俱舍論記 16.142

16.142

「經說諸言至所見等相」者，此下第二明所見等。依經問起。經中十六，如文可知。若細分別，或有見言見等、不見言不見等，名非聖言；或有見言不見等、不見言見等，名為聖言。故《集異門足論》第十意云「有實已見等，起不見等想，言我已見等。如是雖名非聖言，而不名不見言見等，彼實已見等故。」又云「有實不見等，而起見等想，言我不見等。如是雖名非聖言，而不名見言不見等，彼實不見等故。」又云「有實已見等，起不見等想，言我不見等。如是雖名聖言，而不名不見言不見等，彼實已見等故。」又云「有實不見等，起見等想，言我已見等。如是雖名聖言，而不名見言見等，彼實不見等故（已上論文）。」應知但是違想發語皆非聖言，若順想發語皆是聖言。又《婆沙》一百七十一釋名云「問：何故此語名非聖耶？答：以不善故名非聖。復次於非聖相續中現前，故名非聖。復次非聖所成，故名非聖。復次非聖所說，故名非聖。復次非聖由此得非聖名，故名非聖。」又云「問：何故此語名聖耶？答：以善故名聖。復次於聖者相續中現前故名聖。復次聖者所成就故名聖。復次聖者所說故名聖。復次聖者由此得聖者名故名聖。」彼論更引《集異門足論》解，不能具述。

"The Sūtra speaks of all such statements ... the marks of the seen and so forth": this is the second part below, clarifying the seen and so forth. The inquiry is raised on the basis of a sūtra. In the sūtra there are sixteen [modes], as can be known from the text. If distinguished in detail: in some cases, stating that one has seen what one has seen, or that one has not seen what one has not seen, is called non-noble speech; in other cases, stating that one has not seen what one has seen, or that one has seen what one has not seen, is called noble speech. Therefore, the meaning of the tenth fascicle of the *Saṅgītiparyāya* is: "One has actually seen and so forth, yet conceives the notion that one has not seen, and says 'I have seen' and so forth. Although this is called non-noble speech, it is not called saying one has seen what one has not seen, because one has actually seen it." It also says: "One has actually not seen and so forth, yet conceives the notion that one has seen, and says 'I have not seen' and so forth. Although this is called non-noble speech, it is not called saying one has not seen what one has seen, because one has actually not seen it." It also says: "One has actually seen and so forth, yet conceives the notion that one has not seen, and says 'I have not seen' and so forth. Although this is called noble speech, it is not called saying one has not seen what one has not seen, because one has actually seen it." It also says: "One has actually not seen and so forth, yet conceives the notion that one has seen, and says 'I have seen' and so forth. Although this is called noble speech, it is not called saying one has seen what one has seen, because one has actually not seen it (the above is the śāstra text)." It should be known that whenever speech is uttered contrary to what one thinks, it is all non-noble speech; if speech is uttered in accordance with what one thinks, it is all noble speech. Furthermore, the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 171, explains the name, saying: "Question: Why is this speech called non-noble? Answer: Because it is unwholesome, it is called non-noble. Furthermore, because it manifests in the mental continuum of a non-noble person, it is called non-noble. Furthermore, because it is possessed by a non-noble person, it is called non-noble. Furthermore, because it is spoken by a non-noble person, it is called non-noble. Furthermore, because a non-noble person obtains the name of 'non-noble' on this account, it is called non-noble." It also says: "Question: Why is this speech called noble? Answer: Because it is wholesome, it is called noble. Furthermore, because it manifests in the mental continuum of a noble person, it is called noble. Furthermore, because it is possessed by a noble person, it is called noble. Furthermore, because it is spoken by a noble person, it is called noble. Furthermore, because a noble person obtains the name of 'noble' on this account, it is called noble." That treatise further cites the *Saṅgītiparyāya* to explain it, which cannot be detailed in full.