瑜伽師地論略纂 13.34

13.34

論云「阿賴耶識或於一時與轉識相應善、不善、無記心俱時而轉」者，西方為五識有次第緣、無次第緣家二說：一、有次第緣家義者，以卒爾心唯一剎那故，相續唯在等流心。如眼識緣善起，至等流心，一類自相續生；耳識後起，乃至等流，緣不善起，自類相續。前善眼識未滅，耳不善識遂生，故并第八無記，三性並起。與五識中更取一識起無記可知，或第七即是。二、無次第緣家者，乃至等流五識亦無相續。有二說：一、無一念中三性並起。此中據事究竟語，名一剎邦，非一念中三性並起。二、即如前眼善識起，至等流心時，耳識卒爾心起，乃至耳不善等流心生，眼識亦生，故此一時善不善並。　問曰：若五識起善惡，必意識引。如耳識起，意引不善生，眼識無能引，應不起善。義曰：初起善惡，必由意引，若已引者，更不須引，故於後時眼還生善。　問：若曰境平等，可眼耳二識要隔三剎那方起；或境貪愛，何妨隔一二剎那即起。若爾，眼耳即不並生。義曰：要須隔三剎那，五識類等故。雖於境貪愛，以五識類等故，不得隔一二念即生。又義：隔一二剎那亦有起惡。　若爾，即無三性並。義曰：若有此義，故於平等境時起三性心。如前說。

The treatise says: "The ālayavijñāna at one time may evolve simultaneously with wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate minds associated with the evolving consciousnesses." In the West, there are two theories: those who hold that the five consciousnesses cognize sequentially, and those who hold that they do not cognize sequentially. First, the position of those who hold that they cognize sequentially: because the initial perceptual mind is only a single kṣaṇa, continuity exists only in the outflowing mind. For example, when the eye-consciousness arises taking a wholesome object, reaching the outflowing mind, a uniform continuum arises of itself; the ear-consciousness arises later, reaching the outflowing [mind], arising taking an unwholesome object, and continuing in its own category. Before the previous wholesome eye-consciousness has ceased, the unwholesome ear-consciousness then arises; therefore, together with the indeterminate eighth consciousness, the three natures arise simultaneously. Taking yet another consciousness among the five consciousnesses to arise as indeterminate can be understood, or the seventh is precisely this. Second, for those who hold that they do not cognize sequentially, even up to the outflowing [mind], the five consciousnesses have no continuity. There are two theories: First, that the three natures do not arise simultaneously in a single thought-moment. Here, based on the completion of the matter, it is called a single kṣaṇa, not that the three natures arise simultaneously within a single thought-moment. Second, just as before, when the wholesome eye-consciousness arises and reaches the outflowing mind, the initial perceptual mind of the ear-consciousness arises, and when the unwholesome outflowing mind of the ear arises, the eye-consciousness also arises; therefore at this one time wholesome and unwholesome arise together. The question is asked: If the five consciousnesses initiate wholesome or unwholesome, they must be induced by the mental consciousness. As when the ear-consciousness arises, the mental consciousness induces unwholesome to arise; since the eye-consciousness has no inducer, it should not produce wholesome. The explanation says: The initial arising of wholesome or unwholesome must be induced by the mental consciousness; if it has already been induced, it does not require further induction, and therefore at a later time the eye-consciousness again produces wholesome. Question: If objects are equal, the eye and ear consciousnesses must be separated by three kṣaṇas before arising; but if there is craving for an object, what objection is there that they arise separated by only one or two kṣaṇas? If so, the eye and ear consciousnesses would not arise simultaneously. The explanation says: They must be separated by three kṣaṇas, because the five consciousnesses are of equal category. Although there is craving for the object, because the five consciousnesses are of equal category, they cannot arise separated by only one or two thought-moments. Another explanation: Separated by one or two kṣaṇas, unwholesome also arises. If so, there is no simultaneous arising of the three natures. The explanation says: If this principle holds, therefore when objects are equal, minds of the three natures arise. As explained before.