俱舍論疏 28.209

28.209

論「此四相望至謂自非餘」，述四淨定自相生，不望無漏及味定也。「初能生二」，謂順退分生順退分，及生住分也。「第二生三」者，謂順住分生順住分、生退分定及勝進分。「第三生三」者，謂勝進分生勝進分，及決擇分順住分也。已上皆次第生，不隔越。「第四生一謂自非餘」者，順決擇分唯生自類不生勝進，與前不同。詳其意趣，以住決擇分者樂斷諸有，修無漏故，不生勝進分也。《正理論》一說相生同此論。有說：亦生順勝進分，皆次相生無隔越也。又《正理》云「若順煩惱名順退分，諸阿羅漢豈有退理？非彼猶有順退分定可令現前，離染捨故，雖有此難而實無違。謂順住中有順退者，亦得建立順退分名。從彼有退，如先已說。」已上論文。今詳此釋由未盡難。於住分中立退非理，於三分中例亦應然，此即四分有雜亂失。今作一釋：此唯說退分順煩惱者，據中、下緣令起煩惱。若勝緣力起煩惱者，亦從下住分生煩惱也。如異生離惑，若全離地染，以難退故即容命終。分離地染有退分故，要還却退方得命終，以易退故。聖分離染并無漏得分離欲者，容有不退不進而命終者。退與不退更有異緣，非唯退分。若起惑勝緣強，劣住分亦退；若起惑緣劣，有退分不退。

The passage of the śāstra from 'These four with respect to each other...' down to '...namely its own, not others' explains the reciprocal arising of the four pure attainments among themselves, without reference to the untainted and the relished attainments. 'The first can give rise to two' means that the part conducive to degeneration gives rise to the part conducive to degeneration and gives rise to the part conducive to maintenance. 'The second gives rise to three' means that the part conducive to maintenance gives rise to the part conducive to maintenance, gives rise to the attainment conducive to degeneration, and to the part conducive to excellence. 'The third gives rise to three' means that the part conducive to excellence gives rise to the part conducive to excellence, to decisive penetration, and to the part conducive to maintenance. All the above arise in successive order, without skipping over. 'The fourth gives rise to one, namely its own, not others' means that the part conducive to decisive penetration gives rise only to its own kind and does not give rise to excellence, differing from the previous ones. Examining its underlying intent: because one abiding in decisive penetration delights in severing all existences and cultivates the untainted, it does not give rise to the part conducive to excellence. One explanation in the Nyāyānusāra agrees with this treatise on their reciprocal arising. Another explanation says: it also gives rise to the part conducive to excellence, all arising successively without skipping over. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra states: 'If that which conforms to affliction is called the part conducive to degeneration, how could arhats have any principle of degeneration? It is not that they still have an attainment conducive to degeneration that could be brought to presence, because it is abandoned upon detachment from defilement. Although there is this objection, in reality there is no contradiction. That is, within that which is conducive to maintenance, there is that which is conducive to degeneration, so the designation "part conducive to degeneration" is also established; falling back occurs from that, as explained earlier.' The above is the text of the treatise. Now, examining this explanation, it does not fully resolve the objection. Establishing degeneration within the maintenance part is unreasonable; if this were applied analogously to the other three parts, it would entail the flaw of confusing the four parts. Now let us offer an explanation: this statement that the part conducive to degeneration conforms to affliction is based on middling and inferior conditions causing affliction to arise. If it is through the force of powerful conditions that afflictions arise, afflictions may also arise from the inferior maintenance part. For instance, when an ordinary person detaches from defilement: if they have completely detached from the defilement of a stage, because it is difficult to fall back, they are permitted to die. If they have detached from a fraction of the defilement of a stage, because there is the part conducive to degeneration, they must first fall back before they can die, because it is easy to fall back. For noble ones who have detached from a fraction of defilement, along with those who have attained detachment from desire for a fraction through the untainted, there may be those who die without falling back and without advancing. Falling back and not falling back depend on further different conditions, not solely on the part conducive to degeneration. If the powerful conditions for giving rise to afflictions are strong, even the inferior maintenance part can degenerate; if the conditions for giving rise to afflictions are inferior, even with the part conducive to degeneration one does not degenerate.