成唯識論了義燈 6.110

6.110

答：前二別明，後一合說。或前所取，且對於心，後所為取，據由於彼，有可樂相，方起貪欲，名為所為。此多分別，故彼論云：如是四取，依二品取。謂在家品起初一，出家品起後三，故是分別。若是俱生，何分二品。又此四取，初唯在欲，餘通三界。故《瑜伽》第十云：初唯能生欲界苦果，餘三通生三界苦果。即由此說，證受外增上果為緣，起愛能潤生者，據欲界說，上二界中離境貪故。又解四愛舉境明者，亦且據欲界。

Answer: The former two are explained separately, while the latter one is stated comprehensively. Alternatively, the former 'grasped' is initially set against the mind, whereas the latter 'purpose of grasping' is based on the fact that only when there is a delightful appearance in that [object] does greed arise, which is called the purpose. This largely belongs to discrimination; thus that treatise says: These four graspings are based on two classes of grasping, namely, the householder class gives rise to the first, and the renunciant class gives rise to the latter three; hence they are discriminative. If they were innate, how could they be divided into two classes? Furthermore, among these four graspings, the first exists solely in the desire realm, while the rest extend to the three realms. Thus Yogācāra fascicle ten says: The first is capable of producing only the suffering fruit of the desire realm, while the other three extend to producing suffering fruits of the three realms. It is precisely by this statement that it is proven: when it is said that craving arises taking the outer predominant fruit as a condition and is capable of moistening rebirth, this is said with respect to the desire realm, because in the upper two realms one is detached from greed for sense objects. Another explanation: where the four cravings are illustrated by adducing sense objects, that is also initially said with respect to the desire realm.