---
title: "成唯識論測疏 · 第四"
description: "成唯識論測疏由唐代新羅高僧圓測撰寫是研究玄奘所傳唯識思想的重要注疏圓測為玄奘弟子其學說與窺基一系並立被視為西明系唯識學的代表該疏內容精深對世親《唯識三十頌》及護法等論師的釋論進行了詳細測解闡發唯識無境的妙義並在種姓論等問題上提出了與窺基系不同的見解在中國佛教唯識宗發展史上佔有獨特地位是研究唐代唯識學分歧與演變的關鍵文獻具有極高的學術價值"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmgn15e3c3j8hl4043tktsrji"
---

## 成唯識論疏卷第四

> Demonstration of Consciousness-Only Treatise, Commentary Volume 4

唐西明寺沙門圓測撰

> Composed by the Monk Yuance of the Western Brightness Temple in the Tang Dynasty

此觸雖與諸識相應，屬六識者食義偏勝；觸麤顯境，攝受喜樂及順益捨，資養勝故。

> Although this “contact” operates in conjunction with all forms of consciousness, when it comes to the six consciousnesses, its function as “nourishment” is especially prominent. Contact directly engages with the object, embracing pleasure, happiness, and beneficial equanimity, and thus has the strongest sustaining and nourishing quality.

約識辨體。謂據實為論，八識相應，觸皆為食體。然屬六識者，其用偏勝，故立為食。故世親攝論云：此中觸食，屬六識身，即依彼論，釋者不同。一云、彼論即用六識為觸食體，故屬六識身。問：若爾，云何瑜伽攝事分中，用觸為體？解云：攝大乘論、依正道理瑜伽所說隨轉門，故不相違。一云、屬六識者，六識相應觸，非即六識；若作此解，與瑜伽等，皆不相違。雖有兩釋，後說為正。所以者何？瑜伽對法，及此論等，以觸為體，皆不相違。鈔十六、記六同基略又云：「思食解同。」

> Examining how to distinguish the nature \[of Contact-food\]. From a definitive perspective, all eight consciousnesses have corresponding contact, and contact in each case can serve as the substance of food. However, contact associated with the six consciousnesses has a particularly prominent function, so it is established specifically as "food." This is why Vasubandhu's \*Compendium of Abhidharma\* states: "Here, contact-food pertains to the group of the six consciousnesses." Based on this same text, there are two different interpretations. One says: That treatise directly uses the six consciousnesses themselves as the substance of contact-food, so it is said to belong to the group of the six consciousnesses. If so, why does the \*Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra\*, in its section on "Collection of Reasonings," use contact itself as the substance? Explanation: The \*Compendium\* follows the logical reasoning of the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* but adapts it for a provisional presentation, so there is no contradiction. Another interpretation says: When it says "belongs to the six consciousnesses," it means the contact that arises in correlation with the six consciousnesses, not the six consciousnesses themselves. If we adopt this explanation, it is consistent with the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* and other texts, and there is no conflict. Although both explanations exist, the latter is considered correct. Why? Because the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*, the \*Abhidharma-samuccaya\*, and this very treatise all use contact as the substance, so they are entirely in agreement.

又若此位有第六識，彼心所法，為有為無？若有心所，經不應言「住此定者，心行皆滅。」又不應名滅受想定。

> Further, if the sixth consciousness is present in this state, do mental factors exist or not? If mental factors do exist, then the scripture would not say, "For one abiding in this samadhi, all mental activities are extinguished," nor should it be called the "Samadhi of the Cessation of Feeling and Perception."

二中無心所者，譬喻師義。有心所者四釋，謂三、四、十、十四，如次受、想、思三，或加於觸，或十大地，或加貪、瞋、癡、慢。記六

> Regarding the second of the two positions—where some say no mental factors are involved—this is the view of the Simile-Masters. Those who affirm mental factors give four interpretations: three, four, ten, or fourteen. These correspond respectively to the three factors of feeling, perception, and intention; to these three plus contact; to the ten universal mental factors; or to those ten plus desire, aversion, ignorance, and pride.<note place="inline">Note 6</note>

然此所破，諸說不同。一云：破三心所。若爾，如何下論說云「既許思等，大地法故。」釋云：雖無別體法，然於思上假說有觸，故置等言。一云：破四，有等言故。

> However, there are differing views on what is being refuted here. One opinion holds that it refutes the three mental factors. If so, then how does the subsequent treatise state: "Since it is accepted that thought, etc., are universal mental factors." The commentary explains: "Although they do not have separate entities, yet contact is hypothetically attributed to thought, hence the word 'etc.' is used." Another opinion holds that it refutes four factors, because the word "etc." is present.

