瑜伽論記 17.554

17.554

言即此末那，任持意識，令分別轉。是故說為意識所依者，此偏解染末那意義。泰云：對治起時對治彼末那遠離我見等顛倒故，與二十一法相應正思量為性，雖非思量我能思量無我，故亦得名意，任持無染意識今分別轉，若人空對治起遠離非理顛倒，既人空智未起時，人執末那常相續，故知初地法空對治未起時，法執末那常相續，以此證理，人無我無漏觀中遠離人執四惑，然與法執四惑相應，思量法我無人我染故亦名無染，然有法執所染，是有染，於二乘非染污無明，於菩薩是染無明，以與無明惑俱故，人空無漏，作人無我解故，是無漏，雖未證法空然不別思量諸法有定性，故非法執。

Regarding the statement, "This very manas sustains the mental consciousness and causes conceptualization to operate; therefore it is said to be the support of the mental consciousness": this specifically explains the meaning of the defiled manas. Tai says: When the antidote arises, it counteracts that manas and frees it from errors such as the view of self; thus, conjoined with twenty-one mental factors, it has right cogitation as its nature. Although it does not cogitate a self, it can cogitate selflessness, and therefore also receives the name "manas", sustaining the untainted mental consciousness and causing it to operate conceptually now. If the antidote to the [grasping at a] self of persons arises, it frees one from improper errors. Since when the wisdom of personal selflessness has not yet arisen, the manas of grasping at a person continuously flows, we therefore know that when the antidote to the [grasping at a] self of phenomena has not yet arisen on the first bhūmi, the manas of grasping at phenomena continuously flows. Using this to prove the principle: in the taintless contemplation of the selflessness of persons, one is free from the four afflictions of grasping at a person, yet is conjoined with the four afflictions of grasping at phenomena. Since it cogitates the self of phenomena without the defilement of a personal self, it is also called untainted; yet because it is defiled by the grasping at phenomena, it is defiled. For the two vehicles, it is non-defiled ignorance; for bodhisattvas, it is defiled ignorance, because it is accompanied by the affliction of ignorance. Because of the taintlessness of personal emptiness, generating the understanding of personal selflessness, it is taintless. Although it has not yet realized the emptiness of phenomena, it does not separately cogitate that phenomena have fixed natures; therefore it is not the grasping at phenomena.