成唯識論了義燈 5.177

5.177

《論》：生上起下且如謗滅。《要集》斷云：有釋為勝。中有、本有，若色、無色，皆得起謗及起諸惑。俱生身、邊二見，雖不與潤生愛俱，而前後起。於理無妨，然理難見。今謂若中有、本有，若色、無色皆得起謗者，據何等說？若增上慢得初三定，未將極沒生於上，未無生故，在中、本有俱不應謗。若得第四定謂第四果，即生第四中有起謗。《論》有誠文，不說生本有，亦不應生無色起謗。何以故？得第四定，執為第四果，必不更修無色界定。何以故？既取第四有漏定為果體，更修無色定將作何法？若作勝功德，即不應執第四定為極。若諸外道生色謗者，是色邪見，不說外道起下謗滅墮地獄故。若生無色界厭背下故，彼不緣下，如何可說謗釋涅槃？若謗彼執所得涅槃非實涅槃，乃是正見非邪見故。又復本計彼天為果，得何故謗？若言上地邪見謗下者，此亦不然。本解生上起下，不論生上起上。又設生上起上，謗下亦非無色。《論》但說言舍那菩薩、廣惠聲聞，以無色心了一切法，不說餘故，諸起多少，無文定判，隨諸取捨。

The Treatise says: Being born in the higher and giving rise to [afflictions directed toward] the lower is, for instance, like slandering cessation. The Yaoji judges: Some explain that it is superior [to hold that] in the intermediate state (antarābhava) and the prior state of existence (pūrvakālabhava), whether in the form or formless [realms], one can give rise to slander as well as to all afflictions. Although the innate view of identity and view of extremes do not coexist with the craving that moistens rebirth, they arise successively. In principle there is no obstacle, yet the principle is difficult to see. Now I say: if in the intermediate state and prior state of existence, whether in the form or formless realms, one can give rise to slander, on what basis is this said? If someone with an exaggerated conceit attains the first three dhyānas, before they near death to be born above, because they do not have a lack of rebirth, they should not slander in either the intermediate or prior state of existence. If one attains the fourth dhyāna and considers it to be the fourth fruit, then being born into the intermediate state of the fourth [dhyāna], one gives rise to slander. The Treatise contains explicit text [for this]; it does not say it arises in the prior state of existence, nor should one be born into the formless realm and give rise to slander. Why is that? Having attained the fourth dhyāna and grasping it as the fourth fruit, one definitely will not further cultivate the concentrations of the formless realm. Why? Since one has already taken the fourth contaminated dhyāna to be the substance of the fruit, what dharma would cultivating formless concentrations further produce? If it produced superior merits, then one should not have grasped the fourth dhyāna as the ultimate. If tīrthikas born in the form realm slander, that is a wrong view of the form realm; it is not said that tīrthikas give rise to slander of cessation directed toward the lower and fall into hell. If born in the formless realm, because they are disgusted with and turn their back on the lower, they do not take the lower as an object; how could one say they slander Śākyamuni's nirvāṇa? If they slander the nirvāṇa grasped by that person as not being true nirvāṇa, that is right view and not wrong view. Furthermore, originally conceiving that heaven to be the fruit, why would they slander it? If it is said that wrong views of the higher stage slander the lower, this is also incorrect. The original explanation is being born in the higher and giving rise to [afflictions directed toward] the lower, not discussing being born in the higher and giving rise to [afflictions directed toward] the higher. Moreover, even granted that one is born in the higher and gives rise to [afflictions directed toward] the higher, slandering the lower is also not of the formless realm. The Treatise only says that Vairocana Bodhisattva and śrāvakas of vast wisdom comprehend all phenomena with a formless mind, and does not speak of others. How many [afflictions] arise has no authoritative text to definitively determine; one may accept or reject as one sees fit.