瑜伽論記 1.312

1.312

何故二處不同？三藏解：從多而說，異生起愛，聖者隨眠，於中細論，須斯起愛，那含隨眠，亦可須斯，雖現行愛，由智力制，不同異生所起愛力，故總說言，已見聖迹，唯隨眠潤。測師等云：瑜伽約潤中，有說唯隨眠。雜集約潤生有說現行愛，故不相違，以在死位去道近故，唯種子潤。若在中有潤生，有時去聖道遠，故亦現行。備師云：若不還者，在初禪等愛未盡，故沒於下，天生於上處，亦起我愛。然此論文，約沒欲生上界，故說不起。上來所說唯愛潤生。

Why do the two places differ? The Tripiṭaka Master explains: It is spoken from the perspective of the majority; ordinary worldlings give rise to active craving, while noble ones [rely on] anusaya. Discussing it finely within this: srotāpannas and sakṛdāgāmins give rise to active craving, while anāgāmins rely on anusaya. Alternatively, although srotāpannas and sakṛdāgāmins have active craving, it is restrained by the power of wisdom and is not like the power of craving arisen in ordinary worldlings; thus it is generally stated that those who have seen the noble traces moisten solely through anusaya. Master Ce and others say: The Yogācārabhūmi, regarding moistening the intermediate existence, states that it is solely anusaya; the Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā, regarding moistening birth-existence, states that it is active craving; hence they do not contradict each other. Because at the position of death one is close to the Path, moistening is solely by seeds. If moistening birth-existence in the intermediate state, at times one is distant from the noble path, hence it is also active. Master Bei says: For a non-returner, craving in the first dhyāna and so on is not yet exhausted, so when perishing from a lower heaven and being born in a higher place, self-love also arises. However, this treatise text refers to perishing in the desire realm to be born in upper realms, hence it states that it does not arise. What has been discussed above is solely moistening rebirth through craving.