瑜伽師地論略纂 13.22

13.22

論云「了別內執受者，謂能了別遍計所執自性等，乃至執受了別」者，謂六、七二識皆起執故，所熏成種，可言妄執習氣；其五識等自熏種雖非妄執習氣，亦第八緣。此中何故不說第八緣耶？依上下文，一切有漏法皆有麁重所隨，五識等種子雖非妄執習氣，麁重所隨故，但名習氣，是第八緣。此中通含為語，即遍計執習氣直是六、七二識，習氣者是餘五識及第八識。非妄執習氣諸現行並為麁重所隨，應並名習氣。若爾，第八緣習氣之言，其義攝一切法，何須開二境？述曰：習氣通二種，謂現行及種子。此中約種子名習氣，不約現行為論，故開二別。　問曰：何故得知現行亦名習氣者？如阿羅漢齊足越坑，名為習氣，此乃現行，故知通二種也。不然，由有種子習氣故，名為習氣，豈習氣即現行耶？謂今皆種子名習氣，即五識等云應種子皆名習氣。餘義同前。　又解：此中言遍計習氣者，三性有漏法所有種子皆名遍計所執，以三性心等皆為相縛所縛，名為遍計，非謂遍計皆是二執所成之種。若爾，此中云何遍計所執之言，三性心等不起所執故？義云：此中通論，文中義含即遍計自性習氣、遍計所執妄執自性習氣。前通善、不善種，後唯二執心種。　又解：法師云二義，西方二師義：一云三性心皆有法執，雖善心起時。即此文為證，故名遍計所執習氣。第二解云一切有漏善等心種皆名遍計所執習氣。此非三性中遍計，以有漏心等必為漏所縛故，其善等性亦名遍計所執。此不及前。　問曰：無漏之種非妄執習氣，第八緣不？有義：緣略故，此中不說。又此義非也，謂心弱境強，故不得緣。如《攝論》聞熏習非阿賴耶所緣，仍依於本識，以強勝故。若爾，云何名唯識？若約無漏見分，此義又成，未起無漏心時，此應不名唯識。如《攝論》依彼第八，以念俱隨滅故，亦名唯識。以第八緣境為相縛所縛，諸第八境皆是親變，若緣無漏，即非相縛，故不緣也。第八望無漏種即非唯識，如眼識望第八境亦非唯識，非所緣變故。　問：若爾，無漏熏時，熏阿賴耶識不？若熏，云何不緣？問：若得者，第八緣種如無色界，即為自證分緣等。若緣無漏種，豈緣自體耶？問此中，依護月菩薩釋，其見分等三分中，其種子為自證分，種子即見分體故。由此理故，相應五數不緣種子。依此理故，生無色界，第八見分即無所緣。彼界第八見分緣欲、色界器世界等，以是共業故，雖生無色，而得下緣。　問曰：何故種子不在自證分等，唯在見分耶？義云：以相、見及第四分於自證分上差別建立。今以種子是所緣故，故於見分上立；以自證分為能緣故，不於上建立。又依《集量》，唯立三分，故不在第四。設立四分者，以不離自證分故，俱是第三分差別立。若在無色亦緣下器界者，何故此文云若在無色，唯有習氣了別執受？通曰：此約自證分為論，不約見分，若約見分，即通緣器界也，故簡無色不緣。但在內根等文中，不在外器等文中，故知外器亦得緣也。若依護法，即以此文為正。在無色界，不緣下地，界繫業別故。其種子即見分中分為相分，見分緣之，五數託此以為本質，而於上變影像相也。此非實用，故不能生眼等實根令識依之。此與後別。若准護月義，其無色第八識與下界識等，以緣境等故。若爾，即有業無麁細妨。其義者何？夫見分等及外器相必此業感。此業何時造等，又有多妨，如《對法》壞世界抄，廣如此論第一卷別抄。其緣變化身五根不？有人云西方有諍者，非一也。一釋：亦變為境門攝，非內根門攝故。此中但總言緣器，不別疏條，如別抄。　問：若以第八緣種子，種子何故能生識緣他身根，此根何故不能生他識？答曰：以影像故，種子親變，故不為例。　問：如五根，本識相分他依之第八為影像變，其種既自第八相，他亦應變緣。答：根法現影像變時，可為受用，則互相、見等；種子微細，不得緣他，無受用義，故不須之。此唯意境，《中邊》等中云緣他身者，如此解問。

Regarding the treatise's statement, "Cognizing internal appropriation means being able to cognize the parikalpita-svabhāva, etc., [...] down to cognizing appropriation": because both the sixth and seventh consciousnesses generate clinging, the seeds perfumed by them can be called 'the impregnations of false clinging'; although the seeds perfumed by the five consciousnesses and so forth themselves are not the impregnations of false clinging, they are also cognized by the eighth. Why is it not said here that the eighth cognizes them? According to the context above and below, all contaminated phenomena are accompanied by dauṣṭhulya; although the seeds of the five consciousnesses and so forth are not the impregnations of false clinging, because they are accompanied by dauṣṭhulya, they are simply called 'impregnations' (vāsanā), and are cognized by the eighth. Here, the statement is all-inclusive: the impregnations of parikalpita-svabhāva are directly the sixth and seventh consciousnesses, while the 'impregnations' are the remaining five consciousnesses and the eighth consciousness. All active dharmas that are not the impregnations of false clinging are accompanied by dauṣṭhulya and should all be called impregnations. If so, the statement that the eighth cognizes impregnations would encompass all phenomena in its meaning, so why is it necessary to open two distinct objects? The explanation says: impregnations encompass two kinds, namely active dharmas and seeds. Here, it is in reference to seeds that they are called impregnations, not in reference to active dharmas; therefore, two distinct categories are opened. Question: How is it known that active dharmas are also called impregnations? Answer: Just as an arhat jumping over a ditch with his feet together is called an impregnation, this is an active dharma; hence we know that it encompasses both kinds. Otherwise, it is because of the impregnation of seeds that it is called impregnation; how could the impregnation be the active dharma itself? We say: now all seeds are called impregnations; thus, the five consciousnesses and so forth say that their seeds should all be called impregnations. The remaining meanings are the same as before. Another explanation: The 'impregnations of the parikalpita' mentioned here means that all seeds of contaminated dharmas across the three natures are called parikalpita-svabhāva, because