俱舍論疏 8.119

8.119

論「復說若處至故非識住」，述異釋也。准此論文，豈可第四靜慮處三天異生，皆悉愛慕無想異熟處耶？應非正義。《正理論》云「有餘師說：眾生有三所，謂樂著諸境、樂、想。樂著境者，人及欲天。樂著樂者，下三靜慮。樂著想者，下三無色。唯依此處立識住名，餘無此三，故非識住。又云：上代師資相承說者，若處具有見、修所斷及無斷識，立識住名。異此便非識住所攝。豈不欲界人及六天無無漏識，應非識住。若言能作無漏所依，則有頂天應名識住。此難非理，欲界無定，可就所依說有無漏。然有頂天是定地攝，應依自性說彼有無。由自性無，故非識住。或非有頂補特伽羅一所依中具三種識，欲界善處補特伽羅一所依中容具三識，故不應以有頂為例。第四靜慮雖具三識，而五處全、一處少分不具三識，故少從多不立識住。是故識住數唯有七（言三識者，謂見斷、修斷及無漏識。非想處一切聖人無見斷識，一切異生無無漏識。於欲界中可有一人先具見、修，復有無漏或於初忍。五處全者，謂五淨居。一少分者，為廣果天。無想天中無無漏識，廣果天中具三識故。唯下二天具有三識，上六天中不具三故。故言以少從多不名識住）。」

The verse commentary states: "Furthermore, it is said that if in a place [...] therefore they are not stations of consciousness." This presents a different explanation. Following this textual passage, could it be that ordinary persons (pṛthagjana) in the three heavens of the fourth dhyāna all crave and yearn for the place of non-conceptual vipāka? That should not be the correct view. The Nyāyānusāra states: "Other masters say: Sentient beings have three [points of] attachment—namely, attachment to objects, to pleasure, and to perception. Those attached to objects are humans and the desire-realm devas. Those attached to pleasure are in the lower three dhyānas. Those attached to perception are in the lower three formless realms. The designation 'station of consciousness' is established solely based on these places; because the others lack these three, they are not stations of consciousness. It also states: As handed down by the lineage of ancient masters, if a place completely possesses consciousness abandoned by seeing, consciousness abandoned by cultivation, and consciousness not to be abandoned, the designation 'station of consciousness' is established. If different from this, it is not subsumed under the stations of consciousness. Would not humans and the six devas of the desire realm lack anāsrava consciousness and thus should not be stations of consciousness? If one says they can serve as the support (āśraya) for the anāsrava, then the heaven of the peak of existence should be called a station of consciousness. This objection is unreasonable: the desire realm is not a concentrated stage, so one may speak of having or lacking the anāsrava in terms of the support. However, the heaven of the peak of existence is subsumed under a concentrated stage, so its presence or absence must be stated based on its intrinsic nature. Because it lacks it by intrinsic nature, it is not a station of consciousness. Alternatively, it is not that a person (pudgala) at the peak of existence possesses the three kinds of consciousness in a single support, whereas a person in the wholesome places of the desire realm may well possess the three consciousnesses in a single support; therefore, one should not take the peak of existence as an analogy. Although the fourth dhyāna possesses all three consciousnesses, five of its places entirely and one place partially lack the three consciousnesses; hence, because the few conform to the many, it is not established as a station of consciousness. Therefore, the number of stations of consciousness is only seven. (The three consciousnesses mentioned refer to: consciousness abandoned by seeing, abandoned by cultivation, and anāsrava consciousness. All āryas in the stage of neither perception nor non-perception lack consciousness abandoned by seeing, and all ordinary persons lack anāsrava consciousness. In the desire realm, there can be a single person who first possesses both seeing- and cultivation-[abandoned consciousness], and furthermore possesses the anāsrava, or at the initial kṣānti. The five places that entirely [lack them] are the five Pure Abodes (śuddhāvāsa). The one partial place is the heaven of Vast Fruit (Bṛhatphala). In the Non-conceptual Heaven (asaṃjñisattva) there is no anāsrava consciousness, whereas in the heaven of Vast Fruit all three consciousnesses are possessed. Only the lower two heavens possess all three consciousnesses, whereas the upper six heavens do not possess the three. Therefore it is said that because the few conform to the many, it is not called a station of consciousness.)"