成唯識論演祕 7.551

7.551

詳曰：《疏》意不說所言定學唯取無漏，但顯《論》中所舉四定非地前相。又二乘不知通漏、無漏，今但以彼不知之義證定無漏，非言有漏即彼皆知。又按《攝論》明定差別，後四差別謂對治、堪能、引發、作業；若非無漏，何有此能？故知彼論據無漏定，此所舉定同彼何建？又復三學隨據一說，何要責之一等？

A detailed examination states: The intent of the Commentary was not to say that the training in concentration mentioned exclusively takes the uncontaminated, but merely to reveal that the four concentrations cited in the Treatise are not the characteristics prior to the stages. Furthermore, the two vehicles' not knowing applies generally to contaminated and uncontaminated; here, it merely uses the principle of their not knowing to prove the concentration is uncontaminated, not that they know everything that is contaminated. Moreover, according to the Mahāyānasaṃgraha's explanation of the differences in concentration, the latter four differences are antidote, competence, inducement, and activity; if not uncontaminated, how could it have this capacity? Hence we know that that treatise relies on uncontaminated concentration; how could the concentration cited here be established differently from that? Furthermore, each of the three trainings is explained according to one perspective; why must one demand that they be uniform?