成唯識論述記 10.187

10.187

述曰：前答證得轉依等中有四答，一、依十地；二、修十行，已如前辨。自下第三，解十重障，於中有二：初明重障；後重以二障攝，總明斷位。明重障中有二：初牒十障者，後別解釋。釋中有十一障者，乘文次對釋二十二愚義，乘文便故因釋佛地障。初文有六，第一出體。一、異生性障，世親《攝論》名與此同。《十地論》第一云：「凡夫我相障」，此名不然，此障之體非唯我故。凡夫名異，如《別抄》說。此障體性如何等者，謂分別二障，依此種子之上立異生性故。今斷能依，故說所依斷，即與現、本識同地二障種子，能生現行者上立此初障。由此凡夫離欲，仍名欲界異生，不伏見惑種故，以准知此性是染污。亦可言，種在本識與識同性，即無覆性。若爾，何故《對法》第四解無記中，但有命根等是自性，不言異生性耶？答：由約煩惱種可名「染污」，約異熟種可名「無覆」，通二義故，不名自性。命根等不然，不可為例。今勘諸文，前釋為善。《對法》解無記，及六十六立五無記中，不言異生性是五無記等故，既依染種立，故亦唯染，別小乘也。問：今以二障分別起種名為此性，即二乘聖應名異生，未斷所知分別障故。答：隨望自乘見道所斷種上立故，若定性者名已斷此性，自乘障無故，唯依煩惱種子立故；若不定者名為未斷，依二障種立異生故。若不爾者，不定性者應無異生性障。若爾，無種性者既無自乘聖道，說何為異生性？應說但依二障分別種上立異生性，不須別說，望自乘見所斷種上立故。所知未斷雖曰聖者，尚名異生，此何位捨？答：不同小乘唯修所斷世第一法與見道合捨，今大乘唯見所斷，見道無間道起時捨，依所斷種立此性故，與種俱捨。問：若異生性、不定性聖，未全斷盡故仍得名異生；未全得無漏應不名聖者。答：異生之性通二障，不定之性已分斷，可名分斷異生性。二真見道名為聖，已得小分名為聖，未全斷盡故不全名為聖。言不定性名異生者，非是全名，分已斷故；言聖應爾，分已證故。由此總應四句分別：有異生非聖，如全未得三乘聖道；有聖非異生，大乘者得見諦；有異生亦聖，如不定性聖未至十地中；有非異生非聖，如入無餘依涅槃界。此即文中第一，出障體性。

