成唯識論述記 3.138

3.138

述曰：即是一切有漏善等諸法種子，下解五法中，此三唯有漏。論說非無漏，無漏種子此識既不緣，但為彼依，故非執受，與七十六、《解深密》同，與五十一、《顯揚》等別。彼言遍計所執自性妄執習氣，有何所以者？此有二說，護法等說唯染無記心中有法執，善、無記心不能起執，因執心所執為所遍計熏成於種，此種名妄執習氣，即見、相分而熏種生。又解應分別論文染無記心有遍計所執自性妄執，故此種子名遍計所執自性妄執習氣，善、無記心但是遍計，計是分別心之異名，故此種名遍計習氣，而非所執自性妄執習氣，以有漏心皆名遍計故，非善等心中許有執故。或復此文但約染語，以有漏中多起執故，若不爾者，一切色法非能熏者，皆非能遍計，亦不起執，相分之中既無種子。又此不說本識應不緣，既爾第八應亦能熏，有力能執故。由此故知，此解為勝，下三性中更當分別。安惠等說有漏八識皆能遍計而起於執，即以此文為證。今此師意有八識種子，唯自體分後生現行，似有能詮、所詮相現，說為名、相。名、相現行，遍計所執，相似有故，說自證種能生名、相因緣。名為名、相等習氣，非離自證種外別有名、相種，或名與相雖無實體而別有種，亦不相違，此中二解如下自知。然今此文與彼既別，故此文勝，通一切有漏三界、三性，乃至決擇分等種皆是執受，阿賴耶識性所攝故。

The Commentary states: These are the seeds of all defiled and wholesome phenomena with outflows; below, in explaining the five dharmas, these three are solely with outflows. The treatise states that they are not without outflows; since this consciousness does not take seeds without outflows as its object, but merely serves as their support, they are not apprehension, which agrees with Fascicle 76 and the Saṃdhinirmocana, but differs from Fascicle 51 and the Prakaraṇāryavācā. Why do they speak of the 'vāsanā of the false attachment to the nature of imaginary conceptualization (parikalpita-svabhāva)'? On this there are two explanations. Dharmapāla and others say that dharma-attachment exists only in defiled and indeterminate minds, while wholesome and indeterminate minds cannot give rise to attachment; caused by the mind of attachment, what is attached to is the imagined object which perfumes and forms seeds; these seeds are called the vāsanā of false attachment, which are produced through the perfuming of the seeing aspect and image aspect. Another explanation: one should distinguish in the text of the treatise that defiled and indeterminate minds possess the false attachment to the nature of imaginary conceptualization, and hence these seeds are called the vāsanā of the false attachment to the nature of imaginary conceptualization; wholesome and indeterminate minds are merely conceptualization (vikalpa), conceptualization being another name for the discriminating mind, so these seeds are called the vāsanā of conceptualization, and not the vāsanā of false attachment to the nature of conceptualization, because all minds with outflows are called conceptualization, not that attachment is admitted in wholesome minds and so forth. Alternatively, this text speaks only in terms of defilement, because attachment mostly arises among states with outflows; if not so, all material phenomena, which cannot perfume, would neither be conceptualizing agents nor give rise to attachment, since there would be no seeds within the image aspect. Furthermore, if not mentioned here, the root consciousness would not take them as objects; if that were so, the eighth consciousness would also be capable of perfuming, having the power to attach. From this it is known that this explanation is superior, and it will be further distinguished below under the three natures. Sthiramati and others say that all eight consciousnesses with outflows are capable of conceptualization and give rise to attachment, taking this text as proof. Now this master's intention is that there are seeds of the eight consciousnesses, which in their self-substance aspect alone subsequently generate actual manifestations, appearing as if with the marks of signifier and signified, which are termed 'names and marks'. The actual manifestations of names and marks, being imagined conceptualizations, appear similarly to exist, so the self-attestation seeds are said to be the causal conditions producing names and marks. They are called the vāsanās of names, marks, and so forth; it is not that there are separate seeds for names and marks apart from the self-attestation seeds; or, although names and marks lack real entities, they have separate seeds, which also does not conflict; these two explanations will be understood below. However, since the present text differs from that, the present text is superior, extending to all seeds of the three realms and three natures with outflows, up to the stages of decisive penetration (nirvedhabhāgīya) and so forth, all of which are apprehension, because they are subsumed under the nature of the ālayavijñāna.