俱舍論記 16.172

16.172

「如經說至等言攝後」者，引經顯彼邪見撥無。經中總有十一不同，言一無施與、二無愛樂、三無祠祀者，此三皆是謗因邪見，見集所斷。如《婆沙》九十八解此三云「一解無差別同，顯一義故。又解：名即差別。外論者言，無施與者，謂無施三類福。無愛樂者，謂無施別婆羅門福。無祠祀者，謂無施眾婆羅門福。外論更有多解，如彼廣說。內論者言，無施與者，謂無過去福。無愛樂者，謂無未來福。無祠祀者，謂無現在福。復次無施與者，謂無身業福。無愛樂者，謂無語業福。無祠祀者，謂無意業福。復次無施與者，謂無施性福。無愛樂者，謂無戒性福。無祠祀者，謂無修性福。復次無施與者，謂無施悲田福。無愛樂者，謂無施恩田福。無祠祀者，謂無施福田福。」更有多解，如彼廣說。四無妙行無惡行者，此總撥妙行、惡行，亦是謗因邪見，見集所斷。五無妙行惡行業所感果異熟，此是總撥業所感果。謗果邪見，見苦所斷。六無此世間、七無彼世間，此二通謗因果。若謗因，見集所斷；若謗果，見苦所斷。故《婆沙》釋云「問：他世是不現見，說無可爾。此世現見，何故言無？答：彼諸外道無明所盲，於現見事亦復非撥。不應責無明者、愚盲者墮坑故。復有說者，彼諸外道但謗因、果，不謗法體。」無此世者，謂無此世為他世因，或無此世為他世果。無他世者，謂無他世為此世因，或無彼世為此世果。八無母、九無父，此二是謗因邪見，見集所斷。故《婆沙》云「問：世間父母皆所現見，彼以何見謗言無耶？答：彼諸外道無明所盲，乃至廣說。有說：彼諸外道謗無父母感子之業，不謗其體。或有說者，彼諸外道謗父母義，不謗其體。」廣如彼說。十無化生有情者，此通謗因、果。若謗因，見集所斷；若謗果，見苦所斷。《婆沙》釋云「有諸外道作如是說：諸有情生皆因現在精血等事，無有無緣忽然生者。譬如芽生，必因種子、水、火、時節。無有無緣而得生者，故定無有化生有情。」此或撥無感化生業，或復撥無所感化生。或有說者，化生有情所謂中有。無此世他世者，謗無生有。無化生有情者，謗無中有。有諸外道言中有無，彼說但應從此世間至彼世間，更無第三世間可得。此或撥無感中有業，或復撥無所感中有，或撥中有為生有因，或撥中有為死有果。此通謗因、果，見苦集所斷。十一世間無有沙門或婆羅門及阿羅漢。此是謗聖邪見，見道所斷。隨其所應說彼經具顯謗業、謗果、謗聖邪見。此頌舉初撥善、惡業，等言攝後謗果、謗聖。若依《婆沙》等文，更說謗滅邪見。如彼論云「無正至，此謗滅邪見，見滅所斷。正至謂涅槃等，是無漏道所應至故。」廣如彼說。

