成唯識論了義燈 4.74

4.74

亦「時分懸隔無緣義」故。若末經部救云：我有麁細二識，麁者染俱結生，細者無記為業熏感。若上坐部，亦二意識，雖不說熏，亦說為感。二俱許細，是異熟性。故無性論云：於母胎中，有異熟識，與赤、白和合。乃至謂依異熟識，有意識轉。若爾，即應二識俱轉，設俱何過？違聖教故。上坐救云：我部不誦無違教過者。即難，應有二眼等識生，六識攝故，不許違理，許即自違，不許五識有麁細故。末經部救：熏於識類，類性無記，說為識支，感亦不違者，此如前破。又違經名，經云：緣識不云緣識類。所餘救、破，准例可知。雖無文證，理亦不違。

Also because 'separated by vast time, there is no meaning of conditionality'. If the later Sautrāntikas attempt a rescue, saying: 'We possess coarse and subtle consciousnesses: the coarse one is accompanied by defilement at conception, while the subtle one is indeterminate and perfumed and induced by karma.' Or if the Sthaviravādins also posit two manovijñānas, and although they do not speak of perfuming, they also speak of inducing. Both schools admit that the subtle one is of the nature of vipāka. Thus Asvalakṣaṇa's commentary says: 'In the mother's womb, there is a vipākavijñāna that unites with the red and white [fluids]... up to, relying on the vipākavijñāna, there operates a manovijñāna.' If so, then two consciousnesses must operate simultaneously. If they are simultaneous, what is the fault? It contradicts the sacred teachings. If the Sthaviravādins rescue this, saying: 'Our school does not recite [that text], so there is no fault of contradicting the teachings,' then one refutes them: two eye-consciousnesses and the like should then arise, because they are subsumed under the six consciousnesses. If you do not allow this, it contradicts reason; if you allow it, you contradict your own position, for you do not admit that the five consciousnesses have coarse and subtle aspects. If the later Sautrāntikas rescue: 'Perfuming occurs upon the genus of consciousness; the genus is indeterminate, which is spoken of as the consciousness link, and its being induced is also not contradictory'—this is refuted as before. Furthermore, it contradicts the scripture's phrasing: the sūtra says 'conditions consciousness', not 'conditions the genus of consciousness'. The remaining rescues and refutations can be known by following this pattern. Although there is no textual citation, it does not contradict reason.