成唯識論述記 5.824

5.824

述曰：下解違也。此會彼文，彼說同緣，不言同性，故不相違，彼論無定同性言故。謂雖言同緣，不言五，意定須同性，故知亦有不同者故，如前論說。《顯揚》十九如前定中意、耳，亦明同緣，不言同性，定中起耳識故。彼文大好，然前師豈不解此文耶？答：解如前已解。前師問言：若定中實得起耳識，為例不同性，何故《雜集論》第七說，三摩呬多位餘識無耶？此非《集論》本文，是師子覺義，有師引證。

The Commentary states: Below resolves the contradiction. This harmonizes with those passages: those texts speak of taking the same cognitive object, but do not speak of having the same nature; therefore they do not contradict, because in that treatise there is no statement that they are determinately of the same nature. That is, although it is said they take the same cognitive object, it is not said that the five and the mental consciousness must determinately be of the same nature; thus we know that there are also instances where they are not the same, as the previous treatise states. The Prakaraṇāryavācā, fascicle nineteen, as with the mental and ear[-consciousnesses] in concentration mentioned earlier, also clarifies that they take the same cognitive object, without stating that they are of the same nature, because the ear-consciousness arises within concentration. That passage is excellent; yet could the previous master not have explained this passage? Answer: The explanation is as already explained before. The previous master asks: If an ear-consciousness can truly arise within concentration to serve as a precedent for not having the same nature, why does the Abhidharma-samuccaya-bhāṣya, fascicle seven, state that in the concentrated state the remaining consciousnesses do not exist? This is not the original text of the Abhidharma-samuccaya, but an interpretation by Buddhasiṃha, which some masters cite as proof.