成唯識論演祕 3.574

3.574

詳曰：言斷捨者，據捨縛說。雖復不執觸等為我，然是煩惱所雜之法，心王捨藏，心所能雜，亦復不有，據此例捨。故此論第八云：不染污法，二義說斷。一雜縛斷，謂斷緣彼、雜彼煩惱，賴耶即是斷緣彼惑，名之為捨；觸等即是斷雜彼惑，名之為捨。何理不順而不許之而言捨名？賴耶名者，據縛而立，故但縛無，即得名捨。以觸等名不依縛立，縛捨名存，實無違也。又解賴耶未捨觸等名，為阿賴耶識相應心所。心捨執藏，觸等不復名阿賴耶相應心所，據斯名捨，理亦應通。二釋前勝。

Examination: The statement of cessation and abandonment is made on the basis of abandoning bondage. Although one does not grasp contact and so forth as self, nevertheless they are dharmas admixed with afflictions; when the primary mind abandons storehouse [consciousness], the mental factors' ability to admix also ceases to exist, and based on this, they are abandoned by parallel. Therefore, the eighth fascicle of this treatise states: non-defiled dharmas are said to be abandoned in two senses: one is cessation of admixing bondage, meaning the cessation of the afflictions that take them as object and admix them. The ālaya is called abandoned through the cessation of the afflictions taking it as object; contact and so forth are called abandoned through the cessation of the afflictions that admix them. What principle is not conformed to, that one does not permit this and speaks against the designation of abandonment? The name ālaya is established on the basis of bondage; thus, as long as bondage is absent, it can be called abandoned. Since the names of contact and so forth are not established based on bondage, when bondage is abandoned their names persist, which is truly not contradictory. Another explanation: before the ālaya is abandoned, contact and so forth are called caitasikas associated with the ālayavijñāna. When the mind abandons grasping and storing, contact and so forth are no longer called caitasikas associated with the ālaya; on this basis they are called abandoned, which is also logically coherent. Between the two explanations, the former is superior.