大乘義章 17.9.3

17.9.3

問曰：此名局在小中？ 亦通大乘？ 釋言：若入隱顯論門偏在小乘，若入通門大中亦有。 如《涅槃》說「并亦能修習無漏、住薄、不還、不生義故。 」名義如是。 次第二門別定其相。 須陀有三：一者守果。 依如《毘曇》，唯第十六道法智心名須陀洹。 若依《成實》，無相行後順舊之智名須陀洹，餘者悉非，以此證果蘇息處故。 二者攝因。 前七方便及見道心趣向須陀，以終攝始，果因從果皆屬須陀。 三者進向。 須陀果後進斷欲結，有六無礙、五解脫道來未至後果，以始攝終皆屬須陀。 今此四中通攝三種合為須陀，以其不分行果別故。 斯陀含者，汎解亦三：一者守果。 欲界修治有九無礙、九解脫道，第六一品解脫道心是斯陀含，餘者悉非，以此證果蘇息處故。 二者攝因。 須陀果後，進斷欲界六品修惑，有六無礙及五解脫趣向斯陀，以終攝始、以因從果皆屬斯陀。 三者進向。 斯陀果後進斷欲結，有三無礙、二解脫道未至那含，以始攝終通名斯陀。 依《涅槃經》，此三種人通名斯陀，觀方已行。 今此四中，唯分守果及與進向以為斯陀，亦以不分行果別故。 攝因一種收屬初果，為是不取。 阿那含者，亦有三種：一者守果。 欲界修治九解脫中，第九一品是阿那含，以此證果，蘇息處故。 二者攝因。 斯陀果後，進斷欲結後三微品，有三無礙、二解脫道趣向那含，以終攝始、以因從果皆屬那含。 三者進向。 那含果後，進斷初禪乃至非想一切修惑，除非想地第九解脫，其餘一切無礙解脫，以本攝末通名那含。 今此四中，偏分守果及與進向為阿那含，亦以不分行果別故，攝因一種推屬前果，為是不取。 阿羅漢者，有其二種：一者守果。 非想一地九解脫中，末後一品是阿羅漢，餘者悉非，以此無學證果心故。 二者攝因。 那含果後進斷初禪至非想結一切無礙，除後一品解脫道心，其餘解脫趣向羅漢，以終攝始、以因從果皆屬羅漢。 羅漢果後無上可趣，故無趣向。 今此四中，偏分守果以為羅漢。 攝因一種收屬那含，為是不取。 問曰：何故初果之中攝因從果，餘不如是？ 釋言：於彼初果之前，更無餘果可以推屬，故攝初從後。 後三果前，有果可推，故不從後。 問曰：何故一切進向皆屬前果而不屬後？ 釋言：起後進向道時，前果之得猶成未捨，故從前名； 後果之得未成未現，故不從後。 又復從後，便壞四果差別之義，故不從後。 云何壞乎？ 若攝前向以從後果，斯陀住薄，雜不薄義； 那含不還，雜有還義； 羅漢不生，雜有生義，故名為壞。 若攝進向以從前果，不壞須陀修無漏義、不壞斯陀住薄之義、不壞那含不還之義、不壞羅漢不生之義，故須屬前。 又復四果純淨功德，出障處說，前向未純，故不從後。 又若攝向以屬後果，聖人便有增上慢過。 云何增慢？ 未薄之處已生薄想、未不還處生不還想、未不生處生不生想，故名增慢。 以斯多妨，是故一切進向之道四果別分，故屬前果而不從後。 問曰：從後若有多過，何故初果攝向從後？ 此如上釋，初果已前無果可屬，故牽從後。 問曰：若言初果之前無果可屬，攝向從後； 餘前有果，推其後向而屬前者，彼八禪中初禪已前更無禪定，彼未來禪可屬初禪； 二禪已上乃至非想前有禪故，彼一切禪方便道中無礙解脫應屬下地，非上禪收。 釋言：應齊，立義左右，不可全同。 云何左右？ 彼八禪定約果分業，一切方便與根本禪同牽一果，故悉從後。 四果辨義，分果異因，故前方便推屬前果。 分相如是。 次第三門制立四果。 聖果細分應有無量，今以何故定立此四？ 依《毘婆沙》，多義制立，不可具論。 今此略以五義制也。 一約出觀以制四果。 凡是制果，必約出觀。 何故而然？ 出觀之處生得證想，故就制果。 云何得知？ 緣覺之人修道斷結與聲聞同，以不數出，不制多果。

Question: Are these names restricted to the Hīnayāna, or do they also apply to the Mahāyāna? Answer: If one enters the gate of hidden and manifest discourse, they pertain exclusively to the Hīnayāna; if one enters the universal gate, they are also found in the Mahāyāna, as the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* says: "And also because they can cultivate the untainted, abide in attenuation, not return, and not be reborn." Such are their names and meanings. Next, the second gate defines their characteristics individually. Srotāpanna has three aspects: First is abiding in the fruition. According to the *Abhidharma*, only the sixteenth mind, the cognition of the doctrine of the path, is called the srotāpanna. According to the *Tattvasiddhi*, it is the cognition conforming to the former [condition] after the signless practice that is called the srotāpanna; everything else is not, because this is where the fruition is realized and one rests. Second is subsuming the cause. The preceding seven expedient means and the mind of the path of seeing direct toward the srotāpanna; subsuming the beginning under the end, cause complies with fruition, so they all belong to the srotāpanna. Third is progressing toward [the next]. After the fruition of the srotāpanna, progressing to sever the bonds of the desire realm, there are six unhindered [paths] and five paths of liberation that have not yet reached the subsequent fruition; subsuming the end under the beginning, they all belong to the srotāpanna. Now, among these four, it universally subsumes all three kinds together as the srotāpanna, because it does not divide the distinction between practice and fruition. As for the sakṛdāgāmin, generally speaking there are also three: First is abiding in the fruition. In cultivating the antidote for the desire realm, there are nine unhindered [paths] and nine paths of liberation; the mind of the path of liberation of the sixth grade is the sakṛdāgāmin, and all others are not, because this is where the fruition is realized and one rests. Second is subsuming the cause. After the fruition of the srotāpanna, progressing to sever the six grades of cultivation afflictions of the desire realm, there are six unhindered [paths] and five liberations directing toward the sakṛdāgāmin; subsuming the beginning under the end, cause complies with fruition, so they all belong to the sakṛdāgāmin. Third is progressing toward [the next]. After the fruition of the sakṛdāgāmin, progressing to sever the bonds of the desire realm, there