---
title: "成唯識論證義 · 第三"
description: "明王肯堂所著成唯識論證義是對世親菩薩成唯識論的權威注疏。該書創作於明代唯識學復興背景下，以唯識古學為基礎，系統闡釋阿賴耶識、三性三無相等核心教義，並對唯識思想進行科判與證義。此作被譽為漢傳唯識學重要文獻，融合了唐代唯識傳承與明代學術特質，為研究唯識學說提供了關鍵注釋依據，在佛教義理史與唯識宗發展脈絡中具有承先啟後的學術地位。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmczktsft0pfajj04yhngp3kg"
---
## 成唯識論卷第三
> Demonstration of Consciousness-Only, Volume 3
金壇居士 王肯堂 證義
此識與幾心所相應至以是徧行心所攝故。
> This consciousness is associated with several mental factors, because it is included within the category of omnipresent mental factors.
三釋相應門分二。先問起。次舉頌答。次釋。先總釋。金剛道前。皆名未轉。聖凡。生死。流轉。還滅。升沉。定散。名一切位。於此位中。恒與此五心所相應。以五心所是徧行心所攝故。決定相應。雖復不增。亦不可減。定俱生滅。名徧行故。若廣說者。徧四一切。四一切者。一性一切。即善惡無記三性。二地一切。即九地。三時一切。時即同一剎那時也。此作意等五心所。皆同時起故。名時一切。四俱一切。即徧諸心等。與八識俱。意云。此作意等五徧行法。八識心王俱起時。必有同時相應五數。又如八識俱起時。皆有徧行五數。故名俱一切。即四一切。是所行所徧。觸等五數。是能行能徧。徧者是圓義。行者是遊履義。緣境義。
> Now I will explain the section on the "Corresponding Gate," which is divided into two parts. First, a question is raised; second, a verse is recited as the answer. Then the explanation follows. The first part is a general explanation. Before reaching the Diamond Path, all stages are known as "untransformed." These include the states of sages and ordinary beings, birth and death, the cycle of samsara and its cessation, ascending and descending, and states of mental stability and distraction. All of these are called "all stages within this position." In these positions, the mind is constantly accompanied by these five mental factors. Because the five mental factors belong to the category of "universal mental factors," they are definitely present together. Though they do not increase, they also cannot decrease. They arise and cease simultaneously, which is why they are called "universal." If explained in detail, they pervade the "four aspects of universality." The four aspects are: first, universality regarding nature—that is, the three natures of good, bad, and neutral. Second, universality regarding location—that is, the nine stages. Third, universality regarding time—that is, the same moment. The five mental factors of attention, etc., all arise together at the same time, hence called "universality regarding time." Fourth, universality regarding companions—that is, they pervade all mental states and accompany the eight consciousnesses. This means: the five universal mental factors, namely attention and so on, when the eight consciousnesses as king arise, there must be these five factors arising simultaneously and correspondingly. Similarly, when the eight consciousnesses arise, they all have the five universal mental factors present. Therefore, these are called "all four universals." The "four universals" refer to what they pervade. The five factors, such as contact, are what do the pervading. "Universal" means completeness; "move" means to travel through and to engage with objects.
觸謂三和分別變異至如受等性非即三和。
> Contact refers to the coming together of the three factors, which then gives rise to differentiation and change.To For instance, the nature of feeling and other such mental factors is not simply the same as the contact of the three factors.
二別釋五所。初釋觸。先正釋。謂根下。次轉釋。先釋三和。觸謂三和者。即根境識體異名三。不相乖返更相涉入。名為隨順。根可為依。境可為取。識二所生。可依於根。而取於境。是故此三更相隨順。如位依人而得建立。人復因位而行政令。今依三生令三和合。故說為位。次釋分別。變異。生故。名變異。如心生諸法。皆名為變異。似故。名分別。如識似彼生。即名分別彼。宗鏡云。此三之上。皆有順生一切心所功能作用。名為變異瑜伽三有二種變異性。一異性變異性。由有相似生故。二變性變異性。由不相似生故。分別之用。是觸功能。謂觸之上有似前三順生心所變異功能。說名分別。分別即是領似異名。如子似父。名分別父。根變下。次釋疑疑云。觸既分別三之變異。何故集論等。但說分別根。釋此如文。宗鏡問。何故三和唯根獨勝。答。一由主故。有殊勝能。名之為主。二由近故。能近生心及心所故。三由徧故。不唯心所。亦能生心故。四由續故。常相續有。境識不爾故境體雖能生心心所以非主故。又非近故。偏闕二義。不名為勝。心雖是主。近生心所。不能生心。不自生故非徧也。偏闕一義。故非勝。境識皆不續。識有境生故。俱缺續義。非得勝名。唯根獨勝。故集下。引證。次釋令心心所觸境為性。和合一切心及心所令同觸境。是觸自性。故曰。令心心所觸境為性。次釋受等所依為業。既有似順生起心所功能。則受想等依之而起。故以受想思等所依為業。下會通經論。起盡經說。受想行蘊。一切皆以觸為緣故而得生起。由斯故說二和生識。三和生觸。四和生受想行。而不言思者。以行之一字。總該七十三法故。五蘊論云。行蘊有七十三數。五十一心所中。除去受想二蘊。餘四十九法。合不相應行二十四法。共有七十三數。皆名行蘊。今言受想行蘊一切者。是除觸法。則有七十四法。以觸為緣。識觸受等二三四生者。謂根境二法生識。根境識三法生觸。根境識觸四法生受。受等以下一切諸法。皆四法生。瑜伽唯言思。不言行蘊者。思於行蘊為主。舉思一法。攝餘七十二法。俱舍亦云行名造作。思是業性。造作義強。故為最勝。是故佛說。若能造作有漏有為。名行取蘊。但舉一思。便攝行蘊。問。何故心所法中。除去受想。餘皆行蘊。答。受著諸欲。想著諸見。味受力故。貪著諸欲。倒想力故。貪著諸見。又生死法。以受及想為最勝因。由耽著受。起倒想故。生死輪迴。由此二因。故別立受想為蘊。集論但說觸為受依者。以觸境時必有領納。受所依近。引發勝故。所以偏說。問。觸自性。是實是假。答。此觸自性是實非假。六六法中心所性故。身足論云。六六者。謂六識。六觸。六受。六想。六思。六愛也。如眼觸所生受。乃至意觸所生受。眼觸所生愛。乃至意觸所生愛故。又是四食中觸食性故。又七十四法。皆以觸為緣故。又十二緣中觸緣受故。如受想等各別有性。非即三和。若即三和。應同得等。立量云。觸所自性非即三和。六六法中心所性故。是食攝故。能為緣故。如受等性。
> Now, I will explain the five mental factors in two parts. First, let me explain contact (sparsha). \*\*The Initial Explanation of Contact\*\* It is said that contact is the coming together of three factors: the sense faculty, the sense object, and consciousness. These three are different in nature but do not conflict with each other; instead, they interpenetrate. This mutual harmony is called "congruence." The sense faculty serves as the support, the sense object serves as what is taken, and consciousness arises from both—it depends on the faculty to take the object. Thus, these three are in harmony with each other. This is like a position that is established based on the person who holds it, or a person who carries out orders based on their position. Here, because the three bring about a union together, it is called a "position" (of contact). \*\*Second Explanation: Discrimination and Change\*\* Change occurs because it arises from transformation. For example, when the mind gives rise to various mental objects, these are all called change. Discrimination refers to resemblance; just as consciousness arises resembling the object, it is called discriminating that object. The \*Zongjing Lu\* says: Upon these three factors, there is a function that gives rise to all mental factors in accordance, and this is called "change" (see note: The \*Yogacara-bhumi\* describes two kinds of change-nature: one of dissimilarity due to similar arising, and one of change due to dissimilar arising.) The function of discrimination is the power of contact. Because contact has the capacity to resemble the previous three factors and give rise to the changing functions of mental factors, it is called discrimination. Discrimination is just another name for resemblance. This is like a son who resembles his father being said to "discriminate" his father. \*\*Resolving a Doubt\*\* Someone might ask: If contact discriminates the change of three factors, why do texts like the \*Abhidharma-samuccaya\* say that it only discriminates the sense faculty? The explanation is as given in the text. The \*Zongjing Lu\* continues: Q: Why is the sense faculty considered supreme among the three factors (faculty, object, consciousness)? A: For four reasons: (1) Because it is the master—it has superior ability and is called the master. (2) Because it is close—it directly gives rise to mind and mental factors. (3) Because it is universal—it not only gives rise to mental factors but also to mind itself. (4) Because it is continuous—it is always present in succession, unlike the object and consciousness. The object gives rise to mind and mental factors, but it is not the master and not close, lacking two reasons, so it is not called supreme. The mind is the master and close in giving rise to mental factors, but it cannot give rise to itself, so it is not universal, lacking one reason. The object and consciousness are both discontinuous—consciousness arises depending on the object—so they both lack the quality of continuity. Thus, only the sense faculty is called supreme. Therefore, texts like the \*Abhidharma-samuccaya\* cite this as evidence. \*\*Further Explanation\*\* Now it is explained: The function of contact is to make mind and mental factors touch the object. Uniting all mental factors so that they together contact the object is the nature of contact. Hence, it is said: "Make mind and mental factors touch the object as their nature." It is also explained: Contact serves as the basis for feeling and other factors. Since it has the function of resembling and giving rise to mental factors in accordance, feeling, perception, and so on arise based on it. Therefore, its activity is to serve as the foundation for feeling, perception, and volition. \*\*Reconciling Sutras and Treatises\*\* The \*Arising and Ceasing Sutra\* says: All the aggregates of feeling, perception, and formation arise with contact as their condition. From this, it is said: The coming together of two factors gives rise to consciousness; the coming together of three factors gives rise to contact; the coming together of four factors gives rise to feeling, perception, and formation. Volition is not mentioned because the term "formation aggregate" includes a total of seventy-three dharmas. According to the \*Panca-skandhaka-shastra\*, the formation aggregate has seventy-three components: forty-nine of the fifty-one mental factors (excluding feeling and perception), plus the twenty-four dharmas not associated with mind—totaling seventy-three, all called the formation aggregate. Now when the sutra says "feeling, perception, and formation aggregates," it excludes contact, giving seventy-four dharmas that arise with contact as condition. Consciousness arises from two factors (faculty and object); contact arises from three (faculty, object, and consciousness); feeling arises from four (faculty, object, consciousness, and contact); and all other dharmas from there on also arise from four factors. The \*Yogacara-bhumi\* mentions only volition and not the entire formation aggregate because volition is the chief among formations. Mentioning volition alone covers the remaining seventy-two dharmas. The \*Abhidharmakosha\* also says: "Formation" means karma. Volition is the nature of karma and has strong karma-making activity. Thus, it is the most prominent. Therefore, the Buddha said: What creates defiled and conditioned effects is called the formation aggregate of clinging. Mentioning one instance of volition includes the entire formation aggregate. Q: Why are only feeling and perception removed from the mental factors, while the rest are the formation aggregate? A: Feeling brings attachment to desires; perception brings attachment to views. Due to the power of feeling, one clings to desires; due to the power of distorted perception, one clings to views. Also, in cyclic existence (samsara), feeling and perception are the most powerful causes. Because of indulging in feeling, distorted perception arises, leading to the cycle of birth and death. Therefore, these two are established as separate aggregates. The \*Abhidharma-samuccaya\* says that contact is the basis for feeling because when contact occurs, there must be an experience (feeling). Feeling's close dependence and leading function make it particularly emphasized. Q: Is contact real or conventional (provisional)? A: The nature of contact is real, not conventional. Within the framework of the six sixes (six consciousnesses, six contacts, six feelings, six perceptions, six volitions, six cravings), contact is a mental factor. The \*Shenzu Treatise\* explains the six sixes: six consciousnesses, six contacts, six feelings, six perceptions, six volitions, and six cravings—such as feeling born from eye contact, up to feeling born from mind contact; and craving born from eye contact, up to craving born from mind contact. Moreover, contact is part of the four kinds of nutriment, being the nutriment of contact. Also, all seventy-four dharmas arise with contact as a condition. Additionally, in the twelve links of dependent origination, contact conditions feeling. Therefore, contact has its own distinct nature, just like feeling and perception. It is not identical with the three factors (faculty, object, consciousness). If it were identical, then it would be the same as "getting" and so on (which are conventional). The logical argument: The nature of contact is not identical with the three factors, because it is a mental factor in the six sixes, a form of nutriment, and can act as a condition—like the natures of feeling, etc.
作意謂能警心為性至應非徧行不異定故。
> Attention means the nature of alerting the mind, but it should not be categorized as an all-pervasive mental factor because it is not fundamentally different from concentration.
次釋作意。先正釋。心未起時。警心令起。是作意體性。心既起已。引令趣境。是作意業用。次轉釋。謂此警覺應起心種者。明此作意在種位能警心也。設有問言。作意為在種位能警心。為在現行能警心。即答言。在種位能警心。以作意自性明利。雖在種位。若有境至。而能警心心所種。令生起現行。喻如多人同一室宿。外邊有賊來時。眾中有。一人為性少睡。便能警覺餘人。此人雖自身未起。而能警覺餘人令起。亦如內心相分。雖與見分同起。法爾有能牽心功能。今作意亦爾。其作意種子。既警彼諸心心所種生現行已。作意現行。又能引心現行令趣前境。即此作意有二功能。一心未起時能警令起。二若起已能引令趣境。作意亦能引起心所。而但言心者。心是主故。如言王來。非無臣佐等。有說下。出偏義。迴趣異境者。正緣此境時。引轉向餘也。持心令住者。專注一境也。有心令心迴趣異境為作意者。有以持心一境為作意者。二俱非理。若令心住。不異別境定心所故。若言迴趣。應非徧行所攝性故。
> Now, we will explain \*attention\* (manaskāra). \*\*First, direct explanation:\*\* - When the mind has not yet arisen, its nature (\*svabhāva\*) is to alert it and cause it to arise. - When the mind has already arisen, its function (\*kṛtya\*) is to guide it toward an object. \*\*Then, further explanation:\*\* It is said that this attention awakens the latent seeds of the mind. This clarifies that attention, while still in seed form (\*bījāvasthā\*), can alert the mind. If someone asks, “Does attention alert the mind when it is still a seed, or when it is active (\*pravṛtti\*)?” The answer is: when in seed form. Because attention has a naturally penetrating quality; even as a seed, when an object appears, it can awaken the seeds of the mind and mental factors, causing them to arise as active states. This is like many people sleeping together in a single room. When a thief comes from outside, one person among them who naturally sleeps little will wake the others. Though this person has not yet risen himself, he can awaken others. Similarly, the inner sense-object (\*nimitta\*), though it arises together with the perceiving subject (\*darśana\*), naturally has the power to draw in the mind. Attention is the same. \*\*Two functions of attention:\*\* 1. When the mind has not yet arisen, it alerts it to arise. 2. When the mind has arisen, it guides it toward its object. Attention can also awaken mental factors, but when only the mind is mentioned, it is because the mind is the master. It is like saying, “The king has come,” without denying that his ministers and attendants are present. \*\*Other interpretations:\*\* Some say that attention causes the mind to shift to another object—that is, when it is currently focused on one object, it turns toward another. Others say that attention holds the mind steady—that is, it fixes the mind on a single object. Neither of these views is correct: - If attention holds the mind steady, this function does not differ from the mental factor of concentration (\*samādhi\*). - If it shifts the mind to another object, then it would not belong to the universal mental factors (\*sarvatraga\*), which always accompany all mind states.
受謂領納順違俱非至名境界受不共餘故。
> "Feeling" refers to experiencing situations that are pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. In the end, this is called "perceptual feeling," because it is not shared with other \[mental factors\].
次釋受。先正釋。受以領納為義。領謂收領。納謂容納。若領納違境。則起心欲離。若領納順境。則起心欲合。若領納非違非順境。則起心平平。雖不欲合。亦不欲離。此受性也。為欲所依。故能起愛。是受用也。有作下。敘異見。一境界受者。即前領納違順俱非者是。二自性受者。即是彼所執領納俱生觸者是。觸與受俱生。謂之俱生觸。此受不納外境。唯納俱生之觸。即以觸為自性。名自性受。唯自性受是受所緣自相之境。不與心王共緣故。若境界受。王所共緣。故以緣境界者名境界受。緣俱觸者名自性受也。論主破云。受雖曰依觸而生。而觸以三和分別變異為性。受以領納為性。各各自能緣境。故同列為五數。受定不緣俱生觸也。豈有父生子而子納父者哉。若謂此受似觸而生。故受能領觸名自性受者。則觸為因。而受為果。果似因起。名為領彼。凡似因果。皆應領因。領故名受。應皆受性。觸既是受因。應名因所生受。不得名自性受。以觸非受之自性故。若謂自性受如王。觸如國邑。受能領觸。如王食諸國邑。所生受體。名自性受。非以觸為自性者。理亦不然。以彼執領納俱生觸為自性故。今以觸所生受名為自性。則受無有自證之境。彼執俱生觸為自相境故。若謂受雖領觸。不捨受之自性。即領自性名自性受者。則一切法皆不捨自性。皆是領自性。亦皆可謂之自性受乎。次明境界受為受自相。然謂境界受共餘相者。理亦不然。如領順境時。其順境相。定屬於己。名順境受。此領受時。不領違捨。若領違捨。定不領順。豈共餘相哉。
> Now we will explain "feeling." First, a formal explanation. "Feeling" (vedanā) is defined as "experiencing and taking in." To experience means to receive, and to take in means to accept or hold. When we encounter an unpleasant object (a "contrary" state), we wish to be free from it. When we encounter a pleasant object (a "congenial" state), we wish to unite with it. When we encounter a neutral object (neither contrary nor congenial), we remain indifferent, with no wish to unite or separate. This is the nature of feeling. It serves as the basis for desire, and thus gives rise to attachment. This is the function of feeling. The text continues by presenting a dissenting view. \[They propose\] two kinds of feeling: 1) "Feeling regarding an object" (ārammaṇa-vedanā), which is the experience of contrary, congenial, or neutral objects described above. 2) "Feeling regarding its own nature" (svabhāva-vedanā), which is their interpretation of "experiencing the co-born contact." Contact (sparśa) arises simultaneously with feeling, so it is called "co-born contact." This feeling does not take in external objects; it only takes in the co-born contact. Thus, it takes contact as its own nature, and is named "nature-based feeling" (self-referential feeling). They claim that only this "nature-based feeling" has the co-born contact as its object, which is a characteristic of feeling itself, and it does not share its object with the mind-king (citta). In contrast, "feeling regarding an object" shares its object with the mind-king and its mental factors, and is therefore named "feeling relating to an object." Thus, one type engages an object (the external situation), while the other engages the co-born contact. The Master (Vasubandhu) refutes this: Although feeling arises dependent on contact, the nature of contact is "discernment and alteration based on the three factors \[sense organ, object, and consciousness\]." The nature of feeling is simply "experiencing." Both have their own objects and are thus listed separately among the five mental factors. Therefore, feeling certainly does not take the co-born contact as its object. How could a father produce a son who then "takes in" the father? If they claim that because feeling arises resembling contact, it "experiences" contact and is thus called "nature-based feeling," then contact is the cause and feeling is the effect. An effect that arises resembling its cause is said to "experience" that cause. If all cause-effect pairs were to follow this logic, the effect would have to experience the cause. The word "experiencing" (feeling) would then apply to everything, and everything would be of the nature of feeling. Since contact is the cause of feeling, it should be called "cause-born feeling," not "nature-based feeling," because contact is not the nature of feeling. If they argue that nature-based feeling is like a king, while contact is like the royal estates, and that by "experiencing contact" the king consumes the fruits of the estates, then the resulting feeling-body is called "nature-based feeling" without taking contact as its true nature—this reasoning is also flawed. Because they explicitly hold that feeling experiences the co-born contact as its true nature. If we now call the feeling born from contact "nature-based," then feeling would have no self-referential object of its own, since they erroneously take the co-born contact as its own characteristic object. If they say that although feeling experiences contact, it does not abandon its own nature, and therefore feeling that experiences its own nature is called "nature-based feeling," then one could argue: all phenomena do not abandon their own natures, and all could be said to "experience their own nature." Would that mean everything is "nature-based feeling"? Next, the text clarifies that "feeling regarding an object" is the true self-characteristic (svalakṣaṇa) of feeling. The claim that this type of feeling is shared with other mental factors is also incorrect. For example, when experiencing a pleasant object, the pleasant object's characteristics belong specifically to the self. This is called "pleasant feeling." At that moment, it does not simultaneously experience unpleasantness or neutral states. If it experienced unpleasantness, it would not be called pleasant feeling. How could it share its characteristics with other mental factors?
想謂於境取像為性至方能隨起種種名言。
> The cognitive faculty of the mind takes the characteristics of objects as its intrinsic nature,to and it is precisely based on this that various names and expressions arise accordingly.
次釋想。初正釋。顯揚論云。想者。謂名句文身熏習為緣。從阿賴耶識種子所生。依心所起與心俱轉。相應取相為體。發言議為業。次轉釋。先安境相高下。美惡。方施種種名字言說。彼有如是相。名為瓶衣等。安立。即是取像異名想。能安立自境分劑。若心起時無此想者。應不能取境分劑相。謂此是青非青等。作分劑而取其相名為安立。由此取像。便起名言。此是青等。性類眾多。故名種種。
> Next, let us explain "Perception." First, the formal explanation. The \*Xianyang Treatise\* says: "Perception arises from the seeds in the Store-Consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna), conditioned by the imprint of names, phrases, and syllables. It arises from the mind, turns together with it, and has grasping after signs as its essence. Its function is to produce speech and discussion." Let us now explain further. It first establishes perceptual images: high and low, beautiful and ugly. Then, it assigns various names and words based on these signs. For instance, "that is such a form," and it is called "bottle" or "garment." This establishing is another name for creating signs through Perception. Perception enables the mind to distinguish the boundaries of its own objects. If no Perception arose when the mind functioned, it could not grasp the distinctive signs of objects—such as "this is blue, not green." The act of distinguishing boundaries and grasping those signs is called "establishing." Through this grasping of signs, words and names arise—such as "this is blue," etc. Since these perceptual qualities are many in type, they are called "diverse."
思謂令心造作為性至驅役自心令造善等。
> It is said that mental activity has the nature of creating,to it drives the mind itself to perform actions like good deeds.
次釋思。初正釋。次轉釋。善品等者。謂善品。不善品。非善非惡品。正因等者。謂正因。邪因。非正非邪因。顯揚論云。思者。謂令心造作得。失。俱非。意業為體。或為和合。或為別離。或為隨與。或為貪愛。或為瞋恚。或為棄捨。或起尋伺。或復為起身語二業。或為染污。或為清淨。行善不善非二為業。得即正因。失即邪因。問。作意與思有何分別。曰。心恒動行。名為作意。思惟籌量可行不可行。令心成邪成正。名為思惟。作意如馬行。思惟如騎者。馬但直行。不能避就是非。由騎者故。令其離非就是。思惟亦爾。能令作意離漫行也。
> Now we explain "cetana" (intention). First, the direct explanation; second, the extended explanation. "Good qualities, etc." refers to good qualities, bad qualities, and neither-good-nor-bad qualities. "Right causes, etc." refers to right causes, wrong causes, and neither-right-nor-wrong causes. The \*Xianyang Lun\* (The Discourse on Manifesting the Truth) says: "Cetana means the mental action that causes the mind to create gain, loss, or neutrality, with volitional activity as its essence. It may unify, separate, follow along, attach with craving, react with aversion, abandon, initiate investigation or analysis, generate physical or verbal actions, or become defiled or pure. Its function is to carry out good, bad, or neutral actions. Gain corresponds to right causes, and loss corresponds to wrong causes." Question: What is the difference between \*manasikara\* (attention) and \*cetana\* (intention)? Answer: The mind's continuous dynamic activity is called attention. Deliberating and weighing what is feasible or not, causing the mind to become right or wrong, is called intention. Attention is like a horse moving forward; intention is like the rider. The horse just goes straight and cannot avoid or approach things on its own. It is because of the rider that the horse can turn away from wrong and move toward right. Intention is the same—it can steer attention away from aimless activity.
此五既是徧行所攝至所緣事等故名相應。
> These five are included within the universal mental factors, and because they share the same objects of perception, they are called "associated."
次總結。此五法。心起必有。故是徧行。故決定與藏識相應。廣釋在第五卷。此觸下。釋相應義。問。心與心所各有行相。何名相應。如第八以了別為行相。受以領納為行相等。答。此觸等五。與異熟識行相雖異。而定同時起。同依一根。所緣亦等。自體相似。故名相應。今約見分為行相。影像相分為所緣。自體名事。等者。相似義。體各惟一。境相相似。故所緣事皆名為等。以觸等五相託本識相生。所緣既相似。故名為等。唯識為宗。不約本質名為所緣。亦非影像名為行相。時。謂剎那。定同一世。依。謂根。俱無有間。
> Summary: These five mental factors always arise with the mind, so they are universal. Therefore they definitely correspond with the Alaya Consciousness. A detailed explanation is in Chapter Five. Now, beginning with "This contact, etc.," we explain the meaning of "correspondence." Question: The mind and mental factors each have their own mode of functioning. What makes them "corresponding"? For example, the Eighth Consciousness functions through discrimination, while feeling functions through experiencing, etc. Answer: Although these five—contact and so on—have different modes of functioning from the ripening consciousness, they definitely arise at the same time, rely on the same sense organ, and have the same object. Their own natures are similar, which is why they are called "corresponding." Here, the "mode of functioning" refers to the perceiving aspect; the "object" refers to the reflected image aspect; the "self-nature" is called the "object." "Equality" means similarity. Each factor has a single unique self-nature, but their object-realms are similar. Therefore, their object-fields are all called "equal." Since contact and the other four arise dependent on the root consciousness, and their objects are similar, they are called "equal." With consciousness as the foundation, the term "object" does not refer to the fundamental essence, nor is the reflected image called the "mode of functioning." "Time" means an instant; they definitely belong to the same moment. "Basis" means sense organ; both are without interruption.
此識行相極不明了至如無記法善惡俱招。
> The functioning of this consciousness is extremely subtle and unclear—like neutral actions that yield both good and bad results.
四釋受俱門。有三釋。先約行相以定捨受。捨受五相。與此第八行相皆同。故為相應。一不明了。二不能分別違順境相。三微細。四一類。五相續轉。不明了者。是捨受相。若苦樂受必明了故。不能分別順違境相者。取中容境。是捨受相。若是餘受。取順違境故。微細者。相不顯故。若是餘受。行相必麤。一類者。無易脫故。若是餘受。必是易脫。此行相定。故成一類。相續轉者。無間斷故。若是餘受。必有間斷。此恒相續。故唯捨受。若能分別違順境相。非真異熟。異熟者。取境定故。若麤動者。如餘心。非異熟主。顯行相難知。異餘識也。由此五義必有故。便能受熏持種相續。又解此識極不明了。曾無慧念。慧念行相極明了故。不能分別順違境相。顯唯捨受。非苦樂俱。及簡不與善染等並。相續而轉。顯無有欲。今有希望。方有欲起。此相續故。無有欲也。由此五義。第二義正顯唯捨受義。所餘四義。因簡別境等。故唯與捨受俱。次約體性以定捨受。此識相應受。唯是異熟性。異熟性者。隨先業轉。不待現緣。既隨業力。不待現緣。故唯捨受。苦樂二受非真異熟。不任業力。要待現緣。故非此識之所相應。次約執藏以定捨受。此識一類恒無轉變。末那恒執為自內我。若苦樂受轉變無常。寧可執以為自內我。以第七識亦是捨受。是故唯與捨受相應。問。此五徧行。受何別開。不及餘四。答。受體雖一。義用有三。是故別開。餘四不爾。例如無記。有覆無覆義用不同。故亦別開。外人難云。此識既與捨受相應。是無記寂靜法。如何又為惡業果耶。汝前既許善業能招捨受。則惡亦應然。故答云。捨雖寂靜。不違善惡二種故。得為惡果。不同禪定寂靜能斷障染。故於苦樂俱不相違。此無所能為。故通惡業惑。餘七轉識。設起苦樂。此識皆俱。以捨不違苦樂品故。若或苦樂不俱。於人天中應不受苦果。以相違故。三惡趣中應不受樂果。亦相違故。此中苦樂皆是別招。故捨不違。立量云。捨受善惡俱招。不違苦樂品故。如無記法。不違苦樂者。此與轉識。同一剎那三受俱轉。
> \*\*Section 4: The Relationship with Feeling (Vedanā)\*\* This is explained in three parts. \*\*First: Determining the Neutral Feeling Based on its Characteristics\*\* The neutral feeling, associated with the eighth consciousness, shares five characteristics with it, which is why they are linked: 1. \*\*It is not clearly discernible.\*\* If it were a pleasant or painful feeling, it would be obvious—but this one is subtle. 2. \*\*It does not distinguish between favorable and unfavorable experiences.\*\* Neutral feeling takes in circumstances that are neither pleasing nor displeasing. Other feelings actively grasp at what is pleasant or unpleasant. 3. \*\*It is subtle and refined.\*\* The mark of this feeling is not prominent. Other feelings are coarse by comparison. 4. \*\*It remains of one type, unchanging.\*\* It does not shift. Other feelings are prone to change. 5. \*\*It continues without interruption.\*\* It does not break off. Other feelings inevitably have gaps. This one flows continuously. Thus, the eighth consciousness is solely associated with neutral feeling. If it were capable of distinguishing favorable or unfavorable conditions, it would not be truly karmic in nature—the truly karmic consciousness takes objects in a fixed, determinate way. If it were coarse or agitated like other minds, it could not function as the root consciousness, which is known for its subtle and hidden nature. Therefore, based on these five characteristics, the eighth consciousness necessarily associates only with neutral feeling, enabling it to receive impressions and retain seeds continuously. \*\*Alternative Explanation:\*\* This consciousness is so obscure that it lacks clarity or mindfulness—unlike the sharpness of mindfulness. Because it does not discriminate favorable or unfavorable conditions, it cannot pair with pleasure or pain. It also does not combine with virtuous or defiled states. Because it continues uninterrupted, it lacks desire—desire requires anticipation, but this consciousness has none. Thus among these five characteristics, the second directly shows its exclusive connection to neutral feeling. The other four serve to distinguish it from other mental factors. \*\*Second: Determining the Neutral Feeling Based on Its Essential Nature\*\* The feeling associated with this consciousness is purely karmic in nature. "Karmic" means it follows past actions without depending on present conditions. Since it functions according to karmic force, not requiring immediate circumstances, it is neutral feeling alone. Pleasant and painful feelings are not truly karmic; they depend on conditions and are therefore not linked to this consciousness. \*\*Third: Determining the Neutral Feeling Based on Clinging\*\* This consciousness is constant and unchanging, always of one type. The seventh consciousness clings to it as the inner self. If it were involved with pleasant or painful feelings—which are inherently impermanent—how could it be grasped as a permanent self? Since the seventh consciousness itself is also in neutral feeling, the eighth consciousness can only be associated with neutral feeling. \*\*Question:\*\* Among the five universal mental factors (contact, attention, feeling, perception, volition), why is "feeling" distinguished separately, unlike the other four? \*\*Answer:\*\* Although feeling has only one essence, its functions are threefold (pleasant, painful, neutral). Therefore it is listed separately. The other factors are not so. Similarly, "morally neutral" is divided into "defiled neutral" and "undefiled neutral" because their meanings differ. \*\*Objection:\*\* Since this consciousness is associated with neutral feeling and is a neutral, tranquil entity, how can it also serve as the result of negative karma? You previously stated that good karma can produce neutral feeling—so must evil karma also? \*\*Answer:\*\* Although neutral feeling is tranquil, it does not conflict with either good or evil karma. Therefore, it can be the result of evil as well. Unlike meditative tranquility that actively cuts off defilements, neutral feeling is compatible with both pleasure and pain. It has no power of its own, so it can be linked to defiled karma. When the other seven consciousnesses experience pleasure or pain, this eighth consciousness coexists with them—because neutral feeling does not oppose pleasure or pain. If pleasure and pain could not coexist, then beings in the human or heavenly realms would not experience painful results, and beings in the three lower realms would not experience pleasant results—due to their mutual opposition. In reality, pleasure and pain are individually produced by different karmas, so neutral feeling does not conflict with them. \*\*Formal syllogism:\*\* Neutral feeling can be the result of both good and evil karma because it does not oppose the quality of pleasure or pain, like a neutral state. It can coexist in the same moment as pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings experienced by the other consciousnesses.
如何此識非別境等至有間斷故定非異熟。
> How could this consciousness not be classified as a distinct state? Since it is interrupted at times, it definitely cannot be the ripening of past actions.
此相應簡別。問。此異熟識。何故但與徧行相應。不預別境五位。答。以別境等互相違故。謂別境之欲。希望所好樂事。此識任彼善惡業轉。無所好樂。故不與欲相應。勝解。是印證守持決定之事。此識昏昧。不能印證持守。亦無決定。故不與勝解相應。念是明記過去曾習之事。使不忘失。此識昧劣。不能明記。故不與念相應。定雖影像相分剎那新起。至加行時。所觀本質。前後相續。但專注境。此識任運。不作加行專注本質。恒緣現在影像所緣。但新新起。且定行相。一一剎那深取專注趣向所緣。此識浮踈。行相不爾。故不與定相應。慧為簡擇德非德事。此識微細昧略。不能簡擇。故不與慧相應。且別境者。別別緣境而得生故。此識唯是一類相續。故不與別境相應也。此識唯是異熟無記。非善性故。不與善十一相應。非惡性故。不與煩惱等相應。惡作等四雖通無記。非一切時常相續故。定不與異熟相應。然不遮異熟生。異熟生中有此四故。通上釋相應竟。
> This section explains the associated mental factors. \*\*Question:\*\* Why is the Alaya-consciousness (the storehouse consciousness) only associated with the five universal mental factors (contact, attention, feeling, perception, volition), and not with the five "specific" mental factors (desire, determination, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom)? \*\*Answer:\*\* Because the specific mental factors are incompatible with it. For instance: - \*\*Desire\*\* hopes for and delights in desirable things. This consciousness merely follows good and bad karma and has no delight at all. Therefore, it is not associated with desire. - \*\*Determination\*\* involves affirming and holding onto a firm decision. This consciousness is dark and confused, unable to affirm or hold onto anything, and lacks any decisive quality. Therefore, it is not associated with determination. - \*\*Mindfulness\*\* is the clear memory of past experiences, preventing forgetfulness. This consciousness is dim and weak, incapable of clear memory. Therefore, it is not associated with mindfulness. - \*\*Concentration\*\*, although its mental images arise anew in each instant, during the preparatory stage, the observed object appears as a continuous stream while the mind focuses on it. But this consciousness operates naturally without any preparatory effort to focus on an object. It constantly takes the mental images of the present moment as its object, which arise newly each time. Moreover, concentration's characteristic is a deep, focused absorption on its object in every single moment. This consciousness is superficial and scattered, its mode of operation is not like that. Therefore, it is not associated with concentration. - \*\*Wisdom\*\* discriminates between virtuous and non-virtuous things. This consciousness is subtle, obscure, and vague, incapable of such discrimination. Therefore, it is not associated with wisdom. The "specific" mental factors are called so because they arise only in relation to their specific respective objects. This consciousness, however, is a single, continuous, uniform stream. Therefore, it is not associated with them. Furthermore, this consciousness is exclusively \*\*neutral retribution\*\*: it is neither good nor bad. Since it is not good in nature, it does not associate with the eleven wholesome mental factors. Since it is not bad in nature, it does not associate with the afflictions (such as greed, anger, ignorance). Although the four mental factors of regret, sleep, initial inquiry, and sustained analysis can be neutral, they do not operate continuously at all times. Therefore, they definitely do not associate with the retribution consciousness. However, this does not exclude the mental phenomena that \*arise from\* this retribution, as these four can exist within the experiences that are generated by it. This concludes the explanation of the associated factors.
法有四種謂善不善至此非善惡故名無記。
> The Dharma has four kinds: good, bad, and up to this point—neither good nor bad—thus it is called indeterminate.
五釋三性門。標舉三性。分為四法。先問起。能為此世他世順益。故名為善。能為此世他世違損。故名不善。障礙聖道。隱蔽自心。說名有覆。無覆反此。非善不善。故名無記。次舉頌答。次釋。先釋是無覆無記。初異熟性故。謂此本識。於上四法。唯第四攝。流轉屬染。還滅屬淨。由業故生死流。由苦故生死轉。由道故還。由滅故滅。異熟既是善應不生不善。恒生善故。即無流轉惡趣之義。惡趣翻亦然。既恒生惡。應無還滅。以故異熟定非善染二性。此約異熟顯無記也。次善染依故。此識既是果報之主。既恒是善。應不為惡依。是惡亦應不為善依。互相違故。由非善染故。能為善染依。此約善染所依顯無記也。次所熏性故。此識是所熏性。以非善染。而能受善染熏。若是善染應非受熏。熏習既無。即無種子。種子若無。即是無因。因既無故。其果亦無。故曰。染淨因果俱不成立。此約所熏顯無記也。具上三義。證知第八唯是無覆無記性攝。言無覆者。覆。謂染法。有障礙義。有盖蔽義。障礙聖道不得生起。盖蔽真心不得清淨。此識無此二義。故名無覆。言無記者。謂善因感可愛之果。惡因感非愛之果。彼二皆有殊勝強盛之體可記可別。此識無此二義。故名無記。無記有三。一相應無記。謂諸無記心心所法。二不相應無記。謂無記色不相應法。三真實無記。謂虗空非擇滅。又廣辯四種無記。一能變無記。即無記心心所法是。二所變無記。即諸色法及諸種子等是。三分位無記。即二十四不相應行中。有假無記法分位立者是。四勝義無記。即虗空非擇滅無為是。又就第一能變無記中。更有四種無記。一異熟。二威儀。三工巧。四變化。異熟無記者。異者別異。即因果性別。因通善惡。果唯無記。熟者成熟。此唯屬果。因果合說。名為異熟。無記者不能記別當果名為無記。或於善惡中無所記別名無記。此業感真異熟無記。即第八識。業即善惡二思。感者集義。招義。為此現行思。能造作感集當來總報識等五果種子。又能招感當來異熟五蘊現行果。故名業感。言真者。實也。簡命根雖是異熟而且是假。又真者常也。體常相續。更不間斷。徧界地有者。名真異熟無記。又若法體是異熟。從異熟識起而無間斷。徧界地有者。名真異熟。亦名異熟生。若法體是異熟。從異熟識起。有時間斷。又不徧界地者。但名異熟生。不得名真異熟。即簡六識體。若體非異熟。又有間斷。又不徧界地。雖從異熟識起。不名真異熟。但得名異熟生。若威儀。工巧。變化等。雖有能作。而不招善惡等果。故名無記。
> \*\*Fifth: Explanation of the Three Natures\*\* We now identify and explain the three natures in four categories. First, a question arises: "What is good?" That which benefits both this life and the next is called good. That which harms both this life and the next is called bad. That which blocks the path to enlightenment and obscures one's own mind is called "covered" (with afflictions). The opposite of that is "uncovered." That which is neither good nor bad is called "neutral" (indeterminate). Next, the verses provide the answer, followed by explanation. First, we explain the "uncovered neutral." Its first characteristic is being a retribution nature. This means that the fundamental consciousness (eighth consciousness) falls only into the fourth category among the four mentioned. Cycle and transcendence: Samsara belongs to the defiled; liberation belongs to the pure. Due to karma, there is the cycle of birth and death; due to suffering, there is the turning of birth and death; due to the path, there is return; due to cessation, there is cessation. If retribution were good, then bad things would not arise. If the consciousness were perpetually good, then there would be no possibility of falling into evil realms. Likewise, if it were perpetually bad, there would be no possibility of liberation. Therefore, retribution is definitely not good or defiled. This explains neutrality in terms of retribution. Second, good and defiled are dependent on it. Since this consciousness is the master of the karmic results, if it were always good, it could not serve as the basis for evil, and if it were always evil, it could not serve as the basis for good, as they are mutually opposed. Because it is neither good nor defiled, it can serve as the basis for both. This explains neutrality in terms of being the support for good and defiled. Third, it is the nature that receives karmic seeds. This consciousness is the nature that receives seeds. Because it is neither good nor defiled, it can receive the seeds of good and defiled. If it were good or defiled, it could not receive seeds. Without the seeds, there would be no causes, and without causes, there would be no results. Therefore, it is said that the cause-and-effect of both defilement and purity would not be established. This explains neutrality in terms of being the receiver of seeds. Possessing these three characteristics, we can confirm that the eighth consciousness is only of the "uncovered neutral" nature. "Uncovered" means that defilements \[have the quality of\] obstruction and concealment—obstructing the holy path so it cannot arise, and concealing the true mind so it cannot become pure. This consciousness lacks these two qualities, hence it is called "uncovered." "Neutral" means that good causes bring pleasant results, and bad causes bring unpleasant results; both have a distinctive, powerful nature that can be identified and differentiated. This consciousness lacks these two qualities, hence it is called "neutral." There are three kinds of neutral states: (1) Associative neutral—neutral mind and mental factors; (2) Non-associative neutral—neutral form and non-form phenomena; (3) True neutral—empty space and non-analytical cessation. A broader explanation gives four kinds of neutral states: (1) Transformative neutral—neutral mind and mental factors; (2) Transformed neutral—form phenomena and seeds; (3) Positional neutral—the twenty-four conditioned states dissociated from mind, which include false neutral states established by position; (4) Ultimate neutral—empty space, non-analytical cessation, and unconditioned phenomena. Within the first category of transformative neutral, there are also four kinds: (1) Karmic reward neutral; (2) Posture neutral; (3) Skillful action neutral; (4) Transformation neutral. Karmic reward neutral: "Reward" has the sense of difference (i.e., differing nature of cause and effect: causes are good or bad, but results are only neutral); "maturation" has the sense of consummation (this pertains only to the result). Combined, it is called "karmic reward." Neutral here means that the result cannot be identified as future good or bad; or that it lacks any distinguishing feature between good and bad. This karmically-created true reward neutral is the eighth consciousness. "Karma" refers to good and bad volitional actions. "Created" implies accumulation and attraction. That is, these active volitions can create and accumulate the seeds of future total retribution (e.g., the five aggregates). They can also attract the present karmic reward. Hence it is called "karmically created." "True" means real, distinguishing it from the life faculty (which, though a karmic result, is false). "True" also means constant; its essence is continuously present, uninterrupted, and found in all realms. This is called "true reward neutral." Additionally, if a phenomenon is inherently a karmic result, arises from the karmic reward consciousness, is uninterrupted, and exists in all realms, it is called "true reward neutral" or "reward-born." If it is inherently a karmic result and arises from the karmic reward consciousness, but is sometimes interrupted and not present in all realms, it is only called "reward-born," not "true reward neutral." This distinguishes the six sense consciousnesses: if their essence is not a karmic result, and they are sometimes interrupted and not in all realms, even if they arise from the karmic reward consciousness, they are not called "true reward neutral" but only "reward-born." For states like posture, skillful action, or magical transformation, though they involve functioning, they do not attract good or bad karmic results, so they are called "neutral."
觸等亦如是者至隨所應說非謂一切。
> "It is the same for contact and other factors" — this \[phrase\] indicates that up to the explanation should be applied according to what is appropriate, rather than meaning \[it applies to\] everything.
六釋心所例王門。謂如阿賴耶識。唯是無覆無記性攝。此釋是字。諸凡相應心所。必與心王同一性故。故曰亦如是。判為心所例王門也。此單就無覆無記言也。此為正義。又一說。通前所緣門。行相門。不可知門。是觸等五心法皆與相應。不但無覆無記。故說亦如是言。又一說。通因相門一切種亦在其中。以亦如是言。與阿賴耶無簡別故。故破之云。觸等五所依識而有。如臣依王。非若王之自在也。且觸等五。即與善染諸心所同。何能受熏。如何同識能持種子。故知受熏持種。必是異熟。而五所不預也。遂申量云。觸等不能受熏。依識不自在故。如貪信等。又若觸等亦能受熏。則應一有情五所一王共有六種。種體既六。果從何種而生。終不應言六種共生一果。多種一芽。未曾有故。若言果生唯從一種。則餘五無用。何同受熏。又不可說一一種中。次第漸生六果。以王所熏習同時。勢力均等。無次第故。既不可說次第生果。又不可說六種一時頓生六果。若六種一時頓生六果。則一有情一剎那頃六眼識等亦可一時頓生耶。外人辯云。誰言觸等亦能受熏持諸種子耶。論主云。設若不許故熏持種。如何謬執觸等亦如賴耶。名一切種子。外人救云。阿賴耶識緣種子時。相應觸等變似種相。領以為境。名一切種。非如心王真能持種。心王緣種子時。五心所必同緣故。如無色界。無色可託以為本質。其觸等心所必有所緣。不緣種子而緣誰耶。若託王三境為質而緣。即是疎所緣緣。故曰親所緣緣定應有故。以證成觸等必緣種子也。此似種相。不生現識。如似根等非識所依。亦如似火無能燒用。只成所緣緣。不成因緣。即無受熏持種義。其遮前難意出於此。似眼根等者。本識緣眼根等。相應觸等。託根為質。變似眼等。非識所依。以有親根為所依故。論主破云。觸等所緣似種似根等相。必須賴耶既受熏已。然後得有種子根等執持領受。若第八未曾執受真實種子。則觸等似種依何變起。且所緣乃是第五門。於後執受處。方應與本識相例言之。何於三因相門即預言之耶。故知前說一切種言。必指受熏持種義。若不指受熏持種而但所緣上說者。則執受中又有種子作所緣說何耶。是本頌有重言失矣。又彼所說亦如是言通前一例更無簡別者。則心王能了別。觸等五所亦應能了別。心王與觸等相應。觸等亦應各與觸等相應。豈理也哉。由此故知亦如是者。隨所應例而例之。非謂一切無簡別也。
> \*\*Sixth Explanation: The Gate of Mental Factors Following the King\*\* This is explained as follows: The ālaya-vijñāna is included only within the category of neutral, non-defiled mind (\*anivṛtyāvyākṛta\*). This explains the word "is." All associated mental factors must share the same essential nature as the mind-king. Therefore, it is said: "It is also thus." This is called the gate of mental factors following the king. This explanation is limited to neutral, non-defiled mind. This is the correct meaning. Another explanation extends this to the previous gates—the gate of the perceived object, the gate of cognitive mode, and the gate of unknowability. It holds that the five mental elements (contact, etc.) are all associated, not just with neutral, non-defiled mind. Hence it says "It is also thus." Yet another explanation extends it to the gate of causal marks, including "all seeds" within it. It argues that the phrase "it is also thus" makes no distinction from the ālaya-vijñāna. This is refuted: "The five mental elements (contact, etc.) exist dependent on the consciousness (\*vijñāna\*), just as ministers depend on the king. They are not as independent as the king. Moreover, these five elements are shared with wholesome and defiled mental factors. How then could they receive perfuming? How could they, like the consciousness, hold seeds? Therefore, it is known that receiving perfuming and holding seeds must belong to the ripening result (\*vipāka\*), and the five mental elements are not involved." Thus an inference is established: "Contact, etc., cannot receive perfuming because they are dependent on consciousness and not independent—like greed, faith, etc." Furthermore, if contact, etc., could also receive perfuming, then one sentient being would have five mental factors and one king, totaling six seeds. If there are six seed-entities, from which seed would the result be produced? It should never be said that six seeds produce one result. Many seeds producing one sprout has never been known. If one says that the result arises from only one seed, then the other five would be useless—why would they equally receive perfuming? It is also cannot be said that the six seeds produce six results sequentially, one by one, because the king and the mental factors are perfumed simultaneously, with equal power, and without sequence. Since it cannot be said that they produce results sequentially, nor can it be said that the six seeds produce six results simultaneously—if six seeds produced six results at one moment, then could one sentient being at a single moment have six visual consciousnesses arising all at once? An opponent argues: "Who said that contact, etc., can receive perfuming and hold seeds?" The author of the treatise replies: "If you do not allow them to receive perfuming and hold seeds, then why do you mistakenly insist that contact, etc., are also called 'all seeds,' just like the ālaya-vijñāna?" The opponent tries to rescue: "When the ālaya-vijñāna takes seeds as its object, the associated mental factors (contact, etc.) transform and appear as seed-forms. They apprehend these as their objects and call them 'all seeds.' This does not mean that they truly hold seeds like the mind-king does. When the mind-king takes seeds as its object, the five mental factors must share the same object. For example, in the formless realm, there is no form to serve as a direct support. So what object would the mental factors (contact, etc.) have? If they do not take seeds as their object, what else could they take? If they depend on the three objects of the king as their support through indirect cognition, that is an indirect object-condition. Therefore, it is said that a direct object-condition must exist. This proves that contact, etc., must take seeds as their object. These seed-forms do not give rise to present consciousness—like root-organs, they are not the support of consciousness; like fire, they lack burning function. They only serve as object-conditions, not as causal conditions. Thus they do not have the meaning of receiving perfuming or holding seeds. The earlier refutation was aimed at this. "As for 'like eye-organs,' etc., the root-consciousness (\*mūla-vijñāna\*) takes eye-organs as its object. The associated mental factors, relying on the eye-organs as a support, transform and appear as eye-organs. But they are not the support of consciousness, as the actual root-organs serve as the direct support." The author of the treatise refutes: "The forms of seeds and roots taken as objects by contact, etc., must depend on the ālaya-vijñāna having already received perfuming. Only then can seeds, roots, etc., be held and apprehended. If the eighth consciousness has never actually perceived and held real seeds, then on what basis do the mental factors transform and give rise to seed-forms? Moreover, the object-gate is the fifth gate. It should be discussed later in the context of 'holding and apprehending.' How then could it be mentioned here, among the three causal mark gates? Therefore, it is known that the earlier statement about 'all seeds' must refer to receiving perfuming and holding seeds. If it did not refer to that, but only to objects, then why is the mention of seeds as objects repeated in the portion about 'holding and apprehending'? That would mean the root verse has the fault of redundancy." Furthermore, if "it is also thus" is understood as merely being parallel without distinction, then since the mind-king cognizes, contact and the other five mental factors should also be able to cognize. Since the mind-king is associated with contact, contact should also be associated with other contacts—how could this be reasonable? Therefore, it is known that "it is also thus" means that each part is paralleled where appropriate, not that all are identical without distinction.
