俱舍論記 25.76

25.76

「何等名俱至得解脫故」者，此即第二明慧、俱解脫。前來未釋，故更別明。諸阿羅漢得滅定者名俱解脫，謂由慧力解脫煩惱障故，由滅定力解脫彼解脫障故，名解脫障。所餘阿羅漢未得滅定者名慧解脫，但由慧力於煩惱障得解脫故，即此煩惱能障慧生名煩惱障。又《正理》七十云「何等名為解脫障體？諸阿羅漢心已解脫，而更求解脫，為解脫彼障。謂於所障諸解脫中有劣無知，無覆無記性，能障解脫，是解脫障體。於彼彼界得離染時，雖已無餘斷而起解脫，彼不行時方名解脫。復有餘師說：此解脫障即以於諸定不自在為體。有餘師說：此解脫障即以諸定不得為體。有餘師說：於彼加行不勤求故、不聽聞故、不數習故，解脫不生。即此名為解脫障體。初說應理。所以者何？必有少法力能為障，令彼於定不自在轉。若不爾者，彼有何緣於諸定中不得自在？不得定者必有所因，不可說言即因不得，自體不應還因自故。或煩惱障亦應可說即以應果不得為性。彼既不然，此云何爾？阿羅漢果亦由於加行不勤求等故，體不得生，豈便無別煩惱障體？故後三說皆不應理（解云：四說之中初說應理。所以者何？必有不染無知劣法力能為障，令彼於定不自在轉。若不爾者，彼有何緣於諸定中不得自在？此破第二師。不得定者至此云何爾，此破第三師。阿羅漢果下破第四師，故後三說皆不應理也）。」

Regarding "What is called both [...] because of having attained liberation": this is the second [section], explaining liberation through wisdom and liberation in both ways. As it was not explained previously, it is now separately clarified. Those arhats who attain the meditation of cessation are called liberated in both ways; that is, because through the power of wisdom they are liberated from the obstacle of defilements, and through the power of the meditation of cessation they are liberated from that obstacle to liberation—hence called the obstacle to liberation. The remaining arhats who have not attained the meditation of cessation are called liberated through wisdom, because through the power of wisdom alone they attain liberation from the obstacle of defilements; that is, these defilements are able to obstruct the arising of wisdom, and so are called the obstacle of defilements. Furthermore, the *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle 70, states: "What is called the essence of the obstacle to liberation? The minds of arhats are already liberated, yet they further seek liberation in order to be liberated from that obstacle. That is, regarding the various liberations that are obstructed, there is an inferior non-cognition, non-obscuring and morally indeterminate in nature, which is able to obstruct liberation; this is the essence of the obstacle to liberation. When one attains detachment from those various realms, although it has already been abandoned without remainder and liberation arises, only when it is inactive is one called liberated. Again, another master says: 'This obstacle to liberation has as its essence simply the lack of mastery over the various concentrations.' Another master says: 'This obstacle to liberation has as its essence simply the non-attainment of the various concentrations.' Another master says: 'Because one does not diligently strive in their preparatory practices, does not listen [to teachings], and does not repeatedly cultivate [them], liberation does not arise. This is what is called the essence of the obstacle to liberation.' The first explanation is reasonable. Why is this? There must be some factor whose power is able to act as an obstacle, causing one not to function with mastery in concentration. If it were not so, by what condition would they lack mastery in the various concentrations? The non-attainment of concentration must have a cause; one cannot say that the cause is merely the non-attainment [itself], for an entity's own essence should not in turn be caused by itself. Or [by that logic], the obstacle of defilements should also be said to have as its nature merely the non-attainment of the fruit of the arhat. Since that is not so, how could this be so? As for the fruit of the arhat, because one does not diligently strive in preparatory practices and so forth, its essence cannot arise; but how could there then be no distinct essence of the obstacle of defilements? Therefore, the latter three explanations are all unreasonable. (The commentary explains: Among the four explanations, the first is reasonable. Why is this? There must be an inferior factor of non-defiled non-cognition whose power can act as an obstacle, causing one not to function with mastery in concentration. If it were not so, by what condition would they lack mastery in the various concentrations? This refutes the second master. From 'The non-attainment of concentration' up to 'how could this be so' refutes the third master. From 'As for the fruit of the arhat' below refutes the fourth master; therefore the latter three explanations are all unreasonable)."