成唯識論演祕 1.136

1.136

詳曰：前三難據體若漪樂，散心、散地豈無此樂？衣等為體，與彼因樂而何別耶？若喜、樂者，豈苦息時總生喜、樂無捨受耶？捨受若有，何非其體而不取耶？又《瑜伽》云：此中受樂，樂自性故，說名為樂。苦對治樂，息眾苦故說名為樂，非自性故。若體喜樂，云何論言非自性耶？第四義通。

I examine [these] as follows: the first three are difficult to establish. If its essence is delight, could the scattered mind and scattered stages be devoid of this pleasure? If clothing and the like are its essence, how does it differ from the pleasure of causes? If it is pleasant and joy feelings, is it that whenever suffering ceases, pleasant and joy feelings are invariably produced and there is never neutral feeling? If neutral feeling exists, why is it not its essence and why is it not accepted? Furthermore, the *Yogācārabhūmi* states: 'Herein, the pleasure of feeling is called pleasure because its intrinsic nature is pleasure. The pleasure of counteracting suffering is called pleasure because it puts an end to various sufferings, not because its intrinsic nature [is pleasure].' If its essence is pleasant feeling, why does the treatise say that its intrinsic nature is not [pleasure]? The fourth meaning is logically coherent.