俱舍論疏 15.112

15.112

論「六由善根至所引無表」，第六捨也。諸論皆同。《正理》云「六由依根斷壞故捨。謂起加行斷善、惡時，各捨彼根所引無表，非至斷善得靜慮時方捨處中善、惡無表。以羸劣故，起加行時便捨處中善、惡無表。如何經主於此義中，說第六緣名為斷善？若作是說，斷善加行，亦名斷善為第六緣，是則應言靜慮加行亦名靜慮，便成七緣。靜慮加行中捨惡無表故，應言根者通善、惡根，所說斷言是斷加行，由依根斷為第六緣。此釋頌文，於理無失。」准此論文，六緣皆通善、惡。有人作《俱舍》釋云：理實頌中所說根斷，如《正理》說；而於長行偏言斷善，影顯斷惡。或可論主試後學徒為覺、不覺。此釋不及不釋。於六位中捨於無表，表亦同捨。有善、不善業不發無表，捨即不同。然捨處中不至斷善斷惡根本者，以易捨故，同加行善。又受戒時，於加行位亦合捨彼處中不善，以與受心正相違故。爾時願不造惡，故同受心斷壞捨。別解脫等，與處中戒捨不同者，如應可知。

The Śāstra says: "Sixth, by [severing of] roots of virtue: [abandoning] the non-revelation induced by them." This is the sixth [cause of] abandonment. All treatises agree on this. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Sixth, abandonment occurs through the termination of the basic faculty. That is to say, when generating the preparatory effort to sever the good or evil [faculties], one respectively abandons the non-revelation induced by those faculties; it is not that one abandons the intermediate good or evil non-revelation only when reaching the severance of roots of virtue or attaining dhyāna. Because of their weakness, upon generating the preparatory effort one already abandons the intermediate good and evil non-revelation. Why then did the Author of the Śāstra, regarding this meaning, designate the sixth condition as the severance of roots of virtue? If one says that the preparatory effort of severing roots of virtue is also called severing roots of virtue as the sixth condition, then one should also say that the preparatory effort of dhyāna is also called dhyāna, which would result in seven conditions, because during the preparatory effort of dhyāna evil non-revelation is abandoned. Therefore, it should be said that 'faculties' applies to both good and evil faculties, and the word 'severance' means the severance of preparatory effort; abandonment occurs through the termination of the basic faculty as the sixth condition. This explanation of the verse is logically flawless." According to this treatise text, all six conditions apply to both good and evil. Someone commenting on the Abhidharmakośa said: "In reality, the severance of faculties stated in the verse is as explained in the Nyāyānusāra; yet in the prose commentary, the author specifically spoke of severing roots of virtue in order to implicitly indicate the severance of evil. Or perhaps the author of the treatise was testing later students to see whether they were perceptive or not." This explanation is worse than no explanation at all. When non-revelation is abandoned across these six states, revelation is also abandoned together with it. There are good and unwholesome actions that do not produce non-revelation, whose abandonment is therefore different. However, that abandoning the intermediate does not wait until the root of severing good or severing evil is reached is because it is easily abandoned, identical to preparatory good. Furthermore, when taking precepts, at the stage of preparatory effort one also ought to abandon that intermediate unwholesome karma, because it directly contradicts the mind of undertaking the precepts. At that time one vows not to commit evil, hence it is equivalent to abandonment through the termination of the mind of undertaking. That the prātimokṣa and other vows differ from the intermediate discipline in their abandonment may be understood according to the case.