唯識三十論要釋 1.13

1.13

釋曰。此三行頌總分為二。初顯次第。後釋識相　次第二能變者顯其次第。故論釋云。次初異熟能變識。後應辨思量能變識相。下顯識相十門分別　是識名末那者第一釋名。是識聖教別名末那。恒審思量勝餘識故。此名何異第六意識。此持業釋。如藏識名。識即意故。彼依主釋。如眼識名。識異意故。然諸聖教恐此濫彼故。於第七但立意名。又標意名為簡心識。積集了別劣餘識故。或欲顯此與彼意識為近所依故但名意　依彼轉者第二所依。彼謂即前初能變識。聖說此識依藏識故。則以識種及彼現識為俱有依方得生故。雖無間斷而有轉易。必有所依方得起故。轉謂流轉。顯示此識恒依彼識取所緣故。此中應明三所依義。恐繁不錄。百法疏明　言緣彼者第三所緣。彼謂即前此所依識。聖說此識緣藏識故。但緣藏識見分為我。不緣相分識中種子及相應法執為我所。我我所執不俱起故。以此識從薩迦耶見任運一類恒相續生。無容別起我所見故。無一心中有常等二境別執俱轉義故。亦不應說二執前後。此無始來一類轉故。說我我執恒相應者。謂此執彼是我之我故。於一見義說二言。未轉依位唯緣藏識。若已轉依遍緣諸法。平等性智緣真俗故　思量為性相者第四自性第五行相。意次思量而為自性。即復用彼為行相故。由斯兼釋所立別名。能審思量名末那故。未轉依位恒審思量所執我相。已轉依位亦審思量無我相故　四煩惱常俱等者第六四惑相應。此中俱者顯相應義。謂從無始至未轉依。此意任運恒緣藏識。與四根本煩惱相應。謂我癡我見并我愛我慢我癡者謂無明。愚於我相迷無我故。我見者謂我執。於非我法妄計我故。我慢者謂踞傲。恃所執我生高舉故。我愛者謂我貪於所執我生耽著故。并表慢愛有見慢俱。遮餘部執無相應義。此四常起擾濁內心令外轉識恒成雜染。有情由此生死輪迴不能出離。故名煩惱。彼有十種。此何唯四。有我見故餘見不生。無一心中有二慧故。如何此識要有我見。二取邪見但分別生唯見所斷。此俱煩惱唯是俱生修所斷故。我所邊見依我見生。此相應見不依彼故。恒內執有我故要有我見。由見審決疑無容起。愛著我故嗔不得生。故此識俱唯四煩惱　及餘觸等俱者第七觸等相應。此中及者是合集義。所言餘者顯隨煩惱。謂顯末那非但與前四惑相應。及亦與彼餘隨煩惱觸等俱起故。此意俱心所十八。謂前四惑。觸等五法。八大隨惑。并別境慧。有四煩惱義如前說。言觸等者即五遍行定相應故。八大隨惑遍染心故。有覆末那是染心故。我見雖是別境惠攝。義有差別故開為二。何緣此意無餘心所。謂忿等十行相麁動。此識審細故非彼俱。無慚無愧雖是不善。此無記故非彼相應。謂欲希望未遂合事。此識任運緣遂合境。勝解印持曾未定境。此識無始恒緣定事。念唯明記曾習事轉。此識恒緣現所變事。定唯繫心專注一趣。此識任運剎那別緣。故此不與四別境俱。善唯是淨。此識染污。故此不與信等相應。惡作追悔先所造業。此緣現境。睡眠唯依外眾緣力。此識內起。尋伺緣外麁細事轉。此唯一類。故四不定非四惑俱。既無始來任運一類緣內執我恒無轉易。與變異受不相應故。故此唯與捨受相應。未轉依位與前所說心不相應。已轉依位唯二十一心所俱起。如第八識。已轉依位唯捨受俱。任運起故。恒於所緣平等轉故　有覆無記攝者第八三性分別。此意相應四煩惱等是染污故。障礙聖道隱蔽自心。說名有覆。非善不善故名無記。如上二界所有煩惱定力攝持是無記故。此俱染法所依細故任運轉故亦無記攝。若已轉依唯是善性　隨所生所繫者第九繫地。謂末那識隨藏識生。隨彼所生彼地所繫。若生欲界現行末那相應心所即欲界繫。乃至有頂應知亦然。任運恒緣自地藏識執為內我非他地故。若起彼地異熟藏識現在前者名生彼地。染污末那緣彼執我。即繫屬彼名彼所繫。或謂彼地諸煩惱等之所繫縛名彼所繫。若已轉依即非所繫　阿羅漢滅定等者第十斷伏。阿羅漢者總顯三乘無學果位。此位染意種及現行俱永斷滅故說無有。學位滅定出世道中俱暫伏滅故說無有。謂染污意無始時來微細一類任運而轉。諸有漏道不能伏滅。三乘聖道有伏滅義。真無我解違我執故。後得無漏現在前時。是彼等流亦違此意。真無我解及後所得俱無漏故名出世道。滅定既是聖道等流。極寂靜故此亦非有。由未永斷此種子故。從滅盡定聖道起已。此復現行乃至未滅。然此染意相應煩惱是俱生故非見所斷。是染污故非非所斷。極微細故所有種子與有頂地下下煩惱一時頓斷。勢力等故。金剛喻定現在前時。頓斷此種成阿羅漢。故無學位永不復起。二乘無學迴趣大乘。從初發心至未成佛。雖實是菩薩亦名阿羅漢。應義等故不別說之。所說三位無末那者。依染分說。非無淨分。如說四位無阿賴耶非無第八。此亦應爾。此意差別略有三種。一補特伽羅我見相應。二法我見相應。三平等性智相應。初通一切異生相續二乘有學七地已前一類菩薩有漏心位。彼緣阿賴耶識起補特伽羅見。次通一切異生聲聞獨覺相續一切菩薩法空智果現在前位。彼緣異熟識起法我見。後通一切如來相續菩薩見道及修道中法空智果現在前位。彼緣無垢異熟識等起平等性智。補特伽羅我見起位。彼法我見亦現行。我執亦依法執而起。如要迷杌方謂人等故。我法二見用雖有別。而不相違。同依一惠。如眼識等體雖是一。而有了別青等多用不相違故。此亦應然。二乘有學聖道滅定現在前時。頓悟菩薩於修道位。有學漸悟生空智果現在前時。皆起法執。我執已伏故。二乘無學及此漸悟法空智果不現前時。亦唯起法執。我執已斷故。八地已上一切菩薩所有我執皆永不行。或已永斷或永伏故。法空智果不現前時。猶起法執。不相違故。法執俱意於二乘等雖名不染。於諸菩薩亦名為染。障彼智故。故此亦名有覆無記。於二乘等說名無覆。不障彼智故。是異熟生。從異熟識恒時生故。非異熟果。此名通故。如增上緣餘不攝者皆入此攝。如是已說第二能變。第三能變其相云何。頌曰。

