成唯識論演祕 4.113

4.113

Examination: If it were seeds alone, that would be the second explanation. Below, this Treatise states: 'Taking the seeds of karma as consciousness is not its real entity'—how then could one decisively say that it agrees with the Mahāyāna as correct? If one says it adopts that third explanation, since the third takes both that which sustains and that which is sustained, how could one decisively say that seeds alone are correct? vacillating back and forth involves contradictions, so it is feared to be a clerical error. Furthermore, based on the Kośa there seems to be the sense of seeds, but based on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha the characteristic of seeds is difficult to demonstrate. Therefore Asabhāva states: 'Eye and other consciousnesses arising together with desire and the like conditioned by formations are admitted as the branch of consciousness.' He also states: 'Those who admit the consciousness that connects rebirth as the branch of consciousness.' This also is not so. Examining these two passages, which cite the tenets of that school, the branch of consciousness is only actual [active consciousness]; Vasubandhu also takes it as actual, as the text cited above shows. Now one should state: Taking the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna together, there are three explanations. Based on the two different passages in Asabhāva's treatise, these constitute two explanations, both stated in terms of actual [consciousness]. Following the text of the Kośa, there is another explanation stated solely in terms of seeds, with the text as cited above. Or there are four explanations, the fourth universally taking both seeds and actual [consciousness] as the branch, for, as the text of Vasubandhu's treatise is general in wording, its meaning can be interpreted generally. The texts are as stated above; if examined carefully, this will become clear.