成唯識論述記 3.450

3.450

述曰：此有二文，初三復次等釋唯捨俱，後簡不與餘所相應之所以也。初中第一三復次釋；後解外難。三復次中，一一有多所以，且初釋中復有五義，一、極不明了是捨受相。若苦樂受，必明了故。此中憂、喜入苦、樂中，依三受門不言憂、喜。二、不能分別違、順。境相取中，容境是捨受相。若是餘受，取順、違境故。三、由微細。若是餘受，行相必麁。四、由一類。若是餘受，必是易脫。此行相定，故成一類。五、相續而轉。若是餘受，必有間斷，此恒相續，故唯捨受。若許明了，行相可知，便應不能攝益相續。若能分別違、順境相，非真異熟，真異熟者取境定故。若麁動者，應如餘心，非異熟主，顯行相難知，異餘識也。若許易脫，即善、惡趣皆悉不能互攝彼種，許是善識能持惡種，與理相違，《攝論》第三亦有此解。若有間斷，便非彼生，亦不受熏，已捨壽故，性非堅故，如餘心等。由此五義必具有故，便能受熏持種相續。又解「此識極不明了」，簡無惠、念，惠、念行相極明了故。「不能分別違、順境相」，顯唯捨受，非苦、樂俱，及簡不與善、染等並。「微細」之緣，簡定及非異熟，非異熟法，相麁動故；定深取所緣，此任運細不深取故。「一類」之義，簡勝解數，先不定境今印定時，有勝解故。「相續而轉」，顯無有欲，今有希望，方有欲起，此相續故無有欲也。由此五義，第二正顯唯捨所由，所餘四緣因簡別境等，故唯與捨俱。雖有二解，前解為勝，顯捨受俱，不應於中簡其別境等。

The Commentary states: There are two passages here. First, three alternative explanations explain why it is conjoined solely with equanimity; later, it eliminates the reasons why it is not associated with the remaining mental factors. In the first part, the first passage gives three alternative explanations; later, it resolves external objections. In each of the three alternative explanations there are multiple reasons. In the first explanation there are furthermore five meanings: 1. Being utterly unclarified is the characteristic of equanimous feeling. If it were painful or pleasant feeling, it would certainly be clarified. Here, grief and joy are included within pain and pleasure; according to the gate of the three feelings, grief and joy are not mentioned. 2. Inability to distinguish contrary and conformable marks of objects, and taking neutral objects, is the characteristic of equanimous feeling. If it were the other feelings, they would apprehend conformable or contrary objects. 3. Due to being subtle. If it were the other feelings, their ākāras would certainly be coarse. 4. Due to being of a single category. If it were the other feelings, they would certainly be subject to shift. The ākāra of this [consciousness] is fixed, hence forming a single category. 5. Operating in unbroken continuity. If it were the other feelings, there would certainly be interruptions; this [consciousness] is ever-continuous, hence it is only equanimous feeling. If it were allowed to be clarified, its ākāra would be knowable, and it would then be incapable of sustaining and benefiting the continuum. If it could distinguish contrary and conformable marks of objects, it would not be a true maturation; for that which is a true maturation apprehends objects determinately. If it were coarse and fluctuating, it would be like other minds and not the master of maturation; this shows that its ākāra is difficult to know, differing from other consciousnesses. If it were allowed to shift, then neither wholesome nor unwholesome destinies could mutually embrace those bījas; allowing a wholesome consciousness to hold unwholesome bījas contradicts reason, an explanation also found in the third fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. If it had interruptions, it would not be born of those [destinies], nor could it receive vāsanā, having already relinquished the lifespan, and because its nature would not be stable, like other minds. Because these five meanings must all be present, it can receive vāsanā and hold bījas in unbroken continuity. Alternatively, it is explained: "This consciousness is utterly unclarified" eliminates the presence of prajñā and smṛti, because the ākāra of prajñā and smṛti is extremely clarified. "Unable to distinguish contrary and conformable marks of objects" demonstrates that it is solely equanimous feeling, not conjoined with pain or pleasure, and eliminates its co-occurring with wholesome, defiled, and other factors. The condition of being "subtle" eliminates meditative absorption and non-maturation, because non-maturing dharmas have coarse and fluctuating marks; absorption deeply grasps its objective support, whereas this [consciousness] is spontaneous and subtle and does not deeply grasp. The meaning of "a single category" eliminates the mental factor of adhimokṣa; for when an object previously indeterminate is now determined, adhimokṣa is present. "Operating in unbroken continuity" shows that it is devoid of chanda; only when there is longing does chanda arise, and because this [consciousness] is continuous, there is no chanda. By these five meanings, the second directly shows the reason why it is only equanimity, while the remaining four conditions eliminate the particular-object [factors] and so forth; hence it is conjoined solely with equanimity. Although there are two interpretations, the former interpretation is superior: in showing conjunction with equanimous feeling, one should not therein eliminate the particular-object [factors] and so forth.