瑜伽師地論略纂 15.128

15.128

論云「第一、觀所斷；第二、止所斷」等者，上順經部說清淨色及心、心法中有種子，故第一色中有諸種者，是觀所斷；第二心、心法中有種子者，是止所斷。此色心中攝種子，如五十一卷說。　問曰：此中何故色中種，觀斷非止；心中種，止斷非觀？答曰：清淨色中，煩惱心之相分分差別難知，微細故，言觀斷；心中種子即當心之見分，一類易知故，言止斷。其實二俱觀斷，止俱隨斷，但以隨煩惱難易知故，各別說斷。又解：色有眾多差別，觀多色空，方可斷惑，約用增故，色言觀斷。修定之者多緣於心，令心住境故，定名一心定，約用增故，能觀心、心法空，故言觀斷心中之惑。其實俱時並名能斷。「若言觀品所攝諸智見斷隨眠隨逐生者」等者，此破經部師義。彼無梨耶，故心法攝種。起觀品智時，其煩惱種猶逐觀生，方可觀能斷之；若不逐觀者，即種子逐有漏心在過去。過去無體，種逐何生？故言逐觀在現在故。今破之言：若逐生者，應不得名對治體性，解、惑相違故，能治、所治性相別故。應立量云：見道等觀品應非對治體（宗），煩惱種子隨逐生故（因），如有漏心、心法（喻）。由此違量道理，故薄伽梵說隨信行等，以此為喻，即從俱脫以前說數故。此隨信、法為第六，鈍利根別，各隨信、法行位等故，但是見故，名第六。此中第六種無相，如《對法》第九不同，如彼抄廣解。

The treatise says: "First, those abandoned through insight; second, those abandoned through calm," and so forth. This complies with the Sautrāntika view that there are seeds within pure form as well as within the mind and mental factors. Therefore, first, the seeds within form are abandoned through insight; second, the seeds within the mind and mental factors are abandoned through calm. The containment of seeds within form and mind is as explained in Fascicle Fifty-One. Question: Why are seeds within form abandoned through insight and not calm, while seeds within the mind are abandoned through calm and not insight? Answer: Within pure form, the diverse distinctions of the objective aspect (nimittabhāga) of the defiled mind are difficult to discern and are subtle; hence they are said to be abandoned through insight. Seeds within the mind correspond to the seeing aspect (darśanabhāga) of the mind; being uniform and easy to discern, they are said to be abandoned through calm. In fact, both are abandoned through insight, and both are abandoned along with calm; it is merely on account of the secondary afflictions being difficult or easy to discern that their abandonment is explained separately. Another interpretation: Form has manifold differences; only by contemplating the emptiness of multiple forms can afflictions be abandoned, so based on the predominance of its function, form is said to be abandoned through insight. Those cultivating concentration mostly take mind as their object to make the mind abide upon the object; hence concentration is called one-pointed concentration. Based on the predominance of its function, it can contemplate the emptiness of mind and mental factors; thus it is said that afflictions within the mind are abandoned through insight. In truth, both are simultaneously capable of abandoning them. "If it is said that all cognitions subsumed under the category of insight arise accompanied by the anuśayas to be abandoned through seeing," and so forth: this refutes the doctrine of the Sautrāntika masters. They lack the ālayavijñāna, and hence mental factors contain seeds. When the cognition of the category of insight arises, the seeds of afflictions would still arise following along with insight before insight could abandon them; if they did not follow along with insight, the seeds would follow along with the defiled mind in the past. Since the past lacks real existence, what would the seeds follow along with in arising? Hence they say that they follow along with insight in the present. Now this is refuted by saying: If they arose following along with it, they should not be called the essential nature of the antidote, because realization and affliction are mutually contradictory, and the natures and characteristics of the antidote and what is remedied are distinct. One should formulate the syllogism: The category of insight such as the path of seeing should not be the essence of an antidote (thesis), because seeds of affliction arise following along with it (reason), just like a defiled mind and mental factors (example). By reason of this contradictory syllogistic logic, the Bhagavān spoke of the follower by faith and so on, taking this as an example, calculating the number from before the double liberation. This [pair of] follower by faith and [follower by] Dharma is the sixth; due to the distinction between dull and sharp faculties, each follows the stage of practicing by faith or Dharma, etc. Because it is exclusively seeing, it is called the sixth. The sixth kind of signlessness here is not the same as in Fascicle Nine of the Abhidharma-samuccaya, as extensively explained in that commentary.