俱舍論記 28.84

28.84

「又第四定至勝前二故」者，經部復難。又第四定輕安倍增初、二靜慮，而不說彼有樂支故。汝若謂初、二定中輕安，要順樂受方名為樂，約三受說言初、二喜名樂受也。破云：第三靜慮輕安既順樂受，應是樂支。汝若謂彼三、四輕安，或彼三定輕安，為行捨所損，故立行捨不立輕安。破云：不爾。行捨同是善法，增輕安故，非損輕安。又彼三、四輕安，或彼三定輕安，勝前初、二定輕安，故何不立支？

"Furthermore, in the fourth dhyāna... superior to the previous two" is the Sautrāntika's further objection. Furthermore, pliancy in the fourth dhyāna is doubled compared to that of the first and second dhyānas, yet it is not said to have a factor of pleasure. If you claim that pliancy in the first and second dhyānas is called pleasure only because it conforms to pleasant sensation, speaking of the joy of the first and second dhyānas as pleasant sensation in terms of the three sensations, [we] refute this by saying: Since pliancy in the third dhyāna conforms to pleasant sensation, it should be a factor of pleasure. If you claim that the pliancy of the third and fourth dhyānas, or the pliancy of the third dhyāna, is impaired by mental equanimity, so mental equanimity is established while pliancy is not, [we] refute this by saying: It is not so. Mental equanimity is equally a wholesome dharma and enhances pliancy; it does not impair pliancy. Furthermore, the pliancy of the third and fourth dhyānas, or the pliancy of the third dhyāna, is superior to the pliancy of the earlier first and second dhyānas; why then is it not established as a factor?