阿賴耶識為斷為常至因果相續緣起正理。
> Is the Alaya-consciousness permanent or does it cease? \[Note: It is the fundamental principle of dependent origination, where causes and conditions continue in an unbroken sequence.\]
七釋恒轉如暴流。即因果法喻門。先釋法。阿賴耶識為斷為常問也。謂阿賴耶識。若常則無轉變。若斷則不相續。如何會通。得合正理。故答云。非斷非常。以恒轉故。恒故非斷。轉故非常。何謂恒。曰。此識無始時來一類相續等故。一類者。常無記義。相續者。未曾斷義。界趣生本者。即是依此識故。施設三界五趣四生。是引果故。識是界趣生之本。所以能施設者。以彼賴耶是無記性。能堅執持一切有漏種子令不散失故。何謂轉。曰。此識無始時來念念生滅等故。新新不住。因滅果生。果生因滅。前後變異。非常非一。因果性故。簡非我也。有生滅故。簡常非自性也。常一之法無因果。若無因果。即是斷常。以是常故。如虗空等應不受熏。若不受熏。即無涅槃生死差別。若受熏。須具四義。一無記。二堅住。三可熏。四非常一。是四相應。可為轉識熏也。是知由恒故轉。由轉故恒。由恒故能持種。由轉故能受熏。恒以體言。轉以用言。恒以遮斷滅之見。轉以遮確定死常。立量云。阿賴耶識是有法。非斷非常是宗。因云。恒隨轉故。同喻如暴流。以彼暴流。波相水相不相捨離。故云。阿陀那識甚微細。習氣種子如暴流。如暴流下。次釋喻。相續長時即非斷。有所漂溺即非常。又如暴流雖風等擊下。喻果生非斷。風等喻眾緣。波浪喻轉識。而恒相續顯非斷義。又如暴流漂水上下下。喻因滅非常。漂水上下。喻善惡種。即內因習氣上生人天。猶如漂草。下沉三塗。猶如溺魚。魚草等物。喻善惡五趣。以五趣中苦樂受由觸而生。故曰外觸。揀非內觸也。恒相隨轉。顯非常義。如是法喻下。雙結法喻。此法喻。正約現在第八一剎那間。為因為果。遮斷遮常。成緣起義。緣起之理。即非斷常。宗鏡七十一云。緣起者。順性無分別。即是相即相融。顯平等義。正順第一義諦體也。過去未來下。此破薩婆多部。一切有部。雪山部等所立法有我無宗也。彼宗設難。謂汝言果生因滅者。有生滅。即有去來。即非實有。云何非斷。斷豈得成緣起正理。彼意謂因果之道。須三世相續不斷。方成因果。過去為因。現在為果。現在為因。未來為果。大乘過未無體。現唯一念。如何得成因果相續耶。論主答云。汝言過去未來皆是實有。可名非斷。既曰非斷。便是死常。安得非常。常亦豈成緣起正理。我非好為辯說。斥他過以成己義。但不推破迷謬邪宗。難顯大乘深妙緣起。前之辯析意在於斯。且汝不解大乘現在因果相續緣起正理。執為斷滅。我更為汝重明梗槩。然我前言因滅果生。是約現在前因滅位。即有後果。如種生芽。如形現影。因果體異。生滅事殊。同在一時。更非前後。非謂待因滅盡而後果生也。若待因滅而後果生。可成斷滅。今因果同時。種現相生。更無前後。安得斷滅。正如秤之兩頭。低昂時等。秤。喻本識。兩頭。喻因果。低昂。喻生滅。時等。喻剎那不異。如是因果。念念皆爾相續。如暴流水。何假過未是真實有。方成非斷。小乘復難云。若因果不約三世。唯立現在因滅果生為因果者。因是現在所。後果猶未生。後果既未生。此因是誰因。如未生子。不可名父。果是現在果前因亦已滅。前因既已滅。此果是誰果。既因中無果。果中無因。是成斷滅。安得謂之離斷離常。論主答云。若非同時因滅果生。而執因時已有後果。果既本有。何用因為。因本辦果。果為酬因。因義既無。果義寧有。無因無果。豈離斷常。故顯揚論云。若謂因中有果者。我今問汝。因果二相為異不異。若不異者。即無決定因果二體。由此二相無差別故。而言因中有果。不應道理。若異相者。因中果體為未生相。為已生相。若未生相者。於彼因中果猶未生。而說是有。不應道理。若已生相者。則果體已生。復從因生。不應道理。是故因中非先有果。然要有因。故待緣而生。由斯理趣。汝義不成。若欲因果義成。必依現在有法作用而得顯示。故我前云。果生因滅。相續如流。如秤兩頭。低昂時等。今汝以三世因果而生詰難。此非預我大乘緣起唯識正宗。所以者何。由汝執體用因緣皆是本來實有。墮在死常。常無轉變。因果定無。是故應信大乘現在生滅緣起正理。何謂大乘緣起正理。即一切法自相離言。因之與果皆是假說。自無始之始。至無終之終。無去無來。唯有現在一念。觀現在法有酬前相。假說現在為前因之果。觀現在法有引後用。假說現在為後果之因。故將現在一念。說成因果相續不斷耳。云何引後用。曰。有能引生當果之用。當果雖無。而現在法有引後用。用者功能。行者尋見。現法之上有此功用。觀此法果。遂心變作未來之相。此似未來。實是現在。即假說此所變未來。名為當果。對此假當有之果。而說現在法為因。此未來果。即觀現在法功能而假變也。其因亦爾。觀此現法有酬前之相。即異熟變相等。觀此所從生處。而能變為過去。實非過去而是現在。假說所變為現法。即對此假曾有過去因。而說現在為果。而實所觀。非因非不因。非果非不果。且如於自性離言故。非實是因。有功能故。非定不同。果亦如是。有餘部說下。此破大眾雞胤等七部所執法無去來宗也。彼計實有現在法。及無為法。其過未法體用俱無。雖無去來。就於現在一法體上有生滅二時之相。故有因果恒相續義。謂現在法。如擊石火極迅速者。猶有初生後滅二時。況稍遲者。初生起時。酬能引因。即名為果。何假曾因。對說現果。後變滅時。引所生果。即名為因。何假當果對說現因。雖有初後生死二時。此之因果法體唯一。後所有法應知亦然。又前引果之因正滅。此後酬因之果正生。此之因果體相雖殊。即滅即生而時是一。前後交互。相續如流。遠離斷常成緣起理。豈有智者捨此而信餘宗之說哉。此宗立現在一體二時皆是實有者。一以避餘乘三世無體之過。一以出大乘過去未來之假。豈知終墮斷滅之見而不能出也。彼有虗言下。論主破詞。先破初後二時俱生現在。故云。何容一念而有二時。次破生滅同在現在。故云。生滅相違。寧同現在。以現在一念屬生不屬滅故。若謂念滅屬現在者。則應念生屬未來。若謂一念有故名生是現在者。則應一念無故名滅。寧非過去。若謂過去之滅屬現在有。則應現在之生屬過去無。若謂生時名現在有。則應滅時名現在無。由是而推。現在一念具有生滅二時。決無是理。又次破二相一體云。生滅二相。敵體相違。生相無滅。滅相無生。如何可說一體而有生滅二相。即以世間苦樂論。則苦時無樂相。樂時無苦相。豈容現在一念而有苦樂二相具在者乎。又次破二時一體不應同立。若謂生滅是一。則生不異滅。滅不異生。不應復立二時。若謂生滅是異。則生屬現在。滅屬過去。不可謂是一體。故顯揚云。若謂去來是實有者。去來二相。與現在相為異不異。若不異者。立三世相。不應道理。若異相者。性相實有。不應道理。又此二世法。為常無常。若言常者。墮於三世。不應道理。若無常者。於三世中恒是實有。不應道理。故生下。結破。經部師下。此破經部說假部所立現通假實宗也。彼立現在之法。在蘊為實。在界處為假。但依六識三毒。建立染淨因果。相續不斷。以彼不許有阿賴耶識能持種故。不知因果相續。理必受熏。從熏成種。從種起現。現又熏種。是相續義。今既無受熏持種之識。則相續之說亦秪虗言耳。由此應信下。結勸生信。
> \*\*7. Explanation of "Constant-Transforming Like a Torrent" – The Gate of Cause-Effect and Similes\*\* First, the principle is explained. A question arises: Is the \*Alaya Consciousness\* (Storehouse Consciousness) continuous or interrupted? - If it were "constant," there would be no transformation. - If it were "interrupted," there would be no continuity. Thus, the answer is: it is \*\*neither interrupted nor constant\*\*, because it is both \*\*constant and transforming\*\*. - "Constant" means it is never interrupted. - "Transforming" means it is never static. \*\*What does "constant" mean?\*\* From beginningless time, this consciousness has been of a single type (\*ever-neutral\*) and continuous (\*never broken\*). The term "single type" means it is always neutral (neither good nor bad). "Continuous" means it has never been cut off. It is the foundation of the realms of existence, the types of rebirth, and the modes of birth. Why? Because we conceive of the \*Three Realms\* (Desire, Form, Formless), \*Five Destinies\* (hell, hungry ghost, animal, human, god), and \*Four Modes of Birth\* (womb, egg, moisture, transformation) based on this consciousness. This consciousness is the root because, being neutral, it firmly holds and maintains all seeds of defilement without loss. \*\*What does "transforming" mean?\*\* From beginningless time, this consciousness arises and ceases in every moment, never staying still. Each moment is new. Cause ceases, effect arises; effect arises, cause ceases. There is change from moment to moment, not constant, not single. Because it is the nature of cause and effect, it is not a self. Because it arises and ceases, it is not eternal, nor is it a self-nature. An eternal, single thing has no cause or effect. Without cause and effect, it would be either interrupted or constant. Like space, it could not be impregnated by influence. Without such influence, there would be no difference between \*Nirvana\* and \*Samsara\* (the cycle of birth and death). For influence to be possible, four conditions are needed: 1. Neutral nature. 2. Stable presence. 3. Ability to be influenced. 4. Not permanent or unchanging. When these four are present, the consciousness can be influenced by the evolving consciousness (\*manas\* and sense consciousnesses). Thus, \*\*because of constancy, there is transformation; because of transformation, there is constancy.\*\* Through constancy, seeds can be held; through transformation, influence can be received. "Constant" refers to the substance; "transforming" refers to the function. Constancy prevents a view of interruption; transformation prevents a view of fixed permanence. A logical statement (\*syllogism\*): - \*\*Subject:\*\* The \*Alaya Consciousness\* - \*\*Thesis:\*\* It is neither interrupted nor constant. - \*\*Reason:\*\* Because it is constantly transforming. - \*\*Example:\*\* Like a torrent. In a torrent, the waves and the water are inseparable. Thus, the \*Adana Consciousness\* (Grasping Consciousness) is extremely subtle, and the seeds of habit-energy are like a torrent. \*\*Simile explanation:\*\* A torrent flows continuously – this represents \*\*non-interruption\*\*. It carries and drowns things – this represents \*\*non-constancy\*\*. - When the torrent is struck by wind, etc., this illustrates \*\*effect arising\*\* (non-interruption). The wind represents conditions; the waves represent the evolving consciousnesses. The continuous flow shows non-interruption. - When the torrent carries things up and down, this illustrates \*\*cause ceasing\*\* (non-constancy). "Up and down" represents good and bad seeds (inner habitual tendencies). The "fish" and "grass" represent the good and evil destinies, where beings experience pleasure and pain through contact. This "external contact" is distinguished from inner contact. The continuous flowing manifests non-constancy. \*\*Conclusion on simile and principle:\*\* This simile and principle, focusing on the \*Alaya Consciousness\* at a single moment, acting as both cause and effect, prevents the views of interruption and constancy. It establishes the principle of \*Dependent Origination\*. The principle of \*Dependent Origination\* is neither interrupted nor constant. As the \*Treatise on the Mirror of the True Dharma (Zongjing Lu)\* says: "Dependent Origination aligns with the nature of emptiness, without discrimination; it means that things are mutual identity and fusion, expressing the principle of equality. It is in accord with the ultimate truth." \*\*Refutation of other schools:\*\* - \*\*Refuting the Sarvastivada, etc.:\*\* They argue that if cause ceases and effect arises, there is a "going and coming," which is not truly existent. How can it be called "non-interrupted"? They believe cause and effect requires three periods (past, present, future) to continue. For the Mahayana, the past and future have no substance; the present is just a single thought. How can cause and effect be continuous? The answer is that if you insist the past and future are truly existent, you assert non-interruption, which is fixed permanence. That cannot be true "non-constancy." The Mahayana's principle of cause and effect in the present moment is that \*\*when the preceding cause ceases, the subsequent effect arises simultaneously\*\*, like a seed sprouting or a shadow appearing. They occur at the same time, not sequentially. There is no need for the past and future to be truly existent. - \*\*Refuting the Mahasanghika, etc.:\*\* They assert that only the present moment exists, yet claim there is continuity of cause and effect within a single moment (arising and ceasing). But can a single moment truly have both "arising" and "ceasing"? These are mutually exclusive. If arising is present, ceasing must be past. If both were the same entity, that entity would be contradictory. Thus, their position is flawed. - \*\*Refuting the Sautrantika, etc.:\*\* They believe only the five aggregates are real, while sense organs and elements are nominal. They base continuity on the six consciousnesses and three poisons, but deny the \*Alaya Consciousness\* that holds seeds. Without a consciousness that receives influence and holds seeds, their idea of continuity is empty talk. \*\*Conclusion:\*\* Therefore, one should trust the Mahayana principle of \*Dependent Origination\* in this very moment. The past and future are only conventional designations. Only the present moment, with its function of "responding to the past" and "leading to the future," establishes cause and effect as a continuous flow, like a torrent. This is the true, profound truth.
此識無始恒轉如流至爾時便入無餘涅槃。
> This consciousness, without beginning, continuously flows like a current, until the moment it enters the state of final nirvana.
八釋阿羅漢位捨。即十二伏斷位次門。先問起。次舉頌答。謂諸下。次解釋。阿羅漢因果位次有五。一資糧位。其位有三。一五停心。二別相念。三總相念。若欲出於三界。必以此三種觀法而為資糧也五停心者。一多貪眾生不淨觀。二多嗔眾生慈悲觀。三多散眾生數息觀。四愚癡眾生因緣觀。五多障眾生念佛觀。別相念總相念者。謂四念處。一觀身不淨。二觀受是苦。三觀心無常。四觀法無我。若各觀察。則名別相念。若總觀察。則名總相念。三界者。欲界。色界。無色界也。二加行位。其位有四。一煖位如木鑽火。未見火出。先得煖相。以喻加行位人。未見智火。已得煖相。二頂位觀行轉明。如登山頂。悉皆明了。三忍位忍。即忍可之義。謂於苦集滅道四諦之法。忍可而樂修也。四世第一位於理雖未能證。而於世間最勝。謂此四位加功用行。取證道果也。三見道位。即聲聞初果也。謂斷三界見惑。而見真空之理。故名見道也初果即須陀洹也。四修道位。謂修四諦道法。斷欲界思惑。而證第二第三果。故名修道也第二果。即斯陀含。第三果。即阿那含也。五無學位。即聲聞第四果阿羅漢也。此位斷三界見思惑盡。真理究竟。無法可學。故名無學也梵語阿羅漢。華言無學。又云無生。詳見天台四教儀集註。此中阿賴耶識。至阿羅漢位。方究竟捨。以彼已斷三界見思煩惱。分別俱生我執種現皆已盡故。此中所說阿羅漢位。非但聲聞之第四果。通攝三乘無學果位。以阿羅漢有三義故。所謂殺賊。應供。不生。三乘無學。皆有此義。通得此名。麤重即種子。此識含藏雜染種子。究竟離故。說之為捨。三乘者。謂緣覺乘。聲聞乘。菩薩乘。彼三乘人。至無學位。俱無煩惱。事業皆同。故釋成云。皆已永害煩惱賊故。以彼煩惱劫法財故。名之為賊。應受世間妙供養者。堪作福田故。永不復受分段生者。唯有變易死故分段生死者。隨因緣力。壽命短長。有定齊限。故名分段。變易生死者。由悲願力。改轉身命。無定齊限。故名變易。如改麤身為細質。易短壽作長年。覺知報盡為死。入定還資為生。云何知然。以瑜伽論決擇分及集論所言而知之。阿羅漢獨覺。即鈍利二根。斷煩惱有二種。一斷現行。一斷種子。成阿羅漢時。種現俱斷。菩薩登八地時。但斷現行。名阿羅漢。成如來時。方斷種子。外人問云。若謂菩薩得菩提時頓斷煩惱者。則菩薩位煩惱未斷。應皆成就阿賴耶識。何故論說不退菩薩。不成就阿賴耶識耶。論主釋云。決擇分言不退菩薩者。謂二乘斷盡煩惱證無學果。而迴趣大乘者也。必不退位起煩惱障故。名為不退。趣大乘故。名為菩薩耳。故應攝在此阿羅漢中。同不成就阿賴耶也。故二論不同。義則是一。又不動地以上菩薩。如善慧法雲等覺。皆是不退。一切煩惱。修道所斷俱生障也。永不行者。則永遠離諸現纏也。法駛流者。法執漂溺如暴流也。任運轉者。能於駛流得自在也。能諸行中起諸行者。一行攝一切行也。剎那剎那轉增進者。念念流入薩雲海也。以此四因。證不動等。名為不退。我見愛等。謂我癡。我見。并我慢。我愛。即俱生惑也。此謂本頌。彼謂不退。謂此菩薩。雖未斷盡異熟識中煩惱種子。而緣此識我見愛等現行已伏。不執內我。故亦永捨阿賴耶名。名阿羅漢。有義初地下。此出偏義。有師指初地已上菩薩。已證分別我法二種空。已得根後二種智。已斷分別我法二種障。已脩一行一切行。為利生故。雖有現行煩惱。而無過失。此等菩薩。亦名不退。然此菩薩。雖未斷俱生。已斷分別。由斯亦得捨賴耶名。亦名阿羅漢。故集論下引證。集論全文云。諸菩薩已得諦現觀。於十地修道位。唯修所知障對治道。非煩惱障對治道。若得菩提時。頓斷煩惱障及所知障。頓成阿羅漢及如來。此諸菩薩。雖未永斷一切煩惱。然此煩惱。猶如呪藥所伏諸毒。不起一切煩惱過失。一切地中。如阿羅漢已斷煩惱。呪喻禪定。藥喻智慧。毒喻煩惱。雖有種子。被禪定智慧所伏。以故不為煩惱過失。彼說非理下。論主破詞。謂七地以前。雖斷分別。尚有俱生我見等。執第八為自內我。如何得捨阿賴耶名。若斷分別名為捨者。則預流等亦斷分別。應亦名捨。以預流果永斷分別我見愛故。外人救云。地上菩薩得殊勝智。已有正知。故雖起煩惱。不為過失。豈可與預流等相較量耶。復破云。雖地上菩薩斷分別惑。不起諸見。於第六識能起正知。不生過失。而第七識中俱生未斷。任運執藏。寧不與彼預流等同。故知彼說前七地中名阿羅漢。決定非理。然此中言捨者。謂彼俱生煩惱種子。悉已斷盡。不執為我。證阿羅漢。名之為捨。非捨一切第八識體。以彼異熟未空。尚持俱生法執種子故。若無此種。爾時便入無餘涅槃。何不名佛。乃名阿羅漢果也耶。
> 8\. The Stage Where Arhats Abandon \[the Alaya Consciousness\]. This refers to the twelve stages of subjugation and severance. The text first raises a question, then answers with a verse, and follows with an explanation. The Arhat’s path of cause and effect has five stages. \*\*First, the Stage of Accumulation (Sambhāra-mārga)\*\*. This stage has three parts: (1) The Five Contemplations for Stillness, (2) The Specific Mindfulness, and (3) The General Mindfulness. To escape the Three Realms, these three contemplative methods are essential as provisions. The Five Contemplations for Stillness are: 1. For the lustful: contemplation of impurity. 2. For the hateful: contemplation of loving-kindness. 3. For the distracted: contemplation of breath counting. 4. For the ignorant: contemplation of dependent origination. 5. For those with many obstacles: contemplation of the Buddha. The Specific Mindfulness and General Mindfulness refer to the Four Foundations of Mindfulness: 1. Contemplating the body as impure. 2. Contemplating feelings as suffering. 3. Contemplating the mind as impermanent. 4. Contemplating phenomena as without a self. Observing each individually is Specific Mindfulness; observing them collectively is General Mindfulness. The Three Realms are the Realm of Desire, the Realm of Form, and the Formless Realm. \*\*Second, the Stage of Application (Prayoga-mārga)\*\*. This stage has four parts: (1) Heat Stage Like drilling wood for fire, warmth appears before the flame. This metaphor describes practitioners who, without yet seeing the fire of wisdom, have already attained its warmth. (2) Summit Stage Insight grows clearer, like reaching a mountain peak and seeing everything distinctly. (3) Patience Stage "Patience" means acceptance. One accepts and delights in cultivating the Four Noble Truths: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. (4) Highest Worldly Stage Although one has not yet realized the truth directly, one is supreme among worldly beings. These four stages involve diligent effort aimed at attaining the path's fruition. \*\*Third, the Stage of Insight (Darśana-mārga)\*\*. This is the first fruit of the Śrāvaka path. One cuts off the false views of the Three Realms and sees the truth of emptiness. Hence it is called the Stage of Insight. The first fruit is Stream-Entry (Srotaāpanna). \*\*Fourth, the Stage of Cultivation (Bhāvanā-mārga)\*\*. Here one cultivates the truth of the Four Noble Truths, cuts off the habitual afflictions of the Realm of Desire, and realizes the second and third fruits. Hence it is called the Stage of Cultivation. The second fruit is Once-Returner (Sakṛdāgāmin). The third fruit is Non-Returner (Anāgāmin). \*\*Fifth, the Stage of No-More-Learning (Aśaikṣa-mārga)\*\*. This is the fourth fruit of the Śrāvaka path—the Arhat. At this stage, one has completely severed all false views and habitual afflictions in the Three Realms. The ultimate truth is realized, and there is nothing more to learn. Hence it is called No-More-Learning. Arhat in Sanskrit means "one worthy of offerings" and also "one beyond rebirth." For details, see the commentary on the \*Tiantai Fourfold Teachings\*. Here, the Alaya Consciousness is ultimately abandoned only at the stage of Arhatship. At that point, one has completely severed all false views and habitual afflictions of the Three Realms. The seeds and active manifestations of both conceptual and innate self-grasping are entirely gone. The "Arhat stage" mentioned here is not limited to the fourth fruit of the Śrāvaka path but includes the stages of No-More-Learning in all Three Vehicles. An Arhat has three meanings: slayer of foes, worthy of offerings, and freedom from rebirth. The stages of No-More-Learning in all Three Vehicles share these meanings and thus share this name. "Coarse weight" refers to seeds. This consciousness (Alaya) contains defiled seeds, and when it is completely free from them, we say it is "abandoned." The Three Vehicles are the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, Śrāvaka Vehicle, and Bodhisattva Vehicle. Practitioners of all three, upon reaching the stage of No-More-Learning, have no afflictions and their mission is the same. The text explains: "They have permanently destroyed the thieves of afflictions," because afflictions steal the wealth of Dharma. They are "worthy of the world's excellent offerings" because they are a field of merit. They "no longer experience birth in the realm of separate forms," experiencing only the death of transformation. Separate-form birth and death occurs when, based on karmic forces, the life span has a fixed limit, hence it is called "separate." Transformational birth and death occurs when, through compassion and vows, one changes one's body and life span without a fixed limit. For example, one transforms a coarse body into a subtle one, or a short life into a long one. When one's merits are exhausted, it is death; when one enters samadhi to renew them, it is birth. How do we know this is so? From the \*Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra\*'s section on "Determination of Truth" and the \*Abhidharma-samuccaya\*. An Arhat or Pratyekabuddha (sharp or dull faculties) severs afflictions in two ways: (1) severing active manifestations, and (2) severing seeds. Upon becoming an Arhat, both seeds and manifestations are cut off. When a Bodhisattva reaches the eighth stage (Acalā), they only cut off active manifestations and are called Arhats. Only upon becoming a Buddha do they cut off the seeds. An outsider asks: "If it is said that Bodhisattvas cut off all afflictions instantly at enlightenment, then Bodhisattvas who have not yet cut off afflictions should all still retain the Alaya Consciousness. Why does the text say that irreversible Bodhisattvas do not retain it?" The commentator explains: The "Determination of Truth" section says "irreversible Bodhisattvas" refers to those from the Two Vehicles who, having completely severed afflictions and realized the fruit of No-More-Learning, then turn toward the Great Vehicle. They have definitely passed the point of generating afflictive obstructions, hence they are called "irreversible." They have turned toward the Great Vehicle, hence they are called "Bodhisattvas." Therefore, they should be included among these Arhats, as they too do not retain the Alaya Consciousness. Although the two treatises differ in expression, their meaning is the same. Furthermore, Bodhisattvas from the stage of Immovability (Acalā) and above—such as those at the levels of Fine Wisdom (Sudurjayā) or Dharma Cloud (Dharmameghā)—are all irreversible. All afflictions to be severed in the Stage of Cultivation, known as innate obstructions, are permanently inactive. They are eternally free from all active manifestations. "The swift current of Dharma" signifies being swept away by attachment to phenomena like a violent stream. "Operating naturally" means mastering this swift current with ease. "Practicing all practices within a single practice" means that one practice includes all practices. "Advancing moment by moment" means with each thought, they flow into the ocean of omniscience. These four reasons confirm that Bodhisattvas at the stage of Immovability and above are called "irreversible." "The view of self and attachment, etc." refers to ignorance of self, view of self, pride of self, and love of self—these are the innate afflictions. The verse refers to those who have, although not yet completely severed the affliction seeds within the Alaya Consciousness, already subdued the active manifestations of self-view and attachment in relation to this consciousness. They no longer grasp an inner self, and thus have permanently abandoned the name "Alaya" and are called Arhats. Some say: "From the first stage (Joyful, Pramuditā) and above..." This presents a partial view. Some teachers point to Bodhisattvas of the first stage and above who have already realized the emptiness of the conceptual self and phenomena, attained fundamental and subsequent wisdom, cut off the obstructions of conceptual self and phenomena, and cultivated one practice that encompasses all practices. For the benefit of beings, although they may have active afflictions, they are without fault. These Bodhisattvas are also called "irreversible." However, although they have not yet cut off innate afflictions, they have cut off conceptual ones. Therefore, they too can abandon the name "Alaya" and be called Arhats. This is cited from the \*Abhidharma-samuccaya\*, which states: "All Bodhisattvas who have attained insight into the truths, while on the ten stages of cultivation, cultivate only the antidote to cognitive obstructions, not the antidote to afflictive obstructions. When they attain enlightenment, they cut off both obstructions instantly, becoming both Arhats and Buddhas. Although these Bodhisattvas have not yet permanently severed all afflictions, their afflictions, like poisons subdued by spells and medicine, do not give rise to any faults. In all stages, they are like Arhats who have severed afflictions. Spells symbolize meditative concentration; medicine symbolizes wisdom; poison symbolizes afflictions. Although the seeds remain, they are subdued by these." The commentator refutes: "That statement is unreasonable." Practitioners below the seventh stage (Far-Going, Dūraṅgamā), although they have cut off conceptual afflictions, still possess innate self-view, etc., which grasp the eighth consciousness as an inner self. How could they abandon the name "Alaya"? If cutting off conceptual afflictions alone were sufficient to abandon it, then Stream-Enterers, who have also cut off conceptual self-view and attachment, should also abandon it. The opponent argues: "Bodhisattvas on the stages possess superior wisdom and already have correct awareness. Therefore, although afflictions arise, they cause no fault. How can they be compared to Stream-Enterers?" The commentator refutes: "Although Bodhisattvas on the stages have cut off conceptual afflictions and do not give rise to views, they can cultivate correct awareness in the sixth consciousness, causing no faults. Yet the innate afflictions in the seventh consciousness remain unsevered, operating spontaneously. How are they not like Stream-Enterers? Therefore, the notion that Bodhisattvas in the first seven stages can be called Arhats is definitely unreasonable." "Abandonment" here means that when the seeds of innate afflictions are completely eliminated, and one no longer grasps the Alaya as a self, then one has realized Arhatship, and this is called "abandonment." It does not mean abandoning the entire eighth consciousness itself. The resultant consciousness of the karmic retribution (vipāka-vijñāna) is not yet emptied and still holds the seeds of innate attachment to phenomena. If these seeds were gone, one would immediately enter Nirvāṇa without remainder. Why wouldn't such a person be called a Buddha, but only an Arhat?
