他心所緣．行相。若緣他心所緣行相。應緣自心非他心智。自心是彼所緣。及能緣行相故。
論。諸他心智至如應容有。已下明決定相也 謂唯能取欲．色界系。不知上故在四禪故 及非所繫。知無漏心故 他相續中。不自緣故 唯知。現在。簡過．未也。唯緣有情現起心故 同類。法分知法分等 心．心所法。簡知色等 一實自相為所緣境。一簡緣二．三等。實簡緣假不緣假故。自相簡共相不緣共相故。無漏他心雖作四行。唯緣一法 或可。唯說有漏 空無相不相應。不與苦下滅下心相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 問：心如果是『無有離貪義』（沒有脫離貪慾的意義），因為心是『恒相應故』（總是與煩惱相應）。那麼，為什麼經典中說有『離貪、瞋、癡心』（脫離貪婪、嗔恨和愚癡的心），這樣才『不還墮三有』（不會再墮入欲界、色界、無色界這三種存在狀態）呢？
論：『依離得說故無有過』（依據脫離煩惱而說，所以沒有過失）。論主（指論典的作者）在這裡進行了解釋。
論：『豈不於前至不相應故』（難道不是因為之前所說的不相應嗎）？有部（指說一切有部，一個佛教宗派）在這裡對論主進行反駁。
論：『若依此意至有癡等故』（如果按照這個意思，就會有愚癡等等）？論主在這裡進行了解釋。
論：『且止傍論應述本宗』（先停止旁論，應該陳述本宗的觀點）。以下陳述其本宗的義理。
論：『此所明他心至能緣行相不』（這裡所說的他心智，能夠了知他人的心以及能緣的行相嗎）？這是一個提問。
論：『俱不能取至能緣行相』（都不能夠取，乃至能緣的行相）。這是一個回答。不能取所緣和能緣的行相。
論：『不爾他心智至能自緣失』（如果不是這樣，他心智就會有能夠緣自心的過失）？這是一個反駁並進行解釋。如果不如上面所解釋的那樣，不知道所緣和能緣的行相，就會有兩個過失。如果知道他人心所緣的境界，就會有他心智緣色等境界，以及自己知道自己心的過失。如果知道他人心能緣的行相，就會有自己知道自己心的過失。因為自己的心是那個他心能緣的行相。所以《婆沙》（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）第九十九卷說：『又他心智只緣他人的心，不緣他人心所緣的境界和行相。如果緣他人心所緣的境界和行相，就應該緣自己的心，而不是他人的心智。因為自己的心是那個所緣和能緣的行相。』
論：『諸他心智至如應容有』（各種他心智，應該如何才能成立呢）？以下說明決定的相狀。 謂唯能取欲界、系（被欲界煩惱所束縛的心）。不知上故（不知道上界的心），因為（上界的心）在四禪（色界的四種禪定）的緣故。及非所繫（以及不被煩惱所束縛的心）。知無漏心故（因為能夠知道無漏的心）。他相續中（在他人的相續中）。不自緣故（不能緣自己的心）。唯知現在（只能知道現在的心）。簡過、未也（簡別過去和未來的心）。唯緣有情現起心故（只緣有情現在生起的心）。同類（同類的心）。法分知法分等（法心知法心等等）。心、心所法（心和心所法）。簡知色等（簡別知道色法等等）。一實自相為所緣境（以一個真實的自相作為所緣的境界）。一簡緣二、三等（一個，簡別緣兩個、三個等等）。實簡緣假不緣假故（真實，簡別緣假法，不緣假法）。自相簡共相不緣共相故（自相，簡別共相，不緣共相的緣故）。無漏他心雖作四行（無漏的他心智雖然有四種行相）。唯緣一法（只緣一種法）。或可（或者可以）。唯說有漏（只說有漏的他心智）。空無相不相應（與空、無相不相應）。不與苦下滅下心相應（不與苦諦之下的滅盡定之下的心相應）。
【English Translation】 English version Question: If the mind 'is without the meaning of being free from greed' (has no meaning of being detached from greed), because the mind is 'constantly associated' (always associated with afflictions), then why do the scriptures say there is a 'mind free from greed, hatred, and delusion,' so that one 'does not fall back into the three realms of existence' (the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm)?
Treatise: 'It is said based on detachment, so there is no fault.' The author of the treatise explains this.
Treatise: 'Isn't it because of the non-association mentioned earlier?' The Sarvastivada school (a Buddhist school) refutes the author of the treatise here.
Treatise: 'If according to this meaning, there would be delusion, etc.?' The author of the treatise explains this.
Treatise: 'Let's stop the digression and state the tenets of our own school.' The following states the doctrines of their own school.
Treatise: 'Does the mind-reading ability explained here know the minds of others and the aspects of what is cognized?' This is a question.
Treatise: 'Neither can grasp, even the aspects of what is cognized.' This is an answer. It cannot grasp the object and the aspects of what is cognized.
Treatise: 'If not, the mind-reading ability would have the fault of being able to cognize itself?' This is a refutation and explanation. If it is not as explained above, and the object and aspects of what is cognized are not known, there would be two faults. If one knows the object cognized by the minds of others, then the mind-reading ability would cognize objects such as form, and one would know one's own mind. If one knows the aspects of what is cognized by the minds of others, then one would know one's own mind. Because one's own mind is the aspect of what is cognized by that other mind. Therefore, the ninety-ninth volume of the Vibhasha (Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra) says: 'Moreover, the mind-reading ability only cognizes the minds of others, not the objects and aspects of what is cognized by the minds of others. If it cognizes the objects and aspects of what is cognized by the minds of others, it should cognize one's own mind, not the mind-reading ability of others. Because one's own mind is the object and aspect of what is cognized.'
Treatise: 'How can the various mind-reading abilities be established?' The following explains the definite characteristics. It means it can only grasp the desire realm, bound (the mind bound by the afflictions of the desire realm). It does not know the higher realms, because (the minds of the higher realms) are in the four dhyanas (the four meditative states of the form realm). And not bound (and the mind not bound by afflictions). Because it knows the unconditioned mind. In the continuum of others. Because it does not cognize itself. It only knows the present (only knows the present mind). Distinguishing the past and future. It only cognizes the minds of sentient beings that are arising now. Same kind (minds of the same kind). Dharma-mind knows dharma-mind, etc. Mind and mental factors. Distinguishing knowing form, etc. One real self-characteristic is the object cognized. One, distinguishing cognizing two, three, etc. Real, distinguishing cognizing false, not cognizing false. Self-characteristic, distinguishing common characteristics, not cognizing common characteristics. Although the unconditioned mind-reading ability has four aspects. It only cognizes one dharma. Or perhaps. Only speaking of the conditioned (only speaking of the conditioned mind-reading ability). Empty and signless are not associated (not associated with emptiness and signlessness). It is not associated with the mind below suffering and below cessation (it is not associated with the mind below the truth of suffering and below the cessation of extinction).
應故 盡無生不相應。彼息求故。為知他心非知盡故 不在見道。無異心故 不在無間道。以斷障故。他心智不斷障故 余所不遮者。除上決定余不遮也 如應容有者。顯非一切 已上明他心智行相 自下明盡．無生智行相。
論。盡無生智至離空非我。明盡．無生智各有十四行相。
論。謂由彼力至不受後有。釋盡．無生智知俗所以。婆沙二十九云。我生已盡者。是緣集四行相。梵行已立者。是緣道四行相。所作已辦者。是緣滅四行相。不受後有者。是緣苦二行相謂苦．非常 又婆沙一百二云。如契經說。諸阿羅漢如實。自知我生已盡。梵行已立。所作已辦。不受後有。此中我生已盡者。然諸生名顯多種義。謂或有生名顯入母胎。或有生名顯出母胎。或有生名顯分位五蘊。或有生名顯不相應行蘊少分。或有生名顯非想非非想處四蘊 或有生名顯非想非非想處四蘊者。如此中說我生已盡。問此盡何生。過去耶。未來耶。現在耶。若盡過去生。過去生已滅何須盡。若盡未來生。未來生未至何所盡。若盡現在生。現在生不住何須盡 答應作是說。盡三世生。所以者何。此中生名既顯非想非非想處四蘊。諸瑜伽師。總觀非想非非想處三世四蘊。離彼染故。令生因果皆不得成 廣如彼釋 梵行已立。謂無漏行已立
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此，盡智（Ksaya-jnana）和無生智（Anutpada-jnana）不相應，因為它們息滅了求生的慾望。由於他心智（Paracitta-jnana）是爲了瞭解他人的心，而不是爲了知曉諸法的止息，所以它不在見道（Darshana-marga）中。由於沒有異心，所以它不在無間道（Anantarya-marga）中，因為它斷除了障礙。他心智不斷除障礙。其餘未被遮止的，除了上述的決定之外，其餘都不遮止。如應容有的，顯示並非一切。以上闡明了他心智的行相，以下闡明盡智和無生智的行相。
論：盡智和無生智乃至遠離空和非我，闡明盡智和無生智各自有十四種行相。
論：所謂由彼力乃至不受後有，解釋了盡智和無生智了知世俗諦（Samvriti-satya）的原因。《婆沙論》第二十九卷說：『我生已盡』，這是緣于集諦（Samudaya-satya）的四種行相；『梵行已立』，這是緣于道諦（Marga-satya）的四種行相；『所作已辦』，這是緣于滅諦（Nirodha-satya）的四種行相；『不受後有』，這是緣于苦諦（Duhkha-satya）的兩種行相，即苦和無常。《婆沙論》第一百零二卷說：如契經所說，諸阿羅漢如實自知『我生已盡，梵行已立，所作已辦，不受後有』。這裡『我生已盡』，然而生的名稱顯示多種含義，或者有生名顯示入母胎，或者有生名顯示出母胎，或者有生名顯示分位五蘊（Panca-skandha），或者有生名顯示不相應行蘊（Viprayukta-samskara-skandha）的少分，或者有生名顯示非想非非想處（Naivasamjna-nasamjnayatana）的四蘊。或者有生名顯示非想非非想處的四蘊，如此中說『我生已盡』。問：此盡何生？過去耶？未來耶？現在耶？若盡過去生，過去生已滅，何須盡？若盡未來生，未來生未至，何所盡？若盡現在生，現在生不住，何須盡？答：應作是說，盡三世生。所以者何？此中生名既顯示非想非非想處的四蘊，諸瑜伽師總觀非想非非想處的三世四蘊，遠離彼染污的緣故，令生的因果都不得成就。廣如彼釋。『梵行已立』，謂無漏行（Anasrava-marga）已立。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, Ksaya-jnana (盡智, Knowledge of Exhaustion) and Anutpada-jnana (無生智, Knowledge of Non-arising) are not corresponding because they extinguish the desire for seeking life. Because Paracitta-jnana (他心智, Knowledge of the Minds of Others) is for understanding the minds of others, not for knowing the cessation of dharmas, it is not in Darshana-marga (見道, Path of Seeing). Because there is no different mind, it is not in Anantarya-marga (無間道, Path of Immediate Consequence), because it cuts off obstacles. Paracitta-jnana does not cut off obstacles. What remains unprohibited, except for the above-mentioned determination, is not prohibited. What is appropriately possible shows that it is not everything. The above clarifies the characteristics of Paracitta-jnana; the following clarifies the characteristics of Ksaya-jnana and Anutpada-jnana.
Treatise: Ksaya-jnana and Anutpada-jnana, up to being apart from emptiness and non-self, clarify that Ksaya-jnana and Anutpada-jnana each have fourteen characteristics.
Treatise: So-called by that power, up to not receiving future existence, explains the reason why Ksaya-jnana and Anutpada-jnana know Samvriti-satya (世俗諦, Conventional Truth). The twenty-ninth volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says: 'My birth is exhausted,' this is related to the four characteristics of Samudaya-satya (集諦, Truth of the Origin of Suffering); 'The Brahma-conduct is established,' this is related to the four characteristics of Marga-satya (道諦, Truth of the Path); 'What needs to be done is done,' this is related to the four characteristics of Nirodha-satya (滅諦, Truth of Cessation); 'Not receiving future existence,' this is related to the two characteristics of Duhkha-satya (苦諦, Truth of Suffering), namely suffering and impermanence. The one hundred and second volume of the Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says: As the sutras say, the Arhats truly know themselves, 'My birth is exhausted, the Brahma-conduct is established, what needs to be done is done, not receiving future existence.' Here, 'My birth is exhausted,' however, the name of birth shows various meanings, or the name of birth shows entering the mother's womb, or the name of birth shows exiting the mother's womb, or the name of birth shows the divisional Panca-skandha (五蘊, Five Aggregates), or the name of birth shows a small part of Viprayukta-samskara-skandha (不相應行蘊, Non-associated Formations Aggregate), or the name of birth shows the four aggregates of Naivasamjna-nasamjnayatana (非想非非想處, Neither Perception Nor Non-perception). Or the name of birth shows the four aggregates of Neither Perception Nor Non-perception, as it says here, 'My birth is exhausted.' Question: What birth is exhausted? Past? Future? Present? If the past birth is exhausted, the past birth has already ceased, why exhaust it? If the future birth is exhausted, the future birth has not yet arrived, what is exhausted? If the present birth is exhausted, the present birth does not stay, why exhaust it? Answer: It should be said that the births of the three times are exhausted. Why? Since the name of birth shows the four aggregates of Neither Perception Nor Non-perception, the Yogis generally observe the four aggregates of the three times of Neither Perception Nor Non-perception, and because they are apart from that defilement, the cause and effect of birth cannot be achieved. As explained in detail there. 'The Brahma-conduct is established,' meaning the Anasrava-marga (無漏行, Path of Non-outflow) is established.
。問為學梵行已立。為無學梵行已立耶。答學梵行已立。非無學梵行。所以者何。無學梵行今始立故 言所作已辦者。一切煩惱皆已斷故。一切所作已究竟故。一切道路已遮塞故 廣如彼釋 言不受後有者。尊者妙音作如是說。諸阿羅漢皆無後有故。通說為不受後有。廣如彼釋 又云。問我生已盡。乃至不受後有。一一當言。是何智耶。有說。此中我生已儘是集智。梵行已立是道智。所作已辦是滅智。不受後有是苦智 廣如彼釋。
論。為有無漏越此十六。已下一行頌。第二明無漏行唯十六也。
論曰至越於十六。論主先述二宗別也。
論。云何知然。有部問外國師也。
論。由本論故至如理所引了別。外國師引本論文證。以不繫心了欲界法。苦．集八行相外。更有有是處有是事行相。故知十六行相外更有行相。
論。若謂彼文至余不說故。遮有部通本論文。謂有是處。有是事。但為顯示前八行相義決定。故作如是等言。于余處文亦應如此說。正理論云。此不成證。違論意故。論顯不繫行相眾多。于中有緣欲界系者。依容有說。有是處言。有是事言。顯無顛倒。即由此故余無此言(已上論文)。
論。謂若彼論至故釋非理。舉余見所斷文不說有是處。有是事文。證前不繫心文。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：『為有學者（Siksa，指還在學習的修行者）的梵行（Brahmacarya，清凈的修行生活）已經確立了嗎？』『為無學者（Asaiksa，指已完成學習的修行者，即阿羅漢）的梵行已經確立了嗎？』答：『有學者的梵行已經確立，但非無學者的梵行。』為什麼呢？因為無學者的梵行現在才開始確立的緣故。 『言所作已辦者』，是因為一切煩惱都已斷除的緣故，一切所作都已經究竟的緣故，一切道路都已經遮斷的緣故——詳細解釋如同彼處所說。 『言不受後有者』，尊者妙音（可能是指一位論師的名字）這樣說：『諸阿羅漢都沒有後有的緣故，所以通說為不受後有。』詳細解釋如同彼處所說。 又說：『問：我生已盡，乃至不受後有，一一應當說是何種智慧呢？』有人說：『此中，我生已儘是集智（Dukkha-samudaya-satya-jnana，知曉苦之集起的智慧），梵行已立是道智（Dukkha-marga-satya-jnana，知曉苦之道的智慧），所作已辦是滅智（Dukkha-nirodha-satya-jnana，知曉苦之滅盡的智慧），不受後有是苦智（Dukkha-satya-jnana，知曉苦諦的智慧）。』詳細解釋如同彼處所說。 論：為有無漏（Anasrava，無煩惱的）超越此十六行相（指四聖諦的十六種行相）嗎？下面一行頌文，第二部分說明無漏行只有十六種。 論曰：至超越於十六。論主首先陳述兩種宗派的差別。 論：『云何知然？』是有部（Sarvastivada，一個佛教部派）詢問外國師（指來自其他地區的論師）。 論：『由本論故至如理所引了別。』外國師引用本論的論文來證明，以不繫心（指不被欲界束縛的心）了知欲界法，在苦、集八行相之外，更有『有是處』、『有是事』的行相。因此可知，在十六行相之外，還有其他的行相。 論：『若謂彼文至余不說故。』遮止有部通過本論的論文，認為『有是處』、『有是事』，只是爲了顯示前八行相的意義決定，所以才這樣說。在其他地方的經文中也應該這樣說。《正理論》說：『這不能成立為證據，因為違背了論的本意。』論顯示不繫行相眾多，其中有緣于欲界的，依據情況可以說『有是處』這句話，『有是事』這句話，顯示沒有顛倒，正因為如此，其他地方沒有這句話（以上是論文）。 論：『謂若彼論至故釋非理。』舉出其他見所斷（Darsana-prahantavya，通過見道斷除的煩惱）的經文，沒有說『有是處』、『有是事』的經文，來證明前面不繫心的經文。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: 'Has the Brahmacarya (pure spiritual life) of a Siksa (one who is still learning, a trainee) been established? Has the Brahmacarya of an Asaiksa (one who has completed learning, an Arhat) been established?' Answer: 'The Brahmacarya of a Siksa has been established, but not that of an Asaiksa.' Why? Because the Brahmacarya of an Asaiksa is only now beginning to be established. 'The statement 'what needs to be done has been done' is because all afflictions have been cut off, all that needs to be done has been completed, and all paths have been blocked' - the detailed explanation is as stated there. 'The statement 'not subject to future existence' is as Venerable Myoyin (possibly the name of a commentator) said: 'Because all Arhats are without future existence, it is generally said that they are not subject to future existence.' The detailed explanation is as stated there. Furthermore, it is said: 'Question: 'My birth is exhausted, up to not being subject to future existence, what kind of wisdom should each of these be said to be?' Some say: 'Here, 'my birth is exhausted' is the wisdom of the truth of the arising of suffering (Dukkha-samudaya-satya-jnana), 'Brahmacarya has been established' is the wisdom of the truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Dukkha-marga-satya-jnana), 'what needs to be done has been done' is the wisdom of the truth of the cessation of suffering (Dukkha-nirodha-satya-jnana), and 'not subject to future existence' is the wisdom of the truth of suffering (Dukkha-satya-jnana).' The detailed explanation is as stated there. Treatise: Are there any Anasrava (without outflows, free from defilements) that transcend these sixteen aspects (referring to the sixteen aspects of the Four Noble Truths)? The following line of verse, the second part, explains that there are only sixteen Anasrava practices. Treatise says: Up to transcending the sixteen. The author of the treatise first states the differences between the two schools. Treatise: 'How is this known?' is the Sarvastivada (a Buddhist school) asking the foreign teacher (referring to a commentator from another region). Treatise: 'Because of the original treatise, up to the distinct understanding led by reason.' The foreign teacher quotes the text of the original treatise to prove that, with a mind not bound (referring to a mind not bound by the desire realm), understanding the laws of the desire realm, outside of the eight aspects of suffering and arising, there are further aspects of 'there is this place' and 'there is this thing'. Therefore, it can be known that outside of the sixteen aspects, there are other aspects. Treatise: 'If it is said that the text up to the rest is not mentioned.' Prevents the Sarvastivada from using the text of the original treatise, thinking that 'there is this place' and 'there is this thing' are only to show that the meaning of the previous eight aspects is definite, so it is said in this way. It should be said in this way in other places in the scriptures as well. The Nyayanusara-sastra says: 'This cannot be established as evidence, because it violates the intention of the treatise.' The treatise shows that there are many unbound aspects, among which there are those related to the desire realm, and according to the situation, it can be said that 'there is this place', and 'there is this thing', showing that there is no inversion, and precisely because of this, there is no such statement in other places (the above is the text of the treatise). Treatise: 'Saying that if that treatise up to therefore the explanation is unreasonable.' Cites other scriptures that are to be abandoned by seeing (Darsana-prahantavya, afflictions to be abandoned through the path of seeing), without the text saying 'there is this place' and 'there is this thing', to prove the previous text of the unbound mind.
有是處。有是事。為別行相 我故我所故。是有身見 斷故常故。是邊執見 無因故無作故損滅故。是邪見。尊故勝故上故第一故。是見取。非勝計勝故 能清凈故能解脫故能出離故。是戒取。非因計因故 惑故疑故猶預故。是疑 貪故瞋故慢故癡故。可解 此上諸心皆是不如理所引。既于見所斷了欲界中。即但有不如理所引。無有是處。有是事。于不繫心了欲界中。即有有是處。有是事。如理所引。故知不繫心了欲界法。八行相外別有行相 正理論云。除此無容有餘行相。由此不說有是處言。由皆顛倒轉不言有是事。故凈行相無越十六。理教無違。不可傾動(已上論文)。
論。十六行相實事有幾。此一行頌。第三答三問也。
論曰至名四實一。述不正義也。婆沙七十九云。問何故緣苦有四行相。名有四種實體亦四。緣餘三諦而不爾耶。答緣苦諦行相。是四顛倒近對治故。如四顛倒名．體各四。緣餘三諦所起行相。非四顛倒近對治故。名雖有四實體唯一(已上論文)。
論。如是說者實亦十六。述正義也。
論。謂苦聖諦至能永超故出。下有四番釋。十六行相。此第一番釋。如文可了。
論。又非究竟故非常至舍一切有故出。此第二釋。文顯可知。
論。如是古釋至更為別釋
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "『有是處。有是事。為別行相』，是因為『我故我所故』（執著于自我和屬於我的事物），所以產生『有身見』（認為存在真實的自我）；因為『斷故常故』（執著于斷滅或永恒的觀點），所以產生『邊執見』（偏執于極端觀點）；因為『無因故無作故損滅故』（認為沒有原因、沒有造作、一切都會消滅），所以產生『邪見』（錯誤的見解）；因為『尊故勝故上故第一故』（認為某種事物尊貴、殊勝、至上、第一），所以產生『見取』（執著于自己的見解）；因為『非勝計勝故，能清凈故能解脫故能出離故』（認為不殊勝的事物是殊勝的，認為某種事物能帶來清凈、解脫、出離），所以產生『戒取』（執著于錯誤的戒律）；因為『非因計因故』（認為不是原因的事物是原因），以及『惑故疑故猶預故』（因為迷惑、懷疑、猶豫），所以產生『疑』（疑惑）；因為『貪故瞋故慢故癡故』（因為貪婪、嗔恨、傲慢、愚癡），這些都是可以理解的。以上這些心念都是不如理作意所引發的。既然在見所斷的煩惱中已經了斷了欲界的煩惱，那麼就只有不如理作意所引發的煩惱，沒有如理作意的情況。", "『有是處。有是事』，在不繫縛的心中了知欲界時，就有如理作意的情況。所以知道不繫縛的心了知欲界法時，在八種行相之外還有別的行相。《正理論》說，除了這些沒有其他的行相了。因此不說『有是處』。因為都是顛倒的，所以不說『有是事』。因此清凈的行相沒有超過十六種。道理和教義沒有違背，不可動搖（以上是論文）。", "", "論：十六行相的真實事物有幾種？這一行頌，是第三個回答三個問題。", "", "論曰至名四實一。這是闡述不正義的觀點。《婆沙》第七十九卷說：問：為什麼緣苦有四種行相，名稱有四種，實體也有四種，而緣其他三諦卻不是這樣呢？答：因為緣苦諦的行相，是與四種顛倒的直接對治。就像四種顛倒，名稱和實體各有四種。緣其他三諦所產生的行相，不是與四種顛倒的直接對治，所以名稱雖然有四種，但實體只有一個（以上是論文）。", "", "論：如果這樣說，那麼真實也是十六種。這是闡述正義的觀點。", "", "論：所謂苦聖諦至能永超故出。下面有四種解釋，說明十六行相。這是第一種解釋，如文中所述，可以理解。", "", "論：又非究竟故非常至舍一切有故出。這是第二種解釋。文義顯明，可以理解。", "", "論：如是古釋至更為別釋", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "",
。已下論主更別釋也。
論。生滅故非常至自非我故非我。此釋苦諦。如文可知。
論。因集生緣至與論為異。已下引經釋集諦也。文有三別。一明四欲不同。二明四欲位別。三結四欲行名。此第一也 言以欲為根者。根者是因義 言以欲為類者。類是緣義。此經意以愛為集諦。所言欲者。即是貪也。
論。此四體相差別云何。此問四欲體相別也。
論。由隨位別至起造業時欲。此第二明四欲位別 凡諸有情先於總自體起總我貪 次於當總自體起當總我貪 次後復起若天．若人等當別我貪。
然復為別我故。造業貪結當生起續生我貪。或執造當業時我起造業我貪。當果取蘊是其苦體。前之四因是其集諦。此四位欲即前四欲。
論。第一于苦至如花蕊于果。此第三結四欲行名配前四位。如文可解。
論。或如契經至亦當變異有。更引經釋四欲別 決定有者。決定有我體故 如是有者。執我如是由婆羅門等有 變異有者。謂從小至大等有 執我現有者。計我現在有 執我現無者。執于現在歸斷滅故 余文可解。雖有當別不同。並準此釋。
論。流轉斷故至永離有故出。釋滅．道下八行相也。已上即是第三番釋。
論。又為治常樂至行出行相。此即論主第四番釋。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 以下是論主的進一步解釋。
論：因為有生有滅所以是無常的，直至因為不是我的本體所以不是我。這是解釋苦諦。如文中所述可以理解。
論：因為因緣和合而生，直至與之前的論述有所不同。以下引用經文來解釋集諦。文中分為三個部分。一是說明四種慾望的不同。二是說明四種慾望的位次差別。三是總結四種慾望的行為名稱。這是第一部分。『以欲為根』的意思是，根就是原因的意思。『以欲為類』的意思是，類就是緣的意思。這部經的用意是以愛為集諦。所說的慾望，就是貪婪。
論：這四種（慾望的）體相差別是什麼？這是提問四種慾望的體相差別。
論：由於隨著位次的不同，直至（眾生）開始造業時的慾望。這是第二部分，說明四種慾望的位次差別。凡是所有的有情眾生，首先對於總的自體產生總的我貪。其次對於當下的總自體產生當下的總我貪。然後之後又產生如果是天人、如果是人等等的當下的個別我貪。
然後爲了個別的我，造業貪著，結生，當生，生起相續的我貪。或者執著造作當下的業時，我生起造業的我貪。當果報來臨時，取蘊是其苦的本體。之前的四種原因是其集諦。這四個位次的慾望就是之前的四種慾望。
論：第一種，對於苦，直至如同花蕊對於果實。這是第三部分，總結四種慾望的行為名稱，與之前的四個位次相對應。如文中所述可以理解。
論：或者如同契經所說，直至也應當變異。更進一步引用經文來解釋四種慾望的差別。『決定有』的意思是，決定有我的本體的緣故。『如是有』的意思是，執著我如同婆羅門等所說的那樣存在。『變異有』的意思是，指從小到大等變化的存在。『執著我現在有』的意思是，認為我現在存在。『執著我現在沒有』的意思是，認為我現在歸於斷滅的緣故。其餘的文字可以理解。即使有當下的個別不同，也參照這個解釋。
論：因為流轉斷絕的緣故，直至永遠脫離存在的緣故而解脫。這是解釋滅諦和道諦下的八種行相。以上就是第三番解釋。
論：又爲了對治常、樂，直至行出（離）行相。這是論主的第四番解釋。
English version: The following is a further explanation by the author of the treatise.
Treatise: Because it arises and ceases, it is impermanent, and because it is not my self, it is not me. This explains the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya). As can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Because it arises from causes and conditions, until it differs from the previous discussion. The following quotes scriptures to explain the Truth of the Origin of Suffering (Samudaya Satya). The text is divided into three parts. First, it explains the differences between the four desires. Second, it explains the differences in the positions of the four desires. Third, it summarizes the behavioral names of the four desires. This is the first part. 'Taking desire as the root' means that the root is the meaning of cause. 'Taking desire as the category' means that the category is the meaning of condition. The intention of this sutra is to take love as the Truth of the Origin of Suffering. The so-called desire is greed.
Treatise: What are the differences in the nature of these four (desires)? This is asking about the differences in the nature of the four desires.
Treatise: Because of the difference in position, until the desire when (sentient beings) begin to create karma. This is the second part, explaining the differences in the positions of the four desires. All sentient beings first generate a general craving for self in the general self. Secondly, they generate a present craving for self in the present general self. Then, they generate a present individual craving for self, whether it is a deva or a human, etc.
Then, for the sake of the individual self, creating karma, craving, rebirth, future rebirth, and arising continuous craving for self. Or, clinging to the creation of present karma, I generate the craving for self that creates karma. When the retribution comes, taking the aggregates (skandhas) is the essence of suffering. The previous four causes are the Truth of the Origin of Suffering. The desires in these four positions are the previous four desires.
Treatise: The first, regarding suffering, until like the pistil to the fruit. This is the third part, summarizing the behavioral names of the four desires, corresponding to the previous four positions. As can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Or, as stated in the sutras, until it should also change. Further quoting scriptures to explain the differences between the four desires. 'Definitely exists' means that there is definitely the essence of my self. 'Exists as such' means clinging to the existence of my self as stated by the Brahmins, etc. 'Variable existence' means existence that changes from small to large, etc. 'Clinging to my present existence' means believing that I exist now. 'Clinging to my present non-existence' means believing that I return to annihilation now. The remaining text can be understood. Even if there are present individual differences, refer to this explanation.
Treatise: Because the cycle of rebirth is cut off, until liberation because of eternal separation from existence. This explains the eight aspects under the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha Satya) and the Truth of the Path (Magga Satya). The above is the third explanation.
Treatise: Furthermore, in order to counteract permanence and pleasure, until the aspect of practicing departure (from suffering). This is the fourth explanation by the author of the treatise.
【English Translation】 English version: The following is a further explanation by the author of the treatise.
Treatise: Because it arises and ceases, it is impermanent, and because it is not my self, it is not me. This explains the Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Satya). As can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Because it arises from causes and conditions, until it differs from the previous discussion. The following quotes scriptures to explain the Truth of the Origin of Suffering (Samudaya Satya). The text is divided into three parts. First, it explains the differences between the four desires. Second, it explains the differences in the positions of the four desires. Third, it summarizes the behavioral names of the four desires. This is the first part. 'Taking desire as the root' means that the root is the meaning of cause. 'Taking desire as the category' means that the category is the meaning of condition. The intention of this sutra is to take love as the Truth of the Origin of Suffering. The so-called desire is greed.
Treatise: What are the differences in the nature of these four (desires)? This is asking about the differences in the nature of the four desires.
Treatise: Because of the difference in position, until the desire when (sentient beings) begin to create karma. This is the second part, explaining the differences in the positions of the four desires. All sentient beings first generate a general craving for self in the general self. Secondly, they generate a present craving for self in the present general self. Then, they generate a present individual craving for self, whether it is a deva or a human, etc.
Then, for the sake of the individual self, creating karma, craving, rebirth, future rebirth, and arising continuous craving for self. Or, clinging to the creation of present karma, I generate the craving for self that creates karma. When the retribution comes, taking the aggregates (skandhas) is the essence of suffering. The previous four causes are the Truth of the Origin of Suffering. The desires in these four positions are the previous four desires.
Treatise: The first, regarding suffering, until like the pistil to the fruit. This is the third part, summarizing the behavioral names of the four desires, corresponding to the previous four positions. As can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Or, as stated in the sutras, until it should also change. Further quoting scriptures to explain the differences between the four desires. 'Definitely exists' means that there is definitely the essence of my self. 'Exists as such' means clinging to the existence of my self as stated by the Brahmins, etc. 'Variable existence' means existence that changes from small to large, etc. 'Clinging to my present existence' means believing that I exist now. 'Clinging to my present non-existence' means believing that I return to annihilation now. The remaining text can be understood. Even if there are present individual differences, refer to this explanation.
Treatise: Because the cycle of rebirth is cut off, until liberation because of eternal separation from existence. This explains the eight aspects under the Truth of Cessation (Nirodha Satya) and the Truth of the Path (Magga Satya). The above is the third explanation.
Treatise: Furthermore, in order to counteract permanence and pleasure, until the aspect of practicing departure (from suffering). This is the fourth explanation by the author of the treatise.
論。如是行相以惠為體。述有部釋 正理釋云。謂唯諸惠于境相中。簡擇而轉名為行相。
論。若爾惠應至不相應故。論主破也。
論。由此應言至皆名行相。論主述自釋 言行相者。境相品類差別不同故言行相 或是能取境差別相故名行相。
論。惠及諸餘至唯是所行。就有部宗釋能所行。及辨寬狹。如文可知。
論。已辨十智行相差別。已下第六義門分別于中有六。一明性．地．身別。二明念處分別。三明智相互為境。四明十智緣境。五明非我行相。六明成智多少。此兩行頌第一門也。
論曰至唯是善。明三性也。
論。依地別者至及下三無色。明依．地別 他心智唯依四根本靜慮者。正理意云。此又通性故餘地非依。五通所依止．觀等故。上七近分非法智依者。以彼唯是有漏法故。亦不依無色。以不緣欲故。所餘七智總說雖同。然於此中非無差別。類智決定九地為依。余之六智若法智攝。六地為依。若類智攝。通依九地。
論。依身別者至通依三界身。明依身也。
論。已辨性地身當辨念住攝。已下一行頌。第二念處分別。
論曰至皆通四。釋也。滅智無三境故唯法。他心智不緣色故唯三。所餘八智境。通色．心．心所等故。通四念住。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：像這樣執行的形態以智慧為本體。《述有部釋》《正理釋》中說：『只有各種智慧在所觀察的境界中，進行選擇分辨，才叫做執行形態。』（行相：指智慧在認識事物時所呈現的形態或方式。） 論：如果這樣，智慧就應該達到不相應的狀態了，論主駁斥了這種說法。 論：因此應該說，都叫做執行形態。論主闡述自己的解釋說：『所說的執行形態，是因為所觀察的境界的品類差別不同，所以叫做執行形態。』或者說，是因為能夠獲取境界的差別形態，所以叫做執行形態。 論：智慧以及其他的，僅僅是所執行的。這裡就《有部宗》解釋了能執行的和所執行的，以及辨別寬泛和狹窄。就像文中所說的那樣可以理解。 論：已經辨別了十智（十智：指法智、類智、他心智、世俗智、苦智、集智、滅智、道智、盡智、無生智。）的執行形態的差別。下面第六個義門，進行分別，其中有六個方面：一是說明自性、所依地、所依身的不同。二是說明念住（念住：又稱四念住，即身念住、受念住、心念住、法念住。）的分別。三是說明智慧相互作為境界。四是說明十智所緣的境界。五是說明非我（非我：佛教術語，指沒有永恒不變的『我』的存在。）的執行形態。六是說明成就智慧的多少。這兩句偈頌是第一個方面的內容。 論曰：僅僅是善的。說明了三種自性（三性：指善、惡、無記三種性質。）。 論：依據所依地不同來說，以及下三無色界（無色界：佛教三界之一，指沒有物質存在的精神境界。）。說明了所依地不同。他心智（他心智：指能夠知曉他人內心的智慧。）僅僅依據四根本靜慮（四根本靜慮：指色界四禪定。），《正理》的意思是說，這又通達自性，所以其他的地不是所依。五通（五通：指天眼通、天耳通、他心通、宿命通、神足通。）所依止、觀等等，所以上面的七個近分（近分定：指臨近根本定的禪定。）是法智（法智：指認識欲界真理的智慧。）所依的，因為它們僅僅是有漏法（有漏法：指有煩惱和業的法。），也不依無色界，因為不緣于欲界。其餘的七智總的來說雖然相同，然而在這裡並非沒有差別。類智（類智：指認識色界、無色界真理的智慧。）決定以九地為所依。其餘的六智如果是法智所攝，就以六地為所依；如果是類智所攝，就通達以九地為所依。 論：依據所依身不同來說，通達依據三界身（三界身：指欲界身、色界身、無色界身。）。說明了所依身的不同。 論：已經辨別了自性、所依地、所依身，下面辨別念住所攝。下面一句偈頌是第二個念住分別的內容。 論曰：都通達四種念住。解釋說：滅智（滅智：證悟『滅』之理的智慧。）沒有三種境界，所以僅僅是法念住。他心智不緣於色法，所以僅僅是三種念住。其餘的八智所緣的境界，通達色法、心法、心所法等等，所以通達四種念住。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: Such modes of operation have wisdom as their essence. The Shu You Bu Shi (Commentary on the Sarvastivada) and Zheng Li Shi (Commentary on the Nyaya Sutra) state: 'Only those wisdoms that, in the context of objects, selectively discriminate are called modes of operation.' (行相 xingxiang: refers to the form or manner in which wisdom manifests when perceiving things.) Treatise: If that were the case, wisdom should reach a state of non-correspondence, which the treatise master refutes. Treatise: Therefore, it should be said that all are called modes of operation. The treatise master elaborates on his own explanation: 'The so-called modes of operation are named as such because the categories of objects observed differ.' Or, 'They are called modes of operation because they can grasp the different forms of objects.' Treatise: Wisdom and the others are merely what is operated upon. Here, the Sarvastivada school explains what operates and what is operated upon, as well as distinguishing between broad and narrow scopes. As the text states, it can be understood. Treatise: The differences in the modes of operation of the ten wisdoms (十智 shizhi: refers to the ten wisdoms: Dharma-wisdom, inferential wisdom, wisdom of others' minds, conventional wisdom, wisdom of suffering, wisdom of origination, wisdom of cessation, wisdom of the path, wisdom of exhaustion, and wisdom of non-arising.) have been distinguished. The sixth category below is to differentiate, which includes six aspects: First, clarifying the differences in nature, ground, and body. Second, explaining the distinctions in the mindfulness establishments (念住 nianzhu: also known as the four mindfulness establishments: mindfulness of body, feelings, mind, and phenomena.). Third, explaining how wisdoms mutually serve as objects. Fourth, explaining the objects cognized by the ten wisdoms. Fifth, explaining the mode of operation of non-self (非我 feiwo: a Buddhist term referring to the absence of a permanent, unchanging 'self'). Sixth, explaining the quantity of wisdom attained. These two lines of verse pertain to the first aspect. Treatise says: Merely good. Clarifying the three natures (三性 sanxing: refers to the three natures: good, evil, and neutral.). Treatise: According to the difference in ground, and the three formless realms below (無色界 wusejie: one of the three realms in Buddhism, referring to the spiritual realm where there is no material existence.). Clarifying the difference in ground. The wisdom of others' minds (他心智 taxinzhi: refers to the wisdom that can know the minds of others.) relies only on the four fundamental dhyanas (四根本靜慮 sigengenbenjinglv: refers to the four dhyanas of the form realm.), according to the meaning of Zheng Li, this also penetrates nature, so other grounds are not relied upon. The five supernormal powers (五通 wutong: refers to the five supernormal powers: divine eye, divine ear, knowledge of others' minds, knowledge of past lives, and magical powers.) rely on, contemplation, etc., so the seven proximate concentrations above are relied upon by Dharma-wisdom (法智 fazhi: refers to the wisdom that recognizes the truth of the desire realm.), because they are merely defiled dharmas (有漏法 youloufa: refers to dharmas with afflictions and karma.), and do not rely on the formless realm, because they do not cognize the desire realm. The remaining seven wisdoms are generally the same, but there are still differences. Inferential wisdom (類智 leizhi: refers to the wisdom that recognizes the truth of the form and formless realms.) is definitely based on the nine grounds. The remaining six wisdoms, if included in Dharma-wisdom, are based on six grounds; if included in inferential wisdom, they penetrate and are based on nine grounds. Treatise: According to the difference in body, penetrating and relying on the bodies of the three realms (三界身 sanjieshen: refers to the bodies of the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm.). Clarifying the difference in body. Treatise: Having distinguished the nature, ground, and body, next distinguish what is included in the mindfulness establishments. The following verse is the content of the second mindfulness establishment distinction. Treatise says: All penetrate the four mindfulness establishments. Explaining: Cessation-wisdom (滅智 miezhi: the wisdom of realizing the principle of 'cessation'.) does not have three objects, so it is merely mindfulness of phenomena. The wisdom of others' minds does not cognize form, so it is merely three mindfulness establishments. The objects cognized by the remaining eight wisdoms penetrate form, mind, mental factors, etc., so they penetrate the four mindfulness establishments.
論。如是十智展轉相望。已下一行頌。第三明智相互為境。
論曰至除法智。明法．類智。
論。道智慧緣至皆緣十智。明道等五智。
論。滅智不緣至為所緣故。明滅智也。
論。十智所緣總有幾法。已下兩行頌。第四明十智緣境。
論曰至善無記別故。明十智所緣十法。先分十法。后明緣有廣狹 言十法者。有為有八。謂有漏六。即三界相應．不相應。無漏二。謂相應．不相應 無為為二。謂善即擇滅。無記謂虛空．非擇滅。
論。俗智總緣十法為境。以有一切法無我觀等故。
論。法智緣五者。不緣上二界及虛空．非擇滅。
論。類智緣七。緣上二界及善無為故。
論。苦集智各緣三界所繫六。不緣無漏故。
論。滅智緣一。謂唯緣擇滅故。
論。道智緣二。唯緣無漏有為故。
論。他心智三。唯緣三界及無漏相應法故。
論。盡無生智緣九。不緣非諦法故。
論。頗有一念智緣一切法不。已下一行頌。第五明非我行相。
論曰至猶除自品。明無一念知一切法。雖以世俗智觀一切法為非我。由除自品。
論。自品謂自體至非此智所緣。釋自品也。境．有境別故不自緣也。同一所緣故不緣相應。若緣相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：如是十智（dasa-jñāna）展轉相望。已下一行頌。第三明智相互為境。
論曰至除法智。明法智（dharma-jñāna）、類智（anvaya-jñāna）。
論：道智（mārga-jñāna）能緣至皆緣十智。明道智等五智。
論：滅智（nirodha-jñāna）不緣至為所緣故。明滅智也。
論：十智所緣總有幾法。已下兩行頌。第四明十智緣境。
論曰至善無記別故。明十智所緣十法。先分十法。后明緣有廣狹。言十法者：有為有八，謂有漏六，即三界相應、不相應。無漏二，謂相應、不相應。無為為二，謂善即擇滅（pratisamkhyā-nirodha）。無記謂虛空（ākāśa）、非擇滅（apratisamkhyā-nirodha）。
論：俗智（samvrti-jñāna）總緣十法為境。以有一切法無我觀等故。
論：法智緣五者。不緣上二界及虛空、非擇滅。
論：類智緣七。緣上二界及善無為故。
論：苦智（duhkha-jñāna）、集智（samudaya-jñāna）各緣三界所繫六。不緣無漏故。
論：滅智緣一。謂唯緣擇滅故。
論：道智緣二。唯緣無漏有為故。
論：他心智（para-citta-jñāna）三。唯緣三界及無漏相應法故。
論：盡智（ksaya-jñāna）、無生智（anutpāda-jñāna）緣九。不緣非諦法故。
論：頗有一念智緣一切法不。已下一行頌。第五明非我行相。
論曰至猶除自品。明無一念知一切法。雖以世俗智觀一切法為非我。由除自品。
論：自品謂自體至非此智所緣。釋自品也。境、有境別故不自緣也。同一所緣故不緣相應。若緣相
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: Thus, the ten wisdoms (dasa-jñāna) regard each other reciprocally. The following is a verse. The third point clarifies how wisdoms mutually take each other as objects.
Treatise: Up to excluding Dharma Wisdom. Clarifies Dharma Wisdom (dharma-jñāna) and Anvaya Wisdom (anvaya-jñāna).
Treatise: Path Wisdom (mārga-jñāna) can cognize up to all ten wisdoms. Clarifies Path Wisdom and the other five wisdoms.
Treatise: Cessation Wisdom (nirodha-jñāna) does not cognize up to because it is the object. Clarifies Cessation Wisdom.
Treatise: How many dharmas in total are cognized by the ten wisdoms? The following two lines are a verse. The fourth point clarifies the objects cognized by the ten wisdoms.
Treatise: Up to because of the distinction between wholesome and indeterminate. Clarifies the ten dharmas cognized by the ten wisdoms. First, divide the ten dharmas. Then, clarify the breadth of what is cognized. The ten dharmas are: conditioned things are eight, namely, defiled things are six, which are those associated and unassociated with the three realms. Unstained things are two, namely, associated and unassociated. Unconditioned things are two, namely, wholesome, which is selective cessation (pratisamkhyā-nirodha), and indeterminate, which are space (ākāśa) and non-selective cessation (apratisamkhyā-nirodha).
Treatise: Conventional Wisdom (samvrti-jñāna) generally cognizes all ten dharmas as its object because it has the contemplation of no-self in all dharmas, and so on.
Treatise: Dharma Wisdom cognizes five. It does not cognize the upper two realms, space, and non-selective cessation.
Treatise: Anvaya Wisdom cognizes seven. It cognizes the upper two realms and wholesome unconditioned things.
Treatise: Suffering Wisdom (duhkha-jñāna) and Arising Wisdom (samudaya-jñāna) each cognize the six that are bound to the three realms. They do not cognize the unstained.
Treatise: Cessation Wisdom cognizes one. Namely, it only cognizes selective cessation.
Treatise: Path Wisdom cognizes two. It only cognizes unstained conditioned things.
Treatise: Wisdom of Others' Minds (para-citta-jñāna) cognizes three. It only cognizes the three realms and the associated unstained dharmas.
Treatise: Exhaustion Wisdom (ksaya-jñāna) and Non-arising Wisdom (anutpāda-jñāna) cognize nine. They do not cognize non-truth dharmas.
Treatise: Is there a single moment of wisdom that cognizes all dharmas? The following line is a verse. The fifth point clarifies the aspect of no-self.
Treatise: Up to still excluding its own kind. Clarifies that there is no single moment that knows all dharmas. Although one contemplates all dharmas as no-self with conventional wisdom, it excludes its own kind.
Treatise: 'Its own kind' refers to its own entity up to it is not an object of this wisdom. Explains 'its own kind'. Because the object and the subject are different, it does not cognize itself. Because they have the same object, it does not cognize what is associated. If it cognizes the characteristic
應即自緣失。極相鄰近故不緣俱有法。如眼不見扶根色等。故正理云。何緣不以自體為境。諸對法者立此因言。諸法必無行自體。故此言意。顯諸法生時隨其所應待四緣性。隨有所闕。法則不生。不闕便生。立為緣性。諸法無有闕自體時。故畢竟無闕不生義。
論。此智唯是至聞思所成。明依地及惠。一切法．非我觀通上地有。然緣一切法盡。唯除自體．相應．俱有法者。唯是欲．色界攝聞思所成。
論。非修所成至應頓離染。此非有部宗。所以得知。正理論云。然經主說非修所成。以修所成地別緣故。若異此者。應頓離染。此不應理。言修所成唯地別緣。非極成故。謂我宗許靜慮地攝修所成惠。有能總緣隨所依身自．上境故。厭下欣上方能離染。此既總緣。唯欣行相。故於離染無有功能。故彼所言甚為非理 兩說不同由宗別也 又正理論云。此智唯是欲．色界攝。無色界中雖有此顯。而緣法少非此所明。此通聞．思．修所成惠。皆能除自品。緣一切法故 今依婆沙第十。更以六門分別。一依地別。二最初起。三得差別。四得人別。五緣境通局。六問答分別。一依地別者。評家正義云。一切法無我行相在七地。若別說者。聞所成惠唯在五地。謂欲界．四靜慮。思所成惠唯在欲界。修所成惠唯在六地。四無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 應立即因為因緣喪失作用。由於極度相鄰近的緣故，不能作為俱有法的所緣。就像眼睛看不見扶根色等。所以《正理》中說：『什麼原因不能以自體為境？』那些對法論者立下這個因說：『諸法必定沒有行自體。』所以這句話的意思是，顯示諸法生起時，根據情況需要依賴四種因緣的性質。如果缺少任何一種，法則不會產生。不缺少就產生，這被立為因緣的性質。諸法沒有缺少自體的時候，所以畢竟沒有缺少而不產生的道理。 這種智慧只是通過聽聞和思惟而成就的。明確地說是依于地和智慧。一切法和非我觀可以通達上地。然而，緣於一切法的止息，唯獨除了自體、相應、俱有法之外，只是欲界和所攝的聽聞和思惟所成就的。 不是通過修習而成就的，直到應該立即脫離染污。這不是有部的宗義。通過什麼得知呢？《正理論》中說：『然而經主說不是通過修習而成就的，因為通過修習而成就的智慧，所緣的境界隨地而異。』如果不是這樣，就應該立即脫離染污。這不合道理。』所說通過修習而成就的智慧，所緣的境界隨地而異，不是極成之理。意思是說，我宗認為靜慮地所攝的通過修習而成就的智慧，有能力總緣隨所依身自身和上境的緣故。厭惡下地，欣樂上地，才能脫離染污。這既然是總緣，只是欣樂的行相。所以對於脫離染污沒有作用。所以他們所說的話非常不合理。兩種說法不同，是由於宗義不同啊。』 《正理論》中又說：『這種智慧只是欲界和所攝的。無**中雖然有這種顯現，但是所緣的法很少，不是這裡所要說明的。』這可以通達聽聞、思惟、修習所成就的智慧，都能去除自身的品類，緣於一切法。現在依據《婆沙》第十，再用六個方面來分別。一是依地差別，二是最初生起，三是得差別，四是得人差別，五是緣境通局，六是問答分別。一是依地差別，評家的正義說：一切法無我行相在七地。如果分別來說，聽聞所成的智慧只在五地，即欲界和四靜慮。思惟所成的智慧只在欲界。修習所成的智慧只在六地，即四無色定。
【English Translation】 English version: It should immediately lose its function due to the loss of conditions. Because of extreme proximity, it cannot be a condition for co-existent dharmas. Just as the eye cannot see the root-supporting color, etc. Therefore, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'What reason is there that it cannot take itself as its object?' Those Abhidharma proponents establish this reason, saying: 'All dharmas certainly do not have a self-nature of action.' Therefore, the meaning of this statement is to show that when dharmas arise, they depend on the nature of the four conditions as appropriate. If any one is missing, the dharma will not arise. If none are missing, it arises, and this is established as the nature of conditions. Dharmas do not have a time when they lack themselves, so there is ultimately no meaning of lacking and not arising. This wisdom is only accomplished through hearing and thinking. It is clearly based on the ground and wisdom. The contemplation of all dharmas and non-self can penetrate the higher grounds. However, the cessation of all dharmas, except for self, corresponding, and co-existent dharmas, is only accomplished through hearing and thinking that are included in the desire realm and . It is not accomplished through cultivation, until one should immediately be free from defilements. This is not the tenet of the Sarvāstivāda school. How is this known? The Nyāyānusāra says: 'However, the Sūtra master says that it is not accomplished through cultivation, because the objects of wisdom accomplished through cultivation differ according to the ground.' If it were not so, one should immediately be free from defilements. This is unreasonable.' What is said about wisdom accomplished through cultivation, that the objects of its contemplation differ according to the ground, is not an established principle. That is to say, our school admits that the wisdom accomplished through cultivation, included in the dhyāna grounds, has the ability to contemplate generally the self and higher realms of the body on which it relies. Disliking the lower ground and delighting in the higher ground is how one can be free from defilements. Since this is a general contemplation, it is only the aspect of delight. Therefore, it has no function in freeing from defilements. Therefore, what they say is very unreasonable. The two statements differ because of the difference in tenets.' The Nyāyānusāra also says: 'This wisdom is only included in the desire realm and . Although there is this manifestation in the non-, the dharmas contemplated are few, and this is not what is being explained here.' This can penetrate the wisdom accomplished through hearing, thinking, and cultivation, and can remove its own category, contemplating all dharmas. Now, based on the tenth Vibhāṣā, we will further distinguish it in six aspects. First, the difference in ground; second, the initial arising; third, the difference in attainment; fourth, the difference in the person who attains; fifth, the scope of the object contemplated; and sixth, the distinction between questions and answers. First, the difference in ground, the commentator's correct meaning says: the aspect of non-self of all dharmas is in the seven grounds. If we speak separately, the wisdom accomplished through hearing is only in the five grounds, namely the desire realm and the four dhyānas. The wisdom accomplished through thinking is only in the desire realm. The wisdom accomplished through cultivation is only in the six grounds, namely the four formless absorptions.
色地亦有此行相。而不能緣一切法。謂空無邊處非我行相緣四無色。彼因彼滅。一切類智品道。及四無色非擇滅。一切類智品道非擇滅。並一切虛空無為。或欲令是一物。或欲令是多物。此行相盡能緣。識無邊處緣上三無色。乃至。非想非非想處唯緣一切。彼因彼滅。一切類智品道。及此非擇滅。並一切虛空 二初起者。此非我行相依欲．色界身初起 三得別者。加行得．離染得．生得者。通三種此則總說。若別說者。欲界聞思所成非我行相唯加行得。色界聞所成非我行相可言加行得。可言生得。云何可言加行得。謂若此間于自．共相善修習者生彼便得。若不爾者生彼不得。云何可言生得。謂雖此間善修習已。若不得生彼修不能得。生彼方得彼聞所成非我行相。必依此間所修加行生彼得故。色界修所成非我行相。是加行得及離染得。亦可言是生得。問若欲界沒生第二靜慮。第二靜慮沒生初靜慮。彼得初靜慮非我行相不。答若先善修習者得。不爾者不得。乃至。生第四靜慮亦爾。問若欲界沒生無色界。無色界沒生初靜慮。彼得初靜慮非我行相不。有說不得以極遠故。如是說者。若先善修習者得。不爾者不得。乃至。生第四靜慮亦爾。問若初靜慮沒生第二靜慮。第二靜慮沒生初靜慮。彼得初靜慮非我行相不。答若先善修習
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 色界（Rūpadhātu）也具有這種行相（ākāra，相狀），但不能緣取一切法。例如，空無邊處（Ākāśānantyāyatana）的『非我』行相緣取四無色處（catuḥ-ārūpya）。彼因彼滅（tat-pratyaya-nirodha，以彼為緣而生，以彼滅而滅），一切類智品道（sarva-prakāra-jñāna-mārga，一切種類智慧的道）以及四無色處的非擇滅（apratiṣṭhita-nirodha，非擇滅盡）。一切類智品道的非擇滅，以及一切虛空無為（ākāśa-asaṃskṛta，虛空無為法），或者想要認為它是一物，或者想要認為是多物，這種行相都能緣取。識無邊處（Vijñānānantyāyatana）緣取上三無色處（ūrdhva-trayo-ārūpya）。乃至，非想非非想處（Naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñāyatana）唯獨緣取一切。彼因彼滅，一切類智品道，以及此非擇滅，並一切虛空。 二、初起者：這種『非我』行相依欲界（Kāmadhātu）、身（kāya）而初起。 三、得別者：加行得（prayoga-labdha，通過努力修行而獲得）、離染得（virāga-labdha，通過斷除煩惱而獲得）、生得（upapatti-labdha，生來就具有）者，這三種情況都包括在內。這是總的說法。如果分別來說，欲界聞思所成的『非我』行相唯是加行得。聞所成的『非我』行相可以說成是加行得，也可以說成是生得。怎樣才能說是加行得呢？如果有人在此世間對於自相（svalakṣaṇa，事物自身的特性）、共相（sāmānyalakṣaṇa，事物共同的特性）善於修習，那麼他生到彼處就能獲得。如果不是這樣，生到彼處就不能獲得。怎樣才能說是生得呢？即使此世間已經善於修習，如果不能得生彼處，修習也不能獲得。生到彼處才能獲得彼聞所成的『非我』行相。必定是依靠此世間所修的加行，生到彼處才能獲得。 修所成的『非我』行相，是加行得和離染得。也可以說是生得。問：如果從欲界死後生到第二禪（dhyāna，禪定），從第二禪死後生到初禪，他能獲得初禪的『非我』行相嗎？答：如果先前善於修習就能獲得，否則就不能獲得。乃至，生到第四禪也是如此。問：如果從欲界死後生到無色界（ārūpyadhātu），從無色界死後生到初禪，他能獲得初禪的『非我』行相嗎？有人說不能獲得，因為距離太遠了。這樣說的人認為，如果先前善於修習就能獲得，否則就不能獲得。乃至，生到第四禪也是如此。問：如果從初禪死後生到第二禪，從第二禪死後生到初禪，他能獲得初禪的『非我』行相嗎？答：如果先前善於修習
【English Translation】 English version: The Realm of Form (Rūpadhātu) also possesses this characteristic (ākāra), but it cannot cognize all dharmas. For example, the 'non-self' characteristic of the Sphere of Infinite Space (Ākāśānantyāyatana) cognizes the Four Formless Realms (catuḥ-ārūpya). 'That arising from that cause ceases with that cause' (tat-pratyaya-nirodha), the Path of Knowledge of All Modes (sarva-prakāra-jñāna-mārga), and the Cessation by Non-Choice (apratiṣṭhita-nirodha) of the Four Formless Realms. The Cessation by Non-Choice of the Path of Knowledge of All Modes, and all Unconditioned Space (ākāśa-asaṃskṛta), whether one wishes to consider it as one thing or as many things, this characteristic can cognize. The Sphere of Infinite Consciousness (Vijñānānantyāyatana) cognizes the Upper Three Formless Realms (ūrdhva-trayo-ārūpya). And so on, the Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (Naiva-saṃjñā-nāsaṃjñāyatana) exclusively cognizes everything. 'That arising from that cause ceases with that cause,' the Path of Knowledge of All Modes, and this Cessation by Non-Choice, and all Space. 2. The Initial Arising: This 'non-self' characteristic initially arises dependent on the Desire Realm (Kāmadhātu) and the body (kāya). 3. Differences in Attainment: Those who attain through effort (prayoga-labdha), those who attain through detachment (virāga-labdha), and those who attain by birth (upapatti-labdha) are all included. This is a general statement. If stated separately, the 'non-self' characteristic attained through hearing and thinking in the Desire Realm is only attained through effort. The 'non-self' characteristic attained through hearing can be said to be attained through effort, and can be said to be attained by birth. How can it be said to be attained through effort? If someone in this world is skilled in cultivating the self-characteristic (svalakṣaṇa) and the common characteristic (sāmānyalakṣaṇa), then they will attain it upon being born there. If not, they will not attain it upon being born there. How can it be said to be attained by birth? Even if one has cultivated well in this world, if one cannot be born there, cultivation will not lead to attainment. Only by being born there can one attain that 'non-self' characteristic attained through hearing. It is certain that one relies on the effort cultivated in this world to be born there and attain it. The 'non-self' characteristic attained through cultivation is attained through effort and attained through detachment. It can also be said to be attained by birth. Question: If one dies from the Desire Realm and is born in the Second Dhyana (dhyāna, meditation), and dies from the Second Dhyana and is born in the First Dhyana, do they attain the 'non-self' characteristic of the First Dhyana? Answer: If they have previously cultivated well, they will attain it; otherwise, they will not. And so on, it is the same for being born in the Fourth Dhyana. Question: If one dies from the Desire Realm and is born in the Formless Realm (ārūpyadhātu), and dies from the Formless Realm and is born in the First Dhyana, do they attain the 'non-self' characteristic of the First Dhyana? Some say they do not, because it is too distant. Those who say this believe that if they have previously cultivated well, they will attain it; otherwise, they will not. And so on, it is the same for being born in the Fourth Dhyana. Question: If one dies from the First Dhyana and is born in the Second Dhyana, and dies from the Second Dhyana and is born in the First Dhyana, do they attain the 'non-self' characteristic of the First Dhyana? Answer: If they have previously cultivated well
者得。不爾者不得。生餘地亦爾 四得人別者。如是說者。異生亦得。乃至。如是說者。外法異生亦得此行相。然與內別。謂內法者亦加行得．亦生得．亦得．亦在身。亦成就．亦現在前。外法異生唯生得。得而不在身成就。不現在前。以著我故 五緣境通局者。問云何起非我行相耶。答若生欲界起欲．色界非我行相。俱能緣一切法。若生初靜慮起初靜慮非我行相。不定者亦能緣一切法。定者唯緣。從初靜慮乃至有頂。起上三靜慮非我行相亦爾。生第二靜慮等義準可知。問欲．色二界非我行相何者緣法多耶。答色界非我行相若不定者。緣法與欲界等。若定者則所緣法少於欲界。謂不能緣自隨轉色故 今詳。欲界．及初定等散非我行相。緣法少二定已上。以不能緣自相應尋．伺。及彼生等故 六問答分別。問此非我行相。若欣作意俱。云何緣可厭法。若厭作意俱。云何緣可欣法。答應作是說。欣作意俱。問若爾云何緣可厭法。答彼瑜伽師於此可欣法生欣尚故。設於無量可厭聚中。有一可欣則生欣樂。何況多耶。如銅錢聚上置一金錢。便於此聚總生欣樂。此亦如是。故無有失。問亦有喜．憂根能緣一切行法何故此行相非彼相應。答互相違故。謂此歡行相轉。彼戚行相轉。故不相應。
論。已辨所緣。已下第六明成智
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果這樣做就能獲得，否則就不能獲得。在其他地方出生也是如此。四、獲得者的區別：如果這樣說，異生也能獲得。乃至，如果這樣說，外道異生也能獲得這種行相。然而，與內道不同。內道的人通過加行、出生、獲得、在身、成就、現在前等方式獲得。外道異生只能通過出生獲得，獲得后不在身成就，也不現在前，因為他們執著於我。五、所緣境的範圍：問：如何生起非我行相呢？答：如果生在欲界，生起欲界的非我行相，都能緣一切法。如果生在初禪，生起初禪的非我行相，不定者也能緣一切法，定者只能緣。從初禪乃至有頂天，生起上三禪的非我行相也是如此。生在第二禪等的情況可以類推得知。問：欲界和色界的非我行相，哪個緣的法多呢？答：欲界的非我行相，如果是不定者，緣的法與欲界相等。如果是定者，那麼所緣的法少於欲界，因為不能緣自身隨轉的色法。現在詳細分析，欲界和初禪等散亂的非我行相，緣的法少於二禪以上，因為不能緣自身相應的尋、伺，以及它們所生的法。六、問答分別：問：這個非我行相，如果是與欣作意一起，如何緣可厭惡的法？如果是與厭作意一起，如何緣可欣喜的法？答：應該這樣說，與欣作意一起。問：如果這樣，如何緣可厭惡的法？答：那位瑜伽行者對於這個可欣喜的法生起欣尚，即使在無量可厭惡的聚集中，有一個可欣喜的，也會生起欣樂，何況是多個呢？就像在銅錢堆上放一個金錢，就會對這個錢堆總的生起欣樂。這裡也是如此，所以沒有過失。問：也有喜根和憂根能緣一切行法，為什麼這個行相不與它們相應呢？答：因為互相違背。這個是歡喜的行相轉動，那個是悲慼的行相轉動，所以不相應。 論：已經辨明了所緣，下面第六個說明成就智慧。
【English Translation】 English version: Those who do so will obtain it; otherwise, they will not. It is the same for those born in other realms. Four, the distinction of those who attain it: If it is said in this way, even non-Buddhists can attain it. Even if it is said in this way, non-Buddhist outsiders can also attain this characteristic. However, it differs from the internal path. Those on the internal path attain it through effort, birth, attainment, being in the body, accomplishment, and being present. Non-Buddhist outsiders only attain it through birth, attaining it but not being in the body, not being accomplished, and not being present, because they are attached to the self (Atman). Five, the scope of the object: Question: How does the characteristic of non-self (Anatta) arise? Answer: If one is born in the Desire Realm (Kamadhatu) and the characteristic of non-self arises in the Desire Realm, both can cognize all dharmas. If one is born in the First Dhyana (Prathama Dhyana) and the characteristic of non-self arises in the First Dhyana, those who are unfixed can also cognize all dharmas, while those who are fixed can only cognize. From the First Dhyana up to the Peak of Existence (Bhavagra), the characteristic of non-self arising in the upper three Dhyanas is also the same. The meaning of being born in the Second Dhyana, etc., can be inferred accordingly. Question: Which cognizes more dharmas, the characteristic of non-self in the Desire Realm or the Form Realm (Rupadhatu)? Answer: The characteristic of non-self in the Desire Realm, if it is unfixed, cognizes dharmas equal to the Desire Realm. If it is fixed, then the dharmas cognized are fewer than the Desire Realm, because it cannot cognize the self-transforming form. Now, in detail, the scattered characteristic of non-self in the Desire Realm and the First Dhyana, etc., cognizes fewer dharmas than the Second Dhyana and above, because it cannot cognize its own corresponding thought and discernment (Vitarka and Vicara), and the dharmas arising from them. Six, question and answer distinction: Question: This characteristic of non-self, if it is together with the intention of delight (Hri), how can it cognize repulsive dharmas? If it is together with the intention of aversion (Apatrapa), how can it cognize delightful dharmas? Answer: It should be said in this way, together with the intention of delight. Question: If so, how can it cognize repulsive dharmas? Answer: That yogi generates delight in this delightful dharma, so even if there is one delightful thing in a collection of countless repulsive things, delight will arise, let alone many? Just like placing a gold coin on a pile of copper coins, delight will arise in the entire pile. It is the same here, so there is no fault. Question: There are also roots of joy (Sukha) and sorrow (Dukkha) that can cognize all conditioned dharmas (Samskrta dharmas), why is this characteristic not corresponding to them? Answer: Because they are mutually contradictory. This is the turning of the characteristic of joy, and that is the turning of the characteristic of sorrow, so they are not corresponding. Treatise: The object of cognition has been distinguished. Below, the sixth explains the accomplishment of wisdom.
多少。
論曰至亦定成七。明成就有三節一漸增位。二離欲位。三無學位。此即第一 一切凡．聖皆成俗智。未離欲凡唯成俗智。及未離欲聖人在苦忍位。與異生同。雖成無漏惠不名智故。至第二剎那加苦法智。即加法智．苦智。故成三智。第四剎那又加類智。第六剎那又加集智。第十剎那又加滅智。第十四剎那又加道智。至修道位未離欲前。皆悉同前成就七智。
論。如是諸位至生無色者。第二離欲位也。至此位中於諸位各加他心智。謂在凡時。及聖初。先一今二。乃至修位。先七今八。然異生生無色者。雖離欲染不成他心。有漏他心生上舍故。聖生上界成他心者。無漏他心智者生上不捨故。然成二種他心諸位不同。謂異生位及十五心。唯成有漏他心智。超越那含道類智時。具成二種。得根本地無漏道諦為果體故。離欲界染余修位中。皆具成二。聖生無色便舍世俗。
論。時解脫者至謂增無生。明第三無學位也。無學位中鈍九利十。同如常釋。
論。於何位中頓修幾智。已下大文第七明修智也。于中有六。一明見道。二明修道。三明無學道。四明練根等。五明地通局。六明四種修。此下兩行頌第一明見道。將欲釋修。須知修義。正理論云。且應思擇何謂為修。謂習善有為令圓滿自在(此是
【現代漢語翻譯】 多少？
論曰：至少也必定成就七種智慧。說明成就智慧有三個階段：一是漸增位，二是離欲位，三是無學位。這即是第一點：一切凡夫和聖者都成就世俗智。未離欲的凡夫只成就世俗智。未離欲的聖人在苦忍位時，與凡夫相同，雖然成就了無漏慧，但不稱為智。到第二剎那，加上苦法智，即加上法智和苦智，所以成就三種智慧。第四剎那又加上類智，第六剎那又加上集智，第十剎那又加上滅智，第十四剎那又加上道智。到修道位，未離欲之前，都與之前相同，成就七種智慧。
論：像這樣，各個階段直到生到無色界者，指的是第二離欲位。到這個階段，在各個階段都加上他心智。在凡夫時，以及聖者最初時，先前一種，現在兩種。乃至修道位，先前七種，現在八種。然而，凡夫生到無色界者，雖然離開了欲染，卻不成就他心智，因為有漏的他心智生於上界就捨棄了。聖者生到上界成就他心智，因為無漏的他心智生於上界不捨棄。然而，成就兩種他心智的階段不同。凡夫位以及十五心，只成就了有漏的他心智。超越那含（Anagamin，不還果）道類智時，就具足成就兩種他心智，因為得到了根本地的無漏道諦作為果體。離開了欲界染的其餘修道位中，都具足成就兩種他心智。聖者生到無色界就捨棄了世俗智。
論：時解脫者，指的是增進無生智。說明第三無學位。無學位中，鈍根者九種智慧，利根者十種智慧，與通常的解釋相同。
論：在哪個階段頓悟修習幾種智慧？以下是第七大段，說明修習智慧。其中有六點：一是說明見道，二是說明修道，三是說明無學道，四是說明練根等，五是說明地的通局，六是說明四種修。以下兩行頌是第一點，說明見道。將要解釋修習，必須先知道修習的含義。《正理論》說：應該思考什麼是修習？就是練習善的有為法，使之圓滿自在（這是……）
【English Translation】 How many?
The treatise says: At the very least, seven wisdoms are definitely attained. Explaining the attainment of wisdom has three stages: first, the stage of gradual increase; second, the stage of detachment from desire; and third, the stage of no-learning. This is the first point: all ordinary beings and sages attain mundane wisdom. Ordinary beings who have not detached from desire only attain mundane wisdom. Sages who have not detached from desire, when in the stage of suffering endurance, are the same as ordinary beings. Although they attain non-outflow wisdom, it is not called 'wisdom'. By the second moment, the wisdom of suffering-dharma is added, that is, the wisdom of dharma and the wisdom of suffering are added, so three wisdoms are attained. In the fourth moment, the wisdom of analogy is added. In the sixth moment, the wisdom of origination is added. In the tenth moment, the wisdom of cessation is added. In the fourteenth moment, the wisdom of the path is added. Until the stage of cultivation, before detaching from desire, all are the same as before, attaining seven wisdoms.
The treatise says: Like this, the various stages up to those born in the Formless Realm refer to the second stage of detachment from desire. At this stage, in each of the stages, the wisdom of knowing others' minds is added. When in the state of an ordinary being, and at the beginning of a sage, previously one, now two. Up to the stage of cultivation, previously seven, now eight. However, ordinary beings born in the Formless Realm, although detached from desire, do not attain the wisdom of knowing others' minds, because the outflow-tainted wisdom of knowing others' minds is abandoned when born in the higher realms. Sages born in the higher realms attain the wisdom of knowing others' minds because the non-outflow wisdom of knowing others' minds is not abandoned when born in the higher realms. However, the stages of attaining the two kinds of wisdom of knowing others' minds are different. The stage of an ordinary being and the fifteen moments only attain the outflow-tainted wisdom of knowing others' minds. When transcending the wisdom of analogy of the path of Anagamin (不還果), both kinds of wisdom of knowing others' minds are fully attained, because the non-outflow truth of the path of the fundamental ground is obtained as the fruit-body. In the remaining stages of cultivation after detaching from desire for the Desire Realm, both are fully attained. Sages born in the Formless Realm abandon mundane wisdom.
The treatise says: 'Liberation by time' refers to increasing the wisdom of non-arising. Explaining the third stage of no-learning. In the stage of no-learning, dull individuals have nine wisdoms, sharp individuals have ten wisdoms, the same as the usual explanation.
The treatise says: In which stage is several wisdoms suddenly cultivated? The following is the seventh major section, explaining the cultivation of wisdom. There are six points: first, explaining the path of seeing; second, explaining the path of cultivation; third, explaining the path of no-more-learning; fourth, explaining the training of the roots, etc.; fifth, explaining the scope of the grounds; and sixth, explaining the four kinds of cultivation. The following two lines of verse are the first point, explaining the path of seeing. To explain cultivation, one must first know the meaning of cultivation. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: One should consider what is meant by cultivation? It is practicing wholesome conditioned dharmas to make them perfect and free (this is...)
修義) 非染無記者。無勝愛果故。非善無為者。不在相續故。又無為無果故 今助一解。無為無增減故。
論曰至諸行念住。明見道。八忍七智現起之時。唯修自諦念住及四行相。若緣三諦修四念住。若緣滅諦唯修法念自分修故。
論。何緣見道唯同類修。問也。何緣見道唯同類修非修道等。
論。先未曾得至俱決定故。答也 有二義。一先未得此無漏智故 二對治．所緣俱決定故。見道八忍定緣八諦斷八諦惑。不相交雜修道不爾。斷修惑時。或緣苦諦乃至道諦。及緣非諦交參不定。
論。唯苦．集滅至未能兼修。明修俗智。於一一諦後邊修故。名現觀邊俗智。于彼後邊觀此諦智得圓滿故。故後邊修。法智位時未圓滿故。故於此位不能修也。
論。道類智時何不修此。問也。是道邊何故不修。
論。俗智曾於道至可能遍修。答也。有二釋。一據曾．不曾釋。無始已來曾知苦。斷集。證滅。以世俗智知．斷．證故。由此三邊修彼俗智。無始已來不曾修無漏道。由此不能修彼俗智 二必無于道遍事現觀故。事現觀者。謂見苦。斷集。證滅。修道。容一有情遍知苦盡。遍斷集盡。遍證滅盡。而道必無有遍修者。由此于道諦邊。不能修彼世俗智。
論。雖集滅邊至種性多故。釋
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：修義：不是染污和無記的，因為沒有殊勝的愛果。不是善良的無為法，因為它不在相續中。而且無為法沒有果報。現在幫助解釋一下：無為法沒有增減的緣故。
論曰：到諸行念住，說明見道。八忍（Kṣānti，無漏智的生起）七智（Jñāna，無漏的智慧）現起的時候，只修自諦念住以及四行相。如果緣於三諦修四念住，如果緣于滅諦只修法念住，因為是自己分內所修的。
論：為什麼見道只修同類？這是提問。為什麼見道只修同類，而不修修道等？
論：因為先前沒有得到，所以都決定。這是回答。有兩個含義：一是先前沒有得到這種無漏智的緣故；二是對治和所緣都決定的緣故。見道的八忍一定緣於八諦，斷除八諦的迷惑，不互相交雜。修道不是這樣，斷除修惑的時候，或者緣于苦諦乃至道諦，以及緣于非諦，交錯參雜不確定。
論：只有苦、集、滅，到未能兼修，說明修世俗智。在每一個諦的後邊修的緣故，名為現觀邊世俗智。在那後邊觀察此諦的智慧得到圓滿的緣故，所以在後邊修。法智位的時候沒有圓滿的緣故，所以在這個位置不能修。
論：道類智的時候為什麼不修這個？這是提問。在道諦的旁邊為什麼不修？
論：世俗智曾經在道，到可能普遍修習。這是回答。有兩種解釋：一是根據曾經和不曾經來解釋。從無始以來曾經知道苦，斷除集，證得滅，用世俗智知道、斷除、證得的緣故。由此在三諦的旁邊修習那些世俗智。從無始以來不曾修習無漏道，由此不能修習那些世俗智。二是必定沒有在道諦旁邊普遍進行事現觀的緣故。事現觀是指：見苦，斷集，證滅，修道。容許一個有情普遍知道苦的止息，普遍斷除集的止息，普遍證得滅的止息，而道諦必定沒有普遍修習的人。由此在道諦的旁邊，不能修習那些世俗智。
論：雖然集滅旁邊，到種性多，解釋。
【English Translation】 English version: (Śikṣāartha) Not defiled or indeterminate, because there is no superior fruit of love. Not a virtuous unconditioned (asaṃskṛta) dharma, because it is not in continuity. Moreover, the unconditioned has no result. Now, let's help explain: the unconditioned does not increase or decrease.
Treatise says: Reaching the mindfulness of all phenomena, it clarifies the path of seeing (darśanamārga). When the eight Kṣānti (忍, forbearance, arising of non-outflow wisdom) and seven Jñāna (智, knowledge, non-outflow wisdom) manifest, one only cultivates the mindfulness of one's own truth and the four aspects. If one cultivates the four mindfulnesses based on the three truths, and if one cultivates only the dharma mindfulness based on the cessation truth (nirodha-satya), it is because it is what one cultivates within one's own scope.
Treatise: Why does the path of seeing only cultivate the same category? This is a question. Why does the path of seeing only cultivate the same category and not the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga) etc.?
Treatise: Because one has not obtained it before, so everything is determined. This is the answer. There are two meanings: first, because one has not obtained this non-outflow wisdom before; second, because the antidote and the object are both determined. The eight Kṣānti of the path of seeing are certainly related to the eight truths, cutting off the delusions of the eight truths, not intermingling. The path of cultivation is not like this. When cutting off the delusions of cultivation, one may be related to the suffering truth (duḥkha-satya) up to the path truth (mārga-satya), and related to non-truths, intermingling and uncertain.
Treatise: Only suffering, accumulation, and cessation, until one cannot cultivate them together, clarifies the cultivation of mundane wisdom. Because it is cultivated after each truth, it is called the mundane wisdom at the edge of direct perception (abhisamaya). Because the wisdom of observing this truth becomes complete after that, it is cultivated after that. Because it is not complete at the stage of dharma wisdom (dharma-jñāna), it cannot be cultivated at this stage.
Treatise: Why not cultivate this at the time of path-related wisdom (mārga-anvaya-jñāna)? This is a question. Why not cultivate it beside the path truth?
Treatise: Mundane wisdom has been in the path, until it can be universally cultivated. This is the answer. There are two explanations: first, explain based on having been and not having been. Since beginningless time, one has known suffering, cut off accumulation, and attained cessation, using mundane wisdom to know, cut off, and attain. Therefore, one cultivates those mundane wisdoms beside the three truths. Since beginningless time, one has not cultivated the non-outflow path, therefore one cannot cultivate those mundane wisdoms. Second, there is certainly no universal event of direct perception beside the path truth. Event of direct perception refers to: seeing suffering, cutting off accumulation, attaining cessation, cultivating the path. It is permissible for a sentient being to universally know the cessation of suffering, universally cut off the cessation of accumulation, universally attain the cessation of cessation, but there is certainly no one who universally cultivates the path truth. Therefore, beside the path truth, one cannot cultivate those mundane wisdoms.
Treatise: Although beside accumulation and cessation, until there are many natures, explanation.
違妨也。謂一有情于見道位知一切苦。未斷一切集。未證一切滅。而於無學必斷．證故。道即不爾。非唯見道不修一切道。至無學位亦不能修。以三乘六種姓其道各別。不平修故。
論。有言此是至故不能修。述異釋也。以道類智是修道故不修見邊。
論理非極成不應為證。論主破也。雖道類智有部云是修道。餘部不許是修道故。非是極成。不應為證。正理論云。道類智時何不修此。此智唯是見道眷屬。彼修道攝故不能修。此意說言修七處善為種子故見道得生。故見道生時。說彼為眷屬。乃至。由此於三諦世尊說邊聲。如契經說。有身邊。有身集邊。有身滅邊。曾無經說有身道邊。無能修道至道邊際故 問三位所修何勝何劣。答正理云。若據相續後勝於前。因增長身起彼得故。若就界說上皆勝下。故前所修色界系者。界勝身劣。后位所修欲界系者。界劣身勝。此有四句。如理應思。
論。此世俗智至無容起故。明不起也。婆沙三十六云。問若爾何故不現在前。答此智與見道現行相違故。過見道位無容起故。設見道位中。見道須臾不現前者。此智便起。以見道無剎那斷義。是故此智無容現前。問若不現前。云何可說此依隨信．隨法行身。答彼身有二種。一是見道所依。二是現觀邊世俗智所依。見道于
見道所依身得。亦在身成就。亦現前。現觀邊世俗智。于彼身得。而不在身成就。不現前。現觀邊世俗智。于現觀邊世俗智所依身得。亦在身成就。亦現前。見道于彼身得。而不在身成就。不現前。設見道位。此世俗智所依身現在前者。即此智成就。亦現在前。見道唯于未來成就。然見道位。必起見道所依身故。見道成就。亦現在前。此智唯于未來成就。若見道位。不起見道所依身者。則無見道見聖諦義。便非聖者。是故必起見道所依。由此彼身得非擇滅。是故此智畢竟不起 又正理云。此智依身定不生故。謂隨信行．隨法行身。容有為依引此智起。在見道位此無容生。故此依身住不生法。依不生故此必不生(已上論文)。
論。若爾何故說名為修。難也。
論。先未曾得今方得故。通也。據得說修。闕緣不生。正理論云。謂于爾時起得自在。余緣障故體不現前。即由此因說名為得。以證彼得起自在故。以有諸法得即現前。如盡智等。或有諸法先得后現前。如無生智等(利根人無生智與盡智同時得也)或有諸法得永不現前。如此智等。或有諸法不得而現前。如外色等。故雖不生而有修義。
論。既不能起得義何依難也。
論。但由得故說名為得。答也。
論。由得故得至理不成立。結
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 見道（Dṛṣṭimārga）所依之身獲得，也在身中成就，也現前。現觀邊世俗智（darśanamārga laukikajñāna），于彼身獲得，而不在身中成就，不現前。現觀邊世俗智，于現觀邊世俗智所依之身獲得，也在身中成就，也現前。見道于彼身獲得，而不在身中成就，不現前。假設見道位，此世俗智所依之身現在前者，即此智成就，也現在前。見道唯于未來成就。然見道位，必起見道所依之身故，見道成就，也現在前。此智唯于未來成就。若見道位，不起見道所依之身者，則無見道見聖諦之義，便非聖者。是故必起見道所依。由此彼身得非擇滅（pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha）。是故此智畢竟不起。又《正理》云：『此智依身定不生故。』謂隨信行（śraddhānusārin）、隨法行（dharmānusārin）身，容有為依引此智起。在見道位此無容生。故此依身住不生法。依不生故此必不生（已上論文）。
論：若爾何故說名為修？難也。
論：先未曾得今方得故。通也。據得說修。闕緣不生。《正理論》云：『謂于爾時起得自在。余緣障故體不現前。即由此因說名為得。以證彼得起自在故。』以有諸法得即現前，如盡智（kṣayajñāna）等。或有諸法先得后現前，如無生智（anutpādajñāna）等（利根人無生智與盡智同時得也）。或有諸法得永不現前，如此智等。或有諸法不得而現前，如外色等。故雖不生而有修義。
論：既不能起得義何依？難也。
論：但由得故說名為得。答也。
論：由得故得至理不成立。結。
【English Translation】 English version: The body on which the Path of Seeing (Dṛṣṭimārga) relies is obtained, also accomplished in the body, and also present. The mundane knowledge (laukikajñāna) at the edge of the Path of Seeing (darśanamārga), is obtained in that body, but not accomplished in the body, and not present. The mundane knowledge at the edge of the Path of Seeing, is obtained in the body on which the mundane knowledge at the edge of the Path of Seeing relies, also accomplished in the body, and also present. The Path of Seeing is obtained in that body, but not accomplished in the body, and not present. Suppose that in the stage of the Path of Seeing, if the body on which this mundane knowledge relies is present, then this knowledge is accomplished, and also present. The Path of Seeing is only accomplished in the future. However, in the stage of the Path of Seeing, because the body on which the Path of Seeing relies must arise, the accomplishment of the Path of Seeing is also present. This knowledge is only accomplished in the future. If in the stage of the Path of Seeing, the body on which the Path of Seeing relies does not arise, then there is no meaning of seeing the Noble Truths in the Path of Seeing, and one is not a Noble One. Therefore, the body on which the Path of Seeing relies must arise. Because of this, that body obtains cessation through discrimination (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha). Therefore, this knowledge ultimately does not arise. Moreover, the Nyāyānusāra says: 'Because the body on which this knowledge relies is definitely not produced.' That is to say, the bodies of those who follow faith (śraddhānusārin) and those who follow the Dharma (dharmānusārin) may have the capacity to rely on and lead to the arising of this knowledge. In the stage of the Path of Seeing, this has no possibility of arising. Therefore, this relying body abides in the unarisen Dharma. Because it relies on the unarisen, this definitely does not arise (end of the treatise).
Treatise: If so, why is it called cultivation? This is a difficulty.
Treatise: Because it was not obtained before, but is now obtained. This is a general explanation. Cultivation is spoken of in terms of obtaining. It does not arise due to a lack of conditions. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'That is to say, at that time, one arises with the freedom of obtaining. Because other conditions obstruct it, the substance does not appear. This is the reason why it is called obtaining. Because it proves that obtaining arises with freedom.' Because there are dharmas that are obtained and immediately present, such as the knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna), etc. Or there are dharmas that are obtained first and then present later, such as the knowledge of non-arising (anutpādajñāna), etc. (For those with sharp faculties, the knowledge of non-arising and the knowledge of exhaustion are obtained simultaneously). Or there are dharmas that are obtained but never present, such as this knowledge, etc. Or there are dharmas that are not obtained but are present, such as external colors, etc. Therefore, although it does not arise, it has the meaning of cultivation.
Treatise: Since it cannot arise, on what does the meaning of obtaining rely? This is a difficulty.
Treatise: It is only called obtaining because of obtaining. This is a reply.
Treatise: The principle that obtaining is obtained because of obtaining is not established. Conclusion.
破也。
論。如古師說至不樂此義。述經部釋。正理破云。如何此智不現在前。言得起依說名為得。非得此依故可名此現前。勿此所依即此體故。乃至廣破(已上論文)。
論。隨依何地至七地俗智。述修地通局。準此上地。亦修下有漏。婆沙三十六云。問頗有二聖者同生一地。于現觀邊世俗智。一成就。一不成就耶。答有。謂一依初靜慮入正性離生。一依第二靜慮入正性離生。彼命終俱生第二靜慮。依初靜慮者不成就此智。以越地舍故。依第二靜慮者成就此智。生自地不捨故。頗有二阿羅漢同在一地。于現觀邊俗智。一成就。一不成就耶。答有。謂彼先時一依初定入見道。一依第二定入見道。彼命終俱生第二靜慮。住中有中得阿羅果。依初定者不成就。此越地舍故。依第二定者成就此智。生自地不捨故(已上論文)。
論。苦．集邊修至緣此諦為境。明念住行相緣境別也。正理云。謂若苦諦現觀邊修。即以緣苦四種行相。若欲界系緣欲界苦。色界系者緣上苦諦。集諦．滅諦邊修者皆準此 苦諦謂若欲界系緣欲界集．滅。若色界系緣上二界集．滅。
論。見道力得故唯加行所得。明二得中唯加行得。即以見道加行得故。欲界攝者是思所成。色界攝者是修所成。非聞所成彼微劣故。婆沙三十六
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 破斥。
論：如果按照古師的說法，達到不樂於此（世俗智）的境界。這裡闡述了經部的解釋。《正理》中破斥說：『為什麼這種智慧不能現在生起呢？』說『得』是指依靠某種基礎而生起，並非得到這個基礎就可以說這種智慧現前。不要認為所依靠的基礎就是智慧的本體。』（以下省略原文）。
論：隨著所依靠的地的不同，直到七地的世俗智。這裡闡述了修習地的普遍性和侷限性。按照這個標準，上地也可以修習下地的有漏法。《婆沙》第三十六卷說：『問：有沒有兩個聖者同時生在一個地上，在現觀的時候，一個成就世俗智，一個不成就呢？答：有。比如一個依靠初禪進入正性離生（Niyata-nikanti，趨向決定），一個依靠二禪進入正性離生。他們命終后都生在二禪。依靠初禪的人不成就這種智慧，因為跨越了地而捨棄了。依靠二禪的人成就這種智慧，因為生在自己的地沒有捨棄。問：有沒有兩個阿羅漢同時在一個地上，在現觀的時候，一個成就世俗智，一個不成就呢？答：有。比如他們先前一個依靠初禪進入見道，一個依靠二禪進入見道。他們命終后都生在二禪，住在中有（Antarabhava，中陰身）中得到阿羅漢果。依靠初禪的人不成就這種智慧，因為跨越了地而捨棄了。依靠二禪的人成就這種智慧，因為生在自己的地沒有捨棄。』（以上省略原文）。
論：在苦諦、集諦的觀修中，以緣此諦為境界。這裡闡明了念住的行相和所緣境界的區別。《正理》中說：『如果在苦諦現觀的時候修習，就以緣苦的四種行相（無常、苦、空、無我）為境界。如果欲界系的修習者緣欲界的苦，色界、無色界系的修習者緣上界的苦諦。集諦、滅諦的觀修也參照這個標準。苦諦是說如果欲界系的修習者緣欲界的集、滅，如果色界、無色界系的修習者緣上二界的集、滅。』
論：因為見道的力量而得到的，所以只是加行（Prayoga，修行過程中的努力）所得。這裡闡明了兩種『得』中只有加行才能得到。也就是通過見道的加行而得到。欲界所攝的是思所成慧（cintā-maya-paññā，通過思考獲得的智慧），色界、無色界所攝的是修所成慧（bhāvanā-maya-paññā，通過禪修獲得的智慧）。不是聞所成慧（suta-maya-paññā，通過聽聞獲得的智慧），因為聞所成慧太微弱了。《婆沙》第三十六卷。
【English Translation】 English version: Refutation.
Treatise: As the ancient teachers say, reaching the state of not delighting in this (mundane wisdom). This explains the interpretation of the Sautrantika school. The Nyāyānusāra refutes, saying: 'How can this wisdom not arise now?' 'Attainment' is said to arise based on some foundation. It is not that attaining this foundation means this wisdom is present. Do not think that the foundation upon which it relies is the essence of the wisdom itself.' (The following original text is omitted).
Treatise: Depending on which ground one relies on, up to the mundane wisdom of the seventh ground. This explains the universality and limitations of the grounds of cultivation. According to this standard, higher grounds can also cultivate lower grounds with outflows (āsrava). The Vibhasa, volume 36, says: 'Question: Are there two saints who are born on the same ground, and during direct realization, one attains mundane wisdom while the other does not? Answer: Yes. For example, one relies on the first dhyana (jhāna, meditation) to enter Niyata-nikanti (the state of being assured of liberation), and the other relies on the second dhyana to enter Niyata-nikanti. They both die and are reborn in the second dhyana. The one who relied on the first dhyana does not attain this wisdom because they have crossed the ground and abandoned it. The one who relied on the second dhyana attains this wisdom because they are born in their own ground and have not abandoned it. Question: Are there two Arhats who are on the same ground, and during direct realization, one attains mundane wisdom while the other does not? Answer: Yes. For example, one previously relied on the first dhyana to enter the path of seeing, and the other relied on the second dhyana to enter the path of seeing. They both die and are reborn in the second dhyana, and attain Arhatship in the intermediate state (Antarabhava). The one who relied on the first dhyana does not attain this wisdom because they have crossed the ground and abandoned it. The one who relied on the second dhyana attains this wisdom because they are born in their own ground and have not abandoned it.' (The above original text is omitted).
Treatise: In the cultivation of the truth of suffering and the truth of origination, take the object of these truths as the object of contemplation. This clarifies the difference between the characteristics of mindfulness and the objects contemplated. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'If one cultivates during the direct realization of the truth of suffering, then one takes the four characteristics of contemplating suffering (impermanence, suffering, emptiness, and non-self) as the object. If a practitioner of the desire realm contemplates the suffering of the desire realm, then a practitioner of the form and formless realms contemplates the truth of suffering of the higher realms. The contemplation of the truth of origination and the truth of cessation also follows this standard. The truth of suffering is said to be that if a practitioner of the desire realm contemplates the origination and cessation of the desire realm, then a practitioner of the form and formless realms contemplates the origination and cessation of the upper two realms.'
Treatise: Because it is obtained through the power of the path of seeing, it is only obtained through effort (Prayoga). This clarifies that among the two types of 'attainment,' only effort can lead to attainment. That is, it is obtained through the effort of the path of seeing. What is included in the desire realm is wisdom born of thought (cintā-maya-paññā), and what is included in the form and formless realms is wisdom born of meditation (bhāvanā-maya-paññā). It is not wisdom born of hearing (suta-maya-paññā) because wisdom born of hearing is too weak. Vibhasa, volume 36.
云。問何故現觀邊世俗智非聞所成。盡智時所修善根有聞所成耶。答彼見道眷屬一向猛利。是速疾道之所修故。非聞所成盡智眷屬。盡智息求是容預道故能通修(已上論文)。
論。智增故至為其自性。辨體也。古德釋。俗智是同觀修。以苦見道同觀諦故。見道觀諦令彼觀諦智增。遂起于得故名同觀修。準此。于見道中有同類智見道為觀諦理。而不為斷惑。又有漏智無別斷見惑。以是義故故非同治。
論。次於修道雖染位中。已下兩行頌。第二明修道也。
論曰至現修二智。明第十六修道初念也。修有二種。謂行．得二修。行謂現行。得謂未來修。修道初念行修二智。謂道及類。此體是一名有二也。次第．超越皆同此二 若未來修。二位不同。
論。未離欲者至不修世俗。明未來修。他心智通四根本故 若未離欲不修他心。唯修法．類．又四諦智 若已離欲加他心智。不修盡無生。是無學故。不修俗智非想治故。正理論云。先已離欲入聖道者。何緣見道中不修他心智。以他心智遊觀德攝。依容預道方有修義。見道位中為觀諦理。加行極速故不能修。無間道中義亦同此。今第十六道類智時容預道收故。修此智(已上論文) 已上明住果修。後向之中斷有三例。一斷欲界惑。二斷上七地。三斷非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：為什麼現觀邊世俗智不是通過聽聞而獲得的？在獲得盡智時所修的善根，有通過聽聞而獲得的嗎？答：因為見道及其眷屬（指與見道相關的智慧和修行）一向非常猛利，是快速證道的修行方式，所以現觀邊世俗智不是通過聽聞而獲得的。而盡智的眷屬，因為盡智是息滅煩惱、容許漸進的道路，所以能夠通過修行而獲得（以上是論文內容）。 論：『智增故至為其自性』，這是在辨析它的體性。古代的德行之士解釋說，世俗智是與觀修相同的。因為苦見道與觀四諦是相同的，見道觀四諦能使觀四諦的智慧增長，從而產生獲得，所以稱為同觀修。按照這個說法，在見道中，有同類的智慧，見道是爲了觀察真理，而不是爲了斷除迷惑。而且有漏的智慧沒有單獨斷除見惑的作用，因為這個原因，所以不是同等對治。 論：『次於修道雖染位中』，以下兩行頌文，第二句是說明修道。 論曰：『至現修二智』，說明第十六剎那的修道初念。修有兩種，即行修和得修。行修是指現在的修行，得修是指未來的修行。修道初唸的行修二智，指的是道智和類智，這一個體有名和實兩種含義。次第和超越都與這兩種情況相同。如果是未來的修行，兩種情況的位置不同。 論：『未離欲者至不修世俗』，說明未來的修行。他心智可以通達四根本定，因此，如果還沒有脫離慾望，就不修他心智，只修法智、類智和四諦智。如果已經脫離慾望，就加上修他心智，但不修盡智和無生智，因為已經是無學果位。不修世俗智，是因為非想非非想處天可以對治世俗智。正理論中說，如果先脫離慾望而進入聖道，為什麼在見道中不修他心智？因為他心智屬於遊觀功德，只有在容許漸進的道路上才有修行的意義。在見道位中，爲了觀察真理，修行非常迅速，所以不能修他心智。無間道中的道理也與此相同。現在第十六剎那的道類智屬於容許漸進的道路，所以可以修這種智慧（以上是論文內容）。以上說明了安住于果位的修行。在趨向果位的過程中，斷除煩惱有三種情況：一是斷除欲界煩惱，二是斷除上七地（指色界和無色界）的煩惱，三是斷除非想非非想處天的煩惱。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Why is the worldly wisdom of the approximation to direct realization (xian guan bian shi su zhi) not attained through hearing? Are the roots of good cultivated at the time of attaining the Exhaustion of Knowledge (jin zhi) attained through hearing? Answer: Because the Path of Seeing (jian dao) and its retinue (juan shu) [referring to the wisdom and practices associated with the Path of Seeing] are always very intense, and it is a practice for rapid enlightenment, therefore the worldly wisdom of the approximation to direct realization is not attained through hearing. However, the retinue of the Exhaustion of Knowledge, because the Exhaustion of Knowledge is the path of extinguishing afflictions and allowing gradual progress, can be attained through practice (the above is the content of the treatise). Treatise: 'The increase of wisdom leads to its self-nature,' this is analyzing its essence. Ancient virtuous individuals explained that worldly wisdom is the same as contemplation and cultivation. Because the Path of Suffering (ku jian dao) is the same as contemplating the Four Noble Truths (si di), the Path of Seeing contemplating the Four Noble Truths can increase the wisdom of contemplating the Four Noble Truths, thereby generating attainment, so it is called co-contemplation and cultivation. According to this, in the Path of Seeing, there is similar wisdom, and the Path of Seeing is for observing the truth, not for cutting off delusion. Moreover, defiled wisdom does not have the function of separately cutting off the delusions of view (jian huo), for this reason, it is not equally curative. Treatise: 'Next, in the Path of Cultivation, although in the defiled position,' the following two lines of verse, the second sentence is explaining the Path of Cultivation (xiu dao). Treatise says: 'To the present cultivation of two wisdoms,' explaining the initial thought of the sixteenth moment of the Path of Cultivation. There are two types of cultivation, namely, the cultivation of action (xing xiu) and the cultivation of attainment (de xiu). The cultivation of action refers to present practice, and the cultivation of attainment refers to future practice. The two wisdoms of the cultivation of action in the initial thought of the Path of Cultivation refer to the Knowledge of the Path (dao zhi) and the Knowledge of Kind (lei zhi), this one entity has two meanings, name and substance. Sequence and transcendence are both the same as these two situations. If it is future cultivation, the positions of the two situations are different. Treatise: 'Those who have not left desire do not cultivate worldly wisdom,' explaining future cultivation. The Knowledge of Others' Minds (ta xin zhi) can penetrate the Four Fundamental Concentrations (si gen ben ding), therefore, if one has not yet abandoned desire, one does not cultivate the Knowledge of Others' Minds, but only cultivates the Knowledge of Dharma (fa zhi), the Knowledge of Kind, and the Four Noble Truths. If one has already abandoned desire, one adds the cultivation of the Knowledge of Others' Minds, but does not cultivate the Exhaustion of Knowledge and the Non-arising Knowledge (wu sheng zhi), because one is already in the state of No More Learning (wu xue guo). One does not cultivate worldly wisdom because the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (fei xiang fei fei xiang chu tian) can counteract worldly wisdom. The Zheng Li Lun (Abhidharmakośabhāṣya) says, if one first abandons desire and enters the Holy Path, why does one not cultivate the Knowledge of Others' Minds in the Path of Seeing? Because the Knowledge of Others' Minds belongs to the merit of wandering observation, and only on the path that allows gradual progress does it have the meaning of cultivation. In the position of the Path of Seeing, in order to observe the truth, the practice is very rapid, so one cannot cultivate the Knowledge of Others' Minds. The principle in the Path of No Interval (wu jian dao) is also the same as this. Now, the Knowledge of Kind of the Path in the sixteenth moment belongs to the path that allows gradual progress, so one can cultivate this wisdom (the above is the content of the treatise). The above explains the cultivation of abiding in the fruit. In the process of moving towards the fruit, there are three situations for cutting off afflictions: one is cutting off the afflictions of the Desire Realm (yu jie), the second is cutting off the afflictions of the upper Seven Realms [referring to the Form Realm (se jie) and the Formless Realm (wu se jie)], and the third is cutting off the afflictions of the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception.
想。就三例中。斷一一惑復有四道。謂加行無間解脫勝進。此等諸位行得二修。有同有異。然同類者於一處明。由此前後故有差別。
論。斷欲修斷至隨應現修。明三例行修別也 斷欲修斷九無間道。八解脫道。此斷欲界惑故不用四類智。及他心盡無生智。斷通漏無漏道故。所以有俗智。即是總有六智。謂四諦智．法智．俗智 第九解脫道行修。亦同六智。以未來修別故不於此明 斷上七地。用類智故四類智也。滅．道法智慧斷上故兼二法智。非有頂故兼俗智也 問何故欲界無間解脫道同處以明。斷上七地別處明也 答斷欲九無間道八解脫道未來修。同俱不修他心故。所以同處以明。斷上七地無間解脫。同行修四．類．二法．及世俗智總七智。以未來修別所以別明。無間道中不修他心。諸解脫道修他心故。所以如前。
論。斷欲加行至隨應現修。斷欲界惑無間解脫不用類智。加行勝進義即無違。故於此中加四類也。
論。此上未來至加他心智。明上三例未來修也。未離欲故無間道故不修他心。盡無生未得故。法．類互修者。由因力相資故修。下準此釋 斷有頂地加他心智。明有頂也。所以前八解脫與無間行修是同。不同明者。以未來修別。八解脫道修他心智無間不修。第九解脫或九或十。所以別明
。除世俗者。有頂治故。加他心者。解脫道故。
論。斷有頂地至苦．集滅．道六。無間道故不修他心。有頂治故不修世俗。
論。斷欲修斷至隨應現修。明欲等行修。文中有四 斷欲修斷第九解脫。第一例也 斷上七地諸解脫道。第二例也 斷欲修斷第九勝進斷上八地諸加行道。第三例也。此亦行修是同故同明也 斷上七地有頂八品諸勝進道。第四例也。先修他心容現前故加他心智 此上四例行修不同。如應可解。
論。此上未來至四諦他心。明得修同此上四例未來皆修八智。除盡．無生。是有學故 正理論云。四類不能斷欲界染。苦．集二法非上對治。何緣起彼治。此智未來修。若許兼彼非對治者。離有頂染等。應兼修世俗 此難非理。唯同對治于未來修非所許故。謂亦許有相屬故修。如見道中修世俗智。或由因力相資故修。如斷欲時兼修四類斷上染位修苦．集法。若斷欲染不修類智。斷上不修苦．集二法。則漸次得不還果者。應無容起類智現前。阿羅漢應無起苦．集法智。先所得者皆已舍故。先未得者非所修故。由約種類。若先已得為同類因力。引等流智生。此智由先彼智引故。于彼智類彼能為因。故此智生因力資彼。雖非同治亦未來修 準上論文。修見道邊俗智名相屬修。然名同觀亦不違
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 對於已斷除世俗智者（除世俗者），因為有頂地（有頂）的對治，所以不修世俗智。對於已證得他心智者（加他心者），因為解脫道的緣故，所以不修他心智。
論：斷除有頂地的煩惱，需要苦、集、滅、道四諦（苦．集滅．道）的六種無間道。因為是無間道，所以不修他心智。因為有有頂地的對治，所以不修世俗智。
論：斷除欲界煩惱的修斷（斷欲修斷），乃至隨其所應而現前修習（隨應現修）。說明了欲界等煩惱的修習（明欲等行修）。文中有四種情況：斷除欲界煩惱的修斷，是第九解脫道（第九解脫），這是第一種情況。斷除上方七地的各種解脫道（斷上七地諸解脫道），這是第二種情況。斷除欲界煩惱的修斷，是第九勝進道，斷除上方八地的各種加行道（斷欲修斷第九勝進斷上八地諸加行道），這是第三種情況。這也是行修，因為相同所以一同說明。斷除上方七地有頂的八品煩惱的各種勝進道（斷上七地有頂八品諸勝進道），這是第四種情況。因為先修習了他心智，所以容易現前，因此加上他心智（加他心智）。以上四種情況，行修不同，應當如其所應地理解。
論：以上未來（此上未來），乃至四諦他心智（四諦他心），說明了得修相同。以上四種情況，未來都修習八智，除了盡智（盡）和無生智（無生），因為是有學位的緣故。正理論說，四類智（四類）不能斷除欲界染污，苦法智（苦）和集法智（集）不是上界的對治，為什麼會生起對治？這種智慧在未來修習。如果允許兼修，但又不是對治，那麼斷除有頂染污等，應該兼修世俗智。這種責難沒有道理，因為並非允許只有相同的對治才在未來修習。也就是說，也允許因為有相屬關係而修習，例如在見道中修習世俗智。或者因為因的力量相互資助而修習，例如斷除欲界煩惱時兼修四類智，斷除上界煩惱時修習苦法智和集法智。如果斷除欲界煩惱時不修習類智，斷除上界煩惱時不修習苦法智和集法智，那麼漸次獲得不還果的人，應該沒有機會生起類智現前。阿羅漢應該無法生起苦法智和集法智，因為先前獲得的都已經捨棄，先前沒有獲得的又不是現在修習的。這是因為約種類來說，如果先前已經獲得，就作為同類因的力量，引生等流智。這種智慧因為先前彼智的引導，所以在彼智的種類中，彼智慧夠作為因。因此這種智慧生起，因的力量資助彼智，雖然不是相同的對治，也在未來修習。準照上面的論文，修習見道邊的世俗智，名為相屬修。然而名稱相同，觀點也不相違背。
【English Translation】 English version: For those who have eliminated mundane knowledge (除世俗者), mundane knowledge is not cultivated because of the antidote to the peak of existence (有頂). For those who have attained knowledge of others' minds (加他心者), knowledge of others' minds is not cultivated because of the path to liberation (解脫道).
Treatise: To sever the afflictions of the peak of existence (有頂), six uninterrupted paths (無間道) are needed for the Four Noble Truths (苦．集滅．道). Because it is an uninterrupted path, knowledge of others' minds is not cultivated. Because there is an antidote to the peak of existence, mundane knowledge is not cultivated.
Treatise: The cultivation of severance of desire realm afflictions (斷欲修斷), up to the point of cultivating as appropriate when they arise (隨應現修), explains the cultivation of afflictions such as those of the desire realm (明欲等行修). There are four cases in the text: The cultivation of severance of desire realm afflictions is the ninth liberation path (第九解脫), this is the first case. Severing the various liberation paths of the seven realms above (斷上七地諸解脫道), this is the second case. Severing desire realm afflictions is the ninth superior progressive path, severing the various preparatory paths of the eight realms above (斷欲修斷第九勝進斷上八地諸加行道), this is the third case. This is also practice cultivation, and because it is the same, it is explained together. Severing the various superior progressive paths of the eight qualities of the peak of existence in the seven realms above (斷上七地有頂八品諸勝進道), this is the fourth case. Because knowledge of others' minds is cultivated first, it is easy to manifest, therefore knowledge of others' minds is added (加他心智). In the above four cases, the practice cultivation is different, and should be understood as appropriate.
Treatise: The above future (此上未來), up to the knowledge of others' minds regarding the Four Noble Truths (四諦他心), explains that attainment and cultivation are the same. In the above four cases, all eight knowledges are cultivated in the future, except for the knowledge of exhaustion (盡) and the knowledge of non-arising (無生), because they are in the stage of learning. The Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya says that the four types of knowledge (四類) cannot sever the defilements of the desire realm. The knowledge of suffering (苦) and the knowledge of origination (集) are not antidotes to the higher realms. Why would they arise as antidotes? This wisdom is cultivated in the future. If it is allowed to cultivate them together, but they are not antidotes, then when severing the defilements of the peak of existence, mundane knowledge should also be cultivated together. This criticism is unreasonable, because it is not allowed that only the same antidotes are cultivated in the future. That is to say, it is also allowed to cultivate because there is a relationship of association, such as cultivating mundane knowledge in the path of seeing. Or it is cultivated because the power of causes mutually supports each other, such as cultivating the four types of knowledge together when severing desire realm afflictions, and cultivating the knowledge of suffering and the knowledge of origination when severing afflictions of the higher realms. If the knowledge of types is not cultivated when severing desire realm afflictions, and the knowledge of suffering and the knowledge of origination are not cultivated when severing afflictions of the higher realms, then those who gradually attain the fruit of non-returning should have no opportunity to generate the knowledge of types. Arhats should not be able to generate the knowledge of suffering and the knowledge of origination, because what was previously attained has already been abandoned, and what was not previously attained is not what is being cultivated now. This is because, in terms of types, if it has already been attained, it serves as the power of a cause of the same type, leading to the arising of outflow knowledge. Because this wisdom is guided by the previous wisdom, in the category of that wisdom, that wisdom can serve as a cause. Therefore, when this wisdom arises, the power of the cause supports that wisdom. Although it is not the same antidote, it is also cultivated in the future. According to the above text, cultivating mundane knowledge on the side of the path of seeing is called associated cultivation. However, the names are the same, and the views are not contradictory.
理。斷九地染加行．勝進。皆修俗智未見辨處。且即詳此相望雖非是同類因。亦有力用互相引故。由此與無漏智互相修也。
論。次辨離染得無學位。已下一行頌。第三明無學也。
論曰至無生智故。釋無生智等。盡智初心唯緣有頂四蘊。所以行修唯苦．集．類．及盡智。名雖有四。定三同體。苦．集不定。類．盡決定同一念故。
論。次辨餘位修智多少。已下三行頌。第四明練根等餘位修也。
論曰至不修他心。明有學練根。無間道五性非一故言諸也。是有學故無盡．無生。似見道故無世俗智。無間道故不修他心。所以唯六。
論。諸解脫道至謂加他心。明解脫道。四法．類智修同前。解脫道中非是斷障。已離欲者修他心智。亦同前說。
論。有餘師言至亦修世俗。述異說也。
論。諸加行道至謂加他心。明加行道。行修與無間同。未離．離欲兩位。未來加世俗智。見道加行有世俗故。故修七．八。
論。諸勝進道至未來亦八。明勝進道。未離．離欲行修。未來同修七．八。
論。無學練根至如治有頂故。明無學也。無間道故不修他心。行修故不修盡也。
論。五前八至他心及盡 五前者。時解脫中五種性也 前八解脫者。除第九以前八。行修與第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 理。斷除九地染污的加行、勝進，都是修習世俗智慧，尚未見到辨別之處。且詳細考察這種相互關係，雖然不是同類因，也有力量相互引生。因此與無漏智慧互相修習。
論。接下來辨別離染獲得無學位的階段。下面一行頌文，第三部分說明無學。
論曰至無生智故。解釋無生智等。盡智的最初階段只緣于有頂天的四蘊（色、受、想、行）。所以修習只包括苦類智、集類智、苦盡智和集盡智。名義上雖有四種，實際上是三種同體。苦類智和集類智不確定，苦盡智和集盡智決定是同一念。
論。接下來辨別其餘階段修習智慧的多少。下面三行頌文，第四部分說明練根等其餘階段的修習。
論曰至不修他心。說明有學練根。無間道（指斷除煩惱的智慧）的五種自性並非單一，所以用『諸』字。因為是有學，所以沒有盡智和無生智。類似見道，所以沒有世俗智。因為是無間道，所以不修他心智。因此只有六種。
論。諸解脫道至謂加他心。說明解脫道。四法類智的修習與前面相同。解脫道中不是斷除障礙，已經離欲的人修習他心智，也與前面所說相同。
論。有餘師言至亦修世俗。敘述不同的說法。
論。諸加行道至謂加他心。說明加行道。修習與無間道相同。未離欲和離欲兩個階段，未來會增加世俗智。見道的加行有世俗智，所以修習七種或八種。
論。諸勝進道至未來亦八。說明勝進道。未離欲和離欲的修習，未來也同樣修習七種或八種。
論。無學練根至如治有頂故。說明無學。因為是無間道，所以不修他心智。因為是行修，所以不修盡智。
論。五前八至他心及盡 五前者，指時解脫中的五種自性 前八解脫者，指除去第九解脫以外的前八種。行修與第
【English Translation】 English version: Reasoning. The application and progress of severing the defilements of the nine grounds are all practices of mundane wisdom, without yet discerning the distinctions. And upon detailed examination of this mutual relationship, although they are not causes of the same kind, they have the power to mutually induce each other. Therefore, they are mutually cultivated with unconditioned wisdom.
Treatise. Next, distinguishing the stage of attaining the state of no-more-learning (Arhatship) through detachment from defilements. The following verse line, the third part, explains the state of no-more-learning.
Treatise says: To the effect of 'wisdom of no arising'. Explaining the 'wisdom of no arising' and so on. The initial stage of the 'wisdom of exhaustion' only focuses on the four aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations) of the Peak of Existence (Bhavagra). Therefore, the practice only includes the wisdom of suffering-related knowledge, the wisdom of origination-related knowledge, the exhaustion-related knowledge of suffering, and the exhaustion-related knowledge of origination. Although there are four in name, they are actually three of the same essence. The suffering-related knowledge and origination-related knowledge are uncertain, while the exhaustion-related knowledge of suffering and the exhaustion-related knowledge of origination are definitely of the same moment.
Treatise. Next, distinguishing the amount of wisdom cultivated in the remaining stages. The following three verse lines, the fourth part, explain the cultivation in the remaining stages such as root-sharpening.
Treatise says: To the effect of 'not cultivating the wisdom of others' minds'. Explaining the root-sharpening of those still in the stage of learning. The five natures of the immediate path (the wisdom that cuts off afflictions) are not singular, hence the use of the word 'various'. Because they are still in the stage of learning, they do not have the 'wisdom of exhaustion' and the 'wisdom of no arising'. Similar to the path of seeing, they do not have mundane wisdom. Because it is the immediate path, they do not cultivate the 'wisdom of others' minds'. Therefore, there are only six.
Treatise. 'Various paths of liberation' to the effect of 'adding the wisdom of others' minds'. Explaining the path of liberation. The cultivation of the four Dharma-related knowledges and the knowledge of categories is the same as before. In the path of liberation, it is not about cutting off obstacles. Those who have already detached from desire cultivate the 'wisdom of others' minds', which is also the same as mentioned before.
Treatise. 'Some teachers say' to the effect of 'also cultivating mundane wisdom'. Narrating different views.
Treatise. 'Various paths of application' to the effect of 'adding the wisdom of others' minds'. Explaining the path of application. The practice is the same as the immediate path. In the two stages of not yet detached from desire and detached from desire, in the future, mundane wisdom will be added. The application of the path of seeing has mundane wisdom, so seven or eight are cultivated.
Treatise. 'Various paths of progress' to the effect of 'in the future, also eight'. Explaining the path of progress. In the practice of not yet detached from desire and detached from desire, in the future, seven or eight will also be cultivated.
Treatise. 'The root-sharpening of the no-more-learning' to the effect of 'like treating the Peak of Existence'. Explaining the state of no-more-learning. Because it is the immediate path, the 'wisdom of others' minds' is not cultivated. Because it is practice, the 'wisdom of exhaustion' is not cultivated.
