成唯識論了義燈 4.89

4.89

The second is Sthiramati and others; the third is Dharmapāla and others. Ximing says: The second is Śuddhamati, because Master Sthiramati accepts that manas is absent in three states. The Yaoji also says: It is definitely not Sthiramati. The Treatise says: "The manas associated with the wisdom of equality, when first arising, necessarily takes the sixth mental consciousness as its opening-and-guiding support." Since he accepts that manas is absent in three states, he could not speak of 'associated manas'. I now say this is not so. Based on what does one know this is Śuddhamati's view? Since he himself did not understand the Sanskrit text, nor was he the translator, if it were Sthiramati, how does one resolve the earlier objection? Answer: According to the Root Commentary's explanation: this demonstrates that the name manas extends to the undefiled; although it is the six consciousnesses transforming, manas receives the name of the seventh, but it is not truly the seventh because it does not extend to the pure. Otherwise, it would contradict the sūtras. In the initial stage and initial thought, the seventh consciousness is associated with the wisdom of equality and so forth, as fully explained in the Commentary. Furthermore, in the fifth fascicle below, there is also this explanation. Outside the Commentary there is another explanation: the former Master Nanda said that because the sixth mental consciousness is continuous in itself, it also generally uses whichever among the preceding six evolving consciousnesses as its opening-and-guiding support; the seventh and eighth consciousnesses, though continuous in themselves, at the initial transformation of the path of seeing are guided by the sixth, and should use the sixth as their opening-and-guiding support. Arguing against their tenets to correct their doctrine, he does not rely on his own tenet. Since the commentator himself personally received the Sanskrit text and translated this treatise, how could he have repeatedly made such a mistaken judgment? I now offer a further auxiliary explanation: saying 'Sthiramati and others' accept a pure seventh refers to other masters, while the rest of the text applies to both Sthiramati and others. In recounting the main text, it says: The seventh manas uses the prior of its own category, or the sixth consciousness, as its opening-and-guiding support. In the defiled continuous state, it takes its own category as support; when the undefiled is interrupted, since the sixth exists, it serves as the opening-and-guiding support; upon emerging from the state of cessation, one should say it uses the eighth as its opening-and-guiding support, but this is omitted and not mentioned.