成唯識論述記 10.334

10.334

述曰：見道斷名頓者，此是正義。又雖三心，九地總合以為二品，不同修道九品別斷，名之為頓，五十九等有此誠說。此於見道斷六識者，顯此五識有分別障，此之頓、漸如前卷解。修斷有二，然此文中無先伏修後入見時一品斷者，明於見後方起修故，不說超得第二、三果。二乘別者，唯《對法》第十三有此文，廣如彼抄。略解釋者，此中初以九地漸斷，是漸次得果者，得一來果必依未至，其不還亦爾，然必起無漏道方始得果。有入靜慮、無色起對治道，亦有何失？此亦不然。五十三說不還者，唯五地於欲界有斷對治，不說無色有。又，此唯超越，非次第者。第二，三界九地合為九品斷者，唯有利根諸預流，非餘果。餘果不能起勝作業，缺煩惱故。《指端經》及《分別經》中說：初果由加行心。能以三界九品同為一品，合為九品斷。准超越不還，許依五地，此亦依三無色，斯有何過？然加行心是色界，總緣三界故，無間道可起無色上地。如不還於五地有欲界斷對治故，此亦應爾，應說此義理不違也，但非以下道能斷上惑。由意樂力別，故應作四句。不爾，但以五地得第三果，無色於下無斷對治故。尚不許九無間道入根本定得次第第三果，況預流者得四靜慮及三無色，證超果也。於修道中未得下斷惑道，不能起上斷惑道故，遊觀可爾。今依《集論》第十三說，頓出離者入諦現觀已，依未至定發出世間道，頓斷三界一切煩惱，品品別斷唯立二果。故依四靜慮、三無色，不得超二果，及次第得第二、三果。又，取前解彼文說多分不能得根本定等，非必一切皆悉不得，不說唯依未至地故。不爾，受變易生起無漏者，豈不許得上靜慮耶？故依上根本四靜慮亦得，此以下道能斷上惑，由意樂別故。餘文可解。

The Commentary states: That abandonment on the path of seeing is termed sudden is the correct doctrine. Furthermore, although there are three minds, the nine stages are collectively combined into two grades, unlike the path of cultivation where the nine grades are abandoned separately, and hence it is called sudden; fascicle fifty-nine and elsewhere have explicit statements to this effect. Here, stating that the six consciousnesses are abandoned on the path of seeing reveals that these five consciousnesses possess conceptually constructed hindrances; the sudden and gradual nature of this was explained in the previous fascicle. There are two kinds of abandonment by cultivation. However, the text here does not mention those who first suppress [the afflictions of] cultivation and later, upon entering seeing, abandon them in a single grade, because it explains that cultivation arises only after seeing; hence it does not speak of leaping to attain the second or third fruit. As for the distinctions within the two vehicles, only fascicle thirteen of the Abhidharma-samuccaya-bhāṣya contains this text, as detailed in that commentary. To explain it briefly: here, first, gradually abandoning through the nine stages refers to those who attain the fruits successively; attaining the once-returner's fruit must rely on the unarrived [dhyāna], and the non-returner is also like this; however, they must give rise to the uncontaminated path before they begin to attain the fruit. If someone enters a dhyāna or formless attainment to give rise to the counteractive path, what fault would there be? This is also not so. Fascicle fifty-three states that for a non-returner, only five stages possess the counteractive abandonment regarding the desire realm, and it does not say that the formless realms possess it. Moreover, this is only for the leaping [practitioner], not the gradual one. Second, regarding the abandonment of the nine stages of the three realms combined into nine grades, this applies only to stream-enterers with sharp faculties, not to the other fruits. The other fruits cannot initiate superior karmic activity because they lack afflictions. The Aṅgulimāla-sūtra and the Vibhaṅga-sūtra state: The first fruit, by means of the preparatory mind, can take the nine grades of the three realms collectively as one grade, combining them into nine grades to abandon them. Following the leaping non-returner who is permitted to rely on the five stages, if this [practitioner] also relies on the three formless realms, what fault is there in this? However, the preparatory mind belongs to the form realm because it comprehensively takes the three realms as its object; thus, the uninterrupted path may arise from the higher stages of the formless realms. Just as the non-returner has the counteraction that abandons the desire realm based on the five stages, this should also be so; one should say this principle is not contradictory, but it is not that a lower path can abandon higher afflictions. Because the power of intention differs, four alternatives should be constructed. If it were not so, then one could only attain the third fruit through the five stages, because the formless realms have no counteractive abandonment with respect to the lower realms. If one does not even allow the nine uninterrupted paths to enter the fundamental absorption to attain the successive third fruit, how much less could a stream-enterer attain the four dhyānas and three formless realms to realize the leaped fruit? Because in the path of cultivation, before one has attained the lower path that abandons afflictions, one cannot give rise to the higher path that abandons afflictions; roaming contemplation might be admissible. Now, relying on what is said in fascicle thirteen of the Abhidharma-samuccaya: when those who undergo sudden liberation have entered the direct realization of the truths, relying on the unarrived absorption they give rise to the supramundane path and suddenly abandon all afflictions of the three realms, grade by grade separately abandoning them, establishing only two fruits. Therefore, relying on the four dhyānas and three formless realms, one cannot leap to the two fruits or successively attain the second and third fruits. Moreover, adopting the previous explanation: that text states that for the most part they cannot attain the fundamental absorption and so forth, not that definitely none of them can attain it, since it does not say that it is solely based on the unarrived stage. If not, how could it not be permitted for one who undergoes change-manifesting birth and gives rise to the uncontaminated to attain the higher dhyānas? Therefore, relying on the higher fundamental four dhyānas, one also attains it; here, the lower path can abandon higher afflictions due to the difference in intention. The rest of the text is intelligible.