俱舍論記 21.146

21.146

「住修道位至名如前說」者，釋第三句，約修道說成。住修道位道類智為初至未離欲染，及離欲退，此二種人皆成就六。若次第人至全離欲界色界愛等未盡，或超越人先離欲染從道類智未起色盡勝果道已前，此二種人唯成一遍知，謂順下分盡。從色愛盡起色纏退，及無學位起色纏退，此二種人亦成一遍知，謂順下分盡。若次第人有色愛者從色愛永盡，及超越人先離色者從起色盡道至未全離無色愛已前，此二種人成五下分盡及色愛盡二。從無學退起無色纏，成二遍知，名如前說五下分盡及色愛盡。又《正理》云「若依根本入正決定道類智起時，彼所有斷亦得順下分斷遍知名者，寧許根本果唯有五遍知？唯色、無色界見斷法斷得彼遍知名，故無有失。何緣唯此亦得彼名？以漸次得不還果者，於此斷上立彼名故。又先俗道所斷下分，今聖道力令永不生故，彼所得斷假說為此果，今實不得欲斷遍知。」解云：若依根本等，此外難也。若依根本得下分者，應言得六，寧許得五？理應兼難：忍見道果應七，類智品果應六，義顯不論。唯色、無色界等，此即釋也。於彼遍知唯得少分上界見斷法斷為下分盡遍知，一則不得其主、二則得不具足，故不說也。准此即應通忍果六，類智品果五。謂但以忍取下分盡，設依未至亦不得主、不得具足。如前已辨，故不說彼得此遍知，無有失也。何緣准此等，此即嘖也。既非得主又非具足，何緣亦得彼遍知名？以漸次得等，此即釋也。一解：准漸次故。二解：餘不得者令轉遠故，假說為果亦得彼名，實不得故，說根本定得五等也。問：先離色染後入見道，色盡遍知何時得耶？解云：起勝果道時得。故《婆沙》六十三云「已離色染入見道，此色愛盡遍知。有說：道類智時得。有說：離空處時得。有說：金剛喻定時得。此等諸說是不得處，應作是說：彼定從果起勝進道現在前時，方乃得此色愛盡遍知。」

"[Those who] abide in the path of cultivation... the names are as previously stated": this explains the third line, explaining possession in terms of the path of cultivation. From the path of cultivation beginning with the cognition of categories regarding the path up until one has not yet become free from sensual passion, as well as one who has fallen back from freedom from desire: both kinds of persons possess six. For a gradual practitioner up to having completely abandoned desire of the sensual realm while attachment to the form realm, etc., is not yet exhausted, or a direct-transcending practitioner who was previously free from sensual desire, from the cognition of categories regarding the path before giving rise to the superior path of fruition that exhausts form: both kinds of persons possess only one comprehensive knowledge, namely, the exhaustion of the [five] lower-tier factors. Falling back from the exhaustion of form-attachment by giving rise to form-realm entanglements, and falling back from the aśaikṣa stage by giving rise to form-realm entanglements: both kinds of persons also possess one comprehensive knowledge, namely, the exhaustion of the lower-tier factors. If a gradual practitioner who possesses attachment to form has attachment to form permanently exhausted, or a direct-transcending practitioner who was previously free from form from giving rise to the path exhausting form up until not yet completely free from formless attachment: both kinds of persons possess two, namely, the exhaustion of the five lower-tier factors and the exhaustion of attachment to form. Falling back from the aśaikṣa [stage] by giving rise to formless entanglements, one possesses two comprehensive knowledges, whose names are as previously stated: the exhaustion of the five lower-tier factors and the exhaustion of attachment to form. Furthermore, the *Nyāyānusāra* says: "If, relying on a fundamental absorption, one enters the certainty [of the path of seeing], and at the time when the cognition of categories regarding the path arises, their cessations also obtain the name of the comprehensive knowledge of the abandonment of the lower-tier factors, why is it accepted that the fundamental fruit has only five comprehensive knowledges? It is only that the abandonments of the phenomena abandoned by seeing in the form and formless realms receive that name of comprehensive knowledge, therefore there is no error. For what reason does only this receive that name? Because for one who gradually attains the fruit of non-return, that name is established upon this abandonment. Furthermore, because the lower factors previously abandoned by the worldly path are now rendered permanently unarisen by the power of the noble path, the abandonments obtained by him are metaphorically called this fruit; now he does not actually obtain the comprehensive knowledge of sensual abandonment." Explanation: "If, relying on a fundamental...", etc., is an outside objection. If relying on a fundamental absorption one obtains the lower-tier factors, one should say that one obtains six; why accept obtaining five? In reason it should also object: the fruit of receptivity in the path of seeing should be seven, and the fruit of the category-cognition class should be six, but the meaning is clear and not discussed. "It is only that... the form and formless realms", etc., is the resolution. In that comprehensive knowledge, one only obtains a small portion of the abandonment of the phenomena abandoned by seeing in the higher realms as the comprehensive knowledge of the exhaustion of the lower-tier factors: first, one does not obtain its master, and second, the acquisition is incomplete; therefore it is not stated. By this analogy, one should apply: six for the fruit of receptivity, and five for the fruit of the category-cognition class. That is to say, only taking the exhaustion of the lower-tier factors through receptivity, even if relying on the access absorption, one neither obtains the master nor obtains it completely. As already explained previously, therefore not stating that he obtains this comprehensive knowledge is without error. "For what reason...", etc., is the reprimand. Since one neither obtains the master nor is it complete, for what reason does it also obtain the name of that comprehensive knowledge? "Because for one who gradually attains...", etc., is the resolution. The first explanation: because it is analogous to gradual attainment. The second explanation: because the others not obtained are made further removed, it is metaphorically called the fruit and also receives that name; because it is not actually obtained, the fundamental absorption is said to obtain five, etc. Question: When one is previously free from the defilement of form and later enters the path of seeing, when is the comprehensive knowledge of the exhaustion of form obtained? Explanation: It is obtained at the time of giving rise to the superior path of fruition. Thus the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 63, says: "Regarding entering the path of seeing having already separated from the defilement of form, concerning this comprehensive knowledge of the exhaustion of form-attachment, some say: It is obtained at the time of the cognition of categories regarding the path. Some say: It is obtained at the time of detachment from the sphere of infinite space. Some say: It is obtained at the time of the vajropamasamādhi. These various statements are places where it is not obtained. One should state as follows: only when that person definitely arises from the fruit and brings the superior path of progression into presence does he then obtain this comprehensive knowledge of the exhaustion of attachment to form."