大般涅槃經疏 30.9

30.9

「迦葉言得阿那含」下，第三番，先問、次答。問云：那含亦具八智十六行。佛答又二：初明行異、次明境異。此先明行異。所言十六行，即觀十六諦。言有漏者，即似解。有共不共者，三解。一毘曇師云：前十五心共觀，十六不共一時併觀苦。觀苦時只得觀苦，不通餘諦。乃至道亦爾，故言共。若得十六心一時獨觀十六諦者，故言不共。第二愛師言：有漏十六與凡夫共，無漏十六不與凡共。此解不然，經本云「有漏有共有不共」，何以無漏釋之？第三河西云：以七方便中前三方便亦觀十六，是則名共；後四方便則是不共。若初果次第行則備作七方便觀，捨共得不共。若超越人，但作後四方便仍證三果，故言不爾。無漏十六行亦有二種，一向二得者，論家解云：初果前未有果，故言捨向得果。那含前已有二果，超越者雖不取證，皆從中過，故云不爾。若依數義，超越之人懸得那含，亦不從前二果而過，則從方便道入十六心，十五心是那含向、十六心證那含果，亦是捨向得果。解此不便，彼亦釋云：若初果定爾，那含不定；若超越者亦爾，次第者不爾。既其不定，故言不爾。八智亦二者，即四諦各有比、現，故為八，非十智之八。若依數師，則向中但有七智，果唯一智。此亦不便。「須陀洹人緣於四諦」下，第二明境別。所言初果緣四諦那含緣一諦者，初果入道之初，方便之時具游十六行觀，故備緣四諦。那含在思惟道，擇法覺支隨得一諦為緣，故言一諦。遍觀己行者，合第五譬，即是斯陀含果。若攝諸賢聖者，即攝得那含向，復攝得斯陀含向并自地果。攝此三事，何故攝阿那含向？那含本取觀已即住，汝在向時猶行非住，所以攝得，已上向屬下果攝故。若得那含，便名行已復住，例如羅漢內屬那含果攝。若依此例，斯陀含向應屬初果攝。而不然者，以初果但明正位、不說進行，又見思道異，故不相攝。今斯陀含果位則有一果兩向。文云為斷四惑三毒及慢者，乃應具言十使，以思惟道中五見及疑皆攝入慢，所以不述。文有二：先正合、次舉譬帖。「行已復住」下，合第六譬阿那含人，又四：第一章門、第二解釋、第三簡中滅、第四釋復住。此初章門中又四：一列二人、二列五人、三列六人、四列七人。此初先列二人，即經生、不經生，經生者即上行人。問：依莊嚴即有十一那含，於九人中即更明信解與見得人，足成十一。開善師但云有九，又彈莊嚴云：此簡利鈍，非是二人。今只問此文於九，何故但出其七，不言身證及轉世人？答有三義：一者不言轉世與身證者，以轉世人竟不出觀，故不說；身證人乃入滅盡定，大乘不說此定，故無二人。二者只是廣略不同。三者身證與轉世，目足論所明，我大乘所無。

