[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822) › 1.102 # 俱舍論疏 1.102 俱舍論疏 1.102 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.102](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.102) 三、述違理教者，諸德亦釋，雖云進縛、遠縛及縛，強弱不同，斷有差別；然皆同說由同品等能緣煩惱斷故，同品等所緣諸煩惱等得解脫也。如修斷惑九品互相緣縛，其第九品惑上擇滅。雖斷上八品能緣，不得離繫，以非同部同品，遠故劣故。斷第九品時，以斷同部同品，近故強故，得離繫也。然諸德同為此釋，將希奇當理。然無文暄度，仍違理教。言違理者，且如修惑九品受互相緣，有何別因，煩惱自部自品繫縛自部自品為近為強？自部異品緣縛之時，有何別理名遠名劣？如下品惑緣下品時，有何別因強上八品緣下品時，斷上八品不證無為，斷下品時始得擇滅？若言力同所繫，不得言強，是下品故。若言力勝所繫，不名同品，力勝下品非下品故，如何與下品同耶？故云有力勝上八品。又下品惑合緣兩品時，為如同品強？為如異品劣？不可一品亦強亦劣。又此惑緣縛自他品時，豈有分別縛自品即強、縛他品即劣耶？言違教者，《正理》第六云「阿毘達磨諸大論師依經所說立二種斷故。」准此論文，一切論師其意皆同。一自性斷，謂捨得時名之為斷，由此證得擇滅無為；二所緣斷，由斷最後品惑證得擇滅。今立斷云由同部同品斷及相應斷故得無為者，此非是自性斷，非捨得時得擇滅故；復非所緣斷，非最後品證擇滅故。憑何聖教立此一斷，而違阿毘達磨諸大論師立二斷耶？ > Third, stating how these contradict reason and teaching: The various masters also explain that, although they speak of proximate bondage, distant bondage, and bondage having differences in strength and weakness and variations in severance, they nonetheless all agree in stating that because the defilements of the same grade and so forth capable of taking objects are abandoned, the various defilements and so forth that are objects of the same grade and so forth attain liberation. For instance, the nine grades of defilements abandoned by cultivation mutually bind one another as objects; on analytical cessation upon the ninth grade of defilement, although the defilements of the upper eight grades capable of taking it as object are abandoned, disjunction is not attained, because they are not of the same category and same grade, being distant and inferior. When abandoning the ninth grade, by abandoning the same category and same grade, being proximate and strong, disjunction is attained. Yet the various masters all adopt this explanation, regarding what is merely novel as reasonable. However, it lacks textual basis, relies on arbitrary speculation, and further contradicts reason and teaching. Regarding its contradiction with reason: as the nine grades of cultivation defilements mutually take one another as object, what specific cause makes the binding of a defilement's own category and own grade upon its own category and own grade proximate and strong? And when it binds as an object a different grade within its own category, by what specific principle is it called distant and inferior? For example, when a defilement of an inferior grade takes an inferior grade as object, what specific cause makes it stronger than the upper eight grades taking the inferior grade as object, such that abandoning the upper eight grades does not realize the unconditioned, while only upon abandoning the inferior grade does one attain analytical cessation? If you say its power is equal to what is bound, it cannot be called strong, because it is of an inferior grade. If you say its power surpasses what is bound, it cannot be called of the same grade, for what surpasses the inferior grade in power is not the inferior grade; how could it be the same as the inferior grade? Hence the claim that it has power surpassing the upper eight grades \[is untenable\]. Furthermore, when an inferior-grade defilement takes two grades together as object, is it strong like the same grade, or weak like a different grade? It is impossible for one grade to be both strong and weak. Moreover, when this defilement takes as object and binds its own or another grade, how could there be a distinction whereby its binding of its own grade is strong, while its binding of another grade is weak? Regarding its contradiction with teaching: the sixth fascicle of the Nyāyānusāra states, 'The great Abhidharma masters established two kinds of abandonment in accordance with what is taught in the sūtras.' According to this textual passage, all the masters share the same meaning: first is abandonment in terms of intrinsic nature, meaning that when possession is discarded it is called abandonment, and by this one realizes unconditioned analytical cessation; second is abandonment in terms of the object, where through abandoning the defilements of the final grade one realizes analytical cessation. Now, to establish abandonment by saying that through abandoning the same category, same grade and through abandoning associated \[bondage\] one attains the unconditioned—this is not abandonment in terms of intrinsic nature, because one does not attain analytical cessation when possession is discarded; nor is it abandonment in terms of the object, because it is not through the final grade that one realizes analytical cessation. Relying on which sacred teaching do they establish this \[novel\] abandonment, thereby contradicting the two kinds of abandonment established by the great Abhidharma masters? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.101](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.101) - [Next: 1.103](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.103) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822~en-mt.1.102) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.102](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.1.102) · Pramāṇa