俱舍論疏 21.136

21.136

「論曰至是修道果故」，此釋忍、智果多少也。忍果有六，智果有三，如文可知。《婆沙》六十三云「問：幾是見道果？答：六，謂前六。有說：七，謂前七。問：幾是修道果？答：三，謂後三。問：幾是忍果？答：應說如見道果。問：幾是智果？答：應說如修道果。」兩說無評。問：兩說之中何者為正？答：據義別立，竝不違理。六據次第，七兼超越。所以諸論多說得六、不說七者，有二因緣，一根本建立遍知，就次第者立故。二合說方成故，謂超越者雖得五下分結盡遍知，爾時不得色、無色道諦下遍知，爾時集遍知故，於前位中唯有其五，即超越者極多唯成五遍知也。次第之人多成六種。兩人合說故成其七。若據次第，唯六者正。若兼超越，決定有七。若不爾者，超越人至道類智時，所得遍知為名何物？不可說彼得上界道下遍知。爾時集遍知故，亦不可說不得遍知。評家云：菩薩、獨覺爾時得五下分結盡遍知故，亦不可說是智果。爾時忍為無間道故，亦不可說上界見斷是客，欲界修斷為主。遍知不名欲貪盡故遍知，既名五順下分結斷，欲貪即是順界下，上二界見惑兼順界下有情下及防邏故，俱順下分。𤏅為主客，亦不可以是第三說故。不是正義，《婆沙》上下無此例故。第二說正，例非一故。亦不可多論說為正，諸論多據次第說故。如《俱舍》雖說有六，而得捨中捨五得一，謂五下分結盡遍知。故知《俱舍》許是忍果等，據次第說言得六也。亦不可言得名不得體，隨所得者即是體故。亦不可說得體不具故不名得，超越那含得羅漢時，亦得一切結盡遍知故。獨覺、菩薩依根本禪得五下分結盡遍知故。此釋決定無煩多解，順《婆沙》評家義故。

"The treatise says […] because they are fruits of the path of cultivation": this explains the quantity of fruits of receptivity and of knowledge. There are six fruits of receptivity and three fruits of knowledge, as is understandable from the text. The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 63, says: "Question: How many are fruits of the path of seeing? Answer: Six, namely the first six. Some say: seven, namely the first seven. Question: How many are fruits of the path of cultivation? Answer: Three, namely the last three. Question: How many are fruits of receptivity? Answer: It should be stated as with the fruits of the path of seeing. Question: How many are fruits of knowledge? Answer: It should be stated as with the fruits of the path of cultivation." Neither of the two statements is evaluated [as definitive]. Question: Between these two statements, which is correct? Answer: Established according to different aspects, neither contradicts principle. Six is based on the gradualist; seven encompasses the direct-transcender. As to why most treatises say one obtains six and do not say seven, there are two reasons: first, the fundamental establishment of the comprehensions is established with respect to the gradualist; second, they only hold when stated jointly: that is, although a direct-transcender attains the comprehension of the exhaustion of the five lower-binding fetters, at that time he does not attain the comprehensions under the truth of the path of the form and formless realms; because he gathers comprehensions at that time, in the preceding stages he has only five, which means that the direct-transcender at most possesses only five comprehensions. A gradual person mostly possesses six kinds. When stated jointly for the two persons, it therefore amounts to seven. If based on the gradualist, only six is correct. If encompassing the direct-transcender, there are definitely seven. Were it not so, when a direct-transcender reaches the subsequent knowledge of the path (mārga-anvadharma-jñāna), what would the comprehension he attains be called? One cannot say that he attains the comprehension under the path of the higher realms, because at that time he gathers comprehensions. Nor can one say he does not attain a comprehension, because the commentators say that at that time the bodhisattva and pratyekabuddha attain the comprehension of the exhaustion of the five lower-binding fetters. Nor can one say it is a fruit of knowledge, because at that time receptivity serves as the uninterrupted path. Nor can one say that the seeing-abandoned [defilements] of the upper realms are secondary and the cultivation-abandoned [defilements] of the desire realm are primary: for the comprehension is not named the comprehension of the exhaustion of desire-greed, and since it is named the abandonment of the five lower-binding fetters, desire-greed is binding to the lower realm, and the defilements of seeing of the upper two realms additionally bind to the lower realm, to lower sentient beings, and guard against transgression, so they all bind to the lower realm. How could they be primary and secondary? Nor can it be rejected because it is a third statement, since there is no such precedent anywhere in the Vibhāṣā. The second statement is correct, for its precedents are more than one. Nor can the majority of treatises be taken as definitive, because most treatises speak based on the gradualist. For instance, although the Kośa says there are six, in the section on acquisition and loss it says one discards five and obtains one—namely, the comprehension of the exhaustion of the five lower-binding fetters. Hence we know that the Kośa accepts that it is a fruit of receptivity, etc., and only speaks of obtaining six based on the gradualist. Nor can one say that one attains the name but not the substance, because whatever is attained is the very substance. Nor can one say that because one does not attain the substance in its entirety it is not called attainment, for when an anāgāmin direct-transcender attains arhatship, he also attains the comprehension of the exhaustion of all fetters; and pratyekabuddhas and bodhisattvas rely on the fundamental dhyāna to attain the comprehension of the exhaustion of the five lower-binding fetters. This explanation is definite, with no need for superfluous interpretations, because it conforms to the position of the Vibhāṣā's evaluators.