《俱舍》英译定品问题若干
王
王路在隐身约 16 分钟
王路在隐身约 16 分钟
这两天把第七品《定品》也翻了。有些简单的长行是跳过去的。除了之前的2条，第七品找到18条。目前总共看了第一、二、六、七、八品，共找到68条。既然看过了一半，剩下三品回头也弄完吧。
有些地方看得我都想笑了，还是蛮有意思的。“为离得此起”那里，普桑解释得真不错，我看得都赞叹。挺牛的。虽然他很可能是从称友疏或者别处得到的解释，但也不容易。
《俱舍》英譯本問題若干 （第六、八品）
以下第七品：
41． Pruden (7-11d, 長行, p. 1101) a good mind has a great following, for it always includes rupa
Lodrö Sangpo (7-11d, 長行, p. 2184) the wholesome thought has a great entourage, for material form (rupa) (i.e., pure restraint of meditation [dhyānānāsravasaṁvara], iv. 4a, 26) must be added;
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「善心隨轉多，通[1]四蘊故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 136a10-11)[1] 四【大】，曰【明】
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「若善心則多隨從，四陰所隨從故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 287b1-2)
玄奘譯本是準確的。「通四蘊」的「通」表示有時候是四蘊，並不是所有時候都是四蘊。定善是四蘊隨轉，散善是三蘊隨轉。英譯本的always和must be added是不準確的。此外，dhyānānāsravasaṁvara，是靜慮律儀、無漏律儀兩種律儀，兩種律儀不會同時隨轉，隨轉的是其中任意一種。LS只解釋為無漏律儀，是不完整的。
《俱舍論記》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「善心隨轉多。散心雖復受．想．行三蘊隨轉。若在定心。通色．受．想．行四蘊隨轉。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T41, no. 1821, p. 389a3-5)
42. Pruden (7-11d, 長行, p. 1105) In fact the knowledge of the mind of another does not bear on the "possessions" which can be found in the series of another. Consequently when I know that the mind of another person possesses craving, this mind of another does not possess craving because it is "united with craving" in the sense that it is accompanied by the possession of craving, or in the sense that it is found in the series in which this possession has not been expelled. The knowledge of the mind of another no longer knows the craving which would be the object of the mind of another.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-11d, 長行, p. 2184) In fact, the cognition of another's thoughts (paracittajfiiina) does not concern the "possessions" that can occur in another's stream. Therefore, when I cognize another's thought as "with attachment", this thought of another is not "with attachment" because it is "connected with attachment" (riigasarriyukta) in the sense that [this thought] would be accompa- nied (sahita) by the possession of.attachment, in the sense that [this thought] would occur in a stream in which this possession has not been expelled. The cognition of another's thoughts does no longer cognize the attachment which would take another's thoughts for its cognitive object, the attachment which would be the cognitive object of another's thoughts.
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「然他心智不緣貪得，亦不可說緣緣心貪，寧知他心是有貪等？」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 136b18-19)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「緣他心為境界心不緣至得為境界，非此心境界緣欲為境界」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 287c16-17)
玄奘譯本是清晰而準確的，世親要表達的意思是：（前面把「貪繫」叫做「有貪」，而「貪繫」有兩種解釋的可能：一種是，貪得隨；一種是，貪所緣，）然而，他心智既不能緣「與心俱有（隨心）的貪得」，又不能說緣「緣心貪」，那麼，他心智怎麼可能知道他心是「有貪」呢？而事實上，他心智當然能知道他心是「有貪」，因此，並不是「貪繫」就叫做「有貪」。真諦譯本也是正確的，只是把「寧知他心是有貪等」這個邏輯環節省略了。需要補充說明的是，玄奘之所以叫「不可說緣緣心貪」，意思是，並不是他心智不能緣「緣心貪」，而是，他心智在緣「貪」的時候，根本不可能知道它所緣的貪在緣什麼，因此無法判斷此貪是不是「緣心貪」。
兩個英譯本都不正確。一方面，必須把「不緣貪得」和「不可說緣緣心貪」合在一起，才能得出他心智不能知「貪繫」的結論。Pruden譯本中說，“Consequently when I know that the mind of another person possesses craving”，這是不可能的——既然他心智不緣「貪得」，他心智又怎麼可能知道這一點呢？LS譯本此處同誤。Pruden本中，“the craving which would be the object of the mind of another”也是錯的；這裡LS對了，“the attachment which would take another's thoughts for its cognitive object”。Pruden把「緣心貪」解釋成了「心緣貪」。儘管此貪確實是心（及他心智）所緣，但緣它的他心智無法知道的是，此貪是否在緣某個心；而己心在緣此貪，這是毫無疑問的。LS後一段連用三個“another's thoughts”，實際上，第一個和最後一個 another's thoughts是同一個thought，但中間的那個未必是。
43. Pruden (7-18ab, 長行, p. 1121) The conditioned dharmas are divided into eight classes: dharmas of Kamadhatu, of Rupadhatu, of Arupyadhatu, plus the pure dharmas, all being either associated with the mind or not (samprayukta, viprayukta, ii. 22).
