成唯識論了義燈 7.193

7.193

《論》：「初獲聖性」等。西明云：「能生初地無漏法爾種子，及新熏種為其自性」。今謂：雖有新種，非勝不立。由正能生，有所生現，證理斷障，故能生勝。不取新熏，未能生故。西明云：「地前雖有無漏種子，而二性同時互相違故，非聖性攝。如滅盡定依種假立，微微心時雖有其種，而非滅定，有心、無心義相違故」。今謂：若爾，初入見時二性不俱，應無漏種皆名聖性。又如滅定，唯防心能名為滅定，非諸種子。故此聖性非正能生，即不應取。西明又問：「聖性望同凡性，亦不相應耶？答：此中亦立，即是得收。若望二障即非得攝，宗許非得，亦通無漏。又解：無漏力勝，不假別立」。《要集》亦云「不立為勝」。今謂：不爾。若無漏勝不立不相應，滅定無漏，應不立為不相應法。又前第一云：然依有情可成諸法，分位假立三種成就。翻此假立不成就名，故知聖性翻異生性，應名為得，不名非得。不爾，翻何立異生性名為非得？或望不成異生性邊，假名非得。

The Treatise: "First attaining the noble nature," and so forth. Ximing says: "The inherently existing uncontaminated seeds able to produce the first ground, as well as newly perfumed seeds, constitute its intrinsic nature." I now say: Although there are newly [perfumed] seeds, if they are not preeminent, they are not established. Because of being precisely able to produce, there is a produced actualization that realizes the principle and severs hindrances; hence that which is able to produce is preeminent. The newly perfumed are not taken, because they are not yet able to produce. Ximing says: "Although there are uncontaminated seeds prior to the grounds, because the two natures exist at the same time and are mutually contradictory, they are not subsumed under the noble nature. Just as the attainment of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti) is metaphorically established based on seeds, when at the state of the extremely subtle mind (sūkṣmacitta), although there are its seeds, it is not the attainment of cessation, because the meanings of having mind and lacking mind are mutually contradictory." I now say: If so, when first entering the seeing [path] the two natures do not coexist, so all uncontaminated seeds should be called the noble nature. Moreover, like the attainment of cessation, only the capacity to prevent mind is called the attainment of cessation, not all seeds. Therefore, if this noble nature is not that which is directly able to produce, it should not be taken. Ximing also asks: "With respect to being identical to the ordinary nature, is the noble nature also non-associated? Answer: Here it is also established, which is subsumed under possession (prāpti). If viewed with respect to the two hindrances, it is subsumed under non-possession (aprāpti); the school permits that non-possession also applies to the uncontaminated. Another explanation: The power of the uncontaminated is preeminent, not needing to be separately established." The Yaoji also says "not establishing it is superior." I now say: This is not so. If because the uncontaminated is preeminent one does not establish a non-associated dharma, then the uncontaminated attainment of cessation should not be established as a non-associated dharma. Furthermore, the first fascicle above states: 'However, based on the various dharmas that can be accomplished by sentient beings, three kinds of accomplishment are metaphorically established according to state. Reversing this, the name of non-accomplishment is metaphorically established.' Therefore we know that the noble nature, in reversing the nature of an ordinary being (pṛthagjanatva), should be called possession, not non-possession. If not, in reversing what is the nature of an ordinary being established and called non-possession? Or, with respect to the aspect of not accomplishing the nature of an ordinary being, it is metaphorically called non-possession.