成唯識論了義燈 5.236

5.236

The treatise says: "Namely, the volition that can induce the absorption of non-conception." The Yaoji says: "Some say" and "some explain" each have three interpretations. Their third is this first explanation; their first is this third explanation; and their respective second meanings are not the same. Now we take the third of "some explain" as correct. Since the first of "some say" is identical to the third of "some explain," why take solely the third of "some explain" as the correct explanation? Because the text of the commentary of "some say" did not settle on the third as the correct explanation. However, judging by reason, it is not so: that the mind of extreme revulsion attracts that general retribution, while the seeds of the mind of extreme revulsion attract that distinct retribution—what contradiction is there? Furthermore, the seeds of the extremely subtle mind are the volition that can induce the absorption of non-conception and can bring about that result, which accords with [Yogācārabhūmi] chapter fifty-six. Otherwise, how could a single cause bring about two distinct, contradictory results: with mind and without mind? Furthermore, Ximing says: The volition associated with the extremely subtle mind and subtle mind induces the general retribution because mind is present; those very two kinds of seeds, upon reaching the state of mindlessness, induce the distinct retribution because it is mindless. Now I say this is not so: could one establish the absorption of mindlessness even on the seeds of a subtle mind?