俱舍論記 14.107

14.107

「如是所說至有八支等」者，經部難。夫言支者是支分義，望他說之，不可正見等即自望正見等即為支。等謂等取擇法、覺支、三摩地支。汝若謂前生正見等為後生正見等支，則初剎那苦法忍聖道等前無正見等，應不具有八支等。經部意說：總標道、覺、靜慮，名號別說為支。總有別支，即無妨矣。《正理》救云「非《毘婆》沙說正見等其體即是正見等支，亦非前生正見等為後生正見等支。然於俱生正見等八，唯一正見有能尋求諸法相能說名為道，以能尋求是道義故，即此正見復能隨順正思惟等故名為支。所餘七支望俱生法能隨順故說名為支，非能尋求不名為道。實義如是。若就假名，餘支皆能長養正見故，思惟等亦得道名，見名道支亦不違理，是則一切亦道亦支。餘隨所應皆如是說。由此類釋齋戒八支，經主於中何憑說過？」俱舍師破云：若就實義，正見但應言是道。是正思惟等支，不應言亦道支。既言亦道，支還望自。若就假名，餘七亦應名為道，何故但言是道支非道？

"What is said like this... would have eight limbs and so on" is the Sautrāntika objection. The word "limb" means a component part, spoken of in relation to another; right view and so forth cannot be a limb in relation to right view itself. "And so on" includes investigation of dharmas, limbs of awakening, and limbs of samādhi. If you claim that previously arisen right view and so forth are limbs of subsequently arisen right view and so forth, then in the first moment of the noble path of the tolerance of the dharma of suffering (duḥkhe dharma-jñāna-kṣānti), with no prior right view and so forth, it would not completely possess eight limbs and so forth. The Sautrāntika's intention is: The terms path, awakening, and dhyāna designate the whole, while the individual components are spoken of as limbs. When a whole has distinct limbs, there is no contradiction. The *Nyāyānusāra* defends: "The *Vibhāṣā* does not say that the substance of right view is itself a limb of right view, nor that previously arisen right view is a limb of subsequently arisen right view. Rather, among the eight co-arising factors such as right view, only right view has the ability to seek out the characteristics of all dharmas and can be called the path, because the ability to seek out is the meaning of path; and this very right view can also accord with right thought and so forth, hence it is called a limb. The remaining seven limbs are called limbs because they accord with the co-arising dharmas, but lacking the ability to seek out, they are not called the path. Such is the true meaning. In terms of nominal designation, because the other limbs are all capable of nourishing right view, thought and so forth also obtain the name of path, and calling view a limb of the path does not contradict reason; thus all are both path and limbs. The rest are explained in like manner according to the case. Explaining the eight limbs of the fasting precept by this analogy, on what basis does the author of the treatise allege a fault here?" The master of the Kośa refutes this, saying: If in terms of true meaning, right view should only be said to be the path; being a limb of right thought and so forth, it should not be said to also be a limb of the path. Since you say it is also a limb of the path, it is still a limb in relation to itself. If in terms of nominal designation, the other seven should also be called the path; why then do you say they are only limbs of the path and not the path?