瑜伽師地論略纂 1.22

1.22

《釋論》中，等持對等引為四句，為第三俱言或等持俱，亦等引地，謂諸靜慮及諸無色有心定位心、心所等，除三摩地，三摩地體唯一別境定數故也。但以尋伺推度、不推度，麁細位別，體非三學，無勝利益，故以有言顯其分位；定體是學，有勝利益，但言定非地，即顯差別，不須說有。以同尋伺心，體亦無殊勝利益，非學法故，亦以有言辨其差別，說為有心及無心地。第三問：何故頌中不言三摩呬多非，而言三摩地俱非，有何意也？答：意顯等持、等引異故。但是等引，皆通五蘊功德。恐謂等持亦通五蘊，故言三摩地俱，顯有俱言，方通五蘊。等持唯是一定數，故與等引不同，故列其名。頌與長行別也。其理雖爾，設言等持俱，亦與等引長短不同：等引乃是上二界五蘊，等持俱言，體通三界諸五蘊故。由此但應如前義釋。第四問：何故心所乃有眾多，唯以尋、伺及定有、無以明分位作用等別，不以慧非慧、癡無癡等分位作用辨差別耶？答：理例應然，但以略標增勝位別，故無說餘。謂有尋等上下地位麁細別故，等引、非等引上下定散界差別故，此二增強，故略偏立。由斯《釋論》云：此中存略，且說十七。非依餘法不得立地，以瑜伽師用一切法為依緣故。第五問：何故不言善心、不善心地，但言有心、無心耶？答：總勝故，別劣故。第六問：三乘所行，有亦福行，何故但說三慧為地？答：以慧為首攝一切故，由此論名彼所成地，出世行中慧偏勝故。第七問：何故五乘不說人天，但說三乘？答：說極勝乘，不說劣故；說有姓乘，非無姓故。第八問：何故有四涅槃及與菩提唯說二依？答：通三乘故，但說二滅，無住唯是大乘果故、自性本成故。又即攝盡故，但言二依，不言二涅槃，即攝菩提；總言二依，不說二滅，即攝四盡。其自性清淨涅槃，本舊自有，非今始得，不說為果。釋初標文已。

In the commentary, samādhi is contrasted with samāhita to form four propositions; the third, which speaks of 'concomitant', means either 'concomitant with samādhi' or 'the samāhita-bhūmi', referring to the minds and mental factors in the states of concentration with mind in the dhyānas and formless attainments, excluding samādhi itself, because the essence of samādhi is only a single distinct-object concentration factor. It is merely that because searching and investigation involve deduction and non-deduction, their coarse and subtle states differ, their essence is not among the three trainings, and they lack superior benefit, the word 'having' is used to reveal their states; the essence of concentration is a training and has superior benefit, so merely stating 'concentration and non-[concentration] bhūmi' reveals the distinction without needing to say 'having'. Because mind, alike to searching and investigation, also lacks distinct superior benefit in its essence and is not a training dharma, the word 'having' is likewise used to distinguish it, speaking of the bhūmis with mind and without mind. The third question: Why does the verse not say 'samāhita and non-', but says 'together with samādhi and non-'; what is the intention? Answer: The intention is to reveal the difference between samādhi and samāhita. Whatever is samāhita encompasses the merits of the five aggregates. Fearing that one might think samādhi also encompasses the five aggregates, it says 'together with samādhi', revealing that only with the word 'together' does it encompass the five aggregates. Samādhi is merely a single concentration factor, and is therefore not identical to samāhita; thus its name is listed. The verse and the prose commentary differ. Even though that reasoning holds, even if one said 'together with samādhi', it would still differ in scope from samāhita: samāhita is the five aggregates of the upper two realms, whereas the expression 'together with samādhi' has an essence encompassing all five aggregates of the three realms. Therefore, one should simply explain it according to the prior meaning. The fourth question: Why, when there are so many mental factors, are searching, investigation, and the presence or absence of concentration uniquely used to clarify distinctions in states, functions, and so forth, rather than using prajñā versus non-prajñā, delusion versus non-delusion, and so forth, to distinguish differences in states and functions? Answer: In principle it should be so, but because predominant states are indicated in brief, other factors are not mentioned. That is to say, because the higher and lower bhūmis of 'with searching' and so forth differ in coarseness and subtlety, and equipoise and non-equipoise differ in realms of higher and lower, concentrated and distracted, these two are predominant, so they are selectively established in brief. For this reason the commentary says: 'Here, brevity is preserved, and for now seventeen are stated. It is not that a bhūmi cannot be established based on other dharmas, because a yogācāra uses all dharmas as support and object.' The fifth question: Why does it not speak of bhūmis of wholesome mind and unwholesome mind, but only speaks of having mind and lacking mind? Answer: Because the general is superior, while the specific is inferior. The sixth question: Among the practices of the three vehicles, there are also practices of merit; why are only the three prajñās stated as bhūmis? Answer: Because prajñā is foremost and subsumes everything; hence the treatise names them the bhūmis formed by them, as prajñā is singularly predominant among supramundane practices. The seventh question: Why among the five vehicles are humans and gods not mentioned, but only the three vehicles? Answer: Because the most superior vehicles are stated, not the inferior; vehicles having lineage are stated, not those lacking lineage. The eighth question: Why, when there are four nirvāṇas as well as bodhi, are only two supports stated? Answer: Because they are common to the three vehicles, only the two cessations are stated; non-abiding [nirvāṇa] is solely the fruit of the Great Vehicle, and its self-nature is fundamentally established. Furthermore, they are completely subsumed: merely stating the two supports without stating the two nirvāṇas subsumes bodhi; generally stating the two supports without stating the two cessations subsumes all four. As for the inherently pure nirvāṇa, it is fundamentally and originally present and not newly attained now, so it is not stated as a fruit. The explanation of the initial introductory text is concluded.