俱舍論記 1.20

1.20

三述正義者，不染無知，以未成佛來所有一切有漏無染劣慧為體。故《正理》二十八云「是故即於味、勢、熟等不懃求解，慧與異相法俱為因，引生彼同類慧。此慧於解又不懃求，復為因引生不懃求解慧。如是展轉無始時來，因果相仍習以成性。故即於彼味等境中，數習於解無堪能智，此所引劣智名不染無知。即此俱生心、心所法總名習氣，理定應然。或諸有情有煩惱位，所有無染心及相續，由諸煩惱間雜所熏，有能順生煩惱氣分，故諸無染心及眷屬似彼行相差別而生。由數習力相繼而起故，離過身中仍名有習氣。一切智者永斷不行，然於已斷見所斷位，通染、不染心相續中，有餘順生煩惱習性，是見所斷煩惱氣分。於中染者，說名類性，金剛道斷皆不現行。若不染者，名見所斷煩惱習氣，亦彼道斷。由根差別，有行、不行。若於已斷修所斷位，唯於不染心相續中，有餘順生煩惱習性，是修所斷煩惱氣分，名修所斷煩惱習氣。是有漏故，無學已斷。隨根勝、劣，有行、不行。世尊已得法自在故、彼如是煩惱畢竟不行、故佛獨稱善淨相續。即由此故、行無誤失、得不共法、三念住等。又由此故，密意說言，唯佛獨名得無學果。」解云：《正理》意說，不染無知劣慧為體，無知狹、習氣寬。然解習氣，二解不同。一解：劣慧俱生心、心所法總名習氣。一解：習氣不但通心、心所法，亦通相續身。又《婆沙》一百五十三出解脫障體中云「解脫障，有說：以下無知為體。有說：於定不自在為體。有說：諸定不得為體。」《婆沙》雖無評家，准《正理論》，以初師為正。故《正理》七十於解脫障體總有四師。初師云：有劣無知無覆無記性能障解脫，是解脫障體；第二師以不自在為體；第三師以不得為體；第四師以不懃求等為體。又云：初說應理故。彼三師說，具如前說。以此文證，故知不染無知劣慧為體。又元瑜法師解《順正理》「或諸有情」已下云：「以諸無染心，及相續身中有諸煩惱熏成氣分，是無明多者。善心現行，亦多闇昧，隨順無明。餘例亦爾。以此習氣，名此無知。此體是何？以未成佛來，一切有漏善、無記法，順無明故、違遍知故，皆名無知。如是氣分染品，亦有漏，於染攝，故此不論。故於已斷見所斷位，謂從預流乃至無學，染、不染品皆有見所斷煩惱習性，唯除無漏，染名類性煩惱類故。不染名習氣，習煩惱成故。」此意總以無染有漏，若心、若身順煩惱者，似煩惱故，名為習氣。不染無知、習氣無知，無有寬狹。佛身畢竟不順煩惱，斷習氣故，名淨相續。更不學慧，方名無學。餘文可知。

