瑜伽論記 19.235

19.235

下引經說，聲聞乘中乃至取非即蘊，亦不離蘊欲貪為取，若言欲貪與蘊不異，是即但有染蘊，應無善無記蘊，故言誹謗蘊中善無記法不清淨過，異有何過於諸取中增益常性不清淨過者，若取與蘊異蘊是無常，取若非蘊即體應常，即於蘊外增益常體，是不淨過也，豈有常法不清淨耶？相與正智異不異如與分別俱不可說者，此文即說正智等四法並名為相，是故得說相與正智不可得說亦異不異等，名與差別當言有異者相見二分別故，名與正智亦異，一漏無漏異，二相見分異，以其後智得緣彼，名相見有異，分別與正智當言有異，世出世異也。

Below, citing the sūtra teachings: In the Śrāvaka vehicle up to: grasping is neither identical to the aggregates nor separate from the aggregates; desire-greed is grasping. If one says that desire-greed is not different from the aggregates, then there would only be defiled aggregates, and there should be no wholesome or indeterminate aggregates; hence it says it incurs the fault of slandering the wholesome and indeterminate dharmas among the aggregates as being impure. If different, what fault would there be? It incurs the fault of superimposing an impure eternal nature onto graspings: if grasping is different from the aggregates, then since the aggregates are impermanent, if grasping is not the aggregates its substance would have to be eternal; that would be to superimpose an eternal substance outside of the aggregates, which is an impure fault. How could an eternal dharma be impure? That marks and correct knowledge being different or not different cannot be stated in either case, just as with discrimination, means that this text states that the four dharmas including correct knowledge are all called marks; therefore it can be said that marks and correct knowledge cannot be stated to be either different or not different, and so forth. Names and differentiations should be pronounced different, because they are the two discriminations of mark and vision. Names and correct knowledge are also different: first, the difference between tainted and taintless; second, the difference between object-division and vision-division; because that subsequent knowledge can cognize those names, there is a difference between mark and vision. Discrimination and correct knowledge should be pronounced different, as they are mundane and supramundane differences.