俱舍論記 17.116

17.116

「有漏道業至唯除前生」者，異熟、等流、離繫三果，如文可知。士用果者，一謂道所牽俱有士用果，即是俱生士用果。二謂道所牽解脫士用果，即是無間士用果。三謂道所修，謂未來所修功德，或是隔越士用果。四謂道所證，即是不生士用果。故《正理》云「士用果者，謂道所牽俱有、解脫、所修及斷。言俱有者，謂俱生法。言解脫者，謂無間生即解脫道。言所修者，謂未來修。斷謂擇滅，由道力故彼得方起。增上果亦可知。」又《正理》四十三云「增上果者，有如是說：謂離自性餘有為法，唯除前生。有作是言：斷亦應是道增上果，道增上力能證彼故。若爾，何故《毘婆沙》中，唯說欲界十隨眠斷為苦法智忍離繫士用果，曾不說是增上果耶？非由不說，便非彼果。以即彼文說苦法智為苦法智忍等流、士用果，曾不說是增上果故。然實苦法智是彼增上果，而不說者，義極成故。此亦應然，舉士用果，理即已舉增上果。故非唯可生是增上果，說非擇滅是心果故，離此更無餘果義故。」解云：《正理》兩解，前師為正，同此論故。又諸論中皆說擇滅是離繫果，不言增上果故。又諸論中出增上果體，皆言有為，不說無為故。又解：《正理》既無立、破，據義不同，皆無有妨。雖有兩解，前解為勝。於未來世非唯可生法是增上果，亦有處說非擇滅法是心果故。以此故知，諸不生法亦是增上果。餘文可知。

[On the phrase] “The karma of the path with-outflows … only excluding what arose previously”: the three results of retribution, equal-outflow, and disjunction (visaṃyoga-phala) can be understood from the text. As for the virile result (puruṣakāra-phala): first, it refers to the coexistent virile result drawn by the path, which is the simultaneously-arising virile result. Second, it refers to the liberation virile result drawn by the path, which is the uninterrupted virile result. Third, it refers to what is cultivated by the path, namely virtues cultivated in the future, or an intervened virile result. Fourth, it refers to what is realized by the path, namely the non-arising virile result. Therefore the *Nyāyānusāra* says: “The virile result refers to the coexistent, the liberation, the cultivated, and severance drawn by the path. ‘Coexistent’ means co-arising phenomena. ‘Liberation’ means what arises uninterruptedly, namely the path of liberation. ‘Cultivated’ means future cultivation. ‘Severance’ means analytical cessation (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha), the acquisition of which only arises due to the power of the path. The sovereign result can also be known.” Furthermore, *Nyāyānusāra* fascicle 43 says: “Regarding the sovereign result, there is such an explanation: it means the remaining conditioned phenomena apart from self-nature, only excluding what arose previously. Someone says: severance should also be a sovereign result of the path, because the sovereign power of the path can realize it. If so, why does the *Vibhāṣā* only state that the severance of the ten anusayas of the desire realm is the disjunction and virile result of the patience with the knowledge of the dharma of suffering (duḥkhe dharma-jñāna-kṣānti), and never states that it is a sovereign result? Not stating it does not make it not its result. Because that very text states that the knowledge of the dharma of suffering (duḥkhe dharma-jñāna) is the equal-outflow and virile result of the patience with the knowledge of the dharma of suffering, and never states that it is a sovereign result. Yet in reality the knowledge of the dharma of suffering is its sovereign result, and the reason it is not stated is that the meaning is thoroughly established. Here too it should be so: in mentioning the virile result, logically the sovereign result is already mentioned. Therefore it is not only what is capable of arising that is a sovereign result, because it is said that non-analytical cessation (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) is a result of mind, and apart from this there is no other meaning of result.” Explanation: The *Nyāyānusāra* gives two explanations; the former master is correct, because it agrees with this treatise. Furthermore, all treatises state that analytical cessation is a result of disjunction, and do not say it is a sovereign result. Furthermore, in specifying the substantial entity of the sovereign result, all treatises say conditioned, and do not say unconditioned. Another explanation: since the *Nyāyānusāra* neither establishes nor refutes [either view], based on different aspects of meaning, neither has any impediment. Although there are two explanations, the former explanation is superior. In future times, it is not only phenomena capable of arising that are sovereign results, because in some places it is also said that non-analytical cessation is a result of mind. From this it is known that all non-arising phenomena are also sovereign results. The rest of the text can be known.