大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 成唯識論
No. 1585 [cf. Nos. 1586, 1587]
## 成唯識論卷第一
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
稽首唯識性。滿分清凈者。我今釋彼說。利樂諸有情。今造此論為於二空有迷謬者生正解故。生解為斷二重障故。由我法執二障具生。若證二空彼障隨斷。斷障為得二勝果故。由斷續生煩惱障故證真解脫。由斷礙解所知障故得大菩提。又為開示謬執我法迷唯識者。令達二空。于唯識理如實知故。復有迷謬唯識理者。或執外境如識非無。或執內識如境非有。或執諸識用別體同。或執離心無別心所。為遮此等種種異執。令于唯識深妙理中得如實解故作斯論。若唯有識。云何世間及諸聖教。說有我法。頌曰。
１ 由假說我法 有種種相轉 彼依識所變 此能變唯三
２ 謂異熟思量 及了別境識
論曰。世間聖教說有我法。但由假立非實有性。我謂主宰。法謂軌持。彼二俱有種種相轉。我種種相。謂有情命者等。預流一來等。法種種相。謂實德業等。蘊處界等。轉謂隨緣施設有異。如是諸相若由假說依何得成。彼相皆依識所轉變而假施設。識謂了別此中
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本
大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 成唯識論 No. 1585 [cf. Nos. 1586, 1587]
成唯識論卷第一
護法等菩薩造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 稽首唯識性。滿分清凈者。我今釋彼說。利樂諸有情。今造此論，為於二空（人空和法空）有迷謬者生正解故。生解為斷二重障故。由我法執二障具生。若證二空彼障隨斷。斷障為得二勝果故。由斷續生煩惱障故證真解脫。由斷礙解所知障故得大菩提。又為開示謬執我法迷唯識者。令達二空。于唯識理如實知故。復有迷謬唯識理者。或執外境如識非無。或執內識如境非有。或執諸識用別體同。或執離心無別心所。為遮此等種種異執。令于唯識深妙理中得如實解故作斯論。若唯有識。云何世間及諸聖教。說有我法。頌曰。 １ 由假說我法 有種種相轉 彼依識所變 此能變唯三 ２ 謂異熟思量 及了別境識 論曰。世間聖教說有我法。但由假立非實有性。我謂主宰。法謂軌持。彼二俱有種種相轉。我種種相。謂有情命者等。預流一來等。法種種相。謂實德業等。蘊處界等。轉謂隨緣施設有異。如是諸相若由假說依何得成。彼相皆依識所轉變而假施設。識謂了別此中
【English Translation】 English version
Tripitaka Volume 31 No. 1585 Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra (Treatise on the Establishment of the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only) No. 1585 [cf. Nos. 1586, 1587] Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra Volume 1 Composed by Bodhisattvas such as Dharmapāla (Hufa) Translated under imperial decree by the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang I bow to the nature of Consciousness-Only, the one with perfect purity. I now explain his teachings to benefit and bring joy to all sentient beings. Now, this treatise is composed to generate correct understanding for those who are confused about the two emptinesses (two kinds of voidness: emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena). Generating understanding is to sever the two kinds of hindrances. Because of the attachment to self and phenomena, both hindrances arise. If one realizes the two emptinesses, these hindrances will be severed accordingly. Severing the hindrances is to attain the two supreme fruits. By severing the afflictive obscurations (kleśa-āvaraṇa) that perpetuate rebirth, one attains true liberation (moksha). By severing the cognitive obscurations (jñeyāvaraṇa) that obstruct understanding, one attains great enlightenment (mahābodhi). Furthermore, it is to reveal to those who mistakenly cling to self and phenomena and are confused about Consciousness-Only, enabling them to realize the two emptinesses and to truly understand the principle of Consciousness-Only. There are also those who are confused about the principle of Consciousness-Only, either clinging to external objects as if they exist like consciousness, or clinging to internal consciousness as if it exists like objects, or clinging to the various consciousnesses as having different functions but the same essence, or clinging to mental factors as inseparable from the mind. To dispel these various erroneous views, and to enable them to attain true understanding of the profound principle of Consciousness-Only, this treatise is composed. If there is only consciousness, how do the world and the sacred teachings speak of self and phenomena? The verse says: 1 Due to provisional designation of self and phenomena, various characteristics arise and transform. They depend on what is transformed by consciousness; this transformer is only three. 2 Namely, the Vipāka (Differently Matured), Manas (Thinking), and Vijñāna (Discriminating) consciousnesses. The treatise says: The world and the sacred teachings speak of self and phenomena, but they are only provisionally established and do not have real existence. 'Self' means master (lordship, sovereignty). 'Phenomena' means standard (model, norm). Both of them have various characteristics and transformations. The various characteristics of 'self' include sentient beings, life-force, etc., Stream-enterer (srotāpanna), Once-returner (sakṛdāgāmin), etc. The various characteristics of 'phenomena' include substance, virtue, karma, etc., aggregates (skandha), bases (āyatana), realms (dhātu), etc. 'Transformation' means that they are provisionally established differently depending on conditions. If these characteristics are established provisionally, on what do they depend to be accomplished? All these characteristics depend on what is transformed by consciousness and are provisionally established. 'Consciousness' means discernment; in this context,
識言亦攝心所。定相應故。變謂識體轉似二分。相見俱依自證起故。依斯二分施設我法。彼二離此無所依故。或復內識轉似外境。我法分別熏習力故。諸識生時變似我法。此我法相雖在內識而由分別似外境現。諸有情類無始時來。緣此執為實我實法。如患夢者患夢力故心似種種外境相現。緣此執為實有外境。愚夫所計實我實法都無所有。但隨妄情而施設故說之為假。內識所變似我似法。雖有而非實我法性。然似彼現故說為假。外境隨情而施設故非有如識。內識必依因緣生故非無如境。由此便遮增減二執。境依內識而假立故唯世俗有。識是假境所依事故亦勝義有。
云何應知。實無外境唯有內識似外境生。實我實法不可得故。如何實我不可得耶。諸所執我略有三種。一者執我體常周遍。量同虛空。隨處造業受苦樂故。二者執我其體雖常而量不定。隨身大小有卷舒故。三者執我體常。至細如一極微。潛轉身中作事業故。初且非理。所以者何。執我常遍量同虛空。應不隨身受苦樂等。又常遍故應無動轉。如何隨身能造諸業。
又所執我一切有情為同爲異。若言同者。一作業時一切應作。一受果時一切應受。一得解脫時一切應解脫。便成大過。若言異者。諸有情我更相遍故體應相雜。又一作業一受果時。與一切我
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 『識』（vijñāna）也包含『心所』（caitta），因為它與『定』（samādhi）相應。『變』（pariṇāma）是指『識』的本體轉變，看起來像是二分，即『相分』（nimitta-bhāga）和『見分』（darśana-bhāga），這兩者都依賴於『自證分』（sva-saṃvedana-bhāga）而生起。我們依據這二分來施設『我』（ātman）和『法』（dharma）。因為離開這二分，『我』和『法』就沒有所依賴之處。或者，內在的『識』轉變，看起來像是外在的境界。這是由於『我法』分別的熏習力量所致。當諸『識』生起時，它們轉變，看起來像是『我』和『法』。雖然這『我法』的相狀存在於內在的『識』中，但由於分別，它們看起來像是外在的境界顯現。一切有情眾生從無始以來，緣著這些相狀執著為真實的『我』和真實的『法』。就像患有夢境的人，由於夢境的力量，心中顯現出種種外在境界的相狀。他們緣著這些相狀，執著為真實存在的外在境界。愚昧之人所計度的真實的『我』和真實的『法』，完全不存在。只是隨著虛妄的情感而施設，所以說它們是虛假的。內在的『識』所轉變的，看起來像是『我』和『法』，雖然存在，但並非真實的『我法』的體性。然而，因為看起來像是它們顯現，所以說它們是虛假的。外在境界隨著情感而施設，所以並非像『識』那樣真實存在。內在的『識』必定依賴因緣而生起，所以並非像外境那樣完全不存在。由此便能遮止增益和損減兩種執著。外境依賴內在的『識』而假立，所以只是世俗諦（saṃvṛti-satya）意義上存在。『識』是虛假外境所依賴的處所，所以也是勝義諦（paramārtha-satya）意義上存在。
應當如何知道，實際上沒有外在境界，只有內在的『識』看起來像是外在境界而生起呢？因為真實的『我』和真實的『法』是不可得的。如何證明真實的『我』是不可得的呢？通常所執著的『我』略有三種。第一種是執著『我』的本體是常恒的、周遍的，其量如同虛空，無論在何處造業，都會感受到苦樂。第二種是執著『我』的本體雖然是常恒的，但其量是不定的，隨著身體的大小而有舒捲。第三種是執著『我』的本體是常恒的，極其微細，如同一極微（paramāṇu），潛藏在身體中進行活動。首先，第一種是不合理的。為什麼呢？如果執著『我』是常恒周遍的，其量如同虛空，那麼就不應該隨著身體感受到苦樂等。而且，因為是常恒周遍的，所以應該沒有動轉，如何能夠隨著身體造作諸業呢？
而且，所執著的『我』，對於一切有情眾生來說，是相同的還是不同的呢？如果說是相同的，那麼當一個有情造業時，一切有情都應該造業；當一個有情受果報時，一切有情都應該受果報；當一個有情得到解脫時，一切有情都應該解脫。這樣就會造成很大的過失。如果說是不同的，那麼因為諸有情的『我』互相遍佈，其本體應該相互混雜。而且，當一個有情造業、一個有情受果報時，與一切『我』
【English Translation】 English version 『Cognition』 (vijñāna) also includes 『mental factors』 (caitta), because it corresponds to 『concentration』 (samādhi). 『Transformation』 (pariṇāma) refers to the transformation of the essence of 『cognition』, appearing as a duality, namely the 『image-aspect』 (nimitta-bhāga) and the 『seeing-aspect』 (darśana-bhāga), both of which arise dependent on the 『self-awareness aspect』 (sva-saṃvedana-bhāga). We posit 『self』 (ātman) and 『dharma』 based on these two aspects. Because without these two aspects, 『self』 and 『dharma』 have nothing to rely on. Alternatively, the inner 『cognition』 transforms, appearing as external objects. This is due to the force of the habitual tendencies of discriminating 『self』 and 『dharma』. When cognitions arise, they transform, appearing as 『self』 and 『dharma』. Although these appearances of 『self』 and 『dharma』 exist within the inner 『cognition』, they appear as external objects due to discrimination. All sentient beings, from beginningless time, have grasped these appearances as real 『self』 and real 『dharma』. Like someone suffering from dreams, due to the power of the dream, the mind appears as various external objects. They grasp these appearances as real external objects. The real 『self』 and real 『dharma』 conceived by ignorant people do not exist at all. They are merely posited according to deluded emotions, so they are said to be false. What is transformed by the inner 『cognition』 appears as 『self』 and 『dharma』, although they exist, they are not the nature of real 『self』 and 『dharma』. However, because they appear as such, they are said to be false. External objects are posited according to emotions, so they are not as real as 『cognition』. The inner 『cognition』 necessarily arises dependent on causes and conditions, so it is not as non-existent as external objects. Therefore, it can prevent both the exaggerating and diminishing attachments. External objects are falsely established dependent on the inner 『cognition』, so they only exist in the conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya). 『Cognition』 is the basis on which false external objects rely, so it also exists in the ultimate truth (paramārtha-satya).
How should one know that there are actually no external objects, only the inner 『cognition』 appearing as external objects? Because real 『self』 and real 『dharma』 are unattainable. How can it be proven that the real 『self』 is unattainable? Generally, there are three types of 『self』 that are grasped. The first is grasping that the essence of 『self』 is constant, pervasive, and its measure is like space, experiencing suffering and happiness wherever it creates karma. The second is grasping that the essence of 『self』 is constant, but its measure is not fixed, expanding and contracting with the size of the body. The third is grasping that the essence of 『self』 is constant, extremely subtle, like a single atom (paramāṇu), hidden in the body performing activities. First of all, the first one is unreasonable. Why? If one grasps that the 『self』 is constant and pervasive, and its measure is like space, then it should not experience suffering and happiness etc. with the body. Moreover, because it is constant and pervasive, it should not move, how can it create karma with the body?
Moreover, is the 『self』 that is grasped the same or different for all sentient beings? If it is said to be the same, then when one sentient being creates karma, all sentient beings should create karma; when one sentient being receives the result, all sentient beings should receive the result; when one sentient being attains liberation, all sentient beings should attain liberation. This would cause great faults. If it is said to be different, then because the 『self』 of all sentient beings pervade each other, their essence should be mixed together. Moreover, when one sentient being creates karma, when one sentient being receives the result, with all 『self』
處無別故應名一切所作所受。若謂作受各有所屬無斯過者。理亦不然業果及身與諸我合。屬此非彼不應理故。一解脫時。一切應解脫。所修證法一切我合故。中亦非理。所以者何。我體常住不應隨身而有舒捲。既有舒捲如橐籥風。應非常住。
又我隨身應可分析。如何可執我體一耶。故彼所言如童豎戲。後亦非理。所以者何。我量至小如一極微。如何能令大身遍動。若謂雖小而速巡身如旋火輪似遍動者。則所執我非一非常。諸有往來非常一故。又所執我復有三種。一者即蘊。二者離蘊。三者與蘊非即非離。初即蘊我理且不然。我應如蘊非常一故。又內諸色定非實我。如外諸色有質礙故。心心所法亦非實我。不恒相續待眾緣故。餘行餘色亦非實我。如虛空等非覺性故。中離蘊我理亦不然。應如虛空無作受故。後俱非我理亦不然。許依蘊立非即離蘊應如瓶等非實我故。又既不可說有為無為。亦應不可說是我非我。故彼所執實我不成。
又諸所執實有我體。為有思慮為無思慮。若有思慮應是無常。非一切時有思慮故。若無思慮。應如虛空不能作業亦不受果。故所執我理俱不成。
又諸所執實有我體。為有作用為無作用。若有作用如手足等應是無常。若無作用如兔角等。應非實我。故所執我二俱不成。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：因為沒有區別的緣故，應該被稱為一切所作所受的主體。如果說『作』和『受』各有其所屬，這樣就沒有過失』，這個道理也是不成立的。因為業果、身體以及諸『我』是結合在一起的，屬於這個而不屬於那個，這是不合道理的。如果一個人解脫時，一切都應該解脫，因為所修證的法與一切『我』結合在一起的緣故。『中』的說法也是不合道理的。為什麼呢？因為『我』的本體是常住的，不應該隨著身體而有舒張和收縮。既然有舒張和收縮，就像風箱一樣，就應該不是常住的。
而且，『我』隨著身體應該可以被分析。怎麼能執著『我』的本體是唯一的呢？所以他們所說的話就像小孩子的遊戲。『後』的說法也是不合道理的。為什麼呢？如果『我』的量非常小，像一個極微，怎麼能夠使巨大的身體全部活動呢？如果說雖然小，但是迅速地巡視身體，像旋轉的火輪一樣，看起來像是遍佈全身，那麼所執著的『我』就不是唯一的，也不是常住的。凡是有往來變化的，都不是常住和唯一的。而且，所執著的『我』又有三種：第一種是『即蘊』，第二種是『離蘊』，第三種是『與蘊非即非離』。首先，『即蘊我』的道理是不成立的。『我』應該像『蘊』一樣，不是常住和唯一的。而且，內部的各種色法一定不是真實的『我』，就像外部的各種色法一樣，有質礙的緣故。心和心所法也不是真實的『我』，因為不是恒常相續的，需要依靠眾多的因緣。其餘的行和色法也不是真實的『我』，就像虛空等一樣，沒有覺性的緣故。『中』，也就是『離蘊我』的道理也是不成立的，應該像虛空一樣，沒有造作和感受。『後』，也就是『俱非我』的道理也是不成立的，如果允許依靠『蘊』而建立，不是『即蘊』也不是『離蘊』，應該像瓶子等一樣，不是真實的『我』的緣故。而且，既然不能說是有為或者無為，也應該不能說是『我』或者『非我』。所以他們所執著的真實的『我』是不成立的。
而且，你們所執著的真實存在的『我』的本體，是有思慮的還是沒有思慮的？如果有思慮，應該是無常的，因為不是所有的時候都有思慮的緣故。如果沒有思慮，應該像虛空一樣，不能造作業，也不能感受果報。所以所執著的『我』，道理上都是不成立的。
而且，你們所執著的真實存在的『我』的本體，是有作用的還是沒有作用的？如果有作用，像手腳等一樣，應該是無常的。如果沒有作用，像兔角等一樣，應該不是真實的『我』。所以所執著的『我』，兩種情況都不成立。
【English Translation】 English version: Because there is no distinction, it should be called the agent and recipient of all actions. If you say, 'The agent and recipient each have their own belonging, so there is no fault,' this reasoning is also not valid. Because karmic results, the body, and all 'Atmans' (我, self) are combined together; belonging to this and not to that is unreasonable. If one person is liberated, everything should be liberated, because the Dharma (法, teachings) that is cultivated and realized is combined with all 'Atmans'. The 'middle' view is also unreasonable. Why? Because the essence of 'Atman' is permanent and should not expand and contract with the body. Since there is expansion and contraction, like a bellows, it should not be permanent. Moreover, 'Atman' should be analyzable along with the body. How can one insist that the essence of 'Atman' is one? Therefore, what they say is like a child's game. The 'later' view is also unreasonable. Why? If the size of 'Atman' is very small, like a paramāṇu (極微, ultimate particle), how can it cause the large body to move completely? If you say that although it is small, it quickly travels around the body, like a rotating fire wheel, appearing to be all-pervasive, then the 'Atman' you cling to is neither one nor permanent. Anything that comes and goes is neither permanent nor one. Furthermore, the 'Atman' that is clung to has three types: first, 'identical with the Skandhas (蘊, aggregates)'; second, 'separate from the Skandhas'; and third, 'neither identical nor separate from the Skandhas'. First, the reasoning of 'identical with the Skandhas Atman' is not valid. 'Atman' should be like the Skandhas, not permanent and not one. Moreover, the internal forms are definitely not the real 'Atman', just like the external forms, because they have substance and obstruction. Mental states and mental events are also not the real 'Atman', because they are not constantly continuous and depend on many conditions. The remaining formations and forms are also not the real 'Atman', like space, because they do not have the nature of awareness. The 'middle', that is, 'separate from the Skandhas Atman', is also not valid, it should be like space, without action or reception. The 'later', that is, 'neither identical nor separate Atman', is also not valid, if it is allowed to be established based on the Skandhas, neither identical nor separate from the Skandhas, it should be like a pot, not the real 'Atman'. Moreover, since it cannot be said to be conditioned or unconditioned, it also should not be said to be 'Atman' or 'non-Atman'. Therefore, the real 'Atman' that they cling to is not established. Moreover, is the essence of the real 'Atman' that you cling to, thoughtful or thoughtless? If it is thoughtful, it should be impermanent, because it is not thoughtful at all times. If it is thoughtless, it should be like space, unable to create karma or receive retribution. Therefore, the 'Atman' that is clung to is not established in either case. Moreover, does the essence of the real 'Atman' that you cling to have function or no function? If it has function, like hands and feet, it should be impermanent. If it has no function, like a rabbit's horn, it should not be the real 'Atman'. Therefore, the 'Atman' that is clung to is not established in either case.
又諸所執實有我體。為是我見所緣境不。若非我見所緣境者。汝等云何知實有我。若是我見所緣境者。應有我見非顛倒攝。如實知故。若爾如何執有我者。所信至教皆毀我見稱讚無我。言無我見能證涅槃。執著我見沉淪生死。豈有邪見能證涅槃。正見翻令沉淪生死。
又諸我見不緣實我。有所緣故。如緣餘心。我見所緣定非實我。是所緣故。如所餘法。是故我見不緣實我。但緣內識變現諸蘊。隨自妄情種種計度。然諸我執略有二種。一者俱生。二者分別。俱生我執。無始時來虛妄熏習內因力故恒與身俱。不待邪教及邪分別任運而轉。故名俱生。此復二種。一常相續在第七識。緣第八識起自心相執為實我。二有間斷在第六識。緣識所變五取蘊相。或總或別起自心相執為實我。此二我執細故難斷。後修道中數數修習勝生空觀方能除滅。分別我執亦由現在外緣力故非與身俱。要待邪教及邪分別然後方起故名分別。唯在第六意識中有。此亦二種。一緣邪教所說蘊相起自心相分別計度執為實我。二緣邪教所說我相。起自心相分別計度執為實我。此二我執粗故易斷。初見道時觀一切法生空真如即能除滅。如是所說一切我執自心外蘊或有或無。自心內蘊一切皆有。是故我執皆緣無常五取蘊相。妄執為我。然諸蘊相從緣生故
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 此外，你們所執著的真實存在的『我』（ātman，靈魂），是『我見』（ātmadṛṣṭi，認為有我的邪見）所緣的境界嗎？如果不是『我見』所緣的境界，你們又如何知道真實有『我』呢？如果是『我見』所緣的境界，那麼『我見』就不應該被歸為顛倒的知見，因為它如實地了知了『我』。如果這樣，那又如何解釋那些執著于『我』的人所信奉的至高教義都在破斥『我見』，讚揚『無我』（anātman，沒有靈魂）呢？說『無我見』能夠證得涅槃（nirvāṇa，解脫），而執著于『我見』則會沉淪於生死輪迴。難道會有邪見能夠證得涅槃嗎？反而是正見會讓人沉淪於生死輪迴？
此外，各種『我見』並不緣于真實的『我』，因為它們有所緣的境界，就像緣于其他人的心識一樣。『我見』所緣的必定不是真實的『我』，因為它是一個被緣的對象，就像其他的法（dharma，事物、現象）一樣。因此，『我見』並不緣于真實的『我』，而只是緣于內在心識所變現的諸蘊（skandha，構成個體的要素），隨著自己的虛妄情執進行種種的計度和揣測。然而，各種『我執』（ātmagraha，對『我』的執著）大致有兩種：一是俱生我執，二是分別我執。俱生我執，從無始以來，由於虛妄熏習的內在力量，恒常與身體相伴，不需要邪教和邪分別，自然而然地運作，所以叫做俱生。這種俱生我執又分為兩種：一種是常相續的，存在於第七識（末那識，manas），緣于第八識（阿賴耶識，ālayavijñāna）而生起自心之相，執著為真實的『我』；另一種是有間斷的，存在於第六識（意識，vijñāna），緣於心識所變現的五取蘊（pañca-upādānaskandha，產生執取的五蘊）之相，或者總的或者分別的，生起自心之相，執著為真實的『我』。這兩種『我執』非常細微，難以斷除，需要在後期的修道過程中，通過反覆修習殊勝的生空觀（śūnyatā，空性）才能消除。分別我執，也是由於現在外在因緣的力量，而不是與身體俱來的。它需要等待邪教和邪分別之後才會產生，所以叫做分別。它只存在於第六意識中。這種分別我執也有兩種：一種是緣于邪教所說的蘊相，生起自心之相，分別計度，執著為真實的『我』；另一種是緣于邪教所說的『我』相，生起自心之相，分別計度，執著為真實的『我』。這兩種『我執』比較粗顯，容易斷除，在初見道時，通過觀察一切法生空真如（tathatā，如實、真如）就能消除。像這樣所說的一切『我執』，對於自心之外的蘊，或者有或者沒有；對於自心之內的蘊，一切都有。因此，『我執』都是緣于無常的五取蘊之相，虛妄地執著為『我』。然而，各種蘊相都是從因緣而生的，所以……
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, are the 'selves' (ātman) that you cling to as truly existing the objects of 'self-view' (ātmadṛṣṭi)? If they are not the objects of 'self-view,' how do you know that a self truly exists? If they are the objects of 'self-view,' then 'self-view' should not be categorized as a distorted perception, because it knows the self as it truly is. If that's the case, how can those who cling to the self explain that the supreme teachings they believe in all refute 'self-view' and praise 'non-self' (anātman)? It is said that 'non-self-view' can lead to the attainment of nirvāṇa (liberation), while clinging to 'self-view' causes one to sink into the cycle of birth and death. Could it be that a wrong view can lead to nirvāṇa, while a right view instead causes one to sink into the cycle of birth and death?
Moreover, various 'self-views' do not perceive a real self, because they have objects of perception, just like perceiving the minds of others. What 'self-view' perceives is definitely not a real self, because it is an object of perception, just like other dharmas (phenomena). Therefore, 'self-view' does not perceive a real self, but only perceives the aggregates (skandha) manifested by the inner consciousness, making various calculations and speculations according to its own deluded emotions. However, there are roughly two types of 'self-grasping' (ātmagraha): the innate and the conceptual. Innate 'self-grasping,' from beginningless time, constantly accompanies the body due to the inner force of false habitual tendencies, and operates naturally without relying on heretical teachings or conceptual discriminations, hence it is called innate. This is further divided into two types: one is constantly continuous, residing in the seventh consciousness (manas), arising from the aspect of one's own mind in relation to the eighth consciousness (ālayavijñāna), and clinging to it as a real self; the other is intermittent, residing in the sixth consciousness (vijñāna), arising from the aspect of the five aggregates of grasping (pañca-upādānaskandha) transformed by consciousness, either in general or in particular, and clinging to it as a real self. These two types of 'self-grasping' are very subtle and difficult to eradicate, and can only be eliminated through repeated practice of the superior contemplation of the emptiness (śūnyatā) of inherent existence in the later stages of the path. Conceptual 'self-grasping' also arises due to the force of present external conditions, and is not innate to the body. It only arises after relying on heretical teachings and conceptual discriminations, hence it is called conceptual. It exists only in the sixth consciousness. This conceptual 'self-grasping' also has two types: one arises from the aspect of the aggregates described in heretical teachings, giving rise to the aspect of one's own mind, conceptually calculating and clinging to it as a real self; the other arises from the aspect of the self described in heretical teachings, giving rise to the aspect of one's own mind, conceptually calculating and clinging to it as a real self. These two types of 'self-grasping' are relatively coarse and easy to eradicate, and can be eliminated at the time of initial seeing the path by contemplating the suchness (tathatā) of the emptiness of inherent existence of all phenomena. Thus, all the 'self-grasping' described above may or may not exist with respect to the aggregates outside one's own mind; with respect to the aggregates within one's own mind, they all exist. Therefore, all 'self-grasping' arises from the aspect of the impermanent five aggregates of grasping, falsely clinging to them as a self. However, the various aspects of the aggregates arise from conditions, so...
是如幻有。妄所執我橫計度故決定非有故契經說。苾芻當知。世間沙門婆羅門等所有我見一切皆緣五取蘊起。實我若無雲何得有憶識誦習恩怨等事。所執實我既常無變。後應如前是事非有。前應如後是事非無。以後與前體無別故。若謂我用前後變易非我體者。理亦不然。用不離體應常有故。體不離用應非常故。然諸有情各有本識。一類相續任持種子。與一切法更互為因熏習力故。得有如是憶識等事。故所設難於汝有失非於我宗。若無實我誰能造業誰受果耶。所執實我既無變易。猶如虛空。如何可能造業受果。若有變易應是無常。然諸有情心心所法因緣力故。相續無斷。造業受果。于理無違。
我若實無。誰于生死輪迴諸趣。誰復厭苦求趣涅槃。所執實我既無生滅。如何可說生死輪迴。常如虛空。非苦所惱何為厭捨求趣涅槃。故彼所言常為自害。然有情類身心相續煩惱業力輪迴諸趣。厭患苦故求趣涅槃。由此故知。定無實我但有諸識。無始時來前滅後生。因果相續。由妄熏習似我相現。愚者于中妄執為我。
如何識外實有諸法不可得耶。外道餘乘所執外法理非有故。外道所執云何非有。且數論者執。我是思。受用薩埵刺阇答摩所成大等二十三法。然大等法三事合成。是實非假。現量所得。彼執非理所以者何
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 是如幻有（如幻有：指像幻覺一樣的存在）。因為虛妄所執的『我』橫加計度，所以可以斷定它不是真實存在的。正如契經（契經：佛經的另一種稱謂）所說：『苾芻（苾芻：佛教出家男子的稱謂）當知，世間沙門（沙門：指佛教或其他宗教的修行者）、婆羅門（婆羅門：古印度教的僧侶）等所有關於『我』的見解，一切都是緣於五取蘊（五取蘊：色、受、想、行、識五種聚合）而生起的。』如果真實的『我』不存在，那麼怎麼會有憶識、誦習、恩怨等事情呢？所執著的真實『我』既然恒常不變，那麼後來應該和先前一樣，這件事是不存在的。先前應該和後來一樣，這件事不是沒有的。因為後來和先前的本體沒有區別。如果說『我』的作用前後變易，而不是『我』的本體，那麼道理也是不成立的。因為作用不離開本體，應該恒常存在；本體不離開作用，應該不是恒常的。然而，各個有情（有情：指一切有情感、有知覺的生命）都有其本識（本識：阿賴耶識，儲存一切種子），一類相續，任持種子，與一切法更互為因，通過熏習的力量，才會有這樣的憶識等事情。所以，你所提出的難題，對你來說是站不住腳的，對我宗（我宗：佛教的宗派）來說是沒有影響的。如果沒有真實的『我』，誰能造業，誰來受果報呢？所執著的真實『我』既然沒有變易，就像虛空一樣，怎麼可能造業受果報呢？如果『我』有變易，就應該是無常的。然而，各個有情的心和心所法（心所法：心理活動），因為因緣的力量，相續不斷，造業受果報，在道理上是沒有違背的。 我如果真實不存在，那麼是誰在生死輪迴于各個趣道（趣道：眾生輪迴的六個去處，即地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、阿修羅、天）？又是誰厭惡痛苦而尋求趣向涅槃（涅槃：佛教修行的最終目標，指解脫生死輪迴的狀態）？所執著的真實『我』既然沒有生滅，怎麼能說生死輪迴呢？如果『我』恒常如虛空，不被痛苦所惱，為什麼要厭惡捨棄而尋求趣向涅槃呢？所以他們所說的話，常常是在自我傷害。然而，有情眾生的身心相續，因為煩惱和業力的作用，在各個趣道中輪迴，因為厭惡痛苦，所以尋求趣向涅槃。由此可知，必定沒有真實的『我』，只有各種識（識：佛教中指認識作用）在無始以來，前滅後生，因果相續，由於虛妄的熏習，顯現出好像有『我』的假象。愚昧的人在其中虛妄地執著為『我』。 為什麼識之外真實存在的諸法（諸法：指一切事物和現象）是不可得的呢？因為外道（外道：指佛教以外的其他宗教或哲學流派）和其他乘（乘：佛教中指教法或修行方法）所執著的外法，在道理上是不存在的。外道所執著的為什麼不存在呢？且說數論者（數論者：古印度哲學數論派的信徒）認為，『我』是思，受用薩埵（薩埵：純粹的）、刺阇（刺阇：激情的）、答摩（答摩：黑暗的）所成的大等二十三種法。然而，大等法是由三種事物合成的，是真實的而不是虛假的，是現量（現量：直接的感知）所得到的。他們的這種執著是不合道理的。為什麼呢？
【English Translation】 English version: It is like an illusion (as-illusion-like existence: refers to existence like an illusion). Because the 'self' that is clung to through delusion is arbitrarily conceived, it can be determined that it is not truly existent. As the Sutra (Sutra: another name for Buddhist scriptures) says: 'Bhikkhus (Bhikkhus: Buddhist monks), know that all views of 'self' held by the Shramanas (Shramanas: refers to practitioners of Buddhism or other religions), Brahmins (Brahmins: priests of ancient Hinduism), and others in the world, all arise from the five aggregates of clinging (five aggregates of clinging: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness).' If a real 'self' does not exist, how can there be things like memory, recitation, gratitude, and resentment? Since the real 'self' that is clung to is constant and unchanging, then the later should be the same as the former, and this matter does not exist. The former should be the same as the later, and this matter is not non-existent. Because the substance of the later and the former is no different. If it is said that the function of the 'self' changes before and after, but not the substance of the 'self', then the reasoning is also not valid. Because the function does not leave the substance, it should be constantly existent; the substance does not leave the function, it should not be impermanent. However, each sentient being (sentient being: refers to all beings with feelings and consciousness) has its own fundamental consciousness (fundamental consciousness: Alaya consciousness, which stores all seeds), a continuous stream that upholds the seeds, and interacts with all dharmas (dharmas: all things and phenomena) as causes, and through the power of熏習(xunxi) (熏習: influence), there are such things as memory and so on. Therefore, the difficulty you have raised is untenable for you, and has no impact on my school (my school: Buddhist school). If there is no real 'self', who can create karma and who will receive the consequences? Since the real 'self' that is clung to has no change, like space, how can it be possible to create karma and receive consequences? If the 'self' has change, it should be impermanent. However, the mind and mental factors (mental factors: psychological activities) of each sentient being, because of the power of conditions, continue without interruption, creating karma and receiving consequences, which is not contrary to reason. If the 'self' is truly non-existent, then who is in the cycle of birth and death in the various realms (realms: the six realms of reincarnation for sentient beings, namely hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, asuras, and gods)? And who is it that hates suffering and seeks to go towards Nirvana (Nirvana: the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice, referring to the state of liberation from the cycle of birth and death)? Since the real 'self' that is clung to has no birth and death, how can one speak of the cycle of birth and death? If the 'self' is constantly like space, not troubled by suffering, why hate and abandon it and seek to go towards Nirvana? Therefore, what they say is often self-harming. However, the body and mind of sentient beings continue, and because of the actions of afflictions and karma, they revolve in the various realms, and because they hate suffering, they seek to go towards Nirvana. From this, it can be known that there is definitely no real 'self', only various consciousnesses (consciousness: refers to the function of cognition in Buddhism) that, since beginningless time, are born and die one after another, with cause and effect continuing, and due to the false熏習(xunxi) (熏習: influence), an illusion of a 'self' appears. Ignorant people falsely cling to it as 'self'. Why are the dharmas (dharmas: all things and phenomena) that truly exist outside of consciousness unattainable? Because the external dharmas clung to by 外道(waidao) (外道: non-Buddhist religions or philosophical schools) and other vehicles (vehicles: refers to teachings or methods of practice in Buddhism) do not exist in reason. Why do the external dharmas clung to by 外道(waidao) (外道: non-Buddhist religions or philosophical schools) not exist? Let's say that the Samkhya (Samkhya: followers of the Samkhya school of ancient Indian philosophy) believe that the 'self' is thought, enjoying the twenty-three dharmas such as 大(da) (大: great) formed by Sattva (Sattva: pure), Rajas (Rajas: passionate), and Tamas (Tamas: dark). However, the 大(da) (大: great) and other dharmas are composed of three things, are real and not false, and are obtained by direct perception (direct perception: direct perception). Their clinging is unreasonable. Why?
。大等諸法多事成故。如軍林等。應假非實。如何可說現量得耶。
又大等法若是實有。應如本事非三合成。薩埵等三即大等故。應如大等。亦三合成。轉變非常為例亦爾。又三本事各多功能。體亦應多。能體一故。三體既遍。一處變時餘亦應爾。體無別故。許此三事。體相各別。如何和合共成一相。不應合時變為一相。與未合時體無別故。若謂三事體異相同。便違己宗體相是一。體應如相冥然是一。相應如體顯然有三。故不應言三合成一。又三是別。大等是總。總別一故應非一三。此三變時若不和合成一相者。應如未變。如何現見是一色等。若三和合成一相者。應失本別相體亦應隨失。不可說三各有二相。一總二別。總即別故。總亦應三。如何見一。若謂三體各有三相。和雜難知。故見一者。既有三相。寧見為一。復如何知三事有異。若彼一一皆具三相。應一一事能成色等。何所𨵗少待三和合。體亦應各三。以體即相故。又大等法皆三合成。展轉相望應無差別。是則因果唯量諸大諸根差別皆不得成。若爾一根應得一切境。或應一境一切根所得。世間現見情與非情凈穢等物現比量等。皆應無異。便為大失。故彼所執實法不成。但是妄情計度為有。勝論所執實等句義多實有性。現量所得。彼執非理。所以者何。諸
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 大等諸法因為涉及眾多事物才能形成，就像軍隊和森林一樣，是假設的而非真實的。怎麼能說可以通過現量（直接感知）獲得呢？ 而且，大等法如果真實存在，應該像自性一樣，不是由三種事物（薩埵（悅性）、剌阇（ Rajas， 激性）、答摩（Tamas，惰性））合成的。既然薩埵等三種事物就是大等法，那麼應該像大等法一樣，也是由三種事物合成的。轉變和非常的例子也是如此。此外，三種自性各自具有多種功能，其本體也應該有很多。因為能和體是一體的。既然三種本體是普遍存在的，那麼在一處發生變化時，其餘的也應該如此，因為本體沒有區別。如果承認這三種事物的本體和相狀各自不同，那麼如何能夠和合共同形成一個相狀呢？不應該在和合時變為一個相狀，因為與未和合時本體沒有區別。如果說三種事物的本體不同但相狀相同，那就違背了自己宗派的本體和相狀是一體的觀點。本體應該像相狀一樣，冥然一體。相狀應該像本體一樣，顯然有三種。所以不應該說三種事物合成一個。而且，三種事物是別相，大等法是總相，總相和別相是一體的，所以應該不是一個或三個。這三種事物在變化時，如果不和合成為一個相狀，應該像未變化時一樣，如何能夠現見是一個顏色等？如果三種事物和合成為一個相狀，應該失去原本的別相，本體也應該隨之失去。不能說三種事物各自有兩種相狀，一個是總相，一個是別相，因為總相就是別相，總相也應該是三個，如何能見為一個？如果說三種本體各自有三種相狀，和雜在一起難以分辨，所以見為一個，既然有三種相狀，怎麼能見為一個？又如何知道三種事物有差異？如果它們一一都具有三種相狀，那麼每一件事物都應該能形成顏色等，缺少什麼要等待三種事物和合呢？本體也應該各自有三個，因為本體就是相狀。而且，大等法都是由三種事物合成的，輾轉相望應該沒有差別。這樣一來，因果、唯量、諸大、諸根的差別都不能成立。如果這樣，一個根應該能獲得一切境界，或者一個境界應該被一切根所獲得。世間現見的有情和非情、清凈和污穢等事物，現量和比量等，都應該沒有差異，那就造成了很大的過失。所以他們所執著的實法不能成立，只不過是虛妄的情感計度為有。勝論所執著的實等句義，多數是真實存在的，可以通過現量獲得，他們的執著是不合理的。為什麼呢？諸
【English Translation】 English version The 'great' and other dharmas (elements of existence) are formed because many things are involved, like armies and forests, they are hypothetical and not real. How can it be said that they are obtained through direct perception (pratyaksha)? Moreover, if the 'great' and other dharmas were truly existent, they should be like the Self (Atman), not composed of three things (Sattva (goodness, purity), Rajas (passion, activity), Tamas (inertia, darkness)). Since Sattva and the other two are the 'great' and other dharmas, they should also be composed of three things, just like the 'great' and other dharmas. The examples of transformation and impermanence are also similar. Furthermore, the three selves each have multiple functions, and their essence should also be many, because the 'able' and the 'essence' are one. Since the three essences are pervasive, when a change occurs in one place, the others should also change, because the essences are not different. If it is admitted that the essence and characteristics of these three things are each different, then how can they combine to form one characteristic? They should not change into one characteristic when combined, because there is no difference in essence from when they are not combined. If it is said that the essence of the three things is different but the characteristics are the same, then it contradicts their own doctrine that essence and characteristics are one. The essence should be like the characteristics, obscurely one. The characteristics should be like the essence, obviously three. Therefore, it should not be said that three things combine into one. Moreover, the three things are particular, and the 'great' and other dharmas are general. Since the general and particular are one, they should not be one or three. When these three things change, if they do not combine to form one characteristic, they should be like when they have not changed. How can it be directly seen as one color, etc.? If the three things combine to form one characteristic, they should lose their original particular characteristics, and the essence should also be lost. It cannot be said that the three things each have two characteristics, one general and one particular, because the general characteristic is the particular characteristic, the general characteristic should also be three. How can it be seen as one? If it is said that the three essences each have three characteristics, and they are mixed together and difficult to distinguish, so they are seen as one, since there are three characteristics, how can they be seen as one? And how can it be known that the three things are different? If each of them has three characteristics, then each thing should be able to form color, etc. What is lacking that requires the three things to combine? The essence should also each have three, because the essence is the characteristic. Moreover, the 'great' and other dharmas are all composed of three things, and there should be no difference when viewed in relation to each other. In that case, the differences between cause and effect, only measure, the great elements, and the senses cannot be established. If that were the case, one sense should be able to obtain all objects, or one object should be obtained by all senses. The sentient and non-sentient, pure and impure things that are directly seen in the world, direct perception and inference, etc., should all be the same, which would cause great faults. Therefore, their asserted real dharma cannot be established, it is only a false emotional calculation that it exists. The meaning of the 'real' and other categories asserted by the Vaisheshika school, most of which are truly existent, can be obtained through direct perception, their assertion is unreasonable. Why is that? The
句義中。且常住者。若能生果。應是無常。有作用故如所生果。若不生果應非離識實有自性。如兔角等。諸無常者。若有質礙。便有方分。應可分析。如軍林等。非實有性。若無質礙如心心所。應非離此有實自性。
又彼所執地水火風。應非有礙實句義攝。身根所觸故。如堅濕暖動。即彼所執堅濕暖等。應非無礙德句義攝。身根所觸故。如地水火風。地水火三對青色等。俱眼所見。準此應責。故知無實地水火風。與堅濕等各別有性。亦非眼見實地水火。
又彼所執實句義中。有礙常者。皆有礙故。如粗地等。應是無常。諸句義中色根所取無質礙法。應皆有礙。許色根取故。如地水火風。
又彼所執非實德等。應非離識有別自性。非實攝故。如石女兒。非有實等應非離識有別自性。非有攝故。如空花等。彼所執有。應離實等無別自性。許非無故。如實德等。若離實等應非有性。許異實等故。如畢竟無等。如有非無無別有性。如何實等有別有性。若離有法有別有性。應離無法有別無性。彼既不然此云何爾。故彼有性唯妄計度。又彼所執實德業性。異實德業。理定不然。勿。此亦非實德業性。異實等故。如德業等。
又應實等非實等攝。異實等性故。如德業實等。地等諸性對地等體更相徴詰。準此
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 如果常住的事物能夠產生結果，那麼它應該是無常的，因為它具有產生作用的能力，就像它所產生的結果一樣。如果它不能產生結果，那麼它就不應該是獨立於意識而真實存在的自性，就像兔角一樣。所有無常的事物，如果有物質阻礙，就會有方位和部分，應該可以被分析，就像軍隊或森林一樣，不是真實存在的自性。如果沒有物質阻礙，就像心和心所，那麼它就不應該是獨立於意識而真實存在的自性。
此外，你們所執著的地、水、火、風，不應該是有阻礙的真實句義所包含的，因為它們是身體感官所觸及的，就像堅硬、潮濕、溫暖、運動一樣。那麼，你們所執著的堅硬、潮濕、溫暖等，不應該是無阻礙的德句義所包含的，因為它們是身體感官所觸及的，就像地、水、火、風一樣。地、水、火三種元素與青色等顏色，都是眼睛所能看到的，按照這個類比，應該可以提出質疑。因此，可知沒有真實的地、水、火、風，與堅硬、潮濕等各自具有不同的自性。也不是眼睛所能看到的真實的地、水、火。
此外，你們所執著的真實句義中，有阻礙且常住的事物，因為它們都有阻礙，就像粗糙的土地等，所以應該是無常的。所有句義中，顏色感官所獲取的沒有物質阻礙的法，應該都是有阻礙的，因為你們允許顏色感官獲取它們，就像地、水、火、風一樣。
此外，你們所執著的非真實德等，不應該是獨立於意識而具有不同的自性，因為它們屬於非真實範疇，就像石女兒一樣。非有真實等，不應該是獨立於意識而具有不同的自性，因為它們屬於非有範疇，就像空中的花朵一樣。你們所執著的有，應該與真實等沒有不同的自性，因為你們允許它不是無，就像真實德等一樣。如果它與真實等不同，那麼它就不應該是有自性的，因為你們允許它不同於真實等，就像畢竟無等一樣。如果如有和非無沒有不同的自性，那麼真實等怎麼會有不同的自性呢？如果獨立於有法而有不同的自性，那麼就應該獨立於無法而有不同的無性。既然你們不承認後者，那麼前者又怎麼可能成立呢？因此，你們所說的有性只是虛妄的計度。此外，你們所執著的真實、德、業、性，與真實、德、業不同，這個道理肯定是不成立的。不要這樣認為。這也不是真實、德、業、性，與真實等不同，就像德、業等一樣。
此外，真實等不應該被非真實等所包含，因為它們與真實等不同，就像德、業、真實等一樣。土地等諸法的自性，與土地等的本體相互質問，按照這個類比。
【English Translation】 English version: If a permanent entity can produce results, it should be impermanent, because it has the ability to produce effects, just like the results it produces. If it cannot produce results, then it should not be a self-nature that exists independently of consciousness, like a rabbit's horn. All impermanent things, if they have material obstruction, will have direction and parts, and should be able to be analyzed, like an army or a forest, not a truly existing self-nature. If there is no material obstruction, like mind and mental factors, then it should not be a self-nature that exists independently of consciousness.
Furthermore, the earth, water, fire, and wind that you cling to should not be included in the real category of meaning that has obstruction, because they are touched by the body's senses, like hardness, wetness, warmth, and motion. Then, the hardness, wetness, warmth, etc., that you cling to should not be included in the category of meaning of virtue that has no obstruction, because they are touched by the body's senses, like earth, water, fire, and wind. The three elements of earth, water, and fire, along with colors like blue, are all visible to the eyes. According to this analogy, questions should be raised. Therefore, it can be known that there are no real earth, water, fire, and wind that each have different self-natures from hardness, wetness, etc. Nor are the real earth, water, and fire visible to the eyes.
Furthermore, in the real category of meaning that you cling to, things that have obstruction and are permanent, because they all have obstruction, like coarse earth, etc., should be impermanent. All dharmas in the category of meaning that are perceived by the color sense and have no material obstruction should all have obstruction, because you allow the color sense to perceive them, like earth, water, fire, and wind.
Furthermore, the unreal virtues, etc., that you cling to should not have different self-natures that are independent of consciousness, because they belong to the category of unreal, like a stone woman. Non-existent realities, etc., should not have different self-natures that are independent of consciousness, because they belong to the category of non-existent, like flowers in the sky. The existent that you cling to should not have a different self-nature from reality, etc., because you allow it not to be non-existent, like real virtues, etc. If it is different from reality, etc., then it should not have existence, because you allow it to be different from reality, etc., like absolute non-existence, etc. If existence and non-existence do not have different self-natures, then how can reality, etc., have different self-natures? If there is a different self-nature independent of existent dharmas, then there should be a different non-existence independent of non-existent. Since you do not admit the latter, how can the former be established? Therefore, your so-called existence is merely a false calculation. Furthermore, the reality, virtue, action, and nature that you cling to are different from reality, virtue, and action. This principle is definitely not established. Do not think this way. This is also not reality, virtue, action, and nature, which are different from reality, etc., like virtue, action, etc.
Furthermore, reality, etc., should not be included in non-reality, etc., because they are different from reality, etc., like virtue, action, reality, etc. The natures of earth, etc., are questioned against the entities of earth, etc., according to this analogy.
應知。如實性等無別實等性。實等亦應無別實性等。若離實等有實等性。應離非實等有非實等性。彼既不爾此云何然。故同異性唯假施設。又彼所執和合句義定非實有。非有實等諸法攝故。如畢竟無。彼許實等現量所得以理推徴尚非實有況彼自許和合句義非現量得。而可實有。設執和合是現量境。由前理故亦非實有。然彼實等。非緣離識實有自體現量所得。許所知故。如龜毛等。又緣實智非緣離識實句自體現量智攝。假合生故。如德智等。廣說乃至緣和合智。非緣離識和合自體現量智攝。假合生故。如實智等。故勝論者實等句義。亦是隨情妄所施設。有執有一大自在天。體實遍常能生諸法。彼執非理。所以者何。若法能生必非常故。諸非常者必不遍故。諸不遍者非真實故。體既常遍。具諸功能應一切處時頓生一切法。待欲或緣方能生者。違一因論。或欲及緣亦應頓起。因常有故。餘執有一大梵．時．方．本際．自然．虛空．我等。常住實有。具諸功能生一切法。皆同此破。有餘偏執。明論聲常。能為定量表詮諸法。有執一切聲皆是常。待緣顯發。方有詮表。彼俱非理。所以者何。且明論聲許能詮故。應非常住如所餘聲。餘聲亦應非常聲體。如瓶衣等待眾緣故。有外道執。地水火風極微。實常。能生粗色。所生粗色不越
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 須知，『如實性』（tathātā，事物的真實本性）與『實性』（dravya，實體）等沒有區別，『實性』等也應與『實性』沒有區別。如果離開『實性』等而有『實性』，那麼應該離開『非實性』等而有『非實性』。既然事實並非如此，那又怎麼會是那樣呢？所以，『同』與『異』的性質只是假立的施設。而且，他們所執著的『和合句義』（samudāya，組合的意義）必定不是真實存在的，因為它不屬於『實性』等諸法的範疇，就像根本不存在的事物一樣。他們認為『實性』等是現量（pratyakṣa，直接感知）所獲得的，但用理智推斷，尚且不是真實存在的，更何況他們自己認為『和合句義』不是現量所獲得的，又怎麼能說是真實存在的呢？假設他們認為『和合』是現量的對象，由於前面的理由，也不是真實存在的。然而，他們所說的『實性』等，不是通過緣離識（vijñāna，意識）而獲得的，也不是真實存在的自性，因為它們是被認知的對象，就像龜毛等不存在的事物一樣。而且，緣『實智』（dravya-jñāna，關於實體的知識）不是緣離識的真實語句的自性，而是現量智所攝，因為它是假合而生的，就像『德智』（guṇa-jñāna，關於屬性的知識）等一樣。廣而言之，緣『和合智』（samudāya-jñāna，關於組合的知識）不是緣離識的和合自性，而是現量智所攝，因為它是假合而生的，就像『實智』等一樣。所以，勝論派（Vaiśeṣika）所說的『實性』等句義，也是隨順情意妄加施設的。
有人執著有一位『大自在天』（Maheśvara，印度教主神濕婆的別稱），其體性真實、周遍、恒常，能夠產生諸法。這種執著是不合理的。為什麼呢？如果法能夠產生，必定不是恒常的。凡不是恒常的，必定不是周遍的。凡不是周遍的，就不是真實的。如果其體性是恒常且周遍的，具備各種功能，那麼應該在一切處、一切時頓然產生一切法。如果需要等待意欲或因緣才能產生，就違背了『一因論』（ekakāraṇavāda，認為只有一個根本原因的理論）。或者，意欲和因緣也應該頓然生起，因為原因（即大自在天）是恒常存在的。其餘執著有一位『大梵』（Brahmā，印度教的創造神）、『時間』（Kāla）、『空間』（Diś）、『本際』（Prakṛti，自性）、『自然』（Svabhāva）、『虛空』（Ākāśa）、『我』（Ātman）等，是常住且真實存在的，具備各種功能，能夠產生一切法，都可以用同樣的道理來破斥。
還有一些人偏執地認為，『明論聲』（sphoṭa，語音的永恒形式）是恒常的，能夠作為可靠的認知手段來表達諸法。有人執著認為一切聲音都是恒常的，等待因緣顯發，才能表達意義。這兩種觀點都是不合理的。為什麼呢？且說『明論聲』，既然被認為是能夠表達意義的，就應該不是恒常的，就像其餘的聲音一樣。其餘的聲音也應該不是恒常的聲體，就像瓶子、衣服等需要等待眾緣才能產生一樣。有些外道執著認為，地、水、火、風的極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）是真實且恒常的，能夠產生粗色（sthūla-rūpa，粗大的顏色），所產生的粗色不會超出...
【English Translation】 English version: It should be known that 'Tathātā' (suchness, the true nature of things) is no different from 'Dravya' (substance) and so on. 'Dravya' and so on should also be no different from 'Dravya'. If there is 'Dravya' apart from 'Dravya' and so on, then there should be 'non-Dravya' apart from 'non-Dravya' and so on. Since that is not the case, how could this be so? Therefore, the nature of 'same' and 'different' are merely hypothetical constructs. Moreover, the 'Samudāya' (aggregate meaning) that they cling to is definitely not real, because it does not belong to the category of 'Dravya' and other dharmas, just like something that does not exist at all. They believe that 'Dravya' and so on are obtained through 'Pratyakṣa' (direct perception), but even with rational inference, they are not real. How much more so can they claim that 'Samudāya' is real when they themselves admit that it is not obtained through 'Pratyakṣa'? Suppose they believe that 'Samudāya' is the object of 'Pratyakṣa', it is still not real due to the previous reasons. However, what they call 'Dravya' and so on are not obtained through perceiving the self-nature that exists apart from 'Vijñāna' (consciousness), because they are knowable objects, just like the hair of a tortoise, which does not exist. Moreover, 'Dravya-jñāna' (knowledge of substance) is not the self-nature of real sentences apart from consciousness, but is included in 'Pratyakṣa-jñāna' (direct perception knowledge), because it is produced by false aggregation, just like 'Guṇa-jñāna' (knowledge of qualities) and so on. Broadly speaking, 'Samudāya-jñāna' (knowledge of aggregates) is not the self-nature of aggregates apart from consciousness, but is included in 'Pratyakṣa-jñāna', because it is produced by false aggregation, just like 'Dravya-jñāna' and so on. Therefore, the meaning of 'Dravya' and other sentences as stated by the Vaiśeṣika school are also arbitrary constructs based on their own desires. Some people cling to the idea that there is a 'Maheśvara' (Great Lord, another name for the Hindu god Shiva), whose nature is real, pervasive, and eternal, and who can produce all dharmas. This clinging is unreasonable. Why? If a dharma can be produced, it must not be eternal. Whatever is not eternal must not be pervasive. Whatever is not pervasive is not real. If its nature is eternal and pervasive, possessing all functions, then it should produce all dharmas in all places and at all times simultaneously. If it needs to wait for desire or conditions to produce, it contradicts the 'Ekakāraṇavāda' (theory of one cause, which believes that there is only one fundamental cause). Or, desire and conditions should also arise simultaneously, because the cause (i.e., Maheśvara) is eternally present. The remaining clinging to a 'Brahmā' (Hindu god of creation), 'Kāla' (time), 'Diś' (space), 'Prakṛti' (nature), 'Svabhāva' (self-nature), 'Ākāśa' (space), 'Ātman' (self), etc., as permanent and real, possessing all functions, and capable of producing all dharmas, can all be refuted using the same reasoning. There are also some who stubbornly believe that 'Sphota' (the eternal form of speech) is permanent and can serve as a reliable means of cognition to express all dharmas. Some cling to the idea that all sounds are permanent, waiting for conditions to manifest in order to express meaning. Both of these views are unreasonable. Why? Let's talk about 'Sphota'. Since it is considered capable of expressing meaning, it should not be permanent, just like other sounds. Other sounds should also not be permanent sound bodies, just like pots, clothes, etc., need to wait for various conditions to arise. Some heretics cling to the idea that the 'paramāṇu' (ultimate particles) of earth, water, fire, and wind are real and permanent, and can produce 'sthūla-rūpa' (gross colors), and the produced gross colors do not exceed...
因量。雖是無常而體實有。彼亦非理。所以者何。所執極微若有方分。如蟻行等。體應非實。若無方分。如心心所。應不共聚生粗果色。既能生果。如彼所生。如何可說極微常住。
又所生果。不越因量。應如極微不名粗色。則此果色。應非眼等色根所取。便違自執。若謂果色量德合故。非粗似粗色根能取。所執果色既同因量。應如極微無粗德合。或應極微亦粗德合。如粗果色。處無別故。若謂果色遍在自因。因非一故可名粗者。則此果色體應非一。如所在因。處各別故。既爾此果還不成粗。由此亦非色根所取。若果多分合故成粗。多因極微合應非細。足成根境何用果為。既多分成。應非實有。則汝所執前後相違。
又果與因俱有質礙。應不同處。如二極微。若謂果因體相受入。如沙受水藥入镕銅。誰許沙銅體受水藥。或應離變非一非常。又粗色果體若是一。得一分時應得一切。彼此一故。彼應如此。
不許違理。許便違事。故彼所執進退不成。但是隨情虛妄計度。然諸外道品類雖多。所執有法不過四種。一執有法與有等性其體定一。如數論等。彼執非理。所以者何。勿一切法即有性故。皆如有性。體無差別便違三德我等體異。亦違世間諸法差別。又若色等即色等性。色等應無青黃等異。二執有法
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 因（hetu，原因）。即使是無常的，但本體是真實存在的，這種說法也是不合理的。為什麼呢？如果你們所執著的極微（paramāṇu，最小的物質單位）有方分（方向和部分），就像螞蟻行走一樣，那麼它的本體就應該不是真實的。如果它沒有方分，就像心和心所（citta-caitta，心理活動和心理因素）一樣，它就不應該能夠共同聚集產生粗果色（sthūla-rūpa-phala，粗大的果實顏色）。既然它能夠產生果實，就像它所產生的那樣，怎麼能說極微是常住的呢？
而且，所產生的果實不會超過因的量。它應該像極微一樣，不被稱為粗色。那麼，這個果色就不應該能被眼等色根（rūpa-indriya，感覺器官）所取。這就違背了你們自己的主張。如果你們說果色的量和德（guṇa，性質）結合在一起，所以它不是粗的，但看起來像粗的，所以色根能夠取它，那麼你們所執著的果色既然和因的量相同，就應該像極微一樣，沒有粗的德的結合。或者，極微也應該像粗果色一樣，有粗的德的結合，因為它們所處的位置沒有區別。如果你們說果色遍佈在它自己的因中，因為因不是單一的，所以可以被稱為粗的，那麼這個果色的本體就應該不是單一的，就像它所在的因，所處的位置各不相同一樣。既然這樣，這個果實仍然不能成為粗的。因此，它也不能被色根所取。如果果實因為很多部分結合在一起而成為粗的，那麼很多因的極微結合在一起就不應該是細的。這樣就足以形成根和境（indriya-gocara，感覺器官和感覺對像），為什麼還要用果實呢？既然它是由很多部分組成的，它就不應該是真實存在的。那麼，你們所執著的就前後矛盾了。
而且，果和因都有質礙（pratighāta，阻礙），它們應該不在同一個地方，就像兩個極微一樣。如果你們說果和因的本體相互容納，就像沙子容納水，藥進入熔化的銅一樣，誰允許沙子和銅的本體容納水和藥呢？或者，它應該既不是離變的，也不是單一的，也不是非常的。而且，如果粗色果的本體是單一的，那麼得到一部分的時候就應該得到一切，因為它們彼此是一體的。它應該像這樣。
不允許就違背了道理，允許就違背了事實。所以，你們所執著的進退兩難。這只不過是隨順自己的想法，虛妄地推測。然而，各種外道（tīrthika，非佛教的修行者）雖然種類很多，但他們所執著的有法（sat-dharma，存在的法）不過四種。第一種是執著有法和有（sat，存在）的等性（samatā，相等性）其本體一定是相同的，就像數論（Sāṃkhya，古印度哲學流派）等。他們的執著是不合理的。為什麼呢？不要因為一切法都有有性，就都像有性一樣，本體沒有差別，這就違背了三德（triguṇa，三種性質）我和其他事物的本體不同，也違背了世間諸法的差別。而且，如果色等同於色等性，色等就不應該有青黃等差異。第二種是執著有法……
【English Translation】 English version The cause (hetu). Even if it is impermanent, but its essence is truly existent, that is also unreasonable. Why? If the ultimate particle (paramāṇu, the smallest unit of matter) that you adhere to has directional parts, like an ant walking, then its essence should not be real. If it has no directional parts, like mind and mental factors (citta-caitta, mental activities and mental elements), it should not be able to collectively gather to produce a gross color result (sthūla-rūpa-phala, a coarse color outcome). Since it can produce a result, like what it produces, how can it be said that the ultimate particle is permanent?
Moreover, the result produced does not exceed the measure of the cause. It should be like the ultimate particle, not called a gross color. Then, this color result should not be able to be apprehended by the color sense organs (rūpa-indriya, sense faculties) such as the eye. This contradicts your own assertion. If you say that the color result's measure and qualities (guṇa, attributes) are combined, so it is not gross, but appears gross, so the sense organs can apprehend it, then since the color result you adhere to is the same as the measure of the cause, it should be like the ultimate particle, without the combination of gross qualities. Or, the ultimate particle should also have the combination of gross qualities, like the gross color result, because there is no difference in their location. If you say that the color result is pervasive in its own cause, because the cause is not singular, so it can be called gross, then the essence of this color result should not be singular, like the cause in which it is located, with each location being different. In that case, this result still cannot become gross. Therefore, it also cannot be apprehended by the color sense organs. If the result becomes gross because many parts are combined, then the ultimate particles of many causes combined should not be subtle. This would be sufficient to form the sense organs and their objects (indriya-gocara, sense faculties and sense objects), so why use the result? Since it is composed of many parts, it should not be truly existent. Then, what you adhere to is contradictory.
Moreover, both the result and the cause have obstruction (pratighāta, resistance), they should not be in the same place, like two ultimate particles. If you say that the essence of the result and the cause mutually contain each other, like sand containing water, or medicine entering molten copper, who allows the essence of sand and copper to contain water and medicine? Or, it should be neither separate from change, nor singular, nor permanent. Moreover, if the essence of the gross color result is singular, then obtaining one part should mean obtaining everything, because they are one with each other. It should be like this.
To disallow it violates reason, to allow it violates facts. Therefore, what you adhere to is untenable in either case. It is merely following one's own thoughts, falsely speculating. However, although there are many kinds of non-Buddhists (tīrthika, non-Buddhist practitioners), the existent phenomena (sat-dharma, existing phenomena) they adhere to are no more than four types. The first is to adhere to the sameness (samatā, equality) of existent phenomena and existence (sat, being), whose essence must be the same, like the Sāṃkhya (Sāṃkhya, an ancient Indian philosophical school) and others. Their adherence is unreasonable. Why? Do not, because all phenomena have the nature of existence, become like existence, with no difference in essence, which violates the three qualities (triguṇa, three attributes) that my essence and the essence of other things are different, and also violates the differences of all phenomena in the world. Moreover, if color and so on are the same as the nature of color and so on, color and so on should not have differences such as blue and yellow. The second is to adhere to existent phenomena...
與有等性。其體定異。如勝論等。彼執非理。所以者何。勿一切法非有性故。如已滅無。體不可得。便違實等自體非無。亦違世間現見有物。又若色等非色等性。應如聲等。非眼等境。三執有法與有等性。亦一亦異。如無慚等。彼執非理。所以者何。一異同前一異過故。二相相違。體應別故。一異體同俱不成故。勿一切法皆同一體。或應一異是假非實。而執為實理定不成。四執有法與有等性。非一非異。如邪命等。彼執非理。所以者何。非一異執同異一故。非一異言為遮為表。
若唯是表應不雙非。若但是遮應無所執。亦遮亦表應互相違。非表非遮。應成戲論。又非一異。違世共知有一異物。亦違自宗色等有法決定實有。是故彼言唯矯避過。諸有智者勿謬許之。
餘乘所執離識實有色等諸法。如何非有彼所執色不相應行。及諸無為。理非有故。且所執色總有二種。一者有對極微所成。二者無對非極微成。彼有對色定非實有。能成極微非實有故。謂諸極微若有質礙。應如瓶等。是假非實。若無質礙。應如非色。如何可整合瓶衣等。又諸極微。若有方分。必可分析。便非實有。若無方分。則如非色。云何和合承光發影。日輪才舉照柱等時。東西兩邊光影各現。承光發影。處既不同。所執極微定有方分。又若見
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 有法（dharma，指存在的事物）與其『有』的屬性是等同的。他們的本體是確定的不同。例如勝論派（Vaisheshika school）的觀點。他們的主張不合理。為什麼呢？不要認為一切法都沒有自性。如同已經滅亡的事物，本體不可得。這便違背了『實』（dravya，實體）等自體並非不存在的觀點，也違背了世間現見有物的現象。又如果色等不是色等的自性，應該像聲等一樣，不是眼等所能感知的對象。
三、有人認為有法與其『有』的屬性，既是一，又是異，例如無慚等。他們的主張不合理。為什麼呢？一和異與前面所說的一和異的過失相同。兩種屬性相互矛盾，本體應該不同。一和異的本體相同，兩者都不能成立。不要認為一切法都是同一本體，或者認為一和異是虛假的，不是真實的，而執著認為是真實的，這在道理上一定不能成立。
四、有人認為有法與其『有』的屬性，既非一，也非異，例如邪命外道等。他們的主張不合理。為什麼呢？非一和非異的執著與一和異相同。非一和非異的說法，是爲了遮止還是爲了表達？
如果僅僅是爲了表達，就不應該雙重否定。如果僅僅是爲了遮止，就應該沒有什麼可以執著的。如果既遮止又表達，就應該互相違背。如果既不表達也不遮止，就應該成為戲論。又，非一和非異，違背了世間共同認知的一和異的事物，也違背了自己宗派所認為的色等有法決定是真實存在的觀點。因此，他們的說法只是爲了矯飾以避免過失。有智慧的人不要錯誤地認可它。
其他宗派所執著的離開識而真實存在的色等諸法，為什麼不是真實存在的呢？因為他們所執著的色、不相應行（citta-viprayukta-samskara，既非心也非色的事物）以及諸無為法（asamskrta，無為法），在道理上是不存在的。且他們所執著的色，總共有兩種：一是具有對礙的極微（paramanu，最小的物質單位）所組成的；二是不具有對礙的非極微所組成的。他們所認為的有對礙的色，一定是虛假的，因為能組成極微的極微本身就不是真實存在的。所謂的極微，如果有質礙，應該像瓶子等一樣，是虛假的，不是真實的；如果沒有質礙，應該像非色一樣。怎麼可以集合成瓶子、衣服等呢？又，如果極微有方分，一定可以分析，那就不是真實存在的；如果沒有方分，那就如同非色一樣，怎麼能夠和合承光發影呢？當日輪升起照耀柱子等時，東西兩邊的光影各自顯現。承光發影之處既然不同，所執著的極微一定有方分。又如果見
【English Translation】 English version The 'having' property is identical to the dharma (existing things). Their entities are definitely different, like the view of the Vaisheshika school. Their assertion is unreasonable. Why? Do not assume that all dharmas lack self-nature. Like things that have already ceased, their entities cannot be found. This contradicts the view that 'substance' (dravya) and other self-natures are not non-existent, and also contradicts the worldly phenomenon of seeing existing things. Furthermore, if form, etc., are not the nature of form, etc., they should be like sound, etc., not objects perceptible by the eye, etc. Third, some believe that the dharma and its 'having' property are both one and different, like those without shame, etc. Their assertion is unreasonable. Why? The one and the different are the same as the faults of one and different mentioned earlier. The two attributes contradict each other, and the entities should be different. The entities of one and different are the same, and neither can be established. Do not assume that all dharmas are the same entity, or that one and different are false, not real, and cling to them as real, which is definitely not established in reason. Fourth, some believe that the dharma and its 'having' property are neither one nor different, like the Ajivikas, etc. Their assertion is unreasonable. Why? The clinging to neither one nor different is the same as one and different. Is the statement of neither one nor different for negation or for expression? If it is only for expression, it should not be doubly negative. If it is only for negation, there should be nothing to cling to. If it is both negation and expression, it should contradict each other. If it is neither expression nor negation, it should become a mere game of words. Moreover, neither one nor different contradicts the worldly common knowledge of things that are one and different, and also contradicts the view of their own school that form, etc., as dharmas are definitely real. Therefore, their statement is only to adorn and avoid faults. Wise people should not mistakenly approve of it. Why are the dharmas such as form, etc., that other schools cling to as truly existing apart from consciousness, not truly existing? Because the form, non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-samskara, things that are neither mind nor form), and unconditioned dharmas (asamskrta, unconditioned dharmas) that they cling to are not existent in reason. And the form that they cling to has two types in total: one is composed of atoms (paramanu, the smallest unit of matter) with resistance; the other is composed of non-atoms without resistance. The form with resistance that they consider to have is definitely false, because the atoms that can compose the atoms themselves are not truly existent. The so-called atoms, if they have resistance, should be like bottles, etc., which are false, not real; if they do not have resistance, they should be like non-form. How can they be assembled into bottles, clothes, etc.? Furthermore, if the atoms have spatial parts, they can definitely be analyzed, then they are not truly existent; if they do not have spatial parts, then they are like non-form, how can they combine to receive light and emit shadows? When the sun rises and shines on pillars, etc., the light and shadows on the east and west sides appear separately. Since the places where light is received and shadows are emitted are different, the atoms that they cling to must have spatial parts. Also, if seeing
觸壁等物時。唯得此邊不得彼分。既和合物即諸極微。故此極微必有方分。
又諸極微隨所住處必有上下四方差別。不爾便無共和集義。或相涉入。應不成粗。由此極微定有方分。執有對色即諸極微。若無方分。應無障隔。若爾便非障礙有對。是故汝等所執極微。必有方分。有方分故。便可分析。定非實有。故有對色實有不成。五識豈無所依緣色。
雖非無色而是識變。謂識生時。內因緣力變似眼等色等相現。即以此相為所依緣。然眼等根非現量得。以能發識比知是有。此但功能非外所造。外有對色理既不成。故應但是內識變現。發眼等識名眼等根。此為所依生眼等識。此眼等識外所緣緣。理非有故。決定應許自識所變為所緣緣。謂能引生似自識者。汝執彼是此所緣緣。非但能生。勿因緣等亦名此識所緣緣故。眼等五識了色等時。但緣和合似彼相故。非和合相異諸極微有實自體。分析彼時。似彼相識定不生故。
彼和合相既非實有。故不可說是五識緣。勿第二月等能生五識故。非諸極微共和合位可與五識各作所緣。此識上無極微相故。非諸極微有和合相不和合時無此相故。非和合位與不合時。此諸極微體相有異。故和合位如不合時色等極微。非五識境。有執色等一一極微。不和集時非五識境。共和
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 當接觸墻壁等物體時，只能得到這一邊，而不能得到那一邊。既然是和合物，那就是由許多極微（最小的物質單位）組成的。因此，這個極微必定有方位。
而且，所有的極微無論位於何處，必定有上下四方的差別。否則，就沒有共同聚集的意義，或者會相互滲透，應該不能形成粗大的物體。因此，極微一定有方位。如果認為有對礙的色法就是極微，如果沒有方位，應該沒有阻礙和間隔。如果這樣，就不是有障礙的有對之物。所以，你們所認為的極微，必定有方位。因為有方位，就可以被分析，一定不是真實存在的。所以，有對礙的色法真實存在是不成立的。難道五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）就沒有所依賴和緣取的色法了嗎？
雖然不是沒有色法，但那是識的變現。意思是說，在識產生的時候，內在的因緣力量變現出類似眼根等色法的相狀顯現出來，就以這個相狀作為所依賴和緣取的對象。然而，眼根等根不是現量（直接經驗）所能得到的，而是通過能夠產生識來推知它存在。這只是功能，不是外在所造作的。外在的有對礙的色法在道理上不能成立，所以應該只是內在的識所變現的。能夠引發眼識等識的，叫做眼根等根。這是眼識等識所依賴的。這眼識等識的外在所緣緣（對像），在道理上是不存在的，所以一定要承認是自己識所變現的作為所緣緣。意思是說，能夠引生類似自己識的，你們認為那個是這個識的所緣緣。不僅僅是能夠產生，不要因為因緣等也叫做這個識的所緣緣。眼識等五識了別色法等的時候，只是緣取和合的類似那些色法的相狀，不是和合的相狀與極微不同，有真實的自體。因為在分析它的時候，類似那個相狀的識一定不會產生。
那個和合的相狀既然不是真實存在的，所以不能說是五識所緣取的對象。不要因為第二個月亮等能夠產生五識。不是所有的極微在共同和合的位置上可以各自作為五識所緣取的對象。因為在這個識上沒有極微的相狀。不是所有的極微有和合的相狀，不和合的時候就沒有這個相狀。不是在和合的位置上與不和合的時候，這些極微的體相有差異。所以在和合的位置上，如同不和合的時候，色法等極微不是五識的境界。有人認為色法等一一極微，不和集的時候不是五識的境界，共同和合的時候才是五識的境界。
【English Translation】 English version: When touching objects like walls, one can only obtain this side and not the other. Since it is a composite, it is composed of many paramāṇu (極微) (smallest units of matter). Therefore, this paramāṇu must have direction. Moreover, all paramāṇu, wherever they are located, must have differences in the four directions of up, down, and all sides. Otherwise, there would be no meaning of common aggregation, or they would interpenetrate each other, and should not form coarse objects. Therefore, paramāṇu must have direction. If one believes that obstructive rūpa (色) (form) is paramāṇu, if there is no direction, there should be no obstruction or separation. If so, it is not an obstructive and resistant object. Therefore, the paramāṇu you believe in must have direction. Because it has direction, it can be analyzed and is certainly not real. Therefore, the real existence of obstructive rūpa is not established. Are there no rūpa that the five vijñāna (識) (consciousness) rely on and grasp? Although it is not without rūpa, it is a transformation of vijñāna. It means that when vijñāna arises, the internal causal conditions transform and manifest appearances similar to the cakṣur-indriya (眼根) (eye faculty) and other rūpa. This appearance is then taken as the object of reliance and grasping. However, the cakṣur-indriya and other faculties cannot be obtained by pratyakṣa (現量) (direct perception), but are inferred to exist through their ability to produce vijñāna. This is only a function, not created by external factors. The external obstructive rūpa cannot be established in principle, so it should only be a transformation of internal vijñāna. That which can trigger the cakṣur-vijñāna (眼識) (eye consciousness) and other vijñāna is called the cakṣur-indriya and other faculties. This is what the cakṣur-vijñāna and other vijñāna rely on. The external ālambana-pratyaya (所緣緣) (object condition) of this cakṣur-vijñāna does not exist in principle, so it must be admitted that what is transformed by one's own vijñāna is the ālambana-pratyaya. It means that what can give rise to something similar to one's own vijñāna is what you consider to be the ālambana-pratyaya of this vijñāna. It is not just the ability to produce, lest hetu-pratyaya (因緣) (causal condition) and others also be called the ālambana-pratyaya of this vijñāna. When the five vijñāna such as cakṣur-vijñāna cognize rūpa and others, they only grasp the combined appearance similar to those rūpa. The combined appearance is not different from the paramāṇu and does not have a real self-nature. Because when it is analyzed, the vijñāna similar to that appearance will certainly not arise. Since that combined appearance is not real, it cannot be said to be the object grasped by the five vijñāna. Do not think that the second moon and others can produce the five vijñāna. Not all paramāṇu in the position of common aggregation can each be the object grasped by the five vijñāna. Because there is no appearance of paramāṇu on this vijñāna. Not all paramāṇu have a combined appearance, and there is no such appearance when they are not combined. There is no difference in the substance and appearance of these paramāṇu in the combined position and when they are not combined. Therefore, in the combined position, like when they are not combined, rūpa and other paramāṇu are not the realm of the five vijñāna. Some believe that each paramāṇu of rūpa and others is not the realm of the five vijñāna when they are not aggregated, but only when they are commonly aggregated are they the realm of the five vijñāna.
集位展轉相資有粗相生。為此識境。彼相實有。為此所緣。
彼執不然共和集位與未集時體相一故。瓶甌等物極微等者緣彼相識應無別故。共和集位一一極微。各各應捨微圓相故。非粗相識緣細相境。勿餘境識緣餘境故。一識應緣一切境故。許有極微尚致此失。況無識外真實極微。由此定知。自識所變似色等相為所緣緣。
見托彼生帶彼相故。然識變時隨量大小。頓現一相非別變作眾多極微合成一物。為執粗色有實體者。佛說極微令其除析。非謂諸色實有極微。諸瑜伽師以假想慧于粗色相。漸次除析至不可析假說極微。雖此極微猶有方分而不可析。若更析之便似空現。不名為色。故說極微是色邊際。由此應知。諸有對色皆識變現非極微成。餘無對色。是此類故。亦非實有。或無對故。如心心所。定非實色。諸有對色現有色相。以理推究離識尚無。況無對色現無色相而可說為真實色法。表無表色豈非實有。此非實有。所以者何。且身表色若是實有。以何為性。若言是形便非實有。可分析故。長等極微不可得故。若言是動。亦非實有。才生即滅無動義故。有為法滅不待因故。滅若待因應非滅故。若言有色非顯非形。心所引生能動手等名身表業理亦不然。此若是動義如前破。若是動因應即風界。風無表示不應名
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 『集位展轉相資有粗相生。為此識境。彼相實有。為此所緣。』 意思是說，聚集的位置相互依存，產生了粗大的表象，這成爲了意識的境界，那些表象是真實存在的，成爲了意識所緣的對象。
『彼執不然共和集位與未集時體相一故。瓶甌等物極微等者緣彼相識應無別故。共和集位一一極微。各各應捨微圓相故。非粗相識緣細相境。勿餘境識緣餘境故。一識應緣一切境故。許有極微尚致此失。況無識外真實極微。由此定知。自識所變似色等相為所緣緣。』
對方認為不是這樣的，因為共同和合的位置與未和合時本體和表象是一樣的。瓶子、瓦罐等物體，以及極微等，緣於它們的意識應該沒有差別。共同和合的位置，每一個極微，都應該捨棄微小的圓形表象。不是粗大的表象的意識緣于微細的境界。不要讓其他的境界的意識緣于其他的境界。一個意識應該緣于所有的境界。如果承認有極微，尚且會導致這樣的過失，更何況沒有意識之外真實的極微呢？由此可以確定，是自己的意識所變現的類似色等表象，作為所緣的條件。
『見托彼生帶彼相故。然識變時隨量大小。頓現一相非別變作眾多極微合成一物。為執粗色有實體者。佛說極微令其除析。非謂諸色實有極微。諸瑜伽師以假想慧于粗色相。漸次除析至不可析假說極微。雖此極微猶有方分而不可析。若更析之便似空現。不名為色。故說極微是色邊際。由此應知。諸有對色皆識變現非極微成。餘無對色。是此類故。亦非實有。或無對故。如心心所。定非實色。諸有對色現有色相。以理推究離識尚無。況無對色現無色相而可說為真實色法。』
因為所見依託於它而生起，帶著它的表象。然而，意識變現的時候，隨著量的大小，一下子顯現一個表象，而不是分別變現出眾多的極微合成一個物體。爲了那些執著粗大的顏色有實體的人，佛陀說極微是爲了讓他們去除分析。不是說所有的顏色實際上都有極微。瑜伽師們用假想的智慧，對於粗大的顏色表象，逐漸地去除分析，直到不可分析，假說為極微。即使這個極微仍然有方位，但是不可分析。如果再分析它，就好像空一樣顯現，不能稱作顏色。所以說極微是顏色的邊際。由此應該知道，所有有對的顏色，都是意識變現的，不是極微形成的。其餘無對的顏色，因為是同類的緣故，也不是真實存在的，或者因為沒有對立的緣故，比如心和心所，一定不是真實的顏色。所有有對的顏色，現在有顏色的表象，用道理推究，離開意識尚且沒有，更何況沒有對立的顏色，現在沒有顏色的表象，怎麼能說是真實的色法呢？
『表無表色豈非實有。此非實有。所以者何。且身表色若是實有。以何為性。若言是形便非實有。可分析故。長等極微不可得故。若言是動。亦非實有。才生即滅無動義故。有為法滅不待因故。滅若待因應非滅故。若言有色非顯非形。心所引生能動手等名身表業理亦不然。此若是動義如前破。若是動因應即風界。風無表示不應名』 表色和無表色難道不是真實存在的嗎？這些不是真實存在的。為什麼呢？暫且說身體的表色，如果是真實存在的，以什麼為體性呢？如果說是形狀，那麼就不是真實存在的，因為可以分析。長等極微是不可得的。如果說是運動，也不是真實存在的，因為剛產生就滅亡，沒有運動的意義。有為法的滅亡不需要等待原因。滅亡如果等待原因，就不應該是滅亡。如果說是有顏色，不是顯色，也不是形狀，是心所引導產生，能夠動手等，稱作身體的表業，道理也是不成立的。這個如果是運動，意義如同前面所破斥的。如果是運動的原因，就應該是風界。風沒有表示，不應該稱作表。
【English Translation】 English version 『The aggregation of positions mutually supports each other, giving rise to coarse appearances. This constitutes the realm of consciousness. These appearances are real and become the objects of consciousness.』 This means that the aggregation of positions relies on each other, giving rise to coarse appearances, which become the realm of consciousness. These appearances are real and become the objects of consciousness.
『They argue that it is not so because the substance and appearance of the combined positions are the same as when they are not combined. Therefore, the consciousnesses that arise from objects like bottles and jars, and extremely small particles (paramāṇu), should be no different. Each extremely small particle in the combined position should abandon its minute, round appearance. The consciousness of coarse appearances should not perceive subtle realms. Other realms of consciousness should not perceive other realms. One consciousness should perceive all realms. Even admitting the existence of extremely small particles leads to this error, let alone the existence of real extremely small particles outside of consciousness. Therefore, it is certain that the appearances of color, etc., transformed by one's own consciousness, serve as the conditions for what is perceived.』 The opponent argues that it is not so because the substance and appearance of the combined positions are the same as when they are not combined. Therefore, the consciousnesses that arise from objects like bottles and jars, and extremely small particles (paramāṇu), should be no different. Each extremely small particle in the combined position should abandon its minute, round appearance. The consciousness of coarse appearances should not perceive subtle realms. Other realms of consciousness should not perceive other realms. One consciousness should perceive all realms. Even admitting the existence of extremely small particles leads to this error, let alone the existence of real extremely small particles outside of consciousness. Therefore, it is certain that the appearances of color, etc., transformed by one's own consciousness, serve as the conditions for what is perceived.
『Seeing arises relying on them, bearing their appearances. However, when consciousness transforms, it manifests one appearance instantly, according to the size, rather than separately transforming into many extremely small particles to form one object. For those who cling to the idea that coarse colors have substance, the Buddha spoke of extremely small particles to encourage them to analyze and dismantle. It is not that all colors actually have extremely small particles. Yogis use conceptual wisdom to gradually analyze and dismantle coarse color appearances until they are indivisible, and then they nominally call them extremely small particles. Although these extremely small particles still have spatial dimensions, they are indivisible. If they are further analyzed, they appear like emptiness and are no longer called color. Therefore, it is said that extremely small particles are the boundary of color. From this, it should be known that all colors with resistance (有對色) are transformations of consciousness and are not formed by extremely small particles. Other colors without resistance (無對色) are of the same kind and are also not real, or because they are without resistance, like mental states (心心所). They are definitely not real colors. All colors with resistance have color appearances. Upon rational investigation, they do not exist apart from consciousness. How much less can colors without resistance, which have no color appearances, be said to be real color dharmas?』 Because what is seen arises relying on it, bearing its appearances. However, when consciousness transforms, it manifests one appearance instantly, according to the size, rather than separately transforming into many extremely small particles to form one object. For those who cling to the idea that coarse colors have substance, the Buddha spoke of extremely small particles to encourage them to analyze and dismantle. It is not that all colors actually have extremely small particles. Yogis use conceptual wisdom to gradually analyze and dismantle coarse color appearances until they are indivisible, and then they nominally call them extremely small particles. Although these extremely small particles still have spatial dimensions, they are indivisible. If they are further analyzed, they appear like emptiness and are no longer called color. Therefore, it is said that extremely small particles are the boundary of color. From this, it should be known that all colors with resistance (有對色) are transformations of consciousness and are not formed by extremely small particles. Other colors without resistance (無對色) are of the same kind and are also not real, or because they are without resistance, like mental states (心心所). They are definitely not real colors. All colors with resistance have color appearances. Upon rational investigation, they do not exist apart from consciousness. How much less can colors without resistance, which have no color appearances, be said to be real color dharmas?
『Are manifested and unmanifested colors not real? They are not real. Why is that? Let's first consider manifested bodily color. If it were real, what would be its nature? If you say it is shape, then it is not real because it can be analyzed. Extremely small particles of length, etc., cannot be found. If you say it is movement, it is also not real because it arises and ceases instantly, without the meaning of movement. The cessation of conditioned dharmas does not depend on a cause. If cessation depended on a cause, it should not be cessation. If you say it is color that is neither visible nor shape, produced by mental states, capable of moving the hands, etc., called bodily action, this reasoning is also not valid. If this is movement, the meaning is refuted as before. If it is the cause of movement, it should be the wind element. Wind has no manifestation and should not be called manifestation.』 Are manifested and unmanifested colors not real? They are not real. Why is that? Let's first consider manifested bodily color. If it were real, what would be its nature? If you say it is shape, then it is not real because it can be analyzed. Extremely small particles of length, etc., cannot be found. If you say it is movement, it is also not real because it arises and ceases instantly, without the meaning of movement. The cessation of conditioned dharmas does not depend on a cause. If cessation depended on a cause, it should not be cessation. If you say it is color that is neither visible nor shape, produced by mental states, capable of moving the hands, etc., called bodily action, this reasoning is also not valid. If this is movement, the meaning is refuted as before. If it is the cause of movement, it should be the wind element. Wind has no manifestation and should not be called manifestation.
表。
又觸不應通善惡性。非顯香味類觸應知。故身表業定非實有。然心為因。令識所變手等色相生滅相續轉趣餘方。似有動作表示心故。假名身表。語表亦非實有聲性。一剎那聲無詮表故。多念相續便非實故外有對色前已破故。然因心故。識變似聲生滅相續似有表示。假名語表。于理無違。表既實無。無表寧實。然依思愿善惡分限。假立無表理亦無違。謂此或依發勝身語善惡思種增長位立。或依定中止身語惡現行思立。故是假有。世尊經中說有三業。撥身語業豈不違經。不撥為無但言非色。能動身思說名身業。能發語思說名語業。審決二思意相應故。作動意故說名意業。起身語思有所造作。說名為業。是審決思所游履故通生苦樂異熟果故。亦名為道。故前七業道亦思為自性。或身語表由思發故假說為業。思所履故說名業道。由此應知。實無外色唯有內識變似色生不相應行亦非實有。所以者何。得非得等。非如色心及諸心所。體相可得。非異色心及諸心所作用可得。由此故知。定非實有。但依色等分位假立。此定非異色心心所有實體用。如色心等。許蘊攝故。或心心所及色無為所不攝故。如畢竟無定非實有。或餘實法所不攝故。如餘假法。非實有體。且彼如何。知得非得異色心等有實體用。契經說故。如說如是
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 此外，觸（sparśa）不應被認為是具有善惡性質的。非顯色（無可見形狀的色法），如香味等，不應被認為是觸。因此，身表業（kāya-vijñapti-karma）必定不是真實存在的。然而，由於心的作用，使得意識所變現的手等色相（rūpa-lakṣaṇa）生滅相續，轉向其他方向，看起來好像有動作，表示心的意圖，所以假名為身表。語表業（vak-vijñapti-karma）也不是真實存在的聲性（śabda-svabhāva）。因為一剎那的聲音無法表達意義，而多個念頭的相續又不是真實的，外在的對色（pratirūpa-rūpa）之前已經被破斥了。然而，由於心的作用，意識變現出類似聲音的生滅相續，看起來好像有表達意義，所以假名為語表。這在道理上沒有衝突。既然表業不是真實的，那麼無表業（avijñapti-karma）又怎麼可能是真實的呢？然而，依據思（cetanā）和愿（praṇidhāna）的善惡界限，假立無表業在道理上也沒有衝突。也就是說，這或者依據由殊勝的身語善惡思的種子增長的階段而建立，或者依據禪定中停止身語惡行，而思仍然現行的狀態而建立。所以這是假有的。世尊在經典中說有三業（tri-karma），如果否定身語業，豈不是違背了經典？我們不是否定它們的存在，只是說它們不是色法。能夠動身的思，稱為身業；能夠發出語言的思，稱為語業；審慎決定的兩種思與意（manas）相應，並且作為意（citta）的動因，所以稱為意業。起身語的思有所造作，稱為業。因為這是審決思所執行的，並且能夠產生苦樂的異熟果（vipāka-phala），所以也稱為道（mārga）。因此，之前的七業道（sapta-karmapatha）也以思為自性。或者，身語表由思所引發，所以假說為業；思所執行的，所以稱為業道。由此應該知道，實際上沒有外在的色法，只有內在的識變現出類似色法的現象，不相應行（citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra）也不是真實存在的。為什麼呢？因為得（prāpti）、非得（aprāpti）等，不像色、心以及各種心所（caitasika）那樣，可以獲得它們的體相；也不能說它們與色、心以及各種心所的作用不同。因此可知，它們必定不是真實存在的。只是依據色等的分位假立的。這必定不是與色、心、心所不同的實體和作用，就像色、心等一樣，被允許包含在蘊（skandha）中；或者不被心、心所及色、無為法（asaṃskṛta-dharma）所包含，就像畢竟不存在的事物一樣，必定不是真實存在的；或者不被其他實法所包含，就像其他的假法一樣，沒有真實的自體。那麼，如何得知得、非得等與色、心等有實體和作用呢？因為契經（sūtra）中這樣說。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, touch (sparśa) should not be considered as having the nature of good and evil. Non-manifest forms (rūpa) such as smells and tastes should not be considered as touch. Therefore, bodily expression karma (kāya-vijñapti-karma) is definitely not truly existent. However, due to the function of the mind, the forms (rūpa-lakṣaṇa) such as hands, which are transformed by consciousness, arise, cease, and continue, moving in other directions, appearing as if there is movement, indicating the intention of the mind, hence the provisional name of bodily expression. Verbal expression karma (vak-vijñapti-karma) is also not a real sound nature (śabda-svabhāva), because a single moment of sound cannot express meaning, and the continuity of multiple thoughts is not real, and external forms (pratirūpa-rūpa) have already been refuted. However, due to the function of the mind, consciousness transforms into sound-like arising and ceasing continuity, appearing as if there is expression, hence the provisional name of verbal expression. This is not contradictory in principle. Since expression karma is not real, how can non-expression karma (avijñapti-karma) be real? However, based on the boundaries of good and evil of thought (cetanā) and aspiration (praṇidhāna), the provisional establishment of non-expression karma is also not contradictory in principle. That is to say, this is either established based on the stage of growth of the seeds of superior bodily and verbal good and evil thoughts, or it is established based on the state in which evil bodily and verbal actions are stopped in meditation, but thought still manifests. Therefore, this is provisionally existent. The World Honored One said in the sutras that there are three karmas (tri-karma). If we deny bodily and verbal karma, wouldn't that be contrary to the sutras? We are not denying their existence, but only saying that they are not form. The thought that can move the body is called bodily karma; the thought that can produce language is called verbal karma; the two kinds of thoughts that carefully decide are in accordance with mind (manas), and as the cause of mind (citta)'s action, they are called mental karma. The thoughts of body and speech that create something are called karma. Because this is what the deliberative thought operates on, and it can produce the ripening fruits (vipāka-phala) of suffering and happiness, it is also called the path (mārga). Therefore, the previous seven paths of karma (sapta-karmapatha) also have thought as their nature. Or, bodily and verbal expressions are caused by thought, so they are provisionally called karma; what thought operates on is called the path of karma. From this, it should be known that there is actually no external form, only internal consciousness transforms into phenomena similar to form, and non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) are also not truly existent. Why? Because attainment (prāpti), non-attainment (aprāpti), etc., are not like form, mind, and various mental factors (caitasika), in that their substance and characteristics can be obtained; nor can it be said that their functions are different from those of form, mind, and various mental factors. Therefore, it can be known that they are definitely not truly existent. They are only provisionally established based on the divisions of form, etc. This is definitely not a substance and function different from form, mind, and mental factors, like form, mind, etc., which are allowed to be included in the aggregates (skandha); or it is not included in mind, mental factors, and form, unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma), just like things that do not exist at all, it is definitely not truly existent; or it is not included in other real dharmas, just like other provisional dharmas, it does not have a real self-nature. Then, how can it be known that attainment, non-attainment, etc., have substance and function different from form, mind, etc.? Because the sutras (sūtra) say so.
補特伽羅成就善惡。聖者成就十無學法。又說異生不成就聖法。諸阿羅漢不成就煩惱。成不成言顯得非得。經不說此異色心等有實體用。為證不成。亦說輪王成就七寶。豈即成就他身非情。若謂于寶有自在力。假說成就。于善惡法何不許然。而執實得。若謂七寶在現在故。可假說成。寧知所成善惡等法。離現在有。離現實法理非有故。現在必有善種等故。又得於法有何勝用。若言能起應起無為。一切非情應永不起。未得已失應永不生。若俱生得為因起者。所執二生便為無用。又具善惡無記得者。善惡無記應頓現前。若待餘因得便無用。若得於法是不失因。有情由此成就彼故。諸可成法不離有情若離有情實不可得。故得於法俱為無用得實無故。非得亦無。然依有情可成諸法分位假立三種成就。一種子成就。二自在成就。三現行成就。翻此假立不成就名。此類雖多。而於三界見所斷種未永害位。假立非得名異生性。于諸聖法未成就故。復如何知異色心等有實同分。契經說故。如契經說此天同分此人同分。乃至廣說。此經不說異色心等有實同分。為證不成。若同智言因斯起故。知實有者。則草木等應有同分。又于同分起同智言。同分復應有別同分。彼既不爾。此云何然。若謂為因起同事欲知實有者。理亦不然。宿習為因起同
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 『補特伽羅』（pudgala，人或補特伽羅）成就善與惡。聖者成就十無學法。又說凡夫不成就聖法。諸『阿羅漢』（arhat，已證涅槃者）不成就煩惱。『成』與『不成』的說法，是爲了顯示『非得』（aprāpti，未獲得）。經典沒有說這些不同的色、心等有實體作用，是爲了證明『不成』。也說『輪王』（cakravartin，轉輪聖王）成就七寶，難道是成就了他身或非情之物嗎？如果說對於寶物有自在力，所以假說為『成就』，那麼對於善惡之法，為何不允許這樣說，而要執著于真實獲得呢？如果說七寶存在於現在，所以可以假說為『成就』，又怎麼知道所成就的善惡等法，是脫離現在而存在的呢？脫離現實的法理上是不存在的。現在必定有善的種子等。而且，獲得法有什麼殊勝的作用呢？如果說能生起，就應該生起無為法，一切非情之物應該永遠不生起。未獲得的已經失去的，應該永遠不生。如果俱生而得是生起的原因，那麼所執著的二生就變得沒有用了。又具有善、惡、無記的獲得者，善、惡、無記應該同時顯現。如果等待其他因緣，那麼獲得就沒有用了。如果獲得法是不失去的原因，有情由此成就彼法，那麼所有可以成就的法不離開有情，如果離開有情，實際上是無法獲得的。所以獲得法都是沒有用的，因為獲得實際上不存在，所以非得也不存在。然而，依靠有情可以成就的各種法，根據其分位，假立三種成就：一種子成就，二自在成就，三現行成就。與此相反，假立『不成就』之名。此類雖然很多，但在三界見所斷的種子未被永遠斷除之前，假立『非得』之名，稱為異生性，因為對於諸聖法沒有成就。又如何知道不同的色、心等有真實的同分呢？因為契經這樣說。如契經說，此天同分，此人同分，乃至廣說。此經沒有說不同的色、心等有真實的同分，是爲了證明『不成』。如果因為同智的言說，因為這個而生起，就知道真實存在，那麼草木等應該有同分。而且，對於同分生起相同的智識和言說，同分又應該有其他的同分。既然不是這樣，那麼這裡怎麼會是這樣呢？如果認為因為是生起相同事務慾望的原因，就知道真實存在，這個道理也是不成立的。宿習是生起相同事務的原因。
【English Translation】 English version 『Pudgala』 (pudgala, person or individual) accomplishes good and evil. The noble ones accomplish the ten non-learning dharmas. It is also said that ordinary beings do not accomplish the noble dharmas. The 『Arhats』 (arhat, one who has attained nirvana) do not accomplish afflictions. The terms 『accomplishment』 and 『non-accomplishment』 are used to indicate 『non-attainment』 (aprāpti, non-acquisition). The sutras do not say that these different forms, minds, etc., have substantial functions, in order to prove 『non-accomplishment』. It is also said that a 『Wheel-Turning King』 (cakravartin, universal monarch) accomplishes the seven treasures. Does this mean he accomplishes other bodies or non-sentient things? If it is said that there is power over the treasures, so it is falsely said to be 『accomplishment』, then why is this not allowed for good and evil dharmas, and instead, one clings to real attainment? If it is said that the seven treasures exist in the present, so it can be falsely said to be 『accomplishment』, how do we know that the accomplished good and evil dharmas, etc., exist apart from the present? Dharmas that are separated from reality do not exist in principle. There must be good seeds, etc., in the present. Moreover, what is the special function of attaining a dharma? If it is said that it can arise, then it should give rise to unconditioned dharmas, and all non-sentient things should never arise. What has not been attained but has been lost should never be born. If co-born attainment is the cause of arising, then the two births that are clung to become useless. Moreover, if one possesses good, evil, and neutral attainments, then good, evil, and neutral should all appear simultaneously. If it depends on other conditions, then attainment is useless. If attaining a dharma is the cause of non-loss, and sentient beings thereby accomplish that dharma, then all accomplishable dharmas do not leave sentient beings. If they leave sentient beings, they cannot actually be attained. Therefore, attaining dharmas is useless, because attainment does not actually exist, so non-attainment also does not exist. However, relying on the various dharmas that sentient beings can accomplish, three kinds of accomplishment are falsely established according to their divisions: first, seed accomplishment; second, self-mastery accomplishment; and third, manifest accomplishment. Conversely, the name 『non-accomplishment』 is falsely established. Although there are many such cases, before the seeds of what is severed by seeing in the three realms are permanently destroyed, the name 『non-attainment』 is falsely established, called the nature of an ordinary being, because the noble dharmas have not been accomplished. Furthermore, how do we know that different forms, minds, etc., have real commonality? Because the sutras say so. As the sutras say, 『This is the commonality of gods, this is the commonality of humans,』 and so on. This sutra does not say that different forms, minds, etc., have real commonality, in order to prove 『non-accomplishment』. If, because of the words of common knowledge, it arises from this, and we know it actually exists, then grass and trees, etc., should have commonality. Moreover, for commonality, the same knowledge and words arise, and commonality should have other commonality. Since it is not like this, how can it be like this here? If it is thought that because it is the cause of arising the desire for the same affairs, we know it actually exists, this reasoning is also not established. Habitual tendencies are the cause of arising the same affairs.
事欲。何要別執有實同分。然依有情身心相似分位差別假立同分。復如何知。異色心等有實命根。契經說故。如契經說。壽暖識三。應知命根說名為壽。此經不說異色心等有實壽體。為證不成。
又先已成色不離識。應此離識無別命根。又若命根異識實有。應如受等。非實命根。若爾如何經說三法。義別說三。如四正斷。住無心位壽暖應無。豈不經說。識不離身。既爾如何名無心位。彼滅轉識。非阿賴耶。有此識因後當廣說。此識足為界趣生體。是遍。恒續。異熟果故。無勞別執有實命根。然依親生此識種子。由業所引功能差別住時決定假立命根。復如何知。二無心定無想異熟。異色心等有實自性。若無實性應不能遮心心所法令不現起。若無心位有別實法異色心等能遮於心名無心定。應無色時有別實法異色心等。能礙於色名無色定。彼既不爾。此云何然。又遮礙心何須實法。如堤塘等假亦能遮謂修定時于定加行厭患粗動心心所故。發勝期愿遮心心所。令心心所漸細漸微。微微心時熏異熟識成極增上厭心等種。由此損伏心等種故。粗動心等暫不現行。依此分位假立二定。此種善故定亦名善。無想定前求無想果。故所熏成種。招彼異熟識。依定粗動想等不行。於此分位假立無想。依異熟立得異熟名。故此三法亦非實
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：對於『事欲』，為何還要特別執著于存在真實的『同分』（Sabhāga，同類）呢？實際上，是根據有情眾生身心相似的分位差別，假立了『同分』。又如何得知不同的色（Rūpa，物質）、心等有真實的『命根』（Jīvitindriya，生命力）呢？因為契經（Sūtra，佛經）中這樣說。例如契經中說：『壽』（Āyu，壽命）、『暖』（Uṣman，體溫）、『識』（Vijñāna，意識）三者，應當知道『命根』被稱為『壽』。但此經並沒有說不同的色、心等有真實的『壽體』，所以不能作為證據。
而且，先前已經成立了色不離識的觀點，因此，離開識就沒有其他的『命根』。又如果『命根』與識不同，並且是真實存在的，那麼應該像受（Vedanā，感受）等一樣，不是真實的『命根』。如果這樣，為何經中要說這三種法呢？這是因為意義不同而說了三種，就像四正斷（Samyakprahāṇa，四正勤）一樣。在住于無心位（Ascitta，無心狀態）時，『壽』和『暖』應該不存在。難道不是經中說，識不離身嗎？既然如此，為何又稱為無心位呢？那裡滅的是轉識（Pravṛtti-vijñāna，現行識），而不是阿賴耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna，藏識）。關於此識的原因，後面會詳細說明。此識足以作為界（Dhātu，界）、趣（Gati，趣）、生的主體，因為它是普遍的、恒常持續的、異熟果（Vipāka-phala，異熟果報）。所以不需要另外執著于存在真實的『命根』。實際上，是根據親近產生此識的種子，由業力所引導的功能差別，以及住留的時間決定，而假立了『命根』。又如何得知二無心定（Asamjñā-samāpatti，無想定）和無想異熟（Asamjñika-vipāka，無想果報），與不同的色、心等有真實的自性（Svabhāva，自體）呢？如果它們沒有真實的自性，就不能遮止心和心所法（Caitasika-dharma，心所法）使其不現起。如果在無心位有其他的真實法，與不同的色、心等能夠遮止心，這才能稱為無心定。那麼在無色界（Arūpadhātu，無色界）時，應該有其他的真實法，與不同的色、心等能夠阻礙色，這才能稱為無色定。既然無色界不是這樣，那麼這裡怎麼會是這樣呢？而且，遮礙心，為何需要真實法呢？就像堤壩等，假的也能遮止。這是因為在修定時，對於定中的粗動心和心所感到厭患，所以發起殊勝的期愿，遮止心和心所，使心和心所逐漸變得細微。在微微心的時候，熏習異熟識，形成極其增上的厭心等種子。由此損伏心等種子，所以粗動心等暫時不現行。根據這種分位，假立了二定。這種種子是善的，所以定也稱為善。無想定之前，是追求無想果，所以所熏成的種子，招感那樣的異熟識。根據定中粗動想等不行，於此分位假立無想。根據異熟而立，得到異熟之名。所以這三種法也不是真實的。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding 『craving for things』 (事欲), why insist on the real 『commonality』 (同分, Sabhāga)? Actually, 『commonality』 is nominally established based on the differences in the similar states of sentient beings' bodies and minds. Furthermore, how do we know that different forms (色, Rūpa), minds, etc., have a real 『life faculty』 (命根, Jīvitindriya)? Because the Sūtras (契經) say so. For example, the Sūtras say: 『Lifespan』 (壽, Āyu), 『warmth』 (暖, Uṣman), and 『consciousness』 (識, Vijñāna) are the three; it should be known that 『life faculty』 is called 『lifespan.』 However, this Sūtra does not say that different forms, minds, etc., have a real 『lifespan entity,』 so it cannot be used as evidence.
Moreover, the view that form is inseparable from consciousness has already been established. Therefore, apart from consciousness, there is no other 『life faculty.』 Furthermore, if the 『life faculty』 is different from consciousness and is real, then it should be like feeling (受, Vedanā), not a real 『life faculty.』 If so, why does the Sūtra mention these three dharmas? This is because they are mentioned as three due to their different meanings, just like the Four Right Exertions (四正斷, Samyakprahāṇa). When dwelling in the state of no-mind (無心位, Ascitta), 『lifespan』 and 『warmth』 should not exist. Doesn't the Sūtra say that consciousness is inseparable from the body? Since this is the case, why is it called the state of no-mind? What ceases there is the active consciousness (轉識, Pravṛtti-vijñāna), not the store consciousness (阿賴耶識, Ālaya-vijñāna). The reason for this consciousness will be explained in detail later. This consciousness is sufficient as the subject of realm (界, Dhātu), destiny (趣, Gati), and birth, because it is universal, constantly continuous, and a result of maturation (異熟果, Vipāka-phala). Therefore, there is no need to insist on the existence of a real 『life faculty.』 Actually, 『life faculty』 is nominally established based on the seeds that closely produce this consciousness, the functional differences guided by karma, and the determined duration of dwelling. Furthermore, how do we know that the two no-mind attainments (二無心定, Asamjñā-samāpatti) and the fruition of no-thought (無想異熟, Asamjñika-vipāka) have real self-nature (自性, Svabhāva) different from forms, minds, etc.? If they do not have real self-nature, they cannot prevent the mind and mental factors (心所法, Caitasika-dharma) from arising. If there is another real dharma in the state of no-mind, which can prevent the mind along with different forms, minds, etc., then this can be called no-mind attainment. Then, in the formless realm (無色界, Arūpadhātu), there should be another real dharma, which can hinder form along with different forms, minds, etc., and this can be called formless attainment. Since the formless realm is not like this, how can this be the case here? Moreover, why is a real dharma needed to hinder the mind? Just like dikes and dams, even the unreal can hinder. This is because, during meditation, one becomes weary of the coarse and active mind and mental factors in the meditation, so one generates a superior aspiration to hinder the mind and mental factors, causing the mind and mental factors to gradually become subtle. When the mind is subtle, it imprints the maturation consciousness, forming extremely enhanced seeds of aversion to the mind, etc. Because of this, the seeds of the coarse and active mind, etc., are subdued, so the coarse and active mind, etc., temporarily do not manifest. Based on this state, the two attainments are nominally established. These seeds are good, so the attainment is also called good. Before the no-thought attainment, one seeks the fruition of no-thought, so the seeds that are imprinted cause the maturation consciousness of that kind. Based on the non-functioning of coarse thoughts, etc., in the meditation, no-thought is nominally established in this state. Based on maturation, the name of maturation is obtained. Therefore, these three dharmas are also not real.
有。
## 成唯識論卷第一
大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 成唯識論
## 成唯識論卷第二
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
復如何知。諸有為相。異色心等有實自性。契經說故。如契經說。有三有為之有為相。乃至廣說。此經不說異色心等有實自性。為證不成。非第六聲便表異體。色心之體即色心故。非能相體定異所相。勿堅相等異地等故。若有為相異所相體。無為相體應異所相。又生等相若體俱有。應一切時齊興作用。若相違故用不頓興。體亦相違如何俱有。又住異滅用不應俱。能相所相體俱本有。用亦應然。無別性故。若謂彼用更待因緣。所待因緣應非本有。又執生等便為無用。所相恒有而生等合。應無為法亦有生等。彼此異因不可得故。又去來世非現非常。應似空花非實有性。生名為有。寧在未來。滅名為無應非現在。滅若非無生應非有。又滅違住寧執同時。住不違生何容異世。故彼所執進退非理。然有為法因緣力故。本無今有。暫有還無。表異無為假立四相。本無今有有位名生。生位暫停即說為住。住別前後復立異名。暫有還無無時名滅。前三有故同在現在。後一是無故在過去。如何無法與有為相。表此後無為相何失。生表有法先非有。滅表有法後是無。異
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 有。
《成唯識論》卷第一 大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 《成唯識論》
《成唯識論》卷第二
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
又如何得知，諸有為相（samskrta-laksana，有為法的相狀），異於色（rupa，物質）、心（citta，精神）等，具有真實的自性（svabhava，事物自身不變的性質）呢？因為契經（sutra，佛經）這樣說。如契經說，有三種有為之有為相，乃至廣說。 此經並沒有說異於色心等，具有真實的自性，所以不能作為證據。非第六聲（梵文格位的一種）便能表示是不同的本體。色心的本體就是色心。不能說能相（laksana，相狀）的本體一定異於所相（laksya，具有相狀的事物），否則堅硬等相，就異於地等了。如果有為相異於所相的本體，那麼無為相（asamskrta-laksana，無為法的相狀）的本體，就應該異於所相。而且，生（jati，產生）、住（sthiti，持續）、異（anyathatva，變異）、滅（vyaya，消滅）等相，如果本體是同時具有的，就應該在一切時候同時產生作用。如果因為相互違背，作用不能同時產生，那麼本體也相互違背，如何能同時具有呢？又，住、異、滅的作用不應該同時存在。能相和所相的本體是本來就有的，作用也應該如此，因為沒有其他差別。如果說它們的作用還要等待因緣（hetu-pratyaya，原因和條件），那麼所等待的因緣，應該不是本來就有的。而且，執著于生等，就變得沒有用處了。所相是恒常存在的，而生等與之結合，那麼無為法也應該有生等。因為彼此不同的原因無法找到。而且，過去世和未來世，不是現在也不是恒常，應該像空中的花朵一樣，不是真實存在的性質。生名為有，怎麼會在未來？滅名為無，應該不是現在。滅如果不是無，生就不應該是有。而且，滅違背住，怎麼能執著于同時存在？住不違背生，怎麼能容許在不同的時間？所以他們所執著的，進退都沒有道理。然而，有為法因為因緣的力量，本來沒有現在有了，暫時有了又歸於沒有，爲了表示異於無為法，假立四相。本來沒有現在有了，在有的位置叫做生。生位暫時停止，就說是住。住位區別前後，又立名為異。暫時有了又歸於沒有，沒有的時候叫做滅。前三個因為是有，所以都在現在。後一個是無，所以在過去。怎麼能說沒有法，是有為的相呢？表示這之後的沒有，有什麼缺失呢？生表示有法先前沒有，滅表示有法之後是無，異
【English Translation】 English version Yes.
Verses from the Treatise on Establishing Consciousness-only, Volume 1 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 31, No. 1585, Treatise on Establishing Consciousness-only
Verses from the Treatise on Establishing Consciousness-only, Volume 2
Composed by Bodhisattvas such as Dharmapala
Translated under Imperial Edict by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang
Furthermore, how do we know that the characteristics of conditioned phenomena (samskrta-laksana), are different from form (rupa), mind (citta), etc., and possess real self-nature (svabhava)? Because the sutras (sutra) say so. As the sutras say, there are three conditioned characteristics of conditioned phenomena, and so on. This sutra does not say that they are different from form, mind, etc., and possess real self-nature, so it cannot be used as evidence. The sixth case (a grammatical case in Sanskrit) does not necessarily indicate a different entity. The essence of form and mind is form and mind. It cannot be said that the essence of the characteristic (laksana) is necessarily different from the characterized (laksya), otherwise hardness, etc., would be different from earth, etc. If the conditioned characteristics are different from the essence of the characterized, then the essence of unconditioned characteristics (asamskrta-laksana) should be different from the characterized. Moreover, origination (jati), duration (sthiti), change (anyathatva), and cessation (vyaya), etc., if their essence is simultaneously present, they should all function simultaneously at all times. If, because they contradict each other, their functions cannot arise simultaneously, then their essences also contradict each other, how can they be simultaneously present? Furthermore, the functions of duration, change, and cessation should not be simultaneous. The essence of the characteristic and the characterized are originally present, and their functions should also be so, because there is no other difference. If it is said that their functions still need to wait for causes and conditions (hetu-pratyaya), then the causes and conditions waited for should not be originally present. Moreover, clinging to origination, etc., becomes useless. The characterized is constantly present, while origination, etc., combine with it, then unconditioned phenomena should also have origination, etc. Because different causes for each cannot be found. Moreover, the past and future are neither present nor constant, they should be like flowers in the sky, not real in nature. Origination is called existence, how can it be in the future? Cessation is called non-existence, it should not be present. If cessation is not non-existence, origination should not be existence. Moreover, cessation contradicts duration, how can one cling to their simultaneous existence? Duration does not contradict origination, how can it be allowed to be in different times? Therefore, what they cling to is unreasonable in both advance and retreat. However, conditioned phenomena, because of the power of causes and conditions, originally did not exist but now exist, temporarily exist and then return to non-existence, to indicate the difference from unconditioned phenomena, four characteristics are falsely established. Originally did not exist but now exist, the position of existence is called origination. The position of origination temporarily stops, and it is said to be duration. The position of duration distinguishes between before and after, and is again named change. Temporarily existed and then returned to non-existence, the time of non-existence is called cessation. The first three are because they exist, so they are all in the present. The last one is non-existence, so it is in the past. How can it be said that non-existence is a characteristic of conditioned phenomena? What is missing in indicating the non-existence after this? Origination indicates that the existing phenomenon did not exist before, cessation indicates that the existing phenomenon is non-existent after, change
表此法非凝然。住表此法暫有用。故此四相於有為法雖俱名錶而表有異。此依剎那假立四相。一期分位亦得假立。初有名生。後無名滅。生已相似相續名住。即此相續轉變名異。是故四相皆是假立。復如何知。異色心等有實詮表名句文身。契經說故。如契經說。佛得希有名句文身。此經不說異色心等有實名等。為證不成。若名句文異聲實有。應如色等非實能詮。謂聲能生名句文者。此聲必有音韻屈曲。此足能詮何用名等。若謂聲上音韻屈曲即名句文。異聲實有。所見色上形量屈曲。應異色處別有實體。若謂聲上音韻屈曲如絃管聲非能詮者。此應如彼聲。不別生名等。又誰說彼定不能詮。聲若能詮。風鈴聲等應有詮用。此應如彼不別生實名句文身。若唯語聲能生名等。如何不許唯語能詮。何理定知能詮即語。寧知異語別有能詮。語不異能詮人天共了執能詮異語。天愛非餘。然依語聲分位差別而假建立名句文身。名詮自性句詮差別。文即是字為二所依。此三離聲雖無別體。而假實異亦不即聲。由此法詞二無礙解境有差別。聲與名等蘊處界攝亦各有異。且依此土說名句文依聲假立。非謂一切。諸餘佛土亦依光明妙香味等假立三故。有執隨眠異心心所。是不相應行蘊所攝。彼亦非理。名貪等故。如現貪等。非不相應。執別有餘
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 表述此法並非凝固不變。『住』相表明此法暫時存在作用。因此，這四相在有為法中雖然都名為『表』，但所表之物有所不同。這是依據剎那生滅而假立的四相。一個時期內的分位也可以假立。最初有名為『生』，最後名為『滅』。生起後相似的相續稱為『住』。而此相續的轉變稱為『異』。所以，四相都是假立的。
又如何得知，異於色、心等的有實在的詮釋表達的名句文身（Nāmakāya，Padas，Vyañjana，分別是名字、語句、文身）？因為契經中有這樣的記載。例如契經中說，佛陀獲得了稀有名句文身。但此經並沒有說異於色、心等有實在的名等，所以不能作為證據。
如果名句文異於聲音而真實存在，那麼應該像色等一樣，並非真實能詮釋。如果說聲音能產生名句文，那麼此聲音必然有音韻屈曲。這音韻屈曲就足以表達，何必需要名等？如果認為聲音上的音韻屈曲就是名句文，異於聲音而真實存在，那麼所見顏色上的形狀大小的屈曲，應該異於顏色而有別的實體。
如果認為聲音上的音韻屈曲就像絃管的聲音一樣不能詮釋，那麼此聲音應該像絃管的聲音一樣，不能另外產生名等。又誰說絃管的聲音一定不能詮釋？聲音如果能詮釋，風聲等應該也有詮釋作用。這應該像絃管的聲音一樣，不能另外產生實在的名句文身。如果只有語言的聲音才能產生名等，為什麼不允許只有語言才能詮釋？有什麼道理一定認為能詮釋的就是語言？怎麼知道異於語言之外還有能詮釋的？語言不異於能詮釋，人和天人都共同瞭解，執著能詮釋異於語言，天人喜愛而非其他。
然而，是依據語言聲音的分位差別而假建立名句文身。『名』詮釋自性，『句』詮釋差別，『文』就是文字，是前兩者的所依。這三者離開聲音雖然沒有別的實體，但假和實不同，也不等同於聲音。因此，法無礙解（Dharma-pratisaṃvidā，對佛法的通達無礙）、詞無礙解（Nirukti-pratisaṃvidā，對語言文字的通達無礙）的境界有所差別。聲音與名等，在五蘊、十二處、十八界中所攝也各有不同。且依據此土（指我們所居住的世界）來說，名句文是依聲音假立的，並非說一切世界都是如此。在其他佛土，也依據光明、美妙的香味等假立這三者。
有人執著隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在狀態）異於心和心所（Caitasika，心的附屬物），屬於不相應行蘊所攝。這種觀點也是不合理的，因為名貪等，就像現在的貪等一樣，並非不相應。執著另外有剩餘。
【English Translation】 English version This Dharma is not static. 'Duration' indicates that this Dharma has a temporary function. Therefore, although these four characteristics are all called 'characteristics' in conditioned dharmas, what they represent is different. These four characteristics are provisionally established based on momentary arising and ceasing. The divisions within a period can also be provisionally established. Initially, there is 'arising'; finally, there is 'cessation'. The similar continuation after arising is called 'duration'. And the transformation of this continuation is called 'difference'. Therefore, all four characteristics are provisionally established. Furthermore, how do we know that the collection of names, sentences, and syllables (Nāmakāya, Padas, Vyañjana), which are different from form, mind, etc., have real expressive entities? Because the sutras record this. For example, the sutras say that the Buddha attained the rare collection of names, sentences, and syllables. But this sutra does not say that there are real names, etc., different from form, mind, etc., so it cannot be used as evidence. If names, sentences, and syllables are different from sound and exist in reality, then they should be like form, etc., and not be truly expressive. If it is said that sound can produce names, sentences, and syllables, then this sound must have tonal inflections. These tonal inflections are sufficient to express, so why are names, etc., needed? If it is thought that the tonal inflections on sound are names, sentences, and syllables, and exist in reality different from sound, then the inflections of shape and size seen on color should be different from color and have separate entities. If it is thought that the tonal inflections on sound are like the sound of strings and pipes and cannot express, then this sound should be like the sound of strings and pipes and not separately produce names, etc. And who says that the sound of strings and pipes definitely cannot express? If sound can express, then the sound of wind, etc., should also have expressive functions. This should be like the sound of strings and pipes and not separately produce real collections of names, sentences, and syllables. If only the sound of language can produce names, etc., why not allow only language to express? What reason is there to definitely think that what can express is language? How do we know that there is something that can express other than language? Language is not different from what can express; people and gods both understand this. Holding that what can express is different from language is what people and gods like, and nothing else. However, the collections of names, sentences, and syllables are provisionally established based on the differences in the divisions of language sounds. 'Name' expresses self-nature, 'sentence' expresses difference, and 'syllable' is the written character, which is what the former two rely on. Although these three do not have separate entities apart from sound, the provisional and the real are different, and they are not the same as sound. Therefore, there are differences in the realms of unobstructed understanding of the Dharma (Dharma-pratisaṃvidā, unobstructed understanding of the Buddha's teachings) and unobstructed understanding of language (Nirukti-pratisaṃvidā, unobstructed understanding of language). Sound and names, etc., are also different in what they are included in within the five aggregates, twelve entrances, and eighteen realms. And according to this land (referring to the world we live in), names, sentences, and syllables are provisionally established based on sound, not that all worlds are like this. In other Buddha lands, these three are also provisionally established based on light, wonderful fragrances, etc. Some hold that latent tendencies (Anusaya, the latent state of afflictions) are different from mind and mental factors (Caitasika, mental adjuncts), and are included in the aggregate of non-associated formations. This view is also unreasonable, because naming greed, etc., is like present greed, etc., and is not non-associated. Holding that there is something else remaining.
不相應行。準前理趣皆應遮止。
諸無為法離色心等。決定實有理不可得。且定有法略有三種。一現所知法。如色心等。二現受用法。如瓶衣等。如是二法世共知有。不待因成。三有作用法。如眼耳等。由彼彼用證知是有。無為非世共知定有。又無作用如眼耳等。設許有用應是無常。故不可執無為定有。然諸無為所知性故。或色心等所顯性故。如色心等。不應執為離色心等實無為性。又虛空等為一為多。若體是一遍一切處。虛空容受色等法故。隨能合法體應成多。一所合處餘不合故。不爾諸法應互相遍。若謂虛空不與法合。應非容受。如餘無為。又色等中有虛空不。有應相雜。無應不遍。一部一品結法斷時應得餘部餘品擇滅。一法緣闕得不生時。應於一切得非擇滅。執彼體一理應爾故。若體是多便有品類。應如色等。非實無為。虛空又應非遍容受。餘部所執離心心所實有無為。準前應破。又諸無為。許無因果故。應如兔角。非異心等有。然契經說有虛空等諸無為法。略有二種。一依識變假施設有。謂曾聞說虛空等名。隨分別有虛空等相。數習力故心等生時。似虛空等無為相現。此所現相前後相似無有變易假說為常。二依法性假施設有。謂空無我所顯真如。有無俱非。心言路絕。與一切法非一異等。是法真理故名
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：不相應行（與心識不相應的行蘊）。先前關於理趣的論述都應禁止。
諸無為法（不受因果影響的法），離開色（物質）、心（精神）等，要確定它們真實存在是無法成立的。
姑且說確定存在的法略有三種：一是現所知法，如色、心等；二是現受用法，如瓶、衣等。這兩種法世間普遍認為存在，不需要因緣成就。三是有作用法，如眼、耳等，通過它們各自的作用可以證明它們存在。無為法不是世間普遍認為確定存在的，又沒有像眼、耳等的作用。假設承認它有作用，那它就應該是無常的。所以，不能堅持無為法是確定存在的。然而，各種無為法因為是所知之性，或者因為是色、心等所顯現的性質，就像色、心等一樣，不應該認為它們是離開色、心等而真實存在的無為之性。另外，虛空等是一體還是多體？如果本體是一體，就遍佈一切處，因為虛空能夠容納色等法。隨著能夠結合的法，本體應該成為多體，因為一個結合的地方，其他地方就不能結合。如果不是這樣，那麼一切法就應該互相遍佈。如果說虛空不與法結合，那它就不應該能夠容納，就像其他的無為法一樣。另外，色等之中有虛空嗎？如果有，就應該相互混雜；如果沒有，就不應該遍佈。一部（一個部派）、一品（一個品類）的結法斷除時，應該得到其餘部、其餘品的擇滅（通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）。一個法的因緣缺失而無法產生時，應該在一切法中得到非擇滅（非通過智慧選擇而自然達到的寂滅）。如果認為它們的本體是一體，道理上就應該是這樣。如果本體是多體，那就有了品類，應該像色等一樣，不是真實的無為法。虛空也就不應該是普遍容納的，因為其餘部所執著的離開心、心所而真實存在的無為法，按照之前的論述應該被破斥。另外，各種無為法，因為被認為是無因無果的，就應該像兔角一樣，不是與心等不同的存在。然而，契經（佛經）中說有虛空等各種無為法，略有二種：一是依識變假施設有，就是曾經聽說過虛空等名稱，隨著分別而有虛空等的形象。因為數數串習的力量，心等產生時，好像有虛空等無為的形象顯現。這種顯現的形象前後相似，沒有變化，所以假說為常。二是依法性假施設有，就是空無我所顯現的真如（事物的真實如是之性）。它既不是有，也不是無，心識和言語都無法到達。它與一切法非一非異等等。這是法的真理，所以稱為真如。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Non-corresponding formations'. All previous arguments regarding the principle of reason should be stopped.
To assert that unconditioned dharmas (asaṃskṛta-dharma), apart from rūpa (form/matter), citta (mind), etc., are definitively real is untenable. Let's say that definitively existing dharmas are roughly of three types: first, those known through direct perception, such as rūpa, citta, etc.; second, those used in direct experience, such as pots, clothes, etc. These two types of dharmas are commonly known to exist in the world and do not depend on causes for their existence. Third, those with functions, such as eyes, ears, etc., whose existence is proven by their respective functions. Unconditioned dharmas are not commonly known to exist definitively in the world, nor do they have functions like eyes, ears, etc. If we were to admit that they have functions, they would have to be impermanent. Therefore, we cannot insist that unconditioned dharmas are definitively existent. However, since various unconditioned dharmas are knowable or are manifested by rūpa, citta, etc., just like rūpa, citta, etc., we should not consider them as unconditioned natures that exist apart from rūpa, citta, etc. Furthermore, is space, etc., one or many? If its essence is one, it pervades all places because space can accommodate dharmas such as rūpa. Following the dharmas that can combine with it, its essence should become many, because where one combines, others cannot. If this were not the case, all dharmas should pervade each other. If it is said that space does not combine with dharmas, then it should not be able to accommodate them, like other unconditioned dharmas. Moreover, is there space within rūpa, etc.? If there is, they should be mixed together; if there isn't, it should not be pervasive. When the fetters of one division (a section of teachings) or one category are severed, one should attain the cessation through discernment (pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) of the remaining divisions or categories. When the causes for a dharma are absent and it cannot arise, one should attain the cessation not through discernment (apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha) in all dharmas. If their essence is considered one, this should be the case logically. If its essence is multiple, then there would be categories, and it should be like rūpa, etc., not a truly unconditioned dharma. Space should also not be universally accommodating. The unconditioned dharmas that other schools assert to exist apart from mind and mental factors should be refuted according to the previous arguments. Furthermore, since various unconditioned dharmas are considered to be without cause and effect, they should be like rabbit horns, not existing differently from mind, etc. However, the sutras (scriptures) say that there are various unconditioned dharmas such as space, etc., which are roughly of two types: first, those provisionally established based on transformations of consciousness, meaning that having heard the names of space, etc., images of space, etc., arise according to conceptualization. Due to the power of repeated practice, when mind, etc., arise, images of unconditioned dharmas such as space, etc., appear. These appearing images are similar before and after, without change, so they are provisionally called permanent. Second, those provisionally established based on the nature of dharma, which is the Suchness (tathatā) manifested by emptiness and selflessness. It is neither existent nor nonexistent, and the paths of mind and speech are cut off. It is neither one nor different from all dharmas, etc. This is the true principle of dharma, so it is called Suchness.
法性。離諸障礙故名虛空。由簡擇力滅諸雜染。究竟證會故名擇滅。不由擇力本性清凈。或緣闕所顯故名非擇滅。苦樂受滅故名不動。想受不行名想受滅。此五皆依真如假立。真如亦是假施設名。遮撥為無故說為有。遮執為有故說為空。勿謂虛幻故說為實。理非妄倒故名真如。不同餘宗離色心等有實常法名曰真如。故諸無為非定實有。
外道餘乘所執諸法。異心心所非實有性。是所取故。如心心所。能取彼覺亦不緣彼。是能取故。如緣此覺。諸心心所依他起故。亦如幻事。非真實有。為遣妄執心心所外實有境故。說唯有識。若執唯識真實有者。如執外境亦是法執。然諸法執略有二種。一者俱生。二者分別。俱生法執無始時來。虛妄熏習內因力故。恒與身俱。不待邪教及邪分別。任運而轉。故名俱生。此復二種。一常相續。在第七識緣第八識起自心相執為實法。二有間斷。在第六識緣識所變蘊處界相。或總或別起自心相執為實法。此二法執細故難斷。後十地中數數修習勝法空觀方能除滅。分別法執亦由現在外緣力故非與身俱。要待邪教及邪分別。然後方起。故名分別。唯在第六意識中有。此亦二種。一緣邪教所說蘊處界相。起自心相分別計度執為實法。二緣邪教所說自性等相。起自心相。分別計度執為實法。此二
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 法性（Dharmatā）：因為遠離一切障礙，所以稱為虛空（ākāśa）。通過簡擇之力滅除各種雜染，最終證悟，所以稱為擇滅（pratisamkhyā-nirodha）。不由簡擇之力，其本性清凈，或者因為因緣缺失而顯現，所以稱為非擇滅（apratisamkhyā-nirodha）。苦樂感受滅除，所以稱為不動（āniñjya）。想和受不起作用，稱為想受滅（samjñā-vedayita-nirodha）。這五種無為法都是依真如（tathatā）假立的。真如也是假施設的名詞。爲了遮止撥無的觀點，所以說為有。爲了遮止執著為有的觀點，所以說為空。爲了避免認為是虛幻，所以說為實。因為道理真實不虛妄，所以名為真如。不同於其他宗派認為離開色心等有真實常住的法，名為真如。所以各種無為法並非是真實存在的。 外道和其他乘所執著的各種法，與心和心所不同，沒有真實的自性。因為是所取境，就像心和心所一樣。能取彼境的覺也不緣彼境，因為是能取，就像緣此覺一樣。各種心和心所依他而起，也像幻事一樣，不是真實存在的。爲了遣除妄執心和心所之外有真實存在的境，所以說唯有識。如果執著唯識是真實存在的，就像執著外境一樣，也是法執。各種法執略有二種：一者是俱生法執，二者是分別法執。俱生法執從無始以來，由於虛妄熏習的內在力量，恒常與身俱生，不依賴邪教和邪分別，自然而然地運轉，所以名為俱生。此俱生法執又分為兩種：一種是常相續的，在第七識緣第八識時，將第八識的自心相執著為實法；另一種是有間斷的，在第六識緣識所變的蘊、處、界相時，或者總或者別地將自心相執著為實法。這兩種法執非常微細，難以斷除，需要在後十地中數數修習殊勝的法空觀才能除滅。分別法執也是由於現在外緣的力量，不是與身俱生的，需要依賴邪教和邪分別，然後才產生，所以名為分別。只在第六意識中有。此分別法執也分為兩種：一種是緣邪教所說的蘊、處、界相，生起自心相，分別計度，執著為實法；另一種是緣邪教所說的自性等相，生起自心相，分別計度，執著為實法。這兩種
【English Translation】 English version Dharmatā (法性): Because it is free from all obstacles, it is called ākāśa (虛空). Through the power of discrimination, all defilements are extinguished, and ultimate realization is attained, therefore it is called pratisamkhyā-nirodha (擇滅). Not by the power of discrimination, its inherent nature is pure, or it manifests due to the absence of conditions, therefore it is called apratisamkhyā-nirodha (非擇滅). The cessation of suffering and pleasure is called āniñjya (不動). The non-functioning of thought and feeling is called samjñā-vedayita-nirodha (想受滅). These five unconditioned dharmas are all provisionally established based on tathatā (真如). Tathatā is also a provisionally designated term. To prevent the denial of its existence, it is said to exist. To prevent the attachment to its existence, it is said to be empty. To avoid the misconception that it is illusory, it is said to be real. Because the principle is true and not false, it is called tathatā. It is different from other schools that consider a real and permanent dharma apart from form and mind to be tathatā. Therefore, all unconditioned dharmas are not definitively and truly existent. The various dharmas clung to by externalists and other vehicles, different from mind and mental factors, do not have a real nature. Because they are objects of apprehension, like mind and mental factors. The awareness that apprehends them does not cognize them, because it is the apprehending subject, like cognizing this awareness. All minds and mental factors arise dependently, and are like illusions, not truly existent. To dispel the false clinging to real objects outside of mind and mental factors, it is said that there is only consciousness. If one clings to the idea that only consciousness is truly existent, like clinging to external objects, it is also a clinging to dharma. There are roughly two types of clinging to dharma: one is innate, and the other is acquired. Innate clinging to dharma arises from beginningless time, due to the internal force of false habitual tendencies, constantly co-arising with the body, not depending on wrong teachings or wrong discriminations, operating spontaneously, therefore it is called innate. This innate clinging to dharma is further divided into two types: one is constantly continuous, in the seventh consciousness, when it cognizes the eighth consciousness, it clings to the self-image of the eighth consciousness as a real dharma; the other is intermittent, in the sixth consciousness, when it cognizes the aggregates, sense bases, and realms transformed by consciousness, either generally or specifically, it clings to the self-image as a real dharma. These two types of clinging to dharma are very subtle and difficult to eliminate, and can only be removed by repeatedly practicing the superior view of emptiness of dharmas in the later ten bhūmis. Acquired clinging to dharma also arises due to the power of external conditions in the present, not co-arising with the body, requiring dependence on wrong teachings and wrong discriminations before it arises, therefore it is called acquired. It exists only in the sixth consciousness. This acquired clinging to dharma is also divided into two types: one is that when cognizing the aggregates, sense bases, and realms spoken of in wrong teachings, it generates a self-image, discriminates and measures, and clings to it as a real dharma; the other is that when cognizing the characteristics of self-nature, etc., spoken of in wrong teachings, it generates a self-image, discriminates and measures, and clings to it as a real dharma. These two
法執粗故易斷。入初地時觀一切法法空真如。即能除滅。如是所說一切法執自心外法或有或無。自心內法一切皆有。是故法執皆緣自心所現似法。執為實有。然似法相從緣生故。是如幻有。所執實法妄計度故。決定非有。故世尊說。慈氏當知。諸識所緣唯識所現。依他起性如幻事等。如是外道餘乘所執。離識我法皆非實有。故心心所。決定不用外色等法。為所緣緣。緣用必依實有體故。現在彼聚心心所法。非此聚識親所緣緣。如非所緣。他聚攝故。同聚心所亦非親所緣。自體異故。如餘非所取。由此應知。實無外境唯有內識似外境生。是故契經伽他中說。
如愚所分別外境實皆無。習氣擾濁心。故似彼而轉。有作是難。若無離識實我法者。假亦應無。謂假必依真事似事共法而立。如有真火有似火人有猛赤法乃可假說此人為火。假說牛等應知亦然。我法若無依何假說。無假說故。似亦不成。如何說心似外境轉。彼難非理。離識我法前已破故。依類依實假說火等。俱不成故。依類假說理且不成。猛赤等德非類有故。若無共德而假說彼應亦於水等假說火等名。若謂猛等雖非類德而不相離故可假說。此亦不然。人類猛等現見亦有互相離故。類既無德又互相離。然有於人假說火等。故知假說不依類成。依實假說理亦不成。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 法執因為粗淺所以容易斷除。當進入初地時，觀照一切法皆是法空真如（一切法的真實本性是空性），就能去除法執。像這樣所說的一切法執，無論是自心之外的法，是有還是無，還是自心之內的法，一切都是有的。因此，法執都是緣于自心所顯現的相似法，執著為真實存在。然而，這些相似的法相，因為是從因緣而生，所以就像幻象一樣存在。所執著的真實法，是因為虛妄的計度，所以可以斷定它不是真實存在的。所以世尊說：『慈氏（Maitreya，彌勒菩薩），你應該知道，諸識所緣的，都只是唯識所現。依他起性（dependent origination）就像幻術變出的事物一樣。』像這樣，外道（non-Buddhist schools）和其他乘（other vehicles of Buddhism）所執著的，離開識的我法，都不是真實存在的。所以，心和心所（mental factors）一定不會用外在的色等法，作為所緣緣（object-condition），因為緣用必定依據真實存在的自體。現在的彼聚（another aggregate）的心和心所法，不是此聚（this aggregate）的識所親緣的所緣緣，就像不是所緣一樣，因為屬於他聚所攝。同聚（same aggregate）的心所也不是親所緣，因為自體不同，就像其餘非所取一樣。由此應該知道，實際上沒有外境，只有內在的識，顯現出類似外境的現象。所以契經（sutra）的偈頌中說：
『就像愚人所分別的，外境實際上都是沒有的。因為習氣（habitual tendencies）擾亂渾濁了心，所以心才好像外境那樣運轉。』
有人提出這樣的疑問：如果沒有離開識的真實的我法，那麼假立的也應該沒有。因為假立必定依據真實的事物、相似的事物和共同的性質而成立。比如，有真實的火，有像火的人，有猛烈赤紅的性質，才可以假地說這個人是火。假說牛等，應該知道也是這樣。如果我法不存在，依據什麼來假說呢？沒有假說，相似的也無法成立。如何說心好像外境那樣運轉呢？
這個疑問是不合理的，因為離開識的我法，前面已經破斥過了。依據種類或依據真實而假說火等，都是不能成立的。依據種類而假說，道理上不能成立，因為猛烈赤紅等性質不是種類所具有的。如果沒有共同的性質而假說，那麼也應該對水等假說火等的名稱。如果說猛烈等性質雖然不是種類所具有的，但是不相分離，所以可以假說，這也是不對的。因為人類的猛烈等性質，現在看到也有互相分離的。種類既然沒有這種性質，又互相分離，然而有人對人假說火等，所以知道假說不是依據種類而成立的。依據真實而假說，道理上也不能成立。
【English Translation】 English version The attachment to dharma is easy to sever because it is coarse. When entering the first Bhumi (Bhumis are levels of Bodhisattva realization), by contemplating all dharmas as dharma-emptiness and Suchness (the true nature of all dharmas is emptiness), one can eliminate it. As such, all dharma attachments spoken of, whether dharmas external to one's own mind, whether they exist or not, or dharmas internal to one's own mind, all exist. Therefore, all dharma attachments arise from the mind's manifestation of dharma-like appearances, which are then grasped as truly existent. However, these dharma-like appearances arise from conditions, and are therefore like illusions. The real dharmas that are grasped are falsely conceived, and are definitely non-existent. Therefore, the World-Honored One said: 'Maitreya (the future Buddha), you should know that what the consciousnesses cognize are only manifestations of consciousness. Dependent origination (dependent arising) is like illusory events.' Thus, what the non-Buddhists (those outside the Buddhist path) and other vehicles (other schools of Buddhism) grasp, the self and dharmas apart from consciousness, are not truly existent. Therefore, the mind and mental factors (mental events) definitely do not use external forms and other dharmas as object-conditions (the object upon which consciousness depends), because such use must rely on a truly existent entity. The mind and mental factors of another aggregate (another collection of mental and physical components) are not the direct object-condition of the consciousness of this aggregate (this collection of mental and physical components), just as they are not objects, because they are included in another aggregate. The mental factors of the same aggregate are also not direct objects, because their self-nature is different, like other non-apprehended objects. From this, it should be known that there is actually no external realm, only internal consciousness that gives rise to appearances similar to external realms. Therefore, the verse in the sutra says: 'As the ignorant ones discriminate, external realms are in reality all non-existent. Because habitual tendencies (latent predispositions) disturb and cloud the mind, it appears to turn like them.' Someone raises this question: If there is no real self and dharmas apart from consciousness, then the fabricated should also not exist. Because the fabricated must be established based on a real thing, a similar thing, and a common property. For example, if there is real fire, a person like fire, and the property of being fiercely red, then it can be falsely said that this person is fire. The false saying of a cow, etc., should also be understood in the same way. If the self and dharmas do not exist, based on what is the false saying made? Without the false saying, the similar cannot be established. How can it be said that the mind turns like an external realm? This question is unreasonable, because the self and dharmas apart from consciousness have already been refuted earlier. The false saying of fire, etc., based on category or based on reality, cannot be established. The false saying based on category cannot be established in principle, because properties such as fierce redness are not possessed by the category. If there is no common property and a false saying is made, then the names of fire, etc., should also be falsely said of water, etc. If it is said that although properties such as fierceness are not possessed by the category, they are inseparable, so a false saying can be made, this is also incorrect. Because the fierceness, etc., of humans are now seen to be mutually separated. Since the category does not have this property and is mutually separated, yet someone falsely says fire, etc., of a person, it is known that the false saying is not established based on category. The false saying based on reality cannot be established in principle either.
猛赤等德非共有故。謂猛赤等在火在人。其體各別。所依異故。無共假說有過同前。若謂人火德相似故可假說者。理亦不然。說火在人非在德故。由此假說不依實成。又假必依真事立者。亦不應理。真謂自相。假智及詮俱非境故。謂假智詮不得自相。唯于諸法共相而轉。亦非離此有別方便施設自相為假所依。然假智詮必依聲起。聲不及處此便不轉。能詮所詮俱非自相。故知假說不依真事。由此但依似事而轉。似謂增益非實有相。聲依增益似相而轉。故不可說假必依真。是故彼難不應正理。然依識變對遣妄執真實我法說假似言。由此契經伽他中說。
為對遣愚夫 所執實我法 故於識所變 假說我法名
識所變相雖無量種。而能變識類別唯三。一謂異熟。即第八識多異熟性故。二謂思量。即第七識恒審思量故。三謂了境。即前六識了境相粗故。及言顯六合為一種。此三皆名能變識者。能變有二種。一因能變。謂第八識中等流異熟。二因習氣。等流習氣由七識中善惡無記熏令生長。異熟習氣由六識中有漏善惡熏令生長。二果能變。謂前二種習氣力故。有八識生現種種相。等流習氣為因緣故。八識體相差別而生。名等流果果似因故。異熟習氣為增上緣感第八識。酬引業力恒相續故立異熟名。感前六識酬滿業
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 猛光（Mengchi）等屬性並非共有，因此不能作為假說的基礎。例如，猛光等存在於火和人身上，但它們的本體各不相同，所依賴的基礎也不同。因此，如果認為它們可以共同假說，就會出現與之前相同的過失。如果認為人和火的屬性相似，所以可以假說，這也是不合理的。因為說火在人身上，而不是在屬性上。因此，這種假說不是依據真實而成立的。而且，假說必須依據真實事物而建立的說法，也是不合理的。真實指的是自相（svalaksana），而假智和假詮（prajnapti）都不是其境界。也就是說，假智和假詮無法獲得自相，只能在諸法的共相（samanya-laksana）上運作。而且，除了共相之外，也沒有其他方便可以用來施設自相作為假說的依據。然而，假智和假詮必定依據聲音而產生，聲音無法觸及的地方，假智和假詮就無法運作。能詮（abhidhana）和所詮（abhidheya）都不是自相。因此，可知假說不是依據真實事物而建立的，而是僅僅依據相似的事物而運作。相似指的是增益（samaropa），即並非真實存在的相。聲音依據增益的相似相而運作。因此，不能說假說必定依據真實。所以，之前的責難是不合理的。
然而，爲了依據識變（vijnana-parinama）來對治妄執真實我法（atma-dharma）的錯誤觀念，才說假說和相似的言語。因此，契經（sutra）的伽陀（gatha）中說： 『爲了對治愚夫所執著的真實我法，所以在識所變現的境界上，假說我法之名。』
識所變現的相雖然有無量種，但能變現的識的類別只有三種。第一種是異熟（vipaka），即第八識（Alaya-vijnana）具有多種異熟的性質。第二種是思量（manana），即第七識（Manas-vijnana）恒常審思量。第三種是了境（visaya-vijnana），即前六識（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）了別境界的相比較粗顯。以及言語顯示六識合為一種。這三種都稱為能變識，能變有兩種：一是因能變，即第八識中的等流異熟（nisyanda-vipaka），二是因習氣（vasana），等流習氣由第七識中的善、惡、無記熏習而生長，異熟習氣由第六識中的有漏善、惡熏習而生長。二果能變，即前兩種習氣的力量，使八識生起並顯現種種相。等流習氣作為因緣，使八識的體相差別而生，稱為等流果，因為果相似於因。異熟習氣作為增上緣，感得第八識，酬償牽引業力，恒常相續，所以立名為異熟。感得前六識，酬償圓滿業。
【English Translation】 English version: Attributes such as 'fiery red' (Mengchi) are not shared, therefore they cannot be the basis for a hypothetical construct. For example, 'fiery red' exists in both fire and a person, but their entities are distinct, and their bases of dependence are different. Therefore, if one thinks they can be jointly hypothesized, the same faults as before will arise. If one thinks that the attributes of a person and fire are similar, so a hypothesis is possible, this is also unreasonable. Because it is said that fire is in a person, not in the attribute. Therefore, this kind of hypothesis is not established based on reality. Moreover, the statement that a hypothesis must be established based on a real thing is also unreasonable. Reality refers to the 'own-characteristic' (svalaksana), while 'hypothetical knowledge' (prajnapti-jnana) and 'hypothetical expression' (prajnapti-abhidhana) are not its objects. That is to say, hypothetical knowledge and hypothetical expression cannot obtain the own-characteristic, but only operate on the 'common-characteristic' (samanya-laksana) of all dharmas. Moreover, apart from the common-characteristic, there is no other means to establish the own-characteristic as the basis of a hypothesis. However, hypothetical knowledge and hypothetical expression must arise based on sound, and where sound cannot reach, hypothetical knowledge and hypothetical expression cannot operate. The 'expressing' (abhidhana) and the 'expressed' (abhidheya) are not own-characteristics. Therefore, it can be known that a hypothesis is not established based on real things, but only operates based on similar things. Similarity refers to 'superimposition' (samaropa), that is, a non-real existent appearance. Sound operates based on the superimposed similar appearance. Therefore, it cannot be said that a hypothesis must be based on reality. Therefore, the previous criticism is not reasonable. However, in order to counter the erroneous conception of clinging to a real self (atma) and real dharmas, based on the transformation of consciousness (vijnana-parinama), the words 'hypothesis' and 'similarity' are spoken. Therefore, it is said in a verse (gatha) in the sutra: 'To counter the real self and dharmas clung to by fools, therefore, on the realm transformed by consciousness, the names of self and dharmas are hypothetically spoken.' Although there are countless kinds of appearances transformed by consciousness, there are only three categories of transforming consciousness. The first is 'resultant maturation' (vipaka), that is, the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijnana) has the nature of multiple resultant maturations. The second is 'thinking' (manana), that is, the seventh consciousness (Manas-vijnana) constantly and deliberately thinks. The third is 'cognizing objects' (visaya-vijnana), that is, the appearances of the first six consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) cognizing objects are relatively coarse. And the language shows that the six consciousnesses are combined into one kind. These three are all called transforming consciousnesses. There are two kinds of transformation: one is 'transformation by cause' (hetu-parinama), that is, the 'equal-flowing resultant maturation' (nisyanda-vipaka) in the eighth consciousness, and the second is 'transformation by habit energy' (vasana), the equal-flowing habit energy grows due to the good, evil, and neutral熏習(xunxi) in the seventh consciousness, and the resultant maturation habit energy grows due to the defiled good and evil熏習(xunxi) in the sixth consciousness. Two 'transformation by result' (phala-parinama), that is, the power of the previous two kinds of habit energy causes the eight consciousnesses to arise and manifest various appearances. The equal-flowing habit energy, as a cause and condition, causes the bodies and appearances of the eight consciousnesses to arise differently, which is called the 'equal-flowing result', because the result is similar to the cause. The resultant maturation habit energy, as a dominant condition, causes the eighth consciousness to be felt, compensating for the karmic force of attraction, constantly continuing, so it is named 'resultant maturation'. It causes the first six consciousnesses to be felt, compensating for the fulfilling karma.
