瑜伽論記 13.234

13.234

前中五句，初云賴耶攝解脫決擇分等善法種子，非集諦。因與流轉相違者，景云：七方便前發心求解脫，是解脫分，前三方便名隨順決擇分，煗等四正是決擇分。此二善根由厭生死趣求聖道，故非集諦，故本地分明十二支，一向是非學非無學，隨流輪故，解脫分等論名為學，與流轉相違，非是有支，故非集諦，然於餘處有說未知欲知等，知等三根一向無漏是其道諦。如見道已前七種方便及與見道是未知欲知根體，又別處文說解脫分善，通三界繫及與不繫，決擇分善色無色繫及不繫，豈不相違與有此妨。

Within the former there are five phrases. The first states that the ālaya subsumes the seeds of wholesome dharmas of the aids to liberation (mokṣabhāgīya) and the aids to penetration (nirvedhabhāgīya) and the like, and is not the truth of origin. Regarding ‘because it is contrary to saṃsāric transmigration’: Jing says: Giving rise to the mind seeking liberation prior to the seven expedients is the aid to liberation; the first three expedients are called conforming to the aids to penetration, and the four beginning with warmth are precisely the aids to penetration. Because these two wholesome roots turn away from birth-and-death to seek the noble path, they are not the truth of origin. Therefore, the Maulī Bhūmiḥ clarifies that the twelve links are exclusively neither in-training nor beyond-training, because they follow the cycle of transmigration. The treatises term the aids to liberation and so forth as ‘in-training’ (śaikṣa); being contrary to transmigration, they are not links of existence, and therefore are not the truth of origin. However, in other places it is said that the three faculties such as the faculty of knowing what is not yet known are exclusively taintless and are the truth of the path. For instance, the seven expedients prior to the path of seeing together with the path of seeing are the substance of the faculty of knowing what is not yet known. Moreover, texts in other places state that the wholesome [roots] of the aids to liberation encompass being bound to the three realms and being unbound, while the wholesome [roots] of the aids to penetration are bound to the form and formless realms and are unbound. Does this not contradict, presenting this difficulty?