成唯識論述記 9.47

9.47

The Commentary states: Since the five and eighth lack deliberation, it is clear that they lack discrimination and do not give rise to grasping. The root text of the fourth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'It should be known that the mental consciousness is capable of pervasive imagination because it possesses discrimination,' up to: 'Therefore, the mental consciousness operates with boundless ākāras and discriminates and deliberates universally with regard to all things, hence it is called pervasive imagination,' whereas the five and eighth consciousnesses cannot universally deliberate. If so, then since the seventh cannot universally deliberate, it should not be included here. This is not so; among the three kinds of discrimination, deliberative discrimination can function within the seventh as discrimination with marks, up to being non-defiled, whereas the five and eighth consciousnesses do not possess this capacity. Since the seventh consciousness possesses deliberation, it may indeed be included here; the five and eighth are not so. Asvabhāva says: that the mental consciousness has discrimination is because it is capable of manifesting an intermingling with recollective discrimination. 'Manifesting' means deliberation, not the own-nature [discrimination], since the others also possess it. This is the correct interpretation. The former master says: deliberative discrimination has coarse and prominent marks of imagination, which the five and eighth lack, but they possess subtle discriminations such as own-nature, spontaneous, and marked discrimination; why would it violate reason to say the five and eighth possess them? Although the Mahāyānasaṃgraha speaks in terms of coarse deliberative discrimination and does not mention the five and eighth, the five and eighth consciousnesses are in fact capable of pervasive imagination; furthermore, all eight consciousnesses are set apart from the undefiled mind, hence it says that mental consciousness can have discrimination, not that it refers solely to the sixth and seventh consciousnesses. Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha only says that by this category it is capable of pervasive deliberation, without setting apart which ones; Asvabhāva specifically explained the root treatise and therefore set them apart with words like 'manifesting'; what obstacle is there in this? He objects to this later, saying: