俱舍論記 26.182

26.182

「論曰至此地有漏」者，釋初兩句，此明修有漏也。諸有漏道及無漏道，修有漏法總有二類：一依此地現起之時能修未來此地有漏、二得此地時能修未來此地有漏。故《顯宗》三十六云「諸道依此地及得此地時，能修未來此地有漏。謂依此地世俗聖道現在前時，未來唯修此地有漏，以有漏法繫地堅牢難修餘故。隨依何地離下地染，第九解脫現在前時，亦修未來所得上地根本、近分有漏功德，離下地縛必得上故（《正理》七十四，文同《顯宗》）。」問：修有漏中何故不言為離此地時修此地有漏？解云：用有漏道及無漏道離染之時，修諸有漏不異依此地及得此地時修此地有漏，依下地道漸離上染。復不能修上地有漏，不同修無漏，故不別說。問：如無漏道依此下地離下地染九無間道、八解脫道，修上近分有漏道不？若言修者，此文何故不說？又與《正理》七十四相違，如彼論云「雖下聖道斷煩惱時，諸上地邊有能同治，然由有漏繫地堅牢，未離下時未能修彼。」若不修者，雖順此文。依此修此，即與前說〈賢聖品〉相違。如彼頌云「聖二離八修，各二離繫得。」長行解云「諸有學聖用有漏道，離下八地修斷染時，能具引生二離繫得。用無漏道離彼亦然，由二種道同所作故。」解云：無漏道離下染時九無間道、八解脫道，不能修上近分有漏。問：若作此解，雖順論文亦符《正理》，〈賢聖品〉文云何釋通？解云：若以無漏道離下八地染，亦能引生二離繫得者，此據第九解脫道離下染盡方修上地近分有漏。若別而言，前九無間、八解脫道離下染時，未修上地近分有漏，爾時唯有一無漏得，故不相違。又解云：以無漏道離下染時九無間道、八解脫道，亦修上地近分有漏，同治修故。問：若作此解，雖順〈賢聖品〉文，何故此文不說依此修上？又《正理論》云何釋通？解云：從多分說依此修此，故偏說之。上地近分或修、不修，若無漏道離下染即修；若餘無漏依下地起，即不修上近分有漏。以不定故，是故不說。《正理論》說，自是彼計。非所許故，無勞會釋。《顯宗》亦有兩說云「雖下聖道斷煩惱時，諸上地邊有能同治，然由有漏繫地堅牢，未離下時未能修彼。有說：亦修彼，起彼斷得故。」前解同《顯宗》前說，後解同《顯宗》後師。又《顯宗》三十二云「由此有學離八修斷，世出世道隨一現前，各未來修世、出世道。此總相說。以無漏道離上七地前八品時，不修上邊世俗道故，唯有無漏一離繫得，離第九品方可具二。或應許得離繫道而修。或應斷染時許依下修上。」《顯宗》三解，前解同《顯宗》前師，後解同《顯宗》後二說。問：《俱舍》為同何說？解云：或同前解、或同後解，皆無妨矣。問：依此地起無漏皆修此地有漏法耶？解云：亦有不修者，如《婆沙》百六十三，解初定淨、無漏四句中，有修無漏初靜慮非淨中云「聖者依初靜慮離初靜慮，乃至無所有處染九無間、九解脫道時，及離非非想處染九無間道、八解脫道時。」《婆沙》既言依初定離初定染，不修初定淨，明知有無漏依此地不修此地有漏。又准此文，依初定起無漏解脫道等，不修當地有漏他心智。前言修者，據無漏他心智說。

