俱舍論記 25.71

25.71

「依謂身地至但依六地」者，釋依人三及後一頌。唯於三洲怖畏退故，故修練根。北洲、惡趣，無聖道故。餘天趣中雖有聖道而無退故，不修練根。無學依九，有學依六。若住果轉根，即捨果得果；若住勝果道轉根，捨果及向，所得唯果。由此不定，故說容言。心唯欣果，所以所得唯果。意總棄劣，所以捨通果、向。又《正理》七十云「又諸聖位修練根時，與本得果地或同或異。謂初、二果依地必同，彼此俱依未至地故；不還、應果依地不定，或依本地、或上或下。有差別者，若諸不還，依下練根不得上果；阿羅漢不爾，如本得果故。」問：《正理》若言諸不還果依下練根不得上果者，何故《婆沙》六十七評家云「應作是說：若於上地已得自在，而依下地學轉根等，亦得上地無漏果道，然轉根時不得無色，彼定無有不還果故。」解云：《正理》但據於上地中不自在者，《婆沙》通據於上地中得自在者，各據一義並不相違。問：諸依上地得不還果，後依下地修轉根者，於彼上地皆應自在，如何乃言《正理論》中據不自在言不修上？解云：非依上地而得果者，於彼上地皆得自在。為欲得果勵力抑起，而非自在故，有依下地而轉根者，有不得上。

"Basis refers to the physical basis and the stage... but relying on six stages" explains "depending on human beings, three" and the subsequent verse. It is solely in the three continents, through fear of falling away, that one cultivates the refinement of faculties. In the northern continent and bad destinies, there is no noble path. In the other heavenly destinies, although there is the noble path, there is no falling away, so they do not cultivate the refinement of faculties. The aśaikṣa relies on nine [stages], and the śaikṣa relies on six. If transforming faculties while abiding in the fruit, one abandons the fruit and obtains the fruit; if transforming faculties while abiding in the superior path of the fruit, one abandons the fruit and the path of practice, and that which is obtained is solely the fruit. Because of this indeterminacy, the word "may" is stated. Because the mind aspires solely to the fruit, what is obtained is solely the fruit. Because the intention is completely to discard the inferior, what is abandoned extends to both the fruit and the path of practice. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra says in fascicle 70: "Furthermore, when all noble stages cultivate the refinement of faculties, their basis may be the same as or different from the stage where the fruit was originally attained. That is, for the first and second fruits, the relying stage must be the same, because both rely on the anāgamya; for the non-returner and the fruit of arhatship, the relying stage is indeterminate, relying either on their original stage, or on a higher or lower one. As for the difference: if non-returners refine the faculties relying on a lower stage, they do not obtain a higher fruit; for arhats this is not so, because it is like their original attainment of the fruit." Question: If the Nyāyānusāra states that non-returners refining faculties relying on a lower stage do not obtain a higher fruit, why does the evaluation in the Vibhāṣā fascicle 67 say: "It should be stated thus: If one has already attained mastery over a higher stage, yet relies on a lower stage to train in transforming the faculties and so forth, one also obtains the uncontaminated path of the fruit of the higher stage; however, when transforming the faculties, one does not obtain the formless [attainments], because in that concentration there is definitely no fruit of non-return"? Explanation: The Nyāyānusāra refers only to those without mastery over the higher stage, whereas the Vibhāṣā refers generally to those who have attained mastery over the higher stage; each is based on one meaning and they do not contradict each other. Question: All those who obtain the fruit of non-return relying on a higher stage and later cultivate the transformation of faculties relying on a lower stage should be master of that higher stage; why then does the Nyāyānusāra say, referring to lack of mastery, that one does not cultivate the higher? Explanation: It is not the case that all those who obtain the fruit relying on a higher stage have mastery over that higher stage. Having forcefully suppressed [defilements] to attain the fruit, they lack mastery; hence among those who transform faculties relying on a lower stage, there are those who do not obtain the higher.