者從異熟起名異熟生。不名異熟有間斷故。即前異熟及異熟生名異熟果果異因故。此中且說我愛執藏持雜染種能變果識名為異熟。非謂一切。雖已略說能變三名。而未廣辯能變三相。且初能變其相云何。頌曰。
初阿賴耶識 異熟一切種
３ 不可知執受 處了常與觸 作意受想思 相應唯捨受
４ 是無覆無記 觸等亦如是 恒轉如瀑流 阿羅漢位捨
論曰。初能變識大小乘教名阿賴耶。此識具有能藏所藏執藏義故。謂與雜染互為緣故。有情執為自內我故。此即顯示初能變識所有自相。攝持因果為自相故。此識自相分位雖多。藏識過重是故偏說。此是能引諸界趣生善不善業。異熟果故說名異熟。離此命根眾同分等恒時相續勝異熟果不可得故。此即顯示初能變識所有果相。此識果相雖多位多種。異熟寬不共故偏說之。此能執持諸法種子令不失故名一切種。離此餘法能遍執持諸法種子不可得故。此即顯示初能變識所有因相。此識因相雖有多種持種不共是故偏說。初能變識體相雖多略說唯有如是三相。
一切種相應更分別。此中何法名為種子。謂本識中親生自果功能差別。此與本識及所生果不一不異。體用因果理應爾故。雖非一異而是實有。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 從異熟產生的，名為異熟生（Vipāka-ja）。不稱為異熟，因為有間斷的緣故。之前的異熟和異熟生，名為異熟果，因為果不同於因的緣故。這裡且說我愛執藏，持有雜染種子的，能變現果報的識，名為異熟，不是說一切識都是異熟。雖然已經簡略地說了能變的三種名稱，但還沒有廣泛地辨析能變的三種體相。那麼，最初的能變，它的體相是怎樣的呢？頌詞說： 『初阿賴耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna），異熟一切種， 不可知執受，處了常與觸（Sparśa）， 作意（Manasikāra）受（Vedanā）想（Saṃjñā）思（Cetanā），相應唯捨受（Upekṣā），』 『是無覆無記（Anivṛtāvyākṛta），觸等亦如是， 恒轉如瀑流，阿羅漢（Arhat）位捨。』
論中說：最初的能變識，在大乘（Mahāyāna）和小乘（Hināyāna）教義中，名為阿賴耶（Ālaya）。這個識具有能藏、所藏、執藏的含義。意思是說，它與雜染互為因緣，有情執著它為自己的內在自我。這正是顯示了最初能變識所具有的自相，即攝持因果作為它的自相。這個識的自相和分位雖然很多，但藏識的含義最為重要，所以偏重說明。這是能引生諸界趣（Gati）的，善與不善業的異熟果，所以名為異熟。離開這個，命根（Jīvitendriya）、眾同分（Nikāya-sabhāga）等恒時相續的殊勝異熟果是無法獲得的。這正是顯示了最初能變識所具有的果相。這個識的果相雖然很多，分位和種類也很多，但異熟的含義最為寬廣和不共，所以偏重說明它。這個識能夠執持諸法種子，使它們不丟失，所以名為一切種（Sarvabīja）。離開這個，其他的法就無法普遍地執持諸法種子。這正是顯示了最初能變識所具有的因相。這個識的因相雖然有很多種，但執持種子的含義最為不共，所以偏重說明它。最初能變識的體相雖然很多，但簡略地說，只有這三種體相。
一切種的相應關係需要進一步分別。這裡面，什麼法名為種子呢？是指本識中親能生出自果的功能差別。這個種子與本識以及所生之果，既不是一，也不是異。從體用因果的道理上來說，本來就應該是這樣。雖然不是一也不是異，但它是真實存在的。
【English Translation】 English version: That which arises from Vipāka (異熟, ripening), is named Vipāka-ja (異熟生, born from ripening). It is not called Vipāka because it has interruptions. The previous Vipāka and Vipāka-ja are named Vipāka-phala (異熟果, ripening result), because the result is different from the cause. Here, let's talk about the Ālaya (阿賴耶) that is clung to with love, that holds the seeds of defilement, and that can transform into the result consciousness, which is named Vipāka, not all consciousnesses are Vipāka. Although the three names of the transformer have been briefly mentioned, the three characteristics of the transformer have not been widely distinguished. So, what is the characteristic of the initial transformer? The verse says: 'The initial Ālaya-vijñāna (阿賴耶識, storehouse consciousness) is Vipāka and Sarvabīja (一切種, all seeds),' 'Unknowable grasping, always with Sparśa (觸, contact) for the place, Manasikāra (作意, attention), Vedanā (受, feeling), Saṃjñā (想, perception), Cetanā (思, volition), corresponding only to Upekṣā (捨受, equanimity),' 'It is Anivṛtāvyākṛta (無覆無記, neither obscured nor determinate), Sparśa etc. are also like this, Constantly flowing like a waterfall, abandoned at the Arhat (阿羅漢) position.' The treatise says: The initial transforming consciousness, in the teachings of Mahāyāna (大乘, Great Vehicle) and Hināyāna (小乘, Lesser Vehicle), is named Ālaya. This consciousness has the meaning of being able to store, being stored, and being clung to. It means that it is a cause and condition for defilement, and sentient beings cling to it as their inner self. This shows the self-nature of the initial transforming consciousness, which is to hold cause and effect as its self-nature. Although there are many self-natures and divisions of this consciousness, the meaning of the storehouse consciousness is the most important, so it is emphasized. This is the Vipāka result of good and unwholesome karma that can lead to the realms of existence, so it is named Vipāka. Without this, the continuous and excellent Vipāka results of Jīvitendriya (命根, life faculty), Nikāya-sabhāga (眾同分, community of beings), etc., cannot be obtained. This shows the result aspect of the initial transforming consciousness. Although there are many result aspects of this consciousness, and many divisions and types, the meaning of Vipāka is the broadest and most uncommon, so it is emphasized. This consciousness can hold the seeds of all dharmas and prevent them from being lost, so it is named Sarvabīja. Without this, other dharmas cannot universally hold the seeds of all dharmas. This shows the cause aspect of the initial transforming consciousness. Although there are many kinds of cause aspects of this consciousness, the meaning of holding seeds is the most uncommon, so it is emphasized. Although there are many aspects of the initial transforming consciousness, briefly speaking, there are only these three aspects. The corresponding relationships of all seeds need to be further distinguished. Among them, what dharma is called a seed? It refers to the functional difference in the basic consciousness that directly produces its own result. This seed is neither one nor different from the basic consciousness and the result it produces. From the principles of substance, function, cause, and effect, it should be like this. Although it is neither one nor different, it is real.
假法如無非因緣故。此與諸法既非一異。應如瓶等是假非實。若爾真如應是假有。許則便無真勝義諦。然諸種子唯依世俗說為實有不同真如。種子雖依第八識體。而是此識相分非餘。見分恒取此為境故。諸有漏種與異熟識。體無別故無記性攝。因果俱有善等性故亦名善等。諸無漏種非異熟識性所攝故。因果俱是善性攝故。唯名為善。若爾何故抉擇分說二十二根。一切皆有異熟種子。皆異熟生。雖名異熟而非無記。依異熟故名異熟種。異性相依如眼等識。或無漏種由熏習力轉變成熟立異熟名。非無記性所攝異熟。此中有義一切種子皆本性有不從熏生。由熏習力但可增長。如契經說一切有情無始時來有種種界。如惡叉聚法爾而有。界即種子差別名故。又契經說無始時來界。一切法等依。界是因義。瑜伽亦說諸種子體無始時來性雖本有。而由染凈新所熏發。諸有情類無始時來若般涅槃法者一切種子皆悉具足。不般涅槃法者便闕三種菩提種子。如是等文誠證非一。又諸有情既說本有五種性別故。應定有法爾種子不由熏生。又瑜伽說地獄成就三無漏根是種非現。又從無始展轉傳來法爾所得本性住性。由此等證無漏種子法爾本有不從熏生。有漏亦應法爾有種。由熏增長不別熏生。如是建立因果不亂。有義種子皆熏故生。所熏能熏俱
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 假立法如果不是因為因緣和合，那麼它與諸法之間就既不是同一也不是相異的關係。這樣一來，它就應該像瓶子一樣是虛假的而不是真實的。如果這樣，那麼真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性）也應該是虛假的。如果承認真如是虛假的，那就沒有真實的勝義諦（Paramārtha-satya，最高真理）了。然而，諸多種子（Bīja，潛在的可能性）只是依據世俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，相對真理）才被說成是真實存在的，這與真如不同。
種子雖然依賴於第八識（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）的自體，但它是這個識的相分（Nimitta-bhāga，客體部分），而不是見分（Darśana-bhāga，主體部分），因為見分總是以它為境界。所有有漏種子（Sāsrava-bīja，具有煩惱的種子）與異熟識（Vipāka-vijñāna，果報識）的自體沒有區別，因此屬於無記性（Avyākṛta，非善非惡）。因為因和果都具有善等性質，所以也稱為善等。
所有無漏種子（Anāsrava-bīja，沒有煩惱的種子）不屬於異熟識的性質，因為因和果都是善的性質，所以只稱為善。如果這樣，為什麼《抉擇分》（Viniscaya-samgrahani）中說二十二根（Dvāviṃśati indriyāṇi，二十二種功能）都具有異熟種子，都是異熟所生？雖然名為異熟，但並非無記性。依據異熟的緣故，稱為異熟種子。異性相互依賴，如眼識等。或者無漏種子由於熏習（Vāsanā，習氣）的力量轉變而成熟，建立異熟之名，但並非無記性所攝的異熟。
這裡有一種觀點認為，一切種子都是本性就有的，不是從熏習產生的。通過熏習的力量，只能增長。如契經（Sūtra，佛經）所說，一切有情（Sattva，眾生）從無始以來就有種種界（Dhātu，構成要素），就像惡叉聚（Akṣa-pūga，骰子堆）一樣自然而有。界就是種子的差別名稱。又契經說，從無始以來，界是一切法的所依。界是因的意思。《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）也說，諸種子的自體從無始以來本性就有，但由於染污和清凈的新熏習而顯發。諸有情類從無始以來，如果是般涅槃法（Parinirvāṇa-dharma，具有涅槃性質）者，一切種子都完全具足；不是般涅槃法者，就缺少三種菩提種子（Bodhi-bīja，覺悟的種子）。像這樣的經文有很多，可以作為證據。
又，既然說諸有情本有五種性別，就應該一定有法爾種子（Dharma-bīja，自然而然存在的種子），不是由熏習產生的。又，《瑜伽師地論》說，地獄成就三種無漏根，是種子而不是現行。又，從無始展轉傳來，法爾所得的本性住性。由此等證據表明，無漏種子是法爾本有的，不是從熏習產生的。有漏種子也應該是法爾有種，由熏習增長，而不是另外熏習產生。這樣建立，因果就不會錯亂。
有一種觀點認為，種子都是熏習產生的。所熏和能熏都是...
【English Translation】 English version If the hypothetical dharma is not due to causes and conditions, then it is neither the same as nor different from all dharmas (phenomena). In that case, it should be false and unreal like a jar. If so, then Suchness (Tathata, the true nature of things) should also be falsely existent. If Suchness is admitted to be false, then there would be no true ultimate truth (Paramārtha-satya). However, all seeds (Bīja, potentiality) are said to be truly existent only according to conventional truth (Saṃvṛti-satya), which is different from Suchness. Although seeds rely on the self-nature of the eighth consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna, storehouse consciousness), they are the object-aspect (Nimitta-bhāga) of this consciousness, not the subject-aspect (Darśana-bhāga), because the subject-aspect always takes them as its object. All defiled seeds (Sāsrava-bīja, seeds with afflictions) are not different in nature from the resultant consciousness (Vipāka-vijñāna, fruition consciousness), and therefore belong to the category of neutral (Avyākṛta, neither good nor evil). Because both cause and effect have the nature of goodness, etc., they are also called good, etc. All undefiled seeds (Anāsrava-bīja, seeds without afflictions) do not belong to the nature of resultant consciousness, because both cause and effect are of the nature of goodness, so they are only called good. If so, why does the 'Discrimination Section' (Viniscaya-samgrahani) say that all twenty-two faculties (Dvāviṃśati indriyāṇi) have resultant seeds and are all produced from resultants? Although they are called resultants, they are not neutral. Because they rely on resultants, they are called resultant seeds. Different natures rely on each other, like eye-consciousness, etc. Or undefiled seeds are transformed and matured by the power of habituation (Vāsanā, karmic impressions), establishing the name of resultants, but they are not resultants included in the neutral nature. Here, one view holds that all seeds are inherently existent and do not arise from habituation. Through the power of habituation, they can only increase. As the Sutra (Sūtra, Buddhist scripture) says, all sentient beings (Sattva, beings) have had various elements (Dhātu, constituents) from beginningless time, naturally like a heap of dice (Akṣa-pūga). Elements are different names for seeds. Also, the Sutra says that from beginningless time, elements are the basis of all dharmas. Element means cause. The 'Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra' also says that the self-nature of all seeds has been inherently existent from beginningless time, but is manifested by new habituation of defilement and purity. If sentient beings have the nature of Parinirvāṇa-dharma, all seeds are fully present; if they do not have the nature of Parinirvāṇa-dharma, they lack three Bodhi-seeds (Bodhi-bīja, seeds of enlightenment). Such texts are numerous and can serve as evidence. Furthermore, since it is said that sentient beings inherently have five kinds of genders, there should definitely be Dharma-seeds (Dharma-bīja, seeds existing naturally) that are not produced by habituation. Also, the 'Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra' says that hell beings achieve three undefiled roots, which are seeds and not manifest. Also, from beginningless time, the inherent nature obtained naturally is transmitted. From this evidence, undefiled seeds are inherently existent and do not arise from habituation. Defiled seeds should also inherently have seeds, which are increased by habituation, rather than being produced by separate habituation. Establishing it in this way, cause and effect will not be confused. One view holds that all seeds are produced by habituation. Both the habituated and the habituator are...
無始有。故諸種子無始成就。種子既是習氣異名。習氣必由熏習而有。如麻香氣花熏故生。如契經說諸有情心染凈諸法所熏習故。無量種子之所積集。論說內種定有熏習。外種熏習或有或無。又名言等三種熏習總攝一切有漏法種。彼三既由熏習而有。故有漏種必藉熏生。無漏種生亦由熏習。說聞熏習聞凈法界等流正法而熏起故。是出世心種子性故。有情本來種姓差別。不由無漏種子有無。但依有障無障建立。如瑜伽說于真如境若有畢竟二障種者立為不般涅槃法性。若有畢竟所知障種非煩惱者一分立為聲聞種性一分立為獨覺種性。若無畢竟二障種者即立彼為如來種性。故知本來種性差別依障建立非無漏種。所說成就無漏種言。依當可生非已有體。有義種子各有二類。一者本有。謂無始來異熟識中法爾而有生蘊處界功能差別。
世尊依此說諸有情無始時來有種種界如惡叉聚法爾而有。餘所引證廣說如初。此即名為本性住種。二者始起。謂無始來數數現行熏習而有。世尊依此說有情心染凈諸法所熏習故無量種子之所積集。諸論亦說染凈種子由染凈法熏習故生。此即名為習所成種。若唯本有轉識不應與阿賴耶為因緣性。如契經說。
諸法于識藏 識於法亦爾 更互為果性 亦常為因性
此頌意言。阿賴
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 無始就有。所以說一切種子都是無始以來就成就的。種子是習氣的另一種說法。習氣必定是由熏習而產生的。就像芝麻的香氣是因為花的薰染而產生一樣。如同契經所說，一切有情的心被染污和清凈的諸法所熏習，積累了無量的種子。論中說，內在的種子一定有熏習，外在的種子熏習或者有或者沒有。又，名言等三種熏習總攝了一切有漏法的種子。這三種種子既然是由熏習而產生的，所以有漏的種子必定要依靠熏習才能產生。無漏的種子產生也是由於熏習。說是聽聞熏習，聽聞清凈法界的等流正法而熏習生起，這是出世心的種子自性。有情本來種姓的差別，不是由於無漏種子有無，只是依據有障礙和無障礙來建立。如《瑜伽師地論》所說，對於真如境界，如果有畢竟的二障種子的人，就立為不般涅槃法性。如果有畢竟的所知障種子而非煩惱障的人，一部分立為聲聞種性，一部分立為獨覺種性。如果沒有畢竟的二障種子的人，就立他們為如來種性。所以知道本來種姓的差別是依據障礙來建立的，不是依據無漏種子。所說的成就無漏種子，是依據將來可以產生，而不是已經有了實體。有一種觀點認為種子各有兩種：一種是本有的，指無始以來異熟識中自然而然就有的，產生蘊、處、界的功能差別。
世尊依據這個道理說，一切有情無始以來就有種種界，像惡叉聚一樣自然而然就有的。其餘所引用的證據，詳細的說明如同最初所說。這就叫做本性住種。
另一種是始起的，指無始以來，數數現行熏習而有的。世尊依據這個道理說，有情的心被染污和清凈的諸法所熏習，積累了無量的種子。各種論典也說，染污和清凈的種子是由染污和清凈的法熏習而產生的。這就叫做習所成種。如果只有本有的種子，轉識就不應該與阿賴耶識互為因緣性。如同契經所說： 諸法于識藏，識於法亦爾 更互為果性，亦常為因性
這首偈頌的意思是說，阿賴耶識（Ālayavijñāna）
【English Translation】 English version: It exists from the beginningless time. Therefore, all seeds are said to be accomplished from the beginningless time. A seed is another name for habit energy (vāsanā). Habit energy must arise from conditioning (熏習, xūn xí). Just as the fragrance of sesame arises from being薰染 by flowers. As the sutra says, the minds of all sentient beings are conditioned by defiled and pure dharmas, accumulating countless seeds. The treatise says that internal seeds definitely have conditioning, while external seeds may or may not have conditioning. Furthermore, the three types of conditioning, such as verbal expression, encompass all seeds of conditioned dharmas (有漏法, yǒu lòu fǎ). Since these three arise from conditioning, conditioned seeds must rely on conditioning to arise. The arising of unconditioned seeds (無漏種, wú lòu zhǒng) is also due to conditioning. It is said that through the conditioning of hearing, one hears the pure Dharma realm's (法界, fǎ jiè) outflowing correct Dharma, which gives rise to the seed nature of the transcendental mind. The differences in the inherent nature (種姓, zhǒng xìng) of sentient beings are not due to the presence or absence of unconditioned seeds, but are established based on the presence or absence of obstructions. As the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says, those who have the seeds of the two obstructions (二障, èr zhàng) to the realm of Suchness (真如, zhēn rú) are established as having the nature of not attaining nirvana (涅槃, niè pán). Those who have the seeds of the obstruction of knowledge (所知障, suǒ zhī zhàng) but not the obstruction of afflictions (煩惱障, fán nǎo zhàng) are partly established as having the Śrāvakayāna (聲聞乘, shēng wén chéng) nature and partly as having the Pratyekabuddhayāna (獨覺乘, dú jué chéng) nature. Those who do not have the seeds of the two obstructions are established as having the Tathāgata (如來, rú lái) nature. Therefore, it is known that the differences in inherent nature are established based on obstructions, not on unconditioned seeds. The statement about accomplishing unconditioned seeds refers to the potential for them to arise in the future, not that they already exist as entities. Some argue that there are two types of seeds: one is inherent, referring to the functional differences in the aggregates (蘊, yùn), sense bases (處, chù), and realms (界, jiè) that naturally exist in the Ālaya-vijñāna (阿賴耶識, Ālài yé shì) from the beginningless time. The World-Honored One (世尊, Shì zūn) based this principle on saying that all sentient beings have various realms from the beginningless time, naturally existing like a cluster of akṣa seeds (惡叉聚, è chā jù). The remaining cited evidence is explained in detail as in the beginning. This is called the seed of inherent nature (本性住種, běn xìng zhù zhǒng). The other is newly arisen, referring to what arises from repeated habitual actions and conditioning from the beginningless time. The World-Honored One based this principle on saying that the minds of sentient beings are conditioned by defiled and pure dharmas, accumulating countless seeds. Various treatises also say that defiled and pure seeds arise from the conditioning of defiled and pure dharmas. This is called the seed of habituation (習所成種, xí suǒ chéng zhǒng). If there were only inherent seeds, the transforming consciousness (轉識, zhuǎn shí) should not be the cause and condition of the Ālaya-vijñāna. As the sutra says: 'All dharmas are in the storehouse consciousness, Consciousness is also in the dharmas. They are mutually the nature of result, And also constantly the nature of cause.' The meaning of this verse is that the Ālaya-vijñāna (阿賴耶識, Ālài yé shì)
耶識與諸轉識。於一切時展轉相生互為因果。攝大乘說。阿賴耶識與雜染法互為因緣。如炷與焰展轉生燒。又如束蘆互相依住。唯依此二建立因緣。所餘因緣不可得故。若諸種子不由熏生。如何轉識與阿賴耶有因緣義非熏令長可名因緣。勿善惡業與異熟果為因緣故。又諸聖教說有種子由熏習生。皆違彼義。故唯本有理教相違。若唯始起有為無漏無因緣故應不得生。有漏不應為無漏種。勿無漏種生有漏故。許應諸佛有漏復生。善等應為不善等種。分別論者雖作是說心性本凈客塵煩惱所染污故名為雜染離煩惱時轉成無漏故無漏法非無因生。而心性言彼說何義。若說空理空非心因常法定非諸法種子。以體前後無轉變故。若即說心應同數論相雖轉變而體常一。惡無記心又應是善。許則應與信等相應。不許便應非善心體。尚不名善況是無漏。有漏善心既稱雜染如噁心等性非無漏。故不應與無漏為因。勿善惡等互為因故。若有漏心性是無漏應無漏心性是有漏。差別因緣不可得故。又異生心若是無漏。則異生位無漏現行。應名聖者。若異生心性雖無漏而相有染不名無漏。無斯過者則心種子亦非無漏。何故汝論說有異生唯得成就無漏種子。種子現行性相同故。然契經說心性凈者說心空理所顯真如。真如是心真實性故。或說心體非煩惱故
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 耶識（Vijnana，了別識）與諸轉識（pravrtti-vijnana，現行識）。在一切時展轉相生，互為因果。《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）說，阿賴耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna，藏識）與雜染法（saṃklista-dharma，染污法）互為因緣，猶如燈炷與火焰展轉相生燃燒，又如一束蘆葦互相依靠支撐。唯有依靠這兩種關係才能建立因緣，其餘的因緣是不可得的。如果諸種子（bīja，潛能）不是通過熏習而產生，那麼轉識與阿賴耶識之間如何具有因緣的意義呢？如果不是通過熏習使其增長，又怎麼能稱之為因緣呢？難道善惡業與異熟果（vipāka-phala，果報）之間也算是因緣嗎？而且諸多的聖教經典都說有種子是由熏習而產生的，這都與你的觀點相違背。所以，唯有本有（先天具有）的說法，在道理和教義上都是相違背的。如果唯有始起（新產生）的有為（saṃskṛta，有造作）無漏（anāsrava，無煩惱）法，因為沒有因緣的緣故，應該不能產生。有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱）法不應該成為無漏法的種子，否則無漏法的種子會產生有漏法。如果允許這種情況發生，那麼諸佛也會再次產生有漏法。善等法應該成為不善等法的種子。
分別論者（Vibhajyavādin，分別說部）雖然這樣說：『心性（citta-prakṛti，心之本性）本來是清凈的，因為被客塵煩惱（āgantuka-kleśa，外來煩惱）所染污，所以才被稱為雜染；當離開煩惱時，就轉變成無漏，所以無漏法不是沒有原因而產生的。』但是，心性這個詞，他們所說的又是什麼意思呢？如果說是空理（śūnyatā，空性），空性不是心的原因，常法定（nitya-dharma，常恒不變之法）不是諸法的種子，因為它的體性前後沒有轉變的緣故。如果直接說就是心，那就應該和數論（Sāṃkhya，僧佉哲學）一樣，雖然相貌轉變，但是體性始終如一。惡無記心（akuśalāvyākṛta-citta，不善不記之心）又應該是善的，如果允許這樣，就應該與信等法相應。如果不允許這樣，那就應該不是善心的體性，尚且不能稱為善，更何況是無漏呢？有漏的善心既然被稱為雜染，就像噁心等一樣，其自性不是無漏的，所以不應該與無漏法作為原因。否則，善惡等法會互相成為原因。
如果有漏的心性是無漏的，那麼無漏的心性就應該是有漏的，因為找不到差別的原因。而且，異生（pṛthagjana，凡夫）的心如果是無漏的，那麼異生位（pṛthagjana-bhūmi，凡夫位）就會有無漏法現行，應該被稱為聖者。如果異生的心性雖然是無漏的，但是相貌上有染污，所以不能稱為無漏，沒有這樣的過失，那麼心的種子也不是無漏的。為什麼你的理論說只有異生才能成就無漏的種子呢？因為種子和現行的體性是相同的。然而，契經（sūtra，佛經）所說的心性清凈，是指心空之理所顯現的真如（tathātā，如實）。真如是心真實的體性，或者說心體不是煩惱。
【English Translation】 English version The Vijnana (consciousness, discriminating consciousness) and the pravrtti-vijnanas (evolving consciousnesses) arise in mutual dependence at all times, reciprocally acting as cause and effect. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium of the Great Vehicle) states that the Ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness) and defiled dharmas (saṃklista-dharma, impure phenomena) are mutual causes and conditions, like a wick and flame that arise and burn in turn, or like a bundle of reeds that lean on each other for support. Only by relying on these two relationships can cause and condition be established, as other causes and conditions are unattainable. If the seeds (bīja, potentials) are not produced through熏習 (xunxi, perfuming or imprinting), how can the evolving consciousnesses have a causal relationship with the Ālaya-vijñāna? If they are not made to grow through熏習 (xunxi), how can they be called causes and conditions? Are good and bad karma and their resultant effects (vipāka-phala, maturation result) also considered causes and conditions? Moreover, many sacred teachings state that seeds are produced through熏習 (xunxi), which contradicts your view. Therefore, the view that they are inherently present (本有, benyou) is contradictory in both reason and doctrine. If only newly arising (始起, shiqi) conditioned (saṃskṛta, fabricated) unconditioned (anāsrava, without outflows) dharmas exist, they should not be able to arise due to the absence of causes and conditions. Conditioned (sāsrava, with outflows) dharmas should not be the seeds of unconditioned dharmas, lest unconditioned seeds produce conditioned dharmas. If this were allowed, Buddhas would be reborn into conditioned existence. Good deeds should become the seeds of bad deeds. The Vibhajyavādin (Distinctionists, a Buddhist school) may say, 'The nature of the mind (citta-prakṛti, mind's inherent nature) is originally pure, but it is called defiled because it is stained by adventitious afflictions (āgantuka-kleśa, adventitious defilements); when it is free from afflictions, it transforms into the unconditioned, so unconditioned dharmas are not produced without a cause.' However, what do they mean by the term 'nature of the mind'? If they mean emptiness (śūnyatā, voidness), emptiness is not the cause of the mind, and permanent dharmas (nitya-dharma, eternal phenomena) are not the seeds of all dharmas, because their nature does not change before and after. If they directly say it is the mind, then it should be like the Sāṃkhya (Sāṃkhya, a school of Indian philosophy), where the appearance changes but the nature remains the same. Bad and neutral minds (akuśalāvyākṛta-citta, unwholesome and indeterminate mind) should also be good. If this is allowed, they should be associated with faith and other factors. If this is not allowed, then it should not be the nature of a good mind, and it cannot even be called good, let alone unconditioned. Since conditioned good minds are called defiled, like bad minds, their nature is not unconditioned, so they should not be the cause of unconditioned dharmas. Otherwise, good and bad dharmas would become mutual causes. If the nature of the conditioned mind is unconditioned, then the nature of the unconditioned mind should be conditioned, because no differentiating cause can be found. Moreover, if the mind of an ordinary being (pṛthagjana, common person) is unconditioned, then unconditioned dharmas would be manifest in the state of an ordinary being (pṛthagjana-bhūmi, state of an ordinary being), and they should be called sages. If the nature of the mind of an ordinary being is unconditioned but its appearance is defiled, so it cannot be called unconditioned, then there is no such fault, and the seeds of the mind are also not unconditioned. Why does your theory say that only ordinary beings can attain unconditioned seeds? Because the nature of seeds and manifestations is the same. However, the sutras (sūtra, Buddhist scriptures) say that the nature of the mind is pure, referring to the Suchness (tathātā, thusness) revealed by the principle of the emptiness of the mind. Suchness is the true nature of the mind, or the mind-essence is not afflicted.
名性本凈。非有漏心性是無漏故名本凈。由此應信。有諸有情無始時來有無漏種不由熏習法爾成就。後勝進位熏令增長。無漏法起以此為因。無漏起時復熏成種。有漏法種類此應知。諸聖教中雖說內種定有熏習。而不定說一切種子皆熏故生。寧全撥無本有種子。然本有種亦由熏習令其增盛方能得果故說內種定有熏習。其聞熏習非唯有漏。聞正法時亦熏本有無漏種子令漸增盛展轉乃至生出世心故亦說此名聞熏習。聞熏習中有漏性者是修所斷。感勝異熟。為出世法勝增上緣。無漏性者非所斷攝與出世法正為因緣。此正因緣微隱難了。有寄粗顯勝增上緣方便說為出世心種。依障建立種姓別者意顯無漏種子有無。謂若全無無漏種者彼二障種永不可害即立彼為非涅槃法。若唯有二乘無漏種者彼所知障種永不可害。一分立為聲聞種姓一分立為獨覺種姓。若亦有佛無漏種者彼二障種俱可永害。即立彼為如來種姓。故由無漏種子有無障有可斷不可斷義。然無漏種微隱難知故約彼障顯性差別。不爾彼障有何別因而有可害不可害者。若謂法爾有此障別無漏法種寧不許然。若本全無無漏法種則諸聖道永不得生。誰當能害二障種子而說依障立種姓別。既彼聖道必無生義說當可生亦定非理。然諸聖教處處說有本有種子皆違彼義。故唯始起理教相違
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 名性和自性本質上是清凈的（名性本凈）。不是有漏的心性，因為是無漏的，所以稱為『本凈』（非有漏心性是無漏故名本凈）。由此應該相信，有些有情眾生從無始以來就具有無漏的種子，不是通過後天熏習而自然成就的（由此應信。有諸有情無始時來有無漏種不由熏習法爾成就）。在後來的殊勝精進階段，通過熏習使其增長（後勝進位熏令增長）。無漏法生起，以這個為因（無漏法起以此為因）。無漏法生起時，又反過來熏習成為種子（無漏起時復熏成種）。有漏法的種類也應該這樣理解（有漏法種類此應知）。
在各種聖教中，雖然說內在的種子一定有熏習，但不一定說一切種子都是通過熏習而生（諸聖教中雖說內種定有熏習。而不定說一切種子皆熏故生）。難道要完全否定本來就有的種子嗎（寧全撥無本有種子）。然而，本有的種子也需要通過熏習，使其更加旺盛才能得到結果，所以說內在的種子一定有熏習（然本有種亦由熏習令其增盛方能得果故說內種定有熏習）。
聽聞熏習不僅僅是有漏的（其聞熏習非唯有漏）。聽聞正法時，也會熏習本有的無漏種子，使其逐漸增長，輾轉乃至生起出世之心，所以也說這叫做聽聞熏習（聞正法時亦熏本有無漏種子令漸增盛展轉乃至生出世心故亦說此名聞熏習）。聽聞熏習中，有漏的性質是修所斷的，感得殊勝的異熟果報，是出世法的殊勝增上緣（聞熏習中有漏性者是修所斷。感勝異熟。為出世法勝增上緣）。無漏的性質不是所斷的範疇，與出世法是真正的因緣（無漏性者非所斷攝與出世法正為因緣）。
這個真正的因緣非常微細隱晦，難以理解（此正因緣微隱難了）。只能藉助粗顯的殊勝增上緣，方便地說它是出世之心的種子（有寄粗顯勝增上緣方便說為出世心種）。依據障礙來建立種姓差別，是爲了顯示無漏種子有或無（依障建立種姓別者意顯無漏種子有無）。如果完全沒有無漏種子，那麼二障的種子就永遠無法斷除，就將他們歸類為非涅槃法（謂若全無無漏種者彼二障種永不可害即立彼為非涅槃法）。如果只有二乘（聲聞和獨覺）的無漏種子，那麼所知障的種子就永遠無法斷除，一部分人被歸類為聲聞種姓，一部分人被歸類為獨覺種姓（若唯有二乘無漏種者彼所知障種永不可害。一分立為聲聞種姓一分立為獨覺種姓）。如果也有佛的無漏種子，那麼二障的種子都可以永遠斷除，就將他們歸類為如來種姓（若亦有佛無漏種者彼二障種俱可永害。即立彼為如來種姓）。
所以，由於無漏種子有或無，才有了障礙可以斷除或不可斷除的意義（故由無漏種子有無障有可斷不可斷義）。然而，無漏種子非常微細隱晦，難以知曉，所以才根據障礙來顯示性質的差別（然無漏種微隱難知故約彼障顯性差別）。否則，這些障礙有什麼不同的原因，而有可以斷除和不可斷除的區別呢（不爾彼障有何別因而有可害不可害者）。如果說這是法爾如此，那麼為什麼不承認無漏法種也是法爾如此呢（若謂法爾有此障別無漏法種寧不許然）。如果本來完全沒有無漏法種，那麼各種聖道就永遠無法產生（若本全無無漏法種則諸聖道永不得生）。誰能夠斷除二障的種子，而說依據障礙來建立種姓差別呢（誰當能害二障種子而說依障立種姓別）。既然那些聖道必定沒有產生的可能，那麼說它們將來可以產生也一定是不合道理的（既彼聖道必無生義說當可生亦定非理）。然而，各種聖教處處都說有本有的種子，這都與上述觀點相違背（然諸聖教處處說有本有種子皆違彼義）。所以，只有從一開始就生起才是符合道理和教義的（故唯始起理教相違）。
【English Translation】 English version 'Name' and 'nature' are inherently pure (Mingxing ben jing). It is not the nature of defiled consciousness, because it is undefiled, hence it is called 'inherently pure' (Fei youlou xinxing shi wu lou gu ming ben jing). Therefore, it should be believed that some sentient beings have had undefiled seeds from beginningless time, which are naturally accomplished without being cultivated (Youci ying xin. You zhu youqing wu shi shi lai you wu lou zhong bu you xunxi fa'er chengjiu). In the later stages of superior progress, they are cultivated to grow (Hou sheng jin wei xun ling zengzhang). The arising of undefiled dharmas takes this as the cause (Wu lou fa qi yi ci wei yin). When undefiled dharmas arise, they in turn cultivate and become seeds (Wu lou qi shi fu xun cheng zhong). The types of defiled dharmas should also be understood in this way (You lou fa zhonglei ci ying zhi). In various sacred teachings, although it is said that the inner seeds must have cultivation, it is not necessarily said that all seeds are born through cultivation (Zhu sheng jiao zhong sui shuo nei zhong ding you xunxi. Er bu ding shuo yiqie zhongzi jie xun gu sheng). Should we completely deny the seeds that are originally present (Ning quan bo wu ben you zhongzi). However, the original seeds also need to be cultivated to become more vigorous in order to obtain results, so it is said that the inner seeds must have cultivation (Ran ben you zhong yi you xunxi ling qi zengsheng fang neng de guo gu shuo nei zhong ding you xunxi). Hearing and cultivation are not only defiled (Qi wen xunxi fei wei you lou). When hearing the correct Dharma, it also cultivates the original undefiled seeds, causing them to gradually grow, transforming and even giving rise to the mind of transcending the world, so it is also said that this is called hearing and cultivation (Wen zhengfa shi yi xun ben you wu lou zhongzi ling jian zengsheng zhanzhuan nai zhi sheng chu shi xin gu yi shuo ci ming wen xunxi). In hearing and cultivation, the nature of defilement is what is severed by cultivation, resulting in the superior result of different maturation, and is the superior enhancing condition for the Dharma of transcending the world (Wen xunxi zhong you lou xing zhe shi xiu suo duan. Gan sheng yishu. Wei chu shi fa sheng zengshang yuan). The nature of undefilement is not within the category of what is severed, and is the true cause for the Dharma of transcending the world (Wu lou xing zhe fei suo duan she yu chu shi fa zheng wei yinyuan). This true cause is very subtle and obscure, difficult to understand (Ci zheng yinyuan wei yin nan liao). It can only be said that it is the seed of the mind of transcending the world by means of the coarse and obvious superior enhancing condition (You ji cu xian sheng zengshang yuan fangbian shuo wei chu shi xin zhong). Establishing the differences in lineage based on obstacles is to show whether there are undefiled seeds or not (Yi zhang jianli zhongxing bie zhe yi xian wu lou zhongzi you wu). If there are no undefiled seeds at all, then the seeds of the two obstacles will never be eliminated, and they will be classified as non-Nirvana dharmas (Wei ruo quan wu wu lou zhong zhe bi er zhang zhong yong bu ke hai ji li bi wei fei niepan fa). If there are only the undefiled seeds of the Two Vehicles (Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas), then the seeds of the obstacle of knowledge will never be eliminated, and some people are classified as Shravaka lineage, and some people are classified as Pratyekabuddha lineage (Ruo wei you er cheng wu lou zhong zhe bi suo zhi zhang zhong yong bu ke hai. Yi fen li wei shengwen zhongxing yi fen li wei dujue zhongxing). If there are also the undefiled seeds of the Buddha, then the seeds of the two obstacles can be eliminated forever, and they will be classified as Tathagata lineage (Ruo yi you fo wu lou zhong zhe bi er zhang zhong ju ke yong hai. Ji li bi wei rulai zhongxing). Therefore, due to the presence or absence of undefiled seeds, there is the meaning of whether obstacles can be eliminated or not (Gu you wu lou zhongzi you wu zhang you ke duan bu ke duan yi). However, undefiled seeds are very subtle and obscure, difficult to know, so the differences in nature are shown according to the obstacles (Ran wu lou zhong wei yin nan zhi gu yue bi zhang xian xing chabie). Otherwise, what different reasons do these obstacles have, and what are the differences between what can be eliminated and what cannot be eliminated (Bu er bi zhang you he bie yin er you ke hai bu ke hai zhe). If it is said that this is the way it is by nature, then why not admit that the undefiled Dharma seeds are also the way they are by nature (Ruo wei fa'er you ci zhang bie wu lou fa zhong ning bu xu ran). If there are no undefiled Dharma seeds at all, then various sacred paths will never arise (Ruo ben quan wu wu lou fa zhong ze zhu shengdao yong bu de sheng). Who can eliminate the seeds of the two obstacles and say that the differences in lineage are established according to the obstacles (Shui dang neng hai er zhang zhongzi er shuo yi zhang li zhongxing bie). Since those sacred paths are certainly impossible to arise, then saying that they can arise in the future is certainly unreasonable (Ji bi shengdao bi wu sheng yi shuo dang ke sheng yi ding fei li). However, various sacred teachings say everywhere that there are original seeds, which are all contrary to the above point of view (Ran zhu sheng jiao chuchu shuo you ben you zhongzi jie wei bi yi). Therefore, only arising from the beginning is in accordance with reason and doctrine (Gu wei shi qi li jiao xiangwei).
。由此應知。諸法種子各有本有始起二類。然種子義略有六種。一剎那滅。謂體才生無間必滅有勝功力方成種子。此遮常法常無轉變不可說有能生用故。二果俱有。謂與所生現行果法俱現和合方成種子。此遮前後及定相離現種異類互不相違。一身俱時有能生用。非如種子自類相生前後相違必不俱有。雖因與果有俱不俱。而現在時可有因用。未生已滅無自體故。依生現果立種子名不依引生自類名種。故但應說與果俱有。三恒隨轉。謂要長時一類相續至究竟位方成種子。此遮轉識。轉易間斷與種子法不相應故。此顯種子自類相生。四性決定。謂隨因力生善惡等功能決定方成種子。此遮餘部執異性因生異性果有因緣義。五待眾緣。謂此要待自眾緣合功能殊勝方成種子。此遮外道執自然因不待眾緣恒頓生果。或遮餘部緣恒非無。顯所待緣非恒有性。故種于果非恒頓生。六引自果。謂于別別色心等果各各引生方成種子。此遮外道執唯一因生一切果。或遮餘部執色心等互為因緣。唯本識中功能差別具斯六義成種非餘。外穀麥等識所變故。假立種名非實種子。此種勢力生近正果名曰生因引遠殘果令不頓絕即名引因內種必由熏習生長親能生果是因緣性。外種熏習或有或無。為增上緣辦所生果。必以內種為彼因緣。是共相種所生果故。依
【現代漢語翻譯】
由此應當知曉，諸法種子各有其本有和始起兩種類別。然而，種子的意義略有六種： 一、剎那滅（Kṣaṇika-nirodha）。 意思是說，種子體一生起，在極短的時間內必定消滅，只有具備殊勝的功用和力量才能成為種子。 這否定了常法，因為常法沒有轉變，不能說具有產生作用的能力。 二、果俱有（Sahabhāva）。 意思是說，種子與所產生的現行果法同時顯現、和合，才能成為種子。 這否定了前後關係以及確定性的分離。現行果法與種子是不同類別，彼此不互相違背。一個身體同時具有產生作用的能力。不像種子自類相生，前後相違背，必定不能同時存在。雖然因與果有同時存在和不同時存在的情況，但在現在的時間裡，因可以有作用。未生和已滅的因沒有自體。依據產生現行果法而建立種子的名稱，而不是依據引生自類而建立種子的名稱。所以只應該說與果同時存在。 三、恒隨轉（Anuvṛtti）。 意思是說，種子需要長時間地、一類相續地持續到究竟的階段，才能成為種子。 這否定了轉識，因為轉識容易轉變、間斷，與種子法不相應。這顯示了種子自類相生。 四、性決定（Niyatatva）。 意思是說，隨著因的力量，產生善或惡等功能是決定的，才能成為種子。 這否定了其他部派認為異性因產生異性果的因緣義。 五、待眾緣（Hetu-pratyaya-apekṣā）。 意思是說，種子需要等待自身的眾多因緣聚合，功能才會殊勝，才能成為種子。 這否定了外道認為自然因不需要等待眾緣，恒常且立即產生果，或者否定了其他部派認為緣是恒常存在的觀點。這顯示了所等待的緣不是恒常存在的。所以種子對於果的產生不是恒常且立即的。 六、引自果（Svaphala-ākarṣaṇa）。 意思是說，對於不同的色法、心法等果，各自引生，才能成為種子。 這否定了外道認為唯一的原因產生一切果，或者否定了其他部派認為色法、心法等互相為因緣。只有本識（Ālaya-vijñāna）中的功能差別，具備這六種意義，才能成為種子，而不是其他。外在的穀物、麥子等是識所變現的，只是假立種子的名稱，不是真實的種子。這種種子的勢力產生接近的、直接的果，叫做生因（Janaka-hetu）；引導遙遠的、剩餘的果，使之不立即斷絕，就叫做引因（Ākarṣaṇa-hetu）。內在的種子必定通過熏習而生長，親近地產生果，是因緣性。外在的種子熏習或者有或者沒有，作為增上緣（Adhipati-pratyaya）來完成所產生的果。必定以內在的種子作為它的因緣，因為是共同的相狀種子所產生的果。依據……
【English Translation】 From this, it should be known that the seeds of all dharmas each have two categories: inherent and newly arising. However, the meaning of 'seed' can be summarized into six types: 1. Momentary Cessation (Kṣaṇika-nirodha). This means that as soon as a seed arises, it inevitably ceases in an extremely short time. Only by possessing superior function and power can it become a seed. This negates permanent dharmas, because permanent dharmas do not change and cannot be said to have the ability to produce effects. 2. Co-existence with Result (Sahabhāva). This means that the seed must appear and combine simultaneously with the manifest result dharma it produces in order to be considered a seed. This negates the notions of before and after, as well as definite separation. Manifest result dharmas and seeds are of different categories and do not contradict each other. A single body simultaneously possesses the ability to produce effects. Unlike seeds that produce from their own kind, which are contradictory in terms of before and after, they cannot exist simultaneously. Although cause and effect may or may not exist simultaneously, in the present moment, the cause can have an effect. Causes that have not yet arisen or have already ceased do not have self-nature. The name 'seed' is established based on the production of manifest result dharmas, not based on the production of its own kind. Therefore, it should only be said to co-exist with the result. 3. Constant Succession (Anuvṛtti). This means that a seed needs to continue for a long time, in a continuous stream of the same type, until the ultimate stage, in order to be considered a seed. This negates the transforming consciousness (Vijñāna), because the transforming consciousness is easily transformed and interrupted, and does not correspond with the seed dharma. This shows that seeds produce from their own kind. 4. Determinacy of Nature (Niyatatva). This means that the production of functions such as good or evil is determined by the power of the cause in order to be considered a seed. This negates the causal relationship asserted by other schools, which claim that causes of different natures produce results of different natures. 5. Dependence on Multiple Conditions (Hetu-pratyaya-apekṣā). This means that a seed needs to wait for the aggregation of its own multiple conditions, so that its function becomes superior, in order to be considered a seed. This negates the externalist view that natural causes do not need to wait for multiple conditions and produce results constantly and immediately, or negates the view of other schools that conditions are constant. This shows that the conditions being waited for are not constant. Therefore, the production of results from seeds is not constant and immediate. 6. Attraction of Own Result (Svaphala-ākarṣaṇa). This means that each seed individually attracts and produces different results such as form (Rūpa) and mind (Citta) in order to be considered a seed. This negates the externalist view that a single cause produces all results, or negates the view of other schools that form and mind are mutually causal. Only the functional differences in the storehouse consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna), possessing these six meanings, can be considered seeds, and not others. External grains, wheat, etc., are transformations of consciousness and are merely given the name 'seed,' but are not real seeds. The power of these seeds produces the near and direct result, called the generating cause (Janaka-hetu); guiding the distant and remaining result, preventing it from being immediately cut off, is called the attracting cause (Ākarṣaṇa-hetu). Internal seeds must grow through habituation (Vāsanā), closely producing the result, which is the nature of cause and condition. External seeds may or may not have habituation, serving as the dominant condition (Adhipati-pratyaya) to accomplish the produced result. The internal seed must be the cause and condition for it, because it is the result produced by the common characteristic seed. Based on...
何等義立熏習名。所熏能熏各具四義令種生長。故名熏習。何等名為所熏四義。一堅住性。若法始終一類相續能持習氣。乃是所熏。此遮轉識及聲風等性不堅住故非所熏。二無記性。若法平等無所違逆。能容習氣乃是所熏。此遮善染勢力強盛無所容納故非所熏。由此如來第八凈識。唯帶舊種非新受熏。三可熏性。若法自在性非堅密能受習氣乃是所熏。此遮心所及無為法依他堅密故非所熏。四與能熏共和合性。若與能熏同時同處不即不離。乃是所熏。此遮他身剎那前後無和合義故非所熏。唯異熟識具此四義可是所熏。非心所等。何等名為能熏四義。一有生滅。若法非常能有作用生長習氣。乃是能熏。此遮無為前後不變無生長用故非能熏。二有勝用。若有生滅勢力增盛能引習氣。乃是能熏。此遮異熟心心所等勢力羸劣故非能熏。三有增減。若有勝用可增可減攝植習氣。乃是能熏。此遮佛果圓滿善法無增無減故非能熏。彼若能熏便非圓滿。前後佛果應有勝劣。四與所熏和合而轉。若與所熏同時同處不即不離。乃是能熏。此遮他身剎那前後無和合義故非能熏。唯七轉識及彼心所有勝勢用。而增減者具此四義可是能熏。如是能熏與所熏識俱生俱滅熏習義成。令所熏中種子生長如熏苣蕂故名熏習。能熏識等從種生時。即能為因復熏
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 什麼叫做『熏習』的意義成立？ 能夠被熏的和能夠熏的各自具備四種意義，使得種子生長，所以叫做『熏習』。
什麼叫做『所熏』的四種意義？ 第一是『堅住性』。如果一個法從始至終都是同一類，持續不斷，能夠保持習氣，才是『所熏』。這排除了轉識以及聲、風等，因為它們的性質不堅固，所以不是『所熏』。
第二是『無記性』。如果一個法是平等的，沒有違逆，能夠容納習氣，才是『所熏』。這排除了善和染，因為它們勢力強盛，無法容納，所以不是『所熏』。因此，如來的第八凈識（Alaya-識，阿賴耶識），只帶有舊的種子，不接受新的熏習。
第三是『可熏性』。如果一個法是自在的，性質不是堅密的，能夠接受習氣，才是『所熏』。這排除了心所法和無為法，因為它們依賴於其他，性質堅密，所以不是『所熏』。
第四是『與能熏共和合性』。如果與能夠熏的同時同處，不即不離，才是『所熏』。這排除了他身、剎那前後，因為沒有和合的意義，所以不是『所熏』。只有異熟識（Vipaka-識，異熟識）具備這四種意義，可以作為『所熏』，而不是心所等。
什麼叫做『能熏』的四種意義？ 第一是『有生滅』。如果一個法不是恒常的，能夠有作用，生長習氣，才是『能熏』。這排除了無為法，因為它們前後不變，沒有生長的作用，所以不是『能熏』。
第二是『有勝用』。如果具有生滅，勢力增強，能夠引導習氣，才是『能熏』。這排除了異熟識和心心所等，因為它們的勢力微弱，所以不是『能熏』。
第三是『有增減』。如果具有殊勝的作用，可以增加可以減少，攝取和種植習氣，才是『能熏』。這排除了佛果的圓滿善法，因為沒有增加也沒有減少，所以不是『能熏』。如果它能夠熏習，就不是圓滿的。前後的佛果應該有勝劣之分。
第四是『與所熏和合而轉』。如果與所熏的同時同處，不即不離，才是『能熏』。這排除了他身、剎那前後，因為沒有和合的意義，所以不是『能熏』。只有七轉識（the seven consciousnesses，七轉識）以及它們的心所具有殊勝的勢力作用，並且可以增加減少，具備這四種意義，可以作為『能熏』。像這樣，能熏和所熏的識同時生起同時滅去，熏習的意義成立。使得所熏中的種子生長，就像熏苣藤一樣，所以叫做『熏習』。能夠熏習的識等從種子生起的時候，就能作為原因再次熏習。
【English Translation】 English version: What is meant by the establishment of the meaning of 'conditioning' (熏習, xunxi)? Both the conditioned (所熏, suoxun) and the conditioning (能熏, nengxun) must each possess four meanings in order for seeds to grow, hence it is called 'conditioning'. What are the four meanings of 'that which is conditioned'? First is 'permanence' (堅住性, jianzhuxing). If a dharma (法, fa) is consistently of the same kind from beginning to end, continuously maintaining habitual energies, then it is 'that which is conditioned'. This excludes the transforming consciousnesses (轉識, zhuanshi) and sounds, winds, etc., because their nature is not permanent, hence they are not 'that which is conditioned'. Second is 'neutrality' (無記性, wujixing). If a dharma is impartial, without opposition, and can accommodate habitual energies, then it is 'that which is conditioned'. This excludes wholesome (善, shan) and unwholesome (染, ran) dharmas, because their power is strong and cannot accommodate, hence they are not 'that which is conditioned'. Therefore, the Tathagata's (如來, Rulai) eighth pure consciousness (Alaya-識, Alaya-consciousness), only carries old seeds and does not receive new conditioning. Third is 'conditionability' (可熏性, kexunxing). If a dharma is independent and its nature is not dense, and can receive habitual energies, then it is 'that which is conditioned'. This excludes mental factors (心所, xin suo) and unconditioned dharmas (無為法, wuwei fa), because they rely on others and their nature is dense, hence they are not 'that which is conditioned'. Fourth is 'co-occurrence with the conditioning' (與能熏共和合性, yu nengxun gong hehexing). If it is simultaneous and in the same place as the conditioning, neither identical nor separate, then it is 'that which is conditioned'. This excludes other bodies, moments before and after, because there is no meaning of co-occurrence, hence they are not 'that which is conditioned'. Only the resultant consciousness (Vipaka-識, Vipaka-consciousness) possesses these four meanings and can be 'that which is conditioned', and not mental factors, etc. What are the four meanings of 'that which conditions'? First is 'having arising and ceasing' (有生滅, you shengmie). If a dharma is not constant, can have an effect, and grow habitual energies, then it is 'that which conditions'. This excludes unconditioned dharmas, because they do not change before and after and have no function of growth, hence they are not 'that which conditions'. Second is 'having superior function' (有勝用, you shengyong). If it has arising and ceasing, and its power increases, and can lead habitual energies, then it is 'that which conditions'. This excludes the resultant consciousness and mental factors, etc., because their power is weak, hence they are not 'that which conditions'. Third is 'having increase and decrease' (有增減, you zengjian). If it has superior function, can increase and decrease, and gather and plant habitual energies, then it is 'that which conditions'. This excludes the perfect wholesome dharmas of the Buddha-fruit (佛果, Fuo guo), because there is no increase or decrease, hence they are not 'that which conditions'. If it could condition, then it would not be perfect. The Buddha-fruits before and after should have superiority and inferiority. Fourth is 'co-occurring and transforming with that which is conditioned' (與所熏和合而轉, yu suoxun he he er zhuan). If it is simultaneous and in the same place as that which is conditioned, neither identical nor separate, then it is 'that which conditions'. This excludes other bodies, moments before and after, because there is no meaning of co-occurrence, hence they are not 'that which conditions'. Only the seven consciousnesses (the seven consciousnesses, 七轉識) and their mental factors have superior power and function, and can increase and decrease, possessing these four meanings, and can be 'that which conditions'. In this way, the conditioning and the conditioned consciousnesses arise and cease simultaneously, and the meaning of conditioning is established. Causing the seeds in that which is conditioned to grow, like conditioning the苣蕂 (a type of vine), hence it is called 'conditioning'. When the conditioning consciousnesses, etc., arise from the seeds, they can act as a cause to condition again.
成種。三法展轉因果同時。如炷生焰焰生焦炷。亦如蘆束更互相依。因果俱時理不傾動。能熏生種種起現行如俱有因得士用果。種子前後自類相生如同類因引等流果。此二于果是因緣性。除此餘法皆非因緣。設名因緣應知假說是謂略說一切種相。此識行相所緣云何。謂不可知執受處了。了謂了別。即是行相。識以了別為行相故處謂處所。即器世間。是諸有情所依處故。執受有二。謂諸種子及有根身。諸種子者謂諸相名分別習氣。有根身者謂諸色根及根依處。此二皆是識所執受。攝為自體同安危故。執受及處俱是所緣。阿賴耶識因緣力故自體生時。內變為種及有根身。外變為器。即以所變為自所緣。行相仗之而得起故。此中了者謂異熟識于自所緣有了別用。此了別用見分所攝。然有漏識自體生時。皆似所緣能緣相現。彼相應法應知亦爾。似所緣相說名相分。似能緣相說名見分。若心心所無所緣相。應不能緣自所緣境。或應一一能緣一切。自境如餘餘如自故。若心心所無能緣相應不能緣。如虛空等。或虛空等亦是能緣。故心心所必有二相。如契經說。
一切唯有覺 所覺義皆無 能覺所覺分 各自然而轉
執有離識所緣境者。彼說外境是所緣。相分名行相。見分名事。是心心所自體相故。心與心所同所依
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 種子生起。三種法相互影響，因果同時存在。就像燈炷產生火焰，火焰又使燈炷燒焦一樣。也像蘆葦互相依靠支撐。因果同時存在，這個道理不會改變。能熏習產生種種現象，就像俱有因產生士用果一樣。種子前後相續，同類相生，如同類因引出等流果。這兩種情況對於結果來說是因緣的性質。除了這些，其他法都不是因緣。即使稱之為因緣，也應該知道那是假說。以上是簡略地說明一切種子的相狀。這個識的行相和所緣是什麼呢？是不可知的執受處和了別作用。『了』是指了別，也就是行相。識以了別作為行相。『處』是指處所，也就是器世間（the physical world），是各種有情眾生所依賴的地方。執受有兩種，即諸種子（all seeds）和有根身（the body with its sense organs）。諸種子是指諸相、名、分別的習氣。有根身是指諸色根（the sense organs）以及根所依賴的地方。這兩種都是識所執受的，被攝為自體，同安危共存亡。執受和處都是所緣。阿賴耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna）因為因緣的力量，自體產生時，內在變化為種子和有根身，外在變化為器世間。也就是以所變化之物作為自己的所緣，行相依靠它才能生起。這裡說的『了』，是指異熟識（Vipāka-vijñāna）對於自己的所緣有了別作用。這個了別作用屬於見分（the seeing aspect）。然而，有漏識（tainted consciousness）的自體產生時，都像是所緣和能緣的相狀顯現。與它相應的法也應該知道是這樣。像所緣的相狀，稱為相分（the objective aspect）。像能緣的相狀，稱為見分（the subjective aspect）。如果心和心所（mental functions）沒有所緣的相狀，就應該不能緣自己的所緣境，或者應該每一個都能緣一切，因為自己的境和其他的境一樣。如果心和心所沒有能緣的相狀，就應該不能緣，就像虛空等。或者虛空等也是能緣。所以心和心所必定有二相。就像契經（sutra）所說： 『一切唯有覺，所覺義皆無，能覺所覺分，各自然而轉。』 執著有離開識的所緣境的人，他們說外境是所緣，相分是行相，見分是事，因為這是心和心所的自體相。心和心所同所依。
【English Translation】 English version: The arising of seeds. The three dharmas (laws/phenomena) mutually influence each other, with cause and effect existing simultaneously. It's like a wick producing a flame, and the flame scorching the wick. It's also like reeds bundled together, relying on each other for support. Cause and effect exist at the same time, and this principle does not waver. The ability to perfuming generates various phenomena, just as the co-existent cause produces the 'effort-fruit'. Seeds arise successively from their own kind, just as the cause of the same type leads to the 'equal-flowing fruit'. These two are the nature of cause and condition for the result. Apart from these, other dharmas are not causes and conditions. Even if they are called causes and conditions, it should be understood that they are provisional designations. The above is a brief explanation of the characteristics of all seeds. What are the characteristics and objects of this consciousness? They are the unknowable 'grasping-place' and the 'discriminating' function. 'Discriminating' means distinguishing, which is the characteristic. Consciousness takes distinguishing as its characteristic. 'Place' refers to the location, which is the physical world (器世間), the place where all sentient beings rely. There are two types of 'grasping': all seeds (諸種子) and the body with its sense organs (有根身). All seeds refer to the habits of all forms, names, and discriminations. The body with its sense organs refers to the sense organs (諸色根) and the places where they rely. Both of these are grasped by consciousness, taken as its own self, sharing the same safety and danger. Grasping and place are both objects. Because of the power of the causes and conditions of the Ālaya-vijñāna (阿賴耶識), when its own self arises, it internally transforms into seeds and the body with its sense organs, and externally transforms into the physical world. That is, it takes what it transforms as its own object, and the characteristics rely on it to arise. The 'discriminating' mentioned here refers to the Vipāka-vijñāna (異熟識) having a discriminating function towards its own object. This discriminating function belongs to the seeing aspect (見分). However, when the self of tainted consciousness (有漏識) arises, it appears as both the object and the subject. The dharmas corresponding to it should also be understood in this way. The appearance like the object is called the objective aspect (相分). The appearance like the subject is called the seeing aspect (見分). If the mind and mental functions (心所) do not have the appearance of an object, they should not be able to cognize their own object, or each one should be able to cognize everything, because one's own object is the same as other objects. If the mind and mental functions do not have the appearance of a subject, they should not be able to cognize, like emptiness. Or emptiness is also a subject. Therefore, the mind and mental functions must have two aspects. As the sutra (契經) says: 『Everything is only awareness, the meaning of what is perceived is non-existent, the perceiving and perceived aspects, each naturally turns.』 Those who cling to the existence of objects apart from consciousness say that the external object is the object, the objective aspect is the characteristic, and the seeing aspect is the thing itself, because this is the self-nature of the mind and mental functions. The mind and mental functions share the same basis.
緣行相相似。事雖數等而相各異。識受想等相各別故。達無離識所緣境者。則說相分是所緣。見分名行相。相見所依自體名事。即自證分。此若無者應不自憶心心所法。如不曾更境必不能憶故。心與心所同所依根。所緣相似。行相各別。了別領納等作用各異故。事雖數等而相各異。識受等體有差別故。然心心所一一生時。以理推徴各有三分。所量能量量果別故。相見必有所依體故。如集量論伽他中說。
似境相所量 能取相自證 即能量及果 此三體無別
又心心所若細分別應有四分。三分如前。復有第四證自證分。此若無者誰證第三。心分既同應皆證故。又自證分應無有果。諸能量者必有果故。不應見分是第三果。見分或時非量攝故。由此見分不證第三。證自體者必現量故。此四分中前二是外後二是內。初唯所緣後三通二。謂第二分但緣第一。或量非量或現或比。第三能緣第二第四。證自證分唯緣第三。非第二者以無用故第三第四皆現量攝。故心心所四分合成。具所能緣無無窮過。非即非離唯識理成。是故契經伽他中說。
眾生心二性 內外一切分 所取能取纏 見種種差別
此頌意說。眾生心性二分合成。若內若外皆有所取能取纏縛。見有種種或量非量或現或比多分差別。此中
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：緣起之行相看似相似，但事物即使數量相等，其行相也各自不同。這是因為識、受、想等等的行相各自有差別。通達沒有離開識所緣之境的人，就說相分是所緣，見分名為行相，相分和見分所依賴的自體名為事，也就是自證分。如果這個自證分不存在，就不應該能夠回憶起心和心所法，就像不曾經歷過的境界必定不能回憶一樣。心和心所共同依賴於同一個根，所緣的境界相似，但行相各自不同，因爲了別、領納等作用各有差異。事物即使數量相等，其行相也各自不同，因為識、受等等的體性有差別。然而，心和心所每一次生起時，以理推究，各有三分：所量、能量、量果是不同的。相分和見分必定有所依賴的體性，就像《集量論》的偈頌中所說： 『似境相為所量，能取相為自證，即是能量及果，此三體性無別。』 進一步說，心和心所如果細緻分別，應該有四分。前三分如前所述，還有第四分，即證自證分。如果這個證自證分不存在，誰來證明第三分（自證分）呢？既然心分相同，就應該都能證明。而且，自證分應該沒有結果，因為所有的能量都有結果。不應該認為見分是第三分的結果，因為見分有時不屬於量。因此，見分不能證明第三分。證明自體的一定是現量。這四分中，前二分是外境，後二分是內在。第一分只是所緣，後三分既是所緣也是能緣。第二分只緣第一分，可以是量也可以不是量，可以是現量也可以是比量。第三分能緣第二分和第四分。證自證分只緣第三分，不緣第二分，因為沒有用處。第三分和第四分都屬於現量。所以，心和心所由四分合成，具備所緣和能緣，沒有無窮的過失，唯識的道理才能成立。因此，契經的偈頌中說： 『眾生心二性，內外一切分，所取能取纏，見種種差別。』 這首偈頌的意思是說，眾生的心性由二分合成，無論是內在還是外在，都被所取和能取所纏縛，所見有種種差別，可以是量也可以不是量，可以是現量也可以是比量，有多種差別。這裡面...
【English Translation】 English version: The appearances of conditioned arising (緣行相, yuan xing xiang) seem similar, but even if things are equal in number, their appearances are different. This is because the appearances of consciousness (識, shi), sensation (受, shou), conception (想, xiang), etc., are each different. Those who understand that there is no object of cognition apart from consciousness say that the object-aspect (相分, xiang fen) is the object of cognition, the subject-aspect (見分, jian fen) is called the appearance, and the self-nature on which the object-aspect and subject-aspect depend is called the thing, which is the self-awareness aspect (自證分, zi zheng fen). If this self-awareness aspect did not exist, one should not be able to recall the mind and mental functions (心心所法, xin xin suo fa), just as one certainly cannot recall a state that one has never experienced. The mind and mental functions rely on the same root, and the objects of cognition are similar, but the appearances are each different, because the functions of discernment, reception, etc., are each different. Even if things are equal in number, their appearances are each different, because the natures of consciousness, sensation, etc., are different. However, each time the mind and mental functions arise, upon rational investigation, each has three aspects: the object to be measured (所量, suo liang), the measuring consciousness (能量, neng liang), and the result of measurement (量果, liang guo) are different. The object-aspect and subject-aspect must have a self-nature on which they depend, just as it is said in the verses of the Compendium on Valid Cognition (集量論, Ji liang lun): 'The appearance resembling an object is the object to be measured; the appearance of the grasping consciousness is self-awareness; this is the measuring consciousness and the result; these three are not different in nature.' Furthermore, if the mind and mental functions are distinguished in detail, there should be four aspects. The first three aspects are as described above, and there is also a fourth aspect, which is the self-awareness of self-awareness (證自證分, zheng zi zheng fen). If this self-awareness of self-awareness did not exist, who would verify the third aspect (self-awareness aspect)? Since the mind-aspect is the same, it should be able to verify everything. Moreover, the self-awareness aspect should have no result, because all measuring consciousnesses have a result. One should not consider the subject-aspect to be the result of the third aspect, because the subject-aspect sometimes does not belong to valid cognition. Therefore, the subject-aspect cannot verify the third aspect. That which verifies the self-nature must be direct perception (現量, xian liang). Among these four aspects, the first two are external, and the last two are internal. The first aspect is only the object of cognition, and the last three aspects are both the object of cognition and the subject of cognition. The second aspect only cognizes the first aspect, and it can be valid cognition or not valid cognition, it can be direct perception or inference (比量, bi liang). The third aspect can cognize the second aspect and the fourth aspect. The self-awareness of self-awareness only cognizes the third aspect, and does not cognize the second aspect, because it is useless. The third aspect and the fourth aspect both belong to direct perception. Therefore, the mind and mental functions are composed of four aspects, possessing both the object of cognition and the subject of cognition, and there is no fault of infinite regress, and the principle of Consciousness-Only (唯識, Wei shi) is established. Therefore, it is said in the verses of the sutras: 'The minds of sentient beings are composed of two natures, all divisions are internal and external, entangled by the grasped and the grasper, seeing various differences.' The meaning of this verse is that the minds of sentient beings are composed of two aspects, whether internal or external, they are entangled by the grasped and the grasper, and what is seen has various differences, which can be valid cognition or not valid cognition, it can be direct perception or inference, and there are many differences. In this...
見者是見分故。如是四分或攝為三。第四攝入自證分故。或攝為二。後三俱是能緣性故皆見分攝。此言見者是能緣義。或攝為一體無別故如入楞伽伽他中說。
由自心執著 心似外境轉 彼所見非有 是故說唯心
如是處處說唯一心。此一心言亦攝心所。故識行相即是了別。了別即是識之見分。所言處者。謂異熟識由共相種成熟力故變似色等器世間相。即外大種及所造色。雖諸有情所變各別。而相相似處所無異。如眾燈明各遍似一。誰異熟識變為此相。有義一切。所以者何。如契經說。一切有情業增上力共所起故。有義若爾諸佛菩薩應實變為此雜穢土。諸異生等應實變為他方此界諸凈妙土。又諸聖者厭離有色生無色界必不下生變為此土復何所用。是故現居及當生者。彼異熟識變為此界。經依少分說一切言。諸業同者皆共變故。有義若爾器將壞時既無現居及當生者。誰異熟識變為此界。
又諸異生厭離有色生無色界現無色身。預變為土。此復何用。設有色身與異地器粗細懸隔不相依持。此變為彼亦何所益。然所變土本為色身依持受用故若於身可有持用便變為彼。由是設生他方自地。彼識亦得變為此土。故器世界將壞。初成。雖無有情而亦現有。此說一切共受用者。若別受用準此應知。鬼人天等所
見異故諸種子者謂異熟識所持一切有漏法種。此識性攝故是所緣。
無漏法種雖依附此識。而非此性攝故非所緣。雖非所緣而不相離。如真如性不違唯識。有根身者。謂異熟識不共相種成熟力故變似色根及根依處。即內大種及所造色。有共相種成熟力故。於他身處亦變似彼。不爾應無受用他義。此中有義亦變似根。辯中邊說似自他身五根現故。有義唯能變似依處。他根於己非所用故。似自他身五根現者。說自他識各自變義。故生他地或般涅槃。彼餘屍骸猶見相續。前來且說業力所變外器內身界地差別。若定等力所變器身。界地自他則不決定。所變身器多恒相續。變聲光等多分暫時。隨現緣力擊發起故。略說此識所變境者。謂有漏種十有色處及墮法處所現實色。何故此識不能變似心心所等為所緣耶。有漏識變略有二種。一隨因緣勢力故變。二隨分別勢力故變。初必有用後但為境。異熟識變但隨因緣。所變色等必有實用。若變心等便無實用。相分心等不能緣故。須彼實用別從此生。變無為等亦無實用。故異熟識不緣心等。至無漏位勝慧相應。雖無分別而澄凈故。設無實用亦現彼影。不爾諸佛應非遍知。故有漏位此異熟識但緣器身及有漏種。在欲色界具三所緣。無色界中緣有漏種。厭離色故無業果色。有定果色于理無
現代漢語譯本：" 『見異故諸種子者』，是指異熟識（Alaya-vijñana，又稱阿賴耶識，儲存一切業種子的根本識）所持的一切有漏法種（Karmic seeds，產生輪迴的業力種子）。因為這些種子是異熟識的自性所攝，所以是異熟識的所緣（object of cognition，認知對像）。"
無漏法種（seeds of non-outflow，解脫輪迴的種子）雖然依附於異熟識，但並非異熟識的自性所攝，所以不是異熟識的所緣。雖然不是所緣，但並不相分離，就像真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性）的性質不違背唯識（Vijñapti-matrata，萬法唯識）的道理一樣。"
『有根身者』，是指異熟識的不共相種（non-common seeds，個人獨特的業力種子）成熟的力量，變現出類似於色根（sense organs，感覺器官）以及根所依之處（sense bases，感覺器官的依處）。也就是內在的四大種（four great elements，地、水、火、風）以及所造色（derived matter，由四大種所生的物質）。"
由於有共相種（common seeds，眾生共同的業力種子）成熟的力量，在其他眾生的身處，也變現出類似於他們的根身。否則，就無法解釋受用他人的存在。這裡，有些人認為異熟識也能變現出類似於根身。在《辯中邊論》（Madhyantavibhaga-bhasya，一部重要的唯識論典）中說，能變現出類似於自己和他人的五根（five sense organs，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）的顯現。有些人認為異熟識只能變現出類似於根所依之處，因為他人的根身對自己來說並非所用。"
『似自他身五根現者』，說明自己和他人的識各自變現的意義。所以，當衆生生於他方世界或者般涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃）時，他們的屍骸仍然可以被看見並相續存在。"
前面所說的是業力所變現的外器世界（external world，眾生所居住的環境）和內身（internal body，眾生的身體）的界地差別。如果是禪定等力量所變現的器世界和身，那麼界地自他的分別則不一定。所變現的身和器世界大多是恒常相續的，而變現的聲音、光明等大多是暫時的，隨著顯現的因緣力量的衝擊而生起。"
簡略地說，異熟識所變現的境界，包括有漏的種子、十個有色處（ten sense objects，五根所對的五境，以及法處所攝的五根所依處）以及屬於法處（Dharmadhatu，法界）的所現實色（manifested matter，顯現的物質）。",
為什麼異熟識不能變現出類似於心心所（mental functions，心理作用）等作為所緣呢？有漏識（outflow-possessing consciousness，具有煩惱的意識）的變現略有兩種：一是隨因緣勢力而變現，二是隨分別勢力而變現。前者必定有用處，後者只是作為境界。異熟識的變現只是隨因緣，所變現的色等必定有實際用處。如果變現心等，便沒有實際用處，因為相分心等（image-aspect of mind，心的影像部分）不能作為所緣。必須有其他實際用處才能從此產生。變現無為法（unconditioned dharma，不生不滅的法）等也沒有實際用處。所以異熟識不緣心等。"
到了無漏位（state of non-outflow，沒有煩惱的狀態），與殊勝的智慧相應，雖然沒有分別，但因為澄凈，即使沒有實際用處，也能顯現出它們的影像。否則，諸佛（Buddhas，覺悟者）就不應該是遍知（omniscient，無所不知）的了。所以，在有漏位，異熟識只緣器世界、身以及有漏的種子。在欲界（Kamadhatu，眾生有慾望的界），異熟識具有三種所緣。在無色界（Arupadhatu，沒有物質的界），異熟識只緣有漏的種子，因為厭離色，所以沒有業果色（karmic result matter，業力產生的物質）。有定果色（meditative result matter，禪定產生的物質）在道理上是不存在的。"
"english_translations": [
"English version:",
"'Seeing the seeds differently' refers to all the seeds of defiled dharmas (phenomena) held by the Alaya-vijñana (storehouse consciousness, the fundamental consciousness that stores all karmic seeds). Because these seeds are included in the nature of this consciousness, they are its objects of cognition.",
"Although the seeds of undefiled dharmas (seeds of non-outflow, seeds of liberation) are attached to this consciousness, they are not included in its nature, so they are not its objects of cognition. Although they are not objects of cognition, they are not separate, just as the nature of Tathata (suchness, the true nature of things) does not contradict the principle of Vijñapti-matrata (consciousness-only, all phenomena are manifestations of consciousness).",
"'Having sense organs and body' refers to the power of the maturation of the non-common seeds (individual karmic seeds) of the Alaya-vijñana, which transforms into something similar to the sense organs (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch) and the places where the sense organs are based (sense bases). That is, the inner four great elements (earth, water, fire, wind) and the derived matter (matter derived from the four great elements).",
"Due to the power of the maturation of the common seeds (seeds of common karma), it also transforms into something similar to the sense organs and bodies of other beings. Otherwise, there would be no way to explain the experience of others. Here, some believe that the Alaya-vijñana can also transform into something similar to the sense organs and body. In the Madhyantavibhaga-bhasya (a key text in Yogacara), it is said that it can manifest the appearance of the five sense organs (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) of oneself and others. Some believe that the Alaya-vijñana can only transform into something similar to the places where the sense organs are based, because the sense organs of others are not used by oneself.",
"'The appearance of the five sense organs of oneself and others' explains the meaning of the transformation of the consciousness of oneself and others. Therefore, when beings are born in other worlds or attain Parinirvana (complete Nirvana), their corpses can still be seen and continue to exist.",
"What has been said above concerns the differences in realms and lands of the external world (the environment in which beings live) and the internal body (the body of beings) transformed by karmic power. If the world and body are transformed by the power of meditation, etc., then the distinction between self and other in realms and lands is not certain. The transformed body and world are mostly constant and continuous, while the transformed sounds, lights, etc., are mostly temporary, arising from the impact of the manifesting causal conditions.",
"In short, the objects transformed by the Alaya-vijñana include the defiled seeds, the ten sense objects (the five objects of the five senses, and the bases of the five senses included in the Dharmadhatu), and the manifested matter (manifested matter) belonging to the Dharmadhatu (realm of phenomena).",
"Why can't the Alaya-vijñana transform into something similar to mental functions (mind and mental factors) as objects of cognition? The transformation of defiled consciousness (consciousness with afflictions) is roughly of two types: one is transformation according to the power of causal conditions, and the other is transformation according to the power of discrimination. The former must have a use, while the latter is only an object. The transformation of the Alaya-vijñana is only according to causal conditions, and the transformed matter, etc., must have a practical use. If it transforms into mind, etc., it has no practical use, because the image-aspect of mind (the image part of the mind) cannot be an object of cognition. There must be other practical uses to arise from this. Transforming into unconditioned dharmas (unconditioned phenomena) also has no practical use. Therefore, the Alaya-vijñana does not cognize mind, etc.",
"In the state of non-outflow (state without afflictions), corresponding to supreme wisdom, although there is no discrimination, because it is clear, even if there is no practical use, it can manifest their images. Otherwise, the Buddhas (enlightened beings) would not be omniscient (all-knowing). Therefore, in the defiled state, the Alaya-vijñana only cognizes the world, the body, and the defiled seeds. In the Desire Realm (Kamadhatu, the realm where beings have desires), the Alaya-vijñana has three objects of cognition. In the Formless Realm (Arupadhatu, the realm without matter), the Alaya-vijñana only cognizes the defiled seeds, because it is disgusted with matter, so there is no karmic result matter (matter produced by karma). Meditative result matter (matter produced by meditation) does not exist in principle."
]
}
違。彼識亦緣此色為境。不可知者謂此行相極微細故難可了知。或此所緣內執受境亦微細故外器世間量難測故名不可知。云何是識取所緣境行相難知。如滅定中不離身識應信為有。然必應許滅定有識有情攝故如有心時。無想等位當知亦爾。
成唯識論卷第二
大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 成唯識論
## 成唯識論卷第三
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
此識與幾心所相應。常與觸作意受想思相應。阿賴耶識無始時來乃至未轉。於一切位恒與此五心所相應。以是遍行心所攝故。觸謂三和。分別變異。令心心所觸境為性。受想思等所依為業。謂根境識更相隨順故名三和。觸依彼生令彼和合。故說為彼。三和合位皆有順生心所功能說名變異。觸似彼起故名分別。根變異力引觸起時。勝彼識境。故集論等但說分別根之變異。和合一切心及心所。令同觸境是觸自性。既似順起心所功能。故以受等所依為業。起盡經說受想行蘊一切皆以觸為緣故。由斯故說識觸受等因二三四和合而生。瑜伽但說與受想思為所依者。思於行蘊為主勝故舉此攝餘。集論等說為受依者以觸生受近而勝故。謂觸所取可意等相與受所取順益等相。極相鄰近引發勝故。然觸自性是實非假。六六法中心所性故。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 違背。那個識也以這個色法為所緣境。『不可知』是指這個行相極其微細，難以瞭解。或者指這個識所緣的內在執受之境也極其微細，外在器世間的量難以測度，所以叫做『不可知』。什麼是識取所緣境的行相難以知曉呢？比如滅盡定中不離身體的識，應當相信它是存在的。然而必須承認滅盡定中有識，因為它屬於有情眾生，就像有心識的時候一樣。無想定等情況，應當知道也是如此。
《成唯識論》卷第二 大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 《成唯識論》
《成唯識論》卷第三
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘 奉 詔譯
這個識與幾種心所相應？它經常與觸(感官接觸)、作意(心理活動的開始)、受(感受)、想(表象)、思(意志)相應。阿賴耶識(第八識，儲存業種)從無始以來直到未轉變之前，在一切狀態下都恒常與這五種心所相應。因為它們屬於遍行心所。觸，是指根、境、識三者的和合，它能分別變異，使心和心所接觸到所緣境，這是它的自性。作為受、想、思等心所的所依，是它的作用。根、境、識互相隨順，所以叫做『三和』。觸依它們而生，使它們和合，所以說是『彼』。在三和合的狀態下，都具有順生心所的功能，這叫做『變異』。觸類似它們而生起，所以叫做『分別』。根的變異力引發觸生起時，勝過那個識的境界。《集論》等只說分別根的變異。和合一切心及心所，使它們一同接觸所緣境，這是觸的自性。因為它類似順生心所的功能，所以以受等心所的所依作為它的作用。《起盡經》說受、想、行蘊一切都以觸為緣。因此說識、觸、受等是由二、三、四種因素和合而生。瑜伽只說觸以受、想、思為所依，是因為思在行蘊中是主要的，所以舉出思來概括其餘的。《集論》等說觸是受的所依，是因為觸生受的距離近而且作用大。觸所取的適意等相，與受所取的順益等相，極其相鄰近，引發作用大。然而觸的自性是真實的，不是虛假的，因為它屬於六六法中的心所。
【English Translation】 English version: Violation. That consciousness also takes this form as its object. 'Unknowable' means that this aspect is extremely subtle and difficult to understand. Or it refers to the internal object grasped by this consciousness being extremely subtle, and the measure of the external world being difficult to fathom, hence it is called 'unknowable'. How is the aspect of consciousness grasping its object difficult to know? For example, the consciousness in cessation meditation that does not leave the body should be believed to exist. However, it must be admitted that there is consciousness in cessation meditation, because it belongs to sentient beings, just like when there is consciousness. Know that the same applies to states like non-perception.
Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only, Volume 2 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 31, No. 1585, Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only
Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only, Volume 3
Composed by Bodhisattvas such as Dharmapala
Translated by the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
With how many mental factors does this consciousness correspond? It constantly corresponds with contact (sparsha), attention (manaskara), feeling (vedana), perception (samjna), and volition (cetana). From beginningless time until it is transformed, the Alaya consciousness (the eighth consciousness, storing karmic seeds) constantly corresponds with these five mental factors in all states. Because they belong to the pervasive mental factors. Contact refers to the combination of the root, object, and consciousness; it differentiates and transforms, making the mind and mental factors come into contact with the object, which is its nature. Taking feeling, perception, volition, etc., as its basis is its function. The root, object, and consciousness mutually follow each other, so it is called 'threefold combination'. Contact arises dependent on them, causing them to combine, so it is said to be 'them'. In the state of threefold combination, all have the function of giving rise to mental factors, which is called 'transformation'. Contact arises similar to them, so it is called 'differentiation'. When the power of the root's transformation causes contact to arise, it surpasses the realm of that consciousness. The Abhidharmasamuccaya and others only speak of differentiating the transformation of the root. Combining all minds and mental factors, making them all contact the object, is the nature of contact. Because it is similar to the function of giving rise to mental factors, it takes the basis of feeling, etc., as its function. The Udayavyayasutra says that all of the aggregates of feeling, perception, and formation all take contact as their condition. Therefore, it is said that consciousness, contact, feeling, etc., arise from the combination of two, three, or four factors. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra only says that contact takes feeling, perception, and volition as its basis, because volition is the main one in the aggregate of formation, so it is used to encompass the others. The Abhidharmasamuccaya and others say that contact is the basis of feeling because contact gives rise to feeling closely and powerfully. The agreeable aspects taken by contact and the beneficial aspects taken by feeling are extremely close and powerfully induce each other. However, the nature of contact is real, not false, because it belongs to the mental factors in the six-six dharmas.
是食攝故。能為緣故。如受等性非即三和。作意謂能警心為性。于所緣境引心為業。謂此警覺應起心種引令趣境故名作意。雖此亦能引起心所。心是主故但說引心。有說令心回趣異境。或於一境持心令住故名作意。彼俱非理。應非遍行不異定故。受謂領納順違俱非境相為性。起愛為業。能起合離非二欲故。有作是說。受有二種。一境界受。謂領所緣。二自性受。謂領俱觸。唯自性受是受自相。以境界受共餘相故。彼說非理。受定不緣俱生觸故。若似觸生名領觸者。似因之果應皆受性。
又既受因應名因受。何名自性。若謂如王食諸國邑。受能領觸所生受體名自性受。理亦不然。違自所執不自證故。若不捨自性名自性受。應一切法皆是受自性。故彼所說但誘嬰兒。然境界受非共餘相。領順等相定屬己者名境界受。不共餘故。想謂于境取像為性。施設種種名言為業。謂要安立境分齊相方能隨起種種名言。思謂令心造作為性。于善品等役心為業。謂能取境正因等相。驅役自心令造善等。此五既是遍行所攝。故與藏識決定相應。其遍行相後當廣釋。此觸等五與異熟識行相雖異。而時依同所緣事等。故名相應。此識行相極不明瞭。不能分別違順境相。微細一類相續而轉。是故唯與捨受相應。又此相應受唯是異熟。隨先引業
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：因為有食物的攝取，所以能夠成為因緣。例如，受等等的自性並非直接就是三和合。作意（Manasikara）是指能夠警覺心識的性質，對於所緣的境界引導心識是它的作用。意思是說，這種警覺應該發起心識的種子，引導它趨向境界，所以叫做作意。雖然作意也能引起其他的心所，但因為心是主要的，所以只說引導心。有人說，作意是使心迴轉趨向不同的境界，或者使心安住于同一個境界，所以叫做作意。但這些說法都不合理，因為作意應該不是遍行心所，因為它和禪定沒有區別。受（Vedana）是指領納順境、逆境以及非順非逆的境界相狀的性質，產生愛是它的作用，能夠產生合或者離，而不是二種慾望。有人這樣說，受有兩種，一種是境界受，指領納所緣的境界；另一種是自性受，指領納與它同時生起的觸。只有自性受才是受的自相，因為境界受與其他相狀是共通的。但這種說法不合理，因為受一定不會緣與它同時生起的觸。如果類似觸所生的就叫做領觸，那麼類似原因的結果都應該是受的性質了。
而且既然是受的因，就應該叫做因受，為什麼叫做自性受呢？如果說，就像國王享用各個城邑一樣，受能夠領納觸所產生的受的自體，叫做自性受，這個道理也是不成立的，因為它違背了自己所堅持的，而且不能自我證明。如果不捨棄自性就叫做自性受，那麼一切法都應該是受的自性了。所以他們的說法只是用來誘導小孩子。
然而，境界受並非與其他相狀是共通的，領納順境等等的相狀，一定是屬於自己的，這叫做境界受，因為它不與其他的相狀共通。
想（Samjna）是指對於境界取像為性質，設施種種名言是它的作用。意思是說，一定要安立境界的界限和相狀，才能隨之產生種種名言。
思（Cetana）是指使心造作的性質，對於善品等等役使心是它的作用。意思是說，能夠取境的正因等等的相狀，驅使自己的心去造作善等等。這五種心所既然是遍行心所所包含的，所以與阿賴耶識（Alaya-vijnana）決定相應。遍行心所的相狀，後面會詳細解釋。這觸等等的五種心所，與異熟識（Vipaka-vijnana）的行相雖然不同，但時間、所依、所緣的事物等等是相同的，所以叫做相應。這個識的行相極其不明顯，不能分別順境和逆境的相狀，只是微細地、一類相續地運轉。所以只與捨受（Upeksa）相應。而且這種相應的受只是異熟受，隨著先前所引的業。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of the intake of food, it can become a condition. For example, the nature of feeling (Vedana) and so on is not directly the combination of the three factors. Attention (Manasikara) refers to the nature of being able to alert the mind, and guiding the mind towards the object of perception is its function. It means that this alertness should initiate the seed of consciousness, guiding it to move towards the object, hence it is called attention. Although attention can also cause other mental factors, because the mind is the main one, it is only said to guide the mind. Some say that attention is to turn the mind towards different objects, or to keep the mind dwelling on the same object, hence it is called attention. But these statements are not reasonable, because attention should not be a universal mental factor, as it is no different from Samadhi (meditative absorption). Feeling (Vedana) refers to the nature of experiencing pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral sensations, and its function is to generate love, being able to produce union or separation, rather than two kinds of desires. Some say that there are two kinds of feeling: one is object-feeling, which refers to experiencing the object of perception; the other is self-nature feeling, which refers to experiencing the contact that arises simultaneously with it. Only self-nature feeling is the self-nature of feeling, because object-feeling is common with other aspects. But this statement is not reasonable, because feeling will definitely not cognize the contact that arises simultaneously with it. If what is similar to what is produced by contact is called experiencing contact, then the results similar to the cause should all be the nature of feeling. Moreover, since it is the cause of feeling, it should be called cause-feeling, why is it called self-nature feeling? If it is said that, just as a king enjoys various cities, feeling can experience the feeling-entity produced by contact, which is called self-nature feeling, this reasoning is also not valid, because it contradicts what one insists on and cannot be self-proven. If not abandoning self-nature is called self-nature feeling, then all dharmas should be the self-nature of feeling. Therefore, their statement is only used to entice children. However, object-feeling is not common with other aspects; experiencing pleasant sensations, etc., must belong to oneself, which is called object-feeling, because it is not common with other aspects. Conception (Samjna) refers to the nature of taking images of objects, and establishing various names is its function. It means that it is necessary to establish the boundaries and characteristics of objects in order to generate various names accordingly. Volition (Cetana) refers to the nature of causing the mind to create, and directing the mind towards virtuous qualities, etc., is its function. It means that it can grasp the correct causes, etc., of objects, and drive one's own mind to create virtue, etc. Since these five mental factors are included in the universal mental factors, they are definitely associated with the Alaya-vijnana (store consciousness). The characteristics of the universal mental factors will be explained in detail later. Although these five mental factors, such as contact, etc., have different characteristics from the Vipaka-vijnana (resultant consciousness), their time, basis, object of perception, etc., are the same, so they are called associated. The characteristics of this consciousness are extremely unclear, unable to distinguish between pleasant and unpleasant aspects, and it continues to operate in a subtle and homogeneous manner. Therefore, it is only associated with neutral feeling (Upeksa). Moreover, this associated feeling is only the resultant feeling, following the karma previously induced.
轉不待現緣。住善惡業勢力轉故。唯是捨受。苦樂二受是異熟生。非真異熟待現緣故。非此相應。又由此識常無轉變。有情恒執為自內我。若與苦樂二受相應。便有轉變。寧執為我。故此但與捨受相應。若爾如何此識亦是惡業異熟。既許善業能招捨受此亦應然。捨受不違苦樂品故。如無記法善惡俱招。如何此識非別境等心所相應互相違故。謂欲希望所樂事轉。此識任運無所希望。勝解印持決定事轉。此識瞢昧無所印持。念唯明記曾習事轉。此識昧劣不能明記。定能令心專注一境。此識任運剎那別緣。慧唯簡擇德等事轉。此識微昧不能簡擇。故此不與別境相應。此識唯是異熟性故。善染污等亦不相應。惡作等四無記性者。有間斷故定非異熟。法有四種。謂善不善有覆無記無覆無記。阿賴耶識何法攝耶。此識唯是無覆無記異熟性故。異熟若是善染污者。流轉還滅應不得成。又此識是善染依故。若善染者互相違故。應不與二俱作所依。又此識是所熏性故。若善染者如極香臭應不受熏。無熏習故染凈因果俱不成立。故此唯是無覆無記。覆謂染法。障聖道故。又能蔽心令不凈故。此識非染。故名無覆。記謂善惡。有愛非愛果及殊勝自體可記別故。此非善惡。故名無記。
觸等亦如是者。謂如阿賴耶識唯是無覆無記性攝觸作
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 『轉不待現緣』（轉化不依賴於目前的因緣）。因為『住善惡業勢力轉』（安住于善惡業的勢力而轉變），所以阿賴耶識唯是『捨受』（不苦不樂的感受）。苦受和樂受是『異熟生』（由異熟果報所生），不是真正的異熟，需要依賴目前的因緣，所以不與阿賴耶識相應。又因為此識『常無轉變』（恒常不變異），有情眾生恒常執著它為自己的內在自我。如果與苦受和樂受相應，便會有轉變，怎麼能執著它為自我呢？所以此識只與捨受相應。
如果這樣，為什麼此識也是惡業的異熟果報呢？既然允許善業能夠招感捨受，那麼惡業也應該如此。因為捨受不違背苦樂的性質。就像無記法，善惡業都能招感。
為什麼此識不與『別境』（特定的對象）等心所相應呢？因為互相違背的緣故。『欲』（希望）是希望所喜愛的事物而轉，此識任運而轉，沒有什麼希望。『勝解』（殊勝的理解）是印持決定的事物而轉，此識昏昧，沒有什麼可以印持。『念』（憶念）只是明記曾經習慣的事物而轉，此識昧劣，不能明記。『定』（禪定）能夠讓心專注在一個境界，此識任運，剎那間緣不同的事物。『慧』（智慧）只是簡擇德行等事物而轉，此識微昧，不能簡擇。所以此識不與別境相應。此識只是異熟的性質，所以善、染污等也不相應。『惡作』（後悔）等四種無記性的心所，因為有間斷，所以一定不是異熟。法有四種，即善、不善、有覆無記、無覆無記。阿賴耶識屬於哪種法呢？此識唯是『無覆無記』（沒有覆蓋也沒有善惡記別的）異熟性質。如果異熟是善或染污的，流轉和還滅就不能成就。而且此識是善和染污的所依，如果是善或染污的，因為互相違背，就不應該與二者都作為所依。而且此識是能夠被熏習的性質，如果是善或染污的，就像極香或極臭的東西，就不應該接受熏習。沒有熏習的緣故，染污和清凈的因果都不能成立。所以此識唯是無覆無記。『覆』（覆蓋）是指染污法，因為它障礙聖道。而且能夠遮蔽心識，使之不清凈，此識不是染污的，所以稱為『無覆』（沒有覆蓋）。『記』（記別）是指善惡，有可愛和不可愛的果報以及殊勝的自體可以記別。此識不是善或惡的，所以稱為『無記』（沒有記別）。 『觸等亦如是者』（觸等也是這樣），是指像阿賴耶識一樣，唯是無覆無記性質所攝的觸、作意、受、想、思等心所。
【English Translation】 English version 'Transformation does not depend on present conditions.' Because it 'dwells in the power of good and evil karma and transforms.' Therefore, Ālaya Consciousness is only 'neutral feeling' (neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling). Pleasant and painful feelings are 'resultant-born' (born from the result of karma), not true resultant, because they depend on present conditions, so they are not associated with Ālaya Consciousness. Moreover, because this consciousness 'constantly does not change,' sentient beings constantly cling to it as their inner self. If it were associated with painful and pleasant feelings, it would change, how could they cling to it as self? Therefore, this consciousness is only associated with neutral feeling. If so, why is this consciousness also the resultant of evil karma? Since it is allowed that good karma can bring about neutral feeling, then evil karma should also be able to do so. Because neutral feeling does not contradict the nature of pain and pleasure. Just like non-specified dharmas, both good and evil karma can bring them about. Why is this consciousness not associated with 'specific object' (particular object) and other mental factors? Because they contradict each other. 'Desire' (wanting) is to turn towards things that are liked, this consciousness turns naturally, without any desire. 'Conviction' (superior understanding) is to seal and hold onto determined things, this consciousness is dim and unclear, without anything to seal and hold onto. 'Mindfulness' (recollection) only clearly remembers things that have been practiced before, this consciousness is dull and cannot clearly remember. 'Concentration' (meditation) can make the mind focus on one state, this consciousness turns naturally, momentarily connecting with different things. 'Wisdom' (discernment) only selects things like virtues, this consciousness is subtle and cannot select. Therefore, this consciousness is not associated with specific objects. This consciousness is only of the nature of resultant, so good, defiled, etc., are also not associated. The four non-specified mental factors such as 'regret' (remorse), because they are intermittent, are certainly not resultant. There are four kinds of dharmas, namely good, non-good, obscured non-specified, and unobscured non-specified. Which kind of dharma does Ālaya Consciousness belong to? This consciousness is only of the nature of 'unobscured non-specified' (neither obscured nor specified as good or evil) resultant. If the resultant were good or defiled, the cycle of rebirth and liberation could not be accomplished. Moreover, this consciousness is the basis for good and defilement, if it were good or defiled, because they contradict each other, it should not be the basis for both. Moreover, this consciousness is of the nature of being able to be influenced, if it were good or defiled, like extremely fragrant or foul-smelling things, it should not accept influence. Because there is no influence, the cause and effect of defilement and purity cannot be established. Therefore, this consciousness is only unobscured non-specified. 'Obscured' (covered) refers to defiled dharmas, because it obstructs the holy path. And it can obscure the mind, making it impure, this consciousness is not defiled, so it is called 'unobscured' (not covered). 'Specified' (marked) refers to good and evil, there are lovable and unlovable results and superior self-nature that can be specified. This consciousness is neither good nor evil, so it is called 'non-specified' (not marked). 『Contact, etc., are also like this』 refers to mental factors such as contact, attention, feeling, perception, and volition, which, like Ālaya Consciousness, are also included in the nature of unobscured non-specified.
意受想思亦爾。諸相應法必同性故。又觸等五如阿賴耶。亦是異熟所緣行相俱不可知。緣三種境五法相應。無覆無記。故說觸等亦如是言。有義觸等如阿賴耶。亦是異熟及一切種。廣說乃至無覆無記。亦如是言無簡別故。彼說非理。所以者何。觸等依識不自在故。如貪信等不能受熏。如何同識能持種子。又若觸等亦能受熏。應一有情有六種體。若爾果起從何種生。理不應言從六種起。未見多種生一芽故。若說果生唯從一種。則餘五種便為無用。亦不可說次第生果。熏習同時勢力等故。又不可說六果頓生。勿一有情一剎那頃六眼識等俱時生故。誰言觸等亦能受熏持諸種子。不爾如何觸等如識名一切種。謂觸等五有似種相名一切種。觸等與識所緣等故。無色觸等有所緣故。親所緣緣定應有故。此似種相不為因緣生現識等。如觸等上似眼根等非識所依。亦如似火無能燒用。彼救非理。觸等所緣似種等相後執受處方應與識而相例故。由此前說一切種言定目受熏能持種義。不爾本頌有重言失。
又彼所說亦如是言無簡別故。咸相例者定不成證。勿觸等五亦能了別觸等亦與觸等相應。由此故知。亦如是者隨所應說非謂一切。阿賴耶識為斷為常。非斷非常以恒轉故。恒謂此識無始時來一類相續常無間斷。是界趣生施設本故。性
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：
感受、思想、思維也是如此。因為所有相應的法都必然具有相同的性質。此外，觸等五法就像阿賴耶識（儲存一切種子和業力的根本識）一樣，也是異熟（果報）所緣的，其行相（運作方式）和俱（同時生起）都不可知。它們緣於三種境界，與五法相應，是無覆無記（非善非惡，不障礙解脫）的。因此說觸等也像阿賴耶識一樣。有一種觀點認為，觸等就像阿賴耶識一樣，也是異熟以及一切種（儲存一切種子），廣泛地說，乃至無覆無記。因為經文中沒有區分，所以也這樣說。但這種說法是不合理的。為什麼呢？因為觸等依賴於識，不具有自主性。就像貪、信等不能接受熏習一樣，如何能像識一樣持有種子呢？而且，如果觸等也能接受熏習，那麼一個有情（眾生）就會有六種體性。如果是這樣，果報生起時，是從哪一種體性產生的呢？從六種體性產生是不合理的，因為從未見過多種種子生出一顆芽。如果說果報的產生僅僅來自一種體性，那麼其餘五種體性就變得沒有用了。也不能說果報是依次產生的，因為熏習是同時進行的，力量也是相等的。而且，也不能說六種果報同時產生，否則一個有情在一個剎那間就會同時生起六種眼識等。誰說觸等也能接受熏習，持有各種種子呢？不是這樣的。那麼，為什麼說觸等像識一樣，被稱為一切種呢？這是說觸等五法具有類似於種子的相狀，所以被稱為一切種。觸等與識所緣的境界等同。無色的觸等也有所緣的境界，因為親所緣緣（直接的所緣）必定存在。這種類似於種子的相狀，不是產生現識等的因緣。就像觸等上面類似於眼根等，但不是識所依一樣，也像似火一樣，沒有燃燒的作用。那種辯解是不合理的。觸等所緣的類似於種子的相狀，在後來的執受處才應該與識相提並論。因此，前面所說的一切種，一定是針對接受熏習、能夠持有種子的意義。否則，本頌就會有重複的錯誤。
而且，那種認為『也像這樣說，沒有區分，所以都相互類比』的說法，一定不能成立。難道觸等五法也能了別，觸等也能與觸等相應嗎？因此可知，『也像這樣』是根據情況而說的，不是指所有情況。阿賴耶識是斷滅的還是常恒的呢？既不是斷滅的，也不是常恒的，因為它是恒常流轉的。恒常是指此識從無始以來，一類相續，常無間斷。它是界（眾生所處的空間）、趣（輪迴的去向）、生（生命的產生）施設的根本，是體性。
【English Translation】 English version: Feeling, perception, thought, and volition are also like that. Because all corresponding dharmas (elements of existence) necessarily have the same nature. Furthermore, the five, such as contact, are like the Ālaya-consciousness (storehouse consciousness), also being the object of Vipāka (karmic result), with their characteristics and co-arising being unknowable. They cognize three kinds of objects, correspond with the five dharmas, and are morally neutral and non-obstructive. Therefore, it is said that contact and the others are also like the Ālaya-consciousness. Some argue that contact and the others, like the Ālaya-consciousness, are also Vipāka and 'all seeds' (storing all seeds), broadly speaking, even morally neutral and non-obstructive. Because there is no distinction in the scriptures, it is said that way. But this view is unreasonable. Why? Because contact and the others rely on consciousness and do not have autonomy. Just as greed, faith, and the like cannot receive impressions, how can they hold seeds like consciousness? Moreover, if contact and the others could also receive impressions, then a sentient being would have six natures. If so, when a result arises, from which nature does it originate? It is unreasonable to say that it arises from six natures, because one has never seen multiple seeds produce one sprout. If it is said that the result arises only from one nature, then the other five natures become useless. Nor can it be said that the results arise sequentially, because the impressions occur simultaneously, and the forces are equal. Moreover, it cannot be said that six results arise simultaneously, lest a sentient being simultaneously generate six eye-consciousnesses, etc., in one instant. Who says that contact and the others can also receive impressions and hold various seeds? It is not so. Then, why is it said that contact and the others, like consciousness, are called 'all seeds'? It is said that the five, such as contact, have seed-like appearances, so they are called 'all seeds'. Contact and the others are equal to consciousness in terms of the objects they cognize. Colorless contact and the others also have objects to cognize, because the direct object condition (the immediate object) must exist. This seed-like appearance is not the cause for the arising of manifest consciousnesses, etc. Just as the appearance of eye-organs, etc., on contact and the others is not the basis of consciousness, it is also like the appearance of fire, without the function of burning. That defense is unreasonable. The seed-like appearance cognized by contact and the others should be compared with consciousness only in the later place of apprehension. Therefore, the 'all seeds' mentioned earlier definitely refer to the meaning of receiving impressions and being able to hold seeds. Otherwise, there would be a redundant error in the verse. Moreover, the statement that 'it is also said like this, without distinction, so they are all analogous' is certainly not a valid proof. Could it be that the five, such as contact, can also distinguish, and contact and the others can also correspond with contact and the others? Therefore, it can be known that 'also like this' is said according to the situation, not referring to all situations. Is the Ālaya-consciousness annihilated or permanent? It is neither annihilated nor permanent, because it is constantly transforming. 'Constant' means that this consciousness has been continuously flowing in a homogeneous stream from beginningless time, without interruption. It is the basis for the establishment of realms (the space where beings reside), destinies (the direction of reincarnation), and births (the arising of life), and it is its nature.
堅持種令不失故。轉謂此識無始時來念念生滅前後變異。因滅果生非常一故。可為轉識熏成種故。恒言遮斷轉表非常。猶如瀑流因果法爾。如瀑流水非斷非常相續長時有所漂溺。此識亦爾。從無始來生滅相續非常非斷。漂溺有情令不出離。又如瀑流雖風等擊起諸波浪而流不斷。此識亦爾。雖遇眾緣起眼識等而恒相續。又如瀑流漂水下上魚草等物隨流不捨此識亦爾。與內習氣外觸等法恒相隨轉。如是法喻意顯此識無始因果非斷常義。謂此識性無始時來剎那剎那果生因滅。果生故非斷。因滅故非常。非斷非常是緣起理。故說此識恒轉如流。過去未來既非實有。非常可爾。非斷如何。斷豈得成緣起正理。過去未來若是實有可許非斷如何非常。常亦不成緣起正理。豈斥他過己義便成。若不摧邪難以顯正。前因滅位後果即生。如秤兩頭低昂時等。如是因果相續如流。何假去來方成非斷。因現有位後果未生。因是誰因。果現有時前因已滅。果是誰果。既無因果誰離斷常。若有因時已有後果。果既本有。何待前因。因義既無果義寧有無因無果豈離斷常。因果義成依法作用。故所詰難非預我宗。體既本有用亦應然。所待因緣亦本有故。由斯汝義因果定無。應信大乘緣起正理。謂此正理深妙離言因果等言皆假施設。觀現在法有引後用。假
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：堅持種子生長的規律而不喪失。進一步解釋說，這個阿賴耶識（Ālayavijñāna，儲存一切種子識）從無始以來，念念生滅，前後變異，因為前因滅後，果報產生，所以既不是常，也不是斷。它可以被阿賴耶識所熏習，形成新的種子。總是說『遮斷』是爲了表明它不是常，就像瀑布一樣，因果關係自然而然。就像瀑布流水，雖然不是斷滅，也不是永恒不變，而是相續不斷，長久地漂流著。這個阿賴耶識也是這樣，從無始以來，生滅相續，既不是常，也不是斷，漂流著有情眾生，使他們無法解脫。又像瀑布，雖然被風等吹擊，激起各種波浪，但水流仍然不斷。這個阿賴耶識也是這樣，雖然遇到各種因緣，產生眼識等，但它仍然恒常相續。又像瀑布，漂流著水面上的魚、草等物，隨著水流不離不棄，這個阿賴耶識也是這樣，與內在的習氣、外在的觸等法，恒常相隨而轉。像這樣的比喻，意在顯示這個阿賴耶識的無始因果，既不是斷，也不是常的道理。也就是說，這個阿賴耶識的性質，從無始以來，剎那剎那，果生因滅。果生，所以不是斷；因滅，所以不是常。非斷非常，是緣起之理。所以說這個阿賴耶識恒常流轉，就像流水一樣。過去和未來既然不是真實存在的，說非常是可以的，但說非斷又如何解釋呢？斷滅怎麼能成立緣起的正理呢？如果過去和未來是真實存在的，可以說非斷，但又如何解釋非常呢？常也不能成立緣起的正理。
難道只是駁斥別人的過失，自己的道理就能成立嗎？如果不摧毀邪見，就難以顯現正見。前因滅去的位置，後來的果報立即產生，就像天平的兩頭，一頭低下去，另一頭就抬起來，是同時發生的。像這樣因果相續，就像流水一樣，何必假借過去和未來，才能成立非斷的道理呢？因存在的時候，果報還沒有產生，那麼這個因是誰的因呢？果報產生的時候，前面的因已經滅去了，那麼這個果是誰的果呢？既然沒有因果，又怎麼能離開斷和常呢？如果在有因的時候，就已經有了果報，那麼果報本來就存在，又何必等待前面的因呢？因的意義既然不存在，果的意義又怎麼能存在呢？沒有因，沒有果，又怎麼能離開斷和常呢？因果的意義成立，是依靠法的運作。所以你所詰難的，並不符合我宗的觀點。本體既然本來就有，作用也應該是這樣，所等待的因緣也應該是本來就有的。因此，按照你的道理，因果必定是不存在的。應該相信大乘的緣起正理。也就是說，這個正理深奧微妙，無法用語言表達，因果等言語，都是假借施設。觀察現在的法，有引導未來的作用，這只是假借的說法。
English version: Persisting in the law of seed growth without losing it. Further explaining that this Ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness, storing all seed consciousnesses) from beginningless time, arises and ceases in every moment, changes before and after, because when the previous cause ceases, the result arises, so it is neither permanent nor annihilated. It can be perfumed by the Ālayavijñāna, forming new seeds. Always saying '遮斷' (zhē duàn, to block and cut off) is to indicate that it is not permanent, just like a waterfall, the cause-and-effect relationship is natural. Just like a waterfall, although it is not annihilated, nor eternally unchanging, but continuously flowing, drifting for a long time. This Ālayavijñāna is also like this, from beginningless time, arising and ceasing continuously, neither permanent nor annihilated, drifting sentient beings, making them unable to be liberated. Also like a waterfall, although it is struck by wind and other things, stirring up various waves, the water flow still continues. This Ālayavijñāna is also like this, although encountering various conditions, producing eye consciousness and so on, it still constantly continues. Also like a waterfall, drifting fish, grass and other things on the water surface, following the water flow without leaving, this Ālayavijñāna is also like this, constantly following and transforming with internal habits, external touches and other dharmas. Such a metaphor is intended to show the beginningless cause and effect of this Ālayavijñāna, the principle of neither annihilation nor permanence. That is to say, the nature of this Ālayavijñāna, from beginningless time, in every moment, the result arises and the cause ceases. The result arises, so it is not annihilated; the cause ceases, so it is not permanent. Non-annihilation and non-permanence is the principle of dependent origination. Therefore, it is said that this Ālayavijñāna constantly flows, just like flowing water. Since the past and future are not truly existent, saying non-permanence is acceptable, but how to explain non-annihilation? How can annihilation establish the correct principle of dependent origination? If the past and future are truly existent, it can be said to be non-annihilation, but how to explain non-permanence? Permanence cannot establish the correct principle of dependent origination either. Is it that just by refuting the faults of others, one's own reasoning can be established? If one does not destroy wrong views, it is difficult to manifest right views. The position where the previous cause ceases, the subsequent result immediately arises, just like the two ends of a balance, one end goes down, and the other end goes up, it happens simultaneously. Like this, cause and effect continue, just like flowing water, why borrow the past and future to establish the principle of non-annihilation? When the cause exists, the result has not yet arisen, then whose cause is this cause? When the result arises, the previous cause has already ceased, then whose result is this result? Since there is no cause and effect, how can one leave annihilation and permanence? If when there is a cause, there is already a result, then the result originally exists, why wait for the previous cause? Since the meaning of the cause does not exist, how can the meaning of the result exist? Without cause, without result, how can one leave annihilation and permanence? The meaning of cause and effect is established, relying on the operation of the Dharma. Therefore, what you are questioning does not conform to the views of my school. Since the substance is originally there, the function should also be like this, the conditions that are waited for should also be originally there. Therefore, according to your reasoning, cause and effect must not exist. One should believe in the correct principle of dependent origination of Mahayana. That is to say, this correct principle is profound and subtle, cannot be expressed in words, words such as cause and effect are all borrowed and established. Observing the present Dharma, there is a function of guiding the future, this is just a borrowed statement.
【English Translation】 English version: Persisting in the law of seed growth without losing it. Further explaining that this Ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness, storing all seed consciousnesses) from beginningless time, arises and ceases in every moment, changes before and after, because when the previous cause ceases, the result arises, so it is neither permanent nor annihilated. It can be perfumed by the Ālayavijñāna, forming new seeds. Always saying '遮斷' (zhē duàn, to block and cut off) is to indicate that it is not permanent, just like a waterfall, the cause-and-effect relationship is natural. Just like a waterfall, although it is not annihilated, nor eternally unchanging, but continuously flowing, drifting for a long time. This Ālayavijñāna is also like this, from beginningless time, arising and ceasing continuously, neither permanent nor annihilated, drifting sentient beings, making them unable to be liberated. Also like a waterfall, although it is struck by wind and other things, stirring up various waves, the water flow still continues. This Ālayavijñāna is also like this, although encountering various conditions, producing eye consciousness and so on, it still constantly continues. Also like a waterfall, drifting fish, grass and other things on the water surface, following the water flow without leaving, this Ālayavijñāna is also like this, constantly following and transforming with internal habits, external touches and other dharmas. Such a metaphor is intended to show the beginningless cause and effect of this Ālayavijñāna, the principle of neither annihilation nor permanence. That is to say, the nature of this Ālayavijñāna, from beginningless time, in every moment, the result arises and the cause ceases. The result arises, so it is not annihilated; the cause ceases, so it is not permanent. Non-annihilation and non-permanence is the principle of dependent origination. Therefore, it is said that this Ālayavijñāna constantly flows, just like flowing water. Since the past and future are not truly existent, saying non-permanence is acceptable, but how to explain non-annihilation? How can annihilation establish the correct principle of dependent origination? If the past and future are truly existent, it can be said to be non-annihilation, but how to explain non-permanence? Permanence cannot establish the correct principle of dependent origination either. Is it that just by refuting the faults of others, one's own reasoning can be established? If one does not destroy wrong views, it is difficult to manifest right views. The position where the previous cause ceases, the subsequent result immediately arises, just like the two ends of a balance, one end goes down, and the other end goes up, it happens simultaneously. Like this, cause and effect continue, just like flowing water, why borrow the past and future to establish the principle of non-annihilation? When the cause exists, the result has not yet arisen, then whose cause is this cause? When the result arises, the previous cause has already ceased, then whose result is this result? Since there is no cause and effect, how can one leave annihilation and permanence? If when there is a cause, there is already a result, then the result originally exists, why wait for the previous cause? Since the meaning of the cause does not exist, how can the meaning of the result exist? Without cause, without result, how can one leave annihilation and permanence? The meaning of cause and effect is established, relying on the operation of the Dharma. Therefore, what you are questioning does not conform to the views of my school. Since the substance is originally there, the function should also be like this, the conditions that are waited for should also be originally there. Therefore, according to your reasoning, cause and effect must not exist. One should believe in the correct principle of dependent origination of Mahayana. That is to say, this correct principle is profound and subtle, cannot be expressed in words, words such as cause and effect are all borrowed and established. Observing the present Dharma, there is a function of guiding the future, this is just a borrowed statement.
立當果對說現因。觀現在法有酬前相。假立曾因對說現果。假謂現識似彼相現。如是因果理趣顯然。遠離二邊契會中道。諸有智者應順修學。有餘部說雖無去來而有因果恒相續義。謂現在法極迅速者猶有初後生滅二時。生時酬因滅時引果。時雖有二而體是一。前因正滅後果正生。體相雖殊而俱是有。如是因果非假施設。然離斷常。又無前難誰有智者捨此信餘。彼有虛言都無實義。何容一念而有二時。生滅相違寧同現在。滅若現在生應未來。有故名生既是現在。無故名滅寧非過去。滅若非無生應非有。生既現有滅應現無。又二相違如何體一。非苦樂等見有是事生滅若一時應無二。生滅若異寧說體同。故生滅時俱現在有同依一體理必不成。經部師等因果相續理亦不成。彼不許有阿賴耶識能持種故。由此應信大乘所說因果相續緣起正理。
此識無始恒轉如流乃至何位當究竟捨。阿羅漢位方究竟捨。謂諸聖者斷煩惱障究竟盡時名阿羅漢。爾時此識煩惱粗重永遠離故說之為捨。此中所說阿羅漢者通攝三乘無學果位。皆已永害煩惱賊故。應受世間妙供養故。永不復受分段生故。云何知然。抉擇分說諸阿羅漢獨覺如來皆不成就阿賴耶故。集論復說若諸菩薩得菩提時頓斷煩惱及所知障成阿羅漢及如來故。若爾菩薩煩惱種子未永斷
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 立當果（建立果）是爲了說明現在的因。觀察現在的法，有酬報過去因的現象。假設建立曾經的因，是爲了說明現在的果。假設說現在的識，類似於過去的相顯現。像這樣的因果道理，理趣顯然。遠離斷常二邊，契合中道。有智慧的人應該依此修學。
有些部派說，即使沒有過去和未來，也有因果恒常相續的道理。他們認為現在的法，即使速度極快，仍然有最初和最後的生滅兩個時間。生的時候酬報因，滅的時候引生果。時間雖然有兩個，但本體是一個。前因正在滅，後果正在生。體相雖然不同，但都是存在的。像這樣的因果，不是假設施設的，而是遠離斷滅和常有的。又沒有前面的過失，誰有智慧會捨棄這個而相信其他的呢？
他們的說法是虛假的，完全沒有實際意義。怎麼可能一個念頭有兩個時間呢？生滅相互違背，怎麼能同時存在於現在呢？滅如果是現在，生就應該是未來。因為存在，所以叫做生，既然是現在，因為不存在，所以叫做滅，難道不是過去嗎？滅如果不是沒有，生就應該不是有。生既然是現在有，滅就應該是現在沒有。而且兩種相互違背的相，怎麼能是一個本體呢？
不是苦樂等，見到有這樣的事情，生滅如果一時，應該沒有兩種。生滅如果不同，怎麼能說本體相同呢？所以生滅的時間都在現在，共同依靠一個本體的道理必定不能成立。
經部師等認為因果相續的道理也不能成立。他們不承認有阿賴耶識（Alaya-vijñana，藏識，第八識）能夠執持種子。因此，應該相信大乘所說的因果相續緣起正理。
這個識（阿賴耶識）無始以來恒常流轉，乃至什麼地位才能究竟捨棄呢？阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱，證入無餘涅槃的聖者）的地位才能究竟捨棄。也就是說，諸位聖者斷除煩惱障（Klesha-avarana，由煩惱引起的障礙）究竟斷盡的時候，叫做阿羅漢。那時，這個識的煩惱粗重永遠離開，所以說之為捨棄。這裡所說的阿羅漢，通攝聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘的無學果位。他們都已經永遠殺害了煩惱賊，應該接受世間的妙好供養，永遠不再受分段生死。
怎麼知道是這樣的呢？《抉擇分》中說，諸位阿羅漢、獨覺、如來都不成就阿賴耶識。集論中又說，如果諸位菩薩得到菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）的時候，頓斷煩惱障和所知障（Jnana-avarana，由對真理的無知引起的障礙），成就阿羅漢和如來。如果這樣，菩薩的煩惱種子沒有永遠斷除嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: 'Establishing a future result' (立當果) is to explain the present cause. Observing present dharmas, there is a phenomenon of repaying past causes. Hypothetically establishing a past cause is to explain the present result. Hypothetically saying that the present consciousness (識, vijñana) appears similar to past phenomena. Such a principle of cause and effect is clearly reasonable. It is far from the two extremes of permanence and annihilation, and it accords with the Middle Way. Those with wisdom should follow and study this. Some schools say that even without past and future, there is a principle of cause and effect constantly continuing. They believe that even the fastest present dharma still has two moments of arising and ceasing, beginning and end. The arising moment repays the cause, and the ceasing moment brings about the result. Although there are two moments, the substance is one. The previous cause is ceasing, and the subsequent result is arising. Although the substance and appearance are different, both exist. Such cause and effect are not hypothetical establishments, but are far from annihilation and permanence. Moreover, there is no previous fault. Who with wisdom would abandon this and believe in others? Their statements are false and have no real meaning. How can one thought have two moments? Arising and ceasing contradict each other, how can they exist simultaneously in the present? If ceasing is present, arising should be future. Because it exists, it is called arising, since it is present. Because it does not exist, it is called ceasing, isn't it past? If ceasing is not non-existent, arising should not be existent. Since arising is presently existent, ceasing should be presently non-existent. Moreover, how can two contradictory aspects be one substance? It is not like pleasure and pain, seeing that there is such a thing. If arising and ceasing are at the same time, there should not be two. If arising and ceasing are different, how can it be said that the substance is the same? Therefore, the times of arising and ceasing are both in the present, and the principle of relying on one substance together must not be established. The Sautrantika school (經部師) and others believe that the principle of cause and effect continuing cannot be established either. They do not admit that there is an Alaya-vijñana (阿賴耶識, storehouse consciousness, the eighth consciousness) that can hold seeds. Therefore, one should believe in the correct principle of dependent origination of cause and effect continuing as taught by the Mahayana. This consciousness (Alaya-vijñana) has been constantly flowing since beginningless time. Until what stage can it be completely abandoned? It can be completely abandoned at the stage of Arhat (阿羅漢, one who has extinguished all defilements and entered nirvana without remainder). That is to say, when the noble ones completely cut off the Klesha-avarana (煩惱障, afflictive obscurations) it is called Arhat. At that time, the coarse burden of afflictions of this consciousness is forever gone, so it is said to be abandoned. The Arhat mentioned here includes the non-learning stages of the Sravaka, Pratyekabuddha, and Bodhisattva vehicles. They have all permanently killed the thieves of afflictions, should receive the wonderful offerings of the world, and will never again receive segmented births and deaths. How do we know this is so? The Vyavasthana section says that all Arhats, Pratyekabuddhas, and Tathagatas do not accomplish the Alaya-vijñana. The Abhidharmasamuccaya also says that if the Bodhisattvas attain Bodhi (菩提, enlightenment), they suddenly cut off the Klesha-avarana and Jnana-avarana (所知障, cognitive obscurations), and accomplish Arhatship and Buddhahood. If so, are the seeds of the Bodhisattva's afflictions not permanently cut off?
盡非阿羅漢應皆成就阿賴耶識。何故即彼抉擇分說不退菩薩亦不成就阿賴耶識。彼說二乘無學果位迴心趣向大菩提者。必不退起煩惱障故。趣菩提故。即復轉名不退菩薩。彼不成就阿賴耶識。即攝在此阿羅漢中。故彼論文不違此義。又不動地已上菩薩。一切煩惱永不行故。法駛流中任運轉故。能諸行中起諸行故。剎那剎那轉增進故。此位方名不退菩薩。然此菩薩雖未斷盡異熟識中煩惱種子。而緣此識我見愛等不復執藏為自內我。由斯永捨阿賴耶名。故說不成阿賴耶識。此亦說彼名阿羅漢。有義初地已上菩薩。已證二空所顯理故。已得二種殊勝智故。已斷分別二重障故。能一行中起諸行故。雖為利益起諸煩惱。而彼不作煩惱過失。故此亦名不退菩薩。然此菩薩雖未斷盡俱生煩惱。而緣此識所有分別我見愛等不復執藏為自內我。由斯亦捨阿賴耶名。故說不成阿賴耶識。此亦說彼名阿羅漢。故集論中作如是說。十地菩薩雖未永斷一切煩惱。然此煩惱猶如咒藥所伏諸毒。不起一切煩惱過失。一切地中如阿羅漢已斷煩惱。故亦說彼名阿羅漢。彼說非理。七地已前猶有俱生我見愛等。執藏此識為自內我。如何已捨阿賴耶名。若彼分別我見愛等不復執藏說名為捨。則預流等諸有學位。亦應已捨阿賴耶名。許便違害諸論所說。地上菩薩
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 如果不是阿羅漢（Arhat，已證得無學果位的聖者），都應該成就阿賴耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna，第八識，又稱藏識）。為什麼《瑜伽師地論·抉擇分》中說不退轉菩薩（Avaivartika-bodhisattva，不會退轉的菩薩）也不成就阿賴耶識呢？
《抉擇分》中說，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的無學果位行者，如果回心轉意趣向大菩提（Mahābodhi，偉大的覺悟），必定不會再退轉生起煩惱障（Kleśa-āvaraṇa，由煩惱產生的障礙），因為他們已經趣向菩提。因此，他們又被稱作不退轉菩薩。這些不成就阿賴耶識的菩薩，實際上也包含在阿羅漢之中。所以，《抉擇分》的論述並不違背這個道理。
此外，八地（不動地）以上的菩薩，一切煩惱都永遠不會現行，能在法性之流中自由運轉，能在一切行（Karma，行為）中生起各種行，並且剎那剎那地增長進步。只有這個階段才能稱為不退轉菩薩。然而，這些菩薩雖然還沒有完全斷盡異熟識（Vipāka-vijñāna，果報識）中的煩惱種子，但他們不再將此識執藏為自己的內在自我，不再對此識生起我見（ātma-dṛṣṭi，認為有我的邪見）和愛（rāga，貪愛）等。因此，他們永遠捨棄了阿賴耶識的名稱，所以說他們不成就阿賴耶識。這也相當於說他們是阿羅漢。 有一種觀點認為，初地（歡喜地）以上的菩薩，已經證悟了二空（dvisūnyatā，人空和法空）所顯現的真理，已經獲得了兩種殊勝的智慧，已經斷除了分別二重障（分別煩惱障和分別所知障），能在一個行中生起各種行。雖然爲了利益眾生而生起各種煩惱，但這些煩惱不會造成過失。因此，這些菩薩也可以稱為不退轉菩薩。然而，這些菩薩雖然還沒有完全斷盡俱生煩惱（sahaja-kleśa，與生俱來的煩惱），但他們不再將此識執藏為自己的內在自我，不再對此識生起分別我見和愛等。因此，他們也捨棄了阿賴耶識的名稱，所以說他們不成就阿賴耶識。這也相當於說他們是阿羅漢。因此，《集論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya）中這樣說：十地菩薩雖然還沒有永遠斷除一切煩惱，但這些煩惱就像被咒語和藥物制伏的毒藥一樣，不會產生任何煩惱的過失。在一切地中，他們都像阿羅漢一樣已經斷除了煩惱，所以也可以說他們是阿羅漢。 上述觀點是不合理的。因為七地（遠行地）以前的菩薩，仍然有俱生我見和愛等，執藏此識為自己的內在自我。怎麼能說他們已經捨棄了阿賴耶識的名稱呢？如果說不再執藏分別我見和愛等就叫做捨棄，那麼預流果（Srotaāpanna，入流果）等有學位（Śaikṣa，還在修學的聖者）也應該已經捨棄了阿賴耶識的名稱。如果承認這一點，就違背了各種論典的說法。地上菩薩（Bhūmi-bodhisattva，證得菩薩地的菩薩）...
【English Translation】 English version: If not Arhats (those who have attained the state of no more learning), all should accomplish the Ālaya-vijñāna (store consciousness). Why does the 'Discrimination Section' of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra say that Avaivartika-bodhisattvas (non-retrogressing bodhisattvas) also do not accomplish the Ālaya-vijñāna? The 'Discrimination Section' says that those of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) who have attained the fruit of no more learning, if they turn their minds towards Mahābodhi (great enlightenment), will certainly not regress and give rise to Kleśa-āvaraṇa (afflictive obstructions), because they have turned towards Bodhi. Therefore, they are also called non-retrogressing bodhisattvas. Those bodhisattvas who do not accomplish the Ālaya-vijñāna are actually included among the Arhats. Therefore, the statement in the 'Discrimination Section' does not contradict this principle. Furthermore, bodhisattvas above the eighth ground (Acala-bhūmi), all afflictions never manifest, they can freely operate in the stream of Dharma, they can generate various actions within all actions (Karma), and they progress moment by moment. Only this stage can be called a non-retrogressing bodhisattva. However, although these bodhisattvas have not completely eradicated the seeds of affliction in the Vipāka-vijñāna (resultant consciousness), they no longer cling to this consciousness as their inner self, and they no longer generate ātma-dṛṣṭi (self-view) and rāga (attachment) towards this consciousness. Therefore, they permanently abandon the name of Ālaya-vijñāna, so it is said that they do not accomplish the Ālaya-vijñāna. This is also equivalent to saying that they are Arhats. There is a view that bodhisattvas above the first ground (Pramudita-bhūmi) have already realized the truth revealed by dvisūnyatā (two emptinesses: emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena), have already obtained two kinds of excellent wisdom, have already severed the dual obstructions of discrimination (discriminative afflictive obstructions and discriminative cognitive obstructions), and can generate various actions within one action. Although they generate various afflictions for the benefit of sentient beings, these afflictions do not cause faults. Therefore, these bodhisattvas can also be called non-retrogressing bodhisattvas. However, although these bodhisattvas have not completely eradicated innate afflictions (sahaja-kleśa), they no longer cling to this consciousness as their inner self, and they no longer generate discriminative self-view and attachment towards this consciousness. Therefore, they also abandon the name of Ālaya-vijñāna, so it is said that they do not accomplish the Ālaya-vijñāna. This is also equivalent to saying that they are Arhats. Therefore, the Abhidharma-samuccaya says: Although bodhisattvas of the ten grounds have not permanently eradicated all afflictions, these afflictions are like poisons subdued by mantras and medicine, and do not cause any faults of affliction. In all grounds, they are like Arhats who have already eradicated afflictions, so it can also be said that they are Arhats. The above view is unreasonable. Because bodhisattvas before the seventh ground (Dūraṅgama-bhūmi) still have innate self-view and attachment, clinging to this consciousness as their inner self. How can it be said that they have abandoned the name of Ālaya-vijñāna? If it is said that no longer clinging to discriminative self-view and attachment is called abandonment, then Śrotaāpanna (stream-enterers) and other Śaikṣa (those still in training) should also have abandoned the name of Ālaya-vijñāna. If this is admitted, it contradicts the statements of various treatises. Bodhisattvas on the grounds (Bhūmi-bodhisattva)...
所起煩惱。皆由正知不為過失。非預流等得有斯事。寧可以彼例此菩薩。彼六識中所起煩惱。雖由正知不為過失。而第七識有漏心位任運現行執藏此識。寧不與彼預流等同。由此故知彼說非理。然阿羅漢斷此識中煩惱粗重究竟盡故。不復執藏阿賴耶識為自內我。由斯永失阿賴耶名說之為捨。非捨一切第八識體。勿阿羅漢無識持種。爾時便入無餘涅槃。然第八識雖諸有情皆悉成就。而隨義別立種種名。謂或名心。由種種法熏習種子所積集故。或名阿陀那。執持種子及諸色根令不壞故。或名所知依。能與染凈所知諸法為依止故。或名種子識。能遍任持世出世間諸種子故。此等諸名通一切位。或名阿賴耶。攝藏一切雜染品法令不失故。我見愛等執藏以為自內我故。此名唯在異生有學。非無學位不退菩薩有雜染法執藏義故。或名異熟識。能引生死善不善業異熟果故。此名唯在異生二乘諸菩薩位。非如來地猶有異熟無記法故。或名無垢識。最極清凈諸無漏法所依止故此名唯在如來地有。菩薩二乘及異生位持有漏種可受熏習。未得善凈第八識故如契經說。
如來無垢識 是凈無漏界 解脫一切障 圓鏡智相應
阿賴耶名過失重故最初捨故此中偏說。異熟識體菩薩將得菩提時捨。聲聞獨覺入無餘依涅槃時捨。無垢識
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 所產生的煩惱，都是因為正知（Samyagjnana，正確的知識）沒有成為過失。不是預流果（Srotapanna，須陀洹，佛教四聖果位的第一個果位）等聖者會有的情況。怎麼可以用他們來類比這位菩薩呢？他們的六識中所產生的煩惱，雖然因為正知沒有成為過失，但是第七識（末那識，Manas-vijnana）在有漏心位（具有煩惱的狀態）任運現行（自然而然地運作），執藏此識（阿賴耶識，Alaya-vijnana）。難道不和那些預流果等聖者一樣嗎？因此可知他們的說法不合理。然而，阿羅漢（Arhat，佛教修行證道的最高果位）斷除了此識中的煩惱粗重，究竟清凈，所以不再執藏阿賴耶識作為自己的內在自我。因此永遠失去了阿賴耶這個名稱，說這是捨棄。不是捨棄一切第八識（阿賴耶識，Alaya-vijnana）的本體。不要認為阿羅漢沒有識來持有種子（Bija，業力的潛在力量），那樣他們就進入了無餘涅槃（Parinirvana，完全的涅槃）。 然而，第八識雖然一切有情（Sattva，眾生）都具有，但是隨著意義的不同而建立種種名稱。或者名為心（Citta，心），因為種種法（Dharma，佛法）熏習的種子所積集。或者名為阿陀那（Adana，執持識），執持種子以及諸色根（Indriya，感覺器官），使它們不壞。或者名為所知依（Jnanasraya），能夠作為染污和清凈的所知諸法的依止。或者名為種子識（Bijavijnana），能夠普遍任持世間和出世間的諸種子。這些名稱通用於一切位次。或者名為阿賴耶（Alaya，藏識），攝藏一切雜染品法，使它們不失壞。我見（Atma-drishti，對自我的錯誤見解）、愛（Trishna，渴愛）等執藏它作為自己的內在自我。這個名稱只在異生（Prthagjana，凡夫）和有學（Saiksha，正在學習的修行者）位有，不是無學位（Asaiksha，已完成學習的修行者）和不退轉菩薩（Avaivartika，不會退轉的菩薩）有雜染法和執藏的意義。或者名為異熟識（Vipaka-vijnana，果報識），能夠引發生死輪迴的善不善業的異熟果報。這個名稱只在異生、二乘（Sravaka-yana和Pratyekabuddha-yana，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）和諸菩薩位有，不是如來地（Tathagata-bhumi，佛的境界）還有異熟無記法（Vipaka-avyakrita，果報中性的法）。或者名為無垢識（Amala-vijnana，清凈識），最極清凈的諸無漏法（Anasrava-dharma，沒有煩惱的法）所依止。這個名稱只在如來地有。菩薩、二乘以及異生位持有漏種子（Sasrava-bija，有煩惱的種子），可以接受熏習，沒有得到善凈的第八識，如契經（Sutra，佛經）所說： 『如來無垢識，是凈無漏界，解脫一切障，圓鏡智相應。』 阿賴耶這個名稱過失嚴重，所以最初捨棄，因此這裡偏重說明。異熟識的本體菩薩將在得到菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）時捨棄。聲聞和獨覺（Pratyekabuddha，辟支佛）在進入無餘依涅槃時捨棄。無垢識（Amala-vijnana，清凈識）。
English version: The arising of afflictions is all because right knowledge (Samyagjnana) has not become a fault. This is not something that happens to stream-enterers (Srotapanna, the first stage of the four noble stages in Buddhism) and other noble ones. How can they be used to compare to this Bodhisattva? Although the afflictions that arise in their six consciousnesses do not become faults because of right knowledge, the seventh consciousness (Manas-vijnana) in the defiled state of mind (a state with afflictions) naturally and spontaneously manifests, clinging to this consciousness (Alaya-vijnana). Isn't it the same as those stream-enterers and other noble ones? Therefore, it can be known that their statement is unreasonable. However, an Arhat (the highest stage of enlightenment in Buddhism) has completely eliminated the coarse and heavy afflictions in this consciousness, so they no longer cling to the Alaya-vijnana as their inner self. Therefore, they forever lose the name Alaya, and it is said that they have abandoned it. It is not abandoning the entire essence of the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijnana). Do not think that Arhats have no consciousness to hold seeds (Bija, the potential power of karma), otherwise they would enter Parinirvana (complete Nirvana). However, although all sentient beings (Sattva) possess the eighth consciousness, various names are established according to the different meanings. It is sometimes called Citta (mind), because it is accumulated by the seeds of various Dharmas (Buddhist teachings) that have been imprinted. It is sometimes called Adana (clinging consciousness), holding the seeds and the sense organs (Indriya), keeping them from decaying. It is sometimes called Jnanasraya (basis of knowledge), able to serve as the basis for defiled and pure knowable Dharmas. It is sometimes called Bijavijnana (seed consciousness), able to universally maintain the seeds of both mundane and supramundane realms. These names are applicable to all stages. It is sometimes called Alaya (storehouse consciousness), storing all defiled Dharmas, preventing them from being lost. Self-view (Atma-drishti, the mistaken view of self), craving (Trishna) and other afflictions cling to it as their inner self. This name only exists in the states of ordinary beings (Prthagjana) and learners (Saiksha), not in the states of non-learners (Asaiksha) and non-retrogressing Bodhisattvas (Avaivartika), who do not have the meaning of defiled Dharmas and clinging. It is sometimes called Vipaka-vijnana (resultant consciousness), able to bring about the resultant fruits of good and bad karma in the cycle of birth and death. This name only exists in the states of ordinary beings, the two vehicles (Sravaka-yana and Pratyekabuddha-yana), and Bodhisattvas, not in the Tathagata-bhumi (Buddha's realm), which still has resultant neutral Dharmas (Vipaka-avyakrita). It is sometimes called Amala-vijnana (immaculate consciousness), the basis of the purest and undefiled Dharmas (Anasrava-dharma). This name only exists in the Tathagata-bhumi. Bodhisattvas, those of the two vehicles, and ordinary beings hold defiled seeds (Sasrava-bija), which can be influenced, and have not attained the purified eighth consciousness, as the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) says: 'The Tathagata's immaculate consciousness is a pure, undefiled realm, liberated from all obstacles, corresponding to the wisdom of the great perfect mirror.' The name Alaya has serious faults, so it is abandoned first, therefore it is emphasized here. The essence of Vipaka-vijnana is abandoned by Bodhisattvas when they attain Bodhi (enlightenment). Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas abandon it when they enter Parinirvana. Amala-vijnana (immaculate consciousness).
【English Translation】 The arising of afflictions is all because right knowledge (Samyagjnana) has not become a fault. This is not something that happens to stream-enterers (Srotapanna, the first stage of the four noble stages in Buddhism) and other noble ones. How can they be used to compare to this Bodhisattva? Although the afflictions that arise in their six consciousnesses do not become faults because of right knowledge, the seventh consciousness (Manas-vijnana) in the defiled state of mind (a state with afflictions) naturally and spontaneously manifests, clinging to this consciousness (Alaya-vijnana). Isn't it the same as those stream-enterers and other noble ones? Therefore, it can be known that their statement is unreasonable. However, an Arhat (the highest stage of enlightenment in Buddhism) has completely eliminated the coarse and heavy afflictions in this consciousness, so they no longer cling to the Alaya-vijnana as their inner self. Therefore, they forever lose the name Alaya, and it is said that they have abandoned it. It is not abandoning the entire essence of the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijnana). Do not think that Arhats have no consciousness to hold seeds (Bija, the potential power of karma), otherwise they would enter Parinirvana (complete Nirvana). However, although all sentient beings (Sattva) possess the eighth consciousness, various names are established according to the different meanings. It is sometimes called Citta (mind), because it is accumulated by the seeds of various Dharmas (Buddhist teachings) that have been imprinted. It is sometimes called Adana (clinging consciousness), holding the seeds and the sense organs (Indriya), keeping them from decaying. It is sometimes called Jnanasraya (basis of knowledge), able to serve as the basis for defiled and pure knowable Dharmas. It is sometimes called Bijavijnana (seed consciousness), able to universally maintain the seeds of both mundane and supramundane realms. These names are applicable to all stages. It is sometimes called Alaya (storehouse consciousness), storing all defiled Dharmas, preventing them from being lost. Self-view (Atma-drishti, the mistaken view of self), craving (Trishna) and other afflictions cling to it as their inner self. This name only exists in the states of ordinary beings (Prthagjana) and learners (Saiksha), not in the states of non-learners (Asaiksha) and non-retrogressing Bodhisattvas (Avaivartika), who do not have the meaning of defiled Dharmas and clinging. It is sometimes called Vipaka-vijnana (resultant consciousness), able to bring about the resultant fruits of good and bad karma in the cycle of birth and death. This name only exists in the states of ordinary beings, the two vehicles (Sravaka-yana and Pratyekabuddha-yana), and Bodhisattvas, not in the Tathagata-bhumi (Buddha's realm), which still has resultant neutral Dharmas (Vipaka-avyakrita). It is sometimes called Amala-vijnana (immaculate consciousness), the basis of the purest and undefiled Dharmas (Anasrava-dharma). This name only exists in the Tathagata-bhumi. Bodhisattvas, those of the two vehicles, and ordinary beings hold defiled seeds (Sasrava-bija), which can be influenced, and have not attained the purified eighth consciousness, as the Sutra (Buddhist scripture) says: 'The Tathagata's immaculate consciousness is a pure, undefiled realm, liberated from all obstacles, corresponding to the wisdom of the great perfect mirror.' The name Alaya has serious faults, so it is abandoned first, therefore it is emphasized here. The essence of Vipaka-vijnana is abandoned by Bodhisattvas when they attain Bodhi (enlightenment). Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas abandon it when they enter Parinirvana. Amala-vijnana (immaculate consciousness).
體無有捨時。利樂有情無盡時故。心等通故隨義應說然第八識總有二位。一有漏位。無記性攝。唯與觸等五法相應。但緣前說執受處境。二無漏位。唯善性攝。與二十一心所相應。謂遍行別境各五善十一。與一切心恒相應故。常樂證智所觀境故。于所觀境恒印持故。于曾受境恒明記故。世尊無有不定心故。於一切法常抉擇故。極凈信等常相應故。無染污故。無散動故。此亦唯與捨受相應。任運恒時平等轉故。以一切法為所緣境。鏡智遍緣一切法故。
云何應知此第八識離眼等識有別自體。聖教正理為定量故。謂有大乘阿毗達磨契經中說。
無始時來界 一切法等依 由此有諸趣 及涅槃證得
此第八識自性微細。故以作用而顯示之。頌中初半顯第八識為因緣用。後半顯與流轉還滅作依持用。界是因義。即種子識無始時來展轉相續親生諸法故名為因。依是緣義。即執持識無始時來與一切法等為依止故名為緣。謂能執持諸種子故與現行法為所依故即變為彼及為彼依。變為彼者謂變為器及有根身。為彼依者謂與轉識作所依止。以能執受五色根故眼等五識依之而轉。又與末那為依止故第六意識依之而轉。末那意識轉識攝故如眼等識依俱有根。第八理應是識性故亦以第七為俱有依。是謂此識為因緣用。由
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 體（身體）沒有捨棄的時候，利益安樂有情眾生沒有窮盡的時候，心平等通達的緣故，隨順意義應當這樣說：然而第八識總共有兩種狀態。第一種是有漏位，屬於無記性，僅僅與觸等五種心法相應，只是緣於前面所說的執受處境。第二種是無漏位，僅僅屬於善性，與二十一種心所相應，即遍行、別境各五種，善十一。因為它與一切心恒常相應，常樂證智所觀的境界，對於所觀的境界恒常印持，對於曾經領受的境界恒常明記，世尊沒有不定的心，對於一切法常常抉擇，極其清凈的信心等常常相應，沒有染污，沒有散動。這個第八識也僅僅與捨受相應，任運恒時平等運轉的緣故，以一切法作為所緣的境界，因為鏡智普遍緣於一切法。
應當如何知道這個第八識離開眼識等有不同的自體呢？因為聖教和正理是可靠的依據。就像有大乘《阿毗達磨》契經中說：
『無始時來界（種子），一切法等依（依靠），由此有諸趣（六道輪迴），及涅槃證得。』
這個第八識的自性非常微細，所以用它的作用來顯示它。頌中的前半部分顯示第八識作為因緣的作用，後半部分顯示它對於流轉和還滅作為依持的作用。『界』是因的意思，也就是種子識從無始以來輾轉相續，親身產生諸法，所以叫做因。『依』是緣的意思，也就是執持識從無始以來與一切法等作為依止，所以叫做緣。它能夠執持各種種子，與現行法作為所依，即變為它們，並且作為它們的所依。變為它們，是指變為器世間和有根身。作為它們的所依，是指與轉識作為所依止。因為它能夠執受五色根，所以眼識等五識依靠它而運轉。又因為它與末那（Manas，意根）作為依止，所以第六意識依靠它而運轉。末那意識屬於轉識，就像眼識等依靠俱有根。第八識理應是識性，所以也以第七識作為俱有依。這就是說這個識作為因緣的作用。由於...
