English
English version: ‘Loss of mindfulness’ (失念, *Muṣitasmṛtitā*) is due to the mind being distracted. Ignorance (痴, *Moha*) causes the loss of mindfulness, hence it is called ‘loss of mindfulness.’ Therefore, it takes ignorance and non-mindfulness as its self-nature. What is ‘distraction’ (散乱, *Vikṣepa*)? It is characterized by the mind wandering about among various objects of attention (所缘, *Ālambana*). It functions to obstruct right mindfulness (念, *Smṛti*) and serves as a basis for evil wisdom (慧, *Prajñā*). Because the nature of distraction is restless, it causes all co-arisen dharmas (俱生法, *Sahaja-dharma*) to wander about. ‘Excitement’ (掉举, *Auddhatya*) is easy to understand. ‘Distraction’ easily clings to objects. The difference between them can be found in the commentary on the *Hundred Dharmas Treatise*. What is ‘non-correct knowing’ (不正知, *Asamprajanya*)? It is characterized by a mistaken understanding of the object being observed. It functions to obstruct correct knowing (正知, *Samprajanya*) and leads to transgressions. Because those with non-correct knowing often commit many transgressions. ‘Knowing’ is wisdom. Because of ignorance, knowing becomes incorrect, hence it is called ‘non-correct knowing.’ Therefore, it takes ignorance and evil wisdom together as its self-nature. The words ‘with’ and ‘together’ indicate that the secondary afflictions (随烦恼, *Upakleśa*) are not limited to twenty. The *Miscellaneous Matters* and other treatises speak of greed (贪, *Lobha*) and many other secondary afflictions. The name ‘secondary affliction’ also includes afflictions (烦恼, *Klesha*), because it is a derivative of the preceding afflictions. Other defiled dharmas of the same kind as afflictions are only called secondary afflictions and are not included in the category of afflictions. The reason for only mentioning twenty secondary afflictions is that they are not fundamental afflictions, but only gross defilements. The remaining defiled dharmas, whether they are aspects or derivatives of these secondary afflictions, are all included in these secondary afflictions. According to their categories, they should be understood as they truly are. These secondary afflictions are only defiled, so they do not arise simultaneously with the eighth consciousness (阿赖耶识, *Ālaya-vijñāna*). In the seventh consciousness (末那识, *Manas-vijñāna*), there are only the eight great secondary afflictions. The sixth consciousness (意识, *Mano-vijñāna*) can accommodate all secondary afflictions. The ten minor secondary afflictions are too coarse and fierce, so they are not present in the first five consciousnesses (眼识, 耳识, 鼻识, 舌识, 身识). The medium and large secondary afflictions are interconnected, so they can be accommodated in the first five consciousnesses. The distinctions of various categories have been explained in the *Hundred Dharmas Treatise*. There are other meanings as well, but they will not be elaborated on here. The characteristics of the twenty secondary afflictions have been explained. There are four that are indeterminate. What are their characteristics? The verse says: ‘Indeterminate are regret, sleep, investigation, and analysis, each in two ways.’ Explanation: This reveals the characteristics of the indeterminate mental factors of the sixth consciousness. The verse is divided into three sections. ‘Indeterminate’ is to mention the name ‘indeterminate.’ ‘Regret, sleep, etc.’ is to mention the characteristics of the indeterminate. ‘Each in two ways’ is to show the definition of indeterminate. Regret (悔, *Kaukṛtya*), sleep (眠, *Middha*), investigation (寻, *Vitarka*), and analysis (伺, *Vicāra*) are all indeterminate with respect to good (善, *Kuśala*) and defiled (染, *Kliṣṭa*), etc. They are not like contact (触, *Sparśa*) and other mental factors, which are necessarily universally present in the mind. Nor are they like desire (欲, *Chanda*) and other mental factors, which are necessarily universally present in a certain realm (地, *Bhūmi*). Therefore, they are established as ‘indeterminate.’ ‘Regret’ is remorse (恶作, *Kaukṛtya*), and its nature is to regret evil deeds that have been done. Its function is to obstruct cessation (止, *Śamatha*). This is a case of falsely establishing the name of the cause based on the result. First, there is the performance of evil deeds, and then there is regret. Regret for things not done is also included in remorse. For example, regretting and saying, ‘I...’ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
先不作如是事业。是我恶作 眠谓睡眠。令不自在昧略为性。障观为业。谓睡眠者身不自在心极闇劣。一门转故。昧简在定。略别寤时。令显睡眠非无体用。有无心位假立此名。如余盖缠。心相应故 寻谓寻求。令心匆遽于意言境粗转为性 伺谓伺察。令心匆遽于意言境细转为性。此二俱以安不安住身心分位所依为性。并用思慧一分为体。于意言境不深推度。及深推度义类别故。若离思慧寻伺二种体类差别不可得故 二各二者显二种二。一谓悔眠。二谓寻伺。此二二种种类各别故。一二言显二二种。此二各二。谓染不染。非如善染各唯一故。或唯简染故说此言。有亦说为随烦恼故。为显不定义说二各二言。故置此言。深为有用。四皆不与第七第八俱。与第六识可容俱起。非是五识相应法故。余门分别如广论明。取要而言如百法疏。如是六位诸心所法。为离心体有别自性。为即是心分位差别。若离心体有别自性。如何圣教说唯有识。庄严论颂复云何通 许心似二现。如是似贪等。或似于信等。无别染善法 若即是心分位差别。如何圣教说心相应。他性相应非自性故。又如何说心与心所俱时而起。如日与光。瑜伽论颂复云何通 五种性不成。分位差过失。因缘无别故。与圣教相违 应说离心有别心所。以心胜故说唯识等。 现代汉语译本： ‘先不作如是事业’，指的是恶作（kukkritya，对已做之事的后悔）。 ‘眠’指的是睡眠（middha）。其特性是使人不自在，昏昧迟钝。其作用是障碍观行。所谓睡眠，是指身体不自在，心识极度昏暗迟钝，只专注于单一目标。‘昧’是为了区别于禅定状态。‘略’是为了区别于清醒状态，表明睡眠并非没有实体和作用。在无心位时，只是假立此名，如同其他的盖和缠。因为睡眠与心相应。 ‘寻’指的是寻求（vitarka）。其特性是使心匆忙地在概念性的对象上粗略地运转。 ‘伺’指的是伺察（vicara）。其特性是使心匆忙地在概念性的对象上细致地运转。这两者都以安住或不安住身心的状态作为所依。并且都以思和慧的一部分作为本体。因为对于概念性的对象，不深入推度和深入推度的意义有所区别。如果离开思和慧，寻和伺这两种的本体和类别上的差别就无法获得。 ‘二各二者显二种二’，意思是说有两种各有两个。第一种是悔和眠，第二种是寻和伺。这两种的种类各自不同。‘一二言显二二种’，这一二的说法显示了两种二。这两种各有两种，即染污和不染污。不像善和染各有唯一一种。或者仅仅是为了简别染污，所以这样说。也有将其说为随烦恼的，为了显示不确定性，所以说‘二各二’。因此设置这个说法非常有用。 这四种（悔、眠、寻、伺）都不与第七识（末那识，manas）和第八识（阿赖耶识，ālayavijñāna）同时生起，但可以与第六识（意识，manovijñāna）同时生起。因为它们不是与前五识相应的法。其他方面的分别，如《广论》中详细说明。简要来说，如《百法疏》中所说。像这样六种心所法，是离开了心体而有各自的自性，还是仅仅是心识的分位差别？如果离开了心体而有各自的自性，那么圣教典籍中说‘唯有识’又该如何解释？《庄严论》中的偈颂又该如何理解？ ‘许心似二现，如是似贪等，或似于信等，无别染善法。’ 如果说它们仅仅是心识的分位差别，那么圣教典籍中说‘心相应’又该如何解释？因为他性相应不是自性相应。又该如何解释心与心所同时生起，如同太阳与光芒？《瑜伽论》中的偈颂又该如何理解？ ‘五种性不成，分位差过失，因缘无别故，与圣教相违。’ 应该说离开了心体，有别的心所存在。因为心是殊胜的，所以说‘唯识’等等。
English
English version: 'First, not doing such actions' refers to kukkritya (remorse over what has been done). 'Middha' refers to sleep. Its characteristic is to make one uncomfortable and dull. Its function is to obstruct contemplation. Sleep refers to a state where the body is not at ease, and the mind is extremely dark and dull, focused on a single object. 'Darkness' is to distinguish it from the state of samadhi (concentration). 'Briefly' is to distinguish it from the waking state, indicating that sleep is not without substance and function. In the state of no-mind, this name is merely provisionally established, like other hindrances and entanglements, because sleep is associated with the mind. 'Vitarka' refers to seeking. Its characteristic is to make the mind hastily and coarsely move on conceptual objects. 'Vicara' refers to investigation. Its characteristic is to make the mind hastily and subtly move on conceptual objects. Both of these take the state of being settled or unsettled in body and mind as their basis. And both take a part of thought and wisdom as their substance. Because there is a difference in meaning between not deeply investigating and deeply investigating conceptual objects. If separated from thought and wisdom, the difference in substance and category between vitarka and vicara cannot be obtained. 