俱舍論疏 2.135

2.135

論「前及此色至親發起故」，總結三種非見所斷所以。《正理》云「斷義云何？略有二種：一離縛斷、二離境斷。離縛斷者，如契經言：於無內眼結，如實了知我無內眼結。離境斷者，如契經言：汝等苾芻！若能於眼斷欲貪者，是則名為眼得永斷。」述曰：煩惱名縛，捨煩惱故名離縛也。阿毘達磨諸大論師，依彼次第立二種斷：一自性斷、二所緣斷。若法是結及一果等，對治生時於彼得斷，名自性斷。由彼斷故，於所緣事便得離繫，不必於中得不成就，名所緣斷。此中一切，若有漏色、若不染污有漏無色，及彼諸得、生等法上，有見所斷及修所斷諸結所繫。如是諸結漸次斷時，於一一品各別體上起離繫得時，彼諸結及一果等皆名已斷。彼有漏色及不染污有漏無色，并彼諸得、生等法上諸離繫得，爾時未起，未名為斷。由彼諸法唯隨彼地最後無間道所斷故，非諸見道能隨地別次第離染。云何能斷彼色等法？見聖諦者諸惡趣法眾緣闕故已得不生，緣彼煩惱未斷盡故，猶未名斷。若法未斷，已得不生或不成就，此與已斷有何差別？斷據治道令得離繫，非謂不生或不成就。

The *Śāstra* states: "From 'the former and this form' up to 'because they are directly initiated'" summarizes the reasons why these three kinds are not abandoned by seeing. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "What is the meaning of 'abandoning'? Briefly, there are two kinds: first, abandoning by being freed from bondage; second, abandoning by departing from the object. 'Abandoning by being freed from bondage' is as a sūtra states: 'When there is no internal eye-fetter, one knows as it truly is: "I have no internal eye-fetter."' 'Abandoning by departing from the object' is as a sūtra states: 'O bhikṣus! If you can abandon desire and craving regarding the eye, that is called the eye being forever abandoned.'" Commentary: Afflictions are called 'bondage'; relinquishing the afflictions is therefore called 'freed from bondage'. Relying on that sequence, the great masters of the Abhidharma establish two kinds of abandonment: first, abandonment of intrinsic nature (*svabhāva-prahāṇa*); second, abandonment of the object (*ālambana-prahāṇa*). If a dharma is a fetter (*saṃyojana*), an identical fruit (*ekaphala*), and so forth, when its antidote arises, abandonment is obtained with respect to it; this is called 'abandonment of intrinsic nature'. When, due to that being abandoned, one attains disjunction (*visaṃyoga*) with respect to the objective entity, without necessarily having non-possession (*aprāpti*) arise regarding it, this is called 'abandonment of the object'. Here, among all these—whether contaminated form, undefiled contaminated non-form, or their acquisitions, arising, and other dharmas—there is bondage by the fetters abandoned by seeing and abandoned by cultivation. When such fetters are gradually abandoned, at the moment when the acquisition of disjunction arises with respect to each distinct individual entity of each grade, those fetters and their identical fruits, etc., are all called 'already abandoned'. Regarding those contaminated forms and undefiled contaminated non-forms, as well as the acquisitions of disjunction upon their acquisitions, arising, and other dharmas, at that time [the acquisitions of disjunction] have not yet arisen, so they are not yet called 'abandoned'. Because those dharmas are abandoned only by the final uninterrupted path of that particular ground, the various paths of seeing are unable to separate from defilement in sequence according to the distinction of grounds. How could they be able to abandon those form-dharmas and so forth? For one who sees the noble truths, dharmas of the evil destinies have already attained non-arising due to a lack of complete conditions, yet because the afflictions that take them as objects have not been exhausted, they are not yet called 'abandoned'. If a dharma has not been abandoned, yet has already attained non-arising or non-possession, what difference is there between this and having already been abandoned? Abandonment relies on the path of the antidote causing one to attain disjunction; it does not mean non-arising or non-possession.