[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) › 4.9 # 成唯識論了義燈 4.9 成唯識論了義燈 4.9 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.9) 問：且六能熏，為共成一本質之種，為各別熏？答：有二解。一云，共成一本質種，而相、見種各別；一云，質亦各別，後說為正。問：俱是多因，共生一果，何故後正？答：種同一處，可共生果，能熏相異，各別熏質。問：受熏雖不在所，緣境俱同王、所。所變根、境之時，俱有用不？答：西明云：三藏二解。一云，觸等所變，俱無實用，境可增上緣，而非是所緣；一云，非例。根是增上義，故唯心變，境是疎緣義，亦通心所。後釋為正。今謂未然，心所所變，為六所緣，理即不障，為五識境，違於正義。護法五識，不許緣假故。若云：對第六說者亦不然。根、境相望，根既望五論。境是五境，如何對六說，雖傳三藏，不見同聞，況復教依法不依人故。 > Question: Do the six active perfumers jointly produce the seed of a single objective substratum, or do they each perfume separately? Answer: There are two explanations. One says they jointly produce the seed of a single objective substratum, while the seeds of the image aspect and the vision aspect are distinct; another says the objective substrata are also distinct, and this latter explanation is correct. Question: Since all are multiple causes jointly generating a single result, why is the latter correct? Answer: Seeds situated in the same locus can jointly produce a result, but since the active perfumers differ in aspect, they each perfume their respective objective substrata separately. Question: Although receiving perfuming does not pertain to the mental associates, the objects cognized are the same for both the primary mind and mental associates. When transforming into sense-faculties and objects, do they both have practical function? Answer: Ximing says that the Tripiṭaka Master offered two explanations. One says that what is transformed by touch and so forth lacks real practical function; the object may serve as an empowering condition, but it is not an intentional object. Another says they are not analogous: the sense-faculty has the meaning of being empowering, so it is transformed solely by the primary mind; the object has the meaning of being a distant condition, so it also extends to mental associates. The latter interpretation is regarded as correct. Now I say this is not so: that what is transformed by mental associates serves as an intentional object of the sixth \[consciousness\] is indeed unproblematic in principle, but for it to serve as the object of the five consciousnesses contradicts the correct doctrine. This is because Dharmapāla does not accept that the five consciousnesses cognize what is unreal. If one says that this is spoken in reference to the sixth \[consciousness\], that is also not so: comparing the sense-faculty and object, since the sense-faculty is discussed in reference to the five \[consciousnesses\], and the objects are the five objects, how could this be spoken in reference to the sixth? Although attributed to the Tripiṭaka Master, such a shared hearing is not attested, not to mention that the teaching requires relying on the Dharma, not on persons. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.8) - [Next: 4.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.10) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.4.9) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.9) · Pramāṇa