成唯識論述記 5.826

5.826

述曰：彼雖非證，然為會之。《對法論》中言餘無者，約多分說，多分有二義：一多識；二多人。多人、多識不起言無，謂二乘等定中唯得起耳，非餘四識，非菩薩故。問：如何定中意識俱受，與耳同緣？散意入捨定即引生耳，耳識率爾必是捨故，初起之時必昧劣故。意既同緣，必非異受，入喜樂定耳必不生。二解雖復同緣，何妨異受，其性亦許有不同故。《瑜伽論》說率爾等三是無記性，定心尋求如何是善？又在定得起幾心？唯初二心，若有希望即出定故，希求即是尋求心也。若散五心，初三無記，論說多分。若在定位，亦通善等。又五識必由尋、伺所引，此入定心何地之法？應唯初定復無尋、伺故。此如第七卷尋、伺中解。又此定為唯有漏，亦通無漏？答：文不遮二種俱得。又欲界耳識許異地心引生，二定以上起三識時，異地心引無尋、伺意識為能引耶？答：初起五識必尋、伺引，後位已去非尋、伺心引此亦得。唯率爾心，等流心等，即不許爾，如在欲界，豈一切五識生，要由尋、伺引？初起由尋、伺，後起不必故。問：五為所引，意是能引，所引三性既俱，能引意識應通三性。

The Commentary states: Although that is not definitive proof, it is nonetheless reconciled. The statement in the Abhidharma-samuccaya-bhāṣya that 'the remaining do not exist' is spoken with reference to the majority. 'Majority' has two meanings: first, the majority of consciousnesses; second, the majority of persons. Because the majority of persons and the majority of consciousnesses do not arise, it says 'they do not exist'—meaning that in the concentration of the two vehicles and so forth, only the ear[-consciousness] can arise, not the remaining four consciousnesses, because they are not bodhisattvas. Question: How can the feeling associated with the mental consciousness within concentration share the same cognitive object with the ear[-consciousness]? When a distracted mental consciousness enters an equanimous concentration, it can induce the ear[-consciousness], for the ear-consciousness at the spontaneous moment is necessarily neutral (upekṣā), since at the moment of first arising it is necessarily obscure and weak. Since the mental consciousness takes the same cognitive object, it cannot have a different feeling; thus if one enters a concentration of joy or pleasure, the ear[-consciousness] will certainly not arise. A second explanation: although they take the same cognitive object, what prevents them from having different feelings, since their natures are also allowed to be different? The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states that the first three minds, such as the spontaneous, are of indeterminate nature; how then can the mind of seeking (paryeṣaka) in concentration be wholesome? Furthermore, how many minds can arise in concentration? Only the first two minds, for if there is desire [to know], one emerges from concentration, and desiring is precisely the mind of seeking. As for the five minds in distraction, the first three are indeterminate, which the treatise speaks of according to the majority. But when in the state of concentration, they also pervade the wholesome and so forth. Furthermore, the five consciousnesses must be induced by vitarka and vicāra; to which ground does this mind entering concentration belong? It should belong only to the first dhyāna, for higher up there are no vitarka and vicāra. This is explained under vitarka and vicāra in fascicle seven. Furthermore, is this concentration exclusively sāsrava, or does it also pervade anāsrava? Answer: The text does not preclude either; both are permissible. Moreover, the ear-consciousness of the desire realm is permitted to be induced by a mind of a different ground; when the three consciousnesses arise in the second dhyāna and above, does a mind of a different ground induce a mental consciousness free of vitarka and vicāra as the inducing agent? Answer: When the five consciousnesses first arise, they must be induced by vitarka and vicāra; from subsequent states onward, it is also permissible for a mind without vitarka and vicāra to induce them. Only the spontaneous mind, the confluent (niṣyanda) mind, and so forth are not permitted to do so; just as in the desire realm, does the arising of all five consciousnesses require being induced by vitarka and vicāra? The initial arising is due to vitarka and vicāra, but subsequent arisings are not necessarily so. Question: The five are what is induced, and the mental consciousness is the inducer; since the induced consciousnesses can co-occur with the three natures, the inducing mental consciousness ought to pervade the three natures.