成唯識論述記 9.78

9.78

述曰：識品雖二者，第六、七二識也，總名遍計以是一故，更不須論，但言二等。《攝大乘》第四說，遍計有二：一、自性計；二、差別計。世親釋云：如於眼等計自性，於此計為常、無常等之差別。七十三說：一、無差別；二、有差別。復有二：一、名加行；二、名施設。《顯揚》十六說，一文字。二非文字。又有二：一、分別自體；二、分別所依緣事。攝八分別者，是七十四說：一、隨覺；二、隨眠。三者，謂：一、我；二、法；三、用。或自性、隨念、計度分別，如《對法》第二說。四者，《攝論》說：一、自性計；二、差別計；三、有覺計，謂善名言者；四、無覺計，謂不善名言者。七十三說，一、計自相；二、計差別；三、計所取；四、計能取。五者，《攝論》說，一、依名計義；二、依義計名；三、依名計名；四、依義計義；五、依二計二。《顯揚》十六及七十三說，一種五，與此同。七十三又有五：一、計義自性，此有四，謂計自相等；二、計名自性，此有二，謂無差別等；三、計染自性，謂有貪等；四、計淨自性，與染相違；五、計非染淨自性，謂此色是能、所取等。復有五種：一、貪；二、嗔；三、合會；四、別離；五、捨隨與等。《顯揚》十六與此文同。復有五：一、無常計常；二、苦計樂；三、不淨計淨；四、無我計我；五、於諸相中遍計所執自性執。六者，《顯揚》十六說：一、自性計，謂計色等實有相；二、差別計，謂計色等實有色、無色等；三、覺悟計，謂善言者執；四、隨眠計，謂不善言者執；五、加行計，此有五謂貪、嗔等；六名遍計，謂此有二，謂文字、非文字所起；七者，即七分別，謂有相、無相、任運、尋求、伺察、染污、不染污，如《瑜伽》第一、《對法》第二說；八者，即八分別生三事。《顯揚》十六等說八分別者；一、自性分別，謂分別色等想事、色等自性；二、差別分別；三、總執分別；四、我分別；五、我所分別；六、愛分別；七、不愛分別；八、愛不愛俱相違分別。三事者，一、謂戲論所依想色事；二、見、我慢事；三、貪、嗔、癡事，此等廣解八分別生三事，如《瑜伽》第三十六、《顯揚》十六說。九者，以理為之，即緣九品計，執九地亦然，九結俱品執亦是。十者，即《攝論》第四說，《對法》第十四雖名分別，非能遍計：一、根本分別，第八識；二、緣相分別，色等識；三、顯相分別，眼等識并所依；四、緣相變異分別，老等變異；五、顯相變異分別，變異所有變異；六、他引分別，聞不正法類；七、不如理分別，外道類；八、如理分別，聞正法類；九、執著分別，我見類；十、散動分別，即十散動，十散動亦為十，此能遍計分別之體。又《對法》第十二，說於見無見見等十。又十相、十八空所除，如七十七說。十一者，即十一識，謂身、身者識等，緣此十一生分別，名十一分別，如《攝論》說。十二者，十卷《楞伽》第四說，一、言語分別，樂言語故；二、可知分別；三、相分別；四、義分別；五、實體分別；六、因分別；七、見分別；八、建立分別；九、生分別；十、不生分別；十一、和合分別；十二、縛不縛分別，別緣十二處生分別亦是。十三者無也；十四者，十四不可記事分別；十五者亦無。十六者，十六空所除，或三空所除，《顯揚》十五云：一、根縛；二、有情縛等。十七者，《對法》第十二說，謂相、見等。十八者，十八空所除，乃至二十句我、我所見，二十空所除，二十五句我、我所見，《對法》第十二，二十八見、六十二見等，故此論中言十等也。七十四等說，隨依他起，爾所分量遍計亦爾，故無量種，此論言等，此一一皆如所引諸論，各自廣分別，不別煩引。

The Commentary states: 'Although the classes of consciousness are two' refers to the two consciousnesses, the sixth and the seventh. They are collectively named parikalpita because they are uniform in this, so there is no need to discuss it further; it merely says 'two', etc. Fascicle 4 of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says that parikalpita has two [kinds]: first, parikalpita of intrinsic nature; second, parikalpita of difference. Vasubandhu's commentary states: Just as one conceptualizes an intrinsic nature with respect to the eye, etc., one conceptualizes distinctions such as permanence, impermanence, etc., with respect to it. Fascicle 73 [of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra] says: first, without difference; second, with difference. Again, there are two: first, called preliminary application; second, called designation. Fascicle 16 of the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: first, with verbal expression; second, without verbal expression. Again, there are two: first, conceptualizing the entity itself; second, conceptualizing the objective affairs upon which it depends. That which subsumes the eight conceptualizations is stated in Fascicle 74: first, accompanied by awareness; second, latent (anuśaya). The threefold are: first, self; second, dharmas; third, function. Or, conceptualization of intrinsic nature, conceptualization of recollection, and conceptualization of calculation, as stated in Fascicle 2 of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-vyākhyā]. The fourfold are stated in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha: first, parikalpita of intrinsic nature; second, parikalpita of difference; third, parikalpita accompanied by awareness, which refers to those skilled in verbal expression; fourth, parikalpita without awareness, which refers to those unskilled in verbal expression. Fascicle 73 says: first, conceptualizing the specific mark; second, conceptualizing difference; third, conceptualizing the grasped; fourth, conceptualizing the grasper. The fivefold are stated in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha: first, conceptualizing the referent based on