[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) › 9.47 # 成唯識論述記 9.47 成唯識論述記 9.47 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [9.47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9.47) 述曰：五、八既無計度，明無分別而不起執，《攝論》本第四云：「當知意識是能遍計，有分別故」，乃至是故，意識無邊行相而轉，普於一切分別計度，故名遍計，非五、八識能普計故。若爾，第七不能普計，應非此收。此言不爾，三分別中，計度分別能為七中有相分別乃至不染，非五、八識有此能故。其第七識有計度故，可是此收；五、八不爾。無性云：意識有分別者，由能顯示隨念分別所雜糅故。顯示者，即計度，非是自性，餘亦有故。此為正解。前師云：計度分別計相麁高，五、八即無自性、任運、有相分別此等細者；五、八說有，理亦何爽？雖《攝論》約麁計度分別為言，不言五、八。五、八二識實能遍計，又一切八識簡無漏心故，言意識能有分別，非謂唯言第六、七識。世親《攝論》唯言由此品類能遍計度，不簡何者；無性偏解本論，故以顯示等言簡別，此有何妨？後難之云。 > The Commentary states: Since the five and eighth lack deliberation, it is clear that they lack discrimination and do not give rise to grasping. The root text of the fourth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'It should be known that the mental consciousness is capable of pervasive imagination because it possesses discrimination,' up to: 'Therefore, the mental consciousness operates with boundless ākāras and discriminates and deliberates universally with regard to all things, hence it is called pervasive imagination,' whereas the five and eighth consciousnesses cannot universally deliberate. If so, then since the seventh cannot universally deliberate, it should not be included here. This is not so; among the three kinds of discrimination, deliberative discrimination can function within the seventh as discrimination with marks, up to being non-defiled, whereas the five and eighth consciousnesses do not possess this capacity. Since the seventh consciousness possesses deliberation, it may indeed be included here; the five and eighth are not so. Asvabhāva says: that the mental consciousness has discrimination is because it is capable of manifesting an intermingling with recollective discrimination. 'Manifesting' means deliberation, not the own-nature \[discrimination\], since the others also possess it. This is the correct interpretation. The former master says: deliberative discrimination has coarse and prominent marks of imagination, which the five and eighth lack, but they possess subtle discriminations such as own-nature, spontaneous, and marked discrimination; why would it violate reason to say the five and eighth possess them? Although the Mahāyānasaṃgraha speaks in terms of coarse deliberative discrimination and does not mention the five and eighth, the five and eighth consciousnesses are in fact capable of pervasive imagination; furthermore, all eight consciousnesses are set apart from the undefiled mind, hence it says that mental consciousness can have discrimination, not that it refers solely to the sixth and seventh consciousnesses. Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha only says that by this category it is capable of pervasive deliberation, without setting apart which ones; Asvabhāva specifically explained the root treatise and therefore set them apart with words like 'manifesting'; what obstacle is there in this? He objects to this later, saying: > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 9.46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9.46) - [Next: 9.48](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9.48) - [Up: 9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.9.47) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [成唯識論演祕](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.7.16) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9.47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.9.47) · Pramāṇa