俱舍論疏 15.97

15.97

論「無漏善法至勝果道故」，明無漏三緣捨。如文可解。道、定共戒與別解脫戒捨不同者，得緣異故。別解脫戒由作法得，有作法捨；由善心得，有斷善捨；依男、女得，二形生捨；依同分得，有命終捨；依時分受，有時分捨。定、道共戒依善心得，如捨定、道，戒亦爾故。《正理論》云「經主於此應說二緣，以得果言，攝練根位必還得果，棄捨鈍果勝果道故。」又云「我於此中應少分別。若捨見道及道類智，當知但由得果非退。若不動法無學俱無，所餘無漏容有具二種。」俱舍師救云：論主別說得果、練根二種捨者，若得果捨，據同類捨，如從預流至一來果，若是鈍根，捨前鈍道得果鈍道；若是利根，捨前利道得果利道。若練根捨，據異類捨，如捨鈍道得利道故。雖轉根位必亦得果，非同類捨，不名得果。論主別說練根捨者，意在於此。如《五事論》亦立三種，故彼論云「問：無漏律儀何緣故得？何緣故捨？答：與道俱得，無全捨者。若隨分捨，則由三緣：一由退故、二由得果故、三由轉根故。」今詳得果即是果異而性同，練根即是果同而性異。練根之時雖得果，果同故名練根；得果之時雖性同，由果異故名得果。《正理》不得此意，故妄彈也。若謂練根亦得果故，不別說練根。六時得無為中，因何得果之外別說練根？二因既別，如何說同？

On the Śāstra's statement, "The undefiled wholesome dharmas... because of the path of a superior fruit": this clarifies the abandonment of the undefiled through three conditions. It is understandable from the text. That the restraints concurring with the path and concentration differ in abandonment from the prātimokṣa restraint is because the conditions of their acquisition differ. The prātimokṣa restraint is acquired through monastic procedure and abandoned through monastic procedure; acquired through a wholesome mind and abandoned through cutting off the roots of goodness; acquired on the basis of being male or female and abandoned upon the arising of both sexual characteristics; acquired on the basis of the generic type (sabhāga) and abandoned at the end of life; received for a specific duration of time and abandoned when that time elapses. The restraints concurring with concentration and the path rely on a wholesome mind; just as one abandons concentration and the path, so it is with the restraint. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "The author of the Śāstra here should have stated two conditions, because the expression 'attainment of a fruit' encompasses the stage of honing one's faculties, which necessarily re-attains a fruit, abandoning a dull fruit for the path of a superior fruit." It further says: "I should make a slight distinction here: if one abandons the path of seeing and the knowledge of the category of the path (mārgānvayajñāna), know that it is solely through attaining a fruit, not through falling away. In the immovable dharma (akopyadharman) of an aśaikṣa, neither exists; the remaining undefiled can possess both kinds." The masters of the Kośa defend this, saying: "That the author of the Śāstra separately mentions the two kinds of abandonment—attaining a fruit and honing faculties—is because abandonment through attaining a fruit is based on abandonment within the same category: as from a stream-enterer to a once-returner, if one is of dull faculties, one abandons the preceding dull path and attains the dull path of the fruit; if one is of sharp faculties, one abandons the preceding sharp path and attains the sharp path of the fruit. Abandonment through honing faculties is based on abandonment between different categories, as in abandoning a dull path to attain a sharp path. Although at the stage of transforming faculties one also necessarily attains a fruit, it is not abandonment within the same category and is not called attaining a fruit. The author of the Śāstra's intention in separately mentioning abandonment through honing faculties lies in this. The *Pañcavastuka* also establishes three kinds; hence that treatise says: 'Question: Through what conditions is the undefiled restraint acquired, and through what conditions is it abandoned? Answer: It is acquired concurrently with the path, and there is no complete abandonment. If abandoned partially, it is through three conditions: first, through falling away; second, through attaining a fruit; third, through transforming faculties.' Now, considering this, attaining a fruit means the fruit differs while the nature remains the same; honing faculties means the fruit remains the same while the nature differs. When honing faculties, although one attains a fruit, because the fruit is the same, it is called honing faculties; when attaining a fruit, although the nature is the same, because the fruit differs, it is called attaining a fruit. The *Nyāyānusāra* failed to grasp this intention and thus criticized it groundlessly. If one claims that because honing faculties also attains a fruit, honing faculties should not be separately mentioned, why, among the six occasions of attaining unconditioned dharmas, is honing faculties separately mentioned besides attaining a fruit? Since the two causes differ, how can they be spoken of as identical?"