俱舍論記 24.109

24.109

「此證非理至故不成證」者，論主破。此證非理。所以者何？彼聖設無有漏斷得，亦不成就上地煩惱。如聖分離有頂一品乃至八品得轉根時，及異生生上不成惑故。謂如聖者分離有頂一品乃至八品染已，後依靜慮得轉根時，無漏斷得既已頓捨，彼地離繫無有漏得，而彼地惑亦不成就。又如異生生二定等，雖捨欲界等煩惱斷得，而不成就欲界等煩惱。故《正理》云「以欲界等有漏離繫得初定等攝，唯彼能治故。若生上地此得必捨，生上地必捨下有漏善故。」問：此二離繫既無有得，惑寧不成？答：如《正理》云「此二雖無煩惱斷得，而勝進故，遮惑得生（已上論文）。」此亦應然，故不成證。

[On the text,] "This proof is unreasonable [...] therefore it does not constitute a proof": The treatise author refutes it. This proof is unreasonable. Why is this? Even if that noble person lacked a sāsrava attainment of cessation, he would still not possess the defilements of the higher stages, just as an ārya who has partially detached from one to eight grades of the Peak of Existence does not possess defilements when changing faculties, and just as an ordinary worldling does not possess defilements when born into a higher realm. That is: just as when an ārya, having partially detached from one to eight grades of defilements of the Peak of Existence, subsequently changes faculties based on dhyāna, although the anāsrava attainment of cessation has been abruptly relinquished and there is no sāsrava attainment of disjunction for that stage, he still does not possess the defilements of that stage. Furthermore, just as when an ordinary worldling is born into the second dhyāna or higher, although he relinquishes the attainment of the cessation of defilements of the desire realm, he does not possess the defilements of the desire realm. Thus the Nyāyānusāra states: "Because the sāsrava attainment of disjunction from the desire realm and so forth is subsumed under the first dhyāna and so on, only they can counteract them. If one is born into a higher stage, this attainment is necessarily relinquished, because upon being born into a higher stage, one necessarily relinquishes the sāsrava wholesome [dharmas] of the lower stage." Question: Since these two disjunctions lack an attainment, how is it that defilements are not possessed? Answer: As the Nyāyānusāra states: "Although these two lack the attainment of cessation of defilements, yet owing to superior progress, the arising of the attainment of defilements is obstructed (end of treatise text)." This should also be the case here; therefore, it does not constitute a proof.