俱舍論記 21.115

21.115

「如是且就至預流等故」者，總釋上文。如是且就鈍根次第容有理說，故具六時乃至具二，以利根者前諸位中一一皆除練根得故。謂前六時但應說五，乃至具二但應說一。諸有超越入聖道者，隨應有除預流等故，等取一來。若先斷欲界六、七、八品入見道者，鈍根除預流，但有五時。利根除預流，又除練根，但有四時。若先離欲入見道者，又除一來，鈍四、利三。又《正理》五十六云「豈不八地容世俗道斷，應分二種對治生時得。不爾，此說漸次得故，或此唯約無漏得故。若依越次，通有漏得，則世俗道八地染中，隨離少、多入聖道者，彼得離繫，隨其所應有具六時乃至唯一，以利根故，除練根時。謂欲界中先斷五品入見諦者，彼見所斷五品離繫具六時得，謂有二種自治生時，及得果時復四成六。彼修所斷五品離繫，唯五時得，除預流果。先斷六品入見諦者，彼見所斷六品離繫亦五時得，除一如前。彼修所斷六品離繫，唯世俗道，治生時得必不起，彼無漏對治是一來果、向道攝故。非住果時起彼向道，以住勝果不起劣故。先斷八品入見諦者，彼見所斷八品離繫亦五時得，除一如前。彼修所斷前六離繫唯一時得，如前應知。七、八離繫唯四時得，謂二治生及二得果。先斷九品依未至地入見諦者，彼見所斷九品離繫亦四時得，如前應知。依根本地入見諦者，彼見所斷九品離繫亦一時得，如前應知，根本非欲斷對治故。若依未至、若依根本，彼修所斷九品離繫亦一時得，如前應知。必不起彼無漏對治，是不還果、向道攝故。先斷上七地入見諦者，彼見三諦斷七地離繫亦四時得，如前應知。見道諦斷七地離繫唯三時得，謂一治生及二得果，無漏治生即得果故。彼修所斷七地離繫唯三時得，謂二治生及一得果。具離八地入聖道者，見、修位中斷有頂惑，見三諦斷離繫三時得，謂一治生及二得果。見道諦斷離繫二時，由治生時即得果故。修斷八品離繫二時，謂一治生及一得果。第九離繫唯一時得，以治生時即得果故。諸分離染見、修位中，進斷所餘，准此應說（已上論文）。」解云：豈不八地等者，外難。於下八地容世俗斷，如異生位先斷八地所有繫已有有漏得，後於聖位自治起時復起無漏得，亦是重得八地無為。應分二種治生時得，世俗治生時、無漏治生時。不爾等者，釋難。前文不論二治生者，約漸次說斷見惑已，次斷修惑。隨聖、俗道斷何品惑，皆修二道，俱起聖、俗二離繫得，非前後故但言一時。或六時言唯約無漏得，以無漏得有得捨故，捨前得後可言重得。有漏得不捨，是故不說。若依已下，顯依越次有漏、無漏二得重得。於越次中總有六時，謂有漏道、無漏道及四果為六。又准《正理》，若依越次，以利根故除練根時。以此故知，越次起者皆是利根。俱舍師難云：隨信行人入見道有七十三，明知越次亦通鈍根。既通鈍根，明知越次亦有練根。如何乃言越次起者以利根故除練根時？若言越次皆非練根以利根故，此言虛說。又下論但言經欲界生及上界生聖無練根，不言越次。若言此文但據利根越次，不言一切越次起者皆是利根，鈍根越次何故不說？又如何《正理》六十一云「依根本地起煗等善根，彼於此生必定得見諦，以利根故、厭有深故。」准《正理》後文，故知前文越次起者皆是利根。又准《正理》先斷欲界五品，或七品、八品，及先斷無所有處，後得果已起勝進道，及先離欲後入見道起法忍智，皆非斷對治，所治已斷故。隨應是彼遠分厭患對治所攝。問：已斷斷治既不現行，如何名為自對治起？前言自治唯是無間、解脫道故。解云：似自治故名為自治。或自斷治得現行故名自治生，非斷治起。或此所言自治生者，非要斷治，遠、厭治起亦自治生。問：何故前言無間、解脫？解云：無間、解脫，理有二種：一有所作，謂斷及持；二無所作，謂不斷、持。無所作中復有二種：一修斷治、二者不修斷治。修斷治者，如先離欲，依未至地入見諦者起法忍智；及先離染，於修道位依未至地起下八地勝果道；及依餘地起治自、上地勝果道。不修斷治者，如先離欲，依根本、中間地入見諦者起法忍智。然於此中、有所作及無所作中修斷治者、現在前時引離繫得、不修斷治與此相違。於此義中復有二解。一解：俱名自治，但自治生若起若修兼斷治者，有離繫得；異則不然問：若爾，便有雖有自治生，而不得離繫。解云：許亦何失？但云得離繫得有由自治生，不言自治生必得離繫得，此有何失？二解：不修斷治者不與自治名，以自治名從斷治得，唯不共故。要於此起無間、解脫，修斷治者得自治名，極似自治故、自治相隨故。餘則不爾。問：若有無間、解脫，無所作者，何對治收？答：《正理》云「諸先離欲，若依未至入見諦者，欲界厭患、遠分對治。見道現前亦修未來欲斷對治，欲斷對治地道正現在前故（已上論文）。」准此便是厭、遠治攝。若爾，便違辨治處說。解云：於辨治處，但云斷治謂無間、持治謂解脫，不言無間必斷治、解脫必持治。有何相違？又准《正理》，先斷欲六品或第九品。彼六、九品修斷離繫唯有漏得，畢竟無無漏得。問：《俱舍》明重得此離繫得，為唯無漏？亦通有漏？解云：但約次第，唯無漏說。若約越次及與有漏，應言七時，自治之中開為二故。

As for '[These are, however, said] with respect to [one of dull faculties proceeding] sequentially [...] because [he excludes] the stream-enterer and so on': this is an overall explanation of the preceding text. This statement is made solely according to what is plausible for one of dull faculties who proceeds sequentially; thus [he may] possess six times down to possessing two, because for one of sharp faculties, in each of the preceding positions, the acquisition through faculty-training is excluded. That is, for the aforementioned six times one should only state five, down to [the case where] possessing two should only state one. Because for those who leap over and enter the noble path, according to what is applicable, the stream-enterer and so on are excluded, 'and so on' includes the once-returner. If one who previously severed the sixth, seventh, or eighth grade of the desire realm enters the path of seeing, [if he is of] dull faculties, excluding the stream-enterer, he has only five times. [If he is of] sharp faculties, excluding the stream-enterer and also excluding faculty-training, he has only four times. If one who previously detached from desire enters the path of seeing, also excluding the once-returner, the dull has four and the sharp has three. Furthermore, *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle 56, says: 'Could it not be that since the eight stages may be severed by the worldly path, one ought to distinguish the acquisition when two kinds of antidotes arise? This is not so; this is stated because the acquisition is sequential, or because this refers only to the uncontaminated acquisition. If, according to leaping over, it includes contaminated acquisition, then among the defilements of the eight stages of the worldly path, when one enters the noble path having detached from few or many, their acquisition of disjunction, according to what is applicable, possesses six times down to only one; because of sharp faculties, the time of faculty-training is excluded. That is, when one who previously severed five grades in the desire realm enters [the path of] seeing the truths, his acquisition of disjunction from the five grades severed by seeing possesses six times: namely, having two kinds when their own antidote arises, and four when attaining the fruits, making six. His acquisition of disjunction from the five grades severed by cultivation is acquired at only five times, excluding the fruit of stream-entry. When one who previously severed six grades enters [the path of] seeing the truths, his acquisition of disjunction from the six grades severed by seeing is also acquired at five times, excluding one as before. His acquisition of disjunction from the six grades severed by cultivation is acquired only when the antidote of the worldly path arises, and he definitely does not generate [it later], because that uncontaminated antidote is subsumed under the path towards the fruit of once-returning. While abiding in the fruit, one does not generate the path towards it, because while abiding in a superior fruit one does not generate an inferior one. When one who previously severed eight grades enters [the path of] seeing the truths, his acquisition of disjunction from the eight grades severed by seeing is also acquired at five times, excluding one as before. His acquisition of disjunction from the first six [grades] severed by cultivation is acquired at only one time, as should be known from before. Disjunction from the seventh and eighth is acquired at only four times: namely, the arising of the two antidotes and the attainment of two fruits. When one who previously severed nine grades enters [the path of] seeing the truths based on the threshold stage, his acquisition of disjunction from the nine grades severed by seeing is also acquired at four times, as should be known from before. For one who enters [the path of] seeing the truths based on a fundamental stage, his acquisition of disjunction from the nine grades severed by seeing is also acquired at only one time, as should be known from before, because the fundamental [stage] is not the antidote that severs desire. Whether based on the threshold or based on the fundamental stage, his acquisition of disjunction from the nine grades severed by cultivation is also acquired at only one time, as should be known from before. He definitely does not generate that uncontaminated antidote, because it is subsumed under the path towards the fruit of non-returning. When one who previously severed the upper seven stages enters [the path of] seeing the truths, his disjunction from the seven stages severed by seeing the three truths is also acquired at four times, as should be known from before. Disjunction from the seven stages severed by seeing the truth of the path is acquired at only three times: namely, the arising of one antidote and the attainment of two fruits, because when the uncontaminated antidote arises, the fruit is immediately attained. His disjunction from the seven stages severed by cultivation is acquired at only three times: namely, the arising of two antidotes and the attainment of one fruit. For one who enters the noble path having completely detached from the eight stages, when severing defilements of the Peak of Existence in the positions of seeing and cultivation: disjunction severed by seeing the three truths is acquired at three times, namely, the arising of one antidote and the attainment of two fruits. Disjunction severed by seeing the truth of the path [is acquired at] two times, because when the antidote arises the fruit is immediately attained. Disjunction from the eight grades severed by cultivation [is acquired at] two times, namely, the arising of one antidote and the attainment of one fruit. Disjunction from the ninth is acquired at only one time, because when the antidote arises the fruit is immediately attained. When one who has severed defilements in part advances to sever what remains in the positions of seeing and cultivation, it should be explained by analogy to this' (end of treatise passage). To explain: 'Could it not be that [in] the eight stages...' is an external objection. In the lower eight stages, since severance by the worldly [path] is possible, as when in the ordinary person's position one previously severed all attachments of the eight stages and had the contaminated acquisition, later, when its own antidote arises in the noble position, the uncontaminated acquisition is generated again; this too is a re-acquisition of the unconditioned of the eight stages. One ought to distinguish the acquisition when two kinds of antidotes arise: when the worldly antidote arises, and when the uncontaminated antidote arises. 