俱舍論疏 1.103

1.103

四、通外難者，難曰：若斷染法捨得之時名自性斷非所緣斷者，何故諸論皆言隨所繫事量無為亦爾？又《婆沙》三十一云「諸有漏法無始時來，煩惱所繫不得解脫。若斷煩惱，彼離繫故便得解脫。如人被縛，得解脫時，人名解脫，非謂繩等。」既所繫證得解脫，故外物中亦得解脫。又《雜心》等云「應知從所緣，可令諸惑斷。」准上論文，故知諸惑是所緣斷，然與不染色等不同，故知斷同品時證得擇滅。釋曰：此所引文竝非定證，不分明故。誰能信此不明了文，而違阿毘達磨諸大論師依經所說立二斷耶？詳此三文皆有別意。且如所引「隨繫事量，無為亦爾」者，此明擇滅數量，不明斷證。以《婆沙》異師計擇滅無為同能繫事量故，對法師說如所繫事量；又對正量部立唯一無為，故作是說。非明染污法是所緣斷。諸有漏法無始時來，乃至如人被縛得解脫時，人名解脫，非謂繩等者，此以異師執斷法而於能繫得於解脫，非於所縛外法上得，故作是說，非是不許有自性斷作此說也。應知從所緣可令諸惑斷者，對相應說，非是欲遮自性斷也。

Fourth, resolving external objections: The objection says: If the abandonment of defiled phenomena upon discarding possession is called abandonment in terms of intrinsic nature and not abandonment in terms of the object, why do the various treatises all say that the unconditioned corresponds in measure to the entities bound? Furthermore, the thirty-first fascicle of the Vibhāṣā states: 'From beginningless time, all defiled-and-conditioned phenomena have been bound by defilements and unable to attain liberation. If defilements are abandoned, through disjunction from them they attain liberation. Just as when a person is bound and attains liberation, the person is said to be liberated, not the ropes, etc.' Since what is bound realizes liberation, liberation is therefore also attained among external things. Furthermore, the Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya and so forth say: 'One should know that through [abandoning] the object, defilements can be abandoned.' According to the above texts, we know that defilements are abandoned through the object, yet are not identical to undefiled form and so forth; thus we know that analytical cessation is realized when the same grade is abandoned. Resolution: The texts cited here are none of them definitive proofs, because they are not clear. Who could believe these obscure texts and thereby contradict the two abandonments established by the great Abhidharma masters in accordance with what is taught in the sūtras? Carefully examined, these three texts all have different intentions. Take, for instance, the citation 'the unconditioned corresponds in measure to the entities bound': this clarifies the quantity of analytical cessation, not the realization of abandonment. Because differing masters in the Vibhāṣā posited that unconditioned analytical cessation matches the quantity of the binding agents, the Abhidharmika stated that it corresponds to the quantity of the bound entities; furthermore, this was stated in response to the Sammatīya school positing only a single unconditioned. It does not clarify that defiled phenomena are abandoned through the object. As for 'From beginningless time, all defiled-and-conditioned phenomena... up to: just as when a person is bound and attains liberation, the person is said to be liberated, not the ropes, etc.': this was stated because differing masters held that in abandoning phenomena liberation is attained on the binding agent, not on the bound external phenomenon; it was not stated to reject abandonment in terms of intrinsic nature. As for 'One should know that through [abandoning] the object, defilements can be abandoned': this was spoken in contrast to associated [bondage], not with the intention of precluding abandonment in terms of intrinsic nature.