俱舍論記 3.141

3.141

「若成未知根至及未知根」者，此釋未知根定成十三。成未知根必在欲界，故身及苦亦說定成。舊《俱舍》不說苦根。男、女隨一者，譯家謬矣。問：於見道中，男、女二根隨成一不？若言成者，何故不說？若不成者，如何入聖？古德念法師解云：「於見道中，男、女二根雖定成一，成男不成女、成女不成男，以不定故不說。」復有法師解意同念法師，然引《正理》第九解極多成十九根中證云「言一形者，無有二形及與無形得聖法故。」《正理》既言無有無形入聖，故知男、女定成隨一。諸論說言漸命終位入見道者，據漸捨彼眼等四根，非據男女。復有法師解意亦同念法師，然引《正理》第九證云「若成未知根，定成就十三，謂身、命、意、苦、樂、喜、捨、信等五根及未知根。」漸命終位，傳說深心厭生死，故能入見道。此師意說：漸命終位捨男、女根，自宗古德傳說，深心厭生死故能入見道。《正理》稱傳，顯己不信，故知男、女定隨成一；或漸命終者，據漸捨彼眼等四根，非捨男、女。破第一念法師云：若言男、女於見道中不定故不說者，何故《婆沙》一百五十六云若成就女、男二根，定成就餘根中云「定成過去、未來九，三世二，現在四。過、未九者，謂四受、信等五。三世二者，謂意、一受。現在四者，謂男、女、身、命。餘不定，如前說。西方師云：應說過、未定成十，謂五受、信等五。三世定成一，謂意。受名不定。故迦濕彌羅國諸師言：名雖不定，而數即定，必有一受現在前，故此中說數不說名。」又《婆沙》云「若成就未知當知根，定成就三世七，過去、未來三，未來、現在一，現在二。三世七者，謂意、一受、信等五。過、未三者，謂三受。未、現一者，謂未知當知。現二者，謂身、命。」此中二說如前，餘不定如前說。《婆沙》若成就男、女二根定成就餘根中云「三世二者，謂意、一受。」又成就未知當知根定成就餘根中云「三世七者，謂意、一受、信等五根。」彼論既云三世定成一受，雖名不定，以數定故，標數說之。男、女二根於見道中既隨成一，何故不說？念法師若說男、女二根於見道雖定成一，名以不定故不說者，此是西方師義。若必成一者，迦濕彌羅國義。說數定故應有十四，然說十三，故說非理，良由未見新《婆沙》也。復有法師助念法師救云：受通成三世，雖名不定故說。男、女二根，於見道中雖定成一，以不成三世故不說。難云：身、命亦不成三世，何故即說？彼法師解云：以現在定成故說。又難：男、女二根，見道中亦定成就，何故不說？彼師解云：以名不定故不說。難云：若作此解，還同念法師，是西方師義。破第二師云：若言男、女定成一，應說有十四，約數定故。若約名不定故不說，還同西方師義。《正理》言無有無形得聖法者，此據本性損壞扇搋、半擇、無形者說。或可《正理》言中有失，以此論解極多中不云無形故。此論云「女、男二根隨除一種，以諸聖者無二形故。」破第三師云：不定如前破。《正理》稱傳，自是不信本宗之義，非我過也。撿尋《婆沙論》文，全無傳說之語。或可《正理》敘古相傳，何必不信？既無別破，不可執斯傳字以作指南。今正解云：於見道中，男、女二根或有或無。若有者，隨成就一；若無者，據從下漸捨男、女根說。所以無形能入聖者，漸命終位，深心猛利厭生死故，能入見道。故《婆沙》一百五十解隨信行極少成十三根。十三者，身、命、意、四受、信等五、一無漏根。即離欲染漸命終位入見道者，《婆沙》意說漸命終位捨男女根，無眼等四能入見道。此在不疑，故知漸終意說男、女。或可《婆沙》一無漏根言，顯不成餘二無漏根。離欲染言，顯不成憂。漸命終位入見道言，顯捨男、女及眼等四。以此故知，漸捨男、女能入見道。問：漸捨男、女得入見道，何故此卷初云本性損壞扇搋、半擇及二形人，亦無律儀得果、離染諸清淨法？解云：彼文既不遮漸捨入見道，何妨無形能入見道？彼言不得入者，據本性損壞扇搋、半擇說。問：漸死無形得入聖者，亦可漸死無形得受具戒。解云：得受具戒。如入見道心猛利故。言無根不得戒者，據本性損壞扇搋、半擇說。又解：不得戒，以受戒時先問彼言是男子、女人不？既無有根，故不得戒。入聖不問，故無根得入。又解：戒得、不得，若戒師問已後方捨者得戒，以當問時根未捨故。若戒師未問先已捨者，即不得戒，以正問時無有根故。問：若漸命終雖無根能入見道，亦應無根得不律儀，造無間業、能斷善根。解云：將入見道，必先厭離生死過失，故漸死位得入見道。得不律儀等，非別厭離善法功德，故漸捨位非得不律儀等。又解：漸死既得入聖，厭生死故。何妨漸命終位，心猛利故得不律儀等。而言不得，據本性損壞扇搋、半擇、二形者說。

Regarding 'If one possesses the faculty of understanding what is not yet understood... up to: and the faculty of understanding what is not yet understood': this explains that one who possesses the faculty of understanding what is not yet understood definitely possesses thirteen [faculties]. One who possesses the faculty of understanding what is not yet understood is necessarily in the desire realm; hence, the body and suffering faculties are also stated to be definitely possessed. The old translation of the Kośa did not mention the suffering faculty, and [for] either the male or female [faculty], that was an error of the translator. Question: In the path of seeing, is either of the two faculties, male or female, possessed or not? If one says it is possessed, why is it not mentioned? If it is not possessed, how could one enter noble status? An ancient master of virtue, Dharma Master Nian, explained: 'In the path of seeing, although one of the two faculties—male or female—is definitely possessed, one possesses the male and not the female, or possesses the female and not the male; because it is indefinite, it is not mentioned.' Another Dharma master held a view agreeing with Dharma Master Nian, but cited the ninth [fascicle] of the Nyāyānusāra explaining the maximum possession of nineteen faculties as proof, which says: 'To say "one gender" is because none with both genders or with no gender attains the noble Dharma.' Since the Nyāyānusāra states that none without gender enters noble status, we know that either male or female is definitely possessed. As for treatises stating that one enters the path of seeing in the state of gradual death, this refers to gradually relinquishing the four faculties such as the eye, not to the male or female [faculties]. Yet another Dharma master also held a view agreeing with Dharma Master Nian, but cited the ninth [fascicle] of the Nyāyānusāra as proof: 'If one possesses the faculty of understanding what is not yet understood, one definitely possesses thirteen, namely: body, life, mind, suffering, pleasure, joy, equanimity, the five faculties of faith, etc., and the faculty of understanding what is not yet understood. In the state of gradual death, tradition states that because of a profound repulsion toward saṃsāra, one can enter the path of seeing.' The meaning of this master is: in the state of gradual death one relinquishes the male or female faculty; ancient masters of our own school transmit that because of a profound repulsion toward saṃsāra, one can enter the path of seeing. When the Nyāyānusāra says 'tradition states', it indicates that he himself did not believe it; therefore we know that either male or female is definitely possessed; or, gradual death refers to gradually relinquishing the four faculties such as the eye, not relinquishing the male or female. Refuting the first [opinion], Dharma Master Nian: If one says that male and female are not mentioned because they are indefinite in the path of seeing, why does the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 156, in [the section on] 'If one possesses the female or male faculty, what remaining faculties are definitely possessed?', state: 'Definitely possessing nine in the past and future, two in the three time periods, and four in the present. The nine in past and future are the four sensations and the five of faith, etc. The two in the three time periods are the mind and one sensation. The four in the present are male or female, body, and life. The rest are indefinite, as previously explained. Masters of the West say: One should state that ten are definitely possessed in past and future, namely the five sensations and the five of faith, etc. One is definitely possessed in the three time periods, namely the mind. The designation of sensation is indefinite. Therefore, the masters of the country of Kaśmīra say: Although the designation is indefinite, the number is definite, for there is definitely one sensation present; hence, number is stated here, not designation.' Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā states: 'If one possesses the faculty of understanding what is not yet understood, one definitely possesses seven in the three time periods, three in the past and future, one in future and present, and two in the present. The seven in the three time periods are mind, one sensation, and the five of faith, etc. The three in past and future are three sensations. The one in future and present is the faculty of understanding what is not yet understood. The two in the present are body and life.' The two explanations here are as before, and the remainder is indefinite as previously explained. When the Mahāvibhāṣā, in [the section on] possessing the male or female faculty definitely possessing remaining faculties, says: 'The two in the three time periods are mind and one sensation', and again in possessing the faculty of understanding what is not yet understood definitely possessing remaining faculties, says: 'The seven in the three time periods are mind, one sensation, and the five faculties of faith, etc.', since that treatise states that one sensation is definitely possessed in the three time periods, although the designation is indefinite, because the number is definite, it indicates it by number. Since either of the two faculties, male or female, is possessed in the path of seeing, why is it not mentioned? If Dharma Master Nian says that although one of the two faculties, male or female, is definitely possessed in the path of seeing, it is not mentioned because its designation is indefinite, this is the doctrine of the Western masters. If one is definitely possessed, according to the doctrine of the country of Kaśmīra, because the number is definite, there should be fourteen; yet it states thirteen. Hence his statement is illogical, simply because he had not seen the new Mahāvibhāṣā. Another Dharma master came to the defense of Dharma Master Nian, saying: Sensation applies across the three time periods, so although its designation is indefinite, it is mentioned. Although one of the two faculties, male or female, is definitely possessed in the path of seeing, it is not mentioned because it is not possessed across the three time periods. It is objected: Body and life are also not possessed across the three time periods, so why are they mentioned? That Dharma master explains: Because they are definitely possessed in the present, they are mentioned. It is objected again: The two faculties, male and female, are also definitely possessed in the path of seeing; why are they not mentioned? That master explains: Because their designation is indefinite, they are not mentioned. It is objected: If one makes this explanation, it is still the same as Dharma Master Nian's, which is the doctrine of the Western masters. Refuting the second master: If one says that male or female is definitely one, there should be fourteen, based on the definiteness of number. If one says it is not mentioned because the designation is indefinite, it is still the same as the doctrine of the Western masters. When the Nyāyānusāra states that none without gender attains the noble Dharma, this is spoken with reference to those naturally defective—ṣaṇḍhas, paṇḍakas, and the asexual. Or perhaps there is an error in the wording of the Nyāyānusāra, because in this treatise's explanation of the maximum, it does not mention the asexual. This treatise says: 'Either the female or male faculty is eliminated, because noble ones do not have both genders.' Refuting the third master: