瑜伽師地論略纂 15.44

15.44

In refuting the view that ignorance is non-existence, [the treatise] says: First, if one explains non-existence as ignorance, this entails the fault that a non-existent phenomenon would be ignorance; second, if one takes real phenomena distinct from the three natures (wholesome, etc.) lacking the brightness of undefiled wisdom to be named ignorance, this entails the fault that all minds would be defiled. As for 'Furthermore, in a mental continuum devoid of brightness, brightness could never arise at any time': this means that if wholesome and other three natures were all ignorance, then in the mental continuum of one who has not yet attained undefiled bright wisdom, because all three natures would be ignorance, there would be no preparatory application for undefiled brightness, and it could never arise at any time. If, proceeding from a wholesome mental continuum, there is no ignorance within wholesome conditions, then undefiled brightness has preparatory application, and thus brightness can arise. Therefore, one cannot say that wholesome and other three natures are all ignorance.