Treatise. 'The five before eight' to 'the wisdom of others' minds and exhaustion'. 'The five before' refers to the five natures in liberation by time. 'The eight liberations before' refers to the first eight, excluding the ninth liberation. The practice is the same as the
九。不同故別明也 未來修八。除俗．無生。
論。四第九解脫至未來修九 四第九者。謂前四種性。第九解脫。同盡智初唯緣非想故。所以苦．集．類．盡隨應現修 隨應現修者。謂苦．集智隨一起不定。類．盡決定非隨應也 未來修九者。加世俗智。同得應果故。
論。最後解脫至未來修十 后解脫者。謂第五種姓練根第九解脫。行修同前。已利根故未來修十。
論。諸加行道至未來亦十。明加行．勝進行得修異。如文可知。
論。學位雜修至未來皆八。明學位雜修也。無間道無漏．有漏二念心故。行修兼俗。解脫道中唯無漏一念心故。行修唯四．法．類 加行增俗者。加行心中多無漏心。相間雜故 諸勝進道又加他心者。先得他心容現起故 未來唯八是有學故。依根本故。
論。無學雜修至與練根同。明無學雜修也 無間道未來鈍八利九者。不修他心智故 解脫道中鈍九利十者。修他心故。
論。學位修通至皆修八智。明學修通也 五無間道非理觀故。現修俗智。互相引故未來修七。除他心．盡．無生也。五解脫道二是無記不名修也 宿住．神境二解脫道。五加行道。皆非理觀故唯世俗 他心解脫道無漏故。法．類．道．俗。及他心智。隨應現起 一切勝進如他心智。更
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 九、因不同而有差別，闡明這一點。未來修習八種智慧，即去除世俗智和無生智。
論：四種姓的第九解脫乃至未來修習九種智慧。四種姓的第九解脫，指的是前四種根性的修行者，在獲得第九解脫時，與盡智的初始階段相同，僅僅緣于非想非非想處。因此，苦智、集智、類智、盡智隨其相應的情況而顯現修習。隨其相應的情況而顯現修習，指的是苦智和集智的生起是不確定的，而類智和盡智的生起是確定的，並非隨其相應的情況。未來修習九種智慧，指的是加上世俗智，因為他們都能獲得阿羅漢果。
論：最後解脫乃至未來修習十種智慧。后解脫，指的是第五種姓（利根者）通過練根獲得的第九解脫。他們的修行方式與之前相同。因為他們是利根者，所以未來修習十種智慧。
論：各種加行道乃至未來也修習十種智慧。闡明加行道和勝進道在修行上有所不同。具體內容如原文所述。
論：有學位的雜修乃至未來都修習八種智慧。闡明有學位的雜修。無間道包含無漏和有漏兩種心念，因此修行時兼顧世俗智。解脫道中只有無漏的一種心念，因此修行時只修習法智、類智。加行道增加世俗智，是因為加行道心中多為無漏心，但其中也夾雜著世俗智。各種勝進道又增加他心智，是因為先已獲得他心智，所以可能顯現。未來只修習八種智慧，是因為他們是有學位者，依賴於根本。
論：無學位的雜修與練根者相同。闡明無學位的雜修。無間道在未來修習時，鈍根者修習八種智慧，利根者修習九種智慧，因為他們不修習他心智。解脫道中，鈍根者修習九種智慧，利根者修習十種智慧，因為他們修習他心智。
論：有學位的共通修習乃至都修習八種智慧。闡明有學位的共通修習。五無間道並非通過如理作意而獲得，因此現在修習世俗智。因為它們互相引發，所以未來修習七種智慧，即去除他心智、盡智和無生智。五解脫道中有兩種是無記，不能稱為修習。宿住智和神境智兩種解脫道，以及五加行道，都不是通過如理作意而獲得，因此只修習世俗智。他心智解脫道是無漏的，因此法智、類智、道智、世俗智以及他心智，隨其相應的情況而顯現。一切勝進道都與他心智相同，不再贅述。
【English Translation】 English version 9. Distinctions Due to Differences: Clarifying the distinctions arising from different causes. In the future, eight types of wisdom are cultivated, excluding mundane wisdom and the wisdom of non-origination.
Treatise: From the ninth liberation of the four lineages to the future cultivation of nine types of wisdom. The ninth liberation of the four lineages refers to practitioners of the first four dispositions who, upon attaining the ninth liberation, are in the initial stage of the Exhaustion Knowledge (盡智, Jin Zhi), focusing solely on the realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception. Therefore, the Wisdom of Suffering (苦智, Ku Zhi), the Wisdom of Origination (集智, Ji Zhi), the Inferential Wisdom (類智, Lei Zhi), and the Wisdom of Cessation (盡智, Jin Zhi) are manifested and cultivated according to their respective conditions. 'Manifested and cultivated according to their respective conditions' means that the arising of the Wisdom of Suffering and the Wisdom of Origination is uncertain, while the arising of the Inferential Wisdom and the Wisdom of Cessation is certain and not conditional. The future cultivation of nine types of wisdom refers to the addition of Mundane Wisdom (世俗智, Shi Su Zhi), as they can all attain the Arhat fruit.
Treatise: From the final liberation to the future cultivation of ten types of wisdom. The final liberation refers to the ninth liberation attained by the fifth lineage (those with sharp faculties) through the practice of refining their faculties. Their method of practice is the same as before. Because they are sharp-witted, they will cultivate ten types of wisdom in the future.
Treatise: All paths of application up to the future cultivation of ten types of wisdom. Clarifies the differences in practice between the paths of application and the paths of superior progress. The details are as described in the text.
Treatise: Mixed practice of those in the stage of learning up to the future cultivation of eight types of wisdom. Clarifies the mixed practice of those in the stage of learning. The Path of Immediate Succession (無間道, Wu Jian Dao) contains two types of mental states, undefiled and defiled, so practice includes mundane wisdom. In the Path of Liberation (解脫道, Jie Tuo Dao), there is only one undefiled mental state, so practice only cultivates the Wisdom of Dharma (法智, Fa Zhi) and Inferential Wisdom. The paths of application add mundane wisdom because the minds in the paths of application are mostly undefiled, but also mixed with mundane wisdom. The various paths of superior progress add the Wisdom of Others' Minds (他心智, Ta Xin Zhi) because they have already attained the Wisdom of Others' Minds, so it may manifest. Only eight types of wisdom are cultivated in the future because they are in the stage of learning and rely on the fundamentals.
Treatise: Mixed practice of those beyond learning is the same as those refining their faculties. Clarifies the mixed practice of those beyond learning. In the Path of Immediate Succession, dull faculties cultivate eight types of wisdom in the future, while sharp faculties cultivate nine types of wisdom because they do not cultivate the Wisdom of Others' Minds. In the Path of Liberation, dull faculties cultivate nine types of wisdom, while sharp faculties cultivate ten types of wisdom because they cultivate the Wisdom of Others' Minds.
Treatise: Common practice of those in the stage of learning up to the cultivation of eight types of wisdom. Clarifies the common practice of those in the stage of learning. The five Paths of Immediate Succession are not attained through reasoned contemplation, so they currently cultivate mundane wisdom. Because they mutually induce each other, they will cultivate seven types of wisdom in the future, excluding the Wisdom of Others' Minds, the Exhaustion Knowledge, and the Wisdom of Non-Origination. Two of the five Paths of Liberation are indeterminate and cannot be called practice. The two Paths of Liberation of the Knowledge of Past Lives (宿住智, Su Zhu Zhi) and the Supernormal Powers (神境智, Shen Jing Zhi), as well as the five Paths of Application, are not attained through reasoned contemplation, so they only cultivate mundane wisdom. The Path of Liberation of the Wisdom of Others' Minds is undefiled, so the Wisdom of Dharma, Inferential Wisdom, the Wisdom of the Path (道智, Dao Zhi), mundane wisdom, and the Wisdom of Others' Minds are manifested according to their respective conditions. All paths of superior progress are the same as the Wisdom of Others' Minds and will not be repeated.
加苦．集．滅隨應現修故言並也 學修通中除五無間。自余未來皆修八智。除盡無生以未得故。
論。無學修通至與練根同。明無學修通也 無間現修如學者。同緣事故。未來修異。鈍加盡智。利兼無生故 解脫加行現修如學者。若有學。若無學。皆不以盡．無生為解脫．加行故。未來有異。鈍加盡智。利兼無生故。勝進與無學練根同。
論。天眼天耳至不名為修。此二解脫是無記故。學．無學皆非修也。
論。聖起所餘至唯修俗故。明一切聖修有漏功德。既是有漏皆行修俗。未來有學未離欲七。已離欲修八。準前可知。無學鈍九。利十。亦如前說 除微微心此于未來唯修俗故者。正理亦同。婆沙一百七云。已得善法現在前時。不能修未來 準知。所言修者。皆起未曾得。婆沙一百五十五云。若起微微心時。若起聞．思惠等時。于無漏根非舍非得 準婆沙微微心與聞．思惠同說不修無漏不言此三未來修有漏。此論及正理。皆言微微心未來唯修有漏。聞．思惠心非定心故。有他力修。無自力修 準上論文微微心唯修有漏。不修無漏。聞．思惠二總不修也。
論。若起所餘至同前有漏。明聖修無漏功德。如文可解。
論。異生離染至唯修世俗。明異生離染修智多少。斷欲第九解脫。得初定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『加』（Kaja，苦），『苦集』（Samudaya，苦的生起），『苦滅』（Nirodha，苦的止息）隨其相應顯現而修習，所以說『並』。在有學位的修習中，除了五無間業（pañcānantarya，指殺父、殺母、殺阿羅漢、破僧團、出佛身血）之外，其餘未來（位）都修習八智。除去盡智（ksaya-jnana，知煩惱已盡的智慧）和無生智（anutpada-jnana，知未來不再生煩惱的智慧），因為尚未證得。
論：無學位的修通（神通的修習）與練根（indriya-paripaka，使根器成熟）相同。這是說明無學位的修通。無間現修（當下修習）如同有學位，因為所緣相同。未來修習不同，鈍根者加上盡智，利根者兼修無生智。解脫加行（vimoksa-prayoga，為解脫所作的努力）現修如同有學位。無論是有學位還是無學位，都不以盡智和無生智作為解脫加行。未來有不同，鈍根者加上盡智，利根者兼修無生智。勝進（visesa-gami，殊勝的進步）與無學位的練根相同。
論：天眼（divyacaksu，能見遠處或微細事物的能力）、天耳（divyasrotra，能聽遠處或微細聲音的能力）乃至不名為修。這兩種解脫是無記（avyakrta，非善非惡）的，所以有學位和無學位都不修習。
論：聖者生起其餘（心所）乃至唯修世俗（lokika，世間的）。說明一切聖者修習有漏（sasrava，有煩惱的）功德。既然是有漏的，都實行修習世俗。未來有學位未離欲界七地（指欲界身），已離欲界則修習八地。參照前面可以知道。無學位鈍根者修習九地，利根者修習十地。也如前面所說。除去微微心（atisuksma-citta，極微細的心），因為在未來唯修世俗。正理也相同。《婆沙論》第一百零七卷說：『已得善法現在前時，不能修未來。』準此可知，所說的修習，都是生起未曾得到的。《婆沙論》第一百五十五卷說：『若生起微微心時，若生起聞、思慧等時，于無漏根（anasrava-indriya，無煩惱的根）非舍非得。』準《婆沙論》，微微心與聞、思慧一同說不修無漏，但不說這三種未來修有漏。此論及《正理論》都說微微心未來唯修有漏。聞、思慧心不是定心，有他力修，無自力修。準上文，微微心唯修有漏，不修無漏。聞、思慧二者總不修。
論：若生起其餘（心所）乃至同前有漏。說明聖者修習無漏功德。如文義可以理解。
論：異生（prthagjana，凡夫）離染（viraga，脫離煩惱）乃至唯修世俗。說明異生離染修習智慧的多少。斷欲界第九品煩惱解脫，得到初禪定（prathama-dhyana，色界的第一禪定）。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Kaja' (suffering), 'Samudaya' (the arising of suffering), 'Nirodha' (the cessation of suffering) are cultivated as they appear accordingly, hence the term 'together'. In the training of those in the stage of learning, except for the five heinous offenses (pañcānantarya, referring to patricide, matricide, killing an Arhat, causing disunity in the Sangha, and shedding the blood of a Buddha), all future (stages) cultivate the eight wisdoms. Except for the Exhaustion Wisdom (ksaya-jnana, the wisdom of knowing that defilements are exhausted) and the Non-arising Wisdom (anutpada-jnana, the wisdom of knowing that defilements will not arise again in the future), because they have not yet been attained.
Treatise: The cultivation of spiritual powers (神通的修習) by those in the stage of no-more-learning is the same as the maturation of faculties (indriya-paripaka, making the faculties mature). This explains the cultivation of spiritual powers by those in the stage of no-more-learning. The immediate cultivation is the same as those in the stage of learning, because the objects of focus are the same. Future cultivation is different; the dull-witted add the Exhaustion Wisdom, while the sharp-witted also cultivate the Non-arising Wisdom. The effort for liberation (vimoksa-prayoga, the effort made for liberation) is cultivated immediately like those in the stage of learning. Whether in the stage of learning or no-more-learning, neither the Exhaustion Wisdom nor the Non-arising Wisdom is taken as the effort for liberation. The future is different; the dull-witted add the Exhaustion Wisdom, while the sharp-witted also cultivate the Non-arising Wisdom. Superior progress (visesa-gami, superior progress) is the same as the maturation of faculties in the stage of no-more-learning.
Treatise: The divine eye (divyacaksu, the ability to see distant or subtle things), the divine ear (divyasrotra, the ability to hear distant or subtle sounds), and so on, are not called cultivation. These two liberations are indeterminate (avyakrta, neither good nor evil), so neither those in the stage of learning nor those in the stage of no-more-learning cultivate them.
Treatise: When a noble one arises with the remaining (mental factors), they only cultivate the mundane (lokika, worldly). This explains that all noble ones cultivate defiled (sasrava, with defilements) merits. Since they are defiled, they all practice cultivating the mundane. In the future, those in the stage of learning who have not left the seven realms of the desire realm (referring to the desire realm body) cultivate eight realms when they have left the desire realm. It can be understood by referring to the previous explanation. Those in the stage of no-more-learning who are dull-witted cultivate nine realms, while those who are sharp-witted cultivate ten realms. It is also as previously stated. Except for the subtle mind (atisuksma-citta, extremely subtle mind), because in the future, they only cultivate the mundane. The principle is the same. The Mahavibhasa (婆沙論) Volume 107 says: 'When a good dharma that has already been attained is present, one cannot cultivate the future.' According to this, what is said to be cultivated is the arising of what has not yet been attained. The Mahavibhasa (婆沙論) Volume 155 says: 'If a subtle mind arises, if hearing, thinking, wisdom, etc., arise, then with respect to the undefiled faculties (anasrava-indriya, faculties without defilements), there is neither abandonment nor attainment.' According to the Mahavibhasa (婆沙論), the subtle mind and hearing, thinking, and wisdom are said together not to cultivate the undefiled, but it is not said that these three cultivate the defiled in the future. This treatise and the Nyayanusara (正理論) both say that the subtle mind only cultivates the defiled in the future. The minds of hearing, thinking, and wisdom are not samadhi minds, so there is cultivation through the power of others, but no cultivation through one's own power. According to the above text, the subtle mind only cultivates the defiled and does not cultivate the undefiled. Hearing, thinking, and wisdom are not cultivated at all.
Treatise: If the remaining (mental factors) arise, it is the same as the previous defiled. This explains that noble ones cultivate undefiled merits. The meaning can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Ordinary beings (prthagjana, common people) who are free from attachment (viraga, free from defilements) only cultivate the mundane. This explains how much wisdom ordinary beings cultivate when they are free from attachment. Cutting off the ninth grade of defilements in the desire realm leads to liberation and the attainment of the first dhyana (prathama-dhyana, the first dhyana of the form realm).
他心。乃至。離第三染第九解脫。得第四定他心智。離第四定第九解脫。得空處定。無他心故不得言修。行修亦唯世俗。總言離染通四道故。準此論文。離染四道皆唯共相作意。聖道．世俗．及他心者是共相非別相也。無漏他心雖緣一法是共相故。異生無有無漏他心。由此離染四道行修。唯世俗智不修他心。緣有漏心必唯自相。異生修道勝進即有他心行修。如文可知 有人更為兩解。一云或異生位。離欲勝進容起他心。此文但言俗智者。據加行．無間．解脫道。從多分說。二云或應說。而不說者略而不論。此不應理。諸論皆同故。異生唯得四根本靜慮兼修他心。自余諸位唯修世俗。
論。修五通時至現未唯俗。明異生修通。依根本四禪故。諸勝進道他心．俗智隨應現修。無間道起非容預故現．未俱俗。五加行道．及神境．宿住二解脫。不唯緣心故唯世俗。一解脫道即他心智故。所以通二。
論。根本靜慮至近眷屬故。明依根本地修余功德也。非他心智故現唯俗智。根本地故亦修他心。唯抉擇分見道眷屬。同見道故不修他心。
論。依餘地定至現未來修。明色四未至及無色全皆唯修俗。
論。諸未來修為修幾地。此下兩行頌。第五明地通局。
論曰至此地有漏。釋修有漏法也 諸道者。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『他心』（Paracitta-jnana，知他人心智）。乃至。離第三染第九解脫。得第四定他心智。離第四定第九解脫。得空處定。因無『他心』故，不得言『修』。行修也僅是世俗。總而言之，離染通達四道。準照此論文，離染四道皆唯『共相作意』（Samanya-laksana-manaskara，以共相為目標的心理活動）。聖道、世俗、及『他心』者，是共相而非別相。無漏『他心』雖緣一法，也是共相。因此，異生（Prthag-jana，凡夫）沒有無漏『他心』。由此，離染四道行修，唯世俗智，不修『他心』。緣有漏心必唯自相。異生修道勝進即有『他心』行修，如文可知。有人更作兩種解釋：一說，或異生位，離欲勝進容起『他心』。此文但言俗智者，據加行道（Prayoga-marga，準備道）、無間道（Anantarya-marga，無間斷道）、解脫道（Vimukti-marga，解脫道），從多分說。二說，或應說，而不說者，略而不論。此不應理，諸論皆同故。異生唯得四根本靜慮（catvari dhyanani，四禪）兼修『他心』。其餘諸位唯修世俗。
論：修五通（panca abhijna，五神通）時至現未唯俗。說明異生修通，依根本四禪故。諸勝進道『他心』、俗智隨應現修。無間道起非容預故現、未俱俗。五加行道、及神境通（rddhi-visaya-jnana-abhijna，神境智證通）、宿住隨念通（purva-nivasanusmrti-abhijna，宿住隨念智證通）二解脫，不唯緣心故唯世俗。一解脫道即『他心』智故，所以通二。
論：根本靜慮至近眷屬故。說明依根本地修其餘功德。非『他心』智故現唯俗智。根本地故亦修『他心』。唯抉擇分（nirvedha-bhagiya，抉擇分）見道眷屬，同見道故不修『他心』。
論：依餘地定至現未來修。說明色界四禪未至定（rupa-avacara-dhyana，色界禪）及無色界定（arupa-avacara-dhyana，無色界禪）全皆唯修俗。
論：諸未來修為修幾地？此下兩行頌。第五明地通局。
論曰至此地有漏。解釋修有漏法也。諸道者。
【English Translation】 English version 『Paracitta-jnana』 (Knowledge of others' minds). Furthermore, by separating from the third defilement and achieving the ninth liberation, one attains the knowledge of others' minds in the fourth Dhyana. By separating from the fourth Dhyana and achieving the ninth liberation, one attains the Station of Emptiness. Because there is no 『Paracitta』 (knowledge of others' minds), it cannot be said to be 『cultivated』. The practice is only mundane. In general, separation from defilements is achieved through the Four Paths. According to this treatise, the Four Paths of separation from defilements all involve only 『Samanya-laksana-manaskara』 (attention to general characteristics). The Noble Path, the mundane, and 『Paracitta』 are general characteristics, not specific characteristics. Although non-outflow 『Paracitta』 focuses on one Dharma, it is still a general characteristic. Therefore, ordinary beings (Prthag-jana) do not have non-outflow 『Paracitta』. Hence, the practice of the Four Paths of separation from defilements is only mundane wisdom, not cultivating 『Paracitta』. Focusing on defiled minds must only involve self-characteristics. When ordinary beings advance in their cultivation, they then have the practice of 『Paracitta』, as the text indicates. Some people offer two further explanations: one says that in the stage of ordinary beings, advancing from desire, 『Paracitta』 may arise. This text only mentions mundane wisdom because it refers to the Prayoga-marga (Path of Application), Anantarya-marga (Path of Immediate Succession), and Vimukti-marga (Path of Liberation), speaking from the majority perspective. The second says that it should have been mentioned, but it was omitted. This is not reasonable because all treatises agree. Ordinary beings only attain the Four Fundamental Dhyanas (catvari dhyanani) and concurrently cultivate 『Paracitta』. All other stages only cultivate the mundane.
Treatise: When cultivating the Five Superknowledges (panca abhijna), the present and future are only mundane. This explains that ordinary beings cultivate superknowledges based on the Four Fundamental Dhyanas. In the Paths of Advancement, 『Paracitta』 and mundane wisdom are cultivated accordingly. Because the Path of Immediate Succession arises without allowance for anticipation, both present and future are mundane. The Five Paths of Application, and the two liberations of the Supernormal Power (rddhi-visaya-jnana-abhijna) and Recollection of Past Lives (purva-nivasanusmrti-abhijna), are only mundane because they do not solely focus on the mind. One Path of Liberation is the wisdom of 『Paracitta』, so it encompasses both.
Treatise: The Fundamental Dhyanas extend to close relatives. This explains that based on the fundamental ground, other merits are cultivated. Because it is not the wisdom of 『Paracitta』, the present is only mundane wisdom. Because it is the fundamental ground, 『Paracitta』 is also cultivated. Only the Determination Division (nirvedha-bhagiya) and the retinue of the Path of Seeing, being the same as the Path of Seeing, do not cultivate 『Paracitta』.
Treatise: Based on the Samadhi of other grounds, cultivation extends to the present and future. This explains that the Four Dhyanas of the Form Realm (rupa-avacara-dhyana) and all the Formless Realm Samadhis (arupa-avacara-dhyana) only cultivate the mundane.
Treatise: How many grounds are cultivated in all future cultivations? The following two lines are a verse. The fifth explains the scope of the grounds.
Treatise: It says up to this ground is defiled. It explains the cultivation of defiled Dharmas. The Paths...
謂有漏．無漏加行．無間．解脫．勝進四道 依此者。即上諸道隨依何地現起名為依此 得此者。謂有漏道依上近分離下染時。及無漏道隨依何地離染之時。至第九品解脫道時得於上地 修此地有漏者。如上所說。若依此地。若得此地。即修此地有漏善法。有漏系地堅牢不修餘地。故正理論釋此頌言。謂依此地世俗．聖道現在前時。未來唯修此地有漏。以有漏法系地堅牢難修余故(已上論文釋依此也)隨依何地離下地染。第九解脫現在前時。亦修未來所得上地根本．近分有漏功德。離下地縛必得上故。
論。聖為離此地至及下無漏。釋頌得修無漏也 聖為離此地者。謂聖人隨依何地離此地染時。修所離地及下無漏。即如依初定離二定等諸地染時。得第二定等。及下無漏 及得此地時者．聖人隨依何地初得二三定等。即修二．三定等。及下無漏 並此地中諸聖道現起者。謂聖人現起二．三定等聖道之時。即修二．三等定。及下無漏。
論。為離此言通二四道 謂上為離此地染者。非唯無漏無間．解脫道。二四道也。正理論云。謂隨何地有漏．無漏加行等道。正現在前。為欲斷除此地煩惱。未來修此及下無漏。下於上染同能治故。雖下聖道斷煩惱時。諸上地邊有能同治。然由有漏系地堅牢。未離下時未能修彼
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所謂『有漏』、『無漏』的加行道、無間道、解脫道、勝進道，『依此』是指：以上所說的各種道，隨其所依的任何地而生起，就稱為『依此』。『得此』是指：有漏道在接近於從上地分離而遠離下地染污時，以及無漏道隨其所依的任何地而遠離染污之時，直到第九品解脫道時，才能得到上地。『修此地有漏』是指：如上所說，如果依於此地，或者得到此地，就修習此地的有漏善法。因為有漏法系縛於此地，非常牢固，難以修習其他地的法。所以《正理論》解釋此頌說：『所謂依於此地的世俗道和聖道現在前時，未來只修習此地的有漏法，因為有漏法系縛於此地，非常牢固，難以修習其他地的法。』（以上論文解釋了『依此』的含義）隨其所依的任何地而遠離下地染污，在第九解脫道現在前時，也修習未來所得到的上地的根本定、近分定的有漏功德。因為脫離了下地的束縛，必定能夠得到上地。
論：聖者爲了脫離此地，乃至下地的無漏道。解釋了頌文中的『得修無漏』。聖者爲了脫離此地是指：聖人隨其所依的任何地而脫離此地的染污時，修習所脫離的地以及下地的無漏道。例如，依于初禪而脫離二禪等各地的染污時，得到第二禪等，以及下地的無漏道。以及得到此地時：聖人隨其所依的任何地而初次得到二禪、三禪等時，就修習二禪、三禪等，以及下地的無漏道。並且此地中的各種聖道現起時：聖人現起二禪、三禪等聖道之時，就修習二禪、三禪等定，以及下地的無漏道。
論：『爲了脫離此』這句話，涵蓋了二道和四道。所謂上面所說的爲了脫離此地的染污，不僅僅是無漏的無間道、解脫道，也包括二道和四道。《正理論》說：『所謂隨其所依的任何地的有漏、無漏加行道等道，正在現在前，爲了斷除此地的煩惱，未來修習此地以及下地的無漏道，因為下地的法對於上地的染污，具有相同的對治作用。』雖然下地的聖道在斷除煩惱時，各個上地也具有相同的對治作用，但是由於有漏法系縛於此地，非常牢固，在沒有脫離下地時，無法修習上地的法。
【English Translation】 English version: The so-called 'with outflows' (有漏, yǒu lòu, having defilements), 'without outflows' (無漏, wú lòu, free from defilements) preparatory practice (加行, jiā xíng, application), immediate path (無間, wú jiàn, immediate), liberation path (解脫, jiě tuō, liberation), and superior progress (勝進, shèng jìn, superior progress) four paths. 'Relying on this' refers to: the above-mentioned various paths, depending on whichever realm (地, dì, level/stage of meditation) they arise in, are called 'relying on this'. 'Obtaining this' refers to: the path with outflows, when nearing separation from the upper realm and departing from the defilements of the lower realm, and the path without outflows, when departing from defilements in whichever realm it relies on, until the ninth stage liberation path, then one obtains the upper realm. 'Cultivating the with outflows of this realm' refers to: as mentioned above, if relying on this realm, or obtaining this realm, then one cultivates the meritorious dharmas with outflows of this realm. Because the dharmas with outflows are bound to this realm, firmly, it is difficult to cultivate the dharmas of other realms. Therefore, the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (正理論, Zhèng lǐlùn) explains this verse saying: 'So-called when the mundane and noble paths relying on this realm are presently arising, in the future one only cultivates the with outflows of this realm, because the dharmas with outflows are bound to this realm, firmly, it is difficult to cultivate others.' (The above essay explains the meaning of 'relying on this') Depending on whichever realm one relies on to depart from the defilements of the lower realm, when the ninth liberation arises, one also cultivates the meritorious qualities with outflows of the fundamental and proximate concentrations of the upper realm that will be obtained in the future. Because having escaped the bonds of the lower realm, one will certainly be able to obtain the upper realm.
Treatise: The sage, in order to depart from this realm, even the path without outflows of the lower realm. Explains the 'obtaining and cultivating without outflows' in the verse. The sage, in order to depart from this realm, refers to: when a sage, depending on whichever realm they rely on, departs from the defilements of this realm, they cultivate the realm they have departed from and the path without outflows of the lower realm. For example, relying on the first dhyāna (初定, chū dìng, first meditation) to depart from the defilements of the second dhyāna etc. various realms, one obtains the second dhyāna etc., and the path without outflows of the lower realm. And when obtaining this realm: when a sage, depending on whichever realm they rely on, initially obtains the second, third dhyāna etc., then they cultivate the second, third dhyāna etc., and the path without outflows of the lower realm. And when the various noble paths in this realm arise: when a sage manifests the noble paths of the second, third dhyāna etc., then they cultivate the second, third dhyāna etc., and the path without outflows of the lower realm.
Treatise: 'In order to depart from this' phrase, encompasses the two paths and the four paths. The so-called above mentioned in order to depart from the defilements of this realm, is not only the immediate path and liberation path without outflows, but also includes the two paths and the four paths. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya says: 'So-called depending on whichever realm one relies on, the path with outflows, the path without outflows, preparatory practice etc. are presently arising, in order to sever the afflictions of this realm, in the future one cultivates this realm and the path without outflows of the lower realm, because the dharmas of the lower realm have the same antidote effect on the defilements of the upper realm.' Although when the noble path of the lower realm severs afflictions, the various upper realms also have the same antidote effect, but because the dharmas with outflows are bound to this realm, firmly, when one has not departed from the lower realm, one cannot cultivate the dharmas of the upper realm.
。隨依何地離下地染。第九解脫現在前時。能修未來所得上地。及諸下地無漏功德。隨起此地世俗．聖道現在前時。未來皆修。此及下地無漏功德 準此論文。賢聖品頌云。聖二離八修。各二離系得。長行釋云。諸有學聖用有漏道。離下八地修斷染時。能具引生二離系得。用無漏道離彼亦然。由二種道同所作故者。準正理文。聖定用有漏及無漏道離染。雖同修二種得。有漏道斷隨品修二。無漏道斷至第九品解脫道修。顯宗三十二有三釋 一云。由此有學離八修斷。世．出世道隨應現前各未來修世．出世道。此總相。說。以無漏道離上七地前八品時。不修上邊世俗道故。唯有無漏一離系得。離第九品方可具二 第二釋云 或應許得離道而修 第三釋云 或應斷染時許依下修上 已上說修道非見道也。見道現起亦修下俗智故。
論。唯初盡智現在前時至皆來朝貢。明盡智修異餘位也。正理論云。唯初盡智現在前時。力能遍修九地有漏意地所攝。聞．思．修所成不凈觀等無量勝功德。謂隨何地盡智現前。通修未來自．上．下地。何緣唯此初盡智時。力能遍修諸有漏德。創能殄滅無始時來一切善根煩惱怨故。如有摧伏國所共怨。一切俱來慶賴稱善。又煩惱縛斷無餘故。如能縛斷所縛氣通。又彼心王登自在位。一切善法起
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 隨所依止的任何地界，遠離下地界的染污。當第九解脫道現在前時，能夠修習未來所證得的上地界，以及諸下地界的無漏功德。無論此地界的世俗道或聖道現在前時，未來都能修習此地界及下地界的無漏功德。參照此論的說法，《賢聖品頌》中說：『聖者以二道離八地之染修，各自獲得二種離系得。』長行解釋說：『諸有學聖者用有漏道，在遠離下八地修斷染污時，能夠完全引生二種離系得。用無漏道遠離彼等也是如此。』因為二種道所作相同。參照《正理論》的文句，聖者以禪定用有漏及無漏道離染，雖然同樣修二種得，有漏道斷隨品修二，無漏道斷至第九品解脫道修。《顯宗》三十二有三種解釋：第一種說法是：由此有學者遠離八地修斷，世俗道和出世道隨應現前，各自未來修世俗道和出世道。這是總相的說法。因為無漏道在遠離上七地前八品時，不修上邊的世俗道，所以只有無漏一種離系得。遠離第九品才可以具足二種。第二種解釋是：或者應該允許獲得離道而修。第三種解釋是：或者應該在斷染時允許依下地修上地。以上所說的是修道，不是見道。見道現起時也修下地的俗智。
論中說：『唯有最初的盡智現在前時，乃至皆來朝貢。』說明盡智修習不同於其他位次。《正理論》中說：『唯有最初的盡智現在前時，力量能夠普遍修習九地有漏意地所攝的，聞、思、修所成的不凈觀等無量殊勝功德。』意思是說，無論在哪個地界盡智現前，都能通達修習未來自身、上地、下地的功德。為什麼唯有這最初的盡智時，力量能夠普遍修習諸有漏功德呢？因為最初能夠消滅從無始時以來一切善根煩惱怨敵。如同有人摧伏了國家共同的怨敵，大家都來慶賀稱讚。又因為煩惱的束縛斷除無餘，如同能夠解開束縛，被束縛的氣脈也通暢了。又因為此時心王登上自在的地位，一切善法生起。
【English Translation】 English version: Depending on whatever ground one relies upon, one departs from the defilements of the lower grounds. When the ninth liberation path manifests, one can cultivate the higher grounds to be attained in the future, as well as the uncontaminated merits of the lower grounds. Whenever the mundane or supramundane path of this ground manifests, one can cultivate the uncontaminated merits of this and the lower grounds in the future. According to this treatise, the 'Verse on the Wise and Holy' states: 'The holy ones, with two paths, abandon and cultivate eight grounds, each attaining two liberations.' The extended explanation says: 'Those holy ones who are still learning, using contaminated paths, when abandoning and cultivating the defilements to be severed in the lower eight grounds, can fully generate two liberations. Using uncontaminated paths to abandon those is also the same.' This is because the two paths have the same function. According to the text of the Nyāyānusāra, holy beings use contaminated and uncontaminated paths in meditation to abandon defilements. Although they similarly cultivate two attainments, the contaminated path severs and cultivates two according to the category, while the uncontaminated path severs up to the ninth category, cultivating the path of liberation. The Abhidharmakośabhāṣya thirty-two has three explanations: One explanation is: 'Therefore, those still learning abandon and cultivate the eight grounds to be severed. Mundane and supramundane paths manifest accordingly, each cultivating mundane and supramundane paths in the future.' This is a general statement. Because the uncontaminated path does not cultivate the mundane path of the upper side when abandoning the first eight categories of the upper seven grounds, there is only one uncontaminated liberation. Only when abandoning the ninth category can one fully possess two. The second explanation is: 'Or one should allow attaining liberation and then cultivating.' The third explanation is: 'Or one should allow relying on the lower ground to cultivate the upper ground when severing defilements.' The above refers to the path of cultivation, not the path of seeing. When the path of seeing arises, one also cultivates the mundane wisdom of the lower grounds.
The treatise states: 'Only when the initial kṣayajñāna (knowledge of exhaustion) manifests, up to the point where all come to pay homage,' it clarifies that the cultivation of kṣayajñāna is different from other stages. The Nyāyānusāra states: 'Only when the initial kṣayajñāna manifests, the power is able to universally cultivate the immeasurable superior merits such as the impure contemplation, etc., accomplished through hearing, thinking, and meditation, encompassed by the nine grounds of the contaminated mind ground.' This means that whenever kṣayajñāna manifests in any ground, one can universally cultivate the merits of oneself, the upper grounds, and the lower grounds in the future. Why is it that only at this initial time of kṣayajñāna is the power able to universally cultivate all contaminated merits? Because it is the first time that one can extinguish all the enemies of good roots and afflictions from beginningless time. Just as when someone subdues a common enemy of the country, everyone comes to celebrate and praise. Also, because the bonds of afflictions are severed without remainder, just as when one can untie the bonds, the bound channels of energy also become clear. Also, because at this time the mind-king ascends to the position of freedom, all good dharmas arise.
得來朝。
論。然此生上至九解脫道。明生上不修下。及練根同也。
論。諸所言修至而證得故。明名修不名修法異。
論。若先未得至勢力劣故。明能修．不能修法異。
論。為唯約得說名為修。已下一行頌。第六明四修也。
論曰至前後二修。明四修相。有為善法名行．得二修。行謂現行。得謂得得。現具二義。未來唯得。一切有漏名除遣修。由此有漏善法具足四修。 無漏善法唯有行．得。諸有漏法加治．遣二。
論。外國諸師至乃至廣說。述異計也。
論。迦涅彌羅國。已下有部會釋六修。同四修也。◎
俱舍論疏卷第二十六
保延三年九月四日于南新屋點了
闇眼老僧覺樹
以黃園本一交了理 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二十七
沙門法寶撰
分別智品第七之二
◎論。如是已辨至今當顯示。已下當品大文第二明智所成德。于中有二。一不共。二共。
論。于中先辨佛不共德。已下有半行頌。總明十八不共法也。
論曰至故名不共。釋不共名。如文可解。
論。且佛十力相別云何。已下別釋 于中有五。一明力。二無畏。三念住。四大悲。五佛
【現代漢語翻譯】 得來朝。
論：然而此生，向上達到九解脫道（Nava Vimoksha-marga）。明生（Vidya）向上，不修習向下，以及練根（Indriya-samvara）也是如此。
論：所有所說的修習，是因為證得的緣故。說明名稱上的修習和實際修習的方法不同。
論：如果先前沒有獲得，是因為勢力弱的緣故。說明能夠修習和不能修習的方法不同。
論：是爲了僅僅根據獲得來說名為修習嗎？以下一行頌文，第六說明四種修習。
論曰：到前後二修。說明四種修習的相狀。有為的善法名為行（Gati）、得（Labha）二修。行是指現行，得是指得得。現行具有兩種含義，未來只有得。一切有漏法名為除遣修（Prahana-samvara）。由此有漏的善法具足四種修習。無漏的善法只有行、得。諸有漏法加上治、遣二種。
論：外國的諸位論師，乃至廣說。敘述不同的見解。
論：迦涅彌羅國（Kashmir）。以下有部（Sarvastivada）會解釋六種修習，與四種修習相同。
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十六
保延三年九月四日于南新屋點了
闇眼老僧覺樹
以黃園本一交了理 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十七
沙門法寶撰
分別智品第七之二
論：像這樣已經辨析完畢，現在應當顯示。以下是本品的大文第二，說明由智慧所成就的功德。其中有二：一是不共（Asadharana），二是共（Sadharna）。
論：其中先辨析佛的不共功德。以下有半行頌文，總明十八不共法（Astaadasa Avenika Dharma）。
論曰：到故名不共。解釋不共的名稱。如文義可以理解。
論：且佛的十力（Dasa Bala）的相狀差別是怎樣的？以下分別解釋。其中有五：一，明力；二，無畏（Vaisaradya）；三，念住（Smrtyupasthana）；四，大悲（Maha Karuna）；五，佛。
【English Translation】 To come to the court.
Treatise: However, in this life, one ascends to the Nine Paths of Liberation (Nava Vimoksha-marga). Wisdom (Vidya) ascends upwards, without cultivating downwards, and the same applies to the restraint of the senses (Indriya-samvara).
Treatise: All that is spoken of as cultivation is because of attainment. It explains that the cultivation in name and the method of actual cultivation are different.
Treatise: If one has not attained it previously, it is because the power is weak. It explains that the methods of being able to cultivate and not being able to cultivate are different.
Treatise: Is it solely based on attainment that it is called cultivation? The following verse in one line, the sixth, explains the four cultivations.
Treatise says: To the two cultivations of before and after. It explains the characteristics of the four cultivations. Conditioned wholesome dharmas are called the two cultivations of practice (Gati) and attainment (Labha). Practice refers to present practice, and attainment refers to obtaining attainment. Present practice has two meanings, and the future only has attainment. All defiled dharmas are called the cultivation of elimination (Prahana-samvara). Therefore, defiled wholesome dharmas possess the four cultivations completely. Undefiled wholesome dharmas only have practice and attainment. Defiled dharmas add the two of cure and elimination.
Treatise: The various teachers of foreign countries, and so on, speak extensively. It narrates different views.
Treatise: The country of Kashmir. Below, the Sarvastivada school will explain the six cultivations, which are the same as the four cultivations.
Abhidharmakosa-bhasya-tika Volume 26
Pointed out on the 4th day of the 9th month of the 3rd year of Hoen at Minami-araya
Blind-eyed old monk Kakuju
Completed the reasoning with the Kogan-bon once Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41 No. 1822 Abhidharmakosa-bhasya-tika
Abhidharmakosa-bhasya-tika Volume 27
Composed by Sramana Hōbō
Chapter 7, Part 2: Analysis of Wisdom
Treatise: Having thus analyzed, now it should be shown. Below is the second major section of this chapter, explaining the merits accomplished by wisdom. Among them are two: one is unshared (Asadharana), and the other is shared (Sadharna).
Treatise: Among them, first analyze the unshared merits of the Buddha. Below is a half-line verse, generally explaining the Eighteen Unshared Dharmas (Astaadasa Avenika Dharma).
Treatise says: To therefore it is called unshared. Explains the name of unshared. The meaning can be understood as in the text.
Treatise: Furthermore, what are the differences in the characteristics of the Ten Powers (Dasa Bala) of the Buddha? Below are separate explanations. Among them are five: one, the power of knowledge; two, fearlessness (Vaisaradya); three, mindfulness (Smrtyupasthana); four, great compassion (Maha Karuna); five, Buddha.
同．異 就明力中。一明智力。二明身力 此下兩行半頌。第一明智力。
論曰至十智為性。釋初力也 于中有二。一出力體性。二義門分別。此即出體。正理論云。為依何義立此力名。佛于經中自作是說。苾芻諦聽。如來於處如實知處。如來於非處如實知非處。乃至廣說。知一切法自性功能理定是有。名為處智。知一切法自性功能理定非有。名非處智。此智通緣情．非情境。與一切智皆不相違。恐于略說少功難悟故。復此中析出餘九。如薄伽梵多界經中自廣分別處．非處義。身等惡行感非愛果定有是處。感可愛果必無是處。乃至廣說 準上論文。即是一切應理之事名為是處。不應理者名非處也 又云。豈不處智已知非處。諸非處智亦已知處。何勞雙說處．非處名。雖理實然。而雙說者。為欲遮止無因論故。說是處名。為欲遮止惡因論故。說非處名。依一智體雙說無失 寧知於一處．非處力中。恐略難悟析出餘九力。以余皆有此力義故。謂如實知惡行能感可愛異熟。妙行能感非愛異熟。必無是處。與此相違定有是處 云云乃至 又如實知非理作意能得漏盡必無是處。與此相違定有是處。我于如是一一力中。略舉方隅顯處．非處。若盡其事言論無窮。故應皆名處．非處力。恐略難悟別立異名(已上論文)。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 同與異，就明力中展開討論。首先是明智力，其次是明身力。以下兩行半是偈頌，首先闡明智力。
論曰：以十智為體性。這是對初力的解釋。其中包含兩方面：一是說明力的體性，二是義門分別。這裡是說明體性。《正理論》中說：『依據什麼意義而立此力之名？』佛在經中親自這樣說：『比丘諦聽，如來對於是處如實知是處，如來對於非處如實知非處，乃至廣說。』知曉一切法自性、功能、道理決定是有，名為是處智。知曉一切法自性、功能、道理決定是沒有，名為非處智。這種智慧通緣有情和非情境，與一切智並不相違背。恐怕因為簡略而難以領悟，所以又從中分析出其餘九種。如《薄伽梵多界經》中親自廣泛地分別了是處和非處的意義。身等惡行感得非可愛果，決定是有這樣的道理（是處）。感得可愛果，必定沒有這樣的道理（非處），乃至廣說。』
依據上面的論文，就是一切應理的事情名為是處，不應理的事情名為非處。
又說：『難道是處智已經知曉非處，諸非處智也已經知曉是處，為何還要雙說處和非處之名？』雖然道理確實如此，但雙說處和非處，是爲了遮止無因論，所以說是處之名；爲了遮止惡因論，所以說非處之名。依一個智體雙說並沒有過失。
怎麼知道在一個是處和非處力中，恐怕因為簡略難以領悟而分析出其餘九力呢？因為其餘的力都具有這種力的意義。比如，如實知曉惡行能感可愛異熟，妙行能感非愛異熟，必定沒有這樣的道理（非處），與此相反，決定是有這樣的道理（是處）。云云乃至，又如實知曉非理作意能得漏盡，必定沒有這樣的道理（非處），與此相反，決定是有這樣的道理（是處）。我對於這樣一一力中，略舉方方面面來顯示是處和非處。如果窮盡其事，言論無窮。所以都應該名為是處和非處力。恐怕因為簡略難以領悟而另立異名（以上是論文）。
【English Translation】 English version Discussion of similarities and differences, starting from the powers of understanding. First, the power of understanding wisdom (明智力, Míngzhì lì), second, the power of understanding physical strength (明身力, Míng shēn lì). The following two and a half lines are verses, first clarifying the power of wisdom.
The treatise says: 'Taking the ten wisdoms as its nature.' This is an explanation of the first power. It contains two aspects: first, explaining the nature of the power; second, distinguishing the meanings. Here, it explains the nature. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論, Zhènglǐlùn) says: 'Based on what meaning is this power named?' The Buddha himself said in the sutra: 'Bhikkhus, listen carefully, the Tathāgata (如來, Rúlái) truly knows what is possible as possible, the Tathāgata truly knows what is impossible as impossible, and so on.' Knowing that the self-nature, function, and reason of all dharmas (法, fǎ) are definitely existent is called the wisdom of the possible (是處智, Shì chù zhì). Knowing that the self-nature, function, and reason of all dharmas are definitely non-existent is called the wisdom of the impossible (非處智, Fēi chù zhì). This wisdom universally relates to sentient and non-sentient realms, and does not contradict all wisdoms. Fearing that it would be difficult to understand due to its brevity, the other nine are analyzed from it. As in the Baghagavat-anekadhātu Sūtra (薄伽梵多界經, Bójīafàn duō jiè jīng), the meaning of possible and impossible is personally and extensively distinguished. Evil deeds of body, etc., definitely result in undesirable consequences (possible). Resulting in desirable consequences is definitely impossible, and so on.'
According to the above treatise, everything that is reasonable is called possible, and everything that is unreasonable is called impossible.
It also says: 'Doesn't the wisdom of the possible already know the impossible, and the wisdom of the impossible already know the possible? Why is it necessary to speak of the names of possible and impossible twice?' Although the principle is indeed so, speaking of possible and impossible twice is to prevent the theory of no cause, so it is called the name of the possible; to prevent the theory of evil cause, so it is called the name of the impossible. There is no fault in speaking of both based on one wisdom body.
How do we know that within one power of possible and impossible, the other nine powers are analyzed because it is feared that it would be difficult to understand due to its brevity? Because the remaining powers all have the meaning of this power. For example, truly knowing that evil deeds can result in desirable vipāka (異熟, yìshú), and good deeds can result in undesirable vipāka, is definitely impossible; conversely, it is definitely possible. And so on, and truly knowing that irrational intention can attain the exhaustion of outflows is definitely impossible; conversely, it is definitely possible. In each of these powers, I briefly cite aspects to show the possible and impossible. If the matter were exhausted, the words would be endless. Therefore, they should all be called the power of possible and impossible. Fearing that it would be difficult to understand due to its brevity, different names are established (the above is the treatise).
論。二業意熟至謂除滅道。出第二力體。正理論云。謂善分別如是類業感如是類諸異熟果。無掛礙智名業異熟智力。或說名為自業智力。謂善分別如是類果是自所造業力所招。非妻子等所能與奪。如是類業必招自果不可貿易。無掛礙智名自業智力。
論。三靜慮解脫至謂除滅智。出次四力體也。正理論云。謂如實知諸靜慮等自性名。得方便．攝持．味．凈．無漏．順退．住．進．抉擇分等。無掛礙智名靜慮等智力。又佛自說此力相言。苾芻諦聽。佛于靜慮．解脫．等持．等至。雜染．清凈安立皆如實知。乃至廣說。雜染謂能障證靜慮等。清凈謂即此諸法清凈。諸凈法住名為安立。乃至廣說。若如實知諸有情類能逮勝德根品差別。無掛礙智名根上下智力。雖有中根而待勝劣。是勝．劣攝故不別顯 此中根名為目何法。謂目信等。斷善根者總相續中。亦有去．來信等善法。或目意等。若如實知諸有情類意樂差別。無掛礙智名種種勝解智力 乃至 喜樂勝解名差別故。若如實知諸有情類前際無始。數習所成。志性．隨眠．及諸法性種種差別。無掛礙智名種種界智力 種種界者。顯各別義。非一界者顯眾多義。應知此中界．與志性．隨眠．法性名之差別。如是四力並緣有為。故十智中唯攝九智(已上論文)。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：第二種業力，即對業的成熟過程有深刻理解，直至能夠消除惡業之道。這體現了第二種力量的本質。《正理論》中說：『能夠清楚地辨別出某種型別的業會感生某種型別的異熟果，這種毫無障礙的智慧被稱為業異熟智力。』或者也可以稱之為自業智力，即能夠清楚地辨別出某種型別的果報是由自己所造的業力所招致，而非妻子等他人所能給予或剝奪。這種型別的業必定會招致相應的果報，不可交易。這種毫無障礙的智慧被稱為自業智力。
論：第三種是關於靜慮、解脫等的智慧，直至能夠消除煩惱的智慧。這體現了接下來的四種力量的本質。《正理論》中說：『能夠如實地瞭解各種靜慮等的自性，以及獲得方便、攝持、滋味、清凈、無漏、順退、住、進、抉擇分等，這種毫無障礙的智慧被稱為靜慮等智力。』此外，佛陀自己也闡述了這種力量的相狀，說：『比丘們，仔細聽。佛陀對於靜慮、解脫、等持、等至的雜染、清凈和安立都如實地知曉。』乃至廣說。雜染指的是能夠障礙證得靜慮等的因素，清凈指的是這些法的清凈狀態，諸凈法安住的狀態稱為安立。乃至廣說。如果能夠如實地瞭解各種有情眾生能夠獲得殊勝功德的根器和品類的差別，這種毫無障礙的智慧被稱為根上下智力。雖然有中等根器，但相對於殊勝和低劣的根器而言，仍然屬於殊勝或低劣的範疇，因此不單獨顯示。』這裡所說的『中根』指的是什麼法？指的是信等。即使是斷了善根的人，在他的總相續中，仍然有過去和未來的信等善法，或者指的是意等。如果能夠如實地瞭解各種有情眾生的意樂差別，這種毫無障礙的智慧被稱為種種勝解智力。』乃至喜樂的勝解被稱為差別。如果能夠如實地瞭解各種有情眾生在過去無始劫以來，通過不斷熏習所形成的志性、隨眠以及諸法自性的種種差別，這種毫無障礙的智慧被稱為種種界智力。』『種種界』指的是各別的意義，『非一界』指的是眾多的意義。應該知道，這裡界、志性、隨眠、法性等名稱的差別。這四種力量都緣于有為法，因此在十智中只包含九智（以上是論文內容）。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: The second power is the profound understanding of the maturation process of karma, up to the point of being able to eliminate the path of evil karma. This embodies the essence of the second power. The Nyāyānusāra states: 'The unobstructed wisdom that can clearly distinguish that a certain type of karma will generate a certain type of vipāka (ripened result) is called the Power of Knowledge of Karma and its Results (karmavipākajñānabala).』 Or it can be called the Power of Knowledge of One's Own Karma (svakarmajñānabala), which is the ability to clearly distinguish that a certain type of result is caused by the power of one's own created karma, and cannot be given or taken away by one's wife or others. This type of karma will inevitably lead to corresponding results and cannot be traded. This unobstructed wisdom is called the Power of Knowledge of One's Own Karma.
Treatise: The third is the wisdom regarding dhyāna (meditative absorption), vimoksha (liberation), etc., up to the wisdom that can eliminate afflictions. This embodies the essence of the next four powers. The Nyāyānusāra states: 'The unobstructed wisdom that can truly understand the nature of various dhyānas, etc., and obtain the means, retention, taste, purity, non-outflow, reverse order, abiding, progress, and decisive factors, is called the Power of Knowledge of Dhyānas, etc. (dhyānādiviṣayajñānabala).' Furthermore, the Buddha himself elaborated on the characteristics of this power, saying: 'Bhikkhus (monks), listen carefully. The Buddha truly knows the defilement, purity, and establishment of dhyāna, vimoksha, samādhi (concentration), and samāpatti (attainment).' And so on. Defilement refers to the factors that can hinder the attainment of dhyāna, etc., purity refers to the pure state of these dharmas, and the state in which pure dharmas abide is called establishment. And so on. If one can truly understand the differences in the faculties and categories of beings who can attain superior merits, this unobstructed wisdom is called the Power of Knowledge of Superior and Inferior Faculties (indriyaparāparajñānabala). Although there are intermediate faculties, they are still categorized as superior or inferior relative to the superior and inferior faculties, so they are not shown separately.' What does 'intermediate faculty' refer to here? It refers to faith (śraddhā), etc. Even those who have severed their roots of goodness still have good dharmas such as faith in their overall continuum, or it refers to intention (citta), etc. If one can truly understand the differences in the inclinations of various beings, this unobstructed wisdom is called the Power of Knowledge of Various Understandings (nānādhimuktijñānabala).' And so on, the understanding of joy and pleasure is called difference. If one can truly understand the various differences in the dispositions, latent tendencies (anuśaya), and the nature of dharmas that various beings have formed through constant cultivation since the beginningless past, this unobstructed wisdom is called the Power of Knowledge of Various Realms (nānādhātujñānabala).' 'Various realms' refers to individual meanings, and 'not one realm' refers to many meanings. It should be known that the differences between the names of realm, disposition, latent tendency, and the nature of dharmas are here. These four powers are all based on conditioned dharmas (saṃskṛta), so they only include nine of the ten wisdoms (the above is the content of the treatise).
論。七遍趣行至十智為性。釋第七也 正理論云。謂如實知生死因果。及知盡道。無掛礙智名遍趣行智力 此意顯佛能如實知趣生死行。趣涅槃行。趣生死中。有趣地獄乃至趣天趣。一一中復有多種趣。涅槃行有三乘別趣。一一中復有多種。依總說一遍趣行名(已上論文)。
論。八宿住隨念至皆俗智性。正理論云。謂如實知自他過去宿住差別。無掛礙智名第八力。若如實知諸有情類于未來世。諸有續生。無掛礙智名第九力。廣辨此二如六通中(已上論文)。
論。十漏盡至十智為性。正理論云。理應如是。以辨相中雲於盡及為盡無掛礙智。二種俱名漏盡智力。又佛自說此力相言。苾芻諦聽。佛漏盡故於諸無漏心惠解脫。自現通達具證領受。能正自知我生已盡。乃至廣說。此後三力即是三通。以六通中此三殊勝。在無學位立為三明。在如來身亦名為力。神境．天耳。設在佛身亦無大用故不名力。且如天眼能見有情善．惡趣中異熟差別。由此能引殊勝智生。亦正了知能感彼業。由此建立死生智名。神境．天耳無此大用。是故彼二不立為力。然不別說他心力者。義已攝在根等力中。以他根等中有心．心所故。又薄伽梵具一切智。于工論等亦得自在。而於佛事齊此已成。余智于中無別勝用。是故雖有。亦不別說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：論述。第七種力，遍趣行智力，以十智為體性。解釋第七種力。《正理論》中說：『如實地了知生死的因果，以及了知如何達到解脫的道路，沒有阻礙的智慧，稱為遍趣行智力。』這裡的意思是說，佛能夠如實地了知趨向生死的行為，趨向涅槃的行為。在趨向生死的行為中，有趨向地獄乃至趨向天道的各種趣向，每一種趣向中又有多種不同的情況。涅槃的行為有聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘這三種不同的趣向，每一種趣向中也有多種不同的情況。總的來說，依據這些，稱為遍趣行智力（以上是《正理論》的原文）。 論述。第八種力，宿住隨念智力，乃至第九種力，死生智力，都以世俗智為體性。《正理論》中說：『如實地了知自己和他人過去宿世的差別，沒有阻礙的智慧，稱為第八種力。如果如實地了知各種有情眾生在未來世的各種轉生情況，沒有阻礙的智慧，稱為第九種力。』詳細辨析這兩種力，就像在六神通中一樣（以上是《正理論》的原文）。 論述。第十種力，漏盡智力，以十智為體性。《正理論》中說：『道理應當是這樣。因為在辨析體相中說，對於煩惱的斷盡以及爲了斷盡煩惱，沒有阻礙的智慧，這兩種都稱為漏盡智力。』而且佛自己也說了這種力的體相，說：『比丘們，仔細聽。佛因為斷盡了煩惱，對於各種無煩惱的心和智慧解脫，自己顯現通達，完全證得領受，能夠正確地自己知道，我已經生已盡，』乃至廣說。這後面的三種力，就是三種明。因為在六神通中，這三種力最為殊勝，所以在無學位的聖者那裡，立為三明；在如來佛的身上，也稱為力。神境通、天耳通，即使在佛的身上，也沒有很大的作用，所以不稱為力。比如天眼通，能夠看見有情眾生在善惡趣中的異熟果報差別，因此能夠引生殊勝的智慧，也能夠正確地了知能夠感生那些果報的業，因此建立死生智力這個名稱。神境通、天耳通沒有這樣大的作用，所以這兩種不立為力。然而沒有單獨說他心智力，是因為意義已經包含在根力等力中。因為在其他的根力等力中，有心和心所的緣故。而且薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）具有一切智，對於工巧明等也能夠自在運用，但是對於佛的事業來說，達到這些就已經足夠了，其他的智慧在其中沒有特別殊勝的作用，所以雖然有，也不單獨說明。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise. The seventh power, the Power of Knowledge of the Paths of All Destinations, has the ten wisdoms as its nature. Explanation of the seventh power. The Nyayānusāra states: 'Truly knowing the causes and effects of birth and death, and knowing the path to liberation, wisdom without obstruction is called the Power of Knowledge of the Paths of All Destinations.' This means that the Buddha can truly know the actions that lead to birth and death, and the actions that lead to Nirvana. In the actions that lead to birth and death, there are various destinations, such as going to hell or going to the heavens, and each destination has many different situations. The actions that lead to Nirvana have three different destinations: the Śrāvakayāna, the Pratyekabuddhayāna, and the Bodhisattvayāna, and each of these has many different situations. Generally speaking, based on these, it is called the Power of Knowledge of the Paths of All Destinations (end of the Nyayānusāra text). Treatise. The eighth power, the Power of Recollection of Past Lives, and the ninth power, the Power of Knowledge of the Death and Rebirth of Beings, both have conventional wisdom as their nature. The Nyayānusāra states: 'Truly knowing the differences in past lives of oneself and others, wisdom without obstruction is called the eighth power. If one truly knows the various rebirths of sentient beings in the future, wisdom without obstruction is called the ninth power.' A detailed analysis of these two powers is like that in the six superknowledges (end of the Nyayānusāra text). Treatise. The tenth power, the Power of the Exhaustion of Defilements, has the ten wisdoms as its nature. The Nyayānusāra states: 'The principle should be like this. Because in the analysis of characteristics, it is said that wisdom without obstruction regarding the exhaustion of defilements and for the sake of exhausting defilements, both are called the Power of Knowledge of the Exhaustion of Defilements.' Moreover, the Buddha himself spoke of the characteristics of this power, saying: 'Monks, listen carefully. Because the Buddha has exhausted the defilements, he manifests, understands, fully attains, and experiences liberation of mind and wisdom without defilements, and can correctly know for himself, 'My birth is exhausted,' and so on. These last three powers are the three insights. Because among the six superknowledges, these three powers are the most outstanding, they are established as the three insights in the state of no-more-learning; in the body of the Tathagata (如來), they are also called powers. The power of magical abilities and the power of divine hearing, even if they are in the body of the Buddha, do not have great use, so they are not called powers. For example, the power of divine sight can see the differences in the results of good and evil destinies of sentient beings, and therefore can give rise to outstanding wisdom, and can also correctly know the actions that can cause those results, and therefore establish the name of the Power of Knowledge of Death and Rebirth. The power of magical abilities and the power of divine hearing do not have such great use, so these two are not established as powers. However, the power of knowing the minds of others is not mentioned separately because its meaning is already included in the powers of the faculties and so on. Because in the other powers of the faculties and so on, there are mind and mental factors. Moreover, the Bhagavan (薄伽梵, World-Honored One) possesses all wisdom, and can also freely use skillful means and so on, but for the Buddha's activities, reaching these is already sufficient, and other wisdoms do not have particularly outstanding use in them, so although they exist, they are not mentioned separately.
。唯依遍覺十種所知。佛所應為皆圓滿故。何等名曰十種所知。謂諸法中因非因義。多分散地業果差別。定地功德品類不同。所化有情根．解．界異。所治．能治因果差別。前際．后際經歷不同。離染不續。方便有異。但由覺此佛事已成。余設有無不致益損。故唯十種得名為力。又佛觀察 乃至 由第十智觀所化生所證解脫方便有異 準此。漏盡智知所化有情。兼漏盡方便名漏盡力。
論。已辨自性至名十一地。已下第二義門分別。一依地。二依身。三釋力義。此第一明依地別也。五通唯依四根本故。由斯第八第九依四禪也 余文易了。不煩解釋。
論。已辨依地至男子佛身。已下第二明依身也。唯贍部洲男子佛身。唯此堪為力所依。故婆沙第三十云。念住者。種種勝解智力．宿住隨念智力唯法念住。死生智力唯身念住。漏盡智力若緣漏盡境故則法念住。若依漏盡身故則四念住。餘力皆四念住(述曰。種種勝解智力。唯不雜緣。法念住唯緣勝解故。宿住隨念智力。唯雜緣。法念住緣總法故。死生智力。若根本者。唯身念住。若並眷屬緣未來。雜緣法念住。言身念住者。說根本也。餘力總通別緣故通四念住。余文可解之)。
論。已辯依身何故名力至故名為力。已下第三釋力義也 言無礙者。無知障
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：只有依靠普遍覺悟的十種所知，佛所應做的事情才能圓滿完成。哪十種所知呢？就是諸法中的因和非因的意義，眾多分散的土地上業和果的差別，禪定之地的功德品類不同，所教化的有情眾生的根器、理解和界限的差異，所要調伏的與能調伏的之間的因果差別，前世和後世經歷的不同，脫離染污后是否繼續輪迴，以及方便法門的不同。僅僅通過覺悟這些，佛的事業就已經完成，其餘的有沒有都不會增加或減少什麼。所以只有這十種才能被稱為『力』。此外，佛觀察……乃至……通過第十種智慧觀察所教化的眾生所證得的解脫方便的差異……依此類推。漏盡智瞭解所教化的有情眾生，連同斷盡煩惱的方便法門，稱為漏盡力。
論：已經辨明了自性……到……稱為十一地。以下是第二種義門分別：一、依靠的處所（地）；二、依靠的身體；三、解釋『力』的含義。這裡首先說明依靠的處所（地）的差別。五神通只能依靠四根本禪定，因此第八和第九種力也依靠四禪定。其餘的文字容易理解，就不再解釋了。
論：已經辨明了依靠的處所（地）……到……男子佛身。以下是第二種說明依靠的身體。只有在贍部洲（Jambudvipa，四大部洲之一）的男子才能成就佛身，只有這裡才堪能成為『力』所依靠的。所以《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第三十卷說：『念住（Smṛtyupasthāna，四念住）中，種種勝解智力、宿住隨念智力只能是法念住（Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna，四念住之一）。死生智力只能是身念住（Kāya-smṛtyupasthāna，四念住之一）。漏盡智力如果緣于斷盡煩惱的境界，那麼就是法念住；如果依靠斷盡煩惱的身體，那麼就是四念住。其餘的力都是四念住。』（述曰：種種勝解智力，只能是不雜亂地緣取，法念住只能緣取勝解。宿住隨念智力，只能是雜亂地緣取，法念住緣取總體的法。死生智力，如果是根本的，那麼就是身念住；如果連同眷屬緣取未來，就是雜亂地緣取法念住。說身念住，是說根本。其餘的力總體上既有總緣，也有別緣，所以通於四念住。其餘的文字可以解釋。）
論：已經辨明了依靠的身體，為什麼稱為『力』……到……所以稱為『力』。以下是第三種解釋『力』的含義。所說的『無礙』，是沒有知障。
【English Translation】 English version: Only by relying on the ten kinds of knowledges of universal enlightenment can the tasks that a Buddha should accomplish be perfectly completed. What are these ten kinds of knowledges? They are the meaning of cause and non-cause in all dharmas, the differences in karma and its results in many scattered lands, the different categories of merits in meditative states, the differences in the faculties, understanding, and realms of sentient beings to be taught, the causal differences between what is to be subdued and what can subdue, the different experiences in past and future lives, whether or not rebirth continues after leaving defilements, and the differences in skillful means. Merely by realizing these, the Buddha's work is already accomplished; whether or not there is anything else does not add or subtract anything. Therefore, only these ten can be called 'powers'. Furthermore, the Buddha observes... and so on... through the tenth wisdom, observes the differences in the means of liberation attained by the beings to be taught... and so on. The knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows, together with the skillful means of exhausting afflictions, is called the power of the exhaustion of outflows (漏盡力, Loujin Li).
Treatise: The nature has been distinguished... to... called the eleven grounds. The following is the second distinction of meaning: first, the ground of reliance; second, the body of reliance; third, explaining the meaning of 'power'. Here, the difference in the ground of reliance is first explained. The five supernormal powers can only rely on the four fundamental dhyanas (禪定, Chan ding), therefore the eighth and ninth powers also rely on the four dhyanas. The remaining text is easy to understand and will not be explained further.
Treatise: The ground of reliance has been distinguished... to... the body of a male Buddha. The following is the second explanation of the body of reliance. Only a man in Jambudvipa (贍部洲, one of the four continents) can attain Buddhahood, and only here can it be suitable to be relied upon by 'power'. Therefore, the thirtieth volume of the Vibhasa (婆沙論) says: 'Among the Smṛtyupasthāna (念住, four mindfulnesses), the power of various excellent understandings and the power of recollecting past lives can only be Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna (法念住, mindfulness of dharma). The power of knowledge of death and birth can only be Kāya-smṛtyupasthāna (身念住, mindfulness of body). If the power of the exhaustion of outflows is based on the realm of exhausting afflictions, then it is Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna; if it relies on the body of exhausting afflictions, then it is the four mindfulnesses. The remaining powers are all the four mindfulnesses.' (Commentary: The power of various excellent understandings can only be taken without confusion, and Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna can only take excellent understanding. The power of recollecting past lives can only be taken with confusion, and Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna takes the overall dharma. If the power of knowledge of death and birth is fundamental, then it is Kāya-smṛtyupasthāna; if it takes the future together with relatives, then it is Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna taken with confusion. Saying Kāya-smṛtyupasthāna is saying the fundamental. The remaining powers generally have both general and specific conditions, so they are common to the four mindfulnesses. The remaining text can be explained.)
Treatise: The body of reliance has been distinguished, why is it called 'power'... to... therefore it is called 'power'. The following is the third explanation of the meaning of 'power'. What is called 'unobstructed' is without the obstruction of knowledge.
礙。屈伏佛智令不知故。名為力也。
論。由此十力至生多少等。簡二乘等非力攝也 如舍利子舍求度人者。昔佛在世時。有一人。誓多門首求度出家。舍利子等觀知此人。八萬劫來未種解脫分善。以無出家因緣故舍而不度。其人嘆恨求度不捨。后佛來見度令出家。說法獲果。舍利子等怪而請問。佛告彼曰。我昔過去于那伽羅喝國。共此國人掃灑街衢嚴諸供具。欲請定光如來供養。時求度人入城賣柴。因知此事遂即發願我更取柴得錢供養。至彼山中遂被蟲食。臨欲命終欲稱彼佛名號忘而不憶。乃雲南無城中欲所迎者。此即名種順解脫分善。雖昔起善。由時遠故。舍利子等而不觀知 又不能觀知鷹所逐鴿前後二際生多少等。如大智度論云。佛在祇洹住。晡時經行。是時有鷹逐鴿。鴿飛來佛邊住。佛經行過之影覆鴿身。鴿身安穩怖畏即除不復作聲。后舍利弗影到鴿。便作聲戰怖如初。舍利弗白佛言。佛及我身俱無三毒。以何因緣佛影覆鴿鴿便無聲不復怖畏。我影覆上鴿便作聲戰怖如初。佛言。汝三毒習氣未盡。以是故汝影覆之怖畏不除。汝觀此鴿宿世因緣。幾世作鴿。舍利弗即時入宿命智三昧觀見此鴿。從鴿中來。如是一．二．三世。乃至。八萬大劫常作鴿身。過是已往不復能見。舍利弗從三昧起白佛言。是鴿八萬
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『礙』是因為佛的智慧難以測度，無法完全理解，所以稱為『力』。
論：由此十力可以區分眾生根器，例如聲聞、緣覺等二乘人，不在十力所包含的範圍內。例如舍利弗尊者放棄度化求度之人。過去佛在世時，有一個人，四處求人希望能被度化出家。舍利弗等聖者觀察得知此人在過去八萬劫中，未曾種下任何與解脫相關的善根，因此認為他沒有出家的因緣而放棄度化他。那人嘆息怨恨，但求度的心卻不放棄。後來佛陀來了，度化他出家，併爲他說法，使他證得果位。舍利弗等對此感到奇怪，便向佛請教。佛告訴他們說：『我過去在Nagarahāra國（那伽羅喝國），與該國人民一起打掃街道，準備各種供品，想要迎請定光如來接受供養。當時，這個求度之人進城賣柴，得知此事後，便立即發願，要用賣柴的錢來供養。他到山中取柴時，被蟲子咬傷。臨終時，想要稱念定光如來的名號，卻忘記了，於是就念『南無城中欲所迎者』。』這就是種下了解脫的善根。雖然過去種下了善根，但因為時間久遠，舍利弗等聖者無法觀察得知。
又例如，無法完全知曉老鷹追逐鴿子時，鴿子前後二世的生命狀態。如《大智度論》所說：佛陀住在祇洹精舍時，傍晚時分在經行。當時有一隻老鷹追逐一隻鴿子，鴿子飛到佛陀身邊。佛陀經行時，身影覆蓋在鴿子身上，鴿子便感到安穩，恐懼立即消除，不再發出叫聲。後來，舍利弗的影子落在鴿子身上，鴿子便又開始發出叫聲，戰慄恐懼如初。舍利弗問佛說：『佛陀和我都沒有三毒，為什麼佛陀的影子覆蓋鴿子，鴿子便不再害怕，而我的影子覆蓋鴿子，鴿子便又開始戰慄恐懼呢？』佛陀說：『你的三毒習氣未盡，所以你的影子覆蓋它，它的恐懼無法消除。你觀察這隻鴿子的宿世因緣，它做鴿子多少世了？』舍利弗立即進入宿命智三昧，觀察這隻鴿子。從鴿子的生命狀態開始觀察，一世、二世、三世，乃至八萬大劫都一直是鴿子的身。超過這個時間，就無法再觀察到了。舍利弗從三昧中出來，告訴佛陀說：『這隻鴿子八萬劫以來』
【English Translation】 English version: 'Obstruction' arises because the Buddha's wisdom is immeasurable and cannot be fully comprehended, hence it is called 'power'.
Treatise: From these Ten Powers, we can distinguish the capacities of beings, such as Śrāvakas (聲聞) and Pratyekabuddhas (緣覺), who are not included within the scope of the Ten Powers. For example, Venerable Śāriputra (舍利弗) gave up on liberating a person seeking liberation. In the past, when the Buddha was in the world, there was a person who sought everywhere to be ordained. Śāriputra and other sages observed that this person had not planted any roots of goodness related to liberation in the past eighty thousand kalpas (劫), and therefore, believing he had no karmic connection for ordination, they gave up on liberating him. That person sighed and resented, but did not give up his desire for liberation. Later, the Buddha came, ordained him, and preached the Dharma to him, enabling him to attain fruition. Śāriputra and others were surprised by this and asked the Buddha. The Buddha told them, 'In the past, in the country of Nagarahāra (那伽羅喝國), I swept the streets with the people of that country, preparing various offerings, wanting to invite Dīpaṃkara Buddha (定光如來) to receive offerings. At that time, this person seeking liberation entered the city to sell firewood, and upon learning of this, he immediately vowed to use the money from selling firewood to make offerings. When he went to the mountains to collect firewood, he was bitten by insects. As he was dying, he wanted to recite the name of Dīpaṃkara Buddha, but he forgot it, so he recited, 『Namo to those in the city who are preparing to welcome him.』 This is planting the roots of goodness for liberation. Although he planted good roots in the past, because the time was so long ago, Śāriputra and other sages were unable to observe it.
Also, for example, one cannot fully know the life states of a pigeon in the two lifetimes before and after it is chased by a hawk. As the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra (大智度論) says: When the Buddha was staying in the Jetavana Monastery (祇洹精舍), he was walking in the evening. At that time, a hawk was chasing a pigeon, and the pigeon flew to the Buddha's side. As the Buddha walked, his shadow covered the pigeon, and the pigeon felt secure, its fear immediately disappeared, and it no longer made a sound. Later, Śāriputra's shadow fell on the pigeon, and the pigeon began to make a sound again, trembling with fear as before. Śāriputra asked the Buddha, 'Neither the Buddha nor I have the three poisons (三毒), so why is it that when the Buddha's shadow covers the pigeon, it is no longer afraid, but when my shadow covers the pigeon, it begins to tremble with fear again?' The Buddha said, 'Your habitual tendencies of the three poisons have not been exhausted, so when your shadow covers it, its fear cannot be eliminated. Observe the past karmic connections of this pigeon; how many lifetimes has it been a pigeon?' Śāriputra immediately entered the Samadhi (三昧) of knowing past lives and observed this pigeon. Starting from the pigeon's life state, he observed one lifetime, two lifetimes, three lifetimes, and even eighty thousand kalpas, it had always been a pigeon. Beyond this time, he could no longer observe it. Śāriputra emerged from Samadhi and told the Buddha, 'This pigeon has been a pigeon for eighty thousand kalpas.'
大劫中常作鴿身。過是已前不能復知。佛言。汝若不能盡知過去世。試觀未來世。此鴿何時當脫。舍利弗即入愿智三昧觀見此鴿。一．二．三世。乃至。八萬大劫未脫鴿身。過是已往亦不能知。從三昧起白佛言。我見此鴿。從一世．二世乃至八萬大劫未脫鴿身。過是已往不復能知。我不知過去．未來齊限。不審。此鴿何時當脫。佛告舍利弗。此鴿非諸聲聞．緣覺所知齊限。後於恒河沙等大劫中當作鴿身。罪訖得出。輪轉五道后得為人。經五百世中乃得利根。是時有佛度無量阿僧祇眾生。然後入無餘涅槃。遺法在世。是人作五戒優婆塞。從比丘聞贊佛功德。於是初發心願欲作佛。然後於三阿僧祇行六波羅蜜。十地具足得作佛身。度無量眾生已入無餘涅槃。是時舍利弗向佛懺悔。白佛言。我於一鴿尚不能知其本末。何況諸法。
論。如是諸佛遍於所知。自下一行頌。第二明身力也。
論曰至無邊心力。釋佛身力量也 那羅延。是神名此云人種。有三說不同。一云佛力等那羅延力。二云一一支節等那羅延力。三云身力無邊。若不爾者。即應不能持無量心力。
論。大覺至力有勝劣。明大覺．獨覺．輪王三人力勝．劣也。大覺支節相連似龍蟠結。獨覺支節相連似連鎖。輪王相連節相鉤也。
論。那羅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 大劫中常常轉生為鴿子。超過這個時間就無法知曉了。佛說：『如果你不能完全知曉過去世，試著觀察未來世。這隻鴿子什麼時候才能脫離鴿身？』 舍利弗（Sariputra，佛陀十大弟子之一，以智慧著稱）立即進入愿智三昧（Pranidhana-jnana-samadhi，通過願力獲得的智慧禪定）觀察這隻鴿子。一世、二世、三世，乃至八萬大劫都未能脫離鴿身。超過這個時間也無法知曉。從三昧中出來后，舍利弗稟告佛說：『我看到這隻鴿子，從一世、二世乃至八萬大劫都未能脫離鴿身。超過這個時間我就無法知曉了。我不知道過去和未來的極限。不知道這隻鴿子什麼時候才能脫離鴿身。』 佛告訴舍利弗：『這隻鴿子不是聲聞（Sravaka，聽聞佛法而修行的弟子）、緣覺（Pratyekabuddha，不依師教，自己悟道的修行者）所能知曉的極限。之後在恒河沙（Ganges sand，極多的數量）一樣多的大劫中還會轉生為鴿身。罪業結束后才能脫離。在五道（Five realms，地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）中輪迴后才能轉生為人。經歷五百世才能獲得銳利的根器。那時有佛陀度化無量阿僧祇（Asankhya，極大的數字）眾生，然後進入無餘涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃，不再輪迴）。遺留的佛法還在世間。這個人會成為持守五戒（Five Precepts，不殺生、不偷盜、不邪淫、不妄語、不飲酒）的優婆塞（Upasaka，在家男居士）。從比丘（Bhiksu，出家男眾）那裡聽聞讚歎佛陀的功德。於是最初發愿想要成佛。然後在三大阿僧祇劫（Three Asankhya kalpas，極長的時間單位）中修行六波羅蜜（Six Paramitas，佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）。十地（Ten Bhumis，菩薩修行的十個階段）具足后才能成佛。度化無量眾生後進入無餘涅槃。』 這時舍利弗向佛懺悔，稟告佛說：『我對一隻鴿子的來龍去脈尚且不能知曉，何況是諸法（Dharmas，一切事物和現象）。』
論：像這樣，諸佛對於所知無所不知。下面一行頌文，第二是說明佛的身力。
論曰：到無邊心力。解釋佛的身力量。那羅延（Narayana），是神的名字，這裡說是人種。有三種不同的說法。第一種說法是佛的力量等於那羅延的力量。第二種說法是佛的每一個支節都等於那羅延的力量。第三種說法是佛的身力是無邊的。如果不是這樣，就應該不能承受無量的心力。
論：大覺到力有勝劣。說明大覺（Mahabuddha，佛）、獨覺、輪王（Cakravartin，擁有轉輪聖王的統治者）三人的力量有勝有劣。大覺的支節相連，像龍盤繞一樣緊密。獨覺的支節相連，像鎖鏈一樣。輪王的支節相連，像鉤子一樣。
論：那羅
【English Translation】 English version He often takes the form of a pigeon during major kalpas (Kalpa, an aeon in Hindu and Buddhist cosmology). Beyond that, one cannot know. The Buddha said, 'If you cannot fully know the past lives, try to observe the future lives. When will this pigeon be freed from its pigeon form?' Sariputra (Sariputra, one of the ten principal disciples of the Buddha, known for his wisdom) immediately entered the Pranidhana-jnana-samadhi (Pranidhana-jnana-samadhi, meditative state of wisdom attained through vows) and observed this pigeon. For one, two, three, up to eighty thousand kalpas, it had not been freed from its pigeon form. Beyond that, one could not know. Emerging from the samadhi, Sariputra reported to the Buddha, 'I have seen this pigeon, from one, two, up to eighty thousand kalpas, it has not been freed from its pigeon form. Beyond that, I cannot know. I do not know the limits of the past and future. I do not know when this pigeon will be freed from its pigeon form.' The Buddha told Sariputra, 'This pigeon is beyond the limits known by Sravakas (Sravaka, a disciple who attains enlightenment by listening to the teachings) and Pratyekabuddhas (Pratyekabuddha, a solitary Buddha who attains enlightenment on their own). Later, in kalpas as numerous as the sands of the Ganges (Ganges sand, an extremely large number), it will take the form of a pigeon. After the karmic debts are cleared, it will be freed. After transmigrating through the five realms (Five realms, hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods), it will be reborn as a human. After five hundred lives, it will attain sharp faculties. At that time, there will be a Buddha who will liberate immeasurable Asankhya (Asankhya, an immense number) beings, and then enter Parinirvana (Parinirvana, complete Nirvana, cessation of rebirth). The remaining Dharma (Dharmas, the teachings of the Buddha) will still be in the world. This person will become an Upasaka (Upasaka, a male lay devotee) who observes the five precepts (Five Precepts, abstaining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, and intoxicants). From a Bhiksu (Bhiksu, a Buddhist monk), he will hear praises of the Buddha's virtues. Then, he will initially aspire to become a Buddha. Then, for three Asankhya kalpas (Three Asankhya kalpas, extremely long periods of time), he will practice the six Paramitas (Six Paramitas, generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, and wisdom). After fulfilling the ten Bhumis (Ten Bhumis, the ten stages of a Bodhisattva's path), he will attain Buddhahood. After liberating immeasurable beings, he will enter Parinirvana.' At this time, Sariputra repented to the Buddha, reporting, 'I cannot even know the beginning and end of a single pigeon, how much less can I know all Dharmas?'
Commentary: Thus, all Buddhas are all-knowing. The following verse explains the Buddha's physical strength.
Commentary: To boundless mental strength. Explains the Buddha's physical strength. Narayana (Narayana), is the name of a deity, here said to be a type of person. There are three different explanations. The first explanation is that the Buddha's strength is equal to Narayana's strength. The second explanation is that each of the Buddha's limbs is equal to Narayana's strength. The third explanation is that the Buddha's physical strength is boundless. If it were not so, he would not be able to bear immeasurable mental strength.
Commentary: The Greatly Awakened to strength has superiority and inferiority. Explains that the strength of the Greatly Awakened (Mahabuddha, Buddha), the Solitary Buddha, and the Wheel-Turning King (Cakravartin, a universal monarch) have superiority and inferiority. The limbs of the Greatly Awakened are connected like a dragon coiling tightly. The limbs of the Solitary Buddha are connected like a chain. The limbs of the Wheel-Turning King are connected like hooks.
Commentary: Narayana
延力其量云何。問也。
論。十十倍增至前前十倍。答也。有七重挍量。一凡象。二香象。三摩訶諾健那(此神名也。此名大路形也)。四缽羅塞建提(亦是神名。缽羅此云勝。塞建提此云蘊)。五伐浪伽(亦是神名此云妙支)。六遮怒羅(亦是神名此云執持)。七那羅延(已如前說)。即此七重後後力勝前前十倍。
論。有說前六至成那羅延。述異說。正理論云。有餘師說。此量如千藹羅伐拏天象王力。此象王力其量云何。三十三天將遊戲苑。像王知已化作諸頭種種莊嚴。往天宮所。諸天眷屬數有多千。乘已騰空如持樺葉。速至戲苑隨意歡娛。天大象王力勢如是。此力千倍等那羅延(已上論文)。
論。于所說中唯多應理。論主評也。正理亦同。
論。如是身力至離七外別有明力體也。婆沙三十有五說。一云。四大無偏增勝名身力。羸弱名身劣。第二云。地增名身力。水增名身劣。第三說。重增名身力。輕增名身劣。第四云。離七所造觸外別有所造觸名身力身劣。第五評家應作是說。即四大種及所造觸俱是身力身劣自性。謂若調和俱名身力。若不調和俱名身劣 俱舍前釋非婆沙第五釋。亦可。同婆沙初二說。大種差別。即是無偏增等。地增等故。后釋同第四 正理有四解。一云。如是身力
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 延力（Yan Li，力量的延伸）其量云何？問。
論：十十倍增至前前十倍。答。有七重較量：一、凡象；二、香象；三、摩訶諾健那（Maha Nuojianna，此神名也，此名大路形也）；四、缽羅塞建提（Bo Luo Sai Jianti，亦是神名，缽羅此云勝，塞建提此云蘊）；五、伐浪伽（Fa Langjia，亦是神名，此云妙支）；六、遮怒羅（Zhe Nuluo，亦是神名，此云執持）；七、那羅延（Naluoyan，已如前說）。即此七重後後力勝前前十倍。
論：有說前六至成那羅延。述異說。《正理論》云：有餘師說，此量如千藹羅伐拏天象王力。此象王力其量云何？三十三天將遊戲苑，像王知已化作諸頭種種莊嚴，往天宮所。諸天眷屬數有多千，乘已騰空如持樺葉，速至戲苑隨意歡娛。天大象王力勢如是。此力千倍等那羅延（已上論文）。
論：于所說中唯多應理。論主評。《正理》亦同。
論：如是身力至離七外別有明力體也。《婆沙》三十有五說：一云，四大無偏增勝名身力，羸弱名身劣。第二云，地增名身力，水增名身劣。第三說，重增名身力，輕增名身劣。第四云，離七所造觸外別有所造觸名身力身劣。第五評家應作是說，即四大種及所造觸俱是身力身劣自性。謂若調和俱名身力，若不調和俱名身劣。《俱舍》前釋非《婆沙》第五釋。亦可同《婆沙》初二說，大種差別，即是無偏增等，地增等故。后釋同第四。《正理》有四解：一云，如是身力
【English Translation】 English version What is the extent of Yan Li (延力, the extension of power)? Question.
Treatise: Increasing tenfold, each subsequent one is ten times greater than the preceding one. Answer. There are seven levels of comparison: 1. Ordinary elephant; 2. Fragrant elephant; 3. Maha Nuojianna (摩訶諾健那, this is the name of a deity, meaning 'great road shape'); 4. Bo Luo Sai Jianti (缽羅塞建提, also the name of a deity, 'Bo Luo' means 'victorious,' 'Sai Jianti' means 'aggregate'); 5. Fa Langjia (伐浪伽, also the name of a deity, meaning 'subtle limbs'); 6. Zhe Nuluo (遮怒羅, also the name of a deity, meaning 'holding'); 7. Naluoyan (那羅延, as previously mentioned). Each of these seven levels is ten times stronger than the one before it.
Treatise: Some say the first six reach the level of Naluoyan. Describing a different view. The Zhengli Lun (正理論, Treatise on Correct Reasoning) says: Some other teachers say that this strength is like that of a thousand Airavana (藹羅伐拏) heavenly elephant kings. What is the extent of this elephant king's power? The Thirty-Three Heavens were about to play in the garden. The elephant king, knowing this, transformed into various heads with various adornments and went to the heavenly palace. The heavenly retinue numbered many thousands, and after mounting, they soared into the sky like holding birch leaves, quickly reaching the pleasure garden to enjoy themselves as they pleased. The power of the great heavenly elephant king is like this. This power is a thousand times that of Naluoyan (above is from the treatise).
Treatise: Among what has been said, only the greater one is reasonable. The author of the treatise comments. The Zhengli (正理, Correct Reasoning) agrees.
Treatise: Such bodily strength, up to being distinct from the seven, has a separate entity of bright power. The Vibhasa (婆沙, Commentary) in its thirty-fifth section says: 1. One view is that the unbiased increase and superiority of the four great elements is called bodily strength, while weakness is called bodily inferiority. 2. Another view is that the increase of earth is called bodily strength, while the increase of water is called bodily inferiority. 3. A third view is that the increase of heaviness is called bodily strength, while the increase of lightness is called bodily inferiority. 4. A fourth view is that, apart from the seven produced touches, a separate produced touch is called bodily strength or bodily inferiority. 5. The commentator should say that the four great elements and the produced touches are both the nature of bodily strength and bodily inferiority. That is, if they are harmonious, they are both called bodily strength; if they are not harmonious, they are both called bodily inferiority. The previous explanation in the Kosa (俱舍, Treasury of Abhidharma) is not the fifth explanation in the Vibhasa. It can also be the same as the first two explanations in the Vibhasa, the difference in the great elements is the unbiased increase, etc., because of the increase of earth, etc. The later explanation is the same as the fourth. The Zhengli has four explanations: 1. One view is that such bodily strength
觸處為性。此應總是諸觸差別。此同婆沙評家。諸觸差別即是四大。及所造觸調和之異名也。第二云。唯大種差別。此同俱舍前說。第三云。是造觸離七外有。此同俱舍后說。第四云。力是重。劣是輕。此同婆沙第三說。正理以婆沙評家為正。俱舍意別。論師意爾不可和會。
論。佛四無畏相別云何。下半行頌第二明無畏。
論至曰如第七力準力出無畏體。如文可解。婆沙三十一云。一正等覺無畏。如契經說。我是諸法正等覺者。若有世間沙門．梵志．天魔梵等。依法立難。或令憶念于如是法非正等覺無有是處。設當有者我於是事正見無由。故得安穩無怖無畏。自稱我是大仙尊位。于大眾中正師子吼轉大梵輪。一切世間沙門．梵志．天魔梵等所不能轉 二漏永盡無畏。如契經說。我于諸漏已得永盡。若有世間沙門．梵志．天魔梵等依法立難。或令憶念有如是漏未得永盡無有是處。設當有者。乃至廣說 三說障法無畏。如契經說我為弟子說能障法染必為障。若有世間沙門．梵志．天魔梵等依法立難。或令憶念有此障法深不為障無有是處。乃至廣說 四說出道無畏。如契經說。我為弟子說能出道修必出苦。若有世間沙門．梵志．天魔梵等依法立難。或令憶念修如是道不能出苦無有是處。設當有者我於是事正見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『觸處為性』，這意味著所有接觸都是不同的。這與《大毗婆沙論》（Mahavibhasa）的評家觀點相同。所有接觸的不同之處在於四大（地、水、火、風）以及由四大所造之觸的和諧差異。第二種觀點認為，只有大種（Mahabhuta）是不同的，這與《俱舍論》（Abhidharmakosha）之前的說法一致。第三種觀點認為是造觸（Sparshayatana）獨立於七種之外而存在，這與《俱舍論》之後的說法一致。第四種觀點認為，力是重，劣是輕，這與《大毗婆沙論》第三種說法相同。《正理經》（Nyaya Sutra）以《大毗婆沙論》評家的觀點為正確。《俱舍論》的觀點不同，論師的意見也無法調和。
論：佛陀的四無畏（Caturvaisharadyas）有何區別？下半行頌的第二部分闡明了無畏。
論述說，如同第七力（第七種力量）一樣，根據力量產生無畏的本質，如文字所述可以理解。《大毗婆沙論》第三十一卷說：一、正等覺無畏（Samyaksambodhi-vaisharadya）。如契經（Sutra）所說：『我是諸法正等覺者。』如果有世間的沙門（Shramana，修行者）、梵志（Brahmana，婆羅門）、天（Deva，天神）、魔（Mara，惡魔）、梵（Brahma，梵天）等，依法提出質疑，或者使人憶念我對於這些法不是正等覺，這是不可能的。假設有這種情況，我對此事有正確的見解，知道這是不可能的，因此得到安穩，沒有怖畏。自稱我是偉大的仙尊，在大眾中發出正義的獅子吼，轉動偉大的梵輪（Brahma-cakra，法輪），一切世間的沙門、梵志、天魔梵等都不能轉動。二、漏永盡無畏（Kshinashrava-vaisharadya）。如契經所說：『我對於諸漏（Asrava，煩惱）已經得到永盡。』如果有世間的沙門、梵志、天魔梵等，依法提出質疑，或者使人憶念我有這些煩惱沒有得到永盡，這是不可能的。假設有這種情況，乃至廣說。三、說障法無畏（Antaraya-dhamma-vaisharadya）。如契經所說：『我為弟子說能障礙之法，貪染必定是障礙。』如果有世間的沙門、梵志、天魔梵等，依法提出質疑，或者使人憶念有此障礙之法，但它並非真正的障礙，這是不可能的。乃至廣說。四、說出道無畏（Nairyānika-mārga-vaisharadya）。如契經所說：『我為弟子說能出離之道，修行此道必定能出離痛苦。』如果有世間的沙門、梵志、天魔梵等，依法提出質疑，或者使人憶念修行這樣的道不能出離痛苦，這是不可能的。假設有這種情況，我對此事有正確的見解。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Touching everywhere is its nature.' This implies that all contacts are different. This is the same as the view of the commentators of the Mahavibhasa (Mahavibhasa). The difference in all contacts lies in the four great elements (Mahabhuta - earth, water, fire, wind) and the harmonious differences in the contacts created by the four great elements. The second view is that only the great elements (Mahabhuta) are different, which is consistent with the previous statement in the Abhidharmakosha (Abhidharmakosha). The third view is that the created touch (Sparshayatana) exists independently of the seven, which is consistent with the later statement in the Abhidharmakosha. The fourth view is that strength is heavy and inferiority is light, which is the same as the third statement in the Mahavibhasa. The Nyaya Sutra (Nyaya Sutra) considers the view of the commentators of the Mahavibhasa to be correct. The view of the Abhidharmakosha is different, and the opinions of the masters cannot be reconciled.
Question: What are the differences between the four fearlessnesses (Caturvaisharadyas) of the Buddha? The second part of the lower half of the verse clarifies fearlessness.
The treatise states that, like the seventh power (seventh kind of power), the essence of fearlessness arises from power, which can be understood as stated in the text. The thirty-first volume of the Mahavibhasa says: First, the fearlessness of perfect enlightenment (Samyaksambodhi-vaisharadya). As the Sutra (Sutra) says: 'I am the perfectly enlightened one of all dharmas.' If there are Shramanas (Shramana, practitioners), Brahmanas (Brahmana, priests), Devas (Deva, gods), Maras (Mara, demons), Brahmas (Brahma, Brahma gods), etc. in the world who raise questions according to the law, or cause people to remember that I am not perfectly enlightened about these dharmas, this is impossible. Assuming there is such a situation, I have a correct view on this matter and know that it is impossible, so I am at peace and have no fear. Claiming that I am the great sage, I roar the lion's roar of righteousness in the assembly, turning the great Brahma-cakra (Brahma-cakra, Dharma wheel), which all the Shramanas, Brahmanas, Devas, Maras, and Brahmas in the world cannot turn. Second, the fearlessness of the exhaustion of outflows (Kshinashrava-vaisharadya). As the Sutra says: 'I have attained the complete exhaustion of all outflows (Asrava, defilements).' If there are Shramanas, Brahmanas, Devas, Maras, etc. in the world who raise questions according to the law, or cause people to remember that I have these outflows that have not been completely exhausted, this is impossible. Assuming there is such a situation, and so on. Third, the fearlessness of speaking about obstructive dharmas (Antaraya-dhamma-vaisharadya). As the Sutra says: 'I tell my disciples that the dharma that obstructs, greed and attachment are definitely obstructions.' If there are Shramanas, Brahmanas, Devas, Maras, etc. in the world who raise questions according to the law, or cause people to remember that there is this obstructive dharma, but it is not a real obstruction, this is impossible. And so on. Fourth, the fearlessness of speaking about the path of liberation (Nairyānika-mārga-vaisharadya). As the Sutra says: 'I tell my disciples that the path that leads to liberation, practicing this path will definitely lead to liberation from suffering.' If there are Shramanas, Brahmanas, Devas, Maras, etc. in the world who raise questions according to the law, or cause people to remember that practicing such a path cannot lead to liberation from suffering, this is impossible. Assuming there is such a situation, I have a correct view on this matter.
無由。故得安穩無怖無畏 乃至廣說 又云。如是所說十力．四無所畏。一一力攝四無畏一一無畏攝十力故。則有四十力．四十無畏。然前說第一力．第十力．第三力．第二力是無畏者。依顯相說 正理論廢立云何緣諸佛無畏唯四。但由此量。顯佛世尊自他圓德俱究竟故。謂初無畏顯佛世尊自智圓德。第二無畏顯佛世尊自斷圓德。此二顯佛自利德滿。為顯世尊利他圓德。是故復說后二無畏。第三無畏遮行邪道。第四無畏令趨正道。謂佛處處為諸弟子說障法令斷除。即是令修斷德方便。又于處處為諸弟子說出道令正行。即是令修智德方便。此二顯佛利他德滿。但由此四隨其所應。顯佛自．他智．斷圓德至究竟故。唯立四種(已上論文) 論。如何于智至體即是智。此釋無畏。但是無怖非是智也。以智成故說名為智。正理論亦同。故彼論云。理實應然。但為顯示無畏以智為親近因。是故就智出無畏體。夫無畏者謂不怯懼。由有智故不怯懼他。故智得為無畏因性。唯佛四妙智是四無畏因。謂諸如來於一切法．一切相妙智。是初無畏因。若諸如來一切煩惱．並習氣斷妙智。是第二因。若諸如來知弟子眾有損有益妙智。是后二無畏因(已上論文同此論文) 或無畏體即四妙智。怯懼名畏。此即於法無所了達。懷恐怖義起於此畏。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 沒有原因。因此能夠得到安穩，沒有怖畏，乃至廣說。又說：『像這樣所說的十力（Tathagatabalas，如來十種力量）、四無所畏（catu-vaiśāradyas，四種無所畏懼的品質），每一個力都包含四無所畏，每一個無所畏都包含十力。』因此就有四十力、四十無所畏。然而前面說的第一力、第十力、第三力、第二力是無畏的，是依據顯現的相來說的。《正理論》對於廢立怎麼說呢？因為諸佛的無畏只有四種，只是通過這種數量，顯示佛世尊自己和他人的圓滿功德都達到究竟的緣故。所謂第一個無畏顯示佛世尊自己的智慧圓滿功德，第二個無畏顯示佛世尊自己的斷除圓滿功德。這兩種顯示佛的自利功德圓滿。爲了顯示世尊利他的圓滿功德，所以又說了後面的兩種無畏。第三個無畏遮止修行邪道，第四個無畏使人趨向正道。佛在各處為弟子們說障礙法，使他們斷除，這就是使他們修習斷德的方便。又在各處為弟子們說出離的道路，使他們正確地修行，這就是使他們修習智德的方便。這兩種顯示佛利他的功德圓滿。只是通過這四種，根據它們各自相應的，顯示佛自己和他人的智慧、斷除圓滿功德達到究竟的緣故，只設立四種（以上是論文）。 論：如何對於智慧達到本體就是智慧？這是解釋無畏，但是隻是沒有怖畏，不是智慧。因為智慧成就的緣故，說名為智慧。《正理論》也相同。所以那部論說：『道理上本來應該這樣，但是爲了顯示無畏以智慧為親近的原因，所以就智慧而說出無畏的本體。』所謂無畏就是不怯懦恐懼。因為有智慧的緣故，不怯懦恐懼他人，所以智慧可以作為無畏的因性。只有佛的四妙智是四無畏的因。所謂諸如來對於一切法、一切相的妙智，是第一個無畏的因。如果諸如來一切煩惱，以及習氣斷除的妙智，是第二個因。如果諸如來知道弟子眾有損害有利益的妙智，是後面兩個無畏的因（以上論文與此論文相同）。或者無畏的本體就是四妙智。怯懦恐懼叫做畏。這就是對於法沒有完全瞭解，懷有恐怖的意義，由此產生畏懼。
【English Translation】 English version Without cause. Therefore, one can attain stability, without fear or dread, and so on, extensively explained. It is also said: 'Thus, the ten powers (Tathagatabalas, the ten powers of a Tathagata) and fourfold fearlessness (catu-vaiśāradyas, the four kinds of fearlessness) that have been spoken of, each power encompasses the four fearlessnesses, and each fearlessness encompasses the ten powers.' Therefore, there are forty powers and forty fearlessnesses. However, the previously mentioned first power, tenth power, third power, and second power are those of fearlessness, according to the apparent aspect. What does the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra say regarding the establishment and rejection? Because the Buddhas' fearlessnesses are only four, it is merely through this quantity that it is shown that the Blessed One's own and others' complete virtues are ultimately fulfilled. The first fearlessness shows the Blessed One's own complete virtue of wisdom; the second fearlessness shows the Blessed One's own complete virtue of cessation. These two show the Buddha's self-benefiting virtues are complete. To show the Blessed One's complete virtue of benefiting others, therefore, the latter two fearlessnesses are also spoken of. The third fearlessness prevents the practice of wrong paths; the fourth fearlessness leads one towards the right path. The Buddha, in various places, speaks of obstructive dharmas to disciples, causing them to be eliminated, which is to enable them to cultivate the means of cessation. Also, in various places, the Buddha speaks of the path of liberation to disciples, causing them to practice correctly, which is to enable them to cultivate the means of wisdom. These two show the Buddha's virtue of benefiting others is complete. It is merely through these four, according to their respective appropriateness, that it is shown that the Buddha's own and others' wisdom and cessation complete virtues are ultimately fulfilled; therefore, only four are established (the above is from the treatise). Treatise: How is it that, with regard to wisdom, reaching the essence is wisdom itself? This explains fearlessness, but it is merely the absence of fear, not wisdom. Because wisdom is accomplished, it is called wisdom. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra is also the same. Therefore, that treatise says: 'In principle, it should be so, but to show that fearlessness takes wisdom as its proximate cause, therefore, the essence of fearlessness is spoken of in terms of wisdom.' What is meant by fearlessness is not being timid or fearful. Because one has wisdom, one is not timid or fearful of others; therefore, wisdom can be the causal nature of fearlessness. Only the four sublime wisdoms of the Buddha are the causes of the four fearlessnesses. The sublime wisdom of the Tathagatas regarding all dharmas and all aspects is the cause of the first fearlessness. If the sublime wisdom of the Tathagatas regarding the elimination of all afflictions and habitual tendencies is the second cause. If the sublime wisdom of the Tathagatas regarding knowing the harm and benefit to the assembly of disciples, it is the cause of the latter two fearlessnesses (the above treatises are the same as this treatise). Or, the essence of fearlessness is the four sublime wisdoms. Timidity and fear are called fear. This is not fully understanding the Dharma, harboring the meaning of terror, and fear arises from this.
有近治能與畏相違故名無畏。豈不非無智即是畏體。如何說智體即是無畏(述云。此中難意畏既非無智。如何無畏智為體耶) 此責不然。智與多法為近治故。如即無疑。謂智如能近治無智。亦于怖畏有近治能。故得智名亦名無畏。如治無智亦能治疑。故得智名亦名決定。所治無智雖不即疑。而智．無疑名二體一。如是無智雖與畏殊。而無畏名即目智體。一善能斷多惡法故。有說。無智亦攝畏體。故於此中不應為難 問 力與無畏有何差別 答 此無差別體俱智故。然于智體別義名力。復依別義立無畏名。謂不屈因說名為力。不怯懼因說名無畏(云云多釋) 廣如彼論。
論。佛三念住相別云何。已下半頌。第三明念住也。
論曰至第一念住。釋第一也。
論。諸弟子眾至第二念住。釋第二也。
論。諸弟子眾至第三念住。釋第三也。
論。此三皆用念惠為體。出三念住體也。婆沙一百八十八。問佛說法時若皆敬受。便應無三念住。若有不敬受者。將無世尊于非田．非器雨正法雨。如是佛說法則為唐捐。答世尊為人說法欲令人解。若當人不解者亦有天能解之。如是念住有三。亦非佛唐捐說法。所以者何。以人不解故念住有三。天能解故。不于非田．非器而雨法雨 正理論云。謂由安住
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有能夠近似治理（近治）怖畏的功用，與怖畏相違背，所以稱為無畏（Abhaya）。難道不是沒有智慧（無智）就是怖畏的本體嗎？為什麼說智慧的本體就是無畏呢？（述云：這裡提出的疑問是，既然怖畏不是沒有智慧，那麼無畏怎麼能以智慧為本體呢？） 這種責難是不對的。智慧與多種法有近似治理的關係，就像無疑一樣。意思是說，智慧如果能夠近似治理沒有智慧的狀態，也就能近似治理怖畏。所以，智慧也可以被稱為無畏。就像治理沒有智慧的狀態，也能治理疑惑一樣，所以智慧也可以被稱為決定。所要治理的沒有智慧的狀態雖然不是疑惑本身，但是智慧和無疑這兩個名稱所指的本體是一樣的。同樣，沒有智慧的狀態雖然與怖畏不同，但是無畏這個名稱指的就是智慧的本體。因為一種善法能夠斷除多種惡法。有一種說法認為，沒有智慧的狀態也包含怖畏的本體。所以，不應該在這裡提出疑問。 問：力量（Bala）與無畏（Abhaya）有什麼區別？ 答：這兩者沒有區別，本體都是智慧。然而，對於智慧的本體，從不同的意義上可以稱為力量，也可以根據不同的意義建立無畏這個名稱。不屈服的原因稱為力量，不怯懦恐懼的原因稱為無畏（云云，多種解釋）。詳細內容可以參考相關論著。 論：佛陀的三念住（Smṛtyupasthāna）的相狀有什麼區別？以下半頌，第三部分說明念住。 論曰：到第一念住。解釋第一念住。 論：諸弟子眾到第二念住。解釋第二念住。 論：諸弟子眾到第三念住。解釋第三念住。 論：這三種念住都以念和智慧為本體。說明三種念住的本體。婆沙一百八十八：問：佛陀說法的時候，如果所有人都恭敬接受，那麼就不應該有三種念住。如果有人不恭敬接受，那麼世尊豈不是在非良田、非良器中降下正法之雨？這樣佛陀說法豈不是徒勞無功？答：世尊為人說法是爲了讓人理解。如果有人不理解，也有天人能夠理解。所以念住有三種，也不是佛陀徒勞無功地說法。為什麼呢？因為有人不理解，所以念住有三種；天人能夠理解，所以不是在非良田、非良器中降下法雨。正理論說：這是由於安住。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Near-governance' (near-control) means having the ability to approximately govern fear, and being contrary to fear, hence it is called 'fearlessness' (Abhaya). Isn't the absence of wisdom (Avidyā) the very substance of fear? How can it be said that the substance of wisdom is fearlessness? (Commentary: The question here is, since fear is not the absence of wisdom, how can fearlessness have wisdom as its substance?) This accusation is incorrect. Wisdom has a near-governance relationship with many dharmas, just like non-doubt. That is to say, if wisdom can approximately govern the state of lacking wisdom, it can also approximately govern fear. Therefore, wisdom can also be called fearlessness. Just like governing the state of lacking wisdom can also govern doubt, wisdom can also be called certainty. Although the state of lacking wisdom to be governed is not doubt itself, the entities referred to by the names 'wisdom' and 'non-doubt' are the same. Similarly, although the state of lacking wisdom is different from fear, the name 'fearlessness' refers to the very substance of wisdom. Because one good dharma can cut off many evil dharmas. Some say that the state of lacking wisdom also includes the substance of fear. Therefore, one should not raise questions here. Question: What is the difference between 'strength' (Bala) and 'fearlessness' (Abhaya)? Answer: There is no difference between the two; their substance is both wisdom. However, regarding the substance of wisdom, it can be called strength from a different meaning, and the name fearlessness can be established according to a different meaning. The cause of not yielding is called strength, and the cause of not being timid and fearful is called fearlessness (and so on, with various explanations). Detailed content can be found in relevant treatises. Treatise: What are the differences in the characteristics of the Buddha's three 'foundations of mindfulness' (Smṛtyupasthāna)? The following half-verse, the third part, explains the foundations of mindfulness. Treatise says: To the first foundation of mindfulness. Explains the first foundation of mindfulness. Treatise: The disciples and followers to the second foundation of mindfulness. Explains the second foundation of mindfulness. Treatise: The disciples and followers to the third foundation of mindfulness. Explains the third foundation of mindfulness. Treatise: These three foundations of mindfulness all take mindfulness and wisdom as their substance. Explains the substance of the three foundations of mindfulness. Vibhāṣā 188: Question: When the Buddha preaches the Dharma, if everyone respectfully accepts it, then there should be no three foundations of mindfulness. If some people do not respectfully accept it, then wouldn't the World-Honored One be raining the true Dharma on non-fertile fields and non-receptive vessels? Wouldn't the Buddha's preaching be in vain? Answer: The World-Honored One preaches the Dharma to people in order to make them understand. If some people do not understand, there are also devas who can understand. Therefore, there are three foundations of mindfulness, and it is not that the Buddha's preaching is in vain. Why? Because some people do not understand, so there are three foundations of mindfulness; devas can understand, so it is not raining the Dharma on non-fertile fields and non-receptive vessels. The Nyāyānusāra says: This is due to abiding.
正念．正知。於三境中不生歡．戚(已上論文)。
論。諸大聲聞至不共佛法。問也。此事聲聞亦有。何名不共。
論。唯佛於此並習斷故。答也。
論。或諸弟子至非奇特故。第二釋也。謂諸弟子本是隨屬如來。不是隨屬聲聞。于如來有順．違．俱。不生歡．戚可謂希奇。既本不屬聲聞。于聲聞有順．違．俱。不生歡．戚非希奇也。
論。故唯在佛得不共名。總結名也。
論。諸佛大悲云何相別。已下一行頌。第四明大悲別。
論曰至如共有悲 此文中有三。一出體。二釋名。三明與悲別。此即第一齣大悲體。以普緣一切有情故非無漏智是俗智也。
論。此大悲名依何義立。此第二釋名。于中有二。一問。二答。此即問也。
論。依五義故此立大名者。標五義也。
論。一由資糧至所成辨故。第一義也。
論二由行相至作行相故。第二義也。
論。三由所緣至為所緣故。第三義也。
論。四由平等至作利樂故。第四義也。
論。五由上品至能齊此故。第五義也。
論。此與悲異由八種因。已下第三明與悲異有八因也。
論。一由自性至哀愍異故。大悲無癡為性。悲無嗔為性故。余文可解。
論。已辨佛德。已
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 正念、正知。對於三種境界（順境、逆境、中性境）不產生喜歡或厭惡的情緒（以上是論文的內容）。
論：諸大聲聞（指阿羅漢）乃至不共佛法（只有佛才具有的功德）。問：這件事聲聞也有，為什麼稱為不共？
論：唯有佛才能完全地修習和斷除（煩惱）。答：這是回答。
論：或者諸弟子乃至並非奇特。這是第二種解釋。意思是說，諸位弟子本來就是隨順於如來（佛），而不是隨順於聲聞。對於如來，有順從、違逆、以及中立的態度，不生喜歡或厭惡的情緒，這可以說是稀奇。既然本來就不屬於聲聞，對於聲聞有順從、違逆、以及中立的態度，不生喜歡或厭惡的情緒，就不是什麼稀奇的事了。
論：所以只有在佛才能得到不共的名稱。這是總結名稱。
論：諸佛的大悲（Maha Karuna）如何區分？以下一行頌文，第四部分說明大悲的差別。
論曰乃至如共有悲：這段文字中有三點。一是指出大悲的本體，二是解釋大悲的名稱，三是說明大悲與悲（Karuna）的區別。這裡是第一點，指出大悲的本體。因為普遍緣於一切有情眾生，所以不是無漏智（出世間的智慧），而是世俗智（世間的智慧）。
論：這個大悲的名稱依據什麼意義而建立？這是第二點，解釋名稱。其中有兩部分，一是提問，二是回答。這裡是提問。
論：依據五種意義，因此建立大悲的名稱。這是標出五種意義。
論：一、由於資糧乃至所成就辨別的緣故。這是第一種意義。
論：二、由於行相乃至作為行相的緣故。這是第二種意義。
論：三、由於所緣乃至作為所緣的緣故。這是第三種意義。
論：四、由於平等乃至作為利益安樂的緣故。這是第四種意義。
論：五、由於上品乃至能夠等同於此的緣故。這是第五種意義。
論：這（大悲）與悲（小悲）的差異在於八種原因。以下是第三部分，說明大悲與悲的差異有八種原因。
論：一、由於自性乃至哀愍的差異的緣故。大悲以無癡（不愚癡）為自性，悲以無嗔（不嗔恨）為自性。其餘的文字可以理解。
論：已經辨明了佛的功德。已經。
【English Translation】 English version Mindfulness and correct knowledge. Not generating joy or sorrow in the three realms (pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral experiences) (the above is from the treatise).
Treatise: The great Sravakas (Arhats) up to the unique Buddha-dharmas (qualities exclusive to the Buddha). Question: Sravakas also possess this, so why is it called unique?
Treatise: Only the Buddha fully cultivates and eliminates (afflictions). Answer: This is the answer.
Treatise: Or the disciples up to not being extraordinary. This is the second explanation. It means that the disciples are originally subordinate to the Tathagata (Buddha), not subordinate to the Sravakas. Towards the Tathagata, there are compliant, contrary, and neutral attitudes; not generating joy or sorrow can be considered extraordinary. Since they are not originally subordinate to the Sravakas, towards the Sravakas there are compliant, contrary, and neutral attitudes; not generating joy or sorrow is not extraordinary.
Treatise: Therefore, only the Buddha obtains the name of uniqueness. This is the concluding name.
Treatise: How are the great compassion (Maha Karuna) of the Buddhas distinguished? The following line of verse, the fourth part, explains the difference in great compassion.
Treatise: Namely, like shared compassion: In this text, there are three points. First, to state the essence of great compassion; second, to explain the name of great compassion; and third, to clarify the difference between great compassion and compassion (Karuna). Here is the first point, stating the essence of great compassion. Because it universally relates to all sentient beings, it is not un-leaked wisdom (transcendental wisdom) but conventional wisdom (mundane wisdom).
Treatise: Upon what meaning is this name of great compassion established? This is the second point, explaining the name. Within it, there are two parts: first, a question; second, an answer. Here is the question.
Treatise: Based on five meanings, therefore, this name of great compassion is established. This marks out the five meanings.
Treatise: One, due to the accumulation of resources up to the discernment of what is accomplished. This is the first meaning.
Treatise: Two, due to the characteristics up to acting as characteristics. This is the second meaning.
Treatise: Three, due to the object of focus up to acting as the object of focus. This is the third meaning.
Treatise: Four, due to equality up to acting for benefit and happiness. This is the fourth meaning.
Treatise: Five, due to the superior quality up to being able to equal this. This is the fifth meaning.
Treatise: The difference between this (great compassion) and compassion (small compassion) lies in eight causes. The following is the third part, explaining that the difference between great compassion and compassion has eight causes.
Treatise: One, due to the difference in nature up to the difference in compassion. Great compassion has non-ignorance (non-delusion) as its nature, while compassion has non-anger (non-hatred) as its nature. The remaining text can be understood.
Treatise: The virtues of the Buddha have been distinguished. Already.
下一行頌。第五明佛同．異。
論曰至等究竟故。長行中有三節。一明同。二辨異。三述德。此即初也。
論由壽種性至法住久近等。第二辨異。文有五節。一總明異別明有四。一由壽。二身量。三種性。四等言。釋此四文復有四種。如文可解。
論。如是有異至機宜別故。述異因也。
論。諸有智者至深生愛敬。自此已下第三述德勸敬令發菩提心也。
論。其三者何。問三德也。
論。一因圓德至三恩圓德。列三名也。
論。初因圓德至修無慢故。開初因圓德四。如文可解。
論。次果圓德至色身圓德。第二開果圓德為四。謂智．斷．威勢．色身也。
論。智圓德至無功用智。復開果圓德中智圓德為四。一無師智者。謂成佛時無師故。二一切智者。謂緣共相理至極故。三一切種智者。知一切種差別法故。四無功用智。一切智及一切種智起時不須加行故。
論。斷圓德至並習斷。開果圓德中第二斷圓德為四。初斷與二乘同。三乘無學同斷一切煩惱故。此異菩薩也。二一切定障斷者。簡異菩薩．二乘。無量三摩地。菩薩．二乘不得故。三畢竟斷者。顯不退。四並習斷者。明二無知盡。
論。威勢圓德至希奇威勢。開果圓德中第三威勢圓德為四。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：下一行是頌文。第五部分闡明佛的相同與不同之處。
論述說：因為（佛的）平等和究竟。長行中有三個部分。第一部分闡明相同之處。第二部分辨別不同之處。第三部分敘述功德。這裡是第一部分。
論述說：從壽命、種性到法住世的長短等等。第二部分辨別不同之處。文中有五個小節。第一節總的說明不同，然後分別說明有四種不同。第一是壽命。第二是身量。第三是種性。第四是『等等』所包含的內容。解釋這四種不同又各有四種說法。如經文所表達的含義。
論述說：像這樣有種種不同，是爲了適應不同的根機。這是敘述（佛）示現不同的原因。
論述說：所有有智慧的人，都會對佛陀深深地生起愛敬之心。從這裡開始是第三部分，敘述佛的功德，勸勉人們恭敬佛陀，從而發起菩提心。
論述說：這三種功德是什麼？這是提問三種功德。
論述說：第一是因圓滿的功德，到第三是恩圓滿的功德。這是列出三種功德的名稱。
論述說：最初的因圓滿功德，到修持沒有我慢的緣故。這是展開最初的因圓滿功德為四個方面。如經文所表達的含義。
論述說：其次是果圓滿的功德，到色身圓滿的功德。第二部分展開果圓滿的功德為四個方面。即智慧、斷德、威勢、色身。
論述說：智慧圓滿的功德，到無功用智。又展開果圓滿功德中的智慧圓滿功德為四個方面。第一是無師智者。指的是成佛時沒有老師。第二是一切智者。指的是對共相之理達到極致。第三是一切種智者。知曉一切種類的差別法。第四是無功用智。一切智和一切種智生起時不需要額外的努力。
論述說：斷圓滿的功德，到連同習氣一起斷除。展開果圓滿功德中第二斷圓滿功德為四個方面。最初的斷除與二乘相同。三乘的無學都斷除一切煩惱。這與菩薩不同。第二是一切定障斷除。區別于菩薩和二乘。無量的三摩地，菩薩和二乘無法獲得。第三是畢竟斷除。顯示不退轉。第四是連同習氣一起斷除。說明兩種無知都已斷盡。
論述說：威勢圓滿的功德，到希奇的威勢。展開果圓滿功德中第三威勢圓滿功德為四個方面。這裡...
