大乘義章 8.22

8.22

四識住者，五陰之中色受想行為識所依，故名識住。住義云何？依如《毘曇》，心王之體依於同時色受想行，故名識住。問曰：彼宗心心數法同時相依，何故偏說識依餘住，不說受等依餘住乎？釋言：住義理實齊通，但識是王，故偏說之。又破外道識依神住，故說識住。若依《成實》，心起前後，不說同時相依而住，但說心識緣餘四陰，緣而愛著，故名識住。問曰：彼宗貪在行心，識中無貪，云何經中說為識住？釋言：依彼貪有二種，一者起貪唯在行心、二者性貪遍在四心。性貪通故，識中有之，故得就識說為識住。何者性貪？取性煩惱執著境界，故名性貪。問曰：性貪既通四心，以何義故偏說識住，不說受住想行住等？釋言：住義理通四心，今以三義偏說識住：一以初類後。識心在初，但言識住。餘類可知，故不具論。二舉弱顯強。就四心中，識心取性最為微弱，乃至行心取性最強。就弱說住，增強可知，故闕不論。三為破外道說識依神故名識住，以彼外道多取心識依神我故。問曰：若言貪故住者，何故論言喜潤故住？釋言：理實貪著故住，貪心必由前喜而生，故說喜潤。又後貪中，猶有喜義助成彼貪，故說喜潤。問曰：前說性貪故住，性貪常有，何假喜潤？釋言：識中所有性貪，是前行中重貪氣分，彼前行中增上重貪由喜潤生，識中性貪從本論之，故曰喜潤。問曰：色等望於何識說為識住？若依《毘曇》，通望六識說為識住。成實法中，人解不同。有人釋言：唯望意地行心說住，以彼行中貪愛強故。又人復言：通望六識行心說住，以前三心無貪愛故。此皆不然，經說識住，不言行住，云何說言望行心住？人復釋言：彼宗之中想受及行是通名識，故云識住。若言行心是通名識說識住者，論通非別，云何得分四識住異？當知《成實》亦望六識說為識住。何以得知？毘曇法中，通望六識說為識住，《成實》不非，明知共用。又六識中性貪義等住著不殊，故通望之，以說識住。問曰：若言通望六識說識住者，六識之心局緣一色不緣餘法，云何得有四種識住？釋言：通望六識之心說四識住，非謂一一皆具四住。又問：五識局在一念，云何名住？此言住者，住著名住著，不以經停說為住故，一念五識亦得名住。問曰：何故唯說色受想行等陰以為識住，不還說識以為識住？若依《毘曇》，識是心王，兩王不並，故不說識以為識住。若依《成實》，識時少識，故不說識以為識住。云何少識？六識之中唯有意識通具續念，自餘五識局在一念不通相續，不如六想六受六行並通續念，故曰少識，少故不論。又復為分能住所住兩義差別，故不說識以為識住（此一門竟）。

