成唯識論了義燈 3.67

3.67

The treatise: "Third: continuously following and turning." Ximing says: "Vasubandhu spoke of the path of counteraction (pratipakṣa-mārga) only in terms of defilement. Asanga/Guṇamati generalized across the three natures, stating that nominal perfuming [seeds] continuously and successively turn in accordance with the fruit produced, without speaking of the path of counteraction. Now in this treatise, it is either aligned with the one or aligned with both; therefore, in saying 'until the ultimate stage,' it does not speak of the arising of the path of counteraction, because nominal neutral (avyākṛta) states have no path of counteraction. If one were to say that it turns in accordance with the fruit, then when it is not actually producing a fruit, it would not be a seed; therefore, it now only says 'until the ultimate stage'." Now I doubt this explanation: if one says that even when the fruit is not being produced, it is still called a seed, then it would not be by possessing the six meanings that it constitutes a seed, for it would not rely on existing simultaneously with the fruit. If one says that nominal [seeds] have no path of counteraction, although an intrinsic path of counteraction might be absent in wholesome states and the like, an obstructive-bond path of counteraction (ālambana-saṃyojana-pratipakṣa) does exist in wholesome states and the like. Otherwise, one should not say that they are common to what is severed by cultivation (bhāvanāheya), etc. Therefore, the basic commentary is correct.