俱舍論疏 8.135

8.135

論「又法與識至故非識住」，明四種法必俱時也。識與其識無俱時理，故非識住。《正理論》云「識與識住如種如田，理可如是，不違教故。」然彼所說若法與識可俱時生，為識良田立識住者，不應正理。所以者何？彼先自說識所依著故名識住，非於俱起受等蘊中有識所依，彼依識故（此識為依，非識依處）。識不依彼，如何可說彼為識住（若以所依義釋識住者，識不依彼受等法故，如何受等是識住耶）？又非所緣同一境故，俱生受等非所取故（依有二義：一所依義，心所法等非所依也，如前已破。二所緣義，以受等法復非所緣，如此中破。三相應依，如後破也）。又不可以相應依著釋識住義，勿諸色法及不相應非識住故（若相應義釋識住者，一切色法及不相應無相應義，應非識住）。又相應理無差別故，則應無漏亦識住體（有漏無漏、心心所法相應無別，因何有漏立識住體，無漏非也），如何可說俱生色等為識良田立為識住？《正理論》云「然我師宗作如是釋，為令於識除我見心，故於識中不說識住。契經中言：我達世尊所說法教，馳流生死唯識非餘。識謂世尊異名說我，為欲除滅彼我見心，顯識依他，體非是我。我所依性非謂能依，故識住門唯說有四，非實識住但四非識。今謂世尊所說識住，識色等四不言識者，由但色等於三時中與續有識為助伴故。謂唯色等與識俱生，過、未亦能為識助伴，令續有識生死馳流。識則不爾，故非識住。且眼等根及俱色等與俱生識為所依、依，根為所依、餘為依也。已滅未生但為識境，是故色蘊於三時中望續有識能為助伴。現在受等與識俱生為俱有因，一分與識同緣一境有助伴用，已滅未生俱為識境，是故受等亦於三時望續有識能為助伴。識雖過、未，望續有識少有助能，而俱生中全無助力，不俱起故。色等望識具二助能，識唯去、來故非識住，故非情數、及他身中，色等四蘊亦非識住，由彼望識但為所緣，不具二門助伴用故。住謂所住，是續有識引自果時能為依義。住或所著，是續有識引自果時能為境義。自身色等可有與識同一境義，設不同境然能為依，具二助能故立識住。非有情數他身色等則不如是，故非識住。」

The Śāstra says: "Furthermore, dharma and consciousness [...] therefore are not stations of consciousness." This clarifies that the four kinds of dharmas must be simultaneous. There is no principle whereby consciousness can be simultaneous with that very consciousness; therefore, it is not a station of consciousness. The Nyāyānusāra says: "Consciousness and the stations of consciousness are like seed and field; in principle it can be thus, for it does not contradict the teachings." However, what it states—that if a dharma can arise simultaneously with consciousness, it is established as a station of consciousness because it serves as a fertile field for consciousness—does not accord with correct reasoning. Why is this? It previously stated of itself that because consciousness relies upon and is attached [to them], they are called stations of consciousness. Yet consciousness does not find that upon which it relies within the simultaneously arising skandhas of sensation and so forth, because they rely upon consciousness (this consciousness serves as the support, not that consciousness finds its support there). Since consciousness does not rely upon them, how can they be spoken of as stations of consciousness (if one explains the station of consciousness by the meaning of 'that which is relied upon', since consciousness does not rely upon those dharmas of sensation and so forth, how could sensation and so forth be stations of consciousness)? Furthermore, it is not by being the cognitive object, because they share one and the same cognitive object, and simultaneously arising sensation and so forth are not what is apprehended [by consciousness] (there are two meanings of reliance: first, the meaning of support—mental factors and so forth are not what is relied upon, as has already been refuted above; second, the meaning of cognitive object—because sensation and so forth are furthermore not the cognitive object, as is refuted here; third, reliance through association, as will be refuted below). Furthermore, one cannot explain the meaning of a station of consciousness through associated clinging, lest all material dharmas and non-associated [formations] fail to be stations of consciousness (if one explains it through the meaning of association, all material dharmas and non-associated formations lack the meaning of association and should not be stations of consciousness). Furthermore, since the principle of association admits of no distinction, uncontaminated [dharmas] should also be the substance of stations of consciousness (there is no difference in the association of minds and mental factors whether contaminated or uncontaminated; for what reason would contaminated ones be established as the substance of stations of consciousness while uncontaminated ones are not?). How then can it be said that simultaneously arising form and so forth, serving as a fertile field for consciousness, are established as stations of consciousness? The Nyāyānusāra says: "However, our master's school offers this explanation: in order to dispel the notion of a self with respect to consciousness, stations of consciousness are not spoken of within consciousness itself. In the sūtra it is said: 'I understand the Dharma taught by the World-Honoured One: consciousness alone, and nothing else, transmigrates through saṃsāra.' In saying consciousness, the World-Honoured One spoke of the self by an alternative name. In order to eradicate that view of a self, he revealed that consciousness is dependent on others and that its nature is not a self. What serves as the basis of the self is not the dependent entity itself. Therefore, the portals of the stations of consciousness are spoken of as only four; it is not that the actual stations of consciousness are only four and not consciousness. Now we maintain that regarding the stations of consciousness spoken of by the World-Honoured One, the reason he spoke of the four beginning with form and did not speak of consciousness is that form and so forth alone serve as assistants to the consciousness of continuous existence across the three time periods. That is, form and so forth alone arise simultaneously with consciousness, and in past and future they can also serve as assistants to consciousness, causing the consciousness of continuous existence to course through saṃsāra. Consciousness is not like this, and therefore is not a station of consciousness. To begin with, the faculties such as the eye and the forms arising simultaneously with them serve as the primary support and secondary support for the simultaneously arising consciousness—the faculties being the primary support and the remainder the secondary support. Those already ceased or not yet arisen serve merely as cognitive objects of consciousness. Therefore, the skandha of form across the three times can serve as an assistant with respect to the consciousness of continuous existence. Present sensation and so forth arise simultaneously with consciousness as coexistent causes, and a portion of them shares the same cognitive object with consciousness, thereby possessing the function of an assistant; those already ceased and not yet arisen both serve as cognitive objects of consciousness. Therefore, sensation and so forth across the three times can also serve as assistants with respect to the consciousness of continuous existence. Although past and future consciousness have a slight assisting capacity with respect to the consciousness of continuous existence, among simultaneously arising [dharmas] it has no assisting power at all, because it does not arise simultaneously. Form and so forth possess two assisting capacities with respect to consciousness, whereas consciousness belongs only to past and future; therefore, it is not a station of consciousness. Consequently, the four skandhas of form and so forth belonging to non-sentient things and to other persons' bodies are also not stations of consciousness, because with respect to consciousness they serve merely as cognitive objects, lacking the assisting function across both aspects. 'Station' (sthiti) means that which is stayed in—that is, the meaning of being able to serve as a support when the consciousness of continuous existence brings about its own fruit. Or 'station' means that to which one is attached—that is, the meaning of being able to serve as a cognitive object when the consciousness of continuous existence brings about its own fruit. Form and so forth of one's own body can have the meaning of sharing the same cognitive object with consciousness; even if they do not share the same cognitive object, they are nonetheless able to serve as a support. Because they possess both assisting capacities, they are established as stations of consciousness. Form and so forth of non-sentient things and other bodies are not like this, and therefore are not stations of consciousness."