俱舍論記 21.131

21.131

「所言五者至未至果故」者，此即牒釋。根本地道望於欲界但有遠、厭，非斷對治，故欲四遍知非彼根本果，以欲四種唯未至果。四根本地能斷上二界，故上五遍知能為根本果。問：如《婆沙》六十三云「問：幾是根本靜慮果？答：五。謂第二、第四、第六及後二。有說：第二、第四及後三為五。」《婆沙》既無評家，何者為正？此論復同何說？解云：前師所以說得第六不說第七，據全得彼第六體故。後師所以言得第七不言第六，據能得彼第七名故。且奪第六與第七名。五下分中，雖於欲界見、修所斷不得遍知，能斷上界見斷三結，總相而言五中得三，以少從多得第七名。若作此解，各據一義，竝不相違。第二、第四及後二，兩說皆同，思之可解。《俱舍》說五，或同《婆沙》前師，或同《婆沙》後師，文不別顯，隨同無失。又《正理》五十六云「豈不依止根本靜慮入見諦時，亦修未來依未至地欲斷治道，得斷治故亦應證彼欲見斷法斷無漏離繫得，寧說根本唯得五果？此責不然。爾時所修依未至地斷對治者，唯色、無色斷對治故。根本地道既不能為欲斷對治，彼現起位如何能修欲斷治道？由彼所修未至斷治，唯對治上界，故果唯五（已上論文）。」

"What is meant by five [...] because they are the fruits of the threshold state": this refers to and explains [the text]. The path of the fundamental stages, looking toward the desire realm, only has [the antidotes of] distance and repulsion, not the antidote of abandonment (prahāṇa-pratipakṣa); therefore, the four universal knowledges of desire are not fruits of that fundamental [dhyāna], because the four of desire are solely fruits of the threshold state. The four fundamental stages are able to abandon [defilements of] the two higher realms; therefore, the higher five universal knowledges can serve as fruits of the fundamental [dhyānas]. Question: The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 63, says: "Question: How many are fruits of the fundamental dhyāna? Answer: Five. Namely, the second, the fourth, the sixth, and the last two. Some say: the second, the fourth, and the last three make five." Since the Vibhāṣā has no arbiter's verdict, which is correct? And which explanation does this treatise agree with? The explanation is: The reason the former master says one obtains the sixth and does not mention the seventh is based on completely obtaining the substance of that sixth. The reason the latter master says one obtains the seventh and does not mention the sixth is based on being able to obtain the name of that seventh, temporarily stripping the sixth to give the name of the seventh. Among the five lower realms, although one does not obtain universal knowledge with respect to what is abandoned through seeing and cultivation in the desire realm, one is able to abandon the three fetters abandoned through seeing in the higher realms; speaking in terms of the general characteristics, one obtains three out of five, and by subsuming the lesser under the greater one obtains the name of the seventh. If interpreted in this way, each relies on one sense, and they do not contradict one another. The second, the fourth, and the last two are identical in both explanations, which can be understood upon reflection. The Kośa's statement of five either agrees with the former master of the Vibhāṣā or agrees with the latter master of the Vibhāṣā; the text does not make a distinct distinction, and whichever it agrees with entails no error. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 56, says: "Would it not be that when one enters into seeing the truths relying on the fundamental dhyāna, one also cultivates the path of the antidote of abandonment for desire relying on the threshold state in the future, and because one obtains the antidote of abandonment, one should also realize the uncontaminated acquisition of disjunction (anāsrava-visaṃyoga-prāpti) regarding the abandonment of factors abandoned through seeing in desire? Why say the fundamental [dhyāna] only obtains five fruits? This objection is incorrect. At that time, the antidote of abandonment cultivated relying on the threshold state is solely the antidote of abandonment for the form and formless realms. Since the path of the fundamental stage cannot serve as an antidote of abandonment for desire, at the time when it actively arises, how could it cultivate the path of the antidote of abandonment for desire? Because the threshold antidote of abandonment cultivated by it is solely an antidote for the higher realms, its fruits are only five (the treatise text ends above)."