成唯識論了義燈 5.197

5.197

答：《論》雖不明言五識有，但破不許有隨念、計度，意即許有自性分別。不爾何故二《論》俱破二種分別不難自性？又有二義：一、依遍義，即《瑜伽》云：有分別非尋伺，及《唯識》、《攝論》許五識有自性分別；二、不遍義，即《瑜伽》云：謂諸尋、伺必是分別。《對法》據此三種分別，云：唯一意識，由三分別，故有分別。又《瑜伽論》第五說云：或有分別非尋、伺，謂望出世智所餘一切三界心、心所，皆是分別而非尋伺。既名分別，復非尋、伺，若非自性，名為分別，豈由他耶？不得定執二，論自性即是尋、伺，許彼五有，但是隨轉縱破小乘，無論說故。

Answer: Although the treatise does not explicitly state that the five consciousnesses have it, by merely refuting the denial that they have recollection and calculation, its intent is to grant that they have conceptualization of essential nature. Otherwise, why would both treatises refute the two kinds of conceptualization without objecting to essential nature? Furthermore, there are two meanings: First, based on the pervasive meaning, as the Yogācāra says: "There is conceptualization that is not gross investigation or subtle investigation," and the Vijñaptimātratā and Saṃgraha grant that the five consciousnesses have conceptualization of essential nature. Second, based on the non-pervasive meaning, as the Yogācāra says: "All gross investigation and subtle investigation are necessarily conceptualization." The Abhidharma, based on these three kinds of conceptualization, says: "Only the mental consciousness, due to the three conceptualizations, is endowed with conceptualization." Furthermore, fascicle five of the Yogācārabhūmi says: "Or there is conceptualization that is not gross investigation or subtle investigation: that is, viewed from the perspective of supramundane wisdom, all remaining minds and mental factors of the three realms are conceptualization and not gross investigation or subtle investigation." Since it is called conceptualization and yet is not gross investigation or subtle investigation, if it is not conceptualization of essential nature that is termed conceptualization, could it be due to others? One must not rigidly maintain that in both treatises essential nature is identical to gross investigation and subtle investigation, and that granting the five consciousnesses have it was merely a concession in refuting the Hīnayāna, since no treatise states this.