瑜伽師地論略纂 2.26

2.26

From "Furthermore, when the mental consciousness operates spontaneously and with distraction, apprehending an unaccustomed object" onward, this clarifies the time-period of the objects apprehended by the five minds. There are two explanations of this. One says: When the mental consciousness arises spontaneously without strong conceptual discrimination, and arises in distraction without being in meditative absorption, if it apprehends an unaccustomed object without arising together with the particular mental factors such as desire (chanda), at that time the mental consciousness apprehends the object for the very first time, which is called the mind falling into the initial reactive state. Because there is no anticipation, it is not said to apprehend the future; although it apprehends the present, because it is merely a category of object previously attained, it is designated solely as apprehending a past object. This refers to the solitary mental consciousness. Because the mode of activity arisen in the initial reactive mind apprehends a category of past objects, it is designated as apprehending the past. If there is strong conceptual discrimination, or a mind in meditative absorption, apprehending an accustomed object together with desire and so forth, this initial reactive mind of the mental consciousness is not fixed as to the time-period it apprehends. As for the mental consciousness that arises immediately after the initial reactive mind of the five consciousnesses—namely, investigation and determination—it should only be said to apprehend a present object. If considered from the perspective of a single moment, it actually apprehends the past; but in terms of the three periods of state and in terms of the direct cognitive object-aspect (sākṣād-ālambana-nimitta), it should only be said to apprehend the present. If someone objects: "Both investigation and determination arise apprehending the object of the five consciousnesses in the preceding moment, which apprehends the past period; why is it now said to apprehend the present?" Therefore, the treatise answers generally: If it is this, it arises apprehending that object. This means: if these two minds apprehend that very object apprehended by the five consciousnesses in the preceding moment, it should be designated as apprehending the past; yet because a similar continuity exists in the present period and is taken as the object by these two minds of investigation and determination, it should be designated as apprehending the present, and is not designated as apprehending the past relative to the fundamental substance (benshi). The import here implicitly indicates that the initial reactive [mind] of the five consciousnesses apprehends only the present, whereas investigation and determination [subsequent to] the initial reactive [mind] of the mental consciousness also apprehend the past. A second explanation: Everything before "named the mind falling into the initial reactive state" explains the initial reactive mind of the mental consciousness, because previously the initial reactive mind of the mental consciousness had not yet been explained. If there is strong conceptual discrimination and a mind in meditative absorption, together with an accustomed object, and desire and so forth arise, at that time the mental consciousness is not called the mind falling into the initial reactive state; only if it is spontaneous and so forth, up to having no desire and so forth arise, is it called initial reaction. Because previously the initial reactive mind of the mental consciousness was not discussed, it is discussed now.