瑜伽師地論略纂 6.17

6.17

上十一段，別引經釋。下一復次，以四正法攝持聖教，有三：一、標；二、列；三、釋。　「遠離」者，入定處所。　「修習」者，所修定慧。　「修果」者，謂所得解脫，所離二障，有無為果。　「云何已習奢摩他」下，釋此第三。　「無乖爭」者，行善順教，資善順師，故善契理、宗、教，無違返，名無乖爭。「若義若句若文」，不說名者，舉初、後以貫中故。「第一句者，所謂前句乃至即以此句而問第二」等者，此略明於句平等潤洽。　前句者，第一句也。如尊者阿難於五百苾芻中，以此初句問一比丘，復以初句問第二比丘，乃至五百，彼皆答言如是如是，乃名師弟義句無乖，平等潤洽，互相隨順，句義同故。師弟同，教教同，教義同，義義同，行教同，皆准知也。「設於初一，依蘊而問乃至不得名互相隨順」，此返顯也。設於初一，巧上依蘊而問，恐有第二同類行者而不解前所問義，故以餘問。依問既殊句義，便別云何得名平等潤洽？初二行者果證既同，有知不知，句義問別，師弟相返教義不同，故非平等潤洽隨順。以佛弟子證見同故，教義師弟互不相乖。外道見殊，遞相乖返。　非三摩呬多地境用之中，上釋等引位，下釋非等引位。《釋論》云：翻前易了，體即欲界全、上二地中一切散法。然觀此論文意，十二不定中，第七、第九、第十三種不定地是上界六、七作意，第八是上界染法。此地不唯翻前地是，亦通上二界一切法。　文分為二：初問起標、後隨別釋。此十二種，〈決擇〉六十三廣說差別建立所由，謂依初不定地，於安住心，應正取相，謂青瘀相等；此說五識性不定故，於境馳流，貪等生起，為止息故，觀青瘀等而安住心。即以此義，西方二說：一云五識唯是有漏，性不定故，性散亂故，說十五界唯有漏故。成所作智，或第六識，或第七識。二云依諸二乘、異生者說十五界有漏，自性不定，非依餘位。於中有說成所作智，菩薩修道即現在前，有說佛地方得初起。如《唯識》第十、《佛地》第四等釋。　「或有闕輕安，名非定地，謂欲界繫心、心所」等，六十三云：依止此故，為得作意，應勤修習。此言意說，為得上界作意，應勤修習欲界善心；或厭闕輕安欲界散地，為得上界輕安地作意，應勤修習。《唯識》兩說。有義：欲界無輕安，以此文為證，言善十一通一切地者，通有尋伺地等三地俱有故；有義：欲界亦有輕安，彼定加行亦得定地，彼亦微有調暢義故，除定加行，餘欲界心皆闕輕安名不定地，非一切無。說善十一通一切地，即九地故。餘十不定地，如六十三釋。