Lodrö Sangpo (7-18ab, 長行, p. 2204) Conditioned factors (saf(lskrtadharma) are divided into eight classes: factors of the realm of desire, factors of the realm of fine-materiality, factors of the realm of immateriality, plus pure factors, all being associated with thought (saf(lprayukta) or dissociated from thought (viprayukta)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「有為法分為八，欲界、色界、無色界、無流界，與心相應、與心不相應差別故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 289a27-29)
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「謂有為法分為八種，三界所繫無漏有為各有相應不相應故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 138a11-12)
兩英譯本與真諦譯本都不準確。玄奘譯本的「有相應」「不相應」是準確的。「心」自身，屬於「有相應」，但屬於「與心不相應」，因為心不與心相應。由下面「他心智」的所緣來看，我們知道，「心」和「心所」是歸為一類的，那麼，這裡就必然是「有相應」，而不能是「與心相應」。
《阿毘曇毘婆沙論》卷29：「為止如是說者意，亦明心與數法相應、數法亦與數法相應、數法與心相應、心不與心相應故，而作此論。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T28, no. 1546, p. 210a19-22)
44. Pruden (7-18ab, 長行, p. 1122) 2. the mental dharmas which are associated with it, for they have the same object as it does; and 3. the dharmas disassociated from the mind but which accompany it, for example, its characteristics (ii. 45c), for they are too close.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-18ab, 長行, p. 2205) 2.the mental factors (caitta) associated with it, for they have the same cogni tive object as it does (ekalambanatviit); <46> 3. the factors dissociated from thought (viprayukta) which accompany it (sahabhu), for example, its ch;iracteristics (lak~a~a; ii. 45c), for they are too close.
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「自品謂自體相應俱有法，境、有境別故。同一所緣[3]故，相隣近故，非此智所緣。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 138a25-26)[3] 故【大】，故極【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「是自體及自體共生諸法，名自類，不能緣此法，有境界及境界有差別故、共一境界故、最近同時故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 289b11-14)
自品三類中，第二類「相應法」，兩個英譯本都解釋為「心所」，實際上也包括「心」。因為說的是「他心智相應法」，「他心智」本身是「心所」。第三類「俱有法」，不僅包括「心俱有法」，也包括「心所俱有法」，因此，“accompany it”的it是不對的，應該是them。
45． Pruden (7-18cd, 長行, p. 1122) This conventional knowledge of universal consciousness belongs only to Kamadhatu, being prajna of hearing or reflection,
Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, 長行, p. 2205) This conventional cognition (sal?'lvrtijfiana) of pervasive cognition belongs to the realm of desire only(= tac ca kamadhiitvavacaram eva), being understanding (prajiia) derived from listening [to the teachings] (srutamayi) or from reflection (cintamayf; vi, F 144),
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「此智唯是欲色界攝，聞思所成非修所成」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 138a26-27)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「此智若是欲界智，是聞思二慧。若是色界智，但是聞慧非修慧。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 289b14-15)
兩英譯本只說欲界，是錯誤的。他心智是欲界、色界攝。真諦譯本先說欲界，後說色界，而英譯本只說了欲界。
46. Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, note280, pp. 2298-2299) and he adds a fourth quarter-verse: "it derives from listening [to the teachings], from reflection and from cultivation".
這裡錯了，玄奘本是「唯聞思所成」，LS把奘譯《俱舍論》和後面提到的《顯宗論》搞混了。Pruden (p. 1191) 這裡是對的。
47. Pruden (7-18cd, note114, p. 1191) The prajfid of hearing and reflection, which is in Kumadhatu, cannot bear on the dharmas of all the spheres: it is not enough to become disgusted with it: the prajnd of bhdvand is more powerful (iv.l23c). Based on this, Vasubandhu concludes that the universal consciousness of "the absence of self" of the dharmas belongs to Kamadhatu, for if it belonged to Rupadhatu (that is to say arising from bhdvand, and being obtained in the dhyanas) it would produce detachment from all of the spheres.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, note280, p. 2298) Understanding derived from listening [to the teach- ings] and from reflection, which is of the realm of desire, concerns the factors of all stages in vain; it is not enough to become disgusted with them: understanding derived from cultivation is more powerful (iv. 123c). From this principle, Vasubandhu concludes that pervasive cogni- tion of "the absence of self' of factors belongs to the realm of desire, for, if it belonged to the realm of fine-materiality, (that is to say, derived from cultivation, being acquired in the medi- tations [dhyiina],) it would produce detachment from all stages.
