成唯識論了義燈 5.11

5.11

As for the statement that both the thesis and the reason established would have errors: The Commentary says: "If there is a decisive contradiction with the essential nature of the predicate, one should modify that reason, saying: 'Excluding the manovijñāna of the noble path and so forth, it has no co-existent support; because it is manovijñāna; like the manovijñāna of the three states.' Since the reason is modified from before, the previous reason should also exclude what is subsumed under the six consciousnesses of the three states; thus there is no fallacy of inconclusiveness (anaikāntika)." The Shuyao says: "Furthermore, the reason has a contradiction with the essential nature of its own predicate, because it takes the indeterminate mental state of the aśaikṣa as a homologous example (sapakṣa)." The intention of this syllogism is: Because an aśaikṣa constantly lacks the seventh, regarding the statement that it is indeterminate: excluding when in the cessation concentration where the sixth consciousness is absent, one takes the sixth manovijñāna when not entering cessation as the homologous example. However, in terms of logical reasoning, there are two theses here: first, generally establishing the sixth manovijñāna; second, excluding the three states and taking the remaining sixth [consciousness]. The reason also has two: first, a general reason, 'because it is subsumed under the six consciousnesses'; second, a specific reason, also excluding the three states as non-three states, 'because it is subsumed under the remaining six consciousnesses'. As appropriate, each of the two reasons establishes the two theses; the fallacies can be known through reflection.