[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) › [成唯識論演祕](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833) › 4.62 # 成唯識論演祕 4.62 成唯識論演祕 4.62 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.4.62) 詳曰：前數破無細意識，已悶絕等喻亦何有失？又破無餘，喻有不定，理如所明。若以眼等識不行位而為喻者，理亦不定，獨意識轉亦是眼等不行位故。今取屍喻成諸無心位第六無，雖餘無心非是所諍，為止不定，為宗無失。 > We evaluate: Above, having repeatedly refuted the existence of a subtle mental consciousness, what error is there in the example of fainting and the like? Moreover, if one refutes nirvāṇa without remainder, the example has an inconclusive fallacy, just as explained. If one uses the state where eye consciousness, etc., do not operate as an example, logically it is also inconclusive, because the isolated mental consciousness operating is also a state where the eye consciousness, etc., do not operate. Now, taking the example of a corpse to establish that in all mindless states the sixth \[consciousness\] is absent, although other mindless states are not in dispute, this stops the inconclusive fallacy so that the thesis has no error. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.4.61) - [Next: 4.63](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.4.63) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833~en-mt.4.62) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.4.62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.4.62) · Pramāṇa