俱舍論疏 6.306

6.306

論「第二句者至續者前得」，此釋第二句。與果而不取也「續善根時最初所得之」者，是續善根時最初剎那所起得也。爾時此得是所取故，舉所取得顯前能取與而不取，前已取故。《婆沙》十八云「有時與果非取果，謂續善根時即住過去所捨善得。」論主正云「應言爾時續者前得。」准此正文，續者前得，即是續善根者過去世生得善得，此於爾時與而不取故，舉果顯因相難顯故，所以正之。若准《正理論》彈續者前得，即是前斷善根時最後離身得，此得前時唯有取果未曾與果。今得初續，唯與不取。前位無量多剎那得，皆曾與果今更與故，所以不說。《正理》彈云「經主於此謬作是言：應說爾時續者前得。今詳彼說，理不應然。所以者何？非唯斷位最後所捨得，與今續時初得等流果，以於斷位先已滅得，亦與續時得等流故。如何前位多剎那得為同類因皆取今得，而於今時但說最後一剎那得與今得果？是故應如本文為善。」今詳續者前得，通其兩釋：一續者次前得，即是斷時最後捨得；二續者前得，是續善根時已前諸得。此論若依後釋，論主但正其文不正其義，即《正理》謬彈。正理論師何理證知論主定依前釋？

The Śāstra states: "The second alternative: [...] the preceding possession of the one who reconnects." This explains the second alternative: giving fruition without grasping. "That which is first acquired at the time of reconnecting roots of wholesomeness" refers to the possession arisen at the very first moment of reconnecting roots of wholesomeness. At that time, because this possession is what is grasped, citing the grasped possession reveals that the preceding one which was capable of grasping now gives without grasping, because it had already grasped previously. The *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle eighteen, says: "There is a time when it gives fruition without grasping fruition: namely, at the time of reconnecting roots of wholesomeness, the abandoned wholesome possessions that abide in the past." The Author of the Śāstra corrects it: "One should say: at that time, the preceding possession of the one who reconnects." According to this corrected text, "the preceding possession of the one who reconnects" refers to the past-lifetime innately acquired wholesome possessions of the one who reconnects roots of wholesomeness. At that time, these give without grasping; because citing the fruition to reveal the cause makes the characteristic difficult to elucidate, he corrects it. If one follows the *Nyāyānusāra*'s criticism, "the preceding possession of the one who reconnects" refers to the possession that last departed the body when roots of wholesomeness were previously severed; this possession, at an earlier time, only grasped fruition and had never given fruition. Now, when first reconnected, it gives only and does not grasp. As for the possessions of the countless moments in earlier states, they all had already given fruition and would now give again, so they are not mentioned. The *Nyāyānusāra* criticizes: "The Author of the Sūtra mistakenly makes this statement: 'One should say: at that time, the preceding possession of the one who reconnects.' Examining his statement now, in reason it should not be so. Why is that? It is not only the possession last abandoned at the state of severance that gives an outflowing fruition to the first possession at the time of now reconnecting; for the possessions that had previously ceased at the state of severance also give an outflow to the possession at the time of reconnection. How could the possessions of multiple moments in the earlier state, as causes of similar kind, all grasp the present possession, yet in the present time only the possession of the last single moment is said to give fruition to the present possession? Therefore, it is better to keep the original text." Now examining "the preceding possession of the one who reconnects", it admits of two interpretations: first, the possession immediately prior to reconnection, which is the possession last abandoned at severance; second, the possession prior to the one who reconnects, meaning all possessions prior to the reconnection of roots of wholesomeness. If this Śāstra follows the second interpretation, the Author of the Śāstra merely corrected its text without correcting its meaning, and thus the *Nyāyānusāra* was mistaken in its criticism. By what reasoning does the master of the *Nyāyānusāra* prove that the Author of the Śāstra definitely followed the first interpretation?