瑜伽師地論略纂 3.92

3.92

空見論中，文分為六：一、標外道計；二、微；三、敘；四、問內道計；五、敘；六、破。　敘外執中有六：一、無施與、愛養、祠祀；二、無妙行、惡行及果異熟；三、無此世間，無彼世間；四、無母無父；五、無化生有情；六、無世間真阿羅漢。　「施與、愛養、祠祀」者，如次悲田、恩田、敬田，三種差別。或初汎行慧，次現前敬恩田，後不現前敬恩田差別。若有其因，可有其果，因既無故，果亦定無。　「諸離欲者生下地」者，若已離欲，不應下生；今既下生，明知無從彼世來生此世。　「無化生有情中，或生無想，或生無色」等者，此少分邪見，不見當來此三生處，撥化生無，不撥一切，見下地故。如無世間，亦無少分，不撥一切。觀此文意，無想勝生一期無心，彼麁心不見，便謂為無。後第八卷等，說中有為化生有情，定散二心觀之有異。此定心觀，不撥中有；彼散心觀，故撥中有。五十八說：無施等三，名謗因。無妙惡行，名謗因。無二業果及異熟，名謗果。無父無母，無化生有情，無真阿羅漢，名壞實事。五十五說：無施與乃至無惡行，名謗因。無妙行、惡行業果異熟，名謗果。無此世間乃至無化生有情，名謗作用。無真阿羅漢，名謗實事。彼皆自釋所由，與《對法》第一名謗因同。此中不束因果等，但別散敘，與彼不違。彼二相違，如《對法疏》釋。

Regarding the treatise on the view of emptiness, the text is divided into six parts: first, indicating the non-Buddhist theories; second, probing; third, recounting; fourth, questioning the Buddhist theories; fifth, recounting; sixth, refuting. In recounting the external graspers, there are six: first, there is no giving, nurturing, or sacrifice; second, there are no good deeds, bad deeds, or fruitional maturation; third, there is no this world and no other world; fourth, there is neither mother nor father; fifth, there are no spontaneously born sentient beings; sixth, there are no true arhats in the world. Regarding “giving, nurturing, and sacrifice,” these are respectively the three distinctions of the field of compassion, field of gratitude, and field of reverence. Or the first is general practice of generosity, the next is the present field of reverence and gratitude, and the last is the non-present field of reverence and gratitude. If there were causes, there could be fruits; since the causes do not exist, the fruits are also definitely non-existent. Regarding “Those who have detached from desire are born in lower realms”: if one has already detached from desire, one should not be born below; now since they are born below, one clearly knows that none come from that world to be born in this world. Regarding “Among 'there are no spontaneously born sentient beings', whether born in non-conception or born in formlessness,” and so forth: this is a partial wrong view; not seeing these three future birthplaces, they deny that spontaneous birth exists, not denying all, because they see the lower realms. Just as with “there is no world,” it is also a partial [denial], not denying all. Examining the intent of this text, in the sublime birth of non-conception, one period is without mind; their coarse minds do not see it, and so they call it non-existent. Later, in fascicle eight and elsewhere, it says that the intermediate existence is a spontaneously born sentient being; viewing it with concentrated or distracted mind yields a difference. This concentrated-mind view does not deny the intermediate existence; that distracted-mind view therefore denies the intermediate existence. Fascicle fifty-eight says: the three such as “no giving” are called denigrating causes. “No good or bad deeds” is called denigrating causes. “No fruits of the two karmas or maturation” is called denigrating fruits. “No father or mother, no spontaneously born sentient beings, and no true arhats” is called destroying real entities. Fascicle fifty-five says: from “no giving” up to “no bad deeds” is called denigrating causes. “No karmic fruit or maturation of good and bad deeds” is called denigrating fruits. From “no this world” up to “no spontaneously born sentient beings” is called denigrating functions. “No true arhats” is called denigrating real entities. They all explain their reasons, which is the same as calling them “denigrating causes” in the first fascicle of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-vyākhyā]. Here, without condensing causes and fruits, they are merely recounted separately and disjointedly, which does not contradict that. The discrepancy between the two is explained as in the Commentary on the Abhidharmasamuccaya.