瑜伽論記 8.34

8.34

又了相作意於所應斷下，第三重釋作意作用差別。了相作意了知欲惡應斷靜慮應得，觀察作意於知分齊離增上慢，餘五如文。泰云：小乘共許於未至定無喜樂受，今唯此論辨喜樂受，遠離攝樂斷初二品在未至定喜樂俱行，然捨所問故時時起，加行究竟俱行喜樂未遍身分亦興捨間，果時喜樂常相續起故不言時時。基云：如二十八云：前二皆加行道，今此唯以勝解為正加行者，今據勝上處及隣近無間道處及不為聞思間處說，故唯說勝解為正加行，前二十八約實為論，勝了相亦是加行。又解：此正發加行未必簡了相非加行道，以勝解隣近分勝故，說定正發加行，且說勝解為正加行不遮了相，據實無違，又何故斷上品說不言離增上慢，又不於第三品斷後說離增上慢，而於中下斷後說離增上慢。

From "Furthermore, the mental orientation of comprehending characteristics toward what ought to be severed..." downwards is the third part, re-explaining the distinctions in the functions of the mental orientations. The mental orientation of comprehending characteristics understands that the evils of desire ought to be severed and dhyāna ought to be attained; the mental orientation of examination understands limits and abandons presumption; the remaining five are as in the text. Tai says: The Hīnayāna universally accepts that in the threshold concentration there is no feeling of joy or bliss; now this treatise alone distinguishes the feelings of joy and bliss. When detachment and collecting bliss sever the first two grades, joy and bliss run concurrent in the threshold concentration; however, because they are interrupted by equanimity, they arise only from time to time. The joy and bliss concurrent with the culmination of preparatory practice have not yet pervaded the body and are also interspersed with equanimity. At the time of the fruit, joy and bliss constantly arise in continuity, so it does not say "from time to time." Ji says: As Fascicle 28 states, the first two are both paths of preparatory practice; that here only resolute resolve is taken as the actual preparatory practice is stated on the basis of its superior position, its proximity to the uninterrupted path, and its not being interrupted by hearing and thinking; therefore only resolute resolve is said to be the actual preparatory practice. The previous Fascicle 28 treats the matter in terms of reality: comprehending characteristics is also preparatory practice. Another explanation: saying that this actually generates preparatory practice does not necessarily exclude comprehending characteristics from being a path of preparatory practice; because the resolute resolve of the access stage is superior, it is said definitely to generate actual preparatory practice, tentatively speaking of resolute resolve as the actual preparatory practice without excluding comprehending characteristics; according to reality there is no contradiction. Furthermore, why is it that when severing the upper grades it does not speak of abandoning presumption, nor does it speak of abandoning presumption after severing the third grade, but speaks of abandoning presumption after severing the intermediate and lower grades?