俱舍論記 15.84

15.84

「無漏善法至勝果道故」者，釋下兩句。無漏善法由三緣捨：一由得果，謂得果時捨前向道及捨果道。二由練根，得利捨鈍。三由退失，謂得退時退果道及勝果道。言得退者，先成此法，後退不成，名為得退。果道，謂果中道。勝果道，謂得果已起餘無漏勝前果故，名勝果道。或趣勝果，名勝果道。若望前果名勝果道，若望後果名為向道。又解：勝果道寬，依果起道皆名勝果。向道即狹，進趣後果名向道故。於二解中，前解為勝。得果捨前向道，豈有不捨勝果道耶？總而言之，無漏善法由三緣捨：一由得果、二由練根、三由退失。《正理》三十九彈云「經主於此應說二緣，以得果言攝練根故。謂練根位必還得果，棄捨鈍果，勝果道故。」又云「我於此中應少分別。若據捨見道及道類智，當知但由得果非退。若不動法無學俱無，所餘無漏容具二種。」俱舍師救言：論主別說得果、練根二種捨者，若得果捨，據同類捨。如從預流至一來果，若是鈍根，捨前鈍道得果鈍道；若是利根，捨前利道得果利道。若練根捨，據異類捨，如捨鈍道得利道故。雖轉根位必亦得果，非同類捨故，不與得果名。論主別說練根，意在於此。如《五事論》亦立三種，故彼論云「問：無漏律儀何緣故得？何緣故捨？答：與道俱得，無全捨者。若隨分捨，則由三緣：一由退故、二由得果故、三由練根故。」正理論師雖欲故違我說，何期返破自宗。又雖分別，亦非盡理。於修道位有學利根，當知亦由得果非退，何故不說？若善分別，應作是言：若捨見道及道類智，并於修位有學利根，當知但由得果非退。若不動法無學俱無，所餘無漏容具二種。意欲分別，何斯招過？問：別解脫戒與無漏戒，雖復有漏、無漏不同，二俱是善，何故捨緣差別不同？解云：若以別解五緣對道戒，如對定戒說有差別者，定戒命終分捨；道戒無命終捨，以不繫故。總而言之，別解對道戒五緣皆別。若以道戒三緣對別解脫，道戒由得果故，捨前劣道，有得果捨。別解非由得果捨，故無得果捨。道戒由心故得，以練根時捨戒俱心，戒亦隨捨，有練根捨。別解非由練根捨求戒心，無練根捨。道戒有退捨，別解無退捨，如前定戒對別解脫。總而言之，道戒對別解，三緣俱不同。問：別解對道戒，定、散不同可捨緣別。定戒與道戒，雖有漏、無漏別，二俱隨心戒，何故捨緣差別不等？解云：若以定戒三緣對道戒，定戒有漏有易地失，故有易地捨。道戒無漏，非由易地失，故無易地捨。定戒命終分捨煖等，有命終捨。道戒命終無別捨故，無命終捨。若依《正理》，定戒有離染捨，由離染位捨退分故，以彼退分與彼煩惱相出入故，以捨煩惱亦捨退分，由捨退分亦捨退分俱時戒，故有離染捨。定、道二戒俱容退故，皆有退捨。總而言之，定戒對道戒，若依此論二異一同，若依《正理》一同三異。若以道戒三緣對定戒，道戒由得果、練根得勝捨劣，故有得果、練根捨。定戒非由得果、練根捨，故無得果、練根捨。唯退緣同，如前釋。總而言之，道戒對定戒二異一同。

