成唯識論了義燈 5.9

5.9

The treatise says: "At this state, defiled manas..." The Commentary says: "This is spoken of as pervading both graspings." The Yaoji and others say: "It speaks only of the grasping of self, not of the grasping of phenomena. Why? If it spoke of the grasping of phenomena, why would the treatise say that the sacred paths of the three vehicles have the function of subduing and eradicating it, since the non-learners of the two vehicles should not abandon it forever? Furthermore, Dharmapāla's explanation that it is absent in the three states is spoken with reference to defiled manas. Thus we know that the grasping of phenomena is not called defiled manas." Now I maintain that merely stating this does not contradict the treatise and is its primary intention. Although the two vehicles of determined nature cannot subdue or sever it, viewed from their perspective it is not defiled, and is not called defiled manas. But in contrast to those of indeterminate nature and the determined Mahāyāna, the grasping of phenomena is called defiled. Yet the sacred path of the emptiness of persons of the indeterminate nature also cannot subdue it; thus the treatise states: "The sacred paths of the three vehicles have the function of subduing and eradicating it." If it were solely the grasping of self, it should say that the sacred paths of the three vehicles can both subdue and eradicate it; why would it need to say "have"? That there is no defilement in the three states is also without fault: the grasping of phenomena, viewed from the perspective of the two vehicles of determined nature, is not called defiled, and is not absent in the three states. But viewed from the perspective of bodhisattvas, it is absent in the three states. The text is comprehensive and its meaning subtle; the rest do not know this thoroughly.