[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [釋摩訶衍論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668) › 4.63 # 釋摩訶衍論 4.63 釋摩訶衍論 4.63 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.63](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.4.63) 已說經本，次釋論文。即此文中自有二門。云何為二？一者總標略示門、二者標釋俱成門。以有境界緣故復生六種相者，即是初門。此文為明何義？謂為顯示彼一意識六種麁相，現鏡識中六塵境界以為起緣，現鏡識體以為依因，得長相續具足轉故。若爾，何故唯言以境界為緣，不說以彼本識為因？義相顯故，且略而已，其理非無。若爾，現識即應末那，為彼意識親所依故，猶如意根。解釋此義即有二意。云何為二？一者遮意、二者許意。遮者，遮別種故。許者，許阿梨耶、末那故。如是疑難，至大末那決擇分中其理自顯。自此已下釋第二門。此六相中，第一二相即是法執，第二二相即是人執，第三二相即是業因果報別相。復次初二，地上所斷；中二，三賢所斷；後二，十信所離。復次初二則是細相，後有四相則是麁相。復次初一則是細相，後有五種即是麁相。復次初五則是細相，後一麁相。復次六相皆是麁相。復次六相皆無細相亦無麁相。如其次第應審思惟。 > Having explained the root sūtra, next the treatise text is explained. Within this text itself there are two approaches. What are the two? First, the approach of general heading and brief indication; second, the approach of heading and explanation mutually accomplished. That 'because there are conditions of sense objects, six marks are further produced' is the first approach. What meaning does this text elucidate? It is to reveal that the six coarse marks of that single mental consciousness take the six sense objects in the manifesting mirror-consciousness as the arising condition and take the substance of the manifesting mirror-consciousness as the supporting cause, thereby being able to prolong succession and revolve in completeness. If so, why does it only say 'taking sense objects as condition' and not speak of 'taking that fundamental consciousness as cause'? Because the aspect of meaning is already evident, it is merely omitted for brevity, but the principle is not non-existent. If so, the manifesting consciousness would then be manas, as it is the immediate support for that mental consciousness, just like the faculty of mind. In explaining this meaning, there are two intents. What are the two? First, the intent of negation; second, the intent of affirmation. The negation negates distinct seeds. The affirmation affirms the ālaya and manas. Such doubts and objections will become clear of themselves when reaching the Chapter on Determining the Great Manas. From here below, the second approach is explained. Among these six marks, the first two marks are attachment to dharmas; the second two marks are attachment to a person; the third two marks are the distinct marks of karmic causes and retributions. Furthermore, the first two are severed on the bhūmis; the middle two are severed by the three grades of sages; the latter two are abandoned by the ten faiths. Furthermore, the first two are subtle marks, while the subsequent four marks are coarse marks. Furthermore, the first one is a subtle mark, while the subsequent five kinds are coarse marks. Furthermore, the first five are subtle marks, while the latter one is a coarse mark. Furthermore, all six marks are coarse marks. Furthermore, all six marks have neither subtle marks nor coarse marks. These should be carefully contemplated in their proper order. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.4.62) - [Next: 4.64](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.4.64) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668~en-mt.4.63) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.4.63](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1668.4.63) · Pramāṇa