這是誤解。Pruden的錯誤是因為如下事實：1，欲界的聞所成慧、思所成慧是可以總緣一切法（除自品）的；2，總緣俗智（除自品）也有色界攝的，是色界攝的聞所成慧，世親「若異此者應頓離染」只是為了表示總緣俗智（除自品）沒有色界攝的修所成慧，但並不否定色界攝的聞所成慧。Pruden 和LS都錯誤地認為belonged to the realm of fine-materiality 等價於derived from cultivation；實際上，色界有聞所成慧。
48. Pruden (7-18cd, note114, p. 1191) In our system the prajnd of meditation of the sphere of the dhydna takes for its object the sphere in which it is found, namely, the higher sphere; it produces disgust with respect to the lower sphere, and joy with respect to the higher sphere: thus it does not produce detachment with respect to the higher sphere. The argument of the Sautrantika is therefore null and void."
Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, note280, p. 2299) In our system, understanding derived from cultivation of the domain of the meditations (dhyima) takes the stage in which it occurs and the higher stage for its cognitive object; it produces disgust toward the lower stage, joy toward the higher stage; thus it does not produce detachment toward the higher stage. The argument of the Sautriintika is thus worthless."
《阿毘達磨順正理論》卷74：「謂我宗許靜慮地攝修所成慧有能總緣隨所依身自上境故。厭下欣上方能離染，此既總緣唯欣行相，故於離染無有功能，故彼所言甚為非理。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1562, p. 742c23-26)
兩英譯本都沒有理解眾賢的意思和邏輯。「隨所依身自上境」，是說一個人所生地和其上的地。一個人生在欲界，「隨所依身自上境」就是欲界和色無色界。兩個英譯本理解成了所起定的所依地。眾賢要說的是，只有「厭下欣上」的定是能離染的，而總緣俗智沒有厭行相，只有欣行相，因此總緣俗智本來就不是離染的智，因此，完全不應該用「若異此者應頓離染」來作為證據。總緣俗智本身就不能produces disgust，因此不能離任何染；英譯本誤解為能produces disgust，又誤解為只是不能離上地染。
49. Pruden (7-26a-b, p. 1134) A knowledge of the mind of another, a future cultivation, belongs to the sphere which serves as the support of the Path, or rather to the sphere which one obtains through the Path
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「諸道依此地及得此地時，能修未來此地有漏。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 139c17-18)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「世俗智者，隨道所依地，此地或由道初得，以此地為依止，未來修世俗智。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 290c10-12)
“A knowledge of the mind of another”，這裡應該是世俗智。
50. Lodrö Sangpo (7-27, p. 2221) The Vaibhii~ikas of Kasmir think that these two cultivations [i.e., restraint and inspection] should be reduced to the cultivations as counter-agent and expulsion, [respectively].
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「迦濕彌羅國諸論師言：防觀二修即治遣修攝。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 140a15-16)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「罽賓國師說：此二修入對治修及治淨修攝。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 291a11-12)
不應補充[respectively]。
《俱舍論記》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「迦濕彌羅國諸論師[30]云。所言防護．觀察二修。應知即是前四修中。對治．除遣二修所攝。於根及身。若望能防．能護．能觀[31]察義邊名對治修。若望所防所觀遣惑義邊名除遣修」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T41, no. 1821, pp. 402c26-403a1)[30] 云【大】，言【甲】【乙】 [31] 察【大】，〔－〕【甲】【乙】
51. Pruden (7-35a, 頌文，p. 1148) There are other qualities which the Buddhas have in common with Saiksas
Lodrö Sangpo (7-35a, 頌文，p. 2233) There are other factors (dharma) of the Buddha that he has in common [siidhara,:ta] with those in training (saik~a) and ordinary worldlings (prthagjana):
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「世尊復有無量功德，與餘聖者及異生共」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 141c18-19)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「諸佛如來有功德，與弟子共得，或與凡夫共得。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 292c20-21)
「餘聖」或者「弟子」不僅包括「有學」，還包括「無學」。兩英譯本漏了「無學」。
52. Pruden (7-35c, 長行，pp. 1148-1149) the Eight Vimoksas, …the Supernormal Knowledges, the Dhyanas, etc., can also belong to ordinary persons.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-35, 長行，pp. 2234) eight liberations (vimok~a); viii, F 203 … The superknowledges (abhijiiii), meditations (dhyiina), etc., can also belong to ordinary worldlings (prthagjana).
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「謂無諍、願智、無礙解、通、靜慮、無色等至等持、無量、解脫、勝處、遍處等，隨其所應。謂前三門唯共餘聖，通靜慮等亦共異生。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 141c19-21)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「諸德謂無諍三摩提、願智、四無礙解、通慧定、無色三摩提、無量解脫、制入、遍入等。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 292c22-24)
兩英譯本，提到「八解脫」，如果不說「八」，只說「解脫」，是合適的；或者，雖然說「八解脫」，後面像玄奘那樣加上「隨其所應」，也是合適的。因為，「八解脫」中「第八解脫」即「滅受想定」是不共異生的。
53. Pruden (7-36e, 長行，pp. 1150) The avastuka defilements of others (vi. 58), which are abandoned through Seeing, are not susceptible of being arrested, for the universal {sarvatraga) defilements (v. 12), which exist in the totality of their sphere, also exist in the series of another.
