成唯識論述記 4.238

4.238

述曰：第三破事、類雙熏計，准世親。前熏後不言類唯取識，是譬喻部師。無性亦然，並無類前熏後。今此設遮經部，兼破譬喻師。譬喻師是經部異師，即日出論者，是名經部。此有三種：一、根本即鳩摩羅多；二、室利邏多，造經部《毘婆沙》，《正理》所言上座是；三、但名經部，以根本師造《結鬘論》廣說譬喻，名譬喻師，從所說為名也，其實總是一種經部。上來事、類俱時被破，即事及類前熏於後。今破云：前念事、類，不熏次後念事、類；不俱有故；如隔多念。隔多念者，彼計不遠熏故得為喻，但熏次後故。設遮識熏類、類熏識、識熏識、類熏類，皆不成立，故總遮云：「非互相熏」。「能熏、所熏必俱時故」者，顯熏習義，非是前後如隔念故。又此文外破前後心異性，或後是善惡類亦然。如何前熏後，後無記可爾？以前經部本計熏習，設六識俱轉。今次敘大眾部，彼計唯有六轉識俱而無熏習，設有熏義。

The Commentary states: Third, this refutes the claim of a dual perfuming of both the concrete event and the category, following Vasubandhu. The earlier perfuming the later without mentioning the category, taking only consciousness, is the position of the Dārṣṭāntika masters. Asvabhāva also holds this, both lacking [the theory of] the category earlier perfuming the later. Now, this passage provisionally excludes the Sautrāntika and additionally refutes the Dārṣṭāntikas. The Dārṣṭāntikas are a divergent branch of the Sautrāntikas, namely the Sūryodayavādins; these are called Sautrāntikas. There are three kinds of them: first, the foundational [master], namely Kumāralāta; second, Śrīlāta, who composed the Sautrāntika *Vibhāṣā*, who is the Sthavira mentioned in the *Nyāyānusāra*; third, those simply named Sautrāntikas; because the foundational master composed the *Granthamālā-śāstra* extensively explaining parables (dṛṣṭānta), they are called Dārṣṭāntikas, taking their name from what was expounded, though in truth they are all one single Sautrāntika [school]. Above, [the view that] the concrete event and the category are simultaneous was refuted, which refers to both the concrete event and the category earlier perfuming the later. Now the refutation states: The concrete event and the category of an earlier moment do not perfume the concrete event and category of the immediately subsequent moment; because they do not exist simultaneously; just as with those separated by many moments. As for 'separated by many moments,' since their position is that there is no distant perfuming, it can serve as an example, as they maintain perfuming only the immediately subsequent [moment]. Setting aside and excluding [the possibilities that] consciousness perfumes the category, the category perfumes consciousness, consciousness perfumes consciousness, or the category perfumes the category—none of these can be established; therefore, it universally excludes them, saying, 'they do not mutually perfume one another.' 'Because the perfumer and the perfumed must be simultaneous' clarifies the meaning of perfuming, showing that it cannot be prior and posterior as if separated by a moment. Furthermore, beyond this text, it refutes the difference in moral nature between earlier and later minds, or that if the later is wholesome or unwholesome, the category would likewise be so. How could an earlier perfume a later, while the later being indeterminate is admissible? Earlier, it was the original Sautrāntika position of perfuming, supposing that the six consciousnesses arise together. Next, it recounts the Mahāsāṃghikas: they maintain that only the six evolving consciousnesses arise together without perfuming, [even] supposing there were an idea of perfuming.