起信論疏筆削記 12.59

12.59

[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.