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「諸無事惑不可遮防，內起隨應總緣境故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 142a5-6)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「無類惑者，不可遮離諸遍行惑，緣具界地生起故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 293a11-12)
Pruden翻譯的“also exist in the series of another”不太準確。這是說遍行惑不僅緣阿羅漢，也緣其他事物，不是說也存在於其他人身上。LS翻譯得相對較好。
54. Pruden (7-43d, 長行，p. 1159) The first three have rupa for their object
Lodrö Sangpo (7-43d, 長行，p. 2244) The first three superknowledges have material form (riipa} for their cognitive object
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「初三別緣色為境故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143a4-5)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「於中三通慧，緣色為境故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 294a6-7)
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「修神境等前三通時，思輕[2]光聲以為加行」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143a18-19)[2] 光【大】，先【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
兩英譯本的first錯了。玄奘本「初三」是正確的，因為玄奘本的初三是：神境、天眼、天耳；而英譯本的first three 和真諦本是相同的：神境、天耳、他心。因此，英譯本應該像真諦那樣說「三」而不是「初三」。真諦本後面「修神境等前三通時」，「前」字也錯了，和自身頌文次序不一致。LS (p. 2245) 臨時調整了「前三」的次序，避免了錯誤；而LS (p. 2247)仍然把他心當作第三。
55. Pruden (7-45c-d, 長行，p. 1164) in the order of the Sutra, the fifth, the second, and the sixth supernormal knowledges.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-43d, note600，p. 2353) LS: LVP has: "in the order of the Siitra, the fifth, second and sixth superknowledges", but it is not clear to me to which Siitra he refers. Lamotte speaks of the superknowledges 4 to 6, following the order given on F 98f.
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「如其次第，以無學位攝第五二六通為其自性。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143b24-25)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「釋曰：宿住念、死生、流盡通慧，說此三為無學明得。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 294b27-28)
Pruden本（源自LVP）的次序是從玄奘本抄來的，但Pruden本沒有像玄奘本那樣改變六通的次序，因此，Pruden本這裡錯了。LS不知道這是玄奘本的次序，因此有疑問。
56. Pruden (7-46a-b, 頌，p. 1165) The two others are said to belong to the Asaiksas when they arise in the series of an Asaiksa
Lodrö Sangpo (7-46a-b, 頌，p. 2250) The other two [of these three superknowledges] are called "of those beyond training" when they arise in the stream of those beyond training.
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「此三皆名無學[6]明者，俱在無學身中起故。於中最後容有是真，通無漏故。餘二假說，體唯非學非無學故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143b28-c1)[6] Vidyā.
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「所餘二通慧，由生於無學相續中故，說名無學」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 294c4-5)
兩英譯本沒有搞清楚邏輯。不應該說when，而應該說because。因為這兩種「明」只在無學身（相續）中起。在有學身中起的不是「明」。長行誤亦同此。
57. Lodrö Sangpo (7-48cd, 頌，p. 2253) The others [i.e., the listeners and self-enlightened ones] possess displacement (gamana-) (1) of transport [snravahini] and (2) of resolve (iidhimok#kf).625
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「偈曰：餘將身願成。釋曰：聲聞獨覺有引將身行，如鳥次第引將身行。願成行者，是極遠處，願令最近故，由此疾彼行。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 295a3-6)
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「於此三中意勢唯佛，運身、勝解亦通餘乘。謂我世尊神通迅速隨方遠近舉心即至。由此世尊作如是說：諸佛境界不可思議。故意勢行唯世尊有，勝解兼餘聖，運身并異生。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 144a4-8)
“i.e., the listeners and self-enlightened ones”是不準確的，因為除了聲聞、獨覺，「運身」是異生也可以擁有的。
58. Pruden (7-55cd, 長行, p. 1178) For the rest, innate divine sight is similar to the divine sight of supernormal knowledge.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-55cd, 長行, p. 1178) As for the rest, the innate divine eye is the same as the divine eye of superknowledge.