are three unhindered [paths] and two paths of liberation that have not yet reached the anāgāmin; subsuming the end under the beginning, they are all called the sakṛdāgāmin. According to the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*, these three kinds of persons are all named sakṛdāgāmins, "having already traversed the directions of contemplation." Now, among these four, it distinguishes only abiding in the fruition and progressing toward [the next] as the sakṛdāgāmin, likewise because it does not divide the distinction between practice and fruition. The one [aspect of] subsuming the cause is assigned to the first fruition, which is why it is not taken here. As for the anāgāmin, there are also three kinds: First is abiding in the fruition. Among the nine liberations of cultivating the antidote for the desire realm, the ninth grade is the anāgāmin, because this is where the fruition is realized and one rests. Second is subsuming the cause. After the fruition of the sakṛdāgāmin, progressing to sever the final three subtle grades of the bonds of the desire realm, there are three unhindered [paths] and two paths of liberation directing toward the anāgāmin; subsuming the beginning under the end, cause complies with fruition, so they all belong to the anāgāmin. Third is progressing toward [the next]. After the fruition of the anāgāmin, progressing to sever all cultivation afflictions from the first dhyāna up to neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, excluding the ninth liberation of the stage of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, all remaining unhindered and liberated [paths], subsuming the branches under the root, are collectively named anāgāmin. Now, among these four, it specifically distinguishes abiding in the fruition and progressing toward [the next] as the anāgāmin, likewise because it does not divide the distinction between practice and fruition; the one [aspect of] subsuming the cause is assigned to the preceding fruition, which is why it is not taken here. As for the arhat, there are two kinds: First is abiding in the fruition. Among the nine liberations of the single stage of neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, the very last grade is the arhat, and all others are not, because this is the mind realizing fruition of the stage of non-learning. Second is subsuming the cause. After the fruition of the anāgāmin, progressing to sever all bonds from the first dhyāna up to neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, all unhindered [paths] and, excluding the mind of the last grade's path of liberation, the remaining liberations direct toward the arhat; subsuming the beginning under the end, cause complies with fruition, so they all belong to the arhat. After the fruition of the arhat, there is nothing higher toward which to direct, so there is no progressing toward [the next]. Now, among these four, it specifically distinguishes abiding in the fruition as the arhat. The one [aspect of] subsuming the cause is assigned to the anāgāmin, which is why it is not taken here. Question: Why is it that in the first fruition cause is subsumed under fruition, whereas in the others it is not so? Answer: Prior to that first fruition, there is no other fruition to which they can be assigned; therefore the beginning is subsumed under the end. Before the subsequent three fruitions, there are fruitions to which they can be assigned, so they do not comply with what follows. Question: Why is it that all [phases of] progressing toward [the next] belong to the preceding fruition and not to the subsequent? Answer: When giving rise to the path of progressing toward the subsequent, the attainment of the preceding fruition has still been accomplished and not yet abandoned; therefore it is named after the preceding. The attainment of the subsequent fruition is not yet accomplished and not yet present; therefore it does not comply with what follows. Furthermore, complying with what follows would destroy the distinction among the