俱舍論記 19.48

19.48

「若緣見此至名修所斷」者，答。如苦、集下五見、疑，及彼相應、不共無明，滅、道下無漏緣惑，隨其所應，是若緣見此諦為境，名見此諦所斷。如苦、集下貪、瞋、慢，及彼相應無明，滅、道下有漏緣惑，隨其所應，是若緣見此諦所斷為境，名見此諦所斷。餘貪、瞋、慢，及彼相應無明，不緣見此諦為境，亦不緣見此諦所斷為境，但迷事生，名修所斷。問：如他界緣惑，如何可言緣見此諦為境，名見此諦所斷耶？解云：此文且約自界緣惑說。以他界緣非是緣見此諦，非是緣見此諦所斷，緣他界法故。又解：緣此類故，見此所斷。又解：此文亦約他界惑說，緣他界時亦緣苦、集故。今此文中通據三界、五斷總說。《正理》四十六破云「經主於此自問答言：此中何相見苦所斷，乃至何相是修所斷？若緣見此所斷為境名見此所斷，餘名修所斷。此不應理。所以者何？遍行隨眠緣五部故，即見苦集所斷隨眠，亦應通是見集、苦等所斷。又見滅、道所斷隨眠，緣非所斷法，當言何所斷？故彼非善立所斷相。應言：若見緣苦為境名為見苦，即是苦法、苦類智忍。此二所斷，總說名為見苦所斷。乃至見道所斷亦然。數習名修，謂見迹者為得上義。於苦等智數數熏習說名為修，此道所除名修所斷。是名為善立所斷相。」俱舍師救云：正理論師謬解我文，謂唯緣此諦所斷為境名見此諦所斷，故以他部緣及無漏緣為難。應作是言：若緣見此諦為境，若緣見此諦所斷為境，名見此諦所斷。他部緣惑及無漏緣，應知即是若緣見此諦為境所攝，以緣諦故。又自解釋，非異我說。

"If taking as an objective condition what is seen in this... is termed abandoned by cultivation" provides the answer. As with the five views and doubt under [the truths of] suffering and arising, along with ignorance associated with them or unshared [ignorance], and the afflictions that take the uncontaminated as objective condition under [the truths of] cessation and the path, as appropriate: if they take what is seen in this truth as their objective condition, they are called abandoned by seeing this truth. As with attachment, hostility, and conceit under suffering and arising, along with ignorance associated with them, and afflictions taking the contaminated as objective condition under cessation and the path, as appropriate: if they take as an objective condition what is abandoned by seeing this truth, they are called abandoned by seeing this truth. The remaining attachment, hostility, conceit, and ignorance associated with them do not take what is seen in this truth as their objective condition, nor do they take as an objective condition what is abandoned by seeing this truth, but merely arise confused regarding actual things; they are called abandoned by cultivation. Question: In the case of afflictions that take another realm as an objective condition, how can it be said that taking as an objective condition what is seen in this truth is called abandoned by seeing this truth? The explanation says: this text is stated for the time being with respect to afflictions that take one's own realm as their objective condition, because taking another realm as an objective condition is not taking as an objective condition what is seen in this truth, nor is it taking as an objective condition what is abandoned by seeing this truth, since it takes phenomena of another realm as its objective condition. Another explanation says: because it takes this class as its objective condition, it is abandoned by seeing this. Another explanation says: this text is also stated with respect to afflictions regarding other realms, because when taking another realm as an objective condition, it also takes suffering and arising as its objective condition. Here in this text, it is stated generally, encompassing all three realms and the five classes of abandonment. The Nyāyānusāra (fascicle 46) refutes this, saying: "The author of the Śāstra here questions and answers himself: 'Here, with what characteristic is an affliction abandoned by seeing suffering, down to with what characteristic is it abandoned by cultivation? If it takes as an objective condition what is abandoned by seeing this, it is called abandoned by seeing this; the remainder are called abandoned by cultivation.' This is illogical. Why is that? Because omnipresent anuśayas take all five classes as their objective condition; thus anuśayas abandoned by seeing suffering and arising would also have to be abandoned across seeing arising, suffering, and so forth. Furthermore, for anuśayas abandoned by seeing cessation and the path, which take phenomena that are not to be abandoned as their objective condition, by what should they be said to be abandoned? Therefore, he does not properly establish the characteristics of what is to be abandoned. One should say: if seeing takes suffering as its objective condition, it is termed 'seeing suffering', which refers to the receptivities to the cognition of dharma and the subsequent cognition of suffering. What is abandoned by these two is collectively called abandoned by seeing suffering. Down to what is abandoned by seeing the path, it is likewise. Repeated practice is called cultivation; that is, one who sees the traces, in order to attain a higher purpose, repeatedly cultivates the cognitions of suffering and so forth, which is termed cultivation; what is eliminated by this path is called abandoned by cultivation. This is properly establishing the characteristics of what is to be abandoned." The masters of the Kośa defend this, saying: "The author of the Nyāyānusāra misunderstood our text, thinking that only taking as an objective condition what is abandoned by this truth is termed abandoned by seeing this truth, and therefore raised objections using afflictions taking another class as objective condition and those taking the uncontaminated as objective condition. One should say: if taking as an objective condition what is seen in this truth, or if taking as an objective condition what is abandoned by seeing this truth, it is called abandoned by seeing this truth. Afflictions taking another class as objective condition and those taking the uncontaminated as objective condition should be understood as subsumed under taking as an objective condition what is seen in this truth, because they take the truths as their objective condition. Furthermore, his own explanation does not differ from what we have stated."