成唯識論述記 4.343

4.343

述曰：下破異計。初有五量總破識等非；後遮色等。初中有二：初破心；後例所謂諸轉識。總破六識，皆不能執受有漏色身。即取下言以為宗法；現緣起故；如風聲等，即對先說阿賴耶識，先業所引以能執受。又宗法中不言不能執有漏身者，設六轉識無漏性者，亦不能執佛無漏身故。又下法中不能執受有漏色身，自乃具足，下皆准知，此第一因。自下第二別破異性，彼轉識中善、染性等，等取威儀等心，皆不能執受有漏色身，非業引故，如非擇滅，自對前說非善染等。然無漏識不執有漏色身，故無過失，俱共許故。

The Commentary states: Below is the refutation of divergent assertions. First, there are five formal inferences generally refuting that consciousness and the like [can appropriate]; afterwards, matter and the like are excluded. In the first part there are two: first refuting the mind, then by analogy [refuting mental factors]. The statement "for the transforming consciousnesses" generally refutes that the six consciousnesses can all appropriate the tainted material body. That is, taking the statement below as the property of the subject (sādhya-dharma): "being arisen from present conditions"; "just like wind, sound, and the like", which stands in contrast to the earlier statement that the ālayavijñāna, being drawn by past karma, is capable of appropriating. Moreover, the reason why the thesis does not state "cannot appropriate a tainted body" is that even if the six transforming consciousnesses were untainted, they could still not appropriate the Buddha's untainted body. Furthermore, in the predicate below, "cannot appropriate the tainted material body" is complete in itself, and all below should be understood accordingly; this is the first reason. Below is the second, separately refuting the different natures: the wholesome and defiled natures and the like among those transforming consciousnesses—"and the like" including minds of deportment and so forth—cannot appropriate the tainted material body; "because they are not drawn by karma"; "just like uncalculated cessation", contrasting with what was previously stated as "not wholesome, defiled, etc." However, an untainted consciousness does not appropriate a tainted material body, so there is no fault, since both sides commonly accept this.