成唯識論了義燈 7.199

7.199

Regarding the treatise's statement, "First, the obstacle of pṛthagjanahood," etc.: The original commentary states: The obstacle of pṛthagjanahood is nominally established upon the discriminated bījas of the two obstacles that can generate them, which depend upon and are of the same ground as the manifest root consciousness; because the dependent is severed, the locus of dependence is also said to be severed. The Yaoji says: "The ānantaryamārga only severs the two obstacles; because the locus of dependence is severed, the dependent pṛthagjana nature is also severed accordingly." I now say: If the essence of pṛthagjanahood were not subsumed under obstacles, one could say that because the locus of dependence is severed, the dependent is also severed. But since the essence of pṛthagjanahood is also an obstacle, why not say it is severed? Because it directly opposes the noble nature, upon entering the first ground it is primarily said to be severed. Therefore, when this is severed, the seeds and so forth are also severed, spoken in terms of predominance. Furthermore, the original commentary states: The first chapter of the Daśabhūmika-śāstra speaks of the "obstacle of the marks of a self of an ordinary person"; this too is incorrect, because the obstacle's essence extends to self and dharmas, not merely to the self.