俱舍論記 19.146

19.146

「於此六中至諸行擇滅」者，釋第五、第六句。六中緣滅，各以自地諸行上滅為其所緣。諸地擇滅更互相望，非因果故不緣異地。善智悟境通緣多地不同染法。故《顯宗》云「然諸善智悟境，理通容有頓緣多地滅。諸邪見起於境迷謬，固執所隔不能總緣。」問：九上緣惑於境亦迷，如何得緣多地苦、集？解云：雖迷境起，諸地苦、集由互相望為能作因、增上果故，容緣多地。又《正理》云「謗滅邪見為見滅耶？不見滅耶？若見滅者，如何見滅謗言無滅？若不見滅者，如何無漏緣？又如何言此物非有？應言見滅，但尋教見即謗如是所說滅無。豈不此見親能緣滅，如何即撥此滅為無？如有目者於多杌處，遙見人立，撥為非人。雖親緣人，而非不謗，故有見滅而撥為無。然非所有謗滅道慧皆是見滅、見道所斷。謂若有慧非審察生，聞說滅、道便生誹謗，唯緣名故，非彼見所斷。若慧於境因審尋伺推度而生決定，撥無所說滅、道，方見彼斷（已上論文）。」

Regarding "Among these six ... pratisaṃkhyānirodha of saṃskāras": this explains the fifth and sixth lines. Among the six, those that apprehend nirodha each take the nirodha upon the saṃskāras of their own level as their cognitive object. The pratisaṃkhyānirodhas of the various levels, viewed in relation to one another, are not causes and effects, and therefore do not apprehend a different level. Wholesome wisdom that awakens to the object comprehensively apprehends multiple levels, unlike defiled dharmas. Hence the Samayapradīpikā says: "However, with wholesome wisdoms that awaken to the object, in principle there is room to admit simultaneous apprehension of the nirodhas of multiple levels. Various false views arise through delusion regarding the object, and being separated by rigid grasping, they cannot comprehensively apprehend them." Question: The nine defilements that apprehend higher realms are also deluded regarding their objects; how can they apprehend the duḥkha and samudaya of multiple levels? Explanation: Although arising through delusion regarding the object, the duḥkha and samudaya of the various levels serve mutually as kāraṇa-hetu and adhipati-phala, and therefore room is admitted for apprehending multiple levels. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra says: "Does the mithyādṛṣṭi that repudiates nirodha see nirodha or not see nirodha? If it sees nirodha, how, seeing nirodha, could it repudiate it by saying there is no nirodha? If it does not see nirodha, how could it be an apprehension of the anāsrava? And how could it say that this entity does not exist? It should be said that it sees nirodha: merely following the teaching, having seen it, it then repudiates that such stated nirodha does not exist. Does not this view directly apprehend nirodha, so how could it straightaway reject this nirodha as non-existent? It is just like a person with eyes in a place of many tree stumps, who from afar sees a person standing and rejects him as a non-person. Although directly apprehending a person, he does not fail to repudiate him; therefore there can be seeing nirodha and yet rejecting it as non-existent. However, not all wisdom that repudiates nirodha and mārga is abandoned by the vision of nirodha and the vision of mārga. That is, if there is a wisdom that does not arise from careful scrutiny, but merely upon hearing nirodha and mārga preached gives rise to repudiation, apprehending only the name, it is not abandoned by that vision. Only if a wisdom regarding the object, due to careful examination and reflection, generates a definite conviction and rejects the preached nirodha and mārga as non-existent, is it abandoned by that vision (the above is the śāstra text)."