俱舍論疏 21.123

21.123

論「如是且就容有至除預流等故」者，前說六時等，據容有鈍根次第者說；若說利根，即除練根。前六、五、四、三、二位皆除一故，即有五、四、三、二、一。若超越二果，即除預流。若超越三果，即除預流、一來。若鈍根次第，通取世俗道，得即有七時。若利根次第及超越，通世俗道，即有六時等。然治生時有其二種，世俗治生是正斷惑，無漏治生即有二種：一者斷惑無間、解脫；二者重印。隨重印道，亦得名為無間、解脫。超越忍智亦得名為無間、解脫故。煩惱先斷，亦名遠分。又《正理論》云「隨離少多入聖道者，彼得離繫，隨其所應有具六時。乃至唯一，以利根故。」又六十一云「依根本地起煖等善根，彼於此生必定得見諦，以利根故，厭有深故。」准《正理》，超越是利根也。詳其隨信行人入見道有七十三人，故知超越雖利根，非是利種，所以重起無間、解脫。以二乘鈍故，欲起後道必依前道次第而起，諸佛超次第起。《正理論》云「諸有先離無所有染入聖道者，唯除菩薩，餘亦定於二界一切修斷離繫得無漏得，彼皆必於二界修斷自勝果道遍現前故。如是理趣以何證知？說聖者生第四靜慮已上諸地定成樂根，及說聖者生於無色定有色貪盡斷遍知得故。菩薩何緣不亦如是？不由加行，一切功德能現前故，如滅定等。謂聲聞、獨覺無自在功力能超間起諸對治道，欲證後道必藉前道以為加行方能證故。」准此，重修對治道，即是更重修，印證無間、解脫道也，與四道不違。婆沙一師，麟角佛同菩薩。又准《正理論》，已至果位更不却修此果向道。如先離欲超得阿那含果已，不更却起欲斷對治，亦不更得斷欲無為。乃至，得羅漢果畢竟不得，以先無無漏得故，無得可捨，後亦不得。准阿那含果，超越一來，義亦准此。故《正理論》云「先斷六品入見諦者，彼見所斷六品離繫亦五時得，除一如前。彼修所斷六品離繫，唯世俗道治生時得，必不起彼無漏對治，是一來果向道攝故。非住果時起彼向道，以住勝果不起劣故。那含准此，已後起印證見道得見道六品，不起修道六品故，不得修道六品無為。超越那含若依根本入見諦者，彼欲界見所斷九品離繫亦一時得，如前應知，根本非欲斷對治故。若依未至、若依根本，彼修所斷九品離繫亦一時得，必不起彼無漏對治，是不還果向道攝故。根本地雖起見道，非對治故，不得欲界無為。」又云「前言斷欲六品、九品入見諦者，彼先修斷六、九離繫，無無漏得。為永不得？暫不得耶？應決定言彼永不得。豈不證得阿羅漢時，必得先時見、修所斷一切離繫諸無漏得？若彼先時所斷離繫有無漏得，今時捨者，於彼今應得無漏得；若先無者，今時亦無得離繫時，唯自治起，及捨劣道得勝時故。」問：離欲得根本，根本非欲斷對治，起見道時不得欲無為。離下三禪得第四，第四非是下對治，依四起見道，亦應不得下三地無為。答：《正理論》云「謂設先離無所有染，隨依何地入見諦時，必得二界諸見所斷無漏斷治。彼見所斷，是一斷治頓所斷故。上地見道現在前時，必修未來下地道故，下靜慮遍能為上斷治故。」解云：上地道所斷惑，下地道遍能斷故。上地道所斷之惑，即皆是下地道能斷也。起上地道修下地道，是同治修。下地道所斷惑，上地道非皆能斷，故下地道不修上道。《正理》又云「豈不已離無所有處染，依第三定等入見諦時，應修未來上地見道，同為有頂斷對治故。不爾，未離此地染者，即依此地入見諦時，自及上諸地見諦所斷，見一一諦時能頓斷故。如有未離第四定染，依第四定入見諦時，頓斷五地見所斷染。乃至未離初靜慮染，依初靜慮入見諦時，頓斷八地見所斷染，上地曾無斷下地故。非第四等與第三等，所對治法一切皆同。由是已離第三等染，依第三等入見諦時，雖上地能治自上地，而非與下所治恒同，故依下時不能修上。」又云「諸異生位以世俗道斷見所斷所有離繫，唯由下地見道勢力，於自、上地無漏得起。謂依上地見道現前，必修未來下地見道，由彼勢力於下離繫得無漏得，非上地故。由此學位，定應遍於色、無色攝見斷離繫得無漏得，非欲理成，欲唯未至地見道所斷故（已上釋也）。豈不應如第四定等非第三等下地對治，然第四等見道現前，能修未來下地所攝一切見道，由彼道力於諸下地見斷離繫得無漏得。如是根本雖非欲治，然根本地見道現前，應修未來未至地攝一切見道。由彼道力，應於欲界見斷離繫得無漏得（已上難也。根本不斷欲，不得欲界斷。上地不斷下，如何得下斷也）。此例不齊，見道有二：一欲界對治、二上界對治。欲治有三，謂斷對治、厭患對治、遠分對治。色、無色治三種亦然。欲治三中，初斷對治唯未至攝，餘通六地。上治三種，皆通六地。然上二界斷治見道，唯能對治自、上地染，餘治見道亦治下地。上地雖非下地斷治，而上見道現在前時，遍修未來下地見道，下與上地同所治故。無有欲界斷治見道，能與根本同一所治。可根本地見道現前，能修未來未至地攝欲見斷法斷治見道，由彼道力，能於欲界見斷離繫得無漏得。故彼所引為例不齊（已上釋也）。」又云「諸根本地欲界厭患遠分對治，色、無色界三種對治見道現前，還修未來未至地攝。如是二種三種對治，非由未來欲界厭遠對治力故，便於欲界見斷離繫得無漏得，唯斷對治力能斷繫得故。諸先離欲，若依未至入見諦者，欲界厭患遠分對治見道現前，亦修未來欲斷對治，欲斷對治地道正現在前故。由如是理，非先離欲入見諦者，皆於欲界見斷離繫得無漏得。諸先離欲入見諦者，畢竟無容於欲修斷所有離繫得無漏得，以未至攝欲界修斷斷對治收無漏修道，於不還果身中現前及未來修俱非理故。理無容有不還果身中有一來、不還二向道故。諸有先離無所有染入聖道者，唯除菩薩，餘亦定於二界一切修斷離繫得無漏得，彼皆必於二界修斷自勝果道遍現前故。如是理趣以何證知？說聖者生第四靜慮以上諸地定成樂根，及說聖者生於無色定有色貪盡斷遍知得故。一斷欲見道，不與上地同斷。依根本地雖修未至，俱修餘二對治，不修斷對治。依未至等斷初禪等惑，必與上地同一道斷，由斯依上地道修下對治。二上二界修斷不合治故。依第二禪已上道得修下地，不修斷治。超越者，勝果道中必修斷治，以是後果向故，其道必須次第修故。三諸後果道已上，必不却起前向道也，以無用故。」准此，超者未必次第，亦得超起上道。以超越那含等不起向中下地斷治道，即起初禪斷治道等故有人於此作問答云：已斷斷治既不現行，如何名為自對治起？前言自治唯是無間、解脫道故。解云：似自治故名為自治。或自斷治得現行故名自治生，非斷治起。或此所言自治生者，非要斷治，遠厭治起亦自治生。今詳論意，自治生者有其二種：一正斷惑、二不斷惑。正斷惑者，如前四道。不斷惑者，謂無漏道，擬儀無間、解脫，起勝果道，如先所斷惑煩惱品次第所起之道，名自治道，非是正斷。亦可望正斷惑名為遠分對治，擬儀無間、解脫，不同餘勝進道，名自治生也。

Regarding the Śāstra's statement: "Such is said merely with respect to possible cases... because the stream-enterer and so forth are excluded": what was explained earlier concerning the six occasions and so on was spoken on the basis of a person with dull faculties who advances progressively in possible cases. If one speaks of sharp faculties, the transformation of faculties is excluded. Since one [occasion] is excluded from each of the former positions of six, five, four, three, and two, there are five, four, three, two, and one. If one leaps over to the second fruit, stream-entry is excluded. If one leaps over to the third fruit, stream-entry and once-returning are excluded. If one advances progressively with dull faculties, including the mundane path, there are seven occasions of acquisition. If one advances progressively or leaps over with sharp faculties, including the mundane path, there are six occasions and so forth. However, when an antidote arises, there are two kinds: the mundane antidote's arising directly severs afflictions, whereas the anāsrava antidote's arising has two kinds: first, the uninterrupted [path] and [path of] deliverance that sever afflictions; second, the re-confirmation [path]. Along with the path of re-confirmation, it is also termed uninterrupted [path] and [path of] deliverance, because the forbearance and knowledge of a leaper are also termed uninterrupted [path] and [path of] deliverance. Afflictions severed beforehand are also termed "remote." Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra says: "For one who enters the noble path having abandoned few or many [afflictions], the disjunctions he acquires, according to what is appropriate, can possess six occasions, down to only one, because of his sharp faculties." Again, Fascicle 61 says: "For those who generate wholesome roots such as heat based on the fundamental grounds, they are certain to see the truths in this very life because of their sharp faculties and because their disgust with existence is profound." According to the Nyāyānusāra, a leaper is of sharp faculties. Examining this, among those who follow through faith and enter the path of seeing, there are seventy-three persons; hence we know that although a leaper is of sharp faculties, he is not of the sharp lineage, which is why he generates the uninterrupted [path] and [path of] deliverance anew. Because [practitioners of] the two vehicles are dull, when they wish to generate a subsequent path they must necessarily arise in progressive order based on the preceding path, whereas the Buddhas arise leaping over the progressive order. The Nyāyānusāra says: "For all those who have previously abandoned the defilements of nothingness and enter the noble path, with the sole exception of a bodhisattva, the others also definitely acquire anāsrava acquisitions regarding all disjunctions of what is abandoned by cultivation in the two realms, because in all cases their paths of the superior fruit for what is abandoned by cultivation in the two realms manifest completely. By what is such a principle proven? It is proven by the statement that a noble one born in the fourth dhyāna and higher grounds definitely accomplishes the pleasure faculty, and by the statement that a noble one born in the formless [realm] definitely possesses the acquisition of the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of attachment to form. For what reason is a bodhisattva not likewise? Because without preliminary application, all his virtues are able to become manifest, like the cessation absorption and so forth. That is to say, śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas lack the mastery of power to skip intervals and generate the various antidotal paths; wishing to realize a subsequent path, they must necessarily rely on the preceding path as preliminary application before they are able to realize it." According to this, cultivating the antidotal path again means cultivating it anew to confirm and realize the uninterrupted path and path of deliverance, which does not contradict the four paths. One master of the Vibhāṣā holds that a rhinoceros-horn [pratyeka]buddha is identical to a bodhisattva. Furthermore, according to the Nyāyānusāra, having reached the position of a fruit, one does not cultivate retrogressively the path toward this fruit. For instance, having previously detached from desire and leaped to attain the fruit of ananāgāmin, one does not again retrogressively generate the antidote that severs desire, nor does one further acquire the unconditioned [state] of severing desire. Even up to attaining the fruit of arhat, one ultimately never acquires it; because one previously lacked an anāsrava acquisition, there is no acquisition to be abandoned, nor does one acquire