瑜伽師地論略纂 8.158

8.158

論云「彼由如是四三摩地增上力故，已遠諸纏，復為永害一切一切惡不善法，乃是正修習時有八斷行，為欲永害諸隨眠故，為三摩地得圓滿故，差別而轉」等者，此舉欲明八斷行所由。此八斷行，舊名八業資糧。舉欲明意中開二門：一、為斷隨眠；二、為定圓滿。準下釋二種能斷隨眠，故下文云「由二因緣，於隨眠斷分別了知，謂由現見思及由不現見捨故。由此因緣，能斷隨眠」。準此卷初解策勵中云「若緣過未事境，名緣不現見；若緣現在事境，名緣現見境」，此義即思唯現在，捨通過未事境。若爾，何故解捨中云「謂行過未現在三世隨順諸惡，心平等性」，且分思為一世，捨為二世？其實如《對法》第九卷云「對治，謂思、捨乃至已生沈、掉能遠離故」，即通斷三世。思、捨二法既名斷隨眠，餘六准知三摩地圓滿。又下文云「若今所說八種斷行，於為永斷所有隨眠，圓滿成辨三摩地時，一切總名欲三摩地」。勘此總文，即似八種俱有二功能。又攝四瑜伽，四瑜伽皆斷隨眠故。又思能發身口，生善身語業，息惡身語。身語是色，故思從色得，名現見思；捨唯在意，非同思故，名不現見捨。未必與是卷初文同。其八斷行即二十八卷四瑜伽，能斷隨眠，即欲、精進、信、方便也。《對法》雖有四種相攝，而全不同，不可會之。其此中次第，與二十八中四瑜伽不同者，此中八次第，如文前後相生；其四瑜伽中，信為初。《對法》亦同，故彼論文信為欲因。義曰：其欲、精進時，不離信，信念在初，有信佛等故，方起欲等；今以不離信故，故說信於後。此《對法》文自會。四瑜伽說生次第故，故信為初。

Regarding the treatise saying, "By the predominant power of such four samādhis, he has already distanced all entanglements; further, in order to eternally destroy each and every evil and unwholesome dharma, precisely when correctly cultivating there are eight corrective actions (prahāṇa-saṃskāra) that proceed distinctly in order to eternally destroy all latencies (anuśaya) and to bring samādhi to fulfillment..." and so forth: this is adduced to clarify the reason for the eight corrective actions. These eight corrective actions were formerly called the eight requisites of action. In adducing the intention to clarify them, two doors are opened: first, to sever latencies; second, to bring samādhi to fulfillment. Following the explanation below of the two kinds capable of severing latencies, the text below says, "Through two causes and conditions, one discriminatively understands the severance of latencies: namely, through directly observed intention (cetanā) and through not directly observed equanimity (upekṣā). Through these causes and conditions, one can sever latencies." Following what was explained at the beginning of this fascicle regarding exerting effort: "If taking as object past and future things and spheres, it is called taking as object the not directly observed; if taking as object present things and spheres, it is called taking as object directly observed spheres"—according to this meaning, intention belongs only to the present, while equanimity extends to past and future things and spheres. If so, why does the explanation of equanimity say, "namely, operating in the three periods of past, future, and present, conforming to all evils, mental impartiality"? Why tentatively divide intention into one period and equanimity into two periods? In reality, as the ninth fascicle of the Abhidharma[samuccaya-vyākhyā] says: "Counteragent refers to intention and equanimity... up to being able to distance already arisen depression and restlessness"—thus it universally severs in all three periods. Since the two dharmas of intention and equanimity are said to sever latencies, by analogy the remaining six bring samādhi to fulfillment. Again, the text below says: "If the eight kinds of corrective actions now spoken of are at the time of eternally severing all latencies and fulfilling and accomplishing samādhi, they are all collectively called the samādhi of desire." Checking this general text, it seems that all eight kinds possess both functions. Moreover, they subsume the four yogas, because the four yogas all sever latencies. Furthermore, intention can initiate bodily and vocal [actions], producing wholesome bodily and vocal karma and halting evil bodily and vocal [karma]. Body and speech are form (rūpa), hence intention is obtained through form and called 'directly observed intention'; equanimity exists solely in the mind and is not identical to intention, hence called 'not directly observed equanimity'. It is not necessarily the same as the text at the beginning of this fascicle. Its eight corrective actions are precisely the four yogas in the twenty-eighth fascicle; those that can sever latencies are desire, vigor, faith, and preliminary expedient. Although the Abhidharma[samuccaya-vyākhyā] has four kinds that subsume each other, they are completely different and cannot be reconciled. As for their order here being different from the four yogas in the twenty-eighth [fascicle], here the order of the eight arises successively as in the text; whereas among the four yogas, faith is first. The Abhidharma[samuccaya-vyākhyā] is also the same, so its treatise text states that faith is the cause of desire. The meaning is: when there is desire and vigor, they are not separate from faith; mindfulness of faith is at the beginning, for having faith in the Buddha and so on, one only then arouses desire and so forth; now, because they are not separate from faith, faith is spoken of afterwards. This is reconciled by the Abhidharma[samuccaya-vyākhyā] text itself. Because the four yogas speak of the order of arising, faith is first.