俱舍論記 19.76

19.76

「有太過失至皆迷苦故」者，此下論主總為四難：一太過失難；二無別相難；三即執見、疑難；四集、滅邪見難。此即第一太過失難。迷苦諦故即見苦斷，有太過失。五部所斷緣有漏惑皆迷苦故，應當皆是見苦所斷。《正理》救云「唯見苦所斷，緣牛戒等故，但計麁果為彼因故。由此已遮經主所難，迷苦諦故有太過失，緣有漏惑皆迷苦故。以非一切緣有漏惑皆以果苦為所緣故，如何得有太過失耶？俱舍師破云？苦下戒禁緣有漏，即於果處生。餘有漏惑亦於緣有漏，寧非果處起？

[On the passage], "There is the excessive fault ... because all are confused about suffering": Below, the author of the treatise raises four objections in total: first, the objection of excessive fault; second, the objection of lacking distinctive marks; third, the objection of grasping view and doubt itself; fourth, the objection of the wrong view regarding origin and cessation. This is the first objection, that of excessive fault. If being confused about the truth of suffering means it is abandoned upon seeing suffering, there is an excessive fault. Since the afflictions that take sāsrava as their object, which are abandoned by the five categories, are all confused about suffering, they all ought to be abandoned upon seeing suffering. The Nyāyānusāra defends: "It is abandoned only upon seeing suffering because it takes the cow vow and the like as its object, and merely calculates coarse effects as their cause. By this, the objection raised by the master of the commentary (Vasubandhu)—that 'because it is confused about the truth of suffering there is an excessive fault, since all afflictions taking sāsrava as their object are confused about suffering'—has already been refuted. For not all afflictions taking sāsrava as their object have the suffering of effects as their objective referent; how could there be an excessive fault?" The Kośa master refutes this, saying: The rules and vows under [the truth of] suffering take sāsrava as their object and precisely arise with respect to effects. Other afflictions taking sāsrava as their object also take sāsrava as their object; why would they not arise with respect to effects?