成唯識論演祕 5.526

5.526

祥曰：理恐未然。修惑為例有相符失，故《瑜伽論》五十八云：「若諸異生離欲界欲惑色界欲，但由修道無有見道，彼於欲界得離欲時，貪欲、瞋恚及彼隨法隣近憍慢。若諸煩惱相應無明不現行故，皆說名斷。」唯言貪等隣近之法異生斷之，不說見等隣近之法彼亦能斷。故知世道不能伏彼迷理所引所有事惑。不爾，何意《瑜伽》不說？修道既然見惑定爾，豈不相符。然審詳諸。

[Zhizhou] examines [this] saying: In principle I fear this is not so. Using the afflictions [abandoned by] cultivation as an example commits the fallacy of proving what is already accepted. Thus fascicle fifty-eight of the *Yogācārabhūmi* states: "If ordinary beings become free from the desire of the desire realm, or become free from the desire of the form realm, it is solely by the path of cultivation and there is no path of seeing. When they attain freedom from desire regarding the desire realm, because greed, hostility, the proximate haughtiness associated with their subordinate factors, and the ignorance associated with all these afflictions do not become active, they are all called 'abandoned.'" It speaks only of ordinary beings abandoning the proximate dharmas of greed and so forth; it does not say that they can also abandon the proximate dharmas of [wrong] views and so forth. Therefore we know that the worldly path cannot suppress all the afflictions concerning concrete phenomena induced by delusion regarding principle. If this were not so, why would the *Yogācārabhūmi* not mention it? If it is already so for the path of cultivation, it must certainly be so for the afflictions [abandoned by] seeing; how could this not be proving what is already accepted? However, let this be closely investigated.