成唯識論了義燈 1.117

1.117

解第三句，謂能緣心緣所緣境，有所杖質，而不得自性。此之相分，判性不定，或從能緣心，或從所緣境。種亦不定，或質同種，或見同種，或復別種，名帶質通情本，如第七緣第八，是攝相從見有覆性，從質無覆性。問：影依於質起，從本名無覆？影依於質生，從質名異熟？答：無覆是性類，影本俱無覆。異熟據酬業，影像非異熟。問：異熟據業引，影像非異熟？無覆是報體，影像非無覆？答：性類是寬本，影像俱無覆。異熟性局，唯本不通影。問：五識緣五境，相即不兩判？七杖第八生，相不兩性判？答：五緣之境，但境性唯是性境，不隨心。七緣之境，境通慮、非慮，具二義故，隨兩判。問：因五但緣色，唯是性境，境非兩判。互用通緣於六境，相分應通情、本判？答：互用緣雖稱境相，既通多法，即隨應。未互用但緣於自塵，故說五緣於性境。若獨頭意識，緣境寬通，亦第四句。有云：帶質通情本中，如現相分，離質離見，即法同分攝。問：若爾，同分應通實有？答：計亦無過。如名色支，唯種無記，不妨第七，亦在名收。又解不爾。第七在名色，據現假非支，同分不相應，唯假不通實。若以現相不能緣，非心、非色法同分，一切相分不能緣，種子等應法同分。彼既不爾，此云何然？故不可說離見、質判，定隨一故，非法同分。此釋為正。故判第七相，離見、質，法同分收，此非正說。今又助釋，言帶質通情本者，如有無漏，互相緣相，如第七緣八，無漏相分，從見是善，無漏從質，即是無記。餘准此知。故云：帶質通情本。又設有質，相與見分，或隨不定為無為、漏、無漏。准義思之。若依本釋，漏、無漏等，互相緣時，即第四句。

Explaining the third line: this means that when the apprehending mind apprehends an apprehended sphere, it possesses an underlying substance on which it relies, yet does not attain the self-nature. The determination of the nature of this image-part is not fixed: either it conforms to the apprehending mind, or it conforms to the apprehended sphere. The seed is also not fixed: either it shares the same seed with the underlying substance, or shares the same seed with the seeing, or again is of a distinct seed; this is called 'carrying the substance, it communicates with both subjective consciousness and underlying basis.' For example, when the seventh [consciousness] apprehends the eighth, subsuming the image to conform to the seeing, it is of the obstructed nature; conforming to the underlying substance, it is of the unobstructed nature. Question: Does the image arise relying on the substance, so that conforming to the underlying basis it is called unobstructed? Does the image arise relying on the substance, so that conforming to the substance it is called ripened? Answer: Unobstructed is a category of nature: both image and basis are unobstructed. Ripened is based on recompensing karma: the image is not ripened. Question: Ripened is based on being induced by karma, so the image is not ripened; unobstructed is the retribution-body, so is the image not unobstructed? Answer: A category of nature is broad: both image and basis are unobstructed. The nature of ripened is restricted: it is solely the basis and does not communicate to the image. Question: When the five consciousnesses apprehend the five spheres, the image is not judged in two ways; when the seventh arises relying on the eighth, why should the image be judged under two natures? Answer: As for the spheres apprehended by the five, the nature of the sphere is solely a nature-sphere and does not conform to the mind. As for the sphere apprehended by the seventh, the sphere communicates with both cognitive and non-cognitive; possessing both meanings, it is judged in two ways accordingly. Question: Because the five merely apprehend form, it is solely a nature-sphere, and the sphere is not judged in two ways. When mutual application communicates to apprehending the six spheres, should the image-part communicate to being judged according to subjective consciousness and underlying basis? Answer: Although apprehending through mutual application conforms to the characteristic of the sphere, since it communicates to multiple dharmas, it follows what is appropriate. Before mutual application, they merely apprehend their own sense-data; hence it is said that the five apprehend nature-spheres. If it is solitary mental consciousness, its apprehension of spheres is broad and communicating, which is also the fourth line. Some say: In 'carrying the substance, it communicates with both subjective consciousness and underlying basis,' the presently manifested image-part, being separated from the substance and separated from the seeing, is subsumed under generic dharmas. Question: If so, should generic dharmas communicate to real existents? Answer: Even if conceptualised thus, there is no fault. Just as in the link of name-and-form (nāmarūpa), only the seed is indeterminate, yet that does not prevent the seventh from also being subsumed under name. Another explanation says it is not so: the seventh being in name-and-form is based on the present provisional, not the link; generic dharmas being non-concurrent are solely provisional and do not communicate to the real. If, because the present image cannot apprehend, being neither mind nor form, it is a generic dharma, then since all image-parts cannot apprehend, seeds and so forth should also be generic dharmas. Since those are not so, how could this be so? Therefore, it cannot be said that it is judged apart from seeing and substance, for it must follow one or the other; hence it is not a generic dharma. This explanation is correct. Therefore, judging the image of the seventh to be separated from seeing and substance and subsumed under generic dharmas is not a correct statement. Now to provide an auxiliary explanation: regarding 'carrying the substance, it communicates with both subjective consciousness and underlying basis,' it is like when the defiled and undefiled mutually apprehend their characteristics; as when the seventh apprehends the eighth, the undefiled image-part conforming to the seeing is wholesome, while conforming to the underlying substance it is indeterminate. The rest are understood by analogy with this. Therefore it is said: 'Carrying the substance, it communicates with both subjective consciousness and underlying basis.' Furthermore, even if there is an underlying substance, the image and the seeing-part may conform indeterminately to unconditioned or conditioned, defiled or undefiled. One should reflect on this according to the principle. If relying on the original explanation, when the defiled and undefiled mutually apprehend each other, it is the fourth line.