俱舍論記 23.49

23.49

「此四善根至非擇滅故」者，釋第五、第六句。此四善根唯依男、女，不依扇搋、半擇、無形、二形。前三善根，男、女二身俱通得二。第四女身亦得男、女身中二種世第一法，可為男故，故得男身世第一法。依男唯得男身善根世第一法，增上忍時已得女身非擇滅故，此人畢竟更不為女，所以不得女身第一。問：前三善根位亦有男、女身得非擇滅，依彼煖等為修？不修？解：云即由此因證不修也。又解：得世第一法必不為女，故不修女。前三容有成男、女義，設非擇滅亦互相修。又《正理》六十一云「此四善根唯依男、女，前三男、女俱通得二，第四女身亦得二種，勿後得男身不成煖等故。依男唯得男身善根，聖轉至餘生亦不為女故。煖、頂、忍位容有轉形，故二依善根展轉為因性。世第一法依女身者能為二因，女得聖已容有轉得男身理故。依男身者但與一因，已得女身非擇滅故。」又《婆沙》第七云「問：此煖、頂、忍、世第一法依何身起？答：依男、女身。問：依女身得女身所起煖，為亦得男身所起煖耶？答：得。如得煖，得頂、忍亦爾。問：依男身得男身所起煖，為亦得女身所起煖耶？答：得。如得煖，得頂、忍亦爾。女身於女身所起煖亦得，亦在身亦成就，亦現在前。於男身所起煖，得而不在身，成就不現在前。如說煖，說頂、忍亦爾。男身於男身所起煖亦得，亦在身亦成就，亦現在前；於女身所起煖，得而不在身，成就不現在前。如說煖，說頂、忍亦爾。女身所起煖與女身所起煖為因、與男身所起煖亦為因。如說煖、說頂、忍亦爾。男身所起煖與男身所起煖為因，不與女身所起煖為因。所以者何？勝非劣因，彼是劣故。如說煖，說頂、忍亦爾。」解云：《俱舍》前三，男、女互得。第四善根，依女得二，依男唯一，不說為因。《正理》說得，文同《俱舍》。前三男、女展轉為因，第四女為二因，男非女因。《婆沙》前三，男、女互得。女為男因，男非女因，不說第四為因相得。舊《婆沙》云「男不得女煖等善根」，譯家誤耳。《俱舍》不說為因，《婆沙》不說第四善根為因相得者，略而不說，准餘論解。問：《正理》、《婆沙》既說不同，如何會釋？解云：《正理》、《婆沙》論意各別。《正理》依一道義，前三善根依身雖復男、女不同，或轉男為女、或轉女為男。而煖等一約依身別分為男、女，如一戒體於轉形位，容依苾芻、及苾芻尼，由形不同說為二戒，可言苾芻及苾芻尼俱得二戒故。前三善根應知亦爾。言為因者，前三善根男、女互得為同類因。第四善根女可為男，故女得二，與二為因；男不為女故，男不得女，唯一為因。《婆沙》依多道義，謂有多類煖等依身各別言得者，前三男、女通得二種：一亦得、亦在身、亦成就、亦現行；一得而不在身、成就不現行，故知各別。第四善根，女可成男故女得男，男不可成女故男不得女。言為因者，依女身中善根劣故與二為因，依男身中善根勝故唯一為因。上來雖說一道、多道，多道當《婆沙》評家義，一道當《婆沙》不正義。又解：《正理》、《婆沙》俱依多道義。《婆沙》約所依勝劣顯道勝劣，所以勝非劣因。《正理論》意，男、女所依雖有勝劣，而能依道展轉為因。如依九地聖道，雖有所依勝劣差別，而能依道展轉為因。《俱舍》或同《正理》、或同《婆沙》，皆無有妨。又解：四種善根，男、女異身皆互相修、皆互為因。諸論但說前三善根男、女互得者，得前三已容為男、女，所以別說。得世第一必不為女，故言不得。理實而言，未來女身雖得非擇滅，依彼第一亦得修也。《婆沙論》言前三善根女與二為因、男唯一因，且據一相以說。以實而言，男亦與女為因，以有下、中、上品別故。若不爾者，豈可男身下品煖等，非與女身上品為因。第四善根男、女互為因，釋所以者，如前得說。又解：《正理》據現轉形為男、女說，《婆沙》據一期身男、女異說，故有差別。

Regarding the passage from "These four roots of goodness..." to "...because of [obtaining] apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha," this explains the fifth and sixth lines. These four roots of goodness are based only on males and females; they are not based on ṣaṇḍhas, paṇḍakas, the sexless, or those with dual sexes. For the first three roots of goodness, both male and female bodies universally acquire both. For the fourth, a female body also acquires both kinds of worldly supreme dharmas—those of male and female bodies—because she can become male; therefore, she acquires the worldly supreme dharmas of a male body. Based on a male, one acquires only the root of goodness—the worldly supreme dharmas—of a male body, because at the stage of supreme kṣānti he has already acquired apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha regarding a female body, and this person will definitively never again become female; therefore, he does not acquire the worldly supreme [dharmas] of a female body. Question: At the stage of the first three roots of goodness, there are also cases where male and female bodies obtain apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha; based on those uṣmagata, and so on, do they cultivate [the other sex's roots of goodness] or do they not cultivate [them]? Solution: It is said that due to this very reason, it proves they do not cultivate them. Another explanation: Having attained worldly supreme dharmas, one definitely does not become female, and therefore does not cultivate the female [roots of goodness]. The first three allow the possibility of becoming male or female; even if apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha is attained, they mutually cultivate each other. Furthermore, Nyāyānusāra, fascicle sixty-one, states: "These four roots of goodness are based only on males and females. For the first three, both males and females universally acquire both; for the fourth, a female body also acquires both kinds, lest upon subsequently obtaining a male body she fail to achieve uṣmagata, and so on. Based on a male, one acquires only the roots of goodness of a male body, because even when the noble one passes to another lifetime, he never becomes female. In the stages of uṣmagata, mūrdhan, and kṣānti, change of sex is possible; hence, the roots of goodness based on the two reciprocally serve as causes. Worldly supreme dharmas based on a female body can serve as causes for both, because after a woman has attained nobility, there is the principle that she may transform and obtain a male body. Those based on a male body provide only one cause, because he has already obtained apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha regarding a female body." Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle seven, states: "Question: Based on what body do these uṣmagata, mūrdhan, kṣānti, and worldly supreme dharmas arise? Answer: They arise based on male and female bodies. Question: Relying on a female body, does one who acquires the uṣmagata arisen in a female body also acquire the uṣmagata arisen in a male body? Answer: One acquires it. As with acquiring uṣmagata, acquiring mūrdhan and kṣānti is also like this. Question: Relying on a male body, does one who acquires the uṣmagata arisen in a male body also acquire the uṣmagata arisen in a female body? Answer: One acquires it. As with acquiring uṣmagata, acquiring mūrdhan and kṣānti is also like this. For a female body, regarding the uṣmagata arisen in a female body, she acquires it, it is in her body, she possesses it, and it is manifest. Regarding the uṣmagata arisen in a male body, she acquires it but it is not in her body; she possesses it, but it is not manifest. As uṣmagata is explained, so too are mūrdhan and kṣānti explained. For a male body, regarding the uṣmagata arisen in a male body, he acquires it, it is in his body, he possesses it, and it is manifest; regarding the uṣmagata arisen in a female body, he acquires it but it is not in his body; he possesses it, but it is not manifest. As uṣmagata is explained, so too are mūrdhan and kṣānti explained. The uṣmagata arisen in a female body serves as a cause for the uṣmagata arisen in a female body and also serves as a cause for the uṣmagata arisen in a male body. As uṣmagata is explained, so too are mūrdhan and kṣānti explained. The uṣmagata arisen in a male body serves as a cause for the uṣmagata arisen in a male body, but does not serve as a cause for the uṣmagata arisen in a female body. Why is this? The superior is not a cause for the inferior, because that [female root] is inferior. As uṣmagata is explained, so too are mūrdhan and kṣānti explained." An explanation says: In the Kośa, for the first three, males and females mutually acquire [both]. For the fourth root of goodness, relying on a female, one acquires two; relying on a male, only one; it does not speak of causality. Nyāyānusāra speaks of acquisition, its text being the same as the Kośa; for the first three, male and female reciprocally serve as causes; for the fourth, a female serves as a cause for two, while a male is not a cause for a female. In the Mahāvibhāṣā, for the first three, male and female mutually acquire [both]; a female serves as a cause for a male, but a male is not a cause for a female; it does not speak of the fourth root of goodness's mutual acquisition through causality. The older Mahāvibhāṣā says, "A male does not acquire the female uṣmagata and other roots of goodness," which was merely an error by the translator. That the Kośa does not speak of causality, and the Mahāvibhāṣā does not speak of the fourth root of goodness's mutual acquisition through causality, is an omission for brevity; one should interpret them in accordance with other treatises. Question: Since Nyāyānusāra and the Mahāvibhāṣā differ in what they say, how are they to be reconciled? The explanation says: The intentions of the treatises Nyāyānusāra and Mahāvibhāṣā are distinct. Nyāyānusāra relies on the doctrine of "one path": although the supporting bodies for the first three roots of goodness differ as male and female, or a male transforms into a female, or a female transforms into a male, uṣmagata and the others are unified, being divided into male and female solely with respect to the supporting