成唯識論了義燈 3.53

3.53

《論》：能藏、所藏等。西明三釋，第一八現望餘現，第二以雜染種為能藏，種能持果故，第三現種俱能藏，意取第二要集亦取第二為正。云雜染品種望本識體但是所依，無因緣義，現行七識望第八現亦無因緣故。第二釋是彼宗也，然三相中因相，與此義意稍異今謂諸論說能所藏不唯說種，且無性云：證阿賴耶識，名阿賴耶。能攝藏諸法者，謂是所熏是習氣義，既云證阿賴耶識，名阿賴耶。復云攝藏諸法謂是所熏，明說第八，非諸法種，若雜染種名為能藏，便證種子名阿賴耶。經部種子亦應如是，何關第八彼論？又云：是故復言一切種子識，與一切種子俱生俱滅故，阿賴耶識與諸轉識互為緣故，展轉攝藏若即說種名種子識。豈可種子復與種子俱生俱滅，名為展轉攝藏。又若以世親以第二句釋第一句，即證種子名為能藏。何故無著論云：復何緣故此識說名阿賴耶識，謂一切有生雜染品法，於此攝藏，又即此識於彼攝藏，既言此識於彼攝藏，即應種子在現法藏。若如是者，何故復云或諸有情攝藏此識為自我故，豈可執雜染種現以為我？故種子識言不目種子，由現第八能攝種子，名種子識，故諸名中云或名種子識，能遍住持諸種子故，是故世親以第二句釋第一句。又無性云，於此攝藏者，顯能持習氣，由非唯習氣名阿賴耶識，要能持習氣，如彼說意識，此意即顯現第八識，能持習氣得賴耶名，以能持習氣，如經部師第六意識，若取諸種即唯習氣名阿賴耶識，舉意識喻亦不相似，此種彼現，有差別故。又此《論》第三正釋彼頌云：由此本識具諸種子故能攝藏諸雜染法，依此建立阿賴耶名，准此豈可但證種子攝藏果法名為本識阿賴耶名？又云：亦為有情執藏為我，若說種子，豈可執種以為我耶？若執現識，不應言亦。既說亦言，明說現八為能攝藏，復執為我，故說於亦。此《論》又言，此即顯示初能變識所有自相，攝持因果為自相故又解因相云，此識因相雖有多種，持種不共故偏說之若爾現八但為種依不生雜染，何名彼因？答：種是識用，不一異故，攝用歸體說為法因，無漏法種能所治別，故不說之，若直取種，無漏應取又識顯現，種子沈隱，以識能持彼種子故，說識為因，義顯種子，如說聞熏為出世種，義顯本有無漏為因，說雜染法與阿賴耶為因緣者，應知亦爾又親因緣及增上緣，皆名因名緣，經頌俱名因，論釋俱名緣，設就增上名互為因，亦復無妨，持彼熏彼之種子故。又云：三相中因相，與此稍異者此亦不爾，准此論文，與法為因即是因相。如文具顯，煩不能引，釋賴耶名。三藏之義，至下當辨。

