俱舍論記 7.123

7.123

「於欲界中至以明利故」者，此即第三明四慧入出聖道。欲界散地，故無修慧。色界無思，如文可解。無色無思，如色界釋。彼無耳聞，故無聞慧。總而言之，於此八中五入、六出。問：如《婆沙》十一云「欲界有三作意，謂聞、思、生得。色界有三，謂聞、修、生得。無色界有二，謂修、生得。欲界思入三出，色界修入二出，無色界修入修出。彼論何故不說欲、色界聞慧能入聖道？解云：《婆沙》據鈍根者說，此論等通約利根者說。又解：《婆沙》約初修次第起者說，此論等通約純熟位說，故不相違。

Regarding the passage from "In the desire realm" up to "because it is sharp and lucid": this is the third [section], explaining entering and emerging from the noble path through the four wisdoms. The desire realm is a distracted stage, so it has no wisdom arisen from cultivation. The form realm has no [wisdom arisen from] reflection, which can be understood from the text. The formless realm has no reflection, explained in the same way as for the form realm. In that realm there is no hearing with ears, so it has no wisdom arisen from hearing. To summarize: among these eight, five enter and six emerge. Question: As the *Vibhāṣā* (fascicle 11) states: "The desire realm has three mental applications: hearing, reflection, and that which is inborn. The form realm has three: hearing, cultivation, and that which is inborn. The formless realm has two: cultivation and that which is inborn. In the desire realm, one enters through reflection and emerges through three; in the form realm, one enters through cultivation and emerges through two; in the formless realm, one enters through cultivation and emerges through cultivation." Why does that treatise not say that wisdom arisen from hearing in the desire and form realms can enter the noble path? The explanation is: the *Vibhāṣā* speaks based on those of dull faculties, whereas this treatise and others speak generally in terms of those of sharp faculties. Alternatively: the *Vibhāṣā* speaks in terms of those beginning practice who arise them in sequence, whereas this treatise and others speak generally in terms of the fully ripened stage; hence they do not contradict each other.