俱舍論記 6.79

6.79

「定依有漏至由同類故」者，答。前言自地定依有漏。若無漏道九地展轉相望為因，欲界無定、有頂昧劣，皆不能發無漏聖道，故唯依九。問：若九地聖道展轉為因者，何故《正理》十六云「於依自、上有，於依下地無。」彼論說九地各能修九地聖道，隨其所應，與依自地所修、與依上地所修者為同類因，故言於依自、上有。上地所修者，不與依下地所修者為同類因，故言於依下地無。如依未至定所修九地聖道，與依九地所修八十一種聖道為同類因。如是乃至依無所有處所修九地聖道，唯與依無所有處所修九種聖道為同類因。准《正理》文，依上所修者非與依下地所修者為同類因，如何乃言九地聖道展轉為因？解云：言九地聖道展轉為因，據依一地能修九地聖道。由同一地修故，所以展轉相望為同類因，非據通依九地所修聖道展轉皆得為因。言九地者，未是盡理之言。若言盡理，豈得依上地利道與依下地鈍道為因？准正理師意，雖等是同姓同品，依上地者勝、依下地者劣，故依上地者不與依下地者為因，與依自、上地者為因。若依德光論師解，九地各能修九地聖道，九九八十一種聖道展轉相望皆得為因。此亦據同性同品應依九地修者說，故得展轉為因。問：如他心智依下地起者不知上地心，如何九地展轉為因？解云：緣境義別、為因義別，不可為難。上來雖有兩解不同，於此論文竝無違害。又解：《正理》且據一相漸次進修諸地勝法，故言上非下因，以實而言亦同德光。

"Regarding '[The statement that it] definitively relies [on its own level] refers to the sāsrava... because they are of the same class':" this is the answer. Previously it was said that [the reliance on] one's own level definitively refers to the sāsrava. If the anāsrava path is mutually a cause among the nine levels, [one might ask why only nine levels are mentioned]; the desire realm lacks meditative absorption (dhyāna/samādhi), and the Peak of Existence is dim and weak, so neither can produce the anāsrava noble path, and therefore it relies only on nine [levels]. Question: If the noble path of the nine levels serves mutually as cause, why does the Nyāyānusāra, fascicle 16, state: "It exists for what relies on its own and higher [levels], but does not exist for what relies on lower levels"? That treatise states that each of the nine levels can cultivate the noble path of the nine levels; according to what is appropriate, it serves as a sabhāga-hetu for what is cultivated relying on its own level and for what is cultivated relying on higher levels, hence it says "it exists for what relies on its own and higher [levels]". What is cultivated by a higher level does not serve as a sabhāga-hetu for what is cultivated relying on a lower level, hence it says "it does not exist for what relies on lower levels". For example, the noble path of the nine levels cultivated relying on the anāgamya serves as a sabhāga-hetu for eighty-one kinds of noble paths cultivated relying on the nine levels. In this manner, up to the noble path of the nine levels cultivated relying on the stage of nothingness (ākiṃcanyāyatana) serves as a sabhāga-hetu only for the nine kinds of noble paths cultivated relying on the stage of nothingness. According to the text of the Nyāyānusāra, what is cultivated relying on a higher [level] does not serve as a sabhāga-hetu for what is cultivated relying on a lower level; how then can it be said that the noble paths of the nine levels mutually serve as cause? The explanation states: Saying that the noble paths of the nine levels mutually serve as cause is based on [one person] who, relying on one single level, can cultivate the noble path of the nine levels. Because they are cultivated by the same level, they mutually serve as sabhāga-hetu, not based on the noble paths cultivated commonly relying on all nine levels being able mutually to serve as cause in all cases. The statement "nine levels" is not yet an exhaustive explanation. If it were exhaustive, how could a sharp path relying on a higher level serve as a cause for a dull path relying on a lower level? According to the intention of the Nyāyānusāra master, although they are equally of the same nature and same grade, what relies on a higher level is superior and what relies on a lower level is inferior; therefore what relies on a higher level does not serve as a cause for what relies on a lower level, but serves as a cause for what relies on its own and higher levels. If one relies on Master Guṇaprabha's explanation, each of the nine levels can cultivate the noble path of the nine levels, and the nine times nine, or eighty-one kinds of noble paths, all mutually can serve as cause. This is also stated based on [factors of] the same nature and same grade that should be cultivated relying on the nine levels, so that they can mutually serve as cause. Question: Just as the knowledge of others' minds (paracitta-jñāna) arisen relying on a lower level does not know the mind of a higher level, how can the nine levels mutually serve as cause? The explanation states: The meaning of taking an object (ālambana) is different from the meaning of serving as a cause; this cannot be raised as an objection. Although the two explanations above differ, neither conflicts with this text of the treatise. Another explanation says: The Nyāyānusāra temporarily relies on a single aspect—gradually advancing and cultivating the superior dharmas of the various levels—hence it says the higher is not a cause of the lower; but speaking in truth, it also accords with Guṇaprabha.