瑜伽論記 15.54

15.54

又五十三云：但有慚必有愧，自有愧等必有慚，雖有諸說不同。今依六十九為定，若在定必與十一俱起，若在不定地起善心時必與十數俱起除輕安。今云六時有無者，據勢用增強者說。五十三云：有愧未必有慚者亦據勢用，以慚自羞愧則羞他。但有罪自羞理必羞他，自有羞他未必自羞。若不據勢用就體論有無者，彼亦應許但有無慚必有無愧，自有無不必有無慚。

Furthermore, [fascicle] fifty-three says: Wherever there is shame (hrī), there must be modesty (apatrāpya); wherever there is modesty, there must be shame. Although there are various differing explanations, we now rely on [fascicle] sixty-nine as definitive: if in meditative stabilization (samādhi), it must arise together with all eleven; if a wholesome mind arises in an unstabilized stage, it must arise together with ten factors, excluding pliancy. Now, the statement of presence or absence in the six periods is spoken based on the predominance of power. Fascicle fifty-three says: 'One with modesty does not necessarily have shame' is also based on power, because shame is self-blame, whereas modesty is shame before others. Whenever there is guilt with self-blame, by principle one must feel shame before others; but one who feels shame before others does not necessarily feel self-blame. If one does not rely on power but discusses presence or absence in terms of substance, then one should also accept that wherever there is shamelessness (ahrīkya) there must be immodesty (anapatrāpya), but where there is immodesty there is not necessarily shamelessness.