成唯識論了義燈 4.56

4.56

《論》：「識緣名色，名色緣識。」問：此中所說識與名色，為據種說？為據現行？答：二俱何失，二俱有過。何者若據種說，不應難他云，羯剌藍時無五識故，種子恒有，何得云無？若約現行，即非正支，又初生位一剎那時，大乘自許，亦無第六，何得說言，猶如束蘆，俱時而轉。若取第七非名色支，答：名色有二：一、十二支中所說名色；二、汎爾名色。若十二支所說名色，據體是種，依當分位，亦說現行，故《十地論》說：十二支皆有子時果時，又種子中，復有總別。如下第八說，若汎名色。但云：名色未必名支，設名為支，即通假實。今此中說汎名色支，名中識支，即第七識，一切恒有如二束蘆，故自無過。然釋此經文，總有七釋：一、薩婆多師，如本疏辨；二、本經部師，同有部釋；三、末經部師，許有細意識。羯剌藍時，麁識為名中識，細識為識，故如束蘆；四、本上坐，亦計二識，許俱時轉，釋同末經部；五、末上坐，麁細二識，必不俱時，釋意大同一切有部；六、大眾部師，六識俱轉，言如束蘆。據七日已後，七日已前，未有五識，約長時說；七、大乘師，復有三釋。一依此論十二有支，當起位說。二依《瑜伽》第九所說，復有二解，如本疏明。三依汎明名色支說。今此論意，約汎名色，不依《瑜伽》第九二說，及下緣起，皆喻不成。然有解云：依《瑜伽》後說，名中非必具四蘊故，亦取束蘆而為喻故。此亦不爾，同上坐等過，本疏雖云《瑜伽》第九第二解，意同於此論，意亦取七為名中識，彼論第九，但云所餘，曰名不遮第七，故束蘆喻，善得成立。

The Śāstra states: "Consciousness conditions name-and-form; name-and-form conditions consciousness." Question: As for consciousness and name-and-form spoken of here, is this said based on seeds, or based on manifest activity? Answer: What is the fault in either? Both have faults. Why? If said based on seeds, one should not refute the opponent by saying that at the time of the kalala there are no five consciousnesses; since seeds exist constantly, how could one say they do not exist? If spoken in terms of manifest activity, then they are not the proper links [of dependent origination]; moreover, at the single instant of initial rebirth, the Mahāyāna itself admits that the sixth [consciousness] also does not exist; how could it be said that, "like bundles of reeds, they operate simultaneously"? If taking the seventh [consciousness], it is not the link of name-and-form. Answer: There are two kinds of name-and-form: first, the name-and-form spoken of within the twelve links; second, general name-and-form. As for the name-and-form spoken of within the twelve links, in terms of essence it consists of seeds, but based on the corresponding state, manifest activity is also spoken of; thus the Daśabhūmika-śāstra states: "The twelve links all have a seed phase and a fruit phase." Furthermore, among the seeds there are both general and specific ones, as explained below in the eighth [fascicle]. As for general name-and-form: merely saying "name-and-form" does not necessarily mean the links; even if called links, it applies commonly to both nominal and real. What is spoken of here is the general link of name-and-form: the consciousness link within "name" is precisely the seventh consciousness, which constantly exists in all cases like two bundles of reeds; hence there is no fault in our position. However, in explaining this scriptural text, there are seven explanations in total: First, the Sarvāstivāda masters, as distinguished in the primary commentary. Second, the original Sautrāntika masters, whose explanation is the same as the Sarvāstivādin. Third, the later Sautrāntika masters, who accept the existence of a subtle manovijñāna: at the time of the kalala, the coarse consciousness is the consciousness within "name", and the subtle consciousness is "consciousness", thus resembling bundles of reeds. Fourth, the original Sthavira, who also posit two consciousnesses and allow their simultaneous operation, whose explanation is the same as the later Sautrāntikas. Fifth, the later Sthavira, for whom the coarse and subtle consciousnesses are definitely not simultaneous, whose explanation largely agrees with the Sarvāstivāda. Sixth, the Mahāsāṃghika masters, for whom the six consciousnesses operate simultaneously, and saying they are like bundles of reeds refers to the period after seven days; before seven days, the five consciousnesses do not yet exist, so this is spoken in terms of the longer duration. Seventh, the Mahāyāna masters, who have another three explanations: 1. Spoken based on the active state of the twelve links of existence in this Śāstra. 2. Based on what is spoken in the ninth [fascicle] of the Yogācārabhūmi, which has two explanations, as clarified in the primary commentary. 3. Spoken based on the general presentation of the link of name-and-form. Now the intended meaning of this Śāstra concerns general name-and-form; if not based on the two explanations in the ninth [fascicle] of the Yogācārabhūmi and the dependent origination [discussed] below, the metaphor would fail in all cases. However, some explain: based on the latter explanation of the Yogācārabhūmi, because "name" does not necessarily contain all four aggregates, the bundle of reeds is also taken as a metaphor. This too is not so, having the same fault as the Sthaviras and others. Although the primary commentary says that the second explanation in the ninth [fascicle] of the Yogācārabhūmi is the same in intent as this Śāstra, intending also to take the seventh [consciousness] as the consciousness within "name", that ninth fascicle merely says "the remainder is called name" without excluding the seventh; thus the metaphor of the bundles of reeds is soundly established.