瑜伽師地論略纂 11.91

11.91

論解安住攝善法戒中，「菩薩由此十種相故，名住攝善法戒」以下，文次配上文。上之五度依文次配，於智度中別開為五處，五處者，謂「知善果勝利」第一，謂即證得菩提時，所有相好、一切功德等。　「了知善因」是第二，謂六度行等。　「了知善因果倒與不倒」第三，謂即作常樂我淨解，是倒因果；若作苦、無常等，是不倒因果。　「了知善法障」第四，謂了知六度之障，謂慳等六弊。　了知善果勝利，尋求善因，於因果中知倒不倒，不計為淨等，了知善障等，而能速疾離之並第五。若依遠師云：此之第三、知善因果倒與不倒為二：是七倒；二、知是非倒。四又字中分五處。「是諸菩薩能於善果」下，覆解前五處。今義不然。　是諸菩薩下，末文云「了知攝善法障，為攝善故，速能遠離」，釋前何文？若釋前第五、了知攝善法障者，前但言知障，不言遠離，今言遠離，法前第五，豈不相違？今分是諸菩薩下為第五，以遠離障與知障別也。　問曰：若取遠離障為第五，與前知善因何異？義曰：別知善因，知六度等是因，未能除障，今第五除障，故有別也。汝若以知障、除障不得為二者，知倒、非倒應不得為二。汝既不成，我義須立。知倒與善障何異？義曰：別倒謂四倒，障謂六弊，故有別也。　問曰：何故前問三聚戒文，亦問曰住律儀戒、欲隨律儀戒等，前結諸律儀戒即雙牒二法，謂住律儀戒、善護律儀戒；今解攝善法戒及下饒益有情戒，不結第二門，但結住攝善法戒等，有何意也？義曰：准若結文，以前例後，律儀戒中雙結訖，例後二應知，故不說。更有餘釋：其解別解脫律儀中，初生起文中但有住別解脫律儀戒言，無善護別解脫戒言，下結文即雙結，兼有善護之言。其第三、解饒益有情戒中，初生起但有住之一言，無第二善修攝善法戒之言，其結文中即二種俱結。其第二、攝善法戒生起唯有住言，其結文中云名住攝善法戒，速能攝善一切種相。速能攝善一切種相之言者，意即結善修攝善法戒之言也。以理准別解脫戒，即生起及結具足有二，其攝善、饒生互有准例。攝善具二，結無生起，生起但一，饒生即有二，生起有二，結准中問同，故文不足。　又釋前門，但只二門，謂住律儀而能善護，此但一義，非有二門也。下饒生、攝善准亦一門，故下解中生起及結亦只一種，無勞煩解。

In the treatise's explanation of abiding in the discipline of collecting wholesome dharmas, from "By these ten aspects, a bodhisattva is called abiding in the discipline of collecting wholesome dharmas" downward, the text is sequentially correlated with the text above. The upper five perfections are sequentially correlated according to the text, and within the perfection of wisdom it is separately divided into five areas. As for the five areas: "knowing the superiority and benefit of wholesome fruit" is the first, referring to all the major and minor marks, all virtues, and so forth at the time of realizing bodhi. "Fully knowing wholesome causes" is the second, referring to the practice of the six perfections and so forth. "Fully knowing whether wholesome causes and fruits are inverted or non-inverted" is the third: conceiving them as permanent, blissful, self, and pure is an inverted cause and fruit; if one conceives them as suffering, impermanent, and so forth, this is non-inverted cause and fruit. "Fully knowing the hindrances to wholesome dharmas" is the fourth, referring to fully knowing the hindrances to the six perfections, which are the six flaws such as stinginess. Fully knowing the superiority and benefit of wholesome fruit, seeking wholesome causes, knowing inverted and non-inverted within cause and fruit, not considering them as pure and so forth, fully knowing wholesome hindrances, and being able to quickly abandon them together constitutes the fifth. According to Master Yuan: this third, knowing whether wholesome causes and fruits are inverted or non-inverted, is divided into two: [first] being the seven inversions; second, knowing non-inversion; thus within the four occurrences of the word "again", five areas are divided; and from "These bodhisattvas are able with respect to wholesome fruit..." downward, it reiterates and explains the previous five areas. The present interpretation is not like this. From "These bodhisattvas..." downward, the ending text states: "Fully knowing the hindrances to collecting wholesome dharmas, for the sake of collecting wholesome [dharmas], they can quickly abandon them"—what prior text does this explain? If it explains the previous fifth, fully knowing the hindrances to collecting wholesome dharmas, the previous only mentioned knowing the hindrances and did not mention abandoning them; now mentioning abandoning them, how could it not contradict the previous fifth? We now divide [the text] from "These bodhisattvas..." downward as the fifth, because abandoning hindrances is distinct from knowing hindrances. Question: If taking abandoning hindrances as the fifth, how is it different from the previous knowing wholesome causes? Answer: Distinctly knowing wholesome causes means knowing the six perfections and so forth are causes, but not yet being able to eliminate hindrances; now the fifth eliminates hindrances, so there is a distinction. If you claim that knowing hindrances and eliminating hindrances cannot be made into two, then knowing inversion and non-inversion should also not be able to be made into two. Since yours is not established, my position must be maintained. What is the difference between knowing inversion and wholesome hindrances? Answer: They are distinct: inversion refers to the four inversions, and hindrances refers to the six flaws; therefore there is a difference. Question: Why did the previous question regarding the text of the three aggregates of precepts also ask about "abiding in the discipline of moral restraint, desiring to follow the discipline of moral restraint..." and so forth, and the previous conclusion of the discipline of moral restraint jointly cited both dharmas, namely abiding in the discipline of moral restraint and well-guarding the discipline of moral restraint; yet now in explaining the discipline of collecting wholesome dharmas and the discipline of benefiting sentient beings below, it does not conclude the second item, but only concludes abiding in the discipline of collecting wholesome dharmas and so forth—what is the intention? Answer: Following the concluding text, using the earlier to illustrate the later: once both were jointly concluded in the discipline of moral restraint, the latter two should be known by analogy, hence it is not stated. There is another explanation: in explaining the prātimokṣa discipline of moral restraint, in the initial introductory text there is only the phrase "abiding in the prātimokṣa discipline of moral restraint", and no phrase "well-guarding the prātimokṣa discipline of moral restraint"; the concluding text below then jointly concludes both, also containing the words "well-guarding". In the third, explaining the discipline of benefiting sentient beings, the initial introduction has only the single word "abiding", without the second phrase "well-cultivating the discipline of collecting wholesome dharmas"; in its concluding text, both types are concluded together. In the second, the introduction to the discipline of collecting wholesome dharmas only has the word "abiding", and in its concluding text it states "named abiding in the discipline of collecting wholesome dharmas, capable of quickly collecting all kinds of wholesome aspects." The statement "capable of quickly collecting all kinds of wholesome aspects" intentionally concludes the statement "well-cultivating the discipline of collecting wholesome dharmas". By reason of the prātimokṣa discipline of moral restraint, the introduction and the conclusion are both complete with two; collecting wholesome [dharmas] and benefiting sentient beings serve as analogies for each other: collecting wholesome [dharmas] has two in the conclusion and only one in the introduction, while benefiting sentient beings has two in the introduction, and its conclusion matches the middle question, so the text is not incomplete. Another explanation is that the previous section has only two items, namely abiding in moral restraint and being able to well-guard it; this is just one single meaning, not two separate items. Below, benefiting sentient beings and collecting wholesome [dharmas] are similarly just one item; therefore, in the explanations below, the introduction and conclusion are also just one kind, and there is no need for laborious explanation.