成唯識論了義燈 3.66

3.66

The treatise: "Second: existing simultaneously with the fruit... up to... existing simultaneously in a harmonious union." The basic commentary gives three meanings for the term "manifest/present" (xian). Ximing states: "The seed and the active fruit both exist in the present (xianzai); hence it is termed 'present/manifest'." One interpretation offers two meanings: "present" (xianzai) and "actual existence" (xianyou); the former refutes initial appearance, while the latter refutes non-existence. Regarding this second refutation of non-existence: in Ximing's explanation, fictitious dharmas (prajñapti-dharmas) were not excluded, and since fictitious dharmas lack real existence, he states that "actual existence" refutes them. Without examining thoroughly, some say this solely excludes the seventh consciousness, which is narrow and lacks textual basis, also refuting the first explanation. Another says there are two meanings: first, seed and fruit are both present; second, both being in the present, they form a harmonious union in one and the same person. The Yaoji states: "A certain explanation and a certain [other] view are logically superior." Now I say that that certain explanation does not exclude fictitious dharmas, just as the other interpretation refutes. If one says that according to Dharmapāla's tradition fictitious dharmas are like non-existents and cannot be hetupratyaya, and that fictitious dharmas among the non-associated conditioning forces (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) are already excluded in the section on real entities, so they are not rejected here; then permanent dharmas and the transforming consciousnesses (pravṛtti-vijñāna) would likewise not need to be excluded. In the section defining the essential nature, the transforming consciousnesses have already been excluded; in the section on the four divisions (caturbhāga), it was revealed that they are the objective aspect (nimittabhāga). Since permanent dharmas and transforming consciousnesses are not the objective aspect of the eighth consciousness, why would they need to be excluded here? If one says "directly producing its own fruit" refers to drawing forth its own fruit, and since it already states "as well as the fruit produced are neither identical nor different," that already means being simultaneous with the fruit—why would they need to be excluded subsequently? Therefore, throughout the various sections, depending on how many meanings are provided, fictitious dharmas must also be excluded. Furthermore, it is said: "Excluding the seventh consciousness of those lacking nature: the various seven transforming consciousnesses possess the capacity to perfume, and all become seeds and fruits, yet they are not manifest, so they should be excluded here. Since their meaning is equivalent, why would they be reserved for exclusion only in the third section? Therefore, here one only excludes what is prior and posterior, whether seed or active, as well as what is separated in another [stream of existence] without harmonious union." This also fails to grasp the original intention of the commentary. For a person of no-nature (apratisiddha-gotra/agotraka), the seventh consciousness continuously revolves and also possesses the seven meanings; it is only because its seeds and fruits are submerged and hidden that it is excluded here. The others do not continuously revolve, and hence are excluded in subsequent sections.