成唯識論述記 5.739

5.739

述曰：謂依於根，根之所發，屬於彼根，助於彼根，如於根故。《對法》第二卷說：若了別色等，故名為識，何故但名眼等識，不名色等識耶？以於眼等五種解釋，非於色等。此中第一，依眼之識，彼有二義，且如眼識，眼中之識故名眼識，依眼處所識得有故，此第七囀；及由有眼識得有故，此第三囀。且如意識，如何意中，雖七無處所，而意亦依彼，同無色所依，在無色所依中也。及由有第七，故得有意識，非是境色得識住中，不由有色識定生故。且據麁相，以盲冥者不能見故，雖知有色識不必生。第二，根所發者，彼云眼所發之識，故名眼識，由眼變異識必變異；如迦末羅病損眼根故，所見青色皆以為黃，非壞色時而識名壞。第七如何？謂由有此第七識故，第六相縛不得解脫，即其事也；後七若無漏，六必無漏故。第三，屬於根者，彼云屬眼之識，故名眼識，由識種子隨逐於根而得生故，此謂生依，非染淨依及根本依、引發依也。由此故知，七於六有勢力，謂六種子隨七種子，七種子生現時，六方得起與彼力故；不爾，不生，非色種子，識種隨之。此如何等？此色有時，必識所變，如有識時，必根所生，何得識種不隨色起？色是外法，根是內法，根恒相續，色即不然，不可為例。第四，助於根者，彼云：助眼之識，故名眼識，由根合識有所領受，令根損益，非於境界故，謂由根合識，令根有損益，非由色合識，令色有損益。離識之色，識雖無損益，色有損益故，如為他損色。如第六識俱無漏故，第七損有漏成無漏故。第五，如於根者，彼云如眼之識，故名眼識。根、識二法俱有情數，非彼色法定是有情。六、七亦爾，唯內攝故。隨根五義勝，多說依根名。問：前等無間中，六識皆依意，何故第六獨名意識？意識不然，眼等可爾。

The Commentary states: Namely, relying on the faculty, produced by the faculty, belonging to that faculty, assisting that faculty, and resembling the faculty. The second fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya-bhāṣya states: 'If it is called consciousness because it cognizes form and the like, why is it only called eye-consciousness and so forth, and not form-consciousness and so forth? Because of the fivefold explanation regarding the eye and so on, which does not apply to form and so on.' Among these, first, 'consciousness relying on the eye' has two meanings: for instance, eye-consciousness is called eye-consciousness because it is consciousness within the eye, for consciousness can exist relying on the locus of the eye, which is the seventh locative case (saptamī-vibhakti); and because it exists through the existence of the eye, which is the third instrumental case (tṛtīyā-vibhakti). As for mental consciousness (manovijñāna), how is it within the mind? Although the seventh consciousness has no physical locus, the mind also relies on it, just as the basis in the formless realm is within the formless basis. And because the seventh exists, mental consciousness can exist; it is not that consciousness resides within the object, form, nor does consciousness necessarily arise because form exists. Speaking provisionally in terms of coarse characteristics, because a blind person cannot see, although we know form exists, consciousness does not necessarily arise. Second, 'produced by the faculty': that text states that because it is consciousness produced by the eye, it is called eye-consciousness; when the eye undergoes modification, consciousness must undergo modification. Just as when jaundice (kāmalā) damages the eye faculty, blue forms seen are all perceived as yellow; it is not that consciousness is damaged when external form is damaged. How is it for the seventh? Because of the existence of this seventh consciousness, the objective entanglement (nimittabandhana) of the sixth cannot be liberated—this is precisely the point; if the seventh becomes anāsrava later, the sixth must become anāsrava. Third, 'belonging to the faculty': that text states that because it is consciousness belonging to the eye, it is called eye-consciousness; because the seed of consciousness follows along with the faculty and is able to arise, this refers to the generative basis, not the defiled-purified basis, fundamental basis, or inducing basis. From this it is known that the seventh has power over the sixth, meaning the seed of the sixth follows the seed of the seventh; only when the seed of the seventh generates actualization can the sixth arise, through its giving power to it; otherwise, it does not arise. It is not that the seed of consciousness follows the seed of form. How is this? When this form exists, it must be transformed by consciousness; just as when consciousness exists, it must be produced by the faculty. How could the seed of consciousness not arise following form? Form is an external dharma, while the faculty is an internal dharma; the faculty is perpetually continuous, whereas form is not, so they cannot be equated. Fourth, 'assisting the faculty': that text states, consciousness assisting the eye is called eye-consciousness; because the faculty joining with consciousness has apprehension, it causes harm or benefit to the faculty, not to the objective sphere. That is, because the faculty joins with consciousness, it causes harm or benefit to the faculty, not that form joining with consciousness causes harm or benefit to form. For form apart from consciousness, although consciousness has no harm or benefit, form may have harm or benefit, as when another damages form. Just as when the sixth consciousness is co-presently anāsrava, the seventh diminishes the sāsrava and becomes anāsrava. Fifth, 'resembling the faculty': that text states, consciousness resembling the eye is called eye-consciousness. The two dharmas of faculty and consciousness are both included among sentient beings, whereas that dharma of form is not definitely sentient. The sixth and seventh are also like this, being subsumed exclusively as internal. Because the five meanings following the faculty are superior, it is mostly spoken of as named after the faculty. Question: In the previous discussion of the equal-and-immediate condition, all six consciousnesses rely on the mind; why is the sixth alone named mental consciousness? Mental consciousness is not like that; eye and the others may be so.