成唯識論了義燈 5.146

5.146

西明云：不名為死，言中有歿者約六識說，第八相續。今謂不爾。《對法》、《瑜伽》俱云：中有極住七日，或有中夭，乃至極經七返更不得過。若准此文許中有死，若云：只是六識不行，云何七日方一不行？六日等時，何緣不滅？若云亦許即是逢緣礙六不起，何定七日及極七七，又復中有改生別趣，豈第八不捨即往彼耶？若爾應成趣生亂過，又何得云：或有中夭？是故應許中有有死。《雜集》、《瑜伽》文皆具顯。

Ximing says: It is not called death; when [the texts] speak of dying in the antarābhava, this is said with respect to the six consciousnesses, whereas the eighth [consciousness] continues in succession. Now I say this is not so. Both the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya and the Yogācārabhūmi state: "The antarābhava lasts for at most seven days, or there may be premature death midway, [and it repeats] up to at most seven cycles, beyond which it cannot go." If one relies on this text, it allows that the antarābhava has death. If you say it is merely that the six consciousnesses do not operate, why is it that they cease to operate only once every seven days? During times such as the six days, for what reason do they not perish? If you say that it is also allowed that this is just encountering conditions that obstruct the six from arising, why is it definitely seven days, and at most seven times seven? Furthermore, when one in the antarābhava changes and is reborn into a different realm of rebirth, does the eighth [consciousness] really not abandon [its body] before proceeding there? If so, it would entail the flaw of confusing realms of rebirth and types of birth. And how could [the texts] say: "or there may be premature death midway"? Therefore, one must allow that the antarābhava has death. The texts of both the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā and the Yogācārabhūmi fully demonstrate this.