俱舍論記 27.105

27.105

「隨根說故至依四地故」者，答。通所依根四靜慮攝，隨根說故，說依四言。或此依通無間道說，通無間道依四地故，隨無間道說依四言。《正理》破云「此解不然。六通皆是解脫道攝。眼、耳二識是解脫道，理不成故。應作是說：四靜慮中有定相應勝無記慧，能引自地勝大種果。此慧現前，便引自地天眼、天耳令現在前，為所依根發眼，耳識故。眼、耳二識相應慧非通，但可說言是通所引。」解云：正理論意，六通解脫皆是意識，眼、耳二識是五識攝，非解脫道。應作是說：四靜慮中從淨定起，有勝無記慧與淨定相隣出入，名定相應。淨定為無間道，意地勝無記慧為解脫道，即是二通自性。能引自地勝大種果造天眼、耳，為所依根發眼、耳識。故眼、耳二識相應慧非通，但可說言是通所引意地勝無記慧，體非根、耳，能引天眼、天耳。從果為名，故名天眼、天耳通。眼、耳二識相應慧體非是通，而言通者，通所引故，從因為名。言通果者，若天眼、耳二識相應慧是果非通，言通果者，通之果故，從因為名，依主釋也。若意地勝無記慧是通非果，或亦是果，定所引故名果，無擁故名通，即通名果，持業釋也。俱舍師救云：本起二通為遠見聞，得遠見聞即顯無障。眼、耳二識名解脫道，何理能遮？如他心通等解脫道中知他心等，斷惑解脫可唯意識，無擁解脫何妨通五？若說意地勝無記慧名為通體，能見聞耶？若不見聞然名通者，起通何用？若謂引大種及引眼、耳，本起二通欲遠見聞，非引大等。又復自有勝善定引，何須無記劣慧引耶？又彼所言有定相應勝無記慧，何處有定是無記耶而言相應？若謂別有勝無記慧，與定前後出入相順名定相應。應言相順，何謂相應？此即言失。又諸經、論皆言天眼、天耳二通，不言意識勝無記慧名為通體。非但與理相違，亦無文可證。由斯理、教，二識相應慧定是通體。言通果者，定所引故名果，無擁故名通，即通名果，持業釋也。問：若爾，何故《婆沙》三十二云「如天眼、耳，是通果故，亦名為通。」解云：是通無間道果故，亦名為通。或是通果所依根故，亦名為通。或同《正理》，無勞會釋。

