俱舍論記 9.52

9.52

「論曰至故逆說四」者，釋前三句。若修福智能有正知，不修福智不能正知。若依經次第從劣向勝，三時不知應第一說，餘三次第如此論。順結頌法恐有犯聲，故逆說第一為第四。故《婆沙》一百七十二，說三時不知為第一，餘如此論次第。又解：凡諸頌中作四句法，兩單在初，俱是第三，俱非第四。以三時俱不知義，當俱非句，故逆說第一為第四。又解：依經次第，一三時不知、二三時知、三二時知、四一時知。恐有犯聲，順結頌法故，逆說四種。

[On the passage] 'The commentary says... therefore the four are stated in reverse': explaining the first three lines. If one cultivates merit and wisdom, one is able to possess correct awareness; if one does not cultivate merit and wisdom, one cannot possess correct awareness. If one follows the order of the sūtras proceeding from inferior to superior, being unaware in all three periods should be stated first, while the remaining three would follow the order of this treatise. But to conform with the rules of metrical composition and fearing metrical fault, the first is stated in reverse as the fourth. Therefore the *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 172, states being unaware in all three periods as the first, while the remainder follow the order of this treatise. Another explanation: whenever the fourfold logic (catuṣkoṭi) is applied in verses, the two single ones are at the beginning, both-are is the third, and neither-is is the fourth. Since the meaning of being unaware in all three periods corresponds to the neither-is alternative, the first is stated in reverse as the fourth. Yet another explanation: according to the order of the sūtras, the first is unaware in all three periods, the second is aware in all three periods, the third is aware in two periods, and the fourth is aware in one period. Fearing metrical fault and conforming with the rules of metrical composition, the four kinds are stated in reverse.