以下內容，是我今年六七八月閱讀《俱舍》英譯本時記下來的。包括英譯本的第一二五六七八品。前兩品是粗略翻閱，後四品看得比較細，中間的三四品沒有看。蒙丁一老師幫我把其中一小部分譯成英文，我放在了開頭。後面85條中文寫的，是後四品的。我本來打算把第三四品也看完，但第四品看個開頭就不想看了（找了一條）。看這些對我的阿毘達磨學習沒有幫助，純粹就是閒了找點事情玩兒。既然拖了這麼久沒繼續，估計以後把它「完成」的可能性也極小，乾脆就匯總發佈一下。我都懶得再檢查一遍，就直接發草稿好了。Gelong Lodrö Sangpo, trans. Abhidharmakośa-Bhāṣya of Vasubandhu: The Treasury of the Abhidharma and its (Auto)-Commentary, Volume I. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2012.Leo M. Pruden, trans. Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam of Vasubandhu, Volume I. Berkeley, Calif.: Asian Humanities Press, 1988–1990.Unrai Wogihara, Sphuṭārthā Abhidharmakośavyākhyā by Yaśomitra, Tokyo, 1932-1936.Pradhan, Prahlad, ed. Abhidharmakośabhāṣyam of Vasubandhu. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute, 1975.Vallée Poussin, Louis de la, trad. L’Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu, Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1923-1931.sapta sālambanāś cittadhātavaḥ ardhaṃ ca dharmataḥ | navānupāttāḥ te cāṣṭau śabdaś ca anye nava dvidhā || 1.34 ||Cf. Xuanzang: 七心法界半，有所縁餘無，前八界及聲，無執受餘二。« Sept sont 'ayant un objet', les dhātus qui sont pensée. Et aussi une partie du dharmadhātu. Neuf sont non-appropriés, à savoir les huit dont il vient d'être question et le son. Les neuf autres sont de deux espèces. »For Vasubandhu’s auto-commentary on navānupāttāḥ (九無執受) in 1.34c,Pradhan 1975: katame nava | ye sapta sālambanā uktāḥ aṣṭamaṣyārdhena sārdham |« Neuf sont non-appropriés, à savoir les huit dont il vient d'être question et le son. Les sept dhātus de pensée, le dharmadhātu et l'audible ne sont jamais appropriés. »Ding’s comment on the French translation:For those who are not familiar with abhidharmic literature, it might be necessary to point out that the abhidharmic term ban 半 (Skt. ardha) can refer to “a part of something” (une partie), as LVP puts it. LVP’s French translation of Verse 1.34 is correct: (1) both the seven elements of thought (七心; sapta cittadhātavaḥ) and part of the dharmadhātu are “having a cognitive object” (sālambana) and that (2) both these aforementioned eight elements (dhātus) and sound are non-appropriated (anupātta). “Nine are non-appropriated. What are these nine? The seven that have been mentioned which have an object, together with one-half of the eighth.”“Nine [of the eighteen elements] are non-appropriated, namely, the eight elements which have just been mentioned, [i.e., the seven elements of thought and one part of the element of factors,] and sound. (1-7) The seven elements of thought [said to have cognitive objects], (8) [one part of] the element of factors and (9) soundare never appropriated, [i.e., are non-appropriated].”Wang’s note on the English translation:Both Pruden and Lodrö Sangpo seem to suggest that only part of the dharmadhātu is non-appropriated. In fact, Xuanzang makes it clear that the entirety of the dharmadhātu (法界全) is non-appropriated.Vasubandhu’s auto-commentary on 1.40c:Pradhan 1975: nāsti kiñcid akliṣṭaṃ darśanaprahātavyaṃ nāpi rūpam |Cf. Xuanzang: 謂不染法、非六生、色，定非見斷。Cf. Yaśomitra, p. 78: akliṣṭam anivṛtavyākṛtaṃ kuśalaṃ vā na darśanaheyaṃ. rūpaṃ tu kliṣṭam api na darśanaheyaṃ.« Rien de ce qui n'est pas souillé, de ce qui n'est ni mauvais (akuśala), ni souillé-non-défini (nivṛtāvyākṛta) ; rien de ce qui est matériel, ne peut être abandonné par la vue des vérités. »Ding’s comment on the French translation:LVP finished his translation both before a Sanskrit manuscript of the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya was discovered and before Unrai Wogihara published his edited version of Yaśomitra’s sub-commentary (i.e., Vyākhyā). LVP, working on Vasubandhu’s auto-commentary, had to rely on several different sources, including the Sanskrit manuscripts of Yaśomitra’s sub-commentary. Because it is not always clear how to separate the auto-commentary and Yośomitra’s sub-commentary, LVP here might not have realized that anivṛtavyākṛtaṃ kuśalaṃ is a gloss on akliṣṭam provided by Yaśomitra.“Nothing that is defiled, that is bad, nor defiled-neutral, and nothing that is material, can be abandoned by the Seeing of the Truths.”Wang’s note on the English translations:Pruden here mistranslates akliṣṭa (不染; “non-defiled”) as “defiled,” whereas Lodrö Sangpo provides a correct English translation (p. 284): “Nothing of that which is non-defiled (akliṣṭa), i.e., of that which is neither unwholesome (akuśala) nor obscured-non-defined (nivṛtāvyākṛta), and nothing of that which is material form, can be abandoned by insight into the truths.”For the auto-commentary on Verse 2.13c,jīvitāṣṭamāni cakṣurādīni duḥkhendriyaṃ ca bhāvanāheyāny eva |« Neuf indriyas, à savoir les cinq organes des sens et les deux organes sexuels, l'organe vital, la sensation de déplaisir, sont seulement de la classe ‘abandonné par la méditation,’ … »Ding’s comment on the French translation:LVP uses “la dissatisfaction” and “la sensation de déplaisir” to translate daurmanasyendriya (憂根) and duḥkhendriya (苦根), and his translation here is correct.“Nine indriyas, namely the five sense organs and the two sexual organs, the vital organ, and the sensation of dissatisfaction, are only of the class ‘abandoned through Mediation,’ …”“Nine controlling faculties [i.e., the five sense-faculties and the two sexual faculties, the vitality faculty and the sensation of dissatisfaction] are (ii) abandoned by cultivation alone.”Wang’s note on the English translations:In both English translations, “dissatisfaction” (憂根) should be changed to “displeasure” (苦根), since “dissatisfaction” has been delt with before this line.For Vasubandhu’s auto-commentary on Verse 2.16d,yadāpy ayam ānupūrviko navame vimūktimārge tīkṣṇendriyatvād dhyānaṃ praviśāti laukikena mārgeṇa tadāpy aṣṭābhir indriyair anāgāmiphalaṃ prāpnoti |Cf. Yaśomitra, p. 115: yadāpy ayam adhigatapūrvaphala ānupūrvikas tīkṣṇendriyaḥ. sa navame vimuktimārge dhyānaṃ praviśati maulaṃ laukikena mārgeṇa tadāpy aṣṭābhir indriyair anāgāmiphalaṃ prāpnoti. tatra mauladhyānasaṃgṛhīto vimuktimārgo bhavati.Cf. Xuanzang: 又次第證不還果者，若於第九解脱道中入根本地，依世間道由八根得。« L'ānupurvaka qui marche à la conquête du fruit d'Anāgāmin dans le recueillement d'anāgamya, peut, lorsque ses facultés morales sont vives, sortir pour le dernier moment (neuvième vimuktimārga) de l'anāgamya et entrer dans le premier ou le second dhyāna. »Ding’s comment on the French translation:It is unclear to me why LVP mentions the Second Dhyāna while both Yaśomitra and Xuanzang do not.“The ānupūrvaka who seeks for the result of Anāgāmin within the absorption of anāgamya, can, when his moral faculties are strong, depart at the last moment of the anāgamya and enter into the First or Second Dhyāna.”“The successive ones (ānupūrvaka) who endeavor to gain the fruit of non-returner in the meditative attainment of the preparatory meditation (anāgamya), when their (praxis-oriented) faculties are sharp (tīkṣṇa), start out for the last moment (i.e., the ninth path of liberation) of the preparatory meditation and [then] enter into the first or the second meditation.”Wang’s note on the English translations:In both cases, “or Second” in the last sentence should be deleted. One has to “jettison the defilements pertaining to the First Dhyāna” (離初靜慮染) before one reaches the Second Dhyāna (二禪根本靜慮).For the auto-commentary on Verse 2.38b:Pradhan 1975: (teṣām apratisaṃkhyānirodhasya bhāvanāheyā prāptiḥ) anāryaprāptasya ca pratisaṃkhyānirodhasya |Cf. Paramārtha: (此中非擇滅至得，唯修道所斷。)及非聖人所得擇滅至得。Cf. Xuanzang: (非擇滅得唯修所斷。) 若非聖道所引擇滅得亦如是。« (La prāpti de l’ apratisaṃkhyānirodha est abandonnée par le chemin de méditation.) De mème la prāpti du pratisaṃkhyānirodha obtenu par le non-Ārya. »Ding’s comment on the French translation :The issue here is about how to understand the ambiguous compound anārya-(prāpta). Paramārtha takes it as “a non-noble” (i.e., pṛthagjana), and LVP follows suit. Xuanzang takes it as “the opposite of the āryamārga” (非聖道), that is to say, the mundane path (laukikamārga).LVP follows Paramārtha perhaps because he thinks this is what Yaśomitra implies. Cf. Yaśomitra, p. 152: āryeṇa laukikamārgaprāptasya pratisaṃkhyānirodhasya prāptiḥ kiṃ sāsravā utāho ’nāsravā. ubhayathety āha. sā kasmān noktā. sāvaśeṣaṃ bhāṣyaṃ. Note that LVP’s translation here is misleading. He says, “Cette prāpti [du pratisamkhyānirodha au moyen d’un chemin mondain, par un Ārya] est à la fois pure et impure” (p. 198n1). A better translation would be “This prāpti is either pure or impure.”“In this same way the prāpti of apratisamkhyānirodha and the prāpti of pratisamkhyānirodha are obtained by a non-Āryan.”“The same for the possession of the cessation due to deliberation attained by [the path of] the non-noble-persons [anārya].”Wang’s note on the English translations:An ordinary person (pṛthagjana, i.e., a non-noble) cannot embark on the path of the nobles, whereas a noble (āryan) can embark on the mundane path (世俗道). Therefore, both “by a non-Āryan” and “by the [path of] the non-noble-persons” should be changed to “by the mundane path [which can be cultivated by either an ordinary person or a noble].”In the auto-commentary on Verse 2.44e, Vasubandhu cites the Udāyi Sūtra (Lodrö Sangpo, p. 822n605).(bhikṣuḥ …) so ’bhīkṣṇaṃ saṃjñāvedayitanirodhaṃ samāpadyate ca vyuttiṣṭhate cāsti caitat sthānam iti yathābhūtaṃ prajānāti sa na haiva dṛṣṭa eva dharme pratipattyevājñām [sic!] ārāgayati nāpi maraṇakālasamaye (bhedāc ca kāyasyātikramya devān kavaḍīkārāhāra bhakṣān anyatarasmin divye manomaye kāya upapadyate)(有諸苾芻...) 能數入出滅受想定，斯有是處，應如實知。彼於現法或臨終位，不能勤修令解滿足，(從此身壞超段食天。隨受一處意成天身。 )(有諸比丘…) 是人數數入觀，修滅想受定，數數出觀。則有是處，應如實知。此人於現法，先若不得知已根，及於臨死時，(…)(bhikṣuḥ …) so ’bhīkṣṇaṃ saṃjñāveditanirodhaṃ samāpadyate ca vyuttiṣṭhate ca. asti caitat sthānam iti yathābhūtaṃ prajānāti. sa na haiva dṛṣṭa eva dharme pratipadyevājñām [sic!] ārāgayati. nāpi maraṇakālasamaye. (…)« Qu'il entre à plusieurs reprises dans le recueillement d'arrêt et qu'il en sorte, cela est possible. Si, dans cette vie, il n'arrive pas à l’ājñā, ni non plus au moment de la mort, (…) » Ding’s comment on the French translation:The sentence from the Udāyi Sūtra is about a practitioner, after obtaining the nirodhasamapatti for the first time as a human, is reborn as a god. LVP translates “pratipadyevājñām ārāgayati” in Yaśomitra’s sub-commentary (or “pratipadyaivājñām ārāgayati” in the Madhyamāgama cited in p. 208n3) as “(he) arrives at ājñā.” However, one with ājñā (i.e., the second of the three uncontaminated faculties) can still be reborn as a god, and the sentence here requires the term ājñātāvīndriya (i.e., the third of the three uncontaminated faculties), which prevents one from being reborn as a god. LVP does correctly point out that both Paramārtha and Xuanzang understand that the term should be ājñātāvīndriya or its equivalent, not ājñā (p. 209n1). Note that it seems Xuanzang’s “one assiduously practices so that one’s knowledge becomes perfect” (勤修令解滿足) might fit a phrase along the lines of “pratipattyevājñām ārāgayati” in Pradhan 1975. At any rate, I do not have a good solution here. Also, note that the Chinese terminology here can seem confusing: Paramārtha translates ājñendriya as zhigen 知根 and ājñātāvīndriya as zhiyigen 知已根, whereas Xuanzang translates these two as yizhigen 已知根 and juzhigen 具知根.“It is possible for him to enter many times into the absorption of extinction and leave it. If, in this life, he does not attain ājñā, nor attain it at the moment of his death; …”“There are bhikṣus who…. are able to enter and emerge from the attainment of cessation, repeatedly; this is possible. If they are unable to attain ājñā [i.e., the faculty of final and perfect knowledge] either in this present life or at the moment of death …”Wang’s note on the English translations:In both cases, ājñā (已知根) should be changed to ājñātāvīndriya (具知根). Lodrö Sangpo’s gloss “the faculty of final and perfect knowledge” would be correct if he applies it to ājñātāvīndriya instead of ājñā.Pradhan 1975: cakṣurvijñānadhātvoḥ syāt pṛthak lābhaḥ sahāpi ca ||Xuanzang, p. 9b28: 眼與眼識界，獨倶得非等。The auto-commentary on 1.38d starts with the following:Xuanzang, 9b29-c6: 論曰。獨得者。謂或有眼界，先不成就，今得成就，非眼識：謂生欲界，漸得眼根，及無色沒生二、三、四靜慮地時。或有眼識，先不成就，今得成就，非眼界：謂生二、三、四靜慮地，眼識現起，及從彼沒生下地時。倶得者： 謂或有二界，先不成就，今得成就，謂無色沒生於欲界及梵世時。非者倶非，謂除前相。…Pradhan 1975, p. 26: pṛthak tāvat syāc cakṣurdhātunā na cakṣurvijñānadhātunā | kāmadhātau krameṇa cakṣurindriyaṃ pratilabhamānaḥ | ārūpyadhātucyutaś ca dvitīyādiṣu dhyāneṣūpapadyamānaḥ | syāc cakṣurvijñānadhātunā na cakṣurdhātunā | dvitīyādidhyānopapannaś cakṣurvijñāna saṃmukhīkurvāṇas tatpracyutaś cādhastād upapadyamānaḥ | sahāpi syād ubhayena samanvāgamaṃ pratilabhate | ārūpyadhātucyutaḥ kāmadhātau brahmaloke copapadyamānaḥ | nobhayena | etān ākārān sthāpayitvā | …Wang’s note on the English translations:This is a note about the relationship between the English translations and Xuanzang’s text. The English translations, seemingly following LVP’s French translation, insert the following explanation of the term lābha after this passage. This explanatory passage does not appear in Xuanzang’s or Paramārtha’s.Lodrö Sangpo, p. 276: “We have up to now understood the term lābha, ‘acquisition’, which the stanza uses, in the sense of pratilambha, ‘acquiring accompaniment’; but one can also understand it in the sense of prāpti, ‘possession’ [samanvāgama].”LVP, p. 72: « Nous avons jusqu'ici compris le terme qu'emploie la stance, lābha, obtention, dans le sens de pratilambha, prise de possession; mais on peut aussi l'entendre dans le sens de prāpti, possession ; …»Cf. Yaśomitra, p. 73: lābho hi pratilambhaḥ. prāptimātre ’pi vivakṣayā kadācid bhavati.Cf. Jushelun shu 俱舍論疏, T.1822, p. 503b2–3: 等者。等成就門。長行中有二。先明得門。二明成就門也。