成唯識論了義燈 7.232

7.232

《論》：「煩斷障中」等。本釋：言「極喜住」，簡彼二乘。初見初斷，簡相見道，就真見道但取無間，故說初斷。西明并取無間、解脫二心同斷，簡後三心、十六心等。《要集》云：「有釋為勝。」今謂：不爾。前第九云無間、解脫「斷惑證滅期心別故」，不說同斷。若定同斷，如何得言「期心別故」？又要二道方能斷惑，即違下文菩薩利根剎那剎那能斷證故，以二共斷非剎那故。又《雜集》第九云：斷對治者，謂加行及無間道；持對治者，謂解脫道。不說為斷，但云持得。

Treatise: "Among the afflictive obstacles..." and so forth. The Root Commentary explains: The phrase "abiding in extreme joy (pramuditā-vihāra)" excludes the two vehicles. Mentioning initial seeing and initial severance excludes the cognitive seeing path (nimittadarśanamārga); with respect to the true seeing path (tattvadarśanamārga), it takes only the path of uninterrupted contemplation (ānantaryamārga), and hence speaks of initial severance. Ximing also includes both the path of uninterrupted contemplation and the path of liberation (vimuktimārga) as severing together, to exclude the subsequent three minds, sixteen minds, and so on. The Yaoji says: "One interpretation is superior." I now say: This is not so. Earlier, in the ninth fascicle, it says that uninterrupted contemplation and liberation "have different intended mental orientations regarding severing delusion and realizing cessation," not speaking of them severing together. If they definitely severed together, how could it say that "their intended mental orientations are different"? Furthermore, if two paths were required to be able to sever delusion, it would contradict the subsequent statement that a bodhisattva of sharp faculties can sever and realize moment by moment (kṣaṇe kṣaṇe), because the two [paths] severing together is not a single moment. Furthermore, the ninth fascicle of the Samuccaya says: The counteractive path that severs refers to the preparatory path and the path of uninterrupted contemplation; the counteractive path that sustains refers to the path of liberation. It does not speak of it as severing, but merely says that it sustains what has been attained.