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「釋曰：是生得天眼，不能見中陰眾生色。何以故？此色但是通慧眼所見，非生得天眼所見，除彼同類。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 296a11-14)
兩英譯本理解錯了「除彼同類」的意思。「除彼同類」的「同類」，指的是「中有」，「除彼同類」意在表示「中有身能見中有身」：中有身除了中有身能見之外（除彼同類），唯修得極淨天眼能見。兩英譯本誤解成：除了（生得天眼）不能見中有身，生得天眼和修得天眼沒有差別。
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷9：「此中有身同類相見，若有修得極淨天眼亦能得見，諸生得眼皆不能觀，以極細故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 46a24-26)
有些地方看得我都想笑了，还是蛮有意思的。“为离得此起”那里，普桑解释得真不错，我看得都赞叹。挺牛的。虽然他很可能是从称友疏或者别处得到的解释，但也不容易。
《俱舍》英譯本問題若干 （第六、八品）
41． Pruden (7-11d, 長行, p. 1101) a good mind has a great following, for it always includes rupa
Lodrö Sangpo (7-11d, 長行, p. 2184) the wholesome thought has a great entourage, for material form (rupa) (i.e., pure restraint of meditation [dhyānānāsravasaṁvara], iv. 4a, 26) must be added;
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「善心隨轉多，通[1]四蘊故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 136a10-11)[1] 四【大】，曰【明】
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「若善心則多隨從，四陰所隨從故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 287b1-2)
玄奘譯本是準確的。「通四蘊」的「通」表示有時候是四蘊，並不是所有時候都是四蘊。定善是四蘊隨轉，散善是三蘊隨轉。英譯本的always和must be added是不準確的。此外，dhyānānāsravasaṁvara，是靜慮律儀、無漏律儀兩種律儀，兩種律儀不會同時隨轉，隨轉的是其中任意一種。LS只解釋為無漏律儀，是不完整的。
《俱舍論記》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「善心隨轉多。散心雖復受．想．行三蘊隨轉。若在定心。通色．受．想．行四蘊隨轉。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T41, no. 1821, p. 389a3-5)
42. Pruden (7-11d, 長行, p. 1105) In fact the knowledge of the mind of another does not bear on the "possessions" which can be found in the series of another. Consequently when I know that the mind of another person possesses craving, this mind of another does not possess craving because it is "united with craving" in the sense that it is accompanied by the possession of craving, or in the sense that it is found in the series in which this possession has not been expelled. The knowledge of the mind of another no longer knows the craving which would be the object of the mind of another.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-11d, 長行, p. 2184) In fact, the cognition of another's thoughts (paracittajfiiina) does not concern the "possessions" that can occur in another's stream. Therefore, when I cognize another's thought as "with attachment", this thought of another is not "with attachment" because it is "connected with attachment" (riigasarriyukta) in the sense that [this thought] would be accompa- nied (sahita) by the possession of.attachment, in the sense that [this thought] would occur in a stream in which this possession has not been expelled. The cognition of another's thoughts does no longer cognize the attachment which would take another's thoughts for its cognitive object, the attachment which would be the cognitive object of another's thoughts.
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「然他心智不緣貪得，亦不可說緣緣心貪，寧知他心是有貪等？」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 136b18-19)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「緣他心為境界心不緣至得為境界，非此心境界緣欲為境界」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 287c16-17)
玄奘譯本是清晰而準確的，世親要表達的意思是：（前面把「貪繫」叫做「有貪」，而「貪繫」有兩種解釋的可能：一種是，貪得隨；一種是，貪所緣，）然而，他心智既不能緣「與心俱有（隨心）的貪得」，又不能說緣「緣心貪」，那麼，他心智怎麼可能知道他心是「有貪」呢？而事實上，他心智當然能知道他心是「有貪」，因此，並不是「貪繫」就叫做「有貪」。真諦譯本也是正確的，只是把「寧知他心是有貪等」這個邏輯環節省略了。需要補充說明的是，玄奘之所以叫「不可說緣緣心貪」，意思是，並不是他心智不能緣「緣心貪」，而是，他心智在緣「貪」的時候，根本不可能知道它所緣的貪在緣什麼，因此無法判斷此貪是不是「緣心貪」。
兩個英譯本都不正確。一方面，必須把「不緣貪得」和「不可說緣緣心貪」合在一起，才能得出他心智不能知「貪繫」的結論。Pruden譯本中說，“Consequently when I know that the mind of another person possesses craving”，這是不可能的——既然他心智不緣「貪得」，他心智又怎麼可能知道這一點呢？LS譯本此處同誤。Pruden本中，“the craving which would be the object of the mind of another”也是錯的；這裡LS對了，“the attachment which would take another's thoughts for its cognitive object”。Pruden把「緣心貪」解釋成了「心緣貪」。儘管此貪確實是心（及他心智）所緣，但緣它的他心智無法知道的是，此貪是否在緣某個心；而己心在緣此貪，這是毫無疑問的。LS後一段連用三個“another's thoughts”，實際上，第一個和最後一個 another's thoughts是同一個thought，但中間的那個未必是。
43. Pruden (7-18ab, 長行, p. 1121) The conditioned dharmas are divided into eight classes: dharmas of Kamadhatu, of Rupadhatu, of Arupyadhatu, plus the pure dharmas, all being either associated with the mind or not (samprayukta, viprayukta, ii. 22).
