大乘義章 8.50

8.50

七識住者，如經中說。何故說者？為破外道別計故也。有諸外道計識為我，擇善而居；佛為破之，故說識住，非我住也。識住不同，離分為七。七名是何？欲界人天以之為一、初禪為二、二禪為三、三禪為四、空處為五、識處為六、無所有處以為第七。此之七處，心識樂安，故名識住。問曰：何故不名受住、想行住等，偏云識住？釋言：住義理亦應通，但識是主，故偏說耳。問曰：欲界有三惡趣，何故不說？論言「三惡有苦煎迫，識不樂安。」是以不論。又問：色界具有四禪，第四禪中寂樂過下，以何義故不名識住？論自釋言「第四禪中有無想定，殘害心識，識不樂居，故非識住。又四禪中有五淨居，趣入涅槃，亦殘心識，識不樂在，故非識住。」問曰：無色有四空處，以何義故不說非想以為識住？論言「非想有滅盡定，亦殘心識，識不樂安，故非識住。」七識住義，辨之麁爾。

The seven stations of consciousness are as explained in the sūtras. Why are they taught? In order to refute the distinct conceptualizations of non-Buddhists. There are various non-Buddhists who conceive consciousness to be the self, which chooses good places to dwell; in order to refute this, the Buddha taught the stations of consciousness, [meaning that they are] not dwellings of a self. The stations of consciousness differ, being divided into seven. What are their seven names? Humans and gods of the desire realm are taken as the first, the first dhyāna as the second, the second dhyāna as the third, the third dhyāna as the fourth, the station of the infinity of space as the fifth, the station of the infinity of consciousness as the sixth, and the station of nothingness as the seventh. In these seven places, the mind and consciousness take joy and rest secure; hence they are named 'stations of consciousness'. Question: Why are they not called stations of sensation, stations of perception and formation, and so forth, but specifically termed 'stations of consciousness'? Explanation: The meaning of 'dwelling' should by principle apply broadly, but because consciousness is the master, it is spoken of in particular. Question: In the desire realm there are the three bad destinies; why are they not mentioned? The treatises say: 'The three bad destinies have suffering that torments and presses upon [beings]; consciousness does not take joy or rest secure.' For this reason they are not discussed. Another question: The form realm possesses four dhyānas, and within the fourth dhyāna the joy of tranquility surpasses what is below; on what grounds is it not called a station of consciousness? The treatise itself explains: 'Within the fourth dhyāna there is the non-conceptual concentration (asaṃjñi-samāpatti), which damages and harms the mind and consciousness; consciousness does not joyfully dwell there, so it is not a station of consciousness. Furthermore, within the fourth dhyāna there are the five pure abodes, which incline toward entering nirvāṇa and likewise damage the mind and consciousness; consciousness does not joyfully remain there, so it is not a station of consciousness.' Question: In the formless realm there are four stations of emptiness; on what grounds is the [station of] neither-perception-nor-non-perception not declared to be a station of consciousness? The treatise says: 'In neither-perception[-nor-non-perception] there is the concentration of cessation (nirodha-samāpatti), which likewise damages the mind and consciousness; consciousness does not take joy or rest secure, so it is not a station of consciousness.' The doctrine of the seven stations of consciousness is thus roughly distinguished.