成唯識論演祕 3.618

3.618

詳曰：初云羅漢，方究竟捨，遠騰彼問，何過而有？又若不問三乘捨者，何故舉彼決釋分說三乘捨義，以答前徵？若云雖說捨阿賴耶名，意釋三乘皆名羅漢，亦不成救。論自明言諸阿羅漢、獨覺、如來，何理能證同是羅漢？又若取彼《瑜伽》本文亦為不可，彼論但云三乘無學，不言三乘同名羅漢。又彼本明斷阿賴耶故，故知疏文窂籠始終深悟本旨。

Examining this: Earlier it was said that only an arhat definitively abandons [the ālaya]; what fault is there in extending that question from afar? Furthermore, if it does not inquire into the abandonment by the three vehicles, why does it adduce the passage from the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī explaining the meaning of the abandonment by the three vehicles to answer the preceding challenge? If it is said that although it speaks of abandoning the name ālaya-vijñāna, the intention is to explain that the three vehicles are all named arhat, this too does not constitute a valid defense. The treatise itself clearly states: "all arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and tathāgatas"—by what principle could one prove that they are identically arhats? Moreover, if one takes that original text of the Yogācārabhūmi, it is also inadmissible, for that treatise merely says "the aśaikṣas of the three vehicles" and does not say that the three vehicles are identically named arhat. Furthermore, that text originally clarified the severance of the ālaya; hence we know that the Commentary's text encompasses the beginning and end, deeply apprehending the primary purport.