宗鏡錄 49.43

49.43

Answer: They only transform to resemble the basis (āśraya) of another's sense faculties, because another's faculties have no utility for oneself. The verse in the treatise says: 'Consciousness arises transforming to resemble objects, sentient beings, the self, and cognitions. These objects do not truly exist; because the objects are non-existent, consciousness is also non-existent.' The commentary explains: 'When the eight consciousnesses arise and transform to resemble objects, this refers to the five sense objects; "objects" means the objective spheres, which, because they are dependent phenomena (paratantra), appear as if truly existent. Transforming to resemble sentient beings refers to the five sense faculties belonging to sentient beings; "sentient" means the faculties, because they are called sattva. Transforming to resemble the self is the transforming capacity of manas. And "cognitions" refers to the cognitive discernment of the six consciousnesses: that is, the eighth consciousness takes the two kinds of matter—faculties and sense objects—as its object; the seventh consciousness takes the self as its object; and the six consciousnesses cognise the meanings of the phenomena of the six sense objects.' The treatise states: 'There is an opinion that it can only transform to resemble the basis, because another's faculties are of no use to oneself. As for the five faculties appearing to resemble one's own and others' bodies, this refers to the meaning that one's own and others' consciousnesses each transform individually; this only transforms the basis of another's faculties, because another's faculties have no utility for oneself.' If it also transformed what is of no utility, why would it not transform the seven consciousnesses, which, being without cognitive activity [for oneself], would nevertheless be cognised? If so, how can the text speaking of the manifestation of one's own and others' faculties be resolved? What is said about one's own and others' ālayavijñānas is that each transforms into its own faculties, not that oneself transforms another's faculties. First, because they are of no utility, it does not transform another's faculties; second, because it is not determinately stated that the fundamental consciousness of one's own body transforms another's faculties, it cannot serve as proof.