俱舍論疏 24.58

24.58

論「又唯七種至立善士趣」，第二釋也。前就行善名為善趣，此就上行故名善趣。唯不還果唯向上行，不復還下。前之向果皆於欲界來往生也。雖一間人唯有一生，或上或下，非唯上生，故不名為善士趣也。二釋之中，後將為勝。若唯行善名為善趣，無學之人亦唯行善，因何不取？《婆沙》一百七十五云「問：如生、不生各有三種，上流亦爾，謂全超、半超、一切處沒。何故合說一耶？答：生、不生各是一有相續，於中分位差別難知，欲令知故各說三種。上流三種生數自辨，差別易知，是故但隨上行義勝合說一種。復次生與不生一期時促，於差別義唯有爾所易可建立，是故分三。上流時長，差別多種、分齊難辨，故合立一。復次生與不生亦有等義，上流亦有別義，欲以二文互相顯故作如是說。復次生與不生，善士趣相現前易了，以彼速趣般涅槃故，各分為三。其上流者，善士趣相微隱難知，以彼尚經多生死故，但合說一（生謂生般等，不生謂中般）。」

The passage of the treatise starting with "Furthermore, only these seven are... established as destinations of the virtuous (satpuruṣa-gati)" is the second explanation. The former [explanation] named them 'virtuous destinations' in terms of practicing good; this [explanation] names them 'virtuous destinations' because they go upward (urdhvagati). Only the non-returner proceeds solely upward and does not return below again. The prior candidates and fruit-attainers are all born returning back and forth in the desire realm. Although a 'one-interval' (ekavīcika) person has only one birth left, it may be upward or downward and not solely an upward birth; therefore, they are not called a destination of the virtuous. Between these two explanations, the latter is regarded as superior. If practicing only good were the reason to name them virtuous destinations, persons beyond training (aśaikṣa) also practice only good—why would they not be included? The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 175, says: "Question: Just as there are three kinds each for those who attain nirvāṇa upon being born and those who do not, so too for those who go upstream (ūrdhvasrotas)—namely, the complete transcend-all (sarvatrotkruṣṭa), the partial transcend-all (ardhotkruṣṭa), and those who pass away in all stations (sarvasthānacyuta). Why are they collectively stated as one? Answer: 'Upon being born' and 'without being born' each refer to a continuum of a single existence, wherein the distinctions of states are difficult to know; in order to make them known, three kinds are stated for each. For the three kinds of those who go upstream, the number of births is self-evident and their distinctions are easy to know; therefore, they are collectively stated as one kind simply in accordance with the preeminent meaning of going upward. Furthermore, for 'upon being born' and 'without being born', the period of one lifetime is brief, and with respect to distinctive meanings there are only so many that are easily established; thus they are divided into three. For those who go upstream, the time is long, the distinctions are manifold, and their boundaries are difficult to discern; thus they are collectively established as one. Furthermore, 'upon being born' and 'without being born' also have equal meanings, and those who go upstream also have distinct meanings; desiring to illuminate them mutually through the two texts, it is stated thus. Furthermore, for 'upon being born' and 'without being born', the characteristics of the destination of the virtuous are manifest and easily understood because they swiftly proceed to parinirvāṇa; each is divided into three. As for those who go upstream, the characteristics of the destination of the virtuous are subtle, hidden, and difficult to know because they still undergo many births and deaths; hence they are only collectively stated as one ('upon being born' refers to attaining nirvāṇa upon being born, etc., and 'without being born' refers to attaining nirvāṇa in the intermediate state)."