"Anāsrava wholesome dharmas [...] because of the path of superior fruits" explains the lower two lines [of the verse]. Anāsrava wholesome dharmas are relinquished through three conditions: first, through attainment of a fruit, which means that at the time of attaining a fruit one relinquishes the preceding path of the applicant (pratipannaka) and relinquishes the path of the [prior] fruit; second, through refining the faculties (indriyasaṃskāra), where one attains the sharp and relinquishes the dull; third, through falling away (hāna / parihāṇi), which means that at the time of suffering a fall, one falls away from the path of the fruit and the path of the superior fruit. Falling away means that one first possessed this dharma, and later fell away so that it is no longer possessed; this is called falling away. The 'path of the fruit' means the path within the fruit. The 'path of superior fruit' means that having attained the fruit, one gives rise to remaining anāsrava [paths] superior to the previous fruit, hence it is called the path of the superior fruit; or, proceeding toward a superior fruit is called the path of the superior fruit. When viewed with respect to the preceding fruit it is called the path of the superior fruit; when viewed with respect to the subsequent fruit it is called the path of the applicant. Another explanation is: the path of the superior fruit is broad, and any path arising based on a fruit is called a superior fruit; the path of the applicant is narrow, because advancing toward a subsequent fruit is called the path of the applicant. Between the two explanations, the former explanation is superior. When one attains a fruit and relinquishes the preceding path of the applicant, how could one not relinquish the path of the superior fruit? In summary, anāsrava wholesome dharmas are relinquished through three conditions: first, through attainment of a fruit; second, through refining the faculties; third, through falling away. Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 39, criticizes this, stating: "Here the author of the treatise (Vasubandhu) should have stated two conditions, because the mention of attaining a fruit encompasses the refinement of faculties. For in the stage of refining faculties, one inevitably also attains a fruit, casting aside the dull fruit and the path of the superior fruit." It also states: "Here I should make a slight distinction: if it is according to relinquishing the path of seeing (darśanamārga) and the subsequent knowledge of the path (mārgānvayajñāna), one should know that it is only through attaining a fruit, not through falling away. In the case of an aśaikṣa of unshakeable dharma (akopyadharman), both are absent. The remaining anāsrava [dharmas] may possess both." The Kośa master defends: The Master of the Treatise separately states the two kinds of relinquishment—attaining a fruit and refining the faculties—because relinquishment through attaining a fruit is understood in terms of relinquishing within the same class. For instance, progressing from the fruit of the stream-enterer to the fruit of the once-returner, if one is of dull faculties, one relinquishes the preceding dull path and attains the dull path of the fruit; if one is of sharp faculties, one relinquishes the preceding sharp path and attains the sharp path of the fruit. Relinquishment through refining the faculties, on the other hand, is understood in terms of relinquishing across different classes, as when one relinquishes a dull path and attains a sharp path. Although in the stage of transforming faculties one inevitably also attains a fruit, because it is not relinquishment within the same class, it is not given the name 'attaining a fruit'. That the Master of the Treatise separately states the refinement of faculties has this intention. As the Pañcavastuka also establishes three kinds, that treatise states: "Question: Through what conditions is anāsrava discipline attained? Through what conditions is it relinquished? Answer: It is attained together with the path; there is no complete relinquishment. If it is partial relinquishment, then it is through three conditions: first, through falling away; second, through attaining a fruit; third, through refining the faculties." Although the Nyāyānusāra master wished deliberately to oppose our explanation, who would have thought he would end up overturning his own school's doctrine? Furthermore, although he makes a distinction, it still does not exhaust the principles. In the stage of the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga), a śaikṣa of sharp faculties should also be known to [relinquish] only through attaining a fruit and not through falling away; why did he not mention this? If one were to make a proper distinction, one should say this: if it is relinquishing the path of seeing and the subsequent knowledge of the path, along with a śaikṣa of sharp faculties in the stage of cultivation, one should know that it is only through attaining a fruit, not through falling away. In the case of an aśaikṣa of unshakeable dharma, both are absent. The remaining anāsrava [dharmas] may possess both. Wishing to make distinctions, why did he incur this fault? Question: Although prātimokṣa discipline and anāsrava discipline differ as sāsrava and anāsrava, both are wholesome; why do the differences in their conditions of relinquishment not correspond? The explanation is: if one contrasts the five conditions of prātimokṣa with the path discipline, just as when contrasting it with concentration discipline there are differences: concentration discipline has partial relinquishment at death; path discipline has no relinquishment at death, because it is unattached [to any realm]. In summary, when prātimokṣa is contrasted with path discipline, all five conditions differ. If one contrasts the three conditions of path discipline with prātimokṣa: path discipline, through attaining a fruit, relinquishes the preceding inferior path, so it has relinquishment by attaining a fruit; prātimokṣa is not relinquished through attaining a fruit, so it has no relinquishment by attaining a fruit. Path discipline is attained through the mind; when refining faculties, one relinquishes the mind concomitant with the discipline, and the discipline is also relinquished accordingly, so it has relinquishment by refining faculties; prātimokṣa does not relinquish the mind seeking discipline through refining faculties, so it has no relinquishment by refining faculties. Path discipline has relinquishment through falling away, while prātimokṣa has no relinquishment through falling away, as explained earlier in contrasting concentration discipline with prātimokṣa. In summary, contrasting path discipline with prātimokṣa, all three conditions differ. Question: Contrasting prātimokṣa with path discipline, since concentration and distraction differ, it is reasonable that their conditions of relinquishment differ. But concentration discipline and path discipline, although differing as sāsrava and anāsrava, are both discipline that conforms to the mind; why are their conditions of relinquishment not the same? The explanation is: if one contrasts the three conditions of concentration discipline with path discipline, concentration discipline is sāsrava and has loss through changing planes, so it has relinquishment by changing planes; path discipline is anāsrava and is not lost through changing planes, so it has no relinquishment by changing planes. Concentration discipline has relinquishment at death because one partially relinquishes the heat and so forth at death; path discipline has no special relinquishment at death, so it has no relinquishment at death. According to the Nyāyānusāra, concentration discipline has relinquishment by detachment, because in the stage of detachment one relinquishes the fallen portion; since that fallen portion goes in and out with those defilements, by relinquishing defilements one also relinquishes the fallen portion, and by relinquishing the fallen portion one also relinquishes the discipline concomitant with the fallen portion, hence it has relinquishment by detachment. Because both concentration and path disciplines allow for falling away, both have relinquishment by falling away. In summary, contrasting concentration discipline with path discipline, according to this treatise two differ and one is the same; according to the Nyāyānusāra one is the same and three differ. If one contrasts the three conditions of path discipline with concentration discipline, path discipline attains the superior and relinquishes the inferior through attaining a fruit and refining faculties, so it has relinquishment by attaining a fruit and refining faculties; concentration discipline is not relinquished through attaining a fruit and refining faculties, so it has no relinquishment by attaining a fruit and refining faculties. Only the condition of falling away is the same, as explained before. In summary, contrasting path discipline with concentration discipline, two differ and one is the same.