俱舍論疏 26.156

26.156

論「非修所成至應頓離染」，此非有部宗。所以得知？《正理論》云「然經主說非修所成，以修所成地別緣故，若異此者應頓離染。此不應理，言修所成唯地別緣，非極成故。謂我宗許靜慮地攝修所成惠，有能總緣隨所依身自、上境故，厭下欣上方能離染。此既總緣唯欣行相，故於離染無有功能。故彼所言甚為非理。」兩說不同，由宗別也。又《正理論》云「此智唯是欲、色界攝。無色界中雖有此顯，而緣法少，非此所明。此通聞、思、修所成惠，皆能除自品，緣一切法故。」今依《婆沙》第十，更以六門分別：一依地別、二最初起、三得差別、四得人別、五緣境通局、六問答分別。一依地別者，評家正義云「一切法無我行相在七地。若別說者，聞所成惠唯在五地，謂欲界、四靜慮；思所成惠唯在欲界；修所成惠唯在六地。四無色地亦有此行相，而不能緣一切法。謂空無邊處非我行相，緣四無色，彼因彼滅，一切類智品道及四無色非擇滅，一切類智品道非擇滅，并一切虛空無為。或欲令是一物、或欲令是多物，此行相盡能緣。識無邊處緣上三無色，乃至非想非非想處唯緣一切，彼因彼滅。一切類智品道及此非擇滅并一切虛空。二初起者，此非我行相依欲、色界身初起。三得別者，加行得、離染得、生得者，通三種此則總說。若別說者，欲界聞思所成非我行相唯加行得，色界聞所成非我行相可言加行得、可言生得。云何可言加行得？謂若此間於自、共相善修習者生彼便得，若不爾者生彼不得。云何可言生得？謂雖此間善修習已，若不得生彼修不能得，生彼方得。彼聞所成非我行相，必依此間所修加行生彼得故。色界修所成非我行相，是加行得及離染得，亦可言是生得。問：若欲界沒生第二靜慮，第二靜慮沒生初靜慮，彼得初靜慮非我行相不？答：若先善修習者得，不爾者不得，乃至生第四靜慮亦爾。問：若欲界沒生無色界，無色界沒生初靜慮，彼得初靜慮非我行相不？有說不得，以極遠故。如是說者，若先善修習者得，不爾者不得，乃至生第四靜慮亦爾。問：若初靜慮沒生第二靜慮，第二靜慮沒生初靜慮，彼得初靜慮非我行相不？答：若先善修習者得，不爾者不得，生餘地亦爾。四得人別者，如是說者，異生亦得，乃至如是說者，外法異生亦得此行相，然與內別。謂內法者，亦加行得、亦生得，亦得、亦在身、亦成就、亦現在前。外法異生唯生得，得而不在身成就、不現在前，以著我故。五緣境通局者，問：云何起非我行相耶？答：若生欲界起欲、色界非我行相，俱能緣一切法。若生初靜慮起初靜慮非我行相，不定者亦能緣一切法，定者唯緣。從初靜慮乃至有頂，起上三靜慮非我行相亦爾。生第二靜慮等，義准可知。問：欲、色二界非我行相，何者緣法多耶？答：色界非我行相若不定者，緣法與欲界等；若定者，則所緣法少於欲界，謂不能緣自隨轉色故。今詳欲界及初定等散非我行相，緣法少二定已上，以不能緣自相應尋、伺及彼生等故。六問答分別。問：此非我行相，若欣作意俱，云何緣可厭法？若厭作意俱，云何緣可欣法？答：應作是說，欣作意俱。問：若爾，云何緣可厭法？答：彼瑜伽師於此可欣法生欣尚故。設於無量可厭聚中，有一可欣則生欣樂，何況多耶。如銅錢聚上置一金錢，便於此聚總生欣樂。此亦如是，故無有失。問：亦有喜、憂根能緣一切行法，何故此行相非彼相應？答：互相違故。謂此歡行相轉，彼慼行相轉，故不相應。」