一云：破十，或破十四。鈔十六、記六略

> Some say: break ten, or break fourteen.

然行於法，有徧非徧；

> However, the practice of Dharma can be universal or limited.

彼說佛語，亦由尋伺，彼即生難。我以身行同心行，汝以語行同心行。二難既等，孰是誰非？解云：然行於法，有徧非徧。記六

> When he spoke the Buddha's words, he also engaged in reflection and examination, which immediately gave rise to a challenge for him. He said: "I practice with my body and mind; you practice with your words and mind. Since both challenges are equal, who is right and who is wrong?" The explanation is this: When it comes to practicing the Dharma, some aspects are universal, while others are not. <note place="inline">Sixth Record</note>

許如思等，大地法故；

> Because of the fundamental mental factors like attention.

成觸經部，唯等取思，三大地故。生觸經部，等取思觸，四大地故。記六

> In the Sarvastivada (Sutra) branch, "contact" (sparśa) refers equally to "volition" (cetanā), because they are two of the three universal mental factors. In the Sautrāntika branch, "arising contact" (jāti-sparśa) refers equally to "volition" and "contact," because they are three of the four universal mental factors. <note place="inline">Note 6</note>

既爾，信等此位亦無。

> Thus, at this stage, even faith and other qualities do not exist.

經部以思分位，名信等故，例思令無；觸、受、想中，皆以有心位為同喻成量。記六同基

> The Sūtra School defines faith and other mental factors as specific aspects of volition (cetanā). Thus, when volition is absent, these factors are also absent. In the cases of contact (sparśa), feeling (vedanā), and perception (saṃjñā), they are used as examples of factors present only when there is an active mind, thereby establishing the measure. <note place="inline">\[Recorded in the sixth section, same basis\]</note>

若無心所，識亦應無；不見餘心離心所故。餘徧行滅，法隨滅故、受等應非大地法故、此識應非相應法故。許則應無所依緣等，如色等法亦非心故。

> If there were no mental factors, consciousness itself would not exist—for we do not see any consciousness apart from mental factors. When the ever-present mental factors cease, all related phenomena cease. Feelings and other factors would then not be “universal,” nor would this consciousness be considered “associated” with anything. If this were accepted, consciousness would lack its basis and objects, just like material forms, which are not mental.

量云：滅定必無意識，無心所故、徧行滅故，如悶絕等。記六同基

> It is reasoned that: In the state of cessation, there is definitely no consciousness, because mental factors are absent and the pervasive mental factors are extinguished, just as in cases of fainting or deep unconsciousness.

或可喻無餘滅，準《成業論》，許有細心，亦許睡悶，猶有心故。或可滅定意識應滅，徧行滅故，如語隨滅。又汝受等應非大地，不徧心故，猶如貪等。彼若救言；唯據有心故立量破，無心所故，如色應非相應法也。又救：何妨爾時非也，如無表色，色中無礙故。破：如色無所依等，我許無表，思非色故。記六

> Perhaps one may illustrate final nirvāṇa (wuchu mie — complete cessation). According to the \*Karma Siddhi Śāstra\* (Cheng ye lun), a subtle consciousness is admitted to exist, and even during deep sleep or fainting, consciousness remains. Alternatively, in the state of cessation (mie ding), mental consciousness (yishi) must cease, for the universally co-arising mental factors (biā xíng) cease, just as speech ceases when conditions end. Furthermore, what you call "feeling" (shou) and "volition" (xiang) should not be considered universal mental factors (da di), as they do not pervade the mind — they are like attachment (tan) and other factors. If one argues that these only hold when mind is present, we can establish a syllogism to refute them: if mental factors are absent, then consciousness, like physical form (se), would not be a corresponding dharma (xiang yin fa). Another objection: What is wrong if consciousness is absent at that time? For example, unmanifested form (wu biao se) exists within physical form but is intangible. Reply: For form to lack a basis is acceptable, yet I hold that unmanifested form is volition (si) itself, not a material form (se). <note>記六</note>

若謂此心是等起善，加行善根所引發故，理亦不然，違自宗故。

> If you claim that this mind arises simultaneously with virtue because it is produced by virtuous roots and preparatory actions, that is also incorrect in principle, as it contradicts your own established position.

