俱舍論疏 23.73

23.73

論「此四善根至非擇滅故」，此即第八明男、女得別。《正理論》云「此四善根，唯依男、女。前三男、女俱通得二，第四女身亦得二種。勿後得男身，不成煖等故，依男唯得男身善根，聖轉至餘生亦不為女故。煖、頂、忍位容有轉形故，二依善根展轉為因性。世第一法依女身者，能為二因，女得聖已容有轉得男身理故。」《婆沙》第七云「問：此煖、頂、忍、世第一法依何身起？答：依男、女身。問：依女身得女身所起煖，為亦得男身所起煖耶？答：得。如得煖，得頂、忍亦爾。問：依男身得男身所起煖，為亦得女身所起煖耶？答：得。如得煖，得頂、得忍亦爾。女身於女身所起煖亦得，亦在身、亦成就、亦現在前。於男身所得煖得，而不在身成就、不現在前。如說煖法，頂、忍亦爾。男身於男身所起煖亦得、亦在身、亦成就、亦現在前。於女身所起煖得，而不在身成就、不現在前。如說煖，說頂、說忍亦爾。女身所起煖與女身所起煖為因，與男身所起煖亦為因。如說煖，說頂、說忍亦爾。男身所起煖與男身所起煖為因，不與女身所起煖為因。所以者何？勝非劣因，彼是劣故。如說煖，說頂、說忍亦爾。」今詳三論，前三善根，男、女各得二，依善根同也。准《正理》、《俱舍》，皆云第四女身亦得二種，故知即是多道家也。若一道家，其道是一，依男身故名依男身道，依女身故名依女身道。依女身所得世第一法，唯得依女身，不容依男身，如何得名依男身道？既言得二，故知與《婆沙》同，是非一道也。然《婆沙》、《正理》為因不同，意各別也。《正理》准聖道等為因作論，故說互為因也。如依男、女聖道互得為因，及餘有漏聞、思、修慧，及生得善，染污法等，皆男、女互得為因，不云依女劣也，因何四善即云劣也？故不取《婆沙》之義，言互為因。《正理》、《婆沙》處非唯一。有人三釋不巧，還同未解。恐繁不述，對讀即知。然准《婆沙》多道家，阿羅漢等依一身起道，得修欲界九依身道，不以身非擇滅故不修彼能依道。今二論皆以聖人無作女故，不得女世第一法者，意難解也。深法師以違此理故，此中言得，不言修也。此中得者，是法後得，謂依女身所起世第一法，轉為男身亦依男身得。依男身所起世第一法，不得轉為女身，得女身非擇滅故。今依《婆沙論》釋四善根得與道不同，不可為例。道即重得，四善不然。道不隨依男、女身說其勝劣，四善即隨男、女說有勝劣，豈得例道？今得亦爾，與得道異，故非擇滅即不得也。

