成唯識論演祕 4.34

4.34

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.