[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論了義燈](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832) › 4.4 # 成唯識論了義燈 4.4 成唯識論了義燈 4.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.4) 《論》：破執中，持心令住者。諸說但破大乘異計。西明初解，亦破小乘。《要集》亦非本疏所說。《集論》但云：持心為業。《雜集》釋云：數數引心，是引名持，非住名持。既云：數數引心，與此論同，故不應破。今謂不爾，《雜集》云：即於此境數數引心，是故心得定者，名得作意。本疏意者，但以論言，即於此境，數數引心。既云：此境即是一境，數數引心，故於一境，數數引心，明即是住。不爾，何故復云：是故心得定者，名得作意？故《雜集》意明此作意，持心令住，方始得定。《集論》據增，《雜集》謂為盡理，故今論破，若但破小乘，何部所計判定為勝？ > Regarding the treatise's "holding the mind and causing it to abide" among the refutations of attachments: Various explanations hold that this only refutes deviant views within the Mahāyāna. Ximing's initial interpretation also refutes the Hīnayāna. The Yaoji also disagrees with what the primary commentary stated: "The Abhidharmasamuccaya only says: 'Holding the mind is its activity.' The Miśrakābhidharma-samuccaya explains: 'Repeatedly directing the mind—it is directing that is called holding, not abiding that is called holding.' Since it says 'repeatedly directing the mind,' it agrees with this treatise, so it should not be refuted." We now hold that this is not so. The Miśrakābhidharma-samuccaya says: "Precisely toward this object, repeatedly directing the mind; therefore, one whose mind attains concentration is called one who has attained attention." The intent of the primary commentary is simply that because the treatise says, "precely toward this object, repeatedly directing the mind"—since it says "this object," that is a single object, repeatedly directing the mind toward a single object clearly means abiding. If not, why would it further say: "Therefore, one whose mind attains concentration is called one who has attained attention"? Thus the intent of the Miśrakābhidharma-samuccaya clarifies that this attention holds the mind and causes it to abide, and only then is concentration attained. The Abhidharmasamuccaya is based on predominance, while the Miśrakābhidharma-samuccaya considers it an exhaustive principle, which is why the present treatise refutes it. If it merely refutes the Hīnayāna, which school's view it determines to be superior? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.3) - [Next: 4.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.5) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.4.4) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [大乘阿毘達磨雜集論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.abhidharmasamuccaya!bhasya*zh-xuanzang.1.35) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.4) · Pramāṇa