起信論疏筆削記 12.59

12.59

此不相應下，二、指陳違妨。以相宗說此第八識有遍行心所，又與器界外境相應，仍不說有覺義故。和會如別說者，尋檢其文，未見所出。今且略會二宗所說者，如法相宗說，第八識能緣三境，以彼秖據現在成就位中橫說八識，不明根本始起元由，但言一切眾生法爾皆具八種識，從自種生，皆能緣慮自分境界。以同是識了別義故，故能緣境。又說此識從自種生，雖從自種，而假境為所緣緣故，方得生起，故須緣境。雖能緣境，微細難知，不同前七執我、執法。今此論中，竪說諸識迷真所成，從細至麁不說種生，故第八識但有生境之功，而無緣境之義。以從無明內熏習起，非外境界牽故令生，故經說為流注生滅者，是此內起也，由是故無緣境之義。

[Regarding] "This non-conjunction...", and so on: second, pointing out contradictions and difficulties. For the Characterization school (Dharmalakṣaṇa) states that this eighth consciousness possesses the omnipresent mental concomitants, and is further conjoined with the external objects of the material world, yet does not state that it has the meaning of enlightenment. As for [the note] "the reconciliation is as explained elsewhere": searching through the texts, where it comes from has not been seen. Now, briefly reconciling what the two schools state: the Dharmalakṣaṇa school states that the eighth consciousness can cognize three kinds of objects, because they merely horizontalize and explain the eight consciousnesses based on the state of present realization, without clarifying the fundamental, initial origin of their arising. They merely say that all sentient beings inherently possess the eight kinds of consciousnesses by nature, arising from their own seeds, each able to cognize the sphere of its own portion. Because it is equally endowed with the meaning of conscious discrimination, it can cognize objects. Furthermore, they say that this consciousness arises from its own seeds; although arising from its own seeds, it requires objects as the objective condition (ālambanapratyaya) before it can arise, and therefore must cognize objects. Although it can cognize objects, this is subtle and difficult to know, unlike the first seven which grasp at a self and grasp at dharmas. Now, in this treatise, it vertically explains that the consciousnesses are formed through deluded obscuration of the real, proceeding from subtle to coarse without speaking of arising from seeds; hence the eighth consciousness merely has the function of producing objects, but lacks the meaning of cognizing objects. Because it arises through the internal vāsanā of avidyā and is not drawn into arising by external objects, what the sūtras call the "arising and ceasing of the continuous flow" is this internal arising; because of this, it lacks the meaning of cognizing objects.