瑜伽論記 13.214

13.214

第二難云：一行者身應唯一識，既有多識豈不相違，則是經部薩婆多難，為通此難，先引例證。基云：應立量云：第八及諸識依一身中俱轉方相違此宗，因云相各異故，喻云如彼心所法一身俱轉。次引二喻，景云：同喻一事，俱起無違，亦可同。昔人解：初明水與波浪不異，攬水或成波，明不離義，喻七轉識攬賴耶為體，後鏡面喻喻不即義，不攬鏡面以成影像故。泰云：外人難云：一身八識應互相違不得俱轉，以是主故，猶如一國多王不並；論主作決定相違過云：一身心識互不相違，以相異故，心法等立宗中互不相違者，即俱轉義。基云：此據於第八識，非一異故，有種子故，得有諸識並生。今量云：第八識上容有諸識並生（宗），不一異故（因），喻云如水波鏡像。此中因果道理，若約用別不得名一，如心所性雖無差別，然相異故，若言體殊，波浪雖多體唯一水，故六八識不得言異，因果用別不得言一，如一種子，不自成因果，終望塵等方成故，體即一性，異即不成因果，故不得言異，如水不生火是性異故，今道理亦爾，即如攝論無著等說，以六識等為別有體，又有法即是一體，此二義別，今此中依中道說，二偏俱非，二處總取並是。

The second objection states: in the body of a single practitioner there should be only a single consciousness; since there are multiple consciousnesses, are they not contradictory? This is an objection from the Sautrāntikas and Sarvāstivādins. To resolve this objection, [the treatise] first cites an example as proof. Ji says: A formal inference should be established: ‘The eighth [consciousness] and the other consciousnesses simultaneously operating supported by a single body’ is the thesis (pakṣa); the reason (hetu) is ‘because their characteristics are mutually distinct’; the example (dṛṣṭānta) is ‘just like those mental factors (caitta) simultaneously operating in a single body.’ Next, two similes are cited. Jing says: The example of similarity is a single phenomenon arising simultaneously without contradiction; they can also be similar. Ancients explained: the first clarifies that water and waves are not different—water is gathered to form waves, clarifying the meaning of non-separation—which serves as a simile for the seven evolving consciousnesses taking the ālaya as their substance; the subsequent simile of the mirror surface illustrates the meaning of non-identity, because the mirror surface is not gathered to become the reflected image. Tai says: The external opponent objects: ‘The eight consciousnesses in a single body should contradict one another and cannot operate simultaneously, because they are masters, just as in a single country multiple kings do not coexist.’ The treatise master produces the fault of a counterbalancing contradiction (satpratipakṣa), saying: ‘Mental consciousnesses in a single body do not contradict one another, because they have distinct characteristics;’ among the mental factors and the like established in the thesis, ‘not contradicting one another’ means operating simultaneously. Ji says: This is based on the eighth consciousness, which is neither identical nor different; because seeds exist, the various consciousnesses can co-arise. Now the formal inference is: ‘On the eighth consciousness, there is room for the various consciousnesses to co-arise’ (thesis); ‘because it is neither identical nor different’ (reason); the example is ‘like water and waves, or a mirror and images.’ As for the principle of cause and effect herein: if considered in terms of distinct functions, they cannot be called one, just as although the nature of mental factors has no difference, their characteristics are distinct; if one speaks of substantial difference, although the waves are many, their substance is only one water, so the sixth and eighth consciousnesses cannot be said to be different. Because cause and effect are distinct in function, they cannot be called one, just as a single seed does not form cause and effect entirely by itself, but only when oriented toward dust and other [conditions]; thus in substance they are of one nature. If they were different, they would not form cause and effect, so they cannot be said to be different, just as water does not generate fire because their natures are different. The principle at present is also like this. That is, just as Asaṅga and others explain in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, taking the six consciousnesses and so forth as having separate substances, while there is also the doctrine that they are a single substance; these two meanings are distinct. Here, relying on the Middle Way, it is stated that both extremes are incorrect, and taking both together in both aspects is entirely correct.