For this insertion, LVP here might or might not have consulted Fabao’s 法寶 Jushelun shu 俱舍論疏.The opposite situation also exists. Xuanzang’s last sentence (非者倶非，謂除前相) is missing in the French translation (LVP, p. 72) and Pruden’s English translation (Pruden, p. 106). Lodrö Sangpo encloses it with square brackets to mark its absence in LVP’s (p. 276). In light of the existence of numerous minor discrepancies like these, we probably need to re-evaluate the following statement made by Lodrö Sangpo, “[La Vallee Poussin’s] translation is mainly based on Hsüan-tsang’s Chinese translation, …” (p. 157).For the auto-commentary on Verse 2.54b,Pradhan 1975: … aprahīṇahetum etat saṃdhāyoktam | darśanaprahātavyo hi tasyā hetuḥ prahīṇatvān noktaḥ | …Xuanzang, 33a1–a2: … 依未斷因，密作是説。見所斷法雖是此因，而由已斷，故廢不説。…« Les dharmas non-définis, qui sont abandonnés par la vue des vérités, sont cause (sarvatragahetu) de cette mauvaise volition. Si la Prajñapti n'en fait pas mention, c'est qu'elle entend seulement nommer les causes qui n'ont pas été abandonnées. »“The non-defined factors, which are abandoned by insight into the truths, are a cause (i.e., pervasive cause) of this unwholesome intention. If the Prajñapti does not mention it, it is because it intends to name only the causes which have been abandoned.”Wang’s note on the English translation:Lodrö Sangpo’s “have been abandoned” should be changed to “have not been abandoned,” while Pruden (p. 274) is correct here. Here the auto-commentary explains why there is a difference between a statement in the Prajñapti and the statement that all unwholesome dharmas have non-defined (avyākṛṭā) dharmas for their cause. The answer is that the Prajñapti emphasizes “the causes which have not been abandoned” (未斷因; aprahīṇahetu).Pradhan 1975: pañcabhyo ’nivṛtaṃ tasmāt sapta cittāny anantaram.Vasubandhu’s auto-commentary starts with the following,Pradhan 1975: anivṛtāvyākṛtāt kāmāvacarāt svabhūmikāni catvāri | rūpāvacare dve | kuśalaṃ nirmāṇacittād anantaram | kliṣṭam pratisandhikāle | ārūpyāvacaraṃ ca kliṣṭam pratisandhikāla eva |Xuanzang, 38c24-27: 即此無間能生七心。謂自界四；及色界二：善與染汚， 欲界化心還生彼善，於續生位生彼染心；并無色一，於續生位，此無覆心能生彼染。« Après l'anivrtāvyākṛta peuvent naître sept pensées, à savoir : (1-4) les quatre pensées de Kāmadhātu, (5-6) deux pensées de Rūpadhātu, kuśala, car, après la pensée-de-création susdite, une bonne pensée de Rūpadhātu réapparaît, et nivrtāvyākṛta, lorsqu'un homme, mourant avec une pensée nivrtāvyākṛta, renaît dans le Rūpadhātu dont la première pensée est nécessairement nivrtāvyākrta; (7) une pensée d'Ārūpyadhātu, nivrtāvyākṛta, lorsqu'un homme, mourant avec une pensée nivrtāvyākṛta, renaît dans l'd'Ārūpyadhātu. »“After an undefiled-neutral mind there can arise seven minds, namely: (1-4) the four minds in Kāmadhātu, (5-6) two minds in Rūpadhātu, good minds, for, after the aforementioned mind ofcreation, a good mind reappears in Rūpadhātu, and a defiled-neutral mind, when a person, dying with this mind, is reborn in Rūpadhātu the first mind of which is necessarily a defiled-neutral mind; (7) a mind of Ārūpyadhātu, a defiled-neutral mind, when a person, dying with this mind, is reborn in Ārūpyadhātu.”“Immediately after the unobscured-non-defined thought … when a person, dying with an obscured-non-defined thought, is reborn in the realm of fine-materiality, the first thought of which is necessarily obscured-non-defined. … when a person, dying with an obscured-non-defined thought, is reborn in the realm of immateriality.Wang’s note on the English translations:A person dying with a nivrtāvyākṛta thought cannot be reborn in a sphere higher than the current sphere. For example, someone dying with a nivrtāvyākṛta thought in the Second Dhyāna cannot be reborn in the Third Dhyāna or higher. Therefore, “(dying with) an obscured-non-defined thought” in Lodrö Sangpo’s translation should be changed to “(dying with) an unobscured-no-defined thought” so that it does not contradict with what is already laid out in the beginning: “Immediately after the anivrtāvyākṛta thought.”Pruden’s translation can be charitably considered correct, as “(dying with) this mind” can refer to either “an undefiled-neutral mind” (i.e., anivrtāvyākṛta) in the beginning or the preceding phrase “a defiled-neutral mind.”Ding’s further comment on the French translation:It seems that Lodrö Sangpo here makes the mistake because of LVP. In addition, the math here would require Pruden’s “good minds” to be changed to “a good mind,” which corresponds to kuśala (not kuśalāni) in LVP’s translation.For the auto-commentary on in śaikṣe caturṇāṃ (Xuanzang: 學四) in 2.73c,Pradhan 1975, : tasyaiva śaikṣasya kāmarūpāvacarayoś cānivṛtāvyākṛtayor ārūpyāvacārasya ca kuśalasya | āryamārgeṇa kāmarūpadhātuvairāgye |Paramārtha, 197c29–a3: 有學心正起現前得四心：謂有學心，欲界、色界無覆無記心，無色界善心。由聖道離欲欲界、色界時。Xuanzang, 40b29–c3: 若有學心正現前位，十二心内容得四心：謂有學心，及欲、色界無覆無記，并無色善。由初證入正性離生及由聖道離欲色染。Cf. Yaśomitra, 249: śaikṣe citte saṃmukhībhūte duḥkhe dharmajñānakṣāṃticitte tasyaiva śaikṣasya duḥkhe dharmajñānakṣāṃtikalāpasvabhāvasya lābhas tenāsamanvāgatasya. kāmarūpāvacarayoś cānivṛtavyākṛtayor ārūpyāvacarasya ca kuśalasya. kasmiṃ kalāpa ity āha. āryamārgeṇa kāmarūpadhātuvairāgye. katham iti. yadāyam anāgamyabhūmikenāryamārgeṇa kāmavairāgyaṃ karoti. tadā navamavimuktimārgasaṃgṛhīte śaikṣe citte saṃmukhībhūte kāmarūpāvacarayor anivṛtāvyākṛtayor nirmāṇacittayor lābhas tābhyām asamanvāgatasya. yadā tu ṣaḍbhūmikānām āryamārgāṇām anyatamena rūpavairāgyaṃ karoti. tadādyaprakāracitte śaikṣe saṃmukhībhūte ’tītānāgataprāptinyāyenārūpyāvacarasya kuśalasya lābhas tenāsamanvāgatasya. āryamārgagrahaṇaṃ sāsravacittanirāsārthaṃ. śaikṣe citte saṃbhūte ’yaṃ lābho varṇyate. …LVP, p. 330: « Lorsque se réalise la première pensée śaikṣa, à savoir la duḥkhe dharmajñānakṣāntiḥ, obtention de quatre pensées : (l) la pensée śaikṣa elle-même, (2-3) deux pensées anivṛtāvyākṛta, de Kāmadhātu et de Rūpadhātu (pensées-de-création), (4) pensée kuśala d'Ārūpyadhātu : il y a, par la vertu du Chemin, entrée dans le Chemin (niyāmāvakrānti) et détachement du Kāmadhātu et de l’Ārūpyadhātu. »Ding’s comment on the French translation:Yaśomitra’s sub-commentary, largely speaking, agrees with the two Chinese translations, with which LVP’s first sentence and last sentence contradict. Both Pruden’s and Lodrö Sangpo’s follow LVP.Pruden (p. 324): “When one realizes the first Śaikṣa mind, namely duḥkhe dharmajñānakṣāntiḥ, one obtains four minds: (1) the Śaikṣa mind itself, (2-3) two undefiled-neutral minds, one of Kāmadhātu and one of Rūpadhātu (the mind capable of creating fictive beings), and (4) a good mind of Ārūpyadhātu: there is, by virtue of the Path, entry into the Path (niyāmāvakrānti) and detachment from Kāmadhātu and Ārupyadhātu.”Lodrö Sangpo (p. 702): “When one realizes the first thought of those in training, namely, the receptivity to the cognition of the factors with regard to unsatisfactoriness, one acquires four [of the twelve] thoughts:1. the thought of those in training itself;2-3. two unobscured-non-defined thoughts, of the realm of desire and of the realm of fine-materiality (i.e., the thoughts of emanation);4. the wholesome thought of the realm of immateriality,there is, by virtue of the noble path, entry into the noble path (niyāmāvakrānti) and detachment (vairāgya) from the realm of desire and from the realm of immateriality.”(1) When one realizes the duḥkhe dharmajñānakṣāntiḥ (“the receptivity to the knowledge of the doctrine about suffering”) and, as a result, embarks on the path of vision (darśamārga), one obtains the first of the four thoughts listed above, not all four of them. For example, “a wholesome thought of Ārūpyadhātu” is not obtained simultaneously with the first realization of duhkhe dharmajñānakṣāntiḥ. Therefore, both the word “first” and the phrase “namely duhkhe dharmajñānakṣāntiḥ” in Pruden’s (or “namely, the receptivity to the cognition of the factors with regard to unsatisfactoriness” in Lodrö Sangpo’s) in the beginning sentence needs to be deleted.(2) The word Ārupyadhātu in Pruden’s (or “immateriality” in Lodrö Sangpo’s) in the last phrase needs to be changed to Rūpadhātu. The obtaining of “a wholesome thought of Ārūpyadhātu” (無色善) requires “dispassion toward the Rūpadhātu” (離色染), not “dispassion toward the Ārupyadhātu.”At the end of the fifth chapter of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośabhāṣya (i.e., Chapter V: Anuśayanirdeśa), there is a section dealing with the topic of parijñā (“perfect knowledge”), running from verse 64 to verse 70 (Pradhan 1975, 322–326). Having read the two English translations, it seems that this small chunk of text might have caused some trouble for the translators. In order to explain my comments, here I enumerate the nine perfect knowledges given in the Jñāna-prasthāna and the Mahāvibhāsa (see T.1544:26.939c24–940a2 and T.1545:27.320c18–24), which are referred to in a condensed form in the Abhidharmakośabhāṣya.The first perfect knowledge: 欲界見苦集所斷結盡[遍知] (*kāmādhātu-duḥkhasamudayadarśanaheya-parijñā)The second: 色無色界見苦集所斷結盡[遍知] (*rūpārūpya- duḥkhasamudayadarśanaheya-parijñā)The third: 欲界見滅所斷結盡[遍知] (*kāmādhātu-nirodhadarśanaheya-parijñā)The fourth: 色無色界見滅所斷結盡[遍知] (*rūpārūpya-nirodhadarśanaheya-parijñā)The fifth: 欲界見道所斷結盡[遍知] (*kāmādhātu-mārgadarśanaheya-parijñā)The sixth: 色無色界見道所斷結盡[遍知] (*rūpārūpya- mārgadarśanaheya-parijñā)The seventh: 五順下分結盡[遍知] (avarabhāgīyaprahāṇa-parijñā)The eighth: 色愛結盡[遍知] (rūparāgakṣaya-parijñā)The ninth: 一切結盡[遍知] (sarvasaṃyojanaparyādāna-parijñā)1) For verse V.66bc and Vasubandhu’s auto-commentary,Pradhan 1975, 323: dhyānānāṃ pañca vāthavā | aṣṭau vaibhāṣikamatena mauladhyānaphalaṃ pañca parijñā yā rūpārūpyāvacarakleśaprahāṇa svabhāvāḥ | kāmāvacarakleśaprahāṇasyānāgamyaphalatvātCf. Xuanzang: 根本五或八。[…] 根本靜慮果，五或八。所言五者，毘婆沙師説：根本地唯能永斷色無色攝煩惱等故；欲界所繋煩惱等斷，彼唯許是未至果故。LVP, p. 112: « Cinq ou huit, fruit des dhyānas. D’après les Vaibhasikas, cinq sont fruit des mauladhyānas ‘ dhyānas principaux ’ (par opposition aux sāmantakas, recueillements préparatoires aux dhyānas) — à savoir celles qui consistent dans l’abandon des kleśas du domaine du Rūpa et de l’Ārūpyadhātu (parijñās 4, 5, 6, 8 et 9). L'abandon des kleśas du domaine du Kāmadhātu (parijñās 1, 2, 3, 7) est le fruit du seul anāgamya, c'est-à-dire du recueillement préparatoire au premier dhyāna. »Pruden, p. 862: “[F]ive or eight are the result of the dhyānas. According to the Vaibhāṣikas, five are the result of the mauladhyānas or the “principal absorptions” (in opposition to the sāmantakas or absorptions preparatory to the Dhyānas), namely, those which consist of the abandoning of the klesas of the sphere of Rūpadhātu and Ārūpyadhātu (perfect knowledges four, five, six, eight and nine). The abandoning of the kleśas of the sphere of Kāmadhātu (perfect knowledges one, two, three, and seven) is the result of only anāgamya, that is, of the absorption preparatory to the First Dhyāna.”Lodrö Sangpo, p. 1752: “[F]ive or eight [complete knowledges] are the effect of the meditations. According to the Vaibhāṣikas, five [complete knowledges, i.e., the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th,] are the effect of the fundamental meditations (mauladhyāna) […]Wang’s comment on the translations:LVP’s list of the five parijñās as the result of mauladhyāna is not correct, and Pruden and Lodrö Sangpo simply follow suit. The list of five should consist of the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 9th instead of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th. The reason is obvious, a practitioner in a mauladhyāna cannot obtain the fifth parijñā associated with Kāmādhātu, while (s)he can obtain the second parijñā associated with Rūpadhātu and Ārūpyadhātu. Correspondingly, the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th parijñās –– not the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th –– are the result of only anāgamya.2) For verse V.66c and Vasubandhu’s auto-commentary,Skt. sāmantakasyaikā ākāśānantyāyatanasāmantakasyaikā rūparāgakṣayaparijñā phalam | Cf. Xuanzang: 無色邊果一 […] 無色邊地果唯有一，謂依空處近分地道得色愛盡遍知果故« Une est fruit d’un sāmantaka. La rūparāgakṣayaparijñā (parijñā 8) est fruit du sāmantaka ((stage préparatoire) de l’ākāśānantyāyatana. »“One is the result of a sāmantaka. The perfect knowledge consisting of the destruction of attachment to Rūpadhātu (perfect knowledge number eight) is the result of the sāmantaka, or preparatory stage of Ākāśanantyāyatana.”“One [complete knowledge, i.e., the 8th,] is the effect of the stage of preliminary concentration [of the perception-sphere of infinite space]. The complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the attachment to material form (rūparāgakṣaya-parijñā; i.e., the 8th complete knowledge) is the effect of a stage of preliminary concentration (sāmantaka) of the perception-sphere of infinite space (Ākāśanantyāyatana).The verse answers the question “in what kind of meditation does one obtain the perfect knowledges?” The French and English translations seem to suggest that the 8th prajñā (i.e., rūparāgakṣayaparijñā) can only be obtained in the sāmantaka of ākāśānantyāyatana. A better rendering might be: “For the sāmantaka of ākāśānantyāyatana,there is only one fruit, i.e., the 8th prajñā.”3) For V.68ad, Lodrö Sangpo, p. 1755:“In the fourth moment (i.e., the subsequent cognition with regard to unsatisfactoriness [duḥkhe ’nvayajñāna]), the summit of cyclic existence (bhavāgra) is “mutilated”, as also in the fifth moment (i.e., the receptivity to the cognition of the factors with regard to unsatisfactoriness [samudaye dharmajñānakṣānti]): but the two causes are not destroyed.This is probably just a slip: the fifth moment, in Lodrö Sangpo’s terminology, is the receptivity to the cognition of the factors with regard to the origin (samudaya), not unsatisfactoriness (duḥkha).4) For Vasubandhu’s auto-commentary on verse V.68d,Pradhan 1975: (yadā dhātuṃ samatikrāmati | kṛtsnadhātuvairāgyāt ubhayasaṃyogaviyogaṃ pañcamaṃ kāraṇam āhur apare |) yaḥ prakāraḥ prahīṇo yadi tatrānyena tadālambanena kleśena visaṃyukto bhavatīti |Cf. Xuanzang: (言越界者，謂此界中煩惱等法皆全離故，有立離倶繋亦是一緣故。立遍知緣總有五種。)