俱舍論記 21.152

21.152

「言捨五者至捨前五故」者，言捨五者，超越之人。謂先離欲後入見諦，道類智時得五下分結盡遍知，捨前見位五遍知故。超越之人於五下分雖非全得，以少從多據名說故，言得下分。《正理》破云「言捨五者，經主釋言：謂先離欲道類智位。此但應說道類忍時，道類智時彼已捨故，夫言得、捨據將說故。又應簡言依未至定入見諦者。若依根本入見諦者，於欲界斷不得無漏離繫得故。不得欲界見斷法斷三種遍知，非先不得可言今捨。」俱舍師救云：言道類智時者，謂道類智未來生時。故《婆沙》六十三云「道類智忍滅、道類智生時，若未離欲染入正性離生者，亦無捨五得一。若已離欲染入正性離生者，捨五得一，謂捨前五，得五順下分結盡遍知。」此中有說：六地見道捨、得皆爾。有說：後五，三法智位不得遍知。《婆沙》既言道類智生時，明知非在現在。汝若救言：已生名生。我即還言：已捨名捨。後五，謂六地中後五地。《婆沙》兩說，後師為正，以後五地不修欲界斷治故，故於欲見三種遍智皆不得也。前師非正，同妙音故，後五亦修欲斷對治。又云應簡言。亦不須簡，言捨前五顯依未至，若依根本即捨二得一。

Regarding "'abandoning five' up to 'because he abandons the prior five'": 'abandoning five' refers to a transcendent person. That is, one who first becomes detached from desire and later enters the comprehension of the truths, at the time of the subsequent knowledge of the path, obtains the complete comprehension of the exhaustion of the fetters belonging to the lower realm, because he abandons the prior five complete comprehensions of the stage of seeing. Although the transcendent person does not completely obtain [the eradication of all] five belonging to the lower realm, because [the term] is stated according to its name by following the majority with the minority, it is said that he 'obtains [the eradication of the fetters belonging to] the lower realm'. The Nyāyānusāra refutes this, saying: "Regarding 'abandoning five', the Master of the Śāstra explains: 'It refers to the stage of the subsequent knowledge of the path for one who has already become detached from desire.' Here, one should only speak of the time of subsequent receptivity of the path, because at the time of the subsequent knowledge of the path, he has already abandoned them; for statements about 'acquisition' and 'abandonment' are made with reference to what is impending. Furthermore, one should qualify [it as referring to] one who enters the comprehension of the truths based on the threshold concentration. If one enters the comprehension of the truths based on the fundamental [dhyāna], one does not obtain an uncontaminated attainment of disjunction with respect to the abandonment of the desire realm. Since one does not obtain the three kinds of complete comprehension of the abandonment of dharmas abandoned by seeing in the desire realm, that which was not previously obtained cannot be said to be abandoned now." The Kośa master defends [his text], saying: 'The time of the subsequent knowledge of the path' refers to the time when the subsequent knowledge of the path will arise in the future. Therefore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle sixty-three, says: 'When the subsequent receptivity to the doctrine of the path ceases and the subsequent knowledge of the path arises: if one has not yet become detached from desire and enters the realization of certainty, there is neither abandoning five nor obtaining one; if one has already become detached from desire and enters the realization of certainty, there is abandoning five and obtaining one—that is, one abandons the prior five and obtains the complete comprehension of the exhaustion of the five fetters belonging to the lower realm.' In this, some say: the abandonment and acquisition in the path of seeing of the six stages are all like this. Others say: in the latter five, one does not obtain complete comprehension at the stage of the three doctrine-knowledges. Since the Mahāvibhāṣā says 'when the subsequent knowledge of the path arises', we clearly know it is not in the present. If you defend by saying, 'what has already arisen is called arising', then I would reply in turn: 'what has already been abandoned is called abandoned'. 'The latter five' refers to the latter five stages among the six stages. Between the two explanations of the Mahāvibhāṣā, the latter master's is correct, because the latter five stages do not cultivate the antidotes for the abandonment of the desire realm; therefore, one does not obtain any of the three complete comprehensions of seeing in the desire realm. The former master's is not correct, because it agrees with Bhadanta Ghoṣaka that the latter five also cultivate the antidotes for abandonment of desire. Furthermore, [the opponent] says that a qualification should have been stated. In fact, no qualification is needed: saying 'abandoning the prior five' indicates that it is based on the threshold concentration; if it were based on the fundamental [dhyāna], it would be abandoning two and obtaining one.