Exposition: These three verses are broadly divided into two parts: first, showing the sequence; second, explaining the characteristics of the consciousness.
“Next is the second transformation” shows its sequence. Therefore the treatise's commentary states: “Following the first transforming consciousness of vipāka, next the characteristics of the transforming consciousness of manana should be distinguished.” Below, the characteristics of the consciousness are distinguished through ten gates.
“This consciousness is called manas” is the first: explaining the name. In the noble teachings, this consciousness is specially named manas because its constant and deliberate manana surpasses the other consciousnesses. How does this name differ from the sixth mano-vijñāna? This is a karmadhāraya compound, like the name “storehouse consciousness” (ālaya-vijñāna)—consciousness itself is manas. That [sixth consciousness] is a tatpuruṣa compound, like the name “eye-consciousness”—the consciousness is distinct from manas. However, fearing that this might be confused with that one, the noble teachings only establish the name “manas” for the seventh. Furthermore, the name “manas” is designated to distinguish it from citta and vijñāna, because its accumulation and viṣaya-vijñapti are inferior to the other consciousnesses. Or, it is named simply “manas” because it is intended to show that it is the immediate support for that mano-vijñāna.
“It evolves dependent on that” is the second: the support. “That” refers to the aforementioned first transforming consciousness. Because the noble ones teach that this consciousness depends on the storehouse consciousness, it only arises by taking the seeds of the consciousness and that actual consciousness as its simultaneously existing support (sahabhū-āśraya). Although it is without interruption, it undergoes changes, and it necessarily requires a support to arise. “Evolves” means flowing and turning, showing that this consciousness constantly relies on that consciousness to take its intentional object. Here, the meaning of the three kinds of supports should be clarified; fearing verbosity, it is not recorded here, as it is explained in the Commentary on the Hundred Dharmas.
