瑜伽論記 13.185

13.185

（泰云）略有二證，證末那識無漏觀中無。一、後文云：或有成轉識非賴耶識，謂阿羅漢；若諸獨覺不退菩薩及諸如來住有心位，爾時雖有心而非賴耶？此文既云：阿賴耶識與一俱轉謂末那識，得知於無漏觀中，設有末那，即無賴耶可與俱轉；二、即此文云：何以故？由此末那我見慢等恒共相應思量行相，明知此中所言末那於二空觀中，不得現起；若於有漏觀中設有賴耶，即無末那可與俱轉，以此二證，證賴耶末那若於無漏觀中，不得俱轉，而言有心無心位常與賴耶，一時俱轉者，謂無想定及無想異熟故。西方諸德如此文證無漏觀中有末那識，不應道理，自非比量不得成立末那。

(Tai says:) There are briefly two proofs to prove that the manovijñāna [manas] does not exist within the taintless contemplation: First, a later passage says: 'Or there may be the evolving consciousnesses formed without the ālayavijñāna, namely the arhats; or if solitary buddhas, non-retrogressing bodhisattvas, and Tathāgatas abide in states with mind, at that time although there is mind, there is no ālayavijñāna.' Since this text says that the ālayavijñāna co-evolves with one, namely the manas-consciousness, we know that in the taintless contemplation, even if there were manas, there would be no ālayavijñāna with which it could co-evolve. Second, this very text says: 'Why? Because this manas is constantly conjoined with the view of self, arrogance, and the like, having the mode of activity of deliberating.' One clearly knows that the manas spoken of here cannot actively manifest in the contemplation of the two emptinesses; and if in the contemplation with taints there were the ālayavijñāna, there would be no manas with which it could co-evolve. Through these two proofs, it is established that the ālayavijñāna and manas cannot co-evolve in the taintless contemplation; and when it says that in states with mind and without mind it constantly co-evolves simultaneously with the ālayavijñāna, this refers to the non-conceptual attainment and the ripening of non-conception. That masters in the West take this text as proof that there is manas-consciousness within the taintless contemplation is unreasonable; unless it is by inference (anumāna), manas cannot be established.