俱舍論記 22.88

22.88

「又佛如何至上等樂覺」者，復重責言。又佛如何於一苦受，隨順世俗分別說三？若謂世間於下、上、中苦，如其次第於下苦起樂覺、於上苦起苦覺、於中苦起捨覺，佛隨順彼說樂等三。理亦不然。何但苦三，樂亦三故，應於下等三苦，唯起上等樂覺。謂於下苦唯起上樂覺，於中品苦唯起中樂覺，於上品苦唯起下樂覺，不應起捨覺。此中難意：苦、樂各三，應無捨覺，唯苦、樂覺。又解：樂亦三故，應於下等三苦，唯起上等樂覺，不起苦覺、捨覺。又《正理》云「又樂亦有下等三故，不應言樂唯是下苦。」

As for "Furthermore, how could the Buddha... an awareness of superior and other pleasures?": this questions them once again. Furthermore, how could the Buddha, with respect to a single painful feeling, distinguish and speak of three in accordance with worldly conventions? If it is said that the world, with respect to low, high, and middling suffering, in corresponding order gives rise to an awareness of pleasure with respect to low suffering, an awareness of suffering with respect to high suffering, and an awareness of equanimity with respect to middling suffering, and the Buddha spoke of the three—pleasure and the rest—in accordance with them, the reasoning is also not so. Why would there only be three types of suffering? Since pleasure also has three types, one should, with respect to the three sufferings of low and other grades, give rise only to an awareness of superior and other pleasures. That is, with respect to low suffering one would only give rise to an awareness of superior pleasure, with respect to middling suffering one would only give rise to an awareness of middling pleasure, and with respect to high suffering one would only give rise to an awareness of low pleasure, and should not give rise to an awareness of equanimity. The import of the objection here is: if suffering and pleasure each have three, there should be no awareness of equanimity, but only awarenesses of suffering and pleasure. Another interpretation: Since pleasure also has three, one should, with respect to the three sufferings of low and other grades, only give rise to an awareness of superior and other pleasures, and not give rise to an awareness of suffering or an awareness of equanimity. Furthermore, the *Nyāyānusāra* says: "Furthermore, because pleasure also has the three grades of low and the rest, one should not say that pleasure is solely low suffering."