'This is not so...' and so on resolves the objection. The preceding text does not discuss the arising of the two antidotes because it is stated with respect to proceeding sequentially: having severed the defilements of seeing, one next severs the defilements of cultivation. Whichever grade of defilement is severed according to the noble or worldly path, both paths are cultivated and the two acquisitions of disjunction—noble and worldly—arise together; since they are not before and after, it is only stated as 'one time'. Alternatively, the statement of 'six times' refers only to uncontaminated acquisition, because uncontaminated acquisitions have acquisition and abandonment, so that abandoning the earlier and acquiring the later can be called 're-acquisition'. Contaminated acquisition is not abandoned, therefore it is not mentioned. From 'If, according to leaping over...' onward shows that re-acquisition has two acquisitions—contaminated and uncontaminated—according to leaping over. In leaping over there are six times in total: namely, the contaminated path, the uncontaminated path, and the four fruits make six. Furthermore, according to the *Nyāyānusāra*, if it is according to leaping over, because of sharp faculties the time of faculty-training is excluded. From this it is known that those who arise by leaping over are all of sharp faculties. A Kośa master objects, saying: For a follower by faith entering the path of seeing there are seventy-three [types]; clearly we know that leaping over also applies to dull faculties. Since it applies to dull faculties, clearly we know that leaping over also has faculty-training. How can one say that those who arise by leaping over, because of sharp faculties, exclude the time of faculty-training? If one says that those who leap over are all not of faculty-training because of sharp faculties, this statement is groundless. Furthermore, the lower treatise only says that nobles who undergo rebirth in the desire realm and rebirth in the upper realms have no faculty-training; it does not mention leaping over. If one says that this text merely relies on sharp faculties leaping over, and does not say that all who arise by leaping over are of sharp faculties, why is leaping over by dull faculties not mentioned? Furthermore, why does *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle 61, say: 'One who generates the roots of goodness such as heat based on a fundamental stage will definitely attain [the path of] seeing the truths in this life, because of sharp faculties and because disgust with existence is profound'? In accordance with the later text of the *Nyāyānusāra*, we know therefore that in the preceding text those who arise by leaping over are all of sharp faculties. Furthermore, according to the *Nyāyānusāra*, when one previously severed five grades of the desire realm, or seven or eight grades, and when one previously severed the sphere of nothingness, and after attaining the fruit generates the path of superior progress; and when one previously detached from desire and afterwards enters the path of seeing and generates the dharmakṣāntis and jñānas: these are all not severing antidotes, because that which is to be counteracted has already been severed. According to what is applicable, they are subsumed under the distantly separating antidote and the disgust antidote. Question: Since the severing antidote that has already severed does not present itself, how is it termed the arising of 'its own antidote'? For it was said before that 'its own antidote' is only the uninterrupted path and the path of liberation. Explanation: Because it resembles its own antidote, it is termed 'its own antidote'. Or, because the acquisition of its own severing antidote presents itself, it is termed 'the arising of its own antidote', not that the severing antidote arises. Or, what is called the arising of 'its own antidote' here does not necessarily require the severing antidote; when the distantly separating antidote and the disgust antidote arise, this is also the arising of 'its own antidote'. Question: Why was it said earlier to be the uninterrupted [path] and [the path of] liberation? Explanation: As a matter of principle, there are two kinds of uninterrupted [path] and [path of] liberation: first, having activity, namely severing and maintaining; second, lacking activity, namely not severing and not maintaining. Among those lacking activity there are again two kinds: first, cultivating the severing antidote; second, not cultivating the severing antidote. Those that cultivate the severing antidote are, for example, when one who previously detached from desire enters [the path of] seeing the truths based on the threshold stage and generates the dharmakṣāntis and jñānas; and when one who previously detached from defilement, in the position of the path of cultivation, based on the threshold stage generates the superior fruit-path of the lower eight stages; and based on other stages generates the superior fruit-path counteracting its own and higher stages. Those that do not cultivate the severing antidote are, for example, when one who previously detached from desire enters [the path of] seeing the truths based on a fundamental or intermediate stage and generates the dharmakṣāntis and jñānas. However, among these, when those that have activity and those that lack activity but cultivate the severing antidote present themselves, they induce the acquisition of disjunction; those that do not cultivate the severing antidote are the opposite of this. Regarding this point there are again two explanations. The first explanation: both are termed 'its own antidote', but when 'its own antidote arises', only if one generates or cultivates it with the concurrent severing antidote is there an acquisition of disjunction; otherwise it is not so. Question: If so, then there would be cases where even though its own antidote arises, one does not acquire disjunction. Explanation: Even if admitted, what fault is there? It is only said that acquiring the acquisition of disjunction sometimes arises from its own antidote; it is not said that when its own antidote arises one definitely acquires the acquisition of disjunction. What fault is there in this? The second explanation: those that do not cultivate the severing antidote are not given the name 'its own antidote', because the name 'its own antidote' is derived from the severing antidote, solely because it is exclusive. Only when one generates the uninterrupted [path] and [the path of] liberation here that cultivate the severing antidote does it receive the name 'its own antidote', because it extremely resembles its own antidote and because its own antidote accompanies it. In other cases it is not so. Question: If there are uninterrupted [paths] and [paths of] liberation that lack activity, under which antidote are they subsumed? Answer: The *Nyāyānusāra* says: 'For all who previously detached from desire, if based on the threshold [stage] they enter [the path of] seeing the truths, [these are] the disgust and distantly separating antidotes of the desire realm. When the path of seeing presents itself, they also cultivate the future severing antidote of desire, because the path of the stage that is the severing antidote of desire is currently presenting itself' (end of treatise passage). According to this, it is subsumed under the disgust and distantly separating antidotes. If so, then it contradicts what was explained in the section on distinguishing antidotes. Explanation: In the section on distinguishing antidotes, it merely says that the severing antidote refers to the uninterrupted [path] and the maintaining antidote refers to [the path of] liberation; it does not say that the uninterrupted [path] is necessarily the severing antidote, or that [the path of] liberation is necessarily the maintaining antidote. What contradiction is there? Furthermore, according to the *Nyāyānusāra*, when one previously severed six grades or the ninth grade of desire, the disjunction from the severance by cultivation of those six or nine grades has only contaminated acquisition; it never has uncontaminated acquisition. Question: When the *Kośa* explains the re-acquisition of this acquisition of disjunction, is it only uncontaminated, or does it also include contaminated? Explanation: It is only stated with respect to proceeding sequentially, hence it is only uncontaminated. If with respect to leaping over and including contaminated, one should say seven times, because within 'its own antidote' it is divided into two.