The Commentary states: In the preceding [section], among the answers concerning the realization and attainment of transformation of the basis and so forth, there were four answers: first, relying on the ten grounds; second, cultivating the ten practices—which have already been explained above. Below is the third: explaining the ten heavy obstacles, within which there are two parts: first, explaining the heavy obstacles; later, subsuming them again under the two obstacles to explain the stages of abandoning in general. In explaining the heavy obstacles, there are two parts: first, stating the ten obstacles; later, explaining them separately. Within the explanation, there are eleven obstacles because, following the sequence of the text, they are explained in correspondence to the meaning of the twenty-two kinds of ignorance, and taking advantage of the flow of the text, the obstacles of the Buddha-ground are explained along with them. In the first passage there are six [points], the first of which is identifying the essential nature. First is the obstacle of the nature of ordinary beings (pṛthagjanatva). Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya gives the same name as this. The first [fascicle of the] Daśabhūmika-śāstra calls it the 'obstacle of the mark of the self of ordinary beings'; this name is not correct, because the essence of this obstacle is not merely the self. 'Ordinary beings' (fanfu) are called 'different' (yi), as explained in the Bie chao. As for what the essential nature of this obstacle is: it refers to the discrimination of the two obstacles, because the nature of ordinary beings is posited upon these seeds. Now, because the supported is severed, the basis of support is said to be severed; that is, this first obstacle is posited upon the seeds of the two obstacles belonging to the same stage as the active and root consciousnesses, which are capable of generating active manifestations. Because of this, an ordinary being who has become free from desire is still called an ordinary being of the desire realm, as the seeds of the afflictions of view are not suppressed; from this one can infer and know that this nature is defiled. It can also be said that the seeds reside in the root consciousness and share the same nature as the consciousness, and are thus unobscured. If so, why is it that in the fourth [fascicle of] the Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā, in explaining the indeterminate, only the life-faculty and so forth are [said to be indeterminate by] intrinsic nature, and the nature of ordinary beings is not mentioned? Answer: Because with respect to the affliction seeds it can be called 'defiled', and with respect to the seeds of retribution it can be called 'unobscured'; possessing both senses, it is not called [indeterminate by] intrinsic nature. The life-faculty and so forth are not like this, and cannot serve as an analogy. Examining various texts now, the former explanation is better. In the Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā's explanation of the indeterminate, and in [fascicle] sixty-six's establishment of the five indeterminates, it does not say that the nature of ordinary beings is among the five indeterminates; since it is posited upon defiled seeds, it is also purely defiled, distinguishing it from the Hīnayāna. Question: If the seeds generated through discrimination belonging to the two obstacles are now named this nature, then the noble ones of the two vehicles should be called ordinary beings, because they have not yet severed the cognitive obstacles [arising from] discrimination. Answer: Because it is posited in accordance with the seeds severed on the path of seeing of their own respective vehicle: if one of determined lineage is spoken of, they are said to have already severed this nature, because the obstacles of their own vehicle are absent, [their ordinary being-nature] being posited solely on the seeds of the afflictions; if one of undetermined lineage is spoken of, they are said to have not yet severed it, because their ordinary being-nature is posited on the seeds of both obstacles. Were it not so, those of undetermined lineage would lack the obstacle of the nature of ordinary beings. If so, for those lacking lineage, since they have no noble path of their own vehicle, what is spoken of as their nature of ordinary beings? One should say that it is posited merely upon the seeds of the two obstacles [arising from] discrimination as the nature of ordinary beings; there is no need for a separate explanation, because it is posited with respect to the seeds severed by seeing of their own vehicle. Although called a noble one when the cognitive [obstacle] is not yet severed, one is still called an ordinary being; at what stage is this abandoned? Answer: Unlike the Hīnayāna, where it is severed solely on the path of cultivation and abandoned at the worldly supreme dharmas together with the path of seeing, in the Mahāyāna now it is severed solely on the path of seeing, abandoned when the uninterrupted path of the path of seeing arises; because this nature is posited upon the seeds to be severed, it is abandoned together with the seeds. Question: If, as to the nature of ordinary beings, a noble one of undetermined lineage may still be called an ordinary being because it is not entirely severed, then since they have not entirely attained the uncontaminated, should they not be called a noble one? Answer: The nature of an ordinary being pertains to both obstacles, and the nature of the undetermined [lineage] has already been partially severed, so it can be called the partially severed nature of an ordinary being. The two true paths of seeing are called 'noble'; having already attained a small portion, they are called 'noble'; because they have not entirely severed [all obstacles], they are not called 'noble' in an absolute sense. Saying that one of undetermined lineage is called an ordinary being is not an absolute designation, because a portion has already been severed; saying they are 'noble' should also be like this, because a portion has already been realized. From this, one should distinguish four alternatives in total: there are those who are ordinary beings and not noble, such as those who have not attained the noble path of the three vehicles at all; there are those who are noble and not ordinary beings, such as those of the Mahāyāna who have attained the seeing of the truths; there are those who are both ordinary beings and noble, such as noble ones of undetermined lineage who have not yet reached the ten grounds; there are those who are neither ordinary beings nor noble, such as those who have entered the realm of nirvāṇa without remainder. This is the first [point] in the text, identifying the essential nature of the obstacle.