成唯識論演祕 2.363

2.363

釋曰：無始時來障真理惑名先起惑，善友正教名為隨順，得對治緣。此堪任性即能對治，體無漏種，或即現行無漏聖道，無漏聖道即是解脫得之因也。既自明言解脫之得，明知無為，立得何失？又說聖道為能得因，故無為得屬能得道。又按《俱舍》，擇滅之得屬能得道，非擇滅得隨所依身，雖復小教，大乘不破亦可為證此明有教，不同有為有多分位得屬所得，故諸聖教而不具言亦無失矣。而言理者，且實真如體唯一種，對望不同，分為三、四及六、八等。今望證會而有不同，立得何失？若無分位不許立得，既無分位，亦應不得說多差別，彼此別因誠不可得，故立為善。

The explanation says: The defilements from beginningless time that obstruct the true principle are called 'previously arisen defilements.' Good spiritual friends and the correct teaching are called 'concordant' and are 'conditions for obtaining the antidote.' This 'capability' is precisely the antidote, whose essence is the anāsrava seeds, or is the actual present anāsrava noble path. The noble path is itself the cause of the attainment of liberation. Since it explicitly speaks of 'the attainment of liberation,' clearly knowing unconditioned phenomena, what fault is there in establishing attainment? Moreover, it says that the noble path is the cause capable of obtaining; hence, the attainment of unconditioned phenomena belongs to the path capable of obtaining. Furthermore, according to the Kośa, the attainment of cessation through deliberation belongs to the path capable of obtaining, whereas the attainment of cessation not through deliberation conforms to the basis (the body). Although this is the Hīnayāna teaching, since the Mahāyāna does not refute it, it can also serve as proof. This shows there is scriptural authority. It is not like conditioned phenomena, which have many positional states where attainment belongs to what is obtained; therefore, there is no fault in the sacred teachings not stating it completely. As for the reasoning: substantially, the essence of True Suchness is only one kind, yet in relation to different perspectives it is divided into three, four, six, eight, and so forth. Now, in view of realization and comprehension there are differences, so what fault is there in establishing attainment? If without positional states one does not accept establishing attainment, then since there are no positional states, one should likewise not be able to state multiple distinctions. A distinct cause for one and not the other truly cannot be found; therefore, establishing it is correct.