瑜伽師地論略纂 14.14

14.14

論復分別初異相心門中云有三品：「一、未趣定品」，謂欲界未求定人；「二、雖已發趣未得定品」，即求定未得人；「三者、已得定人。此復二種：一、不清淨；二、極清淨」。初謂得未來禪，未得根本；二謂得根本。以下如文，思可知。第二品中，於彼不靜安，心便掉舉，准八纏、五蓋中亦有惡作，以修止時，惛沈睡眠為障故，觀時亦同，此中略而不論。不寂靜若即以沈、掉為體，重來何為？以障捨故，寂靜者是捨。不然，更取嫉及慳以為體性，纏、蓋中如此說故。第三卷末六善巧廣分別中。上來次第分別五蘊義訖，此第二、明如是五蘊次第所由。如小論《毘婆沙》、《俱舍》有多復次，不能煩舉。此中雖有五種義，前色後識所以次第，唯後三是。第二、對治次第中，為除四倒中第三心為我倒，餘處法為我倒者，如《對法》第十抄及〈菩薩地〉記會。此據多分，分別所計為我故；若計法為我者，據俱生，一切時計為我。此二俱得，然計法為我同小乘等。前二次第釋相違次第妨。何以十二中，色緣有識，四顛倒中，先色、次受、次識、後法故？釋妨如文。

In the section differentiating the various minds of differing characteristics, the treatise further states that there are three grades: 'First, the grade of those who have not tended toward concentration,' referring to persons in the desire realm who have not sought concentration; 'Second, the grade of those who, though having set out, have not attained concentration,' namely persons seeking concentration who have not attained it; 'Third, persons who have already attained concentration. This again has two kinds: 1. not completely purified; 2. exceedingly purified.' The first refers to attaining threshold concentration (anāgamya-dhyāna) without having attained the root [dhyāna]; the second refers to having attained the root. The rest is according to the text, which can be understood upon reflection. In the second grade, when one is not calmly settled in that, the mind becomes agitated; according to the eight entanglements and five hindrances, there is also regret (kaukṛtya), because when cultivating calming (śamatha), gloom and sleepiness (styāna-middha) are obstacles; the same applies when cultivating insight (vipaśyanā), though here it is abbreviated and not discussed. If 'non-tranquillity' has agitation and sinking as its essence, why is it mentioned again? Because it obstructs equanimity (upekṣā); tranquillity is equanimity. Alternatively, one may further take envy (īrṣyā) and stinginess (mātsarya) as its essence, because they are spoken of thus among the entanglements and hindrances. At the end of the third fascicle, in the detailed analysis of the six skills: up to here, the analysis of the meanings of the five aggregates in sequence has concluded; this second part clarifies the reasons for such a sequence of the five aggregates. As in the Hīnayāna treatises, the Vibhāṣā and the Kośa, there are many alternative explanations which cannot be fully enumerated. Although there are five meanings here, among the reasons for the sequence of form first and consciousness last, only the latter three are valid. Second, in the sequence of antidotes, in order to eliminate the third error among the four inversions, which takes mind to be the self, and in other places taking dharmas to be the self, it is as harmonized in the notes to the tenth fascicle of the Abhidharma[samuccaya] and the record on the Bodhisattvabhūmi. This is based on the majority, taking what is conceptually discriminated to be the self; if one takes dharmas to be the self, this is based on innate [grasping], which grasps [them] as the self at all times. Both of these are admissible, yet taking dharmas to be the self is identical to the Hīnayāna and others. The first two sequences resolve the objection regarding contradictory sequences. Why is it that in the twelve [links], form conditions the existence of consciousness, whereas among the four inversions, form comes first, followed by feeling, then consciousness, and finally dharmas? The resolution of the objection is as in the text.