From "Kāśyapa said: '[One who] attains the anāgāmin...'" below, is the third round, first asking and then answering. The question states that the anāgāmin also possesses the eight knowledges and the sixteen practices. The Buddha's answer also has two parts: first clarifying the difference in practice, and next clarifying the difference in objective support. Here, first, the difference in practice is clarified. The so-called sixteen practices are the contemplation of the sixteen [aspects of the] truths. As for "with contamination," this refers to approximate understanding. Regarding "with common and uncommon," there are three interpretations: First, the master of the Abhidharma says that the preceding fifteen minds contemplate in common, whereas the sixteenth is uncommon, simultaneously and collectively contemplating suffering. When contemplating suffering, one can only contemplate suffering and does not extend to the remaining truths. The same applies up through the path; hence they are said to be common. If upon attaining the sixteenth mind one simultaneously and uniquely contemplates the sixteen truths, it is therefore called uncommon. Second, Master Ai says: The sixteen with contamination are shared in common with ordinary worldlings; the sixteen without contamination are not shared in common with ordinary worldlings. This interpretation is not correct: the sūtra text says "those with contamination have both common and uncommon," so why explain it in terms of the uncontaminated? Third, [Master] Héxī says: Among the seven skillful means, the first three skillful means also contemplate the sixteen, so this is called common; the latter four skillful means are uncommon. If a candidate for the first fruit practices sequentially, they fully perform the contemplation of the seven skillful means, relinquishing the common and attaining the uncommon. If one is an escalating [practitioner], they merely perform the latter four skillful means and directly realize the third fruit; therefore [the sūtra] says it is not so. As for the sixteen uncontaminated practices also having two kinds—one being the path toward and the other being the attainment—the treatise masters explain: Before the first fruit there is as yet no fruit; hence it is called relinquishing the path toward and attaining the fruit. Before the anāgāmin there are already two fruits; an escalating practitioner, though not realizing them, passes through them, and therefore it is said to be not so. If according to the Abhidharma tradition, an escalating practitioner directly attains the anāgāmin without passing through the preceding two fruits, then from the path of skillful means they enter the sixteen minds: the fifteen minds are the path toward the anāgāmin, and the sixteenth mind realizes the fruit of the anāgāmin; this is also relinquishing the path toward and attaining the fruit. Explaining it this way is inconvenient, and they also explain: For the first fruit it is definitely so, but for the anāgāmin it is indefinite; for escalating ones it is also so, while for sequential ones it is not so. Since it is indefinite, it is therefore said to be not so. The eight knowledges also being of two kinds means that the four truths each have inferential and direct [perceptions], thus making eight, not the eight of the ten knowledges. If according to the Abhidharma masters, then on the path toward there are only seven knowledges, and in the fruit there is only one knowledge; this too is inconvenient. From "A srotāpanna takes the four truths as objective support" below, the second part clarifies the distinction of objective support. Saying that the first fruit takes the four truths as objective support while the anāgāmin takes one truth as objective support means: When the first fruit initially enters the path, at the time of skillful means they fully traverse the contemplation of the sixteen practices, and therefore comprehensively take the four truths as objective support. The anāgāmin is on the path of cultivation: whatever single truth they attain in accordance with the factor of awakening of dharmapravicaya serves as their objective support, and therefore it is said to be one truth. "Comprehensively contemplating one's own practice" matches the fifth analogy, which is the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin. If it subsumes the noble ones, it subsumes the path toward the anāgāmin, further subsumes the path toward the sakṛdāgāmin, along with the fruit of its own level. Subsuming these three things, why does it subsume the path toward the anāgāmin? The anāgāmin essentially takes abiding upon having contemplated; while you are on the path toward, you are still practicing and not abiding, and therefore it is subsumed, because the path toward an upper [fruit] is subsumed under the lower fruit. If one attains the anāgāmin, it is called having practiced and then abiding, just as an arhat is internally subsumed under the fruit of the anāgāmin. If according to this analogy, the path toward the sakṛdāgāmin ought to be subsumed under the first fruit. But this is not so, because the first fruit only clarifies the correct stage and does not speak of advancing practice, and furthermore, the paths of seeing and cultivation are distinct, so they do not subsume each other. Now the stage of the fruit of the sakṛdāgāmin has one fruit and two paths toward. The text says that for the sake of severing the four afflictions, three poisons, and conceit, it ought to fully speak of the ten fetters; but because in the path of cultivation the five views and doubt are all subsumed under conceit, they are not mentioned. The text has two parts: first matching directly, and next citing the analogy to align with it. From "having practiced, then abiding" below, matches the sixth analogy of the anāgāmin person, and has four parts: first, the topic headings; second, the explanation; third, distinguishing the one who attains extinction in the intermediate state; fourth, explaining "abiding again." In these initial topic headings there are again four: first, listing two persons; second, listing five persons; third, listing six persons; fourth, listing seven persons. Here first the two persons are listed: that is, passing through rebirth and not passing through rebirth; the one who passes through rebirth is the upward-faring person. Question: According to the *Zhuāngyán*, there are eleven anāgāmins; among the nine persons they further clarify those who are released by faith and those attained through vision, making up eleven. Master Kāishàn merely says there are nine, and further critiques the *Zhuāngyán*, saying: This distinguishes sharp from dull, and they are not two persons. Now we only ask regarding this text: Among the nine, why does it only present seven, not speaking of bodily witnesses and those who transfer rebirths? The answer has three points: First, not speaking of those who transfer rebirths and bodily witnesses is because those who transfer rebirths never emerge from absorption, so they are not spoken of; bodily witnesses enter the cessation absorption, and the Mahāyāna does not teach this absorption, so there are not these two persons. Second, it is merely a difference of breadth and brevity. Third, bodily witnesses and those who transfer rebirths are clarified in the *Prakaraṇapāda*, but do not exist in our Mahāyāna.