俱舍論記 2.113

2.113

「論曰至皆非所斷」者，釋上兩句。斷謂斷縛證得離繫。《顯宗》第四云「一自性斷、二所緣斷。若法是結及一果等，對治生時於彼得斷，名自性斷。由彼斷故，於所緣事便得離繫，不必於中得不成就，名所緣斷。」解云：自性、所緣俱約離縛名斷。等者，等取得。准彼論文，惑等上四相及得，不成義邊亦名自性斷。若緣縛斷，據緣彼惑究竟盡時方名為斷，不必不成。廣如《正理》。言「十五界唯修斷」者，若五根、香、味、觸不染污性，又是色法，緣縛斷故。色、聲二界修所斷心親發起故，又是色法緣縛斷故。若五識界善、無記者，是不染污緣縛斷故。是染污者，迷事起故，皆唯修斷。無見斷相不通見斷，皆非無漏不通非斷。後三通三者，見斷隨眠及相應法，迷理起故。四相與得，是彼見惑親發起故，皆見所斷。無修斷相不通修，非無漏故，不通非斷。又解：八十八惑，迷理起故，是見所斷。惑相應法，望惑是親，相應縛故、相應因故，故隨惑斷。四相望惑雖非相應，同部縛故、俱有因故，亦隨惑斷。得望彼惑雖非相應、俱有，同部縛故，惑有即有、惑無即無。雖是緣縛，望惑亦親，故隨惑斷。非是迷事等故，非通修斷。是斷法故，不通非斷。諸餘有漏，若無色善、無覆無記，是不染污緣縛斷故。若諸煩惱及彼相應，迷事起故。四相及得是彼修惑，親發起故。若善、染無表，是修斷心親發起故，又是色法緣縛斷故，皆修所斷。無見斷相不通見斷，非無漏故不通非斷，一切無漏非縛繫故皆非所斷。

Regarding 'The treatise states... are all not to be abandoned': this explains the first two lines. Abandonment means severing the bonds and realizing detachment from bondage. The fourth fascicle of the Samayapradīpikā states: 'First is abandonment by intrinsic nature (svabhāva-prahāṇa); second is abandonment through the cognitive object (ālambana-prahāṇa). If a dharma is a defilement (saṃyojana) or a single fruit, etc., when the antidote arises, abandonment is attained with respect to it; this is called abandonment by intrinsic nature. Because that is abandoned, detachment from bondage is attained with respect to the objective entity, without necessarily attaining non-possession (aprāpti) within it; this is called abandonment through the cognitive object.' Explanation: Both intrinsic nature and cognitive object refer to detachment from bondage as abandonment. 'Etc.' includes possession (prāpti). In accord with that treatise text, on the side where the four characteristics and possession of defilements, etc., become non-possessed, it is also called abandonment by intrinsic nature. If it is abandonment of the objective bond, it is based on the defilements cognizing it being thoroughly exhausted before it is termed abandonment, not necessarily non-possession. It is detailed in the Nyāyānusāra. Regarding 'fifteen elements are abandoned only through cultivation': the five faculties, odour, taste, and tangible are non-defiled, and are material dharmas, so they are abandoned through objective bonds. Visible form and sound are directly generated by minds abandoned through cultivation, and are material dharmas, so they are abandoned through objective bonds. If the five consciousness elements are wholesome or indeterminate, they are non-defiled and abandoned through objective bonds. Those that are defiled arise through confusion regarding phenomena; all are abandoned only through cultivation. Lacking the characteristic of being abandoned through seeing, they do not extend to abandonment through seeing; being entirely not unconditioned/untainted (anāsrava), they do not extend to non-abandonment. The last three extend to all three: anuśayas abandoned through seeing and their associated dharmas arise through confusion regarding principle. The four characteristics and possession are directly generated by those defilements of seeing; all are abandoned through seeing. Lacking the characteristic of being abandoned through cultivation, they do not extend to cultivation; because they are not unpolluted, they do not extend to non-abandonment. Another explanation says: the eighty-eight defilements, arising through confusion regarding principle, are abandoned through seeing. Dharmas associated with defilement are intimate with respect to the defilement, being bound by association (saṃprayuktaka-bandhana) and acting as saṃprayuktaka-hetu; therefore they are abandoned along with the defilement. Although the four characteristics are not associated with defilement, they belong to the same category of bondage and are sahabhū-hetu; therefore they are also abandoned along with the defilement. Although possession is neither associated with nor coexistent with that defilement, because it belongs to the same category of bondage, when defilement exists it exists, and when defilement is absent it is absent. Although it is an objective bond, it is also intimate with respect to defilement; hence it is abandoned along with the defilement. Because they are not confused regarding phenomena, etc., they do not extend to abandonment through cultivation. Because they are dharmas to be abandoned, they do not extend to non-abandonment. All remaining tainted [dharmas]: if they are wholesome immaterial dharmas or anivṛtāvyākṛta, being non-defiled, they are abandoned through objective bonds. If they are defilements and their associated dharmas, they arise through confusion regarding phenomena. The four characteristics and possession are directly generated by those defilements of cultivation. If they are wholesome or defiled avijñapti, they are directly generated by minds abandoned through cultivation, and being material dharmas are abandoned through objective bonds; all are abandoned through cultivation. Lacking the characteristic of being abandoned through seeing, they do not extend to abandonment through seeing; because they are not unpolluted, they do not extend to non-abandonment; all unpolluted dharmas, not being bound by bondage, are entirely not to be abandoned.