成唯識論了義燈 4.83

4.83

The Treatise says: "Since it is accepted that the active consciousness takes seeds as its support..." and so forth. The Root Commentary explains: This establishes that seeds have a co-arising support. When the Treatise says that the active consciousness relies on seeds, it is because the supporting faculty extends to both seeds and actualities; thus the Commentary mentions seeds. If one were to say that the text of the Treatise ought to say that actualities take seeds as their cause-condition, then in this context, where seeds rely on the active consciousness, there would be the fault of lacking a shared example, because the eighth consciousness is not a cause-condition with respect to seeds, but rather a co-arising support. However, Ximing says: "In this context, it directly clarifies the co-arising support; how can one inferentially use the cause-condition as a parallel?" His explanation states: In truth, it should not serve as a parallel, but Sthiramati's meaning is that the previous two masters did not accept that seeds also have a support. Therefore, one now inferentially establishes that the seed consciousness also has a support. The formal inference runs: "The seed consciousness also has a support; because it is subsumed under either active or seed consciousness; just like the active consciousness." Although their supports differ as two kinds of support—cause-condition and co-arising—their meaning of 'support' is equal, so it is temporarily cited as a parallel. Why is this? The perfuming has the meaning of a cause-condition, whereas the ripening consciousness with respect to seeds is not a cause-condition. Thus, what is meant by temporarily citing it as a parallel is that, although establishing a cause-condition as that which is relied upon, it merely takes the meaning of 'relying upon'; cause-condition and co-arising are identical in the meaning of 'relying upon'. If one were to call it a cause-condition support, the eighth active consciousness would not be such with respect to seeds; to avoid this fault, he says it is temporarily cited as a conceptual parallel. I now say this is not so. If one merely proves support, then since all conditioned phenomena rely on supports, this would result in proving what is already accepted. If one proves a cause-condition, the eighth consciousness is not a cause-condition with respect to seeds; proving it to be a cause-condition would incur the fault of partially contradicting one's own tenet. Therefore, we know that the former master did not establish that seeds have a co-arising support; now establishing this meaning contradicts the other and accords with oneself without departing from the sacred teachings. Thus the Root Commentary is correct.