成唯識論了義燈 4.98

4.98

The commentary states: "As the first fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'If one dharma is not realized and not completely known.'" This cites the Mahāyānasaṃgraha stating that the Buddha did not teach the ālayavijñāna to the Hīnayāna, and an opponent cited scripture to object: If so, why did the World-Honoured One say in the sūtra, "I do not say that without having realized and completely known a single dharma, one can forever sever all defilements and become an arhat. I only say that having realized and completely known all dharmas, one can then sever afflictions and become an arhat"? "Realized" refers to the uninterrupted path; "completely known" refers to the path of liberation. The intention of this objection is: If he did not teach the ālayavijñāna to them, how could he say that with regard to all dharmas one has realized and completely known them? Asvabhāva explained: This is the Buddha's intentional speech that one does not sever afflictions [separately], using words of specific characteristics to refer to the locus of general characteristics; it is not that defilements have separate severances, or because one grasps common characteristics such as impermanence and so forth; therefore he did not teach the ālayavijñāna. The intention is that with words of specific characteristics, he intended to express the locus of the general characteristic of the emptiness of persons, only through which can one sever afflictions. Afflictions [are severed through] the practice of common characteristics like impermanence; it is not that a wisdom cognizing individual forms and so forth can sever afflictions. Therefore, in saying "without having realized and completely known a single dharma," words of specific characteristics express the wisdom of general characteristics that can sever afflictions; it is not that one can only sever afflictions when each and every dharma is fully realized and known, which is why he did not teach the ālayavijñāna to them. Now the text of the Yogācārabhūmi is also like this: its intention is to state that the preceding respective individual consciousnesses serve as the equal-immediate conditions for the subsequent respective individual consciousnesses. Therefore, in the general locus, it says that if those six consciousnesses serve as these six consciousnesses, and so forth. This is an expression with an individual intention operating within a general locus. Furthermore, this "general words with specific intention" has three explanations: First, reconciling the preceding third [passage] which says: "If immediately upon this consciousness, the various consciousnesses definitely arise"; here "this consciousness" and "the various consciousnesses" are both general phrasing, but the intention refers to the respective, distinct eight consciousnesses, merely putting forward this general phrasing. It does not mean that the various consciousnesses are permitted to mutually serve as conditions. Second, explaining the third intention, it specifically speaks of the subsequent consciousness definitely arising to exclude the final mind of the one beyond training, yet it puts forward the general phrase "arising of the various consciousnesses." Third, reconciling the preceding "furthermore, these six consciousnesses serve as those six consciousnesses"; intending to speak specifically of the respective six consciousnesses, it puts forward that general phrasing with the intention of indicating the distinct six. It is not that these words "six" generally encompass the eight consciousnesses, which is called "general words with specific intention." For in the fifty-second [fascicle], it initially mentions that immediately upon the various minds and mental factors, subsequent minds and mental factors arise, which generally denotes all eight consciousnesses; when it repeats "these six and those six," it is based on the common teaching of the three vehicles, and therefore does not extend to the eight.