成唯識論了義燈 5.126

5.126

《論》云：學現觀者等，本釋如《疏》。西明云：八十八云：然於修習諦現觀時，由意樂故，恐於涅槃我當無有等，准此未入見道者。《要集》斷云：有釋為勝。今意疑云：准八十八是未入見。彼文說云：由此隨眠薩迦耶見增上力故，於諸行中起邪分別，謂我當斷便於涅槃發生斷見。由此因緣於般涅槃，其心退還，不樂趣入。既與此《論》引文不同，疑此《論》引，更是別文。《疏》忌不引。然《疏》中指八十八者，疑是所等。又但證是斷見，即得不證俱生。文云：起邪分別謂我當斷，不分明說是俱生故。或此文通非定凡聖，不爾何故文不相似？然准《論》引，本《疏》釋正，何以故意證俱生通於斷見，引見道後起可證誠？若見道前，何得知是俱生斷見？

The treatise says: "Those practicing the comprehension of the truths (abhisamaya)..." The original explanation is as in the Commentary. Ximing says: "Fascicle 88 states: 'Yet when practicing the comprehension of the truths, owing to intention, one fears: "In nirvāṇa I shall not exist,"' and so forth; based on this, it refers to those who have not yet entered the path of vision." The Yaoji concludes: "Some explanations are superior." Now, reflecting critically: based on Fascicle 88, it refers to those who have not entered vision. That text states: "Owing to the predominant force of this anusaya of satkāyadṛṣṭi, one gives rise to false conceptualisation regarding conditioned phenomena, thinking, 'I shall be annihilated,' whereupon one gives rise to the annihilation view regarding nirvāṇa. Due to this cause, one's mind shrinks back from parinirvāṇa and does not take joy in entering it." Since this text cited in the treatise is not identical, I suspect that what is cited in this treatise is yet another passage. The Commentary avoided citing it. Yet where the Commentary refers to Fascicle 88, I suspect it belongs to the "and so forth." Furthermore, it merely proves that it is the annihilation view, which does not prove it is innate. The text says: "giving rise to false conceptualisation, thinking 'I shall be annihilated,'" which does not clearly state it is innate. Or perhaps this text generally applies without definitively being ordinary person or noble. If not so, why are the texts dissimilar? Nevertheless, based on the citation in the treatise, the original Commentary's explanation is correct. Why is that? The intention is to prove that what is innate applies to the annihilation view; citing what arises after the path of vision can serve as proof. If it were before the path of vision, how could one know it is an innate annihilation view?