瑜伽師地論略纂 11.100

11.100

論解饒益有情十一種戒中，若准前卷十一相，無問廣略，已如前辨。今此中但是彼十一相。初者，謂於事業同助伴；第二、於苦為助伴。此中不說第六、虎狼師子等畏。若依前卷，無問廣略，助伴合為第一；第五、明救師子等畏。有二解：一、取如舊《地持》，標十一相一、二等名；二解、如此論，略中解十一相，為十一也。會此不同者，以與樂、救苦事別，所以此間開二；前卷以同為助伴，故說合。此中以開助伴為二，故不說師子等畏。又即與生失財相似不論；彼卷約合助伴故，所以別論師子等畏。又下四十三與前略十一相同，雖開助伴為二義，亦是第一，若為二者，即十二相，非十一相。　問曰：何故前三十二略戒中不論十一相，此中以十一相屬之也？義曰：前三十二略戒中，以六波羅蜜別攝之，故不以十一相屬。今此十一相，一一相具六度，故不同前三十二略戒。三十二略戒義狹，此中義寬。

In the Treatise's explanation of the eleven kinds of precepts for benefiting sentient beings: if we follow the eleven marks in the preceding fascicle, whether extensive or brief, it has already been distinguished as above. Now here there are only those eleven marks. The first refers to sharing companionship in undertakings; the second, serving as a companion in suffering. Here, the sixth—terrors such as tigers, wolves, and lions—is not mentioned. If following the preceding fascicle, whether extensive or brief, companionship is combined as the first, and the fifth explains rescuing from terrors such as lions. There are two explanations: the first adopts the older Bodhisattvabhūmi-sūtra, labeling the names of the eleven marks as one, two, etc.; the second explanation is like this Treatise, where the brief explanation of the eleven marks constitutes the eleven. Reconciling this difference: because bestowing joy and rescuing from suffering are different matters, they are divided into two here; the preceding fascicle, because of their shared companionship, spoke of them as combined. Here, because companionship is divided into two, terrors such as lions are not mentioned. Furthermore, they are similar to causing someone to lose wealth and are not discussed; that fascicle, in terms of combining companionship, therefore separately discussed terrors such as lions. Moreover, fascicle forty-three below is identical with the earlier brief eleven marks: although companionship is divided into two meanings, it is also the first; if divided into two, there would be twelve marks, not eleven marks. Question: Why do the earlier thirty-two brief precepts not discuss the eleven marks, whereas here they are assigned to the eleven marks? The meaning is: in the earlier thirty-two brief precepts, they are separately subsumed under the six pāramitās, and so are not assigned to the eleven marks. Now these eleven marks, each and every mark fully possesses the six pāramitās, and so they differ from the earlier thirty-two brief precepts. The meaning of the thirty-two brief precepts is narrower, whereas here the meaning is broader.