【English Translation】 English version: The following is a verse. The fifth section clarifies the similarities and differences of Buddhas.
The treatise states: Because of equality and ultimate attainment. There are three sections in the prose. The first clarifies the similarities. The second distinguishes the differences. The third describes the virtues. This is the first section.
The treatise states: From lifespan, lineage, to the duration of the Dharma's presence, and so on. The second section distinguishes the differences. There are five subsections in the text. The first section generally explains the differences, and then specifically explains that there are four types of differences. First is lifespan. Second is physical size. Third is lineage. Fourth is what is included in 'and so on'. Explaining these four differences each has four aspects. As the meaning expressed in the text.
The treatise states: Having such differences is to suit different capacities. This is describing the reasons for (Buddha) manifesting differently.
The treatise states: All wise people will deeply generate love and respect for the Buddha. From here onwards is the third section, describing the Buddha's virtues, exhorting people to respect the Buddha, thereby arousing Bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment).
The treatise states: What are these three virtues? This is asking about the three virtues.
The treatise states: First is the virtue of complete cause, to the third is the virtue of complete grace. This is listing the names of the three virtues.
The treatise states: The initial virtue of complete cause, to the reason of cultivating without arrogance. This is expanding the initial virtue of complete cause into four aspects. As the meaning expressed in the text.
The treatise states: Secondly, the virtue of complete result, to the virtue of complete physical body. The second part expands the virtue of complete result into four aspects. Namely, wisdom, cessation, power, and physical body.
The treatise states: The virtue of complete wisdom, to effortless wisdom. It further expands the virtue of complete wisdom within the virtue of complete result into four aspects. First is the wisdom without a teacher. Refers to not having a teacher when becoming a Buddha. Second is the all-knowing one. Refers to reaching the ultimate in understanding the principle of common characteristics. Third is the all-knowing of all types. Knowing all kinds of differentiated dharmas. Fourth is effortless wisdom. The arising of all-knowing and all-knowing of all types does not require additional effort.
The treatise states: The virtue of complete cessation, to the complete cessation including habitual tendencies. It expands the second virtue of complete cessation within the virtue of complete result into four aspects. The initial cessation is the same as the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna). The non-learners of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna) all cease all afflictions. This is different from Bodhisattvas. Second is the cessation of all meditative obstacles. Differentiating from Bodhisattvas and the Two Vehicles. Limitless Samādhi (meditative absorption), Bodhisattvas and the Two Vehicles cannot attain. Third is ultimate cessation. Showing non-retrogression. Fourth is the cessation including habitual tendencies. Explaining that both types of ignorance are completely exhausted.
The treatise states: The virtue of complete power, to the wondrous power. It expands the third virtue of complete power within the virtue of complete result into four aspects. Here...
四明不思議神足四種不同。
論。威勢圓德至必能伏。更開威勢圓德為四。前四明神變。后四明調物。
論。色身圓德至逾百千日。開果圓德中第四色身圓德為四。
論。后恩圓德至善趣三乘。開果圓德中第三恩圓德為四。有二種四。一解脫三惡趣為三。解脫生死為第四。二安置善趣為一。安置三乘為后三。
論。總說如來圓德如是。結上總說三德。
論。若別分析至說乃可盡。嘆別說多也。
論。如是則顯至如大寶山。總嘆佛德。
論。有諸愚夫至不能信重。明愚不信知。
論。諸有智者至徹于骨髓。明智深信。
論。彼由一念至究竟果故。明信利益。
論。如薄伽梵至后必得涅槃。引頌證也。
論。已說如來至共功德。已下一行頌。大文第二明共功德 于中有二。一與聖共。二兼凡共。
論曰至隨其所應。列上共德。
論。謂前三門至亦共異生。列二種共也。一共聖人。二兼共異生。正理論云。雖佛身中一切功德行相清凈殊勝自在。與聲聞等功德有殊。然依類同說名為共(已上論文)。
論。前三門中且辨無諍。已下明唯共聖人 于中四門。一無諍定。二愿智。三無礙解。四得差別。此一行頌明無諍定。
論曰至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 四明不思議神足四種不同。
論：威勢圓德達到極致必定能夠降伏。進一步將威勢圓德展開為四種。前面的四種說明神變，後面的四種說明調伏事物。
論：色身圓德達到極致，光芒超過百千個太陽。在果圓德中，將第四種色身圓德展開為四種。
論：后恩圓德達到極致，能夠到達善趣三乘。在果圓德中，將第三種恩圓德展開為四種。有兩種四種。第一種是將眾生從三惡趣中解脫出來，分為三種；將眾生從生死中解脫出來，作為第四種。第二種是將眾生安置在善趣中，作為第一種；將眾生安置在三乘中，作為後面的三種。
論：總的來說，如來的圓德就是這樣。總結上面所說的三種德。
論：如果分別分析，詳細解說，那是說不盡的。感嘆分別解說太多了。
論：這樣就顯現出如來的功德就像大寶山一樣。總的讚歎佛的功德。
論：有一些愚蠢的人，不能相信和重視。說明愚蠢的人不相信和了解。
論：那些有智慧的人，能夠深刻地相信，這種信念深入骨髓。說明有智慧的人深刻地相信。
論：他們由於一念的信心，最終能夠獲得究竟的果位。說明信心的利益。
論：就像薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）所說的那樣，最終必定能夠獲得涅槃（Nirvana，寂滅）。引用偈頌來證明。
論：已經說了如來和聖人共同的功德。下面一行是偈頌。大的方面來說，第二部分說明共同的功德。其中有兩點：一是與聖人共同，二是兼與凡人共同。
論曰：列舉上面所說的共同的功德，根據各自相應的情況。
論：所說的前三門，也與凡夫共同。列舉兩種共同之處：一是與聖人共同，二是兼與凡夫共同。《正理論》說：『雖然佛身中的一切功德，其行相清凈殊勝自在，與聲聞（Śrāvaka，聲聞弟子）等的功德有差別，但是依據類別相同，也可以說它們是共同的。』（以上是論文的內容）。
論：在前三門中，首先辨析無諍定（Araṇāsamādhi，無諍三昧）。下面說明僅僅與聖人共同的功德。其中有四門：一、無諍定；二、愿智（praṇidhijñāna，愿智）；三、無礙解（pratisaṃvidā，無礙解）；四、獲得差別。這一行偈頌說明無諍定。
論曰：
【English Translation】 English version The four kinds of Ssu-ming's (四明) inconceivable divine powers differ.
Treatise: The power and perfect virtue reach the ultimate, and they will surely be able to subdue. Further, the power and perfect virtue are expanded into four. The first four explain divine transformations, and the latter four explain taming beings.
Treatise: The perfect virtue of the physical body reaches the ultimate, and its radiance surpasses hundreds of thousands of suns. Among the perfect virtues of the fruit, the fourth, the perfect virtue of the physical body, is expanded into four.
Treatise: The perfect virtue of subsequent grace reaches the ultimate, enabling one to reach the good realms and the Three Vehicles. Among the perfect virtues of the fruit, the third, the perfect virtue of grace, is expanded into four. There are two kinds of four. The first is liberating beings from the three evil realms, divided into three; liberating beings from birth and death is the fourth. The second is placing beings in the good realms, as the first; placing beings in the Three Vehicles, as the latter three.
Treatise: In general, the Tathāgata's (如來, Thus Come One) perfect virtues are like this. Summarizing the three virtues mentioned above.
Treatise: If analyzed separately and explained in detail, it would be inexhaustible. Lamenting that separate explanations are too numerous.
Treatise: Thus, it is revealed that the Tathāgata's virtues are like a great treasure mountain. Generally praising the Buddha's virtues.
Treatise: Some foolish people cannot believe and value them. Explaining that foolish people do not believe and understand.
Treatise: Those who are wise can deeply believe, and this belief penetrates to the bone marrow. Explaining that wise people deeply believe.
Treatise: They, due to a single thought of faith, can ultimately attain the ultimate fruit. Explaining the benefits of faith.
Treatise: Just as the Bhagavan (薄伽梵, The Blessed One) said, one will surely attain Nirvana (涅槃, liberation) in the end. Citing a verse to prove it.
Treatise: The common virtues of the Tathāgata and the saints have been discussed. The following line is a verse. In a broad sense, the second part explains common virtues. Among them, there are two points: one is common with the saints, and the other is also common with ordinary beings.
Treatise says: Listing the common virtues mentioned above, according to their respective circumstances.
Treatise: The aforementioned three doors are also common with ordinary beings. Listing two kinds of commonality: one is common with the saints, and the other is also common with ordinary beings. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: 'Although all the virtues in the Buddha's body, their aspects are pure, supremely excellent, and self-existent, and there are differences in virtues with the Śrāvakas (聲聞, Hearers) and others, they can be said to be common based on the same category.' (The above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: Among the first three doors, first analyze the Araṇāsamādhi (無諍定, Non-Contention Samadhi). The following explains the virtues that are only common with the saints. Among them, there are four doors: 1. Araṇāsamādhi; 2. Praṇidhijñāna (愿智, Wisdom of Vow); 3. Pratisaṃvidā (無礙解, Unimpeded Understanding); 4. Attaining Differences. This line of verse explains Araṇāsamādhi.
Treatise says:
生貪嗔等。明聖人起無諍智意。正理論云。有阿羅漢。憶昔多生受雜類身發自他惑。由斯相續受非愛果。便作是念。有煩惱身。緣之起惑尚招苦果。況離煩惱具勝德身。思已發生如是相智。由此方便令他有情不緣己身生貪．嗔等。此智但以俗智為性。緣他未來修斷惑故。非無漏智此行相轉。若無諍體是智所攝。如何說習無諍等持。此不相違。一相應品有多功德隨說一故。如一山中有種種物。隨舉一種以標山名。理應無諍是智所攝。護他相續當來惑生。巧便為先事方成故(已上論文)。
論。此行能息至得無諍名。釋名也。然一切諍總有三種。蘊．言．煩惱有差別故。蘊諍謂死。言諍謂斗諍。煩惱謂百八煩惱。由此俗智力。能止息煩惱諍故。得無諍名。
論。此行但以俗智為性。述非無漏。十六行故。
論。第四靜慮至最為勝故。述依地也。
論。不動應果至他身煩惱。述性及果 退及有學。尚不自防起煩惱過。況能止息他身煩惱。
論。此唯依止三州人身。述依身也。
論。緣欲未來至總緣境故。明所遮煩惱唯迷事也。
論。辨無諍已次辨愿智。已下半行頌。第二明愿智。
論曰至故名愿智。釋名。此即愿之智。故名為愿智。
論。此智自性至為所緣故。明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 生起貪嗔等煩惱。這是爲了闡明聖人發起無諍智的意圖。《正理論》中說：『有阿羅漢（arhat，已證得涅槃的聖人），回憶起過去多生中受雜類之身，引發自己和他人迷惑。因此相續不斷地承受不喜愛的果報。』於是這樣想：『有煩惱之身，緣於它而生起迷惑尚且招致苦果，何況是遠離煩惱、具足殊勝功德之身？』思考之後，便生起這樣的智慧。通過這種方便，使其他有情（sentient beings，有情眾生）不緣于自身而生起貪、嗔等煩惱。這種智慧只是以世俗智為體性，因為它緣於他人未來修習斷除煩惱的緣故，並非無漏智（wisdom free from outflows，沒有煩惱的智慧），此行相轉變。如果無諍的本體是智慧所攝，為何說修習無諍等持（equanimity，平等持心）？這並不矛盾。一個相應品中有很多功德，只是隨說其中一種罷了。就像一座山中有種種事物，只是舉出其中一種來標示山的名字。理應無諍是被智慧所攝的，爲了保護他人相續不斷地生起未來的煩惱，以巧妙的方便為先，事情才能成功（以上是論文內容）。 論：『此行能息至得無諍名。』這是解釋名稱。然而一切諍總共有三種：蘊諍、言諍、煩惱諍，各有差別。蘊諍是指死亡。言諍是指爭鬥。煩惱是指一百零八種煩惱。因此，憑藉世俗智的力量，能夠止息煩惱諍，所以得到無諍的名稱。 論：『此行但以俗智為性。』這是陳述它不是無漏智，因為它是十六行相之一。 論：『第四靜慮至最為勝故。』這是陳述它所依據的禪定地。 論：『不動應果至他身煩惱。』這是陳述它的體性和果報，以及退轉和有學（those still learning，還在學習的人）。尚且不能防止自己生起煩惱的過失，何況能夠止息他人身上的煩惱？ 論：『此唯依止三州人身。』這是陳述它所依據的身體。 論：『緣欲未來至總緣境故。』這是說明所遮止的煩惱只是迷惑於事相。 論：『辨無諍已次辨愿智。』以下半行頌，第二是闡明愿智。 論曰：『至故名愿智。』這是解釋名稱。這就是愿的智慧，所以名為愿智。 論：『此智自性至為所緣故。』這是闡明愿智的體性和所緣。
【English Translation】 English version: Giving rise to greed, anger, and so on. This is to clarify the intention of the sage in initiating the Wisdom of Non-Contention (Avivada-jnana). The Nyayanusara-sastra says: 'There are Arhats (arhat, enlightened beings who have attained Nirvana) who recall having received various kinds of bodies in past lives, causing confusion for themselves and others. Because of this, they continuously receive undesirable consequences.' Therefore, they think: 'Having a body with afflictions, even arising from it and causing confusion, still leads to suffering. How much more so for a body that is free from afflictions and possesses superior virtues?' After contemplating, they generate such wisdom. Through this skillful means, they prevent other sentient beings (sentient beings, beings with consciousness) from generating greed, anger, and other afflictions based on their own bodies. This wisdom is only of the nature of mundane wisdom (Samvriti-jnana), because it is related to others' future practice of cutting off afflictions. It is not unconditioned wisdom (Anasrava-jnana, wisdom free from outflows), this aspect transforms. If the essence of Non-Contention is encompassed by wisdom, how can it be said to practice the Samadhi of Non-Contention (equanimity, balanced mind)? This is not contradictory. A single corresponding category has many merits, only one of which is mentioned. Just as a mountain contains various things, only one of which is used to name the mountain. It is reasonable that Non-Contention is encompassed by wisdom, in order to protect others from continuously generating future afflictions. With skillful means as the priority, things can be accomplished (the above is the content of the treatise).' Treatise: 'This practice can cease until the name Non-Contention is obtained.' This is explaining the name. However, all contentions are generally of three types: the contention of aggregates, the contention of speech, and the contention of afflictions, each with differences. The contention of aggregates refers to death. The contention of speech refers to disputes. Afflictions refer to the one hundred and eight afflictions. Therefore, relying on the power of mundane wisdom, one can stop the contention of afflictions, hence obtaining the name Non-Contention. Treatise: 'This practice is only of the nature of mundane wisdom.' This is stating that it is not unconditioned wisdom, because it is one of the sixteen aspects. Treatise: 'The Fourth Dhyana (fourth meditative state) is the most superior.' This is stating the meditative ground it relies on. Treatise: 'The Unmoving Result to others' afflictions.' This is stating its nature and result, as well as regression and those still learning (those still learning, those who are still studying). They cannot even prevent themselves from generating the fault of afflictions, how much more so can they stop afflictions in others? Treatise: 'This only relies on the human body of the three continents.' This is stating the body it relies on. Treatise: 'Relating to desire in the future to the total object.' This is explaining that the afflictions being prevented are only those confused about phenomena. Treatise: 'Having discussed Non-Contention, next discuss the Wisdom of Aspiration.' The following half-line is a verse, the second is to clarify the Wisdom of Aspiration. Treatise: 'To therefore it is named the Wisdom of Aspiration.' This is explaining the name. This is the wisdom of aspiration, therefore it is named the Wisdom of Aspiration. Treatise: 'This wisdom's nature to the object.' This is clarifying the nature and object of the Wisdom of Aspiration.
與無諍定有同異也。
論。毗婆沙者至如田夫類。明因比智知無色也 言觀彼因行及彼等流者。謂先以余智。審觀彼前因。及彼后等流。有此智生引真愿智。或觀欲．色死生時心。比度而知所生．從處。由如田夫見種子時知后苗也。及見苗時知先種子。正理論云。若爾何故立愿智名。有學．異生亦能知故 不爾。所知定．不定故。而聞傳說。諸大聲聞記未來事有定．不定。定者是愿智。不定者非愿智 一解愿智實知未來。謂先起比智觀過．現世。準度未來引愿智生方能真見。即由此故能知無色。謂先觀彼因行．等流。有比智生引真愿智。或觀欲．色死生時心。比度而知所生．從處。引生愿智方能實知 第二解云 或比智知亦無有失。以證比智所緣必同。若比不知如何能證。是則愿智應不可言力能遍緣三界．三世。準此緣三界三世也。
論。諸有欲起至皆如實知。明愿智加行。準此論文。亦是實知非比知也。正理論云。此愿智力能知過去。與宿住智差別云何。愿智通知自相．共相。諸宿住智知共非余。知共相中亦有差別。愿智明瞭。宿住不然。于現所緣對他心智辨差別相。如理應思(述曰。他心知別不知共相。觀知別中。他心明瞭未及愿智) 婆沙一百七十九。問云何愿智知無色界。有說由觀等流．及行差
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
問：無諍定（Arana Samadhi，一種禪定狀態）與愿智（Pranidhana-jnana，一種神通，能知過去未來）有相同之處還是不同之處？
答：論中，《毗婆沙論》（Vibhasa，佛教論書）里說，就像農夫一樣，通過因明（Hetu-vidya，古印度邏輯學）的比量智（Anumana-jnana，通過推理獲得的知識）可以瞭解無色界（Arupadhatu，佛教三界之一，沒有物質存在的精神領域）。
『觀察那些因行以及那些等流』，意思是先用其他的智慧，審視觀察那些前因，以及那些後來的等流果。有了這種智慧產生，才能引出真正的愿智。或者觀察欲界（Kamadhatu，佛教三界之一，有慾望和物質存在的領域）、色界（Rupadhatu，佛教三界之一，有物質但無慾望的領域）眾生死生時候的心念，通過比較推測而得知他們所生的地方和從哪裡來。就像農夫看見種子的時候就知道後來的苗，以及看見苗的時候就知道先前的種子一樣。《正理論》（Abhidharmakosabhasya，佛教論書）中說，如果這樣，為什麼建立愿智這個名稱呢？因為有學位的聖者和凡夫異生也能知道這些。
不是這樣的。因為所知的確定與不確定。而且聽聞傳說，各位大聲聞（Mahasravaka，佛陀的著名弟子）記錄未來之事有確定和不確定的。確定的就是愿智，不確定的就不是愿智。一種解釋是，愿智確實能知道未來，意思是先發起比量智，觀察過去和現在，根據這些來推測未來，引生愿智才能真正見到。正因為這樣，才能知道無色界。意思是先觀察那些因行和等流，有了比量智產生，才能引出真正的愿智。或者觀察欲界、色界眾生死生時候的心念，通過比較推測而得知他們所生的地方和從哪裡來，引生愿智才能真實地知道。
第二種解釋說，或者通過比量智知道也沒有什麼過失，因為證明比量智所緣的境界必定相同。如果比量智不知道，又如何能夠證明呢？這樣的話，愿智就不應該被稱為有能力普遍緣取三界（Trailokya，佛教宇宙觀中的欲界、色界、無色界）、三世（Tryadhvan，過去、現在、未來）。根據這個，愿智也能緣取三界三世。
論中，『所有想要生起…都能如實地知道』，說明愿智的加行（Prayoga，修行過程）。根據這段論文，愿智也是如實地知道，而不是通過比量智知道。《正理論》中說，這種愿智的力量能夠知道過去，與宿住智（Purva-nivasanusmrti-jnana，一種神通，能回憶前世）的差別在哪裡呢？愿智慧夠普遍地知道自相（Svalaksana，事物獨特的性質）和共相（Samanya-laksana，事物共同的性質），而各種宿住智只知道共相，不知道其他的。在知道共相之中也有差別，愿智是明瞭的，宿住智不是這樣。對於現在所緣的境界，與他心智（Paracitta-jnana，一種神通，能知他人心念）辨別差別相，應該如理地思考（述曰：他心智知道差別相，不知道共相。在觀察知道差別相中，他心智的明瞭程度還不及愿智）。《婆沙論》第一百七十九卷中，問：愿智如何知道無色界？有人說，通過觀察等流和行相的差別。
【English Translation】 English version:
Question: Are the Arana Samadhi (state of non-contention) and Pranidhana-jnana (the knowledge of aspiration, a type of supernormal knowledge that knows the past and future) the same or different?
Answer: The Vibhasa (a Buddhist treatise) states that, like a farmer, one can understand the Arupadhatu (the formless realm, one of the three realms in Buddhism, a spiritual realm without material existence) through Anumana-jnana (knowledge gained through inference) of Hetu-vidya (ancient Indian logic).
'Observing those causal actions and those resultant flows' means first using other wisdom to carefully observe those prior causes and those subsequent resultant effects. With the arising of this wisdom, one can elicit true Pranidhana-jnana. Or, by observing the minds of beings in the Kamadhatu (the desire realm, one of the three realms in Buddhism, a realm with desires and material existence) and Rupadhatu (the form realm, one of the three realms in Buddhism, a realm with material existence but without desires) at the time of their death and birth, one can infer and know where they are born and where they come from. Just as a farmer knows the future sprout when seeing the seed, and knows the previous seed when seeing the sprout. The Abhidharmakosabhasya (a Buddhist treatise) says, 'If so, why establish the name Pranidhana-jnana? Because even learned saints and ordinary beings can know these things.'
It is not so. Because what is known is either definite or indefinite. Moreover, it is said in legends that the great Sravakas (famous disciples of the Buddha) record future events as either definite or indefinite. What is definite is Pranidhana-jnana, and what is indefinite is not Pranidhana-jnana. One explanation is that Pranidhana-jnana truly knows the future, meaning that one first initiates inferential knowledge, observes the past and present, and infers the future based on these, eliciting Pranidhana-jnana to truly see. Precisely because of this, one can know the Arupadhatu. It means first observing those causal actions and resultant flows, and with the arising of inferential knowledge, one can elicit true Pranidhana-jnana. Or, by observing the minds of beings in the Kamadhatu and Rupadhatu at the time of their death and birth, one can infer and know where they are born and where they come from, eliciting Pranidhana-jnana to truly know.
The second explanation says that there is no fault in knowing through inferential knowledge, because it proves that the objects of inferential knowledge must be the same. If inferential knowledge does not know, how can it prove anything? In that case, Pranidhana-jnana should not be said to have the power to universally grasp the three realms (Trailokya, the desire realm, form realm, and formless realm in Buddhist cosmology) and the three times (Tryadhvan, past, present, and future). According to this, Pranidhana-jnana can also grasp the three realms and three times.
The treatise states, 'All that one wishes to arise... one can know as it truly is,' explaining the Prayoga (practice) of Pranidhana-jnana. According to this passage, Pranidhana-jnana also knows things as they truly are, not through inferential knowledge. The Abhidharmakosabhasya says, 'What is the difference between the power of this Pranidhana-jnana to know the past and Purva-nivasanusmrti-jnana (the knowledge of past lives, a type of supernormal knowledge that recalls previous existences)?' Pranidhana-jnana can universally know both Svalaksana (the unique characteristics of things) and Samanya-laksana (the common characteristics of things), while various Purva-nivasanusmrti-jnana only know the common characteristics and not the others. There is also a difference in knowing the common characteristics; Pranidhana-jnana is clear, while Purva-nivasanusmrti-jnana is not. Regarding the objects currently perceived, one should rationally consider the differences between it and Paracitta-jnana (the knowledge of others' minds, a type of supernormal knowledge that knows the thoughts of others) (述曰: Paracitta-jnana knows the differential characteristics but not the common characteristics. In observing and knowing the differential characteristics, the clarity of Paracitta-jnana does not reach that of Pranidhana-jnana). In the 179th volume of the Vibhasa, it is asked: How does Pranidhana-jnana know the Arupadhatu? Some say it is through observing the differences in resultant flows and actions.
別。如觀行路之人知所從至。有說。若爾愿智應是比量智非現量智。應作是說。此愿智不觀因知果。不觀果知因。故此智是現量智。非比量智 又婆沙云。問宿住隨念智與緣過去愿智。何別 複次宿住隨念智知有漏五蘊。此愿智知有漏．無漏諸蘊。複次宿住隨念智知欲．色界五蘊。此愿智知三界及不繫諸蘊。複次宿住隨念智知諸蘊共相。此愿智知諸蘊自相．及共相。又云。他心智與緣現在愿智。何別 複次他心智緣一物為境。此愿智緣一物．或多物為境 複次他心智緣自相境。愿智緣自相．共相境。複次他心智緣他相續。此愿智緣自．他相續 準前文釋 複次雖多然義不足。若與愿智同一緣者力用何別準正理論。雖有同緣愿智勝也。
論。已辨愿智無礙解者。已下兩行半頌第三明四無礙解。
論曰至智為自性。略釋名體。即無退智為四無礙體也。
論。謂無退智至立為第一。次廣釋也。正理論云。趣所詮義說之為名。即是表召法自性義。辨所詮義說之為句。即是辨了法差別義。不待義聲獨能為覺生所依託。說之為文。即是迦．遮．吒．多．波等。理應有覺不待義聲。此覺不應無所緣境。此所緣境說之為文。文謂不能親目于義。但與名．句為詮義依。此三能持諸所詮義。及軌生解故名為法(述曰。聲
雖是教。而於此中不名為法。軌生物解非聲用故也)。
論。緣所詮義立為第一 正理論云。若無退智。緣一切法所有勝義立為第二義。即諸法自相．共相。雖名身等亦是義攝。而非勝義。有多想故。謂有如義。有不如義。有有義。有無義。有依假轉。有依實轉。了此無間。或於后時諸所度量名為勝義。為欲顯示義無礙解所緣之境非語及名故。此所緣說為勝義。謂此但取依語起名名所顯義。非取泛爾心之所行說名為義(已上論文)。
論。緣方言詞立為第三 正理論云。若無退智。緣諸方域俗．聖言詞立為第三。即能了知世語．典語。于諸方域種種差別(已上論文)。
論。緣應正理至立為第四 正理論云。即于文．義能正宣揚。無滯言詞說名為辨。及諸所有已得功德。不由加行任運現前。自在功能亦名為辨。此能起辨立以辨名。了辨及因智名辨無礙解。即前所說能正宣揚。善應物機不違勝義。所有言說名應正理。即前所說無滯言詞。不待處．時．及有情等。辨析自在名無滯礙。即上所言已得功德。不由加行。任運現前名為自在定．惠二道(已上論文)。
論。此即總說至兼顯所緣。總結上文兼引下也。
論。于中法詞至事境界故。自此已下就智．地等別釋。此即釋法．詞二無礙而俗
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：即使是教導，在這裡也不稱為『法』（Dharma，佛法、真理），因為其作用是引導眾生理解，而不是聲音或語言本身）。
論：以所詮釋的意義為基礎建立第一無礙解。 《正理論》說：『如果沒有退失的智慧，以對一切法（Dharma，事物、現象）的所有殊勝意義為基礎，建立第二義無礙解。』這裡所說的『諸法』的自相（Svalaksana，自身獨有的特性）和共相（Samanya-laksana，與其他事物共有的特性），即使是名稱和語言等，也屬於意義的範疇，但不是殊勝的意義，因為其中包含多種想法。也就是說，有些想法符合意義，有些想法不符合意義；有些想法是有意義的，有些想法是沒有意義的；有些想法是依賴於假立而產生的，有些想法是依賴於真實而產生的。瞭解這些差別之後，或者在之後的時間裡所度量的事物，被稱為殊勝的意義。爲了顯示義無礙解所緣的境界不是語言和名稱，所以將此所緣稱為殊勝的意義。也就是說，這裡只取依賴於語言而產生的名稱所顯示的意義，而不是泛泛而談的心之所行，將其稱為意義（以上是論文內容）。
論：以各地方言詞彙為基礎建立第三無礙解。 《正理論》說：『如果沒有退失的智慧，以各個地方的世俗和聖賢的言詞為基礎，建立第三無礙解。』也就是說，能夠了解世俗語言和經典語言在各個地方的種種差別（以上是論文內容）。
論：以應合正理為基礎建立第四無礙解。 《正理論》說：『對於文句和意義能夠正確宣揚，沒有滯礙的言詞，被稱為辯才。以及所有已經獲得的功德，不需要額外努力就能自然顯現的自在功能，也稱為辯才。』這種能夠引發辯才的能力，以辯才為名。瞭解辯才及其原因的智慧，稱為辯無礙解。也就是前面所說的能夠正確宣揚，善於應合衆生的根機，不違背殊勝意義的所有言說，稱為應合正理。也就是前面所說的沒有滯礙的言詞，不依賴於處所、時間和有情眾生等，能夠自在地辨析，稱為無滯礙。也就是上面所說的已經獲得的功德，不需要額外努力就能自然顯現，稱為自在的定和慧兩種修行道路（以上是論文內容）。
論：這即是總體的說明，兼顧顯示所緣。 總結上文，兼顧引出下文。
論：在其中，法和詞……事物的境界。 從這裡開始，就智慧、地等分別解釋。這裡是解釋法無礙解和詞無礙解的世俗層面。
【English Translation】 English version: Even though it is teaching, it is not called 『Dharma』 (teachings, truth) here, because its function is to guide beings to understand, not the sound or language itself).
Treatise: Establishing the first unimpeded eloquence based on the meaning of what is explained. The Nyaya-siddhanta-dipa says: 『If there is no regressive wisdom, establishing the second unimpeded eloquence based on all the excellent meanings of all Dharmas (things, phenomena).』 The Sva-lakshana (self-characteristics, unique characteristics) and Samanya-lakshana (common characteristics, characteristics shared with other things) of the 『Dharmas』 mentioned here, even names and languages, etc., also belong to the category of meaning, but are not excellent meanings, because they contain multiple thoughts. That is to say, some thoughts conform to the meaning, some thoughts do not conform to the meaning; some thoughts are meaningful, some thoughts are meaningless; some thoughts are dependent on the fabricated and arise, some thoughts are dependent on the real and arise. After understanding these differences, or what is measured at a later time, is called excellent meaning. In order to show that the realm of what is cognized by the eloquence of meaning is not language and names, this object of cognition is called excellent meaning. That is to say, here only the meaning displayed by the name arising from language is taken, not the general activity of the mind, which is called meaning (the above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: Establishing the third unimpeded eloquence based on the words and phrases of various regions. The Nyaya-siddhanta-dipa says: 『If there is no regressive wisdom, establishing the third unimpeded eloquence based on the secular and sage words and phrases of various regions.』 That is to say, being able to understand the various differences between secular language and classical language in various regions (the above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: Establishing the fourth unimpeded eloquence based on what accords with correct reasoning. The Nyaya-siddhanta-dipa says: 『Being able to correctly proclaim sentences and meanings, and having unobstructed speech, is called eloquence. And all the merits that have already been obtained, and the unhindered functions that naturally manifest without additional effort, are also called eloquence.』 This ability to initiate eloquence is named after eloquence. The wisdom that understands eloquence and its causes is called the unimpeded eloquence of eloquence. That is, all the speech mentioned earlier that can be correctly proclaimed, is good at responding to the faculties of beings, and does not violate the excellent meaning, is called according with correct reasoning. That is, the unobstructed speech mentioned earlier, which does not depend on place, time, and sentient beings, etc., and can freely discriminate, is called unobstructed. That is, the merits mentioned above that have already been obtained, and naturally manifest without additional effort, are called the two paths of Samadhi (concentration) and Prajna (wisdom) that are unhindered (the above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: This is a general explanation, also showing what is cognized. Summarizing the above and also introducing the following.
Treatise: In it, Dharma and words... the realm of things. From here on, the wisdom, grounds, etc. are explained separately. Here is the explanation of the mundane aspects of the unimpeded eloquence of Dharma and the unimpeded eloquence of words.
智攝也。已智類同故越次而釋。
論。法無礙解至無名等故。明法無礙所依地也。婆沙一百八十云。地者法無礙解。有說在二地。謂欲界．初靜慮。有說在五地。謂欲界．四靜慮。有說在七地。謂欲界．未至．靜慮中間．及四靜慮 然無評家。有人云。初說據名隨語系故。說法無礙解且依二地。后二說據名隨身繫。說法無礙解通依上地。以緣法難要自地智緣自地法。此論．正理．顯宗並同婆沙第二說。以五地為正 今詳。此解不得論意。若以婆沙三說后二說是名隨身繫家。既未至禪無別有身。如何第三釋通七地也。又準此中。明法無礙所依地有三釋。明名所依地。有兩重二說。兩重詳文。準彼名屬聲為正。正理論云。法無礙解通依五地。謂依欲界．四本靜慮。上地中無名身等故。彼不別緣下名等故 準此論文。無色不別緣下名也。上地無名身等故者。上地謂無色界。無色界無名身等。復不能別緣下名等故無法無礙解。第二靜慮已上無名等身。有能別緣下名等故有法無礙解。
論。詞無礙解至無尋伺故。明依地也。上無尋．伺同俗智性依地有別。正理論云。詞無礙解唯依二地。謂依欲界．初本靜慮。上諸地中無尋．伺故。彼地必無自語言故。此因非理。所以者何。非發語智名無礙解。勿無礙解定中無故。由
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 智攝（智慧所包含）。因為智慧的種類相同，所以越過順序來解釋。
論：法無礙解（通達諸法名相、義理，而能隨問解答的智慧）乃至無名等，說明法無礙解所依賴的處所。婆沙（《阿毗達磨大毗婆沙論》）第一百八十卷說：『地』就是法無礙解。有人說在二地，指欲界（六道眾生所居之處，充滿了各種慾望）和初靜慮（色界的第一禪定）。有人說在五地，指欲界和四靜慮（色界的四種禪定）。有人說在七地，指欲界、未至定（色界定之前方便的禪定）、靜慮中間定（未至定和初禪之間的禪定），以及四靜慮。然而沒有評判者。 有人說：最初的說法是根據『名隨語系』的緣故，說法無礙解暫且依賴於二地。後面兩種說法是根據『名隨身繫』。說法無礙解普遍依賴於上地。因為緣法困難，必須要自地智緣自地法。此論（指《阿毗達磨俱舍論》）、《正理》（《阿毗達磨順正理論》）、《顯宗》（《阿毗達磨顯宗論》）都與婆沙的第二種說法相同，以五地為正確。 現在詳細分析，這種解釋沒有理解論的本意。如果以婆沙的三種說法中后兩種說法是『名隨身繫』的說法，既然未至禪沒有另外的身，如何第三種解釋能通達七地呢？又根據這裡，說明法無礙解所依賴的處所有三種解釋，說明名所依賴的處所有兩重二種說法。兩重詳細在文中。根據那裡，名屬於聲為正確。《正理論》說：法無礙解普遍依賴於五地，指依賴於欲界和四本靜慮（根本的四禪定）。因為上地中沒有名身等，他們不能分別緣取下地的名等。 根據這篇論文，無色界（沒有物質存在的境界）不能分別緣取下地的名。上地沒有名身等的原因是，上地指無想天（沒有思想的禪定）。無想天沒有名身等，又不能分別緣取下地的名等，所以沒有法無礙解。第二靜慮以上沒有名等身，有能分別緣取下地的名等，所以有法無礙解。
論：詞無礙解（通達諸方言語，而能隨問解答的智慧）乃至無尋伺（沒有粗細的思考），說明所依賴的處所。上面說沒有尋伺，與世俗的智慧性質相同，所依賴的處所有區別。《正理論》說：詞無礙解只依賴於二地，指依賴於欲界和初本靜慮。因為上面的各種地中沒有尋伺。那些地方必定沒有自己的語言。這個原因是錯誤的。為什麼呢？如果發語的智慧稱為無礙解，那麼無礙解在禪定中就沒有了。因為
【English Translation】 English version: 智攝 (zhì shè) (Wisdom encompasses). Because the types of wisdom are the same, it is explained out of order.
Treatise: '法無礙解 (fǎ wú ài jiě) (Unobstructed Explanation of Dharma)' up to '無名 (wú míng) (no name)' etc., explains the location upon which the '法無礙解 (fǎ wú ài jiě)' relies. The '婆沙 (Póshā)' (《Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra》) in its 180th fascicle says: '地 (dì) (Ground)' is the '法無礙解 (fǎ wú ài jiě)'. Some say it is in two grounds, referring to the '欲界 (yù jiè) (Desire Realm)' (the realm where sentient beings reside, filled with various desires) and the '初靜慮 (chū jìng lǜ) (First Dhyāna)' (the first meditation of the Form Realm). Some say it is in five grounds, referring to the '欲界 (yù jiè)' and the four '靜慮 (jìng lǜ) (Dhyānas)' (the four meditations of the Form Realm). Some say it is in seven grounds, referring to the '欲界 (yù jiè)', '未至定 (wèi zhì dìng) (preliminary concentration)', '靜慮中間 (jìng lǜ zhōng jiān) (intermediate dhyana)', and the four '靜慮 (jìng lǜ)'. However, there is no commentator. Someone says: The initial statement is based on the reason of '名隨語系 (míng suí yǔ xì) (name follows language system)', so the '說法無礙解 (shuō fǎ wú ài jiě) (unobstructed explanation of dharma)' temporarily relies on two grounds. The latter two statements are based on '名隨身繫 (míng suí shēn xì) (name follows body system)'. The '說法無礙解 (shuō fǎ wú ài jiě)' universally relies on the upper grounds. Because it is difficult to connect with the Dharma, it is necessary for the wisdom of one's own ground to connect with the Dharma of one's own ground. This treatise (referring to 《Abhidharmakośa》), 《正理 (Zhènglǐ)》(《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya》), 《顯宗 (Xiǎnzōng)》(《Abhidharma-samuccaya》) are the same as the second statement of the '婆沙 (Póshā)', considering the five grounds to be correct. Now, upon detailed analysis, this explanation does not understand the original intention of the treatise. If the latter two statements of the three statements of the '婆沙 (Póshā)' are the statements of '名隨身繫 (míng suí shēn xì)', since the '未至禪 (wèi zhì chán) (preliminary dhyana)' does not have another body, how can the third explanation reach the seven grounds? Also, according to this, explaining that the location upon which the '法無礙解 (fǎ wú ài jiě)' relies has three explanations, explaining that the location upon which the name relies has two sets of two statements. The two sets are detailed in the text. According to that, the name belongs to the sound as correct. The 《正理論 (Zhènglǐlùn)》 says: The '法無礙解 (fǎ wú ài jiě)' universally relies on five grounds, referring to relying on the '欲界 (yù jiè)' and the four fundamental '靜慮 (jìng lǜ)'. Because there are no name-bodies etc. in the upper grounds, they cannot separately connect with the names etc. of the lower grounds. According to this paper, the '無色界 (wú sè jiè) (Formless Realm)' (the realm where there is no material existence) cannot separately connect with the names of the lower grounds. The reason why the upper grounds do not have name-bodies etc. is that the upper grounds refer to the '無想天 (wú xiǎng tiān) (Non-Perception Heaven)' (the meditation without thought). The '無想天 (wú xiǎng tiān)' does not have name-bodies etc., and also cannot separately connect with the names etc. of the lower grounds, so there is no '法無礙解 (fǎ wú ài jiě)'. Above the second '靜慮 (jìng lǜ)', there are no name-bodies etc., and there is the ability to separately connect with the names etc. of the lower grounds, so there is '法無礙解 (fǎ wú ài jiě)'.
Treatise: '詞無礙解 (cí wú ài jiě) (Unobstructed Explanation of Words)' up to '無尋伺 (wú xún sì) (no coarse or subtle thought)', explains the location upon which it relies. The above says that there is no '尋伺 (xún sì) (coarse and subtle thought)', which is the same as the nature of worldly wisdom, and the locations upon which they rely are different. The 《正理論 (Zhènglǐlùn)》 says: The '詞無礙解 (cí wú ài jiě)' only relies on two grounds, referring to relying on the '欲界 (yù jiè)' and the first fundamental '靜慮 (jìng lǜ)'. Because there is no '尋伺 (xún sì)' in the various grounds above. Those places definitely do not have their own language. This reason is wrong. Why? If the wisdom of speaking is called '無礙解 (wú ài jiě)', then the '無礙解 (wú ài jiě)' would not exist in meditation. Because
此不應作如是說。無尋．伺故上地中無。無斯過失。因義異故。何謂因義。謂此意言。尋．伺二法能發語故。相不寂靜自性粗動。上無此故寂靜微細。詞無礙解緣外言詞。亦不寂靜粗動類攝。是故此解上地中無。初靜慮中亦有尋．伺。故於定內亦有此解。由此極成但依二地(已上論文)。
論。義無礙解至滅盡無生。明義無礙解智多少也。
論。辨無礙解至緣說道故。明智攝也 言說道者。道謂定．惠二道。
論。此二通依至皆得起故。明依地也。正理論云。此二通依一切地起。辨無礙解于說道中。許隨緣一皆得起故。通依諸地亦無有失。然于其中但緣說者。唯依二地與第三同(已上論文)。
論。施設足論至四種次第。引論證兼顯次第。無退轉智是無礙解體。四種皆以無退轉智為體。正理論云。又經列此先義后法。諸對法中先法后義。此為顯示二智生時。或義因名。或名因義。故經與論作差別說。謂聽法者先分別名。既正知名次尋其義。正知義已欲為他說。次必應求無滯說智。依此次第故名在先。然此四中義智最勝。余是助伴。故義在先。謂于義中若正了達。次應方便尋究其名。既已知名欲為他說。次應于說求巧便智。是故此四次第如是。辨無礙解若緣說時。何異第三詞無礙解。第三了達
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：不應該這樣說。因為沒有尋（Vitarka，粗分別）和伺（Vicara，細分別），所以在更高的禪定境界中沒有這些。沒有這樣的過失，因為『因』的意義不同。什麼是『因』的意義呢？意思是說，尋和伺這兩種法能夠引發語言表達，它們的相是不寂靜的，自性是粗糙而動盪的。而更高的禪定境界中沒有這些，是寂靜而微細的。詞無礙解（Pratisaṃvidā，無礙解）是緣于外在的言詞，也屬於不寂靜、粗糙動盪的範疇。因此，這種『解』在更高的禪定境界中是沒有的。在初禪中也有尋和伺，所以在禪定中也有這種『解』。由此可以明確，詞無礙解僅僅依存於兩個禪定境界（以上是論文內容）。 論文：『義無礙解』（Artha-pratisaṃvidā，義無礙解）直到『滅盡無生』，說明了義無礙解的智慧有多少。 論文：『辨無礙解』（Pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā，辨無礙解）直到『緣說道故』，說明了辨無礙解屬於智慧的範疇。『言說道者』，『道』指的是禪定和智慧這兩種道。 論文：『此二通依』直到『皆得起故』，說明了辨無礙解所依的禪定境界。正理論中說：『這兩種無礙解普遍依存於一切禪定境界而生起。辨無礙解在說道中，允許隨順所緣的任何一種說法都能生起，所以普遍依存於各種禪定境界也沒有什麼過失。然而，在這些禪定境界中，僅僅緣于說法的辨無礙解，只依存於兩個禪定境界，與第三種無礙解（詞無礙解）相同（以上是論文內容）。』 論文：『施設足論』直到『四種次第』，引用論證，兼顯示四種無礙解的次第。無退轉智（Avaivartika-jñāna，不退轉的智慧）是無礙解的本體。四種無礙解都以無退轉智為本體。正理論中說：『經文中排列這四種無礙解時，先是義無礙解，然後是法無礙解；而在對法論中，則是先法無礙解，后義無礙解。這是爲了顯示兩種智慧生起時，或者義是名的原因，或者名是義的原因。所以經文和論典的說法有所不同。』意思是說，聽法的人先要分別名相，正確認識名相之後，再探尋其中的含義。正確理解含義之後，想要為他人解說，就必須尋求無滯礙的說法智慧。按照這樣的次第，所以名相在前。然而，在這四種無礙解中，義無礙解最為殊勝，其餘三種是輔助。所以義在先。意思是說，對於義理如果能夠正確通達，接下來就應該方便地探究它的名相。既然已經知道了名相，想要為他人解說，就應該在說法方面尋求巧妙方便的智慧。所以這四種無礙解的次第就是這樣。辨無礙解如果緣于說法的時候，與第三種詞無礙解有什麼不同呢？第三種是了達（……）
【English Translation】 English version: This should not be said in this way. Because there is no Vitarka (gross investigation) and Vicara (subtle investigation), they do not exist in the higher meditative states. There is no such fault, because the meaning of 'cause' is different. What is the meaning of 'cause'? It means that Vitarka and Vicara, these two dharmas, can initiate speech, their characteristics are not tranquil, and their nature is coarse and agitated. But these do not exist in the higher meditative states, which are tranquil and subtle. Pratisaṃvidā (unimpeded knowledge) relies on external words and also belongs to the category of non-tranquil, coarse, and agitated. Therefore, this 'knowledge' does not exist in the higher meditative states. In the first Dhyana (meditative state), there are also Vitarka and Vicara, so in meditation, there is also this 'knowledge'. From this, it is clear that Pratisaṃvidā only relies on the two meditative states (end of the treatise passage). Treatise: 'Artha-pratisaṃvidā (unimpeded knowledge of meaning) until 'cessation of existence', explains how much wisdom Artha-pratisaṃvidā has. Treatise: 'Pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā (unimpeded knowledge of eloquence) until 'because it is related to explaining the path', explains that Pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā belongs to the category of wisdom. 'Explaining the path' refers to the two paths of Dhyana (meditation) and wisdom. Treatise: 'These two universally rely' until 'can all arise', explains the meditative states that Pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā relies on. The Zhengli Lun (a commentary) says: 'These two unimpeded knowledges universally rely on all meditative states to arise. Pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā, in explaining the path, allows any kind of explanation related to the object to arise, so universally relying on various meditative states is not a fault. However, among these meditative states, Pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā that only relies on explanation only relies on two meditative states, the same as the third unimpeded knowledge (Pratisaṃvidā of words) (end of the treatise passage).' Treatise: 'Śāsana-pada-śāstra (treatise on the basis of teachings) until 'four kinds of order', quotes arguments and also reveals the order of the four kinds of unimpeded knowledge. Avaivartika-jñāna (non-retrogressive wisdom) is the essence of unimpeded knowledge. All four kinds of unimpeded knowledge take Avaivartika-jñāna as their essence. The Zhengli Lun says: 'When the sutras list these four, they first mention Artha (meaning) and then Dharma (teaching); while in Abhidharma (treatises on Dharma), they first mention Dharma and then Artha. This is to show that when the two kinds of wisdom arise, either meaning is the cause of name, or name is the cause of meaning.' Therefore, the sutras and treatises have different statements. It means that the listener first distinguishes the names, and after correctly recognizing the names, then explores their meaning. After correctly understanding the meaning, if one wants to explain it to others, one must seek unimpeded wisdom in explanation. According to this order, the name is first. However, among these four kinds of unimpeded knowledge, Artha-pratisaṃvidā is the most superior, and the other three are auxiliary. So meaning is first. It means that if one can correctly understand the meaning, then one should conveniently explore its name. Since one already knows the name and wants to explain it to others, one should seek skillful and convenient wisdom in explanation. Therefore, the order of these four kinds of unimpeded knowledge is like this. If Pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā relies on explanation, what is the difference from the third Pratisaṃvidā of words? The third is understanding (...)
訓釋言詞。如有變礙故名色等。此達應理無滯礙說(已上論文)。
論。有餘師說至言無滯礙。述異說也。
論。傳說此四至無礙解故。述婆沙一說也。此四加行成。方得四無礙故。
論。理實一切至能為加行。論主述正釋也。以佛語中具有四故。婆沙一百八十評家云。如是說者。四無礙解。皆以習佛語為加行。如於一伽陀中。應如是說彼名習如是說名。是法無礙解加行。應如是解彼義習如是解義。是義無礙解加行。應如是訓彼詞習如是訓詞。是詞無礙解加行。應如是無滯說習如是無滯說。是辨無礙解加行。皆以習佛語為加行(已上論文)。
論。如是四種至可名為得。明得時同也。
論。此四所緣至如無諍說。明與無諍有同．異也。婆沙一百八十云。世者皆墮三世。法．辨二無礙解緣三世。詞無礙解。過去緣過去。現在緣現在。未來生者緣未來。不生緣三世 有說法與詞同。有說法．詞．辨三無礙解。過去．現在緣過去。未來緣三世。義無礙解或有欲令唯緣離世。或有欲令緣三世及離世。然無評文。
論。如是所說無諍行等者。已下一行頌。第四總釋六種得差別。並釋邊際定也。
論曰至邊際定得。明六所因得也。此六皆因邊際定力所引發故。
論。邊際靜慮至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：訓釋言詞。如有變動和阻礙，故稱名色等。對此通達應理，沒有滯礙地說（以上是論文內容）。
論：有其他老師說，言語沒有滯礙。這是在敘述不同的說法。
論：傳說這四種能力達到沒有阻礙的理解，是因為修習四無礙解的緣故。這是在敘述《婆沙論》中的一種說法。這四種能力是通過加行而成就的，才能獲得四無礙解。
論：實際上，一切能力都能作為加行。這是論主的正確解釋。因為佛語中具有這四種能力。《婆沙論》第一百八十卷的評家說：『像這樣說的人認為，四無礙解都是以學習佛語作為加行。例如，在一個偈頌中，應該這樣說，稱它為學習這樣說，這是法無礙解（Dharma-pratisaṃvidā，對佛法的透徹理解）的加行；應該這樣理解它的意義，稱它為學習這樣理解意義，這是義無礙解（Artha-pratisaṃvidā，對意義的透徹理解）的加行；應該這樣訓釋它的詞語，稱它為學習這樣訓釋詞語，這是詞無礙解（Nirukti-pratisaṃvidā，對語言的透徹理解）的加行；應該這樣沒有滯礙地說，稱它為學習這樣沒有滯礙地說，這是辯無礙解（Pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā，對辯才的透徹理解）的加行。』 都是以學習佛語作為加行（以上是論文內容）。
論：像這樣四種能力可以稱為獲得。說明獲得的時間是相同的。
論：這四種能力所緣的對象，就像無諍（Araṇā，止息爭論）的說法一樣。說明與無諍有相同和不同的地方。《婆沙論》第一百八十卷說：『世間的人都墮入三世（過去、現在、未來）。法無礙解和辯無礙解緣於三世。詞無礙解，過去緣於過去，現在緣于現在，未來生起的緣于未來，不生起的緣於三世。』 有的說法認為法無礙解與詞無礙解相同。有的說法認為法無礙解、詞無礙解和辯無礙解，過去和現在緣於過去，未來緣於三世。義無礙解，或者有人希望它只緣于離世（超越世間），或者有人希望它緣於三世和離世。』 然而沒有評文。
論：像這樣所說的無諍行等，以下是一行頌。第四個部分總的解釋了六種獲得的差別，並且解釋了邊際定（Bhava-agra-samāpatti，有頂定）。
論曰：達到邊際定，說明了六種所因的獲得。這六種都是因為邊際定的力量所引發的。
論：邊際靜慮（Bhava-agra-dhyāna，有頂靜慮）...
【English Translation】 English version: Explaining words and terms. If there are changes and obstructions, they are called 'name and form' (nāma-rūpa) and so on. To understand this reasonably and speak without hindrance (this is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: Some other teachers say that speech is without hindrance. This is describing a different view.
Treatise: It is said that these four attainments of unobstructed understanding are due to the practice of the four analytical knowledges (catasso paṭisambhidā). This is describing one view from the Vibhāṣā. These four are accomplished through effort (prayoga), and then one obtains the four analytical knowledges.
Treatise: In reality, all abilities can serve as preliminary practices (prayoga). This is the treatise master's correct explanation. Because the Buddha's words contain these four abilities. The commentators of Vibhāṣā, in the 180th fascicle, say: 'Those who say this believe that the four analytical knowledges all take the practice of the Buddha's words as preliminary practice. For example, in one verse (gāthā), one should say, 'Calling it learning to say it in this way' is the preliminary practice for analytical knowledge of the Dharma (Dharma-pratisaṃvidā, thorough understanding of the Dharma); 'One should understand its meaning in this way, calling it learning to understand the meaning in this way' is the preliminary practice for analytical knowledge of meaning (Artha-pratisaṃvidā, thorough understanding of the meaning); 'One should explain its words in this way, calling it learning to explain the words in this way' is the preliminary practice for analytical knowledge of language (Nirukti-pratisaṃvidā, thorough understanding of language); 'One should speak without hindrance in this way, calling it learning to speak without hindrance in this way' is the preliminary practice for analytical knowledge of eloquence (Pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā, thorough understanding of eloquence).' All take the practice of the Buddha's words as preliminary practice (this is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: These four abilities can be called attainment. It explains that the time of attainment is the same.
Treatise: The objects of these four abilities are like the teaching of non-contention (Araṇā, cessation of disputes). It explains that there are similarities and differences with non-contention. The Vibhāṣā, in the 180th fascicle, says: 'People in the world all fall into the three times (past, present, future). Analytical knowledge of the Dharma and analytical knowledge of eloquence are related to the three times. Analytical knowledge of language, the past is related to the past, the present is related to the present, the future arising is related to the future, the non-arising is related to the three times.' Some say that analytical knowledge of the Dharma is the same as analytical knowledge of language. Some say that analytical knowledge of the Dharma, analytical knowledge of language, and analytical knowledge of eloquence, the past and present are related to the past, the future is related to the three times. Analytical knowledge of meaning, some wish it to be related only to the transcendent (beyond the world), or some wish it to be related to the three times and the transcendent.' However, there is no commentary.
Treatise: The non-contentious practice and so on that have been spoken of, the following is a verse. The fourth part generally explains the differences of the six attainments, and also explains the summit of existence (Bhava-agra-samāpatti, the peak of existence).
Treatise says: Reaching the summit of existence, it explains the attainment of the six causes. These six are all caused by the power of the summit of existence.
Treatise: The summit of existence meditation (Bhava-agra-dhyāna, the meditation of the peak of existence)...
第四靜慮故。明邊際定體通局也。正理論云。體有六種。前六除詞餘五少分。及除此外復更有餘加行所得上品靜慮名邊際定。故成六種(述曰。此六因第四定邊際定得。然所得三無礙解。及無諍定。愿智通餘地故言少分也)。
論。此一切地至得邊際名。釋名也。先略后廣。
論。云何此名至遍所隨順。廣釋一切地遍所隨順也。
論。云何此名至得邊際名。釋增至究竟。由此定先順一切。后入第四定名一切地隨順。就第四定中。從下至上名增至究竟。由斯二義得邊際名。
論。此中邊名至及實際言。別釋邊際二字。即是如是二言。顯此靜慮是最勝定中。最極殊勝功德。多此引生。樂通行中此最勝故。
論。除佛所餘至非皆得故。明諸聖不同非離染得。若離染得者。雜染之時一切同得。既離染得時有異故。以此證知。由加行得。
論。唯佛於此至自在轉故。明佛離染得也。得佛已后不須加行乃現前故。
論。已辨前三唯共余聖德。此就共功德中。第二明通與凡共功德也 就中有六。一明六通。二述三明。三述三示導。四別明神境。五別釋眼．耳。六述通種類 此四行頌。第一明六通也。
論曰至六漏盡智證通。列六名也。
論。雖六通中至亦共異生。釋共難也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 第四靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）的緣故。說明邊際定的體性是普遍還是侷限。《正理論》中說，體有六種。前六種（神通）除去詞無礙解，其餘五種只有少分，以及除去這些之外，還有通過額外努力獲得的上品靜慮，名為邊際定。因此成就六種（敘述：這六種是因為第四定和邊際定而得到的。然而所得到的三無礙解，以及無諍定，愿智通於其他地，所以說是少分）。
論：此一切地至得邊際名。解釋名稱。先簡略后詳細。
論：云何此名至遍所隨順。廣泛解釋一切地遍所隨順。
論：云何此名至得邊際名。解釋增至究竟。因為此定先順應一切，然後進入第四定，名為一切地隨順。在第四定中，從下到上名為增至究竟。因為這兩個意義而得到邊際名。
論：此中邊名至及實際言。分別解釋邊際二字。即是如是二言。顯示此靜慮是最殊勝的禪定中，最極殊勝的功德。很多功德由此而生。在樂通行中，此定最為殊勝。
論：除佛所餘至非皆得故。說明諸聖者不同，不是通過脫離染污而獲得。如果通過脫離染污而獲得，那麼在雜染的時候，一切聖者都應該同時獲得。既然脫離染污而獲得時有差異，因此可以得知，是通過加行而獲得。
論：唯佛於此至自在轉故。說明佛是通過脫離染污而獲得。得到佛果之後，不需要加行就能顯現。
論：已辨前三唯共余聖德。這是就共同功德中，第二點說明通與凡夫共同的功德。其中有六點：一、說明六通（Abhijna，神通）。二、敘述三明（Trividya，三明）。三、敘述三示導。四、分別說明神境通（Rddhi-vidhi-jnana，神境智證通）。五、分別解釋天眼通（Divyacaksu，天眼）和天耳通（Divyasrotra，天耳）。六、敘述神通的種類。這四行頌，第一點說明六通。
論曰至六漏盡智證通。列出六通的名稱。
論：雖六通中至亦共異生。解釋共同的難點。
【English Translation】 English version Because of the fourth Dhyana (meditative absorption). It explains whether the nature of the Borderline Attainment (邊際定) is universal or limited. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says: 'There are six types of nature. Among the first six (supernatural powers), excluding the Discrimination of Language Unimpeded (詞無礙解), the remaining five have only a small portion, and in addition to these, the superior Dhyana obtained through extra effort is called the Borderline Attainment. Therefore, six types are accomplished.' (Commentary: These six are obtained because of the fourth Dhyana and the Borderline Attainment. However, the three Unimpeded Discriminations obtained, as well as the Non-Contention Attainment (無諍定), and the Wisdom of Aspiration (愿智) are common to other grounds, so they are said to be a small portion.)
Treatise: 'This, in all grounds, is called the Borderline Attainment.' Explains the name. First briefly, then in detail.
Treatise: 'How is this name universally followed?' Broadly explains that it is universally followed in all grounds.
Treatise: 'How is this name called the Borderline Attainment?' Explains increasing to the ultimate. Because this Attainment first accords with everything, and then enters the fourth Dhyana, it is called universally following in all grounds. Within the fourth Dhyana, from bottom to top, it is called increasing to the ultimate. Because of these two meanings, it obtains the name Borderline Attainment.
Treatise: 'Here, the term 'border' refers to suchness, and 'limit' refers to actual words.' Separately explains the two words 'border' and 'limit.' That is, it is like these two words. It shows that this Dhyana is the most supreme merit among the most excellent Attainments. Many merits arise from this. In the Easy Practice, this is the most excellent.
Treatise: 'Except for the Buddha, the rest do not all obtain it.' It explains that the saints are different and do not obtain it through detachment from defilements. If they were obtained through detachment from defilements, then at the time of defilement, all saints should obtain them simultaneously. Since there are differences when obtaining them through detachment from defilements, it can be known that they are obtained through effort.
Treatise: 'Only the Buddha is free to transform in this.' It explains that the Buddha obtains it through detachment from defilements. After attaining Buddhahood, there is no need for effort to manifest it.
Treatise: 'The previous three have already been distinguished as common to other saintly virtues.' This is in the common merits, the second point explains the merits common to both ordinary people and saints. There are six points: 1. Explaining the Six Superknowledges (Abhijna). 2. Narrating the Three Clear Knowledges (Trividya). 3. Narrating the Three Instructions. 4. Separately explaining the Superknowledge of Magical Powers (Rddhi-vidhi-jnana). 5. Separately explaining the Divine Eye (Divyacaksu) and the Divine Ear (Divyasrotra). 6. Narrating the types of Superknowledges. These four lines of verse, the first point explains the Six Superknowledges.
Treatise says: '...to the Superknowledge of the Extinction of Outflows.' Lists the names of the Six Superknowledges.
Treatise: 'Although among the Six Superknowledges, it is also common to non-Buddhists.' Explains the difficulty of being common.
。
論。如是六通至顯出障義。四道分別及體性 如沙門果。舉喻顯也。正理論云。解脫道言顯出障義(非謂唯解脫道也)勝進道中亦容有故。如是通惠無間道無。此位定遮他心智故。勿阿羅漢舍無間道。即名亦舍漏盡通故。品類足說善惠是通 正理第二釋云。又彼但言通謂善惠不言唯善。故亦無違。如說能知謂諸善智。豈惡．無記皆非智攝。
論。神境等四至或十智。明智攝也。
論。由此已顯至依四靜慮。明依地也。
論。何緣此五不依無色。問也。
論。初三別緣至無如是能。答也 初三別緣色為境故者。天眼．天耳．神境別緣色故。無色近分雖緣下色。總而無別修他心通。憶時以色為門故。宿住通漸次憶念色之分位差別成故。成時復緣處．性等故。依無色地無如是能。是故立通不依無色。
論。諸有欲修至能如實知。明修他心加行。
論。諸有欲修至加行亦爾。明宿住加行。
論。此通初起至亦能超憶。明初．後知別。
論。諸所憶事至昔曾聞故。明憶曾更事也。婆沙一百云。問此宿住隨念智。為但憶知曾所更事。為亦憶知未曾更事。答此但憶知曾所更事。問若爾此智應不憶知五凈居事。無始時來未生彼故。答曾所更事路有二種。一者曾見。二者曾
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：如是六通至於顯出障礙的意義。四道（指向涅槃的四種修行階段）的分別及其體性，就像沙門果（指修行者證得的果位）一樣，用比喻來顯明。正理論說：『解脫道』一詞，是爲了顯出障礙的意義（並非說只有解脫道才能顯出障礙），勝進道中也可能存在這種情況。像這樣，通惠（指神通的智慧）在無間道（指證悟過程中的直接體驗）中是沒有的，因為這個階段會暫時遮蔽他心智（指了解他人想法的能力）。如果阿羅漢（指已證得涅槃的聖者）捨棄無間道，那就等於捨棄了漏盡通（指斷絕所有煩惱的神通）。品類足論說，善惠（指善良的智慧）就是通。正理第二解釋說：『而且那裡只說通指的是善惠，並沒有說只有善惠。』所以這並沒有衝突。就像說能知指的是各種善智一樣，難道惡和無記（指非善非惡的狀態）都不屬於智慧的範疇嗎？ 論：神境通等四種神通，或者加上十智（指十種智慧），都屬於明智（指清晰明瞭的智慧）所包含。 論：由此已經顯明，這些神通都依賴於四靜慮（指色界的四種禪定）。這是在說明這些神通所依賴的禪定境界。 論：為什麼這五種神通不依賴於無色界（指超越物質世界的禪定境界）呢？這是提問。 論：前三種神通分別以色（指物質現象）為對象，所以不能依賴於無色界。這是回答。前三種神通分別以色為境界，天眼通（指能看見遠處或細微事物的能力）、天耳通（指能聽見遠處或細微聲音的能力）、神境通（指能隨意變化的神通）都分別以色為對象。無色近分定（指接近無色界的禪定）雖然也以較低層次的色為對象，但總體上沒有分別。修習他心通時，憶念過去的事情是以色為媒介。宿住通（指能回憶過去世的神通）是逐漸憶念色的分位差別而成就的。成就時又以處所、性質等為對象。因此，依賴於無色界就無法具備這樣的能力。所以說，神通的建立不依賴於無色界。 論：如果有人想要修習他心通，就應該如實地瞭解他人的心念。這是在說明修習他心通的加行（指修行前的準備工作）。 論：如果有人想要修習宿住通，其加行也是如此。這是在說明修習宿住通的加行。 論：這種神通最初生起時，也能超越回憶。這是在說明最初和後來的認知有所不同。 論：所回憶的事情，都是過去曾經聽聞過的。這是在說明回憶的是曾經經歷過的事情。婆沙論第一百卷說：『問：這種宿住隨念智，是隻能憶知曾經經歷過的事情，還是也能憶知未曾經歷過的事情？答：這種智慧只能憶知曾經經歷過的事情。問：如果這樣，這種智慧應該不能憶知五凈居天（指色界最高的五層天）的事情，因為從無始以來都沒有生到過那裡。答：曾經經歷過的事情有兩種途徑，一是曾經見過，二是曾經聽過。』
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: Thus, the six supernormal knowledges (six abhijñās) lead to the meaning of revealing and removing obstacles. The distinctions and nature of the four paths (four stages of practice leading to Nirvana) are like the fruits of a Śrāmaṇa (ascetic), explained through metaphors. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise on Following the Principles of Reasoning) states: 'The term 'path of liberation' signifies the meaning of revealing and removing obstacles (it is not to say that only the path of liberation can reveal obstacles), as the path of superior progress may also contain such instances.' In this way, penetrating wisdom (the wisdom of supernormal knowledges) is absent in the path of immediate consequence (anantarya-marga), because this stage temporarily obscures the knowledge of others' minds (paracitta-jñāna). If an Arhat (one who has attained Nirvana) were to abandon the path of immediate consequence, it would be equivalent to abandoning the knowledge of the exhaustion of outflows (āsravakṣaya-jñāna). The Prakaraṇapāda (Section on Categories) states that virtuous wisdom is supernormal knowledge. The second explanation in the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Moreover, it only states that supernormal knowledge refers to virtuous wisdom, not that it is exclusively virtuous wisdom.' Therefore, there is no contradiction. Just as saying 'capable of knowing' refers to all virtuous wisdom, does it mean that evil and neutral (neither good nor evil) states are not included in the category of wisdom? Treatise: The four supernormal knowledges, such as the supernormal power (ṛddhi-bala), or even the ten wisdoms (daśa-jñāna), are all included within clear wisdom (viśada-jñāna). Treatise: From this, it is already clear that these supernormal knowledges rely on the four dhyānas (four meditative absorptions) of the form realm (rūpadhātu). This clarifies the meditative states upon which these supernormal knowledges depend. Treatise: Why do these five supernormal knowledges not rely on the formless realm (arūpadhātu)? This is a question. Treatise: The first three separately take form (rūpa) as their object, thus they cannot rely on the formless realm. This is the answer. The first three supernormal knowledges separately take form as their object. The divine eye (divya-cakṣus), divine ear (divya-śrotra), and supernormal power separately take form as their object. Although the proximate concentration of the formless realm (arūpa-samāpatti) also takes lower forms as its object, it does not have specific distinctions in general. When cultivating the knowledge of others' minds, recollecting past events uses form as a medium. The knowledge of past lives (pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna) is gradually achieved by recollecting the distinctions and differences of form. At the time of achievement, it also takes location, nature, etc., as its object. Therefore, relying on the formless realm would not have such capabilities. Thus, the establishment of supernormal knowledges does not rely on the formless realm. Treatise: If someone wishes to cultivate the knowledge of others' minds, they should truly understand the thoughts of others. This explains the preliminary practices (prayoga) for cultivating the knowledge of others' minds. Treatise: If someone wishes to cultivate the knowledge of past lives, the preliminary practices are also the same. This explains the preliminary practices for cultivating the knowledge of past lives. Treatise: When this supernormal knowledge first arises, it can also transcend recollection. This explains the difference between initial and subsequent knowledge. Treatise: The things that are recollected are all things that were heard in the past. This explains that what is recollected are things that were once experienced. The hundredth fascicle of the Mahāvibhāṣā (Great Commentary) says: 'Question: Does this knowledge of recollecting past lives only remember things that were once experienced, or does it also remember things that were never experienced? Answer: This wisdom only remembers things that were once experienced. Question: If so, this wisdom should not be able to remember the affairs of the Pure Abodes (Śuddhāvāsa heavens), because from beginningless time, one has never been born there. Answer: There are two paths for things that were once experienced: one is having seen them, and the other is having heard them.'
聞。雖未曾見五凈居事。而曾聞故亦能憶知。余欲．色界極遠．極勝。諸難知事。準此應知(已上論文)。
論。從無色沒至自相續起。明從無色沒生欲界者。依他身初修此通。或可。依自身修至中有初心。依他身前命終心究竟。正理論云。若宿住通不依無色。應不能憶無色界事。契經何故。說佛世尊無上法中。言佛能憶過去有色．無色等事。此是決定比智所知。非宿住通故無有失。謂諸外道若見有情慾．色命終。不知生處。執有情類死已斷滅。見生欲．色不知所從。便執有情本無而有。聲聞．獨覺見彼命終。二萬劫中不見所在。便謂彼沒生於空處。而彼或生上。不盡壽命終。如是乃至八萬劫中不見所在。便謂彼沒生於非想非非想處。而或生下地經二．三生等。見生欲．色時謂所從亦爾。世尊觀彼死時生時。如實比知所生從處。有盡壽量。有中夭者。雖亦比知。非不決定。故與余聖比知有別(已上論文)。
論。修神境等至不依無色。神境加行思輕。天眼思光。天耳思聲。以為加行。成已自在隨所近遠。皆能身往及見．聞等。此等以無加行故無五通也。
論。又諸無色至由此已遮。此第二解。以止．觀不均。無五通也。
論。如是五通至為二通境。明下不知上等。
論。即此五通至無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 聽聞。即使未曾親見五凈居天（Pañca-śuddhāvāsa，色界最高的五層天），但因為聽聞過的緣故，也能憶持知曉。其餘想要了解的極其遙遠、極其殊勝、難以知曉的事情，可以參照這個來理解（以上是論文的內容）。
論：從無色界（Arūpadhātu）死亡到自身相續產生，說明從無色界死亡而生到欲界（Kāmadhātu）的情況。依靠他人之身初次修習此神通，或許可以。依靠自身修習到中有的最初心念。依靠他人之身，前一世的命終心念達到究竟。正理論中說：『如果宿住隨念神通（Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti）不依賴無色界，應該不能憶念無色界的事情。』那麼契經（Sūtra）為何說佛世尊在無上法中，說佛能夠憶念過去有色界（Rūpadhātu）、無色界等事情？這是通過決定的比量智所知曉的，並非宿住隨念神通，所以沒有過失。意思是說，那些外道如果看見有情在欲界、色界死亡，不知道他們會生到哪裡，就執著認為有情死後就斷滅了。看見有情在欲界、色界出生，不知道他們從哪裡來，就執著認為有情本來沒有而現在有了。聲聞（Śrāvaka）、獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）看見他們死亡，在兩萬劫中都看不見他們的去處，就認為他們死後生到空無之處。而他們或許生到更高的天界，沒有活到壽命終結就死了。像這樣，乃至八萬劫中都看不見他們的去處，就認為他們死後生到非想非非想處（Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana）。而他們或許生到地獄，經過兩三次轉生等等。看見在欲界、色界出生時，也認為他們是從那裡來的。世尊觀察他們死亡時、出生時，如實地通過比量智知曉他們所生的地方、所從來的地方，以及壽命的長短，有活到壽命終結的，也有中途夭折的。雖然也是通過比量智知曉，但並非不確定，所以與其餘聖者的比量智有所區別（以上是論文的內容）。
論：修習神境通（Ṛddhi-vidhi-jñāna）等，不依賴無色界。神境通的加行是思惟輕安，天眼通（Divya-cakṣus）的加行是思惟光明，天耳通（Divya-śrotra）的加行是思惟聲音。成就之後，就能自在地無論遠近，都能身往，以及看見、聽見等等。這些因為沒有加行的緣故，所以沒有五神通。
論：又，諸無色定（Arūpa-samāpatti）至由此已經遮止。這是第二種解釋，因為止（Śamatha）、觀（Vipaśyanā）不均衡，所以沒有五神通。
論：像這樣，五神通至成為二通的境界。說明地獄不知道上界的事情等等。
論：即此五神通至無。
【English Translation】 English version: I have heard. Although I have not personally seen the affairs of the Five Pure Abodes (Pañca-śuddhāvāsa, the five highest heavens in the Realm of Form), because I have heard of them, I can remember and know them. Other extremely distant, extremely excellent, and difficult-to-know matters that I wish to understand should be understood in accordance with this (the above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: From death in the Realm of Formlessness (Arūpadhātu) to the arising of one's own continuum, it explains the case of being born in the Realm of Desire (Kāmadhātu) after dying in the Realm of Formlessness. Perhaps it is possible to initially cultivate this supernormal power by relying on the body of another. Or, one may cultivate it by relying on one's own body up to the initial thought of the intermediate state (Antarābhava). Relying on the body of another, the final thought of the previous life reaches its culmination. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'If the supernormal power of remembering past lives (Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti) does not rely on the Realm of Formlessness, it should not be able to remember matters of the Realm of Formlessness.' Why then does the Sūtra say that the World-Honored One, in the unsurpassed Dharma, said that the Buddha is able to remember past matters of the Realm of Form, the Realm of Formlessness, etc.? This is known through decisive inferential knowledge, not through the supernormal power of remembering past lives, so there is no fault. The meaning is that if those non-Buddhist practitioners see sentient beings dying in the Realm of Desire or the Realm of Form, they do not know where they will be born, and they cling to the view that sentient beings are annihilated after death. Seeing sentient beings being born in the Realm of Desire or the Realm of Form, they do not know where they come from, and they cling to the view that sentient beings originally did not exist but now do. Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas, seeing them die, do not see where they go for twenty thousand kalpas, and they think that they are born in an empty place after death. But they may be born in a higher heaven and die before the end of their lifespan. Like this, even if they do not see where they go for eighty thousand kalpas, they think that they are born in the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (Naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana). But they may be born in a lower realm, going through two or three rebirths, etc. When they see beings being born in the Realm of Desire or the Realm of Form, they also think that they come from there. The World-Honored One observes their death and their birth, and truly knows through inferential knowledge where they are born, where they come from, and the length of their lifespan, some living to the end of their lifespan, and some dying prematurely. Although it is also known through inferential knowledge, it is not uncertain, so it is different from the inferential knowledge of other noble ones (the above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: Cultivating the supernormal power of magical manifestation (Ṛddhi-vidhi-jñāna) and so on does not rely on the Realm of Formlessness. The preliminary practice for the supernormal power of magical manifestation is thinking about lightness, the preliminary practice for the divine eye (Divya-cakṣus) is thinking about light, and the preliminary practice for the divine ear (Divya-śrotra) is thinking about sound. After achieving them, one can freely go wherever one wants, near or far, and see, hear, and so on. These do not have the five supernormal powers because they do not have the preliminary practices.
Treatise: Furthermore, all the Formless Absorptions (Arūpa-samāpatti) up to this point have already been refuted. This is the second explanation, because Śamatha and Vipaśyanā are not balanced, so there are no five supernormal powers.
Treatise: Like this, the five supernormal powers up to becoming the realm of two supernormal powers. It explains that the lower realms do not know the affairs of the higher realms, and so on.
Treatise: These five supernormal powers up to none.
數世界。明通廣狹。
論。如是五通至不由加行。明二得也。正理論云。三乘聖者後有異生。通得曾得．未曾得者。所餘異生唯得曾得(已上論文)。
論。六中前三至天耳緣聲。明念住也 正理論云。約四念住辨六通者。約境約體二義有殊。有說二通即天眼．天耳。所餘四種以惠為性。彼說眼．耳通是身念住境。餘四唯是法念住境。然實六種唯惠為性。經說皆能了達境故。由此皆是法念住境。若約體辨。則六通中前三。唯身。但緣色故(已上論文)。
論。若爾何緣至諸惡行等。難也。若天眼通唯緣色者。天眼即是生死智通。如何經說生死智通。知有情類由現身中。成身．語．意諸惡行等意業非是色為性故。
論。非天眼通至死生智名。答也。謂天眼通力所引起。有別勝智。是通眷屬。知意業等未來世事。與天眼通合立死生智名。
論。他心智通至一切境故。明他心．宿住．漏盡三通念住攝也。準此論文。宿住通別緣色．受．心。許有四念住故。宿住既爾。眷屬死生智通。故知亦爾 正理論云。經主欲令一一皆通四念住攝。通緣五蘊一切境故。而實宿住法念住攝。雖契經說念曾領受苦．樂等事。是憶前生苦．樂等受所領眾具。即是雜緣法念住攝 婆沙評家云。應作是說。念過去世諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 數世界。明通廣狹。
論：像這樣，五神通的獲得並非通過後天的努力修行。這說明了兩種獲得方式。正理論中說：『三乘（Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana）的聖者在死後轉生為凡夫時，神通的獲得有曾經獲得和未曾獲得兩種情況。其餘的凡夫只能獲得曾經獲得的神通（以上是正理論的原文）。』
論：六神通中的前三種（天眼通，天耳通，神足通）……直到天耳通聽到聲音，這說明了念住（Smṛtyupasthāna）。正理論中說：『如果根據四念住（catvāri smṛtyupasthānāni）來辨別六神通，那麼根據所緣境和本體，會有兩種不同的解釋。有人說天眼通和天耳通就是兩種神通，其餘四種神通以智慧為本質。他們認為天眼通和天耳通是身念住（Kāyasmṛtyupasthāna）的所緣境，其餘四種神通只是法念住（Dharmasmṛtyupasthāna）的所緣境。然而，實際上六神通都以智慧為本質，因為經典中說它們都能了達所緣境。因此，它們都是法念住的所緣境。如果根據本體來辨別，那麼六神通中的前三種只是身念住，因為它們只緣於色法（Rūpa）。（以上是正理論的原文）。』
論：如果這樣，為什麼……直到各種惡行等等。這是提問。如果天眼通只能緣於色法，那麼天眼通就是生死智通（divyacakṣus-jñāna）。為什麼經典中說生死智通能夠知道有情眾生由於現在的身體所造作的身、語、意各種惡行等等，而意業（manas-karma）的本質不是色法呢？
論：不是天眼通……直到死生智的名字。這是回答。意思是說，由天眼通的力量所引發的，有另外一種殊勝的智慧，是天眼通的眷屬。它能夠知道意業等等未來世的事情，與天眼通合起來，就叫做死生智。
論：他心智通（paracitta-jñāna）……直到一切境。這說明他心通、宿住通（pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna）、漏盡通（āsravakṣaya-jñāna）這三種神通都包含在念住之中。根據這段論文，宿住通分別緣於色、受、心，允許有四念住的緣故。宿住通既然如此，作為眷屬的死生智通，因此也知道是這樣。正理論中說：『經主想要讓每一種神通都包含在四念住之中，因為神通能夠緣於五蘊（pañca-skandha）的一切境。但實際上，宿住通包含在法念住之中。雖然契經中說憶念曾經領受的苦、樂等事，是憶念前生的苦、樂等感受所領受的各種事物，也就是雜緣法念住。』婆沙評家說：『應該這樣說，憶念過去世的各種……』
【English Translation】 English version Enumerating the worlds. Clarifying the breadth and narrowness of the supernatural powers.
Treatise: Thus, the attainment of the five supernatural powers is not due to subsequent practice. This clarifies the two types of attainment. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'The holy ones of the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana) may be reborn as ordinary beings after death, and their attainment of supernatural powers can be either previously attained or never attained. Other ordinary beings can only attain previously attained supernatural powers (the above is from the original text of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra).'
Treatise: The first three of the six supernatural powers (divyacakṣus-abhijñā, divyaśrotra-abhijñā, ṛddhi-vidhi-jñāna) ... up to the divine ear hearing sounds, this clarifies the mindfulness (Smṛtyupasthāna). The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'If we distinguish the six supernatural powers according to the four mindfulnesses (catvāri smṛtyupasthānāni), there will be two different interpretations based on the object and the essence. Some say that the divine eye and the divine ear are two supernatural powers, and the remaining four supernatural powers are essentially wisdom. They believe that the divine eye and the divine ear are the objects of body mindfulness (Kāyasmṛtyupasthāna), and the remaining four supernatural powers are only the objects of dharma mindfulness (Dharmasmṛtyupasthāna). However, in reality, all six supernatural powers are essentially wisdom, because the scriptures say that they can all understand the objects. Therefore, they are all the objects of dharma mindfulness. If we distinguish according to the essence, then the first three of the six supernatural powers are only body mindfulness, because they only relate to form (Rūpa). (The above is from the original text of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra).'
Treatise: If so, why ... up to various evil deeds, etc. This is a question. If the divine eye can only relate to form, then the divine eye is the knowledge of death and rebirth (divyacakṣus-jñāna). Why do the scriptures say that the knowledge of death and rebirth can know the various evil deeds of body, speech, and mind that sentient beings commit in their present bodies, and the nature of mental karma (manas-karma) is not form?
Treatise: It is not the divine eye ... up to the name of the knowledge of death and rebirth. This is an answer. It means that there is another superior wisdom caused by the power of the divine eye, which is a member of the divine eye's retinue. It can know the future events of mental karma, etc., and together with the divine eye, it is called the knowledge of death and rebirth.
Treatise: The knowledge of others' minds (paracitta-jñāna) ... up to all objects. This explains that the three supernatural powers of the knowledge of others' minds, the knowledge of past lives (pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna), and the knowledge of the extinction of outflows (āsravakṣaya-jñāna) are all included in mindfulness. According to this treatise, the knowledge of past lives separately relates to form, feeling, and mind, allowing for the reason of the four mindfulnesses. Since the knowledge of past lives is like this, the knowledge of death and rebirth, as a member of the retinue, is also known to be like this. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'The author of the scripture wants to include each supernatural power in the four mindfulnesses, because the supernatural powers can relate to all objects of the five aggregates (pañca-skandha). But in reality, the knowledge of past lives is included in dharma mindfulness. Although the scriptures say that remembering the suffering, joy, etc. that were once experienced is remembering the various things experienced by the suffering, joy, etc. of past lives, which is the mixed condition of dharma mindfulness.' The Vibhasa commentator says: 'It should be said that remembering the various things of past lives...'
樂．苦具。名受樂．苦。非但緣受故彼非證。然宿住隨念智。總觀前生分位差別。唯是雜緣法念住攝 兩論與此論別。意各異故。如見道中雖總緣諦。而得修者亦四念住。此亦應爾。各據一義亦不相違。漏盡如力。或法。或四。不應定言四念住攝。
論。此六通中至相應惠故。明二通無記性。雖五識通三性三受。然二通唯無記。舍受相應。本意唯欲取色等故。
論。若爾寧說依四靜慮。難。二識唯通二地。如何說通依四根本靜慮地也。
論。隨根說故至說依四言。答也。就根說四定。識唯初定攝。
論。或此依通至依四地故。第二釋也。
論。余之四通性皆是善。明除天．眼耳餘四善性。
論。若爾何故至何謂善惠。引文難也。若言二通無記性者。何故品類足言通謂善惠。
論。彼據多分或就勝說。答也。
正理論云。六通皆是解脫道攝。眼耳二識是解脫道。理不成故。應作是說。四靜慮中有定相應勝無記惠。能引自地勝大種果。此惠現前便引自地天眼．天耳令現在前。為所依根發眼．耳識。故眼．耳二識相應惠非通。但可說言是通所引(已上論文) 今依婆沙等論。雜釋六通。婆沙一百云。問何故名宿住隨念智。宿住隨念智是何義。答諸過去生有漏五蘊名為宿住
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 樂和苦的工具，名為受樂和受苦（Vedanā）。並非僅僅因為緣于感受，它們就不是證悟。然而，宿住隨念智（Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna，回憶前世的智慧）總括地觀察前生的分位差別，僅僅是被雜緣法念住（Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna，對法的正念）所攝。兩部論典與此論典的觀點不同，因為它們的意圖各不相同。例如，在見道（Darśana-mārga，見道的階段）中，雖然總體上緣於四聖諦（Satya，真理），但獲得修習者也是四念住。這裡也應該如此。各自依據一個意義，也不互相矛盾。漏盡（Āsravakṣaya，煩惱的止息）如力量，或者法，或者四種。不應該肯定地說被四念住所攝。
論：在這六神通中，與舍受相應的智慧的緣故。說明兩種神通是無記性（Avyākṛta，非善非惡）的。雖然五識（Pañca-vijñāna，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身識）通於三種性質和三種感受，然而兩種神通僅僅是無記性，與舍受相應。本意僅僅是想要獲取色等。
論：如果這樣，為什麼說依賴於四靜慮（Dhyāna，禪定）？難：兩種識僅僅通於二地（Dhatu，界），如何說神通依賴於四根本靜慮地呢？
論：隨根說故，直到說依賴於四的言語。答：就根來說四禪定，識僅僅被初禪定所攝。
論：或者這依賴於神通，直到依賴於四地。第二種解釋。
論：其餘的四種神通的性質都是善的。說明除了天眼（Divya-cakṣus，天眼通）和天耳（Divya-śrotra，天耳通），其餘四種是善的性質。
論：如果這樣，為什麼說，什麼叫做善慧？引文來提問。如果說兩種神通是無記性，為什麼《品類足論》（Prakaraṇapāda，論書名）說神通叫做善慧？
論：那是根據大部分情況，或者就殊勝的情況來說。回答。
《正理論》（Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya，論書名）說：六神通都是解脫道（Mokṣa-mārga，通往解脫的道路）所攝。眼識和耳識是解脫道，道理不成立。應該這樣說：在四靜慮中有與定相應的殊勝的無記慧，能夠引出自地的殊勝的大種果（Mahābhūta-phala，四大元素的結果）。這種智慧現前，便引出自地的天眼和天耳，令其現在前，作為所依之根，發起眼識和耳識。所以眼識和耳識相應的智慧不是神通，但可以說它是神通所引。（以上是論文）現在依據《婆沙論》（Vibhāṣā，論書名）等論，雜亂地解釋六神通。《婆沙論》第一百卷說：問：為什麼叫做宿住隨念智？宿住隨念智是什麼意思？答：過去生的有漏五蘊（Skandha，構成存在的五種要素）叫做宿住。
【English Translation】 English version The instruments of pleasure and pain are called the experiencing of pleasure and pain (Vedanā). It is not merely because of being conditioned by feeling that they are not enlightenment. However, the knowledge of remembering past lives (Pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna) comprehensively observes the differences in the states of previous lives and is only included in the Dharma-smṛtyupasthāna (mindfulness of the Dharma) conditioned by various factors. The views of the two treatises differ from this treatise because their intentions are different. For example, in the path of seeing (Darśana-mārga), although it generally conditions the Four Noble Truths (Satya), those who attain practice are also the four mindfulnesses. It should be the same here. Each is based on one meaning and does not contradict each other. The exhaustion of outflows (Āsravakṣaya) is like strength, or Dharma, or the four. It should not be definitely said to be included in the four mindfulnesses.
Treatise: Among these six superknowledges, it is because of the wisdom corresponding to equanimity. It explains that two superknowledges are of indeterminate nature (Avyākṛta). Although the five consciousnesses (Pañca-vijñāna) are connected to the three natures and three feelings, the two superknowledges are only of indeterminate nature and correspond to equanimity. The original intention is only to obtain form, etc.
Treatise: If so, why is it said to rely on the four meditations (Dhyāna)? Objection: The two consciousnesses only connect to the two realms (Dhatu). How can it be said that superknowledge relies on the four fundamental meditation realms?
Treatise: It is said according to the root, until the words say to rely on the four. Answer: In terms of the root, the four meditations are spoken of, and consciousness is only included in the first meditation.
Treatise: Or this relies on superknowledge, until it relies on the four realms. The second explanation.
Treatise: The nature of the remaining four superknowledges is all good. It explains that except for the divine eye (Divya-cakṣus) and the divine ear (Divya-śrotra), the remaining four are of good nature.
Treatise: If so, why is it said, what is called good wisdom? It quotes the text to question. If it is said that the two superknowledges are of indeterminate nature, why does the Prakaraṇapāda say that superknowledge is called good wisdom?
Treatise: That is according to most situations, or it is said in terms of the superior situation. Answer.
The Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says: All six superknowledges are included in the path of liberation (Mokṣa-mārga). The eye consciousness and ear consciousness are the path of liberation, which is not logically established. It should be said that in the four meditations, there is superior indeterminate wisdom corresponding to concentration, which can lead to the superior result of the great elements (Mahābhūta-phala) of its own realm. When this wisdom manifests, it leads to the divine eye and divine ear of its own realm, causing them to manifest in the present, as the root on which to rely, initiating eye consciousness and ear consciousness. Therefore, the wisdom corresponding to eye consciousness and ear consciousness is not superknowledge, but it can be said that it is led by superknowledge. (The above is the treatise) Now, based on the Vibhāṣā and other treatises, the six superknowledges are explained in a mixed way. The hundredth volume of the Vibhāṣā says: Question: Why is it called the knowledge of remembering past lives? What is the meaning of the knowledge of remembering past lives? Answer: The contaminated five aggregates (Skandha) of past lives are called past lives.
。隨念勢力而能知彼故。名宿住隨念智。謂此聚中雖有多法。而念力增故說隨念。如自性念生智雖惠為體。而念力增名本性念生智。有現知他心．心所法非他心智。謂如有一或觀相。或聞語。或得如是生處得智。能觀知他心心法。人中有睹相智知彼心。有聞語知他心(可解不錄)或占卜者。如諸外道種種占卜知他心者 生處得智知他心者。謂地獄等有。其事云何。且地獄中亦有生處得智。能知他心等。然無別現事可說 問彼於何時知他心等。答初生地獄未受苦時。若受苦已。尚不能知自心所念。況能知他心．心所法 問彼住何心知他心等。善耶。染污耶。無覆無記耶。答三種皆能知問為住意識。為五識。答唯住意識。問為住威儀路心。為住工巧處心。為住異熟生心。知他心等。答唯住威儀路心。所以者何。彼無現起工巧處心故。彼異熟生心唯五識有故。又一百一云。傍生趣亦有生處得智。能知他心等。初．中．后位皆悉能知。善．染．無記三種皆能知。唯意識知。威儀．工巧．異熟生。三種皆能知。彼亦現起工巧處心故。彼異熟生心意識亦有故。非如地獄決定不受善異熟果。鬼趣亦有生處得智知他心等。如傍生說 本性念生智現憶知宿住事者。唯人趣中有。四趣中無此智。
論。如契經說無學三明。已下一行頌
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 因為隨念（anussati）的力量能夠了解過去的事情，所以稱為宿住隨念智（pubbe-nivasanussati-ñana）。雖然在這個組合（聚，kaya）中有多種法（dhamma），但因爲念力增強，所以說是隨念。如同自性念（prakrti-smrti）所生的智慧，雖然以慧（pañña）為體，但因爲念力增強，所以稱為本性念生智（prakrti-smrti-utpāda-ñana）。 有現知他人心和心所法的，不是他心智（para-citta-ñana）。例如，有的人通過觀察相貌，或者聽聞言語，或者獲得與生俱來的智慧（生處得智，upapattilābhi-ñana），能夠觀察瞭解他人的心和心所法。人中有人通過觀察相貌的智慧來了解他人的心，有人通過聽聞言語來了解他人的心，或者有占卜者，例如各種外道通過占卜來了解他人的心。通過生處得智來了解他人心的人，存在於地獄等處。這是怎麼回事呢？例如，在地獄中也有生處得智，能夠了解他人的心等等。但沒有特別明顯的例子可以說明。 問：他們什麼時候能瞭解他人的心等等？答：剛出生在地獄，還沒有受苦的時候。如果已經受苦了，尚且不能瞭解自己心中所想，更何況瞭解他人的心和心所法？問：他們以什麼樣的心來了解他人的心等等？是善心（kusala）嗎？是染污心（akusala）嗎？還是無覆無記心（avyākrta）？答：三種心都能瞭解。問：是住在意識（mano-viññana）中，還是住在五識（pañca-viññana）中？答：唯有住在意識中。問：是以威儀路心（iriyāpatha-citta），還是以工巧處心（karmānta-sthāna-citta），還是以異熟生心（vipāka-ja-citta）來了解他人的心等等？答：唯有住在威儀路心中。為什麼呢？因為他們沒有現起的工巧處心。他們的異熟生心只有五識才有。又，《一百一經》說，傍生趣（tiracchāna-gati）也有生處得智，能夠了解他人的心等等。初、中、后三個階段都能瞭解。善、染污、無記三種心都能瞭解。唯有意識能瞭解。威儀、工巧、異熟生三種心都能瞭解。因為他們也有現起的工巧處心。他們的異熟生心意識也有。不像地獄那樣，一定不受善的異熟果報。鬼趣（preta-gati）也有生處得智來了解他人的心等等，如同傍生趣所說。 本性念生智（prakrti-smrti-utpāda-ñana）能夠回憶起過去的事情，只有人趣（manussa-gati）中有，其他四趣（地獄、餓鬼、傍生、天）中沒有這種智慧。 論：如契經所說，無學（asekha）的三明（tevijja），以下是一行頌。
【English Translation】 English version: Because the power of recollection (anussati) enables one to know past events, it is called the knowledge of recollection of past lives (pubbe-nivasanussati-ñana). Although there are many dharmas (dhamma) in this aggregate (kaya), it is called recollection because the power of recollection is enhanced. Just as the wisdom born from natural mindfulness (prakrti-smrti), although its essence is wisdom (pañña), it is called the knowledge born from natural mindfulness (prakrti-smrti-utpāda-ñana) because the power of recollection is enhanced. There is the direct knowledge of others' minds and mental factors, which is not telepathy (para-citta-ñana). For example, some people, by observing appearances, or hearing speech, or obtaining innate wisdom (upapattilābhi-ñana), are able to observe and understand the minds and mental factors of others. Among humans, some know the minds of others through the wisdom of observing appearances, some know the minds of others by hearing speech, or there are diviners, such as various heretics who know the minds of others through divination. Those who know the minds of others through innate wisdom exist in places such as hells. How is this so? For example, in hells, there is also innate wisdom that can know the minds of others, etc. But there are no particularly obvious examples to illustrate. Question: When do they know the minds of others, etc.? Answer: When they are first born in hell, before they have suffered. If they have already suffered, they cannot even understand what is in their own minds, let alone understand the minds and mental factors of others. Question: With what kind of mind do they understand the minds of others, etc.? Is it a wholesome mind (kusala)? Is it an unwholesome mind (akusala)? Or is it an indeterminate mind (avyākrta)? Answer: All three types of minds can understand. Question: Do they abide in mind-consciousness (mano-viññana) or in the five sense-consciousnesses (pañca-viññana)? Answer: Only in mind-consciousness. Question: Do they understand the minds of others, etc., with the posture-maintaining mind (iriyāpatha-citta), the craft-skill mind (karmānta-sthāna-citta), or the resultant mind (vipāka-ja-citta)? Answer: Only with the posture-maintaining mind. Why? Because they do not have the craft-skill mind arising. Their resultant mind only exists in the five sense-consciousnesses. Furthermore, the Hundred and One Sutra says that animals (tiracchāna-gati) also have innate wisdom that can know the minds of others, etc. They can understand in the beginning, middle, and end stages. They can understand with wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate minds. Only mind-consciousness can understand. They can understand with posture-maintaining, craft-skill, and resultant minds. Because they also have the craft-skill mind arising. Their resultant mind also exists in mind-consciousness. Unlike hells, they are not necessarily excluded from receiving wholesome resultant rewards. Ghosts (preta-gati) also have innate wisdom to understand the minds of others, etc., as described for animals. The knowledge born from natural mindfulness (prakrti-smrti-utpāda-ñana) that can recall past events only exists in the human realm (manussa-gati); it does not exist in the other four realms (hell, hungry ghosts, animals, gods). Treatise: As the sutra says, the three knowledges (tevijja) of the non-learner (asekha), the following is a line of verse.
。第二述三明也。
論曰至為其自性。出三明體。正理論云。又宿住通憶念前際自他苦事。死生智通觀察后際他身苦事。由此厭背生死眾苦。起漏盡通觀涅槃樂。故唯三種偏立為明 婆沙一百二。問何故六通中三立為明。答有勝用故。宿住厭前際。死生厭后際。漏盡欣涅槃。複次宿住引空解脫門。死生引無愿解脫門。漏盡引無相解脫門(已上論文)。
論。六中三種至治中際愚。釋六通中唯三立明所以。及釋得明名所以。
論。此三皆名至非無學故。述名無學明所以。兼述是真無學有非真無學。于中。是無漏者是無學法。即是漏盡一分。若有漏者。是非學非無學法。即是宿住。生死智明全。漏盡一分。
論。有學身中至故不名明。述在有學。宿住生死二通不名明所以。
論。契經說有三種示導。已下一行頌。第三明三示導。
論曰至為其自性。出體也。
論。唯此三種至令發心故。釋唯三得立示導所以。
論。能示能導得示導名。釋名也 示。謂顯示教示之異名 導。謂教導引導之異名。
論。又唯此三至餘三不爾。重釋也 神變令于佛法歸伏 他心令信受 教誡令修行。由此三通得名示導。
論。於三示導至故非決定。述勝劣也。
論。如有
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：第二部分講述三種明（Trividya）。
論曰：以其自性而言，闡述三種明的本體。《正理論》說：『宿住智通（Purvanivasanusmriti-jnana-abhijna）能憶念過去世自己和眾生的苦難；死生智通（Cyutyupapada-jnana-abhijna）能觀察未來世其他眾生的苦難。因此厭惡生死輪迴的種種痛苦，生起漏盡智通（Asravaksaya-jnana-abhijna），觀涅槃之樂。』所以只有這三種神通被特別稱為明。《婆沙論》第一百零二問：為什麼六神通中只有三種被立為明？答：因為它們有殊勝的作用。宿住智通厭惡過去世，死生智通厭惡未來世，漏盡智通欣樂涅槃。其次，宿住智通引導空解脫門（Sunyata-vimoksha-mukha），死生智通引導無愿解脫門（Apranihita-vimoksha-mukha），漏盡智通引導無相解脫門（Animitta-vimoksha-mukha）。（以上是論文內容）
論：六神通中三種神通能對治中際的愚癡。解釋了六神通中只有三種被立為明的原因，以及解釋了獲得明這個名稱的原因。
論：這三種都名為至，因為不是無學位的緣故。闡述了名為無學明的原因，並闡述了有真無學和非真無學。其中，是無漏的，是無學法，即是漏盡智通的一部分。如果是有漏的，是非學非無學法，即是宿住智通和全部的死生智通，以及漏盡智通的一部分。
論：在有學之身中，所以不名為明。闡述了在有學位時，宿住智通和死生智通不名為明的原因。
論：契經中說有三種示導。以下一行頌。第三部分闡述三種示導。
論曰：以其自性而言，闡述其本體。
論：只有這三種才能引導眾生髮菩提心。解釋了只有這三種才能被立為示導的原因。
論：能示現、能引導，才能得到示導的名稱。解釋名稱的含義。『示』，是顯示、教示的異名。『導』，是教導、引導的異名。
論：又只有這三種才能...其餘三種不是這樣。再次解釋。神變通（Rddhi-vikurvana-abhijna）使人對佛法歸順信服，他心通（Paracitta-jnana-abhijna）使人信受，教誡使人修行。因此這三種神通得名示導。
論：在三種示導中，所以不是決定的。闡述了勝劣。
論：如有...
【English Translation】 English version: Second, explaining the three Vidyas (Trividya).
Treatise: In terms of their own nature, it elucidates the substance of the three Vidyas. The Nyayānusāra-śāstra says: 'The Abhijna of Purvanivasanusmriti-jnana (knowledge of past lives) recalls the past suffering of oneself and others. The Abhijna of Cyutyupapada-jnana (knowledge of death and rebirth) observes the future suffering of other beings. Therefore, one becomes disgusted with the various sufferings of Samsara and generates the Abhijna of Asravaksaya-jnana (knowledge of the extinction of outflows), contemplating the bliss of Nirvana.' Therefore, only these three Abhijna are specifically established as Vidyas. Vibhasa, one hundred and two, asks: Why are three of the six Abhijna established as Vidyas? The answer is: Because they have superior functions. Purvanivasanusmriti-jnana causes aversion to the past, Cyutyupapada-jnana causes aversion to the future, and Asravaksaya-jnana brings joy in Nirvana. Furthermore, Purvanivasanusmriti-jnana leads to the Sunyata-vimoksha-mukha (door of liberation of emptiness), Cyutyupapada-jnana leads to the Apranihita-vimoksha-mukha (door of liberation of signlessness), and Asravaksaya-jnana leads to the Animitta-vimoksha-mukha (door of liberation of wishlessness). (The above is the content of the treatise)
Treatise: Among the six Abhijna, three can counteract the ignorance of the middle realm. It explains why only three of the six Abhijna are established as Vidyas, and it explains why the name 'Vidya' is obtained.
Treatise: These three are all called 'supreme' because they are not of the state of no-more-learning (Asaiksa). It elucidates the reason for being named 'Asaiksa-Vidya', and it elucidates that there are true and untrue Asaiksas. Among them, that which is without outflows (Anasrava) is the Dharma of no-more-learning, which is a part of Asravaksaya-jnana. If it has outflows (Sasrava), it is the Dharma of neither-learning-nor-no-more-learning, which is Purvanivasanusmriti-jnana and the entirety of Cyutyupapada-jnana, and a part of Asravaksaya-jnana.
Treatise: In the body of a learner (Saiksa), therefore it is not called Vidya. It elucidates the reason why Purvanivasanusmriti-jnana and Cyutyupapada-jnana are not called Vidyas in the state of a learner.
Treatise: The Sutra says that there are three kinds of guidance. The following is a verse. The third part elucidates the three kinds of guidance.
Treatise: In terms of its own nature, it elucidates its substance.
Treatise: Only these three can guide beings to generate Bodhicitta (the mind of enlightenment). It explains why only these three can be established as guidance.
Treatise: That which can show and can guide obtains the name of guidance. It explains the meaning of the name. 'Showing' (Skt: darśana) is a different name for displaying and teaching. 'Guiding' (Skt: nayana) is a different name for teaching and leading.
Treatise: Furthermore, only these three can... the other three are not like this. It explains again. The Abhijna of Rddhi-vikurvana (supernatural transformation) causes people to submit to and believe in the Buddha-dharma, the Abhijna of Paracitta-jnana (knowledge of the minds of others) causes people to believe and accept, and the teaching causes people to practice. Therefore, these three Abhijna obtain the name of guidance.
Treatise: Among the three kinds of guidance, therefore it is not definitive. It elucidates the superiority and inferiority.
Treatise: For example...
咒術至故是決定。指事釋決定也。真諦云。有天名健馱梨。翻為持地 咒術從所說人得名 伊剎尼者。真諦云。伊剎尼是論名。是露形外道師所造。翻為觀時。此咒從所出論為名。他心．神足有非通亦成故。非決定勝教誡示導唯漏盡通所成故。是決定勝也。
論。又前二導至最勝非余。重釋。由前二示導。不能令他決定必引當利益及安樂果故。非是最勝。婆沙一百三云。問應為何人現神變事。答若於佛法決定信者。及不信者不應為現。若不定者應為現之引入正法。若為不信者現。彼即云此何希有。世有明咒名健馱梨。善受持者亦能示現如是幻惑。誰有智者現斯鄙事。他記心亦爾。有明咒名剎尼迦。有善受持者亦知他心。
論。神境二言為自何義。已下兩行頌。第四廣釋神境也。
論曰至說名為境。述神境體別。正理云。而契經說。神果名神。意為舉粗以顯細故。又顯勝等持。是彼近因故。然神變事體實非神。此廣如前覺分中。辨諸神變事說名為境。
論。此有二種謂行及化。分境為二。一行。二化。
論。行復三種至得意勢名。分別為三。意勢最勝。如舉意緣時。此行亦爾。故名意勢。
論。於此三中至並異生。明共．不共也。正理論云。如日舒光。蘊流亦爾。能頓至遠故說為
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：咒術之所以有效，是因為它是確定的。『指事釋』也是一種確定的解釋。真諦（Paramārtha）說，有一種天神名叫健馱梨（Gāndhārī，持地神），咒術以其所出自的人的名字命名。伊剎尼（Īkṣaṇī）這個詞，真諦說，伊剎尼是一種論典的名字，是露形外道師所造，翻譯為『觀時』。這個咒語以其所出自的論典命名。他心通和神足通有時並非神通，因此不是決定性的殊勝。教誡和引導只有漏盡通才能做到，因此是決定性的殊勝。
論：此外，前兩種（他心通和神足通）引導至最殊勝的境界，而其他的則不能。重釋：由於前兩種神通的引導，不能使他人確定無疑地獲得未來的利益和安樂的果報，因此不是最殊勝的。婆沙（Vibhāṣā）第一百零三卷說：『問：應該為哪種人示現神通之事？答：如果對於佛法有堅定信仰的人，以及不相信的人，都不應該為他們示現。如果是不確定的人，應該為他們示現，引導他們進入正法。如果為不相信的人示現，他們就會說：這有什麼稀奇的？世間有一種明咒名叫健馱梨，善於受持的人也能示現這樣的幻惑。誰有智慧的人會做這種鄙陋的事情呢？』他記心通也是如此。有一種明咒名叫剎尼迦（Kṣaṇika），有善於受持的人也能知道他人的心念。
論：『神境』這兩個字本身是什麼意思？以下兩行頌文，是第四部分，廣泛解釋神境。
論曰：……被稱為『境』。描述神境的體性差別。《正理》（Nyāyānusāra）說：『而契經說，神通的果報稱為神通。』意思是舉出粗顯的來顯示細微的。又顯示殊勝的等持（samādhi），是它的近因。然而，神通變化的事物，其體性實際上並非神通。這在前面的覺分中已經廣泛地辨析過，各種神通變化的事物被稱為『境』。
論：這有兩種，即『行』和『化』。將『境』分為兩種：『行』和『化』。
論：『行』又有三種……得意之勢，名為『行』。分別說明這三種。意勢是最殊勝的。例如，舉起意念緣取事物時，這種『行』也是如此，所以稱為『意勢』。
論：在這三種之中……以及異生（凡夫）。說明共同和不共同。《正理論》說：『如同太陽舒展光芒，蘊流也是如此，能夠立即到達遙遠的地方，所以說是……』
【English Translation】 English version: The reason why mantras are effective is because they are definitive. 『Pointing-to-the-meaning explanation』 (指事釋) is also a definitive explanation. Paramārtha said, there is a deva (god) named Gāndhārī (健馱梨, holder of the earth), and mantras are named after the person from whom they originate. The term Īkṣaṇī (伊剎尼), Paramārtha said, Īkṣaṇī is the name of a treatise, created by naked ascetic teachers, translated as 『observing the time』. This mantra is named after the treatise from which it originates. Telepathy and divine feet sometimes are not supernormal powers, therefore they are not definitively superior. Instructions and guidance can only be achieved by the exhaustion of outflows (漏盡通), therefore it is definitively superior.
Treatise: Furthermore, the former two (telepathy and divine feet) lead to the most superior state, while others do not. Re-explanation: Because the guidance of the former two supernormal powers cannot ensure that others will definitely obtain the future benefits and the fruits of happiness, therefore they are not the most superior. Vibhāṣā (婆沙) Volume 103 says: 『Question: For whom should the display of supernormal powers be shown? Answer: If someone has firm faith in the Buddha's teachings, or if someone does not believe, one should not show them. If someone is uncertain, one should show them, guiding them into the correct Dharma. If one shows it to someone who does not believe, they will say: What is so rare about this? There is a bright mantra in the world called Gāndhārī, and those who are good at upholding it can also display such illusions. Who with wisdom would do such a vulgar thing?』 Telepathy is also like this. There is a bright mantra called Kṣaṇika (剎尼迦), and those who are good at upholding it can also know the thoughts of others.
Treatise: What is the meaning of the two words 『divine realm』 (神境) themselves? The following two lines of verse are the fourth part, extensively explaining the divine realm.
Treatise says: ... called 『realm』 (境). Describes the differences in the nature of the divine realm. Nyāyānusāra (正理) says: 『And the sutras say that the result of supernormal powers is called supernormal powers.』 The meaning is to bring out the coarse to show the subtle. It also shows that superior samādhi (等持) is its proximate cause. However, the nature of the things transformed by supernormal powers is actually not supernormal powers. This has been extensively analyzed in the previous section on the factors of enlightenment, and the various things transformed by supernormal powers are called 『realm』.
Treatise: There are two types of this, namely 『conduct』 (行) and 『transformation』 (化). Divide the 『realm』 into two types: 『conduct』 and 『transformation』.
Treatise: 『Conduct』 also has three types... the power of attainment, called 『conduct』. Explain these three separately. The power of intention is the most superior. For example, when raising the intention to grasp things, this 『conduct』 is also like this, so it is called 『power of intention』.
Treatise: Among these three... and also ordinary beings (異生). Explains the common and uncommon. The Nyāyānusāra says: 『Just as the sun spreads its light, the flow of aggregates is also like this, able to reach distant places immediately, so it is said to be...』
行。若謂不然。此沒彼出中間既斷。行義應無。或佛威神不可思議。舉心即至不可測量。故意勢行唯世尊有 婆沙一百四十一有二說。此論及正理同后說。恐煩不引。
論。化復二種謂欲色界。分化為二謂欲界化．色界化也。
論。若欲界化至無香味故。述二界化具境多少。
論。此二界化至故總成八。述化不同。在欲界作欲界化。有屬自身及屬他身為二。作色界化亦有二種。謂自．他身合為四也。在色界亦四故成八也。于自身上化。為屬自身化。若化外人名屬他身化。
論。若生在色界至成香味失。難也。若爾生於色界化四種。有屬自身作欲界化。如何不有成香．味失。此問自身化。
論。如衣嚴具化而不成。答也。雖生色界有屬自身化。如衣．嚴具不與根合化而不成。準此答意。他身化定不成就。自身化中尚有不成就故。
論。有說在色唯化二處。第二答也。正理論云。雖生在色作欲界化。而無色界成香．味失。化作自身唯二處故。有說亦化四。如衣等不成。婆沙一百三十五有二說。評家云。如是說者。雖化香．味無成就失。如人衣服．嚴具．花香。雖覆在身而不成就 準上論文。故知。若作化人令語聲。非執受大種所造亦不成就。唯依自身化作問答故。有人問答云。問異
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如果說不是這樣，那麼這個（地方）消失，那個（地方）出現，中間既然斷絕，行走的意義就應該沒有了。或者是因為佛的威神力不可思議，一舉心念就到達，不可測量。故意念行走的這種能力只有世尊才有。《婆沙論》第一百四十一卷有兩種說法，此論和《正理》的觀點與后一種說法相同，恐怕繁瑣，所以不引用。
論：化身又有兩種，即欲界化（指在欲界所作的化身）和色界化（指在色界所作的化身）。分化又分為兩種，即欲界化和色界化。
論：如果欲界化身到達（色界），因為沒有香味的緣故（而消失）。敘述兩個界化身所具有的境界多少。
論：這兩個界化身（自身和他身）加起來總共是八種。敘述化身的不同。在欲界作欲界化身，有屬於自身和他身兩種。作色界化身也有兩種，即自身和他身，合起來是四種。在色界也是四種，所以總共是八種。在自身上變化出來的，稱為屬於自身的化身。如果變化出外人，就稱為屬於他身的化身。
論：如果生在色界（作欲界化身），（為什麼）沒有香味的成就和消失？這是個難題。如果這樣，生在色界變化出四種（化身），有屬於自身作欲界化身，為什麼沒有香味的成就和消失？這是問自身化身。
論：如同衣服和裝飾品的變化而不成就（香味）。這是回答。即使生在色界，有屬於自身的化身，如同衣服和裝飾品，不與根（感官）結合，變化而不成就（香味）。按照這個回答的意思，他身化身一定不成就。自身化身中尚且有不成就的。
論：有人說在色界只能變化出兩個地方（自身和他身）。這是第二個回答。正理論說，即使生在色界作欲界化身，也沒有色界香味的成就和消失，因為變化自身只有兩個地方的緣故。有人說也可以變化出四種，如同衣服等不成就（香味）。《婆沙論》第一百三十五卷有兩種說法。評論家說，這樣說的人，即使變化出香味也沒有成就的過失，如同人的衣服、裝飾品、花香，即使在身上也不成就。按照上面的論文，可知，如果變化出人讓他說話，不是執受大種（四大元素）所造的也不成就。只依據自身變化作問答的緣故。有人問答說，問不同的（問題）。
【English Translation】 English version: If it is said that it is not so, then this disappears and that appears, and since the middle is cut off, there should be no meaning of walking. Or it is because the Buddha's majestic power is inconceivable, and it arrives with a single thought, which is immeasurable. The ability to intentionally walk in this way is only possessed by the World Honored One. The Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa, a commentary on the Abhidharma) Volume 141 has two views. This treatise and the Nyaya (Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, a commentary on the Abhidharma) agree with the latter view. Fearing it would be tedious, it is not cited.
Treatise: Transformation is again of two kinds, namely the desire realm transformation (kāmadhātu, the realm of desire) and the form realm transformation (rūpadhātu, the realm of form). Transformation is divided into two, namely the desire realm transformation and the form realm transformation.
Treatise: If the desire realm transformation reaches (the form realm), it disappears because it has no fragrance or taste. It describes the amount of realms possessed by the two realm transformations.
Treatise: These two realm transformations (self and other) together make eight. It describes the difference in transformations. In the desire realm, making a desire realm transformation has two kinds, belonging to oneself and belonging to others. Making a form realm transformation also has two kinds, namely self and other, which together are four. In the form realm, it is also four, so it becomes eight. Transforming on oneself is called transformation belonging to oneself. If transforming an outsider, it is called transformation belonging to others.
Treatise: If born in the form realm (making a desire realm transformation), (why) is there no achievement or loss of fragrance and taste? This is a difficult question. If so, being born in the form realm and transforming four kinds (of transformations), there is transformation belonging to oneself making a desire realm transformation, why is there no achievement or loss of fragrance and taste? This is asking about self-transformation.