it later. Based on the fruit of anāgāmin, the leap to once-returning should also be understood in this manner. Thus the Nyāyānusāra says: "For one who has previously severed six categories [of affliction] and enters the seeing of the truths, his disjunction from the six categories abandoned by seeing is also acquired at five occasions, excluding one as before. His disjunction from the six categories abandoned by cultivation is acquired solely when the mundane path's antidote arises; he definitely does not generate that anāsrava antidote, because it is subsumed under the path toward the fruit of once-returning. It is not that while abiding in the fruit one generates the path toward it, for one who abides in a superior fruit does not generate an inferior one. The anāgāmin is analogous to this: when he subsequently generates the confirming path of seeing, he acquires the six categories of the path of seeing; because he does not generate the six categories of the path of cultivation, he does not acquire the unconditioned of the six categories of the path of cultivation. If a leaping anāgāmin enters the seeing of the truths based on a fundamental [dhyāna], his disjunction from the nine categories abandoned by seeing in the desire realm is also acquired at only one occasion; it should be known as before, because the fundamental is not the antidote that severs desire. Whether based on the threshold or based on the fundamental, his disjunction from the nine categories abandoned by cultivation is also acquired at only one occasion; he definitely does not generate that anāsrava antidote, because it is subsumed under the path toward the fruit of non-returning. Although he generates the path of seeing in the fundamental ground, because it is not an antidote, he does not acquire the unconditioned of the desire realm." It also says: "As said before, for one who severs six or nine categories of desire and enters the seeing of the truths, he previously lacked an anāsrava acquisition for the disjunctions of the six or nine [categories] abandoned by cultivation. Does he never acquire it, or temporarily not acquire it? It should be decisively stated that he never acquires it. Does not one who realizes the fruit of arhat necessarily acquire all anāsrava acquisitions of all disjunctions severed by seeing and cultivation in earlier times? If the disjunctions he severed in earlier times had an anāsrava acquisition and he abandons it at this time, he should acquire an anāsrava acquisition for them at this time; if he previously lacked it, at this time too there is no [anāsrava acquisition], because an occasion of acquiring disjunction is only when one's own antidote arises, or when one abandons an inferior path and acquires a superior one." Question: Having abandoned desire one attains the fundamental [dhyāna], but the fundamental is not an antidote that severs desire; when generating the path of seeing, one does not acquire the unconditioned of desire. Having abandoned the lower three dhyānas one attains the fourth, but the fourth is not an antidote to the lower; if one generates the path of seeing based on the fourth, one should also not acquire the unconditioned of the lower three grounds. Answer: The Nyāyānusāra says: "Suppose one has previously abandoned the defilements of nothingness; no matter what ground one relies on to enter the seeing of the truths, one definitely acquires the anāsrava antidotes that sever all [defilements] abandoned by seeing in the two realms. For what is abandoned by seeing is severed simultaneously by a single severing antidote. When the path of seeing of a higher ground is present, it definitely cultivates the path of the lower grounds in the future, because the lower dhyānas