成唯識論述記 7.100

7.100

述曰：此下會違有二，此初也。五十六等說：五識有尋、伺者，顯多由彼起，非說彼相應，謂彼文說生在第二定以上起下識者，顯彼五識，或除率爾心等，定由尋、伺俱意識引故，方可得生，非說五識尋、伺俱也，此即顯五由彼意識起。若在欲界，定中耳識，率爾起時，意雖同緣，不藉尋、伺俱意引生，上定亦與下界耳識俱時起故。五識餘時多由彼尋等意識引，起自地五識故，尋、伺亦通初定有故，顯由彼起，多由彼起，二種各別，合為一言，其顯由彼言，正會前師所引論文，其多由彼起。傍會設有初定已下，論說有尋、伺文，欲界率爾五識起時，雖意同緣，非必由意引，如定中耳識。大目犍連入無所有處定，聞象等聲，豈彼意識有尋、伺也？若薩婆多，定後聞聲，即無是事，如前第五卷中廣解。二禪以上准欲界，亦有率爾五識，不藉尋、伺意識引生，以境強至故，其等流決定由意有染、淨心故。今合為論。故言顯多由彼起，除率爾心故。又解在初定及欲界起眼等識，自地法故，起時自在，雖由意引五識方生，意識不必要尋、伺俱，多由彼起，生第二定以上，起眼等識非彼法故，必假尋、伺相應意識導引方生，定由彼起。

The Commentary states: From here down, there are two reconciliations of contradictory passages; this is the first. When the fifty-sixth fascicle and other texts say that the five vijñānas possess vitarka and vicāra, they mean that they mostly arise due to them, not that they are associated with them. That is to say, when that passage states that one born in the second dhyāna or above gives rise to a lower vijñāna, it means that those five vijñānas—perhaps excepting the instantaneous citta and so forth—can only arise because they are necessarily induced by the manovijñāna accompanied by vitarka and vicāra; it does not mean that the five vijñānas are accompanied by vitarka and vicāra. This illustrates that the five arise from that manovijñāna. If in the desire realm, when the ear-consciousness arises instantaneously during absorption, although the manovijñāna shares the same object, it does not rely on being induced by a manovijñāna accompanied by vitarka and vicāra, because the higher absorption also arises simultaneously with the ear-consciousness of the lower realm. At other times, the five vijñānas are mostly induced by that manovijñāna with vitarka and the like to give rise to the five vijñānas of their own bhūmi, because vitarka and vicāra are also present in the first dhyāna. Thus, "showing that they arise due to them" and "mostly arising due to them" are two distinct senses, which are combined into a single statement. The statement "showing that they arise due to them" directly reconciles the treatise passage cited by the former master. "Mostly arising due to them" collaterally reconciles passages—supposing there are any—in treatises stating that vitarka and vicāra exist from the first dhyāna downwards: when the instantaneous five vijñānas arise in the desire realm, although the manovijñāna shares the same object, they are not necessarily induced by the manovijñāna, as in the case of the ear-consciousness within absorption. When Mahāmaudgalyāyana entered the absorption of the sphere of nothingness and heard sounds such as those of elephants, could his manovijñāna have possessed vitarka and vicāra? If according to the Sarvāstivādins, one hears sound after emerging from absorption, then no such event occurs, as was explained at length in the fifth fascicle above. By analogy with the desire realm, in the second dhyāna and above there are also instantaneous five vijñānas that do not rely on an inducing manovijñāna with vitarka and vicāra, because the object arrives forcefully; whereas their flow of identical type is definitely caused by an intentional citta that is defiled or pure. Now these are treated together. Therefore it is said, "to show that they mostly arise due to them, because of excluding the instantaneous citta." Another explanation: When one gives rise to the eye-consciousness and so forth in the first dhyāna and the desire realm, because these are dharmas of their own bhūmi, their arising is spontaneous; although the five vijñānas arise only when induced by the manovijñāna, the manovijñāna does not necessarily need to be accompanied by vitarka and vicāra—they "mostly arise due to them." For one born in the second dhyāna and above, when one gives rise to the eye-consciousness and so forth, because these are not dharmas of that [higher] bhūmi, they must rely on the guidance of a manovijñāna associated with vitarka and vicāra to arise—they "definitely arise due to them."