body. Just as the single entity of discipline during a change of sex can be based on a bhikṣu or a bhikṣuṇī, and due to the difference in form is spoken of as two disciplines, so that one can say both bhikṣu and bhikṣuṇī acquire both disciplines; one should know that the first three roots of goodness are also like this. As for speaking of causality, the first three roots of goodness mutually acquired by male and female serve as sabhāga-hetu. For the fourth root of goodness, a female can become male, so a female acquires both and serves as a cause for both; since a male does not become female, a male does not acquire the female [root] and serves as a cause for only one. The Mahāvibhāṣā relies on the doctrine of "multiple paths," meaning there are multiple classes of uṣmagata, and so on, each distinct according to the body. Speaking of "acquisition," for the first three, males and females universally acquire two kinds: one is acquired, in the body, possessed, and manifest; the other is acquired but not in the body, possessed, and unmanifest; thus we know they are distinct. For the fourth root of goodness, because a female can become male, a female acquires the male [root]; because a male cannot become female, a male does not acquire the female [root]. As for causality, because the roots of goodness in a female body are inferior, they serve as causes for both; because the roots of goodness in a male body are superior, they serve as a cause for only one. Although the above mentions "one path" and "multiple paths," "multiple paths" corresponds to the reviewer's position in the Mahāvibhāṣā, and "one path" corresponds to the non-orthodox position in the Mahāvibhāṣā. Another explanation: Both Nyāyānusāra and the Mahāvibhāṣā rely on the doctrine of multiple paths. The Mahāvibhāṣā reveals the superiority or inferiority of the path in terms of the superiority or inferiority of the support, so that the superior is not a cause for the inferior. In the view of the Nyāyānusāra, although the male and female supports have superiority and inferiority, the dependent paths reciprocally serve as causes. Just as the noble path based on the nine stages has differences of superiority and inferiority regarding the support, yet the dependent paths reciprocally serve as causes. Whether the Kośa agrees with Nyāyānusāra or with the Mahāvibhāṣā, neither poses any hindrance. Another explanation: In the four roots of goodness, the different bodies of male and female all mutually cultivate each other and all reciprocally serve as causes. The treatises only say that for the first three roots of goodness male and female mutually acquire [each other's] because having attained the first three, they may still become male or female, which is why it is specifically stated. Having attained the worldly supreme dharmas, one definitely does not become female, which is why it is said they are not acquired. In truth, although the future female body obtains apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, based on those supreme [dharmas] it can also be cultivated. When the Mahāvibhāṣā states that in the first three roots of goodness a female serves as a cause for two while a male serves as a cause for only one, it speaks provisionally from a single aspect. In truth, a male also serves as a cause for a female, because there are differences of inferior, middling, and superior grades. If this were not so, how could the inferior-grade uṣmagata, and so forth, of a male body not serve as a cause for the superior grade of a female body? The fourth root of goodness of male and female mutually serving as causes is explained as previously stated regarding acquisition. Another explanation: Nyāyānusāra speaks in terms of the present transformation of sex into male or female, while the Mahāvibhāṣā speaks in terms of the differences between male and female in a single lifetime; hence there is a difference.