成唯識論了義燈 1.100

1.100

《論》「或執諸識用別體」，同西明云。有說：八識為一；有說：但執六識為一，不說七、八。雖有二解，取此為正。所以者何？世親釋云：唯除別有第八。故彼論云：非離意識，別有餘識，唯除別有阿賴耶識。故知別有第八自體。雖無正文，准理第七，離意別有。《要集》三解，第三同此，亦判為正。今謂不爾，若無「唯」言，可如所會，既說唯除別有第八，更許離六，別有第七，乖論「唯」言。《要集》又會，如《深密經》文，唯顯說第八與六，意中合說第六、七故。彼意唯信有第八識，本未信有第七末那故。世親述彼唯除第八，不除第七。若爾，那知世親不依《楞伽》所說第八與七，如水起浪，執七為一，唯除第八。又復無性但言：「此中無別餘識」，那知不依一類諸師，依《楞伽經》如水起浪，八識體一。此論但云：「諸識體同」，諸言無簡。又無著《攝論》云：「有一類師，說一意識，彼彼依轉，得彼彼名，如意思業，名身、語業」。依彼論文，即云說一意識，明不許多。又云：「如意思業」，只說意思，分為三業，非別二思。若許餘識，喻不相似，不名一意。是故，無性但總說言：「無別餘識」。世親《攝論》：唯除第八，更別師義，如古因明師，立能、所成，多少各別，非皆相似故。古一意師亦應如是，非可違論，說六為一，將作正敘。

"Or they grasp that the consciousnesses differ in function but are one in substance." This agrees with what Ximing states: 'Some say that the eight consciousnesses are one; some say they merely grasp the six consciousnesses as one, without mentioning the seventh and eighth. Although there are two interpretations, this [latter] one should be taken as correct. Why is this? Vasubandhu explains: "Excepting only the distinct existence of an eighth." Therefore, his treatise states: "Apart from the manovijñāna, there is no distinct other consciousness, excepting only the distinct existence of the ālayavijñāna." Thus we know that the eighth has a distinct substance of its own. Although there is no explicit text, according to reason, the seventh exists separately from the manas.' The Essentials presents three interpretations, the third of which is the same as this and is also judged correct. I say now that this is not so. If the word 'only' (唯) were absent, it might be reconciled as they say; but since it explicitly says 'excepting only the distinct existence of an eighth,' to further allow that apart from the six there is a distinct seventh contradicts the treatise's word 'only.' The Essentials reconciles it again by saying: 'Just as in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, it explicitly mentions only the eighth and the six, because within manas the sixth and seventh are combined; their intention was only to believe in the existence of the eighth consciousness, not having originally believed in the seventh, kliṣṭamanas; hence Vasubandhu describes them as excepting only the eighth, not excepting the seventh.' If so, how do we know that Vasubandhu does not rely on what is taught in the Laṅkāvatāra that the eighth and the seventh are like water raising waves, grasping seven as one and excepting only the eighth? Furthermore, Asvabhāva merely says: 'Herein there is no distinct other consciousness'; how do we know he does not rely on a class of masters who, based on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra's metaphor of water raising waves, hold that the eight consciousnesses are one in substance? This treatise merely says 'the consciousnesses are identical in substance,' where the word 'the' (諸) has no restriction. Furthermore, Asaṅga's Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'There is a class of masters who say there is only one manovijñāna; functioning in reliance on various [bases], it obtains various names, just as mental volition (cetanā) is called bodily and vocal action (karman).' Following that text, it explicitly speaks of 'one manovijñāna,' making it clear that it does not allow multiple [consciousnesses]. It also says: 'just as mental volition'; it only speaks of mental volition being divided into three karmas, not of two separate volitions. If other consciousnesses were allowed, the analogy would not correspond, and it could not be called 'one manas.' Therefore, Asvabhāva merely says generally: 'There is no distinct other consciousness.' In Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha, 'excepting only the eighth' represents yet another master's doctrine, just as ancient masters of hetuvidyā differed in how many sadhana and sadhya they established, not all being alike. The ancient masters of one manas should also be like this; one should not contradict the treatise by taking the claim that the six are one as the correct account.