[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) › [大乘起信論義疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1843) › 2.32 # 大乘起信論義疏 2.32 大乘起信論義疏 2.32 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1843.2.32) 次就妄識對治邪執。邪執有六：一者、執定無。有人聞說，但有六識無第七情，便言一向無第七識。對治此執說有七識，如《楞伽》中說八識義。《勝鬘》亦云「七法不住。」若無妄識，說何為八、說何為七？經中所言無七情者，事相之中無第七情，非無妄識。二、執定有。有人聞說有第七識，便謂七識別有體性。對治此執，明妄無體。當知如來就心法中分取虛妄別之義，為第七識，何得於中別立體性？如似世人見繩為蛇，繩是實事喻彼真識，蛇是妄有喻彼妄識，蛇依繩故蛇無別體，妄依真立云何有體？迷夢等喻類亦同然。又經中說「若無真識，七法不住。」若自有體云何不住？又若識自有體，性便是實有，云何名妄？三者、執事識以為妄識。有人聞說，真識名心、妄識名意、事名意識，便言小乘七心界中之意根界者是第七識。對治此執，宣說妄識不同事識。七心界中意根界者，即是六識生後義邊說為意根，更無別法。妄識與彼分齊條異，云何言一異相？如何如今論說妄識有六？始從無明乃至相續，廣如上辨。事識有四，從執取相乃至第四業繫苦相，亦如上辨；分齊各異，何得說言意根界者是第七識？又《楞伽》云「第七妄識，唯佛如來、住地菩薩所能覺知，餘皆不覺。」云何說言意根界者是第七識？ > Next, countering perverse attachments with respect to deluded consciousness. There are six perverse attachments: First, grasping it as determinately non-existent. Some people hear it said that there are only six consciousnesses and no seventh sense-faculty, and they immediately assert that there is absolutely no seventh consciousness. Countering this attachment, it is said that there are seven consciousnesses, just as the meaning of the eight consciousnesses is taught in the Laṅkāvatāra \[Sūtra\]. The Śrīmālā \[Sūtra\] also says: 'The seven dharmas do not abide.' If there were no deluded consciousness, what would be called the eight, and what would be called the seven? What the sūtras say about having no seventh sense-faculty means that within phenomenal marks there is no seventh sense-faculty, not that there is no deluded consciousness. Second, grasping it as determinately existent. Some people hear it said that there is a seventh consciousness, and immediately suppose that the seventh consciousness has a separate nature and substance. Countering this attachment, it is clarified that delusion has no substance. One should know that the Tathāgata, within mental dharmas, distinguishes and takes the meaning of false differentiation as the seventh consciousness; how could one establish a separate nature and substance for it? Just as when people in the world see a rope as a snake, the rope is a real thing, a simile for true consciousness, and the snake is a false existence, a simile for deluded consciousness; because the snake relies on the rope, the snake has no separate substance; since delusion is established relying on the real, how could it have a substance? Similes such as delusions and dreams are also of the same kind. Furthermore, a sūtra says: 'If there were no true consciousness, the seven dharmas would not abide.' If it had its own substance, why would it not abide? Moreover, if consciousness had its own substance, its nature would be truly existent; how could it be called delusion? Third, grasping phenomenal consciousness to be deluded consciousness. Some people hear it said that true consciousness is called mind (citta), deluded consciousness is called mentation (manas), and phenomenal \[consciousness\] is called mental consciousness (manovijñāna), and they immediately assert that the mind-faculty realm among the seven mind-realms of the Hīnayāna is the seventh consciousness. Countering this attachment, it is proclaimed that deluded consciousness is not the same as phenomenal consciousness. The mind-faculty realm among the seven mind-realms is merely spoken of as the mind-faculty in terms of the meaning of the six consciousnesses having arisen and passed away; there is no separate dharma. Deluded consciousness and that \[faculty\] differ completely in their scope; how could they be said to be one? What are the marks of difference? As the present treatise explains, deluded consciousness has six \[aspects\], beginning from ignorance up to continuation, as broadly discriminated above. Phenomenal consciousness has four \[aspects\], from the mark of grasping up to the fourth, the mark of suffering bound to karma, also as discriminated above. Since their scopes are each distinct, how can one say that the mind-faculty realm is the seventh consciousness? Furthermore, the Laṅkāvatāra \[Sūtra\] says: 'The seventh deluded consciousness can only be awakened to and known by the Buddha Tathāgata and bodhisattvas abiding on the bhūmis; none of the rest can awaken to it.' How could one say that the mind-faculty realm is the seventh consciousness? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1843.2.31) - [Next: 2.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1843.2.33) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1843.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1843~en-mt.2.32) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1843.2.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1843.2.32) · Pramāṇa