瑜伽師地論略纂 13.88

13.88

論云「復次，若由此因此執，所有生得心、心法滅，是名無想」者，法師云：初生有心，此心通善、無記性，任運起故，名為生得。此滅已，於阿賴耶識上建立無想異熟。雋師云：初生有報意識，此識滅故，名生得心、心法滅。太師云：其無想天受生及捨壽時，並無意識。言生得心、心法滅者，即中有末，染污心任運起故，名為生得。此心、心法滅已，復受生有，名生得心、心法滅，建立無想。然無想是別報，於第八識上有防心不起功能。是別報體即無想定思，思體感總報，於上有防心功能感別報。　問曰：第八現行心、心法如何名厭心功能，名無想別報？又定位心、心所不行上建立，何故即一思亦通感總別報耶？又無心業如何感有心第八識報？今解：不然。若定前思，為總報業，感第八總報；若厭心種子功能，是別報業，感第六意識生得心、心法滅及色蘊等別報。若前加行不厭心時，生得報異熟捨受可生；由前加行厭心故，今生得報心不生，於此種子防心不起功能建立無想。即別報業感別報法體，不離有心、無心二說，如《對法抄》引文證等。此中不言一期有心，故知設餘處言有心，此隨順理門。又離增上慢苾芻等可知。此中、生二蘊，為一業感，別業感？答：若總報，同一業；若別報，別業感。故中有有心，生有無心，何爽？亦當前思感，或思體感中有；別報思上功能厭心者，感生有。滅盡定是無漏，不感報，然有未離第四禪貪人等得。今此據斷惑者，不論伏惑者。然舊論說有十三種人得，謂具縛及八解脫道、阿羅漢、獨覺、如來。今大乘入地菩薩亦得。雖第四伏惑人得，何妨仍是具縛攝。如《對法抄》。　無想定非學無學所入，以無慧現行故。太師云：得無想報時，無慧現行。景師云：入無想定時，方便無無漏心，故名無慧現行。

The treatise says, "Furthermore, if by this cause and by this grasping, all the mind and mental factors born of [past] karma cease, this is called non-conception." The Dharma Master said: at initial rebirth there is mind; this mind can be wholesome or indeterminate, and because it arises spontaneously, it is called born of [past] karma. When this has ceased, the non-conceptual retribution is established on the ālayavijñāna. Master Jun said: at initial rebirth there is retribution mental consciousness; because this consciousness ceases, it is called the cessation of mind and mental factors born of [past] karma. Master Tai said: when taking rebirth in that Heaven of Non-conception and when relinquishing life, there is no mental consciousness at all. In saying that the mind and mental factors born of [past] karma cease, it refers to the end of the intermediate existence, where defiled mind arises spontaneously, and is therefore called born of [past] karma. When this mind and mental factors cease and rebirth existence is again received, it is called the cessation of mind and mental factors born of [past] karma, establishing non-conception. However, non-conception is a distinct retribution, possessing on the eighth consciousness the function of preventing the mind from arising. The substance of this distinct retribution is the intention of the non-conceptual concentration; the substance of intention induces the general retribution, and the function on it of preventing the mind induces the distinct retribution. Question: How can the active mind and mental factors of the eighth [consciousness] be called the function of the mind of revulsion, and be called the distinct retribution of non-conception? Furthermore, since it is established upon the non-functioning of mind and mental factors at the time of concentration, why would a single intention also induce both general and distinct retributions? And how could mindless karma induce the retribution of the conscious eighth consciousness? Now I explain: that is not so. If it is the intention prior to concentration, it serves as the karma for general retribution, inducing the general retribution of the eighth [consciousness]; if it is the function of the seed of the mind of revulsion, it is the karma for distinct retribution, inducing the cessation of the mind and mental factors born of [past] karma of the sixth mental consciousness, as well as the distinct retributions of the form aggregate and so forth. If one did not feel revulsion toward the mind during the prior preparatory application, the neutral feeling of retribution born of [past] karma could arise; because of feeling revulsion toward the mind during the prior preparatory application, the retribution mind born of [past] karma now does not arise, and non-conception is established on this seed's function of preventing the mind from arising. That is, the karma of distinct retribution induces the distinct retribution dharma substance, which does not depart from the two theories of having mind or lacking mind, as in the textual citations and proofs in the Notes on the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-vyākhyā]. Here it does not speak of having mind for an entire lifetime, so we know that even if other places speak of having mind, this conforms to the gate of reasoning. Moreover, it is easily understood [by analogy with] bhikṣus who harbor exaggerated pride and the like. Are these two aggregates, intermediate and rebirth, induced by one karma or distinct karmas? Answer: As general retribution, they are by the same karma; as distinct retribution, they are induced by distinct karmas. Therefore, the intermediate existence has mind, and rebirth existence lacks mind—how could there be any discrepancy? It may also be that the former intention induces it, or the substance of intention induces intermediate existence, while the function of revulsion toward the mind on the distinct retribution intention induces rebirth existence. The concentration of cessation is uncontaminated and does not induce retribution, yet people who have not detached from the desire of the fourth dhyāna and others can attain it. Here it is discussed in terms of those who have severed afflictions, not those who merely suppress afflictions. However, earlier treatises say that thirteen kinds of persons attain it, namely those with all fetters, those on the eight paths of liberation, arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and Tathāgatas. Now, in the Mahāyāna, bodhisattvas who have entered the bhūmis also attain it. Although persons at the fourth [dhyāna] who suppress afflictions attain it, what prevents them from still being subsumed under those with all fetters? It is as in the Notes on the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-vyākhyā]. The non-conceptual concentration is not entered by those in training or beyond training, because prajñā does not actively function. Master Tai said: when obtaining the non-conceptual retribution, prajñā does not actively function. Master Jing said: when entering the non-conceptual concentration, in the preparatory stage there is no uncontaminated mind, hence it is called having no active function of prajñā.