俱舍論疏 26.13

26.13

論「三中世俗至四諦為境」，此明三智境各別也。《正理》釋云「前有漏智總名世俗。瓶、衣等物性可毀壞，顯在俗情，故名世俗。此智多取世俗境故，多順世間俗事轉故，從多建立世俗智名。非無取勝義、順勝義事轉，然是愛境無勝功能息內眾惑，故非無漏。」又云「有漏、無漏二智何別？無漏於境行相明利，彼有漏惠與此相違。如竭地羅、餘木二炭，於所燒練勢用不同，及勝劣香能熏用別。炎鐵、草火熱勢有殊，二智相望差別亦爾。」

Regarding the verse-text, 'Among the three, conventional [knowledge] ... has the four truths as its object': this explains that the three knowledges each have distinct objects. The Nyāyānusāra explains: 'The former contaminated knowledge is generally called conventional (saṃvṛti). Things such as vases and clothes are destructible in nature and are manifest in ordinary conventional perception; hence they are called conventional. Because this knowledge predominantly apprehends conventional objects and predominantly proceeds in accord with ordinary worldly affairs, the name conventional knowledge is established from the majority. It is not that it does not apprehend ultimate truth or proceed in accord with ultimate matters; however, it is an object of craving and lacks the superior capacity to quiet the internal defilements, hence it is not uncontaminated.' It also says: 'What is the difference between contaminated and uncontaminated knowledges? The uncontaminated is bright and sharp in its cognitive mode toward objects; contaminated discernment is the opposite of this. It is like the difference in burning and smelting efficacy between charcoal of the khadira wood and other woods, or the difference in perfuming efficacy between superior and inferior incense. Or as the heat intensity differs between flaming iron and grass fire, so too is the difference between the two knowledges when compared.'