Treatise: Like the transformation of clothing and ornaments that does not achieve (fragrance and taste). This is the answer. Even if born in the form realm, there is transformation belonging to oneself, like clothing and ornaments, which do not combine with the roots (senses), and the transformation does not achieve (fragrance and taste). According to the meaning of this answer, the transformation belonging to others is certainly not achieved. Among the transformations belonging to oneself, there are still those that are not achieved.
Treatise: Some say that in the form realm, only two places (self and other) can be transformed. This is the second answer. The Nyaya says that even if born in the form realm and making a desire realm transformation, there is no achievement or loss of form realm fragrance and taste, because transforming oneself only has two places. Some say that four can also be transformed, like clothing, etc., which do not achieve (fragrance and taste). The Vibhasa Volume 135 has two views. The commentator says that those who say this, even if transforming fragrance and taste, there is no fault of achievement, like people's clothes, ornaments, flowers, and fragrances, even if they are on the body, they are not achieved. According to the above treatise, it is known that if transforming a person to speak, it is not made of the possessed great elements (mahābhūta, the four great elements) and is also not achieved. It is only based on self-transformation that questions and answers are made. Someone asked and answered, asking different (questions).
界化色．觸皆成就不。解云皆成就。如婆沙一百三十二云。有成就欲界系大種。亦色界系大種。謂生欲界色界大種現在前。若生色界作欲界化發欲界語。又云。有成就欲界系大種。亦色界系所造色。謂生欲界得色界善心。若生色界作欲界化發欲界語 婆沙既言若生色界作欲界化發欲界語。成就欲界大種及所造色。文不別簡。明知異界化若化自。若化他身。色．觸二種。皆悉成就義準應知。若即身化。若離身化。亦皆成就 或可。若即身化即成就。若離身化即不成就。婆沙言成就者據即身化。雖有兩解前解為勝。又婆沙云。如是說者。離所化身不發化語。語者必由粗四大種相擊起故 今評二釋前解為非。若別作化人有成就得不應道理。諸有為法住現在世。有成就得必是有情。說別化人為有情法。不應道理。故住現在世色．觸二境。若是有情住散心位。無非執受諸化人語聲。應是執受大種所發。又婆沙評家云。自身化如莊嚴具尚不成就。況異身化而成就也。以此證知。前解為失。婆沙依身發語者化人身。非化主身。
論化作事為即是通。已下四行頌。第二明通果差別。
論曰至有差別故。述通果有二。一能化心。二所化事。此明能化心。依地差別分為十四。先略明。后廣明。此略舉也。
論。依初靜慮
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『界化色．觸皆成就不』。解釋為『皆成就』。如《婆沙》第一百三十二卷所說：『有成就欲界系大種，亦系大種。』意思是說，如果眾生在欲界大種現在前，或者生在而作欲界變化，發出欲界語言。又說：『有成就欲界系大種，亦系所造色。』意思是說，如果眾生生在欲界，得到善心，或者生在而作欲界變化，發出欲界語言。《婆沙》既然說如果眾生生在**而作欲界變化，發出欲界語言，就成就欲界大種及所造色，文中沒有特別區分，明確說明不同界的變化，無論是變化自身還是變化他人之身，色、觸二種，都完全成就，這個道理應該知道。無論是即身變化，還是離身變化，也都成就。或者說，如果是即身變化就成就，如果是離身變化就不成就。《婆沙》所說的成就，是根據即身變化而言。雖然有兩種解釋，但前一種解釋更好。另外，《婆沙》說：『這樣說來，離開所變化的身，就不能發出變化之語，因為語言一定是由粗四大種相互撞擊而產生的。』現在評論這兩種解釋，前一種解釋是不對的。如果另外作出化人，有成就的說法是不合理的。諸有為法住在現在世，有成就的獲得必定是有情。說另外變化的人是有情法，是不合理的。所以，住在現在世的色、觸二境，如果是有情住在散亂心位，沒有不執受的，這些化人的語聲，應該是執受大種所發出的。另外，《婆沙》的評論家說，自身變化，比如莊嚴具尚且不成就，何況是異身變化而成就呢？由此可以證明，前一種解釋是錯誤的。《婆沙》所依據的身發語，是化人身，不是化主身。
關於變化所作之事是否就是神通，以下四行頌文，第二是說明神通果報的差別。
論曰至有差別故。敘述神通果報有二：一是能變化的心，二是所變化的事。這裡說明能變化的心，根據地的差別分為十四種。先簡略說明，后詳細說明。這裡是簡略地舉出。
論：依初靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）
【English Translation】 English version 'The manifested form and touch are all accomplished.' It is explained as 'all accomplished.' As stated in Vibhasa, volume 132: 'There is accomplishment of the desire realm's great elements, and also -related great elements.' This means that if beings in the desire realm, the ** great elements are present, or if they are born in ** and perform transformations of the desire realm, uttering speech of the desire realm. It also says: 'There is accomplishment of the desire realm's great elements, and also -related derived form.' This means that if beings are born in the desire realm and attain ** wholesome mind, or if they are born in ** and perform transformations of the desire realm, uttering speech of the desire realm. Since Vibhasa says that if beings are born in ** and perform transformations of the desire realm, uttering speech of the desire realm, then the great elements and derived form of the desire realm are accomplished, and the text does not specifically distinguish, it clearly indicates that transformations of different realms, whether transforming oneself or transforming the body of others, the two aspects of form and touch are fully accomplished. This principle should be understood. Whether it is transformation of one's own body or transformation separate from the body, both are accomplished. Alternatively, if it is transformation of one's own body, it is accomplished; if it is transformation separate from the body, it is not accomplished. The accomplishment mentioned in Vibhasa refers to transformation of one's own body. Although there are two explanations, the former is better. Furthermore, Vibhasa says: 'In this way, one cannot utter transformed speech apart from the transformed body, because speech must be produced by the collision of the coarse four great elements.' Now, commenting on these two explanations, the former is incorrect. If a transformed person is created separately, it is unreasonable to say that there is accomplishment. All conditioned dharmas that abide in the present world, the attainment of accomplishment must be sentient beings. It is unreasonable to say that the separately transformed person is a sentient being's dharma. Therefore, the two realms of form and touch that abide in the present world, if sentient beings abide in a distracted state of mind, there is none that is not apprehended, and the voices of these transformed people should be produced by the apprehended great elements. Furthermore, the commentator of Vibhasa says that even transformations of one's own body, such as ornaments, are not accomplished, let alone transformations of another's body. From this, it can be proven that the former explanation is incorrect. The body on which Vibhasa relies to utter speech is the transformed person's body, not the transformer's body.
Regarding whether the actions performed by transformation are the same as supernormal powers, the following four lines of verse, the second is to explain the differences in the fruits of supernormal powers.
The treatise says, 'From the treatise to because there are differences.' Narrating the fruits of supernormal powers, there are two: one is the mind that can transform, and the other is the things that are transformed. Here, it explains the mind that can transform, which is divided into fourteen types according to the differences in the grounds. First, a brief explanation, then a detailed explanation. Here is a brief summary.
Treatise: Relying on the first Dhyana (Dhyana, meditation)
至勢力劣故。廣釋也。謂初禪二。二禪三。三禪四。四禪五。總有十四化心。上地定心生下果化。下地定心不生上果。下地定心勢力劣故。
論。第二定等至亦得名勝。述勝劣也。如第二．第三．第四定果。欲界等化心對初定．二定．三定等果上地化心。若以系地以論。欲等化心劣初禪等化心。若以所依及行。即依上地下地化心。勝依下地上地化心。以二禪欲界化勝初禪。初禪化雖是欲界系依第二禪故。從欲界向上行至第二禪故。初禪。初禪化者依初禪故。向上行唯至初禪故。
論。如得靜慮至俱時得故。述得時也。正理論云。然得靜慮總有三時。離染．受生．加行異故。謂離下染得上靜慮時。亦得此定所引化心果。從上地沒生色界時。及由加行起勝功德。但有新得所依靜慮。亦兼得彼所引化心。依欲界身得阿羅漢。及練根位得應果時。十四化心一時總得。乃至。身在第四靜慮得阿羅漢。得五化心 婆沙一百二十二云。諸變化事是前道及化心果 又百三十五云。化當言有心無心。答當言無心。然化有二種。一修得。此無心。二生得。此有心。此中說修得化。非心依故 以父母生身亦至梵世。
論諸從靜慮至還從門出。述出入心也 故此從二者。謂從靜慮定及化心生 能生二者。謂能生化及凈定。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為（下地定心）勢力弱的緣故。這是廣為解釋。指的是初禪有兩種化心，二禪有三種，三禪有四種，四禪有五種，總共有十四種化心。上地的定心能生出下地的果報化心，而下地的定心不能生出上地的果報化心，因為下地的定心勢力弱的緣故。
論：第二禪等至（Samāpatti，入定）也可以稱為勝。這是敘述勝劣。例如第二禪、第三禪、第四禪的果報，欲界等的化心相對於初禪、二禪、三禪等的果報，上地的化心。如果以所繫之地來論，欲界等的化心劣於初禪等的化心。如果以所依和所行來說，即依上地下地的化心勝過依下地上地的化心。因為二禪的欲界化心勝過初禪，初禪的化心雖然是欲界所繫，但它所依的是第二禪的緣故。從欲界向上行至第二禪的緣故。初禪，初禪的化心是因為依于初禪的緣故。向上行只能到初禪的緣故。
論：如得到靜慮（Dhyāna，禪定）乃至同時得到（化心），這是敘述得到的時間。正理論說：『得到靜慮總共有三種時間，離染、受生、加行不同之故。』指的是離開下地的染污而得到上地的靜慮時，也得到此定所引發的化心果報。從上地死亡而生到下地時，以及通過加行而生起殊勝功德時，只要新得到所依的靜慮，也兼帶得到它所引發的化心。依欲界身得到阿羅漢（Arhat，聲聞乘的最高果位），以及在練根位得到應果時，十四種化心一時全部得到。乃至，身在第四靜慮得到阿羅漢，得到五種化心。《婆沙論》第一百二十二卷說：『各種變化的事情是前道和化心的果報。』又第一百三十五卷說：『化應當說是無心還是有心？』回答說：『應當說是無心。』然而化有兩種，一是修得的，這種是無心的；二是生得的，這種是有心的。這裡說的是修得的化，不是心所依的緣故。以父母所生的身體也能到達梵世（Brahmaloka，色界的第一層天）。
論：各種從靜慮乃至還從門出。這是敘述出入心。所以這裡說的從二者，指的是從靜慮定和化心生出。能生二者，指的是能生出化心和清凈定。
【English Translation】 English version: It is because of the weakness of the power (of the lower realm's meditative mind). This is a broad explanation. It refers to the fact that the first Dhyāna (meditative absorption) has two transformation minds, the second Dhyāna has three, the third Dhyāna has four, and the fourth Dhyāna has five, totaling fourteen transformation minds. The meditative mind of the higher realm can produce the transformation mind of the lower realm's result, while the meditative mind of the lower realm cannot produce the result of the higher realm, because the meditative mind of the lower realm is weak in power.
Treatise: The second Samāpatti (attainment) and so on can also be called superior. This is a description of superiority and inferiority. For example, the results of the second, third, and fourth Dhyānas, the transformation minds of the desire realm, etc., are relative to the results of the first, second, and third Dhyānas, etc., the transformation minds of the higher realm. If we discuss it in terms of the realm to which it belongs, the transformation minds of the desire realm, etc., are inferior to the transformation minds of the first Dhyāna, etc. If we consider the basis and the activity, then the transformation mind that relies on the higher realm and is in the lower realm is superior to the transformation mind that relies on the lower realm and is in the higher realm. Because the desire realm transformation of the second Dhyāna is superior to the first Dhyāna, although the transformation of the first Dhyāna belongs to the desire realm, it relies on the second Dhyāna. It is because it ascends from the desire realm to the second Dhyāna. The first Dhyāna, the transformation of the first Dhyāna, is because it relies on the first Dhyāna. Ascending upwards, it can only reach the first Dhyāna.
Treatise: As in obtaining Dhyāna (meditative absorption) up to obtaining (transformation minds) simultaneously, this describes the time of obtaining. The Nyāyānusāra says: 'There are three times for obtaining Dhyāna in general, because of the differences in separation from defilement, rebirth, and effort.' It refers to when one leaves the defilement of the lower realm and obtains the Dhyāna of the higher realm, one also obtains the result of the transformation mind caused by this Dhyāna. When one dies from the higher realm and is reborn in the lower realm, and when one generates superior merit through effort, as long as one newly obtains the Dhyāna on which it relies, one also obtains the transformation mind caused by it. When one obtains Arhatship (the highest stage of the Hearer Vehicle) in the desire realm body, and when one obtains the result of non-returning in the stage of training the roots, all fourteen transformation minds are obtained at once. Even if one is in the fourth Dhyāna and obtains Arhatship, one obtains five transformation minds. Mahāvibhāṣā volume 122 says: 'Various transformation events are the results of the previous path and transformation mind.' Also, volume 135 says: 'Should transformation be said to be with mind or without mind?' The answer is: 'It should be said to be without mind.' However, there are two kinds of transformation, one is obtained through cultivation, which is without mind; the other is obtained by birth, which is with mind. This speaks of transformation obtained through cultivation, not because it relies on the mind. With the body born of parents, one can also reach the Brahmaloka (the world of Brahma).
Treatise: All from Dhyāna up to also exiting from the door. This describes the entering and exiting of the mind. Therefore, the 'two' mentioned here refers to arising from Dhyāna and transformation mind. 'Able to produce two' refers to being able to produce transformation and pure concentration.
論。諸所化事至起表心故。述二種化 化事唯自地心者。即欲界心還化欲界事等。若作發言初二地。自地化心語。二禪已上。下地化心語。已上地心不發語故。正理論云。若生欲界第二定等化事轉時。如何起表非威儀路．工巧處心。依異界身而可現起。彼必依止自界身故。此無有過。引彼界攝大種現前為所依故。謂引色界大種現前。與欲界身密合而住。依之起彼能發表心。無定地表心依散地身過。或起依定能發表心。如依定生天眼．耳識。
論。若一化主至諸所化亦然。述化主．化人語默同也。
論。此但說余至亦容有別。述佛異余化語。
論。發語心起至化如何語。徴難也。
論。由先願力至亦得發語。明願心留化別起語心。起語心從化心引故亦名化心。如是從威儀更生意識亦名威儀心。若克性說是通果心。通果心中有是化事心。有是發語心。二心用不同也。定非欲界威儀．工巧心。以欲界通果心。不生欲界威儀．工巧心故。梵王作欲界語者。是通果心。
論。非唯化主至應慈尊世。明留化至命終后。
論。唯堅實體至不留肉等。唯明留堅實也。
論。有餘師說至持令久住。述異釋也。
論。初習業者至多少化事。明能化用心多少。正理論云。初習業者。
由多化心要附所依起一化事。習業成滿由一化心。能不附所依起眾多化事。
述曰。所依謂非化物。
論。如是十四至無記攝義。明修得化心唯是無記性。
論。餘生得等至化九除聲。述生得異修得化。
論。理實無能至亦無有失。論主正釋。五根唯是異熟．長養不通化也 言化九處。據不離根。正理論云。生所得等。于欲界中化為九處。色界化七。依不離根言化九等。理實無有能化作根 準二論釋。諸論之中。言化九處者。依不離根說 問修得言化四處。豈不能自身化不離根邪。因何不許化九處也 答由生得化與根相雜故能化九。修得化附根而住。以不相雜故名化四。又正理論云。修果無心。余化容有。修果起表。由化主心。余容自心起身．語表。修果飲食若為資身。必在化主身中消化。若為餘事吞金．石等。或即住彼化事身中。或隨所宜置在別處。余化飲食隨住所依。修果化心唯無記性。余通三性。謂善．惡等。如天龍等能變化心。彼亦能為自他身化。
論。天眼耳言為因何義。已下一行頌。第五明天眼．耳。
論曰至名天眼耳。出天眼．耳體用。
論。如是眼耳何故名天。問名天所以。
論。體即是天定地攝故。答天名也。自有天非定地。但是定地。皆是天
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：由多重變化的心識想要附著于所依賴的事物而發起一種變化之事，通過習練業力圓滿，由單一變化的心識，能夠不附著于所依賴的事物而發起眾多變化之事。
述曰：所依賴的事物指的是非變化之物。
論：像這樣，從十四界到無記所攝的意義，說明通過修行獲得的化心僅僅是無記性質的。
論：其餘由生得等所至的變化，除了聲音之外還有九種。敘述了生得變化與修得變化的差異。
論：實際上沒有能力變化成根，也沒有失去變化的能力。論主正式解釋說，五根僅僅是異熟（vipāka，果報）和長養，不通於變化。所說的變化九處，是根據不離根的情況而言。正理論說，由生所得等，在欲界中變化為九處。**變化七處。依據不離根而言變化九等。實際上沒有能力變化成根。根據二論的解釋，諸論之中，所說的變化九處，是依據不離根而說的。問：修得變化說變化四處，難道不能自身變化不離根嗎？為什麼不允許變化九處呢？答：由於生得變化與根相互混雜，所以能夠變化九處。修得變化附著于根而住，因為不相互混雜，所以稱為變化四處。又，正理論說，修果沒有心識，其餘變化可以有。修果發起表業，由變化主的心識。其餘可以由自身的心識起身、語表。修果的飲食如果爲了資養身體，必定在變化主的身中消化。如果爲了其他事情，吞金、石等，或者就停留在那個變化之事的身體中，或者根據適宜放置在別處。其餘變化的飲食隨著住所而依賴。修果的化心僅僅是無記性質的，其餘通於三性，即善、惡等。如天（deva，天神）、龍（nāga，龍族）等能夠變化的心識，他們也能為自身或他身變化。
論：天眼（divyacakṣus，天眼）和天耳（divyaśrotra，天耳）所說是爲了什麼意義？下面一行頌文。第五，說明天眼和天耳。
論曰：到名為天眼耳。說明天眼和天耳的體性和作用。
論：像這樣的眼和耳，為什麼稱為天？問：稱為天的原因。
論：本體就是天，是禪定所攝持的緣故。答：是天的名稱。自有天並非禪定所攝持，但是禪定所攝持的，都是天。
【English Translation】 English version: When a mind of multiple transformations desires to attach to a dependent object and initiate a single transformation event, through the completion of habitual actions, a single mind of transformation can initiate numerous transformation events without attaching to a dependent object.
Commentary: 'Dependent object' refers to non-transformative things.
Treatise: Thus, from the fourteen realms to the meaning of being included in the non-specified, it clarifies that the mind of transformation attained through cultivation is only of a non-specified nature.
Treatise: The remaining transformations attained through birth, etc., have nine aspects excluding sound. It describes the difference between transformations attained through birth and those attained through cultivation.
Treatise: In reality, there is neither the ability to transform into roots nor the loss of the ability to transform. The treatise master formally explains that the five roots are only vipāka (result of karma) and nourishment, and do not extend to transformation. The so-called nine places of transformation are based on the condition of not being separate from the roots. The Nyāyapraveśa states that those attained through birth, etc., transform into nine places in the desire realm. Transforming seven places. Based on not being separate from the roots, it speaks of nine kinds of transformation. In reality, there is no ability to transform into roots. According to the interpretation of the two treatises, among the treatises, the so-called nine places of transformation are spoken of based on not being separate from the roots. Question: The transformation attained through cultivation says it transforms into four places. Can it not transform itself without being separate from the roots? Why is it not allowed to transform into nine places? Answer: Because the transformation attained through birth is mixed with the roots, it can transform into nine places. The transformation attained through cultivation attaches to the roots and resides there. Because they are not mixed, it is called transformation into four places. Also, the Nyāyapraveśa says that the result of cultivation has no mind, but other transformations can have it. The result of cultivation initiates expressive actions, by the mind of the transformation master. Others can initiate physical and verbal expressions by their own minds. If the food of the result of cultivation is for nourishing the body, it must be digested in the body of the transformation master. If it is for other things, such as swallowing gold or stones, it either stays in the body of that transformation event or is placed elsewhere as appropriate. The food of other transformations depends on the place of residence. The mind of transformation of the result of cultivation is only of a non-specified nature, while others are connected to the three natures, namely good, evil, etc. For example, devas (gods) and nāgas (dragons) have minds capable of transformation, and they can also transform for themselves or others.
Treatise: What is the meaning of what is said about the divine eye (divyacakṣus) and the divine ear (divyaśrotra)? The following verse. Fifth, it explains the divine eye and ear.
Treatise: To be named divine eye and ear. It explains the substance and function of the divine eye and ear.
Treatise: Why are such eyes and ears called divine? Question: The reason for being called divine.
Treatise: The substance is divine because it is contained by samādhi (meditative concentration). Answer: It is the name of divine. There are divine beings that are not contained by samādhi, but those contained by samādhi are all divine.
故。所以定地攝者。故名為天。
論。然天眼耳至似天眼耳。有三類也。前二有兩釋。天之眼．耳名天眼．耳。是屬主釋。若天即眼．耳是持業釋。第三是有財釋。實非天眼．耳。全取天眼．耳名。
論。如藏臣寶至及中有等。指事也。
論。修得眼耳至無翳無缺。明修得眼．耳恒是同分。有二義故。一恒與識俱得見．聞故。二無翳．無缺故。
論。如生色界至天眼見無遺。明力用也。如生色界生得天眼見障色等。依婆沙一百八十六云。又天眼在左在右。勝劣品類必同。問諸有此生眼不見色。彼依何法引發天眼耶。答如有一得自性念生先餘生中眼曾見色。彼依此故引發天眼。天耳亦爾。問諸有獲得宿住隨念智者。亦能引發天眼．天耳。此中何故不說。答應說。而不說者。當知此義有餘。有說。若於生盲者天眼。生聾者天耳。俱能引發者此中說之。宿住隨念智唯能引發彼類天眼。非天耳故。所以不說。所以者何。諸生聾無宿住隨念智故。要由他教此智生故。是以不說 又云。法蘊足論說。于眼因。有異色界大種所造天眼清凈現前。由此天眼能見前．后．左．右．上．下諸色差別。非石壁等所能障故。問此是天眼於一切頓現。見十方諸色境不。有說能見。有說不能。然能面向一方隨欲能見。不須
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，能夠穩定地攝取（色等）對境，所以稱為『天』（deva，神）。
論：然而，天眼、天耳，乃至相似於天眼、天耳，有三種類別。前兩種有兩種解釋：天的眼、耳，名為天眼、天耳，這是屬於主格的解釋。如果說天就是眼、耳，這是屬於持業釋（ कर्मधारय samāsa）的解釋。第三種是有財釋（tad-dhita，具有…的）。實際上並非真正的天眼、天耳，只是完全取用天眼、天耳的名稱。
論：例如藏臣的寶物，以及中有（antarabhava，中陰身）等等，是指示事物。
論：通過修習獲得的眼、耳，沒有翳障、沒有殘缺，說明通過修習獲得的眼、耳，始終是同分（sabhāga，同類）的。有兩個原因：一是始終與識一同獲得見、聞的能力；二是無翳障、無殘缺。
論：例如生（janman，出生）生來就具有天眼，能夠毫無遺漏地看見事物，說明了天眼的作用。例如，生生來就具有天眼，能夠看見被障礙物遮擋的顏色等等。依據《婆沙論》（Vibhasa）第一百八十六卷所說：而且天眼無論在左眼還是右眼，其殊勝程度和品類必定相同。問：如果有人天生眼睛看不見東西，那麼他們依靠什麼方法來引發天眼呢？答：如果有人獲得自性念（svabhāva-smṛti，自性憶念），在前世的生命中眼睛曾經見過顏色，那麼他們就依靠這個原因來引發天眼。天耳也是如此。問：如果有人獲得了宿住隨念智（pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna，憶宿命智），也能引發天眼、天耳，為什麼這裡沒有說呢？答：應該說，但是沒有說，應當知道這個意義還有剩餘。有人說：如果是對於天生的盲人，天眼；天生的聾人，天耳，都能引發，那麼這裡就說了。宿住隨念智只能引發那一類的天眼，不能引發天耳，所以沒有說。為什麼呢？因為天生的聾人沒有宿住隨念智的緣故。一定要通過其他的教導，這種智慧才能產生，因此沒有說。又說，《法蘊足論》（Dharmaskandha）說：在眼睛的因緣中，有不同的**大種（mahābhūta，四大）所造的天眼清凈地顯現出來。由此天眼能夠看見前、后、左、右、上、下各種顏色的差別，不會被石壁等物所障礙。問：這是天眼能夠同時顯現一切，看見十方所有的色境嗎？有人說能看見，有人說不能。但是能夠面向一方，隨自己的意願就能看見，不需要。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, because it can stably grasp objects (such as form), it is called 'deva' (god).
Treatise: However, the divine eye, the divine ear, and even those similar to the divine eye and ear, are of three types. The first two have two explanations: the eye and ear of a deva are called the divine eye and ear, which belongs to the appositional explanation. If it is said that the deva is the eye and ear, it is a कर्मधारय samāsa (karmadhāraya samāsa) explanation. The third is the possessive explanation (tad-dhita, having...). In reality, they are not true divine eyes and ears, but merely take the name of divine eyes and ears.
Treatise: For example, the treasure of a minister, and the intermediate existence (antarabhava, intermediate state), etc., are indicative of things.
Treatise: The eye and ear obtained through cultivation, without obscuration or defect, indicate that the eye and ear obtained through cultivation are always of the same category (sabhāga, homogeneous). There are two reasons: first, they always obtain the ability to see and hear together with consciousness; second, they are without obscuration or defect.
Treatise: For example, being born (janman, birth) with a divine eye that can see everything without omission, illustrates the function of the divine eye. For example, being born with a divine eye that can see colors obstructed by obstacles, etc. According to the Vibhasa, volume 186: Moreover, whether the divine eye is in the left or right eye, its superiority and category must be the same. Question: If someone is born blind, what method do they rely on to evoke the divine eye? Answer: If someone obtains self-nature mindfulness (svabhāva-smṛti, self-nature recollection), and in a previous life their eyes had seen colors, then they rely on this cause to evoke the divine eye. The same is true for the divine ear. Question: If someone obtains the knowledge of remembering past lives (pūrva-nivāsānusmṛti-jñāna, knowledge of remembering past lives), they can also evoke the divine eye and ear, why is this not mentioned here? Answer: It should be mentioned, but it is not, it should be known that this meaning has a remainder. Some say: If it is for those born blind, the divine eye; those born deaf, the divine ear, can be evoked, then it is mentioned here. The knowledge of remembering past lives can only evoke that type of divine eye, not the divine ear, so it is not mentioned. Why? Because those born deaf do not have the knowledge of remembering past lives. This wisdom must be produced through other teachings, therefore it is not mentioned. Furthermore, the Dharmaskandha says: In the cause of the eye, the pure divine eye created by different great elements (mahābhūta, the four great elements) manifests purely. With this divine eye, one can see the differences in colors in front, behind, left, right, above, and below, and it is not obstructed by stone walls, etc. Question: Does this divine eye simultaneously manifest everything, seeing all the realms of form in the ten directions? Some say it can see, some say it cannot. However, it can face one direction and see as desired, without needing to.
迴轉。故說能見十方。
論。前說化心修余得異。下兩行頌。第六明神境等五亦有修得．余得異也。
論曰至是業成攝。標神境有五種別。修得因定。生得隨生彼趣得。因咒得。因藥得也 業成者。曼馱多王。及中有等 曼馱多此言我養。等謂等餘業成之類。
論。他心智類至加占相成。明他心有四。謂修得．生得．咒成得。無藥成．業成。加占相知。
論。餘三各三。謂修．生．業。謂天眼．耳．及宿住智力用有異。由因各別由斯有同分也。諸法相因不可定準。如琥珀拾芥。磁石引鐵作用各別。
論。除修所得至不得通名。三性分別。非修得者通三性。名生處．得．自性念生智等。
論。人中都無生所得者。有自性念生智。余趣有生處得智。無自性念生智。自性念生者。以本性念前前生事也。
論。本性念生業所成攝生。修不惱眾生業得也。
論。于地獄中至如應當知。述諸趣生處得智知時有異也。依婆沙一百一雜釋自性念生智及生處得智。論云。本性念生智現憶宿住事者。唯人趣有。餘四趣中無有此智。生處得智憶宿住事。地獄等有。如契經說。地獄有情互相謂言。奇哉自誤。我等過去曾聞沙門．婆羅門。說諸欲過患能引未來可怖畏事。汝等應斷。我等雖聞。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：迴轉，所以說能夠見到十方。
論：前面說了通過修習禪定而生起的化心，與通過其他方式獲得的化心有所不同。下面兩行偈頌，第六點說明了神境等五種神通，也有通過修習禪定獲得和通過其他方式獲得的差別。
論曰：到『是業成攝』，標明神境有五種差別。修得是由於禪定而獲得；生得是隨著所生的趣而自然獲得；因咒得是由於咒語而獲得；因藥得是由於藥物而獲得。業成，例如曼馱多王，以及中有等。曼馱多，這裡的意思是『我養』。『等』是指類似於其他通過業力成就的情況。
論：『他心智類至加占相成』，說明他心智有四種。即修得、生得、咒成得，沒有藥成，以及業成。加上占卜來互相印證。
論：其餘三種各有三種，即修得、生得、業成。所謂天眼、天耳以及宿住智，其力量和作用各有不同，這是由於因緣各不相同，因此也有共同之處。諸法的相互關係無法確定，就像琥珀可以吸起芥子，磁石可以吸引鐵，它們的作用各不相同。
論：『除修所得至不得通名』，對三種性質進行分別。不是通過修習禪定獲得的，都屬於三性，名稱為生處得、自性念生智等。
論：人中都沒有生所得的智慧。有自性念生智。其餘的趣有生處得智，沒有自性念生智。自性念生，是憑藉本性回憶前世的事情。
論：本性念生屬於業力所成就。修不惱害眾生的業而獲得。
論：『于地獄中至如應當知』，敘述了各個趣的生處得智，在知曉時間上有所不同。依據《婆沙論》第一百一卷的雜釋，自性念生智和生處得智。論中說：『本性念生智，能夠回憶宿世的事情，只有人趣才有。其餘四趣中沒有這種智慧。生處得智慧夠回憶宿世的事情，地獄等處有。』如契經所說，地獄中的有情互相說道：『奇怪啊，我們自己耽誤了自己。我們過去曾經聽聞沙門（指佛教出家人，梵文：Śrāmaṇa）、婆羅門（指婆羅門教修行者，梵文：Brāhmaṇa）說諸欲的過患，能夠引來未來可怕的事情。你們應當斷除。我們雖然聽聞了，'
【English Translation】 English version: Reversion. Therefore, it is said that one can see the ten directions.
Treatise: The previous section stated that the transformation-mind (化心) arising from cultivation differs from that obtained through other means. The following two lines of verse, the sixth point, explain that the five supernormal powers, including divine realms (神境), also have differences in what is obtained through cultivation and what is obtained through other means.
Treatise says: 'To 'is karma-accomplished-included (是業成攝),' it marks that divine realms have five kinds of distinctions. Obtained through cultivation (修得) is due to samadhi (定); born-with-obtained (生得) is naturally obtained along with the realm one is born into; obtained through mantra (因咒得) is due to mantras; obtained through medicine (因藥得) is due to medicine. Karma-accomplished (業成), for example, King Mandhātar (曼馱多), and the intermediate existence (中有) etc. Mandhātar, here means 'I nourish.' 'Etc.' refers to other similar cases of accomplishment through karma.
Treatise: 'Other-minds-wisdom-category to adding-divination-mutually-accomplished (他心智類至加占相成),' explains that other-minds-wisdom has four kinds. Namely, obtained through cultivation, born-with-obtained, mantra-accomplished-obtained, no medicine-accomplished, and karma-accomplished. Add divination to mutually verify.
Treatise: The remaining three each have three, namely, cultivation, birth, and karma. The powers and functions of the so-called divine eye (天眼), divine ear (天耳), and knowledge of past lives (宿住智) are different, due to different causes and conditions, and therefore also have commonalities. The relationships between phenomena cannot be definitively determined, just as amber can pick up mustard seeds, and magnets can attract iron, their functions are different.
Treatise: 'Except-cultivation-obtained to not-obtained-common-name (除修所得至不得通名),' distinguishes the three natures. What is not obtained through cultivation belongs to all three natures, and is named born-place-obtained (生處得), self-nature-mind-born-wisdom (自性念生智), etc.
Treatise: Among humans, there is no born-with-obtained wisdom. There is self-nature-mind-born-wisdom. Other realms have born-place-obtained wisdom, but no self-nature-mind-born-wisdom. Self-nature-mind-born is relying on one's inherent nature to recall past lives.
Treatise: Self-nature-mind-born is included in karma-accomplished. Obtained by cultivating the karma of not harming sentient beings.
Treatise: 'In-hell-to-as-should-be-known (于地獄中至如應當知),' describes that the born-place-obtained wisdom of various realms differs in the time of knowing. According to the miscellaneous explanation in the one hundred and first volume of the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論), self-nature-mind-born-wisdom and born-place-obtained wisdom. The treatise says: 'Self-nature-mind-born-wisdom, which can recall past lives, only exists in the human realm. The other four realms do not have this wisdom. Born-place-obtained wisdom can recall past lives, and exists in hells, etc.' As the sutra says, sentient beings in hell say to each other: 'How strange, we have delayed ourselves. In the past, we heard Śrāmaṇas (沙門, Buddhist renunciates) and Brāhmaṇas (婆羅門, Brahmanical practitioners) speak of the faults of desires, which can lead to terrible future events. You should abandon them. Although we heard it,'
而不信用。今因彼欲受斯劇苦。問彼於何時憶。答初生未受苦時。若受苦已。次前滅事尚不能憶。況久滅事。無覆無記唯住威儀路(余如傍生說)傍生有生處得智。憶宿住事住三種心。如知他心說。評曰應作是說。能憶多生如狼憶知五百生事。鬼趣生處得智。知宿住事並如傍生說。如有頌曰。我昔集珍財 以法或非法 他今受富樂 我獨受貧苦 天趣中如傍生說。人趣中無生處得智憶宿住事。非田器故。為本性念生智等所損覆故。為宿住隨念通及愿智等所映蔽故。本性念生智出體釋名。出體者。以惠為自性。釋名者。生謂前生諸有漏法。智謂此生能知彼智。念謂此智俱生勝念。言本性者。簡別修得。即本性智由勝念力。知過去生諸有漏法故。名本性念生智。複次本性者。謂前際法。即過去生有漏法性。智由念力知本性生。故名本性念生智(不反釋。以修得故)體雖是惠。名念者如念處釋。何處有。唯人趣有。所以者何。唯欲界人趣中。能造殊勝業。引得此智故。又人趣中智惠猛利勝餘趣故。因何業得。評曰應作是說。若諸有情不造惱害他業。恒作饒益他事。由斯業故。在母腹中不為風．熱．淡飲病等之所逼切。后出胎時無迫迮苦。是故能憶諸宿住事。能憶幾生。有說憶七生(引一伽吒證)。有說憶五百生(引二比丘證
)。有說憶成壞劫(引王為子求姄證)。問菩薩憶九十一劫。一說宿住智。一說自性念生智。兩說無評。問本性念生智慧憶知中有不。評曰應作是說。亦能憶知中有中事。所以者何。若不憶知此智知境應成間雜。謂少分能知。少分不知故。
俱舍論疏卷第二十七
保延三年九月八日黃昏于南新屋點了
覺樹記
以黃園古本一交了理 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二十八
沙門法寶撰
分別定品第八之一
心一境性名之為定。此品廣明名分別定品。前明智品能依定果。此明定品智所依因。
論。已說諸智至今次當辨。結前起后。
論。于中先辨至靜慮云何。此品大文有二 一明德所依定。二明余性功德。此明德所依定 于中有四。一明靜慮。二明無色。三明等至。四明等持。此文第一明靜慮也文中有三。一問。二答。三釋。此問起也。
論曰至靜慮差別。此述先說靜慮所以。諸功德多依此四故先辨也。
論。此總有四種謂初二三四。列四名也。正理論云。豈諸靜慮無如慈等不共名想。而今但就初等四數建立別名。此中非無不共名想。然無唯遍攝一地名。以諸靜慮各有二種。謂定及生。有差別故。諸生
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人說，這是回憶成劫（憶念世界經歷成住壞空的過程）和壞劫（世界毀滅的階段）。（有人）引用國王爲了兒子而尋求姄（女子）的例子來證明這一點。問：菩薩回憶九十一劫（極長的時間單位），一種說法是宿住智（回憶過去世的能力），一種說法是自性念生智（自然產生的回憶能力）。兩種說法沒有定論。問：本性念生智慧夠憶知中有（死亡和投胎之間的過渡狀態）嗎？評判說：應該這樣說，也能憶知中有中的事情。為什麼呢？如果不憶知，這種智慧所知的境界就應該成為間雜的，也就是說，少部分能知，少部分不能知。
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十七
保延三年九月八日黃昏于南新屋點了
覺樹記
以黃園古本一校了理 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十八
沙門法寶撰
分別定品第八之一
心一境性（心專注于單一對象的狀態）名為定（禪定）。此品廣泛闡明，故名分別定品。前面闡明智品（智慧的類別），是能依定（禪定）所產生的果實。此品闡明定品（禪定的類別），是智慧所依賴的因。
論：已經說了諸智（各種智慧），現在接下來應當辨析（禪定）。總結前文，開啟後文。
論：其中先辨析什麼是靜慮（禪定）。此品的大致內容有二：一是闡明功德所依賴的定（禪定），二是闡明其他性質的功德。這裡闡明功德所依賴的定（禪定），其中有四部分：一是闡明靜慮（禪定），二是闡明無色（無色界禪定），三是闡明等至（入定），四是闡明等持（保持禪定）。此文是第一部分，闡明靜慮（禪定），文中包含三部分：一問，二答，三釋。這裡是提問。
論曰：直到靜慮的差別。這裡陳述先前所說的靜慮（禪定）的原因。因為諸多的功德都依賴於這四種禪定，所以先辨析它們。
論：此總共有四種，即初禪、二禪、三禪、四禪。這裡列出四禪的名稱。正理論說：難道諸靜慮（各種禪定）沒有像慈心禪等不共的名相嗎？而現在只就初禪等四種數量來建立不同的名稱。這裡並非沒有不共的名相，而是沒有唯一普遍涵蓋一個地（禪定境界）的名稱。因為諸靜慮（各種禪定）各有兩種，即定（禪定本身）和生（由禪定所生的果報），因此有差別。諸生（由禪定所生的果報）……
【English Translation】 English version: Some say this is recalling the formation, existence, destruction, and emptiness kalpas (aeons) (recollecting the process of the world experiencing formation, existence, destruction, and emptiness) and the destruction kalpa (the stage of the world's destruction). (Someone) cites the example of a king seeking a 'min' (woman) for his son to prove this. Question: A Bodhisattva recalls ninety-one kalpas (extremely long units of time). One explanation is the '宿住智' (Sùzhùzhì) [Ability to recall past lives], and another is the '自性念生智' (Zìxìng niàn shēng zhì) [Naturally arising wisdom of recollection]. There is no definitive conclusion on these two explanations. Question: Can the '本性念生智' (Běnxìng niàn shēng zhì) [Innate wisdom of recollection] recall the '中有' (Zhōngyǒu) [Intermediate state between death and rebirth]? The commentary says: It should be said that it can also recall matters in the '中有' (Zhōngyǒu) [Intermediate state]. Why? If it cannot recall, the realm known by this wisdom should become mixed, that is, it can know a small part and not know a small part.
《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā》 Volume 27
Completed at Nan-shin'ya on the evening of the 8th day of the 9th month of the 3rd year of Hoen
Written by Kakuju
Compared and corrected with the old copy from Kōen Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1822, 《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā》
《Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā》 Volume 28
Composed by Śramaṇa Fǎbǎo
Chapter 8, Part 1: Distinguishing Dhyāna
'心一境性' (Xīn yī jìng xìng) [The state of mind focused on a single object] is called '定' (Dìng) [Samadhi, concentration]. This chapter explains it extensively, hence the name 'Distinguishing Dhyāna'. The previous chapter explained the '智品' (Zhì pǐn) [Chapter on Wisdom], which is the fruit produced by relying on '定' (Dìng) [Samadhi]. This chapter explains the '定品' (Dìng pǐn) [Chapter on Samadhi], which is the cause upon which wisdom relies.
Treatise: Having spoken of the various wisdoms, now we should next distinguish '定' (Dìng) [Samadhi]. Summarizing the previous and initiating the following.
Treatise: Among these, first distinguish what is '靜慮' (Jìnglǜ) [Dhyāna, meditative absorption]. This chapter has two main sections: first, explaining the '定' (Dìng) [Samadhi] upon which merits rely; second, explaining the merits of other qualities. This explains the '定' (Dìng) [Samadhi] upon which merits rely, which has four parts: first, explaining '靜慮' (Jìnglǜ) [Dhyāna]; second, explaining the '無色' (Wúsè) [Formless realms]; third, explaining '等至' (Děng zhì) [Attainment]; fourth, explaining '等持' (Děng chí) [Sustained concentration]. This text is the first part, explaining '靜慮' (Jìnglǜ) [Dhyāna], which contains three parts: a question, an answer, and an explanation. This is the question.
Treatise says: Up to the differences of '靜慮' (Jìnglǜ) [Dhyāna]. This states the reason for previously speaking of '靜慮' (Jìnglǜ) [Dhyāna]. Because many merits rely on these four dhyānas, they are distinguished first.
Treatise: These are generally four types, namely the first dhyāna, second dhyāna, third dhyāna, and fourth dhyāna. This lists the names of the four dhyānas. The '正理論' (Zhèng lǐlùn) [Nyāyānusāra-śāstra] says: Are there no unique names and concepts for the various '靜慮' (Jìnglǜ) [Dhyānas] such as loving-kindness? But now, only based on the four numbers such as the first dhyāna, are different names established. Here, it is not that there are no unique names and concepts, but that there is no single name that universally encompasses one '地' (dì) [Realm of dhyāna]. Because the various '靜慮' (Jìnglǜ) [Dhyānas] each have two types, namely '定' (Dìng) [Dhyāna itself] and '生' (shēng) [Rebirth resulting from dhyāna], therefore there is a difference. The various '生' (shēng) [Rebirths resulting from dhyāna]...
靜慮如先已說。謂第四八。前三各三。無有別名總詮一地。諸定靜慮總相無別。謂此四體總而言之。皆善性攝。心一境性以善等持為自性故。若並助伴五蘊為性。此二既同難知差別。相雖無別。而地有異。為顯地異就數標名。故說為初乃至第四(已上論文)。
論。四各有二至五蘊為性。分四靜慮各有二種。謂生及定。生者十七天。定即善等持。即名心一境性。並五蘊也。
論。何名一境性。經部問也。
論。謂專一所緣。有部答也。
論。若爾即心至余心所法。經部難也。若專一所緣名之為定。即心專境依之建立。即此心王名三摩地。不應別有余心所法名三摩地。
論。別法令心至非體即心。有部答也。即心專一境。由別心所。能令心王於一境轉名為等持。非體即心。
論。豈不諸心至何用等持。經部難也。即此心王剎那滅故皆一境轉。法性自爾。何用等持令一境轉。第一難也。
論。若謂令心至等持無用。第二難也。若謂前念等持。令心於第二念。亦同前心緣一境轉。此即前心令其後心同一境轉。後心相應等持何用。
論。又由此故至心於一境轉。第三難也。如心所中定通其散位。散位非定。由修習故。三摩地成名心一境。何不即以此修習力。令心一境轉。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 關於靜慮（Dhyana，禪定），如前文已經敘述。指的是第四禪和第八禪。前三禪各有三種禪定。沒有其他的名稱來總括地詮釋一個禪地。各種禪定和靜慮的總相沒有差別。也就是說，這四種禪定的總體而言，都屬於善的範疇。心專注于單一境界的性質，以善的等持（Samadhi，三摩地）為自性。如果加上輔助的伴隨因素，則以五蘊（Skandha）為自性。這兩種情況既然相同，就難以區分差別。雖然相貌上沒有差別，但是所處的禪地有所不同。爲了彰顯禪地的不同，就用數字來標明名稱。所以說為初禪乃至第四禪（以上是論文內容）。
論：四禪各有兩種，即生和定，以五蘊為自性。將四種靜慮分為兩種，即生和定。生指的是十七天（指的是色界和無色界的眾生所居住的十七個天界）。定就是善的等持，也就是心專注于單一境界的性質，並以五蘊為體性。
論：什麼叫做一境性？（這是經部的提問）
論：指的是專一于所緣境。（這是有部的回答）
論：如果這樣，那麼心就……其餘心所法呢？（這是經部的詰難）如果專一于所緣境就叫做定，那麼心專注于境界，並依此建立，那麼這個心王（Citta，心）就叫做三摩地。不應該另外有其他的心所法（Caitasika）叫做三摩地。
論：另外的心所法能令心……不是體性就是心。（這是有部的回答）心專注于單一境界，由於有另外的心所法，能夠使心王在一個境界上運轉，這叫做等持。不是說它的體性就是心。
論：難道不是所有的心……要等持做什麼？（這是經部的詰難）既然這個心王剎那生滅，都在一個境界上運轉，這是法性自然如此，要等持來使它在一個境界上運轉做什麼？這是第一個詰難。
論：如果說讓心……等持沒有用。（這是第二個詰難）如果說前一念的等持，讓心在第二念，也和前一念的心一樣緣於一個境界運轉。這就是前一念的心讓后一念的心同一個境界運轉。那麼后一念心相應的等持有什麼用呢？
論：又因為這個緣故……心在一個境界上運轉。（這是第三個詰難）比如心所中的定，可以通於散亂的狀態。散亂的狀態不是定。由於修習的緣故，三摩地成就，叫做心一境性。為什麼不就用這個修習的力量，讓心在一個境界上運轉呢？
【English Translation】 English version Dhyana (靜慮, meditative absorption) has been described previously. It refers to the fourth and eighth Dhyanas. The first three each have three types. There are no other names to comprehensively explain a single ground. The general characteristics of various Samadhis (定, concentration) and Dhyanas are not different. That is to say, these four bodies, in general, all belong to the category of good. The nature of the mind being focused on a single object, with good Samadhi as its self-nature. If combined with auxiliary companions, then it has the five Skandhas (五蘊, aggregates) as its nature. Since these two situations are the same, it is difficult to distinguish the differences. Although there is no difference in appearance, the grounds are different. In order to highlight the differences in the grounds, numbers are used to mark the names. Therefore, it is said to be the first Dhyana up to the fourth Dhyana (the above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: Each of the four Dhyanas has two types, namely birth and Samadhi, with the five Skandhas as their nature. The four Dhyanas are divided into two types, namely birth and Samadhi. Birth refers to the seventeen heavens (referring to the seventeen heavens where beings in the Form Realm and Formless Realm reside). Samadhi is good Samadhi, which is the nature of the mind being focused on a single object, and has the five Skandhas as its essence.
Treatise: What is meant by 'one-pointedness of mind' (一境性)? (This is a question from the Sautrantika school)
Treatise: It refers to being solely focused on the object of attention. (This is the answer from the Sarvastivada school)
Treatise: If that is the case, then the mind... what about the other mental factors (心所法, Caitasikas)? (This is a challenge from the Sautrantika school) If being solely focused on the object of attention is called Samadhi, then the mind is focused on the object and established based on this, then this Citta (心王, mind-king) is called Samadhi. There should not be other mental factors called Samadhi.
Treatise: Another mental factor enables the mind... its essence is not the mind. (This is the answer from the Sarvastivada school) The mind is focused on a single object, and because there is another mental factor, it can cause the mind-king to operate on one object, which is called Samadhi. It is not to say that its essence is the mind.
Treatise: Isn't it the case that all minds... what is the use of Samadhi? (This is a challenge from the Sautrantika school) Since this mind-king arises and ceases in an instant, and operates on one object, this is the natural characteristic of phenomena, what is the use of Samadhi to make it operate on one object? This is the first challenge.
Treatise: If it is said that letting the mind... Samadhi is useless. (This is the second challenge) If it is said that the Samadhi of the previous moment, makes the mind in the second moment, also like the mind of the previous moment, focus on one object. This is the mind of the previous moment making the mind of the later moment operate on the same object. Then what is the use of the Samadhi corresponding to the later moment?
Treatise: Also because of this reason... the mind operates on one object. (This is the third challenge) For example, Samadhi in mental factors can extend to the distracted state. The distracted state is not Samadhi. Because of cultivation, Samadhi is achieved, which is called one-pointedness of mind. Why not just use the power of this cultivation to make the mind operate on one object?
論。又三摩地至皆一境轉。第四難也。心所等持是大地法通其定．散。因何散位心亂。定位一境。
論。不爾余品等持劣故。有部釋第四難也。正理論云。此中經主自興問答。何名一境性。謂專一所緣。彼答非理。眼．意二識若同一所緣。應名一境性。故於此處應求別理。謂若依止一所依根。專一所緣名一境性。豈不一念無易所緣。應一切心中皆有一境性。理實皆有一一剎那心．心所法。一境轉故。然非一切皆得定名。以於此中說一境性。但為顯示由勝等持。令善心．心所。相續而轉故。若爾即心依一根轉。引緣自境。余心續生。此即名為心一境性。應離心外無別等持。此難不然。前已說故。謂先廣辨心所法中。已辨等持。此難不然。前已說故。謂若心體即三摩地。令心作等。亦應無別。差別因緣不可得故。述曰。經部令心作等。即許別有思等心所。令心一境。因何不許。
論。有餘師說至即四靜慮故。述經部師計也。此師引經。說定學為增上心學。說四靜慮為心清凈最勝。證定即是心也。
論。依何義故立靜慮名。問也。
論。由此寂靜至以慧為體有部答也。由此寂靜是定。能審慮是慧。審慮即是實了知義。了知是慧。如說心在定能如實了知 審慮義中置地界故者。審慮梵云振多。
【現代漢語翻譯】 論：又，三摩地（Samadhi，禪定）達到皆為『一境性』（Ekagrata，專注一境）。這是第四個難題。心所（Caitasika，與心相應的心理活動）中的『等持』（Samadhi，專注）是『大地法』（Mahabhumi-ka-dharmas，普遍存在於各種心識狀態中的心理要素），通於禪定和散亂狀態。為何散亂狀態時心是散亂的，而禪定狀態時心專注一境？ 論：如果不是這樣，那麼其他品類的等持就顯得低劣了。這是有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）對第四個難題的解釋。《正理論》中說，經部（Sautrantika，經量部）的論師自己提出問題和解答：什麼叫做『一境性』？就是專注於一個所緣（Alambana，認識對像）。他們的回答不合理。如果眼識和意識同時緣于同一個所緣，也應該叫做『一境性』。所以，在這裡應該尋求其他的道理。就是說，如果依止於同一個所依根（Asraya，感覺器官），專注於一個所緣，就叫做『一境性』。難道不是一念之間沒有改變所緣，那麼一切心中都應該具有『一境性』嗎？實際上，每一個剎那的心和心所法，都是『一境轉』（Ekagrata-parinama，專注一境的轉變）的。然而，不是一切都能夠得到禪定的名稱，因為在這裡說『一境性』，只是爲了顯示通過殊勝的等持，使得善心和心所相續不斷地運轉。如果這樣，就是心依止於一個根而運轉，引緣于自己的境，其他的心繼續產生，這就可以叫做心的一境性。那麼，應該離開心之外，沒有其他的等持。這個難題是不成立的，因為前面已經說過了。就是說，先前廣泛地辨析心所法的時候，已經辨析了等持。這個難題是不成立的，因為前面已經說過了。就是說，如果心體就是三摩地，使得心平等，也應該沒有差別，因為差別的因緣是不可得的。述曰：經部認為使得心平等，就是允許有思等心所，使得心專注一境，為何不允許有等持？ 論：有其他論師說，達到四靜慮（Dhyana，四禪定）就是心。這是經部的論師的觀點。這位論師引用經典，說定學是增上心學（Adhicitta-siksa，通過禪定提升心智的修學），說四靜慮是心清凈最殊勝的狀態，以此證明禪定就是心。 論：依據什麼意義而立『靜慮』（Dhyana，禪定）這個名稱？這是提問。 論：因為由此寂靜是定，能夠審慮的是慧（Prajna，智慧）。審慮就是如實了知的意思，了知就是慧。如經中所說，心在禪定中能夠如實了知。在審慮的意義中安立地界。審慮在梵語中叫做振多（Cinta）。這是有部的回答。
【English Translation】 Treatise: Furthermore, Samadhi (concentration) reaches the state where everything turns towards 'Ekagrata' (one-pointedness of mind). This is the fourth difficulty. 'Samadhi' (concentration) among the 'Caitasikas' (mental factors) is a 'Mahabhumi-ka-dharmas' (universal mental factor), common to both meditative and scattered states. Why is the mind scattered in the scattered state, while it is focused on one object in the meditative state? Treatise: If it were not so, then the Samadhi of other categories would seem inferior. This is the Sarvastivada's (the 'All Exists' school) explanation of the fourth difficulty. The Nyayanusara says that the Sautrantika (the Sutra school) master raises and answers the question himself: What is called 'Ekagrata'? It means focusing on one 'Alambana' (object of cognition). Their answer is unreasonable. If the eye-consciousness and the mind-consciousness simultaneously cognize the same object, it should also be called 'Ekagrata'. Therefore, we should seek other reasons here. That is, if relying on the same 'Asraya' (sense organ), focusing on one object is called 'Ekagrata'. Isn't it that if there is no change of object in one thought, then all minds should have 'Ekagrata'? In reality, every moment of mind and mental factors is 'Ekagrata-parinama' (transformation of one-pointedness). However, not everything can be called Samadhi, because saying 'Ekagrata' here is only to show that through superior Samadhi, good minds and mental factors continue to operate. If so, it means that the mind relies on one root to operate, drawing on its own realm, and other minds continue to arise. This can be called the one-pointedness of the mind. Then, there should be no other Samadhi outside of the mind. This difficulty is not valid, because it has been said before. That is, when widely analyzing mental factors earlier, Samadhi has already been analyzed. This difficulty is not valid, because it has been said before. That is, if the mind-essence is Samadhi, making the mind equal, there should also be no difference, because the cause of difference is unattainable. Commentary: The Sautrantika believes that making the mind equal allows for mental factors such as thought, making the mind focus on one object, so why not allow for Samadhi? Treatise: Some other teachers say that reaching the four Dhyanas (meditative absorptions) is the mind. This is the view of the Sautrantika teachers. This teacher quotes the scriptures, saying that the study of Samadhi is Adhicitta-siksa (higher training in mind), and that the four Dhyanas are the purest and most superior state of mind, proving that Samadhi is the mind. Treatise: Based on what meaning is the name 'Dhyana' (meditation) established? This is a question. Treatise: Because this stillness is Samadhi, and what can deliberate is Prajna (wisdom). Deliberation means truly knowing, and knowing is wisdom. As it is said in the scriptures, the mind in Samadhi can truly know. Establishing the earth element in the meaning of deliberation. Deliberation in Sanskrit is called Cinta. This is the answer of the Sarvastivada.
是字緣。於此字緣置其地界。變前振多成馱南。馱南此云靜慮。馱南舊云禪那訛也。正理論云。依何義故立靜慮名。由依此寂靜方能審慮故。審慮即是實了知義。如說心在定。能如實了知。審慮義中置地界故。依訓釋理。此是凝寂。思度境處得靜慮名。定令慧生無濁亂故。有說此定持勝遍緣。如理思惟故名靜慮。勝言簡欲界。遍緣簡無色。如理思惟簡異顛倒。能持此定是妙等持。此妙等持名為靜慮。此言顯示止．觀均行無倒等持。方名靜慮 又婆沙一百四十一。問此四何緣說名靜慮。答靜謂寂靜。慮謂籌慮。此四地中。定．慧平等故稱靜慮。余隨有闕。不得此名 已上論文。
論。若爾諸等持皆應名靜慮。難也。
論。不爾唯勝至亦得日名。答也。
論。靜慮如何獨名為勝。問也。
論。諸等持內至獨名靜慮。答獨名勝所以也。
論。若爾染污寧得此名。難也。若以如上勝故獨名審慮。味定是染。如何亦同得靜慮名。
論。由彼亦能邪審慮故。有部答也。
論。是則應有太過之失。難。染污心審慮勝餘散善者。有太過失。
論。無太過失至有惡靜慮。答也。如敗種子雖無生能。得種子名非余土等。染亦如是。雖不同善審慮。以靜慮故得靜慮名。此理證也 世尊亦說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 是字緣（梵文字母的組合）。於此字緣安置其地界。轉變前振多（Purva-jhinana， पूर्व-झीन）成為馱南（Dhyana，ध्यान）。馱南，這裡的意思是靜慮（指禪定）。馱南舊譯為禪那（Dhyana，ध्यान），是訛誤。正理論中說：『依據什麼意義而立靜慮之名？』因為依靠此寂靜才能審慮的緣故。審慮就是如實了知的意義。如經中所說，心在禪定中，能如實了知。在審慮的意義中安置地界，依據訓釋的道理，這是凝寂，思度境處而得到靜慮之名。禪定能令智慧生起，沒有濁亂的緣故。有人說此禪定能持勝妙的普遍因緣，如理思惟，所以名為靜慮。『勝』字簡略了欲界，『遍緣』簡略了無色界，『如理思惟』簡略了異於顛倒。能持此禪定是妙等持（Samahita，समाहित）。此妙等持名為靜慮。這句話顯示止（Samatha，शमथ，止息）和觀（Vipassana，विपश्यना，觀照）均等而行，沒有顛倒的等持，才名為靜慮。又如《婆沙論》第一百四十一卷所說：『問：這四種禪定，因何緣故說名為靜慮？』答：『靜，是指寂靜；慮，是指籌慮。這四地中，定和慧平等，所以稱為靜慮。其餘的禪定，隨有缺失，就不能得到這個名稱。』以上是論文的內容。
論：如果這樣，那麼所有的等持（Samahita，समाहित）都應該叫做靜慮了。這是責難。
論：不是這樣的，只有勝至（殊勝的）才能得到日（太陽）的名字。這是回答。
論：靜慮如何獨自名為勝？這是提問。
論：在各種等持中，因為殊勝，所以獨自名為靜慮。這是回答獨自名為勝的原因。
論：如果這樣，那麼染污（Klista，क्लिष्ट）的禪定怎麼能得到這個名稱呢？這是責難。如果因為如上殊勝的緣故而獨自名為審慮，那麼味定（貪著禪定的滋味）是染污的，怎麼也能同樣得到靜慮之名呢？
論：因為它們也能邪審慮的緣故。有部（Sarvastivada，सर्वास्तिवाद）的回答。
論：那麼就應該有太過之失了。責難。染污心的審慮勝過其餘散亂的善心，就有太過的過失。
論：沒有太過之失，乃至有惡靜慮。回答。如同敗壞的種子雖然沒有生長的能力，但得到種子的名稱，不同於泥土等。染污的禪定也是這樣，雖然不同於善的審慮，但因為是靜慮的緣故，所以得到靜慮之名。這是理論的證明。世尊也說過。
【English Translation】 English version: It is the combination of syllables. In this combination of syllables, its ground is established. Transforming Purva-jhinana (पूर्व-झीन) into Dhyana (ध्यान). Dhyana, here means 'quiet contemplation'. The old translation of Dhyana was 'Channa', which is a mistake. The Nyayanusara-sastra says: 'Based on what meaning is the name Dhyana established?' It is because by relying on this tranquility, one can deliberate carefully. 'Careful deliberation' is the meaning of truly knowing. As it is said in the scriptures, when the mind is in Samadhi (समाधि), it can truly know. Establishing the ground in the meaning of careful deliberation, according to the principle of interpretation, this is stillness, contemplating the realm and obtaining the name Dhyana. Samadhi enables wisdom to arise, without turbidity and confusion. Some say that this Samadhi can uphold the excellent and universal conditions, contemplating rationally, therefore it is called Dhyana. 'Excellent' briefly refers to the desire realm, 'universal conditions' briefly refers to the formless realm, and 'rational contemplation' briefly refers to being different from inversion. Being able to uphold this Samadhi is wonderful Samahita (समाहित). This wonderful Samahita is called Dhyana. This statement shows that both Samatha (शमथ, calming) and Vipassana (विपश्यना, insight) are practiced equally, and Samahita without inversion is called Dhyana. Furthermore, as stated in the 141st volume of the Vibhasa: 'Question: Why are these four Dhyanas called Dhyana?' Answer: 'Quiet' refers to tranquility; 'contemplation' refers to deliberation. In these four grounds, Samadhi and wisdom are equal, therefore they are called Dhyana. Other Samadhis, with any deficiencies, cannot obtain this name.' The above is the content of the treatise.
Treatise: If that is the case, then all Samahitas (समाहित) should be called Dhyana. This is a challenge.
Treatise: It is not like that; only the most excellent can obtain the name 'sun'. This is a response.
Treatise: How is Dhyana uniquely named 'excellent'? This is a question.
Treatise: Among all Samahitas, it is uniquely named Dhyana because of its excellence. This is the answer to why it is uniquely named 'excellent'.
Treatise: If that is the case, then how can defiled (Klista, क्लिष्ट) Dhyana obtain this name? This is a challenge. If it is uniquely named 'careful deliberation' because of the above-mentioned excellence, then the 'taste of Samadhi' (attachment to the taste of Samadhi) is defiled, how can it also obtain the name Dhyana?
Treatise: Because they can also deliberate wrongly. This is the response from the Sarvastivada (सर्वास्तिवाद).
Treatise: Then there should be the fault of being excessive. A challenge. The deliberation of a defiled mind surpasses the remaining scattered good minds, which is an excessive fault.
Treatise: There is no fault of being excessive, even to the point of having evil Dhyana. A response. Like a spoiled seed, although it has no ability to grow, it obtains the name 'seed', unlike soil and so on. Defiled Dhyana is also like this; although it is different from good deliberation, because it is Dhyana, it obtains the name Dhyana. This is theoretical proof. The World-Honored One also said.
有惡靜慮。引教證也。
論。若一境性至初二三四。難也。若一境性是靜慮者。即相無差別。依何相別立初．二．三．四也。
論。具伺喜樂至而不與尋俱。明初定具尋．伺．喜．樂也。頌但言伺。以表尋俱。以伺有喜．樂。定有尋故。以中間靜慮無喜．樂故。自余有伺。示有于尋。
論。漸離前支至分為四種。述立餘三所以也。離伺異初立第二離喜及伺二異前二立第三。離伺．喜．樂異前三立第四。
論。已辨靜慮無色云何。下兩行半頌。第二明四無色也。
論曰至亦如是言。述無色四及生．定二同。善性等同前靜慮。故頌中言亦如是也。
論。然助伴中至隨轉色故。此述異也。
論。雖一境性至立非想非非想處。述分四所以也。
論。離名何義。問也。
論謂由此道至離下染義。答也 言離生者有二義。一染法名生。能為患故。猶如生食在腹。二謂受生。離地染時二種生過俱能離也。
論。即此四根本至立無色名。述同異也。此四無色上三近分不緣色故名除色想。空處近分以緣色故非除色想。然四根本．四色近分。雖緣色不同。皆無色故同名無色。
論。此因不成許有色故。大眾部．化地部等難也。汝以無色故總名無色。無色之因我宗不許
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有錯誤的禪定（靜慮）。以下引用教證來證明。
論：如果一心專注達到初禪、二禪、三禪、四禪，這是很難的。如果一心專注就是禪定（靜慮），那麼它們在本質上就沒有差別。根據什麼差別來建立初禪、二禪、三禪、四禪呢？
論：具備尋、伺、喜、樂，但不與尋俱。說明初禪具備尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）、伺（Vicara，精細的思考）、喜（Priti，喜悅）、樂（Sukha，快樂）。頌文中只提到『伺』，是爲了表明與『尋』同在。因為『伺』有喜和樂，禪定（靜慮）有『尋』的緣故。因為中間禪定（靜慮）沒有喜和樂。其餘的都有『伺』，表明有『尋』。
論：逐漸離開前面的支分，分為四種。敘述建立其餘三種禪定的原因。離開『伺』，不同於初禪，建立第二禪；離開『喜』和『伺』，這兩種不同於前兩種禪定，建立第三禪；離開『伺』、『喜』、『樂』，不同於前三種禪定，建立第四禪。
論：已經辨析了禪定（靜慮），無色界又是什麼呢？下面兩行半的頌文，第二部分說明四無色定。
論曰：乃至也如是說。敘述無色界的四種禪定以及生和定兩種狀態相同。善性等同於前面的禪定（靜慮）。所以在頌文中說『也如是』。
論：然而在助伴中，乃至隨之轉變的色法。這是敘述不同之處。
論：雖然一心專注，乃至建立非想非非想處（Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana，既非有想也非無想處）。敘述分為四種的原因。
論：『離』是什麼意思？這是提問。
論：所謂由此道，乃至離開下方的染污之義。這是回答。說到『離生』，有兩種含義。一是染污法名為『生』，因為它能帶來禍患，就像生食在腹中一樣。二是說受生。離開地界的染污時，兩種『生』的過患都能離開。
論：即此四根本，乃至建立無色之名。敘述相同和不同之處。這四種無色定，上三近分不緣於色法，所以名為『除色想』。空無邊處（Akasanantyayatana，空無邊處）的近分因為緣於色法，所以不是『除色想』。然而四根本定和四色界的近分，雖然所緣的色法不同，但都無色，所以都名為無色。
論：這個原因不成立，因為承認有色法。這是大眾部、化地部等的詰難。你們因為無色，所以總稱為無色。無色的原因我宗不承認。
【English Translation】 English version There are evil concentrations (Dhyana, 靜慮). The following quotes scriptural evidence to prove it.
Treatise: If one-pointedness of mind reaches the first, second, third, and fourth Dhyanas, this is difficult. If one-pointedness of mind is Dhyana, then there is no difference in their essence. Based on what difference are the first, second, third, and fourth Dhyanas established?
Treatise: Possessing Vitarka (尋, coarse thought), Vicara (伺, subtle thought), Priti (喜, joy), and Sukha (樂, happiness), but not together with Vitarka. This explains that the first Dhyana possesses Vitarka, Vicara, Priti, and Sukha. The verse only mentions 'Vicara' to indicate that it is together with 'Vitarka'. Because 'Vicara' has joy and happiness, Dhyana has 'Vitarka'. Because the intermediate Dhyana does not have joy and happiness. The rest have 'Vicara', indicating the presence of 'Vitarka'.
Treatise: Gradually departing from the previous limbs, dividing into four kinds. This describes the reason for establishing the remaining three Dhyanas. Departing from 'Vicara', different from the first Dhyana, establishes the second Dhyana; departing from 'Priti' and 'Vicara', these two are different from the previous two Dhyanas, establishes the third Dhyana; departing from 'Vicara', 'Priti', and 'Sukha', different from the previous three Dhyanas, establishes the fourth Dhyana.
Treatise: Having already distinguished Dhyana, what is the formless realm (Arupa, 無色) like? The following two and a half lines of verse, the second part explains the four formless attainments.
Treatise says: Even says likewise. Describes the four formless realms and the two states of birth and concentration being the same. Goodness is the same as the previous Dhyana. Therefore, it is said 'likewise' in the verse.
Treatise: However, in the auxiliary factors, even the form that transforms accordingly. This describes the differences.
Treatise: Although one-pointedness of mind, even establishing the Neither-perception-nor-non-perception realm (Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana, 非想非非想處). Describes the reason for dividing into four.
Treatise: What is the meaning of 'separation' (離)? This is a question.
Treatise: So-called by this path, even the meaning of separating from lower defilements. This is the answer. Speaking of 'separation from birth', there are two meanings. First, defiled dharmas are called 'birth' because they can bring misfortune, just like raw food in the stomach. Second, it refers to rebirth. When separating from the defilements of the earth realm, both kinds of 'birth' faults can be separated.
Treatise: Namely, these four fundamental, even establishing the name of formless. Describes the similarities and differences. These four formless attainments, the upper three proximate concentrations do not cognize form, so they are called 'cessation of the perception of form' (除色想). The proximate concentration of the Infinity of Space (Akasanantyayatana, 空無邊處) realm, because it cognizes form, is not 'cessation of the perception of form'. However, the four fundamental concentrations and the proximate concentrations of the four form realms, although the forms they cognize are different, they are all formless, so they are all called formless.
Treatise: This reason is not established because it admits the existence of form. This is the challenge from the Mahasamghika (大眾部) and Dharmaguptaka (化地部) schools. You call it formless in general because it is formless. My school does not accept the reason for formlessness.
。許有色故。是不成過。
論。若爾何故立無色名。有部反問也。既言有色。何故經中說名無色。
論。由彼色微至亦名無黃。大眾部等答也。
論。許彼界中色有何相。有部責色相也。
論。若彼唯有至何有造色。縱計破也。
論。若謂如有至亦遮有故。破救義也。大眾部等救云。如有無漏律儀。無無漏大種。我宗無色界有身．語律儀。無別大種。破云。不爾。無漏雖無大種依有漏大種故。汝宗不可說無色律儀依色界大種。界地別故。又我宗亦遮無色界有無漏律儀故。
論。若許于彼至彼色漸少。又破轉計也。
論。若謂于彼至不可見故。此破救也。
論。若謂彼身至應名無色。又破轉計也。
論。若謂彼身至有勝劣故。又破救也。
論。又生靜慮至不名無色。此重破也。並如文可知。正理論云。又生靜慮。乃至。上地望下清妙轉增。非下地根所能取故。與彼何異不名無色。
論。若謂欲色至此有何理。又破救也。大眾部救云雖色界中。上地清妙下地應名無色。然隨別義立名。不名無色。無色不爾者。此有何理。
論。若謂經說至有色理成。牒大眾部引他經證也。壽．暖合故。是一經。暖是色故。色識相依。第二經也。名色為緣。第三
經也。遮離色等有來．去故。第四經也。由此四種證無色界定有色也。
論。此證不成應審思故。且總非也。
論。謂所引教應共審思。勸大眾部等審思也。
論。旦契經說至為約欲界說。令思第一經也。
論。名色與識至為約欲色說。令思第二經也。
論。所說名色至不緣于識。令思第三經也。
論。遮離色至行至為遮離一切。令思第四經也。此四經皆通兩釋。不成證義。
論。若謂契經至大過失故。略破救也。
論。謂應外暖亦與壽合。出救第一經大過失也。若以經無簡別。即令一切壽皆與暖合。經無簡別故。應一切暖皆與壽合。因何外暖而不壽合。
論。又應外名色依識識為緣。出第二．第三過失也。若以經無簡別。即令一切識。皆與名色依。破第二過也。外名色識為緣。第三．經也。俱經無簡別。應一切名色皆與識依。及與色緣。是即外色及四相等。應與識依。識緣過也。
論。又說四食至應有段食。引例破也。經說四食如四識住。經無簡別。色．無色界應有段食。有四識住故。經不簡故。
論。若謂經說至無斯過者。牒引兩經救也。以有經說一類天超段食。故知色．無色界無段食也 又經說。彼天喜為食故。無上二界有段食過者。此
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 經文說：『遮離色』等，是因為有來去變化。這是第四個經證。這四個經證都不能證明色法是絕對存在的。 論：這個論證不成立，應該仔細思考。而且總體上是不成立的。 論：所引用的教義應該共同審思。這是勸告大眾部等進行審思。 論：旦契經所說，最為簡略，是針對欲界而說的。這是爲了讓人思考第一個經證。 論：名色與識，最為簡略，是針對欲界和色界而說的。這是爲了讓人思考第二個經證。 論：所說的名色，不依賴於識。這是爲了讓人思考第三個經證。 論：『遮離色』等，直到『行』，是爲了遮離一切。這是爲了讓人思考第四個經證。這四個經證都可以有兩種解釋，不能成立證明的意義。 論：如果認為契經沒有這些過失，這是略微地駁斥救護的說法。 論：應該說外面的暖觸也與壽命結合。這是指出第一個經證的重大過失。如果因為經文沒有區分，就認為一切壽命都與暖觸結合，因為經文沒有區分的緣故，就應該一切暖觸都與壽命結合。那麼為什麼外面的暖觸不與壽命結合呢？ 論：又應該說外面的名色依賴於識，識是名色的緣。這是指出第二個、第三個經證的過失。如果因為經文沒有區分，就認為一切識都與名色相互依賴。這是駁斥第二個過失。外面的名色以識為緣，這是第三個經證的內容。如果經文沒有區分，就應該一切名色都與識相互依賴，並且以識為緣。這樣，外面的色法以及四大種，也應該與識相互依賴，以識為緣，這是過失。 論：又說四食，應該有段食（kabaaraahaara）。這是引用例子進行駁斥。經文說四食就像四識住。如果經文沒有區分，那麼色界和無色界也應該有段食，因為有四識住的緣故。因為經文沒有區分的緣故。 論：如果認為經文說一類天超越了段食，就沒有這些過失。這是引用兩部經文進行辯護。因為有經文說一類天超越了段食，所以知道色界和無色界沒有段食。又經文說，那些天以喜悅為食。如果認為無色界和上二界有段食的過失，那麼...
【English Translation】 English version: The sutra says: 'Separating from form' etc., because there is coming and going. This is the fourth sutra proof. These four sutra proofs cannot prove that form is absolutely existent. Treatise: This argument is not valid and should be carefully considered. Moreover, it is generally invalid. Treatise: The quoted teachings should be jointly considered. This is an exhortation to the Mahasamghika school etc. to consider. Treatise: The Daanaci Sutra says, most concisely, that it is spoken for the desire realm (kaamadhatu). This is to make people think about the first sutra proof. Treatise: Name and form (naama-rupa) and consciousness (vijnana), most concisely, are spoken for the desire realm and the form realm (rupadhatu). This is to make people think about the second sutra proof. Treatise: The mentioned name and form do not depend on consciousness. This is to make people think about the third sutra proof. Treatise: 'Separating from form' etc., until 'action' (samskara), is to separate from everything. This is to make people think about the fourth sutra proof. These four sutras can all have two interpretations and cannot establish the meaning of proof. Treatise: If it is thought that the sutras do not have these faults, this is a slight refutation of the saving statement. Treatise: It should be said that external warmth also combines with lifespan. This points out the major fault of the first sutra proof. If, because the sutra does not distinguish, it is thought that all lifespans combine with warmth, then because the sutra does not distinguish, all warmth should combine with lifespan. Then why does external warmth not combine with lifespan? Treatise: Also, it should be said that external name and form depend on consciousness, and consciousness is the condition for name and form. This points out the faults of the second and third sutra proofs. If, because the sutra does not distinguish, it is thought that all consciousness mutually depends on name and form. This is a refutation of the second fault. External name and form have consciousness as their condition, this is the content of the third sutra. If the sutra does not distinguish, then all name and form should mutually depend on consciousness and have consciousness as their condition. In this way, external form and the four great elements (maha-bhuta) should also mutually depend on consciousness and have consciousness as their condition, this is a fault. Treatise: Also, it is said that the four foods, there should be coarse food (kabaaraahaara). This is quoting an example to refute. The sutra says that the four foods are like the four abodes of consciousness (vijnana-sthiti). If the sutra does not distinguish, then the form realm and the formless realm (arupadhatu) should also have coarse food, because there are four abodes of consciousness. Because the sutra does not distinguish. Treatise: If it is thought that the sutra says that a certain type of heaven transcends coarse food, then there are no such faults. This is quoting two sutras to defend. Because there is a sutra that says that a certain type of heaven transcends coarse food, it is known that the form realm and the formless realm do not have coarse food. Also, the sutra says that those heavens take joy as food. If it is thought that the formless realm and the upper two realms have the fault of coarse food, then...
述大眾部意。前所引文雖無簡別。別有此兩文有簡別。故知上二界定無段食。
論。欲無色界至皆超越故。引三經準段食例證無色界無色也。
論。若無色界至超色想等。反難大眾部也。
論若謂觀下至亦應許然。破救也。言無色想等觀待下粗。無粗色想名為無色想等者。言無段食。亦應無粗有細段食。
論。又諸靜慮至名無色界。重破救也。若以觀下粗色名無色者。四靜慮中色細欲界。亦應可說出離色言。是即色界應亦名無色界。
論。又亦應說至非超受等。是重破也。若謂觀粗色故名出離色者。無色界受細。色界受粗。超下粗受應名出離受等。經既不說出離受等。故知無色中唯遍超色類非超受等。
論。由此定知彼界無色。此總結成自宗義也。
論。然契經說至非永出故。通伏難也。伏難意云。若無色界無色者 應無色有出於色有。如何經說有不出有。有三釋。一自地有不能出自地有。即是自地有漏道不能制自地惑。要因上地方能斷故 非遍出者雖上地有出下地有。而不能出非想有也。雖能出下地有後定退故非永出也。依如是理說有不出有也。
論。又薄伽梵至說有色類言。是重引經證也。
論。故所立因無不成過。總結上言。以無色故名無色。因非不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這是在闡述大眾部的觀點。前面引用的經文雖然沒有明確區分，但這兩段經文是有區分的。因此可知，色界和無色界沒有段食（kabaḷīkāra āhāra，粗 खाद्य，粗食）。
論：因為欲界和無色界都超越了段食。引用三部經來比照段食的例子，證明無色界沒有段食。
論：如果說無色界超越了色想等等，這是反駁大眾部的觀點。
論：如果說觀察地獄的粗色，也應該允許這種說法。這是爲了駁斥對方的辯解。說無色想等是觀待地獄的粗色，沒有粗色想就叫做無色想等，那麼，說沒有段食，也應該說沒有粗的，只有細的段食。
論：還有，各種靜慮（dhyāna，禪那）都稱為無色。這是再次駁斥對方的辯解。如果因為觀察地獄的粗色就稱為無色，那麼，在四靜慮中，色界的色相對於欲界來說是細的，也應該可以說出離了色界。這樣，色界也應該稱為無色界。
論：也應該說出離了受等等。這是再次駁斥。如果說因為觀察粗色而稱為出離色，那麼，無色界的受是細的，色界的受是粗的，超越了地獄的粗受，應該稱為出離受等等。既然經中沒有說出離受等等，所以可知，無色界中只是普遍超越了色類，而不是超越了受等等。
論：由此可以確定，彼界（無色界）沒有色。這是總結並確立自己的宗義。
論：然而，契經（sūtra，經）說有色界不能永遠出離色界。這是爲了消除對方的質疑。消除質疑的意思是：如果無色界沒有色，那麼，應該無色界有能夠出離色界有。為什麼經中說有不能出離有呢？有三種解釋：一是自地（自己的境界）的有不能出自地有，也就是自地的有漏道不能制伏自地的惑，必須依靠上地的力量才能斷除；二是非普遍出離，雖然上地的有能夠出離下地的有，但不能出離非想非非想處有；三是雖然能夠出離下地的有，但後來會退轉，所以不是永遠出離。依據這樣的道理，說有不能出離有。
論：還有，薄伽梵（Bhagavān，世尊）說有色類。這是再次引用經文來證明。
論：所以，所立的因（hetu，理由）沒有不成立的過失。總結上面的話，因為沒有色，所以稱為無色。這個因不是不成立的。
【English Translation】 English version: This is to explain the view of the Mahāsāṃghika school. Although the previously cited texts do not explicitly distinguish, these two texts do make a distinction. Therefore, it is known that the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm do not have kabaḷīkāra āhāra (coarse food).
Treatise: Because the Realm of Desire and the Formless Realm both transcend coarse food. Citing three sūtras to compare with the example of coarse food proves that the Formless Realm does not have coarse food.
Treatise: If it is said that the Formless Realm transcends the perception of form, etc., this is refuting the view of the Mahāsāṃghika school.
Treatise: If it is said that observing the coarse form of the lower realm should also be allowed, this is to refute the other party's defense. Saying that the perception of formlessness, etc., relies on the coarse form of the lower realm, and that the absence of coarse form perception is called the perception of formlessness, etc., then saying there is no coarse food should also mean there is no coarse food, only subtle food.
Treatise: Furthermore, all the dhyānas (meditative absorptions) are called formless. This is again refuting the other party's defense. If observing the coarse form of the lower realm is called formlessness, then in the four dhyānas, the form of the Realm of Form is subtle compared to the Realm of Desire, and it should also be said that it has departed from the Realm of Form. In that case, the Realm of Form should also be called the Formless Realm.
Treatise: It should also be said that it has departed from feeling, etc. This is a further refutation. If it is said that departing from form is named because of observing coarse form, then the feeling in the Formless Realm is subtle, and the feeling in the Realm of Form is coarse. Transcending the coarse feeling of the lower realm should be called departing from feeling, etc. Since the sūtras do not speak of departing from feeling, etc., it is known that in the Formless Realm, only the category of form is universally transcended, not feeling, etc.
Treatise: From this, it can be determined that that realm (the Formless Realm) has no form. This is summarizing and establishing one's own doctrine.
Treatise: However, the sūtra says that the Realm of Form cannot permanently depart from the Realm of Form. This is to eliminate the other party's doubts. The meaning of eliminating doubts is: if the Formless Realm has no form, then the existence of the Formless Realm should be able to depart from the existence of the Realm of Form. Why does the sūtra say that existence cannot depart from existence? There are three explanations: first, the existence of one's own ground (one's own realm) cannot depart from the existence of one's own ground, that is, the contaminated path of one's own ground cannot subdue the afflictions of one's own ground, and one must rely on the power of the higher ground to eliminate them; second, it is not a universal departure, although the existence of the higher ground can depart from the existence of the lower ground, it cannot depart from the Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception; third, although it can depart from the existence of the lower ground, it will later regress, so it is not a permanent departure. According to this reasoning, it is said that existence cannot depart from existence.
Treatise: Furthermore, the Bhagavan (World Honored One) said that there are categories of form. This is again citing the sūtra to prove it.
Treatise: Therefore, the established reason (hetu) has no fault of being unestablished. Summarizing the above, because there is no form, it is called formless. This reason is not unestablished.
成過。汝宗不許自違理．教。汝既違教。我非不成。
論。在彼多劫至色從何生。大眾部等難也。
論。此從心生至從彼心生。經部答也。謂從色異熟因功能種子而生。
論。彼無色身心何依轉。大眾部等又難也。彼既無色。心依何轉。
論。離身何不轉。有部等反問大眾部也。
論下曾不見故。大眾部答也。
論。色界無段食至離段食轉故。引例卻難大眾部也。
論。又先說彼心轉所依。指前釋也。前說心依壽等轉也。
論。已釋總名。結上四無色名也。
論。空無邊等至得別名耶。問別名也。
論。不爾云何至建立三名。答。前三無色從加行為名于加行位勝解。思惟虛空等故。名空無邊等。至成滿位亦緣余法。故正理云。謂若有法雖與色俱。而其自體不依屬色。諸有於色求出離者。必應最初思惟彼法。謂虛空體雖與色俱。而待色無方得顯了。外法所攝其相無邊。思惟彼時。易能離色。故加行位思惟虛空。成時隨應亦緣余法。但從加行建立此名。謂于純凈六種識身能了別中。善取相已安住勝解。由假想力。思惟觀察無邊識相。由此加行為先所成。隨其所應。亦緣余法。但從加行建立此名 謂見無邊行相粗動。為欲厭舍起此加行。是故此處名最勝舍。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 成過。你們的宗派不允許違背道理和教義。你們既然違背了教義，我就不是不能成功。
論：在彼處多劫，色身從何處產生？這是大眾部等提出的疑問。
論：此色身從心生，這是經部的回答。意思是說，從色的異熟因的功能種子而生。
論：他們沒有色身，心依靠什麼運轉？這是大眾部等再次提出的疑問。他們既然沒有色身，心依靠什麼運轉呢？
論：離開身體為什麼不能運轉？這是有部等反問大眾部。
論：下面說，因為以前沒有見過這樣的情況。這是大眾部的回答。
論：沒有段食（kabaḍiṃkārāhāra，粗糙的食物）也能運轉，所以離開段食也能運轉。這是引用例子來反駁大眾部。
論：又先前說過，心有它運轉所依靠的東西。這是指前面的解釋。前面說過，心依靠壽命等運轉。
論：已經解釋了總的名稱。這是總結上面的四個無色定的名稱。
論：空無邊處等，是否因此得到不同的名稱呢？這是詢問不同的名稱。
論：不是這樣的，為什麼呢？這是回答。前面的三個無色定，是從加行（prayoga，修行）行為上命名的，在加行位勝解（adhimoksha，勝妙的理解），思惟虛空等，所以名為空無邊處等。即使到了成就圓滿的階段，也緣于其他的法。所以《正理經》中說：『如果有一種法，雖然與色法俱在，但是它的自體不依屬於色法，那些想要從色法中求得解脫的人，必須首先思惟這種法。』所說的虛空，雖然與色法俱在，但是要依靠色法沒有阻礙才能顯現。外法所攝，它的相狀是無邊的。思惟它的時候，容易離開色法。所以在加行位思惟虛空。即使在成就的時候，也隨順地緣于其他的法。但是從加行行為上建立這個名稱。在純凈的六種識身中，能夠清楚地辨別，很好地取相之後安住于勝解。通過假想的力量，思惟觀察無邊的識相。由此加行行為為先所成就。隨順著它所應該的，也緣于其他的法。但是從加行行為上建立這個名稱。看到無邊的行相粗糙而動盪，爲了厭惡捨棄它而發起這種加行。所以這裡稱為最勝舍（paramātyāga，最高的捨棄）。
【English Translation】 English version It is accomplished. Your sect does not allow violating reason and doctrine. Since you have violated the doctrine, it is not that I cannot succeed.
Treatise: Where does the form body arise from after many kalpas (aeon) in that realm? This is a question raised by the Mahasanghika (大眾部) and others.
Treatise: This arises from the mind. This is the answer from the Sautrantika (經部). It means that it arises from the functional seeds of the Vipaka (異熟) cause of form.
Treatise: What does the mind rely on to function when they have no form body? This is another question raised by the Mahasanghika and others. Since they have no form, what does the mind rely on to function?
Treatise: Why can't it function without the body? This is the Sarvastivada (有部) and others asking the Mahasanghika in return.
Treatise: Below it says, 'Because it has never been seen before.' This is the answer from the Mahasanghika.
Treatise: Without kabaḍiṃkārāhāra (段食, coarse food), it can function, so it can function without kabaḍiṃkārāhāra. This is using an example to refute the Mahasanghika.
Treatise: Also, it was said earlier that the mind has something it relies on to function. This refers to the previous explanation. It was said earlier that the mind relies on life, etc., to function.
Treatise: The general name has already been explained. This is summarizing the names of the four formless samadhis (無色定) above.
Treatise: Are the formless realms of 'infinity of space' (空無邊處), etc., given different names because of this? This is asking about the different names.
Treatise: It is not like that, why? This is the answer. The first three formless realms are named from the practice (prayoga, 加行) behavior. In the stage of adhimoksha (勝解, superior understanding) of practice, one contemplates space, etc., so they are called the 'infinity of space' realm, etc. Even in the stage of accomplishment and fulfillment, one also focuses on other dharmas (法). Therefore, the Nyayasutra (正理經) says: 'If there is a dharma that exists together with form, but its essence does not depend on form, those who seek liberation from form must first contemplate this dharma.' What is referred to as space, although it exists together with form, it can only manifest when form is unobstructed. Being included in external dharmas, its appearance is infinite. When contemplating it, it is easy to separate from form. Therefore, one contemplates space in the stage of practice. Even in the stage of accomplishment, one also focuses on other dharmas accordingly. However, this name is established from the practice behavior. In the pure six consciousness bodies, one can clearly distinguish, take the characteristics well, and abide in adhimoksha. Through the power of imagination, one contemplates and observes the infinite aspects of consciousness. This is accomplished by the practice behavior as the first step. According to what is appropriate, one also focuses on other dharmas. However, this name is established from the practice behavior. Seeing the infinite aspects of phenomena as coarse and turbulent, one initiates this practice in order to detest and abandon them. Therefore, this is called the supreme abandonment (paramātyāga, 最勝舍) here.'
以於此中。不復樂作無邊行相。心於所緣舍諸所有。寂然而住(已上論文)。
論。立第四名至名非非想。立第四名。由想昧劣無明勝想。得非想名。有昧劣想名非非想也。
論。雖加行時至加行立名。明加行時觀根本作非想非非想解。不從加行為名。說根本想昧劣為名。
論。以若詰言至是立名正因。釋不從加行立名所以也。前三無色加行心時思無邊空等。然實根本非常緣空。由此立名從其加行不從根本。加行不緣根本作行解故。非想非非想處加行位中。緣其根本地昧劣想作如是念。無明勝想有昧劣想。此念依根本起。即是正立名因。由想昧劣故從根本不從加行。
論。已辨無色云何等至。下兩行頌第三明等至 文有十二。一明凈等三別。二明具支多少。三明不動。四明受多少。五明借識。六二得。七明相生。八明依身。九明所緣。十明斷惑。十一明近分。十二明中定。此第一明凈等三也。
論曰至無無漏故。總釋八地。前七具三。有頂唯二。無無漏也。
論。初味等至至此得味名。釋第一味定也。此謂等持與愛相應。愛能味著定亦名味。正理論云。愛相應言依自性說。此以等持為自性故。若並助伴應作是言。愛俱亦法名味等至 問何故余惑相應不名為定。答正理論云。專注
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 在此之中，不再樂於進行無邊的行相，內心對於所緣境捨棄一切所有，寂靜安住（以上是論文內容）。 論：建立第四個名稱，直至稱為非非想。建立第四個名稱，因為想念昏昧微弱，無明強盛，所以得到『非想』的名稱。有昏昧微弱的想念，稱為『非非想』。 論：雖然在加行的時候，以加行來立名。說明在加行的時候，觀察根本地，理解為非想非非想。不從加行來作為名稱，說是根本的想念昏昧微弱作為名稱。 論：如果有人詰問，這是立名的正當理由。解釋不從加行立名的原因。前三個無色定的加行心時，思惟無邊的空等，然而實際上根本地並非緣于空。因此立名是從其加行，而不是從根本地。因為加行不緣于根本地而作行解的緣故。在非想非非想處加行位中，緣于其根本地的昏昧微弱的想念，作這樣的念頭：無明強盛，有昏昧微弱的想念。這個念頭依根本地而生起，這就是正當的立名原因。因為想念昏昧微弱的緣故，所以從根本地而不是從加行。 論：已經辨明無色定，如何是等至（Samāpatti，入定）。下面兩行頌文，第三個說明等至。文有十二個方面：一、說明凈等三種差別；二、說明具足的支分多少；三、說明不動；四、說明感受的多少；五、說明借識；六、說明二得；七、說明相生；八、說明依身；九、說明所緣；十、說明斷惑；十一、說明近分定；十二、說明中間定。這是第一個說明凈等三種差別。 論曰：直至沒有無漏的緣故。總括解釋八地（Bhūmi，境界）。前七地具足三種，有頂地（Bhavāgra，有之頂端，指非想非非想處）只有兩種，沒有無漏。 論：最初的味等至，直至因此得到『味』的名稱。解釋第一個味定（Āsvāda-samāpatti，享受味禪定）。這是說等持（Samādhi，禪定）與愛相應。愛能夠貪著，禪定也稱為『味』。《正理論》說：『愛相應』是依據自性來說的，這是因為以等持為自性的緣故。如果連同助伴，應該這樣說：『愛俱亦法，名為味等至』。問：為什麼其餘的煩惱相應，不稱為定？答：《正理論》說：『專注』
【English Translation】 English version: Herein, no longer delighting in performing boundless characteristics, the mind relinquishes all possessions regarding the object of contemplation, and dwells in stillness (the above is from the treatise). Treatise: Establishing the fourth name, up to being called Neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Establishing the fourth name because perception is faint and weak, and ignorance is strong, hence obtaining the name 'Neither-perception'. Having faint and weak perception is called 'Neither-perception-nor-non-perception'. Treatise: Although at the time of application, the name is established based on application. Explaining that at the time of application, one observes the fundamental ground, understanding it as Neither-perception-nor-non-perception. The name is not derived from the application, but rather it is said that the faint and weak perception of the fundamental is the basis for the name. Treatise: If one were to question, this is the proper reason for establishing the name. Explaining the reason for not establishing the name based on application. During the application phase of the first three formless absorptions, one contemplates boundless space, etc., but in reality, the fundamental ground does not actually focus on space. Therefore, the name is established based on its application, not based on the fundamental ground, because the application does not focus on the fundamental ground to create understanding. In the application phase of the realm of Neither-perception-nor-non-perception, one contemplates the faint and weak perception of its fundamental ground, thinking thus: ignorance is strong, and there is faint and weak perception. This thought arises based on the fundamental ground, which is the proper reason for establishing the name. Because perception is faint and weak, it is based on the fundamental ground, not on the application. Treatise: Having already distinguished the formless absorptions, how are they Samāpatti (attainments)? The following two lines of verse, the third, explain the Samāpatti. The text has twelve aspects: 1. Explaining the three distinctions of purity, etc.; 2. Explaining the number of constituents possessed; 3. Explaining immovability; 4. Explaining the amount of feeling; 5. Explaining borrowing consciousness; 6. Explaining the two attainments; 7. Explaining arising together; 8. Explaining reliance on the body; 9. Explaining the object of contemplation; 10. Explaining severing afflictions; 11. Explaining the near attainment; 12. Explaining the intermediate absorption. This is the first, explaining the three distinctions of purity, etc. Treatise says: Up to the reason of having no non-outflow. Generally explaining the eight Bhūmi (grounds). The first seven possess three, the Bhavāgra (peak of existence, referring to the realm of Neither-perception-nor-non-perception) only has two, without non-outflow. Treatise: The initial Āsvāda-samāpatti (taste attainment), up to thus obtaining the name 'taste'. Explaining the first Āsvāda-samāpatti (enjoyment of taste absorption). This refers to Samādhi (concentration) being in accordance with attachment. Attachment is able to cling, and concentration is also called 'taste'. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'In accordance with attachment' is spoken based on self-nature, because it takes concentration as its self-nature. If including the assistants, it should be said thus: 'The Dharma together with attachment is also called taste attainment'. Question: Why are other afflictions in accordance not called concentration? Answer: The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Focused'
不移方名為定愛相應定。亦專一境故得定名。余惑相應則不如是。謂余煩惱于自所緣。不能令心專注如愛。故三摩地若與愛俱。專注一緣與善相似。
論。凈等至名至此得凈名。第二明凈定也。是有漏故與無漏殊。即名世間之所簡也。凈故非味。即是善名之所簡也。與無貪等白法相應故名為凈。釋凈名也。
論。即味相應至深生味著。述凈為味境。味唯緣凈。就緣凈中。唯緣過去退凈定也。不緣現在及未來也。現在無凈定。未來凈未曾領受也。此說容生味定。非一切生。唯退分定及住中一分。似退生故。境亦如是。又退分定未必定退。前五種性非定退故。此人皆成退分定故。
論。爾時雖名至得名為入。述入出也。味定非定似定名定。由此亦名入味定也 正理論云。諸從定出總有五種。一出地。二出剎那。三出行相。四出所緣。五出種類 從初靜慮入第二等名為出地。于同一地行相．所緣相續轉位。前念無間入於後念。名出剎那 從無常行相入苦行相等。名出行相 從緣色蘊入緣受等。名出所緣 從有漏入無漏。從不染污入染污等。名出種類 依出種類此中說言從所味出入能味定 豈不二言更相違反。能味是愛非所入定。所入是定不名能味。如何可言入能味定 無相違過。現見。相應隨舉一名說俱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『不移方名』被稱為與『定愛』相應的『定』（Samadhi）。也因為專注于單一境界，所以得到『定』的名稱。而其他迷惑與之相應則不是這樣。因為其他煩惱對於它們所緣的對象，不能像愛那樣使心專注。所以，三摩地如果與愛俱生，專注一緣，就與善法相似。
論：『凈等至』（Visuddhi-samapatti）被稱為達到此境界而獲得『凈』的名稱。這是第二種說明『凈定』。因為它是有漏的，所以與無漏不同，因此被稱作世間的。因為它是清凈的，所以不是『味』（Asvada），因此被善法所簡擇。因為它與無貪等清凈的法相應，所以被稱為『凈』。這是對『凈』這個名稱的解釋。
論：即與『味』相應，乃至深深地產生對『味』的執著。這是描述『凈』作為『味』的境界。『味』只能緣于『凈』。在緣于『凈』之中，只能緣於過去已經退失的『凈定』。不緣于現在和未來。因為現在沒有『凈定』，未來『凈』也未曾被領受過。這裡說的是容許產生『味定』，不是一切情況都產生。僅僅是退分定以及住定中的一部分，因為它們類似於退失的狀態。境界也是如此。而且退分定也未必一定會退失，因為前五種性不是因為『定』而退失。這些人都是成就了退分定。
論：爾時雖然被稱為，乃至獲得名稱為『入』。這是描述『入』和『出』。『味定』不是真正的『定』，而是類似於『定』，所以被稱為『定』。因此也稱為『入味定』。正理論說：從『定』中出來總共有五種：一是出地，二是出剎那，三是出行相，四是出所緣，五是出種類。從初禪進入二禪等，稱為『出地』。在同一禪定中，行相和所緣相續轉變，前一念無間地進入后一念，稱為『出剎那』。從無常的行相進入苦的行相等，稱為『出行相』。從緣色蘊進入緣受蘊等，稱為『出所緣』。從有漏進入無漏，從不染污進入染污等，稱為『出種類』。依據『出種類』，這裡說從所『味』中出來，進入能『味』的『定』。難道這兩句話不是互相矛盾嗎？能『味』的是愛，不是所進入的『定』。所進入的是『定』，不稱為能『味』。怎麼能說進入能『味』的『定』呢？沒有互相違背的過失。現在可以見到，相應的時候，隨便舉出一個名稱來說明兩者都存在。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Not moving from the direction' is called 'Samadhi' (定) corresponding to 'attachment to Samadhi' (定愛). It is also called 'Samadhi' because of its focus on a single object. Other delusions do not correspond in this way, because other afflictions cannot make the mind focus on their objects as much as attachment does. Therefore, if Samadhi arises together with attachment, focusing on a single object, it is similar to wholesome dharmas.
Treatise: 'Pure Attainment' (凈等至, Visuddhi-samapatti) is called 'pure' because one attains purity upon reaching this state. This is the second explanation of 'pure Samadhi'. Because it is with outflows (有漏), it is different from that without outflows (無漏), and therefore it is distinguished as worldly. Because it is pure, it is not 'flavor' (味, Asvada), and therefore it is distinguished by wholesome dharmas. It is called 'pure' because it corresponds to non-greed and other pure dharmas. This is an explanation of the name 'pure'.
Treatise: That is, corresponding to 'flavor', even to the point of deeply generating attachment to 'flavor'. This describes 'purity' as the object of 'flavor'. 'Flavor' can only be conditioned by 'purity'. Among those conditioned by 'purity', it can only be conditioned by the 'pure Samadhi' that has already declined in the past. It is not conditioned by the present or the future, because there is no 'pure Samadhi' in the present, and the 'purity' of the future has not yet been experienced. This says that 'flavor Samadhi' is allowed to arise, but not in all cases. It only arises in the declining part of Samadhi and a portion of the abiding Samadhi, because they are similar to the state of decline. The object is also like this. Moreover, the declining part of Samadhi does not necessarily decline, because the first five natures do not decline because of Samadhi. These people have all achieved the declining part of Samadhi.
Treatise: At that time, although it is called, even to the point of obtaining the name 'entering'. This describes 'entering' and 'exiting'. 'Flavor Samadhi' is not true 'Samadhi', but it is similar to 'Samadhi', so it is called 'Samadhi'. Therefore, it is also called 'entering flavor Samadhi'. The Abhidharma-nyayanusara (正理論) says: There are five types of exiting from Samadhi in total: first, exiting from the ground; second, exiting from the moment; third, exiting from the aspect; fourth, exiting from the object; fifth, exiting from the category. Entering the second dhyana (禪) from the first dhyana, etc., is called 'exiting from the ground'. Within the same dhyana, the aspects and objects continuously change, and the previous moment enters the next moment without interruption, which is called 'exiting from the moment'. Entering the aspect of suffering, etc., from the aspect of impermanence is called 'exiting from the aspect'. Entering the conditioning of the skandha (蘊) of sensation, etc., from the conditioning of the skandha of form is called 'exiting from the object'. Entering the unwholesome from the wholesome, entering the defiled from the undefiled, etc., is called 'exiting from the category'. According to 'exiting from the category', it is said here that exiting from what is 'flavored' enters the 'Samadhi' that can 'flavor'. Are these two statements not contradictory? What can 'flavor' is attachment, not the 'Samadhi' that is entered. What is entered is 'Samadhi', which is not called what can 'flavor'. How can it be said to enter the 'Samadhi' that can 'flavor'? There is no fault of contradiction. It can be seen now that when they correspond, one name is randomly mentioned to indicate that both exist.
品故。如勸長者作意記別。互相雜故俱得二名。由愛相應等持名味。等持力故愛得定名。故無二言更相違過。
論。無漏定者至非所味著。第三述無漏定也。如文可解。
論。如是所說八等至中。已下第二明具支多少 文中有二。一明四五支。二明染無支。明有支中有二。一明四定支有多少。二明支體。此兩行頌第一明靜慮支多少也。
論曰至五等持。明凈及無漏。初靜慮具五支也。
論。此中等持至義如前釋。會名．體也。
論。傳說唯定至非靜慮。述婆沙宗也。
論。如實義者至應知亦爾。論主正釋也。如四支軍不可偏論一支為軍亦軍支也。余靜慮支應知亦爾。正理論云。毗婆沙師顯靜慮地等持最勝。故作是說。三摩地是靜慮亦靜慮支。如四支軍。亦無有失。如王與眾雖互相資。而於其中王最為勝。
論。第二靜慮至四等持別。釋第二靜慮支也 言信名內等凈者。正理釋云。信是凈相故立凈名。如水清珠令心凈故。內心平等為緣故生。由此信根名內等凈。或第二定所有功德。平等為緣引生此凈。由此建立內等凈名(已上論文)。
論。第三靜慮至五等持。釋第三靜慮支多少也。
論。第四靜慮至四等持。釋第四定支也 言行舍．及念名清凈者。正理意云
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 品故。例如勸說長者用心記住區別。因為互相混雜，所以都得到兩個名稱。由於與愛相應，等持被稱為味。因為等持的力量，愛得到定的名稱。所以沒有兩種說法互相違背的過失。 論：無漏定者至非所味著。這是第三部分，闡述無漏定。文中的意思可以理解。 論：如是所說八等至中。以下第二部分，說明所具備的支分有多少。文中有兩點。一是說明四禪的支分有多少，二是說明染污和無染污的支分。說明有支分中又有兩點。一是說明四禪的支分有多少，二是說明支分的體性。這兩行頌是第一點，說明靜慮的支分有多少。 論曰至五等持。說明清凈和無漏。初禪具備五支。 論：此中等持至義如前釋。會合名稱和體性。 論：傳說唯定至非靜慮。這是在陳述毗婆沙宗的觀點。 論：如實義者至應知亦爾。這是論主的正確解釋。如同四支軍隊，不能只說一支是軍隊，它也是軍隊的支分。其餘靜慮的支分也應該這樣理解。正理論說，毗婆沙師認為靜慮地的等持最殊勝，所以這樣說。三摩地是靜慮，也是靜慮的支分，如同四支軍隊一樣，沒有過失。如同國王和眾人雖然互相資助，但在其中國王最為殊勝。 論：第二靜慮至四等持別。解釋第二靜慮的支分。所說的信名為內等凈，正理論解釋說，信是清凈的相，所以立名為凈。如同清水珠使心清凈的緣故。內心平等作為因緣而生。因此信根名為內等凈。或者第二定所有的功德，平等作為因緣引生此清凈。因此建立內等凈的名稱（以上是論文）。 論：第三靜慮至五等持。解釋第三靜慮的支分有多少。 論：第四靜慮至四等持。解釋第四定的支分。所說的行舍和念名為清凈，正理論的意思是
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the nature of the object. For example, persuading an elder to intentionally remember the distinctions. Because they are mixed together, both receive two names. Because of the association with love, samādhi (等持, concentration) is called 'taste'. Because of the power of samādhi, love receives the name 'concentration'. Therefore, there is no fault of two statements contradicting each other. Treatise: 'The undefiled samādhi to not being attached to what is tasted.' This is the third part, explaining the undefiled samādhi. The meaning in the text can be understood. Treatise: 'Among the eight samāpattis (等至, attainments) spoken of in this way.' The second part below explains how many branches are possessed. There are two points in the text. One is to explain how many branches the four dhyānas (禪, meditations) have, and the other is to explain the defiled and undefiled branches. There are two points in explaining the branches. One is to explain how many branches the four dhyānas have, and the other is to explain the nature of the branches. These two lines of verse are the first point, explaining how many branches dhyāna (靜慮, serene contemplation) has. Treatise says: 'To the five samādhis.' Explaining purity and undefilement. The first dhyāna possesses five branches. Treatise: 'Here, samādhi to the meaning is explained as before.' Combining the name and nature. Treatise: 'Tradition says only concentration to not being dhyāna.' This is stating the view of the Vaibhāṣika school. Treatise: 'The true meaning is that one should also know it is so.' This is the correct explanation of the treatise master. Just like a four-branched army, one cannot only say that one branch is the army, it is also a branch of the army. The remaining branches of dhyāna should also be understood in this way. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says that the Vaibhāṣika masters consider the samādhi of the dhyāna ground to be the most excellent, so they say this. Samādhi is dhyāna, and it is also a branch of dhyāna, just like a four-branched army, there is no fault. Just like a king and the people, although they support each other, the king is the most excellent among them. Treatise: 'The second dhyāna to the four samādhi distinctions.' Explaining the branches of the second dhyāna. What is said about faith being called inner equality and purity, the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra explains that faith is a pure aspect, so it is named purity. It is like a clear water pearl that makes the mind pure. It arises because the inner mind is equal as a condition. Therefore, the root of faith is called inner equality and purity. Or, the merits of the second dhyāna, equality as a condition, lead to this purity. Therefore, the name inner equality and purity is established (the above is the treatise). Treatise: 'The third dhyāna to the five samādhis.' Explaining how many branches the third dhyāna has. Treatise: 'The fourth dhyāna to the four samādhis.' Explaining the branches of the fourth dhyāna. What is said about equanimity and mindfulness being called purity, the meaning of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra is
。第四定中復棄捨樂故。彼舍．念得清凈名 又云。此中支名為目何義。目顯成義。何所顯成。謂顯成此是初靜慮。乃至。此是第四靜慮。或此支名目隨順義。謂十八支各順自地。或資具義說名為支。如祠祀支即牛．馬等。謂尋．伺等展轉相資 又云。何緣初三支各具五。第二第四各唯四支。或由欲界多諸惡法及妙五欲。難斷難捨。第二靜慮有重地喜其相動踴。喜中之極引五部愛。難捨難斷。為對治彼故。初．三各五支。初．三不然。故余各四 又釋。隨順超等至故 又云。輕安．行舍遍四靜慮。何緣初．二唯立輕安。后二地中唯立行舍。以此于彼偏隨順故。謂欲界中有諸惡法。初靜慮地有尋．伺想能逼惱心。猶如毒箭。初．二離彼故輕安增。第二靜慮喜極動踴。第三靜慮樂受極增。二俱能為愛勝生處。三．四棄彼故行舍增 又云。行舍．輕安互相覆蔽。若處有一第二便無。輕安治沈其相飄舉。行舍治掉其相寂止。故安與舍互相覆蔽 又云。何緣念．慧諸地皆有。而念唯在上二靜慮。慧在第三定方得立為支。隨其所應偏隨順故。謂喜與樂於三有中。是諸有情極所耽味。第三靜慮所味中。極有生死中最勝樂故。理應立慧觀察厭舍。若無慧者自地善根尚不能成。況進求勝。為治如是自地過失。第三靜慮立慧為支。餘地不然
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：在第四禪定中，又因為捨棄了快樂，所以那裡的舍和念被稱為清凈。還有人問，這裡的『支』（anga，禪定的組成部分）被稱為『目』（aksha，眼睛），是什麼意思？『目』有顯現和成就的意思。顯現和成就什麼呢？就是顯現和成就『這是初禪』，乃至『這是第四禪』。或者，這個『支』被稱為『目』，是隨順的意思，意思是十八支各自隨順自己的境界。或者，『支』有資助和工具的意思，就像祭祀的供品，比如牛、馬等。意思是尋（vitarka，粗略的思考）、伺（vicara，精細的思考）等互相資助。 又有人問，為什麼初禪和三禪各有五個支，而二禪和四禪各只有四個支？這可能是因為欲界有很多惡法和美妙的五欲，難以斷除和捨棄。二禪有強烈的喜悅，其狀態是動盪的。極度的喜悅會引發對五種欲樂的愛，難以捨棄和斷除。爲了對治這些，所以初禪和三禪各有五個支。初禪和三禪沒有這些問題，所以其餘的禪定各有四個支。 還有一種解釋是，這是爲了隨順超越等至（samapatti，禪定狀態）。又有人問，輕安（prasrabdhi，身心的輕快安適）和行舍（upeksha，平等舍）遍及四禪，為什麼初禪和二禪只建立輕安，而後兩禪只建立行舍？這是因為它們在各自的境界中特別隨順。也就是說，欲界中有各種惡法，初禪有尋和伺的思慮，能夠逼惱內心，就像毒箭一樣。初禪和二禪遠離了這些，所以輕安增長。二禪的喜悅非常強烈，動盪不安。三禪的快樂感受極度增長。這兩種情況都容易成為產生貪愛的有利條件。三禪和四禪捨棄了這些，所以行舍增長。 又有人說，行舍和輕安互相遮蔽，如果一個地方有其中一個，就不會有另一個。輕安對治沉沒，其狀態是飄浮舉動。行舍對治掉舉，其狀態是寂靜止息。所以輕安和行舍互相遮蔽。又有人問，為什麼念（smrti，正念）和慧（prajna，智慧）在各個境界都有，而念只在上兩禪中才被立為支，慧在三禪中才被立為支？這是因為它們在各自的境界中特別隨順。也就是說，喜悅和快樂在三有（trayo bhava，三種存在狀態，即欲界、色界、無色界）中，是眾生極度貪戀的。三禪所體驗的快樂，是生死輪迴中最殊勝的快樂。因此，理應建立智慧來觀察和厭離捨棄。如果沒有智慧，連自己境界的善根都不能成就，更何況進一步追求更高的境界。爲了對治這種自己境界的過失，三禪建立了智慧作為禪支。其餘的禪定不是這樣。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, in the fourth Dhyana (fourth meditative absorption), because joy is abandoned, that equanimity (upeksha) and mindfulness (smrti) are called pure. Moreover, it is asked: What is the meaning of calling the 'anga' (limb, component of Dhyana) here 'aksha' (eye)? 'Aksha' means manifesting and accomplishing. What does it manifest and accomplish? It manifests and accomplishes 'This is the first Dhyana,' and so on, until 'This is the fourth Dhyana.' Or, this 'anga' being called 'aksha' means being in accordance, meaning that the eighteen angas each accord with their own realm. Or, 'anga' means resources and tools, like the offerings in a sacrifice, such as cows and horses. It means that vitarka (initial application of thought), vicara (sustained application of thought), etc., mutually support each other. Furthermore, it is asked: Why do the first and third Dhyanas each have five angas, while the second and fourth Dhyanas each have only four angas? This may be because the desire realm (kama-dhatu) has many evil dharmas and wonderful five desires, which are difficult to cut off and abandon. The second Dhyana has intense joy (priti), and its state is agitated. Extreme joy can lead to attachment to the five objects of desire, which is difficult to abandon and cut off. To counteract these, the first and third Dhyanas each have five angas. The first and third Dhyanas do not have these problems, so the remaining Dhyanas each have four angas. Another explanation is that it is to accord with surpassing samapatti (attainment, meditative state). Furthermore, it is asked: Equanimity (upeksha) and tranquility (prasrabdhi) pervade the four Dhyanas, so why is only tranquility established in the first and second Dhyanas, and only equanimity established in the latter two Dhyanas? This is because they are particularly in accordance in their respective realms. That is to say, the desire realm has various evil dharmas, and the first Dhyana has vitarka and vicara, which can oppress the mind, like poisonous arrows. The first and second Dhyanas are far from these, so tranquility increases. The joy of the second Dhyana is very intense and agitated. The feeling of pleasure in the third Dhyana increases extremely. Both of these situations are likely to become favorable conditions for generating craving. The third and fourth Dhyanas abandon these, so equanimity increases. Furthermore, it is said that equanimity and tranquility mutually obscure each other. If one is present in a place, the other will not be. Tranquility counteracts sinking, and its state is floating and lifting. Equanimity counteracts agitation, and its state is stillness and cessation. Therefore, tranquility and equanimity mutually obscure each other. Furthermore, it is asked: Why are mindfulness (smrti) and wisdom (prajna) present in all realms, but mindfulness is only established as an anga in the upper two Dhyanas, and wisdom is only established as an anga in the third Dhyana? This is because they are particularly in accordance in their respective realms. That is to say, joy and pleasure in the three realms of existence (trayo bhava, kama-dhatu, rupa-dhatu, arupa-dhatu) are what sentient beings are extremely attached to. The pleasure experienced in the third Dhyana is the most supreme pleasure in the cycle of birth and death. Therefore, wisdom should be established to observe and renounce. If there is no wisdom, even the roots of goodness in one's own realm cannot be accomplished, let alone further seeking higher realms. To counteract this fault of one's own realm, the third Dhyana establishes wisdom as a limb of Dhyana. The other Dhyanas are not like this.
