俱舍論記 2.93

2.93

「如是已說至獨俱得非等」者，此下第十五得、成就等門。獨得，謂兩單句。俱得，謂第三句。非，謂第四句。等，謂等取成就等。此中總明得、成就。捨、不成，如《婆沙》具說，恐繁不述。總復言等。問：得與成就何別，捨與不成何別？解云：各別不同。若法今時創至生相爾時名得，若流至現方名成就。得時不名成就，成就時不名得。故《正理》十二云「豈不盡智於成佛時亦不名得，況滅盡定。以諸菩薩住金剛喻三摩地時名得盡智，得體生時名為得故。」《正理》既云得體生時名得，故知法至生相名得，流至現在方名成就。設有文言「法至生相名成就」者，於此得中立成就名。設有文言「法至現在名得」，於成就中立得名故。若法先時相續恒起，今忽遇緣不至生相，現在猶成，爾時名捨。至第二念，現成法謝，方名不成。捨時未名不成，不成時不名為捨。如苦法忍至生相，爾時名得聖性，不名成就。若流至現，名成就聖法，不名得。如世第一法，在現在時名捨異生性，不名不成就。若落謝過去，方名不成就，不名捨。若正得聖性時，即捨異生性，此即得、捨同時。若成就聖法時，即不成就異生性，此即成、不成同時。如是餘法，准此應思。又應將成就時名得，將不成就時名捨。故《正理》五十六云「夫言得、捨，據將說故。」又《婆沙》一百五十五云「謂諸異生位，乃至增上忍位，於無漏根非捨非得、非滅非起。住世第一法時，於無漏根非捨而得、非滅而起。若諸聖者住苦法智忍乃至道法智時，於無漏根非捨而得、亦滅亦起。道類智忍時，於無漏根亦捨亦得、亦滅亦起。」《婆沙》、《正理》更有多文，不能具述。問：若得、成就不同時者，何故《婆沙》一百六十二云「得唯在初，成就通初、後。」解云：此據成就中自辨初、後，非據得初，以得之時未成就故。有古德言：成通新、舊，得據新論，不成通新、舊。捨據新論。得時即名成就，捨時即名不成者。此解謬矣。

Regarding '[Thus having already explained...] up to [whether one obtains one, both, neither, etc.]': this begins the fifteenth section, the topic of acquisition (prāpti), possession (samanvāgama), and so forth. 'Obtains one' refers to the two simple propositions. 'Obtains both' refers to the third proposition. 'Neither' refers to the fourth proposition. 'Etc.' includes possession and so forth. Here, acquisition and possession are explained in general. Abandonment (hāni) and non-possession (asamanvāgama) are explained in detail in the Mahāvibhāṣā; fearing verbosity, they are not detailed here, so 'etc.' is stated collectively. Question: What is the difference between acquisition and possession, and what is the difference between abandonment and non-possession? Explanation: Each is distinct. If a phenomenon is now newly arriving at its rising characteristic (utpāda-lakṣaṇa), at that time it is called 'acquisition'; only when it flows into the present is it called 'possession'. At the time of acquisition, it is not called possession; at the time of possession, it is not called acquisition. Therefore, Nyāyānusāra, fascicle twelve, says: 'Is not even the knowledge of destruction (kṣayajñāna) unobtained at the time of achieving Buddhahood, much less the meditative absorption of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti)? Because when the bodhisattvas abide in the diamond-like concentration (vajropama-samādhi), it is called obtaining the knowledge of destruction, since it is called acquisition when the intrinsic nature of the acquisition arises.' Since the Nyāyānusāra says that it is called acquisition when the intrinsic nature of the acquisition arises, we know that when a phenomenon arrives at the rising characteristic, it is called acquisition; only when it flows into the present is it called possession. Even if there are texts stating that 'when a phenomenon arrives at the rising characteristic, it is called possession', the name 'possession' is applied within this acquisition. Even if there are texts stating that 'when a phenomenon arrives at the present, it is called acquisition', it is because the name 'acquisition' is applied within possession. If a phenomenon previously arose constantly in continuity, but now suddenly meets conditions such that it does not reach the rising characteristic, while in the present it is still possessed—at that time it is called 'abandonment'. Only when the second moment is reached and the presently possessed phenomenon has passed away is it called 'non-possession'. At the time of abandonment it is not yet called non-possession; at the time of non-possession it is not called abandonment. For example, when the acceptance of dharma concerning duḥkha (duḥkhe dharmajñāna-kṣānti) arrives at its rising characteristic, at that time it is called acquiring noble nature (āryagotra), not possession. When it flows into the present, it is called possession of noble phenomena, not acquisition. As with the supreme mundane dharma (laukikāgradharma), while in the present, it is called abandoning the nature of an ordinary person (pṛthagjanatva), not non-possession. Only when it has fallen away into the past is it called non-possession, not abandonment. When one is directly acquiring noble nature, one is simultaneously abandoning the nature of an ordinary person—this is the simultaneity of acquisition and abandonment. When one possesses noble phenomena, one simultaneously does not possess the nature of an ordinary person—this is the simultaneity of possession and non-possession. Other phenomena should be considered by inference in this manner. Furthermore, the point of being about to possess should be called acquisition, and the point of being about to not possess should be called abandonment. Hence the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle fifty-six, says: 'As a rule, speaking of acquisition and abandonment is based on being about [to possess or lose].' Also, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle one hundred fifty-five, says: 'At the stage of ordinary persons up to the stage of superior patience, with respect to the anāsrava faculties there is neither abandonment nor acquisition, neither cessation nor arising. When abiding in the supreme mundane dharma, with respect to the anāsrava faculties there is acquisition without abandonment, arising without cessation. When noble ones abide in the patience with the knowledge of dharma concerning duḥkha up to the knowledge of dharma concerning the path, with respect to the anāsrava faculties there is acquisition without abandonment, as well as both cessation and arising. At the time of patience with the subsequent knowledge of the path, with respect to the anāsrava faculties there is both abandonment and acquisition, as well as both cessation and arising.' There are many more passages in the Mahāvibhāṣā and the Nyāyānusāra which cannot be cited in full. Question: If acquisition and possession are not simultaneous, why does the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle one hundred sixty-two, say: 'Acquisition is only at the beginning; possession applies to both the beginning and what follows'? Explanation: This is stated in terms of distinguishing the beginning and what follows within possession itself, not in terms of the initial moment of acquisition, because at the moment of acquisition one does not yet possess it. An ancient master said: 'Possession applies to both the new and the old, acquisition is stated based on the new; non-possession applies to both the new and the old, abandonment is stated based on the new. At the time of acquisition it is called possession; at the time of abandonment it is called non-possession.' This explanation is erroneous.