俱舍論記 23.85

23.85

「若諸諦中至有事現觀故」者，牒計破。若諸諦中約見現觀說頓現觀，理必不然，以四諦中十六行相各差別故。若言以一無我行相總見四諦名頓現觀，則不應用苦等行相見苦諦等，如是便與契經相違。「如契經」下，舉所違經。經別說行觀於四諦，明行非一。思惟之言皆顯作意，舉別作意取俱擇法，此諸行相即是無漏作意相應擇法。若言此經說修道位以諸行相別觀諦者，此亦不然，如見道中次第觀諦，修道位中亦次第觀。若見道中頓現觀諦者，應修道位亦有頓觀。若彼復謂：見一諦時於餘諦中得自在故說頓現觀。若作此救，於我道理亦無有失。然於如是見四諦時現觀中間，有說出現觀、有說不出現觀，諸部不同，如斯之義別應思擇。若彼復謂於見苦時即能斷集、證滅、修道。約事現觀說頓現觀，理亦無失，我先已說見苦諦時於餘三諦中有事現觀故。

Regarding "If, among the truths... because there is the clear realization of task": This takes up their thesis and refutes it. If, among the truths, one posits sudden clear realization in terms of the clear realization of vision, this is logically untenable, because among the four truths the sixteen aspects are each distinct. If one claims that seeing the four truths collectively by means of a single aspect of non-self is called sudden clear realization, then one should not see the truth of suffering and so forth by means of the aspects of suffering and so forth, which would contradict the sūtras. Below "As stated in the sūtra", the sūtra that is contradicted is cited. The sūtra separately speaks of aspects contemplating the four truths, clarifying that the aspects are not one. The word "reflection" everywhere indicates attention (manaskāra); citing distinct attentions encompasses the concomitant discernment of phenomena (dharmapravicaya), and these aspects are precisely the discernment of phenomena associated with uncontaminated attention. If one says that this sūtra speaks of contemplating the truths separately with various aspects in the stage of the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga), this is also not correct: just as in the path of vision (darśanamārga) one contemplates the truths successively, so in the stage of the path of cultivation one also contemplates them successively. If in the path of vision one had sudden clear realization of the truths, then in the stage of the path of cultivation there should also be sudden contemplation. If they further claim that because one attains mastery over the other truths when seeing one truth, this is called sudden clear realization: if this rescue is offered, it does not conflict with our principle either. However, regarding the intervals between the clear realizations when seeing the four truths in this way, some say that one emerges from clear realization, while others say that one does not emerge from clear realization; the various schools differ, and such points should be investigated separately. If they further claim that at the time of seeing suffering one is immediately able to abandon the origin, realize cessation, and cultivate the path, and that sudden clear realization is spoken of in terms of the clear realization of task, this is also logically unobjectionable, because I have already said earlier that when seeing the truth of suffering, there is the clear realization of task with respect to the other three truths.