Regarding "As the sūtra says [...] the word 'and so forth' includes the subsequent ones": this cites a sūtra to reveal that wrong view's denial. In the sūtra there are altogether eleven different [items]. As for saying: (1) there is no giving, (2) there is no offering, (3) there is no sacrifice—these three are all wrong views that deny causes, abandoned through seeing the origin. As the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle ninety-eight, explains these three: "One explanation is that there is no difference, because they reveal one meaning. Another explanation is that their designations are distinct. Non-Buddhist treatises say: 'No giving' means there is no merit from giving to three kinds of recipients. 'No offering' means there is no merit from giving to individual brahmins. 'No sacrifice' means there is no merit from giving to groups of brahmins. The non-Buddhist treatises have further multiple explanations, as detailed there. Buddhist treatises say: 'No giving' means there is no past merit. 'No offering' means there is no future merit. 'No sacrifice' means there is no present merit. Furthermore, 'no giving' means there is no merit of bodily karma; 'no offering' means there is no merit of verbal karma; 'no sacrifice' means there is no merit of mental karma. Furthermore, 'no giving' means there is no merit whose nature is giving; 'no offering' means there is no merit whose nature is precept; 'no sacrifice' means there is no merit whose nature is cultivation. Furthermore, 'no giving' means there is no merit from giving to the field of compassion; 'no offering' means there is no merit from giving to the field of gratitude; 'no sacrifice' means there is no merit from giving to the field of merit." There are further multiple explanations, as detailed there. (4) "There is no good conduct and no bad conduct": this generally denies good conduct and bad conduct; it is also a wrong view that denies causes, abandoned through seeing the origin. (5) "There is no result or ripening induced by good-conduct or bad-conduct karma": this generally denies the results induced by karma. It is a wrong view that denies results, abandoned through seeing suffering. (6) "There is no this world," and (7) "there is no that world": these two generally deny both causes and results. If they deny causes, they are abandoned through seeing the origin; if they deny results, they are abandoned through seeing suffering. Thus the Mahāvibhāṣā explains: "Question: The other world is not directly seen; it may be acceptable to say it does not exist. This world is directly seen; why say it does not exist? Answer: Those non-Buddhists are blinded by ignorance, so they even deny what is directly seen. One should not blame the ignorant and blind for falling into a pit. Furthermore, some say: Those non-Buddhists only deny causes and results; they do not deny the intrinsic entity of phenomena." "No this world" means that this world is not the cause of the other world, or that this world is not the result of the other world. "No other world" means that the other world is not the cause of this world, or that the other world is not the result of this world. (8) "There is no mother," and (9) "there is no father": these two are wrong views that deny causes, abandoned through seeing the origin. Thus the Mahāvibhāṣā says: "Question: Parents in the world are all directly seen; through what view do they deny them, saying they do not exist? Answer: Those non-Buddhists are blinded by ignorance, and so on at length. Some say: Those non-Buddhists deny that there is karma of parents producing children; they do not deny their entities. Or some say: Those non-Buddhists deny the significance of parents; they do not deny their entities." It is detailed as stated there. (10) "There are no spontaneously born sentient beings": this generally denies causes and results. If it denies causes, it is abandoned through seeing the origin; if it denies results, it is abandoned through seeing suffering. The Mahāvibhāṣā explains: "Some non-Buddhists speak like this: The birth of all sentient beings is caused by present semen, blood, and so on; there are none that are born suddenly without conditions. Just as the sprouting of a shoot must depend on seed, water, heat, and season, and none can be born without conditions, therefore there are definitely no spontaneously born sentient beings." This either denies the karma that induces spontaneous birth, or denies the spontaneous birth that is induced. Or some say: spontaneously born sentient beings are the intermediate existence (antarābhava). "No this world or other world" denies birth-existence (upapattibhava). "No spontaneously born sentient beings" denies the intermediate existence. Some non-Buddhists say that there is no intermediate existence; they say that one should only go from this world to that world, and no third world is to be found. This either denies the karma that induces the intermediate existence, or denies the intermediate existence that is induced, or denies that the intermediate existence is the cause of birth-existence, or denies that the intermediate existence is the result of death-existence. This generally denies causes and results, abandoned through seeing suffering and the origin. (11) "In the world there are no ascetics, brahmins, or arhats": this is a wrong view that denies noble ones, abandoned through seeing the path. According to their respective applications, that sūtra is said to fully reveal the wrong views denying karma, denying results, and denying noble ones. This verse raises the initial denial of good and evil karma, and the word 'and so forth' includes the subsequent denials of results and noble ones. If one relies on texts such as the Mahāvibhāṣā, they further speak of the wrong view that denies cessation. As that treatise says: "'There is no well-attained one'—this is a wrong view that denies cessation, abandoned through seeing cessation. 'Well-attained' refers to nirvāṇa and so forth, because it is that which should be attained by the untainted path." It is detailed as stated there.