成唯識論了義燈 6.18

6.18

《論》：「前三無色」等者。本疏解云：彼無加行，又曾未起現行無漏故，取異生先修得者名現觀邊，雖不現行，亦此根攝，修道得起。今者又准六十九文，資糧、加行、見道亦增，修道中起，彼解世俗智，初中後際生起次第云：五見、貪等是染污等，諸世俗智應斷，應知為欲生起彼對治故，起無倒見，是善有漏世俗智攝，乃至云：又即以彼世第一法所攝俗智，為依止故能入見道，昇見道時，即先所修善世俗智所有種子，由彼熏修皆得清淨，亦名為修，此則名為諦現觀邊諸世俗智，出見道已，生起此智，證見所斷，諸法解脫。此文通說三乘俱起故，次下文云：又能了知我已證得預流果等，故知大乘於見道前解脫分位，起無色善亦生無色，故知資糧通修無色。入見傍修論中不言，傍修之者唯根本位，唯是無漏，准論後解。無色亦有三無漏根，五十七云下三無色有十一根故，通漏、無漏。准此大乘不同有部，入見道已更不現起。問：若於修道四善根等皆得重起，何不雜亂。答：亦不然，以位別故。若修道位非名善根，如見道種後亦生修不爾修道從何種起？雖見種生不名為見，後修道位雖彼種生，不名善根。又本無漏種在資糧、加行亦名彼道。《雜集》說為道諦攝故，皆許不雜故彼亦然。問：在根本位傍修世俗，亦得名根本不？答：名根本何失？非無漏故失。答：言無漏者據現行說，據未知當知根說，非約種子。《要集》云：世俗非無漏，不得名根本者，亦應無色無見道，不得名根本，雖無見道說為根本。雖有漏攝，相從名本故亦無失。問：論云迴趣大者，為證法空所起生空，順益法空可此根攝，有漏不順何亦此攝？答：二乘生空有不順者，但舉迴趣大乘，所修有漏皆順見道，傍修為根何失。故《要集》云：傍修之者唯取無漏，世俗智等不資見道，可詳得失。《要集》等云：菩薩地前未起無漏，二乘生空無漏智者，是彼種姓，非是菩薩，以量成立，生空無漏地前不起。今謂不爾，此論明說，或二乘位迴趣大者，為證法空地前所起，九地所攝，生空無漏，彼皆菩薩此根所攝。今者不許豈不乖耶？二乘聖者迴心向大，豈可不起無漏智耶？迴心已前既名菩薩，所起無漏何非此根？《法花經》云：「汝等所行，是菩薩道。」據不定者皆是此根。

