大乘義章 8.82

8.82

次約諸識明緣不同。如《雜心》說「色界二識識，乃至觸亦然。諸餘十三界，一向意識緣。」此乃宣說，色等五塵當分為彼五識所緣，意識通緣一切法故，亦得緣之。自餘六根六識法塵，五識不了，唯意識緣。成實法中，文無定判，人釋不同。有人釋言：與《毘曇》同。有人復言：六根六識及與法塵，與《毘曇》同，唯意識緣。色等五塵，唯五識緣，意識不緣。若意識緣，盲應見色、聾應聞聲、不觸之物應知堅軟，如是一切。以盲聾等不見聞故，明意不緣。《大智論》中，同此後釋。據實論之，意識通緣一切五塵，但不分了。何故得知？如人現在緣於十方一切色聲香味觸等，明知通緣；所以不了色香味等，非意正境，是故不了。若得通緣，龍樹何故宣說意識不知五塵？釋言：龍樹云不知者，不如五識知之顯了，故言不知，非全不緣。十八界義，略之云爾。

Next, the differences in cognitive conditioning are explained in terms of the consciousnesses. As stated in the *Saṃyuktābhidharma-hṛdaya*: "The form-realm [object] is cognized by two consciousnesses, down to tactile objects, which are also like this. All the other thirteen realms are exclusively conditioned by the mental consciousness." This explains that the five dust-objects such as form are within their respective domains the cognitive objects of those five consciousnesses, and because mental consciousness generally conditions all dharmas, it can also condition them. The remaining six faculties, six consciousnesses, and the realm of mental objects cannot be discerned by the five consciousnesses; they are conditioned solely by the mental consciousness. In the *Tattvasiddhi* tradition, the text has no definitive judgment, and scholars interpret it differently. Some explain: it is the same as the *Abhidharma*. Others again say: the six faculties, six consciousnesses, and the realm of mental objects are the same as the *Abhidharma*, being conditioned solely by the mental consciousness; but the five dust-objects such as form are conditioned solely by the five consciousnesses, not by the mental consciousness. If the mental consciousness conditioned them, the blind should see form, the deaf should hear sound, and untouched objects should be known as hard or soft, and so on for all. Since the blind and deaf do not see or hear, it is clear that the mental [consciousness] does not condition them. In the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, it agrees with this latter interpretation. If evaluated according to reality, the mental consciousness generally conditions all five dust-objects, but merely does not discern them distinctly. How is this known? Just as a person in the present conditions all forms, sounds, scents, tastes, tactile sensations, and so forth in the ten directions, one clearly knows that it generally conditions them; the reason it does not discern forms, scents, tastes, and so forth distinctly is that they are not the primary cognitive objects of the mental [consciousness], and therefore it does not discern them distinctly. If it can generally condition them, why did Nāgārjuna proclaim that the mental consciousness does not know the five dust-objects? The explanation is: when Nāgārjuna says it does not know them, it is that it does not know them as clearly and distinctly as the five consciousnesses know them; hence he says it does not know them, not that it does not condition them at all. The meaning of the eighteen realms is thus summarized.