俱舍論記 10.201

10.201

「後身菩薩至對預流向」者，第四論主自釋。住最後身釋迦菩薩居贍部林名彼異生，此說應理，爾時菩薩同離欲仙居贍部林。又解：爾時菩薩雖未離欲，然伏煩惱同離欲仙，故對彼仙校量歎勝。雖施菩薩福勝無邊，由彼經中乘前校量百倍相對，且言菩薩勝彼百倍，理必應爾。謂彼經中作如是說，有人能施一百婆羅門食，若能施一離欲仙食其果勝彼。又說有人能施一百外道離欲仙食，若能施一贍部林中異生者食其果勝彼，故言乘前校量且言勝百。由後世尊，除彼贍部林中異生，還將外道離欲仙人對預流向校量勝劣。若不爾者，世尊則應將彼贍部林中異生對預流向校量勝劣。彼經應言有人能施一百贍部林中異生者食，若能施一預流向食其果勝彼。然彼經中不作是說，故知乘前且言勝百。問：《婆沙》一百三十引《校量經》云「此經復言：若以飲食布施贍部林中異生，復以飲食施一預流果，此獲福果大於彼。若以飲食施百預流，有以飲食施一一來，果大於彼。」不還、羅漢、獨覺、如來、造寺、施僧展轉相對，准此應知，不能具引。准《婆沙》引經，與此論引經不同：一則異生外道不同，二則向、果差別如何會釋。解云：既有兩種不同，明知引經各異，非是一文。問：果、向雖復不同，如何此論引經，言除異生，將彼外道對預流向，不言異生？《婆沙》引經，將彼林中異生對預流果，不言外道，豈不相違？解云：贍部林中有餘修道諸異生類，非唯菩薩名為異生。《婆沙》引經言異生者，非是菩薩，是餘異生。雖復同解一處經文，引《校量經》即有不同。又解：《婆沙》引經，將贍部林中異生對預流果者，即是林中離欲外道，以彼外道是異生故，非是菩薩異生。兩論引經雖復對向對果不同，外道異生而無差別。

"A bodhisattva in his final body... in contrast to one heading toward stream-entry" is the fourth, the treatise master's own explanation. The Śākya bodhisattva residing in his final body who dwelt in the Jambu forest is named that ordinary person; this statement is reasonable. At that time, the bodhisattva dwelt in the Jambu forest together with the desire-free ṛṣis. Another explanation says: At that time, although the bodhisattva had not yet abandoned desire, he subdued defilements together with the desire-free ṛṣis, and was therefore contrasted with those ṛṣis in a comparative evaluation praising his excellence. Although the merit of giving to a bodhisattva is boundlessly superior, because the sūtra follows the preceding comparative evaluation in contrasting them a hundredfold, it provisionally states that the bodhisattva surpasses them a hundredfold; logically it must be so. That is to say, in that sūtra it is spoken thus: if someone can give food to a hundred brahmins, and someone can give food to one desire-free ṛṣi, the latter's fruit surpasses the former. It also says that if someone can give food to a hundred non-Buddhist desire-free ṛṣis, and someone can give food to one ordinary person in the Jambu forest, the latter's fruit surpasses the former; hence it is said that following the preceding comparative evaluation it provisionally states a hundredfold superiority. Because later the World-Honoured One, excluding that ordinary person in the Jambu forest, again compared the non-Buddhist desire-free ṛṣis with one heading toward stream-entry to evaluate their superiority and inferiority. If it were not so, the World-Honoured One would have compared that ordinary person in the Jambu forest with one heading toward stream-entry to evaluate superiority and inferiority. That sūtra ought to have said: if someone can give food to a hundred ordinary persons in the Jambu forest, and someone can give food to one heading toward stream-entry, the latter's fruit surpasses the former. Yet that sūtra does not say this; hence we know that following what preceded, it provisionally states a hundredfold superiority. Question: Fascicle 130 of the Mahāvibhāṣā quotes the Comparative Evaluation Sūtra as saying: 'This sūtra further says: If one gives food and drink to an ordinary person in the Jambu forest, and again gives food and drink to one who has attained the fruit of stream-entry, the merit and fruit obtained from the latter is greater than the former. If one gives food and drink to a hundred stream-enterers, and someone gives food and drink to one once-returner, the fruit is greater than that.' Non-returners, arhats, pratyekabuddhas, Tathāgatas, building monasteries, and giving to the Saṅgha are progressively contrasted in turn; one should understand in accordance with this, and it cannot all be cited. Judging from the Mahāvibhāṣā's citation of the sūtra, it differs from the sūtra cited in this treatise: first, the ordinary person and non-Buddhists are different; second, how is the difference between candidate and fruit to be reconciled? The explanation says: Since there are two kinds of differences, it is clear that they cite different sūtras and it is not a single text. Question: Although the fruit and candidate differ, why does the sūtra cited in this treatise, stating that the ordinary person is excluded, contrast those non-Buddhists with one heading toward stream-entry, without mentioning the ordinary person, whereas the sūtra cited in the Mahāvibhāṣā contrasts that ordinary person in the forest with the fruit of stream-entry without mentioning non-Buddhists—is this not contradictory? The explanation says: In the Jambu forest there were other categories of ordinary persons cultivating the path; it was not solely the bodhisattva who was called an ordinary person. When the sūtra cited in the Mahāvibhāṣā speaks of an ordinary person, it is not the bodhisattva, but other ordinary persons. Although both interpret the same scriptural passage, their citations of the Comparative Evaluation Sūtra differ. Another explanation says: In the sūtra cited in the Mahāvibhāṣā, the one who contrasts the ordinary person in the Jambu forest with the fruit of stream-entry is precisely the desire-free non-Buddhist in the forest, because that non-Buddhist is an ordinary person, not the bodhisattva ordinary person. Although the citations of the sūtras in the two treatises differ in contrasting candidate versus fruit, between non-Buddhist and ordinary person there is no difference.