成唯識論述記 7.278

7.278

述曰：彼處轉識三性不行，若初生時即已不行，如何可言唯生得滅？設非唯無記，三性心生，便名生得者，此即仍是初生有心故。《對法》第四云：生得無記，謂無想報，故唯無記。彼本有初位，轉識暫起。暫起者，四識中起何識？此但言轉識，不別出故。有說亦起眼、耳等識，此亦不爾。有何因緣，應唯起身識及第六識？受彼果故。暫生即滅，何假起眼等識見色聞聲等。義雖知爾，起將為勝。如薩婆多亦許多時故，此雖許有心，即顯報體及無記性。

The Commentary states: In that place, the evolving consciousness of the three moral natures does not function. If it already did not function at the time of initial rebirth, how could one say that only the inborn ceases? Even if it were not purely indeterminate, but a mind of the three natures arose and was termed inborn, this would still mean that there is a mind upon initial rebirth. Fascicle four of the Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā states: "Inborn indeterminate refers to the non-conceptual retribution," hence it is purely indeterminate. In the initial stage of the basic existence there, the evolving consciousness temporarily arises. As for "temporarily arises": among the four consciousnesses, which consciousness arises? Here it merely says "evolving consciousness" without specifically distinguishing it. Some say that it also gives rise to the eye, ear, and other consciousnesses; this too is not so. For what reason? Only the body consciousness and the sixth consciousness should arise, because they experience that fruit. Arising temporarily and then immediately ceasing, what need is there to give rise to the eye consciousness and the like to see forms, hear sounds, and so forth? Although the meaning is known to be thus, that it does arise is held to be superior. For the Sarvāstivādins also allow a long duration [of mind]. Thus, although admitting the presence of mind, it directly reveals the retributive substance and its indeterminate nature.