瑜伽論記 2.426

2.426

離間語中，別句有七，破壞和合等四句者，景云：破壞和合者下，他聞說教歡喜別離；隨印別離者，謂恐更和合對彼重印別離為好；喜壞和合者，謂彼人已離散意心喜染污；樂印別離者，謂能破壞人於他乖離喜已後，喜樂印別離以之為好。泰云：喜別離者，明破壞前人語方便時能生破語者，令他別離喜；隨印別離者，辨他別離時喜更重生。基又解云：第三四句雖喜生未生煩惱，第五於第三句第六於第四此二句方煩惱生，第七句說能離間語者謂或不聞或他方便故者。景云：正說離間語時或彼不聞而不破壞，或他雖聞以智方便觀察其言如相破壞而不離隔，故云或他不聞或他方便並成離間。十地云：彼雖不離而名兩舌，如彼不惱亦名惡口。備述兩解：一云，所破之人或在遠故不聞離語，或雖在遠而遣他人令領解故作方便遣人傳語；一云，對前人不聞，別有傍人傳語前人，非唯破人成業道，傍傳語人亦名間語，他方便言意在於此。基又解云：謂說語時他令不聞，或他雖聞而以方便不受其離間，此釋經中說離間語，非正釋業道。對法論說：究竟者，謂所破領解此中方便他領解故可是業道，他不聞者但是業道加行故，此因通釋經亦無失。他方便者，令他說離間方便語他未領解及他不聞此二並是業道加行，因釋經文亦非正釋業道。或有義言：但說離間言，若他不聞及他聞已方便不受皆是業道，此違決擇第六十說：此究竟謂所破領，故前說善。

Regarding divisive speech, there are seven distinct clauses. Regarding the four clauses from 'breaking harmony' onwards: Jing says: under 'breaking harmony', others hear his instruction and delight in separation; 'concurring with separation' means fearing they may reconcile again, so one re-affirms before them that separation is good; 'delighting in the breaking of harmony' means that those persons having already separated, one's mind rejoices with defilement; 'rejoicing in concurring with separation' means that the person who causes the rupture, having rejoiced in the other's estrangement, rejoices in confirming separation as good. Tai says: 'delighting in separation' clarifies that when using expedient means to break up the other person's speech, the one who can produce breaking words causes others to delight in separation; 'concurring with separation' explains that when others separate, delight arises anew. Ji further explains: although joy arises in the third and fourth clauses, afflictions have not yet arisen; only with the fifth clause corresponding to the third, and the sixth clause corresponding to the fourth, do afflictions then arise. Regarding the seventh clause, which states 'speaking divisive speech means either not being heard or by the expedient means of another': Jing says: at the very time of speaking divisive speech, either the other person does not hear it and so no rupture occurs, or the other, though hearing it, uses wise expedients to examine his words as seeking to cause a rupture and thus does not become alienated; hence it says 'either the other does not hear or by another's expedient means', both constituting divisive speech. The Daśabhūmika states: even though they do not separate, it is still called double-tongued, just as when the other is not annoyed it is still called harsh speech. Bei relates two explanations: one says, the person to be broken may be far away and thus does not hear the divisive words, or though far away, one sends another to make them understand, thus using the expedient means of sending someone to convey the words; the other says, before the person spoken to it is not heard, but there is a bystander who conveys the words to the person; not only does the one who causes the rupture accomplish the path of action, but the bystander who conveys the words is also called divisive speech; this is the meaning intended by 'the expedient means of another'. Ji further explains: it means that when speaking, another causes them not to hear, or though the other hears, by expedient means they do not accept the division; this interprets the phrase 'speaking divisive speech' in the sūtra, not strictly the path of action itself. The Abhidharmasamuccaya states: culmination means the one to be broken understands; here, because through expedient means the other understands, it can be a path of action; as for the other not hearing, that is only the preliminary preparation (prayogakāri) for the path of action; hence, this being a general interpretation of the sūtra, there is no flaw. 'By the expedient means of another' means causing another to speak divisive expedient words which the other does not yet understand, and the other not hearing—both of these are preliminary preparations for the path of action; this interprets the sūtra text and is not strictly the path of action. Alternatively, some hold: merely speaking divisive words, whether the other does not hear or, having heard, by expedient means does not accept them, both constitute the path of action. This contradicts the sixtieth fascicle of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī, which states: 'Its culmination means the one to be broken understands'; therefore the former explanation is correct.