成唯識論了義燈 5.194

5.194

《論》：不深推度及深推度。本《疏》初云：不深即不推度，以對法言不推度故。二云：雖不如惠有深推度，亦淺推度。會《對法》云：不推度者，不深推度。《要集》斷云：雖有二說合為初釋，違《大論》文。今謂此斷何太猛乎？以會《對法》同《瑜伽》說，從何說違？西明一云：尋伺不推度時，唯思為性，以無惠故。深推度時，以惠為性。此釋正違《瑜伽》所說不深推度言。二云：尋、伺必用二法假合為性，謂一剎那二用各別，不深推度是思用，深推度是惠用，此義不了。尋、伺不俱，如何二用一剎那分？若謂尋時有思，伺時有惠，違《論》所說。若言或起尋時，或起伺時，俱依思、惠二法用分，尋、伺何別？故知尋淺度伺深度，故此《論》言麁轉細轉。又云：二類各別。又前第四淺深推度麁細發言，雖俱依二，尋時思增名不深度，伺時惠增名深度。故《五蘊論》云：尋求意言思、惠差別，令心麁為性，伺察意言思、惠差別，令心細為性。此《論》復云：思、惠合成，而《顯揚論》云：尋或由思於法造作，或時由惠於法推求者。據增相說，思造作勝，惠推度勝。《瑜伽》第五謂不深推度所緣思為體性，據尋說。若深推度所緣惠為體性，據伺《論》皆約增語，實尋、伺二皆依思、惠。若爾何故《雜集》第二，尋、伺俱言推度不推度？答：准此《論》意釋彼《論》云：尋言推度淺推，不推者不深，伺言推度者深，不推者淺。若爾伺淺度時與尋何別？復如何此《論》云：不深及深推度類別？答：伺言不推，望尋猶深，但望自伺惠增深度，思增不深推，故亦無失，故《雜集論》尋、伺俱云：依思依惠者，於推度不推度位。如其次第，不得別以淺度配尋，深推配伺。問：若爾何故《雜集》復云：尋、伺二種行相相類，故以麁、細建立差別？答：亦不違，尋、伺。俱於意言推度之行相相類，非於淺深麁細相類。彼《論》且約他用麁細建立，此《論》約自行相。此《論》亦言：尋令心麁轉，伺令心細轉，各據一義，盡理應言尋、伺，於境淺深推度，令心於境麁細而轉，如次差別。

Regarding the treatise's statement, "non-deep investigation and deep investigation": The basic Commentary first says: "'Non-deep' means not investigating, because the Abhidharma states that it is not investigating." Second, it says: "Although it is not like discernment in having deep investigation, it is also shallow investigation. Resolving the Abhidharma: 'not investigating' means not deeply investigating." The Yaoji determines: "Although there are two theories, combining them into the first explanation contradicts the text of the Great Treatise (*Yogācārabhūmi)." Now I maintain: how can this judgment be so hasty? Since reconciling the Abhidharma makes it agree with what the Yogācāra says, on what basis can it be said to contradict it? Ximing says first: "When gross investigation (vitarka) and subtle investigation (vicāra) do not investigate, they have volition alone as their nature, because discernment is absent; when they deeply investigate, they have discernment as their nature." This explanation directly contradicts the statement "non-deep investigation" in the Yogācāra. Second, it says: "Gross investigation and subtle investigation necessarily employ the two dharmas nominally combined as their nature; that is, in a single instant the two functions are distinct: non-deep investigation is the function of volition, and deep investigation is the function of discernment." This meaning is not definitive. Since gross investigation and subtle investigation do not occur together, how could the two functions be divided in a single instant? If one claims that when gross investigation occurs there is volition, and when subtle investigation occurs there is discernment, this contradicts what the treatise says. If one says that when gross investigation arises, or when subtle investigation arises, both are differentiated by the functions of the two dharmas of volition and discernment, how would gross investigation and subtle investigation differ? Therefore, one knows that gross investigation is shallow investigation and subtle investigation is deep investigation; thus this treatise says "operating grossly and operating subtly." It also says: "The two categories are each distinct." Furthermore, the fourth fascicle above mentions shallow and deep investigation, gross and subtle utterance; although both rely on the two, when gross investigation occurs volition is predominant and it is called non-deep investigation; when subtle investigation occurs discernment is predominant and it is called deep investigation. Therefore the Pañcaskandhaka says: "Gross investigation is a differentiation of volition and discernment in mental speech, having the nature of making the mind gross; subtle investigation is a differentiation of volition and discernment in mental speech, having the nature of making the mind subtle." This treatise further says: "Composed of volition and discernment." And the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: "Gross investigation is either purposeful activity toward dharmas through volition, or seeking toward dharmas through discernment." This is said based on the predominant aspect: volition's purposeful activity is superior, and discernment's investigation is superior. Fascicle five of the Yogācāra says that non-deep investigation of an object has volition as its essential nature, which is said in terms of gross investigation; if it deeply investigates an object it has discernment as its essential nature, which is said in terms of subtle investigation. The treatises are all formulated in terms of predominant expression; in reality, both gross investigation and subtle investigation rely on volition and discernment. If so, why does the second fascicle of the Samuccaya state that both gross investigation and subtle investigation are investigating and non-investigating? Answer: Drawing upon the intent of this treatise to explain that treatise: when gross investigation is said to investigate, it is shallow investigation; when it is said not to investigate, it is not deep; when subtle investigation is said to investigate, it is deep; when it is said not to investigate, it is shallow. If so, when subtle investigation is shallow investigation, how does it differ from gross investigation? Furthermore, how does this treatise say: "non-deep and deep investigation are different in kind"? Answer: For subtle investigation to be called non-investigating, compared to gross investigation it is still deep; it is only compared to its own subtle investigation when discernment is predominant and deeply investigates, that when volition is predominant it does not deeply investigate; thus there is also no error. Therefore the Abhidharmasamuccaya says of both gross investigation and subtle investigation: "Relying on volition and relying on discernment," at the states of investigating and non-investigating. According to their sequence, one must not separately assign shallow investigation exclusively to gross investigation and deep investigation exclusively to subtle investigation. Question: If so, why does the Samuccaya further say: "Because the mental aspects of the two kinds, gross investigation and subtle investigation, are similar in kind, their distinction is established by gross and subtle"? Answer: There is also no contradiction. Both gross investigation and subtle investigation are similar in their mental aspect of investigating mental speech; they are not similar in the shallow, deep, gross, and subtle aspects. That treatise tentatively establishes them in terms of the grossness and subtlety of their other functions, whereas this treatise addresses their own mental aspects. This treatise also says: gross investigation causes the mind to operate grossly, and subtle investigation causes the mind to operate subtly. Each relies on one sense; to exhaust the principle, one should say that gross investigation and subtle investigation shallowly and deeply investigate the object, causing the mind to operate grossly and subtly regarding the object, differing respectively in this order.