瑜伽論記 8.67

8.67

言由是因緣，若先所斷，若今所斷，總集說言樂斷苦斷；先憂喜沒者，樂斷名今斷，餘受根名先所斷，故下中覆治云乃至入初靜慮時憂受沒故。此中，如前第十一卷云：何故苦根初靜慮中說未斷耶？彼品麁重猶未斷故，若身在下界可爾，何緣在初靜慮者苦根未斷而未現行，由其助伴相對憂根所攝諸苦彼已斷故但彼麁重而未能斷，若初禪中苦根斷者是則行者入初二靜慮受所作住差別應無，由二俱有喜及樂故應無差別，但以麁重而未斷故說有差別，而經中說由出諸受定有差別。

As for the statement: 'By these causes and conditions, whether previously abandoned or presently abandoned, it is stated collectively that "with the abandonment of pleasure and abandonment of pain, prior grief and joy have vanished"': the abandonment of pleasure is called the present abandonment; the remaining faculties of feeling are called what was previously abandoned. Therefore, below it is repeatedly stated: '...up to, when entering the first dhyāna, the feeling of grief vanishes.' Herein, as stated earlier in Fascicle 11: 'Why is it said that the faculty of pain is not yet abandoned in the first dhyāna? Because the unserviceability of its category has not yet been abandoned.' If the body is in the lower realm, that may be so. For what reason is the faculty of pain not yet abandoned in one who is in the first dhyāna, yet does not become active? Because the various pains comprised by its counterpart and companion, the faculty of grief, have already been abandoned by that person; only its unserviceability has not yet been abandoned. If the faculty of pain were abandoned in the first dhyāna, then there would be no distinction in the abiding produced by feeling when the practitioner enters the first and second dhyānas, for both possess joy and pleasure, so there would be no distinction. It is only because unserviceability has not yet been abandoned that a distinction is spoken of; and in the sūtra it is said that through transcending the various feelings there is definitely a distinction.