the name; second, conceptualizing the name based on the referent; third, conceptualizing the name based on the name; fourth, conceptualizing the referent based on the referent; fifth, conceptualizing both based on both. Fascicle 16 of the Prakaraṇāryavācā and Fascicle 73 say one kind of fivefold, identical to this. Fascicle 73 also has five: first, conceptualizing the intrinsic nature of the referent—this has four, namely conceptualizing the specific mark, etc.; second, conceptualizing the intrinsic nature of the name—this has two, namely without difference, etc.; third, conceptualizing the intrinsic nature of defilement, which refers to having craving, etc.; fourth, conceptualizing the intrinsic nature of purity, which opposes defilement; fifth, conceptualizing the intrinsic nature of neither defilement nor purity, meaning that this form is that which is grasped, the grasper, etc. Again, there are five kinds: first, craving; second, anger; third, union; fourth, separation; fifth, equanimity and conforming to gifting, etc. Fascicle 16 of the Prakaraṇāryavācā has a text identical to this. Again, there are five: first, conceptualizing the impermanent as permanent; second, conceptualizing suffering as pleasure; third, conceptualizing the impure as pure; fourth, conceptualizing non-self as self; fifth, grasping at the parikalpita-svabhāva among all marks. The sixfold are stated in Fascicle 16 of the Prakaraṇāryavācā: first, parikalpita of intrinsic nature, meaning conceptualizing form, etc., as having real marks; second, parikalpita of difference, meaning conceptualizing form, etc., as really possessing form, being formless, etc.; third, parikalpita of awareness, meaning grasping by those skilled in words; fourth, parikalpita of latency, meaning grasping by those unskilled in words; fifth, parikalpita of preliminary application—this has five, namely craving, anger, etc.; sixth, called comprehensive parikalpita, meaning this has two, namely that which arises from verbal expression and that which does not. The sevenfold are the seven conceptualizations, namely: with marks, without marks, spontaneous, seeking, examining, defiled, and non-defiled, as stated in Fascicle 1 of the Yogācārabhūmi and Fascicle 2 of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-vyākhyā]. The eightfold are the eight conceptualizations that generate the three affairs. Fascicle 16 of the Prakaraṇāryavācā, etc., speaks of eight conceptualizations: first, conceptualization of intrinsic nature, which means conceptualizing the affairs conceived as form, etc., and the intrinsic nature of form, etc.; second, conceptualization of difference; third, conceptualization of collective grasping; fourth, conceptualization of self; fifth, conceptualization of what belongs to self; sixth, conceptualization of the desirable; seventh, conceptualization of the undesirable; eighth, conceptualization of that which contradicts both the desirable and undesirable. The three affairs are: first, the affairs of conceived form that serve as the basis for proliferation; second, the affairs of views and self-pride; third, the affairs of craving, anger, and delusion. These broadly explain the eight conceptualizations generating the three affairs, as stated in Fascicle 36 of the Yogācārabhūmi and Fascicle 16 of the Prakaraṇāryavācā. The ninefold is constructed by reasoning: namely, conceptualizations taking the nine classes as objects, grasping at the nine stages is also like this, and grasping accompanying the nine fetters is also this. The tenfold is stated in Fascicle 4 of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha—though