[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) › [成唯識論了義燈](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832) › 1.49 # 成唯識論了義燈 1.49 成唯識論了義燈 1.49 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.49) 次詮簡者，有釋五門，名中有濫，緣生名妄，此則可爾。若約五法，相、名、分別、正智、如如。攝彼前四，總歸如如。正智非妄，總云攝妄，故即有過。又《辨中邊頌》云：「虛妄分別有」。乃至是則契中道，故不可說無漏名妄。二攝相歸識，此亦有過。若識性名識，不異前門。若即歸八識，識亦是相。亦不可說心王所變相分名相，以不離識所有五法皆名識故。若以五法總名為識，如非相故，離五無法可攝歸故。若云約教體說所變相分，同時心所亦變名等，為相緣故。攝假從實，即本第三。三法法數，合是第四性用門攝。又攝不盡，既約三法。何不約於五法三性？若云從略，應依四門，何假分五？分為八門，得失准前。 > Next, regarding evaluation and selection: in the explanation with five gates, there is ambiguity in the names. If conditioned arising is called "false", this is indeed acceptable. But if viewed in terms of the five dharmas—sign, name, discrimination, correct cognition, and suchness—subsuming the former four entirely into suchness would mean that correct cognition is not false, and calling it all "subsuming the false" is therefore flawed. Furthermore, the Madhyāntavibhāga-kārikā states: "Unreal discrimination exists," and so forth, down to "This is then in accord with the Middle Way." Therefore, it is impossible to say that the anāsrava is called "false". Second, subsuming signs into consciousness: this also has flaws. If the nature of consciousness is called consciousness, it does not differ from the previous gate. If it refers directly to the eight consciousnesses, consciousness is also a sign. Nor can it be said that the sign portion transformed by the king of the mind is called a sign, because none of the five dharmas are separate from consciousness, and all are called consciousness. If the five dharmas are collectively called consciousness, since suchness is not a sign, apart from the five there are no dharmas that could be subsumed into them. If it is said that it is spoken with reference to the essence of the teaching, namely the transformed sign portion, the contemporaneous mental factors also transform names and so forth to serve as cognitive objects for the signs. Subsuming the nominal into the real is the original third gate. The three dharmas and dharmic enumeration together belong under the fourth gate, that of the distinction between nature and function. Moreover, it is not exhaustive: since it is based on the three dharmas, why not base it on the five dharmas and the three natures? If it is said to follow abbreviation, it should rely on four gates; why bother dividing it into five? As for dividing it into eight gates, its merits and faults are analogous to the above. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.48](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.48) - [Next: 1.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.50) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.1.49) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.1.49) · Pramāṇa