<!-- Pramāṇa, a library of Indian primary sources · https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.33 -->

[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) › 4.33

# 成唯識論述記 4.33

成唯識論述記 4.33

- **Language:** Classical Chinese

### [4.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.33)

述曰：量云：八應以七為俱有依；是識性故；如第六識。此有五識為不定過，應云許是識性非五識故。此亦不爾，其第七識許非五識，是識性故。應總云：第八理應有俱有依；是識性故；如眼等識；此法不言以第七為依故，無不定過。如是雖言與轉識為依，而因顯八以第七為依。或若不爾，前言末那以第八識為俱有依，有不定過，以第八無俱有依故，故說第八亦有俱依。此中不諍等無間依、種子之因，種子之因前句，是故俱諍俱有。

> The Commentary states: The inference is: the eighth should take the seventh as its co-nascent support; because it is of the nature of consciousness; like the sixth consciousness. This has the fallacy of inconclusiveness with the five consciousnesses, so it should say: because it is admitted to be of the nature of consciousness and not the five consciousnesses. This too is not so, for the seventh consciousness is admitted to not be the five consciousnesses, because it is of the nature of consciousness. One should generally say: the eighth in principle ought to have a co-nascent support; because it is of the nature of consciousness; like the eye and other consciousnesses; because this property does not say it takes the seventh as support, there is no fallacy of inconclusiveness. Thus, although it says it serves as support for the evolving consciousnesses, through this reason it shows that the eighth takes the seventh as support. Or if it were not so, what was previously said—that manas takes the eighth consciousness as its co-nascent support—would have the fallacy of inconclusiveness, because the eighth would have no co-nascent support; therefore it says the eighth also has a co-nascent support. Here there is no dispute over the immediately preceding condition or the causal seed; the causal seed is the previous line, hence both dispute the co-nascent.  
> — English (machine translation) (machine translation)

- [Previous: 4.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.32)
- [Next: 4.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.34)
- [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4)

## Translations (1)

- [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.4.33) — English, machine translation

---
Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.4.33) · Pramāṇa
