成唯識論述記 4.741

4.741

述曰：下依問辨，此依三頌其第七識十門分別：初、舉第二能變出末那名；二、解所依；三、解所緣；四、出體釋義；五、釋行相；六、顯染俱；七、觸等相應；八、三性分別；九、界地分別；十、隱顯分別，即是伏斷之位次也，於下顯中一一廣釋。問：何故本識不辨所依，次能變中解彼依體？答：本識諸識之本，與他為依義顯，他與為依義隱。故不出。其所依，第七既八之餘，所以出其依體。問：若爾本識與他依義顯，何不說之？答：前頌已說。謂彼頌說恒轉如流，如流之言，義生餘識，即是依義。問：何故不說第七與他為依，第三能變中不釋根、境？答：是作論者意欲爾故，不應責之。或影略門，謂初能變但釋所緣，故前頌言執受處是。第三能變唯釋所依，故後頌言依止本識。第二能變依、緣俱顯，欲令學者可知一隅三隅返故。或謂本識諸法之本，但說與他為依，出自識體、所緣；前之六識境麁不說，但出所依，依止根本識等者是，故下論云：此所緣、及別依，麁顯、極成，故此不說。第七依、緣俱隱，根、境合釋。所以作論三種不同，非但說所緣而無依等。何故本識不出界繫？論主略故。或言：異熟即是界繫，隨何界異熟，即彼界繫故。此亦應然，言染俱已即隨彼繫。此不為例，謂前六識起與本識非必同繫。除無漏識此與本識起必同界，恐類前六故今說之。又作法各別不應為難，後能變中即不解故。

The Commentary states: Below, it is discerned according to the question; based on the three verses, it analyzes the seventh consciousness through ten topics: 1. Presenting the second transformer and revealing the name manas; 2. Explaining its support (āśraya); 3. Explaining its cognitive object (ālambana); 4. Identifying its substantial entity and explaining its meaning; 5. Explaining its mental mode of activity (ākāra); 6. Revealing what it is defiled in conjunction with; 7. Association with contact (sparśa) and the like; 8. Analysis of the three natures (trisvabhāva); 9. Analysis of realms and planes (dhātu-bhūmi); 10. Analysis of concealment and manifestation, which refers to the stages of suppression and abandonment. Each will be extensively explained below in the exposition. Question: Why does [the verse on] the root consciousness not discern its support, while [the verse on] the next transformer explains the entity of its support? Answer: The root consciousness is the root of all consciousnesses; its sense of serving as a support for others is obvious, while the sense of others serving as a support for it is hidden. Therefore its support was not presented. Since the seventh is secondary to the eighth, the entity of its support is presented. Question: If so, and the sense of the root consciousness serving as a support for others is obvious, why was it not stated? Answer: The preceding verse already stated it. That is, that verse stated: 'Constantly turning like a torrent'; the phrase 'like a torrent' implicitly means that it gives rise to the other consciousnesses, which is precisely the meaning of support. Question: Why is it not stated that the seventh serves as a support for others, and why does the third transformer not explain sense faculty and sense object? Answer: Because this was the intention of the author of the Treatise, one should not fault it. Alternatively, it is an elliptical approach (chāyā-lopa): the first transformer only explains the cognitive object, which is why the previous verse states 'its appropriations and locations'; the third transformer only explains the support, which is why the subsequent verse states 'relying upon the root consciousness'; the second transformer makes both support and object explicit, wishing to allow the student to understand the other three corners from one corner. Alternatively, it is said that the root consciousness is the root of all phenomena, so it only states that it serves as a support for others, presenting its own consciousness-entity and object; for the preceding six consciousnesses, their objects are coarse and thus not stated, presenting only their support, as in 'relying upon the root consciousness,' which is why the Treatise states below: 'Its object and distinct support are coarse, obvious, and universally acknowledged, and therefore are not stated here.' For the seventh, both support and object are hidden, so faculty and object are explained together. Therefore the author of the Treatise acted in three different ways, not merely stating the object without the support, etc. Why does the root consciousness not specify the realm to which it is bound? Because the author of the Treatise was concise. Or it is said: vipāka itself implies realm-binding; to whichever realm the vipāka belongs, it is bound to that realm. Here it should also be so; by stating 'accompanied by defilements,' it is then bound to that [realm]. This does not serve as a rule, because the arising of the first six consciousnesses is not necessarily bound to the same [realm] as the root consciousness. Except for anāsrava consciousness, this [seventh consciousness] must be in the same realm as the root consciousness when it arises; fearing that one might assimilate it to the first six, it is now stated. Furthermore, their methods are distinct and should not be raised as an objection, for in the final transformer it is not explained.