俱舍論記 19.78

19.78

「又緣道諦至理亦不成」者，此即第三即執見、疑難。又緣道諦邪見及疑，若撥無解脫道、若疑無解脫道，如何即執此邪見及疑能得永清淨？若彼撥無如來所說真解脫道，妄執別有無想定等餘清淨因，是則執餘無想定等能得清淨，非邪見等。此戒禁取緣見道所斷，理亦不成。《正理》救云「此戒禁取體非不成。以計有於謗道邪見執為能證永清淨道，由彼計為如理解故。謂彼先以餘解脫道蘊在心中，後執誹謗真道邪見為如理覺。言如理者，彼謂撥疑真解脫道是不顛倒，以如理故執為淨因，由此得成戒禁取體。彼心所蘊餘解脫道，非見道所斷戒禁取所緣，以彼唯緣自部法故。道有多類，於理無失。」解云：餘解脫道，謂無想定等。《正理》救意言：既撥疑他所說道諦，復執撥疑為如理覺，故即執彼為清淨因。時間迅速於非因果處起故，非見苦集斷，是見道斷。復計心所蘊餘無想等為解脫道，果處起故，見苦所斷。應知道有多類，或見道所斷、或見苦所斷。於理何失？俱舍師破云：亦有戒禁即執淨因見苦所斷。此亦即執，何非苦斷？若不即執彼執餘為淨因，是即應無見道所斷。

[On the passage], "Furthermore, regarding the truth of the path ... the principle is also unestablished": This is the third objection, that of grasping view and doubt itself. Furthermore, regarding the wrong view and doubt that take the truth of the path as their object, whether they repudiate the path of liberation or doubt the path of liberation, how could one grasp this very wrong view and doubt as capable of attaining ultimate purification? If they repudiate the true path of liberation taught by the Tathāgata and falsely grasp that there is another cause of purification such as the absorption of non-conception, then they grasp that other [state] such as the absorption of non-conception as capable of attaining purification, not the wrong view and so forth. That this clinging to rules and vows takes what is abandoned upon seeing the path as its object is also logically unestablished. The Nyāyānusāra defends: "The essence of this clinging to rules and vows is not unestablished. For there are those who calculate the wrong view slandering the path to be the path capable of realizing ultimate purification, because they calculate it to be correct understanding. That is, having previously held another path of liberation in their mind, they later grasp the wrong view slandering the true path as correct awareness. Saying 'correct' means they think repudiating and doubting the true path of liberation is non-inverted, and because it is correct they grasp it as the cause of purification; thereby the essence of the clinging to rules and vows is established. The other path of liberation held in their mind is not the objective referent of the clinging to rules and vows abandoned upon seeing the path, because it takes only phenomena of its own category as its object. The path is of many kinds; in principle there is no fault." Explanation: The other path of liberation refers to the absorption of non-conception and the like. The intention of the Nyāyānusāra's defense is to say: Having repudiated and doubted the truth of the path taught by others, they further grasp that repudiation and doubt as correct awareness, and thus grasp that very [view] as the cause of purification. Because it arises swiftly with respect to what is neither cause nor effect, it is not abandoned upon seeing suffering or origin, but is abandoned upon seeing the path. Furthermore, they calculate the other [state] such as non-conception held in their mind as the path of liberation, and because it arises with respect to effects, it is abandoned upon seeing suffering. One should know that the path is of many kinds, either abandoned upon seeing the path or abandoned upon seeing suffering. What fault is there in principle? The Kośa master refutes this, saying: There are also rules and vows that directly grasp [something] as the cause of purification and are abandoned upon seeing suffering. This [case] is also grasping directly; why is it not abandoned upon seeing suffering? If one does not directly grasp it, but grasps something else as the cause of purification, then there should be none abandoned upon seeing the path.