成唯識論述記 4.421

4.421

The Commentary states: This means that these two, name and form, abide in mutual dependence with consciousness. Asvabhāva explains: 'Both of these take consciousness as their direct cause (hetupratyaya), and consciousness in turn functions in continuous succession dependent upon these; this is precisely the meaning of mutual dependence here.' He further cites simultaneous cause and effect as an example: just as two bundles of reeds serve as conditions for each other, constantly operating at the same time and not separating from one another. For the Sarvāstivādin master, because there are no five consciousnesses during the kalala stage, there is only mental consciousness (manovijñāna). Mental consciousness is itself consciousness, and the mental factors concomitant with consciousness are spoken of as name; name thus comprehensively includes the four non-material aggregates. That school explains: 'Although name generically includes all four, in reality there are only three, because there is no aggregate of consciousness, and hence it is not associated with name.' But the sūtra itself explains that name encompasses all four aggregates; thus [their view] contradicts it. If it is said that although in the initial moment there is no consciousness, the consciousness of the second moment is called the consciousness within name, and the consciousness of the initial moment is said to be the consciousness outside name, then when they are said to be mutually dependent, the analogy of the bundle of reeds is logically untenable, because they do not exist simultaneously. Even if the five consciousnesses were conceded to exist in this stage and later, the consciousnesses that arise do not occur concurrently; therefore there is no simultaneous sense of mutual dependence. Thus that school completely fails to explain this sūtra, and has no rational defence whatsoever. The principles of the Sautrāntikas and others are identical to this. The ninth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi offers two interpretations: The first says that the faculty that serves as simultaneous support is called form, while the faculty that serves as equal-and-immediate-cessation support is called name; according to their respective roles, they serve as the supports for the six consciousnesses, and dependent upon them, the various consciousnesses circulate until life's end. This interpretation applies to both the Greater and Lesser Vehicles; it is not what is in dispute here, for it merely aids that [other] school and does not seek to explain our own view. Moreover, even if it were so, it merely regards them as preceding and succeeding conditions with respect to each other, so the analogy of the bundles of reeds is not established. Later in that treatise, this analogy also appears, so we know this explanation merely accommodates the Lesser Vehicle presentation and is still not an appropriate analogy. The second explanation says: Furthermore, the five material faculties, the great elements on which the faculties depend, and the locations of the faculties as well as the great elements capable of producing them, are called form; the remainder is called name. It is only because there is a consciousness that appropriates the faculties and enters into a continuous stream that circulation can occur. This is identical to our present explanation. Therefore the Lesser Vehicle has no valid explanation. Only the Sthaviravādin school holds that subtle mind is called consciousness and coarse mind is called name; but since it has already been refuted above that two consciousnesses arise [simultaneously], it is not discussed now.