Regarding the four abodes of consciousness, among the five aggregates, form, sensation, perception, and formations serve as the basis for consciousness; hence they are called the 'abodes of consciousness'. What is the meaning of 'abode'? According to the Abhidharma, the substance of the mind-king relies upon simultaneous form, sensation, perception, and formations; hence they are named abodes of consciousness. Question: In that school, mind and mental factors simultaneously rely upon one another; why is it stated specifically that consciousness relies upon the others as an abode, and not that sensation and the rest rely upon the others as abodes? Explanation: In truth, the principle of being an abode applies equally to all; but because consciousness is the king, it is specifically spoken of. Furthermore, to refute the non-Buddhists' view that consciousness abides relying upon a self (ātman), the abodes of consciousness are taught. If according to the Tattvasiddhi, mind arises successively in front and behind, and it is not taught that they abide in mutual reliance simultaneously; it only teaches that mental consciousness takes the other four aggregates as objects and, taking them as objects, clings to them with attachment; hence they are called abodes of consciousness. Question: In that school, greed resides in the formations-mind, and there is no greed in consciousness; how can the sūtras speak of them as abodes of consciousness? Explanation: According to that [school], greed is of two kinds: first, active greed, which resides only in the formations-mind; second, nature-greed, which pervades the four minds. Because nature-greed is pervasive, it exists in consciousness, and therefore it can be spoken of in terms of consciousness as an abode of consciousness. What is nature-greed? The affliction that grasps nature and clings to sense-objects is called nature-greed. Question: Since nature-greed pervades the four minds, for what reason is it specifically called the abode of consciousness, and not called the abode of sensation, the abode of perception, the abode of formations, and so forth? Explanation: The principle of being an abode applies to all four minds, but now on account of three reasons it is specifically called the abode of consciousness: First, taking the first to represent the subsequent. The consciousness-mind is at the beginning, so it only speaks of the abode of consciousness. The rest can be understood by analogy, and thus are not discussed in full. Second, putting forward the weak to reveal the strong. Among the four minds, the consciousness-mind's grasping of nature is the weakest, up to the formations-mind's grasping of nature being the strongest. Speaking of the abode in terms of the weak, the increasingly strong can be understood; hence they are omitted without discussion. Third, to refute the non-Buddhists who say that consciousness relies upon a soul, it is called the abode of consciousness, because those non-Buddhists mostly take mental consciousness to rely upon an ātman. Question: If it is said that it abides because of greed, why do the treatises say that it abides because of being moistened by joy? Explanation: In truth, it abides because of greedy attachment, and a greedy mind necessarily arises from preceding joy; hence it is said to be moistened by joy. Furthermore, in the subsequent greed, there is still the factor of joy that assists and accomplishes that greed; hence it is said to be moistened by joy. Question: It was previously said that it abides because of nature-greed; nature-greed is ever-present, so why does it depend on being moistened by joy? Explanation: The nature-greed present in consciousness is a trace of the heavy greed in preceding formations; that augmented heavy greed in preceding formations arises from being moistened by joy, and speaking from the root of the nature-greed in consciousness, it is therefore called being moistened by joy. Question: With respect to which consciousness are form and the others said to be abodes of consciousness? According to the Abhidharma, they are said to be abodes of consciousness with respect to all six consciousnesses. In the doctrine of the Tattvasiddhi, people's interpretations differ. Someone explains: They are spoken of as abodes only with respect to the formations-mind of the mental plane, because greedy attachment is strong in those formations. Another person further says: They are spoken of as abodes with respect to the formations-mind of all six consciousnesses, because the preceding three minds lack greedy attachment. Neither of these is correct. The sūtras speak of the abode of consciousness and do not speak of the abode of formations; how can one say that they abide with respect to the formations-mind? Someone again explains: In that school, perception, sensation, and formations are collectively called consciousness, hence it says 'abodes of consciousness'. If one says that the formations-mind is collectively called consciousness to explain the abodes of consciousness, this treats the general rather than the distinct; how could the differences among the four abodes of consciousness be demarcated? One should know that the Tattvasiddhi also speaks of the abodes of consciousness with respect to the six consciousnesses. How is this known? In the Abhidharma doctrine, they are spoken of as abodes of consciousness with respect to the six consciousnesses, and the Tattvasiddhi does not reject this; clearly one knows it is shared. Furthermore, in the six consciousnesses, the meaning of nature-greed is equal, and its abiding attachment is not different; therefore, viewing them generally, it speaks of the abodes of consciousness. Question: If it is said that they are spoken of as abodes of consciousness with respect to all six consciousnesses, the mind of the [first] six consciousnesses is restricted to taking a single form as an object and does not take other dharmas as objects; how can there be four kinds of abodes of consciousness? Explanation: Taking the minds of the six consciousnesses collectively, it speaks of the four abodes of consciousness; it does not mean that each one individually possesses all four abodes. Again it is asked: The five consciousnesses are restricted to a single thought-moment; how can this be called abiding? 'Abiding' here means abiding attachment; it is not called abiding on account of remaining over time, so the five consciousnesses in a single thought-moment can also be called abiding. Question: Why are only the aggregates of form, sensation, perception, and formations, etc., spoken of as abodes of consciousness, and consciousness is not reciprocally spoken of as an abode of consciousness? According to the Abhidharma, consciousness is the mind-king, and two kings do not stand together, so it does not speak of consciousness as an abode of consciousness. According to the Tattvasiddhi, at the time of consciousness there is little consciousness, so it does not speak of consciousness as an abode of consciousness. What is meant by 'little consciousness'? Among the six consciousnesses, only the mental consciousness universally possesses continuous thought; the remaining five consciousnesses are restricted to a single thought-moment and do not possess continuity, unlike the six perceptions, six sensations, and six formations which all universally possess continuous thought; hence it is called 'little consciousness', and because it is little, it is not discussed. Furthermore, in order to distinguish the difference between the two meanings of that which abides and that in which it abides, it does not speak of consciousness as an abode of consciousness (this concludes the first section).