成唯識論述記 4.962

4.962

述曰：下解具依多少。於中有二：初解識依；後解心所。初中復四：一、解五識；二、解第六；三、解第七；四、解第八，此即初也。眼等五識有四所依，謂五色根、六、七、八識。以五根為依，如《大論》、《對法》第一等非一。以六、七、八為所依出何典記，亦有誠證，如《解深密》七十六等。說五識起時必有一分別意識，如前數引。雖或不同境，由六有方生。如定中聞聲等，此亦同緣故。不見無意識時，五識獨起聞文。故世親《攝論》第四云：五識以意為依，意散亂時五不生故，准彼明五以六為依。何故得知以七為依？如無性《攝論》第一證有第七中言：謂若不說有染污意，義不符順等。此中意言，由有第七識染故，施等有漏善法不成無漏，為彼染識之所漏故，如彼引頌言：如是染污意，是識之所依。此未滅識縛，終不得解脫等。世親《攝論》第一云：非是異生一期身中，離此我執應正道理。故知五識成有漏中，其第七識乃至彼未究竟滅，終不成無漏，如後卷說，故五識有漏。何以得知亦依第八者？世親《攝論》第一五同法中，彼五識身有五根、阿賴耶識為俱有依。此亦如是，有染污意、阿賴耶識為俱有依等，不能煩引。無性五同法云：阿賴耶識雖是意識俱生所依。然不應立為此別依，是共依故。因緣性故，現行是共依，種子是因緣。《瑜伽》、《顯揚》亦說由有阿賴耶識故執受色根，五種識身依之而轉等。又《顯揚》第一解阿賴耶識，云與轉識等作所依因。此文亦證與六、七為依，下一一引此等非一，故知五識以本識為共所依。文雖有四與諸論同，何故五識要須具四？

The Commentary states: Below explains the number of supports they possess. In this there are two parts: first, explaining the supports of consciousnesses; second, explaining the mental factors. The first also has four: 1. explaining the five consciousnesses; 2. explaining the sixth; 3. explaining the seventh; 4. explaining the eighth. This is the first. The five consciousnesses, such as the visual consciousness, have four supports: the five physical faculties, and the sixth, seventh, and eighth consciousnesses. That they take the five faculties as support is stated in numerous texts, such as the Great Treatise and Abhidharmasamuccaya, fascicle 1. As for what texts show that they take the sixth, seventh, and eighth as supports, there is also reliable textual evidence, such as Saṃdhinirmocana, fascicle 76, and so on. It says that when the five consciousnesses arise, there must be a conceptual mental consciousness, as frequently cited earlier. Although they may not share the same object, they arise due to the existence of the sixth. As in hearing a sound while in absorption, this also involves a common cognitive object. One never sees a text stating that the five consciousnesses arise independently without the mental consciousness. Thus, Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, fascicle 4, states: 'The five consciousnesses take the mental faculty as support, because when the mental faculty is distracted, the five do not arise.' By this standard, it is clear that the five take the sixth as support. How is it known that they take the seventh as support? As Asvabhāva's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-upanibandhana, fascicle 1, states in proving the existence of the seventh: 'If one does not state that there is an afflicted manas, the principle does not conform,' and so on. The meaning here is: because the seventh consciousness is defiled, mundane wholesome dharmas such as giving do not become untainted (anāsrava), being tainted by that defiled consciousness. As the verse cited there states: 'Such an afflicted manas / Is the support of consciousness. / Until this consciousness's bondage is extinguished, / One will never attain liberation,' and so on. Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, fascicle 1, states: 'It is not reasonable that within a single lifespan of an ordinary person (pṛthagjana) one could be free of this self-grasping.' Thus we know that when the five consciousnesses become tainted, as long as the seventh consciousness is not completely extinguished, they will never become untainted, as explained in later fascicles; therefore, the five consciousnesses are tainted. How is it known that they also rely on the eighth? In Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, fascicle 1, under the five common dharmas, those five consciousness bodies have the five faculties and the ālayavijñāna as their simultaneous support. This is also like that: they have the afflicted manas and ālayavijñāna as simultaneous supports, and so forth, which need not be cited at length. Asvabhāva's commentary on the five common dharmas states: 'Although the ālayavijñāna is the co-arising support of the mental consciousness, it should not be established as its distinct support, because it is a common support. Because it is a direct cause (hetu-pratyaya), the actualized is the common support, and the seed is the direct cause.' The Yogācārabhūmi and the Prakaraṇāryavācā also state that because the ālayavijñāna exists, it appropriates the physical faculties, and the five consciousness bodies proceed supported by it, and so forth. Furthermore, Fascicle 1 of the Prakaraṇāryavācā, in explaining the ālayavijñāna, states that it acts as the supporting cause for the evolving consciousnesses (pravṛtti-vijñāna) and so forth. This text also proves that it serves as support for the sixth and seventh, which will each be cited below; these are not few. Therefore we know that the five consciousnesses take the root consciousness as their common support. Although the text lists four, in accord with various treatises, why must the five consciousnesses possess all four?