成唯識論述記 5.591

5.591

The Commentary states: When the other three are sovereign, they may also be called unshared, precisely because of having the meaning of sovereign just like ignorance. This meaning has not been clarified in detail, for one does not see various treatises speaking of unshared craving and the like. It is because of contrasting with other delusions that the treatises mostly speak of delusion; in principle, craving and the others also genuinely possess the name 'unshared'. However, the intention of this master is not that in the seventh consciousness there is unshared craving and the like, because ignorance is the sovereign. Now, this proceeds by treating the six consciousnesses. According to the intention of this master, it is precisely in the six consciousnesses that solitary-active craving and the like are called unshared craving, which runs through what is abandoned by vision, cultivation, etc.; only craving associated with this [seventh consciousness] that is not together with conceit and the others of the six consciousnesses is called associated, because it is not sovereign, while sovereign ignorance also exists in the other consciousnesses. Again, 'Just as with ignorance' is entirely the text of the objection, and 'to concede it is also without fault' is the text answering the previous objection. Furthermore, 'view and the others associated with this should be called associated' refutes the previous master. The previous master held that 'view and the others' are also called unshared, whereas now stating 'not being sovereign they should be called associated' is entirely the text of the second explanation. 'If sovereign they should be called unshared' is the text of the objection by the first master. If being sovereign is called unshared, and view and the others associated with this, not being sovereign, are not unshared, then in the remaining six consciousnesses when view and the others are sovereign, they should also be called unshared just like ignorance; the treatise replies that conceding this is also without fault. Furthermore, from 'just as with ignorance' downward is entirely the text answering this previous master's objection; together they can be made into four interpretations.