成唯識論述記 10.393

10.393

述曰：以有漏心加行智，及有漏後得智。一是曾習；二相執所引；三未能泯伏滅此相，故不能斷惑；四或加行智是能趣求所證真如，趣求所引無分別智，未成辨故不能斷惑。由無分別智是加行所引，真如是加行所趣求證，即由所引無分別智，能證所證真如成辨故，能斷二障非加行智。問：若加行智不通無漏，言：有漏心已攝加行，更言：加行復何所須？若加行智通無漏，不須作此問答分別。答：以三智中加行智亦無分別，此有漏道亦有加行、無間、解脫。前言有漏攝彼三道，後言加行為簡三智中根本、後得智別，故復重說。

The Commentary states: Because of the preparatory wisdom of the sāsrava mind and the sāsrava subsequently attained wisdom. First, they are habitual practice; second, they are induced by grasping at marks; third, they have not yet been able to extinguish, subdue, and eliminate these marks, and therefore cannot sever defilements; fourth, or else, because the preparatory wisdom is that which actively seeks the tathatā to be realized, and the non-conceptual wisdom induced by active seeking has not yet been accomplished, it cannot sever defilements. Because the non-conceptual wisdom is induced by preparation, and tathatā is that which is sought to be realized by preparation, it is precisely due to the induced non-conceptual wisdom being able to accomplish the realization of the tathatā to be realized that it can sever the two hindrances, not the preparatory wisdom. Question: If preparatory wisdom does not encompass the anāsrava, then by saying "the sāsrava mind" it has already subsumed the preparatory; what further need is there to mention the preparatory? If preparatory wisdom encompasses the anāsrava, there is no need to make this question-and-answer distinction. Answer: Because among the three wisdoms, preparatory wisdom is also without [sensory] conceptualization, and this sāsrava path also has the preparatory, uninterrupted, and liberation [paths]. The former statement that it is sāsrava subsumes those three paths; the later mention of the preparatory is to distinguish it from the fundamental and subsequently attained wisdoms among the three wisdoms; therefore, it is stated once again.