俱舍論疏 10.22

10.22

論「如何不許至何理相違」，經部救也。經言「無明染慧非定相應諸染污慧間雜善慧令不清淨名之為染」，何理相違？如貪染心令不能解脫，豈必現起與心相應方說能染？貪既不定，故知無明亦非相應間雜善慧故名染慧也。

The treatise says: "Why not accept ... what principle does this contradict?" This is the Sautrāntika defense. The sūtra states: "Ignorance taints discernment; it is not necessarily associated. Various defiled discernments intermingle with wholesome discernment to render it impure, which is named 'tainting.'" What principle does this contradict? Just as attachment taints the mind and prevents it from being liberated, must it necessarily arise actively and be associated with the mind to be spoken of as able to taint? Since attachment is not fixed in that way, we know that ignorance is also not associated; intermingling with wholesome discernment is why it is called tainting discernment.