成唯識論演祕 4.34

4.34

正釋如疏，復助釋云：他救意云：即無漏識持有漏種，即以所持漏種為食，斯亦何過？故牒破云：無漏既不持有漏種，有漏種無食亦不立。若不爾者，前已難彼無漏非食，何煩此難？義無別故。若言約彼持種有別為後難者，豈唯望於持種名食？故知彼取漏種為食，設彼本宗不立斯義，假敘彼計，彼轉計之理俱無爽。

The correct explanation is as in the Commentary. Further, as a supplementary explanation: The opponent's salvaging intent is to say, 'The anāsrava consciousness itself maintains the sāsrava seeds, and takes the maintained sāsrava seeds as its nutriment; what fault is there in this?' Therefore, raising [this position] to refute it, [the Treatise] says: Since the anāsrava does not maintain sāsrava seeds, when there are no sāsrava seeds, nutriment is also not established. Were it not so, earlier it was already challenged that the anāsrava is not nutriment; why bother with this challenge? For the meaning would not be distinct. If one claims that this later challenge is made with respect to a difference in maintaining seeds, how could it be termed nutriment solely in regard to maintaining seeds? Therefore, we know they take sāsrava seeds as nutriment. Even if their own school does not maintain this doctrine, provisionally setting out their theory, there is no error in the logic of their shifts in doctrine.