瑜伽師地論略纂 10.28

10.28

論曰「若諸菩薩依止總別四因、四緣，或由自力，或由因力，或總二力而發心者，當知此心堅固無動；或由他力，或加行力，或總二力而發心者，當知此心不堅不固，亦非無動」者，此中意，明前四因、四緣中，若別依一因一緣，或總由四因、四緣而發心者，於四力中且依二力，謂自、因力。此二力中，或別依一力，或總依此二力而發心者，此皆堅固、不動；若別依他力及加行力，或總二力而發心者，此不堅固，亦非無動。若斯四緣中初緣是近佛菩薩等，今此文者，別依、總依皆堅固、不動；他力亦是謂佛菩薩等，他即在不堅固、非無動中收。此何相違？述曰：不然。他力者，謂王及有力者逼令發心，非如見佛菩薩。見佛菩薩自發心，在緣中收，故不動；為他逼發心，是他力，故動收。又加行力是不堅固、非無動收，如因中第二因善友攝受是堅固、不動收，此何意也？述曰：非也。善友攝受是見菩薩教行行等所遇之緣勝，人加行力中雖遇友，乃世間之善士，非如菩薩，故有別也。又義：且約一義，此中判為堅固、不動等。如實者，緣因中有動、不堅固者，他加行力中有不動等者，且約一義別，故為此論也。

The treatise says: "If bodhisattvas arouse the mind by relying individually or collectively on the four causes and four conditions, or through their own power, or through the power of causes, or through both powers collectively, one should know that this mind is firm and immovable; if they arouse the mind through the power of others, or through the power of preparation, or through both powers collectively, one should know that this mind is neither firm nor solid, nor is it immovable." The meaning here is to clarify: among the preceding four causes and four conditions, if one arouses the mind relying individually on one cause and one condition, or collectively on the four causes and four conditions, among the four powers one tentatively relies on two powers, namely one's own power and the power of causes. If one arouses the mind relying either individually on one of these two powers or collectively on both powers, this is entirely firm and immovable. If one arouses the mind relying individually on the power of others and the power of preparation, or collectively on both powers, this is not firm, nor is it immovable. If the first of these four conditions is being near to Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and the like, in this text, whether relying individually or collectively, it is firm and immovable; the power of others also refers to Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and so forth, yet others are included under what is not firm and not immovable. How are these not contradictory? The commentary explains: Not so. "The power of others" refers to kings or powerful persons coercing one into arousing the mind, which is not like seeing a Buddha or bodhisattva. Seeing a Buddha or bodhisattva, one arouses the mind oneself, which is subsumed under conditions and is therefore immovable; being coerced by others to arouse the mind is the power of others, and is therefore subsumed under what is movable. Furthermore, the power of preparation is subsumed under what is not firm and not immovable, whereas the second cause among the causes—the embrace of good spiritual friends—is subsumed under what is firm and immovable; what is the meaning of this? The commentary explains: It is not so. The embrace of good spiritual friends is an encounter with the superior condition of seeing a bodhisattva's instruction and practice; in the power of preparation, although one encounters friends, they are merely worldly virtuous individuals, not like bodhisattvas, so there is a difference. Another interpretation: This is judged as firm, immovable, and so on according to just one perspective. In truth, among conditions and causes there are those that are movable and not firm, and within the power of others and preparation there are those that are immovable; this treatise is made based merely on one distinctive perspective.