the minds and so forth of the three natures are all bound by the bondage of signs (nimitta-bandhana), and are called parikalpita; it does not mean that parikalpita refers only to seeds formed by the two kinds of clinging. If so, why is the phrase 'parikalpita-svabhāva' used here, since the minds and so forth of the three natures do not generate what is clung to? The meaning is: speaking comprehensively here, the meaning contained in the text refers both to the impregnations of the parikalpita-svabhāva and the impregnations of the falsely clung-to parikalpita-svabhāva. The former encompasses wholesome and unwholesome seeds, while the latter refers only to the seeds of minds with the two kinds of clinging. Another explanation: The Master stated two meanings, which are the opinions of two Western masters. The first says that the minds of all three natures possess attachment to dharmas, even when a wholesome mind arises. Taking this text as proof, they are therefore called the impregnations of the parikalpita-svabhāva. The second explanation says that all seeds of contaminated wholesome minds and so forth are called the impregnations of the parikalpita-svabhāva. This is not the parikalpita among the three natures; because contaminated minds and so forth are inevitably bound by contamination, their wholesome and other natures are also called parikalpita-svabhāva. This is inferior to the former. Question: Are the uncontaminated seeds, which are not the impregnations of false clinging, cognized by the eighth or not? One opinion says: they are cognized, but for brevity they are not mentioned here. Another says this opinion is incorrect: because the mind is weak and the object is strong, it cannot cognize them. Just as the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states that the perfuming of hearing (śrutavāsanā) is not an object cognized by the ālaya, yet it still depends on the mūlavijñāna because it is strong and superior. If so, how can it be called vijñapti-mātra (consciousness-only)? If explained in terms of the uncontaminated seeing-part (darśanabhāga), this meaning is established again; when an uncontaminated mind has not yet arisen, this should not be called consciousness-only. As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states, it relies on that eighth consciousness, and because it perishes alongside mindfulness, it is also called consciousness-only. Because the eighth cognizes objects bound by the bondage of signs, all objects of the eighth are directly transformed [by it]; if it were to cognize the uncontaminated, it would not be the bondage of signs, and therefore it does not cognize it. The eighth with respect to uncontaminated seeds is not consciousness-only, just as the eye-consciousness with respect to the objects of the eighth is also not consciousness-only, because it is not transformed as its cognitive object. Question: If so, when uncontaminated perfuming occurs, does it perfume the ālayavijñāna or not? If it perfumes it, why is it not cognized? Question: If it can, the eighth cognizing seeds, like in the formless realm, would be cognized by the self-authenticating part (svasaṃvittibhāga) and so on. If it cognizes uncontaminated seeds, could it cognize its own substance? Inquiring into this: according to Bodhisattva Candragomin's explanation, among the three parts such as the seeing-part, its seeds serve as the self-authenticating part, because seeds are the substance of the seeing-part. By this principle, the five associated mental factors do not cognize seeds. By this principle, when born into the formless realm, the seeing-part of the eighth has no cognitive object. The seeing-part of the eighth in that realm cognizes the receptacle world (bhājana-loka) and so on of the desire and form realms; because it is common karma (sādhāraṇa-karma), although born in the formless realm, it can cognize below. Question: Why are seeds not located in the self-authenticating part and so forth, but only in the seeing-part? The meaning is: because the sign-part, seeing-part, and fourth part are differentiations established upon the self-authenticating part. Now, because seeds are cognitive objects, they are established upon the seeing-part; because the self-authenticating part is the cognizing subject, they are not established upon it. Furthermore, according to the Pramāṇasamuccaya, only three parts are established, so they are not in the fourth. Even if four parts are posited, because they are not separate from the self-authenticating part, both are established as differentiations of the third part. If in the formless realm it also cognizes the lower receptacle world, why does this text say that if in the formless realm, there is only the cognition and appropriation of impregnations? The answer resolves it: this is discussed in reference to the self-authenticating part, not the seeing-part; if discussed in reference to the seeing-part, it universally cognizes the receptacle world, hence it excludes the formless realm from not cognizing it. It appears only in the text on internal sense faculties and so forth, not in the text on the external receptacle and so forth; hence we know that the external receptacle can also be cognized. If following Dharmapāla, then this text is taken as standard. In the formless realm, it does not cognize the lower grounds, because karma bound to the realms is different. Its seeds are divided within the seeing-part into the sign-part (nimittabhāga), and the seeing-part cognizes them; the five mental factors rely on this as the fundamental substance (maula-dravya) and transform an image upon it. This does not have actual utility, so it cannot produce actual faculties such as the eye to serve as the basis for consciousness. This differs from the latter. If following Candragomin's doctrine, the eighth consciousness of the formless realm is identical to the consciousness of the lower realms, because their cognitive objects are the same. If so, there would be the objection that karma lacks coarse and subtle distinctions. What is its meaning? The seeing-part and so forth and the signs of the external receptacle must be karmically induced by this karma. When this karma was created, and so forth, presents many further objections, as in the notes on the destruction of the world in the Abhidharmasamuccaya, which is detailed in the separate commentary on the first fascicle of this treatise. Does it cognize the five sense faculties of a transformation body? Some say there are disputes in the West, which are not singular. One explanation: they are also subsumed under the portal of transformed objects, not under the portal of internal faculties. Here it only speaks generally of cognizing the receptacle, without drawing separate distinctions, as in the separate notes. Question: If the eighth cognizes seeds, why can seeds produce consciousness and cognize the sense faculties of another's body, while these sense faculties cannot produce another's consciousness? Answer: Because they are images (pratibimba); seeds are directly transformed, so they cannot serve as an analogy. Question: Just as for the five sense faculties, which are the sign-part of the mūlavijñāna, another's eighth consciousness transforms an image relying upon them, since its seeds are the sign of its own eighth consciousness, another should also transform and cognize them. Answer: When the dharmas of sense faculties manifest transformed images, they can be used and enjoyed, so they mutually serve as sign and seeing; seeds are subtle and cannot cognize another, and have no meaning of use and enjoyment, so this is not necessary. This is solely the object of the mental consciousness; where the Madhyāntavibhāga and so forth state that it cognizes another's body, this answers the question in this manner.