On the Śāstra's statement: "These four roots of goodness [...] because of apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha": this eighth [section] clarifies the distinction regarding attainment by males and females. The Nyāyānusāra states: "These four roots of goodness are supported only by males and females. For the first three, both male and female [bodies] attain both [kinds of roots of goodness]. In the fourth, a female body also attains both kinds. This is so that she will not fail to accomplish Heat and the rest upon obtaining a male body later. Dependent on a male, one attains only the roots of goodness of a male body, because an ārya transitioning to another birth will never become a female. In the stages of Heat, Summits, and Receptivities, sex-transformation is possible; hence the roots of goodness supported by the two [sexes] mutually serve as causes for one another. The Supreme Mundane Dharma supported by a female body can serve as a cause for both, because after an ārya female attains noble status, there is the principle that she may transform to obtain a male body." The seventh fascicle of the Vibhāṣā says: "Question: Supported by which body do these Heat, Summits, Receptivities, and Supreme Mundane Dharmas arise? Answer: Supported by male and female bodies. Question: Supported by a female body, does one obtain the Heat generated in a female body, and also obtain the Heat generated in a male body? Answer: One obtains it. Just as one obtains Heat, so it is with obtaining Summits and Receptivities. Question: Supported by a male body, does one obtain the Heat generated in a male body, and also obtain the Heat generated in a female body? Answer: One obtains it. Just as one obtains Heat, so it is with obtaining Summits and Receptivities. A female body, regarding Heat generated in a female body, obtains it, has it in the body, possesses it, and has it present before her. Regarding Heat obtained in a male body, she obtains it, but does not have it in the body, does not possess it, and does not have it present before her. As is said for the dharma of Heat, so it is for Summits and Receptivities. A male body, regarding Heat generated in a male body, obtains it, has it in the body, possesses it, and has it present before him. Regarding Heat generated in a female body, he obtains it, but does not have it in the body, does not possess it, and does not have it present before him. As is said for Heat, so it is said for Summits and Receptivities. The Heat generated in a female body serves as a cause for the Heat generated in a female body, and also serves as a cause for the Heat generated in a male body. As is said for Heat, so it is said for Summits and Receptivities. The Heat generated in a male body serves as a cause for the Heat generated in a male body, but does not serve as a cause for the Heat generated in a female body. Why is that? What is superior is not the cause of what is inferior, because the latter is inferior. As is said for Heat, so it is said for Summits and Receptivities." Now, examining the three treatises: for the first three roots of goodness, male and female each obtain both, so they agree regarding the roots of goodness being supported. In accordance with the Nyāyānusāra and the Kośa, both state that for the fourth, a female body also obtains both kinds; thus we know that this belongs to the school of multiple paths. If it were the school of a single path, the path would be singular: supported by a male body, it is termed the path supported by a male body; supported by a female body, it is termed the path supported by a female body. The Supreme Mundane Dharma obtained supported by a female body could only be supported by a female body and could not be supported by a male body, so how could it be termed the path supported by a male body? Since it states that she obtains both, we know that it is identical with the Vibhāṣā and is not [the doctrine of] a single path. However, the Vibhāṣā and the Nyāyānusāra differ in their explanation of causal conditions, each having a distinct intention. The Nyāyānusāra presents its treatise in accordance with the noble paths serving as causes, and therefore says that they mutually serve as causes. Just as noble paths supported by males and females can mutually serve as causes, and other defiled dharmas, innate goods, as well as defiled dharmas, and other tainted wisdoms of learning, reflection, and cultivation can all mutually serve as causes between male and female without saying that being supported by a female is inferior, why should the four roots of goodness be termed inferior? Therefore, it does not adopt the meaning in the Vibhāṣā, but states that they mutually serve as causes. The places where the Nyāyānusāra and the Vibhāṣā [diverge] are not singular. A certain person made three unskillful explanations, which still amounted to lack of understanding; fearing prolixity, I will not relate them, for reading them together will reveal it. However, according to the multiple-paths school of the Vibhāṣā, when an arhat or the like gives rise to the path supported by one body, they cultivate the paths supported by the nine bodies of the Kāmadhātu, and do not fail to cultivate those supported paths merely because their bodily support has attained apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. Now both treatises argue that because an ārya never becomes a female, they do not obtain the female Supreme Mundane Dharma; this intention is difficult to understand. Because Master Shen found that this contradicted such reasoning, he says that here it speaks of attainment, not of cultivation. The attainment here is posterior attainment of dharma: namely, the Supreme Mundane Dharma arisen supported by a female body, when transformed into a male body, is also attained supported by a male body; the Supreme Mundane Dharma arisen supported by a male body cannot transform into a female body, because the female body has attained apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha. Now, according to the Vibhāṣā's explanation, the attainment of the four roots of goodness differs from the path and cannot serve as a precedent. The path is attained repeatedly, but the four roots of goodness are not so. The path is not said to have superiority or inferiority according to whether it is supported by a male or female body; the four roots of goodness, by contrast, are said to have superiority and inferiority according to male and female, so how could it be analogized to the path? The attainment here is also like this; it is different from the attainment of the path, and thus due to apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha, it is simply not attained.