can comprehensively serve as antidotes that sever the higher." The explanation says: The defilements severed by the path of a higher ground can all be severed comprehensively by the path of a lower ground. The defilements severed by the path of a higher ground are all capable of being severed by the path of a lower ground. Generating the path of a higher ground to cultivate the path of a lower ground is cultivation of a common antidote. As for the defilements severed by the path of a lower ground, the path of a higher ground is not entirely capable of severing them; therefore the path of a lower ground does not cultivate a higher path. The Nyāyānusāra also says: "Should not one who has already abandoned the defilement of the sphere of nothingness, when entering the seeing of the truths based on the third dhyāna or the like, cultivate the future path of seeing of the higher grounds, since they jointly serve as the antidote that severs the peak of existence? It is not so. For one who has not yet abandoned the defilement of this ground, when entering the seeing of the truths based on this ground, he is able to sever simultaneously what is abandoned by seeing the truths in his own ground and the grounds above when seeing each individual truth. Just as one who has not yet abandoned the defilement of the fourth dhyāna, when entering the seeing of the truths based on the fourth dhyāna, simultaneously severs the defilements abandoned by seeing of the five grounds; down to one who has not yet abandoned the defilement of the first dhyāna, when entering the seeing of the truths based on the first dhyāna, simultaneously severs the defilements abandoned by seeing of the eight grounds; for a higher ground never severs a lower ground. It is not that the fourth and so on have entirely the same objects of antidote as the third and so on. Therefore, when one who has already abandoned the defilements of the third [dhyāna] and so forth enters the seeing of the truths based on the third and so forth, although the higher ground can counteract its own and higher grounds, it is not always identical with the counteracted of the lower; therefore, when relying on the lower, one cannot cultivate the higher." It also says: "All disjunctions of what is abandoned by seeing that were severed by mundane paths in the position of an ordinary person—it is solely by the power of the path of seeing of a lower ground that their anāsrava acquisitions arise regarding their own and higher grounds. That is to say, when the path of seeing based on a higher ground manifests, it definitely cultivates the future path of seeing of the lower grounds; by that power, one acquires anāsrava acquisitions regarding lower disjunctions, but not regarding a higher ground. From this, the learner's position must definitely acquire anāsrava acquisitions comprehensively for the disjunctions abandoned by seeing subsumed under form and the formless, but not for desire—this principle is established, because desire is severed solely by the path of seeing of the threshold ground (the above is the explanation). Objection: Should it not be like the fourth dhyāna and so on, which are not antidotes to the lower grounds like the third dhyāna, yet when the path of seeing of the fourth and so on manifests, it can cultivate all paths of seeing subsumed under the future lower grounds, and by the power of that path one acquires anāsrava acquisitions regarding disjunctions abandoned by seeing in the various lower grounds? In this way, although the fundamental is not an antidote to desire, yet when the path of seeing of the fundamental ground manifests, it should cultivate all paths of seeing subsumed under the future threshold ground. By the power of that path, one