俱舍論頌疏論本 6.28

6.28

Regarding "only equal or superior as fruit": this sets apart distinctions. However, it can only serve as a cause for what is equal or superior, not as an inferior cause, because it is an undefiled path. That is, because it is produced by effort (prayogaja)—how could one make strenuous exertion and have an inferior phenomenon as the fruit? Therefore, it is a similar cause only for what is equal or superior. As an illustration, the patience with the knowledge of the phenomenon of suffering (duḥkhe dharmajñānakṣānti) that has already arisen is, for its part, a similar cause for the future patience with the knowledge of the phenomenon of suffering; this is an equal cause. If the patience with the phenomenon of suffering is a similar cause for the knowledge of the phenomenon of suffering (duḥkhe dharmajñāna), up to the knowledge of non-arising (anutpādajñāna), this is called superior, because knowledge is superior to patience. Expanding this up to: all knowledges of non-arising are similar causes only for their equal kind, because there is no phenomenon superior to the knowledge of non-arising. Furthermore, the path of seeing (darśanamārga), the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga), and the path beyond training (aśaikṣamārga) that have already arisen are, according to their order, similar causes for three, two, and one. The explanation says: The path of seeing is a cause for three: seeing, cultivation, and beyond training. The path of cultivation is a cause for two, excluding the path of seeing. The path beyond training is a cause for one, excluding the paths of seeing and cultivation. Furthermore, within this, paths of dull faculties are similar causes for both dull and sharp [faculties]; paths of sharp faculties are causes only for sharp paths. As in the case of those who follow through faith (śraddhānusārin), those resolved through faith (śraddhādhimukta), and the time-released (samayavimukta), their paths of liberation are, according to their order, similar causes for six, four, and two. The explanation says: The path of seeing has two noble persons: first, dull; second, sharp. The dull is called the one who follows through faith; the sharp is called the one who follows through phenomena (dharmānusārin). The path of cultivation has two noble persons: first, dull; second, sharp. The dull is called the one resolved through faith; the sharp is called the one who has attained vision (dṛṣṭiprāpta). The path beyond training has two noble persons: first, dull; second, sharp. The dull is called the time-released; the sharp is called the not-time-released (asamayavimukta). In reference to these three paths, there are altogether six noble persons. Now, the one who follows through faith is a cause for six. The one resolved through faith is a cause for four, excluding the two noble persons of the path of seeing. The path of the time-released is a cause for two, excluding the four noble persons of seeing and cultivation. If it is the path of the one who follows through phenomena, of the one who has attained vision, and of the not-time-released, they are, according to their order, similar causes for three, two, and one. The explanation says: The one who follows through phenomena is a cause for three, namely, following through phenomena, attaining vision, and the not-time-released. Attaining vision is a cause for two, excluding following through phenomena. The not-time-released is a cause for one, excluding following through phenomena and attaining vision. The treatise says: "The paths of superior stages are causes for inferior stages; how can they be called either equal or superior?" The explanation says: This questions the paths of the nine stages being causes for one another—the superior stage is superior and the inferior stage is inferior; if it is a cause for the inferior, then it would be a cause for what is inferior, not equal or superior. The treatise says: "Because of the growth of the cause, and because of faculties; that is, in the path of seeing and so forth, in the lowest of the low grades and so forth, in subsequent stages the cause progressively grows." The explanation says: This answers the preceding objection. It is not that stages being higher or lower makes the path and so forth superior or inferior. Even if based on an inferior stage, when viewed in relation to the path of a superior stage, there are two kinds of causes by which it can be termed superior: first, because of the growth of the cause; second, also because of faculties. Regarding "because of the growth of the cause": the passage from "that is, in the path of seeing and so forth" explains the growth of the cause. "And so forth" includes the path of cultivation and the path beyond training. In subsequent stages the cause progressively becomes more superior: that is, cultivation and beyond training are after the path of seeing, and the path beyond training is after the path of cultivation, which is called "subsequent." Furthermore, the path of seeing and so forth each have nine grades of paths, such as the lowest of the low grade and so forth. Among these nine grades and so forth, in subsequent stages the cause also becomes more superior. For instance, the path of seeing arising in a superior stage is a cause for the path of cultivation and so forth of an inferior stage; and the path of the lowest of the low grade and so forth of a superior stage is a cause for the path of the medium of the low grade and so forth of an inferior stage, because the cause grows in subsequent stages. The second, "because of faculties": the path of dull faculties of a superior stage is a cause for the path of sharp faculties of an inferior stage. The text of the treatise does not explain "faculties" because it is easily understood. Furthermore, the treatise says: "Although within a single mental continuum there is no possibility of the two paths of following through faith and following through phenomena arising together, that which has already arisen is a cause for the future." The explanation says: This text resolves an implicit objection. The intention of the implicit objection is to challenge the preceding "also because of faculties." For example, if within one bodily continuum the dull-faculty path of following through faith has already arisen, it is impossible to further arise the sharp-faculty path of following through phenomena; how could one say that the dull-faculty path of a superior stage is a cause for the sharp-faculty path of an inferior stage? Therefore it says: although within a single continuous body there is no possibility for the two paths to arise [together], that which has already arisen in a superior stage being a cause for the future following through phenomena in an inferior stage is logically without obstruction.