瑜伽論記 15.9

15.9

基云：如集量理門論云：五識唯現量，同時意識亦爾，今此中五識顯明了現量，不名有分別，不與尋伺等相應故。第六雖與五同緣現量名為分別，以與尋伺相應故，名同緣現在，可得明了。若彼五識後意識即不明了，緣過去故，如緣百千劫事即不明了，如第五十一卷中破。今此第一因既云極明了故，如緣現在故得有明了，非五識有緣過去故復得明了。第二因與五同時既於五境作意，故知亦緣現在。第三因二依資養者，眼識有四依根，意識有五依根，四與眼同第五加自，此謂意識依自根及眼根二依資養方能緣現在。若唯依一自依，則緣境不明了，此據散非定境內，此依眼為門取境名資養，非同眼識依根名資養。又如眼等善惡識起必由意引方得，由意資眼識故得有善惡，方知意眼同緣。

Ji says: "As the Pramāṇasamuccaya and Nyāyamukha state: 'The five consciousnesses are only direct perception; the simultaneous mental consciousness is likewise.' Now here, the five consciousnesses are clear, distinct direct perception, and are not called conceptualizing because they are not associated with investigation, reflection, and so forth. Although the sixth [consciousness] cognizes direct perception together with the five, it is called conceptualizing because it is associated with investigation and reflection; being called cognizing the present together, it can obtain clarity. If it is the mental consciousness subsequent to those five consciousnesses, then it is not clear because it cognizes the past; just as cognizing events of hundreds of thousands of kalpas is not clear, as refuted in Fascicle 51. Now, since this first cause states 'because it is extremely clear,' it achieves clarity just as when cognizing the present; it is not that the five consciousnesses cognize the past and thereby regain clarity. Because the second cause, being simultaneous with the five, directs attention toward the five objects, one knows that it also cognizes the present. As for the third cause, 'nourishment from two supports': visual consciousness has four supporting faculties, and mental consciousness has five supporting faculties—four are identical with the eye, and the fifth adds its own. This means that mental consciousness, relying on nourishment from its own faculty and the eye faculty—two supports—is then able to cognize the present. If it relied solely on its one own support, then cognizing the object would not be clear; this is stated according to a dispersed, non-meditative state. Here, taking the eye as a doorway to grasp objects is called 'nourishment'; it is not identical to the visual consciousness's reliance on its faculty being called nourishment. Furthermore, when wholesome or unwholesome consciousnesses such as the eye arise, they must necessarily be induced by the mind to be possible; because the mind nourishes visual consciousness, wholesome and unwholesome [states] can exist, from which one knows that mind and eye cognize together."