成唯識論述記 7.102

7.102

述曰：《對法》第二：「任運分別謂五識」者，與《大論》第一說別。《對法》說：「任運即是五識」；《大論》說任運是五俱意，相應尋、伺，由此理故，《大論》說為意不共業。以五識中尋、伺無故。若五識任運即尋、伺者，如何是意不共業也？以五識亦有故，但言尋、伺有七分別，不言七分別皆是尋、伺，故無過也。復應准知。問：自性分別《攝論》說云：「五識中有」；《對法》第二說：「自性是有相」，有相即尋、伺，故知有相在於五識，亦非意不共。如何別也？答：彼《攝論》者，隨《順理》門說：「在五識，以五識中無尋、伺故」；《對法》說：「言自性分別是有相收，非任運攝」，故知五識無自性分別。又解五識亦有，以《攝論》為正。自性分別亦有二種：一即是五識；二是意識相應尋、伺。意識相應尋、伺故，《對法》說自性是有相，有相是意不共業，自性不是任運所收，以五識故，說五識有自性分別，是非尋、伺，亦無過也。

The Commentary states: In the second fascicle of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-vyākhyā], "spontaneous discrimination refers to the five vijñānas," which differs from what is stated in the first fascicle of the Great Treatise. The Abhidharma says: "The spontaneous is precisely the five vijñānas." The Great Treatise says that the spontaneous is the vitarka and vicāra associated with the manovijñāna that accompanies the five. For this reason, the Great Treatise states that it is an unshared activity of the manas, because vitarka and vicāra are absent in the five vijñānas. If spontaneity in the five vijñānas were itself vitarka and vicāra, how could it be an unshared activity of the manas, since it would also exist in the five vijñānas? It merely states that vitarka and vicāra have seven discriminations; it does not state that all seven discriminations are vitarka and vicāra. Thus there is no fault. One should further understand by analogy: Question: As for discrimination of self-nature (svabhāva-vikalpa), the Saṃgraha says, "It exists in the five vijñānas"; the second fascicle of the Abhidharma says, "Self-nature has marks (sanimitta)," and having marks is vitarka and vicāra; hence we know that having marks exists in the five vijñānas and is also not unshared by the manas. How are they distinguished? Answer: That Saṃgraha text speaks in accordance with the approach of the Nyāyānusāra: "It exists in the five vijñānas, because there are no vitarka and vicāra in the five vijñānas." The Abhidharma says, "The discrimination of self-nature is subsumed under having marks, not included under the spontaneous"; hence we know that the five vijñānas lack discrimination of self-nature. Another explanation: The five vijñānas also have it, taking the Saṃgraha as correct. Discrimination of self-nature also has two kinds: the first is precisely the five vijñānas; the second is vitarka and vicāra associated with the manovijñāna. Because it is vitarka and vicāra associated with the manovijñāna, the Abhidharma says that self-nature has marks, that having marks is an unshared activity of the manas, and that self-nature is not subsumed under the spontaneous; because of the five vijñānas, it is said that the five vijñānas have discrimination of self-nature, which is not vitarka and vicāra; thus there is also no fault.