成唯識論了義燈 4.80

4.80

In explaining the simultaneous basis (sahabhū-āśraya), the original text divided it into four masters; the second is Sthiramati and others. Ximing classified the second as Citrabhāna. The Yaoji raises a doubt: 'If the second master is Sthiramati, then when he refutes the earlier master saying that the seeds of the eighteen dhātus would become confounded: since Sthiramati admits that the seeds of the self-witnessing part (svasaṃvittibhāga) laterally produce the eighteen dhātus, the seeds would also become confounded. If explained according to a single svasaṃvittibhāga, the sense-faculties and objects would also become confounded. Furthermore, Sthiramati himself admits that when the seventh enters the path of seeing, it has an interruption; why does the text below say: "although uninterrupted, there is transformation"?' Now to explain this: for Sthiramati, seeds themselves are nominal, yet their functions differ to form the eighteen dhātus, like the unassociated formations that are nominally established on the basis of what is real and do not become confounded; dividing them according to the sense of the svasaṃvittibhāga is also acceptable. Furthermore, making this objection from the standpoint of the other school is also without fault, since he admits that the ālayavijñāna transforms into the semblance of physical faculties, etc. Or it is the opinion of other masters; even if it is what he admits, from the distinction of imputed conceptualization, they are also not confounded. As for the statement that the seventh is uninterrupted, this is the view of other masters; because it was combined with Sthiramati into a single passage, the commentary says 'and others', not solely Sthiramati. Originally there were ten interpretations circulating separately in the Western region; since the master of the commentary was the one who translated and synthesized them here, he had deep comprehension, so the rest need not be doubted.