俱舍論疏 19.110

19.110

論「又緣道諦至理亦不成」，此是第三即執見、疑難。若邪見等撥疑於道，如何即執此見、疑等以為其道？若謂執餘，即非緣邪見等。《正理》釋云「此戒禁取體非不成，以許有於謗道邪見執為能證永清淨道，由彼計為如理解故。謂彼先以餘解脫道蘊在心中，後執非謗真道邪見為如理覺。言如理者，彼謂撥疑真解脫道是不顛倒，以如理故執為淨因，由此得成戒禁取體。彼心所蘊餘解脫道非見道所斷、戒禁取所緣，以彼唯緣自部法故。道有多類，於理無失。」有人敘《俱舍》釋云：亦有戒禁即執淨因，見苦所斷。此亦即執，為何非苦斷？若不即執，彼執餘為淨因，是即應無見道所斷。今詳此釋不得上意，先蘊餘解脫道在於自心，謂執八道之外所有邪道，此非能撥八道見、疑。此應言是苦所斷，將撥疑道諦為如理覺是見道斷，不違苦等行，違道等行故，及是所緣斷故。因何將前已釋之難更重難耶？

[As for] the Śāstra's [statement]: "Moreover, taking the truth of the path [...] in principle is also not established": this is the third objection: clinging directly to view and doubt. If wrong view and the like deny and doubt the path, how could one directly cling to these views, doubts, and so forth as being the path? If one says that it clings to something else, then it does not take wrong view and the like as its cognitive object. The Nyāyānusāra explains: "The intrinsic nature of this attachment to rules and vows is not unestablished, because it is accepted that there are those who cling to the wrong view slandering the path as the path capable of realizing eternal purification, because they conceive it to be correct understanding. That is, having previously stored another path to liberation in their minds, they subsequently cling to the wrong view that slanders and denies the true path as correct discernment. As for saying 'correct,' they consider the denial and doubt of the true path to liberation to be non-erroneous; because it is correct, they cling to it as the cause of purification, and by this, the intrinsic nature of attachment to rules and vows is established. The other path to liberation stored in their minds is not abandoned by seeing the path, nor is it the cognitive object of attachment to rules and vows, because that [attachment] takes only dharmas of its own category as cognitive object. There are many classes of path, so in principle there is no fault." Someone, narrating an explanation of the Kośa, says: There are also rules and vows that directly cling to the cause of purification and are abandoned by seeing suffering. This is also a direct clinging; why is it not abandoned by suffering? If it is not a direct clinging, and clings to something else as the cause of purification, then there should be none abandoned by seeing the path. Now, examining this: this explanation fails to grasp the above intention. First storing another path to liberation in one's own mind refers to clinging to any wrong path outside the eightfold path; this is not the view or doubt that can deny the eightfold path. This should be said to be abandoned by suffering. Taking the denial and doubt of the truth of the path as correct discernment is abandoned by seeing the path, because it does not contradict the aspects of suffering and so forth, but contradicts the aspects of the path and so forth, and because it is abandoned through its cognitive object. Why take an objection that has already been explained before and raise it again as an objection?