瑜伽師地論略纂 13.36

13.36

論云「又如諸心所，雖心所性無有差別，然相異故等，乃至於一身中一時俱轉，當知更互亦不相違」，此釋伏難云：云何如一身中有諸識俱轉？應立量云：第八及諸識依一身中俱轉，互不相違，此宗；因云相各異故；喻云如諸心所法一身俱轉。「又如於一暴流，有多波浪一時而轉，互不相違等，乃至有多轉識一時而轉，亦不相違」者，此釋難云：如何依一現行第八上有諸識俱起？此據於第八識，非一異故，有種子故，得有諸識並生。今立量云：第八識上容有諸識並生（宗），不一異故（因），喻云如水波、鏡像。此中因果道理，若約用別，不得名一。如心所，性雖無差別，然相異故。若言體性，波浪雖多，體唯一水，故六、八識不得言異；因果用別，不得言一。如一種子，不自成因果，終望去等方成故。體即一性，異即不成因果，故不得言異。如水不生火，是性異故，今此道理亦爾。即如《攝論》，無著等徒以六識等為別有體。又有義：即是一體。此二義別。今此中依中道說，二偏俱非，二家總取並是。「又如一眼識，一時唯取一事境」等，以下文釋上來明第六識緣他自境教頓及不頓義，故以眼識等為喻。此中有宗、因、喻等，如文可解。末那以諸門分別，如諸德章可解。　緣八為我、我所，有二說：一、即緣王為我，緣所為我所。此非正義，不別緣故。二說、即直緣我是我見，為我家之我，是我所見。　問曰：何以得一念中起二心解耶？義曰：第六尚起一切境解，末那何妨？此義為正。又緣見為我，緣相分為所，諸餘九數有論文相應，或唯與十九數相應等。第三果何時斷？世間道伏不伏？如俊師末那章解（勘舊抄）。此解末那，又即解前諸識俱轉中文，彼未了者，此亦重決。彼前唯云若與有心、無心，不解定不定地，不違善不善故，故今時云重決定。即解六識緣自他前文故，故論云又前說也。

The treatise says: "Moreover, just as with the various mental factors, although there is no difference in their nature as mental factors, their characteristics are distinct, and so forth... even functioning simultaneously within a single body, one should know that they also do not mutually conflict." This explains an implicit objection: "How can there be multiple consciousnesses functioning simultaneously in a single body?" One should establish an inference: "The eighth and other consciousnesses function simultaneously depending on a single body without mutually conflicting"—this is the thesis; the reason states: "because their characteristics are each distinct"; the example states: "just as the mental factors function simultaneously in a single body." "Moreover, just as in a single violent torrent, many waves function at one time without mutually conflicting, and so forth... even to the point that many evolving consciousnesses functioning at one time also do not mutually conflict": this explains the objection: "How, based on a single active eighth consciousness, can multiple consciousnesses arise simultaneously?" This is based on the fact that the eighth consciousness is neither identical nor different [from them], and because it possesses seeds, multiple consciousnesses can arise together. Now, establishing an inference: "On the eighth consciousness, it is possible for multiple consciousnesses to arise together" (thesis); "because they are neither identical nor different" (reason); the example states: "like waves on water, or reflections in a mirror." In the principle of cause and effect here, if considered in terms of distinct functions, they cannot be called identical. Just as with mental factors, although their nature is not different, their characteristics are distinct. If speaking of fundamental nature: although the waves are many, their substance is only one water; hence the sixth and eighth consciousnesses cannot be called different. Because cause and effect differ in function, they cannot be called identical. Just as a single seed does not form cause and effect on its own, but only accomplishes it in relation to what is past and so forth. In substance it is a single nature, and if different, cause and effect would not be accomplished; hence they cannot be called different. Just as water does not generate fire because their natures are different, this principle here is also like that. That is, as in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the followers of Asaṅga and others hold that the six consciousnesses and so forth have separate substances. There is also another view: they are of one substance. These two meanings differ. Now, here it is spoken according to the Middle Way: both extremes are wrong, and taking both masters together is correct. "Moreover, just as a single visual consciousness grasps only a single object at one time..." and so forth: the text below explains the previous teaching on whether the sixth consciousness takes other and self objects all at once or not all at once, and therefore uses the visual consciousness and so forth as examples. Here there are thesis, reason, example, and so forth, which can be understood from the text. Manas is distinguished through various aspects, which can be understood from the treatises of various masters. Regarding taking the eighth as self and belonging to self, there are two views: First, it takes the principal mind as self, and the mental factors as belonging to self. This is not the correct view, because they are not taken distinctly. The second view is: it directly takes "self" as the self-view, and takes "the self of my own family" as the view of belonging to self. Question: Why can it give rise to two mental understandings in a single thought-moment? The meaning is: the sixth consciousness can even give rise to understanding of all objects; what is to prevent manas from doing so? This view is correct. Moreover, taking the darśanabhāga as self and the nimittabhāga as belonging to self: the other nine mental factors have textual authority for their association, or it is only associated with nineteen factors, and so forth. At what time is the third fruit abandoned? Is it suppressed or not suppressed by the worldly path? As explained in Master Jun's Treatise on Manas (check old notes). This explains manas, and also explains the text above regarding the simultaneous functioning of multiple consciousnesses; what was not clarified there is also decisively resolved again here. Formerly, it only spoke of whether it is with mind or without mind, and did not explain meditative or non-meditative stages, because they do not contradict wholesome and unwholesome; therefore it is now called a re-determination. That is, it explains the earlier text on the six consciousnesses taking self and other; hence the treatise says, "as previously stated."