【English Translation】 English version When the body has no abandonment, and the benefit and happiness of sentient beings are inexhaustible, and because the mind is equally pervasive, it should be said according to the meaning: However, the eighth consciousness has two states in total. The first is the contaminated state, which is included in the non-determined nature, and only corresponds to the five mental functions such as touch. It only relates to the previously mentioned objects of perception. The second is the uncontaminated state, which only belongs to the nature of goodness, and corresponds to twenty-one mental factors, namely the five pervasive mental factors, the five object-oriented mental factors, and eleven good mental factors. Because it is constantly corresponding to all minds, it is the object of constant joy, attainment, wisdom, and observation. It constantly affirms the observed object, constantly remembers the previously received object, the World Honored One has no uncertain mind, constantly determines all dharmas, and extremely pure faith is constantly corresponding, without defilement, and without distraction. This eighth consciousness also only corresponds to the feeling of equanimity, because it operates equally and constantly, taking all dharmas as the object of its perception, because the mirror-like wisdom universally perceives all dharmas.
How should one know that this eighth consciousness has a separate self-nature from the eye consciousness and others? Because the holy teachings and correct reasoning are reliable evidence. Just as it is said in the Mahayana Abhidharma Sutra:
'From beginningless time, the realm (seed), is the basis of all dharmas, from this arise the various destinies (six realms of reincarnation), and the attainment of Nirvana.'
The self-nature of this eighth consciousness is very subtle, so it is shown by its function. The first half of the verse shows the eighth consciousness as the function of cause and condition, and the second half shows it as the support for transmigration and cessation. 'Realm' means cause, that is, the seed consciousness has been continuously transforming from beginningless time, personally producing all dharmas, so it is called cause. 'Basis' means condition, that is, the grasping consciousness has been the basis for all dharmas from beginningless time, so it is called condition. It can grasp various seeds, and take the manifest dharmas as the basis, that is, transform into them, and be their basis. Transforming into them means transforming into the physical world and the body with roots. Being their basis means taking the transforming consciousness as the basis. Because it can grasp the five sense organs, the five consciousnesses such as eye consciousness rely on it to operate. Also, because it takes Manas (mind-root) as the basis, the sixth consciousness relies on it to operate. The Manas consciousness belongs to the transforming consciousness, just like the eye consciousness relies on the co-existing root. The eighth consciousness should be consciousness in nature, so it also takes the seventh consciousness as the co-existing basis. This is to say that this consciousness functions as cause and condition. Because of...
此有者由有此識。有諸趣者有善惡趣。謂由有此第八識故執持一切順流轉法令諸有情流轉生死。雖惑業生皆是流轉。而趣是果勝故偏說。或諸趣言通能所趣。諸趣資具亦得趣名。諸惑業生皆依此識。是與流轉作依持用。及涅槃證得者由有此識故有涅槃證得。謂由有此第八識故。執持一切順還滅法令修行者證得涅槃。此中但說能證得道。涅槃不依此識有故。或此但說所證涅槃。是修行者正所求故。或此雙說涅槃與道。俱是還滅品類攝故。謂涅槃言顯所證滅。後證得言顯能得道。由能斷道斷所斷惑究竟盡位證得涅槃。能所斷證皆依此識。是與還滅作依持用。又此頌中初句顯示此識自性無始恒有。後三顯與雜染清凈二法總別為所依止。雜染法者謂苦集諦。即所能趣生及業惑。清凈法者謂滅道諦。即所能證涅槃及道。彼二皆依此識而有。依轉識等理不成故。或復初句顯此識體無始相續。後三顯與三種自性為所依止。謂依他起遍計所執圓成實性。如次應知。今此頌中諸所說義離第八識皆不得有。即彼經中復作是說。
由攝藏諸法 一切種子識 故名阿賴耶 勝者我開示
由此本識具諸種子故能攝藏諸雜染法。依斯建立阿賴耶名。非如勝性轉為大等。種子與果體非一故。能依所依俱生滅故。與雜染法互相攝藏。亦
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 有了這個（阿賴耶識），才會有『有』（存在），因為有了這個，才會有『識』（了別作用）。有了諸趣（六道輪迴），才會有善趣和惡趣。這是說，因為有了這第八識（阿賴耶識），它執持著一切順著生死流轉的法則，使得一切有情眾生在生死中流轉。雖然迷惑、業力、出生都是流轉，但『趣』是果報中最殊勝的，所以特別提出來。或者，『諸趣』這個詞可以包括能去的和所去的。諸趣的資生之具也可以稱為『趣』。各種迷惑、業力的產生都依賴於這個識，這個識對於流轉起著依持的作用。
以及，涅槃的證得，也是因為有了這個識。這是說，因為有了這第八識（阿賴耶識），它執持著一切順著還滅（迴歸寂滅）的法則，使得修行者能夠證得涅槃。這裡只說了能夠證得的『道』，因為涅槃本身並不依賴於這個識而存在。或者，這裡只說了所證得的涅槃，因為這是修行者真正追求的目標。或者，這裡同時說了涅槃和道，因為它們都屬於還滅的範疇。『涅槃』這個詞顯示了所證得的寂滅，『證得』這個詞顯示了能證得的『道』。通過能斷之道，斷除所斷的迷惑，在達到究竟的寂滅狀態時，證得涅槃。能斷、所斷、證得，都依賴於這個識，這個識對於還滅起著依持的作用。
此外，這首偈頌的第一句顯示了這個識的自性是無始以來就恒常存在的。後面的三句顯示了這個識與雜染法和清凈法，總體上和分別上，都是所依止的。雜染法指的是苦諦和集諦，也就是所能去的『生』以及『業』和『惑』。清凈法指的是滅諦和道諦，也就是所能證的『涅槃』以及『道』。這兩者都依賴於這個識而存在，因為依賴於轉識等其他的識是不合理的。或者，第一句顯示了這個識的本體是無始相續的。後面的三句顯示了這個識與三種自性是所依止的，也就是依他起性、遍計所執性、圓成實性，應該依次理解。現在這首偈頌中所說的所有意義，離開第八識都是不可能存在的。就像那部經中又這樣說： 『由攝藏諸法，一切種子識，故名阿賴耶，勝者我開示。』 因為這個根本識具有各種種子，所以能夠攝藏各種雜染法。依靠這個，才建立了阿賴耶這個名稱。不像勝性變化為大等，因為種子和果報的本體不是同一個。能依和所依都是同時生滅的。與雜染法互相攝藏，也是如此。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of this (Ālaya-vijñāna [storehouse consciousness]), there is 'being' (existence), because of this, there is 'consciousness' (discriminating function). Because there are destinies (the six realms of reincarnation), there are good and bad destinies. This means that because of this eighth consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna), it upholds all the laws that follow the flow of transmigration, causing all sentient beings to transmigrate in birth and death. Although delusion, karma, and birth are all transmigrations, 'destiny' is the most excellent of the retributions, so it is specifically mentioned. Alternatively, the term 'destinies' can include both the one who goes and the place to which one goes. The requisites for the destinies can also be called 'destinies'. The arising of various delusions and karmas all depend on this consciousness, and this consciousness serves as the basis for transmigration. And, the attainment of Nirvāṇa [cessation of suffering] is also because of this consciousness. This means that because of this eighth consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna), it upholds all the laws that follow the cessation of suffering, enabling practitioners to attain Nirvāṇa. Here, only the 'path' that can be attained is mentioned, because Nirvāṇa itself does not depend on this consciousness for its existence. Alternatively, here only the Nirvāṇa that is attained is mentioned, because this is the true goal pursued by practitioners. Alternatively, here both Nirvāṇa and the path are mentioned, because they both belong to the category of cessation. The term 'Nirvāṇa' reveals the cessation that is attained, and the term 'attainment' reveals the 'path' that can be attained. Through the path that can sever, severing the delusions that are to be severed, when reaching the ultimate state of cessation, Nirvāṇa is attained. The able to sever, the to be severed, and the attainment all depend on this consciousness, and this consciousness serves as the basis for cessation. Furthermore, the first line of this verse shows that the nature of this consciousness is eternally existent from beginningless time. The following three lines show that this consciousness, both in general and in particular, is the basis for both defiled and pure dharmas. Defiled dharmas refer to the suffering and accumulation of suffering, which are the 'birth' that can be gone to, as well as 'karma' and 'delusion'. Pure dharmas refer to the cessation of suffering and the path, which are the 'Nirvāṇa' and 'path' that can be attained. Both of these depend on this consciousness for their existence, because relying on the transforming consciousness and other consciousnesses is unreasonable. Alternatively, the first line shows that the essence of this consciousness is a beginningless continuum. The following three lines show that this consciousness is the basis for the three natures, which are the dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva), the imputed nature (parikalpita-svabhāva), and the perfectly established nature (parinispanna-svabhāva), which should be understood in that order. All the meanings spoken of in this verse cannot exist without the eighth consciousness. Just as that sūtra also says: 『Because it stores all dharmas, it is the consciousness of all seeds, therefore it is called Ālaya, the Victorious One reveals to me.』 Because this fundamental consciousness possesses various seeds, it is able to store various defiled dharmas. Relying on this, the name Ālaya is established. It is not like the Pradhāna [primordial substance] transforming into the Mahat [great principle] and so on, because the essence of the seeds and the retribution are not the same. The dependent and the depended are both arising and ceasing simultaneously. It is also the same with the mutual storing of defiled dharmas.
為有情執藏為我。故說此識名阿賴耶。已入見道諸菩薩眾得真現觀名為勝者。彼能證解阿賴耶識。故我世尊正為開示。或諸菩薩皆名勝者。雖見道前未能證解阿賴耶識。而能信解求彼轉依。故亦為說。非諸轉識有如是義。解深密經亦作是說。
阿陀那識甚深細 一切種子如瀑流 我于凡愚不開演 恐彼分別執為我
以能執持諸法種子。及能執受色根依處。亦能執取結生相續。故說此識名阿陀那。無性有情不能窮底故說甚深。趣寂種性不能通達故名甚細。是一切法真實種子。緣擊便生轉識波浪恒無間斷猶如瀑流。凡即無性。愚即趣寂。恐彼於此起分別執墮諸惡趣障生聖道。故我世尊不為開演。唯第八識有如是相。入楞伽經亦作是說。
如海遇風緣 起種種波浪 現前作用轉 無有間斷時 藏識海亦然 境等風所擊 恒起諸識浪 現前作用轉
眼等諸識無如大海恒相續轉起諸識浪。故知別有第八識性。此等無量大乘經中。皆別說有此第八識。諸大乘經皆順無我違數取趣。棄背流轉趣向還滅。贊佛法僧毀諸外道。表蘊等法遮勝性等。樂大乘者許能顯示無顛倒理契經攝故。如增壹等至教量攝。又聖慈氏以七種因證大乘經真是佛說。一先不記故。若大乘經佛滅度後有餘為壞正法故說。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：因為有情執著于阿賴耶識（Ālayavijñāna，儲存一切種子識），認為那是『我』。所以說這個識叫做阿賴耶識。已經進入見道的菩薩眾，得到真實的現觀，被稱為勝者。他們能夠證悟和理解阿賴耶識。因此，我世尊才專門為他們開示。或者，所有菩薩都可以被稱為勝者。即使在見道之前未能證悟和理解阿賴耶識，但能夠相信和理解，並尋求依靠它來轉變，所以也為他們宣說。不是所有的轉識都具有這樣的意義。《解深密經》（Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra）也這樣說： 『阿陀那識（Ādānavijñāna，執持識）非常深奧細微，一切種子像瀑布一樣流動。我不會對凡夫愚人開示，恐怕他們分別執著，認為那是『我』。』
因為它能夠執持諸法種子，並且能夠執受色根的依處，也能執取結生相續，所以說這個識叫做阿陀那識。沒有自性的有情無法窮盡它的底蘊，所以說它非常深奧。傾向於寂滅的種性無法通達它，所以說它非常細微。它是一切法真實的種子，因緣擊發便會產生轉識的波浪，恒常沒有間斷，就像瀑布一樣流動。凡夫就是沒有自性的人，愚人就是傾向於寂滅的人。恐怕他們對此產生分別執著，墮入各種惡趣，障礙產生聖道，所以我的世尊不為他們開示。只有第八識具有這樣的相狀。《入楞伽經》（Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra）也這樣說： 『就像大海遇到風的因緣，產生各種各樣的波浪，在眼前顯現作用和運轉，沒有間斷的時候。藏識海（Ālayavijñāna，又名藏識）也是這樣，被境界等風所衝擊，恒常產生各種識浪，在眼前顯現作用和運轉。』 眼等諸識沒有像大海一樣恒常相續運轉，產生各種識浪。所以可知另有第八識的體性。這些無量的大乘經典中，都分別說明有這第八識。所有大乘經典都順應無我，違背數取趣（Pudgala，補特伽羅，一種神我理論），拋棄流轉，趨向還滅，讚歎佛法僧，毀斥各種外道，表明蘊等法，遮止勝性等，喜歡大乘的人認為它能夠顯示沒有顛倒的道理，被攝入契經中。就像《增壹阿含經》（Ekottara Āgama）等被攝入教量中。而且聖慈氏（Maitreya，彌勒菩薩）用七種原因證明大乘經典確實是佛所說。第一，先前沒有記載。如果大乘經典是佛滅度後，有人爲了破壞正法而說的。
【English Translation】 English version: Because sentient beings cling to the Ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness, the consciousness that stores all seeds) as 'I', this consciousness is called Ālayavijñāna. Those Bodhisattvas who have entered the Path of Seeing and attained true direct perception are called Victors. They are able to realize and understand the Ālayavijñāna. Therefore, my World-Honored One specifically reveals it for them. Alternatively, all Bodhisattvas can be called Victors. Even before entering the Path of Seeing, if they have not realized and understood the Ālayavijñāna, but are able to believe and understand it, and seek to rely on it for transformation, it is also taught for them. Not all transformed consciousnesses have such meaning. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (解深密經) also says: 'The Ādānavijñāna (clinging consciousness, the consciousness that grasps) is very deep and subtle, all seeds flow like a waterfall. I do not reveal it to ordinary fools, lest they discriminate and cling to it as 'I'.' Because it can hold the seeds of all dharmas, and can grasp the base of the sense faculties, and can also grasp the continuity of rebirth, this consciousness is called Ādānavijñāna. Sentient beings without self-nature cannot fathom its depths, so it is said to be very deep. Those of a nature inclined to quiescence cannot penetrate it, so it is said to be very subtle. It is the true seed of all dharmas, and when triggered by conditions, it produces waves of transformed consciousness, constantly and without interruption, like a waterfall. Ordinary people are those without self-nature, and fools are those inclined to quiescence. Fearing that they will develop discriminatory clinging to it, fall into various evil destinies, and obstruct the arising of the holy path, my World-Honored One does not reveal it to them. Only the eighth consciousness has such characteristics. The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (入楞伽經) also says: 'Like the ocean encountering the condition of wind, it produces various waves, manifesting actions and movements before us, without interruption. The ocean of storehouse consciousness (Ālayavijñāna), too, is struck by the wind of objects, constantly producing waves of consciousness, manifesting actions and movements before us.' The eye consciousness and other consciousnesses do not constantly and continuously operate like the ocean, producing various waves of consciousness. Therefore, it can be known that there is another nature of the eighth consciousness. In these immeasurable Mahayana sutras, the existence of this eighth consciousness is separately explained. All Mahayana sutras accord with non-self (Anatta), contradict the Pudgala (數取趣, a theory of a personal self), abandon transmigration, tend towards cessation, praise the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, denounce various heretical paths, explain the aggregates and other dharmas, negate inherent existence, and those who delight in Mahayana believe that it can reveal undeluded truth and is included in the sutras. Just like the Ekottara Āgama (增壹阿含經) and others are included in the authoritative teachings. Moreover, the Holy Maitreya (慈氏, the Bodhisattva Maitreya) uses seven reasons to prove that the Mahayana sutras are truly spoken by the Buddha. First, they were not previously recorded. If the Mahayana sutras were spoken after the Buddha's passing by someone intending to destroy the true Dharma.
何故世尊非如當起諸可怖事先預記別。二本俱行故。大小乘教本來俱行。寧知大乘獨非佛說。三非餘境故。大乘所說廣大甚深非外道等思量境界。彼經論中曾所未說。設為彼說亦不信受。故大乘經非非佛說。四應極成故。若謂大乘是餘佛說非今佛語。則大乘教是佛所說其理極成。五有無有故。若有大乘即應信此諸大乘教是佛所說。離此大乘不可得故。若無大乘聲聞乘教亦應非有。以離大乘決定無有得成佛義。誰出於世說聲聞乘。故聲聞乘是佛所說。非大乘教不應正理。六能對治故。依大乘經勤修行者皆能引得無分別智。能正對治一切煩惱。故應信此是佛所說。七義異文故。大乘所說意趣甚深。不可隨文而取其義便生誹謗謂非佛語。是故大乘真是佛說。如莊嚴論頌此義言。
先不記俱行 非餘所行境 極成有無有 對治異文故
餘部經中亦密意說阿賴耶識有別自性。謂大眾部阿笈摩中密意說此名根本識。是眼識等所依止故。譬如樹根是莖等本。非眼等識有如是義。上坐部經分別論者俱密意說此名有分識。有謂三有。分是因義唯此恒遍為三有因。化地部說此名窮生死蘊。離第八識無別蘊法窮生死際無間斷時。謂無色界諸色間斷。無想天等餘心等滅。不相應行離色心等無別自體。已極成故。唯此識名窮生死
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 為什麼世尊不像對未來可能發生的恐怖事件那樣，預先做出明確的預言呢？ 有兩個原因：一是二本俱行，即小乘（Hinayana）和大乘（Mahayana）的教義本來就是同時流傳的。怎麼能斷定大乘就一定不是佛陀所說呢？ 二是三非餘境，即大乘所說的廣大甚深的道理，不是外道等能夠思量理解的境界。這些道理在他們的經論中從未提及，即使告訴他們，他們也不會相信接受。因此，大乘經典並非不是佛陀所說。 三是四應極成，如果認為大乘是其他佛所說，而不是現在佛陀所說，那麼大乘教義是佛所說，這個道理就非常明確了。 四是五有無有，如果存在大乘，就應該相信這些大乘教義是佛陀所說。因為離開了大乘，就無法獲得。如果沒有大乘，那麼聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna）的教義也應該不存在。因為離開了大乘，就絕對沒有成佛的道理。誰會出現在世間宣說聲聞乘呢？所以，聲聞乘是佛陀所說，否定大乘教義是不合理的。 五是六能對治，依據大乘經典勤奮修行的人，都能夠獲得無分別智（nirvikalpa-jñāna），能夠正確地對治一切煩惱。因此，應該相信這是佛陀所說。 六是七義異文，大乘所說的意趣非常深奧，不能只按照字面意思去理解，就隨意誹謗說不是佛陀所說。因此，大乘確實是佛陀所說。正如《莊嚴論》（Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra）的頌詞所說： 『先不記俱行，非餘所行境，極成有無有，對治異文故。』
其他部派的經典中也隱晦地提到了阿賴耶識（ālayavijñāna）具有獨特的自性。例如，大眾部（Mahāsāṃghika）的《阿笈摩》（Āgama）中，隱晦地稱其為根本識（mūla-vijñāna），因為它是眼識等所依賴的基礎。就像樹根是樹幹等的基礎一樣。而眼識等沒有這樣的作用。
上座部（Sthavira）的經典中，分別論者（Vibhajyavādin）也隱晦地稱其為有分識（bhavaṅga-citta）。『有』指的是三有（三界），『分』是因的意思，只有這個識恒常遍在，作為三有的原因。化地部（Mahīśāsaka）說這個識名為窮生死蘊（end of life aggregates）。離開了第八識，就沒有其他的蘊法能夠貫穿生死，沒有間斷的時候。這裡指的是沒有物質（rūpa）和意識（citta）的間斷，例如在無想天（asaṃjñā-sattva）等狀態下，其他的意識滅盡。不相應行（citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra）離開了色（rūpa）和心（citta）等，就沒有其他的自體。這些都已經得到了充分的證明。只有這個識才能被稱為窮生死。
【English Translation】 English version: Why didn't the World Honored One, like when predicting terrible events that might occur in the future, make clear predictions beforehand? There are two reasons: First, the two vehicles coexist, meaning the teachings of the Hinayana (Small Vehicle) and Mahayana (Great Vehicle) have always been transmitted simultaneously. How can one definitively say that the Mahayana is not spoken by the Buddha? Second, it is not the realm of others, meaning the vast and profound principles spoken in the Mahayana are not within the realm of thought and understanding of non-Buddhists. These principles have never been mentioned in their scriptures and treatises, and even if told to them, they would not believe or accept them. Therefore, the Mahayana scriptures are not not spoken by the Buddha. Third, it should be extremely established, if one believes that the Mahayana was spoken by other Buddhas and not by the present Buddha, then the principle that the Mahayana teachings were spoken by the Buddha becomes extremely clear. Fourth, there is existence and non-existence, if the Mahayana exists, then one should believe that these Mahayana teachings were spoken by the Buddha. Because apart from the Mahayana, it cannot be obtained. If there is no Mahayana, then the teachings of the Śrāvakayāna (Hearer Vehicle) should also not exist. Because apart from the Mahayana, there is absolutely no principle of attaining Buddhahood. Who would appear in the world to proclaim the Śrāvakayāna? Therefore, the Śrāvakayāna was spoken by the Buddha, and denying the Mahayana teachings is unreasonable. Fifth, it can counteract, those who diligently practice according to the Mahayana scriptures can all attain non-discriminating wisdom (nirvikalpa-jñāna), which can correctly counteract all afflictions. Therefore, one should believe that this was spoken by the Buddha. Sixth, the meaning differs from the words, the intended meaning of the Mahayana is very profound, one should not just take the literal meaning and then slander it, saying it was not spoken by the Buddha. Therefore, the Mahayana is truly spoken by the Buddha. As the verse in the Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra (Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras) says: 'Not predicted beforehand, coexisting, not the realm of others, extremely established, existence and non-existence, counteracting, the meaning differs from the words.' Other schools' scriptures also implicitly mention that the ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness) has a unique nature. For example, the Mahāsāṃghika (Great Assembly School)'s Āgama (collection of scriptures) implicitly calls it the mūla-vijñāna (root consciousness), because it is the basis upon which the eye consciousness and others rely. Just like the root of a tree is the basis of the trunk and so on. But the eye consciousness and others do not have such a function. In the Sthavira (Elders School)'s scriptures, the Vibhajyavādin (Distinguishers) also implicitly call it the bhavaṅga-citta (life-continuum consciousness). 'Bhava' refers to the three existences (three realms), 'aṅga' means cause, only this consciousness is constantly pervasive, serving as the cause of the three existences. The Mahīśāsaka (Earth-Ruling School) says that this consciousness is called the end of life aggregates. Apart from the eighth consciousness, there are no other aggregate dharmas that can run through life and death without interruption. This refers to the absence of interruptions of matter (rūpa) and consciousness (citta), such as in the state of asaṃjñā-sattva (non-perceptual realm), where other consciousnesses are extinguished. Citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra (non-associated formations) have no other self-nature apart from matter (rūpa) and mind (citta). These have already been fully proven. Only this consciousness can be called the end of life.
蘊。說一切有部增壹經中亦密意說此名阿賴耶。謂愛阿賴耶．樂阿賴耶．欣阿賴耶．喜阿賴耶。謂阿賴耶識是貪總別三世境故立此四名。有情執為真自內我。乃至未斷恒生愛著故。阿賴耶識是真愛著處。不應執餘五取蘊等。謂生一向苦受處者于餘五取蘊不生愛著。彼恒厭逆餘五取蘊念我何時當捨此命此眾同分此苦身心令我自在受快樂故。五欲亦非真愛著處。謂離欲者於五妙欲雖不貪著而愛我故。樂受亦非真愛著處。謂離第三靜慮染者雖厭樂受而愛我故。身見亦非真愛著處。謂非無學信無我者雖于身見不生貪著而於內我猶生愛故。轉識等亦非真愛著處。謂非無學求滅心者雖厭轉識等而愛我故。色身亦非真愛著處。離色染者雖厭色身而愛我故。不相應行離色心等無別自體。是故亦非真愛著處。異生有學起我愛時雖于餘蘊有愛非愛而於此識我愛定生。故唯此是真愛著處。由是彼說阿賴耶名。定唯顯此阿賴耶識。
已引聖教當顯正理。謂契經說雜染清凈諸法種子之所集起。故名為心。若無此識彼持種心不應有故。謂諸轉識在滅定等有間斷故。根境作意善等類別易脫起故。如電光等不堅住故。非可熏習。不能持種。非染凈種所集起心。此識一類恒無間斷如苣蕂等。堅住可熏。契當彼經所說心義。
若不許有能持種心
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 『蘊』（Skandha，指構成個體存在的五種要素：色、受、想、行、識）。
說一切有部（Sarvastivada）在《增壹阿含經》（Ekottara Agama）中也秘密地暗示了這一點，稱之為『愛阿賴耶』（Ālayarāga，對阿賴耶的愛）、『樂阿賴耶』（Ālayarama，對阿賴耶的樂）、『欣阿賴耶』（Ālayanandi，對阿賴耶的欣）、『喜阿賴耶』（Ālayapriti，對阿賴耶的喜）。這是因為阿賴耶識（Ālayavijnana，儲存一切經驗的根本識）是貪愛的總括，涵蓋過去、現在、未來三世的境界，所以立這四個名稱。有情眾生執著它為真實的、內在的『我』（Atman），乃至沒有斷除這種執著之前，恒常生起愛戀執著。因此，阿賴耶識是真正愛戀執著的地方，不應該執著其他的五取蘊（Panca-upadanakkhandha，執取為自我的五種要素）等。因為對於只產生痛苦感受的地方，有情眾生不會對其他的五取蘊生起愛戀執著。他們總是厭惡排斥其他的五取蘊，想著我什麼時候才能捨棄這個生命、這個眾同分（Sabhāga，同類眾生的共性）、這個痛苦的身心，讓我自在地享受快樂呢？
五欲（Panca Kamaguna，色、聲、香、味、觸五種感官慾望）也不是真正愛戀執著的地方。因為遠離慾望的人，雖然對五妙欲沒有貪戀執著，但仍然愛著『我』。
樂受（Sukha vedana，快樂的感受）也不是真正愛戀執著的地方。因為遠離第三禪定染污的人，雖然厭惡快樂的感受，但仍然愛著『我』。
身見（Satkayadristi，認為身體是我的邪見）也不是真正愛戀執著的地方。因為非無學位的聖者，相信沒有『我』的人，雖然對身見不生起貪戀執著，但對於內在的『我』仍然生起愛戀。
轉識（Pravrtti-vijnana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六識）等也不是真正愛戀執著的地方。因為非無學位的，尋求滅除心識的人，雖然厭惡轉識等，但仍然愛著『我』。
色身（Rupa-kaya，物質的身體）也不是真正愛戀執著的地方。遠離色界貪染的人，雖然厭惡色身，但仍然愛著『我』。
不相應行（Citta-viprayukta-samskara，既非色法也非心法的行蘊）離開色法和心法等，沒有單獨的自體。因此，也不是真正愛戀執著的地方。
異生（Prthagjana，凡夫）和有學位（Saiksa，正在修行的聖者）生起我愛的時候，雖然對於其他的蘊有愛或者不愛，但是對於這個阿賴耶識，我愛必定會生起。所以只有這個阿賴耶識是真正愛戀執著的地方。因此，他們說阿賴耶這個名稱，一定只是顯示這個阿賴耶識。
已經引用了聖教，下面應當闡明正理。
經書上說，阿賴耶識是雜染和清凈諸法種子所集起的地方，所以稱為『心』（Citta，心）。如果沒有這個阿賴耶識，那麼這個持種的心就不應該存在。因為諸轉識在滅盡定（Nirodha-samapatti，一種止息所有心識活動的禪定）等狀態中有間斷，並且根、境、作意、善等類別容易脫離生起，像閃電一樣不堅固，所以不可熏習，不能夠執持種子，不是染污和清凈種子所集起的心。這個阿賴耶識是同一類，恒常沒有間斷，像苣蕂（一種植物）一樣，堅固可以熏習，符合經書上所說的心的含義。
如果不承認有能夠執持種子的心
【English Translation】 English version: 『Skandha』 (aggregates, referring to the five elements that constitute individual existence: form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness). The Sarvastivada (the ' সর্বাস্তিবাদিন্ ' school) also secretly implies this in the Ekottara Agama (增壹阿含經), calling it 『Ālayarāga』 (love for Ālaya), 『Ālayarama』 (joy in Ālaya), 『Ālayanandi』 (delight in Ālaya), 『Ālayapriti』 (satisfaction in Ālaya). This is because Ālayavijnana (阿賴耶識, the fundamental consciousness that stores all experiences) is the totality of craving, encompassing the realms of the past, present, and future, hence these four names are established. Sentient beings cling to it as the true, inner 『Self』 (Atman), and until this clinging is severed, constant love and attachment arise. Therefore, Ālayavijnana is the true place of love and attachment; one should not cling to the other five Skandhas of clinging (Panca-upadanakkhandha, the five aggregates of grasping) and so on. Because sentient beings do not develop love and attachment for places that only produce painful feelings, they always detest and reject the other five Skandhas, thinking, 'When can I abandon this life, this commonality of beings (Sabhāga, the common nature of beings of the same kind), this painful body and mind, so that I can freely enjoy happiness?' The five sensual desires (Panca Kamaguna, the five sensory desires of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch) are also not the true place of love and attachment. Because those who are free from desire, although they do not crave the five subtle desires, still love the 『Self』. Pleasant feeling (Sukha vedana, the feeling of happiness) is also not the true place of love and attachment. Because those who are free from the defilements of the third Dhyana (禪定, meditative state), although they detest pleasant feeling, still love the 『Self』. The view of self (Satkayadristi, the false view that the body is the self) is also not the true place of love and attachment. Because non-learners (Asaiksa, those who have completed their training) who believe in no-self (Anatman), although they do not develop craving for the view of self, still develop love for the inner 『Self』. The evolving consciousnesses (Pravrtti-vijnana, the six consciousnesses of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) and so on are also not the true place of love and attachment. Because non-learners who seek to extinguish consciousness, although they detest the evolving consciousnesses and so on, still love the 『Self』. The physical body (Rupa-kaya, the material body) is also not the true place of love and attachment. Those who are free from desire for the realm of form, although they detest the physical body, still love the 『Self』. Non-associated formations (Citta-viprayukta-samskara, formations that are neither form nor mind) have no separate self-nature apart from form and mind. Therefore, they are also not the true place of love and attachment. When ordinary beings (Prthagjana, common people) and learners (Saiksa, those who are still learning) develop love for self, although they may or may not love the other aggregates, love for self will definitely arise for this Ālayavijnana. Therefore, only this Ālayavijnana is the true place of love and attachment. Therefore, they say that the name Ālaya definitely only reveals this Ālayavijnana.
Having cited the sacred teachings, we should now elucidate the correct reasoning. The scriptures say that Ālayavijnana is the place where the seeds of defiled and pure dharmas are gathered, hence it is called 『Mind』 (Citta, mind). If there were no such consciousness, then this seed-holding mind should not exist. Because the evolving consciousnesses are interrupted in states such as Nirodha-samapatti (滅盡定, cessation of consciousness), and the categories of faculties, objects, attention, and goodness are easily detached and arise, like lightning, they are not firm, so they cannot be imprinted and cannot hold seeds, and are not the mind gathered from defiled and pure seeds. This Ālayavijnana is of the same kind, constantly without interruption, like a castor oil plant, firm and capable of being imprinted, which corresponds to the meaning of mind as described in the scriptures.
If one does not admit that there is a mind that can hold seeds
。非但違經亦違正理。謂諸所起染凈品法無所熏故不熏成種則應所起唐捐其功。染凈起時既無因種。應同外道執自然生。色不相應非心性故。如聲光等理非染凈內法所熏。豈能持種。
又彼離識無實自性寧可執為內種依止。轉識相應諸心所法。如識間斷易脫起故。不自在故。非心性故。不能持種亦不受熏。故持種心理應別有。有說六識無始時來依根境等前後分位事雖轉變而類無別。是所熏習能持種子。由斯染凈因果皆成。何要執有第八識性。彼言無義。所以者何。執類是實則同外道。許類是假便無勝用應不能持內法實種。又執識類何性所攝。若是善惡應不受熏。許有記故。猶如擇滅。若是無記善惡心時無無記心此類應斷。非事善惡類可無記。別類必同別事性故。又無心位此類定無。既有間斷性非堅住。如何可執持種受熏。又阿羅漢或異生心識類同故應為諸染無漏法熏。許便有失。又眼等根或所餘法與眼等識根法類同應互相熏。然汝不許。故不應執識類受熏。又六識身若事若類。前後二念既不俱有如隔念者非互相熏。能熏所熏必俱時故。執唯六識俱時轉者。由前理趣既非所熏。故彼亦無能持種義。有執色心自類無間前為後種因果義立。故先所說為證不成。彼執非理無熏習故。謂彼自類既無熏習。如何可執前為後種
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 這不僅違反了佛經，也違背了正理。如果說一切生起的染污和清凈的法，都沒有被熏習，因此不能形成種子，那麼這些生起的法就應該白費功夫。染污和清凈生起時，既然沒有原因的種子，就應該和外道所執著的自然產生一樣。色法和不相應的行法，因為不是心性，就像聲音和光明等，道理上不是染污和清凈的內在法所熏習的，怎麼能夠持有種子呢？
而且，那個離開識的法，沒有真實的自性，怎麼可以執著它作為內在種子的依靠呢？和轉識相應的各種心所法，就像識一樣容易間斷，容易脫離生起，因為不自在，因為不是心性，所以不能持有種子，也不能接受熏習。因此，持有種子的心理應該另有。
有人說，六識從無始以來，依靠根和境等，前後分位的事情雖然轉變，但是類別沒有差別，這就是所熏習的，能夠持有種子。因為這樣，染污和清凈的因果都能成立，為什麼要執著有第八識的自性呢？
這種說法沒有意義。為什麼呢？如果執著類別是真實的，就和外道一樣。如果承認類別是虛假的，就沒有殊勝的作用，應該不能持有內在法的真實種子。而且，執著識的類別，是什麼性質所包含的呢？如果是善或者惡，應該不能接受熏習，因為承認它是有記的，就像擇滅一樣。如果是無記，那麼在善或者惡心的時候，沒有無記心的存在，這種類別應該斷滅。事情是善或者惡，類別不可能無記，不同的類別必定和不同的事情性質相同。而且，在沒有心的時候，這種類別一定沒有。既然有間斷，性質不是堅固常住，怎麼可以執著它持有種子，接受熏習呢？
而且，阿羅漢或者異生的心識類別相同，應該被各種染污和無漏法熏習，如果承認這樣，就會有過失。而且，眼等根或者其餘的法，和眼等識的根法類別相同，應該互相熏習。但是你們不承認這樣。所以不應該執著識的類別接受熏習。
而且，六識身，無論是事情還是類別，前後兩個念頭既然不是同時存在，就像隔了一個念頭一樣，不能互相熏習。能熏和所熏必須同時存在。如果執著只有六識同時運轉，因為前面的道理，已經不是所熏習的，所以它們也沒有能夠持有種子的意義。
有人執著色法和心法，各自的類別沒有間隔，前一個作為後一個的種子，因果的意義成立。所以先前所說的，不能作為證據成立。這種執著沒有道理，因為沒有熏習。如果說它們各自的類別沒有熏習，怎麼可以執著前一個作為後一個的種子呢？
【English Translation】 English version This not only contradicts the sutras but also violates correct reasoning. If all arising defiled and pure dharmas are not perfumed, thus not forming seeds, then their arising should be in vain. Since there are no causal seeds when defilements and purity arise, it should be the same as the natural arising asserted by externalists. Form and non-corresponding formations, because they are not of the nature of mind, like sound and light, are not perfumed by the internal dharmas of defilement and purity in principle. How can they hold seeds? Moreover, that which is apart from consciousness has no real self-nature. How can it be grasped as the basis for internal seeds? The mental functions corresponding to the transforming consciousness, like consciousness, are easily interrupted and easily arise. Because they are not autonomous, because they are not of the nature of mind, they cannot hold seeds, nor can they receive perfume. Therefore, the mind that holds seeds should be something else. Some say that the six consciousnesses, from beginningless time, rely on roots and objects, and although the events of the preceding and following moments change, the category is no different. This is what is perfumed and can hold seeds. Because of this, the causes and effects of defilement and purity can be established. Why insist on having the nature of an eighth consciousness? That statement is meaningless. Why? If you grasp the category as real, you are the same as the externalists. If you admit that the category is false, then it has no superior function and should not be able to hold the real seeds of internal dharmas. Moreover, what nature does the category of consciousness belong to? If it is good or evil, it should not be able to receive perfume, because it is admitted to be 'marked' (having a definite quality), like cessation through discrimination (擇滅 ze mie). If it is neutral, then when there is a good or evil mind, there is no neutral mind. This category should be cut off. An event is good or evil, but the category cannot be neutral, because different categories must have the same nature as different events. Moreover, in the state of no-mind, this category is definitely absent. Since there are interruptions, its nature is not firm and abiding. How can it be grasped as holding seeds and receiving perfume? Moreover, the consciousness category of an Arhat (阿羅漢 a luo han) or an ordinary being is the same, so it should be perfumed by all defiled and undefiled dharmas. If you admit this, there will be a fault. Moreover, the sense faculties such as the eye, or other dharmas, are of the same category as the root dharmas of the eye consciousness, etc., so they should perfume each other. But you do not admit this. Therefore, one should not grasp the category of consciousness as receiving perfume. Moreover, the six consciousnesses, whether events or categories, since the preceding and following two moments do not exist simultaneously, like those separated by a moment, they cannot perfume each other. The perfumer and the perfumed must exist simultaneously. If you insist that only the six consciousnesses operate simultaneously, because of the preceding reasoning, they are not what is perfumed, so they also have no meaning of being able to hold seeds. Some grasp that form and mind, each category without interval, the former as the seed of the latter, the meaning of cause and effect is established. Therefore, what was said earlier cannot be established as evidence. That grasping is unreasonable because there is no perfume. If their respective categories have no perfume, how can one grasp the former as the seed of the latter?
。又間斷者應不更生。二乘無學應無後蘊。死位色心為後種故。亦不應執色心展轉互為種生。轉識色等非所熏習前已說故。有說三世諸法皆有。因果感赴無不皆成。何勞執有能持種識。然經說心為種子者起染凈法勢用強故。彼說非理。過去未來非常非現如空花等。非實有故。又無作用不可執為因緣性故。若無能持染凈種識一切因果皆不得成。有執大乘遣相空理為究竟者。依似比量撥無此識及一切法。彼特違害前所引經。智斷證修染凈因果皆執非實成大邪見。外道譭謗染凈因果亦不謂全無。但執非實故。若一切法皆非實有菩薩不應為捨生死精勤修集菩提資糧。誰有智者為除幻敵求石女兒用為軍旅。故應信有能持種心依之建立染凈因果。彼心即是此第八識。
又契經說有異熟心善惡業感。若無此識彼異熟心不應有故。謂眼等識有間斷故。非一切時是業果故。如電光等非異熟心。異熟不應斷已更續。彼命根等無斯事故。眼等六識業所感者猶如聲等。非恒續故。是異熟生非真異熟。定應許有真異熟心酬牽引業遍而無斷變為身器作有情依。身器離心理非有故。不相應法無實體故。諸轉識等非恒有故。若無此心誰變身器。復依何法恒立有情。又在定中或不在定有別思慮無思慮時理有眾多身受生起。此若無者不應後時身有怡適
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：此外，如果間斷了，就應該不再產生。二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的無學果位者，就不應該再有後蘊（五蘊的最後生滅）。因為死亡時的色（物質）和心（精神）是後有的種子。也不應該執著色和心輾轉互相作為種子而生起。因為轉識和色等不是所熏習的對象，前面已經說過了。
有人說三世（過去、現在、未來）諸法都是存在的，因果感應沒有不成就的，何必執著有能持種子的識呢？然而經典說心為種子，是因為它生起染污和清凈法的勢力很強。他們的說法不合理。過去和未來不是常恒的，也不是現在的，就像空中的花朵等一樣，不是真實存在的。又因為沒有作用，不可以執著為因緣性。如果沒有能持染凈種子的識，一切因果都不能成就。
有人執著大乘遣除一切相的空性道理為究竟，依靠相似的比量，否定這個識和一切法。他們特別違背前面所引用的經典，認為智慧、斷除煩惱、證悟、修行、染污和清凈的因果都不是真實的，成為很大的邪見。外道譭謗染污和清凈的因果，也不認為完全沒有，只是認為不是真實的。如果一切法都不是真實存在的，菩薩就不應該爲了捨棄生死而精勤地修集菩提資糧。誰有智慧的人會爲了除掉幻化的敵人，而尋求石女的兒子來作為軍隊使用呢？所以應該相信有能持種子的心，依靠它來建立染污和清凈的因果。那個心就是這第八識（阿賴耶識）。
此外，契經（佛經）說有異熟心，是善惡業所感得的。如果沒有這個識，那個異熟心就不應該存在。因為眼等識有間斷，不是一切時都是業的果報。就像閃電等一樣，不是異熟心。異熟不應該斷了之後又繼續產生。像命根等沒有這樣的事情。眼等六識是業所感得的，就像聲音等一樣，不是恒常相續的，是異熟所生的，不是真正的異熟。一定應該允許有真正的異熟心，酬報牽引業，普遍而沒有間斷，變為身體和器世間，作為有情所依靠的。身體和器世間離開心，道理上是不存在的。不相應法沒有實體。諸轉識等不是恒常存在的。如果沒有這個心，誰來變現身體和器世間呢？又依靠什麼法來恒常地建立有情呢？又在禪定中或者不在禪定中，有分別思慮或者沒有分別思慮的時候，道理上有眾多的身體感受生起。如果沒有這個識，不應該在之後身體會有怡悅舒適的感覺。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, if there is interruption, there should be no further rebirth. Arhats (those who have attained the state of no more learning in the Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) should have no subsequent aggregates (skandhas). Because the material (rūpa) and mental (citta) states at the time of death are the seeds for the future. It should also not be held that material and mental states transform and mutually generate each other as seeds. Because the transforming consciousness (vijñāna) and material states are not what is conditioned, as has been said before. Some say that all dharmas of the three times (past, present, and future) exist, and the causal responses are all accomplished without exception. Why bother insisting on a consciousness that holds seeds? However, the sūtras say that the mind is the seed because its power to generate defiled and pure dharmas is strong. That view is unreasonable. The past and future are not constant, nor are they present, like flowers in the sky, etc., because they are not truly existent. Moreover, because they have no function, they cannot be regarded as having the nature of causes and conditions. If there were no consciousness that holds defiled and pure seeds, all causes and effects could not be accomplished. Some hold that the Mahāyāna principle of eliminating characteristics and emptiness is ultimate, and relying on similar analogies, they deny this consciousness and all dharmas. They especially violate the sūtras quoted earlier, considering wisdom, the cessation of afflictions, realization, practice, and the causes and effects of defilement and purity to be unreal, thus forming a great wrong view. Even non-Buddhists, when they slander the causes and effects of defilement and purity, do not say that they are completely non-existent, but only that they are not real. If all dharmas were not truly existent, Bodhisattvas should not diligently cultivate the accumulations of merit for enlightenment in order to abandon birth and death. What wise person would seek the son of a barren woman to use as an army in order to eliminate illusory enemies? Therefore, one should believe that there is a mind that holds seeds, upon which the causes and effects of defilement and purity are established. That mind is this eighth consciousness (Ālayavijñāna). Furthermore, the sūtras say that there is a Vipāka-citta (resultant mind), which is the result of good and bad karma. If there were no such consciousness, that Vipāka-citta should not exist. Because the eye consciousness, etc., are intermittent and are not the result of karma at all times. Like lightning, etc., they are not Vipāka-citta. Vipāka should not be interrupted and then continue again. The life force, etc., do not have such an occurrence. The six consciousnesses, such as the eye consciousness, etc., which are produced by karma, are like sounds, etc., and are not constantly continuous. They are Vipāka-born, not true Vipāka. It should definitely be admitted that there is a true Vipāka-citta, which repays the karma that draws one into existence, is universal and without interruption, and transforms into the body and the world, serving as the basis for sentient beings. The body and the world cannot exist apart from the mind. Non-associated dharmas have no substance. The transforming consciousnesses, etc., are not constantly existent. If there were no such mind, who would transform the body and the world? And upon what dharma would sentient beings be constantly established? Furthermore, whether in meditation or not, whether there is conceptual thought or not, there are many bodily sensations that arise. If there were no such consciousness, the body should not have feelings of pleasure and comfort later on.
或復勞損。若不恒有真異熟心。彼位如何有此身受。非佛起餘善心等位。必應現起真異熟心。如許起彼時。非佛有情故。由是恒有真異熟心。彼心即是此第八識。
又契經說有情流轉五趣四生。若無此識彼趣生體不應有故。謂要實有。恒遍無雜。彼法可立正實趣生。非異熟法趣生雜亂住此起餘趣生法故。諸異熟色及五識中業所感者不遍趣生。無色界中全無彼故。諸生得善及意識中業所感者。雖遍趣生起無雜亂而不恒有。不相應行無實自體。皆不可立正實趣生。唯異熟心及彼心所實恒遍無雜。是正實趣生。此心若無生無色界起善等位應非趣生。設許趣生攝諸有漏生無色界起無漏心。應非趣生便違正理。勿有前過及有此失故。唯異熟法是正實趣生。由是如來非趣生攝。佛無異熟無記法故。亦非界攝非有漏故。世尊已捨苦集諦故。諸戲論種已永斷故。正實趣生既唯異熟心及心所。彼心心所離第八識理不得成。故知別有此第八識。
又契經說有色根身是有執受。若無此識彼能執受不應有故。謂五色根及彼依處。唯現在世是有執受彼定由有能執受心。唯異熟心先業所引非善染等。一類能遍相續執受有色根身。眼等轉識無如是義。此言意顯眼等轉識皆無一類能遍相續執受自內有色根身。非顯能執受唯異熟心。勿諸佛色
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 或者再次遭受勞損。
如果沒有恒常存在的真實異熟心（Vipāka-citta，果報心），那麼在這種狀態下怎麼會有這樣的身受（身體感受）呢？在佛陀生起其他善心等狀態時，必定應當現起真實異熟心。如果允許在那個時候生起真實異熟心，因為那時並非佛陀的有情狀態。因此，恒常存在真實異熟心。這個心就是第八識（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）。
此外，契經（Sūtra，佛經）中說有情（Sattva，眾生）流轉於五趣（Gati，五道：地獄、餓鬼、畜生、人、天）四生（Yoni，四種出生方式：卵生、胎生、濕生、化生）。如果沒有這個識，那麼五趣四生的自體就不應該存在。也就是說，必須真實存在、恒常普遍、沒有雜染的法，才能被確立為真實可靠的趣生（Gati-janma，輪迴）。
異熟法（Vipāka-dharma，果報法）不能作為趣生，因為異熟法的趣生是雜亂的，住在此趣生而生起其他趣生的法。
諸異熟色（Vipāka-rūpa，果報色）以及五識（Pañca-vijñāna，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）中由業力所感的，不能普遍存在於趣生中，因為在無色界（Arūpadhātu，沒有物質的禪定境界）中完全沒有這些。諸生得善（Sahaja-kuśala，與生俱來的善）以及意識（Manovijñāna，第六識）中由業力所感的，雖然普遍存在於趣生中，生起時沒有雜亂，但是並不恒常存在。
不相應行（Citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra，既非心也非色的抽像概念）沒有真實的自體。這些都不能被確立為真實可靠的趣生。只有異熟心以及與此心相應的心所（Caitasika，心理活動），是真實、恒常、普遍、沒有雜染的。這是真實可靠的趣生。如果沒有這個心，那麼在生、無色、生起善等狀態時，就不應該是趣生。
假設允許趣生包含諸有漏（Sāsrava，有煩惱）的生，在無色界生起無漏心（Anāsrava-citta，沒有煩惱的心）時，就不應該是趣生，這就違背了正理。爲了避免前面的過失以及產生這個錯誤，所以只有異熟法才是真實可靠的趣生。因此，如來（Tathāgata，佛）不屬於趣生所攝。因為佛沒有異熟無記法（Vipāka-avyākṛta-dharma，果報性的非善非惡的法）。也不屬於界（Dhātu，三界：欲界、色界、無色界）所攝，因為不是有漏的。世尊（Bhagavān，佛）已經捨棄了苦集諦（Duḥkha-samudaya-satya，苦和苦的根源的真理），諸戲論種（Prapañca-bīja，虛妄分別的種子）已經永遠斷除。既然真實可靠的趣生只有異熟心以及心所，那麼這些心和心所離開第八識的道理就不能成立。所以，可知另有這個第八識。
此外，契經中說有色根身（Rūpendriya-kāya，有物質的感官）是有執受（Upādāna，執取）的。如果沒有這個識，那麼能執受就不應該存在。也就是說，五色根（Pañcendriya，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）以及它們所依賴的處所，只有現在世（Adhvan，時間）是有執受的，這必定是因為有能執受的心。只有異熟心是由先前的業力所引導，不是善染等，一類能普遍相續地執受有色根身。
眼等轉識（Pravṛtti-vijñāna，前七識）沒有這樣的作用。這句話的意思是說，眼等轉識都沒有一類能普遍相續地執受自身內部的有色根身。並非說能執受的只有異熟心。不要讓諸佛的色身...
【English Translation】 English version: Or again, suffer fatigue. If there is no constant true Vipāka-citta (resultant consciousness), how can there be such bodily sensations in that state? When the Buddha arises other wholesome thoughts, etc., the true Vipāka-citta must arise. If it is allowed to arise at that time, it is because it is not the sentient state of the Buddha. Therefore, there is always a true Vipāka-citta. That mind is the eighth consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna, storehouse consciousness).
Moreover, the Sūtra (scripture) says that sentient beings (Sattva) transmigrate through the five Gatis (realms: hell, hungry ghosts, animals, humans, and gods) and four Yonis (modes of birth: oviparous, viviparous, moisture-born, and metamorphic). If there were no such consciousness, the self-nature of those realms and births should not exist. That is to say, there must be a truly existent, constant, pervasive, and unmixed dharma (phenomenon) that can be established as a truly reliable Gati-janma (rebirth). Vipāka-dharma (resultant phenomena) cannot be established as Gati-janma, because the Gati-janma of Vipāka-dharma is mixed, residing in this Gati-janma and arising the dharma of other Gati-janmas. The Vipāka-rūpa (resultant form) and the karma-induced aspects of the five consciousnesses (Pañca-vijñāna: eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses) are not pervasive in Gati-janma, because they are completely absent in the Arūpadhātu (formless realm). The Sahaja-kuśala (innate goodness) and the karma-induced aspects of the Manovijñāna (sixth consciousness, mind consciousness), although pervasive in Gati-janma and arising without mixture, are not constant. Citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra (non-associated formations) have no real self-nature. None of these can be established as truly reliable Gati-janma. Only the Vipāka-citta and its associated Caitasika (mental factors) are truly existent, constant, pervasive, and unmixed. This is the truly reliable Gati-janma. If this mind did not exist, then the states of birth, formlessness, and arising of goodness should not be Gati-janma. If it is allowed that Gati-janma includes the Sāsrava (defiled) births, and the Anāsrava-citta (undefiled mind) arises in the formless realm, then it should not be Gati-janma, which would violate the correct reasoning. To avoid the previous fault and to prevent this error, only Vipāka-dharma is the truly reliable Gati-janma. Therefore, the Tathāgata (Buddha) is not included in Gati-janma, because the Buddha has no Vipāka-avyākṛta-dharma (resultant indeterminate phenomena). Nor is it included in the Dhātu (three realms: desire realm, form realm, formless realm), because it is not defiled. The Bhagavan (Buddha) has already abandoned the Duḥkha-samudaya-satya (truth of suffering and the origin of suffering), and the Prapañca-bīja (seeds of conceptual proliferation) have been permanently severed. Since the truly reliable Gati-janma is only the Vipāka-citta and its mental factors, the principle that these minds and mental factors are separate from the eighth consciousness cannot be established. Therefore, it is known that there is another eighth consciousness.
Furthermore, the Sūtra says that the Rūpendriya-kāya (corporeal sense faculties) are Upādāna (clinging). If there were no such consciousness, then the ability to cling should not exist. That is to say, the Pañcendriya (five sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body) and their bases are only Upādāna in the present Adhvan (time), which must be because there is a mind that can cling. Only the Vipāka-citta is guided by previous karma, not wholesome or defiled, and can continuously and pervasively cling to the corporeal sense faculties. The Pravṛtti-vijñāna (the first seven consciousnesses) such as the eye consciousness do not have such a function. This statement means that none of the Pravṛtti-vijñāna such as the eye consciousness can continuously and pervasively cling to their own internal corporeal sense faculties. It does not mean that only the Vipāka-citta can cling. Do not let the Buddha's body...
身無執受故。然能執受有漏色身唯異熟心。故作是說。謂諸轉識現緣起故。如聲風等。彼善染等非業引故。如非擇滅。異熟生者非異熟故。非遍依故。不相續故。如電光等。不能執受有漏色身。諸心識言亦攝心所。定相應故如唯識言。非諸色根不相應行可能執受有色根身。無所緣故。如虛空等。故應別有能執受心。彼心即是此第八識。
又契經說壽暖識三更互依持得相續住。若無此識能持壽暖令久住識不應有故。謂諸轉識有間有轉如聲風等。無恒持用不可立為持壽暖識。唯異熟。識無間無轉猶如壽暖。有恒持用故可立為持壽暖識。經說三法更互依持。而壽與暖一類相續。唯識不然。豈符正理。雖說三法更互依持而許唯暖不遍三界。何不許識獨有間轉此於前理非為過難。謂若是處具有三法無間轉者可恒相持。不爾便無恒相持用前以此理顯三法中所說識言非詮轉識。舉緩不遍豈壞前理。故前所說其理極成。又三法中壽暖二種既唯有漏。故知彼識如壽與暖定非無漏。生無色界起無漏心。爾時何識能持彼壽。由此故知有異熟識一類恒遍能持壽暖。彼識即是此第八識。
又契經說諸有情類受生命終必住散心非無心定。若無此識生死時心不應有故。謂生死時身心惛昧。如睡無夢極悶絕時。明瞭轉識必不現起。又此位中
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：
因為沒有可以執取和領受的『我』。然而，只有異熟心才能執取和領受有漏的色身，所以才這樣說。意思是說，各種轉識是因緣生起的，就像聲音和風等。它們的善惡等性質不是由業力引導的，就像非擇滅一樣。
異熟生起的法不是異熟本身，也不是普遍存在的，更不是相續不斷的，就像閃電等。因此，它們不能執取和領受有漏的色身。這裡所說的『心識』也包括心所，因為它們與定相應，就像『唯識』這個詞一樣。
各種色根和不相應行法不可能執取有色的根身，因為它們沒有所緣，就像虛空等。所以，應該另外有一個能夠執取的心，這個心就是第八識（Alaya識，阿賴耶識）。
此外，契經（Sutra，佛經）中說，壽命（Jivita，生命力）、暖（Usma，體溫）和識（Vijnana，意識）三者相互依存，才能持續存在。如果沒有這個能夠維持壽命和暖的識，壽命和暖就無法持久，識也不應該存在。各種轉識是有間斷和變化的，就像聲音和風等。它們沒有恒常的維持作用，不能被認為是維持壽命和暖的識。只有異熟識（Vipaka-vijnana，異熟果報識）沒有間斷和變化，就像壽命和暖一樣。它具有恒常的維持作用，所以可以被認為是維持壽命和暖的識。經中說這三種法相互依存，而壽命和暖是同一類相續的，只有識不是這樣，這怎麼符合正理呢？
雖然說這三種法相互依存，但允許只有暖不遍及三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界），為什麼不允許識單獨有間斷的變化呢？這對於之前的理論來說並不是一個難以克服的難題。意思是說，如果一個地方具有三種法，並且是無間斷變化的，那麼它們就可以恒常相互維持。否則，就沒有恒常的維持作用。之前就是用這個道理來表明，三種法中所說的『識』不是指轉識。用暖不遍及三界這個例子並不能推翻之前的理論。所以，之前所說的道理是完全成立的。
此外，三種法中，壽命和暖兩種都是有漏的，所以可以知道，這個識就像壽命和暖一樣，必定不是無漏的。如果生無色界（Arupadhatu，無色界）時沒有生起無漏心，那麼那時是什麼識在維持壽命呢？由此可知，有異熟識一類恒常普遍地維持著壽命和暖。這個識就是第八識。
此外，契經中說，所有有情（Sattva，眾生）在接受生命終結時，必定處於散亂心（Vikshipta-citta，心神散亂的狀態），而不是無心定（Asamjnika-samadhi，無想定）的狀態。如果沒有這個識，生死時（Bhava-cakra，輪迴）的心就不應該存在。意思是說，在生死時，身心昏昧，就像睡眠無夢和極度悶絕時一樣，明瞭的轉識必定不會現起。而且，在這種狀態下，
【English Translation】 English version: Because there is no 'self' to grasp and hold. However, only the Vipaka-citta (異熟心, resultant consciousness) can grasp and hold the contaminated Rupakaya (色身, form body), hence this statement. It means that the various Vijnanas (轉識, transforming consciousnesses) arise from conditions, like sound and wind. Their qualities of good and evil are not guided by Karma (業, action), like Nirodha-asamapatti (非擇滅, cessation attained through wisdom). Dharmas (法, phenomena) arising from Vipaka (異熟, result) are not Vipaka themselves, nor are they universally present, nor are they continuously connected, like lightning. Therefore, they cannot grasp and hold the contaminated Rupakaya. The term 'consciousness' here also includes Citta-caitta (心所, mental factors), because they are associated with Samadhi (定, concentration), like the term 'Vijnapti-matrata' (唯識, consciousness-only). The various sensory faculties and non-associated formations cannot grasp the colored root body because they have no object of focus, like space. Therefore, there should be another consciousness that can grasp, and this consciousness is the eighth consciousness, Alaya-vijnana (阿賴耶識, storehouse consciousness).
Furthermore, the Sutra (契經, scripture) says that Jivita (壽命, life force), Usma (暖, warmth), and Vijnana (識, consciousness) mutually depend on each other to continue. If there were no consciousness to maintain Jivita and Usma, Jivita and Usma could not last, and consciousness should not exist. The various transforming consciousnesses are intermittent and changing, like sound and wind. They do not have constant sustaining power and cannot be considered the consciousness that maintains Jivita and Usma. Only Vipaka-vijnana (異熟識, resultant consciousness) is without interruption and change, like Jivita and Usma. It has constant sustaining power and can be considered the consciousness that maintains Jivita and Usma. The Sutra says that these three Dharmas mutually depend on each other, but Jivita and Usma are of the same continuous nature, while only consciousness is not. How can this be consistent with reason? Although it is said that these three Dharmas mutually depend on each other, it is allowed that only Usma does not pervade the Trailokya (三界, three realms), why is it not allowed that consciousness alone has intermittent changes? This is not an insurmountable difficulty for the previous theory. It means that if a place has three Dharmas and is constantly changing, then they can constantly maintain each other. Otherwise, there is no constant maintenance. Previously, this principle was used to show that the 'consciousness' mentioned in the three Dharmas does not refer to the transforming consciousnesses. The example of Usma not pervading the three realms does not overturn the previous theory. Therefore, what was said before is completely valid. Furthermore, among the three Dharmas, Jivita and Usma are both contaminated, so it can be known that this consciousness, like Jivita and Usma, must not be uncontaminated. If no uncontaminated mind arises when born in the Arupadhatu (無色界, formless realm), then what consciousness maintains Jivita at that time? From this, it can be known that there is a kind of Vipaka-vijnana that constantly and universally maintains Jivita and Usma. This consciousness is the eighth consciousness.
Furthermore, the Sutra says that all Sattvas (有情, sentient beings) at the end of their lives must be in a state of Vikshipta-citta (散亂心, distracted mind), not in Asamjnika-samadhi (無想定, non-perceptual concentration). If there were no such consciousness, the mind at the time of Bhava-cakra (生死時, cycle of existence) should not exist. It means that at the time of death and rebirth, the body and mind are dull, like when sleeping without dreams or in a state of extreme suffocation, the clear transforming consciousnesses will definitely not arise. Moreover, in this state,
六種轉識行相所緣不可知故。如無心位必不現行。六種轉識行相所緣有必可知。如餘時故。真異熟識極微細故。行相所緣俱不可了。是引業果一期相續。恒無轉變。是散有心名生死心。不違正理。有說五識此位定無。意識取境。或因五識。或因他教。或定為因。生位諸因既不可得。故受生位意識亦無。若爾有情生無色界後時意識應永不生。定心必由散意識引。五識他教彼界必無。引定散心無由起故。若謂彼定由串習力後時率爾能現在前。彼初生時寧不現起。又欲色界初受生時串習意識亦應現起。若由惛昧初未現前此即前因。何勞別說。有餘部執。生死等位別有一類微細意識。行相所緣俱不可了。應知即是此第八識。
極成意識不如是故。又將死時由善惡業下上身份冷觸漸起。若無此識彼事不成。轉識不能執受身故。眼等五識各別依故。或不行故。
第六意識不住身故。境不定故。遍寄身中恒相續故。不應冷觸由彼漸生。唯異熟心由先業力恒遍相續執受身份。捨執受處冷觸便生。壽暖識三不相離故。冷觸起處即是非情。雖變亦緣而不執受。故知定有此第八識。
又契經說識緣名色。名色緣識。如是二法展轉相依譬如蘆束俱時而轉。若無此識彼識自體不應有故。謂彼經中自作是釋。名謂非色四蘊。色謂
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：
六種轉識（指眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）的行相和所緣對境，有時是不可知的。
例如，在無心位（指睡眠、悶絕等狀態），轉識必然不會現行。六種轉識的行相和所緣對境，有時又是可以知道的，例如在其他清醒的時候。真異熟識（第八識，阿賴耶識）極其微細，所以它的行相和所緣都難以明瞭。它是引業（能引發總報的業）的果報，在一期生命中相續不斷，恒常不變。這種散亂的有心狀態，名為生死心，這並不違背正理。
有人說，五識在這個階段（受生、死亡等）必定沒有。意識取境，或者因為五識，或者因為其他教導，或者必定有其原因。但在受生位，這些原因都不可得，所以受生位也沒有意識。如果這樣，有情眾生在最初沒有意識之後，以後永遠不會產生意識。因為定心必定由散意識引導，而五識和其他教導在彼界（指受生之處）必定沒有，所以引導定心的散心沒有由頭生起。如果說那種定心由串習的力量，在後來能夠突然現前，那麼它為什麼在初生時不能現起呢？而且，在欲界最初受生時，串習的意識也應該現起。如果說因為惛昧而最初沒有現前，這也就是前因，何必另外說明呢？
有其他部派認為，在生死等階段，別有一類微細的意識，它的行相和所緣都難以明瞭。應當知道，這就是第八識（阿賴耶識）。
極成意識（指第六意識）不是這樣的。而且，將要死亡時，由於善業或惡業，身體下部或上部的冷觸逐漸產生。如果沒有這個識（第八識），這件事就無法完成，因為轉識不能執受身體。眼等五識各自有不同的所依，或者不行作用。
第六意識不住在身體中，所緣的境界也不確定，不能普遍地在身體中恒常相續，所以冷觸不應該由它逐漸產生。只有異熟心（第八識）由於先前的業力，恒常普遍地相續，執受身體的各個部分。捨棄執受的地方，冷觸便會產生。因為壽、暖、識三者不相分離，冷觸產生的地方就是非情（沒有情識的物體）。雖然（第八識）也變現境界，但不執受。所以可知必定有這第八識。
而且，契經上說，識緣名色（精神現象和物質現象），名色緣識。這兩種法互相依賴，就像蘆葦束一樣同時轉動。如果沒有這個識（第八識），那個識（名色所依的識）的自體就不應該存在。經中自己作了解釋，名是指非色的四蘊（受、想、行、識），色是指色蘊。
【English Translation】 English version: The appearances and objects of the six consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind consciousnesses) are sometimes unknowable. For example, in a state of mindlessness (such as sleep or fainting), the transformed consciousnesses will certainly not manifest. The appearances and objects of the six transformed consciousnesses are sometimes knowable, such as in other awake moments. The true other-ripe consciousness (the eighth consciousness, Ālaya-vijñāna) is extremely subtle, so its appearances and objects are difficult to understand. It is the result of the karma that draws forth (karma that can trigger the overall retribution), continuously persisting throughout a lifetime, constantly without change. This scattered state of mind with consciousness is called the mind of birth and death, which does not contradict the correct principle. Some say that the five consciousnesses are definitely absent in this stage (birth, death, etc.). The mind consciousness takes objects, either because of the five consciousnesses, or because of other teachings, or it must have its cause. But in the moment of conception, these causes are not available, so there is no mind consciousness in the moment of conception. If so, sentient beings, after initially having no consciousness, should never produce consciousness in the future. Because fixed concentration must be guided by scattered consciousness, and the five consciousnesses and other teachings are certainly not present in that realm (referring to the place of conception), so the scattered mind that guides fixed concentration has no way to arise. If it is said that that fixed concentration, by the power of habituation, can suddenly appear later, then why can't it appear at the moment of initial birth? Moreover, at the initial moment of birth in the desire realm, the habituated consciousness should also appear. If it is said that it did not initially appear due to dimness, then this is the previous cause, why bother to explain it separately? Other schools hold that in stages such as birth and death, there is another type of subtle consciousness, whose appearances and objects are difficult to understand. It should be known that this is the eighth consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna). The fully established consciousness (referring to the sixth consciousness) is not like this. Moreover, when one is about to die, due to good or bad karma, cold touch gradually arises in the lower or upper parts of the body. If there is no this consciousness (the eighth consciousness), this event cannot be completed, because the transformed consciousnesses cannot grasp the body. The five consciousnesses, such as the eye consciousness, each have different supports, or do not function. The sixth consciousness does not reside in the body, and the objects it perceives are also uncertain, and it cannot constantly and continuously persist throughout the body, so cold touch should not gradually arise from it. Only the other-ripe mind (the eighth consciousness), due to the power of previous karma, constantly and universally continues, grasping the various parts of the body. Where grasping is abandoned, cold touch will arise. Because life, warmth, and consciousness are inseparable, the place where cold touch arises is non-sentient (an object without consciousness). Although (the eighth consciousness) also transforms objects, it does not grasp them. Therefore, it can be known that there is definitely this eighth consciousness. Moreover, the sutras say that consciousness conditions name and form (mental and material phenomena), and name and form condition consciousness. These two dharmas are mutually dependent, like a bundle of reeds turning simultaneously. If there is no this consciousness (the eighth consciousness), the self-nature of that consciousness (the consciousness on which name and form depend) should not exist. The sutra itself provides an explanation, 'Name' refers to the four non-form aggregates (feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness), and 'form' refers to the form aggregate.
羯邏藍等。此二與識相依而住如二蘆束更互為緣恒俱時轉不相捨離。眼等轉識攝在名中。此識若無說誰為識。亦不可說名中識蘊謂五識身。識謂第六。羯邏藍時無五識故。又諸轉識有間轉故。無力恒時執持名色。寧說恒與名色為緣。故彼識言顯第八識。
## 成唯識論卷第三
大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 成唯識論
## 成唯識論卷第四
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
又契經說一切有情皆依食住。若無此識彼識食體不應有故。謂契經說食有四種。一者段食變壞為相。謂欲界系香味觸三于變壞時能為食事。由此色處非段食攝。以變壞時色無用故。二者觸食觸境為相。謂有漏觸才取境時攝受喜等能為食事。此觸雖與諸識相應。屬六識者食義偏勝。觸粗顯境攝受喜樂及順益捨資養勝故。三意思食希望為相。謂有漏思與欲俱轉。希可愛境能為食事。此思雖與諸識相應。屬意識者食義偏勝。意識于境希望勝故。四者識食執持為相。謂有漏識由段觸思勢力增長能為食事。此識雖通諸識自體。而第八識食義偏勝。一類相續執持勝故。由是集論說此四食三蘊五處十一界攝。此四能持有情身命令不壞斷故名為食。段食唯于欲界有用。觸意思食雖遍三界而依識轉隨識有無。眼等轉識有間有
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 關於羯邏藍（Kalala，受精卵）等。這二者與識相互依存而住，就像兩束蘆葦互相依靠，互為因緣，恒常同時運轉，不相捨離。眼等轉識包含在『名』中。如果這個識不存在，那麼誰來作為『識』呢？也不能說『名』中的識蘊是指前五識，而『識』是指第六識，因為羯邏藍時期沒有前五識。而且，各種轉識是有間斷的，沒有力量恒常地執持名色，怎麼能說恒常與名色互為因緣呢？因此，這裡的『識』指的是第八識（阿賴耶識）。
《成唯識論》卷第三 大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 《成唯識論》
《成唯識論》卷第四
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘 奉 詔譯
此外，契經上說一切有情都依靠食物而住。如果沒有這個識（阿賴耶識），那麼這個識所食之物的本體就不應該存在。契經上說食物有四種：第一種是段食（Duan Shi，粗糙的食物），以變壞為相。指的是欲界中的香味觸三種，在變壞時能作為食物。因此，色處不屬於段食，因為變壞時色沒有作用。第二種是觸食（Chu Shi，感官印象），以觸境為相。指的是有漏的觸，在接觸境界時，攝受喜等感受，能作為食物。這種觸雖然與各種識相應，但屬於六識的觸，其食物的意義更為突出，因為觸能粗略地顯現境界，攝受喜樂，以及順益的捨受，滋養力更強。第三種是意思食（Yi Si Shi，意志），以希望為相。指的是有漏的思與慾望一同運轉，希望可愛的境界，能作為食物。這種思雖然與各種識相應，但屬於意識的思，其食物的意義更為突出，因為意識對於境界的希望更為強烈。第四種是識食（Shi Shi，意識），以執持為相。指的是有漏的識，由段食、觸食、意思食的力量增長，能作為食物。這種識雖然貫通各種識的自體，但第八識的食物意義更為突出，因為它能一類相續地執持。因此，《集論》說這四種食物被包含在三蘊、五處、十一界中。這四種食物能持有情的身命，使其不壞斷，所以稱為食物。段食只在欲界有用。觸食和意思食雖然遍及三界，但依識而轉，隨著識的有無而存在。眼等轉識是有間斷的。
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding Kalala (fertilized egg) etc. These two rely on consciousness (識) to abide, just like two bundles of reeds leaning on each other, mutually causing each other, constantly and simultaneously operating without separating. The transforming consciousnesses such as eye-consciousness are included within 'name' (名). If this consciousness did not exist, then who would be the 'consciousness'? It also cannot be said that the skandha of consciousness within 'name' refers to the five sense consciousnesses, while 'consciousness' refers to the sixth consciousness, because there are no five sense consciousnesses during the Kalala stage. Moreover, the various transforming consciousnesses are intermittent, lacking the power to constantly hold onto name and form. How can it be said that they constantly serve as conditions for name and form? Therefore, the 'consciousness' here refers to the eighth consciousness (Alaya consciousness).
Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only), Volume 3 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 31, No. 1585, Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra
Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra, Volume 4
Composed by Bodhisattvas Dharmapāla etc.
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
Furthermore, the sutras state that all sentient beings abide by food. If this consciousness (Alaya consciousness) did not exist, then the substance of what this consciousness consumes should not exist. The sutras say that there are four kinds of food: First is coarse food (Duan Shi), characterized by transformation and decay. This refers to the three of taste, smell, and touch within the desire realm, which can serve as food when they transform and decay. Therefore, the sphere of form is not included in coarse food, because form has no use when it transforms and decays. Second is sense-impression food (Chu Shi), characterized by contact with objects. This refers to defiled contact, which, when contacting objects, receives feelings such as joy and can serve as food. Although this contact is associated with various consciousnesses, the sense-impression of the six consciousnesses is more prominent in its meaning as food, because contact roughly manifests objects, receives joy and pleasure, and the neutral feeling that is beneficial, providing superior nourishment. Third is volition food (Yi Si Shi), characterized by hope. This refers to defiled thought operating together with desire, hoping for desirable objects, which can serve as food. Although this thought is associated with various consciousnesses, the thought of the consciousness is more prominent in its meaning as food, because the consciousness's hope for objects is stronger. Fourth is consciousness food (Shi Shi), characterized by holding. This refers to defiled consciousness, which grows through the power of coarse food, sense-impression food, and volition food, and can serve as food. Although this consciousness pervades the self-nature of various consciousnesses, the eighth consciousness is more prominent in its meaning as food, because it can continuously hold onto things of the same kind. Therefore, the Compendium of Determinations says that these four kinds of food are included in the three skandhas, five sense bases, and eleven realms. These four can hold the life of sentient beings, preventing it from decaying and ceasing, so they are called food. Coarse food is only useful in the desire realm. Sense-impression food and volition food, although pervading the three realms, depend on consciousness to operate, existing with the presence or absence of consciousness. The transforming consciousnesses such as eye-consciousness are intermittent.
轉。非遍恒時能持身命。謂無心定睡眠悶絕無想天中有間斷故。設有心位隨所依緣性界地等有轉易故。于持身命非遍非恒。諸有執無第八識者依何等食經作是言。一切有情皆依食住。非無心位過去未來識等為食。彼非現常如空花等無體用故。設有體用非現在攝如虛空等非食性故。亦不可說入定心等與無心位有情為食。住無心時彼已滅故。過去非食已極成故。又不可說無想定等不相應行即為彼食。段等四食所不攝故。不相應法非實有故。有執滅定等猶有第六識于彼有情能為食事。彼執非理後當廣破。又彼應說生上二界無漏心時以何為食。無漏識等破壞有故。于彼身命不可為食。亦不可執無漏識中有有漏種能為彼食。無漏識等猶如涅槃。不能執持有漏種故。復不可說上界有情身命相持即互為食。四食不攝彼身命故。又無色無身命無能持故。眾同分等無實體故。由此定知。異諸轉識有異熟識。一類恒遍執持身命令不壞斷。世尊依此故作是言。一切有情皆依食住。唯依取蘊建立有情。佛無有漏非有情攝。說為有情依食住者當知皆依示現而說。既異熟識是勝食性。彼識即是此第八識。
又契經說住滅定者身語心行無不皆滅。而壽不滅亦不離暖。根無變壞。識不離身。若無此識住滅定者。不離身識不應有故。謂眼等識行相粗
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 轉變。不是普遍且恒常能夠維持身命的。因為無心定、睡眠、昏悶、斷絕、無想天中都有間斷的緣故。即使有心識的狀態，也隨著所依賴的緣、自性、界、地等而有轉變的緣故。對於維持身命來說，不是普遍且恒常的。那些執著沒有第八識的人，依據什麼經典說：『一切有情皆依食住』呢？無心位、過去未來識等不是食物。因為它們不是現在常有的，就像空中的花朵一樣，沒有實體和作用的緣故。即使有實體和作用，也不是現在所攝的，就像虛空一樣，沒有食物的性質的緣故。
也不可以說入定之心等，對於無心位的有情來說是食物。因為住在無心時，那些心已經滅了。過去不是食物，這已經極度成立了。
又不可說無想定等不相應行就是他們的食物。因為段食等四食所不攝的緣故。不相應法不是真實存在的緣故。有些人執著滅盡定等，仍然有第六識對於那些有情能夠作為食物的事情。他們的執著沒有道理，後面應當廣泛破斥。
又他們應該說，生到上二界（色界和無色界）的無漏心時，以什麼為食物呢？無漏識等破壞有漏的緣故。對於他們的身命來說，不可以作為食物。也不可以執著無漏識中有有漏的種子，能夠作為他們的食物。無漏識等就像涅槃一樣。不能執持有漏的種子的緣故。又不可以認為上界有情的身命相持，就是互相作為食物。因為四食不攝他們的身命的緣故。又無色界沒有身體，身命沒有能維持的緣故。眾同分等沒有實體的緣故。由此一定知道。異於各種轉變的識，有異熟識（Alaya-vijnana，阿賴耶識）。一類恒常普遍地執持身命，令其不壞斷。世尊依據這個緣故，才說：『一切有情皆依食住』。唯獨依靠取蘊（Skandha，蘊）建立有情。佛沒有有漏，不屬於有情所攝。說作為有情依靠食物而住的，應當知道都是依靠示現而說的。既然異熟識是殊勝的食物的性質。那個識就是這第八識。
又契經說，住在滅盡定中的人，身語心行沒有不全部滅盡的。而壽命不滅，也不離開暖。根沒有變壞。識不離開身體。如果沒有這個識，住在滅盡定中的人，不離開身體的識不應該存在。因為眼等識的行相粗糙。
【English Translation】 English version Transformation. It is not universal and constant to be able to maintain life. Because there are interruptions in the mindlessness, sleep, fainting, cessation, and the realm of non-perception. Even if there is a state of mind, it changes according to the conditions it relies on, such as nature, realm, and ground. For maintaining life, it is neither universal nor constant. Those who insist that there is no eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijnana, 阿賴耶識), based on what sutra do they say: 'All sentient beings depend on food for sustenance'? Mindlessness, past and future consciousnesses, etc., are not food. Because they are not present and constant, like flowers in the sky, they have no substance or function. Even if they have substance and function, they are not included in the present, like space, they have no nature of food. Nor can it be said that the mind in meditation, etc., is food for sentient beings in a state of mindlessness. Because when residing in mindlessness, those minds have already ceased. The past is not food, which has already been extremely established. Nor can it be said that non-corresponding formations such as non-perception are their food. Because they are not included in the four kinds of food such as coarse food. Non-corresponding dharmas are not truly existent. Some people insist that in cessation meditation, etc., there is still a sixth consciousness that can act as food for those sentient beings. Their insistence is unreasonable and will be widely refuted later. Also, they should say, when the undefiled mind arises in the upper two realms (the Realm of Form and the Formless Realm), what is taken as food? Undefiled consciousnesses, etc., destroy the defiled. For their lives, it cannot be taken as food. Nor can it be insisted that there are defiled seeds in the undefiled consciousnesses that can act as their food. Undefiled consciousnesses are like Nirvana. They cannot hold onto defiled seeds. Furthermore, it cannot be said that the sustenance of the lives of sentient beings in the upper realms is that they mutually act as food. Because the four kinds of food do not include their lives. Also, the Formless Realm has no body, and life has no ability to sustain itself. The commonality of beings, etc., has no substance. From this, it is definitely known. Different from the various transforming consciousnesses, there is the Alaya-vijnana (異熟識). It constantly and universally holds onto life, causing it not to be destroyed or interrupted. The World Honored One relied on this reason to say: 'All sentient beings depend on food for sustenance'. Only relying on the aggregates (Skandha, 蘊) is the establishment of sentient beings. The Buddha has no defilements and is not included in sentient beings. Saying that sentient beings rely on food for sustenance, it should be known that it is all said based on manifestation. Since the Alaya-vijnana is the nature of excellent food. That consciousness is this eighth consciousness. Moreover, the sutra says that for those who dwell in cessation meditation, all actions of body, speech, and mind are completely extinguished. But life does not cease, nor does warmth depart. The roots do not change or decay. Consciousness does not leave the body. If there were no such consciousness, the consciousness that does not leave the body should not exist for those who dwell in cessation meditation. Because the characteristics of the eye consciousness, etc., are coarse.
動。于所緣境起必勞慮。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。壽暖諸根應亦如識便成大過。故應許識如壽暖等實不離身。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。誰能執持諸根壽暖。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。離識餘身無重生故。又若此位無持種識。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。然滅定等無心位中如有心位定實有識。具根壽暖有情攝故。由斯理趣住滅定者。決定有識實不離身。若謂此位有第六識名不離身亦不應理。此定亦名無心定故。若無五識名無心者。應一切定皆名無心。諸定皆無五識身故。意識攝在六轉識中。如五識身滅定非有。或此位識行相所緣不可知故。如壽暖等非第六識。若此位有行相所緣可知識者。應如餘位非此位攝。本為止息行相所緣可了知識入此定故。又若此位有第六識彼心所法為有為無。若有心所經不應言住此定者心行皆滅。又不應名滅受
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：動。對於所緣境生起必然會產生憂慮。因為厭惡和憂患這些所緣境，所以暫時尋求止息，逐漸地降伏和消除這些憂慮，直到完全斷盡的階段。依據這個階段才能安立住于滅盡定的人。所以在這個滅盡定中，所有的識都滅盡了。如果不同意存在一種微細的、恒常普遍地執持壽命等的識，那麼依據什麼來說識不離身呢？如果說後來的識還會生起，就像隔日瘧一樣，所以說不離身。那麼就不應該說心行滅。因為識與想等心所的生滅是相同的。壽命、暖氣、諸根也應該像識一樣，這樣就會造成很大的過失。所以應該承認識就像壽命、暖氣等一樣，實際上是不離身的。而且，在這個階段中，如果完全沒有識，就應該像瓦礫一樣，不屬於有情眾生。怎麼能說這是住于滅盡定的人呢？而且，如果異熟識（Vipāka-vijñāna）在這個階段中沒有，誰能夠執持諸根、壽命和暖氣呢？因為沒有執持，所以都應該壞滅，就像死屍一樣，沒有壽命等。既然這樣，後來的識必定不會再生起。說不離身，那它屬於什麼呢？因為諸異熟識捨棄這個身體之後，離開識就沒有其他的身體可以重新產生了。而且，如果這個階段沒有持種識，後來的識沒有種子，怎麼能夠生起呢？過去和未來不相應的法不是真實存在的實體，這已經完全成立了。諸色等法離開識都是沒有的。受熏持種的說法也已經被遮破了。然而，在滅盡定等無心位中，就像有心位一樣，確實有識存在。因為具有諸根、壽命和暖氣，屬於有情眾生。因為這些道理，住于滅盡定的人，決定有識，實際上是不離身的。如果說這個階段有第六識（Manovijñāna），所以說不離身，這也是不合理的。因為這個定也叫做無心定。如果沒有前五識（Pañca-vijñāna），就叫做無心，那麼所有的定都應該叫做無心。因為所有的定都沒有前五識。意識（Manovijñāna）包含在六轉識中，就像前五識在滅盡定中沒有一樣。或者，這個階段的識的行相和所緣是不可知的。就像壽命和暖氣等一樣，不是第六識。如果這個階段有行相和所緣可以被知道，就應該像其他的階段一樣，不屬於這個階段。本來是爲了止息行相和所緣，可以了知識才進入這個定的。而且，如果這個階段有第六識，那麼它的心所法是有還是沒有呢？如果有心所法，經典就不應該說住在這個定中的人心行都滅盡了。而且不應該叫做滅受（Saṃjñā-vedayita-nirodha）
【English Translation】 English version: Moves. Arising in the object of perception inevitably leads to anxiety. Because of aversion and weariness of these objects, one temporarily seeks cessation, gradually subduing and eliminating these anxieties until the stage of complete exhaustion. It is based on this stage that one establishes the person dwelling in the cessation attainment (Nirodha-samāpatti). Therefore, in this cessation attainment, all consciousnesses are extinguished. If one does not accept that there exists a subtle, constantly pervasive consciousness that grasps at life, etc., then based on what is it said that consciousness is inseparable from the body? If it is said that later consciousness will arise again, like tertian malaria, and therefore it is said to be inseparable from the body, then it should not be said that mental activity ceases, because the arising and ceasing of consciousness is the same as that of thought and other mental factors. Life, warmth, and the faculties should also be like consciousness, which would lead to a great fault. Therefore, it should be admitted that consciousness, like life and warmth, is actually inseparable from the body. Moreover, in this stage, if there is no consciousness at all, it should be like rubble, not belonging to sentient beings. How can it be said that this is a person dwelling in cessation attainment? Furthermore, if the resultant consciousness (Vipāka-vijñāna) is not present in this stage, who can hold the faculties, life, and warmth? Because there is no holding, they should all perish, like a corpse, without life, etc. Since this is the case, later consciousness will certainly not arise again. Saying it is inseparable from the body, to what does it belong? Because after these resultant consciousnesses abandon this body, there is no other body apart from consciousness that can be reborn. Moreover, if there is no seed-holding consciousness in this stage, how can later consciousness arise without seeds? The past and future non-associated dharmas are not real entities, which has already been fully established. All phenomena such as form are non-existent apart from consciousness. The statement of receiving impressions and holding seeds has also been refuted. However, in the mindlessness state such as cessation attainment, just like the mind-possessing state, there is indeed consciousness. Because it possesses faculties, life, and warmth, it belongs to sentient beings. Because of these reasons, the person dwelling in cessation attainment definitely has consciousness, which is actually inseparable from the body. If it is said that there is a sixth consciousness (Manovijñāna) in this stage, and therefore it is said to be inseparable from the body, this is also unreasonable, because this attainment is also called the mindless attainment. If there are no five consciousnesses (Pañca-vijñāna), it is called mindless, then all attainments should be called mindless, because all attainments lack the five consciousnesses. The mind consciousness (Manovijñāna) is included in the six transformed consciousnesses, just as the five consciousnesses are not present in cessation attainment. Alternatively, the appearance and object of this stage's consciousness are unknowable, just like life and warmth, it is not the sixth consciousness. If this stage has an appearance and object that can be known, it should be like other stages, not belonging to this stage. Originally, it was to cease the appearance and object, and to be able to know consciousness that one entered this attainment. Moreover, if there is a sixth consciousness in this stage, are its mental factors present or not? If there are mental factors, the scriptures should not say that the mental activities of those dwelling in this attainment are all extinguished. And it should not be called the cessation of perception (Saṃjñā-vedayita-nirodha).
想定。此定加行但厭受想故此定中唯受想滅。受想二法資助心強。諸心所中獨名心行。說心行滅何所相違。無想定中應唯想滅。但厭想故然汝不許。既唯受想資助心強此二滅時心亦應滅。如身行滅而身猶在。寧要責心令同行滅。若爾語行尋伺滅時語應不滅而非所許。然行於法有遍非遍。遍行滅時法定隨滅。非遍行滅法或猶在。非遍行者謂入出息。見息滅時身猶在故。尋伺于語是遍行攝。彼若滅時語定無故。受想於心亦遍行攝。許如思等大地法故。受想滅時心定隨滅。如何可說彼滅心在。又許思等是大地法滅受想時彼亦應滅。既爾信等此位亦無。非遍行滅餘可在故。如何可言有餘心所。既許思等此位非無受想應然。大地法故。又此定中若有思等亦應有觸。餘心所法無不皆依觸力生故。若許有觸亦應有受。觸緣受故。既許有受想亦應生。不相離故。如受緣愛非一切受皆能起愛。故觸緣受非一切觸皆能生受。由斯所難其理不成。彼救不然有差別故。謂佛自簡唯無明觸所生諸受為緣生愛。曾無有處簡觸生受。故若有觸必有受生。受與想俱其理決定。或應如餘位受想亦不滅。執此位中有思等故。許便違害心行滅言。亦不得成滅受想定。若無心所識亦應無。不見餘心離心所故。餘遍行滅法隨滅故。受等應非大地法故。此識應非相應
法故。許則應無所依緣等。如色等法亦非心故。又契經說意法為緣生於意識。三和合觸與觸俱起有受想思。若此定中有意識者。三和合故必應有觸。觸既定與受想思俱。如何有識而無心所。若謂餘時三和有力成觸生觸能起受等。由此定前厭患心所故在定位三事無能不成生觸亦無受等。若爾應名滅心所定。如何但說滅受想耶。若謂厭時唯厭受想。此二滅故心所皆滅。依前所厭以立定名。既爾此中心亦應滅。所厭俱故如餘心所。不爾如何名無心定。又此定位意識是何。不應是染或無記性。諸善定中無此事故。餘染無記心必有心所故。不應厭善起染等故。非求寂靜翻起散故。若謂是善。相應善故。應無貪等善根相應。此心不應是自性善或勝義善。違自宗故非善根等及涅槃故。若謂此心是等起善。加行善根所引發故。理亦不然違自宗故。如餘善心非等起故。善心無間起三性心。如何善心由前等起。故心是善由相應力。既爾必與善根相應。寧說此心獨無心所。故無心所心亦應無。如是推徴眼等轉識于滅定位非不離身。故契經言不離身者。彼識即是此第八識。
入滅定時不為止息此極寂靜執持識故。無想等位類此應知。
又契經說心雜染故有情雜染。心清凈故有情清凈。若無此識彼染凈心不應有故。謂染凈法以心為本
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 如果按照你們的說法，允許有意識存在，那麼就應該沒有任何所依賴的因緣等等。就像色法等法，也不是心。而且契經上說，意和法為緣而產生意識，三者和合產生觸，與觸同時生起受、想、思。如果這個禪定中有意識存在，因為三者和合的緣故，必定應該有觸。既然確定有觸，那麼受、想、思也必定同時存在。怎麼可能只有意識而沒有心所呢？ 如果你們說，其他時候三者和合的力量強大，能夠形成觸，產生觸，並且能夠生起受等等。因為在這個禪定之前，已經有了厭患的心所，所以在禪定狀態中，這三件事沒有能力，不能產生觸，也沒有受等等。如果是這樣，就應該叫做滅心所定，為什麼只說是滅受想呢？ 如果你們說，厭患的時候只是厭患受和想，因為這兩個滅了，所以心所都滅了。根據之前所厭患的來建立禪定的名稱。既然這樣，那麼這個禪定中的心也應該滅掉，因為它和所厭患的受想是一起的，就像其他的心所一樣。如果不是這樣，怎麼能叫做無心定呢？ 而且，這個禪定中的意識是什麼呢？不應該是染污的或者無記性的。因為在各種善的禪定中，沒有這樣的事情。其餘的染污和無記的心必定有心所。不應該爲了尋求寂靜反而生起散亂。如果說是善的，是相應的善，那麼就不應該和貪等善根相應。這個心不應該是自性善或者勝義善，因為它違背了你們自己的宗義，不是善根等等以及涅槃。如果說這個心是等起善（從先前生起的善），是被加行善根所引發的，這個道理也是不成立的，因為它違背了你們自己的宗義。就像其餘的善心不是等起善一樣。善心之後可以無間地生起三性的心，怎麼能說善心是由先前等起而來的呢？所以心是善的，是因為相應的力量。既然這樣，必定和善根相應，怎麼能說這個心單獨沒有心所呢？所以沒有心所，心也應該沒有。 像這樣推究，眼等轉識在滅盡定中並非不離開身體。所以契經上說『不離身』，那個識就是這第八識（阿賴耶識，Alaya-vijnana）。 進入滅盡定的時候，不是爲了止息這個極其寂靜的執持識的緣故。無想定等等的情況，可以類比這個道理來理解。 而且契經上說，心雜染的緣故，有情（Sattva）雜染；心清凈的緣故，有情清凈。如果沒有這個識，那麼染污和清凈的心就不應該存在。也就是說，染污和清凈的法以心為根本。
【English Translation】 English version: According to your explanation, if the existence of consciousness is permitted, then there should be no dependent conditions, etc. Just like form (rupa) and other dharmas, they are not mind (citta). Moreover, the sutras say that mind (manas) and dharma are the conditions for the arising of consciousness (vijnana), and the combination of the three produces contact (sparsha). With contact, feeling (vedana), perception (samjna), and volition (cetana) arise simultaneously. If there is consciousness in this samadhi, then because of the combination of the three, there must be contact. Since contact is certain, then feeling, perception, and volition must also exist simultaneously. How can there be only consciousness without mental factors (caitasikas)? If you say that at other times the combination of the three is powerful, able to form contact, produce contact, and give rise to feeling, etc., but because there was a mind factor of aversion (nirveda) before this samadhi, in the state of samadhi, these three things have no power and cannot produce contact, nor are there feeling, etc. If this is the case, it should be called 'cessation of mental factors samadhi'. Why is it only said to be 'cessation of feeling and perception'? If you say that in aversion, only feeling and perception are disliked, and because these two are extinguished, all mental factors are extinguished. The name of the samadhi is established based on what was previously disliked. In that case, the mind in this samadhi should also be extinguished, because it is together with the disliked feeling and perception, just like other mental factors. If not, how can it be called 'mindless samadhi'? Moreover, what is the consciousness in this samadhi? It should not be defiled (klista) or neutral (avyakrta), because there is no such thing in various good (kusala) samadhis. The remaining defiled and neutral minds must have mental factors. It should not give rise to distraction instead of seeking tranquility. If it is said to be good, and is a corresponding good, then it should not correspond to greed (lobha) and other good roots (kusala-mula). This mind should not be intrinsically good (prakrti-kusala) or ultimately good (paramartha-kusala), because it contradicts your own tenets, and is not a good root, etc., or nirvana. If you say that this mind is an equanimity-born good (samutthana-kusala), caused by the effort of good roots, this reasoning is also not valid, because it contradicts your own tenets. Just like other good minds are not equanimity-born. A mind of three natures (trisvabhava) can arise without interruption after a good mind. How can it be said that a good mind comes from a previous equanimity? Therefore, the mind is good because of the power of correspondence. Since this is the case, it must correspond to good roots. How can it be said that this mind alone has no mental factors? Therefore, if there are no mental factors, there should be no mind either. Investigating in this way, the transforming consciousnesses (pravrtti-vijnana) such as eye-consciousness, etc., are not separate from the body in the cessation samadhi. Therefore, the sutra says 'not separate from the body', that consciousness is the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijnana). Entering the cessation samadhi is not for the sake of stopping this extremely tranquil sustaining consciousness. The state of non-perception (asamjni-samapatti) and others should be understood analogously. Moreover, the sutra says that because the mind is defiled, sentient beings (Sattva) are defiled; because the mind is pure, sentient beings are pure. If there were no such consciousness, then the defiled and pure minds should not exist. That is to say, defiled and pure dharmas have the mind as their root.
。因心而生依心住故。心受彼熏持彼種故。然雜染法略有三種。煩惱業果種類別故。若無此識持煩惱種界地往還無染心後諸煩惱起皆應無因。餘法不能持彼種故。過去未來非實有故。若諸煩惱無因而生。則無三乘學無學果。諸已斷者皆應起故。若無此識持業果種。界地往還異類法後。諸業果起亦應無因。餘種餘因前已遮故。若諸業果無因而生。入無餘依涅槃界已。三界業果還復應生。煩惱亦應無因生故。又行緣識應不得成。轉識受熏前已遮故。結生染識非行感故。應說名色行為緣故。時分懸隔無緣義故。此不成故後亦不成。諸清凈法亦有三種。世出世道斷果別故。若無此識持世出世清凈道種。異類心後起彼凈法皆應無因。所執餘因前已破故。若二凈道無因而生。入無餘依涅槃界已。彼二凈道還復應生。所依亦應無因生故。又出世道初不應生。無法持彼法爾種故。有漏類別非彼因故。無因而生非釋種故。初不生故後亦不生。是則應無三乘道果。若無此識持煩惱種。轉依斷果亦不得成。謂道起時現行煩惱及彼種子俱非有故。染凈二心不俱起故。道相應心不持彼種。自性相違如涅槃故。去來得等非實有故。餘法持種理不成故。既無所斷能斷亦無。依誰由誰而立斷果。若由道力後惑不生立斷果者。則初道起應成無學。後諸煩惱
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：因為心而產生，依靠心而存在。心接受那些熏習，保持那些種子。然而雜染法大致有三種：煩惱、業、果的種子類別。如果沒有這個識來保持煩惱的種子，在界、地之間往還，沒有染污的心之後，各種煩惱的生起都應該沒有原因。因為其他法不能保持那些種子，過去和未來都不是真實存在的。如果各種煩惱沒有原因而生，那麼就沒有三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的有學和無學果位。那些已經斷除煩惱的人，所有的煩惱都應該重新生起。如果沒有這個識來保持業和果的種子，在界、地之間往還，不同類別的法之後，各種業果的生起也應該沒有原因。因為其他的種子和其他的原因之前已經被否定了。如果各種業果沒有原因而生，進入無餘依涅槃界之後，三界的業果還應該重新生起，煩惱也應該沒有原因地生起。此外，行緣識也應該不能成立，因為轉識接受熏習之前已經被否定了，結生染識不是行所感知的。應該說名色是行的緣故，時間間隔太遠沒有緣的意義。這個不能成立，後面的也不能成立。各種清凈法也有三種：世間道、出世間道、斷果的差別。如果沒有這個識來保持世間和出世間的清凈道種子，在不同類別的心之後生起那些清凈法，都應該沒有原因。因為所執著的其他原因之前已經被破斥了。如果兩種清凈道沒有原因而生，進入無餘依涅槃界之後，那兩種清凈道還應該重新生起，所依賴的也應該沒有原因地生起。此外，出世間道最初不應該生起，因為沒有法來保持它本然的種子，有漏的類別不是它的原因，沒有原因地生起不是釋迦牟尼佛的種子。最初不生起，後面也不生起。那麼就應該沒有三乘的道果。如果沒有這個識來保持煩惱的種子，轉依（轉變所依）的斷果也不能成立。所謂道生起的時候，現行的煩惱和那些種子都同時不存在。因為染污和清凈兩種心不能同時生起，與道相應的心不保持那些種子，自性相違背如同涅槃一樣。過去和未來的獲得等等不是真實存在的，其他法保持種子的道理不能成立。既然沒有所斷的，能斷的也沒有，依靠誰、通過誰來建立斷果。如果通過道的力量，後來的迷惑不生起，來建立斷果，那麼最初道生起就應該成為無學，後來的各種煩惱 English version: Because of mind it arises, relying on mind it abides. The mind receives those熏習 (xun xi, influence/habituation), and holds those seeds. However, defiled dharmas are roughly of three kinds: the seed categories of afflictions, karma, and results. If there were no consciousness to hold the seeds of afflictions, in the coming and going between realms and grounds, after a mind without defilement, the arising of various afflictions should all be without cause. Because other dharmas cannot hold those seeds, and the past and future are not truly existent. If various afflictions arise without cause, then there would be no fruits of the three vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna), neither the learned nor the unlearned. Those who have already severed afflictions, all afflictions should arise again. If there were no consciousness to hold the seeds of karma and results, in the coming and going between realms and grounds, after different kinds of dharmas, the arising of various karmic results should also be without cause. Because other seeds and other causes have already been negated before. If various karmic results arise without cause, after entering the Nirupadhisesa-nirvana (無餘依涅槃, Nirvana without remainder), the karmic results of the three realms should still arise again, and afflictions should also arise without cause. Furthermore, 行緣識 (xing yuan shi, volitional actions conditioning consciousness) should not be established, because the 轉識 (zhuan shi, transformed consciousness) receiving 熏習 (xun xi, influence/habituation) has already been negated before, and the 結生染識 (jie sheng ran shi, defiled consciousness linking to rebirth) is not conditioned by 行 (xing, volitional actions). It should be said that 名色 (ming se, name and form) is the condition for 行 (xing, volitional actions), the temporal separation is too distant to have the meaning of a condition. If this is not established, the latter is also not established. Various pure dharmas are also of three kinds: the differences between worldly paths, supramundane paths, and the fruits of cessation. If there were no consciousness to hold the seeds of worldly and supramundane pure paths, after different kinds of minds, the arising of those pure dharmas should all be without cause. Because the other causes that are clung to have already been refuted before. If the two pure paths arise without cause, after entering the Nirupadhisesa-nirvana (無餘依涅槃, Nirvana without remainder), those two pure paths should still arise again, and what is relied upon should also arise without cause. Furthermore, the supramundane path should not arise in the beginning, because there is no dharma to hold its naturally existing seed, the category of the defiled is not its cause, and arising without cause is not the seed of Śākyamuni Buddha. If it does not arise in the beginning, it will not arise later. Then there should be no fruits of the three vehicles. If there were no consciousness to hold the seeds of afflictions, the 斷果 (duan guo, fruit of cessation) of 轉依 (zhuan yi, transformation of the basis) could not be established either. When the path arises, the currently active afflictions and those seeds are both non-existent. Because defiled and pure minds cannot arise simultaneously, and the mind corresponding to the path does not hold those seeds, its nature is contradictory like Nirvana. The attainment of the past and future is not truly existent, and the principle of other dharmas holding seeds cannot be established. Since there is nothing to be severed, there is also nothing that can sever, relying on whom and through whom is the fruit of cessation established. If the fruit of cessation is established by the power of the path, so that later delusions do not arise, then the initial arising of the path should become unlearned, and the later various afflictions
【English Translation】 English version: Because of mind it arises, relying on mind it abides. The mind receives those 'xun xi' (熏習, influence/habituation), and holds those seeds. However, defiled dharmas are roughly of three kinds: the seed categories of afflictions, karma, and results. If there were no consciousness to hold the seeds of afflictions, in the coming and going between realms and grounds, after a mind without defilement, the arising of various afflictions should all be without cause. Because other dharmas cannot hold those seeds, and the past and future are not truly existent. If various afflictions arise without cause, then there would be no fruits of the three vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna), neither the learned nor the unlearned. Those who have already severed afflictions, all afflictions should arise again. If there were no consciousness to hold the seeds of karma and results, in the coming and going between realms and grounds, after different kinds of dharmas, the arising of various karmic results should also be without cause. Because other seeds and other causes have already been negated before. If various karmic results arise without cause, after entering the Nirupadhisesa-nirvana (無餘依涅槃, Nirvana without remainder), the karmic results of the three realms should still arise again, and afflictions should also arise without cause. Furthermore, 'xing yuan shi' (行緣識, volitional actions conditioning consciousness) should not be established, because the 'zhuan shi' (轉識, transformed consciousness) receiving 'xun xi' (熏習, influence/habituation) has already been negated before, and the 'jie sheng ran shi' (結生染識, defiled consciousness linking to rebirth) is not conditioned by 'xing' (行, volitional actions). It should be said that 'ming se' (名色, name and form) is the condition for 'xing' (行, volitional actions), the temporal separation is too distant to have the meaning of a condition. If this is not established, the latter is also not established. Various pure dharmas are also of three kinds: the differences between worldly paths, supramundane paths, and the fruits of cessation. If there were no consciousness to hold the seeds of worldly and supramundane pure paths, after different kinds of minds, the arising of those pure dharmas should all be without cause. Because the other causes that are clung to have already been refuted before. If the two pure paths arise without cause, after entering the Nirupadhisesa-nirvana (無餘依涅槃, Nirvana without remainder), those two pure paths should still arise again, and what is relied upon should also arise without cause. Furthermore, the supramundane path should not arise in the beginning, because there is no dharma to hold its naturally existing seed, the category of the defiled is not its cause, and arising without cause is not the seed of Śākyamuni Buddha. If it does not arise in the beginning, it will not arise later. Then there should be no fruits of the three vehicles. If there were no consciousness to hold the seeds of afflictions, the 'duan guo' (斷果, fruit of cessation) of 'zhuan yi' (轉依, transformation of the basis) could not be established either. When the path arises, the currently active afflictions and those seeds are both non-existent. Because defiled and pure minds cannot arise simultaneously, and the mind corresponding to the path does not hold those seeds, its nature is contradictory like Nirvana. The attainment of the past and future is not truly existent, and the principle of other dharmas holding seeds cannot be established. Since there is nothing to be severed, there is also nothing that can sever, relying on whom and through whom is the fruit of cessation established. If the fruit of cessation is established by the power of the path, so that later delusions do not arise, then the initial arising of the path should become unlearned, and the later various afflictions
皆已無因。永不生故。許有此識一切皆成。唯此能持染凈種故。證此識有理趣無邊。恐厭繁文略述綱要。別有此識教理顯然。諸有智人應深信受。如是已說初能變相。第二能變其相云何。頌曰。
５ 次第二能變 是識名末那 依彼轉緣彼 思量為性相
６ 四煩惱常俱 謂我癡我見 並我慢我愛 及餘觸等俱
７ 有覆無記攝 隨所生所繫 阿羅漢滅定 出世道無有
論曰。次初異熟能變識。後應辯思量能變識相。是識聖教別名末那。恒審思量勝餘識故。此名何異第六意識。此持業釋如藏識名。識即意故。彼依主釋。如眼識等。識異意故。然諸聖教恐此濫彼故於第七但立意名。又標意名為簡心識。積集了別劣餘識故。或欲顯此與彼意識為近所依故但名意。依彼轉者顯此所依。彼謂即前初能變識。聖說此識依藏識故。有義此意以彼識種而為所依。非彼現識。此無間斷不假現識為俱有依方得生故。有義此意以彼識種及彼現識俱為所依。雖無間斷而有轉易名轉識故。必假現識為俱有依方得生故。轉謂流轉。顯示此識恒依彼識取所緣故。
諸心心所皆有所依。然彼所依總有三種。一因緣依。謂自種子。諸有為法皆托此依。離自因緣
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：如果一切都已沒有原因，永遠不會產生，那麼如果允許有這個識（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識，又稱藏識），一切都將成立。因為只有這個識能夠持有染污和清凈的種子。證明這個識的存在，有無邊的道理和趣味。恐怕文字過於繁瑣，所以簡略地敘述其綱要。關於這個識，另有教理可以明顯地說明。有智慧的人應該深深地信受。像這樣已經說了初能變相（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）的體相。第二能變（Manas-vijñāna，末那識）的體相是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 其次第二能變，這個識叫做末那（Manas-vijñāna，末那識）。 依靠它（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）而轉，緣取它（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識），以思量為它的體性和相狀。 四種煩惱常常和它一起生起，就是我癡（ātma-moha，對自我的愚癡）、我見（ātma-dṛṣṭi，對自我的錯誤見解），以及我慢（ātma-māna，對自我的傲慢）和我愛（ātma-sneha，對自我的貪愛），以及其餘的觸等心所法一起生起。 屬於有覆無記性（sāvṛtāvyākṛta，既有煩惱覆蓋，又無法記別善惡），隨著所生的地方和所依的境界而繫縛。 阿羅漢（Arhat，斷盡煩惱的聖者）入滅盡定（nirodha-samāpatti，一種甚深的禪定狀態）以及出世道（lokottara-mārga，超越世間的修行道路）中，沒有這個末那識。 論述：在初能變識（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）之後，接下來應該辨析思量能變識（Manas-vijñāna，末那識）的體相。這個識在聖教中別名為末那（Manas-vijñāna，末那識），因為它恒常審察思量，勝過其他識。這個名稱和第六意識（mano-vijñāna，意識）有什麼不同呢？這個末那（Manas-vijñāna，末那識）是持業釋，就像藏識（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）的名稱一樣，識就是意。而第六意識（mano-vijñāna，意識）是依主釋，就像眼識等一樣，識不同於意。然而，諸聖教恐怕這個末那（Manas-vijñāna，末那識）和第六意識（mano-vijñāna，意識）混淆，所以在第七識（末那識）上隻立意名。又標立意名是爲了簡別心識，因為它積集了別，不如其他識。或者想要顯示這個末那（Manas-vijñāna，末那識）和第六意識（mano-vijñāna，意識）是近所依，所以只名為意。『依彼轉者』，顯示這個末那（Manas-vijñāna，末那識）所依。彼，就是指前面的初能變識（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）。聖教說這個識依靠藏識（Ālaya-vijñāna，阿賴耶識）。有論師認為，這個意以那個識的種子作為所依，而不是那個識的現行識。因為這個意無間斷，不假借現行識作為俱有依，才能生起。有論師認為，這個意以那個識的種子以及那個識的現行識都作為所依。雖然無間斷，但是有轉變，所以名為轉識。必定假借現行識作為俱有依，才能生起。轉，就是流轉。顯示這個識恒常依靠那個識來取所緣。 諸心和心所都有所依。然而，它們所依的總共有三種。一是因緣依，就是自己的種子。一切有為法都依託這個所依，離開自己的因緣，
【English Translation】 English version: If everything already has no cause and will never arise, then if this consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna, store consciousness) is allowed to exist, everything will be established. Because only this consciousness can hold the seeds of defilement and purity. To prove the existence of this consciousness, there are boundless reasons and interests. Fearing that the text is too cumbersome, I will briefly describe its outline. There are other teachings that clearly explain this consciousness. Wise people should deeply believe and accept it. Thus, the characteristics of the first transformation (Ālaya-vijñāna) have been described. What are the characteristics of the second transformation (Manas-vijñāna)? The verse says: Next, the second transformation, this consciousness is called Manas (Manas-vijñāna). Relying on it (Ālaya-vijñāna) and turning towards it, taking it (Ālaya-vijñāna) as its object, with thinking as its nature and characteristics. Four afflictions always arise with it, namely self-ignorance (ātma-moha), self-view (ātma-dṛṣṭi), as well as self-conceit (ātma-māna) and self-love (ātma-sneha), and other mental functions such as contact (sparśa) arise together. It is classified as obscured and indeterminate (sāvṛtāvyākṛta, both covered by afflictions and incapable of distinguishing good from evil), bound by the place of birth and the object of dependence. In an Arhat (Arhat, a saint who has extinguished all afflictions) in cessation attainment (nirodha-samāpatti, a deep state of meditation) and in the supramundane path (lokottara-mārga, the path of practice beyond the world), this Manas consciousness does not exist. Commentary: After the first transformation consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna), next we should distinguish the characteristics of the thinking transformation consciousness (Manas-vijñāna). This consciousness is separately named Manas (Manas-vijñāna) in the holy teachings, because it constantly and carefully thinks, surpassing other consciousnesses. How does this name differ from the sixth consciousness (mano-vijñāna, mind consciousness)? This Manas (Manas-vijñāna) is a possessive compound, like the name store consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna), where consciousness is mind. But the sixth consciousness (mano-vijñāna) is a dependent compound, like eye consciousness and so on, where consciousness is different from mind. However, the holy teachings fear that this Manas (Manas-vijñāna) will be confused with the sixth consciousness (mano-vijñāna), so only the name mind is established for the seventh consciousness (Manas-vijñāna). Also, establishing the name mind is to distinguish it from mind-consciousness, because it accumulates distinctions and is inferior to other consciousnesses. Or it wants to show that this Manas (Manas-vijñāna) and the sixth consciousness (mano-vijñāna) are closely dependent, so it is only named mind. 'Relying on it and turning towards it' shows what this Manas (Manas-vijñāna) relies on. 'It' refers to the preceding first transformation consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna). The holy teachings say that this consciousness relies on the store consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna). Some commentators believe that this mind takes the seeds of that consciousness as its basis, not the manifest consciousness of that consciousness. Because this mind is uninterrupted and does not rely on manifest consciousness as a co-existing basis to arise. Some commentators believe that this mind takes both the seeds of that consciousness and the manifest consciousness of that consciousness as its basis. Although it is uninterrupted, it has transformation, so it is called transforming consciousness. It must rely on manifest consciousness as a co-existing basis to arise. 'Turning' means flowing. It shows that this consciousness constantly relies on that consciousness to take its object. All minds and mental functions have a basis of reliance. However, there are three types of reliance in total. First, causal reliance, which is one's own seeds. All conditioned phenomena rely on this basis, apart from their own causes and conditions,
必不生故。二增上緣依。謂內六處。諸心心所皆托此依。離俱有根必不轉故。三等無間緣依。謂前滅意。諸心心所皆托此依。離開導根必不起故。唯心心所具三所依名有所依非所餘法。初種子依有作是說。要種滅已現果方生。無種已生集論說故。種與芽等不俱有故。有義彼說為證不成。彼依引生後種說故。種生芽等非勝義故。種滅芽生非極成故。焰炷同時互為因故。然種自類因果不俱。種現相生決定俱有。故瑜伽說無常法與他性為因。亦與後念自性為因。是因緣義。自性言顯種子自類前為後因。他性言顯種與現行互為因義。攝大乘論亦作是說。藏識染法互為因緣。猶如束蘆俱時而有。又說種子與果必俱。故種子依定非前後。設有處說種果前後應知皆是隨轉理門。如是八識及諸心所定各別有種子所依。次俱有依有作是說。眼等五識意識為依。此現起時必有彼故。無別眼等為俱有依。眼等五根即種子故。二十唯識伽他中言。
識從自種生 似境相而轉 為成內外處 佛說彼為十
彼頌意說。世尊為成十二處故。說五識種為眼等根。五識相分為色等境。故眼等根即五識種。觀所緣論亦作是說。
識上色功能 名五根應理 功能與境色 無始互為因
彼頌意言。異熟識上能生眼等色識種子名
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 因為沒有生起的原因。第二是增上緣依，指的是內在的六處（內眼處、內耳處、內鼻處、內舌處、內身處、內意處）。所有心和心所都依賴於此，因為離開同時存在的根，它們必定不會運作。第三是等無間緣依，指的是前一剎那滅去的意。所有心和心所都依賴於此，因為離開引導的根，它們必定不會生起。只有心和心所具備這三種所依，才被稱為『有所依』，而不是其餘的法。最初的種子依，有人這樣說：必須是種子滅去之後，顯現的果才能生起，因為《集論》中這樣說。種子和芽等不是同時存在的。有人認為那種說法不能作為證據，因為他們是依據引生後來的種子而說的。種子生起芽等不是勝義諦，種子滅去芽生起也不是極成的事實，就像燈焰和燈芯同時存在，互相作為原因一樣。然而，種子和同類的因果不是同時存在的，種子和現行相互生起，一定是同時存在的。所以《瑜伽師地論》說，無常法以他性為因，也以後一念的自性為因，這就是因緣的含義。『自性』這個詞顯示了種子和同類的前者作為後者的原因，『他性』這個詞顯示了種子和現行互相作為原因的含義。《攝大乘論》也這樣說，藏識和染法互相作為因緣，就像一束蘆葦同時存在一樣。又說種子和果必定同時存在，所以種子依一定不是前後關係。如果有些地方說種子和果是前後關係，應該知道那都是隨順道理的方便說法。像這樣，八識和各種心所一定各自有種子所依。其次，關於俱有依，有人這樣說：眼識等五識以意識為所依，因為這些識現起的時候，必定有意識存在。沒有其他的眼等作為俱有依，因為眼等五根就是種子。陳那的《二十唯識論》的偈頌中說： 『識從自種生，似境相而轉，為成內外處，佛說彼為十。』 這首偈頌的意思是說，世尊爲了成就十二處，所以說五識的種子就是眼等根，五識的相分就是色等境。所以眼等根就是五識的種子。《觀所緣論》也這樣說： 『識上色功能，名五根應理，功能與境色，無始互為因。』 這首偈頌的意思是說，在異熟識上能夠生起眼等色識的種子，名為五根，這是合理的。
【English Translation】 English version Because there is no cause for arising. The second is the Adhipati-pratyaya-āśraya (dominant condition support), referring to the six internal ayatanas (internal sense bases): eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. All citta (mind) and caitta (mental factors) rely on this, because they definitely do not function without the co-existent root. The third is the Samanantara-pratyaya-āśraya (immediately preceding condition support), referring to the immediately preceding extinguished mind. All citta and caitta rely on this, because they definitely do not arise without the guiding root. Only citta and caitta, possessing these three supports, are called 'having support' (sa-āśraya), not the remaining dharmas. Regarding the initial bija-āśraya (seed support), some say that only after the seed has ceased does the manifest result arise, as stated in the Abhidharmasamuccaya. Seeds and sprouts, etc., do not exist simultaneously. Some argue that this statement cannot be used as evidence, because it refers to the subsequent seeds that are produced. The arising of sprouts, etc., from seeds is not the ultimate truth (paramārtha), and the cessation of seeds and the arising of sprouts is not an established fact, just as the flame and wick of a lamp exist simultaneously, mutually acting as causes. However, seeds and their own kind of cause and effect do not exist simultaneously. Seeds and their manifestations arise together definitively. Therefore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states that impermanent dharmas have otherness (paratva) as a cause, and also have their own nature (svabhāva) in the subsequent moment as a cause. This is the meaning of conditionality (hetu-pratyaya). The term 'svabhāva' indicates that the preceding seed of the same kind is the cause for the subsequent one. The term 'paratva' indicates that seeds and their manifestations are mutually causal. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha also states that the Ālayavijñāna (storehouse consciousness) and defiled dharmas are mutually causal, like a bundle of reeds existing simultaneously. It also states that seeds and results must exist simultaneously, so the seed support is definitely not sequential. If there are places where it is said that seeds and results are sequential, it should be understood that these are all expedient expressions following the reasoning. In this way, the eight consciousnesses and various mental factors each definitely have their own seed support. Next, regarding the Sahabhū-āśraya (co-existent support), some say that the five consciousnesses, such as eye-consciousness, rely on the mind-consciousness, because when these consciousnesses arise, mind-consciousness must exist. There are no other eyes, etc., as co-existent supports, because the five sense organs, such as the eye, are the seeds. In Vasubandhu's Viṃśatikā (Twenty Verses) it is said: 'Consciousness arises from its own seed, transforming into the likeness of an object, to establish the internal and external ayatanas, the Buddha spoke of them as ten.' The meaning of this verse is that the World-Honored One, in order to establish the twelve ayatanas, said that the seeds of the five consciousnesses are the eye, etc., and the appearance-aspects (nimitta-bhāga) of the five consciousnesses are the objects such as form, etc. Therefore, the eye, etc., are the seeds of the five consciousnesses. The Ālambanaparīkṣā (Examination of the Object) also states: 'The colored function on consciousness, is reasonably called the five sense organs, the function and the object-color, are mutually causal from beginningless time.' The meaning of this verse is that the seeds on the Vipāka-vijñāna (resultant consciousness) that can produce the color-consciousnesses such as eye-consciousness are called the five sense organs, which is reasonable.
色功能。說為五根無別眼等。種與色識常互為因。能熏與種遞為因故。第七八識無別此依。恒相續轉自力勝故。第六意識別有此依。要托末那而得起故。有義彼說理教相違。若五色根即五識種。十八界種應成雜亂。然十八界各別有種。諸聖教中處處說故。又五識種各有能生相見分異。為執何等名眼等根。若見分種應識蘊攝。若相分種應外處攝。便違聖教眼等五根皆是色蘊內處所攝。又若五根即五識種。五根應是五識因緣。不應說為增上緣攝。又鼻舌根即二識種。則應鼻舌唯欲界系。或應二識通色界系。許便俱與聖教相違。眼耳身根即三識種。二界五地為難亦然。又五識種既通善惡。應五色根非唯無記。又五識種無執受攝。五根亦應非有執受。又五色根若五識種。應意識種即是末那。彼以五根為同法故。又瑜伽論說眼等識皆具三依。若五色根即五識種。依但應二。又諸聖教說眼等根皆通現種。執唯是種便與一切聖教相違。有避如前所說過難。朋附彼執復轉救言。異熟識中能感五識。增上業種名五色根。非作因緣生五識種。妙符二頌善順瑜伽。彼有虛言都無實義。應五色根非無記故。又彼應非唯有執受。唯色蘊攝。唯內處故。鼻舌唯應欲界系故。三根不應。五地系故。感意識業應末那故。眼等不應通現種故。又應眼等非色
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 色根的功能。有人說五根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身）與五識的種子沒有區別。種子與色識常常互相作為原因。能熏習的勢力與種子遞相為因的緣故。第七識（末那識）和第八識（阿賴耶識）沒有其他的所依，因為它們恒常相續運轉，並且自身的力量強大。第六識（意識）則有其他的所依，必須依靠末那識才能生起。 有人認為上述說法與經教的道理相違背。如果五色根就是五識的種子，那麼十八界（眼界、耳界、鼻界、舌界、身界、意界、色界、聲界、香界、味界、觸界、法界、眼識界、耳識界、鼻識界、舌識界、身識界、意識界）的種子應該混雜錯亂。然而十八界各自有各自的種子，這在各種聖教經典中都有明確說明。而且五識的種子各自有能生起相分（所取境）和見分（能取境）的差異，那麼執著哪一種作為眼根等呢？如果是見分的種子，應該屬於識蘊所攝；如果是相分的種子，應該屬於外處所攝。這就違背了聖教中眼等五根都是色蘊和內處所攝的說法。還有，如果五根就是五識的種子，那麼五根應該是五識的因緣，不應該說是增上緣所攝。 還有，鼻根和舌根就是兩種識的種子，那麼鼻和舌應該只屬於欲界所繫，或者兩種識應該通於各個界系。如果允許這種說法，就與聖教相違背。眼根、耳根和身根就是三種識的種子，二界（欲界、色界）和五地（欲界、離生喜樂地、定生喜樂地、離喜妙樂地、捨念清凈地）的難題也是一樣。而且五識的種子既然通於善和惡，那麼五色根不應該僅僅是無記（非善非惡）。還有，五識的種子沒有執受所攝，那麼五根也不應該是有執受的。還有，如果五色根就是五識的種子，那麼意識的種子就是末那識。因為他們以五根為同法。還有，《瑜伽師地論》中說眼等識都具有三種所依，如果五色根就是五識的種子，那麼所依就只有兩種。還有，各種聖教經典中說眼等根都通於現行和種子，執著它們僅僅是種子就與一切聖教相違背。 有人爲了避免前面所說的過失和責難，依附於之前的執著，又轉變說法來辯解說：『在異熟識（阿賴耶識）中，能夠感生五識的增上業的種子，叫做五色根，而不是作為因緣來生起五識的種子。』這與兩首偈頌非常符合，也很好地順應了《瑜伽師地論》的說法。這種說法是虛假的，沒有任何實際意義。五色根不應該是無記的緣故。而且它們不應該是隻有執受的，只有色蘊所攝，只有內處的緣故。鼻和舌不應該只屬於欲界所繫的緣故。三種根不應該是五地所繫的緣故。感生意識的業應該是末那識的緣故。眼等不應該通於現行和種子的緣故。而且眼等不應該是色（物質）的緣故。
【English Translation】 English version The function of the sense organs (色根). Some say that the five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) are no different from the seeds of the five consciousnesses. Seeds and color-consciousness constantly act as mutual causes. The power of habitual influence and the seeds are causes for each other. The seventh consciousness (Manas-vijnana 末那識) and the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijnana 阿賴耶識) have no other support because they constantly continue to operate and their own power is strong. The sixth consciousness (consciousness 意識) has other support, and must rely on Manas-vijnana to arise. Some believe that the above statement contradicts the principles of the scriptures. If the five sense organs are the seeds of the five consciousnesses, then the seeds of the eighteen realms (dhatus 界) (eye realm, ear realm, nose realm, tongue realm, body realm, mind realm, form realm, sound realm, smell realm, taste realm, touch realm, dharma realm, eye consciousness realm, ear consciousness realm, nose consciousness realm, tongue consciousness realm, body consciousness realm, mind consciousness realm) should be mixed up and confused. However, each of the eighteen realms has its own seed, which is clearly stated in various sacred teachings. Moreover, the seeds of the five consciousnesses each have differences in their ability to generate the appearance-aspect (相分, the object taken) and the seeing-aspect (見分, the subject taking), so which one should be clung to as the eye root, etc.? If it is the seed of the seeing-aspect, it should be included in the aggregate of consciousness (識蘊); if it is the seed of the appearance-aspect, it should be included in the external realm (外處). This contradicts the statement in the sacred teachings that the five roots, such as the eye, are all included in the aggregate of form (色蘊) and the internal realm (內處). Also, if the five roots are the seeds of the five consciousnesses, then the five roots should be the cause and condition of the five consciousnesses, and should not be said to be included in the dominant condition (增上緣). Furthermore, the nose root and tongue root are the seeds of two kinds of consciousness, then the nose and tongue should only belong to the desire realm (欲界), or the two kinds of consciousness should be common to all realms. If this statement is allowed, it contradicts the sacred teachings. The eye root, ear root, and body root are the seeds of three kinds of consciousness, and the difficulties of the two realms (desire realm, form realm) and the five grounds (欲界, the ground of joy and pleasure born of detachment, the ground of joy and pleasure born of meditation, the ground of wonderful pleasure born of detachment from joy, the ground of purity of equanimity and mindfulness) are the same. Moreover, since the seeds of the five consciousnesses are common to good and evil, the five sense organs should not be merely neutral (無記, neither good nor evil). Also, the seeds of the five consciousnesses are not included in grasping (執受), then the five roots should also not be with grasping. Also, if the five sense organs are the seeds of the five consciousnesses, then the seed of consciousness is Manas-vijnana. Because they take the five roots as the same dharma. Furthermore, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (瑜伽師地論) states that the eye consciousness, etc., all have three supports. If the five sense organs are the seeds of the five consciousnesses, then there should only be two supports. Furthermore, various sacred teachings state that the eye root, etc., are common to both manifestation and seed. Clinging to them as merely seeds contradicts all sacred teachings. In order to avoid the faults and criticisms mentioned earlier, some rely on the previous clinging and then change their statement to argue: 'In the resultant consciousness (異熟識, Alaya-vijnana), the seeds of dominant karma that can generate the five consciousnesses are called the five sense organs, rather than being the cause and condition for generating the seeds of the five consciousnesses.' This is very consistent with the two verses and also well conforms to the statements in the Yogacarabhumi-sastra. This statement is false and has no practical meaning. The five sense organs should not be neutral because of this. Moreover, they should not be only with grasping, only included in the aggregate of form, and only in the internal realm. The nose and tongue should not only belong to the desire realm. The three roots should not belong to the five grounds. The karma that generates consciousness should be Manas-vijnana. The eye, etc., should not be common to both manifestation and seed. Moreover, the eye, etc., should not be form (matter).
根故。
又若五識皆業所感。則應一向無記性攝。善等五識既非業感。應無眼等為俱有依。故彼所言非為善救。又諸聖教處處皆說。阿賴耶識變似色根及根依處器世間等。如何汝等撥無色根。許眼等識變似色等不許眼等藏識所變。如斯迷謬深違教理。然伽他說種子功能名五根者。為破離識實有色根。于識所變似眼根等。以有發生五識用故。假名種子及色功能。非謂色根即識業種。又緣五境明瞭意識。應以五識為俱有依。以彼必與五識俱故。若彼不依眼等識者。彼應不與五識為依。彼此相依勢力等故。又第七識雖無間斷。而見道等既有轉易。應如六識有俱有依。不爾彼應非轉識攝。便違聖教轉識有七。故應許彼有俱有依。此即現行第八識攝。如瑜伽說。有藏識故得有末那。末那為依意識得轉。彼論意言現行藏識為依止故。得有末那非由彼種。不爾應說有藏識故意識得轉。由此彼說理教相違。是故應言。前五轉識一一定有二俱有依。謂五色根同時意識。第六轉識決定恒有一俱有依。謂第七識。若與五識俱時起者亦以五識為俱有依。第七轉識決定唯有一俱有依。謂第八識。唯第八識恒無轉變。自能立故無俱有依。有義此說猶未盡理。第八類餘既同識性。如何不許有俱有依。第七八識既恒俱轉。更互為依斯有何失。許現
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 根源何在？ 又如果前五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）都是由業力所感，那麼它們應該總是無記性（既非善也非惡）。如果善等五識不是業力所感，那麼它們就不應該以眼等（眼根等）作為俱有依（共同生起的所依）。所以你（對方）的說法並不能很好地解決問題。而且，諸多的聖教經典都說，阿賴耶識（第八識，藏識）變現出類似色根（眼根、耳根、鼻根、舌根、身根）以及根所依處（感覺器官所依賴的身體部位）、器世間（我們所居住的物質世界）等等。為什麼你們否認色根的存在，卻允許眼等識變現出類似色等（顏色等）的現象，卻不允許眼等藏識所變現的呢？這樣的迷惑錯誤深深地違背了教理。 然而，《伽陀》中說『種子功能名為五根』，是爲了破斥離開識之外實有色根的觀點，認為識所變現的類似眼根等，因為具有發生前五識的作用，所以假名為種子以及色功能，而不是說色根就是識的業種。 又，緣取五境（色、聲、香、味、觸）的明瞭意識，應該以五識作為俱有依，因為意識必然與五識同時生起。如果意識不依賴眼等識，那麼它就不應該以五識為所依。彼此相互依賴，勢力相等。 又，第七識（末那識）雖然沒有間斷，但是見道等修行階段會有所轉變，應該像第六識（意識）一樣有俱有依。否則，第七識就不應該被歸為轉識（轉變的識），那就違背了聖教所說的轉識有七個的說法。所以應該允許第七識有俱有依，這個俱有依就是現行的第八識（阿賴耶識）。正如《瑜伽師地論》所說：『因為有藏識，所以才會有末那識，以末那識為所依，意識才能運轉。』這部論典的意思是說，現行的藏識是末那識的依止，而不是由藏識的種子所生。否則，就應該說『因為有藏識，意識才能運轉』。由此可見，對方的說法在理和教上都是互相矛盾的。 因此，應該說，前五轉識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）每一個都一定有兩個俱有依，即五色根和同時生起的意識。第六轉識（意識）決定恒常有一個俱有依，即第七識（末那識）。如果第六識與前五識同時生起，那麼也以前五識作為俱有依。第七轉識（末那識）決定只有一個俱有依，即第八識（阿賴耶識）。只有第八識（阿賴耶識）恒常不變，自身就能成立，所以沒有俱有依。有人認為這種說法還沒有窮盡真理。第八識的同類其他識既然都具有識的性質，為什麼不允許有俱有依呢？第七識和第八識既然恒常同時運轉，互相作為所依，這有什麼過失呢？允許現行...
【English Translation】 English version What is the root cause? Furthermore, if the five consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, and body-consciousness) are all produced by karma, then they should always be of an indeterminate nature (neither good nor bad). If the good and other such five consciousnesses are not produced by karma, then they should not have the eye and other sense organs as their co-existent bases (俱有依, jùyǒu yī, co-existent support). Therefore, your (the opponent's) statement is not a good solution. Moreover, many sacred teachings state that the Ālayavijñāna (阿賴耶識, Ālāyéshì, storehouse consciousness, the eighth consciousness) manifests as forms resembling the sense organs (eye-organ, ear-organ, nose-organ, tongue-organ, and body-organ), as well as the places where the sense organs are based (the parts of the body on which the sense organs depend), the physical world (器世間, qì shìjiān, vessel world) and so on. Why do you deny the existence of the sense organs, while allowing the eye and other consciousnesses to manifest as forms resembling colors and other objects, but not allowing the transformations of the eye and other storehouse consciousnesses? Such confusion and error deeply contradict the teachings and principles. However, the Gāthā says, 'The function of seeds is called the five sense organs,' in order to refute the view that there are real sense organs existing apart from consciousness. It considers the forms manifested by consciousness, resembling the eye-organ and so on, to be provisionally called seeds and functions of form because they have the function of producing the five consciousnesses. It does not mean that the sense organs are the karmic seeds of consciousness. Moreover, the clear consciousness that apprehends the five objects (form, sound, smell, taste, and touch) should have the five consciousnesses as its co-existent bases, because consciousness necessarily arises simultaneously with the five consciousnesses. If consciousness does not rely on the eye and other consciousnesses, then it should not take the five consciousnesses as its support. They depend on each other, and their powers are equal. Furthermore, although the seventh consciousness (Manas-consciousness, 末那識, Mònàshì) is continuous, it undergoes transformation in stages such as the path of seeing, and should have a co-existent base like the sixth consciousness (mind-consciousness, 意識, yìshì). Otherwise, the seventh consciousness should not be classified as a transforming consciousness (轉識, zhuǎnshì, transformed consciousness), which would contradict the sacred teaching that there are seven transforming consciousnesses. Therefore, it should be allowed that the seventh consciousness has a co-existent base, which is the currently active eighth consciousness (Ālayavijñāna). As the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says: 'Because there is the storehouse consciousness, there is the Manas-consciousness; with the Manas-consciousness as its support, the mind-consciousness can function.' This treatise means that the currently active storehouse consciousness is the support of the Manas-consciousness, not that it is produced by the seeds of the storehouse consciousness. Otherwise, it should say, 'Because there is the storehouse consciousness, the mind-consciousness can function.' From this, it can be seen that the opponent's statement contradicts both reason and teaching. Therefore, it should be said that each of the first five transforming consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, and body-consciousness) definitely has two co-existent bases, namely the five sense organs and the simultaneously arising mind-consciousness. The sixth transforming consciousness (mind-consciousness) definitely and constantly has one co-existent base, namely the seventh consciousness (Manas-consciousness). If the sixth consciousness arises simultaneously with the first five consciousnesses, then it also takes the first five consciousnesses as its co-existent bases. The seventh transforming consciousness (Manas-consciousness) definitely has only one co-existent base, namely the eighth consciousness (Ālayavijñāna). Only the eighth consciousness (Ālayavijñāna) is constant and unchanging, and can establish itself, so it has no co-existent base. Some argue that this statement has not exhausted the truth. Since the other consciousnesses of the same type as the eighth consciousness all have the nature of consciousness, why should they not be allowed to have co-existent bases? Since the seventh and eighth consciousnesses constantly function simultaneously, and serve as mutual supports, what fault is there in this? Allowing the currently active...
起識以種為依。識種亦應許依現識。能熏異熟為生長住依。識種離彼不生長住故。
又異熟識有色界中能執持身依色根轉。如契經說。阿賴耶識業風所飄遍依諸根恒相續轉。瑜伽亦說。眼等六識各別依故不能執受有色根身。若異熟識不遍依止有色諸根。應如六識非能執受。或所立因有不定失。是故藏識若現起者定有一依。謂第七識。在有色界亦依色根。若識種子定有一依。謂異熟識。初熏習位亦依能熏。餘如前說。有義前說皆不應理。未了所依與依別故。依謂一切有生滅法。仗因托緣而得生住。諸所仗托皆說為依。如王與臣互相依等。若法決定有境為主令心心所取自所緣。乃是所依。即內六處。餘非有境定為主故。此但如王非如臣等。故諸聖教唯心心所名有所依。非色等法無所緣故。但說心所心為所依。不說心所為心所依。彼非主故。然有處說依為所依或所依為依。皆隨宜假說。由此五識俱有所依定有四種。謂五色根六七八識。隨闕一種必不轉故。同境分別染凈根本所依別故。聖教唯說依五根者。以不共故又必同境。近相順故。第六意識俱有所依唯有二種。謂七八識。隨闕一種必不轉故。雖五識俱取境明瞭。而不定有故非所依。聖教唯說依第七者。染凈依故同轉識攝。近相順故。第七意識俱有所依但有一種。謂
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 起識以種子為依據。識的種子也應該被允許以現行識為依據。能夠熏習的異熟識是生長和安住的依據，因為識的種子離開它就不能生長和安住。
此外，異熟識在中能夠執持身體，依賴色根而運轉。正如契經所說：『阿賴耶識被業風所飄動，普遍依賴於各種根，恒常相續地運轉。』《瑜伽師地論》也說：『眼等六識各自依賴，所以不能執受有色的根身。』如果異熟識不普遍地依賴有色的諸根，就應該像六識一樣不能執受。或者所立的因有不確定的過失。因此，藏識如果現起，必定有一個所依，即第七識。在有中也依賴色根。如果識的種子，必定有一個所依，即異熟識。最初熏習的時候也依賴能熏。其餘的如前面所說。
有的人認為前面的說法都不合理，因為沒有明白所依和依的區別。依是指一切有生滅的法，憑藉因和緣而得以生起和安住。所有憑藉和依託的都被稱為依，比如國王和臣子互相依賴等等。如果一個法決定以境界為主，使心和心所能夠取其所緣，那就是所依，即內在的六處。其餘的不是以境界為主，所以不是所依。這就像國王，而不是像臣子等。所以各種聖教只說心和心所是有所依，不說色等法，因為它們沒有所緣。只說心所以心為所依，不說心所以心所為所依，因為它不是主導。然而，有的地方說依為所依，或者所依為依，都是隨順情況而假說的。因此，五識都有所依，必定有四種，即五色根、六識、七識和八識。缺少任何一種都必定不能運轉。因為同境、分別、染凈的根本所依不同。聖教只說依賴五根，因為它們是不共的，而且必定同境，接近且順應。 第六意識都有所依，只有兩種，即七識和八識。缺少任何一種都必定不能運轉。雖然五識取境明瞭，但是不一定有，所以不是所依。聖教只說依賴第七識，因為它是染凈的依據，屬於同轉識的範疇，接近且順應。第七意識都有所依，只有一種，即第八識。
【English Translation】 English version The arising consciousness relies on seeds as its basis. The seeds of consciousness should also be allowed to rely on the manifest consciousness. The Vipaka-vijnana (異熟識, resultant consciousness) that can perfuming is the basis for growth and abiding, because the seeds of consciousness cannot grow and abide without it.
Furthermore, the Vipaka-vijnana (異熟識) in ** is able to uphold the body and operate relying on the sense organs. As the sutras say, 'The Alaya-vijnana (阿賴耶識, storehouse consciousness) is blown by the winds of karma, universally relying on all the roots, constantly and continuously operating.' The Yogacarabhumi-sastra (瑜伽師地論) also says, 'The six consciousnesses, such as eye-consciousness, each rely separately, so they cannot uphold the corporeal body with sense organs.' If the Vipaka-vijnana (異熟識) does not universally rely on the corporeal sense organs, it should be unable to uphold, like the six consciousnesses. Or the established reason has the fault of being uncertain. Therefore, if the storehouse consciousness arises, it must have a basis, namely the seventh consciousness, Manas-vijnana. In ** it also relies on the sense organs. If it is a seed of consciousness, it must have a basis, namely the Vipaka-vijnana (異熟識). In the initial stage of perfuming, it also relies on the perfuming agent. The rest is as previously stated.
Some argue that the previous statements are all unreasonable because the difference between what is relied upon and the reliance is not understood. Reliance refers to all phenomena that arise and cease, which arise and abide by relying on causes and conditions. All that is relied upon is called reliance, such as the mutual reliance between a king and his ministers. If a dharma (法, phenomenon) definitely takes the object as primary, enabling the mind and mental factors to grasp their respective objects, then that is the basis, namely the six internal sense bases (內六處). The rest are not primary with respect to the object, so they are not the basis. This is like a king, not like ministers, etc. Therefore, various sacred teachings only say that the mind and mental factors have a basis, and do not say that phenomena such as form have a basis, because they have no object to grasp. It is only said that mental factors rely on the mind as their basis, and not that mental factors rely on mental factors as their basis, because they are not the primary. However, in some places, it is said that reliance is the basis, or the basis is reliance, which are all provisional statements made according to the situation. Therefore, the five consciousnesses all have a basis, and there must be four types, namely the five sense organs, the sixth consciousness, the seventh consciousness, and the eighth consciousness. If any one is missing, it will definitely not operate. Because the fundamental basis of the same object, discrimination, purity, and impurity are different. The sacred teachings only say that they rely on the five sense organs because they are uncommon and must be of the same object, close and in accordance. The sixth consciousness all has a basis, only two types, namely the seventh consciousness and the eighth consciousness. If any one is missing, it will definitely not operate. Although the five consciousnesses clearly grasp the object, they are not necessarily present, so they are not the basis. The sacred teachings only say that they rely on the seventh consciousness because it is the basis of purity and impurity, belongs to the category of the same transforming consciousness, close and in accordance. The seventh consciousness all has a basis, only one type, namely the eighth consciousness.
第八識。藏識若無定不轉故。如伽他說。
阿賴耶為依 故有末那轉 依止心及意 餘轉識得生
阿賴耶識俱有所依亦但一種。謂第七識。彼識若無定不轉故。論說藏識恒與末那俱時轉故。又說藏識恒依染污。此即末那。而說三位無末那者依有覆說。如言四位無阿賴耶。非無第八。此亦應爾。雖有色界亦依五根。而不定有非所依攝。識種不能現取自境。可有依義而無所依。心所所依隨識應說。復各加自相應之心。若作是說妙符理教。後開導依。有義五識自他前後不相續故。必第六識所引生故。唯第六識為開導依。第六意識自相續故。亦由五識所引生故。以前六識為開導依。第七八識自相續故。不假他識所引生故。但以自類為開導依。有義前說未有究理。且前五識未自在位。遇非勝境可如所說。若自在位。如諸佛等於境自在。諸根互用任運決定不假尋求。彼五識身寧不相續。等流五識既為決定染凈作意勢力引生。專注所緣未能捨頃。如何不許多念相續。故瑜伽說決定心後方有染凈。此後乃有等流眼識善不善轉。而彼不由自分別力。乃至此意不趣餘境。經爾所時眼意二識。或善或染相續而轉。如眼識生乃至身識應知亦爾。彼意定顯經爾所時眼意二識俱相續轉。既眼識時非無意識。故非二識互相續生。若增
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 第八識，即阿賴耶識（Alaya-vijnana，藏識），如果它沒有固定的狀態，就不會發生轉變。正如伽陀（Gatha，偈頌）所說： 『阿賴耶為依，故有末那轉，依止心及意，餘轉識得生。』 阿賴耶識的俱有所依，也只有一種，即第七識，末那識（Manas-vijnana，末那識）。因為如果末那識沒有固定的狀態，阿賴耶識就不會發生轉變。論中說，藏識總是與末那識同時運轉。又說，藏識總是依賴於染污，這裡的染污指的就是末那識。而說三位（無心位等）沒有末那識，是依據有覆無記（Avrta-akrta，一種性質）來說的。正如說四位沒有阿賴耶識，並非真的沒有第八識，這裡也應如此理解。雖然有末那識，也依賴於五根（Panca-indriya，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺器官），但不是恒常存在，因此不屬於所依的範疇。識種（Vijnana-bija，識的種子）不能直接取自境，可以有依賴的意義，但沒有所依賴的對象。心所（Caitasika，心理活動）的所依，應隨識而說，並且各自加上與自己相應的『心』。如果這樣說，就非常符合道理和教義。 後面再來開導『依』的問題。有一種觀點認為，前五識（Panca-vijnana，眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五種感覺識）由於自身和他人的前後不相續，必定是由第六識（Mano-vijnana，意識）所引導產生的，所以只有第六識是開導依。第六意識由於自身相續，也由前五識所引導產生，所以以前六識作為開導依。第七識和第八識由於自身相續，不依賴於其他識的引導產生，所以只以自己的同類作為開導依。 有一種觀點認為，前面所說的還沒有徹底弄清楚道理。而且前五識在沒有獲得自在的地位時，遇到不殊勝的境界，可以像前面所說的那樣。如果獲得了自在的地位，比如諸佛（Buddha）對於境界自在，諸根可以互相使用，自然而然地決定，不需要尋求。那麼這五識身難道不是相續的嗎？等流五識既然是由決定的染凈作意（Manasikara，心理活動）的勢力所引導產生，在專注于所緣境而沒有捨棄的時候，怎麼能說沒有許多念頭的相續呢？所以《瑜伽師地論》（Yogacarabhumi-sastra）中說，在決定心之後，才會有染凈。此後才會有等流眼識的善或不善的轉變。而這種轉變不是由自己的分別力造成的。乃至這個意識不趨向于其他境界，經過這麼長的時間，眼識和意識，或者善或者染，相續地運轉。如眼識產生，乃至身識，也應該知道是這樣的。這個意思明確地顯示，經過這麼長的時間，眼識和意識共同相續地運轉。既然在眼識產生的時候，並非沒有意識，所以不是兩種識互相續生。如果增加...
【English Translation】 English version: The eighth consciousness, Alaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness), if it does not have a fixed state, it will not transform. As the Gatha (verse) says: 'Alaya is the basis, therefore Manas transforms, relying on mind and intellect, other transforming consciousnesses arise.' The co-existent basis of Alaya-vijnana is also only one kind, which is the seventh consciousness, Manas-vijnana (mind consciousness). Because if Manas does not have a fixed state, Alaya will not transform. The treatise says that the storehouse consciousness always operates simultaneously with Manas. It also says that the storehouse consciousness always relies on defilement, which refers to Manas. Saying that there is no Manas in the three states (such as the state of no-mind) is based on Avrta-akrta (covered and unspecified nature). Just as saying that there is no Alaya in the four states does not mean that there is truly no eighth consciousness, it should be understood in the same way here. Although there is Manas, it also relies on the five indriyas (sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body), but it is not constantly present, so it does not belong to the category of the basis. Vijnana-bija (consciousness seeds) cannot directly take from their own objects, it can have the meaning of reliance, but there is no object to rely on. The basis of the Caitasika (mental activities) should be spoken of according to the consciousness, and each should be added with the 'mind' corresponding to itself. If it is said in this way, it is very consistent with reason and doctrine. Later, let's elaborate on the issue of 'basis'. One view is that the five Panca-vijnanas (five sense consciousnesses: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) are not continuous before and after themselves and others, they must be guided and produced by the sixth consciousness, Mano-vijnana (mind consciousness), so only the sixth consciousness is the guiding basis. The sixth consciousness is continuous by itself, and it is also guided and produced by the five consciousnesses, so the first six consciousnesses are taken as the guiding basis. The seventh and eighth consciousnesses are continuous by themselves, and do not rely on the guidance of other consciousnesses, so they only take their own kind as the guiding basis. One view is that what was said earlier has not completely clarified the reasoning. Moreover, when the first five consciousnesses have not obtained a state of freedom, encountering unfavorable realms, it can be as said before. If they have obtained a state of freedom, such as the Buddhas (enlightened beings) are free with respect to realms, the sense organs can use each other, naturally and decisively, without needing to seek. Then aren't these five consciousness bodies continuous? Since the equable five consciousnesses are guided and produced by the power of determined defiled and pure Manasikara (mental activity), when focusing on the object of attention and not abandoning it, how can it be said that there is no continuity of many thoughts? Therefore, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) says that after the determined mind, there will be defilement and purity. After this, there will be the good or bad transformation of the equable eye consciousness. And this transformation is not caused by one's own discriminating power. Until this mind does not tend to other realms, after such a long time, the eye consciousness and the mind consciousness, either good or defiled, operate continuously. As the eye consciousness arises, and even the body consciousness, it should also be known to be like this. This meaning clearly shows that after such a long time, the eye consciousness and the mind consciousness operate together continuously. Since there is no absence of mind consciousness when the eye consciousness arises, it is not that the two consciousnesses are mutually produced continuously. If increase...