Lodrö Sangpo (7-18ab, 長行, p. 2204) Conditioned factors (saf(lskrtadharma) are divided into eight classes: factors of the realm of desire, factors of the realm of fine-materiality, factors of the realm of immateriality, plus pure factors, all being associated with thought (saf(lprayukta) or dissociated from thought (viprayukta)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「有為法分為八，欲界、色界、無色界、無流界，與心相應、與心不相應差別故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 289a27-29)
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「謂有為法分為八種，三界所繫無漏有為各有相應不相應故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 138a11-12)
兩英譯本與真諦譯本都不準確。玄奘譯本的「有相應」「不相應」是準確的。「心」自身，屬於「有相應」，但屬於「與心不相應」，因為心不與心相應。由下面「他心智」的所緣來看，我們知道，「心」和「心所」是歸為一類的，那麼，這裡就必然是「有相應」，而不能是「與心相應」。
《阿毘曇毘婆沙論》卷29：「為止如是說者意，亦明心與數法相應、數法亦與數法相應、數法與心相應、心不與心相應故，而作此論。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T28, no. 1546, p. 210a19-22)
44. Pruden (7-18ab, 長行, p. 1122) 2. the mental dharmas which are associated with it, for they have the same object as it does; and 3. the dharmas disassociated from the mind but which accompany it, for example, its characteristics (ii. 45c), for they are too close.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-18ab, 長行, p. 2205) 2.the mental factors (caitta) associated with it, for they have the same cogni tive object as it does (ekalambanatviit); <46> 3. the factors dissociated from thought (viprayukta) which accompany it (sahabhu), for example, its ch;iracteristics (lak~a~a; ii. 45c), for they are too close.
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「自品謂自體相應俱有法，境、有境別故。同一所緣[3]故，相隣近故，非此智所緣。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 138a25-26)[3] 故【大】，故極【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「是自體及自體共生諸法，名自類，不能緣此法，有境界及境界有差別故、共一境界故、最近同時故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 289b11-14)
自品三類中，第二類「相應法」，兩個英譯本都解釋為「心所」，實際上也包括「心」。因為說的是「他心智相應法」，「他心智」本身是「心所」。第三類「俱有法」，不僅包括「心俱有法」，也包括「心所俱有法」，因此，“accompany it”的it是不對的，應該是them。
45． Pruden (7-18cd, 長行, p. 1122) This conventional knowledge of universal consciousness belongs only to Kamadhatu, being prajna of hearing or reflection,
Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, 長行, p. 2205) This conventional cognition (sal?'lvrtijfiana) of pervasive cognition belongs to the realm of desire only(= tac ca kamadhiitvavacaram eva), being understanding (prajiia) derived from listening [to the teachings] (srutamayi) or from reflection (cintamayf; vi, F 144),
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「此智唯是欲色界攝，聞思所成非修所成」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 138a26-27)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「此智若是欲界智，是聞思二慧。若是色界智，但是聞慧非修慧。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 289b14-15)
兩英譯本只說欲界，是錯誤的。他心智是欲界、色界攝。真諦譯本先說欲界，後說色界，而英譯本只說了欲界。
46. Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, note280, pp. 2298-2299) and he adds a fourth quarter-verse: "it derives from listening [to the teachings], from reflection and from cultivation".
這裡錯了，玄奘本是「唯聞思所成」，LS把奘譯《俱舍論》和後面提到的《顯宗論》搞混了。Pruden (p. 1191) 這裡是對的。
47. Pruden (7-18cd, note114, p. 1191) The prajfid of hearing and reflection, which is in Kumadhatu, cannot bear on the dharmas of all the spheres: it is not enough to become disgusted with it: the prajnd of bhdvand is more powerful (iv.l23c). Based on this, Vasubandhu concludes that the universal consciousness of "the absence of self" of the dharmas belongs to Kamadhatu, for if it belonged to Rupadhatu (that is to say arising from bhdvand, and being obtained in the dhyanas) it would produce detachment from all of the spheres.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, note280, p. 2298) Understanding derived from listening [to the teach- ings] and from reflection, which is of the realm of desire, concerns the factors of all stages in vain; it is not enough to become disgusted with them: understanding derived from cultivation is more powerful (iv. 123c). From this principle, Vasubandhu concludes that pervasive cogni- tion of "the absence of self' of factors belongs to the realm of desire, for, if it belonged to the realm of fine-materiality, (that is to say, derived from cultivation, being acquired in the medi- tations [dhyiina],) it would produce detachment from all stages.
