成唯識論述記 4.399

4.399

述曰：此即是我第八之識。所以者何？極成意識不如是故。即以汝因還復破汝，謂彼計有二意識生：一麁二細。細者受生、命終俱不可知，異麁意識。無著《攝論》本云：應二意識俱時轉等，又依染污故時無斷故：意識所緣不可得故。又此所依是種子識，即我所說第八識者。《攝論》諸師未悟此文，由不曾見唯識論故，無二意識並生論者。上座部云：我不頌此經，我部經中無此語故。或說無二麁意並生，及二細意並生言先，不障麁、細二識並生，故無妨也。又因明法因有三相，依染污因。時無斷因，闕無同品，定有一相，非正比量。意識所緣不可知者，如大乘本識緣身、器故。所依種識即本識者，何勞虛認，此體非汝所計之識？今論意言：汝謂不然，且初二意並生有難，亦應有麁、細二眼識並生，轉識攝故，如意識。或意識不得有麁細二識並生；轉識攝故；如眼等識。故知經上無文定說，以理證爾，豈得隨情便撥聖教？次三因者此非正量，謂立量云：汝所言細意識者，決非意識；極成意識不如是故；如眼等識。或意識所緣分明行相不可得故；猶如五識。唯第三因成是比量，前二返顯以理直遂不為比量，何得悟徵。今此論言極成意識不如是者，即彼第三因。文雖不同，義勢是一，由是前量故；汝細意即我賴耶故。故上座師不符正理，自下論文通破諸部。

The Commentary states: This is precisely our eighth consciousness. Why? Because the universally recognized mental consciousness is not like that. That is, by using your own reason, [we] turn around to refute you again. That is, they posit that two mental consciousnesses arise: one coarse and two subtle. The subtle one is uncognizable both at taking birth and at the end of life, differing from coarse mental consciousness. Asaṅga's root *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says: two mental consciousnesses would function simultaneously, etc.; also, because it relies on defilement, therefore it is uninterrupted in time; and because the cognitive object of mental consciousness cannot be apprehended. Furthermore, its support is the seed consciousness, which is precisely the eighth consciousness spoken of by us. The various commentators on the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* did not understand this text, because they had never seen the *Treatise on Consciousness-Only*, which argues that two mental consciousnesses do not arise simultaneously. The Sthaviras say: We do not chant this sūtra, because in the sūtras of our school there is no such statement. Alternatively, they say that no two coarse mental consciousnesses arise simultaneously, and no two subtle mental consciousnesses arise simultaneously; this does not preclude the simultaneous arising of coarse and subtle consciousnesses, so there is no obstacle. Furthermore, according to the rules of hetuvidyā, a reason has three characteristics: the reason 'relying on defilement' and the reason 'uninterrupted in time' lack positive examples (sapakṣa) and have only one characteristic; they are not valid inferences. As for 'the cognitive object of mental consciousness being uncognizable', it is like the root consciousness in the Mahāyāna conditioning the body and the physical world. If the supporting seed consciousness is precisely the root consciousness, why vainly claim that this substance is not the consciousness posited by you? Now the treatise's meaning is: you say it is not so, but first, there is a challenge against two mental consciousnesses arising simultaneously: there should also be coarse and subtle eye-consciousnesses arising simultaneously; because they are subsumed under transforming consciousness; like mental consciousness. Or mental consciousness cannot have coarse and subtle consciousnesses arising simultaneously; because it is subsumed under transforming consciousness; like the eye-consciousness and the rest. Therefore, know that there is no explicit text in the scriptures; it is verified by reason. How could one arbitrarily reject the sacred teaching according to one's own inclination? The next three reasons are not valid inferences. That is, framing the syllogism: your so-called subtle mental consciousness is definitely not mental consciousness; because the universally recognized mental consciousness is not like that; like eye-consciousness and the like. Or, because a clear active mode of the cognitive object of mental consciousness cannot be apprehended; just like the five consciousnesses. Only the third reason establishes this inference; the former two show it inversely by directly following reason and do not constitute formal inferences, so how could one realize the challenge? Now, what this treatise says, that 'the universally recognized mental consciousness is not like that', is precisely that third reason. Although the wording differs, the force of the meaning is one: by virtue of the previous syllogism, your subtle mental consciousness is precisely our ālaya. Therefore, the Sthavira masters do not conform to correct reason. From here on, the treatise text generally refutes the various schools.