盛境相續現前。逼奪身心不能暫捨時五識身理必相續。如熱地獄戲忘天等。故瑜伽言若此六識為彼六識等無間緣。即施設此名為意根。若五識前後定唯有意識。彼論應言若此一識為彼六識等無間緣。或彼應言若此六識為彼一識等無間緣。既不如是故知五識有相續義。五識起時必有意識能引後念意識令起。何假五識為開導依。無心睡眠悶絕等位意識斷已。後復起時藏識末那既恒相續。亦應與彼為開導依。若彼用前自類開導。五識自類何不許然。此既不然彼云何爾。平等性智相應末那。初起必由第六意識。亦應用彼為開導依。圓鏡智俱第八凈識。初必六七方便引生。又異熟心依染污意。或依悲願相應善心。既爾必應許第八識亦以六七為開導依。由此彼言都未究理。應說五識前六識內隨用何識為開導依。第六意識用前自類或第七八為開導依。第七末那用前自類或第六識為開導依。阿陀那識用前自類及第六七為開導依。皆不違理由前說故。有義此說亦不應理。開導依者謂有緣法為主能作等無間緣。此於後生心心所法。開避引導名開導依。此但屬心非心所等。若此與彼無俱起義。說此于彼有開導力。一身八識既容俱起。如何異類為開導依。若許為依應不俱起。便同異部心不併生。
又一身中諸識俱起。多少不定若容互作等
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：盛大的境界相續不斷地顯現於眼前，逼迫、奪取身心，使之片刻也不能捨離，這時五識的身理必然相續不斷，就像熱地獄、戲忘天等情況一樣。所以《瑜伽師地論》說，如果這六識作為那六識的等無間緣（無間斷的因緣），就施設它名為意根（manas，第七識）。如果五識前後一定只有意識，那部論典就應該說，如果這一識作為那六識的等無間緣，或者他們應該說，如果這六識作為這一識的等無間緣。既然不是這樣，所以知道五識有相續的意義。五識生起時必定有意識能夠引導後念意識令其生起，何必假借五識作為開導依（開闢引導的所依）？無心睡眠、悶絕等狀態，意識斷滅之後，後來再次生起時，藏識（ālayavijñāna，第八識）、末那（manas，第七識）既然恒常相續，也應該作為它們的開導依。如果它們用之前的同類作為開導，五識的同類為什麼不能被允許這樣呢？既然這樣不行，那它們又怎麼可以呢？與平等性智相應的末那，最初生起必定由第六意識，也應該用它作為開導依。與圓鏡智俱生的第八凈識，最初必定由第六、第七識方便引導而生。而且異熟心（vipākacitta，第八識）依靠染污意（kliṣṭamanas，被染污的第七識），或者依靠與悲願相應的善心。既然這樣，必定應該允許第八識也以第六、第七識作為開導依。由此看來，他們所說都沒有徹底探究道理。應該說五識之前，在六識內，隨便用哪個識作為開導依。第六意識用之前的同類或者第七、第八識作為開導依。第七末那用之前的同類或者第六識作為開導依。阿陀那識（ādanavijñāna，第八識的別名）用之前的同類以及第六、第七識作為開導依。都不違背理由，因為之前已經說過了。有種觀點認為這種說法也不合理。開導依是指有緣法作為主導，能夠作為等無間緣。這對於後來生起的心和心所法，開闢引導，名為開導依。這僅僅屬於心，不屬於心所等。如果這個與那個沒有同時生起的意義，說這個對於那個有開導的力量。一身中的八識既然容許同時生起，如何異類作為開導依？如果允許作為所依，應該不同時生起，就如同異部的心不併生一樣。 又一身中諸識俱起，多少不定若容互作等
【English Translation】 English version: When magnificent realms continuously appear before one's eyes, compelling and seizing the body and mind, making it impossible to relinquish them even for a moment, the physical functions of the five consciousnesses (pañcavijñāna) will inevitably continue, just like in the hot hells, the Playful Forgetful Heavens (戲忘天), and other such situations. Therefore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that if these six consciousnesses serve as the immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya) for those six consciousnesses, then this is designated as the mind-basis (manas, seventh consciousness). If the five consciousnesses were invariably preceded only by the mind consciousness (manovijñāna, sixth consciousness), then that treatise should have stated that if this one consciousness serves as the immediately preceding condition for those six consciousnesses, or they should have said that if these six consciousnesses serve as the immediately preceding condition for this one consciousness. Since it is not so, we know that the five consciousnesses have a meaning of continuity. When the five consciousnesses arise, there must be a mind consciousness capable of leading the subsequent thought of mind consciousness to arise. Why should we borrow the five consciousnesses as the guiding support (開導依)? In states of unconscious sleep, fainting, and so on, after the mind consciousness has ceased, when it arises again later, since the storehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna, eighth consciousness) and the manas are constantly continuous, they should also serve as their guiding support. If they use their own preceding kind as guidance, why shouldn't the same be allowed for the five consciousnesses? Since this is not the case, how can they be? The manas that corresponds to the wisdom of equality (upekṣā-jñāna), its initial arising must be due to the sixth consciousness, and it should also use it as a guiding support. The pure eighth consciousness that arises together with the mirror-like wisdom (ādarśa-jñāna), its initial arising must be guided by the skillful means of the sixth and seventh consciousnesses. Moreover, the resultant consciousness (vipākacitta, eighth consciousness) relies on the defiled mind (kliṣṭamanas, defiled seventh consciousness), or relies on good thoughts corresponding to compassion and vows. Since this is the case, it must be allowed that the eighth consciousness also takes the sixth and seventh consciousnesses as guiding support. From this, it seems that what they have said has not thoroughly investigated the principle. It should be said that before the five consciousnesses, within the six consciousnesses, whichever consciousness is used as the guiding support is fine. The sixth consciousness uses its own preceding kind or the seventh and eighth consciousnesses as guiding support. The seventh manas uses its own preceding kind or the sixth consciousness as guiding support. The ādanavijñāna (another name for the eighth consciousness) uses its own preceding kind and the sixth and seventh consciousnesses as guiding support. None of these contradict reason, because it has been said before. Some argue that this statement is also unreasonable. The guiding support refers to the conditioned dharma that acts as the main factor, capable of serving as the immediately preceding condition. This opens and guides the mind and mental functions that arise later, and is called the guiding support. This belongs only to the mind and not to mental functions, etc. If this and that do not have the meaning of arising simultaneously, it is said that this has the power to guide that. Since the eight consciousnesses in one body can arise simultaneously, how can different kinds serve as guiding support? If it is allowed to be a support, it should not arise simultaneously, just like the minds of different schools do not arise together. Moreover, when the various consciousnesses in one body arise simultaneously, the quantity is uncertain. If it is allowed to mutually act as equal
無間緣。色等應爾。便違聖說等無間緣唯心心所。然攝大乘說色亦容有等無間緣者。是縱奪言。謂假縱小乘色心前後有等無間緣奪因緣故。不爾等言應成無用。若謂等言非遮多少但表同類。便違汝執異類識作等無間緣。是故八識各唯自類為開導依深契教理。自類必無俱起義故。心所此依應隨識說。雖心心所異類並生。而互相應。和合似一。定俱生滅。事業必同。一開導時餘亦開導。故展轉作等無間緣。諸識不然不應為例。然諸心所非開導依。于所引生無主義故。若心心所等無間緣各唯自類。第七八識初轉依時。相應信等此緣便闕。則違聖說諸心心所皆四緣生。無心睡眠悶絕等位。意識雖斷而後起時。彼開導依即前自類。間斷五識應知亦然。無自類心於中為隔名無間故。彼先滅時已於今識為開導故。何煩異類為開導依。然聖教中說前六識互相引起。或第七八依六七生。皆依殊勝增上緣說。非等無間故不相違。瑜伽論說若此識無間諸識決定生。說此為彼等無間緣。又此六識為彼六識等無間緣。即施設此名意根者。言總意別亦不相違。故自類依深契教理。傍論已了應辯正論。此能變識雖具三所依。而依彼轉言但顯前二。為顯此識依緣同故。又前二依有勝用故。或開導依易了知故。
如是已說此識所依。所緣云何。謂即
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：『無間緣』（anantarasamanantara-pratyaya，直接且無間隔的緣）對於色法等也應如此。這便違背了聖教所說『等無間緣』唯有心和心所法。然而，《攝大乘論》說色法也可能具有『等無間緣』，這是一種遷就的說法。意思是說，爲了遷就小乘宗認為色法和心法前後相續有『等無間緣』，而勉強承認。否則，『等』字就變得沒有意義了。如果說『等』字不是爲了排除多少，只是表示同類，那就違背了你所堅持的異類識可以作為『等無間緣』的觀點。因此，八個識各自唯以自類作為開導依（apūrvakāraka，引導者）才是深契合教義和道理的。因為自類中必然沒有同時生起的可能。心所法依于識而存在，應當隨識而說。雖然心和心所法是異類同時生起，但它們相互相應，和合得像一個整體，必定同時生滅，作用也必定相同。一個開導時，其餘也會開導，所以輾轉作為『等無間緣』。各個識不是這樣，不應以此為例。然而，各個心所法並非開導依，因為對於所引發的法沒有主導作用。如果心和心所法的『等無間緣』各自唯有自類，那麼第七識和第八識在初轉依（āśrayaparāvṛtti，轉變所依）時，相應的信等心所法這種緣就會缺失，那就違背了聖教所說一切心和心所法都是由四緣所生的說法。在無心睡眠、悶絕等狀態下，意識雖然斷滅，但之後生起時，它的開導依就是之前的自類。間斷的五識也應知道是這樣。因為沒有自類心在中間隔斷，所以稱為『無間』。因為它們先前滅去時，已經為現在的識作為開導，何必需要異類作為開導依呢？然而，聖教中說前六識互相引起，或者第七識和第八識依于第六識和第七識而生，都是依殊勝的增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya，增強的條件）而說的，不是『等無間緣』，所以不相違背。《瑜伽師地論》說，如果這個識無間斷地生起，諸識決定生起，就說這個識是那個識的『等無間緣』。又說這六識是那六識的『等無間緣』，即施設這個識名為意根（manas，意識的根源）。總的來說和個別的來說，也不相違背。所以，以自類作為所依，是深契合教義和道理的。旁論已經結束，應該辯論正論。這個能變識雖然具有三種所依，但說依於前兩種而轉，只是爲了顯示這個識的所依和緣是相同的。又因為前兩種所依有殊勝的作用。或者因為開導依容易瞭解。 這樣已經說了這個識的所依，那麼所緣是什麼呢？就是...
【English Translation】 English version: 『Anantarasamanantara-pratyaya』 (immediately preceding condition) should also apply to form, etc. This would contradict the holy teachings that 『anantarasamanantara-pratyaya』 exists only for mind and mental factors. However, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says that form may also have 『anantarasamanantara-pratyaya,』 which is a concession. It means that, to accommodate the Hīnayāna view that form and mind have 『anantarasamanantara-pratyaya』 in their sequence, it is reluctantly acknowledged. Otherwise, the word 『etc.』 would become meaningless. If it is said that 『etc.』 does not exclude quantity but only indicates the same category, then it would contradict your assertion that different kinds of consciousness can act as 『anantarasamanantara-pratyaya.』 Therefore, each of the eight consciousnesses relying solely on its own category as the apūrvakāraka (guide) deeply accords with the teachings and reason. Because there is necessarily no possibility of simultaneous arising within the same category. Mental factors depend on consciousness, and should be discussed accordingly. Although mind and mental factors are different categories arising simultaneously, they are mutually corresponding, harmonizing as one, and necessarily arising and ceasing together, with identical functions. When one guides, the others also guide, thus reciprocally acting as 『anantarasamanantara-pratyaya.』 The consciousnesses are not like this, and should not be taken as an example. However, the mental factors are not the apūrvakāraka, because they do not have a leading role in what is produced. If the 『anantarasamanantara-pratyaya』 of mind and mental factors were each only of their own category, then when the seventh and eighth consciousnesses undergo āśrayaparāvṛtti (transformation of the basis), the corresponding faith, etc., would lack this condition, which would contradict the holy teachings that all mind and mental factors arise from four conditions. In states of unconscious sleep, fainting, etc., although consciousness is interrupted, when it arises again, its guide is its previous own category. It should be understood that the interrupted five consciousnesses are also like this. Because there is no mind of its own category intervening, it is called 『without interruption.』 Because they had already acted as guides for the present consciousness when they ceased earlier, why would there be a need for a different category to act as a guide? However, the holy teachings say that the first six consciousnesses mutually cause each other, or that the seventh and eighth consciousnesses arise depending on the sixth and seventh, all of which are spoken of based on the superior adhipati-pratyaya (dominant condition), not 『anantarasamanantara-pratyaya,』 so there is no contradiction. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that if this consciousness arises without interruption, the consciousnesses will definitely arise, and it is said that this consciousness is the 『anantarasamanantara-pratyaya』 of that consciousness. It also says that these six consciousnesses are the 『anantarasamanantara-pratyaya』 of those six consciousnesses, and that this consciousness is designated as manas (the root of consciousness). Speaking generally and speaking individually are not contradictory. Therefore, relying on one's own category deeply accords with the teachings and reason. The digression is over, and the main topic should be discussed. Although this transforming consciousness has three kinds of bases, saying that it transforms depending on the first two only shows that the bases and conditions of this consciousness are the same. Also, because the first two bases have superior functions. Or because the apūrvakāraka is easy to understand. Having thus spoken of the bases of this consciousness, what are its objects? They are...
緣彼。彼謂即前此所依識。聖說此識緣藏識故。有義此意緣彼識體及相應法。論說末那我我所執恒相應故。謂緣彼體及相應法。如次執為我及我所。然諸心所不離識故。如唯識言無違教失。有義彼說理不應然。曾無處言緣觸等故。應言此意但緣彼識見及相分。如次執為我及我所。相見俱以識為體故。不違聖說。有義此說亦不應理。五色根境非識蘊故。應同五識亦緣外故。應如意識緣共境故。應生無色者不執我所故。厭色生彼不變色故。應說此意但緣藏識及彼種子。如次執為我及我所。以種即是彼識功能非實有物不違聖教。有義前說皆不應理。色等種子非識蘊故。論說種子是實有故。假應如無非因緣故。又此識俱薩迦耶見任運一類恒相續生。何容別執有我我所。無一心中有斷常等二境別執俱轉義故。亦不應說二執前後。此無始來一味轉故。應知此意但緣藏識見分。非餘。彼無始來一類相續似常一故。恒與諸法為所依故。此唯執彼為自內我。乘語勢故說我所言。或此執彼是我之我。故於一見義說二言。若作是說善順教理。多處唯言有我見故。我我所執不俱起故。未轉依位唯緣藏識。既轉依已亦緣真如及餘諸法。平等性智證得十種平等性故。知諸有情勝解差別示現種種佛影像故。此中且說未轉依時。故但說此緣彼藏識。悟迷
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 緣彼（以其為緣）。彼謂即前此所依識（賴耶識）。聖說此識緣藏識（阿賴耶識）故。有義此意緣彼識體及相應法。論說末那（末那識）我我所執恒相應故。謂緣彼體及相應法。如次執為我及我所。然諸心所不離識故。如唯識言無違教失。有義彼說理不應然。曾無處言緣觸等故。應言此意但緣彼識見及相分。如次執為我及我所。相見俱以識為體故。不違聖說。有義此說亦不應理。五色根境非識蘊故。應同五識亦緣外故。應如意識緣共境故。應生無色者不執我所故。厭色生彼不變色故。應說此意但緣藏識及彼種子。如次執為我及我所。以種即是彼識功能非實有物不違聖教。有義前說皆不應理。色等種子非識蘊故。論說種子是實有故。假應如無非因緣故。又此識俱薩迦耶見（有身見）任運一類恒相續生。何容別執有我我所。無一心中有斷常等二境別執俱轉義故。亦不應說二執前後。此無始來一味轉故。應知此意但緣藏識見分。非餘。彼無始來一類相續似常一故。恒與諸法為所依故。此唯執彼為自內我。乘語勢故說我所言。或此執彼是我之我。故於一見義說二言。若作是說善順教理。多處唯言有我見故。我我所執不俱起故。未轉依位唯緣藏識。既轉依已亦緣真如及餘諸法。平等性智證得十種平等性故。知諸有情勝解差別示現種種佛影像故。此中且說未轉依時。故但說此緣彼藏識。悟迷
【English Translation】 English version Dependent on that. 'That' refers to the preceding consciousness on which this relies, namely the Alaya consciousness. The scriptures state that this consciousness is dependent on the store consciousness (Alaya-vijnana). Some argue that this mind is dependent on the essence of that consciousness and its associated mental factors. The treatise states that the Manas (Manas-vijnana) is constantly associated with the belief in 'I' and 'mine'. It is said to be dependent on that essence and its associated mental factors, grasping them as 'I' and 'mine' respectively. Since all mental factors are inseparable from consciousness, as stated in the Vijnaptimatrata (Yogacara) teachings, there is no contradiction with the scriptures. Some argue that this explanation is not reasonable, as there is no mention of dependence on contact (Sparsha) etc. It should be said that this mind is only dependent on the seeing (Darshana) and objective (Nimitta) aspects of that consciousness, grasping them as 'I' and 'mine' respectively. Both the objective and seeing aspects have consciousness as their essence, so there is no contradiction with the scriptures. Some argue that this explanation is also not reasonable, as the five sense organs and their objects are not aggregates of consciousness. It should be the same as the five consciousnesses, also dependent on external objects. It should be like the consciousness, dependent on shared objects. Those born in the formless realms should not grasp 'mine', as they are averse to form and are born there without changing form. It should be said that this mind is only dependent on the store consciousness and its seeds (Bija), grasping them as 'I' and 'mine' respectively. Since the seeds are merely functions of that consciousness and not real entities, there is no contradiction with the scriptures. Some argue that all the preceding explanations are not reasonable, as the seeds of form etc. are not aggregates of consciousness. The treatise states that the seeds are real entities. If they were false, they would be like non-causes and non-conditions. Furthermore, this consciousness is accompanied by the Satkayadrishti (belief in a self), arising naturally and continuously. How can it separately grasp 'I' and 'mine'? There is no meaning in two separate grasps of impermanence and permanence etc. occurring simultaneously in one mind. It should also not be said that the two grasps occur sequentially, as this has been occurring in one flavor since beginningless time. It should be known that this mind is only dependent on the seeing aspect of the store consciousness, and nothing else. That is because it has been continuously similar to permanence and oneness since beginningless time, and is constantly the basis for all phenomena. This only grasps that as its own inner 'I'. The words 'mine' are spoken due to the force of language. Or, this grasps that as the 'I' of 'I'. Therefore, two words are spoken for one seeing. If it is explained in this way, it is in accordance with the teachings and reason. In many places, it is only said that there is a belief in 'I'. The grasps of 'I' and 'mine' do not arise simultaneously. Before the transformation of the basis (Ashraya-paravritti), it is only dependent on the store consciousness. After the transformation of the basis, it is also dependent on Suchness (Tathata) and other phenomena, because the Wisdom of Equality (Samata-jnana) realizes the ten kinds of equality. Knowing the differences in the inclinations of sentient beings, it manifests various Buddha images. Here, we are only discussing the time before the transformation of the basis. Therefore, it is only said that this is dependent on that store consciousness. Enlightenment and delusion.
通局理應爾故。無我我境遍不遍故。如何此識緣自所依。如有後識即緣前意。彼既極成此亦何咎。頌言思量為性相者。雙顯此識自性行相。意以思量為自性故。即複用彼為行相故。由斯兼釋所立別名。能審思量名末那故。未轉依位恒審思量所執我相。已轉依位亦審思量無我相故。
此意相應有幾心所。且與四種煩惱常俱。此中俱言顯相應義。謂從無始至未轉依此意任運恒緣藏識與四根本煩惱相應。其四者何。謂我癡我見並我慢我愛。是名四種。我癡者謂無明。愚於我相迷無我理故名我癡。我見者謂我執。于非我法妄計為我。故名我見。我慢者謂倨傲。恃所執我令心高舉。故名我慢。我愛者謂我貪。于所執我深生耽著。故名我愛。並錶慢愛有見慢俱。遮餘部執無相應義。此四常起擾濁內心令外轉識恒成雜染。有情由此生死輪迴不能出離。故名煩惱。彼有十種此何唯四。有我見故餘見不生。無一心中有二慧故。如何此識要有我見。二取邪見但分別生唯見所斷。此俱煩惱唯是俱生修所斷故。我所邊見依我見生。此相應見不依彼起。恒內執有我故要有我見。由見審決疑無容起。愛著我故瞋不得生。故此識俱煩惱唯四。見慢愛三如何俱起。行相無違俱起何失。
瑜伽論說貪令心下慢令心舉。寧不相違。分別俱生外境
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：因為通達真理就應該是這樣。因為『無我』和我所執著的境界是普遍存在還是不普遍存在呢？如果這個意識緣取它自身所依賴的，就像後來的意識緣取之前的意根一樣。既然後者已經被充分證明，那麼前者又有什麼過錯呢？頌文說『以思量為自性相』，這是同時顯示這個意識的自性和行相。意根以思量作為它的自性，因此又用它作為行相。因此也解釋了所建立的別名，能夠審察思量所以叫做末那（manas，意根）。在沒有轉依之前，總是審察思量所執著的『我』相。在已經轉依之後，也審察思量『無我』相。
這個意根相應有多少心所呢？它總是和四種煩惱一起生起。這裡說的『一起』，是顯示相應的意思。就是說，從無始以來到沒有轉依之前，這個意根任運地總是緣取阿賴耶識，並且和四種根本煩惱相應。這四種是什麼呢？就是我癡、我見、我慢和我愛。這就是四種煩惱。我癡，就是無明（ignorance）。愚昧於『我』相，迷惑于『無我』的道理，所以叫做我癡。我見，就是我執（ego-belief）。對於不是『我』的法，錯誤地認為是『我』，所以叫做我見。我慢，就是倨傲（arrogance）。憑藉所執著的『我』，使心高高舉起，所以叫做我慢。我愛，就是我貪（ego-love）。對於所執著的『我』，深深地產生貪戀執著，所以叫做我愛。『並』字表示慢和愛有和『見』一起生起，和『慢』一起生起的情況。遮止其他部派認為沒有相應意義的觀點。這四種煩惱經常生起，擾亂混濁內心，使外在的轉識總是成為雜染。有情眾生因此生死輪迴，不能出離，所以叫做煩惱。煩惱有十種，為什麼這裡只有四種呢？因為有了我見，其他的見就不生起。因為一個心中不能同時存在兩種智慧。為什麼這個意識一定要有我見呢？二取和邪見只是分別產生的，只是見所斷的。而這四種俱生煩惱只是俱生，是修所斷的。我所邊見依賴我見而生起。這個相應的見不依賴它而生起。總是向內執著有『我』，所以一定要有我見。因為有了見的審察決斷，疑惑就沒有容身之地。因為愛著『我』，嗔恨就不能生起。所以這個意識相應的煩惱只有四種。見、慢、愛這三種煩惱怎麼能同時生起呢？因為它們的行相沒有衝突，同時生起又有什麼過失呢？
《瑜伽師地論》說，貪使心下沉，慢使心高舉。難道不是相互矛盾嗎？分別俱生外境。
【English Translation】 English version: It should be so because of understanding the truth. Because are 'no-self' and the realm of what I am attached to universal or not universal? How does this consciousness cognize what it relies on? Just as later consciousnesses cognize the previous mind. Since the latter has been fully proven, what fault is there in the former? The verse says 'taking thinking as its nature and characteristics,' which simultaneously reveals the nature and characteristics of this consciousness. The manas (mind-consciousness) takes thinking as its nature, and therefore uses it as its characteristic. Therefore, it also explains the established special name, being able to examine and think, so it is called manas (mind-consciousness). Before the transformation of the basis, it always examines and thinks about the 'self' aspect that is clung to. After the transformation of the basis, it also examines and thinks about the 'no-self' aspect.
How many mental factors are associated with this manas? It is always together with the four afflictions. The word 'together' here shows the meaning of association. That is to say, from beginningless time until before the transformation of the basis, this manas spontaneously always cognizes the alaya-consciousness (storehouse consciousness) and is associated with the four fundamental afflictions. What are these four? They are ego-ignorance (avidya), ego-belief (atma-drishti), ego-arrogance (atma-mana), and ego-love (atma-sneha). These are the four afflictions. Ego-ignorance is ignorance (avidya). Being ignorant of the 'self' aspect and confused about the principle of 'no-self,' it is called ego-ignorance. Ego-belief is ego-attachment (atma-graha). Mistakenly considering what is not 'self' as 'self,' it is called ego-belief. Ego-arrogance is arrogance (mana). Relying on the clung-to 'self,' it makes the mind rise high, so it is called ego-arrogance. Ego-love is ego-greed (atma-trishna). Deeply attached to the clung-to 'self,' it is called ego-love. The word 'and' indicates that arrogance and love can arise together with 'belief,' and together with 'arrogance.' It prevents other schools from thinking that there is no corresponding meaning. These four afflictions often arise, disturbing and turbid the inner mind, causing the external transforming consciousnesses to always become defiled. Sentient beings therefore cycle through birth and death, unable to escape, so they are called afflictions. There are ten kinds of afflictions, why are there only four here? Because with ego-belief, other views do not arise. Because there cannot be two wisdoms in one mind. Why must this consciousness have ego-belief? The two graspings and wrong views are only produced by discrimination and are only severed by seeing. These four co-arisen afflictions are only co-arisen and are severed by cultivation. The view of self-belonging arises depending on ego-belief. This corresponding view does not arise depending on it. Always clinging inwardly to the existence of 'self,' so there must be ego-belief. Because of the examination and determination of the view, there is no room for doubt. Because of love for 'self,' hatred cannot arise. Therefore, the afflictions corresponding to this consciousness are only four. How can the three afflictions of belief, arrogance, and love arise simultaneously? Because their characteristics are not in conflict, what fault is there in arising simultaneously?
The Yogacarabhumi-sastra says that greed makes the mind sink, and arrogance makes the mind rise. Aren't they contradictory? Discriminating co-arisen external objects.
內境所陵所恃粗細有殊故。彼此文義無乖返。此意心所唯有四耶。不爾。及餘觸等俱故。有義此意心所唯九。前四及餘觸等五法。即觸作意受想與思。意與遍行定相應故。前說觸等異熟識俱。恐謂同前亦是無覆。顯此異彼故置餘言及是義集。前四後五合與末那恒相應故。此意何故無餘心所。謂欲希望未遂合事。此識任運緣遂合境。無所希望故無有欲。勝解印持曾未定境。此識無始恒緣定事。經所印持故無勝解。念唯記憶曾所習事。此識恒緣現所受境無所記憶。故無有念。定唯繫心專注一境。此識任運剎那別緣。既不專一故無有定。慧即我見故不別說。善是凈故非此識俱。隨煩惱生必依煩惱前後分位差別建立。此識恒與四煩惱俱。前後一類分位無別。故此識俱無隨煩惱。惡作追悔先所造業。此識任運恒緣現境。非悔先業故無惡作。睡眠必依身心重昧外眾緣力有時暫起。此識無始一類內執不假外緣故彼非有。尋伺俱依外門而轉。淺深推度粗細發言。此識唯依內門而轉。一類執我故非彼俱。有義彼釋餘義非理。頌別說此有覆攝故。又闕意俱隨煩惱故。煩惱必與隨煩惱俱。故此餘言顯隨煩惱。此中有義五隨煩惱。遍與一切染心相應。如集論說。惛沉掉舉不信懈怠放逸於一切染污品中恒共相應。若離無堪任性等染污性成無是處故
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 因為內境所依仗和執持的對象有粗細的差別，所以彼此的文義沒有相違背的地方。這種『意』的心所只有四種嗎？不是的，還有觸等其他心所一起生起。有一種觀點認為，這種『意』的心所只有九種，即前面的四種（觸、作意、受、想）以及觸等五法（觸、作意、受、想、思）。因為『意』與遍行心所和定相應。前面說觸等與異熟識（Vipāka-vijñāna）一起生起，恐怕有人認為它和前面一樣也是無覆無記（anivṛtāvyākṛta），所以特別用『餘』字來顯示它與前面的不同，並且用『是義集』來總結。因為前四種心所和後五種心所總是與末那（manas）相應。為什麼這種『意』沒有其他的心所呢？因為慾望是希望尚未實現的事情，而這個識（末那）任運地緣取已經實現的對象，沒有希望，所以沒有慾望。勝解（adhimokṣa）是印持曾經不確定的對象，而這個識（末那）從無始以來總是緣取已經確定的事情，被經典所印持，所以沒有勝解。念（smṛti）只是記憶曾經熟悉的事情，而這個識（末那）總是緣取現在所感受的對象，沒有記憶，所以沒有念。定（samādhi）只是繫心專注在一個對像上，而這個識（末那）任運地在剎那間緣取不同的對象，既然不專注，所以沒有定。慧（prajñā）就是我見（ātma-dṛṣṭi），所以不另外說明。善（kuśala）是清凈的，所以不與這個識（末那）一起生起。隨煩惱（upakleśa）的生起必定依賴於煩惱（kleśa）前後階段的差別而建立，而這個識（末那）總是與四種煩惱一起生起，前後一類，階段沒有差別，所以這個識（末那）沒有隨煩惱。惡作（kaukṛtya）是追悔先前所造的業，而這個識（末那）任運地總是緣取現在的對象，不是後悔先前的業，所以沒有惡作。睡眠（styāna）必定依賴於身心沉重昏昧以及外在眾多因緣的力量，有時才暫時生起，而這個識（末那）從無始以來一類地向內執著，不依賴外在的因緣，所以它沒有睡眠。尋（vitarka）和伺（vicāra）都依賴於外門而運轉，淺深地推測，粗細地發言，而這個識（末那）只依賴於內門而運轉，一類地執著於我，所以不與它們一起生起。有一種觀點認為，對『餘』的解釋是不合理的，因為頌（偈頌）中分別說了這個識（末那）是被有覆（sāvṛta）所攝的，而且缺少與『意』一起生起的隨煩惱。煩惱必定與隨煩惱一起生起，所以這個『餘』字顯示了隨煩惱。這裡有一種觀點認為有五種隨煩惱，普遍地與一切染污心相應，如《集論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya）所說：『惛沉（styāna）、掉舉（auddhatya）、不信（āśraddhya）、懈怠（kausīdya）、放逸（pramāda）在一切染污品中總是共同相應。如果離開無堪任性等染污性，就無法成立。』
【English Translation】 English version: Because the inner realm's reliance and support have differences in coarseness and subtlety, the meanings do not contradict each other. Are there only four mental factors associated with this 'mind'? No, there are also other mental factors such as contact (sparśa) that arise together. One view holds that there are only nine mental factors associated with this 'mind', namely the previous four (contact, attention (manaskāra), feeling (vedanā), perception (saṃjñā)) and the five dharmas of contact, etc. (contact, attention, feeling, perception, thought (cetanā)). Because 'mind' is associated with pervasive mental factors and concentration (samādhi). Previously, it was said that contact, etc., arise together with the resultant consciousness (Vipāka-vijñāna), fearing that people would think it is the same as before, being obscured and indeterminate (anivṛtāvyākṛta), so the word 'other' is specifically used to show its difference from the previous, and 'is the collection of meanings' is used to summarize. Because the first four mental factors and the latter five mental factors are always associated with manas. Why doesn't this 'mind' have other mental factors? Because desire (chanda) is hoping for things that have not yet been realized, while this consciousness (manas) spontaneously grasps objects that have already been realized, without hope, so there is no desire. Resolution (adhimokṣa) is to affirm objects that were once uncertain, while this consciousness (manas) has always grasped certain things from beginningless time, affirmed by scriptures, so there is no resolution. Mindfulness (smṛti) is only remembering things that were once familiar, while this consciousness (manas) always grasps objects that are currently being experienced, without remembering, so there is no mindfulness. Concentration (samādhi) is only focusing the mind on one object, while this consciousness (manas) spontaneously grasps different objects in each moment, since it is not focused, so there is no concentration. Wisdom (prajñā) is self-view (ātma-dṛṣṭi), so it is not explained separately. Goodness (kuśala) is pure, so it does not arise together with this consciousness (manas). The arising of secondary afflictions (upakleśa) must rely on the differences in the previous and subsequent stages of afflictions (kleśa) to be established, while this consciousness (manas) always arises together with the four afflictions, being of the same kind before and after, with no difference in stages, so this consciousness (manas) has no secondary afflictions. Regret (kaukṛtya) is regretting the actions previously committed, while this consciousness (manas) spontaneously grasps the current object, not regretting the previous actions, so there is no regret. Sleep (styāna) must rely on the heaviness and dullness of body and mind and the power of external conditions, and only arises temporarily sometimes, while this consciousness (manas) has been clinging inwardly in one way from beginningless time, not relying on external conditions, so it does not have sleep. Investigation (vitarka) and analysis (vicāra) both operate through the external gates, speculating deeply and superficially, speaking coarsely and subtly, while this consciousness (manas) only operates through the internal gate, clinging to self in one way, so it does not arise together with them. One view holds that the explanation of 'other' is unreasonable, because the verse (gāthā) separately states that this consciousness (manas) is included by the obscured (sāvṛta), and lacks the secondary afflictions that arise together with 'mind'. Afflictions must arise together with secondary afflictions, so this word 'other' shows the secondary afflictions. Here, one view holds that there are five secondary afflictions, universally corresponding to all defiled minds, as the Abhidharma-samuccaya says: 'Mental darkness (styāna), excitement (auddhatya), lack of faith (āśraddhya), laziness (kausīdya), and carelessness (pramāda) always correspond together in all defiled categories. If one departs from the defiled nature of unserviceability, etc., it cannot be established.'
。煩惱起時心既染污。故染心位必有彼五。煩惱若起必由無堪任囂動不信懈怠放逸故。掉舉雖遍一切染心。而貪位增但說貪分。如眠與悔雖遍三性心。而癡位增但說為癡分。雖餘處說有隨煩惱或六或十遍諸染心。而彼俱依別義說遍。非彼實遍一切染心。謂依二十隨煩惱中解通粗細無記不善通障定慧相顯說六。依二十二隨煩惱中解通粗細二性說十。故此彼說非互相違。然此意俱心所十五。謂前九法五隨煩惱並別境慧。我見雖是別境慧攝。而五十一心所法中義有差別。故開為二。何緣此意無餘心所。謂忿等十行相粗動。此識審細故非彼俱。無慚無愧唯是不善。此無記故非彼相應。散亂令心馳流外境。此恒內執一類境生。不外馳流故彼非有。不正知者。謂起外門身語意行違越軌則。此唯內執故非彼俱。無餘心所義如前說。有義應說六隨煩惱遍與一切染心相應。瑜伽論說不信懈怠放逸忘念散亂惡慧一切染心皆相應故。忘念散亂惡慧若無。心必不能起諸煩惱。要緣曾受境界種類。發起忘念及邪簡擇。方起貪等諸煩惱故。煩惱起時心必流蕩。皆由於境起散亂故。惛沉掉舉行相互違。非諸染心皆能遍起。論說五法遍染心者。解通粗細違唯善法。純隨煩惱通二性故。說十遍言義如前說。然此意俱心所十九。謂前九法六隨煩惱。並念定慧
【現代漢語翻譯】
煩惱生起時，心已經被染污。因此，在染污的心識狀態中，必定存在這五種（遍行煩惱）。煩惱的生起必定是由於缺乏堪能性、囂動、不信、懈怠和放逸的緣故。掉舉（Avarodha，心不寂靜）雖然普遍存在於一切染污心中，但由於在貪（Lobha，貪婪）的狀態中更為強烈，所以只說是貪的一部分。如同睡眠（Middha，昏沉）和後悔（Kaukṛtya，追悔）雖然普遍存在於三種性質的心（善、惡、無記）中，但由於在癡（Moha，愚癡）的狀態中更為強烈，所以只說是癡的一部分。雖然在其他地方說有隨煩惱（Upaklesha，小煩惱）或者六種或者十種遍及各種染污心，但那些都是依據不同的意義來說明其普遍性，並非它們實際上遍及一切染污心。也就是說，依據二十種隨煩惱中，從理解上貫通粗細和無記、不善，貫通障礙禪定和智慧的相貌而顯現，所以說有六種。依據二十二種隨煩惱中，從理解上貫通粗細兩種性質（善與不善），所以說有十種。因此，這些說法並非互相矛盾。然而，這個『意』（manas，意識）相應的心所（Caitasika，心所法）有十五種，也就是前面的九種法（作意等五遍行，觸、受、想、思、作意）和五種隨煩惱（無慚、無愧、嫉妒、慳吝、惡作），以及別境慧（Visesa-prajna，特殊智慧）。我見（Atma-dṛṣṭi，我執）雖然屬於別境慧所攝，但在五十一心所法中，意義有所差別，所以分開為兩種。為什麼這個『意』沒有其餘的心所呢？因為忿等十種（忿、恨、覆、惱、嫉、慳、誑、諂、憍、害）的行相粗猛躁動，這個識（Vijnana，識）審慎細微，所以它們不在一起。無慚（Ahrikya，無慚）和無愧（Anapatrapya，無愧）僅僅是不善的，這個『意』是無記的，所以它們不相應。散亂（Viksepa，散亂）使心馳逐于外境，這個『意』恒常執著于內在的一類境界而生起，不向外馳逐，所以散亂不存在。不正知（Asamprajanya，不正知）是指發起外在的身語意行為，違越了行爲準則，這個『意』僅僅執著于內在，所以它們不在一起。其餘心所的意義如同前面所說。有一種觀點認為，應該說六種隨煩惱普遍與一切染污心相應。《瑜伽師地論》（Yogacarabhumi-sastra）說，不信、懈怠、放逸、忘念、散亂、惡慧（Dustaprajna，惡慧）與一切染污心都相應。如果缺乏忘念、散亂、惡慧，心必定不能生起各種煩惱。必須緣于曾經領受過的境界種類，發起忘念以及邪惡的簡擇，才能生起貪等各種煩惱。煩惱生起時，心必定流蕩，都是由於對境界生起散亂的緣故。惛沉（Styana，昏沉）和掉舉的行相互相違背，並非各種染污心都能普遍生起。論中說五種法遍及染污心，從理解上貫通粗細，違背的僅僅是善良的法，純粹的隨煩惱貫通兩種性質（善與不善），所以說十種遍及，意義如同前面所說。然而，這個『意』相應的心所十九種，也就是前面的九種法，六種隨煩惱（不信、懈怠、放逸、忘念、散亂、惡慧），以及念（Smrti，正念）、定（Samadhi，禪定）、慧（Prajna，智慧）。
【English Translation】 English version: When afflictions arise, the mind is already defiled. Therefore, in a defiled state of mind, these five (pervasive afflictions) must be present. The arising of afflictions is necessarily due to the lack of competence, agitation, disbelief, laziness, and dissipation. Although distraction (Avarodha, mental restlessness) is universally present in all defiled minds, it is said to be a part of greed (Lobha, avarice) because it is more intense in the state of greed. Just as sleep (Middha, drowsiness) and regret (Kaukṛtya, remorse) are universally present in minds of three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral), it is said to be a part of delusion (Moha, ignorance) because it is more intense in the state of delusion. Although it is said elsewhere that there are either six or ten secondary afflictions (Upaklesha, minor afflictions) that pervade various defiled minds, those are based on different meanings to explain their universality, not that they actually pervade all defiled minds. That is, based on the twenty secondary afflictions, from the understanding of penetrating the coarse and subtle, neutral and unwholesome, penetrating the aspects that obstruct meditation and wisdom, six are said to exist. Based on the twenty-two secondary afflictions, from the understanding of penetrating the coarse and subtle two natures (wholesome and unwholesome), ten are said to exist. Therefore, these statements are not contradictory. However, the mental concomitants (Caitasika, mental factors) associated with this 'mind' (manas, consciousness) are fifteen, namely the previous nine dharmas (the five pervasive mental factors such as attention, contact, sensation, perception, volition, and attention) and the five secondary afflictions (shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, jealousy, stinginess, regret), as well as the wisdom of specific objects (Visesa-prajna, special wisdom). Although the view of self (Atma-dṛṣṭi, self-attachment) is included in the wisdom of specific objects, it is separated into two because there is a difference in meaning among the fifty-one mental concomitants. Why does this 'mind' not have the remaining mental concomitants? Because the aspects of the ten (anger, resentment, concealment, vexation, jealousy, stinginess, deceit, flattery, arrogance, harm) are coarse and agitated, this consciousness (Vijnana, consciousness) is careful and subtle, so they are not together. Shamelessness (Ahrikya, shamelessness) and lack of embarrassment (Anapatrapya, lack of embarrassment) are only unwholesome, this 'mind' is neutral, so they are not corresponding. Distraction (Viksepa, distraction) causes the mind to chase after external objects, this 'mind' constantly clings to an internal type of object and arises, it does not chase outward, so distraction does not exist. Incorrect knowledge (Asamprajanya, incorrect knowledge) refers to initiating external actions of body, speech, and mind that violate the rules of conduct, this 'mind' only clings to the internal, so they are not together. The meaning of the remaining mental concomitants is as previously stated. One view holds that it should be said that six secondary afflictions universally correspond to all defiled minds. The Yogacarabhumi-sastra says that disbelief, laziness, dissipation, forgetfulness, distraction, and evil wisdom (Dustaprajna, evil wisdom) all correspond to all defiled minds. If forgetfulness, distraction, and evil wisdom are lacking, the mind will certainly not be able to generate various afflictions. It is necessary to rely on the types of objects that have been previously experienced, to initiate forgetfulness and evil discernment, in order to generate various afflictions such as greed. When afflictions arise, the mind will certainly wander, all due to the arising of distraction towards objects. Drowsiness (Styana, drowsiness) and distraction have mutually contradictory aspects, not all defiled minds can universally arise. The treatise says that five dharmas pervade defiled minds, from the understanding of penetrating the coarse and subtle, what is violated is only wholesome dharma, pure secondary afflictions penetrate two natures (wholesome and unwholesome), so it is said that ten pervade, the meaning is as previously stated. However, the mental concomitants corresponding to this 'mind' are nineteen, namely the previous nine dharmas, six secondary afflictions (disbelief, laziness, dissipation, forgetfulness, distraction, evil wisdom), as well as mindfulness (Smrti, mindfulness), concentration (Samadhi, meditation), and wisdom (Prajna, wisdom).
及加惛沈。此別說念。
準前慧釋。並有定者。專注一類所執我境曾不捨故。加惛沈者。謂此識俱無明尤重心惛沈故。無掉舉者此相違故。無餘心所如上應知。有義復說十隨煩惱遍與一切染心相應。瑜伽論說放逸．掉舉．惛沈．不信．懈怠．邪欲．邪勝解．邪念．散亂．不正知。此十一切染污心起。通一切處三界系故。若無邪欲邪勝解時。心必不能起諸煩惱。于所受境要樂合離。印持事相方起貪等諸煩惱故。諸疑理者於色等事必無猶豫。故疑相應亦有勝解。于所緣事亦猶豫者。非煩惱疑。如疑人杌。餘處不說此二遍者。緣非愛事疑相應心邪欲勝解非粗顯故。餘互有無義如前說。此意心所有二十四。謂前九法十隨煩惱加別境五。準前理釋。無餘心所如上應知。有義前說皆未盡理。且疑他世為有為無。于彼有何欲勝解相。煩惱起位若無惛沈應不定有無堪任性。掉舉若無應無囂動。便如善等非染污位。若染心中無散亂者。應非流蕩非染污心。若無失念不正知者。如何能起煩惱現前。故染污心決定皆與八隨煩惱相應而生。謂惛沉掉舉不信懈怠放逸忘念散亂不正知。忘念不正知念慧為性者不遍染心。非諸染心皆緣曾受有簡擇故。若以無明為自性者。遍染心起由前說故。然此意俱心所十八。謂前九法八隨煩惱並別境慧。無餘
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 以及加上昏沉（Moha，精神上的遲鈍）。這是特別說明的『念』（Smṛti，正念）。
依照之前的智慧解釋，並且有『定』（Samādhi，專注）。因為專注在一類所執著的『我』（Ātman，自我）的境界，從不捨棄的緣故。加上昏沉，是說這個『識』（Vijñāna，意識）與『無明』（Avidyā，無知）共同作用，尤其注重昏沉的緣故。沒有掉舉（Audhathya，精神上的浮躁），是因為與此（昏沉）相違背的緣故。沒有其餘的『心所』（Caitasika，心理活動），應該如上文所說的那樣理解。有一種觀點又說，十種『隨煩惱』（Upakleśa，次要的煩惱）普遍與一切染污心相應。《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）說：放逸（Pramāda，放縱）、掉舉、昏沉、不信（Āśraddhya，不信任）、懈怠（Styāna，懶惰）、邪欲（Mithyādhimokṣa，錯誤的慾望）、邪勝解（Kukṛtyānuśaya，錯誤的理解）、邪念（Mṛṣāsmṛti，錯誤的念頭）、散亂（Vikṣepa，精神渙散）、不正知（Asamprajanya，不正確認知）。這十種在一切染污心生起時，通達一切處，被三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）所繫縛的緣故。如果沒有邪欲、邪勝解的時候，心必定不能生起各種煩惱。對於所接受的境界，要樂於結合和分離，印證所發生的事情，才能生起貪（Lobha，貪婪）等各種煩惱的緣故。各種懷疑道理的人，對於色（Rūpa，顏色、形狀）等事物必定沒有猶豫。所以與懷疑相應也有勝解。對於所緣的事物也猶豫的人，不是煩惱的懷疑，比如懷疑是人還是樹樁。其餘的地方沒有說這兩種普遍存在，是因為緣于非愛的事物，與懷疑相應的心，邪欲、勝解不是粗顯的緣故。其餘的相互有無的意義如前文所說。這個『意』（Manas，末那識）的心所有二十四種，是說之前的九種法，十種隨煩惱，加上別境（Viniścaya，決斷）五種。依照之前的道理來解釋，沒有其餘的心所，應該如上文所說的那樣理解。有一種觀點說，之前的說法都沒有窮盡道理。暫且懷疑他世是有還是沒有，對於那個有什麼慾望、勝解的相？煩惱生起的位置，如果沒有昏沉，應該不能決定有還是沒有堪能性。掉舉如果沒有，應該沒有囂動，便如善良等，不是染污的位置。如果染污心中沒有散亂，應該不是流蕩，不是染污心。如果沒有失念、不正知，如何能生起煩惱現前？所以染污心決定都與八種隨煩惱相應而生。是說昏沉、掉舉、不信、懈怠、放逸、忘念（Muṣitasmṛtitā，失去正念）、散亂、不正知。忘念、不正知，以念、慧為自性的，不普遍與染污心相應，不是各種染污心都緣于曾經接受過的，有簡擇的緣故。如果以無明為自性的，普遍與染污心一起生起，由前文所說的緣故。然而這個意共同的心所有十八種，是說之前的九種法，八種隨煩惱，並別境慧。沒有其餘的。
【English Translation】 English version: And adding Moha (mental dullness). This is a special explanation of Smṛti (mindfulness).
According to the previous wisdom explanation, and there is Samādhi (concentration). Because focusing on a type of object that clings to 'self' (Ātman), never abandoning it. Adding Moha means that this Vijñāna (consciousness) works together with Avidyā (ignorance), especially focusing on Moha. There is no Audhathya (restlessness), because it is contrary to this (Moha). There are no other Caitasikas (mental activities), which should be understood as mentioned above. Another view says that the ten Upakleśas (secondary afflictions) are universally associated with all defiled minds. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says: Pramāda (negligence), Audhathya, Moha, Āśraddhya (distrust), Styāna (laziness), Mithyādhimokṣa (wrong desire), Kukṛtyānuśaya (wrong understanding), Mṛṣāsmṛti (wrong thought), Vikṣepa (distraction), Asamprajanya (incorrect cognition). These ten, when all defiled minds arise, penetrate all places and are bound by the three realms (Trailokya: Desire Realm, Form Realm, Formless Realm). If there is no Mithyādhimokṣa, the mind will definitely not be able to generate various afflictions. For the accepted realm, one must be happy to combine and separate, and verify what happened, in order to generate various afflictions such as Lobha (greed). People who doubt various principles will definitely not hesitate about things like Rūpa (color, shape). Therefore, there is also Adhimokṣa corresponding to doubt. Those who hesitate about the objects of perception are not doubts of affliction, such as doubting whether it is a person or a stump. Other places do not say that these two are universal, because they are related to non-loving things, and the mind corresponding to doubt, Mithyādhimokṣa is not obvious. The meaning of the mutual existence or non-existence of the rest is as mentioned above. This Manas (mind) has twenty-four mental properties, which means the previous nine dharmas, ten secondary afflictions, plus the five Viniścayas (determinations). According to the previous reasoning, there are no other mental properties, which should be understood as mentioned above. One view says that the previous statements have not exhausted the truth. For the time being, doubting whether the other world exists or not, what kind of desire and Adhimokṣa does that have? If there is no Moha in the position where afflictions arise, it should not be possible to determine whether there is the ability or not. If there is no Audhathya, there should be no noise, just like goodness, not a defiled position. If there is no Vikṣepa in the defiled mind, it should not be wandering, not a defiled mind. If there is no Muṣitasmṛtitā (loss of mindfulness) and Asamprajanya, how can afflictions arise? Therefore, the defiled mind is definitely born in accordance with the eight secondary afflictions. It is said that Moha, Audhathya, Āśraddhya, Styāna, Pramāda, Muṣitasmṛtitā, Vikṣepa, Asamprajanya. Muṣitasmṛtitā and Asamprajanya, with Smṛti and wisdom as their nature, are not universally associated with defiled minds, and not all defiled minds are related to what has been accepted, because there is selection. If Avidyā is the nature, it arises universally with the defiled mind, as mentioned above. However, this mind has eighteen mental properties in common, which means the previous nine dharmas, eight secondary afflictions, and Viniścaya wisdom. There is no rest.
心所及論三文。準前應釋。若作是說不違理教。
## 成唯識論卷第四
大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 成唯識論
## 成唯識論卷第五
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
此染污意何受相應。有義此俱唯有喜受。恒內執我生喜愛故。有義不然。應許喜受乃至有頂。違聖言故。應說此意四受相應。謂生惡趣憂受相應。緣不善業所引果故。生人慾天初二靜慮喜受相應。緣有喜地善業果故。第三靜慮樂受相應。緣有樂地善業果故。第四靜慮乃至有頂捨受相應。緣唯捨地善業果故。有義彼說亦不應理。此無始來任運一類緣內執我恒無轉易。與變異受不相應故。又此末那與前藏識。義有異者皆別說之。若四受俱亦應別說。既不別說定與彼同。故此相應唯有捨受。未轉依位與前所說心所相應。已轉依位唯二十一心所俱起。謂遍行別境各五善十一。如第八識已轉依位。唯捨受俱任運轉故。恒于所緣平等轉故。末那心所何性所攝。有覆無記所攝。非餘。此意相應四煩惱等是染法故。障礙聖道隱蔽自心。說名有覆。非善不善故名無記。如上二界諸煩惱等。定力攝藏是無記攝。此俱染法所依細故任運轉故亦無記攝。若已轉依唯是善性。末那心所何地系耶。隨彼所生彼地所繫。謂生欲界現行末那
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 心所及論第三篇的文句，應按照之前的解釋來理解。如果這樣說，就不違背道理和教義。
《成唯識論》卷第四 大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 《成唯識論》
《成唯識論》卷第五
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
這個染污意與什麼感受相應？有人認為，它只與喜受相應，因為它恒常向內執著于『我』(ātman)，從而產生喜愛。有人認為不然，不應允許喜受存在於乃至有頂天(Bhavāgra)，因為這違背了聖言。應該說，這個染污意與四種感受相應。即：生於惡趣時，與憂受相應，因為它是緣于不善業所導致的果報；生於人界和欲界天，以及初禪和二禪時，與喜受相應，因為它是緣于有喜地(具有喜悅的禪定境界)的善業果報；生於三禪時，與樂受相應，因為它是緣于有樂地(具有快樂的禪定境界)的善業果報；生於四禪乃至有頂天時，與捨受相應，因為它是緣于唯有捨受的禪定境界的善業果報。有人認為，那種說法也不合理，因為這個染污意從無始以來，就一直任運地、一類地緣于向內執著的『我』，恒常不變易，所以不與變異的感受相應。而且，這個末那(manas)與之前的阿賴耶識(ālayavijñāna)，如果意義上有不同，都會分別說明。如果與四種感受都相應，也應該分別說明。既然沒有分別說明，就一定與阿賴耶識相同。所以，這個末那相應的心所只有捨受。在未轉依(āśraya-parivṛtti)的階段，與之前所說的心所相應。在已轉依的階段，只與二十一個心所同時生起，即遍行(sarvatraga)五蘊、別境(viniyata)五蘊、善(kuśala)十一蘊。就像第八識(阿賴耶識)在已轉依的階段，只與捨受相應，因為它是任運而轉的，並且恒常對所緣境平等地運轉。末那的心所屬於什麼性質？屬於有覆無記(sāvṛtāvyākṛta)性，而不是其他。因為這個染污意相應的四種煩惱等是染污法，會障礙聖道，隱蔽自心，所以稱為『有覆』。它既非善也非不善，所以稱為『無記』，就像上二界(色界和無色界)的各種煩惱等，被禪定力量所攝藏，屬於無記性。這個染污意所伴隨的染污法，因為它的作用微細，並且任運而轉，所以也屬於無記性。如果已經轉依，就唯是善性。末那的心所屬於哪個地界所繫？隨著它所生的地方，就屬於那個地界所繫。比如，生於欲界時，現行的末那
【English Translation】 English version: The sentences in the third section of the 'Treatise on Mental Factors' should be understood according to the previous explanations. If it is said in this way, it does not violate reason and doctrine.
Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra (Treatise on the Establishment of the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only), Volume 4 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 31, No. 1585, Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra
Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra, Volume 5
Composed by Bodhisattvas Dharmapāla and others
Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree
What feeling (vedanā) is this defiled mind (kliṣṭa-manas) associated with? Some argue that it is only associated with joy (sukha), because it constantly clings to the 'self' (ātman) internally, thus generating fondness. Others disagree, arguing that joy should not be allowed to exist even up to the Peak of Existence (Bhavāgra), because this violates the sacred teachings. It should be said that this mind is associated with four kinds of feelings. That is, when born in the evil realms, it is associated with sorrow (duḥkha), because it is the result of unwholesome karma. When born in the human realm and the desire realm heavens, as well as the first and second dhyānas, it is associated with joy, because it is the result of wholesome karma in the joyful realms (realms of meditative absorption with joy). When born in the third dhyāna, it is associated with pleasure (prīti), because it is the result of wholesome karma in the pleasurable realms (realms of meditative absorption with pleasure). When born in the fourth dhyāna and up to the Peak of Existence, it is associated with equanimity (upekṣā), because it is the result of wholesome karma in the realms of equanimity. Some argue that that explanation is also unreasonable, because this defiled mind, from beginningless time, has always spontaneously and uniformly clung to the internally grasped 'self', constantly without change, so it is not associated with changing feelings. Moreover, if there are differences in meaning between this manas and the previous ālayavijñāna, they are explained separately. If it were associated with all four feelings, it should also be explained separately. Since it is not explained separately, it must be the same as the ālayavijñāna. Therefore, the mental factors associated with this manas are only equanimity. In the stage before the transformation of the basis (āśraya-parivṛtti), it is associated with the mental factors mentioned earlier. In the stage after the transformation of the basis, it only arises simultaneously with twenty-one mental factors, namely the five omnipresent (sarvatraga), the five object-specific (viniyata), and the eleven wholesome (kuśala) mental factors. Just like the eighth consciousness (ālayavijñāna) in the stage after the transformation of the basis, it is only associated with equanimity, because it operates spontaneously and constantly operates equally towards its objects. What is the nature of the mental factors of manas? It belongs to the obscured indeterminate (sāvṛtāvyākṛta) nature, and not others. Because the four afflictions and so on associated with this defiled mind are defiled dharmas, which obstruct the holy path and conceal one's own mind, they are called 'obscured'. It is neither wholesome nor unwholesome, so it is called 'indeterminate', just like the various afflictions and so on in the upper two realms (form realm and formless realm), which are contained by the power of meditation, belong to the indeterminate nature. The defiled dharmas that accompany this defiled mind, because its function is subtle and it operates spontaneously, also belong to the indeterminate nature. If it has already undergone transformation of the basis, then it is only wholesome in nature. To which realm is the mental factor of manas bound? It is bound to the realm in which it arises. For example, when born in the desire realm, the manifest manas
相應心所即欲界系。乃至有頂應知亦然。任運恒緣自地藏識。執為內我非他地故。若起彼地異熟藏識。現在前者名生彼地。染污末耶緣彼執我。即系屬彼名彼所繫。或為彼地諸煩惱等之所繫縛名彼所繫。若已轉依即非所繫。
此染污意無始相續。何位永斷或暫斷耶。阿羅漢滅定出世道無有。阿羅漢者總顯三乘無學果位。此位染意種及現行俱永斷滅。故說無有。學位滅定出世道中俱暫伏滅。故說無有。謂染污意無始時來微細一類任運而轉。諸有漏道不能伏滅。三乘聖道有伏滅義。真無我解違我執故。後得無漏現在前時。是彼等流亦違此意。真無我解及後所得。俱無漏故名出世道。滅定既是聖道等流。極寂靜故此亦非有。由未永斷此種子故。從滅盡定聖道起已。此復現行乃至未滅。然此染意相應煩惱。是俱生故非見所斷。是染污故非非所斷。極微細故所有種子。與有頂地下下煩惱。一時頓斷勢力等故。金剛喻定現在前時。頓斷此種成阿羅漢。故無學位永不復起。二乘無學回趣大乘。從初發心至未成佛。雖實是菩薩亦名阿羅漢。應義等故不別說之。此中有義末那唯有煩惱障俱。聖教皆言三位無故。又說四惑恒相應故。又說為識雜染依故。有義彼說教理相違。出世末那經說有故。無染意識如有染時定有俱生不共依故。論
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：與此相應的『心所』（Citta-samprayukta，心理活動）屬於欲界（Kāmadhātu，慾望界）。乃至『有頂』（Akaniṣṭha，色界最高處）也應知是這樣。它任運（任由自身運作）地持續緣著自己的『藏識』（Ālayavijñāna，阿賴耶識），執著其為內在的『我』（Ātman，自我），因為它不是其他地的。如果生起彼地的『異熟藏識』（Vipāka-ālayavijñāna，果報阿賴耶識）出現在面前，這被稱為『生彼地』。被染污的『末那』（Manas，意根）緣著彼地，執著為『我』，就是系屬於彼地，被稱為『彼所繫』。或者被彼地的各種煩惱等所束縛，也被稱為『彼所繫』。如果已經『轉依』（āśraya-parivṛtti，轉變所依），就不是『所繫』了。 這個被染污的『意』（Manas，意根）無始以來相續不斷，在什麼位次上會永遠斷滅或暫時斷滅呢？在『阿羅漢』（Arhat，無學）的『滅盡定』（Nirodha-samāpatti，滅盡定）和『出世道』（Lokottara-mārga，出世間道）中是沒有的。『阿羅漢』總括地顯示了聲聞乘、緣覺乘和菩薩乘的無學果位。在這個位次上，染污意的種子和現行都永遠斷滅，所以說沒有。在『有學』（Śaikṣa，有學位）的滅盡定和出世道中，都是暫時伏滅，所以說沒有。這是因為染污意從無始以來，微細地、一類地任運而轉，各種有漏道不能夠伏滅它。三乘聖道有伏滅它的作用，因為真正的『無我』（Anātman，非我）的理解違背了『我執』（ātma-graha，我執）。後得的無漏智慧現在面前時，是彼等的等流，也違背此意。真正的無我理解和後得的智慧，都是無漏的，所以稱為『出世道』。滅盡定既然是聖道的等流，極其寂靜，所以這裡也沒有染污意。由於沒有永遠斷滅此種子，所以從滅盡定和聖道起來之後，此染污意又會現行，乃至沒有滅盡。然而，此染污意相應的煩惱，是俱生的，所以不是見所斷。因為是染污的，所以不是非所斷。因為極其微細，所有的種子，與有頂地以下的煩惱，一時頓斷，勢力相等。『金剛喻定』（Vajropama-samādhi，金剛喻定）現在面前時，頓斷此種，成就阿羅漢，所以在無學位上永遠不會再起。二乘無學回小向大，從最初發心到沒有成佛，雖然實際上是菩薩，也稱為阿羅漢，因為意義相等，所以不另外說明。這裡有一種觀點認為，末那只有煩惱障俱。聖教都說在三個位次上沒有末那，又說四惑恒常相應，又說末那是識的雜染所依。有一種觀點認為，那種說法與教理相違背，因為經典中說有出世的末那。沒有染污的意識，如果像有染污時一樣，一定有俱生的不共所依。論中也是這樣說的。
【English Translation】 English version: The corresponding 『Citta-samprayukta』 (mental activities) belongs to the Kāmadhātu (desire realm). It should be understood that this is also the case up to 『Akaniṣṭha』 (the highest of the form realm). It spontaneously and continuously clings to its own 『Ālayavijñāna』 (store consciousness), grasping it as the inner 『Ātman』 (self), because it does not belong to other realms. If the 『Vipāka-ālayavijñāna』 (resultant store consciousness) of that realm arises before one, this is called 『being born in that realm』. The defiled 『Manas』 (mind-consciousness) clings to that realm, grasping it as 『self』, and is thus bound to that realm, called 『belonging to that realm』. Or, being bound by the various afflictions of that realm, it is also called 『belonging to that realm』. If one has already achieved 『āśraya-parivṛtti』 (transformation of the basis), then one is no longer 『belonging』. This defiled 『Manas』 (mind-consciousness) has been continuously existing since beginningless time. In what stage will it be permanently or temporarily severed? It is not present in the 『Nirodha-samāpatti』 (cessation attainment) and 『Lokottara-mārga』 (transcendental path) of an 『Arhat』 (one who is worthy). 『Arhat』 generally refers to the fruition of the three vehicles of no-more-learning. In this stage, both the seeds and the manifest activities of the defiled mind are permanently severed, hence it is said to be absent. In the 『Śaikṣa』 (learner's stage), it is temporarily suppressed in both cessation attainment and the transcendental path, hence it is said to be absent. This is because the defiled mind, from beginningless time, subtly and uniformly operates spontaneously, and the various contaminated paths cannot suppress it. The three vehicles' noble paths have the function of suppressing it, because the true understanding of 『Anātman』 (non-self) contradicts 『ātma-graha』 (self-grasping). When the subsequently attained non-outflow wisdom arises, it is an outflow of that, and also contradicts this mind. The true understanding of non-self and the subsequently attained wisdom are both non-outflow, hence they are called the 『transcendental path』. Since cessation attainment is an outflow of the noble path, and is extremely tranquil, the defiled mind is also absent here. Because the seed of this defiled mind has not been permanently severed, it will manifest again after arising from cessation attainment and the noble path, until it is extinguished. However, the afflictions corresponding to this defiled mind are co-arisen, so they are not severed by seeing. Because they are defiled, they are not severed by non-defilement. Because they are extremely subtle, all the seeds, along with the afflictions below the peak of existence, are severed simultaneously, with equal force. When 『Vajropama-samādhi』 (diamond-like samadhi) arises, it instantly severs this seed, achieving Arhatship, so it never arises again in the stage of no-more-learning. Those of the two vehicles who turn towards the Great Vehicle, from the initial aspiration to enlightenment until they become Buddhas, are actually Bodhisattvas, but are also called Arhats, because the meaning is equivalent, so it is not explained separately. Here, one view holds that Manas only has afflictive obscurations. The holy teachings all say that Manas is absent in three stages, and also say that the four afflictions are constantly corresponding, and also say that Manas is the basis of the defilement of consciousness. One view holds that that statement contradicts the teachings and reasoning, because the scriptures say that there is a transcendental Manas. Undefiled consciousness, if it is like when it is defiled, must have a co-arisen, non-common basis. This is also what is said in the treatise.
說藏識決定恒與一識俱轉。所謂末那。意識起時則二俱轉。所謂意識及與末那。若五識中隨起一識則三俱轉。乃至或時頓起五識則七俱轉。若住滅定無第七識。爾時藏識應無識俱。便非恒定一識俱轉。住聖道時若無第七。爾時藏識應一識俱。如何可言若起意識。爾時藏識定二俱轉。顯揚論說。末那恒與四煩惱相應。或翻彼相應恃舉為行。或平等行。故知此意通染不染。若由論說阿羅漢位無染意故便無第七。應由論說阿羅漢位捨賴耶故便無第八。彼既不爾。此云何然。又諸論言轉第七識得平等智。彼如餘智定有所依相應凈識。此識無者彼智應無。非離所依有能依故。不可說彼依六轉識。許佛恒行如鏡智故。又無學位若無第七識。彼第八識應無俱有依。然必有此依。如餘識性故。又如未證補特伽羅無我者彼我執恒行。亦應未證法無我者法我執恒行。此識若無彼依何識。非依第八彼無慧故。由此應信二乘聖道滅定無學此識恒行。彼未證得法無我故。又諸論中以五同法證有第七為第六依。聖道起時及無學位。若無第七為第六依。所立宗因便俱有失。或應五識亦有無依。五恒有依六亦應爾。是故定有無染污意。于上三位恒起現前。言彼無有者依染意說。如說四位無阿賴耶非無第八。此亦應爾。
此意差別略有三種。一補特
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：問：如果說阿賴耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna，藏識，儲存一切種子識）總是與一個識一同運轉，這個識就是末那識（Manas-vijñāna，意根）。當意識（Mano-vijñāna）生起時，則末那識和意識一同運轉。如果五識（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身識）中隨一起一個識，則末那識、意識和那個五識一同運轉。乃至有時五識同時生起，則七個識一同運轉。如果處於滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti）中，沒有第七識（末那識），那麼此時阿賴耶識應該沒有識一同運轉，就不是恒常與一個識一同運轉了。處於聖道（Ārya-mārga）時，如果沒有第七識，那麼此時阿賴耶識應該只與一個識一同運轉。怎麼能說如果生起意識，那麼此時阿賴耶識必定與兩個識一同運轉呢？ 《顯揚論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya）說，末那識恒常與四種煩惱相應。或者將『相應恃舉』翻譯為『行』，或者翻譯為『平等行』。因此可知，末那識既可以是染污的，也可以是不染污的。如果因為論典中說阿羅漢（Arhat）果位沒有染污的意，所以就沒有第七識，那麼也應該因為論典中說阿羅漢果位捨棄了阿賴耶識，所以就沒有第八識。既然不是這樣，那麼怎麼能說阿羅漢果位沒有第七識呢？ 而且，各種論典中說，轉第七識可以得到平等性智（Samatā-jñāna）。這種智慧如同其他智慧一樣，必定有所依和相應的清凈識。如果末那識不存在，那麼平等性智也應該不存在，因為沒有所依就沒有能依。不能說平等性智依於六轉識（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意識），因為佛陀（Buddha）恒常具有如鏡智（Ādarśa-jñāna）一樣的智慧。 此外，無學位的聖者如果沒有第七識，那麼第八識（阿賴耶識）應該沒有俱有依。然而第八識必定有俱有依，如同其他識的性質一樣。又比如，沒有證得補特伽羅無我（Pudgala-nairātmya，人無我）的人，我執（ātma-graha）恒常生起；也應該沒有證得法無我（Dharma-nairātmya）的人，法我執（dharma-graha）恒常生起。如果末那識不存在，那麼法我執依于哪個識呢？不能依于第八識，因為第八識沒有智慧。由此應該相信，二乘（聲聞、緣覺）的聖道、滅盡定和無學位中，末那識恒常生起，因為他們沒有證得法無我。 而且，各種論典中用五種同法來證明有第七識，作為第六識（意識）的所依。聖道生起時和無學位時，如果沒有第七識作為第六識的所依，那麼所立的宗和因就都有過失。或者應該說五識也有沒有所依的時候，五識恒常有所依，那麼第六識也應該如此。因此，必定有無染污的意，在上說的三種位次中恒常生起現前。說彼無有末那識，是依染污的意來說的，如同說四位（受、想、行、識）沒有阿賴耶識，並非沒有第八識一樣。這裡也應該這樣理解。 這種意的差別略有三種：一是補特伽羅（Pudgala，人）...
【English Translation】 English version: Question: If it is said that the Ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness, the consciousness that stores all seeds) always operates with one consciousness, which is the Manas-vijñāna (mind consciousness, the root of mind). When the Mano-vijñāna (consciousness) arises, then the Manas-vijñāna and the Mano-vijñāna operate together. If one of the five consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body consciousnesses) arises, then the Manas-vijñāna, Mano-vijñāna, and that five consciousness operate together. Even sometimes when the five consciousnesses arise simultaneously, then seven consciousnesses operate together. If one is in Nirodha-samāpatti (cessation attainment), there is no seventh consciousness (Manas-vijñāna), then at this time the Ālaya-vijñāna should have no consciousness operating together, and it would not be constantly operating with one consciousness. When one is on the Ārya-mārga (noble path), if there is no seventh consciousness, then at this time the Ālaya-vijñāna should only operate with one consciousness. How can it be said that if consciousness arises, then at this time the Ālaya-vijñāna must operate with two consciousnesses? The Abhidharma-samuccaya (Compendium of Abhidharma) says that the Manas-vijñāna is constantly associated with four afflictions. Or translate 'associated reliance' as 'conduct', or translate as 'equal conduct'. Therefore, it can be known that the Manas-vijñāna can be both defiled and undefiled. If because the treatises say that there is no defiled mind in the Arhat (worthy one) state, so there is no seventh consciousness, then it should also be said that because the treatises say that the Arhat state abandons the Ālaya-vijñāna, so there is no eighth consciousness. Since this is not the case, then how can it be said that there is no seventh consciousness in the Arhat state? Moreover, various treatises say that transforming the seventh consciousness can obtain Samatā-jñāna (equality wisdom). This wisdom, like other wisdoms, must have a basis and corresponding pure consciousness. If the Manas-vijñāna does not exist, then Samatā-jñāna should also not exist, because without a basis, there is no dependent. It cannot be said that Samatā-jñāna relies on the six consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind consciousnesses), because the Buddha (Buddha) constantly has wisdom like Ādarśa-jñāna (mirror-like wisdom). In addition, if there is no seventh consciousness for the Arhat in the state of no more learning, then the eighth consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna) should have no co-existing basis. However, the eighth consciousness must have a co-existing basis, like the nature of other consciousnesses. Also, for example, if a person has not realized Pudgala-nairātmya (non-self of person), then ātma-graha (self-grasping) constantly arises; it should also be that if a person has not realized Dharma-nairātmya (non-self of phenomena), then dharma-graha (grasping of phenomena) constantly arises. If the Manas-vijñāna does not exist, then which consciousness does dharma-graha rely on? It cannot rely on the eighth consciousness, because the eighth consciousness has no wisdom. Therefore, it should be believed that in the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha's noble path, cessation attainment, and state of no more learning, the Manas-vijñāna constantly arises, because they have not realized Dharma-nairātmya. Moreover, various treatises use five commonalities to prove that there is a seventh consciousness, as the basis of the sixth consciousness (consciousness). When the noble path arises and in the state of no more learning, if there is no seventh consciousness as the basis of the sixth consciousness, then the established thesis and reason will both have faults. Or it should be said that the five consciousnesses also have times when they have no basis, the five consciousnesses constantly have a basis, then the sixth consciousness should also be like this. Therefore, there must be an undefiled mind, constantly arising in the three states mentioned above. Saying that there is no Manas-vijñāna, is based on the defiled mind, just like saying that there is no Ālaya-vijñāna in the four positions (feeling, thought, volition, consciousness), not that there is no eighth consciousness. It should be understood in this way here as well. The difference of this mind is roughly of three kinds: one is Pudgala (person)...
伽羅我見相應。二法我見相應。三平等性智相應。初通一切異生相續。二乘有學。七地以前一類菩薩有漏心位。彼緣阿賴耶識。起補特伽羅我見。次通一切異生聲聞獨覺相續。一切菩薩法空智果不現前位。彼緣異熟識起法我見。後通一切如來相續。菩薩見道及修道中法空智果現在前位。彼緣無垢異熟識等起平等性智。補特伽羅我見起位。彼法我見亦必現前。我執必依法執而起。如夜迷杌等方謂人等故。我法二見用雖有別而不相違。同依一慧。如眼識等體雖是一而有了別青等多用不相違故。此亦應然。二乘有學聖道滅定現在前時。頓悟菩薩于修道位。有學漸悟。生空智果現在前時。皆唯起法執。我執已伏故。二乘無學及此漸悟法空智果不現前時。亦唯起法執我執已斷故。八地以上一切菩薩。所有我執皆永不行。或已永斷或永伏故。法空智果不現前時。猶起法執不相違故。如契經說八地以上一切煩惱不復現行。唯有所依所知障在。此所知障是現非種。不爾煩惱亦應在故。法執俱意於二乘等雖名不染。于諸菩薩亦名為染。障彼智故。由此亦名有覆無記。於二乘等說名無覆。不障彼智故。是異熟生攝。從異熟識恒時生故名異熟生。非異熟果。此名通故。如增上緣餘不攝者皆入此攝。云何應知此第七識離眼等識有別自體。聖教正
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 與伽羅我見相應。二法我見相應。三與平等性智相應。初者，通於一切異生（凡夫）的相續，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的有學（還在學習階段的聖者），以及七地以前的一類菩薩，在有漏心（不清凈的心）的狀態下。他們緣于阿賴耶識（第八識，藏識），生起補特伽羅我見（認為存在真實不變的個體）。 其次，通於一切異生、聲聞、獨覺的相續，以及一切菩薩在法空智果（證悟諸法空性的智慧）沒有顯現的階段。他們緣于異熟識（第八識的別名，指其儲存業力種子併產生果報的功能），生起法我見（認為諸法實有）。 後者，通於一切如來的相續，以及菩薩在見道（初地菩薩證悟真如的階段）和修道（二地至十地菩薩修行的階段）中，法空智果現在前（已經證悟諸法空性）的階段。他們緣于無垢異熟識等，生起平等性智（如來所具有的智慧，能平等看待一切眾生）。 在補特伽羅我見生起的階段，法我見也必定現前。我執必定依法執而生起，就像夜晚迷路時，把樹樁等東西誤認為人一樣。我見和法見，雖然作用有所區別，但並不互相違背，都依賴於同一智慧。就像眼識等，本體雖然是一個，但能了別青色等多種作用，並不互相違背。這裡也應該如此。 二乘的有學，在聖道（修行的道路）和滅盡定（一種禪定狀態）現在前時，以及頓悟的菩薩在修道位，有學漸悟（逐漸證悟）的菩薩，在生空智果（證悟人無我的智慧）現在前時，都只生起法執，因為我執已經被降伏。 二乘的無學（已經完成學習的聖者），以及此漸悟的菩薩，在法空智果沒有現前時，也只生起法執，因為我執已經被斷除。 八地以上的菩薩，所有的我執都永遠不會再生起，或者已經被永遠斷除，或者已經被永遠降伏。在法空智果沒有現前時，仍然會生起法執，這並不互相違背。就像契經所說，八地以上的一切煩惱不再現行，只有所依的所知障（對真理的認知障礙）存在。這個所知障是現行的，而不是種子狀態，否則煩惱也應該存在。 法執，對於二乘等來說，雖然不稱為染污，但對於諸菩薩來說，也稱為染污，因為它障礙菩薩的智慧。因此，也稱為有覆無記（既不善也不惡，但能覆蓋真性）。對於二乘等來說，則稱為無覆，因為它不障礙他們的智慧。它是異熟生所攝，因為從異熟識恒時生起，所以稱為異熟生，但不是異熟果，因為這個名稱是通用的。就像增上緣一樣，其餘不被包含的都納入其中。 應該如何知道這第七識（末那識）離開眼識等識，有其不同的自體呢？聖教（佛陀的教導）是正確的。
【English Translation】 English version: It corresponds to the Gara self-view. It corresponds to the two Dharma self-views. It corresponds to the three equality wisdoms. The first is common to the continuums of all ordinary beings (異生). The second vehicles (聲聞乘 and 緣覺乘) have learners (有學, those still in training), and a class of Bodhisattvas before the seventh ground (七地), in the state of defiled mind (有漏心). They, relying on the Ālaya consciousness (阿賴耶識, the eighth consciousness, storehouse consciousness), give rise to the Pudgala self-view (補特伽羅我見, the view that there is a real and unchanging individual). Next, it is common to the continuums of all ordinary beings, Śrāvakas (聲聞), and Pratyekabuddhas (獨覺), and all Bodhisattvas in the stage where the fruit of Dharma emptiness wisdom (法空智果, the wisdom of realizing the emptiness of all dharmas) is not manifest. They, relying on the Vipāka consciousness (異熟識, another name for the eighth consciousness, referring to its function of storing karmic seeds and producing karmic results), give rise to the Dharma self-view (法我見, the view that dharmas are real). The latter is common to the continuums of all Tathāgatas (如來), and Bodhisattvas in the stages of the path of seeing (見道, the stage of the first ground Bodhisattva realizing suchness) and the path of cultivation (修道, the stages of Bodhisattvas from the second to the tenth ground), where the fruit of Dharma emptiness wisdom is now manifest (已經證悟諸法空性). They, relying on the undefiled Vipāka consciousness, etc., give rise to equality wisdom (平等性智, the wisdom possessed by the Tathāgata, which can equally view all beings). In the stage where the Pudgala self-view arises, the Dharma self-view must also be present. Self-grasping must arise relying on Dharma-grasping, just like mistaking a tree stump, etc., for a person when lost at night. Although the functions of the self-view and Dharma-view are different, they do not contradict each other, and both rely on the same wisdom. Just like eye consciousness, etc., although the essence is one, it can distinguish multiple functions such as blue, etc., without contradicting each other. It should be the same here. The learners of the two vehicles, when the holy path (聖道, the path of practice) and cessation attainment (滅盡定, a state of meditative absorption) are present, and the suddenly enlightened Bodhisattvas in the stage of cultivation, and the gradually enlightened Bodhisattvas, when the fruit of the wisdom of selflessness (生空智果, the wisdom of realizing the absence of self) is present, only give rise to Dharma-grasping, because self-grasping has been subdued. The non-learners of the two vehicles (已經完成學習的聖者), and these gradually enlightened Bodhisattvas, when the fruit of Dharma emptiness wisdom is not present, also only give rise to Dharma-grasping, because self-grasping has been severed. All Bodhisattvas above the eighth ground, all self-grasping will never arise again, or has been permanently severed, or has been permanently subdued. When the fruit of Dharma emptiness wisdom is not present, Dharma-grasping still arises, which does not contradict each other. Just like the sutras say, all afflictions above the eighth ground no longer manifest, only the underlying cognitive obscurations (所知障, obscurations to knowledge of the truth) remain. These cognitive obscurations are manifest, not in seed form, otherwise afflictions should also be present. Dharma-grasping, although not called defilement for the two vehicles, etc., is also called defilement for the Bodhisattvas, because it obstructs the wisdom of the Bodhisattvas. Therefore, it is also called obscured and indeterminate (有覆無記, neither good nor evil, but able to cover the true nature). For the two vehicles, etc., it is called unobscured, because it does not obstruct their wisdom. It is included in the Vipāka-born, because it constantly arises from the Vipāka consciousness, so it is called Vipāka-born, but it is not a Vipāka result, because this name is common. Just like the dominant condition, the rest that are not included are included in this. How should it be known that this seventh consciousness (末那識, Manas consciousness) has its own distinct essence apart from the eye consciousness, etc.? The holy teachings (聖教, the teachings of the Buddha) are correct.
理為定量故。謂薄伽梵處處經中說心意識三種別義。集起名心。思量名意。了別名識。是三別義。如是三義雖通八識而隨勝顯第八名心。集諸法種起諸法故。第七名意。緣藏識等恒審思量為我等故。餘六名識。於六別境粗動間斷了別轉故。如入楞伽伽他中說。
藏識說名心 思量性名意 能了諸境相 是說名為識
又大乘經處處別說有第七識故此別有。諸大乘經是至教量。前已廣說故不重成。解脫經中亦別說有此第七識。如彼頌言。
染污意恒時 諸惑俱生滅 若解脫諸惑 非曾非當有
彼經自釋此頌義言。有染污意從無始來。與四煩惱恒俱生滅。謂我見我愛及我慢我癡。對治道生斷煩惱已。此意從彼便得解脫。爾時此意相應煩惱。非唯現無亦無過未。過去未來無自性故。如是等教諸部皆有。恐厭廣文故不繁述。
已引聖教當顯正理。謂契經說不共無明微細恒行覆蔽真實。若無此識彼應非有。謂諸異生於一切分恒起迷理不共無明覆真實義障聖慧眼。如伽他說。
真義心當生 常能為障礙 俱行一切分 謂不共無明
是故契經說。異生類恒處長夜無明所盲惛醉纏心曾無醒覺。若異生位有暫不起此無明時。便違經義。俱異生位迷理無明有行不行不應理故。此依六
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 之所以說理是定量的，是因為薄伽梵（Bhagavan，世尊）在各處經典中都分別闡述了心、意、識這三種不同的含義。積聚生起叫做心，思量叫做意，了別叫做識。這三種含義雖然貫通於八識，但隨著各自的殊勝之處而顯現，第八識被稱為心，因為它積聚諸法種子，生起諸法；第七識被稱為意，因為它緣取藏識等，恒常審察思量，執著為我等；其餘六識被稱為識，因為它們在六種不同的境界中，粗顯動搖、間斷地了別運轉。正如《入楞伽經》的偈頌中所說：
『藏識說名心，思量性名意，能了諸境相，是說名為識。』
而且，大乘經典在各處都分別闡述了有第七識，因此第七識是確實存在的。諸大乘經典是至高的教量，前面已經廣泛論述過，所以不再重複證明。解脫經中也分別闡述了有這第七識，如其中的頌文所說：
『染污意恒時，諸惑俱生滅，若解脫諸惑，非曾非當有。』
這部經自己解釋這首偈頌的含義說：有染污意從無始以來，與四種煩惱恒常一同生滅，即我見、我愛、我慢和我癡。通過修道生起，斷除煩惱之後，這個意從此便得到解脫。那時，這個意相應的煩惱，不僅現在沒有，過去和未來也沒有。因為過去和未來沒有自性。像這樣的教證在各個部派的經典中都有，恐怕內容過多令人厭煩，所以不再詳細敘述。
已經引用了聖教，下面應當闡明正理。即契經中說，不共無明微細恒常執行，覆蓋遮蔽真實。如果沒有這個識，那麼這種不共無明就不應該存在。因為各種異生在一切時分都恒常生起迷惑真理的不共無明，覆蓋真實義，障礙聖慧眼。如偈頌所說：
『真義心當生，常能為障礙，俱行一切分，謂不共無明。』
所以契經說，異生眾生恒常處於漫漫長夜，被無明所矇蔽，昏聵沉醉，被纏縛內心，從未醒覺。如果異生位有暫時不生起這種無明的時候，就違背了經義。因為在異生位，迷惑真理的無明有執行和不執行是不合道理的。這裡是依據六識來說的。
【English Translation】 English version: The reason for saying that principle is quantitative is that the Bhagavan (世尊, The World-Honored One) has explained the three different meanings of Citta (心, mind), Manas (意, thought), and Vijnana (識, consciousness) in various sutras. Accumulating and arising is called Citta; thinking is called Manas; and distinguishing is called Vijnana. Although these three meanings pervade the eight consciousnesses, they manifest according to their respective superiorities. The eighth consciousness is called Citta because it accumulates the seeds of all dharmas and gives rise to all dharmas. The seventh consciousness is called Manas because it constantly and attentively thinks about the Alaya-vijnana (藏識, store consciousness), clinging to it as 'I' and so on. The remaining six consciousnesses are called Vijnana because they roughly move, intermittently distinguish, and operate in six different realms.
As stated in the Gatha (偈頌, verse) of the Lankavatara Sutra (入楞伽經):
'The Alaya-vijnana is called Citta; the nature of thinking is called Manas; that which can understand the characteristics of all realms is called Vijnana.'
Moreover, the Mahayana sutras (大乘經典, Great Vehicle Sutras) separately explain the existence of the seventh consciousness in various places, so the seventh consciousness certainly exists. The Mahayana sutras are the supreme teachings, which have been extensively discussed earlier, so there is no need to repeat the proof. The Vimukti Sutra (解脫經, Liberation Sutra) also separately explains the existence of this seventh consciousness, as stated in its verse:
'The defiled Manas is constant, with all afflictions arising and ceasing together. If one is liberated from all afflictions, it is neither past nor future.'
This sutra itself explains the meaning of this verse, saying: There is a defiled Manas that, from beginningless time, constantly arises and ceases together with the four afflictions, namely, self-view (我見), self-love (我愛), self-conceit (我慢), and self-ignorance (我癡). After cultivating the path and eradicating the afflictions, this Manas is liberated from them. At that time, the afflictions associated with this Manas are not only absent in the present but also absent in the past and future because the past and future have no inherent nature. Such teachings exist in various schools, but I will not elaborate further for fear of being tedious.
Having cited the sacred teachings, I should now clarify the correct reasoning. That is, the sutras say that non-common ignorance (不共無明) subtly and constantly operates, covering and obscuring reality. If this consciousness did not exist, then this non-common ignorance should not exist. Because various ordinary beings constantly arise with non-common ignorance that obscures reality and hinders the eye of sacred wisdom. As the verse says:
'The true meaning of Citta is about to arise, but it is always able to be an obstacle, coexisting in all parts, which is called non-common ignorance.'
Therefore, the sutras say that ordinary beings are constantly in the long night, blinded by ignorance, confused and intoxicated, bound by their minds, and never awakened. If there were times when this ignorance did not arise in the state of ordinary beings, it would contradict the meaning of the sutras. Because it is unreasonable for ignorance that obscures reality to sometimes operate and sometimes not operate in the state of ordinary beings. This is based on the six consciousnesses.
識皆不得成。應此間斷彼恒染。故許有末那便無此失。染意恒與四惑相應。此俱無明何名不共。有義此俱我見慢愛非根本煩惱。名不共何失。有義彼說理教相違。純隨煩惱中不說此三故。此三六十煩惱攝故。處處皆說染污末那與四煩惱恒相應故。應說四中無明是主。雖三俱起亦名不共。從無始際恒內惛迷曾不省察。癡增上故。此俱見等應名相應。若為主時應名不共。如無明故許亦無失。有義此癡名不共者如不共佛法。唯此識有故。若爾餘識相應煩惱此識中無應名不共。依殊勝義立不共名。非互所無皆名不共。謂第七識相應無明。無始恒行障真義智。如是勝用餘識所無。唯此識有故名不共。既爾此俱三亦應名不共。無明是主獨得此名。或許餘三亦名不共。對餘癡故且說無明。不共無明總有二種。一恒行不共。餘識所無。二獨行不共。此識非有。故瑜伽說。無明有二。若貪等俱者名相應無明。非貪等俱者名獨行無明。是主獨行唯見所斷。如契經說。諸聖有學不共無明已永斷故不造新業。非主獨行亦修所斷。忿等皆通見修所斷故。恒行不共餘部所無。獨行不共此彼俱有。又契經說。眼色為緣生於眼識。廣說乃至意法為緣生於意識。若無此識彼意非有。謂如五識必有眼等增上不共俱有所依。意識既是六識中攝。理應許有如是所
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 如果認為所有『識』（vijñāna，了別作用）都不能成就，那麼就會出現『此間斷彼恒染』（指前一刻的意識中斷，後一刻的意識持續染污）的過失。因此，允許有『末那』（manas，第七識，意根）的存在，就可以避免這個過失。被染污的『意』（manas）總是與四種煩惱相應。如果『俱無明』（與末那識同時生起的無明）也是普遍存在的，那怎麼能稱之為『不共』（獨有）呢？ 有一種觀點認為，與末那識同時生起的『我見』（ātma-dṛṣṭi，認為有『我』的錯誤見解）、『慢』（māna，傲慢）和『愛』（rāga，貪愛）並非根本煩惱，所以稱之為『不共』，這有什麼不對嗎？ 另一種觀點認為，那種說法與經文和教義相違背。因為在純粹的隨煩惱中，並沒有提到這三種煩惱。這三種煩惱被包含在六十種煩惱之中。而且，處處都說被染污的末那與四種煩惱恒常相應。所以，應該說四種煩惱中，『無明』（avidyā，對事物真相的迷惑）是主要的。即使三種煩惱同時生起，也可以稱之為『不共』。因為從無始以來，末那識就一直內在昏昧迷惑，從未覺察省察，這是由於愚癡（moha）增強的緣故。與末那識同時生起的『見』等煩惱，應該稱之為『相應』。當無明作為主導時，才應該稱之為『不共』，就像無明一樣，這樣理解就沒有過失。 有一種觀點認為，這裡的『癡』（無明）被稱為『不共』，就像『不共佛法』（只有佛才具有的功德）一樣，因為只有這個識（末那識）才有這種無明。如果這樣，那麼與其他識相應的煩惱，在這個識中沒有，也應該被稱為『不共』。這是依據殊勝的意義來建立『不共』這個名稱，而不是說互相之間沒有的都叫『不共』。也就是說，與第七識相應的無明，從無始以來就恒常執行，障礙真實的智慧，這種殊勝的作用是其他識所沒有的，只有這個識才有，所以稱為『不共』。 既然如此，那麼與末那識同時生起的三種煩惱也應該被稱為『不共』。但是因為無明是主要的，所以單獨獲得這個名稱。或許其餘三種煩惱也可以被稱為『不共』，因為它們是針對其他的愚癡而言的，所以暫且只說無明。 『不共無明』總共有兩種：一種是『恒行不共』（nityānuga-asādhāraṇa），是其他識所沒有的；另一種是『獨行不共』（ekacāra-asādhāraṇa），是這個識（末那識）所沒有的。所以《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）說，無明有兩種：與貪等煩惱同時生起的，稱為『相應無明』；不與貪等煩惱同時生起的，稱為『獨行無明』。作為主導的獨行無明，只有見道才能斷除，就像經中所說，諸位聖者有學（śaikṣa，還在學習的聖者）已經永遠斷除了『不共無明』，所以不再造作新的業。非主導的獨行無明，也可以通過修道斷除。忿怒等煩惱，都是通於見道和修道所斷除的。 恒行不共是其他部派所沒有的，獨行不共是此識（末那識）和彼識（意識）都可能有的。另外，經中說，以眼和色為緣，產生眼識，廣泛地說，乃至以意和法為緣，產生意識。如果沒有這個識（末那識），那麼那個『意』（指意識的所依）就不可能存在。就像前五識必須有眼等增上不共的共同所依一樣，意識既然是六識中的一部分，那麼理應允許有這樣的所依存在。
【English Translation】 English version: If it is thought that all 『vijñāna』 (consciousness, the function of discernment) cannot be established, then the fault of 『this being interrupted, that constantly defiled』 (referring to the interruption of consciousness in the previous moment, and the continuous defilement of consciousness in the next moment) will arise. Therefore, allowing the existence of 『manas』 (the seventh consciousness, the root of mind) can avoid this fault. The defiled 『manas』 is always associated with the four afflictions. If 『俱無明』 (ku-avidyā, the ignorance arising simultaneously with the manas consciousness) is also universally present, then how can it be called 『asādhāraṇa』 (unique)? One view holds that the 『ātma-dṛṣṭi』 (the false view of having a 『self』), 『māna』 (arrogance), and 『rāga』 (greed) that arise simultaneously with the manas consciousness are not fundamental afflictions, so calling them 『asādhāraṇa』 is not wrong, is it? Another view holds that that statement contradicts the scriptures and doctrines. Because these three afflictions are not mentioned in the pure secondary afflictions. These three afflictions are included in the sixty afflictions. Moreover, it is said everywhere that the defiled manas is constantly associated with the four afflictions. Therefore, it should be said that among the four afflictions, 『avidyā』 (ignorance, delusion about the true nature of things) is the main one. Even if the three afflictions arise simultaneously, they can also be called 『asādhāraṇa』. Because from beginningless time, the manas consciousness has been internally confused and deluded, never aware or reflective, this is due to the increase of ignorance (moha). The afflictions such as 『dṛṣṭi』 (view) that arise simultaneously with the manas consciousness should be called 『associated』. Only when ignorance is dominant should it be called 『asādhāraṇa』, just like ignorance, there is no fault in understanding it this way. One view holds that 『moha』 (ignorance) here is called 『asādhāraṇa』, just like 『asādhāraṇa-buddha-dharma』 (the merits that only the Buddha possesses), because only this consciousness (manas consciousness) has this kind of ignorance. If so, then the afflictions associated with other consciousnesses, which are not present in this consciousness, should also be called 『asādhāraṇa』. This is based on the meaning of excellence to establish the name 『asādhāraṇa』, not that everything that is not present in each other is called 『asādhāraṇa』. That is to say, the ignorance associated with the seventh consciousness has been constantly operating since beginningless time, hindering true wisdom, this excellent function is not present in other consciousnesses, only this consciousness has it, so it is called 『asādhāraṇa』. Since this is the case, then the three afflictions that arise simultaneously with the manas consciousness should also be called 『asādhāraṇa』. But because ignorance is the main one, it gets this name alone. Perhaps the remaining three afflictions can also be called 『asādhāraṇa』, because they are directed at other ignorance, so for the time being, only ignorance is mentioned. 『Asādhāraṇa-avidyā』 (unique ignorance) has two types in total: one is 『nityānuga-asādhāraṇa』 (constantly accompanying unique), which is not present in other consciousnesses; the other is 『ekacāra-asādhāraṇa』 (solitary unique), which is not present in this consciousness (manas consciousness). Therefore, the 『Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra』 (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) says that there are two types of ignorance: that which arises simultaneously with greed and other afflictions is called 『associated ignorance』; that which does not arise simultaneously with greed and other afflictions is called 『solitary ignorance』. The dominant solitary ignorance can only be eliminated by the path of seeing, just as the sutra says, the śaikṣa (learners, saints who are still learning) have permanently eliminated 『asādhāraṇa-avidyā』, so they no longer create new karma. Non-dominant solitary ignorance can also be eliminated through the path of cultivation. Anger and other afflictions are all eliminated through the paths of seeing and cultivation. Constantly accompanying unique is not present in other schools, solitary unique may be present in both this consciousness (manas consciousness) and that consciousness (consciousness). In addition, the sutra says that eye-consciousness arises from the condition of eye and form, broadly speaking, and even consciousness arises from the condition of mind and dharma. If there is no this consciousness (manas consciousness), then that 『mind』 (referring to the basis of consciousness) cannot exist. Just as the first five consciousnesses must have the common basis of eye and other superior unique, since consciousness is a part of the six consciousnesses, then it should be allowed to have such a basis.
依。此識若無彼依寧有。不可說色為彼所依。意非色故。意識應無隨念計度二分別故。亦不可說五識無有俱有所依。彼與五根俱時而轉如牙影故。又識與根既必同境。如心心所決定俱時。由此理趣極成意識。如眼等識必有不共顯自名處等無間不攝增上所依。極成六識隨一攝故。
又契經說。思量名意。若無此識彼應非有。謂若意識現在前時。等無間意已滅非有。過去未來理非有故。彼思量用定不得成。既爾如何說名為意。若謂假說。理亦不然。無正思量假依何立。若謂現在曾有思量。爾時名識寧說為意。故知別有第七末那。恒審思量正名為意。已滅依此假立意名。又契經說。無想滅定染意若無彼應無別。謂彼二定俱滅六識及彼心所。體數無異。若無染意於二定中一有一無。彼二何別。若謂加行界地依等有差別者。理亦不然。彼差別因由此有故。此若無者彼因亦無。是故定應別有此意。又契經說。無想有情一期生中心心所滅。若無此識彼應無染。謂彼長時無六轉識。若無此意我執便無。非於餘處有具縛者一期生中都無我執。彼無我執應如涅槃便非聖賢同所訶厭。初後有故無如是失。中間長時無故有過。去來有故無如是失。彼非現常無故有過。所得無故能得亦無。不相應法前已遮破。藏識無故熏習亦無。餘法受熏已
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：如果這個識沒有所依賴的，它怎麼會存在呢？不能說色是它所依賴的，因為意不是色。意識應該沒有隨念和計度這兩種分別。也不能說前五識沒有共同的所依，因為它們和五根同時運作，就像牙齒和它的影子一樣。而且，識和根必然同緣一個境界，就像心和心所必然同時生起一樣。由此可以確定意識的存在。就像眼識等必然有其獨特的、能彰顯自身名稱的、無間斷的、不包含增上緣的所依一樣，可以確定六識中的任何一個都具有這樣的特性。
此外，《契經》中說，『思量』名為『意』（manas，末那識）。如果沒有這個識，『意』就不應該存在。如果意識現在生起，那麼等無間意已經滅去，不存在了。過去和未來在道理上也是不存在的。那麼，『思量』的作用就一定無法成立。既然如此，怎麼能稱之為『意』呢？如果說是假名安立，道理也是不成立的。沒有真正的思量，假名又依什麼而立呢？如果說現在曾經有過思量，那麼那時應該稱為『識』，怎麼能稱為『意』呢？所以，可以知道另有一個第七末那識，恒常審察思量，才真正名為『意』。已滅的識依此假立為『意』的名號。
此外，《契經》中說，無想定和滅盡定中，如果染污的『意』（染污末那識）不存在，那麼這兩個定就不應該有差別。這兩個定都滅除了六識以及與六識相應的心所，它們的體性和數量沒有差別。如果沒有染污的『意』，那麼在兩個定中，一個有，一個沒有，這兩個定有什麼差別呢？如果說是因為加行、界地、所依等有差別，道理也是不成立的。那些差別的原因是因為這個『意』的存在而產生的。如果這個『意』不存在，那麼那些原因也不存在。所以，一定應該另有這個『意』存在。
此外，《契經》中說，在無想有情的一期生命中，心和心所都滅盡了。如果沒有這個識，那麼他們就不應該有染污。因為他們長時間沒有六轉識。如果沒有這個『意』，我執（ātman-graha，薩迦耶見）便不會存在。不會在其他地方有被煩惱束縛的人在一期生命中完全沒有我執。他們沒有我執應該像涅槃一樣，便不會被聖賢共同呵斥厭惡。因為最初和最後有我執，所以沒有這樣的過失。因為中間長時間沒有我執，所以有過失。因為過去和未來有我執，所以沒有這樣的過失。因為他們不是恒常存在的，所以有過失。因為所得到的（果）不存在，能得到的（因）也不存在。不相應行法（citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra，心不相應行）之前已經遮破了。因為藏識（ālayavijñāna，阿賴耶識）不存在，熏習（vāsanā，習氣）也不存在。其餘的法已經接受了熏習。
【English Translation】 English version: If this consciousness has no basis, how could it exist? It cannot be said that form is its basis, because mind (意) is not form. Consciousness should not have the two kinds of discrimination: recollection and conceptualization. Nor can it be said that the five consciousnesses do not have a common basis, because they operate simultaneously with the five sense organs, like a tooth and its shadow. Moreover, consciousness and the sense organs must perceive the same object, just as mind and mental factors arise simultaneously. From this, the existence of consciousness can be established. Just as eye consciousness and the like must have their unique, name-manifesting, uninterrupted, non-inclusive dominant basis, it can be established that any one of the six consciousnesses has such characteristics.
Furthermore, the sutra says, 'Thinking' is called 'mind' (manas). If this consciousness did not exist, 'mind' should not exist. If consciousness is present, then the immediately preceding mind has ceased and does not exist. The past and future do not exist in principle. Then, the function of 'thinking' cannot be established. Since this is the case, how can it be called 'mind'? If it is said to be a nominal designation, the reasoning is also not valid. Without true thinking, what is the basis for the nominal designation? If it is said that there was thinking in the present, then it should be called 'consciousness' at that time, how can it be called 'mind'? Therefore, it can be known that there is another seventh manas consciousness, which constantly and deliberately thinks, and is truly called 'mind'. The ceased consciousness is nominally designated as 'mind' based on this.
Furthermore, the sutra says, in the Nirodha-samāpatti (無想定) and Saṃjñā-vedayitanirodha (滅盡定), if the defiled 'mind' (defiled manas) does not exist, then these two samādhis should not be different. Both of these samādhis eliminate the six consciousnesses and their corresponding mental factors, and their nature and number are no different. If there is no defiled 'mind', then in the two samādhis, one has it and the other does not, what is the difference between these two samādhis? If it is said that there are differences because of the preparatory actions, realms, grounds, and bases, the reasoning is also not valid. The causes of those differences arise because of the existence of this 'mind'. If this 'mind' does not exist, then those causes do not exist either. Therefore, there must be another 'mind' existing.
Furthermore, the sutra says, in the life of a non-percipient being (無想有情), mind and mental factors are extinguished for a period of time. If this consciousness did not exist, then they should not have defilements. Because they do not have the six consciousnesses for a long time. If this 'mind' does not exist, self-grasping (ātman-graha) would not exist. It would not be the case that those bound by afflictions in other places would have no self-grasping at all in their lifetime. Their lack of self-grasping should be like nirvana, and they would not be jointly criticized and disliked by sages and saints. Because there is self-grasping at the beginning and the end, there is no such fault. Because there is no self-grasping for a long time in the middle, there is a fault. Because there is self-grasping in the past and future, there is no such fault. Because they are not constantly present, there is a fault. Because the obtained (result) does not exist, the obtainable (cause) does not exist either. Non-associated formations (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) have already been refuted before. Because the storehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna) does not exist, the habit energy (vāsanā) does not exist either. The remaining dharmas have already received habituation.
辯非理。故應別有染污末那于無想天恒起我執。由斯賢聖同訶厭彼。又契經說。異生善染無記心時恒帶我執。若無此識彼不應有。謂異生類三性心時。雖外起諸業而內恒執我。由執我故令六識中所起施等不能亡相。故瑜伽說。染污末那為識依止。彼未滅時相了別縛不得解脫。末那滅已相縛解脫。言相縛者謂于境相不能了達如幻事等。由斯見分相分所拘不得自在。故名相縛。依如是義有伽他言。
如是染污意 是識之所依 此意未滅時 識縛終不脫
又善無覆無記心時。若無我執應非有漏。自相續中六識煩惱與彼善等不俱起故。去來緣縛理非有故。非由他惑成有漏故。勿由他解成無漏故。又不可說別有隨眠是不相應現相續起。由斯善等成有漏法。彼非實有已極成故。亦不可說從有漏種生彼善等故成有漏。彼種先無因可成有漏故。非由漏種彼成有漏。勿學無漏心亦成有漏故。雖由煩惱引施等業。而不俱起故非有漏正因。以有漏言表漏俱故。又無記業非煩惱引。彼復如何得成有漏。然諸有漏由與自身現行煩惱俱生俱滅互相增益方成有漏。由此熏成有漏法種。後時現起有漏義成。異生既然有學亦爾。無學有漏雖非漏俱。而從先時有漏種起。故成有漏于理無違。由有末那恒起我執。令善等法有漏義成。此意若無
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 駁斥非理之說。因此，應該另有一個染污的末那（manas，意根），在無想天（asaṃjñā-deva）中恒常生起我執（ātma-graha）。因為這個原因，賢聖（ārya）們共同呵斥厭惡它。而且契經（sūtra）中說，異生（pṛthag-jana，凡夫）在生起善（kuśala）、染污（kliṣṭa）、無記（avyākṛta）之心時，總是帶著我執。如果沒有這個識（vijñāna），他們就不應該有我執。也就是說，異生在生起三性（善、染污、無記）之心時，雖然外在造作各種業（karma），但內在恒常執著於我。由於執著於我，使得六識（ṣaḍ-vijñāna）中所生起的佈施等善行，不能消除對相的執著。所以《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）中說，染污的末那是識的依止處。當它沒有滅除時，對境相的了別束縛就無法解脫。末那滅除後，對相的束縛就解脫了。所說的『相縛』，是指對於境相不能如實了達，如同幻事等。因此，被見分（darśana-bhāga）和相分（nimitta-bhāga）所拘束，不得自在，所以稱為相縛。依據這樣的意義，有一首伽陀（gāthā，偈頌）說： 『如此染污意，是識之所依，此意未滅時，識縛終不脫。』 又，在生起善、無覆無記之心時，如果沒有我執，就不應該是有漏（sāsrava）。因為在同一相續（saṃtāna）中，六識的煩惱（kleśa）與這些善等法不會同時生起。過去和未來的緣縛在道理上是不成立的。也不是由於其他的煩惱而成為有漏，更不能因為其他的解脫而成為無漏。而且，不能說另有隨眠（anuśaya）是不相應的，而現在相續生起，因此使得善等法成為有漏法。因為隨眠並非真實存在，這一點已經充分證明。也不能說因為從有漏的種子（bīja）中生出這些善等法，所以成為有漏。因為這些種子先前並不存在，沒有原因可以使它們成為有漏。不是因為有漏的種子，這些善等法就成為有漏，否則學習無漏（anāsrava）之心也會成為有漏。雖然由於煩惱引發佈施等業，但由於它們不是同時生起，所以不是有漏的正因。因為『有漏』這個詞表示與煩惱同時存在。而且，無記業不是由煩惱引發的，那麼它又如何能成為有漏呢？然而，諸有漏法由於與自身現行的煩惱同時生起、同時滅去，互相增益，才成為有漏。由此熏習成為有漏法的種子，之後現起時，才有有漏的意義。異生是這樣，有學（śaikṣa）也是如此。無學（aśaikṣa）的有漏法雖然不是與煩惱同時存在，而是從先前的有漏種子生起，所以成為有漏，在道理上沒有違背。由於有末那恒常生起我執，使得善等法具有有漏的意義。如果沒有這個意根（末那），情況就不同了。
【English Translation】 English version Refuting illogical arguments. Therefore, there must be a separate defiled manas (mind, the root of mentation) that constantly arises with self-grasping (ātma-graha) in the Heaven of Non-Perception (asaṃjñā-deva). Because of this, the noble ones (ārya) jointly criticize and detest it. Moreover, the sutras say that when ordinary beings (pṛthag-jana) generate wholesome (kuśala), defiled (kliṣṭa), and neutral (avyākṛta) minds, they are always accompanied by self-grasping. If there were no such consciousness (vijñāna), they should not have self-grasping. That is to say, when ordinary beings generate minds of the three natures (wholesome, defiled, and neutral), although they outwardly perform various actions (karma), they inwardly constantly cling to a self. Because of clinging to a self, the acts of generosity and other virtuous deeds arising in the six consciousnesses (ṣaḍ-vijñāna) cannot eliminate the attachment to appearances. Therefore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that the defiled manas is the basis of consciousness. When it is not extinguished, the bondage of distinguishing characteristics cannot be liberated. When manas is extinguished, the bondage of characteristics is liberated. The so-called 'bondage of characteristics' refers to the inability to truly understand objects as illusory phenomena. Therefore, being constrained by the seeing-aspect (darśana-bhāga) and the object-aspect (nimitta-bhāga), one is not free, hence it is called the bondage of characteristics. Based on this meaning, there is a gāthā (verse) that says: 『Thus, this defiled mind, is the basis of consciousness, when this mind is not extinguished, the bondage of consciousness is never released.』 Furthermore, when generating wholesome, non-obscured neutral minds, if there were no self-grasping, they should not be with outflows (sāsrava). Because in the same continuum (saṃtāna), the afflictions (kleśa) of the six consciousnesses and these wholesome qualities do not arise simultaneously. The bondage of past and future causes is not logically valid. It is not due to other afflictions that they become with outflows, nor can it be due to other liberations that they become without outflows. Moreover, it cannot be said that there are latent tendencies (anuśaya) that are non-associated and arise in the present continuum, thus making wholesome qualities with outflows. Because these latent tendencies are not truly existent, this has already been thoroughly proven. Nor can it be said that because these wholesome qualities arise from seeds (bīja) with outflows, they become with outflows. Because these seeds did not exist previously, there is no cause to make them with outflows. It is not because of seeds with outflows that these wholesome qualities become with outflows, otherwise, learning the mind without outflows (anāsrava) would also become with outflows. Although generosity and other actions are induced by afflictions, they are not the direct cause of being with outflows because they do not arise simultaneously. Because the term 'with outflows' indicates being simultaneous with afflictions. Moreover, neutral actions are not induced by afflictions, so how can they become with outflows? However, all phenomena with outflows become with outflows because they arise and cease simultaneously with the afflictions that are currently active, mutually increasing each other. Through this, seeds of phenomena with outflows are formed, and when they manifest later, they have the meaning of being with outflows. This is the case for ordinary beings, and it is also the case for those in training (śaikṣa). Although the phenomena with outflows of those who are beyond learning (aśaikṣa) are not simultaneous with afflictions, they arise from previous seeds with outflows, so they are with outflows, which is logically consistent. Because there is a manas that constantly arises with self-grasping, it makes wholesome qualities have the meaning of being with outflows. If there were no such mind (manas), the situation would be different.
彼定非有。故知別有此第七識。證有此識理趣甚多。隨攝大乘略述六種。諸有智者應隨信學。然有經中說六識者。應知彼是隨轉理門。或隨所依六根說六。而識類別實有八種。如是已說第二能變。第三能變其相云何。頌曰。
８ 次第三能變 差別有六種 了境為性相 善不善俱非
論曰。次中思量能變識後。應辯了境能變識相。此識差別總有六種。隨六根境種類異故。謂名眼識乃至意識。隨根立名具五義故。五謂依發屬助如根。雖六識身皆依意轉。然隨不共立意識名。如五識身無相濫過。或唯依意故名意識。辯識得名心意非例。或名色識乃至法識。隨境立名順識義故。謂於六境了別名識。色等五識唯了色等。法識通能了一切法。或能了別法獨得法識名。故六識名無相濫失。此後隨境立六識名。依五色根未自在說。若得自在諸根互用。一根發識緣一切境。但可隨根無相濫失。莊嚴論說如來五根一一皆於五境轉者。且依粗顯同類境說。佛地經說。成所作智抉擇有情心行差別。起三業化作四記等。若不遍緣無此能故。然六轉識所依所緣粗顯極成。故此不說。前隨義便已說所依。此所緣境義便當說。次言了境為性相者。雙顯六識自性行相。識以了境為自性故。即複用彼為行相故。由斯兼釋所
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 它必定是不存在的。因此可知，確實存在這第七識（末那識，Manas-vijnana）。證明存在此識的道理和依據有很多。《隨攝大乘》（Asanga's Compendium of Mahayana）中略述了六種，有智慧的人應當隨之信受和學習。然而，有些經中只說到六識，應當知道那是隨順轉變的道理之門，或者隨順所依的六根來說的。而識的類別實際上有八種。像這樣已經說完了第二能變（末那識）。第三能變（六識）的相是什麼樣的呢？頌曰：
８ 次第三能變 差別有六種 了境為性相 善不善俱非
論曰：在思量能變識（末那識）之後，接下來應當辨明了境能變識（六識）的相。此識的差別總共有六種，隨著六根和六境的種類不同而不同。這就是所謂的眼識乃至意識，隨著根來立名，具備五種含義。這五種含義是：所依、能發、所屬、能助、如根。雖然六識身都依意（末那識）而轉，但隨著不共的特性來建立意識的名稱，就像五識身沒有互相混淆的過失一樣。或者僅僅依于意（末那識），所以名為意識。辨別識的得名，心和意不能作為例子。或者名為色識乃至法識，隨著境來立名，順應了識的意義。所謂對於六境的了別名為識，色等五識只能了別色等，法識普遍能夠了別一切法。或者能夠了別法而單獨得到法識的名稱，所以六識的名稱沒有互相混淆的缺失。此後隨著境來建立六識的名稱，是依據五色根尚未自在的情況來說的。如果得到自在，諸根可以互相使用，一根可以發出識來緣取一切境，但可以隨著根來命名，沒有互相混淆的缺失。《莊嚴論》（Mahayanasutralamkara）中說，如來的五根一一都能在五境上轉，這只是依據粗顯的同類境來說的。《佛地經》（Buddhabhumi Sutra）中說，成所作智（Krytyanusthana-jnana）能抉擇有情心行上的差別，發起三業，化作四記等，如果不普遍緣取，就沒有這種能力。然而，六轉識所依和所緣的境，粗顯而極其明顯，所以這裡不說。前面已經隨著意義的方便說了所依，這裡所緣的境，隨著意義的方便應當說。 接下來所說的『了境為性相』，同時顯示了六識的自性和行相。識以了別境作為自性，因此又用它作為行相。因此也兼帶解釋了所...
【English Translation】 English version It definitely does not exist. Therefore, it is known that there is indeed this seventh consciousness (Manas-vijnana). There are many reasons and grounds to prove the existence of this consciousness. In Asanga's Compendium of Mahayana, six types are briefly described, and wise people should believe and learn accordingly. However, some sutras only mention six consciousnesses, and it should be known that this follows the principle of transformation, or follows the six roots on which they rely. In reality, there are eight types of consciousness. Thus, the second transformation (Manas-vijnana) has been discussed. What is the nature of the third transformation (the six consciousnesses)? The verse says:
8 The third transformation, with six kinds of distinctions, Taking the object as its nature and characteristic, Neither good nor non-good.
The treatise says: After considering the transforming consciousness (Manas-vijnana), the characteristics of the object-cognizing transforming consciousness (the six consciousnesses) should be distinguished. This consciousness has a total of six distinctions, varying with the types of the six roots and six objects. These are the so-called eye consciousness to mind consciousness, named after the root, possessing five meanings. These five meanings are: reliance, origination, belonging, assistance, and like the root. Although the six consciousness bodies all turn based on the mind (Manas-vijnana), the name 'mind consciousness' is established according to its unique characteristics, just as the five consciousness bodies do not have the fault of mutual confusion. Or it is named 'mind consciousness' solely based on the mind (Manas-vijnana). Distinguishing the naming of consciousness, mind and intention cannot be taken as examples. Or it is named 'form consciousness' to 'dharma consciousness', named after the object, in accordance with the meaning of consciousness. The so-called distinguishing of the six objects is called consciousness. The five consciousnesses such as form consciousness can only distinguish form, etc., while dharma consciousness can universally distinguish all dharmas. Or being able to distinguish dharma alone obtains the name 'dharma consciousness', so the names of the six consciousnesses do not have the defect of mutual confusion. Hereafter, the names of the six consciousnesses are established according to the object, based on the situation where the five sense roots are not yet free. If one attains freedom, the roots can be used interchangeably, and one root can emit consciousness to perceive all objects, but it can be named according to the root without the defect of mutual confusion. The Mahayanasutralamkara says that each of the Tathagata's five roots can turn on the five objects, which is only based on the obvious and similar objects. The Buddhabhumi Sutra says that Accomplishment-Wisdom (Krytyanusthana-jnana) can determine the differences in sentient beings' minds and actions, initiate the three karmas, transform into the four records, etc. If it does not universally perceive, it does not have this ability. However, the objects relied upon and perceived by the six transforming consciousnesses are obvious and extremely clear, so they are not discussed here. The reliance has already been discussed earlier according to the convenience of meaning, and the objects perceived here should be discussed according to the convenience of meaning. The following statement, 'taking the object as its nature and characteristic,' simultaneously reveals the self-nature and characteristics of the six consciousnesses. Consciousness takes distinguishing the object as its self-nature, and therefore uses it as its characteristic. Therefore, it also explains the...
立別名。能了別境名為識故。如契經說眼識云何。謂依眼根了別諸色。廣說乃至意識云何。謂依意根了別諸法。彼經且說不共所依未轉依位見分所了。餘所依瞭如前已說。此六轉識何性攝耶。謂善不善俱非性攝。俱非者謂無記。非善不善故名俱非。能為此世他世順益故名為善。人天樂果雖於此世能為順益非於他世。故不名善。能為此世他世違損。故名不善。惡趣苦果雖於此世能為違損非於他世。故非不善。于善不善益損義中不可記別。故名無記。此六轉識若與信等十一相應是善性攝。與無慚等十法相應不善性攝。俱不相應無記性攝。有義六識三性不俱。同外門轉互相違故。五識必由意識導引俱生同境成善染故。若許五識三性俱行。意識爾時應通三性。便違正理故定不俱。瑜伽等說藏識一時與轉識相應三性俱起者。彼依多念。如說一心非一生滅無相違過。有義六識三性容俱。率爾等流眼等五識。或多或少容俱起故。五識與意雖定俱生。而善性等不必同故。前所設難於此唐捐。故瑜伽說。若遇聲緣從定起者。與定相應意識俱轉餘耳識生。非唯彼定相應意識能取此聲。若不爾者於此音聲不領受故不應出定。非取聲時即便出定。領受聲已若有希望後時方出。在定耳識率爾聞聲理應非善。未轉依者率爾墮心定無記故。由此誠證五
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 立別名：能夠識別外境的叫做識。如契經所說，眼識是什麼？就是依靠眼根來識別各種顏色。廣而言之，意識是什麼？就是依靠意根來識別各種事物。那部經只說了不共的所依，以及未轉依位時見分所識別的境界。其餘所依和所識別的境界，前面已經說過了。 這六個轉識屬於什麼性質呢？屬於善、不善和俱非（無記）三種性質。俱非就是指無記，因為它既非善也非不善，所以叫做俱非。能夠給今生和來世帶來利益的叫做善。人天樂果雖然在今生能夠帶來利益，但對來世未必如此，所以不能叫做善。能夠給今生和來世帶來損害的叫做不善。惡趣苦果雖然在今生能夠帶來損害，但對來世未必如此，所以不能叫做不善。對於善與不善的利益和損害，無法確定歸屬的，叫做無記。 這六個轉識如果與信等十一法相應，就屬於善性。如果與無慚等十法相應，就屬於不善性。如果都不相應，就屬於無記性。 有一種觀點認為，六識不會同時具備三種性質，因為它們與外門轉識的運作方式不同，而且互相違背。五識必須由意識引導，才能同時產生並對同一境界產生善或染污的作用。如果允許五識同時具備三種性質，那麼意識也應該同時具備三種性質，這就違背了正理，所以六識必定不會同時具備三種性質。《瑜伽師地論》等經論中說，藏識一時與轉識相應，同時生起三種性質，那是依據多個念頭來說的。正如所說，一個心中並非只有一個生滅，所以沒有相違的過失。 另一種觀點認為，六識可以同時具備三種性質。因為率爾（最初一念）、等流（相似相續）的眼等五識，或多或少都可以同時生起。五識與意識雖然必定同時產生，但善性等性質不必相同。所以前面的疑問在這裡並不成立。因此，《瑜伽師地論》說，如果遇到聲音的因緣，從禪定中出來的人，與禪定相應的意識會與其餘耳識一同運轉，並非只有與禪定相應的意識才能聽到這個聲音。如果不是這樣，因為沒有領受到這個聲音，就不應該出定。並非聽到聲音時就立即出定，而是在領受到聲音之後，如果有希望，之後才會出定。在禪定中的耳識最初聽到聲音時，理應不是善性，因為未轉依者的最初一念心必定是無記的。由此可以證實五
【English Translation】 English version It is given a separate name: that which can distinguish external realms is called consciousness (識, shí). As the sutras say, what is eye-consciousness (眼識, yǎnshí) ? It is relying on the eye-organ (眼根, yǎngēn) to distinguish various colors. Broadly speaking, what is mind-consciousness (意識, yìshí)? It is relying on the mind-organ (意根, yìgēn) to distinguish various dharmas (法, fǎ). That sutra only speaks of the uncommon bases (所依, suǒyī), and the realms distinguished by the seeing-aspect (見分, jiànfēn) when the basis has not been transformed (未轉依位, wèizhuǎnyīwèi). The remaining bases and the realms distinguished have been discussed earlier. To what nature do these six transformed consciousnesses (轉識, zhuǎnshí) belong? They belong to the nature of wholesome (善, shàn), unwholesome (不善, bùshàn), and neither (俱非, jùfēi) (unspecified). 'Neither' refers to unspecified (無記, wújì), because it is neither wholesome nor unwholesome, hence it is called 'neither'. That which can bring benefit to this life and the next is called wholesome. Although the happiness of humans and gods can bring benefit in this life, it may not do so in the next, so it is not called wholesome. That which can bring harm to this life and the next is called unwholesome. Although the suffering of the evil realms can bring harm in this life, it may not do so in the next, so it is not called unwholesome. Regarding the benefit and harm of wholesome and unwholesome, if it cannot be determined, it is called unspecified. If these six transformed consciousnesses are associated with the eleven dharmas such as faith (信, xìn), they belong to the wholesome nature. If they are associated with the ten dharmas such as shamelessness (無慚, wúcán), they belong to the unwholesome nature. If they are not associated with either, they belong to the unspecified nature. One view holds that the six consciousnesses do not simultaneously possess three natures, because their operation differs from that of the external-door transformed consciousnesses, and they contradict each other. The five consciousnesses must be guided by mind-consciousness in order to arise simultaneously and produce wholesome or defiled effects on the same realm. If the five consciousnesses were allowed to simultaneously possess three natures, then mind-consciousness should also simultaneously possess three natures, which contradicts right reason, so the six consciousnesses definitely do not simultaneously possess three natures. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and other treatises say that the store-consciousness (藏識, zàngshí) is associated with the transformed consciousnesses at one time, and the three natures arise simultaneously, which is based on multiple thoughts. As it is said, there is not just one arising and ceasing in one mind, so there is no fault of contradiction. Another view holds that the six consciousnesses can simultaneously possess three natures. Because the initial thought (率爾, shuài'ěr) and the similar continuous (等流, děngliú) eye-consciousness and other five consciousnesses can arise simultaneously, more or less. Although the five consciousnesses and mind-consciousness necessarily arise simultaneously, their wholesome nature and other natures need not be the same. Therefore, the previous question does not hold here. Therefore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that if one encounters the condition of sound and arises from samādhi (禪定, chándìng), the mind-consciousness associated with samādhi will operate together with the remaining ear-consciousness, and it is not only the mind-consciousness associated with samādhi that can hear this sound. If this were not the case, because one has not received this sound, one should not emerge from samādhi. One does not immediately emerge from samādhi upon hearing the sound, but after receiving the sound, if there is hope, one will emerge later. When the ear-consciousness in samādhi initially hears the sound, it should not be wholesome, because the initial thought of one who has not transformed the basis must be unspecified. From this, it can be confirmed that the five
俱意識非定與五善等性同。諸處但言五俱意識亦緣五境不說同性。雜集論說等引位中五識無者。依多分說。若五識中三性俱轉。意隨偏注與彼性同。無偏注者便無記性。故六轉識三性容俱。得自在位唯善性攝。佛色心等道諦攝故。已永滅除戲論種故。六識與幾心所相應。頌曰。
９ 此心所遍行 別境善煩惱 隨煩惱不定 皆三受相應
論曰。此六轉識總與六位心所相應。謂遍行等。恒依心起與心相應。系屬於心故名心所。如屬我物立我所名。心於所緣唯取總相。心所于彼亦取別相。助成心事得心所名。如畫師資作模填彩。故瑜伽說。識能了別事之總相。作意了此所未了相。即諸心所所取別相。觸能了此可意等相。受能了此攝受等相。想能了此言說因相。思能了此正因等相。故作意等名心所法。此表心所亦緣總相。餘處復說。欲亦能了可樂事相。勝解亦了決定事相。念亦能了串習事相。定慧亦了德失等相。由此于境起善染等。諸心所法皆于所緣兼取別相。
雖諸心所名義無異而有六位種類差別。謂遍行有五。別境亦五。善有十一。煩惱有六。隨煩惱有二十。不定有四。如是六位合五十一。一切心中定可得故。緣別別境而得生故。唯善心中可得生故。性是根本煩惱攝故。唯是煩惱
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 俱意識（Kuyi Consciousness，與所有意識同時生起的意識）與五善等性相同。諸經論中只說五俱意識也緣五境，但沒有說它們同性。 《雜集論》（Za Ji Lun）說在等引位（Deng Yin Wei，禪定狀態）中沒有前五識，這是依大多數情況來說的。如果前五識中三種自性（善、惡、無記）同時運轉，意識會隨其偏重而與該自性相同。如果沒有偏重，那麼意識就是無記性的。因此，六轉識（Liu Zhuan Shi，六種主要的意識）可以同時具有三種自性。在獲得自在的地位時，則只被善性所攝，因為佛的色心等屬於道諦（Dao Di，通往解脫的道路），並且已經永遠滅除了戲論的種子。六識與多少心所相應？頌文說： 『此心所遍行，別境善煩惱，隨煩惱不定，皆三受相應。』 論曰：這六轉識總共與六類心所相應，即遍行等。心所恒常依心而起，與心相應，系屬於心，所以叫做心所。就像屬於我的東西叫做我所一樣。心對於所緣境只取總相，心所對於所緣境也取別相，幫助成就心的作用，所以得到心所的名稱，就像畫師和助手，一個打底稿，一個填顏色。所以《瑜伽師地論》（Yu Jia Shi Di Lun）說，識能夠了別事物的總相，作意（Zuo Yi，專注）能夠了別識所沒有了別的相，也就是各種心所所取的別相。觸（Chu，感覺）能夠了別可意等相，受（Shou，感受）能夠了別攝受等相，想（Xiang，表象）能夠了別言說因相，思（Si，思維）能夠了別正因等相。所以作意等叫做心所法。這表明心所也緣總相。其他地方又說，欲（Yu，慾望）也能了別可樂的事相，勝解（Sheng Jie，勝妙的理解）也能了別決定的事相，念（Nian，憶念）也能了別串習的事相，定（Ding，禪定）和慧（Hui，智慧）也能了別德失等相。由此對於境產生善染等。各種心所法都對於所緣境兼取別相。 雖然各種心所名稱和意義沒有不同，但是有六類差別。即遍行有五種，別境也有五種，善有十一種，煩惱有六種，隨煩惱有二十種，不定有四種。這樣六類合計五十一。因為在一切心中一定可以得到，因為緣別別的境才能生起，因為只有在善心中才能生起，因為自性是根本煩惱所攝。
【English Translation】 English version: The Kuyi Consciousness (Kuyi Consciousness, the consciousness that arises simultaneously with all consciousnesses) has the same nature as the five wholesome qualities. In various sutras and treatises, it is only said that the five Kuyi Consciousnesses also cognize the five objects, but it is not said that they have the same nature. The Za Ji Lun (Compendium of Determinations) states that in the state of equanimity (Deng Yin Wei, meditative state), the first five consciousnesses are absent, which is according to the majority of cases. If the three natures (wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral) simultaneously operate in the first five consciousnesses, the consciousness will follow the predominant nature and be of that nature. If there is no predominance, then the consciousness is neutral. Therefore, the six Vijnanas (Liu Zhuan Shi, the six main consciousnesses) can simultaneously possess the three natures. When the state of mastery is attained, it is only included in the wholesome nature because the Buddha's physical and mental qualities belong to the Truth of the Path (Dao Di, the path to liberation), and the seeds of discursive thought have been permanently eliminated. How many mental factors are associated with the six consciousnesses? The verse says: 'These mental factors are pervasive, specific, wholesome, afflictive, secondary afflictive, and indeterminate, all corresponding to the three feelings.' The treatise says: These six Vijnanas are generally associated with six categories of mental factors, namely, the pervasive ones, etc. Mental factors constantly arise dependent on the mind, are associated with the mind, and are subordinate to the mind, so they are called mental factors. Just as something belonging to me is called 'mine.' The mind only grasps the general characteristics of the object, while the mental factors also grasp the specific characteristics of the object, helping to accomplish the function of the mind, so they are called mental factors, like a painter and an assistant, one laying the foundation and the other filling in the colors. Therefore, the Yoga-acarabhumi-sastra (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) says that consciousness can distinguish the general characteristics of things, attention (Zuo Yi, focus) can distinguish the characteristics that consciousness has not distinguished, which are the specific characteristics grasped by the various mental factors. Contact (Chu, sensation) can distinguish pleasant characteristics, feeling (Shou, sensation) can distinguish receptive characteristics, perception (Xiang, representation) can distinguish the cause of speech, and volition (Si, thought) can distinguish the correct cause. Therefore, attention, etc., are called mental factors. This indicates that mental factors also cognize general characteristics. Elsewhere it is also said that desire (Yu, wanting) can also distinguish desirable things, ascertainment (Sheng Jie, excellent understanding) can also distinguish definite things, mindfulness (Nian, recollection) can also distinguish habitual things, and concentration (Ding, meditation) and wisdom (Hui, wisdom) can also distinguish merits and faults. From this, wholesome and unwholesome qualities arise in relation to the object. All mental factors also grasp specific characteristics in relation to the object. Although the names and meanings of the various mental factors are not different, there are six categories of differences. Namely, there are five pervasive mental factors, five specific mental factors, eleven wholesome mental factors, six afflictive mental factors, twenty secondary afflictive mental factors, and four indeterminate mental factors. Thus, the six categories total fifty-one. Because they can certainly be obtained in all minds, because they can only arise in relation to specific objects, because they can only arise in wholesome minds, because their nature is included in the fundamental afflictions.
