瑜伽論記 15.132

15.132

基云：即合獨覺聲聞為一，或可合菩薩佛為一，四中各二者，如論為嬉為他故作，雖有善無記不同而皆變化故成八種，又化不為心，以非他可作故，唯身語可化，此四人皆有化身語，故分為八。若取初解者，如何異生為善本化故化心善也。若如後解者，論云：為嬉戲為利他，意欲簡善無記分為八故，不得以後解為勝。如前解異生為善化心有何妨難，所前解順其論文為勝也。若爾，如來如何有無記心，故知後身語為勝，嬉戲利他不應分別不善無記，但應言由利他等故皆有身語，身語為二。又八者聲聞獨覺菩薩各二，謂無記及善，如來唯善，異生無記，故有八。

Ji says: That is, combining pratyekabuddhas and śrāvakas as one, or perhaps combining bodhisattvas and Buddhas as one. Each of the four having two: as the treatise says, they are created for amusement and for others. Although they differ as wholesome and indeterminate, they are all apparitions, and thus constitute eight kinds. Furthermore, apparition does not consist of mind, because [mind] cannot be produced for others; only body and speech can be apparitionally created. Since all four kinds of persons have apparitional body and speech, they are divided into eight. If one adopts the first explanation, how could ordinary beings have a wholesome mind of apparition for the sake of a wholesome root? If one adopts the latter explanation, the treatise states: 'for playful amusement and for the benefit of others,' intending to distinguish wholesome and indeterminate into eight; hence the latter explanation cannot be regarded as superior. According to the former explanation, what objection could there be to ordinary beings having a wholesome apparitional mind? Therefore, the former explanation accords with the text of the treatise and is superior. If so, how could a Tathāgata have an indeterminate mind? Hence one knows that the latter [view regarding] body and speech is superior. One should not differentiate unwholesome and indeterminate for playful amusement and benefiting others, but should merely state that due to benefiting others and so forth, all have body and speech, body and speech making two. Alternatively, the eight are: śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas each have two, namely indeterminate and wholesome; the Tathāgata is solely wholesome; ordinary beings are indeterminate; thus there are eight.