瑜伽論記 15.108

15.108

對法得定慧俱起所障同時故其細能障亦體同時生，所以說共沈掉，然彼妄念散亂惡慧三法，彼論是別境分故，所以彼論不說，文無邪欲邪勝解故唯立二十隨惑，所以無欲解二法唯二十者，如前已會，此上一釋若染心俱，如後文十法為定，由前義故所以諸論或六或五，又解，下文雖云與十法俱未必即一切俱，如何等，欲緣希求未來念緣串習過去，如何二法可得并生，沈相睧下掉相舉高，下高二法相違，相違如何并生，欲解沈掉四法既不得齊生，故此據云唯六為勝，要必并生故，雜集亦爾未必并生，所障定惑同時沈掉俱時起，翻善法既并不信等三法說俱，所障所翻俱故說五法，其實未必并生，此六文為定，餘十五者各據別義，此會為勝，睡眠惡作與三性相應者，此通三性故，是癡分者纏中說故唯不善位，是說癡分，餘不相應者，如前忿恨緣共住事生言，豈不相應耶？

In the Abhidharma, concentration and wisdom arise together, and their obstructions are simultaneous; therefore their subtle obstructing entities also arise simultaneously, which is why it speaks of torpor and restlessness together. However, those three dharmas of forgetfulness, distraction, and faulty wisdom are parts of the particular objects in that treatise, so that treatise does not mention them. Since the text lacks wrong desire and wrong resolve, it only establishes twenty secondary afflictions; why there are no two dharmas of desire and resolve and only twenty has already been reconciled above. This above is one explanation. If accompanying defiled mind is fixed as ten dharmas as in the subsequent text, it is due to the previous meaning that the various treatises say either six or five. Another explanation: although the text below says they accompany ten dharmas, it does not necessarily mean they are all conjoined simultaneously. How so? Desire takes seeking what is future as its object, while mindfulness takes what has been practiced in the past as its object; how could two such dharmas arise together? The characteristic of sinking is dim and low, while the characteristic of restlessness is excited and high; low and high, the two dharmas are contradictory; being contradictory, how could they arise together? Since the four dharmas of desire, resolve, sinking, and restlessness cannot arise simultaneously, relying on this to say there are only six is superior, as it requires that they must arise together. The Samuccayavyākhyā is also like this: they do not necessarily arise together; the afflictions obstructing concentration are simultaneous, so sinking and restlessness arise at the same time; having overturned the wholesome dharmas, they are spoken of as conjoined together with the three dharmas beginning with non-faith; because the obstructed and the overturned are conjoined, five dharmas are spoken of, though in reality they do not necessarily arise together. This text of six is definitive; the other fifteen each rely on distinct meanings, and this reconciliation is superior. As for sleep and regret being conjoined with the three natures: because these pervade the three natures. That they are parts of delusion: because they are mentioned among the entanglements, solely in unwholesome stages; this is why they are called parts of delusion. As for the rest not being conjoined: as previously stated, anger and resentment arise conditioned by living together; could it be said that they are not conjoined?