On the Śāstra's statement: "The preceding three formless [absorptions]," etc., the original commentary explains: they lack preparatory practice (prayoga), and furthermore active anāsrava has never arisen there before; therefore, those previously cultivated and attained by a pṛthagjana are called "adjuncts of realization" (abhisamayāntika). Although they do not become active, they are also subsumed under this faculty and can arise in the path of cultivation. Now, based on the text of Fascicle Sixty-Nine, they also increase in the [stages of] provisions (saṃbhāra), preparatory practice, and the path of vision, and arise within the path of cultivation. In explaining the order of arising in the beginning, middle, and end of conventional cognition (saṃvṛtijñāna), it says: "The five views, greed, and so forth are defiled, etc.; all such conventional cognitions should be abandoned. One should know that in order to produce their antidotes, non-erroneous view is produced, which is subsumed under wholesome sāsrava conventional cognition..." up to: "Furthermore, relying precisely on that conventional cognition subsumed under the supreme mundane dharmas, one is able to enter the path of vision. When ascending to the path of vision, all the seeds of the wholesome conventional cognition previously cultivated become completely purified through that perfuming, which is also called cultivation. These are called the conventional cognitions at the adjunct of the realization of the truths (satyābhisamayāntika). Having emerged from the path of vision, one gives rise to this cognition and realizes the liberation of the phenomena abandoned by seeing." This passage speaks universally of their arising in all three vehicles; hence the text immediately below says: "Furthermore, one is able to know: 'I have already attained the fruit of a srotāpanna,' and so forth." Thus we know that in Mahāyāna, before the path of vision, in the state conducive to liberation (mokṣabhāgīya), wholesome states of the formless are produced and rebirth is also taken in the formless; thus we know that in the stage of provisions, one extensively cultivates the formless. As for incidental cultivation (anuśikṣā) upon entering vision, the śāstra does not say that incidental cultivation occurs only in the fundamental state and is solely anāsrava; according to the later explanation of the śāstra, the formless also possesses the three anāsrava faculties. Fascicle Fifty-Seven states that the lower three formless [attainments] have eleven faculties; therefore they encompass both sāsrava and anāsrava. In accordance with this, Mahāyāna differs from the Sarvāstivāda: after entering the path of vision, they never again become active. Question: If the four wholesome roots and so forth can all arise again in the path of cultivation, why is there no confusion [of stages]? Answer: That is also not the case, because the stages are distinct. If in the stage of the path of cultivation they are not called wholesome roots, just as seeds of the path of vision later also produce cultivation—otherwise, from what seeds would the path of cultivation arise? Although produced from seeds of vision, it is not called vision; so too, although produced from those seeds in the subsequent path of cultivation, it is not called wholesome roots. Furthermore, original anāsrava seeds in the stages of provisions and preparatory practice are also called those paths. The Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā says they are subsumed under the truth of the path; because in all cases they are admitted not to be confused, this is also the case here. Question: In the fundamental state, when one incidentally cultivates conventional [cognition], does it also get called "fundamental"? Answer: What fault is there in calling it fundamental? If it is objected that it is a fault because it is not anāsrava, the answer is: speaking of anāsrava is based on active manifestation, and based on the faculty of coming to know what is not yet known, not with respect to seeds. The Yaoji states: "Conventional [cognition] is not anāsrava and cannot be named fundamental"; then likewise, the formless has no path of vision and should not be named fundamental, yet although it lacks the path of vision it is spoken of as fundamental. Although it is subsumed under sāsrava, it is called fundamental by association; thus there is no fault. Question: The śāstra says that those who turn towards the Great [Vehicle], in order to realize the emptiness of phenomena (dharmanairātmya), give rise to [realization of] the emptiness of persons (pudgalanairātmya), which favorably assists [the realization of] the emptiness of phenomena and can be subsumed under this faculty; why should sāsrava, which does not favorably assist it, also be subsumed here? Answer: Among the two vehicles' [attainments of] the emptiness of persons, some do not favorably assist it; but merely speaking of those turning towards the Mahāyāna, all the sāsrava they cultivate favorably assists the path of vision, so what fault is there in incidental cultivation serving as a faculty? Therefore the Yaoji states: "Those of incidental cultivation only take anāsrava; conventional cognition and the like do not assist the path of vision"—its merits and faults should be scrutinized. The Yaoji and others state: "Before the bodhisattva grounds, anāsrava does not arise; the anāsrava cognition of the emptiness of persons in the two vehicles belongs to their lineage and is not that of a bodhisattva; this is established by syllogism: anāsrava [cognition] of the emptiness of persons does not arise prior to the grounds." Now I say this is not so: this śāstra explicitly states that when those in the stages of the two vehicles turn towards the Great [Vehicle], what is produced prior to the grounds to realize the emptiness of phenomena—the anāsrava [cognition] of the emptiness of persons subsumed under the nine grounds—is entirely subsumed under this faculty of the bodhisattva. To deny it now, would that not contradict [the śāstra]? How could holy persons of the two vehicles who direct their minds toward the Mahāyāna fail to give rise to anāsrava cognition? Since they are already called bodhisattvas prior to directing their minds, why would the anāsrava they produce not belong to this faculty? The Lotus Sūtra says: "What you are practicing is the bodhisattva path." Based on those of indeterminate [lineage], all belong to this faculty.