成唯識論了義燈 5.14

5.14

《論》：法執俱意於二乘等，等取凡夫，即二乘凡夫。西明等云：等取菩薩生空智，以不障彼智，亦名不染。《要集》云：後說為勝。若等凡夫，菩薩亦有，何故不等？今謂前勝。《論》云：於諸菩薩，即通凡、聖。若望菩薩生空不染，起生空時，可非菩薩。又亦應言於諸菩薩，除生空智，亦名為染。前句總說，文復不除。故知總望不等菩薩起生空時，然於菩薩不言等，諸言攝故。前影後故，俱無有過。

The Śāstra: "The intention accompanying grasping at dharmas, with respect to the two vehicles and so forth"—"and so forth" includes ordinary persons; that is, the two vehicles and ordinary persons. Ximing and others say: "'And so forth' includes the bodhisattva's wisdom of pudgala-śūnyatā, because since it does not obstruct that wisdom, it is also termed undefiled." The Yaoji says: "The latter explanation is superior. If it includes ordinary persons, bodhisattvas also have it; why not include them?" Now I say the former is superior. The Śāstra says: "With respect to bodhisattvas"—this includes both ordinary persons and nobles. If, with respect to a bodhisattva's [wisdom of] pudgala-śūnyatā, it is undefiled, then when giving rise to pudgala-śūnyatā, could one not be a bodhisattva? Furthermore, it should also say, 'With respect to bodhisattvas, excluding the wisdom of pudgala-śūnyatā, it is also termed defiled.' The preceding phrase is a general statement, and the text moreover makes no exclusion. Hence we know that looking at it generally, it does not include the time when a bodhisattva gives rise to pudgala-śūnyatā. However, regarding bodhisattvas it does not say 'and so forth', because the word 'all' subsumes them. Since the former shadows the latter, neither has any fault.