成唯識論演祕 2.653

2.653

詳曰：名貪等因破彼隨眠非不相應，而不障彼是隨眠攝，何以此因反難染種不名隨眠？深乖論旨。若言設防大眾部等為此難者，亦不應言我宗隨眠不名貪等，所以者何？如十八界種隨其現名十八界，貪等隨眠何即不爾？又若；隨眠不名貪等，貪等隨眠應非貪等。若許爾者，此隨眠等何法攝耶？故為不可。今與彼因作相違決定，我宗染種定是隨眠名為貪等；無所緣故；如汝隨眠對大眾等，便無過也。他若救言：我亦爾者，應詰彼云：不障隨眠，但不許汝不相應攝。又直責云：我宗染種名貪等，隨現貪等心所收；汝宗隨眠貪等名不相應中，云何攝？

Detailed analysis: The reason 'being named greed and so forth' refutes their dormant tendencies being unassociated [with mind], but does not obstruct them being subsumed under dormant tendencies. Why use this reason conversely to challenge defiled seeds as not being called dormant tendencies? This deeply contradicts the intent of the treatise. If one says that this was hypothetical provision against the Mahāsāṃghika and others making this objection, one still should not say that in our school dormant tendencies are not called greed and so forth. Why is that? Just as the seeds of the eighteen dhātus are named the eighteen dhātus according to their manifestations, why would the dormant tendencies of greed and so forth not be likewise? Moreover, if dormant tendencies were not called greed and so forth, the dormant tendencies of greed and so forth would not be greed and so forth. If one admits this, by what dharmas would these dormant tendencies and so forth be subsumed? Therefore, that is unacceptable. Now, framing a counter-thesis of equal validity against their reason: The defiled seeds in our school are definitely dormant tendencies named greed and so forth, because they lack cognitive objects (ālambana), just like your dormant tendencies when debated against the Mahāsāṃghika, and thus there is no fallacy. If the other rescues [their position] saying: 'My position is also like this', one should cross-examine them: We do not deny dormant tendencies, but we simply do not accept your subsuming them under the unassociated formations. Furthermore, one should directly rebuke them: The defiled seeds of our school are called greed and so forth, and are subsumed under the mental factors of active greed and so forth; in your school's dormant tendencies, under what unassociated formations are the names greed and so forth subsumed?