這是誤解。Pruden的錯誤是因為如下事實：1，欲界的聞所成慧、思所成慧是可以總緣一切法（除自品）的；2，總緣俗智（除自品）也有色界攝的，是色界攝的聞所成慧，世親「若異此者應頓離染」只是為了表示總緣俗智（除自品）沒有色界攝的修所成慧，但並不否定色界攝的聞所成慧。Pruden 和LS都錯誤地認為belonged to the realm of fine-materiality 等價於derived from cultivation；實際上，色界有聞所成慧。
48. Pruden (7-18cd, note114, p. 1191) In our system the prajnd of meditation of the sphere of the dhydna takes for its object the sphere in which it is found, namely, the higher sphere; it produces disgust with respect to the lower sphere, and joy with respect to the higher sphere: thus it does not produce detachment with respect to the higher sphere. The argument of the Sautrantika is therefore null and void."
Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, note280, p. 2299) In our system, understanding derived from cultivation of the domain of the meditations (dhyima) takes the stage in which it occurs and the higher stage for its cognitive object; it produces disgust toward the lower stage, joy toward the higher stage; thus it does not produce detachment toward the higher stage. The argument of the Sautriintika is thus worthless."
《阿毘達磨順正理論》卷74：「謂我宗許靜慮地攝修所成慧有能總緣隨所依身自上境故。厭下欣上方能離染，此既總緣唯欣行相，故於離染無有功能，故彼所言甚為非理。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1562, p. 742c23-26)
兩英譯本都沒有理解眾賢的意思和邏輯。「隨所依身自上境」，是說一個人所生地和其上的地。一個人生在欲界，「隨所依身自上境」就是欲界和色無色界。兩個英譯本理解成了所起定的所依地。眾賢要說的是，只有「厭下欣上」的定是能離染的，而總緣俗智沒有厭行相，只有欣行相，因此總緣俗智本來就不是離染的智，因此，完全不應該用「若異此者應頓離染」來作為證據。總緣俗智本身就不能produces disgust，因此不能離任何染；英譯本誤解為能produces disgust，又誤解為只是不能離上地染。
49. Pruden (7-26a-b, p. 1134) A knowledge of the mind of another, a future cultivation, belongs to the sphere which serves as the support of the Path, or rather to the sphere which one obtains through the Path
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「諸道依此地及得此地時，能修未來此地有漏。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 139c17-18)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「世俗智者，隨道所依地，此地或由道初得，以此地為依止，未來修世俗智。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 290c10-12)
“A knowledge of the mind of another”，這裡應該是世俗智。
50. Lodrö Sangpo (7-27, p. 2221) The Vaibhii~ikas of Kasmir think that these two cultivations [i.e., restraint and inspection] should be reduced to the cultivations as counter-agent and expulsion, [respectively].
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「迦濕彌羅國諸論師言：防觀二修即治遣修攝。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 140a15-16)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「罽賓國師說：此二修入對治修及治淨修攝。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 291a11-12)
不應補充[respectively]。
《俱舍論記》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「迦濕彌羅國諸論師[30]云。所言防護．觀察二修。應知即是前四修中。對治．除遣二修所攝。於根及身。若望能防．能護．能觀[31]察義邊名對治修。若望所防所觀遣惑義邊名除遣修」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T41, no. 1821, pp. 402c26-403a1)[30] 云【大】，言【甲】【乙】 [31] 察【大】，〔－〕【甲】【乙】
51. Pruden (7-35a, 頌文，p. 1148) There are other qualities which the Buddhas have in common with Saiksas
Lodrö Sangpo (7-35a, 頌文，p. 2233) There are other factors (dharma) of the Buddha that he has in common [siidhara,:ta] with those in training (saik~a) and ordinary worldlings (prthagjana):
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「世尊復有無量功德，與餘聖者及異生共」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 141c18-19)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「諸佛如來有功德，與弟子共得，或與凡夫共得。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 292c20-21)
「餘聖」或者「弟子」不僅包括「有學」，還包括「無學」。兩英譯本漏了「無學」。
52. Pruden (7-35c, 長行，pp. 1148-1149) the Eight Vimoksas, …the Supernormal Knowledges, the Dhyanas, etc., can also belong to ordinary persons.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-35, 長行，pp. 2234) eight liberations (vimok~a); viii, F 203 … The superknowledges (abhijiiii), meditations (dhyiina), etc., can also belong to ordinary worldlings (prthagjana).
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「謂無諍、願智、無礙解、通、靜慮、無色等至等持、無量、解脫、勝處、遍處等，隨其所應。謂前三門唯共餘聖，通靜慮等亦共異生。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 141c19-21)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「諸德謂無諍三摩提、願智、四無礙解、通慧定、無色三摩提、無量解脫、制入、遍入等。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 292c22-24)
兩英譯本，提到「八解脫」，如果不說「八」，只說「解脫」，是合適的；或者，雖然說「八解脫」，後面像玄奘那樣加上「隨其所應」，也是合適的。因為，「八解脫」中「第八解脫」即「滅受想定」是不共異生的。
53. Pruden (7-36e, 長行，pp. 1150) The avastuka defilements of others (vi. 58), which are abandoned through Seeing, are not susceptible of being arrested, for the universal {sarvatraga) defilements (v. 12), which exist in the totality of their sphere, also exist in the series of another.