The above eleven sections cite and explain individual sūtras. Below, a further section upholds the noble teaching through four proper dharmas, with three parts: 1. marking; 2. enumerating; 3. explaining. 'Seclusion' refers to the place for entering samādhi. 'Cultivation' refers to the cultivated calming and insight (śamatha and vipaśyanā). 'Fruit of cultivation' refers to the obtained liberation, the two abandoned hindrances, and conditioned and unconditioned fruits. Below 'how is it that having cultivated śamatha,' this third point is explained. 'Without dispute' means that one's practice is wholesome and conforms to the teaching, and one's provisions are wholesome and conform to the teacher, so that one well accords with principle, doctrine, and teaching without contradiction; this is called 'without dispute.' In 'whether in meaning, phrased clause, or syllable,' 'name' (nāma) is not mentioned because citing the first and the last encompasses what is in between. In 'the first phrased clause refers to the preceding clause, up to asking the second with this very same clause,' this briefly clarifies that the clauses are equally harmonious and imbued. 'Preceding clause' means the first clause. Just as the Venerable Ānanda, among five hundred bhikṣus, asked one monk with this initial clause, and further asked a second monk with the initial clause, up to all five hundred, and they all answered saying 'Thus, thus'—this is called master and disciple having no discordance in meaning and phrased clause, being equally harmonious, mutually conforming, because the clauses and meanings are identical. Master and disciple are identical, teaching and teaching are identical, teaching and meaning are identical, meaning and meaning are identical, practice and teaching are identical—all can be understood accordingly. In 'if for the first one, one asks based on the aggregates, up to cannot be called mutually conforming,' this shows the converse. If for the first one, one skillfully asks based on the aggregates, and fearing that a second practitioner of the same kind might not understand the meaning of the previous question, one therefore asks with something else—since the basis of the question is already different, the clause and meaning are distinct; how could this be called equally harmonious and imbued? Since the fruit and realization of the first two practitioners are identical, yet there is understanding and non-understanding, the clause-and-meaning questions differ, master and disciple contradict each other, and teaching and meaning are not identical; hence they are not equally harmonious, imbued, and conforming. Because the realization and view of the Buddha's disciples are identical, teaching and meaning, master and disciple, do not conflict with each other. Non-Buddhists have divergent views, which conflict with each other in turn. Among the objects and functions of the non-concentrated bhūmi (asamāhitā bhūmi), the above explains the state of concentrated equipoise, while the below explains the state not in concentrated equipoise. The Vibhāṣā says: It is easily understood by inverting the preceding; its essence is the entirety of the desire realm and all distracted dharmas within the upper two realms. However, observing the intention of this treatise text, among the twelve non-concentrated states, the seventh, ninth, and thirteenth kinds of non-concentrated bhūmis are the sixth and seventh manaskāras of the upper realms, and the eighth is the defiled dharmas of the upper realms. This bhūmi does not merely invert the preceding bhūmi, but also extends to all dharmas of the upper two realms. The text is divided into two: first, asking and marking; afterward, explaining individually. These twelve kinds are broadly explained in fascicle 63 of the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī regarding the reasons for establishing their distinctions. It states that depending on the first non-concentrated bhūmi, for settling the mind, one should correctly take up characteristics, namely characteristics such as lividness; this explains that because the nature of the five consciousnesses is non-concentrated, flowing out toward objects, and greed and the like arise, in order to quell them, one contemplates lividness and the like to settle the mind. On this very point, there are two theories in the West: One says that the five consciousnesses are exclusively contaminated, because their nature is non-concentrated and their nature is distracted, and because the fifteen dhātus are said to be exclusively contaminated. The wisdom of accomplishing action (kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna) is either the sixth consciousness or the seventh consciousness. The second says that the fifteen dhātus being contaminated and intrinsically non-concentrated is spoken in reliance on the two vehicles and ordinary beings, not in reliance on the other stages. Among them, some say that the wisdom of accomplishing action becomes manifest when a bodhisattva reaches the path of cultivation, while some say it first arises only at the stage of a Buddha. These are explained in fascicle 10 of Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, fascicle 4 of Buddhabhūmi-sūtra-śāstra, and so forth. Regarding 'Or, lacking pliancy (praśrabdhi), it is called an unconcentrated state, namely minds and mental factors bound to the desire realm,' and so forth, fascicle 63 states: Relying on this, in order to attain manaskāra, one should cultivate diligently. The meaning of this statement is: to attain manaskāra of the upper realms, one should diligently cultivate wholesome minds of the desire realm; or, loathing the distracted bhūmi of the desire realm that lacks pliancy, to attain manaskāra of the bhūmis with pliancy in the upper realms, one should cultivate diligently. There are two theories in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi. One opinion holds: the desire realm has no pliancy, using this text as proof; the statement that the eleven wholesome [mental factors] are common to all bhūmis means they are present together in the three bhūmis such as the bhūmi with vitarka and vicāra. Another opinion holds: the desire realm also has pliancy; the preparatory practice for that samādhi also attains the concentrated bhūmi, because it also slightly has the meaning of being harmoniously smooth; except for the preparatory practice for samādhi, other minds of the desire realm all lack pliancy and are called non-concentrated bhūmis, not that it is entirely absent. The statement that the eleven wholesome [factors] are common to all bhūmis refers precisely to the nine bhūmis. The remaining ten non-concentrated bhūmis are as explained in fascicle 63.