大乘法苑義林章 2.33

2.33

Third, differentiating according to consciousness, in which there are three [aspects]. First, in which consciousness is that which is to be abandoned? For the Sarvāstivādins and others, what is abandoned extends to the six consciousnesses. For the Vātsīputrīyas, what is abandoned is solely in the sixth, because the five consciousnesses are free from defilement. As for what is abandoned in the Mahāyāna: Sthiramati holds that the hindrance to the knowable is present in the other seven excluding the seventh, and the hindrance of kleśas is present in the other consciousnesses excluding the eighth, grasping being their difference. The master Dharmapāla holds that both hindrances extend to the first seven consciousnesses, grasping being their difference. The karma initiated by the hindrances is only in the first six consciousnesses; the seventh consciousness itself is not of the nature of karma and cannot initiate karma. Fruits are in the other seven consciousnesses and not in the seventh consciousness, because it is not born from another. This refers to those arisen from the force of ripening karma, dominant karma, and virile karma, not fruits of conformity. Second, as to the path capable of severing: for the Sarvāstivādins, it is solely the sixth consciousness. The Samyukta-abhidharma-hṛdaya states: "At the time of detachment from desire and of regression, know that it is in the mental consciousness." The Abhidharmakośa and so forth are the same. The four schools of the Mahāsāṃghika and the Mahīśāsakas hold that all six consciousnesses can serve as the path severing hindrances, because they state that the body of the five consciousnesses possesses detachment from defilement. The Vātsīputrīyas state that it is solely the sixth consciousness, stating that the body of the five consciousnesses is solely indeterminate and free from defilement, having no detachment from defilement. Masters of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra say that it is not the six consciousnesses; consciousness is indeterminate, and one correctly severs solely relying on the wisdom of the fourth and ultimate mind of practice. In the Mahāyāna, it is solely in the sixth mental consciousness, whether subduing or severing, not being in the others. Regression and detachment from desire are stated in the first fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi to be the sixth, because it is an exclusive activity, which other consciousnesses cannot perform. The arising of the wisdom of equality is induced and born by another; hence it is said not to be so. Third, as to the nature capable of severing: it is solely the ninth consciousness, because it is the true nature of consciousness, not the other-dependent consciousness.