成唯識論述記 7.104

7.104

述曰：總非前教，為證不成，了結上文，由此理故，何故五識即是任運，意俱尋、伺方名任運？答：意俱分別多起尋、伺，尋、伺強故以為任運，五無相應分別法故，五識體是任運分別，自性等亦然。若爾，即五俱意無尋、伺相應非任運，設無任運亦復何妨？七分別收法不盡故，或無五俱散意，無尋、伺者。《解深密》七十三說：「五俱有一分別意識故」，此違定中聞聲等事。其七分別，《對法》第二、《瑜伽》第一、第五及《攝論》等諸門分別，如理應思，同別抄說，其自性等，攝法不同，並如別抄。

The Commentary states: This generally refutes the preceding scriptural citation as failing to constitute proof, concluding the above text. By this reasoning, why is it that the five vijñānas are themselves spontaneous, while only the vitarka and vicāra accompanying the manovijñāna are called spontaneous? Answer: Discrimination accompanying the manovijñāna mostly gives rise to vitarka and vicāra, and because vitarka and vicāra are predominant, they are taken as spontaneous; because the five lack an associated discriminating dharma, the five vijñānas are intrinsically spontaneous discrimination. Self-nature and the rest are also like this. If so, then when the manovijñāna accompanying the five is not associated with vitarka and vicāra, it would not be spontaneous; even if it lacked spontaneity, what harm would there be? For the seven discriminations do not exhaustively subsume all dharmas. Alternatively, there is no dispersed manovijñāna accompanying the five that lacks vitarka and vicāra. The seventy-third [fascicle of the Yogācāra citing the] Saṃdhinirmocana says, "Accompanying the five, there is a single discriminating manovijñāna"; this contradicts matters such as hearing sounds in absorption. As for those seven discriminations, their various categorizations in the second fascicle of the Abhidharma, the first and fifth fascicles of the Yogācāra, the Saṃgraha, and so on, should be reflected upon appropriately, as explained in the Separate Notes; their different ways of subsuming dharmas such as self-nature are likewise all as in the Separate Notes.