成唯識論述記 4.749

4.749

述曰：意是自體，識即是意，於六釋中是持業釋。業謂業用，體能持用，即似舊言功能受稱。此六釋名皆二法相對，辨差別釋，非一一法究理括盡，如阿賴耶名藏識，識體即藏亦是此釋。此與彼同，故指為喻。何為此釋？識鉢即意故。其第六識體雖是識，而非是意，非恒審故，彼依主釋。主謂第七，即似舊言從所依得名，如眼識等，眼是所依，而體是識，依眼之識故名眼識。何為此釋？識異意故。能所依別，從依得名。問：今者得名既各不同，何故不並名意識，而於第七但立意名？若名意識顯是持業得名，但名為意，竟有何理？

The Commentary states: The mind (*manas*) is the entity itself, and the consciousness (*vijñāna*) is itself the mind; among the six compound analyses (*ṣaṭ-samāsa*), this is a karmadhāraya compound (*karmadhāraya*). "Karma" refers to function (*karma-kāritra*); the substance is able to maintain its function, which is similar to the older expression "receiving its name from its function." These six compound analyses all distinguish pairs of phenomena in opposition; they are not an exhaustive philosophical capture of every individual phenomenon. For example, *ālaya* is called "storehouse consciousness" (*ālayavijñāna*): the substance of the consciousness is itself the storehouse, which is also this [karmadhāraya] compound. This is the same as that, and is therefore cited as an illustration. Why is it this analysis? Because the bowl of consciousness is itself the mind. Although the substance of that sixth consciousness is consciousness, it is not the mind (*manas*), because it is not continuous and deliberative; that one is a tatpuruṣa compound (*tatpuruṣa*). The "master" (*puruṣa*) refers to the seventh consciousness, which is similar to the older expression "receiving its name from that upon which it relies." For instance, in the case of the eye consciousness and the others, the eye is the basis (*āśraya*), but its substance is consciousness; the consciousness that relies upon the eye is called the eye consciousness. Why is it this analysis? Because the consciousness is distinct from the mind (*manas*). The basis and the based are distinct, and it receives its name from that upon which it relies. Question: If their derivations of name are each different, why are they not both called *manovijñāna*, while for the seventh consciousness only the name *manas* is established? If it were called *manovijñāna*, it would show that it derives its name as a karmadhāraya compound; but what principle is there in merely calling it *manas*?