成唯識論了義燈 5.265

5.265

《論》：不還潤生唯種非現。《要集》云：五十九云：唯隨眠潤，見諦迹者。五十二云：見聖迹者，於後有愛，得非擇滅。二文相影，故知初二聖亦唯種潤。《對法》第五、《瑜伽》第一，言離欲者，或少或倍，或全離欲，皆名離欲。今謂不爾，言見諦迹，四果俱是。言離欲者，非少分離，得離欲名。大小乘教說離欲聖，非初二故。《對法》第五云：此自體愛，唯是俱生。乃至云：由此勢力諸異生輩，令無間中有相續，未離欲聖者亦爾。臨命終時乃至未至不明了想位，其中能起此愛現行。《瑜伽》雖云：制而不著，不云不起。《對法》云：然能攝伏非不生起。今云：不起豈不乖返。應依本解及西明釋。又問：《雜集》第五云：中有沒心常是染污，猶如死有，准文通說不還果人？答：此亦不定。云如死有，豈不還果死有之心常染污耶？故但通說，應可簡擇。

The treatise says: 'Non-returners moisten rebirth only through seeds, not through active manifestations.' The Yaoji says: 'Fascicle fifty-nine states: "Only latent dispositions moisten, for those who have seen the footprints of the truths." Fascicle fifty-two states: "Those who have seen the noble footprints attain non-analytical cessation regarding craving for future existence." Since these two passages mirror each other, we know that the noble ones of the first two [fruits] also moisten only through seeds. Fascicle five of the Abhidharma-samuccaya and fascicle one of the Yogācāra say that "those who have departed from desire" refers to those who have departed from desire partially, doubly, or completely—all are called departed from desire.' Now I maintain that this is not so. The phrase 'having seen the footprints of the truths' applies to all four fruits. As for 'departed from desire', one does not obtain the name 'departed from desire' by merely partial departure. The teachings of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna do not call noble ones who have departed from desire those of the first two [fruits]. Fascicle five of the Abhidharma-samuccaya states: 'This self-craving is purely innate.' Down to: 'Through this force, all ordinary persons cause the intermediate state to continue without interruption; it is likewise for noble ones who have not departed from desire. At the time of approaching death, down to when they have not yet reached the stage of unclear ideation, during this time they can give rise to the active manifestation of this craving.' Although the Yogācāra says 'they check it and do not cling', it does not say it does not arise. The Abhidharma-samuccaya says: 'Yet they are able to suppress and subdue it, not that it does not arise.' Now to say that it does not arise—how is that not contradictory? One should rely on the original explanation and Ximing's interpretation. Furthermore, it is asked: Fascicle five of the Samuccayavyākhyā says that the mind of death in the intermediate state is always defiled, just like the death state of existence; according to the text, does this apply generally to non-returners? Answer: This too is indefinite. Saying 'just like the death state of existence'—could the mind of the death state of existence of a non-returner always be defiled? Therefore it is merely a general statement and should be distinguished.