成唯識論述記 4.670

4.670

述曰：餘文可知。先言持種，為破經部。界地往還者，《攝論》第二云：從無想等諸地沒來生此間，爾時煩惱及隨煩惱所染初識，此識生時應無種子，由所依止，及彼熏習，並已過去，現無體故。往謂生他地，還謂生自地。「無染心後」者，《攝論》云：對治煩惱識名已生，一切世間餘識已滅。爾時若離阿賴耶識，所餘煩惱，及隨煩惱種子。在此對治識中，不應道理。此對治識自性解脫故，乃至復於後時世間識生，若離阿賴耶識等，應無種子而更得生。世親、無性二師別解，此中意言：即二時後諸煩惱起，皆應無因，無持種故。

The Commentary states: The rest of the text is intelligible. First mentioning 'holding seeds' is to refute the Sautrāntikas. Regarding 'transitioning between realms and stages,' the second chapter of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: when one dies from stages such as the non-conceptual [absorption] and comes to be born here, the initial consciousness at that time, which is defiled by afflictions and secondary afflictions—when this consciousness arises, it should lack seeds, because its support and its perfumings have already passed into the past and presently have no substantial entity. 'Going' means being born in another stage; 'returning' means being born in one's own stage. Regarding 'after an undefiled mind,' the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: the consciousness that acts as the antidote to afflictions has arisen, and all other worldly consciousnesses have ceased. At that time, apart from the ālayavijñāna, for the seeds of the remaining afflictions and secondary afflictions to exist within this antidotal consciousness would be unreasonable, because this antidotal consciousness is by nature liberated; up to, when at a later time worldly consciousness arises, if apart from the ālayavijñāna, etc., it should arise again without seeds. The two masters Vasubandhu and Asvabhāva had distinct explanations. The meaning intended here is: the arising of the various afflictions after these two times would all lack a cause, because there is nothing to hold their seeds.