成唯識論了義燈 5.36

5.36

《論》五識俱起任運貪癡等。西明一釋，不發業言不簡五識，但有隨轉，不為轉因能發業故。此意隨轉不為轉因，明非不善故，不發業故。第二又解云：亦通不善，由意所引理應能發，無文遮故。然意取前釋。《要集》亦斷西明前勝。今謂不爾，若以五識但隨轉因，非轉因故非不善者，嗔通五識，亦應有覆非不善耶？又《論》本頌云：「善不善俱非。」若非不善，違本《論》說。故雖隨轉起惡業者，亦是不善。又《瑜伽》八十九云：當知此中能起一切不善法，貪名貪不善根，嗔、癡亦爾。三不善根既通五識，明知隨轉，起不善法亦名不善。又此《論》第六云：貪、嗔、癡三俱生分別，一切容與五受相應。明知此三分別起者通五識有。若唯意俱，但四受俱，無苦受並，純受苦處意方有苦，以三惡道無分別故。既《論》許五有分別惑，下三性門云：欲界繫分別起者唯不善攝，發惡行故。五識既非轉因發業，如何得云唯不善攝？發惡行故。故知五俱任運，貪、癡不作，隨轉發業之者，即是有覆。若隨轉發即不善收。又第二云：異熟習氣，謂六識中有漏善等。又等流習氣，言七識中即皆許有。既云六識中，明六轉識俱有異熟、習氣，雖不能作引業習氣，而作滿業。不應隨轉能為滿業唯有覆性，故不發業言。亦簡五識中，本說為勝。然云：六十七、八說，不發業癡等是無記者。或傳寫誤，應云：五十七、八，以彼文說俱生身見唯是無記，義准邊見及癡、慢、愛、修道一分與身見俱亦是無記，不能發業。

Regarding the statement in the treatise that spontaneous greed, ignorance, etc., arise together with the five consciousnesses: Ximing gives an interpretation stating that the phrase 'does not generate karma' does not exclude the five consciousnesses; it is only because they follow and evolve [with the mental consciousness] and do not act as the transformative cause capable of generating karma. His meaning is that because they follow and evolve and do not act as the transformative cause, this clearly means they are not unwholesome, because they do not generate karma. A second interpretation also explains: they also extend to being unwholesome; since they are induced by the mental consciousness, in principle they should be capable of generating karma, for there is no text denying it. However, the intention favors the former interpretation. The Yaoji also judges Ximing's former interpretation to be superior. Now I hold that this is not so. If, because the five consciousnesses merely follow the transformative cause and are not the transformative cause itself, they are therefore not unwholesome, then since hatred extends to the five consciousnesses, should it also be obstructed [morally neutral] and not unwholesome? Furthermore, the root verse of the treatise states: 'Neither wholesome nor unwholesome.' If they were not unwholesome, this would contradict what the root treatise says. Therefore, even though they arise as evil karma by following and evolving, they are also unwholesome. Furthermore, the eighty-ninth fascicle of the Yogācāra states: 'One should know that herein, greed that is capable of giving rise to all unwholesome phenomena is called the unwholesome root of greed; hatred and ignorance are also like this.' Since the three unwholesome roots extend to the five consciousnesses, we clearly know that when following and evolving they give rise to unwholesome phenomena, they are also called unwholesome. Furthermore, the sixth fascicle of this treatise states: 'The three—greed, hatred, and ignorance—whether innate or conceptually differentiated, can all be associated with the five feelings.' We clearly know that when these three arise through conceptual differentiation, they extend to existing in the five consciousnesses. If they were associated only with the mental consciousness, they would be associated with only four feelings, with no pain feeling accompanying them, for it is only in places of pure suffering that the mental consciousness has pain, because in the three evil destinies there is no conceptual differentiation. Since the treatise allows that the five have conceptually differentiated afflictions, below, in the section on the three moral natures, it states: 'Those bound to the desire realm that arise through conceptual differentiation are included solely within the unwholesome, because they generate evil actions.' Since the five consciousnesses are not the transformative causes that generate karma, how could it say that they are 'included solely within the unwholesome because they generate evil actions'? Therefore, we know that when the greed and ignorance that operate spontaneously alongside the five [consciousnesses] do not act to follow and evolve to generate karma, they are obstructed [morally neutral]; if they follow, evolve, and generate it, then they are subsumed under the unwholesome. Furthermore, the second fascicle states: 'Ripening-impregnation refers to sāsrava wholesomeness and the like within the six consciousnesses.' And regarding flow-out impregnation, it states that all are permitted to exist within the seven consciousnesses. Since it says 'within the six consciousnesses,' it clearly shows that the six active consciousnesses all possess ripening-impregnation; although they cannot serve as the impregnation for projecting karma, they nevertheless act as completing karma. It is inadmissible that that which is capable of serving as completing karma by following and evolving should be solely of an obstructed nature; therefore, the phrase 'does not generate karma' also excludes the five consciousnesses, and the original explanation is superior. However, it is said: fascicles sixty-seven and sixty-eight state that the ignorance and so forth that do not generate karma are non-defined. This is perhaps a copyist's error; it should read 'fifty-seven and fifty-eight', for that text says that innate view of self is solely non-defined; by principle, extreme view as well as ignorance, conceit, craving, and a portion of the path of cultivation associated with the view of self are also non-defined and cannot generate karma.