成唯識論述記 7.551

7.551

述曰：現量照自體故，是五識等四分之中自相分故，識所變故，今說為有，亦能變識，後時意識所執外為實色等境，妄計情有故，說彼為非有，此明內心變似色等現，是心之相分，此但非外妄計所執心外之法是無，說彼非有，不稱境故。五識中嗔等，亦親不順本質境，但稱親所變相分故，非遍計所執。《唯識二十》說此頌言：「現覺如夢等，已起現覺時，見及境已無，寧許有現量？」正量部等各別破之，正量部師許境相續，諸識剎那，今破之言，五識後意緣現色等時，五識現量能見者，已滅非有，此五識後，意分別故，謂為外也，故非現證。薩婆多等，色等亦念念滅，後意緣時，見及境亦已無，五識及所緣皆已滅故，如何有現覺？此中文總，意含二種，以彼二宗六識不俱故。若大眾部等及大乘，諸識雖俱，然五識俱，現量意識，同於五識，此二現量不分明執，後時意識方分別執，謂為外境，現量得時，不作外解，然今此中據自多分，及就他宗說現量時，不執為外。然實五俱亦有意識妄執者也。五識相續緣色等，意與五同緣，若不執者，若聞聲等，應不執實，若五識滅，方起執者，後五識生，何故執斷？然但堅深可說有異，非五識俱無有執也。諸處但說五識俱意識是現量，不言定爾，故不相違，由此亦無有多過失，如別抄中敘諸師說。此依道理以答外人。

The Commentary states: Because direct perception illuminates its own essence, it is the nimittabhāga itself among the four divisions of the five consciousnesses and the like; because it is transformed by consciousness, it is now said to exist. It is also that which is grasped as external real objects such as form by the transforming consciousness, the subsequent mental consciousness; because it exists only conceptually through false imagination, it is said to be non-existent. This clarifies that the internal mind transforms to appear as resembling form and so forth, which is the nimittabhāga of the mind; this simply negates that the dharmas external to the mind falsely imagined are non-existent, saying they are non-existent because they do not conform to the object. Anger and the like in the five consciousnesses also do not directly conform to the fundamental archetype (bimbamātra); yet because they conform to the directly transformed nimittabhāga, they are not conceptually imagined (parikalpita). The Viṃśikā-vijñaptimātratāsiddhi states this verse: "Direct awareness is like a dream and the like. / When the direct awareness has already arisen, / the seeing and the object are already absent; / how can one accept that there is direct perception?" This refutes the Saṃmatīya and others individually. The masters of the Saṃmatīya accept that the object continues in series while the various consciousnesses are momentary. It is now refuted by saying: when the subsequent mind of the five consciousnesses conditions present form and the like, the direct-perceiving viewer of the five consciousnesses has already ceased and does not exist; after these five consciousnesses, the mind discriminates and therefore calls it external; hence it is not direct realization. For the Sarvāstivādin and others, form and the like also perish from moment to moment; when the subsequent mind conditions it, the seeing and the object are also already absent, because the five consciousnesses and what they condition have both already ceased. How could there be direct awareness? The text here is general, its meaning embracing both, because in those two schools the six consciousnesses do not occur simultaneously. As for the Mahāsāṃghika and others as well as the Mahāyāna, although the various consciousnesses occur simultaneously, nevertheless, the direct-perception mental consciousness simultaneous with the five consciousnesses is the same as the five consciousnesses: these two direct perceptions do not distinctly grasp [an external object]; it is only the subsequent mental consciousness that discriminates and grasps, calling it an external object. When obtained through direct perception, one does not conceive it as external. However, here, based on one's own system's majority cases and in consideration of other schools, it is said that at the time of direct perception one does not grasp it as external. Yet in reality, there are also cases where the mental consciousness accompanying the five falsely grasps. If the five consciousnesses continuously condition form and the like, and the mind conditions the same as the five, then if it did not grasp, when hearing a sound, it would not grasp it as real. If grasping arose only when the five consciousnesses had ceased, then when the subsequent five consciousnesses arose, why would the grasping be interrupted? However, one may only say there is a difference in firmness and depth, not that there is no grasping whatsoever accompanying the five consciousnesses. In various places it is only said that the mental consciousness accompanying the five consciousnesses is direct perception, not that it is invariably so; hence there is no contradiction. Thereby there are also not many faults, as detailed in the separate notes recounting the explanations of various masters. This answers the opponent according to logical reasoning.