[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) › [唯識二十論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834) › 2.358 # 唯識二十論述記 2.358 唯識二十論述記 2.358 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.358](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.358) 答：唯識者，據有漏心所起妄執境非實有，由此理故，唯識但遮所執外法。識能親取非執外法，何妨親取，故唯識理，此師亦成。或「唯識」言，據妄心說，無漏心等，即非唯識，經中但說三界唯心，不說無漏亦唯心故。此違比量，《解深密》等如前引教，通無漏故。今此二義，前解為勝。 > Answer: 'Consciousness-only' is said in reference to the fact that the falsely grasped objects arisen from the defiled mind are not truly existent; by this principle, consciousness-only merely excludes grasped external phenomena. Consciousness can directly grasp external phenomena that are not grasped \[falsely\]; what prevents it from directly grasping them? Therefore the principle of consciousness-only is also established for this master. Alternatively, the phrase 'consciousness-only' is spoken in reference to the false mind; undefiled mind and so on are simply not consciousness-only, because the sūtras only speak of the three realms being mind-only, and do not say that the undefiled is also mind-only. This contradicts inference, since texts cited earlier such as the Saṃdhinirmocana apply to the undefiled as well. Now between these two explanations, the former is superior. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.357](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.357) - [Next: 2.359](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.359) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834~en-mt.2.358) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.358](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1834.2.358) · Pramāṇa