成唯識論述記 4.766

4.766

述曰：此第七識以彼種子識、及現行果識俱為所依。此識隨在因果位中雖無間斷，於入見道等而有轉易，或善或染，必假現識為俱有依方得生故。若不爾者，體有轉易，殊無勝力，如何得生？賴相續識可得生故。問：前師曰：今言依彼言依種子者，五十一云：由有本識有末那等。文如何通？應言由有本識，意識得轉，第六亦依本識種故。問：後師曰：初地等轉易，第六引生，第八於七有何勝力？如定中聞聲，意識不共耳識同取。當時唯有現行相續七、八二識，應亦得說為耳識依，雖無引力仍說依故。前師答曰：如《對法》第二眼識種子依眼根種，眼根種為所依，眼識種為能依。要根種子導識種子生現根已，其識種子方得生識。不爾識種定無生義，而現行眼識。一自種依彼根種；二自現依彼根現。其第六識由第七種子導生，第七望六有力勝，故說六依七，非第六識不依本識之種子故。今第七依言但依彼種，非彼現識。若說依現如何說依，不與七同緣，行相殊異故。但可說言緣彼現識，不可言依。若爾如何說六依七？所緣行相並不同故；非如眼等為眼識依所取等故。答曰：兩人依別復兩處住，如王與臣等仍說相依，有為諸法勢分力故。此識亦爾，所作、行相雖復不同，而第七勢分為第六依，非第八現為第七依。問曰：若爾如何知七於六有勢分，非八現於七，故知說八為第七依？彼質答曰：如何為境復說為依，依、緣何異？答而復質曰：如第六緣七，如何為境？又復為依，理無過故，此亦應爾。後師答曰：前師有過，我理無失。且初地轉易，八於七識有何勝力者。若無第八現行，彼七必無故。意識不爾，故說非七依。即如定中聞聲，意識無時耳必不轉，彼必同取。今此七、八雖不同境，勢分牽故，竟有何失？第七識必有現行所依；名轉識故；如前六識。或應有識為俱有依；六、七識中名轉識故；如第六意識。問曰：如設無第七非五識生，七非五識依，何故無第八時，七不有第八為七依，八例七等亦爾？如下廣解。然賴耶根本說七依八，與力令生故，非如七無五識不有，七非本故；不與力故。又若無七，五識必無，故今說七依八現、種。准此二師雖無評義，然後師勝，無過親故。前理難故，下自當知。

The Commentary states: This seventh consciousness has both that seed consciousness and the active resultant consciousness as its bases. Although this consciousness is uninterrupted throughout the causal and resultant stages, upon entering the path of seeing (*darśana-mārga*) and so forth it undergoes alteration, being either wholesome or defiled; it must necessarily rely upon the active consciousness as its co-arising basis in order to arise. Were it not so, since its substance undergoes alteration and would possess no superior power, how could it arise? It can arise because it relies upon a continuous consciousness. Question: The former master asks: If you now claim that "relying on that" means relying on seeds, how is the text of fascicle 51 reconcilable, which says: "Due to the existence of the root consciousness there is *manas*," and so forth? One should rather say that due to the root consciousness the mental consciousness is able to arise, since the sixth also relies on the seeds of the root consciousness. Question: The latter master asks: At the first ground and so forth it alters, and it is induced and produced by the sixth; what superior power does the eighth have over the seventh? For instance, when hearing a sound in meditative absorption, the mental consciousness does not apprehend it together with the ear consciousness. At that time there are only the active, continuous seventh and eighth consciousnesses; should one also say that they are the basis for the ear consciousness? Even without inducing power, they are still said to be its basis. The former master answers: As the second fascicle of the *Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya* states, the seed of the eye consciousness relies on the seed of the eye faculty; the seed of the eye faculty is that which is relied upon, and the seed of the eye consciousness is that which relies upon it. Only after the seed of the faculty leads the seed of the consciousness to produce the active faculty can that seed of consciousness generate consciousness. Otherwise, the seed of consciousness would certainly have no meaning of generating. And as for the active eye consciousness: first, its own seed relies on the seed of that faculty; second, its own active manifestation relies on the active manifestation of that faculty. The sixth consciousness is led and produced by the seed of the seventh, and the seventh has superior power in relation to the sixth, so the sixth is said to rely on the seventh—not because the sixth consciousness does not rely on the seeds of the root consciousness. Now, when it is said that the seventh relies, it means it relies only on those seeds, not on that active consciousness. If you say it relies on the active manifestation, in what sense is it said to rely? It does not cognize the same object as the seventh, and its cognitive aspects (*ākāra*) are entirely different. One can only say that it takes that active consciousness as an object, but not that it relies on it. If so, how can one say that the sixth relies on the seventh? Their objects and cognitive aspects are not at all the same; it is not like the eye and the rest, which serve as the basis for the eye consciousness and are what it apprehends. The answer is: Two persons have different bases and dwell in two different places, yet like a king and his ministers they are still said to rely on each other, due to the forceful influence of conditioned phenomena. This consciousness is also like this: although its functions and cognitive aspects are different, the forceful influence of the seventh serves as the basis for the sixth, whereas the active manifestation of the eighth does not serve as the basis for the seventh. Question: If so, how do you know that the seventh has forceful influence over the sixth, but the active eighth does not over the seventh, such that one knows the eighth is said to be the basis for the seventh? He counter-questions: How can it be an object and yet also be said to be a basis? What is the difference between a basis (*āśraya*) and an object (*ālambana*)? He answers with another counter-question: Just as the sixth takes the seventh as an object, how can it be an object and also a basis? In principle there is no fault, so this too should be like that. The latter master replies: The former master has faults, while my principle is flawless. First, as to the question: "At the alteration of the first ground, what superior power does the eighth have over the seventh?" If the active manifestation of the eighth did not exist, that seventh would definitely not exist. The mental consciousness is not like this, which is why it is said not to be the basis of the seventh. It is just like hearing a sound in absorption: when the mental consciousness is absent, the ear consciousness definitely does not operate, and they must apprehend together. Now, although these seventh and eighth do not have the same object, because their forceful influence pulls them along, what fault is there after all? The seventh consciousness must have an active basis, because it is called an evolving consciousness, just like the first six consciousnesses. Or, it must have a consciousness as its co-arising basis, because among the sixth and seventh consciousnesses it is called an evolving consciousness, just like the sixth mental consciousness. Question: If, suppose the seventh is absent, the five consciousnesses would not arise, yet the seventh is not the basis of the five consciousnesses, why is it that when the eighth is absent the seventh does not exist, yet the eighth is the basis of the seventh; and does the eighth analogize to the seventh in the same way? This will be explained in detail below. However, the *ālaya* is the root, and the seventh is said to rely on the eighth because it imparts power to cause it to arise; it is not like the fact that when the seventh is absent the five consciousnesses do not exist, for the seventh is not the root and does not impart power. Furthermore, if the seventh did not exist, the five consciousnesses would definitely not exist; therefore it is now stated that the seventh relies on both the active manifestation and the seeds of the eighth. According to these two masters, although there is no explicit critical verdict, the latter master is superior, because he is without fault and closer [to the truth]. The former has logical difficulties, as will be understood naturally below.