俱舍論疏 23.188

23.188

論「又彼有餘至不證圓寂」，更以七結釋也。《正理》破云「若謂聖道種類爾故，如為七步毒蛇所螫。此喻不然，壽量定者過此齊限亦得住故。又餘於此作是釋言：由彼有餘七結在故，謂二下分、五上分結。此亦無能證唯七有，唯貪、嗔結引七有故。又無契經說不還者受極七有，又無經說五上分結引欲界生，故彼所言無能證力。但由法爾極受七生，於中不應強申理趣。」述曰：准上論文，不破論主，是破《婆沙》異師釋也。此論但敘有部多解，不自立義。今詳七步蛇喻，亦是以法爾毒力不越七步，受報定者自是別緣。如說火能燒、水能溺等皆能殺人，而樹提不燒、念佛不溺，豈疑火燒、水溺之喻？以七結故欲有七生，此釋無理。若謂以有七結即有欲七生，若有五結應有五生在。又家家等三人亦有七結，因何生唯三等耶？《婆沙》四十六云「七生天上、七生人中者，此依圓滿預流而說。故人、天有等受七生。然有預流人、天生別，謂或天七人六、或人七天六、或天六人五，乃至或天二人一、或人二天一。」太法師以此文不言人一天一，即謂無須陀洹受一生者，及引《涅槃經》、《成實論》為證，又云：若人、天各一生，即是一來果。此皆非證。《婆沙》云「人、天有等受七生」者，然有預流人、天生別，等受七生者，唯說七生。理亦合說六、五、四、三、二、一生等。又謂若有一生定業，即斷六品取一來者，此亦非理。斷煩惱緣有差別故。若謂定約生斷惑者，即應無有惑斷不斷不定之人。又預流人應無減七，定無第八即斷惑故。若先受一生、後斷煩惱，如何不許？《涅槃》、《成實》非此宗義，縱有明文亦不成證。受七生者，中間雖有聖道現前，以餘業持不證圓寂者，此說有七生定業之力持故不證圓寂，唯一生定業經生無業力持令不證圓寂。

The treatise says, "Furthermore, because they have remaining... they do not realize complete extinction." This further explains it by means of the seven fetters. The *Nyāyānusāra* refutes this, saying: "If it is claimed that this is because of the intrinsic nature of the noble path, just as with one bitten by a seven-pace venomous serpent, this metaphor is incorrect; for one whose lifespan is determined may continue to abide even past this limit. Furthermore, another offers this explanation here: 'It is because they have seven fetters remaining—namely, two lower-order and five higher-order fetters.' This also cannot establish that there are only seven existences, because only the fetters of greed and anger induce the seven existences. Moreover, no sūtra says that a non-returner undergoes at most seven existences, nor does any sūtra say that the five higher-order fetters induce birth in the desire realm. Therefore, what they say has no proving power. It is simply due to the nature of things (dharmatā) that one undergoes at most seven births; in this matter, one should not forcefully propound rational arguments." Explanation: Based on the text above, this does not refute the author of the treatise, but refutes the explanation of other masters of the *Vibhāṣā*. This treatise merely sets forth the various interpretations of the Sarvāstivādins without establishing its own thesis. Examining the metaphor of the seven-pace viper now, it is also because the natural power of the venom does not exceed seven paces; for those whose karmic retribution is determined, that is naturally a different condition. Just as it is said that fire can burn and water can drown, both being able to kill people, yet Śrīgupta was not burned and recollecting the Buddha prevented drowning—how could one doubt the metaphors of fire burning and water drowning? That there are seven births in the desire realm on account of the seven fetters—this explanation is unreasonable. If one asserts that having seven fetters entails having seven births in the desire realm, then if one has five fetters, there ought to be five births remaining. Furthermore, the three types of practitioners, such as the kulāṅkula, also possess seven fetters; why are their births only three and so forth? The *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 46, states: "'Seven births in heaven and seven births among humans' is said based on the full stream-enterer. Therefore, among humans and gods there are those who equally undergo seven births. However, there are stream-enterers whose births among humans and gods differ—namely, either seven in heaven and six among humans, or seven among humans and six in heaven, or six in heaven and five among humans, down to either two in heaven and one among humans, or two among humans and one in heaven." Master Tai, because this text does not mention one among humans and one in heaven, immediately claimed that there is no srotāpanna who undergoes a single birth, citing the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* and the *Satyasiddhi-śāstra* as proof, and further stating: "If it were one birth each among humans and gods, that would be the fruit of the once-returner." None of these are valid proofs. When the *Vibhāṣā* says "among humans and gods there are those who equally undergo seven births, yet there are stream-enterers whose births among humans and gods differ," those who equally undergo seven births refers only to seven births; logically it should also encompass six, five, four, three, two, and one birth, and so forth. Furthermore, to claim that if there is determinate karma for a single birth, one immediately abandons the six categories to attain [the fruit of] a once-returner—this too is unreasonable, because the conditions for abandoning afflictions differ. If one claims that the abandoning of defilements is definitely tied to rebirth, then there should be no person whose abandonment or non-abandonment of defilements is indeterminate. Moreover, for a stream-enterer there would be no reduction from seven, because upon definitely having no eighth birth they would immediately abandon defilements. If one first undergoes one birth and later abandons afflictions, why should this not be allowed? The *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* and *Satyasiddhi-śāstra* do not represent the tenets of this school; even if they contain explicit statements, they do not constitute proof. As for one undergoing seven births who, even though the noble path manifests in the interim, does not realize complete extinction because they are sustained by remaining karma: this means that because they are sustained by the power of determinate karma for seven births, they do not realize complete extinction; with determinate karma for only a single birth, when passing through rebirth there is no karmic power sustaining them to prevent realizing complete extinction.