成唯識論了義燈 4.4

4.4

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?