瑜伽論記 13.196

13.196

泰云：亦今於此中決擇賴耶俱起流轉，何故後辨意相縛耶？即有二解：一云，因言長理。又解此釋前，若賴耶與意俱必與末那俱起，由意識以末那為依止故，因此即證是有漏意識依染污末那，非諸人空觀中有作執末那，亦即有無漏意識。何者此文既言意識以染污末那為依止，故知能依意識，非是法空無漏意識。

Tai says: Now, while in this section we are deciding the co-arising and transmigration of the ālaya[-vijñāna], why does it subsequently analyze the bond of perception of the mental consciousness (manovijñāna)? There are two explanations: First, it is said that it is because the discussion naturally extends to the principle. In another explanation, this clarifies the preceding point: if the ālaya co-arises with the mental consciousness, it must also co-arise with manas, because the mental consciousness takes manas as its support. From this it is proven that the defiled manas is the support of the contaminated mental consciousness, not that in the various contemplations on the emptiness of the person there is a manas engaged in grasping, which would mean there is also an uncontaminated mental consciousness [simultaneously]. Why? Since this text says that the mental consciousness takes the defiled manas as its support, we know that the supported mental consciousness is not the uncontaminated mental consciousness of the emptiness of phenomena.