彼宗身語，無想滅定，及四想等，是等起善。不許心體，亦是等起。記六

> "Regarding that tradition, speech and bodily actions that arise from a state of cessation without thought, along with the four kinds of perception, are considered to be virtuous origins. It is not accepted that the mind itself is also such an origin." <note>Record 6</note>

謂染淨法，以心為本，因心而生，依心住故；心受彼熏，持彼種故。

> We speak of defiled and pure dharmas: the mind is their foundation, for they arise from the mind, rely on the mind for support, receive its influence, and depend on it to retain their seeds.

此有五釋。鈔十六

> There are five explanations for this.

又行、緣、識，應不得成；

約緣起支，雙破經部及薩婆多。薩婆多云：現行善心，名為行；初生染識，名為識。受生初念，潤故雜染。依經部宗，現行三業為行；彼行所熏，結生染識所持業種為識。記六

> Regarding the twelve links of dependent origination, both the Sautrāntika and Sarvāstivāda schools are refuted. The Sarvāstivādins say: The active virtuous mind is called “formations”; the initial arising of defiled consciousness is called “consciousness.” At the first moment of rebirth, it is tainted due to the nourishing influence. According to the Sautrāntika school: The active three types of karma (body, speech, and mind) are “formations”; the karmic seeds impregnated by those actions, which are carried by the defiled consciousness of rebirth, are called “consciousness.” <note>Recorded in the Sixth Chapter</note>

結生染識，非行感故；

> A mind tainted by its connection to rebirth is not caused by its own past actions.

又解：兼破經部。《攝論》云「彼亦結生染識故。」記六

> Further explanation: This also refutes the Sautrāntika school. The \*Compendium of Abhidharma\* says, "Because that \[consciousness\] is also tainted at the moment of rebirth."

應說名、色，行為緣故、時分懸隔無緣義故；此不成故，後亦不成。

> It should be explained that name and form arise due to actions, since there is a gap in time and thus no immediate connection. Because this \[proximate cause\] is not established, the subsequent \[effect\] is also not established.

識支所攝，緣義不成，兼破經部，先業久滅，無受熏識。於受生識，行緣無義。記六同基

> The aspect of consciousness cannot establish the principle of conditioned arising. Additionally, this refutes the Sautrāntika school's view that past actions have long ceased and there is no consciousness that receives their influence. In the process of rebirth, without such a consciousness, the factor of volitional formations loses its meaningful function.

明知經部業所熏種，名為識支，即彼被潤，有用名有。今未必然，所熏識中，行種增長，名為有支。能轉種識，何非識支？既先釋謂行為緣貪等，俱生眼等轉識，許為識支；知彼識支，同薩婆多也。記六

> We know that within the Āgama teachings, the seed infused by karma is called the "consciousness link" (識支). That same seed, once moistened (by craving and attachment) and thus becoming active, is called the "becoming link" (有支). However, this is not necessarily the case here. In the ālaya-consciousness (the store consciousness) where mental impressions are infused, the growth of the seed of karmic formations is what is called the "becoming link." If a transformed consciousness can also act as a seed-consciousness, why would it not qualify as the "consciousness link"? Since it has already been explained that based on karmic formations, conditions such as craving, along with the co-emergent eye-consciousness and other sense-consciousnesses that arise, are accepted as the "consciousness link," we can see that the understanding of the "consciousness link" here is the same as that of the Sarvāstivāda school. <note>Ji Liu</note>

又解：非但破取緣有，後後諸支緣義不成。記六同基

異熟識上，能生眼等色識種子，名色功能；說為五根，無別眼等。

記六略敘本疏云：「就難陀釋，更加業種。」

種與色識，常互為因，能熏與種，遞為因故。

此文略不說業，業種色識，無熏義故。記六

有義：彼說理教相違。

自下第二，火辨師釋。鈔十七、燈十一、記六均同

又彼應非唯有執受，唯色蘊攝，唯內處故。

此說實能感五識業，說五識依故，唯思種實業；色聲假說，非正感故。由此思種，非唯執受、非唯色蘊、非唯內處，違聖教說，此三皆唯。燈十一、記六略

第八類餘，既同識性，如何不許有俱有依？第七八識，既恆俱轉，更互為依，斯有何失？

第八賴耶有俱有依，二恆轉中隨一攝故，猶如第七。記六

許現起識以種為依，識種亦應許依現識。能熏異熟，為生長住依；識種離彼，不生長住故。

能熏與種，望新生依、望舊長依，所熏本識為久住依。記六

此中正明俱有依。如何義準因緣為例？解云：理實不應為例，而淨月意，前三師皆不許種亦有所依，故今義準令種識亦有所依。量云：種識亦有所依，現種識中隨一攝故，猶如現識。雖彼所依因緣、俱有二依不同，而依義齊，且引為例。所以者何？能熏有因緣義，異熟望種非因緣故。此意且引為例者，雖成因緣為所依，且取依義。因緣、俱有同是依義。若云：因緣依第八現行，望種即非。為避此過，云且引義例。燈十一、記六略

