俱舍論疏 6.111

6.111

論「又於此中至為同類因」，此明利、鈍為因別也。《正理論》云「又諸已生見道、修道及無學道，隨其次第與三、二、一為同類因，展轉為因亦不違理。如何後生勝無漏道，能與前生劣無漏道為同類因而不違理？誰言後生勝為前生劣因？前生鈍根種姓修道，與自相續未來決定不生利根種姓見道為同類因，何理為礙？一切有情各別相續，法爾安立六種種姓。無學望前應知亦爾，然有差別，謂有前生無學聖道，於自相續後生修道為同類因。無學退已，於修道中可有轉生利根義故。若爾，應與本論相違。如說已知根與未知當知根，為所緣、增上，非因、非等無間，如是具知根於二根亦爾。此無相違，有餘意故。如次前說，有餘意文處處皆有，即是此等，故應顯示有餘意文。今此文中有何餘意？謂依後生如是根姓所攝已知根，即望前生如是根性所攝未知根密作如是，言為所緣、增上，非因等無間，劣故、後生故。此文但說已起作用依相續轉諸無漏根，如說有用世第一法。若爾，有情各別相續，法爾安立三乘菩提。如是亦應聲聞乘道得作獨覺、佛乘道因，獨覺乘道作佛道因。無斯過失，性極遠故。若已升陟聲聞道者，無容更生餘乘道故。若爾，已升陟隨信行道、隨法行道，無容更生。是則前生隨信行道，與未來世畢竟不生隨法行道，應不為因。問也。亦無此失，諸鈍根道可有轉成利根道故。謂即由彼隨信行根諸蘊相續，可有轉得屬隨法行蘊相續根。非由已升聲聞乘道諸蘊相續，可有轉得獨覺、佛乘蘊相續道。依如是義，故有說言：雖無是處而假分別。若見道中有出觀者，隨信行道亦有轉得隨法行根，然無出義。故根差別與乘不同。」今詳聖道略有三節：一種姓、二前後位、三所依地。就三之中，種姓最親、次前後位、後依諸地。所以得知如是次第者，同依諸地修九地道，下與上因，非上下因。就此依中，上地見道與下地修道及無學道為同類因，故知地疎於位。又依鈍無學道得與利根有學為因，故知位疎種姓。《正理論》任細而論，《俱舍論》等順其本論。

The treatise says, "Furthermore, herein [...] as equal-status causes," which explains the distinctions between sharp and dull [faculties] in serving as causes. The *Nyāyānusāra* says: "Furthermore, all arisen paths of seeing, paths of cultivation, and paths of the non-learner serve as equal-status causes respectively for three, two, and one; mutually serving as causes also does not contradict reason. How can a later-arisen superior undefiled path serve as an equal-status cause for an earlier-arisen inferior undefiled path without contradicting reason? Who says that a later-arisen superior is a cause for an earlier-arisen inferior? What principle obstructs an earlier-arisen path of cultivation belonging to the lineage of dull faculties from being an equal-status cause for a path of seeing belonging to the lineage of sharp faculties that will definitely never arise in one's own mental continuum in the future? In the individual mental continuums of all sentient beings, six kinds of lineages are established by nature. The non-learner relative to the earlier [stages] should also be understood in this way, yet there is a distinction: namely, there is an earlier-arisen holy path of a non-learner that is an equal-status cause for a later-arisen path of cultivation in one's own mental continuum. This is because after a non-learner falls away, there is the possibility of transitioning into sharp faculties within the path of cultivation. If so, this would contradict the root treatise (mūla-śāstra), which says that the faculty of having known (ājñātāvīndriya) is an object-support (ālambana) and sovereign (adhipati) [condition] for the faculty of knowing what is not yet known (anājñātamājñāsyāmīndriya), but neither a cause nor an immediate [condition]; and likewise the faculty of one who has full knowledge relative to the [other] two faculties. There is no contradiction here, because it was stated with another intention (abhiprāya). As stated just before, passages with another intention exist in various places, and this is one of them; hence one should reveal the passage's other intention. Now, what is the other intention in this text? It refers to the faculty of having known subsumed under such a faculty-lineage that arises later: with respect to the faculty of not yet knowing subsumed under such a faculty-lineage that arises earlier, it is secretly stated to be an object-support and sovereign [condition], but neither a cause nor an immediate [condition], because it is inferior and because it arises later. This text speaks only of undefiled faculties that have already exercised their activity and proceed relying on a continuum, just as it is said that the worldly supreme dharma has utility. If so, in the individual mental continuums of sentient beings, the bodhi of the three vehicles is established by nature. In that case, the path of the śrāvaka vehicle should also be able to serve as a cause for the paths of the pratyekabuddha and buddha vehicles, and the path of the pratyekabuddha vehicle as a cause for the buddha path. There is no such error, because their natures are extremely far apart. If one has already ascended the śrāvaka path, there is no possibility of further generating the path of another vehicle. If so, once one has ascended the path of the follower by faith (śraddhānusārin) or the path of the follower by Dharma (dharmānusārin), there is no possibility of generating the other. Thus, the earlier-arisen path of the follower by faith should not serve as a cause for the path of the follower by Dharma that will never arise in the future! [Objection.] There is no such fault either, because paths of dull faculties can transition into paths of sharp faculties. That is, from the continuum of skandhas of the faculties of that follower by faith, one can transition into obtaining the faculties of the continuum of skandhas belonging to the follower by Dharma. But it is not the case that from the continuum of skandhas of one who has already ascended the śrāvaka vehicle, one can transition into obtaining the path of the continuum of skandhas of the pratyekabuddha or buddha vehicles. Based on this meaning, therefore, some say: although there is no such occurrence, it is distinguished provisionally. If someone in the path of seeing emerges from concentration, the path of the follower by faith would also transition into obtaining the faculties of the follower by Dharma; however, there is no emergence. Hence the distinction of faculties is not the same as that of the vehicles." Now, examining the holy path in detail, there are briefly three levels: first, lineage; second, earlier and later stages; third, the levels on which it relies. Among these three, lineage is the closest, followed by earlier and later stages, followed by the levels on which it relies. How is this order known? Relying equally on the various levels, one cultivates the paths of the nine levels: the lower is a cause for the higher, not the higher for the lower. Within this reliance, the path of seeing of a higher level is an equal-status cause for the path of cultivation and path of the non-learner of a lower level; therefore we know that level is more distant than stage. Furthermore, relying on the path of a dull non-learner, it can serve as a cause for a learner of sharp faculties; therefore we know that stage is more distant than lineage. The *Nyāyānusāra* discusses this in utmost detail, while the *Abhidharmakośa-śāstra* and others follow the root treatise.