。故不立慧。第二靜慮有最勝喜。輕躁嬈亂如邏剎私第三定中有最勝樂。如天妙欲極為難捨。第三．四定由行舍支。隨其所應雖已棄捨。而恐退起立念遮防餘地不然。故不立念。然第三念勢用堅強。非唯助舍。亦能助慧。通能防備自．他地失。第四不爾。無自失故。由此第四不立慧支 問何緣內等凈唯立第二支。正理釋云。故內等凈體即信根謂若證得第二靜慮。則于定地亦可離中。有深信生名內等凈。故雖諸地皆有信根。而可立支。唯第二定以今創信。諸定地法與散地法俱可離故(已上論文)。
論。靜慮支名既有十八。已下一行頌。第二明支體也。
論曰至即五實事。明初靜慮支。五各有別體即有五實事。一尋。二伺。三喜。四輕安。五等持。
論。第二靜慮至足前為六。明第二靜慮。唯加一支。謂內等凈即是信也。
論。第三靜慮至足前為十。明第三靜慮。加四支也。一行舍。即善中舍也。二正念。通中念也。三正慧。通中慧也。四樂受。其受若就七十五法以明。即四地受皆同一也。若五受以明。即喜．樂．舍各別也。今就五受以明故。樂受增一。
論。第四靜慮至足前為十一。增非苦樂者。雖舍受即是前受。五受明義增前非苦樂也。若合四地受為一。即九法為支體也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因此不設立慧（智慧）。第二靜慮有最殊勝的喜悅，輕浮躁動擾亂就像羅剎私（一種惡鬼）。第三禪定中有最殊勝的快樂，如同天界的微妙慾望一樣極難捨棄。第三、四禪定由於行舍支（一種心理平衡的狀態），根據情況雖然已經拋棄了（喜和樂），但恐怕它們退回或重新生起，所以設立念（正念）來遮擋防備，否則就會出現問題。因此不設立念。然而第三禪定的念（正念）的力量堅強，不僅僅能幫助舍（捨棄），也能幫助慧（智慧），能夠全面防備自己和他人的過失。第四禪定則不然，因為它沒有自身的過失。因此第四禪定不設立慧支（智慧支）。 問：為什麼內等凈（內心的平靜和清凈）只在第二靜慮中設立為一支？正理（正確的道理）解釋說：內等凈的本體就是信根（信仰的根本），意思是如果證得了第二靜慮，那麼對於禪定之地也可以遠離中間狀態，產生深刻的信仰，這叫做內等凈。因此雖然各個禪定之地都有信根，但可以設立為一支的，只有第二禪定，因為這是初次產生信仰，各個禪定之地的法和散亂之地的法都可以遠離（中間狀態）。（以上是論文內容）。 論：靜慮支（禪定的組成部分）的名字既然有十八個，下面一行頌文，第二部分說明支的本體。 論曰：到即五實事。說明初靜慮的五個組成部分，各有不同的本體，即有五個真實的事物。一、尋（尋求）。二、伺（考察）。三、喜（喜悅）。四、輕安（身心輕快安適）。五、等持（專注）。 論：第二靜慮到足前為六。說明第二靜慮，只增加了一個組成部分，就是內等凈，也就是信（信仰）。 論：第三靜慮到足前為十。說明第三靜慮，增加了四個組成部分。一、行舍（行為的捨棄），就是善中的捨棄。二、正念（正確的念頭），是普遍的念頭。三、正慧（正確的智慧），是普遍的智慧。四、樂受（快樂的感受），如果就七十五法（佛教術語，指構成世界的七十五種要素）來說明，那麼四個禪定之地的感受都是一樣的。如果用五受（五種感受）來說明，那麼喜、樂、舍各有區別。現在就用五受來說明，所以樂受增加了一個。 論：第四靜慮到足前為十一。增加非苦樂（既非痛苦也非快樂）的感受，雖然舍受（捨棄的感受）就是前面的感受，但用五受來解釋就增加了前面的非苦樂。如果把四個禪定之地的感受合為一個，那麼就是九法作為支的本體。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, '慧' (wisdom) is not established. The second Dhyana (meditative absorption) has the most excellent '喜' (joy), and lightness and agitation are disturbing like '羅剎私' (Rakshasa, a type of demon). The third Dhyana has the most excellent '樂' (happiness), which is as difficult to relinquish as the subtle desires of the heavens. The third and fourth Dhyanas, due to the '行舍支' (equanimity factor), although they have already abandoned (joy and happiness) as appropriate, there is fear that they will regress or arise again, so '念' (mindfulness) is established to block and prevent them, otherwise problems will occur. Therefore, '念' (mindfulness) is not established. However, the power of '念' (mindfulness) in the third Dhyana is strong, not only helping '舍' (abandonment) but also helping '慧' (wisdom), and it can comprehensively prevent one's own and others' faults. The fourth Dhyana is not like this, because it has no faults of its own. Therefore, the fourth Dhyana does not establish the '慧支' (wisdom factor). Question: Why is '內等凈' (inner purity) only established as a factor in the second Dhyana? '正理' (correct reasoning) explains: The essence of '內等凈' (inner purity) is the '信根' (root of faith), meaning that if one attains the second Dhyana, then one can also be far from the middle state in the land of meditation, and a deep faith arises, which is called '內等凈' (inner purity). Therefore, although there is '信根' (root of faith) in each land of meditation, it can be established as a factor only in the second Dhyana, because this is the first time that faith arises, and the dharmas of each land of meditation and the dharmas of the scattered land can be far from (the middle state). (The above is the content of the paper). Treatise: Since there are eighteen names for the '靜慮支' (factors of Dhyana), the following verse in the second part explains the essence of the factors. Treatise says: To the five real things. Explaining the five components of the first Dhyana, each has a different essence, that is, there are five real things. First, '尋' (seeking). Second, '伺' (investigation). Third, '喜' (joy). Fourth, '輕安' (ease and comfort). Fifth, '等持' (concentration). Treatise: The second Dhyana to the front of the foot is six. Explaining the second Dhyana, only one component is added, which is '內等凈' (inner purity), which is '信' (faith). Treatise: The third Dhyana to the front of the foot is ten. Explaining the third Dhyana, four components are added. First, '行舍' (abandonment of action), which is the abandonment in goodness. Second, '正念' (right mindfulness), which is universal mindfulness. Third, '正慧' (right wisdom), which is universal wisdom. Fourth, '樂受' (pleasant feeling), if explained in terms of the seventy-five dharmas (Buddhist term, referring to the seventy-five elements that constitute the world), then the feelings of the four Dhyana lands are the same. If explained in terms of the five feelings, then joy, happiness, and equanimity are different. Now, using the five feelings to explain, the pleasant feeling is increased by one. Treatise: The fourth Dhyana to the front of the foot is eleven. Adding the feeling of neither suffering nor happiness, although the feeling of equanimity is the previous feeling, the previous non-suffering and non-happiness is added when explained in terms of the five feelings. If the feelings of the four Dhyana lands are combined into one, then nine dharmas are the essence of the factor.
論。由此故說至如理應思。四句料簡。如文可解。
論。何故第三說增樂受。經部問也。
論。由初二樂輕安攝故。有部答也。唯識論初．二喜．樂是一受。所悅身．心異立兩名也。
論。何理為證知是輕安。徴有部也。
論。初二定中無樂根故。有部總略答也。定中既無樂根。故知言樂是輕安樂。
論。非初二定至無五識故。已下進退推尋。無有樂受。樂有二種。一者身樂。二者心樂。身受樂者五識相應。定中無五識故無身受樂也。
論。亦無心受樂至故無樂受。此明無心受樂也。喜．樂二受名雖有異。同是其受。不可一心二受同起。既有喜．樂如何有樂。
論。不可喜樂至及四支故。遮轉計也。若言喜．樂更互現前說是樂受。有樂之時即無喜受。如何說具四支．五支。
論。有說無有至所攝樂根。述經部師計也。
論。若爾何故至身．心樂受。有部難也。經說。云何樂根乃至引生身．心樂受。故知樂根有身樂．心樂受也。
論。有餘於此至唯說身故。經部正經文也。是汝有部增足心字。所以得知。餘部經中無心字故。正理論云。何緣不許餘部契經。有餘于彼削除心字。以契經說第二定等無餘識身。心一趣故。若固說彼有身受樂與理相違。如后當辨
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：因此才說要如理作意。四句料簡，如經文所說可以理解。
論：為什麼第三禪要說增上樂受？這是經部的提問。
論：因為初禪和二禪的樂受被輕安所攝持。這是有部的回答。唯識論認為初禪和二禪的喜和樂是一種感受，只是所悅的身和心不同，所以立了兩個名稱。
論：有什麼道理可以證明那是輕安呢？這是有部提出的疑問。
論：因為初禪和二禪中沒有樂根。這是有部總括地回答。禪定中既然沒有樂根，所以知道所說的樂是輕安之樂。
論：不是初禪和二禪乃至沒有五識嗎？以下是進一步推論，沒有樂受。樂有兩種，一是身樂，二是心樂。身受樂與五識相應，禪定中沒有五識，所以沒有身受樂。
論：也沒有心受樂乃至所以沒有樂受。這說明沒有心受樂。喜和樂兩種感受，名稱雖然不同，但都是感受。不可能一心同時生起兩種感受。既然有喜，怎麼會有樂呢？
論：不可能喜樂乃至以及四支。這是爲了遮止其他的計度。如果說喜和樂交替出現，說是樂受，有樂的時候就沒有喜，怎麼能說具足四支或五支呢？
論：有人說沒有乃至所攝的樂根。這是敘述經部師的觀點。
論：如果這樣，為什麼乃至身心樂受？這是有部的反駁。經中說：『什麼是樂根？』乃至『引生身心樂受』。所以知道樂根有身樂和心樂受。
論：其他經典中乃至只說身故。這是經部引用的經文。是因為你們有部增加了『心』字。所以才知道，其他部的經典中沒有『心』字。正理論說：『為什麼不允許其他部的契經，有的人在其中刪除了『心』字？因為契經說第二禪等沒有其他的識身，心一境性。如果堅持說那裡有身受樂，就與道理相違背，如後面將要辨析。』
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: Therefore, it is said to contemplate mindfully. The four-sentence analysis can be understood as explained in the text.
Treatise: Why does the third Dhyana (meditative absorption) speak of increasing pleasurable feeling? This is a question from the Sautrantika (Scripture School).
Treatise: Because the pleasurable feelings of the first two Dhyanas are encompassed by Prasrabdhi (tranquility). This is the answer from the Sarvastivada (the 'All Exists' school). The Vijnanavada (Consciousness-only school) considers the joy and pleasure of the first and second Dhyanas as one feeling, with two names established due to the different objects of delight, the body and the mind.
Treatise: What reasoning proves that it is Prasrabdhi? This is a question posed to the Sarvastivada.
Treatise: Because there is no Sukha-indriya (faculty of pleasure) in the first two Dhyanas. This is a general and brief answer from the Sarvastivada. Since there is no faculty of pleasure in Dhyana, it is known that the pleasure spoken of is the pleasure of Prasrabdhi.
Treatise: Is it not that the first two Dhyanas do not have the five Vijnanas (consciousnesses)? The following is a progressive inquiry, there is no pleasurable feeling. There are two types of pleasure: bodily pleasure and mental pleasure. Bodily pleasure is associated with the five consciousnesses. Since there are no five consciousnesses in Dhyana, there is no bodily pleasurable feeling.
Treatise: There is also no mental pleasurable feeling, hence there is no pleasurable feeling. This clarifies that there is no mental pleasurable feeling. Although the names of joy and pleasure are different, they are the same feeling. It is impossible for two feelings to arise simultaneously in one mind. Since there is joy, how can there be pleasure?
Treatise: It is impossible for joy and pleasure to be present simultaneously, including the four limbs. This is to refute other views. If it is said that joy and pleasure alternate, and this is called pleasurable feeling, when there is pleasure, there is no joy. How can it be said to possess the four or five limbs?
Treatise: Some say there is no faculty of pleasure encompassed by. This is a description of the Sautrantika master's view.
Treatise: If that is the case, why is it said that there is bodily and mental pleasurable feeling? This is a refutation from the Sarvastivada. The Sutra says: 'What is the faculty of pleasure?' and 'giving rise to bodily and mental pleasurable feeling.' Therefore, it is known that the faculty of pleasure includes bodily and mental pleasurable feeling.
Treatise: Other Sutras only say 'body'. This is the Sautrantika quoting the Sutra. It is because your Sarvastivada added the word 'mind'. This is known because other schools' Sutras do not have the word 'mind'. The Tattvasiddhi-Sastra (Treatise on the Establishment of Truth) says: 'Why are other schools' Sutras not allowed, where some have deleted the word 'mind'? Because the Sutra says that the second Dhyana and so on have no other body of consciousness, the mind is one-pointed. If it is insisted that there is bodily pleasurable feeling there, it contradicts reason, as will be discussed later.'
。
論。又第三定至身所受樂故。經部與有部出違經失也。
論。若謂於此至為有何德。遮有部通經也。若有部通經。云經說身者說意為身。非五根者。為有何德勝說為心。正理論云。契經說為身所受樂。然不能證彼地樂根非心受攝。亦說離生喜是身所證故。豈可由此便執喜根非心受攝。若謂無色不說身者。此非決定。無色界中說身見故。又見於彼說身壞故。又說彼身下劣生故 又云。此說身名為有何德者。為顯彼樂受自內所證故。謂彼地樂非所依．緣所能顯了。唯自內證。此即顯彼樂受中極。亦見於自說以身聲。如說由身證甘露界。即是自證甘露界義(已上論文)。
論。又第四定至有樂支故。舉有勝不說難也。
論。若謂輕安至應是樂支。遮有部救也。
論。若謂彼輕安至勝前二故。破重救也。先以二理破。后引經破。此二理也。
論。又契經說至非即輕安。后引經破也。經說離生喜。身作證。是初定說修五法。一歡。二喜。三輕安。四樂。既輕安與樂別說故。初．二樂非即輕安 言離生喜者。離欲惡法生彼喜故。
論。若言定中至無遍觸身故。破有部無身識也。經部述自宗計也。
論。若謂外散至三摩地故。通有部難也。有部難言。若以有輕安風。即令爾時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
論：又因為第三禪定以身體所感受的快樂為特點，經部（Sautrāntika）與有部（Sarvāstivāda）的觀點與經典相悖，這是他們的過失。 論：如果說在這種情況下，『身』有什麼特別的意義呢？這是爲了反駁有部對經典的曲解。如果允許有部曲解經典，說經典中提到的『身』是指『意』，而不是指五根，那麼他們又有什麼理由認為『身』比『心』更優越呢？正理論中說，契經中說身體所感受的快樂，但並不能證明那個禪定中的樂根不是由心所感受的。經典中也說離生喜是身體所證得的，難道能因此就認為喜根不是由心所感受的嗎？如果說無色界不說『身』，這也不是絕對的，因為在無色界中也說『身見』。而且，也看到在無色界中說『身壞』。還說無色界的『身』是下劣的。又說，這裡說『身』這個名稱有什麼特別的意義呢？是爲了顯示那個樂受是自己內在所證得的。也就是說，那個禪定中的快樂不是依靠外在的所依或所緣才能顯現的，而是唯有自己才能證得的。這也就顯示了那個樂受是極樂。也看到經典中用『身』來表達自證，比如經中說通過身體證得甘露界，就是自證甘露界的意思（以上是論文中的內容）。 論：又因為第四禪定具有樂支，所以舉出具有殊勝之處，不說困難之處。 論：如果說輕安也是樂支，這是爲了反駁有部的辯解。 論：如果說那種輕安比前兩個禪定更殊勝，這是爲了駁斥有部的重複辯解。先用兩個理由來駁斥，然後引用經典來駁斥。以上就是兩個理由。 論：又因為契經中說離生喜，身體作證，而不是輕安。這是引用經典來駁斥。經典中說離生喜，身體作證，這是初禪中說修五法，一是歡，二是喜，三是輕安，四是樂。既然輕安與樂是分別說的，那麼初禪和二禪中的樂就不是輕安。所說的離生喜，是因為遠離欲界的惡法而生起的喜。 論：如果說禪定中沒有普遍的觸身，這是爲了駁斥有部沒有身識的觀點。這是經部陳述自己的宗派觀點。 論：如果說外在散亂的風會影響三摩地，這是有部提出的難題。有部提出難題說，如果因為有輕安的風，就會導致那時
【English Translation】 English version
Treatise: Furthermore, because the third Dhyana (meditative absorption) is characterized by the pleasure experienced by the body, the Sautrāntika (Scripture School) and Sarvāstivāda (Doctrine of All Exists) schools contradict the scriptures, which is their fault. Treatise: If it is said, in this context, what special significance does 'body' have? This is to refute the Sarvāstivāda's misinterpretation of the scriptures. If the Sarvāstivāda is allowed to misinterpret the scriptures, saying that 'body' mentioned in the scriptures refers to 'mind' and not to the five roots (sense organs), then what reason do they have to consider 'body' superior to 'mind'? The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (Treatise on Following the Principles of Reasoning) says that the pleasure experienced by the body is mentioned in the scriptures, but this cannot prove that the root of pleasure in that Dhyana is not experienced by the mind. The scriptures also say that joy born of detachment is realized by the body. Can it be concluded from this that the root of joy is not experienced by the mind? If it is said that the Formless Realm (Arūpadhātu) does not mention 'body', this is not absolute, because 'self-view' (Sakkāya-ditthi) is also mentioned in the Formless Realm. Moreover, it is seen that 'body' is said to be destroyed in the Formless Realm. It is also said that the 'body' in the Formless Realm is inferior. Furthermore, what special significance is there in saying 'body' here? It is to show that the pleasure is realized internally. That is, the pleasure in that Dhyana cannot be manifested by relying on external support or object, but can only be realized by oneself. This shows that the pleasure is supreme. It is also seen that the scriptures use 'body' to express self-realization, such as the scripture saying that one attains the realm of nectar (Amrita) through the body, which means self-realization of the realm of nectar (above is the content of the treatise). Treatise: Furthermore, because the fourth Dhyana has the factor of pleasure, it mentions the superior aspects and does not mention the difficult aspects. Treatise: If it is said that tranquility (Prasrabdhi) is also a factor of pleasure, this is to refute the Sarvāstivāda's defense. Treatise: If it is said that tranquility is superior to the previous two Dhyanas, this is to refute the Sarvāstivāda's repeated defense. First, refute with two reasons, and then cite the scriptures to refute. The above are the two reasons. Treatise: Furthermore, because the scriptures say that joy born of detachment is realized by the body, not tranquility. This is citing the scriptures to refute. The scriptures say that joy born of detachment is realized by the body. This is the first Dhyana, which speaks of cultivating five factors: first, joy (Harsa); second, delight (Priti); third, tranquility (Prasrabdhi); fourth, pleasure (Sukha). Since tranquility and pleasure are mentioned separately, the pleasure in the first and second Dhyanas is not tranquility. The joy born of detachment is because it arises from detachment from the evil dharmas of the desire realm (Kāmadhātu). Treatise: If it is said that there is no pervasive bodily touch in Dhyana, this is to refute the Sarvāstivāda's view that there is no body consciousness (Kāya-vijñāna). This is the Sautrāntika school stating its own view. Treatise: If it is said that external scattered winds will affect Samadhi (concentration), this is a difficult question raised by the Sarvāstivāda. The Sarvāstivāda raises the difficult question, saying that if there is a wind of tranquility, it will cause at that time
有身識者定應失壞 通云。此順定故不失壞定。
論。若謂起身識至由前因故。又通難也。若謂有身識起應出定者。由前順定因故不出定也。
論。若謂依止至許生無過。又通難也。準此論文。經部。許在定有身識行。及依欲界身起色界身識緣色界觸。唯許緣輕安風也。
論。若爾正在定至成違理失。有部難也。正在無漏定中。觸及身識應成無漏。以無漏初定現在前時。即以彼輕安觸是覺支。身識中樂為樂支。不可同五支中喜是無漏 樂是有漏故。成違理失。
論。無違理失。經部答也。
論。所以者何。有部徴也。
論。許說身輕安是覺支攝故。經部引例答也。經說身輕安是覺支故。
論。若謂順彼至許如是說。引例破也。汝豈不說是隨順覺支名覺支也。我宗身識亦順無漏故名為無漏。無違理失。
論。若謂許說至皆有漏故。有部引經難經既說十五界有漏。如何輕安觸。及身識。隨順無漏名無漏也。
論。無違經過至密意說故。經部通經也。此就余觸及余身識。唯名有漏。準此論意。經部以輕安風及身識順無漏故。假名無漏。
論。如何無漏至支小無漏。有部難也。其輕安風實是有漏。順無漏故名為無漏者。如何無漏定正現在前。少支有漏。少支無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：若有身識（具有身體感覺的意識）存在，必定會失壞禪定。通（一種觀點）認為：這是順應禪定的緣故，所以不會失壞禪定。
論：如果認為起身識（身體感覺的意識生起）是因為之前的因緣，這也是一種通難（普遍的詰難）。如果認為有身識生起就應該出定，那是因為之前的順定因的緣故，所以不會出定。
論：如果認為依止（依靠）……允許產生沒有過失。這也是一種通難。根據這段論文，經部（佛教部派之一）允許在禪定中有身識的活動，以及依靠欲界（佛教宇宙觀中的一個界）身體生起的身識緣觸（身體感覺的意識所緣的觸覺）。但只允許緣輕安風（輕微安穩的風）。
論：如果這樣，正在禪定中……就成了違背道理的過失。這是有部（佛教部派之一）的詰難。正在無漏定（沒有煩惱的禪定）中，觸和身識應該成為無漏的。因為無漏初定（最初的無漏禪定）現在顯現時，就以那輕安觸作為覺支（菩提的組成部分），身識中的樂受作為樂支（快樂的組成部分）。不能像五支（禪定的五個組成部分）中喜是無漏的，而樂是有漏的那樣，這樣就成了違背道理的過失。
論：沒有違背道理的過失。這是經部的回答。
論：為什麼呢？這是有部的征問。
論：允許說身輕安是覺支所攝。這是經部引例回答。經中說身輕安是覺支，所以沒有過失。
論：如果認為順應那個……允許這樣說。這是引例破斥。你們難道不說這是隨順覺支而名為覺支嗎？我宗（經部）的身識也順應無漏，所以名為無漏，沒有違背道理的過失。
論：如果認為允許說……都是有漏的緣故。這是有部引用經文來詰難。既然經中說十五界（佛教中的十八界減去意、法、意識三界）是有漏的，那麼輕安觸和身識如何隨順無漏而名為無漏呢？
論：沒有違背經過……是密意說的緣故。這是經部解釋經文。這是就其他的觸和其他的身識而言，才名為有漏。根據這段論的意義，經部認為輕安風和身識順應無漏的緣故，假名為無漏。
論：如何無漏……支分少許無漏。這是有部的詰難。那輕安風實際上是有漏的，因為順應無漏的緣故而名為無漏，那麼如何無漏定正在顯現時，少許支分是有漏的，少許支分是無漏的呢？
【English Translation】 English version Commentary: If there is bodily consciousness, it will definitely ruin the samadhi (meditative state). The 'Tong' (a viewpoint) says: This is in accordance with samadhi, so it will not ruin the samadhi.
Treatise: If it is argued that the arising of bodily consciousness is due to previous causes, this is also a common difficulty. If it is argued that the arising of bodily consciousness should lead to exiting samadhi, it is because of the previous causes that support samadhi, so one will not exit samadhi.
Treatise: If it is argued that relying on... allows for the arising without fault. This is also a common difficulty. According to this treatise, the Sautrantika school (a Buddhist school) allows for the activity of bodily consciousness in samadhi, and the bodily consciousness arising from the desire realm (a realm in Buddhist cosmology) that cognizes contact. However, it only allows for the cognition of light and comfortable wind (light and comfortable sensation).
Treatise: If that's the case, being in samadhi... becomes a contradictory fault. This is a challenge from the Sarvastivada school (a Buddhist school). While being in anasrava-samadhi (undefiled samadhi), contact and bodily consciousness should become undefiled. Because when the initial anasrava-samadhi is present, that light and comfortable contact is considered a limb of enlightenment (bodhyanga), and the pleasure in bodily consciousness is considered a limb of joy (sukha). It cannot be like how joy is undefiled among the five limbs (of samadhi), while pleasure is defiled, which would be a contradictory fault.
Treatise: There is no contradictory fault. This is the Sautrantika school's response.
Treatise: Why is that? This is the Sarvastivada school's question.
Treatise: It is allowed to say that bodily lightness and comfort are included in the limbs of enlightenment. This is the Sautrantika school's answer by citing an example. The sutra says that bodily lightness and comfort are limbs of enlightenment, so there is no fault.
Treatise: If it is argued that in accordance with that... it is allowed to say so. This is refuting by citing an example. Don't you say that it is named a limb of enlightenment because it accords with the limbs of enlightenment? Our school (Sautrantika) also considers bodily consciousness to accord with the undefiled, so it is named undefiled, and there is no contradictory fault.
Treatise: If it is argued that it is allowed to say... all are defiled. This is the Sarvastivada school citing a sutra to challenge. Since the sutra says that the fifteen realms (the eighteen realms in Buddhism minus the mind, objects, and mental consciousness) are defiled, how can light and comfortable contact and bodily consciousness accord with the undefiled and be named undefiled?
Treatise: There is no violation... it is said with a hidden meaning. This is the Sautrantika school explaining the sutra. This is only named defiled in reference to other contacts and other bodily consciousnesses. According to the meaning of this treatise, the Sautrantika school believes that light and comfortable wind and bodily consciousness accord with the undefiled, so they are provisionally named undefiled.
Treatise: How can the undefiled... a small portion of the limbs is undefiled. This is the Sarvastivada school's challenge. That light and comfortable wind is actually defiled, but it is named undefiled because it accords with the undefiled. Then how can the undefiled samadhi be present, with a small portion of the limbs being defiled and a small portion of the limbs being undefiled?
漏。
論。起不俱時斯有何失。經部通也。起身識時不起喜受。起喜受時不起身受。斯有何失。準此。不說身識及輕安是真無漏也。
論。若謂喜樂至及四支理。牒有部難也。
論。此亦無過至如有尋伺。經部通也。經部引自許為喻。彼部許尋．伺不俱起。而並立為支。而初定有五支也。
論。若謂尋伺至為喻不成。牒有部難也。夫為喻之法。兩宗共許方可成喻。我宗不許二前後起。為喻不成。
論。此非不成至不能說過故。經部通也。我前根品中。以立因云心之粗．細更互相違故不應俱。又汝於我前說之因不能說過。所以為喻得成。夫因明法。若不共許先立宗破訖。彼雖不許非不成也。
論。由此可說至不說想等。經部就自宗釋也。由初定中立尋．伺．喜樂受支故。減前支故立后靜慮。即由此理初說五支。減初尋．伺立第二定。減其喜受並尋伺三立第三定。減其樂受並前三支立第四定。想等無減故不立支。
論 或應說何故初唯立五支。經部反徴也。若不如我所釋汝應說。何故初定唯立五支。
論。若謂此五至故立為支。牒有部計也。
論。此不應理至勝尋伺故。經部破也。
論。雖有一類至共施設故。雖一類有部師釋初定立五支為資初定故。然非
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 漏 (Āsrava)：
論：如果說不俱時生起會有什麼過失？ 經部宗（Sautrāntika）解釋說：身識生起時，喜受不會生起；喜受生起時，身識不會生起。這有什麼過失呢？ 按照這個說法，不說身識和輕安是真正的無漏。
論：如果說喜樂達到四肢，這是引述有部宗（Sarvāstivāda）的責難。
論：這也沒有過失，就像有尋伺一樣。 經部宗解釋說：經部宗引用自己宗派所認可的比喻。他們宗派認為尋（Vitarka）、伺（Vicāra）不會同時生起，但卻並立為禪支。因此，初禪有五支。
論：如果說尋伺的比喻不成立，這是引述有部宗的責難。作為比喻的方法，必須是兩宗共同認可的才能成立。我宗不認可尋伺前後生起，所以比喻不成立。
論：這不是不成立，而是不能駁倒我的觀點。 經部宗解釋說：我在前面的根品中，已經立因說，心的粗細互相違背，所以不應該同時存在。而且你對我之前所說的因不能駁倒，所以比喻才能成立。因明法的規則是，如果不共同認可，先立宗破斥完畢。即使他們不認可，也不是不成立。
論：由此可以說，不說想等。 經部宗就自己的宗派解釋說：由於初禪中立尋、伺、喜、樂、受為禪支，爲了減少前面的禪支，所以設立後面的靜慮。也就是根據這個道理，最初說有五支，減少最初的尋、伺，設立第二禪；減少喜、受以及尋、伺三者，設立第三禪；減少樂受以及前面的三個禪支，設立第四禪。想等沒有減少，所以不設立為禪支。
論：或者應該說，為什麼最初隻立五支？ 經部宗反過來質問：如果不如我所解釋的，你應該說，為什麼最初的禪定只設立五個禪支？
論：如果說這五個是……所以立為禪支。 這是引述有部宗的觀點。
論：這不應道理，因為勝過尋伺。 經部宗駁斥說。
論：雖然有一類……共同施設，所以…… 雖然有一類有部師解釋說，初禪設立五支是爲了資助初禪，然而並非……
【English Translation】 English version Āsrava (Leakage/Influx):
Treatise: If arising non-simultaneously has what fault? The Sautrāntika (Scripture School) explains: When body consciousness arises, joy and feeling do not arise; when joy and feeling arise, body consciousness does not arise. What fault is there in this? According to this, body consciousness and lightness are not said to be truly without outflows.
Treatise: If saying joy and pleasure reach the four limbs, this is citing the Sarvāstivāda's (All Exists School) difficulty.
Treatise: This also has no fault, just like having Vitarka (Initial Application of Thought) and Vicāra (Sustained Application of Thought). The Sautrāntika explains: The Sautrāntika cites a metaphor that their own school acknowledges. That school believes that Vitarka and Vicāra do not arise simultaneously, but are established together as limbs of dhyana (meditative absorption). Therefore, the first dhyana has five limbs.
Treatise: If saying the metaphor of Vitarka and Vicāra is not established, this is citing the Sarvāstivāda's difficulty. As a method of metaphor, it must be acknowledged by both schools to be established. Our school does not acknowledge Vitarka and Vicāra arising sequentially, so the metaphor is not established.
Treatise: This is not unestablished, but rather unable to refute my view. The Sautrāntika explains: In the previous chapter on faculties, I already established the reason that the coarseness and fineness of the mind contradict each other, so they should not exist simultaneously. Moreover, you cannot refute the reason I stated before, so the metaphor can be established. The rule of Hetu-vidyā (logic) is that if it is not commonly acknowledged, first establish the thesis and complete the refutation. Even if they do not acknowledge it, it is not unestablished.
Treatise: From this, it can be said that thinking, etc., are not mentioned. The Sautrāntika explains from its own school's perspective: Because in the first dhyana, Vitarka, Vicāra, joy, pleasure, and feeling are established as limbs of dhyana, in order to reduce the previous limbs, later samādhi (concentration) is established. That is, according to this principle, initially five limbs are mentioned, reducing the initial Vitarka and Vicāra to establish the second dhyana; reducing joy, feeling, and the three of Vitarka and Vicāra to establish the third dhyana; reducing pleasure and the previous three limbs to establish the fourth dhyana. Thinking, etc., are not reduced, so they are not established as limbs.
Treatise: Or it should be said, why were only five limbs initially established? The Sautrāntika questions in return: If it is not as I explained, you should say, why were only five limbs established in the initial dhyana?
Treatise: If saying these five are... therefore established as limbs. This is citing the Sarvāstivāda's view.
Treatise: This is not reasonable, because it surpasses Vitarka and Vicāra. The Sautrāntika refutes.
Treatise: Although one type... jointly established, therefore... Although one type of Sarvāstivāda master explains that the five limbs are established in the first dhyana to support the first dhyana, however, it is not...
經部古昔諸軌範師共施設故。
論。應審思擇至名內等凈。兩部諍初．二定樂支已。次共評論第二定內凈支也。此是有部令經部應審思也。
論。此定遠離至如河有浪。經部釋也。即是此第二定遠離尋．伺鼓動。相續清凈轉名內等凈也。
論。若爾此應至此即信根。有部與經部出過。若謂無尋．伺故名內等凈。此即內凈無體。如何得說十一實事破也 是故應說此即信根。歸有部正義也。
論。謂若證得至名內等凈。此廣釋也。前初定中離其散地。今第二定離其定地。既自得二定離於初定。于其定地亦可離中。有深信生。即所生信名內等凈。
論。信是凈相至立內等凈名。釋名也 信是凈相。釋凈名也 離外。釋內名也 均流。釋等也 凈而內等故立內等凈名者。合釋也。
論。有餘師言至皆無別體。述余經部師釋也。
論。若無別體心所應不成。有部難也。
論。心分位殊亦得名心所。經部通也。
論。雖有此理非我所宗。論主意許經部理。而言許有部也。
論。如上所言至知決定然。外人問有部也。
論。汝等豈言喜非喜受。有部問外人也。
論。如餘部許我亦許然。外人答也。如上座部許我亦許也。
論。餘部云何至許非喜受
。有部徴外人也。
論。謂別有喜至其體各異。外人答也。謂上座部計別有喜是心所法。而不是受。三定中樂皆是喜受。故喜。喜受。其體各異。
論。非三定樂至分明證故。有部非外人計。以違二阿笈摩故 阿笈摩。此云傳。
論。如辨顛倒至無餘滅樂。引第一經也。經說三定無餘滅喜。故知三定無喜受也。
論。又余經說至是喜非樂。引第二經證也。既言第四靜慮斷樂斷苦先喜．憂沒。喜既先樂后。故知第三定中無喜根也。經云斷樂斷苦先喜憂沒者。謂初定斷憂．苦。三定斷喜。四定斷樂。樂．苦相對故經先說。喜．憂非對說其先．沒。故婆沙八十一云。言第四靜慮斷苦者。依雙法盡俱說斷聲。言雙法者。謂苦與樂。離欲染時雖苦已盡而樂未盡。今離第三靜慮染已。苦．樂俱盡。俱說斷聲。離三靜慮染樂等皆斷。何為唯說斷樂根耶。答爾時樂盡故。知離欲界及初定染。亦斷喜等。由未盡故所以不說。又婆沙八十一云。如契經說初定憂根滅。第二定苦根滅。問離欲染時斷憂．及苦。契經何故作是說耶。答依過對治故作是說。謂離欲染位雖斷苦根。而未名為過苦對治。于初定得離染時。過苦對治故。苦對治者謂初定也。複次依過族性．及苦所依故作是說。謂離欲染位雖斷苦根。而未過苦所依
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 外人（指非有部宗義的人）提出異議。
論：他們認為喜與樂是不同的，它們的本體各不相同。外人回答說：上座部認為喜是一種心所法（citta-caitta，與心相關的心理現象），而不是受（vedanā，感受）。在第三禪定中的快樂都是喜受。因此，喜和喜受的本體是不同的。
論：並非第三禪定中有樂，而是因為有清晰的證據。有部（指說一切有部）不認同外人的觀點，因為它違反了兩個阿笈摩（āgama，聖傳、經）。阿笈摩，在這裡的意思是『傳』。
論：正如《辨顛倒經》所說，直到無餘滅樂。這是引用第一部經。經中說第三禪定中沒有剩餘的喜，因此可知第三禪定中沒有喜受。
論：另外，其餘的經中說，這是喜而不是樂。這是引用第二部經來證明。既然經中說第四靜慮（catuttha jhāna，第四禪定）斷樂斷苦，先喜憂沒，喜在樂之前，那麼可知第三禪定中沒有喜根（sukha-indriya，樂根）。經中說『斷樂斷苦先喜憂沒』，是指初禪斷憂苦，三禪斷喜，四禪斷樂。樂和苦是相對的，所以經中先說。喜和憂不是相對的，所以說先沒。因此，《婆沙論》第八十一卷說，說第四靜慮斷苦，是依據雙法（苦和樂）都已斷盡而說的。所謂雙法，是指苦和樂。在離欲染時，雖然苦已經斷盡，但樂還沒有斷盡。現在離第三靜慮染之後，苦和樂都斷盡了，所以都說斷。離三靜慮染之後，樂等等都斷了，為什麼只說斷樂根呢？回答說，因為那時樂已經斷盡了。可知離欲界和初禪染時，也斷了喜等等，因為沒有完全斷盡，所以沒有說。另外，《婆沙論》第八十一卷說，如契經（sūtra，佛經）所說，初禪憂根滅，第二禪苦根滅。問：離欲染時斷憂和苦，契經為什麼這樣說呢？答：依據過患的對治而這樣說。意思是說，離欲染位雖然斷了苦根，但還不能稱為過患的苦的對治。在初禪得到離染時，才是過患的苦的對治。苦的對治是指初禪。再次，依據過患的族性和苦的所依而這樣說。意思是說，離欲染位雖然斷了苦根，但還沒有超過苦的所依。
【English Translation】 English version: An objector, a person from outside the Sarvāstivāda school, raises a point.
Argument: They argue that 'joy' (喜, xǐ) and 'pleasure' (樂, lè) are distinct, with different entities. The objector replies: The Theravāda school considers 'joy' to be a mental factor (citta-caitta, mental phenomena associated with the mind), not a feeling (vedanā, sensation). The happiness in the third dhyāna (三定, sān dìng, three concentrations) is all pleasure-feeling. Therefore, 'joy' and 'pleasure-feeling' have different entities.
Argument: It is not that there is pleasure in the third dhyāna, but because there is clear evidence. The Sarvāstivāda school does not agree with the objector's view because it contradicts two Āgamas (阿笈摩, āgama, sacred transmissions, scriptures). Āgama, here, means 'transmission'.
Argument: As the Discrimination of Inversions Sutra says, until the complete cessation of pleasure. This is quoting the first sutra. The sutra says that in the third dhyāna, there is no remaining joy, therefore it is known that there is no pleasure-feeling in the third dhyāna.
Argument: Furthermore, other sutras say, 'This is joy, not pleasure.' This is quoting the second sutra to prove it. Since the sutra says that in the fourth jhāna (第四靜慮, catuttha jhāna, fourth meditation), pleasure and pain are ceased, and joy and sorrow have previously disappeared, and joy is before pleasure, then it is known that there is no pleasure-faculty (sukha-indriya, faculty of pleasure) in the third dhyāna. The sutra says 'pleasure and pain are ceased, and joy and sorrow have previously disappeared,' which means that the first dhyāna ceases sorrow and pain, the third dhyāna ceases joy, and the fourth dhyāna ceases pleasure. Pleasure and pain are opposites, so the sutra mentions them first. Joy and sorrow are not opposites, so it says 'previously disappeared.' Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā (婆沙論, pó shā lùn) volume 81 says that saying the fourth jhāna ceases pain is based on the fact that both dharmas (苦 and 樂, suffering and pleasure) are said to be ceased together. The so-called 'both dharmas' refers to pain and pleasure. When one is free from desire-realm attachment, although pain has ceased, pleasure has not yet ceased. Now, after being free from the third dhyāna attachment, both pain and pleasure have ceased, so both are said to be ceased. After being free from the three dhyāna attachments, pleasure, etc., are all ceased, so why only say the pleasure-faculty is ceased? The answer is that pleasure has ceased at that time. It is known that when one is free from the desire-realm and the first dhyāna attachment, joy, etc., are also ceased, but because they have not completely ceased, they are not mentioned. Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā volume 81 says, as the sutra (契經, sūtra, Buddhist scripture) says, the sorrow-faculty is ceased in the first dhyāna, and the pain-faculty is ceased in the second dhyāna. Question: When one is free from desire-realm attachment, sorrow and pain are ceased, so why does the sutra say this? Answer: It says this based on the antidote to the fault. It means that although the pain-faculty is ceased when one is free from desire-realm attachment, it is not yet called the antidote to the fault of pain. When one attains freedom from attachment in the first dhyāna, it is the antidote to the fault of pain. The antidote to pain refers to the first dhyāna. Again, it says this based on the nature of the fault and the basis of pain. It means that although the pain-faculty is ceased when one is free from desire-realm attachment, one has not yet surpassed the basis of pain.
．族性。于初定得離染時。過苦所依．及苦族性故。說苦滅。所依族性。謂諸識身 問離欲染位雖斷憂根。而未過彼對治．所依．及彼族性。不應說憂初定滅。答憂根對治．所依．族性皆在意識。既與憂根同在意識。故正斷時即說彼滅。苦根所依．及苦族性。不與對治同在一識。故過對治．所依．族性方說苦滅。有作是說。第二靜慮苦根滅者。謂尋．伺滅。以諸賢聖于尋．伺中發生苦想。過諸異生厭地獄苦。能生苦想。故名苦根。已上論文 問四定起時有善大地。通大地十。不定尋．伺。及心王。二十三法相應而起。因何唯用九法以為靜慮支。大地中念．定．慧．受。善大地中行舍．輕安．信。不定尋．伺以立定支。餘十四法非定支攝。故婆沙八十廢立意云。心王是主非心所支。大地法十念．定．慧三。順凈偏勝故立為支。受于雜染．清凈分中。勢用俱勝是故亦立。然五受中憂．苦非定相應。故不立支。想．思．觸．欲偏順流轉不是還滅。故不立支。作意唯是欲界散地對境用勝非諸定地故不立支。勝解唯于無學位勝。靜慮遍於一切位勝。是故不立。善中信為眾行初基。如清水珠令心澄凈。故立為支。掉舉定障行舍能治。惛沈慧障輕安能治。是故立支。慚．愧．無貪．無瞋．不放逸．不害非極隨順諸靜慮故。此法多於欲
界散地惡法。為近對治。勢力增強非於定地。是故不立。精進多苦身．心。定令身．心多樂。非極相順故不立支。然順菩提立菩提分法。不定中尋．伺二法。順凈偏強能助等持。制策於心。令離粗細對治欲惡。故並立支。自余心所與定不相應故。不立支也。
論。如是所說諸靜慮支。已下一行頌。第二明染無支也。
論曰至所染污故。述一類隨相說。如文可解。
論。有餘師說至大善攝故。述異說也。染定非善但除唯善。自余通染故不除也。故前文云非皆具有。
論。契經中說三定有動。已下一行頌。大文第三釋經中說不動也。
論曰至災患有八。釋前經也。以無八種災患故名不動。
論。其八者何。問也。
論。尋伺四受至說為不動。答也。
論。然契經說至喜樂所動。述釋余經不同也。若通欲界兼息風說。即有八災。若唯對色界定內心所。即離尋．伺．喜．樂。
論。有餘師說至照而無動。述異釋也。
論。如定靜慮所有諸受。已下一行頌。第四明生靜慮也。
論。曰至四識相應。述初生靜慮。
論。第二有二至心悅粗故。述第二定也。無餘識故無三識相應樂。心悅粗故無意識相應樂也。
論。第三有二至受有差別。述后二定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 散亂之地會滋生惡法，（禪定）作為對治這些惡法的手段，其勢力增強並非在禪定之地。因此，（散亂地）不被設立為（禪定的）支分。精進會帶來身體和精神上的諸多痛苦，而禪定則能使身心感到更多的快樂。由於兩者並非完全順應，因此（精進）不被設立為支分。然而，順應菩提（覺悟）的法，則被設立為菩提分法。在不定心中，尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，細緻的思考）這兩種心所，順應清凈的力量更強，能夠幫助等持（Samadhi，專注）。通過控制和鞭策內心，使其遠離粗細的慾念，從而對治貪慾和厭惡。因此，（尋和伺）被一同設立為支分。其餘的心所與禪定不相應，因此不被設立為支分。
論：如上所說的各種靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）的支分，以下一行頌文，第二部分闡明染污沒有支分。
論曰：直到『所染污故』。這是敘述一類隨順表相的說法，如文義可以理解。
論：有其他論師說：直到『大善攝故』。這是敘述不同的說法。染污的禪定並非善，只是去除唯一是善的部分，其餘的都通於染污，因此不去除。所以前面的經文說並非全部具有。
論：契經中說三種禪定有動搖，以下一行頌文，第三大部分解釋經中所說的不動。
論曰：直到『災患有八』。這是解釋前面的經文。因為沒有八種災患，所以稱為不動。
論：這八種是什麼？這是提問。
論：尋伺、四種感受，直到『說為不動』。這是回答。
論：然而，契經中說：直到『喜樂所動』。這是敘述解釋其他經文的不同之處。如果通於欲界，兼顧氣息的流動來說，就存在八種災患。如果僅僅針對色界禪定內心所緣，就是遠離尋、伺、喜、樂。
論：有其他論師說：直到『照而無動』。這是敘述不同的解釋。
論：如禪定靜慮中所有的各種感受，以下一行頌文，第四部分闡明生起靜慮。
論曰：直到『四識相應』。這是敘述初生的靜慮。
論：第二禪定有兩種，直到『心悅粗故』。這是敘述第二禪定。因為沒有其餘的識，所以沒有與第三、第四識相應的樂受。因為心悅粗重，所以沒有與意識相應的樂受。
論：第三禪定有兩種，直到『受有差別』。這是敘述後面的兩種禪定。
【English Translation】 English version: Evil dharmas (phenomena) arise in a scattered place, and (meditation) as a countermeasure against these evil dharmas, its power increases not in a meditative place. Therefore, (a scattered place) is not established as a limb (of meditation). Diligence brings much suffering to body and mind, while meditation brings more joy to body and mind. Since the two are not entirely in accordance, (diligence) is not established as a limb. However, dharmas that accord with Bodhi (enlightenment) are established as Bodhi-pakshika-dharmas (factors conducive to enlightenment). In an unfixed mind, the two mental factors of Vitarka (gross thought) and Vicara (subtle thought) have a stronger power to accord with purity and can help Samadhi (concentration). By controlling and urging the mind, making it stay away from coarse and subtle desires, thereby counteracting greed and aversion. Therefore, (Vitarka and Vicara) are established together as limbs. The remaining mental factors are not in accordance with meditation, so they are not established as limbs.
Treatise: As mentioned above, the various limbs of Dhyana (meditation), the following verse line, the second part clarifies that defilement has no limbs.
Treatise says: Until 'because of being defiled'. This is a description of a class of statements that follow the appearance, as the meaning of the text can be understood.
Treatise: Other teachers say: Until 'because of being included in great goodness'. This is a description of different statements. Defiled meditation is not good, it just removes the part that is uniquely good, and the rest is common to defilement, so it is not removed. Therefore, the previous text says that not all are possessed.
Treatise: The Sutra says that the three meditations have movement, the following verse line, the third major part explains the immobility mentioned in the Sutra.
Treatise says: Until 'there are eight calamities'. This is an explanation of the previous Sutra. Because there are no eight kinds of calamities, it is called immobility.
Treatise: What are these eight? This is a question.
Treatise: Vitarka, Vicara, the four kinds of feelings, until 'said to be immovable'. This is the answer.
Treatise: However, the Sutra says: Until 'moved by joy and pleasure'. This is a description of the differences in explaining other Sutras. If it is common to the desire realm, and also considers the flow of breath, then there are eight calamities. If it is only aimed at the object of the mind in the form realm meditation, it is to stay away from Vitarka, Vicara, joy, and pleasure.
Treatise: Other teachers say: Until 'illuminating without moving'. This is a description of different explanations.
Treatise: Like all the various feelings in Dhyana meditation, the following verse line, the fourth part clarifies the arising of meditation.
Treatise says: Until 'corresponding to the four consciousnesses'. This is a description of the newly born meditation.
Treatise: The second meditation has two, until 'because the mind is pleased with coarseness'. This is a description of the second meditation. Because there are no other consciousnesses, there is no pleasure corresponding to the third and fourth consciousnesses. Because the mind is pleased with heaviness, there is no pleasure corresponding to the mind consciousness.
Treatise: The third meditation has two, until 'there are differences in feelings'. This is a description of the latter two meditations.
也。第三定中心悅細故有意地樂。第四定中心轉寂故。唯有舍受也 是謂定生受有差別者。結也。
論。上三靜慮無三識身。已下一行頌。第五明借識也。
論曰至觸及發表。述上地以無尋．伺。無三識身及發表心。借初定心。以五識身及發表心。定與尋．伺相應故。
論。此四唯是至以下劣故。述唯借無記不借染．善。生上已離下染。亦不起下劣善故 問生上三定起下眼．耳二通是何無記 有人云。唯是威儀心。或是緣威儀心。或似威儀心 皆謂不然。耳識不可是威儀心。發語表業。亦不可說是威儀心。違多論故。若謂發語表業。是第二師。從威儀心更生意識。緣十二處。亦名威儀心故。此發語表心名威儀心者。此亦非理。豈可二定已上發語表業心。皆從威儀心後起耶。若依第一師解。何得是威儀心。第一師唯以發威儀意識是威儀心。語既非威儀。何得是威儀。以此故知。四無記心攝心不盡。既無記色攝色不盡。何妨四無記亦攝心不盡 問既言四無記攝無記心不盡。未知借識是何無記 答此借識心是自性無記。耳識非威儀。非威儀無記。上地無工巧非工巧無記。變化唯在意非變化無記。異熟非異地起非異熟無記。以此故知。唯是自性。
論。如是別釋靜慮事已。下一行頌。第六明等至初得
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：也。第三禪定中，因為內心愉悅而細微，所以有意地感受快樂。第四禪定中，內心變得寂靜，只有舍受（Upeksha，不苦不樂的感受）。這就是禪定所產生的感受的差別。總結完畢。
論：上面三個靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）沒有前三種識身（Vijnanakaya，意識的集合）。下面一行頌文，第五個說明借用識。
論曰：乃至觸及發表。敘述上地（更高的禪定境界）因為沒有尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicara，細緻的思考），沒有前三種識身以及發表心（表達意圖的心），所以借用初禪的心，以生起五識身（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官的意識集合）以及發表心。因為初禪與尋和伺相應。
論：這四種（心）唯是乃至以下劣故。敘述只借用無記（Upekkha，非善非惡）心，不借用染污（Klesha，煩惱）或善心。因為生到上地已經脫離了下地的染污，也不會生起下地的低劣善心。問：生到上三禪定，生起下地的眼識、耳識這兩種通（Abhijna，神通），是什麼樣的無記心？有人說：只是威儀心（Iryapatha，行為舉止的心），或是緣威儀心，或是類似威儀心。都認為不對。耳識不可能是威儀心，發語表業（通過語言表達行為）也不可說是威儀心，因為這與許多論典相違背。如果說發語表業是第二位論師的觀點，從威儀心再生起意識，緣十二處（Ayatana，六根六塵），也名為威儀心，所以這個發語表心名為威儀心，這也是不合理的。難道二禪定以上，發語表業心都是從威儀心後生起的嗎？如果依照第一位論師的解釋，怎麼能是威儀心呢？第一位論師只認為發威儀的意識是威儀心，語言既然不是威儀，怎麼能是威儀心呢？因此可知，四種無記心不能完全涵蓋所有心。既然無記色不能完全涵蓋所有色，為什麼四種無記心也不能完全涵蓋所有心呢？問：既然說四種無記心不能完全涵蓋無記心，不知道借用的識是什麼樣的無記心？答：這種借用的識是自性無記（Prakriti-avyakrita，本性非善非惡）。耳識不是威儀，不是威儀無記；上地沒有工巧（Karma，技藝），不是工巧無記；變化（Nirmana，變化）唯在意，不是變化無記；異熟（Vipaka，果報）不是異地生起，不是異熟無記。因此可知，唯是自性無記。
論：像這樣分別解釋靜慮的事情已經完畢。下一行頌文，第六個說明等至（Samapatti，等持）初得。
【English Translation】 English version: Also. In the third Dhyana (meditative absorption), because the mind is joyful and subtle, there is intentional experience of pleasure. In the fourth Dhyana, the mind becomes tranquil, and there is only Upeksha (equanimity, neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling). These are the differences in feelings arising from Dhyana. Conclusion.
Treatise: The three higher Dhyanas do not have the three Vijnanakayas (aggregates of consciousness). The following verse, the fifth, explains the borrowing of consciousness.
Treatise says: Up to touch and expression. It describes that the higher realms (higher states of meditation) do not have Vitarka (initial application of thought) and Vicara (sustained application of thought), nor the first three Vijnanakayas and the mind of expression (mind that expresses intention), so they borrow the mind of the first Dhyana to generate the five Vijnanakayas (aggregates of consciousness of the five sense organs: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body) and the mind of expression, because the first Dhyana is associated with Vitarka and Vicara.
Treatise: These four (minds) are only up to inferior reasons. It describes that only non-specified (Upekkha, neutral) minds are borrowed, not defiled (Klesha, afflicted) or wholesome minds, because having been born in the higher realms, one has already abandoned the defilements of the lower realms, and will not generate the inferior wholesome minds of the lower realms. Question: When one is born in the three higher Dhyanas, what kind of non-specified mind is it that generates the lower realms' eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness, which are two kinds of Abhijna (supernormal powers)? Some say: It is only the Iryapatha (behavioral) mind, or related to the Iryapatha mind, or similar to the Iryapatha mind. All consider this incorrect. Ear-consciousness cannot be the Iryapatha mind, and verbal expression (expressing actions through speech) cannot be said to be the Iryapatha mind, because this contradicts many treatises. If it is said that verbal expression is the view of the second teacher, that consciousness is regenerated from the Iryapatha mind, and is related to the twelve Ayatana (sense bases), and is also called the Iryapatha mind, then this mind of verbal expression being called the Iryapatha mind is also unreasonable. Could it be that above the second Dhyana, the mind of verbal expression is generated after the Iryapatha mind? If one follows the interpretation of the first teacher, how can it be the Iryapatha mind? The first teacher only considers the consciousness that generates behavior to be the Iryapatha mind. Since speech is not behavior, how can it be the Iryapatha mind? Therefore, it can be known that the four non-specified minds cannot completely encompass all minds. Since non-specified form cannot completely encompass all forms, why can't the four non-specified minds also not completely encompass all minds? Question: Since it is said that the four non-specified minds cannot completely encompass non-specified minds, what kind of non-specified mind is the borrowed consciousness? Answer: This borrowed consciousness is Prakriti-avyakrita (naturally non-specified). Ear-consciousness is not behavior, not non-specified behavior; the higher realms do not have Karma (skillful activities), not non-specified skillful activities; Nirmana (transformation) is only in the mind, not non-specified transformation; Vipaka (result) does not arise in a different realm, not non-specified result. Therefore, it can be known that it is only naturally non-specified.
Treatise: Having explained the matters of Dhyana separately like this, the following verse, the sixth, explains the initial attainment of Samapatti (meditative absorption).
也。
論曰至生自地時。述凈本等至全不成者由二得也。
論。下七皆然至無由生故。述下七地皆具離染及生。有上地故。有頂唯一。無上地故不可說生。
論。遮何故說全不成言。問也。頌初言全不成而得。遮何而說。
論。為遮已成更得少分。總答也。
論。如由加行至順退分定。指事釋也。已成根本靜慮。更得少分順抉擇分由加行得。不由離染及生得也。離自地染失退分定。退自地染得退分定。此由退得。非離染得及生得也。若全不成而初得者。即下七地由二得也。若離下地染得上地定。若從上生下得下地定。非想無上地故無生得也。
論。即依此義至為問亦爾。此問 凈定有由離染得。亦由離染舍 有由生得。後由生舍。
論曰有至應如理思。廣答。退分雖是凈定。許與煩惱相出入故。若斷自地煩惱時舍。若退自地煩惱時得 由生得．舍準此可知。
論。無漏但由至皆如理應思。述無漏也。
論。豈不由入至無漏等至。此問意者。超越聖人依根本地入見道時。亦加行得非離染得。因何前說全不成者唯離染得。
論。此非決定至決定得者。答也。加行入見道時不定。若未離染入見道者。未得根本定故不得也。若超越者即得根本。以不定故不言加
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 也。
論曰至生自地時。述凈本等至全不成者由二得也。 譯：論中說到從自地生起時。陳述清凈根本等至完全不能成就，是由兩種方式獲得的。
論。下七皆然至無由生故。述下七地皆具離染及生。有上地故。有頂唯一。無上地故不可說生。 譯：論中說，下面的七地都是這樣，直到沒有由生而獲得的情況。陳述說，下面的七地都具備離染和生起兩種情況。因為有更高的地存在。有頂天是唯一的，因為沒有更高的地，所以不能說是由生而獲得。
論。遮何故說全不成言。問也。頌初言全不成而得。遮何而說。 譯：論中說，爲了遮止什麼原因而說『完全不能成就』這句話呢？這是提問。頌的開頭說『完全不能成就』而獲得，是爲了遮止什麼而說的呢？
論。為遮已成更得少分。總答也。 譯：論中說，爲了遮止已經成就之後又獲得少部分的情況。這是總的回答。
論。如由加行至順退分定。指事釋也。已成根本靜慮。更得少分順抉擇分由加行得。不由離染及生得也。離自地染失退分定。退自地染得退分定。此由退得。非離染得及生得也。若全不成而初得者。即下七地由二得也。若離下地染得上地定。若從上生下得下地定。非想無上地故無生得也。 譯：論中說，例如通過加行獲得順退分定（Anulomika-pratibhāga-niyata）。這是指事解釋。已經成就根本靜慮（mūla-dhyāna）之後，又獲得少部分的順抉擇分（anulomika-nirvedha-bhāgīya）是通過加行獲得的，不是通過離染和生起獲得的。離開自地的染污會失去退分定（hānabhāgīya-samādhi），退失自地的染污會獲得退分定。這是通過退失獲得的，不是通過離染獲得，也不是通過生起獲得。如果完全不能成就而最初獲得的情況，就是指下面的七地通過兩種方式獲得。如果離開下地的染污而獲得上地的禪定，如果從上地生到下地而獲得下地的禪定。非想非非想處天（naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana）因為沒有更高的地，所以沒有通過生起而獲得的情況。
論。即依此義至為問亦爾。此問 凈定有由離染得。亦由離染舍 有由生得。後由生舍。 譯：論中說，就是依據這個意義來提問也是一樣。這裡提問的是，清凈的禪定有通過離染獲得的，也有通過離染捨棄的；有通過生起獲得的，之後通過生起捨棄的。
論曰有至應如理思。廣答。退分雖是凈定。許與煩惱相出入故。若斷自地煩惱時舍。若退自地煩惱時得 由生得．舍準此可知。 譯：論中說，有...應該如理思維。這是廣泛的回答。退分定（hānabhāgīya-samādhi）雖然是清凈的禪定，但允許與煩惱相互出入。如果斷除自地的煩惱時就捨棄，如果退失自地的煩惱時就獲得。通過生起獲得和捨棄的情況，可以參照這個來理解。
論。無漏但由至皆如理應思。述無漏也。 譯：論中說，無漏（anāsrava）僅僅通過...都應該如理思維。陳述的是無漏的情況。
論。豈不由入至無漏等至。此問意者。超越聖人依根本地入見道時。亦加行得非離染得。因何前說全不成者唯離染得。 譯：論中說，難道不是通過進入...無漏等至（anāsrava-samāpatti）？這裡提問的意思是，超越聖人（atikrānta-ārya）依靠根本地（mūla-bhūmi）進入見道（darśana-mārga）時，也是通過加行獲得的，不是通過離染獲得的。因為什麼原因前面說『完全不能成就』的情況僅僅是通過離染獲得的呢？
論。此非決定至決定得者。答也。加行入見道時不定。若未離染入見道者。未得根本定故不得也。若超越者即得根本。以不定故不言加 譯：論中說，這並非是決定的...才能決定獲得。這是回答。通過加行進入見道時是不確定的。如果還沒有離染就進入見道，因為沒有獲得根本定（mūla-samādhi），所以不能獲得。如果超越者（atikrānta），就能獲得根本定。因為不確定，所以不說加行。
【English Translation】 English version: Also.
The treatise says, 'Until arising from one's own ground.' The statement that pure fundamental attainments are completely unachievable is obtained through two means. Translation: The treatise states that when arising from one's own ground, the statement that pure fundamental attainments (śuddha-mūla-samāpatti) are completely unachievable is obtained through two means.
The treatise says, 'The lower seven are all like this until there is no arising.' The statement is that the lower seven grounds all possess both detachment and arising. Because there is a higher ground. The Peak is unique. Because there is no higher ground, it cannot be said to arise. Translation: The treatise states that the lower seven grounds are all like this until there is no arising. The statement is that the lower seven grounds all possess both detachment (virāga) and arising (utpāda). Because there is a higher ground. The Peak (Bhavāgra) is unique. Because there is no higher ground, it cannot be said to arise.
The treatise says, 'Why is the statement of complete unachievability spoken?' This is a question. The verse initially states 'completely unachievable' and is obtained. What is it spoken to negate? Translation: The treatise says, 'Why is the statement of complete unachievability spoken?' This is a question. The verse initially states 'completely unachievable' and is obtained. What is it spoken to negate?
The treatise says, 'To negate the already achieved gaining a small portion.' This is a general answer. Translation: The treatise says, 'To negate the already achieved gaining a small portion.' This is a general answer.
The treatise says, 'Such as through effort until the determination of the regressive aspect.' This is an explanation by pointing to the matter. Having already achieved fundamental meditative absorption (mūla-dhyāna), gaining a small portion of the sequential decisive aspect (anulomika-nirvedha-bhāgīya) is obtained through effort. It is not obtained through detachment or arising. Detaching from the defilements of one's own ground loses the determination of the regressive aspect (hānabhāgīya-samādhi). Regressing from the defilements of one's own ground gains the determination of the regressive aspect. This is obtained through regression. It is not obtained through detachment or arising. If complete unachievability is initially obtained, then the lower seven grounds are obtained through two means. If detaching from the defilements of a lower ground gains the determination of a higher ground, if arising from a higher ground gains the determination of a lower ground. The Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana) has no arising because it is the highest ground. Translation: The treatise says, 'Such as through effort until the determination of the regressive aspect (anulomika-pratibhāga-niyata).' This is an explanation by pointing to the matter. Having already achieved fundamental meditative absorption (mūla-dhyāna), gaining a small portion of the sequential decisive aspect (anulomika-nirvedha-bhāgīya) is obtained through effort. It is not obtained through detachment (virāga) or arising (utpāda). Detaching from the defilements of one's own ground loses the determination of the regressive aspect (hānabhāgīya-samādhi). Regressing from the defilements of one's own ground gains the determination of the regressive aspect. This is obtained through regression. It is not obtained through detachment or arising. If complete unachievability is initially obtained, then the lower seven grounds are obtained through two means. If detaching from the defilements of a lower ground gains the determination of a higher ground, if arising from a higher ground gains the determination of a lower ground. The Realm of Neither Perception Nor Non-Perception (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana) has no arising because it is the highest ground.
The treatise says, 'That is, according to this meaning, asking is also like this.' This asks whether pure determination is obtained through detachment. It is also relinquished through detachment. It is obtained through arising. Later, it is relinquished through arising. Translation: The treatise says, 'That is, according to this meaning, asking is also like this.' This asks whether pure determination is obtained through detachment. It is also relinquished through detachment. It is obtained through arising. Later, it is relinquished through arising.
The treatise says, 'There is... one should think reasonably.' A broad answer. Although the regressive aspect is pure determination, it is permitted to interact with afflictions. If one severs the afflictions of one's own ground, it is relinquished. If one regresses from the afflictions of one's own ground, it is obtained. Obtaining and relinquishing through arising can be understood accordingly. Translation: The treatise says, 'There is... one should think reasonably.' A broad answer. Although the regressive aspect (hānabhāgīya-samādhi) is pure determination, it is permitted to interact with afflictions. If one severs the afflictions of one's own ground, it is relinquished. If one regresses from the afflictions of one's own ground, it is obtained. Obtaining and relinquishing through arising can be understood accordingly.
The treatise says, 'The unconditioned is only through... all should be thought of reasonably.' Stating the unconditioned. Translation: The treatise says, 'The unconditioned (anāsrava) is only through... all should be thought of reasonably.' Stating the unconditioned.
The treatise says, 'Is it not through entering... unconditioned attainments?' The intention of this question is that when a transcendent noble one (atikrānta-ārya) enters the path of seeing (darśana-mārga) relying on the fundamental ground (mūla-bhūmi), it is also obtained through effort, not through detachment. Why was it previously said that complete unachievability is only obtained through detachment? Translation: The treatise says, 'Is it not through entering... unconditioned attainments (anāsrava-samāpatti)?' The intention of this question is that when a transcendent noble one (atikrānta-ārya) enters the path of seeing (darśana-mārga) relying on the fundamental ground (mūla-bhūmi), it is also obtained through effort, not through detachment. Why was it previously said that complete unachievability is only obtained through detachment?
The treatise says, 'This is not definite... those who definitely obtain.' An answer. Entering the path of seeing through effort is not definite. If one enters the path of seeing without detaching from defilements, it is not obtained because one has not obtained fundamental determination. If one is transcendent, one immediately obtains the fundamental. Because it is not definite, effort is not mentioned. Translation: The treatise says, 'This is not definite... those who definitely obtain.' An answer. Entering the path of seeing through effort is not definite. If one enters the path of seeing without detaching from defilements, it is not obtained because one has not obtained fundamental determination (mūla-samādhi). If one is transcendent (atikrānta), one immediately obtains the fundamental. Because it is not definite, effort is not mentioned.
行得也。若聖人離下染時。決定皆得根本無漏。以決定故唯說離染得也。
論。染由受生至得此地染。述染等至由二得也。
論。何等至後生幾等至。下兩行頌。第七明相生也 文中有三。一三定相生。二凈定相生。三超間相生。此文第一三定相生。
論曰至凈及無漏。此述無漏唯生凈定及無漏定。不生味定。正理論云。以極相違故不生染 此言極者。對凈定說。凈定雖是相違非極。
論。然于上下至各凈無漏。述超不越至第四也。從數自地為一。次地為二。隔一地為第三。必不能超越二地者。由此從初靜慮無間生六。謂生自地．第二定第三定。各凈．無漏。三地各二。故成六也。唯有上地無下地也。
論。無所有處至上地唯凈。述無所有無間生七。非想唯一。無無漏故。自及下二各凈．無漏二。復有六故所以成七。
論。第二靜慮至並自地二。明第二靜慮生八。識處生九。第三定．第四定．空處此三地皆生十。謂上．下各二地．並自地。有五。五各二故總為十也。
論。類智無間至依緣下故。述從類智慧生無色凈。及無漏。非法智也。正理意云。依．緣別故 以法智。依六地緣欲界。無色凈．及無漏。依無色緣無色。不相生也。下地類智生無色者。必得緣境。境地懸超
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：可以這樣理解。如果聖人斷除地獄的染污時，必定能夠獲得根本無漏智（anāsrava-jñāna，無煩惱的智慧）。因為是決定的，所以只說斷除染污才能獲得無漏智。
論：染污由受生而得到此地的染污。說明染污等至（samāpatti，等持）由兩種方式獲得。
論：什麼等至之後會生起哪些等至？下面兩行頌文，第七說明相生關係。文中有三種情況：一、三禪定相生；二、凈禪定相生；三、超越間隔相生。這裡是第一種，三禪定相生。
論曰：乃至清凈及無漏。說明無漏定只生起清凈定和無漏定，不生起有味定（帶染污的禪定）。《正理論》說：因為它們之間是極度相違背的，所以不生起染污。這裡說的『極』，是相對於清凈定而言的。清凈定雖然是相違背的，但不是極度相違背。
論：然而對於上下，乃至各個清凈無漏。說明超越不超過第四禪定。從數自地為一，次地為二，隔一地為第三。必定不能超越兩地。因此，從初禪定無間生起六種禪定，即生起自地、第二禪定、第三禪定，以及各個清凈定、無漏定。三地各有兩種，所以共有六種。只有上地，沒有下地。
論：無所有處，乃至上地唯有清凈定。說明從無所有處無間生起七種禪定，從非想非非想處無間生起一種禪定。因為非想非非想處沒有無漏定。自地以及下兩地各有清凈定、無漏定兩種。總共有六種，所以共有七種。
論：第二靜慮，乃至並自地兩種。說明從第二靜慮生起八種禪定，從識處生起九種禪定，從第三禪定、第四禪定、空無邊處這三地都生起十種禪定，即上、下各兩地，加上自地，共有五種。五種各有兩種，所以總共有十種。
論：類智無間，乃至依靠緣故。說明從類智（anvaya-jñāna，順道智）能夠生起無色界的清凈定和無漏定，不能生起法智（dharma-jñāna，如實智）。《正理論》的意思是，因為所依和所緣不同。法智，依六地，緣欲界。無色界的清凈定和無漏定，依無色界，緣無色界，所以不相生。下地的類智生起無色界的禪定，必定要得到所緣的境界，境界的層級懸殊。
【English Translation】 English version: It can be understood this way. If a saint severs the defilements of the lower realms, they will certainly attain fundamental anāsrava-jñāna (undefiled wisdom). Because it is definite, it is only said that severing defilements leads to the attainment of anāsrava-jñāna.
Treatise: Defilement arises from reception and attains the defilement of this realm. It explains that defilement samāpatti (attainment) is attained in two ways.
Treatise: What samāpattis arise after which samāpattis? The following two lines of verse, the seventh, explain the relationship of arising together. There are three situations in the text: first, the arising together of the three dhyānas; second, the arising together of pure dhyānas; and third, the arising together of transcendence with intervals. This is the first, the arising together of the three dhyānas.
Treatise says: Even to purity and undefiled. It explains that undefiled samādhi only gives rise to pure samādhi and undefiled samādhi, not to samādhi with flavor (defiled samādhi). The Nyāyānusāra says: Because they are extremely contradictory, defilement does not arise. The word 'extremely' here is in relation to pure samādhi. Although pure samādhi is contradictory, it is not extremely contradictory.
Treatise: However, for above and below, even to each pure and undefiled. It explains that transcendence does not exceed the fourth dhyāna. Counting from one's own realm as one, the next realm as two, and a realm separated by one as three. It is certain that one cannot transcend two realms. Therefore, from the first dhyāna, six dhyānas arise without interval, namely arising from one's own realm, the second dhyāna, the third dhyāna, and each pure samādhi, and undefiled samādhi. Each of the three realms has two, so there are six in total. There is only the upper realm, not the lower realm.
Treatise: The realm of nothingness, even to the upper realm, only has pure samādhi. It explains that from the realm of nothingness, seven dhyānas arise without interval, and from the realm of neither perception nor non-perception, one dhyāna arises without interval. Because there is no undefiled samādhi in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception. One's own realm and the two lower realms each have two types: pure samādhi and undefiled samādhi. There are six in total, so there are seven in total.
Treatise: The second dhyāna, even to both of one's own realm. It explains that from the second dhyāna, eight dhyānas arise, from the realm of consciousness, nine dhyānas arise, and from the third dhyāna, the fourth dhyāna, and the realm of infinite space, all three realms give rise to ten dhyānas, namely the upper and lower two realms each, plus one's own realm, there are five in total. Each of the five has two, so there are ten in total.
Treatise: Anvaya-jñāna without interval, even relying on conditions. It explains that from anvaya-jñāna (knowledge of accordance), one can generate pure samādhi and undefiled samādhi of the formless realm, but not dharma-jñāna (knowledge of reality). The meaning of the Nyāyānusāra is that because the reliance and conditions are different. Dharma-jñāna relies on the six realms and conditions the desire realm. Pure samādhi and undefiled samādhi of the formless realm rely on the formless realm and condition the formless realm, so they do not arise together. Anvaya-jñāna of the lower realm generates the dhyāna of the formless realm, and one must obtain the conditioned realm, and the levels of the realms are vastly different.
觀心難起故。由此相違不能無間生也。
論。從凈等至自地染污。述凈定生與無漏同。唯加兼生自地染污。準此。諸地無漏數上更各加一。謂染污也。
論。故有頂凈至餘生十一。此述凈定數增無漏。有頂生六。初定生七。無所有八。第二九等皆依無漏加自地染。
論。從染等至至生次下凈。述染生也。染唯生自地染。及自地凈。並生次下地凈。欲界通生得。上地唯加行。
論。若於染凈至從染生凈。問也。味定是貪與無明俱。不能了知染．凈之相。如何于下凈定。生尊重故生下凈也。
論。先願力故便能覺悟。答也。如文可解。
論。無漏與染至故三有別。述三定相生不同也。
論。如是所說至生染不然。明凈定生染。味定生染。與非定善及非定染。不同也。
論。謂命終時至生一切染。明生得凈與定不同也。若生得善心命終。通生二界中有結生心．及無色生有。此心唯是染故。生一切染也。
論。若從生染至未離下故。明生染與定染不同也。若染污心命終。能生自．下一切地染。不能生上染。以若離染即不染心命終。若不離染即不能生上地故。
論。所言從凈生無漏者。已下兩行頌。第二明凈定相生也。
論曰至順勝進分攝。述諸地具四分
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 觀想心難以生起，因此這種（染污和清凈）的相違狀態，不可能無間斷地產生。
論：從清凈等至（samāpatti，禪定）到自地的染污。這裡闡述了清凈禪定產生（染污）與無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱）相同，只是增加了兼生自地的染污。依此推斷，各地的無漏數量上，各自再加一，指的是染污。
論：因此，從有頂（abhavāgra，三界最高處）的清凈禪定到其餘的生命狀態，會產生十一種（禪定）。這裡闡述了清凈禪定的數量增加了無漏。有頂生六種，初禪生七種，無所有處（ākiñcanyāyatana，無色界第三禪）生八種，第二禪生九種等，都是依據無漏加上自地的染污。
論：從染污等至到產生次下位的清凈（禪定）。這裡闡述的是染污的產生。染污只會產生自地的染污，以及自地的清凈，併產生次下地的清凈。欲界（kāmadhātu，三界中最下層）可以普遍產生，上地（ūrdhvabhūmi，指色界和無色界）只能通過加行（prayoga，修行）產生。
論：如果對於染污和清凈（的差別）……從染污產生清凈。這是提問。味定（rasa-samādhi，指伴隨貪愛的禪定）是貪愛和無明（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）共同作用，不能瞭解染污和清凈的相狀，如何能因為對下位的清凈禪定生起尊重而產生下位的清凈呢？
論：因為先前的願力，便能夠覺悟。這是回答。如文義可解。
論：無漏與染污……因此三有（tribhava，欲界、色界、無色界）有所區別。這裡闡述了三種禪定（無漏定、清凈定、染污定）的相生不同。
論：如是所說……產生染污則不然。這裡闡明了清凈禪定產生染污，味定產生染污，與非禪定善（akuśala，不善）以及非禪定染污（kliṣṭa，染污）的不同。
論：所謂命終時……產生一切染污。這裡闡明了生得的清凈與禪定的不同。如果以生得的善心命終，普遍產生二界（指欲界和色界）的中有結生心，以及無色界的有。此心唯是染污，所以產生一切染污。
論：如果從生染……尚未離開下地之故。這裡闡明了生染與定染的不同。如果以染污心命終，能夠產生自地和下地的一切染污，不能產生上地的染污。因為如果離開了染污，就不會以染污心命終；如果不離開染污，就不能產生上地的（禪定）。
論：所言從清凈產生無漏者。以下兩行是頌文，第二是闡明清凈禪定的相生。
論曰……順勝進分所攝。這裡闡述了各地的四分（指順下分、住分、勝分、進分）。
【English Translation】 English version: Because it is difficult to arouse the mind of contemplation, this contradictory state (of defilement and purity) cannot arise without interruption.
Treatise: From pure samāpatti (absorption) to the defilements of one's own plane. This explains that the arising of (defilement) from pure concentration is the same as that of anāsrava (non-outflow, free from afflictions), only adding the concurrent arising of defilements of one's own plane. Based on this, for each plane, add one to the number of anāsrava, referring to defilement.
Treatise: Therefore, from the pure concentration of the Peak of Existence (abhavāgra, the highest realm of the Three Realms) to other existences, eleven (concentrations) arise. This explains that the number of pure concentrations increases with anāsrava. The Peak of Existence produces six, the first dhyāna (absorption) produces seven, the Realm of Nothingness (ākiñcanyāyatana, the third formless realm) produces eight, the second dhyāna produces nine, and so on, all based on adding the defilements of one's own plane to anāsrava.
Treatise: From defiled samāpatti to the arising of the next lower pure (concentration). This explains the arising of defilement. Defilement only produces defilement of its own plane, as well as the purity of its own plane, and produces the purity of the next lower plane. The Desire Realm (kāmadhātu, the lowest of the Three Realms) can produce universally, while the higher planes (ūrdhvabhūmi, referring to the Form Realm and Formless Realm) can only produce through effort (prayoga, practice).
Treatise: If regarding defilement and purity... from defilement arises purity. This is a question. Taste-concentration (rasa-samādhi, concentration accompanied by craving) is accompanied by craving and ignorance (avidyā, delusion about the true nature of things), unable to understand the characteristics of defilement and purity. How can the lower purity arise because of respect for the lower pure concentration?
Treatise: Because of prior vows, one can awaken. This is the answer. The meaning is clear from the text.
Treatise: Anāsrava and defilement... therefore the Three Realms (tribhava, Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm) are different. This explains the different arising of the three concentrations (anāsrava concentration, pure concentration, defiled concentration).
Treatise: As said... arising defilement is not so. This clarifies the difference between pure concentration arising defilement, taste-concentration arising defilement, and non-concentration wholesome (akuśala, unwholesome) and non-concentration defilement (kliṣṭa, defiled).
Treatise: So-called at the time of death... produces all defilement. This clarifies the difference between innate purity and concentration. If one dies with an innate wholesome mind, it universally produces the intermediate existence linking-mind of the two realms (referring to the Desire Realm and Form Realm), as well as existence in the Formless Realm. This mind is only defiled, so it produces all defilement.
Treatise: If from arising defilement... because one has not left the lower plane. This clarifies the difference between arising defilement and concentration defilement. If one dies with a defiled mind, it can produce all defilements of its own plane and lower planes, but cannot produce defilements of higher planes. Because if one has left defilement, one will not die with a defiled mind; if one has not left defilement, one cannot produce higher (concentrations).
Treatise: What is said about pure arising anāsrava. The following two lines are verses, the second explaining the arising of pure concentration.
Treatise: ... included in the progressive aspect. This explains the four aspects of each plane (referring to the aspect of decline, the aspect of stability, the aspect of superiority, and the aspect of progress).
定多．少也。
論。於此四中至能生無漏。述四分定中。唯順抉擇分能生無漏。非餘三也。
論。所以者何。徴。唯第四生無漏也。
論。由此四種至唯從此生。答所以也。以四分定各有別相。既唯抉擇分能順無漏。故知。唯抉擇分能生無漏。
論。此四相望至謂自非余。述四凈定自相生。不望無漏．及味定也 初能生二。謂順退分生順退分。及生住分也 第二生三者。謂順住分生順住分。生退分定及勝進分 第三生三者。謂勝進分生勝進分。及抉擇分順住分也。已上皆次第生不隔越 第四生一謂自非餘者。順抉擇分唯生自類不生勝進。與前不同。詳其意趣。以住抉擇分者。樂斷諸有。修無漏故。不生勝進分也。正理論一說相生同此論。有說亦生順勝進分。皆次相生無隔越也。又正理云。若順煩惱名順退分。諸阿羅漢豈有退理。非彼猶有順退分定可令現前。離染舍故。雖有此難而實無違。謂順住中有順退者。亦得建立順退分名。從彼有退。如先已說。已上論文 今詳。此釋由未盡難。于住分中立退非理。於三分中例亦應然。此即四分有雜亂失。今作一釋。此唯說退分順煩惱者。據中．下緣令起煩惱。若勝緣力起煩惱者。亦從下住分生煩惱也。如異生離惑。若全離地染。以難退故即容命終。分
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『定多』是指多少？
論：在這四種定中，只有抉擇分定能夠產生無漏（指脫離煩惱的狀態）。這是對四分定的闡述，其中只有順抉擇分能夠產生無漏，其餘三種不能。
論：為什麼這樣說呢？（提出疑問）只有第四種定能產生無漏。
論：由於這四種定各有不同的特性，只有抉擇分定能夠順應無漏，因此可知，只有抉擇分定能夠產生無漏。（回答前面的疑問）因為四分定各有不同的特性，既然只有抉擇分能順應無漏，所以知道只有抉擇分能產生無漏。
論：這四種定相互之間，是指自身而非其他。（闡述四種凈定的自相生起，不涉及無漏定和味定）最初的能生二，是指順退分定能生順退分定和順住分定。第二種能生三，是指順住分定能生順住分定、順退分定和順勝進分定。第三種能生三，是指順勝進分定能生順勝進分定、順抉擇分定和順住分定。以上都是依次相生，不會隔越。第四種能生一，是指自身而非其他，順抉擇分定只能生起同類的定，不能生起勝進分定，這與前面不同。詳細分析其中的含義，是因為安住于抉擇分的人，樂於斷除各種有（指存在），修習無漏，所以不會生起勝進分。
《正理論》中關於相生的說法與此論相同。有人說也能生起順勝進分，都是依次相生，沒有隔越。另外，《正理論》說，如果順應煩惱就稱為順退分，那麼阿羅漢怎麼會有退步的道理呢？並非他們還有順退分定可以現前，因為他們已經遠離了染污。雖然有這樣的疑問，但實際上並沒有矛盾，因為在順住分中也有順退分，也可以建立順退分的名號，從那裡有退步，就像之前說的那樣。以上是論文的內容。
現在詳細分析，這種解釋因為沒有完全解決疑問，在住分中設立退步是不合理的，在三分中也應該如此。這就是四分定有雜亂的缺失。現在做一個解釋，這裡只說退分順應煩惱，是根據中等和下等因緣使人產生煩惱。如果憑藉強大的因緣力量產生煩惱，也是從下位的住分產生煩惱。例如異生（指凡夫）離開了迷惑，如果完全離開了地的染污，因為難以退轉，所以可能會因此而死亡，分。
【English Translation】 English version 'Ding duo' (定多) - how much is it?
Treatise: Among these four types of samadhi (定, meditative concentration), only the Nirvanic-discriminating-aspect samadhi (抉擇分定) can generate Anāsrava (無漏, outflows-free state). This is an explanation of the four-part samadhi, where only the compliant-discriminating-aspect (順抉擇分) can generate Anāsrava, while the other three cannot.
Treatise: Why is this so? (posing a question) Only the fourth type generates Anāsrava.
Treatise: Because these four types have different characteristics, and only the discriminating-aspect samadhi can comply with Anāsrava, it is known that only the discriminating-aspect samadhi can generate Anāsrava. (answering the previous question) Because the four-part samadhi each have different characteristics, and since only the discriminating-aspect can comply with Anāsrava, it is known that only the discriminating-aspect can generate Anāsrava.
Treatise: These four types in relation to each other, refer to themselves and not others. (explaining the self-arising of the four pure samadhis, not involving Anāsrava samadhi and Taste samadhi) The initial one can generate two, meaning the compliant-declining-aspect (順退分) can generate compliant-declining-aspect and compliant-abiding-aspect (順住分). The second can generate three, meaning the compliant-abiding-aspect can generate compliant-abiding-aspect, compliant-declining-aspect, and compliant-advancing-aspect (順勝進分). The third can generate three, meaning the compliant-advancing-aspect can generate compliant-advancing-aspect, compliant-discriminating-aspect, and compliant-abiding-aspect. The above are all generated in sequence without skipping. The fourth generates one, meaning itself and not others; the compliant-discriminating-aspect can only generate its own kind and cannot generate the advancing-aspect, which is different from the previous ones. Analyzing the meaning in detail, it is because those who abide in the discriminating-aspect are happy to cut off all 'bhava' (有, existence) and cultivate Anāsrava, so they do not generate the advancing-aspect.
The explanation of intergeneration in the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya (正理論) is the same as this treatise. Some say it can also generate the compliant-advancing-aspect, all generated in sequence without skipping. Furthermore, the Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya says that if it complies with afflictions, it is called the compliant-declining-aspect. Then how can Arhats (阿羅漢) have a reason to decline? It is not that they still have the compliant-declining-aspect samadhi that can manifest, because they have already abandoned defilements. Although there is such a question, there is actually no contradiction, because within the compliant-abiding-aspect, there is also the compliant-declining-aspect, and the name of compliant-declining-aspect can also be established, from which there is decline, as said before. The above is the content of the treatise.
Now, analyzing in detail, this explanation does not fully resolve the question, and it is unreasonable to establish decline within the abiding-aspect, and it should be the same in the three aspects. This is the flaw of confusion in the four-part samadhi. Now, let's make an explanation: here it only says that the declining-aspect complies with afflictions, based on the medium and lower conditions that cause people to generate afflictions. If afflictions are generated by the power of strong conditions, they are also generated from the lower abiding-aspect. For example, an ordinary being (異生, prthagjana) who has left delusion, if they have completely left the defilements of the realm, because it is difficult to regress, they may die because of it, part.
離地染有退分故。要還卻退方得命終。以易退故。聖分離染並無漏得分離欲者。容有不退．不進而命終者。退與不退更有異緣。非唯退分。若起惑勝緣強。劣住分亦退若起惑緣劣。有退分不退。
論。如上所言凈及無漏。已下一行頌第三明超間相生。
論曰至越一名超。述根本地有兩類定。謂凈及無漏。及諸地出入不同。立名有異。一往上名順。二還下名逆。三同類名均。四異類名間。五相鄰名次。六越一名超。若先識六例述超方易。故先例也。
論。謂觀行者至現前數習。述順．逆．次．均入加行也。先上．下．均．次入有漏。次上．下．均．次入無漏也。
論。次於有漏至現前數習。述間．次加行也。
論。次於有漏至超加行滿。述有漏．無漏均．超加行。此時名為超加行滿。
論。後於有漏至名超定成。述超定成根本也。
論。此中超者至超入第四。述超唯至第三。隔一地名第三。不超二地名不至第四。
論。修超等至唯人三洲。述依身及處也。所以人中不簡無根．二形等。以是聖人不勞簡故。所以言人者簡天也。
論不時解脫至修超等至。簡時解脫及有學也 定自在故簡時解脫 無煩惱故簡有學也。正理論云。唯欲三洲除北俱盧。然通男．女。不時
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果離散了染污並且有退失的傾向，就必須返回到退失的狀態才能結束生命，因為容易退失。聖者脫離了染污並且證得了無漏，脫離了對慾望的染著，可能會有不退失、不前進就結束生命的情況。退失與不退失還有其他的因緣，不僅僅是退失的傾向。如果生起煩惱的殊勝因緣強大，即使是微弱的住分也會退失；如果生起煩惱的因緣微弱，即使有退失的傾向也不會退失。
論：如上所說清凈和無漏，下面一行頌文第三個說明超越和間隔的相生關係。
論曰：到「越一名超」。敘述根本地有兩種型別的禪定，即清凈和無漏，以及各個地之間的出入不同，建立名稱也有差異。一是往上名為順，二是返回地獄名為逆，三是同類名為均，四是異類名為間，五是相鄰名為次，六是超越名為超。如果先認識六種例子，敘述超越就容易了，所以先舉例。
論：謂觀行者到「現前數習」。敘述順、逆、次、均進入加行。先是上、下、均、次進入有漏，然後是上、下、均、次進入無漏。
論：次於有漏到「現前數習」。敘述間、次加行。
論：次於有漏到「超加行滿」。敘述有漏、無漏均、超加行。此時稱為超加行滿。
論：後於有漏到「名超定成」。敘述超定成就根本。
論：此中超者到「超入第四」。敘述超越只到第三地。隔一個地名為第三，不超越兩個地名不至第四。
論：修超等至唯人三洲。敘述所依之身和處所。人中不區分無根、二形等，因為聖人不用費力區分。說人是爲了區別于天。
論：不時解脫到「修超等至」。區分非時解脫和有學。因為禪定自在，所以區分非時解脫；因為沒有煩惱，所以區分有學。《正理論》說，只有欲界三洲（指東勝身洲（Purvavideha）、南贍部洲（Jambudvipa）、西牛貨洲（Aparagodaniya），不包括北俱盧洲（Uttarakuru）），而且包括男人和女人，不是非時。
【English Translation】 English version: If one has separated from defilements and has a tendency to regress, one must return to the state of regression in order to end one's life, because it is easy to regress. A sage who has separated from defilements and attained the unconditioned (無漏) , having separated from attachment to desires, may end his life without regressing or progressing. Regression and non-regression have other causes and conditions, not just the tendency to regress. If the superior conditions for arising afflictions are strong, even a weak abiding-factor will regress; if the conditions for arising afflictions are weak, even if there is a tendency to regress, one will not regress.
Treatise: As mentioned above, 'pure' and 'unconditioned'; the following verse explains the relationship of transcendence and intervening.
Treatise says: To 'crossing is called transcendence'. Describes that there are two types of samadhi (禪定) in the fundamental ground, namely pure and unconditioned, and that the names are different due to the different entrances and exits between the grounds. First, going upwards is called 'sequential' (順), second, returning downwards is called 'reverse' (逆), third, the same type is called 'equal' (均), fourth, different types are called 'intervening' (間), fifth, adjacent is called 'next' (次), and sixth, surpassing is called 'transcendence' (超). If one first understands the six examples, it will be easier to describe transcendence, so examples are given first.
Treatise: Refers to the practitioner to 'present repeated practice'. Describes the sequential, reverse, next, and equal entering into the preparatory practice. First, upward, downward, equal, and next enter the conditioned; then, upward, downward, equal, and next enter the unconditioned.
Treatise: Next, in the conditioned, to 'present repeated practice'. Describes the intervening and next preparatory practices.
Treatise: Next, in the conditioned, to 'transcend preparatory practice is complete'. Describes the conditioned, unconditioned, equal, and transcendent preparatory practices. At this time, it is called 'transcendent preparatory practice is complete'.
Treatise: Later, in the conditioned, to 'named transcendent samadhi is achieved'. Describes the fundamental of transcendent samadhi achievement.
Treatise: Among these, 'transcendence' to 'transcendent entering the fourth'. Describes that transcendence only reaches the third ground. Separating one ground is called the third, not transcending two grounds is called not reaching the fourth.
Treatise: Cultivating transcendent attainment is only in the three continents of humans. Describes the body and place of reliance. Among humans, there is no distinction between those without roots, hermaphrodites, etc., because sages do not need to make such distinctions. Saying 'human' is to distinguish from the heavens.
Treatise: Non-timely liberation to 'cultivating transcendent attainment'. Distinguishes non-timely liberation and those still learning. Because samadhi is unconstrained, it distinguishes non-timely liberation; because there are no afflictions, it distinguishes those still learning. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra (正理論) says that only the three continents of desire realm (referring to Purvavideha (東勝身洲), Jambudvipa (南贍部洲), and Aparagodaniya (西牛貨洲), excluding Uttarakuru (北俱盧洲)) include both men and women, and it is not non-timely.
解脫諸阿羅漢。要得無諍．妙愿智等邊際定者。能超非余。勝解作意不能無間修超等至。勢力劣故(已上論文)。
論。此諸等至依何身起。此下一行頌。第八明等至依身不同也。
論曰至可厭毀故。述諸定上依自．下身。下定不依上身也。一無用故。二自有勝定故。三下勢力劣故。四已棄捨故。五可厭毀故。由此五因上身不起下定。
論。總相雖然至盡余煩惱。述總相說。依上地身不起下定。若委細說。生非想上地起下無所有處無漏定。斷非想惑非無用故。自無此勝定故。勢力勝非想故。非棄捨故。非可厭毀故。若依下七地。即不起下無漏。以自有無漏。起下無用。及劣上無漏。故不起下也 為盡所餘煩惱者。是非無用也 自無無漏欣樂起故。非余緣也 唯無所有處鄰近故不起餘者。以隔越故。
論。此諸等至緣何境生。已下一行頌。第九明所緣。
論曰至應成善故。述味定境也 但緣自地有漏。明所緣法 已離染故。不緣下因 愛地別故。不緣上因 應成善故。不緣無漏因也。
論。凈及無漏至非無漏境。述凈無漏靜慮境同異。唯除無記無為。無漏不緣。以非諦故。與凈定別。自餘一切與凈定同。
論。根本地攝至下地法滅。述無色根本緣境通局也。無色根本無遍緣
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
這些是解脫的阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）。爲了獲得無諍定（Arana Samadhi，一種止息爭論的禪定）、妙愿智（Pranidhana-jnana，實現願望的智慧）等邊際定（Samadhi，禪定），能夠超越其他定境。殊勝的勝解作意（Adhimoksha，勝解，深刻的理解）不能無間地修習超越等至（Samapatti，等至，禪定），因為它的力量較弱（以上是論文的內容）。 論：這些等至（Samapatti，等至，禪定）依何種身而生起？下面一行是偈頌。第八部分說明等至所依之身的不同。 論曰：乃至可以厭惡毀壞的緣故。敘述各種禪定依于自身或下身。下方的禪定不依于上身。一是因為沒有用處。二是因為自身有殊勝的禪定。三是因為下方的力量較弱。四是因為已經捨棄。五是因為可以厭惡毀壞。由於這五個原因，上身不生起下方的禪定。 論：總的來說，雖然乃至斷盡剩餘的煩惱。敘述總的來說，依于上地之身不生起下方的禪定。如果詳細地說，生於非想非非想處（Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana，佛教禪定中的最高境界）可以生起下方的無所有處（Akinchanyayatana，佛教禪定中的一種境界）的無漏定（Anasrava-samadhi，無煩惱的禪定），爲了斷除非想非非想處的迷惑，並非沒有用處。因為自身沒有這種殊勝的禪定。因為力量勝過非想非非想處。因為沒有捨棄。因為不可以厭惡毀壞。如果依于下方的七地，就不生起下方的無漏定。因為自身有無漏定，生起下方的無漏定沒有用處，以及不如上方的無漏定殊勝，所以不生起下方的無漏定。爲了斷盡剩餘的煩惱，並非沒有用處。因為自身沒有無漏的欣樂而生起，不是因為其他的因緣。只是因為無所有處鄰近的緣故，不生起其他的禪定，因為有間隔的緣故。 論：這些等至緣何種境界而生起？下面一行是偈頌。第九部分說明所緣境。 論曰：乃至應當成為善的緣故。敘述味定（Rasasvadana Samadhi，體驗味道的禪定）的境界。只是緣于自地的有漏法（Sasrava-dharma，有煩惱的法），說明所緣之法。因為已經遠離染污的緣故，不緣于下方的因。因為愛地的差別，不緣于上方的因。應當成為善的緣故，不緣于無漏的因。 論：凈定（Subha Samadhi，清凈的禪定）及無漏定（Anasrava Samadhi，無煩惱的禪定）乃至不是無漏的境界。敘述凈定和無漏靜慮（Dhyana，禪定）的境界的同異。只有除去無記（Avyakrta，非善非惡的狀態）和無為法（Asamskrta，非因緣和合的法），無漏定不緣於它們，因為它們不是諦（Satya，真理）。與凈定有所區別。其餘的一切與凈定相同。 論：根本地所攝乃至下地法滅。敘述無色界根本定（Arupadhatu-muladhyana，無色界的基礎禪定）緣境的普遍性和侷限性。無色界根本定沒有普遍地緣。
【English Translation】 English version:
These are the Arhats (Arhat, enlightened saints who have attained Nirvana) who are liberated. In order to attain Arana Samadhi (Arana Samadhi, a state of meditation that ceases disputes), Pranidhana-jnana (Pranidhana-jnana, the wisdom to fulfill vows), and other Samadhis (Samadhi, meditation) at the limit, one is able to transcend others. Superior Adhimoksha (Adhimoksha, profound understanding) cannot continuously cultivate transcendent Samapatti (Samapatti, meditative attainments), because its power is weak (the above is the content of the treatise). Treatise: Upon what body do these Samapattis (Samapatti, meditative attainments) arise? The following line is a verse. The eighth section explains the differences in the bodies upon which Samapattis rely. Treatise says: Even to the point of being able to be厭惡毀壞(Ye Wu Ke Wu Hui Huai, loathed and destroyed). It describes how various meditations rely on one's own body or a lower body. Lower meditations do not rely on higher bodies. One, because it is useless. Two, because one's own body has superior meditation. Three, because the power of the lower is weak. Four, because it has already been abandoned. Five, because it can be loathed and destroyed. Due to these five reasons, the higher body does not give rise to lower meditations. Treatise: Generally speaking, even to the point of completely exhausting the remaining afflictions. It describes that, generally speaking, relying on the body of a higher realm, one does not give rise to lower meditations. If speaking in detail, one born in Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana (Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana, the highest realm in Buddhist meditation) can give rise to the Anasrava-samadhi (Anasrava-samadhi, meditation without afflictions) of Akinchanyayatana (Akinchanyayatana, a state of meditation in Buddhism). In order to cut off the delusions of Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana, it is not without use. Because one's own body does not have this superior meditation. Because the power surpasses Naivasamjnanasamjnayatana. Because it has not been abandoned. Because it cannot be loathed and destroyed. If relying on the lower seven realms, one does not give rise to lower Anasrava-samadhi. Because one's own body has Anasrava-samadhi, giving rise to lower Anasrava-samadhi is useless, and it is inferior to the higher Anasrava-samadhi, therefore one does not give rise to the lower one. In order to completely exhaust the remaining afflictions, it is not without use. Because one's own body does not give rise to Anasrava-samadhi with joy, it is not due to other causes. Only because Akinchanyayatana is nearby, one does not give rise to other meditations, because there is a separation. Treatise: Upon what kind of object do these Samapattis arise? The following line is a verse. The ninth section explains the object of focus. Treatise says: Even to the point of it ought to become good. It describes the realm of Rasasvadana Samadhi (Rasasvadana Samadhi, meditation on experiencing flavors). It only focuses on the Sasrava-dharma (Sasrava-dharma, dharma with afflictions) of one's own realm, explaining the object of focus. Because one has already departed from defilement, one does not focus on the lower causes. Because of the difference in the realms of desire, one does not focus on the higher causes. Because it ought to become good, one does not focus on the Anasrava causes. Treatise: Subha Samadhi (Subha Samadhi, pure meditation) and Anasrava Samadhi (Anasrava Samadhi, meditation without afflictions) even to the point of not being Anasrava realms. It describes the similarities and differences in the realms of Subha Samadhi and Anasrava Dhyana (Dhyana, meditation). Only excluding Avyakrta (Avyakrta, a state that is neither good nor evil) and Asamskrta (Asamskrta, dharma that is not conditioned), Anasrava Samadhi does not focus on them, because they are not Satya (Satya, truth). It is different from Subha Samadhi. Everything else is the same as Subha Samadhi. Treatise: That which is included in the fundamental realm even to the point of the extinction of the dharma of the lower realm. It describes the universality and limitations of the object of focus of Arupadhatu-muladhyana (Arupadhatu-muladhyana, the fundamental meditation of the formless realm). The fundamental meditation of the formless realm does not universally focus on.
智。極寂靜故。不緣下地有漏及滅。亦能緣下無漏類品。自．上皆緣。正理論云。以下地法不寂靜故。本善無色極寂靜故。由此理故。經于無色皆言超越一切下地。于諸靜慮不如是說。以本無色不緣下系。是故於下說超越言。諸靜慮中有遍緣智。故於下地不言超越。既說超越色想等言。故知但依超所緣說。若此超越為顯離系。應說超一切。非唯色想等。又靜慮中應言超越 婆沙第十云。四無色地亦有此無我行相。而不能緣一切法。謂空無邊處非我行相。緣四無色彼因。彼滅。一切類智品道。及四無色非擇滅。一切類智品道非擇滅。並一切虛空無為。或欲令是一物。或欲令是多物。此行相盡能緣。如是乃至。非想非非想處非我行相緣非想非非想處彼因。彼滅。一切類智品道。及非想非非想處非擇滅。一切類智品道非擇滅。並一切虛空無為。或欲令是一物。或欲令是多物。此行相盡能緣 此是婆沙評家正義(已上論文)。
論。無色近分亦緣下地。彼無間道必緣下故 言亦緣下者。顯近分中亦緣上也。
論。味凈無漏三等至中。已下半行頌。第十明三等至斷惑不同。
論曰至以勝已故。述無漏斷惑味不斷也。
論若凈近分至亦不能斷。述未至斷次下地。中間不能斷也論。近分有幾何受相應。已下
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 智，因為極其寂靜，所以不緣于下地的有漏法以及滅盡定。但能緣于下地的無漏類品。對於自身和上地，都能緣。如《正理論》所說：『因為下地法不清凈寂靜，而根本的無色界極其寂靜。』因為這個道理，經文中對於無色界都說『超越一切下地』，而對於諸靜慮（禪定）則不這樣說。因為根本的無色界不緣于地獄，所以對於地獄才說『超越』。諸靜慮中有能普遍緣的智慧，所以對於下地不說『超越』。既然說了『超越色想』等話，就知道只是依據所緣的超越來說的。如果這種超越是爲了顯示離系（解脫），就應該說『超越一切』，而不是僅僅『色想等』。而且靜慮中也應該說『超越』。《婆沙》第十卷說：『四無色地也有這種無我行相，但不能緣一切法。』也就是說，空無邊處的非我行相，緣四無色、它們的因、它們的滅、一切類智品道，以及四無色非擇滅、一切類智品道非擇滅，並一切虛空無為。或者想要認為是一物，或者想要認為是多物，這種行相盡其所能緣。像這樣乃至，非想非非想處的非我行相，緣非想非非想處、它們的因、它們的滅、一切類智品道，以及非想非非想處非擇滅、一切類智品道非擇滅，並一切虛空無為。或者想要認為是一物，或者想要認為是多物，這種行相盡其所能緣。』這是《婆沙》評論家的正義。
論：無色近分（指無色界的未至定）也能緣下地，因為它的無間道（指斷煩惱的智慧）必定緣下地。 說『也能緣下』，顯示近分中也能緣上地。
論：味凈無漏三等至中（指有味禪、凈禪和無漏禪三種等至），以下是半行頌。 第十說明三種等至斷惑的不同。
論曰：乃至以勝已故。說明無漏禪斷惑，有味禪不能斷。
論：如果凈近分乃至也不能斷。說明未至定斷除次下地的煩惱，中間定不能斷。 論：近分（指近分定）有多少受相應？以下
【English Translation】 English version: Wisdom (智, Zhi), because of its extreme tranquility, does not cognize the contaminated (有漏, youlou) and cessation (滅, mie) of the lower realms. However, it can cognize the uncontaminated (無漏, wulou) categories of the lower realms. It cognizes both itself and the higher realms. As the Zhengli Lun (正理論, Zhengli Lun) states: 'Because the dharmas of the lower realms are not tranquil, while the fundamental formless realm is extremely tranquil.' Due to this reason, the sutras always say that the formless realms 'transcend all lower realms,' but they do not say this about the various dhyanas (靜慮, jinglv) (meditative states). Because the fundamental formless realm does not cognize the lower realms, it is said to 'transcend' the lower realms. Among the dhyanas, there is wisdom that can cognize universally, so it is not said to 'transcend' the lower realms. Since it is said to 'transcend form and thought' and so on, it is known that it is only based on the transcendence of what is cognized that it is spoken of. If this transcendence were to manifest detachment (離系, lixi) (liberation), it should be said to 'transcend everything,' not just 'form and thought' and so on. Moreover, it should also be said to 'transcend' in the dhyanas. The tenth volume of the Vibhasa (婆沙, Posha) says: 'The four formless realms also have this characteristic of non-self (無我, wowo), but they cannot cognize all dharmas.' That is to say, the non-self characteristic of the Sphere of Infinite Space (空無邊處, Kongwubianchu) cognizes the four formless realms, their causes, their cessation, all categories of knowledge of kinds (類智, leizhi) and paths (道, dao), as well as the unconditioned cessation by discrimination (非擇滅, feizemie) of the four formless realms, all categories of knowledge of kinds and paths of unconditioned cessation by discrimination, and all unconditioned space (虛空無為, Xukongwuwei). Whether one wants to consider it as one thing or many things, this characteristic cognizes to the best of its ability. Likewise, up to and including the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception (非想非非想處, Feixiangfeifeixiangchu), the non-self characteristic cognizes the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception, their causes, their cessation, all categories of knowledge of kinds and paths, as well as the unconditioned cessation by discrimination of the Sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-Perception, all categories of knowledge of kinds and paths of unconditioned cessation by discrimination, and all unconditioned space. Whether one wants to consider it as one thing or many things, this characteristic cognizes to the best of its ability.' This is the correct meaning according to the commentators of the Vibhasa.
Treatise: The proximate concentration (近分, jinfen) of the formless realm also cognizes the lower realms, because its path of immediate succession (無間道, wujian dao) necessarily cognizes the lower realms. Saying 'also cognizes the lower' shows that the proximate concentration also cognizes the higher realms.
Treatise: Among the three samapattis (等至, dengzhi) of flavored purity and uncontaminated (味凈無漏三等至, Weijingwulou sandengzhi), the following is a half-line verse. The tenth explains the differences in severing afflictions among the three samapattis.
Treatise says: Up to and including 'because of surpassing.' Explains that uncontaminated dhyana severs afflictions, while flavored dhyana cannot.
Treatise: If the pure proximate concentration up to and including 'also cannot sever.' Explains that the anagamin (未至, weizhi) severs the afflictions of the next lower realm, while the intermediate dhyana cannot. Treatise: How many feelings (受, shou) are associated with the proximate concentration? The following
半行頌。第十一明近分多少等。
論曰至未離下怖故。述近分通八地。及唯舍相應所以也。
論。此八近分至故作是說。述初近分亦通無漏。餘七唯凈皆無味定 有結生心。明有生染 正理論云。上七近分無無漏者。于自地法不厭背故。唯初近分通無漏者。于自地法能厭背故。此地極鄰近多災患界故。以諸欲貪由尋．伺起。此地猶有尋．伺隨故(已上論文)。
論。有說未至定至具有三種。述異說也。
論中間靜慮至中定不能。述中間定與未至定有別義也。
論。復有別義。已下半行頌。第十二明中定與下．上別。
論曰至無如此故。述唯初上二下有中間定。自余諸定無升．降故。無中間也。
論。此定具有至苦通行攝。述中間定具三異近分。舍受同近分也。
論。此定能超至為大梵故。述中定果。正理七十八云。唯初近分名未至者。為欲簡別余近分故。非此近分乘先定起。又非住此已起愛味。依如是義立未至名。非上定邊亦名未至。皆乘先定勢力引生。及住彼時。已起味故。毗婆沙者作如是說。未至本地立未至名。是本地德未現前義。此中間定具味等三。以別系屬一生處故。謂極修習中間定者。未來當在大梵處生。故亦具三。如根本定。非根本地起愛貪。彼如所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 半行頌。第十一節闡明近分定的多少等問題。
論曰：因為還沒有脫離地獄的怖畏的緣故。這裡闡述了近分定通於八地，並且只與舍受相應的原因。
論：這八個近分定...所以這樣說。這裡闡述了初禪近分定也通於無漏，其餘七個近分定只屬於有漏的清凈定，都沒有味定，有結生心，表明有生染。正理論中說，上面的七個近分定沒有無漏的，因為對於自己地上的法不厭惡背離。只有初禪近分定通於無漏，因為對於自己地上的法能夠厭惡背離。這個地方極其鄰近多災多患的欲界，因為各種欲貪由尋和伺產生，這個地方仍然有尋和伺隨逐（以上是論文內容）。
論：有人說未至定具有三種。這裡闡述了不同的說法。
論：中間靜慮...中間定不能。這裡闡述了中間定與未至定有區別的意義。
論：還有別的意義。以下是半行頌。第十二節闡明中間定與地獄和上界的區別。
論曰：因為沒有像這樣的緣故。這裡闡述了只有初禪和上面的二禪之下有中間定，其餘各種禪定沒有上升和下降，所以沒有中間定。
論：這個定具有...苦通行攝。這裡闡述了中間定具有三種不同於近分定的特點，舍受與近分定相同。
論：這個定能夠超越...成為大梵天。這裡闡述了中間定的果報。正理第七十八卷說，只有初禪近分定名為『未至』，是爲了簡別其餘的近分定。不是這個近分定憑藉先前的禪定而生起，又不是安住於此已經生起愛味。依據這樣的意義建立『未至』的名稱。上面的禪定邊沿也不名為『未至』，都是憑藉先前的禪定勢力引導生起，並且安住于彼時，已經生起愛味。毗婆沙論者這樣說，未至定在本地建立『未至』的名稱，是本地的功德還沒有顯現的意義。這個中間定具有味等三種，因為特別系屬於一生之處，意思是說，極其修習中間定的人，未來應當在大梵天處出生，所以也具有味等三種，如同根本定。不是從根本地生起愛貪，他們如同所說。
【English Translation】 English version: Half-Line Gatha. Section 11: Explaining the Quantity and Other Aspects of Proximity Concentration (近分定, Jìn fēn dìng).
Treatise says: Because one has not yet departed from the fear of the lower realms. This explains why Proximity Concentration is common to the Eight Grounds and only corresponds to the feeling of equanimity (舍受, shě shòu).
Treatise: These eight Proximity Concentrations... therefore, it is said this way. This explains that the First Dhyana Proximity Concentration also extends to the unconditioned (無漏, wú lòu), while the other seven are only pure conditioned states, without taste-concentration (味定, wèi dìng), and with rebirth-linking consciousness, indicating the presence of birth-related defilements. The Nyāyānusāra states that the upper seven Proximity Concentrations are not unconditioned because they do not厭背 (yàn bèi,厭惡背離,厭離) their own ground's dharmas. Only the First Dhyana Proximity Concentration extends to the unconditioned because it can厭背 (yàn bèi,厭惡背離,厭離) its own ground's dharmas. This place is extremely close to the desire realm, which is full of disasters, because various desires arise from seeking (尋, xún) and examining (伺, sì). This place still has seeking and examining accompanying it (end of treatise text).
Treatise: Some say the Unarrived Concentration (未至定, wèi zhì dìng) has three types. This explains a different view.
Treatise: The Intermediate Dhyana... the Intermediate Concentration cannot. This explains the difference in meaning between the Intermediate Concentration and the Unarrived Concentration.
Treatise: There is another different meaning. The following is the Half-Line Gatha. Section 12: Explaining the difference between the Intermediate Concentration and the lower and upper realms.
Treatise says: Because there is nothing like this. This explains that only the First Dhyana and the two dhyanas above it have Intermediate Concentration below them. The other dhyanas do not ascend or descend, so there is no Intermediate Concentration.
Treatise: This concentration possesses... encompassed by painful progress. This explains that the Intermediate Concentration has three differences from Proximity Concentration; the feeling of equanimity is the same as Proximity Concentration.
Treatise: This concentration can transcend... to become Mahābrahmā (大梵天, Dà Fàn Tiān). This explains the result of the Intermediate Concentration. Nyāyānusāra 78 says that only the First Dhyana Proximity Concentration is called 'Unarrived' to distinguish it from the other Proximity Concentrations. It is not that this Proximity Concentration arises by relying on a prior concentration, nor is it that dwelling in this state has already given rise to craving-taste (愛味, ài wèi). Based on this meaning, the name 'Unarrived' is established. The edges of the upper concentrations are also not called 'Unarrived'; they all arise by relying on the power of prior concentrations, and dwelling in them has already given rise to craving-taste. The Vibhasa masters say it this way: the Unarrived Concentration establishes the name 'Unarrived' in its own ground, meaning that the merits of its own ground have not yet manifested. This Intermediate Concentration possesses the three aspects of taste, etc., because it is particularly connected to a place of one lifetime, meaning that those who cultivate the Intermediate Concentration extremely will be born in the realm of Mahābrahmā in the future, so it also possesses the three aspects of taste, etc., like the Fundamental Concentration. It is not that craving-taste arises from the Fundamental Ground; they are as stated.
味有別。能味亦別故。此有勝德可愛味故。無漏定生。亦漸減故。此亦一向舍受相應。無三識身故無樂受。無喜受者已不共初。然于初貪未能離故。又由自勉功用轉故非憂．苦者。已出欲故。由此一向舍受相應(已上論文)論。已說等至。結上也 云何等持。引下也 自此已下。大文第四明等持也 文中有四。一明尋．伺等三。二明單空等三。三明重空等三。四明四修等持 等至．等持．等引別者。等至通有心．無心。唯定不通散 等持唯有心。通定．散 等引唯是定。唯有心。婆沙六十二云。問等持．等至有何差別。有說應作四句。有等至非等持。謂二無心定。有等持非等至。謂不定心相應等持。有等至亦等持。謂一切有心定。有非等至非等持謂除前相。又婆沙一百四十一。問何故名等持。答平等持心令專一境。有所成辨故名等持。云云多釋。廣如彼論。
論。經說等持總有三種。自下半行頌。第一明有尋．伺等三文復有三。
論曰至及未至攝。述第一也。
論。無尋唯伺至中間地攝。述第二也。
論。無尋無伺至非非想攝。述第三也。
論。契經復說三種等持。已下一行半頌。第二明單空三等持也。
論曰至相應等持。明空等持也。正理論云。故說。空等持近治有身見。身
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 味道有所不同，能品嚐味道的能力也不同。因為這種味道具有殊勝的功德，令人喜愛，所以由無漏的禪定產生。也因為（苦受）是逐漸減少的，所以這裡（指第三禪）也只與舍受相應。因為沒有三種識身（眼識、耳識、鼻舌身識），所以沒有樂受。沒有喜受，是因為已經不與初禪的貪慾相應。然而，因為對於初禪的貪慾未能斷離，又因為通過自我勉勵，功用得以運轉，所以沒有憂受和苦受，因為已經脫離了欲界。因此，（第三禪）只與舍受相應。（以上是論文內容） 《論》中已經說了『等至』，這裡總結一下。什麼是『等持』？下面將要引出（相關內容）。從這裡開始，是本文的第四大部分，闡明『等持』。文章中有四個部分：一是闡明有尋有伺等三種等持；二是闡明單空等三種等持；三是闡明重空等三種等持；四是闡明四種修習的等持。 『等至』(Samāpatti，入定)、『等持』(Samādhi，禪定)、『等引』(Samāhita，心專注)的區別在於：『等至』通於有心和無心，但只存在於禪定中，不包括散亂狀態。『等持』只存在於有心狀態，通於禪定和散亂狀態。『等引』只是禪定，只存在於有心狀態。《婆沙論》第六十二卷說：『問：等持和等至有什麼差別？答：可以分為四句：有的是等至但不是等持，比如二無心定（無想定、滅盡定）；有的是等持但不是等至，比如與不定心相應的等持；有的是等至也是等持，比如一切有心定；有的既不是等至也不是等持，就是排除以上情況。』另外，《婆沙論》第一百四十一卷說：『問：為什麼叫做等持？答：平等地保持心，使它專注於一個境界，從而有所成就，所以叫做等持。』等等多種解釋，詳細內容見相關論述。 《論》中說，等持總共有三種。下面半行是偈頌。第一部分闡明有尋有伺等三種等持，又分為三個部分。 《論》曰：從有尋有伺（Vitarka-vicāra，粗思和細思）到未至定（Anāgamya，未到地定）都包括在內。這是對第一種等持的闡述。 《論》：無尋唯伺（Avitarka-vicāramātra，無粗思唯有細思）到中間地（Madhyama-bhūmi，中間禪）都包括在內。這是對第二種等持的闡述。 《論》：無尋無伺（Avitarka-avicāra，無粗思無細思）到非想非非想處（Naiva-saṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana，非想非非想處定）都包括在內。這是對第三種等持的闡述。 《論》：契經中又說了三種等持。下面一行半是偈頌。第二部分闡明單空三種等持。 《論》曰：到相應等持。闡明空等持。正理論說：『所以說，空等持接近於對治有身見（Satkāya-dṛṣṭi，我身見）。』
【English Translation】 English version: The tastes are different, and the ability to taste is also different. Because this taste has superior merits and is delightful, it arises from undefiled concentration. Also, because (suffering) is gradually decreasing, here (referring to the third Dhyana) it is only associated with equanimity. Because there are no three kinds of consciousness bodies (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-tongue-body-consciousness), there is no feeling of pleasure. There is no feeling of joy because it is no longer associated with the desire of the first Dhyana. However, because the desire for the first Dhyana has not been completely abandoned, and because through self-exertion, the function is able to operate, there is no feeling of sorrow or suffering, because it has already escaped the desire realm. Therefore, (the third Dhyana) is only associated with equanimity. (The above is the content of the treatise) The 'Samāpatti' (入定, entering into absorption) has already been mentioned in the treatise, and here is a summary. What is 'Samādhi' (禪定, concentration)? The following will introduce (relevant content). From here onwards, is the fourth major part of this text, elucidating 'Samādhi'. There are four parts in the article: first, elucidating the three types of Samādhi with Vitarka-vicāra (尋伺, initial and sustained thought); second, elucidating the three types of single emptiness Samādhi; third, elucidating the three types of double emptiness Samādhi; fourth, elucidating the four types of cultivation Samādhi. The difference between 'Samāpatti' (入定, entering into absorption), 'Samādhi' (禪定, concentration), and 'Samāhita' (心專注, mind focused) is that: 'Samāpatti' is common to both with-mind and without-mind, but only exists in concentration, not including scattered states. 'Samādhi' only exists in the with-mind state, common to both concentration and scattered states. 'Samāhita' is only concentration, only existing in the with-mind state. The sixty-second volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Question: What is the difference between Samādhi and Samāpatti? Answer: It can be divided into four sentences: Some are Samāpatti but not Samādhi, such as the two without-mind concentrations (Saṃjñā-nirodha, cessation of perception and feeling; Asaṃjñika, non-perception); some are Samādhi but not Samāpatti, such as Samādhi associated with an unfixed mind; some are both Samāpatti and Samādhi, such as all with-mind concentrations; some are neither Samāpatti nor Samādhi, which is to exclude the above situations.' In addition, the one hundred and forty-first volume of the Mahāvibhāṣā says: 'Question: Why is it called Samādhi? Answer: To equally maintain the mind, so that it focuses on one realm, thereby achieving something, so it is called Samādhi.' And so on, with many explanations, detailed content can be found in the relevant discussions. The Treatise says that there are three types of Samādhi in total. The following half-line is a verse. The first part elucidates the three types of Samādhi with Vitarka-vicāra, which is further divided into three parts. The Treatise says: From Vitarka-vicāra (尋伺, initial and sustained thought) to Anāgamya (未到地定, the preliminary stage of the first dhyana) are included. This is an elaboration of the first type of Samādhi. The Treatise: Avitarka-vicāramātra (無尋唯伺, without initial thought but only sustained thought) to Madhyama-bhūmi (中間禪, intermediate dhyana) are included. This is an elaboration of the second type of Samādhi. The Treatise: Avitarka-avicāra (無尋無伺, without initial thought and without sustained thought) to Naiva-saṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana (非想非非想處定, the realm of neither perception nor non-perception) are included. This is an elaboration of the third type of Samādhi. The Treatise: The Sutras also mention three types of Samādhi. The following one and a half lines are verses. The second part elucidates the three types of single emptiness Samādhi. The Treatise says: To the corresponding Samādhi. Elucidating the emptiness Samādhi. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: 'Therefore, it is said that emptiness Samādhi is close to counteracting Satkāya-dṛṣṭi (有身見, the view of self-existence).'