等流性故。于善染等皆不定故。然瑜伽論合六為五。煩惱隨煩惱俱是染故。復以四一切辯五差別。謂一切性及地時俱。五中遍行具四一切。別境唯有初二一切。善唯有一。謂一切地。染四皆無。不定唯一。謂一切性。由此五位種類差別。此六轉識易脫不定。故皆容與三受相應。皆領順違非二相故。領順境相適悅身心說名樂受。領違境相逼迫身心說名苦受。領中容境相於身於心非逼非悅名不苦樂受。如是三受或各分二。五識相應說名身受。別依身故。意識相應說名心受。唯依心故。又三皆通有漏無漏。苦受亦由無漏起故。或各分三。謂見所斷修所斷非所斷。
又學無學非二為三。或總分四。謂善不善有覆無覆二無記受。有義三受容各分四。五識俱起任運貪癡。純苦趣中任運煩惱。不發業者是無記故。彼皆容與苦根相應。瑜伽論說。若任運生一切煩惱。皆於三受現行可得。若通一切識身者。遍與一切根相應。不通一切識身者。意地一切根相應。雜集論說。若欲界系任運煩惱發惡行者亦是不善。所餘皆是有覆無記。故知三受各容有四。或總分五。謂苦樂憂喜捨。三中苦樂各分二者。逼悅身心相各異故。由無分別有分別故。尤重輕微有差別故。不苦不樂不分二者。非逼非悅相無異故。無分別故。平等轉故。諸適悅受五識
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 因為等流性的緣故，對於善、染等法都是不決定的。然而，《瑜伽師地論》將六個（受）合併爲五個，因為煩惱和隨煩惱都是染污的緣故。又用四種『一切』來辨別五種（受）的差別，即一切性、一切地、一切時、一切俱。五種（受）中，遍行受具足四種『一切』，別境受只有最初的兩種『一切』，善受只有一種，即一切地。染受四種『一切』都沒有，不定受只有一種，即一切性。由此五位（受）有種類上的差別。這六種轉識容易脫離不定，所以都能夠與三種感受相應，因為它們都領納順境、違境和非二相的緣故。領納順境，使身心適悅，稱為樂受；領納違境，逼迫身心，稱為苦受；領納中容之境，對於身心非逼迫非適悅，稱為不苦不樂受。像這樣，三種感受或者各自分為兩種。與五識相應的稱為身受，因為特別依賴於身體的緣故；與意識相應的稱為心受，只依賴於心的緣故。又，三種感受都通於有漏和無漏，因為苦受也可以由無漏產生。或者各自分為三種，即見所斷、修所斷、非所斷。 又，有學、無學、非二為三種。或者總分為四種，即善、不善、有覆無記、無覆無記二種無記受。有觀點認為，三種感受可以各自分為四種。五識同時生起任運的貪和癡，以及純苦趣中任運的煩惱，因為不引發業，所以是無記。它們都能夠與苦根相應。《瑜伽師地論》說，如果任運生起一切煩惱，都可以在三種感受中現行得到。如果通於一切識身，就普遍與一切根相應；如果不通於一切識身，就在意地與一切根相應。《雜集論》說，如果欲界系的任運煩惱引發惡行，也是不善，其餘都是有覆無記。所以可知三種感受各自可以有四種。或者總分為五種，即苦、樂、憂、喜、捨。三種（受）中，苦和樂各自分為兩種，是因為逼迫身心和適悅身心的相各不相同。由於有無分別，以及尤重輕微的差別。不苦不樂不分為兩種，是因為非逼迫非適悅的相沒有不同，沒有分別，平等轉的緣故。諸適悅受五識
【English Translation】 English version Because of the nature of equal flow (等流性), they are not fixed with respect to good, defiled, etc. However, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra combines the six (feelings) into five, because afflictions (煩惱, kleśa) and secondary afflictions (隨煩惱, upakleśa) are both defiled. Furthermore, it distinguishes the five differences with four 'all's, namely, all-nature, all-ground, all-time, and all-together. Among the five (feelings), pervasive feeling (遍行) possesses all four 'all's; specific object feeling (別境) only has the first two 'all's; wholesome feeling (善) only has one, namely, all-ground. Defiled feeling (染) has none of the four 'all's; indeterminate feeling (不定) only has one, namely, all-nature. Thus, these five positions (of feeling) have differences in kind. These six consciousnesses are easy to detach from the indeterminate, so they can all correspond to the three feelings, because they all apprehend agreeable, disagreeable, and non-dual aspects. Apprehending an agreeable object, causing pleasure in body and mind, is called pleasant feeling (樂受, sukha vedanā); apprehending a disagreeable object, oppressing body and mind, is called painful feeling (苦受, duḥkha vedanā); apprehending a neutral object, neither oppressing nor pleasing body and mind, is called neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling (不苦樂受, adukha-asukha vedanā). Thus, these three feelings can each be divided into two. That which corresponds to the five consciousnesses is called bodily feeling (身受, kāyika vedanā), because it specifically relies on the body; that which corresponds to the mind consciousness is called mental feeling (心受, caitasika vedanā), because it only relies on the mind. Moreover, all three feelings are common to both defiled and undefiled, because painful feeling can also arise from the undefiled. Or each can be divided into three, namely, that which is severed by seeing (見所斷, darśana-heya), that which is severed by cultivation (修所斷, bhāvanā-heya), and that which is not severed (非所斷, aheya). Furthermore, the learned (學, śaikṣa), the unlearned (無學, aśaikṣa), and neither-of-the-two are three. Or they are generally divided into four, namely, wholesome (善, kuśala), unwholesome (不善, akuśala), obscured-unspecified (有覆無記, sāvṛtāvyākṛta), and unobscured-unspecified (無覆無記, anāvṛtāvyākṛta)—two kinds of unspecified feeling. Some argue that the three feelings can each be divided into four. The spontaneous greed and ignorance that arise simultaneously with the five consciousnesses, and the spontaneous afflictions in the purely painful realms, are unspecified because they do not generate karma. They can all correspond to the root of suffering (苦根, duḥkha-indriya). The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that if all afflictions arise spontaneously, they can all be found manifesting in the three feelings. If it is common to all aggregates of consciousness, it universally corresponds to all roots; if it is not common to all aggregates of consciousness, it corresponds to all roots in the mental ground. The Abhidharmasamuccaya says that if the spontaneous afflictions of the desire realm generate evil actions, they are also unwholesome; the rest are obscured-unspecified. Therefore, it is known that each of the three feelings can have four. Or they are generally divided into five, namely, pain (苦, duḥkha), pleasure (樂, sukha), sorrow (憂, daurmanasya), joy (喜, prīti), and equanimity (捨, upekṣā). Among the three (feelings), pain and pleasure are each divided into two because the aspects of oppressing body and mind and pleasing body and mind are different. Due to the presence or absence of discrimination, and the differences of being especially heavy, light, or subtle. Neither-painful-nor-pleasant is not divided into two because the aspects of neither oppressing nor pleasing are not different, there is no discrimination, and it turns equally. The agreeable feelings of the five consciousnesses
相應恒名為樂。意識相應。若在欲界初二靜慮近分名喜。但悅心故。若在初二靜慮根本名樂名喜。悅身心故。若在第三靜慮近分根本名樂。安靜尤重無分別故。諸逼迫受五識相應恒名為苦。意識俱者有義唯憂。逼迫心故。諸聖教說意地戚受名憂根故。瑜伽論說。生地獄中諸有情類。異熟無間有異熟生苦憂相續。又說地獄尋伺憂俱。一分鬼趣傍生亦爾。故知意地尤重戚受尚名為憂。況餘輕者。有義通二。人天中者恒名為憂。非尤重故。傍生鬼界名憂名苦。雜受純受有輕重故。㮈落迦中唯名為苦。純受尤重無分別故。
瑜伽論說。若任運生一切煩惱皆於三受現行可得。廣說如前。又說俱生薩迦耶見唯無記性。彼邊執見應知亦爾。此俱苦受非憂根攝。論說憂根非無記故。又瑜伽說。地獄諸根餘三現行定不成就。純苦鬼界傍生亦爾。餘三定是樂喜憂根。以彼必成現行捨故。豈不客捨彼定不成。寧知彼文唯說客受。應不說彼定成意根。彼六客識有時無故。不應彼論唯說客受通說意根。無異因故。又若彼論依客受說。如何說彼定成八根。若謂五識不相續故定說憂根為第八者。死生悶絕寧有憂根。有執苦根為第八者。亦同此破。設執一形為第八者理亦不然。形不定故。彼惡業招容無形故。彼由惡業令五根門恒受苦故。定成眼等
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "與恒常的『名』（nāma，精神現象）相應的感受稱為『樂』（sukha，快樂）。與意識相應的感受，如果在欲界（kāmadhātu， desire realm）的初禪和二禪的近分定（dhyāna，meditative state）中，則稱為『喜』（prīti，喜悅），因為僅僅是內心感到愉悅。如果在初禪和二禪的根本定中，則稱為『樂』和『喜』，因為身體和內心都感到愉悅。如果在第三禪的近分定和根本定中，則稱為『樂』，因為安靜的狀態更加重要，沒有分別唸的干擾。各種逼迫性的感受，與五識（pañca-vijñāna，five sense consciousnesses）相應的，恒常稱為『苦』（duḥkha，痛苦）。與意識同時產生的，有一種觀點認為是『憂』（daurmanasya，憂愁），因為逼迫內心。各種聖教（ārya-dharma，noble teachings）說，意地（mano-bhūmi，mental plane）的戚受（unpleasant feeling）稱為『憂根』（daurmanasya-indriya，root of sorrow）。《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）說，在地獄中出生的各種有情眾生，其異熟果報（vipāka，result of karma）是無間斷的，持續不斷地感受異熟所生的苦和憂。又說，在地獄中，尋（vitarka，initial application of thought）和伺（vicāra，sustained application of thought）與憂愁同時存在。一部分鬼趣（preta-gati，hungry ghost realm）和傍生（tiryagyoni，animal realm）也是如此。因此可知，意地特別重視戚受，甚至將其稱為『憂』，更何況是其他輕微的感受。另一種觀點認為，既可以是『憂』也可以是『苦』。人天（manuṣya-deva，human and deva realms）中的眾生，恒常稱為『憂』，因為不是特別強烈的感受。傍生和鬼界，既可以稱為『憂』也可以稱為『苦』，因為感受是混合的，有輕重之分。在地獄中，僅僅稱為『苦』，因為感受是純粹的，特別強烈，沒有分別唸的干擾。", "《瑜伽師地論》說，如果任運而生的一切煩惱（kleśa，afflictions），都可以在三種感受（三受，three kinds of feeling: pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral）中顯現。詳細的解釋如前所述。又說，俱生（sahaja，innate）的薩迦耶見（satkāya-dṛṣṭi，belief in a self）僅僅是無記性（avyākṛta，neither good nor bad）。與此相關的邊執見（antagrāha-dṛṣṭi，extreme views）也應當知道是如此。這種與苦受同時產生的薩迦耶見，不屬於憂根所攝，因為論中說憂根不是無記性的。又，《瑜伽師地論》說，在地獄中的各種根（indriya，sense faculties），其餘三種（樂根、喜根、捨根）現行時，必定不成就。純粹感受痛苦的鬼界和傍生也是如此。其餘三種必定是樂根、喜根、憂根，因為他們必定成就現行的捨受（upekṣā，equanimity）。難道不是客受（adventitious feeling）時，他們必定不成就嗎？怎麼知道那段經文僅僅是說客受呢？不應該說他們必定成就意根（manas-indriya，faculty of mind），因為這六種客識（adventitious consciousnesses）有時不存在。不應該說那部論僅僅是說客受，而應該通說意根，因為沒有其他不同的原因。又，如果那部論依據客受來說，如何說他們必定成就八根（eighteen elements）呢？如果認為五識不相續，所以必定說憂根是第八根，那麼死亡、昏迷、悶絕的時候，難道有憂根嗎？有人執著苦根是第八根，也同樣可以用這個理由來駁斥。假設執著形（rūpa，form）是第八根，道理也是不成立的，因為形是不定的。他們由惡業所招感，可能沒有形。他們由於惡業，使得五根門（five sense organs）恒常感受痛苦，所以必定成就眼等。", "english_translations": [ "English version:", "The feeling corresponding to the constant 'nāma' (name, mental phenomena) is called 'sukha' (pleasure, happiness). The feeling corresponding to consciousness, if in the first or second dhyāna (meditative state) of the desire realm (kāmadhātu), is called 'prīti' (joy, delight), because it is merely a pleasant feeling in the mind. If in the fundamental dhyāna of the first or second dhyāna, it is called both 'sukha' and 'prīti', because both body and mind feel pleasant. If in the proximate or fundamental dhyāna of the third dhyāna, it is called 'sukha', because the state of tranquility is more important, without the disturbance of discrimination.", "Various oppressive feelings, corresponding to the five sense consciousnesses (pañca-vijñāna), are constantly called 'duḥkha' (suffering, pain). Those arising simultaneously with consciousness, one view is that they are 'daurmanasya' (sorrow, sadness), because they oppress the mind. Various noble teachings (ārya-dharma) say that the unpleasant feeling in the mental plane (mano-bhūmi) is called the 'root of sorrow' (daurmanasya-indriya). The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (Treatise on the Stages of Yoga Practice) says that for various sentient beings born in hell, their result of karma (vipāka) is uninterrupted, continuously experiencing the suffering and sorrow born from the result of karma. It also says that in hell, vitarka (initial application of thought) and vicāra (sustained application of thought) exist simultaneously with sorrow. A portion of the hungry ghost realm (preta-gati) and the animal realm (tiryagyoni) are also like this. Therefore, it can be known that the mental plane especially values unpleasant feelings, even calling them 'sorrow', let alone other slight feelings. Another view is that it can be both 'sorrow' and 'suffering'. Beings in the human and deva realms (manuṣya-deva) are constantly called 'sorrow', because the feeling is not particularly intense. The animal and hungry ghost realms can be called both 'sorrow' and 'suffering', because the feelings are mixed, with varying degrees of intensity. In hell, it is only called 'suffering', because the feeling is pure, particularly intense, without the disturbance of discrimination.", "The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that if all afflictions (kleśa) arise spontaneously, they can all manifest in the three kinds of feeling (pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral). The detailed explanation is as described earlier. It also says that innate (sahaja) satkāya-dṛṣṭi (belief in a self) is only neutral (avyākṛta). It should be known that the extreme views (antagrāha-dṛṣṭi) related to this are also like this. This satkāya-dṛṣṭi arising simultaneously with unpleasant feeling is not included in the root of sorrow, because the treatise says that the root of sorrow is not neutral. Furthermore, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that for the various faculties (indriya) in hell, when the other three (pleasant, joyful, and equanimous) are manifest, they are definitely not accomplished. The hungry ghost realm and animal realm that purely experience suffering are also like this. The other three must be the faculties of pleasure, joy, and sorrow, because they must accomplish the manifest equanimity (upekṣā). Isn't it the case that when there is adventitious feeling, they are definitely not accomplished? How do we know that that passage only speaks of adventitious feeling? It should not be said that they must accomplish the faculty of mind (manas-indriya), because these six adventitious consciousnesses sometimes do not exist. It should not be said that that treatise only speaks of adventitious feeling, but should speak generally of the faculty of mind, because there is no other different reason. Furthermore, if that treatise speaks based on adventitious feeling, how can it be said that they must accomplish the eighteen elements? If it is thought that the five consciousnesses are not continuous, so it must be said that the faculty of sorrow is the eighth faculty, then at the time of death, coma, and fainting, is there sorrow? Some hold that the faculty of suffering is the eighth faculty, and this can be refuted with the same reasoning. Supposing that form (rūpa) is held to be the eighth faculty, the reasoning is also not established, because form is not fixed. They are summoned by evil karma, and may not have form. Because of evil karma, their five sense organs constantly experience suffering, so they must accomplish the eyes, etc." ] }
。必有一形於彼何用。非於無間大地獄中可有希求淫慾事故。由斯第八定是捨根。第七八識捨相應故。如極樂地意悅名樂無有喜根。故極苦處意迫名苦無有憂根。故餘三言定憂喜樂。餘處說彼有等流樂。應知彼依隨轉理說。或彼通說餘雜受處。無異熟樂名純苦故。然諸聖教意地戚受名憂根者。依多分說。或隨轉門。無相違過。瑜伽論說生地獄中諸有情類異熟無間有異熟生苦憂相續。又說地獄尋伺憂俱。一分鬼趣傍生亦爾者。亦依隨轉門。
又彼苦根意識俱者。是餘憂類。假說為憂。或彼苦根損身心故。雖苦根攝而亦名憂。如近分喜益身心故。雖是喜根而亦名樂。顯揚論等具顯此義。然未至地定無樂根。說彼唯有十一根故。由此應知。意地戚受純受苦處亦苦根攝。此等聖教差別多門。恐文增廣故不繁述。有義六識三受不俱。皆外門轉互相違故。五俱意識同五所緣。五三受俱意亦應爾。便違正理故必不俱。瑜伽等說藏識一時與轉識相應三受俱起者。彼依多念。如說一心非一生滅。無相違過。有義六識三受容俱。順違中境容俱受故。意不定與五受同故。于偏注境起一受故無偏注者便起捨故。由斯六識三受容俱。得自在位唯樂喜捨。諸佛已斷憂苦事故。前所略摽六位心所。今應廣顯彼差別相。且初二位其相云何。頌曰。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：如果必定有一種形體存在於那裡，那又有什麼用呢？因為在無間大地獄中，不可能有希求淫慾的事情。因此，第八定是捨根（upekṣā-indriya，指不苦不樂的感受），第七和第八識與捨相應。就像極樂世界，因為心意愉悅而稱為樂，但沒有喜根（prīti-indriya，指精神上的快樂）。同樣，極苦之處，因為心意逼迫而稱為苦，但沒有憂根（daurmanasya-indriya，指精神上的痛苦）。所以，其餘三種說法——定憂、喜、樂——在其他地方說它們有等流樂（niṣyanda-sukha，指由禪定產生的快樂），應該知道那是依據隨轉理（anuvṛtti-nyāya，指順應某種情況的道理）而說的。或者，那是通說其餘雜受之處。沒有異熟樂（vipāka-sukha，指由善業產生的快樂），所以稱為純苦。然而，諸聖教中，將意地的憂戚感受稱為憂根，是依據多分（bahula，指大多數情況）而說的，或者隨順轉門（anuvṛtti-dvāra，指順應某種情況的途徑）。沒有相違的過失。《瑜伽師地論》說，生地獄中的諸有情類，異熟無間，有異熟生苦憂相續。又說，地獄中尋伺（vitarka-vicāra，指粗細的思考）與憂俱生，一部分鬼趣和傍生也是如此，也是依據隨轉門。 又，彼苦根（duḥkha-indriya，指身體上的痛苦）與意識俱生，是其餘憂的種類，假說為憂。或者，彼苦根損害身心，所以雖然屬於苦根，但也稱為憂。就像近分喜（upacāra-prīti，指接近禪定的喜悅）增益身心，所以雖然是喜根，但也稱為樂。《顯揚聖教論》等詳細闡明了這個意義。然而，未至定（anāgamya-samādhi，指未到達禪定的狀態）一定沒有樂根（sukha-indriya，指身體上的快樂），因為說那裡只有十一根。由此應該知道，意地的憂戚感受，純粹感受苦的地方，也屬於苦根。這些聖教的差別有很多方面，恐怕文字增多，所以不詳細敘述。 有一種觀點認為，六識（ṣaṭ-vijñāna，指眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）的三受（tri-vedanā，指苦受、樂受、捨受）不會同時俱生，因為都是外門轉（bāhya-dvāra-pravṛtti，指向外境活動），互相違背。五俱意識（pañca-vijñāna-kāya，指與五根相應的五識）與五所緣（pañca-viṣaya，指色、聲、香、味、觸）相同，五識與三受俱生，意識也應該如此，這樣就違背了正理，所以必定不會同時俱生。《瑜伽師地論》等說，藏識（ālayavijñāna，指儲存一切種子識）一時與轉識（pravṛtti-vijñāna，指前七識）相應，三受同時生起，那是依據多念（anekacitta，指多個念頭）而說的，就像說一心（ekacitta，指一個心）並非一生滅（ekotpāda-nirodha，指一個生起和滅亡），沒有相違的過失。 有一種觀點認為，六識的三受可以同時俱生，因為順境、違境、中境可以同時感受。意識不一定與五受相同，因為對於偏注的境界（adhyavasāna-viṣaya，指特別關注的境界）會生起一種感受，如果沒有偏注的境界，就會生起捨受。因此，六識的三受可以同時俱生。在獲得自在位（vaśitā-bhūmi，指獲得自在的地位）時，只有樂、喜、捨，因為諸佛已經斷除了憂和苦。前面所略微標出的六位心所（caitasika，指心理活動），現在應該廣泛地闡明它們的差別相。且說最初兩位，它們的相狀如何？頌曰：
【English Translation】 English version: If there must be a form there, what is the use? Because in the Avīci Great Hell, there can be no seeking of lustful desires. Therefore, the eighth concentration is the root of equanimity (upekṣā-indriya, referring to the feeling of neither suffering nor pleasure), because the seventh and eighth consciousnesses are in accordance with equanimity. Just like the Land of Ultimate Bliss, it is called bliss because the mind is joyful, but there is no root of joy (prīti-indriya, referring to mental happiness). Similarly, the place of extreme suffering is called suffering because the mind is oppressed, but there is no root of sorrow (daurmanasya-indriya, referring to mental pain). Therefore, the remaining three statements—fixed sorrow, joy, and pleasure—when it is said elsewhere that they have outflowing pleasure (niṣyanda-sukha, referring to the pleasure arising from meditation), it should be known that it is spoken according to the principle of following along (anuvṛtti-nyāya, referring to the principle of conforming to a certain situation). Or, it is a general statement about other places of mixed feelings. There is no pleasure of different maturation (vipāka-sukha, referring to the pleasure arising from good karma), so it is called pure suffering. However, in the teachings of the sages, the sorrowful feelings of the mind are called the root of sorrow, based on the majority of cases (bahula, referring to most situations), or following the path of conformity (anuvṛtti-dvāra, referring to the path of conforming to a certain situation). There is no fault of contradiction. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that sentient beings born in hell have continuous suffering and sorrow arising from different maturation without interruption. It also says that in hell, coarse and subtle thought (vitarka-vicāra, referring to coarse and subtle thinking) and sorrow arise together, and this is also the case for some ghosts and animals, which is also based on the path of conformity. Furthermore, the root of suffering (duḥkha-indriya, referring to physical pain) that arises together with consciousness is a type of remaining sorrow, falsely called sorrow. Or, the root of suffering harms the body and mind, so although it belongs to the root of suffering, it is also called sorrow. Just like the joy of proximity (upacāra-prīti, referring to the joy close to meditation) benefits the body and mind, so although it is the root of joy, it is also called pleasure. The Abhidharmasamuccaya and other texts explain this meaning in detail. However, there is definitely no root of pleasure (sukha-indriya, referring to physical pleasure) in the unarrived concentration (anāgamya-samādhi, referring to the state of not yet reaching meditation), because it is said that there are only eleven roots there. From this, it should be known that the sorrowful feelings of the mind, in places where only suffering is felt, also belong to the root of suffering. There are many aspects of these teachings of the sages, but I will not elaborate on them in detail for fear of increasing the length of the text. One view is that the three feelings (tri-vedanā, referring to suffering, pleasure, and equanimity) of the six consciousnesses (ṣaṭ-vijñāna, referring to eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, and mind consciousness) do not arise simultaneously, because they all operate through external doors (bāhya-dvāra-pravṛtti, referring to activity towards external objects) and contradict each other. The five aggregates of consciousness (pañca-vijñāna-kāya, referring to the five consciousnesses corresponding to the five senses) are the same as the five objects (pañca-viṣaya, referring to form, sound, smell, taste, and touch). If the five consciousnesses arise together with the three feelings, then the mind consciousness should also do so, which contradicts the correct principle, so they definitely do not arise simultaneously. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and other texts say that the storehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna, referring to the consciousness that stores all seeds) arises simultaneously with the evolving consciousness (pravṛtti-vijñāna, referring to the first seven consciousnesses), and the three feelings arise simultaneously, which is said according to multiple thoughts (anekacitta, referring to multiple thoughts), just like saying that one mind (ekacitta, referring to one mind) is not one arising and ceasing (ekotpāda-nirodha, referring to one arising and ceasing), there is no fault of contradiction. One view is that the three feelings of the six consciousnesses can arise simultaneously, because favorable, unfavorable, and neutral objects can be felt simultaneously. The mind consciousness is not necessarily the same as the five feelings, because one feeling arises for a particularly focused object (adhyavasāna-viṣaya, referring to a particularly focused object), and if there is no particularly focused object, equanimity arises. Therefore, the three feelings of the six consciousnesses can arise simultaneously. When one attains the state of mastery (vaśitā-bhūmi, referring to the state of attaining mastery), there are only pleasure, joy, and equanimity, because the Buddhas have already eliminated sorrow and suffering. The six mental factors (caitasika, referring to mental activities) that were briefly mentioned earlier should now be explained in detail regarding their differences. Let's talk about the first two, what are their characteristics? The verse says:
１０ 初遍行觸等 次別境謂欲 勝解念定慧 所緣事不同
論曰。六位中初遍行心所即觸等五。如前廣說。此遍行相云何應知。由教及理為定量故。此中教者如契經言。眼色為緣生於眼識。三和合觸。與觸俱生有受想思。乃至廣說。由斯觸等四是遍行。
又契經說。若根不壞境界現前。作意正起方能生識。餘經復言。若於此作意即於此了別。若於此了別即於此作意。是故此二恒共和合。乃至廣說。由此作意亦是遍行。此等聖教誠證非一。理謂識起必有三和。彼定生觸必由觸有。若無觸者心心所法應不和合觸一境故。作意引心令趣自境。此若無者心應無故。受能領納順違中境。令心等起歡戚捨相。無心起時無隨一故。想能安立自境分齊。若心起時無此想者。應不能取境分齊相。思令心取正因等相造作善等。無心起位無此隨一故必有思。由此證知觸等五法心起必有。故是遍行。餘非遍行義至當說。次別境者。謂欲至慧所緣境事多分不同。於六位中次初說故。云何為欲。于所樂境希望為性。勤依為業。有義所樂謂可欣境。于可欣事欲見聞等有希望故。于可厭事希彼不合。望彼別離豈非有欲。此但求彼不合離時可欣自體非可厭事。故於可厭及中容境一向無慾。緣可欣事若不希望
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 10 初遍行觸等，次別境謂欲，勝解念定慧，所緣事不同。
論曰：六位（六種心所類別）中，最初的遍行心所，即是觸（感覺）、作意（注意）、受（感受）、想（表象）、思（意志）這五種，如前文詳細解說。這些遍行心所的特性應該如何理解呢？應該以佛經的教導和道理作為衡量標準。這裡所說的佛經教導，例如《契經》中說：『眼和色作為條件，產生眼識，三者和合產生觸，與觸同時產生受、想、思』，乃至廣說。因此，觸、受、想、思這四種是遍行心所。
又有《契經》說：『如果根（感官）沒有損壞，境界（對像）顯現目前，作意正確生起，才能產生識（意識）』。其他經典又說：『如果對於這個對像作意，就對於這個對象了別（識別）；如果對於這個對象了別，就對於這個對像作意』。因此，作意和了別兩者恒常共同和合，乃至廣說。由此可知，作意也是遍行心所。這些聖教的證明不止一處。道理是說，識生起時必定有三和合（根、境、識），三和合必定產生觸，必定是因為有觸。如果沒有觸，心和心所法應該不會和合而觸及同一個對象。作意引導心趨向自己的境界，如果沒有作意，心應該無法生起。受能夠領納順境、違境、中庸境，使心等生起歡喜、憂愁、捨離等狀態。沒有心生起的時候，就不會有這些狀態。想能夠安立自己境界的界限，如果心生起的時候沒有想，應該不能夠取境的界限相。思使心取正因等相，造作善等。沒有心生起的時候，就不會有這些作用，所以必定有思。由此可以證明，觸等五法在心生起時必定存在，所以是遍行心所。其餘不是遍行心所的，意義將在後面說明。接下來是別境心所，指的是欲（希望）、勝解（確認）、念（記憶）、定（專注）、慧（智慧），它們所緣的境界和事物大多不同。因為在六位心所中，別境心所是緊接著遍行心所之後說的。什麼是欲呢？對於所喜愛的境界，希望得到是它的特性，勤奮是它的作用。有一種解釋是，所喜愛的境界是指令人欣喜的境界。對於令人欣喜的事物，希望看到、聽到等等，所以有欲。對於令人厭惡的事物，希望它們不結合，希望它們分離，難道不是欲嗎？這只是尋求那些不結合或分離的時候令人欣喜的自體，而不是令人厭惡的事物。所以，對於令人厭惡和中庸的境界，一向沒有欲。緣于令人欣喜的事物，如果不希望
【English Translation】 English version 10 The initial pervasive are touch, etc., followed by the specific, namely desire, ascertainment, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom; their objects differ.
The Treatise says: Among the six categories (of mental factors), the initial pervasive mental factors are the five: touch (sparsha), attention (manaskara), feeling (vedana), perception (samjna), and volition (cetana), as explained extensively earlier. How should the characteristics of these pervasive mental factors be understood? They should be measured by the teachings of the scriptures and by reason. Here, the teachings of the scriptures, for example, the Sutra says: 'Eye and form are the conditions for the arising of eye-consciousness; the union of the three produces touch; with touch arise feeling, perception, and volition,' and so on extensively. Therefore, these four, touch, feeling, perception, and volition, are pervasive mental factors.
Moreover, the Sutra says: 'If the sense faculty is not impaired and the object is present, and attention arises correctly, then consciousness can arise.' Another Sutra says: 'If one attends to this object, then one discerns this object; if one discerns this object, then one attends to this object.' Therefore, these two, attention and discernment, are always together and united, and so on extensively. From this, it is known that attention is also a pervasive mental factor. These sacred teachings are not the only proofs. The reason is that when consciousness arises, there must be the union of the three (sense faculty, object, and consciousness); the union of the three necessarily produces touch, and it must be because of touch. If there is no touch, the mind and mental factors should not be united and touching the same object. Attention leads the mind to its own object; if there is no attention, the mind should not arise. Feeling is able to receive pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral objects, causing the mind to arise with states of joy, sorrow, and equanimity. When the mind does not arise, there will be none of these states. Perception is able to establish the limits of its own object; if there is no perception when the mind arises, it should not be able to grasp the characteristics of the object's limits. Volition causes the mind to take the characteristics of the correct cause, etc., creating good, etc. When the mind does not arise, there will be none of these functions, so there must be volition. From this, it can be proven that the five factors, touch, etc., must be present when the mind arises, so they are pervasive mental factors. The meaning of the remaining non-pervasive mental factors will be explained later. Next are the specific mental factors, which refer to desire (chanda), ascertainment (adhimoksha), mindfulness (smriti), concentration (samadhi), and wisdom (prajna); their objects and affairs are mostly different. Because among the six categories of mental factors, the specific mental factors are mentioned immediately after the pervasive mental factors. What is desire? Hoping to obtain the desired object is its characteristic, and diligence is its function. One explanation is that the desired object refers to the delightful object. For delightful things, there is the hope to see, hear, etc., so there is desire. For unpleasant things, there is the hope that they do not combine, the hope that they separate, is that not desire? This is only seeking the delightful self when those things do not combine or separate, not the unpleasant things. Therefore, for unpleasant and neutral objects, there is never desire. If one does not hope for delightful things
亦無慾起。有義所樂謂所求境。于可欣厭求合離等有希望故。于中容境一向無慾。緣欣厭事若不希求亦無慾起。有義所樂謂欲觀境。於一切事欲觀察者有希望故。若不欲觀隨因境勢任運緣者即全無慾。由斯理趣欲非遍行。有說要由希望境力諸心心所方取所緣。故經說欲為諸法本。彼說不然。心等取境由作意故。諸聖教說作意現前能生識故。曾無處說由欲能生心心所故。如說諸法愛為根本。豈心心所皆由愛生。故說欲為諸法本者。說欲所起一切事業。或說善欲能發正勤。由彼助成一切善事。故論說此勤依為業。云何勝解。于決定境印持為性。不可引轉為業。謂邪正等教理證力于所取境審決印持。由此異緣不能引轉。故猶豫境勝解全無。非審決心亦無勝解。由斯勝解非遍行攝。有說心等取自境時無拘礙故皆有勝解。彼說非理。所以者何。能不礙者即諸法故。所不礙者即心等故。勝發起者根作意故。若由此故彼勝發起。此應復待餘便有無窮失。云何爲念。于曾習境令心明記不忘為性。定依為業。謂數憶持曾所受境令不忘失能引定故。于曾未受體類境中全不起念。設曾所受不能明記念亦不生。故念必非遍行所攝。有說心起必有念俱。能為後時憶念因故。彼說非理。勿於後時有癡信等前亦有故。前心心所或想勢力足為後時憶念因
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 亦不會生起貪慾。所謂『有義所樂』，是指所追求的境界。因為對於可喜或可厭的事物，有希望得到或離開的念頭。在這種情況下，如果對於容許的境界完全沒有貪慾，那麼即使緣于可喜或可厭的事物，如果沒有希求，也不會生起貪慾。另一種解釋，所謂『有義所樂』，是指想要觀察的境界。對於一切想要觀察的事物，有希望去觀察的念頭。如果不想要觀察，只是隨著因緣和環境的趨勢自然而然地緣取，那麼就完全沒有貪慾。因此，從這個道理來看，『欲』不是普遍存在的。有人說，必須依靠希望的境界的力量，各種心和心所才能取到所緣的境界。所以經中說，『欲』是諸法的根本。這種說法是不對的。心等取境是因為『作意』的緣故。各種聖教都說，『作意』現前能夠產生『識』。從來沒有地方說過，『欲』能夠產生心和心所。就像說諸法的根本是『愛』一樣，難道心和心所都是由『愛』產生的嗎？所以說『欲』是諸法的根本，是指由『欲』所引起的一切事業。或者說，善良的『欲』能夠引發『正勤』，由『正勤』來幫助成就一切善事。所以論中說，『正勤』以『欲』為所依，以努力為事業。 什麼是勝解（adhimoksha）？對於已經決定的境界，堅定地確認，並且不會被其他因素轉移，這就是勝解的性質。它的作用是不可被引轉。也就是說，通過邪正等教義、道理和證據的力量，對於所取境界進行審慎的決定和確認。因此，其他的因緣不能夠轉移它。所以，在猶豫不決的境界中，完全沒有勝解。沒有審慎的決心，也沒有勝解。因此，勝解不是普遍存在的。有人說，心等取自己的境界時，沒有拘礙，所以都有勝解。這種說法是不合理的。為什麼呢？能夠不被妨礙的是諸法，所不被妨礙的是心等。勝解的發起是根和作意的作用。如果因為這個原因，勝解才發起，那麼這個原因又需要其他的條件，就會有無窮的過失。 什麼是念（smriti）？對於曾經熟悉的事物，使心能夠清楚地記住而不忘記，這就是念的性質。它的作用是作為禪定的所依。也就是說，反覆憶念曾經經歷過的境界，使之不忘記，這樣能夠引導進入禪定。對於從未經歷過的，或者只是同類的境界，完全不會生起念。即使曾經經歷過，如果不能夠清楚地記住，念也不會生起。所以，念一定不是普遍存在的。有人說，心生起的時候，一定有念同時存在，因爲念能夠作為以後回憶的因。這種說法是不合理的。不要以為以後有愚癡、不信任等情況，之前也一定有。之前的心心所或者想法的力量，足以作為以後回憶的因。
【English Translation】 English version Also, desire (欲) will not arise. 'Having a desired meaning' refers to the object being sought. Because there is hope for things that are pleasing or displeasing, seeking union or separation. In this situation, if there is no desire at all for the permissible realm, then even if it arises from pleasing or displeasing things, desire will not arise if there is no hope. Another explanation is that 'having a desired meaning' refers to the realm one wants to observe. For all things that one wants to observe, there is hope to observe them. If one does not want to observe, but simply takes things as they are according to the circumstances of cause and condition, then there is no desire at all. Therefore, from this reasoning, 'desire' is not all-pervasive. Some say that it is necessary to rely on the power of the desired realm for the various minds and mental factors to grasp the object they are related to. Therefore, the sutras say that 'desire' is the root of all dharmas. This statement is not correct. The mind and so on grasp the object because of 'attention' (作意). Various holy teachings say that when 'attention' is present, it can generate 'consciousness' (識). There is nowhere that says that 'desire' can generate mind and mental factors. Just as it is said that the root of all dharmas is 'love' (愛), does that mean that all minds and mental factors are generated by 'love'? Therefore, saying that 'desire' is the root of all dharmas refers to all the activities that arise from 'desire'. Or it can be said that virtuous 'desire' can initiate 'right diligence' (正勤), which helps to accomplish all virtuous deeds. Therefore, the treatise says that 'diligence' relies on 'desire' as its basis and effort as its activity. What is adhimoksha (勝解, conviction)? To firmly confirm a determined object and not be swayed by other factors is the nature of adhimoksha. Its function is to be unchangeable. That is, through the power of teachings, reasoning, and evidence, whether right or wrong, a careful decision and confirmation are made regarding the object taken. Therefore, other conditions cannot change it. So, in a state of hesitation, there is no adhimoksha at all. Without a careful decision, there is also no adhimoksha. Therefore, adhimoksha is not all-pervasive. Some say that when the mind and so on take their own objects, there is no obstruction, so there is adhimoksha. This statement is unreasonable. Why? Because what is not obstructed is all dharmas, and what is not obstructed is the mind and so on. The arising of adhimoksha is the function of the root and attention. If adhimoksha arises for this reason, then this reason needs other conditions, which would lead to an infinite regress. What is smriti (念, mindfulness)? To enable the mind to clearly remember and not forget things that have been familiar, this is the nature of mindfulness. Its function is to serve as the basis for samadhi (禪定). That is, repeatedly recalling the experiences that have been experienced, so that they are not forgotten, which can lead to entering samadhi. Mindfulness will not arise at all for things that have never been experienced, or only similar things. Even if it has been experienced, if it cannot be clearly remembered, mindfulness will not arise. Therefore, mindfulness is certainly not all-pervasive. Some say that when the mind arises, mindfulness must exist at the same time, because mindfulness can serve as the cause for future recollection. This statement is unreasonable. Do not assume that if there is ignorance or distrust in the future, there must have been it before. The power of the previous mind and mental factors or thoughts is sufficient to serve as the cause for future recollection.
故。云何為定。于所觀境令心專注不散為性。智依為業。謂觀德失俱非境中。由定令心專注不散。依斯便有抉擇智生。心專注言顯所欲住即便能住。非唯一境。不爾見道歷觀諸諦前後境別應無等持。若不繫心專注境位便無定起。故非遍行。有說爾時亦有定起。但相微隱。應說誠言。若定能令心等和合同趣一境故是遍行。理亦不然。是觸用故。若謂此定令剎那頃心不易緣故遍行攝。亦不應理。一剎那心自於所緣無易義故。若言由定心取所緣故遍行攝。彼亦非理。作意令心取所緣故。有說此定體即是心。經說為心學心一境性故。彼非誠證。依定攝心令心一境說彼言故。根力覺支道支等攝。如念慧等非即心故。云何為慧。于所觀境簡擇為性。斷疑為業。謂觀德失俱非境中。由慧推求得決定故。于非觀境愚昧心中無簡擇故非遍行攝。有說爾時亦有慧起。但相微隱。天愛寧知。對法說為大地法故。諸部對法展轉相違。汝等如何執為定量。唯觸等五經說遍行。說十非經。不應固執。然欲等五非觸等故定非遍行。如信貪等。有義此五定互相資。隨一起時必有餘四。有義不定。瑜伽說此四一切中無後二故。又說此五緣四境生。所緣能緣非定俱故。應說此五或時起一。謂于所樂唯起希望。或於決定唯起印解。或於曾習唯起憶念。或於所觀
【現代漢語翻譯】
因此，什麼是『定』（Samadhi，專注）？其特性是使心專注于所觀察的境，而不散亂。其作用是作為智慧的所依。也就是說，在觀察功德、過失以及非功德非過失的境時，通過『定』使心專注于境而不散亂，依此便能生起決斷的智慧。『心專注』這句話顯示了想要安住，就能安住，並非只在一個境上。如果不是這樣，見道時次第觀察諸諦，前後境不同，就不應有等持（Samadhi，平等保持）。如果心不繫念，專注于境，就沒有『定』的生起，所以不是遍行（Sarvatraga，一切心中皆有）。有人說那時也有『慧』（Prajna，智慧）生起，只是相狀微弱隱沒。應該說這是實話。如果『定』能使心等和合，同趣一境，所以是遍行，這個道理也不對。因為這是『觸』（Sparsha，接觸）的作用。如果說這個『定』使剎那間心不易改變所緣，所以是遍行所攝，也不合理。因為一剎那的心，自身對於所緣就沒有改變的意義。如果說由『定』使心取所緣，所以是遍行所攝，那也不合理。因為是『作意』（Manaskara，注意）使心取所緣。有人說這個『定』的體性就是心，經中說為『心學心一境性』。這不是確實的證據。因為是依『定』攝持心，使心一境，才這樣說的。如根、力、覺支、道支等所攝，如『念』（Smriti，正念）、『慧』等，並非就是心。什麼是『慧』？其特性是對於所觀察的境進行簡擇。其作用是斷除疑惑。也就是說，在觀察功德、過失以及非功德非過失的境時，通過『慧』推求而得到決定。對於非觀察的境，在愚昧心中沒有簡擇，所以不是遍行所攝。有人說那時也有『慧』生起，只是相狀微弱隱沒。天愛（Devanampriya，一種尊稱），你怎麼知道？《對法》（Abhidharma，論藏）中說為大地法（Mahabhumi-dharma，普遍存在的心所）。各部的《對法》輾轉相違，你們怎麼能執著為定量？只有『觸』等五法經中說是遍行，說十法不是經中說的，不應固執。然而『欲』（Chanda，意欲）等五法不是『觸』等法，所以『定』不是遍行，如『信』（Shraddha，信仰）、『貪』（Lobha，貪婪）等。有義是這五種『定』互相資助，隨一起時必定有其餘四種。有義是不定的。《瑜伽》（Yoga，瑜伽師地論）中說這四種一切中沒有後兩種。又說這五種緣四境生，所緣和能緣不是『定』同時具有的。應該說這五種有時只起一種。比如對於所樂，只起希望。或者對於決定，只起印解（Adhimoksha，勝解）。或者對於曾習，只起憶念（Smriti，正念）。或者對於所觀察的境， 現代漢語譯本
【English Translation】 Therefore, what is 『Samadhi』 (concentration)? Its characteristic is to make the mind focused on the observed object without distraction. Its function is to serve as the basis for wisdom. That is, when observing objects of merit, demerit, and neither merit nor demerit, 『Samadhi』 enables the mind to focus on the object without distraction, and based on this, decisive wisdom arises. The phrase 『mind focused』 indicates that if one wants to abide, one can abide, not just on one object. If this were not the case, when observing the Truths (Satya) in sequence during the path of seeing (Darshana-marga), the objects would be different before and after, and there should be no equanimity (Samadhi, equal maintenance). If the mind is not focused and concentrated on the object, 『Samadhi』 will not arise, so it is not Sarvatraga (ubiquitous, present in all minds). Some say that 『Prajna』 (wisdom) also arises at that time, but its appearance is subtle and hidden. One should say that this is the truth. If 『Samadhi』 can make the mind harmonious and directed towards one object, so it is Sarvatraga, this reasoning is also incorrect. Because this is the function of 『Sparsha』 (contact). If it is said that this 『Samadhi』 makes the mind not easily change its object in an instant, so it is included in Sarvatraga, that is also unreasonable. Because the mind in an instant itself has no meaning of changing its object. If it is said that 『Samadhi』 makes the mind take the object, so it is included in Sarvatraga, that is also unreasonable. Because it is 『Manaskara』 (attention) that makes the mind take the object. Some say that the nature of this 『Samadhi』 is the mind itself, and the sutras say it is 『mind-learning-mind-one-object-nature』. This is not solid evidence. Because it is based on 『Samadhi』 holding the mind, making the mind one object, that is why it is said like that. Like the aggregates, powers, limbs of enlightenment, limbs of the path, etc., such as 『Smriti』 (mindfulness), 『Prajna』, etc., are not the mind itself. What is 『Prajna』? Its characteristic is to discern the observed object. Its function is to cut off doubts. That is, when observing objects of merit, demerit, and neither merit nor demerit, 『Prajna』 seeks and obtains a decision. For non-observed objects, there is no discernment in the ignorant mind, so it is not included in Sarvatraga. Some say that 『Prajna』 also arises at that time, but its appearance is subtle and hidden. Devanampriya (a title of respect), how do you know? The Abhidharma (treatises) says it is Mahabhumi-dharma (universal mental factors). The Abhidharma of each school contradicts each other, how can you cling to it as a fixed quantity? Only the five dharmas such as 『Sparsha』 are said to be Sarvatraga in the sutras, and the ten dharmas are not said in the sutras, so one should not cling to them. However, the five dharmas such as 『Chanda』 (desire) are not dharmas such as 『Sparsha』, so 『Samadhi』 is not Sarvatraga, such as 『Shraddha』 (faith), 『Lobha』 (greed), etc. Some say that these five 『Samadhis』 help each other, and when one arises, the other four must be present. Some say it is uncertain. The Yoga (Yogacarabhumi-shastra) says that these four do not have the latter two in everything. It is also said that these five arise from four objects, and the object and the subject are not possessed by 『Samadhi』 at the same time. It should be said that these five sometimes only arise one. For example, for what is liked, only hope arises. Or for a decision, only Adhimoksha (conviction) arises. Or for what has been practiced, only Smriti (mindfulness) arises. Or for the observed object, English version
唯起專注。謂愚昧類為止散心。雖專注所緣而不能簡擇。世共知彼有定無慧。彼加行位少有聞思。故說等持緣所觀境。或依多分故說是言。如戲忘天專注一境起貪瞋等。有定無慧。諸如是等其類實繁。或於所觀唯起簡擇。謂不專注馳散推求。或時起二。謂于所樂決定境中起欲勝解。或於所樂曾習境中起欲及念。如是乃至於所觀境起定及慧。合有十二。或時起三。謂于所樂決定曾習起欲解念。如是乃至於曾所觀起念定慧。合有十三。或時起四。謂于所樂決定曾習所觀境中起前四種。如是乃至於定曾習所觀境中起後四種。合有五四。或時起五。謂于所樂決定曾習所觀境中具起五種。如是於四起欲等五。總別合有三十一句。或有心位五皆不起。如非四境率爾墮心及藏識俱。此類非一。第七八識此別境五隨位有無。如前已說。第六意識諸位容俱。依轉未轉皆不遮故。有義五識此五皆無。緣已得境無希望故。不能審決無印持故。恒取新境無追憶故。自性散動無專注故。不能推度無簡擇故。有義五識容有此五。雖無于境增上希望。而有微劣樂境義故。于境雖無增上審決。而有微劣印境義故。雖無明記曾習境體。而有微劣念境類故。雖不作意繫念一境。而有微劣專注義故。遮等引故說性散動。非遮等持。故容有定。雖于所緣不能推度
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 唯一起專注：這是爲了使愚昧之輩停止散亂的心。雖然專注在所緣境上，卻不能進行簡擇（區分辨別）。世人都知道他們有定力而無智慧。他們在加行位（修行過程中的一個階段）很少有聽聞和思考。所以說等持（專注）是緣于所觀的境。或者是因為多數情況是這樣說的。比如在遊戲中忘記了吃飯，專注在一個境上而生起貪婪、嗔恨等等。有定力而沒有智慧，像這樣的情況實在很多。或者只是對所觀的境生起簡擇，也就是說，不專注而散亂地推求。或者有時同時生起兩種，即對於所喜愛的、已決定的境生起欲和勝解（深刻的理解）。或者對於所喜愛的、曾經熟悉的境生起欲和憶念。像這樣，乃至於對於所觀的境生起定和慧。合起來共有十二種情況。 或者有時生起三種，即對於所喜愛的、已決定的、曾經熟悉的境生起欲、勝解和憶念。像這樣，乃至於對於曾經所觀的境生起憶念、定和慧。合起來共有十三種情況。 或者有時生起四種，即對於所喜愛的、已決定的、曾經熟悉的、所觀的境生起前面四種（欲、勝解、憶念、定）。像這樣，乃至於對於定、曾經熟悉的、所觀的境生起後面四種（憶念、定、慧、簡擇）。合起來共有五十四種情況。 或者有時生起五種，即對於所喜愛的、已決定的、曾經熟悉的、所觀的境完全生起五種（欲、勝解、憶念、定、慧）。像這樣，對於四種境生起欲等五種。總的、分別的合起來共有三十一種情況。 或者有些心位五種都不生起，比如不是四種境（所樂、決定、曾習、所觀）的率爾墮心（無意中產生的念頭）以及與藏識（Alaya-vijñana）同時生起的情況。這種情況不止一種。第七識（末那識，Manas-vijñana）和第八識（阿賴耶識，Alaya-vijñana）的這五種（欲、勝解、憶念、定、慧）隨其位次而有或無，如前面已經說過的。第六意識（末那識，Manas-vijñana）在各種位次都可能同時具備，因為無論是依轉還是未轉都不遮止。 有一種觀點認為，前五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）這五種都沒有。因為它們緣的是已經得到的境，沒有希望，所以不能審慎決斷；沒有印持（確認），所以總是取新的境；沒有追憶，所以自性散動，沒有專注；不能推度，沒有簡擇。 有一種觀點認為，前五識也可能有這五種。雖然沒有對境增上的希望，但有微弱的喜愛境的意義；對於境雖然沒有增上的審慎決斷，但有微弱的印境的意義；雖然沒有明確記住曾經熟悉的境，但有微弱的憶念境的類別；雖然不作意地繫念一個境，但有微弱的專注的意義。遮止等引（禪定中的一種狀態）是因為說其自性散動，而不是遮止等持，所以容許有定。雖然對於所緣境不能推度，
【English Translation】 English version Solely arising focused attention: This is to stop the distracted minds of the ignorant. Although focused on the object of attention, they cannot discern (distinguish and differentiate). The world knows that they have concentration but no wisdom. They have little hearing and thinking in the stage of application (a stage in the practice). Therefore, it is said that Samadhi (concentration) is based on the object of contemplation. Or it is said this way because it is mostly the case. For example, forgetting to eat while playing games, focusing on one object and giving rise to greed, hatred, etc. Having concentration but no wisdom, there are indeed many such cases. Or only discernment arises towards the object of contemplation, that is, seeking distractedly without focusing. Or sometimes two arise simultaneously, that is, desire and Adhimoksha (deep understanding) arise towards the beloved and determined object. Or desire and memory arise towards the beloved and familiar object. Thus, even to the point that concentration and wisdom arise towards the object of contemplation. There are a total of twelve situations. Or sometimes three arise, that is, desire, Adhimoksha, and memory arise towards the beloved, determined, and familiar object. Thus, even to the point that memory, concentration, and wisdom arise towards the object that has been contemplated. There are a total of thirteen situations. Or sometimes four arise, that is, the first four (desire, Adhimoksha, memory, concentration) arise towards the beloved, determined, familiar, and contemplated object. Thus, even to the point that the latter four (memory, concentration, wisdom, discernment) arise towards the concentration, familiar, and contemplated object. There are a total of fifty-four situations. Or sometimes five arise, that is, all five (desire, Adhimoksha, memory, concentration, wisdom) fully arise towards the beloved, determined, familiar, and contemplated object. Thus, the five, such as desire, arise towards the four objects. In total, separately and combined, there are thirty-one situations. Or in some mental states, none of the five arise, such as the unintentional arising of mind that is not one of the four objects (beloved, determined, familiar, contemplated), and the situation where it arises simultaneously with the Alaya-vijñana (store consciousness). There is more than one such situation. Whether these five (desire, Adhimoksha, memory, concentration, wisdom) of the seventh consciousness (Manas-vijñana) and the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijñana) exist depends on their respective positions, as has been said before. The sixth consciousness (Manovijñana) can potentially possess all of them in various positions, because neither dependence nor non-dependence is prohibited. One view holds that the first five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) do not have any of these five. Because they are based on objects that have already been obtained, there is no hope, so they cannot make careful decisions; there is no confirmation, so they always take new objects; there is no recollection, so their nature is distracted, and there is no focus; they cannot infer, and there is no discernment. One view holds that the first five consciousnesses may also have these five. Although there is no increasing hope for the object, there is a subtle meaning of liking the object; although there is no increasing careful decision about the object, there is a subtle meaning of confirming the object; although there is no clear memory of the familiar object, there is a subtle category of remembering the object; although there is no intentional focus on one object, there is a subtle meaning of focused attention. The reason for prohibiting Samapatti (a state in meditation) is because it is said that its nature is distracted, not because it prohibits Samadhi, so it is permissible to have concentration. Although it cannot infer about the object of attention,
。而有微劣簡擇義故。由此聖教說眼耳通是眼耳識相應智性。餘三準此有慧無失。未自在位此五或無。得自在時此五定有。樂觀諸境欲無減故。印境勝解常無減故。憶習曾受念無減故。又佛五識緣三世故。如來無有不定心故。五識皆有作事智故。此別境五何受相應。有義欲三除憂苦受。以彼二境非所樂故。餘四通四。唯除苦受。以審決等五識無故。有義一切五受相應。論說憂根于無上法思慕愁戚求欲證故。純受苦處希求解脫。意有苦根前已說故。論說貪愛憂苦相應。此貪愛俱必有欲故。苦根既有意識相應。審決等四苦俱何咎。又五識俱亦有微細印境等四。義如前說。由斯欲等五受相應。此五復依性界學等。諸門分別如理應思。
## 成唯識論卷第五
大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 成唯識論
## 成唯識論卷第六
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
已說遍行別境二位。善位心所其相云何。頌曰。
１１ 善謂信慚愧 無貪等三根 勤安不放逸 行捨及不害
論曰。唯善心俱名善心所。謂信慚等定有十一。云何為信。于實德能深忍樂欲心凈為性。對治不信樂善為業。然信差別略有三種。一信實有。謂于諸法實事理中深信忍故。二信有德。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：而且因為有稍微微弱的選擇定義，因此聖教說眼耳通是眼耳識相應的智慧性質。其餘三種（鼻、舌、身）可以類推，具有智慧而沒有缺失。在未獲得自在的階段，這五種（欲、勝解、念、定、慧）可能沒有；獲得自在時，這五種必定具有。因為對於樂觀諸境的慾望沒有減少的緣故；對於印境的殊勝理解常常沒有減少的緣故；憶念曾經領受的念頭沒有減少的緣故。而且佛的五識能夠緣於過去、現在、未來三世的緣故，如來沒有不定的心念的緣故，五識都具有能起作用的智慧的緣故。這五個別境心所與什麼感受相應呢？ 有一種觀點認為，欲、勝解、念這三種心所排除憂受和苦受，因為憂受和苦受的境界不是所喜好的。其餘四種（定、慧）則與四種感受相通，唯獨排除苦受，因為審決等五識沒有苦受。另一種觀點認為，一切五種感受都可能相應。《論》中說，憂根在於對無上佛法的思慕愁戚，求欲證得的緣故；純粹感受痛苦的地方，希望求解脫。意有苦根，前面已經說過了。論中說，貪愛與憂苦相應，而這種貪愛必然伴隨著慾望。既然苦根與意識相應，那麼審決等四種心所與苦受同時存在又有什麼過失呢？而且五識同時存在時，也有微細的印境等四種心所，道理如前所說。因此，欲等五種感受都可能相應。這五種心所再依據自性、界、學等各種門類進行分別，應當如理思維。
《成唯識論》卷第五 大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 《成唯識論》
《成唯識論》卷第六
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
已經講完了遍行心所和別境心所這兩種心所。那麼，善位心所的體相是怎樣的呢？頌文說：
11 善是指信、慚、愧，以及無貪等三種善根，還有勤、安、不放逸，行捨以及不害。
論中說：唯獨與善心相應的才叫做善心所。所謂的信、慚等，必定有十一種。什麼是信呢？對於真實的事實、功德和能力，深深地信忍和樂欲，心清凈為它的體性。對治不信，以喜愛善法為它的作用。然而，信的差別略有三種：一是信實有，即對於諸法的真實事理，深深地信受和忍可；二是信有德。
【English Translation】 English version: Moreover, because there is a subtle and slight discerning definition, the sacred teachings say that the supernormal powers of eye and ear are the wisdom nature corresponding to eye-consciousness and ear-consciousness. The remaining three (nose, tongue, body) can be inferred by analogy, possessing wisdom without deficiency. In the stage of not attaining self-mastery, these five (desire, ascertainment, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom) may not be present; when self-mastery is attained, these five are definitely present. This is because the desire for optimistically viewing all realms is not diminished; because the excellent understanding of impressing realms is constantly not diminished; because the mindfulness of remembering past experiences is not diminished. Moreover, the five consciousnesses of the Buddha can be related to the three times of past, present, and future; because the Tathagata does not have unfixed thoughts; because the five consciousnesses all possess the wisdom to perform actions. What feelings do these five specific mental factors correspond to? One view holds that desire (chanda), ascertainment (adhimoksha), and mindfulness (smriti) exclude sorrow (daurmanasya) and suffering (duhkha), because the realms of sorrow and suffering are not what is liked. The remaining four (samadhi and prajna) are connected to the four feelings, except for suffering, because the five consciousnesses such as ascertainment do not have suffering. Another view holds that all five feelings can correspond. The 'Treatise' says that the root of sorrow lies in longing and yearning for the unsurpassed Dharma, seeking to attain it; in places of purely experiencing suffering, there is a hope to seek liberation. The mind has a root of suffering, as mentioned earlier. The treatise says that greed (raga) corresponds to sorrow and suffering, and this greed is necessarily accompanied by desire. Since the root of suffering corresponds to consciousness, what fault is there if the four mental factors such as ascertainment exist simultaneously with suffering? Moreover, when the five consciousnesses exist simultaneously, there are also subtle four mental factors such as impressing realms, as explained earlier. Therefore, the five feelings such as desire can all correspond. These five mental factors are further distinguished according to various categories such as nature, realm, and learning, and should be contemplated according to reason.
Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra (Treatise on the Establishment of the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only) Volume 5 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 31, No. 1585 Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra
Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra (Treatise on the Establishment of the Doctrine of Consciousness-Only) Volume 6
Composed by Bodhisattvas such as Dharmapala
Translated by the Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
The pervasive mental factors (sarvatraga) and the specific mental factors (viniyata) have already been discussed. So, what are the characteristics of the wholesome mental factors?
Verse 11 Wholesome (śubha) refers to faith (śraddhā), shame (hrī), and embarrassment (apatrāpya), as well as the three roots of non-greed (alobha), etc., diligence (vīrya), pliancy (praśrabdhi), non-negligence (apramāda), equanimity (upekṣā), and non-harming (avihiṃsā).
The treatise says: Only those that correspond to the wholesome mind are called wholesome mental factors. The so-called faith, shame, etc., definitely have eleven. What is faith? It is characterized by deep belief, acceptance, desire, and purity of mind in true facts, virtues, and abilities. It counteracts disbelief and takes delight in wholesome dharmas as its function. However, there are roughly three kinds of differences in faith: first, belief in reality, that is, deep belief and acceptance in the true facts and principles of all dharmas; second, belief in virtue.
謂於三寶真凈德中深信樂故。三信有能。謂於一切世出世善深信有力能得能成起希望故。由斯對治彼不信心。愛樂證修世出世善。忍謂勝解。此即信因。樂欲謂欲即是信果。礭陳此信自相是何。豈不適言。心凈為性。此猶未了彼心凈言。若凈即心應非心所。若令心凈慚等何別。心俱凈法為難亦然。此性澄清能凈心等。以心勝故立心凈名。如水清珠能清濁水。慚等雖善非凈為相。此凈為相無濫彼失。又諸染法各別有相。唯有不信自相渾濁。復能渾濁餘心心所。如極穢物自穢穢他。信正翻彼故凈為相。有說信者愛樂為相。應通三性體應即欲。又應苦集非信所緣。有執信者隨順為相。應通三性。即勝解欲。若印順者即勝解故。若樂順者即是欲故。離彼二體無順相故。由此應知心凈是信。云何為慚。依自法力崇重賢善為性。對治無慚止息惡行為業。謂依自法尊貴增上。崇重賢善羞恥過惡。對治無慚息諸惡行。云何為愧。依世間力輕拒暴惡為性。對治無愧止息惡行為業。謂依世間訶厭增上。輕拒暴惡羞恥過罪。對治無愧息諸惡業。羞恥過惡是二通相。故諸聖教假說為體。若執羞恥為二別相。應慚與愧體無差別。則此二法定不相應。非受想等有此義故。若待自他立二別者。應非實有便違聖教。若許慚愧實而別起。復違論說十遍善心
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 所謂的對三寶（佛、法、僧）真實清凈的功德深深地信賴和喜悅。三種信心具有能力，即對一切世間和出世間的善行，深深相信有能力獲得、能夠成就，並生起希望。因此，這種信心能夠對治不信之心，喜愛並努力修行世間和出世間的善行。 『忍』指的是殊勝的理解，這是信心的原因。『樂欲』指的是慾望，是信心的結果。確切地陳述這種信心的自性是什麼？難道不是已經說過，以心清凈為自性嗎？但這仍然沒有完全理解『心凈』這個詞。如果清凈就是心，那麼它就不應該是心所（心理活動）。如果讓心清凈，那麼慚（對自己的不當行為感到羞恥）等心理活動又有什麼區別呢？與心同時存在的清凈之法，這個疑問也是一樣的。 這種自性澄清，能夠凈化心等等。因為心是殊勝的，所以立名為『心凈』。就像清水珠能夠澄清渾濁的水一樣。慚等雖然是善的，但不是以清凈為相。這種以清凈為相的信心，沒有混淆其他心理活動的過失。 而且，各種染污之法各有不同的相狀，只有不信，其自性是渾濁的，並且能夠渾濁其他的心和心所。就像極其污穢的東西，自己污穢，也污穢他人。信心正好相反，所以以清凈為相。 有人說，信的相狀是愛樂。如果是這樣，那麼它應該貫通三種性質（善、惡、無記），其體性應該就是慾望。而且，苦和集（佛教中的『苦諦』和『集諦』，是痛苦的根源）就不應該是信所緣的對象了。 有人認為，信的相狀是隨順。如果是這樣，那麼它應該貫通三種性質，也就是殊勝的理解和慾望。如果說是印可隨順，那就是殊勝的理解；如果說是樂於隨順，那就是慾望。離開了這兩種體性，就沒有隨順的相狀。 因此，應該知道，心凈就是信。 什麼是慚？以依靠自身和法的力量，崇尚尊重賢善為自性。對治無慚，止息惡行為作用。也就是說，依靠自身和法的尊貴增上，崇尚尊重賢善，羞恥過錯和罪惡，對治無慚，止息各種惡行。 什麼是愧？以依靠世間的力量，輕視拒絕暴惡為自性。對治無愧，止息惡行為作用。也就是說，依靠世間的訶責厭惡增上，輕視拒絕暴惡，羞恥過錯和罪罪，對治無愧，止息各種惡業。 羞恥過錯和罪惡是慚和愧共同的相狀，所以各種聖教經典假借地說它是慚和愧的體性。如果認為羞恥是慚和愧各自不同的相狀，那麼慚和愧的體性就沒有差別。那麼這兩種法就一定不相應。因為受、想等心理活動沒有這種情況。 如果等待自身和他人的條件來建立兩種差別，那麼它就不是真實的，便違背了聖教。如果允許慚愧是真實存在且分別生起的，又違背了論典所說的十種普遍的善心所。
【English Translation】 English version: So-called deep faith and joy in the true and pure virtues of the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma, Sangha). The three kinds of faith have the ability, that is, to deeply believe in all worldly and supramundane good deeds, that they have the ability to obtain, to accomplish, and to give rise to hope. Therefore, this faith can counteract the mind of disbelief, and love and diligently cultivate worldly and supramundane good deeds. 'Tolerance' refers to superior understanding, which is the cause of faith. 'Desire' refers to wanting, which is the result of faith. What exactly is the self-nature of this faith? Hasn't it already been said that its self-nature is the purity of mind? But this still does not fully understand the word 'purity of mind'. If purity is the mind, then it should not be a mental activity (citta-vrtti). If the mind is made pure, then what is the difference between shame (feeling ashamed of one's improper behavior) and other mental activities? The question of pure dharmas existing simultaneously with the mind is the same. This nature is clear and can purify the mind, etc. Because the mind is superior, it is named 'purity of mind'. Just like a clear water bead can clarify turbid water. Although shame and the like are good, they are not characterized by purity. This faith, characterized by purity, does not have the fault of confusing other mental activities. Moreover, various defiled dharmas each have different characteristics, only disbelief, its self-nature is turbid, and it can turbid other minds and mental activities. Just like extremely filthy things, they defile themselves and also defile others. Faith is the opposite, so it is characterized by purity. Some say that the characteristic of faith is love and joy. If so, then it should pervade the three natures (good, evil, neutral), and its essence should be desire. Moreover, suffering and accumulation (the 'Truth of Suffering' and the 'Truth of the Origin of Suffering' in Buddhism, which are the roots of suffering) should not be the objects of faith. Some believe that the characteristic of faith is compliance. If so, then it should pervade the three natures, that is, superior understanding and desire. If it is said to be approving compliance, then it is superior understanding; if it is said to be joyful compliance, then it is desire. Apart from these two essences, there is no characteristic of compliance. Therefore, it should be known that purity of mind is faith. What is shame (Hri)? Its self-nature is to rely on one's own strength and the strength of the Dharma, to admire and respect the virtuous and good. Counteracting shamelessness, its function is to stop evil actions. That is, relying on the dignity and increase of oneself and the Dharma, admiring and respecting the virtuous and good, being ashamed of faults and sins, counteracting shamelessness, and stopping all kinds of evil actions. What is embarrassment (Apatrapya)? Its self-nature is to rely on the power of the world, to despise and reject violence and evil. Counteracting shamelessness, its function is to stop evil actions. That is, relying on the world's condemnation and disgust, despising and rejecting violence and evil, being ashamed of faults and sins, counteracting shamelessness, and stopping all kinds of evil deeds. Being ashamed of faults and sins is a common characteristic of shame and embarrassment, so various sacred teachings figuratively say that it is the essence of shame and embarrassment. If it is thought that shame is a different characteristic of shame and embarrassment, then the essence of shame and embarrassment is no different. Then these two dharmas must not correspond. Because mental activities such as sensation and thought do not have this situation. If waiting for the conditions of oneself and others to establish two differences, then it is not real and violates the sacred teachings. If it is allowed that shame and embarrassment are real and arise separately, it also violates the ten universal mental factors of goodness mentioned in the treatises.
。崇重輕拒若二別相。所緣有異應不俱生。二失既同何乃偏責。誰言二法所緣有異。不爾如何。善心起時隨緣何境。皆有崇重善及輕拒惡義。故慚與愧俱遍善心所緣無別。豈不我說亦有此義。汝執慚愧自相既同。何理能遮前所設難。然聖教說顧自他者。自法名自世間名他。或即此中崇拒善惡。於己益損名自他故。無貪等者等無瞋癡。此三名根生善勝故。三不善根近對治故。云何無貪。于有有具無著為性。對治貪著作善為業。云何無瞋。于苦苦具無恚為性。對治瞋恚作善為業。善心起時隨緣何境。皆于有等無著無恚。觀有等立非要緣彼。如前慚愧觀善惡立。故此二種俱遍善心。云何無癡。于諸理事明解為性。對治愚癡作善為業。有義無癡即慧為性。集論說此報教證智抉擇為體。生得聞思修所生慧。如次皆是抉擇性故。此雖即慧為顯善品有勝功能。如煩惱見故復別說。有義無癡非即是慧。別有自性。正對無明如無貪瞋。善根攝故。論說大悲無瞋癡攝非根攝故。若彼無癡以慧為性。大悲如力等應慧等根攝。又若無癡無別自性。如不害等應非實物。便違論說十一善中三世俗有餘皆是實。然集論說慧為體者。舉彼因果顯此自性。如以忍樂表信自體。理必應爾。以貪瞋癡六識相應。正煩惱攝起惡勝故立不善根。斷彼必由通別對治。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 『崇重』（尊重）和『輕拒』（輕視拒絕）好像是兩種不同的狀態。如果所緣（對像）不同，它們應該不能同時產生。既然兩種過失相同，為什麼只責備一種呢？』 誰說這兩種法所緣的對象不同？如果不是這樣，那會怎樣呢？善心生起時，無論緣于什麼境界，都具有崇重善和輕拒惡的意義。所以，慚和愧都普遍存在於善心中，所緣的對象沒有區別。 難道我說的不也是這個意思嗎？你認為慚和愧的自相既然相同，有什麼理由能夠阻止之前提出的難題呢？ 然而，聖教說，『顧自他者』，『自』指自身之法，『他』指世間。或者，就在這其中，崇重善和拒絕惡，對於自己的利益或損害，稱為『自』和『他』。無貪等，『等』指無瞋和無癡。這三種稱為『根』，因為它們產生殊勝的善。也因為這三種不善根有直接的對治法。 什麼是無貪（Araga）？以對於存在和存在的工具沒有執著為自性，以對治貪著，行善為事業。 什麼是無瞋（Adosa）？以對於痛苦和痛苦的工具沒有憎恨為自性，以對治瞋恚，行善為事業。善心生起時，無論緣于什麼境界，都對於存在等沒有執著和憎恨。觀察存在等而建立無貪和無瞋，並非一定要緣於它們。就像之前的慚和愧，觀察善和惡而建立。所以這兩種都普遍存在於善心中。 什麼是無癡（Amoha）？以對於諸事和諸理的明瞭理解為自性，以對治愚癡，行善為事業。有的觀點認為，無癡就是智慧（Prajna）為自性。《集論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）說，無癡以報得智、教得智、證得智的抉擇為體。生得慧、聞所生慧、思所生慧、修所生慧，依次都是抉擇的性質。雖然無癡就是智慧，但爲了顯示善品具有殊勝的功能，就像煩惱見一樣，所以另外說明。 有的觀點認為，無癡不是智慧，而是有別的自性，直接對治無明（Avidya），就像無貪和無瞋一樣，屬於善根所攝。論中說，大悲（Mahakaruna）屬於無瞋和無癡所攝，而不是根所攝。如果無癡以智慧為自性，那麼大悲應該像力等一樣，屬於智慧等根所攝。而且，如果無癡沒有別的自性，就像不害等一樣，應該不是實物。這就違背了論中說的，十一善中，前三者是世俗有，其餘都是實有。然而，《集論》說以智慧為體，是舉出它的因果來顯示它的自性。就像用忍和樂來表示信的自體一樣，道理必然是這樣。因為貪、瞋、癡與六識相應，屬於正煩惱所攝，產生惡的力量強大，所以立為不善根。斷除它們必須通過共通和個別的對治方法。
【English Translation】 English version: 'Respect (崇重, Chongzhong) and rejection (輕拒, Qingju) seem like two separate states. If the objects (所緣, Suoyuan) are different, they should not arise simultaneously. Since the two faults are the same, why only blame one?' Who says that the objects of these two dharmas are different? If not, then how is it? When a wholesome mind arises, no matter what realm it is related to, it has the meaning of respecting good and rejecting evil. Therefore, shame (慚, Hri) and embarrassment (愧, Apatrapya) are both universally present in wholesome minds, and there is no difference in the objects they relate to. Isn't that what I'm saying? Since you believe that the self-natures of shame and embarrassment are the same, what reason can prevent the previously raised difficulty? However, the holy teachings say, 'Those who consider self and others,' 'self' refers to one's own dharma, and 'others' refers to the world. Or, within this, respecting good and rejecting evil, for one's own benefit or harm, are called 'self' and 'others.' Non-greed (無貪, Araga) etc., 'etc.' refers to non-hatred (無瞋, Adosa) and non-delusion (無癡, Amoha). These three are called 'roots' because they produce excellent good. Also because these three unwholesome roots have direct antidotes. What is non-greed? It has the nature of non-attachment to existence and the tools of existence, and its function is to counteract greed and perform good deeds. What is non-hatred? It has the nature of non-resentment towards suffering and the tools of suffering, and its function is to counteract hatred and perform good deeds. When a wholesome mind arises, no matter what realm it is related to, it has no attachment or hatred towards existence etc. Establishing non-greed and non-hatred by observing existence etc. does not necessarily mean relating to them. Just like the previous shame and embarrassment, they are established by observing good and evil. Therefore, these two are universally present in wholesome minds. What is non-delusion? It has the nature of clear understanding of all matters and principles, and its function is to counteract delusion and perform good deeds. Some views hold that non-delusion is wisdom (Prajna) as its nature. The Abhidharmasamuccaya says that non-delusion takes the form of decisive knowledge obtained through retribution, instruction, and realization. Wisdom born from birth, wisdom born from hearing, wisdom born from thinking, and wisdom born from cultivation are all decisive in nature. Although non-delusion is wisdom, in order to show that wholesome qualities have excellent functions, like afflictive views, it is explained separately. Some views hold that non-delusion is not wisdom, but has a separate nature, directly counteracting ignorance (Avidya), just like non-greed and non-hatred, and is included in the wholesome roots. The treatise says that great compassion (Mahakaruna) is included in non-hatred and non-delusion, but not in the roots. If non-delusion has wisdom as its nature, then great compassion should be included in the roots of wisdom etc., like strength etc. Moreover, if non-delusion has no separate nature, like non-harming etc., it should not be a real entity. This would violate the treatise's statement that among the eleven wholesome qualities, the first three are conventional existents, and the rest are real existents. However, the Abhidharmasamuccaya's statement that it takes wisdom as its essence is to show its nature by citing its causes and effects. Just like using patience and joy to represent the self-nature of faith, the principle must be like this. Because greed, hatred, and delusion are associated with the six consciousnesses, are included in the main afflictions, and have a strong power to produce evil, they are established as unwholesome roots. Eliminating them must be done through common and individual antidotes.
通唯善慧。別即三根。由此無癡必應別有。勤謂精進。于善惡品修斷事中勇悍為性。對治懈怠滿善為業。勇表勝進簡諸染法。悍表精純簡凈無記。即顯精進唯善性攝。此相差別略有五種。所謂被甲加行無下無退無足。即經所說有勢有勤有勇堅猛不捨善軛。如次應知。此五別者。謂初發心自分勝進。自分行中三品別故。或初發心長時無間殷重無餘修差別故。或資糧等五道別故。二乘究竟道欣大菩提故。諸佛究竟道樂利樂他故。或二加行無間解脫勝進別故。安謂輕安。遠離粗重調暢身心堪任為性。對治惛沈轉依為業。謂此伏除能障定法令所依止轉安適故。不放逸者精進三根。于所斷修防修為性。對治放逸成滿一切世出世間善事為業。謂即四法于斷修事皆能防修名不放逸。非別有體。無異相故。于防惡事修善事中。離四功能無別用故。雖信慚等亦有此能。而方彼四勢用微劣。非根遍策故非此依。豈不防修是此相用。防修何異精進三根。彼要待此方有作用。此應復待餘便有無窮失。勤唯遍策。根但為依。如何說彼有防修用。汝防修用其相云何。若普依持即無貪等。若遍策錄不異精進。止惡進善即總四法。令不散亂應是等持。令同取境與觸何別。令不忘失即應是念。如是推尋不放逸用。離無貪等竟不可得。故不放逸定無別體。云
【現代漢語翻譯】
通唯善慧（普遍的只有善和智慧）。區別在於有三種根源。因此，無癡（不愚癡）必定是單獨存在的。勤（努力）指的是精進（努力），在修習斷除惡行、修習善行的事務中，以勇猛精進為特性，對治懈怠，圓滿善行作為事業。『勇』表示勝進（殊勝的進步），簡擇各種染污之法。『悍』表示精純，簡擇清凈無記之法。這表明精進唯有善的性質所攝。這種相狀的差別略有五種，即所謂被甲（披甲上陣）、加行（努力修行）、無下（不退墮）、無退（不後退）、無足（不滿足）。也就是經文所說的『有勢、有勤、有勇，堅猛不捨善軛』，應當依次瞭解這五種差別。這五種差別是指：最初發心，在自身中殊勝的進步，在自身修行中三種品類的差別。或者最初發心，長時間不間斷，殷重地、毫無保留地修習的差別。或者資糧道等五道的差別。二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）究竟道欣求大菩提的緣故。諸佛究竟道樂於利益眾生的緣故。或者二種加行（有間加行和無間加行），無間解脫，殊勝進步的差別。安（安適）指的是輕安（身心輕快安適），遠離粗重（沉重），調暢身心，堪能任運為特性，對治惛沈（昏沉），轉變所依為事業。意思是說，輕安能夠降伏、去除障礙禪定的法，使所依止的身體和心意轉為安適。不放逸（不放縱）指的是精進、無貪、無嗔、無癡這三種善根，以在所應斷除的惡行和所應修習的善行上，防護和修習為特性，對治放逸，成就和圓滿一切世間和出世間的善事為事業。意思是說，這四種法在斷除惡行和修習善行的事情上，都能防護和修習，所以稱為不放逸，並非是單獨存在的實體，因為沒有不同的相狀。在防止惡事、修習善事中，離開這四種功能就沒有其他作用。雖然信、慚等也有這種能力，但相比于這四種法，勢用微弱，不是根本的普遍策勵，所以不是不放逸所依。難道防護和修習不是不放逸的相狀和作用嗎？防護和修習與精進、無貪、無嗔、無癡這三種善根有什麼不同？它們要依賴這四種法才能發揮作用，這四種法又應該依賴其他的法，這樣就會有無窮的過失。勤（精進）是普遍的策勵，善根只是作為所依，怎麼能說它們有防護和修習的作用呢？你所說的防護和修習的作用，它的相狀是什麼樣的？如果普遍地依持，那就是無貪等。如果普遍地策勵，那就和精進沒有區別。止惡進善，那就是總括了這四種法。使心不散亂，應該是等持（禪定）。使心同取一境，那和觸（感覺）有什麼區別？使心不忘失，那就應該是念（憶念）。這樣推究尋思，不放逸的作用，離開無貪等，最終是無法得到的。所以不放逸一定沒有單獨的實體。 云（你認為呢）？
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese version: Tong (universal) only includes Shan (goodness) and Hui (wisdom). The distinction lies in having three roots. Therefore, Wu Chi (non-ignorance) must exist separately. Qin (diligence) refers to Jing Jin (effort), characterized by courage and vigor in the practice of abandoning evil deeds and cultivating good deeds, counteracting laziness, and fulfilling good deeds as its purpose. 'Yong' (courage) represents Sheng Jin (superior progress), selecting various defiled dharmas. 'Han' (valor) represents purity, selecting pure and unmarked dharmas. This shows that diligence is only encompassed by the nature of goodness. The differences in this appearance are roughly five types, namely being armored, applying effort, not declining, not retreating, and not being content. That is, the scriptures say 'having power, having diligence, having courage, being firm and not abandoning the yoke of goodness,' which should be understood in this order. These five differences refer to: the initial aspiration, the superior progress in oneself, and the differences in the three categories in one's own practice. Or the difference in the initial aspiration, continuous and uninterrupted for a long time, earnestly and completely cultivating. Or the difference in the five paths such as the path of accumulation. The ultimate path of the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) is due to the joy of seeking great Bodhi. The ultimate path of the Buddhas is due to the joy of benefiting sentient beings. Or the difference between the two applications (intermittent application and uninterrupted application), uninterrupted liberation, and superior progress. An (peace) refers to Qing An (lightness and ease), characterized by being far from heaviness, harmonizing body and mind, and being capable of bearing burdens, counteracting lethargy, and transforming the basis as its purpose. It means that lightness and ease can subdue and remove the dharmas that obstruct meditation, so that the body and mind on which it relies are transformed into comfort. Bu Fang Yi (non-negligence) refers to the three good roots of diligence, non-greed, non-anger, and non-ignorance, characterized by protection and cultivation in the evil deeds that should be abandoned and the good deeds that should be cultivated, counteracting negligence, and accomplishing and fulfilling all worldly and transcendental good deeds as its purpose. It means that these four dharmas can protect and cultivate in the matters of abandoning evil deeds and cultivating good deeds, so they are called non-negligence, and it is not a separate entity because there is no different appearance. In preventing evil deeds and cultivating good deeds, there is no other function apart from these four functions. Although faith, shame, etc. also have this ability, compared to these four dharmas, their power is weak, and they are not the fundamental universal encouragement, so they are not the basis of non-negligence. Isn't protection and cultivation the appearance and function of non-negligence? What is the difference between protection and cultivation and the three good roots of diligence, non-greed, non-anger, and non-ignorance? They must rely on these four dharmas to function, and these four dharmas should rely on other dharmas, so there will be infinite faults. Diligence (effort) is a universal encouragement, and the good roots are only the basis, so how can it be said that they have the function of protection and cultivation? What is the appearance of the function of protection and cultivation that you speak of? If it is universally relied upon, then it is non-greed, etc. If it is universally encouraged, then it is no different from diligence. Stopping evil and advancing good, that is, summarizing these four dharmas. Making the mind not distracted should be Samadhi (concentration). Making the mind take the same object, what is the difference from Sparsha (contact)? Making the mind not forget should be Smriti (mindfulness). In this way, after investigating and thinking, the function of non-negligence, apart from non-greed, etc., is ultimately unattainable. Therefore, non-negligence certainly has no separate entity. What do you think?
何行捨。精進三根令心平等正直無功用住為性。對治掉舉靜住為業。謂即四法令心遠離掉舉等障靜住名捨。平等正直無功用住。初中後位辯捨差別。由不放逸先除雜染。捨復令心寂靜而住。此無別體如不放逸。離彼四法無相用故。能令寂靜即四法故。所令寂靜即心等故。云何不害。于諸有情不為損惱無瞋為性。能對治害悲愍為業。謂即無瞋于有情所不為損惱假名不害。無瞋翻對斷物命瞋。不害正違損惱物害。無瞋與樂不害拔苦。是謂此二粗相差別。理實無瞋實有自體。不害依彼一分假立。為顯慈悲二相別故。利樂有情彼二勝故。有說不害非即無瞋別有自體。謂賢善性。此相云何。謂不損惱。無瞋亦爾。寧別有性。謂于有情不為損惱慈悲賢善是無瞋故。及顯十一義別心所。謂欣厭等善心所法。雖義有別說種種名。而體無異故不別立。欣謂欲俱無瞋一分。于所欣境不憎恚故。不忿恨惱嫉等亦然。隨應正翻瞋一分故。厭謂慧俱無貪一分。于所厭境不染著故。不慳憍等當知亦然。隨應正翻貪一分故。不覆誑諂無貪癡一分。隨應正翻貪癡一分故。有義不覆唯無癡一分。無處說覆亦貪一分故。有義不慢信一分攝。謂若信彼不慢彼故。有義不慢捨一分攝。心平等者不高慢故。有義不慢慚一分攝。若崇重彼不慢彼故。有義不疑即信所攝
【現代漢語翻譯】
何為捨（upekṣā，平靜）？以精進三根（三種善的心理因素：無貪、無瞋、無癡）令心平等正直，安住于無功用狀態為自性。以對治掉舉（uddhacca，躁動）而令心靜止為作用。也就是說，正是這四法（即前述的信、精進、捨、輕安）令心遠離掉舉等障礙，靜止不動，這被稱為捨。平等正直地安住于無功用狀態。在初、中、後三個階段，捨的作用有所不同。由於不放逸（apramāda，精勤）首先清除了雜染，捨才能進一步使心寂靜安住。捨沒有獨立的自體，就像不放逸一樣，離開前述四法，就沒有作用。能令心寂靜的就是這四法，所令寂靜的就是心等。 何為不害（avihiṃsā，非暴力）？對於一切有情不造成損害和惱亂，以無瞋（adveṣa，無嗔恨）為自性。能夠對治傷害，以悲憫為作用。也就是說，正是這無瞋，對於有情不造成損害和惱亂，這被假名為不害。無瞋是斷除嗔恨的對治法，不害則直接違背了損惱和傷害。無瞋是給予快樂，不害則是拔除痛苦。這就是這兩者粗略的區別。實際上，無瞋具有真實的自體，而不害是依其一部分而假立的，這是爲了顯示慈（maitrī，慈愛）和悲（karuṇā，悲憫）二者的區別，因為利樂有情是這二者的殊勝之處。 有人說，不害並非就是無瞋，而是具有獨立的自體，被稱為賢善性。這種賢善性的相狀是什麼呢？就是不損惱。無瞋也是如此，難道還需要有獨立的自性嗎？因為對於有情不造成損害和惱亂，慈悲和賢善都是無瞋的體現。以及爲了顯示十一義不同的心所（citta-samprayukta-dharma，與心相應的心理現象）。也就是說，欣（abhinandana，歡喜）、厭（atikramaṇa，厭惡）等善心所法，雖然意義有所不同，而有種種不同的名稱，但其體性並沒有差異，因此不必單獨設立。欣是與欲（chanda，意欲）俱生的，是無瞋的一部分，因為對於所歡喜的境，不會憎恨。不忿（akrodha，不忿怒）、不恨（upekṣā，不怨恨）、不惱（anupanāha，不惱怒）、不嫉（īrṣyā，不嫉妒）等也是如此，應當根據情況正確地理解為是瞋恨的一部分。厭是與慧（prajñā，智慧）俱生的，是無貪（alobha，無貪婪）的一部分，因為對於所厭惡的境，不會染著。不慳（mātsarya，不吝嗇）、不憍（mada，不驕傲）等也應當知道是如此，應當根據情況正確地理解為是貪婪的一部分。不覆（ahrīka，無慚）、不誑（śāṭhya，虛偽）、不諂（māyā，諂媚）是無貪和無癡（amoha，無癡）的一部分，應當根據情況正確地理解為是貪婪和愚癡的一部分。有人認為，不覆只是無癡的一部分，因為沒有地方說覆也是貪婪的一部分。有人認為，不慢（amāna，不驕慢）是信（śraddhā，信仰）的一部分，因為如果相信對方，就不會輕慢對方。有人認為，不慢是捨的一部分，因為心平等的人不會高慢。有人認為，不慢是慚（hrī，慚愧）的一部分，如果崇敬對方，就不會輕慢對方。有人認為，不疑（aśraddhā，不懷疑）就是信所包含的。
【English Translation】 What is upekṣā (equanimity)? It has the characteristic of dwelling in a state of non-striving, with the mind being equal, upright, and correct, due to the effort of the three roots of goodness (alobha [non-attachment], adveṣa [non-hatred], and amoha [non-ignorance]). Its function is to pacify the mind by counteracting uddhacca (restlessness). That is to say, it is precisely these four dharmas (namely, the aforementioned śraddhā [faith], virya [effort], upekṣā [equanimity], and praśrabdhi [ease]) that cause the mind to be far from obstacles such as restlessness, and to dwell in stillness, which is called upekṣā. Dwelling equally, uprightly, and without effort. The function of upekṣā differs in the initial, middle, and later stages. Because apramāda (diligence) first removes impurities, upekṣā can further cause the mind to dwell in tranquility. Upekṣā does not have an independent self-nature, just like apramāda; without the aforementioned four dharmas, it has no function. It is these four dharmas that can cause the mind to be tranquil, and what is made tranquil is the mind, etc. What is avihiṃsā (non-harming)? It has the characteristic of not causing harm or disturbance to all sentient beings, with adveṣa (non-hatred) as its self-nature. It is able to counteract harm, and its function is compassion. That is to say, it is precisely this adveṣa that does not cause harm or disturbance to sentient beings, which is nominally called avihiṃsā. Adveṣa is the antidote to cutting off hatred, while avihiṃsā directly contradicts harming and disturbing. Adveṣa is giving happiness, while avihiṃsā is removing suffering. These are the rough differences between the two. In reality, adveṣa has a real self-nature, while avihiṃsā is nominally established based on a part of it. This is to show the difference between maitrī (loving-kindness) and karuṇā (compassion), because benefiting and bringing joy to sentient beings is the excellence of these two. Some say that avihiṃsā is not just adveṣa, but has an independent self-nature, called virtuous nature. What is the characteristic of this virtuous nature? It is non-harming. Adveṣa is also like this, so does it need to have an independent self-nature? Because it does not cause harm or disturbance to sentient beings, loving-kindness, compassion, and virtuousness are all manifestations of adveṣa. And to show the eleven citta-samprayukta-dharmas (mental factors associated with the mind) with different meanings. That is to say, abhinandana (joy), atikramaṇa (aversion), etc., are wholesome mental factors, although the meanings are different, and there are various different names, but their nature is not different, so there is no need to establish them separately. Abhinandana is co-arisen with chanda (desire), and is a part of adveṣa, because one does not hate the object of joy. Akrodha (non-anger), upekṣā (non-resentment), anupanāha (non-annoyance), īrṣyā (non-jealousy), etc., are also like this, and should be correctly understood as a part of hatred according to the situation. Atikramaṇa is co-arisen with prajñā (wisdom), and is a part of alobha (non-attachment), because one does not become attached to the object of aversion. Mātsarya (stinginess), mada (pride), etc., should also be known to be like this, and should be correctly understood as a part of greed according to the situation. Ahrīka (shamelessness), śāṭhya (deceit), and māyā (hypocrisy) are a part of alobha and amoha (non-ignorance), and should be correctly understood as a part of greed and ignorance according to the situation. Some believe that ahrīka is only a part of amoha, because there is nowhere that says that covering is also a part of greed. Some believe that amāna (non-conceit) is included in śraddhā (faith), because if one believes in the other, one will not be conceited towards the other. Some believe that amāna is a part of upekṣā, because a person with an equal mind will not be arrogant. Some believe that amāna is a part of hrī (shame), because if one respects the other, one will not be conceited towards the other. Some believe that aśraddhā (non-belief) is included in śraddhā.
。謂若信彼無猶豫故。有義不疑即正勝解。以決定者無猶豫故。有義不疑即正慧攝。以正見者無猶豫故。不散亂體即正定攝。正見正知俱善慧攝。不忘念者即是正念。悔眠尋伺通染不染。如觸欲等無別翻對。何緣諸染所翻善中有別建立有不爾者。相用別者便別立之。餘善不然故不應責。又諸染法遍六識者。勝故翻之別立善法。慢等忿等唯意識俱。害雖亦然。而數現起損惱他故。障無上乘勝因悲故。爲了知彼增上過失。翻立不害。失念散亂及不正知。翻入別境。善中不說。染凈相翻凈寧少染。凈勝染劣少敵多故。又解理通說多同體。迷情事局隨相分多。故於染凈不應齊責。此十一法。三是假有。謂不放逸捨及不害。義如前說。餘八實有相用別故。有義十一。四遍善心。精進三根遍善品故。餘七不定。推尋事理未決定時不生信故。慚愧同類依處各別。隨起一時第二無故。要世間道斷煩惱時有輕安故。不放逸捨無漏道時方得起故。悲愍有情時乃有不害故。論說十一六位中起。謂決定位有信相應。止息染時有慚愧起。顧自他故。于善品位有精進三根。世間道時有輕安起。于出世道有捨不放逸。攝眾生時有不害故。有義彼說未為應理。推尋事理未決定。心信若不生應非是善。如染心等無凈信故。慚愧類異。依別境同。俱遍善心前
【現代漢語翻譯】
有人說，因為相信那些（佛法）而沒有猶豫，所以沒有懷疑就是真正的勝解（adhimoksha，殊勝的理解）。因為已經決定的人不會再猶豫。有人說，沒有懷疑就是屬於正慧（samyag-jnana，正確的智慧）的範疇，因為有正確見解的人不會猶豫。不散亂的狀態屬於正定（samyak-samadhi，正確的禪定）的範疇。正確的見解和正確的認知都屬於善慧（kusala-jnana，善良的智慧）的範疇。不忘記念頭就是正念（samyak-smrti，正確的念頭）。後悔、睡眠、尋伺（vitarka，粗略的思考；vicara，精細的思考）既可以是染污的也可以是不染污的，就像觸、欲等，沒有特別相反的對應物。 為什麼所有染污所對應的善法中，有些被特別建立，有些卻沒有呢？如果（善法和染污法）的體相和作用不同，就特別建立它。其他的善法不是這樣，所以不應該責難。而且，那些遍及六識的染污法，因為它們的力量強大，所以通過特別建立善法來翻轉它們。傲慢等、忿怒等只與意識（manas-vijnana，末那識）同時存在。危害雖然也是這樣，但它經常出現，損害和惱亂他人。因為（嗔恚）會障礙無上乘（anuttara-yana，無上的乘法）殊勝的原因——慈悲，爲了瞭解那些增長的過失，所以建立不害（avihimsa，不傷害）。失念、散亂和不正知，通過進入不同的境界來翻轉它們，在善法中沒有提到。染污和清凈相互翻轉，清凈寧可少一些，染污多一些。清凈殊勝，染污低劣，因為少數能敵對多數。而且，理解道理是普遍的，所以說多數是同一種體性。迷惑于情事是侷限的，隨著現象而有多種區分。所以在染污和清凈方面不應該同樣責難。 這十一種法，有三種是假有（prajnapti-sat，假名安立的存在），即不放逸（apramada，精進）、捨（upeksha，捨棄）和不害。它們的含義如前所述。其餘八種是實有（dravya-sat，實體存在），因為它們的體相和作用不同。有人說，這十一種法，有四種遍及善心（kusala-citta，善良的心），因為精進和三種善根（無貪、無嗔、無癡）遍及善的品類。其餘七種是不定的。在推尋事理而沒有決定的時候，不會產生信心（sraddha，信仰），因為沒有凈信的緣故，如同染污的心等。慚愧（hri，慚；apatrapya，愧）種類不同，所依賴的境界相同，都遍及善心，在前一剎那生起時，第二剎那不會再生起。當用世間道（laukika-marga，世俗的道）斷除煩惱的時候，才會有輕安（prasrabdhi，輕快安樂）產生。只有在無漏道（anasrava-marga，沒有煩惱的道）的時候，才能生起不放逸和捨。只有在悲憫有情（sattva，眾生）的時候，才會有不害產生。論典說，這十一種法在六個位次中生起，即在決定位有信心相應，在止息染污的時候有慚愧生起，因為顧及自己和他人。在善的品類位次中有精進和三種善根，在世間道的時候有輕安生起，在出世間道（lokottara-marga，超越世間的道）的時候有捨和不放逸，在攝受眾生的時候有不害。 有人說，那樣的說法並不合理。在推尋事理而沒有決定的時候，如果信心不生起，就不應該是善的，如同染污的心等，因為沒有清凈的信心的緣故。慚愧種類不同，所依賴的境界相同，都遍及善心，在前一剎那生起。
【English Translation】 It is said that because of believing in those (Dharma) without hesitation, the absence of doubt is true adhimoksha (superior understanding). Because those who have decided do not hesitate. Some say that the absence of doubt is included in samyag-jnana (correct wisdom), because those with correct views do not hesitate. The state of non-distraction is included in samyak-samadhi (correct concentration). Correct view and correct knowledge are both included in kusala-jnana (wholesome wisdom). Not forgetting thoughts is samyak-smrti (correct mindfulness). Regret, sleep, vitarka (gross thought), and vicara (subtle thought) can be either defiled or undefiled, just like contact, desire, etc., without any specifically opposite counterparts. Why are some of the wholesome dharmas that correspond to all defilements specifically established, while others are not? If the characteristics and functions (of wholesome and defiled dharmas) are different, then it is specifically established. Other wholesome dharmas are not like this, so it should not be criticized. Moreover, those defiled dharmas that pervade the six consciousnesses are overturned by specifically establishing wholesome dharmas because of their strength. Pride, anger, etc., only exist simultaneously with manas-vijnana (mind consciousness). Harm is also like this, but it often appears, harming and disturbing others. Because (anger) obstructs the supreme cause of anuttara-yana (unsurpassed vehicle)—compassion, in order to understand those increasing faults, avihimsa (non-harming) is established. Loss of mindfulness, distraction, and incorrect knowledge are overturned by entering different realms, which are not mentioned in wholesome dharmas. Defilement and purity overturn each other; purity would rather be less, and defilement more. Purity is superior, and defilement is inferior, because the few can oppose the many. Moreover, understanding the principle is universal, so it is said that the majority is of the same nature. Being deluded by emotional matters is limited, with many distinctions according to phenomena. Therefore, one should not equally criticize defilement and purity. Of these eleven dharmas, three are prajnapti-sat (provisionally existent), namely apramada (diligence), upeksha (equanimity), and avihimsa. Their meanings are as previously stated. The remaining eight are dravya-sat (substantially existent) because their characteristics and functions are different. Some say that these eleven dharmas, four of them pervade the wholesome mind (kusala-citta), because diligence and the three wholesome roots (non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion) pervade the category of wholesome. The remaining seven are indefinite. When investigating matters and principles without making a decision, sraddha (faith) will not arise, because there is no pure faith, like defiled minds, etc. Hri (shame) and apatrapya (embarrassment) are different in kind, but the realms they rely on are the same, both pervading the wholesome mind, and when they arise in the previous moment, they will not arise again in the second moment. When using the laukika-marga (worldly path) to cut off afflictions, prasrabdhi (ease and pliancy) will arise. Only in the anasrava-marga (untainted path) can diligence and equanimity arise. Only when having compassion for sattva (sentient beings) will non-harming arise. The treatise says that these eleven dharmas arise in six stages, namely, faith corresponds in the decision stage, shame and embarrassment arise when stopping defilement, because of considering oneself and others. In the category of wholesome stages, there are diligence and the three wholesome roots, ease and pliancy arise in the worldly path, equanimity and diligence arise in the lokottara-marga (transcendental path), and non-harming arises when embracing sentient beings. Some say that such a statement is not reasonable. When investigating matters and principles without making a decision, if faith does not arise, it should not be wholesome, like defiled minds, etc., because there is no pure faith. Shame and embarrassment are different in kind, but the realms they rely on are the same, both pervading the wholesome mind, and arising in the previous moment.
已說故。若出世道輕安不生。應此覺支非無漏故。若世間道無捨不放逸。應非寂靜防惡修善故。又應不伏掉放逸故。有漏善心既具四法。如出世道。應有二故。善心起時皆不損物。違能損法有不害故。論說六位起十一者。依彼彼增作此此說故。彼所說定非應理。應說信等十一法中。十遍善心。輕安不遍。要在定位方有輕安。調暢身心餘位無故。抉擇分說十善心所定不定地皆遍善心。定地心中增輕安故。有義定加行亦得定地名。彼亦微有調暢義故。由斯欲界亦有輕安。不爾便違本地分說信等十一通一切地。有義輕安唯在定有。由定滋養有調暢故。論說欲界諸心心所。由闕輕安名不定地。說一切地有十一者。通有尋伺等三地皆有故。此十一種前已具說第七八識隨位有無。第六識中定位皆具。若非定位唯闕輕安。有義五識唯有十種。自性散動無輕安故。有義五識亦有輕安。定所引善者亦有調暢故。成所作智俱必有輕安故。此善十一何受相應。十五相應。一除憂苦。有逼迫受無調暢故。此與別境皆得相應。信等欲等不相違故。十一唯善。輕安非欲。餘通三界。皆學等三。非見所斷。瑜伽論說信等六根唯修所斷非見所斷。餘門分別如理應思。如是已說善位心所。煩惱心所其相云何。頌曰。
１２ 煩惱謂貪瞋
癡慢疑惡見
論曰。此貪等六性是根本煩惱攝故。得煩惱名。云何為貪。于有有具染著為性。能障無貪生苦為業。謂由愛力取蘊生故。云何為瞋于苦苦具憎恚為性。能障無瞋不安隱性惡行所依為業。謂瞋必令身心熱惱起諸惡業。不善性故。云何為癡。于諸理事迷闇為性。能障無癡一切雜染所依為業。謂由無明起疑邪見貪等煩惱隨煩惱業。能招後生雜染法故。云何為慢。恃己於他高舉為性。能障不慢生苦為業。謂若有慢于德有德心不謙下。由此生死輪轉無窮受諸苦故。此慢差別有七九種。謂於三品我德處生。一切皆通見修所斷。聖位我慢既得現行。慢類由斯起亦無失。云何為疑于諸諦理猶豫為性。能障不疑善品為業。謂猶豫者善不生故。有義此疑以慧為體。猶豫簡擇說為疑故。毗助末底是疑義故。末底般若義無異故。有義此疑別有自體。令慧不決。非即慧故。瑜伽論說六煩惱中見世俗有。即慧分故。餘是實有。別有性故。毗助末底執慧為疑。毗助若南智應為識。界由助力義便轉變。是故此疑非慧為體。云何惡見。于諸諦理顛倒推求度染慧為性。能障善見招苦為業。謂惡見者多受苦故。此見行相差別有五。一薩迦耶見。謂於五取蘊執我我所。一切見趣所依為業。此見差別有二十句六十五等。分別起攝。二邊執見。謂
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 癡慢疑惡見
論述：貪婪等六種性質屬於根本煩惱，因此被稱為煩惱。什麼是貪婪？對於存在的事物和存在的工具產生染著，是貪婪的本質。它能夠阻礙無貪的產生，並帶來痛苦。這是因為由於愛的力量，導致了五蘊的產生。
什麼是嗔恨？對於痛苦和痛苦的工具產生憎恨，是嗔恨的本質。它能夠阻礙無嗔的產生，導致不安穩，是惡行的根源。這是因為嗔恨必然導致身心煩熱，引發各種惡業，因為它是不善的性質。
什麼是愚癡？對於各種事理產生迷惑和昏暗，是愚癡的本質。它能夠阻礙無癡的產生，是一切雜染的根源。這是因為由於無明，產生了疑惑、邪見、貪婪等煩惱和隨煩惱業，能夠招致後世的雜染之法。
什麼是傲慢？憑藉自己而對他人高舉，是傲慢的本質。它能夠阻礙不慢的產生，並帶來痛苦。這是因為如果有人傲慢，對於有德之人或有德之事，內心不謙虛，因此在生死輪迴中無休止地遭受各種痛苦。傲慢的差別有七種或九種，即在三品（上、中、下）的我德之處產生。一切傲慢都通於見道和修道所斷。即使聖位上的我慢已經顯現，由它引起的傲慢種類也不會消失。
什麼是疑惑？對於各種真諦道理產生猶豫，是疑惑的本質。它能夠阻礙不疑的產生，阻礙善品的產生。這是因為猶豫不決的人，善法無法生起。有一種觀點認為，疑惑以智慧為體性，因為猶豫和簡擇被稱為疑惑。『毗助末底』（Vicikitsa，懷疑）是疑惑的意思，『末底』（mati，智慧）和『般若』（prajna，智慧）的意義沒有區別。另一種觀點認為，疑惑有其自身的體性，使智慧無法決斷，而不是智慧本身。瑜伽論說，六種煩惱中的見是世俗存在的，是智慧的一部分。其餘的是真實存在的，有其自身的體性。『毗助末底』（Vicikitsa，懷疑）執著于智慧作為疑惑，『毗助若南』（Vicikitsa-jnana，懷疑智）應該作為識。界限由於助力的意義而轉變。因此，疑惑不是智慧的體性。
什麼是惡見？對於各種真諦道理顛倒推求，以染污的智慧為本質。它能夠阻礙善見，招致痛苦。這是因為持有惡見的人，會遭受更多的痛苦。這種見的行相差別有五種：一是薩迦耶見（Satkayadristi，有身見），即對於五取蘊（Panca-upadanaskandha）執著為我或我所。是一切見趣所依賴的根源。這種見的差別有二十句或六十五種等，由分別而生起。二是邊執見（Antagrahadristi，邊見），即執著于...
【English Translation】 English version Delusion, Pride, Doubt, and Wrong Views
Treatise: These six natures, such as greed, are included in the fundamental afflictions, hence they are called afflictions. What is greed? It is characterized by attachment to existing things and the tools for existence. It can obstruct the arising of non-greed and cause suffering. This is because the aggregates (skandhas) arise due to the power of love.
What is hatred? It is characterized by hatred towards suffering and the tools of suffering. It can obstruct the arising of non-hatred, lead to instability, and is the basis of evil deeds. This is because hatred inevitably causes mental and physical distress, leading to various evil actions, as it is of an unwholesome nature.
What is delusion? It is characterized by confusion and darkness regarding various principles and matters. It can obstruct the arising of non-delusion and is the basis of all defilements. This is because ignorance gives rise to doubts, wrong views, greed, and other afflictions and accompanying afflictions, which can lead to defiled dharmas in future lives.
What is pride? It is characterized by exalting oneself over others. It can obstruct the arising of non-pride and cause suffering. This is because if someone is proud and does not have humility towards those who are virtuous or have virtue, they will endlessly suffer in the cycle of birth and death. There are seven or nine types of pride, arising from the self-esteem in the three grades (superior, medium, inferior). All pride can be severed by the path of seeing and the path of cultivation. Even if self-pride has manifested in the state of a sage, the types of pride arising from it will not disappear.
What is doubt? It is characterized by hesitation regarding various truths. It can obstruct the arising of non-doubt and obstruct wholesome qualities. This is because those who hesitate cannot generate good dharmas. One view is that doubt has wisdom as its nature, because hesitation and discernment are called doubt. 'Vicikitsa' (doubt) means doubt, and there is no difference in the meaning of 'mati' (wisdom) and 'prajna' (wisdom). Another view is that doubt has its own nature, making wisdom unable to decide, and is not wisdom itself. The Yoga-sastra says that the views among the six afflictions are worldly existences and are part of wisdom. The rest are real existences and have their own nature. 'Vicikitsa' clings to wisdom as doubt, and 'Vicikitsa-jnana' (doubtful wisdom) should be regarded as consciousness. The boundary changes due to the meaning of assistance. Therefore, doubt is not the nature of wisdom.
What are wrong views? They are characterized by inverted pursuit of various truths, with defiled wisdom as their essence. They can obstruct right views and cause suffering. This is because those who hold wrong views will suffer more. There are five types of differences in the characteristics of these views: First, Satkayadristi (view of self), which is the attachment to the five aggregates (Panca-upadanaskandha) as self or what belongs to self. It is the basis upon which all views rely. There are twenty sentences or sixty-five kinds of differences in this view, arising from discrimination. Second, Antagrahadristi (view of extremes), which is the attachment to...
即于彼隨執斷常。障處中行出離為業。此見差別諸見趣中有執前際四遍常論一分常論。及計後際有想十六無想俱非各有八論。七斷滅論等。分別趣攝。三邪見。謂謗因果作用實事。及非四見諸餘邪執。如增上緣名義遍故。此見差別諸見趣中有執前際二無因論四有邊等不死矯亂。及計後際五現涅槃。或計自在世主釋梵及餘物類常恒不易。或計自在等是一切物因。或有橫計諸邪解脫。或有妄執非道為道。諸如是等皆邪見攝。四見取。謂于諸見及所依蘊。執為最勝能得清凈。一切斗諍所依為業。五戒禁取。謂于隨順諸見戒禁及所依蘊。執為最勝能得清凈。無利勤苦所依為業。然有處說執為最勝名為見取。執能得凈名戒取者。是影略說。或隨轉門。不爾如何非滅計滅非道計道說為邪見。非二取攝。
如是總別十煩惱中。六通俱生及分別起。任運思察俱得生故。疑後三見唯分別起。要由惡友或邪教力自審思察方得生故。邊執見中通俱生者。有義唯斷。常見相粗惡友等力方引生故。瑜伽等說。何邊執見是俱生耶。謂斷見攝。學現觀者起如是怖。今者我我何所在耶。故禽獸等若遇違緣皆恐我斷而起驚怖。有義彼論依粗相說。理實俱生亦通常見。謂禽獸等執我常存。熾然聚集長時資具。故顯揚等諸論。皆說於五取蘊執斷計常。或
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 即于彼隨所執著而有斷見和常見。其作用是障礙修行者于中道而行，以出離為目標。此種見解的差別在於，在各種見解的趨向中，有執著於前際的四種遍常論和一種一分常論，以及計度後際的有想十六論、無想八論和非有想非無想八論，以上種種都屬於分別趣所攝。 三種邪見，是指誹謗因果、作用和實事，以及不屬於四見的各種其他邪執。正如增上緣的名義普遍存在一樣。這種見解的差別在於，在各種見解的趨向中，有執著於前際的二種無因論和四種有邊等不死矯亂論，以及計度後際的五種現涅槃論。或者計度自在天（Ishvara，印度教主神之一）、世主（Prajapati，創造之神）、釋天（Shakra，帝釋天）和梵天（Brahma，大梵天）以及其他物類是常恒不變的。或者計度自在天等是一切物的起因。或者有人橫生計度各種邪解脫。或者有人虛妄地執著非道為道。諸如此類的都屬於邪見所攝。 四種見取，是指對於各種見解以及作為見解所依之蘊，執著為最殊勝，認為能夠由此得到清凈。其作用是一切鬥爭的根源。 五種戒禁取，是指對於隨順各種見解的戒禁以及作為戒禁所依之蘊，執著為最殊勝，認為能夠由此得到清凈。其作用是徒勞無益的勤苦的根源。 然而，有些地方說執著為最殊勝的稱為見取，執著能夠得到清凈的稱為戒禁取，這是一種簡略的說法，或者隨順於轉變之門。否則，如果把非滅計為滅，非道計為道，說成是邪見，而不是屬於見取和戒禁取，又該如何解釋呢？ 如此總括和分別十種煩惱中，六種（貪、嗔、慢、無明、疑、不正見）通於俱生和分別而起。因為任運思察和審察思察都能生起這些煩惱。疑和後三種見（邪見、見取、戒禁取）唯有分別而起。必須通過惡友或者邪教的力量，自己審察思察才能生起這些煩惱。邊執見中通於俱生的情況，有一種觀點認為只有斷見。因為常見的相狀粗顯，需要惡友等的力量才能引發。瑜伽行派的論典等說，什麼樣的邊執見是俱生的呢？是指斷見所攝。學習現觀的人會生起這樣的恐懼：『現在的我，我會在哪裡呢？』所以禽獸等如果遇到違逆的因緣，都會恐懼我斷滅而產生驚怖。有一種觀點認為，那些論典是依據粗顯的相狀而說的。理實上，俱生的也通常是常見。比如禽獸等執著我常存，熾盛地聚集長時的資具。所以《顯揚聖教論》等各種論典都說，對於五取蘊執著斷滅和計度常存，或者...
【English Translation】 English version Clinging to permanence or annihilation based on one's attachments, hindering progress on the Middle Way and obstructing liberation. The distinctions in these views lie in the various tendencies of thought. Some cling to past existences with four theories of eternalism and one theory of partial eternalism. Others speculate about future existences with sixteen theories of perception, eight theories of non-perception, and eight theories of neither perception nor non-perception. All these fall under the category of 'discriminative tendencies'. Three types of wrong views: Denying cause and effect, actions, and reality, as well as various other wrong beliefs not included in the four views. Just as the meaning of 'condition' (hetu-pratyaya) is pervasive. The distinctions in these views lie in the various tendencies of thought. Some cling to past existences with two theories of causelessness and four theories of finite existence, as well as evasive and confused doctrines about immortality. Others speculate about future existences with five theories of present nirvana. Or they believe that Ishvara (自在天, a Hindu deity), Prajapati (世主, creator god), Shakra (釋天, Indra), Brahma (梵天, the god Brahma), and other beings are eternal and unchanging. Or they believe that Ishvara and others are the cause of all things. Or some arbitrarily conceive of wrong liberations. Or some falsely believe that the wrong path is the right path. All such views are included in wrong views. Clinging to views: Holding one's own views and the aggregates (skandhas) on which they are based as the most superior and capable of attaining purity. Its function is to be the basis of all disputes and conflicts. Clinging to precepts and vows: Holding precepts and vows that accord with one's views, and the aggregates on which they are based, as the most superior and capable of attaining purity. Its function is to be the basis of fruitless and painful efforts. However, some texts say that holding something as the most superior is called 'clinging to views' (dṛṣṭi-parāmarśa), and holding that something can attain purity is called 'clinging to precepts' (śīla-vrata-parāmarśa). This is an abbreviated explanation or follows the path of transformation. Otherwise, how can we explain that considering non-cessation as cessation and the wrong path as the right path are described as wrong views, and not included in clinging to views and clinging to precepts? Thus, among the ten afflictions (kleśas), both collectively and individually, six (greed, hatred, pride, ignorance, doubt, and wrong views) arise both innately and through discrimination. This is because both spontaneous reflection and deliberate examination can give rise to these afflictions. Doubt and the last three views (wrong views, clinging to views, and clinging to precepts) arise only through discrimination. They can only arise through the power of bad friends or wrong teachings, and through one's own examination and reflection. Among clinging to extreme views, one view holds that only annihilationism is innate. This is because the appearance of eternalism is coarse, and it requires the power of bad friends and other factors to arise. The Yogacara school and others say, 'Which clinging to extreme views is innate?' It refers to annihilationism. Those who study direct perception (abhisaṃaya) develop such fear: 'Where will I, the self, be now?' Therefore, animals and other beings, when faced with adverse conditions, fear the annihilation of the self and become terrified. One view holds that those texts speak according to the coarse appearance. In reality, innate clinging is also usually eternalism. For example, animals and other beings believe that the self is permanent and diligently accumulate resources for a long time. Therefore, the Explanation of the Compendium of Abhidharma (Abhidharmasamuccaya) and other texts all say that one clings to annihilation or believes in permanence with regard to the five aggregates (pañcaskandha), or...
是俱生或分別起。此十煩惱誰幾相應。貪與瞋癡定不俱起。愛憎二境必不同故。于境不決無染著故。貪與慢見或得相應。所愛所陵境非一故說不俱起。所染所恃境可同故說得相應。於五見境皆可愛故。貪與五見相應無失。瞋與慢疑或得俱起。所瞋所恃境非一故說不相應。所蔑所憎境可同故說得俱起。初猶豫時未憎彼故說不俱起。久思不決便憤發故說得相應。疑順違事隨應亦爾。瞋與二取必不相應。執為勝道不憎彼故。此與三見或得相應。于有樂蘊起身常見。不生憎故說不相應。于有苦蘊起身常見。生憎恚故說得俱起。斷見翻此說瞋有無。邪見誹撥惡事好事。如次說瞋或無或有。慢于境定疑則不然。故慢與疑無相應義。慢與五見皆容俱起。行相展轉不相違故。然與斷見必不俱生。執我斷時無陵恃故。與身邪見一分亦爾。疑不審決與見相違。故疑與見定不俱起。五見展轉必不相應。非一心中有多慧故。癡與九種皆定相應。諸煩惱生必由癡故。此十煩惱何識相應。藏識全無末那有四。意識具十。五識唯三。謂貪瞋癡。無分別故。由稱量等起慢等故。此十煩惱何受相應。貪瞋癡三俱生分別。一切容與五受相應。貪會違緣憂苦俱故。瞋遇順境喜樂俱故。有義俱生分別起慢。容與非苦四受相應。恃苦劣蘊憂相應故。
有義俱
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 是俱生（sahaja，與生俱來的）或分別起（parikalpita，後天產生的）？這十種煩惱（klesha，精神上的痛苦）分別與哪些相應？ 貪（raga，貪婪）與瞋（dvesha，憎恨）、癡（moha，愚癡）必定不會同時生起。因為愛和憎的對象必然不同。對於某個對象，如果猶豫不決，就不會產生染著。 貪與慢（mana，傲慢）、見（drishti，錯誤的見解）或許會相應。因為所愛和所輕視的對象並非只有一個，所以說不會同時生起。所染著和所依賴的對象可能相同，所以說可以相應。對於五見（五種錯誤的見解）的對象，都可以產生愛，所以貪與五見相應沒有問題。 瞋與慢、疑（vicikitsa，懷疑）或許會同時生起。因為所憎恨和所輕視的對象並非只有一個，所以說不相應。所輕蔑和所憎恨的對象可能相同，所以說可以同時生起。最初猶豫的時候，還沒有憎恨對方，所以說不會同時生起。長時間思索無法決定，就會憤恨爆發，所以說可以相應。對於順境和逆境的懷疑，也應該這樣理解。 瞋與斷見（uccheda-drishti，認為生命死後斷滅的見解）、常見（sasvata-drishti，認為生命永恒存在的見解）必定不會相應。因為執著于某種事物是殊勝的道路，就不會憎恨它。瞋與三見（身見、邊見、邪見）或許會相應。對於有樂蘊（sukha-skandha，快樂的蘊）而生起身見（satkaya-drishti，認為五蘊和合的身體是真實的我），不會產生憎恨，所以說不相應。對於有苦蘊（duhkha-skandha，痛苦的蘊）而生起身見，產生憎恨，所以說可以同時生起。斷見的情況與此相反，說明瞋的有無。邪見（mithya-drishti，否認因果的見解）誹謗惡事好事，依次說明瞋的有無。 慢對於對象是確定的，懷疑則不然。所以慢與疑沒有相應的意義。慢與五見都可能同時生起。因為行相輾轉不相違背。然而與斷見必定不會同時生起。執著於我斷滅的時候，沒有可以輕視和依賴的對象。與身見、邪見的一部分也是如此。懷疑是不審慎的決斷，與見解相違背。所以懷疑與見解必定不會同時生起。五見之間必定不會相應。因為一個心中不會有多種智慧。 癡與九種煩惱都必定相應。因為各種煩惱的產生必定由癡所導致。這十種煩惱與哪些識相應？藏識（alaya-vijnana，阿賴耶識）完全沒有，末那識（manas，末那識）有四種，意識（manovijnana，意識）具有全部十種，五識（panca-vijnana，眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）只有三種，即貪、瞋、癡。因為沒有分別的緣故。由於稱量等而生起慢等煩惱。 這十種煩惱與哪些受（vedana，感受）相應？俱生（sahaja，與生俱來的）和分別起（parikalpita，後天產生的）的貪、瞋、癡三種煩惱，都可能與五受（五種感受，即苦、樂、喜、憂、捨）相應。貪會遇到違逆的因緣，所以與憂、苦相應。瞋會遇到順遂的境遇，所以與喜、樂相應。有觀點認為，俱生和分別起的慢，可能與非苦的四種感受相應。因為輕視痛苦的劣等蘊，所以與憂相應。 有觀點認為，俱生
【English Translation】 English version Are they innate (sahaja) or conceptually arisen (parikalpita)? Which of these ten afflictions (kleshas) are associated with which? Greed (raga), hatred (dvesha), and delusion (moha) definitely do not arise together. This is because the objects of love and hate must be different. If one is indecisive about an object, there will be no attachment. Greed and pride (mana), or views (drishti), may be associated. Because the objects of love and contempt are not just one, it is said that they do not arise together. The objects of attachment and reliance can be the same, so it is said that they can be associated. For the objects of the five views, love can arise, so there is no problem with greed being associated with the five views. Hatred and pride, or doubt (vicikitsa), may arise together. Because the objects of hatred and contempt are not just one, it is said that they are not associated. The objects of contempt and hatred can be the same, so it is said that they can arise together. In the beginning, when hesitating, one does not yet hate the other, so it is said that they do not arise together. After thinking for a long time without being able to decide, resentment erupts, so it is said that they can be associated. Doubt about favorable and unfavorable matters should be understood in the same way. Hatred and annihilationism (uccheda-drishti), eternalism (sasvata-drishti) definitely do not arise together. Because one clings to something as a superior path, one will not hate it. Hatred and three views (self-view, extreme view, wrong view) may be associated. Regarding the aggregates of pleasure (sukha-skandha), if one develops self-view (satkaya-drishti), one will not generate hatred, so it is said that they are not associated. Regarding the aggregates of suffering (duhkha-skandha), if one develops self-view, hatred arises, so it is said that they can arise together. The case of annihilationism is the opposite of this, explaining the presence or absence of hatred. Wrong view (mithya-drishti) slanders bad and good deeds, explaining the presence or absence of hatred accordingly. Pride is definite regarding the object, but doubt is not. Therefore, pride and doubt have no associated meaning. Pride and the five views can all arise together. Because their modes of operation do not contradict each other. However, it definitely does not arise together with annihilationism. When clinging to the annihilation of self, there is no object to despise or rely on. This is also the case with a portion of self-view and wrong view. Doubt is an imprudent decision, which contradicts views. Therefore, doubt and views definitely do not arise together. The five views definitely do not associate with each other. Because there cannot be multiple wisdoms in one mind. Delusion is definitely associated with nine afflictions. Because the arising of all afflictions is necessarily caused by delusion. Which consciousnesses are these ten afflictions associated with? The store consciousness (alaya-vijnana) has none at all, the manas consciousness has four, the mind consciousness (manovijnana) has all ten, and the five consciousnesses (panca-vijnana) have only three, namely greed, hatred, and delusion. This is because they are without discrimination. Pride and other afflictions arise due to measuring, etc. Which feelings (vedana) are these ten afflictions associated with? The three afflictions of greed, hatred, and delusion, whether innate (sahaja) or conceptually arisen (parikalpita), can all be associated with the five feelings (five types of feelings, namely suffering, pleasure, joy, sorrow, and equanimity). Greed encounters adverse conditions, so it is associated with sorrow and suffering. Hatred encounters favorable circumstances, so it is associated with joy and pleasure. Some argue that pride, whether innate or conceptually arisen, may be associated with the four feelings that are not suffering. Because one despises the inferior aggregates of suffering, it is associated with sorrow. Some argue that innate
生亦苦俱起。意有苦受前已說故。分別慢等純苦趣無。彼無邪師邪教等故。然彼不造引惡趣業。要分別起能發彼故。疑後三見容四受俱。欲疑無苦等亦喜受俱故。二取若緣憂俱見等。爾時得與憂相應故。
有義俱生身邊二見但與喜樂捨受相應。非五識俱。唯無記故。分別二見容四受俱。執苦俱蘊為我我所常。斷見翻此與憂相應故。
有義二見若俱生者。亦苦受俱。純受苦處緣極苦蘊苦相應故。論說俱生一切煩惱皆於三受現行可得。廣說如前。餘如前說。此依實義。隨粗相者貪慢四見樂喜捨俱。瞋唯苦憂捨受俱起。癡與五受皆得相應。邪見及疑四俱除苦。貪癡俱樂通下四地。餘七俱樂除欲通三。疑獨行癡欲唯憂捨。餘受俱起如理應知。此與別境幾互相應。貪瞋癡慢容五俱起。專注一境得有定故。疑及五見各容四俱。疑除勝解不決定故。見非慧俱不異慧故。此十煩惱何性所攝。瞋唯不善損自他故。餘九通二。上二界者唯無記攝。定所伏故。若欲界系分別起者。唯不善攝。發惡行故。若是俱生。發惡行者亦不善攝。損自他故。餘無記攝。細不障善。非極損惱自他處故。當知俱生身邊二見。唯無記攝不發惡業。雖數現起不障善故。此十煩惱何界系耶。瞋唯在欲。餘通三界。生在下地未離下染。上地煩惱不現在前。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 生亦苦俱起（與生俱來的煩惱也與苦受一同生起）。意有苦受前已說故（因為意識中有苦受，前面已經說過了）。分別慢等純苦趣無（由分別產生的我慢等煩惱，在純粹感受痛苦的境界中是沒有的）。彼無邪師邪教等故（因為那裡沒有邪師、邪教等）。然彼不造引惡趣業（然而他們不會造作導致墮入惡道的業）。要分別起能發彼故（因為只有由分別產生的煩惱才能引發這些業）。疑後三見容四受俱（懷疑和後面的三種邪見可以與四種感受同時生起）。欲疑無苦等亦喜受俱故（因為想要懷疑沒有痛苦等，也會與喜受同時生起）。二取若緣憂俱見等（如果兩種執取與憂愁、邪見等相關聯）。爾時得與憂相應故（那麼，它們就可能與憂愁相應）。
有義俱生身邊二見但與喜樂捨受相應（有一種觀點認為，與生俱來的有身見和邊見只與喜受、樂受和捨受相應）。非五識俱（不與五識同時生起）。唯無記故（因為它們只是無記性的）。分別二見容四受俱（由分別產生的有身見和邊見可以與四種感受同時生起）。執苦俱蘊為我我所常（因為執著與痛苦相關的五蘊為『我』或『我的』，並認為是常恒不變的）。斷見翻此與憂相應故（斷見則相反，與憂愁相應）。
有義二見若俱生者（有一種觀點認為，如果兩種邪見是與生俱來的）。亦苦受俱（也可能與苦受同時生起）。純受苦處緣極苦蘊苦相應故（因為在純粹感受痛苦的境界中，緣于極度痛苦的五蘊，就會與苦受相應）。論說俱生一切煩惱皆於三受現行可得（論中說，與生俱來的一切煩惱都可以在三種感受中顯現）。廣說如前（詳細的解釋如前所述）。餘如前說（其他的與前面所說相同）。此依實義（這是依據真實的意義）。隨粗相者貪慢四見樂喜捨俱（如果從粗顯的相狀來看，貪、慢和四種邪見與樂受、喜受和捨受同時生起）。瞋唯苦憂捨受俱起（嗔恨只與苦受、憂受和捨受同時生起）。癡與五受皆得相應（愚癡可以與五種感受都相應）。邪見及疑四俱除苦（邪見和懷疑可以與四種感受同時生起，除了苦受）。貪癡俱樂通下四地（貪和癡可以與欲界、色界、無色界下四地相應）。餘七俱樂除欲通三（其餘七種煩惱可以與除了欲界之外的三界相應）。疑獨行癡欲唯憂捨（懷疑是單獨生起的，愚癡在欲界只與憂受和捨受相應）。餘受俱起如理應知（與其他感受同時生起的情況，應該如理了解）。此與別境幾互相應（這些煩惱與別境心所能有多少相互相應）？貪瞋癡慢容五俱起（貪、嗔、癡、慢可以與五種別境心所同時生起）。專注一境得有定故（因為專注一個境界可以產生定）。疑及五見各容四俱（懷疑和五種邪見各自可以與四種別境心所同時生起）。疑除勝解不決定故（因為懷疑排除了勝解，是不確定的）。見非慧俱不異慧故（邪見不與智慧同時生起，因為它與智慧不同）。此十煩惱何性所攝（這十種煩惱屬於什麼性質）？瞋唯不善損自他故（嗔恨只是不善的，因為它會損害自己和他人）。餘九通二（其餘九種煩惱通於兩種性質）。上二界者唯無記攝（在上兩界中的煩惱只是無記性的）。定所伏故（因為它們被禪定所降伏）。若欲界系分別起者（如果在欲界中由分別產生的煩惱）。唯不善攝（只是不善的）。發惡行故（因為它們會引發惡行）。若是俱生（如果是與生俱來的）。發惡行者亦不善攝（引發惡行的也是不善的）。損自他故（因為它們會損害自己和他人）。餘無記攝（其餘的是無記性的）。細不障善（因為它們微細，不會障礙善行）。非極損惱自他處故（因為它們不會極度地損害自己和他人）。當知俱生身邊二見（應當知道，與生俱來的有身見和邊見）。唯無記攝不發惡業（只是無記性的，不會引發惡業）。雖數現起不障善故（雖然它們經常顯現，但不會障礙善行）。此十煩惱何界系耶（這十種煩惱屬於哪個界系）？瞋唯在欲（嗔恨只在欲界）。餘通三界（其餘的通於三界）。生在下地未離下染（因為眾生生於下地，沒有脫離下地的染污）。上地煩惱不現在前（所以上地的煩惱不會顯現）。
【English Translation】 English version 'Suffering also arises together with birth.' Because suffering is present in consciousness, as previously explained. 'Discriminating pride and the like are absent in realms of pure suffering.' Because there are no evil teachers or false doctrines there. 'However, they do not create karma leading to evil realms.' Because only discriminating thoughts can initiate such actions. 'Doubt and the latter three views can occur with all four feelings.' Because the desire to doubt the absence of suffering, etc., can also occur with joy.
'If the two kinds of grasping are associated with sorrow, views, etc.' Then they may be associated with sorrow.
'Some say that the two views arising together with birth are only associated with joy, pleasure, and neutral feeling.' Not with the five consciousnesses. Because they are only neutral. 'Discriminating views can occur with all four feelings.' Because they grasp aggregates associated with suffering as 'self,' 'belonging to self,' and permanent. 'The annihilation view reverses this and is associated with sorrow.'
'Some say that if the two views arise together with birth.' They can also be associated with suffering. 'Because in realms of pure suffering, they are associated with extreme suffering and aggregates of suffering.' The treatise says that all afflictions arising together with birth can be found active in the three feelings. As explained previously in detail. The rest is as previously stated. This is according to the actual meaning. 'According to the gross aspect, greed, pride, and the four views occur with pleasure, joy, and neutral feeling.' Anger only arises with suffering, sorrow, and neutral feeling. 'Delusion can be associated with all five feelings.' 'False views and doubt can occur with four, excluding suffering.' 'Greed and delusion are associated with all four lower realms.' The remaining seven are associated with all three realms except the desire realm. 'Doubt is solitary, and delusion in the desire realm is only associated with sorrow and neutral feeling.' It should be understood that the other feelings arise together as appropriate. 'How many specific objects do these mutually correspond with?' Greed, anger, delusion, and pride can arise with all five. Because focusing on one object can lead to concentration. 'Doubt and the five views can each occur with four.' Because doubt excludes ascertainment and is uncertain. 'Views do not occur with wisdom because they are not different from wisdom.' What is the nature of these ten afflictions? 'Anger is only unwholesome because it harms oneself and others.' The remaining nine are both. 'Those in the upper two realms are only neutral.' Because they are subdued by concentration. 'If they arise from discrimination in the desire realm.' They are only unwholesome. 'Because they cause evil actions.' 'If they arise together with birth.' Those that cause evil actions are also unwholesome. 'Because they harm oneself and others.' The rest are neutral. They are subtle and do not obstruct goodness. 'Because they do not extremely harm oneself and others.' It should be known that the two views arising together with birth, namely the view of self and the extreme view. Are only neutral and do not cause evil karma. 'Although they frequently arise, they do not obstruct goodness.' To which realm do these ten afflictions belong? 'Anger is only in the desire realm.' The rest are in all three realms. 'Because beings are born in the lower realms and have not separated from the defilements of the lower realms.' The afflictions of the upper realms do not manifest.
要得彼地根本定者。彼地煩惱容現前故。謂有漏道雖不能伏分別起惑及細俱生。而能伏除俱生粗惑。漸次證得上根本定。彼但迷事。依外門轉。散亂粗動正障定故。得彼定已彼地分別俱生諸惑皆容現前。生在上地下地諸惑分別俱生皆容現起。生第四定中有中者。由謗解脫生地獄故。身在上地將生下時。起下潤生俱生愛故。而言生上不起下者。依多分說。或隨轉門。下地煩惱亦緣上地。瑜伽等說欲界系貪求上地生味上定故。既說瞋恚憎嫉滅道。亦應憎嫉離欲地故。總緣諸行執我我所斷常慢者得緣上故。餘五緣上其理極成。而有處言貪瞋慢等不緣上者。依粗相說。或依別緣。不見世間執他地法為我等故。邊見必依身見起故。上地煩惱亦緣下地。說生上者于下有情恃己勝德而陵彼故總緣諸行執我我所斷常愛者得緣下故。疑後三見如理應思。而說上或不緣下者。彼依多分。或別緣說。此十煩惱學等何攝。非學無學彼唯善故。此十煩惱何所斷耶。非非所斷彼非染故。分別起者唯見所斷粗易斷故。若俱生者唯修所斷細難斷故。見所斷十實俱頓斷。以真見道總緣諦故。然迷諦相有總有別。總謂十種皆迷四諦。苦集是彼因依處故。滅道是彼怖畏處故。別謂別迷四諦相起。二唯迷苦八通迷四。身邊二見唯果處起。別空非我屬苦諦故。謂疑
三見親迷苦理。二取執彼三見戒禁及所依蘊為勝能凈。于自他見及彼眷屬。如次隨應起貪恚慢。相應無明與九同迷。不共無明親迷苦理。疑及邪見親迷集等。二取貪等準苦應知。然瞋亦能親迷滅道。由怖畏彼生憎嫉故。迷諦親疏粗相如是。委細說者貪瞋慢三見疑俱生隨應如彼。俱生二見及彼相應愛慢無明。雖迷苦諦細難斷故修道方斷。瞋餘愛等迷別事生不違諦觀故修所斷。雖諸煩惱皆有相分。而所仗質或有或無。名緣有事無事煩惱。彼親所緣雖皆有漏。而所仗質亦通無漏。名緣有漏無漏煩惱。緣自地者相分似質。名緣分別所起事境。緣滅道諦及他地者相分與質不相似故。名緣分別所起名境。餘門分別如理應思。已說根本六煩惱相。諸隨煩惱其相云何。頌曰。
隨煩惱謂忿 恨覆惱嫉慳
１３ 誑諂與害憍 無慚及無愧 掉舉與惛沈 不信並懈怠
１４ 放逸及失念 散亂不正知
論曰。唯是煩惱分位差別。等流性故名隨煩惱。此二十種類別有三。謂忿等十各別起故名小隨煩惱。無慚等二遍不善故名中隨煩惱。掉舉等八遍染心故名大隨煩惱。云何為忿。依對現前不饒益境憤發為性。能障不忿執仗為業。謂懷忿者多發暴惡身表業故。此即瞋恚一分為體
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 三見（三種錯誤的見解）直接迷惑于苦諦的道理。二取（兩種執取）是指執取那三種錯誤的見解、戒禁以及它們所依賴的五蘊，認為它們是殊勝的、能夠清凈的。對於自己和他人的見解以及他們的眷屬，依次相應地產生貪、嗔、慢。與此相應的無明與九種煩惱共同迷惑。不共無明直接迷惑于苦諦的道理。懷疑和邪見直接迷惑于集諦等。二取、貪等應該按照苦諦來理解。然而，嗔恨也能直接迷惑于滅諦和道諦，因為害怕它們而產生憎恨和嫉妒。迷惑四諦的直接和間接、粗略的相狀就是這樣。如果要詳細地說，貪、嗔、慢三種煩惱、見、疑都是俱生的，相應地就像那樣。俱生的兩種見解以及與它們相應的愛、慢、無明，雖然迷惑苦諦，但因為細微難以斷除，所以要通過修道才能斷除。嗔恨、其餘的愛等，因為迷惑不同的事情而產生，不違背對四諦的觀察，所以是通過修所斷的。雖然各種煩惱都有相分，但所依賴的本質或者有或者沒有，稱為緣有事煩惱和無事煩惱。它們直接所緣的雖然都是有漏的，但所依賴的本質也通於無漏，稱為緣有漏煩惱和無漏煩惱。緣自地（自己所處的層次）的，相分類似於本質，稱為緣分別所起的事境。緣滅諦、道諦以及他地的，相分與本質不相似，稱為緣分別所起的名境。其餘方面的分別應該如理思維。已經說了根本六煩惱的相狀。各種隨煩惱的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌說： 『隨煩惱謂忿 恨覆惱嫉慳 誑諂與害憍 無慚及無愧 掉舉與惛沈 不信並懈怠 放逸及失念 散亂不正知』 論曰：僅僅是煩惱的分位差別，因為是等流的性質，所以叫做隨煩惱。這二十種類別有三種。所謂忿等十種，各自別別生起，所以叫做小隨煩惱。無慚等兩種，普遍不善，所以叫做中隨煩惱。掉舉等八種，普遍染污心，所以叫做大隨煩惱。什麼是忿呢？依賴於現前不令人愉快的境界，憤慨勃發為它的性質。能夠障礙不忿，執持刀杖為它的作用。所謂懷有忿恨的人，大多會發出暴惡的身表業。這實際上是嗔恚的一部分。
【English Translation】 English version: The three views (three kinds of wrong views) directly obscure the truth of suffering (苦諦, Dukkha Satya). The two graspings (兩種執取, two kinds of grasping) refer to grasping those three wrong views, precepts and prohibitions, and the aggregates (五蘊, Skandhas) they rely on, considering them to be superior and capable of purification. Regarding one's own and others' views and their retinues, greed (貪, Raga), hatred (嗔, Dvesha), and pride (慢, Mana) arise accordingly. The ignorance (無明, Avidya) associated with this, along with nine other afflictions, jointly obscure. Non-common ignorance directly obscures the truth of suffering. Doubt (疑, Vicikitsa) and wrong views (邪見, Mithya-drishti) directly obscure the truth of origination (集諦, Samudaya Satya) and so on. The two graspings, greed, etc., should be understood in accordance with the truth of suffering. However, hatred can also directly obscure the truth of cessation (滅諦, Nirodha Satya) and the truth of the path (道諦, Marga Satya), because of fearing them and generating hatred and jealousy. The direct and indirect, coarse aspects of obscuring the Four Noble Truths are like this. If one were to speak in detail, greed, hatred, pride, the three afflictions, views, and doubt are all co-arisen, accordingly like that. The two co-arisen views and the love, pride, and ignorance associated with them, although obscuring the truth of suffering, are difficult to sever because they are subtle, so they are severed through cultivation of the path. Hatred, the remaining love, etc., arise because they obscure different things, and do not contradict the observation of the Four Noble Truths, so they are severed through cultivation. Although all afflictions have image-aspects (相分, nimitta-bhaga), the underlying substance they rely on may or may not exist, and are called afflictions that are conditioned by things (緣有事煩惱, alambana-vastuka-klesha) and afflictions that are not conditioned by things (無事煩惱, anālambana-vastuka-klesha). Although what they directly grasp are all defiled (有漏, sāsrava), the underlying substance they rely on also extends to the undefiled (無漏, anāsrava), and are called afflictions that are conditioned by the defiled (緣有漏煩惱, sāsravālambana-klesha) and afflictions that are conditioned by the undefiled (無漏煩惱, anāsravālambana-klesha). Those that are conditioned by one's own level (自地, sva-bhumi), the image-aspect resembles the substance, and are called object-realms arisen from discrimination (緣分別所起事境, parikalpita-vastu-alambana). Those that are conditioned by the truth of cessation, the truth of the path, and other levels, the image-aspect is not similar to the substance, and are called name-realms arisen from discrimination (緣分別所起名境, parikalpita-nama-alambana). Other aspects of differentiation should be thought about reasonably. The characteristics of the six root afflictions have already been explained. What are the characteristics of the various secondary afflictions (隨煩惱, upaklesha)? The verse says: 『Secondary afflictions are anger, resentment, concealment, vexation, jealousy, miserliness, deceit, dishonesty, harm, arrogance, shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, excitement, torpor, disbelief, laziness, carelessness, forgetfulness, distraction, and non-correct knowledge.』 The treatise says: They are merely differentiations in the divisions of afflictions, and because they are of the nature of outflow (等流性, nisyanda), they are called secondary afflictions. These twenty types have three categories. The so-called anger, etc., ten types, each arise separately, so they are called minor secondary afflictions (小隨煩惱, alpa-upaklesha). Shamelessness, etc., two types, are universally unwholesome, so they are called medium secondary afflictions (中隨煩惱, madhya-upaklesha). Excitement, etc., eight types, universally defile the mind, so they are called major secondary afflictions (大隨煩惱, maha-upaklesha). What is anger (忿, krodha)? Relying on an unpleasant object appearing before one, bursting forth with indignation is its nature. It can obstruct non-anger, and holding weapons is its function. The so-called person harboring anger mostly emits violent bodily expressions. This is actually a part of hatred.
。離瞋無別忿相用故。云何為恨。由忿為先懷惡不捨結怨為性。能障不恨熱惱為業。謂結恨者不能含忍恒熱惱故。此亦瞋恚一分為體。離瞋無別恨相用故。云何為覆。于自作罪恐失利譽隱藏為性。能障不覆悔惱為業。謂覆罪者後必悔惱不安隱故。有義此覆癡一分攝。論唯說此癡一分故。不懼當苦覆自罪故。有義此覆貪癡一分攝。亦恐失利譽覆自罪故。論據粗顯唯說癡分。如說掉舉是貪分故。然說掉舉遍諸染心。不可執為唯是貪分。云何為惱。忿恨為先追觸暴熱佷戾為性。能障不惱蛆螫為業。謂追往惡觸現違緣心便佷戾。多發囂暴兇鄙粗言蛆螫他故。此亦瞋恚一分為體。離瞋無別惱相用故。云何為嫉。徇自名利不耐他榮妒忌為性。能障不嫉憂戚為業。謂嫉妒者聞見他榮深懷憂戚不安隱故。此亦瞋恚一分為體。離瞋無別嫉相用故。云何為慳。耽著財法不能慧捨秘吝為性。能障不慳鄙畜為業。謂慳吝者心多鄙澀畜積財法不能捨故。此即貪愛一分為體。離貪無別慳相用故。云何為誑。為獲利譽矯現有德詭詐為性。能障不誑邪命為業。謂矯誑者心懷異謀多現不實邪命事故。此即貪癡一分為體。離二無別誑相用故。云何為諂。為網他故矯設異儀險曲為性。能障不諂教誨為業。謂諂曲者為網帽他曲順時宜矯設方便為取他意或藏己失。
不任師友正教誨故。此亦貪癡一分為體。離二無別諂相用故。云何為害。于諸有情心無悲愍損惱為性。能障不害逼惱為業。謂有害者逼惱他故。此亦瞋恚一分為體。離瞋無別害相用故。瞋害別相準善應說。云何為憍。于自盛事深生染著醉傲為性。能障不憍染依為業。謂憍醉者生長一切雜染法故。此亦貪愛一分為體。離貪無別憍相用故。云何無慚。不顧自法輕拒賢善為性。能障礙慚生長惡行為業。謂于自法無所顧者輕拒賢善不恥過惡。障慚生長諸惡行故。云何無愧。不顧世間崇重暴惡為性。能障礙愧生長惡行為業。謂於世間無所顧者崇重暴惡不恥過罪。障愧生長諸惡行故。不恥過惡是二通相。故諸聖教假說為體。若執不恥為二別相則應此二體無差別。由斯二法應不俱生。非受想等有此義故。若待自他立二別者應非實有。便違聖教。若許此二實而別起復違論說俱遍噁心。不善心時隨緣何境皆有輕拒善及崇重惡義故。此二法俱遍噁心。所緣不異無別起失。然諸聖教說不顧自他者。自法名自世間名他。或即此中拒善崇惡。於己益損名自他故。而論說為貪等分者。是彼等流非即彼性。云何掉舉。令心於境不寂靜為性。能障行捨奢摩他為業。有義掉舉貪一分攝。論唯說此是貪分故。此由憶昔樂事生故。有義掉舉非唯貪攝。論說掉舉
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 不聽從老師和朋友正確的教誨，這也是貪和癡的一部分，因為離開貪和癡就沒有其他的諂媚相可以用了。（不任師友正教誨故。此亦貪癡一分為體。離二無別諂相用故。） 什麼是『害』（云何為害）？對於一切有情眾生，心中沒有悲憫，以損害惱亂為特性，能夠阻礙不損害（的行為），以逼迫惱亂為作用。所謂有害的人，就是逼迫惱亂他人的人。這也是嗔恚的一部分，離開嗔恚就沒有其他的損害相可以用了。嗔恚和損害的區別，應該參照善（的定義）來說明。（于諸有情心無悲愍損惱為性。能障不害逼惱為業。謂有害者逼惱他故。此亦瞋恚一分為體。離瞋無別害相用故。瞋害別相準善應說。） 什麼是『憍』（云何為憍）？對於自己的興盛之事，深深地產生染著，以醉心傲慢為特性，能夠阻礙不傲慢（的行為），以染著為所依。所謂傲慢醉心的人，會生長一切雜染之法。這也是貪愛的一部分，離開貪愛就沒有其他的傲慢相可以用了。（于自盛事深生染著醉傲為性。能障不憍染依為業。謂憍醉者生長一切雜染法故。此亦貪愛一分為體。離貪無別憍相用故。） 什麼是『無慚』（云何無慚）？不顧及自身的法，輕視拒絕賢能善良，以此為特性，能夠阻礙慚愧，以生長惡行為作用。所謂對於自身之法沒有顧及的人，會輕視拒絕賢能善良，不以過錯為恥，阻礙慚愧，生長各種惡行。（不顧自法輕拒賢善為性。能障礙慚生長惡行為業。謂于自法無所顧者輕拒賢善不恥過惡。障慚生長諸惡行故。） 什麼是『無愧』（云何無愧）？不顧及世間的（道德規範），崇尚重視暴虐邪惡，以此為特性，能夠阻礙愧，以生長惡行為作用。所謂對於世間沒有顧及的人，會崇尚重視暴虐邪惡，不以過錯為恥，阻礙愧，生長各種惡行。不以過錯為恥，是無慚和無愧的共同之處，所以諸聖教假立（不恥過惡）為它們的體性。如果執著于不恥過惡是無慚和無愧的區別，那麼這二者的體性就沒有差別，因此這二法不應該同時產生，因為受、想等（心所）沒有這種（體性無差別）含義。如果等待自身和他人的（不同反應）來建立二者的區別，那麼（無慚和無愧）就應該不是真實存在的，這就違背了聖教。如果允許這二者是真實存在且分別生起的，又違背了論典所說（無慚和無愧）共同遍及噁心。在不善心生起時，無論緣於何種境界，都有輕視拒絕善良和崇尚重視邪惡的含義，因此這二法共同遍及噁心，所緣的境界沒有不同，沒有分別生起的過失。然而諸聖教說不顧及自身和他人的（道德規範），自身的法名為自身，世間的（道德規範）名為他人。或者就是在此之中拒絕善良和崇尚邪惡，對於自己的利益損害名為自身和他人，而論典說（無慚和無愧）是貪等（煩惱）的一部分，是它們的等流，不是它們的本性。（不顧世間崇重暴惡為性。能障礙愧生長惡行為業。謂於世間無所顧者崇重暴惡不恥過罪。障愧生長諸惡行故。不恥過惡是二通相。故諸聖教假說為體。若執不恥為二別相則應此二體無差別。由斯二法應不俱生。非受想等有此義故。若待自他立二別者應非實有。便違聖教。若許此二實而別起復違論說俱遍噁心。不善心時隨緣何境皆有輕拒善及崇重惡義故。此二法俱遍噁心。所緣不異無別起失。然諸聖教說不顧自他者。自法名自世間名他。或即此中拒善崇惡。於己益損名自他故。而論說為貪等分者。是彼等流非即彼性。） 什麼是『掉舉』（云何掉舉）？使心對於所緣境不能寂靜，以此為特性，能夠阻礙行捨（平靜的心）和奢摩他（止），以此為作用。有的觀點認為掉舉是貪的一部分，因為論典只說這是貪的一部分。這是由於回憶過去的快樂之事而產生的。有的觀點認為掉舉不只是貪所攝，論典說掉舉（令心不寂靜）。（令心於境不寂靜為性。能障行捨奢摩他為業。有義掉舉貪一分攝。論唯說此是貪分故。此由憶昔樂事生故。有義掉舉非唯貪攝。論說掉舉）
【English Translation】 English version: Not following the correct teachings of teachers and friends, this is also a part of greed and ignorance, because apart from greed and ignorance, there is no other flattering aspect to use. (不任師友正教誨故。此亦貪癡一分為體。離二無別諂相用故。) What is 'harm' (云何為害)? Towards all sentient beings, having no compassion in the heart, taking harming and disturbing as its characteristic, being able to obstruct non-harm (behavior), and taking coercion and disturbance as its function. The so-called harmful person is one who coerces and disturbs others. This is also a part of hatred, because apart from hatred, there is no other aspect of harm to use. The difference between hatred and harm should be explained with reference to (the definition of) goodness. (于諸有情心無悲愍損惱為性。能障不害逼惱為業。謂有害者逼惱他故。此亦瞋恚一分為體。離瞋無別害相用故。瞋害別相準善應說。) What is 'conceit' (云何為憍)? Towards one's own prosperous affairs, deeply generating attachment, taking intoxication and arrogance as its characteristic, being able to obstruct non-arrogance (behavior), and taking attachment as its basis. The so-called arrogant and intoxicated person will grow all defiled dharmas. This is also a part of craving, because apart from craving, there is no other aspect of conceit to use. (于自盛事深生染著醉傲為性。能障不憍染依為業。謂憍醉者生長一切雜染法故。此亦貪愛一分為體。離貪無別憍相用故。) What is 'shamelessness' (云何無慚)? Not considering one's own dharma, belittling and rejecting the virtuous and good, taking this as its characteristic, being able to obstruct shame, and taking the growth of evil deeds as its function. The so-called person who does not consider his own dharma will belittle and reject the virtuous and good, not being ashamed of mistakes, obstructing shame, and growing various evil deeds. (不顧自法輕拒賢善為性。能障礙慚生長惡行為業。謂于自法無所顧者輕拒賢善不恥過惡。障慚生長諸惡行故。) What is 'lack of shame' (云何無愧)? Not considering the world's (moral norms), valuing and emphasizing violence and evil, taking this as its characteristic, being able to obstruct shame, and taking the growth of evil deeds as its function. The so-called person who does not consider the world will value and emphasize violence and evil, not being ashamed of mistakes, obstructing shame, and growing various evil deeds. Not being ashamed of mistakes is a common aspect of shamelessness and lack of shame, so the holy teachings provisionally establish (not being ashamed of mistakes) as their nature. If one insists that not being ashamed of mistakes is the difference between shamelessness and lack of shame, then the nature of these two would have no difference, therefore these two dharmas should not arise simultaneously, because mental functions such as sensation and thought do not have this (undifferentiated nature) meaning. If one waits for the (different reactions of) oneself and others to establish the difference between the two, then (shamelessness and lack of shame) should not be truly existent, which would violate the holy teachings. If one allows these two to be truly existent and arise separately, it would also violate the statement in the treatises that (shamelessness and lack of shame) commonly pervade evil minds. When an unwholesome mind arises, no matter what object it is related to, there is the meaning of belittling and rejecting goodness and valuing and emphasizing evil, therefore these two dharmas commonly pervade evil minds, the objects they relate to are not different, and there is no fault of arising separately. However, the holy teachings say that not considering oneself and others (moral norms), one's own dharma is called oneself, and the world's (moral norms) is called others. Or it is precisely in this that one rejects goodness and values evil, and the benefit or harm to oneself is called oneself and others, while the treatises say that (shamelessness and lack of shame) are a part of greed and other (afflictions), they are their outflows, not their nature. (不顧世間崇重暴惡為性。能障礙愧生長惡行為業。謂於世間無所顧者崇重暴惡不恥過罪。障愧生長諸惡行故。不恥過惡是二通相。故諸聖教假說為體。若執不恥為二別相則應此二體無差別。由斯二法應不俱生。非受想等有此義故。若待自他立二別者應非實有。便違聖教。若許此二實而別起復違論說俱遍噁心。不善心時隨緣何境皆有輕拒善及崇重惡義故。此二法俱遍噁心。所緣不異無別起失。然諸聖教說不顧自他者。自法名自世間名他。或即此中拒善崇惡。於己益損名自他故。而論說為貪等分者。是彼等流非即彼性。) What is 'restlessness' (云何掉舉)? Causing the mind to be unable to be tranquil with regard to the object, taking this as its characteristic, being able to obstruct equanimity (行捨) and shamatha (奢摩他), taking this as its function. Some views hold that restlessness is included in a part of greed, because the treatises only say that this is a part of greed. This is caused by recalling past pleasurable events. Some views hold that restlessness is not only included in greed, the treatises say that restlessness (causes the mind to be un-tranquil). (令心於境不寂靜為性。能障行捨奢摩他為業。有義掉舉貪一分攝。論唯說此是貪分故。此由憶昔樂事生故。有義掉舉非唯貪攝。論說掉舉)
遍染心故。又掉舉相謂不寂靜。說是煩惱共相攝故。掉舉離此無別相故。雖依一切煩惱假立。而貪位增說為貪分。有義掉舉別有自性。遍諸染心如不信等非說他分體便非實。勿不信等亦假有故。而論說為世俗有者。如睡眠等隨他相說。掉舉別相謂即囂動。令俱生法不寂靜故。若離煩惱無別此相不應別說障奢摩他。故不寂靜非此別相。云何惛沈。令心於境無堪任為性。能障輕安毗缽捨那為業。有義惛沈癡一分攝。論唯說此是癡分故。惛昧沉重是癡相故。有義惛沈非但癡攝。謂無堪任是惛沈相。一切煩惱皆無堪任。離此無別惛沈相故。雖依一切煩惱假立而癡相增但說癡分。
有義惛沈別有自性。雖名癡分而是等流。如不信等非即癡攝。隨他相說名世俗有。如睡眠等是實有性。惛沈別相。謂即瞢重。令俱生法無堪任故。若離煩惱無別惛沈相。不應別說障毗缽捨那。故無堪任非此別相。此與癡相有差別者。謂癡于境迷闇為相。正障無癡而非瞢重。惛沈于境瞢重為相。正障輕安而非迷闇。云何不信。于實德能不忍樂欲心穢為性。能障凈信惰依為業。謂不信者多懈怠故。不信三相翻信應知。然諸染法各有別相。唯此不信自相渾濁。復能渾濁餘心心所。如極穢物自穢穢他。是故說此心穢為性。由不信故於實德能不忍樂欲。非別
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 因為心被普遍染污的緣故。另外，掉舉（Uddhacca，心不平靜）的相狀被稱為不寂靜。這是因為（掉舉）被認為是與煩惱共同攝持的。掉舉如果離開這些（煩惱）就沒有其他的相狀。雖然它依賴於一切煩惱而假立，但當貪的成分增加時，就被說成是貪的一部分。有一種觀點認為，掉舉有其自身的體性，它遍及所有被染污的心，就像不信（Assaddha）等一樣。不能因為說它是其他（煩惱）的一部分，就認為它不是真實的。不要認為不信等也是假有的。而論典中說它是世俗有，就像睡眠等一樣，是隨順其他（煩惱）的相狀而說的。掉舉的特殊相狀，就是喧囂躁動，使共同生起的法不寂靜。如果離開煩惱就沒有其他的相狀，就不應該單獨說它能障礙奢摩他（Samatha，止）。所以，不寂靜不是掉舉的特殊相狀。 什麼是惛沈（Thina，精神萎靡）？它的體性是使心對於所緣境沒有堪能性，它的作用是能障礙輕安（Passaddhi）和毗缽捨那（Vipassana，觀）。有一種觀點認為，惛沈是癡（Moha，愚癡）的一部分。論典中只說它是癡的一部分，因為惛昧沉重是癡的相狀。有一種觀點認為，惛沈不僅僅是被癡所攝持的。所謂沒有堪能性，就是惛沈的相狀。一切煩惱都沒有堪能性，如果離開這些（煩惱）就沒有其他的惛沈相狀。雖然它依賴於一切煩惱而假立，但當癡的相狀增加時，就只說是癡的一部分。 有一種觀點認為，惛沈有其自身的體性。雖然名義上是癡的一部分，但它是等流（Nisyanda，從癡煩惱流出）。就像不信等，並非就是癡所攝持的。隨順其他（煩惱）的相狀而說，稱之為世俗有，就像睡眠等，是實有的體性。惛沈的特殊相狀，就是矇昧沉重，使共同生起的法沒有堪能性。如果離開煩惱就沒有其他的惛沈相狀，就不應該單獨說它能障礙毗缽捨那。所以，沒有堪能性不是惛沈的特殊相狀。這（惛沈）與癡的相狀有什麼差別呢？癡是以對於所緣境迷惑闇昧為相狀，主要障礙無癡，而不是矇昧沉重。惛沈是以對於所緣境矇昧沉重為相狀，主要障礙輕安，而不是迷惑闇昧。什麼是「不信」？以對於真實的事實、功德和能力不忍可、不喜好、沒有意願，心不清凈為體性。它的作用是能障礙凈信，以懈怠為所依。所謂不信的人，大多是懈怠的。不信的三種相狀，反過來就是信。然而，各種染污法各有不同的相狀，只有這個不信，自身的相狀是渾濁的，並且能夠渾濁其他的心和心所，就像極髒的東西，自己臟，也能使其他東西臟。所以說這個（不信）是以心不清凈為體性。由於不信的緣故，對於真實的事實、功德和能力，不忍可、不喜好、沒有意願，而不是其他的（原因）。
【English Translation】 English version Because the mind is universally defiled. Furthermore, restlessness (Uddhacca, lack of mental quiescence) is described as non-tranquility. This is because it is considered to be jointly encompassed by afflictions. If restlessness were separate from these (afflictions), it would have no other characteristic. Although it is hypothetically established based on all afflictions, when the element of greed increases, it is said to be a part of greed. Some argue that restlessness has its own nature, pervading all defiled minds, like lack of faith (Assaddha). One cannot claim that just because it is said to be a part of other (afflictions), it is not real. Do not assume that lack of faith, etc., are also merely hypothetical. The scriptures describe it as conventionally existent, like sleep, etc., in accordance with other (afflictions)' characteristics. The specific characteristic of restlessness is agitation, causing co-arisen dharmas to be non-tranquil. If there were no other characteristic apart from afflictions, it should not be separately stated as an obstacle to Samatha (tranquility meditation). Therefore, non-tranquility is not a distinct characteristic of restlessness. What is sloth (Thina, mental dullness)? Its nature is to render the mind incapable with respect to its object, and its function is to obstruct serenity (Passaddhi) and Vipassana (insight meditation). Some argue that sloth is a part of delusion (Moha, ignorance). The scriptures only state that it is a part of delusion because dullness and heaviness are characteristics of delusion. Some argue that sloth is not solely encompassed by delusion. The inability to function is the characteristic of sloth. All afflictions lack the ability to function, and if there were no other characteristic of sloth apart from these (afflictions), it would be merely hypothetical based on all afflictions, but when the element of delusion increases, it is only said to be a part of delusion. Some argue that sloth has its own nature. Although nominally a part of delusion, it is a result (Nisyanda, outflow from delusion). Like lack of faith, etc., it is not simply encompassed by delusion. Describing it in accordance with other (afflictions)' characteristics, it is called conventionally existent, like sleep, etc., which has a real nature. The specific characteristic of sloth is torpor and heaviness, rendering co-arisen dharmas incapable. If there were no other characteristic of sloth apart from afflictions, it should not be separately stated as an obstacle to Vipassana. Therefore, the inability to function is not a distinct characteristic of sloth. What is the difference between this (sloth) and the characteristic of delusion? Delusion has the characteristic of confusion and darkness with respect to its object, primarily obstructing non-delusion rather than torpor and heaviness. Sloth has the characteristic of torpor and heaviness with respect to its object, primarily obstructing serenity rather than confusion and darkness. What is 'lack of faith'? Its nature is the impurity of mind due to intolerance, dislike, and lack of desire for true facts, virtues, and abilities. Its function is to obstruct pure faith, with laziness as its basis. Those who lack faith are mostly lazy. The three characteristics of lack of faith are the opposite of faith. However, various defiled dharmas each have different characteristics, but only this lack of faith has a turbid nature and can also turbid other minds and mental factors, like extremely dirty things that are dirty themselves and can also make other things dirty. Therefore, it is said that this (lack of faith) has the impurity of mind as its nature. Due to lack of faith, there is intolerance, dislike, and lack of desire for true facts, virtues, and abilities, rather than other (reasons).
