成唯識論了義燈 3.70

3.70

The four meanings of that which is perfumed (saṃskārya). The first meaning excludes two interpretations of Ximing: one agrees with the basic commentary; the other says it does not exclude the mental factors (caitasika) of the seven transforming [consciousnesses], which are excluded in the third section. The Yaoji judges: 'This explanation is superior.' Now I say this is not so: the mind-king, possessing independence, is still not that which is perfumed; how could the mental factors, which rely on the king, alone be that which is perfumed? Therefore, the third section only excludes the mental factors associated with the eighth consciousness, which possess the prior two meanings and are thus excluded in the third. The Yaoji states: 'When the seventh has not yet transformed, it is not excluded here; it excludes that which has already undergone the transformation of the basis (āśrayaparivṛtti). If it is not uniform (eka-jātīya), that excludes the seven consciousnesses; the eighth also transforms, so it should not receive perfuming. Thus the first [meaning] only excludes the first six transforming consciousnesses, because they are not continuous. In the second meaning, it only then excludes the seventh consciousness in the stage before the transformation of the basis.' This is also not so. Merely saying 'continuous' does not exclude the seventh; but stating 'uniform' does exclude the seventh, because defiled and undefiled natures are not uniform, unlike the eighth consciousness, which in its undefiled stage uniformly receives perfuming. When it is in the undefiled stage, it does not receive perfuming, so they are not comparable. Since the transformed seventh is excluded in the first, why would the untransformed be excluded in the second? If it were not neutral, could the transformed seventh be neutral? Question: The eighth consciousness possesses the qualifications and is stated to be that which is perfumed; among its three aspects, which is perfumed? Answer: Some say it perfumes the retributive consciousness, which corresponds to the fruit aspect; others say it perfumes the intrinsic aspect (svakāra/svabhāva), because it is its own substance. Between the two explanations, the latter is correct: meaning is established based on substance, having no separate nature. It is merely that the intrinsic aspect, in repaying the cause, is termed the fruit aspect, and in holding the seeds, is termed the causal aspect; therefore, only the intrinsic aspect is properly that which is perfumed.