見亦有二行相故。謂空行相近治我所見。非我行相近治我見。觀法非我名非我行相。觀此中無我名空行相。由此治別。問知此非我。此中無我。二種行相竟有何別。答非無差別。言此中無我。不能顯我畢竟無體故。謂此但顯彼此互無。不能顯成畢竟無我。以有體法亦互無故。若言此法非我。便顯我畢竟無。以一切法法相等故。由此若修非我行相。便治我見。修空行相。治我所見。如何無別(已上論文)。
論。無相三摩地至三有為相。述第二也。正理論云。或復相者。是因異名。涅槃無因故名無相。或相。謂世蘊上．中．下。涅槃。異彼故名無相。
論。無愿三摩地至得無愿名。第三述無愿也 言余諦十種行相。非常．苦是苦下二行。因等是集下四行。可厭患故緣之無愿。無愿即是厭之異名。道如船筏必應舍故。亦不願也。
論。皆為超過現所對故。釋無愿義。于苦．集．道現所對境。皆欲超過至涅槃故。故名無愿。正理七十九云。如是空等三三摩地。三摩地相雖無差別。而依對治．意樂．所緣。如其次第。建立三種。由意樂故不願三有。理且可然。有過違故。寧由意樂不願聖道。以諸聖道依屬有故。若爾何用修習聖道。以是涅槃能趣因故。非離聖道有得涅槃。為求涅槃故修聖道。道如船筏必應舍
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 見解也有兩種不同的行相，即空行相和非我行相。空行相接近於對治我所見（認為事物屬於我的見解），而非我行相接近於對治我見（認為存在一個『我』的見解）。觀察法不是『我』，這被稱為非我行相；觀察此中沒有『我』，這被稱為空行相。由此可以區分它們的對治作用。有人問：知道『此非我』和『此中無我』這兩種行相究竟有什麼區別？回答：並非沒有差別。說『此中無我』，不能完全顯示『我』畢竟沒有實體，因為這僅僅顯示了彼此互相不存在，不能顯示最終沒有『我』，因為有實體的法也互相不存在。如果說『此法非我』，便顯示了『我』畢竟不存在，因為一切法的法性都是相等的。因此，如果修習非我行相，就能對治我見；修習空行相，就能對治我所見。怎麼會沒有區別呢？（以上是論文內容）。
論：無相三摩地（Animitta-samādhi，不以任何事物為相的三摩地）乃至三有為相。這是對第二種三摩地的闡述。《正理論》中說：或者說，相是因的另一種名稱。涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）沒有因，所以稱為無相。或者說，相指的是世間的蘊（skandha，構成要素）的上、中、下。涅槃與它們不同，所以稱為無相。
論：無愿三摩地（Apranihita-samādhi，不希求任何事物的三摩地）乃至獲得無愿之名。這是對第三種三摩地的闡述。所說的其餘諦（satya，真理）的十種行相中，非常、苦是苦諦（duhkha-satya，苦的真理）下的兩種行相，因等是集諦（samudaya-satya，苦的根源的真理）下的四種行相。因為可以厭惡，所以緣於它們而生起無愿。無愿就是厭惡的另一種名稱。道（marga，道路）如同船筏，必然應該捨棄，因此也不希求。
論：都是爲了超過現在所面對的境界。這是解釋無愿的含義。對於苦、集、道這些現在所面對的境界，都想要超過而到達涅槃，所以稱為無愿。《正理論》第七十九卷中說：像這樣，空等三種三摩地，三摩地的相雖然沒有差別，但是依據對治、意樂、所緣，依次建立三種。因為意樂而不希求三有（trai-bhava，三有，即欲有、色有、無色有），這個道理或許可以成立。但是因為有過失和違背之處，難道會因為意樂而不希求聖道（ārya-mārga，通往解脫的道路）嗎？因為諸聖道依屬於有為法。如果這樣，那麼修習聖道有什麼用呢？因為它是能夠到達涅槃的因。不離開聖道就不能獲得涅槃。爲了求得涅槃，所以修習聖道。道如同船筏，必然應該捨棄。
【English Translation】 English version Views also have two aspects: the aspect of emptiness and the aspect of non-self. The aspect of emptiness is close to counteracting the view of 'mine' (the view that things belong to me), while the aspect of non-self is close to counteracting the view of 'self' (the view that there is a 'self'). Observing that a dharma is not 'self' is called the aspect of non-self; observing that there is no 'self' in this is called the aspect of emptiness. Thus, their counteracting effects can be distinguished. Someone asks: What is the difference between knowing 'this is not self' and 'there is no self in this'? The answer: There is a difference. Saying 'there is no self in this' does not fully reveal that 'self' ultimately has no substance, because it only shows that they mutually do not exist, and cannot show that there is ultimately no 'self', because entities also mutually do not exist. If it is said 'this dharma is not self', then it shows that 'self' ultimately does not exist, because the dharma-nature of all dharmas is equal. Therefore, if one cultivates the aspect of non-self, one can counteract the view of 'self'; if one cultivates the aspect of emptiness, one can counteract the view of 'mine'. How can there be no difference? (The above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: The Animitta-samādhi (三摩地, concentration without characteristics) up to the characteristics of the three existences. This is an explanation of the second samādhi. The Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Or, a characteristic is another name for a cause. Nirvana (涅槃, liberation) has no cause, so it is called without characteristics. Or, a characteristic refers to the upper, middle, and lower of the skandhas (蘊, aggregates) of the world. Nirvana is different from them, so it is called without characteristics.
Treatise: The Apranihita-samādhi (三摩地, concentration without aspiration) up to obtaining the name of without aspiration. This is an explanation of the third samādhi. Among the ten aspects of the remaining truths (satya, 真理), impermanence and suffering are the two aspects under the truth of suffering (duhkha-satya, 苦諦), and cause, etc., are the four aspects under the truth of the origin (samudaya-satya, 集諦). Because they can be厭惡,厭惡 arises from them, it is called without aspiration. Without aspiration is another name for厭惡. The path (marga, 道路) is like a raft, which must be abandoned, so it is also not aspired to.
Treatise: All are for transcending the currently faced realms. This is an explanation of the meaning of without aspiration. For the realms currently faced, such as suffering, origin, and path, all want to transcend and reach Nirvana, so it is called without aspiration. The seventy-ninth volume of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra says: Like this, the three samādhis of emptiness, etc., although the characteristics of the samādhis are not different, based on the counteracting, intention, and object, three types are established in order. Because of the intention not to aspire to the three existences (trai-bhava, 三有), this principle may be established. But because there are faults and contradictions, would one not aspire to the noble path (ārya-mārga, 聖道) because of intention? Because all noble paths depend on conditioned dharmas. If so, then what is the use of cultivating the noble path? Because it is the cause that can reach Nirvana. Without leaving the noble path, one cannot obtain Nirvana. In order to seek Nirvana, one cultivates the noble path. The path is like a raft, which must be abandoned.
故。亦由意樂不願聖道。故緣道行相亦得無愿名。以本期心厭有為故 述曰。此與婆沙大意同也。對治我．我所是空意樂。證涅槃是無相意樂。舍有為是無願意樂。
論。空非我相至相相似故。由此二行相。雖緣可厭法。不取可厭相。不得無愿名 涅槃相似者。涅槃無男．女等相。此非我空無男．女相等。似涅槃也。
論。此三各二種至等持別故。述通漏．無漏也。漏是世間。無漏是出世間。
論。世間攝者至唯通九地。述地別也。
論。于中無漏至為入門故。述名異也。
論。契經復說三重等持。已下一行半頌。第三明重空三摩地也。
論曰至立空空等名。總釋三名也。緣前空取空相名空空。緣前無相取無相相。故名無相無相。緣前無愿取無愿相。名無愿無愿也。
論。空空等持至勝非我故。述第一也。正理云。謂彼先起無學等持。於五取蘊思惟空相。從此後起殊勝善根相應等持。緣前無學空三摩地思惟空相。于空取空故名空空。如燒死屍以杖迴轉。尸既盡已杖亦應燒。如是由空燒煩惱已。復起空定厭舍前空。重空等持空行相後起。即復還與空行相相應。唯此最能順厭舍故。非我行相即不如是。見無我者。于諸有為法起厭背心。不如見空故。諸有已見諸法非我。而於諸
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因此，也是由於內心不願追求聖道，所以即使是緣于道的行相，也可能被稱為『無愿』。這是因為最初的心意就厭棄有為法的緣故。
述曰：這與《婆沙論》的大意相同。對治我、我所的是空意樂，證得涅槃是無相意樂，捨棄有為法是無願意樂。 論：『空』並非『我』的相狀，乃至與『相』相似的緣故。因此，這兩種行相，即使緣于可厭惡的法，也不取可厭惡的相狀，所以不能稱為『無愿』。涅槃相似是指，涅槃沒有男、女等相狀，而『非我』的『空』並沒有男、女等相狀，只是與涅槃相似。 論：這三種（空、無相、無愿）各自有兩種（世間、出世間），乃至因為等持的差別。述：通於有漏、無漏。有漏是世間的，無漏是出世間的。 論：世間所攝的（空、無相、無愿），乃至只通於九地。述：這是就地來區分。 論：其中無漏的（空、無相、無愿），乃至作為入門的緣故。述：這是就名稱的不同來解釋。 論：契經又說三重等持。以下一行半是頌文，第三是說明重空三摩地。 論曰：乃至立空空等名。總的解釋這三個名稱。緣於前空的，取空的相狀，名為『空空』；緣於前無相的，取無相的相狀，所以名為『無相無相』；緣於前無愿的，取無愿的相狀，名為『無愿無愿』。 論：空空等持，乃至勝過『非我』的緣故。述：這是說明第一種（空空）。《正理》中說：『所謂先發起無學等持，對於五取蘊思惟空相，從此之後發起殊勝善根相應的等持，緣於前無學的空三摩地思惟空相，于空取空，所以名為『空空』。如同燒死屍後用木杖撥弄，屍體既然燒盡，木杖也應當燒掉。』如同通過空來燒掉煩惱后，又生起空定，厭棄捨棄之前的空。重空等持在空行相之後生起，立即又與空行相相應，只有這樣才能最順應厭棄捨離。『非我』的行相就不是這樣。見到無我的人，對於諸有為法生起厭背之心，不如見到空那樣。那些已經見到諸法非我的人，對於諸
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is also because the mind does not desire the holy path, that even the aspect of the path can be called 'non-desire' (wu yuan). This is because the initial intention is to be weary of conditioned dharmas (you wei fa).
Commentary: This is the same as the general meaning of the Vibhasa. Counteracting 'self' and 'what belongs to self' is the intention of emptiness (kong yi le), realizing Nirvana is the intention of signlessness (wu xiang yi le), and abandoning conditioned dharmas is the intention of non-desire (wu yuan yi le). Treatise: 'Emptiness' is not the characteristic of 'self', even to the extent of resembling a 'characteristic'. Therefore, these two aspects, even if they are related to repulsive dharmas, do not take on repulsive characteristics, so they cannot be called 'non-desire'. Resembling Nirvana means that Nirvana does not have characteristics such as male or female, while the 'emptiness' of 'non-self' does not have characteristics such as male or female, but only resembles Nirvana. Treatise: These three (emptiness, signlessness, non-desire) each have two types (mundane, supramundane), even to the extent of the difference in samadhi. Commentary: It encompasses defiled (lou) and undefiled (wu lou). Defiled is mundane, and undefiled is supramundane. Treatise: Those (emptiness, signlessness, non-desire) included in the mundane, even to the extent of only extending to the nine grounds (jiu di). Commentary: This is to distinguish based on the ground. Treatise: Among them, the undefiled (emptiness, signlessness, non-desire), even to the extent of being the entrance. Commentary: This is to explain the difference in names. Treatise: The sutras also speak of the triple samadhi. The following one and a half lines are verses, the third is to explain the triple emptiness samadhi (chong kong san mo di). Treatise says: Even to establish names such as emptiness of emptiness (kong kong). Generally explain these three names. Relating to the previous emptiness, taking the characteristic of emptiness, is called 'emptiness of emptiness'; relating to the previous signlessness, taking the characteristic of signlessness, therefore it is called 'signlessness of signlessness'; relating to the previous non-desire, taking the characteristic of non-desire, it is called 'non-desire of non-desire'. Treatise: The samadhi of emptiness of emptiness, even to the extent of surpassing 'non-self'. Commentary: This is to explain the first type (emptiness of emptiness). The Nyaya says: 'So-called first arising the no-more-learning samadhi (wu xue deng chi), contemplating the characteristic of emptiness in the five aggregates of grasping (wu qu yun), from this afterwards arising the samadhi corresponding to the supreme roots of goodness, relating to the previous no-more-learning emptiness samadhi, contemplating the characteristic of emptiness, taking emptiness in emptiness, therefore it is called 'emptiness of emptiness'. It is like burning a corpse and turning it with a wooden stick, since the corpse is burned, the stick should also be burned.' It is like after burning afflictions through emptiness, again arising the emptiness concentration, disliking and abandoning the previous emptiness. The triple emptiness samadhi arises after the aspect of emptiness, immediately corresponding to the aspect of emptiness, only in this way can it best accord with disliking and abandoning. The aspect of 'non-self' is not like this. Those who see non-self, towards all conditioned dharmas, give rise to a mind of aversion, not as much as seeing emptiness. Those who have already seen that all dharmas are non-self, towards all
有猶生樂著。以于諸行中。不審見空故。由此空定雖二行相俱。而但名空不說為非我。空于厭舍極隨順故 述曰。空行對除我所。現見世間。知物非我所有不貪求故。
論。無愿無愿至為厭舍故。述第二也。正理論云。重無愿等持。非常行相後起。即復還與非常行相相應。唯此可能緣厭道故。非苦行相能緣聖道。聖道非苦。趣苦滅故。苦法不能趣苦寂滅。亦非因等四。能緣聖道。以聖道不能令苦續故。非道等四者此厭舍道故。非欣行相能為厭舍。豈不如無願不願聖道。而作道等四。此亦應然。此例不然。無愿正厭有。兼于聖道起不願心故。謂前無愿正厭于有。聖道依有故兼不願。雖望意樂說不願道。而於聖道非正憎厭故。亦能作道等四種。無愿無愿正憎厭道。故以非常觀道過失。道等行相無容厭道。是故於此不作彼四。(已上論文)。
論。無相無相至非離系果故。述第三也 不取滅者。既緣道．滅。若緣滅相濫生滅也。非擇滅是無記故非妙相。非離系果故非離相。
論。此三等持至無漏不然。漏．無漏分別也。無漏觀道皆為欣行。此為厭故非無漏也 問二緣聖道取空．非常。理可名為厭舍聖道。無相無相但緣無為作靜行相。何名厭道 答此欣無學無相等持不轉之因故名厭道。謂彼定起義作是言。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 有情眾生仍然執著於樂受，這是因為他們在諸行（Samskara，一切有為法）中，沒有如實地觀察到空性（Sunyata，諸法無自性）。因此，雖然空定（Sunyata-samadhi，與空性相應的禪定）與非我（Anatta，無我）的行相同時存在，但只稱之為空，而不說是非我。這是因為空性非常順應厭離和捨棄。 述曰：空行（Sunyata-akara，空性的行相）是爲了對治我所（Mamata，對事物執著為我所有）。現見世間，知道事物並非我所擁有，就不會貪求。 論：無愿（Apranihita，不願）或無愿定（Apranihita-samadhi，與不願相應的禪定），是爲了厭離和捨棄。這是對第二種禪定的解釋。《正理論》說：『重複修習無愿等持（Apranihita-samapatti，無愿等持），在非常（Anitya，無常）的行相之後生起，又會與非常的行相相應。只有這樣才可能緣于厭離之道，因為聖道（Aryamarga，八正道）並非苦（Dukkha，痛苦）的行相所能緣，聖道不是苦，而是趨向苦的滅盡。苦法不能趨向苦的寂滅，因（Hetu，原因）等四種也不能緣于聖道，因為聖道不會使苦延續。』非道等四種，是因為這是厭離和捨棄之道，所以欣（Nandi，歡喜）的行相不能作為厭離和捨棄。難道不像無愿、不願聖道，而作為道等四種嗎？這個例子是不成立的，因為無愿正是厭離有（Bhava，存在），並且對聖道生起不願之心。也就是說，前面的無愿正是厭離有，聖道依賴於有，所以兼有不願。雖然從意樂（Adhyashaya，意願）上說是不願道，但對於聖道並非真正憎恨和厭離，所以也能作為道等四種。無愿正是憎恨和厭離道，所以用非常來觀察道的過失，道等行相不能容忍厭離道，因此對於此不作為彼四種。（以上是論文） 論：無相（Animitta，無相）或無相定（Animitta-samadhi，與無相相應的禪定），是因為不是離系果（Visamyoga-phala，離系果）。這是對第三種禪定的解釋。不取滅（Nirodha，滅盡）的原因是：既然緣于道和滅，如果緣于滅相，就會混淆生滅。非擇滅（Pratisankhya-nirodha，擇滅）是無記（Avyakrta，非善非惡）的，所以不是妙相（Subha-nimitta，美好的相）。不是離系果，所以不是離相（Visamyoga-nimitta，離系之相）。 論：這三種等持（Samadhi，禪定）直到無漏（Anasrava，無煩惱）為止，並非如此。這是對有漏（Sasrava，有煩惱）和無漏的分別。無漏觀道都是欣的行相，這（三種等持）是爲了厭離，所以不是無漏。問：兩種緣于聖道，取空和非常，理應稱為厭離和捨棄聖道。無相和無相定只是緣于無為（Asamskrta，無為法），作為寂靜的行相，為什麼稱為厭離道？答：這是因為欣無學（Asaiksa，無學）的無相等持是不轉之因，所以稱為厭離道。也就是說，彼定（無相定）生起義，作如是說。
【English Translation】 English version Sentient beings still cling to pleasurable feelings because they do not truly perceive emptiness (Sunyata, the absence of inherent existence) in all conditioned phenomena (Samskara). Therefore, although the samadhi of emptiness (Sunyata-samadhi, meditative absorption corresponding to emptiness) and the aspect of non-self (Anatta, absence of a permanent self) are simultaneous, it is only called emptiness and not non-self. This is because emptiness is extremely conducive to aversion and relinquishment. Commentary: The aspect of emptiness (Sunyata-akara, the characteristic of emptiness) is to counteract the notion of 'mine' (Mamata, clinging to things as 'mine'). By directly observing the world, knowing that things are not 'mine', one will not be greedy. Treatise: The absence of aspiration (Apranihita, non-desire) or the samadhi of absence of aspiration (Apranihita-samadhi, meditative absorption corresponding to non-desire) is for aversion and relinquishment. This is an explanation of the second samadhi. The Nyayanusara says: 'Repeatedly practicing the samadhi of absence of aspiration (Apranihita-samapatti, the attainment of non-desire), after the aspect of impermanence (Anitya, transience) arises, it will again correspond to the aspect of impermanence. Only this is possible to be associated with the path of aversion, because the Noble Path (Aryamarga, the Eightfold Path) cannot be associated with the aspect of suffering (Dukkha, pain). The Noble Path is not suffering, but leads to the cessation of suffering. The dharma of suffering cannot lead to the quiescence of suffering, nor can the four causes (Hetu, conditions) etc. be associated with the Noble Path, because the Noble Path does not allow suffering to continue.' The four non-paths are because this is the path of aversion and relinquishment, so the aspect of joy (Nandi, delight) cannot serve as aversion and relinquishment. Is it not like the Noble Path of non-aspiration and non-desire, which serves as the four paths etc.? This example is not valid, because non-aspiration is precisely aversion to existence (Bhava, being), and also gives rise to a mind of non-desire towards the Noble Path. That is to say, the previous non-aspiration is precisely aversion to existence, and the Noble Path relies on existence, so it also has non-desire. Although from the perspective of intention (Adhyashaya, volition) it is said to be the path of non-desire, it is not truly hating and averse to the Noble Path, so it can also serve as the four paths etc. Non-aspiration is precisely hating and averse to the path, so using impermanence to observe the faults of the path, the aspects of the path etc. cannot tolerate aversion to the path, therefore, for this, it does not serve as those four. (The above is the treatise) Treatise: The absence of characteristics (Animitta, signlessness) or the samadhi of absence of characteristics (Animitta-samadhi, meditative absorption corresponding to signlessness) is because it is not the fruit of separation (Visamyoga-phala, the fruit of disjunction). This is an explanation of the third samadhi. The reason for not taking cessation (Nirodha, extinction) is: since it is associated with the path and cessation, if it is associated with the aspect of cessation, it will confuse arising and ceasing. Cessation through discrimination (Pratisankhya-nirodha, cessation through wisdom) is unconditioned (Avyakrta, neither good nor bad), so it is not a beautiful characteristic (Subha-nimitta, auspicious sign). It is not the fruit of separation, so it is not the characteristic of separation (Visamyoga-nimitta, sign of disjunction). Treatise: These three samadhis (Samadhi, meditative absorptions) up to the unconditioned (Anasrava, without outflows) are not so. This is the distinction between conditioned (Sasrava, with outflows) and unconditioned. The unconditioned contemplation of the path is all an aspect of joy, this (three samadhis) is for aversion, so it is not unconditioned. Question: Two are associated with the Noble Path, taking emptiness and impermanence, it is reasonable to call it aversion and relinquishment of the Noble Path. The samadhi of absence of characteristics and absence of characteristics is only associated with the unconditioned (Asamskrta, unconditioned dharma), serving as the aspect of quiescence, why is it called aversion to the path? Answer: This is because the samadhi of absence of characteristics of the non-learner (Asaiksa, beyond learning) is the cause of non-reversal, so it is called aversion to the path. That is to say, the meaning of the arising of that samadhi (samadhi of absence of characteristics) is as follows.
無相等持不生為善。此既欣贊聖道不生。如何不名厭舍聖道 問前無相定非此所緣。如何此名無相無相。或應許此定不緣非擇滅。但緣無學無相不生 答此亦不然。準前釋故。謂緣無相之非擇滅。此非擇滅亦離諸相。緣無相無相故。得無相無相名。緣無相境作靜行相。是故此定從境立名。
論。唯三洲人至八本中間。明依身及人依地分別也。正理云。唯不時解脫。以時解脫愛聖道故。依十一地除上七邊。以上七邊無勝德故。若在欲界。從未至攝聖道後起。若在有頂無所有攝聖道後生。余皆自地聖道後起。就總類說。此從法．類．苦．滅四智無間而生。若就別說。欲界攝者非類後生。上界攝者非法後起。前二非滅後起。第三非苦後生。余行相後起此定故。應得此者。皆盡智時由離染得。後由加行方起現前。唯我世尊。不由加行順趣解脫起此現前。于道尚厭豈欣諸有。此後亦起聖道現前。然厭道故非無間起。欲界攝者。是思所成。余修所成。依定起故。(已上論文)。
論。契經復說四修等持。已下兩行頌。第四明四修。四脩名字如文可解。
論曰至理實通余。述第一修也。先引經說現法樂住。后釋經也 善言通攝凈及無漏定修諸善靜慮者。謂四無漏．及四凈。舉初顯后。故經但說初靜慮也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『無相等持不生為善』。這既是欣然讚歎聖道不生（Ariy ম্যাগ্গা uppāda），怎麼能說不是厭棄捨離聖道呢？問：前面的無想定（Asaññasamāpatti）並非以非擇滅（nirodha-samāpatti）為所緣，為何此定名為無相無相？或者應該承認此定不緣非擇滅，只緣無學（asekha）的無相不生？答：這也說不通，按照前面的解釋，即緣于無相的非擇滅。此非擇滅也遠離諸相，因為緣于無相的無相，所以得到無相無相之名。緣于無相之境，作寂靜之行相，因此此定從所緣之境而立名。
論：唯有三洲之人，至第八根本定中間，說明依據身和人所依之地來分別。正理論說：只有不時解脫（asamayavimutta）者，因為時解脫（samayavimutta）者愛著聖道。依據十一地，除去上面的七邊地（antā），因為上面的七邊地沒有殊勝功德。如果在欲界（kāmadhātu），是從未至定（anāgamya-samādhi）所攝的聖道後生起；如果在有頂天（abhavagga），是從無所有處定（ākiñcaññāyatana-samādhi）所攝的聖道後生起。其餘都是從自地的聖道後生起。總的來說，此定是從法智（dharma-jñāna）、類智（anvaya-jñāna）、苦智（dukkha-jñāna）、滅智（nirodha-jñāna）四智無間而生。如果具體來說，欲界所攝者不是從類智後生起，上界所攝者不是從法智後生起。前二者不是從滅智後生起，第三者不是從苦智後生起。因為其餘行相之後才生起此定。應該得到此定者，都是在盡智（khaya-ñāna）時由離染而得，之後通過加行（payoga）才生起現前。只有我世尊（Bhagavān），不由加行，順著趣向解脫而生起此定現前。對於聖道尚且厭棄，怎麼會欣樂諸有呢？此定之後也會生起聖道現前，然而因為厭棄聖道，所以不是無間生起。欲界所攝者，是思所成（cintāmaya），其餘是修所成（bhāvanāmaya），因為依定而生起。（以上是論文）。
論：契經又說了四種修習等持（samādhi）。以下兩行頌，第四說明四種修習。四種修習的名字如經文所說，可以理解。
論曰：至理實通余。敘述第一種修習。先引用經文說『現法樂住』（diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra），然後解釋經文。善言普遍包含清凈定（paṇīta samādhi）和無漏定（anāsava samādhi），修習諸善靜慮（jhāna）者，指四種無漏定和四種清凈定。舉出最初的，是爲了顯示後面的，所以經文只說了初禪（paṭhama jhāna）。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Non-perception of signs, equanimity, and non-arising are good.' This is clearly praising the non-arising of the Noble Path (Ariy ম্যাগ্গা uppāda). How can it not be called aversion to and abandonment of the Noble Path? Question: The preceding Cessation of Perception and Feeling (Asaññasamāpatti) does not take cessation (nirodha-samāpatti) as its object. Why is this concentration called 'non-perception of signs, non-perception of signs'? Or should it be admitted that this concentration does not focus on cessation, but only on the non-perception of signs of the non-learner (asekha)? Answer: That is also not correct, according to the previous explanation, namely, focusing on the cessation of non-perception of signs. This cessation is also free from all signs. Because it focuses on the non-perception of signs of non-perception of signs, it obtains the name 'non-perception of signs, non-perception of signs'. Focusing on the realm of non-perception of signs, it performs the aspect of tranquility. Therefore, this concentration is named after its object.
Treatise: Only people from the three continents, up to the eighth fundamental concentration, are discussed, clarifying the distinction based on the body and the ground on which people rely. The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra says: Only the non-liberated-by-reason (asamayavimutta), because the liberated-by-reason (samayavimutta) cherish the Noble Path. Based on the eleven grounds, excluding the upper seven extremes (antā), because the upper seven extremes do not have superior merits. If in the desire realm (kāmadhātu), it arises after the Noble Path included in the Unreached Concentration (anāgamya-samādhi); if in the Peak of Existence (abhavagga), it arises after the Noble Path included in the Concentration of Nothingness (ākiñcaññāyatana-samādhi). The rest all arise after the Noble Path of their own ground. Generally speaking, this concentration arises immediately after the four wisdoms: Dharma-wisdom (dharma-jñāna), Inference-wisdom (anvaya-jñāna), Suffering-wisdom (dukkha-jñāna), and Cessation-wisdom (nirodha-jñāna). Specifically speaking, those included in the desire realm do not arise after Inference-wisdom, and those included in the upper realms do not arise after Dharma-wisdom. The former two do not arise after Cessation-wisdom, and the third does not arise after Suffering-wisdom. Because this concentration arises after the other aspects. Those who should attain this concentration all attain it through detachment at the time of Exhaustion-wisdom (khaya-ñāna), and then manifest it through effort (payoga). Only my World-Honored One (Bhagavān) manifests this concentration without effort, naturally inclining towards liberation. Since he even rejects the Noble Path, how could he rejoice in all existences? The Noble Path will also arise after this concentration, but because he rejects the Noble Path, it does not arise immediately. Those included in the desire realm are mind-made (cintāmaya), and the rest are cultivation-made (bhāvanāmaya), because they arise based on concentration. (The above is from the treatise).
Treatise: The sutras also speak of four kinds of concentration (samādhi) to be cultivated. The following two lines of verse, the fourth, explain the four kinds of cultivation. The names of the four kinds of cultivation can be understood as stated in the sutras.
Treatise says: The ultimate truth truly connects to the rest. Describing the first kind of cultivation. First, quoting the sutra saying 'pleasant abiding in the present life' (diṭṭhadhammasukhavihāra), and then explaining the sutra. 'Good words' universally include pure concentration (paṇīta samādhi) and non-outflow concentration (anāsava samādhi). Those who cultivate all good meditative absorptions (jhāna) refer to the four non-outflow concentrations and the four pure concentrations. Mentioning the first is to reveal the latter, so the sutra only speaks of the first dhyana (paṭhama jhāna).
論。不言為住至便不住故。釋通難也。既修此定。現在先受離生喜樂。後生梵眾。受樂同此。何不言住后法樂也 以後法樂非定住故。或退即不受。或生無色等亦不受。或入涅槃亦不受。非如現法樂住決定受也。正理論云。詳此。唯說現法樂者。為令棄捨樂現欲樂。說現定樂。令其欣樂。或現樂住是后樂依。但說所依能依已顯(已上論文)。
論。若依諸定至殊勝知見。第二修也。
論。若修三界至得分別慧。第三修也。
論。若脩金剛喻定至依自說故。第四修也。修無漏及凈定總有四意。一為現法樂住。二為殊勝知見。三為分別慧。四為諸漏永盡。即就四果立四修也。◎
俱舍論疏卷第二十八
有道國保延三年十一月廿八日點了
今日大殿下春日詣云云
以興福寺慈恩院一交了 樹海 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第二十九
沙門法寶撰
分別定品第八之二
◎論。如是已說所依止定。大文第二明依定功德 就中。一明四無量。二明八解脫。三明八勝處。四明十遍處。五明得依身。六明起定緣。此下三行頌。第一明四無量。
論曰至感無量果故。第一釋無量名 無量有情為所緣者。從境名也 引無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：不說以『住』為究竟是因為最終不會停留在『住』的狀態。這是爲了解釋之前的疑問。既然修習此禪定，現在就能先體驗到由遠離（欲界）而生的喜樂，之後往生到梵眾天，享受與他們相同的快樂。為什麼不說體驗到未來的法樂呢？ 因為未來的法樂不是禪定所能決定的。可能會退失而無法體驗，或者往生到無色界等地方也無法體驗，或者進入涅槃也無法體驗。不像現在的法樂那樣確定能夠體驗。正理論說，詳細分析，只說現在的法樂，是爲了讓人們捨棄追求現世的慾望之樂，轉而欣樂於現在的禪定之樂。或者說，現在的樂住是未來之樂的基礎，只說基礎，能依之樂也就顯而易見了（以上是論文內容）。 論：如果依靠各種禪定達到殊勝的知見，這是第二種修習。 論：如果修習三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的禪定，從而獲得分別慧，這是第三種修習。 論：如果修習金剛喻定，這是第四種修習，因為這是依據佛陀自己的說法。修習無漏和清凈的禪定總共有四種目的：一是為體驗現世的快樂，二是為獲得殊勝的知見，三是為獲得分別慧，四是為使各種煩惱永遠斷盡。也就是對應四種果位而建立的四種修習。 《俱舍論疏》卷第二十八 有道國保延三年十一月廿八日 點了 今日大殿下春日 詣云云 以興福寺慈恩院一交了 樹海 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 《俱舍論疏》 《俱舍論疏》卷第二十九 沙門法寶 撰 分別定品第八之二 論：像這樣已經說了所依止的禪定。接下來第二大部分說明依靠禪定的功德。其中，一是說明四無量心（慈、悲、喜、舍），二是說明八解脫，三是說明八勝處，四是說明十遍處，五是說明獲得依身，六是說明生起禪定的因緣。以下三行是偈頌。首先說明四無量心。 論曰：乃至感得無量的果報。第一句解釋『無量』的含義。以無量的有情為所緣境，這是從所觀照的境界來命名的。引導無
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: It is not said that 'abiding' is the ultimate because one will not ultimately remain in the state of 'abiding'. This is to clarify the previous question. Since one cultivates this samadhi (concentration), one can now first experience the joy and pleasure born from detachment (from the desire realm), and then be reborn in the Brahma-parisadya heaven (梵眾, Brahma assembly), enjoying the same happiness as them. Why not say that one experiences the future Dharma-joy? Because future Dharma-joy is not determined by samadhi. One may regress and not be able to experience it, or be reborn in the Formless Realm (無色界) and also not be able to experience it, or enter Nirvana and also not be able to experience it. It is not like the present Dharma-joy, which is certain to be experienced. The Nyāyānusāra (正理論) says, 'Analyzing in detail, only speaking of present Dharma-joy is to make people abandon the pursuit of present sensual pleasures and instead rejoice in present samadhi-joy. Or, the present abiding in joy is the basis for future joy; by speaking of the basis, the joy that depends on it is already evident' (the above is the content of the treatise). Treatise: If one relies on various samadhis to attain superior knowledge and vision, this is the second cultivation. Treatise: If one cultivates the samadhis of the Three Realms (三界, Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm) and thereby obtains discriminating wisdom, this is the third cultivation. Treatise: If one cultivates the Vajropama-samadhi (金剛喻定, diamond-like samadhi), this is the fourth cultivation, because it is based on the Buddha's own words. Cultivating the unconditioned (無漏) and pure samadhis has four purposes in total: first, to experience present happiness; second, to obtain superior knowledge and vision; third, to obtain discriminating wisdom; and fourth, to eradicate all defilements forever. That is, the four cultivations are established corresponding to the four fruits (四果, stages of enlightenment). Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā (俱舍論疏) Volume 28 Pointed out on the 28th day of the 11th month of the 3rd year of Hoan (保延) Today, under the Great Hall, Kasuga (春日) went to... Exchanged once at Kōfuku-ji (興福寺) Jion-in (慈恩院) - Jukai (樹海) Taisho Tripitaka Volume 41, No. 1822, Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā Volume 29 Composed by Śramaṇa (沙門) Fǎbǎo (法寶) Chapter 8, Part 2: Analysis of Samadhi Treatise: Having thus spoken of the samadhis on which one relies, the second major section explains the merits of relying on samadhi. Among them, first is the explanation of the Four Immeasurables (四無量, apramāṇa), second is the explanation of the Eight Liberations (八解脫, vimokṣa), third is the explanation of the Eight Overcomings (八勝處, abhibhāyatana), fourth is the explanation of the Ten All-pervading Bases (十遍處, kṛtsnāyatana), fifth is the explanation of obtaining a dependent body, and sixth is the explanation of the conditions for arising samadhi. The following three lines are verses. First, the explanation of the Four Immeasurables. Treatise says: Up to and including experiencing immeasurable results. The first sentence explains the meaning of 'immeasurable'. Taking immeasurable sentient beings as the object of contemplation, this is named from the object being contemplated. Leading to immeasur
量福。因無量也 感無量果者。果無量也。以緣無量有情故。得無量福故。得無量果。以此四行有三無量故名無量。婆沙八十一更有三釋。一云對治無量戲論煩惱故。二云對治無量放逸煩惱。故。三云如是四種是諸賢聖廣遊戲處故名無量(已上論文)。
論。此何緣故唯有四種。第二述無增減。先問。后答。此即問也。
論。對治四種多行障故。答也。
論。何謂四障。問也。
論。謂諸瞋害至建立慈等。答也。以多行障有四故。所以唯四不增不減。即是慈對嗔。悲對害。喜對不欣生。舍對欲貪．嗔。正理論云。嗔謂心所。欲殺有情。欲惱有情。心所名害。耽著境界于諸善品不樂住因名不欣慰。于妙欲境起染欣慰。情無厭足名為欲貪(已上論文)。
論。不凈與舍至斯有何別。問二別相。
論。毗婆沙師至如次能治。引婆沙答。
論。理實不凈至舍能對治。論主正解。
論。四中初二體是無嗔。述古一師釋也。
論。理實應言悲是不害。論主正釋。正理論云。有作是言。悲是不害。近治害故。理實如是。但害似瞋以瞋名說。悲之行相亦似無嗔。立無嗔名。實是不害(已上論文)。
論。喜即喜受至貪所引故。述古釋。正理論云。諸古師說。喜即喜受。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：福的量是無限的，因為其因是無限的。感得無限果報的人，其果報也是無限的。因為緣于無限的有情眾生，所以得到無限的福報，因此得到無限的果報。因為這四種行為具有三重無限性，所以稱為『無量』。《婆沙論》第八十一卷更有三種解釋：第一種解釋是，爲了對治無限的戲論煩惱；第二種解釋是，爲了對治無限的放逸煩惱；第三種解釋是，這四種是諸位賢聖廣泛遊戲之處，所以稱為『無量』（以上是論文內容）。
論：為什麼只有這四種？下面闡述沒有增減的原因。先提問，后回答。這就是提問。
論：爲了對治四種多行障礙。回答。
論：什麼是四種障礙？提問。
論：指由各種嗔恚、加害等產生，從而建立慈等（對治）。回答。因為多行障礙有四種，所以只有四種，不多不少。即是慈對治嗔，悲對治害，喜對治不欣生，舍對治欲貪和嗔。《正理論》說：『嗔』是指心所，想要殺害有情眾生，想要惱亂有情眾生；『心所』名為『害』；貪戀境界，對於各種善品不樂於安住的原因名為『不欣慰』；對於美妙的慾望境界產生染污的欣慰，情意沒有厭足，名為『欲貪』（以上是論文內容）。
論：不凈觀與舍（upeksa，舍）有什麼區別？提問兩種區別的相。
論：毗婆沙師說，依次能夠對治。引用《婆沙論》的回答。
論：實際上，不凈觀能對治貪慾，舍能對治嗔恚。論主的正確解釋。
論：四種（無量心）中，最初的兩種（慈和悲）本體是無嗔（advesa，不嗔）。這是古代一位論師的解釋。
論：實際上應該說，悲是不害（avihimsa，不害）。論主的正確解釋。《正理論》說：『有人這樣說，悲是不害，因為接近於對治加害。實際上是這樣，但加害類似於嗔恚，所以用嗔恚來命名。悲的行相也類似於無嗔，所以立名為無嗔，實際上是不害。』（以上是論文內容）。
論：喜就是喜受（sukha，樂受），因為被貪慾所引導。這是古代論師的解釋。《正理論》說：『各位古代論師說，喜就是喜受。』
【English Translation】 English version: The measure of blessing is immeasurable because its cause is immeasurable. Those who experience immeasurable results, their results are also immeasurable. Because it is connected to immeasurable sentient beings, one obtains immeasurable blessings, and therefore obtains immeasurable results. Because these four practices have a triple immeasurability, they are called 'Immeasurable'. The Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa, 大毗婆沙論) Volume 81 has three more explanations: The first explanation is to counteract immeasurable discursive afflictions; the second explanation is to counteract immeasurable heedless afflictions; the third explanation is that these four are the places where all the virtuous sages broadly play, so they are called 'Immeasurable' (The above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: Why are there only these four? The following describes the reason for no increase or decrease. First ask, then answer. This is the question.
Treatise: To counteract the four kinds of multiple-practice obstacles. Answer.
Treatise: What are the four obstacles? Question.
Treatise: They refer to the arising of various anger, harm, etc., thereby establishing loving-kindness, etc. (as remedies). Answer. Because there are four kinds of multiple-practice obstacles, there are only four, no more and no less. That is, loving-kindness counteracts anger, compassion counteracts harm, joy counteracts displeasure, and equanimity counteracts desire-greed and anger. The Nyayanusara (Abhidharmanyayanusara, 阿毗達磨順正理論) says: 'Anger' refers to the mental state of wanting to kill sentient beings, wanting to annoy sentient beings; 'mental state' is called 'harm'; attachment to objects, the cause of not being happy to abide in various virtuous qualities is called 'displeasure'; the arising of defiled delight in wonderful desire objects, the intention without satisfaction, is called 'desire-greed' (The above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: What is the difference between impurity (asubha, 不凈) and equanimity (upeksa, 舍)? Question about the two different aspects.
Treatise: The Vaibhasika (Vibhasaka, 毗婆沙師) says, they can counteract in sequence. Quoting the answer from the Vibhasa.
Treatise: In reality, impurity can counteract desire, and equanimity can counteract anger. The treatise master's correct explanation.
Treatise: Among the four (immeasurable minds), the first two (loving-kindness and compassion) are essentially non-anger (advesa, 不嗔). This is the explanation of an ancient master.
Treatise: In reality, it should be said that compassion is non-harm (avihimsa, 不害). The treatise master's correct explanation. The Nyayanusara says: 'Some say that compassion is non-harm, because it is close to counteracting harm. In reality, it is so, but harm is similar to anger, so it is named with anger. The aspect of compassion is also similar to non-anger, so it is established as non-anger, but in reality, it is non-harm.' (The above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: Joy is just the feeling of joy (sukha, 樂受), because it is led by desire-greed. This is the explanation of an ancient master. The Nyayanusara says: 'The ancient masters say that joy is just the feeling of joy.'
舍即無貪。
論。理實應用二法為體。論主正釋。謂舍應以無貪．無嗔為體。正理云。是故此喜定非喜受。以忻為體。或即無貪。謂別有貪是噁心所。于有情類作是思惟。云何當令諸所有樂彼不能得。皆屬於我。喜能治彼故是無貪。此與喜根必俱行故。三地可得。如悔憂俱。喜亦無貪。分明相者。於他盛事心不貪著。知他獲得。深生欣慰。心熱對治說名為喜。故知此喜亦無貪性(述曰。以治貪故名無貪性。如不凈觀觀雖是慧。以治貪故。無貪為性)。又云。且舍與慈有差別者。慈能對治嗔所引嗔。無嗔為體。舍能對治貪所引嗔。無貪為體。豈不如舍無貪為性。亦能對治貪所引嗔。如是許慈無嗔為性。亦應能治嗔所引貪。此難不然。行相違故。謂舍行相雙違貪．嗔。舍親．非親差別相故。從此愛．恚俱不生故。即由此故。舍唯無貪。正能治貪兼治嗔故。慈之行相違嗔非貪。于諸有情與樂轉故(嗔與慈與樂相違故) 由此慈．舍雖俱違嗔。而慈順貪。舍能違害。是故此二極有差別(已上論文)。
論。此四無量至入舍等至。述四行相別。正理論云。此阿世耶有差別者。觀有情類如己謂慈。樂有情類離苦謂悲。於他興盛欣慰謂喜。于親．怨相不思謂舍 婆沙八十一云。尊者世友作如是說。授與饒益是慈相。除去
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『舍』即是『無貪』（沒有貪婪）。
論：實際上，『舍』應該以『無貪』和『無嗔』（沒有嗔恨）兩種心所為體性。論主對此進行了解釋，認為『舍』應以『無貪』和『無嗔』為體性。《正理》中說：『因此，這種喜悅肯定不是喜受，而是以欣悅為體性，或者就是無貪。』也就是說，存在一種特別的『貪』，它是一種惡劣的心所，它會對有情眾生這樣想：『我應該如何讓他們所有的快樂都無法得到，而全部屬於我？』『喜』能夠對治這種『貪』，所以是『無貪』。這種『喜』與『喜根』必然同時生起，因此在三界中可以獲得，就像『悔』和『憂』同時生起一樣。『喜』也是『無貪』。其分明的相狀是：對於他人的興盛之事，心中不貪著，知道他人獲得利益，內心深感欣慰。這種以熱誠之心進行對治的方法，被稱為『喜』。因此可知，這種『喜』也具有『無貪』的性質（述曰：因為它能對治貪婪，所以被稱為具有『無貪』的性質。就像不凈觀雖然是智慧，但因為它能對治貪婪，所以以『無貪』為性質）。
又說：『舍』與『慈』（慈愛）的區別在於，『慈』能夠對治由嗔恨引起的嗔恨，以『無嗔』為體性；『舍』能夠對治由貪婪引起的嗔恨，以『無貪』為體性。難道不能說『舍』以『無貪』為性質，也能對治由貪婪引起的嗔恨嗎？如果這樣，那麼也應該允許『慈』以『無嗔』為性質，也能對治由嗔恨引起的貪婪。這種質疑是不成立的，因為它們的行相是相反的。『舍』的行相同時違背貪婪和嗔恨，因為它對親近的人和不親近的人沒有差別。因此，從『舍』中，愛和嗔恨都不會產生。正因為如此，『舍』僅僅是『無貪』，它既能主要地對治貪婪，也能兼帶地對治嗔恨。而『慈』的行相違背嗔恨，但不違背貪婪，因為它給予一切有情眾生快樂（嗔恨與給予快樂的『慈』是相反的）。因此，『慈』和『舍』雖然都違背嗔恨，但『慈』順應貪婪，而『舍』能夠違害貪婪。所以，這二者之間存在極大的差別（以上是論文的內容）。
論：這四種無量心，直到進入『舍』的等至（禪定狀態）。敘述四種行相的差別。《正理論》中說：『這種阿世耶（心所依處）存在差別，觀察有情眾生如同自己一樣，這叫做『慈』；希望有情眾生脫離痛苦，這叫做『悲』（悲憫）；對於他人的興盛感到欣慰，這叫做『喜』；對於親近的人和怨恨的人都不加以思念，這叫做『舍』。』《婆沙》第八十一卷中說：『尊者世友這樣說，給予饒益是『慈』的相狀，除去』
【English Translation】 English version: 'Equanimity' is synonymous with 'non-greed' (absence of greed).
Treatise: In reality, 'equanimity' should be embodied by two mental factors: 'non-greed' and 'non-hatred' (absence of hatred). The treatise master explains this, stating that 'equanimity' should be embodied by 'non-greed' and 'non-hatred'. The Nyāyānusāra states: 'Therefore, this joy is definitely not a feeling of joy, but rather has the nature of delight, or it is non-greed.' That is, there exists a particular 'greed', which is an evil mental factor that thinks of sentient beings in this way: 'How can I ensure that all their happiness is unattainable to them and belongs entirely to me?' 'Joy' can counteract this 'greed', so it is 'non-greed'. This 'joy' necessarily arises simultaneously with the 'root of joy', and therefore can be attained in the three realms, just as 'remorse' and 'sorrow' arise simultaneously. 'Joy' is also 'non-greed'. Its distinct characteristic is: not being greedy for the prosperity of others, knowing that others have gained benefits, and feeling deeply gratified. This method of counteracting with a fervent heart is called 'joy'. Therefore, it can be known that this 'joy' also has the nature of 'non-greed' (Commentary: Because it can counteract greed, it is said to have the nature of 'non-greed'. Just as the contemplation of impurity, although it is wisdom, has 'non-greed' as its nature because it counteracts greed).
It is also said: 'The difference between 'equanimity' and 'loving-kindness' (compassion) is that 'loving-kindness' can counteract hatred caused by hatred, and has 'non-hatred' as its nature; 'equanimity' can counteract hatred caused by greed, and has 'non-greed' as its nature.' Can it not be said that 'equanimity', with 'non-greed' as its nature, can also counteract hatred caused by greed? If so, then it should also be allowed that 'loving-kindness', with 'non-hatred' as its nature, can also counteract greed caused by hatred. This objection is not valid because their characteristics are opposite. The characteristic of 'equanimity' simultaneously opposes greed and hatred, because it makes no distinction between those who are close and those who are not. Therefore, from 'equanimity', neither love nor hatred arises. Precisely because of this, 'equanimity' is merely 'non-greed', which can primarily counteract greed and also secondarily counteract hatred. The characteristic of 'loving-kindness', however, opposes hatred but does not oppose greed, because it gives happiness to all sentient beings (hatred is contrary to 'loving-kindness', which gives happiness). Therefore, although 'loving-kindness' and 'equanimity' both oppose hatred, 'loving-kindness' conforms to greed, while 'equanimity' can harm greed. Therefore, there is a great difference between these two (the above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: These four immeasurables, up to entering the samādhi (state of meditative absorption) of 'equanimity'. Describes the differences in the four characteristics. The Nyāyānusāra states: 'These āśraya (bases of mind) have differences. Observing sentient beings as if they were oneself is called 'loving-kindness'; wishing sentient beings to be free from suffering is called 'compassion'; feeling gratified at the prosperity of others is called 'joy'; not thinking about those who are close or those who are resented is called 'equanimity'.' The eighty-first fascicle of the Vibhāṣā states: 'Venerable Vasumitra said, giving benefit is the characteristic of 'loving-kindness', removing'
衰損是悲相。慶慰得舍是喜相。忘懷平等是舍相(已上論文)。
論。此四無量至寧非顛倒。問也。
論。愿欲令彼至相應起故。答也 此中有三。一善愿故非倒。二意樂故非倒。三勝解故非倒。
論。設是顛倒復有何失。縱釋也。前三解非顛倒。今解縱是顛倒復有何失。
論。若應非善至相應起故。若以是倒應非是善者。理則不然。此與三善根相應起故。
論。若應引惡至治嗔等故。若以是倒應引惡者。理亦不然。能治嗔．害及貪等故。
論。此緣欲界至嗔等障故。述所緣唯欲界一切有情。以能治緣有情嗔等障故。
論。然契經說至以顯器中。通經也。經說。修慈思惟一方．一切世界者。舉欲器世界取中有情。
論。第三但依至未至中間。述依地也。
論。或有欲令至方能起故。述異說。此師意說。未至無也。以四無量容預德故。已離欲者方能起故。未至器速多非離欲。故言無也。
論。或有欲令至皆無量攝。又述異說。此師意說。定．不定地．根本．加行。以皆緣無量有情。授與饒益。除去衰損。慶慰得舍。忘懷平等故。
論。前雖說此至有情境故。述不斷障有三因。一有漏根本靜慮攝故。此不斷惑。如前已說 二勝解作意相應起故。夫斷
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『衰損』是悲傷的表現，『慶慰得舍』是喜悅的表現，『忘懷平等』是舍的表現（以上是論文中的內容）。
論：這四無量心難道不是顛倒的嗎？（這是提問）
論：因為希望讓眾生得到利益，所以不是顛倒的。（這是回答）這裡面有三個原因：一是善愿，所以不是顛倒；二是意樂，所以不是顛倒；三是勝解，所以不是顛倒。
論：假設是顛倒的，又有什麼過失呢？（這是縱向的解釋）前面三種解釋說明不是顛倒，現在解釋縱然是顛倒的，又有什麼過失。
論：如果應該是惡的，因為希望讓眾生得到利益，所以不是惡的。如果因為是顛倒的就應該不是善的，這個道理是不成立的，因為它與三種善根相應而生起。
論：如果應該引生惡果，因為能對治嗔恨等煩惱，所以不會引生惡果。如果因為是顛倒的就應該引生惡果，這個道理也是不成立的，因為它能對治嗔恨、損害以及貪慾等煩惱。
論：這四無量心所緣的是欲界的一切有情，因為它能對治緣于有情的嗔恨等障礙。說明了所緣的境界僅僅是欲界的一切有情，因為它能夠對治緣于有情的嗔恨等障礙。
論：然而契經上說，修慈心時，思惟一方、一切世界。（這是引用經文）經文說：『修慈心時，思惟一方、一切世界』，這是舉欲界器世界，包括了中有（bardo）的有情。
論：第三禪只依于未到地和中間禪。（這是說明所依據的禪定層次）
論：或者有人認為，只有離開了欲界的人才能生起四無量心。（這是另一種說法）這位論師的意思是說，未到地沒有四無量心，因為四無量心能夠容納殊勝的功德，只有離開了欲界的人才能生起四無量心。未到地快速地增多，並非是離開了欲界，所以說沒有四無量心。
論：或者有人認為，所有的禪定都包含在無量心中。（這是又一種說法）這位論師的意思是說，無論是定地還是不定地，無論是根本定還是加行定，都因為緣于無量的有情，給予他們利益，除去衰損，慶慰得舍，忘懷平等。
論：前面雖然說了這些，但因為是有情境界，所以不斷除障礙。（說明不斷除障礙有三個原因）一是因為屬於有漏的根本靜慮所攝，這不斷除惑，如前面已經說過。二是因為與勝解作意相應而生起。斷除
【English Translation】 English version 'Decay and loss' is the aspect of sorrow. 'Rejoicing in attainment and relinquishment' is the aspect of joy. 'Forgetting and equanimity' is the aspect of equanimity (these are from the treatise).
Treatise: Are these four immeasurables not inverted? (This is a question)
Treatise: Because of the wish to benefit beings, they are not inverted. (This is an answer) There are three reasons for this: first, because of good intention, they are not inverted; second, because of intention and joy, they are not inverted; third, because of superior understanding, they are not inverted.
Treatise: Supposing they are inverted, what fault is there? (This is a hypothetical explanation) The previous three explanations show that they are not inverted. Now, this explains that even if they are inverted, what fault is there?
Treatise: If they should be evil, because of the wish to benefit beings, they are not evil. If because they are inverted, they should not be good, this reasoning is not valid, because they arise in accordance with the three roots of goodness.
Treatise: If they should lead to evil consequences, because they can cure anger and other afflictions, they will not lead to evil consequences. If because they are inverted, they should lead to evil consequences, this reasoning is also not valid, because they can cure anger, harm, and greed, etc.
Treatise: These four immeasurables take all sentient beings in the desire realm as their object, because they can cure the obstacles of anger, etc., towards sentient beings. It explains that the object is only all sentient beings in the desire realm, because it can cure the obstacles of anger, etc., towards sentient beings.
Treatise: However, the sutras say that when cultivating loving-kindness, one contemplates one direction and all worlds. (This is quoting the scriptures) The sutra says: 'When cultivating loving-kindness, one contemplates one direction and all worlds,' this refers to the desire realm container world, including beings in the intermediate state (bardo).
Treatise: The third dhyana (meditative absorption) only relies on the unreleased and intermediate dhyana. (This explains the level of meditative absorption on which it is based)
Treatise: Or some believe that only those who have left the desire realm can generate the four immeasurables. (This is another view) This teacher means that the unreleased does not have the four immeasurables, because the four immeasurables can accommodate superior merits, and only those who have left the desire realm can generate the four immeasurables. The unreleased quickly increases and is not free from desire, so it is said that there are no four immeasurables.
Treatise: Or some believe that all dhyanas are included in the immeasurables. (This is yet another view) This teacher means that whether it is fixed or unfixed dhyana, whether it is fundamental or preparatory dhyana, it is because they are directed towards immeasurable sentient beings, giving them benefits, removing decay and loss, rejoicing in attainment and relinquishment, and forgetting and equanimity.
Treatise: Although these have been said before, because it is the realm of sentient beings, it does not cut off obstacles. (It explains that there are three reasons for not cutting off obstacles) First, because it is included in the contaminated fundamental meditative absorption, this does not cut off afflictions, as has been said before. Second, because it arises in accordance with superior understanding and attention. Cutting off
惑者共相作意。此是勝解故不斷惑 三遍緣一切有情境故。夫斷惑者。緣於法境不緣有情。此緣有情故不斷惑。
論。此加行位至能治四障。述說伏治四障因也。四無量根本者。謂根本定。在此位無嗔等障 言治四障。在加行位。或在根本亦名治障。令已斷障得更遠故。
論。謂欲未至至能斷諸惑。釋上加行位制伏嗔等。謂在欲界聞．思心中。及未至定。先修無量。為斷道加行伏嗔等。引斷道生斷嗔等惑。方生根本四無量也 說能治四障者。據加行說。
論。諸惑斷已至之所蔽伏。釋惑。此能令已斷更遠 言治四障者。據令更遠說。
論。初習業位云何修慈。問。欲修慈加行雲何。
論。謂先思惟至如是快樂。述薄煩惱者初習業也。
論。若彼本來至總成七品。述煩惱者加行位中。先分有情為七品也。
論。分品別已至與上親等。述勝解與樂心上怨等與上親等也。雖能緣而未遍。非至根本。
論。修此勝解至慈無量成。述漸能廣至成位也。
論。若於有情至現可見故。述能修人異也 一切眾生有其二類。一樂求人德。二樂求人失 一切眾生復有二相。一者德相。二者失相。斷善者亦有德相。獨覺者亦有失相。樂求德者。見闡提德見闡提果相。知有善因故。樂
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『惑者共相作意』（對迷惑者的共同特徵進行思考）。這是因為『勝解』（深刻理解）的緣故，所以不能斷除迷惑。因為『三遍』（三種普遍性）緣於一切有情眾生的境界。要斷除迷惑，必須緣于『法境』（佛法的境界），而不是緣于有情眾生。因為這裡緣于有情眾生，所以不能斷除迷惑。
論：此『加行位』（修行前的準備階段）能夠對治四種障礙。這是在描述制伏和對治四種障礙的原因。『四無量根本』指的是根本禪定。在這個階段，沒有嗔恨等障礙。說『治四障』，是在『加行位』。或者在根本禪定中，也可以說是對治障礙，因為能使已經斷除的障礙更加遠離。
論：在『欲未至』（接近但未達到欲界定）的階段，能夠斷除各種迷惑。這是解釋上述『加行位』制伏嗔恨等煩惱。在欲界中的聞、思階段，以及『未至定』中，先修習『無量』（四無量心），作為斷道的加行，從而制伏嗔恨等煩惱，引導斷道的產生，最終斷除嗔恨等迷惑，才能產生根本的『四無量』。說能夠對治四種障礙，是根據『加行位』來說的。
論：各種迷惑斷除后，會被『至』（禪定）所遮蔽和制伏。這是解釋迷惑。這能使已經斷除的迷惑更加遠離。說『治四障』，是根據使迷惑更加遠離來說的。
論：『初習業位』（初步學習的階段）如何修習慈心？問：想要修習慈心的加行應該如何進行？
論：首先思惟…直到『如是快樂』。這是描述煩惱較輕的人的初步學習階段。
論：如果他本來…總共形成七品。這是描述煩惱較重的人在加行位中，先將有情眾生分為七類。
論：在區分品類之後…與上親等。這是描述『勝解』（深刻理解）與快樂的心情，以及對怨恨之人等同於親人的態度。雖然能夠緣于（眾生），但尚未普遍，因此沒有達到根本禪定。
論：修習這種『勝解』…慈無量成。這是描述逐漸擴充套件直到成就的階段。
論：如果對於有情…現在可以見到。這是描述能夠修習的人的不同。一切眾生有兩種型別：一種是樂於尋求他人的優點，另一種是樂於尋求他人的缺點。一切眾生又有兩種表象：一種是優點，另一種是缺點。斷絕善根的人也有優點，獨覺者也有缺點。樂於尋求優點的人，會看到斷善根者的優點，看到斷善根者的果報，知道有善的因，因此感到快樂。
【English Translation】 English version 'Thinking about the common characteristics of the deluded.' This is because of 'Adhimoksha' (profound understanding), so it cannot cut off delusion. Because the 'three pervasions' (three universalities) are related to the realm of all sentient beings. To cut off delusion, one must be related to the 'Dharma realm' (the realm of the Buddha's teachings), not sentient beings. Because it is related to sentient beings here, it cannot cut off delusion.
Treatise: This 'preparatory stage' (stage before practice) can cure the four obstacles. This is describing the reasons for subduing and curing the four obstacles. 'The root of the four immeasurables' refers to the fundamental samadhi. At this stage, there are no obstacles such as anger. Saying 'curing the four obstacles' is in the 'preparatory stage'. Or in the fundamental samadhi, it can also be said to be curing obstacles, because it can make the obstacles that have been cut off even further away.
Treatise: In the stage of 'desire not yet reached' (close to but not yet reaching the desire realm samadhi), it can cut off various delusions. This is to explain the above 'preparatory stage' subduing anger and other afflictions. In the stages of hearing and thinking in the desire realm, and in the 'not yet reached samadhi', first practice the 'immeasurables' (four immeasurable minds) as a preparatory practice for cutting off the path, thereby subduing anger and other afflictions, guiding the generation of cutting off the path, and finally cutting off anger and other delusions, can the fundamental 'four immeasurables' be produced. Saying that it can cure the four obstacles is based on the 'preparatory stage'.
Treatise: After various delusions are cut off, they will be obscured and subdued by 'reaching' (samadhi). This is to explain delusion. This can make the delusions that have been cut off even further away. Saying 'curing the four obstacles' is based on making the delusions even further away.
Treatise: How to practice loving-kindness in the 'initial learning stage'? Question: How should the preparatory practice for practicing loving-kindness be carried out?
Treatise: First contemplate... until 'such happiness'. This is describing the initial learning stage of people with lighter afflictions.
Treatise: If he originally... a total of seven categories are formed. This is describing people with heavier afflictions in the preparatory stage, first dividing sentient beings into seven categories.
Treatise: After distinguishing the categories... equal to the above relatives. This is describing 'Adhimoksha' (profound understanding) and the feeling of happiness, and the attitude of treating enemies as equal to relatives. Although it can be related to (sentient beings), it is not yet universal, so it has not reached the fundamental samadhi.
Treatise: Practicing this 'Adhimoksha'... loving-kindness immeasurable is achieved. This is describing the stage of gradually expanding until achievement.
Treatise: If for sentient beings... can now be seen. This is describing the differences of people who can practice. All sentient beings have two types: one is happy to seek the advantages of others, and the other is happy to seek the disadvantages of others. All sentient beings also have two appearances: one is advantages, and the other is disadvantages. Those who cut off good roots also have advantages, and Pratyekabuddhas also have disadvantages. Those who are happy to seek advantages will see the advantages of those who cut off good roots, see the consequences of those who cut off good roots, and know that there is a good cause, so they feel happy.
求失者。見獨覺失見其果相。知惡因故。樂求德者。修慈易成。非樂求失。
論。修悲喜法準此應知者。準慈釋。有七等先上親也。不說舍修加行先處中故。
論。謂觀有情至實為樂哉。廣述悲．喜二行相也。加行雖同行相異故。
論。修舍最初至與處中等。述修舍加行。其舍先舍處中。次舍下怨乃至上親。以貪難捨。嗔易舍故。婆沙八十二評曰應作是說。非四無量如說而生。所以者何。修觀行者。隨樂生故。前後不定。如通解脫勝處遍處 問若未起初定無量。能起第二定無量不。一說不能。一說能。如未起下地無漏能起上地無漏。亦爾 問為下地無量後起上地無量速疾。為上地無量後起下地無量速疾耶。答上地無量後起下地無量速疾。非下地無量後起上地無量速疾。猶如學書 問初定無量無間。即能起第二定無量不。有說不能。必修自地加行。引發方現前故。有說亦能。已熟修者起一加行。或無加行能歷諸地。或上或下起無量故 婆沙八十三云。如契經說。住慈定者刀．毒．水．火皆不能害。必無災橫而致命終 問何故爾耶。尊者世友作如是說。以慈是不害法故。有說慈勢力大故。有說慈為饒益他。諸天善神皆擁衛故。大德說曰。若住慈定。色界大種遍身份生。令所依身堅密如石故不可害 慈定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『求失者』（追求過失的人）。見到獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，獨自覺悟者）的過失，就只看到其結果的表象，因為他們只知道惡的因由。 『樂求德者』（樂於追求功德的人）。修習慈心就容易成就，因為他們不樂於追求過失。
論：修習悲、喜之法，可以參照慈心來理解。參照對慈心的解釋，有七種人，先是上親（關係親密的人）。這裡沒有說舍（Upeksha，舍心）的修習，是因為加行（修行前的準備）首先是針對中等關係的人。
論：『謂觀有情至實為樂哉』（意思是觀察有情眾生，認為他們實際上是快樂的）。這是廣泛地描述悲和喜這兩種修行的狀態。雖然加行相同，但狀態不同。
論：『修舍最初至與處中等』（意思是修習舍心，最初是與中等關係的人）。這是描述修習舍心的加行。這種舍心，先捨棄對中等關係的人的執著，然後捨棄對下等怨恨的人，乃至上等親密的人的執著。因為貪愛難以捨棄，嗔恨容易捨棄。毗婆沙（Vibhasha，佛教論書）第八十二卷評論說：應該這樣說，並非四無量心（四種無限的禪定狀態，即慈、悲、喜、舍）如所說的那樣產生。為什麼呢？因為修觀行的人，隨著自己的喜好而生起，所以前後順序不固定，如同通、解脫、勝處、遍處（各種禪定修法）。 問：如果還沒有生起初禪的無量心，能夠生起第二禪的無量心嗎？一種說法是不能。另一種說法是能，如同沒有生起下地（較低層次）的無漏（沒有煩惱）智慧，能夠生起上地（較高層次）的無漏智慧，也是這樣。 問：是下地無量心之後生起上地無量心更快，還是上地無量心之後生起下地無量心更快呢？答：上地無量心之後生起下地無量心更快，不是下地無量心之後生起上地無量心更快。如同學習寫字。 問：初禪的無量心無間斷地，就能生起第二禪的無量心嗎？有的人說不能，必須修習自己所在禪定的加行，才能引發顯現。有的人說也能，已經熟練修習的人，生起一種加行，或者沒有加行，就能經歷各個禪定層次，或者向上或者向下生起無量心。 毗婆沙第八十三卷說：如同契經（佛經）所說，安住在慈定（慈心禪定）中的人，刀、毒、水、火都不能傷害，必定沒有災禍而安然去世。 問：為什麼會這樣呢？尊者世友（Vasumitra，佛教論師）這樣說，因為慈是不害之法。有的人說，因為慈的力量很大。有的人說，因為慈是爲了饒益他人，諸天善神都會擁護。 大德（Mahāthera，上座長老）說：如果安住在慈定中，四大（地、水、火、風）元素遍佈全身，使所依之身堅固如石頭，所以不可傷害。 慈定（Maitrī-samādhi，慈心禪定）
【English Translation】 English version 『Seekers of faults.』 Seeing the faults of a Pratyekabuddha (Solitary Buddha, one who attains enlightenment on their own), they only see the appearance of its consequences because they only know the causes of evil. 『Those who delight in seeking virtue.』 Cultivating loving-kindness is easily accomplished because they do not delight in seeking faults.
Treatise: The methods of cultivating compassion and joy should be understood in accordance with loving-kindness. Based on the explanation of loving-kindness, there are seven types of people, starting with close relatives. The practice of equanimity (Upeksha) is not mentioned here because the preliminary practice begins with neutral individuals.
Treatise: 『Meaning, observing sentient beings and thinking they are truly happy.』 This extensively describes the characteristics of the two practices of compassion and joy. Although the preliminary practices are the same, the characteristics are different.
Treatise: 『Cultivating equanimity initially starts with neutral individuals.』 This describes the preliminary practice of cultivating equanimity. This equanimity first abandons attachment to neutral individuals, then abandons attachment to inferior, hateful individuals, and even superior, close relatives, because attachment is difficult to abandon, while hatred is easier to abandon. The eighty-second chapter of the Vibhasha (Buddhist treatise) comments: It should be said that the four immeasurables (the four infinite states of meditation: loving-kindness, compassion, joy, and equanimity) do not arise as described. Why? Because those who practice contemplation arise according to their preferences, so the order is not fixed, like the perfections, liberations, superior abodes, and all-encompassing abodes (various meditation practices). Question: If the immeasurable mind of the first dhyana (level of meditation) has not arisen, can the immeasurable mind of the second dhyana arise? One opinion is no. Another opinion is yes, just as the undefiled (without afflictions) wisdom of a lower plane can give rise to the undefiled wisdom of a higher plane. Question: Is it faster for the immeasurable mind of a lower plane to arise after the immeasurable mind of a higher plane, or is it faster for the immeasurable mind of a higher plane to arise after the immeasurable mind of a lower plane? Answer: It is faster for the immeasurable mind of a higher plane to arise after the immeasurable mind of a lower plane, not faster for the immeasurable mind of a lower plane to arise after the immeasurable mind of a higher plane, like learning to write. Question: Can the immeasurable mind of the first dhyana immediately arise the immeasurable mind of the second dhyana without interruption? Some say no, one must cultivate the preliminary practices of one's own dhyana to induce manifestation. Some say yes, those who are skilled in practice, arising one preliminary practice, or without preliminary practice, can traverse all the dhyana levels, either upward or downward, arising the immeasurable mind. The eighty-third chapter of the Vibhasha says: As the sutras (Buddhist scriptures) say, those who abide in the samadhi (meditative state) of loving-kindness cannot be harmed by knives, poison, water, or fire, and will surely die peacefully without calamity. Question: Why is this so? Venerable Vasumitra (Buddhist philosopher) says, because loving-kindness is a non-harming practice. Some say, because the power of loving-kindness is great. Some say, because loving-kindness is for the benefit of others, all the gods and benevolent spirits will protect them. The Mahāthera (senior elder) says: If one abides in the samadhi of loving-kindness, the four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) pervade the whole body, making the body as solid as a stone, so it cannot be harmed. Maitrī-samādhi (Samadhi of Loving-Kindness)
在初。故說慈定有多說。悲等不及慈。大德說曰。由二因緣舍最為勝。一由所作。謂若作舍能斷貪嗔。二由寂靜。謂于有情無分別轉故舍最勝(已上論文)。
論。此四無量至唯不成喜故。述人通三洲非天等也。若於初定得一必四。若三定已上得一必三。
論。已辨無量次辨解脫。已下三行頌。第二明解脫。
論曰至觀外色解脫。釋初解脫 言內有色相觀外色者。謂勝解作意。觀自己身被蟲啖等。見內身相。及見外蟲故。言內有色相觀外色解脫故。正理云。經言有色觀諸色者。為顯何義。非未除色。能如實通此經深義。然諸先聖傳授釋言。未能伏除緣內色想。是有色義。云何知然。第二解脫差別說故。謂于第二既作是言。內無色想觀外諸色。故知。初解脫未除內色想。由此論者。建立最初。名內有色想觀外色解脫。謂觀行者。如害怨尸。雖已離欲貪而為令堅固。以不凈行相復觀外諸色。由於外色數觀察故。于內色中亦生厭想。如樂凈者。頸繫狗尸極懷羞慚深生厭惡。如是觀外不凈相已。方內色身亦是不凈。觀心凈故。見內身中三十六物不凈充滿。如觀篋中眾色類物。名初解脫極成滿位 此成滿位解脫何法。謂心於色不樂．憎背．訶毀厭惡。遮止欲貪。即解脫欲貪。是無貪性故。(已上論文)。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：最初的時候，所以說慈定有很多說法。悲等（悲心等）比不上慈心。大德說：『由於兩種因緣，舍（平等舍）最為殊勝。一是由於所作，即如果行舍，能斷除貪嗔。二是由於寂靜，即對於有情沒有分別地對待，所以舍最為殊勝。』（以上是論文內容）。
論：這四種無量心，直到只有喜無量心不能成就。註釋者認為，這是指通於三洲（東勝身洲、南贍部洲、西牛貨洲），而非天界等。如果在初禪定中得到一種無量心，必定得到全部四種。如果在三禪定以上得到一種，必定得到三種。
論：已經辨析了無量心，接下來辨析解脫。以下三行是頌文。第二部分闡明解脫。
論曰：『觀外色解脫。』解釋最初的解脫。『內有色相觀外色』，是指通過勝解作意（殊勝的理解和專注），觀察自己的身體被蟲子啃食等，見到內在身體的形相，以及見到外面的蟲子。所以說『內有色相觀外色解脫』。《正理》中說：經文說『有色觀諸色』，是爲了顯示什麼意義？如果未去除色慾，不能如實通達此經的深義。然而，過去的聖賢傳授解釋說，未能伏除緣于內在色想，這就是『有色』的含義。如何知道是這樣呢？因為第二解脫的差別是這樣說的。即在第二解脫中這樣說：『內無色想觀外諸色。』所以知道，最初的解脫沒有去除內在的色想。因此，論者建立最初的解脫，名為『內有色想觀外色解脫』。意思是說，觀行者，如同對待仇人的屍體一樣。雖然已經離開了欲貪，但爲了使之更加堅固，用不凈的行相再次觀察外面的各種色。由於對外面的色進行數數觀察，對於內在的色也產生厭惡的想法。如同喜愛清凈的人，脖子上繫著狗的屍體，極度感到羞慚，深深地產生厭惡。像這樣觀察外面的不凈之相后，才知道內在的色身也是不凈的。觀察心清凈的緣故，見到內在身體中的三十六種不凈之物充滿其中，如同觀察箱子中各種各樣的東西。這被稱為最初解脫的極成滿位。』這個成滿位的解脫是什麼法呢？是指心對於色不喜樂、憎恨、背離、呵斥、厭惡，遮止欲貪，即解脫了欲貪，是無貪的自性。（以上是論文內容）。
【English Translation】 English version: In the beginning, therefore, it is said that there are many explanations of the Loving-kindness Samadhi (Citta-samādhi). Compassion (karuna) and the like are not as good as Loving-kindness. The great masters say: 'Due to two causes, Equanimity (upekṣā) is the most excellent. First, due to the action, that is, if one practices Equanimity, one can cut off greed and hatred. Second, due to tranquility, that is, because one treats sentient beings without discrimination, Equanimity is the most excellent.' (The above is the content of the treatise).
Treatise: These four immeasurables, up to only Joy (mudita) is not accomplished. The commentator believes that this refers to being common to the three continents (Pūrva-videha, Jambudvīpa, Aparagodānīya), and not the heavens, etc. If one obtains one immeasurable in the first dhyana, one will definitely obtain all four. If one obtains one in the third dhyana or above, one will definitely obtain three.
Treatise: Having distinguished the immeasurables, next distinguish liberation (vimoksha). The following three lines are verses. The second part elucidates liberation.
Treatise says: 'Liberation by contemplating external colors.' Explaining the first liberation. 'Having internal form, contemplating external colors' refers to, through superior understanding and attention (adhimokṣa-manasikāra), observing one's own body being eaten by insects, etc., seeing the form of the inner body, and seeing the external insects. Therefore, it is said 'liberation by contemplating external colors while having internal form.' The Nyāyānusāra says: The sutra says 'Having form, contemplating all forms,' to show what meaning? If one has not removed desire for form, one cannot truly understand the profound meaning of this sutra. However, the past sages transmitted and explained that failing to subdue and remove thoughts of internal form is the meaning of 'having form.' How do we know this is so? Because the difference in the second liberation is explained in this way. That is, in the second liberation, it is said: 'Without internal thought of form, contemplating external colors.' Therefore, we know that the first liberation has not removed the thought of internal form. Therefore, the treatise establishes the first liberation, called 'liberation by contemplating external colors while having internal thought of form.' It means that the practitioner, like dealing with the corpse of an enemy, although having already departed from desire and greed, in order to make it more firm, observes the various external colors again with impure aspects. Because of repeatedly observing external colors, one also generates aversion towards internal colors. Like someone who loves purity, wearing a dog's corpse around their neck, feeling extremely ashamed and deeply disgusted. After observing the external impure aspects in this way, one realizes that the internal body of form is also impure. Because of observing the purity of the mind, one sees that the thirty-six impure substances within the internal body are filled within it, like observing various kinds of things in a box. This is called the stage of extreme accomplishment of the first liberation.' What dharma is this liberation of the stage of accomplishment? It refers to the mind not delighting in, hating, turning away from, scolding, and being disgusted with form, preventing desire and greed, that is, liberating from desire and greed, which is the nature of non-greed. (The above is the content of the treatise).
論。二內無色想觀外色解脫。釋第二解脫 言內無色想觀外色者。謂勝解作意。見內自身被蟲食等。不見身相。唯見蟲等。故言內無色想觀外色解脫。故正理云。修觀行者。從此後時漸復遣除緣內色想。謂以勝解想自命終。輿載遺身置棄屍處。種種禽獸爭共食啖。須臾身盡唯見禽獸。或於是處以火焚燒。乃至遺灰風所飄鼓。須臾身盡唯見空界。或想自身如蘇．鹽等為火．水等之所融消。乃至身無唯見火等。名內無色想觀外色解脫。此勝解力除色想故。雖緣身起而不見身。既已遣除緣內色想。心相續轉無別事業。勝輕安樂任運現前。於此位中數數修習緣色處境厭背行相。是名第二解脫成滿。亦如第一解脫欲貪。雖于先時修不凈想已得解脫。緣色慾貪而無始來我愛難遣。若觀身有仍恐退生。故后復修內無色想厭惡色觀。清凈過前。行者爾時。依初靜慮得此二觀。深生味著。為欲令此轉增進。故入第二靜慮復修二解脫。復修二法次第如前(已上論文)。
論。三凈解脫身作證具足住。釋第三解脫。故正理云。彼瑜伽師久觀不凈。厭惡轉故令心沈戚。為欲策發令暫生歡。或為暫解久修勞倦。或為自審驗不凈觀堪能故。彼復依第四靜慮。于欲界色起凈勝解。先取寶衣．花等凈相。由勝解力漸廣思惟。遍於所緣作凈行相
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論。二、內無色想觀外色解脫。解釋第二解脫： 『言內無色想觀外色者』，是指勝解作意（通過強大的意願和理解力來修行）。觀想自己身體被蟲子啃食等，不再看見身體的形象，只看見蟲子等。所以說『內無色想觀外色解脫』。因此，《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說，修觀行的人，從這之後逐漸去除緣于內在身體的色想（對身體的執著）。也就是以勝解觀想自己已經死亡，用車輛運載遺體放置在屍體丟棄之處，各種禽獸爭相啃食。一會兒身體就沒了，只看見禽獸。或者在這個地方用火焚燒，乃至遺留的灰燼被風吹散。一會兒身體就沒了，只看見空曠的境界。或者觀想自身像酥油、鹽等被火、水等融化消失。乃至身體消失，只看見火等。這叫做『內無色想觀外色解脫』。這種勝解的力量能夠去除色想。因此，即使緣于身體而生起觀想，也看不見身體。既然已經去除緣于內在身體的色想，心識的相續流轉沒有其他的活動，殊勝的輕安和快樂自然而然地顯現。在這個階段中，多次修習緣於色處境界的厭惡行相。這叫做第二解脫的成就圓滿。也像第一解脫去除欲貪一樣，雖然在先前修習不凈觀已經得到解脫，但是緣于欲貪而無始以來產生的我愛難以去除。如果觀想身體存在，仍然恐怕會退轉而重新產生貪愛。所以後來再次修習內無色想，厭惡色身的觀想，比之前更加清凈。修行人在這個時候，依靠初禪得到這兩種觀想，深深地產生執著。爲了讓這種觀想更加增進，所以進入第二禪再次修習這兩種解脫。再次修習這兩種法門的次第像之前一樣（以上是論文內容）。 論。三、凈解脫身作證具足住。解釋第三解脫： 因此，《阿毗達磨順正理論》中說，那位瑜伽師長久地觀想不凈，因為厭惡的緣故，使內心感到沉悶憂傷。爲了激勵策發，使內心暫時產生歡喜，或者爲了暫時解除長久修行的勞累，或者爲了自己審視檢驗不凈觀是否堪能。他再次依靠第四禪，對於欲界的色產生清凈的勝解。先選取寶衣、花等清凈的形象，通過勝解的力量，逐漸廣泛地思惟，對於所緣的境界，進行清凈的行相。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise. Two, Liberation by Contemplating External Forms with No Perception of Internal Form. Explanation of the Second Liberation: 『Contemplating external forms with no perception of internal form』 refers to practicing with adhimoksha-manaskara (cultivating through strong intention and understanding). It involves visualizing one's own body being eaten by insects, etc., no longer seeing the body's form, but only seeing the insects, etc. Therefore, it is called 『liberation by contemplating external forms with no perception of internal form.』 Thus, the Abhidharmanyāyānusāra-śāstra says that a practitioner of contemplation gradually eliminates the perception of form related to the internal body (attachment to the body) from this point onward. That is, with adhimoksha, one imagines oneself already dead, the corpse carried by vehicle and placed in a charnel ground, various birds and beasts vying to devour it. In a short while, the body is gone, and only the birds and beasts are seen. Or, in that place, it is burned by fire, even the remaining ashes scattered by the wind. In a short while, the body is gone, and only the empty space is seen. Or, one imagines oneself like ghee, salt, etc., being melted and dissolved by fire, water, etc. Until the body is gone, and only the fire, etc., are seen. This is called 『liberation by contemplating external forms with no perception of internal form.』 The power of this adhimoksha can remove the perception of form. Therefore, even if contemplation arises in relation to the body, the body is not seen. Since the perception of form related to the internal body has been eliminated, the continuous flow of consciousness has no other activity, and sublime ease and joy naturally manifest. In this stage, one repeatedly practices the aspect of aversion towards the realm of form. This is called the complete fulfillment of the second liberation. It is also like the first liberation removing desire, although one has already attained liberation by practicing impurity contemplation earlier, the self-love arising from beginningless time in relation to desire is difficult to remove. If one contemplates the existence of the body, there is still fear of regression and the re-arising of desire. Therefore, one later practices again the contemplation of no perception of internal form, the contemplation of aversion towards the body, which is purer than before. At this time, the practitioner relies on the first dhyana (meditative absorption) to attain these two contemplations, deeply generating attachment. In order to further enhance this contemplation, one enters the second dhyana and practices these two liberations again. The order of practicing these two dharmas is the same as before (the above is the content of the treatise). Treatise. Three, Liberation by Realizing Purity, Witnessing with the Body, and Abiding in Perfection. Explanation of the Third Liberation: Therefore, the Abhidharmanyāyānusāra-śāstra says that the yogi, having contemplated impurity for a long time, feels depressed and saddened due to aversion. In order to encourage and stimulate, to temporarily generate joy in the mind, or to temporarily relieve the fatigue of long practice, or to examine whether the impurity contemplation is capable, he relies again on the fourth dhyana and generates a pure adhimoksha towards the form of the desire realm. First, he selects pure images such as precious garments, flowers, etc., and through the power of adhimoksha, gradually and extensively contemplates, engaging in pure aspects towards the object of contemplation.
。如契經說。彼於後時。應取少凈相總思惟諸色。此雖策心而不掉舉。雖觀凈相而不起貪。既知善根勢力增上。次復于境略聚其心。於一所緣觀凈而住。此位名曰凈解脫滿。能究竟舍不凈想故。此凈解脫亦如第二內無色想觀外諸色(已上論文)。
論。四無色定至第八解脫。列余解脫名義如后釋。
論。八中前三至想觀增故。述前三體 前三以無貪為體者。以近治貪故。然契經中說。內有色想觀外色者。非是以想慧為體。以於此時想觀增故。如四念住。及宿住念等。實慧為體而說念也。若慧為體。應近治廢。
論。三中初二至行相轉故。述前三解脫行相別也。
論。三並助伴皆五蘊性。述三解脫眷屬體也。
論。初二解脫至心澄凈故。述三解脫依地別也。欲界初定有顯色貪者。由眼識身所引起故。
論。餘地亦有至非增上故。述欲界聞慧亦有此三。於三定中亦有三種。非增上故不立解脫。初．二定中亦有第三。於四定中亦有初．二。以非增上故不建立。正理論云。雖欲界中亦容得有。而為欲界貪所凌雜。故不建立二解脫名。三．四定中雖亦得有。去所治遠勢力微劣。又樂凈伏故不得名(三定樂伏四定凈伏)第三解脫依后靜慮離八災患。心澄凈故。第四並近分。立后靜慮名。相似
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：正如契經所說，修行者在之後的時間裡，應該選取少量清凈的景象，總括地思維各種顏色。這樣做雖然能策勵內心，但不會導致心識掉舉；雖然觀察清凈的景象，但不會生起貪慾。當修行者知道自己的善根勢力增長時，接下來就可以將心識略微集中，專注於一個所緣境，以清凈的觀想安住。這個階段被稱為『凈解脫滿』，因為它能夠徹底捨棄不凈的念想。這種凈解脫也像第二無色定中，內心沒有色想，而觀想外在的各種顏色（以上是論文內容）。
論：四無色定乃至第八解脫，其餘解脫的名稱和意義將在後面解釋。
論：八種解脫中，前三種解脫是因為對色想的觀想增多而得名。下面闡述前三種解脫的體性。前三種解脫以無貪為體性，是因為它們能夠近似地對治貪慾。然而，契經中說『內心有色想，觀外在的顏色』，這並非是以想蘊和慧蘊為體性，而是因為在這個時候，想蘊的觀想作用增強了。就像四念住（身念住、受念住、心念住、法念住）以及宿住念（回憶前世的禪定）等，實際上是以慧為體性，卻說成是念。如果以慧為體性，就應該近似地對治和廢除（貪慾）。
論：三種解脫中，最初的兩種解脫是因為行相轉變的緣故。下面闡述前三種解脫的行相差別。
論：這三種解脫以及它們的助伴，都屬於五蘊（色蘊、受蘊、想蘊、行蘊、識蘊）的體性。下面闡述這三種解脫的眷屬。
論：最初的兩種解脫是因為心識澄凈的緣故。下面闡述這三種解脫所依止的禪定境界的差別。在欲界和初禪中，存在對顯色的貪慾，這是由眼識和身體所引起的。
論：在其他禪定境界中也存在這種情況，但因為不是增上的緣故。下面闡述欲界的聞慧也具有這三種解脫的功用。在三種禪定中也存在這三種解脫的功用，但因為不是增上的緣故，所以不建立為解脫。在初禪和二禪中也存在第三種解脫的功用，在四禪中也存在初禪和二禪的功用，但因為不是增上的緣故，所以不建立為解脫。正理論說，即使在欲界中也可能獲得這兩種解脫，但因為被欲界的貪慾所混雜，所以不建立這兩種解脫的名稱。在三禪和四禪中，雖然也可能獲得這兩種解脫，但因為距離所要對治的煩惱很遠，勢力微弱，而且樂受和清凈的感受會伏藏貪慾，所以不能得名（三禪的樂受伏藏貪慾，四禪的清凈感受伏藏貪慾）。第三解脫依止於後來的靜慮，遠離八種災患，心識澄凈的緣故。第四解脫以及近分定，建立了後來的靜慮的名稱，相似於此。
【English Translation】 English version: As the sutra says, later on, one should choose a few pure appearances and contemplate all colors in general. Although this encourages the mind, it does not lead to agitation. Although observing pure appearances, it does not give rise to greed. Once one knows that the power of good roots has increased, one can then slightly gather the mind on an object and abide in purity with a single focus. This state is called 'Pure Liberation Fulfilled' (凈解脫滿), because it can completely abandon impure thoughts. This pure liberation is also like the second formless realm, where there is no internal form thought but external forms are observed (the above is the text of the treatise).
Treatise: The four formless concentrations up to the eighth liberation. The names and meanings of the remaining liberations will be explained later.
Treatise: Among the eight, the first three are named because of the increase in contemplation of form thoughts. The nature of the first three is described below. The first three take non-greed as their nature because they closely counteract greed. However, the sutra says, 'With internal form thought, observe external forms.' This is not because thought and wisdom are their nature, but because at this time, the contemplation of thought increases. Like the four mindfulnesses (四念住 - mindfulness of body, feelings, mind, and phenomena) and recollection of past lives (宿住念 - remembering past lives' samadhi), they are actually wisdom in nature but are spoken of as mindfulness. If wisdom were their nature, it should closely counteract and eliminate (greed).
Treatise: Among the three, the first two are due to the change in aspects. The differences in the aspects of the first three liberations are described below.
Treatise: The three, along with their companions, are all of the nature of the five aggregates (五蘊 - form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). The retinue of the three liberations is described below.
Treatise: The first two liberations are due to the clarity of mind. The differences in the grounds of the three liberations are described below. In the desire realm and the first dhyana, there is greed for visible forms, which is caused by eye consciousness and the body.
Treatise: This also exists in other realms, but not as predominant. The fact that the wisdom of hearing in the desire realm also has the function of these three liberations is described below. These three also exist in the three dhyanas, but because they are not predominant, they are not established as liberations. The third also exists in the first and second dhyanas, and the first and second exist in the fourth dhyana, but because they are not predominant, they are not established. The Abhidharmakosha-bhasya says that although it is possible to attain them in the desire realm, they are mixed with the greed of the desire realm, so the names of the two liberations are not established. Although it is also possible to attain them in the third and fourth dhyanas, they are far from what needs to be counteracted, and their power is weak, and joy and purity conceal greed, so they are not named (joy conceals greed in the third dhyana, and purity conceals greed in the fourth dhyana). The third liberation relies on the later dhyanas, is free from the eight calamities, and the mind is clear. The fourth liberation and the near-attainment concentration establish the name of the later dhyanas, similar to this.
善根下地雖有。非增上故不名解脫。欲界欲貪所凌雜故。初二定中不凈伏故。第三定中樂所迷故 故皆不立凈解脫也(已上論文)。
論。次四解脫至性微劣故。出次四無色解脫體。於四無色唯取定善。非散善及染。
論。非散善者至亦有散善。此述散善兩說不同。彼地散善唯生得善。無聞．思故。
論。近分解脫道至方名解脫故。述空處近分中解脫道。緣空處故得名解脫。無間道緣下地故。不名解脫不背下故。正理論中更有一釋云諸近分地九無間道八解脫道。亦非解脫。不背下地故。緣下道雜故。又未全脫下地染故(已上論文)。
論。然于余處至非全分故。通余處說。
論。第八解脫至得解脫名。述第八解脫體性。如根品有二釋。一背厭受．想而起此故。名為解脫。即是余處名想受滅。或總厭背有所緣故。即是厭一切心．心所也。由此名為滅盡定也。
論。有說由此至無漏心出。述此定入．出心異也。
論。八中前三至為所緣境。述解脫境異也。不凈是可憎。凈境名可愛 彼非擇滅者。即是自．上有漏法。及類智品道非擇滅也。
論。第三靜慮至所動亂故。述第三定無解脫所以也。
論。行者何緣至彼方成故。述修凈解脫意也。
論。由二緣故至
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 即使有善根作為基礎，但因為沒有增上的力量，所以不能稱為解脫。因為欲界（Kāmadhātu）受到欲貪的擾亂，初禪和二禪中不凈觀只是伏住了煩惱，第三禪中又被快樂所迷惑，所以都不能成立清凈的解脫（Nirvana）。（以上是論文內容）
論：其次，四種解脫的自性微弱，所以排除其次的四種無色定（Arūpadhātu）的解脫。在四無色定中，只取定中的善，不取散善和染污。
論：『非散善者』乃至『亦有散善』。這裡敘述了關於散善的兩種不同說法。彼地的散善只是生得的善，因為沒有聽聞和思擇。
論：『近分解脫道』乃至『方名解脫故』。敘述了空無邊處（Ākāśānantyāyatana）近分定中的解脫道。因為緣于空無邊處，所以得名解脫。無間道（Anantarya-marga）緣于下地，所以不名解脫，因為沒有背離下地。在《正理論》中還有一種解釋說，諸近分地的九個無間道和八個解脫道，也不是解脫，因為沒有背離下地，而且所緣的道是雜染的，又沒有完全脫離下地的染污。（以上是論文內容）
論：『然于余處』乃至『非全分故』。這是通用於其他地方的說法。
論：『第八解脫』乃至『得解脫名』。敘述了第八解脫的體性。如《根品》中有兩種解釋：一是背離厭受和想而生起這種解脫，所以名為解脫，也就是在其他地方所說的想受滅（Saṃjñā-vedayitanirodha）。或者總的厭背有所緣，也就是厭離一切心和心所。因此名為滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti）。
論：『有說由此』乃至『無漏心出』。敘述了此定的入定和出定時的心是不同的。
論：『八中前三』乃至『為所緣境』。敘述了解脫的境界不同。不凈是可憎的，清凈的境界名為可愛。彼非擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha）是指自地和上地的有漏法，以及類智品道（jñānadarsana-visuddhi）的非擇滅。
論：『第三靜慮』乃至『所動亂故』。敘述了第三禪沒有解脫的原因。
論：『行者何緣』乃至『彼方成故』。敘述了修習清凈解脫的意義。
論：『由二緣故』乃至
【English Translation】 English version: Even though there is a foundation of wholesome roots, it is not called liberation (Nirvana) because it lacks the power of increase. Because the desire realm (Kāmadhātu) is disturbed by desire and craving, and in the first two dhyanas (meditative states), the contemplation of impurity only suppresses afflictions, and in the third dhyana, one is deluded by pleasure, therefore, pure liberation is not established in any of these. (The above is the content of the thesis)
Treatise: Secondly, the nature of the four liberations that follow is subtle and weak, therefore, it excludes the liberation of the four formless realms (Arūpadhātu) that follow. In the four formless realms, only the wholesome qualities in concentration are taken, not scattered wholesome qualities or defilements.
Treatise: 'Not scattered wholesome qualities' up to 'there are also scattered wholesome qualities.' Here, two different views on scattered wholesome qualities are described. The scattered wholesome qualities in that realm are only those that are naturally acquired, because there is no hearing or contemplation.
Treatise: 'The path of liberation in the proximity of the division' up to 'is then called liberation.' It describes the path of liberation in the proximity concentration of the sphere of infinite space (Ākāśānantyāyatana). Because it is based on the sphere of infinite space, it is called liberation. The immediate path (Anantarya-marga) is based on the lower realm, so it is not called liberation because it does not turn away from the lower realm. In the Abhidharmakośa, there is another explanation that the nine immediate paths and eight liberation paths in the proximity realms are also not liberation because they do not turn away from the lower realm, and because the path that is based on is mixed, and also because it has not completely escaped the defilements of the lower realm. (The above is the content of the thesis)
Treatise: 'However, in other places' up to 'not a complete part.' This is a statement that applies generally to other places.
Treatise: 'The eighth liberation' up to 'obtains the name of liberation.' It describes the nature of the eighth liberation. As in the Root Chapter, there are two explanations: one is that this liberation arises by turning away from the suffering of feelings and perceptions, so it is called liberation, which is what is called the cessation of perception and feeling (Saṃjñā-vedayitanirodha) in other places. Or, it is a general turning away from what is based on, which is turning away from all mind and mental factors. Therefore, it is called the cessation attainment (Nirodha-samāpatti).
Treatise: 'Some say that from this' up to 'the outflow-free mind emerges.' It describes that the mind entering and exiting this concentration is different.
Treatise: 'The first three of the eight' up to 'as the object that is based on.' It describes that the objects of liberation are different. Impurity is detestable, and the pure realm is called lovely. That counter-selective cessation (Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) refers to the contaminated dharmas of one's own realm and higher realms, and the counter-selective cessation of the path of the wisdom of categories (jñānadarsana-visuddhi).
Treatise: 'The third dhyana' up to 'because it is disturbed.' It describes the reason why there is no liberation in the third dhyana.
Treatise: 'For what reason does the practitioner' up to 'then it is accomplished.' It describes the meaning of practicing pure liberation.
Treatise: 'Due to two reasons' up to
得勝自在。述修解脫意也 等者。等勝處等。
論。故能引起至種種作用。述得定自在即能起無諍等作用也。
論。何故經中至各在邊故。述經中二解脫得身證名所以也。
論。已辨解脫次辨勝處。已下一行頌。第三明八勝處。
論曰至足前成八。列八名也。
論。八中初二至第三解脫。指同前也。
論。若爾八勝處至或終不起。述與解脫體等雖同。而力用異。即是勝所緣故名為勝處。解脫為因。勝處為果。因修解脫入勝處故。前三解脫于諸色中。但能總取不凈．凈相。今八勝處於諸色中。分別少．多．青等異相故。前解脫但於色中。棄背欲貪。及不凈想。今八勝處能于所緣。分析制伏令隨心轉。由此證知。第三解脫總取凈相。故立一名。八勝處中后四勝處差別取故分為四種 言勝處者。婆沙一百四十一云。問何故名勝處。答降伏所緣。摧滅貪愛故名勝處 正理云。或於是處轉變自在。不隨起惑故名勝處。勝於處故立勝處名。或此善根即名為處。處能勝故立勝處名(已上論文)。
論。已辨勝處次辨遍處。下一行頌。第四明十遍處。
論曰至故名遍處。述名也。即是周遍緣此四大．四色。及空識等名為遍處。正理云。經於此處皆言一想。上．下．及傍。無二．無量
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『得勝自在』，是描述通過修行而獲得的解脫的意義。『等者』，指『等勝處』等等。
論：因此能夠引起種種作用。描述獲得禪定的自在，就能生起無諍等作用。
論：為什麼經文中說『各在邊故』？描述經文中兩種解脫獲得身證的名稱和原因。
論：已經辨析了解脫，接下來辨析勝處。下面一行是頌文。第三部分闡明八勝處。
論曰：直到『足前成八』。列出八勝處的名稱。
論：八勝處中，最初的兩個與第三解脫相同。指與前面所說的相同。
論：如果這樣，八勝處與解脫的本體相同，但作用不同。這是因為勝處所緣的對象殊勝，所以稱為勝處。解脫是因，勝處是果。因為通過修行解脫而進入勝處。前面的三個解脫在諸色中，只能總體地取不凈相或凈相。現在的八勝處在諸色中，能夠分別少、多、青等不同的相。前面的解脫只是在色中，捨棄背離欲貪以及不凈的想像。現在的八勝處能夠對所緣的對象進行分析和制伏，使其隨心所轉。由此可以證明，第三解脫總體地取凈相，所以立一個名稱。八勝處中，後面的四個勝處因為差別地取相，所以分為四種。說到『勝處』，在《婆沙論》第一百四十一卷中說：『問：為什麼稱為勝處？答：因為能夠降伏所緣，摧滅貪愛，所以稱為勝處。』《正理論》說：『或者因為在這些地方轉變自在，不隨煩惱生起，所以稱為勝處。勝於處，所以立名為勝處。或者這種善根就稱為處，處能夠勝過，所以立名為勝處。』（以上是論文內容）。
論：已經辨析了勝處，接下來辨析遍處。下面一行是頌文。第四部分闡明十遍處。
論曰：直到『故名遍處』。描述名稱。也就是周遍地緣取四大（地、水、火、風）、四色（青、黃、赤、白），以及空識等，稱為遍處。《正理論》說：『經中對於這些地方都說是一種想法，上、下、以及旁邊，沒有二種，沒有限量。』
【English Translation】 English version: 'Gaining Victory and Freedom'. This describes the meaning of liberation achieved through practice. 'Etc.' refers to 'Etc. of Superior Abodes'.
Treatise: Therefore, it can give rise to various functions. Describing the freedom gained from Samadhi, it can give rise to functions such as non-contention.
Treatise: Why does the Sutra say 'each being on the side'? Describing the names and reasons for the two liberations in the Sutra that attain bodily realization.
Treatise: Having distinguished liberation, next distinguish the superior abodes. The following line is a verse. The third part elucidates the eight superior abodes (Asta abhibhayatanani).
Treatise says: Until 'eight are completed before the feet'. Listing the names of the eight superior abodes.
Treatise: Among the eight, the first two are the same as the third liberation. Referring to being the same as what was said before.
Treatise: If so, the eight superior abodes are the same in essence as liberation, but their functions are different. This is because the objects of the superior abodes are superior, hence they are called superior abodes. Liberation is the cause, and the superior abodes are the result. Because one enters the superior abodes through the practice of liberation. The first three liberations, among all forms (rupa), can only generally grasp the impure or pure aspects. The current eight superior abodes, among all forms, can distinguish different aspects such as few, many, blue, etc. The previous liberations only abandon and turn away from desire and impure thoughts in form. The current eight superior abodes can analyze and subdue the objects of focus, making them turn as one wishes. From this, it can be proven that the third liberation generally grasps the pure aspect, hence establishing one name. Among the eight superior abodes, the latter four superior abodes are divided into four types because they grasp different aspects. Speaking of 'superior abodes', the Vibhasa (Mahavibhasa) Volume 141 says: 'Question: Why are they called superior abodes? Answer: Because they can subdue the objects of focus and destroy craving and love, they are called superior abodes.' The Nyayanusara (Abhidharmakosabhasyam) says: 'Or because in these places one is free to transform and does not give rise to afflictions, they are called superior abodes. Being superior to the place, the name superior abode is established. Or this good root is called the abode, and the abode can overcome, hence the name superior abode is established.' (The above is the content of the treatises).
Treatise: Having distinguished the superior abodes, next distinguish the all-pervading abodes. The following line is a verse. The fourth part elucidates the ten all-pervading abodes (dasa kasanayatana).
Treatise says: Until 'hence the name all-pervading abode'. Describing the name. That is, to universally focus on these four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind), four colors (blue, yellow, red, white), and space consciousness, etc., is called all-pervading abode. The Nyayanusara says: 'In the Sutras, it is said that in these places there is only one thought, above, below, and beside, without two, without limit.'
。於一切處。無間無隙。周遍思惟故名遍處。遍於處故立遍處名。或此善根即名為處。行相遍故立遍處名。此中地等顯示所緣。所說遍言顯示行相。行相雖等而所緣別。是故遍處分為十種。經言一者。顯此等至思惟一類境相現前。想言顯是勝解作意。何故唯十得遍處名。此上更無遍行相故。唯第四定空．識無邊。可得說有無邊行相(已上論文)。
論。十中前八至五蘊為性。述體性也。
論。依第四靜慮緣欲可見色。述所緣也。謂色處為所緣。緣假四大故。
論。有餘師說至風界為境。述異說也。
論。后二遍處至蘊為境。述所緣也。
論。應知此中至勝前前故。述勝劣也。
論。此解脫等三門功德。已下一行頌。第五明二得及依身也。
論曰至滅盡定故。指前說也。即是前不相應中釋。
論余解脫等至未曾習故。述餘七解脫通二得也 言等者。等八勝處。及十遍處 有曾習者。是離染得 新習得者。是加行得。
論。四無色解脫至由教力故。述依身也。依下地身容起上地定故。無色定依三界身起。三解脫．八勝處．八遍處。由教力故唯欲界。以教在欲界故。
論。異生及聖皆能現起。述起人也。第八解脫唯聖人起。如前已說。前七解脫通凡．聖起。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：在一切地方，沒有間隔沒有空隙，周遍地思惟，所以叫做遍處（Kasinayatana，指通過冥想擴充套件的知覺領域）。因為周遍于處所，所以建立遍處這個名稱。或者這種善根就叫做處所。因為行相周遍，所以建立遍處這個名稱。這裡面的地等，顯示了所緣（alambana，冥想的對象）。所說的『遍』字，顯示了行相（ākāra，事物的特徵或狀態）。行相雖然相同，但是所緣不同。因此，遍處分為十種。經文說『一者』，顯示這種等至（samāpatti，禪定）思惟一類境相現前。『想』字顯示這是勝解作意（adhimokṣa-manaskāra，通過深刻理解而產生的心理活動）。為什麼只有十種得到遍處的名稱？因為這之上再沒有周遍的行相了。只有第四禪定（dhyāna，冥想的最高階段）的空無邊處（ākāśānantyāyatana，對無限空間的冥想）和識無邊處（vijñānānantyāyatana，對無限意識的冥想），可以被說成具有無邊的行相（已上論文）。 論：十種遍處中，前八種的體性是五蘊（pañca-skandha，構成經驗存在的五個集合）。這是在陳述它們的體性。 論：依靠第四靜慮（dhyāna，禪定），緣取欲界（kāmadhātu，感官慾望的領域）中可見的色（rūpa，物質形態）。這是在陳述所緣。也就是以色處（rūpāyatana，視覺對像）為所緣，緣取虛假的四大（mahābhūta，地、水、火、風）。 論：有其他老師說，乃至以風界（vāyu-dhātu，風元素）為境。這是在陳述不同的說法。 論：后兩種遍處，乃至以蘊（skandha，集合）為境。這是在陳述所緣。 論：應當知道，這裡面乃至勝過前一種。這是在陳述勝劣。 論：這種解脫（vimoksha，從束縛中解脫）等三門功德。以下一行頌。第五說明二得（指離染得和加行得）以及所依之身。 論曰：乃至滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti，一種高級禪定狀態）故。指前面所說。也就是在前面不相應行中解釋。 論：其餘解脫等至未曾習故。陳述其餘七種解脫通於二得。言『等』字，等同於八勝處（abhibhāyatana，通過冥想克服感官知覺的練習）以及十遍處。有曾習者，是離染得（通過斷除煩惱而獲得的成就）。新習得者，是加行得（通過努力修行而獲得的成就）。 論：四無色解脫（arūpa-vimoksha，對非物質領域的冥想）乃至由教力故。陳述所依之身。因為依靠下地之身，可以生起上地之定。無色定（arūpa-samāpatti，對非物質領域的禪定）依靠三界之身生起。三種解脫、八勝處、八遍處，由於教法的力量，只能在欲界（kāmadhātu，感官慾望的領域）修習。因為教法存在於欲界。 論：異生（prthagjana，凡夫）以及聖者（ārya，證悟者）都能現起。陳述發起者。第八解脫（指滅盡定）只有聖人才能發起，如前面已經說過。前七種解脫，凡夫和聖者都能發起。
【English Translation】 English version: In all places, without interval or gap, thoroughly contemplating, therefore it is called Kasinayatana (sphere of totality, referring to the expanded field of perception through meditation). Because it pervades the places, the name Kasinayatana is established. Or this wholesome root itself is called a place. Because the aspect is pervasive, the name Kasinayatana is established. Here, earth and so on, display the object of focus (alambana, object of meditation). The word 'pervasive' that is spoken, displays the aspect (ākāra, characteristic or state of things). Although the aspects are the same, the objects of focus are different. Therefore, the Kasinayatanas are divided into ten types. The sutra says 'one', showing that this samāpatti (attainment, meditative absorption) contemplates one type of object appearing before one. The word 'thought' shows that this is adhimokṣa-manaskāra (resolution-application, mental activity arising from deep understanding). Why do only ten attain the name Kasinayatana? Because there is no more pervasive aspect above this. Only the fourth dhyāna (meditation, highest stage of meditation) of the ākāśānantyāyatana (sphere of infinite space, meditation on infinite space) and the vijñānānantyāyatana (sphere of infinite consciousness, meditation on infinite consciousness) can be said to have infinite aspects (end of the treatise above). Treatise: Among the ten Kasinayatanas, the nature of the first eight is the five skandhas (pañca-skandha, the five aggregates that constitute experiential existence). This is stating their nature. Treatise: Relying on the fourth dhyāna (meditation), one focuses on visible rūpa (form, material form) in the kāmadhātu (realm of desire, the realm of sensory desires). This is stating the object of focus. That is, taking the rūpāyatana (sphere of visual object) as the object of focus, focusing on the false four mahābhūtas (great elements, earth, water, fire, wind). Treatise: Some other teachers say, even taking the vāyu-dhātu (wind element) as the object. This is stating a different view. Treatise: The latter two Kasinayatanas, even taking the skandha (aggregate) as the object. This is stating the object of focus. Treatise: It should be known that, in this, even surpassing the previous one. This is stating superiority and inferiority. Treatise: This vimoksha (liberation, liberation from bondage) and other three doors of merit. The following one line verse. The fifth explains the two attainments (referring to attainment through detachment and attainment through effort) and the body relied upon. Treatise says: Even to nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment, an advanced meditative state). Refers to what was said earlier. That is, explained in the previous non-corresponding activities. Treatise: The remaining vimokshas and samāpattis, because they have not been practiced. Stating that the remaining seven vimokshas are common to the two attainments. The word 'etc.', is equivalent to the eight abhibhāyatanas (spheres of mastery, practice of overcoming sensory perceptions through meditation) and the ten Kasinayatanas. Those who have practiced before, have attained through detachment (achievement through the elimination of afflictions). Those who newly practice, have attained through effort (achievement through diligent practice). Treatise: The four arūpa-vimokshas (formless liberations, meditation on the non-material realms) even due to the power of teaching. Stating the body relied upon. Because relying on the body of a lower realm, one can generate the samādhi (meditative concentration) of a higher realm. Arūpa-samāpatti (formless attainments, meditation on the non-material realms) arises relying on the bodies of the three realms. The three vimokshas, eight abhibhāyatanas, and eight Kasinayatanas, due to the power of the teachings, can only be practiced in the kāmadhātu (realm of desire, the realm of sensory desires). Because the teachings exist in the kāmadhātu. Treatise: Both prthagjana (ordinary beings, common people) and ārya (noble ones, enlightened beings) can manifest them. Stating the initiator. The eighth vimoksha (referring to cessation attainment) can only be initiated by noble ones, as has been said before. The previous seven vimokshas can be initiated by both ordinary beings and noble ones.
論。諸有生在色無色界。已下一行頌。第六明起定緣。
論曰至為起因故。述因力也。此于先時 近者近曾起者 及數修者數數修故。即是近同類因。由此二因力故。生色．無色 雖無教力而得生起。
論。二由業力至生上地故。述第二力也。謂先於欲界。或於色界等。造順生受．及順后受業。在上地中業果時受。由此業力。必令有情離下煩惱得於上定。方得生彼 以若未離下地煩惱。必定無容生上地故。
論。三法爾力至皆增盛故。述法爾力。劫將壞時。有情法爾皆生上界。欲生上界法爾善根增勝。得上地定斷下煩惱。
論。諸有生在至之所壞故。述生上二界起無色定。由因．業力。非法爾力。以第四定不為三災之所壞故。
論。生在色界至加由教力。述在色界起上靜慮。由因力．業力．及法爾力 若生欲界起上無色。由因力．業力．教力。起色界定。由業力．因力．法爾力．教力。故言一一應知加由教力。
論。前來分別種種法門。自下一行頌。大文第三明法住時也。
論曰至菩提分法。此文有三。一述二種正法。二述能持人。三述住時分 此文第一述二種正法也。一教。二證 教謂三藏 證謂三乘菩提分法 因教得證故先明教法 若以昔教對今佛。即教先
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：諸有生在色無**（指色界和無色界眾生）。已下一行頌（指接下來的偈頌）。第六明起定緣（第六部分闡明入定的因緣）。
論曰至為起因故（論述說，這是入定的原因）。述因力也（這是在闡述因的力量）。此于先時（這是指在先前的時候），近者近曾起者（或者最近曾經入定的人），及數修者數數修故（以及經常修習禪定的人，因為他們經常修習）。即是近同類因（這就是接近同類的因）。由此二因力故（由於這兩種因的力量），生色．無色（生於色界和無色界的眾生），雖無教力而得生起（即使沒有教導的力量也能入定）。
論：二由業力至生上地故（論述說，第二種力量是業力，能夠使眾生生到更高的境界）。述第二力也（這是在闡述第二種力量）。謂先於欲界（這是指先前在欲界），或於**等（或者在色界等），造順生受．及順后受業（造作了順於今生受報的業，以及順於來生受報的業）。在上地中業果時受（在更高的境界中，當業果成熟時受報）。由此業力（由於這種業力），必令有情離下煩惱得於上定（必定使有情離開地獄的煩惱，獲得上界的禪定）。方得生彼（才能生到那個境界），以若未離下地煩惱（因為如果還沒有離開下地的煩惱），必定無容生上地故（必定沒有可能生到上地）。
論：三法爾力至皆增盛故（論述說，第三種力量是法爾力，自然而然的力量，能夠使眾生的善根增長）。述法爾力（這是在闡述法爾力）。劫將壞時（當劫將要毀滅的時候），有情法爾皆生上界（有情自然而然地都生到上界）。欲生上界法爾善根增勝（想要生到上界，自然而然地善根就會增長並變得殊勝）。得上地定斷下煩惱（獲得上地的禪定，斷除下地的煩惱）。
論：諸有生在至之所壞故（論述說，生在色界和無色界的眾生入無色定）。述生上二界起無色定（這是在闡述生在上二界，即色界和無色界的眾生，入無色定）。由因．業力（是由於因的力量和業的力量）。非法爾力（而不是法爾力）。以第四定不為三災之所壞故（因為第四禪定不會被三種災難所破壞）。
論：生在至加由教力（論述說，生在色界的眾生入上界的禪定）。述在起上靜慮（這是在闡述在色界入上界的禪定）。由因力．業力．及法爾力（是由於因的力量、業的力量以及法爾力）。若生欲界起上無色（如果生在欲界而想要入上界的無色定），由因力．業力．教力（是由於因的力量、業的力量和教導的力量）。起**定（入色界定），由業力．因力．法爾力．教力（是由於業的力量、因的力量、法爾力以及教導的力量）。故言一一應知加由教力（所以說，應該知道每一種情況都加上教導的力量）。
論：前來分別種種法門（前面分別了種種法門）。自下一行頌（從下面一行開始是偈頌）。大文第三明法住時也（第三大段闡明佛法住世的時間）。
論曰至菩提分法（論述說，直到菩提分法）。此文有三（這段文字有三個部分）。一述二種正法（第一部分闡述兩種正法）。二述能持人（第二部分闡述能夠秉持正法的人）。三述住時分（第三部分闡述正法住世的時間）。此文第一述二種正法也（這段文字的第一部分闡述兩種正法）。一教（第一種是教法）。二證（第二種是證法）。教謂三藏（教法指的是三藏）。證謂三乘菩提分法（證法指的是三乘的菩提分法）。因教得證故先明教法（因為通過教法才能獲得證法，所以先闡明教法）。若以昔教對今佛（如果用過去的教法來對照現在的佛陀），即教先（那就是教法在前）。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: Those beings born in the Realm of Form and Formless Realm. The following line is a verse. The sixth explains the conditions for arising from Samadhi.
