成唯識論述記 5.575

5.575

述曰：若謂不共在六識身，亦不應理。所以者何？應許此無明間斷，從所依識故，彼六識恒染，從無明續故。經、頌俱言無明恒起，其六識身許通三性。若六識身有此無明，此便間斷。彼六識身便唯染俱，許與無明恒相應故。《攝論》無性第一卷云：此於五識無容得有，非不染意識中有，亦非染意識中有，若謂意識由彼煩惱成染等。若復有說，善心俱轉等。若有說，染意俱有別善心等。料簡大精，然彼不共與此下相違；至彼對會，許有末那便無此失。上破小乘，下因解不共之義。

The Commentary states: If you say that unshared ignorance resides in the collection of six consciousnesses, that too is unreasonable. Why? You would have to accept that this ignorance is intermittent, following its supporting consciousness; or that those six consciousnesses are constantly defiled, following the continuation of ignorance. Both the sūtra and the verse state that ignorance arises constantly, while the six consciousnesses are admitted to pervade the three natures. If this ignorance were in the six consciousnesses, it would be intermittent. And those six consciousnesses would be associated only with defilement, because they are admitted to be constantly associated with ignorance. Fascicle one of Asvabhāva's commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: this cannot possibly exist in the five consciousnesses, nor does it exist in the undefiled mental consciousness, nor does it exist in the defiled mental consciousness—if one says mental consciousness becomes defiled through those afflictions, etc. If it is further said that it operates together with wholesome minds, etc. If it is said that alongside the defiled manas there is a distinct wholesome mind, etc. The discrimination is extremely refined, but that unshared [ignorance discussed there] conflicts with what is below; when we come to that and reconcile them, admitting the existence of manas avoids this fault. The refutation of Hīnayāna above is now complete; below, the meaning of "unshared" is explained in consequence.