成唯識論了義燈 7.238

7.238

《論》：由斯故說二障麁重三住斷義，如本疏中解其所以。《要集》云「三麁重者，一云從初至七地斷皮麁重」者，諸論無文。三種麁重，《瑜伽》四十八、七十三，《解深密經》第四，皆說三住斷故。然四十八別說二障各三住斷，斷煩能障初後麁重，通其現、種并及麁重，中間麁重但斷現行及其習氣；若斷所知俱通現、種并及習氣。然四十八斷煩惱中據正斷說，斷所知中據已斷說。二障互顯，理實相似。又所知障為異二乘，故約顯說。又四十八於所知障立皮、膚、肉三麁重名，於煩惱障但標總名，理實皮、肉、心等三名俱通二障。故《瑜伽》七十三總、別互顯，第一麁重總含二障，不別說是煩惱、所知；第二屬煩惱；第三屬所知。故彼論云：「一、惡趣不樂品在皮麁重；二、煩惱障品在肉麁重；三、所知障品在心麁重」。《解深密經》三俱總說，故彼經云：此諸隨眠幾種麁重斷所顯示？但由二種：謂由在皮麁重斷故，顯彼初二；復由在膚麁重斷故，顯彼第三；若在於骨麁重斷故，我說永斷一切隨眠、害伴、羸劣。雖前第九正斷所知名二隨眠，煩惱隨伏亦得二名。《要集》引云「有說四十八說二障二住斷」者，「煩惱無三住」者，撿本疏文，無有煩惱無三住文。此論、《瑜伽》皆說二障有三住斷，本疏不違。

Treatise: "Because of this, it is said that the heavy burdens of the two obstacles are severed across three abidings"; the reason is explained in the Root Commentary. The Yaoji states that "regarding the three heavy burdens, one view says that from the first to the seventh ground one severs the cutaneous heavy burden"; however, this lacks scriptural authority in the treatises. The three kinds of heavy burdens are all stated in fascicles 48 and 73 of the Yogācāra and the fourth fascicle of the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra to be severed across three abidings. However, fascicle 48 separately states that the two obstacles are each severed across three abidings: the initial and final heavy burdens of the afflictive obstacle encompass their active manifestations, seeds, and heavy burdens, whereas the intermediate heavy burden involves severing only active manifestations and their residual impressions (vāsanā); when severing the cognizable [obstacle], all [three abidings] encompass active manifestations, seeds, and residual impressions. However, in fascicle 48, the severance of afflictions is stated in terms of actual severance, while the severance of the cognizable is stated in terms of what has already been severed. The two obstacles mutually illumine each other, and in reality they are similar. Furthermore, the cognizable obstacle is stated in terms of its prominence to distinguish it from the two vehicles. In addition, fascicle 48 establishes the names cutaneous (skin), subcutaneous (flesh), and muscular heavy burdens for the cognizable obstacle, while merely giving a general label for the afflictive obstacle; in reality, the three terms skin, flesh, and core (heartwood) apply to both obstacles. Therefore, fascicle 73 of the Yogācāra mutually illumines them through general and specific formulations: the first heavy burden generally contains both obstacles, without specifying afflictive or cognizable; the second belongs to the afflictive; the third belongs to the cognizable. Hence that treatise says: 'First, the cutaneous heavy burden belonging to the class of joylessness in bad destinies; second, the muscular heavy burden belonging to the class of afflictive obstacles; third, the core heavy burden belonging to the class of cognizable obstacles.' The Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra treats all three generally; hence that sūtra states: 'By how many kinds of heavy burdens severed are these anuśayas revealed? Only by two kinds: through the severance of the cutaneous heavy burden, the first two are revealed; furthermore, through the severance of the subcutaneous heavy burden, the third is revealed; if through the severance of the heavy burden in the bone, I say that all anuśayas, harmful companions, and frailties are eternally severed.' Although the earlier ninth fascicle states that directly severing the cognizable obstacle is termed the two anuśayas, the concomitant suppression of afflictions also receives these two designations. Where the Yaoji cites: 'Some say that fascicle 48 states that the two obstacles are severed across two abidings' and 'affliction has no three abidings'—examining the text of the Root Commentary, there is no statement that affliction has no three abidings. Both this treatise and the Yogācāra state that the two obstacles are severed across three abidings, and the Root Commentary does not contradict this.