Treatise says: 'Up to 'as the cause of arising'.' This explains the power of causes. This refers to those who have previously, recently, or frequently cultivated Samadhi. These are similar causes. Due to the power of these two causes, beings in the Realm of Form and Formless Realm can arise in Samadhi even without the power of teaching.
Treatise: 'Secondly, by the power of Karma, up to 'to be born in higher realms'.' This explains the second power. It means that in the Desire Realm or the Realm of Form, one creates Karma that leads to pleasant or subsequent experiences. When the fruits of this Karma ripen in higher realms, this Karma will inevitably cause sentient beings to abandon lower afflictions and attain higher Samadhi in order to be born there. Because if one has not abandoned the afflictions of the lower realms, it is impossible to be born in the higher realms.
Treatise: 'Thirdly, by the power of Dharma-nature, up to 'all increase and flourish'.' This explains the power of Dharma-nature. When a kalpa (aeon) is about to be destroyed, sentient beings naturally arise in higher realms. Those who wish to be born in higher realms naturally increase and excel in their roots of goodness, attain higher Samadhi, and sever lower afflictions.
Treatise: 'Those beings born in, up to 'destroyed by'.' This explains that arising in the Formless Realm from the Realm of Form and Formless Realm is due to the power of causes and Karma, not the power of Dharma-nature. This is because the Fourth Dhyana (fourth level of meditative absorption) is not destroyed by the three calamities.
Treatise: 'Born in, up to 'added by the power of teaching'.' This explains arising in higher meditative states in the Realm of Form. It is due to the power of causes, the power of Karma, and the power of Dharma-nature. If one is born in the Desire Realm and wishes to arise in the higher Formless Realm, it is due to the power of causes, the power of Karma, and the power of teaching. Arising in the Realm of Form is due to the power of Karma, the power of causes, the power of Dharma-nature, and the power of teaching. Therefore, it is said that each should be understood as being added by the power of teaching.
Treatise: 'Previously, various Dharma gates were distinguished.' The following line is a verse. The third major section explains the time when the Dharma abides.
Treatise says: 'Up to the factors of enlightenment (Bodhipaksa-dharmas).' This text has three parts: first, it describes the two kinds of true Dharma; second, it describes the people who can uphold it; and third, it describes the time when it abides. This text first describes the two kinds of true Dharma: teaching and realization. Teaching refers to the Tripitaka (three baskets of Buddhist scriptures). Realization refers to the factors of enlightenment of the Three Vehicles. Because realization is attained through teaching, the teaching is explained first. If the past teaching is compared to the present Buddha, then the teaching comes first.
而佛后。佛因教證故 若今教對能說。佛先而教后。佛說教故 若以今證．今教。即教先而證后故先證法 若以因證能弘教。即有證．教方住。
論。有能受持至住爾所時。第二述能持人也。由能受持持法不滅。由有正說傳法不滅。若唯持不能說。即闕傳燈之義。若唯說而不持。即廢忘而不行。故兼之也。有能依教而行者。即證法便住世間。若持法而不行。即無加行善。若依教而正行。即生菩提分法。故由受持．正說二人。教住於世。由修行一人。證法住世。故隨三人住世時量。應知正法爾所時住。
論。聖教總言至復過於此。第三述住時分。就中有兩說。一說證．教二法唯住千年。二說證法唯住千年。教法復過千年。此中但說正法不說像法．末法。廣如婆沙一百八十二說。此說同涅槃經第二十二。云無上佛法當久近幾時滅耶。答云。若我弟子有能受持．讀誦．書寫．演說其義。為諸眾生之所恭敬．尊重．讚歎種種供養。當知。爾時佛法未滅。乃至。見受持等者。輕毀．誹謗。汝是六師。非佛弟子。當知佛法將滅不久 三階云。法律禪師同十三種惡外道六師。當此記也 今詳兩說。后說為正。所以得今時有教法故。然說證法亦是從多。又準多經文。說過千歲。然諸經所說隨機不同。就別處別人以說法滅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：佛陀之後，佛陀因為教義的驗證而存在，如果現在的教義能夠被正確宣說，那麼佛陀先出現，教義后出現。佛陀宣說教義的緣故，如果用現在的驗證和現在的教義，那麼教義先出現，驗證后出現，所以先有驗證之法。如果用因果的驗證來弘揚教義，那麼有了驗證和教義，佛法才能住世。
論：有能夠受持乃至住世那麼長時間的人。這是第二部分，描述能夠護持佛法的人。因為有人能夠受持，佛法才不會滅亡；因為有人能夠正確宣說，傳法才不會斷絕。如果只有受持而不能宣說，就缺少了傳燈的意義；如果只有宣說而不受持，就會廢棄遺忘而不去實行。所以要兼顧受持和宣說。有能夠依照教義而修行的人，那麼證悟之法就能住世。如果只是持法而不修行，就沒有修行善行；如果依照教義而正確修行，就能生出菩提分法（證悟的要素）。所以，依靠受持和正確宣說的兩個人，教法才能住世；依靠修行的一個人，證法才能住世。因此，根據這三個人住世的時間長短，應當知道正法住世的時間長短。
論：聖教總而言之，乃至超過這個時間。這是第三部分，描述住世的時間。其中有兩種說法：一種說法是證法和教法都只能住世一千年；另一種說法是證法只能住世一千年，而教法還能超過一千年。這裡只說了正法，沒有說像法和末法。詳細的可以參考《婆沙論》第一百八十二卷的說法。這種說法和《涅槃經》第二十二卷的說法相同，經中說：『無上的佛法將要多久才會滅亡呢？』佛陀回答說：『如果我的弟子能夠受持、讀誦、書寫、演說其中的含義，並且受到眾生的恭敬、尊重、讚歎和種種供養，應當知道，這個時候佛法還沒有滅亡。』乃至，如果看到受持佛法的人，受到輕視、譭謗，並且被說成：『你是六師外道，不是佛的弟子。』應當知道，佛法將要滅亡，為時不遠了。』三階教認為，法律禪師和十三種惡外道六師相同，說的就是這個記載。現在詳細分析這兩種說法，后一種說法是正確的。因為這樣才能解釋為什麼現在還有教法存在。然而，說證法住世的時間，也是從多數情況來說的。而且，根據很多經文，教法會超過一千年。然而，各種經典所說的內容，是根據不同的根機而有所不同。就不同的地方和不同的人來說，會說佛法滅亡。
【English Translation】 English version: After the Buddha, the Buddha exists because of the verification of the teachings. If the current teachings can be correctly proclaimed, then the Buddha appears first, and the teachings appear later. Because the Buddha proclaims the teachings, if using the current verification and the current teachings, then the teachings appear first, and the verification appears later, so there is the Dharma of verification first. If using the verification of cause and effect to promote the teachings, then with verification and teachings, the Dharma can abide in the world.
Treatise: There are those who can uphold [the Dharma] and thus abide for that long. This is the second part, describing those who can uphold the Dharma. Because there are those who can uphold [the Dharma], the Dharma will not perish; because there are those who can correctly proclaim [the Dharma], the transmission of the Dharma will not be cut off. If there is only upholding without proclaiming, then the meaning of transmitting the lamp is lacking; if there is only proclaiming without upholding, then it will be abandoned and forgotten and not practiced. Therefore, both upholding and proclaiming must be taken into account. There are those who can practice according to the teachings, then the Dharma of realization can abide in the world. If one only upholds the Dharma without practicing, then there is no practice of good deeds; if one practices correctly according to the teachings, then one can generate the factors of enlightenment (Bodhi-anga). Therefore, relying on the two people who uphold and correctly proclaim [the Dharma], the teaching can abide in the world; relying on the one person who practices, the Dharma of realization can abide in the world. Therefore, according to the length of time that these three people abide in the world, one should know the length of time that the True Dharma abides.
Treatise: The Holy Teachings in general, even exceeding this time. This is the third part, describing the time of abiding. There are two views on this: one view is that both the Dharma of realization and the Dharma of teaching can only abide for one thousand years; the other view is that the Dharma of realization can only abide for one thousand years, while the Dharma of teaching can exceed one thousand years. Here, only the True Dharma is mentioned, not the Semblance Dharma and the End Dharma. For details, refer to the one hundred and eighty-second volume of the Abhidharma-mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra. This view is the same as that in the twenty-second volume of the Nirvana Sutra, which says: 'How long will the supreme Buddha-dharma take to perish?' The Buddha replied: 'If my disciples can uphold, recite, write, and expound its meaning, and are respected, honored, praised, and offered various offerings by sentient beings, then know that the Buddha-dharma has not yet perished.' And even, if one sees those who uphold the Dharma being despised, slandered, and said to be: 'You are the six heretical teachers, not disciples of the Buddha,' then know that the Buddha-dharma is about to perish, and the time is not far off.' The Three Stages Sect believes that the Vinaya Master is the same as the thirteen kinds of evil heretical teachers, the six heretics, which is what this record refers to. Now, analyzing these two views in detail, the latter view is correct. Because this is the only way to explain why there is still teaching today. However, saying that the Dharma of realization abides for a certain time is also from the majority of cases. Moreover, according to many sutras, the teaching will exceed one thousand years. However, the content of the various sutras varies according to different capacities. In different places and for different people, it will be said that the Buddha-dharma will perish.
迦葉經說五百年 阿含經說一千年 大集經說一千五百年。及說五重牢固。復說諸佛與欲說說法久住 又菩薩處胎經法住品。此經留住或至二千年。或至三千年 又仁王第二云。吾滅度后八十年。八百年。八千年中。無佛。無法．無僧．無信男。無信女時。此經三寶付屬國王．四部弟子。受持。讀誦。解說其義。為三界眾生開空慧道。修七賢行．十善行。化一切眾生。真諦法師釋云。八十年者。正法末後八十年。八百年者像法后八百年。八千年者末法萬年后八千年。準此文意有末法也 又準大乘同性經下捲雲。如來顯現從兜率下。乃至。住持一切像法．一切滅法．善丈夫法。當知。如是化事皆是應身。準此經。滅法即是末法異名 又法華經第五安樂行中雲。如來滅后末法中欲說是經。應住安樂行 準此經文有末法也 記聲聞中。但云正法．像法者。略不說末法。
善見論云。初一千年。若諸弟子。勤行精進得阿羅漢果。第二千年得第三果。第三千年得第二果。第四千年得初果。從此已后是我末法 準上論文。正法之時多得無學。像法之時得前三果。末法之時不得道果 又善見論云。如來正法一千年。以度瞿夷出家滅五百年。以佛令行八敬。及所度五百釋女皆得阿羅漢。各增一年。所以正法還得千年 準此論文。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《迦葉經》說（佛法住世）五百年，《阿含經》說一千年，《大集經》說一千五百年。並且說了五重牢固。又說諸佛爲了想要說法，使佛法長久住世。《菩薩處胎經·法住品》說，此經能夠留住或許到兩千年，或許到三千年。《仁王經》第二卷說：『我滅度后八十年、八百年、八千年之中，沒有佛、沒有法、沒有僧、沒有信男、沒有信女的時候，這部經的三寶囑託給國王和四部弟子，受持、讀誦、解說它的意義，為三界眾生開啟空慧之道，修七賢行、十善行，化度一切眾生。』真諦法師解釋說：『八十年，是正法末後的八十年；八百年，是像法后的八百年；八千年，是末法萬年后的八千年。』依照這段文字的意思，是有末法的。《大乘同性經》下卷說：『如來顯現從兜率天下降，乃至住持一切像法、一切滅法、善丈夫法。應當知道，這樣的化現都是應身。』依照這部經，滅法就是末法的異名。《法華經》第五《安樂行品》中說：『如來滅度后末法時期，想要說這部經，應當安住于安樂行。』依照這部經文，是有末法的。記錄聲聞乘的經典中，只說正法、像法，是省略了不說末法。 《善見論》說：『最初一千年，如果各位弟子勤奮修行精進，能夠得到阿羅漢果（arahantaphala，斷盡一切煩惱，證得解脫的果位）；第二千年得到第三果（anāgāmiphala，不還果）；第三千年得到第二果（sakadāgāmiphala，一來果）；第四千年得到初果（sotāpattiphala，入流果）。從此以後就是我的末法時期。』依照上面的論文，正法時期多能證得無學果位（arhat，阿羅漢），像法時期能得前三果，末法時期不能得到道果。《善見論》又說：『如來正法住世一千年，因為度瞿夷出家而減少五百年，因為佛陀允許行八敬法，以及所度的五百釋迦族女子都證得阿羅漢果，各增加一年，所以正法還能住世一千年。』依照這段論文。
【English Translation】 English version The Kasyapa Sutra says 500 years (for the Dharma's duration), the Agama Sutra says 1000 years, and the Mahasamgraha Sutra says 1500 years. It also speaks of the fivefold firmness. Furthermore, it says that all Buddhas, desiring to preach the Dharma, cause it to abide long. Also, the 'Dharma Abiding' chapter of the Bodhisattva Garbha Sutra says that this sutra may remain for perhaps 2000 or 3000 years. Moreover, the second chapter of the Benevolent Kings Sutra says: 'Eighty years, eight hundred years, and eight thousand years after my Parinirvana, when there are no Buddhas, no Dharma, no Sangha, no faithful men, and no faithful women, the Three Jewels of this sutra are entrusted to the king and the fourfold assembly of disciples, who should uphold, recite, explain its meaning, open the path of emptiness-wisdom for sentient beings in the three realms, cultivate the seven virtuous practices and the ten wholesome practices, and transform all sentient beings.' The Tripitaka Master Paramartha explains: 'Eighty years refers to the last eighty years of the Correct Dharma; eight hundred years refers to the eight hundred years after the Semblance Dharma; eight thousand years refers to the eight thousand years after the ten thousand years of the Degenerate Dharma.' According to this passage, there is a Degenerate Dharma (Mappo). Furthermore, according to the lower volume of the Mahayana Sameness of Nature Sutra: 'The Tathagata appears, descending from Tushita Heaven, and upholds all Semblance Dharma, all Extinction Dharma, and the Dharma of good men. Know that such manifestations are all transformation bodies.' According to this sutra, Extinction Dharma is another name for Degenerate Dharma. Also, in the fifth 'Peaceful Practices' chapter of the Lotus Sutra, it says: 'In the Degenerate Dharma period after the Tathagata's Parinirvana, if one wishes to preach this sutra, one should abide in peaceful practices.' According to this sutra passage, there is a Degenerate Dharma. The records of the Sravakas only mention the Correct Dharma and the Semblance Dharma, omitting the Degenerate Dharma. The Samantapasadika says: 'In the first thousand years, if the disciples diligently practice and advance, they will attain the fruit of Arhat (arahantaphala, the state of complete liberation from all defilements); in the second thousand years, they will attain the third fruit (anāgāmiphala, the state of non-returning); in the third thousand years, they will attain the second fruit (sakadāgāmiphala, the state of once-returning); in the fourth thousand years, they will attain the first fruit (sotāpattiphala, the state of stream-entry). After this, it will be my Degenerate Dharma period.' According to the above treatise, in the Correct Dharma period, many attain the state of no-more-learning (arhat, Arhat); in the Semblance Dharma period, they attain the first three fruits; in the Degenerate Dharma period, they cannot attain the fruit of the Path. The Samantapasadika also says: 'The Tathagata's Correct Dharma abides for one thousand years. Because of allowing Goyi to leave home, five hundred years are reduced. Because the Buddha allowed the practice of the Eight Respects and the five hundred Shakya women who were ordained all attained the fruit of Arhat, one year is added for each, so the Correct Dharma still abides for one thousand years.' According to this treatise.
諸經．論中說正法五百年者。是初度女人後說。一千年者是未度女人前。及八敬后說 又法住記云。十六羅漢各將無量眷屬。於人壽漸增至七萬歲時。已本願力用其七寶。為佛造窣都婆。釋迦舍利自然流入塔中。后佛舍利塔總陷入地至金剛際。時諸羅漢化火燒身入般涅槃。次有七俱胝獨覺出世化諸眾生。至人壽漸增減八萬歲時。一時各般無餘涅槃。次後彌勒佛出世也 又蓮華面經。最後佛法滅盡時。如來舍利陷入龍宮。龍宮法滅陷入金剛際。次後七日．七夜。天地大黑。有外道空中言。沙門瞿曇法今滅盡。我等當得教化一切法界眾生。發此語已現身陷入阿鼻地獄。次後彌勒佛出世也。已上二教但據法在。不據行．學。雖化眾生。不言欣修．出世行也。如結界羯磨止息不行。非無戒律教法在世。佛法陷滅。非唯一處。所說不同。由斯教異。
論。此論依攝至釋對法耶。大文第四明論宗趣。此問也。頌答可知。
論曰至理善成立。嘆迦濕彌羅國毗婆沙師共議論阿毗達磨理。是善成立。
論。我多依彼釋對法宗者。述已多依婆沙論釋 多言。顯示少有異途。謂形色．像色．過去．未來．有．非有等。
論。為我過失者少有貶量。少有貶量毗婆沙義是我過。以非世尊大聖弟子輒有貶量。故成過失論主
【現代漢語翻譯】 諸經和論典中提到的『正法五百年』，是指初次允許女性出家之後所說的；而『一千年』，是指未允許女性出家之前，以及制定八敬法之後所說的。 此外，《法住記》中記載，十六羅漢各自帶領無量的眷屬，在人類壽命逐漸增長到七萬歲時，以其本願力，用七寶為佛建造窣都婆（stupa，佛塔）。釋迦（Sakya）的舍利自然流入塔中。後來，佛的舍利塔全部陷入地底，直至金剛際（vajra realm，金剛界）。當時，諸位羅漢化火焚身，入般涅槃（parinirvana，完全的涅槃）。接著，有七俱胝（koti，印度數字單位，千萬）的獨覺出世，教化眾生。直到人類壽命逐漸增減到八萬歲時，他們一時各自進入無餘涅槃（nirvana without remainder，無餘涅槃）。此後，彌勒佛（Maitreya Buddha）才會出世。 另外，《蓮華面經》中記載，在最後佛法滅盡時，如來（Tathagata，佛的稱號）的舍利會陷入龍宮。龍宮的佛法滅盡后，會陷入金剛際。之後，會有七日七夜，天地一片黑暗。有外道在空中宣稱：『沙門瞿曇（Śrāmaṇa Gautama，釋迦牟尼佛）的佛法現在已經滅盡，我們應當教化一切法界的眾生。』說完這些話后，他們現身陷入阿鼻地獄（Avici hell，無間地獄）。此後，彌勒佛才會出世。以上兩種說法都只是根據佛法存在與否而言，不涉及修行和學習。雖然教化眾生，但沒有提到欣樂修習和出世修行。如同結界羯磨（kamma，業）停止不行，並非沒有戒律教法存在於世。佛法的陷滅並非只發生在一處，所說不同是因為教義不同。因此，佛法才會有差異。 論：此論是依據《攝大乘論》來解釋《阿毗達磨對法論》嗎？《大文》第四部分闡明了論的宗旨和旨趣。這個問題可以通過頌文的回答來理解。 論曰：『道理善於成立。』讚歎迦濕彌羅國（Kashmir）的毗婆沙師（Vaibhashika masters）共同議論阿毗達磨（Abhidharma，論藏）的道理，是善於成立的。 論：『我多數依據他們的解釋來解釋對法宗。』敘述自己多數依據《婆沙論》來解釋。『多數』一詞顯示了少有不同的途徑，例如形色和像色、過去和未來、有和非有等。 論：『認為我的過失的人，少有貶低衡量。』少有貶低衡量毗婆沙（Vaibhashika）的意義是我的過失，因為不是世尊（Lord Buddha）的大聖弟子，卻隨意貶低衡量，所以構成了論主的過失。
【English Translation】 The 『five hundred years of the Proper Dharma』 mentioned in various sutras and treatises refers to the period after women were first allowed to leave the household life; while the 『one thousand years』 refers to the period before women were allowed to leave the household life, and after the establishment of the Eight Respects. Furthermore, the Record of the Duration of the Dharma states that the Sixteen Arhats, each leading countless retinues, when the human lifespan gradually increases to seventy thousand years, will use their original vows and the seven treasures to build stupas (stupa) for the Buddha. The relics of Sakya (Sakya) will naturally flow into the stupas. Later, all the stupas containing the Buddha's relics will sink into the ground until they reach the vajra realm (vajra realm). At that time, the Arhats will transform into fire and cremate their bodies, entering parinirvana (parinirvana). Following this, seven koti (koti, a unit in Indian numerals, ten million) of Pratyekabuddhas will appear in the world, teaching sentient beings. When the human lifespan gradually increases and decreases to eighty thousand years, they will all simultaneously enter nirvana without remainder (nirvana without remainder). After this, Maitreya Buddha (Maitreya Buddha) will appear in the world. In addition, the Lotus Face Sutra states that when the Dharma is about to perish, the relics of the Tathagata (Tathagata) will sink into the dragon palace. When the Dharma in the dragon palace perishes, it will sink into the vajra realm. Afterwards, there will be seven days and seven nights of complete darkness. Non-Buddhists will proclaim in the sky: 『The Dharma of Śrāmaṇa Gautama (Śrāmaṇa Gautama) has now perished, and we should teach all sentient beings in the Dharma realm.』 After saying these words, they will manifest and sink into the Avici hell (Avici hell). After this, Maitreya Buddha will appear in the world. The above two statements are based solely on the existence or non-existence of the Dharma, without involving practice and learning. Although they teach sentient beings, they do not mention joyful practice and transcendent conduct. It is as if the boundary-establishing kamma (kamma) ceases to function, but it does not mean that there are no precepts and teachings in the world. The perishing of the Dharma does not occur in only one place; the differences in what is said are due to differences in teachings. Therefore, there are differences in the Dharma. Treatise: Is this treatise based on the Treatise on the Summary of the Great Vehicle to explain the Abhidharma-dharma Treatise? The fourth part of the Great Text clarifies the purpose and intent of the treatise. This question can be understood through the answer in the verse. The treatise says: 『The principles are well established.』 It praises the Vaibhashika masters (Vaibhashika masters) of Kashmir (Kashmir) for jointly discussing the principles of Abhidharma (Abhidharma), which are well established. Treatise: 『I mostly rely on their explanations to explain the Dharma school.』 It narrates that one mostly relies on the Vibhasha Treatise for explanations. The word 『mostly』 indicates that there are few different paths, such as form and image, past and future, existence and non-existence, etc. Treatise: 『Those who consider my faults rarely diminish and measure.』 Rarely diminishing and measuring the meaning of Vaibhashika (Vaibhashika) is my fault, because one is not a great and holy disciple of the Lord Buddha (Lord Buddha), yet arbitrarily diminishes and measures, thus constituting the fault of the treatise author.
謙也。
論。判法正理唯在世尊及諸如來大聖弟子者。唯是遮余非佛世尊。及大聖弟子 準此中意。商略婆沙。存其六足。及本論也 毗婆沙師。非是世尊。及大聖弟子故 六足．發智。是大弟子之所造故。不商略。
自下有三頌。大文第三勸學流通分。就中有三意。論主造論之時。佛涅槃后九百年中。教．證正法並皆將滅 初一頌傷嘆教法。次一頌傷嘆證法。第三頌勸求證法 就第一頌中有四句 初一句明佛善說教。能開世眼名世眼也。大師涅槃向有千年。故言久閉 第二句明大弟子說教堪為證者多散滅。多言顯有少分 第三句明世眼久閉。能為證者多散滅故。無見真理人也。無見真人故無判教人也 第四句明不見理故鄙尋思。由鄙尋思妄制教故亂聖教。亂聖教故教法滅 第二頌有四句 第一句明無教授本師 自覺者。佛也 已歸勝寂靜者。歸涅槃也。諸寂靜中。涅槃最勝故言勝。明教授本師也 第二句明無弟子教授 持彼教者。謂聖弟子 多隨滅者。謂大弟子多隨佛涅槃也。多者顯亦有少。明傳教授人亦無也 第三句 世無依怙者。明無上兩人也 喪眾德者。以無師故無定慧德也 第四句 無鉤制惑者。定慧如鉤。惑如狂象。狂象無鉤制御。隨意東西。諸惑無定慧鉤。亦隨意流轉。由斯證法將滅 第
【現代漢語翻譯】 謙也。
論。判法正理唯在世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）及諸如來（佛的稱號）大聖弟子者。唯是遮余非佛世尊。及大聖弟子 準此中意。商略婆沙。存其六足。及本論也 毗婆沙師。非是世尊。及大聖弟子故 六足．發智。是大弟子之所造故。不商略。
自下有三頌。大文第三勸學流通分。就中有三意。論主造論之時。佛涅槃（佛教術語，指佛的逝世）后九百年中。教．證正法並皆將滅 初一頌傷嘆教法。次一頌傷嘆證法。第三頌勸求證法 就第一頌中有四句 初一句明佛善說教。能開世眼名世眼也。大師涅槃向有千年。故言久閉 第二句明大弟子說教堪為證者多散滅。多言顯有少分 第三句明世眼久閉。能為證者多散滅故。無見真理人也。無見真人故無判教人也 第四句明不見理故鄙尋思。由鄙尋思妄制教故亂聖教。亂聖教故教法滅 第二頌有四句 第一句明無教授本師 自覺者。佛也 已歸勝寂靜者。歸涅槃也。諸寂靜中。涅槃最勝故言勝。明教授本師也 第二句明無弟子教授 持彼教者。謂聖弟子 多隨滅者。謂大弟子多隨佛涅槃也。多者顯亦有少。明傳教授人亦無也 第三句 世無依怙者。明無上兩人也 喪眾德者。以無師故無定慧德也 第四句 無鉤制惑者。定慧如鉤。惑如狂象。狂象無鉤制御。隨意東西。諸惑無定慧鉤。亦隨意流轉。由斯證法將滅 第
【English Translation】 Humility.
Treatise. The correct principles of judging the Dharma reside only in the World-Honored One (Shakyamuni Buddha) and all the Tathagatas (title for a Buddha), the great and holy disciples. This excludes those who are not the Buddha, the World-Honored One, and the great and holy disciples. According to this meaning, carefully consider the Vibhasha, preserving its six feet and the original treatise. The Vibhasha masters are not the World-Honored One or the great and holy disciples; therefore, the Six Feet and Jnanaprasthana, being created by great disciples, are not carefully considered.
From here, there are three verses. The third major section encourages learning and dissemination, containing three intentions. At the time the treatise was composed, nine hundred years after the Buddha's Nirvana (Buddhist term for the passing away of the Buddha), both the teachings and the realization of the true Dharma were about to perish. The first verse laments the teaching of the Dharma. The second verse laments the realization of the Dharma. The third verse encourages seeking the realization of the Dharma. The first verse contains four lines. The first line clarifies that the Buddha skillfully taught the Dharma, capable of opening the eyes of the world, hence the name 'eyes of the world.' The Great Master entered Nirvana nearly a thousand years ago, hence the saying 'long closed.' The second line clarifies that the great disciples who taught the Dharma and were capable of proving it have mostly scattered and perished. 'Mostly' indicates that there are still a few. The third line clarifies that because the eyes of the world are long closed and those capable of proving it have mostly scattered and perished, there are no people who see the true principle. Because there are no people who see the true reality, there are no people who can judge the teachings. The fourth line clarifies that because they do not see the principle, they despise contemplation. Because they despise contemplation and falsely create teachings, they disrupt the holy teachings. Because they disrupt the holy teachings, the teaching of the Dharma perishes. The second verse has four lines. The first line clarifies that there is no original teacher to impart instruction. 'The self-awakened one' is the Buddha. 'Those who have returned to supreme tranquility' refers to Nirvana. Among all tranquil states, Nirvana is the most supreme, hence the word 'supreme,' clarifying the original teacher who imparts instruction. The second line clarifies that there are no disciples to impart instruction. 'Those who uphold his teachings' refers to the holy disciples. 'Mostly follow and perish' refers to the great disciples mostly following the Buddha into Nirvana. 'Mostly' indicates that there are still a few, clarifying that there are also no people to transmit instruction. The third line clarifies that the world has no refuge, indicating that there are no two supreme individuals. 'Losing the virtues of the assembly' is because without a teacher, there is no virtue of Samadhi and Prajna. The fourth line clarifies that there is no hook to control delusion. Samadhi and Prajna are like a hook, and delusion is like a mad elephant. Without a hook to control it, the mad elephant goes wherever it pleases. Without the hook of Samadhi and Prajna, all delusions also flow wherever they please. Because of this, the realization of the Dharma is about to perish.
三頌。四句。初句 既知如來者。法主也 正法者。教證正法也。壽者。一千年也 第二句 漸次淪亡者。謂初百年漸次至九百年也 如至喉者。喻也。如人將死氣盡至喉知死不久。正法漸次淪亡。至九百年將滅不久 第三句 是諸煩惱力增時者。明惡時也。二種正法將滅。眾生煩惱增時 第四句 應求解脫勿放逸。勸學正法也 此中三頌總有十二句。第一四句傷嘆教法滅。第二四句傷嘆證法滅。次兩句雙傷嘆二種正法滅。次一句傷嘆煩惱力增 后一句勸求解脫也。◎
破執我品第九之一
◎我有二種。一五蘊聚集假名為我 二或即蘊．離蘊。別執一物以為實我。五蘊假我不違理．教。論主不破。別執實我違其理．教。障出離因。論主今破。故名破執我也。前之八品廣明自宗。真俗對法順無我理。簡擇諸法。今破外執故於后明。
論。越此于余豈無解脫。此品之中自有二分。一正破我。二勸學無我。準諸經例。問非序分不可分三。就正破我中。復分為三。一總破別計實我。二破異部計我。三破異道計我 就前文中復分為二。一明執我過。二正明破執實我 就前文中復有四段。一問。二答。三徴。四釋。此文問也。越上品所明無我之理別執實我。豈無解脫耶。
論。理必無有。答也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 三頌。四句。初句：『既知如來者，法主也』（如來是佛法的教主）。『正法者，教證正法也』（正法包括教法和證法）。『壽者，一千年也』（佛法住世的時間是一千年）。 第二句：『漸次淪亡者，謂初百年漸次至九百年也』（正法逐漸衰落，指的是從最初的一百年逐漸到九百年）。『如至喉者，喻也』（如同氣息到達喉嚨，是比喻）。『如人將死氣盡至喉知死不久，正法漸次淪亡，至九百年將滅不久』（如同人將要死亡，氣息耗盡到達喉嚨就知道離死不遠了，正法逐漸衰落，到九百年的時候，就快要滅亡了）。 第三句：『是諸煩惱力增時者，明惡時也』（當各種煩惱的力量增強的時候，說明是惡劣的時代）。『二種正法將滅，眾生煩惱增時』（教法和證法兩種正法將要滅亡，眾生的煩惱增長的時候）。 第四句：『應求解脫勿放逸，勸學正法也』（應當尋求解脫，不要放縱懈怠，這是勸勉學習正法）。 此中三頌總有十二句。第一四句傷嘆教法滅。第二四句傷嘆證法滅。次兩句雙傷嘆二種正法滅。次一句傷嘆煩惱力增。后一句勸求解脫也。
破執我品第九之一
我有二種。一五蘊聚集假名為我。二或即蘊、離蘊，別執一物以為實我。五蘊假我不違理、教，論主不破。別執實我違其理、教，障出離因，論主今破。故名破執我也。前之八品廣明自宗，真俗對法順無我理，簡擇諸法。今破外執故於后明。
論：越此于余豈無解脫？此品之中自有二分。一正破我。二勸學無我。準諸經例，問非序分不可分三。就正破我中，復分為三。一總破別計實我。二破異部計我。三破異道計我。就前文中復分為二。一明執我過。二正明破執實我。就前文中復有四段。一問。二答。三徴。四釋。此文問也。越上品所明無我之理別執實我，豈無解脫耶？
論：理必無有。答也。
【English Translation】 English version Three Verses. Four lines each. The first line: 'Those who know the Tathagata (Tathagata: the Buddha), are the masters of the Dharma.' 'The True Dharma (Dharma): includes the teaching and realization of the True Dharma.' 'Longevity (of the Dharma): one thousand years.' The second line: 'Gradual decline (of the Dharma), refers to the gradual decline from the initial hundred years to nine hundred years.' 'Like reaching the throat, is a metaphor.' 'Like a person who is about to die, their breath exhausted and reaching the throat, knows that death is not far off; the True Dharma gradually declines, and by nine hundred years, its extinction is not far off.' The third line: 'When the power of all afflictions increases, it indicates an evil time.' 'When the two kinds of True Dharma are about to perish, and the afflictions of sentient beings increase.' The fourth line: 'One should seek liberation and not be negligent; this encourages the study of the True Dharma.' These three verses have a total of twelve lines. The first four lines lament the extinction of the teaching. The second four lines lament the extinction of the realization. The next two lines jointly lament the extinction of the two kinds of True Dharma. The next line laments the increase in the power of afflictions. The last line encourages seeking liberation.
Chapter Nine, Part One: Refuting the Attachment to Self
There are two kinds of 'self'. One is the aggregation of the five skandhas (skandhas: the five aggregates of existence) which is falsely called 'self'. The other is either identifying with the skandhas or separate from the skandhas, clinging to a particular thing as a real self. The false self of the five skandhas does not contradict reason or the teachings, and the author of the treatise does not refute it. Clinging to a separate, real self contradicts reason and the teachings, and obstructs the cause of liberation, so the author of the treatise now refutes it. Therefore, it is called 'Refuting the Attachment to Self'. The previous eight chapters extensively explain our own school's view, where the conventional and ultimate truths align with the principle of no-self, and discern all phenomena. Now, we refute external attachments, so it is explained later.
Treatise: 'Beyond this, is there no liberation?' This chapter has two parts. First, directly refuting the self. Second, encouraging the study of no-self. According to the examples in various sutras, a question that is not part of the introduction cannot be divided into three. Within the direct refutation of the self, it is further divided into three. First, generally refuting the separately conceived real self. Second, refuting the self as conceived by different schools. Third, refuting the self as conceived by different paths. Within the previous text, it is further divided into two. First, explaining the faults of clinging to the self. Second, directly explaining the refutation of clinging to the real self. Within the previous text, there are four sections. First, a question. Second, an answer. Third, an inquiry. Fourth, an explanation. This text is a question. Beyond the principle of no-self explained in the previous chapter, is there no liberation if one clings to a separate, real self?
Treatise: 'In principle, there is none.' This is the answer.
論。所以者何。徴也。所以越此無我。依有我宗不得解脫。
論。虛妄我執所迷亂故。釋也 釋中有二。先略。后廣。此略釋也。
論。謂此法外至無容解脫。廣釋也。一切煩惱皆因執我。生死之業由煩惱起。三有輪迴因於惑．業。所以執我無容解脫。
論。以何為證至別目我體。第二正破實我也 文中有二。一問。二答。此文問也。
論。于彼所計至現比量故。答也。答中有二。一略。二廣。此略答也。
論。謂若我體至如五色根。廣答也 文中有二。一正明二量。二重釋色根比量。此文初也 有法之中有其二類。若無障緣。或現量得如六境意。或比量得如五色根。若是無法非二量得。離蘊執我非二量得。知體是無。
論。言五色根至如種生芽。重釋五根比量也 文中有三。先喻。次法。后結。此文喻也。如文可解。
論。如是亦見至色根比量。次法說也。如喻可解。
論。于離蘊我至無真我體。后總結也。
論。然犢子部至不一不異。大文第二破異部也 文中有二。一述宗計。二問答應破。此文初也。諸部之中唯犢子部執有實我。謂所知法中有五法藏。謂有為法分為三世。無為第四。不可說法藏第五。與前有為．無為。非一非異。此中且說與蘊。不一不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：論：這是為什麼呢？因為這是徵兆。因為超越這個『無我』，依賴於『有我』的宗派是無法解脫的。 論：因為被虛妄的『我執』所迷惑。釋：解釋中有兩個部分，先是簡略的，然後是詳細的。這是簡略的解釋。 論：意思是說，在這種法之外，根本沒有解脫的可能。這是詳細的解釋。一切煩惱都是因為執著于『我』而產生的，生死的業力由煩惱而起，三有輪迴的原因在於迷惑和業力。所以執著于『我』是無法解脫的。 論：用什麼來證明呢？直到分別標明『我』的本體。第二，正式破斥真實的『我』。文中分為兩個部分，一是提問，二是回答。這段文字是提問。 論：對於他們所設想的，直到現量和比量都無法證明。這是回答。回答也分為兩個部分，一是簡略的，二是詳細的。這是簡略的回答。 論：意思是說，如果『我』的本體，直到像五色根一樣。這是詳細的回答。文中分為兩個部分，一是正面說明兩種量，二是重新解釋色根的比量。這段文字是第一部分。在『有法』之中有兩種型別，如果沒有障礙，或者可以通過現量得到，比如六境意；或者可以通過比量得到，比如五色根。如果是『無法』，就無法通過兩種量得到。離開五蘊而執著于『我』，無法通過兩種量得到，就知道它的本體是不存在的。 論：說到五色根，直到像種子生出芽一樣。這是重新解釋五根的比量。文中分為三個部分，先是比喻，然後是法，最後是結論。這段文字是比喻。如文字所表達的意思一樣可以理解。 論：像這樣也可以看到，直到色根的比量。這是接下來的法說。如比喻所表達的意思一樣可以理解。 論：對於離開五蘊的『我』，直到沒有真實的『我』的本體。這是最後的總結。 論：然而，犢子部，直到不一不異。這是大段文字的第二部分，破斥其他部派。文中分為兩個部分，一是陳述宗派的觀點，二是提問回答並破斥。這段文字是第一部分。在各個部派中，只有犢子部執著于有真實的『我』。他們認為在所知法中，有五種法藏，即有為法分為過去、現在、未來三世，無為法是第四種，不可說法藏是第五種，與前面的有為法和無為法，非一非異。這裡暫且說它與五蘊，不一不異。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: Why is this so? Because it is a sign. Because transcending this 'no-self' (Anatta), relying on the 'self' (Atman) doctrine cannot achieve liberation (Moksha). Treatise: Because of being deluded by the false 'ego-attachment' (Atma-graha). Explanation: There are two parts in the explanation, first brief, then detailed. This is a brief explanation. Treatise: It means that outside of this Dharma, there is absolutely no possibility of liberation. This is a detailed explanation. All afflictions (Kleshas) arise from attachment to 'self', and the karma of birth and death arises from afflictions. The cycle of the three realms (Triloka) is due to delusion and karma. Therefore, attachment to 'self' makes liberation impossible. Treatise: What is the proof? Until specifically identifying the essence of 'self'. Second, formally refuting the real 'self'. The text is divided into two parts, one is a question, and the other is an answer. This text is a question. Treatise: Regarding what they conceive, until neither direct perception (Pratyaksha) nor inference (Anumana) can prove it. This is the answer. The answer is also divided into two parts, one is brief, and the other is detailed. This is a brief answer. Treatise: It means that if the essence of 'self', until like the five sense faculties (Pancha Indriya). This is a detailed answer. The text is divided into two parts, one is to positively explain the two means of knowledge, and the other is to re-explain the inference of the sense faculties. This text is the first part. Among 'things that exist' (Vidyamana), there are two types. If there are no obstacles, it can be obtained either through direct perception, such as the six sense objects and mind; or through inference, such as the five sense faculties. If it is 'something that does not exist' (Avidyamana), it cannot be obtained through either means of knowledge. Attaching to 'self' apart from the five aggregates (Skandhas) cannot be obtained through either means of knowledge, so it is known that its essence is non-existent. Treatise: Speaking of the five sense faculties, until like a seed sprouting. This is re-explaining the inference of the five faculties. The text is divided into three parts, first a metaphor, then the Dharma, and finally a conclusion. This text is a metaphor. It can be understood as the text expresses. Treatise: In this way, it can also be seen, until the inference of the sense faculties. This is the following Dharma explanation. It can be understood as the metaphor expresses. Treatise: Regarding the 'self' apart from the five aggregates, until there is no real essence of 'self'. This is the final conclusion. Treatise: However, the Vatsiputriya school, until neither one nor different. This is the second part of the large section, refuting other schools. The text is divided into two parts, one is to state the school's view, and the other is to question, answer, and refute. This text is the first part. Among the various schools, only the Vatsiputriya school adheres to the existence of a real 'self'. They believe that in the knowable dharmas, there are five dharma treasuries, namely, conditioned dharmas (Samskrta dharmas) are divided into the three times of past, present, and future, unconditioned dharma (Asamskrta dharma) is the fourth, and the inexpressible dharma treasury is the fifth, which is neither one nor different from the preceding conditioned and unconditioned dharmas. Here, let us temporarily say that it is neither one nor different from the five aggregates.
異。即執此法以為我體。此五法藏。同大般若五種法海。謂三世．無為。及不可說。不可說者是勝義諦犢子部不染邪智。謂勝義諦是其我體。不同外道染污邪智執有實我是我見攝。
論。此應思擇為實為假。此第二問答破也。此論主問也。此第一破假實也。
論。實有假有相別云何。外反問假實相也。
論。別有事物至如乳酪等。論主答假實相也。色等四境別有體性。是實有相。乳．酪等物四境共成。是假有相。
論。許實許假各有何失。外問假實過也。
論。體若是實至徒執實有。出實有過也。一有別性故。與蘊一向異過。如別別蘊。二有因過。有實體者皆有因生。如色等蘊。若謂無因而有實體應是無為。同於外道見。若是無為又應無用。皆違汝宗。徒執實有。
論體若是假便同我說。非是汝宗。出假過也。
論。非我所在至立補特伽羅。外轉計也。
論。如是謬言至亦同此失。自下第二破依蘊也。汝言依蘊者。為攬諸蘊為依。為因諸蘊名依。二俱有過。皆違自宗過。攬蘊即是假。因蘊即無常。
論。不如是立。外轉計。依義不如論主所立。
論。所立云何。論主徴也。自下第三破喻也。
論。此如世間依薪立火。外答也。
論。如何
【現代漢語翻譯】 異。即執此法以為我體。此五法藏（five aggregates）。同大般若五種法海。謂三世（three times，過去、現在、未來）．無為（unconditioned）。及不可說。不可說者是勝義諦（paramārtha-satya，ultimate truth）。犢子部（Vātsīputrīya，一個佛教部派）不染邪智。謂勝義諦是其我體。不同外道染污邪智執有實我是我見攝。
論。此應思擇為實為假。此第二問答破也。此論主問也。此第一破假實也。
論。實有假有相別云何。外反問假實相也。
論。別有事物至如乳酪等。論主答假實相也。色等四境別有體性。是實有相。乳．酪等物四境共成。是假有相。
論。許實許假各有何失。外問假實過也。
論。體若是實至徒執實有。出實有過也。一有別性故。與蘊（skandha，aggregate）一向異過。如別別蘊。二有因過。有實體者皆有因生。如色等蘊。若謂無因而有實體應是無為。同於外道見。若是無為又應無用。皆違汝宗。徒執實有。
論體若是假便同我說。非是汝宗。出假過也。
論。非我所在至立補特伽羅（pudgala，person）。外轉計也。
論。如是謬言至亦同此失。自下第二破依蘊也。汝言依蘊者。為攬諸蘊為依。為因諸蘊名依。二俱有過。皆違自宗過。攬蘊即是假。因蘊即無常。
論。不如是立。外轉計。依義不如論主所立。
論。所立云何。論主徴也。自下第三破喻也。
論。此如世間依薪立火。外答也。
論。如何
【English Translation】 Different. That is, they cling to this dharma (法, law, teaching) as their self. These five dharma-skandhas (法藏, aggregates of dharma) are the same as the five dharma-seas of the Great Prajñāpāramitā (大般若, Great Perfection of Wisdom). Namely, the three times (三世, past, present, and future), the unconditioned (無為, asaṃskṛta), and the inexpressible. The inexpressible refers to the ultimate truth (勝義諦, paramārtha-satya). The Vātsīputrīya (犢子部, a Buddhist school) does not taint with wrong knowledge. They say that the ultimate truth is their self. This is different from the heretics' tainted wrong knowledge that clings to a real self, which is included in the view of self.
Treatise: This should be considered as real or false. This is the second question and answer to refute it. This is the question of the treatise master. This is the first refutation of the real and the false.
Treatise: What is the difference between the real and the false? The outsider asks back about the characteristics of the real and the false.
Treatise: There are separate things, such as milk and cheese. The treatise master answers the characteristics of the real and the false. The four objects of sense, such as form, have separate natures. This is the characteristic of the real. Things like milk and cheese are formed by the combination of the four objects of sense. This is the characteristic of the false.
Treatise: What are the faults of admitting the real and admitting the false? The outsider asks about the faults of the real and the false.
Treatise: If the substance is real, then it is in vain to cling to the real. This points out the faults of the real. First, because it has a separate nature, it has the fault of being completely different from the skandhas (蘊, aggregates). Like separate skandhas. Second, it has the fault of having a cause. Those with a real substance are all produced by a cause. Like the skandhas such as form. If you say that there is a real substance without a cause, it should be unconditioned. This is the same as the view of the heretics. If it is unconditioned, it should be useless. All of these contradict your own doctrine. It is in vain to cling to the real.
Treatise: If the substance is false, then it is the same as what I say. This is not your doctrine. This points out the faults of the false.
Treatise: It is not where the self is, but the establishment of the pudgala (補特伽羅, person). The outsider changes his argument.
Treatise: Such erroneous words also have the same fault. The second refutation of relying on the skandhas is below. You say that it relies on the skandhas. Is it relying on the collection of the skandhas, or is it relying on the skandhas as a cause? Both have faults. Both contradict your own doctrine. Collecting the skandhas is false. Relying on the skandhas as a cause is impermanent.
Treatise: It is not established in this way. The outsider changes his argument. The meaning of relying is not established as the treatise master established it.
Treatise: What is established? The treatise master asks. The third refutation of the analogy is below.
Treatise: This is like establishing fire based on firewood in the world. The outsider answers.
Treatise: How?
立火可說依薪。論主審定也。
論。謂非離薪至非一非異。外答也。謂非離薪可立有火。明依義。而薪與火非異。明不一異也。
論。若火異薪至所燒即能燒。反難成不一不異也。
論。如是不離蘊至體應成斷。法合也。犢子部所立補特伽羅。非常非斷。
論。仁今於此至火依薪義。自下論主破也。先破火依薪。后破反難不一不異 將破火依薪喻先審定也。
論。何所應說。外反問也。
論。若說應言至名薪名火。更重審定薪火體也。
論。且世共了至時各別故。論主就假火為出火．薪體別。俱是假有。火異於薪。破前不異義。
論。若汝所計至成無常性。破。若同火依薪。其我即是無常。與蘊異也。違其前說非無常不異之義。
論。若謂即于至因暖觸故。就實火破也 若八微同聚。暖觸是火。餘七是薪。暖觸與七體．相各異。別因俱而生。如何可言依薪立火。已上破火體不依薪也 亦非此火名因薪而立。以立火名因暖觸故。已上破火名不依薪也。
論。若謂所說至或依止義。破轉計。若謂即以俱生。或依止義。名火依薪。非因薪者。即應說補特伽羅與蘊俱生。或依止蘊。違自立宗云不一異也。
論。已分明許至故釋非理重述破異也。汝若言火
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 立火可說依薪（燃料）。論主審定也。
論：謂非離薪（燃料）至非一非異。外答也。謂非離薪（燃料）可立有火。明依義。而薪（燃料）與火非異。明不一異也。
論：若火異薪（燃料）至所燒即能燒。反難成不一不異也。
論：如是不離蘊（五蘊）至體應成斷。法合也。犢子部所立補特伽羅（不可說我），非常非斷。
論：仁今於此至火依薪（燃料）義。自下論主破也。先破火依薪（燃料）。后破反難不一不異。將破火依薪（燃料）喻先審定也。
論：何所應說。外反問也。
論：若說應言至名薪（燃料）名火。更重審定薪（燃料）火體也。
論：且世共了至時各別故。論主就假火為出火．薪（燃料）體別。俱是假有。火異於薪（燃料）。破前不異義。
論：若汝所計至成無常性。破。若同火依薪（燃料）。其我即是無常。與蘊（五蘊）異也。違其前說非無常不異之義。
論：若謂即于至因暖觸故。就實火破也。若八微同聚。暖觸是火。餘七是薪（燃料）。暖觸與七體．相各異。別因俱而生。如何可言依薪（燃料）立火。已上破火體不依薪（燃料）也。亦非此火名因薪（燃料）而立。以立火名因暖觸故。已上破火名不依薪（燃料）也。
論：若謂所說至或依止義。破轉計。若謂即以俱生。或依止義。名火依薪（燃料）。非因薪（燃料）者。即應說補特伽羅（不可說我）與蘊（五蘊）俱生。或依止蘊（五蘊）。違自立宗云不一異也。
論：已分明許至故釋非理重述破異也。汝若言火
【English Translation】 English version It can be said that the existence of fire depends on fuel (薪, xīn). The author of the treatise confirms this.
Treatise: Saying that fire cannot exist apart from fuel (薪, xīn) implies neither oneness nor difference. This is an external response. Saying that fire can be established based on fuel (薪, xīn) clarifies the meaning of dependence. However, fuel (薪, xīn) and fire are not different, clarifying the meaning of neither one nor different.
Treatise: If fire is different from fuel (薪, xīn), then what is burned can burn. This counter-argument establishes neither oneness nor difference.
Treatise: If it is inseparable from the skandhas (蘊, yùn, five aggregates), then the substance should become discontinuous. This is a combination of principles. The Pudgala (補特伽羅, bǔ tè qié luó, the 'ineffable self') established by the Vatsiputriya school is neither permanent nor discontinuous.
Treatise: Now, regarding the meaning of fire depending on fuel (薪, xīn), the author of the treatise refutes it below. First, he refutes fire depending on fuel (薪, xīn), and then he refutes the counter-argument of neither oneness nor difference. The analogy of refuting fire depending on fuel (薪, xīn) is to first confirm the principle.
Treatise: What should be said? This is an external counter-question.
Treatise: If it should be said that it is called fuel (薪, xīn) and called fire, then the substance of fuel (薪, xīn) and fire is reconfirmed.
Treatise: Moreover, the world commonly understands that the fire and fuel (薪, xīn) are distinct at different times. The author of the treatise considers the hypothetical fire as the manifestation of fire, and the fuel (薪, xīn) as a separate substance. Both are hypothetical existences. Fire is different from fuel (薪, xīn), refuting the previous meaning of not being different.
Treatise: If what you calculate leads to impermanence, it is refuted. If it is the same as fire depending on fuel (薪, xīn), then my self is impermanent, which is different from the skandhas (蘊, yùn, five aggregates). This contradicts the previous statement that it is neither impermanent nor different.
Treatise: If it is said that it is due to the cause of warmth and touch, then it is refuted based on real fire. If the eight subtle elements gather together, warmth and touch are fire, and the remaining seven are fuel (薪, xīn). Warmth and touch are different from the seven substances and characteristics. They arise from separate causes together. How can it be said that fire is established based on fuel (薪, xīn)? The above refutes that the substance of fire does not depend on fuel (薪, xīn). Also, the name of this fire is not established because of fuel (薪, xīn), but because the name of fire is established because of warmth and touch. The above refutes that the name of fire does not depend on fuel (薪, xīn).
Treatise: If it is said that what is said means co-arising or dependence, it refutes the changed calculation. If it is said that it means co-arising or dependence, and the name of fire depends on fuel (薪, xīn), but not because of fuel (薪, xīn), then it should be said that the Pudgala (補特伽羅, bǔ tè qié luó, the 'ineffable self') co-arises with the skandhas (蘊, yùn, five aggregates) or depends on the skandhas (蘊, yùn, five aggregates), which contradicts the established doctrine of neither oneness nor difference.
Treatise: It has been clearly admitted, so the explanation is unreasonable, and the refutation of difference is repeated. If you say fire
與薪俱。及依薪故名火依薪。此即分明許火．薪體別。火隨薪滅。如是應許諸蘊若無。補特伽羅體亦非有。而不許然。故釋非理。
論。然彼於此至舉以為難第二破難也。此破前難異薪薪應不熱。若熱謂暖觸。即暖觸異薪。即薪非熱。體相各異故。若謂暖合。則薪暖合。許薪名熱。雖薪火異。而過不成。如何此中舉以為難。
論。若謂木等至無理能遮。即薪是火難。既薪即是火。依義謂何。即所喻法定應是一。無理能遮。
論。故彼所言至理不成立。總結火依薪喻。進退推徴理不成立。論。又彼若許至及非第五故。第四難轉計不可說一異也。
論。若我與蘊一異俱不可說者。牒彼計也。彼立三世．無為非不可說。第五法藏是不可說。若汝計我不可說與蘊一．異者。五種爾焰亦應不可說。以我不可說異。是第五故。亦不可說不異。非第五故 爾焰者。新譯名所知。舊譯名智母。真諦法師釋云。我若異前四則是可言。不應立第五為不可言。若不異前四。則唯有四。無第五不可言。故不可言第五及非第五。
論。又彼施設至為何所說。第五破施設也。論主重審定也。
論。若言此施設至故唯托蘊。論主進．退出過也 若言依蘊。假義自成。若言依補特伽羅。即違前立依于蘊也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 與薪柴俱在。以及因為依賴薪柴的緣故，所以稱火依賴薪柴。這清楚地表明瞭火和薪柴的本體是不同的。火隨著薪柴的熄滅而熄滅。如果這樣，就應該承認諸蘊如果不存在，補特伽羅（Pudgala，意為'人'或'個體'）的本體也不存在。但是他們不承認這樣，所以這種解釋是不合理的。
論：然而他們在這裡提出，用『舉以為難』來作為第二次破斥困難的方法。這是爲了破斥前面提出的『不同的薪柴不應該發熱』的難題。如果發熱，那就是暖觸。那麼暖觸就與薪柴不同，薪柴就不是熱的，因為它們的本體和相狀各不相同。如果說是暖和薪柴結合在一起，那麼薪柴和暖結合，就承認薪柴被稱為熱。即使薪柴和火不同，這個過失也不能成立。為什麼在這裡提出這個問題作為難題呢？
論：如果說木頭等同於火，沒有道理可以阻止。既然薪柴就是火，那麼依賴的意義是什麼呢？這意味著所比喻的法和定義應該是一致的，沒有道理可以阻止。
論：所以他們所說的道理不能成立。總結來說，火依賴薪柴的比喻，無論進退都不能成立。論：此外，如果他們承認一和異都不可說，以及非第五種情況，那麼第四個難題就變成了不可說的一和異。
論：如果我說我和蘊是一還是異都不可說，這是重複他們的觀點。他們認為三世（過去、現在、未來）和無為法不是不可說的。第五法藏是不可說的。如果你們認為我與蘊的一和異是不可說的，那麼五種爾焰（五種所知）也應該是不可說的。因為我不可說異，是第五種情況。也不可說不異，因為不是第五種情況。爾焰，新譯為所知，舊譯為智母。真諦法師解釋說，如果我與前四種不同，那麼就是可以說的，不應該把第五種設定為不可說。如果與前四種沒有不同，那麼就只有四種，沒有第五種不可說。所以不可說第五種以及非第五種。
論：此外，如果設立，那麼是爲了什麼而說呢？這是第五次破斥設立。論主再次審定。
論：如果說這種設立依賴於蘊，所以只能依託于蘊。論主進退兩難。如果說是依賴於蘊，那麼假說的意義自然成立。如果說是依賴於補特伽羅（Pudgala），那麼就違背了前面所說的依賴於蘊。
【English Translation】 English version: It exists together with fuel. And because of relying on fuel, it is called fire relying on fuel. This clearly shows that the substance of fire and fuel are different. Fire extinguishes as the fuel extinguishes. If so, it should be admitted that if the Skandhas (Skandhas, meaning 'aggregates' or 'heaps' that constitute a person's mental and physical existence) do not exist, the substance of Pudgala (Pudgala, meaning 'person' or 'individual') also does not exist. But they do not admit this, so this explanation is unreasonable.
Treatise: However, they raise here, using 'raising as a difficulty' as the second method of refuting the difficulty. This is to refute the previous difficulty that 'different fuel should not generate heat'. If it generates heat, then that is warm touch. Then warm touch is different from fuel, and fuel is not hot, because their substance and characteristics are different. If it is said that warmth and fuel are combined, then fuel and warmth combine, and it is admitted that fuel is called hot. Even if fuel and fire are different, this fault cannot be established. Why is this question raised here as a difficulty?
Treatise: If it is said that wood is the same as fire, there is no reason to prevent it. Since fuel is fire, then what is the meaning of reliance? This means that the law and definition being compared should be consistent, and there is no reason to prevent it.
Treatise: Therefore, what they say cannot be established. In summary, the analogy of fire relying on fuel cannot be established whether advancing or retreating. Treatise: Furthermore, if they admit that one and different are both unspeakable, and the non-fifth case, then the fourth difficulty becomes the unspeakable one and different.
Treatise: If I say that whether I and the Skandhas are one or different is unspeakable, this is repeating their view. They believe that the three times (past, present, future) and the unconditioned Dharma are not unspeakable. The fifth Dharmakosa (Dharmakosa, meaning 'treasury of dharma') is unspeakable. If you think that the one and different of I and the Skandhas are unspeakable, then the five kinds of Alaya-vijñana (Alaya-vijñana, meaning 'storehouse consciousness') should also be unspeakable. Because I am unspeakably different, it is the fifth case. It is also unspeakably not different, because it is not the fifth case. Alaya-vijñana, newly translated as 'what is known', old translation as 'mother of wisdom'. The Tripitaka Master Paramārtha explains that if I am different from the previous four, then it can be said, and the fifth should not be established as unspeakable. If there is no difference from the previous four, then there are only four, and there is no fifth unspeakable. Therefore, the fifth and non-fifth are unspeakable.
Treatise: Furthermore, if it is established, then what is it said for? This is the fifth refutation of establishment. The Treatise Master re-examines.
Treatise: If it is said that this establishment relies on the Skandhas, so it can only rely on the Skandhas. The Treatise Master is in a dilemma. If it is said that it relies on the Skandhas, then the meaning of the hypothetical is naturally established. If it is said that it relies on Pudgala (Pudgala), then it violates the previous statement of relying on the Skandhas.
論。若謂有蘊至此依蘊立。論主又牒計。計云。由有蘊故知有補特伽羅。故前宗依蘊而立。
論。是即諸色至言依眼等。論主破前計也。因蘊知有我。說我依于蘊。因眼知有色。應說色依眼。
論。又且應說至何識所識。論主審識識也。
論。六識所識。答也。
論。所以者何。論主徴也。
論。若於一時至與法一異。彼宗釋也。由因識色等故知有補特伽羅。故說補特伽羅六識所識。
論。若爾至與觸一異。論主難成假也。因知四境。知有假乳。乳與四境非一非異。四境是實。而乳是假。因識色等而知於我。我應是假。
論。勿乳等成四至是假非實。結成難也。如四境成乳。乳不分四。又不可說乳非四所成。由此喻顯也。總依諸蘊施設有補特伽羅。猶如世間總依色等四境施設乳等。是假非實。
論。又彼所說至亦可了。論主重審定破了我時也。眼識識色。因茲知有補特伽羅。為因了色方了有我。爲了色時亦了於我。
論。若說諸色至色異眼等。破色爲了我因。于眼等了于諸色。色與眼等條然體別。因於色等了我之時。因何我與色等而言不異。
論。若了色時至別有能了。破了色時即了於我。兩關定也。
論。若色能了至必由分別立故。破能了
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 論：如果說有蘊（skandha，構成個體的要素）存在，那麼補特伽羅（pudgala，個體或人）就依蘊而立。論主再次提出質問：你們認為，因為有蘊的存在，所以知道有補特伽羅。因此，之前的宗派是依據蘊來建立補特伽羅的。 論：『是即諸色至言依眼等』，論主駁斥之前的觀點。因為通過蘊的存在而得知有『我』，就說『我』依賴於蘊。那麼，因為通過眼的存在而得知有色，是否應該說色依賴於眼呢？ 論：而且，應該說色是由哪個識（vijñāna，意識）所識別的呢？論主審視『識』。 論：六識（ṣaḍ-vijñāna，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）所識別。這是回答。 論：為什麼呢？論主提出疑問。 論：如果在一時之間……與法（dharma，事物或現象）是一還是異？這是他們的解釋。因為通過識別色等，所以知道有補特伽羅，因此說補特伽羅是被六識所識別的。 論：如果這樣，……與觸（sparśa，感覺）是一還是異？論主用一個虛假的例子來反駁。因為通過識別地、水、火、風四境，知道有假想的乳酪。乳酪與四境既不是一也不是異。四境是真實的，而乳酪是虛假的。因為通過識別色等而得知有『我』，那麼『我』也應該是虛假的。 論：不要讓乳酪等變成四境……是假而非真。總結並完成反駁。就像四境構成乳酪，乳酪並不等同於四境的任何一個，也不能說乳酪不是由四境構成的。這個比喻顯示，總的來說，依據諸蘊而施設補特伽羅，就像世間總的來說依據色等地、水、火、風四境而施設乳酪等，是虛假的而不是真實的。 論：而且，他們所說的……也可以瞭解。論主再次審視並否定了『我』的存在。眼識識別色，因此知道有補特伽羅。是爲了瞭解色之後才瞭解有『我』，還是在瞭解色的時候也瞭解了『我』？ 論：如果說諸色……色與眼等不同。駁斥了色是瞭解『我』的原因。在眼等中瞭解諸*（此處原文有誤，應為『色』），色與眼等明顯不同。因為通過色等了解『我』的時候，為什麼『我』與色等又說成不是不同的呢？ 論：如果在瞭解色的時候……另外有能瞭解的。駁斥了了解色的時候就瞭解了『我』。這是兩個關鍵的確定。 論：如果色能瞭解……必定通過分別才能成立。駁斥了能瞭解。
【English Translation】 English version: Treatise: If it is said that there are skandhas (aggregates, the elements constituting an individual), then the pudgala (individual or person) is established based on the skandhas. The treatise master further questions: You argue that because there are skandhas, it is known that there is a pudgala. Therefore, the previous school establishes the pudgala based on the skandhas. Treatise: 'That is, all forms...the statement depends on the eyes, etc.' The treatise master refutes the previous argument. Because knowing 'I' through the existence of the skandhas, it is said that 'I' depends on the skandhas. Then, because knowing form through the existence of the eye, should it be said that form depends on the eye? Treatise: Moreover, it should be said by which vijñāna (consciousness) is form cognized? The treatise master examines 'consciousness'. Treatise: Cognized by the six vijñānas (ṣaḍ-vijñāna, eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, and mind-consciousness). This is the answer. Treatise: Why is that? The treatise master raises a question. Treatise: If at one time...is it one with or different from the dharmas (things or phenomena)? This is their explanation. Because knowing the pudgala through the cognition of form, etc., it is said that the pudgala is cognized by the six consciousnesses. Treatise: If so,...is it one with or different from contact (sparśa, sensation)? The treatise master refutes with a false example. Because knowing the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind, it is known that there is imagined cheese. The cheese is neither the same as nor different from the four elements. The four elements are real, while the cheese is false. Because knowing 'I' through the cognition of form, etc., then 'I' should also be false. Treatise: Do not let the cheese, etc., become the four elements...it is false and not real. Concluding and completing the refutation. Just as the four elements constitute cheese, the cheese is not divided into the four, nor can it be said that the cheese is not made of the four. This analogy shows that, in general, the pudgala is provisionally designated based on the skandhas, just as in the world, cheese, etc., are provisionally designated based on the four elements of earth, water, fire, and wind, and are false and not real. Treatise: Moreover, what they say...can also be understood. The treatise master re-examines and denies the existence of 'I'. Eye-consciousness cognizes form, and therefore it is known that there is a pudgala. Is it to understand 'I' after understanding form, or to understand 'I' when understanding form? Treatise: If it is said that all forms...form is different from the eyes, etc. Refuting that form is the cause of understanding 'I'. In the eyes, etc., understanding the * (here the original text is wrong, it should be 'form'), form is clearly different from the eyes, etc. Because when understanding 'I' through form, etc., why is 'I' said to be not different from form, etc.? Treatise: If when understanding form...there is another that can understand. Refuting that understanding 'I' when understanding form. These are two key determinations. Treatise: If form can understand...it must be established through discrimination. Refuting the ability to understand.
同也 文中有三重破。一體同破。若色能了即能了我。即應許我體即是色。二即色假立破。或唯於色假立於我。三無二分別破。若即能了色了於我者。或不應有如是分別如是類是色。如是類是我。若無如是二種分別。如何立有色有我。有性必由分別立故。
論。若於此中至徴難亦然。破能了別也。若先了色。后了我者。了時別故。我應異色。如黃異青。前異后等。乃至。法境兩關徴難。其義亦然。
論。若彼救言至便壞自宗。破轉救也 我之與色不一．異故。色．我能了亦不一．異者。破云。我非有為。可言與色等不一．不異。能了是有為法。如何得說非定一異。若許非有為者。便違自宗。
論。又若實有至皆無有我。出違教失。
論。又彼既許至為緣何起。破眼識得我也。兩關定也。
論。若緣色起至如聲處等故。破緣色起也。若緣色起。即不了我。如不了聲。聲非是色。了色不了聲。我非是色了色不了我。
論。謂若有識至定非眼識所了。又以所緣緣難。色是眼識所緣緣。眼識能了色。我非眼識所緣緣。但是因眼識知者。如何眼識能了於我。
論。若眼識起至由二緣故。破眼識了我及色。違三經。此違二緣生識經也。經云。二緣生眼識者。謂眼及色。不言三緣眼．色
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『同也』，文中包含三重破斥。第一是本體同一的破斥。如果色蘊能夠了別，就能了別我，那就應該承認我的本體就是色蘊。第二是即色假立的破斥。或者說，僅僅在色蘊上假立為我。第三是無二分別的破斥。如果色蘊能夠了別，並且了別我，那麼就不應該有這樣的分別：『這是色蘊』，『這是我』。如果沒有這兩種分別，如何能成立有色蘊有我呢？有自性必定是通過分別而成立的。
論：如果在此中進行征難，也是一樣的。這是破斥能了別。如果先了別色蘊，后了別我，因爲了別的時間不同，我應該和色蘊不同，就像黃色不同於青色，前面不同於後面等等。乃至法和境兩方面的征難，道理也是一樣的。
論：如果他們辯解說，這就破壞了自己的宗義。這是破斥轉救。如果我和色蘊既不是一，也不是異，色蘊和我能了別也不是既不是一，也不是異。破斥說：我不是有為法，不能說和色蘊等既不是一，也不是異。能了別是有為法，怎麼能說不是確定的一或異呢？如果承認我不是有為法，就違背了自己的宗義。
論：又如果實有我，那麼都將沒有我。這是指出違背教義的過失。
論：又他們既然承認，那麼因為什麼而生起呢？這是破斥眼識得到我。這是兩方面的確定。
論：如果緣於色蘊而生起，就像聲音和處所等等一樣。這是破斥緣於色蘊而生起。如果緣於色蘊而生起，就不能了別我，就像不能了別聲音一樣。聲音不是色蘊，了別色蘊就不能了別聲音，我不是色蘊，了別色蘊就不能了別我。
論：如果說有識，那麼一定不是眼識所了別的。又用所緣緣來征難。色蘊是眼識的所緣緣，眼識能夠了別色蘊。我不是眼識的所緣緣，只是因為眼識才知道的。眼識怎麼能夠了別我呢？
論：如果眼識生起，是因為兩種緣故。這是破斥眼識了別我和色蘊。違背了三部經。這是違背了二緣生識經。經中說：二緣生眼識，就是眼和色蘊，沒有說三緣，眼、色蘊。
【English Translation】 English version: 'The same,' the text contains a threefold refutation. The first is the refutation of identity of substance. If the Skandha of Form (色蘊, Sè yùn) can discern, then it can discern 'I' (我, Wǒ), then it should be admitted that the substance of 'I' is the Skandha of Form. The second is the refutation of the false establishment of 'I' in Form. Or it is said that 'I' is falsely established only in the Skandha of Form. The third is the refutation of non-dual distinction. If the Skandha of Form can discern and discern 'I', then there should be no such distinction as 'This is the Skandha of Form,' 'This is I.' If there is no such dual distinction, how can it be established that there is Form and there is 'I'? Having a nature must be established through distinction.
Treatise: If one raises difficulties in this regard, it is the same. This is refuting the ability to discern. If one first discerns Form and then discerns 'I', because the times of discernment are different, 'I' should be different from Form, just as yellow is different from blue, the former is different from the latter, and so on. Even the difficulties concerning both Dharma (法, Fǎ) and object (境, Jìng) are the same in principle.
Treatise: If they defend by saying that this would destroy their own doctrine. This is refuting the counter-defense. If 'I' and Form are neither one nor different, and the discernment of Form and 'I' is also neither one nor different. The refutation says: 'I' is not a conditioned Dharma (有為法, Yǒuwéi fǎ), so it cannot be said that it is neither one nor different from Form. Discernment is a conditioned Dharma, how can it be said that it is not definitely one or different? If it is admitted that 'I' is not a conditioned Dharma, then it contradicts their own doctrine.
Treatise: Furthermore, if 'I' truly exists, then there would be no 'I' at all. This points out the fault of contradicting the teachings.
Treatise: Furthermore, since they admit, then what is the cause of its arising? This is refuting that eye-consciousness (眼識, Yǎnshì) obtains 'I'. This is a two-fold determination.
Treatise: If it arises from Form, just like sound and location, etc. This is refuting that it arises from Form. If it arises from Form, then it cannot discern 'I', just as it cannot discern sound. Sound is not Form, discerning Form does not discern sound, 'I' is not Form, discerning Form does not discern 'I'.
Treatise: If it is said that there is consciousness, then it is definitely not discerned by eye-consciousness. Furthermore, the difficulty is raised with the objective condition (所緣緣, Suǒ yuán yuán). Form is the objective condition of eye-consciousness, and eye-consciousness can discern Form. 'I' is not the objective condition of eye-consciousness, but is only known because of eye-consciousness. How can eye-consciousness discern 'I'?
Treatise: If eye-consciousness arises, it is because of two conditions. This is refuting that eye-consciousness discerns 'I' and Form. It contradicts three Sutras. This contradicts the Sutra on the arising of consciousness from two conditions. The Sutra says: 'Eye-consciousness arises from two conditions, namely the eye and Form,' it does not say three conditions, the eye, Form.
．我也。
論。又契經說至皆緣眼色故。違第二經也。經既言皆緣眼．色。如何得有緣眼．我者。即壞皆義。
論。又若爾者至皆無常性。違第三經也。經說生識緣者。皆是無常。我若生識。應是無常。
論。若彼遂謂至便壞自宗。破轉計也。若轉計云。我非識所緣。應非所識。若非所識。即非所知。汝既不知。如何立有。若不立有。便壞自宗。
論。又若許為六識所識至為難準此。破六識識也 文中有二。一違理。二違經。此違理也。彼宗立與色等不一不異。若眼識識故。即異聲．香等。如色。若耳識識。即異色．香等。如聲。余識所識為難。準此。
論。又立此為六識所識至彼依意故。第二違經失也。若我眼見。及耳聞等。即是異根。亦能受用異根行處。即違經說。梵志當知。五根行處境界各別。各唯受用自所行處。及自境界。非有異根亦能受用異根行處及異根境。五根唯受用自境界。故受用五根行處。及意境界。唯依意故。
論。或不應執至有違宗過。縱轉計也。若依本宗是五根境。即違經過若轉計此非五根境。即違宗過。
論。若爾至及自境界。犢子部引經難也。以經說五根境各別。故不許一我兼五根取。六生喻經。說六根境有別故。應意不能取五根境。經以六
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：我也。（指犢子部主張的『我』）
論：又《契經》（Sutra，佛經）說，一切（識）都緣于眼和色，這違反了第二部經。既然經中說一切都緣于眼和色，怎麼會有緣于眼和『我』的情況呢？這就破壞了『一切』的含義。
論：又如果這樣，一切都應該是無常的，這違反了第三部經。經中說生起識的緣都是無常的。如果『我』生起識，就應該是無常的。
論：如果他們進一步認為，那就破壞了自己的宗義。（這是）駁斥（犢子部的）轉變計策。如果（犢子部）轉變計策說，『我』不是識所緣的，那就不應該被識所認識。如果不是被識所認識的，那就不是被知曉的。既然你不知道，如何能立『有』呢？如果不立『有』，就破壞了自己的宗義。
論：又如果允許『我』為六識所識，那就難以以此為標準。（這是）駁斥六識識『我』。（這一段）文中有兩個方面：一是違背道理，二是違背經典。這是違背道理。他們的宗義認為『我』與色等既不相同也不相異。如果眼識能識『我』，那麼『我』就與聲、香等不同，如同色一樣。如果耳識能識『我』，那麼『我』就與色、香等不同，如同聲一樣。其餘的識所識的『我』就難以以此為標準了。
論：又立此『我』為六識所識，這是依據他們的意願。（這是）第二個違背經典之處。如果『我』能眼見，以及耳聞等，那就是異根，也能受用異根的行處。這就違背了經中所說：『梵志（Brahmin，古印度的一種祭司階層）應當知道，五根的行處和境界各不相同，各自只能受用自己所行之處和自己的境界，沒有異根也能受用異根的行處和異根境界的情況。』五根只能受用自己的境界，所以受用五根的行處，以及意的境界，只能依據意。
論：或者不應該執著（『我』是五根境），否則就有違背宗義的過失。（這是）縱容（犢子部的）轉變計策。如果依據本宗，『我』是五根的境界，那就違背了經典。如果轉變計策說『我』不是五根的境界，那就違背了宗義的過失。
論：如果這樣，以及自己的境界。（這是）犢子部引用經典來辯難。因為經中說五根的境界各不相同，所以不允許一個『我』兼取五根的境界。《六生喻經》說六根的境界有區別，所以意不能取五根的境界。經以六
【English Translation】 English version On: 'I also.' (Referring to the 'I' asserted by the Vatsiputriya school.)
On: Furthermore, the Sutra (契經) states that everything (consciousness) arises from the eye and form, which contradicts the second Sutra. Since the Sutra says that everything arises from the eye and form, how can there be something arising from the eye and 'I'? This destroys the meaning of 'everything'.
On: Moreover, if that were the case, everything should be impermanent, which contradicts the third Sutra. The Sutra says that the conditions for the arising of consciousness are all impermanent. If the 'I' gives rise to consciousness, it should be impermanent.
On: If they further claim that, then they would destroy their own doctrine. (This is) refuting the changed strategy (of the Vatsiputriya school). If (the Vatsiputriya school) changes its strategy and says that the 'I' is not an object of consciousness, then it should not be cognized by consciousness. If it is not cognized by consciousness, then it is not known. Since you do not know it, how can you establish its existence? If you do not establish its existence, you destroy your own doctrine.
On: Furthermore, if it is allowed that the 'I' is cognized by the six consciousnesses, then it is difficult to use this as a standard. (This is) refuting the six consciousnesses cognizing the 'I'. (This section) has two aspects: one is contrary to reason, and the other is contrary to the scriptures. This is contrary to reason. Their doctrine holds that the 'I' is neither the same nor different from form, etc. If eye-consciousness can cognize the 'I', then the 'I' is different from sound, smell, etc., like form. If ear-consciousness can cognize the 'I', then the 'I' is different from form, smell, etc., like sound. The 'I' cognized by the other consciousnesses is difficult to use this as a standard.
On: Furthermore, establishing this 'I' as cognized by the six consciousnesses is based on their intention. (This is) the second fault of contradicting the scriptures. If the 'I' can see with the eye and hear with the ear, etc., then it is a different sense faculty and can also experience the sphere of activity of a different sense faculty. This contradicts what the Sutra says: 'Brahmin (梵志), you should know that the spheres of activity and objects of the five sense faculties are different from each other. Each can only experience its own sphere of activity and its own object. There is no case where a different sense faculty can also experience the sphere of activity and object of a different sense faculty.' The five sense faculties can only experience their own objects, so experiencing the sphere of activity of the five sense faculties, as well as the object of the mind, depends only on the mind.
On: Or one should not cling to (the 'I' as an object of the five sense faculties), otherwise there would be the fault of contradicting the doctrine. (This is) tolerating the changed strategy (of the Vatsiputriya school). If, according to their own doctrine, the 'I' is the object of the five sense faculties, then it contradicts the scriptures. If they change their strategy and say that the 'I' is not the object of the five sense faculties, then there is the fault of contradicting their own doctrine.
On: If that is the case, as well as its own object. (This is) the Vatsiputriya school using the scriptures to argue. Because the Sutra says that the objects of the five sense faculties are different from each other, it is not allowed that one 'I' simultaneously takes the objects of the five sense faculties. The 'Six Similes of Birth Sutra' says that the objects of the six sense faculties are different, so the mind cannot take the objects of the five sense faculties. The Sutra uses six
種眾生。喻於六識。名六生喻經。廣如經說。
論。非此中說至無違前失。論主通經也。經說六根行處．境界各有差別。各別樂求自所行處。及自境界者。非此中說眼等六根。但說眼等增上勢力所引意識。名眼等六根。所以者何。眼等五根。及所生識。無有勢力樂見等故。樂見等者。是五識后意識。獨行意識。不能樂求眼等五根所行境界故。故作是說。六根行處境各別也。無違前說五根各取自境界失。
論。又世尊說至境必同故。論主更重引經。證法外無我。我非所識也 達知是慧。我非達知。非慧境也。慧．識境同證非所識也。
論。諸謂眼見至惡見深坑。釋犢子部云。見我者。即是眼根見色所有之相。所以知然。于見非我謂見我故。彼便蹎墜惡見深坑。若於我見我。何名非我。謂見我也。
論。故佛經中至補特伽羅。引經證即蘊說我也。
論。如人契經至說名為人。重引經證也 于中后四者。謂識．受．想．思。是無色。經部觸即三和故不別說。
論。即於此中至此經了義不應異釋。經說隨義種種名想者。皆是于蘊假立。無別我也。
論。又薄伽梵至是不可說。又引經證。十二處外更無有法也。證我無也若非處攝。證我是無。若是處攝非不可說。
論。彼部所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『種眾生，喻於六識，名六生喻經，廣如經說。』（『種眾生』比喻六識，名為《六生喻經》，詳細內容如經中所說。）
論：『非此中說至無違前失。』論主通經也。經說六根行處、境界各有差別，各別樂求自所行處及自境界者，非此中說眼等六根，但說眼等增上勢力所引意識，名眼等六根。所以者何？眼等五根及所生識，無有勢力樂見等故。樂見等者，是五識后意識、獨行意識，不能樂求眼等五根所行境界故。故作是說，六根行處境各別也。無違前說五根各取自境界失。
論：『又世尊說至境必同故。』論主更重引經，證法外無我，我非所識也。達知是慧，我非達知，非慧境也。慧、識境同證非所識也。
論：『諸謂眼見至惡見深坑。』釋犢子部云：『見我者，即是眼根見色所有之相。』所以知然，于見非我謂見我故。彼便蹎墜惡見深坑。若於我見我，何名非我？謂見我也。
論：『故佛經中至補特伽羅（Pudgala）。』引經證即蘊說我也。
論：『如人契經至說名為人。』重引經證也。于中后四者，謂識、受、想、思，是無色。經部觸即三和故不別說。
論：『即於此中至此經了義不應異釋。』經說隨義種種名想者，皆是于蘊假立，無別我也。
論：『又薄伽梵（Bhagavat）至是不可說。』又引經證。十二處外更無有法也。證我無也若非處攝。證我是無。若是處攝非不可說。
論：『彼部所』
【English Translation】 English version: 'The multitude of beings is likened to the six consciousnesses, named the Six Similes of Birth Sutra, as extensively described in the sutra.' (The 'multitude of beings' is a metaphor for the six consciousnesses, named the 'Six Similes of Birth Sutra,' with detailed content as described in the sutra.)
Treatise: 'It is not said here until there is no violation of previous errors.' The author of the treatise understands the sutra. The sutra says that the realms and boundaries of the six sense organs are different, and each seeks its own realm and boundary. This does not refer to the six sense organs such as the eye, but only to the consciousness induced by the empowering force of the eye, etc., which is called the six sense organs. Why? Because the five sense organs such as the eye and the consciousnesses they produce do not have the power to enjoy seeing, etc. Those who enjoy seeing, etc., are the consciousnesses after the five consciousnesses, the independent consciousnesses, which cannot enjoy seeking the realms of the five sense organs such as the eye. Therefore, it is said that the realms of the six sense organs are different. There is no violation of the previous statement that the five sense organs each take their own realm.
Treatise: 'Moreover, the World Honored One said until the realms must be the same.' The author of the treatise again quotes the sutra to prove that there is no self outside the Dharma, and the self is not knowable. Knowing is wisdom, the self is not knowing, and is not the realm of wisdom. Wisdom and consciousness have the same realm, proving that it is not knowable.
Treatise: 'Those who say that the eye sees fall into the pit of evil views.' The Vatsiputriya school explains: 'Seeing the self is the appearance of the eye root seeing form.' The reason for knowing this is that they consider seeing what is not the self as seeing the self. They then stumble and fall into the pit of evil views. If one sees the self in the self, what is called not-self? It is called seeing the self.
Treatise: 'Therefore, in the Buddhist scriptures, until the Pudgala (person).' Quoting the sutra to prove that the aggregates are said to be the self.
Treatise: 'Like the human sutra until it is called a person.' Again quoting the sutra to prove it. Among them, the latter four, namely consciousness, feeling, conception, and volition, are formless. The Sautrantika school does not separately mention contact because it is the combination of the three.
Treatise: 'Immediately in this until this sutra is definitive and should not be interpreted differently.' The sutra says that the various names and thoughts according to the meaning are all falsely established on the aggregates, and there is no separate self.
Treatise: 'Moreover, the Bhagavat (Blessed One) until it is unspeakable.' Again quoting the sutra to prove that there is no Dharma outside the twelve sense bases. Proving that the self is non-existent. If it is not included in the sense bases, it proves that the self is non-existent. If it is included in the sense bases, it is not unspeakable.
Treatise: 'That school's'
誦至此有實體。論主引犢子部所誦經。離蘊外無我實體。如文可解。
論。頻毗婆羅契經至乃至廣說。又引經證離苦蘊外無別我也。
論。有阿羅漢比丘尼至應知諸蘊。又引羅漢尼誦。證我假也。
論。如世尊至亦都不可得。又引雜阿含證無我也。
論。經說執我至不能清凈。又引經證執我五失也。一謂起我見。乃至越路而行。二于空性中心不悟入。三不能凈信。四不能安住。五不得解脫 由此五失諸聖法于彼不能清凈。
論。此皆非量。犢子部總非前所引經。非聖言量也。
論。所以者何。論主徴非量所以也。
論。於我部中曾不誦故。犢子部答非量所以也。
論。汝宗許是量至為佛言。論主兩關徴也。汝宗許是量。為是部故許是量。為是佛語故許是量。
論。若部是量佛非汝師汝非釋子。以汝部說我違佛說故。
論。若佛言是量者。此所引者皆是佛言。如何非量。
論。彼謂此說至我部不誦故。論主述彼意也。我部不誦。證非佛言。所以非量。
論。此極非理論主非也。
論。非理者何。外反問也。
論。如是經文至故釋非理。論主破。彼部不誦。證非佛言。為極非理。以犢子部不誦。經非唯上爾許。更有多經。彼雖不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 誦讀到這裡，就涉及到了實體的存在問題。論主引用了犢子部（Vatsiputriya，佛教部派之一）所誦的經典，認為在五蘊（skandha，構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）之外，存在一個『我』的實體。這可以按照字面意思來理解。 論：頻毗婆羅契經（Bimbisāra-khyāti-sūtra）乃至廣說。又引用經典來證明，在痛苦的五蘊之外，沒有其他的『我』存在。 論：有阿羅漢比丘尼（Arhat Bhikkhuni，證得阿羅漢果位的比丘尼）乃至應知諸蘊。又引用阿羅漢尼所誦的經典，證明『我』是假有的。 論：如世尊（Bhagavan，佛陀的尊稱）乃至亦都不可得。又引用《雜阿含經》（Saṃyukta Āgama）來證明沒有『我』的存在。 論：經典說執著于『我』乃至不能清凈。又引用經典來證明執著于『我』有五種過失：一是產生我見（ātma-dṛṣṭi，認為存在真實自我的錯誤觀念），乃至越過道路而行；二是對空性（śūnyatā，一切事物皆無自性的佛教概念）的中心思想不能領悟；三是不能產生清凈的信心；四是不能安住于正法；五是不能得到解脫。由於這五種過失，各種聖法（ārya-dharma，神聖的教法）在他們那裡不能得到清凈。 論：這些都不是正確的衡量標準。犢子部所誦的經典，總體上來說，不能作為之前所引用的經典的反駁，不是聖言量（ārya-vacana，聖者的言教，被認為是可靠的依據）。 論：為什麼這樣說呢？論主提出疑問，為什麼犢子部的經典不是正確的衡量標準呢？ 論：因為在我們犢子部中，從來沒有誦讀過這些經典。犢子部回答說，這就是它們不是正確衡量標準的原因。 論：你宗派認為是正確的衡量標準乃至是佛所說。論主從兩個方面提出質疑：你們宗派認為是正確的衡量標準，是因為這是你們部派的說法，所以認為是正確的衡量標準呢？還是因為這是佛所說，所以認為是正確的衡量標準呢？ 論：如果因為是你們部派的說法，所以認為是正確的衡量標準，那麼佛就不是你的老師，你就不是釋迦牟尼佛的弟子。因為你們部派所說的『我』，與佛所說的相違背。 論：如果是佛所說，所以認為是正確的衡量標準，那麼我所引用的這些經典，都是佛所說的，為什麼不是正確的衡量標準呢？ 論：他們認為這種說法乃至我們部派沒有誦讀過。論主陳述對方的觀點：因為我們部派沒有誦讀過這些經典，所以證明這些不是佛所說，因此不是正確的衡量標準。 論：這極其不合道理。論主表示反對。 論：什麼是不合道理呢？對方反問。 論：像這樣的經文乃至所以解釋為不合道理。論主駁斥：僅僅因為你們部派沒有誦讀，就證明這些不是佛所說，這是極其不合道理的。因為犢子部沒有誦讀的經典，不僅僅是上面提到的那些，還有很多其他的經典，他們雖然沒有誦讀。
【English Translation】 English version: Upon reaching this point in the recitation, the issue of the existence of a substantial entity arises. The author of the treatise cites the scriptures recited by the Vatsiputriya (a Buddhist school), asserting that there is a substantial 'self' apart from the five skandhas (the five aggregates that constitute individual existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). This can be understood literally. Treatise: The Bimbisāra-khyāti-sūtra (Sūtra of the Fame of Bimbisāra) and so on, extensively explained. It also cites scriptures to prove that there is no separate 'self' apart from the suffering skandhas. Treatise: There is an Arhat Bhikkhuni (a fully ordained female monastic who has attained Arhatship) and so on, one should understand the skandhas. It also cites the scriptures recited by the Arhat Bhikkhuni, proving that the 'self' is a provisional existence. Treatise: As the Bhagavan (the Blessed One, an epithet for the Buddha) and so on, is also unattainable. It also cites the Saṃyukta Āgama (Connected Discourses) to prove that there is no 'self'. Treatise: The scriptures say that clinging to the 'self' and so on, one cannot be purified. It also cites scriptures to prove that clinging to the 'self' has five faults: first, it gives rise to the view of self (ātma-dṛṣṭi, the erroneous belief in a real self), even to the point of going astray; second, one cannot comprehend the central idea of emptiness (śūnyatā, the Buddhist concept that all things are without inherent existence); third, one cannot generate pure faith; fourth, one cannot abide in the Dharma; fifth, one cannot attain liberation. Due to these five faults, the various noble Dharmas (ārya-dharma, sacred teachings) cannot be purified in them. Treatise: These are not valid standards of measurement. The scriptures recited by the Vatsiputriya school, on the whole, cannot be used to refute the previously cited scriptures; they are not ārya-vacana (the words of the noble ones, considered reliable authority). Treatise: Why is this so? The author of the treatise raises the question: Why are the scriptures of the Vatsiputriya school not valid standards of measurement? Treatise: Because in our Vatsiputriya school, we have never recited these scriptures. The Vatsiputriya school answers that this is the reason why they are not valid standards. Treatise: Your school considers it a valid standard of measurement, even to the point of being the words of the Buddha. The author of the treatise raises questions from two perspectives: Your school considers it a valid standard of measurement, is it because it is the teaching of your school, so you consider it a valid standard of measurement? Or is it because it is the words of the Buddha, so you consider it a valid standard of measurement? Treatise: If it is because it is the teaching of your school, so you consider it a valid standard of measurement, then the Buddha is not your teacher, and you are not a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha. Because the 'self' spoken of by your school contradicts what the Buddha said. Treatise: If it is because it is the words of the Buddha, so you consider it a valid standard of measurement, then these scriptures that I have cited are all the words of the Buddha, why are they not valid standards of measurement? Treatise: They believe this saying, even to the point that our school has not recited it. The author of the treatise states the other party's view: Because our school has not recited these scriptures, it proves that these are not the words of the Buddha, therefore they are not valid standards of measurement. Treatise: This is extremely unreasonable. The author of the treatise expresses opposition. Treatise: What is unreasonable? The other party asks in return. Treatise: Such scriptures and so on, therefore it is explained as unreasonable. The author of the treatise refutes: Merely because your school has not recited them, it proves that these are not the words of the Buddha, this is extremely unreasonable. Because the scriptures that the Vatsiputriya school has not recited are not only those mentioned above, there are many other scriptures that they have not recited.
誦。餘部同誦。何為兇誑總非眾多佛教非真佛說。
論。又于彼部至皆無我性。論主臆度知。彼有說一切法皆非我性經也。以佛教宗無我異外道故。
論。若彼意謂至皆非我。論主取意破也。以我與一切法。不一不異故。經言一切法皆非我性。非謂總無補特伽羅。
論。既爾至經決判故。又引經破也。既一切法非是我故。與我不一不異。故名非我者。我應非是意識所識。經說意．法二緣生識。不說我故。
論。又于余經至想心見倒故。論主又令會此經也。若謂有我。何故經非我計我。名想心見倒。
論。計我成倒至何須會釋。犢子部通經也。經說。計我成倒者。說于非我法上計我是倒。經不言於我上計我是倒。何須會釋。
論。非我者何。論主徴非我法也。
論。謂蘊處界。犢子部答非我計也。
論。便違前說量不一不異。論主難違宗也。若蘊．處．界。是非我法。第五是我。我與蘊等一向非一。如何前說非一．非異。
論。又余經說至妄分別為我。論主引經證。計我唯于非我法上妄計為我。不於我也。
論。又余經言至補特伽羅。又引經證。唯于取蘊計我。不於我起。證定無我也。
論。若爾至有如是色等。犢子部即引前經別文證有我也。既
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 誦：其他部派也同樣背誦（此經）。為什麼說（你們所說的）是虛假的誑語，總的來說不是眾多佛教徒所認可的，不是真正的佛陀所說呢？
論：而且在那些部派的經文中，都說沒有我性（Anatta）。論主的臆測之見。他們說有經文說一切法皆非我性。因為佛教的宗旨是無我，這與外道不同。
論：如果他們的意思是說一切法都不是我。論主抓住他們的意思進行駁斥。因為『我』與一切法，不是完全相同，也不是完全不同。經文說一切法皆非我性，不是說完全沒有補特伽羅（Pudgala，意為『人』或『個體』）。
論：既然這樣，經文已經明確判決了。又引用經文來駁斥。既然一切法都不是『我』，與『我』既不完全相同，也不完全相異，所以稱為『非我』。『我』應該不是意識所能認識的。經文說意和法二者相互作用產生識，沒有說『我』。
論：又在其他的經文中，（說）想、心、見都是顛倒的。論主又使（犢子部）理解此經的含義。如果說有『我』，為什麼經文說把非我當成我，叫做想、心、見顛倒？
論：把非我當成我就是顛倒，何必解釋呢？犢子部（Vatsiputriya）認為這是通用的經文。經文說，把非我當成我就是顛倒，說的是在非我的法上執著為我才是顛倒。經文沒有說在『我』之上執著為我才是顛倒，何必解釋呢？
論：什麼是非我呢？論主追問什麼是非我的法。
論：是蘊、處、界。犢子部回答說，（我們）認為非我就是這些。
論：那就違背了前面所說的（『我』與蘊等）不是完全相同，也不是完全相異的說法。論主責難（犢子部）違背了他們的宗義。如果蘊、處、界是非我的法，第五個（『我』）是『我』，『我』與蘊等完全不是一體的，那為什麼前面又說非一、非異呢？
論：又其他的經文說，虛妄地分別（非我）為我。論主引用經文證明，執著于『我』，只是在非我的法上虛妄地執著為『我』，而不是在『我』之上。
論：又其他的經文說，（只是）在取蘊上執著為補特伽羅（Pudgala）。又引用經文證明，只是在取蘊上執著為『我』，而不是在『我』之上產生（執著）。證明確實沒有『我』。
論：如果這樣，就有這樣的色等（存在）。犢子部就引用前面的經文的另一部分來證明有『我』。
【English Translation】 English version: Recitation: Other schools also recite (this sutra). Why do you say (what you say) is false and deceptive, and generally not recognized by many Buddhists, and not truly spoken by the Buddha?
Treatise: Moreover, in the scriptures of those schools, it is said that there is no self-nature (Anatta). It is the opinion of the treatise master's conjecture. They say that there is a sutra that says all dharmas are without self-nature. Because the doctrine of Buddhism is non-self, which is different from external paths.
Treatise: If they mean that all dharmas are not self. The treatise master seizes their meaning to refute it. Because 'self' and all dharmas are neither completely the same nor completely different. The sutra says that all dharmas are without self-nature, not that there is no Pudgala (meaning 'person' or 'individual') at all.
Treatise: Since this is the case, the sutra has clearly judged. It also quotes the sutra to refute it. Since all dharmas are not 'self', and are neither completely the same nor completely different from 'self', they are called 'non-self'. 'Self' should not be cognizable by consciousness. The sutra says that mind and dharma interact to produce consciousness, but does not mention 'self'.
Treatise: Also, in other sutras, (it says) that thought, mind, and views are all inverted. The treatise master also makes (the Vatsiputriya) understand the meaning of this sutra. If it is said that there is a 'self', why does the sutra say that taking non-self as self is called inverted thought, mind, and views?
Treatise: Taking non-self as self is inversion, why explain it? The Vatsiputriya believes that this is a common sutra. The sutra says that taking non-self as self is inversion, saying that it is inverted to cling to self on non-self dharmas. The sutra does not say that clinging to self on 'self' is inversion, why explain it?
Treatise: What is non-self? The treatise master asks what is non-self dharma.
Treatise: It is the skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus. The Vatsiputriya replied that (we) think that non-self is these.
Treatise: Then it violates the previous statement (that 'self' and skandhas, etc.) are not completely the same, nor completely different. The treatise master accuses (the Vatsiputriya) of violating their doctrine. If skandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus are non-self dharmas, and the fifth ('self') is 'self', 'self' and skandhas, etc. are completely not one, then why did you say before that they are neither one nor different?
Treatise: Also, other sutras say that falsely distinguishing (non-self) as self. The treatise master quotes the sutra to prove that clinging to 'self' is only falsely clinging to 'self' on non-self dharmas, not on 'self'.
Treatise: Also, other sutras say that (it is only) clinging to Pudgala (Pudgala) on the aggregates of grasping. It also quotes the sutra to prove that it is only clinging to 'self' on the aggregates of grasping, not arising (clinging) on 'self'. It proves that there is indeed no 'self'.
Treatise: If so, there are such things as form, etc. The Vatsiputriya then quotes another part of the previous sutra to prove that there is a 'self'.
言我有色等。故知有我。
論。此經為顯至如聚如流。論主通經也。此經文是以宿住智。緣過去生。一相續身有色等事。若見過去實有我者。即應聖人起身見失。此經前文。說無有我。或應誹撥言無此經。是故此經。依總假我。說有色等。如聚如流無別實物。
論。若爾至可能遍知。違生滅故。犢子部述無我不能遍知。有我能遍知也。
論。補特伽羅至汝所許宗。論主出由我遍知失。汝宗立我。非斷．非常。如汝此說我即是常。違汝所許我非常也。
論。我等不言至頓遍知故。論主通難也。經言。佛有一切智者。但約相續有堪能。非於一念頓遍知也。
論。故於此中至非由頓遍知。論主引誦證也。
論。如何得知至非我遍知。犢子部徴也。
論。說佛世尊有三世故。論主答也 說能知一切法者。是佛世尊說佛世尊有三世故知非是我。據相續說知於一切。
論。於何所說。續子部問也。
論。如有頌言至皆滅眾生憂。論主引頌答也。
論。汝宗唯許至故定應爾。論主審定。一切智相續假說。非是我也。汝蘊有三世。我無三世。經說佛有三世故。定知我宗就相續說。非我知也。◎
俱舍論疏卷第二十九 大正藏第 41 冊 No. 1822 俱
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 說我有色等，所以知道有我。
論：此經是爲了顯示至如聚如流的道理。論主通達經義。此經文是憑藉宿住智，緣於過去生，一相續身有色等事。如果認為過去實有我，那麼聖人起身見就會出錯。此經前文說沒有我，或者應該誹謗說沒有這部經。因此，此經是依據總假我，說有色等，如聚如流，沒有別的實物。
論：如果這樣，至可能遍知，就違背了生滅的道理。犢子部認為無我不能遍知，有我才能遍知。
論：補特伽羅（Pudgala，意為人我）至你所許的宗義。論主指出由我遍知的錯誤。你們宗派立我，非斷非常。如果像你們這樣說，我就是常，就違背了你們所許的我非常的觀點。
論：我們不說至頓遍知，論主是爲了消除疑問。經中說，佛有一切智者，但只是就相續而言，有這種堪能，不是在一念之間就能頓遍知。
論：所以在此中至非由頓遍知。論主引用經文來證明。
論：如何得知至非我遍知？犢子部提出疑問。
論：因為說佛世尊有三世。論主回答。說能知一切法者，是佛世尊，說佛世尊有三世，所以知道不是我。是根據相續來說，知道一切。
論：在何處所說？續子部問。
論：如有頌言至皆滅眾生憂。論主引用偈頌回答。
論：你們宗派只允許至所以必定是這樣。論主審定。一切智是相續假說，不是我。你們的蘊有三世，我沒有三世。經中說佛有三世，所以必定知道我宗是就相續說的，不是我知。
《俱舍論疏》卷第二十九 《大正藏》第41冊 No. 1822
【English Translation】 English version It is said that I have form, etc., therefore it is known that there is an 'I'.
Treatise: This sutra is to reveal the principle of 'as an aggregate, as a stream'. The author of the treatise understands the meaning of the sutra. This sutra text relies on the knowledge of past lives, focusing on the past life, the continuous body with form, etc. If it is believed that there is a real 'I' in the past, then the Arhat's (聖人) arising view would be mistaken. The previous text of this sutra says that there is no 'I', or it should be slandered that there is no such sutra. Therefore, this sutra relies on the general false 'I' to say that there is form, etc., like an aggregate, like a stream, without any other real substance.
Treatise: If so, then 'to be able to know universally' contradicts the principle of arising and ceasing. The Vatsiputriya (犢子部) school believes that without an 'I', one cannot know universally, but with an 'I', one can know universally.
Treatise: Pudgala (補特伽羅, meaning 'person' or 'self') to your accepted doctrine. The author of the treatise points out the error of 'knowing universally by the I'. Your school establishes the 'I' as neither permanent nor impermanent. If you say that the 'I' is permanent, then it contradicts your accepted view that the 'I' is impermanent.
Treatise: We do not say 'to know universally at once', the author of the treatise is to resolve the difficulty. The sutra says that the Buddha is omniscient, but this is only in terms of continuity, having the capacity, not being able to know universally at once in a single thought.
Treatise: Therefore, in this, 'not by knowing universally at once'. The author of the treatise quotes the sutra to prove it.
Treatise: How is it known that 'not the I knows universally'? The Vatsiputriya school raises the question.
Treatise: Because it is said that the Buddha-Bhagavan (佛世尊) has three times (三世). The author of the treatise answers. Saying that the one who can know all dharmas (一切法) is the Buddha-Bhagavan, saying that the Buddha-Bhagavan has three times, therefore it is known that it is not the 'I'. It is based on continuity to say that one knows everything.
Treatise: Where is it said? The Sautrantika (續子部) school asks.
Treatise: As in the verse, 'all eliminate the worries of sentient beings'. The author of the treatise quotes the verse to answer.
Treatise: Your school only allows 'so it must be'. The author of the treatise confirms. Omniscience is a continuous false saying, not the 'I'. Your skandhas (蘊) have three times, the 'I' does not have three times. The sutra says that the Buddha has three times, so it must be known that our school speaks of continuity, not the 'I' knowing.
Abhidharmakośabhāṣya-ṭīkā (俱舍論疏) Volume 29 Taishō Tripiṭaka (大正藏) Volume 41, No. 1822
舍論疏
俱舍論疏卷第三十
沙門法寶撰
破執我品第九之二
◎論。若唯五取蘊至荷重擔者。犢子部引經難也。若即五取蘊名為我者。何故世尊作如是說。有取捨重擔。荷重擔者。
論。何緣於此佛不應說。論主徴也。何緣於此假我。不許佛如是說。
論。不應重擔即名能荷。彼部答也。即五取蘊名之為我。復是重擔。即應能荷是所荷也。如我所宗。說能荷是我。所荷取蘊。即無此失。
論。所以者何。論主徴也。所以佛不應說。
論。曾未見故。犢子部答。曾未見說能荷即所荷故。
論。不可說事亦不應說。論主例破也。汝立第五不可說法藏為我。此不所說事。亦不應說。
論。所以者何。犢子部徴也。
論。亦未見故。論主答也。未見不可說事而說也。若說即是可說。非不可說。
論。又取重擔至曾未見故。論主反難。取重擔為例。能取重擔。謂即是貪等。所取重擔。即五取蘊。即貪等即是五取蘊收。如何能取即是所取。曾未見故。
論。然經說愛至荷者應然。論主舉取擔者即是蘊攝。例能荷者亦即蘊收。
論。即于諸蘊至乃至廣說。論主以義通也。即于諸蘊立數取趣。佛恐執實有別我常住實有。後文自云。但隨世
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 《舍論疏》
《俱舍論疏》卷第三十
沙門法寶 撰
破執我品第九之二
◎論：若唯五取蘊至荷重擔者。犢子部（Vatsiputriya）引經難也。若即五取蘊名為我者。何故世尊（釋迦牟尼佛）作如是說：『有取捨重擔，荷重擔者』？
論：何緣於此佛不應說？論主徴也。何緣於此假我，不許佛如是說？
論：不應重擔即名能荷。彼部答也。即五取蘊名之為我，復是重擔，即應能荷是所荷也。如我所宗，說能荷是我，所荷取蘊，即無此失。
論：所以者何？論主徴也。所以佛不應說？
論：曾未見故。犢子部答。曾未見說能荷即所荷故。
論：不可說事亦不應說。論主例破也。汝立第五不可說法藏為我，此不所說事，亦不應說。
論：所以者何？犢子部徴也。
論：亦未見故。論主答也。未見不可說事而說也。若說即是可說，非不可說。
論：又取重擔至曾未見故。論主反難。取重擔為例，能取重擔，謂即是貪等，所取重擔，即五取蘊。即貪等即是五取蘊收，如何能取即是所取？曾未見故。
論：然經說愛至荷者應然。論主舉取擔者即是蘊攝，例能荷者亦即蘊收。
論：即于諸蘊至乃至廣說。論主以義通也。即于諸蘊立數取趣（Pudgala），佛恐執實有別我常住實有。後文自云：但隨世
【English Translation】 English version Śelùn Shū (Commentary on the Skandha Treatise)
Commentary on the Skandha Treatise, Volume 30
Composed by Śrāmaṇa Fǎbǎo
Chapter 9.2: Refuting the Attachment to Self
◎ Treatise: If only the five aggregates of clinging (pañcopādānaskandha) are the ones who bear the heavy burden. The Vatsiputriya school raises a difficulty based on scripture. If the five aggregates of clinging are called 'self', why did the World-Honored One (Śākyamuni Buddha) say, 'There is one who takes up and relinquishes the heavy burden, and one who bears the heavy burden'?
Treatise: Why should the Buddha not say this here? The author of the treatise questions. Why, in this case of a provisional self, is the Buddha not allowed to say this?
Treatise: The heavy burden should not be called the one who bears it. The other school answers. If the five aggregates of clinging are called 'self' and are also the heavy burden, then the one who bears it should be the same as what is borne. According to my school, the one who bears it is the self, and what is borne are the aggregates of clinging, so there is no such error.
Treatise: Why is that? The author of the treatise questions. Why should the Buddha not say that?
Treatise: Because it has never been seen. The Vatsiputriya school answers. It has never been seen that the one who bears is the same as what is borne.
Treatise: Things that cannot be spoken of should also not be spoken of. The author of the treatise uses an analogy to refute. You establish a fifth category of things that cannot be spoken of as the self. This is something that cannot be spoken of, so it should also not be spoken of.
Treatise: Why is that? The Vatsiputriya school questions.
Treatise: Also, it has not been seen. The author of the treatise answers. It has not been seen that something that cannot be spoken of is spoken of. If it is spoken of, then it is something that can be spoken of, not something that cannot be spoken of.
Treatise: Furthermore, 'taking up the heavy burden' up to 'because it has never been seen'. The author of the treatise counter-argues. Taking 'taking up the heavy burden' as an example, the one who takes up the heavy burden is greed, etc., and the heavy burden that is taken up is the five aggregates of clinging. Greed, etc., are included within the five aggregates of clinging. How can the one who takes up be the same as what is taken up? Because it has never been seen.
Treatise: However, the sutra says that love, etc., should be the one who bears it. The author of the treatise cites that the one who takes up the burden is included within the aggregates, so the one who bears it is also included within the aggregates.
Treatise: 'Regarding the aggregates' up to 'and so on, extensively'. The author of the treatise explains the meaning. Regarding the aggregates, the Pudgala (individual) is established. The Buddha feared that people would cling to the idea of a separate, permanent, and real self. The text itself says later: 'But according to the world.'
俗說此具壽有如是名。
論。如上所引至補特伽羅。論主釋經意也。為令了此以蘊為我。可說無常。非實有性。即五取蘊自相逼害得重擔名。前前剎那引後後故名為荷者。非是實有別我。名為荷者。
論。補特伽羅至邪見攝故。彼宗又引文證實我也。若無實我。應無化生有情撥無名為邪見。
論。誰言無有至理實有故。論主通也。我不言無化生有情。如佛所言。我說有故。佛所言者。謂蘊相續能往後世。不由胎．卵．濕。名為化生有情。化生諸蘊理實有故。撥此為無故邪見攝。非謂實我。
論。又許此邪見至不應修所斷故。論主反難。無撥我邪見也。汝說撥無化生我故名為邪見。汝宗說我非四諦攝。此見不應見四諦斷。又迷理故非修道斷。故知無有撥我邪見。
論。若謂經說至一聚一言。論主遮彼浪引文也。彼說言一我生在世間。明非是蘊。蘊非一故者。亦不應理。此于總蘊聚中假說一故。如世間說。於一麻聚。一米聚等。雖有八微多物。總說一故。
論。或補特伽羅至生世間故。論主反難也。以經說一。即謂非蘊是別一我。經說于生我應有為。違汝宗也。
論。非此言生如蘊新起。彼宗通我生非如蘊新起。
論。依何義說生在世間者。論主徴也。我生世間非如蘊
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
有人說這位具壽（Ayusmat，年長者）有這樣的名字。
論：正如上面所引用的，直到補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）。論主的目的是解釋經文的含義。爲了讓人明白，以蘊（Skandha，構成要素）為『我』，可以說它是無常的，並非真實存在的自性。這五取蘊（Panca-upadanakkhandha，執取的五蘊）的自相逼迫被稱為重擔。前一個剎那（Ksana，瞬間）引導后一個剎那，因此被稱為荷者。但並非真實存在一個獨立的『我』，作為荷者。
論：補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）直到被邪見（Mithyadrishti，錯誤的見解）所包含。他們的宗派也引用經文來證實『我』的存在。如果不存在真實的『我』，就不應該有化生（Upapaduka，無父母而生）的有情（Sattva，眾生），否定這一點就是邪見。
論：誰說沒有……因為有真實的道理。論主解釋說：我並沒有說沒有化生的有情。正如佛所說，我說有。佛所說的，是指蘊（Skandha，構成要素）的相續能夠前往後世，不是通過胎生、卵生或濕生，這被稱為化生有情。化生的諸蘊（Skandha，構成要素）在道理上是真實存在的，否定這一點才會被邪見所包含，而不是否定真實的『我』。
論：又允許這種邪見……不應該通過修所斷。論主反駁說：沒有否定『我』的邪見。你說否定化生的『我』因此是邪見。你的宗派說『我』不被四聖諦（Aryasatya，佛教的基本教義）所包含，這種見解不應該通過見四聖諦來斷除。而且因為迷惑真理，所以不能通過修道來斷除。因此可知沒有否定『我』的邪見。
論：如果說經文說……一個聚集一個說法。論主駁斥他們隨意引用經文。他們說經文說一個『我』生在世間，表明不是蘊（Skandha，構成要素），因為蘊不是單一的。這也是不合理的。這是在總的蘊的聚集之中，假說為『一』。就像世間所說，在一堆麻、一堆米等等之中，雖然有八微（Atoms，極小的物質單位）等很多東西，但總的來說是『一』。
論：或者補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）……生在世間。論主反駁說：因為經文說『一』，就認為不是蘊（Skandha，構成要素），而是另外一個『我』。經文說關於『生』，『我』應該是有為法（Samskrta，因緣和合而成的法），這與你的宗派相違背。
論：這所說的『生』，不像蘊（Skandha，構成要素）那樣新產生。他們的宗派解釋說，『我』的生不像蘊那樣新產生。
論：依據什麼意義說『生在世間』？論主質問說：『我』生在世間不像蘊（Skandha，構成要素）
【English Translation】 English version:
It is popularly said that this venerable one (Ayusmat) has such a name.
Treatise: As quoted above, up to Pudgala (person). The author of the treatise explains the meaning of the sutra. To make it clear that considering the skandhas (aggregates) as 'self' can be said to be impermanent and not of real nature. These five aggregates of clinging (Panca-upadanakkhandha) are called a heavy burden because of their self-oppression. The preceding moment leads to the following moment, hence it is called the bearer. But there is no real separate 'self' as the bearer.
Treatise: Pudgala (person) until included in false views (Mithyadrishti). Their sect also quotes scriptures to prove the existence of 'self'. If there is no real 'self', there should be no spontaneously born (Upapaduka) sentient beings (Sattva), and denying this is a false view.
Treatise: Who says there is no... because there is real reason. The author of the treatise explains: I did not say that there are no spontaneously born sentient beings. As the Buddha said, I say there are. What the Buddha said refers to the continuity of the skandhas (aggregates) being able to go to the next life, not through womb-birth, egg-birth, or moisture-birth, which is called spontaneously born sentient beings. The spontaneously born skandhas are real in principle, and denying this is included in false views, not denying the real 'self'.
Treatise: Also allowing this false view... should not be abandoned through cultivation. The author of the treatise refutes: There is no false view of denying 'self'. You say that denying the spontaneously born 'self' is therefore a false view. Your sect says that 'self' is not included in the Four Noble Truths (Aryasatya), this view should not be abandoned by seeing the Four Noble Truths. Moreover, because of being deluded about the truth, it cannot be abandoned through the path of cultivation. Therefore, it is known that there is no false view of denying 'self'.
Treatise: If it is said that the sutra says... one gathering one statement. The author of the treatise refutes their random quoting of scriptures. They say that the sutra says one 'self' is born in the world, indicating that it is not a skandha (aggregate), because the skandhas are not singular. This is also unreasonable. This is falsely saying 'one' in the gathering of the total skandhas. Just as the world says, in a pile of hemp, a pile of rice, etc., although there are eight atoms (Atoms) and many things, it is generally said to be 'one'.
Treatise: Or Pudgala (person)... is born in the world. The author of the treatise refutes: Because the sutra says 'one', it is thought that it is not a skandha (aggregate), but another 'self'. The sutra says about 'birth', 'self' should be conditioned (Samskrta), which contradicts your sect.
Treatise: This saying of 'birth' is not like the new arising of the skandhas (aggregates). Their sect explains that the birth of 'self' is not like the new arising of the skandhas.
