俱舍論疏 19.132

19.132

論「若爾何故至貪息心便淨」，第一引頌。云：若十二倒唯見道斷，何故阿難為辨自在說頌？由有想亂倒等辨自在。既是聖人，若無其想倒，因何言由有想亂倒故、汝心焦熱等？《正理》釋云「非我等言：欲貪映蔽想無亂倒。但作是言：非諸亂倒皆名顛倒。所以然者？見倒俱行亂倒想、心，方名倒故。若諸亂倒皆成倒者，則諸煩惱皆應成倒。諸阿羅漢遊衢路時，想亂倒力心便述謬，或想亂倒見繩謂蛇。故亂倒中少分立倒，以要最勝方立倒名。最勝因緣，如前已辨。故有染想學位現行，非得倒名。何所違害？又經不說彼辨自在定居學位，為證不成。論說預流已斷倒者，為除疑故作如是言。勿諸世間見預流者，以花嚴體、用香薰衣、貯畜珍財、耽婬嗜味，便疑顛倒仍未全除，無知覆心故為此事。為除如是世間所疑，故說預流諸倒已斷。或預流者已斷無別，隨信、法行，有斷、未斷，顯定已斷，故說預流（已上論文）。」解云：言論說者，是本論說。或預流者已斷無別，隨信、隨法行，有斷、未斷者，聖人中說次第。謂隨信、隨法行及預流向，俱在見道十五心。於中至苦類智第四心已前未斷八倒，後十一心已斷八倒。前後同是隨信、行等，有斷、不斷別。不得言隨信、法行及預流向自已斷八倒，一切預流果皆已斷八倒無別不斷。故說預流，不說前位。餘文可解。

On the Śāstra's words, "If so, why ... [the verse ending with] 'When lust ceases, the mind becomes pure'": First, this cites the verse. It means: If the twelve inversions are abandoned only through the path of seeing, why did Ānanda speak the verse for the sake of Vāgīśa? [The verse says:] "Due to confused and inverted perception, [your mind is burning with desire]..." Since Vāgīśa was already an ārya, if he had no inverted perception, why would [Ānanda] say, "Because of confused and inverted perception, your mind is burning..."? The *Nyāyānusāra* explains: "We do not say that perceptions obscured by sensual desire have no confusion or inversion. We merely say that not all confusion and inversion is called an 'inversion' (viparyāsa). Why is that? Because only confused and inverted perceptions and thoughts that operate in conjunction with the inversion of views are designated as 'inversions'. If all confusions and inversions were established as inversions, then all defilements would have to be inversions. When arhats walk along thoroughfares, their minds may become deluded through the power of confused perception, or through confused perception they may see a rope and deem it a snake. Therefore, among confusions and inversions, only a small portion is established as inversions; it is only because they are the most prominent that they receive the designation of 'inversion'. The reasons for their being the most prominent have already been explained above. Thus, although tainted perceptions still operate in the state of a trainee (śaikṣa), they do not receive the designation of 'inversion'. What contradiction is there? Furthermore, the sūtra does not state that that Vāgīśa was definitely in the state of a trainee, so this fails to serve as proof. When the treatise says that a stream-enterer has already abandoned inversions, this statement was made in order to remove doubts. It prevents worldly people who see stream-enterers adorning their bodies with flowers, perfuming their clothes with incense, accumulating precious wealth, and indulging in sexual desire and fine flavors, from suspecting that their inversions have still not been completely eradicated and that ignorance still covers their minds, causing them to do these things. In order to dispel such doubts of worldly people, it is said that all inversions have been abandoned by the stream-enterer. Alternatively, for the stream-enterer, the abandonment is undifferentiated; whereas for those who pursue faith and those who pursue the Dharma, some have abandoned them and some have not; to show that they are definitely abandoned, the stream-enterer is spoken of." (The above is the treatise's text.) The commentary explains: What is called "the treatise's statement" is the statement of the root treatise (*Jñānaprasthāna*). As for "for the stream-enterer, the abandonment is undifferentiated, whereas for those who pursue faith and those who pursue the Dharma, some have abandoned them and some have not," this describes the sequence among noble persons. That is, those who pursue faith, those who pursue the Dharma, and candidates for stream-entry are all within the fifteen moments of mind of the path of seeing. Among these, up to the fourth moment of mind—the subsequent knowledge of suffering (duḥkhe 'nvayajñānam)—the eight inversions have not yet been abandoned; in the subsequent eleven moments of mind, the eight inversions have been abandoned. The earlier and later [moments] are alike those who pursue faith, etc., yet they differ as to whether [the inversions] are abandoned or not abandoned. One cannot say that those who pursue faith, those who pursue the Dharma, and candidates for stream-entry have all already abandoned the eight inversions, whereas for all [attaining] the fruit of stream-entry, they have all already abandoned the eight inversions, with no difference of being unabandoned. Therefore, the stream-enterer is spoken of, not the preceding stages. The rest of the text is easy to understand.