離俱繫者，謂此雖斷，未立遍知，要離所餘緣此境或(read 惑 with 宋元明宮)方可建立。Tib: (khams mtha' dag las 'dod chags dang bral ba'i phyir / gang gi tshe khams las yang dag par 'da' ba na'o // gnyis pa kun du sbyor ba dang bral ba rgyu lnga pa de smras pa /) rnam pa gang zhig spangs la gal te de la dmigs pa'i nyon mongs pa gzhan dang bral bar gyur na'o zhes bya ba ni / de ni rgyu gnyi ga yang dag par bcom pa dang / khams las yang dag par 'das pa las gzhan ma yin par mi brjod do //« Il ne suffit pas d’avoir abandonné un kleśa (à abandonner parla vue) : il faut encore avoir abandonné les kleśas (à abandonner par la vue ou la méditation) qui prennent ce premier kleśa pour objet. »“It does not suffice to abandon a kleśa (abandoned through Seeing): one must also abandon the kleśas (abandoned through Seeing or Meditation) which grasp this first kleśa as their object.”“It does not suffice to have abandoned a defilement [to be abandoned by insight]: it is also necessary to have abandoned the defilements [to be abandoned by insight or cultivation] which take this first defilement as their cognitive object.”The problem of ubhayasaṃyogaviyoga is explained in verse V.28:prahīṇe duḥkhadṛggheye saṃyuktaḥ śeṣasarvagaiḥ |prāk prahīṇe prakāre ca śeṣais tadviṣayair malaiḥ || 5.28 || (1) When that which is to be abandoned by insight into unsatisfactoriness is abandoned, the practitioners remain in connection with it by means of the other pervasive defilements; (2) when the first category [of the defilements] is abandoned, they remain in connection with it by means of the other [eight categories of] stains [or defilements] [mala] which have it as their object-field. (Lodrö Sangpo, pp. 1711–1712; Cf. Pruden, pp. 820–821.)According to V.28, both “defilements to be abandoned by insight into suffering” (duḥkhadarśanaheya- kleśa-) and the first eight categories of“defilements to be abandoned by cultivation” (bhāvanāheyakleśa) have the issue of not “being free of two kinds of connection” (ubhayasaṃyogavisaṃyoga; 離俱繫). The French and English translations do not differentiate between “defilements to be abandoned by insight into suffering” and “defilements to be abandoned by insight into arising, cessation, and the path” (samudayanirodhamārgadarśanaheya- kleśa-) and fail to mention the first eight categories of bhāvanāheyakleśas.Pradhan 1975: kaścid dve yaḥ kevalād ārūpyadhātuvairāgyāt parihīyate |Cf. Xuanzang: 言得二者，謂從無學起無色界諸纏退時。LVP: « Celui qui tombe du seul détachement de l’Ārūpya, prend possession de deux parijñās (sixième et septième).“One who falls away from a single detachment of Ārūpyadhātu, obtains two perfect knowledges (the sixth and the seventh).”“Those who retrogress from the single detachment from the realm of immateriality, take possession of two complete knowledges (the 6th and 7th).”When one retrogresses from the arhathood (無學) because of the entanglements in Ārūpya (無色界諸纏), one obtains the 7th and the 8th perfect knowledge, instead of the 6th and 7th. This is explicitly established in V.69d.6) In his last note for this section, LVP notices that “Hiuan-isang corrige quelques articles” (LVP, p. 118; cf. Pruden note 221: “Hsüan-tsang corrects some items”), without explaining how Xuanzang manages to correct Vasubandhu’s text. Xuanzang’s “corrections” or “improvements” are as follows.6.1) For the auto-commentary ad 5.69d,Pradhan 1975: tataḥ kāmavairāgyaṃ prāptaḥ pūrvaṃ paścād vā ekayā ’varabhāgīyaprahāṇaparijñayā |Tib: sngon nam phyis 'dod pa la 'dod chags dang bral ba thob pa ni / tha ma'i cha dang mthun pas spangs pa'i yongs su shes pa gcig pu dang ldan no // Xuanzang: 至全離欲、色愛未盡，或先離欲從道類智未起色盡勝果道前，唯成一遍知，謂順下分盡。Cf. Saṃghabhadra’s Nyāyānusāriṇī: 至全離欲以離欲第九解脫道為初，乃至離色界最後無間道，先離欲者從道類智乃至未起色盡道前，唯成一遍知謂順下分盡。When one has obtained this detachment—either before or after the comprehension of the Truths (abhisamaya=Path of Seeing)—one is endowed with a single perfect knowledge of the abandoning of the cankerous influences of Kamadhatu.There are three different scenarios for one who has kāmavairāgya (“being free of the desires of Kāmadhātu”):B. one has both the 7th and the 8th;Vasubandhu here deals with the attainment of only one perfect knowledge, and the text does not explictly exclude scenario B. Xuanzang, perhaps following Saṃghabhadra’s lead, adds 色愛未盡或先離欲從道類智未起色盡勝果道前 to explicitly exclude scenario B.6.2) For the auto-commentary ad 5.70c,Pradhan 1975: dve parijñe tyajaty anāgāmī rūpavītarāgaḥ kāmavairāgyāt parihīyamāṇaḥ |Tib.: phyir mi 'ong ba gzugs kyi 'dod chags dang bral ba zhig // 'dod pa la 'dod chags dang bral ba las yongs su nyams na/ yongs su shes pa nyid gtong ngo //Paramārtha: 捨二者，阿那含人，離欲色界已後退離欲欲界。Xuanzang:言捨二者，謂諸不還從色愛盡起欲纒退，及彼獲得阿羅漢時。Pruden, p. 868: “The Anagamin detached from Rūpadhātu who falls away from the detachment of Kamadhatu loses two perfect knowledges.”Saṃghabhadra’s Nyāyānusāriṇī: 言捨二者，謂諸不還從色愛盡起欲纏退，及彼獲得阿羅漢時。諸先離欲依根本定入見諦者道類忍時。Vasubandhu, in the original Sanskrit text, does not mention that the following scenario: one abandons two perfect knowledges (the 7th and the 8th) when one transitions from scenario B to scenario C. To include this scenario, Xuanzang adds 及彼獲得阿羅漢時.6.3) For the auto-commentary ad 5.70c,Pradhan 1975: ṣaṭ parijñāstyajaty ānupūrvikaḥ kāmavairāgyāt | Tib. mthar gyi sa pa la 'dod pa las 'dod chags dang bral bar byed pas ni / yongs su shes pa drug gtong ngo //Paramārtha: 捨六者，若人次第修，由離欲欲界。« Lorsqu'il n'est pas détaché du Kāmadhātu avant d'entrer dans le chemin de vue, c'est-à-dire lorsqu'il est un ānupūrvaka, il acquiert alors la sixième parijñā qu'il perdra, avec les cinq autres, en acquérant le détachement du Kāmadhātu. » Pruden, p. 868: “When one is not detached from Kamadhatu before entering into the Path of Seeing, that is, when he is an ānupūrvaka he then obtains the sixth perfect knowledge which he will lose, with the five others, when he acquires detachment from Kamadhatu.”Lodrö Sangpo, p. 1758: “When they are not detached from the realm of desire before entering into the path of insight, i.e., when they are successive ones (ānupūrvika), they then acquire the 6th complete knowledge which they will lose, along with the other five, when acquiring detachment from the realm of desire.”Xuanzang: 言捨六者，謂未離欲所有聖者得離欲時。Saṃghabhadra’s Nyāyānusāriṇī: 言捨六者，謂未離欲所有聖者得不還時。Both Xuanzang’s translation and Saṃghabhadra’s text does not include the term ānupūrvaka (Paramārtha: 若人次第修), as the discussion here does not really involve the difference between the ānupūrvaka and the bhūyovītarāgas (倍離欲貪超越證者). The ānupūrvaka obtains the srotaāpatti-phala before pursuing the sakṛdāgāmi-phala, while the bhūyovītarāga becomes a Sakṛdāgāmin without first obtaining the srotaāpatti (cf. Abhidharmakośa II.16d).Pruden (6-19a-b 長行pp. 932-933)Strong Patience exists when the ascetic considers, in a single thought, only one aspect [=impermanence] applied to the sufferings of Kamadhatu. Such is the explanation of the Vaibhasi- kas. Lodrö Sangpo (6-19ab 長行，p. 1914)When the practitioners consider, in one single thought, no more than one aspect or mode of activity ("impermanent") applied to the unsatisfactoriness of the realm of desire, that is the strong receptivity. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷23：「從此位無間起勝善根一行一剎那名上品忍」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 119c11-12)兩處不必然是"impermanent"行相 。其實，前面的"they apply their mind to no more than two aspects or modes of activity ("impermanent", "unsatisfactory") "也錯了，因為是同類型的問題，不單獨列出來了。《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷23：「世第一法，緣欲苦諦法念住現在修未來四，隨一行相現在修未來四，無異分故、似見道故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 120a7-9)《阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論》卷109：「又見行者復有二種。著我見者依非我行相入正性離生。著我所見者依空行相入正性離生。諸愛行者亦有二種。我慢增者依非常行相入正性離生。懈怠增者依苦行相入正性離生。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T27, no. 1545, pp. 563c26-564a2)Pruden (6-22d 長行pp. 938-939)Loss through falling necessarily results from the defilements; but not unqualified loss {vihdni), which can result from a quality, for example, the loss of the quality of Prthagjana at the production of the Path, etc.Lodrö Sangpo (6-22d 長行p. 1920)Loss-through-retrogressing necessarily results from defilements [do,m; klesa]; but not unqualified (na avasyam) loss (vihani), which can result from something good (gu,:ta), for example, the loss of the status of ordinary worldling when producing the (noble) path, etc.《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷23：「失退二捨非得為性，退必起過，失不必然。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 120b20-21)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷23：「聖由失地捨， 異生由命終， 初二亦退捨， 依本必見諦」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 120a14-15)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷23：「然除彼得，勿諸聖者煖等善根重現前故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 119c18-19)and those defilements which are abandoned by the Seeing of the Truths.Lodrö Sangpo (6-22d 長行p. 1921)defilements (klesa), those that have been abandoned by insight into the truths. (MYS, 165b6) <175> 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷23：「惑謂見所斷惑」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 120c8-9)由於「忍位」在見道之前，這裡想說的是「那些『見所斷的煩惱』從現在開始就永遠不會再生起了」，不是說「已經被見道斷除的煩惱」。有必要補充的兩點是：1，「見所斷惑」不一定都是通過「見道」斷除的。2，「見所斷惑」中，有一部分是有可能在「忍位」之前由世俗道斷除的，即有頂之外的「見所斷惑」。不管「見所斷惑」此時有沒有斷除，斷除了多少，它們從「上忍位」開始，就再也不會生起。Lodrö Sangpo (6-22d 長行p. 1921)through weak receptivity, unfortunate planes of existence enter into the condition destined to arise; 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷23：「此於下上位，隨所應而得，謂於下忍得惡趣不生，所餘不生至上忍方得。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 120c9-10)應該是not to arise, Pruden (6-23b 長行p. 940)是對的：through weak Patience, the painful realms of rebirth enter into the condition of not arising。Pruden (6-24a-b note148, p. 1054)148. Hsiian-tsang: After having produced the first two nirvedhabhdgiyas, he can change to another vehicle.Lodrö Sangpo (6-24a-b note271, p. 2078)LVP: Hstian-tsang: After having produced the first two stages conducive to penetration, they can change to another vehicle. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷23：「有餘獨覺異麟角喻，起彼種性初二善根，轉向餘乘，理無遮礙。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 121a3-5)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷17：「若有人執，有別獨覺異犀角喻獨覺，於彼人轉二善根成菩薩。此義無遮。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 273a17-19)玄奘的意思是，除了麟角喻之外的獨覺，可以在初二善根（即煖善根或頂善根）的階段轉向餘乘，也就是說，可以在生起第三善根（忍善根）之前轉向餘乘；而不是說在生起初二善根之後轉向餘乘。This refers to the eight abhtsamaya knowledges (duhkhe jridna, etc., vi. 26) [and also to all prajnd of the pure Path of Meditation up to the Knowledge of Extinction]. Lodrö Sangpo (7-1c, p. 2171)This refers to the eight cognitions of direct realization (abhisamaya) (cognition with regard to unsatisfactoriness [dub,khe jiiiina], etc.; vi. 26) (and also to any understanding of the pure path of cultivation up to [but not including] the cognition of exhaustion). 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「所餘皆通智見二性」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 134b27-28)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「釋曰：異於忍及盡智無生智，所餘無流般若，亦見亦智。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 285c18-19)兩個英譯本中對「所餘」進行了解釋。從解釋看，他們也許都把「現觀」理解為完全等同於「見道」了，實際上，其中的「道類智」屬於修道。更重要的是，他們都沒有提到「無學道」。Pruden (6-32, 長行, p. 955)As a consequence, the abider in a result, as long as he does not exert himself with a view to a higher progress for the acquisition of a new state, that is, as long as he does not cultivate the preparatory exercises which have for their result the abandoning of the defilements not yet abandoned and which is the cause of the acquisition of a new state, this resident is not a candidate for this new state. Lodrö Sangpo (6-32, 長行, p. 1938)Consequently, the abiders in the fruit, as long as they do not devote themselves (prayujyate) to a higher progress (vise~iiya) in mind, for the acquisition of a new fruit, i.e., as long as they do not cultivate the preparatory effort (prayoga) which has for its result the abandonment of defilements not yet abandoned and which is the cause for the acquisition of a new fruit, so long are these abiders not approachers of this new fruit. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷23：「然諸先斷欲界修惑一至五等，至得果時，此生必定起勝果道。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 122c23-24)“the defilements not yet abandoned”错了。这里之所以「此生必定起勝果道」，不是此生要進斷尚未斷的煩惱，而是對見道前以世俗道斷的煩惱(非果道攝者)起無漏離繫得。Pruden (6-32, 長行, p. 956)Nevertheless, the ascetic who, [previously] detached from the Third Dhyana [by a worldly path], enters into niydma (vi.26a) or the Path of Seeing in a sphere lower than this Dhyana [that is, in anagamya, the First or Second Dhyana, or an intermediate state], certainly realizes a path higher than the result. Lodrö Sangpo (6-32, 長行, p. 1938)Nevertheless, the practitioners who, (previously) detached from the third meditation (dhyiina) (through a mundane path), enter into the assurance (niyiima; vi. 26a) or the path of insight (darsanamiirga) by relying on a stage lower than this meditation (i.e., by relying on the preparatory meditation [aniigamya], the first and second meditation, the intermediate meditation [dhyiiniintara]), certainly realize a path higher than the fruit (phalavisi~fa'!l miirgam). 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷23：「由此先離三靜慮染後依下地入見道者，彼得果已於現生中必能引生後勝果道。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 122c24-27)"Nevertheless"錯了，這裡不是轉折關係，是解釋說明前面的原則，即玄奘的“由此”。Pruden (6-32, note199, p. 1060)It is certain that this ascetic acquires, by means of the Path of Seeing, a pure sukhendriya of the sphere of the Third Dhyana;Lodrö Sangpo (6-32, note375, p. 2105)It is certain that these practitioners acquire, by means of the path of insight, a pure faculty of sensation of pleasure (sukhendriya) of the sphere of the third meditation; 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷23：「由此先離三靜慮染後依下地入見道者，彼得果已於現生中必能引生後勝果道。若異此者，聖生上地應不可說定成樂根。