成唯識論述記 9.45

9.45

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.