俱舍論疏 3.74

3.74

論「在無學道至乃至廣說」，此釋具知根名。「知己已知」者，唯說盡智，即是鈍根。謂得盡智，知我已知苦、知集等。或得盡智，知我已知苦、斷集等。「或習此知已成性者」，謂得盡智、無生智也，此即利根得其二智。我已知苦是盡，不復更知是無生智。「乃至廣說」者，謂我已斷集，不復更斷等。《正理論》云「第三具知根體知己已知，故名為知，習知成性故，或能護知故。」《抄》釋云「謂無學道云：苦我已知等，名知己已知。此名知。習已成性是初得，謂盡智。或能護知，是後位，即無生智。成而能護，故名為具。《俱舍》亦云『以初為有知，後為習成性。』此能有、能習者名為具知。具知家根，名具知根。」案此二論意有差別，若此論以三道慧名未知欲知等，即彼是根，就同依釋。是即彼是根義，但唯是慧。若《俱舍》意，彼之三名目能成行者，就依士釋。彼所有根，名為彼根，即具攝九法。《正理論》云「九根相應合成此事，故意等八亦得此名。」《婆沙》歷七十五法廢立，恐煩不述，然不過此前建立門。無前義者，不立為根。

Regarding the passage in the treatise, “On the path of the adept … up to … and so on at length”: This explains the name of the faculty of one who has fully known. “Knowing that one has already known” refers only to the knowledge of exhaustion (kṣayajñāna), which pertains to dull faculties. That is, having attained the knowledge of exhaustion, one knows: “I have already known suffering, known the origin,” and so forth; or having attained the knowledge of exhaustion, one knows: “I have already known suffering, severed the origin,” and so forth. “Or one who has cultivated this knowing until it has become one's nature” refers to having attained both the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising (anutpādajñāna); this pertains to sharp faculties who attain both knowledges: “I have already known suffering” is exhaustion; “not to be known again” is the knowledge of non-arising. “And so on at length” means “I have already severed the origin, not to be severed again,” and so forth. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “The entity of the third faculty, that of one who has fully known, is called ‘knowing’ because it knows what it has already known, or because it has cultivated knowing into its nature, or because it can protect knowledge.” The *Notes* explains: “That is, on the path of the adept, saying ‘Suffering has already been known by me,’ and so forth, is called knowing what one has already known. This is called knowing. ‘Having cultivated it so that it has become one's nature’ refers to the initial attainment, namely the knowledge of exhaustion. ‘Or being able to protect knowledge’ refers to the subsequent stage, namely the knowledge of non-arising. Having completed it and being able to protect it, it is therefore called ‘complete’ (ājñā). The *Kośa* also says: ‘Taking the former as possessing knowledge, and the latter as having cultivated it into one's nature.’ The one capable of possessing and cultivating it is called ‘one who has fully known’ (ājñātāvin). The faculties belonging to one who has fully known are called the faculty of one who has fully known (ājñātāvīndriya).” Examining these two treatises, there is a difference in intention: if, according to this treatise (*Nyāyānusāra*), the discernment of the three paths is named ‘one who will know what is not yet known’ and so forth, then that discernment itself is the faculty, explained as a karmadhāraya compound; in that case, the meaning of ‘that is the faculty’ consists solely of discernment. If, according to the *Kośa*’s intention, those three names designate the practitioner capable of accomplishing the practice, it is explained as a tatpuruṣa compound: the faculties possessed by that [practitioner] are named ‘that [practitioner]’s faculties,’ which fully encompasses the nine dharmas. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: “Nine faculties associated together accomplish this matter; therefore, mind and the other eight also obtain this name.” The *Vibhāṣā* reviews the inclusion and exclusion among the seventy-five dharmas, but for fear of prolixity it is not related here; however, it does not exceed the criteria established previously. What lacks the preceding meanings is not established as a faculty.