俱舍論疏 27.84

27.84

論「毘婆沙者至如田夫類」，明因比智知無色也。言「觀彼因行及彼等流」者，謂先以餘智，審觀彼前因，及彼後等流，有此智生，引真願智。或觀欲、色死生時心，比度而知所生、從處。由如田夫見種子時知後苗也，及見苗時知先種子。《正理論》云「若爾，何故立願智名？有學、異生亦能知故。不爾，所知定、不定故。而聞傳說：諸大聲聞記未來事有定、不定，定者是願智，不定者非願智。一解：願智實知未來，謂先起比智觀過、現世，准度未來引願智生方能真見，即由此故能知無色。謂先觀彼因行、等流，有比智生，引真願智。或觀欲、色死生時心，比度而知所生、從處，引生願智方能實知。第二解云：或比智知亦無有失，以證比智所緣必同。若比不知，如何能證？是則願智應不可言力能遍緣三界、三世。」准此，緣三界、三世也。

On the Śāstra's statement: "The Vaibhāṣikas say ... just as a farmer": this explains that the formless [realm] is known through inferential knowledge. The words "observing their causal practices and their flowing outflows" mean that one first employs other knowledge to carefully observe their preceding causes and their subsequent flowing outflows; when this knowledge arises, it induces true knowledge resulting from resolve. Or, observing the mind at the time of death and rebirth in the desire and form [realms], one infers and knows where one is reborn and whence one came. Just as a farmer knows the subsequent sprout when seeing the seed, and knows the preceding seed when seeing the sprout. The Nyāyānusāra says: "If so, why is it called 'knowledge resulting from resolve'? For trainees and ordinary persons can also know [such things]. This is not so; because what is known is either definite or indefinite. It is traditionally said: when the great śrāvakas predict future events, some are definite and some are indefinite. The definite ones are [known by] knowledge resulting from resolve; the indefinite ones are not [known by] knowledge resulting from resolve. One explanation is: knowledge resulting from resolve truly knows the future, meaning that one first gives rise to inferential knowledge to observe the past and present worlds, and by inferring and estimating the future, it induces the arising of knowledge resulting from resolve, and only then can one truly see it; precisely by this means is one able to know the formless [realm]. That is, one first observes their causal practices and flowing outflows, an inferential knowledge arises, which induces true knowledge resulting from resolve. Or, observing the mind at the time of death and rebirth in the desire and form [realms], one infers and knows where one is reborn and whence one came, and this induces the arising of knowledge resulting from resolve, so that one can truly know it. A second explanation says: or, there is no fault even if it is known by inferential knowledge, because the object of direct realization and inferential knowledge must be the same. If it were not known by inference, how could it be directly realized? If that were so, one could not say that knowledge resulting from resolve has the power to universally take the three realms and the three times as its object." According to this, it takes the three realms and the three times as its object.