The Treatise states: "Storing-agent, that which is stored, and so forth." Ximing gives three interpretations: the first is the eighth [consciousness] in its actual manifestation viewed in relation to the other actual manifestations; the second takes the defiled seeds as the storing-agent, because seeds can sustain results; the third is that both actual manifestation and seeds are the storing-agent, intending to take the second as correct. The Yaoji also takes the second as correct, stating: Defiled dharmas viewed in relation to the substance of the root consciousness are merely its support, having no sense of being a direct cause (hetupratyaya); the manifest seven consciousnesses viewed in relation to the manifest eighth also have no direct-cause relation; hence the second interpretation is their doctrine. However, the cause-characteristic among the three characteristics differs slightly in meaning from this. We now say that when the treatises speak of storing-agent and that which is stored, they do not speak solely of seeds. Moreover, Asvabhāva states: "To establish the ālayavijñāna as named 'ālaya': that which can contain and store all dharmas refers to what is perfumed, which is the meaning of vāsanā." Since he says: "To establish the ālayavijñāna as named 'ālaya'," and further says: "containing and storing all dharmas refers to what is perfumed," he clearly speaks of the eighth consciousness, not the seeds of all dharmas. If the defiled seeds were called the storing-agent, this would establish that the seeds are called ālaya; the seeds of the Sautrāntikas would also have to be like this—how would it concern the eighth? That treatise also states: "Therefore it is further said that the sarvabījakavijñāna arises together and ceases together with all seeds; because the ālayavijñāna and the developing consciousnesses serve mutually as conditions, they mutually contain and store one another." If the seed itself were called the seed-consciousness, how could seeds again arise together and cease together with seeds and be called mutually containing and storing? Furthermore, if one uses Vasubandhu's second phrase to explain the first phrase, thereby establishing that seeds are called the storing-agent, why does Asaṅga's treatise say: "For what reason is this consciousness called the ālayavijñāna? It is because all produced defiled dharmas are contained and stored in this, and also this consciousness is contained and stored in them"? Since he says: "this consciousness is contained and stored in them," then the seeds would have to be stored in manifest dharmas. If so, why does he further say: "Or because all sentient beings contain and store this consciousness as their self"? How could they grasp the defiled seeds and actual manifestations as a self? Therefore, the term "seed-consciousness" does not denote seeds; because the manifest eighth can contain seeds, it is called the "seed-consciousness." Hence among the various names it says: "Or it is called the seed-consciousness, because it can fully sustain all seeds." Therefore Vasubandhu explains the first phrase with the second phrase. Furthermore, Asvabhāva says: "'Contained and stored in this' reveals the ability to hold vāsanās; for it is not merely vāsanās that are called the ālayavijñāna; it must be able to hold vāsanās, like their assertion of the manovijñāna." This meaning clearly reveals that the manifest eighth consciousness, being able to hold vāsanās, receives the name ālaya because it holds vāsanās, just like the Sautrāntika master's sixth manovijñāna. If one took all seeds, then solely vāsanās would be called the ālayavijñāna, and adducing the analogy of the manovijñāna would also not be comparable, because there is a difference between these seeds and that manifest [consciousness]. Moreover, the third [part of] this Treatise, when correctly explaining that verse, states: "Because this root consciousness possesses all seeds, it can contain and store all defiled dharmas; based on this, the name ālayavijñāna is established." According to this, how could one merely establish that seeds contain and store fruitional dharmas and are therefore named the root consciousness and ālayavijñāna? It also states: "It is also clung to and stored by sentient beings as a self." If one meant seeds, how could one cling to seeds as a self? If one clung to the manifest consciousness, one should not say "also." Since it uses the word "also," it clearly states that the manifest eighth is the storing-agent, and is furthermore clung to as a self; thus it says "also." This Treatise also says: "This shows the self-characteristic of the consciousness of the initial transformation, for containing and holding cause and fruition constitutes its self-characteristic." And explaining the cause-characteristic, it says: "Although the cause-characteristic of this consciousness is manifold, holding seeds is uncommon; therefore it is spoken of specifically." If so, the manifest eighth is merely the support for the seeds and does not produce defilements; how is it called their cause? Answer: Seeds are the function of consciousness; because they are neither identical nor different, subsuming the function into the substance allows one to call it the cause of dharmas. The seeds of uncontaminated dharmas have distinct roles as antidote and what is remedied, so they are not spoken of here; if one directly took seeds, uncontaminated ones should also be taken. Moreover, consciousness is manifest and seeds are hidden; because the consciousness can hold those seeds, consciousness is called the cause, implicitly indicating the seeds—just as saying that the perfuming of hearing is the supramundane seed implicitly indicates that the intrinsically existent uncontaminated [seeds] are the cause. When defiled dharmas and the ālaya are said to be direct causes and conditions for each other, it should be understood in the same way. Furthermore, both primary causes and conditions (hetupratyaya) and empowering conditions (adhipatipratyaya) are termed causes and conditions; the sutra verses term them both causes, while the treatise commentaries term them both conditions. Even if, with respect to empowering [conditions], they are said to be mutual causes, there is still no fault, because it holds those seeds that perfume it. Furthermore, the claim that "the cause-characteristic among the three characteristics differs slightly from this" is also incorrect; according to this treatise text, being the cause of dharmas is precisely the cause-characteristic. As the text shows in full, it would be tedious to quote it; the explanation of the name ālaya and the meaning of the three storings will be analyzed below.