成唯識論述記 5.381

5.381

The Commentary states: In order to distinguish that specific-object factors are also universally defiled, it says "forgetfulness" and so forth. If forgetfulness and incorrect comprehension have the specific-object factors of smṛti and prajñā as their nature, they do not universally pervade defiled minds. When the treatise further states they are "universal," it speaks in reliance on them being portions of avidyā. Why is this? It refutes the second master, because he exclusively clung to their being those [specific-object] factors. "Not all defiled minds cognize what was previously experienced" refutes that factor of smṛti; for instance, wrong views repudiate the truth of cessation—could this ever have been previously experienced? If they say, "It is because one previously heard the name that one then repudiates it," could one merely be repudiating the name? Here wrong views repudiate the entity itself, and the entity was never previously experienced. Not all defiled minds possess discernment, which qualifies the previous master's statement that "there is incorrect comprehension that is a portion of prajñā." If these two have avidyā as their entity, they can universally pervade defiled minds, which is also admissible among the five universals. In terms of taking these specific-object factors as their entity, because they are not universal, they are not stated to exist. Among the six, they are only treated as having avidyā as their entity, and because they are universal, they are stated. Question: Among what is stated here, which is nominal and which is real? As will be explained below. Question: When bad wisdom arises to discern dharmas, delusion also exists; would there then be two incorrect comprehensions? Would the same question apply to the remaining factors such as forgetfulness? Answer: Not so. When spoken of as possessing the prajñā portion, the avidyā portion is not spoken of; when lacking the prajñā portion, the avidyā portion is spoken of. When incorrect comprehension exists, avidyā is also spoken of, being designated with different meanings. The remaining factors are also like this; or, incorrect comprehension is established nominally as a single entity comprehensively based on prajñā and avidyā. Incorrect comprehension is nominal, so one cannot say there are two, just as heedlessness and so forth are established based on four dharmas, not designated separately based on rāga and so on, so two are not said to be conjoined.