瑜伽師地論略纂 3.92

3.92

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.