成唯識論了義燈 7.214

7.214

《論》：「第六識俱身、見等攝」等。問：何故此障菩提分法，何不前除四地方斷？答：菩提分法修念住等，由執我故，障彼念住觀法無我等，故說為障。初、二、三地相同世間，修施、戒、修；四、五、六地相同二乘，故四地作。問：既非大乘正修學，何故須作？答：三乘通修，非不為正。問：修有何別？答：若二乘修，斷煩惱障；大乘所修，即斷二障。又如二乘，觀不淨等不為壞緣；大乘壞緣，如觀身不淨非不淨、非一向不淨，即觀不淨除煩惱，觀非不淨除所知。又聲聞等觀安立諦，菩薩觀非安立。問：說所餘障與愚名同，此障何故非愚名同？答：障據根本，愚約能發定、法二愛。又障據總，愚約別障。問：所知障中豈可無愛？言所知攝二愚斷故，煩惱二愛亦永不行。答：斷所知中實亦有愛，無明增故，但說為愚。煩惱障中亦伏無明，由愛增故，偏言煩惱，二愛不行。問：諸經、論說二障三住斷，如何四地伏我見等？答：彼約皮、肉、實等三說，非望別別所障地者。問：何故此地除定、法愛？觀受是苦，除定愛；觀法無我，故除法愛。問：何故不於初、二、三地斷害伴，乃至微細等？答：若不斷身、見，害伴不斷，及不斷羸劣、微細不斷，故於五、七、八等斷別。問：何故要斷我見等已，害伴等方斷？答：准常可知。

The Śāstra says: "Subsumed under the view of self and the like concomitant with the sixth consciousness," etc. Question: Why does this obstruct the factors of awakening, and why is it not removed earlier but only abandoned in the fourth stage? Answer: The factors of awakening cultivate the foundations of mindfulness and so forth; because of grasping at a self, it obstructs those foundations of mindfulness from contemplating phenomena as non-self and so forth, and is therefore said to be an obstruction. The first, second, and third stages are identical in appearance to the mundane, cultivating generosity, morality, and cultivation; the fourth, fifth, and sixth stages are identical in appearance to the two vehicles; therefore, one performs it in the fourth stage. Question: Since they are not the primary learning and cultivation of the Mahāyāna, why must they be practiced? Answer: They are commonly cultivated by the three vehicles; it is not that they are not primary. Question: What is the difference in their cultivation? Answer: If cultivated by the two vehicles, they abandon the affliction obstruction; that cultivated by the Mahāyāna abandons both obstructions. Furthermore, as the two vehicles contemplate impurity and so forth, they do not disrupt the objective support; the Mahāyāna disrupts the objective support, such as contemplating the body as impure, not impure, not purely impure: contemplating impurity eliminates affliction, and contemplating not impure eliminates the cognitive [obstruction]. Furthermore, śrāvakas and others contemplate the posited truths, while bodhisattvas contemplate the unposited. Question: The other obstructions are said to share names with delusions; why does this obstruction not share its name with delusion? Answer: The obstruction is based on the root, while delusion is in terms of being able to give rise to the two attachments to concentration and phenomena. Again, the obstruction is in terms of the general, while delusion is in terms of distinct obstructions. Question: How could there be no attachment within the cognitive obstruction? It is said that because the two delusions subsumed under the cognitive are abandoned, the two afflictive attachments also forever cease to operate. Answer: In the cognitive [obstruction] to be abandoned there is truly also attachment, but because ignorance is predominant, it is only called delusion. In the affliction obstruction, ignorance is also suppressed, but because attachment is predominant, it is specifically called affliction, and the two attachments cease to operate. Question: Various sūtras and śāstras say that the two obstructions are abandoned in three abodes; how is it that in the fourth stage one suppresses the view of self and the like? Answer: Those are stated in terms of the three, such as skin, flesh, and marrow, not in view of each distinct stage that is obstructed. Question: Why does this stage remove attachment to concentration and phenomena? Contemplating feeling as suffering removes attachment to concentration; contemplating phenomena as non-self removes attachment to phenomena. Question: Why does one not abandon accompanying harm in the first, second, or third stage, up to subtle and so forth? Answer: If one does not abandon the view of self, accompanying harm is not abandoned; and if one does not abandon the feeble, the subtle is not abandoned; therefore they are distinguished in abandonment in the fifth, seventh, eighth, and so on. Question: Why is it that only after abandoning the view of self and the like is accompanying harm abandoned? Answer: This can be understood by analogy with the standard teaching.