瑜伽論記 13.68

13.68

In the second characteristic, first is the question, followed by the direct explanation. This characteristic is not directly establishing [the thesis], but simply taking occasion from the outsider's objection to refute Hīnayāna attachments and establish our own school. Within the question, if assessed according to the preceding and succeeding explanations, this text slightly conflicts. Why is this? Take the preceding text, for instance: if there is the eighth, the appropriation of the support is observed; if there is no eighth, the appropriation of the support is not observed. Now, if assessed according to that explanation, one should say: if there is the eighth, initial arising is observed; if there is no eighth, initial arising is not observed—such a statement would be faulty. One should merely say in general that in the Hīnayāna there is no eighth and the consciousnesses do not arise simultaneously; while the Mahāyāna principle says that when faculty, object, and conditions are complete, the five consciousnesses are all so—for what reason would only one consciousness arise initially? When there is an eighth consciousness, simultaneous arising of the consciousnesses is accepted; hence having the eighth and having no initial arising is logical; since you lack the eighth, having an initial arising is illogical. Now the Hīnayāna asks: why is it that if there is no eighth, an initial arising is illogical? One may adhere directly to the text, and not generate an interpretation by analogy with what precedes and follows. This concludes the question.