成唯識論了義燈 5.193

5.193

《論》：非思惠想纏彼性故。本《疏》如初量云：染思、惠一分為悔；染思、想一分為眠；應非為纏性，是思、惠、想故。第二量為惡作等；一分非染思、惠、想，是有法；非彼惡作等二；法性（是法），是思、惠、想故。《要集》云：有說初釋稍不順文，文云：非思、惠、想是宗法，非是有法，亦非因故。今謂初釋亦無有過，以性相為文，且除非字加一染字，言染思、惠、想一分，為悔眠為有法，取初非字及纏性字，即為宗法。取前思、惠、想及後性故字為因，文言彼者，即是淨無記。思、惠、想為喻，應加如如、彼彼、餘餘者，即淨無記思、惠、想餘，即悔眠餘。彼即淨無記思、惠、想，以宗有法取依染思、惠、想悔眠，同喻取非悔眠外餘思、惠、想。因言思、惠、性故，取總思、惠、想，貫通宗、喻故皆具足。

Regarding the treatise's statement, "because it is not of the nature of the entanglements of volition, discernment, and perception": The basic Commentary, as in the first inference, says: "A part of defiled volition and discernment is regret; a part of defiled volition and perception is sleep; they should not have the nature of entanglements, because they are volition, discernment, and perception." The second inference takes regret and the like: "A part that is not defiled volition, discernment, and perception is the subject (dharmin); it is not the two dharmas of regret and the like (which is the property to be proven), because it is volition, discernment, and perception." The Yaoji says: "Some state that the first explanation does not quite follow the text, for the text says that 'not volition, discernment, and perception' is the property of the thesis, not the subject, nor is it the reason." Now I maintain that the first explanation also has no error. Taking the text as dealing with nature and characteristics, if one temporarily sets aside the character "not" (fei) and adds the character "defiled" (ran), saying that "a part of defiled volition, discernment, and perception" constitutes regret and sleep as the subject, and takes the initial character "not" together with the characters "nature of entanglement" as the property of the thesis. Taking the preceding "volition, discernment, and perception" together with the subsequent words "because of the nature of" as the reason; where the text says "that" (bi), it refers to pure and indeterminate [volition, discernment, and perception]. Taking volition, discernment, and perception as the example, one should add "just like those others," which means other than pure and indeterminate volition, discernment, and perception—that is, other than regret and sleep. "That" refers to pure and indeterminate volition, discernment, and perception. Because the subject of the thesis takes regret and sleep relying on defiled volition, discernment, and perception, while the positive example takes other volition, discernment, and perception apart from regret and sleep. The reason says "because of the nature of volition and discernment," taking volition, discernment, and perception in general, and running through both the thesis and example, so all elements are complete.