大乘百法明門論疏 2.16

2.16

The explanation says: “As for the item auddhatya, the treatise judges it to be a portion of rāga. If this item had no separate substance apart from rāga, rāga would not be associated with pratigha and moha. If so, there would be the fault that distinct auddhatya could not be associated with all kleśas. Since it is said that auddhatya is associated with all kleśas, we know that auddhatya has a separate substance. Since auddhatya is said to be a portion of rāga and yet has a separate substance, one should know that though styāna and vikṣepa are also said to be portions solely of moha, we know that they also have separate substances. And according to the text of the Abhidharmasamuccaya, whenever in the upakleśas pramāda is a portion of rāga, pratigha, and moha, it is substantially existent. Among these twenty upakleśas, only these seven items—āhrīkya, anapatrāpya, styāna, auddhatya, āśraddhya, kausīdya, and mental distraction—are called portions of rāga, pratigha, and moha; the remaining thirteen items are spoken of either as ‘a portion’ or as ‘relying upon,’ so we know they are all conventionally existent. Among the four aniyata items, middha and kaukṛtya are also called portions of moha, yet they have separate substances. That is, middha has saṃjñā and chanda as its nature, because apart from saṃjñā it has no separate substance. Hence the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: ‘Dreams are produced by desire and ideation; these too are largely unreal.’ Therefore we know that middha is of the nature of chanda and saṃjñā, called a portion of moha; although having a separate substance apart from moha, yet because it is of the nature of chanda and saṃjñā, one should know that it too is nominally established. Regarding kaukṛtya, there is no text. But the masters of the Western lands have traditionally said: ‘It is either prajñā, or though called a portion of moha, it has a separate substance apart from moha.’ Yet it is of the nature of cetanā or prajñā, and apart from cetanā and prajñā it has no separate substance, so we know it too is nominally established. The two items of vitarka and vicāra, having no separate nature apart from cetanā and prajñā, are likewise nominally established. The masters of the Western lands have traditionally said: ‘The wholesome root of amoha also has a separate substance.’ By what is this known? First, in the Yogācārabhūmi it only says: ‘Among the eleven wholesome ones, three are conventionally existent, namely upekṣā, apramāda, and ahiṃsā; the rest are substantially existent.’ Hence we know that amoha also has a separate substance. Furthermore, it says: ‘Great compassion takes the wholesome root of amoha as its nature, and is not said to be subsumed within the prajñendriya among the twenty-two faculties.’ Hence we know that amoha has a distinct substance and nature.”