俱舍論疏 3.169

3.169

論「總說雖然而有差別」，已下重釋不還果也。與其前果根數雖同而受根有別，謂前超越唯用捨受，依未至故；此果超越，通樂、喜、捨，容依六地證三果故。依未至、中間及第四禪，即是捨受。前二禪喜、第三禪樂根。若次第者亦與前殊，第九解脫或入根本地、或在未至，若入根本地加其喜根，若不入者還同前果。《婆沙》一百四十八云「問：離欲界染第九解脫道，誰即入靜慮？誰不入耶？答：有說欣多者入、厭多者不入；有說為求靜慮而離染者入、為求解脫而離染者不入；有說利根者入、鈍根者不入。」已上論文。又三釋俱通，所以無評。問：因何次第證有入根本地，超越證者即無斯理？答：離修道惑多種不同，或有欣上厭下而斷於惑，若是利根欣心多者得入根本。或有為求解脫、或有為求靜慮而斷於迷惑，若是利根為求靜慮得入根本。道類智雖是修道，容預多念，亦有利根然為現觀諦理，若依未至入於見道，不為欣上地、不為求靜慮入見道故，不入根本。又解：先得根本靜慮，若意樂根本即依根本，若意樂未至即依未至，由此無間、解脫必同一地。斷非想惑無其上地可欣求故，依其未至得第四果，解脫道中不入根本。

The treatise says: "Although this is so in general, there are distinctions." From here down, it re-explains the fruit of the non-returner. Although the number of faculties is the same as the preceding fruit, the faculties of sensation (vedanendriya) differ. That is, the preceding bypassing uses only the sensation of equanimity because it relies on the threshold [concentration] (anāgamya); whereas bypassing for this fruit extends to pleasure, joy, and equanimity, because it admits relying on six stages to realize the three fruits. Relying on the threshold, the intermediate [dhyāna], and the fourth dhyāna, it is the equanimity sensation; the first two dhyānas have joy, and the third dhyāna has the pleasure faculty. As for the gradual [practitioner], it is also different from the previous [fruit]: the ninth path of liberation either enters the fundamental stage (maulabhūmi) or remains in the threshold; if one enters the fundamental stage, one adds the faculty of joy, and if one does not enter it, it is still the same as the previous fruit. The Vibhāṣā, fascicle 148, says: "Question: In the ninth path of liberation abandoning the defilements of the desire realm, who immediately enters a dhyāna, and who does not enter? Answer: Some say those with much aspiration enter, while those with much disgust do not enter; some say those who abandon defilement to seek dhyāna enter, while those who abandon defilement to seek liberation do not enter; some say those of sharp faculties enter, while those of dull faculties do not enter." The above is the text of the treatise. Furthermore, all three explanations are admissible, which is why there is no definitive verdict. Question: Why is it that in gradual realization there is entry into the fundamental stage, whereas in realization by bypassing there is no such principle? Answer: Abandoning the afflictions of the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga) has many different modes: some abandon afflictions by aspiring to the higher and being disgusted with the lower, and if one is of sharp faculties with much aspiring mind, one is able to enter the fundamental; or some abandon delusions to seek liberation, or some to seek dhyāna, and if one is of sharp faculties seeking dhyāna, one is able to enter the fundamental. Although the subsequent cognition of the path (mārgānvayajñāna) belongs to the path of cultivation and admits of multiple moments, and one may also be of sharp faculties, yet because it is for the direct realization of the truths (abhisamaya), if one enters the path of vision (darśanamārga) relying on the threshold, it is not for the sake of aspiring to higher stages nor for seeking dhyāna that one enters the path of vision, so one does not enter the fundamental. Another explanation: if one has previously attained fundamental dhyāna, then if one's inclination is for the fundamental, one relies on the fundamental; if one's inclination is for the threshold, one relies on the threshold. Therefore the uninterrupted [path] and [path of] liberation necessarily share the same stage. When abandoning the afflictions of Bhavāgra (neither-perception-nor-non-perception), there is no higher stage to aspire to and seek; therefore, relying on its threshold to attain the fourth fruit, one does not enter the fundamental during the path of liberation.