Third, set forth the correct view: non-defiled ignorance takes as its essential nature all sāsrava, non-defiled, inferior prajñā prior to the attainment of buddhahood. Therefore Nyāyānusāra 28 says: "Consequently, because one does not diligently seek to understand flavor, potency, maturation, and so on, prajñā along with dharmas of distinct characteristics together act as a cause to generate prajñā of that same class. This prajñā in turn does not diligently seek to understand, and again acts as a cause to generate prajñā that does not diligently seek to understand. In this way, alternating repeatedly from beginningless time, cause and effect follow upon one another and through habituation become one's nature. Therefore, with respect to those objects such as flavor, one repeatedly habituates oneself to cognition devoid of capability; the inferior cognition induced thereby is called non-defiled ignorance. The mind and mental factors arising concurrently with this are collectively called habitual residue (vāsanā); this must certainly be the case logically. Or, during states wherein sentient beings possess defilements, all non-defiled minds and their mental continuities are perfumed by the mingling of various defilements, so that they have portions [of their nature] that accord with the generation of defilements; thus, all non-defiled minds and their retinues arise resembling those distinct mental modes. Because they arise continuously through the power of repeated habituation, in a body that is [otherwise] free from faults they are still called 'having habitual residue.' The Omniscient One abandons them forever so that they never arise; however, at the stage where what is to be abandoned by seeing has been abandoned, throughout the mental continuities that are both defiled and non-defiled, there remain habitual dispositions that accord with the generation of defilements; these are portions of defilements to be abandoned by seeing. Among them, those that are defiled are termed 'homogeneous nature' (sabhāgatā); when abandoned by the vajropamasamādhi path, none of them will arise in active operation. Those that are non-defiled are called 'habitual residues of defilements to be abandoned by seeing,' and are also abandoned by that path; depending on the differences in faculties, they may or may not arise in active operation. If at the stage where what is to be abandoned by cultivation has been abandoned, then only in non-defiled mental continuities are there remaining habitual dispositions that accord with the generation of defilements; these are portions of defilements to be abandoned by cultivation, and are called 'habitual residues of defilements to be abandoned by cultivation.' Because they are sāsrava, the aśaikṣa has already abandoned them; depending on whether one's faculties are sharp or dull, they may or may not arise in active operation. Because the World-Honoured One has attained mastery over dharmas, such defilements never arise in active operation at all; thus the Buddha alone is acclaimed as having an excellently purified continuity. It is precisely due to this that his actions are without mistake or fault, and he attains the unshared dharmas, the three applications of mindfulness, and so on. Furthermore, it is due to this that it is said with intentional meaning that the Buddha alone is named as having attained the fruit of an aśaikṣa." Explanation: the intent of Nyāyānusāra is to say that non-defiled ignorance takes inferior prajñā as its essential nature; ignorance is narrower, while habitual residue is broader. However, in explaining habitual residue, there are two distinct interpretations. One interpretation: the mind and mental factors arising concurrently with inferior prajñā are collectively termed habitual residue. Another interpretation: habitual residue extends not only through mind and mental factors, but also throughout the continuity of the body. Furthermore, Mahāvibhāṣā 153, in presenting the essential nature of the obstacle to liberation, says: "As for the obstacle to liberation, some say: it takes inferior ignorance as its essential nature. Some say: it takes non-mastery over meditative absorptions as its essential nature. Some say: it takes the non-attainment of the various meditative absorptions as its essential nature." Although the Mahāvibhāṣā gives no master evaluation, based on the Nyāyānusāra, the first master's view is correct. Thus Nyāyānusāra 70 records four masters in total regarding the essential nature of the obstacle to liberation: the first master says: there is an inferior ignorance of the non-obscured neutral nature that can obstruct liberation; this is the essential nature of the obstacle to liberation; the second master takes non-mastery as its nature; the third master takes non-attainment as its nature; the fourth master takes the lack of diligent pursuit and so on as its nature. It further says: the first statement accords with reason. The positions of those three masters are fully as stated before. By the testimony of these passages, we know that non-defiled ignorance takes inferior prajñā as its essential nature. Furthermore, Dharma Master Yuanyu, in explaining the passage of Nyāyānusāra from "Or, during states wherein sentient beings..." onward, says: "Because in all non-defiled minds and in the bodily continuity there are portions perfumed by defilements, in those who have much ignorance, even when a wholesome mind arises in active operation, it is also largely dark and obscured, according with ignorance. The other [cases] follow the same pattern. By virtue of this habitual residue, it is called this ignorance. What is this essential nature? It is that prior to the attainment of buddhahood, all sāsrava wholesome and neutral dharmas, because they accord with ignorance and contravene omniscient cognition, are all named ignorance. Such portions of the defiled category are also sāsrava, but because they are subsumed under defilement, they are not discussed here. Therefore, at the stage where what is to be abandoned by seeing has been abandoned—that is, from srotāpanna up to aśaikṣa—both defiled and non-defiled categories have habitual dispositions of defilements to be abandoned by seeing, excluding only the anāsrava; the defiled are called 'homogeneous nature' because they are of the same kind as defilements; the non-defiled are called 'habitual residue' because they are formed through the habituation of defilements." The general meaning here is that all non-defiled sāsrava [phenomena], whether mind or body, that accord with defilements, are called habitual residue because they resemble defilements. Non-defiled ignorance and the ignorance that is habitual residue have no difference in being broader or narrower. The Buddha's body definitively does not accord with defilements; because he has abandoned habitual residues, he is called a purified continuity. Only when one no longer needs to train in prajñā is one called an aśaikṣa. The rest of the text is understandable from this.