俱舍論疏 19.151

19.151

論「一切皆通見修所斷」，《正理論》云「理實應言七皆通二，故能安穩作如是言：我色等中不隨執我，然於如是五取蘊中，有我慢愛隨眠未斷。」解云：能安穩，是有學聖者。既自云已斷我執未斷我慢愛，故知我慢愛修所斷。今詳我慢五斷別者，緣五斷法起我愛慢，即隨所緣分其五斷。雖我見亦緣五斷法起，由觀苦、無我行中，行、得二修能違我見不違我慢，故我見唯苦，我慢通餘四斷。又我見頓緣共相惑故，我慢別緣自相惑故。

On the Śāstra's statement: 'All of them apply to both abandonment by seeing and by cultivation': The Nyāyānusāra states: 'In truth and reality it should be said that all seven apply to both; thus Kṣemaka made this statement: "Among my material forms and so forth I do not follow after grasping an 'I', yet regarding these five grasping skandhas, the latent tendencies of the pride of 'I' and attachment are not yet abandoned."' Explanation: Kṣemaka is a noble trainee (śaikṣa). Since he himself says he has already abandoned grasping an 'I' but has not yet abandoned the pride of 'I' and attachment, we know that the pride of 'I' and attachment are abandoned by cultivation. Now, analyzing the distinction among the five abandonments of the pride of 'I': when one gives rise to the pride of 'I' and attachment with respect to dharmas of the five abandonments, it is divided into the five abandonments according to the intentional object. Although the view of self also arises taking dharmas of the five abandonments as object, because within the practice of contemplating suffering and non-self, cultivation by practice and cultivation by attainment are both able to oppose the view of self but do not oppose the pride of 'I', the view of self applies only to suffering, whereas the pride of 'I' applies to the other four abandonments. Furthermore, the view of self suddenly takes defilements of universal characteristics as its object, whereas the pride of 'I' separately takes defilements of individual characteristics as its object.