成唯識論了義燈 3.51

3.51

《論》：此中且說我愛、執藏等。西明約引、滿異熟果簡，不異本釋。有解別簡，我愛、執藏，目阿賴耶。持雜染種，即目陀那。最初能變異熟果識，名為異熟。今謂不爾。陀那通佛，非持雜染故。《要集》云：謂我法所依能變，於二位中，別簡六識，至第七地，顯我執位，真執藏處。八地已上，除金剛位，持雜染種，顯法執位，俱唯第八。故頌偏說第八異熟。今謂不爾。若兼法執依，即初能變，非最先捨，違下文故。今本釋意，有二種簡：一、簡他，謂餘六識非真異熟；二、簡自，八地已去，雖真異熟，非是我執，恒愛著處，已捨我執故。故下釋云：初能變識，大小乘教，名阿賴耶。又云：此識自相，分位雖多，藏初過重，是故偏說。若以異熟，取法執依，攝此果相而為自相，何得藏初過重？又下辨捨，先阿賴耶非異熟識，故今此文，顯簡自他。但取我執所依，持雜染種異熟果識，名為能變。非皆攝盡，故云且說。

The Treatise states: "Here, it only speaks of clinging to and storing as an object of self-love, and so forth." Ximing excludes [other states] in terms of the projector and projectee fruitions of ripening, which does not differ from the original commentary's explanation. Another interpretation makes a distinct exclusion: "clinging to and storing as an object of self-love" refers to the ālayavijñāna; "holding the defiled seeds" refers to the ādānavijñāna; the initial transformation, the consciousness that is the fruition of ripening, is called vipākavijñāna. We now say this is not so. Ādāna applies even to Buddhas, because it does not [only] hold defiled [seeds]. The Yaoji says: As the transformation which is the support of self and dharmas, through two stages, it specifically excludes the six consciousnesses up to the seventh stage, showing the stage of grasping at a self, the real locus of clinging and storing; from the eighth stage upward, excluding the vajra-like stage, it holds the defiled seeds, showing the stage of grasping at dharmas; in both it is solely the eighth consciousness. Therefore the verse speaks specifically of the eighth, ripening. We now say this is not so. If it concurrently includes the support of grasping at dharmas, then the initial transformation would not be relinquished first, which contradicts the text below. The intention of the original commentary's explanation here involves two kinds of exclusion: first, excluding others, meaning the remaining six consciousnesses are not true ripening; second, excluding itself, meaning from the eighth stage onwards, although it is true ripening, it is not the locus of perpetual clinging and attachment of grasping at a self, because grasping at a self has already been relinquished. Hence the commentary below states: "The consciousness of the initial transformation is called ālayavijñāna in the teachings of both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna." And it further states: "Although the self-characteristic of this consciousness has many stages, the faults in the initial storing are grave; therefore it is spoken of specifically." If, by ripening, one took the support of grasping at dharmas and subsumed this fruition-characteristic to be the self-characteristic, how could it be said that the faults in the initial storing are grave? Furthermore, when discussing relinquishment below, the ālayavijñāna is relinquished first, not the ripening consciousness; thus this text here clearly excludes both others and itself. It only takes the consciousness that is the fruition of ripening which is the support of grasping at a self and holds the defiled seeds, calling it the transformation. It does not encompass all completely, which is why it says "it only speaks [of it]."