有性。若於餘事邪忍樂欲是此因果。非此自性。云何懈怠。于善惡品修斷事中懶惰為性。能障精進增染為業。謂懈怠者滋長染故。于諸染事而策勤者亦名懈怠。退善法故。于無記事而策勤者于諸善品無進退故是欲勝解。非別有性。如於無記忍可樂欲非凈非染無信不信。云何放逸。于染凈品不能防修縱蕩為性。障不放逸增惡損善所依為業。謂由懈怠及貪瞋癡不能防修染凈品法。總名放逸。非別有體。雖慢疑等亦有此能。而方彼四勢用微劣障三善根遍策法故。推究此相如不放逸。云何失念。于諸所緣不能明記為性。能障正念散亂所依為業。謂失念者心散亂故。
有義失唸唸一分攝。說是煩惱相應念故。有義失念癡一分攝。瑜伽說此是癡分故。癡令念失故名失念。有義失念俱一分攝。由前二文影略說故。論復說此遍染心故。云何散亂。于諸所緣令心流蕩為性。能障正定惡慧所依為業。謂散亂者發惡慧故。
有義散亂癡一分攝。瑜伽說此是癡分故。有義散亂貪瞋癡攝。集論等說是三分故。說癡分者遍染心故。謂貪瞋癡令心流蕩勝餘法故說為散亂。
有義散亂別有自體。說三分者是彼等流。如無慚等非即彼攝。隨他相說名世俗有。散亂別相謂即躁擾。令俱生法皆流蕩故。若離彼三無別自體。不應別說障三摩地
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 什麼是『有性』（自性）？如果對於其他事情產生邪惡的忍耐和貪求，這是（懈怠的）因和果，而不是它本身的自性。什麼是懈怠？對於善和惡的修習和斷除，懶惰是它的自性。它能夠阻礙精進，增長染污，這是它的作用。也就是說，懈怠的人會滋長染污。對於染污的事情卻努力勤奮，這也叫做懈怠，因為它會使人退失善法。對於無記的事情努力勤奮，因為對於各種善事沒有進步也沒有退步，這是由於慾望和勝解，而不是另外一種自性。比如對於無記的事情忍耐、認可和貪求，既不是清凈的也不是染污的，既沒有信心也沒有不信。什麼是放逸？對於染污和清凈的事情，不能防護和修習，放縱蕩逸是它的自性。它阻礙不放逸，增長惡事，減損善事，是這些事情所依賴的。也就是說，由於懈怠以及貪、嗔、癡，不能防護和修習染污和清凈的法，總的叫做放逸，而不是另外一種自體。雖然慢和疑等也有這種作用，但是比起前面四種（懈怠、貪、嗔、癡）來說，勢力微弱，因為它阻礙三種善根，普遍地策動惡法。推究這個相狀，可以參考不放逸。 什麼是失念？對於各種所緣境，不能清楚地憶念是它的自性。它能夠阻礙正念，是散亂所依賴的，這是它的作用。也就是說，失唸的人心會散亂。 有一種觀點認為，失念是唸的一部分，因為經論說這是與煩惱相應的念。有一種觀點認為，失念是癡的一部分，《瑜伽師地論》說這是癡的一部分。因為癡使念頭失去，所以叫做失念。有一種觀點認為，失念是兩者的一部分，因為前面的兩段經文簡略地說了。經論又說這個遍及染污的心。 什麼是散亂？對於各種所緣境，使心流蕩是它的自性。它能夠阻礙正定，是惡慧所依賴的，這是它的作用。也就是說，散亂的人會產生惡慧。 有一種觀點認為，散亂是癡的一部分，《瑜伽師地論》說這是癡的一部分。有一種觀點認為，散亂是貪、嗔、癡的一部分，《集論》等經論說這是三者的部分。說它是癡的一部分，是因為它遍及染污的心。也就是說，貪、嗔、癡使心流蕩，勝過其他法，所以說它是散亂。 有一種觀點認為，散亂有另外的自體。說它是三者的部分，是說它是與三者相似的等流。比如無慚等不是直接屬於貪嗔癡，而是隨順其他相而說的，是世俗意義上的存在。散亂的另外一種相狀就是躁擾，使俱生的法都流蕩。如果離開貪嗔癡就沒有另外的自體，就不應該另外說它能阻礙三摩地（Samadhi，定）。
【English Translation】 English version What is 『Svarupa』 (self-nature)? If evil endurance and desire arise for other things, this is the cause and effect (of sloth), not its own self-nature. What is sloth? Laziness in the practice and abandonment of good and evil is its self-nature. It can hinder diligence and increase defilement; this is its function. That is, a slothful person fosters defilement. To be diligent in defiled matters is also called sloth, because it causes one to regress from good dharmas. To be diligent in neutral matters, because there is no progress or regression in various good qualities, this is due to desire and adhimukti (conviction), not another self-nature. For example, to endure, approve, and desire neutral matters is neither pure nor defiled, neither with faith nor without faith. What is distraction? Not being able to protect and cultivate defiled and pure things, indulging in dissipation is its self-nature. It hinders non-distraction, increases evil, and diminishes good; it is what these things rely on. That is, due to sloth and greed, hatred, and delusion, one cannot protect and cultivate defiled and pure dharmas; this is generally called distraction, not another separate entity. Although pride and doubt also have this function, they are weaker in power compared to the previous four (sloth, greed, hatred, and delusion), because they hinder the three roots of goodness and universally instigate evil dharmas. Investigating this characteristic can be referred to non-distraction. What is forgetfulness? Not being able to clearly remember various objects of focus is its self-nature. It can hinder right mindfulness and is what scattering relies on; this is its function. That is, a forgetful person's mind will be scattered. One view is that forgetfulness is a part of mindfulness, because the sutras say that this is mindfulness associated with afflictions. One view is that forgetfulness is a part of ignorance; the Yogacarabhumi-sastra says that this is a part of ignorance. Because ignorance causes mindfulness to be lost, it is called forgetfulness. One view is that forgetfulness is a part of both, because the previous two passages spoke briefly. The sutras also say that this pervades the defiled mind. What is scattering? Causing the mind to wander among various objects of focus is its self-nature. It can hinder right concentration and is what evil wisdom relies on; this is its function. That is, a scattered person will generate evil wisdom. One view is that scattering is a part of ignorance; the Yogacarabhumi-sastra says that this is a part of ignorance. One view is that scattering is a part of greed, hatred, and delusion; the Abhidharma-samuccaya and other sutras say that this is a part of the three. Saying that it is a part of ignorance is because it pervades the defiled mind. That is, greed, hatred, and delusion cause the mind to wander, surpassing other dharmas, so it is said to be scattering. One view is that scattering has another separate entity. Saying that it is a part of the three is saying that it is a similar outflow of the three. For example, ahrikya (shamelessness) and the like are not directly part of greed, hatred, and delusion, but are spoken of according to other characteristics, existing in a conventional sense. Another characteristic of scattering is agitation, causing co-arisen dharmas to wander. If there is no other separate entity apart from greed, hatred, and delusion, it should not be separately said that it can hinder Samadhi (定, concentration).
。掉舉散亂二用何別。彼令易解此令易緣。雖一剎那解緣無易。而於相續有易義故。染污心時由掉亂力常應唸唸易解易緣。或由念等力所制伏如系猿猴。有暫時住故。掉與亂俱遍染心。云何不正知。于所觀境謬解為性。能障正知毀犯為業。謂不正知者多所毀犯故。
有義不正知慧一分攝。說是煩惱相應慧故。有義不正知癡一分攝。瑜伽說此是癡分故。令知不正名不正知。有義不正知俱一分攝。由前二文影略說故。論復說此遍染心故。與並及言顯隨煩惱非唯二十。雜事等說貪等多種隨煩惱故。隨煩惱名亦攝煩惱。是前煩惱等流性故。煩惱同類餘染污法但名隨煩惱。非煩惱攝故。唯說二十隨煩惱者謂非煩惱。唯染粗故。此餘染法或此分位或此等流。皆此所攝隨其類別如理應知。如是二十隨煩惱中。小十大三定是假有。無慚無愧不信懈怠定是實有。教理成故。掉舉惛沈散亂三種。
有義是假。有義是實。所引理教如前應知。二十皆通俱生分別。隨二煩惱勢力起故。此二十中小十展轉定不俱起。互相違故。行相粗猛各為主故。中二一切不善心俱。隨應皆得小大俱起。論說大八遍諸染心。展轉小中皆容俱起。有處說六遍染心者惛掉增時不俱起故。有處但說五遍染者以惛掉等違唯善故。此唯染故非第八俱。第七識中唯
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：掉舉（uddhacca，心不平靜）和散亂（viksepa，心神不定）這兩種作用有什麼區別？掉舉使（心）容易動搖，散亂使（心）容易攀緣。即使在一剎那間，動搖和攀緣都沒有容易或不容易之分，但就相續而言，有容易的意義。在染污心的時候，由於掉舉和散亂的力量，常常應該唸唸之間容易動搖，容易攀緣。或者由於念等力量的制伏，就像被繫住的猿猴，有暫時安住的時候。所以，掉舉和散亂都遍及染污心。什麼是不正知（asamprajanya，缺乏正念）？以對所觀察的境產生錯誤的理解為體性，能夠障礙正知，以毀犯（戒律）為作用。意思是說，不正知的人常常會毀犯戒律。
有一種觀點認為，不正知是慧（prajna，智慧）的一部分，因為經中說這是與煩惱相應的慧。另一種觀點認為，不正知是癡（moha，愚癡）的一部分，因為《瑜伽師地論》說這是癡的一部分。使知不正，名為不正知。還有一種觀點認為，不正知是慧和癡各一部分，因為前面的兩種說法都比較簡略。論中又說，這個（不正知）遍及染污心。與『並』和『及』等詞語，顯示隨煩惱（upaklesa，次要的煩惱）不只是二十種。如《雜事品》等處說，貪等有多種隨煩惱。隨煩惱這個名稱也包括煩惱，因為它是前面煩惱的等流性。與煩惱同類的其餘染污法，只稱為隨煩惱，不屬於煩惱所攝。所以只說二十種隨煩惱，是指非煩惱，只是染污而且粗重。這些其餘的染污法，或者是這些（煩惱）的一部分，或者是這些（煩惱）的等流，都屬於這裡所攝，應根據其類別如理如實地瞭解。
像這樣，在二十種隨煩惱中，小十（指忿、恨、覆、惱、嫉、慳、誑、諂、害、憍）和大三（指無慚、無愧、掉舉）肯定是假有（prajnapti-sat，概念存在）。無慚（ahrikya，不知羞恥）、無愧（anapatrapya，不顧羞恥）、不信（asraddha，缺乏信心）、懈怠（kausidya，懶惰）肯定是實有（dravya-sat，實體存在），因為教理能夠成立。掉舉、惛沈（styana，精神萎靡）、散亂這三種，
有一種觀點認為是假有，有一種觀點認為是實有，所引用的理證和教證，如前面所說，應該知道。這二十種（隨煩惱）都通於俱生（sahaja，與生俱來）和分別（parikalpita，後天產生），因為隨順兩種煩惱的勢力而生起。這二十種中，小十展轉肯定不會同時生起，因為互相違背，而且行相粗猛，各自為主。中二（指不信、懈怠）與一切不善心同時生起。隨其相應，大小都可以同時生起。論中說，大八（指無慚、無愧、惛沈、掉舉、不信、懈怠、放逸、失念）遍及各種染污心。展轉而言，小中都容許同時生起。有的地方說六遍染污心，是因為惛沈和掉舉增盛的時候不會同時生起。有的地方只說五遍染污，是因為惛沈等違背唯善（的心）。這些（隨煩惱）只是染污，所以不與第八識（阿賴耶識，Alaya-vijnana）同時生起。第七識（末那識，Manas-vijnana）中只有……
【English Translation】 English version: What is the difference between the functions of uddhacca (restlessness, agitation) and viksepa (distraction, scattering of mind)? The former makes (the mind) easily unsteady, while the latter makes (the mind) easily attached. Even in a single moment, there is no easy or difficult distinction in unsteadiness and attachment, but in terms of continuity, there is a sense of ease. During a defiled state of mind, due to the power of uddhacca and viksepa, one should constantly and moment by moment be easily unsteady and easily attached. Alternatively, due to the restraining power of mindfulness (smrti) and other factors, like a tethered monkey, there are moments of temporary stability. Therefore, both uddhacca and viksepa pervade the defiled mind. What is asamprajanya (non-alertness, lack of clear comprehension)? It is characterized by a mistaken understanding of the observed object, and its function is to obstruct right knowledge and cause transgressions (of precepts). This means that those with asamprajanya often violate precepts.
One view holds that asamprajanya is a part of prajna (wisdom), because scriptures say it is wisdom associated with afflictions. Another view holds that asamprajanya is a part of moha (ignorance), because the Yogacarabhumi-sastra says it is a part of ignorance. Causing knowledge to be incorrect is called asamprajanya. Yet another view holds that asamprajanya is a part of both prajna and moha, because the previous two statements are abbreviated. The treatise also says that this (asamprajanya) pervades the defiled mind. The words 'and' and 'also' indicate that the upaklesas (secondary afflictions) are not limited to twenty. As stated in the Miscellaneous Matters section, there are various upaklesas such as greed. The term upaklesa also includes klesas (afflictions), because it is the outflowing nature of the preceding klesas. Other defiled dharmas of the same kind as klesas are only called upaklesas and are not included in the category of klesas. Therefore, the reason why only twenty upaklesas are mentioned is because they are not klesas, but are merely defiled and coarse. These other defiled dharmas, whether they are parts of these (klesas) or outflows of these (klesas), are all included here, and should be understood according to their respective categories as appropriate.
Thus, among the twenty upaklesas, the ten minor ones (wrath, resentment, concealment, vexation, jealousy, stinginess, deceitfulness, flattery, harmfulness, arrogance) and the three major ones (shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, restlessness) are definitely prajnapti-sat (nominally existent). Ahrikya (shamelessness), anapatrapya (lack of embarrassment), asraddha (lack of faith), and kausidya (laziness) are definitely dravya-sat (substantially existent), because doctrine and reason can establish this. As for uddhacca, styana (lethargy), and viksepa,
one view holds that they are nominally existent, and another view holds that they are substantially existent. The cited reasons and teachings should be understood as mentioned earlier. All twenty (upaklesas) are common to both sahaja (innate) and parikalpita (acquired), because they arise in accordance with the power of the two types of afflictions. Among these twenty, the ten minor ones definitely do not arise together in turn, because they contradict each other, and their characteristics are coarse and each is dominant. The two middle ones (lack of faith and laziness) arise together with all unwholesome minds. As appropriate, both minor and major ones can arise together. The treatise says that the eight major ones (shamelessness, lack of embarrassment, lethargy, restlessness, lack of faith, laziness, heedlessness, forgetfulness) pervade all defiled minds. In turn, both minor and middle ones can arise together. Some places say that six pervade the defiled mind, because lethargy and restlessness do not arise together when they are intensified. Some places only say that five pervade the defiled mind, because lethargy and others contradict only wholesome (minds). These (upaklesas) are only defiled, so they do not arise together with the eighth consciousness (Alaya-vijnana). In the seventh consciousness (Manas-vijnana) there are only...
有大八。取捨差別如上應知。第六識俱容有一切。小十粗猛五識中無。中大相通五識容有。由斯中大五受相應。有義小十除三。忿等唯喜憂捨三受相應。諂誑憍三四俱除苦。
有義忿等四俱除樂。諂誑憍三五受俱起。意有苦受前已說故。此受俱相如煩惱說。實義如是若隨粗相忿恨惱嫉害憂捨俱。覆慳喜捨餘三增樂。中大隨粗亦如實義。如是二十與別境五皆容俱起不相違故。染念染慧雖非念慧俱。而癡分者亦得相應故。念亦緣現曾習類境。忿亦得緣剎那過去故。忿與念亦得相應。染定起時心亦躁擾。故亂與定相應無失。中二大八十煩惱俱。小十定非見疑俱起。此相粗動彼審細故。忿等五法容慢癡俱。非貪恚並是瞋分故。慳癡慢俱非貪瞋並是貪分故。憍唯癡俱。與慢解別是貪分故。覆誑與諂貪癡慢俱。行相無違貪癡分故。小七中二唯不善攝。小三大八亦通無記。小七中二唯欲界攝。誑諂欲色。餘通三界。生在下地容起上十一。耽定於他起憍誑諂故。若生上地起下後十。邪見愛俱容起彼故。小十生上無由起下。非正潤生及謗滅故。中二大八下亦緣上。上緣貪等相應起故。
有義小十下不緣上。行相粗近不遠取故。有義嫉等亦得緣上。于勝地法生嫉等故。大八諂誑上亦緣下。下緣慢等相應起故。梵于釋子起諂誑故
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 有小煩惱八種（小八），它們之間的取捨差別如前文所述應當瞭解。第六意識（第六識）可以同時容納所有這些小煩惱。小隨煩惱十種（小十）因為粗猛，不會與前五識同時生起。中隨煩惱和大隨煩惱（中大）則與五識相通，五識可以容納它們。因此，中隨煩惱和大隨煩惱與五種感受相應。有一種觀點認為，小隨煩惱十種中，除了喜、憂、捨三種感受外，『忿』（憤怒）等煩惱只與這三種感受相應。『諂』（諂媚）、『誑』（欺騙）、『憍』（驕傲）這三種煩惱則排除了苦受，與其餘四種感受相應。 有一種觀點認為，『忿』等煩惱排除了樂受，與其餘四種感受相應。『諂』、『誑』、『憍』這三種煩惱則可以與五種感受同時生起。因為意識本身就有苦受，這在前面已經說過了。這些感受的相應情況與煩惱的描述相同。實際的意義是這樣的：如果按照粗略的相狀來說，『忿』、『恨』（怨恨）、『惱』（惱怒）、『嫉』（嫉妒）、『害』（損害）、『憂』（憂愁）、『捨』（捨棄）可以同時生起。『覆』（覆藏）、『慳』（吝嗇）與喜悅和捨棄相應，其餘三種煩惱則增加了樂受。中隨煩惱和大隨煩惱如果按照粗略的相狀來說，也與實際的意義相同。像這樣，這二十種隨煩惱與別境五心所（別境五）都可以同時生起，因為它們之間沒有衝突。染污的『念』（染念）和染污的『慧』（染慧）雖然不是『念』和『慧』同時生起，但是屬於『癡』（愚癡）的部分也可以相應，因為『念』也可以緣于現在和曾經習慣的境，『忿』也可以緣于剎那過去的境，所以『忿』與『念』也可以相應。當染污的禪定生起時，心也會躁動，所以散亂與禪定相應沒有錯誤。中隨煩惱兩種和大隨煩惱八種（中二大八）與十種根本煩惱同時生起。小隨煩惱十種（小十）一定不會與『見』（邪見）和『疑』（懷疑）同時生起，因為小隨煩惱的相狀粗略而動搖，而『見』和『疑』則審慎而細微。『忿』等五種法可以與『慢』（驕慢）和『癡』同時生起，但不會與『貪』（貪婪）和『恚』（嗔恨）同時生起，因為它們是『瞋』的一部分。『慳』、『癡』、『慢』可以同時生起，但不會與『貪』和『瞋』同時生起，因為它們是『貪』的一部分。『憍』只與『癡』同時生起，與『慢』的理解不同，因為它是『貪』的一部分。『覆』、『誑』與『諂』可以與『貪』、『癡』、『慢』同時生起，因為它們的行相沒有衝突，是『貪』和『癡』的一部分。小隨煩惱七種和中隨煩惱兩種（小七中二）只屬於不善法。小隨煩惱三種和大隨煩惱八種（小三大八）也通於無記法。小隨煩惱七種和中隨煩惱兩種（小七中二）只屬於欲界。『誑』和『諂』屬於欲界和色界。其餘的則通於三界。如果眾生生於下地，可以生起上地的十一種煩惱，因為耽著禪定，會對他人產生『憍』、『誑』、『諂』。如果生於上地，可以生起下地的後十種煩惱，因為邪見和愛可以同時生起。小隨煩惱十種（小十）生於上地，沒有理由生起下地的煩惱，因為它們不正當，不能潤生，也不能誹謗滅盡。 中隨煩惱兩種和大隨煩惱八種（中二大八），下地也可以緣于上地，因為上地緣于貪等煩惱相應生起。有一種觀點認為，小隨煩惱十種（小十），下地不能緣于上地，因為它們的行相粗略而接近，不能遠取。有一種觀點認為，『嫉』等煩惱也可以緣于上地，因為對於殊勝的地位和法會產生嫉妒等煩惱。大隨煩惱八種（大八），『諂』和『誑』，上地也可以緣于下地，因為下地緣于慢等煩惱相應生起。例如，梵天會對釋子（Śākya，釋迦族人）產生『諂』和『誑』。
【English Translation】 English version There are eight minor afflictions (小八, xiǎo bā). The differences in their acceptance and rejection should be understood as described above. The sixth consciousness (第六識, dì liù shí) can accommodate all of them. The ten minor secondary afflictions (小十, xiǎo shí) are too coarse and violent to arise in the five sense consciousnesses. The middle and major secondary afflictions (中大, zhōng dà) are common to the five consciousnesses, so the five consciousnesses can accommodate them. Therefore, the middle and major secondary afflictions are associated with the five types of feelings. Some argue that among the ten minor secondary afflictions, 'Anger' (忿, fèn) and others, except for the feelings of joy, sorrow, and equanimity, are only associated with these three feelings. 'Flattery' (諂, chǎn), 'Deceit' (誑, kuáng), and 'Arrogance' (憍, jiāo) exclude the feeling of suffering and are associated with the other four feelings. Some argue that 'Anger' and others exclude the feeling of pleasure and are associated with the other four feelings. 'Flattery', 'Deceit', and 'Arrogance' can arise simultaneously with all five feelings. This is because the mind itself has the feeling of suffering, as mentioned earlier. The association of these feelings is similar to the description of afflictions. The actual meaning is as follows: If we consider the coarse aspects, 'Anger', 'Resentment' (恨, hèn), 'Annoyance' (惱, nǎo), 'Jealousy' (嫉, jí), 'Harm' (害, hài), 'Sorrow' (憂, yōu), and 'Equanimity' (捨, shě) can arise simultaneously. 'Concealment' (覆, fù) and 'Stinginess' (慳, qiān) are associated with joy and equanimity, while the other three afflictions add the feeling of pleasure. The middle and major secondary afflictions, if considered in their coarse aspects, are also the same as the actual meaning. In this way, these twenty secondary afflictions and the five specific object mental factors (別境五, bié jìng wǔ) can all arise simultaneously because there is no conflict between them. Although defiled 'Mindfulness' (念, niàn) and defiled 'Wisdom' (慧, huì) do not arise simultaneously as 'Mindfulness' and 'Wisdom', the part belonging to 'Ignorance' (癡, chī) can also be associated because 'Mindfulness' can also be directed towards present and past habitual objects, and 'Anger' can also be directed towards momentary past objects, so 'Anger' and 'Mindfulness' can also be associated. When defiled samadhi arises, the mind is also agitated, so distraction and samadhi are not contradictory. The two middle secondary afflictions and the eight major secondary afflictions (中二大八, zhōng èr dà bā) arise simultaneously with the ten fundamental afflictions. The ten minor secondary afflictions (小十, xiǎo shí) definitely do not arise simultaneously with 'Wrong View' (見, jiàn) and 'Doubt' (疑, yí) because the aspects of the minor secondary afflictions are coarse and wavering, while 'Wrong View' and 'Doubt' are careful and subtle. The five dharmas such as 'Anger' can arise simultaneously with 'Pride' (慢, màn) and 'Ignorance', but not with 'Greed' (貪, tān) and 'Hatred' (恚, huì) because they are part of 'Hatred'. 'Stinginess', 'Ignorance', and 'Pride' can arise simultaneously, but not with 'Greed' and 'Hatred' because they are part of 'Greed'. 'Arrogance' only arises simultaneously with 'Ignorance', which is different from the understanding of 'Pride' because it is part of 'Greed'. 'Concealment', 'Deceit', and 'Flattery' can arise simultaneously with 'Greed', 'Ignorance', and 'Pride' because their aspects are not contradictory and are part of 'Greed' and 'Ignorance'. The seven minor secondary afflictions and the two middle secondary afflictions (小七中二, xiǎo qī zhōng èr) are only included in unwholesome dharmas. The three minor secondary afflictions and the eight major secondary afflictions (小三大八, xiǎo sān dà bā) are also common to neutral dharmas. The seven minor secondary afflictions and the two middle secondary afflictions (小七中二, xiǎo qī zhōng èr) are only included in the desire realm. 'Deceit' and 'Flattery' belong to the desire and form realms. The rest are common to the three realms. If beings are born in a lower realm, they can generate the eleven afflictions of the upper realm because they are attached to samadhi and develop 'Arrogance', 'Deceit', and 'Flattery' towards others. If born in an upper realm, they can generate the latter ten afflictions of the lower realm because wrong views and love can arise simultaneously. The ten minor secondary afflictions (小十, xiǎo shí) born in the upper realm have no reason to generate the afflictions of the lower realm because they are not proper, cannot moisten rebirth, and cannot slander extinction. The two middle secondary afflictions and the eight major secondary afflictions (中二大八, zhōng èr dà bā) can also be directed from the lower realm to the upper realm because the upper realm arises in association with afflictions such as greed. Some argue that the ten minor secondary afflictions (小十, xiǎo shí) cannot be directed from the lower realm to the upper realm because their aspects are coarse and close, and they cannot be taken from afar. Some argue that afflictions such as 'Jealousy' can also be directed towards the upper realm because jealousy and other afflictions arise towards superior positions and dharmas. The eight major secondary afflictions (大八, dà bā), 'Flattery' and 'Deceit', can also be directed from the upper realm to the lower realm because the lower realm arises in association with afflictions such as pride. For example, Brahma can develop 'Flattery' and 'Deceit' towards the Śākyas (釋子, shì zǐ).
。憍不緣下非所恃故。二十皆非學無學攝。此但是染彼唯凈故。後十唯通見修所斷。與二煩惱相應起故。見所斷者隨迷諦相或總或別煩惱俱生。故隨所應皆通四諦。迷諦親疏等皆如煩惱說。前十有義唯修所斷。緣粗事境任運生故。
有義亦通見修所斷。依二煩惱勢力起故。緣他見等生忿等故。見所斷者隨所應緣總別惑力皆通四諦。此中有義忿等但緣迷諦惑生非親迷諦。行相粗淺不深取故。
有義嫉等亦親迷諦。于滅道等生嫉等故。然忿等十但緣有事。要記本質方得生故。緣有漏等準上應知。
## 成唯識論卷第六
大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 成唯識論
## 成唯識論卷第七
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
已說二十隨煩惱相。不定有四。其相云何。頌曰。
不定謂悔眠 尋伺二各二
論曰。悔眠尋伺于善染等皆不定故。非如觸等定遍心故。非如欲等定遍地故。立不定名。悔謂惡作。惡所作業追悔為性。障止為業。此即于果假立因名。先惡所作業後方追悔故。悔先不作亦惡所攝。如追悔言我先不作如是事業。是我惡作。眠謂睡眠。令身不自在昧略為性。障觀為業。謂睡眠位身不自在心極闇劣。一門轉故。昧簡在定。略別寤時。令顯睡眠非無體
用。有無心位假立此名。如餘蓋纏心相應故。有義此二唯癡為體。說隨煩惱及癡分故。有義不然亦通善故。應說此二染癡為體。凈即無癡。論依染分說隨煩惱及癡分攝。有義此說亦不應理。無記非癡無癡性故。應說惡作思慧為體。明瞭思擇所作業故。睡眠合用思想為體。思想種種夢境相故。論俱說為世俗有故。彼染污者是癡等流。如不信等說為癡分。有義彼說理亦不然。非思慧想纏彼性故。應說此二各別有體。與餘心所行相別故。隨癡相說名世俗有。尋謂尋求。令心匆遽于意言境粗轉為性。伺謂伺察。令心匆遽于意言境細轉為性。此二俱以安不安住身心分位所依為業。並用思慧一分為體。于意言境不深推度及深推度義類別故。若離思慧尋伺二種體類差別不可得故。二各二者。有義尋伺各有染凈二類差別。有義此釋不應正理。悔眠亦有染凈二故。應說如前諸染心所有是煩惱隨煩惱性。此二各有不善無記。或復各有纏及隨眠。有義彼釋亦不應理。不定四後有此言故。應言二者顯二種二。一謂悔眠。二謂尋伺。此二二種種類各別。故一二言顯二二種。此各有二。謂染不染。非如善染各唯一故。或唯簡染故說此言。有亦說為隨煩惱故。為顯不定義說二各二言。故置此言深為有用。
四中尋伺定是假有。思慧合成聖所說故
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：有人問：『有沒有無心位，而只是假立這個名稱？』答：『就像其餘的蓋（五蓋，指貪慾蓋、嗔恚蓋、睡眠蓋、掉舉惡作蓋、疑蓋）纏繞，與心相應一樣（所以是假立的）。』 有人認為，惡作（Kaukṛtya，對已做或未做之事感到後悔）和睡眠（Middha，昏沉和睡眠）這兩種心所，只有癡（Moha，無明）作為它們的本體，因為經論中說它們是隨煩惱以及屬於癡的一部分。 有人認為不然，因為它們也可能與善心相應。所以應該說這兩種心所是染污的癡作為它們的本體，清凈時就是無癡（Amoha，智慧）。經論依據染污的部分，說它們屬於隨煩惱以及癡的一部分。 有人認為這種說法也不合理，因為無記（不善不惡的狀態）不是癡或無癡的性質。應該說惡作以思（Cetana，意志）和慧（Prajna，智慧）為本體，因為它們能明瞭地思考和選擇所做的事情。 睡眠則合用思想（Samjna，認知）作為本體，因為思想會產生種種夢境。經論中都說它們是世俗諦（Samvriti-satya，相對真理）所擁有的。 那些被染污的惡作和睡眠，是癡的等流（Nisyanda，從煩惱產生的後續煩惱），就像不信等被說成是癡的一部分一樣。 有人認為那種說法也不合理，因為思、慧、想並不是它們的性質。應該說惡作和睡眠各自有不同的本體，因為它們與其餘心所的行相不同。隨順於癡的相貌，所以被稱為世俗諦所擁有。 尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）是指尋求，使心匆忙地在意識語言的境界中粗略地運轉，這是它的性質。伺（Vicara，精細的思考）是指伺察，使心匆忙地在意識語言的境界中精細地運轉，這是它的性質。這二者都以安住或不安住身心的分位作為所依的功用，並且都以思和慧的一部分作為本體。因為對於意識語言境界的不深入推度和深入推度在意義上有所區別。如果離開思和慧，尋和伺這兩種心所的體類差別就無法獲得。 『二各二者』，有人認為尋和伺各自有染污和清凈兩種差別。 有人認為這種解釋不合理，因為悔和眠也有染污和清凈兩種。 應該說，像前面所說的那些染污心所一樣，具有煩惱和隨煩惱的性質。尋和伺各自有不善和無記兩種。或者各自有纏（Paryavasthana，煩惱的持續狀態）和隨眠（Anusaya，煩惱的潛在狀態）。 有人認為那種解釋也不合理，因為不定法（Aniyata，不確定是善、惡或無記的心理因素）四種之後有這句話。 應該說『二者』顯示兩種二。一是悔和眠，二是尋和伺。這兩種二種種類各自不同。所以用『一』和『二』這兩個詞來顯示兩種二種。這各自有兩種，即染污和不染污。不像善和染污各自只有一種。 或者只是爲了簡別染污，所以說這句話。因為也有說它們是隨煩惱的緣故。爲了顯示不定，所以說『二各二』這句話。所以設定這句話非常有作用。 四種不定法中，尋和伺肯定是假有（假名安立），因為它們是思和慧合成的，是聖者所說的。
【English Translation】 English version: Someone asks: 'Is there a state of no-mind, and this name is merely provisionally established?' The answer is: 'Just like the remaining coverings (the five hindrances, namely, sensual desire, ill-will, sloth and torpor, restlessness and worry, and doubt) entangle and correspond with the mind (so it is provisionally established).' Some believe that Kaukṛtya (regret over what has been done or not done) and Middha (drowsiness and sleep), these two mental factors, only have Moha (ignorance) as their substance, because the scriptures say that they are secondary afflictions and belong to a part of ignorance. Some think otherwise, because they can also correspond with wholesome minds. Therefore, it should be said that these two mental factors are defiled ignorance as their substance, and when pure, they are Amoha (wisdom). The scriptures, based on the defiled part, say that they belong to secondary afflictions and a part of ignorance. Some believe that this statement is also unreasonable, because the indeterminate (a state that is neither wholesome nor unwholesome) is not the nature of ignorance or non-ignorance. It should be said that Kaukṛtya takes Cetana (volition) and Prajna (wisdom) as its substance, because they can clearly think and choose what to do. Middha combines Samjna (cognition) as its substance, because thoughts produce various dream states. The scriptures both say that they are possessed by conventional truth (Samvriti-satya, relative truth). Those defiled Kaukṛtya and Middha are the Nisyanda (outflow, subsequent afflictions arising from afflictions) of ignorance, just as disbelief and the like are said to be a part of ignorance. Some believe that that statement is also unreasonable, because thought, wisdom, and cognition are not their nature. It should be said that Kaukṛtya and Middha each have different substances, because their characteristics are different from the remaining mental factors. Following the appearance of ignorance, they are called possessed by conventional truth. Vitarka (gross thought) means seeking, causing the mind to hastily and coarsely operate in the realm of conscious language, which is its nature. Vicara (subtle thought) means examining, causing the mind to hastily and subtly operate in the realm of conscious language, which is its nature. Both of these take the state of being settled or unsettled in body and mind as their function, and both take a part of thought and wisdom as their substance. Because there is a difference in meaning between not deeply investigating and deeply investigating the realm of conscious language. If separated from thought and wisdom, the difference in the nature of these two mental factors, Vitarka and Vicara, cannot be obtained. 'Two each two' means that some believe that Vitarka and Vicara each have two kinds of differences: defiled and pure. Some believe that this explanation is unreasonable, because regret and sleep also have two kinds: defiled and pure. It should be said that, like those defiled mental factors mentioned earlier, they have the nature of afflictions and secondary afflictions. Vitarka and Vicara each have two kinds: unwholesome and indeterminate. Or each has entanglement (Paryavasthana, the continuous state of afflictions) and latent tendencies (Anusaya, the potential state of afflictions). Some believe that that explanation is also unreasonable, because there is this statement after the four indeterminate factors (Aniyata, psychological factors that are not certain to be wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate). It should be said that 'two' shows two kinds of two. One is regret and sleep, and the other is Vitarka and Vicara. These two kinds of two are each different. Therefore, the words 'one' and 'two' are used to show two kinds of two. Each of these has two kinds, namely defiled and undefiled. Unlike wholesome and defiled, which each have only one kind. Or it is only to distinguish defilement, so this statement is made. Because it is also said that they are secondary afflictions. To show the indeterminate, the statement 'two each two' is made. Therefore, setting this statement is very useful. Among the four indeterminate factors, Vitarka and Vicara are definitely provisionally existent (established by false names), because they are composed of thought and wisdom, which is what the sages said.
。悔眠有義亦是假有。瑜伽說為世俗有故有義此二是實物有。唯後二種說假有故。世俗有言隨他相說非顯前二定是假有。又如內種體雖是實而論亦說世俗有故。四中尋伺定不相應。體類是同粗細異故。依于尋伺有染離染立三地別。不依彼種現起有無故無雜亂。俱與前二容互相應。前二亦有互相應義。四皆不與第七八俱。義如前說。悔眠唯與第六識俱非五法故。有義尋伺亦五識俱。論說五識有尋伺故。又說尋伺即七分別謂有相等。雜集復言。任運分別謂五識故。有義尋伺唯意識俱。論說尋求伺察等法皆是意識不共法故。又說尋伺憂喜相應曾不說與苦樂俱故。捨受遍故可不待說。何緣不說與苦樂俱。雖初靜慮有意地樂。而不離喜總說喜名。雖純苦處有意地苦。而似憂故總說為憂。又說尋伺以名身等義為所緣。非五識身以名身等義為境故。然說五識有尋伺者。顯多由彼起非說彼相應。雜集所言任運分別謂五識者。彼與瑜伽所說分別義各有異。彼說任運即是五識。瑜伽說此是五識俱分別意識相應尋伺。故彼所引為證不成。由此五識定無尋伺。有義惡作憂捨相應。唯戚行轉通無記故。睡眠喜憂捨受俱起。行通歡戚中庸轉故。尋伺憂喜捨樂相應。初靜慮中意樂俱故。有義此四亦苦受俱。純苦趣中意若俱故。四皆容與五別境俱。行相
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 『悔』（Kaukṛtya，對已做錯的事感到後悔）和『眠』（Middha，睡眠），從存在的意義上來說，也是假有（Prajñaptisat）。《瑜伽師地論》（Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra）說它們是世俗有（Saṃvṛtisat），因此，從存在的意義上來說，只有尋（Vitarka，粗略的思考）和伺（Vicāra，精細的觀察）是實物有（Dravyasat）。 只有後兩種（悔和眠）被認為是假有，『世俗有』這個詞是根據它們與其他事物的關係來說的，並不是說前兩種（尋和伺）一定是假有。例如，內在的種子（內種子）的體性雖然是真實的，但從作用上來說，也可以說是世俗有。 在四種心所（悔、眠、尋、伺）中，尋和伺在禪定中不相應，因為它們的體性是相同的，只是粗細程度不同。根據尋和伺的有染（有煩惱）和離染（無煩惱），可以建立三地的區別（欲界、色界、無色界），而不是根據它們是否現起。因此，不會有混淆。 尋和伺都可以與前兩種（悔和眠）相互相應，前兩種（悔和眠）之間也有相互相應的可能性。這四種心所（悔、眠、尋、伺）都不與第七識（末那識，Manas）和第八識（阿賴耶識，Ālaya-vijñāna）同時生起，原因如前所述。 悔和眠只與第六識（意識，Manovijñāna）同時生起，因為它們不是五法（五遍行心所）。有觀點認為，尋和伺也與五識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識）同時生起，因為論典中說五識也有尋和伺。論典中還說，尋和伺就是第七識的分辨，即有相等（Sama-tā）。《雜集論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya）又說，任運分別（自然而然的分辨）是五識的作用。有觀點認為，尋和伺只與意識同時生起，因為論典中說，尋求、伺察等法都是意識不共的法。論典中還說，尋和伺與憂和喜相應，從未說過與苦和樂相應。捨受（Upekṣā，不苦不樂的感受）是普遍的，所以可以不用特別說明。 為什麼不說尋和伺與苦和樂相應呢？雖然在初禪中有意地的樂受，但不離喜受，所以總稱為喜。雖然在純粹的苦處有意地的苦受，但類似於憂，所以總稱為憂。論典中還說，尋和伺以名身（Nāma-kāya，名稱的集合）等義為所緣，而不是五識以名身等義為所緣境。然而，說五識有尋和伺，是爲了表明五識的生起多由尋和伺引起，而不是說它們相應。《雜集論》所說的任運分別謂五識，與《瑜伽師地論》所說的分別義各有不同。《雜集論》說任運就是五識，《瑜伽師地論》說任運是與五識俱起的、與分別意識相應的尋和伺。因此，《雜集論》所引用的不能作為證明。由此可見，五識一定沒有尋和伺。 有觀點認為，惡作（Kaukṛtya，對已做錯的事感到後悔）與憂和捨相應，因為它的行相是戚行（感到憂愁），並且通於無記（不善不惡）。睡眠與喜、憂、捨受同時生起，因為它的行相通於歡、戚、中庸。尋和伺與憂、喜、捨、樂相應，因為在初禪中有意地的樂受。有觀點認為，這四種心所（悔、眠、尋、伺）也與苦受相應，因為在純粹的苦趣中有意地的苦受。這四種心所都可以與五別境（欲、勝解、念、定、慧）同時生起，因為它們的行相...
【English Translation】 English version 'Regret' (Kaukṛtya, remorse for wrong actions) and 'sleep' (Middha, sleep), in terms of existence, are also provisionally existent (Prajñaptisat). The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states that they are conventionally existent (Saṃvṛtisat), therefore, in terms of existence, only 'seeking' (Vitarka, gross thought) and 'investigation' (Vicāra, subtle observation) are substantially existent (Dravyasat). Only the latter two (regret and sleep) are considered provisionally existent. The term 'conventionally existent' is used in relation to their connection with other things, not to say that the former two (seeking and investigation) are necessarily provisionally existent. For example, although the nature of the internal seed (internal seed) is real, in terms of function, it can also be said to be conventionally existent. Among the four mental factors (regret, sleep, seeking, investigation), seeking and investigation do not correspond in meditative concentration because their nature is the same, only differing in the degree of coarseness and subtlety. Based on the tainted (with afflictions) and untainted (without afflictions) nature of seeking and investigation, the distinction of the three realms (desire realm, form realm, formless realm) can be established, rather than based on whether they arise or not. Therefore, there will be no confusion. Seeking and investigation can both correspond with the former two (regret and sleep), and there is also the possibility of mutual correspondence between the former two (regret and sleep). All four mental factors (regret, sleep, seeking, investigation) do not arise simultaneously with the seventh consciousness (Manas) and the eighth consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna), for reasons stated earlier. Regret and sleep only arise simultaneously with the sixth consciousness (Manovijñāna, mind consciousness) because they are not the five omnipresent mental factors. Some argue that seeking and investigation also arise simultaneously with the five consciousnesses (eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness) because the treatises state that the five consciousnesses also have seeking and investigation. The treatises also state that seeking and investigation are the discrimination of the seventh consciousness, i.e., having equality (Sama-tā). The Abhidharma-samuccaya further states that spontaneous discrimination is the function of the five consciousnesses. Some argue that seeking and investigation only arise simultaneously with the mind consciousness because the treatises state that seeking, investigation, and other such dharmas are unique to the mind consciousness. The treatises also state that seeking and investigation correspond with sorrow and joy, and have never been said to correspond with suffering and pleasure. Indifferent feeling (Upekṣā, neither pleasant nor unpleasant feeling) is universal, so it may not need special mention. Why is it not said that seeking and investigation correspond with suffering and pleasure? Although there is mental pleasure in the first dhyana, it is inseparable from joy, so it is generally called joy. Although there is mental suffering in the realm of pure suffering, it is similar to sorrow, so it is generally called sorrow. The treatises also state that seeking and investigation take the meaning of name-body (Nāma-kāya, collection of names) etc. as their object, rather than the five consciousnesses taking the meaning of name-body etc. as their object. However, saying that the five consciousnesses have seeking and investigation is to indicate that the arising of the five consciousnesses is mostly caused by seeking and investigation, rather than saying that they correspond. The spontaneous discrimination mentioned in the Abhidharma-samuccaya as the five consciousnesses differs in meaning from the discrimination mentioned in the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra. The Abhidharma-samuccaya says that spontaneity is the five consciousnesses, while the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that spontaneity is seeking and investigation that arise together with the five consciousnesses and correspond with the discriminating mind consciousness. Therefore, what is cited by the Abhidharma-samuccaya cannot be used as proof. From this, it can be seen that the five consciousnesses certainly do not have seeking and investigation. Some argue that remorse (Kaukṛtya, regret for wrong actions) corresponds with sorrow and indifference because its aspect is sorrowful and it is common to the indeterminate. Sleep arises simultaneously with joy, sorrow, and indifferent feeling because its aspect is common to happiness, sorrow, and neutrality. Seeking and investigation correspond with sorrow, joy, indifference, and pleasure because there is mental pleasure in the first dhyana. Some argue that these four mental factors (regret, sleep, seeking, investigation) also correspond with suffering because there is mental suffering in the realm of pure suffering. These four mental factors can all arise simultaneously with the five specific objects (desire, conviction, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom) because their aspects...
所緣不相違故。悔眠但與十善容俱。此唯在欲無輕安故。尋伺容與十一善俱。初靜慮中輕安俱故。悔但容與無明相應。此行相粗貪等細故。睡眠尋伺十煩惱俱。此彼展轉不相違故。悔與中大隨惑容俱。非忿等十各為主故。睡眠尋伺二十容俱。眠等位中皆起彼故。此四皆通善等三性。于無記業亦追悔故。有義初二唯生得善。行相粗鄙及昧略故。後二亦通加行善攝。聞所成等有尋伺故。有義初二亦加行善。聞思位中有悔眠故。後三皆通染凈無記。惡作非染解粗猛故。四無記中悔唯中二。行相粗猛非定果故。眠除第四非定引生。異熟生心亦得眠故。尋伺除初彼解微劣不能尋察名等義故。惡作睡眠唯欲界有。尋伺在欲及初靜慮。餘界地法皆妙靜故。悔眠生上必不現起。尋伺上下亦起下上。下上尋伺能緣上下。有義悔眠不能緣上。行相粗近極昧略故。有義此二亦緣上境。有邪見者悔修定故。夢能普緣所更事故。悔非無學離欲捨故。睡眠尋伺皆通三種。求解脫者有為善法皆名學故。學究竟者有為善法皆無學故。悔眠唯通見修所斷。亦邪見等勢力起故。非無漏道親所引生故。亦非如憂深求解脫故。若已斷故名非所斷。則無學眠非所斷攝。尋伺雖非真無漏道。而能引彼從彼引生故通見修非所斷攝。有義尋伺非所斷者。於五法中唯分別攝
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 『所緣不相違故』（因為它們所緣的境不互相違背）。『悔眠但與十善容俱』（追悔和睡眠只與十種善心所同時生起）。『此唯在欲無輕安故』（這只是在欲界才有，因為沒有輕安）。『尋伺容與十一善俱』（尋和伺可以與十一種善心所同時生起）。『初靜慮中輕安俱故』（因為在初禪中有輕安）。 『悔但容與無明相應』（追悔只能與無明相應）。『此行相粗貪等細故』（因為追悔的行相粗糙，而貪等煩惱的行相微細）。『睡眠尋伺十煩惱俱』（睡眠和尋伺可以與十種煩惱同時生起）。『此彼展轉不相違故』（因為它們之間輾轉不互相違背）。 『悔與中大隨惑容俱』（追悔可以與中隨煩惱和大隨煩惱同時生起）。『非忿等十各為主故』（因為忿等十種小隨煩惱各自為主）。『睡眠尋伺二十容俱』（睡眠和尋伺可以與二十種煩惱同時生起）。『眠等位中皆起彼故』（因為在睡眠等狀態中，這些煩惱都會生起）。 『此四皆通善等三性』（這四種心所都通於善、惡、無記三種性質）。『于無記業亦追悔故』（因為對於無記業也會追悔）。『有義初二唯生得善』（有一種觀點認為，追悔和睡眠只有生得善）。『行相粗鄙及昧略故』（因為它們的行相粗糙鄙陋，並且不明顯）。『後二亦通加行善攝』（後兩種心所，尋和伺，也通於加行善）。『聞所成等有尋伺故』（因為通過聽聞等方式獲得的智慧，有尋和伺）。 『有義初二亦加行善』（有一種觀點認為，追悔和睡眠也是加行善）。『聞思位中有悔眠故』（因為在聽聞和思考的時候，也會有追悔和睡眠）。『後三皆通染凈無記』（後三種心所，惡作、睡眠、尋伺，都通於染污、清凈和無記）。『惡作非染解粗猛故』（因為惡作不是染污，它的理解是粗猛的）。 『四無記中悔唯中二』（在四種無記心中，追悔只存在於中間兩種）。『行相粗猛非定果故』（因為它的行相粗猛，不是禪定的結果）。『眠除第四非定引生』（睡眠除了第四種無記心，不是由禪定引起的）。『異熟生心亦得眠故』（因為異熟生心也可以有睡眠）。『尋伺除初彼解微劣不能尋察名等義故』（尋和伺除了第一種無記心，因為那種心的理解力微弱，不能尋察名等意義）。 『惡作睡眠唯欲界有』（惡作和睡眠只有在欲界才有）。『尋伺在欲及初靜慮』（尋和伺在欲界和初禪都有）。『餘界地法皆妙靜故』（因為其他界地的法都非常寂靜）。『悔眠生上必不現起』（追悔和睡眠生到上面的界地，一定不會現起）。『尋伺上下亦起下上』（尋和伺在上面的界地和下面的界地都可以生起）。『下上尋伺能緣上下』（下面的和上面的尋伺可以緣下面的和上面的境界）。 『有義悔眠不能緣上』（有一種觀點認為，追悔和睡眠不能緣上面的境界）。『行相粗近極昧略故』（因為它們的行相粗糙、接近，並且非常不明顯）。『有義此二亦緣上境』（有一種觀點認為，這兩種心所也能緣上面的境界）。『有邪見者悔修定故』（因為有邪見的人會後悔修禪定）。『夢能普緣所更事故』（夢能夠普遍地緣過去經歷的事情）。 『悔非無學離欲捨故』（追悔不是無學位的，因為已經離開了欲界的捨）。『睡眠尋伺皆通三種』（睡眠和尋伺都通於三種）。『求解脫者有為善法皆名學故』（因為求解脫的人所做的有為善法都叫做學）。『學究竟者有為善法皆無學故』（學到究竟的人所做的有為善法都叫做無學）。 『悔眠唯通見修所斷』（追悔和睡眠只通于見道和修道所斷）。『亦邪見等勢力起故』（也是因為邪見等勢力的生起）。『非無漏道親所引生故』（不是無漏道直接引發的）。『亦非如憂深求解脫故』（也不是像憂那樣深刻地求解脫）。『若已斷故名非所斷』（如果已經斷了，就叫做非所斷）。『則無學眠非所斷攝』（那麼無學位的睡眠就不是所斷的）。 『尋伺雖非真無漏道』（尋和伺雖然不是真正的無漏道）。『而能引彼從彼引生故通見修非所斷攝』（但是能夠引導無漏道，並且從無漏道中產生，所以通於見道和修道所斷）。『有義尋伺非所斷者』（有一種觀點認為，尋和伺不是所斷的）。『於五法中唯分別攝』（在五法中，只是分別攝）。
【English Translation】 English version 『所緣不相違故』 (Because their objects of cognition do not contradict each other). 『悔眠但與十善容俱』 (Regret and sleep only occur together with the ten wholesome mental factors). 『此唯在欲無輕安故』 (This only exists in the desire realm because there is no pliancy). 『尋伺容與十一善俱』 (Initial application and sustained application can occur together with eleven wholesome mental factors). 『初靜慮中輕安俱故』 (Because there is pliancy in the first dhyana). 『悔但容與無明相應』 (Regret only corresponds with ignorance). 『此行相粗貪等細故』 (Because the characteristic of regret is coarse, while the characteristic of greed and other afflictions is subtle). 『睡眠尋伺十煩惱俱』 (Sleep and initial/sustained application can occur together with ten afflictions). 『此彼展轉不相違故』 (Because they do not contradict each other reciprocally). 『悔與中大隨惑容俱』 (Regret can occur together with the medium and great secondary afflictions). 『非忿等十各為主故』 (Because anger and the other ten minor secondary afflictions each act as the main factor). 『睡眠尋伺二十容俱』 (Sleep and initial/sustained application can occur together with twenty afflictions). 『眠等位中皆起彼故』 (Because they all arise in states such as sleep). 『此四皆通善等三性』 (These four mental factors all pertain to the three natures of wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral). 『于無記業亦追悔故』 (Because one can also regret neutral actions). 『有義初二唯生得善』 (Some argue that the first two, regret and sleep, are only naturally wholesome). 『行相粗鄙及昧略故』 (Because their characteristics are coarse, base, and obscure). 『後二亦通加行善攝』 (The latter two, initial and sustained application, are also included in the wholesome actions of effort). 『聞所成等有尋伺故』 (Because initial and sustained application are present in wisdom gained through hearing, etc.). 『有義初二亦加行善』 (Some argue that the first two, regret and sleep, are also wholesome actions of effort). 『聞思位中有悔眠故』 (Because regret and sleep are present during hearing and thinking). 『後三皆通染凈無記』 (The latter three, remorse, sleep, and initial/sustained application, all pertain to defiled, pure, and neutral states). 『惡作非染解粗猛故』 (Because remorse is not defiled, and its understanding is coarse and forceful). 『四無記中悔唯中二』 (Among the four types of neutral states, regret is only present in the middle two). 『行相粗猛非定果故』 (Because its characteristic is coarse and forceful, and it is not a result of meditative concentration). 『眠除第四非定引生』 (Sleep, except for the fourth type of neutral state, is not caused by meditative concentration). 『異熟生心亦得眠故』 (Because sleep can also occur in resultant consciousness). 『尋伺除初彼解微劣不能尋察名等義故』 (Initial and sustained application are excluded from the first type of neutral state because the understanding of that mind is weak and cannot investigate the meaning of names, etc.). 『惡作睡眠唯欲界有』 (Remorse and sleep only exist in the desire realm). 『尋伺在欲及初靜慮』 (Initial and sustained application are present in the desire realm and the first dhyana). 『餘界地法皆妙靜故』 (Because the dharmas of other realms and grounds are all wonderfully tranquil). 『悔眠生上必不現起』 (Regret and sleep, once born in higher realms, will definitely not arise). 『尋伺上下亦起下上』 (Initial and sustained application can arise in both higher and lower realms). 『下上尋伺能緣上下』 (Lower and higher initial/sustained application can cognize lower and higher realms). 『有義悔眠不能緣上』 (Some argue that regret and sleep cannot cognize higher realms). 『行相粗近極昧略故』 (Because their characteristics are coarse, near, and extremely obscure). 『有義此二亦緣上境』 (Some argue that these two can also cognize higher realms). 『有邪見者悔修定故』 (Because those with wrong views regret practicing meditation). 『夢能普緣所更事故』 (Dreams can universally cognize past experiences). 『悔非無學離欲捨故』 (Regret is not present in the state of no-more-learning because one has abandoned the equanimity of the desire realm). 『睡眠尋伺皆通三種』 (Sleep and initial/sustained application all pertain to the three types). 『求解脫者有為善法皆名學故』 (Because the wholesome conditioned dharmas done by those seeking liberation are all called learning). 『學究竟者有為善法皆無學故』 (The wholesome conditioned dharmas done by those who have completed learning are all called no-more-learning). 『悔眠唯通見修所斷』 (Regret and sleep only pertain to what is abandoned by the paths of seeing and cultivation). 『亦邪見等勢力起故』 (Also because they arise from the power of wrong views, etc.). 『非無漏道親所引生故』 (Because they are not directly caused by the unconditioned path). 『亦非如憂深求解脫故』 (Nor are they like sorrow, deeply seeking liberation). 『若已斷故名非所斷』 (If they have already been abandoned, they are called non-abandonable). 『則無學眠非所斷攝』 (Then sleep in the state of no-more-learning is not included in what is to be abandoned). 『尋伺雖非真無漏道』 (Although initial and sustained application are not truly unconditioned paths). 『而能引彼從彼引生故通見修非所斷攝』 (But they can lead to the unconditioned path and arise from it, so they pertain to what is abandoned by the paths of seeing and cultivation). 『有義尋伺非所斷者』 (Some argue that initial and sustained application are not to be abandoned). 『於五法中唯分別攝』 (Among the five dharmas, they are only included in discrimination).
。瑜伽說彼是分別故。有義此二亦正智攝。說正思惟是無漏故。彼能令心尋求等故。又說彼是言說因故。未究竟位於藥病等未能遍知。後得智中為他說法必假尋伺。非如佛地無功用說。故此二種亦通無漏。雖說尋伺必是分別。而不定說唯屬第三。後得正智中亦有分別故。餘門準上如理應思。
如是六位諸心所法。為離心體有別自性。為即是心分位差別。設爾何失。二俱有過。若離心體有別自性。如何聖教說唯有識。又如何說心遠獨行。染凈由心。士夫六界。莊嚴論說復云何通。如彼頌言。
許心似二現 如是似貪等 或似於信等 無別染善法
若即是心分位差別。如何聖教說心相應。他性相應非自性故。又如何說心與心所俱時而起如日與光。瑜伽論說復云何通。彼說心所非即心故。如彼頌言。
五種性不成 分位差過失 因緣無別故 與聖教相違
應說離心有別自性。以心勝故說唯識等。心所依心。勢力生故說似彼現。非彼即心。又識心言亦攝心所。恒相應故。唯識等言及現似彼皆無有失。此依世俗。若依勝義心所與心非離非即。諸識相望應知亦然。是謂大乘真俗妙理。已說六識心所相應。云何應知現起分位。頌曰。
１５ 依止根本識 五識隨緣現
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：瑜伽行派認為尋（Vitarka）和伺（Vicara）是分別（Vikalpa）的緣故。有些觀點認為這二者也屬於正智（Samyag-jnana）的範疇，因為經中說正思惟（Samyak-samkalpa）是無漏（Anasrava）的。它們能夠使心去尋求等等。而且經中說它們是言說的原因。在未究竟的階段，對於藥、病等等不能完全瞭解，在後得智（Prsthalabdha-jnana）中為他人說法，必定要藉助尋和伺，不像佛地（Buddha-bhumi）那樣無功用地宣說。所以這兩種也通於無漏。雖然說尋和伺必定是分別，但不一定說它們只屬於第三種分別。後得正智中也有分別的緣故。其餘方面可以參照以上道理如理地思考。
像這樣六種心所法（Caitasika），是離開心體（Citta）有別的自性（Svabhava），還是就是心的分位差別？如果這樣假設，會有什麼過失？兩種都有過失。如果離開心體有別的自性，那麼聖教（Arya-sasana）如何說唯有識（Vijnana-matra）？又如何說心遠離獨行，染凈由心，士夫六界（Purusa-sad-dhatu）？《莊嚴論》（Alankara-sastra）的說法又如何解釋？就像那首偈頌所說：
『允許心像二取顯現，像貪（Raga）等等一樣，或者像信（Sraddha）等等一樣，沒有別的染污和善良的法。』
如果就是心的分位差別，那麼聖教如何說心相應（Citta-samprayukta）？他性相應不是自性相應的緣故。又如何說心與心所同時生起，像太陽與光芒一樣？《瑜伽師地論》（Yoga-bhumi）的說法又如何解釋？它說心所不是即心，就像那首偈頌所說：
『五種姓（Panca-gotra）不能成立，分位差別有過失，因緣沒有差別，與聖教相違背。』
應該說離開心有別的自性。因為心殊勝的緣故，所以說唯識等等。心所依靠心，勢力生起的緣故，所以說像它顯現，不是它就是心。而且識心這個詞也包括心所，因為恒常相應。唯識等等的說法以及顯現像它，都沒有過失。這是依據世俗諦（Samvrti-satya）來說的。如果依據勝義諦（Paramartha-satya），心所與心非離非即。各種識相互之間也應該知道是這樣。這就是所謂的大乘（Mahayana）真俗二諦（Satya-dvaya）的微妙道理。已經說了六識（Sad-vijnana）的心所相應，應該如何知道現起的分位？偈頌說：
『依止根本識（Mula-vijnana），五識（Panca-vijnana）隨緣顯現。』
【English Translation】 English version: The Yogacara school says that Vitarka (initial application of thought) and Vicara (sustained application of thought) are due to Vikalpa (conceptualization). Some argue that these two are also included in Samyag-jnana (right knowledge), because the scriptures say that Samyak-samkalpa (right thought) is Anasrava (untainted). They enable the mind to seek, etc. Moreover, the scriptures say that they are the cause of speech. In the stage of non-ultimacy, one cannot fully understand medicine, illness, etc. In Prsthalabdha-jnana (knowledge attained subsequently), when teaching others, one must rely on Vitarka and Vicara, unlike in Buddha-bhumi (Buddha-land) where one speaks effortlessly. Therefore, these two also pertain to the untainted. Although it is said that Vitarka and Vicara are necessarily conceptualizations, it is not necessarily said that they belong only to the third type of conceptualization. This is because there is also conceptualization in Prsthalabdha-jnana. Other aspects should be considered reasonably based on the above principles.
Like these six types of Caitasika (mental factors), do they have separate Svabhava (self-nature) apart from Citta (mind), or are they merely differentiations of the mind? If this is assumed, what faults would arise? Both have faults. If they have separate self-nature apart from the mind, how do the Arya-sasana (holy teachings) say that there is only Vijnana-matra (consciousness-only)? And how do they say that the mind travels far and alone, that purity and impurity depend on the mind, and the Purusa-sad-dhatu (six elements of a person)? How can the Alankara-sastra (treatise on ornamentation) be explained? Like the verse says:
'Allow the mind to appear like dualistic grasping, like Raga (greed) etc., or like Sraddha (faith) etc., there are no separate defiled and virtuous dharmas.'
If they are merely differentiations of the mind, how do the holy teachings say that Citta-samprayukta (mind and mental factors are associated)? Because association with other natures is not association with self-nature. And how do they say that the mind and mental factors arise simultaneously, like the sun and its rays? How can the Yoga-bhumi (treatise on yoga) be explained? It says that mental factors are not the same as the mind, like the verse says:
'The five Gotra (lineages) cannot be established, differentiations have faults, the causes and conditions are not different, and it contradicts the holy teachings.'
It should be said that there is a separate self-nature apart from the mind. Because the mind is superior, it is said that there is only consciousness, etc. Mental factors rely on the mind, and because their power arises, it is said that they appear like it, but it is not that they are the mind. Moreover, the term 'consciousness-mind' also includes mental factors, because they are constantly associated. The statements of consciousness-only, etc., and appearing like it, have no faults. This is based on Samvrti-satya (conventional truth). If based on Paramartha-satya (ultimate truth), mental factors and the mind are neither separate nor identical. It should be known that the various consciousnesses are also like this in relation to each other. This is the so-called subtle principle of the Mahayana (Great Vehicle) of the two truths (Satya-dvaya). Having spoken of the association of mental factors with the six consciousnesses (Sad-vijnana), how should one know the divisions of arising? The verse says:
'Relying on the Mula-vijnana (foundational consciousness), the Panca-vijnana (five consciousnesses) appear according to conditions.'
或俱或不俱 如濤波依水
１６ 意識常現起 除生無想天 及無心二定 睡眠與悶絕
論曰。根本識者阿陀那識。染凈諸識生根本故。依止者謂前六轉識。以根本識為共親依。五識者謂前五轉識。種類相似故總說之。隨緣現言顯非常起。緣謂作意根境等緣。謂五識身內依本識。外隨作意五根境等眾緣和合方得現前。由此或俱或不俱起。外緣合者有頓漸故。如水濤波隨緣多少。此等法喻廣說如經。由五轉識行相粗動。所籍眾緣時多不俱。故起時少不起時多。第六意識雖亦粗動。而所籍緣無時不具。由違緣故有時不起。第七八識行相微細。所籍眾緣一切時有。故無緣礙令總不行。又五識身不能思慮。唯外門轉起籍多緣。故斷時多現行時少。第六意識自能思慮。內外門轉不籍多緣。唯除五位常能現起。故斷時少現起時多。由斯不說此隨緣現。五位者何。生無想等。無想天者謂修彼定厭粗想力生彼天中違不恒行心及心所想滅為首。名無想天。故六轉識于彼皆斷。有義彼天常無六識。聖教說彼無轉識故。說彼唯有有色支故。又說彼為無心地故。有義彼天將命終位。要起轉識然後命終。彼必起下潤生愛故。瑜伽論說後想生已是諸有情從彼沒故。然說彼無轉識等者。依長時說。非謂全
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 或俱或不俱，如濤波依水。
16 意識常現起，除生無想天（沒有思想的禪定天界），及無心二定（無想定和滅盡定），睡眠與悶絕。
論曰：根本識者阿陀那識（阿賴耶識，第八識）。染凈諸識生根本故。依止者謂前六轉識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）。以根本識為共親依。五識者謂前五轉識。種類相似故總說之。隨緣現言顯非常起。緣謂作意根境等緣。謂五識身內依本識，外隨作意五根境等眾緣和合方得現前。由此或俱或不俱起。外緣合者有頓漸故。如水濤波隨緣多少。此等法喻廣說如經。由五轉識行相粗動，所籍眾緣時多不俱。故起時少不起時多。第六意識雖亦粗動，而所籍緣無時不具。由違緣故有時不起。第七八識行相微細，所籍眾緣一切時有。故無緣礙令總不行。又五識身不能思慮，唯外門轉起籍多緣。故斷時多現行時少。第六意識自能思慮，內外門轉不籍多緣。唯除五位常能現起。故斷時少現起時多。由斯不說此隨緣現。五位者何？生無想等。無想天者謂修彼定厭粗想力生彼天中違不恒行心及心所想滅為首。名無想天。故六轉識于彼皆斷。有義彼天常無六識。聖教說彼無轉識故。說彼唯有有色支故。又說彼為無心地故。有義彼天將命終位。要起轉識然後命終。彼必起下潤生愛故。瑜伽論說後想生已是諸有情從彼沒故。然說彼無轉識等者。依長時說。非謂全
【English Translation】 English version Sometimes together, sometimes not, like waves depending on water.
16 Consciousness constantly arises, except in the birth in the 'Realm of Non-Perception' (a meditative realm devoid of thought), and the two 'mindless' concentrations (the 'Concentration of Non-Perception' and the 'Concentration of Cessation'), sleep, and fainting.
Treatise says: The fundamental consciousness is the 'Ādāna-vijñāna' (the storehouse consciousness, the eighth consciousness), because it is the root from which all defiled and pure consciousnesses arise. The 'dependent' refers to the first six 'transformed consciousnesses' (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness), which rely on the fundamental consciousness as their common and direct support. The five consciousnesses refer to the first five transformed consciousnesses, which are collectively referred to due to their similar nature. 'Arising according to conditions' indicates that they do not arise constantly. 'Conditions' refer to conditions such as attention, roots, and objects. That is, the five consciousnesses rely internally on the fundamental consciousness, and externally depend on the combination of various conditions such as attention, the five sense organs, and objects, in order to manifest. Therefore, they sometimes arise together and sometimes not. The combination of external conditions can be sudden or gradual, like waves on water depending on the amount of conditions. These analogies are explained in detail in the scriptures. Because the characteristics of the five transformed consciousnesses are coarse and active, the conditions they rely on are often not present together. Therefore, they arise less often and do not arise more often. Although the sixth consciousness is also coarse and active, the conditions it relies on are always present. However, it sometimes does not arise due to opposing conditions. The characteristics of the seventh and eighth consciousnesses are subtle, and the conditions they rely on are always present. Therefore, there are no conditions that prevent them from functioning. Furthermore, the five consciousnesses cannot think, and only arise through external gates, relying on many conditions. Therefore, they are interrupted more often and manifest less often. The sixth consciousness can think on its own, and arises through internal and external gates, not relying on many conditions. Except for five states, it can always manifest. Therefore, it is interrupted less often and manifests more often. Therefore, it is not said that it arises according to conditions. What are the five states? Birth in the 'Realm of Non-Perception' and so on. The 'Realm of Non-Perception' refers to those who cultivate that concentration,厭粗想力生彼天中違不恒行心及心所想滅為首。名無想天。故六轉識于彼皆斷。有義彼天常無六識。聖教說彼無轉識故。說彼唯有有色支故。又說彼為無心地故。有義彼天將命終位。要起轉識然後命終。彼必起下潤生愛故。瑜伽論說後想生已是諸有情從彼沒故。然說彼無轉識等者。依長時說。非謂全
無。有義生時亦有轉識。彼中有必起潤生煩惱故。如餘本有初必有轉識故。瑜伽論說。若生於彼唯入不起。其想若生從彼沒故。彼本有初若無轉識如何名入。先有後無乃名入故。抉擇分言所有生得心心所滅名無想故。此言意顯彼本有初有異熟生轉識暫起。宿因緣力後不復生。由斯引起異熟無記分位差別。說名無想。如善引生二定名善。不爾轉識一切不行。如何可言唯生得滅。故彼初位轉識暫起。彼天唯在第四靜慮。下想粗動難可斷故。上無無想異熟處故。即能引發無想定思。能感彼天異熟果故。及無心二定者。謂無想滅盡定。俱無六識故名無心。無想定者。謂有異生伏遍凈貪未伏上染。由出離想作意為先。令不恒行心心所滅想滅為首。立無想名。令身安和故亦名定。修習此定品別有三。下品修者現法必退。不能速疾還引現前。後生彼天不甚光凈形色廣大。定當中夭。中品修者現不必退。設退速疾還引現前。後生彼天雖甚光凈形色廣大而不最極。雖有中夭而不決定。上品修者現必不退。後生彼天最極光凈形色廣大。必無中夭。窮滿壽量後方殞沒。此定唯屬第四靜慮。又唯是善。彼所引故。下上地無由前說故。四業通三。除順現受。有義此定唯欲界起。由諸外道說力起故。人中慧解極猛利故。有義欲界先修習已。後生色界
能引現前。除無想天至究竟故。此由厭想欣彼果入故唯有漏。非聖所起。滅盡定者。謂有無學。或有學聖。已伏或離無所有貪上貪不定。由止息想作意為先。令不恒行恒行染污心心所滅立滅盡名。令身安和故亦名定。由偏厭受想亦名滅彼定。修習此定品別有三。下品修者現法必退。不能速疾還引現前。中品修者現不必退。設退速疾還引現前。上品修者畢竟不退。此定初修必依有頂遊觀無漏為加行入。次第定中最居後故。雖屬有頂而無漏攝。若修此定已得自在。餘地心後亦得現前。雖屬道諦而是非學非無學攝。似涅槃故。此定初起唯在人中。佛及弟子說力起故。人中慧解極猛利故。後上二界亦得現前。鄔陀夷經是此誠證。無色亦名意成天故。于藏識教未信受者。若生無色不起此定。恐無色心成斷滅故。已信生彼亦得現前。知有藏識不斷滅故。要斷三界見所斷惑方起此定。異生不能伏滅有頂心心所故。此定微妙要證二空。隨應後得所引發故。有義下八地修所斷惑中。要全斷欲餘伏或斷。然後方能初起此定。欲界惑種二性繁雜障定強故。唯說不還三乘無學及諸菩薩得此定故。彼隨所應生上八地皆得後起。有義要斷下之四地修所斷惑。餘伏或斷。然後方能初起此定。變異受俱煩惱種子障定強故。彼隨所應生上五地皆得後起。若
伏下惑能起此定。後不斷退生上地者。豈生上已卻斷下惑。斷亦無失。如生上者斷下末那得生惑故。然不還者對治力強。正潤生位不起煩惱。但由惑種潤上地生。雖所伏惑有退不退。而無伏下生上地義。故無生上卻斷下失。若諸菩薩先二乘位已得滅定後迴心者。一切位中能起此定。若不爾者或有乃至七地滿心方能永伏一切煩惱。雖未永斷欲界修惑。而如已斷能起此定。論說已入遠地菩薩方能現起滅盡定故。有從初地即能永伏一切煩惱如阿羅漢。彼十地中皆起此定。經說菩薩前六地中亦能現起滅盡定故。無心睡眠與悶絕者。謂有極重睡眠悶絕令前六識皆不現行。疲極等緣所引身位違前六識故名極重睡眠。此睡眠時雖無彼體。而由彼似彼。故假說彼名。風熱等緣所引身位亦違六識。故名極重悶絕。或此俱是觸處少分。除斯五位意識恒起。正死生時亦無意識。何故但說五位不行。有義死生及與言顯。彼說非理。所以者何。但說六時名無心故。謂前五位及無餘依。應說死生即悶絕攝。彼是最極悶絕位故。說及與言顯五無雜。此顯六識斷已後時依本識中自種還起。由此不說入無餘依。此五位中異生有四。除在滅定。聖唯後三。于中如來自在菩薩唯得存一。無睡悶故。是故八識一切有情心與末那二恒俱轉。若起第六則三俱轉。餘隨
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 伏藏的煩惱能夠引發這種禪定。之後不斷退轉而生於更高層天界的人，難道是生於更高層天界後才斷除下層天界的煩惱嗎？斷除也沒有過失。如同生於更高層天界的人，斷除了下層意根（末那，Manas）的染污，因此能夠生於上界。然而，不還果（Anāgāmin）的修行者，由於對治的力量強大，在受生的階段不會生起煩惱，只是由於煩惱的種子滋潤了上層天界的生命。雖然所伏藏的煩惱有退轉和不退轉的情況，但沒有伏藏下層煩惱而生於上層天界的道理，所以沒有生於上界後才斷除下層煩惱的過失。如果諸位菩薩在二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的階段已經證得了滅盡定（Nirodha-samāpatti），之後才回心向大乘，那麼在任何階段都能引發這種禪定。如果不是這樣，或許有人要到七地滿心（第七菩薩地的最後階段）才能永遠伏藏一切煩惱。雖然還沒有永遠斷除欲界的修惑（Bhāvanā-heya），但如同已經斷除一樣，能夠引發這種禪定。論典中說，已經進入遠行地（第五菩薩地）的菩薩才能顯現滅盡定。也有從初地（第一菩薩地）就能永遠伏藏一切煩惱，如同阿羅漢（Arhat）一樣。他們在十地（菩薩修行的十個階段）中都能引發這種禪定。經典中說，菩薩在前六地中也能顯現滅盡定。 無心睡眠和悶絕的人，是指有極其嚴重的睡眠和悶絕，使得前六識都不現行。疲勞等原因所導致的身位違背了前六識，所以稱為極其嚴重的睡眠。這種睡眠時雖然沒有睡眠的自體，但由於類似睡眠，所以假借睡眠之名。風熱等原因所導致的身位也違背了六識，所以稱為極其嚴重的悶絕。或者這些都是觸處（Sparśa-āyatana）的小部分。除了這五種情況，意識恒常生起。臨死和出生的時候也沒有意識，為什麼只說五種情況不生起意識呢？有人認為死亡、出生以及『與』字是爲了顯明。他們的說法不合理。為什麼呢？因為只說了六種情況是無心的，即前五種情況和無餘依涅槃（Nirupadhisesa-nirvana）。應該說死亡和出生包含在悶絕之中，因為那是極度的悶絕狀態。說『及與』是爲了顯明五種情況沒有混雜。這表明六識斷滅之後，依靠本識（Ālaya-vijñāna）中的種子還會生起。因此沒有說進入無餘依涅槃。這五種情況中，異生（凡夫）有四種，除了在滅盡定中。聖者只有後三種。其中，如來（Tathāgata）和自在菩薩只能有一種，因為沒有睡眠和悶絕。因此，八識（八種識）在一切有情眾生心中與意根（末那，Manas）恒常共同運轉。如果生起第六識（意識，Manovijñāna），那麼三種識共同運轉。其餘情況則隨情況而定。
【English Translation】 English version Subdued afflictions can give rise to this Samadhi (定, concentration). Those who continuously regress and are reborn in higher realms, do they sever the afflictions of the lower realms after being born in the higher realms? Severing them is not a fault. Just as those born in higher realms sever the defilements of the lower Manas (末那, mind), thus they can be born in higher realms. However, Anāgāmin (不還者, Non-returner) practitioners, due to the strength of their antidotal power, do not generate afflictions during the stage of rebirth, but only due to the seeds of afflictions nourishing the birth in higher realms. Although the subdued afflictions may regress or not, there is no principle of subduing lower afflictions and being born in higher realms, so there is no fault of severing lower afflictions after being born in higher realms. If Bodhisattvas (菩薩) who have attained Nirodha-samāpatti (滅盡定, cessation attainment) in the stage of the Two Vehicles (二乘, Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) later turn their minds towards Mahayana, they can generate this Samadhi in any stage. If not, perhaps some may only be able to permanently subdue all afflictions at the full mind of the Seventh Ground (第七地, seventh Bhumi). Although they have not permanently severed the afflictions to be cultivated in the Desire Realm (欲界, Kāmadhātu), they can generate this Samadhi as if they have already severed them. The treatise says that Bodhisattvas who have entered the Far-Going Ground (遠地, fifth Bhumi) can manifest Nirodha-samāpatti. There are also those who can permanently subdue all afflictions from the First Ground (初地, first Bhumi) like Arhats (阿羅漢). They can all generate this Samadhi in the Ten Grounds (十地, ten Bhumis). The Sutra says that Bodhisattvas can also manifest Nirodha-samāpatti in the first six Grounds. Those who are in mindless sleep and fainting refer to those who have extremely heavy sleep and fainting that cause the first six consciousnesses to not manifest. The physical state caused by fatigue and other reasons contradicts the first six consciousnesses, so it is called extremely heavy sleep. Although there is no self-nature of sleep during this sleep, it is named after sleep because it is similar to sleep. The physical state caused by wind-heat and other reasons also contradicts the six consciousnesses, so it is called extremely heavy fainting. Or these are all small parts of Sparśa-āyatana (觸處, sense-sphere of touch). Except for these five situations, consciousness constantly arises. There is also no consciousness at the time of death and birth, so why only say that consciousness does not arise in five situations? Some believe that death, birth, and the word 'and' are for clarification. Their statement is unreasonable. Why? Because only six situations are said to be mindless, namely the first five situations and Nirupadhisesa-nirvana (無餘依涅槃, Nirvana without remainder). It should be said that death and birth are included in fainting, because that is the extreme state of fainting. Saying 'and' is to clarify that the five situations are not mixed. This shows that after the six consciousnesses are cut off, they will arise again from the seeds in the Ālaya-vijñāna (本識, store consciousness). Therefore, it is not said to enter Nirupadhisesa-nirvana. Among these five situations, ordinary beings (異生) have four, except for being in Nirodha-samāpatti. Sages only have the last three. Among them, Tathāgatas (如來) and Free Bodhisattvas can only have one, because they do not have sleep and fainting. Therefore, the eight consciousnesses (八識) in the minds of all sentient beings constantly co-operate with Manas (末那, mind). If the sixth consciousness (Manovijñāna, 意識, mind consciousness) arises, then three consciousnesses co-operate. The remaining situations depend on the circumstances.
緣合起一至五。則四俱轉乃至八俱。是謂略說識俱轉義。若一有情多識俱轉。如何說彼是一有情。若立有情依識多少。汝無心位應非有情。又他分心現在前位如何可說自分有情。然立有情依命根數或異熟識。俱不違理。彼俱恒時唯有一故。一身唯一等無間緣。如何俱時有多識轉。既許此一引多心所。寧不許此能引多心。又誰定言此緣唯一。說多識俱者許此緣多故。又欲一時取多境者多境現前。寧不頓取。諸根境等和合力齊。識前後生不應理故。又心所性雖無差別。而類別者許多俱生。寧不許心異類俱起。又如浪像依一起多。故依一心多識俱轉。又若不許意與五俱。取彼所緣應不明瞭。如散意識緣久滅故。如何五俱唯一意識。於色等境取一或多。如眼等識各于自境取一或多。此亦何失。相見俱有種種相故。何故諸識同類不俱。于自所緣若可了者一已能了。餘無用故。若爾五識已了自境。何用俱起意識了為。五俱意識助五令起。非專爲了五識所緣。又于彼所緣能明瞭取異於眼等識故非無用。由此聖教說彼意識名有分別。五識不爾。多識俱轉何不相應。非同境故。設同境者彼此所依體數異故。如五根識互不相應。八識自性不可言定一。行相所依緣相應異故。又一滅時餘不滅故。能所熏等相各異故。亦非定異。經說八識如水波
等無差別故。定異應非因果性故。如幻事等無定性故。如前所說識差別相依理世俗非真勝義。真勝義中心言絕故。如伽他說。
心意識八種 俗故相有別 真故相無別 相所相無故
已廣分別三能變相為自所變二分所依。云何應知依識所變假說我法非別實有。由斯一切唯有識耶。頌曰。
１７ 是諸識轉變 分別所分別 由此彼皆無 故一切唯識
論曰。是諸識者。謂前所說三能變識及彼心所。皆能變似見相二分。立轉變名。所變見分說名分別。能取相故。所變相分名所分別。見所取故。由此正理彼實我法離識所變皆定非有。離能所取無別物故。非有實物離二相故。是故一切有為無為若實若假皆不離識。唯言為遮離識實物。非不離識心所法等。或轉變者。謂諸內識轉似我法外境相現。此能轉變即名分別。虛妄分別為自性故。謂即三界心及心所。此所執境名所分別。即所妄執實我法性。由此分別變似外境假我法相。彼所分別實我法性決定皆無。前引教理已廣破故。是故一切皆唯有識。虛妄分別有極成故。唯既不遮不離識法。故真空等亦是有性。由斯遠離增減二邊。唯識義成契會中道。由何教理唯識義成。豈不已說。雖說未了。非破他義己義便成。應更礭陳成此教理
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 因為『等無差別』的緣故。（如果）確定（因和果）不同，那麼就應該不是因果的性質了。就像幻術變出的事物一樣，沒有固定的性質。就像前面所說的，『識』的差別相依的道理，在世俗諦中是成立的，但在真勝義諦中是不成立的。在真勝義諦中，（一切）語言和思想都斷絕了。就像伽他（Gāthā，偈頌）所說： 『心、意識這八種，在世俗諦中，因為俗諦的緣故，（它們的）相狀是有差別的； 在真勝義諦中，因為真諦的緣故，（它們的）相狀是沒有差別的，能相和所相都是不存在的。』 上面已經廣泛地分別了三種能變相，是（能變現）自身所變現的二分（見分和相分）的所依。應該如何知道，依賴於『識』所變現的（我法），只是假說，而不是真實存在的呢？因此，一切都是唯識嗎？頌文說： 17 『這都是識的轉變，分別是能分別，所分別是所分別； 由此，它們（能分別和所分別）都是不存在的，所以一切都是唯識。』 論述：『是諸識』，指的是前面所說的三種能變識以及它們的心所法。它們都能變現出類似見分和相分的二分，因此立名為『轉變』。所變現的見分，被稱為『分別』，因為它能取相。所變現的相分，被稱為『所分別』，因為它被見分所取。根據這個正確的道理，真實的我法，離開了『識』所變現的（二分），必定是不存在的。因為離開了能取和所取，就沒有其他的實物存在。因為沒有離開能相和所相的真實事物存在。所以，一切有為法和無為法，無論是真實的還是虛假的，都不能離開『識』。說『唯』是爲了遮止離開『識』的實物，而不是不包括不離開『識』的心所法等。或者說，『轉變』指的是各種內在的『識』，轉變而顯現出類似我法的外境。這種能轉變的（識），就叫做『分別』，因為它以虛妄分別作為自己的體性。這裡所執著的境界，叫做『所分別』，也就是所虛妄執著的真實我法之性。由於這種『分別』變現出類似外境的虛假我法之相，所以它所分別的真實我法之性，必定是不存在的。因為前面引用的教理已經廣泛地破斥了它。所以，一切都是唯識。因為虛妄分別的存在是極其確定的。『唯』字並不遮止不離開『識』的法，所以真空等也是『有』的性質。因此，遠離了增益和損減兩種邊見，唯識的意義得以成立，契合了中道。通過什麼教理，唯識的意義得以成立呢？難道不是已經說過了嗎？雖然說過了，但還沒有完全明白。僅僅破斥他人的觀點，並不能使自己的觀點成立。應該更明確地陳述成立這個觀點的教理。
【English Translation】 English version: Because of 『equality without difference』. If difference is determined, then it should not be the nature of cause and effect. Like illusory things, there is no fixed nature. As mentioned before, the principle of the dependent arising of the differences of 『consciousness』 is valid in conventional truth but not in ultimate truth. In ultimate truth, all language and thought are cut off. As the Gāthā (verse) says: 『The eight kinds of mind and consciousness, in conventional truth, because of convention, their characteristics are different; In ultimate truth, because of truth, their characteristics are not different, and the perceiver and the perceived do not exist.』 The three aspects of transformation have been extensively distinguished above, being the basis for the two divisions (the seeing-aspect and the appearance-aspect) transformed by themselves. How should it be known that the 『self』 and 『dharmas』 that are dependently arisen from the transformations of consciousness are merely provisional designations and not truly existent? Therefore, is everything only consciousness? The verse says: 17 『These are all transformations of consciousness; discrimination is the discriminator, and the discriminated is what is discriminated; Therefore, they (the discriminator and the discriminated) do not exist, so everything is only consciousness.』 Commentary: 『These consciousnesses』 refers to the three transforming consciousnesses mentioned earlier and their mental factors. They can all transform into two aspects similar to the seeing-aspect and the appearance-aspect, hence the name 『transformation』. The transformed seeing-aspect is called 『discrimination』 because it can grasp the appearance. The transformed appearance-aspect is called 『what is discriminated』 because it is grasped by the seeing-aspect. According to this correct principle, the real self and dharmas, apart from the (two aspects) transformed by 『consciousness』, must not exist. Because apart from the grasper and the grasped, there is no other real thing. Because there is no real thing apart from the appearance-aspect and the seeing-aspect. Therefore, all conditioned and unconditioned phenomena, whether real or false, cannot be separated from 『consciousness』. Saying 『only』 is to prevent real things that are separate from 『consciousness』, but not to exclude mental factors and other dharmas that are not separate from 『consciousness』. Or, 『transformation』 refers to the various internal 『consciousnesses』 that transform and manifest external realms similar to the self and dharmas. This transforming (consciousness) is called 『discrimination』 because it has false discrimination as its nature. The realm grasped here is called 『what is discriminated』, which is the nature of the real self and dharmas that are falsely grasped. Because this 『discrimination』 transforms and manifests false appearances of the self and dharmas similar to external realms, the nature of the real self and dharmas that it discriminates must not exist. Because the teachings and reasoning quoted earlier have extensively refuted it. Therefore, everything is only consciousness. Because the existence of false discrimination is extremely certain. The word 『only』 does not exclude dharmas that are not separate from 『consciousness』, so emptiness and other qualities are also of the nature of 『existence』. Therefore, by being far from the two extremes of addition and subtraction, the meaning of consciousness-only is established, conforming to the Middle Way. By what teachings and reasoning is the meaning of consciousness-only established? Has it not already been said? Although it has been said, it is not yet fully understood. Merely refuting the views of others does not establish one's own view. The teachings and reasoning that establish this view should be stated more clearly.
。如契經說三界唯心。又說所緣唯識所現。又說諸法皆不離心。又說有情隨心垢凈。又說成就四智菩薩能隨悟入唯識無境。一相違識相智。謂於一處鬼人天等隨業差別所見各異。境若實有此云何成。二無所緣識智。謂緣過未夢境像等非實有境。識現可得彼境既無。餘亦應爾。三自應無倒智。謂愚夫智若得實境。彼應自然成無顛倒。不由功用應得解脫。四隨三智轉智。一隨自在者智轉智。謂已證得心自在者隨欲轉變地等皆成。境若實有如何可變。二隨觀察者智轉智。謂得勝定修法觀者隨觀一境眾相現前。境若是實寧隨心轉。三隨無分別智轉智。謂起證實無分別智一切境相皆不現前。境若是實何容不現。菩薩成就四智者。于唯識理決定悟入。又伽他說。
心意識所緣 皆非離自性 故我說一切 唯有識無餘
此等聖教誠證非一。極成眼等識五隨一故如餘不親緣離自色等。餘識識故如眼識等亦不親緣離自諸法。此親所緣定非離此。二隨一故如彼能緣。所緣法故如相應法。決定不離心及心所。此等正理誠證非一。故於唯識應深信受。我法非有空識非無。離有離無故契中道。慈尊依此說二頌言。
虛妄分別有 於此二都無 此中唯有空 于彼亦有此 故說一切法 非空非不空 有無及有故
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 正如契經所說，三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）唯是心（Citta）的顯現。又說，所緣（Alambana，認識的對象）只是由識（Vijnana，意識）所顯現。又說，一切諸法（Dharma，事物、現象）都不離心。又說，有情（Sattva，眾生）隨著心的染污或清凈而流轉。又說，成就四智（Catur-jnana，四種智慧）的菩薩（Bodhisattva，覺悟的有情）能夠隨之悟入唯識（Vijnanavada，唯識論）而無外境（Bahirartha，外部對像）。 一、相違識相智：在同一個地方，鬼、人、天等根據各自的業（Karma，行為）的差別，所見到的景象各不相同。如果外境是真實存在的，這種情況又如何解釋呢？ 二、無所緣識智：緣於過去、未來、夢境、影像等並非真實存在的境，識卻能夠顯現。既然這些境並不存在，那麼其他的境也應該如此。 三、自應無倒智：如果愚夫（Bala，無智慧的人）的智慧能夠獲得真實的外境，那麼他們應該自然而然地成為沒有顛倒（Viparyasa，錯誤的認知）的人，不需要通過任何修行就能獲得解脫（Moksha，解脫）。 四、隨三智轉智： （1）隨自在者智轉智：已經證得心自在（Citta-vasavartita，心的自由）的人，可以隨自己的意願轉變地等事物。如果外境是真實存在的，又怎麼可能被轉變呢？ （2）隨觀察者智轉智：獲得殊勝禪定（Samadhi，專注的狀態）並修習法觀（Dharma-vipasyana，對法的觀察）的人，隨著對一個境的觀察，眾多的景象就會顯現出來。如果境是真實存在的，又怎麼會隨著心而轉變呢？ （3）隨無分別智轉智：當生起證實相的無分別智（Nirvikalpa-jnana，無分別的智慧）時，一切境相都不會顯現。如果境是真實存在的，又怎麼可能不顯現呢？ 菩薩成就這四種智慧，就能對唯識的道理確定地領悟和進入。此外，伽陀（Gatha，偈頌）中說： 『心、意（Manas，意識的根本）、識所緣， 皆非離自性（Svabhava，自身本性）； 故我說一切， 唯有識無餘。』 這些聖教（Arya-vacana，聖人的教誨）的真實證明不止一個。極成（Prasiddha，公認的）的眼識等五識（Panca-vijnana，五種感官意識）中的任何一個，都像其他的識一樣，不直接緣于離開自身本性的色等。其他的識之所以是識，就像眼識等一樣，也不直接緣于離開自身本性的諸法。這種直接所緣的，必定不離開此。二者中的任何一個，都像它的能緣（Grahaka，能認識的主體）一樣。所緣的法，就像相應的法（Samprayukta-dharma，與心相應的心理現象）一樣，決定不離開心及心所（Caitta，心理活動）。這些正確的道理的真實證明不止一個。因此，對於唯識應該深深地信受。我（Atman，神我）和法（Dharma，事物、現象）並非實有，空性（Sunyata，空虛的性質）並非沒有。離開有和無，才符合中道（Madhyama-pratipada，中庸之道）。慈尊（Maitreya，彌勒菩薩）依據此理說了兩個偈頌： 『虛妄分別（Vikalpa，虛假的分別）有， 於此二都無； 此中唯有空， 于彼亦有此。 故說一切法， 非空非不空； 有無及有故，』
【English Translation】 English version: As the sutras say, the three realms (Trailokya, the realm of desire, the realm of form, and the formless realm) are only manifestations of the mind (Citta). It is also said that the object of cognition (Alambana) is only manifested by consciousness (Vijnana). It is further said that all phenomena (Dharma) are inseparable from the mind. It is also said that sentient beings (Sattva) transmigrate according to the defilement or purity of their minds. It is also said that Bodhisattvas (Bodhisattva, enlightened beings) who have attained the four wisdoms (Catur-jnana, four kinds of wisdom) can thereby realize the principle of Vijnanavada (Vijnanavada, the doctrine of consciousness-only) and that there is no external object (Bahirartha, external object). 1. The wisdom of contradictory perceptions: In the same place, ghosts, humans, gods, and others see different scenes according to the differences in their karma (Karma, actions). If external objects were truly existent, how could this be explained? 2. The wisdom of objectless consciousness: Consciousness can manifest objects that are not real, such as the past, the future, dreams, and images. Since these objects do not exist, other objects should also be the same. 3. The wisdom of naturally being without inversion: If the wisdom of fools (Bala, those without wisdom) could grasp real external objects, they should naturally become free from inversions (Viparyasa, false cognitions) and attain liberation (Moksha, liberation) without any practice. 4. The wisdom that follows the three wisdoms: (1) The wisdom that follows the wisdom of those who have mastery: Those who have attained mastery over their minds (Citta-vasavartita, freedom of mind) can transform things like the earth according to their will. If external objects were truly existent, how could they be transformed? (2) The wisdom that follows the wisdom of observers: Those who have attained excellent samadhi (Samadhi, a state of concentration) and practice Dharma-vipasyana (Dharma-vipasyana, observation of the Dharma) will see many phenomena appear as they observe a single object. If the object were truly existent, how could it change according to the mind? (3) The wisdom that follows non-discriminating wisdom: When non-discriminating wisdom (Nirvikalpa-jnana, non-discriminating wisdom) that verifies reality arises, all phenomena will not appear. If the object were truly existent, how could it not appear? Bodhisattvas who have attained these four wisdoms can definitely realize and enter the principle of Vijnanavada. Furthermore, the Gatha (Gatha, verse) says: 'What the mind, the intellect (Manas, the root of consciousness), and consciousness cognize, are all inseparable from their own nature (Svabhava, own-nature); Therefore, I say that all is only consciousness, nothing else.' These authentic proofs from the holy teachings (Arya-vacana, teachings of the saints) are not just one. Any one of the five consciousnesses (Panca-vijnana, five sense consciousnesses), such as the well-established eye-consciousness (Prasiddha, well-established), does not directly cognize forms and other things that are separate from its own nature, just like the other consciousnesses. The reason why other consciousnesses are consciousnesses is that, like eye-consciousness, they do not directly cognize phenomena that are separate from their own nature. What is directly cognized is definitely not separate from this. Any one of the two is like its cognizer (Grahaka, the subject that can cognize). The object of cognition, like the corresponding phenomena (Samprayukta-dharma, mental phenomena corresponding to the mind), is definitely not separate from the mind and mental factors (Caitta, mental activities). These correct reasons and authentic proofs are not just one. Therefore, one should deeply believe and accept Vijnanavada. The self (Atman, the ego) and phenomena (Dharma, things, phenomena) are not existent, and emptiness (Sunyata, the nature of emptiness) is not non-existent. Departing from existence and non-existence accords with the Middle Way (Madhyama-pratipada, the Middle Path). The Venerable Maitreya (Maitreya, the Bodhisattva Maitreya) spoke two verses based on this principle: 'False discrimination (Vikalpa, false discrimination) exists, but both are absent here; Only emptiness is here, and this is also there. Therefore, it is said that all phenomena are neither empty nor non-empty; because of existence, non-existence, and existence,'
是則契中道
此頌且依染依他說。理實亦有凈分依他。若唯內識似外境起。寧見世間情非情物處時身用定不定轉如夢境等。應釋此疑。何緣世尊說十二處。依識所變非別實有。為入我空說六二法。如遮斷見說續有情。為入法空復說唯識。令知外法亦非有故。此唯識性豈不亦空。不爾。如何。非所執故。謂依識變妄執實法理不可得說為法空。非無離言正智所證唯識性故說為法空。此識若無便無俗諦。俗諦無故真諦亦無。真俗相依而建立故。撥無二諦是惡取空。諸佛說為不可治者。應知諸法有空不空。由此慈尊說前二頌。若諸色處亦識為體。何緣乃似色相顯現。一類堅住相續而轉。名言熏習勢力起故。與染凈法為依處故。謂此若無應無顛倒。便無雜染亦無凈法。是故諸識亦似色現。如有頌言。
亂相及亂體 應許為色識 及與非色識 若無餘亦無
色等外境分明現證。現量所得。寧撥為無。現量證時不執為外。後意分別妄生外想。故現量境是自相分。識所變故亦說為有。意識所執外實色等。妄計有故說彼為無。又色等境非色似色非外似外如夢所緣。不可執為是實外色。若覺時色皆如夢境不離識者。如從夢覺知彼唯心。何故覺時于自色境不知唯識。如夢未覺不能自知。要至覺時方能追覺。覺時境色應
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 是則契合中道。
這個偈頌暫且依據染污的依他起性而說。實際上也有清凈的依他起性。如果僅僅是內在的識顯現出類似外境的現象，那麼為什麼能看到世間有情和無情之物在處所、時間、身體和作用上，有的是固定的，有的是不固定的，並且不斷變化，就像夢境一樣？應該解釋這個疑問。為什麼世尊要說十二處（ayatana，指眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意六根，以及色、聲、香、味、觸、法六塵）是依據識所變現，而不是獨立存在的實體？這是爲了進入我空（atman-shunyata，指沒有永恒不變的「我」）而說的六根和六塵之法。就像爲了遮止斷見（uccheda-drishti，認為人死後一切皆無的錯誤見解）而說有相續的有情存在一樣，爲了進入法空（dharma-shunyata，指一切法無自性）而說唯識（vijnapti-matrata，一切唯識所現），使人知道外在的法也不是真實存在的。那麼，這個唯識的自性難道不也是空嗎？不是的。為什麼呢？因為它不是我們所執著的對象。也就是說，依據識的變現，虛妄地執著為真實存在的法，這種觀念是不可取的，所以說為法空。但並非沒有遠離言語的正智所證悟的唯識自性，所以才說為法空。如果這個識不存在，那麼就沒有世俗諦（samvriti-satya，相對真理）。沒有世俗諦，那麼也就沒有真諦（paramartha-satya，絕對真理）。因為真諦和俗諦是相互依存而建立的。否定二諦（dva-satya，真諦和俗諦）是惡取空（mithya-shunyata，對空性的錯誤理解），諸佛認為這是無法醫治的。應該知道諸法有空和不空的兩方面。因此，慈尊（Maitreya，彌勒菩薩的尊稱）說了前面的兩個偈頌。如果諸色處（rupa-ayatana，指色塵）也是以識為本體，那麼為什麼會顯現出類似色相的現象呢？而且是一類堅固、持續、相續地運轉？這是因為名言熏習（nama-rupa-vasana，語言概念的熏習）的力量所產生的。並且與染污和清凈的法作為所依之處。也就是說，如果沒有這些，那麼就不會有顛倒（viparyasa，指錯誤的認知），也就不會有雜染（samklesha，指煩惱和痛苦），也不會有清凈的法。所以，諸識也顯現出類似色相的現象。正如偈頌所說：
『亂相以及亂之體，應當許為色之識，以及與非色之識，若無餘者亦皆無。』
色等外境分明地顯現和被證實，這是現量（pratyaksha，直接感知）所獲得的。怎麼能否定它們說它們不存在呢？在現量證實的時候，並沒有執著它們是外在的。是後來的意識分別才虛妄地產生了外在的想法。所以，現量所證的境界是自相分（sva-lakshana-bhaga，識的自體顯現）。因為是識所變現的，所以也說是存在的。而意識所執著的外在真實的色等，因為是虛妄計度而認為存在的，所以說它們是不存在的。而且，色等外境，不是色而類似色，不是外在而類似外在，就像夢中所緣之境一樣，不可以執著它們是真實的外在之色。如果覺醒時所見的色都像夢境一樣不離識，就像從夢中醒來知道夢境唯是心識所現一樣，為什麼覺醒時對於自己的色境卻不知道是唯識所現呢？就像沒有從夢中醒來時不能自己知道一樣，要到覺醒的時候才能追溯地覺知。覺醒時的境色應該...
【English Translation】 English version: This verse is provisionally based on the contaminated dependent nature (paratantra-svabhava). In reality, there is also a pure aspect of the dependent nature. If it were only the internal consciousness arising as if it were an external object, why would we see sentient and non-sentient things in the world with fixed or unfixed locations, times, bodies, and functions, changing like dream states? This doubt should be explained. Why did the World-Honored One (Bhagavan, an epithet for the Buddha) say that the twelve ayatanas (sense bases: the six sense organs and their corresponding objects) are transformations of consciousness and not separate, real entities? It was to enter into the emptiness of self (atman-shunyata) that he spoke of the six sense organs and their six objects. Just as he spoke of the continuity of sentient beings to counter the view of annihilation (uccheda-drishti), he spoke of consciousness-only (vijnapti-matrata) to enter into the emptiness of phenomena (dharma-shunyata), to make people understand that external phenomena are also not truly existent. Then, isn't this nature of consciousness-only also empty? No. Why not? Because it is not what is clung to. That is, based on the transformations of consciousness, the false clinging to real phenomena is untenable, so it is called the emptiness of phenomena. But it is not that there is no consciousness-only nature, which is realized by correct wisdom that transcends language, so it is called the emptiness of phenomena. If this consciousness did not exist, then there would be no conventional truth (samvriti-satya). If there were no conventional truth, then there would be no ultimate truth (paramartha-satya) either, because conventional and ultimate truths are established in mutual dependence. Denying the two truths (dva-satya) is a wrong grasp of emptiness (mithya-shunyata), which the Buddhas say is incurable. It should be known that all phenomena have both emptiness and non-emptiness. Therefore, the Venerable Maitreya (Maitreya, the future Buddha) spoke the previous two verses. If all the sense objects (rupa-ayatana) are also of the nature of consciousness, why do they appear as if they are material forms? And why do they continuously and constantly transform? It is because of the power of the habitual tendencies of names and concepts (nama-rupa-vasana). And they serve as the basis for both contaminated and pure dharmas. That is, if these did not exist, there would be no inversions (viparyasa), and therefore no defilements (samklesha) or pure dharmas. Therefore, the consciousnesses also appear as if they are material forms. As the verse says:
'The confused appearance and the essence of confusion, should be admitted as the consciousness of form, and the consciousness of non-form, if there is nothing else, then everything else is also non-existent.'
External objects such as forms are clearly manifested and verified, which is obtained through direct perception (pratyaksha). How can we deny them and say they do not exist? At the time of direct perception, there is no clinging to them as external. It is the subsequent conceptual discrimination that falsely generates the idea of externality. Therefore, the object of direct perception is the self-character aspect (sva-lakshana-bhaga, the self-appearing aspect of consciousness). Because it is a transformation of consciousness, it is also said to exist. But the external, real forms, etc., which are clung to by consciousness, are said to be non-existent because they are falsely imagined to exist. Moreover, external objects such as forms are not form but similar to form, not external but similar to external, like the objects perceived in a dream, and cannot be clung to as real external forms. If the forms seen in the waking state are all like dream states, not separate from consciousness, just as one knows upon awakening from a dream that the dream is only a manifestation of mind, why is it that one does not know that one's own forms in the waking state are only consciousness? Just as one cannot know oneself when one has not awakened from a dream, one can only retroactively realize it when one awakens. The forms of objects in the waking state should...
知亦爾。未真覺位不能自知。至真覺時亦能追覺。未得真覺恒處夢中。故佛說為生死長夜。由斯未了色境唯識。外色實無可非內識境。他心實有寧非自所緣。誰說他心非自識境。但不說彼是親所緣。謂識生時無實作用。非如手等親執外物日等舒光親照外境。但如鏡等似外境現名了他心。非親能了。親所了者謂自所變。故契經言。無有少法能取餘法。但識生時似彼相現名取彼物。如緣他心色等亦爾。既有異境何名唯識。奇哉固執觸處生疑。豈唯識教但說一識。不爾如何。汝應諦聽。若唯一識寧有十方凡聖尊卑因果等別。誰為誰說。何法何求。故唯識言有深意趣。識言總顯一切有情各有八識．六位心所．所變相見．分位差別及彼空理所顯真如。識自相故。識相應故。二所變故。三分位故。四實性故。如是諸法皆不離識。總立識名。唯言但遮愚夫所執定離諸識實有色等。若如是知唯識教意。便能無倒善備資糧。速入法空證無上覺。救拔含識生死輪迴。非全撥無惡取空者違背教理能成是事。故定應信一切唯識。若唯有識都無外緣。由何而生種種分別。頌曰。
１８ 由一切種識 如是如是變 以展轉力故 彼彼分別生
論曰。一切種識謂本識中能生自果功能差別。此生等流異熟士用增上果
。故名一切種。除離系者非種生故。彼雖可證而非種果。要現起道斷結得故。有展轉義非此所說。此說能生分別種故。此識為體故立識名。種離本識無別性故。種識二言簡非種識。有識非種種非識故。又種識言顯識中種。非持種識。後當說故。此識中種餘緣助故。即便如是如是轉變。謂從生位轉至熟時。顯變種多重言如是。謂一切種攝三熏習共不共等識種盡故。展轉力者謂八現識及彼相應相見分等。彼皆互有相助力故。即現識等總名分別。虛妄分別為自性故。分別類多故言彼彼。此頌意說。雖無外緣由本識中有一切種轉變差別及以現行八種識等展轉力故彼彼分別而亦得生。何假外緣方起分別。諸凈法起應知亦然。凈種現行為緣生故。所說種現緣生分別。云何應知此緣生相。緣且有四。一因緣。謂有為法親辦自果。此體有二。一種子。二現行。種子者謂本識中善染無記諸界地等功能差別。能引次後自類功能。及起同時自類現果。此唯望彼是因緣性。現行者謂七轉識及彼相應所變相見性界地等。除佛果善極劣無記。餘熏本識生自類種。此唯望彼是因緣性。第八心品無所熏故。非簡所依獨能熏故。極微圓故不熏成種。現行同類展轉相望皆非因緣。自種生故。一切異類展轉相望亦非因緣。不親生故。有說異類同類現行展轉相望
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：因此，它被稱為『一切種』（Sarvabīja，一切種子）。因為已經解脫繫縛的人不是由種子所生。他們雖然可以證悟，但不是種子的結果。必須通過現起的道來斷除煩惱才能獲得解脫。這裡存在輾轉相生的含義，但不是這裡所要討論的。這裡說的是能夠產生分別的種子。這個識是自體，因此立名為識。種子離開本識就沒有別的自性。『種識』這兩個字是爲了簡別不是種子的識。有些識是有識性的，但不是種子，有些是種子，但不是識。而且，『種識』這兩個字顯示了識中的種子，而不是持有種子的識。這一點後面會講到。這個識中的種子，由於其他因緣的幫助，就會像這樣、像那樣地轉變。意思是說，從生的狀態轉變為成熟的時候。用『如是』這個重言來顯示轉變的種子有很多，意思是說，一切種子包括了三熏習（業熏習、煩惱熏習、有支熏習）、共相、不共相等等，所有的識種都包括在內。『輾轉力』指的是八個現識以及與它們相應的相分、見分等等。它們都互相具有相助的力量。這些現識等總稱為『分別』。虛妄分別就是它們的自性。因為分別的種類很多，所以說『彼彼』。這首偈頌的意思是說，即使沒有外在的因緣，由於本識中存在一切種子的轉變差別，以及現行的八種識等等輾轉相生的力量，種種分別也能產生。何必假借外在的因緣才能產生分別呢？要知道，清凈法的生起也是這樣。因為清凈的種子以現行為因緣而生起。所說的種子、現行、因緣生起的分別，應該如何理解這種因緣生起的相狀呢？因緣大致有四種。一是因緣（Hetupratyaya），指的是有為法親自主辦自己的結果。這個本體有兩種：一是種子，二是現行。種子指的是本識中善、染、無記的諸界、地等功能差別。能夠引生隨後的同類功能，以及生起同時的同類現行果。這只是相對於後者而言是因緣性。現行指的是七轉識以及與它們相應的所變相分、見分、性、界、地等。除了佛果的善和極劣的無記之外，其餘的都熏習本識，產生同類的種子。這只是相對於後者而言是因緣性。第八識的心品不會被熏習。不是簡別所依，而是單獨能夠熏習。因為極微細圓滿，所以不能被熏習成種子。現行同類互相觀望都不是因緣，因為是自己的種子所生。一切異類互相觀望也不是因緣，因為不是親自主生。有人說，異類、同類的現行互相觀望
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, it is called 'Sarvabīja' (all seeds). Because those who have been liberated from bondage are not born from seeds. Although they can attain enlightenment, it is not the result of seeds. Liberation can only be attained by cutting off afflictions through the arising of the path. There is a meaning of mutual causation, but it is not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed here is the seed that can produce discrimination. This consciousness is its own entity, therefore it is named consciousness. The seed has no separate nature apart from the fundamental consciousness. The two words 'seed consciousness' are to distinguish it from consciousness that is not a seed. Some consciousnesses have the nature of consciousness but are not seeds, and some are seeds but are not consciousness. Moreover, the words 'seed consciousness' reveal the seed in consciousness, not the consciousness that holds the seed. This will be discussed later. The seeds in this consciousness, with the help of other conditions, will transform in this way and that way. It means that it transforms from the state of being born to the time of maturity. The repetition of the word 'thus' shows that there are many transforming seeds, meaning that all seeds include the three熏習(熏習of karma, 熏習of afflictions, 熏習of existence), common aspects, uncommon aspects, and so on, all the seeds of consciousness are included. 'Mutual power' refers to the eight manifest consciousnesses and their corresponding image-aspects, perception-aspects, and so on. They all have the power to help each other. These manifest consciousnesses and so on are collectively called 'discrimination'. False discrimination is their nature. Because there are many kinds of discrimination, it is said 'various'. The meaning of this verse is that even without external conditions, due to the transformation differences of all seeds in the fundamental consciousness, and the mutual power of the manifest eight consciousnesses and so on, various discriminations can arise. Why must external conditions be borrowed to produce discrimination? It should be known that the arising of pure dharmas is also like this. Because pure seeds arise with manifestation as a condition. What is said about seeds, manifestation, and conditioned arising of discrimination, how should one understand this conditioned arising aspect? There are roughly four kinds of conditions. First, the causal condition (Hetupratyaya), which refers to conditioned dharmas personally managing their own results. This entity has two types: one is the seed, and the other is the manifestation. The seed refers to the functional differences of good, defiled, and neutral realms, grounds, etc. in the fundamental consciousness. It can lead to subsequent functions of the same kind, and generate simultaneous manifest results of the same kind. This is only causal in relation to the latter. Manifestation refers to the seven transforming consciousnesses and their corresponding transformed image-aspects, perception-aspects, natures, realms, grounds, etc. Except for the good of the Buddha's fruit and the extremely inferior neutral, the rest all熏習the fundamental consciousness, producing seeds of the same kind. This is only causal in relation to the latter. The mind-category of the eighth consciousness is not熏習ed. It does not distinguish the basis, but is able to熏習alone. Because it is extremely subtle and complete, it cannot be熏習ed into a seed. Manifestations of the same kind are not causal when viewed mutually, because they are born from their own seeds. Manifestations of all different kinds are also not causal when viewed mutually, because they are not personally produced. Some say that manifestations of different and same kinds are viewed mutually
為因緣者。應知假說。或隨轉門。有唯說種是因緣性。彼依顯勝。非盡理說。聖說轉識與阿賴耶展轉相望為因緣故。二等無間緣。謂八現識及彼心所前聚於後自類無間等而開導令彼定生。多同類種俱時轉故如不相應非此緣攝。由斯八識非互為緣。心所與心雖恒俱轉。而相應故和合似一。不可施設離別殊異。故得互作等無間緣。入無餘心最極微劣無開導用。又無當起等無間法故非此緣。云何知然。論有誠說。若此識等無間彼識等決定生。即說此是彼等無間緣故。即依此義應作是說。阿陀那識三界九地皆容互作等無間緣。下上死生相開等故。有漏無間有無漏生。無漏定無生有漏者。鏡智起已必無斷故。善與無記相望亦然。此何界後引生無漏。或從色界或欲界後。謂諸異生求佛果者定色界後引生無漏。彼必生在凈居天上大自在宮得菩提故。二乘回趣大菩提者定欲界後引生無漏。回趣留身唯欲界故。彼雖必往大自在宮方得成佛。而本願力所留生身是欲界故。有義色界亦有聲聞回趣大乘愿留身者。既與教理俱不相違。是故聲聞第八無漏色界心後亦得現前。然五凈居無回趣者。經不說彼發大心故。第七轉識三界九地亦容互作等無間緣。隨第八識生處系故。有漏無漏容互相生。十地位中得相引故。善與無記相望亦然。于無記中染與不
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 所謂的『因緣』，應當理解為一種假說，或者說是隨順某種角度的闡述。有時，僅僅說『種子』是因緣的性質，這是依據某種殊勝的顯現，並非完全符合究竟的道理。聖者說，轉識（pravrtti-vijnana）與阿賴耶識（ālaya-vijnana）之間，相互依存，互為因緣。 『等無間緣』指的是八個現識（現行識，即眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識、末那識、阿賴耶識）以及它們的心所（caitasika），前一剎那的識聚無間斷地引導後一剎那同類的識產生。由於許多同類的種子同時運轉，所以不相應的法不屬於這種緣。因此，八識之間不能互為等無間緣。心所與心王雖然總是同時運轉，但因為是相應的，和合得像一個整體，難以區分開來，所以可以互為等無間緣。進入無餘涅槃（nirupadhisesa-nirvana）的心識，極其微弱，沒有引導作用，而且沒有將要生起的等無間法，所以不是等無間緣。如何得知這一點呢？經論中有明確的說明：如果這個識無間斷地生起那個識，就說這個識是那個識的等無間緣。因此，依據這個道理，應該這樣說：阿陀那識（ādanavijnana，即阿賴耶識的異名）在三界九地中，都可以互為等無間緣，因為下地與上地之間的死亡和生起，可以相互開導。有漏的識可以無間斷地生起無漏的識，但無漏的識一定不會生起有漏的識，因為大圓鏡智（ādarsa-jnana）生起後，一定不會斷滅。善心與無記心之間的關係也是如此。那麼，在哪個界之後會引發無漏心呢？或者從色界（rupa-dhatu），或者從欲界（kama-dhatu）之後。那些尋求佛果的凡夫，一定是從色界之後引發無漏心，因為他們必定會生在凈居天（suddhavasa）的大自在宮（Mahesvara），在那裡證得菩提。二乘（sravaka-yana和pratyekabuddha-yana）迴向大菩提（maha-bodhi）的人，一定是從欲界之後引發無漏心，因為他們迴向大乘時，會留下在欲界的色身。雖然他們也必定會前往大自在宮才能成佛，但由於本願力的緣故，所留下的色身是在欲界。有一種觀點認為，色界也有聲聞（sravaka）迴向大乘，並且發願留下色身的人。既然這與教理都不相違背，所以聲聞的第八識（阿賴耶識）在無漏的色界心之後，也可以現前。然而，五凈居天沒有迴向大乘的人，因為經典沒有說他們在那裡發大心。第七轉識（末那識，manas-vijnana）在三界九地中，也可以互為等無間緣，因為它隨著第八識（阿賴耶識）所生之處而繫縛。有漏的識和無漏的識可以互相生起，因為在十地（bhumi）中可以相互引發。善心與無記心之間的關係也是如此。在無記心中，染污心與不染污心
【English Translation】 English version: As for 『hetu-pratyaya』 (cause and condition), it should be understood as a hypothetical designation, or a description that follows a certain perspective. Sometimes, merely saying that 『seeds』 are the nature of hetu-pratyaya is based on a certain superior manifestation, and does not fully conform to the ultimate truth. The sages say that the pravrtti-vijnana (evolving consciousness) and the ālaya-vijnana (storehouse consciousness) are mutually dependent and are causes and conditions for each other. 『Samanantara-pratyaya』 (immediately contiguous condition) refers to the eight manifest consciousnesses (the currently functioning consciousnesses, namely eye consciousness, ear consciousness, nose consciousness, tongue consciousness, body consciousness, mind consciousness, manas consciousness, and ālaya consciousness) and their associated mental factors (caitasika). The preceding aggregate of consciousnesses, without interruption, guides the subsequent arising of consciousnesses of the same kind. Because many seeds of the same kind operate simultaneously, non-associated dharmas are not included in this condition. Therefore, the eight consciousnesses cannot be mutually samanantara-pratyaya. Although mental factors and the mind always operate simultaneously, because they are associated and harmonized as a single entity, it is difficult to distinguish them, so they can be mutually samanantara-pratyaya. The mind that enters nirupadhisesa-nirvana (nirvana without remainder) is extremely weak, has no guiding function, and has no samanantara-dharma to arise, so it is not a samanantara-pratyaya. How is this known? There is a clear statement in the treatises: if this consciousness arises without interruption from that consciousness, it is said that this consciousness is the samanantara-pratyaya of that consciousness. Therefore, according to this principle, it should be said that the ādanavijnana (grasping consciousness, another name for ālaya consciousness) in the three realms and nine grounds can be mutually samanantara-pratyaya, because death and birth between lower and higher grounds can guide each other. Defiled consciousness can give rise to undefiled consciousness without interruption, but undefiled consciousness will definitely not give rise to defiled consciousness, because once the ādarsa-jnana (great perfect mirror wisdom) arises, it will definitely not cease. The relationship between wholesome mind and neutral mind is also the same. Then, after which realm will undefiled mind be triggered? Either after the rupa-dhatu (form realm) or after the kama-dhatu (desire realm). Those ordinary beings who seek the fruit of Buddhahood will definitely trigger undefiled mind after the rupa-dhatu, because they will definitely be born in the Suddhavasa (pure abodes) of Mahesvara (great lord), where they will attain Bodhi. Those of the two vehicles (sravaka-yana and pratyekabuddha-yana) who turn towards maha-bodhi (great enlightenment) will definitely trigger undefiled mind after the kama-dhatu, because when they turn towards the Mahayana, they will leave behind a physical body in the desire realm. Although they will also definitely go to Mahesvara to attain Buddhahood, the physical body left behind due to their original vows is in the desire realm. There is a view that there are also sravakas in the rupa-dhatu who turn towards the Mahayana and vow to leave behind a physical body. Since this does not contradict either the teachings or the reasoning, the eighth consciousness (ālaya consciousness) of the sravakas can also manifest after the undefiled rupa-dhatu mind. However, there are no people in the five pure abodes who turn towards the Mahayana, because the sutras do not say that they generate great bodhicitta there. The seventh evolving consciousness (manas-vijnana) in the three realms and nine grounds can also be mutually samanantara-pratyaya, because it is bound by where the eighth consciousness (ālaya consciousness) is born. Defiled consciousness and undefiled consciousness can arise from each other, because they can trigger each other in the ten bhumis (grounds). The relationship between wholesome mind and neutral mind is also the same. Among neutral minds, defiled mind and undefiled mind
染亦相開導。生空智果前後位中得相引故。此欲色界有漏得與無漏相生。非無色界。地上菩薩不生彼故。第六轉識三界九地有漏無漏善不善等各容互作等無間緣。潤生位等更相引故。初起無漏唯色界後。抉擇分善唯色界故。眼耳身識二界二地鼻舌兩識一界一地自類互作等無間緣。善等相望應知亦爾。有義五識有漏無漏自類互作等無間緣未成佛時容互起故。有義無漏有漏後起。非無漏後容起有漏。無漏五識非佛無故。彼五色根定有漏故。是異熟識相分攝故。有漏不共必俱同境根發無漏識理不相應故。此二于境明昧異故。三所緣緣。謂若有法是帶己相心或相應所慮所託。此體有二。一親二疏。若與能緣體不相離。是見分等內所慮托。應知彼是親所緣緣。若與能緣體雖相離。為質能起內所慮托。應知彼是疏所緣緣。親所緣緣能緣皆有。離內所慮托必不生故。疏所緣緣能緣或有。離外所慮托亦得生故。第八心品有義唯有親所緣緣。隨業因力任運變故。有義亦定有疏所緣緣。要仗他變質自方變故。有義二說俱不應理。自他身土可互受用。他所變者為自質故。自種於他無受用理。他變為此不應理故。非諸有情種皆等故。應說此品疏所緣緣一切位中有無不定。第七心品未轉依位是俱生故必仗外質。故亦定有疏所緣緣。已轉依位此非定
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 染污之法亦互相開導。因為生空之智慧果，在前後位中能夠互相牽引的緣故。這說明有漏之法，能夠與無漏之法相互生起。並非沒有這種可能。因為地上菩薩不會再生於欲界。第六轉識在三界九地中，有漏、無漏、善、不善等，各自可以互相作為等無間緣。在潤生位等，更是互相牽引的緣故。最初生起無漏之法，唯在之後。因為抉擇分善唯是的緣故。眼識、耳識、身識在二界二地，鼻識、舌識在一界一地，各自同類互相作為等無間緣。善等相互之間的關係，應當知道也是如此。有論師認為，五識的有漏和無漏，可以各自同類互相作為等無間緣，因為在未成佛時，容許互相生起。有論師認為，無漏在有漏之後生起。並非無漏之後容許生起有漏。因為無漏的五識，不是佛就沒有的。因為那五種色根必定是有漏的緣故。因為那是異熟識的相分所攝的緣故。有漏不共，必定同時同境的根所發起的無漏識，道理上不相應。因為這二者對於境界的明昧程度不同。三種所緣緣。是指如果有一個法，是帶有自身相的心或相應的心所慮及、所依託的。這個本體有兩種。一是親所緣緣，二是疏所緣緣。如果與能緣的本體不相分離，是見分等內在所慮及、所依託的，應當知道那是親所緣緣。如果與能緣的本體雖然相分離，作為本質能夠生起內在所慮及、所依託的，應當知道那是疏所緣緣。親所緣緣，能緣都有。因為離開內在所慮及、所依託的，必定不會生起。疏所緣緣，能緣或者有，因為離開外在所慮及、所依託的，也能夠生起。第八識心品，有論師認為只有親所緣緣。因為隨業因的力量，自然而然地變現。有論師認為也必定有疏所緣緣。一定要依靠他所變現的本質，自身才能變現的緣故。有論師認為這兩種說法都不應道理。因為自身和他人的身土可以互相受用。他人所變現的作為自身的本質的緣故。自身的種子對於他人沒有受用的道理。他人變現對於自身不應道理的緣故。因為不是所有有情的種子都相同。應當說這個心品的疏所緣緣，在一切位中，有或者沒有是不一定的。第七識心品，在未轉依位時，因為是俱生，必定依靠外在的本質。所以也必定有疏所緣緣。在已轉依位時，這就不一定了。
【English Translation】 English version Defiled dharmas also guide each other. Because the wisdom fruit of emptiness of self can attract each other in the previous and subsequent positions. This illustrates that contaminated (yu lou) [with outflows, i.e., subject to suffering] dharmas can arise together with uncontaminated (wu lou) [without outflows, i.e., not subject to suffering] dharmas. It is not impossible. Because Bodhisattvas on the ground (bhumi) do not reborn in the desire realm. The sixth consciousness in the three realms and nine grounds, contaminated, uncontaminated, wholesome, unwholesome, etc., can each mutually serve as immediately preceding condition (samanantarapratyaya). In the life-sustaining position, they attract each other. The initial arising of uncontaminated dharma only occurs after . Because the discriminative wholesome is only . Eye consciousness, ear consciousness, and body consciousness in the two realms and two grounds, nose consciousness and tongue consciousness in one realm and one ground, each of the same kind mutually serve as immediately preceding condition. The relationship between wholesome, etc., should be understood to be the same. Some theorists believe that the contaminated and uncontaminated of the five consciousnesses can each mutually serve as immediately preceding condition, because they are allowed to arise mutually before becoming a Buddha. Some theorists believe that uncontaminated arises after contaminated. It is not that contaminated can arise after uncontaminated. Because uncontaminated five consciousnesses do not exist without a Buddha. Because those five sense organs are definitely contaminated. Because they are included in the aspect-division (相分, xiang fen) of the resultant consciousness. The uncontaminated consciousness arising from the root in the same realm at the same time as the contaminated non-common (不共, bu gong) is not logically consistent. Because the clarity and obscurity of these two towards the object are different. The three object-conditions (所緣緣, suo yuan yuan). It refers to a dharma that is considered and relied upon by the mind or associated mental factors that carry their own characteristics. This entity has two types: direct and indirect. If it is not separate from the entity of the perceiver, it is what is considered and relied upon internally by the seeing-division (見分, jian fen), etc. It should be known that it is the direct object-condition. If it is separate from the entity of the perceiver, but as a substance can give rise to what is considered and relied upon internally, it should be known that it is the indirect object-condition. Direct object-conditions are present in all perceivers. Because without internal consideration and reliance, they will definitely not arise. Indirect object-conditions may or may not be present in perceivers, because they can also arise without external consideration and reliance. In the eighth consciousness mind-category, some theorists believe that there are only direct object-conditions. Because they naturally transform according to the power of karmic causes. Some theorists believe that there must also be indirect object-conditions. It is necessary to rely on the substance transformed by others for oneself to transform. Some theorists believe that both of these views are unreasonable. Because one's own and others' bodies and lands can be mutually used. What others transform serves as one's own substance. One's own seeds have no reason to be used by others. Others' transformation for oneself is unreasonable. Because not all sentient beings' seeds are the same. It should be said that the indirect object-condition of this mind-category is uncertain in all positions. In the seventh consciousness mind-category, in the position before transformation of the basis (轉依, zhuan yi), because it is co-born, it must rely on external substance. Therefore, there must also be indirect object-conditions. In the position after transformation of the basis, this is not certain.
有。緣真如等無外質故。第六心品行相猛利。於一切位能自在轉。所仗外質或有或無。疏所緣緣有無不定。前五心品未轉依位粗鈍劣故必仗外質故亦定有疏所緣緣。已轉依位此非定有緣過未等無外質故。四增上緣。謂若有法有勝勢用能于餘法或順或違。雖前三緣亦是增上。而今第四除彼取餘為顯諸緣差別相故。此順違用於四處轉生位成得四事別故。然增上用隨事雖多而勝顯者唯二十二應知即是二十二根。前五色根以本識等所變眼等凈色為性。男女二根身根所攝故即以彼少分為性。命根但依本識親種分位假立非別有性。意根總以八識為性。五受根如應各自受為性。信等五根即以信等及善念等而為自性。未知當知根體位有三種。一根本位謂在見道除後剎那無所未知可當知故。二加行位。謂暖頂忍世第一法近能引發根本位故。三資糧位。謂從為得諦現觀故發起決定勝善法欲。乃至未得順抉擇分所有善根名資糧位。能遠資生根本位故。於此三位信等五根意喜樂捨為此根性。加行等位於後勝法求證愁戚亦有憂根非正善根故多不說。前三無色有此根者有勝見道傍修得故。或二乘位回趣大者為證法空地前亦起九地所攝生空無漏。彼皆菩薩此根攝故。菩薩見道亦有此根但說地前以時促故。始從見道最後剎那乃至金剛喻定所有信等無漏九
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 有。緣真如（tathatā，事物的真實本性）等無外質故。第六心品行相猛利。於一切位能自在轉。所仗外質或有或無。疏所緣緣有無不定。前五心品未轉依位粗鈍劣故必仗外質故亦定有疏所緣緣。已轉依位此非定有緣過未等無外質故。 四增上緣。謂若有法有勝勢用能于餘法或順或違。雖前三緣亦是增上。而今第四除彼取餘為顯諸緣差別相故。此順違用於四處轉生位成得四事別故。然增上用隨事雖多而勝顯者唯二十二應知即是二十二根。前五色根以本識等所變眼等凈色為性。男女二根身根所攝故即以彼少分為性。命根但依本識親種分位假立非別有性。意根總以八識為性。五受根如應各自受為性。信等五根即以信等及善念等而為自性。未知當知根有三種。一根本位謂在見道除後剎那無所未知可當知故。二加行位。謂暖頂忍世第一法近能引發根本位故。三資糧位。謂從為得諦現觀故發起決定勝善法欲。乃至未得順抉擇分所有善根名資糧位。能遠資生根本位故。於此三位信等五根意喜樂捨為此根性。加行等位於後勝法求證愁戚亦有憂根非正善根故多不說。前三無色有此根者有勝見道傍修得故。或二乘位回趣大者為證法空地前亦起九地所攝生空無漏。彼皆菩薩此根攝故。菩薩見道亦有此根但說地前以時促故。始從見道最後剎那乃至金剛喻定所有信等無漏九
【English Translation】 English version It exists. Because it is related to Suchness (tathatā, the true nature of things) and has no external substance. The sixth mental category has fierce characteristics and can freely transform in all states. The external substance it relies on may or may not exist. The indirect object condition is uncertain in its existence. The first five mental categories, being coarse, dull, and inferior before the transformation of the basis, must rely on external substances, so the indirect object condition definitely exists. After the transformation of the basis, this is not certain because it is related to the past and future, which have no external substance. The fourth is the dominant condition. This refers to a phenomenon that has superior power and can either support or oppose other phenomena. Although the first three conditions are also dominant, this fourth one excludes them to highlight the differences between the conditions. This support or opposition is used in four places to differentiate the four aspects of birth, existence, attainment, and separation. Although the function of the dominant condition is diverse depending on the matter, the twenty-two that are most prominent should be known as the twenty-two faculties. The first five sense faculties are characterized by the pure sense organs such as the eye, transformed by the base consciousness, etc. The two faculties of male and female are included in the body faculty, so they are characterized by a small part of it. The life faculty is provisionally established based on the divisions of the seed of the base consciousness and does not have a separate nature. The mind faculty is generally characterized by the eight consciousnesses. The five feeling faculties are characterized by their respective feelings. The five faculties of faith, etc., are characterized by faith, etc., and wholesome thoughts, etc. The faculty of 'unknown, about to be known' has three types. The first is the fundamental stage, which is in the path of seeing, except for the last moment, there is nothing unknown that can be known. The second is the stage of application, which is the stage of warmth, peak, forbearance, and the highest mundane dharma, which can closely induce the fundamental stage. The third is the stage of accumulation, which is from the arising of the desire for decisive and superior wholesome dharma in order to attain the direct realization of the truth, until the wholesome roots of the favorable decisive part are obtained, which is called the stage of accumulation. It can remotely support the fundamental stage. In these three stages, the five faculties of faith, etc., mind, joy, pleasure, and equanimity are the nature of this faculty. In the stages of application, etc., there is also the faculty of sorrow due to worry and distress in seeking proof of the superior dharma, but it is not a truly wholesome root, so it is often not mentioned. Those in the first three formless realms who have this faculty have attained it through the superior path of seeing. Or, those in the Two Vehicles who turn towards the Great Vehicle also arise the uncontaminated emptiness of self included in the nine grounds before the stage of proving the emptiness of phenomena. They are all Bodhisattvas included in this faculty. Bodhisattvas also have this faculty in the path of seeing, but it is only mentioned before the ground because the time is short. Starting from the last moment of the path of seeing until the Vajra-like Samadhi, all the uncontaminated nine
根皆是已知根性。未離欲者于上解脫求證愁戚。亦有憂根非正善根故多不說。諸無學位無漏九根一切皆是具知根性。有頂雖有遊觀無漏而不明利非後三根。二十二根自性如是。諸餘門義如論應知。
## 成唯識論卷第七
大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 成唯識論
## 成唯識論卷第八
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
如是四緣依十五處義差別故立為十因。云何此依十五處立。一語依處。謂法名想所起語性。即依此處立隨說因。謂依此語隨見聞等說諸義故。此即能說為所說因。有論說此是名想見。由如名字取相執著隨起說故。若依彼說便顯此因是語依處。二領受依處。謂所觀待能所受性。即依此處立觀待因。謂觀待此令彼諸事或生或住或成或得。此是彼觀待因。三習氣依處。謂內外種未成熟位。即依此處立牽引因。謂能牽引遠自果故。四有潤種子依處。謂內外種已成熟位。即依此處立生起因。謂能生起近自果故。五無間滅依處。謂心心所等無間緣。六境界依處。謂心心所所緣緣。七根依處。謂心心所所依六根。八作用依處。謂于所作業作具作用即除種子餘助現緣。九士用依處。謂于所作業作者作用即除種子餘作現緣。十真實見依處。謂無漏見除引自種于無漏法能助引證。總
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 所有根都是已知其根性的。未斷除慾望的人，對於尋求上等解脫會感到憂愁和悲傷。也有憂根，但它不是真正的善根，所以通常不提及。所有無學位的聖者所擁有的無漏九根，都是完全瞭解其根性的。有頂天雖然有遊觀的無漏智慧，但不夠明銳，不是後三根（未知當知根、已知根、具知根）。二十二根的自性就是這樣。其他方面的意義，應該參考相關論著來理解。
《成唯識論》卷第七 大正藏第31冊 No. 1585 《成唯識論》
《成唯識論》卷第八
護法等菩薩 造
三藏法師玄奘 奉 詔譯
像這樣，四種緣依靠十五個處所的意義差別，被確立為十因。這是如何依靠這十五個處所確立的呢？ 一、語依處：指的是法（dharma，佛法）的名相概念所產生的語言性質。依據這個處所，確立隨說因。也就是說，依據這些語言，隨著見聞等來說明各種意義。這實際上是能說者作為所說內容的因。有些論著說這是名相概念和見解。因為就像通過名字來取相和執著，從而隨之產生言說。如果依據他們的說法，就更明顯地表明這個因是語言的依據。 二、領受依處：指的是所觀待的能受和所受的性質。依據這個處所，確立觀待因。也就是說，觀待這個處所，使那些事物或者產生，或者存在，或者成就，或者獲得。這就是它們的觀待因。 三、習氣依處：指的是內外種子的未成熟狀態。依據這個處所，確立牽引因。也就是說，能夠牽引到遙遠的自身結果。 四、有潤種子依處：指的是內外種子已經成熟的狀態。依據這個處所，確立生起因。也就是說，能夠生起接近的自身結果。 五、無間滅依處：指的是心和心所等無間緣。 六、境界依處：指的是心和心所的所緣緣。 七、根依處：指的是心和心所所依賴的六根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意）。 八、作用依處：指的是對於所作業所起的作用工具的作用，即除了種子之外的其他輔助顯現的緣。 九、士用依處：指的是對於所作業，作者所起的作用，即除了種子之外的其他作為顯現的緣。 十、真實見依處：指的是無漏的見解，除了引生自身種子之外，對於無漏法能夠幫助引導和證悟。總的來說
【English Translation】 English version: All roots are known to have their root nature. Those who have not detached from desire feel sorrow and grief when seeking superior liberation. There is also the root of sorrow, but it is not a truly wholesome root, so it is usually not mentioned. All the nine un-leaked roots possessed by all Arhats (those without learning) are fully aware of their root nature. Although the Formless Realm (Arupadhatu) has un-leaked wisdom of wandering contemplation, it is not sharp enough and is not the last three roots (Anajñatamajñasyami-indriya, Ajñendriya, Ajñatavindriya). The self-nature of the twenty-two roots is like this. The meanings of other aspects should be understood by referring to relevant treatises.
Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only), Volume 7 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 31, No. 1585, Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra
Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra, Volume 8
Composed by Bodhisattvas such as Dharmapala
Translated by Tripitaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Order
Thus, the four conditions, relying on the differences in meaning of the fifteen places, are established as the ten causes. How is this established based on these fifteen places? 1. The place of reliance on speech: This refers to the nature of language arising from the names and concepts of dharmas (teachings). Based on this place, the cause of subsequent speech is established. That is, based on these languages, various meanings are explained according to what is seen and heard. This is actually the speaker as the cause of what is said. Some treatises say that this is name, concept, and view. Because, like taking characteristics and clinging through names, speech arises accordingly. If based on their statement, it becomes even clearer that this cause is the basis of language. 2. The place of reliance on reception: This refers to the nature of what is received and what receives, which are mutually dependent. Based on this place, the cause of dependence is established. That is, depending on this place, those things either arise, or exist, or are accomplished, or are obtained. This is their cause of dependence. 3. The place of reliance on habit energy: This refers to the immature state of internal and external seeds. Based on this place, the cause of attraction is established. That is, it can attract distant self-results. 4. The place of reliance on moistened seeds: This refers to the mature state of internal and external seeds. Based on this place, the cause of arising is established. That is, it can give rise to close self-results. 5. The place of reliance on immediate cessation: This refers to the immediate condition of mind and mental factors, etc. 6. The place of reliance on the object: This refers to the object-condition of mind and mental factors. 7. The place of reliance on the roots: This refers to the six roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind) on which mind and mental factors rely. 8. The place of reliance on function: This refers to the function of the tools used in the work being done, that is, the other auxiliary manifesting conditions besides the seeds. 9. The place of reliance on effort: This refers to the function of the agent in the work being done, that is, the other conditions that act as manifestations besides the seeds. 10. The place of reliance on true seeing: This refers to the un-leaked view, which, in addition to generating its own seeds, can help guide and realize the un-leaked dharma. In general,
依此六立攝受因。謂攝受五辦有漏法具攝受六辦無漏故。十一隨順依處。謂無記染善現種諸行能隨順同類勝品諸法。即依此處立引發因。謂能引起同類勝行及能引得無為法故。十二差別功能依處。謂有為法各于自果有能起證差別勢力。即依此處立定異因謂各能生自界等果。及各能得自乘果故。十三和合依處。謂從領受乃至差別功能依處於所生住成得果中有和合力。即依此處立同事因。謂從觀待乃至定異皆同生等一事業故。十四障礙依處。謂于生住成得事中能障礙法。即依此處立相違因。謂彼能違生等事故。十五不障礙依處。謂于生住成得事中不障礙法。即依此處立不相違因。謂彼不違生等事故。如是十因二因所攝。一能生二方便。菩薩地說牽引種子生起種子名能生因。所餘諸因方便因攝。此說牽引生起引發定異同事不相違中。諸因緣種。未成熟位名牽引種已成熟位名生起種。彼六因中諸因緣種皆攝在此二位中故。離有現起是能生因如四因中生自種者而多間斷。此略不說。或親辦果亦立種名。如說現行穀麥等種。所餘因謂初二五九及六因中非因緣法。皆是生熟因緣種餘故總說為方便因攝。非此二種唯屬彼二因餘四因中有因緣種故。非唯彼八名所餘因彼二因亦有非因緣種故。有尋等地說生起因是能生因餘方便攝。此文意說
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 依據這六種『立』（建立）的『攝受因』（輔助原因），意思是說，『攝受』（輔助）五種能產生有漏法的條件，是因為它能『攝受』（輔助）六種能產生無漏法的條件。 第十一種是『隨順依處』（順應的所依之處），意思是說，無記、染污、善良的『現種』（顯現的種子）等各種『行』（行為），能夠順應同類的殊勝的法。就是依據這個『依處』（所依之處）建立『引發因』（引發原因），意思是說，它能夠引起同類的殊勝的『行』（行為），並且能夠引得『無為法』（不造作之法）。 第十二種是『差別功能依處』（差別功能的所依之處），意思是說，有為法各自對於自己的結果，有能夠產生和證明差別的勢力。就是依據這個『依處』（所依之處）建立『定異因』（決定的差異原因），意思是說，它們各自能夠產生自己界限內的結果，並且各自能夠獲得自己乘（vehicle）的結果。 第十三種是『和合依處』（和合的所依之處），意思是說，從領受到差別功能，這些『依處』（所依之處）在所生、住、成、得的結果中，有和合的力量。就是依據這個『依處』（所依之處）建立『同事因』（共同作用的原因），意思是說，從觀待到定異，都共同產生等同的事業。 第十四種是『障礙依處』（障礙的所依之處），意思是說，在生、住、成、得的事情中，能夠障礙法的產生。就是依據這個『依處』（所依之處）建立『相違因』（相反的原因），意思是說，它們能夠違背生等事情的發生。 第十五種是『不障礙依處』（不障礙的所依之處），意思是說，在生、住、成、得的事情中，不障礙法的產生。就是依據這個『依處』（所依之處）建立『不相違因』（不相反的原因），意思是說，它們不違背生等事情的發生。 像這樣，這十種『因』（原因）被兩種『因』（原因）所包含：一種是『能生』（能產生），一種是『方便』（輔助）。《菩薩地持經》中說，『牽引種子』（牽引種子）和『生起種子』（生起種子）被稱為『能生因』（能產生的原因），其餘的各種『因』（原因）都屬於『方便因』（輔助原因）。 這裡說的是，在『牽引』（牽引）、『生起』（生起）、『引發』（引發）、『定異』（決定差異）、『同事』（共同作用）、『不相違』（不相反）這些『因』（原因）中，各種『因緣種』（因緣種子），在沒有成熟的時候叫做『牽引種』（牽引種子），已經成熟的時候叫做『生起種』（生起種子）。這六種『因』（原因）中的各種『因緣種』（因緣種子）都被包含在這兩種狀態中。 離開已經顯現的，是『能生因』（能產生的原因），就像四種『因』（原因）中產生自身種子的那種情況，但是有很多間斷，這裡就省略不說了。或者，直接產生結果的，也可以稱為『種』（種子），就像說現在生長的穀物、麥子等種子。其餘的『因』（原因），指的是最初的兩種、第五種、第九種，以及第六種『因』（原因）中不是『因緣法』（作為原因和條件的事物）的那些，都是已經成熟的『因緣種』（因緣種子）以外的東西，所以總的來說被歸為『方便因』（輔助原因）所包含。 不是說這兩種『種』（種子）只屬於那兩種『因』（原因），其餘四種『因』（原因）中也有『因緣種』（因緣種子）的緣故。也不是說只有那八種叫做其餘的『因』（原因），那兩種『因』（原因）中也有不是『因緣種』（因緣種子）的緣故。《有尋有伺地》中說，『生起因』（生起原因）是『能生因』（能產生的原因），其餘的屬於『方便』（輔助）。這段文字的意思是說。
【English Translation】 English version Based on these six 'establishments' of 'supportive causes' (Skt. āśraya-hetu), it means that 'supporting' the five conditions that produce conditioned dharmas is because it can 'support' the six conditions that produce unconditioned dharmas. The eleventh is the 'compliant basis' (Skt. anuvartanāśraya), which means that the unspecified, defiled, and virtuous 'manifest seeds' (Skt. prakṛti-bīja) and other 'actions' (Skt. saṃskāra) can comply with similar superior dharmas. It is based on this 'basis' that the 'inducing cause' (Skt. utpādaka-hetu) is established, meaning that it can induce similar superior actions and can attain 'unconditioned dharmas' (Skt. asaṃskṛta-dharma). The twelfth is the 'differentiated function basis' (Skt. viśeṣa-kriyāśraya), which means that conditioned dharmas each have the power to produce and prove differences in their own results. It is based on this 'basis' that the 'determining difference cause' (Skt. nirdhāraṇa-viśeṣa-hetu) is established, meaning that they can each produce results within their own realm and can each attain the results of their own vehicle. The thirteenth is the 'harmonious basis' (Skt. samanvāhārāśraya), which means that from reception to differentiated function, these 'bases' have a harmonious power in the results of arising, abiding, accomplishing, and attaining. It is based on this 'basis' that the 'co-operative cause' (Skt. sahakāri-hetu) is established, meaning that from dependence to determining difference, they all jointly produce equal activities. The fourteenth is the 'obstructing basis' (Skt. pratibandhāśraya), which means that in the matters of arising, abiding, accomplishing, and attaining, it can obstruct the production of dharmas. It is based on this 'basis' that the 'opposing cause' (Skt. virodha-hetu) is established, meaning that they can oppose the occurrence of arising and other such matters. The fifteenth is the 'non-obstructing basis' (Skt. apratibandhāśraya), which means that in the matters of arising, abiding, accomplishing, and attaining, it does not obstruct the production of dharmas. It is based on this 'basis' that the 'non-opposing cause' (Skt. avirodha-hetu) is established, meaning that they do not oppose the occurrence of arising and other such matters. Like this, these ten 'causes' are encompassed by two 'causes': one is 'productive' (Skt. janaka), and the other is 'auxiliary' (Skt. upakāraka). The Bodhisattvabhūmi says that 'attracting seeds' (Skt. ākarṣaṇa-bīja) and 'arising seeds' (Skt. utpatti-bīja) are called 'productive causes', and the remaining 'causes' all belong to 'auxiliary causes'. Here it is said that in the 'attracting', 'arising', 'inducing', 'determining difference', 'co-operative', and 'non-opposing' 'causes', the various 'causal seeds' (Skt. hetu-bīja), when they are not yet mature, are called 'attracting seeds', and when they are already mature, are called 'arising seeds'. The various 'causal seeds' in these six 'causes' are all included in these two states. Apart from what has already manifested, it is a 'productive cause', like the case of producing one's own seed in the four 'causes', but there are many interruptions, so it is omitted here. Or, what directly produces the result can also be called a 'seed', like saying the currently growing grains, wheat, and other seeds. The remaining 'causes' refer to the initial two, the fifth, the ninth, and those in the sixth 'cause' that are not 'causal dharmas' (Skt. hetu-dharma), all of which are things other than the already matured 'causal seeds', so they are generally classified as being included in 'auxiliary causes'. It is not that these two 'seeds' only belong to those two 'causes', because there are also 'causal seeds' in the remaining four 'causes'. It is also not that only those eight are called the remaining 'causes', because there are also things that are not 'causal seeds' in those two 'causes'. The Yogācārabhūmi says that the 'arising cause' is the 'productive cause', and the rest belong to 'auxiliary'. The meaning of this passage is that.