should acquire anāsrava acquisitions regarding disjunctions abandoned by seeing in the desire realm (the above is the objection: the fundamental does not sever desire, so one does not acquire the severance of the desire realm; if the higher ground does not sever the lower, how does one acquire the severance of the lower?). This analogy is not equal. The path of seeing has two kinds: first, the antidote to the desire realm; second, the antidote to the higher realms. The antidote to desire has three kinds: namely, the severing antidote, the revulsion antidote, and the remote antidote. The three kinds of antidotes to form and the formless are likewise. Among the three antidotes to desire, the initial severing antidote is subsumed solely under the threshold, while the remaining two extend across the six grounds. All three kinds of antidotes to the higher extend across the six grounds. However, the path of seeing as a severing antidote for the two higher realms can counteract solely defilements of their own and higher grounds, while the paths of seeing as the remaining antidotes also counteract lower grounds. Although a higher ground is not a severing antidote to a lower ground, when the higher path of seeing manifests, it comprehensively cultivates the future path of seeing of the lower grounds, because the lower and higher grounds share the same counteracted objects. There is no path of seeing as a severing antidote to the desire realm that shares the same counteracted object with the fundamental, such that when the path of seeing of the fundamental ground manifests, it could cultivate the path of seeing as a severing antidote to dharmas abandoned by seeing desire subsumed under the future threshold ground, and by the power of that path one could acquire anāsrava acquisitions regarding disjunctions abandoned by seeing in the desire realm. Therefore, the example adduced is not equal (the above is the explanation)." It also says: "When the paths of seeing as the revulsion and remote antidotes to the desire realm of the fundamental grounds and the three kinds of antidotes to the form and formless realms manifest, they in turn cultivate the future [paths] subsumed under the threshold ground. Such two kinds and three kinds of antidotes do not, by the power of the future revulsion and remote antidotes to the desire realm, cause one to acquire anāsrava acquisitions regarding disjunctions abandoned by seeing in the desire realm, because only the power of a severing antidote can sever the acquisition of bondage. For all who have previously detached from desire, if they enter the seeing of the truths based on the threshold, when the path of seeing as the revulsion and remote antidotes to the desire realm manifests, it also cultivates the future severing antidote to desire, because the path of the ground of the severing antidote to desire is directly manifesting. By such a principle, it is not that all who have previously detached from desire and enter the seeing of the truths acquire anāsrava acquisitions regarding disjunctions abandoned by seeing in the desire realm. For all who have previously detached from desire and enter the seeing of the truths, there is ultimately no possibility that they acquire anāsrava acquisitions regarding all disjunctions abandoned by cultivation in desire, because it is unreasonable for an anāsrava path of cultivation included in the severing antidote to what is abandoned by cultivation in the desire realm, subsumed under the threshold, to manifest in the body of an anāgāmin or to be cultivated in the future. In principle, it is impossible for the two paths toward once-returning and non-returning to exist in the body of an anāgāmin. For all who have previously