瑜伽論記 14.131

14.131

想蘊差別中，基云：顛倒差別者：謂諸愚夫無所知曉乃至是名想倒等者，無明者，如第八云此倒根本，此中準相是數，然若內外所起倒通名相倒。於中對分心倒見倒，若外道出家起三見全一分少分與想俱者，是見倒亦想倒，若在家者於境起貪與想倒俱，亦名想倒亦是心倒。然前第一帙第八云：貪通二種謂不淨為淨倒於苦樂倒，但以外道時邪戒執邪見以為戒見取等生天等，此貪勝故偏名此二為貪心倒，餘我常見等一切有情共通義隱所以不說，若準此文，外異生起常我倒亦是心倒，則心倒通在家出家二眾起。然今此文在家於欲境起倒總名心倒貪增勝故，外道名見倒見用增故，然見倒不可說言在家眾起，故此與前八文別。又解：在家品如此文，於常我實起心倒。然外道等亦計常我，以計共故，前文唯說樂淨為心倒在家品起，常我見倒通在家品起故，不可說於樂淨在家人起，貪義增說名心倒，即同此文在家起心倒出家起見倒，前解為勝。然據理論之，在家乍可不起見倒，出家不起貪倒，邪貪戒見二取為生天解脫因故。若作此釋，想倒通見修斷以為心見二倒依故，見倒唯見道，出家外道起故，若心倒通在家出家品起故，通見修斷，又唯見斷分別所生故。

In [the section on] the distinctions of the aggregate of conception (saṃjñā-skandha): Ji says: Regarding "distinctions of inversions: namely, all ordinary fools have no understanding... down to... this is called inversion of conception, and so forth": ignorance, as stated in fascicle eight, is the root of these inversions; here, according to its characteristic, it is a mental factor. However, whether inversions arise internally or externally, they are generically called inversions of marks. Therein, dividing them against inversions of mind and inversions of views: if non-Buddhist renunciants generate the three views in their entirety or in part that are conjoined with conception, these are inversions of views as well as inversions of conception; if householders generate greed toward objects conjoined with inversions of conception, these are also called inversions of conception and are inversions of mind. However, the eighth fascicle of the first set stated: greed pervades two kinds—namely the inversion of the impure as pure and the inversion of suffering as pleasure; merely because non-Buddhists at that time uphold erroneous morality and hold erroneous views as the attachment to mere rules and rituals, attachment to views, and so forth, in order to be born in heaven, this greed is predominant, so these two are specifically named inversions of mind through greed; as for the remaining views of permanence, self, and so forth, because their meaning is shared across all sentient beings and is subtle, they were not discussed. If we rely on this text, an external ordinary being generating the inversions of permanence and self is also having an inversion of mind; thus inversions of mind are generated across both groups, householders and renunciants. But now, this text states that householders generating inversions toward desirable objects are generically called inversions of mind because greed is predominant, whereas non-Buddhists are called [having] inversions of views because the function of views is predominant. However, it cannot be said that inversions of views arise among the householder assembly; thus this differs from the previous eighth text. Another explanation: the class of householders, as in this text, actually generates inversions of mind regarding permanence and self. Yet non-Buddhists also impute permanence and self; because they impute them in common, the previous text only spoke of pleasure and purity as inversions of mind arising in the householder class, and because the view inversions of permanence and self arise throughout the householder class, one cannot say that for pleasure and purity arising in householders, the increase of the meaning of greed is called inversion of mind; this is the same as this text stating that householders generate inversions of mind and renunciants generate inversions of views, and the former explanation is superior. Yet speaking in terms of doctrine, householders might temporarily not generate inversions of views, but renunciants do not generate inversions of greed, because of erroneous greed for the two attachments—to views and to rules and rituals—as causes for heavenly birth and liberation. If one explains it thus, inversion of conception pervades abandonment by seeing and by cultivation because it serves as the basis for both inversions of mind and views; inversion of views belongs solely to the path of seeing, arisen from renunciant non-Buddhists; whereas inversion of mind, because it arises across both classes of householders and renunciants, pervades abandonment by seeing and cultivation, or belongs solely to abandonment by seeing as it is generated by conceptual discrimination.