如契經說「阿賴耶識，業風所飄，徧依諸根，恆相續轉。」

相傳《楞伽經》也。勘二本經無；或其文本有，應譯者闕。記六

若法決定有境為主，令心心所取自所緣，乃是所依。

必具四義，方成所依。一、決定義，且𥳑前師同緣意識所依五識有色、賴耶所依色根聲等，一切餘法亦爾；以彼不定，非所依故，翻成前師之所不許五識亦依第七八等。二、有境義，即𥳑種子命根等法，雖決定有，非所依故。三、為主義，𥳑徧行五雖定有境，非所依故。四、令心心所取自所緣，𥳑第三師能熏所熏為種所依，不能令種取所緣故；及遮六根，除心心所，於餘色等能為所依。記六同基

由此五識俱有所依，定有四種，謂五色根，六、七、八識，隨闕一種必不轉故、同境分別染淨根本所依別故。

問：豈不五識得自在位，通緣異境？如何眼識與離根同境？解云：眼識緣六境時，根亦隨識同取六境。境雖雜亂，根不雜。至第五卷，當廣分別。鈔十七

有義：前說未為究理。

第二淨月、安慧師，許三位無末那故。燈十二、記六略

且前五識，未自在位、遇非勝境，可如所說。

八地以前，未自在位，境亦非勝，可不相續。此有四句：一、心勝境非勝，謂等流心於劣境起；二、境勝心非勝，於地獄內起率爾心；三、心境二俱勝，謂於勝境起等流心；四、心境俱非勝，謂於劣境起率爾心。今依第四，縱許不續。記六

若增勝境相續現前，逼奪身心不能暫捨；

此有一句，境勝心非勝，謂率爾心。此中應有等流心境俱勝，已攝在前等流心中。燈十二

如熱地獄、戲忘天等。

通六欲天。燈十二、記六同

開導依者，謂有緣法為主，能作等無間緣，此於後生心心所法，開避引導，名開導依。

必具四義：一、有緣慮，𥳑色不相應無為也；二、為主，𥳑諸心所；三、能作等無間，𥳑異類識；四、此於後生開避引導，就自類中𥳑羅漢後心。記六

然《攝大乘》說「色亦容有等無間緣」者，是縱奪言。

若不許色等無間緣，如何《攝大乘論》第三卷云「若復有執色心無間，生是諸法，略不應道理，略唯可容有等無間緣。」無性釋云「是經部計，故作此通。」此如前釋，上座部以經為量者，皆為經部，非是二十部中經部。鈔十八忠安引

如是已說此識所依。所緣云何？

雖有四釋，第四為正。記七

亦不應說二執前後，此無始來一味轉故。

以境同故。記七

但緣藏識見分非餘；

記七略敘本疏云：「不別論。」同學鈔四之三敘本疏云：「此下不引對法第二，可為潤色。」

或此執彼，是我之我。

前我五蘊假者第六所緣，後我第七所計。或說前念我之後念我，乃至廣說。記七同基

由斯兼釋，所立別名，能審思量，名末那故。

何故釋名門但解末那，三性門中即解心所？解云：理實於諸門中皆有二義，影略互顯。燈十二

分別俱生、外境內境、所陵所恃、麤細有殊，故彼此文義無乖返。

分別起中容有不俱，非一切爾，有緣內境愛慢俱故。記七

要緣曾受境界種類發起妄念及邪𥳑擇，方起貪等諸煩惱故。

且如六識，雖未曾受而曾受類；設緣滅道曾聞名類，染淨等流，率爾之類；末那亦爾，無始所緣賴耶種類，故有妄念。記七同基

如疑人杌，

無覆無記，異熟生攝。記七同基

妄念不正知，念、慧為性者，不徧染心；非諸染心，皆緣曾受，有𥳑擇故。

問：如起邪慧，亦有愚癡，即便有二不正知耶？二說。一云：有慧分時不說癡分，名義順故。無慧分時，說有癡分，徧染心故。一云：總相癡慧上立一不正知，如不放逸，依四法立，不別別說，二相應故；餘妄念等，準此應知。記七同基

## 成唯識論疏卷第四