成唯識論了義燈 5.21

5.21

《論》：由我執故令六識中等者。《疏》有二解，取後解正。西明取前，《要集》亦同。今謂後釋為勝，由我執故不能亡相。云：我能行施，豈第七我緣施等生，言我能施？故本《疏》意，此第六我，由第七我為所依止，行相增明，非云我施是第七我。若執三輪相是第七我，七地已前有時未伏，何況地前？既不能伏，施等三輪何能亡相？故言相縛，有其兩種：一、通一切相，由第七我；二、執三輪相，雖亦由第七，正說第六。然《攝大乘》據所依止故，云：「自謂我能修行施等，非離無明我執隨遂，非離依止而有無明等。」若即說是第七我執不能亡相，應云：非離無明我執自性而能執相等。何須云：非離無明我執隨逐，非離依止？故說所由，非說即是。然此《論》引《瑜伽》為證者，是通證故，非唯證彼三輪之相。若云：由無漏無分別方能伏此相，即見道前應非波羅故。地前修有漏加行無分別智，能伏第六，故成密多。問：言相縛者，為煩惱障，為所知障？答：設爾何失？二俱有過。若由煩惱障，二乘無學有漏心位應無相縛，我執斷故。若由所知障，生空後智應有相縛。二解：一、云由所知障，若爾生空後得應縛？答：不相順故，依安惠釋，此即為正。二、云以煩惱障為相縛體。若爾二乘無學有漏善無記心，應無相縛？答：由此相分體是有漏，是彼所引熏成種故。今雖斷彼我執體盡，由有相縛。然法執體非正相縛，執有相故為依，助彼我執起故，是助相縛。無學散善及無記心，亦有此助未離相縛，生空後得。雖有其助，無昔有漏所熏之相正相縛者，故得云：無。此釋為正。然執三輪相唯第六識，五、八任運，第七內緣故。若有漏相名為相縛，即通八識。問：諸論但云：令六識中不能亡相，如何今說通於八識？答：彼據三輪，令第六識由執我故，令前六識皆為相，拘不了幻故。第七緣八亦為相拘，相縛本故皆是相縛。若七執我不名相縛，六識如何得名相縛？又此《論》云：「言相縛者，謂於境相不能了達，如幻事等。」由斯見分、相分所拘，不得自在，故名相縛。以此故知通於八識。問：若爾二乘無學，五、八應有相縛，不了幻故？答：有二解：一、云染意滅故，五、八無縛；二、云既緣有漏所生相分，是分別相，猶是相縛。如似有漏，昔由第七漏俱成漏，染七無時，五、八二識，仍有漏攝，相縛應然。

Regarding the Śāstra's statement: "Due to the self-grasping, it causes the six consciousnesses to..." and so forth: The Commentary provides two explanations and takes the latter explanation as correct. Ximing takes the former, and the Yaoji agrees. Now I consider the latter explanation superior: due to the self-grasping, one cannot eliminate signs. When one says, "I am able to practice giving," could the self of the seventh arise by objectifying giving and the like, saying "I am able to give"? Therefore, the intention of the original Commentary is that this sixth self, taking the seventh self as its supporting basis, has its cognitive mode augmented and clarified; it is not saying that "I give" is the seventh self. If grasping the signs of the three wheels were the seventh self, prior to the seventh bhūmi it would sometimes not yet be subdued, how much less prior to the bhūmis? Since it cannot be subdued, how could the three wheels of giving and the like eliminate signs? Therefore, regarding the bond of signs, there are two kinds: first, common to all signs, caused by the seventh self; second, grasping the signs of the three wheels, which, although also caused by the seventh, refers properly to the sixth. However, because the Mahāyānasaṃgraha relies on the supporting basis, it says: "To think oneself able to cultivate giving and the like does not occur apart from being accompanied by ignorance and self-grasping, nor does ignorance and the like exist apart from the supporting basis." If it were directly stated that the self-grasping of the seventh is incapable of eliminating signs, it should say: "It does not occur apart from the intrinsic nature of ignorance and self-grasping being able to grasp signs," and so forth. Why would it need to say: "not apart from being accompanied by ignorance and self-grasping, not apart from the supporting basis"? Thus, it speaks of that from which it originates, not that it is identical with it. Moreover, as for this Śāstra citing the Yogācārabhūmi as proof, it is because it serves as a general proof, not that it only proves the signs of those three wheels. If it were said that only non-conceptual wisdom can subdue these signs, then prior to the path of seeing there would be no pāramitā. Prior to the bhūmis, one cultivates sāsrava preparatory non-conceptual wisdom, which can subdue the sixth [consciousness], thus fulfilling the pāramitā. Question: Is the bond of signs the affliction obstacle or the knowledge obstacle? Answer: If either were assumed, what would be the fault? Both have flaws. If it were due to the affliction obstacle, the sāsrava mental states of an aśaikha of the two vehicles should be free from the bond of signs, because self-grasping is severed. If it were due to the knowledge obstacle, the post-attainment wisdom realizing the emptiness of self should possess the bond of signs. There are two explanations: First, one says it is due to the knowledge obstacle. If so, why should the post-attainment wisdom realizing the emptiness of self be bound? Answer: Because they are not mutually compliant; according to Sthiramati's explanation, this is correct. Second, one says that the affliction obstacle constitutes the entity of the bond of signs. If so, should the sāsrava wholesome and indeterminate minds of an aśaikha of the two vehicles lack the bond of signs? Answer: Because the entity of this perceived aspect is sāsrava, it is perfumed into seeds by what was induced by it. Now, although the entity of that self-grasping is completely severed, the bond of signs still persists due to this. However, the entity of dharma-grasping is not the primary bond of signs; since grasping existent signs serves as a basis to assist that self-grasping in arising, it is an auxiliary bond of signs. The scattered wholesome and indeterminate minds of an aśaikha also possess this assistance and have not separated from the bond of signs, whereas in the post-attainment wisdom of emptiness of self, although there is this assistance, there is no sign perfumed by the past sāsrava acting as the primary bond of signs, and thus it can be said to be absent. This explanation is correct. However, grasping the signs of the three wheels belongs solely to the sixth consciousness, because the five and eight are spontaneous and the seventh cognizes internally. If sāsrava signs are called the bond of signs, it pervades the eight consciousnesses. Question: The various treatises only say that "it causes the six consciousnesses to be unable to eliminate signs"; how can one now say it pervades the eight consciousnesses? Answer: That is stated with respect to the three wheels: it causes the sixth consciousness, through grasping a self, to cause all the first six consciousnesses to be bound by signs and fail to understand illusion. The seventh cognizing the eighth is also bound by signs, and because it is the root of the bond of signs, all are the bond of signs. If the seventh's grasping a self were not called the bond of signs, how could the six consciousnesses be called the bond of signs? Furthermore, this Śāstra says: "The bond of signs means being unable to comprehend objective signs as like an illusion, etc." Due to this, the perceiving aspect and perceived aspect are constrained and do not attain mastery; therefore, it is called the bond of signs. From this it is known that it pervades the eight consciousnesses. Question: If so, should the five and eight of an aśaikha of the two vehicles possess the bond of signs, because they do not comprehend illusion? Answer: There are two explanations: First, one says that because the defiled manas is extinguished, the five and eight are free from bond. Second, one says that since they objectify the perceived aspect produced from the sāsrava, which is a conceptualized sign, it remains a bond of signs. Just as with sāsrava, which previously became sāsrava together with the sāsrava of the seventh, when the defiled seventh is absent, the two consciousnesses—the five and the eight—are still subsumed under sāsrava; the bond of signs should be likewise.