俱舍論記 7.119

7.119

「若爾有依至加行道故」者，論主破第三師唯共相出。未至等三近故，容起欲界共相。問：《婆沙》十一還難此師，何故但言未至一地不言三耶？解云：俱舍師應言唯依未至，而言三地者，且縱許三，此即以三同一。若作此解，非但順《婆沙》，亦順羅漢出心唯依未至起欲界心。問：如《婆沙》七十二，第一說：欲界與未至定無間相生。第二說：欲界與未至、初定無間相生。第三說：欲界與未至、初定、中間定無間相生。第四說：欲界與未至、初定、中間定及二定無間相生。雖有四說，《婆沙》評家取第二師。若言但依未至定出見道，及依未至出無學心無間能生欲界心者，即與《婆沙》評家相違。解云：見道、無學道初出異地心難故，所以但依未至能起欲心，隣次起故。若依餘位，依初靜慮亦能無間起欲界心。故與評家亦不相違。又解：以三同一，如前解。然是《婆沙》四說之中第一師義，非是評家。問：《婆沙》評家以二地心入欲界心者為正。何故出見道心中，即以未至一地為難？解云：《婆沙》正義，實二地為正。言未至者，且以餘師為難。《俱舍》非以《婆沙》評家為量，不須會釋。又解：《婆沙》應言依未至等三地，但言未至，舉初顯後。此即以一同三，是《婆沙》四說之中第三師義。問：何故《俱舍》出見道心，即言未至等三地能生欲心；出無學心，但言未至能生欲心？解云：見道出心猛利故，三地心能入欲界。無學出心以止息故故唯未至能入欲心。問：若《婆沙》評家以二地心生欲心者為正，何故出見道心中即以三地不生義為難？解云：《婆沙》正義實二地為正。言三地者，且以餘師為難。又解：一地、三地論意各別。一地當《婆沙》第一師，三地當《婆沙》第三師。問答釋妨，如前可知。若依第二、第三、第四，遠故非能起欲共相。如是共相作意，若是定地，即是決擇分收。得聖果已，無容起彼決擇分善。若非定地，欲界所收。依二定等既不能起欲界共相，理即起餘二種作意。雖於彼地過去曾修共相作意殊勝善根，經生捨故今生起者，決擇分收。問：於彼地中何不能成煖前諸位共相作意？解云：今生入聖，此身唯起煖等入聖，不起前位共相作意。設有起者，加行攝故，亦不能起。

As for "If so, there are those who rely … because it is the path of applied preparation": the treatise master refutes the third master's [view that] one emerges solely by [attention to] common characteristics. Because the three levels, such as the threshold concentration, are close, it is permissible to arise [attention to] the common characteristics of the desire realm. Question: Mahāvibhāṣā 11 also challenges this master; why does it speak only of the single level of the threshold, and not of the three? The explanation is: The master of the Kośa should say "relying solely on the threshold"; but saying "three levels" is provisionally conceding three, which is treating the three as identical to the one. If one makes this explanation, it not only accords with the Mahāvibhāṣā, but also accords with the emerging mind of an arhat, which relies solely on the threshold to arise the mind of the desire realm. Question: As in Mahāvibhāṣā 72: The first theory is that the desire realm and the threshold concentration arise immediately following each other. The second theory is that the desire realm arises immediately following the threshold and the first absorption. The third theory is that the desire realm arises immediately following the threshold, the first absorption, and the intermediate absorption. The fourth theory is that the desire realm arises immediately following the threshold, the first absorption, the intermediate absorption, and the second absorption. Although there are four theories, the evaluator of the Mahāvibhāṣā adopts the second master. If one says that emerging from the path of seeing relies solely on the threshold concentration, and emerging from the mind of an aśaikṣa relying on the threshold is immediately able to produce the mind of the desire realm, then it contradicts the evaluator of the Mahāvibhāṣā. The explanation is: Because it is difficult for the initial emerging mind of the path of seeing and the path of the aśaikṣa to be a mind of a different level, one can only arise the desire mind by relying on the threshold, because it arises adjacently. If relying on other stages, one can also arise the desire-realm mind immediately following the first dhyāna. Therefore it does not contradict the evaluator either. Another explanation: Treating the three as identical to the one is as explained previously; however, it is the doctrine of the first master among the four theories of the Mahāvibhāṣā, not the evaluator. Question: The evaluator of the Mahāvibhāṣā regards entering the desire-realm mind from minds of two levels as correct. Why, in the mind emerging from the path of seeing, does it raise a challenge with only the single level of the threshold? The explanation is: The correct doctrine of the Mahāvibhāṣā indeed takes the two levels as correct; mentioning the threshold is provisionally raising a challenge according to another master. The Kośa does not take the evaluator of the Mahāvibhāṣā as its standard, so no harmonization is required. Another explanation: The Mahāvibhāṣā should say "relying on three levels such as the threshold"; mentioning only the threshold adduces the first to indicate the subsequent. This is taking the one as identical to the three, which is the doctrine of the third master among the four theories of the Mahāvibhāṣā. Question: Why is it that when the Kośa describes emerging from the path of seeing, it says three levels such as the threshold can produce the desire mind, but when describing emerging from the mind of an aśaikṣa, it says only the threshold can produce the desire mind? The explanation is: Because the emerging mind of the path of seeing is sharp and fierce, minds of three levels can enter the desire realm; because the emerging mind of the aśaikṣa is settled and calm, only the threshold can enter the desire mind. Question: If the evaluator of the Mahāvibhāṣā takes producing the desire mind from minds of two levels as correct, why, in the mind emerging from the path of seeing, does it raise a challenge with the doctrine that three levels do not produce it? The explanation is: The correct doctrine of the Mahāvibhāṣā indeed takes two levels as correct; mentioning three levels is provisionally raising a challenge according to another master. Another explanation: The one level and the three levels represent distinct intents of treatises: the one level corresponds to the first master of the Mahāvibhāṣā, and the three levels correspond to the third master of the Mahāvibhāṣā. The questions, answers, and resolutions of difficulties are understandable as before. If one relies on the second, third, or fourth, because they are distant, one cannot arise the common characteristics of desire. If such attention to common characteristics belongs to a concentrated level, then it is subsumed under the aids to penetration (nirvedhabhāgīya). Having already attained the noble fruit, it is impossible to arise those good [roots of] the aids to penetration. If it does not belong to a concentrated level, it is subsumed under the desire realm. Since relying on the second dhyāna and so forth one cannot arise the common characteristics of the desire realm, in principle one arises the other two kinds of attention. Although in that level one previously cultivated the superior good roots of attention to common characteristics in the past, having abandoned them through rebirth, that which arises in this life is subsumed under the aids to penetration. Question: In that level, why can one not accomplish the attentions to common characteristics of the stages prior to Heat? The explanation is: Entering the noble state in this life, this body arises only Heat and so forth to enter the noble state, and does not arise the attention to common characteristics of previous stages. Even if one were to arise them, being subsumed under applied preparation, they could not arise either.