成唯識論了義燈 3.42

3.42

此二法執細故難斷。《要集》三解：一云：六、七法執，從無始來，與彼我見，唯同種起，離我見外，無別法執。彼說此正。云由此法執，唯有一百二十八種，與煩惱同。今謂不爾。從無始來，執法為有，即執為我，可如所說。《涅槃》見等，雖執法有，不執作我，豈非法執？此等既法執，豈恒我執俱？又小無學，我執已斷豈不起法執？法執若起，許熏種不？若不熏種，何闕不能？若許熏種，可不生現。此既生現，豈與我執恒同種耶？雖說頭數百二十八，不說各各與惑同種。問：斷第六識俱生法執，有於漸頓次及超不？答：唯漸斷次第不超，無頓得果及超地故。若爾何故二乘斷惑障，先伏後成超，菩薩斷所知，後超先亦伏？答：二乘得果易，先伏後成超。大乘證地難，無超可得伏。問：大乘難得果，唯次不言超。飼虎及掩泥，如何說超劫？答：大乘無超地，據此不言超，由精進促生，何妨得超劫？

These two dharma-graspings are subtle and therefore difficult to sever. The Yaoji gives three explanations. The first says: The dharma-grasping of the sixth and seventh [consciousnesses], from beginningless time, arises solely from the same seed as that view of self; apart from the view of self, there is no separate dharma-grasping. It says this is correct, stating that because of this, dharma-grasping has only one hundred and twenty-eight kinds, identical with afflictions. I now say this is not so. From beginningless time, grasping phenomena as existent and grasping them as self might be as said. But views regarding nirvāṇa and the like, though grasping phenomena as existent, do not grasp them as self; could this not be dharma-grasping? Since these are dharma-grasping, how could they always be accompanied by self-grasping? Furthermore, when a Hīnayāna aśaikṣa has already severed self-grasping, do they not give rise to dharma-grasping? If dharma-grasping arises, is it admitted to perfume seeds or not? If it does not perfume seeds, what defect makes it incapable? If it is admitted to perfume seeds, it could not fail to produce actualities. Since this produces actualities, how could it always share the same seed with self-grasping? Although the count is said to be one hundred and twenty-eight, it is not said that each shares the same seed with affliction. Question: In severing the innate dharma-grasping of the sixth consciousness, is there gradual or sudden, sequential or skipping [of stages]? Answer: It is only gradual severing, sequential without skipping, because there is no sudden attainment of the fruit or skipping of grounds. If so, why do the two vehicles, in severing the affliction hindrance, first suppress and then attain skipping, while bodhisattvas, in severing the cognitive [hindrance], skip later after having also suppressed earlier? Answer: For the two vehicles, attaining the fruit is easy; they first suppress and later accomplish skipping. For the Mahāyāna, realizing the grounds is difficult; there is no skipping to be attained through suppression. Question: In the Mahāyāna it is difficult to attain the fruit, being only sequential without mention of skipping. How then is it said that feeding the tiger and covering the mud skipped kalpas? Answer: In the Mahāyāna there is no skipping of grounds; based on this, it does not speak of skipping. Because vigorous effort hastens births, what prevents skipping kalpas?