成唯識論了義燈 5.63

5.63

問：若許慚、愧定俱起者，何故五十三云：若有慚正現前必亦有愧，非有愧者必定有慚，是故慚法最為強勝耶？答：彼據別義，受戒者隨護他心，望他起愧，望自起慚，以於自處羞慚之時，必亦顧他而生於愧，以顧自增必羞他故。若於他處，羞愧之時未必生慚，以顧自劣故。或隨增說，諸違准此。問：信云：令他淨，捨亦令他靜，此慚等能令他崇，令他拒等不？答《論》既無文，設復不能，亦有何過？以諸心所功用別故，且如作意能警於他，非令所警亦能警故。設復令他亦崇拒等，亦有何過？以心、心所用有通局，法性爾故。然非必皆例。

Question: If it is admitted that shame and remorse necessarily arise together, why does [fascicle] fifty-three state: 'If shame is presently manifest, remorse is also necessarily present; but one who has remorse does not necessarily have shame, and therefore the factor of shame is the most predominant'? Answer: That is stated based on a different meaning. When a recipient of precepts complies with protecting the minds of others, remorse arises with respect to others, and shame arises with respect to oneself. When one feels shame with respect to oneself, one also necessarily looks toward others and generates remorse, because when one's regard for oneself increases, one will certainly feel shame before others. If, with respect to others, one feels remorse, shame does not necessarily arise, because regard for oneself is weak. Alternatively, it is spoken in terms of what is predominant; all such conflicts should be understood by this principle. Question: It is said of faith that it causes others to be purified, and of equanimity that it causes others to be quieted; can these [factors of] shame and remorse cause others to revere, cause others to reject, and so forth? Answer: Since there is no text in the treatise, even if they cannot, what fault is there? Because the functions of the various mental factors are distinct. For instance, attention can alert other [mental factors], but it does not cause the alerted ones to also be able to alert. Even if they also cause others to revere and reject, what fault is there? Because the functions of mind and mental factors have universal and particular scopes, as is the nature of dharmas. However, they are not necessarily all analogous.