成唯識論述記 4.377

4.377

述曰：下文有五：一、破六識非；二、顯第八是；三、破大乘異說；四、破上座部義；五、難死時漸捨之識。初中有三，如文自顯，此即第一舉無轉識。此位身心俱太惛昧，身惛昧，硬強性；心惛昧，闇劣性。「如睡無夢」，即五位中無心睡眠；「極悶絕時」，因鬼、藥等有此事起，如〈決擇分〉無心地說。然《瑜伽》師生死二位既無六心，無心地中不別說者，即悶絕攝。今言悶絕離死，生外為鬼、藥等所悶絕故。今此二位非是住定，住散位攝，有此無心故引為證。量云：即生、死位，明了轉識必不現起；身心惛昧故；如睡無夢等。此二位中身心惛昧，大小二乘悉皆共許，故極成因。轉識生死位無，唯大乘義，故得為宗。對薩婆多此喻不成，彼但三位說無心故。然先釋有二：一、謂唯有第八無餘六轉，此文可然，宗無餘故。即以《瑜伽》第一為證，謂入母胎說有本識，不說意故。又以《對法》論文為證，唯以無記心命終故。二、說亦有意識，豈以《瑜伽》不說意識即便無者？第七應然，以不說故，此位應無。若無記心命終受生便唯第八，第八恒有，何須說也？即以此文證有第六。簡異性故，說唯無記。若不然者，說無心位，何不別說受生、命終，唯言五位？前師解云：亦即悶絕，俱是惛昧位中攝故。然今此中文勢本意，唯取有本識義為正所宗。言無意識，受生、命終唯有本識。若無本識，以誰為受生、命終之心也？今助釋云：是破他故且言無意，非唯一說此兼兩師。然下既無別說，即以前師為正。

The Commentary states: In the text below there are five points: 1. refuting the six consciousnesses as incorrect; 2. revealing the eighth as correct; 3. refuting disparate Mahāyāna theories; 4. refuting the Sthavira school's doctrine; 5. questioning the consciousness that gradually relinquishes [the body] at death. In the first there are three, as the text itself clearly shows; this is the first, adducing the absence of the evolving consciousnesses. In this state, both body and mind are excessively confused and dull: the body being confused and dull is its rigid and stiff nature; the mind being confused and dull is its dark and inferior nature. "Like sleep without dreams" refers to mindless sleep among the five states; "at the time of extreme fainting" occurs due to ghosts, medicine, and so forth, as explained in the state of mindlessness in the *Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī*. However, since the *Yogācāra* masters hold that the two states of birth and death lack the six minds, the reason they are not separately stated in the mindless states is that they are subsumed under fainting. Here fainting is spoken of apart from death and birth, because of being fainted by ghosts, drugs, etc. Now these two states are not abiding in meditative absorption, but are subsumed under abiding in a distracted state; since there is this mindlessness, it is cited as proof. The syllogism is: In the very states of birth and death, the clear evolving consciousnesses definitely do not manifest; because body and mind are confused and dull; like sleep without dreams, etc. In these two states body and mind are confused and dull, which is mutually accepted by both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; hence it is an established reason. The absence of evolving consciousnesses in the states of birth and death is solely a Mahāyāna doctrine, so it can serve as the thesis. Against the Sarvāstivādin, this example is not established, because they only state three states of mindlessness. However, previous explanations are two: First, that there is only the eighth and no other six evolving [consciousnesses]; this text is acceptable, because the thesis is that there are no others. That is, taking the first fascicle of the *Yogācāra* as proof, which says that entering the mother's womb has the fundamental consciousness, without speaking of the mental consciousness. Furthermore, taking the text of the *Abhidharmasamuccaya* treatise as proof, because one dies solely with an unrecorded mind. Second, stating that there is also the mental consciousness; how could it be that just because the *Yogācāra* does not mention the mental consciousness, it therefore does not exist? The seventh should be like this: because it is not mentioned, it should be absent in this state. If with an unrecorded mind one dies and takes birth, then it is only the eighth; the eighth exists perpetually, so why need it be mentioned? Thus, using this text proves that the sixth exists. To exclude a different nature, it is said to be solely unrecorded. If it were not so, when speaking of mindless states, why did it not separately speak of taking birth and dying, but only spoke of five states? The former master explains: It is also fainting, because both are subsumed within the confused and dull state. However, the original intent of the textual force here solely takes the doctrine that the fundamental consciousness exists as the correct thesis. It says there is no mental consciousness; taking birth and dying have only the fundamental consciousness. If there were no fundamental consciousness, what would serve as the mind of taking birth and dying? Now, assisting in the explanation, it says: To refute others, it temporarily says there is no mental consciousness; it is not merely a single explanation, but combines both masters. However, since below there is no separate explanation, the former master is taken as correct.