瑜伽師地論略纂 15.124

15.124

論云「見與修所斷，當知略有五種乃至此中，緣苦、集事境等」者，苦、集有漏煩惱所生惑緣之，相似本質煩惱心故，名初分別。此所變境名邪分別事境，即一切苦、集諦下煩惱，除他界緣並然。道、滅二諦下十煩惱，除疑一法，并戒取，下自別說，故不言除。餘八是緣見境。疑一法唯緣諦生，不緣見起。邪見及無明，有緣無漏者，亦有緣有漏者。前云五種涅槃論見是迷滅邪見，別計有道，是迷道諦邪見，即有漏緣，非無漏緣。邪見、無明以緣見生故，疑之一法，無緣見生。今但總言緣見為境。戒禁取多緣戒禁生，是緣戒禁境，唯此見取不緣見生。戒取不緣戒生者，故知此文等多分為論，故知前云十煩惱展轉相緣。其無漏緣及苦、集下不同分界，是緣名境，但聞彼名而起煩惱故。若見彼體，即不能起惑，彼非惑境故。與彼不相似，不如苦、集緣惑故，名緣名境。　問曰：如下二界有名可緣，無色界中如何爾也？答曰：下二界緣名，後生無色，前方便緣名故，彼所起無漏緣等亦名緣名。串習力故爾，未必正緣名起。又名者，四蘊名。若但相分，是已之四蘊，緣此四蘊起惑，非似本質，故言緣名故。

The treatise says: "It should be known that those abandoned by seeing and by cultivation are briefly of five kinds... up to: among these, taking the concrete objects of suffering and origination as cognitive objects, and so forth." Afflictions produced by the tainted afflictions of suffering and origination take them as cognitive objects; because they resemble the afflictive mind of the original archetype (mūla-nimitta), this is named the primary discrimination. The cognitive object transformed by this is called the concrete object of false discrimination—that is, all afflictions under the truths of suffering and origination, except those taking other realms as cognitive objects, are all like this. Among the ten afflictions under the two truths of the path and cessation, with the exception of the single dharma of doubt and the grasp of precepts and vows—which are explained separately below and therefore not mentioned as excluded—the remaining eight are cognitive objects that take views as their object. The single dharma of doubt arises solely by taking the truths as its cognitive object, not by taking views as its object. Wrong view and ignorance have those that take the untainted as their cognitive object, and also have those that take the tainted as their cognitive object. As stated earlier, the views of the five kinds of nirvāṇa theories are wrong views that err concerning cessation, and separately grasping that there is a path is a wrong view that errs concerning the truth of the path; these take the tainted as their cognitive object, not the untainted. Because wrong view and ignorance arise by taking views as cognitive objects, the single dharma of doubt never arises by taking views as a cognitive object. Here it is merely spoken of generally as taking views as its cognitive object. The grasp of precepts and vows mostly arises by taking precepts and vows as cognitive objects, which is taking precepts and vows as cognitive objects; only this grasp of views does not arise by taking views as a cognitive object. That the grasp of precepts does not arise taking precepts as a cognitive object shows that texts such as this are largely formulated in terms of the majority; hence we know that earlier it was said that the ten afflictions take one another as cognitive objects. Those that take the untainted as cognitive objects and those that take disparate realms under suffering and origination as cognitive objects are cognitive objects that take names as their objects, because they give rise to afflictions merely upon hearing their names. If one were to see their actual substance, one would not be able to produce defilement, because they are not cognitive objects of defilement. Because they are not similar to those, unlike suffering and origination taking defilements as cognitive objects, they are called cognitive objects that take names as their objects. Question: In the lower two realms there are names that can be taken as cognitive objects; how can this be so in the formless realm? Answer: Taking names as cognitive objects in the lower two realms, one subsequently is born into the formless realm; because in the prior preparatory stage one took names as cognitive objects, the taking of the untainted as cognitive objects and so forth that arises there is also called taking names as cognitive objects. This is so due to the force of repeated habituation; it does not necessarily arise by directly taking names as cognitive objects. Furthermore, "name" refers to the names of the four aggregates. If it is merely a nimittabhāga, it is one's own four aggregates; giving rise to defilement by taking these four aggregates as cognitive objects does not resemble the original archetype, which is why it is said to take names as cognitive objects.