成唯識論述記 10.220

10.220

述曰：說為不染者，即《攝論本》云：「法界中有十，不染污無明」者，唯依十地修所斷說，即不說異生性是見斷故。何以知者？《對法》十四云：已得現觀，於彼修道位中，唯修所知障對治道等者，故不說見道所斷為十無明數，以說不染故，若異生性即便染污。由此故知，其異生性非不染污。世親又云：為治十無明立十地別，離十障外說十無明。故十無明非即十障。彼自有二，復次解十無明故。然無性但有一解，亦不別說。問：十地修道亦伏煩惱，斷彼煩惱障麁重，如言「二障三處過」，是何故不說耶？

The Commentary states: Being stated as non-defiled refers to the Root Mahāyānasaṃgraha, which says, 'Within the dharmadhātu there are ten non-defiled ignorances,' which is spoken solely relying on what is severed by cultivation in the ten grounds; thus it does not state that ordinary-personhood is severed by vision. How is this known? The Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā, fascicle 14, says: 'Having attained direct realization, at the stage of the path of cultivation, one cultivates only the path that remedies the cognitive obstacle,' and so forth; hence what is severed by the path of vision is not stated as being among the ten ignorances, because they are said to be non-defiled, whereas if it were ordinary-personhood, it would be defiled. From this it is known that ordinary-personhood is not non-defiled. Vasubandhu also says: 'To remedy the ten ignorances, the distinct ten grounds are established'; apart from the ten obstacles, the ten ignorances are spoken of. Therefore, the ten ignorances are not identical to the ten obstacles. That text itself has two successive explanations of the ten kinds of ignorance. However, Asvabhāva has only one explanation, and does not distinguish them. Question: In the path of cultivation of the ten grounds, one also suppresses afflictions and severs the unserviceability of that affliction obstacle, as in the statement 'the two obstacles have faults in three places'; why then is it not mentioned?