宗鏡錄 50.11

50.11

答。但滅六識。以第八識持身故。論云。契經說。住滅定者。身語心行無不皆滅。而壽不滅。亦不離煖。根無變壞。識不離身。若無此識。住滅定者。不離身識不應有故。謂眼等識行相麁動。於所緣境起必勞慮。厭患彼故。暫求止息。漸次伏除。至都盡位。依此位立住滅定者。故此定中彼識皆滅。若不許有微細一類。恒遍執持壽等識在。依何而說識不離身。若謂後時彼識還起。如隔日瘧。名不離身。是則不應說心行滅。識與想等起滅同故。壽煖諸根應亦如識。便成大過。故應許識如壽煖等。實不離身。又此位中若全無識。應如瓦礫。非有情數。豈得說為住滅定者。又異熟識。此位若無。誰能執持諸根壽煖。無執持故。皆應壞滅。猶如死屍。便無壽等。既爾。後識必不還生。說不離身。彼何所屬。諸異熟識。捨此身已。離託餘身。無重生故。又若此位持種識。後識無種。如何得生。過去未來不相應法。非實有體。已極成故。諸色等法。離識皆無。受熏持種。亦已遮故。乃至無想等位。類此。應知。又滅定等位稱無心者。未必全無。成業論云。心有二種。一集起心。無量種子集起處故。二種種心。所緣行相差別轉故。滅定等位闕第二心。名無心。如一足馬。闕一足故。亦名無足。

Answer: Only the six consciousnesses are ceased, because the eighth consciousness sustains the body. A śāstra states: 'A sūtra says: "For one who abides in the cessation absorption, the bodily, verbal, and mental activities all cease without exception, yet life does not cease, nor does it depart from warmth; the faculties do not alter or deteriorate, and consciousness does not depart from the body." If this consciousness did not exist, the consciousness that does not depart from the body for one abiding in the cessation absorption could not exist. The modes of activity of the consciousnesses, eye and the rest, are coarse and agitated; when arising toward cognitive objects, they inevitably cause toil and worry. Loathing and detesting them, one temporarily seeks their cessation, gradually subduing and removing them until reaching the state where they are utterly ended. Abiding in the cessation absorption is established based on this state; therefore, in this absorption, those consciousnesses are all ceased. If one does not accept that there remains a subtle, uniform, constantly pervasive consciousness holding and sustaining lifespan and the rest, based on what could it be said that "consciousness does not depart from the body"? If it is said that later on that consciousness arises again, like an alternate-day fever, and is therefore called "not departing from the body", then it should not be said that mental activity has ceased, because consciousness and saṃjñā and so forth would arise and cease identically; lifespan, warmth, and the faculties would also be like consciousness, resulting in great error. Therefore, it must be granted that consciousness, like lifespan and warmth, truly does not depart from the body. Moreover, if in this state there were no consciousness at all, one would be like tiles and rubble, not counted among sentient beings; how could one be said to abide in the cessation absorption? Furthermore, if the maturational consciousness did not exist in this state, what could hold and sustain the faculties, lifespan, and warmth? Without being held and sustained, they would all disintegrate and perish like a corpse, and there would be no lifespan and so forth. In that case, the subsequent consciousness definitely would not arise again; to what would the statement "does not depart from the body" refer? When maturational consciousnesses abandon this body, apart from taking up another body, they cannot be reborn here. Furthermore, if in this state there were no seed-holding consciousness, the subsequent consciousness would lack seeds; how could it arise? Past and future non-concomitant dharmas are not real entities, as has already been fully proven. Material dharmas and so forth do not exist apart from consciousness; their receiving perfuming and holding seeds has also already been refuted. [...] States such as non-conception should be understood as analogous to this. Furthermore, that states such as the cessation absorption are termed "unconscious" does not necessarily mean entirely without citta. The Karmasiddhiśāstra says: "There are two kinds of citta: first, the accumulating-and-arising citta, because it is the locus where immeasurable seeds accumulate and arise; second, the various cittas, because they operate with distinctions in cognitive objects and modes of activity. States such as the cessation absorption lack the second citta and are called unconscious, just as a one-legged horse, lacking one leg, is also called legless."'