成唯識論演祕 4.728

4.728

詳曰：既無明教，別釋理通，而援教斥，疏未見其可所以然者，《瑜伽》釋家三義許不？不許何引？許即何故而非疏言？順第一故。又此論云：《瑜伽》等說轉識相應三性俱起，依多念等。此豈不是雙會三性及諸識俱？若言唯會三性俱者，亦不應理。論云性俱依多念會，多念會彼識俱何失？性及識俱皆是彼論會，許不許何乃儻耶？設若此文唯會三性，以性例識，會亦無違，況復文中義通性識。又論不言五識不俱證疏非者，此論何處言五識俱唯一剎那？取第二是。又論但云五由意引成乎善、染，何理即證五識俱耶？五識不俱，豈妨意引？若以文中言五識故即證五俱，亦應五識無非俱時，言五識故。次云第六通三性者，是就他難，非許五俱破他第六。又後師難言容俱，顯其五識非恒時，並簡常俱起置容俱言，非顯前師許五俱起言容俱也。由斯疏義理無違也。

Detailed analysis says: Since there is no explicit teaching, an alternative interpretation is logically plausible; yet in citing scriptures to reject the Commentary, one fails to see why this must be so. Did the Yogācāra commentators accept the three views or not? If not, why cite them? If they accepted them, why would the Commentary's statement be wrong? Because it accords with the first view. Moreover, this treatise states: 'When the Yogācāra and other texts say that the three moral natures co-occur in association with the functioning consciousnesses, it is said in reliance on multiple thought-moments, etc.' Does this not reconcile both the three natures and the various consciousnesses occurring together? If one says it only reconciles the three natures occurring together, that is also unreasonable. The treatise says that the co-occurrence of natures is reconciled based on multiple moments; what fault is there in reconciling the co-occurrence of consciousnesses based on multiple moments? Both the co-occurrence of natures and of consciousnesses are reconciled by that treatise; why should accepting or not accepting it be arbitrary? Even if this text only reconciled the three natures, using the natures to illustrate the consciousnesses would also involve no contradiction, not to mention that the meaning in the text applies to both natures and consciousnesses. Moreover, regarding the claim that the treatise does not say the five consciousnesses do not co-occur, which supposedly proves the Commentary wrong: where does this treatise say that the five consciousnesses co-occur for only a single moment, such that the second view should be adopted? Furthermore, the treatise merely says that the five becoming wholesome or defiled is induced by the mind; by what logic does this prove that the five consciousnesses co-occur? Does the five consciousnesses not co-occurring prevent them from being induced by the mind? If one uses the text's mention of 'five consciousnesses' to prove that the five co-occur, it would follow that there is never a time when the five consciousnesses do not co-occur, simply because it says 'five consciousnesses'. Next, the statement that the sixth consciousness pertains to all three natures is an objection framed according to the opponent, not an admission of the five co-occurring to refute the other's sixth consciousness. Furthermore, the later master's objection says 'admitted to co-arise' to show that the five consciousnesses do not always do so, and inserts the word 'admitted' to qualify their constant co-arising, not to show that the earlier master allowed the five to co-arise. Therefore, the Commentary's meaning involves no logical contradiction.