俱舍論疏 16.185

16.185

論「如經說至阿羅漢」，已下引經廣釋頌中「等」字攝也。總有十一不同：一無施與、二無愛樂、三無祠祀。《婆沙》九十八解此三云「一解：無差別同顯一義故。二解云：外論者言，無施與者，謂無施三類福。無愛樂者，謂無施別婆羅門福。無祠祀者，謂無施眾婆羅門福（外論更有多說，如彼廣說）。內論者言，無施與者，謂無過去福。無愛樂者，謂無未來福。無祠祀者，謂無現在福。復次無施與者，謂無身業福。無愛樂者，謂無語業福。無祠祀者，謂無意業福（云云多解）。」四無妙行無惡行者，總撥妙行惡行也（已上四是謗因邪見，見集所斷）。五無妙行惡行業所感果異熟，此謗果邪見見苦所斷。六無此世間。七無彼世間（此通謗因果，見苦、集斷）。《婆沙》釋云「問：他世是不現見，謗無可爾。此世現見，何故言無？答：彼諸外道無明所盲，於現見事亦復非撥，不應責無明者愚、盲者墮坑。復有說者，彼諸外道但謗因果、不謗法體。無此世者，謂無此世為他世因，或無此世為他世果。無他世者，謂無他世為此世因，或無他世為此世果。」八無母、九無父（此二是謗因邪見）。《婆沙》釋云「問：世間父母皆所現見，彼如何見謗言無耶？答：一解同前。一解：有說彼諸外道謗無父母感子之業，不謗其體。或有說者，彼諸外道謗父母義，不謗其體（若尋苦因而謗，是見集斷。今謗因，不尋苦因而謗，是見苦斷，如戒取等）。」十無化生有情。《婆沙》釋云「有諸外道作如是說：諸有情生，因現在精血等事，無有無緣忽然生者。譬如芽生必因種子、水、火、時節，無有無緣而得生者，故定無有化生有情。或有說者，化生有情所謂中有，無此世他世者，謗無生有。無化生有情者，謗無中有（云云多解。此亦可通謗因果也）。」十一世間無有沙門、或婆羅門、或阿羅漢。此是謗聖邪見，見道所斷。

On the Śāstra's stating: "As the sūtra says, up to 'arhats'", from here down the text cites the sūtra to explain at length what is subsumed under the word "and so forth" in the verse. There are eleven different [denials] in all: First, that there is no giving; second, that there is no rejoicing; third, that there is no sacrifice. Fascicle ninety-eight of the Vibhāṣā explains these three, stating: "One explanation: There is no distinction among them, because together they express a single meaning. A second explanation states: The non-Buddhist theorists say that 'there is no giving' means there is no merit in giving to the three classes [of recipients]; 'there is no rejoicing' means there is no merit in giving to individual brāhmaṇas; and 'there is no sacrifice' means there is no merit in giving to an assembly of brāhmaṇas (the non-Buddhist treatises have further explanations, as expounded at length there). The Buddhist theorists say that 'there is no giving' means there is no past merit; 'there is no rejoicing' means there is no future merit; and 'there is no sacrifice' means there is no present merit. Furthermore, 'there is no giving' means there is no merit from bodily karma; 'there is no rejoicing' means there is no merit from vocal karma; and 'there is no sacrifice' means there is no merit from mental karma (and many other explanations)." Fourth, that there is no good conduct and no bad conduct: this completely repudiates good conduct and bad conduct (the above four are false views that repudiate cause, abandoned through seeing [the truth of] the origin). Fifth, that there is no fruit or vipāka produced by the karma of good or bad conduct: this is a false view that repudiates fruition, abandoned through seeing [the truth of] suffering. Sixth, that there is no this world; seventh, that there is no other world (these two apply to repudiating both cause and fruition, abandoned through seeing [the truths of] suffering and the origin). The Vibhāṣā explains: "Question: The other world is not visibly seen, so it is understandable that one might repudiate it as non-existent; but this world is visibly seen, so why does one say it does not exist? Answer: Those non-Buddhists are blinded by ignorance, so they even repudiate matters that are visibly seen; one should not reprove an ignorant person for being foolish or a blind person for falling into a pit. There are also those who say: Those non-Buddhists only repudiate cause and fruition; they do not repudiate the entities of phenomena themselves. 'There is no this world' means there is no this world acting as the cause for the other world, or that there is no this world acting as the fruit of the other world. 'There is no other world' means there is no other world acting as the cause for this world, or that there is no other world acting as the fruit of this world." Eighth, that there is no mother; ninth, that there is no father (these two are false views repudiating cause). The Vibhāṣā explains: "Question: Parents are visibly seen by all in the world; how could their view repudiate them as non-existent? Answer: One explanation is as before. Another explanation: Some say that those non-Buddhists repudiate the karma of parents in producing a child, not their physical entities. Or some say that those non-Buddhists repudiate the meaning of parents, not their physical entities. (If one repudiates by investigating the causes of suffering, it is abandoned through seeing the origin; here, repudiating cause without investigating the cause of suffering is abandoned through seeing suffering, like adherence to rules and rituals, etc.)" Tenth, that there are no apparitionally born sentient beings. The Vibhāṣā explains: "There are non-Buddhists who make the following statement: The birth of sentient beings is caused by present semen, blood, and the like; there are none who are born suddenly without a cause. For example, the sprouting of a shoot must be caused by a seed, water, heat, and season; there are none that can be born without a cause. Therefore, there are definitely no apparitionally born sentient beings. Or some say: Apparitionally born sentient beings refer to the intermediate existence (antarābhava); to say there is no this world or other world is to repudiate birth-existence (upapattibhava); to say there are no apparitionally born sentient beings is to repudiate the intermediate existence (and many other explanations. This also can apply to repudiating both cause and fruition)." Eleventh, that in the world there are no śramaṇas, brāhmaṇas, or arhats: this is a false view repudiating noble beings, abandoned through seeing [the truth of] the path.