成唯識論了義燈 4.110

4.110

問：此師何故七非隨俱？答：此師意說，二十隨惑。《雜集論》說皆假有故，依根本惑分位立之，此識俱惑恒無間斷，無分位故不得並。又五十八云：諸隨煩惱，皆是煩惱品類。若爾，何故決擇五十五云：無慚、無愧、不信、懈怠是實物有；放逸是假有；餘者論說，是世俗有耶？答：此師意說。假者有二：一、相待假；二、分位假。前無實體，分位假者，而是有體，云實有者，據分位說；云世俗者，通於假實，以相待、分位，俱名為假。問：實有假有理可易知？世俗有言，應須分別，唯識論等說沈、掉等，是別有體，如何《大論》云世俗有？答：言世俗有者，非謂假有，不同放逸，定是假故，不同無慚等，四依勝道理，別有體用，不名實有。此沈、掉等，皆他等流，別有體性，義非勝顯，不名勝義有，非體假無名世俗有。

Question: Why does this master hold that the seventh does not accompany the secondary afflictions (upakleśa)? Answer: This master's intention is that the twenty secondary afflictions are all designated existents (prajñaptisat) as stated in the Abhidharmasamuccaya, established on the basis of states of the fundamental afflictions (mūlakleśa); the afflictions accompanying this consciousness are constant and uninterrupted, having no distinct states, and therefore cannot occur concurrently. Furthermore, fascicle fifty-eight says: All secondary afflictions are varieties of afflictions. If so, why does the decision in fascicle fifty-five state: Shamelessness, unconscionableness, lack of faith, and indolence are substantial existents; heedlessness is a designated existent; and the remainder are said by the treatise to be conventional existents (saṃvṛtisat)? Answer: This master's intention is that there are two kinds of designated existence: first, relative designation; second, designated states. The former lacks substantial entity, while designated states do possess an entity; stating that they are substantially existent is said based on their states; saying they are conventional encompasses both the designated and the real, because both relative and state-based designations are termed designated. Question: The principle of substantial existence and designated existence can be readily understood; but the statement of conventional existence must be differentiated: the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and other texts say that torpor, restlessness, and so forth have separate entities; how then does the Yogācārabhūmi say they are conventional existents? Answer: Saying they are conventional existents does not mean designated existence: unlike heedlessness, which is definitively designated; and unlike the four such as shamelessness, which according to superior reasoning have separate entities and functions, they are not called substantially existent. Torpor, restlessness, and so forth are all outflows (niṣyanda) of others; though possessing separate intrinsic entities, their significance is not superior and manifest, so they are not called ultimate existents, yet because their entity is not designated and nonexistent, they are called conventional existents.