瑜伽師地論略纂 2.71

2.71

就此地中，大文分三：初問；次略答；後「云何界施設建立」下，別釋前標，於中即五。　界施設中，分三：初問、次答八門、後隨別釋。第一、數建立中，分二：初標墮界、非墮界；後「此中欲界」下，別釋三地。「墮」者，在也、落也，落在界攝故。　「非墮攝界，謂方便并薩迦耶滅，及無戲論無漏界」者，三乘通釋。　方便，謂道諦，趣滅因故。　薩迦耶滅者，謂虛偽身滅，即擇滅。　無戲論無漏界者，謂真如，性離分別，無漏體故。　唯大乘解：或方便者，一切化身，三輪方便，利眾生故。　薩迦耶滅者，謂法身，虛偽身滅顯故。　無戲論無漏界者，謂報身，無漏五蘊離分別故。　「若定」者，在上下地得彼定。　「若生」者，謂生彼地，無尋唯伺。　「隨一有情由修此故，得為大梵」者，雖共初禪同一地繫，無別品數離於尋染，要伏尋貪方得彼定。如在欲界修不淨觀，雖未品數折伏下染，要暫伏貪方能入觀。此亦如是，故名別得為大梵。劫初之時，極光淨天先來有此中間定業，故得下生初為大梵，非在二定生報下生。　「此中，由離尋伺欲道理故，說名無尋無伺地」等者，《釋論》第二師引此為證：未離尋伺染，欲界初定諸法假者，名有尋有伺地。靜慮中間諸法假者，已離尋染，未離伺染，名無尋唯伺地。二定已上諸法假者，俱已離染，並名無尋無伺地。即顯欲界教導差別。若已離欲，亦名無尋無伺地等。不爾，何故第三地中唯離二染名第三地，不說有彼下二地染名初二地？實義不然，此三但依界地建立。謂欲界初定有漏、無漏諸法聚中，尋俱可得，已離欲、未離欲皆名彼地等引。次上文為證，不由有染名為彼地，若已離染名非彼地。若作此解，便大雜亂。故此論云：若無漏界，有為定所攝初靜慮，亦名有尋伺地等。若就相應及三離欲立三地別，此等諸文皆有過失。廣如《釋論》。此言尋伺由離欲故名無尋無伺地者，然唯欲彼二定已上無尋無伺一地，有漏、無漏皆決定離尋伺染故。下地不然，不得以有染為彼地、無染便非，故唯說彼二定已上。由此不說下之二地隨離彼染即非彼地。　「教導作意」者，謂在欲界住心無相，無尋伺故。「出彼定」者，身在欲界，已離初定欲，入無尋伺定，後出定時，還起尋伺。若生二定等，亦起下尋伺。故論說言：如出彼定及生彼者。　「若無漏界，有為定所攝」者，即初靜慮根本智。此有二義：《唯識》第七，一說後得智在因位亦尋伺俱。若依此義，彼根本智依此尋伺後得智處法，緣真如境起故，名有尋有伺地；非根本智與分別現行尋伺俱，名有尋有伺地。二云後得智亦非尋伺俱。此無漏有為定者，即是二智依初定尋伺處法，緣真如覺故，名有尋有伺地；非是二智與分別尋伺現行俱，名為彼地。

