成唯識論了義燈 4.9

4.9

Question: Do the six active perfumers jointly produce the seed of a single objective substratum, or do they each perfume separately? Answer: There are two explanations. One says they jointly produce the seed of a single objective substratum, while the seeds of the image aspect and the vision aspect are distinct; another says the objective substrata are also distinct, and this latter explanation is correct. Question: Since all are multiple causes jointly generating a single result, why is the latter correct? Answer: Seeds situated in the same locus can jointly produce a result, but since the active perfumers differ in aspect, they each perfume their respective objective substrata separately. Question: Although receiving perfuming does not pertain to the mental associates, the objects cognized are the same for both the primary mind and mental associates. When transforming into sense-faculties and objects, do they both have practical function? Answer: Ximing says that the Tripiṭaka Master offered two explanations. One says that what is transformed by touch and so forth lacks real practical function; the object may serve as an empowering condition, but it is not an intentional object. Another says they are not analogous: the sense-faculty has the meaning of being empowering, so it is transformed solely by the primary mind; the object has the meaning of being a distant condition, so it also extends to mental associates. The latter interpretation is regarded as correct. Now I say this is not so: that what is transformed by mental associates serves as an intentional object of the sixth [consciousness] is indeed unproblematic in principle, but for it to serve as the object of the five consciousnesses contradicts the correct doctrine. This is because Dharmapāla does not accept that the five consciousnesses cognize what is unreal. If one says that this is spoken in reference to the sixth [consciousness], that is also not so: comparing the sense-faculty and object, since the sense-faculty is discussed in reference to the five [consciousnesses], and the objects are the five objects, how could this be spoken in reference to the sixth? Although attributed to the Tripiṭaka Master, such a shared hearing is not attested, not to mention that the teaching requires relying on the Dharma, not on persons.