俱舍論記 26.185

26.185

「諸所言修至勢力劣故」者，釋第八句。諸所言修，唯先未得，現在今起，此是能修。未來今得，此是所修。「謂」下別釋，一明是所修、非所修；二明是能修、非能修。問：若言未得今得方是所修，曾得棄捨還得非修。何故《婆沙》一百五十云「問：若退上果住下果時，所得下果名得、修耶？答：名得非修。問：彼還進得所退果時，所得上果名得、修不？答：若過去者名得非修，若未來者名為得、修。問：何故過去者名得非修，未來者名得、修耶？答：若現在道與彼為因者，可說彼為得、修。現在道與過去道無因義，故名得非修。問：諸退上果住下果時，所得未來下無漏果既有現在無漏得因，何不名修？答：若現在因由勝進故得未來者，彼可名修。退住下果時，現在無漏得雖是彼因而非勝進，故不名修。不由現在得、修彼未來故，但由退故，彼得現前。」准《婆沙》文，退上果得下果，下果不名修。復從下果還得上果，上果名修。此既曾得，如何名修？豈不與此《俱舍》相違？解云：未曾得有二，一從來未曾得、二得勝曾得名未曾得。如退上果後重得時，雖有昔曾得，由勝進位得勝曾得故，亦名未曾得。未曾得言含斯二義，故非此文曾得所攝。又解：曾得有三。一得劣曾得，如退上果得下果時；二得等曾得，如第二念已去得自類法；三得勝曾得，如退上果後重得時。此論據前二曾得從多分說，故言曾得非所修也。若據少分，得勝曾得亦是所修。《婆沙》據此第三說也。各據一義，並不相違。又解：論意各別，無勞會釋。餘文可知。

Regarding 'All that is called cultivation ... because its power is inferior': this explains the eighth line. In all that is called cultivation, only what was previously unattained and now arises in the present is the cultivator. What was unattained and is now acquired in the future is the cultivated. Below 'that is to say', it explains separately: first, elucidating what is cultivated and what is not cultivated; second, elucidating what is the cultivator and what is not the cultivator. Question: If it is said that what was unattained and is now acquired is what is cultivated, and what was previously attained, discarded, and then regained is not cultivated, why does the Vibhāṣā, fascicle one hundred and fifty, state: 'Question: If one regresses from a higher fruit and abides in a lower fruit, is the acquired lower fruit called acquisition and cultivation? Answer: It is called acquisition, not cultivation. Question: When one advances again and regains the fruit from which one had regressed, is the acquired higher fruit called acquisition and cultivation or not? Answer: If it is past, it is called acquisition and not cultivation; if it is future, it is called acquisition and cultivation. Question: Why is the past called acquisition and not cultivation, while the future is called acquisition and cultivation? Answer: If a present path serves as a cause for it, that can be called acquisition and cultivation. A present path has no causal function toward a past path, hence it is called acquisition and not cultivation. Question: When one regresses from a higher fruit and abides in a lower fruit, since the acquired future lower uncontaminated fruit possesses the present uncontaminated acquisition as its cause, why is it not called cultivation? Answer: If a present cause, by means of superior progress, acquires a future [state], that can be called cultivation. When regressing to abide in a lower fruit, although the present uncontaminated acquisition is its cause, it is not a superior progress, and therefore is not called cultivation. It is not by the present acquisition that one cultivates that future [state]; rather, solely because of regression, that acquisition occurs in the present.' According to this Vibhāṣā passage, regressing from a higher fruit to obtain a lower fruit, the lower fruit is not called cultivation; returning again from the lower fruit to obtain the higher fruit, the higher fruit is called cultivation. Since this was already previously attained, how can it be called cultivation? Does this not contradict the Kośa? The explanation is: 'Not previously attained' has two meanings: first, having never been attained from the beginning; second, obtaining something superior to what was previously attained, which is termed 'not previously attained'. As when, after regressing from a higher fruit, one regains it later, although there was a previous attainment, because one obtains something superior to what was previously attained by virtue of a state of superior progress, it is also termed 'not previously attained'. The term 'not previously attained' encompasses these two meanings, and therefore it is not subsumed under 'previously attained' in this text. Another explanation is: There are three kinds of 'previously attained': first, obtaining an inferior previously attained, as when regressing from a higher fruit to obtain a lower fruit; second, obtaining an equal previously attained, as from the second moment onward obtaining dharmas of the same category; third, obtaining a superior previously attained, as when regaining it later after regressing from a higher fruit. This treatise speaks predominantly according to the first two kinds of 'previously attained', and therefore says that what was previously attained is not cultivated. If considered according to the lesser portion, obtaining a superior previously attained is also what is cultivated. The Vibhāṣā speaks according to this third kind. Each relies on one perspective, and they do not contradict each other at all. Another explanation is: The intentions of the treatises are distinct, and there is no need to reconcile them. The remainder of the text is understandable.