俱舍論疏 23.146

23.146

論「又道類智至非見道攝」，又重釋也。立比量云：第十六心定是修道。以四果攝等，此立因也。如餘修道，此舉喻也。《正理論》云「謂見道位唯修未來自同類境智及行相，道類智位如餘修道，通修未來同、異類境智及行相，故修道攝。若謂見道有種種類，如或有時唯修無漏，有時通修有漏、無漏，如是應許有時唯修自同類境智及行相，有時通修同異類境智及行相。此例不然，唯修同境種種類故（此文亦證修俗智唯修同諦行相也）。」

On the passage of the treatise from "Furthermore, the cognition of the category of the path" to "it is not subsumed under the path of seeing": This is an additional re-explanation. A formal inference is formulated: The sixteenth mind is definitely the path of meditation (thesis). Because it is subsumed under the four fruits, and so forth (this establishes the reason). Like other paths of meditation (this adduces the example). The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "In the state of the path of seeing, one cultivates only the future cognitions and modes of aspect that share its own similar objective sphere; in the state of the cognition of the category of the path, just as in other paths of meditation, one comprehensively cultivates both similar and different future objective spheres, cognitions, and modes of aspect. Therefore, it is subsumed under the path of meditation. If it were argued that the path of seeing has diverse types—such that at some times it cultivates solely the undefiled, while at other times it comprehensively cultivates both defiled and undefiled, and thus one should admit that at some times it cultivates only the cognition and modes of aspect of its own similar objective sphere, while at other times it comprehensively cultivates the cognitions and modes of aspect of both similar and different objective spheres—this analogy is not valid, because it cultivates only diverse varieties within the same objective sphere (this text also proves that cultivating conventional cognition cultivates solely the modes of aspect of the identical truth)."