成唯識論述記 7.43

7.43

述曰：此下第四，文復有三。上義不然，非思、惠、想纏彼性故。此合為因，有二分破：初破欲界染思、惠一分為悔，染思、想一分為眠，非為纏性，是思、惠、想故，如餘思、惠、想。即是二界全，及欲界一分淨無記者，或如餘染思等，謂除眠、悔，餘欲界染及上二界染者，皆非纏故，此即破染分為纏。第二破欲界、淨無記一分思、惠為彼惡作，一分思、想為彼眠體。總難云：為惡作等一分，非染思、惠、想；非彼惡作等二法性，是思、惠、想故，如餘上界思、惠、想等。此量准文有宗具足，取宗中有法思、想、及性故，為因亦得。又解汝染悔、與眠，應非思、惠、想，是纏性故，如無慚等。淨無記悔、眠，亦非思、惠、想，是彼悔眠性故。如染悔、眠，染悔、眠體已成非思等故，得為同喻，因明許故。然此文中有宗中法，謂非思、惠、想及因具足如文，此解正可相順總合為量。

The Commentary states: From here down is the fourth [opinion], whose text again has three parts. The previous position is not correct: volition, wisdom, and ideation are not entanglements, nor are they of that nature. Combining this as the reason (hetu), there is a twofold refutation: First, it refutes the view that a portion of defiled volition and wisdom of the desire realm is remorse, and a portion of defiled volition and ideation is sleep: they cannot be entanglements, because they are volition, wisdom, and ideation, just like other instances of volition, wisdom, and ideation—namely, those of the two higher realms in their entirety, and the wholesome and indeterminate portions of the desire realm; or just like other defiled volitions and so on—meaning that apart from sleep and remorse, the other defilements of the desire realm and the defilements of the two higher realms are all not [these] entanglements. This refutes taking the defiled portion as the entanglements. Second, it refutes taking a portion of wholesome and indeterminate volition and wisdom of the desire realm as remorse, and a portion of volition and ideation as the reality of sleep. The general objection states: 'The portions that constitute remorse and so forth are not defiled volition, wisdom, or ideation; they are not of the nature of those two dharmas of remorse and so forth, because they are volition, wisdom, and ideation, just like other instances of volition, wisdom, and ideation of the higher realms.' This logical formulation (anumāna), following the text, is complete with its thesis (pakṣa); taking volition, ideation, and their natures within the thesis, it also functions as the reason. Another explanation is: Your defiled remorse and sleep should not be volition, wisdom, or ideation, because they have the nature of entanglements, just like shamelessness and so forth. Pure and indeterminate remorse and sleep are also not volition, wisdom, or ideation, because they are of the nature of that remorse and sleep, just like defiled remorse and sleep. Since the reality of defiled remorse and sleep has already been established as not being volition and so forth, they can serve as a similar example (sādharmya-dṛṣṭānta), as logic permits. However, in this text, the property to be proven in the thesis is 'not volition, wisdom, or ideation', and the reason is complete as in the text; this explanation precisely conforms to and synthesizes them into a single formulation.