成唯識論了義燈 7.199

7.199

《論》：「一、異生性障」等。本釋：異生性障，即隨依與現本識同地能生二障分別種上假立，斷能依故，說所依亦斷。《要集》云：「無間道但斷二障，所依斷故，能依異生，性亦隨斷。」今謂：異生性體非障所收，可言所依斷故，能依亦斷。既異生性體亦是障，何不說斷？由此正與聖性相違，故入初地，初正說斷。故此斷時，種等亦斷，據增說故。又本疏云：《十地論》第一云「凡夫我相障」，此亦不然，障體通我、法，非唯我故。

Regarding the treatise's statement, "First, the obstacle of pṛthagjanahood," etc.: The original commentary states: The obstacle of pṛthagjanahood is nominally established upon the discriminated bījas of the two obstacles that can generate them, which depend upon and are of the same ground as the manifest root consciousness; because the dependent is severed, the locus of dependence is also said to be severed. The Yaoji says: "The ānantaryamārga only severs the two obstacles; because the locus of dependence is severed, the dependent pṛthagjana nature is also severed accordingly." I now say: If the essence of pṛthagjanahood were not subsumed under obstacles, one could say that because the locus of dependence is severed, the dependent is also severed. But since the essence of pṛthagjanahood is also an obstacle, why not say it is severed? Because it directly opposes the noble nature, upon entering the first ground it is primarily said to be severed. Therefore, when this is severed, the seeds and so forth are also severed, spoken in terms of predominance. Furthermore, the original commentary states: The first chapter of the Daśabhūmika-śāstra speaks of the "obstacle of the marks of a self of an ordinary person"; this too is incorrect, because the obstacle's essence extends to self and dharmas, not merely to the self.