瑜伽師地論略纂 14.3

14.3

Regarding the intent of establishing the four stations of consciousness in the treatise's explanation: it is done in order to refute non-Buddhists. Why is this? All non-Buddhists grasp at the four aggregates, thinking, "The self abides within them." Now it is stated that consciousness abides within them, not that a self abides. "Essential nature": that is, the four aggregates serve as the essential nature. Question: Why is the consciousness aggregate not taken as the essential nature? Explanation: As the text below states, there is no separate cognitive grasping of consciousness that gives rise to craving and attachment as there is with form, feeling, and so forth; hence consciousness is not spoken of as a station of consciousness, because it is not predominant like the other four aggregates, upon which one distinctly gives rise to craving and so forth. Furthermore, the Buddha taught that the nature of mind is originally luminous and pure, unlike craving and so forth, whose nature as defiled covers it; hence it is not below the stations of consciousness. This is the first interpretation, an appositional compound with a numeral (digu) among the six compound types, or named by taking the meaning from the number, and so forth. Question: Are these stations of consciousness internal sentient beings, or should they also apply to insentient things? Explanation: They also apply to insentient things. Why is this? As in the Hīnayāna treatises, five meanings are used to establish a station of consciousness: namely, a station of consciousness is established by the meanings of support (āśraya), engagement (ākāra), objective condition (ālambana), association (saṃprayoga), and portion (aṃśa). Now, this is not the case here; that which is the objective condition in which consciousness abides is called a station of consciousness, as in the treatise immediately below. Furthermore, a Hīnayāna treatise says: some say that because it is not multiple, it is a station of consciousness—this is not so, because a station of consciousness is established by the meanings of engagement, objective condition, association, and portion. Here the characters should be stripped away; it should say "because it is only sentient beings." This is not so; among the five meanings, it is not necessary that all five must be complete; having one among the five meanings is sufficient. These Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna texts differ and cannot serve as proof. For example, in the *Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya*, in the Chapter on the World, the four stations of consciousness are explained within the world of sentient beings, and many Dharma masters establish them solely as the category of sentient beings. This is not so; who said it is thus? How could its explanation here mean it is exclusively sentient beings? Therefore, we know that establishing the stations of consciousness in terms of the objective condition extends to both sentient and insentient beings. Question: Is the undefiled consciousness aggregate established as a station of consciousness or not? Explanation: It is not so. As the text below says, undefiled consciousness is not, because that which can benefit consciousness and give rise to craving and aversion is a station of consciousness. Now, this undefiled [consciousness] ruptures cyclic existence; where consciousness is stilled does not serve as a station of consciousness. It is present throughout the three realms, as the text below says, because it can give rise to craving.