然第八識雖諸有情至心等通故隨義應說。
> Although the Eighth Consciousness operates throughout all sentient beings, because it permeates the mind and mental factors, we should explain it according to its meaning.
次明第八異名。先牒上。正釋捨者。捨名不捨體故。又廣說多名。積集義是心義。集起義是心義。以能集生多種子故。或能熏種。於此識中既能積集。復起諸法。故說此識名為心義。阿陀那者。有三義。一執持。謂能執持諸法種故。二執受。謂能執受色根依處故。三執取。謂能執取結生相續故。所知依三自性者。染淨諸法為識所知。此為彼依。名所知依。或學大眾者所應知故。種子識者。此識因中持新舊漏無漏種子。念念受熏故。果中唯持舊無漏種。不受新熏故。此種子識。與心義別。取第八現名種子故。故古德云。前名心者。望種積集。此種子識。唯望能生故不立也。以上四名。皆通凡聖。阿賴耶者。依自相立名。攝藏雜染為自相故。一切異生謂於聖法不得。名異生性。聲聞有學。七地已下菩薩。皆共此名。三乘無學。無此名故。異熟識者。依果相立名。此是善惡業果位。以善惡業果為因。即招感得此引果故。前世業為因。因是善惡。今世感第八識。是無記。異熟即果。果異於因。故名異熟。又具四義。一實。二常。三徧。四無雜。是名真異熟識。問。第八真異熟識。如何名引果。答。為善惡業為能引。第八為所引。是能引家之果。故名引果。故是總報主。前六識名為滿果。有一分善惡別報來滿故。此滿業所招。名異熟生。非真異熟也。不具四義。唯第八是引果。真異熟識。具四義故。此通異生。二乘無學。十地菩薩。皆有異熟識名。唯除如來。以如來唯善。無無記故。解脫道中。即成無垢識。名阿摩羅。即果中第八識。一純無漏。不攝一切染法種子故。不與雜染種現為所依故。唯與鏡智相應。名無垢識。如契經說下。引如來功德莊嚴經。證無垢識名義。言淨無漏界。漏即垢染。既言無垢識。則有識矣。圓鏡智相應者。明有心王與所相應。非所獨立也。阿賴耶名下。釋成頌意。問云。既第八識有種種名。何故唯說捨阿賴耶。答。以阿賴耶具三蘊義。異生位中。過失重故。最先捨故。此中偏說。過失重者。與雜染法互相攝藏。亦為有情執藏為我。故說此識名阿賴耶。最初捨者。未捨餘名。先捨此故。是故先捨。異熟識體。菩薩金剛道後方捨。無學位中入無餘時捨。無垢識體。無有捨時。若夫心等通一切位者。隨義而說。不必局也。古德云。阿賴耶識。名為藏義。良以真心不守自性。隨熏和合。似一似常。故諸愚者以似為真。取為內我。我見所攝。故名為藏。又能藏自體於諸法中。又能藏諸法於自體內。二種我見永不起位。即失賴耶名。又云。第八識名者。八地已上無阿賴名。唯有異熟識。第七但執異熟識。為法。又第八識本無阿賴耶名。由第七執第八見分為我。令第八得阿賴耶名。若不執時。但名異熟識。第八或名為心者。由種種法積集種子。故名為心。雖受熏持種積集集起義。得名心者。唯自證分也。喻如倉庫。能藏諸物。能持一切種子故。後令種子生起現行。與種子為依持生起二因也。即知第八受熏持種得名心也。因中持新舊種子。故名為心。果位持舊種一切無漏種子。故名心也。此亦名持種心。或名質多。此名有為心。或名牟呼栗多。此云真實心。即是真如。此是無為心。或名阿陀那。此云執持識。能執持種子根身生相續義。即是界趣生義。此通一切位。又廣釋。一集起名心者。即第八識。集諸種子起現行故。言集諸種子者。即色心。人天三界有漏無漏一切諸法種子。皆是他第八識能集。猶如世間人庫藏。言起現行故者。為三界五趣有漏無漏一切色心等現行。皆從第八識生起。即第八識是能集起。一切色心等種子是所集起。今但取能集起名心。今正取第八心王自證分名集起心。相分是色。見分是用。證自證分落後邊故。為自證分。能集諸法種子令不散失。復能起諸種現行功能。從無始來更不間斷。故獨有集起義。即知第八自證分。與識中種子為二因。便是此中集起二義。一為依持因。即是集義。二與力令生起因。即是起義。二積集名心者。亦第八識中持諸三界五趣種子故。第八得名含藏積集。即第八自證分能持舊種故名積。又能集新熏故名集。即知積集集起以解心。第八識獨名心。為正義故。故云。能徧任持世出世間諸法種故。是藏識義。即自證分是能任持能積集。一切種子是所任持所積集。前七名轉識者。轉為改轉。是不定義。即三性。三量。三境。易脫不定。方名轉識。今第八唯是一類無記。又唯性境。唯現量。故名不轉識。又集起名心。亦屬第七轉識。集者為集前七現行。言起者。即前七現行各自有力能熏生新種名起。且如眼識緣色時。必假同時意識共集熏種。餘四識亦爾。問。若明了意識與五同緣所名共集。且如獨頭意識緣十八界時。不與餘識同緣。亦熏起種。何有共集之義。答。由第七為所依。第六方轉熏種。亦名共集。三緣慮名心者。謂能緣慮自分境故。即八箇識名能緣慮自分之境。緣。謂緣持。慮。即思慮。若緣慮以解心。是通名。前五識唯緣五塵。是自分境。除諸根互用。及佛果位。第六識緣十八界及三世法。并一切有漏無漏世出世間法為自分境。第七識緣第八見分為自分境。第八識緣三境為自分境。是頓常緣三境。以第八是常。識境常有故。不同前六識有間斷。所緣境又非常有。其第八正義。若欲界繫者。即緣欲界根身器界為自分境。若種子。即通緣三界為自分境。上二界亦爾。只除無漏種不能緣。以有漏無漏種不相順故。由是但能持而不能緣。以持義通。緣義狹。喻如赤眼人把火。亦如頂上戴物。但持而不緣。只持令不散。不離識故。
> Now we explain the eight consciousness with its different names. First, we refer back to the previous explanation. The proper meaning of "relinquishing" is that we let go of the name, not the essence itself. Furthermore, we discuss many names. The meaning of "mind" (心, \*xīn\*) includes the concepts of accumulation and arising. It accumulates and produces many seeds (potentialities). It can also be perfumed by seeds. This consciousness stores up these seeds and then gives rise to all phenomena. Therefore, it is called the "mind." The term \*\*Ādāna\*\* (阿陀那) has three meanings: 1. \*\*Holding\*\*: It holds onto the seeds of all phenomena. 2. \*\*Receiving\*\*: It receives and supports the material sense organs and their bases. 3. \*\*Grasping\*\*: It grasps the connection of rebirth in the continuous stream of existence. The \*\*"Base of the Known"\*\* (所知依): Defiled and pure phenomena are what this consciousness knows. This consciousness is the basis for those phenomena, so it is called the "Base of the Known." It is also what students of the Great Vehicle should understand. The \*\*"Seed Consciousness"\*\* (種子識): During the causal stage, this consciousness holds both new and old seeds, both defiled and undefiled. It is constantly being perfumed by moments of experience. In the fruition stage, it only holds the old undefiled seeds and is no longer perfumed by new ones. This "Seed Consciousness" is distinguished from the general meaning of "mind." Here we are focusing on the manifestation of the eighth consciousness in the present moment as seeds. Therefore, an ancient master said: "Previously, the name 'mind' referred to it in terms of accumulating seeds. The 'Seed Consciousness' refers only to its potential to generate new seeds; this function is not established separately." These four names (mind, Ādāna, Base of the Known, Seed Consciousness) all apply to both ordinary beings and saints. The term \*\*Ālaya\*\* (阿賴耶) is established based on its own nature (\*svabhāva\*), which is to encompass and store defilements. All ordinary beings (those not yet attained to the holy dharma, \*pṛthagjana\*), Śrāvakas who are still learners (\*śaikṣa\*), and Bodhisattvas below the seventh stage share this name. Those in the third vehicle who are no longer learners (\*aśaikṣa\*) no longer have this name. The \*\*"Maturation Consciousness"\*\* (異熟識, \*vipāka-vijñāna\*) is established based on the fruition aspect. This is the state of the karmic result of good and evil actions. Good and evil karma are the cause, and this consciousness is the effect that is drawn forth by that cause. The karma of a previous life is the cause; the cause is good or evil. In this life, the eighth consciousness that appears is neutral (indeterminate). "Maturation" means the fruit is different from the cause, hence the name. Furthermore, it possesses four characteristics: 1. Real 2. Constant 3. Pervasive 4. Unmixed This is the true "Maturation Consciousness." \*\*Question\*\*: How is the eighth consciousness, the true Maturation Consciousness, called the "drawn-forth fruit" (引果)? \*\*Answer\*\*: Good and evil karma are the forces that draw it forth (\*hetu\*), and the eighth consciousness is what is drawn forth (\*phala\*). It is the fruit of that drawing force, hence the name. Thus, it is the primary retribution body (\*total fruition\*). The first six consciousnesses are called "fulfilling fruits" (\*partial fruition\*), as they have a portion of good and evil specific retribution to complete. Their result, brought about by the "completing karma," is called "maturation-born" (\*vipāka-ja\*), not the true Maturation. It does not possess the four characteristics. Only the eighth consciousness is the "drawn-forth fruit," the true Maturation Consciousness, because it possesses all four characteristics. This name applies to ordinary beings, Śrāvaka adept who are no longer learners, and Bodhisattvas on the ten stages. It is only absent in a Tathāgata, because a Tathāgata is only good, with no neutral indeterminate mind. In the stage of liberation (vimukti-mārga), it becomes the \*\*"Undefiled Consciousness"\*\* (無垢識, \*amala-vijñāna\*). This is the eighth consciousness in its fruition. It is purely undefiled, not containing any seeds of defilement. It no longer serves as the basis for impure seeds and their manifestations. It is solely associated with the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom (\*ādarśa-jñāna\*). This is called the Undefiled Consciousness. As the scripture says... (citing a sutra to prove the name and meaning of the Undefiled Consciousness). It says it is the pure, undefiled realm (\*dhātu\*). "Defilement" is stain. Since it is called the "Undefiled Consciousness," it is conscious. Being "associated with the Perfect Mirror Wisdom" means it has a mind-king (\*citta-rāja\*) that is in correspondence with this wisdom—it is not isolated. Now we clarify the meaning of the verse's statement about relinquishing. \*\*Question\*\*: Since the eighth consciousness has so many names, why does the scripture only speak of relinquishing the Ālaya? \*\*Answer\*\*: Because the Ālaya possesses three aspects of being a storehouse (\*ālaya\*). In the state of ordinary beings, its faults are the heaviest, and it is the first to be relinquished. It is specifically mentioned here for two reasons: 1. \*\*Greatest Fault\*\*: It mutually stores and encompasses defilement with defiled phenomena. It is also grasped by sentient beings as a self. Therefore, this consciousness is called Ālaya. 2. \*\*First to be Relinquished\*\*: Before the other names are relinquished, this one is let go first. Therefore, it is the first to be abandoned. The body of the Maturation Consciousness is relinquished by a Bodhisattva only after the Vajra-like Samādhi (just before Buddhahood). It is relinquished by those in the stage of no-more-learning (\*aśaikṣa\*) when they enter Nirvāṇa without remainder (\*anupadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa\*). The body of the Undefiled Consciousness is never relinquished. As for the name "mind" and others, because they apply to all stages, you explain them according to the meaning; there is no need to be rigid. An ancient master said: The Ālaya Consciousness is named "storehouse." Because the true mind does not abide in its own nature; being perfumed, it congeals, appearing as if one and constant. Therefore, foolish people take this appearance as reality, grasp it as an inner self, and are seized by self-view. Hence, it is called the "storehouse." It can also store itself within phenomena, and can store phenomena within itself. When the two kinds of self-grasping never arise, the name Ālaya is lost. Furthermore, regarding the names of the eighth consciousness: From the eighth stage onward, there is no Ālaya name, only the Maturation Consciousness. The seventh consciousness then only grasps the Maturation Consciousness as a dharma (a real thing). Also, fundamentally, the eighth consciousness has no name "Ālaya." It is the grasping by the seventh consciousness of the eighth's seeing-part (\*darśana-bhāga\*) as a self that gives the eighth the name Ālaya. When this grasping ceases, it is simply the Maturation Consciousness. Sometimes the eighth consciousness is called "mind" (\*citta\*) because it accumulates seeds of various dharmas. Although it has the functions of receiving perfuming, holding seeds, accumulation, and arising, it is its self-verification part (\*svasamvitti-bhāga\*) that earnestly possesses these functions. It is like a warehouse that can store objects. It can hold all seeds. Afterwards, it causes the seeds to generate their manifest activity (\*pravṛtti\*). It acts as both the sustaining and generating cause for the seeds. Thus, we know that the eighth consciousness earning the name "mind" is due to its receiving perfuming and holding seeds. During the causal stage, it holds new and old seeds—hence the name "mind." During the fruition stage, it holds the old, undefiled seeds of everything—hence the name "mind." This is also called the \*\*"Seed-Holding Mind"\*\* (持種心) or \*\*Citta\*\* (質多, a Sanskrit loanword). This is the conditioned mind. Alternatively, it is called \*\*Muhūrt\*\* (牟呼栗多), which means the \*\*"True Mind"\*\* (真實心), which is the ultimate reality (\*tathatā\*). This is the unconditioned mind. Or it is called \*\*Ādāna\*\*, which means the "Grasping Consciousness," the basis for the continuity of holding seeds, bodies, and rebirth. Further explanation: 1. \*\*"Collecting-Arising" Mind\*\* (集起名心): This refers to the eighth consciousness, which collects seeds and causes them to manifest. "Collecting seeds" means the seeds of all forms and minds, of the three realms, the five destinies, and defiled and pure phenomena are all collected by this eighth consciousness, like a storehouse. "Arising manifestations" means that all manifest forms and minds in the three realms and five destinies, defiled and pure, arise from the eighth consciousness. So the eighth is the "collector-and-arisor," and all the seeds are the "collected-and-arisen." We are now taking the "collection-and-arising" function itself as the definition of "mind." Here, we focus on the \*self-verification part\* of the eighth mind-king as the "Collection-Arising Mind." The objective part (\*nimitta-bhāga\*) is form. The seeing part (\*darśana-bhāga\*) is function. The verification-of-verification part falls behind. The self-verification part can collect the seeds of all dharmas so they are not lost, and can generate the function of manifestations from seeds, uninterruptedly since beginningless time. Therefore, it alone has this "collection-and-arising" meaning. Thus, the self-verification part of the eighth serves as two causes for the seeds within this consciousness: \* \*Sustaining cause\*: The meaning of "collection." \* \*Generating cause\*: The meaning of "arising." 2. \*\*"Accumulation" Mind\*\* (積集名心): Also the eighth consciousness, holding the seeds of all three realms and five destinies. The eighth is called "containing and accumulating." The self-verification part of the eighth holds old seeds (accumulation) and gathers new perfumings (collection). Thus, we know that the "mind" understood as accumulation and collection is the correct meaning for the eighth alone. This is why the text says: "It is able to universally uphold the seeds of all worldly and transcendental dharmas." This is the meaning of the Storehouse Consciousness (\*ālaya-vijñāna\*). The self-verification part is the upholder and collector. All the seeds are the upheld and collected. The first seven consciousnesses are called \*\*"Changing Consciousnesses"\*\* (轉識, \*pravṛtti-vijñāna\*). "Change" (\*vṛtti\*) implies transformation and is an unstable definition. They are subject to change among the three natures (good, bad, neutral), the three modes of perception, and the three types of objects. They are easily swayed and unfixed. Hence, they are called "changing consciousnesses." The eighth is only of one type, the neutral, and it only perceives the actual nature of objects through direct perception. Thus, it is the "unchanging consciousness." Also, "collection-arising" mind can belong to the seventh consciousness. But in that case, "collection" refers to the collective manifest activities of the first seven, and "arising" refers to those seven manifest activities themselves having the power to perfume and generate new seeds. For instance, when the eye-consciousness sees a form, it must rely on the simultaneously operating mind-consciousness to collectively perfume and produce seeds. The other four consciousnesses do likewise. \*\*Question\*\*: When the distinct mind-consciousness (独头意识) perceives the eighteen realms (all phenomena) without the other consciousnesses co-arising, doesn't it also perfume and produce seeds? Where is the collective principle then? \*\*Answer\*\*: It relies on the seventh consciousness as its support, and only then does the sixth transform into its perfuming activity. So even this is called "collective perfuming." 3. \*\*"Thinking-and-Perception" Mind\*\* (緣慮名心): This means the ability to perceive and reflect on one's own sphere (\*viṣaya\*). All eight consciousnesses have this ability. "Perception" means to hold or sustain. "Thinking" means reflection or consideration. If we define "mind" as perceiving and thinking, it is a general term for all consciousness. The first five only perceive the five sense-objects—their own sphere—except when the faculties interrelate, or in the buddha stage. The sixth consciousness perceives the eighteen realms, phenomena of the three times, and all conditioned and unconditioned, worldly and transcendental phenomena as its sphere. The seventh perceives the seeing part of the eighth as its sphere. The eighth perceives three types of objects (\*maṇḍala\*) as its sphere. The eighth constantly perceives these three objects all at once. Because the eighth is constant, its perceived objects are also always present. This is different from the first six consciousnesses which have interruptions and their objects which are not always present. The correct meaning of the eighth: if it is tied to the desire realm, its sphere is the body and objects of that realm. Regarding seeds, it perceives the seeds of all three realms as its sphere. The same applies to the upper two realms. It only cannot perceive undefiled or seeds because there is no compatibility between defiled and undefiled seeds. Therefore, it can only \*hold\* them but not \*perceive\* them. The meaning of "holding" is broad; the meaning of "perceiving" is narrow. It is like a person with red eyes holding a fire, or something carried on the head—one just holds it without examining it. It simply holds them.
然第八識總有二位至鏡智遍緣一切法故。
> However, the Eighth Consciousness has two distinct stages until mirror-like wisdom fully perceives all phenomena.
又因前說七名。約為二位。一約因位。為有漏位性唯無起。相應唯五心所。境但有三。以執受中是種子根身二境。處是器界一境。二約果位。為無漏位性唯是善。相應心所增十六數。徧行合別境五。善十一。合二十有一。與一切心恒相應故。既云一切。即通漏無漏。故亦有五徧行。常樂證知所觀境故。與欲相應。於所觀境恒印持故。與勝解相應。於曾習境恒明記故。與念相應。世尊無有不定心故。與定相應。於一切法常決擇故。與慧相應。極淨信等常相應故。與善十一法相應。無染污故。不與根隨二十六所相應。無散動故。不與不定四所相應。因果位中皆唯捨受。故云此亦唯與捨受相應。問。因中非善非惡。得與捨受相應。今果中既與善所相應。何故相應唯與捨受。答。佛果位中。雖行一切善。若空谷答響。春工肖物。平等轉故。無著心故。得與捨受相應。問。若爾。何故因中唯與徧行相應。果上復加別境善十一。答。因中唯緣三類性境。故唯五所。果上能緣一切境。故與別境善十一相應。以大圓鏡智無法不照。無法不現故。
> Further, based on the seven names described earlier, they can be grouped into two stages. \*\*First, the causal stage:\*\* This is the stage of affliction. Its nature is neutral and without active production. It is associated with only five mental factors and perceives only three objects. Among these, the objects of "grasping" are seeds and the physical body, while the object of "place" is the external world. \*\*Second, the resultant stage:\*\* This is the stage beyond affliction. Its nature is exclusively wholesome. The number of associated mental factors increases by sixteen: the five universal factors, the five determining factors, and the eleven wholesome factors, making a total of twenty-one. Since it is said to be "associated with all minds," this applies to both the afflicted and unafflicted states. Thus, the five universal factors are always present. Because the mind continually delights in realizing and verifying the observed object, it is associated with \*\*desire\*\*. Because it constantly affirms and sustains the observed object, it is associated with \*\*resolve\*\*. Because it always clearly remembers past experiences, it is associated with \*\*mindfulness\*\*. Because the Buddha never has an unsteady mind, it is associated with \*\*concentration\*\*. Because it constantly discriminates all phenomena, it is associated with \*\*wisdom\*\*. Because it is always linked with supreme purity, faith, and so on, it is associated with the \*\*eleven wholesome factors\*\*. Since there is no defilement, it is \*\*not\*\* associated with the twenty-six secondary afflictions. Since there is no agitation, it is \*\*not\*\* associated with the four indeterminate factors. In both the causal and resultant stages, it is exclusively associated with \*\*equanimity\*\*. Therefore, it is said that this mind is only associated with the feeling of equanimity. \*\*Question:\*\* In the causal stage, since it is neither wholesome nor unwholesome, it can be associated with equanimity. But in the resultant stage, since it is associated with wholesome factors, why is it still only associated with equanimity? \*\*Answer:\*\* In the stage of Buddhahood, although all wholesome actions are performed, they are like echoes in an empty valley or like spring effortlessly creating forms. Because they arise with perfect \*\*equality\*\* and without \*\*attachment\*\*, they remain associated with equanimity. \*\*Question:\*\* If so, why is the causal stage only associated with the five universal factors, while the resultant stage adds the five determining and eleven wholesome factors? \*\*Answer:\*\* In the causal stage, the mind only perceives three types of true objects, so it is only associated with the five universal factors. In the resultant stage, it can perceive all objects, so it is associated with the five determining and eleven wholesome factors. This is because the \*\*Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom\*\* illuminates all phenomena without exception and manifests them all without omission.
云何應知此第八識至離第八識皆不得有。
> How should one understand that this eighth consciousnessarrives at is absent—apart from the eighth consciousness, none of it can exist.
三證有本識分五。一總問。二總答。三引聖教。四顯正理。五總結。云何應知此第八識離眼等識有別自體。總問也。聖教正理為定量故。總答也。此第八識。非是世間現量所見之境。唯憑聖言量。及以真正道理。而知有之。謂有大乘下。引聖教。分為六段。今初。阿毗達磨。此云無比法。引此經有二頌。初頌以能持種生現義。言無始時來界。以能變為身器執受根身與一切法為增上緣依義。言一切法等依。以與有漏流轉法為依持用故。言由此有諸趣。以與無漏還滅法為依持用故。言及涅槃證得。為此識自性。微細難知。故以因緣依持之作用而顯示之。先以因緣用顯此識。界是因義。此釋初句。為第八識從無始至今。能持一切漏無漏色心等諸法種子。又能與漏無漏種子力令生現行。即第八與一切種子為依持生起二因。故名為因。依是緣義。此釋次句。為第八識能變為身器作有情依。與一切漏無漏現行法而為所依。以能執受五色根身。與前七識現為俱有依故。即第八識能與一切現行色心等法為增上緣依也。然所以為因者。謂能執持諸種子故。所以為緣者。與現行法為所依故。具此二義。故能變為彼。及為彼依。云何變。云何依。謂變器界為根身依。變根身為五識依。變第七為第六依。故曰即變為彼及為彼依也。且小乘不信有末那。復立量以示之。立量云。末那意識依俱有根。轉識攝故。如眼等識。末那意識。同是轉識。既同前五有俱有根。第八理應是識性故。亦應第七作所依根。前七依八。第八為因。前七為緣。八依第七。第七為因。第八為緣。是故第八有因緣用。次以依持用顯此識。由有下。釋第三句。順流轉法。即有漏位中善惡法也。由第八識持善惡種。起現受熏。故令有情流轉生死。然惑業生。皆是流轉。而獨言趣者。以趣是果。苦樂顯勝。故偏說也。或諸趣言。雙通能所。以惑業是趣之資糧。器具為能趣。亦得趣名。諸惑下。結。及涅槃下。釋第四句。言順還滅法者。即一切無漏善法也。有說此證得涅槃。是說能證得道之人。不說所證涅槃。以涅槃法依無垢識。不依藏識故。或此但說所證。是脩行者尅期求證故。有義雙說。就能證之道言還。就所證之滅言滅。故雙說為正也。頌言涅槃。即顯所證之滅。頌言證得。即顯能證之道。由能下。結。又此頌中下。重釋頌意。界是自性義。初句是顯自性恒有。次句顯無始來有此識性。能與一切染淨法為總依止。後二句顯染淨別依止。此以後三分總別。或以後三分三性。第二句是依它起。第三句是徧計執。第四句是圓成實。今此下。總結。以上所說義。若無第八識。皆不得成。
> Threefold proof of the fundamental consciousness is divided into five parts: 1) General question, 2) General answer, 3) Citing scriptural authority, 4) Demonstrating correct reasoning, 5) Summary. How should one know that this eighth consciousness, apart from the eye-consciousness and other consciousnesses, has its own distinct essence? This is the general question. It is known through the definitive measure of scriptural authority and correct reasoning. This is the general answer. This eighth consciousness is not an object perceived through direct sensory experience in the ordinary world. It is known only by relying on scriptural authority and genuine reasoning. The section beginning with "Thus, in the Mahayana..." cites scriptural authority, divided into six parts. This is the first part. "The Abhidharma" — this means the peerless Dharma. Two verses are quoted from this scripture. The first verse shows the meaning that it can hold seeds and give rise to manifestations: "Since beginningless time, the seed-realm" expresses how it transforms into the body and its support, grasps and receives the sense faculties and body, and serves as the predominant condition and support for all phenomena. "All phenomena depend on it" expresses how it serves as the support for the flowing, conditioned phenomena of samsara — hence "through this, the various realms exist" — and as the support for the unconditioned, ceasing, nirvana-oriented phenomena — hence "and the attainment of nirvana is realized." Since this consciousness's own nature is subtle and difficult to know, it is revealed through its functions as a cause and support condition. First, its causal function reveals this consciousness. "Realm" means the cause — this explains the first line. From beginningless time to the present, the eighth consciousness can hold all the seeds of conditioned and unconditioned form and mind, and also gives power to conditioned and unconditioned seeds to produce their manifest activities. That is, the eighth consciousness serves as the cause of both support and arising for all seeds — therefore it is called "cause." "Support" means a condition — this explains the second line. The eighth consciousness can transform into the body and environment to serve as a support for sentient beings, and serves as the basis for all conditioned and unconditioned manifest phenomena. Because it grasps and receives the five material sense faculties, it becomes the coexisting support for the first seven consciousnesses. That is, the eighth consciousness can serve as the predominant condition and support for all manifest phenomena of form and mind. The reason it functions as a cause is that it can hold all seeds. The reason it functions as a condition is that it serves as the support for manifest phenomena. Possessing these two meanings, it can transform into them and serve as their support. How does it transform, and how does it support? It transforms into the material world as the support for the body, transforms into the body as the support for the five consciousnesses, transforms the seventh consciousness as the support for the sixth consciousness. Thus it is said: "It transforms into them and serves as their support." Moreover, since the Hinayana does not believe in the existence of the manas, a logical formulation is presented to demonstrate it: The manas and the mental consciousness rely on a coexisting root. Because they are included within the transforming consciousnesses, like the eye-consciousness and others. The manas and the mental consciousness, being transforming consciousnesses like the first five, also have a coexisting root. The eighth consciousness, being of the nature of consciousness, should logically also serve as the root support for the seventh consciousness. The first seven consciousnesses rely on the eighth; the eighth is their cause, the first seven are its conditions. The eighth relies on the seventh; the seventh is its cause, the eighth is its condition. Therefore, the eighth consciousness has both causal and conditional functions. Next, its function of being a support reveals this consciousness. "Through this, the various realms exist" — this explains the third line. The flowing, conditioned phenomena refer to the virtuous and non-virtuous phenomena within the conditioned realm. Because the eighth consciousness holds virtuous and non-virtuous seeds, it activates manifestations and receives new perfuming, causing sentient beings to cycle through birth and death. Although afflictions, karma, and rebirth are all part of this cycle, "realms" are specifically mentioned because realms are the result, and pleasure and pain prominently manifest — hence this one-sided emphasis. Alternatively, the term "realms" may encompass both cause and effect, since afflictions and karma are the conditions for the realms, and the bodies and environment are the agents that enter the realms, thus they too are called "realms." The line concludes with the phrase, "All afflictions..." "And the attainment of nirvana" — this explains the fourth line. The ceasing, unconditioned phenomena refer to all pure, unconditioned virtuous phenomena. Some say this attainment of nirvana refers to the person who attains the path leading to nirvana, not the nirvana that is attained, because nirvana relies on the stainless consciousness, not the storehouse consciousness. Alternatively, it may refer only to the attained goal, as practitioners strive to realize it. Another interpretation includes both: from the perspective of the path that leads to cessation, it is "returning" (the path), and from the perspective of the cessation that is attained, it is "ceasing." Therefore, the inclusive interpretation is correct. "Nirvana" in the verse indicates the cessation that is attained, and "attainment" in the verse indicates the path that realizes it. "Through this" concludes... Furthermore, "In this verse..." — this re-explains the meaning of the verse. "Realm" means nature. The first line shows that this nature has always existed. The second line shows that from beginningless time, this consciousness-nature has served as the total support for all impure and pure phenomena. The latter two lines show that it serves as the specific support for what is impure and pure. This can be understood either as the latter three lines explaining the general versus specific, or as the latter three lines explaining the three natures: the second line indicates dependent arising, the third line indicates conceptual imputation, and the fourth line indicates perfect reality. "This is because" — concludes. All the meanings explained above would be impossible without the eighth consciousness.
