成唯識論演祕 2.462

2.462

《疏》中假敘有五問答，准理言之他難未息，且第五翻云：心法通能狀，唯有心種名無心；色法唯所厭，唯有心法名無色。外言亦爾，心法通能厭，非色非心名無心；色法唯所厭，唯有心法名無色，故未息諍。又釋《疏》中第二外難，傳四師釋：一云，厭心能厭無，依種立無心；厭色能厭在，不依種假立；此釋不然。外云亦然，厭心能厭無，有別實法礙；厭色能厭在，無別實法遮。二云，我說無心是假法故，故於二位有無不定。汝說實有不依色、心，如何不許二處俱有？此亦不然，外人難云：汝既是假一有一無，何妨我實一無一有？三云，厭心入無心，依厭心種立，厭色入無色，亦依厭心種立。此亦不然，厭心心不行，可依心種立，厭色心尚行，何得依心種？又無聖教說無色定是假立也。四云，為破執實依種立假，實執若無，假亦非有。此亦不然，且滅盡定三乘通得，豈為對執而施設耶？

The Commentary hypothetically sets out five questions and answers. Evaluated logically, the other's objections have not been put to rest. Furthermore, the fifth exchange states: Mental dharmas generally have the capacity to cultivate revulsion, and the state with only mental seeds is called "mindless"; physical dharmas are solely that which is reviled, and the state with only mental dharmas is called "formless." The opponent says likewise: Mental dharmas generally have the capacity to revile, and what is neither matter nor mind is called "mindless"; physical dharmas are solely that which is reviled, and what is solely mental dharma is called "formless." Thus the dispute has not ceased. Furthermore, in explaining the Commentary's second opponent's objection, four masters' interpretations are transmitted: The first says that when revulsion toward mind is able to eliminate the reviled, the mindless is established based on seeds; when revulsion toward matter is able to maintain the reviled, it is not nominally established based on seeds. This explanation is not so. The opponent also says: When revulsion toward mind eliminates what is reviled, there is a distinct real entity that obstructs; when revulsion toward matter maintains what is reviled, there is no distinct real entity that prevents it. The second says: I state that the mindless is a nominal dharma, and therefore its presence or absence is indeterminate in the two states; you state that it is real and does not depend on matter or mind, so why do you not accept that both exist in both states? This is also not so. The opponent objects: Since yours is nominal and can have one present and one absent, what prevents mine from being real and having one absent and one present? The third says: Revulsion toward mind enters the mindless, which is established based on the seeds of the reviling mind; revulsion toward matter enters the formless, which is also established based on the seeds of the reviling mind. This is also not so. When one reviles mind, mind does not operate, so it may be established based on the seeds of mind; when one reviles matter, mind still operates, so how could it be established based on the seeds of mind? Furthermore, no sacred teaching states that the formless attainment is nominally established. The fourth says: To refute the clinging to reality, the nominal is established based on seeds; if the clinging to reality is absent, the nominal also does not exist. This is also not so. Moreover, the cessation attainment is attained in common by the three vehicles; how could it be established merely to counter attachment?