'Two each of two show two kinds of two', meaning that there are two kinds, each with two. The first kind is remorse and sleep, and the second kind is seeking and investigation. These two kinds are different from each other. 'One two words show two two kinds', this saying of one two shows two twos. These two each have two, namely defiled and undefiled. Unlike good and defiled, each of which has only one kind. Or it is only to distinguish defiled, so it is said. Some also say that they are secondary afflictions, in order to show uncertainty, so it is said 'two each of two'. Therefore, setting this statement is very useful. These four (remorse, sleep, seeking, investigation) do not arise simultaneously with the seventh consciousness (manas) and the eighth consciousness (ālayavijñāna), but can arise simultaneously with the sixth consciousness (manovijñāna). Because they are not dharmas associated with the first five consciousnesses. Other aspects of the distinction are explained in detail in the 'Comprehensive Treatise'. Briefly speaking, as stated in the 'Commentary on the Hundred Dharmas'. Like these six mental factors, do they have their own nature separate from the mind-essence, or are they merely differentiations of the mind-consciousness? If they have their own nature separate from the mind-essence, then how should the saying 'only consciousness exists' in the sacred teachings be explained? How should the verses in the 'Treatise on Ornamentation' be understood? 'Allow the mind to appear similar to two, thus similar to greed, etc., or similar to faith, etc., without separate defiled and good dharmas.' If it is said that they are merely differentiations of the mind-consciousness, then how should the saying 'mental association' in the sacred teachings be explained? Because association with otherness is not association with self-nature. And how should the simultaneous arising of mind and mental factors be explained, like the sun and its rays? How should the verses in the 'Yoga Treatise' be understood? 'Five natures are not established, the fault of differentiation, because the causes and conditions are not different, contradicting the sacred teachings.' It should be said that there are separate mental factors that exist apart from the mind-essence. Because the mind is superior, it is said 'only consciousness', etc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
心所依心。势力主故。说似彼现。非即彼心。又识心言亦摄心所。恒相应故。唯识等言及现似彼皆无有失。此依世俗。若依胜义。心与心所非即非离。诸识相望应知亦然。是谓大乘真俗妙理。第三能变九颂七门摄为三段。前求已辨六门二义。次下第三现起分位。论生起云。已说六识心所相应。云何应知现起分位。颂曰。 依止根本识 五识随缘现 或俱或不俱 如涛波依水 意识常现起 除生无想天 及无心二定 睡眠与闷绝 释曰。颂有两节。初句总标六依本识。七句别显六识现起。根本识者阿陀那识。染净诸识生根本故。言依止者谓前六识。以根本识为共亲依。言五识者谓前五识。种类相似故总说之 随缘现言显非常起。缘谓作意根境等缘。谓五识身内依本识。外随作意五根境等众缘和合方得现前。由此或俱或不俱起。外缘合者有顿渐故。如水涛波随缘多少。此等法喻广说如经。由五转识行相粗动。所藉众缘时多不具。故起时少不起时多。第六意识虽亦粗动。而所藉缘无时不具。由违缘故有时不起。第七八识行相微细。所藉众缘一切时有。故无缘碍令总不行。又五识身不能思虑。唯外门转起藉多缘故断时多现行时少。第六意识自能思量。内外门转不藉多缘。唯除五位常能现起。故断时少 现代汉语译本：心所依附于心，因为心是势力的主导。说心所‘类似’于心显现，但并非‘就是’心本身。而且，‘识’这个词也包含了心所，因为它们总是相应存在的。所以，‘唯识’等说法以及‘显现类似彼’的说法都没有错误。这指的是世俗的层面。如果从胜义的角度来看，心和心所既非完全相同，也非完全分离。各种识之间的关系也应如此理解。这就是大乘真俗二谛的微妙道理。第三能变包含九个颂和七个方面，可以概括为三个部分。之前已经讨论了寻求和辨析六个方面和两个含义。接下来是第三部分，关于显现和生起的状态。论中说：‘已经说了六识和心所的相应关系，那么应该如何了解显现和生起的状态呢？’颂文如下： ‘依止根本识，五识随缘现，或俱或不俱，如涛波依水，意识常现起，除生无想天，及无心二定，睡眠与闷绝。’ 解释：颂文分为两节。第一句总括地说明六识都依赖于根本识。后面的七句分别显示六识的显现和生起。根本识指的是阿陀那识（Alaya-vijñāna，又称阿赖耶识，是储存一切种子识的根本识），因为染污和清净的各种识都以它为生起的根本。‘依止’的意思是说，前六识都以根本识作为共同的亲近所依。‘五识’指的是前五识（眼识、耳识、鼻识、舌识、身识），因为它们种类相似，所以总括地来说。‘随缘现’说明它们不是恒常生起的。‘缘’指的是作意、根、境等条件。也就是说，五识的生起，内在依赖于根本识，外在随顺于作意、五根、境等众多条件的和合才能显现。因此，它们或者同时生起，或者不同时生起，因为外在的条件有顿时的和渐次的。就像水中的波涛，随着因缘的多少而变化。这些比喻在经中都有详细的说明。由于五转识的行相粗糙而动摇，所依赖的众多条件常常不完备，所以生起的时候少，不生起的时候多。第六意识虽然也粗糙而动摇，但是所依赖的条件没有不完备的时候，只是因为违逆的因缘，有时才不生起。第七识和第八识的行相微细，所依赖的众多条件一切时都有，所以没有阻碍它们不运行的因缘。而且，五识不能进行思虑，只是在外门运转，生起依赖于众多条件，所以断灭的时候多，现行的时候少。第六意识能够自己进行思量，在内外门运转，不依赖于众多条件，只是除了五种情况之外，常常能够现起，所以断灭的时候少。