成唯識論了義燈 4.111

4.111

問：論會違云：依二十二隨煩惱說者，准《百法論》二十隨惑，成於百法。《瑜伽論》中，惑說二十二、二十四、二十六，應不唯百法。答：《大論》中據取別境及四不定，是染性者，煩惱等流，品類不同，說多少別，離彼二位，更無別法。《百法論》等，據其體性有差別者，但說百法，亦不相違。

Question: When the treatise harmonizes the contradiction by stating that it is explained according to twenty-two secondary afflictions—according to the Śata-dharma-śāstra, twenty secondary afflictions make up the one hundred dharmas; if the Yogācārabhūmi speaks of twenty-two, twenty-four, or twenty-six afflictions, should there not be more than one hundred dharmas? Answer: In the great treatise, based on taking the specific [mental factors] and the four indeterminate factors that are defiled in nature as outflows of afflictions with differing varieties, it speaks of greater or lesser numbers; apart from those two positions, there are no other separate dharmas. The Śata-dharma-śāstra and others speak only of one hundred dharmas based on differences in their intrinsic entities; thus there is no contradiction.