即彼經中復作是說至非諸轉識有如是義。
> Furthermore, the sutra saysFurtherthat none of the consciousness-based perceptions have such a meaning.
此即前經第二頌。前三句。顯第八識含藏諸法種子。得阿賴耶名。第四句。顯為菩薩乘說。得真見道。方名勝者。由第八識自證分能持種故。名種子識。以能攝藏諸雜染法故。名阿賴耶。此第八識。非如數論勝性轉為大等之說。相雖轉變。而體是一。果雖生滅。而因常一也。阿賴耶識含藏法種。從種生現。從現生種。因果二體。非即是一。以種屬第八。現行屬前七。故能依諸法與所依識。俱生俱滅。非即是異。以因滅果生。果生因滅故。故異邪執。能顯正理。與雜下。約三藏釋。解見前文。已入下。次釋第四生。便繫屬彼故。亦如磁毛石吸鐵。鐵如父母精血二點。第八識如磁毛石。一剎那間便攬而住。同時根塵等種。從自識中亦生現行。名為執取結生故。雜集論云。相續力者。有九種命終心。與自體愛相應。於三界中各令欲色無色界生相續。謂從欲界沒。還生欲界者。即以欲界自體愛相應命終心結生相續。若生色無色界者。即以色無色界自體愛相應命終心結生相續。如是從色無色界沒。若即生彼。若生餘處。有六種心。如其所應盡當知。又此自體愛。唯是俱生。不了所緣境。有覆無記性攝。而能分別我自體生差別境界。由此勢力。諸異生輩今無間中有相續。未離欲聖者亦爾。臨命終時。乃至未至不明了想位。其中能起此愛現行。然能了別。以對治力之所攝伏。已離欲聖者。對治力強故。雖未永斷。然此愛不復現行。彼由隨眠勢力令生。相續。中有初相續剎那。唯無覆無記。以是異熟攝故。從此已後。或善。或不善。或無記。隨其所應。除彼沒心。以中有沒心。常是染污。猶如死有。生有相續心剎那。亦唯無覆無記。若諸菩薩願力受生者。命終等心。當知一切一向是善。由此執持三義故。名句。得真現觀者。現觀有六。謂思。信。戒。智諦。邊智諦。究竟現觀。地前名似。地上名真。即菩薩見道後所起根本後得智也。得此智已。能證能解阿賴耶識。方名勝者。世尊正為彼說此識。或地前亦名勝者。資糧位中已能信解唯識性相。發起最勝猛利樂欲。希求見道轉依。世尊亦為彼說。非轉識等有如是義。結顯頌中唯詮第八。
> This corresponds to the third through fifth sections of the previous sutra's second verse. The first three lines show that the Eighth Consciousness contains the seeds of all phenomena, thus earning the name Alaya. The fourth line indicates this teaching is given for Bodhisattvas; only those who achieve true insight are called "noble ones." Because the self-validating aspect of the Eighth Consciousness can hold seeds, it is called the Seed Consciousness. Because it can store and contain all defiled phenomena, it is called Alaya. This Eighth Consciousness is not like the Samkhya school's theory of a primordial substance transforming into the elements, etc. Although its appearances transform, its substance is one. Although effects arise and cease, the cause remains constant. The Alaya consciousness contains the seeds of all phenomena. From seeds arise manifestations; from manifestations arise seeds. Cause and effect are not identical: seeds belong to the Eighth Consciousness, while manifestations belong to the first seven. Thus, the dependent phenomena and the supporting consciousness arise and cease together, yet they are not the same—because when cause ends, effect arises; when effect arises, cause ends. Therefore, this view differs from wrong views and can reveal true principles. "With defiled..." The next section explains the three meanings of "storehouse." See the previous text for explanation. "Having already entered..." Next, section four explains rebirth. "Becoming attached to that" means that just as a magnet attracts iron—where iron represents the parents' essence and the Eighth Consciousness represents the magnet—in an instant it grasps and abides. At the same time, the seeds of sense organs and objects arise as manifestations from their own consciousness. This is called the grasping that forms rebirth. The \*Compendium of Miscellaneous Discussions\* says: Regarding the power of continuity, there are nine types of death-mind that correspond to self-love. In each of the three realms, this causes continuity in the realm of desire, form, or formlessness. Specifically: One who dies in the desire realm and is reborn there forms the continuum through the death-mind accompanied by desire-realm self-love. One who is born in the form or formless realm likewise forms the continuum through the death-mind accompanied by that realm's self-love. Similarly, one who dies in the form or formless realm (whether reborn there or elsewhere) has six types of death-mind—these should be understood accordingly. Furthermore, this self-love is only co-arisen (innate); it does not fully understand its object. It belongs to the category of obscured unwholesome-neutral consciousness. It can discriminate the self-substance and the various realms. Through this force, unenlightened beings produce an unbroken intermediate state. Saints who have not yet abandoned desire also do this. At the time of death, until they reach the state of unclear perception, this love can manifest. However, they can discriminate because it is suppressed by the force of antidotes. For saints who have abandoned desire, the antidotal force is strong; although this love is not yet completely eradicated, it no longer manifests. They are led by the latent force to continue rebirth. The initial moment of the intermediate state's continuum is neutral-unobscured, being the ripened-result type. After this, it may be wholesome, unwholesome, or neutral, as appropriate—except for the death-mind itself, because the death-mind of the intermediate state is always defiled (like the death-mind proper). The rebirth-mind's initial continuum moment is also neutral-unobscured. For Bodhisattvas who choose to be born through vows, know that their death-mind, etc., is always wholesome. Because of these three meanings, the concepts of "grasping," "holding," and "forming the continuum" are established. "Those who have attained true insight" refers to the six kinds of insight: the insight of reflection, faith, morality, truth-wisdom, subsequent wisdom of truths, and ultimate insight. Before the stage of realization, it is called "similar"; after, it is called "true." This is the wisdom (both fundamental and subsequent) arising after a Bodhisattva's path of seeing. Having attained this wisdom, one can directly realize and understand the Alaya consciousness, thus becoming a "noble one." The World-Honored One taught this consciousness specifically for them. Alternatively, those before the stage of realization can also be called "noble ones." In the stage of merit accumulation, they can already believe and understand the nature and characteristics of consciousness-only, arousing the most supreme and intense aspiration, seeking the path of seeing and transformation. The World-Honored One also taught this consciousness for them. The transforming consciousnesses and others do not have such meanings. Conclusion: The verse only explains the Eighth Consciousness.
解深密經亦作是說至唯第八識有如是相。
> The \*Scripture of the Unraveling of the Profound\* (Sandhinirmocana Sūtra) also states: Only the eighth consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna) possesses such characteristics.
此第三解深密經偈。阿陀那者。此云執持。執持有三。一執持諸法種子。令不散失。二執持色根及根依處即身即浮塵根令不爛壞。三執取結生相續者。即有情於中有身臨末位第八識初一念受生時。有執取結生相續義。結者。繫也。屬也。於母腹中一念受此識為阿陀那。言無性者。不信第八為諸法自性故。若無第八。即無佛性。故名無性闡提也。西天外道。由不信此識為諸法本。或執冥性。或執大有性。或執常性。或執斷性。為此漂蕩令不出離。故不能窮其底。故名甚深。趣寂聲聞。不達其相。計六識三毒為諸法本。為此沉溺而不覺知。故不能通達。故曰甚細。是一切法真實種子下。釋第二句。緣擊便生者。如眼識九緣生等。經云。廣慧。阿陀那識為依止為建立故。六識身轉。謂眼識。耳。鼻。舌。身。意識。此中有識。眼及色為緣。生眼識。與眼識俱隨行。同時同境有分別意識轉。有識耳鼻舌身及聲香味觸為緣。生耳鼻舌身識。與耳鼻舌身識俱隨行。同時同境有分別意識轉。廣慧。若於爾時一眼識轉。即於此時唯有一分別意識與眼識同所行轉。若於爾時二三四五諸識身轉。即於此時唯有一分別意識與五識身同所行轉。廣慧。譬如大暴水流。若有一浪生緣現前。唯一浪轉。若二若多浪生緣現前。有多浪轉。然此暴水自類恒流。無斷無盡。又如善淨鏡面。若有一影生緣現前。唯一影起。若二若多影生緣現前。有多影起。非此鏡面轉變為影。亦無受用減盡可得。如是廣慧。由似暴流阿陀那識為依止為建立故。若於爾時有一眼識生緣現前。即於此時一眼識轉。若於爾時乃至有五識身生緣現前。即於此時五識身轉。凡即無性下。釋後二句頌。凡愚對前勝者說。無性云。懷我見者。不為開示。恐彼分別計執為我。何容彼類分別彼類。分別計執窮生死際行相一類無改易故。唯第八識有如是相。總結頌意唯詮八識。
> This is the third verse of the \*Sandhinirmocana Sutra\*. "Adana-consciousness" means "holding and sustaining." This holding and sustaining has three aspects: 1. Holding and sustaining the seeds of all phenomena, preventing them from scattering and being lost. 2. Holding and sustaining the physical sense organs and their bases (i.e., the body, the physical sense faculties), keeping them from decaying. 3. Grasping and binding the continuity of rebirth. This refers to how, at the final moment of the intermediate state (bardo), the first thought of the eighth consciousness enters the womb. It has the function of grasping, binding, and connecting the continuity of future existence. "Binding" means attaching and connecting. At the moment of conception in the mother’s womb, this consciousness is called Adana-consciousness. As for the line "those without nature": it refers to those who do not believe that the eighth consciousness is the true nature of all phenomena. Without the eighth consciousness, there is no Buddha-nature, so such beings are called "icchantikas without nature." The non-Buddhist sects of India did not believe that this consciousness is the root of all phenomena. Some held to the theory of a primal substance, some to the theory of a great existent nature, some to permanence, some to annihilation. Because of these views, they drifted aimlessly and could not attain liberation. Thus, they were unable to reach the depths of this consciousness, which is why it is called "extremely profound." Hinayana followers who seek only their own nirvana do not understand its nature. They consider the six consciousnesses and the three poisons to be the root of all phenomena. Deluded by this, they sink and remain unaware. Thus, they cannot penetrate it, which is why it is called "extremely subtle." The line "It is the true seed of all phenomena" explains the second clause. "Arising when conditions strike" means that, for example, eye-consciousness arises when nine conditions are present. The Sutra says: "Guang Hui! With Adana-consciousness as the basis and foundation, the six consciousnesses arise. They are: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness. Here, with consciousness, the eye, and form as conditions, eye-consciousness arises. Along with eye-consciousness, there operates a discriminating mind-consciousness, simultaneous with it and perceiving the same object. Similarly, with consciousness, the ear, nose, tongue, body, and sounds, smells, tastes, and tangible objects as conditions, ear-, nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousness arise. Along with each of them, there operates a discriminating mind-consciousness, simultaneous with them and perceiving the same object." "Guang Hui! If, at a certain moment, only one consciousness (say, eye-consciousness) is active, then at that time there is only one discriminating mind-consciousness operating along with that eye-consciousness, perceiving the same object. If, at a certain moment, two, three, four, or five consciousnesses are active, then at that time there is only one discriminating mind-consciousness operating along with all those five consciousnesses, perceiving the same objects." "Guang Hui! For example, consider a great flood of water. If conditions produce one wave, only one wave appears. If conditions produce two or more waves, many waves appear. Yet the flood itself flows continuously as one kind, without end or exhaustion. Similarly, consider a perfectly clean mirror surface. If conditions produce one image, only one image appears. If conditions produce two or more images, many images appear. Yet the mirror surface does not change into the images, nor does any reflective power become depleted or lost." "Thus, Guang Hui, with Adana-consciousness—which flows like a flood—as the basis and foundation, if at one time conditions for the arising of eye-consciousness are present, then at that time one eye-consciousness functions. If at another time conditions for the arising of up to five consciousnesses are present, then at that time five consciousnesses function." The lines "Ordinary people and those without nature..." explain the final two lines of the verse. "Ordinary and foolish" are contrasted with "superior beings." The Master Asanga says: "Do not reveal this teaching to those who cling to a self, fearing that they will discriminate and grasp it as a self. How could such beings be capable of understanding this type of consciousness? They would discriminate and grasp, thinking, 'This consciousness has a nature that continues throughout the endless cycle of birth and death, remaining one kind, unchanging.' Only the eighth consciousness has such characteristics." This concludes the meaning of the verse, which exclusively explains the eight consciousnesses.
入楞伽經亦作是說至如增壹等至教量攝。
> The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra also states this. As for teachings such as those in the Ekottara Āgama, they are included within the scope of authoritative scriptures.
四引入楞伽經頌。即牒上意而言。第八如海。外境界風飄動心海。恒起種種轉識波浪。然則波相有間斷。海水常相續。轉識有間斷。第八恒相續。故知別有如海藏識也。以眼等識。轉易間斷。不能為作諸識依止。無如大海恒相續轉起識浪義故。此等無量大乘經中下。總顯聖教量散見不一。何止前來所引數偈。諸大乘經。皆順無我而違我執。避流轉而趨還滅。讚三寶而訶外道。表五蘊十二處十八界。而遮二十五諦六句義等。是大乘法。理無顛倒。樂大乘者。方許開示。不但大乘。如小乘部中增一等經。皆至教量攝。亦密言說此名阿賴耶。詳見下文。為小乘不信有阿賴耶。故委曲開導如此。立量云。諸大乘經。至教量攝。契經攝故。如增一等。
> Fourth, the verses from the \*Lankavatara Sutra\* describe this: The Eighth Consciousness is like the ocean. When the wind of external objects blows across the mind-ocean, it constantly stirs up various waves of the active consciousnesses. Though the waves appear and disappear, the ocean water flows continuously. Similarly, the active consciousnesses have interruptions, but the Eighth Consciousness flows without cease. Thus, we know there is a distinct "storehouse consciousness" like the ocean. The eye-consciousness and other consciousnesses shift and are interrupted—they cannot serve as the foundation for all consciousnesses. They lack the nature of the ocean, which continuously flows and gives rise to waves of consciousness. In the passage beginning "These countless Mahayana scriptures..." there follows a general demonstration that the authority of sacred teachings is seen scattered throughout, not limited to just the few verses cited earlier. All Mahayana teachings align with "no-self" and oppose attachment to self; they move away from samsara toward liberation; they praise the Three Jewels and criticize non-Buddhist paths; they explain the five aggregates, twelve sense spheres, and eighteen elements, while refuting the twenty-five truths and six categories of logic. This is the Mahayana Dharma—a teaching free from delusion. It should only be taught to those who delight in the Mahayana. Moreover, it's not only Mahayana texts. Even among the Hinayana scriptures, such as the \*Anguttara Nikaya\*, all are included in authoritative teachings. They also implicitly refer to this as "Alaya-consciousness," as will be detailed below. Because Hinayana followers do not believe in the Alaya-consciousness, such elaborate guidance is given. A logical inference is established: All Mahayana scriptures are included in the authoritative teachings because they are \*sutras\* (scriptures) themselves, just like the \*Anguttara Nikaya\* and others.
又聖慈氏以七種因至極成有無有對治異文故。
> Furthermore, the Holy Maitreya uses seven reasons to thoroughly establish what exists and what does not, including whether something has an opposite and whether different texts apply.
五引慈氏七因。既引現在釋迦。又引未來慈氏以證大乘是佛所說。一先不記者。謂小乘人說大乘經不是佛說。佛滅度後。有餘人。為壞小乘正法故。說此大乘。慈氏破云。何故世尊先不授記。言諸可怖事者。佛於經中。說末法世時。有諸魔王。入我法中。著我袈裟。破我正法。法必盡滅。諸如是等。佛先授記。若大乘經是佛滅後壞法者說。何故不同諸可怖事預先記別。二本俱行者。大乘小乘。被二等機。本俱流行。機既有二。乘何唯一。何許小乘是佛所說。獨言大乘不是佛語。三非餘境者。謂大乘教。唯大根器智慧人知。非餘人境界。故不為彼說。說亦不信。四應極成者。今佛餘佛。同一佛故。若謂大乘是餘佛說。非今本師釋迦佛說。則大乘經是佛所說。其理極成。無容異議。五有無有者。若許有大乘。應信此經是佛所說。離此等經。別求大乘不可得故。若無大乘。小乘亦無。所以者何。以離大乘。無成佛理。誰出于世。說大小乘。故許小乘是佛所說。非大乘教。理不應然。六能對治者。智有二。曰如理如量。曰根本後得。曰一切道種。如理。根本。道種。即無分別智。如量。後得。一切。即有分別智。無分別智。不依於心。不緣外境。了一切法皆是真如。境智無異。故依大乘勤修行者。乃能引得此智。此時起時。乃能正對治根隨煩惱。非佛所說。其孰能之。七義異文者。大乘所說。理趣幽深。淺涉其文。未了其義。遽生誹謗。謂非佛語。此則愚者之咎耳。莊嚴論有頌。即頌此七義。先不記。是第一因。俱行。是第二因。非餘所行境。是第三因。極成。是第四因。有無有。是第五因。對治。是第六因。異文故。是第七因。
> \*\*The Seven Reasons from Maitreya\*\* Since the present Shakyamuni Buddha is cited as evidence, let us also consider the future Maitreya Buddha to establish that the Mahayana scriptures are truly the Buddha's teaching. \*\*1. No Prior Prophecy.\*\* The followers of the Lesser Vehicle claim that the Mahayana scriptures are not the Buddha's word and that, after the Buddha's passing, others composed these teachings to destroy the Lesser Vehicle's true Dharma. Maitreya refutes this: Why did the World-Honored One not predict this beforehand? Regarding "all fearful events," the Buddha stated in the sutras that during the final age of the Dharma, many demon-kings would enter his teachings, wear his robes, and destroy his true Dharma, which would eventually vanish completely. Such predictions the Buddha made in advance. If the Mahayana scriptures were composed after the Buddha's passing by those who sought to destroy the Dharma, why were they not also predicted among these fearful events? \*\*2. Both Paths Coexist.\*\* Both the Mahayana and the Lesser Vehicle cater to two distinct types of practitioners. Since both paths circulated together and two types of practitioners exist, how can one claim only one vehicle is valid? Why accept the Lesser Vehicle as the Buddha's word while denying the Mahayana? \*\*3. Not the Scope of Others.\*\* The Mahayana teachings are known only by people of great capacity and wisdom, not within the scope of ordinary people. Therefore, the Buddha did not teach them to everyone, as even if taught, they would not believe. \*\*4. Must Be Universally Acknowledged.\*\* The present Buddha and all other Buddhas are essentially the same Buddha. If someone claims the Mahayana was taught by another Buddha, not by our original teacher Shakyamuni, then the Mahayana scriptures are still the word of a Buddha—a truth that must be universally acknowledged without dispute. \*\*5. If It Exists or If It Doesn't.\*\* If one accepts the existence of the Mahayana, one must believe these scriptures are the Buddha's word, for apart from these texts, it is impossible to find the Mahayana elsewhere. If there were no Mahayana, then the Lesser Vehicle would also not exist. Why? Because without the Mahayana, there is no principle for attaining Buddhahood. Who would then appear in the world to teach both the greater and lesser vehicles? Therefore, accepting the Lesser Vehicle as the Buddha's teaching while rejecting the Mahayana is illogical. \*\*6. Ability to Counteract Defilements.\*\* Wisdom has two aspects: "conforming to reality" (fundamental) and "conforming to measure" (subsequent), also called "root wisdom" and "acquired wisdom," or "wisdom of all paths." The wisdom that conforms to reality, which is fundamental and concerns all paths, is non-discriminative wisdom. The wisdom that conforms to measure, which is subsequent and concerns all things, is discriminative wisdom. Non-discriminative wisdom does not rely on the mind nor grasp external objects; it understands that all phenomena are ultimate reality, with no distinction between object and wisdom. Only those who diligently practice according to the Mahayana can attain this wisdom. When this wisdom arises, it can genuinely counteract both root and associated afflictions. If this were not the Buddha's teaching, who else could achieve this? \*\*7. The Difference Between Words and Meaning.\*\* The teachings of the Mahayana are profound and subtle in principle. Those who merely skim the text without understanding its meaning hastily slander it, claiming it is not the Buddha's word. This is the fault of the ignorant. The \*Ornament of the Mahayana Sutras\* contains a verse that summarizes these seven points: "No prior prophecy" is the first reason; "both paths coexist" is the second; "not the scope of others" is the third; "must be universally acknowledged" is the fourth; "if it exists or if it doesn't" is the fifth; "ability to counteract defilements" is the sixth; and "difference between words and meaning" is the seventh.
餘部經中亦密意說至定唯顯此阿賴耶識。
> Other scriptures also imply that this Alaya Consciousness is ultimately the only subject they intend to reveal.