four fruitions; therefore it does not comply with what follows. How would it destroy it? If one subsumed the preceding approach under the subsequent fruition: the sakṛdāgāmin "abides in attenuation," but this would be mixed with the meaning of non-attenuation; the anāgāmin "does not return," but this would be mixed with the meaning of returning; the arhat "is not reborn," but this would be mixed with the meaning of being reborn. Hence it is called destruction. If one subsumes progressing toward [the next] under the preceding fruition, it does not destroy the srotāpanna's meaning of cultivating the untainted, does not destroy the sakṛdāgāmin's meaning of abiding in attenuation, does not destroy the anāgāmin's meaning of not returning, and does not destroy the arhat's meaning of not being reborn; therefore it must belong to the preceding. Furthermore, the four fruitions are pure virtues spoken of at the points of emergence from hindrances; the preceding approaches are not yet pure, so they do not comply with what follows. Furthermore, if the approach were subsumed under the subsequent fruition, the noble ones would commit the error of arrogance. What is arrogance? Where it is not yet attenuated, giving rise to the conception of attenuation; where one does not yet not-return, giving rise to the conception of non-returning; where one is not yet not-reborn, giving rise to the conception of non-rebirth—this is called arrogance. Because of these many hindrances, all paths of progressing toward [the next] are distinguished separately across the four fruitions; thus they belong to the preceding fruition and do not comply with what follows. Question: If complying with what follows has many errors, why does the first fruition subsume the approach under what follows? This is as explained above: prior to the first fruition there is no fruition to which it can belong, so it is drawn to comply with what follows. Question: If you say that prior to the first fruition there is no fruition to which it can belong, so the approach is subsumed under what follows, whereas for the rest there is a preceding fruition, so their subsequent approach is assigned to the preceding; then among the eight dhyānas, prior to the first dhyāna there is no other dhyāna, so that preliminary dhyāna can belong to the first dhyāna; while from the second dhyāna up to neither-conceptualization-nor-non-conceptualization, because there is a preceding dhyāna, the unhindered and liberated [paths] in all those expedient paths of dhyāna should belong to the lower stages and not be subsumed under the upper dhyānas? Answer: They should be parallel, but their doctrinal bases are different and cannot be entirely identical. How are they different? Those eight dhyānas allocate karma in terms of fruition, and all expedient means together with the fundamental dhyāna jointly lead to a single fruition; therefore they all comply with what follows. In defining the doctrine of the four fruitions, fruition is distinguished from cause; therefore the preceding expedient means are assigned to the preceding fruition. Such is the distinction of their characteristics. Next, the third gate establishes the four fruitions. If the noble fruitions were finely divided, there should be immeasurable [fruitions]; why then are specifically these four established? According to the *Vibhāṣā*, they are established through many meanings, which cannot be treated fully. Here they are briefly established through five meanings. First, the four fruitions are established in terms of emerging from contemplation. Wherever a fruition is established, it must be in terms of emerging from contemplation. Why is that? Where one emerges from contemplation, the conception of having attained realization arises; therefore it is in reference to this that a fruition is established. How is this known? The pratyekabuddha's cultivation of the path and severing of bonds is identical to that of the śrāvaka; because they do not frequently emerge, multiple fruitions are not established for them.