大乘起信論義疏 2.32

2.32

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?