起信論疏筆削記 12.64

12.64

今此下，二、通妨。或問曰：「如諸處說，依於二執起於二障，與此何別？又前秖將六麁前四以配二障，何故此中六染俱名煩惱耶？」故此釋之。彼依二執起二障者，依五意上起所知，意之識上起煩惱。今此則以染心所依無明為所知，能依染心為煩惱，故不同也，應知。若約二執說二障即局，此依染心說二障即通，有斯異也。

[Regarding] "Now this...", and so on: second, resolving objections. Someone asks: "As stated in various places, the two hindrances arise based on the two attachments; how does this differ from that? Furthermore, previously only the first four of the six coarse marks were matched with the two hindrances; why are the six defilements all termed kleśa here?" Therefore, this is explained. Where the two hindrances arise based on the two attachments, knowable [hindrance] arises based on the five consciousnesses, and affliction [hindrance] arises based on the consciousness of the mind (manovijñāna). Now here, the avidyā on which the defiled mind relies is taken as knowable [hindrance], and the defiled mind that relies [on it] is taken as affliction [hindrance]; therefore they are not the same, as should be understood. If the two hindrances are spoken of in terms of the two attachments, it is restrictive; if the two hindrances are spoken of based on the defiled mind, it is comprehensive. There is this difference.