成唯識論述記 10.190

10.190

述曰：此約異生性各望自乘障為論，斷少分，名小聖；全斷盡，名大聖。第三、明障道俱不俱，謂有薩婆多等為伏難言：若異生性是修所斷，見道前捨故，無漏果起，無有凡聖俱成熟失。今既見所斷種上立異生性者，即無間道有惑種俱，此種未捨，異生未斷，如何凡聖無俱起失？由薩婆多惑得俱故。今為此難，非就大乘。

The Commentary states: This discusses the nature of ordinary beings with each vehicle viewed with respect to the obstacles of its own vehicle: severing a minor portion is called a lesser noble one; severing it completely and utterly is called a great noble one. Third: explaining whether the obstacle and the path are co-existent or not co-existent. That is, Sarvāstivādins and others raise a covert objection, saying: 'If the nature of ordinary beings is severed by cultivation, being abandoned prior to the path of seeing, then when the uncontaminated fruit arises, there is no fault of both ordinary being and noble one maturing simultaneously. Now, since the nature of ordinary beings is posited upon the seeds severed by seeing, then the uninterrupted path would co-exist with the affliction seeds; with these seeds not yet abandoned and the ordinary being-nature not yet severed, how can there not be the fault of the ordinary and the noble arising together?' This is because according to the Sarvāstivādins, affliction and possession (prāpti) can co-exist. They now pose this objection, not in accordance with the Mahāyāna.