瑜伽師地論略纂 8.129

8.129

若次前解定學中，初一翻唯約四無漏靜慮說定學。何以得知者？次下文云「然依靜慮能最初入聖諦現觀，正性離生，非全遠離一切靜慮能成此事」等者，此則覆解前一翻釋，唯依四禪說名定學。　第二釋「又諸無色及餘所有等持、等至亦名定學」，即無色定及色界所有餘有漏等持、等至等皆名定學，此乃通漏無漏。何故慧學唯無漏，定學通漏也？義曰：其定亦唯無漏。前言又無色定者，取無漏定；言及餘所有等持、等至亦名定學者，此即四靜慮能引發通之無漏定也。　定學現唯無漏，慧學義齊亦無妨。又定通漏無漏，慧亦爾。此據無漏勝者語，不同定具作法，無妨。准下文若有戒、定，未必有慧，有慧必有戒、定，故前解為勝。以取無漏慧為學故，又何妨慧學唯無漏，戒、定通有漏？寬狹不齊，無妨。

In the explanation of the training in concentration immediately preceding, the first interpretation speaks of the training in concentration solely in terms of the four uncontaminated dhyānas. How is this known? In the text directly below, it says: "However, depending on dhyāna, one can initially enter the direct realization of the noble truths and the rightness that transcends birth; one cannot accomplish this matter by completely leaving aside all dhyānas," and so forth. This re-explains the first interpretation, stating that it is called the training in concentration solely depending on the four dhyānas. The second interpretation: "Furthermore, all the formless [attainments] and all other remaining samādhis and samāpattis are also called the training in concentration"—that is, the formless concentrations and all remaining contaminated samādhis and samāpattis of the form realm are all called the training in concentration; this then extends to both contaminated and uncontaminated. Why is the training in wisdom solely uncontaminated, while the training in concentration extends to the contaminated? The meaning is: its concentration is also solely uncontaminated. What was previously termed "furthermore, the formless concentrations" takes the uncontaminated concentrations; saying "and all other remaining samādhis and samāpattis are also called the training in concentration" refers to the uncontaminated concentrations of the four dhyānas capable of generating supernormal knowledges. Since the training in concentration is currently solely uncontaminated, the meaning of the training in wisdom being equal to it poses no contradiction. Furthermore, concentration extends to contaminated and uncontaminated, and wisdom is likewise. This is spoken with reference to what is superior as uncontaminated, and does not contradict the fact that concentration possesses the full methods of practice. In accordance with the text below, if one has morality and concentration, one does not necessarily have wisdom; but if one has wisdom, one necessarily has morality and concentration; therefore, the previous explanation is superior. Because taking uncontaminated wisdom is the training, what would prevent the training in wisdom from being solely uncontaminated, while morality and concentration extend to the contaminated? Their breadth and narrowness being unequal poses no contradiction.