俱舍論記 6.81

6.81

「又諸已生至為同類因」者，約三道明等、勝為因。見道為三因，修道為二因，無學道為一因。若依《正理論》意，三道展轉為因。如前生鈍修道，亦與未來不生利見道為同類因。前生鈍無學道，亦與未來不生利見、修道為同類因。或從無學退至學位轉根，亦與已起利修道為因。言與三、二、一為同類因者，且據現起次第而說。問：此論為同彼不？解云：同。又解：論意各別。論既言見道與三為因、修道與二為因、無學道與一為因，明知後道非前道因。若為前因，何故不說？

"Regarding 'Furthermore, all that have already arisen... serve as sabhāga-hetu':" this explains that the equal and the superior serve as cause in terms of the three paths. The path of seeing serves as a cause for three; the path of cultivation serves as a cause for two; the path of the non-learner serves as a cause for one. If one follows the intention of the Nyāyānusāra-śāstra, the three paths mutually serve as cause. For instance, a dull path of cultivation arisen previously also serves as a sabhāga-hetu for a sharp path of seeing that will not arise in the future. A dull path of the non-learner arisen previously also serves as a sabhāga-hetu for sharp paths of seeing and cultivation that will not arise in the future. Or, when falling away from the state of non-learning to the stage of learning and transforming the faculties, it also serves as a cause for an already-arisen sharp path of cultivation. The statement that they serve as a sabhāga-hetu for three, two, and one is made merely with reference to the order of manifest arising. Question: Does this treatise agree with that one or not? The explanation states: It agrees. Another explanation states: The intentions of the treatises are distinct. Since this treatise states that the path of seeing serves as cause for three, the path of cultivation serves as cause for two, and the path of the non-learner serves as cause for one, one clearly knows that a subsequent path is not a cause for a preceding path. If it were a cause for a preceding one, why would it not state so?