abandoned the defilements of nothingness and enter the noble path, with the sole exception of a bodhisattva, the others also definitely acquire anāsrava acquisitions regarding all disjunctions of what is abandoned by cultivation in the two realms, because in all cases their paths of the superior fruit for what is abandoned by cultivation in the two realms manifest completely. By what is such a principle proven? It is proven by the statement that a noble one born in the fourth dhyāna and higher grounds definitely accomplishes the pleasure faculty, and by the statement that a noble one born in the formless [realm] definitely possesses the acquisition of the complete knowledge of the exhaustion of attachment to form. First, the path of seeing that severs desire does not sever together with the higher grounds. Relying on the fundamental ground, although one cultivates the threshold, one cultivates both the remaining two antidotes and does not cultivate the severing antidote. Relying on the threshold and so on to sever defilements of the first dhyāna and so on, it must be severed by the same path as the higher grounds; hence, relying on the path of a higher ground, one cultivates the lower antidote. Second, what is abandoned by cultivation in the two higher realms cannot be counteracted together. Relying on the path of the second dhyāna and above, one can cultivate the lower grounds, but does not cultivate the severing antidote. A leaper must cultivate the severing antidote within the path of a superior fruit, because it is the direction toward a subsequent fruit, and its path must be cultivated in progressive order. Third, in the path of all subsequent fruits and above, one definitely does not retrogressively generate the preceding path toward [a fruit], because it is useless." According to this, a leaper does not necessarily proceed in progressive order, but may also leap to generate a higher path. Because a leaping anāgāmin and so forth does not generate the severing antidotal path of the lower grounds within the path toward [the fruit], but immediately generates the severing antidotal path of the first dhyāna and so on, someone raises a question and answer here, saying: Since the severing antidote for what has already been severed does not manifest, how is it named 'the arising of one's own antidote'? For it was previously stated that one's own antidote is solely the uninterrupted path and path of deliverance. The explanation says: Because it resembles one's own antidote, it is called one's own antidote. Or, because the acquisition of one's own severing antidote manifests, it is called 'the arising of one's own antidote,' not that the severing antidote itself arises. Or, what is called here 'the arising of one's own antidote' does not require a severing antidote; the arising of the remote or revulsion antidote is also 'the arising of one's own antidote.' Now examining the intent of the treatise, the arising of one's own antidote has two kinds: first, directly severing defilements; second, not severing defilements. Directly severing defilements is as the four paths described before. Not severing defilements refers to the anāsrava path that models itself upon the uninterrupted and deliverance [paths] and generates the path of a superior fruit; like the path generated progressively according to the categories of afflictive defilements previously severed, it is called 'one's own antidotal path,' but is not a direct severing. Alternatively, viewed from the perspective of directly severing defilements, it may be termed a remote antidote that models itself upon the uninterrupted and deliverance [paths] and, being unlike other paths of superior progress, is called 'the arising of one's own antidote.'