瑜伽論記 15.75

15.75

相應中，無明與一切相應疑都無等者，基師等云：如對法第六瞋不與貪慢見相應，不言瞋不與疑。又解：瞋已，云：如瞋、疑亦爾。故知彼文瞋與疑相應。此中非一切者，此據多分，彼據久疑不已生瞋，瞋與疑相應。此論約初時，彼論據後時，此論據麁相所以不相應，彼論據細相所以得相應，彼論據真實理門。此中貪瞋相返不相應，貪許慢見相應，彼論同之，此論瞋與慢見相應。對法不許，謂瞋不與慢見相應，此論據真實理門，彼論隨順理門。又彼據增恚相增語故。彼論云：若於此事起增恚即不於此生高舉及能推求，故不得相應。然此論據細實理行相，若慢彼時推求彼時容憎恚，故得相應，然此據大乘，理得無違。又解：此文就彼會云：如貪瞋亦爾謂瞋不與慢見等相應等言亦爾，不亦其貪與慢見相應俱亦瞋不與貪相應，如貪不與瞋相應。此論云：如染愛增亦爾者，不以瞋，亦貪得與慢相應，如貪不與瞋相應，亦瞋不與貪相應，如彼論問即瞋不與慢見相應也，然前解為勝，餘文同此。如下五十八云：五見互不相應，自性不相應故，貪恚慢疑更相違故，互不相應并出所以，彼據行相麁隨轉理門亦不相應違。

Regarding conjunction, as for 'ignorance is conjoined with everything; doubt is not conjoined at all,' Master Ji and others say: According to the sixth fascicle of the Abhidharma[samuccaya], anger is not conjoined with greed, conceit, or views, but it does not say that anger is not conjoined with doubt. Another interpretation: after [explaining] anger, it says: 'As with anger, so it is with doubt.' Hence we know that in that text anger is conjoined with doubt. That it is not conjoined with everything here is based on the majority [of cases]; that text is based on anger arising from long, ceaseless doubting, where anger is conjoined with doubt. This treatise speaks of the initial moment, while that treatise is based on the later moment; this treatise is based on coarse characteristics and thus they are not conjoined, while that treatise is based on subtle characteristics and thus they can be conjoined; that treatise is based on the principle of actual reality. Here, greed and anger are mutually opposed and do not conjoin; it allows greed to conjoin with conceit and views, and that treatise agrees. This treatise has anger conjoined with conceit and views. The Abhidharma[samuccaya] does not allow this, stating that anger does not conjoin with conceit and views; this treatise is based on the principle of actual reality, whereas that treatise follows the provisional principle. Furthermore, that text is based on the designation of the aspect of intensifying resentment. That treatise says: If one arouses intense resentment toward this matter, then one does not produce self-exaltation or analytical investigation toward it; therefore they cannot be conjoined. However, this treatise is based on the subtle, actual principle of mental activity: when feeling conceit toward someone or analytically investigating them, hatred can still be accommodated; therefore they can be conjoined. This is according to the Mahāyāna, and the principle holds without contradiction. Another interpretation resolves this passage with that one by stating: 'As with greed, so with anger' means that anger does not conjoin with conceit, views, and so forth, and 'so it is' means not that greed conjoins with conceit and views, but both that anger does not conjoin with greed just as greed does not conjoin with anger. This treatise says: 'As with the intensification of defiled affection, so it is also,' meaning not by anger, and also greed can conjoin with conceit; just as greed does not conjoin with anger, so anger does not conjoin with greed. As asked in that treatise, anger does not conjoin with conceit and views. However, the former interpretation is superior, and the other texts agree with this. As the fifty-eighth fascicle below states: the five views are mutually unconjoined because their intrinsic natures do not conjoin; greed, resentment, conceit, and doubt are mutually opposed, and thus they are mutually unconjoined, fully stating the reason. That is based on the coarse aspect following the provisional principle, which likewise does not contradict.