俱舍論記 19.98

19.98

「毘婆沙師至畫藥叉迷亂」者，毘婆沙師不許此義。若有樂、淨想心現行，便許聖者有樂、淨倒。聖者亦起有情想、心，是即亦應許有我見倒。非於婦女等及於自身，離有情想、心有起欲貪故。既起有情想、心，應起我見倒。復引經證不通修斷。經說諸聖於苦聖諦無間道如實見、解脫道如實知，如是於集、滅、道聖諦如實見、知。《正理》具引經文，此論略引經文，故云「乃至」，超餘三諦取後經文。當於爾時，彼聖弟子非常計常，想、心、見倒皆已永斷。乃至廣說，於苦、不淨、非我三種計樂、淨、我，想、心、見倒皆已永斷。故知想、心唯取見倒相應力起是想、心倒，非餘想、心。理實四倒見苦所斷，而此經言如實見知集等諦時皆已永斷者，於具見聖諦，說已永斷故。聖雖於境知苦、不淨，然聖有時為貪所逼暫迷亂故，率爾於境欲貪現前起樂淨想、心，覺已即止。非推度等，故不成顛倒。如於旋火輪，以迷亂故，非實是輪怱見謂輪，起輪心想，覺已即無。如於畫藥叉，以迷亂故，非實藥叉怱見謂是，起彼心想而生怖畏，覺已即無。此既非倒，聖者亦然。

"The Vaibhāṣikas […] delusion at a painted yakṣa": the Vaibhāṣikas do not accept this doctrine. If the active presence of perceptions and thoughts of pleasure and purity entailed that an ārya possessed the inversions of pleasure and purity, then an ārya also gives rise to the perception and thought of a sentient being, and it should likewise be conceded that they possess the inversion of the view of self. For with respect to women and so forth, or with respect to one's own body, sensual lust does not arise apart from the perception and thought of a sentient being. Since they give rise to the perception and thought of a sentient being, they should give rise to the inversion of the view of self. Furthermore, they cite scripture to prove they do not extend to abandonment by cultivation. The sūtra states that the āryas, with respect to the noble truth of suffering, see it as it truly is through the uninterrupted path (ānantarya-mārga) and know it as it truly is through the path of liberation (vimukti-mārga); likewise, with respect to the noble truths of origin, cessation, and path, they see and know them as they truly are. The Nyāyānusāra cites the sūtra text in full, while this treatise cites the sūtra text in brief, hence saying 'and so on,' skipping the remaining three truths to take the subsequent sūtra text: 'At that time, that noble disciple no longer imputes permanence to the impermanent, and the inversions of perception, mind, and view are all forever abandoned. And so on in full: with respect to suffering, impurity, and non-self, imputing pleasure, purity, and self—the inversions of perception, mind, and view are all forever abandoned.' Therefore one knows that perception and mind are inversions of perception and mind only when arising under the force of association with the inversion of view, not other perceptions and minds. In principle, the four inversions are abandoned by the vision of suffering; but the fact that this sūtra says that when seeing and knowing as they truly are the truth of origin and the rest they are all forever abandoned, is because it speaks of their being forever abandoned in one who fully sees the noble truths. Although an ārya knows an object to be suffering and impure, an ārya is sometimes oppressed by lust and temporarily deluded, so that precipitously, when sensual lust becomes manifest toward an object, they give rise to perceptions and thoughts of pleasure and purity, which cease immediately upon becoming aware. Because they are not discernment and the like, they do not constitute inversions. Just as with a whirling firebrand, due to delusion, though it is not truly a circle, seeing it suddenly one takes it to be a circle and gives rise to the thought and perception of a circle, which ceases as soon as one realizes it; or just as with a painted yakṣa, due to delusion, though it is not a real yakṣa, seeing it suddenly one takes it to be one and gives rise to that thought and experiences fear, which ceases as soon as one realizes it—since these are not inversions, the ārya is likewise.