瑜伽師地論略纂 15.64

15.64

論云「問：缺根成幾根？答：除五，容有餘」，謂除男、女、三無漏。不得缺眼等根，非決定；苦闕男、女，定復缺後三故。此與半擇因五何別？答：前據生便無形，半擇迦據有形，已除苦故別。此中更無文，故知缺男、女根，不得入聖。又若准如小乘，無妨。謂彼云入聖至四善根已方缺，未妨入聖。先缺可然，今據先不缺後聖，不爽。男、女互相無。二形無三無漏等。斷善除後八。異生成十九。得入見道初已去，名未知根，如前會。一切學無學皆名見諦，故具一切。有學除具知，二十一。無學除初二無漏并憂，故十九。初向除後二無漏，故二十。初果除初後無漏，故二十。不還除憂及初後無漏，故十九。羅漢如無學。色界除男、女、憂、苦。無色加除眼等五色、無漏初根。如前分別，依成見道，唯在五地。無色即無身後，而言無色。即有得捨中，信等五起耶方便，捨勝得劣，無生死得捨也。言二十一由境界義名有義，一非，謂命。如教理相對，教能詮理，理名為義；以根對境，境名為義。七色獨不能於義轉，與非色為伴，方能取境；餘十四根，色非色為伴。受根義即隨順五受法，即并意六根之義。未知當知義，善法欲已去，即五根義，此據實體，通三界繫及不繫。下文上文或云唯無漏，或唯界繫及不繫者，此據無漏，故唯取見道十五心是；若并取決擇分善根，故通色界繫及不繫。如此又通三界繫及不繫，亦是無相違。於此會文，更不復現。有色為義，謂七色；餘除命根，十四根以色非色為義。苦根如何通？釋云：苦根見分以色為義，自證分以非色為義。又通言苦根見分無故。二十二根並非有見。見者，色塵也。眼根一是有色，以有見色塵為義。及與非有色一分，與眼同時緣者，及不與同時而取色塵者是。此言有見者，正梵本也；言可見者，非梵本云。亦可名有現。色塵相麁顯，名有現。十七界不爾。現者，即可現示在此彼故，如能顯影，如水鏡中影像。此唯色名有現。梵本有見、現二釋，然以現字俗本無玉，今故為見字。無色一分名有對為義，體非有對，或與對俱緣。苦根有漏、無漏，以有漏為境者，謂體有漏，在無學身，名無漏；非漏故，名無漏，體是界繫法。上下文無違。又無漏苦根者，為無漏導故，名無漏。憂根不爾。八有為為義，七色及苦。此中，上下言義中並無命根。