六引小乘四部。密意說者。恐彼分別起執。故暗指而不顯言。今論主標出。皆是此第八識。大眾部。是小乘經中部名。阿笈摩。是大眾部中經名。此經言根本識。即是第八識。言根本者。依此識而生眼識等。如依樹根而有莖有條有葉故。非意識能為眼識等所依止。以不恒故。不能為根。生莖等故。二上座部。說有有分識。便是第八識。此有分識體。常不間斷。徧三界有。故曰三有。分者因義。即三有之因皆由此識。三化地部中說有窮生死蘊。即是第八識蘊有三種。一者一念頃蘊。謂一剎那有生滅法。二者一期生蘊。謂乃至死恒隨轉法。三者窮生死蘊。謂乃至得金剛喻定恒隨轉法緣此第八。徧三界九地恒常有故。但有生死處。即常徧為依。直至大乘金剛心末煩惱盡時方捨。故名窮生死蘊。謂色界無色蘊故。不窮生死。受想滅故。受想不窮生死。不相應行。離此色心不可得故。行蘊不窮生死。然則窮生死蘊。捨第八而誰耶。四一切有部。說此識名阿賴耶。有愛。樂。欣。喜。四種阿賴耶。謂第七末那貪彼第八。總別緣彼為三世境。立此四名。愛是總緣。餘三別緣。謂樂過去我。欣現在我。喜未來我。謂此第七與彼第八有情如此。故認假為真。念念貪著為真愛處。決不執取五蘊為真愛樂。以生苦處者。雖於自蘊極生厭逆。而於自我未甞捨離。故知所厭在蘊。所愛在我。五欲亦非真愛著處。為生初禪者。不愛五欲而愛我故。樂受亦非真愛著處。以脩四禪具靜慮者。雖離妙樂如棄雜毒。然猶愛我。勿令彼樂染汙於我故。身見亦非真愛著處。謂初果以至三果。斷分別惑。身見不生。未盡思惑。猶執內我故。轉識亦非真愛著處。謂脩滅盡定者。雖厭前七。猶執我故。色身亦非真愛著處。無色界中。雖不愛色。亦愛我故。不相應行亦非真愛樂處。無實體故。問云。現見有情愛著諸蘊及樂五欲等。何非愛處。答。是依蘊等愛阿賴耶。非愛蘊也。如人愛著其家以為我家。其家火焚。棄之而走。為愛其身。此亦如是。五取蘊等。俱餘師所執。故歷破之。陳譯攝論云。復有餘師。執是如來說世間喜樂阿棃耶。如前所說。此中有五取陰。說名阿棃耶。復有餘師。執樂受與欲相應。說名阿黎耶。復有餘師。執身見。說名阿黎耶。如此等諸師。迷阿黎耶。由阿含及脩得。是故作如此執。由隨小乘教。及行是師所立義。不中道理。若有人不迷阿黎耶。約小乘名。成立此識。其義最勝。云何最勝。若執取蘊名阿黎耶。於惡趣隨一道中。一向苦受處。於彼受生。此取陰最可惡逆。是取陰中。一向非可愛。眾生喜樂。不應道理。何以故。彼中眾生。恒願取陰斷絕不生。若是樂受與欲相應。從第四定。乃至上界。皆無此受。若人已得此受。由求得上界。則生厭惡。是故眾生。於中喜樂。不稱道理。若是身見。正法內人。信樂無我。非其所愛。於中不生喜樂。此阿棃耶識。眾生心執為自內我。若生一向苦受道中。其願苦陰永滅不起。阿梨耶識我愛所縛。故不曾願樂滅除自我。從第四定以上受生眾生。雖復不樂有欲樂受。於阿梨耶識中。是自我愛隨逐不離。復次正法內人。雖復願樂無我。違逆身見。於阿梨耶識中。亦有自我愛。由此愛著處名。比度諸師執。名義不相稱。若取此名。比度第一。名義相稱。故引彼所立名。成立本識。則為最勝。通上三引聖教竟。
> In the six citations from the four schools of the Lesser Vehicle, the esoteric intent \[of their scriptures\] was to avoid causing listeners to discriminate and cling to views, so they alluded to this consciousness indirectly without explicitly naming it. Now, the treatise's author\[Vasubandhu\] points out that all of these refer to this eighth consciousness. 1. \*\*The Mahāsāṅghika School\*\* is a school of the Lesser Vehicle. The \*Āgama\* is a scripture of this school. This scripture speaks of the "root consciousness," which is the eighth consciousness. It is called "root" because the eye consciousness and others arise dependent on it, just as stems, branches, and leaves arise dependent on a tree's root. It is not that the mental consciousness can serve as the support for the eye consciousness and others, because it is not continuous and cannot function as the root from which stems and so forth arise. 2. \*\*The Sthavira School\*\* (Sarvāstivāda) speaks of the "existence-consciousness" (\*bhavaṅga\*), which is the eighth consciousness. The substance of this existence-consciousness is constant and uninterrupted, pervading the three realms of existence. Therefore, it is called the cause of the three realms. "Existence" refers to the three realms of desire, form, and formlessness. The "cause" means that the cause of these three realms is always this consciousness. 3. \*\*The Mahīśāsaka School\*\* speaks of the "aggregate that lasts until the end of saṃsāra," which is the eighth consciousness. There are three types of aggregates: 1) The aggregate of a single moment, which refers to phenomena that arise and cease in one instant. 2) The aggregate of a single lifetime, which refers to phenomena that continuously accompany one until death. 3) The aggregate lasting until the end of saṃsāra, which refers to phenomena that continuously accompany one until attaining the vajra-like samādhi. This eighth consciousness pervades the three realms and nine stages of existence and is constantly present. It is present wherever there is birth and death, and it constantly and universally serves as the support. It is only abandoned when the afflictions are finally exhausted at the end of the Mahāyāna vajra-like samādhi. Hence it is called the "aggregate that lasts until the end of saṃsāra." Why is it called this? The form aggregate is not present in the formless realm, so it does not last until the end of saṃsāra. Feeling and perception have their moments of cessation, so they do not last. The conditioning factors, apart from form and mind, are not truly real, so the conditioning-factor aggregate does not last. Therefore, the aggregate that lasts until the end of saṃsāra is none other than the eighth consciousness. Who else could it be? 4. \*\*The Sarvāstivāda School\*\* calls this consciousness \*Ālaya\* (Ālaya-vijñāna). There are four types of \*Ālaya\*: attachment, delight, joy, and happiness. The seventh consciousness (manas) is attached to the eighth consciousness. It grasps the eighth as both a whole and as parts, forming the object of past, present, and future experiences, and thus establishes these four names. \* "Attachment" refers to overall grasping. \* The other three refer to specific grasping: attachment to the past self, delight in the present self, and joy in the future self. \* This means the seventh consciousness, in its relationship with the eighth consciousness, clings to it. It mistakes the false for the real and, in every single thought, clings to it as a truly loved object. It will never grasp the five aggregates as objects of true love or delight. Why is this so? For someone born in a state of suffering, although they may feel great disgust towards their own aggregates, they never abandon their sense of self. From this we know that what they hate is the aggregates, but what they love is the self. The five sense objects are also not true objects of attachment. For someone who attains the first dhyāna, they no longer love the five sense desires, yet they still love the self. Pleasant feeling is also not a true object of attachment. Those who cultivate the four dhyānas and possess calm abiding abandon even sublime pleasure as if it were poison, yet they still love the self, lest that pleasure defile them. Self-view is also not a true object of attachment. Those from the first stage of attainment up to the third stage of non-returning have eliminated discriminating delusions, so self-view does not arise. However, they have not yet exhausted the innately arising delusions, so they still grasp an inner self. The evolving consciousnesses are also not true objects of attachment. Those who cultivate the cessation of perception and feeling, although they dislike the first seven consciousnesses, still cling to a self. The physical body is also not a true object of attachment. Even in the formless realm, although one does not love form, one still loves the self. The conditioning factors are also not true objects of attachment or delight, as they have no real substance. \*\*Question:\*\* We can plainly see that beings love their aggregates, delight in sense pleasures, and so on. Why are these not considered objects of attachment? \*\*Answer:\*\* The attachment to the aggregates and so on is based on the same principle as the attachment to Ālaya. It is not that they love the aggregates themselves. It is like a person who delights in his house, thinking "this is my house." When the house burns down, he abandons it and flees, because he loves his body. The same principle applies here. The five clinging aggregates and so forth are held by other masters. Therefore, they are systematically refuted. The translation by Paramārtha says: "There are other masters who hold that what the Tathāgata called the world's joy and delight in Ālaya, the five clinging aggregates, is called Ālaya. Other masters hold that pleasant feeling associated with desire is called Ālaya. Other masters hold that self-view is called Ālaya. These masters, being confused about Ālaya, due to the scriptures and their cultivation, make such assertions. Following the teachings of the Lesser Vehicle and their practice, their positions are unreasonable. If someone is not confused about Ālaya, and establishes this consciousness using the names of the Lesser Vehicle, the meaning is the most excellent. How is it most excellent? If the clinging aggregates are called Ālaya, then in the unfortunate realms where there is only suffering, beings would hate these aggregates. In such a state, the aggregates are certainly not loved. So for beings to delight in them does not make sense. Why? Beings there always wish for the clinging aggregates to cease and not arise again. If pleasant feeling associated with desire is called Ālaya, then from the fourth dhyāna upwards, this feeling does not exist. If someone has attained this feeling, they would come to dislike it out of a desire to attain a higher realm. So for beings to delight in it is not reasonable. If self-view is called Ālaya, then those within the true Dharma, who believe in and delight in non-self, would not love it. They would not find joy or delight in it. This Ālaya consciousness, beings' minds grasp as their own inner self. Even if one is born in a realm of only suffering, and wishes for the suffering aggregates to be forever extinguished and not arise, they are still bound by self-love regarding the Ālaya consciousness, and thus never wish for the self to be extinguished. Beings born from the fourth dhyāna upwards, even though they do not delight in the pleasant feeling of desire, are still followed by self-love regarding the Ālaya consciousness. Furthermore, those within the true Dharma, even though they delight in selflessness and oppose self-view, still have self-love regarding the Ālaya consciousness. Therefore, by using the name 'Ālaya' to compare the positions of various masters, the meaning and the name are inconsistent. If one uses this name \[Ālaya\] to compare it as the foremost, the meaning and name are perfectly matched. Thus, by relying on the name established by the Sarvāstivādins, we establish the root consciousness as the most excellent." This concludes the third scriptural support cited above.
已引聖教當顯正理。
> Having cited the sacred teachings, we must now reveal the correct principle.
結上起下。四顯正理分十一。一持種心。二異熟心。三界趣生體。四有執受。五壽煖識三。六生死時有心。七引緣起依。八引識食。九引滅定有心。十引染淨心。十一總結。
> \*\*Summary and Transition\*\* \*\*Part Four: Revealing the Correct Principle\*\* is divided into eleven sections: 1. The Mind as a Seed-Bearer 2. The Mind as Karmic Retribution 3. The Foundation of the Realms, Destinations, and Forms of Birth 4. What Sustains and Encloses the Body 5. Lifespan, Warmth, and Consciousness 6. Consciousness Present at the Time of Birth and Death 7. The Basis for Dependent Origination 8. The Concept of Consciousness as Nourishment 9. Consciousness Present in the State of Cessation 10. The Defiled and Pure Mind 11. Conclusion
謂契經說雜染清淨至故持種心理應別有。
> Sutras speak of both defilement and purity,to Therefore the mind that holds the seeds must be something distinct.
一持種心分二。一出正義。二破執。今初。雖謂顯理。亦引經中佛所說義。以理比量。故引經說集起名心之義。謂經言集起者。集有漏無漏種子。起染淨現行。故名為心。若無第八。彼經所說持種之心不應有故。為轉識間斷。不當契經所說心義。立量云。前七轉識是有法。非可熏習不能持種是宗。因云。在滅定等有間斷故。根等作意善等類別。易起脫故。不堅住故。喻如電光。言滅定等者。等取五位無心。言根境作意者。生識之緣各別。言善等類別者。善惡等性亦別。由類各別。故易起易脫。又以各別故。六種轉識不定俱生。不俱生故。無定相應。無相應故。何有能熏所熏。焉能持種耶。唯第八識常無間斷。堅住可熏。契彼經言持種心義。立量云。此第八識是有法。是可熏性是宗。因云。一類堅住恒無間斷故。喻如苣蕂等。一類簡類別。無間斷簡有間斷。恒簡易脫。堅住簡不堅住。次總推若無第八受熏。則彼所起染淨現行不熏成種。既無種子。則應所起現行之功竟成虗棄。何以故。以無第八受熏故。若前七不能熏。第八不受熏。則無因種。既無因種。亦無現果。所起染淨。是無因生。與彼外道自然之執何以異哉。次推色不相應不能持種。立量云。色不相應。非所熏習。不能持種。非心性故。如聲光等。以色法非情。不相應假法故。次推轉識心所不能持種。立量云。轉識相應諸心所法是有法。不能持種受熏是宗。因云。易脫起故。不自在故。非心性故。喻如識間斷。所亦如王。易脫起故。既名心所。無自在義。又非心體。如何能持種受熏耶。四者既不能持種。則持種之別有心。其理明矣。
> \*\*Section on the Mind that Holds Seeds (Part 2)\*\* \*\*A. Establishing the Correct Principle\*\* Although this is about revealing the principle, it also draws on the meanings taught by the Buddha in the sutras, using reasoning to make comparisons. Therefore, I will cite the sutra's explanation of the meaning of "the mind that accumulates and arises." The sutra says "accumulates and arises": It "accumulates" the seeds of both afflicted and pure phenomena, and "arises" as the impure and pure manifestations of those seeds. Because of both these functions, it is called "mind." If there were no "Eighth Consciousness" (the Alaya-consciousness), then the "mind that holds seeds" mentioned in that sutra could not exist. The reason is that the first seven "evolving consciousnesses" (the sense-consciousnesses and the afflicted-mind) are intermittent. They do not accord with the mind described by the sutra. We can establish a logical argument: \* \*\*Premise (Subject):\*\* The first seven evolving consciousnesses. \* \*\*Premise (Predicate/Property):\*\* They cannot be perfumed and cannot hold seeds. \* \*\*Reason:\*\* Because they are intermittent, such as in states like the "Cessation of Perception and Feeling" (nirodha-samapatti) and others. Because the sense faculties, objects, and mental engagement that give rise to them all differ, as do their positive and negative qualities. Because they easily arise and easily fall away. They are not stable. \* \*\*Analogy:\*\* Like a flash of lightning. By "states like Cessation," the text refers to the five mindless states (asleep, in a coma, etc.). By "sense faculties and objects," it refers to the distinctly different conditions each consciousness needs to arise. By "different positive and negative qualities," it refers to differing natures, like virtue and non-virtue. Because their types are all distinct, they arise and fall away easily. Furthermore, because they are distinct, the six sense-consciousnesses do not always arise together. Since they don't arise together, they don't have a stable relationship. Without a stable relationship of mutual correlation, how could there be a "perfuming" factor and a "perfumed" factor? How could they possibly hold seeds? Only the Eighth Consciousness is constantly uninterrupted, stable, and able to be perfumed. It perfectly matches the sutra's meaning of the "mind that holds seeds." We can establish this argument: \* \*\*Premise (Subject):\*\* This Eighth Consciousness. \* \*\*Premise (Predicate/Property):\*\* It possesses the nature of being able to be perfumed. \* \*\*Reason:\*\* Because it is of a single, stable type, continuous, and never interrupted. \* \*\*Analogy:\*\* Like sesame seeds (which are stable and can absorb fragrance). This argument uses "single type" to indicate it's not of several types, "without interruption" to indicate it's not broken, "constant" to indicate it doesn't easily fall away, and "stable" to indicate it's not unstable. \*\*General Deduction:\*\* If there is no Eighth Consciousness to receive the perfuming, then the impure and pure manifestations that it gives rise to would not create new seeds. Since there would be no seeds, the potential (or "karmic fruit") of those manifested activities would be wasted. Why? Because there is no Eighth Consciousness to be perfumed. If the first seven cannot perfume, and the Eighth cannot be perfumed, then there would be no cause seeds. Since there would be no cause seeds, there would be no resultant manifest phenomena. The impure and pure activities would then be caused by nothing at all. How would this be any different from the non-Buddhist concept of a "natural" first cause? \*\*Secondary Deduction:\*\* Matter and "non-associated formations" cannot hold seeds. \* \*\*Premise (Subject):\*\* Matter and non-associated formations. \* \*\*Premise:\*\* They cannot be perfumed, and cannot hold seeds. \* \*\*Reason:\*\* Because they are not of the nature of mind. \* \*\*Analogy:\*\* Like sounds or light. Matter is not sentient, and non-associated formations are merely nominal, provisional concepts. \*\*Final Deduction:\*\* The mental factors that accompany the evolving consciousnesses cannot hold seeds. \* \*\*Premise (Subject):\*\* The various mental factors associated with the evolving consciousnesses. \* \*\*Premise:\*\* They cannot hold seeds and cannot be perfumed. \* \*\*Reason:\*\* Because they easily arise and fall away. They are not self-mastering. They are not of the nature of mind. \* \*\*Analogy:\*\* Like the consciousness itself, which is intermittent. A mental factor is also like a king (the consciousness it serves) in that it is easily arising and falling away. Because it is called a "mental factor," it has no independent mastery. Furthermore, it is not the substance of the mind. How could it have the ability to hold seeds and be perfumed? Since these four things (the first seven evolving consciousnesses, matter, non-associated formations, and mental factors) cannot hold seeds, there must be another, distinct mind that holds the seeds. The truth of this principle is now clear.
有說六識無始時來至故彼亦無能持種義。
> Some say that the six consciousnesses have existed since beginningless timeto. Therefore, they also lack the function of preserving seeds.
二破異執分四。一破執第六為所熏。蓋小乘執前六識及彼貪等煩惱。前後分位熏習成種。不由第八也。先敘計。言依根境等前後分位者。謂前六識別別所依。別別所緣。別別作意。及煩惱隨煩惱等前後各有分位。不相雜亂。事雖轉變而類無別。是所熏習。能持種子者。謂雖作意煩惱隨煩惱等。熏習諸識見色聞聲各各不同。而諸識類。前後是一。無有差別。是則煩惱等為能熏。識類為所熏。亦能持種。由斯染淨因果皆得成就。何要建立第八受熏持種。彼言無義下。論主辯破。先約假實破。言汝所謂識類者。實耶。假耶。實則同於外道以彼執冥性勝性。皆實有故。假則便無勝用。豈有假法能持實種。故攝論云。若立眼識貪等煩惱及隨煩惱俱生俱滅。此由彼熏成種非餘。即此眼識若已謝滅。餘識所間。如是熏習。熏習所依。皆不得等。次約三性破。初破善惡立量云。若此識類善不善性。應不受熏。許有記故。喻如擇滅。如何受熏。以諸擇滅。揀擇善惡故。若無記性者。此六識身。必起善惡。善惡起時。無記心斷。類亦應斷。如何受熏。不可謂事雖善惡而類可無記也。類可無記。應是別類。若是別類。必同別事。何成所熏。能熏所熏。類必同故。三約間斷破。若謂識類可能持種。至無心位。六種轉識皆已間斷。此類定無。將何持種。誰為受熏。四約漏無漏破。若謂識類能受熏者。應阿羅漢熏成有漏。諸異生性熏成無漏。以不立第八。聖凡皆同無記識類故。立量云。阿羅漢心。受諸染熏。類無記故。如異生心。又異生心。受無漏熏。類無記故。如阿羅漢。五約根識互熏破。若謂識類無別。則眼等六根。例眼等識。應互相熏。攝論云。若謂此識種類如是。雖不相應。然同識類亦得相熏。如是例餘。應成過失。謂餘種類。例亦應爾。以眼等根同淨色類。亦應展轉更互相熏。此意說言眼耳兩根。同有淨法。二淨展轉應互相熏。餘亦如是。然汝不許。雖同淨法。異相續故。不得相熏。識亦應爾。雖同識類。何得相熏。六約事類前後破。若謂事類前念熏於後念。成互熏者。理亦不然。以彼二念不俱有故。既不俱有。非定相應。猶如他念與自念隔。無有能熏及所熏性。以能熏所熏必俱時故。攝論云。譬喻論師欲令前念熏於後念。為遮彼故。說言二念不得俱有。無二剎那。一時而有俱生俱滅熏習性故。釋曰。眼識不得熏習眼識。何以故。一時中二眼識不得並生。若不並生。則無俱滅。故熏習義不成。是故眼識等不為欲等大小諸惑所熏。亦不為同類識所熏。立量云。六識事類非互相熏。前後二念不俱有故。喻如隔念。汝執六識俱時而轉。為所熏性。為能持種。由前理趣。皆不得成。
> Then, \[the text\] refutes the wrong doctrines in four parts. \*\*1. Refuting the doctrine that the sixth consciousness is the "perfumed" \[substrate\].\*\* \*Explanation:\* The Lesser Vehicle (Hinayana) holds that the first six consciousnesses, along with their associated greed and other afflictions, create seeds through the successive mental moments of their activation. This process does not depend on the eighth consciousness (Alaya). \*\*\[Presentation of their argument\]:\*\* "The successive moments activated by sense organs and objects" means the six consciousnesses have their own distinct supports (sense organs), distinct objects, distinct attention, and their own associated afflictions, each with separate sequential phases that do not mix. Although the specific events transform, their underlying "type" remains the same. This unchanged type is what is perfumed; it is what can hold seeds. \*In their view:\* Even though attention, afflictions, and latent tendencies produce different cognitions—seeing forms, hearing sounds, etc.—the type of each consciousness continues as a single, unchanging continuity. Thus, afflictions act as the perfuming agent, while the consciousness type acts as the perfumed substrate and also holds the seeds. In this way, pure and impure causes and results can be accomplished. Why then is it necessary to establish an eighth consciousness that receives the perfume and holds seeds? \*\*\[Refutation by the treatise author\]:\*\* First, \*\*\[refutation by reality vs. convention\]\*\* He asks: Is the "consciousness type" you speak of real or conventional? - If it is real, that is similar to the heretical doctrine (which posits a permanent, intrinsic nature like \*prakriti\* or \*purusha\* as truly existent). - If it is conventional, then it lacks any actual efficacy. How could a conventional entity hold real seeds? The \*Compendium of Abhidharma\* (Skt: \*Abhidharma-samuccaya\*) states: "If one posits that the eye-consciousness together with greed and other afflictions—or their associated defilements—arise and cease together, and that these perfume the eye-consciousness to form a seed (and not any other consciousness), then when that very eye-consciousness ceases, it is interrupted by other consciousnesses. Thus, the idea of perfume, the basis for perfume, and the continued succession are all invalid." --- Second, \*\*\[refutation by three natures.\]\*\* \*\*a) Refuting \[the argument that the consciousness type is\] wholesome or unwholesome:\*\* A syllogism is established: \*Premise:\* If this consciousness type were wholesome or unwholesome, \*Conclusion:\* it should not receive perfume, because it has a determinate moral quality (\*vitarka\*). \*Example:\* Like cessation through discrimination (\*pratisamkhyā-nirodha\*). How could it be perfumed? All such cessations are classified with respect to what is discriminatory of good or bad. \*\*b) Refuting \[the argument that the consciousness type is\] morally neutral:\*\* If the consciousness type is neutral, the six consciousness bodies necessarily give rise to good and bad acts. When those good/bad acts occur, the neutral mind is cut off, and similarly, its type should also be cut off. How then could it receive perfume? One cannot claim that while individual events can be good or bad, the type remains neutral. \*If the type is actually neutral,\* it would be a separate type \[from the events\]. If it were entirely separate, it would have to coincide with separate events. Why would this qualify as being a "perfumed substrate"? For both the perfuming agent and the perfumed substrate, their types must be identical. --- Third, \*\*\[refutation by interruption at the mindless state\]\*\* If you argue that the consciousness type can hold seeds, then at the state of "no-mind" (\*nirodha-samāpatti\* or \*asaṃjñi-samāpatti\*), the six active consciousnesses are all interrupted. At that point, this type would certainly not exist. So what would hold the seeds? Who would receive the perfume? --- Fourth, \*\*\[refutation by reference to the presence or absence of defilement\]\*\* If you argue that the consciousness type can receive perfume, then an arhat would be perfumed by contaminated impressions, while ordinary beings in the state of natural defilement would be perfumed by uncontaminated impressions. This is because—without establishing the eighth consciousness—the sages and ordinary beings all share the same neutral consciousness type. Syllogism: \*For an arhat:\* Their mind, being a neutral type, receives contamination from defiled states, like the mind of an ordinary being. \*For an ordinary being:\* Their mind, being a neutral type, receives contamination from undefiled states, like the mind of an arhat. --- Fifth, \*\*\[refutation by cross-perfuming of sense organs and consciousnesses\]\*\* If you argue that there is no separate consciousness type and that, for instance, the six sense organs are analogous to the six consciousnesses, then presumably they should cross-perfume each other. The \*Compendium\* states: "If one says that even though two consciousnesses do not coexist, they are still of the same type and thus mutually perfume, then by this reasoning, the same error applies to other pairs. For example, if the eye and ear organs both belong to a pure (undefiled) material class, they should mutually perfume each other as well. But you do not accept that. Although both are of a pure material class, since they belong to different continua, no cross-perfuming occurs. Similarly, although consciousnesses are of the same type, why should they perfume each other?" --- Sixth, \*\*\[refutation by temporal sequence\]\*\* If you argue that a previous moment of an event perfumes a later moment of the same type, creating mutual perfuming, that is also illogical. The two mental moments do not exist simultaneously. Without simultaneity, they are not in valid correspondence, just as one's own later moment is disconnected from one's own earlier moment. Neither could be a perfuming agent, nor a perfumed substrate, because for perfume and its substrate, they must exist at the same time. The \*Compendium\* says: "The metaphor-minded teachers wish that the previous moment perfumes the later moment. To refute them, we say: Two moments cannot coexist. There is not a single instance where two moments exist simultaneously, arise together, cease together, and have the nature of perfume and being perfumed." \*Explanation:\* Eye-consciousness cannot perfume another eye-consciousness. Why? Because two moments of eye-consciousness cannot arise at the same time; if they do not arise together, they cannot cease together. Therefore, the idea of perfume is invalid. Thus, eye-consciousness is not perfumed by desire, by the major or minor afflictions, nor by its own type of consciousness. Syllogism: \*Premise:\* The six consciousnesses and their types cannot mutually perfume each other. \*Conclusion:\* Because two successive mental moments do not coexist. \*Example:\* Like two disconnected consciousnesses. You claim that the six consciousnesses turn simultaneously, that they are by nature capable of being perfumed and of holding seeds. According to this reasoning, such an assertion is unsupported.
有執色心自類無間至非所熏習前已說故。
> If there is attachment to the continuation of mind and matter within their own categories without interruptionuntil this does not constitute habituation, as has been explained previously.
二破經部師執色心前後自類相生。不由第八。先敘計。謂彼執言。從前剎那色能為種子。後剎那色因彼而生。前剎那心能為種子。後剎那心及相應法因彼而生。此中因果義立。不必受熏。何用復執阿賴耶識為諸法因。故先所說集起名心為染淨種。為證不成。先斥。次破。種從熏習而得生長。自類既無能所熏義。即無種子現行可得。如何可執前為後種。若無種子。則間斷者應不更生。如無色界沒。色復生時。前色種子能生後色。理不得成。色久斷滅。無色種故。從無想沒。想心生時。及滅定等出心生時。前心種子能生後心。皆不應理。以久斷滅無心種故。若執前剎那色心為種子。能生後剎那色心。二乘羅漢應無後蘊。終不能得無餘涅槃。色心兩因永斷盡故。由彼不以八識為種。而以死位色心為後種故。死位既無色心。以何為種而生後蘊。其誰復證無餘涅槃。殊不知前色望後色。前心望後心。容有等無間。無有因緣也。亦不應執色心二法展轉互為種生。色法不能熏心種。心法不能熏色種。如前根識等。不互熏故。
> Second, refuting the Sautrāntika school’s notion that material form and mind arise in sequence from their own kind, without needing the eighth consciousness. First, presenting their view: They claim that the material form of the previous moment serves as a seed, giving rise to the material form of the next moment; likewise, the mind of the previous moment serves as a seed, giving rise to the mind and associated factors of the next moment. In this view, causation simply operates—there is no need for the influence of perfuming. So why insist on the Ālaya consciousness as the cause of all phenomena? Therefore, the earlier statement that "mind arises from accumulation and becomes the seed of both impurity and purity" is not valid as proof. First, a rebuttal, then a refutation: Seeds grow and develop only through perfuming. Since their own kind lacks the function of perfuming or being perfumed, neither seeds nor their actual manifestations can be identified. How, then, can one insist that the preceding moment is the seed of the succeeding moment? Without seeds, there would be no basis for any interrupted phenomena to arise again. For example, when one dies from the formless realm and is reborn in the realm of form, it is unreasonable to claim that the seeds of form from the previous life give rise to new form. Form has been absent for a long time, and there are no seeds of form. Similarly, when one emerges from the state of non-perception and perceptual mind arises again, or when one emerges from the cessation of perception and feeling, it is illogical to claim that the seeds of mind from the previous moment give rise to the mind of the next moment. Mind has been absent for a long time, and there are no seeds of mind. If one insists that the material form and mind of the previous moment are the seeds giving rise to those of the next moment, then Arhats of the Two Vehicles would have no future aggregates and could never attain nirvana without remainder. Their causes of material form and mind would be permanently cut off. Because they do not regard the eight consciousnesses as the seed source, but rather treat the material form and mind at the moment of death as seeds for the next existence. Yet at the moment of death, there is neither material form nor mind—what, then, could serve as seeds to generate the next aggregates? Who, moreover, could then attain nirvana without remainder? In fact, the relationship between preceding and succeeding material form, or preceding and succeeding mind, could only be described as equal and immediate condition, not as causal condition. Nor should one claim that material form and mind function as mutual seeds for each other in alternation. Material form cannot perfuse the seeds of mind, nor can mind perfuse the seeds of material form. Just as sense faculties and corresponding consciousnesses do not mutually perfuse each other.