The treatise says, "It is not arisen from cultivation […] one would instantly abandon defilement." This is not the Sarvāstivāda system. How is this known? The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "However, the author of the treatise (*Vasubandhu*) says that it is not arisen from cultivation, because that which is arisen from cultivation takes objects ground by ground, and if it were otherwise, one would instantly abandon defilement. This is not reasonable, for the assertion that what is arisen from cultivation takes objects only ground by ground is not well established. That is, our school maintains that the wisdom arisen from cultivation subsumed under the grounds of the dhyānas is capable of collectively taking as an object its own and higher spheres according to the bodily support, because only through repelling the lower and delighting in the higher can one abandon defilement; since this collective apprehension is solely an aspect of delight, it has no efficacy in abandoning defilement. Therefore what he says is extremely unreasonable." These two explanations differ because of their distinct sectarian tenets. Furthermore, the *Nyāyānusāra* says: "This cognition is subsumed under only the desire and form realms. Although this clearly exists in the formless realm, it takes few dharmas as objects and is not what is elucidated here. This extends across wisdom arisen from hearing, reflection, and cultivation, for all of them can exclude their own class and take all dharmas as objects." Now, relying on the tenth fascicle of the *Vibhāṣā*, we further distinguish this through six gates: first, distinction by ground of reliance; second, initial arising; third, distinction of attainment; fourth, distinction of persons who attain it; fifth, broadness or narrowness of the sphere taken as object; sixth, distinction by questions and answers. First, regarding distinction by ground of reliance: the correct view of the evaluators is: "The aspect of all dharmas being non-self is present in seven grounds. Distinguishing them specifically: wisdom arisen from hearing is in only five grounds, namely the desire realm and the four dhyānas; wisdom arisen from reflection is in only the desire realm; wisdom arisen from cultivation is in only six grounds. The four formless grounds also possess this aspect, but they cannot take all dharmas as objects. That is, the aspect of non-self of the stage of infinite space takes as objects the four formless realms, their causes, their cessations, the path of the entire class of subsequent cognition, the non-analytical cessation of the four formless realms, the non-analytical cessation of the path of the entire class of subsequent cognition, along with all unconditioned space; whether one wishes it to be a single entity or many entities, this aspect can take them all as objects. The stage of infinite consciousness takes the upper three formless realms as objects, and so forth up to the stage of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, which takes only all [dharmas of its own stage], their causes, their cessations, the path of the entire class of subsequent cognition, its non-analytical cessation, along with all space." Second, regarding initial arising: this aspect of non-self initially arises based on bodies of the desire and form realms. Third, regarding distinction of attainment: regarding attainment by preparation (prayoga), attainment by detachment (vairāgya), and attainment by birth (upapatti), speaking generally it extends across all three kinds. Distinguishing them specifically: the aspect of non-self arisen from hearing and reflection in the desire realm is obtained solely by preparation; the aspect of non-self arisen from hearing in the form realm can be called obtained by preparation, and can be called obtained by birth. How can it be called obtained by preparation? If in this life one has skillfully practiced the specific and general characteristics, upon being born there one obtains it, and if not, upon being born there one does not obtain it. How can it be called obtained by birth? Even if one has skillfully practiced in this life, if one does not attain birth there, one cannot obtain it through cultivation, and only upon being born there does one obtain it; because that aspect of non-self arisen from hearing must rely on the preparation cultivated in this life and is obtained upon being born there. The aspect of non-self arisen from cultivation in the form realm is obtained by preparation and obtained by detachment, and can also be called obtained by birth. Question: If one dies in the desire realm and is born into the second dhyāna, and dying in the second dhyāna is born into the first dhyāna, does one obtain the aspect of non-self of the first dhyāna? Answer: If one previously practiced it skillfully, one obtains it; otherwise one does not obtain it; and so on up to being born into the fourth dhyāna, it is likewise. Question: If one dies in the desire realm and is born into the formless realm, and dying in the formless realm is born into the first dhyāna, does one obtain the aspect of non-self of the first dhyāna? Some say one does not obtain it, because it is extremely distant. Those who speak [correctly] say: If one previously practiced it skillfully, one obtains it; otherwise one does not obtain it; and so on up to being born into the fourth dhyāna, it is likewise. Question: If one dies in the first dhyāna and is born into the second dhyāna, and dying in the second dhyāna is born into the first dhyāna, does one obtain the aspect of non-self of the first dhyāna? Answer: If one previously practiced it skillfully, one obtains it; otherwise one does not obtain it; and it is likewise for birth into the remaining grounds. Fourth, regarding distinction of persons who attain it: Those who speak [correctly] say that worldlings (pṛthagjana) also obtain it, up to and including those who speak [correctly] saying that non-Buddhist worldlings also obtain this aspect, though it differs from those within the Dharma. That is, those within the Dharma attain it both by preparation and by birth, both obtain it, have it in the body, possess (samanvāgama) it, and have it manifest before them; non-Buddhist worldlings obtain it solely by birth, and having obtained it, it is not present in their body, not possessed, and does not manifest before them, because they cling to a self. Fifth, regarding the broadness or narrowness of the sphere taken as object: Question: How does the aspect of non-self arise? Answer: If born in the desire realm, one arouses the aspect of non-self of the desire and form realms, and both can take all dharmas as objects. If born in the first dhyāna, one arouses the aspect of non-self of the first dhyāna: when unabsorbed, it also can take all dharmas as objects; when absorbed, it takes only [its own ground]. From the first dhyāna up to the peak of existence (bhavāgra), when arousing the aspect of non-self of the higher three dhyānas, it is likewise. For being born into the second dhyāna, and so forth, the meaning can be inferred accordingly. Question: Between the aspects of non-self of the desire and form realms, which one takes more dharmas as objects? Answer: For the aspect of non-self of the form realm, if unabsorbed, the dharmas it takes as objects are equal to those of the desire realm; if absorbed, the dharmas it takes as objects are fewer than those of the desire realm, meaning it cannot take as an object its own accompanying physical form (sahabhūrūpa). Now, examining the unabsorbed aspect of non-self of the desire realm, first dhyāna, and so on, it takes fewer dharmas than the second dhyāna and above, because it cannot take as objects its own associated investigation (vitarka), analysis (vicāra), their arising, and the like. Sixth, distinction by questions and answers. Question: If this aspect of non-self is associated with the mental application of delight (abhinandana), how does it take repulsive dharmas as objects? If it is associated with the mental application of revulsion (udvega), how does it take delightful dharmas as objects? Answer: It should be said that it is associated with the mental application of delight. Question: If so, how does it take repulsive dharmas as objects? Answer: Because that practitioner generates delight toward this delightful dharma. Even within an immeasurable heap of repulsive things, if there is a single delightful thing, delight arises, how much more so when there are many! Just as when a single gold coin is placed upon a heap of copper coins, one generates delight overall toward that heap; here too it is likewise, so there is no error. Question: The faculties of joy (saumanasya) and grief (daurmanasya) can also take all conditioned dharmas as objects; why is this aspect not associated with them? Answer: Because they are mutually contradictory. That is, this [aspect of non-self] operates with an aspect of pleasure, while that [grief] operates with an aspect of sorrow; hence they are not associated."