[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) › 5.591 # 成唯識論述記 5.591 成唯識論述記 5.591 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.591](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.5.591) 述曰：餘三為主時，亦得名不共，亦如無明為主義故。此義未詳，不見諸論名不共貪故。對餘癡故論多說癡，理實貪等亦有不共名故。然此師意，非第七識中有不共貪等，無明為主故。今此據彼六識作論。若此師意，即六識中獨行貪等名不共貪，通見、修斷等，唯此俱貪不與六識慢等俱者，方名相應，不為主故，是主無明餘識亦有。又如無明故，總是難文，許亦無失，是答前難文。又此「俱見等應名相應」者，是破前師。前師「見等」亦名不共，今言「非主應名相應」，總是第二說之文也。「若為主時應名不共」者，初師難文。若以為主名為不共，此俱見等不為主非不共者，餘六識中見等為主時，亦應名不共如無明故，論答許亦無失。又如無明以下，總是答此前師難文、並得合為四解。 > The Commentary states: When the other three are sovereign, they may also be called unshared, precisely because of having the meaning of sovereign just like ignorance. This meaning has not been clarified in detail, for one does not see various treatises speaking of unshared craving and the like. It is because of contrasting with other delusions that the treatises mostly speak of delusion; in principle, craving and the others also genuinely possess the name 'unshared'. However, the intention of this master is not that in the seventh consciousness there is unshared craving and the like, because ignorance is the sovereign. Now, this proceeds by treating the six consciousnesses. According to the intention of this master, it is precisely in the six consciousnesses that solitary-active craving and the like are called unshared craving, which runs through what is abandoned by vision, cultivation, etc.; only craving associated with this \[seventh consciousness\] that is not together with conceit and the others of the six consciousnesses is called associated, because it is not sovereign, while sovereign ignorance also exists in the other consciousnesses. Again, 'Just as with ignorance' is entirely the text of the objection, and 'to concede it is also without fault' is the text answering the previous objection. Furthermore, 'view and the others associated with this should be called associated' refutes the previous master. The previous master held that 'view and the others' are also called unshared, whereas now stating 'not being sovereign they should be called associated' is entirely the text of the second explanation. 'If sovereign they should be called unshared' is the text of the objection by the first master. If being sovereign is called unshared, and view and the others associated with this, not being sovereign, are not unshared, then in the remaining six consciousnesses when view and the others are sovereign, they should also be called unshared just like ignorance; the treatise replies that conceding this is also without fault. Furthermore, from 'just as with ignorance' downward is entirely the text answering this previous master's objection; together they can be made into four interpretations. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.590](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.5.590) - [Next: 5.592](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.5.592) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.5.591) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [成唯識論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.trimsika!vijnaptimatratasiddhi*zh-xuanzang.5.73) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.5.591](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.5.591) · Pramāṇa