成唯識論掌中樞要 2.155

2.155

又解：此中言有染者，有彼現行染；離染者即無漏等，隨所離染地，即前有染之地，今離故，名離染。隨此有染、離染二種有殊，地界法異，皆應、所應二種皆是彼地所攝，不說有染是彼地，離染即非。故文無妨，不同《瑜伽》。《瑜伽》但說第三地故，由此真智亦屬三地，依尋、伺處法，緣真如為境，入此定故，不由分別現行。以諸無漏性離染法依彼他法，尚即彼地，況已離染。三地有漏法而非三地，故文正義。不爾，便為不正義也。

Another interpretation: Here, saying 'having defilement' means having the actively manifesting defilement of that [level]; 'detached from defilement' means uncontaminated and the like. Corresponding to the level whose defilement is detached from, which is the previous level that had defilement, because it is now detached from, it is called detached from defilement. Following these two differences of having defilement and being detached from defilement, the dharmas of levels and realms differ; both what is appropriate and what is to be conformed with are subsumed under that level. It does not say that having defilement is of that level, and being detached from defilement is not. Hence, there is no obstacle in the text, and it is not contrary to the Yogācārabhūmi. Because the Yogācārabhūmi speaks only of the third level, therefore true wisdom also belongs to the three levels. Relying on the locus of investigation and analysis, dharmas cognize tathatā as their object and enter this absorption, and not by the manifestation of conceptual discrimination. Since uncontaminated dharmas that are by nature free of defilement rely on those other dharmas and yet still belong to that level, how much more so for those already detached from defilement? Conditioned dharmas of the three levels being not of the three levels would not be correct doctrine; thus the text's doctrine is correct. If it were not so, it would be incorrect doctrine.