called 'conceptualizations' in Fascicle 14 of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-vyākhyā], they are not those capable of parikalpita: first, fundamental conceptualization, the eighth consciousness; second, conceptualization of the objective mark, the consciousnesses of form, etc.; third, conceptualization of the manifest mark, the consciousness of the eye, etc., together with their bases; fourth, conceptualization of variation in the objective mark, variations such as old age; fifth, conceptualization of variation in the manifest mark, the variations of all variations; sixth, conceptualization induced by others, the category of hearing incorrect teachings; seventh, improper conceptualization, the category of non-Buddhists; eighth, proper conceptualization, the category of hearing correct teachings; ninth, conceptualization of grasping, the category of views of self; tenth, conceptualization of distraction, namely the ten distractions; the ten distractions are also ten, and these are the entities of conceptualization capable of parikalpita. Furthermore, Fascicle 12 of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-vyākhyā] speaks of ten, such as seeing, non-seeing, seeing [views], etc. Furthermore, the ten marks eliminated by the eighteen emptinesses, as stated in Fascicle 77. The elevenfold refers to the eleven consciousnesses, namely the consciousness of body, of the possessor of body, etc.; conceptualizations arising from taking these eleven as objects are called the eleven conceptualizations, as stated in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. The twelvefold is stated in Fascicle 4 of the ten-fascicle Laṅkāvatāra: first, conceptualization of speech, because of delighting in speech; second, conceptualization of the knowable; third, conceptualization of marks; fourth, conceptualization of referents; fifth, conceptualization of real entities; sixth, conceptualization of causes; seventh, conceptualization of views; eighth, conceptualization of establishment; ninth, conceptualization of arising; tenth, conceptualization of non-arising; eleventh, conceptualization of conjunction; twelfth, conceptualization of bondage and non-bondage. Distinctly taking the twelve āyatanas as objects to generate conceptualization is also this. The thirteenfold does not exist. The fourteenfold refers to conceptualizations of the fourteen unanswerable questions. The fifteenfold also does not exist. The sixteenfold refers to that which is eliminated by the sixteen emptinesses, or eliminated by the three emptinesses; Fascicle 15 of the Prakaraṇāryavācā says: first, bondage of the faculties; second, bondage of sentient beings, etc. The seventeenfold is stated in Fascicle 12 of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-vyākhyā], meaning marks, views, etc. The eighteenfold refers to that which is eliminated by the eighteen emptinesses, up to the twenty views of self and what belongs to self, that which is eliminated by the twenty emptinesses, the twenty-five views of self and what belongs to self, and the twenty-eight views and sixty-two views, etc., in Fascicle 12 of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-vyākhyā]; therefore, this treatise says 'ten, etc.' Fascicle 74, etc., states that according to the measure of the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), the parikalpita is likewise of such measure; therefore there are immeasurable kinds. This treatise says 'etc.' Each and every one of these is broadly differentiated in the various treatises cited, so they need not be quoted separately in burdensome detail.