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 122c24-27)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷17：「若人離欲第三定，更依下地[1]入正定，此人必定現前由果勝道。若不爾，從下生上界則不應與樂根相應」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 275a3-5)[1] 入【大】，人【宋】 實際上，這種情況（「先離三靜慮染後依下地入見道」），在見道階段，恰恰是不能得「第三靜慮無漏樂根」的——這正是為什麼「彼得果已於現生中必能引生後勝果道」的原因，假如通過見道得了無漏樂根，就不需要再「起勝果道」得無漏樂根了。兩個注釋隨後的解釋邏輯也是錯誤的。Lodrö Sangpo (6-38ab, p. 1951)Those who are called half-leapers (ardhapluta) are the noble ones who, leaping over only one place,452 { 4 b} enter among those of the Highest (Akani~thas) after being reborn among those of the pure abodes.《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷24：「言半超者，從彼漸次生下淨居，乃至中間能越一處生色究竟，超非全故名為半超。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 124c14-16)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷17：「半超出者，從初定生淨居已，乃至超一別處，方生阿迦尼師吒。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 276b20-21)"only one" 錯了，實際上，超任意一處即可。Pruden (p. 968) "passing beyond any one place"，是合適的。《阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論》卷174：「半超者謂欲界歿生梵眾天。梵眾天歿於上一切天處或更生一處或二或三或四或五。乃至或唯超一處遍生餘處然後生色究竟。或生非想非非想處而般涅槃。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T27, no. 1545, p. 875c8-12)《俱舍論記》卷24：「此半超人於十六天極少三生。初生梵眾。次十四天中隨生一處。後生色究竟 若極多生十五。於十六天隨其所應中間越一。生餘十五」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T41, no. 1821, p. 361b17-20)Pruden (6-41a-b, 長行, p. 973)But the Aryan who obtains the state of Anagamin after having been reborn in Rupadhatu, goes sometimes to Arupyadhatu as a Bhavagraparana Urdhvasrota.Lodrö Sangpo (6-41a-b, 長行, p. 1956)But the noble ones who obtain the fruit of non-returner after having been reborn in the realm of fine-materiality sometimes go to the realm of immateriality in the status of those who go higher (iirdhvasrotas) that are destined to the limit of the summit of cyclic existence (bhaviigraparama). 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷24：「若於色界經生聖者，容有上生無色界義，如行色界極有頂者。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 125b22-23)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷17：「於色界中，若轉生聖人，有時入無色界。若上流，有頂為勝。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 277a14-15)實際上，說的是先得阿那含果，然後生色界，不可能生色界後得阿那含。阿那含只能依欲界身得。見55a, Lodrö Sangpo (p. 1981): " The [first] three [fruits of the way of virtuous endeavor: (1) stream- enterer (2) once-returner, (3) non-returner,] are acquired only in Kama."（參考note605, p. 2127, LVP是懂這個的，可能不熟練。）Pruden (6-41cd, 長行, p. 974)The Aryan who has become an Anagamin by being reborn in Kamadhatu and one who is born in a higher sphere are not even capable of modifying their faculties; Lodrö Sangpo (6-41cd, 長行, p. 1957)(1) The noble ones who have become non-returners by being reborn in the realm of desire (kiime parivrttajanmii) and (2) those who are born in a higher realm are not even capable of modifying their (praxis-oriented) faculties (indriyasa,p,ciira); 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷24：「即此已經欲界生者及已從此往上界生諸聖，必無練根并退。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 125b26-28)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷17：「此者是於欲界轉生聖人及有別聖人，往上界受生。此等人無練根修行，又無因緣得退。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 277a20-22)不需要是「阿那含」，只要是經欲界生的聖人，無論是不是阿那含，都沒有練根和退失。Pruden (6-42b, 長行, p. 976)In our opinion, the combination of a single, unique impure moment with two pure moments, is impossible to everyone, with the exception of the Buddha. Consequently the combination of a Dhyana is achieved when one enters, for the period of time that one wants, into three prolongued Dhyanas, pure, impure, and pure. Lodrö Sangpo (6-42b, 長行, p. 1959)In our opinion, the combination of one single impure moment (k~a,:za) with two pure moments [k~a,:zavyavakira,:za] is impossible for anyone except the Buddha. Conse- quently, the combination of one meditation is achieved when one enters into three prolonged fpravaha; prabandhika] meditations, (1) pure, (2) impure, (3) pure, for the desired period of time. 這一段在玄奘、真諦譯本中都沒有，而且與玄奘、真諦譯本「成由一念雜」的頌文矛盾，還與英譯本43ab的長行相矛盾，可能不是《俱舍論》的觀點。Lodrö Sangpo (6-44d, 長行, p. 1965)For the formless meditative attainments, there are twenty, thirty-two and forty-eight [adamantine concentrations]. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷24：「空處四十，識處三十二，無所有處二十四。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 126c14-15)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷17：「於空處等依止，次第有四十、三十二、二十四三摩提。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 278a20-21)Lodrö Sangpo這裡的數字錯了，這是在前面28、24、20的基礎上，分別加上12、8、4。Pruden (p. 982)是正確的: "For the Arupyas, we have forty, thirty-two and twenty-four."Pruden (6-45c-d, 長行, p. 985)the worldly path of a certain sphere cannot be opposed to this same sphere Lodrö Sangpo (6-45c-d, 長行, p. 1969)the mundane path of a certain stage [bhumi] cannot be opposed to this same stage, 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷24：「自地不能治自地故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 127a25-26)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷17：「依自地道非對治故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 278b28-29)應該說：自地世俗道不能治自地煩惱；或者：自地煩惱不能被自地世俗道對治。被治(be opposed)的是煩惱。Pruden (6-45c-d, 長行, p. 986)This possession is worldly and transworldly. Lodrö Sangpo (6-46ab, 長行, p. 1969)This possession is mundane [laukika] and supramundane [lokottara]. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷24：「論曰：諸有學聖用有漏道離下八地修斷染時，能具引生二離繫得。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 127b4-5)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷17：「釋曰：由世間道，若聖人至得離欲，則有二種滅離至得起：一世間至得、二出世至得。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 278c7-8)實際上，是兩種得，一種有漏（世間），一種無漏（出世間）；不是一種得同時是「世間」和「出世間」。英譯本46c有類似的表述，不再重複了。Pruden (6-47ab, 頌與長行, p. 987)47a-b. But, if he is not filled with these defilements, he is like a saint half delivered from Bhavagra, like a person who is reborn above. This Aryan does not have worldly acquisition of disconnection; nevertheless this Aryan is not filled with the said defilements. Lodrö Sangpo (6-47ab, 頌與長行, p. 1970)47ab. But, if they are not endowed with these defilements, that is like the noble ones who are half-liberated from the summit of cyclic existence, like the persons who are reborn above. There is no mundane acquisition of the disconnection for these noble ones; nevertheless, these noble ones are not endowed with the aforementioned defilements. 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷17：「偈曰：有頂半解脫，如上生不應。釋曰：此人雖無世間滅離至得，亦不得與彼惑相應。譬如有學人於有頂惑[6]以得半解脫，於中必無世間滅離至得。由修練根行故，已捨出世至得，與彼地惑亦不相應。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 278c16-20)[6] 以【大】，已【宋】【元】【明】【宮】 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷24：「此證非理。所以者何？彼聖設無有漏斷得，亦不成就上地煩惱。如分離有頂得轉根時及異生上生不成惑故。謂如分離有頂地染，後依靜慮得轉根時，無漏斷得既已頓捨，彼地離繫無有漏得，而彼地惑亦不成就。又如異生生二定等，雖捨欲界等煩惱斷得，而不成就欲界等煩惱，此亦應然。故不成證。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 127b13-20)這裡很明顯，LVP所據本，相比玄奘譯本，是和真諦譯本更接近的。英譯本的頌，在真諦譯本存在，在玄奘譯本中只有長行（沒有以頌文的形式顯示）。兩個英譯本中，“if he is not filled with these defilements”的意思都錯了。世親菩薩想表達的是：即便不成就有漏離繫得，也不會成就（之前斷過的）上地煩惱。兩個英譯本的長行中，假設的意思不見了，變成了肯定（There is no mundane acquisition of the disconnection for these noble ones）——實際上，是假設不存在（世親菩薩是認為存在的），這種假設是為了反駁「餘師」的論證方式，並不是反駁餘師的結論；也就是玄奘開頭和結尾說的「此證非理」「故不成證」。真諦譯本中，長行也沒有把假設的意思表達出來。（這有可能是梵本的問題。）玄奘譯本精確地表達了世親菩薩的意思。還可參考《順正理論》。《阿毘達磨順正理論》卷66：「此證非理。所以者何？彼聖設無有漏斷得，亦不成就上地煩惱，如分離有頂得轉根時，及異生上生不成惑故。謂如分離有頂地染，後依靜慮得轉根時，無漏斷得既已頓捨，彼地離繫無有漏得，而彼地惑亦不成就。又如異生生二定等，雖捨欲界等煩惱斷得，而不成就欲界等煩惱，以欲界等有漏離繫得初定等攝，唯彼能治故，若生上地此得必捨，生上地必捨下有漏善故。此二雖無煩惱斷得，而勝進故遮惑得生；彼亦應然，故證非理。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1562, p. 701c18-28)Lodrö Sangpo (6-50ab, note558, p. 2122)LS: Dhammajoti comments (SA.IV.463) that the unshakable ones have "then absolutely abandoned all defilements along with their traces (viisanii) and overcome the undefiled igno- rance (akli~fa-ajiiiina)". 「習氣」和「不染無知」只有佛能斷除，而不是不動阿羅漢。《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷1〈1 分別界品〉：「聲聞獨覺雖滅諸冥，以[8]染無知畢竟[9]斷故；非[10]一切種，所以者何？由於佛法極遠時處及諸義類無邊差別，[11]不染無知猶未斷故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 1a16-19)[8] Kliṣṭa-saṃmoha. [9] 〔－〕【CB】【磧-CB】【宋】【元】【明】【宮】，未【大】(cf. Q25_p0635a12; T29n1563_p0779a03) [10] Sarvathā. [11] Akliṣṭam ajñānam. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「何故名力？以於一切所知境中智無礙轉，故名為力。由此十力唯依佛身，唯佛已除諸惑習氣於一切境隨欲能知，餘此相違故不名力。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 140b23-26)Pruden (6-52c-53b, 長行, p. 994)That is to say: (1-2) there is the abandoning of the path of the candidate, and the acquisition of the path of the result; Lodrö Sangpo (6-52c-53b, 頌與長行, p. 1976)In one fruit, there is (1) the abandonment of a previous path [i.e., of the path of the approacher], …1.the abandonment of the path of the approacher; 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷24：「一捨曾道，謂捨[1]先得果向道故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 128a29-b1)[1] 先【大】，無【宋】【元】【明】 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷18：「一先捨離前道。二至得未曾得道，由捨離至得向道道果故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 279c7-8)《阿毘達磨順正理論》卷70：「諸住果位修練根時，捨果得果；住勝道位修練根時，捨二得果。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1562, p. 723c24-26)兩個英譯本只說了捨「向道」，實際上，如果有先得「果道」，先得「果道」和「向道」都會捨棄。Pruden (6-58b, 長行, p. 1004)When an Arhat again becomes a Saiksa, he dwells in the same family that was his first family. Otherwise, in the hypothesis that he would obtain a better family, he would progress, and he would not fall away. Lodrö Sangpo (6-58b, 長行, p. 1986)When perfected beings again become those in training, they dwell in the same family that was their first family. Otherwise, in the hypothesis where they should obtain a better family, they would progress, they would not retrogress. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷25：「思法等四退住學位，時還住退非餘。若異此者，得勝種性故，應是進非退。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 129c18-19)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷18：「若退成有學人，於中得住，不住餘性。若不爾，由得增[1]長性，轉增不成退。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 281a9-10)[1] 長【大】，進【宋】【元】【明】 根據真諦譯本和兩個英譯本對比，我懷疑可能梵本本身說得不是很清楚。英譯本中說的“his first family”，其實就是「退法」種性；因為，假如得阿羅漢果時不是退法種性，他是不會退的。「思法種性」退果，是因為他在得阿羅漢果時是退法種性，然後通過練根成為思法種性，因此，他的first family還是「退法種性」，而不是「思法種性」。這一點，玄奘譯本中有：「二先位中住思等性，必亦無退此所得果，唯先退法有退果義。」這一層含義，其他本似乎都沒有提到。根據阿毘達磨的理論來講，如果從無學果退成有學，成為有學時一定是「退法種性」。英譯本說“first family”，是沒有問題的。只是隨後的表達不太精確：“Otherwise, in the hypothesis that he would obtain a better family, he would progress, and he would not fall away.”按照阿毘達磨的邏輯，應該是玄奘所說：由於那些從無學退成有學的人，在之前得阿羅漢果時是退法種性，現在退成有學時如果不是「退法種性」——這應該叫做「進」而不是「退」，雖然他的果退了，但他的種性（相比他之前是有學時）進了。兩個英譯本沒有表達出這個邏輯。Pruden (6-61a, 長行, pp. 1013-1014)For the transformation of the faculties by which a Sraddhad- himukta [=a Saiksa of weak faculties] becomes a Drstiprapta [=a Saiksa of sharp faculties], there must be an Irresistible Path and a Path of Deliverance.Lodrö Sangpo (6-61a, 長行, p. 1996)For the transformation of the (praxis-oriented) faculties by which those who are freed through predominance of faith (sraddhadhimukta) (= those in training of weak praxis-oriented faculties) become those who have attained through views (dr~{ipriipta) (= those in training of sharp praxis-oriented faculties), there should be one unhindered path (anantaryamarga) and one path of liberation (vimuktimārga). 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷25：「有學位中轉一一性，各一無間、一解脫道」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 131b1-2)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷18：「偈曰：於見至一一。釋曰：若人欲通達見至性，修無間道唯一，解脫道亦一」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 282b21-23)這裡，兩個英文本都沒有區別「根」和「性」，六種「種性」中，前五種都是鈍根，因此，不能一概說有學由利根轉成鈍根都只需要一無間道一解脫道，比如，有學由退法種性轉成思法種性，需要一無間道一解脫道，但二者都是鈍根。兩個英譯本頌文中都說到了“each type ”，這指的是「每一種性」，長行解釋成了「每一根」。Pruden (6-61d-62b, 頌與長行, p. 1997)When the Saiksa perfects his faculties, he loses a state (=Sakrdagamiphala), a state that he had acquired by the path of weak faculties; he loses his visesa, that is, the progress that he had made—preparatory paths, Irresistible Path, Path of Deliverance, and Path of Excellence,—in the detachment of the Dhyanas, a progress realized with his weak faculties. Lodrö Sangpo (6-61d-62b, 頌與長行, p. 1997)Because those in training who increase their (praxis-oriented) faculties (i-ii) abandon the fruit [of the once-returner] and the advancement [savise~a], (iii) obtain only the fruit [belonging to the family of sharp praxis-oriented faculties]. When those in training perfect their (praxis-oriented) faculties, they lose a fruit (= the fruit of once-returner), a fruit which they have acquired by the path of weak (praxis-oriented) faculties; they lose the vise~a, i.e., the advancement which they have made-the preparatory path, the unhindered path (iinantarya), the path of liberation (,.,imukti) and the path of advancement (vise~a)-in the detachment of the meditations, an advancement realized with weak (praxis-oriented) faculties.《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷25：「夫轉根者，容有捨果及勝果道，所得唯果非向道故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 131b8-9)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷18：「釋曰：若人修練根行，捨果及果勝軟根道，即得利根性果及道。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 282c4-5)英譯本把有學練根解釋為「一來果」，實際上，「預流果」和「不還果」也包括在內，它們在練根時也會被捨棄。Pruden (6-61d-62b, 頌與長行, p. 1997)He obtains only a state belonging to the family of sharp faculties, a state forming part of the detachment of Kamadhatu, not the state of Anagamin which is of Arupyadhatu. Paramartha: He obtains, in the family of sharp faculties, both result and Path; not the result of Anagamin included in Arupyadhatu. This is because the Saiksa does not transform his faculties in Arupyadhatu. Lodrö Sangpo (6-61d-62b, 頌與長行, p. 1997)They obtain only a fruit belonging to the family of sharp (praxis-oriented) faculties, a fruit forming part of the detachment of the realm of desire, not the fruit of non-returner that is of the realm of immateriality.Paramārtha: - They obtain, of the family of sharp (praxis-oriented) faculties, a fruit and a path; not the fruit of non-returner included in the realm of immateriality. This is why those in training do not transform their (praxis-oriented) faculties in Ārūpyadhātu.