成唯識論了義燈 5.67

5.67

《論》於有、有具，本云：大乘許貪緣於滅、道，五十八等不說之者。下文自會隨麁相說，此許得緣，云：貪與見、慢容俱起故。此意見、慢既執佛性，以之為我，皆容貪俱。《要集》斷云：邪見撥無不與貪俱。若撥好事邪見、嗔俱，此意撥滅、道者是好事故，非道計道、不死憍亂皆緣餘法，非滅、道諦。若定、法愛非邪見俱，身見俱貪唯緣苦諦，何見俱貪得緣滅、道？故非有具。　此釋不爾，准上應知。又全界煩惱皆能結生，既許煩惱有親緣者，何非有具？

The treatise says: 'Regarding existence and the requisites of existence.' The basic text states: 'The Mahāyāna permits that greed takes cessation and the path as intentional objects.' That fascicle fifty-eight and others do not state this will be harmonized below as being stated according to coarse characteristics; here it is admitted that they can be intentional objects, saying: 'Because greed and views or pride are capable of arising together.' The meaning here is that since views and pride grasp Buddha-nature and take it as the self, they are all capable of coexisting with greed. The Yaoji judges: 'False view, being negation, does not coexist with greed. If it negates a good matter, false view coexists with hatred.' The meaning here is that negating cessation and the path is [negating] a good matter; taking what is not the path to be the path and evasive equivocation both take other dharmas as objects, not the truths of cessation and the path. If attachment to dhyāna and attachment to dharmas do not coexist with false view, and greed associated with the view of self takes only the truth of suffering as its intentional object, what greed associated with views could take cessation and the path as intentional objects? Therefore, they are not requisites of existence. This explanation is not correct, which should be understood by following the above. Furthermore, the defilements of the entire realm can all bind rebirth; since it is admitted that defilements have those that directly take them as intentional objects, why would they not be requisites of existence?