成唯識論述記 6.465

6.465

述曰：第九，三性唯善。第十，三界。輕安非欲，餘通三界，如前可知。問：何故所治有唯在欲，如瞋、害等；能治通三界？煩惱隔情，多不遍界；善順於理，即通三界。彼無所治，豈有能治？欲有惛沈，輕安豈有？但以性相相治，不以界、繫相望治之。第十一，有學、無學、非學非無學，一切皆通。然學、無學身中皆通有漏、無漏，順學等故，如《對法》第三，五十八、九等皆爾。

The Commentary states: The ninth: Among the three natures, they are only wholesome. The tenth: The three realms. Pliancy is not in the desire realm; the rest pervade the three realms, as can be known from the preceding. Question: Why is it that some objects of remedy exist only in the desire realm, like anger and harm, whereas that which can remedy them pervades the three realms? Defilements block the sentiments and mostly do not pervade the realms, whereas the wholesome conforms to principle and therefore pervades the three realms. If there is no object of remedy there, how can there be a remedy? The desire realm has torpor (styāna), so how could pliancy exist? They remedy one another merely in terms of nature and characteristic, not in relation to realm and bondage. The eleventh: Trainee (śaikṣa), non-trainee (aśaikṣa), and neither trainee nor non-trainee (naivaśaikṣanāśaikṣa)—they all pertain to all three. However, within the persons of trainees and non-trainees, both sāsrava and anāsrava are encompassed, because they accord with trainees and so forth, as in fascicle 3 of the Abhidharmasamuccaya, fascicles 58 and 59 [of the Yogācārabhūmi], and so on.