[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [俱舍論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822) › 19.77 # 俱舍論疏 19.77 俱舍論疏 19.77 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [19.77](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.19.77) 論「此中何相至名修所斷」，辨貪等四惑五斷相也。《正理論》云「經主於此自問答言：此中何相見苦所斷，乃至何相是修所斷？若緣見此所斷為境名見此所斷，餘名修所斷。此不應理。所以者何？遍行隨眠緣五部故，則見苦、集所斷隨眠，亦應通是見集苦等所斷。又見滅道、所斷隨眠，緣非所斷法，當言何所斷？故彼非善立所斷相。應言若見緣苦為境名為見苦，即是苦法，苦類智、忍此二所斷，總說名為見苦所斷，乃至見道所斷亦然。數習名修，謂見迹者為得上義，於苦等智數數重習說名為修，此道所除名修所斷。是名為善立所斷相。」有人敘俱舍師救云：正理論師謬解我文，謂唯緣此諦所斷為境名見此諦所斷，故以他部緣及無漏緣為難。應作此言：若緣見此諦為境，若緣見此諦所斷為境，名見此諦所斷。他部緣惑及無漏緣，應知即是若緣見此為境所攝，以緣諦故。作此解釋，非異我說。今詳此釋未為遣難。釋云謬解我文，詳其所解，正理依文，此釋加字，豈加字為是、依文為謬？又云：他部緣惑及無漏緣，應知即是若緣見此為境所攝，以緣諦故者。無漏緣惑，及苦、集下邪見、疑、無明自界緣可爾，以親緣諦故，見此諦時斷。故苦、集下他界緣惑，為是何攝？此惑非緣見此所斷，及見此諦斷時不見彼所緣故。若謂雖不見彼所緣，見此諦斷故名見此斷者，此即應總名見此斷，見此諦時親迷、重緣皆頓斷故。何因加文？今詳《正理》妄彈斥者，《俱舍》此中辨五斷相者，欲界貪、瞋、慢，及此相應無明五斷相也。此四煩惱，若修道斷，通緣別事。若見道斷，四諦皆雖重緣惑起，即從所緣分其四斷。由此論云「若緣見此所斷為境名見此所斷，餘名修所斷。」正理論師誤解《俱舍》遂妄彈斥。問：何以得知苦、集諦下貪、嗔、慢等，唯重緣起，不親緣諦？答：准《識身足論》第十一云「頗有色界見所斷心，決定唯緣有覆無記法耶？曰：有。謂色界繫見苦、集所斷不遍隨眠相應心，及色界繫見滅、道所斷有漏緣隨眠。」今詳隨眠見諦斷者，應有四句：有唯緣諦，謂邪見、疑、獨頭無明。有唯重緣，謂貪、嗔、慢及彼相應無明。有兼二種，謂見、戒取等。第四句可知。 > On the passage where the Śāstra says, 'Herein, by what characteristics \[...\] is termed abandoned by cultivation': This clarifies the characteristics of the fivefold abandonment for the four afflictions such as attachment. The Nyāyānusāra states: 'The master of the treatise himself poses the question and answer here: "Herein, by what characteristic is it abandoned by seeing suffering, up to by what characteristic is it abandoned by cultivation? If it takes that which is abandoned by seeing this \[truth\] as its object, it is called abandoned by seeing this; the remainder is called abandoned by cultivation." This is not logical. Why so? Because universal (sarvatraga) anusayas take the five categories as their object; thus an anusaya abandoned by seeing suffering and origination would also have to be commonly abandoned by seeing origination, suffering, and so on. Furthermore, what would one say an anusaya abandoned by seeing cessation and the path is abandoned by, given that it objectifies unabandonable dharmas? Therefore, he did not well establish the characteristics of what is to be abandoned. One should say: if viewing takes suffering as its object, it is called seeing suffering, which is abandoned by the two—the dharma-knowledge patience and category-knowledge patience regarding suffering; spoken of collectively, it is called abandoned by seeing suffering, and so on up to abandoned by seeing the path is also like this. Repeated training is called cultivation; that is, one who has seen the footprints, in order to attain higher meaning, repeatedly trains in the knowledge of suffering and the like—this is called cultivation; that which is eliminated by this path is called abandoned by cultivation. This is termed well establishing the characteristics of what is to be abandoned.' A certain person recorded a defense by a Kośa master saying: 'The master of the Nyāyānusāra misunderstood my text, thinking it meant that solely taking what is abandoned by this truth as an object is called abandoned by seeing this truth, and hence raised objections using objects of other categories and objects of anāsrava dharmas. One should state it thus: if it takes seeing this truth as its object, or if it takes what is abandoned by seeing this truth as its object, it is called abandoned by seeing this truth. Afflictions objectifying other categories and objectifying the anāsrava should be known as being subsumed under taking the seeing of this as an object, because they objectify the truths. When explained in this way, it is not different from our statement.' Now, examining this explanation, it does not yet dismiss the objection. When he explains that 'he misunderstood my text', examining what he understands, the Nyāyānusāra relies on the text, while this explanation adds words; how could adding words be correct and