俱舍論記 26.195

26.195

「迦濕彌羅國至即治遣修攝」者，正義通經。迦濕彌羅國諸論師云：所言防護、觀察二修，應知即是前四修中對治、除遣二修所攝。於根及身，若望能防、能護、能觀察義邊名對治修，若望所防、所觀、遣惑義邊名除遣修。上來明四修皆據正修，若據當修，與前差別。故《正理》七十四云「有於此中約當修義分別諸法具修多少。有法具四名為當修，有法具三、有法具二、有法具一、有法全無。謂善有漏未永斷時，可得可生具足四種。此未永斷，故當具治、遣修。以可得故當具得修，是可生故當具習修。已得可生，具三除得。可得不生，具三除習。已得不生及不可得已生具二，謂治、遣修。及染、無記未斷亦爾。若善有漏已永斷時，可得可生具得、習二，可得不生具一謂得，已得可生具一謂習。有為無漏應知亦爾。除前所說皆是全無，謂無漏法中已得不生等。若不生法不住身中，但由得故即名修者，應許擇滅亦名為修，無差別故。此難非理，彼同類法住身中故。謂不生法雖不住身，同類住身名修無失。又彼由得為果住故，謂未來世不生善法，由今得生表為果住。義言我等闕緣不生，非謂今時不蒙招引。擇滅異此，不可為例。又未來世不生善法，亦有因力攝益現身。擇滅不然，故無修義。又由擇滅唯是果故，謂修本為獲得勝果，滅非有果，故不應修。又由擇滅無增、減故，謂可修法依下至中、依中至上。擇滅不爾，於修無用故。」

On "The [masters of] the country of Kaśmīra [...] are subsumed under cultivation by antidote and expulsion": This resolves the sūtras with the orthodox doctrine. The masters of the country of Kaśmīra say: The so-called two cultivations of guarding and observation should be understood as being subsumed under the two cultivations of antidote and expulsion among the previous four cultivations. Regarding the faculties and the body: in reference to the aspect of being able to guard, protect, and observe, it is called cultivation by antidote; in reference to the aspect of that which is guarded, observed, and the expulsion of defilements, it is called cultivation by expulsion. The explanation of the four cultivations above was entirely based on actual cultivation; if based on future cultivation (kāryā bhāvanā), it differs from the preceding. Thus the *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle 74, says: "Some here distinguish how many cultivations dharmas possess according to the meaning of future cultivation. Some dharmas possess four and are called future cultivation; some possess three, some possess two, some possess one, and some entirely lack [any]. Namely, when wholesome sāsrava [dharmas] are not yet perpetually severed, if they can be acquired and can arise, they possess all four kinds. Because they are not yet perpetually severed, they will possess cultivation by antidote and expulsion; because they can be acquired, they will possess cultivation by acquisition; because they can arise, they will possess cultivation by practice. If already acquired and able to arise, they possess three, excluding acquisition. If able to be acquired but not able to arise, they possess three, excluding practice. If already acquired and unable to arise, or unable to be acquired and already arisen, they possess two, namely cultivation by antidote and expulsion; and defiled and indeterminate [dharmas] not yet severed are also like this. When wholesome sāsrava [dharmas] are already perpetually severed, if they can be acquired and can arise, they possess two—acquisition and practice; if able to be acquired but unable to arise, they possess one, namely acquisition; if already acquired and able to arise, they possess one, namely practice. Conditioned anāsrava [dharmas] should also be understood like this. Excluding what was stated before, all others have none at all, namely those among anāsrava dharmas that are already acquired and do not arise, and so forth. If a dharma that does not arise does not abide in the body, but is called cultivation merely by virtue of its acquisition, then one should admit that pratisamkhyā-nirodha is also called cultivation, since there is no difference. This objection is unreasonable, because dharmas of the same category abide in the body. That is to say, although a non-arising dharma does not abide in the body, its homogenous [dharmas] abiding in the body are called cultivation without fault. Furthermore, because it abides as a fruit by virtue of acquisition: wholesome dharmas of the future that do not arise, because of being obtained now, indicate their abiding as a fruit. The meaning is: 'We do not arise due to the lack of conditions; it is not that we are not invoked at the present time.' Pratisamkhyā-nirodha is different from this and cannot serve as an analogy. Furthermore, future wholesome dharmas that do not arise also have causal power to support and benefit the present body. Pratisamkhyā-nirodha is not like this; therefore it lacks the meaning of cultivation. Furthermore, because pratisamkhyā-nirodha is purely a fruit: cultivation is fundamentally for the sake of obtaining an exalted fruit; cessation has no fruit, and therefore should not be cultivated. Furthermore, because pratisamkhyā-nirodha lacks increase and decrease: cultivable dharmas proceed from inferior to middling, and from middling to superior. Pratisamkhyā-nirodha is not like this, so it has no utility in cultivation."