Regarding this bhūmi, the main text is divided into three: first, a question; next, a brief reply; and thereafter, from 'How is dhātu established by designation?' downward, an individual explanation of what was initially indicated, which contains five parts. In establishing dhātus by designation, there are three parts: first, a question; next, an answer with eight categories; and thereafter, individual explanations accordingly. In the first part, the establishment of numbers, there are two: first, an indication of what is subsumed within dhātus and what is not subsumed within dhātus; thereafter, from 'Herein, the Kāmadhātu' downward, an individual explanation of the three bhūmis. 'Subsumed' (duo) means to be present in or fall into, because it falls within the inclusion of the dhātus. Regarding 'the dhātu not subsumed refers to the upāya together with the cessation of satkāya, and the uncontaminated dhātu free from conceptual proliferation': this is commonly explained across the three vehicles. 'Upāya' refers to the truth of the path, because it is the cause for proceeding toward cessation. 'Cessation of satkāya' refers to the cessation of the unreal body, which is pratisamkhyā-nirodha. 'The uncontaminated dhātu free from conceptual proliferation' refers to tathatā, because its nature is free from conceptual differentiation and is the uncontaminated substance. According to the Mahāyāna alone, it is explained: alternatively, 'upāya' refers to all transformation bodies, which benefit sentient beings through the upāya of the three wheels. 'Cessation of satkāya' refers to the dharmakāya, because it is manifested through the cessation of the unreal body. 'The uncontaminated dhātu free from conceptual proliferation' refers to the saṃbhogakāya, because the uncontaminated five skandhas are free from conceptual differentiation. Regarding 'either in samādhi': it means attaining that samādhi while in a lower or upper bhūmi. Regarding 'or in rebirth': it means being reborn in that bhūmi, having only vicāra without vitarka. Regarding 'any sentient being who, by cultivating this, is able to become a Mahābrahmā': although bound to the same bhūmi as the first dhyāna without a separate grade of detachment from the defilement of vitarka, one must subdue the greed associated with vitarka before attaining that samādhi. Just as when cultivating the contemplation of impurity in the Kāmadhātu, although one has not yet subdued lower defilements by graded degrees, one must temporarily subdue greed before being able to enter the contemplation. This is also like that; hence it is called separately attaining the state of Mahābrahmā. At the beginning of the kalpa, the Ābhāsvara devas previously possessed this intermediate dhyāna karma, and therefore were able to take rebirth below to become Mahābrahmā first, rather than taking rebirth below as the retributive effect of the second dhyāna. Regarding 'Herein, by reason of detachment from the desire for vitarka and vicāra, it is called the bhūmi without vitarka and without vicāra' and so forth: the second master in the Vibhāṣā cites this as proof, claiming that the designated entities of the dharmas of the Kāmadhātu and the first dhyāna which are not yet detached from the defilement of vitarka and vicāra are called the bhūmi with vitarka and vicāra; the designated entities of the dharmas of the intermediate dhyāna, which are already detached from the defilement of vitarka but not yet from vicāra, are called the bhūmi without vitarka and with only vicāra; and the designated entities of the dharmas from the second dhyāna upward, which are detached from both defilements, are all called the bhūmi without vitarka and without vicāra. This reveals the distinctions in instruction for the Kāmadhātu: if one has already detached from desire, it is also called the bhūmi without vitarka and without vicāra, and so forth. Otherwise, why would it be that in the third bhūmi one is called the third bhūmi solely by detachment from the two defilements, while one is not said to be the first two bhūmis by possessing the defilements of those lower two bhūmis? The actual meaning is not so; these three are established solely on the basis of dhātu and bhūmi. That is to say, among the aggregates of contaminated and uncontaminated dharmas of the Kāmadhātu and the first dhyāna, vitarka is obtainable along with them; both those who have detached from desire and those who have not are called the samāhita of that bhūmi. The immediately preceding text serves as proof: one is not called [belonging to] that bhūmi by virtue of possessing defilement, nor is one called not belonging to that bhūmi if one has already detached from defilement. If one adopts such an interpretation, great confusion would ensue. Therefore, this treatise states: if it is the uncontaminated dhātu, the first dhyāna subsumed by conditioned samādhi is also called the bhūmi with vitarka and vicāra, and so forth. If one establishes the distinction of the three bhūmis based on association and on detachment from the three desires, all such passages would entail fallacies. This is fully detailed in the Vibhāṣā. When it is said here that it is called the bhūmi without vitarka and without vicāra because of detachment from desire for vitarka and vicāra, it applies exclusively to that single bhūmi of the second dhyāna and above without vitarka and without vicāra, because both contaminated and uncontaminated are determinately detached from the defilement of vitarka and vicāra. The lower bhūmis are not so; one cannot make it that bhūmi by possessing defilement, or make it not that bhūmi by lacking defilement; hence it speaks solely of the second dhyāna and above. For this reason, it does not say that for the lower two bhūmis, whenever one detaches from that defilement, it is immediately not that bhūmi. Regarding 'instructive manaskāra': it refers to keeping the mind in the signless while in the Kāmadhātu, because it lacks vitarka and vicāra. Regarding 'emerging from that samādhi': when one's body is in the Kāmadhātu, having already detached from the desires of the first dhyāna, one enters a samādhi without vitarka and vicāra, and later upon emerging from samādhi, vitarka and vicāra arise again. If one is reborn in the second dhyāna or above, the lower vitarka and vicāra also arise. Thus the treatise states: 'such as emerging from that samādhi and being reborn there.' Regarding 'if it is the uncontaminated dhātu, subsumed by conditioned samādhi': this is the fundamental cognition of the first dhyāna. Here there are two interpretations: in the seventh fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, one explanation says that the subsequently attained cognition in the causal stage is also accompanied by vitarka and vicāra. If following this interpretation, that fundamental cognition relies on the dharmas of the locus of this subsequently attained cognition with vitarka and vicāra to arise with tathatā as its object; therefore, it is called the bhūmi with vitarka and vicāra; it is not that the fundamental cognition itself is accompanied by active, conceptualizing vitarka and vicāra to be called the bhūmi with vitarka and vicāra. The second explanation states that the subsequently attained cognition is also not accompanied by vitarka and vicāra. This uncontaminated conditioned samādhi refers to both cognitions relying on the dharmas of the locus of vitarka and vicāra of the first dhyāna to realize tathatā; therefore, it is called the bhūmi with vitarka and vicāra; it is not that the two cognitions are accompanied by active, conceptualizing vitarka and vicāra to be called that bhūmi.