“Taking that as its object” is the third: the intentional object. “That” refers to the aforementioned consciousness on which this relies. Because the noble ones teach that this consciousness takes the storehouse consciousness as its object, it only takes the darśanabhāga of the storehouse consciousness as the ātman; it does not take the nimittabhāga, the seeds within the consciousness, or the associated phenomena, grasping them as the possessions of an ātman (ātmīya), because the graspings of ātman and ātmīya do not arise simultaneously. This is because this consciousness constantly and continuously arises in a single uniform category, spontaneously driven by satkāya-dṛṣṭi, with no room for a separate view of ātmīya to arise. This is because within a single moment of mind, there can be no co-occurrence of distinct graspings of two objects such as permanence and so on. Nor should it be said that the two graspings occur in sequence, since from beginningless time this has evolved in a single uniform category. When it is said that the grasping of ātman and ātmīya is constantly associated [with it], this means that this grasps that as “the ātman of my ātman”; hence two expressions are spoken with regard to the meaning of a single view. In the state prior to āśraya-parāvṛtti, it only takes the storehouse consciousness as its object; if āśraya-parāvṛtti has been achieved, it universally takes all dharmas as its object, because the equality wisdom takes both the ultimate and the conventional as its objects.
“Its nature and characteristic are manana” are the fourth: self-nature, and fifth: cognitive operation (ākāra). Manas has manana as its self-nature, and it also uses that as its ākāra. From this, the distinct name established for it is also explained, for that which can deliberately deliberate is named manas. In the state prior to āśraya-parāvṛtti, it constantly and deliberately deliberates upon the grasped characteristic of ātman; in the state after āśraya-parāvṛtti, it also deliberately deliberates upon the characteristic of non-self.
“Four afflictions are constantly associated with it,” etc., is the sixth: association with the four afflictions. Here, “associated” shows the meaning of conjunction (saṃprayukta). This means that from beginningless time until āśraya-parāvṛtti, this manas spontaneously and constantly takes the storehouse consciousness as its object and is associated with four fundamental afflictions: namely, self-ignorance, self-view, together with self-love and self-pride. “Self-ignorance” refers to avidyā: being ignorant of the characteristic of ātman and deluded about non-self. “Self-view” refers to grasping at an ātman: falsely positing an ātman in phenomena that are not an ātman. “Self-pride” refers to haughtiness: producing self-elevation relying on the grasped ātman. “Self-love” refers to attachment to the self: producing indulgence and attachment toward the grasped ātman. “Together with” indicates that self-pride and self-love co-occur with self-view and self-pride, refuting the tenet of other schools that there is no such association. These four constantly arise, agitating and polluting the inner mind, causing the external pravṛtti-vijñānas constantly to become defiled. Due to this, sentient beings wander in saṃsāra and cannot escape; thus they are named afflictions (kleśa). There are ten kinds of them; why are there only four here? Because self-view is present, the remaining views do not arise, since two [distinct] wisdoms (prajñā) do not exist within a single moment of mind. Why must this consciousness have self-view? The two graspings [of views and precepts] and false views arise only through conceptual discrimination and are abandoned only by seeing [the truth] (darśana-heya), whereas the afflictions associated with this [manas] are purely innate (sahaja) and abandoned by cultivation (bhāvanā-heya). The view of possessions of an ātman and extreme views arise relying on self-view; the view associated with this [manas] does not rely on those. Because it constantly grasps internally that there is an ātman, it must have self-view. Because the view is decisive, doubt has no room to arise. Because it loves and clings to the ātman, hatred cannot arise. Therefore, only four afflictions are associated with this consciousness.