The treatise states: 'Question: One deficient in faculties is endowed with how many faculties? Answer: Excluding five, there may possibly be the remainder.' This refers to excluding the male, female, and three uncontaminated [faculties]. It is not that one cannot be deficient in faculties such as the eye, which is not definitive; but if one is deficient in the male or female [faculty], one is definitely also deficient in the latter three. How is this distinguished from the five types of paṇḍaka? Answer: The former is based on having no sex organ from birth, whereas the paṇḍaka is based on having a sex organ [which is deformed], and it is distinguished because suffering has already been eliminated. There is no other text on this here, so we know that if one is deficient in the male or female faculty, one cannot enter the noble [path]. Furthermore, if judged according to the Hīnayāna, there is no contradiction. That is, they say that one enters the noble [path] only after having reached the four wholesome roots and then becomes deficient, which does not prevent entering the noble [path]. Having been deficient beforehand may be so; here it is based on not being deficient beforehand and subsequently [becoming] noble, which is consistent. The male and female [faculties] mutually exclude each other. A hermaphrodite lacks the three uncontaminated [faculties] and so on. One who has severed the wholesome roots lacks the latter eight. An ordinary person possesses nineteen. From having entered the initial stage of the path of seeing onward, it is called the faculty of 'coming to know what is not yet known', as reconciled previously. All those in training and beyond training are called 'those who have seen the truth', and therefore possess all [twenty-two]. A learner excludes [the faculty of] 'one who has fully known', [thus possessing] twenty-one. One beyond training excludes the first two uncontaminated [faculties] along with grief, thus [possessing] nineteen. One on the first path of approach excludes the latter two uncontaminated [faculties], thus [possessing] twenty. One on the first fruit excludes the first and last uncontaminated [faculties], thus [possessing] twenty. A non-returner excludes grief and the first and last uncontaminated [faculties], thus [possessing] nineteen. An arhat is like one beyond training. The form realm excludes male, female, grief, and suffering. The formless realm additionally excludes the five physical [faculties] such as the eye, and the initial uncontaminated faculty. Differentiating as before, reliance on accomplishing the path of seeing exists only in the five stages. If one is in the formless realm, there is no body subsequently, yet it says 'formless realm'. In the acquisition and relinquishment [of faculties], the five such as faith arouse wrong expedient means, relinquishing the superior and acquiring the inferior; there is no acquisition and relinquishment through birth and death. The statement that twenty-one are called 'having an object' in terms of the meaning of cognitive object (artha), while one is not—namely the life faculty—is like the juxtaposition of teaching and principle: the teaching can express the principle, and the principle is called 'artha'; when pairing the faculties with their cognitive objects, the cognitive object is called 'artha'. The seven physical [faculties] cannot function with respect to an object alone; only accompanied by non-matter can they grasp an object; the remaining fourteen faculties have both matter and non-matter as companions. The cognitive object of the feeling faculties is the phenomena conforming to the five feelings, which is the cognitive object of the six faculties including mind. The cognitive object of 'coming to know what is not yet known' from the desire for wholesome phenomena onward is the cognitive object of the five faculties; this is based on their real substantial entity, which is connected to the three realms and unconnected. Below and above it is sometimes said to be exclusively uncontaminated, or exclusively realm-bound and unbound: this is based on the uncontaminated, so it refers exclusively to the fifteen moments of mind in the path of seeing; if it also includes the wholesome roots of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī, it is connected to the form realm and unbound. In this way, being also connected to the three realms and unbound is also free from contradiction. Reconciling the texts here, it will not appear again. Having matter as an object refers to the seven physical [faculties]; the remaining fourteen faculties, excluding the life faculty, have both matter and non-matter as objects. How does the suffering faculty harmonize with this? The explanation states: The darśanabhāga of the suffering faculty has matter as its object, while the svasaṃvittibhāga has non-matter as its object. Alternatively, it is harmonized by saying that the suffering faculty has no darśanabhāga. None of the twenty-two faculties are visible. 'Visible' means the sense-datum of color-form. The eye faculty alone is physical, having the visible sense-datum of color-form as its object; along with a portion of the non-physical that perceives concurrently with the eye, as well as that which grasps the sense-datum of color-form without being concurrent. What is spoken of here as 'visible' (youjian) is the correct Sanskrit text; saying 'perceptible' (kejian) is not what the Sanskrit text says. It can also be called 'having manifestation' (youxian). The characteristics of the sense-datum of color-form are gross and conspicuous, so it is called 'having manifestation'. The seventeen dhātus are not like this. 'Manifestation' means that it can be visibly shown to be here or there, like being able to display an image, such as a reflection in water or a mirror. Only color-form is called 'having manifestation'. The Sanskrit text has the two interpretations of 'visible' and 'manifest', but because the character xian (現) in popular manuscripts lacked the jade radical [i.e., was written 見], it is now written as the character jian (見). A portion of the non-physical has that which is resistant as its object; its essence is not resistant, or it cognizes together with the resistant. As for the suffering faculty being contaminated or uncontaminated, taking the contaminated as its cognitive object: its essence is contaminated, but in the body of an aśaikṣa it is designated 'uncontaminated'; because it is not an āsrava, it is designated 'uncontaminated', though its essence is a realm-bound phenomenon. There is no contradiction between earlier and later texts. Moreover, an uncontaminated suffering faculty is designated 'uncontaminated' because it is guided by the uncontaminated. The grief faculty is not like this. Eight have conditioned phenomena as their object: the seven physical [faculties] and suffering. Here, the life faculty is completely absent among what earlier and later texts call 'having an object'.