成唯識論述記 10.402

10.402

述曰：諸見所斷雖有迷事忿等十法，見斷頓斷故，迷事之隨眠隨理觀一品，斷此及修所斷無明、二見，及此俱根本及隨迷理隨眠。無分別智斷餘有貪、恚、慢、無明，及此俱隨惑迷事者，後得智亦能斷，行相淺近故。問：何為亦是根本斷，亦是後得斷？不違理故。此唯二乘非菩薩，菩薩修道不斷迷事隨眠故，即唯所知障是根本智斷。煩惱障中通二智斷，然為迷理身、邊見等，各於自地第九品道時方頓斷，而前八品既先斷餘煩惱，可起後得智斷，第九品道時起無分別智斷，以迷理惑故。此約九品別無間道斷者，若不出觀即斷九品，唯無分別智斷八品中迷事煩惱，不可一觀道中前八是後得，第九是根本智故。即第六識中我見等俱生者，要第九品道方斷，雖無品數非如七識金剛心斷。問：彼金剛方斷，有何妨耶？答：即有色、無色界有學聖者，起無漏道却斷下地我見等種過。若許爾者，即不還聖人應以現行潤生妨。既許不還聖者種子潤生故，先離下地欲時，其身見等並須斷訖，不同第七識，不潤生故。由此應作四句：有依下地斷上隨眠，如下地得聖，斷上一切種識中隨眠；有在上地斷下隨眠，如在上地取無學果，斷下地第七識中煩惱種子，《瑜伽》等說要金剛心彼方斷故。第三句可知，第四句者除上三相，或謂斷所知障，不可說上下自他地斷故，然約緣縛、相應縛故可說地斷。此即在下斷上，在上斷下，於五、六、七識皆不能遮，不違理故，非潤生故，非縛法故。又解，用後得智斷菩薩亦能，十地斷所知障中有執、非執。非執者，亦名迷事，故亦許斷，以障智故，雖未斷本堅執之者，何妨先斷，如煩惱障俱生者，以我見為首故，先斷時未能斷本，先迷事者亦可斷故。斷所知障類亦應爾，此等分別妙絕古今，於諸論師實未聞也，即二障六、七識合各得為四句。問：有漏曾習，未泯相故不能斷隨眠。後得亦有相，如何斷隨眠？又此二智並各有相，此二何別？答：後得雖有相，非執所引，非縛所緣，又非曾得，取境相時分明親證。有漏不爾，故不能斷。如五通等異生、聖者所證有異，淨與不淨，明與不明各有別故。由如是等種種理故，亦即是彼二智差別。

The Commentary states: Although among what is severed by seeing there are ten dharmas such as anger that err regarding concrete things, because what is severed by seeing is severed suddenly, the anuśayas that err regarding concrete things are severed along with the single grade of contemplation of principle; severing this, as well as the ignorance and two views severed by cultivation, and the fundamental and secondary anuśayas that err regarding principle accompanied by them. Non-conceptual wisdom severs the rest—desire, ill will, conceit, and ignorance, as well as the secondary afflictions accompanied by them that err regarding concrete things; subsequently attained wisdom can also sever them, because their ākāras are shallow and immediate. Question: Why is it severed both by the fundamental and severed by the subsequently attained? Because it does not contradict principle. This applies only to the two vehicles and not to bodhisattvas, because bodhisattvas in the path of cultivation do not sever the anuśayas that err regarding concrete things; thus only the cognizable hindrance is severed by fundamental wisdom. Within the affliction hindrance, it can be severed by both wisdoms; however, because the view of self, extreme views, and so forth that err regarding principle are each suddenly severed only at the time of the ninth grade of the path of their own ground, while the previous eight grades have already first severed the other afflictions, one may give rise to subsequently attained wisdom to sever them, and at the time of the ninth-grade path give rise to non-conceptual wisdom to sever them, because they are defilements that err regarding principle. This is said according to the separate uninterrupted paths of the nine grades; if one does not emerge from contemplation and severs the nine grades, it is only non-conceptual wisdom that severs the afflictions erring regarding concrete things in the eight grades, for within a single contemplative path the first eight cannot be subsequently attained and the ninth fundamental wisdom. That is, the innate [defilements] such as the view of self in the sixth consciousness are severed only at the ninth-grade path; although they lack divisions of grades, they are not like the seventh consciousness which is severed at the diamond-like mind. Question: What flaw would there be if it were severed only at the diamond-like mind? Answer: There would be the flaw of an adept saint of the form or formless realm giving rise to an anāsrava path to sever instead the seeds of the view of self and so forth of a lower ground. If one allows that, then a non-returner saint would have the obstacle of moistening rebirth with active defilements. Since it is accepted that a non-returner saint moistens rebirth with seeds, when he previously departed from desire for the lower ground, his view of self and so forth must all have been completely severed, unlike the seventh consciousness, because it does not moisten rebirth. From this, one should formulate four alternatives: there is severing higher anuśayas based on a lower ground, as when one attains sainthood on a lower ground, severing all anuśayas in the seed consciousness of higher grounds; there is severing lower anuśayas while on a higher ground, as when one attains the fruit of no-more-learning on a higher ground, severing the seeds of affliction in the seventh consciousness of lower grounds, for the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts state that they are severed only at the diamond-like mind. The third alternative can be known; as for the fourth alternative, it excludes the above three aspects, or it refers to severing the cognizable hindrance, which cannot be spoken of as severed on higher, lower, one's own, or another ground; yet in terms of objective-support bondage and associative bondage, it can be spoken of as severed by grounds. This, then, severing the higher from below and severing the lower from above, cannot be precluded in the fifth, sixth, and seventh consciousnesses, because it does not contradict principle, is not for moistening rebirth, and is not a bound dharma. Another explanation: severing with subsequently attained wisdom can also be done by bodhisattvas; in the severing of the cognizable hindrance on the ten grounds there are grasping and non-grasping. The non-grasping is also called erring regarding concrete things, so it is also accepted as severed, because it obstructs wisdom; although one has not yet severed the fundamental firm grasping, what prevents severing [the other] first? Just as with the innate [defilements] of the affliction hindrance, because they take the view of self as chief, when first severing them one is not yet able to sever the root, and what first errs regarding concrete things can also be severed. Severing the cognizable hindrance should be analogous to this. These discriminations are supremely exquisite, surpassing both past and present, and have truly never been heard among the treatise masters; thus the two hindrances of the sixth and seventh consciousnesses together can each form four alternatives. Question: The sāsrava is habitual practice and cannot sever anuśayas because it has not eliminated marks. Subsequently attained wisdom also has marks; how can it sever anuśayas? Furthermore, these two wisdoms both have marks; what is the difference between the two? Answer: Although subsequently attained wisdom has marks, it is not induced by grasping, is not the object of bondage, and furthermore is not a previous attainment; when taking the marks of objects, it distinctly and directly realizes them. The sāsrava is not like this, so it cannot sever them. Just as with the five supernormal knowledges and so forth, what is realized by ordinary persons and by saints is different; pure and impure, clear and unclear, each has its distinction. Due to various rationales such as these, this is precisely the difference between those two wisdoms.