[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) › [成唯識論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830) › 3.81 # 成唯識論述記 3.81 成唯識論述記 3.81 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.81](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.81) 述曰：第三結也。唯第八識具此四義，可是所熏，非是同時五心所等及餘轉識。言異熟識者，正是熏位故。若言現行生種異時，如何釋此？故知即以此義為正。其無性人此第七識，四義具足，何不受熏？以染無記違善、惡品，今言無記，唯無覆無記。此所熏中，何故堅者乃名受熏？以諸色等生無色界，諸轉識等入無心定等，便無法持諸種子故。若二俱持，即成一種生二芽過，如後當破。何故善等不能受熏？不含容故，如沈香等，如文自解。何故假法、心所、無為不能受熏？以無體故，不自在故，非可熏故，不能持種。問：如瓶能持物，假法何不然？答曰：不然，總假不能持，別色等能持，以別成總，說瓶能持。瓶體即是實色等故，諸不相應即色、心等，故如色等不能持種，亦不受熏。若爾，本識上假物生等，應能受熏，實已受熏，何須假法？如礙於心，假法亦得；如受於熏，假法應得。若假說者亦得受熏，唯自體分能受餘熏，如上心所不能受熏，如下觸等，亦如是中說。何故不和合，不得為所熏？若爾，便許有熏他身。熏他身有何過？即自作罪，令他受果，他身中有業等種子，自受果故，或凡夫熏阿羅漢等，故要四義，簡持如右。此則《攝論》雖有，未能有此差別，唯能熏四義，諸論所無。 > The Commentary states: The third \[part\] concludes. Only the eighth consciousness is endowed with these four meanings and can be that which is perfumed, not the five simultaneous mental factors and so forth or the remaining transforming consciousnesses. The mention of 'heterogeneous ripening consciousness' is precisely because it is at the stage of being perfumed. If one were to claim that active manifestation produces seeds at a different time, how could one explain this? Thus we know that this meaning is precisely the correct one. In a person lacking the \[enlightenment-\]nature, this seventh consciousness is fully endowed with the four meanings, so why does it not receive perfuming? Because defiled neutral \[activity\] conflicts with the wholesome and unwholesome categories. Here, when 'neutral' is mentioned, it refers solely to non-defiled neutral. Among that which is perfumed, why is that which is enduring called capable of receiving perfuming? Because when the various forms and so forth are born into the formless realm, and the various transforming consciousnesses and so forth enter the absorption without mind and so on, there would be no dharma to hold the various seeds. If both were to hold them, there would be the fault of a single seed giving rise to two sprouts, as will be refuted later. Why can wholesome and unwholesome \[dharmas\] not receive perfuming? Because they are not accommodating, like aloeswood and so forth, as the text itself explains. Why can nominal dharmas, mental factors, and unconditioned \[dharmas\] not receive perfuming? Because they lack \[real\] substance, are not self-determined, and cannot be perfumed; hence they cannot hold seeds. Question: Just as a jar can hold things, why can a nominal dharma not do so as well? Answer: It cannot; a collective nominal entity cannot hold \[things\], while the particular forms and so forth can hold \[them\]. Because the particulars constitute the collective, one says the jar can hold \[things\]. The substance of a jar is just real form and so forth; the various \[citta-\]viprayukta-saṃskāras are just form, mind, and so forth, so just like form and so forth they cannot hold seeds, nor can they receive perfuming. If so, nominal things such as production on the basic consciousness ought to be able to receive perfuming. \[If\] the real \[consciousness\] has already received perfuming, what need is there for nominal dharmas? Just as in obstruction to mind nominal dharmas are also admitted, so in receiving perfuming nominal dharmas ought to be admitted. If spoken of nominally, they may also receive perfuming; but only the self-substance division can receive other perfuming. Just as the mental factors above cannot receive perfuming, so below it is said that contact and so forth are likewise. Why can that which is not associated not be that which is perfumed? If it were, one would admit that there is perfuming of another's body. What fault is there in perfuming another's body? One would commit an offence oneself, causing another to receive the fruition, because there would be karmic seeds and so forth in the other's body and one would receive the fruition oneself; or an ordinary worldling would perfume an arhat and so forth. Therefore, the four meanings are required, distinguishing and retaining as above. Although this is present in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, it has not yet made these distinctions; the four meanings of the capable perfumer alone are absent in the other treatises. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.80](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.80) - [Next: 3.82](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.82) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.3.81) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.81](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.81) · Pramāṇa