俱舍論疏 14.139

14.139

論「若謂前生至不具有八支等」，破轉計也。正見等若三摩地等，不可即此正見等為道等體，即用此正見為道等支。亦不可說前生正見等，與後生正見等為支，最初念時應無八支故。《正理》救云「經主於此謬作是責，不可正見等即正見等支。若謂前生正見等為後生正見等支，則初剎那聖道等應不具有八支等。非《毘婆沙》說正見等其體即是正見等支，亦非前生正見等為後生正見等支，然於俱生正見等八，唯一正見有能尋求諸法相力說名為道。以能尋求是道義故，即此正見復能隨順正思惟等，故名為支。所餘七支望俱生法能隨順故說名為支，非能尋求不名為道。實義如是。若就假名，餘七皆能長養正見，故思惟等亦得道名。見名道支亦不違理。由此類釋齋戒八支，經主於中何憑說過？」俱舍師破云。若就實義，正見但應言是道，是正思惟等支，不應言亦道支。既言亦道支，還望於道。若就假名，餘支亦應名道，何故但言是道支？

The commentary states: "If it is claimed that what arose before [...] would not completely possess the eight factors and so forth", refuting the shifted assertion. If right view and so forth are samādhi and so forth, it is impossible for this very right view and so forth to be the entity of the path and so forth, while simultaneously using this right view as a factor of the path and so forth. Nor can it be said that a previously arisen right view and so forth serve as factors for a subsequently arisen right view and so forth, because at the very first moment, there would be no eight factors. The Nyāyānusāra defends this, saying: "The author of the sūtra-commentary erroneously levels this censure: that right view and so forth cannot be themselves the factors of right view and so forth; and that if it is claimed that previously arisen right view and so forth are factors for subsequently arisen right view and so forth, then at the first instant the noble path and so forth would not completely possess the eight factors. The Vibhāṣā did not state that the entity of right view and so forth is itself the factor of right view and so forth, nor that previously arisen right view and so forth serve as factors for subsequently arisen right view and so forth. Rather, among the eight co-arising factors such as right view, right view alone has the power to investigate the characteristics of phenomena and is thus called the path. Because investigation is the meaning of path, this very right view can furthermore accord with right thought and so forth, and is therefore called a factor. The remaining seven factors, because they accord with the co-arising dharmas, are called factors; because they cannot investigate, they are not called the path. Such is the real meaning. If in terms of conventional designations, the remaining seven can all nurture right view, so thought and so forth also obtain the name path. Right view being named a factor of the path is also not contrary to reason. Explaining the eight factors of the upavāsa precepts by analogy to this, on what basis does the author of the sūtra-commentary pronounce a fault?" The Kośa master refutes this, saying: If in terms of real meaning, right view should only be said to be the path and a factor of right thought and so forth; it should not be said to also be a factor of the path. Since it is said to also be a factor of the path, it still refers back to the path. If in terms of conventional designation, the other factors should also be named the path; why are they only said to be factors of the path?