有說三世諸法皆有至一切因果皆不得成。
> It has been said that if all dharmas of the past, present, and future truly existed, then the entire principle of cause and effect would be impossible to establish.
三破薩婆多部所執三世諸法皆是實有為因果性。過去諸法能感為因。現在諸法所赴為果。現在能感為因。未來所赴為果。三世因果。自然感赴。何勞別執第八持種。大乘難云。若無第八能持種者。何故經說集起名心。能持種子。故此答云。經說心為種子者。以彼能生染淨諸法。勢力最強。故說心能持種。先斥。次立量破云。過去未來非真實有。非常現故。如空華等。又量云。過去未來非因緣性。無作用故。如空華等。既過未不屬現在。又非常法。又無能生之用。豈可執為親生種子而生諸法。故知若無第八持種。則剎那生滅。不相關涉。一切因果。何由得成。
> The Sarvastivada school maintains that all dharmas in the three times—past, present, and future—are real entities and serve as causes and results. Past dharmas can act as causes that produce effects. Present dharmas are the results that come from those causes. Present dharmas can also act as causes, while future dharmas are the results yet to manifest. The cause and effect across the three times arises naturally through this mutual influence. Why then insist on an eighth consciousness (ālaya) that holds the seeds? The Mahayana challenges this: If there is no eighth consciousness to hold the seeds, why does the scripture say that "the mind, when accumulated and activated, is called the mind, and it can hold the seeds"? To this, the response is: The scripture speaks of the mind as a "seed-holder" because it has the strongest force to give rise to both pure and impure dharmas. Thus, it is said that the mind can hold seeds. First, they refute this. Then, they establish a logical argument to disprove it: The past and future are not truly real because they are not constantly present—like empty space or a flower in the sky. Another argument: The past and future do not function as causes and conditions because they lack active influence—like empty space or a flower in the sky. Since the past and future do not belong to the present, are not eternal, and lack productive power, how can they be regarded as direct seeds that give rise to dharmas? Therefore, without the eighth consciousness holding the seeds, momentary arising and ceasing would have no connection, and all causes and effects would fail to come about.
有執大乘遣相空理至彼心即是此第八識。
> Those who adhere to the Mahayana doctrine of eliminating all characteristics and emptiness should recognize that the mind they refer to is precisely this Eighth Consciousness.
四破一類大乘菩薩。執破相宗空理。撥無第八識。似比量者。即非量也。論主破云。眾生著相。迷真實理。佛說空法。遣彼着心。愚者不知為對治故。執遣相空為究竟法。依似比量不能正解。撥無此識。及一切法。違害前引諸大乘經。便謂無能斷之智。無所斷之惑。無所證之果。無能脩之因。但有言說。都不可得。豈不違害聖教。成大邪見。何以故。以外道毀因謗果。亦不謂全無如兔角然。但執因果非是實有。若謂生死涅槃一切諸法皆非實有。菩薩不應為斷幻化生死。勤集夢影資糧。期證空花佛果。譬如有人欲除幻敵。用石女兒。以為軍旅。誰有智者行此事耶。故應下勸信。宗鏡云。不達真異熟正唯識人。多執俗有真無。強生異見。不知諸佛密意。執遣相空理以為究竟。此乃破徧計情執。是護過遮詮。便撥依他圓成。悉作空花之相。若無依圓本識。及一切法。皆則無體。既非實有。成大邪見。
> Fourth, there is a category of Mahayana bodhisattvas who cling to the empty doctrines of the School That Refutes Phenomena. They deny the existence of the eighth consciousness (Alaya-consciousness), mistaking what is merely pseudo-inference for true understanding—this is, in fact, fallacious reasoning. The Treatise Master refutes them, saying: Ordinary beings become attached to forms and lose sight of ultimate truth. The Buddha taught the doctrine of emptiness as a remedy for their attachments. But foolish people, not understanding that this was an antidote, cling to this emptiness that negates all forms as the ultimate teaching. Based on a distorted pseudo-inference, they fail to gain correct understanding. They deny both this consciousness and all phenomena, thereby contradicting the Mahayana scriptures cited earlier. They claim there is no wisdom to cut off delusions, no delusions to be cut off, no fruit to be attained, and no cause to cultivate—claiming that all is mere words and nothing can be really obtained. How can this not contradict the sacred teachings and lead to a great false view? Why? Because even externalists who deny cause and effect do not go so far as to assert total nonexistence, as in the case of a rabbit's horns. They merely insist that cause and effect are not real entities. If you say that all phenomena—samsara and nirvana alike—are not truly existent, then bodhisattvas should not strive to cut off illusory samsara, diligently cultivate the accumulation of dream-like merits, or aim to actualize the empty-flower fruit of Buddhahood. For example, if someone wanted to subdue an illusory enemy, would they use the son of a stone as a soldier? Who, with any wisdom, would do such a thing? Therefore, one should next be encouraged to develop faith. As the \*Zongjing Record\* says: Those who fail to understand the true matured-result consciousness and the principle of mere-consciousness often cling to conventional existence while denying ultimate reality, thus stubbornly giving rise to biased views. Not understanding the Buddha’s hidden intention, they cling to the empty doctrine that negates all forms as the ultimate truth. This was originally taught to refute the attachments based on discrimination (parikalpita), as a means of guarding against faults and negating through negation. But these people then deny the other-dependent (paratantra) and the perfected (parinishpanna) natures, viewing them as mere empty flowers. Without the other-dependent and perfected natures as the foundational consciousness, as well as all phenomena, there would be no essential basis. Since they accept no real existence, this becomes a great false view.
又契經說有異熟心至彼心即是此第八識。
> Additionally, a sutra speaks of a "resultant mind" (that leads) to rebirth. That mind is precisely this eighth consciousness.
二異熟心。前持種心。約因。此異熟心。約果。異熟心。即第八識。謂前世中以善不善為因。招感得今生第八異熟心是果。先引經證。若無下次立第八為異熟心。謂眼下。次破眼等非異熟心。立量云。眼等諸識非異熟心。有間斷故。非一切時是業果故。如電光等。又立量云。異熟不應斷而復續。無斯事故。猶如命根。命根既非斷而復續。異熟可知。問。眼等六識。亦有一分善惡。滿業所招。名為滿果。是別報主。何非異熟。立量答云。眼等六識業所感者是有法。是異熟生非真異熟是宗。因云。非恒續故。喻如聲等。故知定有真異熟心。酬牽引業。為總報主。徧而無斷。內變為身。外變為器。作有情依。令諸有情。內依根身。外依器界。身器離心。理非有故。若無此心誰變身器。不相應法。無有實體。故不可變。諸轉識等。非恒有故。亦不可變。若無此心。復依何法恒立有情不相應行。意指命根及眾同分。下約身受推破。又諸異生。若在定中。無思慮時身便輕安。則生樂受。若不在定。有別思慮。身便勞損。則生苦受然令此身生苦樂受。皆由第八執受此身。若無第八執受此身。彼位如何有此身受。不應在定後時身有怡適。不定後時身有勞損。以除佛之外。其餘在善不善位者。必應現有真異熟心持此身故。恐彼難云。若爾佛起善心等位。必應現起真異熟心。方生怡適輕安身受。故此釋云。如許佛有起異熟時。即非是佛。是有情攝。以金剛道後異熟已空。故佛無垢識。能持身受。此不說者。非所急故。由是下。結成前義。
> Two different minds produce ripened results. The former mind, which holds the seed-nature, belongs to the cause. This ripened-result mind belongs to the effect. The "ripened-result mind" is precisely the eighth consciousness. It means that in previous lives, good and bad actions served as causes, leading to the ripened-result mind of the eighth consciousness in this life as the effect. First, we cite scriptures as evidence. If there were no such mind, we would then establish the eighth consciousness as the ripened-result mind. As for the words "because the eye-consciousness...", we then refute that the eye-consciousness and others are not the ripened-result mind. We establish a logical proof: The eye-consciousness and other consciousnesses are not the ripened-result mind because they are intermittent and not always the result of karma, like lightning flashes. Another logical proof states: A ripened result should not be interrupted and then resume, as this is impossible, just like the life faculty itself, which is not interrupted and then resumed. Thus, we can understand the nature of a ripened result. Question: Among the six consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind), some contain good and evil aspects resulting from completing karma, known as "full results," which are principal components of specific karma. Why are they not considered ripened-result minds? In response, we establish a proof: The karmically induced six consciousnesses are "ripened-result-born," not true ripened results, because they are not continuous, like sounds. Therefore, we know there must be a genuine ripened-result mind that fully repays the pulling karma, serving as the principal master of the overall result. It pervades without interruption, internally transforming into the body and externally transforming into the environment, serving as a support for sentient beings. It enables sentient beings to rely internally on faculties and the body, and externally on the environment and the world. Without this mind, who would transform into the body and environment? Neither body nor environment can exist apart from the mind, as that would be illogical. Non-interactive mental factors lack true substance and therefore cannot transform. The various active consciousnesses, being impermanent, also cannot transform. If this mind did not exist, on what basis could the "non-interactive formations" of sentient beings, such as the life faculty and species identity, constantly exist? Further, this is examined through physical experiences. When ordinary beings enter meditative absorption, if they are without discursive thought, their bodies become light and at ease, giving rise to pleasant sensations. When not in meditation, with various discursive thoughts, the body becomes tired and worn, giving rise to painful sensations. These physical pleasant and painful sensations arise solely because the eighth consciousness grasps and sustains this body. Without the eighth consciousness sustaining the body, how could these bodily sensations exist in those states? It should not be that after meditation, the body feels comfortable and at ease, or that after non-meditation, the body feels tired and worn. Except for the Buddha, all other beings, whether in good or bad states, necessarily have a present, true ripened-result mind sustaining this body. If someone argues: "When the Buddha generates virtuous thoughts, should he not then produce a true ripened-result mind in order to experience pleasant, light, and comfortable physical sensations?" The explanation: If we posited that the Buddha ever had a time when a ripened-result mind arose, then he would not be a Buddha but would belong to the category of sentient beings. Since, after the adamantine path, the ripened-result is completely empty, the Buddha's stainless consciousness sustains bodily sensations. This point is not elaborated upon here because it is not a pressing matter. Thus, the preceding meaning is established and concluded.
又契經說有情流轉至故知別有此第八識。
> As the sutras also state: "It is because beings undergo Samsara," we know there must be a distinct eighth consciousness.
三界趣生體。前明因果相酬。此言趣生之體。以有因果。必有體。故次言之。先引經證。若無下。次立第八是趣生體。謂要下。次推前七非趣生體。謂第八識為三界九地五趣四生之體。若無此識。即一切有情不應有故。然趣生體。要具四義。一實有。二恒。三徧。四無雜。第八具上四義。可立正實趣生。言無雜者。彼此異熟不相濫故。若無具足四義真異熟法為趣生體。而立餘識。則趣生體應皆混雜。如住人趣胎生法中。忽起他趣餘生法故。次推色法非趣生體。諸異熟色者。是第六善惡業所感無記異熟果色。及前五識中一分善惡業所感無記果色皆不徧趣生。以無色界無彼色故。次推二善非趣生體。諸生得善者。謂先脩習為因緣故。後於此中生便即得。名俱生善。不待脩成。性中本具故仁王護國般若經云。眾生識初一念異木石。生得善。生得惡。惡為無量惡識本。善為無量善識本。集論二中說十三善法。一自性善。即信等十一心所。乃至十三等流善等。今生得善。即第七生得善也。何等生得善。謂即彼諸善法。由先串習故。感得如是報。由此自性。即於是處不由思惟。任運樂住。業所感善者。是過去脩善業所感者。此二種善雖徧趣生。亦無雜亂。但有間斷。而非一類恒有。亦非趣生。不相應行是假立故。無實有義。唯異熟心心所具四義故。是正實趣生也。此下推出趣生之體。若無此異熟法為趣生體者。生無色界。起染善心。皆同佛果。應非趣生。以無異熟趣生體故。攝論云。生無色界若離異熟。染污善心應無種子。染汙善心應無依持染污善心者。謂能愛味。名為染污。有等至故。名為善也又即於彼於無色界若出世心謂無漏心正現在前謂生無漏。餘世間心謂有漏皆滅盡故一切永滅。爾時便應滅離彼趣彼趣所攝異熟無故。不由功用自然應得無餘涅槃。能治現前。一切所治皆永斷故。設許有趣生體攝有漏種子。生無色者。忽於有漏心中發起無漏。彼世間心爾時皆滅。則彼無色趣生之體。不由功用。便應捨離。自然證得無餘涅槃所攝異熟空故。若許無色空異熟識者。便違唯佛一人無趣生體。若不立異熟為趣生體。既犯前不徧不恒等失。又犯無色無趣生失。若立異熟。諸失皆無。由此理故。佛非趣生。所以者何。佛無異熟無記法故。亦非界攝。所以者何。界是有漏。如來諸漏已永盡故。界因界果。是苦集諦。世尊已捨苦集諦故。界是因義。即有漏種。諸戲論種佛永斷故。是故如來不屬趣生。其餘皆是趣生體攝。故知下。結成前義。
> The essential subject of the three realms and the modes of rebirth has already explained the interplay of causes and effects. Now, this discussion focuses on the subject of rebirth itself. Since there is cause and effect, there must be a subject. That is why it is discussed next. First, we cite scripture as evidence: if there were no such subject, then second, we establish the eighth consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) as the true subject of rebirth. Specifically, the eighth consciousness serves as the foundation for the three realms, the nine levels of existence, the five destinies, and the four modes of birth. Without this consciousness, no sentient being could exist. Now, regarding the subject of rebirth, it must possess four essential qualities: 1. \*\*True existence\*\* (not imaginary). 2. \*\*Continuity\*\* (uninterrupted). 3. \*\*Pervasiveness\*\* (present throughout all rebirths). 4. \*\*Non-mixing\*\* (the karmic results of different beings do not get confused). The eighth consciousness alone possesses all four qualities, making it the genuine and correct subject of rebirth. "Non-mixing" means that the ripened results (vipāka) of different beings never overlap. If we were to claim another consciousness as this subject without it fully possessing these four qualities, then the subject of rebirth would become chaotic. For example, a being born into the human destiny through a womb might suddenly emit qualities from another destiny. Next, we reject \*\*material form\*\* as the subject of rebirth. The ripened material form is the neutral karmic result caused by the good or evil actions of the sixth consciousness, as well as the neutral karmic result of a fraction of the first five consciousnesses. However, this material form is not present throughout all rebirths, because beings in the Formless Realm have no form. Next, we reject \*\*the two types of wholesome states\*\* as the subject of rebirth. \* \*\*Innate Wholesomeness\*\*: This refers to goodness that arises naturally at birth, due to past cultivation, without needing effort. As stated in a sutra: "The first thought of a sentient being differs from wood and stone; it has innate goodness and innate evil. Evil is the root of countless evil thoughts; goodness is the root of countless good thoughts." This refers to the seventh type of wholesome states: the good we are born with. How does this come about? It results from habitually familiarizing ourselves with virtuous states in past lives. Thus, by nature, we spontaneously delight in it without deliberate thought. \* \*\*Karmically Induced Wholesomeness\*\*: This is the wholesome state induced by performing good deeds in the past. While these two wholesome states are also pervasive and unmixed, they are \*intermittent\* and not continuously present like a single, constant stream. Therefore, they cannot be the true subject of rebirth. We also reject \*\*disassociated formations (\*viprayukta-saṃskāra\*)\*\* because they are only conceptual designations and lack true existence. Thus, only the ripened vijñāna (the eighth consciousness) and its associated mental factors possess all four qualities, making it the true and correct subject of rebirth. This leads to the following inference: if there were no such ripened consciousness as the subject of rebirth, then a being born into the Formless Realm, when giving rise to tainted or wholesome thoughts, would be identical to a Buddha in its rebirth state. This is absurd, because it means the being would have no subject of rebirth at all. A scriptural commentary states: \* "For a being born into the Formless Realm, if there were no ripened vijñāna, the stains and wholesome thoughts would have no seed or foundation." Stained wholesome thoughts refer to thoughts that enjoy the bliss of absorption (the \*āsvādana\* type), which are considered tainted yet wholesome because they belong to a state of meditative equilibrium. \* "Furthermore, in the Formless Realm, when a supramundane mind (the undefiled, \*anāsrava\* mind) arises, all worldly (tainted, \*sāsrava\*) mind must cease entirely." When this happens, because the ripened karmic body that belongs to that realm of rebirth is thus destroyed, the being would, without any effort, naturally attain \*nirvāṇa\* as the remedy manifests itself and all ailments are forever severed. \* If we assume there is a subject of rebirth that holds the seeds of the tainted state, but then suddenly a supramundane mind arises from that tainted mind, all worldly mind would cease at that moment. This means the subject of rebirth for that Formless Realm existence would be abandoned without any effort, and the being would naturally attain the \*nirvāṇa\* of no residue, because the ripened consciousness that sustained that existence is now empty. Thus, if we do not establish the ripened vijñāna as the subject of rebirth, we commit the earlier errors of "non-pervasiveness" and "discontinuity," as well as the new error of "having no subject for Formless Realm beings." Conversely, if we do establish this ripened vijñāna, all these errors are avoided. For this reason, a \*\*Buddha is not subject to rebirth\*\*. Why? Because a Buddha has no ripened, neutral (\*avyākṛta\*) mental states. A Buddha is also not included within the "realms" (\*dhātus\*). Why? Because realms are tainted (\*sāsrava\*), and a Buddha has forever exhausted all defilements. Realms imply causes and results, which are the truth of suffering and the truth of accumulation. The World-Honored One has already abandoned these two truths. "Realms" also imply the meaning of cause, which includes the seeds of tainted existence—all seeds of conceptual proliferation (\*prapañca\*) that a Buddha has severed forever. Therefore, the Tathagata does not belong to any destiny or realm of rebirth. All other beings possess the true subject of rebirth. Hence, this concludes and confirms the preceding point.
又契經說有色根身至彼心即是此第八識。
> Moreover, the sutras say that when the sentient being's physical body with sense faculties reaches that state, the mind that experiences it is none other than the eighth consciousness (“ālaya-vijñāna”).
四有執受。趣生無雜。由有執受。故次言之。先引經證。若無下。次立第八為執受心。謂有色界中有情。有五色根。及內五塵。是第八親相分。唯第八識能執受。若是餘識。即無此能。五色根者。勝義根也。彼依處者。浮塵根也。過去未來。已滅未生。故無執受。唯現在世有實體故。定有執受。有執受故。決定應有能執受心。先推異熟。是能執受。唯異熟心。是由先世善惡二業所招引者。是無記性。非善染等故。於善惡趣中一類能徧相續執受有色根身。眼等轉識。無執受義。為有難云。佛無異熟。諸佛色根應非執受。故又釋云。此無如是義之言。意顯眼等轉識皆無一類等義。非顯能執受唯異熟心。以諸如來無漏色身。有無垢識能執受故。故執受名。通一切位。若爾。何故前云唯異熟心一類能徧相續執受有色根身。釋云。然有漏身。唯異熟心是能執受。故契經中作如是說。以契經為有漏說。非無漏故。非謂諸佛無漏色身無執受也。次立量破轉識無執受義。立量云。諸轉識等。不能執受有漏色身。現緣起故。如風聲等。現緣起者。假現在緣而得生起。謂眼識九緣等。次破三性非執受。立量云。彼善染等不能執受。有漏色身非業引故。如非擇滅。以三性是自力招非業所引。正如非擇滅無為。是自性清淨。非由智力斷惑所顯。三破異熟生非執受。立量云。異熟生者不能執受。有漏色身非異熟故。非遍依故。不相續故。如電光等。四破心所非執受。立量云。諸心所法不能執受。與諸心識定相應故。喻如唯識。轉識既不能執受。轉識心所亦不能執受故。五破色與不相應行亦非執受。立量云。諸有色根不相應行。不能執受。有色根身。無所緣故。如虗空等。無所緣者。以彼色根不相應行。非能緣心。故不能緣所緣。不能緣所緣。安能執受。故應下。結顯彼經說執受心即是第八。
> The "Four Bases of Grasping" ensure that rebirth in different realms is without confusion. Because there is grasping, the text next discusses this. First, it cites scriptural evidence. Following the phrase "If there were no," the text establishes the eighth consciousness as the mind that grasps. In the realm of form, sentient beings possess the five material faculties and the internal five sense-objects. These are the immediate perceived aspects of the eighth consciousness. Only the eighth consciousness can grasp them. Other consciousnesses lack this ability. The "five material faculties" refer to the subtle faculties themselves, while "their bases" refer to the physical organs that support them. Past and future entities, having already ceased or not yet arisen, are not grasped. Only present entities, having actual substance, are definitely grasped. Because there is grasping, there must necessarily be a mind capable of grasping. The text first infers that the retribution consciousness (Vipāka) is this grasping mind. Only the retribution mind—which is morally neutral, not virtuous or defiled—is induced by past good and evil actions. In good or evil realms, it uniformly and continuously grasps the material faculties and body. The active consciousnesses (like the eye consciousness, etc.) lack the quality of grasping. To counter the objection that "Buddhas have no retribution consciousness, so their material faculties should not be grasped," the text explains, "This does not have such a meaning." This means that none of the active consciousnesses possess the qualities of uniformity, etc.—it does not mean that only the retribution mind can grasp. Because the Tathāgatas' stainless physical bodies are grasped by the undefiled consciousness (Amala-vijñāna), the term "grasping" applies to all stages. If so, why did the text earlier say, "Only the retribution mind uniformly and continuously grasps the material faculties and body"? The explanation: For a defiled body, only the retribution mind is the grasping mind. Thus the scriptures state this only for the defiled state, not for the undefiled. This does not mean that the Buddhas' undefiled physical bodies lack grasping. Next, the text establishes a logical argument to refute the idea that the active consciousnesses can grasp. The argument: The active consciousnesses, etc., cannot grasp a defiled physical body because they arise based on present conditions—like wind or sound. They arise from temporary conditions, such as the eye consciousness requiring nine conditions. Second, it refutes the grasping capacity of virtuous or defiled mental states. The argument: Virtuous, defiled, etc., mental states cannot grasp a defiled physical body because they are not induced by karma—like non-analytical cessation. The three natures (virtuous, defiled, neutral) arise from their own power, not from karma, just as non-analytical cessation is naturally pure, not attained by cutting off afflictions. Third, it refutes that "retribution-born" mental states can grasp. The argument: Retribution-born consciousness cannot grasp a defiled physical body because it is not the retribution itself, not all-pervasive, and not continuous—like a flash of lightning. Fourth, it refutes that mental factors can grasp. The argument: All mental factors cannot grasp because they are necessarily associated with the consciousnesses—just as the consciousness itself cannot grasp. Since the active consciousnesses cannot grasp, their associated mental factors cannot grasp either. Fifth, it refutes that material faculties and non-associated formations can grasp. The argument: Material faculties and non-associated formations cannot grasp a defiled physical body because they have no object—like space. Since material faculties and non-associated formations are not perceiving minds, they cannot perceive objects. How could they grasp? Therefore, the text concludes that the "grasping mind" mentioned in the scripture is precisely the eighth consciousness.
又契經說壽煖識三至彼識即是此第八識。
> Furthermore, the scriptures state that life span, warmth, and consciousness are the three essential components of a living being. That consciousness is precisely the eighth consciousness.
