[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) › 6.2 # 成唯識論了義燈 6.2 成唯識論了義燈 6.2 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6.2) 言「餘識識」故。本釋如疏，西明云：第六意識、及大眾部等所立細意識，自宗七、八皆是有法餘識識故。然七、八識前依理、教已成立，故有法得成。今謂不爾，若前成立有法得成，非取外法前已立訖，應立已成。若云前立為有，今立不離，故非已成，前亦數成，不離識訖。又大眾部立麁、細二第六意識，今亦立彼，豈不違宗？若云彼細即我第八，何成立彼大眾所立細意識耶？立自八故，又若不置極成之言，後身菩薩不善意識，他方諸佛第六意識，亦有法中應有一分所別不成，若置極成，即七、八識非他遍許。《要集》云：若餘識中兼七、八者，有法雖言餘識，仍有不定，由此有釋於理為勝。今謂不爾，餘識有法既兼七、八，更有何識而為不定？以避此過，但云餘識，不言第六故。又設非兼七、八，親所緣境，不離能緣心，亦無不定。 > Regarding the statement 'cognized by other consciousnesses': The original commentary is as in the subcommentary. Ximing states: 'The sixth manovijñāna and the subtle manovijñāna posited by the Mahāsāṃghika and others, as well as the seventh and eighth \[consciousnesses\] of our own tradition, are all the subject (dharmin) \[of the syllogism\], because they are cognized by other consciousnesses. However, since the seventh and eighth consciousnesses were already established earlier based on reason and teaching, the subject is successfully established.' Now I say this is not so: if what was established earlier makes the subject successfully established, it would not be a matter of taking external phenomena that were already established earlier, which would render it an already established thesis (siddhasādhana). If it is said that earlier they were established as existent, whereas now they are established as not separate \[from consciousness\], hence it is not an already established thesis—earlier, their being not separate from consciousness was also repeatedly established. Furthermore, the Mahāsāṃghika posits two sixth manovijñānas, coarse and subtle; if we now also posit them, would that not contradict our own school? If it is said that their subtle one is precisely our eighth \[consciousness\], why establish the subtle manovijñāna posited by the Mahāsāṃghika? For we establish our own eighth consciousness! Moreover, if one does not include the word 'mutually accepted' (prasiddha), then for the unwholesome manovijñāna of a bodhisattva in his final body and the sixth manovijñāna of Buddhas of other directions, there would also be the fault of a partially unestablished subject (ekadeśāsiddhadharmin) within the subject. But if one includes 'mutually accepted', then the seventh and eighth consciousnesses are not universally accepted by the others. The Yaoji states: 'If the seventh and eighth are included within "other consciousnesses", although the subject states "other consciousnesses", there is still inconclusiveness (anaikāntika); therefore, another explanation is logically superior.' Now I say this is not so: since the subject of 'other consciousnesses' already encompasses the seventh and eighth, what further consciousness remains to cause inconclusiveness? In order to avoid this fault, it merely states 'other consciousnesses' and does not say 'the sixth'. Furthermore, even if it did not include the seventh and eighth, the directly grasped object is not separate from the consciousness that can grasp it, so there is also no inconclusiveness. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6.1) - [Next: 6.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6.3) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.6.2) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.6.2) · Pramāṇa