俱舍論疏 22.8

22.8

論「見道速能至故通二種」，答。見道速能治三界故，第一因也。頓斷九品見所斷故，第二因也。由此二因唯是無漏，非世間道有此功能，故唯無漏。結成也。修道非速斷三界惑、非頓斷九品，有異見道，故通有漏。《正理》彈云「所說見道唯無漏因，謂一剎那斷九品故。此因非證，有漏亦能一剎那中斷五部故，豈能頓斷便無漏攝？」今詳《正理》所彈不當。其斷惑者，九品頓斷難，必用無漏道。五部合斷易，凡位唯合斷。九品頓斷難，見道頓斷九，所以唯無漏。我以九品頓斷為因，何為將五部合斷為難？

On the Śāstra's text, "Because the path of seeing can swiftly... therefore it applies to both kinds": This is the answer. The path of seeing being able to swiftly counteract the three realms is the first cause. Its abandoning in a single sudden stroke the nine grades abandoned by seeing is the second cause. By these two causes, it is exclusively anāsrava, for worldly paths do not have this capability; therefore, it is exclusively anāsrava: this is the conclusion. The path of cultivation does not swiftly abandon the afflictions of the three realms, nor does it abandon the nine grades in a single sudden stroke; it is different from the path of seeing, and therefore applies to the sāsrava. The Nyāyānusāra criticizes this, saying: "The stated reason why the path of seeing is exclusively anāsrava is that it abandons the nine grades in a single kṣaṇa. This reason does not prove it, for sāsrava [paths] are also able to abandon five categories in a single kṣaṇa; could being able to abandon in a single sudden stroke necessarily make it subsumed under anāsrava?" Now, examining this, the Nyāyānusāra's criticism is not fitting. Regarding the abandonment of afflictions, abandoning the nine grades in a single sudden stroke is difficult, necessarily requiring an anāsrava path. Abandoning the five categories combined is easy; the ordinary stage only abandons them combined. Abandoning the nine grades in a single sudden stroke is difficult, and the path of seeing abandons the nine in a single sudden stroke, which is why it is exclusively anāsrava. When I use abandoning the nine grades in a single sudden stroke as the reason, why does it bring up abandoning the five categories combined as an objection?