瑜伽論記 24.20

24.20

第五解來往，景師云：一、業愛雜染者，愛相應思所造作故，名業愛雜染；二、妄見雜染者，即是諸見。應知此中已下，辨其異名。言有學見迹乃至不欣後有者，一解，分別見已斷沒，有俱生妄見，以從多分已斷，故言唯有習氣；第二解分別見名纏，一切已斷，俱生見因分別見生，總名習氣，故言唯有我慢等習氣。業愛雜染乃至招集後有者，即是分別我愛，在修斷者由斷分別我見，此愛畢竟不行，然有種子未斷隨逐為染，無學可知。達師云：無有諸纏者，三說不同，一云，無有分別所起，故云無有諸纏。問：若爾俱生任運起入何門攝耶？答：入隨眠中收。第二解云：俱生亦多分不起，故云無有諸纏。第三解云：無有分別所起我慢纏故，何以故？所依我見已斷，故此我慢畢竟不現在前。然三藏解云：修道所斷諸纏，論文中畢竟無有，分別所起我慢纏隨眠亦無有，先見道中斷故。雜染其心者，一云我慢隨眠，一云，俱生煩惱等，一云，現行諸愛等。有師釋問：既有學者未斷俱生見，論主不可言唯有我慢依處習氣，以決定義中說唯故，若說習氣而有現行者，亦可說有現行而唯習氣耶？答：今第五分欲辨大小三藏等無差別，唯有後代小聖如言取我，若執已見，分折真言，遂成多障，故今論主為顯佛意會歸一途，故說攝事分。然即不可以前分中有二見，令同後分亦有二見，何以故？今此文意，正釋如來隨相言教，故俱生見不可言妄見纏，唯說習氣，以微細故無此分攝彼二見屬於我慢也。泰師云：有學三位不起分別見故，妄見已斷。

Fifth, explaining coming and going: Master Jing says: First, 'defilement of karma and craving' is called defilement of karma and craving because it is produced by intentional mental action associated with craving. Second, 'defilement of false views' refers to the various views. From 'one should know that herein' onward, it distinguishes their alternative names. The phrase 'a person in training who has seen the footprints' up to 'does not delight in future existence': according to one explanation, conceptually differentiated views have already been eliminated and ended, but there are innate false views; because the majority have already been abandoned, it is said that 'there are only residual impressions'. According to a second explanation, conceptually differentiated views are called entanglements, all of which have been abandoned; innate views arise caused by conceptually differentiated views, and are collectively called residual impressions; hence it is said that 'there are only the residual impressions of the conceit of self, and so forth'. 'Defilement of karma and craving' up to 'attracting and assembling future existence' is conceptually differentiated self-love; for those in [the stage of] abandoning through cultivation, by abandoning conceptually differentiated self-view, this craving definitely does not operate; however, there are seeds that have not been abandoned which follow along as defilement. Those beyond training are understandable. Master Da says: Regarding 'there being no entanglements', there are three different explanations. One says: because none are arisen from conceptual differentiation, it is said that there are no entanglements. Question: If so, under which category are those innate ones that arise spontaneously subsumed? Answer: They are gathered under latent defilements (anuśaya). The second explanation says: innate ones also mostly do not arise, hence it says there are no entanglements. The third explanation says: because there is no entanglement of the conceit of self arisen from conceptual differentiation. Why? The self-view that is its basis has already been abandoned, so this conceit of self definitely does not manifest at present. However, the Tripiṭaka Master explains: As for the entanglements abandoned by the path of cultivation, in the text of the treatise they are completely absent; the entanglement and latent defilement of the conceit of self arisen from conceptual differentiation are also absent, because they were previously abandoned in the path of seeing. 'Defiling their mind': one [master] says it is the latent defilement of the conceit of self; one says it is innate afflictions and so forth; one says it is the various active cravings and so forth. A master explains a question: Since the trainee has not abandoned innate views, how could the treatise master say that there are 'only residual impressions of the basis of the conceit of self'? For 'only' is stated in a definitive sense. If one says that they are residual impressions yet active manifestations exist, could one also say that active manifestations exist yet they are only residual impressions? Answer: Now, this fifth division wishes to distinguish that the Great and Small Tripiṭakas and so forth are without difference; it is only later lesser noble ones who take the self according to literal words, and if they adhere to their own views and analyze the true words, they end up creating many obstacles. Therefore, now the treatise master, in order to reveal the Buddha's intention and return it to a single path, expounds the Vastusaṃgrahaṇī. Yet one cannot, because the previous division contains the two views, make this latter division also contain the two views. Why? The meaning of this present text directly explains the Tathāgata's conventional teachings according to characteristics; therefore, innate views cannot be called entanglements of false views, but are spoken of only as residual impressions; because they are subtle, without this division subsuming those two views under the conceit of self. Master Tai says: Because the three levels of trainees do not give rise to conceptually differentiated views, false views have already been abandoned.