六因中現種是因緣者皆名生起因。能親生起自類果故。此所餘因皆方便攝。非此生起唯屬彼因餘五因中有因緣故。非唯彼九名所餘因彼生起因中有非因緣故。或菩薩地所說牽引生起種子。即彼二因。所餘諸因即彼餘八。雖二因內有非能生因而因緣種勝顯故偏說。雖餘因內有非方便因而增上者多顯故偏說。有尋等地說生起因是能生因餘方便者。生起即是彼生起因餘因應知即彼餘九。雖生起中有非因緣種而去果近親顯故偏說。雖牽引中亦有因緣種而去果遠親隱故不說。餘方便攝準上應知。所說四緣依何處立。復如何攝十因二因。論說因緣依種子立。依無間滅立等無間。依境界立所緣。依所餘立增上。此中種子即是三四十一十二十三十五六依處中因緣種攝。雖現四處亦有因緣而多間斷。此略不說。或彼亦能親辦自果如外麥等亦立種名。或種子言唯屬第四。親疏隱顯取捨如前。言無間滅境界處者應知總顯二緣依處非唯五六。餘依處中亦有中間二緣義故。或唯五六餘處雖有而少隱故略不說之。論說因緣能生因攝。增上緣性即方便因。中間二緣攝受因攝。雖方便內具後三緣而增上多故此偏說。餘因亦有中間二緣然攝受中顯故偏說。初能生攝進退如前所說因緣必應有果。此果有幾依何處得。果有五種。一者異熟。謂有漏善及不善法所
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 六因（ हेतु, hetu，原因）中，如果『現種』是『因緣』（हेतुप्रत्यय, hetupratyaya，因緣條件），那麼就稱為『生起因』（उत्पादकहेतु, utpādakahetu，產生之因），因為它能夠直接產生同類的結果。這裡剩餘的因都屬於『方便攝』（उपायसंग्रह, upāyasaṃgraha，方便包含）。 這種生起並非只屬於那個因，因為其餘五因中也有『因緣』的緣故。並非只有那九個因被稱為『所餘因』（शेषहेतु, śeṣahetu，剩餘之因），因為『生起因』中也有非『因緣』的緣故。或者，在《菩薩地》（Bodhisattvabhūmi，菩薩地）中所說的『牽引』（आकर्षण, ākarṣaṇa，牽引）和『生起』種子，就是那兩個因。其餘的因就是那剩餘的八個。雖然兩個因內有非能生之因，但因為『因緣』種子非常顯著，所以特別說明。 雖然其餘的因內有非方便之因，但因為『增上』（अधिपति, adhipati，增上）的因素較多，所以特別說明。在《有尋等地》（savitarkādisabhūmi，有尋有伺地等）中說，『生起因』是『能生因』（जनकहेतु, janakahetu，能生之因），其餘的方便就是那剩餘的九個。雖然『生起』中有非『因緣』種子，但因為它與結果接近、親近且顯著，所以特別說明。 雖然『牽引』中也有『因緣』種子，但因為它與結果遙遠、疏遠且隱蔽，所以沒有說明。其餘的『方便攝』可以參照上面的內容來理解。所說的四緣（चतुः प्रत्यय, catuḥ pratyaya，四種緣）是依據什麼而建立的？又如何包含十因（दश हेतु, daśa hetu，十種因）和二因（द्वि हेतु, dvi hetu，兩種因）？ 論中說，『因緣』是依據種子而建立的，『等無間』（समनन्तर, samanantara，等無間緣）是依據無間滅而建立的，『所緣』（आलम्बन, ālambana，所緣緣）是依據境界而建立的，『增上』是依據其餘的而建立的。這裡，種子就是三、四、十一、十二、十三、五、六依處（षड् आयतन, ṣaḍ āyatana，六處）中的『因緣』種子所包含的。雖然現在四處也有『因緣』，但大多是間斷的，所以這裡省略不說。或者，它們也能像外面的麥子等一樣親自辦理自己的結果，因此也立為種名。或者，種子這個詞只屬於第四種，親疏隱顯的取捨如前所述。 所說的無間滅境界處，應該知道是總括地顯示了二緣的依據之處，並非只有五、六。其餘的依據之處也有中間二緣的含義。或者，只有五、六，其餘之處雖然有，但因為少而隱蔽，所以省略不說。論中說，『因緣』包含在『能生因』中，『增上緣』（अधिपतिप्रत्यय, adhipatipratyaya，增上緣）的性質就是『方便因』。中間的二緣包含在『攝受因』（परिग्रहहेतु, parigrahahetu，攝受因）中。雖然『方便』內具有後面的三緣，但因為『增上』的因素較多，所以這裡特別說明。其餘的因也有中間的二緣，但因為在『攝受』中顯得明顯，所以特別說明。 最初的『能生』包含的內容的進退如前所述。所說的『因緣』必定應該有結果。這種結果有幾種？依據什麼而得到？結果有五種：第一種是『異熟』（विपाक, vipāka，異熟果），指的是有漏的善和不善法所……
【English Translation】 English version Among the six hetus (हेतु, hetu, causes), if the 'present seed' is 'hetupratyaya' (हेतुप्रत्यय, hetupratyaya, causal condition), then it is called 'utpādakahetu' (उत्पादकहेतु, utpādakahetu, productive cause), because it can directly produce results of its own kind. The remaining causes here are all included in 'upāyasaṃgraha' (उपायसंग्रह, upāyasaṃgraha, expedient collection). This production does not belong only to that cause, because there is also 'hetupratyaya' in the remaining five causes. It is not only those nine causes that are called 'śeṣahetu' (शेषहेतु, śeṣahetu, remaining causes), because there are also non-'hetupratyaya' in 'utpādakahetu'. Alternatively, the 'ākarṣaṇa' (आकर्षण, ākarṣaṇa, attraction) and 'utpāda' seeds mentioned in the 'Bodhisattvabhūmi' (菩薩地, Bodhisattvabhūmi, Bodhisattva Grounds) are those two causes. The remaining causes are the remaining eight. Although there are non-productive causes within the two causes, it is specifically mentioned because the 'hetupratyaya' seed is very prominent. Although there are non-expedient causes within the remaining causes, it is specifically mentioned because there are more 'adhipati' (अधिपति, adhipati, dominant) factors. In the 'savitarkādisabhūmi' (有尋等地, savitarkādisabhūmi, grounds with investigation and analysis), it is said that 'utpādakahetu' is 'janakahetu' (जनकहेतु, janakahetu, generative cause), and the remaining expedients are the remaining nine. Although there are non-'hetupratyaya' seeds in 'utpāda', it is specifically mentioned because it is close, intimate, and prominent to the result. Although there are also 'hetupratyaya' seeds in 'ākarṣaṇa', it is not mentioned because it is distant, remote, and hidden from the result. The remaining 'upāyasaṃgraha' can be understood by referring to the above content. On what basis are the four pratyayas (चतुः प्रत्यय, catuḥ pratyaya, four conditions) established? And how do they include the ten hetus (दश हेतु, daśa hetu, ten causes) and the two hetus (द्वि हेतु, dvi hetu, two causes)? The treatise says that 'hetupratyaya' is established based on seeds, 'samanantara' (समनन्तर, samanantara, immediate condition) is established based on uninterrupted cessation, 'ālambana' (आलम्बन, ālambana, objective condition) is established based on objects, and 'adhipati' is established based on the remaining. Here, seeds are included in the 'hetupratyaya' seeds in the three, four, eleven, twelve, thirteen, five, and six āyatanas (षड् आयतन, ṣaḍ āyatana, six sense bases). Although there is also 'hetupratyaya' in the present four places, they are mostly intermittent, so they are omitted here. Alternatively, they can also personally handle their own results like external wheat, so they are also established as seed names. Alternatively, the word seed only belongs to the fourth type, and the selection of closeness, distance, concealment, and manifestation is as described above. The mentioned places of uninterrupted cessation and objects should be known as comprehensively showing the basis of the two conditions, not just five and six. There is also the meaning of the two intermediate conditions in the remaining bases. Alternatively, only five and six, although they exist in the remaining places, they are omitted because they are few and hidden. The treatise says that 'hetupratyaya' is included in 'janakahetu', and the nature of 'adhipatipratyaya' (अधिपतिप्रत्यय, adhipatipratyaya, dominant condition) is 'upāyahetu'. The two intermediate conditions are included in 'parigrahahetu' (परिग्रहहेतु, parigrahahetu, receptive cause). Although 'upāya' has the following three conditions, it is specifically mentioned here because there are more 'adhipati' factors. The remaining causes also have the two intermediate conditions, but they are specifically mentioned because they are clearly manifested in 'parigraha'. The inclusion and exclusion of the initial 'janaka' is as described above. The mentioned 'hetupratyaya' must have results. How many kinds of results are there? On what basis are they obtained? There are five kinds of results: The first is 'vipāka' (विपाक, vipāka, resultant fruit), which refers to the contaminated good and unwholesome dharmas that...
招自相續異熟生無記。二者等流。謂習善等所引同類或似先業後果隨轉。三者離系。謂無漏道斷障所證善無為法。四者士用。謂諸作者假諸作具所辦事業。五者增上。謂除前四餘所得果。瑜伽等說習氣依處得異熟果。隨順依處得等流果。真見依處得離系果。士用依處得士用果。所餘依處得增上果。習氣處言顯諸依處感異熟果一切功能。隨順處言顯諸依處引等流果一切功能。真見處言顯諸依處證離系果一切功能。士用處言顯諸依處招士用果一切功能。所餘處言顯諸依處得增上果一切功能。不爾便應太寬太狹。或習氣者唯屬第三。雖異熟因餘處亦有此處亦有非異熟因而異熟因去果相遠。習氣亦爾故此偏說。隨順唯屬第十一處。雖等流果餘處亦得此處亦得非等流果而此因招勝行相顯。隨順亦爾故偏說之。真見處言唯詮第十。雖證離系餘處亦能此處亦能得非離系而此證離系相顯故偏說。士用處言唯詮第九。雖士用果餘處亦招此處亦能招增上等而名相顯是故偏說。所餘唯屬餘十一處。雖十一處亦得餘果招增上果餘處亦能而此十一多招增上。餘已顯餘故此偏說。如是即說此五果中若異熟果牽引生起定異同事不相違因增上緣得。若等流果牽引生起攝受引發定異同事不相違因初後緣得。若離系果攝受引發定異同事不相違因增上緣得。若
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 招感自相續的異熟生無記（Vipāka-ajañata，異熟果所生的無記性）。二者是等流果（Nisyanda-phala），指由習善等行為所引發的同類或相似於先前業的後果相隨而轉。三者是離系果（Visamyoga-phala），指由無漏道斷除煩惱障所證得的善的無為法。四者是士用果（Purusakara-phala），指諸位作者憑藉各種工具所完成的事業。五者是增上果（Adhipati-phala），指除去前四種果之外所獲得的果報。 《瑜伽師地論》等論典中說，習氣（Vāsanā，熏習的習性）的依處獲得異熟果，隨順的依處獲得等流果，真見的依處獲得離系果，士用的依處獲得士用果，其餘的依處獲得增上果。『習氣處』一詞顯示了諸依處感得異熟果的一切功能。『隨順處』一詞顯示了諸依處引生等流果的一切功能。『真見處』一詞顯示了諸依處證得離系果的一切功能。『士用處』一詞顯示了諸依處招感士用果的一切功能。『所餘處』一詞顯示了諸依處獲得增上果的一切功能。否則，便會過於寬泛或過於狹隘。 或者說，習氣僅僅屬於第三處（指阿賴耶識）。雖然異熟因在其他處也有，但此處也有，而且不是異熟因的異熟因，其去果相遠。習氣也是如此，因此在此處特別說明。隨順僅僅屬於第十一處（指意識）。雖然等流果在其他處也能得到，但此處也能得到，而且不是等流果，但此處的因招感殊勝的行相明顯。隨順也是如此，因此特別說明它。『真見處』一詞僅僅詮釋第十處（指無漏智）。雖然證得離系果在其他處也能，但此處也能得到非離系果，但此處證得離系果的相明顯，因此特別說明。『士用處』一詞僅僅詮釋第九處（指業）。雖然士用果在其他處也能招感，但此處也能招感增上果等，而且名稱相明顯，因此特別說明。 其餘的僅僅屬於其餘的十一處。雖然這十一處也能得到其餘的果報，招感增上果，其他處也能，但此處這十一處多招感增上果。其餘的已經顯示了其餘的，因此在此處特別說明。如此，就是說這五種果中，如果是異熟果，由牽引生起、決定、異類、同事、不相違的因和增上緣而得到。如果是等流果，由牽引生起、攝受引發、決定、異類、同事、不相違的因和初後緣而得到。如果是離系果，由攝受引發、決定、異類、同事、不相違的因和增上緣而得到。
【English Translation】 English version The first is Vipāka-ajañata (resulting from maturation), which is unwholesome and arises from one's own continuum. The second is Nisyanda-phala (result of outflow), referring to the consequences of virtuous actions, etc., which are similar to or of the same kind as previous karma and follow its course. The third is Visamyoga-phala (result of separation), referring to the unconditioned Dharma of goodness attained by the path of non-outflow, which severs the obstructions. The fourth is Purusakara-phala (result of effort), referring to the actions accomplished by various agents using various tools. The fifth is Adhipati-phala (result of dominance), referring to the results obtained other than the previous four. The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and other treatises state that the basis of Vāsanā (habitual tendencies) obtains the Vipāka-phala (result of maturation), the basis of accordance obtains the Nisyanda-phala (result of outflow), the basis of true seeing obtains the Visamyoga-phala (result of separation), the basis of effort obtains the Purusakara-phala (result of effort), and the remaining bases obtain the Adhipati-phala (result of dominance). The term 'basis of habitual tendencies' indicates all the functions of the bases that cause the result of maturation. The term 'basis of accordance' indicates all the functions of the bases that bring about the result of outflow. The term 'basis of true seeing' indicates all the functions of the bases that realize the result of separation. The term 'basis of effort' indicates all the functions of the bases that bring about the result of effort. The term 'remaining bases' indicates all the functions of the bases that obtain the result of dominance. Otherwise, it would be too broad or too narrow. Alternatively, habitual tendencies belong only to the third place (referring to the Ālaya-vijñāna, store consciousness). Although the cause of maturation is also present in other places, it is also present here, and it is not the cause of maturation that is the cause of maturation, and its distance from the result is far. The same is true of habitual tendencies, so it is specifically mentioned here. Accordance belongs only to the eleventh place (referring to the consciousness). Although the result of outflow can also be obtained in other places, it can also be obtained here, and it is not the result of outflow, but the cause here brings about the manifestation of excellent conduct. The same is true of accordance, so it is specifically mentioned. The term 'basis of true seeing' only explains the tenth place (referring to non-outflow wisdom). Although the realization of the result of separation can also be achieved in other places, the non-result of separation can also be obtained here, but the manifestation of the realization of the result of separation is evident here, so it is specifically mentioned. The term 'basis of effort' only explains the ninth place (referring to karma). Although the result of effort can also be brought about in other places, the result of dominance, etc., can also be brought about here, and the name and appearance are evident, so it is specifically mentioned. The remaining belong only to the remaining eleven places. Although these eleven places can also obtain the remaining results, and the result of dominance can be brought about, other places can also do so, but these eleven places mostly bring about the result of dominance. The remaining have already shown the remaining, so it is specifically mentioned here. Thus, it is said that among these five results, if it is the result of maturation, it is obtained by the cause of attraction, arising, determination, heterogeneity, co-occurrence, non-contradiction, and the dominant condition. If it is the result of outflow, it is obtained by the cause of attraction, arising, acceptance, initiation, determination, heterogeneity, co-occurrence, non-contradiction, and the initial and subsequent conditions. If it is the result of separation, it is obtained by the cause of acceptance, initiation, determination, heterogeneity, co-occurrence, non-contradiction, and the dominant condition.
士用果有義觀待攝受同事不相違因增上緣得。有義觀待牽引生起攝受引發定異同事不相違因除所緣緣餘三緣得。若增上果十因四緣一切容得。傍論已了應辯正論。
本識中種容作三緣生現分別除等無間。謂各親種是彼因緣為所緣緣于能緣者。若種于彼有能助力或不障礙是增上緣。生凈現行應知亦爾。現起分別展轉相望容作三緣無因緣故。謂有情類自他展轉容作二緣除等無間。自八識聚展轉相望定有增上緣必無等無間。所緣緣義或無或有。八於七有。七於八無。餘七非八所仗質故。第七於六五無一有。餘六于彼一切皆無。第六於五無。餘五于彼有。五識唯托第八相故。自類前後第六容三餘除所緣取現境故。許五後見緣前相者五七前後亦有三緣。前七於八所緣容有能熏成彼相見種故。同聚異體展轉相望唯有增上諸相應法所仗質同不相緣故。或依見分說不相緣。依相分說有相緣義謂諸相分互為質起如識中種為觸等相質。不爾無色彼應無境故。設許變色亦定緣種勿見分境不同質故。同體相分為見二緣見分于彼但有增上。見與自證相望亦爾。餘二展轉俱作二緣。此中不依種相分說但說現起互為緣故。凈八識聚自他展轉皆有所緣能遍緣故。唯除見分非相所緣相分理無能緣用故。既現分別緣種現生。種亦理應緣現種起。現種于
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：士用果（由士夫作用產生的果）的產生，需要依靠有義觀待（有意義的觀待）、攝受（支援）、同事不相違因（不與同事相違背的因）和增上緣（增上緣）才能獲得。有義觀待可以通過牽引生起、攝受、引發定異（引發確定差異）和同事不相違因（不與同事相違背的因）來獲得，但所緣緣（對像條件）除外，其餘三種緣可以獲得。如果說是增上果，那麼十因四緣（十種因和四種緣）都可以容納。關於次要問題的討論已經結束，現在應該討論主要問題。
本識（根本識）中的種子可以作為三種緣來產生顯現的分別，除了等無間緣（直接無間斷的條件）。也就是說，各個親種子是它們各自的因緣，對於能緣者（能認知的主體）來說是所緣緣。如果種子對它們有幫助或不構成障礙，那就是增上緣。產生清凈的顯現也應該知道是這樣。顯現的分別相互之間可以作為三種緣，因為沒有因緣。也就是說，有情眾生之間可以相互作為兩種緣，除了等無間緣。自身八識聚（八種意識的集合）相互之間一定有增上緣，一定沒有等無間緣。所緣緣的意義或者有或者沒有。第八識對於前七識有，前七識對於第八識沒有。其餘七識不是第八識所依賴的本質。第七識對於第六識、第五識沒有，對於第一識有。其餘六識對於第七識都沒有。第六識對於第五識沒有。其餘五識對於第六識有。五識僅僅依賴於第八識的相分（對象的顯現部分）。同類的先後第六識可以有三種緣，其餘的除了所緣緣，因為它們取的是顯現的境界。如果允許五識的後見緣於前相，那麼五識和第七識的前後也有三種緣。前七識對於第八識的所緣緣可能存在，因為它們能夠熏習形成第八識的相見種子。同一識聚中不同體的部分相互之間只有增上緣，因為相應的法所依賴的本質相同，所以不相互作為緣。或者依據見分（認知的主體部分）來說不相互作為緣。依據相分來說有相互作為緣的意義，也就是說，各種相分相互作為本質而生起，就像識中的種子作為觸等的本質一樣。如果不是這樣，那麼無色界（沒有物質的世界）應該沒有境界。即使允許變色，也一定要緣于種子，不要讓見分的境界與本質不同。同一體的相分是見分的兩種緣，見分對於相分只有增上緣。見分與自證分（自我證明的部分）相互之間也是這樣。其餘兩種分相互之間都作為兩種緣。這裡不依據種子相分來說，只是說顯現生起的部分相互作為緣。清凈的八識聚相互之間都有所緣，因為它們能夠普遍地緣取。只有見分不是相分所緣的，相分在道理上沒有能緣的作用。既然顯現的分別緣于種子而顯現產生，那麼種子也應該緣于顯現而生起。顯現和種子對於
【English Translation】 English version: The arising of the 'fruit of the agent' (the result produced by the action of an agent) requires relying on 'meaningful dependence' (having a significant relationship), 'support' (assistance), 'cause not conflicting with colleagues' (a cause that does not contradict fellow agents), and 'augmenting condition' (enhancing circumstance). 'Meaningful dependence' can be obtained through 'attracting arising', 'supporting', 'inducing definite difference', and 'cause not conflicting with colleagues', but excluding the 'object condition' (the condition of the object), the remaining three conditions can be obtained. If it is said to be an 'augmenting fruit', then all ten causes and four conditions can be accommodated. The discussion of secondary issues has ended, and now the main issue should be discussed.
The seeds in the 'store consciousness' (fundamental consciousness) can serve as three conditions for the arising of manifest discriminations, except for the 'immediately preceding condition' (the condition of immediate contiguity). That is, each 'related seed' is its own 'causal condition', and for the 'cognizing subject' (the one who cognizes), it is the 'object condition'. If the seed is helpful to them or does not constitute an obstacle, then it is the 'augmenting condition'. It should also be known that the arising of pure manifestations is the same. Manifest discriminations can serve as three conditions for each other, because there is no 'causal condition'. That is, sentient beings can serve as two conditions for each other, except for the 'immediately preceding condition'. The 'eight aggregates of consciousness' (the collection of eight types of consciousness) within oneself certainly have an 'augmenting condition' for each other, and there is certainly no 'immediately preceding condition'. The meaning of the 'object condition' either exists or does not exist. The eighth consciousness has it for the first seven consciousnesses, and the first seven consciousnesses do not have it for the eighth consciousness. The remaining seven consciousnesses are not the essence relied upon by the eighth consciousness. The seventh consciousness does not have it for the sixth and fifth consciousnesses, but it has it for the first consciousness. The remaining six consciousnesses do not have it for the seventh consciousness. The sixth consciousness does not have it for the fifth consciousness. The remaining five consciousnesses have it for the sixth consciousness. The five consciousnesses only rely on the 'image-aspect' (the manifested part of the object) of the eighth consciousness. The successive sixth consciousnesses of the same type can have three conditions, and the rest exclude the 'object condition', because they take the manifest realm. If it is allowed that the subsequent perception of the five consciousnesses is conditioned by the preceding image, then the preceding and following five and seventh consciousnesses also have three conditions. The 'object condition' of the preceding seven consciousnesses for the eighth consciousness may exist, because they can imprint and form the seeds of the image-aspect of the eighth consciousness. Parts of different entities within the same aggregate of consciousness only have an 'augmenting condition' for each other, because the essence relied upon by the corresponding dharmas is the same, so they do not serve as conditions for each other. Or, according to the 'cognitive aspect' (the subjective part of cognition), they do not serve as conditions for each other. According to the 'image-aspect', there is the meaning of serving as conditions for each other, that is, various image-aspects arise by serving as the essence of each other, just as the seeds in consciousness serve as the essence of touch and so on. If this is not the case, then the 'formless realm' (the world without matter) should have no realm. Even if the transformation of form is allowed, it must be conditioned by the seeds, and do not let the realm of the cognitive aspect be different from the essence. The image-aspect of the same entity is two conditions for the cognitive aspect, and the cognitive aspect only has an 'augmenting condition' for the image-aspect. The cognitive aspect and the 'self-awareness aspect' (the self-verifying part) are also like this for each other. The remaining two aspects serve as two conditions for each other. Here, it is not based on the seed-image aspect, but only says that the manifest arising parts serve as conditions for each other. The pure eight aggregates of consciousness all have objects for each other, because they can universally cognize. Only the cognitive aspect is not the object of the image-aspect, and the image-aspect has no cognizing function in principle. Since manifest discriminations arise by being conditioned by seeds, then seeds should also arise by being conditioned by manifestations. Manifestations and seeds for
種能作幾緣。種必不由中二緣起待心心所立彼二故。現於親種具作二緣與非親種但為增上。種望親種亦具二緣于非親種亦但增上。依斯內識互為緣起分別因果理教皆成。所執外緣設有無用況違理教何固執為。雖分別言總顯三界心及心所而隨勝者諸聖教中多門顯示。或說為二三四五等如餘論中具廣分別。雖有內識而無外緣由何有情生死相續。頌曰。
１９ 由諸業習氣 二取習氣俱 前異熟既盡 復生餘異熟
論曰。諸業謂福非福不動。即有漏善不善思業。業之眷屬亦立業名。同招引滿異熟果故。此雖才起無間即滅無義能招當異熟果。而熏本識起自功能。即此功能說為習氣。是業氣分熏習所成簡曾現業故名習氣。如是習氣展轉相續至成熟時招異熟果。此顯當果勝增上緣。相見．名色．心及心所．本末。彼取皆二取攝。彼所熏發親能生彼本識上功能名二取習氣。此顯來世異熟果心及彼相應諸因緣種。俱謂業種二取種俱是疏親緣互相助義。業招生顯故頌先說。前異熟者謂前前生業異熟果。餘異熟者謂後後生業異熟果。雖二取種受果無窮而業習氣受果有盡。由異熟果性別難招等流增上性同易感。由感餘生業等種熟。前異熟果受用盡時復別能生餘異熟果。由斯生死輪轉無窮何假外緣方得相續
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 問：種子生起需要幾種緣？ 答：種子並非單獨由兩種緣生起，而是依賴於心和心所（Citta-Caitasika，心：意識；心所：伴隨意識產生的心理活動）這兩種緣而建立。對於親近的種子來說，它具有能作緣和俱有緣兩種緣；對於非親近的種子來說，它只作為增上緣（Upastambha-pratyaya，輔助性的條件）。 種子對於親近的種子也具有能作緣和俱有緣兩種緣，而對於非親近的種子也只是增上緣。依靠這種內在的意識（Ālayavijñāna，阿賴耶識，又稱藏識）互相作為緣起，分別因果的道理和教義才能成立。 如果所執著的外在的緣沒有作用，更何況它還違背道理和教義，為何還要固執地認為它存在呢？ 雖然分別而言，總體上顯現的是三界（Trailokya，欲界、色界、無色界）的心和心所，但根據哪種更殊勝，在各種聖教中會從多個方面進行顯示。或者說為二、三、四、五等，如同在其他論著中詳細分別的那樣。 問：即使有內在的意識，但如果沒有外在的緣，為什麼有情（Sattva，眾生）的生死還會相續不斷呢？ 頌曰： １９ 由諸業習氣 二取習氣俱 前異熟既盡 復生餘異熟 論曰：諸業指的是福業、非福業和不動業。也就是有漏的善、不善的思業（Cetana-karma，意志行為）。業的眷屬也可以被稱作業，因為它們共同招引圓滿的異熟果（Vipāka-phala，果報）。 這些業雖然才生起就立即滅去，似乎沒有能力招感未來的異熟果，但它們熏習本識（Mūla-vijñāna，根本識），生起自身的功能。這種功能就被稱為習氣（Vāsanā，熏習的殘餘）。它是業的氣分熏習所形成的，爲了區別于曾經顯現的業，所以稱為習氣。 就這樣，習氣輾轉相續，直到成熟時招感異熟果。這顯示了當來果的殊勝增上緣。相、見、名色、心及心所、本末，這些取都屬於二取（Dvitīya-graha，二取，能取和所取）所攝。 它們所熏發、親能生起彼本識上的功能，稱為二取習氣。這顯示了來世的異熟果心以及與它相應的各種因緣種子。俱，指的是業種和二取種都是疏遠或親近的緣，互相幫助的意思。業招生的力量明顯，所以頌文先說。 前異熟指的是前一生所造業的異熟果。餘異熟指的是後一生所造業的異熟果。雖然二取種所受的果報無窮無盡，但業習氣所受的果報卻有窮盡的時候。因為異熟果的性質難以招感，而等流果（Nisyanda-phala，與因相似的果報）和增上果（Adhipati-phala，由主要條件產生的果報）的性質相同，容易感得。 由於感得來生的業等種子成熟，前一異熟果受用完畢時，又能夠產生其他的異熟果。因此，生死輪迴無窮無盡，何必假借外緣才能相續不斷呢？
【English Translation】 English version Question: How many conditions are required for a seed to arise? Answer: A seed does not arise solely from two conditions; rather, it is established relying on the two conditions of Citta (mind, consciousness) and Caitasika (mental factors, mental events that accompany consciousness). For proximate seeds, it possesses both the efficient cause (Kāraṇa-pratyaya) and the co-existent cause (Sahabhū-pratyaya); for non-proximate seeds, it serves only as the supporting cause (Upastambha-pratyaya). A seed also possesses both the efficient cause and the co-existent cause in relation to proximate seeds, while it is only a supporting cause in relation to non-proximate seeds. Relying on this internal consciousness (Ālayavijñāna, storehouse consciousness), mutually arising as conditions, the principles and teachings of distinguishing cause and effect can be established. If the external conditions that are clung to have no function, and moreover, they contradict reason and teachings, why stubbornly insist on their existence? Although speaking separately, what is generally manifested are the mind and mental factors of the three realms (Trailokya, desire realm, form realm, formless realm), but according to which is more superior, various holy teachings display it from multiple perspectives. Or it is said to be two, three, four, five, etc., as thoroughly distinguished in other treatises. Question: Even if there is internal consciousness, but without external conditions, why does the cycle of birth and death of sentient beings (Sattva) continue uninterrupted? Verse: 19 By the habits of karma, and the habits of the two graspings together, When the previous fruition has ended, other fruitions arise again. Treatise: 'Karmas' refer to meritorious, non-meritorious, and unwavering actions. That is, wholesome and unwholesome volitional actions (Cetana-karma) with outflows. The retinue of karma is also established as karma because they jointly attract the complete fruition (Vipāka-phala). Although these karmas arise and immediately cease, seemingly without the ability to attract future fruition, they perfume the fundamental consciousness (Mūla-vijñāna), giving rise to their own functions. These functions are called habits (Vāsanā). They are formed by the perfuming of the karmic essence; to distinguish them from past manifested karmas, they are called habits. Thus, these habits continue to transform and succeed each other, until they mature and attract fruition. This reveals the superior supporting cause of the future result. Appearances, perceptions, name and form, mind and mental factors, beginning and end—these graspings are all included within the two graspings (Dvitīya-graha, grasping subject and grasped object). The functions on that fundamental consciousness that they perfume and proximately generate are called the habits of the two graspings. This reveals the mind of the future fruition and the seeds of various conditions corresponding to it. 'Together' means that the seeds of karma and the seeds of the two graspings are distant or proximate conditions, mutually assisting each other. The power of karma to attract rebirth is evident, so the verse speaks of it first. 'Previous fruition' refers to the fruition of the karma created in the previous life. 'Other fruitions' refers to the fruition of the karma created in the subsequent life. Although the fruits received by the seeds of the two graspings are endless, the fruits received by the habits of karma have an end. Because the nature of fruition is difficult to attract, while the nature of the outflowing result (Nisyanda-phala) and the dominant result (Adhipati-phala) are the same, making them easy to sense. Because the seeds of karma, etc., that are sensed in future lives mature, when the previous fruition is exhausted, it can generate other fruitions. Therefore, the cycle of birth and death is endless; why must we borrow external conditions to continue uninterrupted?
。此頌意說由業二取生死輪迴皆不離識心心所法為彼性故。
複次生死相續由諸習氣。然諸習氣總有三種。一名言習氣。謂有為法各別親種。名言有二。一表義名言。即能詮義音聲差別。二顯境名言。即能了境心心所法。隨二名言所熏成種作有為法各別因緣。二我執習氣。謂虛妄執我我所種。我執有二。一俱生我執。即修所斷我我所執。二分別我執。即見所斷我我所執。隨二我執所熏成種令有情等自他差別。三有支習氣。謂招三界異熟業種。有支有二。一有漏善。即是能招可愛果業。二諸不善。即是能招非愛果業。隨二有支所熏成種令異熟果善惡趣別。應知我執有支習氣於差別果是增上緣。此頌所言業習氣者應知即是有支習氣。二取習氣。應知即是我執名言二種習氣。取我我所及取名言而熏成故皆說名取。俱等餘文義如前釋。
複次生死相續由惑業苦。發業潤生煩惱名惑。能感後有諸業名業。業所引生眾苦名苦。惑業苦種皆名習氣。前二習氣與生死苦為增上緣助生苦故。第三習氣望生死苦能作因緣親生苦故。頌三習氣如應當知。惑苦名取能所取故。取是著義業不得名。俱等餘文義如前釋。此惑業苦應知總攝十二有支。謂從無明乃至老死如論廣釋。然十二支略攝為四。一能引支。謂無明行。能引識等五果種
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：這首偈頌的意思是說，由業和二取（能取和所取）所導致的生死輪迴，都離不開識（心）和心所法，因為它們是生死輪迴的本質。 再次，生死的相續是由各種習氣造成的。這些習氣總共有三種：第一種是名言習氣，指的是有為法各自的根本種子。名言有兩種：一種是表義名言，也就是能夠詮釋意義的音聲差別；另一種是顯境名言，也就是能夠了別境界的心和心所法。隨著這兩種名言的熏習，形成種子，作為有為法各自的因緣。第二種是我執習氣，指的是虛妄執著『我』和『我所』的種子。我執有兩種：一種是俱生我執，也就是通過修行才能斷除的『我』和『我所』執著；另一種是分別我執，也就是通過見道才能斷除的『我』和『我所』執著。隨著這兩種我執的熏習，形成種子，使得有情眾生之間產生自他和他的差別。第三種是有支習氣，指的是能夠招感三界異熟果報的業的種子。有支有兩種：一種是有漏善，也就是能夠招感可愛果報的業；另一種是諸不善，也就是能夠招感非可愛果報的業。隨著這兩種有支的熏習，形成種子，使得異熟果報產生善趣和惡趣的差別。應當知道，我執和有支習氣對於差別果報來說是增上緣。這首偈頌所說的業習氣，應當知道就是有支習氣。二取習氣，應當知道就是我執和名言這兩種習氣。因為取著『我』和『我所』以及取著名言而熏習形成，所以都叫做『取』。『俱』等其餘文字的意義和前面的解釋一樣。 再次，生死的相續是由惑、業、苦造成的。引發業和滋潤生命的煩惱叫做惑。能夠感得後有的各種業叫做業。由業所引發產生的各種痛苦叫做苦。惑、業、苦的種子都叫做習氣。前兩種習氣對於生死苦來說是增上緣，幫助產生痛苦。第三種習氣對於生死苦來說是能作因緣，直接產生痛苦。這首偈頌所說的三種習氣應當如實知曉。惑和苦叫做取，因為是能取和所取。『取』是執著的意思，業不能叫做『取』。『俱』等其餘文字的意義和前面的解釋一樣。這些惑、業、苦應當知道總共涵蓋了十二有支，也就是從無明到老死，如論中所廣泛解釋的那樣。然而，這十二支可以簡略地歸納為四類：第一類是能引支，指的是無明和行，能夠引生識等五種果的種子。
【English Translation】 English version: This verse means that the cycle of birth and death caused by karma and the two graspings (the grasper and the grasped) cannot be separated from consciousness (mind) and mental factors, because they are the essence of the cycle of birth and death. Furthermore, the continuity of birth and death is caused by various habitual tendencies (Vasana). There are three types of these habitual tendencies in total: The first is the habitual tendency of verbal expression (Nāma-vāsanā), which refers to the individual root seeds of conditioned phenomena. There are two types of verbal expression: one is the verbal expression that expresses meaning, which is the difference in sound that can explain meaning; the other is the verbal expression that manifests objects, which is the mind and mental factors that can cognize objects. With the熏習(xūn xí, influence) of these two types of verbal expression, seeds are formed, serving as the respective causes and conditions for conditioned phenomena. The second is the habitual tendency of self-grasping (Atma-graha-vāsanā), which refers to the seeds of falsely grasping 'self' and 'what belongs to self'. There are two types of self-grasping: one is innate self-grasping, which is the grasping of 'self' and 'what belongs to self' that can only be eliminated through cultivation; the other is conceptual self-grasping, which is the grasping of 'self' and 'what belongs to self' that can only be eliminated through the path of seeing. With the熏習(xūn xí, influence) of these two types of self-grasping, seeds are formed, causing differences between oneself and others among sentient beings. The third is the habitual tendency of existence (Bhava-vāsanā), which refers to the seeds of karma that can attract the results of different realms of the three realms. There are two types of existence: one is contaminated virtue, which is the karma that can attract desirable results; the other is all non-virtue, which is the karma that can attract undesirable results. With the熏習(xūn xí, influence) of these two types of existence, seeds are formed, causing differences between good and bad realms in the results of maturation. It should be known that the habitual tendencies of self-grasping and existence are the dominant conditions for differentiated results. The karma habitual tendency mentioned in this verse should be known as the habitual tendency of existence. The habitual tendency of the two graspings should be known as the two habitual tendencies of self-grasping and verbal expression. Because they are formed by grasping 'self' and 'what belongs to self' and by grasping verbal expression, they are all called 'grasping'. The meaning of '俱(jù, together)' and other words is the same as the previous explanation. Furthermore, the continuity of birth and death is caused by afflictions (Klesha), karma, and suffering (Dukkha). Afflictions that initiate karma and nourish life are called afflictions. The various karmas that can attract future existence are called karma. The various sufferings caused by karma are called suffering. The seeds of afflictions, karma, and suffering are all called habitual tendencies. The first two types of habitual tendencies are the dominant conditions for the suffering of birth and death, helping to produce suffering. The third type of habitual tendency is the causal condition for the suffering of birth and death, directly producing suffering. The three types of habitual tendencies mentioned in this verse should be known as they are. Afflictions and suffering are called grasping, because they are the grasper and the grasped. 'Grasping' means attachment, and karma cannot be called 'grasping'. The meaning of '俱(jù, together)' and other words is the same as the previous explanation. These afflictions, karma, and suffering should be known to encompass the twelve links of dependent origination (Dvadasanga-pratityasamutpada), which are from ignorance (Avidya) to old age and death (Jara-marana), as explained extensively in the treatise. However, these twelve links can be briefly summarized into four categories: The first category is the productive links, which refers to ignorance and action (Samskara), which can produce the seeds of the five results such as consciousness (Vijnana).
故。此中無明唯取能發正感後世善惡業者。即彼所發乃名為行。由此一切順現受業別助當業皆非行支。二所引支。謂本識內親生當來異熟果攝識等五種。是前二支所引發故。此中識種謂本識因。除後三因餘因皆是名色種攝。後之三因如名次第即後三種。或名色種總攝五因於中隨勝立餘四種。六處與識總別亦然。
集論說識亦是能引識中業種名識支故。異熟識種名色攝故。經說識支通能所引業種識種俱名識故。識是名色依非名色攝故。識等五種由業熏發雖實同時。而依主伴總別勝劣因果相異。故諸聖教假說前後。或依當來現起分位有次第故說有前後。由斯識等亦說現行因時定無現行義故。復由此說生引同時潤未潤時必不俱故。三能生支。謂愛取有。近生當來生老死故。謂緣迷內異熟果愚發正能招後有諸業為緣引發親生當來生老死位五果種已。復依迷外增上果愚緣境界受發起貪愛緣愛復生欲等四取。愛取合潤能引業種及所引因轉名為有俱能近有後有果故。有處唯說業種名有此能正感異熟果故。復有唯說五種名有親生當來識等種故。四所生支。謂生老死。是愛取有近所生故。謂從中有至本有中未衰變來皆生支攝。諸衰變位總名為老。身壞命終乃名為死。老非定有附死立支。病何非支。不遍定故。老雖不定遍故立支。諸
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 因此，這裡的無明僅僅指那些能夠引發來世善惡業的正感（Pravṛtti-vijñāna）的無明。由它所引發的（業），才被稱為行（Saṃskāra）。因此，所有順應現世感受的業，以及分別輔助未來之業，都不是行支（Saṃskāra-aṅga）。 二、所引支（Ākṣepa-aṅga），指的是本識（Ālaya-vijñāna）內親生的、屬於未來異熟果（Vipāka-phala）的識等五種（識、名色、六處、觸、受）。它們是由前兩個支（無明、行）所引發的。這裡，識種（Vijñāna-bīja）指的是本識的因（Hetu）。除了後三種因（六處、觸、受），其餘的因都屬於名色種（Nāmarūpa-bīja）的範疇。後面的三種因，按照名稱的順序，就是後面的三種（六處、觸、受）。或者說，名色種總括了五種因，其中根據哪一種更為突出，就建立其餘四種（識、六處、觸、受）。六處（Ṣaḍāyatana）與識（Vijñāna）的總別關系也是如此。 《集論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya）說，識也是能引（Ākṣepa）支，因為識中存在業種（Karma-bīja），所以稱為識支。異熟識種（Vipāka-vijñāna-bīja）屬於名色（Nāmarūpa）的範疇。經中說，識支既能引（Ākṣepa）也能所引（Ākṣipta），業種和識種都稱為識（Vijñāna）。識是名色所依賴的，而不是名色所包含的。 識等五種（識、名色、六處、觸、受），雖然實際上是同時被業（Karma）所熏發，但由於主伴（Pradhāna-sahāya）、總別（Samasta-vyasta）、勝劣（Adhika-hīna）、因果（Hetu-phala）等方面的不同，所以諸聖教（Ārya-śāsana）假說前後。或者依據未來現起的分位有次第，所以說有前後。因此，識等也被認為是現行（Prādurbhāva），因為在因時（Hetu-kāla）必定沒有現行的意義。又因此說，生引（Janaka-ākṣepa）是同時的，而潤（Upastambha）未潤（Anupastambha）時必定不會同時存在。 三、能生支（Janaka-aṅga），指的是愛（Tṛṣṇā）、取（Upādāna）、有（Bhava）。它們能夠近生當來的生老死（Jāti-jarāmaraṇa）。也就是說，由於對內在異熟果（Vipāka-phala）的迷惑愚癡，引發了能夠招感後有的諸業（Karma），作為緣（Pratyaya）引發了親生當來生老死位的五果種（識、名色、六處、觸、受）之後，又由於對外在增上果（Adhipati-phala）的迷惑愚癡，以境界受（Viṣaya-vedanā）為緣，發起貪愛（Tṛṣṇā），緣愛又生起欲等四取（Upādāna）。愛取合起來潤（Upastambha）能引業種（Ākṣepa-karma-bīja）以及所引因（Ākṣipta-hetu），轉變名稱為有（Bhava），共同能夠接近後有的果（Phala）。 有些地方只說業種（Karma-bīja）名為有（Bhava），因為這能夠正確地招感異熟果（Vipāka-phala）。還有些地方只說五種（識、名色、六處、觸、受）名為有（Bhava），因為它們是親生當來識等種（Vijñāna-ādi-bīja）。 四、所生支（Janya-aṅga），指的是生（Jāti）、老（Jarā）、死（Maraṇa）。它們是愛取有（Tṛṣṇā-upādāna-bhava）所近生的。也就是說，從中陰（Antarābhava）到本有（Upapattibhava）中，未衰變之前都屬於生支（Jāti-aṅga）的範疇。各種衰變的狀態總稱為老（Jarā）。身壞命終才稱為死（Maraṇa）。老（Jarā）不是必然存在的，是附屬於死（Maraṇa）而立為支（Aṅga）。病（Vyādhi）為什麼不是支（Aṅga）呢？因為它不普遍且不確定。老（Jarā）雖然不確定，但普遍存在，所以立為支（Aṅga）。 諸
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, ignorance (Avidyā) here only refers to that which can give rise to the correct feeling (Pravṛtti-vijñāna) of good and bad karma in the next life. That which is generated by it is called formations (Saṃskāra). Therefore, all karma that accords with present experience and separately assists future karma are not limbs of formations (Saṃskāra-aṅga). The two induced limbs (Ākṣepa-aṅga) refer to the five kinds of consciousness (Vijñāna), etc. (consciousness, name and form, six sense bases, contact, feeling) within the fundamental consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna) that are directly born and belong to the future resultant fruit (Vipāka-phala). They are induced by the previous two limbs (ignorance and formations). Here, the seed of consciousness (Vijñāna-bīja) refers to the cause (Hetu) of the fundamental consciousness. Except for the last three causes (six sense bases, contact, feeling), the remaining causes all belong to the category of the seed of name and form (Nāmarūpa-bīja). The latter three causes, in the order of their names, are the latter three (six sense bases, contact, feeling). Or, the seed of name and form encompasses all five causes, and among them, according to which one is more prominent, the remaining four (consciousness, six sense bases, contact, feeling) are established. The relationship between the six sense bases (Ṣaḍāyatana) and consciousness (Vijñāna) in terms of totality and distinction is also the same. The Compendium of Abhidharma (Abhidharmasamuccaya) says that consciousness is also an inducing (Ākṣepa) limb because there is a seed of karma (Karma-bīja) within consciousness, hence it is called the limb of consciousness. The seed of resultant consciousness (Vipāka-vijñāna-bīja) belongs to the category of name and form (Nāmarūpa). The sutras say that the limb of consciousness can both induce (Ākṣepa) and be induced (Ākṣipta), and both the seed of karma and the seed of consciousness are called consciousness (Vijñāna). Consciousness is what name and form rely on, not what name and form encompass. The five kinds of consciousness, etc. (consciousness, name and form, six sense bases, contact, feeling), although actually simultaneously perfumed by karma (Karma), are said to be sequential by the holy teachings (Ārya-śāsana) due to differences in terms of principal and auxiliary (Pradhāna-sahāya), totality and distinction (Samasta-vyasta), superiority and inferiority (Adhika-hīna), and cause and effect (Hetu-phala). Or, based on the sequential order of future manifestation, it is said that there is a sequence. Therefore, consciousness, etc., are also considered to be manifest (Prādurbhāva), because there is definitely no meaning of manifestation at the time of cause (Hetu-kāla). Furthermore, it is said that generation and induction (Janaka-ākṣepa) are simultaneous, while nourishing (Upastambha) and non-nourishing (Anupastambha) definitely do not exist simultaneously. The three generating limbs (Janaka-aṅga) refer to craving (Tṛṣṇā), grasping (Upādāna), and becoming (Bhava). They can closely generate future birth, old age, and death (Jāti-jarāmaraṇa). That is to say, due to the delusion and ignorance regarding the internal resultant fruit (Vipāka-phala), the various karmas (Karma) that can bring about future existence are generated, and as a condition (Pratyaya), they induce the five seeds of fruit (consciousness, name and form, six sense bases, contact, feeling) that directly give rise to the state of future birth, old age, and death. Furthermore, due to the delusion and ignorance regarding the external dominant fruit (Adhipati-phala), taking the experience of objects (Viṣaya-vedanā) as a condition, craving (Tṛṣṇā) arises, and from craving, the four graspings (Upādāna), such as desire, arise. Craving and grasping together nourish (Upastambha) the inducing seed of karma (Ākṣepa-karma-bīja) and the induced cause (Ākṣipta-hetu), and the name is changed to becoming (Bhava), which together can approach the fruit (Phala) of future existence. In some places, only the seed of karma (Karma-bīja) is called becoming (Bhava), because this can correctly bring about the resultant fruit (Vipāka-phala). In other places, only the five kinds (consciousness, name and form, six sense bases, contact, feeling) are called becoming (Bhava), because they are the seeds of future consciousness, etc. (Vijñāna-ādi-bīja). The four generated limbs (Janya-aṅga) refer to birth (Jāti), old age (Jarā), and death (Maraṇa). They are closely generated by craving, grasping, and becoming (Tṛṣṇā-upādāna-bhava). That is to say, from the intermediate existence (Antarābhava) to the arising existence (Upapattibhava), before decline and change, all belong to the category of the limb of birth (Jāti-aṅga). The various states of decline and change are collectively called old age (Jarā). The destruction of the body and the end of life are called death (Maraṇa). Old age (Jarā) is not necessarily present, it is established as a limb (Aṅga) attached to death (Maraṇa). Why is sickness (Vyādhi) not a limb (Aṅga)? Because it is not universal and not definite. Although old age (Jarā) is not definite, it is universal, so it is established as a limb (Aṅga). All
界趣生除中夭者將終皆有衰朽行故。名色不遍何故立支。定故立支。胎卵濕生者六處未滿定有名色故。又名色支亦是遍有。有色化生初受生位雖具五根而未有用爾時未名六處支故。初生無色雖定有意根而不明瞭未名意處故。由斯論說十二有支一切一分上二界有。愛非遍有寧別立支。生惡趣者不愛彼故。定故別立。不求無有生善趣者定有愛故。不還潤生愛雖不起然如彼取定有種故。又愛亦遍。生惡趣者于現我境亦有愛故。依無希求惡趣身愛經說非有。非彼全無。何緣所生立生老死所引別立識等五支。因位難知差別相故依當果位別立五支。謂續生時因識相顯。次根未滿名色相增。次根滿時六處明盛。依斯發觸因觸起受。爾時乃名受果究竟。依此果位立因為五。果位易了差別相故總立二支以顯三苦。然所生果若在未來為生厭故說生老死。若至現在為令了知分位相生說識等五。何緣發業總立無明潤業位中別立愛取。雖諸煩惱皆能發潤而發業位無明力增。以具十一殊勝事故。謂所緣等廣如經說。于潤業位愛力偏增。說愛如水能沃潤故。要數溉灌方生有芽且依初後分愛取二。無重發義立一無明。雖取支中攝諸煩惱。而愛潤勝說是愛增。諸緣起支皆依自地有所發行依他無明如下無明發上地行。不爾初伏下地染者所起上定應非行支。彼
地無明猶未起故。從上下地生下上者彼緣何受而起愛支。彼愛亦緣當生地受若現若種于理無違。此十二支十因二果定不同世。因中前七與愛取有或異或同。若二三七各定同世。如是十二一重因果足顯輪轉及離斷常。施設兩重實為無用。或應過此便致無窮。此十二支義門別者九實三假。已潤六支合為有故。即識等五三相位別名生等故。五是一事。謂無明識觸受愛五餘非一事。三唯是染煩惱性故。七唯不染異熟果故。七分位中容起染故假說通二餘通二種。無明愛取說名獨相不與餘支相交雜故餘是雜相。六唯非色。謂無明識觸受愛取餘通二種。皆是有漏唯有為攝。無漏無為非有支故。無明愛取唯通不善有覆無記。行唯善惡。有通善惡無覆無記。餘七唯是無覆無記。七分位中亦起善染。雖皆通三界而有分有全。上地行支能伏下地。即粗苦等六種行相有求上生而起彼故。一切皆唯非學無學聖者所起。有漏善業明為緣故違有支故非有支攝。由此應知聖必不造感後有業於後苦果不迷求故。雜修靜慮資下故業生凈居等於理無違。有義無明唯見所斷。要迷諦理能發行故。聖必不造後有業故。愛取二支唯修所斷。貪求當有而潤生故。九種命終心俱生愛俱故。餘九皆通見修所斷。有義一切皆通二斷。論說預流果已斷一切一分有支無全斷者故。
若無明支唯見所斷。寧說預流無全斷者。若愛取支唯修所斷。寧說彼已斷一切支一分。又說全界一切煩惱皆能結生。往惡趣行唯分別起煩惱能發。不言潤生唯修所斷諸感後有行皆見所斷髮由此故知無明愛取三支亦通見修所斷。然無明支正發行者唯見所斷。助者不定。愛取二支正潤生者唯修所斷。助者不定。又染污法自性應斷。對治起時彼永斷故。一切有漏不染污法非性應斷。不違道故。然有二義說之為斷。一離縛故。謂斷緣彼雜彼煩惱。二不生故。謂斷彼依令永不起。依離縛斷說有漏善無覆無記唯修所斷。依不生斷說諸惡趣無想定等唯見所斷。說十二支通二斷者於前諸斷如應當知。十樂捨俱。受不與受共相應故。老死位中多分無樂及容捨故。十一苦俱非受俱故。十一少分壞苦所攝。老死位中多無樂受依樂立壞故不說之。十二少分苦苦所攝。一切支中有苦受故。十二全分行苦所攝。諸有漏法皆行苦故。依捨受說十一少分。除老死支如壞苦說。實義如是。諸聖教中隨彼相增所說不定。皆苦諦攝取蘊性故。五亦集諦攝業煩惱性故。諸支相望增上定有餘之三緣有無不定。契經依定唯說有一。愛望于取有望于生有因緣義。若說識支是業種者行望于識亦作因緣。餘支相望無因緣義。而集論說無明望行有因緣者依無明時業習氣說。無
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 若無明支（avidyā，十二因緣之一，指對真理的無知）唯見所斷，怎麼能說預流果（srotaāpanna，佛教修行第一階段的聖者）沒有完全斷除（煩惱）呢？如果愛（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）和取（upādāna，執取）二支唯修所斷，怎麼能說他們已經斷除了一切支分的一部分呢？ 又說整個界（dhātu，指三界：欲界、色界、無色界）的一切煩惱都能導致結生（pratisaṃdhi，生命的再次投生），而前往惡趣的行為只有分別產生的煩惱才能引發，不說潤生（bhava，有）只有修所斷的諸感後有行（指能感受未來果報的行為）都是見所斷引發的。由此可知，無明、愛、取三支也貫通見修所斷。然而，無明支主要起作用的是見所斷，輔助作用則不確定。愛、取二支主要潤生的是修所斷，輔助作用也不確定。 此外，染污法（kleśa，煩惱）的自性應當斷除，因為對治法生起時，它們就被永遠斷除。一切有漏（sāsrava，有煩惱）不染污法不是自性應當斷除的，因為它們不違背正道。然而，有兩種意義上說『斷』：一是離縛，指斷除緣於它們的、與它們相關的煩惱；二是不生，指斷除它們的所依，使之永遠不再生起。依據離縛斷，說有漏善、無覆無記（avyākṛta，非善非惡）唯修所斷；依據不生斷，說諸惡趣、無想定（asaṃjñāsamāpatti，一種禪定狀態）等唯見所斷。說十二支貫通二斷，對於前面的各種斷除，應當如實了知。 十支（指十二因緣中的十支，除受和老死）與樂捨（sukha-upekṣā，樂受和捨受）俱生，因為受不與受共同相應。老死位中，大部分沒有樂受，也容許有捨受。十一支（指十二因緣中的十一支，除受）與苦俱生，不是與受俱生。十一支少部分屬於壞苦（vipariṇāma-duḥkha，變異之苦）所攝。老死位中，大部分沒有樂受，因為依靠樂受而建立壞苦，所以不說它。十二支少部分屬於苦苦（duḥkha-duḥkha，苦受之苦）所攝，因為一切支中都有苦受。十二支全部分屬於行苦（saṃskāra-duḥkha，行蘊之苦）所攝，因為諸有漏法都是行苦。 依據捨受，說十一支少部分（屬於行苦），除了老死支，如壞苦所說。真實的意義是這樣。諸聖教中，隨著它們所側重的方面不同，所說也不確定。一切都屬於苦諦（duḥkha-satya，佛教四聖諦之一，指世間皆苦）所攝，因為是取蘊（upādānaskandha，執取之蘊）的自性。五支（指十二因緣中的五支）也屬於集諦（samudaya-satya，佛教四聖諦之一，指苦的根源）所攝，因為是業（karma，行為）和煩惱的自性。諸支相互之間，增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya，強大的影響因素）是確定的，其餘的三緣（指因緣、等無間緣、所緣緣）有無不確定。契經（sūtra，佛經）依據確定的，只說有一種。愛對於取，取對於生有因緣的意義。如果說識支（vijñāna，意識）是業的種子，那麼行對於識也作為因緣。其餘的支相互之間沒有因緣的意義。而《集論》（Abhidharmasamuccaya，論書名）說無明對於行有因緣，是依據無明時的業習氣說的。沒有。
【English Translation】 English version If the branch of ignorance (avidyā, one of the twelve links of dependent origination, referring to ignorance of the truth) is only severed by seeing, how can it be said that a stream-enterer (srotaāpanna, a noble one in the first stage of Buddhist practice) has not completely severed (afflictions)? If the branches of craving (tṛṣṇā, thirst) and grasping (upādāna, clinging) are only severed by cultivation, how can it be said that they have already severed a portion of all branches? Furthermore, it is said that all afflictions in the entire realm (dhātu, referring to the three realms: the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm) can lead to rebirth (pratisaṃdhi, the re-linking of life), while only afflictions arising from discrimination can trigger actions leading to bad destinies. It is not said that only actions conditioned by cultivation, which ripen into future existence, are triggered by afflictions severed by seeing. From this, it can be known that the three branches of ignorance, craving, and grasping also encompass both severances by seeing and cultivation. However, the primary function of the ignorance branch is severance by seeing, while the auxiliary function is uncertain. The primary function of the craving and grasping branches in conditioning rebirth is severance by cultivation, while the auxiliary function is also uncertain. Moreover, the nature of defiled dharmas (kleśa, afflictions) should be severed because when the antidote arises, they are permanently severed. All undefiled dharmas with outflows (sāsrava, with afflictions) are not inherently to be severed because they do not contradict the path. However, there are two meanings in which 'severance' is spoken of: one is liberation from bondage, referring to severing the afflictions that are conditioned by them and associated with them; the other is non-arising, referring to severing their basis, causing them to never arise again. Based on severance by liberation, it is said that wholesome dharmas with outflows and neutral dharmas that are not obscured (avyākṛta, neither wholesome nor unwholesome) are only severed by cultivation; based on severance by non-arising, it is said that the evil destinies, the state of non-perception (asaṃjñāsamāpatti, a state of meditative absorption), etc., are only severed by seeing. It should be understood that the twelve branches encompass both severances, as appropriate to the various severances mentioned earlier. Ten branches (referring to ten of the twelve links of dependent origination, excluding feeling and old age and death) arise together with pleasure and equanimity (sukha-upekṣā, pleasant feeling and neutral feeling), because feeling does not correspond with feeling. In the state of old age and death, there is mostly no pleasant feeling, and equanimity is permissible. Eleven branches (referring to eleven of the twelve links of dependent origination, excluding feeling) arise together with suffering, not with feeling. A small portion of eleven branches is included in the suffering of change (vipariṇāma-duḥkha, suffering of change). In the state of old age and death, there is mostly no pleasant feeling, because the suffering of change is established based on pleasant feeling, so it is not mentioned. A small portion of twelve branches is included in the suffering of suffering (duḥkha-duḥkha, suffering of painful feeling), because there is painful feeling in all branches. All twelve branches are included in the suffering of conditioned existence (saṃskāra-duḥkha, suffering of conditioned existence), because all dharmas with outflows are the suffering of conditioned existence. Based on equanimity, it is said that a small portion of eleven branches (belongs to the suffering of conditioned existence), except for the branches of old age and death, as said about the suffering of change. The true meaning is like this. In the holy teachings, what is said is uncertain, depending on the aspects they emphasize. Everything is included in the truth of suffering (duḥkha-satya, one of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, referring to the suffering of the world), because it is the nature of the aggregates of clinging (upādānaskandha, aggregates of clinging). Five branches (referring to five of the twelve links of dependent origination) are also included in the truth of the origin (samudaya-satya, one of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, referring to the origin of suffering), because it is the nature of karma (karma, action) and afflictions. Among the branches, the condition of dominance (adhipati-pratyaya, a strong influencing factor) is certain, while the other three conditions (referring to the causal condition, the immediately preceding condition, and the object condition) are uncertain. The sūtras (sūtra, Buddhist scriptures) only speak of one, based on what is certain. Craving has the meaning of a causal condition for grasping, and grasping has the meaning of a causal condition for becoming. If it is said that the branch of consciousness (vijñāna, consciousness) is the seed of karma, then action also acts as a causal condition for consciousness. The remaining branches do not have the meaning of causal conditions for each other. However, the Abhidharmasamuccaya (Abhidharmasamuccaya, name of a treatise) says that ignorance has the meaning of a causal condition for action, based on the karmic tendencies at the time of ignorance. There is no.
明俱故假說無明實是行種。
瑜伽論說諸支相望無因緣者依現愛取唯業有說。無明望行愛望于取生望老死有餘二緣。有望于生受望于愛無等無間有所緣緣。餘支相望二俱非有。此中且依鄰近順次不相雜亂實緣起說。異此相望為緣不定。諸聰慧者如理應思。惑業苦三攝十二者無明愛取是惑所攝。行有一分是業所攝。七有一分是苦所攝。有處說業全攝有者應知彼依業有說故。有處說識業所攝者彼說業種為識支故。惑業所招獨名苦者唯苦諦攝為生厭故。由惑業苦即十二支故此能令生死相續。
複次生死相續由內因緣不待外緣故唯有識。因謂有漏無漏二業正感生死故說為因。緣謂煩惱所知二障助感生死故說為緣。所以者何。生死有二。一分段生死。謂諸有漏善不善業由煩惱障緣助勢力所感三界粗異熟果。身命短長隨因緣力有定齊限故名分段。二不思議變易生死。謂諸無漏有分別業由所知障緣助勢力所感殊勝細異熟果。由悲願力改轉身命無定齊限故名變易。無漏定愿正所資感妙用難測名不思議。或名意成身隨意願成故。如契經說。如取為緣有漏業因續後有者而生三有。如是無明習地為緣無漏業因有阿羅漢獨覺已得自在菩薩生三種意成身。亦名變化身。無漏定力轉令異本如變化故。如有論說。聲聞無學永盡後有云何能
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：明明是俱生而本來沒有的，卻假說『無明』（avidyā，無知）實際上是『行』（saṃskāra，行）的種子。
《瑜伽師地論》說，各個支分相互之間沒有因緣關係，是依據『現』（指現在）、『愛』（tṛṣṇā，渴愛）、『取』（upādāna，取）來說的，只有『業』（karma，業）可以這樣說。『無明』對於『行』，『愛』對於『取』，『生』（jāti，生）對於『老死』（jarā-maraṇa，老死）有因緣關係，其餘兩個是緣。『有』（bhava，有）對於『生』，『受』（vedanā，受）對於『愛』，有等無間緣和所緣緣。其餘支分相互之間，兩種關係都沒有。這裡且依據鄰近順次、不相雜亂的真實緣起來說。不同於此的相互關係，作為緣是不確定的。聰慧的人應該如理思維。
『惑』（klesha，煩惱）、『業』、『苦』（duḥkha，苦）三者包含十二支，『無明』、『愛』、『取』是『惑』所包含的。『行』有一部分是『業』所包含的。『有』有一部分是『苦』所包含的。有的地方說『業』完全包含『有』，應該知道那是依據『業有』來說的緣故。有的地方說『識』（vijñāna，識）是『業』所包含的，那是說『業種』作為『識』支的緣故。『惑』、『業』所招感的單獨名為『苦』，唯有『苦諦』（duḥkha-satya，苦諦）所包含，是爲了產生厭離的緣故。由於『惑』、『業』、『苦』就是十二支，因此能令生死相續。
再次，生死相續由內在因緣，不依賴外在因緣，所以唯有『識』。『因』是指有漏無漏兩種『業』，正確地感受生死，所以說是『因』。『緣』是指煩惱障和所知障，輔助感受生死，所以說是『緣』。為什麼這樣說呢？生死有兩種：一是分段生死，是指諸有漏善不善業，由煩惱障的緣助勢力所感的三界粗異熟果。身命長短隨著因緣力有一定期限，所以名叫分段。二是不思議變易生死，是指諸無漏有分別業，由所知障的緣助勢力所感的殊勝細異熟果。由悲願力改變轉身命，沒有一定期限，所以名叫變易。無漏定愿正確地資助感得，妙用難以測度，名叫不思議。或者名叫意成身，隨心意願成就的緣故。如契經所說，如以『取』為緣，有漏業因延續後有，而生三有。如此，『無明』的習地為緣，無漏業因有阿羅漢（arhat，阿羅漢）、獨覺（pratyekabuddha，辟支佛）、已得自在菩薩（bodhisattva，菩薩）生三種意成身。也名叫變化身。無漏定力轉變令不同於原本，如變化一樣。如有論說，聲聞（śrāvaka，聲聞）無學永盡後有，怎麼能...
【English Translation】 English version: It is clearly co-existent and originally non-existent, yet it is falsely said that 'ignorance' (avidyā) is actually the seed of 'formations' (saṃskāra).
The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra says that the reason why the limbs do not have causal relationships with each other is based on 'present,' 'craving' (tṛṣṇā), and 'grasping' (upādāna); only 'karma' (karma) can be said in this way. 'Ignorance' has a causal relationship with 'formations,' 'craving' has a causal relationship with 'grasping,' and 'birth' (jāti) has a causal relationship with 'old age and death' (jarā-maraṇa); the remaining two are conditions. 'Existence' (bhava) has an immediate and uninterrupted condition and an object-condition with 'birth,' and 'feeling' (vedanā) has a causal relationship with 'craving.' The remaining limbs do not have either of these two relationships with each other. Here, we are speaking based on the real arising of causes and conditions that are adjacent, sequential, and not mixed up. Different from this, the mutual relationship as a condition is uncertain. Wise people should contemplate this reasonably.
The three, 'afflictions' (klesha), 'karma,' and 'suffering' (duḥkha), encompass the twelve limbs. 'Ignorance,' 'craving,' and 'grasping' are included in 'afflictions.' A portion of 'formations' is included in 'karma.' A portion of 'existence' is included in 'suffering.' Some places say that 'karma' completely includes 'existence'; it should be understood that this is based on 'karma-existence.' Some places say that 'consciousness' (vijñāna) is included in 'karma'; that is because they say that the 'seed of karma' is the limb of 'consciousness.' What is induced by 'afflictions' and 'karma' is solely called 'suffering,' and is only included in the 'truth of suffering' (duḥkha-satya), in order to generate aversion. Because 'afflictions,' 'karma,' and 'suffering' are the twelve limbs, they can cause the continuation of birth and death.
Furthermore, the continuation of birth and death is due to internal causes and conditions, and does not rely on external causes and conditions, so there is only 'consciousness.' 'Cause' refers to the two types of karma, defiled and undefiled, which correctly experience birth and death, so they are called 'cause.' 'Condition' refers to the two obscurations, afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations, which assist in experiencing birth and death, so they are called 'condition.' Why is this so? There are two types of birth and death: one is segmented birth and death, which refers to the coarse results of the three realms induced by defiled wholesome and unwholesome karma, assisted by the conditions of afflictive obscurations. The length of life is limited by the power of causes and conditions, so it is called segmented. The second is inconceivable transformative birth and death, which refers to the subtle and superior results induced by undefiled karma with discrimination, assisted by the conditions of cognitive obscurations. Due to the power of compassion and vows, the length of life is changed and there is no fixed limit, so it is called transformative. The undefiled samādhi and vows correctly support and induce it, and its wondrous function is difficult to fathom, so it is called inconceivable. Or it is called mind-made body, because it is accomplished according to one's wishes. As the sutra says, just as taking 'grasping' as a condition, defiled karma causes the continuation of future existence, and the three realms are born. In this way, taking the habitual ground of 'ignorance' as a condition, undefiled karma causes arhats (arhat), solitary buddhas (pratyekabuddha), and bodhisattvas (bodhisattva) who have attained freedom to generate three types of mind-made bodies. It is also called a transformation body. The power of undefiled samādhi transforms it to be different from the original, like a transformation. As some treatises say, how can a śrāvaka (śrāvaka) who has no more learning and has completely exhausted future existence...
證無上菩提。依變化身證無上覺非業報身故不違理。若所知障助無漏業能感生死。二乘定性應不永入無餘涅槃。如諸異生拘煩惱故。如何道諦實能感苦。誰言實感。不爾如何。無漏定愿資有漏業。令所得果相續長時展轉增勝假說名感。如是感時由所知障為緣助力非獨能感。然所知障不障解脫。無能發業潤生用故。何用資感生死苦為。自證菩提利樂他故。謂不定性獨覺聲聞及得自在大愿菩薩。已永斷伏煩惱障。故無容復受當分段身。恐廢長時修菩薩行遂以無漏勝定願力。如延壽法資現身因令彼長時與果不絕。數數如是定愿資助乃至證得無上菩提。彼復何須所知障助。既未圓證無相大悲。不執菩提有情實有無由發起猛利悲願。又所知障障大菩提。為永斷除留身久住。又所知障為有漏依。此障若無彼定非有。故於身住有大助力。若所留身有漏定愿所資助者分段身攝二乘異生所知境故。無漏定愿所資助者變易身攝。非彼境故。由此應知。變易生死性是有漏異熟果攝。于無漏業是增上果。有聖教中說為無漏出三界者。隨助因說。頌中所言諸業習氣即前所說二業種子。二取習氣即前所說二障種子。俱執著故。俱等餘文義如前釋。變易生死雖無分段前後異熟別盡別生。而數資助前後改轉。亦有前盡餘復生義。雖亦由現生死相續而種定
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 證得無上菩提（supreme enlightenment）。依據變化身證得無上覺悟，並非業報身，因此不違背道理。如果所知障（obscurations to knowledge）能輔助無漏業（undefiled karma），從而感生生死，那麼二乘（two vehicles，聲聞和緣覺）的定性者就不應永入無餘涅槃（nirvana without remainder），如同那些被煩惱束縛的異生（ordinary beings）一樣。如何說苦諦（truth of suffering）實際上能感生痛苦呢？誰說它實際上能感生痛苦？如果不是這樣，又是如何呢？是無漏的禪定和願力資助有漏業（defiled karma），使得所獲得的果報相續不斷，長時間地發展和增長，這只是假說為『感』。這樣感生的時候，是由所知障作為因緣助力，並非獨自能感。然而，所知障並不障礙解脫，因為它沒有引發業力來潤澤生命的作用。為什麼要用它來資助感生生死之苦呢？是爲了自己證得菩提，利益和安樂他人。指的是不定性的獨覺（Pratyekabuddha）、聲聞（Śrāvaka）以及獲得自在的大愿菩薩（Bodhisattva）。他們已經永遠斷除和降伏了煩惱障（afflictive obscurations），因此不可能再承受分段生死（segmental existence）。恐怕荒廢長時間的菩薩行，於是以無漏的殊勝禪定願力，如同延壽之法一樣，資助現有的身體之因，使它長時間地給予果報而不絕斷。多次這樣用禪定和願力資助，乃至證得無上菩提。他們又何須所知障的幫助呢？既然尚未圓滿證得無相大悲（unconditioned great compassion），不執著菩提和有情是真實存在的，就無法發起猛利的悲願。而且，所知障障礙大菩提，爲了永遠斷除它，才留下身體長久住世。另外，所知障是有漏法的所依，如果沒有這個障礙，那些禪定也一定不會存在，因此對於身體的住世有很大的助力。如果所留下的身體是由有漏的禪定和願力所資助的，那麼就屬於分段生死，是二乘和異生所知的境界。如果是無漏的禪定和願力所資助的，那麼就屬於變易生死（subtle existence），不是他們的境界。由此應該知道，變易生死的性質是有漏的異熟果（vipāka-phala，result of karma），對於無漏業來說是增上果（adhipati-phala，dominant result）。有些聖教中說它是無漏，超出三界，這是隨順助因而說的。頌中所說的諸業習氣，就是前面所說的兩種業的種子。二取習氣，就是前面所說的兩種障礙的種子。都是因為執著。『俱等』等其餘文句的意義如同前面的解釋。變易生死雖然沒有分段生死那樣前後異熟，別盡別生，但是多次資助，前後改變和轉變，也有前盡後復生的意義。雖然也由於現有的生死相續而種下禪定
【English Translation】 English version Attaining Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi (supreme enlightenment). Attaining supreme awakening by relying on the Nirmāṇakāya (transformation body) and not the Karmakāya (karmic body) is not contrary to reason. If Jñeyāvaraṇa (obscurations to knowledge) assists undefiled karma to cause birth and death, then those of the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) with fixed natures should not enter Parinirvāṇa (nirvana without remainder) forever, like ordinary beings who are bound by afflictions. How can the truth of suffering actually cause suffering? Who says it actually causes suffering? If not, how is it? Undefiled Samādhi (concentration) and Praṇidhāna (vow) support defiled karma, causing the resulting effects to continue for a long time, developing and increasing, which is nominally called 『causing』. When it causes in this way, it is assisted by Jñeyāvaraṇa as a condition, not solely causing it. However, Jñeyāvaraṇa does not obstruct liberation because it has no function of initiating karma to moisten life. Why use it to support the suffering of birth and death? It is for the sake of attaining Bodhi (enlightenment) for oneself and benefiting and bringing happiness to others. This refers to Pratyekabuddhas (solitary realizers) and Śrāvakas (hearers) of unfixed nature, as well as Bodhisattvas (enlightenment beings) with great vows who have attained freedom. They have already permanently severed and subdued Kleśāvaraṇa (afflictive obscurations), so it is impossible for them to receive Saṃsāra (segmental existence) again. Fearing that they would waste a long time practicing the Bodhisattva path, they use the power of undefiled superior Samādhi and Praṇidhāna, like the method of prolonging life, to support the cause of their present body, so that it gives results for a long time without ceasing. They repeatedly support it with Samādhi and Praṇidhāna until they attain Anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi. Why do they need the assistance of Jñeyāvaraṇa? Since they have not yet fully realized Anābhogakaruṇā (unconditioned great compassion), and do not cling to Bodhi and sentient beings as truly existing, they cannot generate fierce vows of compassion. Moreover, Jñeyāvaraṇa obstructs Mahābodhi (great enlightenment), so they remain in the world for a long time in order to permanently eliminate it. Furthermore, Jñeyāvaraṇa is the basis of defiled dharmas. If this obscuration does not exist, those Samādhis will certainly not exist, so it greatly assists the duration of the body. If the body that remains is supported by defiled Samādhi and Praṇidhāna, then it belongs to Saṃsāra, which is the realm known by the two vehicles and ordinary beings. If it is supported by undefiled Samādhi and Praṇidhāna, then it belongs to Vipariṇāma-maraṇa (subtle existence), which is not their realm. From this, it should be known that the nature of Vipariṇāma-maraṇa is a defiled Vipāka-phala (result of karma), and it is an Adhipati-phala (dominant result) for undefiled karma. In some sacred teachings, it is said to be undefiled and beyond the three realms, which is said in accordance with the assisting cause. The habitual tendencies of karma mentioned in the verse are the seeds of the two types of karma mentioned earlier. The habitual tendencies of the two graspings are the seeds of the two obscurations mentioned earlier. Both are due to clinging. The meaning of 『both』 and other phrases is as explained earlier. Although Vipariṇāma-maraṇa does not have the separate ripening, separate exhaustion, and separate birth of Saṃsāra, it is repeatedly supported, and changes and transforms before and after, so there is also the meaning of exhaustion before and rebirth after. Although it also plants Samādhi through the continuity of present birth and death
有。頌偏說之。或為顯示真異熟因果皆不離本識故不說現。現異熟因不即與果。轉識間斷非異熟故。前中後際生死輪迴不待外緣既由內識。凈法相續應知亦然。謂無始來依附本識有無漏種由轉識等數數熏發漸漸增勝。乃至究竟得成佛時。轉捨本來雜染識種。轉得始起清凈種識。任持一切功德種子。由本願力盡未來際起諸妙用相續無窮。由此應知唯有內識。若唯有識何故世尊處處經中說有三性。應知三性亦不離識。所以者何。頌曰。
２０ 由彼彼遍計 遍計種種物 此遍計所執 自性無所有
２１ 依他起自性 分別緣所生 圓成實于彼 常遠離前性
２２ 故此與依他 非異非不異 如無常等性 非不見此彼
論曰。周遍計度故名遍計。品類眾多說為彼彼。謂能遍計虛妄分別。即由彼彼虛妄分別遍計種種所遍計物。謂所妄執蘊處界等若法若我自性差別。此所妄執自性差別總名遍計所執自性。如是自性都無所有。理教推徴不可得故。或初句顯能遍計識。第二句示所遍計境。後半方申遍計所執若我若法自性非有。已廣顯彼不可得故。初能遍計自性云何。有義八識及諸心所有漏攝者皆能遍計。虛妄分別為自性故。皆似所取
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 有。經文有時會側重於說明這一點。或者爲了顯示真實的異熟因果都不離根本識（本識，ālaya-vijñāna）的緣故，所以不說『現』（當下）。當下的異熟因不會立即產生果報。轉識（pravṛtti-vijñāna）有間斷，因此不是異熟。前際、中際、後際的生死輪迴不需要外在的因緣，完全由內在的識所決定。清凈法的相續也應該知道是同樣的道理。也就是說，從無始以來，依附於本識有無漏的種子，通過轉識等等不斷地熏習引發，漸漸地增長殊勝，乃至最終成就佛果的時候，轉變捨棄本來雜染的識種，轉變獲得開始生起的清凈種識，任持一切功德的種子，由於本願力的緣故，在未來的無盡時空中生起各種妙用，相續不斷。由此應該知道只有內在的識。如果只有識，為什麼世尊在各處經文中說有三性（trisvabhāva）呢？應該知道這三性也不離識。為什麼這麼說呢？頌詞說：
由於彼彼的周遍計度，周遍計度種種事物， 這周遍計度所執的自性，實際上什麼都沒有。
依他起自性（paratantra-svabhāva），是分別緣所生起的。 圓成實性（pariniṣpanna-svabhāva）對於依他起性，常常遠離前面的遍計所執性。
因此圓成實性與依他起性，不是相異也不是不相異。 就像無常等等的性質一樣，不是不能見到依他起性與圓成實性。
論述：周遍計度所以叫做『遍計』。品類眾多所以說為『彼彼』。也就是說，能夠周遍計度的虛妄分別。就是由於彼彼的虛妄分別，周遍計度種種所周遍計度的東西。也就是所虛妄執著的蘊（skandha）、處（āyatana）、界（dhātu）等等，無論是法還是我，自性的差別。這些所虛妄執著的自性差別，總稱為遍計所執自性（parikalpita-svabhāva）。這樣的自性完全不存在。因為用理智和教義來推究考察，是不可得到的。或者第一句顯示能周遍計度的識。第二句揭示所周遍計度的境界。後半部分才闡述遍計所執的無論是『我』還是『法』，自性都是不存在的。已經廣泛地顯示了它們是不可得到的。最初的能周遍計度的自性是什麼樣的呢？有一種觀點認為，八識（aṣṭa vijñāna）以及所有的心所（caitta），只要是屬於有漏的，都能夠周遍計度。因為虛妄分別就是它們的自性。它們都好像有能取和所取。
【English Translation】 English version: Yes. The sutra sometimes emphasizes this point. Or, in order to show that the true causes and effects of vipāka (異熟, maturation) are inseparable from the fundamental consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna, 本識), it does not speak of 'present' (now). The present cause of vipāka does not immediately produce a result. The pravṛtti-vijñāna (轉識, active consciousness) has interruptions, so it is not vipāka. The cycle of birth and death in the past, present, and future does not require external causes; it is entirely determined by the internal consciousness. The continuity of pure dharma should also be understood in the same way. That is to say, from beginningless time, relying on the ālaya-vijñāna, there are seeds of non-outflow (anāsrava-bīja, 無漏種). Through the repeated perfuming and arising of the pravṛtti-vijñāna, etc., they gradually increase and become superior, until finally, when Buddhahood is attained, the originally defiled seeds of consciousness are transformed and abandoned, and the newly arising pure seeds of consciousness are transformed and obtained, which uphold all the seeds of merit. Due to the power of the original vows, various wonderful functions arise in the endless future, continuously without end. From this, it should be known that there is only internal consciousness. If there is only consciousness, why did the World-Honored One speak of the three natures (trisvabhāva, 三性) in various sutras? It should be known that these three natures are also inseparable from consciousness. Why is this so? The verse says:
Due to those various pervasive calculations, pervasively calculating various things, This pervasively calculated self-nature, in reality, has nothing at all.
The paratantra-svabhāva (依他起自性, dependently arisen nature) arises from discriminative conditions. The pariniṣpanna-svabhāva (圓成實性, perfectly accomplished nature) is always far from the previously imagined nature in relation to the paratantra-svabhāva.
Therefore, the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva and the paratantra-svabhāva are neither different nor not different. Just like the nature of impermanence, etc., it is not that one cannot see the paratantra-svabhāva and the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva.
Commentary: Pervasive calculation is called 'parikalpita (遍計, imagined)'. The multitude of categories is called 'those various'. That is to say, the false discrimination that can pervasively calculate. It is due to those various false discriminations that various things that are pervasively calculated are pervasively calculated. That is, the falsely clung-to skandhas (蘊, aggregates), āyatanas (處, sense bases), dhātus (界, elements), etc., whether it is dharma or self, the differences in nature. These falsely clung-to differences in nature are collectively called the parikalpita-svabhāva (遍計所執自性, imagined nature). Such a nature does not exist at all. Because it cannot be obtained by reasoning and doctrinal investigation. Or, the first sentence reveals the consciousness that can pervasively calculate. The second sentence reveals the realm that is pervasively calculated. The latter half then elaborates that the self-nature of the parikalpita, whether it is 'self' or 'dharma', does not exist. It has already been widely shown that they are unobtainable. What is the nature of the initial consciousness that can pervasively calculate? One view is that the eight consciousnesses (aṣṭa vijñāna, 八識) and all the mental factors (caitta, 心所), as long as they belong to the outflowing (sāsrava, 有漏), can pervasively calculate. Because false discrimination is their nature. They all seem to have a grasper and a grasped.
能取現故。說阿賴耶以遍計所執自性妄執種為所緣故。有義第六第七心品執我法者是能遍計。唯說意識能遍計故。意及意識名意識故。計度分別能遍計故。執我法者必是慧故。二執必與無明俱故。不說無明有善性故。癡無癡等不相應故。不見有執導空智故。執有執無不俱起故。曾無有執非能熏故。有漏心等不證實故一切皆名虛妄分別。雖似所取能取相現而非一切能遍計攝。勿無漏心亦有執故。如來後得應有執故。經說佛智現身土等種種影像如鏡等故。若無緣用應非智等。雖說藏識緣遍計種。而不說唯故非誠證。由斯理趣唯于第六第七心品有能遍計。識品雖二而有二三四五六七八九十等遍計不同故言彼彼。次所遍計自性云何。攝大乘說是依他起遍計心等所緣緣故。圓成實性寧非彼境。真非妄執所緣境故依展轉說亦所遍計。遍計所執雖是彼境。而非所緣緣故非所遍計。遍計所執其相云何。與依他起復有何別。有義三界心及心所由無始來虛妄熏習。雖各體一而似二生。謂見相分。即能所取。如是二分情有理無。此相說為遍計所執。二所依體實托緣生。此性非無名依他起。虛妄分別緣所生故。云何知然。諸聖教說虛妄分別是依他起。二取名為遍計所執。有義一切心及心所由熏習力所變二分從緣生故亦依他起。遍計依斯妄執定實
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 因為能夠顯現（能取現故）。之所以說阿賴耶識（Ālayavijñāna，藏識）以遍計所執自性（Parikalpita-svabhāva）的虛妄執著種子為所緣，是因為這個原因。有一種觀點認為，第六識（意識，Manovijñāna）和第七識（末那識，Manas）中執著我（Ātman）和法（Dharma）的部分是能遍計。因為只有經文說意識能夠遍計。因為末那識和意識都名為意識。因為計度和分別能夠遍計。因為執著我法的一定是智慧。因為兩種執著必定與無明（Avidyā）同時存在。因為沒有說無明具有善的性質。因為愚癡（癡，Moha）和不愚癡（無癡，Amoha）等不相應。因為沒有見到有執著引導空性的智慧。因為執著有和執著無不能同時生起。因為從來沒有執著不是能熏習的。因為有漏心等不能證實。一切都名為虛妄分別（Abhūta parikalpa）。雖然看起來像是所取相和能取相顯現，但並非一切都屬於能遍計所攝。不要認為無漏心（Anāsrava-citta）也有執著。如果這樣，如來（Tathāgata）的後得智（Pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna）也應該有執著。經文說佛智（Buddha-jñāna）顯現身土等種種影像，就像鏡子一樣。如果沒有緣用，就不應該是智慧等。雖然說藏識緣遍計種子，但沒有說唯一，所以不是真實的證據。由於這些道理，只有在第六識和第七識中存在能遍計。識品雖然只有兩種，但有二、三、四、五、六、七、八、九、十等不同的遍計，所以說『彼彼』。 其次，所遍計的自性是什麼？《攝大乘論》（Mahāyānasaṃgraha）說，這是依他起（Paratantra）的遍計心等所緣緣。圓成實性（Pariniṣpanna-svabhāva）難道不是它的境界嗎？真如（Tathātā）不是虛妄執著所緣的境界，所以依據輾轉相生的關係，也可以說是所遍計。遍計所執雖然是它的境界，但不是所緣緣，所以不是所遍計。 遍計所執的相是什麼？與依他起又有什麼區別？有一種觀點認為，三界（Trailokya）的心和心所（Caitasika）從無始以來受到虛妄熏習的影響，雖然各自的體性是一個，但看起來像是產生了兩種，即見分（Darśana-bhāga）和相分（Nimitta-bhāga），也就是能取和所取。這樣的兩種分，情有而理無。這種相被稱為遍計所執。兩種所依的體性實際上是依託因緣而生。這種自性不是沒有，名為依他起。因為虛妄分別緣所生。 怎麼知道是這樣呢？諸聖教說虛妄分別是依他起，兩種取名為遍計所執。有一種觀點認為，一切心和心所，由於熏習力的作用所變現的兩種分，因為是從因緣而生，也是依他起。遍計所執依據這個妄執為定實。
【English Translation】 English version Because it is able to manifest (Neng qu xian gu). It is said that Ālayavijñāna (藏識, Storehouse Consciousness) takes the seeds of falsely imputed nature of Parikalpita-svabhāva (遍計所執自性, Completely Imagined Nature) as its object because of this reason. Some argue that the parts of the sixth consciousness (Manovijñāna, 意識, Mind Consciousness) and the seventh consciousness (Manas, 末那識, Manas Consciousness) that cling to the self (Ātman, 我) and Dharma (法) are capable of pervasive imputation. This is because only the scriptures say that the mind consciousness is capable of pervasive imputation. Because both Manas and mind consciousness are called mind consciousness. Because conceptualization and discrimination are capable of pervasive imputation. Because those who cling to self and Dharma must be wisdom. Because the two clingings must coexist with ignorance (Avidyā, 無明). Because it is not said that ignorance has a good nature. Because delusion (Moha, 癡) and non-delusion (Amoha, 無癡) are not corresponding. Because it is not seen that there is clinging that guides the wisdom of emptiness. Because clinging to existence and clinging to non-existence cannot arise simultaneously. Because there has never been a clinging that is not capable of perfuming. Because tainted minds and the like cannot verify the truth. Everything is called false discrimination (Abhūta parikalpa, 虛妄分別). Although it seems that the appearing of the perceived and the perceiver, not everything is included in the pervasively imputed. Do not think that the untainted mind (Anāsrava-citta, 無漏心) also has clinging. If so, the subsequent wisdom (Pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna, 後得智) of the Tathāgata (如來) should also have clinging. The scriptures say that the Buddha's wisdom (Buddha-jñāna, 佛智) manifests various images such as bodies and lands, just like a mirror. If there is no causal function, it should not be wisdom and so on. Although it is said that the storehouse consciousness is conditioned by the seeds of pervasive imputation, it is not said to be the only condition, so it is not a true proof. Because of these reasons, only in the sixth and seventh consciousnesses there is pervasive imputation. Although there are only two types of consciousness, there are different pervasive imputations such as two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, etc., so it is said 'each and every'. Secondly, what is the nature of what is pervasively imputed? The Mahāyānasaṃgraha (攝大乘論, Compendium of the Mahayana) says that this is the object-condition of the pervasively imputed mind and so on, which is dependent arising (Paratantra, 依他起). Is the perfected nature (Pariniṣpanna-svabhāva, 圓成實性) not its realm? True Thusness (Tathātā, 真如) is not the realm of falsely imputed objects, so according to the relationship of interdependent origination, it can also be said to be what is pervasively imputed. Although the pervasively imputed is its realm, it is not the object-condition, so it is not what is pervasively imputed. What is the appearance of the pervasively imputed? What is the difference between it and dependent arising? One view is that the minds and mental factors (Caitasika, 心所) of the three realms (Trailokya, 三界) have been falsely perfumed since beginningless time. Although their respective natures are one, they appear to produce two, namely the seeing-part (Darśana-bhāga, 見分) and the image-part (Nimitta-bhāga, 相分), which are the perceiver and the perceived. These two parts exist in sentiment but not in reason. This appearance is called the pervasively imputed. The nature of the two bases is actually born relying on conditions. This nature is not non-existent, and is called dependent arising. Because false discrimination arises from conditions. How do we know this is the case? The holy teachings say that false discrimination is dependent arising, and the two clingings are called the pervasively imputed. One view is that all minds and mental factors, the two parts transformed by the power of perfuming, are also dependent arising because they arise from conditions. The pervasively imputed relies on this to falsely cling to it as fixed and real.
有無一異俱不俱等。此二方名遍計所執。諸聖教說唯量唯二唯種種。皆名依他起故。又相等四法十一識等論皆說為依他起攝故。不爾無漏後得智品二分應名遍計所執。許應聖智不緣彼生。緣彼智品應非道諦。不許應知有漏亦爾。又若二分是遍計所執。應如兔角等非所緣緣。遍計所執體非有故。又應二分不熏成種後識等生應無二分。又諸習氣是相分攝。豈非有法能作因緣。若緣所生內相見分非依他起二所依體例亦應然。無異因故。由斯理趣眾緣所生心心所體及相見分有漏無漏皆依他起。依他眾緣而得起故。頌言分別緣所生者應知且說染分依他。凈分依他亦圓成故。或諸染凈心心所法皆名分別能緣慮故。是則一切染凈依他皆是此中依他起攝。二空所顯圓滿成就諸法實性名圓成實。顯此遍常體非虛謬。簡自共相虛空我等。無漏有為離倒究竟勝用周遍亦得此名。然今頌中說初非後。此即于彼依他起上常遠離前遍計所執。二空所顯真如為性。說于彼言顯圓成實與依他起不即不離。常遠離言顯妄所執能所取性理恒非有。前言義顯不空依他。性顯二空非圓成實。真如離有離無性故。由前理故此圓成實與彼依他起非異非不異。異應真如非彼實性。不異此性應是無常。彼此俱應凈非凈境。則本後智用應無別。云何二性非異非一。如彼無常
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 有、無、一、異、俱、不俱等等，這些都是『遍計所執』（Parikalpita，虛妄分別）的命名方式。一切聖教所說的『唯量』（唯識量）、『唯二』（能取、所取二分）、『唯種種』（種種變現），都名為『依他起』（Paratantra，依他而生），因為它們都是依因緣而生起的。 否則，無漏後得智（從根本智後得之智）的能、所取二分，也應被認為是『遍計所執』。如果允許這樣，那麼聖智就不應該緣於它們而生起。緣於它們的智慧，就不應是道諦（通往解脫的道路）。如果不允許這樣，那麼要知道有漏（有煩惱）的也一樣。 此外，如果能、所取二分是『遍計所執』，那麼就應該像兔角一樣，不是所緣緣（認識的對象）。因為『遍計所執』的體性是不存在的。 而且，能、所取二分不應該熏習成種子，後來的識生起時，也就不應該有能、所取二分。 此外，諸多的習氣是相分（所取分）所攝，難道不是有法能夠作為因緣嗎？如果緣所生起的內在相分和見分（能取分）不是『依他起』，那麼二者所依的體性也應該如此，沒有不同的原因。 由於這些道理，眾緣所生的心和心所的體性，以及相分和見分，無論是有漏還是無漏，都是『依他起』，因為它們是依賴眾緣而生起的。 頌文說『分別緣所生』，應該知道這只是說了染分（不清凈的部分）的『依他起』。凈分（清凈的部分）的『依他起』也是『圓成實』（Parinispanna，真實圓滿）的緣故。或者說，諸多的染凈心和心所法，都可以稱為『分別』，因為它們能夠緣慮（思慮）。因此，一切染凈的『依他起』，都是這裡所說的『依他起』所包含的。 二空（人空、法空）所顯現的圓滿成就的諸法實性，名為『圓成實』。顯示這種遍常的體性不是虛假的謬誤。簡別于自共相（事物自身和共同的性質）、虛空、我等等。無漏有為（無煩惱的有為法）的離倒究竟的殊勝作用周遍，也可以得到這個名稱。然而，現在的頌文說的是前者，而不是後者。這也就是在『依他起』上，常常遠離前面的『遍計所執』。 二空所顯現的真如（Tathata，如如）為體性，說『于彼』，顯示『圓成實』與『依他起』不即不離。『常遠離』顯示虛妄所執的能取和所取性，在理上恒常不存在。『前』的含義顯示不空的『依他起』。『性』顯示二空，不是『圓成實』。因為真如是離有離無的體性。 由於前面的道理，這個『圓成實』與那個『依他起』非異非不異。如果異，那麼真如就不是它的實性。如果不異，那麼這個體性就應該是無常的。彼此都應該是清凈或不清凈的境界，那麼根本智和後得智的作用就應該沒有差別。為什麼說兩種體性非異非一呢？就像那個無常一樣。
【English Translation】 English version The existence, non-existence, oneness, difference, both (existence and non-existence), neither (existence nor non-existence), and so on, are all names of 『Parikalpita』 (遍計所執, Imagined Nature). All the holy teachings that speak of 『only perception』 (唯量, only consciousness), 『only two』 (唯二, the two aspects of subject and object), 『only various』 (唯種種, various manifestations), are all called 『Paratantra』 (依他起, Dependent Nature), because they arise from conditions. Otherwise, the subject and object aspects of the non-outflow subsequent wisdom (無漏後得智, wisdom attained after the fundamental wisdom) should also be considered 『Parikalpita』. If this is allowed, then the holy wisdom should not arise from them. The wisdom that arises from them should not be the Path Truth (道諦, the path to liberation). If this is not allowed, then know that the same applies to the outflow (afflicted) as well. Furthermore, if the subject and object aspects are 『Parikalpita』, then they should be like rabbit horns, not objects of cognition (所緣緣, objective support). Because the nature of 『Parikalpita』 does not exist. Moreover, the subject and object aspects should not be imprinted as seeds, and when later consciousness arises, there should be no subject and object aspects. Furthermore, the many habitual tendencies are included in the object aspect (相分, objective aspect). Isn't it that phenomena can act as causes and conditions? If the internal object aspect and subject aspect (見分, subjective aspect) that arise from conditions are not 『Paratantra』, then the nature of what they rely on should also be the same, without different reasons. Due to these reasons, the nature of mind and mental factors that arise from conditions, as well as the object and subject aspects, whether outflow or non-outflow, are all 『Paratantra』, because they arise depending on conditions. The verse says 『arising from discrimination』 (分別緣所生), it should be known that this only speaks of the 『Paratantra』 of the defiled aspect (染分, impure aspect). The 『Paratantra』 of the pure aspect (凈分, pure aspect) is also 『Parinispanna』 (圓成實, Perfected Nature). Or, the many defiled and pure minds and mental factors can all be called 『discrimination』, because they are capable of thinking. Therefore, all defiled and pure 『Paratantra』 are included in the 『Paratantra』 spoken of here. The true nature of all phenomena, perfectly accomplished and revealed by the two emptinesses (二空, emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena), is called 『Parinispanna』. It shows that this pervasive and constant nature is not false or erroneous. It distinguishes it from self-characteristics (自共相, individual and shared characteristics), space, self, and so on. The perfect and ultimate supreme function of the non-outflow conditioned (無漏有為, non-afflicted conditioned phenomena) is also called by this name. However, the current verse speaks of the former, not the latter. This is to say that on the 『Paratantra』, it is always far away from the previous 『Parikalpita』. The Suchness (真如, Tathata) revealed by the two emptinesses is the nature. Saying 『on that』 (于彼) shows that 『Parinispanna』 is neither identical nor different from 『Paratantra』. 『Always far away』 shows that the subject and object nature of false clinging is always non-existent in principle. The meaning of 『previous』 shows the non-empty 『Paratantra』. 『Nature』 shows the two emptinesses, not 『Parinispanna』. Because Suchness is the nature of being apart from existence and non-existence. Due to the previous reasons, this 『Parinispanna』 is neither different nor non-different from that 『Paratantra』. If different, then Suchness would not be its true nature. If not different, then this nature should be impermanent. Both should be pure or impure realms, then the function of fundamental wisdom and subsequent wisdom should have no difference. Why is it said that the two natures are neither different nor one? Like that impermanence.
無我等性。無常等性與行等法異應彼法非無常等。不異此應非彼共相。由斯喻顯此圓成實與彼依他非一非異。法與法性理必應然。勝義世俗相待有故。非不證見此圓成實而能見彼依他起性。未達遍計所執性空不如實知依他有故。無分別智證真如已後得智中方能了達依他起性如幻事等。雖無始來心心所法已能緣自相見分等。而我法執恒俱行故不如實知眾緣所引自心心所虛妄變現。猶如幻事陽焰夢境映象光影谷響水月變化所成非有似有。依如是義故。有頌言。
非不見真如 而能了諸行 皆如幻事等 雖有而非真
此中意說。三種自性。皆不遠離心心所法。謂心心所及所變現眾緣生故。如幻事等非有似有誑惑愚夫。一切皆名依他起性。愚夫於此橫執我法有無一異俱不俱等。如空花等性相都無。一切皆名遍計所執。依他起上彼所妄執我法俱空。此空所顯識等真性名圓成實。是故此三不離心等。虛空擇滅非擇滅等何性攝耶。三皆容攝。心等變似虛空等相。隨心生故依他起攝。愚夫于中妄執實有此即遍計所執性攝。若於真如假施設有虛空等義圓成實攝。有漏心等定屬依他。無漏心等容二性攝。眾緣生故攝屬依他。無顛倒故圓成實攝。如是三性與七真如雲何相攝。七真如者。一流轉真如。謂有為法流轉實性。二實
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 無我等性（沒有與「我」相同的性質）。無常等性與行等法不同，因為如果它們相同，那麼無常等法就不是無常的了。如果它們不同，那麼它們就不應該有共同的相狀。因此，這個比喻顯示了圓成實性（Parinispanna，究竟圓滿的真實自性）與依他起性（Paratantra，依他而起的自性）既非一也非異。法與法性之間的關係必然如此，因為勝義諦（Paramārtha-satya，勝義諦，真諦）和世俗諦（Saṃvṛti-satya，俗諦，世俗諦）是相互依存的。如果不證見這個圓成實性，就不能真正見到那個依他起性。如果未通達遍計所執性（Parikalpita，遍計所執的自性）是空性的，就不能如實地瞭解依他起性的存在。在無分別智（Nirvikalpa-jñāna，無分別智）證悟真如（Tathatā，真如）之後，才能在後得智（Pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna，後得智）中徹底瞭解依他起性就像幻術等一樣。雖然從無始以來，心和心所法（Citta-caitta，心和心所）已經能夠緣取自己的自相（Svalakṣaṇa，自相）和見分（Darśana-bhāga，見分）等，但是由於我法執（Ātma-dharma-graha，我法執）始終伴隨，所以不能如實地瞭解由眾多因緣所引發的自心和心所的虛妄變現，就像幻術、陽焰、夢境、映象、光影、谷響、水月和變化所成的事物一樣，並非真實存在，卻又看似存在。依據這樣的意義，所以有頌說： 『如果不見真如，就不能瞭解諸行，都像幻術等一樣，雖然存在但並非真實。』 這裡的意思是說，三種自性（Trisvabhāva，三種自性）都不離心和心所法。所謂的心和心所，以及它們所變現的、由眾多因緣所生的事物，就像幻術等一樣，並非真實存在，卻又看似存在，迷惑愚夫。這一切都叫做依他起性。愚夫對此橫加執著，認為有我法（Ātman-dharma，我與法）的有無、一異、俱不俱等，就像空中的花朵一樣，其體性和相狀都根本不存在。這一切都叫做遍計所執。在依他起性上，他們所妄執的我法都是空性的。這個空性所顯現的識（Vijñāna，識）等的真實體性，叫做圓成實性。因此，這三種自性不離心等。虛空、擇滅（Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，擇滅）、非擇滅（Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha，非擇滅）等屬於哪種自性呢？這三種自性都容納。心等變現出類似虛空等的相狀，隨心而生，所以屬於依他起性。愚夫在其中妄執為真實存在，這就屬於遍計所執性。如果在真如上假立施設虛空等的意義，就屬於圓成實性。有漏心等必定屬於依他起性，無漏心等則容納兩種自性。由於是眾緣所生，所以攝屬於依他起性；由於沒有顛倒，所以屬於圓成實性。像這樣，三種自性與七種真如（Sapta-tathatā，七種真如）是如何相互包含的呢？七種真如是：第一，流轉真如，指的是有為法（Saṃskṛta-dharma，有為法）流轉的真實體性；第二，實……
【English Translation】 English version: Having no nature of 'self' (Ātman). The nature of impermanence etc., is different from the conditioned dharmas (Saṃskṛta-dharmas); if they were the same, then the dharmas of impermanence etc., would not be impermanent. If they are different, then they should not have a common characteristic. Therefore, this metaphor shows that the Parinispanna (perfected nature) and the Paratantra (dependent nature) are neither one nor different. The relationship between a dharma and its nature must be so, because the Paramārtha-satya (ultimate truth) and the Saṃvṛti-satya (conventional truth) are interdependent. Without realizing this Parinispanna, one cannot truly see that Paratantra. If one has not understood that the Parikalpita (imagined nature) is empty, one cannot truly know the existence of the Paratantra. After the Nirvikalpa-jñāna (non-conceptual wisdom) has realized the Tathatā (suchness), then in the Pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna (subsequent wisdom), one can thoroughly understand that the Paratantra is like an illusion. Although from beginningless time, the Citta-caitta (mind and mental factors) have been able to cognize their own Svalakṣaṇa (self-characteristics) and Darśana-bhāga (perception aspect) etc., because the Ātma-dharma-graha (attachment to self and phenomena) always accompanies them, one cannot truly understand the illusory manifestations of one's own mind and mental factors, which are brought about by numerous conditions, just like illusions, mirages, dreams, reflections, echoes, the moon in water, and transformations, which are not truly existent but appear to exist. Based on this meaning, there is a verse that says: 'If one does not see the Tathatā, one cannot understand that all phenomena are like illusions, existing but not real.' Here, the meaning is that the Trisvabhāva (three natures) are not separate from the Citta and Caitta. The so-called mind and mental factors, and the things they manifest, which are born from numerous conditions, are like illusions, not truly existent but appearing to exist, deceiving foolish beings. All of this is called Paratantra. Foolish beings attach to this, thinking that there is existence or non-existence, oneness or otherness, both or neither, of Ātman and Dharma, like flowers in the sky, whose nature and characteristics do not exist at all. All of this is called Parikalpita. On the Paratantra, the Ātman and Dharma that they falsely imagine are empty. The true nature of consciousness (Vijñāna) etc., which is revealed by this emptiness, is called Parinispanna. Therefore, these three natures are not separate from the mind etc. To which nature do space, Pratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation through wisdom), and Apratisaṃkhyā-nirodha (cessation without wisdom) etc., belong? All three natures are included. The mind etc., manifest appearances similar to space etc., arising according to the mind, so they belong to the Paratantra. Foolish beings falsely believe that they are truly existent, which belongs to the Parikalpita. If the meaning of space etc., is provisionally established on the Tathatā, it belongs to the Parinispanna. Defiled minds etc., definitely belong to the Paratantra, while undefiled minds etc., can belong to two natures. Because they are born from numerous conditions, they are included in the Paratantra; because they are without delusion, they belong to the Parinispanna. In this way, how are the three natures related to the Sapta-tathatā (seven suchnesses)? The seven suchnesses are: first, the flowing suchness, which refers to the true nature of the Saṃskṛta-dharmas (conditioned dharmas) that are flowing; second, the real...
相真如。謂二無我所顯實性。三唯識真如。謂染凈法唯識實性。四安立真如。謂苦實性。五邪行真如。謂集實性。六清凈真如。謂滅實性。七正行真如。謂道實性。此七實性圓成實攝。根本後得二智境故。隨相攝者流轉苦集三前二性攝。妄執雜染故。餘四皆是圓成實攝。三性六法相攝云何。彼六法中皆具三性。色受想行識及無為皆有妄執緣生理故。三性五事相攝云何。諸聖教說相攝不定。謂或有處說依他起攝彼相名分別正智圓成實性攝彼真如遍計所執不攝五事。彼說有漏心心所法變似所詮說名為相。似能詮現施設為名。能變心等立為分別。無漏心等離戲論故但總名正智不說能所詮。四從緣生皆依他攝。或復有處說依他起攝相分別遍計所執唯攝彼名正智真如圓成實攝。彼說有漏心及心所相分名相餘名分別。遍計所執都無體故為顯非有假說為名。二無倒故圓成實攝。或有處說依他起性唯攝分別遍計所執攝彼相名。正智真如圓成實攝。彼說有漏心及心所相見分等總名分別虛妄分別為自性故遍計所執能詮所詮隨情立為名相二事。復有處說名屬依他起性義屬遍計所執。彼說有漏心心所法相見分等由名勢力成所遍計故說為名。遍計所執隨名橫計體實非有假立義名。諸聖教中所說五事文雖有異而義無違。然初所說不相雜亂。如瑜伽論
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 相真如：指由二無我（人無我、法無我）所顯現的真實體性。 三唯識真如：指染污法和清凈法都只是唯識的真實體性。 安立真如：指苦的真實體性。 邪行真如：指集的真實體性。 清凈真如：指滅的真實體性。 正行真如：指道的真實體性。 這七種真實體性都屬於圓成實性所攝，因為它們是根本智和後得智的境界。 隨相所攝的情況是：流轉的苦和集這三者屬於前兩種體性所攝，因為它們是妄執和雜染的緣故。其餘四種（安立真如、邪行真如、清凈真如、正行真如）都屬於圓成實性所攝。 三性（遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性）和六法（色、受、想、行、識、無為）的相攝關係是怎樣的呢？ 這六法中都具備三性。色、受、想、行、識以及無為法都有妄執的緣起和生滅的道理。 三性（遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性）和五事（相、名、分別、正智、真如）的相攝關係是怎樣的呢？ 諸聖教所說的相攝關係是不定的。有的地方說，依他起性攝彼相和名，分別和正智攝彼圓成實性，遍計所執不攝五事。 那種說法認為，有漏的心和心所法變現出類似所詮釋的，就稱之為相；類似能詮釋的顯現，就施設為名；能變現的心等就立為分別。無漏的心等遠離戲論，所以只總稱為正智，不說能詮和所詮。 四種從緣而生的都屬於依他起性所攝。 或者有的地方說，依他起性攝相和分別，遍計所執只攝彼名，正智和真如屬於圓成實性所攝。 那種說法認為，有漏的心和心所的相分名為相，其餘的名為分別。遍計所執根本沒有自體，爲了顯示它並非真實存在，所以假說為名。二無倒（根本智、後得智）的緣故，屬於圓成實性所攝。 或者有的地方說，依他起性只攝分別，遍計所執攝彼相和名，正智和真如屬於圓成實性所攝。 那種說法認為，有漏的心和心所的相分、見分等總名為分別，虛妄的分別作為它的自性。遍計所執的能詮和所詮，隨著情識的設定而立為名和相二事。 又有地方說，名屬於依他起性，義屬於遍計所執。 那種說法認為，有漏的心和心所法，相分、見分等由名的勢力而成為所遍計，所以說為名。遍計所執隨著名而橫加計度，體性實際上並不存在，只是假立義名。 諸聖教中所說的五事，文句雖然有所不同，但意義上並沒有違背。然而最初所說的並不互相雜亂，就像《瑜伽師地論》所說的那樣。
【English Translation】 English version 『Appearance as Suchness』 (Xiang Zhenru): Refers to the real nature revealed by the two non-self (non-self of person, non-self of phenomena). 『Three-Consciousness-Only Suchness』 (San Weishi Zhenru): Refers to the real nature of consciousness-only in both defiled and pure dharmas. 『Established Suchness』 (Anli Zhenru): Refers to the real nature of suffering. 『Evil Conduct Suchness』 (Xiexing Zhenru): Refers to the real nature of accumulation. 『Pure Suchness』 (Qingjing Zhenru): Refers to the real nature of cessation. 『Right Conduct Suchness』 (Zhengxing Zhenru): Refers to the real nature of the path. These seven real natures are all included within the 『Perfected Nature』 (Yuanchengshi), because they are the objects of both the fundamental wisdom and the acquired wisdom. What is included within 『Following Appearance』 (Suixiang) is that the three of suffering and accumulation in transmigration are included within the first two natures, because they are due to deluded attachment and defilement. The remaining four (Established Suchness, Evil Conduct Suchness, Pure Suchness, Right Conduct Suchness) are all included within the 『Perfected Nature』. What is the relationship between the three natures (Imputed Nature, Dependent Nature, Perfected Nature) and the six dharmas (form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness, unconditioned)? All six dharmas possess the three natures. Form, feeling, perception, volition, consciousness, and the unconditioned all have the principle of arising and ceasing from deluded attachment. What is the relationship between the three natures (Imputed Nature, Dependent Nature, Perfected Nature) and the five categories (appearance, name, discrimination, correct wisdom, suchness)? The relationships described in the sacred teachings are not fixed. In some places, it is said that the 『Dependent Nature』 (Yitagi) includes appearance and name, discrimination and correct wisdom include the 『Perfected Nature』, and the 『Imputed Nature』 (Bianjisuozhi) does not include the five categories. That explanation considers that the contaminated mind and mental factors transform into something similar to what is being explained, which is called appearance; the appearance similar to what is capable of explaining is established as name; the mind that is capable of transforming is established as discrimination. The uncontaminated mind, etc., is free from conceptual elaboration, so it is only generally called correct wisdom, and there is no talk of what is capable of explaining and what is being explained. The four that arise from conditions are all included within the 『Dependent Nature』. Or in some places, it is said that the 『Dependent Nature』 includes appearance and discrimination, the 『Imputed Nature』 only includes name, and correct wisdom and suchness belong to the 『Perfected Nature』. That explanation considers that the appearance-aspect of the contaminated mind and mental factors is called appearance, and the rest is called discrimination. The 『Imputed Nature』 has no substance at all, so to show that it is not truly existent, it is falsely called name. Because of the two non-reversed (fundamental wisdom, acquired wisdom), it belongs to the 『Perfected Nature』. Or in some places, it is said that the 『Dependent Nature』 only includes discrimination, the 『Imputed Nature』 includes appearance and name, and correct wisdom and suchness belong to the 『Perfected Nature』. That explanation considers that the appearance-aspect, perception-aspect, etc., of the contaminated mind and mental factors are collectively called discrimination, with false discrimination as its nature. The capable-of-explaining and the to-be-explained of the 『Imputed Nature』 are established as the two things of name and appearance according to emotional cognition. Also, in some places, it is said that name belongs to the 『Dependent Nature』, and meaning belongs to the 『Imputed Nature』. That explanation considers that the appearance-aspect, perception-aspect, etc., of the contaminated mind and mental factors become what is imputed by the power of name, so it is called name. The 『Imputed Nature』 is horizontally imputed along with the name, and its substance does not actually exist, so a meaning-name is falsely established. Although the wording of the five categories described in the sacred teachings may differ, there is no contradiction in meaning. However, what was initially said is not mixed up, just as it is said in the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (瑜伽師地論).
廣說應知。又聖教中說有五相此與三性相攝云何。所詮能詮各具三性。謂妄所計屬初性攝。相名分別隨其所應所詮能詮屬依他起。真如正智隨其所應所詮能詮屬圓成實。後得變似能詮相故。二相屬相唯初性攝妄執義名定相屬故。彼執著相唯依他起虛妄分別為自性故。不執著相唯圓成實無漏智等為自性故。又聖教中說四真實。與此三性相攝云何。世間道理所成真實依他起攝三事攝故。二障凈智所行真實圓成實攝二事攝故。辯中邊論說初真實唯初性攝共所執故。第二真實通屬三性。理通執無執雜染清凈故。後二真實唯屬第三。三性四諦相攝云何。四中一一皆具三性。且苦諦中無常等四各有三性。無常三者。一無性無常。性常無故。二起盡無常。有生滅故。三垢凈無常。位轉變故。苦有三者。一所取苦。我法二執所依取故。二事相苦。三苦相故。三和合苦。苦相合故。空有三者。一無性。空性非有故。二異性空。與妄所執自性異故。三自性空。二空所顯為自性故。無我三者。一無相無我。我相無故。二異相無我。與妄所執我相異故。三自相無我。無我所顯為自相故。集諦三者。一習氣集。謂遍計所執自性執習氣。執彼習氣假立彼名。二等起集。謂業煩惱三未離系集。謂未離障真如。滅諦三者。一自性滅。自性不生故。二二取
滅。謂擇滅二取不生故。三本性滅。謂真如故。道諦三者。一遍知道。能知遍計所執故。二永斷道。能斷依他起故。三作證道。能證圓成實故。然遍知道亦通後二。七三三性如次配釋。今於此中所配三性或假或實如理應知。三解脫門所行境界與此三性相攝云何。理實皆通隨相各一。空無愿相如次應知。緣此復生三無生忍。一本性無生忍。二自然無生忍。三惑苦無生忍。如次此三是彼境故。此三云何攝彼二諦。應知世俗具此三種勝義唯是圓成實性。世俗有三。一假世俗。二行世俗。三顯了世俗。如次應知即此三性。勝義有三。一義勝義。謂真如勝之義故。二得勝義。謂涅槃勝即義故。三行勝義。謂聖道勝為義故。無變無倒隨其所應故皆攝在圓成實性。如是三性何智所行遍計所執都非智所行。以無自體非所緣緣故。愚夫執有聖者達無亦得說為凡聖智境。依他起性二智所行圓成實性唯聖智境。此三性中幾假幾實。遍計所執妄安立故可說為假。無體相故非假非實。依他起性有實有假。聚集相續分位性故說為假有。心心所色從緣生故說為實有。若無實法假法亦無。假依實因而施設故。圓成實性唯是實有。不依他緣而施設故。此三為異為不異耶。應說俱非無別體故妄執緣起真義別故。如是三性義類無邊。恐厭繁文略示綱要。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 滅。指的是通過『擇滅』，兩種執取不再產生。三是本性滅。指的是真如的緣故。道諦有三種：一是遍知道。能夠知曉遍計所執的緣故。二是永斷道。能夠斷除依他起的緣故。三是作證道。能夠證得圓成實的緣故。然而，遍知道也貫通後兩者。七、三種三性依次配合解釋。現在這裡所配合的三性，或者為假，或者為實，應當如理了知。三種解脫門所行的境界與這三種自性如何相互包含？道理上實際上都相通，從現象上看各有側重。空解脫門、無愿解脫門、無相解脫門，應當依次對應。緣於此又產生三種無生忍。一是本性無生忍。二是自然無生忍。三是惑苦無生忍。依次這三種是它們的境界的緣故。這三種如何包含兩種真諦？應當知道世俗諦具備這三種，勝義諦唯是圓成實性。世俗諦有三種：一是假世俗。二是行世俗。三是顯了世俗。應當依次知道就是這三種自性。勝義諦有三種：一是義勝義。指的是真如殊勝的意義的緣故。二是得勝義。指的是涅槃殊勝的意義的緣故。三是行勝義。指的是聖道殊勝的意義的緣故。沒有變異，沒有顛倒，根據它們各自的情況，所以都包含在圓成實性中。像這樣，三種自性是什麼樣的智慧所行持的？遍計所執完全不是智慧所行持的。因為沒有自體，不是所緣的緣故。愚夫執著為有，聖者通達為無，也可以說是凡夫和聖人的智慧境界。依他起性是兩種智慧所行持的，圓成實性唯有聖人的智慧才能行持。這三種自性中，哪些是假的，哪些是真實的？遍計所執是虛妄安立的，所以可以說是假的。沒有體相的緣故，既不是假的也不是真的。依他起性有真實也有虛假。聚集、相續、分位的自性，所以說是假有。心、心所、色法，從因緣生起，所以說是實有。如果沒有實法，假法也沒有。因為假法依賴於實因而施設的緣故。圓成實性唯是實有。不依賴於其他因緣而施設的緣故。這三種自性是相異的還是不相異的呢？應當說既不是相異的也不是不相異的，因為沒有別的本體，因為虛妄執著、緣起、真義是不同的緣故。像這樣，三種自性的意義類別無邊無際。恐怕厭煩繁瑣的文字，所以簡略地揭示綱要。
【English Translation】 English version Cessation. This refers to the 'selective cessation' (擇滅), where the two kinds of grasping no longer arise. Third is the cessation of inherent nature. This refers to the nature of Suchness (真如). The Truth of the Path (道諦) has three aspects: First, pervasive knowledge (遍知道). This is because it can know the completely conceptualized nature (遍計所執). Second, the path of complete severance (永斷道). This is because it can sever the dependent arising (依他起). Third, the path of realization (作證道). This is because it can realize the perfectly established nature (圓成實). However, pervasive knowledge also encompasses the latter two. Seven, the three natures are explained in sequence. The three natures that are matched here, whether false or real, should be understood according to reason. How do the realms traversed by the three doors of liberation relate to these three natures? In principle, they are all interconnected, but each has its own emphasis in terms of phenomena. The door of emptiness (空解脫門), the door of wishlessness (無愿解脫門), and the door of signlessness (無相解脫門) should be understood in sequence. Based on this, three kinds of non-origination forbearance (無生忍) arise. First, the non-origination forbearance of inherent nature (本性無生忍). Second, the non-origination forbearance of naturalness (自然無生忍). Third, the non-origination forbearance of delusion and suffering (惑苦無生忍). In sequence, these three are the objects of those forbearances. How do these three encompass the two truths? It should be known that the conventional truth (世俗諦) possesses all three, while the ultimate truth (勝義諦) is only the perfectly established nature. The conventional truth has three aspects: First, the false conventional truth (假世俗). Second, the acting conventional truth (行世俗). Third, the manifest conventional truth (顯了世俗). It should be known in sequence that these are the three natures themselves. The ultimate truth has three aspects: First, the ultimate truth of meaning (義勝義). This refers to the meaning of the excellence of Suchness. Second, the ultimate truth of attainment (得勝義). This refers to the meaning of the excellence of Nirvana (涅槃). Third, the ultimate truth of practice (行勝義). This refers to the meaning of the excellence of the Noble Path (聖道). Without change, without inversion, according to their respective situations, they are all encompassed within the perfectly established nature. In this way, what kind of wisdom practices these three natures? The completely conceptualized nature is not practiced by wisdom at all. Because it has no self-nature, it is not an object of cognition. Fools cling to it as existent, while sages realize it as non-existent, and it can also be said to be the realm of wisdom for both ordinary people and sages. The dependent arising nature is practiced by two kinds of wisdom, while the perfectly established nature is only practiced by the wisdom of sages. Among these three natures, which are false and which are real? The completely conceptualized nature is falsely established, so it can be said to be false. Because it has no substance or characteristics, it is neither false nor real. The dependent arising nature has both real and false aspects. Because of the nature of aggregation, continuity, and division, it is said to be falsely existent. Mind, mental factors, and form arise from conditions, so they are said to be truly existent. If there were no real phenomena, there would be no false phenomena either. Because false phenomena rely on real causes for their establishment. The perfectly established nature is only truly existent. Because it is not established relying on other conditions. Are these three natures different or not different? It should be said that they are neither different nor not different, because there is no separate substance, and because false clinging, dependent arising, and true meaning are different. In this way, the categories of meaning of the three natures are boundless. Fearing tedious and verbose text, I briefly reveal the key points.
## 成唯識論卷第八 大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 成唯識論
## 成唯識論卷第九
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
若有三性。如何世尊說一切法皆無自性。頌曰。
２３ 即依此三性 立彼三無性 故佛密意說 一切法無性
２４ 初即相無性 次無自然性 後由遠離前 所執我法性
２５ 此諸法勝義 亦即是真如 常如其性故 即唯識實性
論曰。即依此前所說三性立彼後說三種無性。謂即相生勝義無性。故佛密意說一切法皆無自性非性全無。說密意言顯非了義。謂後二性雖體非無。而有愚夫于彼增益妄執實有我法自性。此即名為遍計所執。為除此執故。佛世尊于有及無總說無性。云何依此而立彼三。謂依此初遍計所執立相無性由此體相畢竟非有如空華故。依次依他立生無性。此如幻事托眾緣生。無如妄執自然性故假說無性非性全無。依後圓成實立勝義無性。謂即勝義由遠離前遍計所執我法性故假說無性非性全無。如太虛空雖遍眾色而是眾色無性所顯。雖依他起非勝義故亦得說為勝義無性。而濫第二故此不說。此性即是諸法勝義。是一切法勝義諦故。然勝義諦。略
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 《成唯識論》卷第八 大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 《成唯識論》
《成唯識論》卷第九
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
如果存在三種自性，為何世尊說一切法皆無自性？頌文說：
23 即依據這三種自性，建立那三種無自性。 所以佛陀以隱秘的意圖說，一切法皆無自性。
24 首先是相無自性，其次是無自然性， 最後是因為遠離前者的執著，所執著我法之自性。
25 這些法的勝義，也就是真如（tathata）。 因為常如其性，所以就是唯識（vijnaptimatrata）的實性。
論中說：即依據前面所說的三種自性，建立後面所說的三種無自性。所謂即相無自性、生無自性、勝義無自性。所以佛陀以隱秘的意圖說一切法皆無自性，並非說自性完全沒有。說『密意』是爲了顯示這不是了義說。意思是說，後面兩種自性雖然本體並非沒有，但是有些愚昧的人對它們增益，妄自執著實有的我法自性。這就被稱為遍計所執（parikalpita）。爲了去除這種執著，佛陀世尊對於有和無，總括地說為無自性。如何依據這三種自性而建立那三種無自性呢？就是依據這最初的遍計所執（parikalpita）建立相無自性，因為它的體相畢竟是沒有的，就像空中的花朵一樣。依次依據依他起（paratantra）建立生無自性。這就像幻術一樣，依託眾多的因緣而生起，沒有像妄自執著的自然性，所以假說為無自性，並非自性完全沒有。依據後面的圓成實（parinispanna）建立勝義無自性。所謂勝義，是因為遠離前面的遍計所執（parikalpita）的我法自性，所以假說為無自性，並非自性完全沒有。就像太虛空雖然遍佈各種顏色，但是卻是各種顏色無自性所顯現的。雖然依他而起，並非勝義，所以也可以說為勝義無自性。但是爲了避免與第二種無自性混淆，所以這裡不這樣說。這種自性就是諸法的勝義，是一切法勝義諦（paramartha-satya）的緣故。然而勝義諦（paramartha-satya），簡略
【English Translation】 English version Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only, Volume 8 Taisho Tripitaka, Volume 31, No. 1585, Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only
Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only, Volume 9
Composed by Bodhisattvas such as Dharmapala
Translated under Imperial Edict by the Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang
If there are three natures, why did the World-Honored One say that all dharmas are without self-nature? The verse says:
23 Based on these three natures, The three absence of natures are established. Therefore, the Buddha, with a hidden intention, said, All dharmas are without self-nature.
24 The first is the absence of characteristic nature (lakshana-nihsvabhavata), The second is the absence of natural nature. The last is due to being apart from the former, The self and dharma nature that is clung to.
25 The ultimate meaning of these dharmas, Is also suchness (tathata). Because it is always as its nature, It is the real nature of Consciousness-Only (vijnaptimatrata).
The treatise says: Based on the three natures previously mentioned, the three absence of natures mentioned later are established. Namely, the absence of characteristic nature (lakshana-nihsvabhavata), the absence of origination nature (utpatti-nihsvabhavata), and the absence of ultimate nature (paramartha-nihsvabhavata). Therefore, the Buddha, with a hidden intention, said that all dharmas are without self-nature, not that self-nature is completely non-existent. Saying 'hidden intention' is to show that this is not a definitive statement. It means that although the latter two natures are not non-existent in essence, some foolish people add to them, falsely clinging to the real self and dharma nature. This is called the 'completely conceptualized' (parikalpita). To remove this clinging, the World-Honored Buddha, regarding existence and non-existence, generally said that there is no self-nature. How are these three absence of natures established based on these three natures? That is, based on this initial completely conceptualized (parikalpita), the absence of characteristic nature (lakshana-nihsvabhavata) is established, because its essence and characteristics are ultimately non-existent, like flowers in the sky. In sequence, based on the dependent arising (paratantra), the absence of origination nature (utpatti-nihsvabhavata) is established. This is like an illusion, arising dependent on numerous causes and conditions, without the natural nature that is falsely clung to, so it is falsely said to be without self-nature, not that self-nature is completely non-existent. Based on the later perfected nature (parinispanna), the absence of ultimate nature (paramartha-nihsvabhavata) is established. The so-called ultimate meaning is because it is apart from the previous completely conceptualized (parikalpita) self and dharma nature, so it is falsely said to be without self-nature, not that self-nature is completely non-existent. Like the great void, although it pervades all colors, it is manifested by the absence of self-nature of all colors. Although it arises dependently, it is not the ultimate meaning, so it can also be said to be the absence of ultimate nature. However, to avoid confusion with the second absence of nature, it is not said here. This nature is the ultimate meaning of all dharmas, because it is the ultimate truth (paramartha-satya) of all dharmas. However, the ultimate truth (paramartha-satya), briefly
有四種。一世間勝義。謂蘊處界等。二道理勝義。謂苦等四諦。三證得勝義。謂二空真如。四勝義勝義。謂一真法界。此中勝義依最後說。是最勝道所行義故。為簡前三故作是說。此諸法勝義亦即是真如。真謂真實顯非虛妄。如謂如常表無變易。謂此真實於一切位常如其性故曰真如。即是湛然不虛妄義。亦言顯此復有多名。謂名法界及實際等。如餘論中隨義廣釋。此性即是唯識實性。謂唯識性略有二種。一者虛妄。謂遍計所執。二者真實。謂圓成實性。為簡虛妄說實性言。復有二性。一者世俗。謂依他起。二者勝義。謂圓成實。為簡世俗故說實性。三頌總顯諸契經中說無性言非極了義。諸有智者不應依之總撥諸法都無自性。
如是所成唯識相性。誰于幾位如何悟入。謂具大乘二種姓者。略於五位漸次悟入。何謂大乘二種種姓。一本性住種姓。謂無始來依附本識法爾所得無漏法因。二習所成種姓。謂聞法界等流法已聞所成等熏習所成。要具大乘此二種姓。方能漸次悟入唯識。何謂悟入唯識五位。一資糧位。謂修大乘順解脫分。二加行位。謂修大乘順抉擇分。三通達位。謂諸菩薩所住見道。四修習位。謂諸菩薩所住修道。五究竟位。謂住無上正等菩提。云何漸次悟入唯識。謂諸菩薩于識相性資糧位中能深信解。在加
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：有四種勝義。第一種是世間勝義，指的是蘊、處、界等。第二種是道理勝義，指的是苦、集、滅、道四諦。第三種是證得勝義，指的是二空真如（人空和法空所顯現的真實如如不動的狀態）。第四種是勝義勝義，指的是一真法界（宇宙萬法的本體）。 在這四種勝義中，勝義依最後一種（勝義勝義）來說明。因為它是最殊勝的道路所行之義。爲了簡別前三種勝義，所以這樣說。這些法的勝義也就是真如。『真』的意思是真實，顯示它不是虛妄的。『如』的意思是如常，表示它沒有變易。意思是說，這個真實在一切狀態下都恒常如其本性，所以叫做真如。它就是湛然（清澈明亮）而不虛妄的意義。也可以說，它還顯示出真如還有很多其他的名稱，比如法界、實際等等。如同其他論著中隨著意義廣泛解釋的那樣。這個自性就是唯識的實性。所謂唯識的自性，大致有兩種：一種是虛妄的，指的是遍計所執性（虛妄分別所執著的自性）；另一種是真實的，指的是圓成實性（通過修行才能證得的真實自性）。爲了簡別虛妄的自性，所以說實性。又有兩種自性：一種是世俗的，指的是依他起性（由因緣和合而生起的自性）；另一種是勝義的，指的是圓成實性。爲了簡別世俗的自性，所以說實性。 總而言之，這三句頌文顯示出，諸經中所說的『無自性』並非究竟了義。有智慧的人不應該依此而全盤否定諸法，認為它們完全沒有自性。 像這樣所成就的唯識的相和性，誰在哪些階段，如何悟入呢？ 具有大乘兩種姓（xìng）的人，大致在五個階段中逐漸悟入。什麼是大乘的兩種姓呢？第一種是本性住種姓（běn xìng zhù zhǒng xìng），指的是無始以來依附於本識（根本識）而自然獲得的無漏法因（沒有煩惱的善法種子）。第二種是習所成種姓（xí suǒ chéng zhǒng xìng），指的是聽聞法界等流法（與法界真理相似的教法）後，通過聽聞熏習所形成的。 必須具備大乘的這兩種姓，才能逐漸悟入唯識。什麼是悟入唯識的五個階段呢？第一是資糧位（zī liáng wèi），指的是修習大乘的順解脫分（有助於解脫的修行）。第二是加行位（jiā xíng wèi），指的是修習大乘的順抉擇分（有助於做出正確決定的修行）。第三是通達位（tōng dá wèi），指的是諸位菩薩所住的見道（證見真理的階段）。第四是修習位（xiū xí wèi），指的是諸位菩薩所住的修道（通過修行來斷除煩惱的階段）。第五是究竟位（jiū jìng wèi），指的是證得無上正等菩提（最高的覺悟）。 如何逐漸悟入唯識呢？ 菩薩在資糧位中，對於識的相和效能夠深深地信解。在加
【English Translation】 English version: There are four kinds of ultimate truth (Paramārtha). The first is the worldly ultimate truth, referring to the aggregates (skandha), bases (āyatana), and realms (dhātu), etc. The second is the ultimate truth of reason, referring to the Four Noble Truths (catvāri āryasatyāni) of suffering (duhkha), origin (samudaya), cessation (nirodha), and path (mārga). The third is the ultimate truth of attainment, referring to the two emptinesses (dvaishūnyatā) and Suchness (tathatā). The fourth is the ultimate truth of ultimate truth, referring to the One True Dharma Realm (ekalakṣaṇadharmadhātu). Among these four kinds of ultimate truth, the ultimate truth is explained based on the last one (the ultimate truth of ultimate truth). This is because it is the meaning practiced by the most supreme path. To distinguish it from the first three, this explanation is made. The ultimate truth of these dharmas is also Suchness. 'True' (satya) means real, showing that it is not false. 'Such' (tathā) means as always, indicating that it does not change. It means that this reality is always as its nature in all states, so it is called Suchness. It is the meaning of being clear and not false. It can also be said that it also shows that Suchness has many other names, such as Dharma Realm (dharmadhātu) and Reality Limit (bhūtakoti), etc., as explained extensively in other treatises according to their meanings. This nature is the real nature of Consciousness-Only (Vijñāptimātratā). The nature of Consciousness-Only roughly has two kinds: one is false, referring to the parikalpita-lakṣaṇa (the nature of what is mentally constructed); the other is real, referring to the pariniṣpanna-lakṣaṇa (the perfected nature). To distinguish it from the false nature, the term 'real nature' is used. There are also two natures: one is mundane, referring to the paratantra-lakṣaṇa (the dependent nature); the other is ultimate, referring to the pariniṣpanna-lakṣaṇa (the perfected nature). To distinguish it from the mundane nature, the term 'real nature' is used. In summary, these three verses show that the 'no-self-nature' (anabhilāpya) mentioned in the sutras is not the ultimate meaning. Wise people should not rely on this to completely deny all dharmas, thinking that they have no self-nature at all. Regarding the characteristics and nature of Consciousness-Only thus accomplished, who enters into it at which stages, and how? Those who possess the two kinds of great vehicle (Mahāyāna) lineage (gotra) gradually enter into it in roughly five stages. What are the two kinds of great vehicle lineage? The first is the innate lineage (prakṛtistha-gotra), referring to the unconditioned (anāsrava) dharma cause (dharmahetu) naturally obtained from beginningless time, attached to the fundamental consciousness (ālayavijñāna). The second is the acquired lineage (samudānīta-gotra), referring to what is formed by hearing and熏習 (xūnxí, perfuming) after hearing the Dharma Realm (dharmadhātu) and other teachings similar to it. One must possess these two kinds of great vehicle lineage to gradually enter into Consciousness-Only. What are the five stages of entering into Consciousness-Only? The first is the stage of accumulation (saṃbhāra-avasthā), referring to the practice of the great vehicle's preparatory practices for liberation (mokṣabhāgīya). The second is the stage of application (prayogamārga), referring to the practice of the great vehicle's preparatory practices for decisive understanding (nirvedhabhāgīya). The third is the stage of insight (darśanamārga), referring to the path of seeing (darśanamārga) where the Bodhisattvas reside. The fourth is the stage of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga), referring to the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga) where the Bodhisattvas reside. The fifth is the stage of ultimate attainment (niṣṭhāgamanāvasthā), referring to residing in unsurpassed complete enlightenment (anuttarā-samyak-saṃbodhi). How does one gradually enter into Consciousness-Only? Bodhisattvas in the stage of accumulation can deeply believe and understand the characteristics and nature of consciousness. In the stage of application,
行位能漸伏除所取能取引發真見。在通達位如實通達。修習位中如所見理數數修習伏斷餘障。至究竟位出障圓明。能盡未來化有情類復令悟入唯識相性。初資糧位其相云何。頌曰。
２６ 乃至未起識 求住唯識性 於二取隨眠 猶未能伏滅
論曰。從發深固大菩提心。乃至未起順抉擇識求住唯識真勝義性。齊此皆是資糧位攝。為趣無上正等菩提。修習種種勝資糧故。為有情故勤求解脫。由此亦名順解脫分。此位菩薩依因善友作意資糧四勝力故於唯識義雖深信解而未能了能所取空。多住外門修菩薩行。故於二取所引隨眠猶未有能伏滅功力令彼不起二取現行。此二取言顯二取取。執取能取所取性故。二取習氣名彼隨眠。隨逐有情眠伏藏識。或隨增過故名隨眠。即是所知煩惱障種。煩惱障者。謂執遍計所執實我薩迦耶見而為上首百二十八根本煩惱。及彼等流諸隨煩惱。此皆擾惱有情身心能障涅槃名煩惱障。所知障者。謂執遍計所執實法薩迦耶見而為上首見疑無明愛恚慢等。覆所知境無顛倒效能障菩提名所知障。此所知障決定不與異熟識俱。彼微劣故。不與無明慧相應故。法空智品與俱起故。七轉識內隨其所應。或少或多如煩惱說。眼等五識無分別故法見疑等定不相應。餘由意力皆容引
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 行位（修行階段）能夠逐漸地降伏和去除對能取（能認知的主體）和所取（被認知的客體）的執著，從而引發真正的見解。在通達位（證悟的階段）能夠如實地通達真理。在修習位（持續修行的階段）中，按照所見的真理，反覆地修習，降伏和斷除剩餘的障礙。到達究竟位（最終的階段）時，去除所有障礙，達到圓滿光明。能夠盡未來際地教化有情眾生，使他們也能夠領悟唯識的體性和作用。最初的資糧位（積累資糧的階段）的特徵是什麼呢？頌詞說：
『乃至未起識，求住唯識性，於二取隨眠，猶未能伏滅。』
論述：從發起深厚堅固的大菩提心（想要覺悟的心）開始，直到還沒有生起順抉擇識（順應決定的智慧）來尋求安住于唯識的真實勝義性（最高的真理）之前，都屬於資糧位所包含的範圍。爲了趨向無上正等菩提（最高的覺悟），修習種種殊勝的資糧。爲了有情眾生而勤奮地尋求解脫。因此也叫做順解脫分（順應解脫的部分）。這個階段的菩薩依靠因（根本）、善友（好的同伴）、作意（專注）和資糧（積累）這四種殊勝的力量，對於唯識的意義雖然有深刻的信解，但是還不能夠了達能取和所取的空性。大多停留在外門（外在的修行）修菩薩行。所以對於由能取和所取所引發的隨眠（潛在的煩惱），還沒有能夠降伏和滅除的力量，使它們不生起能取和所取的現行（實際的活動）。這裡的『二取』是指能取和所取這兩種執取。因為執取能取和所取的自性。二取的習氣叫做隨眠。隨逐有情，眠伏在藏識（阿賴耶識）中。或者隨著過失而增長，所以叫做隨眠。也就是所知障（阻礙認知的障礙）和煩惱障（阻礙煩惱的障礙）的種子。煩惱障是指執著遍計所執（虛妄分別的）的實我，以薩迦耶見（認為有真實自我的錯誤見解）為首的一百二十八種根本煩惱，以及與它們相似的各種隨煩惱。這些都擾亂有情的身心，能夠阻礙涅槃（寂滅），所以叫做煩惱障。所知障是指執著遍計所執的實法，以薩迦耶見為首的見（錯誤的見解）、疑（懷疑）、無明（不明白）、愛（貪愛）、恚（嗔恨）、慢（傲慢）等等。遮蔽所知的境界，使之不能夠無顛倒地認知，能夠阻礙菩提（覺悟），所以叫做所知障。這種所知障一定不與異熟識（果報識）同時存在，因為它非常微弱。不與無明和智慧相應，因為法空智品（領悟法空的智慧）與它同時生起。在七轉識（七種轉變的意識）中，根據各自的情況，或者少或者多，就像煩惱一樣。眼等五識（視覺等五種感官意識）因為沒有分別，所以法見（對法的錯誤見解）、疑（懷疑）等等一定不與它們相應。其餘的意識憑藉意（意識）的力量都能夠引發它們。
【English Translation】 English version The stage of practice gradually subdues and eliminates attachments to the grasper (the subject that cognizes) and the grasped (the object that is cognized), thereby giving rise to true insight. In the stage of thorough understanding, one truly comprehends reality. In the stage of cultivation, one repeatedly practices according to the truth one has seen, subduing and severing the remaining obstacles. Upon reaching the ultimate stage, one emerges from all obstacles and attains perfect clarity, enabling one to teach and transform sentient beings throughout the future, leading them to awaken to the nature and characteristics of consciousness-only (唯識, Vijnaptimatrata). What are the characteristics of the initial stage of accumulation (資糧位, Sambhara-marga)? The verse says:
'Until the consciousness has not arisen, seeking to abide in the nature of consciousness-only, the latent tendencies of the two graspings, are still not able to be subdued and extinguished.'
Commentary: From the arising of a profound and firm great Bodhicitta (大菩提心, the mind of enlightenment), until the stage where the consciousness that accords with decisive understanding (順抉擇識, anulomiki-jnana) has not yet arisen, seeking to abide in the true ultimate nature of consciousness-only, all of this is included within the stage of accumulation. In order to proceed towards unsurpassed, perfect, and complete enlightenment (無上正等菩提, anuttara-samyak-sambodhi), one cultivates various excellent accumulations. For the sake of sentient beings, one diligently seeks liberation. Therefore, this is also called the part that accords with liberation (順解脫分, anuloma-nirvedha-bhagiya). Bodhisattvas at this stage, relying on the four excellent powers of cause (因, hetu), virtuous friends (善友, kalyana-mitra), attention (作意, manaskara), and accumulation (資糧, sambhāra), although they have deep faith and understanding in the meaning of consciousness-only, they are still unable to fully realize the emptiness of the grasper and the grasped. They mostly dwell in the outer practices, cultivating the conduct of a Bodhisattva. Therefore, they do not yet have the power to subdue and extinguish the latent tendencies (隨眠, anusaya) caused by the two graspings, preventing the manifest activity (現行, vyavaharika) of these two graspings from arising. The term 'two graspings' refers to the grasping of the grasper and the grasped. Because they grasp the nature of the grasper and the grasped. The habitual tendencies of the two graspings are called latent tendencies. They follow sentient beings, lying dormant in the storehouse consciousness (藏識, alaya-vijnana). Or, they increase along with faults, hence they are called latent tendencies. These are the seeds of the obstacles to knowledge (所知障, jneyavarana) and the obstacles to afflictions (煩惱障, klesavarana). The obstacles to afflictions refer to the clinging to a real self (實我, sat-atman) that is imputed by conceptualization (遍計所執, parikalpita), with the view of a self (薩迦耶見, satkayadristi) as the foremost, along with the one hundred and twenty-eight fundamental afflictions (根本煩惱, mula-klesha) and their derivative secondary afflictions (隨煩惱, upaklesha). All of these disturb the body and mind of sentient beings and can obstruct Nirvana (涅槃, Nirvana), hence they are called obstacles to afflictions. The obstacles to knowledge refer to the clinging to a real dharma (實法, sat-dharma) that is imputed by conceptualization, with the view of a self as the foremost, along with views (見, dristi), doubt (疑, vicikitsa), ignorance (無明, avidya), attachment (愛, raga), aversion (恚, dvesha), pride (慢, mana), and so on. They cover the objects of knowledge, preventing them from being known without distortion, and can obstruct Bodhi (菩提, Bodhi), hence they are called obstacles to knowledge. These obstacles to knowledge definitely do not occur simultaneously with the resultant consciousness (異熟識, vipaka-vijnana), because it is very subtle. They do not correspond with ignorance and wisdom, because the qualities of the wisdom of emptiness of dharmas (法空智品, dharma-sunyata-jnana) arise simultaneously with it. Within the seven transformed consciousnesses (七轉識, sapta-pravrtti-vijnana), according to their respective situations, there may be more or less, just like afflictions. The five sense consciousnesses (眼等五識, panca-vijnana) such as eye consciousness, etc., because they lack discrimination, views about dharmas, doubt, etc., definitely do not correspond with them. The remaining consciousnesses can all give rise to them through the power of mind (意, manas).
