[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821) › 4.180 # 俱舍論記 4.180 俱舍論記 4.180 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.180](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4.180) 「論曰至與此相違」者，就長行中，初正釋頌，後廣問答。此下釋頌，即釋上兩句。得、獲、成就，義雖是一，而依異門說差別名，故於此文總言一得，於中義別立獲、成就。謂若有法，從來未得及得已失，俱今初得。此法上得，創至生相將成就時名獲，若流至現得已不失名成就。獲時不名成就，成就時不名獲。設有文言得至生相名成就者，於彼獲中說成就故。設有文言得至現在名為獲者，於成就中說彼獲故。如是名為獲、成就別應知。若於彼法有獲定有成就，得至生相，決定流入現在世故。自有於法有成就無獲，如非想見惑，無始來成無初得故。問：於成位中，得至生相為名獲？為名成就？解云：非初得故不名獲，未至現在不名成就，但可說言前後俱得。古德皆云：成通新、舊，獲據新論。是獲皆成，有成非獲者。不然，辨二差別如前具說。前文言得、後文言獲，名異義同，應知非得與此相違者。謂若有法，先未曾失及重得已，但今初失，此法非得創至生相，將不成時說名不獲，若流至現在名不成就。不獲時未名不成就，不成就時不名不獲。設有文言非得至生相名不成就者，於不獲中說不成就。設有文言非得至現在名不獲者，於不成就中說不獲故。應知若於彼法說有不獲定有不成就，非得至生相決定流入現在世故。自有於彼法有不成就無不獲，如無生智，以於彼智無初非得故。問：於不成位，非得至生相，為名不獲？為名不成就？解云：非是初非得，故不名不獲。未至現在故，不名不成就。但可說言前後非得。應知此中獲與不獲，據得、非得初至生相。成與不成，據得、非得流至現在相續已去。又《正理》十二釋此四種差別云「得有二種，謂先未得及先已得，先未得得說名為獲，先已得得說名成就。應知非得與此相違，謂先未得及得已失，未得非得說名不獲，已失非得名不成就。故說異生性名不獲聖法。」解云：《正理論》意，但據從來未得，今時創得名獲，即未得法上非得名不獲。若已曾得，設令因退今時重得，但名成就，以重得故，即用已失法上非得名不成就。《正理》若作斯解，而得捨、成就不成就四句相違。或可得、獲、成就本唯一物，隨作論者寬狹，異門莊嚴於義，不可皆使例同。 > Regarding "The commentary says: \[...\] contrary to this": In the prose, first it directly explains the verse, and later extensively presents questions and answers. From here downward it explains the verse, namely explaining the upper two lines. Although acquisition (prāpti), attainment (lābha), and possession (samanvāgama) are identical in meaning, distinct names are spoken on the basis of different perspectives; therefore, in this text, it speaks collectively of a single 'acquisition,' within which attainment and possession are established based on distinct meanings. That is, if there is a factor that was never acquired before or that was lost after being acquired, and is now acquired for the first time in both cases: when the acquisition upon this factor newly reaches the phase of arising (jāti-lakṣaṇa) and is about to be possessed, it is called 'attainment'; when it flows into the present, having been acquired and not lost, it is called 'possession.' At the time of attainment, it is not yet called possession; at the time of possession, it is not called attainment. If there is a text stating that acquisition reaching the phase of arising is called possession, it is speaking of possession in the sense of that attainment. If there is a text stating that acquisition reaching the present is called attainment, it is speaking of that attainment in the sense of possession. One should know that such is the distinction between attainment and possession. If for that factor there is attainment, there is definitely possession, because acquisition reaching the phase of arising definitely flows into the present time. There are naturally instances where regarding a factor there is possession but no attainment, as with the afflictions abandoned by seeing in the stage of neither-perception-nor-non-perception (naivasaṃjñānāsaṃjñāyatana), which have been possessed from beginningless time without an initial acquisition. Question: "During the state of possession, if an acquisition reaches the phase of arising, is it called attainment or called possession?" The explanation: "Because it is not an initial acquisition, it is not called attainment; because it has not reached the present, it is not called possession; one can only say that acquisition occurs both before and after." Ancient masters all said: "Possession applies to both new and old; attainment is based on what is new. Whatever is attainment is possession; there are possessions that are not attainments." This is not so; the distinction between the two has been fully explained as above. The earlier text says 'acquisition' and the later text says 'attainment'—the names differ but the meaning is the same; one should know that non-acquisition is contrary to this. That is, if there is a factor that was never previously lost, or having been re-acquired is now lost for the first time: when the non-acquisition of this factor newly reaches the phase of arising and is about to be unpossessed, it is called 'non-attainment'; when it flows into the present, it is called 'non-possession.' At the time of non-attainment, it is not yet called non-possession; at the time of non-possession, it is not called non-attainment. If there is a text stating that non-acquisition reaching the phase of arising is called non-possession, it speaks of non-possession in the sense of non-attainment. If there is a text stating that non-acquisition reaching the present is called non-attainment, it speaks of non-attainment in the sense of non-possession. One should know that if for that factor it is said there is non-attainment, there is definitely non-possession, because non-acquisition reaching the phase of arising definitely flows into the present time. There are naturally instances where regarding that factor there is non-possession but no non-attainment, as with the knowledge of non-arising (anutpāda-jñāna), because for that knowledge there is no initial non-acquisition. Question: "During the state of non-possession, when non-acquisition reaches the phase of arising, is it called non-attainment or called non-possession?" The explanation: "Because it is not an initial non-acquisition, it is not called non-attainment. Because it has not reached the present, it is not called non-possession. One can only say that non-acquisition occurs both before and after. One should know that here attainment and non-attainment are based on acquisition and non-acquisition newly reaching the phase of arising; possession and non-possession are based on acquisition and non-acquisition having flowed into the present in continuum onward." Furthermore, Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 12, explains the distinction among these four: "Acquisition is of two kinds: namely, what was not previously acquired and what was previously acquired. The acquisition of what was not previously acquired is called attainment; the acquisition of what was previously acquired is called possession. One should know that non-acquisition is contrary to this: namely, what was not previously acquired and what has been lost after being acquired. The non-acquisition of what was not acquired is called non-attainment; the non-acquisition of what has been lost is called non-possession. Therefore it is said that the nature of being an ordinary person is called non-attainment of the noble factors." The explanation: "The intent of the Nyāyānusāra is simply based on: being acquired newly now having never been acquired before is called attainment, and non-acquisition upon a factor not yet acquired is called non-attainment. If it was already previously acquired, even if re-acquired now due to falling away, it is only called possession because it is re-acquired; and the non-acquisition upon a factor already lost is called non-possession. If the Nyāyānusāra adopts this interpretation, then the four positions between acquisition/relinquishment and possession/non-possession would conflict. Or perhaps acquisition, attainment, and possession were fundamentally one single entity, and depending on whether the treatise authors were broad or narrow, they adorned the meaning through different formulations, which cannot all be made identical by analogy." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.179](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4.179) - [Next: 4.181](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4.181) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821~en-mt.4.180) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (5) - [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.4.189) — Classical Chinese - [成唯識論演祕](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.2.366) — Classical Chinese - [俱舍論頌疏論本](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1823.4.74) — Classical Chinese - [阿毘達磨順正理論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.abhidharma.abhidharmakosa!nyayanusara*zh-xuanzang.12.8) — Classical Chinese - [阿毘達磨藏顯宗論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.abhidharma.abhidharmakosa!abhidharmakosasastrakarikabhasya*zh-xuanzang.6.24) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4.180](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.4.180) · Pramāṇa