成唯識論了義燈 5.18

5.18

Clarifying unshared ignorance (āveṇikī avidyā): The fifth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: "This cannot be admitted to exist in the five consciousnesses. In that place there is no antidote. Where there is an antidote, there is something to be antidoted. There is no such antidote in the five consciousnesses, because in this [stage] the path of seeing does not arise." This means that the five consciousnesses in the stage of the path of seeing have not yet become undefiled. If there were unshared ignorance, then even in the noble stage it would be called "intoxication," which contradicts the teachings, for [the sūtra] speaks of ordinary persons and does not say that nobles also constantly give rise [to it]. Furthermore, this is spoken in reference to a bodhisattva giving rise to the path of seeing, at which time the seventh is also undefiled; it does not refer to the path of seeing generated by the two vehicles, nor does the sixth establish the seventh. Question: Since beings devoid of [Buddha-]nature lack an antidote, should it not be completely non-existent in them? Answer: Because they are ordinary persons. Moreover, the intention of this objection is formulated provisionally with respect to those with nature who give rise to the path of seeing. Otherwise, if one admits that the five [consciousnesses] have the wisdom that accomplishes activities, they ought to have unshared [ignorance]. Question: The Mahāyānasaṃgraha further says: "Nor is it present within the defiled manovijñāna, because when it is associated together with other afflictions, the name 'unshared ignorance' would not be established." Since this is so, how could it be accompanied by the four delusions, meaning the first master's position should be superior? Answer: That Śāstra, in formulating the objection, says: "Unshared ignorance would also not be established, because it is constantly associated with the view of self and so forth." It explains itself: "Your objection is inequitable; it is not that I say it is not associated with other afflictions and therefore is called unshared. Rather, it is said that because that delusion is absent in other places, it is therefore called unshared, just as the eighteen unshared Buddha dharmas [are unshared]. What was said earlier—that association with other afflictions makes the name unestablished—was said in observation of what the other established in order to expose their error." The meaning is: taking the position of others like the Sarvāstivādins who say that being accompanied by others is not called unshared, it exposes their self-contradiction, and therefore raises this objection. It is not that I myself say that when accompanied by other delusions it is not called unshared.