《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷25：「夫轉根者，容有捨果及勝果道，所得唯果非向道故。無有學果無色地攝，故學練根但依六地。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 131b8-10)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷18：「釋曰：若人修練根行，捨果及果勝軟根道，即得利根性果及道。無阿那含果是無色界攝，由此因故，有學於無色界無練根行。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 282c4-6)兩個英譯本似乎都認為有阿那含果是無色界攝，只是無法通過練根得到。實際上，沒有無色界攝的阿那含果。他們都翻譯錯了真諦的意思。有意思的是，LVP似乎在note中暗示玄奘是正確的。實際上，真諦本和玄奘本是一致的，玄奘本說，沒有學果是無色地攝，真諦本說，沒有阿那含果是無色界攝，雖然表述上似乎不同，實際上是一致的，因為初果、二果顯然不是無色界攝。Pruden (6-65bd, 長行, p. 1021)Because the Path of Deliverance and the Path of Excellence are parallel to the paths of abandoning (Prahanamarga = the Irresistible Path par excellence) from the point of view of their object (the Truths), their aspects (sixteen aspects, impermanence, etc.), and their purity; they are distinguished by being superior, for they have for their causes all the causes of the paths of abandoning plus the paths of abandoning themselves. Lodrö Sangpo (6-65bd, 長行, p. 2004)[Answer:] - (1) Because the path of liberation and the path of advancement <279> are the same as [tajjatfya] the paths of abandonment (praha,:iamarga =the unhin- dered path par excellence) from the point of view (i) of their object (i.e., the truths), (ii) of their aspects or modes of activity (i.e., sixteen akaras, impermanent, etc.) and (iii) of their purity (anasrava); they are distinguished from them by being superior (adhimatratara), for they have for their causes all the "causes" of the paths of abandonment plus the paths of abandonment themselves. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷25：「解脫、勝進如何名道？與道類同，轉上品故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 132a13-14)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷18：「解脫增進云何名道？由是前道種類故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 283b10)相比梵本，英譯本增加了補充解釋（見LVP note725，LS p. 2141）。但補充解釋是有問題的。原文的「同」，英譯本解釋為所緣同、行相同、無漏同。然而，金剛喻定和盡智，分別作為無間道和解脫道，它們的行相、所緣可能是有差別的。（見LS，p. 2174）Pruden (6-68d-69b, 長行, p. 2008)According to the Vaibha§ikas, there are eleven items; Right Speech and Right Actions together form one item, and Right Livelihood is another item. Lodrö Sangpo (6-68d-69b, 長行, p. 2008)According to the V~:ibha~ikas, there are eleven real entities: right speech (samyag- viic; viikkarma) aud right action (samyakkarmiinta; kiiyakarma) form together one real entity, right livelihood (samyagajfva) is another real entity (see iv. 86). 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷25：「毘婆沙師說有十一，身業語業不相雜故戒分為二」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 132b21-22)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷18：「苦（若）依毘婆沙師執，有十一物，身口二業不相通故，是故戒分成二物」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 283c24-25)實際上，如果說成十一，是正語、正業各是一種，正命要麼攝在正語中，要麼攝在正業中。英譯本誤解為正語正業合為一種，正命為另一種。可參考《大毘婆沙論》。另，《光記》引《婆沙》作「婆沙九十五」，應為「婆沙九十六」。《阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論》卷96：「問菩提分法名有三十七。實體有幾耶。答此實體。有十一或十二。若以一切攝入覺支即七覺支。名既有七實體亦七信正思惟各唯一種正語業命。有說為二。正命即是正語業故。有說為三。正語業外有正命故。若說為二即唯十一。若說為三則有十二。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T27, no. 1545, p. 496a22-28)《俱舍論記》卷25：「婆沙九十五有三說。兩說同此論。復有一說。正語．業外有正命故。若說有三即有十二。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T41, no. 1821, p. 378a27-29)Pruden (6-79d, 長行, p. 1040)Let us remark, with respect to the first and the fourth alternative, that the ascetic who, already detached from craving, enters the Path of Seeing, does not abandon defilements through the Path of the Dharma Knowledge and the Dharma Knowledges. 這裡想說的是「法忍」和「法智」，結果都說成了「法智」。LS這裡對了。Lodrö Sangpo (6-79d, 長行, p. 2021)Moreover, one does not abandon the paths of liberation (vimuktimarga) and the paths of advancement (vise(famiirga) (vi. 65b)829 by the cognitions which form part of the preparatory paths (prayoga- marga).《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷25：「應知此中先離欲染後見諦者所有法忍，及諸智中加行解脫勝進道攝不令惑斷，惑已斷故、非斷治故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 134b8-11)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷18：「此中若已離欲人重觀四諦，由法智忍不能滅惑。若智加行解脫增進道所攝，此智亦不能滅惑。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 285b28-c1)這是緊跟著前一條的一句，LS完全沒有理解，Pruden 是沒問題的，Pruden譯文中“abandon them ”的them指的是「惑」，即“abandon defilements ”；LS理解成了“abandon the paths of liberation and the paths of advancement”。Pruden (6-79d, note474, p. 1086)But the "detached" ascetic necessarily abandons by means of anvayajnanaksantis and anvayajndnas, since no worldly path bears on Bhavagra (vi.45c). Lodrö Sangpo (6-79d, note828, p. 2162)On the contrary, the detached practitioners necessarily abandon by the receptivity to the subsequent cognition (anvayajiianak:jdnti) and the subsequent cognition (anvayajiiana) since no mundane path are concerned with the summit of cyclic existence (bhavagra; vi. 45c). 實際上，見道位中，只能用忍斷惑。所以提到類智（the subsequent cognition）是不對的。Pruden (8-2a-b, note18, p. 2443)There is a difficulty. How does the author, by saying that the First Dhyana is vicarapritisukhavat, say implicitly that this Dhyana also "contains vitarka"} In fact, dhydndntara "contains vicdra' and "contains vitarka."…Vasubandhu does not say vitarkapritisukhavat, because he wishes to say that the other Dhyanas lose, in this order, the parts indicated. If one were to define the Second Dhyana as without vitarka, then dhyānāntara would be confused with the Second Dhyana. Lodrö Sangpo (8-2a-b, note40, p. 2443)LVP: There is a difficulty. How does the author, by saying that the first meditation is endowed with investigation-joy-pleasure (viciiraprftisukhavat), implicitly say that this medi- tation is also "with initial inquiry"? As a matter of fact, the intermediate meditation (dhyiina- antara) is "with investigation" and "without initial inquiry". …Vasubandhu does. not say "endowed with initial-inquiry-joy-pleasure" (vitarkapritisukhavat), because he wishes to say that the other meditations lose the indicated members in order. If one would define the second meditation as without initial inquiry (vitarka), the intermediate medi- tation (dhyiiniintara) would be mingled with the second meditation. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷28〈8 分別定品〉：「具伺喜樂建立為初，由此已明亦具尋義，必俱行故，如煙與火。非伺有喜樂而不與尋[4]俱。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 145b23-25)[4] 俱【大】，復【宋】【元】【宮】 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷21〈8 分別三摩跋提品〉：「偈曰：有觀及喜樂。釋曰：覺觀喜樂相應[10]善一類，說名初定。由說觀，覺即[11]被說。覺觀如[12]火及烟相應行故，有不相離相離故，無有觀有喜樂與覺相離。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 296c15-18)[10] 善【大】，喜【宋】【元】【明】 [11] 被【大】，彼【宋】【元】【明】【宮】 [12] 火及烟【大】，烟及火【宋】【元】【明】 注釋中有一段梵文的解釋，我這裡沒複製（複製梵文會亂碼），不知道是不是正確。玄奘說的是，當伺有喜樂的時候，是不可能不與尋俱的。這就排除了「靜慮中間」的可能，因為靜慮中間的伺是沒有喜禪支的。真諦的「無有觀有喜樂與覺相離」，也是同樣的意思。——這個意思在note之後的一句中被正確翻譯出來了。所以，LVP有這個疑問，顯得有點奇怪。Pruden (7-9a-c, 頌與長行, p. 1098)The knowledge of dharmas, in the Pathway of Meditation, when it bears on Extinction and the Path, is opposed to the three spheres. A knowledge of dharmas with respect to Extinction and the Path, realized in the course of the Path of Meditation is opposed to the three spheres—that is to say, these two knowledges oppose the defilements of the higher spheres which are abandoned through Meditation. Lodrö Sangpo (7-9a-c, 頌, p. 2180)the cognition of the factors, in the path of cultivation, when it concerns cessation and the path, opposes three realms. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「修道所攝滅道法智，兼能對治上界修斷」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 135b26-27)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「復次偈曰：法智於滅諦，及道諦修道，是三界對治。釋曰：滅道二法智，若修道所攝，能對治三界。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 286c15-17)“it bears on Extinction and the Path”“with respect to Extinction and the Path ”的“and”應該改成“or”。這裡說的是「滅法智」「道法智」兩種智，並不是一種智同時緣「滅和道」。真諦頌中的「法智於滅諦，及道諦」，是可以理解為「法智於滅諦，及法智於道諦」的，而不能理解為「一法智於『滅諦及道諦』」。Pruden說“A knowledge”，這裡就錯了，下文說“these two knowledges”是對的。LS說“it concerns cessation and the path”，也錯了；不過LS的長行是對的。Pruden (8-14ab, 長行, p. 1242)one obtains it by rebirth from here up to Brahmaloka; Lodrö Sangpo (8-14ab, 長行, p. 2399)one obtains it by being reborn above in the world of Brahma《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷28〈8 分別定品〉：「從上生自得」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 148b1-2)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷21〈8 分別三摩跋提品〉：「由[5]捨上大梵處受生得此故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 299c6-7)[5] 捨【大】，於【宋】【元】【明】【宮】 這裡是說，從梵天以上的地方生到梵天。「自」是指「梵天」，「上」指「梵天」以上。也就是說，從第二靜慮以上地命終，生到初靜慮地。Pruden (8-16cd, 長行, p. 1246)At death, a defiled mind of any sphere can arise following a pure absorption obtained through birth. Lodrö Sangpo (8-16cd, 頌與長行, p. 2403)(But) at death, following the clean [meditative attainment], the defiled [meditative attainment] of any type [can arise].At death, following the clean meditative attainment acquired through birth, a defiled thought of any stage can arise.《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷28〈8 分別定品〉：「若生淨染，生染不然，謂命終時從生得淨，一一無間生一切染。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 148c8-9)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷21〈8 分別三摩跋提品〉：「死墮時從生得清淨定，後次第一切地染污定生。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 300a20-21)兩英譯本中的“absorption”“ meditative attainment”是錯的。真諦譯本中的「定」也不準確。“meditative attainment”和“acquired through birth”是矛盾的。「生得淨」，就表示這是在散心位，不是在定位。因為在定位是不可能命終的。「定位」是「加行善」，不是「生得善」。這裡的「生得淨」，不僅包括「生得善」，還包括「無覆無記」。這是說：以生得淨心死，下一剎那可能生起任何地的染污心。有意思的是，從LVP的注釋（LS，note232，p. 2469）看，LVP是知道定位不可能命終、受生的。我們下一條討論LVP的注釋。《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷10：「死生唯許捨受相應，捨相應心不明利故，餘受明利不順死生。又此二時唯散非定，要有心位必非無心。非在定心有死生義，界地別故、加行生故、能攝益故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 56a28-b3)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷7：「三界善心各分二種，謂加行得、生得別故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 39a21-22)Pruden (8-16cd, 長行, p. 1293)Up to here the author has spoken of the samdpattidhydnas, absorptions, or states of contemplation, and their succession; but the kuśalasaṁhita, the "good mind of absorption," which exists in the upapattidhydnas, that is, in Ruapadhatu (-oi dhyana; brahmaloka, etc.), and which is acquired through arising (upapattildbhika), is also called pure dhyana (fuddhaka dhyana). When a being in Rupadhatu dies, this pure dhyana comes to an end; can it be followed only by a defiled dhyana of the same sphere? No: "At death, following upon the pure, there is a defiled state of some sphere." In fact, death (maranabhava) is never absorbed (samdhita) (iii.43): a being in Rupadhatu, at the moment when he dies, never possesses the dhyana of pure absorption. The "mind of reincarnation" (pratisamdhicitta) which follows "the mind at death" (maranabhava) will be defiled, not absorbed. Lodrö Sangpo (8-16cd, note232, p. 2403)but the wholesome concentrated thought (kuśalasaṁhita) which exists in the meditations as birth (upapattidhyiina), that is to say, in the births of the realm of fine-materiality (= of meditation [dhyiina}; the world of Brahma [brahmaloka], etc.) and which is acquired through birth (upapattiliibhika), receives the name of clean meditation (śuddhaka dhyāna) also. When beings in the realm of fine-materiality die, this clean meditation comes to an end; can it be followed only by a defiled meditation of the same stage? - No: "At death, following the clean [meditative attainment], there is the defiled [meditative attainment] of whatever stage." - Indeed, death (mararJ,abhava) is never concentrated (samiihita) (iii. 43): at the moment they die, the sentient beings of the realm of fine-materiality never possess the meditation of clean meditative attainment. 有兩點，1，「死淨生一切」的「淨」，不僅是生得善心，也包括無覆無記心；2，LVP認為生得善心也叫做定心，这是错误的，定地有生得善心，它是属于定地的散心。Lodrö Sangpo (8-16d, 頌, p. 2403)Following the defiled [Rūpas and Ārūpyas], no [defiled thought of] a higher stage [can follow]《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷28：「染生自下染」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 148b15)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷28〈8 分別定品〉：「若從生染，一一無間能生自地一切下染」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 148c9-10)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷21〈8 分別三摩跋提品〉：「偈曰：染非上。釋曰：從染污四色定四無色定後死墮時，次第自地下地染污定生，非上地。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 300a21-23)[defiled thought of]的補充有造成誤解的風險，因為「非」只是對「上地」的否定，不是對「染」的否定。如果改成「所生的染心不可能在上地」，會更合適。Pruden (8-21d, 長行, p. 1253)If the sdmantakas of the dhyanas and the ampyas are pure, they cut off the defilements, because they are opposed to a lower sphere. Lodrö Sangpo (8-21d, 頌與長行, p. 2410)And [the defilements are] also [abandoned] by means of the pre- liminary concentration, when clean, [and not only when "free from fluxes"]. The preliminary concentrations (slimantaka) of the meditations (dhylina) and of the formless meditative attainments (ariipya), if they were "clean",273 [-and not only if they were "free from fluxes" (vi. 47cd)-] cut off the defilements , because they oppose the lower stage.“are pure”和“not only when "free from fluxes"”錯了，近分定斷惑不需要無漏。這裡說的就是有漏的近分定。Pruden (8-24a, 長行, p. 1257)the three characteristics of conditioned things (the samskrtalaksanas, ii.45), arising, duration-and-change, and death. Lodrö Sangpo (8-24a, 長行, p. 2414)the three characteristics of the conditioned (sarriskrtalak~a~a; ii. 45cd), (i) arising, (ii) duration-change, (iii) passing away. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷28〈8 分別定品〉：「三有為相」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 149c21-22)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷21〈8 分別三摩跋提品〉：「三有為相」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 301b7)Duration應該刪掉。有為三相不包括「住相」。這裡不應該解釋為「住異」，而應該解釋為「異」。《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷5：「豈不經說有三有為之有為相？於此經中應說有四，不說者何？所謂住相。然經說住異，是此異別名。如生名起，滅名為盡。如是應知，異名住異。若法令行三世遷流，此經說為有為之相，令諸有情生厭畏故。謂彼諸行生力所遷，令從未來流入現在。異及滅相力所遷迫，令從現在流入過去，令其衰異及壞滅故。傳說如有人處稠林，有三怨敵欲為損害，一從稠林牽之令出、一衰其力、一壞命根。三相於行應知亦爾。住於彼行攝受安立，常樂與彼不相捨離，故不立在有為相中。又無為法有自相住，住相濫彼故經不說。