瑜伽師地論略纂 15.118

15.118

問：論云欲界迷苦有十隨眠，集、滅、道八，除身、邊見者，此如《對法》等有十，何故相違耶？述曰：如實理者，有二門：一、煩惱迷諦門；二、諦行對治門。若迷諦門者，如《對法》一一諦各十；若諦行對治，即此論三諦各八。唯苦有空、無我行為能治，立身、邊見；邊見隨身見起故，說空行等斷。又有能治空、無我故，有身見為所治；有無常行故，邊見為所治。餘諦無故，略而不論。此約別緣。約相見道見道已前等語。若如實者，諸煩惱皆空、無我行斷，隨起迷處說，故言見所斷，其實不別緣諦理斷惑。　問曰：如《雜集》諸諦並有身、邊見者，如何相類？答曰：此彼諦下惑為我，即名此諦下身、邊，戒取等亦爾。　若爾，總計四諦下惑為我，此何諦斷？答曰：無此。不能總緣，從別緣起故。　問曰：若爾，即苦集下身、邊不能遍緣五門也？以此理故，明緣五門者，有力增勝，迷苦義增，但見苦所斷；諸三諦下身、邊力劣，不能遍緣五門，但有別迷者故，見此所斷。　問曰：集諦下身、邊何不爾也？答曰：身、邊力微。若別迷集，即唯緣集諦名見集諦斷，故不同苦。二十句我見既迷苦生，明唯見斷，修道即無。

Question: The treatise says that in the desire realm, delusion concerning suffering has ten latent defilements, and origin, cessation, and the path have eight, excluding the views of individuality and extremes; in texts such as the *Abhidharmasamuccaya* there are ten—why is there a contradiction? Exposition: According to the actual truth, there are two approaches: first, the approach of afflictions being deluded about the truths; second, the approach of the truth-aspects functioning as antidotes. If according to the approach of delusion about the truths, as in the *Abhidharmasamuccaya*, each and every truth has ten. If according to the truth-aspects functioning as antidotes, then this treatise has eight for each of the three truths. Only suffering has the aspects of emptiness and non-self as antidotes, establishing the views of individuality and extremes; because the view of extremes arises following the view of individuality, it is said to be severed by the emptiness aspect, and so forth. Furthermore, because there are antidotes of emptiness and non-self, there is the view of selfhood as what is to be countered; because there is the aspect of impermanence, the view of extremes is what is to be countered. The other truths lack these, so they are omitted and not discussed. This is in terms of distinct object-conditions, in terms of the path of seeing of aspects, prior to the path of seeing, and so forth. If speaking according to reality, all afflictions are severed by the aspects of emptiness and non-self; they are explained according to the place where delusion arises, and are therefore said to be severed by seeing; in reality they do not take distinct truth-principles as objects to sever defilements. Question: In the *Abhidharmasamuccaya*, all truths have the views of individuality and extremes—how do they compare? Answer: Taking the defilements under that truth as a self is called the individuality and extreme views under that truth; adherence to rules, etc., are also like this. If so, taking the defilements under all four truths aggregately as a self—by which truth is this severed? Answer: There is no such thing. One cannot aggregately take them as objects, because it arises from distinct object-conditions. Question: If so, then the individuality and extreme views under suffering and origin cannot universally take the five gates as objects? By this reasoning, it is explained that those taking the five gates as objects have superior strength and increased meaning of delusion concerning suffering, so they are only severed by seeing suffering; the individuality and extreme views under the other three truths are inferior in strength and cannot universally take the five gates as objects, but are merely distinct delusions, so they are severed by seeing them. Question: Why is it not so for the individuality and extreme views under the truth of origin? Answer: The strength of individuality and extreme views is weak. If they are distinctly deluded about origin, they merely take the truth of origin as an object and are called severed by seeing the truth of origin; hence they are not like suffering. Since the twenty views of selfhood arise from delusion concerning suffering, it is clear that they are severed exclusively by seeing, and are not in the path of cultivation.