成唯識論了義燈 5.12

5.12

《論》：初通一切異生相續。西明兩釋：一、明執相續；二、云相續者身。意取此解。《要集》亦云：此依五蘊身名相續，非執、非心。今謂不爾。此文意顯三位差別有續、有間。初總明之，後重料簡起不起時，故前相續，明此俱意有間、有續，不明其身。若以五蘊身為所依，名為相續，且如我執亦依聖身，何故不云相續？平等性智亦依菩薩，亦何不云相續？

The Śāstra: "First, it is common to the mental continuum of all ordinary persons (pṛthagjana)." Ximing offers two explanations: first, it explains the continuum of grasping; second, it says that "continuum" refers to the body, and its intention favors this latter interpretation. The Yaoji also says: "This refers to the body of the five aggregates as a continuum, not to grasping and not to the mind." Now I say this is not so. The intention of this text is to reveal that the distinctions among the three states involve continuity and interruption. First it explains it generally, and later it re-examines the times of arising and non-arising. Therefore, the preceding 'continuum' explains that this accompanying intention has interruption and continuity; it does not explain its body. If one took the body of the five aggregates as the support and called it a continuum, then, just as grasping at a self also depends on the body of a noble one, why is it not called a continuum? The wisdom of equality also depends on a bodhisattva, so why is it also not called a continuum?