relying on the text be an error? Furthermore, he says: 'Afflictions objectifying other categories and objectifying the anāsrava should be known as being subsumed under taking the seeing of this as an object, because they objectify the truths.' For afflictions that objectify the anāsrava, as well as wrong views, doubt, and ignorance under suffering and origination that objectify their own realm, this may be so, since they directly objectify the truths and are abandoned when this truth is seen. But for afflictions under suffering and origination that objectify other realms, under what are they subsumed? These afflictions do not objectify what is abandoned by seeing this, nor when this truth is seen and abandoned do they see what is objectified by them. If one claims that although they do not see what is objectified by them, they are called abandoned by seeing this because they are abandoned upon seeing this truth, then they should generally be called abandoned by seeing this, since both direct delusion and reflective objectification are suddenly abandoned when this truth is seen. Why add text? Now, examining the Nyāyānusāra's groundless rebuke: what the Kośa clarifies here regarding the characteristics of the fivefold abandonment refers to the characteristics of the fivefold abandonment for desire-realm attachment, anger, pride, and their associated ignorance. For these four defilements, if they are abandoned by the path of cultivation, they generally objectify distinct empirical matters. If they are abandoned by the path of seeing, although with respect to all four truths they arise by reflectively objectifying afflictions, the four abandonments are divided precisely on the basis of what is objectified. Due to this, the treatise says: 'If it takes what is abandoned by seeing this as its object, it is called abandoned by seeing this; the remainder is called abandoned by cultivation.' The master of the Nyāyānusāra misunderstood the Kośa and consequently rebuked it groundlessly. Question: How is it known that attachment, anger, pride, etc. under the truths of suffering and origination only arise by reflective objectification and do not directly objectify the truths? Answer: According to the Vijñānakāya, fascicle 11, which says: 'Is there any mind abandoned by seeing in the form realm that definitely objectifies only veiled-unobscured (nivṛtāvyākṛta) dharmas? Answer: There is. Namely, the mind associated with non-universal anusayas abandoned by seeing suffering and origination bound to the form realm, and anusayas objectifying sāsrava dharmas abandoned by seeing cessation and the path bound to the form realm.' Now, examining the anusayas abandoned by seeing the truths, there should be four propositions: some solely objectify the truths, namely wrong view, doubt, and independent ignorance; some solely reflectively objectify, namely attachment, anger, pride, and their associated ignorance; some combine both kinds, namely clinging to views, clinging to precepts and vows, etc. The fourth proposition can be understood. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 19.76](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.19.76) - [Next: 19.78](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.19.78) - [Up: 19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.19) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822~en-mt.19.77) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [俱舍論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1821.19.48) — Classical Chinese - [阿毘達磨順正理論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.abhidharma.abhidharmakosa!nyayanusara*zh-xuanzang.46.8.1) — Classical Chinese - [阿毘達磨藏顯宗論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.abhidharma.abhidharmakosa!abhidharmakosasastrakarikabhasya*zh-xuanzang.25.12) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.19.77](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1822.19.77) · Pramāṇa