大般涅槃經義記 9.170

9.170

第四次辨阿羅漢人有退無退。先辨諍相。有人宣說一切羅漢悉皆有退。此別師義，不同《毘曇》。《成實》宣說一切不退，所以成諍。次須論理，理則不偏。是義云何？分別有五：一約惑分別。煩惱有二：一受生煩惱，於受生時起貪等結。二障道煩惱，現起染污妨礙聖道。彼阿羅漢受生煩惱一向不起名為不退，障道煩惱得有起義名為有退。二約煩惱因緣分別。惑起有三：一性使不斷，為因故起；二以不正思惟故起；三緣力故起，如見女色生貪欲等。阿羅漢人無前二因而起煩惱名為不退，緣力生結名為有退，謂見增上可貪境界暫爾生貪，還即攝心斷之令滅。三約道分別。道有二種：一者有漏等智斷結、二者無漏聖道斷結，等智斷結則有退轉，無漏斷結則無退轉。四約修分別。散亂有退，專修無退。五就根分別。鈍根有退，利根無退。義既如是，不得偏執。文中初明如來說退凡聞起諍，有五復次：一者為於懈怠比丘說退有五；二說羅漢雖無內因不離外緣所以有退；三舉瞿坻證成有退；四舉時不時二種解脫證成有退；五舉六種羅漢證成有退。退、思、護、住、勝進、不動是六羅漢。下說不退，凡聞起淨，有二復次：一明羅漢所斷煩惱，猶如燋炭不還為木，所以不退；二明羅漢於彼三種煩惱因中已斷二種，故言不退。先舉三數，次列三名，下明所斷。

Fourth is to explain whether an arhat retrogresses or does not retrogress. First, one clarifies the aspects of the controversy. Some proclaim that all arhats retrogress. This is the teaching of a particular master, distinct from the Abhidharma. The Tattvasiddhi proclaims that none retrogress; hence a controversy arises. Next, one must discuss the principle; the principle is not one-sided. What does this mean? There are five distinctions: First, distinguishing according to defilement. Afflictions are of two kinds: first, afflictions of taking rebirth, which generate bonds of craving and the like at the time of taking rebirth; second, afflictions obstructing the path, which arise in the present as defilements obstructing the noble path. For that arhat, the afflictions of taking rebirth definitively do not arise, which is called non-retrogression; the afflictions obstructing the path may arise, which is called having retrogression. Second, distinguishing according to the causes and conditions of afflictions. The arising of delusion has three [factors]: first, the latent tendencies of nature are not severed and arise as a cause; second, it arises due to improper attention; third, it arises through the power of conditions, such as giving rise to desire upon seeing female forms. For an arhat, arising of afflictions without the first two causes is called non-retrogression; giving rise to bonds through the power of conditions is called having retrogression—meaning that upon encountering an excessively desirable object, craving briefly arises, but they immediately collect the mind and sever it, making it vanish. Third, distinguishing according to the path. Paths are of two kinds: first, severing bonds by conventional wisdom with outflows; second, severing bonds by the noble path without outflows. Severing bonds by conventional wisdom entails retrogression; severing bonds without outflows does not entail retrogression. Fourth, distinguishing according to cultivation. Distraction has retrogression; focused cultivation has no retrogression. Fifth, distinguishing in terms of faculties. Dull faculties have retrogression; sharp faculties have no retrogression. Since the principle is like this, one must not cling to one side. In the text, it first clarifies that the Tathāgata taught retrogression and ordinary beings, hearing it, stirred up controversy; there are five further instances: first, teaching five causes of retrogression for indolent bhikṣus; second, teaching that although an arhat lacks internal causes, they are not separate from external conditions, and therefore retrogress; third, citing Godhika to substantiate having retrogression; fourth, citing the two kinds of liberation, timely and non-timely, to substantiate having retrogression; fifth, citing the six kinds of arhats to substantiate having retrogression. Retrogression, reflection, protection, abiding, advancing, and immovable are the six arhats. Below, it teaches non-retrogression, where ordinary beings, hearing it, stirred up controversy; there are two further instances: first, clarifying that the afflictions severed by an arhat are like charred charcoal which does not turn back into wood, and therefore there is no retrogression; second, clarifying that among those three kinds of causes of affliction, the arhat has already severed two kinds, hence it is said there is no retrogression. It first cites the count of three, next lists the three names, and below clarifies what is severed.