維摩經玄疏 5.113

5.113

答曰：地人言「六識是分別識，七識是智，障波浪識，八識是真常識。智識是緣修，八識若顯，七識即滅；八識名真修，任運體融常寂」，而《攝大乘論》云「七識是執見心，八識是無記無沒識」，豈得言是真修耶！又，今所明六識，即是不思議解脫，豈有六識、七識滅已，八識真修為不思議解脫！所以者何？如《鴦掘經》云「所謂彼眼根，於諸如來常具足無減修，了了分明見……乃至意根，亦復如是」，《法華經》明「父母所生六根清淨，以自湛然，照十方界境」，豈有六識滅，別有真緣修也！故經云「佛知一切眾生畢竟寂滅，即大涅槃，不可復滅；一切眾生，不可復滅」，即是六識不可滅。又此經云「解脫者，即諸法也」，豈不即是六識、十八界、一切法！若爾，豈得但約八識明不思議解脫？復次，若論四不可說，非但不生不生八識不可說，不生生七識亦不可說，生不生、生生六識亦不可說。若論有因緣故，亦可得說；四悉檀因緣故，亦可復說。而南、北二道執真、緣成佛不同，豈不墮自他見耶？若知如來常不說法，何有真、緣兩修成佛可說之可諍乎！而諸經論有此文者，特是聖人赴機之說，何有法身大士不以四悉檀赴緣接物，龍樹、天親，各有所說耶？皆是末代弘法失意，執文偏朋耳！若得此意，不應問與他何異也。

Answer: The Dilun masters say, 'The six consciousnesses are discriminating consciousnesses; the seventh consciousness is wisdom, which obstructs the billowing-wave consciousness; the eighth consciousness is the truly permanent consciousness. Wisdom-consciousness is conditioning cultivation; if the eighth consciousness manifests, the seventh consciousness is extinguished; the eighth consciousness is called genuine cultivation, its substance spontaneously fused and ever quiescent.' But the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says, 'The seventh consciousness is the mind of grasping at views, and the eighth consciousness is the morally indeterminate, unfailing consciousness.' How could one say it is genuine cultivation? Furthermore, what is explained here is that the six consciousnesses are themselves inconceivable liberation; how could it be that after the six and seven consciousnesses are extinguished, the eighth consciousness as genuine cultivation is inconceivable liberation? Why is this? As the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra says: 'What is called that eye organ, in the Tathāgatas, is ever complete, an unblemished cultivation, seeing distinctly and clearly… up to the mind organ, it is likewise so.' The Lotus Sūtra explains: 'The six sense organs born of father and mother are purified, and by their own serenity, illuminate the realms of the ten directions.' How could the six consciousnesses be extinguished and there be separate genuine and conditioning cultivations? Therefore the sūtra says: 'The Buddha knows that all sentient beings are ultimately quiescent and extinguished—that is the great nirvāṇa, which cannot be extinguished again; all sentient beings cannot be extinguished again'—that is, the six consciousnesses cannot be extinguished. Furthermore, this sūtra says: 'Liberation is simply all dharmas'; how could it not be the six consciousnesses, the eighteen realms, and all dharmas! If so, how could one explain inconceivable liberation solely in terms of the eighth consciousness? Moreover, if we speak of the four inexpressibles, not only is the unarisen-unarisen eighth consciousness inexpressible, but the unarisen-arisen seventh consciousness is also inexpressible, and the arisen-unarisen and arisen-arisen six consciousnesses are also inexpressible. If we speak in terms of causes and conditions, they can also be expressed; in terms of the causes and conditions of the four siddhāntas, they can again be expressed. But the two paths of the North and South cling to differences between genuine and conditioning [cultivation] for attaining buddhahood—does this not fall into views of self and other? If one knows that the Tathāgata ever teaches no Dharma, what dispute could there be over whether buddhahood attained through the two cultivations of genuine and conditioning can be stated? That various sūtras and treatises contain such passages is merely the Sage's teaching adapted to capacities. How could great beings of the dharma-body not adapt to conditions and receive beings through the four siddhāntas, such that Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu each had different teachings? These are all later generations propagating the Dharma who missed the intended meaning, rigidly clinging to texts and taking biased sides! If one grasps this meaning, one should not ask how it differs from others.