成唯識論演祕 2.348

2.348

詳曰：不然。《疏》自標云，若無漏道依染種體名成、不成，故知約斷。若是伏者前已明訖，何須重明？

Detailed analysis: This is not so. The Commentary itself indicates: 'If the undefiled path takes the substance of defiled seeds [as reference], it is called possession and non-possession'; hence we know it is stated in terms of abandonment. If it were suppression, that was already clarified earlier, so why would it need to be clarified again?