成唯識論了義燈 5.13

5.13

《論》：我法二見用，雖有別同依一惠。《要集》等云：必無別種所知障定。前已略明，今更重顯。若無別種，諸羅漢等起法執時，能熏種不？若言不熏，能熏四義少何不熏？若言許熏者，豈非別種？能熏唯是所知障故。又復自言：一惠用分熏成二種，即是別種。何云必同？說為煩惱者，是據根本及多分故。

The Śāstra: "Although the functions of the two views of self and dharmas differ, they equally rely on a single insight (prajñā)." The Yaoji and others say: "There are definitely no separate seeds for the cognitive hindrances (jñeyāvaraṇa)." This has already been briefly explained before; now it is shown once more. If there are no separate seeds, when the arhats and others give rise to grasping at dharmas, can they perfuse seeds or not? If you say they do not perfuse, which of the four characteristics of a perfuser do they lack that they would not perfuse? If you say they are permitted to perfuse, how could these not be separate seeds? For what is perfumed is solely cognitive hindrances. Furthermore, they themselves say: 'The functional divisions of a single insight perfuse into two kinds of seeds'—this means they are indeed separate seeds. Why say they must be identical? That it is spoken of as an affliction is based on the root [afflictions] and the majority.