俱舍論記 27.64

27.64

「毘婆沙者至如田夫類」者、毘婆沙者有作是言：願智不能證知無色，觀彼將入無色因行寂靜相別，即能比知無色界果。觀彼初出無色界心，等流果別猶寂靜故。與彼無色心相似名為等流，即能比知前無色因。如田夫類見芽知種、見種知芽。此非正義，應作是說：證知無色。故《婆沙》一百七十九云「問：云何願智知無色界？有說：由觀等流及行差別，如觀行路之人知所從至。有說：若爾，願智應是比量智，非現量智。應作是說：此願智不觀因而知果、不觀果而知因，故此智是現量智，非比量智。」又《婆沙》云「問：宿住隨念智，與緣過去願智何差別？復次宿住隨念智知有漏五蘊，此願智知有漏、無漏諸蘊。復次宿住隨念智知欲、色界五蘊，此願智知三界及不繫諸蘊。復次宿住隨念智知諸蘊共相，此願智知諸蘊自相及共相。」又云「問：他心智與緣現在願智何差別？復次他心智緣一物為境，此願智緣一物或多物為境。復次他心智緣自相境，此願智緣自、共相境。復次他心智緣他相續，此願智緣自、他相續。復次他心智緣心、心所法，此願智緣五蘊。」又云「問：云何願智能知未來？有說：以過去、現在比知。如田夫下種已，比知有如是果生，彼亦如是。有說：若爾，願智應是比量智，非現量智。應作是說：此願智不待觀因而能知果，是故此智是現量智，非比量智。」

On "The Vibhāṣā masters […] like the class of farmers": The Vibhāṣā masters had some who said: Knowledge resulting from resolve cannot directly know the formless realm; by observing the distinct signs of tranquility in the causal practices of those about to enter the formless realm, it can inferentially know the results of the formless realm. By observing the mind of someone newly emerged from the formless realm, because the out-flowing result is distinct and still tranquil—being similar to that formless mind, it is called an out-flowing [result]—it can inferentially know the preceding formless cause. Just as farmers, seeing a sprout, know the seed, and seeing the seed, know the sprout. This is not the orthodox position; one should say: it directly knows the formless realm. Thus the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, fascicle 179, states: "Question: How does knowledge resulting from resolve know the formless realm? Some say: By observing the out-flowing [result] and the distinct practices, just as observing a person walking on a road allows one to know where they came from and where they are going. Some say: If so, knowledge resulting from resolve would be inferential knowledge (anumāna), not direct perceptual knowledge (pratyakṣa). One should say: This knowledge resulting from resolve does not observe the cause to know the result, nor does it observe the result to know the cause; therefore this wisdom is direct perceptual knowledge, not inferential knowledge." Furthermore, the *Mahāvibhāṣā* states: "Question: What is the difference between the knowledge of remembering past abodes and knowledge resulting from resolve that takes the past as object? Furthermore, the knowledge of remembering past abodes knows the five defiled aggregates, whereas this knowledge resulting from resolve knows both defiled and undefiled aggregates. Furthermore, the knowledge of remembering past abodes knows the five aggregates of the desire and form realms, whereas this knowledge resulting from resolve knows the aggregates of the three realms and those unbonded [by the realms]. Furthermore, the knowledge of remembering past abodes knows the common characteristics of the aggregates, whereas this knowledge resulting from resolve knows both the particular characteristics and the common characteristics of the aggregates." It also states: "Question: What is the difference between the knowledge of others' minds and knowledge resulting from resolve that takes the present as object? Furthermore, the knowledge of others' minds takes a single entity as its object, whereas this knowledge resulting from resolve takes a single entity or multiple entities as its object. Furthermore, the knowledge of others' minds takes particular characteristics as its object, whereas this knowledge resulting from resolve takes both particular and common characteristics as its object. Furthermore, the knowledge of others' minds takes the continuity of others as its object, whereas this knowledge resulting from resolve takes the continuity of oneself and others as its object. Furthermore, the knowledge of others' minds takes the mind and mental factors as its object, whereas this knowledge resulting from resolve takes the five aggregates as its object." It also states: "Question: How can knowledge resulting from resolve know the future? Some say: It inferentially knows it by means of the past and present. Just as a farmer, having planted a seed, inferentially knows that such a fruit will arise, so it is here. Some say: If so, knowledge resulting from resolve would be inferential knowledge, not direct perceptual knowledge. One should say: This knowledge resulting from resolve does not depend on observing the cause to know the fruit; therefore, this wisdom is direct perceptual knowledge, not inferential knowledge."