成唯識論演祕 7.668

7.668

詳曰：後釋為勝。言「出所知」而有二義：一者、全出名之為「出」，此舉勝者影顯菩薩，如有餘依舉二乘者，以顯於佛。二者、分、全俱名為「出」，亦如三乘見、修、無學三無漏道，俱名「出世」。由此有餘言「障永寂」，無住不爾，若要障盡，亦應同彼言「障永寂」。既不如之，故與前別，不可為例。又由悲智不住於二，所證之理名無住處。五地既斷背於生死樂涅槃愚，而由證彼無差別理，此豈不名無住之義？況乃《攝論》明言有也，豈隨己情強通聖教？

Detailed evaluation: The latter explanation is superior. The phrase "emerging from the cognitive [hindrance]" has two meanings: First, complete emergence is termed "emerging"; this presents the preeminent case to implicitly indicate the bodhisattva, just as [nirvāṇa] with residue presents the two vehicles to indicate the Buddha. Second, both partial and complete are termed "emerging," just as the three anāsrava paths of seeing, cultivation, and the non-learner of the three vehicles are all termed "supramundane." Therefore, regarding [nirvāṇa] with residue, it says "hindrances are eternally quieted"; non-abiding [nirvāṇa] is not like this. If the hindrances were required to be exhausted, it should likewise say "hindrances are eternally quieted" like that. Since it is not so, it differs from the former and cannot be taken as an analogy. Furthermore, because through compassion and wisdom one does not abide in the two, the principle realized is termed the non-abiding state. On the fifth bhūmi, having severed the ignorance of turning away from saṃsāra and delighting in nirvāṇa, one realizes that undifferentiated principle—how could this not be called the meaning of non-abiding? How much more so when the Mahāyānasaṃgraha explicitly states that they have it! How could one forcibly reconcile the sacred teaching according to one's own whim?