成唯識論述記 3.75
English (machine translation) 3.75
- Language
- English
3.75
The Commentary states: The five mental factors concomitant with the fundamental consciousness are not independent in entity and arise dependent on others; therefore they are not the perfumed. Although the lord necessarily requires mental factors to arise, it is not called dependent on others, for it obtains the designation 'lord,' which is the meaning of being independent; this is not in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. What would be the harm in their receiving perfuming? This is explained below under 'contact and so forth are also like this.' It also excludes the unconditioned, because, being dense and solid, it does not receive perfuming, like solid stone and the like; hence space and the like cannot be perfumed. If so, should nominal dharmas on consciousness such as arising and so forth be capable of receiving perfuming? Now, they are subsumed under dependent-on-others and possess no real entity of their own, for the nominal is spoken of on the basis of the real. Furthermore, one should say here: If it is not dense and solid, possesses an entity, and is independent, only then can it receive perfuming. The first eliminates the unconditioned, the second eliminates nominal dharmas, and the last eliminates mental factors; this excludes the unconditioned, nominal dharmas, mental factors, what is dependent on others, and the dense and solid; therefore they are not the perfumed. It was not said this way by the author because it is intended to be stated now. Moreover, the reason why having a real entity is not mentioned here is that nominal dharmas do not exist in the first place, so why would one need to eliminate them further? If so, what about the unconditioned such as space? If one speaks of tathatā, it is not neutral; if one speaks of the non-deliberate-cessation and so forth as nominal, like nominal dharmas such as arising, they are not discussed. For this reason, the first explanation is good; ignorance eliminates tathatā, and from this one knows it is incorrect; it also excludes perfuming upon nominal classes of consciousness and so forth. If being perfumable made it the perfumed, perfuming across different bodies should also be established.
Linked texts (1)
- 成唯識論述記 — Classical Chinese