俱舍論記 4.246

4.246

「不要須說至食水食風」者，通。不要須說純言，此不獲聖法一句，文中含純義故。如說魚類食水、龜類食風，雖無純言，而亦知彼純食水、風。有說：不獲至彼非得故者，第二師解。謂不獲苦法智忍及俱生法，名異生性。不可難我：言道類智得果時，捨此向中苦法忍故，彼忍非得還起，應成非聖。前苦法忍時，已永害彼異生性非得故。應知苦忍非得有二：一依凡身，非與無漏得俱行故，是異生性。故見道已前苦忍非得，依凡身故名異生性。二依聖身，與無漏得俱行故，但名非得，不名異生。道類智時雖有苦忍非得，以依聖身，不名異生。又《婆沙》四十五云「有作是說：不得苦法智忍是異生性。問：若爾，道類智已生、捨苦法智忍，爾時苦法智忍非得，應是異生性，是則住修道、無學道者亦應名異生。答：苦法智忍生時，害彼非得，令於自相續永不復生。故住修道、無學道者，於苦法智忍雖不成就，而不名不得亦不名得。如眼根生時，害彼非得，令於自相續永不復生。眼根滅已雖不成就，而不名不得亦不名得。此亦如是，故無前過。復次道類智已生，苦法智忍雖不成就，而成就彼等流果故，不名異生。」

"It is not necessary to state... feed on water or feed on wind": this resolves the objection. It is not necessary to state the word 'purely', because the single phrase 'non-acquisition of noble dharmas' implicitly contains the meaning of 'purely'. Just as when it is said that 'fish feed on water and turtles feed on wind', although there is no word 'purely', one still knows that they feed purely on water or wind. 'Some say: non-acquisition... because of the non-possession of that' presents the second master's explanation. This means that the non-acquisition of the receptivity to the cognition of the doctrine of suffering (duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti) and the dharmas co-arising with it is called ordinary-being-nature (pṛthagjanatva). One cannot object to me: 'When one attains the fruit at the moment of the subsequent cognition of the doctrine regarding the path (mārga-anvadharma-jñāna), because one abandons this receptivity to the doctrine of suffering of the path-entry, non-possession of that receptivity arises again, so one should become a non-noble.' For earlier, at the moment of the receptivity to the doctrine of suffering, that non-possession which is ordinary-being-nature was already eternally destroyed. One should know that the non-possession of the receptivity to suffering is of two kinds: First, that which is based on an ordinary body; because it does not operate together with uncontaminated possession, it is ordinary-being-nature. Therefore, prior to the path of seeing, the non-possession of the receptivity to suffering is called ordinary-being-nature because it is based on an ordinary body. Second, that which is based on a noble body; because it operates together with uncontaminated possession, it is merely called non-possession, not ordinary-being[-nature]. At the time of the subsequent cognition of the doctrine regarding the path, although there is non-possession of the receptivity to suffering, because it is based on a noble body, it is not called ordinary-being[-nature]. Furthermore, Mahāvibhāṣā 45 states: 'Some say: Non-acquisition of the receptivity to the cognition of the doctrine of suffering is ordinary-being-nature. Question: If so, when the subsequent cognition of the doctrine regarding the path has already arisen and one abandons the receptivity to the cognition of the doctrine of suffering, at that time the non-possession of the receptivity to the cognition of the doctrine of suffering should be ordinary-being-nature, and consequently those abiding in the path of cultivation (bhāvanā-mārga) and the path of the adept (aśaikṣa-mārga) should also be called ordinary beings. Answer: When the receptivity to the cognition of the doctrine of suffering arises, it destroys that non-possession, causing it never to arise again in one's continuum. Therefore, although those abiding in the path of cultivation and the path of the adept do not achieve the receptivity to the cognition of the doctrine of suffering, it is neither called non-acquisition nor called acquisition. Just as when the eye faculty arises, it destroys its non-possession, causing it never to arise again in one's continuum; and after the eye faculty ceases, although it is not achieved, it is neither called non-acquisition nor called acquisition. This is also like that; hence there is not the aforementioned fault. Furthermore, once the subsequent cognition of the doctrine regarding the path has arisen, although the receptivity to the cognition of the doctrine of suffering is not achieved, because one achieves its concordant fruit (niṣyanda-phala), one is not called an ordinary being.'