成唯識論了義燈 4.72

4.72

《論》：「又行緣識應不得成」者。今更助解，初正破經部，熏故名緣。無性《攝論》第二云：「謂行為緣貪等俱生，眼等轉識許為識支，此不應理。」此意六識，不是受熏，有間斷故。貪俱染識，非無記故，不是受熏故，行不熏眼等轉識。《攝論》復云：「識緣名色有聖言故。所以者何？眼等諸識剎那速壞，久已謝滅，為名色緣，不應道理。」此意轉破識緣名色，亦復不成。經部轉救：貪等俱識與行相應，熏結生位識，名行緣識。亦不得成，結生識起，能熏行等，久已滅故，非無體法而為能熏故，亦不成故。無性論云：若畏此失，許結生識為識支者，此亦不然。於結生時，福等諸行，久已滅故，非從久滅此復應生。若云：非熏但說能感，即感故名緣，與有部同。

Regarding the Śāstra's statement: 'Furthermore, "volitional action conditioning consciousness" would fail to be established': Now to further assist the explanation, the first part directly refutes the Sautrāntikas' claim that it is called 'conditioning' because of perfuming. Asvalakṣaṇa's Commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, fascicle two, says: 'If it is held that the evolving consciousnesses such as the eye-[consciousness], arising together with greed and the like with volitional action as condition, are the consciousness link, this is unreasonable.' The meaning here is that the six consciousnesses do not receive perfuming because they have interruptions. A defiled consciousness accompanied by greed is not indeterminate, so because it does not receive perfuming, volitional action does not perfume the evolving consciousnesses such as the eye-[consciousness]. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha further says: 'Because there are sacred words stating that consciousness conditions name-and-form. Why is this? Because the consciousnesses such as the eye-[consciousness] perish swiftly in an instant and have long since ceased, it is unreasonable for them to be the condition for name-and-form.' The meaning here turns to refute that 'consciousness conditioning name-and-form' would likewise fail to be established. The Sautrāntika turns to rescue their position: 'The consciousness accompanied by greed and the like, associated with volitional action, perfumes the consciousness at the stage of conception (pratisaṃdhi); this is called volitional action conditioning consciousness.' This also cannot be established: when the consciousness of conception arises, the perfuming volitional actions and the like have long since perished, and a dharma without real substance cannot be a perfumer, so this also fails. Asvalakṣaṇa's commentary says: 'If, fearing this error, one admits that the consciousness of conception is the consciousness link, this is also incorrect. Because at the time of conception, the meritorious and other volitional actions have long since perished, and it cannot be that this arises again from what has long since perished.' If it is said: 'It is not perfuming, but simply capable of inducing, so being capable of inducing is called conditioning,' then this is identical to the Sarvāstivādins.