俱舍論記 1.25

1.25

第三三性分別者，不染無知通善、無覆無記。既言不染，明非不善、有覆無記。若通於善，無色無學恒成就故，可不名佛。若唯無記，無色無學異熟生心不現在前，不成就故應名為佛。以此而言故亦通善。問：若通善者，何故《婆沙》第九云「問：此邪智是何？答：此是欲界修所斷中無覆無記邪行相智。如於杌起人想及於人起杌想，於非道起道想、於道起非道想，如是等。」又《正理》七十云「有劣無知無覆無記性能障解脫，是解脫障體。」又云「諸大論師咸言：練根皆為遮遣見、修斷惑力所引發無覆無記無知現行。」准彼兩論，但言無記。解云：《婆沙》但解邪行相智非實知故名之為邪，故言無記。《正理》出解脫障體及根障體，故言無記。今者總出一切不染無知體性，故亦通善。或無知有二：一者是善障法力劣、二者無記障法力勝。《婆沙》、《正理》據勝而說，故言無記。今言通善，亦據劣明。又解：諸論皆云不染無知無覆無記，明知不通於善。雖亦有時不成無覆心、心所法，以必起故、有習氣故，不名為佛。雖有兩解，意謂前勝。若難後家，准前應說。

3. Analysis according to the three natures: non-defiled ignorance encompasses both the wholesome and the non-obscured neutral (anivṛtāvyākṛta). Since it is called "non-defiled," it is clearly neither unwholesome nor obscured-neutral (nivṛtāvyākṛta). If it encompasses the wholesome, then because an aśaikṣa in the formless realm is constantly endowed with it, they may properly not be called a Buddha. If it were exclusively neutral, then when the mind born of maturation does not manifest for an aśaikṣa in the formless realm, they would not be endowed with it and would therefore have to be called a Buddha. On this basis, it therefore also encompasses the wholesome. Question: If it encompasses the wholesome, why does Mahāvibhāṣā 9 state: "Question: What is this erroneous cognition? Answer: It is cognition of erroneous mental modes belonging to the non-obscured neutral among what is to be abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm. Such as giving rise to the notion of a person toward a tree stump and giving rise to the notion of a tree stump toward a person, giving rise to the notion of the path toward what is not the path, and giving rise to the notion of non-path toward the path, and so forth"? Furthermore, Nyāyānusāra 70 states: "There is an inferior ignorance of the non-obscured neutral nature that can obstruct liberation; it is the essential nature of the obstacle to liberation." It also states: "The great masters all say: refining the faculties is entirely for the sake of warding off the active operation of non-obscured neutral ignorance induced by the power of defilements abandoned by seeing and cultivation." According to both treatises, they only speak of the neutral. Explanation: the Mahāvibhāṣā is only explaining cognition with erroneous mental modes; because it is not real knowing, it is called erroneous, and is therefore said to be neutral. The Nyāyānusāra sets forth the essential nature of the obstacle to liberation and the obstacle of faculties, and therefore speaks of the neutral. Here, we are generally presenting the essential nature of all non-defiled ignorance, so it also encompasses the wholesome. Alternatively, there are two kinds of ignorance: first, that which is wholesome, whose power to obstruct dharmas is weak; second, that which is neutral, whose power to obstruct dharmas is strong. The Mahāvibhāṣā and the Nyāyānusāra speak on the basis of what is strong, and therefore say it is neutral. Stating here that it encompasses the wholesome is likewise explained on the basis of what is weak. Another explanation: all treatises state that non-defiled ignorance is non-obscured neutral, which clearly shows that it does not encompass the wholesome. Although there are times when one is not endowed with non-obscured minds and mental factors, because they are bound to arise and because habitual residue exists, one is not called a Buddha. Although there are these two explanations, in meaning the former is considered superior. If one were to cross-examine the latter master, it should be done in accordance with what was said before.