Treatise: According to what meaning is it said 'born in the world'? The author of the treatise questions: 'Self' is born in the world not like the skandhas (aggregates)
起。依何義說生在世間。
論。依此今時至取別位故。彼宗通也。說我為生者。非是如蘊新生。但是我取新蘊故名為生。如世間說能祠者生。記論者生。然此祠者實不新生。以彼初者取明論故名之為生。又如世間言老者生。病者生等。然此老．病實非新生。以取別位名為生也。我亦如是。實非如蘊更別新生。以取別蘊名為生也。
論。佛已遮故至故佛已遮。論主引經遮也。佛言舍此蘊。及能續余蘊。唯除五蘊法假。許有能續諸蘊。已遮別我。汝說實我舍取諸蘊。豈非所遮。
論。頗勤具那契經至取捨諸蘊。論主又重引經證無我取捨諸蘊也。
論。又汝所引至為喻不成。論主兩關破前引喻也。若說是我。即不極成我不許故。若是心等。又唸唸滅新新生故。取捨不成。身如心等。又如明等與身有異。蘊亦應異補特伽羅。老．病二身前後各別皆無取捨。若同數論說有轉變。如前已破。
論。又許蘊生至此異蘊及常。若如彼宗蘊生我不生者。即定許我異於蘊及我是常。即違彼宗補特伽羅。非常非無常。與蘊不一不異。
論。又此唯一蘊至與蘊有異。論主重出彼計。我一。蘊五。我與蘊異也。
論。大種有四至不異大種。犢子部反難論主也。大種有四。造色唯一。而言大種不異造色
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：根據什麼意義說『生』存在世間？（起：指提問者；依何義說生在世間：根據什麼意義說『生』存在世間？） 答：根據『此時』到『取別位』的緣故。（論：指論主，即答辯者；依此今時至取別位故：根據『此時』到『取別位』的緣故；彼宗通也：他們的宗義是通順的。）他們的宗義是通順的。說『我』為生者，不是像蘊（skandha）一樣新產生，而是因為我取了新的蘊，所以名為生。如同世間說『能祭祀的人』生，『記論的人』生，然而這些祭祀者實際上不是新生的，因為最初的人接受了明論，所以稱之為生。又如世間說『年老的人』生，『生病的人』生等等，然而這些年老和疾病實際上不是新生的，因為取了不同的狀態，所以名為生。『我』也是這樣，實際上不是像蘊一樣重新產生，因為取了不同的蘊，所以名為生。（蘊：構成個體經驗的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識。） 答：佛陀已經遮止了這種說法。（論：佛已遮故至故佛已遮：論主引用佛經來遮止這種說法。）論主引用佛經來遮止這種說法。佛說捨棄此蘊，以及能夠延續其餘蘊，唯有五蘊法是虛假的。允許有能夠延續諸蘊的存在，已經遮止了別『我』的說法。你說真實的『我』捨棄和取諸蘊，難道不是佛陀所遮止的嗎？ 答：頗勤具那契經中說……取捨諸蘊。（論：頗勤具那契經至取捨諸蘊：論主又一次引用佛經來證明沒有『我』取捨諸蘊。）論主又一次引用佛經來證明沒有『我』取捨諸蘊。 答：而且你所引用的比喻不能成立。（論：又汝所引至為喻不成：論主從兩個方面來駁斥之前的比喻。）論主從兩個方面來駁斥之前的比喻。如果說是『我』，那麼這個『我』並不被普遍認可，因為我不承認有『我』。如果是心等，又是念念生滅，不斷新生，所以取捨不能成立。身體就像心等一樣。又如光明等與身體有差異，蘊也應該與補特伽羅（pudgala）不同。年老和生病這兩個身體，前後各不相同，都沒有取捨。如果像數論所說有轉變，那麼之前已經駁斥過了。（補特伽羅：一種非即非離於五蘊的「不可說我」，為部派佛教中一些學派所主張。） 答：而且如果承認蘊生而我不生，那麼就必定承認『我』異於蘊，並且『我』是常。（論：又許蘊生至此異蘊及常：如果像他們的宗義那樣，蘊生而我不生，那麼就必定承認『我』異於蘊，並且『我』是常。）如果像他們的宗義那樣，蘊生而我不生，那麼就必定承認『我』異於蘊，並且『我』是常。這就違背了他們宗義中補特伽羅非常非無常，與蘊不一不異的說法。 答：而且這唯一的一個『我』與蘊不同。（論：又此唯一蘊至與蘊有異：論主再次提出他們的觀點，即『我』是一個，蘊有五個，『我』與蘊不同。）論主再次提出他們的觀點，即『我』是一個，蘊有五個，『我』與蘊不同。 答：四大種有四種……不異於造色。（論：大種有四至不異大種：犢子部反駁論主。）犢子部反駁論主。四大種有四種，造色只有一種，卻說四大種不異於造色。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: According to what meaning is it said that 'birth' exists in the world? (起: refers to the questioner; 依何義說生在世間: According to what meaning is it said that 'birth' exists in the world?) Answer: It is based on the reason from 'this present moment' to 'taking a different position'. (論: refers to the debater, i.e., the respondent; 依此今時至取別位故: It is based on the reason from 'this present moment' to 'taking a different position'; 彼宗通也: Their doctrine is coherent.) Their doctrine is coherent. To say that 'I' am born is not like the skandhas (蘊) being newly produced, but because I take new skandhas, it is called birth. It is like the world saying 'the one who can perform sacrifices' is born, 'the one who records discussions' is born, but these sacrificers are not actually newly born, because the first person accepts the clear discussion, so it is called birth. Also, like the world saying 'the old person' is born, 'the sick person' is born, etc., but these old age and sickness are not actually newly born, because taking a different state is called birth. 'I' am also like this, not actually newly produced like the skandhas, because taking different skandhas is called birth. (蘊: The five aggregates that constitute individual experience, namely form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness.) Answer: The Buddha has already refuted this statement. (論: 佛已遮故至故佛已遮: The debater quotes the sutra to refute this statement.) The debater quotes the sutra to refute this statement. The Buddha said to abandon these skandhas, and to be able to continue the remaining skandhas, only the five skandha dharmas are false. Allowing that there is something that can continue the skandhas has already refuted the separate 'self'. You say that the real 'self' abandons and takes the skandhas, isn't that what the Buddha refuted? Answer: The Prakaranavakyasutra says... abandoning and taking the skandhas. (論: 頗勤具那契經至取捨諸蘊: The debater again quotes the sutra to prove that there is no 'self' abandoning and taking the skandhas.) The debater again quotes the sutra to prove that there is no 'self' abandoning and taking the skandhas. Answer: Moreover, the analogy you cited cannot be established. (論: 又汝所引至為喻不成: The debater refutes the previous analogy from two aspects.) The debater refutes the previous analogy from two aspects. If it is said to be 'I', then this 'I' is not universally recognized, because I do not admit that there is an 'I'. If it is mind, etc., it is also constantly arising and ceasing, constantly newly born, so abandoning and taking cannot be established. The body is like the mind, etc. Also, like light, etc., being different from the body, the skandhas should also be different from the pudgala (補特伽羅). The two bodies of old age and sickness are different before and after, and there is no abandoning and taking. If, as the Samkhya school says, there is transformation, then it has been refuted before. (補特伽羅: A 'person' or 'self' that is neither identical nor different from the five skandhas, advocated by some schools of early Buddhism.) Answer: Moreover, if it is admitted that the skandhas are born but I am not born, then it must be admitted that 'I' is different from the skandhas, and that 'I' is permanent. (論: 又許蘊生至此異蘊及常: If, as their doctrine says, the skandhas are born but I am not born, then it must be admitted that 'I' is different from the skandhas, and that 'I' is permanent.) If, as their doctrine says, the skandhas are born but I am not born, then it must be admitted that 'I' is different from the skandhas, and that 'I' is permanent. This violates their doctrine that the pudgala is neither permanent nor impermanent, and is neither identical nor different from the skandhas. Answer: Moreover, this single 'I' is different from the skandhas. (論: 又此唯一蘊至與蘊有異: The debater reiterates their view that 'I' is one, the skandhas are five, and 'I' is different from the skandhas.) The debater reiterates their view that 'I' is one, the skandhas are five, and 'I' is different from the skandhas. Answer: The four great elements are four kinds... not different from derived matter. (論: 大種有四至不異大種: The Vatsiputriya school refutes the debater.) The Vatsiputriya school refutes the debater. The four great elements are four kinds, and derived matter is only one kind, but it is said that the four great elements are not different from derived matter.
。雖蘊有五。我唯有一。因何不許不異五蘊。
論。是彼宗過。論主通也。
論。何謂彼宗。犢子部問也。
論。諸計造色即大種論。彼宗說大種即是造色。是彼宗過也。
論。設如彼見至補特伽羅。縱計破也。若犢子部執我與蘊。同覺天造色即大種者。即應亦同大種即是造色。蘊即是我。
論。若補特伽羅至命者即身。犢子部難也。若不如我宗別有我者。謂即五蘊名命者等。世尊答外道問。何不記言命者即身。
論。觀能問者至龜毛硬軟。論主答也。我宗即蘊假說為我。即蘊是我。外道妄執有別實我。與蘊一．異。由我無故一．異不成。故佛不記。如人不答龜毛硬．軟。若答即是異語。不當問頭。
論。古昔諸師至與身一異。論主舉昔答釋犢子部疑也。如文可解。
論。佛何不說命者都無。外問也。
論。亦觀問者至不為說假有。論主答也。若謂諸蘊名為命者。言無命者。即撥諸蘊隨邪見故。非受法器。不為說假有。
論。理必應爾至如經廣說。更引經非受法器不為說也。若答為有。恐執常我。若答為無恐生斷見。故佛不答。
論。依如是義至便壞善業子。依前長行之義。說此頌也。如虎銜子不急不緩。若急說有命者。即執真我為有。為我見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：雖然五蘊是存在的，但我只有一個。為什麼不允許『我不異於五蘊』的說法呢？
論：這是你們宗派的過失。（論主解釋）
論：什麼是你們宗派？（犢子部提問）
論：那些認為『造色』（Rūpa，物質現象）就是『大種』（Mahābhūta，四大元素）的理論，你們宗派說四大種就是造色，這是你們宗派的過失。
論：假設像你們這樣見解的人認為『補特伽羅』（Pudgala，補特伽羅，意為『人』或『個體』）存在，（這是）縱容你們的錯誤觀點。如果犢子部執著于『我』與『蘊』相同，認為覺天的造色就是四大種，那麼就應該同樣認為四大種就是造色，蘊就是『我』。
論：如果『補特伽羅』就是『命者』（jīva，生命）即是『身』（Kāya，身體），（這是）犢子部的詰難。如果不像我宗派一樣，認為另外存在一個『我』，而是說五蘊就是『命者』等等，那麼世尊回答外道的問題時，為什麼不直接說『命者就是身』呢？
論：觀察提問者的根器，就像問龜毛的硬軟一樣。（論主回答）我宗派是依蘊假說為『我』，即蘊就是『我』。外道妄自執著于有另外的真實的『我』，與蘊是一還是異。因為『我』並不存在，所以一和異都不能成立。所以佛陀不回答。就像人不回答龜毛的硬軟一樣。如果回答，那就是異語，不符合提問的本意。
論：古代的諸位法師，對於『我』與『身』是一還是異的問題。（論主舉出過去的回答來解釋犢子部的疑問）如文字本身可以理解。
論：佛陀為什麼不說『命者』完全不存在呢？（外道提問）
論：也是觀察提問者的根器，所以不說假有的『我』。（論主回答）如果說諸蘊名為『命者』，然後說沒有『命者』，那就是否定諸蘊，隨順邪見，因此不是接受佛法的根器，所以不說假有的『我』。
論：道理必然是這樣的，就像經中所廣泛說明的那樣。（進一步引用經典說明，對於非接受佛法根器的人，佛陀不會為其說法）如果回答『有』，恐怕他們會執著于常『我』。如果回答『無』，恐怕他們會產生斷滅見。所以佛陀不回答。
論：依據這樣的意義，就會破壞善業的種子。依據前面長行的意義，來說明這個偈頌。就像老虎銜著小老虎，不能太急也不能太緩。如果急於說有『命者』，就會執著于真『我』為實有，產生我見。
【English Translation】 English version: Although the five skandhas (pañca-skandha, five aggregates of existence) exist, I am only one. Why is it not allowed to say 'I am not different from the five skandhas'?
Treatise: This is a fault of your school. (The author explains)
Treatise: What is your school? (Asked by the Vātsīputrīyas)
Treatise: Those who assert that 'Rūpa' (form, material phenomena) is the same as 'Mahābhūta' (the great elements), your school says that the great elements are the same as rūpa. This is a fault of your school.
Treatise: Suppose someone with your views believes in the existence of 'Pudgala' (person, individual), (this is) indulging your wrong views. If the Vātsīputrīyas cling to the idea that 'I' is the same as the skandhas, and that the rūpa of the celestial realm is the same as the great elements, then they should also believe that the great elements are the same as rūpa, and the skandhas are the same as 'I'.
Treatise: If 'Pudgala' is 'jīva' (life, living being), that is 'Kāya' (body), (this is) a challenge from the Vātsīputrīyas. If, unlike our school, you do not believe in a separate 'I', but say that the five skandhas are 'jīva' etc., then when the World-Honored One answered the question of the heretics, why didn't he directly say 'jīva is the same as the body'?
Treatise: Observe the capacity of the questioner, like asking about the hardness or softness of turtle hair. (The author answers) Our school provisionally speaks of 'I' based on the skandhas, that is, the skandhas are 'I'. The heretics falsely cling to the idea that there is a separate, real 'I', which is either the same as or different from the skandhas. Because 'I' does not exist, neither sameness nor difference can be established. Therefore, the Buddha did not answer. It is like someone not answering about the hardness or softness of turtle hair. If you answer, it is irrelevant and does not address the question.
Treatise: The ancient masters, regarding the question of whether 'I' and 'body' are the same or different. (The author cites past answers to explain the doubts of the Vātsīputrīyas) The meaning can be understood from the text itself.
Treatise: Why didn't the Buddha say that 'jīva' does not exist at all? (Asked by the heretics)
Treatise: Also observe the capacity of the questioner, so he did not speak of the provisional existence of 'I'. (The author answers) If you say that the skandhas are called 'jīva', and then say that there is no 'jīva', that is denying the skandhas and following wrong views. Therefore, they are not vessels for receiving the Dharma, so he did not speak of the provisional existence of 'I'.
Treatise: The principle must be so, as explained extensively in the scriptures. (Further citing scriptures to explain that the Buddha does not teach those who are not vessels for receiving the Dharma) If he answered 'yes', they would cling to a permanent 'I'. If he answered 'no', they would develop annihilationist views. Therefore, the Buddha did not answer.
Treatise: According to this meaning, the seeds of good karma would be destroyed. Based on the meaning of the preceding long passage, this verse is explained. It is like a tiger carrying its cub, neither too fast nor too slow. If he hastily said that there is 'jīva', they would cling to the real 'I' as existing, giving rise to self-view.
牙傷。若緩說無命者。撥俗我為無。便壞善業子。所以不答。
論。復說頌言至佛不答有無。更重前義。如文可解。
論。何緣不記世間常等。因論生論問余不記也。論。亦觀問者阿世耶故。答也。問者意不同故。
論。問者若執至四皆非理。明二種意樂皆不可記。若執我為世間。我體都無故。不可答常．無常。亦常．亦無常。非常．非無常故。
論。若執生至亦皆非理。若執生死以為世間。答常無常等。亦皆非理。
論。謂若常者至皆不應理。釋執生死為世間。四答皆有失也。如文可解。
論。如離系子至不為定記。引例釋也。
論。有邊等四至皆有失故。類釋有邊等四也。
論。寧知此四義同常等者。外問也。
論。以有外道至義與前同。引事答也。如文可解 嗢底迦此云能說。
論。復以何緣至有等四耶。外問也。
論。亦觀問者至而發問故。答也。彼謂已解脫我名為如來。故佛不答。同前失故也。
論。今應詰問至死後亦有。問犢子部也。
論。彼言恐有墮常失故。犢子部答也。彼宗計我非常．無常故。
論。若爾何緣至墮常過失。引類難也。若謂恐墮常故不答死後有我恐墮常故因何身壞等。
論。若佛先見
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 牙傷（Yashang）。如果慢慢地說沒有命，撥俗（Bosu）認為我是沒有。這樣就破壞了善業的種子。所以不回答。
論：再次用偈頌說到佛不回答有無，更進一步強調了前面的意思。如文字表面所表達的，可以理解。
論：因為什麼原因不記述世間是常等？因為討論而引發討論，所以不記述其他問題。論：也觀察提問者的意樂，所以才回答。因為提問者的意圖不同。
論：提問者如果執著於我為世間，那麼四種回答都是不合理的。明確了兩種意樂都不可記述。如果執著于『我』就是世間，『我』的本體根本不存在，所以不可回答常、無常，亦常亦無常，非常非無常。
論：如果執著于生就是世間，那麼四種回答也都是不合理的。如果執著于生死就是世間，回答常、無常等，也都是不合理的。
論：如果認為是常，那麼四種回答都不應道理。解釋了執著生死為世間，四種回答都有缺失。如文字表面所表達的，可以理解。
論：如同離系子（Li Xi Zi），佛陀不為他們作決定性的記述。引用例子來解釋。
論：有邊等四種問題，回答都有缺失。用類似的方式解釋有邊等四種問題。
論：怎麼知道這四種意義與常等相同呢？外道的提問。
論：因為有外道認為，意義與前面相同。引用事例來回答。如文字表面所表達的，可以理解。嗢底迦（Wudijia），這裡翻譯為能說。
論：又因為什麼原因不回答有等四種問題呢？外道的提問。
論：也觀察提問者的意樂，所以才發問。回答：他們認為已經解脫的『我』名為如來（Rulai）。所以佛陀不回答，與前面的缺失相同。
論：現在應該詰問，如來死後是有還是沒有？問的是犢子部（Duzi Bu）。
論：他們說恐怕有墮入常的過失。犢子部的回答。他們的宗派認為『我』不是常，也不是無常。
論：如果這樣，因為什麼原因恐怕墮入常的過失？引用類似的情況來責難。如果說因為恐怕墮入常所以不回答死後有『我』，那麼因為恐怕墮入常，為什麼身體壞滅等問題要回答呢？
論：如果佛陀先看到
【English Translation】 English version: Yashang. If one slowly says there is no life, Bosu considers me as nothing. This would destroy the seeds of good karma. Therefore, there is no answer.
Treatise: Again, the verse says that the Buddha does not answer whether there is or is not, further emphasizing the previous meaning. As the text expresses, it can be understood.
Treatise: For what reason are the permanence, etc., of the world not recorded? Because discussion leads to discussion, other questions are not recorded. Treatise: Also, the intention of the questioner is observed, so the answer is given. Because the questioner's intention is different.
Treatise: If the questioner is attached to 'I' as the world, then all four answers are unreasonable. It clarifies that both kinds of intentions cannot be recorded. If one is attached to 'I' being the world, the substance of 'I' does not exist at all, so it cannot be answered as permanent, impermanent, both permanent and impermanent, or neither permanent nor impermanent.
Treatise: If one is attached to birth as the world, then all four answers are also unreasonable. If one is attached to birth and death as the world, answering permanent, impermanent, etc., is also unreasonable.
Treatise: If it is considered permanent, then all four answers are unreasonable. It explains that being attached to birth and death as the world, all four answers have shortcomings. As the text expresses, it can be understood.
Treatise: Like the Li Xi Zi, the Buddha does not make definitive records for them. It cites examples to explain.
Treatise: The four questions of having boundaries, etc., all have shortcomings in their answers. It explains the four questions of having boundaries, etc., in a similar way.
Treatise: How do we know that these four meanings are the same as permanence, etc.? An outsider's question.
Treatise: Because some outsiders think that the meaning is the same as before. It cites examples to answer. As the text expresses, it can be understood. Wudijia, here translated as 'able to speak'.
Treatise: Again, for what reason are the four questions of existence, etc., not answered? An outsider's question.
Treatise: Also, the intention of the questioner is observed, so the question is asked. Answer: They think that the 'I' who has already been liberated is called Rulai. Therefore, the Buddha does not answer, the same as the previous shortcomings.
Treatise: Now it should be questioned, does the Tathagata exist or not after death? Asking the Duzi Bu.
Treatise: They say they are afraid of falling into the fault of permanence. The answer of the Duzi Bu. Their sect thinks that 'I' is neither permanent nor impermanent.
Treatise: If so, for what reason are you afraid of falling into the fault of permanence? Citing similar situations to blame. If you say that because you are afraid of falling into permanence, you do not answer whether 'I' exists after death, then because you are afraid of falling into permanence, why do you answer questions such as the destruction of the body, etc.?
Treatise: If the Buddha saw first
至由我體都無。論主兩關破也。若言未解脫我佛先見故。即為記之。彼涅槃已便不復見。以不知有故佛不記有者。即撥大師具一切智。有而不知故。若許世尊有一切智而不記者。或應許不記由我體都無。
論。若謂世尊至及常住過。又難也。若謂見解脫后我。而不說者。即離蘊過。蘊滅我在故。及墮常見過。計我常故。
論。若見非見至非一切智。又難。見．不見俱不可說。即應漸言。不可說佛是一切智。非一切智。即違經說佛是一切智故。
論。若謂實有至墮惡見處故。又敘彼計也。以契經言諦故。住故。定執無我者。墮惡見處故。故知有我。若執無我。墮惡見故。
論。此不成證至墮惡見處故。論主破也。以經說定執無我者。墮惡見故。即證有我。彼經又說定執有我者。墮惡見故。亦證無我也。故知此經令離斷．常。不證有我。
論。阿毗達磨至分明說故。論主引阿毗達磨證也。言我有．無。是常斷見攝。深為應理。執我有．無常．斷邊故。如前所引筏蹉經中分明說故。
論。若定無有補特伽羅至定有補特伽羅。犢子部難也。若無有我。為可說誰流轉生死。不應生死自流轉故。既經中說馳流生死。故知定有補特伽羅。若諸蘊相續當處即滅。何得有流轉。
論。此復如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：至於說『由我』的實體完全不存在。這是論主對犢子部兩方面觀點的駁斥。如果他們說，因為佛陀在『我』未解脫時就已預見，所以為之作了記別。那麼，當『我』涅槃后，佛陀就不再能見到『我』了。因為佛陀不知道『我』的存在，所以佛陀沒有對『我』的存在作出記別，這就等於否定了佛陀具有一切智慧。如果承認世尊具有一切智慧卻不作記別，或許應該承認佛陀不作記別是因為『由我』的實體完全不存在。
論：如果認為世尊見到『我』以及『我』是常住的，這又是一個難題。如果認為佛陀見到解脫后的『我』，卻不加以說明，那就犯了『離蘊過』，因為五蘊滅盡后，『我』仍然存在。同時也犯了『常見過』，因為這相當於認為『我』是常住不變的。
論：如果認為佛陀既見到『我』，又沒有見到『我』，那麼佛陀就不是一切智慧。這又是一個難題。如果說『見』和『不見』都不可說，那就應該逐漸承認，不可說佛陀是一切智慧，也不是一切智慧。這就違背了經典所說佛陀是一切智慧的說法。
論：如果認為實際上存在『我』，那麼就會墮入惡見之處。這又是敘述犢子部的觀點。因為契經上說，執著于『諦』，執著于『住』，堅定地認為沒有『我』的人，會墮入惡見之處。因此可知存在『我』。如果執著于沒有『我』，就會墮入惡見。
論：這個論證不能成立，因為會墮入惡見之處。這是論主的反駁。因為經典上說，堅定地認為沒有『我』的人，會墮入惡見之處，這隻能證明執著于『無我』會墮入惡見，並不能證明『有我』。同樣的，那部經典又說，堅定地認為有『我』的人，會墮入惡見之處，這也只能證明執著于『有我』會墮入惡見，並不能證明『無我』。因此可知，這部經典旨在使人遠離斷見和常見，而不是爲了證明『有我』。
論：阿毗達磨中明確地說明了這一點。這是論主引用阿毗達磨來證明。說『有我』或『無我』，都屬於常見或斷見的範疇，這非常合理。因為執著于『有我』或『無我』，就落入了常見或斷見的極端。正如前面所引用的《筏蹉經》中明確說明的那樣。
論：如果確定沒有補特伽羅（pudgalā，人或個體），那麼誰在生死中流轉？這是犢子部的質難。如果沒有『我』，那麼誰在生死中流轉？不應該是生死自己流轉。既然經典中說在生死中馳流，因此可知一定存在補特伽羅。如果諸蘊（skandha，構成個體的要素）相續不斷，並在其存在之處立即滅亡，那麼怎麼會有流轉呢？
論：這又如...
【English Translation】 English version: As for saying that the entity of 'self' (ātman) does not exist at all, this is the rebuttal of the proponent against both viewpoints of the Vātsīputrīyas. If they say that because the Buddha foresaw the 'self' before it was liberated, he made a prediction about it, then when the 'self' attains Nirvāṇa, the Buddha would no longer be able to see the 'self'. Because the Buddha does not know the existence of the 'self', the Buddha did not make a prediction about the existence of the 'self', which is equivalent to denying that the Buddha possesses all wisdom. If one admits that the World-Honored One possesses all wisdom but does not make a prediction, perhaps one should admit that the Buddha does not make a prediction because the entity of 'self' does not exist at all.
Argument: If it is thought that the World-Honored One sees the 'self' and that the 'self' is permanent, this is another difficulty. If it is thought that the Buddha sees the 'self' after liberation but does not explain it, then one commits the 'separation from aggregates' fallacy, because after the five aggregates (skandha) are extinguished, the 'self' still exists. At the same time, one also commits the 'eternalism' fallacy, because this is equivalent to thinking that the 'self' is permanent and unchanging.
Argument: If it is thought that the Buddha both sees and does not see the 'self', then the Buddha is not all-knowing. This is another difficulty. If it is said that 'seeing' and 'not seeing' are both unspeakable, then one should gradually admit that it is unspeakable that the Buddha is all-knowing, nor is he not all-knowing. This contradicts the statement in the scriptures that the Buddha is all-knowing.
Argument: If it is thought that the 'self' actually exists, then one will fall into a place of evil views. This is again a narration of the viewpoint of the Vātsīputrīyas. Because the scriptures say that those who are attached to 'truth' (satya), attached to 'abiding' (sthita), and firmly believe that there is no 'self' will fall into a place of evil views. Therefore, it can be known that the 'self' exists. If one is attached to the absence of 'self', one will fall into evil views.
Argument: This argument is not valid because it leads to falling into a place of evil views. This is the proponent's rebuttal. Because the scriptures say that those who firmly believe that there is no 'self' will fall into a place of evil views, this can only prove that being attached to 'no-self' leads to falling into evil views, and cannot prove that 'self' exists. Similarly, that scripture also says that those who firmly believe that there is a 'self' will fall into a place of evil views, which can only prove that being attached to 'self' leads to falling into evil views, and cannot prove that 'no-self' exists. Therefore, it can be known that this scripture aims to make people stay away from annihilationism and eternalism, and not to prove that 'self' exists.
Argument: The Abhidharma clearly explains this point. This is the proponent quoting the Abhidharma to prove it. Saying 'there is a self' or 'there is no self' belongs to the category of eternalism or annihilationism, which is very reasonable. Because being attached to 'there is a self' or 'there is no self' falls into the extreme of eternalism or annihilationism. As clearly stated in the Vatsagotra Sutra quoted earlier.
Argument: If there is definitely no pudgala (person or individual), then who transmigrates in samsara? This is the challenge of the Vātsīputrīyas. If there is no 'self', then who transmigrates in samsara? It should not be that samsara itself transmigrates. Since the scriptures say that one rushes through samsara, therefore it can be known that there must be a pudgala. If the aggregates (skandha, elements constituting an individual) are continuously connected and immediately perish where they exist, then how can there be transmigration?
Argument: This is again like...
何流轉生死。論主問也。我非無常。如何說流轉生死。
論。由舍前蘊取后蘊故。外人釋也。我非無常。所取捨蘊是無常故。名為流轉。
論。如是義宗前已徴遣。論主指前。破我依蘊等宗也。
論。如燎原火至流轉生死。論主破外執訖自述假我流轉義也。先喻后法。如文可解。
論。若唯有蘊至名為妙眼。外引教難也。前蘊已滅后蘊別生。如何可說今我于昔為世導師。
論。此說何咎。論主反問也。
論。蘊各異故。外人答也。若說五蘊假名我者。昔蘊．今蘊體既各別。如何今我是昔我耶。
論。若爾是何物。論主反問也。
論。謂補特伽羅。外人答也。
論。昔我即今體應常住。論主難也。汝宗計我非常．無常。若昔我即今我。應是常違自宗也。
論。故說今我至曾燒彼事。論主述正義也。如人將一炬火。先燒其草。后燒其木。雖剎那滅是一相續。得說此燒木火。曾燒于草。非謂前後火體不別。世尊今我。昔師義。亦準此顯昔與今是一相續非前不滅。
論。若謂決定至去解脫遠。論主難也。若謂決定有真實我。此我微細。佛智最勝。觀此我時最明瞭見。既見我已便起我見。乃至我愛所縛。便為謗佛去解脫遠。文中先出過。次引教。后結成也
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本", "何為流轉生死？這是論主的提問。外道認為：『我』並非無常，為何說流轉生死？", "論主解釋：因為捨棄前一蘊而取后一蘊的緣故。外道解釋說：『我』並非無常，所捨棄和取用的蘊是無常的，所以名為流轉。", "論主說：這樣的義理在前文已經駁斥過了。論主指責外道執著于『我』依賴於蘊等的宗派。", "論主說：如同燎原之火到流轉生死。論主駁斥外道的執著后，自己闡述假我的流轉之義。先用比喻，后說法理，文義可以理解。", "論主說：如果只有蘊，如何能成為妙眼？外道引用佛經來發難。前一蘊已經滅去，后一蘊另外產生，如何能說現在的『我』在過去是世間的導師？", "論主說：這樣說有什麼過失嗎？論主反問。", "外道回答說：因為蘊各不相同。如果說五蘊是假名為『我』，那麼過去的蘊和現在的蘊本體既然各不相同，如何能說現在的『我』是過去的『我』呢？", "論主反問：如果不是，那是什麼呢？", "外道回答：是補特伽羅（pudgalā，意為人或有情）。", "論主駁斥：如果過去的『我』就是現在的『我』，那麼『我』的本體就應該是常住不變的。你的宗派認為『我』既非常也非無常。如果過去的『我』就是現在的『我』，那就應該是常，這違背了你自己的宗派。", "論主闡述正義：所以說現在的『我』曾經燒過那些東西。比如有人拿著一支火炬，先燒了草，后燒了木頭。雖然剎那間熄滅，但這是一個相續的過程，可以說這燒木頭的火，曾經燒過草。這並不是說前後的火體沒有區別。世尊現在的『我』，過去是導師的意義，也應該按照這個來理解，過去和現在是一個相續的過程，而不是說前一刻沒有滅去。", "論主駁斥：如果認為決定有真實的『我』，這個『我』非常微細，佛的智慧最為殊勝，觀察這個『我』的時候最能清楚地看見。既然看見了『我』，就會生起『我見』，乃至被『我愛』所束縛，這就成了誹謗佛，遠離解脫。文中先指出過失，然後引用佛經，最後總結。", "english_translations": [ "English version", "What is the cycle of birth and death? This is a question from the treatise master. An outsider argues: 'The 'self' (ātman) is not impermanent, so why speak of the cycle of birth and death?'", "The treatise master explains: 'It is because of abandoning the previous skandha (蘊, aggregates) and taking up the subsequent skandha.' The outsider explains: 'The 'self' is not impermanent; the skandhas that are abandoned and taken up are impermanent, so it is called the cycle of rebirth.'", "The treatise master says: 'Such a meaning has already been refuted in the previous text.' The treatise master points out that the outsider clings to the school of thought that the 'self' depends on the skandhas, etc.", "The treatise master says: 'Like a prairie fire to the cycle of birth and death.' After refuting the outsider's attachment, the treatise master himself elaborates on the meaning of the cycle of a provisional self. First, a metaphor is used, then the principle is explained; the meaning of the text can be understood.", "The treatise master says: 'If there are only skandhas, how can there be a 'wonderful eye' (妙眼)?' The outsider quotes the scriptures to raise a difficulty. 'The previous skandha has already ceased, and the subsequent skandha arises separately, so how can it be said that the present 'self' was the world's teacher in the past?'", "The treatise master asks: 'Is there any fault in saying this?' The treatise master asks in return.", "The outsider replies: 'Because the skandhas are different from each other.' If it is said that the five skandhas are provisionally named 'self', then since the past skandhas and the present skandhas are different in substance, how can the present 'self' be the past 'self'?", "The treatise master asks in return: 'If not, then what is it?'", "The outsider replies: 'It is a pudgala (補特伽羅, person or sentient being).'", "The treatise master refutes: 'If the past 'self' is the present 'self', then the substance of the 'self' should be permanent and unchanging. Your school of thought holds that the 'self' is neither permanent nor impermanent. If the past 'self' is the present 'self', then it should be permanent, which contradicts your own school of thought.'", "The treatise master elaborates on the correct meaning: 'Therefore, it is said that the present 'self' once burned those things.' For example, someone takes a torch and first burns the grass, then burns the wood. Although it is extinguished in an instant, it is a continuous process, and it can be said that the fire that burned the wood once burned the grass. This does not mean that the fire before and after is not different in substance. The meaning of the World Honored One's present 'self' being the teacher in the past should also be understood in this way, that the past and the present are a continuous process, rather than saying that the previous moment has not ceased.", "The treatise master refutes: 'If it is thought that there is definitely a real 'self', and this 'self' is very subtle, and the Buddha's wisdom is the most supreme, and when observing this 'self', one can see it most clearly. Since one has seen the 'self', one will give rise to 'self-view' (我見), and even be bound by 'self-love' (我愛), then this becomes slandering the Buddha and is far from liberation. The text first points out the fault, then quotes the scriptures, and finally concludes.'" ] }
。
論若謂至此言無義。論主牒計破也。若謂非我計我。便起我愛。於我見我不起我愛。此言無義。
論。所以者何。外徴無義所以也。
論。于非我中至無理為證。答無義所以也。於我計我。于非我計我。執自異他。無有差別。無理為證。實我不愛。妄我即愛。
論。故彼于佛至起見瘡皰。結犢子過也。
論。如是一類至無解脫過。述佛法中有犢子部。及撥一切法體皆非有。外道執有別真我性。皆同不能免無解脫過。
論。若一切類至何能憶知。諸執我者共為此難若一切類我體都無。剎那滅心。何能憶知曾所受境。及相似境。
論。如是憶知至心差別生。論主取經部義答也 從相續內。是自身內 念境想類。是前時心。念境取像類別心種子生 差別。是種子之異名也。取像是想之化用。
論。且初憶念至無間生。外問也。前釋后憶念起從前憶念心差別生。即前憶念。為從何等心差別生。
論。從有緣彼至心差別起。答也。此初憶念。從前有緣彼相似法作意相屬想心差別 不為依止差別。是身異也 愁憂散亂等緣者。是損壞種子功能。要前品緣。不為此緣損壞種子功能。即生初憶念。即是初憶念生。從緣此境作意等緣。及彼種子。生也。
論。雖有如
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
論：如果有人說，你這樣說沒有意義。論主的目的是駁斥這種觀點。如果說不是我卻認為是我，就會產生我愛。如果認為我就是我，就不會產生我愛，所以你這樣說沒有意義。
論：為什麼這麼說呢？下面從外部論證這種說法沒有意義的原因。
論：在非我的事物中認為是我，這是一種沒有道理的論證。回答為什麼說沒有意義的原因是：在我中認為是我，在非我中認為是我，執著于自己與他人的區別，沒有任何差別，這是沒有道理的論證。真正的我不會產生愛，虛妄的我才會產生愛。
論：因此，那些對於佛陀的教導產生邪見的人，就像身上長了瘡一樣。這是犯了結犢子（認為存在真實自我）的過失。
論：像這樣的一類人，最終無法得到解脫。這裡是說，在佛法中，有犢子部，以及那些否定一切法體的存在，認為一切皆空的人，還有外道執著于存在一個與衆不同的真實自我的人，他們都同樣無法避免無法解脫的過失。
論：如果一切類別的我體都不存在，剎那生滅的心，又怎麼能夠憶起曾經經歷過的境界，以及相似的境界呢？所有執著於我的人都會提出這樣的疑問。
論：像這樣的憶知，是從心識的差別中產生的。論主採用經部的觀點來回答。從相續之內，也就是從自身之內。念境想類，指的是前一時刻的心。念境取像類別心種子生，差別，是種子（bija）的另一個名稱。取像是想（samjna）的作用。
論：且說最初的憶念，是從無間斷的生滅中產生的。這是外人的提問。前面解釋說，後來的憶念是從之前的憶念心識的差別中產生的，那麼，之前的憶念又是從什麼樣的心識差別中產生的呢？
論：從有緣于彼相似法作意相屬想的心識差別中產生。這是論主的回答。這最初的憶念，是從之前有緣于彼相似法，並加以作意（manaskara）相屬想的心識差別中產生的。不為依止差別，指的是身體的差異。愁憂散亂等緣，會損壞種子（bija）的功能。需要前一品類的緣，不為此緣損壞種子（bija）的功能，才能產生最初的憶念。也就是說，最初的憶念產生，是從緣於此境的作意（manaskara）等緣，以及彼種子（bija）中產生的。
論：即使有這樣的...
【English Translation】 English version:
Objection: If you say this, it is meaningless. The purpose of the treatise master is to refute this view. If one says it is not 'I' but considers it as 'I', then 'I-love' arises. If one considers 'I' as 'I', then 'I-love' does not arise, so what you say is meaningless.
Treatise: Why is this so? The reason why this statement is meaningless is demonstrated from the outside.
Treatise: To consider 'I' in what is 'not-I' is an unreasonable argument. The reason why it is meaningless is answered: To consider 'I' in 'I', to consider 'I' in 'not-I', clinging to the difference between oneself and others, there is no difference, which is an unreasonable argument. The real 'I' does not produce love, the false 'I' produces love.
Treatise: Therefore, those who develop wrong views about the Buddha's teachings are like having sores on their bodies. This is committing the fault of the Vatsiputriyas (犢子部, those who believe in the existence of a real self).
Treatise: Such a class of people will ultimately not be able to attain liberation. Here it is said that in Buddhism, there are the Vatsiputriyas (犢子部), and those who deny the existence of all dharmas (法), believing that everything is empty, as well as the non-Buddhists who cling to the existence of a distinct real self, they are all equally unable to avoid the fault of not being able to attain liberation.
Objection: If all categories of 'I' do not exist, how can the mind, which arises and ceases in an instant, remember the realms it has experienced, as well as similar realms? All those who cling to 'I' will raise such a question.
Treatise: Such recollection arises from the differentiation of consciousness. The treatise master adopts the view of the Sautrantikas (經部) to answer. From within the continuum, that is, from within oneself. 'Remembering the object, thinking of the category' refers to the mind of the previous moment. 'Remembering the object, taking the image, categorizing, the seed (bija) of the mind arises', differentiation is another name for the seed (bija). Taking the image is the function of perception (samjna).
Objection: Let's talk about the initial recollection, which arises from uninterrupted arising and ceasing. This is an external question. The previous explanation said that later recollection arises from the differentiation of the previous recollection-consciousness, so from what kind of consciousness-differentiation does the previous recollection arise?
Treatise: It arises from the differentiation of the consciousness that is related to that similar dharma, with attention (manaskara) and associated thought. This is the treatise master's answer. This initial recollection arises from the differentiation of the consciousness that was previously related to that similar dharma, with attention (manaskara) and associated thought. 'Not relying on differentiation' refers to the difference in body. Causes such as sorrow, worry, and distraction damage the function of the seed (bija). It requires the cause of the previous category; not damaging the function of the seed (bija) with this cause allows the initial recollection to arise. That is to say, the initial recollection arises from causes such as attention (manaskara) to this realm, and from that seed (bija).
Treatise: Even if there is such a...
是至有功能故。論主釋。憶念生必具因及緣二種方生。更不見離此二。外有我功能故。
論。如何異心至有憶念理。彼宗難也。前心．後心別。後心憶念前心境。天授．祠授兩心別。祠授能憶天授之心境。
論。此難非理至有因果性故。論主通也。前心．後心一相續有因．果義。所以後心憶前心境。天授．祠授是異相續。無因果故。不相憶也。
論。我等不言至有後記知生。論主重釋。非異心見境異心能憶。相續一故。然從過去緣彼境心。功能差別種子。引起今時能憶念識。謂如前說。相續轉變差別力故生念何失。由此憶念力。有後記知生。
論。我體既無熟為能憶。彼師問也。
論。能憶是何義。論主問彼師也。
論。由念能取境。彼師答也。
論。此取境豈異念。論主徴也。既由念取境。豈念外別有取境。
論。雖不異念但由作者。彼師答也。雖念外無別取境然念取境之時。由有作者。
論。作者即是至彼類心差別。論主答也。汝說作者別有於我。我說作者即是念因。
論。然世間所言至說彼能憶。論主重釋也。世間言制怛羅能憶。此于蘊相續。立制怛羅名。非於實我。從先見心后憶念起。說彼能憶 制怛羅。是正月星名有人正月生從此星為名。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：因為存在產生作用的功能。論主的解釋是：憶念的產生必須具備因和緣兩種條件才能發生，除此之外，沒有我（ātman）的功能。因此，憶念的產生離不開因和緣。
論：如果不同的心識能夠產生憶念，這是什麼道理呢？這是對方宗派的詰難。前一個心識和后一個心識是不同的，后一個心識能夠憶念前一個心識的境界。天授（Devadatta）和祠授（yajñadatta）是不同的兩個人，祠授能夠憶念天授的心識和境界。
論：這個詰難是不合理的，因為存在因果關係。論主解釋說：前一個心識和后一個心識是同一個相續，存在因果關係，所以後一個心識能夠憶念前一個心識的境界。天授和祠授是不同的相續，沒有因果關係，所以不能互相憶念。
論：我們並不是說不同的心識能夠憶念境界，從而產生後續的認知。論主再次解釋說：不是不同的心識見到境界，然後不同的心識能夠憶念，因為它們是同一個相續。而是從過去緣彼境的心識的功能差別種子，引起現在能夠憶念的識。就像前面所說的那樣，由於相續轉變的差別力，所以產生憶念，這有什麼過失呢？由此憶念的力量，產生後續的認知。
論：如果我（ātman）的本體沒有成熟，那麼誰能夠憶念呢？這是對方提出的問題。
論：憶念是什麼意思呢？論主反問對方。
論：通過念能夠獲取境界。對方回答說。
論：這種獲取境界和念有什麼不同呢？論主質問道：既然通過念來獲取境界，那麼在念之外，難道還有其他的獲取境界的方式嗎？
論：雖然和念沒有不同，但是因為有作者（kartṛ）。對方回答說：雖然在念之外沒有其他的獲取境界的方式，但是在念獲取境界的時候，因為有作者。
論：作者就是那類心識的差別。論主回答說：你說作者不同於我（ātman），我說作者就是念的因。
論：然而世間所說，制怛羅（Caitra，正月星名）能夠憶念，這是說他能夠憶念。論主再次解釋說：世間說制怛羅能夠憶念，這是在蘊（skandha）的相續上，安立制怛羅的名字，而不是在真實的我（ātman）上。從先前見到的心識，到後來的憶念產生，說他能夠憶念制怛羅。制怛羅是正月星的名字，有人正月出生，就用這個星的名字來命名。
【English Translation】 English version: Because there exists the function of producing effects. The commentator explains: The arising of recollection necessarily requires both cause and condition to occur. Apart from these two, no function of 'I' (ātman) is seen. Therefore, the arising of recollection cannot be separated from cause and condition.
Objection: How can different minds lead to recollection? This is a difficulty for their school. The prior mind and the subsequent mind are different. The subsequent mind can recollect the object of the prior mind. Devadatta and Yajñadatta are two different persons. Yajñadatta can recollect the mind and object of Devadatta.
Reply: This objection is unreasonable because there exists a cause-and-effect relationship. The commentator explains: The prior mind and the subsequent mind are the same continuum, possessing a cause-and-effect relationship. Therefore, the subsequent mind can recollect the object of the prior mind. Devadatta and Yajñadatta are different continua, without a cause-and-effect relationship. Therefore, they cannot recollect each other.
Objection: We do not say that different minds can recollect an object, thereby giving rise to subsequent cognition. The commentator explains again: It is not that a different mind sees an object and then a different mind can recollect it, because they are the same continuum. Rather, from the functional difference-seeds of the mind that previously cognized that object, arises the consciousness that is now capable of recollection. As previously stated, due to the differentiating power of the transformation of the continuum, recollection arises. What fault is there in this? By the power of this recollection, subsequent cognition arises.
Objection: If the essence of 'I' (ātman) is not subject to maturation, then who is able to recollect? This is the question posed by the other party.
Reply: What is the meaning of recollection? The commentator asks the other party in return.
Objection: Through thought (smṛti), one is able to grasp an object. The other party replies.
Reply: Is this grasping of an object different from thought? The commentator questions: Since one grasps an object through thought, is there, apart from thought, another way of grasping an object?
Objection: Although not different from thought, it is due to an agent (kartṛ). The other party replies: Although there is no other way of grasping an object apart from thought, when thought grasps an object, it is due to an agent.
Reply: The agent is the difference in that kind of mind. The commentator replies: You say that the agent is different from 'I' (ātman), I say that the agent is the cause of thought.
Objection: However, in the world, it is said that Caitra (Caitra, name of a star in the month of Caitra) is able to recollect, this is to say that he is able to recollect. The commentator explains again: In the world, it is said that Caitra is able to recollect, this is established on the continuum of aggregates (skandha), the name Caitra, not on a real 'I' (ātman). From the mind that previously saw, to the arising of subsequent recollection, it is said that he is able to recollect Caitra. Caitra is the name of a star in the month of Caitra, someone born in the month of Caitra is named after this star.
論。我體若無至說第六聲。彼師難也。
論。此第六聲依屬主義。論主答也。
論。如何物屬何主。彼師問也。
論。此如牛等屬制怛羅。論主答也。
論。彼如何為牛主。彼師徴也。
論。謂依彼彼至彼得自在。論主答也。
論。欲於何所至尋求念主。論主責也。
論。于所念境驅役於念。彼師答也。
論。役念為何。論主問也。
論。為令念起。彼師答也。
論。奇哉自在至而驅役此。論主責也。如何為令此生還驅役此即能生為所生過。
論。又我于念至為令念行。論主兩關問也。
論。念無行故但應令起。彼師答也。念是心法。不可令行。故我應令此念起也。
論。則因名主至爲念主耶。論主為彼師釋念主也。
論。即諸行聚至亦不離因。論主為彼師釋牛主。及牛皆無實也。俱是諸行一類相續 然能令彼于異方變異生因名為牛主者。即是能驅役牛者。
論。憶念既爾至亦應例釋。準憶念例釋記知。準憶知。熟為能了。誰之識等。亦應例釋。大體雖同。非無少異。
論。旦識因緣至如應當知。釋少異也。說因義同。從緣少異。
論。有作是言至能了等者。大文第三亦破數論也。此念．意立能
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 論：如果我的理論沒有涉及到第六聲（shasthi-vibhakti，梵文語法中的格），那位老師就會提出質疑。
論：這第六聲是依據所有權關係而存在的。論主回答。
論：什麼事物屬於什麼主人？那位老師提問。
論：這就像牛等屬於制怛羅（Chaitra，人名）。論主回答。
論：他如何成為牛的主人？那位老師質問。
論：意思是說，依靠他，牛才能獲得自在。論主回答。
論：你想在什麼地方尋求念（smrti，記憶或念頭）的主人？論主責問。
論：在所念的境界中驅使念。那位老師回答。
論：驅使念做什麼？論主提問。
論：爲了讓念生起。那位老師回答。
論：奇怪啊，自在竟然還要被驅使！論主責問。如果爲了讓它生起還要驅使它，那麼它既是能生的，又是所生的，這就有過失了。
論：還有，我對於念…是爲了讓念執行。論主兩方面質問。
論：念沒有執行，所以應該只是讓它生起。那位老師回答。念是心法，不可令其執行，所以我應該讓這個念生起。
論：那麼，因為名為主人…是念的主人嗎？論主為那位老師解釋唸的主人。
論：即諸行（samskara，行蘊）聚合…也不離因。論主為那位老師解釋牛的主人，以及牛本身都沒有實體。都是諸行一類相續，然而能讓它在異方變異生因，名為牛主者，即是能驅使牛的人。
論：憶念既然如此…也應該照此例釋。依照憶念的例子來解釋記知（samjna，認知）。依照憶知，誰是能了知者？誰的識（vijnana，意識）等等？也應該照此例釋。大體雖然相同，並非沒有少許差異。
論：一旦認識因緣…如應當知。解釋少許差異。說因的意義相同，從緣來說有少許差異。
論：有人這樣說…能了知等等。大文第三，也破斥數論（Samkhya）的觀點。此念、意立能。
【English Translation】 English version Treatise: If my theory did not extend to the sixth case ending (shasthi-vibhakti, the genitive case in Sanskrit grammar), that teacher would object.
Treatise: This sixth case ending exists based on the relationship of ownership. The treatise master answers.
Treatise: What thing belongs to what owner? That teacher asks.
Treatise: This is like cows, etc., belonging to Chaitra (a proper name). The treatise master answers.
Treatise: How does he become the owner of the cows? That teacher questions.
Treatise: It means that relying on him, the cows attain freedom. The treatise master answers.
Treatise: Where do you want to seek the owner of memory (smrti, recollection or thought)? The treatise master questions.
Treatise: In the object of thought, one drives the thought. That teacher answers.
Treatise: What does it mean to drive the thought? The treatise master asks.
Treatise: To make the thought arise. That teacher answers.
Treatise: Strange, that freedom still needs to be driven! The treatise master questions. If it is driven in order to make it arise, then it is both the producer and the produced, which is a fault.
Treatise: Also, I, regarding thought... it is to make thought function. The treatise master questions on two aspects.
Treatise: Thought has no function, so it should just be made to arise. That teacher answers. Thought is a mental dharma, it cannot be made to function, so I should make this thought arise.
Treatise: Then, because of the name 'owner'... is it the owner of thought? The treatise master explains the owner of thought to that teacher.
Treatise: That is, the aggregation of samskaras (mental formations)... also does not depart from causes. The treatise master explains to that teacher that the owner of the cows, and the cows themselves, have no substance. They are all a continuous stream of samskaras, but that which can cause it to arise and change in a different direction is called the owner of the cows, that is, the one who can drive the cows.
Treatise: Since memory is like this... it should also be explained by analogy. According to the example of memory, explain cognition (samjna, perception). According to cognition, who is the one who can understand? Whose consciousness (vijnana, consciousness), etc.? It should also be explained by analogy. Although the general principle is the same, there are some slight differences.
Treatise: Once the causes and conditions are recognized... as should be known. Explaining the slight differences. The meaning of cause is the same, but there are slight differences in terms of conditions.
Treatise: Some say... those who can understand, etc. The third major section also refutes the views of Samkhya (a school of Indian philosophy). This thought, intention, establishes the ability.
了等者。是其我也。
論。今應詰彼至能了亦爾。論主先破其喻準喻破法也。兩關徴問。天授是何。若是實我。此如前破。若假士夫。體非一物 于天授諸行相續。假立天授名故。此破喻也 如天授能行。識能了亦爾。類破法也。
論。依何理說天授能行者。外問也。
論。謂于剎那至焰聲能行。論主答也。即假相續雖剎那滅。從此至彼異處生時名之為行。因名行者。非謂實我從此至彼。猶如焰．聲雖唸唸滅。異處生故世說為行。
論。如是天授至亦作是說。類行釋了也。聖人順世間。故亦作是說。
論。經說諸識至為何所作。問也。
論。都無所作至說名了境。論主答也。此同解深密經外道不共陀羅尼。若雜染若清凈法。我說一切皆無作用。亦都無有補特伽羅。以一切法離所為故。
論。如何似境。問也。
論。謂帶彼相至名爲了境。釋也。識生之時有境相名爲了境。無根相故不名了根。
論。或識于境至說鐘鼓能鳴更釋識能了也。如因鐘．鼓有鳴。說鐘．鼓能鳴。因其前識為后識因。能了境故。說識能了。就因說也。
論。或如燈能行識能了亦爾。又第三釋也。
論。為依何理說燈能行。問也。
論。焰相續中至說名能了。釋也。燈
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 了等者，就是那個『我』嗎？
論：現在應該詰難他們，如果說『至能』（Sarvajna，一切智者）能了知，那麼『我』也能了知也是一樣的嗎？論主首先破斥他們的比喻，以比喻的方式來破斥他們的主張。兩方面提問：天授（Devadatta，人名）是什麼？如果是真實的我（Atman，神我），那就如同前面所破斥的那樣。如果是假立的士夫（Pudgala，補特伽羅，人），那麼其體性就不是單一不變的。因為在天授的諸行相續中，假立了天授這個名字，所以這是破斥他們的比喻。如同天授能行走，識能了知也是一樣的，這是用類比的方式來破斥他們的主張。
論：依據什麼道理說天授能行走呢？這是外道的提問。
論：是指在剎那生滅的相續中，從這裡到那裡，就像火焰和聲音一樣能行走。論主回答說：即使是虛假的相續，雖然剎那生滅，但從這裡到那裡，在不同的地方產生時，就稱之為行走。因為這個原因而稱之為行走，並不是說真實的我從這裡到那裡。就像火焰和聲音，雖然唸唸生滅，但因為在不同的地方產生，所以世俗上說它們在行走。
論：像這樣，天授能行走，識能了知也是這樣說的。這是用類比的方式來解釋『了知』。聖人順應世間的說法，所以也這樣說。
論：經中說諸識（Vijnana，了別）了別境界，是爲了什麼而作的呢？這是提問。
論：實際上什麼也沒做，只是相似於境界，所以說名爲了別境界。論主回答說：這與《解深密經》（Samdhinirmocana Sutra）中外道不共陀羅尼（Dharani，總持）的說法相同。無論是雜染法還是清凈法，我說一切都沒有作用，也沒有補特伽羅，因為一切法都遠離了所作。
論：如何相似於境界呢？這是提問。
論：是指帶著那個境界的相，所以說名爲了別境界。解釋說：識產生的時候，有境界的相，所以名爲了別境界。因為沒有根的相，所以不名爲了別根。
論：或者說，識對於境界，就像鐘鼓能鳴一樣，進一步解釋識能了知。就像因為鐘和鼓有鳴響，所以說鐘和鼓能鳴響。因為前識是后識的原因，所以能了別境界，因此說識能了別。這是就原因來說的。
論：或者像燈能行走，識能了知也是一樣的。這是第三種解釋。
論：依據什麼道理說燈能行走呢？這是提問。
論：在火焰的相續中，從這裡到那裡，所以說名為能了知。解釋說：燈
【English Translation】 English version: Is the one who understands and so on, that 'I'?
Argument: Now we should challenge them. If 'Sarvajna' (all-knowing one) can understand, then isn't it the same that 'I' can also understand? The proponent first refutes their analogy, using the analogy to refute their claim. Two-fold questioning: What is Devadatta (a proper name)? If it is the real Atman (self), then it is as refuted before. If it is a hypothetical Pudgala (person), then its nature is not a single, unchanging entity. Because in the continuous stream of Devadatta's actions, the name Devadatta is hypothetically established, so this is refuting their analogy. Just as Devadatta can walk, so too can consciousness understand; this is refuting their claim by analogy.
Argument: According to what reasoning is it said that Devadatta can walk? This is an external question.
Argument: It means that in the continuous stream of momentary arising and ceasing, from here to there, like flame and sound, one can walk. The proponent answers: Even if it is a false continuum, although it ceases momentarily, from here to there, when it arises in a different place, it is called walking. Because of this reason it is called walking, it is not that the real self goes from here to there. Just like flame and sound, although they cease moment by moment, because they arise in different places, the world says they are walking.
Argument: In this way, Devadatta can walk, and it is also said that consciousness can understand. This is explaining 'understanding' by analogy. The sages comply with worldly conventions, so they also say it this way.
Argument: The sutra says that the various consciousnesses (Vijnana) discern objects, for what purpose is this done? This is a question.
Argument: Actually, nothing is done, it is only similar to the object, so it is said to be discerning the object. The proponent answers: This is the same as the statement in the Samdhinirmocana Sutra (Explication of the Thought Sutra) regarding the Dharani (mantra) not shared by non-Buddhists. Whether it is defiled or pure phenomena, I say that everything has no function, and there is no Pudgala, because all phenomena are apart from what is done.
Argument: How is it similar to the object? This is a question.
Argument: It means that it carries the appearance of that object, so it is said to be discerning the object. Explanation: When consciousness arises, it has the appearance of the object, so it is called discerning the object. Because it does not have the appearance of the root, it is not called discerning the root.
Argument: Or, that consciousness towards the object is like a bell and drum being able to sound, further explaining that consciousness can understand. Just as because the bell and drum have a sound, it is said that the bell and drum can sound. Because the prior consciousness is the cause of the subsequent consciousness, it can discern the object, therefore it is said that consciousness can discern. This is speaking in terms of the cause.
Argument: Or like a lamp can walk, so too can consciousness understand. This is the third explanation.
Argument: According to what reasoning is it said that a lamp can walk? This is a question.
Argument: In the continuous stream of the flame, from here to there, so it is said to be able to understand. Explanation: Lamp
異處相續生時名為燈行。識于異境說識為能了。即體是能也。
論。或如色生色住至理亦應然。以喻顯無了者也。如色生等無別生者。識了于境亦無了者。
論。若后識生至如芽莖葉等。外問也。
論。有為皆有住至后必異前。論主釋也。有為法有異相故。后識不可定似於前也。
論。若異此者至自然從定出。論主反難釋也。若后常似前。即無出定。
論。諸心相續至種性別故。釋有定次心也。
論。如女心無間至由種姓別故。指事釋也。
論。女心無間至外緣差別。釋女心后別雖容起多心。然若先數起者。明瞭者。近起者。先起。由如是心修力強故。若將起位身外緣差別即不定。如常起夫心。或時遇子或起子心。身被苦觸即起異心。
論。諸有修行力至生於自果。外難也。若由修力此心數起。諸有修力最強盛者。寧不恒時生於自果。
論。由此心有至最隨順故。釋也。謂由住異相故不恒生自果。此住異相順生異心故。
論。諸心品類至唯一切智知。明心次第微細。推佛能知兼引頌證。孔雀毛羽色類差別之因。唯佛能知。
論。色差別因至可易了知。舉易況難也。所緣色差別因。當唯佛知。況非色性。
論。一類外道至皆從於我。大文第
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 『異處相續生時名為燈行』：在不同的地方相續產生，這被稱為燈的執行狀態（燈光持續閃耀，看似在不同位置）。『識于異境說識為能了』：意識在不同的境界中產生作用，說明意識具有能認識、瞭解的功能。『即體是能也』：意識的本體就是能認識、瞭解的功能。
『論。或如色生色住至理亦應然。以喻顯無了者也。如色生等無別生者。識了于境亦無了者。』：或者就像色法的生起、住留一樣，道理也應該是這樣。用比喻來顯示沒有能認識、瞭解的主體。就像色法的生起等現象，沒有一個獨立的生起者，意識認識境界時，也沒有一個能認識的主體。
『論。若后識生至如芽莖葉等。外問也。』：如果後來的意識生起，就像種子生出芽、莖、葉等一樣。（這是外道的提問）
『論。有為皆有住至后必異前。論主釋也。有為法有異相故。后識不可定似於前也。』：一切有為法都有住留的階段，後來的狀態必然與之前的不同。（這是論主的解釋）因為有為法具有變化的特性，所以後來的意識不可能完全與之前的相同。
『論。若異此者至自然從定出。論主反難釋也。若后常似前。即無出定。』：如果不是這樣，（如果後來的意識總是與之前的相同），那麼自然就無法從禪定中出離。（這是論主的反駁和解釋）如果後來的意識總是與之前的相同，那就意味著沒有出定的狀態。
『論。諸心相續至種性別故。釋有定次心也。』：各種心的相續，是因為它們各自的種類和性質不同。（這是解釋為什麼心念的生起有固定的順序）
『論。如女心無間至由種姓別故。指事釋也。』：比如女人的心念，（在不同的情況下會產生不同的心念），這是因為她們的種類和性質不同。（這是舉例說明）
『論。女心無間至外緣差別。釋女心后別雖容起多心。然若先數起者。明瞭者。近起者。先起。由如是心修力強故。若將起位身外緣差別即不定。如常起夫心。或時遇子或起子心。身被苦觸即起異心。』：女人的心念，（會因為各種原因而產生變化），這是因為外部環境的差異。解釋說，女人的心念之後可能會生起多種不同的心念，但如果之前經常生起某種心念，或者某種心念非常清晰，或者某種心念是最近生起的，那麼這種心念就會先產生，因為這種心念的修習力量強大。如果考慮到生起的位置、身體和外部環境的差異，那麼情況就不一定了。比如，通常會生起對丈夫的思念，但有時遇到孩子，就會生起對孩子的思念；身體受到痛苦的觸碰，就會生起不同的心念。
『論。諸有修行力至生於自果。外難也。若由修力此心數起。諸有修力最強盛者。寧不恒時生於自果。』：那些通過修行而獲得力量的人，（他們的心念應該能夠持續地產生作用，並最終）產生自己的結果。（這是外道的質疑）如果通過修行，這種心念能夠頻繁地生起，那麼那些修行力量最強大的人，為什麼不能持續不斷地產生自己的結果呢？
『論。由此心有至最隨順故。釋也。謂由住異相故不恒生自果。此住異相順生異心故。』：因為這種心念具有（生、住、異、滅的）特性，（特別是）住留階段的差異，所以不能持續不斷地產生自己的結果。（這是解釋）這種住留階段的差異，會順應產生不同的心念。
『論。諸心品類至唯一切智知。明心次第微細。推佛能知兼引頌證。孔雀毛羽色類差別之因。唯佛能知。』：各種心念的種類，（以及它們生起的）順序非常細微，只有一切智者（Sarvajna，佛陀的稱號）才能完全瞭解。說明心的次第非常微細，推論佛陀能夠知曉，並引用偈頌來證明。孔雀羽毛顏色種類的差別原因，只有佛陀才能知道。
『論。色差別因至可易了知。舉易況難也。所緣色差別因。當唯佛知。況非色性。』：色法的差別原因，（尚且只有佛陀才能完全瞭解），何況是非色法的（心念）？這是用容易理解的事物來比喻難以理解的事物。所緣的色法差別的原因，尚且只有佛陀才能知道，更何況是非色法的心念呢？
『論。一類外道至皆從於我。大文第』：有一類外道，（認為一切事物）都來源於『我』（Atman）。（這是）大段的第
【English Translation】 English version 'When different places are continuously produced, it is called lamp-going.' This refers to the continuous production in different places, which is called the lamp's movement (the light of the lamp continues to shine, seemingly in different positions). 'Consciousness in different realms is said to be able to understand.' Consciousness functions in different realms, indicating that consciousness has the function of being able to recognize and understand. 'The entity itself is the ability.' The essence of consciousness is the ability to recognize and understand.
'Treatise: Or, just as the arising and abiding of form should also be the case in principle. This uses a metaphor to show that there is no understander. Just as there is no separate producer in the arising of form, there is also no understander when consciousness understands objects.' Or, just as the arising and abiding of form should also be the case in principle. This uses a metaphor to show that there is no subject that can recognize and understand. Just as there is no independent producer in the arising of form, there is also no subject that can recognize when consciousness recognizes objects.
'Treatise: If later consciousness arises, it is like sprouts, stems, and leaves from a seed. (This is an external question).' If later consciousness arises, it is like seeds producing sprouts, stems, and leaves. (This is a question from an outsider.)
'Treatise: All conditioned things have abiding, and the later must be different from the former. (This is the treatise master's explanation.) Because conditioned dharmas have different characteristics, later consciousness cannot be exactly like the former.' All conditioned dharmas have a stage of abiding, and the later state must be different from the previous one. (This is the explanation of the treatise master.) Because conditioned dharmas have changing characteristics, later consciousness cannot be exactly the same as the previous one.
'Treatise: If it is different from this, then naturally one cannot emerge from samadhi. (This is the treatise master's rebuttal and explanation.) If the later is always like the former, then there is no emergence from samadhi.' If it were not so (if later consciousness were always the same as the previous one), then naturally one could not emerge from samadhi. (This is the treatise master's rebuttal and explanation.) If later consciousness were always the same as the previous one, it would mean that there is no state of emerging from samadhi.
'Treatise: The continuity of all minds is due to the difference in their species and nature. (This explains why the arising of thoughts has a fixed order.)' The continuity of various minds is because their respective types and natures are different. (This explains why the arising of thoughts has a fixed order.)
'Treatise: For example, a woman's mind, (in different situations, different thoughts will arise), this is because their types and natures are different. (This is an example.)' For example, a woman's thoughts (will produce different thoughts in different situations), this is because their types and natures are different. (This is an illustration.)
'Treatise: A woman's mind, (will change for various reasons), this is because of the differences in the external environment. It explains that a woman's mind may give rise to many different thoughts, but if a certain thought arises frequently before, or a certain thought is very clear, or a certain thought has arisen recently, then this thought will arise first, because this thought has a strong practice power. If the differences in the arising position, body, and external environment are taken into account, then the situation is not certain. For example, thoughts of the husband usually arise, but sometimes when encountering a child, thoughts of the child arise; when the body is touched by pain, different thoughts arise.' A woman's thoughts (will change for various reasons), this is because of the differences in the external environment. It explains that a woman's thoughts may give rise to many different thoughts, but if a certain thought arises frequently before, or a certain thought is very clear, or a certain thought has arisen recently, then this thought will arise first, because this thought has a strong cultivation power. If the differences in the arising position, body, and external environment are taken into account, then the situation is not certain. For example, thoughts of the husband usually arise, but sometimes when encountering a child, thoughts of the child arise; when the body is touched by pain, different thoughts arise.
'Treatise: Those who have the power of practice, (their thoughts should be able to continuously produce effects, and ultimately) produce their own results. (This is an external question.) If this thought can arise frequently through practice, then why can't those who have the strongest practice power continuously produce their own results?' Those who have gained power through practice (their thoughts should be able to continuously produce effects and ultimately) produce their own results. (This is an outsider's question.) If this thought can arise frequently through practice, then why can't those with the strongest practice power continuously produce their own results?
'Treatise: Because this mind has (the characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing), (especially) the difference in the abiding stage, it cannot continuously produce its own results. (This is the explanation.) This difference in the abiding stage will accommodate the production of different thoughts.' Because this mind has (the characteristics of arising, abiding, changing, and ceasing), (especially) the difference in the abiding stage, it cannot continuously produce its own results. (This is the explanation.) This difference in the abiding stage will accommodate the production of different thoughts.
'Treatise: The types of all minds, (and the order in which they arise) are very subtle, and only the All-Knowing One (Sarvajna, a title of the Buddha) can fully understand. It explains that the order of the mind is very subtle, infers that the Buddha can know, and cites verses to prove it. Only the Buddha knows the reasons for the differences in the colors and types of peacock feathers.' The types of all minds (and the order in which they arise) are very subtle, and only the All-Knowing One (Sarvajna, a title of the Buddha) can fully understand. It explains that the order of the mind is very subtle, infers that the Buddha can know, and cites verses to prove it. Only the Buddha knows the reasons for the differences in the colors and types of peacock feathers.
'Treatise: The reasons for the differences in form, (are only fully understood by the Buddha), let alone (thoughts) that are not form? This is using something easy to understand to compare something difficult to understand. The reasons for the differences in the perceived form are only known by the Buddha, let alone the thoughts that are not form?' The reasons for the differences in form (are only fully understood by the Buddha), let alone (thoughts) that are not form? This is using something easy to understand to compare something difficult to understand. The reasons for the differences in the perceived form are only known by the Buddha, let alone the thoughts that are not form?
'Treatise: A certain type of heretic, (believes that all things) originate from 'self' (Atman). (This is) the first of the major sections.'
三破外道中第二破勝論師。彼說諸心生時。皆從於我。是我德故。
論。前之二難至如芽葉等。論主引前二難難勝論也。我既是一。何緣后識不恒似前。及定次第。
論。若謂由待至非極成故。破轉計也。彼計云。識不恒似前識者。由待我與實句色．意合差別不同故。有異識生者。理定不然。我體是一。與余意合。非極成故。此非兩宗共許。不成同也。
論。又二物合至俱有滅壞。論主破意與我合也。二物合有分限。不可遍合。我遍一切處。意有分限故。又彼外道自釋合相言。非至為先後至名合。我與意合。意有分限我應亦有分限。意移轉故我應移轉。意壞滅故我應壞滅。若不爾者。何名為合。
論。若一分合至無別分故。破分合也。以我無別分故。已上破識與我合。
論。設許有合至合寧有別。破縱許有合。不許合異。我體既常。意無別異。合寧有別生識異前。
論。若待別覺至得有差別。破轉計也。若謂待別覺故識生有異。生覺別因同生識難。
論。若待行別至何用我為。破轉計也。若待行別。我意合故生識別者。即應心但待行差別能生意識。何用我為。
論。我于識生至普莎訶言。破。識依行別生有差別。我于識生無用。而言識生由我。如藥除疾其事已成。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 三破外道中的第二破，是針對勝論師的駁斥。勝論師說，所有的心識生起時，都來源於『我』（Atman，靈魂或真我）。因為『我』是心識的屬性。
論：前面提出的兩個難題，比如芽和葉等。（論主引用前面兩個難題來駁斥勝論師。）既然『我』是唯一的，為什麼後來的心識不會總是像之前的，以及確定不變的順序？
論：如果說因為依賴於…直到非極成故。（駁斥勝論師的辯解。）勝論師辯解說，心識不會總是像之前的，是因為依賴於『我』與實句（Dravya，實體）、色（Guna，屬性）、意（Manas，心）的結合差別不同。有不同的心識產生，這個道理肯定不對。『我』的本體是唯一的，與『意』的結合，是非極成（Aprasiddha，未被證明的）。這並非兩宗共同認可的，不能成立為同品。
論：又，兩個物體結合…直到共同滅壞。（論主駁斥『意』與『我』的結合。）兩個物體的結合有範圍限制，不可能普遍結合。『我』遍佈一切處，而『意』有範圍限制。而且，那個外道自己解釋結合相說，非…直到為先後至名為合。『我』與『意』結合，『意』有範圍限制，『我』也應該有範圍限制。『意』移動，『我』也應該移動。『意』壞滅，『我』也應該壞滅。如果不是這樣，那憑什麼叫做結合？
論：如果一部分結合…直到沒有區別的部分。（駁斥部分結合。）因為『我』沒有不同的部分。以上是駁斥心識與『我』的結合。
論：假設允許有結合…直到結合怎麼會有區別？（駁斥縱然允許有結合，但不允許結合有差異。）『我』的本體是常恒的，『意』沒有別的差異，結合怎麼會有區別，產生的心識與之前不同？
論：如果依賴於別的覺知…直到才能有差別。（駁斥勝論師的辯解。）如果說依賴於別的覺知，所以心識的產生有差異，產生覺知的不同原因，與產生心識的難題相同。
論：如果依賴於行為的差別…直到要『我』做什麼？（駁斥勝論師的辯解。）如果依賴於行為的差別，『我』與『意』結合而產生心識的差別，那就應該心識僅僅依賴於行為的差別就能產生意識，要『我』做什麼？
論：『我』對於心識的產生…直到普莎訶言。（駁斥。心識依靠行為的差別而產生差別，『我』對於心識的產生沒有用處，卻說心識的產生來源於『我』，就像藥已經治好了疾病，事情已經完成。）
【English Translation】 English version: The second refutation among the three refutations of non-Buddhist doctrines is directed against the Vaisheshika (a school of Indian philosophy) school. They say that all consciousness arises from the 'Atman' (self or soul). Because the 'Atman' is the attribute of consciousness.
Argument: The previous two difficulties, such as sprouts and leaves, etc. (The arguer cites the previous two difficulties to refute the Vaisheshika.) Since the 'Atman' is unique, why doesn't later consciousness always resemble the previous one, and have a fixed order?
Argument: If it is said that it depends on... until it is not established. (Refuting the Vaisheshika's defense.) The Vaisheshika argues that consciousness does not always resemble the previous one because it depends on the different combinations of the 'Atman' with Dravya (substance), Guna (quality), and Manas (mind). It is certainly not true that different consciousnesses arise. The essence of the 'Atman' is unique, and its combination with 'Manas' is Aprasiddha (unproven). This is not mutually accepted by both schools and cannot be established as a common ground.
Argument: Furthermore, the combination of two objects... until they both perish. (The arguer refutes the combination of 'Manas' and 'Atman'.) The combination of two objects has limited scope and cannot be universally combined. The 'Atman' pervades everywhere, while 'Manas' has limited scope. Moreover, that non-Buddhist himself explains the aspect of combination, saying that not... until the successive arrival is called combination. If the 'Atman' combines with 'Manas', and 'Manas' has limited scope, then the 'Atman' should also have limited scope. If 'Manas' moves, the 'Atman' should also move. If 'Manas' perishes, the 'Atman' should also perish. If not, then what is it called combination?
Argument: If a part combines... until there is no distinct part. (Refuting partial combination.) Because the 'Atman' has no distinct parts. The above refutes the combination of consciousness and 'Atman'.
Argument: Suppose combination is allowed... until how can combination be different? (Refuting that even if combination is allowed, difference in combination is not allowed.) The essence of the 'Atman' is constant, and 'Manas' has no other difference, how can combination be different, and the resulting consciousness be different from the previous one?
Argument: If it depends on other awareness... until there can be a difference. (Refuting the Vaisheshika's defense.) If it is said that it depends on other awareness, so the arising of consciousness is different, the different causes of arising awareness are the same as the difficulty of arising consciousness.
Argument: If it depends on the difference in action... until what is the use of 'Atman'? (Refuting the Vaisheshika's defense.) If it depends on the difference in action, and the combination of 'Atman' and 'Manas' produces the difference in consciousness, then consciousness should only depend on the difference in action to produce awareness, what is the use of 'Atman'?
Argument: The 'Atman' is useless for the arising of consciousness... until the word 'Pusvaha'. (Refuting. Consciousness arises differently depending on the difference in action. The 'Atman' is useless for the arising of consciousness, but it is said that the arising of consciousness comes from the 'Atman', just like the medicine has already cured the disease, the matter has been accomplished.)
誑醫矯說由我咒也 普莎訶此云吉祥。
論。若謂此二至無理為證。破轉計心行由我有也。雖有此言。無理證成。
論。若謂此二至為所依義。論主問依相也。
論。非心與行至我為彼依。外人答也。心．行依我。非如畫．果依于壁．器。若如此二。即有二失。一相礙失。二或時別住失。
論。若爾如何。論主徴外人也。我與覺行為其所依。不如器持果。壁持畫。汝說覺．行依我如何。
論。此但如地至四物所依。外人答也。如色．香．味．觸四物依地也。
論。彼如是言至假立我名。論主破云。若如汝所說。我為二依。如地與香等為所依者。香等依于地。四外無別地。心．行依於我。二外無別我。
論。若離香等至地有香等。外人難也。既言地有香等。明知能有異於所有。故知四外別有于地。
論。為顯地體至木像身等。論主釋也。為顯地體不同故。地體有是香等異故。如世間言。為顯像體不同而言木像身等雖木即是像。仍簡余鐵像。
論。又若有我至生一切智。論主又破。若我待行差別能生智者。行既眾多。何不俱時生一切智。
論。若時此行至果不恒生。又破救也若救言所以不俱時生一切智者。以功能強行。遮余劣行。不生果故。不得俱時生一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：'誑醫矯說由我咒也，普莎訶（pǔ shā hē）：此云吉祥。'
論：如果說這兩個詞（'誑醫矯說'）以無理作為證據，是爲了破除認為心和行的運轉依賴於我的想法。即使有這種說法，也無法用無理來證明。
論：如果說這兩個詞（'心'和'行'）是作為所依賴的意義，論主（作者）是在詢問所依賴的相狀。
論：'非心與行至我為彼依'，這是外道（持不同見解的人）的回答。心和行依賴於我，不像圖畫和果實依賴於墻壁和器皿。如果像這二者一樣，就會有兩個過失：一是互相妨礙的過失，二是或者有時各自獨立存在的過失。
論：'若爾如何？'，論主在徵詢外道。我和覺（認知）、行（行為）是它們所依賴的，不像器皿盛放果實，墻壁支撐圖畫。你說覺和行如何依賴於我呢？
論：'此但如地至四物所依'，外道的回答。就像色、香、味、觸四種事物依賴於地一樣。
論：'彼如是言至假立我名'，論主駁斥說：如果像你所說的，我作為二者的所依，就像地和香等作為所依一樣，香等依賴於地，在四者之外沒有別的地；心和行依賴於我，在二者之外沒有別的我。
論：'若離香等至地有香等'，外道提出疑問：既然說地有香等，就明確知道能有的和所有的不同，因此知道在四者之外另有地。
論：'為顯地體至木像身等'，論主解釋說：爲了顯示地的本體不同，地的本體和香等不同，就像世間所說，爲了顯示像的本體不同，而說木像、身等，雖然木就是像，仍然要區分于其他的鐵像。
論：'又若有我至生一切智'，論主又駁斥說：如果我依賴於行的差別就能產生智慧，行既然眾多，為什麼不能同時產生一切智慧？
論：'若時此行至果不恒生'，又駁斥外道的辯解：如果外道辯解說，之所以不能同時產生一切智慧，是因為功能強大的行，遮蔽了其餘弱小的行，使它們不能產生結果，所以不能同時產生一切智慧。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Kuang yi jiao shuo you wo zhou ye, Pusahe (pǔ shā hē): This means auspicious.'
Treatise: If it is said that these two terms ('Kuang yi jiao shuo') use unreasonableness as evidence, it is to refute the idea that the operation of mind and actions depends on 'I'. Even if there is this statement, it cannot be proven with unreasonableness.
Treatise: If it is said that these two terms ('mind' and 'actions') are used as the meaning of what is relied upon, the author is asking about the appearance of what is relied upon.
Treatise: 'Neither mind nor actions to 'I' are what they rely on,' this is the answer of the heretics (those holding different views). Mind and actions rely on 'I', not like paintings and fruits rely on walls and utensils. If it were like these two, there would be two faults: one is the fault of mutual obstruction, and the other is the fault of sometimes existing independently.
Treatise: 'If so, how?', the author is questioning the heretics. 'I' and awareness (cognition), actions (behavior) are what they rely on, not like utensils holding fruits, walls supporting paintings. How do you say that awareness and actions rely on 'I'?
Treatise: 'This is just like the earth to the reliance of the four things,' the heretics' answer. Just like the four things of color, smell, taste, and touch rely on the earth.
Treatise: 'They said so to falsely establish the name of 'I',' the author refutes, saying: If it is as you say, 'I' as the reliance of the two, just like the earth and fragrance, etc., as the reliance, fragrance, etc., rely on the earth, and there is no other earth outside the four; mind and actions rely on 'I', and there is no other 'I' outside the two.
Treatise: 'If separated from fragrance, etc., to the earth having fragrance, etc.,' the heretics raise a question: Since it is said that the earth has fragrance, etc., it is clear that what can have is different from what is had, so it is known that there is another earth outside the four.
Treatise: 'To show the substance of the earth to the body of a wooden statue, etc.,' the author explains: In order to show that the substance of the earth is different, the substance of the earth is different from fragrance, etc., just like the world says, in order to show that the substance of the statue is different, it says wooden statue, body, etc., although wood is the statue, it still needs to be distinguished from other iron statues.
Treatise: 'Also, if there is 'I' to generate omniscience,' the author refutes again: If 'I' depends on the difference of actions to generate wisdom, since there are many actions, why can't it generate all wisdom at the same time?
Treatise: 'If at the time this action to the result is not constantly generated,' also refuting the heretics' defense: If the heretics defend that the reason why all wisdom cannot be generated at the same time is that the powerful action obscures the remaining weak actions, so that they cannot produce results, so all wisdom cannot be generated at the same time.
切智者。寧從強行果不恒生。
論。答此如前至漸變異故。外救。我宗許非常漸有變異。如前難云。何修力最強者。寧不恒時生於自果。答云。由此心有住異相故。我答此難亦與彼同。由有行體有漸變異故。
論。若爾計我至體無異故破由行轉變也。若識生．不生由依行者。執我唐捐。行力令心差別生故。彼道計行。同我釋宗修心差別生。既由修力。何關於我。
論。必定應信至理不成故。以有能依證所依我也。彼宗計。我為實。念等德句。德依實句不依余故。故知我體亦有不得言無。
論。此證非理至但有虛言。論主破外證也。外執念等德句義攝。體皆非實。依余實法。我宗不許。亦不極成。我宗許念等有別實體性皆名實故。我宗經說六實物名沙門果故。六實即是無漏五蘊．並擇滅也。
論。彼依實我至但有虛言。第二破依我也。指同前破故不重述。
論。若我實無至我體是何。外道反難也。由為我當受苦．樂果故造善．惡業。我體若無。為誰造業 若為我造業者。我體是何。
論。謂我執境。論主答也 言為我者。是我執境也。
論。何名我執境。外道問也。
論。謂諸蘊相續。論主答也 我執境者。即五蘊相續。非別有我。
論。云何知然。外
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 智者（切智者，指具有辨別智慧的人）會選擇從強大的行為開始，即使其結果不是恒常不變的。
論：對此的回答如前所述，因為事物是逐漸變化差異的。外道辯解：我宗（外道自己的宗派）承認非常事物會逐漸產生變化差異。如前所述的難題：為什麼修行力量最強的人，不能恒常地產生其自身的結果？回答說：因為心有住和異的相狀。我對這個難題的回答也與那個相同，因為行為的本體具有逐漸變化差異的特性。
論：如果這樣，那麼計我者（外道）所認為的『我』，其本體沒有差異，因此通過行為的轉變來破斥『我』的觀點是錯誤的。如果識的產生或不產生依賴於行為，那麼執著于『我』就是徒勞的，因為是行為的力量使心產生差別。他們（外道）所說的修行，與我們佛教所說的通過修行使心產生差別相似。既然是由修行的力量所致，那與『我』有什麼關係呢？
論：必定應該相信，如果沒有能依靠的事物，那麼所依靠的道理就不能成立。因為有能依靠的事物，才能證明所依靠的『我』存在。他們的宗派認為，『我』是真實的，念等德句（念等屬性）是依附於實句（實體）的，而不是依附於其他事物的。因此可知，『我』的本體也是存在的，不能說沒有。
論：這個證明是不合理的，只不過是空話而已。論主破斥外道的證明。外道認爲念等德句的意義包含在本體中，這些本體都不是真實的，而是依附於其他真實的法。我們佛教不承認這種說法，這也不是極成（公認的）。我們佛教承認念等有不同的實體，其性質都稱為『實』。我們佛教的經典說六實物是沙門果（修道者的果實），六實即是無漏五蘊和擇滅（涅槃）。
論：他們所依附的真實『我』，只不過是空話而已。這是第二次破斥依附於『我』的觀點。與之前的破斥相同，因此不再重複。
論：如果『我』確實不存在，那麼為誰造業？『我』的本體是什麼？外道反過來質問。因為『我』將承受苦樂的果報，所以才造作善惡業。如果『我』的本體不存在，那麼是誰在造業？如果說是為『我』造業，那麼『我』的本體是什麼？
論：所謂『我』執的境界。論主回答說：所說的『為我』，是指『我』執的境界。
論：什麼叫做『我』執的境界？外道問道。
論：是指諸蘊（五蘊）的相續。論主回答說：『我』執的境界，就是五蘊的相續，並非另外有一個『我』。
論：怎麼知道是這樣呢？外
【English Translation】 English version: The wise (Chetrijna, referring to those with discriminating wisdom) would rather choose to start from a strong action, even if its result is not constant.
Treatise: The answer to this is as before, because things gradually change and differ. An outsider argues: Our school (the outsider's own school) admits that impermanent things gradually change and differ. As in the previous difficulty: Why can't the one with the strongest cultivation power constantly produce its own result? The answer is: Because the mind has the characteristics of abiding and differing. My answer to this difficulty is the same as that one, because the nature of action has the characteristic of gradual change and difference.
Treatise: If so, then the 'self' as conceived by those who adhere to a self (outsiders), whose essence has no difference, then refuting the view of 'self' through the transformation of actions is wrong. If the arising or non-arising of consciousness depends on actions, then clinging to 'self' is futile, because it is the power of actions that causes the mind to produce differences. What they (outsiders) call cultivation is similar to what we Buddhists call causing the mind to produce differences through cultivation. Since it is due to the power of cultivation, what does it have to do with 'self'?
Treatise: It must be believed that if there is nothing to rely on, then the principle of what is relied upon cannot be established. Because there is something to rely on, it can prove that the 'self' that is relied upon exists. Their school believes that 'self' is real, and attributes such as mindfulness are attached to the real entity, not to other things. Therefore, it can be known that the essence of 'self' also exists and cannot be said to be non-existent.
Treatise: This proof is unreasonable, it's just empty words. The treatise master refutes the outsider's proof. Outsiders believe that the meaning of attributes such as mindfulness is contained in the essence, and these essences are not real, but are attached to other real dharmas. We Buddhists do not admit this statement, and it is not universally accepted. We Buddhists admit that mindfulness and other attributes have different entities, and their nature is called 'real'. Our Buddhist scriptures say that the six real things are the fruits of a Shramana (fruits of a practitioner), and the six real things are the unconditioned five aggregates and cessation through discernment (Nirvana).
Treatise: The real 'self' they rely on is just empty words. This is the second refutation of the view of relying on 'self'. It is the same as the previous refutation, so it will not be repeated.
Treatise: If 'self' does not exist, then for whom are actions created? What is the essence of 'self'? The outsider asks in return. Because 'self' will bear the fruits of suffering and happiness, good and evil deeds are created. If the essence of 'self' does not exist, then who is creating the actions? If it is said that actions are created for 'self', then what is the essence of 'self'?
Treatise: The realm of 'self'-grasping. The treatise master answers: What is said to be 'for self' refers to the realm of 'self'-grasping.
Treatise: What is called the realm of 'self'-grasping? The outsider asks.
Treatise: It refers to the continuity of the aggregates (five aggregates). The treatise master answers: The realm of 'self'-grasping is the continuity of the five aggregates, not a separate 'self'.
Treatise: How do we know this is so? The
道問也云何知我執境即蘊非我。
論。貪愛彼故。論主答也。有二答。此文初也。以貪愛我者。即貪愛取蘊。故知取蘊即所為我。
論。與白等覺至但緣諸蘊。第二答也。如世間言我白。乃至肥我現見世間。緣白等覺。與計我執同處而生。如世間言我白．黑等。故知即白等境。是我執境。故知緣我。但緣諸蘊不緣我也。
論。以身於我至即是我身。外道通論主難也。我有二種。一實。二假。實是真我。身是假我。以身於我有防護恩故。假說為我。如言臣等即是我身。身等覺同名為我者。此是假我非實我也。
論。于有恩中至所取不然。論主破也。如汝所計。我執緣我。以身於實我有防護恩。假說身為我。而諸執蘊為我皆謂實我不謂假故。
論。若許依身至緣他身起。外道難也。身實非是我。緣身起我執。他身非是我。寧無我執緣他身起。
論。他與我執至如是習故。論主答也。自身與能執心相屬故。計自身為我。他身與能執心不相屬故。不計為我。
論。相屬謂何。外道問也 言相屬者。謂何義也。
論。謂因果性。論主答也。身與我執互為因果性名為相屬。
論。若無我體誰之我執。外道難也。若有我體。我執屬我。名相屬性。若無我體。我執屬誰名相屬
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 問：如何得知我執（Ātmagraha，對自我的執著）所執著的境界就是五蘊（Skandha，構成個體經驗的五個集合：色、受、想、行、識），而不是真我（Ātman，永恒不變的自我）呢？
答：因為貪愛它們（五蘊）。這是論主的回答。有兩種回答，這是第一個。因為貪愛我的人，實際上是貪愛五取蘊（Upādānaskandha，執取的五蘊）。所以，可以得知五取蘊就是所執著的我。
答：如同『我白』等感覺，乃至『我肥』。這是第二個回答。如同世間所說『我白』，乃至『我肥』，可以現見世間，緣于白色等感覺，與計度我執（Kalpanā ātmagraha，虛妄分別的自我執著）同處而生。如同世間說『我白』、『我黑』等，所以可知白色等境界，就是我執的境界。因此可知，緣於我，只是緣于諸蘊，而不是緣于真我。
問：因為身體對於我，有防護的恩德，所以說身體就是我。這是外道的普遍論點，論主提出質疑。我有兩種，一是真實的，二是虛假的。真實的是真我，身體是假我。因為身體對於我有防護的恩德，所以假說身體為我。如同臣子說『臣等就是我的身體』。身體等感覺，同樣被稱為『我』，這是假我，不是真我。
答：如你所認為的，我執緣於我，因為身體對於真實的我有防護的恩德，所以假說身體為我。但是，所有執著五蘊為我的人，都認為是真實的自我，而不是虛假的自我。
問：如果允許依附於身體而生起我執，那麼他人之身不是我，難道不會有我執緣於他人之身而生起嗎？這是外道的提問。
答：因為自身與能執著的心相互關聯，所以計度自身為我。他人之身與能執著的心不相互關聯，所以不計度為我。
問：所謂的『相屬』，是指什麼？外道問道。所說的『相屬』，是什麼意思呢？
答：所謂的『相屬』，是指因果關係。論主回答。身體與我執互為因果關係，這叫做『相屬』。
問：如果沒有我的本體，那麼我執屬於誰呢？外道提出質疑。如果存在我的本體，我執屬於我，這可以稱為『相屬』。如果沒有我的本體，我執又屬於誰，才能稱為『相屬』呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Question: How is it known that the object of 'I'-grasping (Ātmagraha, the clinging to a self) is precisely the aggregates (Skandha, the five aggregates that constitute individual experience: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) and not a true self (Ātman, a permanent and unchanging self)?
Answer: Because of craving for them (the aggregates). This is the treatise master's response. There are two answers; this is the first. Because those who crave for 'I' actually crave for the five aggregates of clinging (Upādānaskandha, the five aggregates of grasping). Therefore, it can be known that the aggregates of clinging are precisely the 'I' that is grasped.
Answer: Like the perception of 'I am white,' and even 'I am fat.' This is the second answer. Just as in the world it is said 'I am white,' and even 'I am fat,' it can be seen in the world that the perception of whiteness, etc., arises in the same place as conceptual 'I'-grasping (Kalpanā ātmagraha, the self-grasping of false discrimination). Just as the world says 'I am white,' 'I am black,' etc., therefore it can be known that the object of whiteness, etc., is the object of 'I'-grasping. Therefore, it can be known that grasping at 'I' is merely grasping at the aggregates, and not grasping at a true self.
Question: Because the body has the kindness of protecting 'I,' therefore it is said that the body is 'I.' This is a common argument of non-Buddhists, which the treatise master challenges. There are two kinds of 'I': one is real, and the other is false. The real one is the true self, and the body is the false 'I.' Because the body has the kindness of protecting 'I,' it is falsely said that the body is 'I.' Just as ministers say 'We are your body.' The perception of the body, etc., is also called 'I'; this is the false 'I,' not the true self.
Answer: As you believe, 'I'-grasping grasps at 'I' because the body has the kindness of protecting the real 'I,' so it is falsely said that the body is 'I.' However, all those who grasp at the aggregates as 'I' consider it to be the real self, not the false self.
Question: If it is allowed that 'I'-grasping arises dependent on the body, then since another's body is not 'I,' wouldn't 'I'-grasping arise dependent on another's body? This is a question from non-Buddhists.
Answer: Because one's own body and the mind that grasps are related, one conceives of one's own body as 'I.' Another's body and the mind that grasps are not related, so one does not conceive of it as 'I.'
Question: What is meant by 'related'? The non-Buddhist asks. What is the meaning of what is said to be 'related'?
Answer: What is meant by 'related' is the nature of cause and effect. The treatise master answers. The body and 'I'-grasping are mutually the nature of cause and effect; this is called 'related.'
Question: If there is no entity of 'I,' then to whom does 'I'-grasping belong? The non-Buddhist raises a question. If there exists an entity of 'I,' then 'I'-grasping belongs to 'I,' and this can be called 'related.' If there is no entity of 'I,' then to whom does 'I'-grasping belong, so that it can be called 'related'?
性。
論。此前已釋至為果所屬。論主指前答也。
論。若爾我執以何為因。外道問我執因也。
論。謂無始來至有垢染心。論主答同類因也。
論。我體若無誰有苦樂。外道問也。
論。若依於此至及樹有花。論主答也。法．喻可解。
論苦樂依何。外道問也。
論。謂內六處至說為彼依。論主答也。即于內六處隨其所起。苦．樂之時說為所起苦樂之依。
論。若我實無誰能作業受果。外道問也。既無作者．受者。誰能作業。誰能受果。
論。作受何義。論主問也。
論。作謂能作受謂受者。外道答也。
論。此但易名未顯其義。論主責也。
論。辯法相者至名俗等者。外道引辨外道法相者釋也。
論。此中汝等至自在作者。論主兩關破也。若說實我天授。喻不極成。說蘊天授便作非自在作者。
論。業有三種至屬因緣故。廣明諸法皆待因緣皆不自在。
論。汝所執我至故非自在。論主破實我自在也。實我雖不待因。無所作故亦非自在。
論。由此後說至相無可得。總結難也。
論。然于諸法至名為作者。論主自釋作者。破我作者也。
論。能生身業勝因者何。外道問也。
論。謂從憶念
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 性。 論：此前已經解釋過，這是屬於果的範疇。論主指的是前面的回答。 論：如果這樣，那麼我執（ātma-graha，對自我的執著）以什麼為因？外道（tīrthika，佛教以外的修行者）問我執的起因。 論：所謂的無始以來，直到有垢染的心。論主回答說，這是同類因。 論：如果我的本體不存在，那麼誰來承受苦樂？外道問道。 論：如果依據於此，乃至像樹一樣有花。論主回答。法和比喻可以理解。 論：苦樂依賴於什麼？外道問道。 論：所謂的內六處（adhyātmika-āyatana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意），乃至被說成是它們的所依。論主回答。即在內六處隨其所起，苦樂產生的時候，說它們是所生苦樂的依靠。 論：如果我確實不存在，那麼誰能造業，誰能受果？外道問道。既然沒有作者和受者，誰能造業，誰能受果。 論：作業和受果是什麼意思？論主問道。 論：作是指能作，受是指受者。外道回答。 論：這只是改變了名稱，並沒有顯明它的意義。論主責備道。 論：辨別法相的人，乃至名為俗等的人。外道引用辨別外道法相的人來解釋。 論：在這裡，你們這些人，乃至自在的作者。論主從兩方面進行駁斥。如果說實我（sat-ātman，真實的自我）是天授（deva-datta，人名），比喻就不成立。說蘊（skandha，構成個體的要素）是天授，就成了非自在的作者。 論：業有三種，乃至屬於因緣的緣故。廣泛地說明諸法都依賴於因緣，都不自在。 論：你所執著的我，乃至所以不是自在的。論主破斥實我是自在的。實我即使不依賴於因，因為沒有作為，所以也不是自在的。 論：由此後來說，乃至相不可得。總結性的責難。 論：然而對於諸法，乃至名為作者。論主自己解釋作者，破斥我作為作者。 論：能夠產生身業（kāya-karma，身體的行為）殊勝之因是什麼？外道問道。 論：所謂的從憶念
【English Translation】 English version Nature. Treatise: It has been explained before that this belongs to the category of result. The author of the treatise refers to the previous answer. Treatise: If so, what is the cause of ātma-graha (ego-grasping)? The tīrthika (non-Buddhist practitioner) asks about the cause of ego-grasping. Treatise: So-called from beginningless time, until the mind is defiled. The author of the treatise answers that this is a homogeneous cause. Treatise: If the substance of 'I' does not exist, then who experiences suffering and happiness? The tīrthika asks. Treatise: If based on this, even like a tree having flowers. The author of the treatise answers. The dharma and the metaphor can be understood. Treatise: What does suffering and happiness depend on? The tīrthika asks. Treatise: The so-called six internal āyatana (sense bases: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind), even said to be their basis. The author of the treatise answers. That is, within the six internal āyatana, according to what arises, when suffering and happiness arise, they are said to be the basis of the suffering and happiness that arise. Treatise: If 'I' truly does not exist, then who can create karma and who can receive the result? The tīrthika asks. Since there is no creator and no receiver, who can create karma and who can receive the result. Treatise: What is the meaning of creating karma and receiving the result? The author of the treatise asks. Treatise: Creating means being able to create, and receiving means the receiver. The tīrthika answers. Treatise: This is only changing the name, and does not reveal its meaning. The author of the treatise rebukes. Treatise: Those who distinguish dharma characteristics, even those called mundane, etc. The tīrthika quotes those who distinguish non-Buddhist dharma characteristics to explain. Treatise: Here, you people, even the independent creator. The author of the treatise refutes from two aspects. If it is said that the sat-ātman (true self) is deva-datta (a person's name), the metaphor is not established. Saying that the skandha (aggregates) are deva-datta makes it a non-independent creator. Treatise: There are three types of karma, even belonging to the cause and condition. It broadly explains that all dharmas depend on causes and conditions and are not independent. Treatise: The 'I' that you cling to, even so it is not independent. The author of the treatise refutes that the true self is independent. Even if the true self does not depend on causes, because it does nothing, it is also not independent. Treatise: Therefore, it is said later, even the characteristic cannot be obtained. A concluding difficulty. Treatise: However, regarding all dharmas, even called the creator. The author of the treatise explains the creator himself, refuting 'I' as the creator. Treatise: What is the superior cause that can produce kāya-karma (body karma)? The tīrthika asks. Treatise: The so-called from recollection
至類此應思。論主釋。勝因展轉起用名為作者。外道執我。此中無用。故非作者。
論。我復云何能領業果。論主前破作者。此破領果先問起也。
論。若謂于果至已遮遣故。論主縱計指前破也。我既于識心生既無功能。于受苦．樂亦無能也。
論。若實無我至罪福生長。外道難也。若無我者。唯蘊生因。名作業者。受苦樂者。諸非情亦有損．益等事。因何不說罪．福生長。
論。彼非受等至如前已說。論主釋難兼破執也。唯內六處。受等心法所依止處故。諸非情法。非受等依故。非依彼罪．福生長故。我非受等依。如前已說。
論。若實無我至生未來果。外道難也。
論。設有實我至生未來果。論主反責難也。
論。從依止我法．非法生。外道答也。我為所依。法．非法為能依。從法．非法生未來果。
論。如誰依誰至不應依我。指前已破法．非法依義。
論。然聖教中至未來果生。論主以經部義釋也。有部從已壞業生。經部從業勛種生也。
論。若爾從何。外道答也。
論。說業相續至無間即生。論主以經部義釋。並喻顯也。
論。若爾從何。外問喻也。
論。從種相續至方引果生。論主答也。
論若爾何言說種生果。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 至此類應思考。論主的解釋是：勝因輾轉產生作用，名為作者（kartar，行為者）。外道執著於我（atman，靈魂），但在此處我沒有作用，所以不是作者。
論：我又是如何能夠領受業果的呢？論主前面已經破斥了作者，這裡破斥領受果報，先提出疑問。
論：如果說對於果報…已經遮遣了。論主順著對方的觀點，指著前面進行破斥。我既然對於識心（vijnana，意識）的生起沒有功能，對於感受苦（duhkha，痛苦）、樂（sukha，快樂）也沒有能力。
論：如果實在沒有我…罪福生長。外道的詰難是：如果沒有我，只有蘊（skandha，構成要素）產生原因，名為作業者，那麼感受苦樂的，諸如非情之物也有損害、利益等事，為何不說罪福生長在它們身上？
論：它們不是領受者…如前已說。論主解釋詰難，兼破外道的執著。只有內在的六處（ayatana，感覺器官），是領受等心法所依止之處，諸如非情之法，不是領受等所依止之處，所以罪福不會在它們身上生長。我不是領受等的所依，如前面已經說過。
論：如果實在沒有我…生未來果。外道的詰難。
論：縱然有實在的我…生未來果。論主反過來責難對方。
論：從依止我，法（dharma，正法）、非法（adharma，非法）生。外道回答說：我作為所依，法、非法作為能依，從法、非法產生未來的果報。
論：如誰依誰…不應依我。指著前面已經破斥的法、非法依止的意義。
論：然而聖教中…未來果生。論主用經部（Sautrantika，經量部）的義理來解釋。有部（Sarvastivada，一切有部）認為從已經壞滅的業產生果報，經部認為從業的熏習種子產生果報。
論：如果這樣，從何處產生？外道提問。
論：說業相續…無間即生。論主用經部的義理來解釋，並且用比喻來顯示。
論：如果這樣，從何處產生？外道用比喻提問。
論：從種子相續…方引果生。論主回答。
論：如果這樣，為何說種子生果？
【English Translation】 English version Such things as these should be considered. The master of the treatise explains: 'Superior causes arising and functioning in succession are called the agent (kartar). The heretics are attached to the self (atman), but here the self has no function, so it is not the agent.'
Treatise: 'How then am I able to experience the results of karma?' The master of the treatise has already refuted the agent; here he refutes the experiencer of the results, first raising the question.
Treatise: 'If it is said that with respect to the result...it has already been rejected.' The master of the treatise follows the opponent's view, pointing to the previous refutation. 'Since the self has no function in the arising of consciousness (vijnana), it also has no ability to experience suffering (duhkha) or happiness (sukha).'
Treatise: 'If there is truly no self...the growth of demerit and merit.' The heretic's challenge is: 'If there is no self, and only the aggregates (skandha) produce the cause, called the agent, then those who experience suffering and happiness, such as non-sentient things, also have harm and benefit. Why not say that demerit and merit grow in them?'
Treatise: 'They are not experiencers...as previously stated.' The master of the treatise explains the challenge, also refuting the heretic's attachment. 'Only the inner six sense bases (ayatana) are the places where mental phenomena such as experiencing reside. Non-sentient phenomena are not the places where experiencing resides, so demerit and merit do not grow in them. The self is not the basis of experiencing, as previously stated.'
Treatise: 'If there is truly no self...future results arise.' The heretic's challenge.
Treatise: 'Even if there were a real self...future results arise.' The master of the treatise retorts with a challenge.
Treatise: 'From relying on the self, dharma and adharma arise.' The heretic replies: 'The self is the basis, dharma and adharma are what rely on it. From dharma and adharma, future results arise.'
Treatise: 'As who relies on whom...should not rely on the self.' Pointing to the previously refuted meaning of dharma and adharma relying.
Treatise: 'However, in the sacred teachings...future results arise.' The master of the treatise explains using the meaning of the Sautrantika school. The Sarvastivada school believes that results arise from karma that has already perished; the Sautrantika school believes that results arise from the seeds of karmic imprints.
Treatise: 'If so, from where does it arise?' The heretic asks.
Treatise: 'It is said that the continuity of karma...arises immediately.' The master of the treatise explains using the meaning of the Sautrantika school, and illustrates with a metaphor.
Treatise: 'If so, from where does it arise?' The heretic asks using a metaphor.
Treatise: 'From the continuity of seeds...then the result is drawn forth.' The master of the treatise replies.
Treatise: 'If so, why say that the seed produces the result?'
外道問也。若展轉從花生者。何故乃言從種生果。
論。由種展轉至應與果別。論主釋也。先順釋。后反難釋也。如文可解。
論。如是雖言至差別生。釋業生其果時。非無間生。非離業生。從彼業相續轉變差別生。
論。何名相續轉變差別。外道問也。
論。謂業為先至故名差別。論主釋轉變差別。如文可解。
論。如有取識至輪轉于生死。論主指事釋。並引頌證也。
論。於此義中至永滅故。論主釋。諸因生果。滅壞不同。如文可解。
論。何緣異熟果至有別果生。外難也。如外熟果能為後果之因。異熟之果何不為異熟因。
論。且非譬喻至無別果生。論主釋其前難。兼破果生也 且非譬喻是法皆等。釋前難也 然從種果無別果生。破前立種果還為因也。
論。若爾從何生於後果。外問也。
論。從后熟變至世說為種。論主釋後生因也。
論。此亦如是至故喻同法。論主法合也。
論。或由別計至余異熟生。釋別緣生亦義同異熟。
論。前來且隨至離佛無能知。論主業微細推佛知也。並頌證。如文可解。自下三頌。大文第二于當品中。勸學流通。初一頌勸學聞慧。次一頌勸學思慧。后一頌勸學修慧 已善說此凈因道者。凈謂無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 外道問：如果（果實）是輾轉從花而生，為什麼卻說果實是從種子而生？
論：因為種子輾轉變化，最終與果實不同。（這是）論主的解釋。先順著（外道的提問）解釋，然後反過來駁斥並解釋。如文義可以理解。
論：像這樣，雖然說（業）到（產生）差別（時）才生起。（這是）解釋業產生果報時，不是無間斷地產生，也不是離開業而產生，而是從業的相續轉變差別而產生。
論：什麼叫做相續轉變差別？外道問。
論：就是以業為先，（最終產生差別），所以叫做差別。（這是）論主解釋轉變差別。如文義可以理解。
論：如有取識，（導致）輪轉于生死。（這是）論主通過舉例來解釋，並引用偈頌來證明。
論：在這個意義中，（諸因生果，）到（最終）永滅。（這是）論主解釋諸因生果，滅壞的情況不同。如文義可以理解。
論：為什麼異熟果（Vipāka-phala，成熟的果報）不能像外熟果一樣，作為（產生）其他果的因，而（只能）有別的果產生？（這是）外道的責難。就像外熟的果實能夠作為後續果實的因，為什麼異熟的果報不能作為異熟的因？
論：且（這個）譬喻並不恰當，（因為）不是所有法都相同。（這是）論主解釋前面的責難，兼破斥果生。（「且非譬喻是法皆等」）是解釋前面的責難。（「然從種果無別果生」）是破斥前面所立的種子果實還作為（其他果實的）因的觀點。
論：如果這樣，那麼從什麼產生後續的果實？外道問。
論：從後續成熟的變化，（世間）說為種子。（這是）論主解釋後續產生的因。
論：這個也像這樣，（所以）譬喻與法相同。（這是）論主將譬喻與佛法結合。
論：或者由於別的計算，（導致）其餘異熟產生。（這是）解釋別的因緣產生，也與異熟的意義相同。
論：前面且隨（順世俗的說法），（但這些業的道理）離開佛（陀）沒有人能夠知道。（這是）論主說明業非常微細，只有佛才能知道。並用偈頌來證明。如文義可以理解。從下面三首偈頌開始，是大文第二，在這一品中，勸導學習流通。第一首偈頌勸導學習聞慧（Śruta-mayī prajñā，聽聞佛法所生的智慧），第二首偈頌勸導學習思慧（Cintā-mayī prajñā，思考佛法所生的智慧），最後一首偈頌勸導學習修慧（Bhāvanā-mayī prajñā，修行佛法所生的智慧）。（「已善說此凈因道者」）凈，是指沒有……
【English Translation】 English version: The heretic asks: If (the fruit) is produced by gradual transformation from the flower, why is it said that the fruit is produced from the seed?
Treatise: Because the seed gradually transforms until it is different from the fruit. (This is) the treatise master's explanation. First, explain in accordance with (the heretic's question), then refute and explain in reverse. The meaning can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Thus, although it is said that (karma) arises when (it reaches) differentiation. (This is) explaining that when karma produces its result, it is not produced without interruption, nor is it produced apart from karma, but is produced from the continuous transformation and differentiation of that karma.
Treatise: What is called continuous transformation and differentiation? The heretic asks.
Treatise: It means that karma comes first, (and ultimately produces differentiation), so it is called differentiation. (This is) the treatise master explaining transformation and differentiation. The meaning can be understood from the text.
Treatise: For example, taking consciousness (leads to) revolving in birth and death. (This is) the treatise master explaining by giving an example, and citing a verse to prove it.
Treatise: In this meaning, (the causes produce results,) until (they ultimately) perish forever. (This is) the treatise master explaining that the causes produce results, and the destruction is different. The meaning can be understood from the text.
Treatise: Why can't the Vipāka-phala (異熟果, the result of maturation) be the cause of (producing) other fruits, just like the externally ripened fruit, but (only) other fruits are produced? (This is) the heretic's difficulty. Just as the externally ripened fruit can be the cause of subsequent fruits, why can't the result of Vipāka be the cause of Vipāka?
Treatise: Moreover, (this) analogy is not appropriate, (because) not all dharmas are the same. (This is) the treatise master explaining the previous difficulty, and also refuting the production of fruit. ('且非譬喻是法皆等') is explaining the previous difficulty. ('然從種果無別果生') is refuting the previously established view that the seed fruit is also the cause (of other fruits).
Treatise: If so, then from what are subsequent fruits produced? The heretic asks.
Treatise: From the subsequent mature transformation, (the world) says it is a seed. (This is) the treatise master explaining the cause of subsequent production.
Treatise: This is also like this, (so) the analogy is the same as the Dharma. (This is) the treatise master combining the analogy with the Dharma.
Treatise: Or due to other calculations, (leading to) the production of other Vipāka. (This is) explaining that the production of other conditions is also the same as the meaning of Vipāka.
Treatise: Previously, I followed (the worldly saying), (but these principles of karma) cannot be known by anyone apart from the Buddha. (This is) the treatise master explaining that karma is very subtle, and only the Buddha can know it. And use verses to prove it. The meaning can be understood from the text. Starting from the following three verses, it is the second major section, in this chapter, encouraging learning and circulation. The first verse encourages learning Śruta-mayī prajñā (聞慧, wisdom born from hearing the Dharma), the second verse encourages learning Cintā-mayī prajñā (思慧, wisdom born from thinking about the Dharma), and the last verse encourages learning Bhāvanā-mayī prajñā (修慧, wisdom born from practicing the Dharma). ('已善說此凈因道者') Pure means without...
漏。因謂佛教也 謂佛至言真法性。出凈因道體也 應舍闇盲諸外執。令舍有我教也 惡見所為。明有我教因也 求慧眼。勸聞無我教也 第二頌云 此涅槃宮一廣道者。觀無我之理是趣涅槃之廣路也 千聖所游無我性者。千聖所游。顯路廣。無我性。出道體也 諸佛日言光所照者。佛言如日照無我性 雖開昧眼不能睹者。是思慧也。聞慧求見未舍教故。而眼未開。思慧雖開離教思義昧不能睹 於此方隅已略說。指前自說也。第三勸修慧也 為開智者慧毒門。明說意也。無漏之慧能害煩惱。名之為毒。四善修慧能為加行。名之為門 庶各隨已力堪能者。謂種性學不同也 遍悟所知成勝業者。遍悟一切所知之法。皆無有我。成涅槃之勝業也。
俱舍論疏卷第三十
從去秋至此冬一部始終點功已畢今窺其體元草書□傳寫之間彌成違失每披其文必迷首尾肆多勘本文少加斷推已及半分變改前緒雖恐背先賢之深慮只為勸後學之惠解尚處處有脫落重複之可勘正。
保延三年十二月三日燈下記之
前少僧都 覺樹
（別筆）
以興福寺慈恩院本一交了 樹海
原文抹消頗難讀然以後學有所益故錄之。
於時昭和二年八月校了日 校者識
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 『漏』，指的是佛教所說的煩惱。這裡說的是佛陀所說的至理真法性，是從清凈的因地顯現的道體。應當捨棄那些黑暗盲目的外道執著，從而捨棄那些主張有我的教義。錯誤的見解是產生有我教義的原因。尋求智慧之眼，就要聽聞無我之教義。 第二頌說：『此涅槃宮一廣道者』，意思是觀察無我的道理是通往涅槃的寬廣道路。『千聖所游無我性者』，千聖所游，顯示道路寬廣；無我性，是通往涅槃的道體。『諸佛日言光所照者』，佛陀的言教如同太陽照耀無我之性。『雖開昧眼不能睹者』，說的是思慧。因為聞慧求見而沒有捨棄有我之教，所以智慧之眼沒有打開。思慧即使開啟，如果離開教義去思考，也會因為迷惑而不能見到真理。『於此方隅已略說』，指的是前面自己所說的內容。第三部分是勸勉修習智慧。『為開智者慧毒門』，明確說明了用意。無漏的智慧能夠損害煩惱，所以稱之為『毒』。四種善修的智慧能夠作為修行的加行，所以稱之為『門』。『庶各隨已力堪能者』，說的是不同種性和學習能力的人。『遍悟所知成勝業者』，普遍領悟一切所知之法，都是無我的，從而成就涅槃的殊勝事業。
《俱舍論疏》卷第三十
從去年秋天到今年冬天，一部書的始終點校工作已經完成。現在看來，原本的草書在傳抄過程中產生了許多錯誤和遺漏。每次打開書卷，都難以理解其首尾。因此，我大量參考原文，並稍加推斷，已經修改了近一半的內容，雖然擔心違背先賢的深思熟慮，但只是爲了勸勉後學者能夠理解。但仍然存在脫落和重複之處，可以進一步勘正。
保延三年十二月三日 燈下記之
前少僧都（Shosozu，僧官名） 覺樹（Kakuju，人名）
（別筆）
以興福寺（Kofukuji，寺廟名）慈恩院（Jion-in，寺廟名）版本校對完畢 樹海（Jukai，人名）
原文的塗抹很難辨認，但爲了後學者有所裨益，故記錄之。
於時昭和二年八月校對完畢 校者識
【English Translation】 English version: 'Leakage' refers to the afflictions mentioned in Buddhism. Here, it refers to the ultimate truth and true nature of Dharma spoken by the Buddha, which is the embodiment of the path manifested from the pure cause. One should abandon those dark and blind external attachments, thereby abandoning those doctrines that advocate the existence of a self. Wrong views are the cause of the doctrines that advocate the existence of a self. To seek the eye of wisdom, one must listen to the teachings of non-self (Anatta). The second verse says: 'This Nirvana palace is a broad path,' meaning that observing the principle of non-self is a broad path leading to Nirvana. 'The non-self nature traversed by a thousand sages,' the path traversed by a thousand sages shows that the road is wide; the non-self nature is the embodiment of the path leading to Nirvana. 'The light illuminated by the sun-like words of all Buddhas,' the Buddha's teachings are like the sun illuminating the nature of non-self. 'Although the eyes are opened, they cannot see,' refers to reflective wisdom (思慧). Because one seeks to see through hearing and has not abandoned the teachings of self, the eye of wisdom has not been opened. Even if reflective wisdom is opened, if one thinks apart from the teachings, one will not be able to see the truth because of delusion. 'It has been briefly explained in this direction,' refers to what one has said before. The third part is to encourage the practice of wisdom. 'The wisdom-poison gate for opening the wise,' clearly explains the intention. The wisdom without outflows (無漏) can harm afflictions, so it is called 'poison.' The four kinds of well-cultivated wisdom can serve as the preliminary practices for cultivation, so they are called 'gate.' 'May each follow their own strength and ability,' refers to people of different natures and learning abilities. 'Universally understanding what is known to achieve superior karma,' universally understanding all knowable dharmas are without self, thereby achieving the superior karma of Nirvana.
《Abhidharmakosha-bhashya》 Volume 30
From last autumn to this winter, the work of punctuating and proofreading this book from beginning to end has been completed. Now it seems that many errors and omissions have been produced in the process of copying the original cursive script. Every time I open the book, it is difficult to understand its beginning and end. Therefore, I have consulted a large number of original texts and added a little inference, and have revised nearly half of the content. Although I am worried about violating the deep consideration of the former sages, it is only to encourage later scholars to understand. However, there are still omissions and repetitions that can be further corrected.
Written under the lamp on December 3rd, Baoyan 3rd year
Former Shosozu (少僧都, a rank of Buddhist monk) Kakuju (覚樹, personal name)
(Separate note)
Completed proofreading with the version of Kofukuji (興福寺, temple name) Jion-in (慈恩院, temple name) Jukai (樹海, personal name)
The erasure of the original text is difficult to identify, but it is recorded for the benefit of later scholars.
Proofread in August, Showa 2nd year. By the proofreader