唯識三十論要釋 1.27

1.27

釋曰。此顯第六不定位相。文中三節。言不定者舉不定名。謂悔眠等舉不定相。二各二者顯不定義。悔眠尋伺於善染等皆不定故。非如觸等定遍心故。非如欲等定遍地故。立不定故　悔謂惡作。惡所作業追悔為性。障止為業。此即於果假立因名。先惡所作業後方追悔故。悔先不作亦惡作攝。如追悔言。我先不作如是事業。是我惡作　眠謂睡眠。令不自在昧略為性。障觀為業。謂睡眠者身不自在心極闇劣。一門轉故。昧簡在定。略別寤時。令顯睡眠非無體用。有無心位假立此名。如餘蓋纏。心相應故　尋謂尋求。令心怱遽於意言境麁轉為性　伺謂伺察。令心怱遽於意言境細轉為性。此二俱以安不安住身心分位所依為性。並用思慧一分為體。於意言境不深推度。及深推度義類別故。若離思慧尋伺二種體類差別不可得故　二各二者顯二種二。一謂悔眠。二謂尋伺。此二二種種類各別故。一二言顯二二種。此二各二。謂染不染。非如善染各唯一故。或唯簡染故說此言。有亦說為隨煩惱故。為顯不定義說二各二言。故置此言。深為有用。四皆不與第七第八俱。與第六識可容俱起。非是五識相應法故。餘門分別如廣論明。取要而言如百法疏。如是六位諸心所法。為離心體有別自性。為即是心分位差別。若離心體有別自性。如何聖教說唯有識。莊嚴論頌復云何通　許心似二現。如是似貪等。或似於信等。無別染善法　若即是心分位差別。如何聖教說心相應。他性相應非自性故。又如何說心與心所俱時而起。如日與光。瑜伽論頌復云何通　五種性不成。分位差過失。因緣無別故。與聖教相違　應說離心有別心所。以心勝故說唯識等。心所依心。勢力主故。說似彼現。非即彼心。又識心言亦攝心所。恒相應故。唯識等言及現似彼皆無有失。此依世俗。若依勝義。心與心所非即非離。諸識相望應知亦然。是謂大乘真俗妙理。第三能變九頌七門攝為三段。前求已辨六門二義。次下第三現起分位。論生起云。已說六識心所相應。云何應知現起分位。頌曰。

Explanation: This reveals the characteristics of the sixth category, the indeterminate [caittas]. In the text there are three clauses. Stating "the indeterminate" cites the name of the indeterminate. Stating "remorse, sleep, etc." cites the characteristics of the indeterminate. Stating "the two are each twofold" reveals the meaning of indeterminate. Remorse, sleep, initial inquiry, and investigation are indeterminate with respect to the wholesome, defiled, etc.; they are not like contact (sparśa) and the rest, which are determinately pervasive through all minds, nor are they like desire (chanda) and the rest, which are determinately pervasive through all bhūmis; hence they are established as indeterminate.
"Remorse" (kaukṛtya) is regret over what has been done: its nature is regretting actions one dislikes, and its activity is obstructing mental calm (śamatha). This is metonymically applying the name of the cause to the fruit, because one first dislikes an action done and only afterwards feels regret. Regretting what was not previously done is also subsumed under remorse, as in the regretful statement: "I did not do such a deed before; this is my remorse."
"Sleep" (middha): its nature is causing [the body and mind] to lack self-mastery, being dim and abbreviated; its activity is obstructing insight (vipaśyanā). When one sleeps, the body lacks self-mastery and the mind is extremely dark and feeble, functioning through a single sense-door. "Dim" excludes being in meditative concentration; "abbreviated" distinguishes it from the waking state. This shows that sleep is not without real substance and function. In states lacking mind it is metaphorically designated by this name. Like the other hindrances and fetters, it is associated with the mind.
"Initial inquiry" (vitarka) means searching: its nature is causing the mind to hurry and operate coarsely regarding conceptual objects.
"Investigation" (vicāra) means examining: its nature is causing the mind to hurry and operate subtly regarding conceptual objects.
Both of these take the support for states of peaceful or unpeaceful dwelling of body and mind as their nature, and both use a part of volition (cetanā) and discernment (prajñā) as their substance. They are differentiated by their categories of meaning: not deeply deliberating versus deeply deliberating regarding conceptual objects. Apart from volition and discernment, a distinct substance or category for initial inquiry and investigation cannot be found.
"The two are each twofold" reveals two pairs of two: the first is remorse and sleep; the second is initial inquiry and investigation. Because these two pairs of two have distinct varieties, the words "each twofold" reveal two sets of two. These two are each twofold, meaning defiled and non-defiled; they are not like the wholesome or defiled, each of which is exclusively one. Alternatively, these words are spoken solely to exclude defilement, because some also say they are secondary afflictions. To reveal the meaning of indeterminate, the phrase "the two are each twofold" is stated; hence placing these words is profoundly useful. All four do not associate with the seventh and eighth [consciousnesses]; they can arise together with the sixth consciousness, because they are not dharmas associated with the five consciousnesses. Further distinctions through various approaches are as explained in the extensive treatise; to take the essentials, they are as in the Commentary on the Hundred Dharmas.
Are these caitta dharmas in the six categories possessing distinct intrinsic natures apart from the substance of the mind, or are they simply differential states of the mind? If they possess distinct intrinsic natures apart from the substance of the mind, how does the sacred teaching state that there is consciousness-only (vijñapti-mātra)? And how is the verse in the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṅkāra to be resolved:
"Mind is admitted to manifest resembling the two;
Likewise, it resembles greed and the rest,
Or resembles faith and the rest:
There are no separate defiled and wholesome dharmas."
If they are simply differential states of the mind, how does the sacred teaching speak of association with the mind (citta-saṃprayukta)? For association occurs with what has a different nature, not with its own nature. Furthermore, how is it said that mind and mental factors arise simultaneously like the sun and its radiance? And how is the verse in the Yogācārabhūmi to be resolved:
"Fivefold nature would not be established;
There would be the fault of differential states;
Because causes and conditions would have no distinction,
It would contradict the sacred teaching."
It should be said that there are distinct caittas apart from the mind. Because the mind is principal, the texts speak of consciousness-only and so forth. Caittas rely on the mind, which is the master in power and influence; hence it is said that they manifest resembling it, not that they are that very mind. Furthermore, the words "consciousness" and "mind" also subsume the caittas, because they are constantly associated. Therefore, terms such as consciousness-only and manifestation resembling it are both without fault. This is based on conventional truth; if based on ultimate truth, mind and caittas are neither identical nor separate. Mutually regarded, the consciousnesses should be understood likewise. This is called the wondrous principle of the Mahāyāna's ultimate and conventional [truths].
The nine verses and seven approaches of the third transformation (pariṇāma) are subsumed into three sections. Preceding investigations have already analyzed the six approaches and two meanings; next follows the third: states of actual arising. The treatise states in introduction: The association of the six consciousnesses and their caittas has already been explained. How should their states of actual arising be known? The verse says: