[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [瑜伽師地論略纂](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829) › 13.10 # 瑜伽師地論略纂 13.10 瑜伽師地論略纂 13.10 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [13.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13.10) 論云「恐彼分別執為我」者，即第四句，釋第二、為起煩惱，不說所以。凡夫二執未斷，二我之執恐生；二乘人我雖除，法我猶在，恐其起此。我有二種：一、分別；二、俱生。俱生之我任運而生，分別之我因教方起。恐凡夫因教分別，二我得生，二乘因師分別，法我得起，故不為說。　問曰：先云彼勿執為我，此云何異？述曰：此言總未簡任運有我，其義可知。　問：第八相續似一常，恐起人我見，凡不聞；本識有體相是實，慮法執，大不說。述曰：說第八，雖生法執，若除法執，必由唯識。第八既是諸法如實因緣，此乃唯識之本，故為大根得說本識。（更有逐難云云，思之）。其此識義者，佛說法要，以利物為本，若說此法，始則不墮生死，終令能得涅槃者，佛即為說。然此識，凡夫聞之，生分別二我；若二乘聞，生法執故，及不能作唯識觀故，始則有損，終聞無益。　問：唯識非小境，不為說第八；末那二乘觀道除，應為二乘說。述曰：末那惑障於人觀，二乘觀道得除；人執識細，二乘非種智，所以不為說第七。即如見道雖斷三惡趣果，第八細故，不為說；末那識細故，彼非一切種智，亦不為說。　問曰：小乘觀道緣末那否？答：無分別智觀，斷惑時，自相觀故，觀末那理；後得智觀，非一切種智故，於事差別無智，亦不須緣。因此義，法師云以九門分別八識，備師以七門分別八識，皆如前鈔。 > The treatise states: "Fearing that they would conceptually discriminate and grasp it as a self." This is the fourth line, explaining the second reason it was not taught: fearing the arising of afflictions. Ordinary beings have not yet severed the two graspings, and it is feared that grasping of the two selves would arise; although the two vehicles have eliminated the self of persons, the self of phenomena still remains, and it is feared that they would give rise to this. There are two kinds of self: first, conceptually discriminated; second, innate. The innate self arises spontaneously, whereas the conceptually discriminated self arises only dependent on teachings. Fearing that ordinary beings would, dependent on teachings, conceptually discriminate and the two selves would arise, and that the two vehicles would, dependent on a teacher, conceptually discriminate and the self of phenomena would arise, it was not taught. Question: Previously it said "Lest they grasp it as a self"; how does this differ? Explanation: That statement did not universally exclude the spontaneously existing self; its meaning is clear. Question: The eighth consciousness is continuous and appears as one and permanent; fearing the arising of the view of a person-self, ordinary beings do not hear it. The root consciousness has substance and characteristics that are real; considering the grasping of phenomena, the Mahāyāna would not teach it? Explanation: Although teaching the eighth consciousness gives rise to the grasping of phenomena, eliminating the grasping of phenomena must depend on mere-cognition. Since the eighth consciousness is the true causes and conditions of all phenomena, this is the root of mere-cognition; therefore, the root consciousness can be taught for those of great faculties. (There are further successive objections; reflect upon them). As for the meaning of this consciousness: when the Buddha teaches the essentials of the Dharma, he takes benefiting beings as the foundation; if teaching this Dharma causes them initially not to fall into saṃsāra and ultimately enables them to attain nirvāṇa, the Buddha teaches it. However, if ordinary beings hear this consciousness, they give rise to the conceptually discriminated two selves; if the two vehicles hear it, they give rise to the grasping of phenomena, and because they cannot perform the contemplation of mere-cognition, it is harmful in the beginning and hearing it is useless in the end. Question: Mere-cognition is not the sphere of the Hīnayāna, so the eighth is not taught to them; but manas is eliminated by the path of contemplation of the two vehicles, so it should be taught to the two vehicles. Explanation: The afflictions of manas obstruct the contemplation of persons, which can be eliminated by the path of contemplation of the two vehicles; the consciousness of person-grasping is subtle, and the two vehicles do not possess the knowledge of all aspects (sarvākārajñatā), which is why the seventh is not taught to them. Just as the path of seeing eliminates the fruition of the three miserable realms, yet because the eighth is subtle it is not taught; because the manas consciousness is subtle and they do not have all-aspect knowledge, it is also not taught to them. Question: Does the path of contemplation of the Hīnayāna take manas as an object? Answer: In non-conceptual wisdom contemplation, when severing afflictions, because it is a contemplation of specific characteristics, it contemplates the principle of manas; in subsequent attainment wisdom contemplation, because they do not have the knowledge of all aspects, they have no wisdom regarding the distinctions of phenomena, so there is also no need to take it as an object. Because of this principle, the Dharma Master stated that the eight consciousnesses are distinguished through nine gates, while Master Bei used seven gates to distinguish the eight consciousnesses, all as detailed in the earlier commentary. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 13.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13.9) - [Next: 13.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13.11) - [Up: 13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829~en-mt.13.10) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [瑜伽論記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1828.13.47) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1829.13.10) · Pramāṇa