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 27a17-29)Lodrö Sangpo (8-27b, 長行, p. 2418)[These concentrations have eleven stages for their basis,] with the exception of seven preliminary concentrations [and the intermediate meditation].《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷28〈8 分別定品〉：「依十一地，除七近分，謂欲未至八本中間。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 150a15-16)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷21〈8 分別三摩跋提品〉：「除七近分定，於十一地，謂欲界、非至定、中間定、四色定、四無色定。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 301c10-11)“and the intermediate meditation”錯了，和下文矛盾了。Pruden (8-31f, 長行, p. 1271)The person who has produced the Third Dhyana or the Fourth Dhyana cannot possess joy, since satisfaction is absent in these Dhyanas. Lodrö Sangpo (8-31d, 長行, p. 2426)Those who produce the third or the fourth meditation cannot be accompanied by sympathetic joy, since satisfaction is absent in these meditations. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷29：「此四無量人起非餘，隨得一時必成三種。生第三定等，唯不成喜故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 151a20-22)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷21〈8 分別三摩跋提品〉：「若人生第三第四定，與喜不相應。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 302c13-14)英譯本的“produce”錯了，“生”指的是born，也就是說，一個人從欲界死，生到第三靜慮、第四靜慮，不成就喜無量。並不是依下地身起第三、第四靜慮。這是「生靜慮」和「定靜慮」的區別。見（LS，p. 2372）：“Meditation is twofold [i.e., meditation as meditative attainment (samiipatti-dhyiina) and meditation as birth (upapatti-dhyiina)]. ”Pruden (8-32d, 長行, pp. 1272-1273)The Third to the Seventh Deliverances are the good arupyas …According to others, the mind and mental states produced by retribution among beings born in Arupyadhatu are not concentrated. Lodrö Sangpo (8-32d, 長行, p. 2427)they are not the formless meditative attainment which occurs at the end of life.According to other masters, the thought and thought-concomitants produced by ripening (vipaka)--: among sentient beings born in the realm of immateriality-are also "non-concentrated" (asamahita). 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷29：「次四解脫如其次第，以四無色定善為性。非無記染，非解脫故。亦非散善，性微劣故。彼散善者，如命終心。有說餘時亦有散善。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 151b11-14)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷21〈8 分別三摩跋提品〉：「若善若定地，四無色觀是四無色解脫，非不定地，譬如於[15]死有中。餘部師說：無色定有時非定，如目乾連所修。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, pp. 302c28-303a1)[15] 死【大】，無【宋】【元】【明】【宮】 《阿毘達磨順正理論》卷80：「有說餘時亦有散善，唯生得善無聞思故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1562, p. 771c8-9)《俱舍論記》卷29：「有說不但命終有善。餘時亦有生得散善。但無聞．思。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T41, no. 1821, p. 436a25-26)Pruden的“Third ”應該作“fourth”；LS的“the formless meditative attainment”應該作ārūpya，這裡說的是「無色界」，但不是「無色界定」。因為是散心。LVP在note418 ( p. 2501) 也表明了。兩英譯本想說「生得（善）」是散心，但是把「生得」解釋成「異熟」，“produced by retribution”，“ produced by ripening”，這就錯了。因為「生得善」不是異熟，異熟是無記法。Pruden (7-11d, 長行, p. 1101)a good mind has a great following, for it always includes rupa Lodrö Sangpo (7-11d, 長行, p. 2184)the wholesome thought has a great entourage, for material form (rupa) (i.e., pure restraint of meditation [dhyānānāsravasaṁvara], iv. 4a, 26) must be added; 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「善心隨轉多，通[1]四蘊故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 136a10-11)[1] 四【大】，曰【明】 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「若善心則多隨從，四陰所隨從故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 287b1-2)玄奘譯本是準確的。「通四蘊」的「通」表示有時候是四蘊，並不是所有時候都是四蘊。定善是四蘊隨轉，散善是三蘊隨轉。英譯本的always和must be added是不準確的。此外，dhyānānāsravasaṁvara，是靜慮律儀、無漏律儀兩種律儀，兩種律儀不會同時隨轉，隨轉的是其中任意一種。LS只解釋為無漏律儀，是不完整的。《俱舍論記》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「善心隨轉多。散心雖復受．想．行三蘊隨轉。若在定心。通色．受．想．行四蘊隨轉。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T41, no. 1821, p. 389a3-5)Pruden (7-11d, 長行, p. 1105)In fact the knowledge of the mind of another does not bear on the "possessions" which can be found in the series of another. Consequently when I know that the mind of another person possesses craving, this mind of another does not possess craving because it is "united with craving" in the sense that it is accompanied by the possession of craving, or in the sense that it is found in the series in which this possession has not been expelled. The knowledge of the mind of another no longer knows the craving which would be the object of the mind of another. Lodrö Sangpo (7-11d, 長行, p. 2184)In fact, the cognition of another's thoughts (paracittajfiiina) does not concern the "possessions" that can occur in another's stream. Therefore, when I cognize another's thought as "with attachment", this thought of another is not "with attachment" because it is "connected with attachment" (riigasarriyukta) in the sense that [this thought] would be accompa- nied (sahita) by the possession of.attachment, in the sense that [this thought] would occur in a stream in which this possession has not been expelled. The cognition of another's thoughts does no longer cognize the attachment which would take another's thoughts for its cognitive object, the attachment which would be the cognitive object of another's thoughts. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「然他心智不緣貪得，亦不可說緣緣心貪，寧知他心是有貪等？」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 136b18-19)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「緣他心為境界心不緣至得為境界，非此心境界緣欲為境界」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 287c16-17)玄奘譯本是清晰而準確的，世親要表達的意思是：（前面把「貪繫」叫做「有貪」，而「貪繫」有兩種解釋的可能：一種是，貪得隨；一種是，貪所緣，）然而，他心智既不能緣「與心俱有（隨心）的貪得」，又不能說緣「緣心貪」，那麼，他心智怎麼可能知道他心是「有貪」呢？而事實上，他心智當然能知道他心是「有貪」，因此，並不是「貪繫」就叫做「有貪」。真諦譯本也是正確的，只是把「寧知他心是有貪等」這個邏輯環節省略了。需要補充說明的是，玄奘之所以叫「不可說緣緣心貪」，意思是，並不是他心智不能緣「緣心貪」，而是，他心智在緣「貪」的時候，根本不可能知道它所緣的貪在緣什麼，因此無法判斷此貪是不是「緣心貪」。兩個英譯本都不正確。一方面，必須把「不緣貪得」和「不可說緣緣心貪」合在一起，才能得出他心智不能知「貪繫」的結論。Pruden譯本中說，“Consequently when I know that the mind of another person possesses craving”，這是不可能的——既然他心智不緣「貪得」，他心智又怎麼可能知道這一點呢？LS譯本此處同誤。Pruden本中，“the craving which would be the object of the mind of another”也是錯的；這裡LS對了，“the attachment which would take another's thoughts for its cognitive object”。Pruden把「緣心貪」解釋成了「心緣貪」。儘管此貪確實是心（及他心智）所緣，但緣它的他心智無法知道的是，此貪是否在緣某個心；而己心在緣此貪，這是毫無疑問的。LS後一段連用三個“another's thoughts”，實際上，第一個和最後一個 another's thoughts是同一個thought，但中間的那個未必是。Pruden (7-18ab, 長行, p. 1121)The conditioned dharmas are divided into eight classes: dharmas of Kamadhatu, of Rupadhatu, of Arupyadhatu, plus the pure dharmas, all being either associated with the mind or not (samprayukta, viprayukta, ii. 22). Lodrö Sangpo (7-18ab, 長行, p. 2204)Conditioned factors (saf(lskrtadharma) are divided into eight classes: factors of the realm of desire, factors of the realm of fine-materiality, factors of the realm of immateriality, plus pure factors, all being associated with thought (saf(lprayukta) or dissociated from thought (viprayukta) 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「有為法分為八，欲界、色界、無色界、無流界，與心相應、與心不相應差別故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 289a27-29)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「謂有為法分為八種，三界所繫無漏有為各有相應不相應故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 138a11-12)兩英譯本與真諦譯本都不準確。玄奘譯本的「有相應」「不相應」是準確的。「心」自身，屬於「有相應」，但屬於「與心不相應」，因為心不與心相應。由下面「他心智」的所緣來看，我們知道，「心」和「心所」是歸為一類的，那麼，這裡就必然是「有相應」，而不能是「與心相應」。《阿毘曇毘婆沙論》卷29：「為止如是說者意，亦明心與數法相應、數法亦與數法相應、數法與心相應、心不與心相應故，而作此論。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T28, no. 1546, p. 210a19-22)Pruden (7-18ab, 長行, p. 1122)2. the mental dharmas which are associated with it, for they have the same object as it does; and 3. the dharmas disassociated from the mind but which accompany it, for example, its characteristics (ii. 45c), for they are too close. Lodrö Sangpo (7-18ab, 長行, p. 2205)2.the mental factors (caitta) associated with it, for they have the same cogni- tive object as it does (ekalambanatviit); <46> 3. the factors dissociated from thought (viprayukta) which accompany it (sahabhu), for example, its ch;iracteristics (lak~a~a; ii. 45c), for they are too close. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「自品謂自體相應俱有法，境、有境別故。同一所緣[3]故，相隣近故，非此智所緣。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 138a25-26)[3] 故【大】，故極【宋】【元】【明】【宮】【石】 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「是自體及自體共生諸法，名自類，不能緣此法，有境界及境界有差別故、共一境界故、最近同時故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 289b11-14)自品三類中，第二類「相應法」，兩個英譯本都解釋為「心所」，實際上也包括「心」。因為說的是「他心智相應法」，「他心智」本身是「心所」。第三類「俱有法」，不僅包括「心俱有法」，也包括「心所俱有法」，因此，“accompany it”的it是不對的，應該是them。Pruden (7-18cd, 長行, p. 1122)This conventional knowledge of universal consciousness belongs only to Kamadhatu, being prajna of hearing or reflection,Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, 長行, p. 2205)This conventional cognition (sal?'lvrtijfiana) of pervasive cognition belongs to the realm of desire only(= tac ca kamadhiitvavacaram eva), being understanding (prajiia) derived from listening [to the teachings] (srutamayi) or from reflection (cintamayf; vi, F 144), 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「此智唯是欲色界攝，聞思所成非修所成」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 138a26-27)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「此智若是欲界智，是聞思二慧。若是色界智，但是聞慧非修慧。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 289b14-15)兩英譯本只說欲界，是錯誤的。他心智是欲界、色界攝。真諦譯本先說欲界，後說色界，而英譯本只說了欲界。Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, note280, pp. 2298-2299)and he adds a fourth quarter-verse: "it derives from listening [to the teachings], from reflection and from cultivation". 這裡錯了，玄奘本是「唯聞思所成」，LS把奘譯《俱舍論》和後面提到的《顯宗論》搞混了。Pruden (p. 1191) 這裡是對的。Pruden (7-18cd, note114, p. 1191)The prajfid of hearing and reflection, which is in Kumadhatu, cannot bear on the dharmas of all the spheres: it is not enough to become disgusted with it: the prajnd of bhdvand is more powerful (iv.l23c). Based on this, Vasubandhu concludes that the universal consciousness of "the absence of self" of the dharmas belongs to Kamadhatu, for if it belonged to Rupadhatu (that is to say arising from bhdvand, and being obtained in the dhyanas) it would produce detachment from all of the spheres. Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, note280, p. 2298)Understanding derived from listening [to the teach- ings] and from reflection, which is of the realm of desire, concerns the factors of all stages in vain; it is not enough to become disgusted with them: understanding derived from cultivation is more powerful (iv. 123c). From this principle, Vasubandhu concludes that pervasive cogni- tion of "the absence of self' of factors belongs to the realm of desire, for, if it belonged to the realm of fine-materiality, (that is to say, derived from cultivation, being acquired in the medi- tations [dhyiina],) it would produce detachment from all stages. 這是誤解。Pruden的錯誤是因為如下事實：1，欲界的聞所成慧、思所成慧是可以總緣一切法（除自品）的；2，總緣俗智（除自品）也有色界攝的，是色界攝的聞所成慧，世親「若異此者應頓離染」只是為了表示總緣俗智（除自品）沒有色界攝的修所成慧，但並不否定色界攝的聞所成慧。Pruden 和LS都錯誤滴認為belonged to the realm of fine-materiality 等價於derived from cultivation；實際上，色界有聞所成慧。Pruden (7-18cd, note114, p. 1191)In our system the prajnd of meditation of the sphere of the dhydna takes for its object the sphere in which it is found, namely, the higher sphere; it produces disgust with respect to the lower sphere, and joy with respect to the higher sphere: thus it does not produce detachment with respect to the higher sphere. The argument of the Sautrantika is therefore null and void." Lodrö Sangpo (7-18cd, note280, p. 2299)In our system, understanding derived from cultivation of the domain of the meditations (dhyima) takes the stage in which it occurs and the higher stage for its cognitive object; it produces disgust toward the lower stage, joy toward the higher stage; thus it does not produce detachment toward the higher stage. The argument of the Sautriintika is thus worthless." 《阿毘達磨順正理論》卷74：「謂我宗許靜慮地攝修所成慧有能總緣隨所依身自上境故。厭下欣上方能離染，此既總緣唯欣行相，故於離染無有功能，故彼所言甚為非理。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1562, p. 742c23-26)兩英譯本都沒有理解眾賢的意思和邏輯。「隨所依身自上境」，是說一個人所生地和其上的地。一個人生在欲界，「隨所依身自上境」就是欲界和色無色界。兩個英譯本理解成了所起定的所依地。眾賢要說的是，只有「厭下欣上」的定是能離染的，而總緣俗智沒有厭行相，只有欣行相，因此總緣俗智本來就不是離染的智，因此，完全不應該用「若異此者應頓離染」來作為證據。總緣俗智本身就不能produces disgust，因此不能離任何染；英譯本誤解為能produces disgust，又誤解為只是不能離上地染。Pruden (7-26a-b, p. 1134)A knowledge of the mind of another, a future cultivation, belongs to the sphere which serves as the support of the Path, or rather to the sphere which one obtains through the Path 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「諸道依此地及得此地時，能修未來此地有漏。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 139c17-18)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「世俗智者，隨道所依地，此地或由道初得，以此地為依止，未來修世俗智。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 290c10-12)“A knowledge of the mind of another”，這裡應該是世俗智。Lodrö Sangpo (7-27, p. 2221)The Vaibhii~ikas of Kasmir think that these two cultivations [i.e., restraint and inspection] should be reduced to the cultivations as counter-agent and expulsion, [respectively]. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「迦濕彌羅國諸論師言：防觀二修即治遣修攝。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 140a15-16)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷19〈7 分別慧品〉：「罽賓國師說：此二修入對治修及治淨修攝。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 291a11-12)《俱舍論記》卷26〈7 分別智品〉：「迦濕彌羅國諸論師[30]云。所言防護．觀察二修。應知即是前四修中。對治．除遣二修所攝。於根及身。若望能防．能護．能觀[31]察義邊名對治修。若望所防所觀遣惑義邊名除遣修」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T41, no. 1821, pp. 402c26-403a1)[30] 云【大】，言【甲】【乙】 [31] 察【大】，〔－〕【甲】【乙】 Pruden (7-35a, 頌文，p. 1148)There are other qualities which the Buddhas have in common with Saiksas Lodrö Sangpo (7-35a, 頌文，p. 2233)There are other factors (dharma) of the Buddha that he has in common [siidhara,:ta] with those in training (saik~a) and ordinary worldlings (prthagjana): 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「世尊復有無量功德，與餘聖者及異生共」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 141c18-19)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「諸佛如來有功德，與弟子共得，或與凡夫共得。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 292c20-21)「餘聖」或者「弟子」不僅包括「有學」，還包括「無學」。兩英譯本漏了「無學」。