俱舍論疏 28.17

28.17

論「不爾餘品等持劣故」，有部釋第四難也。《正理論》云「此中經主自興問答。何名一境性？謂專一所緣。彼答非理。眼、意二識若同一所緣，應名一境性。故於此處應求別理，謂若依止一所依根，專一所緣名一境性。豈不一念無易所緣，應一切心中皆有一境性？理實皆有一一剎那心、心所法一境轉故，然非一切皆得定名。以於此中說一境性，但為顯示由勝等持，令善心、心所相續而轉故。若爾，即心依一根轉，引緣自境，餘心續生，此即名為心一境性，應離心外無別等持。此難不然，前已說故。謂先廣辨心所法中已辨等持，此難不然，前已說故。謂若心體即三摩地令心作等，亦應無別，差別因緣不可得故。」述曰：經部令心作等，即許別有思等心所令心一境。因何不許？

The Śāstra says: "Not so, because the concentration of the other categories is inferior." The Sarvāstivādin explains the fourth objection. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Here, the author of the śāstra himself poses the question and answer: 'What is called one-pointedness? It means exclusive focus on a single intentional object.' That answer is unreasonable. If eye-consciousness and mind-consciousness were to share one intentional object, they should be called one-pointedness. Therefore, in this context a different principle should be sought, namely: if it relies upon a single supporting sense-faculty and focuses exclusively on a single intentional object, it is called one-pointedness. Would it not be the case that in a single thought-moment there is no changing of the intentional object, so that one-pointedness should exist in all minds? In principle, all of them do indeed have it, because in each and every kṣaṇa the mind and mental factors proceed on a single intentional object; yet not all receive the designation of concentration. For in this context, one-pointedness is spoken of merely to indicate that through superior concentration, wholesome mind and mental factors are made to proceed in continuity. If so, then the mind itself proceeding in reliance on a single faculty, drawing forth and taking its own object, with subsequent minds arising in continuation—this would simply be called one-pointedness of the mind, and there should be no distinct concentration apart from the mind. This objection is incorrect, because it was already explained earlier. That is, in the earlier comprehensive analysis of the mental factors, concentration was already established; this objection is incorrect, because it was already explained earlier. Namely, if the mind-entity itself were samādhi making the mind balanced, there should likewise be no distinction [between them], for any distinguishing cause or condition cannot be found." Commentary: The Sautrāntika holds that [factors] make the mind balanced, thus allowing that there are distinct mental factors such as volition (cetanā) that make the mind one-pointed. Why do they not grant it [for concentration]?