“And it is also associated with the remaining [caittas] such as contact” is the seventh: association with contact and so on. Here, “and” has the meaning of conjunction. The word “remaining” indicates the secondary afflictions (upakleśa). That is to say, it shows that manas is not only associated with the preceding four afflictions, but also arises together with those remaining secondary afflictions, contact, and so on. There are eighteen caittas associated with this manas: namely, the preceding four afflictions, the five dharmas of contact and so on, the eight major secondary afflictions, together with the specific-object [caitta of] understanding (mati/prajñā). The presence of the four afflictions has been explained as above. “Contact and so on” refers to the five omnipresent dharmas (sarvatraga), which are necessarily associated [with it]. The eight major secondary afflictions universally pervade defiled minds; since obscured manas is a defiled mind, [they are present]. Although self-view is subsumed under the specific-object understanding, because there is a difference in meaning they are opened into two. For what reason does this manas not have the remaining caittas? The ten [minor secondary afflictions] such as anger are coarse and active in their ākāra, whereas this consciousness is deliberate and subtle; hence it is not associated with them. Although lack of shame and lack of conscience are unwholesome, this [manas] is indeterminate; hence it is not associated with them. Zeal (chanda) desires a matter that has not yet been achieved and united with; this consciousness spontaneously takes as its object a realm that has already been achieved and united with. Resolve (adhimokṣa) determines an object that was previously not yet certain; this consciousness from beginningless time constantly takes as its object a determined thing. Mindfulness (smṛti) functions only by clearly remembering previously experienced things; this consciousness constantly takes as its object things currently manifested [by the storehouse consciousness]. Concentration (samādhi) functions only by binding the mind and focusing intently on a single point; this consciousness spontaneously takes different objects from moment to moment. Therefore, this is not associated with the four specific-object [caittas]. Wholesome [caittas] are purely clean; this consciousness is defiled; therefore, this is not associated with faith and so on. Remorse (kaukṛtya) regrets previously performed actions; this [manas] takes present objects. Drowsiness (middha) depends solely on the power of multiple external conditions; this consciousness arises internally. Applied thought (vitarka) and sustained thought (vicāra) function by taking coarse and subtle external matters as objects; this [manas] is of a single uniform kind. Therefore, the four indeterminate [caittas] are not associated with the four afflictions. Since from beginningless time it has spontaneously and uniformly taken the internal [storehouse consciousness] as object, grasping it as an ātman constantly without change, it is not associated with shifting feelings; therefore, this is associated only with equanimity (upekṣā). In the state prior to āśraya-parāvṛtti, it is associated with the minds described above. In the state after āśraya-parāvṛtti, only twenty-one caittas arise together with it, just like the eighth consciousness. In the state after āśraya-parāvṛtti, it is associated only with equanimity, because it arises spontaneously and constantly functions equally toward its objects.
“Subsumed under obscured indeterminate” is the eighth: distinction of the three natures. Because the four afflictions and so on associated with this manas are defiled, obstructing the noble path and obscuring its own mind, it is called obscured (nivṛta). Because it is neither wholesome nor unwholesome, it is called indeterminate (avyākṛta). Just as all the afflictions of the upper two realms, being held by the power of concentration, are indeterminate, the defiled dharmas associated with this [manas], because their support is subtle and they function spontaneously, are also subsumed under the indeterminate. If āśraya-parāvṛtti has been achieved, it is purely wholesome in nature.
“Bound to whatever [plane] one is born into” is the ninth: binding to planes. This means that the manas consciousness arises following the storehouse consciousness; whichever plane one is born into, it is bound to that plane. If one is born in the desire realm, the active manas and its associated caittas are bound to the desire realm; up to the summit of existence (bhavāgra), it should be known to be likewise. This is because it spontaneously and constantly takes the storehouse consciousness of its own plane as an intentional object, grasping it as an internal ātman, not that of other planes. If the vipāka storehouse consciousness of that plane is activated and present, one is called “born in that plane”; the defiled manas takes that as its object and grasps it as ātman, and is thereby bound and belongs to that plane, hence called “bound to that plane.” Alternatively, it means that being bound by the afflictions of that plane, it is called “bound to that plane.” If āśraya-parāvṛtti has been achieved, it is not bound.