Pruden (7-35c, 長行，pp. 1148-1149)the Eight Vimoksas, …the Supernormal Knowledges, the Dhyanas, etc., can also belong to ordinary persons. Lodrö Sangpo (7-35, 長行，pp. 2234)eight liberations (vimok~a); viii, F 203 …The superknowledges (abhijiiii), meditations (dhyiina), etc., can also belong to ordinary worldlings (prthagjana). 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「謂無諍、願智、無礙解、通、靜慮、無色等至等持、無量、解脫、勝處、遍處等，隨其所應。謂前三門唯共餘聖，通靜慮等亦共異生。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 141c19-21)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「諸德謂無諍三摩提、願智、四無礙解、通慧定、無色三摩提、無量解脫、制入、遍入等。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 292c22-24)兩英譯本，提到「八解脫」，如果不說「八」，只說「解脫」，是合適的；或者，雖然說「八解脫」，後面像玄奘那樣加上「隨其所應」，也是合適的。因為，「八解脫」中「第八解脫」即「滅受想定」是不共異生的。Pruden (7-36e, 長行，pp. 1150)The avastuka defilements of others (vi. 58), which are abandoned through Seeing, are not susceptible of being arrested, for the universal {sarvatraga) defilements (v. 12), which exist in the totality of their sphere, also exist in the series of another.《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「諸無事惑不可遮防，內起隨應總緣境故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 142a5-6)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「無類惑者，不可遮離諸遍行惑，緣具界地生起故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 293a11-12)Pruden翻譯的“also exist in the series of another”不太準確。這是說遍行惑不僅緣阿羅漢，也緣其他事物，不是說也存在於其他人身上。LS翻譯得相對較好。Pruden (7-43d, 長行，p. 1159)The first three have rupa for their object Lodrö Sangpo (7-43d, 長行，p. 2244)The first three superknowledges have material form (riipa} for their cognitive object 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「初三別緣色為境故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143a4-5)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「於中三通慧，緣色為境故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 294a6-7)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「修神境等前三通時，思輕[2]光聲以為加行」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143a18-19)[2] 光【大】，先【宋】【元】【明】【宮】 兩英譯本的first錯了。玄奘本「初三」是正確的，因為玄奘本初三是：神境、天眼、天耳；而英譯本的first three 和真諦本是相同的：神境、天耳、他心。因此，英譯本應該像真諦那樣說「三」而不是「初三」。真諦本「修神境等前三通時」，「前」字也錯了，和自身的頌文不一致。LS (p. 2245) 臨時調整了「前三」的次序，避免了錯誤；而p. 2247仍然把他心當作第三。Pruden (7-45c-d, 長行，p. 1164)in the order of the Sutra, the fifth, the second, and the sixth supernormal knowledges. Lodrö Sangpo (7-43d, note600，p. 2353)LS: LVP has: "in the order of the Siitra, the fifth, second and sixth superknowledges", but it is not clear to me to which Siitra he refers. Lamotte speaks of the superknowledges 4 to 6, following the order given on F 98f. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「如其次第，以無學位攝第五二六通為其自性。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143b24-25)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「釋曰：宿住念、死生、流盡通慧，說此三為無學明得。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 294b27-28)Pruden本（源自LVP）的次序是從玄奘本抄來的，但Pruden本沒有像玄奘本那樣改變六通的次序，因此，Pruden本這裡錯了。LS不知道這是玄奘本的次序，因此有疑問。Pruden (7-46a-b, 頌，p. 1165)The two others are said to belong to the Asaiksas when they arise in the series of an Asaiksa Lodrö Sangpo (7-46a-b, 頌，p. 2250)The other two [of these three superknowledges] are called "of those beyond training" when they arise in the stream of those beyond training.《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「此三皆名無學[6]明者，俱在無學身中起故。於中最後容有是真，通無漏故。餘二假說，體唯非學非無學故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 143b28-c1)[6] Vidyā. 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「所餘二通慧，由生於無學相續中故，說名無學」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 294c4-5)兩英譯本沒有搞清楚邏輯。不應該說when，而應該說because。因為這兩種「明」只在無學身（相續）中起。在有學身中起的不是「明」。長行誤亦同此。Lodrö Sangpo (7-48cd, 頌，p. 2253)The others [i.e., the listeners and self-enlightened ones] possess displacement (gamana-) (1) of transport [snravahini] and (2) of resolve (iidhimok#kf).625 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「偈曰：餘將身願成。釋曰：聲聞獨覺有引將身行，如鳥次第引將身行。願成行者，是極遠處，願令最近故，由此疾彼行。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 295a3-6)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷27：「於此三中意勢唯佛，運身、勝解亦通餘乘。謂我世尊神通迅速隨方遠近舉心即至。由此世尊作如是說：諸佛境界不可思議。故意勢行唯世尊有，勝解兼餘聖，運身并異生。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 144a4-8)“i.e., the listeners and self-enlightened ones”是不準確的，因為除了聲聞、獨覺，「運身」是異生也可以擁有的。Pruden (7-55cd, 長行, p. 1178)For the rest, innate divine sight is similar to the divine sight of supernormal knowledge. Lodrö Sangpo (7-55cd, 長行, p. 1178)As for the rest, the innate divine eye is the same as the divine eye of superknowledge. 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷20：「釋曰：是生得天眼，不能見中陰眾生色。何以故？此色但是通慧眼所見，非生得天眼所見，除彼同類。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 296a11-14)兩英譯本理解錯了「除彼同類」的意思。「除彼同類」的「同類」，指的是「中有」，「除彼同類」意在表示「中有身能見中有身」：中有身除了中有身能見之外（除彼同類），唯修得極淨天眼能見。兩英譯本誤解成：除了（生得天眼）不能見中有身，生得天眼和修得天眼沒有差別。《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷9：「此中有身同類相見，若有修得極淨天眼亦能得見，諸生得眼皆不能觀，以極細故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 46a24-26)Lodrö Sangpo (5-4, 長行, p. 1664)because only the insight into of the truths suffices to abandon them. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷19〈5 分別隨眠品〉：「纔見諦時彼則斷故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 99b23)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷14〈5 分別惑品〉：「由[3]唯見諦除滅故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 253b21-22)[3] 唯【大】＊，惟【宋】【元】【明】【宮】＊ LS的譯法和真諦一致，但從阿毘達磨上看，這樣講是不準確的，因為欲界見所斷隨眠也可以在見道之前通過世俗修道滅除。Pruden (p. 773) 的譯法和玄奘一致，是符合阿毘達磨理論的：“because the mere Seeing of the Truths suffices to abandon them. ”Pruden (5-5a, 長行, p. 774)When it is possible to abandon the object (dlambana) of an anusaya through the Seeing of a certain Truth, it is said that this anusaya can be abandoned through the Seeing of this Truth Lodrö Sangpo (5-5a, 長行, p. 1665)When the cognitive object (alambana} of a proclivity is susceptible of being abandoned by insight [darsanaheya] into a certain truth, one says that this proclivity is susceptible. of being abandoned by insight into this truth. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷19〈5 分別隨眠品〉：「若緣見此、所斷為境名見此所斷，餘名修所斷」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 99c1-2)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷14〈5 分別惑品〉：「由見諦相彼滅，及能緣彼故，說見諦滅，所餘名修道所滅。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 253b29-c1)《俱舍論》的「若緣見此所斷為境」是有兩種理解的：「若緣『見此所斷』為境」和「若緣見此、所斷為境」。根據《順正理論》和《光記》，可以推斷，這兩種解釋的並不是玄奘的翻譯所造成的，而是世親的表達所固有的。尤其是結合真諦的翻譯，更能夠證實這一點。在這兩種理解中，更好的一種理解是：如果一種隨眠緣某諦（「緣見此」「能緣彼」），或者緣見某諦所斷之法（「緣見此所斷」「見諦相彼滅」），則該隨眠稱為「見某諦所斷」。兩個英譯本都沒有傳遞出固有的雙關，而認為見所斷法的所緣都是所斷，就造成了阿毘達磨上的錯誤。玄奘譯本因為包含了「若緣見此為境」的理解，既避開了錯誤，同時保留了雙關。《俱舍論記》卷19〈5 分別隨眠品〉：「俱舍師救云。正理論師謬解我文。謂唯緣此諦所斷為境，名見此諦所斷。故以他部緣及無漏緣為難。應作是言。若緣見此諦為境、若緣見此諦所斷為境，名見此諦所斷。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T41, no. 1821, p. 293c25-29)《阿毘達磨順正理論》卷46：「經主於此自問答言：此中何相見苦所斷？乃至何相是修所斷？若緣見此所斷為境名見此所斷，餘名修所斷。此不應理。所以者何？遍行隨眠緣五部故，則見苦集所斷隨眠亦應通是見集苦等所斷。又見滅道所斷隨眠，緣非所斷法，當言何所斷？故彼非善立所斷相應言。若見緣苦為境名為見苦，即是苦法、苦類智忍此二所斷，總說名為見苦所斷，乃至見道所斷亦然。數習名修，謂見迹者為得上義於苦等智數數熏習說名為修，此道所除名修所斷，是名為善立所斷相。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1562, p. 601b13-23)Lodrö Sangpo (5-6ac, 長行, p. 1666)Those that are related to the summit of cyclic existence (bhavagra), [the ninth stage], are abandoned by insight alone, for the subsequent cognition (anvayajiiana) causes them to be abandoned. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷19〈5 分別隨眠品〉：「唯類智[17]忍方能斷故」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 99c13-14)[17] 忍【大】，〔－〕【宋】【元】【明】【宮】 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷14〈5 分別惑品〉：「此隨眠惑，於有頂生類忍所滅」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 253c10-11)LS本“subsequent cognition”錯了，應是「類智忍」。Pruden本正確。玄奘譯本的《大正藏》本正確，宋等本有傳抄之誤，比較《光記》《順正理論》即知。Pruden (5-6cd, 長行, p. 775)In fact, an Aryan abandons them through andsrava jnana meditation, or pure knowledge, whereas a Prthagjana abandons them through a worldly knowledge (lokasamvrtijndna). Lodrö Sangpo (5-6cd, 長行, p. 1667)Because the noble ones abandon them by cultivation of pure cognition (aniisrava jfiiina), the ordinary worldlings by cultivation of mundane conventional cognition (lokasarμ,vrtijfiiina). 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷19〈5 分別隨眠品〉：「智所害諸隨眠一切地攝，唯修所斷，以諸聖者及諸異生如其所應，皆由數習無漏世俗智所斷故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 99c16-18)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷14〈5 分別惑品〉：「於一切地中惑，凡是智所滅，於二人恒修道所滅」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 253c15-16)英譯本中認為聖者用無漏智斷是錯誤的，聖者也可以用有漏智斷。這即是玄奘譯本中的「如其所應」。另外，玄奘譯本區別了「害」和「斷」，這在阿毘達磨上是非常精確的；真諦譯本沒有這種區別。By this, all the views whose object is an impure belief in extremes (antagrdhadrsti), etc., are views of the satkdya, that is, of the five skandhas. Lodrö Sangpo (5-6cd, 長行, p. 1667)In fact, all the afflicted views the cognitive object of whi~h is impure (siisrava-iilambana): the afflicted view of holding to an extreme, etc., are afflicted views of the satkiiya, i.e., of the five aggregates. But although being afflicted views of the satkiiya, they are not afflicted views of an "I" and of "mine".《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷19〈5 分別隨眠品〉：「諸見但緣有漏法者，皆應標以薩迦耶名。然佛但於我我所執摽此名者，令知此見緣薩迦耶非我我所，以我我所畢竟無故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 100a7-11)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷14〈5 分別惑品〉：「一切見能緣有流法為境，悉緣滅身，而但立我我所見名滅身見者，欲令彼知此見[＊]唯於滅於身起，非於我我所。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 254a1-4)[＊3-3] 唯【大】＊，惟【宋】【元】【明】【宮】＊ LS譯本中的3個“afflicted views”，都應該改為“views”。“ the afflicted view of holding to an extreme”不需要修改。「諸見」並不限於「五見」，換句話說，並不一定是染污的。兩英譯本中的“five skandhas”和“five aggregates”，都應該改為「五取蘊」five appropriative aggregates，「取」的含義是不能省略的。Lodrö Sangpo (5-8, 長行, p. 1670)[Answer by the Vaibhii~ikas:] -The Malasiistra (Jniinaprasthana, 1029a12) says: 不應補充[Answer by the Vaibhii~ikas:]，因為，實際上，以下《本論》的內容是世親引的。他引這些文本來表示文本和前面所述的道理存在矛盾。If the Vaibhasikas answer, "The esteeming of morality and ascetic practices relative to the dharma which is abandoned through Seeing the Path, namely relative to one of the eight anusayas the first of which is wrong views," we would then answer that this esteeming of morality and ascetic practices also supposes error relative to suffering. Moreover we do not see how the esteeming of morality and ascetic practices could be relative to a dharma to be abandoned through the Truth of the Path: Lodrö Sangpo (5-8, 長行, p. 1671)[Question:] - Further, what is the overesteeming of (such things as) morality and certain types of spiritual practices that is abandoned by insight into the truth of the path? Possible answer by the Vaibha~ika: - The overesteeming of (such things as) morality and certain types of spiritual practices in relation to a factor to be abandoned by insight into the path, i.e., in relation to one of the eight [of the ten] procliviti!!S, above all to false view (mithyiidmi). Reply: - This overesteeming of (such things as) morality and certain types of spiri- tual practices also presupposes an error about unsatisfactoriness. Moreover, we do not see how the overesteeming of (such things as) morality and certain types of spiritual practices could exist in relation to a factor to be abandoned by the truth of the path: …these non-Buddhists (tfrthika) imag- ine that they can obtain purification through the path "of the Saipkhyas" and not through the false view (mithyiidr~ti) in relation to the path? 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷19〈5 分別隨眠品〉：「復有何相別戒禁取，可說彼為見道所斷？諸緣見道所斷法生，彼亦應名迷苦諦故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 100b12-14)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷14〈5 分別惑品〉：「復有何相別戒執取見道所滅？緣見道所滅法為境，此於苦亦乖違。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 254b4-5)兩英譯本都沒有搞清楚上下文的邏輯。「復有何相別戒禁取，可說彼為見道所斷？諸緣見道所斷法生，彼亦應名迷苦諦故。」——這句話完全是世親說的。「諸緣見道所斷法生」不宜看作「毘婆沙師可能的回答」；毘婆沙師也不是這種主張。另外，世親要問的是：有什麼特點作為理由，把見道所斷的戒禁取從見苦所斷的戒禁取中區別開來？Pruden譯本中的“we would ask ”勉強能表達出世親問的是有什麼理由。而LS的譯本，會讓讀者誤以為，世親問的是“見道所斷的戒禁取是什麼”。“ could be relative to a dharma”和“could exist in relation to a factor”的「一法」是錯誤的，世親只反駁了「見道所斷戒禁取見能緣見道所斷邪見或疑」，並不是反駁「見道所斷戒禁取見緣能見道所斷任意一法」。LS把「是則執餘能得清淨，非邪見等」的陳述語氣翻譯成了疑問語氣，也是不正確的。《阿毘達磨順正理論》卷47：「然於非道計為道中，若違見道強則見道所斷。豈不如計自在等為因，執苦為因唯許見苦斷非見集斷，如是亦應於非道計道執苦為道，唯許見苦斷非見道斷。此難不然，以於苦諦見為無常等非彼對治故。謂若有執自在等為因，必先計為無始無終等故。此因執唯見苦斷，以無常等想治常等想故，非見苦諦、無常等時能治非道計為道執，故彼道執非見苦斷。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1562, p. 606b16-24)Pruden (5-13cd, 長行, p. 791)Future coexistents of universal anusayas are neither universal anusayas nor universal causes. Lodrö Sangpo (5-13cd, 長行, p. 1683)The coexisting [factors] of the pervasive proclivities of the future are neither a pervasive proclivity nor a pervasive cause. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷19〈5 分別隨眠品〉：「第三第四如理應辯。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 102a8-9)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷14〈5 分別惑品〉：「第三第四，應自思立。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 255c17)第四句應該用「除前相」來表示，現在英譯本沒有把第四句說全，比如色。Pruden (5-22, 長行, p. 801)Another says that the second question, like the first question, calls for a categorical response, "All beings do not arise." Lodrö Sangpo (5-22, 長行, p. 1692)Others--the Bhadanta Rama-say that the second question, like the first, demands a categorical answer: "All beings will not be born." 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷19〈5 分別隨眠品〉：「彼第二問，亦應一向記，非一切當生。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 103b9-10)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷14〈5 分別惑品〉：「此義亦一向應記，謂非一切應生。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 257a1)英譯本的表述有歧義，容易讓讀者誤解為「一切不生」。Pruden (5-31c-d, 長行, p. 824)When they belong to Rupadhatu, all the universal anusayas attach themselves to it. Lodrö Sangpo (5-31c-d, 長行, p. 1715)When it belongs to the realm of desire, the proclivities to be abandoned by cultivation and all the universal proclivities become attached to it. When it belongs to the realm of fine-materiality, all the universal proclivities become attached to it. