俱舍論記 6.249

6.249

「善同類因至謂除前相」者，別釋善同類因取、與四句。第一句取而非與，謂斷善根時最後剎那所捨得，能為彼種名取，後不續前非與。第二句與而非取，謂續善根時最初所得，過去最後所捨得彼得。今時果至生相，正與彼力名與，由昔已取不名取。論主恐取續時過去諸初得，故今釋言應說爾時續者前得。前得，謂前過去最後所捨得。《正理》十八破云「如何前位多剎那得為同類因皆取今得，而於今時但說最後一剎那得與今得果？是故應如本文為善。」若作俱舍師救：世親論主意說，若法從來未與者，此中說之。過去諸得，雖於續時皆悉與果，以前諸念皆曾與果，俱句攝故，是故不說。最後所捨一剎那得，今續善時最初與果，故偏說之。又續善時，過去餘善亦能與果，何獨說得？既別說得，明知唯取最後一念。又解：論主云應言爾時續者前得。謂前過去所有善得皆名最初所得得，誰言唯取最後所捨得？此所捨得通於三世，非後一切皆能與果，故以前言簡取過去。故《婆沙》十八云「有時與果非取果，謂後續善根時，即住過去所捨善得（已上論文）。」所以偏約得作兩單句不約善根者，將斷善時，善根已不現行。唯有善得現行，故偏說得。第三句亦取亦與，謂不斷善根於所餘諸位，隨其所應，於一身中所有善法能取、與者，名所餘諸位。第四句非取、與，謂除前相。亦隨所應，所有善法非取、與者，皆所收。

"Regarding wholesome homogeneous causes, up to: 'excluding the preceding characteristics'": this specifically explains the four alternatives of grasping and giving [a fruit] regarding wholesome homogeneous causes. The first alternative is grasping and not giving: that is, the possession (prāpti) that is abandoned in the final moment when severing the roots of wholesome [qualities]; being able to act as a seed for that [fruit] is called grasping, and because subsequent [moments] do not continue the preceding ones, it does not give. The second alternative is giving and not grasping: that is, [the possession] first acquired when restoring the roots of wholesome qualities, which is the possession of that [prior] possession abandoned last in the past. Now, when the fruit arrives at the state of arising, its directly imparting capacity to that [fruit] is called giving; since it was already grasped in the past, it is not called grasping. The author of the treatise, fearing that one might mistakenly take all the past initial acquisitions at the time of restoration, therefore now explains that one should say: "the preceding possession of the one who restores at that time." "Preceding possession" means the possession abandoned last in the preceding past. Nyāyānusāra fascicle 18 refutes this, saying: "How could the possessions of multiple moments in the preceding stage, being homogeneous causes, all grasp the present possession, yet in the present moment one only says that the possession of the final single moment gives the fruit of the present possession? Therefore, it is better [to keep it] as in the original text." If one makes a defense on behalf of the Kośa Master: the treatise master Vasubandhu's intention is to say that if a dharma has never previously given [a fruit], it is spoken of here. Although all past possessions give a fruit at the time of restoration, because previous moments all gave fruit previously, they are subsumed under the "both" alternative, and are therefore not mentioned here. The possession of the single moment abandoned last now initially gives fruit when wholesome qualities are restored, and is therefore specifically mentioned. Furthermore, when restoring wholesome qualities, other wholesome [dharmas] of the past can also give fruit; why speak uniquely of possession? Since possession is separately spoken of, one clearly knows that it only takes the final single moment. Another explanation is: the treatise master says one should say, "the preceding possession of the one who restores at that time." That is to say, all wholesome possessions in the preceding past are called the possession first acquired; who said it only takes the possession abandoned last? These abandoned possessions extend across the three times, and not all later ones are able to give fruit; therefore, using the word "preceding" distinguishes and takes the past. Hence the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 18, says: "There are times when it gives a fruit but does not grasp a fruit, namely, when subsequently restoring the roots of wholesome qualities, it is precisely the abandoned wholesome possessions abiding in the past" (end of text quote). As for why the two single alternatives are framed specifically in terms of possession rather than the roots of wholesome qualities themselves: when about to sever the wholesome roots, the wholesome roots themselves are already no longer active; only wholesome possessions are active, hence possession is specifically spoken of. The third alternative is both grasping and giving: that is, when wholesome roots are not severed, in the remaining states, in accordance with what is appropriate, all wholesome dharmas within a single personal continuum that are able to grasp and give are called the remaining states. The fourth alternative is neither grasping nor giving: that is, excluding the preceding characteristics. Likewise, in accordance with what is appropriate, all wholesome dharmas that neither grasp nor give are all subsumed under it.