成唯識論了義燈 4.33

4.33

《論》：別類必同別事性故者。西明云：一云不立法同，一云亦立。前說為勝。今謂不爾，《俱舍論》中經部破他大同唯識，此論既難：令相似法立於同分，故立法同。此義為勝。問：彼宗識類為是何性？答：本計無記故受熏持種。問：許間斷不？答：彼許相續。問：若爾，如何言又無心位此類定無？　答：此以理逼，既稱識類。識既間斷類亦應然，類依識立，如得等故。

Treatise: 'Because a distinct class must have the same nature as the distinct entity.' Ximing says: One says they do not establish the similarity of dharmas (dharma-sabhāgatā); one says they also establish it. The former explanation is superior. I now say this is not so. In the Abhidharmakośa, the Sautrāntika's refutation of others is largely the same as Vijñaptimātratā. Since this treatise challenges them to make similar dharmas establish a common share (nikāyasabhāga), they establish the similarity of dharmas. This meaning is superior. Question: What nature is the class of consciousness in their school? Answer: Originally posited as morally neutral (avyākṛta), it therefore receives perfuming and holds seeds. Question: Do they accept interruption? Answer: They accept continuity. Question: If so, why does it say: 'Moreover, in the mindless state this class is definitely non-existent'? Answer: This is forced by reasoning: since it is called a class of consciousness, if consciousness is interrupted, the class must also be so, because class is established dependent on consciousness, like possession (prāpti) and so forth.