瑜伽師地論略纂 3.142

3.142

離間語中亦三。別句有七。第三句喜別離、第四望別離，此二雖喜生，未生煩惱；第五於第三，第六於第四，此二句方煩惱生。第七句「說能離間語者，謂或不聞，或他方便」者，謂說語時，他令不聞，或他雖聞，而以方便，不受其離間。此釋經中說離間語，非正釋業道。《對法論》說：此究竟者，謂所破領解。此中方便，他領解故，可是業道；他不聞者，但是業道加行故。此因通釋經亦無失。或他方便者，令他說離間方便語，他未領解，及他不聞，此二並是業道加行。因釋經文，亦非正釋業道。或有義言：但說離間言，若他不聞，及他聞已方便不受，皆是業道。此違〈決擇〉第六十說此究竟，謂所破領解，故前說善。

In divisive speech, there are also three parts. There are seven distinct phrases. The third phrase, "delighting in separation," and the fourth, "hoping for separation": although delight arises in these two, defilements have not yet arisen; in the fifth phrase regarding the third, and the sixth phrase regarding the fourth, defilements then arise. The seventh phrase, "speaking words capable of causing division, meaning either they are not heard, or another's expedient": this means that when the words are spoken, another prevents them from being heard, or although another hears them, through an expedient they do not accept the division. This explains the sutra's phrase "speaking divisive speech," not directly explaining the path of action. The Abhidharmasamuccaya states: the culmination of this means that the party to be broken apart comprehends. Here, because through the expedient the other comprehends, it can be a path of action; as for the other not hearing, it is merely the preliminary application of the path of action. Explaining the sutra generally on this basis is therefore without fault. Alternatively, "another's expedient" means causing another to speak expedient words of division; when the other has not yet comprehended, and when the other does not hear, both of these are preliminary applications of the path of action. Since this explains the sutra text, it is also not a direct explanation of the path of action. Some say: simply speaking divisive words, whether the other does not hear them or hears them and through an expedient does not accept them, is in all cases the path of action. This contradicts the explanation in the sixtieth fascicle of the Viniścaya that its culmination means the party to be broken apart comprehends; therefore, the previous explanation is correct.