Regarding [the commentary] “The treatise says: […] contaminated [virtues] of this stage,” this explains the first two lines; this clarifies the cultivation of contaminated [dharmas]. For all contaminated paths and uncontaminated paths, the cultivation of contaminated dharmas has, in summary, two categories: first, when actively present relying on this stage, they can cultivate future contaminated [dharmas] of this stage; second, upon attaining this stage, they can cultivate future contaminated [dharmas] of this stage. Therefore, the Xianzong lun, fascicle 36, states: “When all paths rely on this stage and upon attaining this stage, they are capable of cultivating future contaminated [dharmas] of this stage. That is, when conventional and noble paths relying on this stage are present, one cultivates in the future exclusively the contaminated [dharmas] of this stage, because contaminated dharmas are firmly bound to their stage and it is difficult to cultivate another [stage]. Relying on whichever stage to become free from the defilement of a lower stage, when the ninth liberation path is present, one also cultivates the contaminated virtues of the fundamental and threshold [dhyānas] of the attained upper stage in the future, because once free from the bondage of the lower stage one definitely attains the upper” (Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 74, has the same text as the Xianzong lun). Question: Why, in cultivating contaminated [dharmas], is it not stated that when becoming free from this stage one cultivates contaminated [dharmas] of this stage? Solution: When using contaminated paths and uncontaminated paths to become free from attachment, the cultivation of contaminated [dharmas] is no different from cultivating the contaminated [dharmas] of this stage when relying on this stage or attaining this stage. Relying on paths of a lower stage to gradually become free from the defilements of an upper stage, one is furthermore unable to cultivate the contaminated [dharmas] of the upper stage, unlike the cultivation of uncontaminated [dharmas]; hence it is not separately stated. Question: Like an uncontaminated path relying on this lower stage to become free from the defilements of the lower stage through the nine uninterrupted paths and eight liberation paths, does it cultivate the contaminated paths of the upper threshold [stage] or not? If one says it does cultivate [them], why does this text not state so? Moreover, it would contradict Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 74, as that treatise says: “Although when a lower noble path severs afflictions the fringes of the upper stages possess that which can serve as a common counteragent, nevertheless, because contaminated [dharmas] are firmly bound to their stage, when one has not yet become free from the lower, one is not yet able to cultivate them.” If it does not cultivate [them], although this conforms to this text—relying on this, cultivating this—it contradicts the preceding “Chapter on the Wise and the Noble.” As that verse says: “The ārya, through the two [paths], becomes free from eight [stages], cultivating [both]; each possesses two attainments of disjunction.” The prose commentary explains: “When noble learners use a contaminated path to become free from the defilements abandoned by cultivation in the lower eight stages, they can fully induce the two attainments of disjunction. When using an uncontaminated path to become free from them, it is likewise, because both kinds of paths accomplish the same task.” Solution: When an uncontaminated path becomes free from lower defilements, the nine uninterrupted paths and eight liberation paths cannot cultivate the contaminated [dharmas] of the upper threshold [stage]. Question: If one provides this explanation, although it conforms to the treatise text and matches the Nyāyānusāra, how is the text of the “Chapter on the Wise and the Noble” reconciled? Solution: When it is said that if one becomes free from the defilements of the lower eight stages through an uncontaminated path, one can also induce two attainments of disjunction, this is based on the ninth liberation path having exhausted freedom from lower defilements, only then cultivating the contaminated [dharmas] of the upper threshold stage. Speaking distinctively, when the preceding nine uninterrupted paths and eight liberation paths become free from lower defilements, they have not yet cultivated the contaminated [dharmas] of the upper threshold stage, at which time there is only a single uncontaminated attainment; therefore, they do not contradict each other. Another solution: When an uncontaminated path becomes free from lower defilements, the nine uninterrupted paths and eight liberation paths also cultivate the contaminated [dharmas] of the upper threshold stage, because they are cultivated as common counteragents. Question: If one provides this explanation, although it conforms to the text of the “Chapter on the Wise and the Noble,” why does this text not state that relying on this one cultivates the upper? And how is the Nyāyānusāra text reconciled? Solution: Relying on this to cultivate this is spoken from the majority of cases, and so it is stated predominantly. For the upper threshold stage, it may or may not be cultivated: if an uncontaminated path becomes free from lower defilements, it is cultivated; if other uncontaminated [dharmas] arise relying on a lower stage, one does not cultivate the contaminated [dharmas] of the upper threshold stage. Because it is not fixed, it is not mentioned. What the Nyāyānusāra states is simply its own tenet; since it is not accepted, there is no need to reconcile it. The Xianzong lun also has two explanations, stating: “Although when a lower noble path severs afflictions the fringes of the upper stages possess that which can serve as a common counteragent, nevertheless, because contaminated [dharmas] are firmly bound to their stage, when one has not yet become free from the lower, one is not yet able to cultivate them. Some say: They are also cultivated, because the attainment of their abandonment has arisen.” The former explanation is identical to the former statement of the Xianzong lun; the latter explanation is identical to the latter master of the Xianzong lun. Furthermore, the Xianzong lun, fascicle 32, states: “Because of this, when a learner becomes free from the abandonments by cultivation of the eight [stages], whenever either mundane or supramundane paths are present, each cultivates mundane and supramundane paths in the future. This is a general statement. Because when an uncontaminated path becomes free from the first eight grades of the upper seven stages, it does not cultivate the conventional path of the upper fringe, there is only a single uncontaminated attainment of disjunction; only when free from the ninth grade can both be complete. Alternatively, one should accept that one attains the path of disjunction and cultivates it. Alternatively, when severing defilements, one should accept that relying on the lower one cultivates the upper.” The Xianzong lun has three explanations: the former explanation is identical to the former master of the Xianzong lun, and the latter explanations are identical to the latter two statements of the Xianzong lun. Question: Which explanation does the Kośa agree with? Solution: Whether it agrees with the former explanation or the latter explanation, in either case there is no contradiction. Question: Do uncontaminated [dharmas] that arise relying on this stage always cultivate the contaminated dharmas of this stage? Solution: There are also those that do not cultivate them. For instance, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 163, in explaining the four permutations of the pure and uncontaminated in the first dhyāna, under the category of cultivating uncontaminated first dhyāna but not pure, states: “When an ārya, relying on the first dhyāna, becomes free from the defilements of the first dhyāna up to the stage of nothingness during the nine uninterrupted paths and nine liberation paths, and when becoming free from the defilements of the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception during the nine uninterrupted paths and eight liberation paths.” Since the Mahāvibhāṣā states that relying on the first dhyāna to become free from the defilements of the first dhyāna, one does not cultivate the pure first dhyāna, we clearly know that there are uncontaminated [dharmas] which, relying on this stage, do not cultivate the contaminated [dharmas] of this stage. Furthermore, based on this text, when an uncontaminated liberation path or the like arises relying on the first dhyāna, it does not cultivate the contaminated knowledge of others' minds of that stage. The prior statement of cultivation was stated based on the uncontaminated knowledge of others' minds.