俱舍論疏 3.73

3.73

Regarding the passage in the treatise, “If on the path of cultivation … up to … is named ‘one who has known’”: This explains the name of the second undefiled faculty. Upon reaching the subsequent-knowledge of the path, one has already known the truths exhaustively; there is no unperceived realm of the noble truths that one gives rise to the noble path in order to seek to know; rather, merely to sever the afflictions of the path of cultivation, one repeatedly discerns the realm of the four truths again, and therefore it is said to be named ‘one who has known.’ The *Vibhāṣā*, fascicle 143, states: “The sixteenth thought-moment should be like the [preceding] seven knowledges; why is it spoken of uniquely as the faculty of one who has known, and not ‘knowing what has already been known’? Answer: This is also spoken of from the majority perspective: although the first moment is similar to the seven knowledges, all subsequent moments are different from them. Spoken of from the majority perspective, they are all called the faculty of one who has known, because they are of a uniform nature.” According to this treatise text, the preceding seven knowledges last for only a single moment. “The subsequent-knowledge of the path definitely has multiple thought-moments in the two vehicles, or when an assembly of śrāvakas emerges [from meditation], it definitely has multiple thought-moments.” According to this, repeatedly knowing is called ‘known.’ Some say: After this, there is no longer any path of not-yet-known that overshadows or covers it, not allowing the lower to oppress the higher and cause it to lose self-mastery, for it must certainly be so. Referring to knowing as ‘already known’ is like referring to the time of going as ‘already gone’; it is just like that. According to this treatise text, the path of not-yet-known is lower, and the path of already-known is higher; receptivity is lower, and knowledge is higher; what comes before is lower, and what comes after is higher. Although the preceding seven [knowledges] could also be named ‘known’ in the sense of ‘speaking of known with respect to knowing,’ the subsequent receptivity to the subsequent-knowledge of the path is called ‘not yet known,’ and is thus called ‘the lower oppressing the higher.’ Although all eight knowledges can be named ‘known,’ because the seven knowledges have what is lower above them, they are not named ‘known,’ whereas the eighth has nothing lower above it and is therefore named ‘known.’ Although the subsequent-knowledge of the path cannot know itself and is only known by knowledge upon reaching the second moment, it is like a single dust mote on Mount Sumeru or a single drop in the great ocean. Furthermore, the formulation is established with respect to the truths, not with respect to moments. Question: In the path of cultivation, one contemplates the truths in order to sever afflictions, as well as to refine the faculties, for the bliss of the Dharma, and so forth; why is it only said to be for severing afflictions? Answer: After the path of the first fruit, one must give rise to the path of the higher fruit, and that path of the higher fruit is precisely the preliminary application for severing afflictions. Furthermore, refining the faculties and so forth are done out of fear of falling back due to afflictions, and experiencing the bliss of the present Dharma is also the superior path of progression for severing afflictions. Therefore, by merely speaking of severing afflictions, the meaning encompasses the rest; because of this, the author of the treatise speaks only of severing afflictions.