“In the arhat, in the attainment of cessation, etc.” is the tenth: abandonment and suppression. “Arhat” generally designates the fruit of the stage of non-learning (aśaikṣa) in the three vehicles. At this stage, both the seeds and the active manifestations of the defiled manas are eternally severed and extinguished; therefore, it is said that it “does not exist.” In the attainment of cessation (nirodha-samāpatti) and the supramundane path of the stage of learning (śaikṣa), it is temporarily suppressed and halted; therefore, it is said that it “does not exist.” That is to say, defiled manas has functioned subtly, uniformly, and spontaneously since beginningless time; the various mundane paths are incapable of suppressing or halting it, whereas the noble paths of the three vehicles have the capacity to suppress and halt it, because the true understanding of non-self opposes grasping at an ātman. When the subsequently attained non-outflow [wisdom] manifests, being an outflow (niṣyanda) of that, it also opposes this manas. Because both the true understanding of non-self and the subsequently attained [wisdom] are free of outflows, they are named the supramundane path. Since the attainment of cessation is an outflow of the noble path and is extremely tranquil, this [defiled manas] also does not exist in it. Because its seeds have not yet been permanently severed, after one arises from the attainment of cessation and the noble path, this becomes active again until it is permanently extinguished. However, because the afflictions associated with this defiled manas are innate, they are not severed by seeing [the truth]. Because they are defiled, they are not non-severable. Because they are extremely subtle, all their seeds are severed at once and instantaneously together with the lowest-of-the-low afflictions of the stage of the summit of existence, because their strength is equal. When the vajropama-samādhi manifests, it abruptly severs these seeds and one becomes an arhat; therefore, in the stage of non-learning they never arise again. When the non-learners of the two vehicles turn toward the Mahāyāna, from the initial aspiration of mind until Buddhahood has not yet been attained, although they are truly bodhisattvas, they are also named arhats; because their meaning is equal, they are not separately mentioned. The statement that manas does not exist in these three stages is spoken with respect to the defiled portion; it does not mean there is no purified portion. Just as it is said that the ālaya does not exist in four stages, yet it does not mean there is no eighth consciousness, here too it should be understood likewise. There are roughly three varieties of this manas: first, associated with the view of a personal self (pudgala-ātmadṛṣṭi); second, associated with the view of a phenomenal self (dharma-ātmadṛṣṭi); third, associated with the equality wisdom (samatā-jñāna). The first extends to the continuities of all ordinary beings (pṛthagjana), the learners of the two vehicles, and the state of minds with outflows of a category of bodhisattvas prior to the eighth stage; they take the ālaya-vijñāna as object and produce the pudgala view. The second extends to the continuities of all ordinary beings, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas, and the states where the fruit of the wisdom of the emptiness of dharmas is not present for all bodhisattvas; they take the vipāka-vijñāna as object and produce the view of a phenomenal self. The third extends to the continuities of all Tathāgatas, and the states where the fruit of the wisdom of the emptiness of dharmas is present during the path of seeing and the path of cultivation for bodhisattvas; they take the stainless vipāka consciousness and so on as objects and produce the equality wisdom. When the view of a personal self arises, that view of a phenomenal self is also active. Grasping at a self also arises based on grasping at phenomena, just as one must be confused about a stump before mistaking it for a person, and so on. Therefore, although the functions of the two views of self and phenomena differ, they are not contradictory; they rely on the same single understanding (mati). Just as eye-consciousness and so on are single in substance yet have multiple non-contradictory functions such as viṣaya-vijñapti of blue and so on, this too should be understood likewise. When the noble path and attainment of cessation of the learners of the two vehicles manifest, and during the path of cultivation of sudden-awakening bodhisattvas, or when the fruit of the wisdom of the emptiness of persons manifests for learners of gradual awakening, they all give rise to grasping at phenomena, because grasping at a self has already been suppressed. When the fruit of the wisdom of the emptiness of dharmas is not present for non-learners of the two vehicles and these gradual-awakening [bodhisattvas], they also only give rise to grasping at phenomena, because grasping at a self has already been severed. For all bodhisattvas of the eighth stage and above, all grasping at a self is permanently non-operational, because it has been permanently severed or permanently suppressed; when the fruit of the wisdom of the emptiness of dharmas is not present, they still give rise to grasping at phenomena, because they are not contradictory. Although the manas associated with grasping at phenomena is called undefiled for the two vehicles and so on, for bodhisattvas it is still called defiled, because it obstructs their wisdom. Therefore, this is also named obscured indeterminate; for the two vehicles and so on it is called unobscured, because it does not obstruct their wisdom. It is born of vipāka, because it is constantly produced from the vipāka consciousness; it is not the fruit of vipāka (vipāka-phala), because this name is general—just like the sovereign condition (adhipati-pratyaya), whatever is not subsumed under the rest is all subsumed under this. Thus the second transformation has been explained. What are the characteristics of the third transformation? The verse says: