成唯識論述記 4.421

4.421

述曰：謂名與色此二與識相依而住。無性釋言：此二皆用識為因緣，識復依此展轉相續而轉，即是此中互相依義。復引俱時因果為例，如二蘆束更互為緣，恒俱時轉，不相捨離。薩婆多師羯邏藍時無五識故，故唯有意。意即為識，識俱心所說為名，名既通攝非色四蘊。彼宗釋言：名總攝四，實但有三，謂無識蘊故，不與名相應。經自釋言：名通四蘊，故相違也。若謂初時雖無有識，第二念識名名中識，說初念識為名外識。說相依者，即束蘆喻，道理不成，不俱有故。設此位及後許有五識，生諸識不並，故無相依俱義。即是彼部絕解此經，更無理救，經部師等道理同此。《瑜伽》第九有二義解：一云俱有依根曰色，等無間滅依根曰名，隨其所應為六識所依，依止彼故，乃至命終諸識流轉。此解則通大小，非此所諍，便助彼宗，非欲自解；又復彼設爾但以自相望前後為緣，束蘆喻不成。彼論次文亦有此喻，故知此說且隨小相，仍非同喻。第二解云：又五色根，根所依大種，及根處所彼能生大種曰色，所餘曰名。要由有識執受諸根墮相續法，方得流轉，即同此解。故小無解，唯上座部細意名識，麁意名名，如前已遮有二識起，故今不說。

The Commentary states: This means that these two, name and form, abide in mutual dependence with consciousness. Asvabhāva explains: 'Both of these take consciousness as their direct cause (hetupratyaya), and consciousness in turn functions in continuous succession dependent upon these; this is precisely the meaning of mutual dependence here.' He further cites simultaneous cause and effect as an example: just as two bundles of reeds serve as conditions for each other, constantly operating at the same time and not separating from one another. For the Sarvāstivādin master, because there are no five consciousnesses during the kalala stage, there is only mental consciousness (manovijñāna). Mental consciousness is itself consciousness, and the mental factors concomitant with consciousness are spoken of as name; name thus comprehensively includes the four non-material aggregates. That school explains: 'Although name generically includes all four, in reality there are only three, because there is no aggregate of consciousness, and hence it is not associated with name.' But the sūtra itself explains that name encompasses all four aggregates; thus [their view] contradicts it. If it is said that although in the initial moment there is no consciousness, the consciousness of the second moment is called the consciousness within name, and the consciousness of the initial moment is said to be the consciousness outside name, then when they are said to be mutually dependent, the analogy of the bundle of reeds is logically untenable, because they do not exist simultaneously. Even if the five consciousnesses were conceded to exist in this stage and later, the consciousnesses that arise do not occur concurrently; therefore there is no simultaneous sense of mutual dependence. Thus that school completely fails to explain this sūtra, and has no rational defence whatsoever. The principles of the Sautrāntikas and others are identical to this. The ninth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi offers two interpretations: The first says that the faculty that serves as simultaneous support is called form, while the faculty that serves as equal-and-immediate-cessation support is called name; according to their respective roles, they serve as the supports for the six consciousnesses, and dependent upon them, the various consciousnesses circulate until life's end. This interpretation applies to both the Greater and Lesser Vehicles; it is not what is in dispute here, for it merely aids that [other] school and does not seek to explain our own view. Moreover, even if it were so, it merely regards them as preceding and succeeding conditions with respect to each other, so the analogy of the bundles of reeds is not established. Later in that treatise, this analogy also appears, so we know this explanation merely accommodates the Lesser Vehicle presentation and is still not an appropriate analogy. The second explanation says: Furthermore, the five material faculties, the great elements on which the faculties depend, and the locations of the faculties as well as the great elements capable of producing them, are called form; the remainder is called name. It is only because there is a consciousness that appropriates the faculties and enters into a continuous stream that circulation can occur. This is identical to our present explanation. Therefore the Lesser Vehicle has no valid explanation. Only the Sthaviravādin school holds that subtle mind is called consciousness and coarse mind is called name; but since it has already been refuted above that two consciousnesses arise [simultaneously], it is not discussed now.