瑜伽師地論略纂 15.12

15.12

論云「依未生起一切出世聖法分位，建立異生性」者，如《俱舍》第四卷末說，及《對法抄》云云。此有諍。如小乘唯有覆無記性，修道斷；大乘不可爾，以無別非得生故。舊《雜心》云：凡夫性一切非得，無處收，以凡夫性局故。《俱舍》別立非得，即異生性在非得中，非得即寬，收一切非得盡。小乘得有法前、法後、法俱得；非得唯有法前、法後非得，無法俱非得。以法現在時必成就名得，即有成就得；無現成就法，名法俱非得。縱更非得在現在，必有法俱得，以成就故；若過未，即有非得。今大乘唯有法俱得，以於有依建立得故，無有法前後得非得。既唯於過未建立，即非得總無，以不於無法上建立故；若有法前後得，可有非得，以於過未建立故，故大乘無非得。別立異生性，此性即於見所斷煩惱上建立，以不得見道等諸聖法故。若得見道，即於一切聖道上不得建立。若得一分，餘是此種類，故見道不名異生性，通三界。若離彼地染，亦名離一分。亦可義說依種有法，亦是有覆無記性，不得一切法想義，在三乘見道。若不得修道名異生性，即見道應名此性，亦可說在世第一法捨，見道時斷。此如前五十二法廣立，彼文大精。

The treatise says: "Ordinary-being-hood (pṛthagjanatva) is established on the basis of the stage wherein all supramundane noble dharmas have not yet arisen." This is as stated at the end of the fourth fascicle of the Kośa and in the Notes on the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-bhāṣya]. There is a dispute here. In the Hīnayāna, it is exclusively of the obscured-unrecorded nature, severed by the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga). In the Mahāyāna, this cannot be so, because there is no separate non-possession (aprāpti) arising. The old Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya says: Ordinary-being-hood is all non-possession and has no single locus of subsumption, because ordinary-being-hood is narrow. The Kośa separately posits non-possession: ordinary-being-hood is included within non-possession, and non-possession is broad, completely subsuming all non-possession. In the Hīnayāna, possession (prāpti) includes possession prior to the dharma, possession posterior to the dharma, and simultaneous possession with the dharma; non-possession has only non-possession prior to the dharma and non-possession posterior to the dharma, and does not have non-possession simultaneous with the dharma. Because when a dharma is present, it must be achieved, which is called possession—thus there is simultaneous possession of achievement; there is no dharma presently achieved that is called simultaneous non-possession with the dharma. Even if non-possession were present, there must be simultaneous possession with the dharma due to achievement; whereas with the past and future, there is non-possession. Now the Mahāyāna has only simultaneous possession with the dharma, because possession is established upon what exists and is supported, and there is no possession or non-possession prior to or posterior to the dharma. Since it is established solely in relation to past and future, non-possession is entirely non-existent, because it is not established upon non-existent dharmas; if there were possession prior to and posterior to the dharma, there could be non-possession, because it would be established in relation to the past and future. Hence the Mahāyāna has no non-possession. It separately posits ordinary-being-hood, and this nature is established upon the defilements to be severed by seeing, because one has not obtained the noble dharmas of the path of seeing and so forth. If one obtains the path of seeing, it cannot be established with respect to any noble path. If one obtains one portion, the remainder belongs to this category; therefore, the path of seeing is not termed ordinary-being-hood, and it pervades the three realms. If one is detached from the contamination of that stage, it is also termed abandoning one portion. It may also be said by implication that, based on existent dharmas among the seeds, it is also of the obscured-unrecorded nature; the meaning of not obtaining the conception of all dharmas resides in the path of seeing of the three vehicles. If not obtaining the path of cultivation were termed ordinary-being-hood, then the path of seeing should be termed this nature; it can also be said to be abandoned at the stage of supreme worldly dharmas (laukikāgradharma) and severed at the time of the path of seeing. This is extensively established in the [discussion of the] fifty-two dharmas above; that text is very precise.