成唯識論了義燈 4.89

4.89

第二安惠等，第三護法等。西明云：第二淨月，安惠師許三位無末那故。《要集》亦云：定非安惠。《論》云：「平等性智相應末那，初起，必由第六意識為開導依。」彼許三位無末那故，則不得言相應末那。今謂不爾，准何得知是淨月義，既自不識梵本，又非翻譯之人，若是安惠，前難如何？答：准本疏釋云：即顯末那名通無漏，雖即六識轉，末那得名為第七，實非第七，不通淨故，不爾違經。初地、初心第七識俱平等性智等，如疏具釋。又下第五卷中，亦有此解。疏外又解，前難陀師云：第六意識自相續故，亦總用。前六轉識內，隨何為開導依，第七、八識，雖自相續，見道初轉，由第六引，應用第六為開導依，就彼宗難，正彼義故，不依自宗，疏主既親承梵本，翻此論文，豈肯鄭重為斯錯判。今又助解，言安惠等許淨第七，即是餘師，餘文即通安惠及餘，述正文中云：第七末那用前自類，或第六識為開導依。染相續位自類為依，無漏間斷，既有第六，即為開導，滅定位出，應云用第八為開導依，略而不言。

The second is Sthiramati and others; the third is Dharmapāla and others. Ximing says: The second is Śuddhamati, because Master Sthiramati accepts that manas is absent in three states. The Yaoji also says: It is definitely not Sthiramati. The Treatise says: "The manas associated with the wisdom of equality, when first arising, necessarily takes the sixth mental consciousness as its opening-and-guiding support." Since he accepts that manas is absent in three states, he could not speak of 'associated manas'. I now say this is not so. Based on what does one know this is Śuddhamati's view? Since he himself did not understand the Sanskrit text, nor was he the translator, if it were Sthiramati, how does one resolve the earlier objection? Answer: According to the Root Commentary's explanation: this demonstrates that the name manas extends to the undefiled; although it is the six consciousnesses transforming, manas receives the name of the seventh, but it is not truly the seventh because it does not extend to the pure. Otherwise, it would contradict the sūtras. In the initial stage and initial thought, the seventh consciousness is associated with the wisdom of equality and so forth, as fully explained in the Commentary. Furthermore, in the fifth fascicle below, there is also this explanation. Outside the Commentary there is another explanation: the former Master Nanda said that because the sixth mental consciousness is continuous in itself, it also generally uses whichever among the preceding six evolving consciousnesses as its opening-and-guiding support; the seventh and eighth consciousnesses, though continuous in themselves, at the initial transformation of the path of seeing are guided by the sixth, and should use the sixth as their opening-and-guiding support. Arguing against their tenets to correct their doctrine, he does not rely on his own tenet. Since the commentator himself personally received the Sanskrit text and translated this treatise, how could he have repeatedly made such a mistaken judgment? I now offer a further auxiliary explanation: saying 'Sthiramati and others' accept a pure seventh refers to other masters, while the rest of the text applies to both Sthiramati and others. In recounting the main text, it says: The seventh manas uses the prior of its own category, or the sixth consciousness, as its opening-and-guiding support. In the defiled continuous state, it takes its own category as support; when the undefiled is interrupted, since the sixth exists, it serves as the opening-and-guiding support; upon emerging from the state of cessation, one should say it uses the eighth as its opening-and-guiding support, but this is omitted and not mentioned.