俱舍論記 26.40

26.40

「頌曰至無能治欲」者，答。修道所攝滅、道法智，兼能對治上界修斷。欲界滅、道勝於上界苦、集法故，故緣下勝能治上劣。欲苦、集麁，上苦、集細，緣麁不能治細，故苦、集法智不治上修惑。又復已除自界怨已，能兼對治他界怨故，由此類智無能治欲。故《正理》云「要於自界所作已圓，方可兼為他界所作。非諸類智己事成時，他事未成，有須助義。故無類智治欲界法（已上論文）。」又《婆沙》一百五十八云「問：若以滅、道法智，離色、無色界修所斷染時，彼色、無色界修所斷法無漏離繫得，為法智品攝？為類智品攝耶？若法智品攝，此不應理。彼法及斷，類智所知故；若類智品攝，亦不應理。彼斷及得，法智所證故。有作是說：彼離繫得，類智品攝。問：豈不彼斷及得法智所證耶？答：雖法智所證，而類智所知故。有餘師說：彼無漏離繫得，法智品攝。問：豈不彼法及斷，類智所知耶？答：雖類智所知，而法智攝，法智所證故。評曰：此中初說為善，以類智品是彼不共決定對治故。」

As for the passage from "The stanza states..." to "...none can counteract the desire [realm]": this is the answer. Knowledge of phenomena regarding cessation and the path, subsumed under the path of cultivation, can additionally counteract what is abandoned through cultivation in the higher realms. Because cessation and the path of the desire realm are superior to the phenomena of suffering and origination of the higher realms, observing the superior [aspect] of the lower can counteract the inferior [defilements] of the higher. Suffering and origination of the desire realm are coarse, while suffering and origination of the higher realms are subtle; observing the coarse cannot counteract the subtle, so knowledge of phenomena regarding suffering and origination does not counteract the cultivation defilements of the higher realms. Furthermore, once one has eliminated the enemies of one's own realm, one can additionally counteract the enemies of other realms; therefore, no subsequent knowledge can counteract the desire realm. Thus the *Nyāyānusāra* states: "Only when one's work in one's own realm has already been perfected may one additionally perform work for other realms. It is not the case that when the work of the various subsequent knowledges of one's own [realm] is accomplished while the work of the other is not yet accomplished, there is any need for assistance. Therefore, no subsequent knowledge counteracts the phenomena of the desire realm" (thus far the śāstra text). Furthermore, *Mahāvibhāṣā* 158 says: "Question: When one separates from the defilements abandoned through cultivation in the form and formless realms by means of the knowledge of phenomena regarding cessation and the path, is the unconditioned, undefiled acquisition of disjunction (visamyoga-prāpti) of those phenomena abandoned through cultivation in the form and formless realms subsumed under the category of knowledge of phenomena, or under the category of subsequent knowledge? If it is subsumed under the category of knowledge of phenomena, this is unreasonable, because those phenomena and their abandonment are known by subsequent knowledge. If it is subsumed under the category of subsequent knowledge, this is also unreasonable, because that abandonment and acquisition are realized by knowledge of phenomena. Some make this statement: that acquisition of disjunction is subsumed under the category of subsequent knowledge. Question: Are not that abandonment and acquisition realized by knowledge of phenomena? Answer: Although realized by knowledge of phenomena, they are known by subsequent knowledge. Other masters say: That undefiled acquisition of disjunction is subsumed under the category of knowledge of phenomena. Question: Are not those phenomena and their abandonment known by subsequent knowledge? Answer: Although known by subsequent knowledge, they are subsumed under knowledge of phenomena because they are realized by knowledge of phenomena. Critical appraisal: Here, the first explanation is good, because the category of subsequent knowledge is their uncommon and definitive counteragent."