成唯識論述記 10.418

10.418

述曰：第二師說，金剛心生猶未捨彼，猶餘有漏與無間道不相違故。麁重違轉依，豈違無間道？又，金剛心即劣無漏，如何此位劣無漏已無？又，若此位彼已捨者，菩薩應無諸生死法。生死法者謂有漏法，誰言菩薩生死法無？生死法無何名菩薩？又，無有漏應無所熏識，非善無漏可所熏故。若此位菩薩已無所熏識，即住無間道，應名為佛。若此位已名佛，解脫道生應無有用，解脫道生證極殊勝轉依圓滿，無所熏識故無生死法，無劣無漏能斷麁重，與無間道別，如前已論。故無間道非佛，解脫道名佛。汝今既金剛心已有是事，用解脫道何為？次解前師之理云：若由二障種有餘有漏等，所以二乘、菩薩非無漏圓，以所知障種有故等者，今難云：應由無漏未滿足，有漏猶在故不名佛，此無間道位已無有漏，無漏圓生何不名佛？又，種生現必俱時生，如何種亡其現猶有？誰言此位餘有漏等其種已亡？我若種、現異時，可如所難；我亦種、現同時，但不違無間道故，所以不與無間俱時捨，故汝所難非預我意。由種．現異時前已破故。此中不說。此師意亦種、現同時，若亦說者，應成三說。今此許熏，明種生現同時，金剛心中猶有熏故。又，三惡趣果與業惑俱亡，如何此位斷有前後者，前十一障中已言，麁重違解脫道，即惡趣果與惑滅異時，何得今時率情為難？

The Commentary states: The second master says that when the adamantine mind arises, they are not yet abandoned, because the remaining contaminated [phenomena] do not conflict with the uninterrupted path. Heavy burden conflicts with transformation of the basis; how could it conflict with the uninterrupted path? Furthermore, the adamantine mind is itself inferior uncontaminated; how could the inferior uncontaminated already be absent at this stage? Moreover, if they were already abandoned at this stage, the bodhisattva would have no phenomena of birth and death. The phenomena of birth and death are contaminated phenomena; who can say that a bodhisattva has no phenomena of birth and death? If phenomena of birth and death were absent, how could one be called a bodhisattva? Furthermore, if there were no contaminated [phenomena], there would be no consciousness that is perfumed, for wholesome uncontaminated [states] cannot be perfumed. If the bodhisattva at this stage already had no consciousness that is perfumed, being abiding in the uninterrupted path, he ought to be called a Buddha. If he were already called a Buddha at this stage, the arising of the path of liberation would be useless. The arising of the path of liberation realizes the most supreme and consummate transformation of the basis; because there is no consciousness that is perfumed, there are no phenomena of birth and death, and because there is no inferior uncontaminated [state], it can sever heavy burden, which differs from the uninterrupted path, as discussed previously. Therefore, the uninterrupted path is not the Buddha; the path of liberation is called the Buddha. Since for you these things already occur in the adamantine mind, what is the use of the path of liberation? Next, resolving the reasoning of the previous master, which said: "If remaining contaminated [phenomena] exist due to the seeds of the two obstructions, which is why the two vehicles and bodhisattvas are not consummate in uncontaminated [wisdom], because seeds of the obstruction to knowables exist, etc."—now he refutes it by saying: It is because uncontaminated [wisdom] is not yet complete and contaminated [phenomena] are still present that one is not called a Buddha; if at this stage of the uninterrupted path contaminated [phenomena] were already absent and uncontaminated [wisdom] arose consummately, why would one not be called a Buddha? Furthermore, seeds producing active [dharmas] must arise simultaneously; how could the seeds perish while their active [dharmas] still exist? Who said that at this stage the seeds of remaining contaminated [phenomena] and so forth have already perished? If I held that seeds and active [dharmas] were at different times, your refutation would apply; but I also hold that seeds and active [dharmas] are simultaneous, merely that because they do not conflict with the uninterrupted path, they are not abandoned at the same time as the uninterrupted [path]; thus your refutation does not touch my view. Since the view that seeds and active [dharmas] occur at different times has already been refuted above, it is not mentioned here. This master also intends that seeds and active [dharmas] are simultaneous; if that were also stated, there would be three positions. Now here, accepting perfuming clarifies that seeds producing active [dharmas] are simultaneous, because perfuming still exists within the adamantine mind. Furthermore, as for the question of why the fruits of the three evil destinies perish simultaneously with karma and affliction, while here severance has a before and after: it was already stated under the eleven obstructions above that heavy burden conflicts with the path of liberation; that is, the fruit of the evil destinies and the cessation of afflictions occur at different times. How can you now arbitrarily make this objection based on subjective feelings?