The indefiniteness has already been refuted as before. When the Nyāyānusāra says 'tradition states', that is simply his own disbelief in the doctrine of his own school, not our fault. Searching through the text of the Mahāvibhāṣā-śāstra, there is no phrase 'tradition states' whatsoever. Or perhaps the Nyāyānusāra is recounting an ancient transmission; why must it mean disbelief? Since there is no separate refutation, one cannot cling to this word 'tradition' as a guide. Now the correct explanation is: In the path of seeing, the two faculties, male and female, are either present or absent. If present, one or the other is possessed; if absent, this is spoken in reference to gradually relinquishing the male and female faculties from below upward. The reason why one without gender can enter noble status is that in the state of gradual death, because of an intense and profound repulsion toward saṃsāra, one can enter the path of seeing. Hence the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 150, explaining that a follower by faith possesses at minimum thirteen faculties, [says that] the thirteen are: body, life, mind, four sensations, the five of faith, etc., and one untainted faculty. This refers to one who enters the path of seeing in the state of gradual death having departed from desire; the intention of the Mahāvibhāṣā is that having relinquished the male and female faculties in the state of gradual death, and lacking the four such as the eye, one can enter the path of seeing. This is beyond doubt; hence we know that gradual death means [relinquishing] male and female. Or perhaps the Mahāvibhāṣā's words 'one untainted faculty' indicate that one does not possess the other two untainted faculties. The words 'departed from desire' indicate that one does not possess grief. The words 'entering the path of seeing in the state of gradual death' indicate relinquishing male and female as well as the four such as the eye. From this we know that gradually relinquishing male and female, one can enter the path of seeing. Question: If gradually relinquishing male and female allows one to enter the path of seeing, why does the beginning of this fascicle state that those naturally defective—ṣaṇḍhas, paṇḍakas, and persons with both genders—also lack the vows to attain the fruits, detach from defilement, and all pure dharmas? The explanation is: Since that text does not preclude entering the path of seeing upon gradual relinquishment, what prevents one without gender from entering the path of seeing? Its statement that one cannot enter is spoken with reference to those naturally defective—ṣaṇḍhas and paṇḍakas. Question: If one without gender through gradual death can enter noble status, could one without gender through gradual death also receive the full precepts? The explanation is: One may receive the full precepts, because, just as when entering the path of seeing, the mind is intense. The statement that one without faculties does not obtain the precepts is spoken with reference to those naturally defective—ṣaṇḍhas and paṇḍakas. Another explanation is: One does not obtain the precepts, because when receiving the precepts, one is first asked, 'Are you a man or a woman?' Since there is no faculty, one does not obtain the precepts. When entering noble status there is no questioning, so one without faculties can enter. Yet another explanation is: Regarding obtaining or not obtaining the precepts, if one relinquishes it only after the preceptor has asked, one obtains the precepts, because at the time of asking the faculty was not yet relinquished. If one had already relinquished it before the preceptor asked, then one does not obtain the precepts, because at the exact time of questioning there is no faculty. Question: If one without faculties through gradual death can enter the path of seeing, could one without faculties also acquire non-restraint, commit deeds of immediate retribution, and sever the roots of good? The explanation is: When about to enter the path of seeing, one must first be disgusted with the faults of saṃsāra, so in the state of gradual death one can enter the path of seeing. Acquiring non-restraint and the like is not a distinct repulsion toward the merits of good dharmas, so in the state of gradual relinquishment one does not acquire non-restraint, etc. Another explanation is: Since through gradual death one can enter noble status because of repulsion toward saṃsāra, what prevents one in the state of gradual death, because of an intense mind, from acquiring non-restraint, etc.? The statement that one cannot obtain them is spoken with reference to those naturally defective—ṣaṇḍhas, paṇḍakas, and those with both genders.