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷20：「色界一切隨眠隨增」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 106c26-27)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「於色界五部」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 260b14)應該是「色界一切」或者「色界五部」，兩英譯本誤作「色界遍行」。Pruden本用“the universal anusayas”表示「遍行隨眠」；LS本一向用“pervasive proclivities”來表示「遍行隨眠」，但這裡，LS沒有理解，也用了universal proclivities。由於LS在提到欲界時用the universal proclivities表示「遍行隨眠」，我們沒有理由認為他在提到色界時用the universal proclivities表示「一切隨眠」。Pruden (5-31c-d, 長行, p. 824)3.two categories of anusayas of the sphere of Arupyadhatu; and 4. the universal anusaya Lodrö Sangpo (5-31c-d, 長行, p. 1715)3. two categories of proclivities of the sphere of the immateriality;4. the universal proclivities (MVS, 452c20).《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「無色界二部并遍行諸惑於中隨眠生」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 260b19)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷20：「無色界二部及諸遍行隨眠隨增」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 107a2-3)英譯本的3、4兩類應並為一類，「遍行」指的是「無色界遍行」。Pruden (5-32ab, 長行, p. 826)The non-defiled mind is sanusaya from the fact of the anusayas which lodge therein: the non-abandoned anusayas which are associated with the mind. Lodrö Sangpo (5-31c-d, 長行, p. 1717)2. Non-defiled [akli,vta] thought is "with proclivities" [solely (eva)] due to the proclivities which adhere or grow therein (anusayana, anusiiyaka): the non-abandoned, associated-with-thought proclivities [which take it as their cognitive ob- ject].《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷20：「若無染者，唯局隨增。緣此隨眠必未永斷，此唯據隨增名有隨眠故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 107a17-18)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「若無染污心，但由能隨眠惑及能緣彼為境惑不滅為縛。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 260c5-6)「無染局隨增」說的是不與隨眠相應的心，兩英譯本都誤解成了隨眠相應心。LS補充的內容是正確的，但“associated-with-thought proclivities”就不合適了。Pruden (5-41ab, 長行, p. 836)Does it happen that a person is attached through the connection of affection, and not through the connection of views, to the dharmas associated with views (that is, to the sensations, etc., associated with existence), while drsty anus aya, the latent defilement of views, is not active with respect to these dharmas} Lodrö Sangpo (5-41ab, 長行, p. 1727)Does it happen that individuals are attached (saf!!- yukta) through the fetter of lust-and not through the fetter of afflicted views- to factors associated with afflicted views (i.e., to sensations, etc., associated with unjustified esteeming [paramarsa]), and that, nevertheless, the proclivity of afflicted views is not active (anusayfta) toward these factors? 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「頗有見相應法為愛結繫非見結繫，非不有見隨眠隨增？」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 108c5-6)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「為有此義不？與見相應法中，但由隨順結相應，不由見結，於中見結隨眠非非隨眠。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 262a1-3)“not active”的“not”應該去掉，或者作“not inactive”。這裡是雙重否定。Lodrö Sangpo (5-47-48a, 長行, p. 1733)Regret (kaukrtya), like ii. 28 [i.e., remorse (vipratisara) relative to that which is badly done (kukrtabhava)]. 括號內的解釋錯了，這種「惡作」是善的。對善行的惡作才是不善的。Pruden (5-59cd, 長行, p. 853)This object is "completely known" by the anvayajndnas of Suffering and the Arising of Suffering which bear on the higher spheres (v. 14, vi.26, vii.3c): Lodrö Sangpo (5-59cd, 長行, p. 853)This cognitive object is completely known (parijniiyate) through the subsequent cognitions (anvayajnana) of unsatisfactoriness and of the origin concerned with the higher realms 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「今應思擇，他界遍行及見滅道斷有漏緣，諸惑於彼斷位不知彼所緣，知彼所緣時而彼不斷。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 111a13-15)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「今[1]應思此義，是遍行不同分界惑，見滅道所滅，緣有流法為境，諸惑是時若觀察彼境，是時彼不滅。是彼滅時，彼境不可觀察。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 264a27-b1)[1] 應【大】，當【宋】【元】【明】【宮】 英譯本不應解釋為限於苦、集二部。上緣惑容緣上界五部，若緣上界道，則是道類智遍知之境。Lodrö Sangpo (5-60ac, 長行, p. 1744)(i) The [thirty-eight] defilements [v. 12-'"13ab, 16] concerned with the stage to which they belong (svabhiimyiilambana), to be abandoned by insight [into the truths] of unsatisfactoriness and of the origin, and (ii) [the twelve and six defilements having a pure cognitive object, to be abandoned by insight [into the truths] of cessation and of the path, are abandoned through complete cognition of the cognitive object (iilambanaparijniina). 方括號裡的數字是錯誤的。兩個尾註中的計算方式也不對。例如見苦所斷邪見能上緣，但不是唯上緣，因此也有遍知所緣故斷的見苦所斷邪見等。Lodrö Sangpo (5-60ac, note502, p. 1850)(24-29) Ignorance (avidyii) abandoned by insight into the truths of cessation and of the path in regard to each of the three realms. [Thus there are eighty-eight= 38 + 12 + 6 + 9 + 23 defilements or proclivities to be abandoned by insight.] 這裡沒有區分「無明」，只有見滅道所斷有漏緣無明（即與見滅道所斷貪等相應之無明）才是「斷彼所緣故」斷。隨後88的加總方式也是錯誤的。Pruden (5-61ac, 長行, p. 855)4. opposition by which the possession of the klesa previously cut off, is removed is the Distinguished Path.《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「四遠離對治，謂勝德道。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 264b25)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「四遠分對治，謂緣一切起勝進道。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 111b13-14)Pruden (5-63cd, note209, p. 892)for one should exclude the acquisition of the first result which is earlier than the abandoning of these first five categories. Lodrö Sangpo (5-63cd, note533, p. 1856)As for the first five categories (prakiira) of defilement of the realm of desire, to be aban- doned by cultivation (bhiivanii), there are only five moments: for one has to exclude the acquisition of the first fruit that occurs previous to the abandonment of these first five categories. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「欲界修斷五品離繫亦五時得，除預流果」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 112a6-7)不應該把「除預流果」解釋為「預流果的獲得在此之前」。如對先斷欲界修斷一品後入見道者來說，對欲界修斷一品惑來說，預流果的成就在治生之後。Pruden (5-66ab, 長行, p. 862)According to the Vaibhasikas, five are the result of the mauladhydnas or the "principal absorptions** (in opposition to the samantakas or absorptions preparatory to the Dhyanas, viii.6, 22a), namely, those which consist of the abandoning of the klesas of the sphere of Rupadhatu and Arupyadhatu (perfect knowledges four, five, six, eight and nine). Lodrö Sangpo (5-66ab, 長行, p. 1752)According to the {16 a} Vaibhii.~ikas, five [complete knowledges, i.e., the 4 \ 5 \ 6 , 8th and 9th,] are the effect of the fundamental meditations (mauladhyiina) [in contrast to the stages of preliminary concentration (siimantaka), i.e., the preparatory medita- tive. states to the meditations, viii. 6, 22a]-that is to say, those [complete knowl- edges] which consist of the abandonment of the defilements of the realm of fine- materiality and of the realm of immateriality. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「所言五者，毘婆沙師說根本地唯能永斷色無色攝煩惱等故，欲界所繫煩惱等斷彼唯許是未至果故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 112b29-c2)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「若論根本定果有五，謂色無色界相應惑滅離為性，一切欲界惑滅離是非至定果故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 265a29-b2)「4、5、6、8、9」錯了，應該是「2、4、6、8、9」。下同。Pruden (5-66ab, 長行, p. 863)The perfect knowledge consisting of the destructin of attach- ment to Rupadhatu (perfect knowledge number eight) is the result of the samantaka, or preparatory stage (viii.22a) of Akasanan- tyayatana. Lodrö Sangpo (5-66c, 長行, p. 1753)The complete knowledge of the exhaustion of the attachment to material form (rupa- riigak(fayaparijiiii; i.e., the 8th complete knowledge,) is the effect of a stage of pre- liminary concentration (siimantaka; viii. 22a) of the perception-sphere of infinite space (iikiisiinantyiiyatana). 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「無色邊地果唯有一，謂依空處近分地道得色愛盡遍知果故。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 112c9-11)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「偈曰：無色定果一。釋曰：空遍入道果，是一永斷智，謂離欲色界永斷智。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 265b7-8)頌同此誤。可以說「無色邊地」或「依空處近分」所得唯一果是「色愛盡遍知」，但不能反過來說「色愛盡遍知」是「無色邊地」或「依空處近分」所得果。類此，英譯本將「三根本亦爾」譯作「一是三根本」，也錯了。前後餘頌的諸多翻譯也有類似問題，不再一一指出。Lodrö Sangpo (5-68ad, 長行, p. 1755)as also in the fifth moment (i.e., the receptivity to the cognition of the factors with regard to unsatisfactoriness [samudaye dharmajiiiinak:jiinti]): but the two causes are not destroyed. Pruden (5-68d, 長行, p. 866)It does not suffice to abandon a klesa (abandoned through Seeing): one must also abandon the klesas (abandoned through Seeing or Meditation) which grasp this first klesa as their object. Lodrö Sangpo (5-68d, 長行, p. 1755)It does not suffice to have abandoned a defile-ment [to be abandoned by insight]: it is also necessary to have abandoned the defilements [to be abandoned by insight or cultivation] which take this first defile- ment as their cognitive object. 《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「離俱繫者，謂此雖斷未立遍知，要離所餘緣此境[2]或方可建立。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 113a11-13)[2] 或【大】，惑【宋】【元】【明】【宮】 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「得二結相離，彼說是第五因。若於中與能緣彼為境別惑相離，此義可然。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 265c2-4)英譯本對「離俱繫」的解釋是錯誤的。若此是見苦所斷惑，離所餘緣此境惑是指離見集所斷遍行惑；若此是修所斷前八品惑，離所餘緣此境惑是指修所斷餘品惑。Pruden (5-69cd, 長行, p. 867)When one has obtained this detachment—either before or after the comprehension of the Truths (abhisamaya=Path. of Seeing, vi.25c)—one is endowed with a single perfect knowledge of the abandoning of the cankerous influences of Kamadhatu. Lodrö Sangpo (5-69cd, 長行, p. 1757)When they have obtained this detachment-either before or after the direct realization of the truths (abhisamaya =path of insight; vi. 25c)-they are provided with one single complete knowledge of the abandonment of all the lower fluxes (avarabhiigfyaprahii,:iaparijfia) (= 7.).574 <117> 《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「次從此位若至離欲欲界位，或前或後，與一下分惑滅離永斷智相應。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 265c14-15)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「至全離欲色愛未盡，或先離欲[4]從道類智未起色盡勝果道前，唯成一遍知，謂順下分盡。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 113a27-29)[4] 從【大】，彼【元】【明】【宮】 英譯本不應說single，如果說，必須如玄奘譯本加上「色愛未盡」。玄奘譯本「或先離欲從道類智未起色盡勝果道前」非常高明。Pruden (5-70cd, 長行, p. 868)The saint who falls away from the quality of Arhat or from the detachment of Kamadhatu loses one perfect knowledge. Lodrö Sangpo (5-70cd, 長行, p. 1758)Noble ones who retrogress from the status of perfected being [arhattva] or from the detachment from the realm of desire lose one complete knowledge. <118> ekāṃ tyajati arhattvāt kāmavairāgyād vā parihīyamāṇaḥ《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「捨一者，若從阿羅漢果退，及從離欲欲界退。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 265c27-28)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「言捨一者，謂從無學及色愛盡全離欲退。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 113b13-14) 這裡不僅英譯本和真諦本不夠準確，連梵本都是不夠準確的。只有補充了「色愛盡」的玄奘本是準確的。Pruden (5-70cd, 長行, p. 868)The Anagamin detached from Rupadhatu who falls away from the detachment of Kamadhatu loses two perfect knowledges. Lodrö Sangpo (5-70cd, 長行, p. 1758)Non-returners (aniigiimin), detached from the realm of fine-materiality, who retrogress from the detachment from the realm of desire, lose two complete knowledges. 梵本：dve parijñe tyajatyanāgāmī rūpavītarāgaḥ kāmavairāgyāt parihīyamāṇaḥ《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「捨二者，阿那含人離欲色界已，後退離欲欲界。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 265c28-29)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「言捨二者，謂諸不還從色愛盡起欲纏退，及彼獲得阿羅漢時。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 113b14-15)兩英譯本、真諦譯本、梵本，均不如玄奘譯本準確，因為未提及「及彼獲得阿羅漢時」。另外，玄奘譯本的「起欲纏退」其實比梵本及其他諸本的表述更佳。後面「得一」的情況，英譯本、真諦本、梵本也都沒有「從無學起色纏退」；問題類似，不再羅列。Pruden (5-70cd, 長行, p. 868)When one is not detached from Kamadhatu before entering into the Path of Seeing, that is, when he is an ānupoūrvaka (ii.l6d) he then obtains the sixth perfect knowledge which he will lose, with the five others, when he acquires detachment from Kama- dhatu.Lodrö Sangpo (5-70cd, 長行, p. 1758)When they are not detached from the realm of desire before entering into the path of insight, i.e., when they are successive ones (ānupoūrvika; ii. 16d), they then acquire the 6th complete knowledge which they will lose, along with the other five, when acquiring detachment from the realm of desire. 梵本：ṣaṭ parijñāstyajatyānupoūrvikaḥ kāmavairāgyāt《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「捨六者，若人次第修，由離欲欲界」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 266a2-3)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「言捨六者，謂未離欲所有聖者得離欲時。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 113b17-18)真諦本作「次第修」是問題不大的。兩英譯本作「次第者」是有問題的。因為「倍離欲染」後入見道者不是「次第者」，但屬於這裡所說的情況。玄奘在翻譯時捨棄「次第」，避免了誤解。Pruden (5-70cd, 長行, p. 868)One who falls away from a single detachment of Arupyadhatu, obtains two perfect knowledges (the sixth and the seventh). Lodrö Sangpo (5-70cd, 長行, p. 1758)Those who retrogress from the single detachment from the realm of immateriality, take possession of two complete knowledges （the 6th and 7th ）《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷15：「有得二，若人退無色界離欲。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 266a4-5)《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷21：「言得二者，謂從無學起無色界諸纏退時。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 113b20-21)Pruden (4-1a, 長行, p. 551)But, in this hypothesis, how does it happen that actions produce at one and the same time, Lodrö Sangpo (4-1a, 長行, p. 1281)But, .in this hypothesis, how does it happen that the actions produce at the same time, [192|06-192|07] yadi karmajaṃ kasmāt sattvānāṃ karmabhiḥ kuṅkumacandanādayo ramyatarā jāyante na teṣāṃ śarīrāṇi《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷13〈4 分別業品〉：「若爾，何故俱從業生欝金栴檀等甚可愛樂，而內身形等與彼相違。」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1558, p. 67b12-13)《阿毘達磨俱舍釋論》卷10〈4 分別業品〉：「若世間多種差別皆從業生，云何因眾生業，欝金旃檀等生極勝可愛，而彼身不爾？」(CBETA 2023.Q1, T29, no. 1559, p. 225a22-23)英譯本“at the same time”是沒有依據的。而且，並不是“同時感得”。
王路在隐身约 105 分钟