成唯識論述記 4.980

4.980

述曰：下引證也。六十三說恒與末那一俱轉故，又說藏識恒依染污，即如無性第三卷云：「或有說言：與四煩惱恒相應心名染污依」，同世親說。由此既言恒依染污，故知第八以七為依，前第三師初以七為八依。量云：是識性故，有俱有依；或應依無間斷識，識體無間斷故；如第七。故此第八有俱有依，如前師成立。此等諸說第三及第四說第八有依謂第七者，皆是三位有第七識。前第一師難言無者與七為例，言恒相續，故無有依亦是此流。第二師說唯獨不許第八有依，即是三位無第七家，亦作此義無相違故。前第二師等問：第八既有依謂第七，何故說三位無第七？即依義不定故。

The Commentary states: Below is the adducing of proof. Fascicle sixty-three states that it always operates together with a manas; it also states that the storehouse consciousness always relies on defilement. This is just as Asvabhāva says in his third fascicle: 'Some say: The citta that is constantly associated with the four afflictions is named the defiled basis,' which agrees with Vasubandhu's explanation. Since it is said from this that it always relies on defilement, we know that the eighth takes the seventh as its basis. The previous third master originally took the seventh as the basis for the eighth. The syllogism (anumāna) is: Because it has the nature of consciousness, it has a simultaneously existing basis; or, it must rely on an uninterrupted consciousness, because the substance of the consciousness is uninterrupted; like the seventh. Therefore, this eighth has a simultaneously existing basis, just as the former master established. All these explanations—the third and the fourth—which state that the eighth has a basis, namely the seventh, refer to the existence of the seventh consciousness in the three states. The former first master objected that it does not exist, using the seventh as a parallel, saying that it is constantly continuous, and therefore having no basis also belongs to this stream of thought. The second master alone did not accept that the eighth has a basis, which belongs to the school asserting that the seventh is absent in the three states; making this meaning also avoids contradiction. The former second master and others asked: Since the eighth has a basis, namely the seventh, why is it said that the seventh is absent in the three states? This is because the meaning of 'basis' would then be indefinite.