瑜伽師地論略纂 13.35

13.35

論云「如是阿賴耶識雖與轉識俱時而轉，亦與容受、善、不善、無記心所俱時而轉」者，此約前識俱受、俱性、俱門為有法。然不應說與彼相應為法即合為宗。何以故？由不與彼同緣轉故下立因；如眼識下，出同法喻。明以容言簡之，其轉識名中自簡，故不言容等。有識言容受者，以受性同三受，並如五識一性時，何妨三受並意識應引生？又何妨三性中二各別受？如前次第作。又三性心尚無一念起者，何況三受？如前事究竟通。又三性雖同時，何妨唯一受，無三受並生？義曰：三性既俱生意識所引，何緣三受非得一時？若三性同時，何無三受？　問曰：三性、三受等初起並由意識引生，後並生已，意緣何境？義曰：若境平等，識境並緣；若於境增，即隨觀。此問即隨境觀，如現任解。若境平等，總觀識境，三性諸心不同三受識所有義，意隨何性心，隨何受起？若性唯無記，不違三性故；若受唯捨受，不違三受故。捨受平等，無記非明證。若隨境增緣，亦緣餘境不？義曰：有緣。然只隨增性，不同餘境性、受等。餘如前說。此上來文解伏難云：前言第八相應受唯不苦樂等，何故後言唯識俱轉，乃至七識俱轉？三性等並生故。今為通此第一通妨。

The treatise says: "Thus, although the ālayavijñāna functions simultaneously with the evolving consciousnesses, it also functions simultaneously with what can be received: wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral mental factors." Here, taking the former consciousnesses' simultaneous reception, simultaneous natures, and simultaneous doors as the subject (dharmin). However, one should not take "associating with them" as the property to be proved (dharma) and combine them into the thesis (pratijñā). Why is that? Because "it does not function while taking the same objects as them" is established below as the reason (hetu); "as visual consciousness [and so forth]" below presents the example of similarity (sādharmya-dṛṣṭānta). It is made clear that the word "can" (capacity) serves to exclude them; within the name of "evolving consciousnesses" itself, this is already excluded, which is why it does not say "can" and so forth. Some consciousnesses say "can be received": because the nature of feeling is identical with the three feelings, just as when the five consciousnesses share a single nature, what is to prevent the three feelings from co-occurring, and the mental consciousness from being induced to arise? What also is to prevent two of the three natures from having distinct feelings? This is done sequentially as before. Furthermore, when even minds of the three natures do not arise within a single thought-moment, how much less the three feelings? This is resolved as before by [regarding it as] the completion of the action. Moreover, although the three natures are simultaneous, what is to prevent there being only one feeling, with no simultaneous arising of three feelings? The meaning is: since the three natures are induced by the simultaneous mental consciousness, for what reason would the three feelings not be obtained at one time? If the three natures are simultaneous, why would there not be three feelings? Question: If the initial arising of the three natures, the three feelings, and so forth is altogether induced and produced by the mental consciousness, then after they have arisen together, what object does the mind take? The meaning is: if the objects are equal, the consciousness takes all objects together; if [one] is predominant among the objects, it then observes accordingly. This question pertains to observing in accordance with the object, as explained based on present functioning. If the objects are equal and it universally observes the objects of the consciousnesses, the minds of the three natures are not like the feelings possessed by the consciousnesses; in accordance with the mind of which nature and in accordance with which feeling does the mental consciousness arise? If in nature it is only neutral, it does not contradict the three natures; if in feeling it is only equanimity, it does not contradict the three feelings. Equanimity is balanced; neutrality is not distinct evidence. If it takes an object in accordance with what is predominant among them, does it also take the remaining objects or not? The meaning is: it does take them. However, it only follows the predominant nature, not the natures, feelings, and so on of the remaining objects. The rest is as explained above. The preceding text resolves an implicit objection: "Earlier it was said that the feeling associated with the eighth consciousness is only neither-painful-nor-pleasant and so forth; why is it later said to function simultaneously with the consciousnesses, even functioning simultaneously with seven consciousnesses, because the three natures and so forth arise together?" Now, this is the first resolution of that objection.