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「諸無事惑不可遮防，內起隨應總緣境故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 142a5-6)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「無類惑者，不可遮離諸遍行惑，緣具界地生起故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 293a11-12)
Pruden翻譯的“also exist in the series of another”不太準確。這是說遍行惑不僅緣阿羅漢，也緣其他事物，不是說也存在於其他人身上。LS翻譯得相對較好。
54. Pruden (7-43d, 長行，p. 1159) The first three have rupa for their object
Lodrö Sangpo (7-43d, 長行，p. 2244) The first three superknowledges have material form (riipa} for their cognitive object
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「初三別緣色為境故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143a4-5)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「於中三通慧，緣色為境故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 294a6-7)
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「修神境等前三通時，思輕[2]光聲以為加行」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143a18-19)[2] 光【大】，先【宋】【元】【明】【宮】
兩英譯本的first錯了。玄奘本「初三」是正確的，因為玄奘本的初三是：神境、天眼、天耳；而英譯本的first three 和真諦本是相同的：神境、天耳、他心。因此，英譯本應該像真諦那樣說「三」而不是「初三」。真諦本後面「修神境等前三通時」，「前」字也錯了，和自身頌文次序不一致。LS (p. 2245) 臨時調整了「前三」的次序，避免了錯誤；而LS (p. 2247)仍然把他心當作第三。
55. Pruden (7-45c-d, 長行，p. 1164) in the order of the Sutra, the fifth, the second, and the sixth supernormal knowledges.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-43d, note600，p. 2353) LS: LVP has: "in the order of the Siitra, the fifth, second and sixth superknowledges", but it is not clear to me to which Siitra he refers. Lamotte speaks of the superknowledges 4 to 6, following the order given on F 98f.
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「如其次第，以無學位攝第五二六通為其自性。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143b24-25)
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「釋曰：宿住念、死生、流盡通慧，說此三為無學明得。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 294b27-28)
Pruden本（源自LVP）的次序是從玄奘本抄來的，但Pruden本沒有像玄奘本那樣改變六通的次序，因此，Pruden本這裡錯了。LS不知道這是玄奘本的次序，因此有疑問。
56. Pruden (7-46a-b, 頌，p. 1165) The two others are said to belong to the Asaiksas when they arise in the series of an Asaiksa
Lodrö Sangpo (7-46a-b, 頌，p. 2250) The other two [of these three superknowledges] are called "of those beyond training" when they arise in the stream of those beyond training.
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「此三皆名無學[6]明者，俱在無學身中起故。於中最後容有是真，通無漏故。餘二假說，體唯非學非無學故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143b28-c1)[6] Vidyā.
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「所餘二通慧，由生於無學相續中故，說名無學」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 294c4-5)
兩英譯本沒有搞清楚邏輯。不應該說when，而應該說because。因為這兩種「明」只在無學身（相續）中起。在有學身中起的不是「明」。長行誤亦同此。
57. Lodrö Sangpo (7-48cd, 頌，p. 2253) The others [i.e., the listeners and self-enlightened ones] possess displacement (gamana-) (1) of transport [snravahini] and (2) of resolve (iidhimok#kf).625
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「偈曰：餘將身願成。釋曰：聲聞獨覺有引將身行，如鳥次第引將身行。願成行者，是極遠處，願令最近故，由此疾彼行。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 295a3-6)
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「於此三中意勢唯佛，運身、勝解亦通餘乘。謂我世尊神通迅速隨方遠近舉心即至。由此世尊作如是說：諸佛境界不可思議。故意勢行唯世尊有，勝解兼餘聖，運身并異生。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 144a4-8)
“i.e., the listeners and self-enlightened ones”是不準確的，因為除了聲聞、獨覺，「運身」是異生也可以擁有的。
58. Pruden (7-55cd, 長行, p. 1178) For the rest, innate divine sight is similar to the divine sight of supernormal knowledge.
Lodrö Sangpo (7-55cd, 長行, p. 1178) As for the rest, the innate divine eye is the same as the divine eye of superknowledge.
《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「釋曰：是生得天眼，不能見中陰眾生色。何以故？此色但是通慧眼所見，非生得天眼所見，除彼同類。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 296a11-14)
兩英譯本理解錯了「除彼同類」的意思。「除彼同類」的「同類」，指的是「中有」，「除彼同類」意在表示「中有身能見中有身」：中有身除了中有身能見之外（除彼同類），唯修得極淨天眼能見。兩英譯本誤解成：除了（生得天眼）不能見中有身，生得天眼和修得天眼沒有差別。
《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷9：「此中有身同類相見，若有修得極淨天眼亦能得見，諸生得眼皆不能觀，以極細故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 46a24-26)