瑜伽師地論略纂 13.68

13.68

論云「彼諸種子若未奢摩他所伏乃至名為成就」等者，此據功能不成就，非體，如前述故。《對法》云：若得無漏對治道，方名種子成就、得不成就。若生色界等，欲界亦名成就，亦名不成就。其不成就性是何性？如何今有別非得？非得據一切非得盡，然今不立，有何意也？一為遮繁，論亦應立非同分及不流轉等，故略不論。又即得中攝，如不成就起俱必有得得，無此非得即所得，所以不說。不說小得者，大乘無過，重累假故。四相亦爾。餘如《對法》第二抄。然非擇滅得，如彼簡擇，大乘亦通漏無漏，唯是無記及善性。善性者，佛身中亦緣得。無記者，非身中屬所依非擇得。今大乘有種子，不可得所依上立非擇得，以種子功能闕緣，不生後果，即名非擇。何故此得於所依立？若如來身無種子，故屬所依及種子。種子無漏，不能生有漏果故，亦是無漏擇滅之得，唯是無漏非擇之得，通漏無漏、善及無記。善者世間道，亦是善名擇滅，擇滅得即通漏無漏。法前、法後、法俱，分別唯法俱。自在成就中，一分無記者，《對法》云：謂工巧處、變化心等。等中，得取威儀，如佛威儀，極善習者加行生故。餘如上。前種子成就中云諸無記法者，即無執生及威儀不加行生者，是故工巧處亦有俱生者無妨。

Regarding the treatise's statement, "If those seeds are not yet suppressed by śamatha... up to being termed 'possession' (prāpti)," and so forth: this is based on the non-possession of functional capability, not the substance itself, as explained previously. The Abhidharma[-samuccaya] states: "Only when one attains the untainted path of counteraction is it termed 'possession of seeds' and 'non-possession of prāpti'." If one is born into the form realm, etc., the desire realm is also termed both "possessed" and "not possessed." What nature is that nature of non-possession (aprāpti)? Why is there now a distinct non-possession? Non-possession is established in terms of exhausting all non-attainments; yet why is it not posited now? First, to avoid prolixity, the treatise would also have to posit non-nikāyasabhāga (non-group-homogeneity), non-saṃsāra, etc.; therefore, it is omitted and not discussed. Furthermore, it is subsumed within possession: just as when non-possession arises, there must simultaneously be a secondary possession (prāpti-prāpti), if there were no such non-possession, it would simply be the acquired object; hence it is not mentioned. Not mentioning secondary possession (anuprāpti) is faultless in the Mahāyāna, because duplicated designations are nominal. The four characteristics are also like this. The rest is as in the second excerpt of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya Commentary]. However, regarding the possession of apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation without deliberation): according to its analysis, in the Mahāyāna it also encompasses both tainted and untainted, and is exclusively indeterminate (avyākṛta) and wholesome. As for the wholesome: within the body of a Buddha it is also conditionally acquired. As for the indeterminate: in non-bodies, it belongs to the basis's cessation without deliberation. Now, the Mahāyāna posits seeds; it cannot be that on the basis, cessation without deliberation is established [solely], because when the functional capacity of a seed lacks conditions and does not produce a subsequent fruit, it is then termed "without deliberation." Why is this possession established upon the basis? If the Tathāgata's body lacks seeds, it therefore belongs to the basis and to seeds. Because untainted seeds cannot produce tainted fruits, it is also an untainted possession of pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through deliberation); it is exclusively untainted, whereas the possession of cessation without deliberation encompasses tainted and untainted, wholesome and indeterminate. Wholesome refers to the mundane path, which is also called wholesome cessation through deliberation; the possession of cessation through deliberation thus encompasses tainted and untainted. In terms of prior to the dharma, subsequent to the dharma, or simultaneous with the dharma: through discrimination it is exclusively simultaneous with the dharma. Regarding the one portion that is indeterminate within the possession of mastery: the Abhidharma[-samuccaya] states that it refers to realms of technical skill, minds of magical manifestation, and so forth. Within "and so forth," one can include deportment: such as the Buddha's deportment, which is produced through effort by one who has cultivated it supremely well. The rest is as above. In the preceding possession of seeds, where it mentions "all indeterminate phenomena," it refers to those born without clinging and deportment that is not produced by effort; therefore, that realms of technical skill also include those that are innate poses no contradiction.