瑜伽論記 2.18

2.18

Regarding 'Herein, by reason of freedom from the desire for investigation and reflection, it is called the stage without investigation and without reflection', and so forth: the second master of the Commentary cites this as proof [for his view], [claiming that] for persons and factors of the desire realm and the first dhyāna who have not yet been freed from the defilement of investigation and reflection, it is named the stage with investigation and with reflection; for persons and factors of the intermediate dhyāna who are already freed from the defilement of investigation but not yet freed from the defilement of reflection, it is named the stage without investigation and with only reflection; for persons and factors from the second dhyāna upward, who are both already freed from defilement, they are equally named the stage without investigation and without reflection, which reveals distinctions such as guidance in the desire realm, so that if one is already free from desire, it is also named the stage without investigation and without reflection, and so forth. The real meaning is not so; these three are established solely on the basis of realm and stage. That is to say, within the aggregate of contaminated and uncontaminated factors of the desire realm and the first dhyāna, investigation and reflection are obtainable; the factors of those already free from desire and those not yet free from desire are all named the equipoise of that stage. The passage immediately above serves as proof that it is not by reason of possessing defilement that it is named that stage, nor that if one has already abandoned defilement it is named not that stage. If one were to make this interpretation, great confusion would ensue. Therefore the treatise says: If subsumed under conditioned absorption in the taintless realm, the first dhyāna is also named the stage with investigation and with reflection, and so forth. If the distinction of the three stages were established with respect to conjunction and freedom from desire, all such texts would have errors, as fully explained in the Commentary. As for the statement here, 'by reason of freedom from the desire for investigation and reflection, it is called the stage without investigation and without reflection': this only speaks of [the stages] from the second dhyāna upward being without investigation and reflection, because the contaminated and uncontaminated of that one stage are all freed by that absorption from the defilement of investigation and reflection; the lower stages are not like this. One cannot consider it to be that stage because it has defilement and not that stage because it lacks defilement; therefore it speaks only of [the stages] from the second dhyāna upward. For this reason, it does not say that for the lower two stages, following freedom from those defilements, they are immediately not those stages.