成唯識論了義燈 5.25

5.25

釋意識得名，問：五、八皆依七，何故六稱不共依，獨得名意識，非五、八耶？答：若染淨依及俱有依，七望五、八，俱是所依。然近順生不共依者，即唯第六。今言不共意，顯近而順生，何者以六種子必隨七種，七種生現意識隨生，如眼識種依眼根種，此亦如是。五．八不說依第七種，故此得名，無相濫失。若爾七依八生，何不名心？八依七生，何不名意？答：《論》云辨識得名心、意非例。又七、八自相續，當體得名。六識間斷，從依緣目，或准界、處，俱名心意。第七名心意，第八名意心，理亦無失，然無誠文。

Explaining how the mental consciousness (manovijñāna) gets its name: Question: Both the five [consciousnesses] and the eighth rely on the seventh; why is the sixth alone called its 'unshared support' and exclusively named 'mental consciousness' (manovijñāna), but not the five or the eighth? Answer: If considered as the support of defilement and purity or as the co-arising support, the seventh is the support for both the five and the eighth. However, that which is an unshared support immediately according with their arising is exclusively the sixth. Here, 'unshared' is used to show that it is proximate and accords with arising. For what reason? Because the seed of the sixth necessarily follows the seed of the seventh; when the seed of the seventh produces its manifestation, the mental consciousness arises in accordance, just as the seed of the eye consciousness relies on the seed of the eye faculty—this is also like that. The five and the eighth are not said to rely on the seed of the seventh; hence this one obtains the name, without the fault of mutual confusion. If so, since the seventh arises relying on the eighth, why is it not named 'citta-vijñāna'? And since the eighth arises relying on the seventh, why is it not named 'mano-vijñāna'? Answer: The treatise states that defining consciousness by its name does not make citta and manas parallel cases. Furthermore, the seventh and eighth maintain their own continuity and are named from their own intrinsic nature. The six consciousnesses are interrupted, so they are designated from their support and object. Or, drawing an analogy from the elements (dhātu) and bases (āyatana), both can be called citta and manas: calling the seventh 'citta-manas' and the eighth 'manas-citta' is logically without fault; however, there is no explicit authoritative text.