五壽煖識三。言不但持根身。且持壽煖。故次言之。先引經證。若無下。次立第八是持壽煖識。壽煖識三者。據小乘釋。壽者謂出入息。即風大也。煖者即火大。謂業持火大地大等色而不壞爛也。識者。即剎那覺知心也。據大乘釋。謂阿賴耶識相分色法。身根所得。名煖。此識之種名壽。以能持識故。現行識。是識。今依小乘釋之。論義方明。謂壽煖乃風火二大假合。若無久住識持之。行亦安能相續久住乎。如諸轉識。有間斷故。有轉變故。此決不能常持壽煖。持壽煖者。非異熟識而誰。立量云。諸轉識是有法。不可立為持壽暖識是宗。因云。有間有轉。無恒持用故。喻如聲風等。又立量云。唯異熟識定可立為持壽暖識。無間無轉。有恒持用。喻如壽暖。問云。契經說壽暖識三。更互依持。或是詮有間轉識。何由定知詮無間轉者。答。經說壽暖識三。更互依持。若壽暖二法既是一類無間相續。而識獨是有間轉者。豈得符合三法更互依持之理。故以理推。必是無間轉識也。外又問云。既說三法一類相續更互依持。則此三法或皆應徧。皆無間轉。或皆不徧。皆有間斷。何故唯許暖不遍界。不許識有間轉。此以理推。不為過難。以無色界無暖相故。論主答云。謂若是處。具有三法。於中必有一類無間無轉恒相持者為異熟識。若無此識。則於壽暖無恒持用。前以理推。定知三法所說之識。必是一類無間異熟。非詮轉識有間轉者。縱使舉暖不徧三界而為詰難。豈壞前理。以捨暖時。餘二不捨。餘二若捨。暖必隨捨。故我以前持壽暖者為無間異熟。其理極成。若謂三法中持壽暖者必是有間轉識非無間者。則三法中所持壽暖。既唯有漏。能持之識亦是有漏。定非無漏。若生無色界。起無漏心者。有漏六識既已不行。不知更用何識。能持彼有漏壽耶。由此故知有異熟識能持壽暖也。以第八因中。恒屬有漏故。
> The three—life, warmth, and consciousness—are mentioned following the \[previous discussion of the sense faculties\]. This is not only to indicate that \[the eighth consciousness\] maintains the physical body, but also to show that it sustains life and warmth. Hence, it is presented next. First, a scriptural passage is cited. Then, from the phrase "If there were no \[such consciousness\]," it establishes the eighth consciousness as the one that upholds life and warmth. Regarding the three—life, warmth, and consciousness—according to the Small Vehicle explanation: "Life" refers to inhalation and exhalation, which is the element of wind. "Warmth" is the element of fire; it is the karmic force that sustains the elements of fire, earth, and so forth, preventing the body from decaying. "Consciousness" refers to the mind that cognizes moment by moment. According to the Great Vehicle explanation: The material form component of the ālaya consciousness is apprehended by the body faculty and is called warmth. The seed of this consciousness is called life, because it is capable of sustaining the consciousness. The manifest consciousness itself is consciousness. Here, the explanation follows the Small Vehicle interpretation, as this clarifies the doctrinal argument. Life and warmth are a composite of the wind and fire elements. If there were no enduring consciousness to uphold them, how could the life-force continue in an uninterrupted stream? For instance, the other eight types of consciousness (the first six consciousnesses and the Manas) are intermittent and subject to change; they cannot permanently sustain life and warmth. Who then can sustain them, if not the Maturing-Result Consciousness (vipāka-vijñāna)? The logical syllogism is thus established: - Thesis: The other mental consciousnesses cannot be established as the consciousness that sustains life and warmth. - Reason: Because they are intermittent and subject to change, lacking the function of constant sustenance. - Example: Like sound, wind, etc. Another syllogism: - Thesis: Only the Maturing-Result Consciousness can rightly be established as the consciousness that sustains life and warmth. - Reason: Because it is uninterrupted and unchanging, possessing the function of constant sustenance. - Example: Life and warmth themselves. If someone asks: "The scriptures say that life, warmth, and consciousness mutually support each other. Could they not be referring to intermittent, changing consciousness? How can it be definitively known that they refer to uninterrupted, unchanging consciousness?" The answer: The scriptures state that life, warmth, and consciousness mutually support one another. Since both life and warmth are of a single, continuous nature, if consciousness alone were intermittent and changing, how could it fit the principle of these three mutually supporting each other? Therefore, by logical reasoning, it must be the uninterrupted, unchanging consciousness. Another question: "Since it is stated that these three are of a single nature, continuous, and mutually supporting, then either all three should be universal (present in all realms) and all uninterrupted, or all should be non-universal and all intermittent. Why is it that warmth is admitted not to pervade the formless realm, but consciousness is not allowed to be intermittent?" This objection, argued logically, is not a valid difficulty. In the formless realm, the warmth phenomenon does not exist. The Treatise Master answers: "If a place possesses all three of these, then among them there must necessarily be one that is of a single nature, uninterrupted, and unchanging, constantly upholding them—this is the Maturing-Result Consciousness. If this consciousness did not exist, life and warmth would lack a constant support. Based on the previous reasoning, we can definitively know that the 'consciousness' mentioned in the context of these three must be the uninterrupted, unchanging, maturing-result consciousness, not the intermittent, changing mental consciousnesses." Even if one raises the objection that warmth does not pervade the three realms, how does this refute the established reasoning? When warmth is abandoned, the other two (life and consciousness) are not abandoned. If the other two were abandoned, warmth would necessarily follow in being abandoned. Therefore, my earlier point—that what upholds life and warmth is the uninterrupted, maturing-result consciousness—is thoroughly established. If someone argues that the consciousness sustaining life and warmth within these three must be intermittent and changing, not uninterrupted, then since the life and warmth being sustained are only mundane, the consciousness supporting them would also be mundane, and certainly not supramundane. If, for instance, one is born in the formless realm and an undefiled (nirvāṇa-oriented) mind arises, then the mundane six consciousnesses are no longer active. What consciousness then would be able to sustain that mundane life-force? From this, it is understood that there is a Maturing-Result Consciousness capable of sustaining life and warmth. Because the eighth consciousness, in its causal stage, is always mundane.
又契經說諸有情類至故知定有此第八識。
> Moreover, the scriptures state that all sentient beings ultimately rely on this; thus we know that this eighth consciousness definitely exists.
六生死時有心。現持根身暖壽猶有疑混。唯有受生及命終時。法後來先。一毫不得假借。故次明之。先引經證。若無下。次立第八為散有心。宗鏡問。受生命終。既依本識。生時死時。復住何心。答。夫論生滅之事。必住散動之心。經云。有念即魔網。不動即法印。魔網立生死之道。法印成涅槃之門。故知散亂寂靜二途。皆依本識而有。即此所云必住散心非無心定之旨也。散則非定。有則非無。故散有心。非無心定。若無第八。生死散有心不可得。謂生下。推生死時無轉識。謂生死昏昧悶絕之時。明了意識必不現起。如人熟睡。極悶絕時。明了意識必不起故。立量云。生死位時。明了意識是有法。必不起現是宗。因云。身心昏昧極悶絕故。喻如睡無夢。明了意識。獨指第六言也。又眼耳鼻舌身意六種轉識見分相分皆不可知。如當是時六種轉識尚現行者。必有見相二分顯了可知如餘時矣。而今不然。故知別有心也。量云。又此位中六種轉識是有法。定不現行是宗。因云。行相所緣不可知故。喻如無心位。又此位中六種轉識。若定現行。行相所緣有必可知故。喻如餘時。言餘時者。尋常時也。以六種識尋常現起。行相所緣皆可了知。至於生死位時。定不現行。故行相所緣。皆不可知。下推生死心定是異熟。問。死位第六。行相所緣既不可了。名為無者。死位異熟行相所緣亦不可知。云何非無。答。真異熟識極微細故。行相所緣俱不可了。非謂無心名不可了。以此異熟。是詶前六善惡引業為總報主。一期生死。相續。不斷。恒無轉變。是故色心散壞。此識不壞。名散有心。非無心也。一期者。一報始終時也。下破小乘執受生位無散有心。彼以第六為散有心故。先敘外計。受生位中定無五識。所以者何。意識取境。或藉前五為明了門。方取境故。或藉他言教方取境故。或藉定力而取境故。此皆生位意識之因。今生位三因既不可得。故受生位意識亦無。云何說言受生命終必住散心。下破云。若受生位。諸因無故。意識不起。則諸有情生無色時既無五識。又無他教。後時意識永不復生。若謂雖無五識他教。以定為因。得引起者。此亦不然。定心亦由散亂意識。方得引起。五識他教。彼界定無。引定散心。無由起故。既無散意。定心亦無。定心無故。意識亦無。然今無色在定散心。時時現起。何得言無。若謂彼定不由散意引起。而由意識尋常久串熏習定力。後生彼界。率爾現起。則彼初生無色界時。亦應串習率爾現起。無色既爾。即欲色界初受生時。串習意識。亦應現起。何獨不然。若謂初受生時。串習意識由昏昧故未即現前者。即此昏昧。便是不可了知生死散心。何勞別說有意識在耶。有餘部執生死位中別有一種微細意識。行相所緣俱不可知。非此所謂第八而何。若名意識。不極成矣。以第六識行相所緣可了知故。又將死時下。引經論破死位無散意識。雜寶藏經頌云。頂聖眼生天。人心餓鬼腹。傍生膝蓋離。地獄脚板出。此驗六趣差別也。攝論頌云。善業從下冷。惡業從上冷。二皆至于心。一處同時捨。此明善惡兩途也。若無第八識。彼經論中冷觸漸起。事不得成。以轉識爾時雖附此身。不執身分故。眼等五識。各依五根。非共依故。或俱不行。悶絕位故。第六意識。不住此身。所見之境。亦無定准。皆亂緣故。由彼一向遍寓此身。雖恒相續。不能為主。亦不執受。不應冷觸由彼漸生。下明唯異熟識為命終心。唯異熟識。由先世善惡業力。恒徧相續執受身分。由彼執受。身有暖觸。捨執受處。冷觸便生。以壽暖識三不相離故。冷觸起處。即是非情。雖是第八所變。亦可緣彼為境。而不執受。同於器界矣。故知下結顯第八是散有心。
> In the six states of birth and death, there is a consciousness that persists. While one possesses a body and faculties, warmth and life force remain, and there is still confusion. Only at the moment of taking rebirth or dying does the principle of 'the dharma comes last, the consciousness goes first' apply, with not a single bit of borrowing or substitution allowed. Therefore, this is explained next. First, a scriptural citation is given. Then, under the phrase 'If not for...', the eighth consciousness is established as the scattered mind that exists during these states. The \*Zongjinglu\* asks: "Since both taking rebirth and dying rely on the fundamental consciousness, what mind does one dwell in at the time of birth and death?" Answer: "To speak of the matters of birth and death, one must necessarily dwell in a scattered and active mind. The sutra says: 'Having a thought is a net of demons; being unmoved is the Dharma Seal.' The net of demons establishes the path of birth and death, while the Dharma Seal forms the gate to nirvāṇa. Therefore, it is understood that both states—scatteredness and stillness—arise from the fundamental consciousness. This is exactly what is meant by 'always dwelling in a scattered mind,' not referring to a state of mindless concentration. 'Scattered' means not concentrated; 'having something' means not being empty. Hence, a scattered and active mind is not a state of mindless concentration. If there were no eighth consciousness, the scattered, active mind of birth and death could not exist. This is explained next. The text deduces that at the time of death, the active consciousnesses do not function. At the moment of death, when the mind is dark and confused, the clear, discerning consciousness (the sixth consciousness) certainly does not arise. This is like a person in deep sleep or a state of extreme unconsciousness—at such times, the clear, discerning consciousness simply does not arise. A logical argument is set forth: In the state of death, the clear, discerning consciousness (a given attribute) does not arise (the thesis). The reason is that the body and mind are dark and confused, in a state of extreme unconsciousness (the evidence). This is like being asleep without dreams. The 'clear, discerning consciousness' here refers specifically to the sixth consciousness. Furthermore, the seeing and seen aspects (draṣṭṛ and dṛśya) of the six active consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) are all unknowable at this time. If these six consciousnesses were still active at such a moment, their seeing and seen aspects would necessarily be discernible, just as at other times. But this is not the case. Hence, we know there is a different kind of mind. Another deduction: In this state, the six active consciousnesses (a given attribute) certainly do not manifest (the thesis). The reason is that their modes of activity and objects are unknowable (the evidence). This is like the state of being mindless (e.g., deep sleep without dreams). Again: If in this state, the six active consciousnesses were to manifest, their modes of activity and objects would necessarily be knowable (the evidence). This would be like other times. 'Other times' means ordinary times. Ordinarily, when the six consciousnesses arise, their modes and objects are clearly knowable. But at the time of death, since they certainly do not manifest, their modes and objects are unknowable. The text then deduces that the mind at the time of death is necessarily a retribution mind (vipāka-vijñāna). Question: "If the mode and object of the sixth consciousness at the moment of death are unknowable, and we call it 'non-existent,' the mode and object of the retribution mind at death are also unknowable. Why is it not considered 'non-existent'?" Answer: "The true retribution consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna) is extremely subtle. Its mode and object are both unknowable. But this does not mean it is 'mindless' and therefore 'unknowable.' This retribution consciousness is the result of the good and evil karmic actions of the previous six consciousnesses, serving as the foundation of the entire life. It continues without interruption throughout one life, never changing. Therefore, when the physical body and the active mind disintegrate, this consciousness does not disintegrate. It is called a 'scattered and active mind' precisely because it is \*not\* mindless. 'One life' refers to the entire period from birth to death." Next, the text refutes the Hīnayāna view that holds the existence of a scattered mind at the moment of taking rebirth. Those schools consider the sixth consciousness to be the scattered mind. First, their position is stated: "In the state of taking rebirth, the five sense consciousnesses certainly do not exist. Why is that? The sixth consciousness (mano-vijñāna) sometimes relies on the five senses to perceive its objects, sometimes relies on verbal instruction, and sometimes relies on meditative power to do so. These are the conditions for the sixth consciousness in the ordinary state of life. At the moment of rebirth, since these three conditions are absent, the sixth consciousness also does not exist. So how can one say that at the moment of birth and death one necessarily dwells in a scattered mind?" The refutation follows: "If, at the moment of rebirth, because these conditions are absent, the sixth consciousness does not arise, then for beings born in the formless realm, who have neither the five sense consciousnesses nor verbal instruction, the sixth consciousness should never arise again in the future." "If it is said that even without the five senses and verbal instruction, the sixth consciousness arises due to the condition of meditative power, this is also unacceptable. Meditative states themselves depend on a scattered sixth consciousness to arise. In the formless realm, there are no five sense consciousnesses or verbal instruction, so how could the scattered mind that induces meditative states arise? Without this scattered mind, meditative power could not arise. Without meditative power, the sixth consciousness could not arise." "Yet, we observe that beings in the formless realm do possess both scattered and meditative minds, appearing from time to time. How can you claim they do not?" "If you argue that their meditative power arises without relying on a scattered mind, but rather through a habitual force of long-term meditative practice in a previous life, and that at the initial moment of being reborn in the formless realm this habit simply manifests, then the same logic should apply to the first moment of rebirth in the desire or form realms. The habitual consciousness should also manifest at that initial moment. Why would it not?" "If you say that due to the dark and confused state at the moment of rebirth, this habitual consciousness does not manifest immediately, then that state of confusion itself is the very 'unknowable scattered mind of birth and death' we are speaking of. Why need you insist on another, separate sixth consciousness?" Some schools hold that at the moment of birth and death, there exists a special kind of subtle sixth consciousness, whose mode and object are both unknowable. If they call this 'consciousness,' is it not this very eighth consciousness? But if they call it 'sixth consciousness,' this is not universally accepted, as the mode and object of the sixth consciousness are normally knowable. Next, scriptural authority is cited to refute the idea that there is no scattered sixth consciousness at death. The \*Sūtra of the Miscellaneous Treasure Store\* (Za Bao Zang Jing) says: "Top of head \[warmth\] = sage / rebirth in heaven Heart \[warmth\] = human Stomach \[warmth\] = hungry ghost Knees \[warmth\] = animal Soles of feet \[warmth\] = hell" This verse describes the differences among the six destinies based on the location of the last warmth in the body. The \*Mahāyāna-saṃgraha\* (She Da Sheng Lun) says: "Good karma causes coldness from below; Evil karma causes coldness from above. Both reach the heart, And at that one place, warmth simultaneously departs." This explains the two paths of good and evil. If the eighth consciousness did not exist, then the phenomenon of coldness gradually arising, described in these sutras and treatises, could not occur. This is because at that moment, although the active consciousnesses (sixth and fifth) are still attached to the body, they do not take it as their support: - The five sense consciousnesses each rely on their respective faculties; they do not share a single support. They may also be entirely inactive, as this is a state of unconsciousness. - The sixth consciousness does not abide within the body, and its perceived objects are without fixed reference, as it is in a state of chaotic mental activity. Although these active consciousnesses are distributed throughout the body and continue in a stream, they cannot act as the master of the body and do not 'grasp' or 'hold' it as their own. Therefore, the gradual cooling cannot be directed by them. The text clarifies that only the retribution consciousness (vipāka-vijñāna) serves as the mind at the moment of death. "Only the retribution consciousness, through the force of good and evil karma from previous lives, continuously and pervasively grasps and holds the body. Because it holds it, the body remains warm. Where its holding ends, coldness arises. The life, warmth, and consciousness are inseparable." Where the coldness arises, that part of the body becomes like an insentient object. Although it is still a transformation of the eighth consciousness and can be an object for it, the eighth consciousness no longer 'grasps' it, just as it treats the external material world. Therefore, it is concluded that the eighth consciousness is the 'scattered mind' of birth and death.
又契經說識緣名色至故彼識言顯第八識。
> The sutras also teach that consciousness conditions name and form, so the term "consciousness" in those passages indicates the eighth consciousness.
七引緣起依。前約正生正死位。此約中有投胎位。此位在命終之後。受生之前。先引經證。若無下。次立第八為名色外識。識緣名色等。皆經中語。識即第八識。名即受想行識四蘊。色蘊色蘊。二法者。識是一法。名色共是一法。如束蘆者。如立二束之蘆。二頭相依。方得安立。去東西倒。去西東倒。名色與識互依。其義亦然。梵語羯邏藍。此云凝滑。又云雜穢。父母不淨為雜。深可厭惡為穢。而言等者。此上初位。等餘四位。所謂頞部曇。此云胞也。閉尸。此云軟肉也。健南。此云堅肉也。鉢羅奢佉。此云支節也。瑜伽云。若初七日內。已凝結前內稀。名羯羅藍。二七日內。表裏如酪。未至肉位。名遏部曇。三七日內。若已成肉。仍極柔軟。名閉尸。四七日內。若已堅厚。稍堪摩觸。名健南。五七後皆屬形位。即此肉團增長。支分相現。名鉢那賖位。從此已後。髮毛爪現。名髮毛爪位。從此已後。眼等根生。名為根位。從此已後。彼所依處分明顯現。總名形位。此之名色。與識相依而住。不相捨離。立量云。名色與識更互為緣。相依住故。如二蘆束。既以非色四蘊為名。則名支之中已有識竟。云何復有識與名色互為緣耶。即此明知有第八也。故論主云。眼等轉識。攝在名中。此識若無。說誰為識。故以第八為識支也。恐有救云。名中識蘊。是眼等五。識支即是第六識故。故次論云。亦不可說名中識蘊謂五識身。識謂第六。羯羅藍時。根未具足。境未現前。無五識故。大小共許初七日內無五識故。故大乘以第七識為名中識。縱許名中之識是前五。而名外之識是第六者。即諸轉識有間斷故。無力恒時執持名色。寧得說與名色為緣。故能持名色。定是第八也。俱舍亦云。名謂非色。即是四蘊。然其識蘊。意在第六。又俱舍說。唯約位說。在於識後。不說與識同時互依。瑜伽問云。已說一切支非更互為緣。何故建立名色與識互為緣耶。答。識於現法中用名色為緣故。名色復於後法中用識為緣故。所以者何。以於母腹中。有相續時。說互為緣故。用識為緣。於母腹中。諸精血等。名色所攝受。和合共成羯羅藍性。即此名色為緣。復令彼識於此得住。四蘊何獨皆稱為名。第一師釋云。在胎蒙昧。未辨苦樂。微有名而已。此依分位。六處之前。識支之後。可爾。既二相依。從生至死。皆名色攝。何得稱名。俱舍論云。名唯行攝。何四皆名。總有四釋。四蘊稱名之意。一師云。隨所立名。根境勢力。於義轉變。故說為名。問。云何隨名勢力轉變。答。謂通種種勢共立名。於彼彼義。轉變詮表。即如牛馬色味等名。問。此復何緣。標以名稱。答。於彼彼境。轉變而緣。解云。已上論文。此師意者。如今時名。隨於古昔名之勢力。得於義轉變詮表。或詮此境。或詮彼境。名為轉變。名既如此。四蘊亦然。謂受等四蘊。隨根境勢力。於境轉變而緣。轉變如名。故標名稱。言轉變緣者。謂緣此緣彼。名轉變緣也。第二師云。又隨類名。此解意者。謂一切法。不通二類。一者色類。二者非色類。四蘊與名。同非色類。以似名故。四蘊名名。第三師云。隨名顯故。此解意者。謂色法麤著。不須名顯。如眼見也。四蘊微細。要須名顯。必藉名故。故標名稱也。第四師云。有餘師說。四無色蘊。捨此身已。轉趣餘生。轉變如名。故標名稱。解云。此師約捨身名轉變。初師據緣境名轉變。轉變雖同。二釋別也。上皆俱舍論疏。不斷得失。若取易知。第二三師理易顯明。任情去取。
> \*\*Seven Evidences for Dependent Origination\*\* Previously we discussed the stages of ordinary birth and death. Now we focus on the intermediate state—the period between death and rebirth, when one is about to be reincarnated. First, we cite scriptural evidence. "If there were no..." Next, we establish the Eighth Consciousness as the external consciousness for "name and form." The line "Consciousness conditions name and form" and similar passages all come from the scriptures. "Consciousness" here refers to the Eighth Consciousness. "Name" refers to the four aggregates of feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. "Form" refers to the aggregate of physical matter. These two factors: consciousness is one factor; name-and-form together constitute another factor. Like bundled reeds—just as two bundles of reeds lean against each other, each supporting the other to stay upright; if you remove one, the other falls to the east or west. Name-and-form and consciousness depend on each other in the same way. In Sanskrit, "kalala" means "slippery condensation" and also "impure mixture"—the parents' impure essences are the "mixture," and what is deeply repulsive is the "impurity." The word "etc." includes the first stage and the four subsequent stages: "arbuda" (the "blister"), "peshi" (the "soft flesh"), "ghana" (the "firm flesh"), and "prashakha" (the "limb" stage). According to the \*Yogacara-bhumi\*: - During the first seven days, the substance has congealed but is still thin, known as \*kalala\*. - During the second seven days, inside and out it resembles curds, not yet reaching the flesh stage, known as \*arbuda\*. - During the third seven days, if it has become flesh but is still extremely soft, it is called \*peshi\*. - During the fourth seven days, when it has become firm and thick and can be touched slightly, it is called \*ghana\*. - From the fifth seven days onward, it belongs to the limb stage—the flesh mass grows and the parts appear, known as \*prashakha\*. - After this, hair and nails appear, called the hair-and-nail stage. - After this, the eyes and other sense organs develop, called the sense-organ stage. - After this, the places where these organs rest become clearly manifest, collectively called the form stage. Thus, name-and-form and consciousness dwell together depending on each other, never parting. We establish the logical statement: Name-and-form and consciousness mutually condition each other because they abide in dependence, like two bundles of reeds. Since the "name" factor includes the four non-material aggregates, it already includes consciousness within it. Why do we then say that consciousness and name-and-form condition each other? This clearly shows the existence of the Eighth Consciousness. Therefore, the Treatise Master says: "The evolving consciousnesses, such as the eye consciousness, are included within the name factor. If this consciousness did not exist, what could we call 'consciousness'?" Thus the Eighth Consciousness is established as the consciousness link. One might object: "The consciousness aggregate within 'name' refers to the five sense consciousnesses, while the consciousness link is the sixth consciousness." But then the Treatise continues: "We also cannot say that the consciousness aggregate in 'name' is the five sense bodies, and the 'consciousness' is the sixth. At the \*kalala\* stage, the sense organs are not yet complete, objects are not yet manifest, and since the five sense consciousnesses cannot arise, both Mahayana and Hinayana agree that there are no five sense consciousnesses within the first seven days." Therefore, the Mahayana considers the Seventh Consciousness as the consciousness within 'name.' Even if we admit that the consciousness within 'name' is the first five, and the consciousness outside 'name' is the sixth, then since these evolving consciousnesses have interruptions, they lack the power to continuously hold name-and-form. How could they be said to condition name-and-form? Therefore, what sustains name-and-form is definitely the Eighth Consciousness. The \*Abhidharmakosha\* also says: "Name means non-material, that is, the four aggregates. However, its consciousness aggregate points to the sixth consciousness." Yet the \*Abhidharmakosha\* only explains this from a sequential perspective, placing it after consciousness and not stating that it mutually depends on consciousness simultaneously. The \*Yogacara-bhumi\* asks: "We have already said that not all links condition each other. Why, then, is it established that name-and-form and consciousness condition each other?" Answer: "Because in the present life, consciousness uses name-and-form as its condition, and name-and-form, in turn, uses consciousness as its condition in the next life. Why is this? Because during the continuous process in the mother's womb, they are said to condition each other. Using consciousness as the condition, the sperm and blood in the womb, included in name-and-form, combine to form the \*kalala\* nature. Then, using this name-and-form as the condition, it causes consciousness to dwell there." \*\*Why Are the Four Aggregates All Called "Name"?\*\* First explanation: "In the womb, the being is ignorant and unable to distinguish pleasure from pain—there is only a faint name. This follows the sequential stage, between the consciousness link and the six sense spheres." But if they depend on each other, from birth to death everything is included in name-and-form. How can it be called "name" alone? The \*Abhidharmakosha\* says: "'Name' only includes mental formations. Why are all four called 'name'?" There are four explanations for why the four aggregates are called "name." First master: "Because the power of names, depending on the forces of sense organs and objects, changes their meaning, they are called 'name.'" Question: "How do names cause meaning to change through their power?" Answer: "Through the common power of many names established together, they express different meanings in different situations—like the names 'cow,' 'horse,' or 'color,' 'taste,' etc." Question: "What is the reason for specifically labeling them 'name'?" Answer: "Because they change their focus as they perceive different objects." Explanation: This master's point is that contemporary names, relying on the power of ancient names, obtain the ability to express different meanings—sometimes expressing this object, sometimes that object. This is called "changing." Thus the four aggregates are the same: feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, depending on the forces of sense organs and objects, change their focus when perceiving objects—changing like names, hence they are called "name." "Changing focus" means focusing here then there. Second master: "Also, following the category of names." This explanation means that all things belong to two categories: the category of form and the category of non-form. The four aggregates and "name" both belong to the non-form category. Because they resemble names, the four aggregates are called "name." Third master: "Because they need names to be made manifest." This explanation means that physical form is coarse and obvious, not needing a name to manifest it—like seeing with the eyes. The four aggregates are subtle and require names to be made known; they must rely on names, hence they are called "name." Fourth master: "Other masters say that the four formless aggregates, after leaving this body and moving to the next life, change like names, hence they are called 'name.'" Explanation: This master refers to changing by leaving the body, while the first master refers to changing in relation to objects. Although "changing" is the same, the two interpretations differ. These are all from the \*Abhidharmakosha\* commentary. There is no need to judge which is right or wrong. If one seeks easy understanding, the explanations of the second and third masters are clearer and more obvious. One may choose according to preference.
## 成唯識論卷第三
> Demonstration of Consciousness-Only, Volume 3