俱舍論記 7.115

7.115

「作意有三至相應作意」者，此下第三約異門相生。就中，一明三作意入出聖道、二明無學九地出心、三明四慧入出聖道。此下明三作意。就中，一明三作意、二敘異說。此即明三作意。作意用強偏標作意，非無受等。假相觀中勝解亦強，故標勝解。共相作意，理實亦通有漏、無漏。此中既明聖道出入，明三作意皆是有漏。不淨、無量、勝處、遍處唯是假想，解脫之中通其假、實。言有色解脫，標前三解脫唯假想故。無色解脫通於假、實，故言有色。問：如《婆沙》十一明勝解作意中但言解脫，何故不言有色？解云：《婆沙》云解脫者，是解脫中假想解脫，不言解脫皆是假想。或可《婆沙》所云解脫，即是此論有色解脫。問：《婆沙》勝解作意中亦說持息念，此論何故不說？又此論下文說持息念是真實作意，故下論言「有餘師說：息出極遠，乃至風輪或吠嵐婆。此不應理，此念真實作意俱故。」論既不同，如何會釋？解云：持息念有二，一假相謂加行、二真實謂根本。此論據根本，《婆沙》據加行，各據一義竝不相違。又解：論意各別。此論加行根本皆是真實，《婆沙》及此論餘師，加行通假、根本是實。

As for "There are three kinds of attention … the attention associated with [common characteristics]": from here on is the third [part], explaining mutual arising according to distinct perspectives. Within this, first is explaining entering and emerging from the noble path by the three attentions; second is explaining the mind emerging [from absorption] across the nine levels of an aśaikṣa; third is explaining entering and emerging from the noble path by the four wisdoms. From here on the three attentions are explained. Within this, first is explaining the three attentions; second is recounting the different theories. This here explains the three attentions. Because the function of attention is strong, attention is specifically designated, not that sensation and the rest are absent. In contemplation with provisional characteristics, resolute determination (adhimokṣa) is also strong, hence it is designated "resolute determination". The attention to common characteristics, according to actual principle, also extends to sāsrava and anāsrava. Here, since entering and emerging from the noble path are explained, the three attentions are all explained as sāsrava. The foul, the immeasurables, the bases of mastery, and the totalities are solely provisional mental representations; within the liberations, both provisional and real are included. Saying "the material liberations" is because the first three liberations are specifically designated as solely provisional mental representations. Because the formless liberations extend to both provisional and real, it says "material". Question: As Mahāvibhāṣā 11, in explaining attention through resolute determination, only speaks of liberations, why does it not say "material"? The explanation is: What the Mahāvibhāṣā calls liberations are the provisional mental liberations among the liberations; it does not say that all liberations are provisional mental representations. Or perhaps what the Mahāvibhāṣā calls liberations is precisely the material liberations of this treatise. Question: In the Mahāvibhāṣā's attention through resolute determination, mindfulness of breathing is also spoken of; why does this treatise not mention it? Furthermore, a lower passage of this treatise says that mindfulness of breathing is real attention, as a lower treatise says: "Other masters say: The breath goes out extremely far, up to the wind-circle or the vairambha wind. This is not reasonable, because this mindfulness is conjoined with real attention." Since the treatises differ, how are they to be harmonized? The explanation is: Mindfulness of breathing has two aspects: first, provisional representation, meaning applied preparation; second, real, meaning the fundamental. This treatise relies on the fundamental, while the Mahāvibhāṣā relies on the applied preparation; each relying on one meaning, they do not contradict each other. Another explanation: The intents of the treatises are distinct. In this treatise, both the applied preparation and fundamental are real; in the Mahāvibhāṣā and according to the other masters of this treatise, the applied preparation extends to the provisional, while the fundamental is real.