俱舍論頌疏論本 3.84

3.84

十一阿羅漢者，引本論為難也。故論云：「豈不根本《阿毘達磨》問由幾根得阿羅漢？答十一根。云何乃言由九根得（十一根者，意、喜、樂、捨、信等五根、已知、具知也）？」依一容有說者，通前難也。依一身中容有十一根故，本論說理實有九故，說九根故，論云：「實得第四，但由九根，而本論言十一根者，依一身中容有故說。謂容有一補特伽羅，從無學位數數退已，由喜、樂、捨隨一現前，後復證得阿羅漢果，由斯本論說十一根。然無一時三受俱起，是故今說定由九根（已上論文）。」解云：阿羅漢果通九地證故，有喜、樂、捨三受證也。又依薩婆多宗，許阿羅漢數數有退，故於一身許有三受證阿羅漢，然當證時唯有一受，故說九根。各據一義。不相違也。論云：「於不還果中，何不如是說（此難意者，謂第三果許數數退，通六地證，容於一身有三受證，何不本論說十一根）？以無樂根，證不還果，而於後時得有退義，亦無退已由樂後得。」（答前難也）解云：若樂根證，必定不退；若是退者，必無後時由樂根證。故知樂受證者必無喜、捨，喜、捨證者必無樂受故。故於一身必無容有三受證，得不還果義故，不可說十一根也。又論云：「非先離欲超越證第三，而於後時得有退義。此離欲果二道所得，極堅牢故。」解云：此文釋樂根證不退所以也。由此樂根在第三禪，次第證者，唯得初禪故。樂根證必是超越，謂凡夫位斷二禪惑，後時容依第三禪，起見道證不還果，故知超越，得起樂根。此超越人畢竟不退，以二道所得故：一、先凡夫位斷欲惑盡，世道所得也；二、今入見道，聖道所得也。次第證人唯一道得，故可退矣。此上義隱，論有要處，故具錄之。

"Eleven for an arhat" cites the root treatise as an objection. Therefore the treatise states: "Does not the root Abhidharma ask, 'Through how many faculties does one obtain [the fruit of] an arhat?' and answer, 'Eleven faculties'? Why then say it is obtained through nine faculties (the eleven faculties being mind, joy, pleasure, equanimity, the five faculties of faith and the rest, having known, and fully knowing)?" "According to one [body] there is a teaching of possibility" resolves the preceding objection. Because eleven faculties are possibly present in a single body, the root treatise stated so; but in reality there are nine, so nine faculties are stated. Thus the treatise states: "In actual realization of the fourth [fruit], it is only through nine faculties; but the root treatise's statement of eleven faculties is stated according to what is possibly present in a single body. That is, it is possible for a certain person (pudgala), having repeatedly fallen away from the stage of the non-learner, to later realize the fruit of an arhat again through whichever of joy, pleasure, or equanimity becomes manifest; on this account the root treatise says eleven faculties. However, there is no time when the three feelings arise together, and therefore we now state that it is definitely through nine faculties (end of treatise citation)." The explanation is: because the fruit of an arhat is realized across nine stages, it is realized through the three feelings of joy, pleasure, and equanimity. Furthermore, according to the Sarvāstivāda school, it is accepted that an arhat repeatedly falls away, and thus within a single body it is accepted that an arhat is realized through three feelings; however, at the exact time of realization there is only one feeling, and therefore nine faculties are spoken of. Each relies on a specific meaning, so they do not contradict each other. The treatise asks: "Why is it not stated in this way for the fruit of the non-returner (the meaning of this objection is: since the third fruit is accepted to repeatedly fall away and is realized across six stages, so that within a single body it is possible to realize it through three feelings, why did the root treatise not state eleven faculties)? Because there is no one who realizes the fruit of the non-returner through the pleasure faculty and later has the possibility of falling away, nor is there one who, having fallen away, later attains it through pleasure" (this answers the preceding objection). The explanation is: if one realizes it through the pleasure faculty, one definitely does not fall away; if one falls away, one definitely will not later realize it through the pleasure faculty. Therefore we know that one who realizes it through the pleasure feeling definitely lacks joy and equanimity, and one who realizes it through joy or equanimity definitely lacks the pleasure feeling. Hence, within a single body there is definitely no possibility of realizing the fruit of the non-returner through three feelings; therefore one cannot state eleven faculties. Furthermore, the treatise states: "It is not the case that one who has previously eliminated desire and leaps over to realize the third [fruit] can later fall away. Because this fruit of detachment from desire is acquired through two paths, it is extremely steadfast." The explanation is: this passage explains why realization through the pleasure faculty does not involve falling away. Because this pleasure faculty is in the third dhyāna, and a gradual practitioner only attains up to the first dhyāna, realization through the pleasure faculty must be by leaping over—that is, having severed the defilements of the second dhyāna in the stage of an ordinary person, later relying on the third dhyāna one can give rise to the path of vision and realize the fruit of the non-returner; hence we know that by leaping over, one can give rise to the pleasure faculty. This person who leaps over never falls away, because it is acquired through two paths: first, having completely severed sensual defilements previously in the stage of an ordinary person, it is acquired by the worldly path; second, now entering the path of vision, it is acquired by the noble path. A gradual practitioner attains it by only one path, and therefore may fall away. The meaning above is subtle and is an essential point in the treatise, so it is recorded in full.