俱舍論疏 14.191

14.191

論「又應唯執至成佛無學法」，重反難也。現見飲食等供養比丘身，歸禮生身佛。若謂生身非僧、佛者，飲食等應供養苾芻戒，歸禮佛應唯歸禮佛無學法，不應歸禮佛生身也。《正理論》云「今詳經主於本論義未甚研尋，能成佛言已遮佛體攝依身故。謂佛名言依佛義立，唯此所目是真佛體。若佛名言就依身立，於未證得無學法時已有依身應亦名佛，故知佛號不目依身。由此依身非能成佛，故本論說能成佛言，已遮依身亦是佛體，已顯佛體唯無學法。乃至毘婆沙者作是釋言：壞彼所，依彼隨壞故。如是釋難，深為應理。」《正理》又云「經主乃至爾時學、無學法不現前故。此難不然，非所許故。謂我不許學、無學法唯現在位方成佛、僧。唯言佛、僧得彼法故，得於諸位曾無間斷，寧住世俗心，便非僧非佛。設許現在方成佛、僧，亦無有過，以許彼得其體亦是學、無學故，得一切時常現前故。經主復言：又應唯執成苾芻戒即是苾芻。是我所宗，豈成過失？以得戒故，假說依身亦名苾芻，與前義等。是故經主於對法宗不善了知所說文義。婆雌子部作如是言：補特伽羅是所歸佛。此非應理。所以者何？彼無差別，不成歸故。謂歸離繫補特伽羅，與歸世尊，有何差別？」准上，經部歸生身，有部歸無學法，婆雌子部歸補特伽羅。

On the passage in the treatise from "Moreover, one ought only to maintain" up to "the aśaikṣa dharmas that constitute the Buddha": reiterating the counter-challenge. It is seen in practice that food and drink and so forth are offered to the physical body of a bhikṣu, and one takes refuge in and pays homage to the physical body of the Buddha. If it is claimed that the physical body is neither the Saṅgha nor the Buddha, then food and drink and so forth ought to be offered to the bhikṣu's vows, and when taking refuge in and paying homage to the Buddha, one should only take refuge in and pay homage to the Buddha's aśaikṣa dharmas, and should not take refuge in or pay homage to the Buddha's physical body. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Now, when examining the matter, the master of the sūtras (Vasubandhu) has not deeply investigated the meaning of the fundamental treatise. The statement 'is able to constitute a Buddha' has already excluded the physical body that serves as a support from being included in the Buddha's essential nature. That is to say, the designation 'Buddha' is established on the basis of the meaning of 'Buddha'; only what is referred to by this is the true Buddha-nature. If the designation 'Buddha' were established with reference to the supporting body, then before realizing the aśaikṣa dharmas, when the supporting body already existed, it should also have been called 'Buddha'. Therefore, we know that the title 'Buddha' does not refer to the supporting body. Because this supporting body is not what is able to constitute a Buddha, when the fundamental treatise states 'is able to constitute a Buddha', it has already excluded the supporting body from also being the Buddha's essential nature, and has already revealed that the Buddha's essential nature consists solely of the aśaikṣa dharmas. […] Up to where the masters of the Vibhāṣā provide this explanation: 'Because that which is supported is destroyed, it is destroyed along with it.' Resolving the objection in this way is profoundly reasonable." The Nyāyānusāra further states: "The master of the sūtras says up to: 'At that time, the śaikṣa and aśaikṣa dharmas are not present.' This objection is incorrect, because it is not what we accept. That is to say, we do not accept that the śaikṣa and aśaikṣa dharmas constitute the Buddha and the Saṅgha only when they are in the present state. We merely say that they are the Buddha and the Saṅgha because they have acquired those dharmas; their acquisition across all states has never been interrupted. Why would their abiding in a conventional mind mean they are neither the Saṅgha nor the Buddha? Even if we were to grant that they constitute the Buddha and the Saṅgha only when present, there would still be no fault, because we maintain that their acquisition is also intrinsically śaikṣa and aśaikṣa, and acquisition is constantly present at all times. The master of the sūtras further states: 'Moreover, one ought only to maintain that the vows constituting a bhikṣu are the bhikṣu.' This is indeed our tenet; how could it constitute a fault? Because of having acquired the vows, the supporting body is metaphorically called a bhikṣu as well, which is equivalent to the previous meaning. Therefore, the master of the sūtras has failed to understand well the words and meanings stated in the tenets of the Abhidharma. The Vātsīputrīyas say: 'The pudgala is the Buddha in whom refuge is taken.' This is unreasonable. Why is that? Because they have no distinction [from the person], taking refuge would not be established. That is, what difference is there between taking refuge in a disjoined pudgala and taking refuge in the World-Honoured One?" According to the above, the Sautrāntikas take refuge in the physical body, the Sarvāstivādins take refuge in the aśaikṣa dharmas, and the Vātsīputrīyas take refuge in the pudgala.