瑜伽師地論略纂 13.30

13.30

論云「阿賴耶與諸識俱轉轉相，謂或一時唯與一種俱轉，所謂末那俱轉。何以故？此末那等，乃至若有心位，若無心位，常與第八俱轉意」者，此與《對法》第二相違。彼云：又此意遍行一切善、不善、無記法俱，唯除聖道現行，若處滅定及無學位，故此相違。即此文云無心、有心皆相違，即滅定無心、聖道無學有心尚行故，有相違故。依此西方二說：一云末那唯有人我，無法我，即如《對法》三時不現行為正。然此中言有心、無心、三性位有等者，即除滅定，餘無心位，謂無心睡眠、悶絕、入無相定、生無想天，非謂滅定中有。今無漏觀無學身中，三乘皆入人空觀，第七唯人我故，不行有漏之識，無漏之識可生。若言滅定亦有第七，一切時論此我意也。　問曰：云何滅定等三時無，而言常與第七識俱轉？答曰：此據除三位，餘一切位俱，非三位亦有名俱。下言有心定、無心定者，即無想定、有漏定等，非滅定、無漏定。又第二師釋云：即此文為正，末那一切時常有。然《對法》言三時不行。亦有義：以第七識雙起人、法二我，如二乘入無漏觀等三位，人執末那不行；若菩薩入法觀聖道等三位，即法執末那不行。此二時中，無人執時，法執在；二執無時，無漏末那生。今遮有漏二執故言無，非人觀中無法執，二空觀中無無漏者。若爾，何故此文或與一識俱轉？答曰：此於餘六言或，非唯此一。不然，更加二、三等不定故言或，非末那有時有、無時無言或也。何故無漏等觀中無人法執者？如《佛地論》、《對法》第二說所以。

The treatise says: "Regarding the manner of co-evolution of the ālaya with the consciousnesses, it evolves at one time with only one kind [of consciousness], namely, it co-evolves with manas. Why? Because this manas... up to: whether in states with thought or in states without thought, the mind that constantly co-evolves with the eighth..." This contradicts the second scroll of the *Abhidharma[-samuccaya-bhāṣya]*. That text states: "Furthermore, this manas is universally active, co-occurring with all wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate dharmas, except only when the noble path is active, when dwelling in the attainment of cessation, and in the stage of the non-learner." Thus this contradicts it. This text saying that it is in both thoughtless and thoughtful states is entirely in contradiction, because in the attainment of cessation which is thoughtless, and the noble path and non-learner stages which are thoughtful, it is still active, and hence there is a contradiction. Based on this, there are two theories in the West: One says that manas only has the self-grasping of a person and lacks the self-grasping of dharmas; thus the *Abhidharma* stating that it is non-operative in the three occasions is correct. However, where it is said here that it exists in states with thought, states without thought, and the three natures, this refers to excluding the attainment of cessation and taking the remaining thoughtless states—namely, thoughtless sleep, fainting, entering the signless attainment, and rebirth in the non-conceptual heaven—and does not mean that it exists in the attainment of cessation. Now, within the body of a non-learner in uncontaminated contemplation, all three vehicles enter the contemplation of the emptiness of persons; because the seventh [consciousness] is only personal self-grasping, contaminated consciousness does not operate, and uncontaminated consciousness may arise. If one claims that the seventh consciousness also exists in the attainment of cessation, this treatise's statement of "all times" refers to this self[-grasping] manas. The question is asked: If it does not exist during the three occasions such as the attainment of cessation, why say that it constantly co-evolves with the seventh consciousness? The answer is: This is based on excluding those three stages; it co-evolves in all remaining stages, and it is not that it exists in those three stages to be called co-evolving. Below, where it mentions samādhis with thought and samādhis without thought, these are the non-conceptual attainment, contaminated samādhis, and so on, not the attainment of cessation or uncontaminated samādhis. Again, the second master's explanation says: This text is indeed definitive, and manas is constantly present at all times. Yet the *Abhidharma* says that it does not operate in the three occasions. This also has meaning: Because the seventh consciousness double-initiates both personal and dharma self-grasping, when the two vehicles enter the uncontaminated contemplation and so forth, in these three stages manas with personal grasping does not operate; when a bodhisattva enters the contemplation of dharmas, the noble path, and so forth, in these three stages manas with dharma grasping does not operate. In these two occasions, when personal grasping is absent, dharma grasping remains; when both graspings are absent, uncontaminated manas arises. Now, in order to exclude the two contaminated graspings, it is said to be absent; it is not that there is no dharma grasping during contemplation of persons, nor that there is no uncontaminated [manas] during the contemplation of the two emptinesses. If so, why does this text say "or co-evolves with one consciousness"? The answer is: This "or" is spoken in relation to the other six, not that there is only this one. Otherwise, adding two, three, and so forth makes it unfixed, which is why it says "or"; it does not say "or" meaning that manas sometimes exists and sometimes does not. Why is personal and dharma grasping absent during uncontaminated contemplation? This reason is as explained in the *Buddhabhūmi-śāstra* and the second scroll of the *Abhidharma*.