俱舍論頌疏論本 8.35

8.35

說獨識非住者，此明識蘊非是識住，謂此識蘊是能住識，不可能住立為所住，故識非識住。論云：「非能住識可名所住，如非即王可名王座。或若有法識所乘御，如人船理，說名識住。非識即能乘御自體，是故不說識名識住。毘婆娑師所說如是（解云：王喻能住識也，王座喻所住四蘊也。如人船理者，人喻識蘊，船喻色等四蘊，義可知也）。又佛意說，此四識住猶如良田，總說一切有取諸識猶如種子，不可種子立為良田。仰測世尊教意如是（已上論文）。」

"It is taught that consciousness alone is not a station": this clarifies that the aggregate of consciousness is not a station of consciousness. That is to say, this aggregate of consciousness is that which dwells, and it is impossible to establish that which dwells as that which is dwelt in; therefore, consciousness is not a station of consciousness. The śāstra says: "The consciousness that dwells cannot be called that which is dwelt in, just as the king himself cannot be called the king's throne. Or, if there is a dharma that consciousness mounts and directs—like the principle of a person and a boat—it is called a station of consciousness. Consciousness cannot mount and direct its own entity; therefore, consciousness is not spoken of as a station of consciousness. Such is what the Vaibhāṣikas teach (Commentary: The king is a metaphor for consciousness, which dwells; the king's throne is a metaphor for the four aggregates, which are dwelt in. As for the principle of a person and a boat, the person is a metaphor for the aggregate of consciousness, and the boat is a metaphor for the four aggregates of form, etc.; the meaning can be understood). Furthermore, the Buddha's intention was to teach that these four stations of consciousness are like fertile fields, and to say collectively that all consciousness accompanied by grasping is like a seed; a seed cannot be established as a fertile field. Looking upward to infer the Lord's teaching, such was his intention (thus far the text of the śāstra)."