成唯識論演祕 6.62

6.62

答：既云加行，本智何得有加行相？縱至佛果雖任運起，亦必須依滅盡相入，觀滅盡相非本智用；不爾，二因顯不盡失。若云二因據因位說，亦為不可，果位滅定教何不論？亦無文斷二唯因位，緣滅盡相任運者，依通果何失？若云依彼滅盡相者即是本智，此亦不然，《瑟恥羅經》云「正思惟無相界」故，正思惟者，諸文皆說是後得智，況此下云要證二空，隨應後得所引發故，何得隨情而強會耶？由斯理准唯依後得為加行也。

Answer: Since it is called 'preparatory application', how could fundamental wisdom have the aspect (ākāra) of preparatory application? Even upon reaching the fruit of Buddhahood, although it arises spontaneously (anābhoga), one must still enter based on the characteristics of cessation; contemplating the characteristics of cessation is not the function of fundamental wisdom. Were it not so, there would be the fault of the two causes not being completely revealed. If one says that the two causes are stated based on the causal stage, this is also impermissible; why would the teaching not discuss the concentration of cessation of the fruitional stage? Nor is there any text deciding that the two are solely in the causal stage. What fault is there if, based on the fruition of mastery (vibhūtvaphala), one objectifies the characteristics of cessation spontaneously? If one says that relying on those characteristics of cessation is itself fundamental wisdom, this is also incorrect; for the Śraddhotpāda(?)-sūtra [or *Śreṣṭhila-sūtra] says 'correctly reflecting on the signless realm', and 'correctly reflecting' is stated in all texts to be subsequent-attainment wisdom. How much more so when below it states that one must realize the two emptinesses, because it is induced by subsequent-attainment [wisdom] as appropriate—how could one forcibly harmonize them according to personal inclination? By this reasoning, it is determined that one relies solely on subsequent-attainment [wisdom] as the preparatory application.