瑜伽師地論略纂 14.90

14.90

論解隨惑假實中云「無慚、無愧、不信、懈怠四法是實有」者，如《對法》忿等皆是假有，何以相違者？一釋云：彼據總言，故云忿等皆假；此據實論，故此四法實也。又假有多端，或無體名假，如忿等；或有體，別從種生，要相依貪、嗔等法起名假，如此無慚等。彼論據相依而起，故在假門，此論據別有種義故。此應有難：謂無慚、愧二，一切不善心有，稍可爾；不信等亦翻善中來，如何不信、懈怠是實？豈以翻善中來是實有耶？其別境等中來，何以非實？義曰：如此其別境等法通三性，此中雖有染污、不善等隨煩惱，仍是別境等中不善性。其此善中信，隨中邪信，善中精進，及懈怠隨惑，是何者一分？故知翻善來者皆是實有。若爾，放逸如何通？義曰：放逸，根本善中尚假，何況不善中放逸？

Where the treatise explains the provisional and real among upakleśas, saying, "The four factors of shamelessness, lack of conscience, unbelief, and indolence are substantially existent": whereas in the Abhidharma-samuccaya anger and so forth are all provisionally existent, why do they conflict? One explanation says: that text speaks generally, hence it says anger and so forth are all provisional; this text speaks based on the real, hence these four factors are real. Furthermore, provisionality has many varieties: either having no substantial entity is called provisional, like anger and so forth; or having an entity, being born separately from its own seed, but necessarily arising in reliance on factors such as greed and anger is called provisional, like this shamelessness and so forth. That treatise speaks from the perspective of their arising in mutual dependence, hence placing them under the provisional door; this treatise speaks from the perspective of their having separate seeds. Here there should be an objection: shamelessness and lack of conscience exist in all unwholesome minds, which is somewhat acceptable; but unbelief, etc., are also flipped from among the wholesome, so how can unbelief and indolence be real? Could it be that being flipped from among the wholesome makes them substantially existent? Then why are those derived from the particular-object factors, etc., not real? The meaning is: these factors like the particular-object factors pervade the three natures; although there are defiled and unwholesome upakleśas here, they are still unwholesome natures within the particular-object factors, etc. As for faith among these wholesome factors, wrong faith among the upakleśas, vigor among the wholesome, and the upakleśa of indolence—of which [primary factor] are they a portion? Therefore we know that those flipped from the wholesome are all substantially existent. If so, how does one account for heedlessness? The meaning is: heedlessness is provisional even among the root wholesome factors, let alone heedlessness among the unwholesome!