瑜伽師地論略纂 16.52

16.52

論云「末那任運四惑相應乃至不共無明」等者，正法藏云：若見道，煩惱無明名不共，不與惑相應名不共；修道中，末那無明通三性位起，所以名為不共，非不與惑相應。如《攝論》云：如十八不共法，乃至行六識，不與末那共，應名不共等。又解：以一類相應，不同諸識，名不共。護月云：如六識中煩惱緣外境時明了故，見、愛等強，俱時無明但名相應；末那緣內迷執，緣不明了境，無明力強，見、慢等力弱，無明為用勝故，名不共。雖有見、慢等相應，不名相應，但對小乘立此為不共。如《攝論》廣立，云如十八不共法等。　問曰：何故末那中不共見、慢、愛耶？答曰：但對小乘，所以偏無明得不共名，非見、慢等緣相為所、見分我是。護月師義，但緣為我，不為所。此通言者，正法藏義也。即為我家之我者，護法義也。

The treatise states: 'Manas spontaneously associates with the four afflictions... up to unshared ignorance (āveṇikī-avidyā),' and so forth. Saddharmakośa says: If in the path of seeing, the afflictions and ignorance are called unshared because they do not associate with other afflictions; in the path of cultivation, the ignorance of manas arises throughout states of all three natures, which is why it is called unshared, not because it does not associate with afflictions. As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: Just as with the eighteen unshared dharmas, up to the six active consciousnesses not being shared with manas, it should be called unshared, and so forth. Another explanation says: Because it associates in a uniform category, unlike the other consciousnesses, it is called unshared. Candragupta says: Just as when the afflictions in the six consciousnesses take external objects, they are vivid, so view, craving, and the like are strong, and the concurrent ignorance is merely called associated; manas, taking internal objects, deludedly grasps them, taking an indistinct object, so the power of ignorance is strong, while the power of view, pride, and the like is weak, and because the function of ignorance is predominant, it is called unshared. Although it is associated with view, pride, and so forth, it is not called associated; it is only established as unshared in contrast to the Hīnayāna. As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha extensively establishes, stating: 'Just as with the eighteen unshared dharmas,' and so forth. Question: Why is it that view, pride, and craving in manas are not unshared? Answer: It is only in contrast to the Hīnayāna that ignorance alone receives the name 'unshared,' not that view, pride, and the like take the nimittabhāga as object and the darśanabhāga as self. In Master Candragupta's doctrine, it only takes [the darśanabhāga] as self, not as object. This general statement is the doctrine of Saddharmakośa. That it is taken as 'the self of what belongs to self' is the doctrine of Dharmapāla.