As for "Because it is spoken in accord with the indriya … because it relies on the four stages": The answer. The indriyas relied upon by the supernormal knowledge are subsumed under the four dhyānas; spoken in accord with the indriyas, it is said to 'rely on the four'. Alternatively, this is spoken in reliance on the path of uninterrupted progress of the supernormal knowledges; because the path of uninterrupted progress of the supernormal knowledges relies on the four stages, it is said to 'rely on the four' in accord with the path of uninterrupted progress. The Nyāyānusāra refutes this, saying: "This explanation is not correct. All six supernormal knowledges are subsumed under the path of liberation. That the two consciousnesses of the eye and ear are the path of liberation is logically untenable. One should state it thus: Within the four dhyānas there is a superior indeterminate prajñā associated with absorption, which can induce the superior great elements of its own stage as a fruit. When this prajñā becomes manifest, it induces the divine eye and divine ear of its own stage to become manifest, functioning as the supporting indriyas to produce the eye and ear consciousnesses. Therefore, the prajñā associated with the two consciousnesses of the eye and ear is not the supernormal knowledge; it can only be said to be induced by the supernormal knowledge." Explanation: The meaning of the Nyāyānusāra is that the liberation of the six supernormal knowledges is in all cases mental consciousness; the eye and ear consciousnesses are subsumed under the five consciousnesses, not the path of liberation. One should state it thus: Arising from pure absorption within the four dhyānas, there is a superior indeterminate prajñā adjacent to entry into and emergence from pure absorption, which is called 'associated with absorption'. Pure absorption is the path of uninterrupted progress, and the superior indeterminate prajñā of the mental ground is the path of liberation, which is the intrinsic nature of the two supernormal knowledges. It can induce the superior great elements of its own stage as a fruit to create the divine eye and ear, which serve as supporting indriyas to produce the eye and ear consciousnesses. Therefore, the prajñā associated with the two consciousnesses of the eye and ear is not the supernormal knowledge; one can only say that it is induced by the supernormal knowledge. The superior indeterminate prajñā of the mental ground is not substantially an indriya or an ear, but can induce the divine eye and divine ear. The name is given from the fruit, hence it is called the supernormal knowledge of the divine eye and divine ear. The prajñā associated with the two consciousnesses of the eye and ear is not substantially the supernormal knowledge; that it is called supernormal knowledge is because it is induced by the supernormal knowledge, its name being given from the cause. As for the term 'result of supernormal knowledge' (abhijñā-phala): if the prajñā associated with the two consciousnesses of the divine eye and ear is the fruit and not the supernormal knowledge, calling it 'result of supernormal knowledge' means it is the fruit of the supernormal knowledge, named from the cause, which is a genitive tatpuruṣa compound. If the superior indeterminate prajñā of the mental ground is the supernormal knowledge and not the fruit, or is also the fruit—named fruit because it is induced by absorption, and named supernormal knowledge because it is unobstructed—then the supernormal knowledge itself is named fruit, which is a karmadhāraya compound. The Kośa master defends: "The original purpose of raising the two supernormal knowledges is to see and hear from afar; attaining distant seeing and hearing itself demonstrates unobstructedeness. By what principle can one preclude the eye and ear consciousnesses from being called the path of liberation? Just as in the path of liberation of the supernormal knowledge of the minds of others and so forth, one knows the minds of others and so on, liberation in severing defilements may well be exclusively mental consciousness, but what prevents liberation in being unobstructed from extending to the five [consciousnesses]? If one says that the superior indeterminate prajñā of the mental ground is the intrinsic nature of the supernormal knowledge, can it see and hear? If it does not see and hear yet is called supernormal knowledge, what is the use of generating the supernormal knowledge? If one says it induces the great elements and induces the eye and ear, the original purpose of raising the two supernormal knowledges is the desire to see and hear from afar, not to induce the great elements and so forth. Furthermore, there is superior wholesome absorption that of itself induces them; why would an inferior indeterminate prajñā be needed to induce them? Furthermore, as for his statement that there is superior indeterminate prajñā associated with absorption: in what place is there an absorption that is indeterminate, such that one speaks of 'association'? If one says there is a separate superior indeterminate prajñā that accords with entering into and emerging from absorption beforehand and afterward, and is called 'associated with absorption', one should say 'according with', so why say 'associated with'? This is an error of expression. Furthermore, all sūtras and treatises speak of the two supernormal knowledges of the divine eye and divine ear, not stating that a superior indeterminate prajñā of mental consciousness is the intrinsic nature of the supernormal knowledges. This is not only contrary to reason, but also lacks textual evidence. By these reasons and scriptures, the prajñā associated with the two consciousnesses is definitely the intrinsic nature of the supernormal knowledges. As for the term 'result of supernormal knowledge': named fruit because it is induced by absorption, and named supernormal knowledge because it is unobstructed, the supernormal knowledge itself is named fruit, which is a karmadhāraya compound." Question: If so, why does the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 32, say: "Like the divine eye and ear, because they are results of supernormal knowledge, they are also named supernormal knowledges"? Explanation: Because they are the fruit of the path of uninterrupted progress of supernormal knowledge, they are also named supernormal knowledge. Or, because they are the supporting indriyas of the result of supernormal knowledge, they are also named supernormal knowledge. Or it agrees with the Nyāyānusāra, and there is no need to reconcile them.