成唯識論述記 9.45

9.45

述曰：第七名意，其第六識合而言之，總名意識。即是已說，誰言不說？如小乘中業、業道，思但是業而非是道；貪等三法是道非業；身、語二法亦業亦道，總合為言但名業道。第七名意，第六名意識，總合名意識，故無前難。安惠等云：何故不許唯第六識能遍計度，餘之七識雖亦能計，不能遍計，《攝論》不說，非餘不計。《攝論》第四本、釋二論皆作此解，云：第六識能周遍計度，體順彼名，餘不然故，彼論不說。又汝如業、業道合說者，我亦爾。第七名意；五、八名識；第六名意識，彼論總合為言名意識，亦有何過？故知八識皆能遍計。

The Commentary states: The seventh is called manas, and together with the sixth consciousness, they are collectively called 'mental consciousness'. That is, it has already been mentioned; who says it was not mentioned? As in the Hīnayāna, with karma and karmapatha: cetanā is only karma and not path; the three phenomena of covetousness and so forth are paths and not karma; bodily and vocal [actions] are both karma and path, but collectively spoken of they are merely called karmapatha. The seventh is named manas and the sixth is named mental consciousness; spoken of collectively they are named mental consciousness, so there is no preceding objection. Sthiramati and others say: Why not allow that only the sixth consciousness is capable of pervasive deliberation, while the remaining seven consciousnesses, though also capable of imagining, cannot pervasively imagine, so the Mahāyānasaṃgraha does not mention them, not that the others do not imagine? Both the root treatise and commentary of the fourth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha make this explanation, saying: The sixth consciousness is capable of all-pervasive deliberation, its substance conforming to that name, while the others are not so, hence that treatise does not mention them. Furthermore, if you speak of them collectively like karma and karmapatha, I do so as well: the seventh is called manas; the five and eighth are called vijñāna; the sixth is called manas-vijñāna. That treatise speaks of them collectively as mental consciousness—what fault is there in that either? Therefore we know that all eight consciousnesses are capable of pervasive imagination.