俱舍論疏 25.96

25.96

論「所以者何至但依六地」，釋所以也。無學練根如得應果，故通九地。有學練根，捨鈍果及向，唯得利果。有學前果，唯依未至。第三不還，通依六地，不依無色，如見道故。由此學位修練根者，若住果道，加行等三皆果道攝。若住勝果道，加行、無間，勝果道攝；解脫，道果攝。住無學位修練根者，加行等三唯果道攝。諸住果位修練根時，捨果得果。住勝果位修練根時，捨二得果。又諸聖位修練根時，與本得果地或同或異，謂初、二果依地必同，不還、應果依地不定，或依本地、或上或下有差別者，若諸不還，依下練根，不得上果。阿羅漢不爾，如本得果故。准此論文，依根本地入見道者，亦修練根，不還依上得果，依下修練根故。《婆沙》六十七評家云「應作是說：若於上地已得自在，而依下地學轉根等，亦得上地無漏果道。然轉根時不得無色，彼定無有不還果故。」《正理》據於上地不自在者，《婆沙》得上果者據自在說，不相違也。

On the Śāstra's "Why is this? … it relies only on six grounds": this explains the reason. For the non-trainee, honing the faculties is like attaining the fruit of arhatship, and therefore it extends to nine grounds. For the trainee, honing the faculties means abandoning the dull fruit and the approach; one attains only the sharp fruit. The trainee's prior fruit [stream-enterer] relies only on the threshold concentration. The third [fruit, the non-returner,] extends to six grounds and does not rely on the formless realm, just as with the path of seeing. For this reason, when one in the trainee stage trains their faculties: if they abide in the fruit-path, the three [paths] of preliminary application and so forth are all subsumed under the fruit-path. If they abide in the superior-fruit path, preliminary application and the uninterrupted [path] are subsumed under the superior-fruit path; the liberation [path] is subsumed under the fruit of the path. When one abiding in the non-trainee stage trains their faculties, the three [paths] of preliminary application and so forth are subsumed only under the fruit-path. Whenever those abiding in the fruit stage hone their faculties, they abandon a fruit and attain a fruit. When those abiding in the superior-fruit stage hone their faculties, they abandon both and attain a fruit. Furthermore, when all noble stages hone their faculties, the ground may be identical with or different from the ground where the fruit was originally attained: the grounds relied upon for the first and second fruits are necessarily identical; for the non-returner and the fruit of arhatship, the grounds relied upon are indefinite—either relying on their original ground, or above or below. Where there is a difference: if non-returners hone their faculties relying on a lower [ground], they do not attain a higher fruit. Not so for the arhat, because it is like their original attainment of the fruit. According to this treatise text, one who enters the path of seeing relying on a root ground also trains their faculties, because non-returners attain the fruit relying on a higher ground and train their faculties relying on a lower ground. The arbitrator in fascicle sixty-seven of the Vibhāṣā says: "It should be said thus: if one has already attained mastery over a higher ground and trains to transform the faculties relying on a lower ground, they also attain the higher ground's anāsrava fruit-path. However, when transforming faculties, one does not attain the formless [realm], because there is definitely no fruit of the non-returner there." The Nyāyānusāra is based on those who lack mastery over the higher ground, whereas the Vibhāṣā's statement on attaining the higher fruit is based on having mastery; there is no contradiction.