俱舍論疏 3.184

3.184

論「若成就未知根至及未知根」，釋定成十三根。以見道定依欲界故，如前有身、苦。已離欲者容入見道，憂非定成。無眼等四根容入見道，眼等不定。女、男二根漸捨命者，容不成就，故非定成。《正理論》云「若成未知根，定成就十三，謂身、命、意、苦、樂、喜、捨、信等五根及未知根。漸命終位傳說深心厭生死故能入見道，漸捨命無男女根亦容入聖故。不可釋云以男、女互成不定故不說，則男、女互無數終十四。因何論文但說十三？若言男、女互無，以不定不說十四，即是西方師義。迦濕彌羅國師云：此中說數不說名也。故《婆沙》一百五十云『若成就女、男二根，定成就過去、未來九，三世二，現在四。過、未九者，謂四受、信等五根。三世二者，謂意、一受。現在四者，謂男、女、身、命。餘不定如前說。西方師云：應過、未定成十，謂五受、信等五。三世定成一，謂意。受名不定。故迦濕彌羅國諸師云：名雖不定而數即定，必有一受現在前故。此中說數不說名也。又云：若成就未知當知根，定成就三世七，過去、未來三，未來、現在一，現在二，三世七者，謂意、一受、信等五根。過、未三者，謂三受。未現一者，謂未知當知根。現二者，謂身、命。此二說如前。』」准上論文，故知女、男二根非互有不定，故不說也。問：若爾，何故《正理》九云「言一形者，無有二形及與無形，得聖法故。」答：此說本性無形，及除去無形，不能得聖，非是漸捨命者。准《婆沙》文，不容異解。既無形以志性不定不得入聖，漸捨命者以深厭生死能入聖故，義不同也。問：漸命終者無形得戒以不？答：亦得戒無失。無形不得戒，不據漸命終者。無形不得戒，據本性、損壞，以多煩惱等。漸命終者性猶未轉，何不得戒？又漸捨命眾同分，本男、女根依，漸捨故無，非是無根所依眾同分，如何即令不得戒耶？漸命終者如入無心亦得於戒，受緣具故。非不律儀有漸捨命得，漸捨命時無作及受事故，不同律儀。

On the Śāstra's statement: 'If one possesses the faculty of what is not yet known up to and the faculty of what is not yet known,' this explains the definite possession of thirteen faculties. Because the path of seeing is definitely based in the desire realm, it includes the body and pain as before. One who has already detached from desire may enter the path of seeing, so grief is not definitely possessed. One lacking the four faculties of the eye and the rest may enter the path of seeing, so the eye and the rest are indefinite. As for the female and male faculties, in one whose life is gradually departing, they may not be possessed, and thus they are not definitely possessed. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: 'If one possesses the faculty of what is not yet known, one definitely possesses thirteen, namely: physical, vitality, mind, pain, pleasure, joy, equanimity, the five faculties of faith and so forth, and the faculty of what is not yet known. It is traditionally said that at the stage of gradual dying, one is capable of entering the path of seeing because of deep revulsion toward saṃsāra, and because entering the noble [state] is also admissible for one whose life is gradually departing and who lacks the male and female faculties. One cannot explain this by saying that because male and female are mutually indefinite they are not mentioned, for if one mutually lacks male or female, the count would ultimately be fourteen. Why does the text of the Śāstra speak only of thirteen? If one says that they mutually lack male or female and that fourteen is not stated because they are indefinite, this is the doctrine of the Western masters. The masters of Kashmir say: here it speaks of number, not of name. Therefore the *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 150, says: "If one possesses both female and male faculties, one definitely possesses nine in the past and future, two across the three times, and four in the present. The nine in the past and future are the four sensations and the five faculties of faith and so forth. The two across the three times are mind and one sensation. The four in the present are male, female, physical, and vitality. The rest are indefinite as explained before. The Western masters say: one should definitely possess ten in the past and future, namely the five sensations and the five of faith and so forth; one should definitely possess one across the three times, namely mind; and the name of the sensation is indefinite. Therefore the masters of the country of Kashmir say: although the name is indefinite, the number is definite, because one sensation must be present before one. Here it speaks of number, not of name. Furthermore, it says: If one possesses the faculty of knowing what is not yet known, one definitely possesses seven across the three times, three in the past and future, one in the future and present, and two in the present. The seven across the three times are mind, one sensation, and the five faculties of faith and so forth. The three in the past and future are the three sensations. The one in the future and present is the faculty of knowing what is not yet known. The two in the present are physical and vitality. These two theories are as before."' Based on the above treatise text, we therefore know that it is not because the male and female faculties are mutually indefinite that they are omitted. Question: If so, why does *Nyāyānusāra*, fascicle 9, say: 'The phrase "one sex" means that neither one with both sexes nor one without sex attains the noble Dharma'? Answer: This refers to being sexless by nature, or sexless due to excision; such [persons] cannot attain the noble [state], not those whose life is gradually departing. Based on the text of the *Vibhāṣā*, no different interpretation is admissible. Since one without sex cannot enter the noble [state] because their resolve and nature are unstable, whereas one whose life is gradually departing can enter the noble [state] because of deep revulsion toward saṃsāra, the meanings are not the same. Question: Does one whose life is gradually departing and is without sex obtain the precepts or not? Answer: They also obtain the precepts without fault. That one without sex does not obtain the precepts does not refer to one whose life is gradually departing. That one without sex does not obtain the precepts refers to one [who is so] by nature or through mutilation, due to excessive defilements and the like. For one whose life is gradually departing, the nature has not yet changed, so why would they not obtain the precepts? Furthermore, the nikāya-sabhāga of one whose life is gradually departing originally relies on the male or female faculty, and it is absent because of gradual departure, not because it is a nikāya-sabhāga that relies on no faculty—how then could they be prevented from obtaining the precepts? One whose life is gradually departing is like one entering the mindless [state], who also obtains the precepts because the conditions for receiving them are complete. It is not that non-restraint (asaṃvara) is obtained by one whose life is gradually departing, because at the time of gradual departure there is no unmanifest [karma] or engagement in the action; thus it is unlike restraint (saṃvara).