俱舍論疏 3.74

3.74

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.