俱舍論記 28.14

28.14

「豈不諸心至皆一境轉」者，經部復難。豈不諸心剎那剎那前後滅故皆一境轉，心王之外何用等持？汝若謂等持令彼心王於第二念不散亂故須有等持，即於剎那相應心王等持無用。經部復難：汝立餘心、心所，由三摩地故於一境轉。此三摩地復由誰故於一境轉？汝即解云：還即由此餘心、心所，令三摩地於一境轉。故牒破云：又由此餘心、心所故三摩地成。寧不即由此餘心、心所法故，心於一境轉？何用等持令心一境？此文稍隱，應善思之。又三摩地是大地法，遍與一切三性相應。應一切心皆一境轉，皆應名定。

"Do not all minds… all operate upon a single object?": this is a further objection by the Sautrāntika. Do not all minds, because they perish moment by moment in succession, all operate upon a single object? Apart from the primary mind, what need is there for samādhi? If you say that samādhi is needed because it causes that primary mind not to be distracted in the second moment, then samādhi is useless with respect to the primary mind conjoined in that very moment. The Sautrāntika further objects: You establish other minds and mental factors as operating upon a single object through samādhi. Through what, then, does this samādhi operate upon a single object? If you explain that it is precisely through these other minds and mental factors that samādhi is caused to operate upon a single object, we then counter by stating: furthermore, it is because of these other minds and mental factors that samādhi is accomplished; why then would it not be precisely through these other minds and mental factors that the mind operates upon a single object? What need is there for samādhi to make the mind one-pointed? This text is somewhat subtle; one should reflect on it carefully. Furthermore, samādhi is a mahābhūmika dharma, universally conjoined with all three moral natures. Hence all minds would operate upon a single object, and all should be called samādhi.