俱舍論記 19.75

19.75

「迷苦諦故」者，毘婆沙師答。雖非從彼常、我倒生，迷苦諦故，見苦所斷。應知頌文且據戒禁從常、我生，見苦所斷。以實而言，亦有不從常、我生者。《婆沙》一百九十九云「前來所說諸戒禁取皆見苦所斷者，依我、常倒起，於果處轉故。雖非因計因，而言見苦所斷，謂戒禁取總有二類：一非因計因、二非道計道。非因計因復有二類：一迷執我、常法起；二迷宿作苦行等起。前依我、常倒，亦於果處轉，故隨二倒見苦所斷。後唯於果處轉，果相麁顯易可見故，計苦因為因非全邪故。既迷果相，故亦見苦所斷。非道計道亦有二類：一執有漏戒等為道，此迷麁顯果相起故，見苦諦時便永斷；二執謗道諦邪見等為道，此親違道，於因果相不別迷執故，見道時方能永斷。謗集、滅時，既撥所斷、所證法相，若執為道便為無用，定依所斷及所證法而立道故。又彼所撥與道相異，必無彼無間執彼為道者。若於後時執彼為道，定於果處而起道執，見苦諦時此見便斷，故無戒禁取見集、滅所斷。」

[On the passage], "Because it is confused about the truth of suffering": the Vaibhāṣikas reply. Although it does not arise from those inversions of permanence and self, because it is confused about the truth of suffering, it is abandoned upon seeing suffering. One should know that the verse text merely relies on the clinging to rules and vows arising from permanence and self as being abandoned upon seeing suffering. In reality, there are also those that do not arise from permanence and self. The Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 199, states: "That all the clingings to rules and vows spoken of previously are abandoned upon seeing suffering is based on their arising from the inversions of self and permanence, operating with respect to effects. Although they calculate what is not a cause to be a cause, they are said to be abandoned upon seeing suffering because clinging to rules and vows comprises two classes in total: first, calculating what is not a cause to be a cause; second, calculating what is not the path to be the path. Calculating what is not a cause to be a cause again comprises two classes: first, arising from confusion that grasps at phenomena as self and permanent; second, arising from confusion regarding past actions, ascetic practices, and so forth. The former is based on the inversions of self and permanence and also operates with respect to effects, and thus is abandoned upon seeing suffering following the two inversions. The latter operates solely with respect to effects, because the marks of effects are coarse, manifest, and easily perceived, and calculating the cause of suffering to be the [liberating] cause is not entirely perverse. Since it is confused about the marks of effects, it is likewise abandoned upon seeing suffering. Calculating what is not the path to be the path also comprises two classes: first, grasping at sāsrava precepts and the like to be the path; because this arises from confusion about the coarse and manifest marks of effects, it is forever abandoned when seeing the truth of suffering. Second, grasping at wrong views that slander the truth of the path and the like to be the path; because this directly contradicts the path and does not separately confuse the marks of cause and effect, it can only be forever abandoned when seeing the path. When slandering the origin and cessation, since one has already repudiated the marks of phenomena to be abandoned and to be realized, if one were to grasp [that slander] as the path it would be useless, for the path is necessarily established based upon the phenomena to be abandoned and to be realized. Furthermore, what is repudiated by them is different from the path; there is never anyone who, in the immediate next moment, grasps that [repudiation] as the path. If at a later time they grasp it as the path, they definitely produce the grasping of the path with respect to effects, and upon seeing the truth of suffering this view is immediately abandoned; therefore, there is no clinging to rules and vows that is abandoned upon seeing origin or cessation."