大乘義章 6.39

6.39

次難正義。若言初障，解行終心無礙斷者，何故地前不名見道、不名出世、不名歡喜？又若地前無礙永斷，何故《仁王》宣說地前以為伏忍。又若地前無礙永斷，何故經說初依菩薩具煩惱，名為凡夫不名為聖。又若解行斷初障者，何故《地論》說諸見縛初地時滅。又若初障解行終心無礙斷者，彼小乘中障見諦惑，亦應以彼世第一法為無礙道正斷彼結。然小乘中障見諦惑，要苦忍等見道心斷。大乘亦爾，何得異解（此四門竟）。

Next, raising objections against the correct doctrine: If one says that the first obstacle is eradicated via the unobstructed [path] at the final mind of resolving practice, why is the stage prior to the grounds not called the path of seeing (darśana-mārga), not called world-transcending, and not called Joyous? Furthermore, if there is permanent eradication via the unobstructed [path] prior to the grounds, why does the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra] proclaim that the stage prior to the grounds is the forbearance of subduing? Furthermore, if there is permanent eradication via the unobstructed [path] prior to the grounds, why does the sūtra say that bodhisattvas of the first reliance are endowed with defilement-nature, calling them ordinary beings and not calling them noble ones? Furthermore, if resolving practice eradicates the first obstacle, why does the Daśabhūmika-śāstra say that the fetters of views are eradicated at the time of the first ground? Furthermore, if the first obstacle is eradicated via the unobstructed [path] at the final mind of resolving practice, then in the Hīnayāna, the delusions that obstruct the seeing of the truths should also be directly eradicated by the worldly supreme dharma serving as the unobstructed path; yet in the Hīnayāna, the delusions that obstruct the seeing of the truths must be eradicated by the mind of the path of seeing, such as the forbearance of suffering. The Mahāyāna should be the same; how could it be interpreted differently? (This concludes the fourth section).