起。此障但與不善無記二心相應。論說無明唯通不善無記性故。癡無癡等不相應故。煩惱障中此障必有。彼定用此為所依故。體雖無異而用有別。故二隨眠隨聖道用有勝有劣斷惑前後。此于無覆無記性中是異熟生。非餘三種。彼威儀等勢用薄弱非覆所知障菩提故。此名無覆望二乘說。若望菩薩亦是有覆。若所知障有見疑等如何此種契經說為無明住地。無明增故總名無明。非無見等。如煩惱種立見一處欲色有愛四住地名。豈彼更無慢無明等。如是二障分別起者見所斷攝。任運起者修所斷攝。二乘但能斷煩惱障。菩薩俱斷。永斷二種唯聖道。能伏二現行通有漏道。菩薩住此資糧位中二粗現行雖有伏者。而於細者及二隨眠止觀力微未能伏滅。此位未證唯識真如。依勝解力修諸勝行。應知亦是解行地攝。所修勝行其相云何。略有二種謂福及智。諸勝行中慧為性者皆名為智。餘名為福。且依六種波羅蜜多通相皆二。別相前五說為福德。第六智慧或復前三唯福德攝。後一唯智。餘通二種。復有二種謂利自他。所修勝行隨意樂力一切皆通自他利行。依別相說六到彼岸菩提分等自利行攝。四種攝事四無量等一切皆是利他行攝。如是等行差別無邊皆是此中所修勝行。此位二障雖未伏除修勝行時有三退屈。而能三事練磨其心於所證修勇猛不
退。一聞無上正等菩提廣大深遠心便退屈引他已證大菩提者練磨自心勇猛不退。二聞施等波羅蜜多甚難可修心便退屈。省己意樂能修施等。練磨自心勇猛不退。三聞諸佛圓滿轉依極難可證心便退屈。引他粗善況己妙因練磨自心勇猛不退。由斯三事練磨其心堅固熾然修諸勝行。次加行位其相云何。頌曰。
２７ 現前立少物 謂是唯識性 以有所得故 非實住唯識
論曰。菩薩先於初無數劫善備福德智慧資糧順解脫分既圓滿已。為入見道住唯識性復修加行伏除二取。謂暖頂忍世第一法。此四總名順抉擇分。順趣真實抉擇分故。近見道故立加行名。非前資糧無加行義。暖等四法依四尋思四如實智初後位立。四尋思者尋思名義自性差別假有實無。如實遍知此四離識及識非有名如實智。名義相異故別尋求。二二相同故合思察。依明得定發下尋思觀無所取立為暖位。謂此位中創觀所取名等四法皆自心變假施設有實不可得。初獲慧日前行相故立明得名。即此所獲道火前相故亦名暖。依明增定發上尋思觀無所取立為頂位。謂此位中重觀所取名等四法皆自心變假施設有實不可得。明相轉盛故名明增。尋思位極故複名頂。依印順定發下如實智于無所取決定印持。無能取中亦順樂忍。既無實境離能取識
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 退：第一，聽到無上正等菩提（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上的、正確的、完全的覺悟）廣大深遠，心生退卻，就應引用那些已經證得大菩提的人來磨練自己的心，使其勇猛不退。 第二，聽到佈施等波羅蜜多（Pāramitā，到達彼岸的方法，如佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、禪定、智慧）非常難以修習，心生退卻，就應反省自己內心的意願，看自己能修習哪些佈施等法門，以此來磨練自己的心，使其勇猛不退。 第三，聽到諸佛圓滿轉依（Parāvṛtti，轉變所依，即轉變煩惱為智慧）極其難以證得，心生退卻，就應引用他人粗淺的善行來比況自己精妙的因地修行，以此來磨練自己的心，使其勇猛不退。通過這三件事來磨練自己的心，使其堅固熾盛，從而修習各種殊勝的行持。 其次，加行位（Prayoga-mārga，修行道上的一個階段，為見道做準備）的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌詞說：
27 現前設立少量事物，就說這是唯識（Vijñāptimātratā，一切唯心造）的體性。因為還有能取、所取的分別，所以並非真正安住于唯識。
論述：菩薩先前在最初無數劫中，已經充分具備了福德和智慧的資糧，順解脫分（mokṣa-bhāgīya，趨向解脫的部分）已經圓滿。爲了進入見道（darśana-mārga，直接證悟空性的階段），安住于唯識的體性，進一步修習加行，伏除能取和所取二取（dvaya-grāha，對能取和所取的執著）。也就是暖位（ūṣmagata，加行位的第一個階段）、頂位（mūrdhan，加行位的第二個階段）、忍位（kṣānti，加行位的第三個階段）和世第一法（laukikāgradharma，加行位的第四個階段）。這四者總稱為順抉擇分（anuloma-nirvedha-bhāgīya，順應決定的部分），因為它們順應趣向真實的抉擇。因為接近見道，所以立名為加行。並非說之前的資糧沒有加行的意義。暖等四法，依據四尋思（catasraḥ parīkṣāḥ，對名、義、自性、差別的尋思）和四如實智（catvāri yathābhūta-jñānāni，對名、義、自性、差別如實了知的智慧）的初後位而建立。四尋思是指尋思名、義、自性、差別，這些都是假有實無的。如實遍知這四者，無論是離識還是識，都不是真實存在的，這叫做如實智。名和義的相狀不同，所以需要分別尋求。兩個兩個相同，所以合在一起思察。依靠明得定（ālokalabdha-samādhi，獲得光明的禪定）生起下尋思，觀察無所取，建立為暖位。也就是說，在這個階段中，開始觀察所取，名等四法都是自心變現的，是假施設，實際上是不可得的。最初獲得慧日的前行之相，所以立名為明得。也就是所獲得的道火的前相，所以也叫做暖。依靠明增定（ālokādhika-samādhi，光明增長的禪定）生起上尋思，觀察無所取，建立為頂位。也就是說，在這個階段中，再次觀察所取，名等四法都是自心變現的，是假施設，實際上是不可得的。明相更加強盛，所以叫做明增。尋思達到頂點，所以又叫做頂。依靠印順定（kṣānty-anulomikī-samādhi，與忍相應的禪定）生起下如實智，對於無所取決定印持。在沒有真實境的情況下，也順應安樂忍受沒有能取識。
【English Translation】 English version: Retreat: First, upon hearing of the vast and profound nature of Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (unexcelled, perfect, and complete enlightenment), if the mind retreats, one should draw upon those who have already attained great Bodhi to refine one's own mind, making it courageous and unretreating. Second, upon hearing that the Pāramitās (perfections, such as generosity, morality, patience, diligence, meditation, and wisdom) are extremely difficult to cultivate, if the mind retreats, one should examine one's own inner intentions to see which of the Pāramitās one is capable of cultivating, thereby refining one's own mind, making it courageous and unretreating. Third, upon hearing that the complete Parāvṛtti (transformation of the basis, i.e., transforming afflictions into wisdom) of the Buddhas is extremely difficult to attain, if the mind retreats, one should draw upon others' coarse good deeds to compare with one's own subtle causal practices, thereby refining one's own mind, making it courageous and unretreating. Through these three things, one refines one's mind, making it firm and blazing, thereby cultivating various supreme practices. Next, what is the nature of the Prayoga-mārga (path of application, a stage on the path of practice, preparing for the path of seeing)? The verse says:
27 Presently establishing a small amount of things, one says this is the nature of Vijñāptimātratā (representation-only). Because there is still the distinction of grasper and grasped, it is not truly abiding in representation-only.
Treatise: Bodhisattvas, having previously accumulated sufficient merit and wisdom in the initial countless kalpas, and having perfected the mokṣa-bhāgīya (part leading to liberation), in order to enter the darśana-mārga (path of seeing, the stage of directly realizing emptiness) and abide in the nature of representation-only, further cultivate the Prayoga-mārga, subduing the dualistic grasping (dvaya-grāha, clinging to the grasper and the grasped). That is, the ūṣmagata (heat stage, the first stage of the path of application), mūrdhan (peak stage, the second stage of the path of application), kṣānti (patience stage, the third stage of the path of application), and laukikāgradharma (supreme mundane dharma, the fourth stage of the path of application). These four are collectively called the anuloma-nirvedha-bhāgīya (part conforming to determination), because they conform to and lead to the determination of reality. Because they are close to the path of seeing, they are named Prayoga. It is not that the previous accumulations have no meaning of application. The four dharmas of heat, etc., are established based on the initial and subsequent stages of the catasraḥ parīkṣāḥ (four kinds of examination: of name, meaning, essence, and difference) and the catvāri yathābhūta-jñānāni (four kinds of knowledge as it is: of name, meaning, essence, and difference). The four kinds of examination refer to examining name, meaning, essence, and difference, which are all provisionally existent and ultimately non-existent. To know these four as they are, whether apart from consciousness or as consciousness, is not truly existent, is called knowledge as it is. The aspects of name and meaning are different, so they need to be sought separately. Two and two are the same, so they are considered together. Relying on the ālokalabdha-samādhi (samādhi of obtaining light), the lower examination arises, observing the absence of the grasped, and is established as the heat stage. That is, in this stage, one begins to observe the grasped, the four dharmas of name, etc., are all transformations of one's own mind, are provisional establishments, and are actually unattainable. Initially obtaining the preliminary aspect of the sun of wisdom, it is named obtaining light. That is, the preliminary aspect of the fire of the path obtained, so it is also called heat. Relying on the ālokādhika-samādhi (samādhi of increased light), the upper examination arises, observing the absence of the grasped, and is established as the peak stage. That is, in this stage, one again observes the grasped, the four dharmas of name, etc., are all transformations of one's own mind, are provisional establishments, and are actually unattainable. The aspect of light becomes even stronger, so it is called increased light. The examination reaches its peak, so it is also called the peak. Relying on the kṣānty-anulomikī-samādhi (samādhi conforming to patience), the lower knowledge as it is arises, and one decisively affirms the absence of the grasped. In the absence of a real object, one also conforms to the joyful endurance of the absence of the grasper.
。寧有實識離所取境。所取能取相待立故。印順忍時總立為忍。印前順後立印順名。忍境識空故亦名忍。依無間定發上如實智印二取空立世第一法。謂前上忍唯印能取空。今世第一法二空雙印。從此無間必入見道故立無間名。異生法中此最勝故名世第一法。如是暖頂依能取識觀所取空。下忍起時印境空相。中忍轉位於能取識如境是空順樂忍可。上忍起位印能取空。世第一法雙印空相。皆帶相故未能證實。故說菩薩此四位中。猶于現前安立少物。謂是唯識真勝義性。以彼空有二相未除。帶相觀心有所得故。非實安住真唯識理。彼相滅已方實安住。依如是義故有頌言。
菩薩于定位 觀影唯是心 義相既滅除 審觀唯自想 如是住內心 知所取非有 次能取亦無 後觸無所得
此加行位未遣相縛。于粗重縛亦未能斷。唯能伏除分別二取違見道故。于俱生者及二隨眠有漏觀心有所得故有分別故未全伏除全未能滅。此位菩薩于安立諦非安立諦俱學觀察。為引當來二種見故。及伏分別二種障故。非安立諦是正所觀非如二乘唯觀安立。菩薩起此暖等善根。雖方便時通諸靜慮而依第四方得成滿。托最勝依入見道故。唯依欲界善趣身起餘慧厭心非殊勝故。此位亦是解行地攝。未證唯識真勝義故。次通達位其相
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：難道有真實的了知是脫離所取境而存在的嗎？因為所取（suǒ qǔ，that which is grasped）和能取（néng qǔ，that which grasps）是相互依存而成立的。在印順忍（yìn shùn rěn，acceptance in accordance with the seal）的時候，總的來說都稱為忍。在印之前，順之後，就立名為印順。因為忍的境界是識空（shí kōng，emptiness of consciousness），所以也稱為忍。依靠無間定（wú jiàn dìng，uninterrupted concentration）而生起如實智（rú shí zhì，wisdom that sees things as they are），印證二取空（èr qǔ kōng，emptiness of the two graspings），建立世第一法（shì dì yī fǎ，the supreme mundane dharma）。意思是之前的上忍（shàng rěn，highest forbearance）僅僅印證了能取空。現在世第一法是二空雙印。從此無間必定進入見道（jiàn dào，path of seeing），所以立名為無間。在異生法（yì shēng fǎ，dharma of ordinary beings）中，這是最殊勝的，所以名為世第一法。像這樣，暖位（nuǎn wèi，stage of heat）和頂位（dǐng wèi，stage of peak）依靠能取識（néng qǔ shí，grasping consciousness）來觀察所取空（suǒ qǔ kōng，emptiness of what is grasped）。下忍（xià rěn，lower forbearance）生起的時候，印證境界的空相。中忍（zhōng rěn，middle forbearance）轉變到能取識，如同境界一樣是空，順從安忍認可。上忍生起的時候，印證能取空。世第一法是雙重印證空相。都帶有相，所以未能真實證實。所以說菩薩在這四個位次中，仍然在現前安立少許事物，認為是唯識真勝義性（wéi shí zhēn shèng yì xìng，the true ultimate nature of consciousness-only）。因為那個空有二相（kōng yǒu èr xiàng，the two aspects of emptiness and existence）沒有去除，帶著相來觀心，有所得，所以不是真實安住在真唯識理（zhēn wéi shí lǐ，the truth of true consciousness-only）。那個相滅除之後，才真實安住。依據這樣的意義，所以有頌說： 『菩薩于定位，觀影唯是心，義相既滅除，審觀唯自想，如是住內心，知所取非有，次能取亦無，後觸無所得。』 這個加行位（jiā xíng wèi，stage of application）沒有遣除相縛（xiàng fù，bondage of appearances），對於粗重縛（cū zhòng fù，bondage of coarse and heavy afflictions）也不能斷除。僅僅能夠伏除分別二取（fēn bié èr qǔ，discriminative two graspings），因為違背見道。對於俱生者（jù shēng zhě，innate ones）以及二隨眠（èr suí mián，two latent tendencies），因為有漏觀心（yǒu lòu guān xīn，contaminated mind of contemplation）有所得，有分別，所以沒有完全伏除，完全不能滅除。這個位次的菩薩對於安立諦（ān lì dì，conventional truth）和非安立諦（fēi ān lì dì，ultimate truth）都學習觀察，爲了引導將來兩種見（liǎng zhǒng jiàn，two kinds of views），以及伏除分別兩種障（fēn bié liǎng zhǒng zhàng，discriminative two kinds of obstacles）。非安立諦是真正所觀察的，不像二乘（èr shèng，two vehicles）僅僅觀察安立。菩薩生起這個暖等善根（nuǎn děng shàn gēn，roots of goodness such as heat），雖然方便的時候通於各種靜慮（jìng lǜ，dhyana），但是依靠第四禪（dì sì chán，fourth dhyana）才能成就圓滿。依託最殊勝的所依進入見道，僅僅依靠欲界（yù jiè，desire realm）善趣身（shàn qù shēn，body of a good realm）生起，其餘的慧厭心（huì yàn xīn，wisdom and aversion）不是殊勝的緣故。這個位次也是解行地（jiě xíng dì，stage of understanding and practice）所攝，因為沒有證得唯識真勝義。接下來是通達位（tōng dá wèi，stage of penetration），它的相是……
【English Translation】 English version: Is there truly a cognition that exists apart from the object being grasped? Because the grasped (suǒ qǔ) and the grasper (néng qǔ) are established in mutual dependence. During the acceptance in accordance with the seal (yìn shùn rěn), it is generally called acceptance. Before the seal and after accordance, it is named 'acceptance in accordance with the seal'. Because the realm of acceptance is the emptiness of consciousness (shí kōng), it is also called acceptance. Relying on uninterrupted concentration (wú jiàn dìng), the wisdom that sees things as they are (rú shí zhì) arises, sealing the emptiness of the two graspings (èr qǔ kōng), establishing the supreme mundane dharma (shì dì yī fǎ). This means that the previous highest forbearance (shàng rěn) only sealed the emptiness of the grasper. Now, the supreme mundane dharma is the dual sealing of the two emptinesses. From this uninterruptedly, one will definitely enter the path of seeing (jiàn dào), so it is named 'uninterrupted'. Among the dharmas of ordinary beings (yì shēng fǎ), this is the most excellent, so it is named 'supreme mundane dharma'. Thus, the stage of heat (nuǎn wèi) and the stage of peak (dǐng wèi) rely on the grasping consciousness (néng qǔ shí) to contemplate the emptiness of what is grasped (suǒ qǔ kōng). When lower forbearance (xià rěn) arises, it seals the empty appearance of the realm. Middle forbearance (zhōng rěn) shifts to the grasping consciousness, which, like the realm, is empty, complying with acceptance and approval. When highest forbearance arises, it seals the emptiness of the grasper. The supreme mundane dharma is the dual sealing of the empty appearance. All carry appearances, so they have not truly verified. Therefore, it is said that in these four stages, Bodhisattvas still establish a few things in the present moment, considering it to be the true ultimate nature of consciousness-only (wéi shí zhēn shèng yì xìng). Because those two aspects of emptiness and existence (kōng yǒu èr xiàng) have not been removed, contemplating the mind with appearances, there is something obtained, so they are not truly abiding in the truth of true consciousness-only (zhēn wéi shí lǐ). Only after those appearances are extinguished do they truly abide. According to this meaning, there is a verse that says: 『Bodhisattvas in samadhi, contemplate the image as only mind, when the meaning and appearance are extinguished, carefully contemplate only self-thought, thus abiding in the inner mind, knowing that what is grasped is non-existent, then the grasper is also non-existent, and afterwards, contact is without attainment.』 This stage of application (jiā xíng wèi) has not eliminated the bondage of appearances (xiàng fù), and cannot cut off the bondage of coarse and heavy afflictions (cū zhòng fù). It can only subdue and eliminate the discriminative two graspings (fēn bié èr qǔ), because it contradicts the path of seeing. Regarding the innate ones (jù shēng zhě) and the two latent tendencies (èr suí mián), because the contaminated mind of contemplation (yǒu lòu guān xīn) has something obtained and is discriminative, it is not completely subdued and cannot be completely extinguished. Bodhisattvas in this stage study and observe both conventional truth (ān lì dì) and ultimate truth (fēi ān lì dì), in order to guide the two kinds of views (liǎng zhǒng jiàn) in the future, and to subdue the discriminative two kinds of obstacles (fēn bié liǎng zhǒng zhàng). Ultimate truth is what is truly observed, unlike the two vehicles (èr shèng) which only observe conventional truth. Although Bodhisattvas generate these roots of goodness such as heat (nuǎn děng shàn gēn) and are proficient in various dhyanas (jìng lǜ) as a means, they can only achieve fulfillment by relying on the fourth dhyana (dì sì chán). Relying on the most excellent basis to enter the path of seeing, it arises only from the body of a good realm (shàn qù shēn) in the desire realm (yù jiè), because the remaining wisdom and aversion (huì yàn xīn) are not excellent. This stage is also included in the stage of understanding and practice (jiě xíng dì), because it has not verified the true ultimate meaning of consciousness-only. Next is the stage of penetration (tōng dá wèi), its appearance is...
云何。頌曰。
２８ 若時于所緣 智都無所得 爾時住唯識 離二取相故
論曰。若時菩薩于所緣境無分別智都無所得。不取種種戲論相故。爾時乃名實住唯識真勝義性。即證真如智與真如平等平等俱離能取所取相故。能所取相俱是分別。有所得心戲論現故。有義此智二分俱無。說無所取能取相故。有義此智相見俱有。帶彼相起名緣彼故。若無彼相名緣彼者應色智等名聲等智。若無見分應不能緣。寧可說為緣真如智。勿真如性亦名能緣。故應許此定有見分。有義此智見有相無。說無相取不取相故。雖有見分而無分別說非能取非取全無。雖無相分而可說此帶如相起不離如故。如自證分緣見分時不變而緣此亦應爾。變而緣者便非親證如後得智應有分別。故應許此有見無相。加行無間此智生時體會真如名通達位。初照理故亦名見道。然此見道略說有二。一真見道。謂即所說無分別智。實證二空所顯真理。實斷二障分別隨眠。雖多剎那事方究竟而相等故總說一心。有義此中二空二障漸證漸斷。以有淺深粗細異故。有義此中二空二障頓證頓斷。由意樂力有堪能故。二相見道。此復有二。一觀非安立諦有三品心。一內遣有情假緣智慧除軟品分別隨眠。二內遣諸法假緣智慧除中品分別隨眠。三
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 云何（如何）。頌曰：
２８ 若時于所緣（所觀對像） 智都無所得 爾時住唯識（唯識的境界） 離二取相（能取和所取兩種對立的相）故
論曰（解釋）：若菩薩在觀照對像時，無分別智完全沒有獲得任何東西。因為不執取種種虛妄的戲論之相。這時才可稱為真正安住于唯識的真勝義性（最高的真理）。也就是證得了真如（事物的本性）的智慧與真如平等無二，完全脫離了能取和所取兩種對立的相。能取和所取兩種相都是分別（妄想）。因為有『有所得』的心，戲論才會顯現。 有一種觀點認為，這種智慧的相分和見分都沒有。因為經文說沒有所取和能取的相。有一種觀點認為，這種智慧的相分和見分都有。因為它帶著所緣對象的相而生起，所以才說緣于那個對象。如果沒有那個相，卻說緣于那個對象，那麼色（視覺）的智慧等就應該被稱為聲（聽覺）等的智慧了。如果沒有見分，就應該不能緣取（對像）。怎麼能說是緣于真如的智慧呢？難道真如的自性也可以被稱為能緣嗎？所以應該承認這種智慧一定有見分。 有一種觀點認為，這種智慧有見分而沒有相分。因為經文說沒有相取，不執取相。雖然有見分，但是沒有分別，所以說不是能取，也不是完全沒有。雖然沒有相分，但是可以說它帶著真如的相而生起，不離開真如的緣故。就像自證分緣見分時，不改變而緣取，這種情況也應該如此。如果改變而緣取，那就不是親證，就像後得智（證悟後獲得的智慧）應該有分別。所以應該承認這種智慧有見分而沒有相分。 在加行位（修行階段）的無間（緊接著）時刻，這種智慧生起時，體會真如，稱為通達位（證悟的階段）。因為最初照見真理，也稱為見道（證見真理的道路）。然而這種見道，簡略地說有兩種。一是真見道，就是所說的無分別智。真實地證得二空（人空和法空）所顯現的真理，真實地斷除二障（煩惱障和所知障）的分別隨眠（潛在的煩惱）。雖然需要多個剎那（極短的時間）才能完成，但是因為相等，所以總說為一心。有一種觀點認為，這其中二空和二障是逐漸證得和斷除的。因為有淺深粗細的差別。有一種觀點認為，這其中二空和二障是頓（立刻）證得和斷除的。因為意樂（意願和喜好）的力量有堪能（能力）的緣故。二是相見道。這又分為兩種。一是觀非安立諦（非真實存在的真理）有三種品級的心。一是內遣有情假（眾生是虛假的）緣智慧去除軟品（最輕微的）分別隨眠。二是內遣諸法假（一切法是虛假的）緣智慧去除中品（中等的）分別隨眠。三
【English Translation】 English version: What is it? The verse says:
28 If at the time, regarding the object of focus, wisdom attains nothing, Then one dwells in mere consciousness, because of being apart from the aspects of dualistic grasping.
The treatise says: If a Bodhisattva, regarding the object of focus, the non-discriminating wisdom attains nothing at all, not grasping at various aspects of illusory elaborations, then at that time, it is truly called dwelling in mere consciousness, the true ultimate nature, that is, realizing the wisdom of Suchness (Tathata) being equal and identical with Suchness, both being apart from the aspects of the grasper and the grasped. The aspects of the grasper and the grasped are both discriminations, because with a mind of 'something attained,' illusory elaborations manifest. Some argue that this wisdom lacks both the image-aspect and the seeing-aspect, because it is said that there are no aspects of the grasped and the grasper. Some argue that this wisdom has both the image-aspect and the seeing-aspect, because it arises with the aspect of that object, hence it is said to be related to that object. If there were no such aspect, yet it is said to be related to that object, then the wisdom of color (vision) etc., should be called the wisdom of sound (hearing) etc. If there were no seeing-aspect, it should not be able to cognize (the object). How can it be said to be the wisdom related to Suchness? Lest the nature of Suchness also be called the grasper, therefore, it should be admitted that this wisdom definitely has a seeing-aspect. Some argue that this wisdom has a seeing-aspect but no image-aspect, because it is said that there is no grasping at aspects, not grasping at aspects at all. Although there is a seeing-aspect, it is without discrimination, so it is said not to be the grasper, not grasping at all. Although there is no image-aspect, it can be said that it arises with the aspect of Suchness, not being apart from Suchness. Just as when the self-cognizing aspect is related to the seeing-aspect, it cognizes without changing, this should also be the case. If it cognizes with change, then it is not direct realization, just like the subsequent wisdom (wisdom attained after enlightenment) should have discriminations. Therefore, it should be admitted that this wisdom has a seeing-aspect but no image-aspect. At the moment immediately following the stage of application (preparatory stage), when this wisdom arises, experiencing Suchness, it is called the stage of thorough understanding (enlightenment). Because it initially illuminates the truth, it is also called the path of seeing (the path of seeing the truth). However, this path of seeing, briefly speaking, has two types. First, the true path of seeing, which is the non-discriminating wisdom mentioned. It truly realizes the truth revealed by the two emptinesses (emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena), and truly cuts off the latent tendencies of discrimination of the two obscurations (afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations). Although it takes many moments to complete, because they are equal, it is generally said to be one mind. Some argue that within this, the two emptinesses and the two obscurations are gradually realized and gradually cut off, because there are differences in shallowness and depth, coarseness and subtlety. Some argue that within this, the two emptinesses and the two obscurations are instantly realized and instantly cut off, because the power of intention (intention and inclination) has the capacity. Second, the path of seeing with aspects. This is further divided into two types. First, observing the non-established truth (truths that are not ultimately real) with three grades of mind. First, the wisdom of internally rejecting the false existence of sentient beings can remove the mild grade of latent tendencies of discrimination. Second, the wisdom of internally rejecting the false existence of all dharmas (phenomena) can remove the medium grade of latent tendencies of discrimination. Third,
遍遣一切有情諸法假緣智慧除一切分別隨眠。前二名法智各別緣故。第三名類智總合緣故。法真見道二空見分自所斷障無間解脫。別總建立名相見道。有義此三是真見道。以相見道緣四諦故。有義此三是相見道。以真見道不別緣故。二緣安立諦有十六心。此復有二。一者依觀所取能取別立法類十六種心。謂于苦諦有四種心。一苦法智忍。謂觀三界苦諦真如。正斷三界見苦所斷二十八種分別隨眠。二苦法智。謂忍無間觀前真如證前所斷煩惱解脫。三苦類智忍。謂智無間無漏慧生於法忍智各別內證。言後聖法皆是此類。四苦類智。謂此無間無漏智生審定印可苦類智忍。如於苦諦有四種心集滅道諦應知亦爾。此十六心八觀真如八觀正智。法真見道無間解脫見自證分差別建立名相見道。二者依觀下上諦境別立法類十六種心。謂觀現前不現前界苦等四諦各有二心。一現觀忍。二現觀智。如其所應法真見道無間解脫見分觀諦斷見所斷百一十二分別隨眠名相見道。若依廣佈聖教道理說相見道有九種心。此即依前緣安立諦二十六種止觀別立。謂法類品忍智合說各有四觀。即為八心。八相應止總說為一。雖見道中止觀雙運而於見義觀順非止。故此觀止開合不同。由此九心名相見道。諸相見道依真假說世第一法無間而生及斷隨眠非實如是。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 普遍運用一切有情和諸法的虛假因緣的智慧，去除一切分別隨眠（煩惱的潛在狀態）。前兩種智慧稱為法智（Dharma-jñāna），因為它們分別緣取（認識）不同的對象。第三種智慧稱為類智（Anvaya-jñāna），因為它總合地緣取（認識）對象。法真見道（Dharma-satya-darshana-mārga）是二空（兩種空性）的見分（darśana-bhāga），是對於自身所斷除的障礙的無間解脫（anantara-vimukti）。分別和總合地建立名相見道（nāma-saṃjñā-darśana-mārga）。 有一種觀點認為，這三種智慧是真見道（satya-darshana-mārga），因為相見道（saṃjñā-darshana-mārga）緣取四諦（catvāri-āryasatyāni）。另一種觀點認為，這三種智慧是相見道，因為真見道不分別緣取對象。 依據緣取和安立諦（satya）的方式，有十六種心（citta）。這又分為兩種情況：一是依據觀所取（grāhya）和能取（grāhaka）的差別，建立法類（dharma-anvaya）十六種心。即對於苦諦（duḥkha-satya）有四種心：一是苦法智忍（duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti），即觀察三界（trayo dhātavaḥ）苦諦的真如（tathatā），正確地斷除三界見苦所斷的二十八種分別隨眠。二是苦法智（duḥkha-dharma-jñāna），即在忍（kṣānti）的無間（anantara）觀照前述真如，證得對於先前所斷煩惱的解脫。三是苦類智忍（duḥkha-anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti），即在智（jñāna）的無間，無漏慧（anāsrava-prajñā）生起，對於法忍（dharma-kṣānti）和智（jñāna）各自進行內在的證悟。之後所說的聖法（ārya-dharma）都屬於此類。四是苦類智（duḥkha-anvaya-jñāna），即在此無間，無漏智生起，審定地印可苦類智忍。如同對於苦諦有四種心，對於集諦（samudaya-satya）、滅諦（nirodha-satya）和道諦（mārga-satya）也應知如此。 這十六種心，有八種觀真如，八種觀正智（samyag-jñāna）。法真見道（dharma-satya-darshana-mārga）的無間解脫（anantara-vimukti）和見自證分（darśana-svasaṃvedana-bhāga）的差別建立名相見道（nāma-saṃjñā-darśana-mārga）。二是依據觀照下上諦境的差別，建立法類十六種心。即觀照現前和不現前界的苦等四諦，各有兩種心：一是現觀忍（abhisamaya-kṣānti），二是現觀智（abhisamaya-jñāna）。如其所應，法真見道（dharma-satya-darshana-mārga）的無間解脫（anantara-vimukti）和見分（darśana-bhāga）觀照諦（satya），斷除見所斷的一百一十二種分別隨眠，建立名相見道（nāma-saṃjñā-darśana-mārga）。 如果依據廣佈聖教的道理來說，相見道（saṃjñā-darshana-mārga）有九種心。這即是依據先前緣取和安立諦的二十六種止觀（śamatha-vipaśyanā）分別建立。即法類品（dharma-anvaya-pakṣa）的忍（kṣānti）和智（jñāna）合起來說，各有四種觀（vipaśyanā），即為八心。八相應止（śamatha）總合起來說為一種。雖然見道（darshana-mārga）中止觀雙運，但在見的意義上，觀（vipaśyanā）順於止（śamatha），因此觀和止的開合不同。由此九種心建立名相見道（nāma-saṃjñā-darshana-mārga）。諸相見道（saṃjñā-darshana-mārga）依據真假來說，世第一法（laukikāgradharma）無間而生，以及斷除隨眠（anuśaya）並非真實如此。
【English Translation】 English version Universally employing the wisdom of conditioned arising of all sentient beings and all dharmas, it removes all latent predispositions to discrimination (anuśaya). The first two are called Dharma-jñāna (knowledge of Dharma), because they cognize different objects separately. The third is called Anvaya-jñāna (inferential knowledge), because it cognizes objects in a comprehensive manner. Dharma-satya-darshana-mārga (path of seeing the truth of Dharma) is the darśana-bhāga (seeing aspect) of the two emptinesses (two kinds of emptiness), and is the anantara-vimukti (immediate liberation) from the obstacles that are severed by oneself. Establishing the nāma-saṃjñā-darshana-mārga (path of seeing names and concepts) separately and comprehensively. One view holds that these three knowledges are satya-darshana-mārga (path of seeing the truth), because saṃjñā-darshana-mārga (path of seeing concepts) cognizes the Four Noble Truths (catvāri-āryasatyāni). Another view holds that these three knowledges are saṃjñā-darshana-mārga, because satya-darshana-mārga does not cognize objects separately. Based on the manner of cognizing and establishing the Truths (satya), there are sixteen cittas (minds). This is further divided into two situations: First, based on the difference between what is cognized (grāhya) and what cognizes (grāhaka), sixteen types of dharma-anvaya (Dharma-inference) minds are established. That is, with respect to the Truth of Suffering (duḥkha-satya), there are four types of minds: First, duḥkha-dharma-jñāna-kṣānti (forbearance of knowledge of Dharma regarding suffering), which is observing the Suchness (tathatā) of the Truth of Suffering in the Three Realms (trayo dhātavaḥ), correctly severing the twenty-eight latent predispositions to discrimination that are severed by seeing suffering in the Three Realms. Second, duḥkha-dharma-jñāna (knowledge of Dharma regarding suffering), which is, in the immediate (anantara) of forbearance (kṣānti), observing the aforementioned Suchness, realizing the liberation from the afflictions previously severed. Third, duḥkha-anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti (forbearance of inferential knowledge regarding suffering), which is, in the immediate of knowledge (jñāna), the arising of undefiled wisdom (anāsrava-prajñā), internally realizing the Dharma-forbearance (dharma-kṣānti) and knowledge (jñāna) respectively. The subsequent holy dharmas (ārya-dharma) mentioned are all of this type. Fourth, duḥkha-anvaya-jñāna (inferential knowledge regarding suffering), which is, in this immediate, the arising of undefiled wisdom, definitively affirming the duḥkha-anvaya-jñāna-kṣānti. Just as there are four types of minds with respect to the Truth of Suffering, it should be known that it is also the same for the Truth of Origin (samudaya-satya), the Truth of Cessation (nirodha-satya), and the Truth of the Path (mārga-satya). These sixteen minds include eight that observe Suchness and eight that observe Right Knowledge (samyag-jñāna). The difference between the anantara-vimukti (immediate liberation) of Dharma-satya-darshana-mārga (path of seeing the truth of Dharma) and the darśana-svasaṃvedana-bhāga (self-awareness aspect of seeing) establishes the nāma-saṃjñā-darshana-mārga (path of seeing names and concepts). Second, based on the difference in observing the lower and upper realms of the Truths, sixteen types of dharma-anvaya minds are established. That is, observing the Four Truths, such as suffering, in the present and non-present realms, each has two types of minds: First, abhisamaya-kṣānti (forbearance of direct realization), and second, abhisamaya-jñāna (knowledge of direct realization). As appropriate, the anantara-vimukti (immediate liberation) of Dharma-satya-darshana-mārga (path of seeing the truth of Dharma) and the darśana-bhāga (seeing aspect) observe the Truths (satya), severing the one hundred and twelve latent predispositions to discrimination that are severed by seeing, establishing the nāma-saṃjñā-darshana-mārga (path of seeing names and concepts). If, according to the principles of widely propagating the holy teachings, the saṃjñā-darshana-mārga (path of seeing concepts) has nine types of minds. This is established separately based on the twenty-six types of śamatha-vipaśyanā (calm abiding and insight) that previously cognized and established the Truths. That is, the forbearance (kṣānti) and knowledge (jñāna) of the dharma-anvaya-pakṣa (Dharma-inference aspect), when combined, each has four types of insight (vipaśyanā), which makes eight minds. The eight corresponding calm abidings (śamatha) are collectively considered as one. Although calm abiding and insight operate simultaneously in the darshana-mārga (path of seeing), in the sense of seeing, insight (vipaśyanā) is in accordance with calm abiding (śamatha), so the opening and closing of insight and calm abiding are different. These nine types of minds establish the nāma-saṃjñā-darshana-mārga (path of seeing names and concepts). The various saṃjñā-darshana-mārga (paths of seeing concepts), according to truth and falsehood, the laukikāgradharma (highest mundane dharma) arises immediately, and the severing of latent predispositions (anuśaya) is not actually so.
真見道後方得生故。非安立後起安立故。分別隨眠真已斷故。前真見道證唯識性。後相見道證唯識相。二中初勝故頌偏說。前真見道根本智攝後相見道後得智攝。諸後得智有二分耶。有義俱無離二取故。有義此智見有相無。說此智品有分別故。聖智皆能親照境故。不執著故說離二取。有義此智二分俱有。說此思惟似真如相不見真實真如性故。又說此智分別諸法自共相等觀諸有情根性差別而為說故。又說此智現身土等為諸有情說正法故。若不變現似色聲等寧有現身說法等事。轉色蘊依不現色者轉四蘊依應無受等。又若此智不變似境離自體法應非所緣。緣色等時應緣聲等。又緣無法等應無所緣緣。彼體非實無緣用故。由斯後智二分俱有。此二見道與六現觀相攝云何。六現觀者。一思現觀謂最上品喜受相應思所成慧。此能觀察諸法共相引生暖等。加行道中觀察諸法。此用最猛偏立現觀暖等不能廣分別法又未證理故非現觀。二信現觀。謂緣三寶世出世間決定凈信。此助現觀令不退轉立現觀名。三戒現觀謂無漏戒除破戒垢令觀增明亦名現觀。四現觀智諦現觀。謂一切種緣非安立根本後得無分別智。五現觀邊智諦現觀。謂現觀智諦現觀後諸緣安立世出世智。六究竟現觀。謂盡智等究竟位智。此真見道攝彼第四現觀少分。此相見道攝
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 真正見到真理（真見道）之後才能獲得解脫，而不是在安立（安立）之後才開始安立。因為分別隨眠（分別隨眠）在真正見道時就已經斷除了。之前的真見道證悟的是唯識性（唯識性），之後的相見道證悟的是唯識相（唯識相）。兩者之中，前者更為殊勝，所以頌文偏重於描述前者。之前的真見道屬於根本智（根本智）所攝，之後的相見道屬於後得智（後得智）所攝。 所有的後得智都有兩個部分嗎？有一種觀點認為，後得智沒有能取和所取二分，因為它已經遠離了對能取和所取的執著。另一種觀點認為，這種智慧只能見到相分（相分），而見不到見分（見分），因為經典中說這種智慧具有分別作用。聖人的智慧都能夠直接照見實境，並且不執著于外物，所以說它遠離了能取和所取二分。還有一種觀點認為，這種智慧具有能取和所取二分，因為經典中說這種思惟類似於真如相（真如相），但並沒有真正見到真如的本性。而且，經典中還說這種智慧能夠分別諸法的自相和共相（自共相），觀察各種有情眾生的根性和差別，然後為他們說法。此外，經典中還說這種智慧能夠顯現身土（身土）等，為各種有情眾生宣說正法。如果後得智不能變現出類似於色聲（色聲）等外境，又怎麼能顯現身相、說法等等呢？如果轉色蘊（轉色蘊）所依而不能顯現色法，那麼轉受、想、行、識四蘊（轉四蘊）所依，就應該沒有受等等了。而且，如果這種智慧不能變現出類似於外境的相分，那麼離開了自體法（自體法），它就不應該有所緣。在緣色等外境的時候，就應該也能緣到聲音等等。而且，在緣無法（無法）等的時候，就應該沒有所緣緣（所緣緣），因為它們的體性不是真實的，沒有緣用的作用。因此，後得智具有能取和所取二分。 這兩種見道與六現觀（六現觀）是如何相互包含的呢？六現觀是：一、思現觀（思現觀），指最上品喜受（喜受）相應的思所成慧（思所成慧）。這種智慧能夠觀察諸法的共相，從而引發暖位（暖位）等。在加行道（加行道）中觀察諸法。這種智慧的作用最為猛烈，所以特別設立為現觀，而暖位等不能廣泛地分別諸法，而且還沒有證得真理，所以不是現觀。二、信現觀（信現觀），指緣三寶（三寶）、世間和出世間的決定凈信（決定凈信）。這種信心能夠幫助現觀不退轉，所以立名為現觀。三、戒現觀（戒現觀），指無漏戒（無漏戒），它能夠去除破戒的污垢，使觀行更加明亮，所以也稱為現觀。四、現觀智諦現觀（現觀智諦現觀），指一切種類緣非安立（非安立）的根本無分別智（根本無分別智）和後得無分別智（後得無分別智）。五、現觀邊智諦現觀（現觀邊智諦現觀），指現觀智諦現觀之後，各種緣安立（安立）的世間和出世間智慧。六、究竟現觀（究竟現觀），指盡智（盡智）等究竟位的智慧。真見道包含其中的第四種現觀（現觀智諦現觀）的少部分。相見道包含
【English Translation】 English version Only after truly seeing the Tao (Zhen Jiandao) can one be liberated, not after establishing (Anli) and then establishing. Because the latent tendencies of discrimination (Fenbie Suimian) are already cut off in the true seeing of the Tao. The previous Zhen Jiandao realizes the nature of consciousness-only (Weishi Xing), and the subsequent Xiang Jiandao realizes the appearance of consciousness-only (Weishi Xiang). Among the two, the former is more superior, so the verse focuses on describing the former. The previous Zhen Jiandao is included in the fundamental wisdom (Genben Zhi), and the subsequent Xiang Jiandao is included in the acquired wisdom (Houde Zhi). Do all acquired wisdoms have two parts? One view is that acquired wisdom does not have the two divisions of grasper and grasped, because it has already abandoned attachment to the grasper and grasped. Another view is that this wisdom can only see the appearance aspect (Xiangfen) and cannot see the seeing aspect (Jianfen), because the scriptures say that this wisdom has the function of discrimination. The wisdom of the saints can directly illuminate reality and is not attached to external objects, so it is said to be free from the two divisions of grasper and grasped. Another view is that this wisdom has both the grasper and grasped aspects, because the scriptures say that this thinking is similar to the appearance of Suchness (Zhenru Xiang), but does not truly see the nature of Suchness. Moreover, the scriptures also say that this wisdom can distinguish the self-characteristics and common characteristics (Zi Gong Xiang) of all dharmas, observe the roots and differences of various sentient beings, and then preach the Dharma to them. Furthermore, the scriptures also say that this wisdom can manifest body and land (Shen Tu) etc., to preach the correct Dharma to various sentient beings. If acquired wisdom cannot transform and manifest external realms similar to form and sound (Se Sheng) etc., how can it manifest body appearance, preach the Dharma, etc.? If transforming the support of the form aggregate (Zhuan Se Yun) cannot manifest form, then transforming the support of the four aggregates of feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness (Zhuan Si Yun) should not have feeling etc. Moreover, if this wisdom cannot transform and manifest the appearance aspect similar to the external realm, then without the self-nature dharma (Ziti Fa), it should not have an object of cognition. When cognizing form etc., it should also be able to cognize sound etc. Moreover, when cognizing non-existence (Wufa) etc., there should be no object of cognition (Suoyuan Yuan), because their nature is not real and has no function of cognition. Therefore, acquired wisdom has both the grasper and grasped aspects. How do these two paths of seeing relate to the six kinds of direct perception (Liu Xianguan)? The six kinds of direct perception are: First, thought direct perception (Si Xianguan), which refers to the wisdom arising from thought (Si Suocheng Hui) corresponding to the most superior joy feeling (Xi Shou). This wisdom can observe the common characteristics of all dharmas, thereby inducing the warm stage (Nuan Wei) etc. Observing all dharmas in the stage of application (Jiaxing Dao). The function of this wisdom is the most intense, so it is specially established as direct perception, while the warm stage etc. cannot widely distinguish all dharmas, and have not yet attained the truth, so they are not direct perception. Second, faith direct perception (Xin Xianguan), which refers to the determined pure faith (Jueding Jingxin) that arises from the Three Jewels (Sanbao), the mundane and the supramundane. This faith can help direct perception not to regress, so it is named direct perception. Third, precept direct perception (Jie Xianguan), which refers to the non-outflow precepts (Wulou Jie), which can remove the defilements of breaking precepts, making the practice of contemplation brighter, so it is also called direct perception. Fourth, direct perception wisdom truth direct perception (Xianguan Zhi Di Xianguan), which refers to all kinds of fundamental non-discriminating wisdom (Genben Wu Fenbie Zhi) and acquired non-discriminating wisdom (Houde Wu Fenbie Zhi) that cognize the non-established (Fei Anli). Fifth, direct perception edge wisdom truth direct perception (Xianguan Bian Zhi Di Xianguan), which refers to the worldly and supramundane wisdoms that cognize the established (Anli) after direct perception wisdom truth direct perception. Sixth, ultimate direct perception (Jiujing Xianguan), which refers to the wisdom of the ultimate position such as the wisdom of exhaustion (Jinzhi). The true path of seeing includes a small part of the fourth kind of direct perception (Xianguan Zhi Di Xianguan). The path of seeing includes
彼第四第五少分。彼第二三雖此俱起而非自性故不相攝。菩薩得此二見道時生如來家。住極喜地。善達法界得諸平等。常生諸佛大集會中。于多百門已得自在。自知不久證大菩提。能盡未來利樂一切。次修習位其相云何。頌曰。
２９ 無得不思議 是出世間智 捨二粗重故 便證得轉依
論曰。菩薩從前見道起已。為斷餘障證得轉依。複數修習無分別智。此智遠離所取能取。故說無得及不思議。或離戲論說為無得。妙用難測名不思議。是出世間無分別智。斷世間故名出世間。二取隨眠是世間本。唯此能斷獨得出名。或出世名依二義立。謂體無漏及證真如。此智具斯二種義故獨名出世。餘智不然。即十地中無分別智。數修此故捨二粗重。二障種子立粗重名。性無堪任違細輕故令彼永滅故說為捨。此能捨彼二粗重故便能證得廣大轉依。依謂所依即依他起與染凈法為所依故。染謂虛妄遍計所執。凈謂真實圓成實性。轉謂二分轉捨轉得。由數修習無分別智斷本識中二障粗重故能轉捨依他起上遍計所執及能轉得依他起中圓成實性。由轉煩惱得大涅槃。轉所知障證無上覺。成立唯識意為有情證得如斯二轉依果。或依即是唯識真如。生死涅槃之所依故。愚夫顛倒迷此真如。故無始來受生死苦。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 彼第四第五少分（指見道位的第四和第五個階段）。彼第二三雖此俱起而非自性故不相攝（第二和第三階段雖然與此同時生起，但因為不是自性，所以不互相包含）。菩薩得此二見道時生如來家（菩薩獲得這兩種見道時，就出生在如來的家族中），住極喜地（安住于極喜地），善達法界得諸平等（通達法界，獲得諸種平等），常生諸佛大中（經常出生在諸佛的大之中），于多百門已得自在（對於許多法門已經獲得自在），自知不久證大菩提（自己知道不久將證得大菩提），能盡未來利樂一切（能夠在未來利益和安樂一切眾生）。次修習位其相云何（接下來，修習位的狀態是怎樣的）？頌曰： 無得不思議，是出世間智，捨二粗重故，便證得轉依。 論曰（論述道）：菩薩從前見道起已（菩薩從之前的見道開始），為斷餘障證得轉依（爲了斷除剩餘的障礙，證得轉依），複數修習無分別智（再次多次修習無分別智）。此智遠離所取能取（這種智慧遠離了所取和能取），故說無得及不思議（所以說它是『無得』和『不思議』）。或離戲論說為無得（或者說，遠離戲論，所以稱為『無得』），妙用難測名不思議（奇妙的作用難以測度，所以名為『不思議』）。是出世間無分別智（這是出世間的無分別智），斷世間故名出世間（因為它斷除了世間，所以名為『出世間』）。二取隨眠是世間本（能取和所取的隨眠是世間的根本），唯此能斷獨得出名（只有這種智慧能夠斷除它們，所以獨得『出世間』之名）。或出世名依二義立（或者，『出世間』這個名稱依據兩種含義而成立），謂體無漏及證真如（即本體是無漏的，並且證悟了真如）。此智具斯二種義故獨名出世（這種智慧具備這兩種含義，所以獨得『出世間』之名），餘智不然（其他的智慧則不然）。即十地中無分別智（也就是十地中的無分別智），數修此故捨二粗重（多次修習這種智慧，所以捨棄了兩種粗重）。二障種子立粗重名（兩種障礙的種子被稱為『粗重』），性無堪任違細輕故令彼永滅故說為捨（因為它們的性質不堪能，違背了細微和輕盈，所以使它們永遠滅除，因此說為『捨』）。此能捨彼二粗重故便能證得廣大轉依（這種智慧能夠捨棄那兩種粗重，所以就能證得廣大的轉依）。依謂所依即依他起與染凈法為所依故（『依』指的是所依賴的事物，即依他起性，它作為染污和清凈法的所依）。染謂虛妄遍計所執（染污指的是虛妄的遍計所執），凈謂真實圓成實性（清凈指的是真實的圓成實性）。轉謂二分轉捨轉得（『轉』指的是兩個方面的轉變，即轉捨和轉得）。由數修習無分別智斷本識中二障粗重故能轉捨依他起上遍計所執及能轉得依他起中圓成實性（由於多次修習無分別智，斷除了本識中兩種障礙的粗重，所以能夠轉捨依他起性上的遍計所執，並且能夠轉得依他起性中的圓成實性）。由轉煩惱得大涅槃（通過轉變煩惱，獲得大涅槃），轉所知障證無上覺（通過轉變所知障，證得無上覺）。成立唯識意為有情證得如斯二轉依果（成立唯識的意義在於使有情證得如此兩種轉依的果實）。或依即是唯識真如（或者，『依』就是唯識的真如），生死涅槃之所依故（因為它是生死和涅槃的所依）。愚夫顛倒迷此真如（愚癡的人顛倒迷惑于這種真如），故無始來受生死苦（所以從無始以來遭受生死的痛苦）。
【English Translation】 English version The fourth and fifth are minor parts of that (referring to the fourth and fifth stages of the Path of Seeing). Although the second and third arise simultaneously with this, they are not of the same nature and therefore do not encompass each other. When a Bodhisattva attains these two Paths of Seeing, they are born into the family of the Tathagata (another name for Buddha), abide in the Extremely Joyful Ground (Pramudita Bhumi), thoroughly understand the Dharma Realm (Dharmadhatu) and attain all equalities, are constantly born in the great assemblies of all Buddhas, have already attained mastery over many hundreds of doors (of Dharma), know for themselves that they will soon realize Great Bodhi (Enlightenment), and are able to benefit and bring happiness to all beings in the future. Next, what is the nature of the stage of cultivation? The verse says: 'Without attainment, inconceivable, is transcendent wisdom; because of abandoning the two coarse burdens, one then realizes the transformation of the basis.' The treatise says: After a Bodhisattva arises from the previous Path of Seeing, in order to cut off the remaining obstacles and realize the transformation of the basis, they repeatedly cultivate non-discriminating wisdom. This wisdom is far from the apprehended and the apprehender, therefore it is said to be 'without attainment' and 'inconceivable.' Or, being free from conceptual proliferation, it is said to be 'without attainment'; its wondrous function is difficult to fathom, hence it is called 'inconceivable.' It is transcendent, non-discriminating wisdom; because it cuts off the mundane, it is called 'transcendent.' The latent tendencies of the two graspings (apprehended and apprehender) are the root of the mundane; only this (wisdom) can cut them off, uniquely earning the name 'transcendent.' Or, the name 'transcendent' is established based on two meanings: namely, its essence is unconditioned (anāsrava) and it realizes Suchness (Tathata). This wisdom possesses these two meanings, hence it is uniquely named 'transcendent'; other wisdoms do not. It is the non-discriminating wisdom in the ten grounds (of a Bodhisattva). Because of repeatedly cultivating this, one abandons the two coarse burdens. The seeds of the two obscurations (afflictive and cognitive) are called 'coarse burdens'; because their nature is incapable, contrary to subtlety and lightness, causing them to be permanently extinguished, it is said to be 'abandoned.' Because this (wisdom) can abandon those two coarse burdens, one is then able to realize the vast transformation of the basis. 'Basis' refers to the support, namely dependent origination (paratantra), which serves as the support for defiled and pure dharmas. Defilement refers to the false, completely imputed nature (parikalpita); purity refers to the true, perfectly established nature (parinispanna). 'Transformation' refers to the transformation of abandoning and the transformation of attaining in two aspects. Because of repeatedly cultivating non-discriminating wisdom and cutting off the coarse burdens of the two obscurations in the fundamental consciousness (alaya-vijnana), one is able to transform and abandon the completely imputed nature on dependent origination, and is able to transform and attain the perfectly established nature within dependent origination. By transforming afflictions, one attains Great Nirvana; by transforming the cognitive obscurations, one realizes unsurpassed enlightenment. Establishing the doctrine of Consciousness-Only (Vijnanavada) is intended for sentient beings to realize such a result of the two transformations of the basis. Or, the 'basis' is precisely the Suchness of Consciousness-Only, because it is the support for samsara and nirvana. Foolish beings, being deluded, are confused about this Suchness, therefore, from beginningless time, they have suffered the pains of samsara.
聖者離倒悟此真如。便得涅槃畢究安樂。由數修習無分別智斷本識中二障粗重故能轉滅依如生死及能轉證依如涅槃。此即真如離雜染性。如雖性凈而相雜染。故離染時假說新凈。即此新凈說為轉依。修習位中斷障證得。雖於此位亦得菩提而非此中頌意所顯。頌意但顯轉唯識性。二乘滿位名解脫身。在大牟尼名法身故。
云何證得二種轉依。謂十地中修十勝行斷十重障證十真如二種轉依由斯證得。言十地者。一極喜地。初獲聖性具證二空能益自他生大喜故。二離垢地。具凈尸羅遠離能起微細毀犯煩惱垢故。三發光地。成就勝定大法總持能發無邊妙慧光故。四焰慧地。安住最勝菩提分法燒煩惱薪慧焰增故。五極難勝地。真俗兩智行相互違合令相應極難勝故。六現前地。住緣起智引無分別最勝般若令現前故。七遠行地。至無相住功用後邊出過世間二乘道故。八不動地。無分別智任運相續相用煩惱不能動故。九善慧地。成就微妙四無閡解能遍十方善說法故。十法雲地。大法智云含眾德水蔽一切如空粗重充滿法身故。如是十地總攝有為無為功德以為自性。與所修行為勝依持令得生長故名為地。
十勝行者即是十種波羅蜜多。施有三種。謂財施無畏施法施。戒有三種。謂律儀戒。攝善法戒饒益有情戒。忍有三種。謂耐
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：聖者遠離顛倒，覺悟到此真如（Tathata，事物的真實本性），便能證得涅槃（Nirvana，解脫）的最終安樂。由於多次修習無分別智（non-discriminating wisdom），斷除了本識（alaya-vijñana，根本識）中的兩種障礙（煩惱障和所知障）的粗重部分，因此能夠轉變和滅除依賴於真如的生死輪迴，以及轉變和證得依賴於真如的涅槃。這便是真如遠離雜染的性質。真如雖然本性清凈，但其相卻被雜染所覆蓋，所以在遠離雜染時，假說為新凈。這新凈就被稱為轉依（Paravrtti，轉變依止）。在修習的階段中斷除障礙並證得真如。雖然在這個階段也能獲得菩提（Bodhi，覺悟），但並非此頌所要表達的重點。此頌的重點在於闡明轉變唯識的性質。二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）圓滿的果位稱為解脫身，而在大牟尼（Mahamuni，偉大的聖人，指佛陀）的果位則稱為法身（Dharmakaya，法性身）。 如何證得兩種轉依呢？即在十地（菩薩修行的十個階段）中，修習十勝行（十種殊勝的修行），斷除十重障（十種深重的障礙），證得十真如（十種真如的顯現），由此證得兩種轉依。所說的十地是：一、極喜地（Pramudita），初次獲得聖者的性質，具足證悟人無我和法無我（二空），能夠利益自己和他人，產生巨大的喜悅。二、離垢地（Vimala），具足清凈的戒律，遠離能夠引起細微毀犯的煩惱垢染。三、發光地（Prabhakari），成就殊勝的禪定和大法總持（陀羅尼），能夠煥發無邊的妙慧光明。四、焰慧地（Arcismati），安住于最殊勝的菩提分法（菩提的組成部分），燃燒煩惱的薪柴，使智慧之火更加旺盛。五、極難勝地（Sudurjaya），真諦和俗諦兩種智慧的行持相互違背，使之和諧相應極其難以戰勝。六、現前地（Abhimukhi），安住于緣起智，引導無分別的最殊勝般若智慧顯現。七、遠行地（Duramgama），到達無相安住的功用後邊，超出世間二乘的道。八、不動地（Acala），無分別智任運相續，相和作用以及煩惱都不能動搖。九、善慧地（Sadhumati），成就微妙的四無礙解（法無礙解、義無礙解、詞無礙解、辯無礙解），能夠遍及十方，善於說法。十、法雲地（Dharmamegha），大法智的雲朵包含著眾多功德之水，遮蔽一切如虛空般的粗重，充滿法身。這十地總攝有為和無為的功德，作為自身的性質，與所修行的行為互為殊勝的依持，使之得以生長，所以稱為地。 十勝行就是十種波羅蜜多（Paramita，到彼岸）。佈施有三種：財施、無畏施、法施。戒律有三種：律儀戒、攝善法戒、饒益有情戒。忍辱有三種：耐怨害忍、安受苦忍、諦察法忍。
【English Translation】 English version: The holy ones, by abandoning perversion and awakening to this Suchness (Tathata, the true nature of things), attain the ultimate bliss of Nirvana (Nirvana, liberation). Through repeated cultivation of non-discriminating wisdom, they sever the grossness of the two obscurations (afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations) within the fundamental consciousness (alaya-vijñana, storehouse consciousness), thereby transforming and extinguishing the cycle of birth and death dependent on Suchness, and transforming and realizing Nirvana dependent on Suchness. This is the nature of Suchness, free from defilements. Although Suchness is inherently pure, its appearance is mixed with defilements. Therefore, when it is freed from defilements, it is nominally said to be newly purified. This new purity is called Transformation of the Basis (Paravrtti, turning the basis). During the stage of cultivation, obstacles are severed and Suchness is realized. Although Bodhi (Bodhi, enlightenment) can also be attained at this stage, it is not the focus of this verse. The verse emphasizes clarifying the nature of the transformation of consciousness-only. The complete attainment of the two vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) is called the Liberation Body, while the attainment of the Great Sage (Mahamuni, the great sage, referring to the Buddha) is called the Dharmakaya (Dharmakaya, the body of dharma). How are the two kinds of Transformation of the Basis attained? They are attained by cultivating the ten supreme practices (ten excellent practices) in the ten grounds (ten stages of a Bodhisattva's path), severing the ten heavy obscurations (ten heavy obstacles), and realizing the ten Suchnesses (ten manifestations of Suchness). The ten grounds are: 1. Joyful Ground (Pramudita): Initially attaining the nature of a holy being, possessing the realization of the two emptinesses (emptiness of self and emptiness of phenomena), able to benefit oneself and others, generating great joy. 2. Stainless Ground (Vimala): Possessing pure morality, free from the defilements of afflictions that can cause subtle transgressions. 3. Luminous Ground (Prabhakari): Accomplishing superior samadhi and great Dharani, able to radiate boundless light of wondrous wisdom. 4. Blazing Wisdom Ground (Arcismati): Abiding in the most excellent limbs of enlightenment, burning the fuel of afflictions, increasing the flame of wisdom. 5. Very Difficult to Conquer Ground (Sudurjaya): The practices of the two truths, conventional and ultimate, contradict each other, making it extremely difficult to harmonize them. 6. Manifest Ground (Abhimukhi): Abiding in the wisdom of dependent origination, guiding the manifestation of the most excellent non-discriminating prajna wisdom. 7. Far-Reaching Ground (Duramgama): Reaching the end of the function of abiding in non-appearance, surpassing the path of the two vehicles of the world. 8. Immovable Ground (Acala): Non-discriminating wisdom continuously flowing effortlessly, appearance, function, and afflictions unable to shake it. 9. Good Wisdom Ground (Sadhumati): Accomplishing the subtle four kinds of unobstructed eloquence (unobstructed eloquence of dharma, unobstructed eloquence of meaning, unobstructed eloquence of language, unobstructed eloquence of eloquence), able to pervade the ten directions, skilled in expounding the Dharma. 10. Cloud of Dharma Ground (Dharmamegha): The clouds of great Dharma wisdom containing the waters of numerous virtues, obscuring all the grossness like space, filling the Dharmakaya. These ten grounds encompass the virtues of conditioned and unconditioned phenomena as their nature, and serve as superior support for the practices being cultivated, enabling them to grow, hence they are called grounds. The ten supreme practices are the ten Paramitas (Paramita, perfections). Giving has three aspects: material giving, giving of fearlessness, and giving of Dharma. Morality has three aspects: vows of discipline, gathering virtuous dharmas, and benefiting sentient beings. Patience has three aspects: patience in enduring harm, patience in accepting suffering, and patience in contemplating the Dharma.
怨害忍安受苦忍。諦察法忍。精進有三種。謂被甲精進攝善精進利樂精進。靜慮有三種。謂安住靜慮。引發靜慮辦事靜慮。般若有三種。謂生空無分別慧法空無分別慧俱空無分別慧。方便善巧有二種。謂迴向方便善巧拔濟方便善巧。愿有二種。謂求菩提愿利樂他愿。力有二種。謂思擇力修習力。智有二種。謂受用法樂智成熟有情智。此十性者。施以無貪及彼所起三業為性。戒以受學菩薩戒時三業為性。忍以無瞋精進審慧及彼所起三業為性。精進以勤及彼所起三業為性。靜慮但以等持為性。後五皆以擇法為性。說是根本後得智故。有義第八以欲勝解及信為性。愿以此三為自性故。此說自性若並眷屬一一皆以一切俱行功德為性。此十相者。要七最勝之所攝受方可建立波羅蜜多。一安住最勝。謂要安住菩薩種性。二依止最勝。謂要依止大菩提心。三意樂最勝。謂要悲愍一切有情。四事業最勝。謂要具行一切事勝。五巧便最勝。謂要無相智所攝受。六回向最勝。謂要回向無上菩提。七清凈最勝。謂要不為二障間雜。若非此七所攝受者所行施等非到彼岸。由斯施等十對波羅蜜多一一皆應四句分別。此但有十不增減者謂十地中對治十障證十真如無增減故。複次前六不增減者為除六種相違障故。漸次修行諸佛法故。漸次成熟諸有情故
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 怨害忍（忍受怨恨和傷害），安受苦忍（安然接受痛苦），諦察法忍（通過審視真理來忍耐）。精進有三種：謂被甲精進（如披上盔甲般精進），攝善精進（攝取善法的精進），利樂精進（利益和快樂眾生的精進）。靜慮有三種：謂安住靜慮（安住于禪定的靜慮），引發靜慮（引發智慧的靜慮），辦事靜慮（用於成辦事業的靜慮）。般若有三種：謂生空無分別慧（證悟空性的無分別智慧），法空無分別慧（證悟諸法空性的無分別智慧），俱空無分別慧（同時證悟二者空性的無分別智慧）。方便善巧有二種：謂迴向方便善巧（將功德迴向的方便善巧），拔濟方便善巧（救拔眾生的方便善巧）。愿有二種：謂求菩提愿（希求菩提的愿），利樂他愿（利益和快樂他人的愿）。力有二種：謂思擇力（思維抉擇的力量），修習力（修習的力量）。智有二種：謂受用法樂智（領受和使用佛法之樂的智慧），成熟有情智（成熟有情的智慧）。 此十性者（這十種波羅蜜多的自性）：施以無貪及彼所起三業為性（佈施以無貪以及由此產生的身、語、意三業為自性）。戒以受學菩薩戒時三業為性（持戒以受持菩薩戒時的身、語、意三業為自性）。忍以無瞋精進審慧及彼所起三業為性（忍辱以無嗔恨、精進、審慎的智慧以及由此產生的身、語、意三業為自性）。精進以勤及彼所起三業為性（精進以勤奮以及由此產生的身、語、意三業為自性）。靜慮但以等持為性（禪定只以等持為自性）。後五皆以擇法為性（後五種波羅蜜多都以選擇分辨佛法為自性），說是根本後得智故（因為這是根本智和後得智的緣故）。有義第八以欲勝解及信為性（有一種觀點認為，第八種波羅蜜多以強烈的意願、殊勝的理解和信心為自性），愿以此三為自性故（因為愿以此三者為自性）。此說自性若並眷屬一一皆以一切俱行功德為性（這裡所說的自性，如果連同眷屬一起，每一種都以一切共同生起的功德為自性）。 此十相者（這十種波羅蜜多的相）：要七最勝之所攝受方可建立波羅蜜多（必須被七種最殊勝的條件所攝受，才能建立波羅蜜多）。一安住最勝（安住的殊勝）：謂要安住菩薩種性（就是要安住于菩薩的種性）。二依止最勝（依止的殊勝）：謂要依止大菩提心（就是要依止廣大的菩提心）。三意樂最勝（意樂的殊勝）：謂要悲愍一切有情（就是要悲憫一切眾生）。四事業最勝（事業的殊勝）：謂要具行一切事勝（就是要具足修行一切殊勝的事業）。五巧便最勝（方便的殊勝）：謂要無相智所攝受（就是要被無相的智慧所攝受）。六回向最勝（迴向的殊勝）：謂要回向無上菩提（就是要回向于無上的菩提）。七清凈最勝（清凈的殊勝）：謂要不為二障間雜（就是要不被煩惱障和所知障所混雜）。若非此七所攝受者所行施等非到彼岸（如果不是被這七種殊勝條件所攝受，那麼所修行的佈施等就不能到達彼岸）。由斯施等十對波羅蜜多一一皆應四句分別（因此，佈施等十種波羅蜜多，每一種都應該用四句來分別）。 此但有十不增減者（這裡只有十種波羅蜜多，不多也不少），謂十地中對治十障證十真如無增減故（因為在十地中，要對治十種障礙，證悟十種真如，不多也不少）。複次前六不增減者（此外，前六種波羅蜜多不多也不少），為除六種相違障故（爲了去除六種相互違背的障礙的緣故），漸次修行諸佛法故（爲了逐漸修行諸佛之法的緣故），漸次成熟諸有情故（爲了逐漸成熟諸有情的緣故）。
【English Translation】 English version Suffering harm and resentment with patience, enduring suffering with peace, and discerning the Dharma with patience. There are three kinds of diligence: armored diligence, gathering wholesome qualities diligence, and benefiting and bringing joy diligence. There are three kinds of meditative concentration: abiding in meditative concentration, generating meditative concentration, and accomplishing tasks with meditative concentration. There are three kinds of prajna (wisdom): wisdom of emptiness of self without discrimination, wisdom of emptiness of phenomena without discrimination, and wisdom of emptiness of both without discrimination. There are two kinds of skillful means: skillful means of dedication and skillful means of deliverance. There are two kinds of vows: the vow to seek Bodhi (enlightenment) and the vow to benefit and bring joy to others. There are two kinds of power: the power of discernment and the power of cultivation. There are two kinds of wisdom: the wisdom of enjoying the Dharma and the wisdom of maturing sentient beings. The nature of these ten (Paramitas): Generosity (Dana) has the nature of non-greed and the three actions (body, speech, and mind) arising from it. Morality (Sila) has the nature of the three actions at the time of receiving and learning the Bodhisattva vows. Patience (Kshanti) has the nature of non-anger, diligence, discerning wisdom, and the three actions arising from them. Diligence (Virya) has the nature of effort and the three actions arising from it. Meditative concentration (Dhyana) has only the nature of Samadhi (concentration). The latter five all have the nature of Dharma selection, because they are said to be fundamental and subsequent wisdom. Some say that the eighth (Vow) has the nature of desire, superior understanding, and faith, because the vow has these three as its nature. This speaks of the nature; if including the retinue, each has the nature of all co-arising merits. The characteristics of these ten (Paramitas): Only when embraced by the seven supreme qualities can the Paramitas be established. First, the supreme quality of abiding: which means abiding in the Bodhisattva lineage. Second, the supreme quality of reliance: which means relying on the great Bodhicitta (mind of enlightenment). Third, the supreme quality of intention: which means having compassion for all sentient beings. Fourth, the supreme quality of activity: which means fully practicing all supreme activities. Fifth, the supreme quality of skillful means: which means being embraced by non-conceptual wisdom. Sixth, the supreme quality of dedication: which means dedicating to unsurpassed Bodhi. Seventh, the supreme quality of purity: which means not being mixed with the two obscurations (afflictive and cognitive). If not embraced by these seven, the practice of generosity and so on will not reach the other shore. Therefore, each of the ten pairs of Paramitas, such as generosity, should be distinguished by four statements. The reason there are only ten and no more or less is that in the ten Bhumis (grounds), they counteract the ten obscurations and realize the ten suchnesses without increase or decrease. Furthermore, the reason the first six do not increase or decrease is to remove the six kinds of conflicting obscurations, to gradually cultivate the Buddhadharma, and to gradually mature sentient beings.
。此如餘論廣說應知。又施等三增上生道。感大財體及眷屬故。精進等三決定勝道。能伏煩惱成熟有情及佛法故。諸菩薩道唯有此二。又前三種饒益有情。施彼資財不損惱彼。堪忍彼惱而饒益故。精進等三對治煩惱。雖未伏滅而能精勤修對治彼諸善加行永伏永滅諸煩惱故。又由施等不住涅槃。及由後三不住生死。為無住處涅槃資糧。由此前六不增不減。後唯四者為助前六令修滿足不增減故。方便善巧助施等三愿助精進力助靜慮智助般若令修滿故如解深密廣說應知。十次第者。謂由前前引發後後。及由後後持凈前前。又前前粗後後細故易難修習次第如是。釋總別名如餘處說。此十修者有五種修。一依止任持修。二依止作意修。三依止意樂修。四依止方便修。五依止自在修。依此五修修習十種波羅蜜多皆得圓滿。如集論等廣說其相。此十攝者。謂十一一皆攝一切波羅蜜多互相順故。依修前行而引後者。前攝於後必待前故後不攝前不待後故。依修後行持凈前者後攝於前持凈前故前不攝後非持凈故。若依純雜而修習者。展轉相望應作四句。此實有十而說六者應知後四第六所攝。開為十者第六唯攝無分別智後四皆是後得智攝緣世俗故。此十果者。有漏有四除離系果。無漏有四除異熟果。而有處說具五果者或互相資或二合說。十與
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：正如其他論述廣泛說明的那樣，應該瞭解這些內容。此外，佈施等前三種屬於增上生道，因為它們能感得巨大的財富和眷屬。精進等後三種屬於決定勝道，因為它們能夠調伏煩惱，成熟有情，以及佛法。諸菩薩道唯有這兩種（增上生道和決定勝道）。 此外，前三種（佈施、持戒、忍辱）饒益有情，因為它們施予他人資財而不損害他們，堪能忍受他人的惱害而饒益他們。精進等後三種（精進、靜慮、般若）對治煩惱，雖然尚未完全伏滅煩惱，但能夠精勤地修習對治煩惱的善妙加行，從而永遠地伏滅諸煩惱。此外，由於佈施等（前三種）不住于涅槃，以及由於後三種（精進、靜慮、般若）不住于生死，所以它們是無住處涅槃的資糧。由此，前六種（佈施、持戒、忍辱、精進、靜慮、般若）不增不減。後四種（方便、愿、力、智）只是爲了幫助前六種，使修習圓滿，所以不增減。方便善巧幫助佈施等前三種，愿幫助精進，力幫助靜慮，智幫助般若，使修習圓滿，正如《解深密經》中廣泛說明的那樣，應該瞭解。 這十種次第是說，由前前引發後後，以及由後後持凈前前。又因為前前粗略，後後精細，所以修習的難易次第是這樣的。解釋總名和別名，正如其他地方所說。這十種修習有五種修：一、依止任持修；二、依止作意修；三、依止意樂修；四、依止方便修；五、依止自在修。依靠這五種修習，修習十種波羅蜜多（Pāramitā，到彼岸），都能得到圓滿。正如《集論》等廣泛說明的那樣，它們的相狀是這樣的。這十種攝持是說，十一種一一都攝持一切波羅蜜多，因為它們互相順應。依靠修習前行而引發後者，前攝於後，必定依賴於前；後不攝前，不依賴於後。依靠修習後行而持凈前者，後攝於前，持凈前故；前不攝後，並非持凈故。如果依靠純雜而修習，那麼展轉相望，應該作四句。 實際上有十種（波羅蜜多），而只說六種（波羅蜜多），應該知道後四種被第六種（般若）所攝。分開為十種，是因為第六種（般若）只攝持無分別智，後四種（方便、愿、力、智）都是後得智所攝，因為它們緣於世俗。這十種（波羅蜜多）的果報，有漏的有四種，除了離系果。無漏的有四種，除了異熟果。而有處說具有五種果報，或者是因為互相資助，或者是因為兩種合起來說。十種（波羅蜜多）與...
【English Translation】 English version: As explained extensively in other treatises, these should be understood. Furthermore, the first three, generosity (Dāna), etc., belong to the path of higher rebirth (Abhyudaya-mārga), because they cause the attainment of great wealth and retinue. The latter three, diligence (Vīrya), etc., belong to the path of definite goodness (Niḥsaraṇa-mārga), because they can subdue afflictions (Kleśa), mature sentient beings, and the Dharma. The paths of Bodhisattvas consist only of these two (the path of higher rebirth and the path of definite goodness). Moreover, the first three (generosity, morality, patience) benefit sentient beings, because they give them resources without harming them, and they are able to endure their harm while benefiting them. The latter three (diligence, concentration, wisdom) counteract afflictions. Although they have not yet completely subdued afflictions, they can diligently cultivate virtuous practices that counteract afflictions, thereby permanently subduing and eliminating all afflictions. Furthermore, because of generosity (Dāna), etc. (the first three), one does not abide in Nirvāṇa, and because of the latter three (diligence, concentration, wisdom), one does not abide in Saṃsāra. Therefore, they are the resources for non-abiding Nirvāṇa. Hence, the first six (generosity, morality, patience, diligence, concentration, wisdom) do not increase or decrease. The latter four (skillful means, aspiration, strength, knowledge) only help the first six to complete their cultivation, so they do not increase or decrease. Skillful means (Upāya) helps the first three, generosity (Dāna), etc., aspiration (Praṇidhāna) helps diligence (Vīrya), strength (Bala) helps concentration (Dhyāna), and knowledge (Jñāna) helps wisdom (Prajñā), so that cultivation is completed, as explained extensively in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, which should be understood. These ten sequences mean that the former ones cause the latter ones, and the latter ones uphold and purify the former ones. Also, because the former ones are coarse and the latter ones are subtle, the order of ease and difficulty in cultivation is like this. The explanation of the general and specific names is as said elsewhere. These ten cultivations have five types of cultivation: 1. cultivation relying on support and maintenance; 2. cultivation relying on attention; 3. cultivation relying on intention; 4. cultivation relying on means; 5. cultivation relying on freedom. Relying on these five cultivations, the cultivation of the ten Pāramitās (perfections) can all be perfected. As explained extensively in the Compendium of Topics (Abhidharmasamuccaya), etc., their characteristics are like this. These ten comprehensions mean that each of the eleven comprehends all the Pāramitās, because they are mutually compliant. Relying on the cultivation of the preliminary practices to induce the latter ones, the former comprehends the latter, necessarily relying on the former; the latter does not comprehend the former, not relying on the latter. Relying on the cultivation of the pure and mixed, then looking at each other in turn, four sentences should be made. In reality, there are ten (Pāramitās), but only six (Pāramitās) are mentioned. It should be known that the latter four are comprehended by the sixth (wisdom). Separating them into ten is because the sixth (wisdom) only comprehends non-discriminating wisdom, and the latter four (skillful means, aspiration, strength, knowledge) are all comprehended by subsequent wisdom, because they are related to the mundane. The results of these ten (Pāramitās), the contaminated ones have four, except for the result of separation. The uncontaminated ones have four, except for the result of maturation. And in some places it is said that there are five results, either because they help each other, or because two are combined. The ten (Pāramitās) and...
三學互相攝者。戒學有三。一律儀戒。謂正遠離所應離法。二攝善法戒。謂正修證應修證法。三饒益有情戒。謂正利樂一切有情。此與二乘有共不共甚深廣大如餘處說。定學有四。一大乘光明定。謂此能發照了大乘理教行果智光明故。二集福王定。謂此自在集無邊福如王勢力無等雙故。三賢守定。謂此能守世出世間賢善法故。四健行定。謂佛菩薩大健有情之所行故。此四所緣對治堪能引發作業如餘處說。慧學有三。一加行無分別慧。二根本無分別慧。三後得無分別慧。此三自性所依因緣所緣行等如餘處說。如是三慧初二位中種具有三。現唯加行。于通達位現二種三。見道位中無加行故。于修習位七地已前若種若現俱通三種。八地以去現二種三。無功用道違加行故。所有進趣皆用後得無漏觀中任運起故。究竟位中現種俱二。加行現種俱已捨故。若自性攝戒唯攝戒。定攝靜慮。慧攝後五。若並助伴皆具相攝。若隨用攝戒攝前三。資糧自體眷屬性故。定攝靜慮。慧攝後五。精進三攝。遍策三故。若隨顯攝戒攝前四。前三如前及守護故。定攝靜慮。慧攝後五。此十位者五位皆具。修習位中其相最顯。然初二位頓悟菩薩種通二種現唯有漏。漸悟菩薩若種若現俱通二種。已得生空無漏觀故。通達位中種通二種現唯無漏。于修習位七
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 三學互相包含的情況如下：戒學包含三種：一、律儀戒，指正確地遠離應該遠離的惡法；二、攝善法戒，指正確地修習和證得應該修習和證得的善法；三、饒益有情戒，指正確地利益和安樂一切有情眾生。(此戒與聲聞乘和緣覺乘[二乘]的戒律有共同之處，也有不共同之處，其深奧和廣大之處如其他地方所說。) 定學包含四種：一、大乘光明定，指此禪定能夠引發照亮大乘的理、教、行、果的智慧光明；二、集福王定，指此禪定能夠自在地積聚無邊的福德，如國王的勢力一樣無比強大；三、賢守定，指此禪定能夠守護世間和出世間的賢善之法；四、健行定，指這是佛和菩薩等具有大精進力的有情所修行的禪定。(這四種禪定的所緣、對治、堪能和引發的作用如其他地方所說。) 慧學包含三種：一、加行無分別慧，二、根本無分別慧，三、後得無分別慧。(這三種智慧的自性、所依、因緣、所緣和行相等如其他地方所說。) 如此，這三種智慧在最初的兩個階段中，種子位具有三種，現行位只有加行無分別慧。在通達位中，現行位具有兩種三種智慧，因為見道位中沒有加行無分別慧。在修習位中，七地菩薩之前，種子位和現行位都通達三種智慧。八地菩薩之後，現行位具有兩種三種智慧，因為無功用道違背加行無分別慧。所有的進步都使用後得無漏觀中任運生起的智慧。在究竟位中，現行位和種子位都具有兩種智慧，因為加行無分別慧的現行位和種子位都已經捨棄。 如果從自性上來說，戒只包含戒，定只包含靜慮[禪定]，慧只包含後五蘊。如果加上助伴，則都互相包含。如果從作用上來說，戒包含前三種，因為是資糧、自體和眷屬的屬性。定只包含靜慮[禪定]，慧只包含後五蘊。精進包含三種，因為普遍策勵三種。如果從顯現上來說，戒包含前四種，前三種如前所述，加上守護。定只包含靜慮[禪定]，慧只包含後五蘊。這十個位次中，五個位次都具備。在修習位中，這種相貌最明顯。然而，最初的兩個位次中，頓悟的菩薩種子位通達兩種，現行位只有有漏。漸悟的菩薩種子位和現行位都通達兩種，因為已經獲得了生空無漏觀。通達位中，種子位通達兩種，現行位只有無漏。在修習位中，七
【English Translation】 English version The three learnings interpenetrate each other as follows: The learning of discipline (戒學) includes three aspects: First, the discipline of moral conduct (律儀戒), which means correctly abstaining from evil dharmas that should be avoided. Second, the discipline of gathering good dharmas (攝善法戒), which means correctly cultivating and realizing good dharmas that should be cultivated and realized. Third, the discipline of benefiting sentient beings (饒益有情戒), which means correctly benefiting and bringing happiness to all sentient beings. (This discipline has commonalities and differences with the disciplines of the Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna [Two Vehicles], and its profoundness and vastness are as described elsewhere.) The learning of concentration (定學) includes four aspects: First, the Great Vehicle's Light Concentration (大乘光明定), which means that this samādhi can generate the light of wisdom that illuminates the principles, teachings, practices, and fruits of the Great Vehicle. Second, the King of Accumulating Blessings Concentration (集福王定), which means that this samādhi can freely accumulate boundless merits, as powerful as the strength of a king. Third, the Virtuous Guardian Concentration (賢守定), which means that this samādhi can guard virtuous dharmas of both the mundane and supramundane realms. Fourth, the Vigorous Practice Concentration (健行定), which means that this is the samādhi practiced by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, beings with great diligence. (The objects, antidotes, capabilities, and effects of these four samādhis are as described elsewhere.) The learning of wisdom (慧學) includes three aspects: First, the wisdom of preliminary practice without discrimination (加行無分別慧). Second, the fundamental wisdom without discrimination (根本無分別慧). Third, the subsequent wisdom without discrimination (後得無分別慧). (The nature, basis, conditions, objects, and practices of these three wisdoms are as described elsewhere.) Thus, in the first two stages of these three wisdoms, the seed stage possesses all three, while the manifest stage only has the wisdom of preliminary practice. In the stage of penetration, the manifest stage possesses two of the three wisdoms, because there is no wisdom of preliminary practice in the stage of seeing the path. In the stage of cultivation, before the seventh bhūmi (地, stage) of a Bodhisattva, both the seed stage and the manifest stage penetrate all three wisdoms. After the eighth bhūmi, the manifest stage possesses two of the three wisdoms, because the path of no effort contradicts the wisdom of preliminary practice. All progress is made using the wisdom that arises effortlessly in the subsequent uncontaminated observation. In the ultimate stage, both the manifest stage and the seed stage possess two wisdoms, because the manifest stage and seed stage of the wisdom of preliminary practice have already been abandoned. If considered from its nature, discipline only includes discipline, concentration only includes dhyāna (靜慮, meditation), and wisdom only includes the latter five aggregates. If assistants are included, then they all interpenetrate each other. If considered from its function, discipline includes the first three, because they are the attributes of resources, self, and retinue. Concentration only includes dhyāna, and wisdom only includes the latter five aggregates. Diligence includes all three, because it universally encourages all three. If considered from its manifestation, discipline includes the first four, the first three as mentioned before, plus protection. Concentration only includes dhyāna, and wisdom only includes the latter five aggregates. Among these ten stages, five stages possess all of them. In the stage of cultivation, this aspect is most evident. However, in the first two stages, the seed stage of a Bodhisattva who attains enlightenment suddenly penetrates two, while the manifest stage only has contaminated ones. The seed stage and manifest stage of a Bodhisattva who attains enlightenment gradually both penetrate two, because they have already obtained the uncontaminated observation of emptiness of self. In the stage of penetration, the seed stage penetrates two, while the manifest stage only has uncontaminated ones. In the stage of cultivation, seven
地已前種現俱通有漏無漏。八地以去種通二種現唯無漏。究竟位中若現若種俱唯無漏。此十因位有三種名。一名遠波羅蜜多。謂初無數劫。爾時施等勢力尚微被煩惱伏未能伏彼。由斯煩惱不覺現行。二名近波羅蜜多。謂第二無數劫。爾時施等勢力漸增非煩惱伏而能伏彼。由斯煩惱故意方行。三名大波羅蜜多。謂第三無數劫。爾時施等勢力轉增能畢竟伏一切煩惱。由斯煩惱永不現行。猶有所知微細現種及煩惱種故未究竟。此十義類差別無邊。恐厭繁文略示綱要。十於十地雖實皆修而隨相增地地修一。雖十地行有無量門而皆攝在十到彼岸。十重障者。一異生性障。謂二障中分別起者依彼種立異生性故。二乘見道現在前時唯斷一種名得聖性。菩薩見道現在前時具斷二種名得聖性。二真見道現在前時彼二障種必不成就。猶明與闇定不俱生。如秤兩頭低昂時等。諸相違法理必應然。是故二性無俱成失。無間道時已無惑種何用復起解脫道為。斷惑證滅期心別故。為捨彼品粗重性故。無間道時雖無惑種而未捨彼無堪任性。為捨此故起解脫道。及證此品擇滅無為。雖見道生亦斷惡趣諸業果等而今且說能起煩惱是根本故。由斯初地說斷二愚及彼粗重。一執著我法愚即是此中異生性障。二惡趣雜染愚即是惡趣諸業果等。應知愚品總說為愚。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 地前（指初地之前）的修行，種子（指潛在的業力）和現行（指已經發生的行為）都通於有漏（指仍然受煩惱影響）和無漏（指不受煩惱影響）。八地之後，種子通於兩種（有漏和無漏），但現行唯有無漏。在究竟位（指佛果），無論是現行還是種子，都唯有無漏。 這十個因位（指菩薩修行的十個階段）有三種名稱。第一種名為遠波羅蜜多（指遙遠的彼岸，paramita），指的是第一個無數劫。那時，佈施等的勢力還很微弱，被煩惱所制伏，不能制伏煩惱。因此，煩惱不自覺地現行。第二種名為近波羅蜜多（指接近的彼岸），指的是第二個無數劫。那時，佈施等的勢力逐漸增強，不是被煩惱所制伏，而是能夠制伏煩惱。因此，煩惱故意才現行。第三種名為**羅蜜多（原文有誤，應為「大波羅蜜多」，指偉大的彼岸），指的是第三個無數劫。那時，佈施等的勢力更加增強，能夠徹底制伏一切煩惱。因此，煩惱永遠不再現行。但因為還有所知障的微細現行和種子，以及煩惱的種子，所以還沒有達到究竟。 這十種義類（指十地菩薩的修行）的差別無邊無際。恐怕厭煩繁瑣的文字，所以只簡要地揭示其綱要。十地菩薩雖然實際上都在修習十波羅蜜多，但隨著階段的增長，每一地側重修習一種。雖然十地菩薩的修行有無量法門，但都包含在十到彼岸（指十波羅蜜多）之中。 十重障（指修道過程中遇到的十種障礙）：第一是異生性障（指凡夫的障礙）。指的是二障（煩惱障和所知障）中分別產生的，依據它們的種子而建立異生性。二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）見道（指證悟真理的開始）現在前時，只斷除一種（指煩惱障），名為得到聖性。菩薩見道現在前時，具足斷除兩種（煩惱障和所知障），名為得到聖性。第二是真見道現在前時，那兩種障礙的種子必定不會成就。就像光明與黑暗必定不會同時存在一樣。如同天平的兩端，一端低則另一端必定高，諸相違背的法理必定是這樣。所以，兩種性質不會同時成就，沒有同時成就的過失。無間道（指斷除煩惱的直接手段）時已經沒有惑種（指煩惱的種子），為什麼還要再起解脫道（指從煩惱中解脫的道路）呢？因為斷除煩惱和證得寂滅的期望不同。爲了捨棄那品粗重的性質。無間道時雖然沒有惑種，但還沒有捨棄那沒有堪能任用的性質。爲了捨棄這個，所以生起解脫道，以及證得此品的擇滅無為（指通過智慧選擇而證得的涅槃）。 雖然見道生起時也斷除了惡趣的諸業果等，但現在且只說能生起煩惱的，因為這是根本。因此，初地說斷除了兩種愚癡以及它們的粗重。一是執著我法愚（執著自我和萬法為實有的愚癡），就是此中的異生性障。二是惡趣雜染愚（導致墮入惡趣的各種染污），就是惡趣的諸業果等。應當知道，愚癡的品類總稱為愚癡。
【English Translation】 English version Before the first Bhumi (stage), both seeds (potential karmic forces) and manifestations (actualized actions) are common to both contaminated (with afflictions) and uncontaminated (without afflictions). From the eighth Bhumi onwards, seeds are common to both types, but manifestations are only uncontaminated. In the ultimate state (Buddhahood), both manifestations and seeds are only uncontaminated. These ten causal stages (referring to the ten stages of Bodhisattva practice) have three names. The first is called distant Paramita (referring to the distant shore), referring to the first countless kalpas (aeons). At that time, the power of generosity, etc., is still weak, being subdued by afflictions and unable to subdue them. Therefore, afflictions manifest unconsciously. The second is called near Paramita (referring to the near shore), referring to the second countless kalpas. At that time, the power of generosity, etc., gradually increases, not being subdued by afflictions, but able to subdue them. Therefore, afflictions manifest intentionally. The third is called **Paramita (the original text is incorrect, it should be 'Great Paramita', referring to the great shore), referring to the third countless kalpas. At that time, the power of generosity, etc., increases even more, being able to completely subdue all afflictions. Therefore, afflictions never manifest again. However, because there are still subtle manifestations and seeds of the cognitive obscurations, as well as the seeds of afflictions, it has not yet reached the ultimate state. The differences between these ten categories of meanings (referring to the practice of the ten Bhumis) are boundless. Fearing tediousness, only a brief outline is given. Although Bodhisattvas in the ten Bhumis actually practice all ten Paramitas, they emphasize the practice of one in each Bhumi as the stage progresses. Although the practice of the ten Bhumis has countless methods, they are all contained within the ten perfections (referring to the ten Paramitas). The ten heavy obstructions: The first is the nature of being an ordinary being (referring to the obstruction of a common person). It refers to those that arise separately from the two obscurations (afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations), and the nature of being an ordinary being is established based on their seeds. When the path of seeing (the beginning of realizing the truth) of the two vehicles (Sravaka and Pratyekabuddha) is present, only one type (referring to afflictive obscurations) is severed, and it is called attaining the nature of a sage. When the path of seeing of a Bodhisattva is present, both types (afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations) are severed, and it is called attaining the nature of a sage. The second is that when the true path of seeing is present, the seeds of those two obscurations will definitely not be accomplished. Just as light and darkness definitely do not arise together. Like the two ends of a scale, when one end is low, the other end must be high. The principles of mutually contradictory phenomena must be like this. Therefore, the two natures will not be accomplished simultaneously, and there is no fault of simultaneous accomplishment. When there are no more seeds of delusion during the path of no gap (the direct means of severing afflictions), why is it necessary to arise the path of liberation (the path of liberation from afflictions) again? Because the expectations of severing afflictions and attaining cessation are different. It is to abandon the coarse and heavy nature of that category. Although there are no more seeds of delusion during the path of no gap, the nature of not being able to be used has not yet been abandoned. To abandon this, the path of liberation arises, and the cessation of that category is attained through discrimination (referring to Nirvana attained through wise choice). Although the fruits of evil destinies are also severed when the path of seeing arises, we will only talk about what can give rise to afflictions for now, because this is the root. Therefore, it is said that the first Bhumi severs two types of ignorance and their coarseness. The first is the ignorance of attachment to self and phenomena (the ignorance of clinging to self and all phenomena as real), which is the nature of being an ordinary being in this context. The second is the ignorance of defilement in evil destinies (various defilements that lead to falling into evil destinies), which is the fruits of evil destinies. It should be known that the categories of ignorance are collectively called ignorance.
後準此釋。或彼唯說利鈍障品俱起二愚。彼粗重言顯彼二種。或二所起無堪任性。如入二定說斷苦根所斷苦根雖非現種而名粗重。此亦應然。後粗重言例此應釋。雖初地所斷實通二障。而異生性障意取所知。說十無明非染污故。無明即是十障品愚。二乘亦能斷煩惱障。彼是共故非此所說。又十無明不染污者唯依十地修所斷說。雖此位中亦伏煩惱斷彼粗重而非正意。不斷隨眠故此不說。理實初地修道位中亦斷俱生所知一分。然今且說最初斷者後九地斷準此應知。住滿地中時既淹久。理應進斷所應斷障。不爾三時道應無別。故說菩薩得現觀已復於十地修道位中唯修永滅所知障道留煩惱障助愿受生非如二乘速趣圓寂。故修道位不斷煩惱將成佛時方頓斷故。二邪行障謂所知障中俱生一分及彼所起誤犯三業。彼障二地極凈尸羅。入二地時便能永斷。由斯二地說斷二愚及彼粗重。一微細誤犯愚。即是此中俱生一分。二種種業趣愚。即彼所起誤犯三業。或唯起業不了業愚。三闇鈍障。謂所知障中俱生一分令所聞思修法忘失。彼障三地勝定總持及彼所發殊勝三慧。入三地時便能永斷。由斯三地說斷二愚及彼粗重。一欲貪愚。即是此中能障勝定及修慧者。彼昔多與欲貪俱故名欲貪愚。今得勝定及修所成彼既永斷欲貪隨伏。此無始來依彼轉
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 後面的『粗重』一詞也應如此解釋。或者，就像進入二定（dhyana，禪定）時所說的斷除苦根，雖然所斷的苦根不是現行的，也被稱為『粗重』，這裡也應如此理解。後面的『粗重』一詞也應照此解釋。 雖然初地（prthivi，歡喜地）所斷實際上通於二障（煩惱障和所知障），但異生性障（凡夫的障礙）指的是所知障，因為十無明（dasa-avidya，十種無明）不是染污性的。無明就是十障品愚（與十種障礙相應的愚癡）。二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）也能斷除煩惱障，但他們是共通的，所以這裡不討論。而且，十無明不染污是指依十地（dasa-bhumi，十地）修所斷說的。雖然在這個階段也降伏煩惱，斷除它們的粗重，但這不是主要目的，因為沒有斷除隨眠（anusaya，煩惱的潛在勢力），所以這裡不討論。 實際上，初地修道位中也斷除俱生（sahaja，與生俱來的）所知障的一部分。但現在只說最初斷除的，後九地（nava-bhumi，其餘九地）的斷除可以類推得知。住在滿地（圓滿的地）的時間既然很久，理應進一步斷除所應斷的障礙。否則，三個時期的道（見道、修道、無學道）就沒有區別了。所以說菩薩（bodhisattva，菩薩）得到現觀（abhisaṃbodhi，現觀）後，又在十地修道位中只修永滅所知障的道，留下煩惱障來幫助發願受生，不像二乘那樣迅速趨向圓寂。因此，修道位不斷除煩惱，將要成佛時才頓斷。 二、邪行障（micra-carita-avarana，邪行障）是指所知障中俱生的一部分，以及由此產生的錯誤觸犯身、口、意三業（tri-karman，三業）。這個障礙能障礙二地（vimala-bhumi，離垢地）的極凈尸羅（sila，戒律）。進入二地時，就能永遠斷除。因此，二地說斷除二愚（dvi-moha，二種愚癡）以及它們的粗重。一、微細誤犯愚（suksma-apatti-moha，微細誤犯愚），就是指這裡所說的俱生的一部分。二、種種業趣愚（nana-karma-gati-moha，種種業趣愚），就是指由此產生的錯誤觸犯三業，或者只是起業（karma，業）而不瞭解業的愚癡。 三、闇鈍障（tama-manda-avarana，闇鈍障）是指所知障中俱生的一部分，它使人忘失所聞、所思、所修的法。這個障礙能障礙三地（prabha-kari-bhumi，發光地）的勝定（adhisthana-samadhi，殊勝禪定）、總持（dharani，總持）以及由此產生的殊勝三慧（tri-prajna，三種智慧）。進入三地時，就能永遠斷除。因此，三地說斷除二愚以及它們的粗重。一、欲貪愚（kama-raga-moha，欲貪愚），就是指這裡所說的能障礙勝定和修慧的。過去它經常與欲貪（kama-raga，欲貪）一起出現，所以稱為欲貪愚。現在得到勝定和修所成的智慧，它既然永遠斷除，欲貪也隨之降伏。這種欲貪從無始以來依附於它而轉。
【English Translation】 English version: The subsequent term 'coarse' should be interpreted in the same way. Alternatively, just as in entering the two concentrations (dhyana, meditation), it is said to sever the root of suffering, although the root of suffering severed is not manifest, it is called 'coarse'; it should be understood similarly here. The subsequent term 'coarse' should be explained accordingly. Although what is severed in the first ground (prthivi, Joyful Ground) actually pertains to both obscurations (afflictive obscuration and cognitive obscuration), the obscuration of being an ordinary being (the obstacle of a common person) refers to cognitive obscuration, because the ten ignorances (dasa-avidya, ten kinds of ignorance) are not defiled. Ignorance is the foolishness associated with the ten categories of obstacles. The Two Vehicles (Sravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana) can also sever the afflictive obscuration, but they are common, so they are not discussed here. Moreover, the non-defiled nature of the ten ignorances is spoken of in relation to what is severed through cultivation on the ten grounds (dasa-bhumi, ten grounds). Although afflictions are also subdued at this stage, and their coarseness is severed, this is not the main intention, because the latent tendencies (anusaya, latent tendencies of afflictions) are not severed, so it is not discussed here. In reality, a portion of the innate (sahaja, inborn) cognitive obscuration is also severed in the stage of cultivation on the first ground. However, we are now only speaking of what is severed initially; the severance on the subsequent nine grounds (nava-bhumi, the remaining nine grounds) can be understood by analogy. Since the time spent dwelling on the full ground (perfected ground) is long, it is reasonable to further sever the obstacles that should be severed. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between the paths of the three times (path of seeing, path of cultivation, path of no more learning). Therefore, it is said that after a Bodhisattva (bodhisattva, Bodhisattva) attains direct realization (abhisaṃbodhi, direct realization), they only cultivate the path of permanently eliminating cognitive obscuration in the stage of cultivation on the ten grounds, leaving the afflictive obscuration to help with vows to take rebirth, unlike the Two Vehicles who quickly strive for nirvana. Therefore, the afflictions are not severed in the stage of cultivation, and they are severed all at once when becoming a Buddha. Secondly, the obscuration of wrong conduct (micra-carita-avarana, obscuration of wrong conduct) refers to a portion of the innate cognitive obscuration, and the wrongdoings of body, speech, and mind (tri-karman, three actions) arising from it. This obstacle can hinder the extremely pure morality (sila, morality) of the second ground (vimala-bhumi, stainless ground). Upon entering the second ground, one can permanently sever it. Therefore, the second ground speaks of severing the two foolishnesses (dvi-moha, two kinds of foolishness) and their coarseness. First, the foolishness of subtle wrongdoings (suksma-apatti-moha, foolishness of subtle wrongdoings) refers to the innate portion mentioned here. Second, the foolishness of various karmic tendencies (nana-karma-gati-moha, foolishness of various karmic tendencies) refers to the wrongdoings of body, speech, and mind arising from it, or simply engaging in actions (karma, action) without understanding the foolishness of actions. Thirdly, the obscuration of darkness and dullness (tama-manda-avarana, obscuration of darkness and dullness) refers to a portion of the innate cognitive obscuration that causes one to forget the teachings that have been heard, contemplated, and cultivated. This obstacle can hinder the superior concentration (adhisthana-samadhi, superior concentration), retention (dharani, retention), and the superior three wisdoms (tri-prajna, three wisdoms) arising from it on the third ground (prabha-kari-bhumi, luminous ground). Upon entering the third ground, one can permanently sever it. Therefore, the third ground speaks of severing the two foolishnesses and their coarseness. First, the foolishness of desire and attachment (kama-raga-moha, foolishness of desire and attachment) refers to what hinders superior concentration and the wisdom of cultivation mentioned here. In the past, it often arose together with desire and attachment (kama-raga, desire and attachment), so it is called the foolishness of desire and attachment. Now that superior concentration and the wisdom arising from cultivation have been attained, and it has been permanently severed, desire and attachment are also subdued accordingly. This desire and attachment has relied on it and turned since beginningless time.
故。二圓滿聞持陀羅尼愚。即是此中能障總持聞思慧者。四微細煩惱現行障。謂所知障中俱生一分第六識俱身見等攝。最下品故不作意緣故遠隨現行故說名微細。彼障四地菩提分法。入四地時便能永斷。彼昔多與第六識中任運而生執我見等同體起故說煩惱名。今四地中既得無漏菩提分法彼便永滅。此我見等亦永不行。初二三地行施戒修相同世間。四地修得菩提分法方名出世。故能永害二身見等。寧知此與第六識俱。第七識俱執我見等與無漏道性相違故。八地以去方永不行七地已來猶得現起與餘煩惱為依持故。此粗彼細伏有前後。故此但與第六相應身見等言亦攝無始所知障攝定愛法愛。彼定法愛三地尚增。入四地時方能永斷。菩提分法特違彼故。由斯四地說斷二愚及彼粗重。一等至愛愚。即是此中定愛俱者。二法愛愚。即是此中法愛俱者。所知障攝二愚斷故煩惱二愛亦永不行。五于下乘般涅槃障。謂所知障中俱生一分令厭生死樂趣涅槃同下二乘厭苦欣滅。彼障五地無差別道。入五地時便能永斷。由斯五地說斷二愚及彼粗重。一純作意背生死愚。即是此中厭生死者。二純作意向涅槃愚。即是此中樂涅槃者。六粗相現行障。謂所知障中俱生一分執有染凈粗相現行。彼障六地無染凈道。入六地時便能永斷。由斯六地說斷二愚及
彼粗重。一現觀察行流轉愚。即是此中執有染者。諸行流轉染分攝故二相多現行愚。即是此中執有凈者。取凈相故相觀多行未能多時住無相觀。七細相現行障。謂所知障中俱生一分執有生滅細相現行。彼障七地妙無相道。入七地時便能永斷。由斯七地說斷二愚及彼粗重。一細相現行愚。即是此中執有生者。猶取流轉細生相故。二純作意求無相愚。即是此中執有滅者。尚取還滅細滅相故。純于無相作意勤求未能空中起有勝行。八無相中作加行障。謂所知障中俱生一分令無相觀不任運起。前之五地有相觀多無相觀少。于第六地有相觀少無相觀多。第七地中純無相觀。雖恒相續而有加行。由無相中有加行故未能任運現相及土。如是加行障八地中無功用道。故若得入第八地時便能永斷。彼永斷故得二自在。由斯八地說斷二愚及彼粗重。一于無相作功用愚。二于相自在愚。令于相中不自在故。此亦攝土相一分故。八地以上純無漏道任運起故三界煩惱永不現行。第七識中細所知障猶可現起。生空智果不違彼故。九利他中不欲行障。謂所知障中俱生一分令于利樂有情事中不欲勤行樂修己利。彼障九地四無閡解。入九地時便能永斷。由斯九地說斷二愚及彼粗重。一于無量所說法無量名句字後後慧辯陀羅尼自在愚。于無量所說法陀羅尼自
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 彼粗重（粗大的煩惱）。一、現觀察行流轉愚（因觀察現行而產生的流轉愚昧）。即是此中執有染者（指那些執著于染污的人）。諸行流轉染分攝故（因為諸行流轉都包含在染污的範疇內）。二、相多現行愚（因外相過多顯現而產生的愚昧）。即是此中執有凈者（指那些執著于清凈的人）。取凈相故（因為他們執取清凈的表相）。相觀多行未能多時住無相觀（對外相的觀察過多，因此不能長時間安住于無相的觀照中）。 七、細相現行障（細微之相顯現的障礙）。謂所知障中俱生一分執有生滅細相現行（指所知障中與生俱來的一部分，執著于生滅的細微之相顯現）。彼障七地妙無相道（這種障礙阻礙了七地菩薩所證悟的微妙無相之道）。入七地時便能永斷（進入七地時，便能永遠斷除這種障礙）。由斯七地說斷二愚及彼粗重（因此，七地說斷除了兩種愚昧以及它們粗大的煩惱）。一、細相現行愚（細微之相顯現的愚昧）。即是此中執有生者（指那些執著于生的人）。猶取流轉細生相故（因為他們仍然執取流轉的細微生相）。二、純作意求無相愚（純粹依靠人為努力尋求無相的愚昧）。即是此中執有滅者（指那些執著于滅的人）。尚取還滅細滅相故（因為他們仍然執取還滅的細微滅相）。純于無相作意勤求未能空中起有勝行（僅僅在無相上人為努力勤奮尋求，不能在空性中生起殊勝的妙用）。 八、無相中作加行障（在無相中人為努力的障礙）。謂所知障中俱生一分令無相觀不任運起（指所知障中與生俱來的一部分，使得無相觀不能自然而然地生起）。前之五地有相觀多無相觀少（之前的五地，有相觀多，無相觀少）。于第六地有相觀少無相觀多（在第六地，有相觀少，無相觀多）。第七地中純無相觀（第七地中，純粹是無相觀）。雖恒相續而有加行（雖然恒常相續，但仍然有人為的努力）。由無相中有加行故未能任運現相及土（因為在無相中有人為的努力，所以不能自然而然地顯現外相和凈土）。如是加行障八地中無功用道（這種人為努力的障礙阻礙了八地菩薩的無功用道）。故若得入第八地時便能永斷（所以如果能夠進入第八地，便能永遠斷除這種障礙）。彼永斷故得二自在（因為永遠斷除了這種障礙，所以獲得兩種自在）。由斯八地說斷二愚及彼粗重（因此，八地說斷除了兩種愚昧以及它們粗大的煩惱）。一、于無相作功用愚（在無相中人為努力的愚昧）。二、于相自在愚（對外相不自在的愚昧）。令于相中不自在故（因為對外相不自在）。此亦攝土相一分故（這也包含凈土之相的一部分）。八地以上純無漏道任運起故三界煩惱永不現行（八地以上，純粹是無漏道自然而然地生起，所以三界的煩惱永遠不再顯現）。第七識中細所知障猶可現起（在第七識中，細微的所知障仍然可能顯現）。生空智果不違彼故（因為生空智的果位並不違背它）。 九、利他中不欲行障（在利益他人方面不願行動的障礙）。謂所知障中俱生一分令于利樂有情事中不欲勤行樂修己利（指所知障中與生俱來的一部分，使得在利益眾生的事情中不願勤奮行動，而喜歡修習自己的利益）。彼障九地四無閡解（這種障礙阻礙了九地菩薩的四無礙解）。入九地時便能永斷（進入九地時，便能永遠斷除這種障礙）。由斯九地說斷二愚及彼粗重（因此，九地說斷除了兩種愚昧以及它們粗大的煩惱）。一、于無量所說法無量名句字後後慧辯陀羅尼自在愚（對於無量所說法，無量名句字的後後智慧、辯才和陀羅尼不自在的愚昧）。于無量所說法陀羅尼自在（對於無量所說法的陀羅尼自在）。
【English Translation】 English version They are coarse and heavy. 1. The ignorance of observing the flow of actions (due to observing present actions). This refers to those who are attached to defilement. Because the flow of actions is included in the category of defilement. 2. The ignorance of many manifested appearances (due to the manifestation of too many external appearances). This refers to those who are attached to purity. Because they grasp the appearance of purity. Observing appearances too much prevents one from dwelling in the contemplation of no-appearance for a long time. 7. The obstacle of subtle appearances manifesting. This refers to a portion of the co-emergent ignorance within the knowledge obscurations, which clings to the subtle appearances of arising and ceasing. This obstructs the wonderful path of no-appearance of the seventh Bhumi (stage). Upon entering the seventh Bhumi, this can be permanently severed. Therefore, the seventh Bhumi is said to sever two types of ignorance and their coarse heaviness. 1. The ignorance of subtle appearances manifesting. This refers to those who are attached to arising. Because they still grasp the subtle appearance of arising in the flow of actions. 2. The ignorance of purely intentionally seeking no-appearance. This refers to those who are attached to cessation. Because they still grasp the subtle appearance of cessation in reversion. Purely and intentionally striving for no-appearance prevents one from arising superior actions from emptiness. 8. The obstacle of applying effort in no-appearance. This refers to a portion of the co-emergent ignorance within the knowledge obscurations, which prevents the effortless arising of no-appearance contemplation. In the previous five Bhumis, appearance contemplation is more, and no-appearance contemplation is less. In the sixth Bhumi, appearance contemplation is less, and no-appearance contemplation is more. In the seventh Bhumi, there is purely no-appearance contemplation. Although it is constantly continuous, there is still effort applied. Because there is effort in no-appearance, one cannot effortlessly manifest appearances and pure lands. This obstacle of effort obstructs the path of no-effort in the eighth Bhumi. Therefore, if one attains entry into the eighth Bhumi, this can be permanently severed. Because this is permanently severed, one attains two freedoms. Therefore, the eighth Bhumi is said to sever two types of ignorance and their coarse heaviness. 1. The ignorance of applying effort in no-appearance. 2. The ignorance of freedom regarding appearances. Because one is not free regarding appearances. This also includes a portion of the appearance of pure lands. Above the eighth Bhumi, purely uncontaminated paths arise effortlessly, so the afflictions of the three realms never manifest again. In the seventh consciousness, subtle knowledge obscurations can still manifest. Because the result of the wisdom of emptiness of self does not contradict them. 9. The obstacle of unwillingness to act in benefiting others. This refers to a portion of the co-emergent ignorance within the knowledge obscurations, which causes one to be unwilling to diligently act in benefiting and bringing happiness to sentient beings, and to prefer cultivating one's own benefit. This obstructs the four unimpeded understandings of the ninth Bhumi. Upon entering the ninth Bhumi, this can be permanently severed. Therefore, the ninth Bhumi is said to sever two types of ignorance and their coarse heaviness. 1. The ignorance of not being free in the later wisdom, eloquence, and Dharani regarding the immeasurable names, phrases, and words of the immeasurable teachings. Freedom in the Dharani of the immeasurable teachings.
在者謂義無閡解。即于所詮總持自在。於一義中現一切義故。于無量名句字陀羅尼自在者謂法無閡解。即于能詮總持自在。於一名句字中現一切名句字故。於後後慧辯陀羅尼自在者謂詞無閡解。即于言音展轉訓釋總持自在。於一音聲中現一切音聲故。二辯才自在愚。辯才自在者謂辯無閡解。善達機宜巧為說故。愚能障此四種自在。皆是此中第九障攝。十于諸法中未得自在障。謂所知障中俱生一分令于諸法不得自在。彼障十地大法智云及所含藏所起事業。入十地時便能永斷。由斯十地說斷二愚及彼粗重。一大神通愚。即是此中障所起事業者。二悟入微細秘密愚。即是此中障大法智云及所含藏者。此地於法雖得自在而有餘障未名最極。謂有俱生微所知障。及有任運煩惱障種。金剛喻定現在前時彼皆頓斷入如來地。由斯佛地說斷二愚及彼粗重。一於一切所知境極微細著愚。即是此中微所知障。二極微細礙愚。即是此中一切任運煩惱障種。故集論說得菩提時頓斷煩惱及所知障成阿羅漢及成如來證大涅槃大菩提故。
## 成唯識論卷第九
大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 成唯識論
## 成唯識論卷第十
護法等菩薩造
三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯
此十一障二障所攝。煩惱障中見所斷種于極喜地
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 再說義無礙解（Artha-pratisaṃvidā，對意義通達無礙的智慧）。即對於所詮釋的意義能夠總持自在，能在一個意義中顯現一切意義。對於無量名句字陀羅尼（Dharaṇī，總持）自在，這叫做法無礙解（Dharma-pratisaṃvidā，對法通達無礙的智慧）。即對於能詮釋的名句字能夠總持自在，能在一個名句字中顯現一切名句字。對於後後慧辯陀羅尼（Dharaṇī，總持）自在，這叫做詞無礙解（Nirukti-pratisaṃvidā，對語言通達無礙的智慧）。即對於言語音聲的輾轉訓釋能夠總持自在，能在一個音聲中顯現一切音聲。二、辯才自在愚。辯才自在（Pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā，對辯才通達無礙的智慧）者，是指辯無礙解，善於通達時機，巧妙地進行解說。愚昧能夠障礙這四種自在，都屬於這其中的第九種障礙所包含的。 十、于諸法中未得自在障。是指所知障（Jñeyāvaraṇa）中與生俱來的一部分，使得對於諸法不能夠自在。這個障礙遮蔽了十地的大法智云以及所含藏和所發起的事業。進入十地的時候，便能夠永遠斷除。因此，十地說斷除了二種愚昧以及它們的粗重：一、大神通愚，就是這其中障礙所發起的事業；二、悟入微細秘密愚，就是這其中障礙大法智云以及所含藏的。這個地位於法雖然得到了自在，但是還有剩餘的障礙，不能夠稱為最極，即有與生俱來的微細所知障，以及有任運而起的煩惱障種子。金剛喻定（Vajropamasamādhi）現在前的時候，這些都能夠頓然斷除，進入如來地。因此，佛地說斷除了二種愚昧以及它們的粗重：一、對於一切所知境極微細的執著愚，就是這其中的微細所知障；二、極微細的障礙愚，就是這其中一切任運的煩惱障種子。所以《集論》說，得到菩提（Bodhi，覺悟）的時候，頓然斷除煩惱障和所知障，成就阿羅漢（Arhat，應供）以及成就如來，證得大涅槃（Mahāparinirvāṇa，大般涅槃），大菩提。 《成唯識論》卷第九 大正藏第 31 冊 No. 1585 《成唯識論》 《成唯識論》卷第十 護法等菩薩造 三藏法師玄奘奉 詔譯 這十一種障礙，被兩種障礙所攝。煩惱障（Kleśāvaraṇa）中見所斷的種子，在極喜地（Pramuditābhūmi，歡喜地）。
【English Translation】 English version: Furthermore, 'unimpeded understanding of meaning' (Artha-pratisaṃvidā) refers to the ability to freely and comprehensively grasp the meaning being explained, manifesting all meanings within a single meaning. 'Freedom regarding the Dhāraṇī (總持) of countless names, phrases, and syllables' is called 'unimpeded understanding of Dharma' (Dharma-pratisaṃvidā), which refers to the ability to freely and comprehensively grasp the names, phrases, and syllables that explain, manifesting all names, phrases, and syllables within a single name, phrase, or syllable. 'Freedom regarding the Dhāraṇī (總持) of subsequent wisdom and eloquence' is called 'unimpeded understanding of language' (Nirukti-pratisaṃvidā), which refers to the ability to freely and comprehensively grasp the successive explanations of sounds and speech, manifesting all sounds within a single sound. Second, 'ignorance regarding the freedom of eloquence'. 'Freedom of eloquence' (Pratibhāna-pratisaṃvidā) refers to unimpeded eloquence, skillfully understanding the opportune moment and cleverly explaining. Ignorance can obstruct these four freedoms, all of which are included within the ninth obstruction mentioned earlier. Tenth, 'the obstruction of not attaining freedom in all Dharmas'. This refers to a portion of the innate aspect of the 'cognitive obscuration' (Jñeyāvaraṇa) that prevents one from being free in all Dharmas. This obstruction obscures the great Dharma-wisdom cloud of the Tenth Ground, as well as the activities it contains and initiates. Upon entering the Tenth Ground, it can be permanently severed. Therefore, the Tenth Ground is said to sever two types of ignorance and their coarseness: first, 'ignorance of great supernormal powers', which is the activity initiated by this obstruction; second, 'ignorance of penetrating subtle secrets', which is what obstructs the great Dharma-wisdom cloud and its contents. Although this ground attains freedom in Dharma, there are still remaining obstructions, and it cannot be called the most ultimate, as there is still innate subtle cognitive obscuration and seeds of habitual afflictive obscurations. When the 'Vajra-like Samādhi' (Vajropamasamādhi) manifests, all of these can be instantly severed, entering the 'Tathāgata Ground'. Therefore, the Buddha Ground is said to sever two types of ignorance and their coarseness: first, 'ignorance of extremely subtle attachment to all knowable realms', which is the subtle cognitive obscuration; second, 'ignorance of extremely subtle hindrances', which is all the seeds of habitual afflictive obscurations. Therefore, the Compendium of Determinations says that upon attaining 'Bodhi' (菩提, Enlightenment), one instantly severs the afflictive and cognitive obscurations, attaining 'Arhatship' (阿羅漢, Arhat) and becoming a 'Tathāgata' (如來, Thus Come One), realizing 'Mahāparinirvāṇa' (大般涅槃, Great Complete Nirvana) and great Bodhi. Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-only), Volume 9 Taisho Tripitaka Volume 31, No. 1585, Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra Vijñāptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra, Volume 10 Composed by Bodhisattvas such as Dharmapāla Translated by Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang under Imperial Decree These eleven obstructions are encompassed by two obstructions. The seeds of what is severed by view within the 'afflictive obscuration' (Kleśāvaraṇa) are on the 'Extremely Joyful Ground' (Pramuditābhūmi).
見道初斷。彼障現起地前已伏。修所斷種金剛喻定現在前時一切頓斷。彼障現起地前漸伏。初地以上能頓伏盡令永不行如阿羅漢。由故意力前七地中雖暫現起而不為失。八地以上畢竟不行。所知障中見所斷種于極喜地見道初斷。彼障現起地前已伏。修所斷種於十地中漸次斷滅金剛喻定現在前時方永斷盡。彼障現起地前漸伏乃至十地方永伏盡。八地以上六識俱者不復現行。無漏觀心及果相續能違彼故。第七俱者猶可現行。法空智果起位方伏。前五轉識設未轉依無漏伏故障不現起。雖于修道十地位中皆不斷滅煩惱障種而彼粗重亦漸斷滅。由斯故說二障粗重一一皆有三位斷義。雖諸位中皆斷粗重而三位顯。是故偏說。斷二障種漸頓云何。第七識俱煩惱障種三乘將得無學果。時一剎那中三界頓斷。所知障種將成佛時一剎那中一切頓斷。任運內起無粗細故。餘六識俱煩惱障種見所斷者三乘見位真見道中一切頓斷。修所斷者隨其所應一類二乘三界九地一一漸次九品別斷。一類二乘三界九地合為一聚九品別斷。菩薩要起金剛喻定一剎那中三界頓斷。所知障種初地初心頓斷一切見所斷者。修所斷者後於十地修道位中漸次而斷。乃至正起金剛喻定一剎那中方皆斷盡。通緣內外粗細境生品類差別有眾多故。二乘根鈍漸斷障時必各別起無間解
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 見道位最初斷除的是煩惱障和所知障的見所斷部分。這些障礙的現行，在見道位之前已經被伏藏。修所斷的煩惱障和所知障的種子，在金剛喻定（vajra-like samadhi，一種堅不可摧的禪定）現前時，一切頓然斷除。這些障礙的現行，在金剛喻定現前之前逐漸被伏藏。初地（pramudita，歡喜地）以上的菩薩能夠頓然伏藏並斷盡這些障礙，使它們永遠不再生起，就像阿羅漢（arhat，已證得涅槃的聖者）一樣。由於菩薩有意的力量，在前七地中，這些障礙即使暫時現起，也不會造成過失。八地（acalā，不動地）以上的菩薩，這些障礙畢竟不再現行。 在所知障中，見所斷的種子在極喜地（pramudita，歡喜地）的見道位最初斷除。這些障礙的現行，在見道位之前已經被伏藏。修所斷的種子在十地（bhūmi，菩薩修行的十個階段）中逐漸斷滅，只有在金剛喻定現前時，才能永遠斷盡。這些障礙的現行，在金剛喻定現前之前逐漸被伏藏，乃至十地才能永遠伏藏斷盡。八地以上的菩薩，具有六識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識）的不再現行，因為無漏觀心（anāsrava-citta，沒有煩惱的智慧之心）及果位（phala，修行所證得的果位）的相續能夠違逆這些障礙。第七識（末那識，manas）俱生的障礙仍然可以現行，只有在法空智果（dharmasunyata-jnana-phala，證悟諸法空性的智慧之果）生起時才能伏藏。前五轉識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識），即使沒有轉依（paravrtti，轉變所依），無漏的智慧也能伏藏這些障礙，使它們不現起。 雖然在修道位的十地中，煩惱障的種子沒有被斷滅，但它們的粗重（sthula，粗顯的煩惱）也逐漸被斷滅。因此，才說二障（煩惱障和所知障）的粗重，每一個都有三位的斷除之義。雖然在各個階段都斷除了粗重，但三位最為明顯，所以才特別說明。 斷除二障的種子是漸斷還是頓斷呢？與第七識俱生的煩惱障種子，三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的修行者在將要證得無學果（asaiksa-phala，不再需要學習的果位，即阿羅漢果）時，在一剎那中，三界（欲界、色界、無色界）的煩惱障頓然斷除。所知障的種子，在將要成佛時，在一剎那中，一切頓然斷除，因為任運（anābhoga，自然而然）生起的智慧沒有粗細的差別。 其餘與六識俱生的煩惱障種子，見所斷的煩惱障，三乘的修行者在見道位（darsanamarga，見真理的道）中，一切頓然斷除。修所斷的煩惱障，根據他們各自的情況，一類二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的修行者在三界九地（九個禪定層次）中，一一逐漸地以九品（九種程度）來分別斷除。另一類二乘的修行者，將三界九地合為一聚，以九品來分別斷除。菩薩需要生起金剛喻定，在一剎那中，三界的煩惱障頓然斷除。所知障的種子，在初地（pramudita，歡喜地）的初心（prathama-citta，最初的心）時，頓然斷除一切見所斷的所知障。修所斷的所知障，在後來的十地修道位中，逐漸地斷除，乃至真正生起金剛喻定時，在一剎那中才能全部斷盡。因為所知障通緣內外粗細的境界而生起，品類差別有很多。 二乘的根器比較遲鈍，在逐漸斷除障礙時，必定各自別別生起無間解（anantarya-vimoksa，無間斷的解脫智慧）。
【English Translation】 English version The initial severing in the Path of Seeing (darsanamarga) involves the afflictive obscurations (klesavarana) and the cognitive obscurations (jneyavarana) that are to be abandoned by seeing. The manifestations of these obscurations have already been subdued before the stage of the Path of Seeing. The seeds of the afflictive and cognitive obscurations that are to be abandoned by cultivation (bhavanamarga) are completely and instantaneously severed when the vajra-like samadhi (vajropamasamadhi, an indestructible meditative concentration) manifests. The manifestations of these obscurations are gradually subdued before the vajra-like samadhi manifests. Bodhisattvas on the first ground (pramudita, Joyful Ground) and above can instantaneously subdue and eliminate these obscurations, preventing them from ever arising again, like an arhat (one who has attained nirvana). Due to the intentional power of bodhisattvas, even if these obscurations temporarily arise in the first seven grounds, they do not cause any loss. On the eighth ground (acala, Immovable Ground) and above, they never arise again. Among the cognitive obscurations, the seeds of what is to be abandoned by seeing are initially severed on the Joyful Ground (pramudita) during the Path of Seeing. The manifestations of these obscurations have already been subdued before the stage of the Path of Seeing. The seeds of what is to be abandoned by cultivation are gradually eliminated in the ten grounds (bhumi, the ten stages of a bodhisattva's path), and are only completely and permanently severed when the vajra-like samadhi manifests. The manifestations of these obscurations are gradually subdued before the vajra-like samadhi manifests, and are completely subdued by the tenth ground. On the eighth ground and above, those with the six consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mental consciousnesses) no longer experience their activity, because the uncontaminated wisdom mind (anasrava-citta) and the continuity of the result (phala) counteract them. Those with the seventh consciousness (manas, the mind consciousness) can still experience their activity, and they are only subdued when the fruit of the wisdom of emptiness of phenomena (dharmasunyata-jnana-phala) arises. Even if the first five transformed consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body consciousnesses) have not undergone transformation of the basis (paravrtti), the uncontaminated wisdom subdues these obscurations, preventing them from arising. Although the seeds of the afflictive obscurations are not severed in the ten grounds of the Path of Cultivation, their coarseness (sthula) is gradually eliminated. Therefore, it is said that the coarseness of the two obscurations (afflictive and cognitive) is severed in three stages. Although the coarseness is severed in each stage, the three stages are most evident, and therefore are specifically mentioned. How are the seeds of the two obscurations severed, gradually or instantaneously? The seeds of the afflictive obscurations associated with the seventh consciousness are instantaneously severed in the three realms (desire realm, form realm, and formless realm) in a single moment when practitioners of the three vehicles (sravakayana, pratyekabuddhayana, and bodhisattvayana) are about to attain the fruit of no more learning (asaiksa-phala, the state of an arhat). The seeds of the cognitive obscurations are instantaneously severed in a single moment when one is about to become a Buddha, because the spontaneously arising wisdom (anabhoga-jnana) has no coarse or subtle distinctions. The seeds of the afflictive obscurations associated with the other six consciousnesses that are to be abandoned by seeing are instantaneously severed in the Path of Seeing (darsanamarga) by practitioners of the three vehicles. Those that are to be abandoned by cultivation are gradually severed, according to their respective situations, by one type of practitioners of the two vehicles (sravakayana and pratyekabuddhayana) in the nine grounds of the three realms, each with nine grades (nava-anusaya, nine latent defilements). Another type of practitioners of the two vehicles combines the nine grounds of the three realms into one group and severs them separately with nine grades. Bodhisattvas need to generate the vajra-like samadhi, and in a single moment, the afflictive obscurations of the three realms are instantaneously severed. The seeds of the cognitive obscurations that are to be abandoned by seeing are instantaneously severed at the initial thought (prathama-citta) of the first ground (pramudita). Those that are to be abandoned by cultivation are gradually severed in the Path of Cultivation in the subsequent ten grounds, and are only completely severed in a single moment when the vajra-like samadhi truly arises, because the cognitive obscurations arise in connection with internal and external, coarse and subtle objects, and have many different categories. The faculties of the two vehicles are duller, and when gradually severing the obscurations, they must separately generate uninterrupted liberation (anantarya-vimoksa).
脫。加行勝進或別或總。菩薩利根漸斷障位。非要別起無間解脫剎那剎那能斷證故。加行等四剎那剎那前後相望皆容具有。
十真如者。一遍行真如。謂此真如二空所顯無有一法而不在故。二最勝真如。謂此真如具無邊德於一切法最為勝故。三勝流真如。謂此真如所流教法于餘教法極為勝故。四無攝受真如。謂此真如無所繫屬。非我執等所依取故。五類無別真如。謂此真如類無差別。非如眼等類有異故。六無染凈真如。謂此真如本性無染亦不可說後方凈故。七法無別真如。謂此真如雖多教法種種安立而無異故。八不增減真如。謂此真如離增減執。不隨凈染有增減故。即此亦名相土自在所依真如。謂若證得此真如已現相現土俱自在故。九智自在所依真如。謂若證得此真如已於無礙解得自在故。十業自在等所依真如。謂若證得此真如已普於一切神通作業總持定門皆自在故。雖真如性實無差別而隨勝德假立十種。雖初地中已達一切而能證行猶未圓滿。為令圓滿後後建立。
如是菩薩於十地中勇猛修行十種勝行斷十重障證十真如於二轉依便能證得。轉依位別略有六種。一損力益能轉。謂初二位。由習勝解及慚愧故損本識中染種勢力益本識內凈種功能。雖未斷障種實證轉依而漸伏現行亦名為轉。二通達轉謂通達位。
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：
『脫』（解脫）。加行勝進，或者分別，或者總括。菩薩利根，逐漸斷除障位。並非一定要另外生起無間解脫，而是剎那剎那都能斷除並證得。加行等四者，剎那剎那前後相望，都容許具有。
十真如是：一、遍行真如。指此真如為二空（人空、法空）所顯現，沒有一法不在其中。二、最勝真如。指此真如具足無邊功德，於一切法中最為殊勝。三、勝流真如。指此真如所流出的教法，對於其他教法極為殊勝。四、無攝受真如。指此真如沒有被任何事物所繫縛，不是我執等所依取。五、類無別真如。指此真如在種類上沒有差別，不像眼等在種類上有差異。六、無染凈真如。指此真如本性沒有污染，也不可說是後來才清凈的。七、法無別真如。指此真如雖然在多種教法中被種種安立，但其本質沒有差異。八、不增減真如。指此真如遠離增減的執著，不隨著清凈或染污而有增減。這也被稱為相土自在所依真如。指如果證得了此真如，那麼顯現的相和國土都能自在。九、智自在所依真如。指如果證得了此真如，那麼對於無礙解能得自在。十、業自在等所依真如。指如果證得了此真如，那麼對於一切神通作業、總持、定門都能自在。雖然真如的性質實際上沒有差別，但隨著殊勝的功德而假立十種。雖然在初地中已經通達一切，但能證的行持還沒有圓滿。爲了使其圓滿，所以在後面逐漸建立。
如此，菩薩在十地中勇猛修行十種殊勝的行持，斷除十重障礙，證得十真如，對於二轉依（煩惱轉依、生死轉依）便能證得。轉依的位次差別，大致有六種。一、損力益能轉。指初地和二地。由於修習殊勝的理解和慚愧，所以減損本識中染污種子的勢力，增益本識內清凈種子的功能。雖然沒有斷除障礙的種子，實際證得了轉依，但逐漸地伏滅現行，也可以稱為轉。二、通達轉。指通達位（第三地）。
【English Translation】 English version:
『Cessation』 (Nirodha). The progressive application is either distinct or comprehensive. A Bodhisattva with sharp faculties gradually severs the stages of obscurations. It is not necessary to separately generate an uninterrupted cessation; rather, moment by moment, one can sever and realize it. The four, such as progressive application, are all possibly possessed in each moment, viewed in their sequential relationship.
The ten Suchnesses are: 1. Pervasive Suchness. This Suchness is manifested by the two emptinesses (emptiness of self, emptiness of phenomena), and there is no dharma that is not within it. 2. Supreme Suchness. This Suchness possesses boundless virtues and is the most supreme among all dharmas. 3. Excellent Flow Suchness. The teachings that flow from this Suchness are extremely superior to other teachings. 4. Unappropriated Suchness. This Suchness is not bound by anything and is not appropriated by ego-grasping, etc. 5. Suchness Without Difference in Kind. This Suchness has no difference in kind, unlike the eyes, etc., which have differences in kind. 6. Undefiled and Pure Suchness. This Suchness is inherently undefiled, and it cannot be said that it becomes pure later. 7. Suchness Without Difference in Dharmas. Although this Suchness is established in various teachings, it has no difference in essence. 8. Non-Increasing and Non-Decreasing Suchness. This Suchness is free from the attachment to increase and decrease, and it does not increase or decrease with purity or defilement. This is also called the Suchness that is the basis of the freedom of appearance and land. If one realizes this Suchness, then the manifested appearance and land are both free. 9. Suchness that is the basis of the freedom of wisdom. If one realizes this Suchness, then one attains freedom in unobstructed understanding. 10. Suchness that is the basis of the freedom of action, etc. If one realizes this Suchness, then one is universally free in all miraculous actions, dharanis, and samadhi gates. Although the nature of Suchness is actually without difference, ten kinds are nominally established according to the supreme virtues. Although one has understood everything in the first bhumi (ground), the practice of realization is not yet complete. In order to make it complete, it is gradually established later.
Thus, the Bodhisattva diligently practices the ten supreme practices in the ten bhumis, severs the ten heavy obscurations, and realizes the ten Suchnesses, and then can realize the two transformations of basis (transformation of afflictions, transformation of samsara). The differences in the stages of transformation of basis are roughly six kinds. 1. Transformation of Diminishing Power and Increasing Ability. This refers to the first and second bhumis. Because of practicing superior understanding and shame, the power of the defiled seeds in the alaya consciousness is diminished, and the function of the pure seeds in the alaya consciousness is increased. Although the seeds of obscurations have not been severed, and the transformation of basis has actually been realized, the manifest activity is gradually subdued, and this can also be called transformation. 2. Transformation of Penetration. This refers to the bhumi of penetration (the third bhumi).
由見道力通達真如斷分別生二障粗重證得一分真實轉依。三修習轉。謂修習位。由數修習十地行故漸斷俱生二障粗重漸次證得真實轉依。攝大乘中說通達轉在前六地有無相觀通達真俗間雜現前令真非真現不現故。說修習轉在後四地純無相觀長時現前勇猛修習斷餘粗重多令非真不顯現故。四果圓滿轉。謂究竟位。由三大劫阿僧企耶修集無邊難行勝行金剛喻定現在前時永斷本來一切粗重頓證佛果圓滿轉依。窮未來際利樂無盡。五下劣轉。謂二乘位。專求自利厭苦欣寂唯能通達生空真如斷煩惱種證真擇滅無勝堪能名下劣轉。六廣大轉。謂大乘位。為利他故趣大菩提生死涅槃俱無欣厭具能通達二空真如雙斷所知煩惱障種頓證無上菩提涅槃有勝堪能名廣大轉。此中意說廣大轉依捨二粗重而證得故。
轉依義別略有四種。一能轉道。此復有二。一能伏道。謂伏二障隨眠勢力令不引起二障現行。此通有漏無漏二道加行根本後得三智隨其所應漸頓伏彼。二能斷道。謂能永斷二障隨眠。此道定非有漏加行。有漏曾習。相執所引未泯相故。加行趣求所證所引未成辦故。有義根本無分別智親證二空所顯真理。無境相故能斷隨眠。後得不然故非斷道。有義後得無分別智雖不親證二空真理無力能斷迷理隨眠。而於安立非安立相明瞭現前無倒
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 由見道的力量通達真如（事物的真實本性），斷除分別產生的二障（煩惱障和所知障）的粗重，證得一部分真實的轉依（轉變所依）。 三、修習轉：指修習的階段。通過不斷修習十地菩薩的行持，逐漸斷除俱生二障的粗重，逐漸證得真實的轉依。在《攝大乘論》中說，通達轉發生在第六地之前，有有相觀和無相觀，通達真諦和俗諦交雜顯現，使得真非真同時顯現。而修習轉發生在後四地，純粹是無相觀，長時間顯現，勇猛修習，斷除剩餘的粗重，使得非真不再顯現。 四、果圓滿轉：指究竟的階段。通過三大阿僧祇劫修集無邊難行的殊勝行，金剛喻定（比喻像金剛一樣堅固的禪定）現前時，永遠斷除本來的一切粗重，頓證佛果，圓滿轉依，窮盡未來際利益安樂無窮無盡。 五、下劣轉：指二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的階段。專門追求自身利益，厭惡痛苦，欣求寂靜，只能通達生空真如（認識到一切事物沒有永恒不變的自體），斷除煩惱的種子，證得真擇滅（通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅），沒有殊勝的能力，稱為下劣轉。 六、廣大轉：指大乘（菩薩乘）的階段。爲了利益他人，趣向大菩提（覺悟），對於生死和涅槃都沒有欣喜和厭惡，能夠通達人空和法空真如（認識到人和事物都沒有永恒不變的自體），同時斷除所知障和煩惱障的種子，頓證無上菩提，涅槃具有殊勝的能力，稱為廣大轉。這裡的意思是說，廣大轉依捨棄了兩種粗重而證得。 轉依的意義差別略有四種：一、能轉道。這又分為兩種：一、能伏道：指伏藏二障隨眠的勢力，使之不引起二障的現行。這包括有漏和無漏兩種道，加行位、根本位和後得位三種智慧，根據情況逐漸或頓然地伏藏它們。二、能斷道：指能夠永遠斷除二障隨眠。這種道一定不是有漏的加行道，因為有漏的曾經習染，被相的執著所牽引，沒有泯滅相的緣故。加行道趣求所證，被所證所牽引，沒有成就的緣故。有的人認為根本無分別智親證二空所顯現的真理，沒有境相的緣故，能夠斷除隨眠。後得智不是這樣，所以不是能斷道。有的人認為後得無分別智雖然不親證二空真理，沒有力量斷除迷理的隨眠，但是對於安立和非安立的相，明瞭現前，沒有顛倒。
【English Translation】 English version: Through the power of the Path of Seeing, one penetrates Suchness (the true nature of things), severs the coarse aspects of the two obscurations (afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations) arising from discrimination, and attains a partial Real Transformation of the Basis (transformation of the basis of consciousness). 3. Transformation through Cultivation: This refers to the stage of cultivation. By repeatedly cultivating the practices of the ten Bhumis (grounds of a Bodhisattva), one gradually severs the coarse aspects of the co-emergent two obscurations and gradually attains the Real Transformation of the Basis. In the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (Compendium of the Mahayana), it is said that the Transformation through Penetration occurs before the sixth Bhumi, involving both conceptual and non-conceptual contemplation, penetrating the intermingling manifestation of the ultimate truth and conventional truth, causing both the true and the non-true to appear simultaneously. The Transformation through Cultivation, on the other hand, occurs in the latter four Bhumis, involving purely non-conceptual contemplation, appearing for a long time, and through vigorous cultivation, severing the remaining coarse aspects, causing the non-true to no longer appear. 4. Transformation through Perfect Fruition: This refers to the ultimate stage. Through accumulating boundless difficult and supreme practices over three great Asamkhyeya kalpas (incalculable eons), when the Vajra-like Samadhi (a concentration as firm as a diamond) manifests, one permanently severs all the original coarse aspects, instantly attains Buddhahood, and perfectly transforms the basis, benefiting and bringing happiness limitlessly throughout the endless future. 5. Inferior Transformation: This refers to the stage of the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna). Exclusively seeking self-benefit, disliking suffering, and delighting in tranquility, one can only penetrate the Suchness of the emptiness of self (realizing that all phenomena lack a permanent, unchanging self), sever the seeds of afflictions, and attain True Cessation through Discrimination (Nirodha-satya), lacking supreme capacity, and is called Inferior Transformation. 6. Vast Transformation: This refers to the stage of the Mahayana (Bodhisattvayana). For the sake of benefiting others, one proceeds towards Great Bodhi (Enlightenment), having neither delight nor aversion towards Samsara (cyclic existence) and Nirvana (liberation), being able to penetrate the Suchness of the emptiness of both self and phenomena (realizing that both persons and phenomena lack a permanent, unchanging self), simultaneously severing the seeds of both cognitive and afflictive obscurations, instantly attaining unsurpassed Bodhi, Nirvana possessing supreme capacity, and is called Vast Transformation. The meaning here is that the Vast Transformation of the Basis abandons the two coarse aspects and attains it. The differences in the meaning of Transformation of the Basis are roughly fourfold: 1. The Path of Transformation. This is further divided into two: 1. The Path of Subduing: This refers to subduing the power of the latent tendencies of the two obscurations, preventing them from causing the manifest activity of the two obscurations. This includes both paths with and without outflows, the three wisdoms of the stage of application, the fundamental stage, and the subsequent stage, gradually or suddenly subduing them as appropriate. 2. The Path of Severing: This refers to being able to permanently sever the latent tendencies of the two obscurations. This path is definitely not the path of application with outflows, because of past habits with outflows, being influenced by attachment to appearances, and not eliminating appearances. The path of application seeks what is to be attained, and is influenced by what is to be attained, and is not accomplished. Some believe that the fundamental non-conceptual wisdom directly realizes the truth revealed by the emptiness of two (self and phenomena), and because there are no object appearances, it can sever the latent tendencies. The subsequent wisdom is not like this, so it is not the path of severing. Some believe that although the subsequent non-conceptual wisdom does not directly realize the truth of the emptiness of two, it does not have the power to sever the latent tendencies that are deluded about the truth, but it clearly manifests the aspects of what is established and what is not established, without inversion.
證故亦能永斷迷事隨眠。故瑜伽說修道位中有出世斷道世出世斷道。無純世間道能永害隨眠。是曾習故相執引故。由斯理趣諸見所斷及修所斷迷理隨眠唯有根本無分別智親證理故能正斷彼。餘修所斷迷事隨眠根本後得俱能正斷。二所轉依。此復有二。一持種依。謂本識。由此能持染凈法種與染凈法俱為所依。聖道轉令捨染得凈。餘依他起性雖亦是依而不能持種故此不說。二迷悟依。謂真如。由此能作迷悟根本諸染凈法依之得生。聖道轉令捨染得凈。餘雖亦作迷悟法依而非根本故此不說。三所轉捨。此復有二。一所斷捨。謂二障種。真無間道現在前時障治相違彼便斷滅永不成就。說之為捨。彼種斷故不復現行妄執我法。所執我法不對妄情。亦說為捨。由此名捨遍計所執。二所棄捨。謂餘有漏劣無漏種。金剛喻定現在前時引極圓明純凈本識。非彼依故皆永棄捨。彼種捨已現有漏法及劣無漏畢竟不生。既永不生亦說為捨。由此名捨生死劣法。有義所餘有漏法種及劣無漏金剛喻定現在前時皆已棄捨。與二障種俱時捨故。有義爾時猶未捨彼。與無間道不相違故。菩薩應無生死法故。此位應無所熏識故。住無間道應名佛故。後解脫道應無用故。由此應知。餘有漏等解脫道起方棄捨之。第八凈識非彼依故。四所轉得。此復有二。一所
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 因此，證悟也能永遠斷除與迷惑事物相關的隨眠（煩惱）。所以，《瑜伽師地論》中說，在修道位中有出世間斷道和世出世間斷道。沒有純粹的世間道能夠永遠損害隨眠，因為它們曾經被習染的表象所執取和引導。由於這個道理，由見所斷和修所斷的、與迷惑真理相關的隨眠，只有根本無分別智親自體證真理才能真正斷除。其餘由修所斷的、與迷惑事物相關的隨眠，根本智和後得智都能真正斷除。 二、所轉依。這又有兩種：一是持種依，即阿賴耶識（根本識）。由於它能持有染污和清凈的法種，與染污和清凈的法互為所依。聖道轉化它，使之捨棄染污而獲得清凈。其餘的依他起性雖然也是依，但不能持有法種，所以這裡不談論。二是迷悟依，即真如（事物的真實本性）。由於它能作為迷惑和覺悟的根本，一切染污和清凈的法都依賴它而生起。聖道轉化它，使之捨棄染污而獲得清凈。其餘的雖然也作為迷惑和覺悟之法的所依，但不是根本，所以這裡不談論。 三、所轉捨。這又有兩種：一是所斷捨，即二障（煩惱障和所知障）的種子。當真無間道（直接斷除煩惱的智慧）現在前時，障礙與對治相互違背，這些種子便被斷滅，永遠不再產生作用，這被稱為『捨』。由於這些種子被斷除，不再現行妄執我法（錯誤的認為存在真實的自我和事物），所執著的我法與虛妄的情感不再相應，也可以說是『捨』。因此，這被稱為捨棄遍計所執（普遍計度的執著）。二是所棄捨，即其餘的有漏（有煩惱）和低劣的無漏（沒有完全清凈）的種子。當金剛喻定（像金剛一樣堅固的禪定）現在前時，引出極其圓滿光明、純凈的本識（根本識），因為它們不是本識的所依，所以都被永遠拋棄。這些種子被捨棄後，現有的有漏法和低劣的無漏法畢竟不再產生。既然永遠不再產生，也可以說是『捨』。因此，這被稱為捨棄生死和低劣的法。 有一種觀點認為，其餘的有漏法種和低劣的無漏法種，在金剛喻定現在前時就已經被拋棄，與二障的種子同時捨棄。另一種觀點認為，那時還沒有捨棄它們，因為它們與無間道不相違背。菩薩不應該有生死的法，所以在這個階段不應該有被熏習的識。住在無間道中就應該被稱為佛，所以後來的解脫道應該沒有用處。因此，應該知道，其餘的有漏法等，在解脫道生起時才被拋棄。第八凈識（清凈的阿賴耶識）不是它們的所依，所以被拋棄。 四、所轉得。這又有兩種：一是所
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, realization can also permanently sever the Anuśaya (latent tendencies) associated with delusion. Hence, the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra states that in the path of cultivation, there are supramundane paths of severance and mundane-supramundane paths of severance. No purely mundane path can permanently harm the Anuśaya, because they are grasped and led by previously practiced appearances. Due to this reasoning, the Anuśaya related to delusion of principle, which are severed by view and severed by cultivation, can only be truly severed by the fundamental non-discriminating wisdom directly realizing the principle. The remaining Anuśaya related to delusion of things, which are severed by cultivation, can be truly severed by both fundamental wisdom and subsequent wisdom. 2. The Basis of Transformation (āśraya-parāvṛtti). This again has two aspects: First, the basis that holds the seeds, namely the Ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness). Because it can hold the seeds of defiled and pure dharmas, it serves as the basis for both defiled and pure dharmas. The holy path transforms it, causing it to abandon defilement and attain purity. Although other dependent-arising natures are also bases, they cannot hold seeds, so they are not discussed here. Second, the basis of delusion and enlightenment, namely Suchness (Tathatā, the true nature of things). Because it can act as the root of delusion and enlightenment, all defiled and pure dharmas arise dependent on it. The holy path transforms it, causing it to abandon defilement and attain purity. Although others also act as the basis of delusion and enlightenment, they are not fundamental, so they are not discussed here. 3. What is Transformed and Abandoned. This again has two aspects: First, what is severed, namely the seeds of the two obscurations (two hindrances): kleśāvaraṇa (afflictive obscuration) and jñeyāvaraṇa (cognitive obscuration). When the true Anantarya-mārga (path of immediate consequence) manifests, the obstacles and their antidotes are mutually opposed, and these seeds are severed, never again becoming effective. This is called 'abandonment'. Because these seeds are severed, the false clinging to self and dharmas (the mistaken belief in a real self and real things) no longer manifests. The clung-to self and dharmas no longer correspond to deluded emotions, so this is also called 'abandonment'. Therefore, this is called abandoning the Parikalpita (imputed nature). Second, what is discarded, namely the remaining seeds of contaminated (with afflictions) and inferior uncontaminated dharmas. When the Vajropama-samādhi (diamond-like samādhi) manifests, it draws forth the extremely perfect, luminous, and pure fundamental consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna). Because they are not the basis of this consciousness, they are all permanently discarded. After these seeds are discarded, existing contaminated dharmas and inferior uncontaminated dharmas will definitely not arise. Since they will never arise, this is also called 'abandonment'. Therefore, this is called abandoning samsara (cycle of rebirth) and inferior dharmas. Some argue that the remaining seeds of contaminated dharmas and inferior uncontaminated dharmas are already discarded when the Vajropama-samādhi manifests, being discarded simultaneously with the seeds of the two obscurations. Others argue that they are not yet discarded at that time, because they are not contradictory to the Anantarya-mārga. Bodhisattvas should not have the dharmas of samsara, so there should be no consciousness being influenced at this stage. Residing in the Anantarya-mārga should be called a Buddha, so the subsequent path of liberation should be useless. Therefore, it should be known that the remaining contaminated dharmas, etc., are discarded only when the path of liberation arises. The eighth pure consciousness (purified Ālaya-vijñāna) is not their basis, so they are discarded. 4. What is Transformed and Attained. This again has two aspects: First, what is
顯得。謂大涅槃。此雖本來自性清凈而由客障覆令不顯真聖道生斷彼障故令其相顯名得涅槃。此依真如離障施設。故體即是清凈法界。
涅槃義別略有四種。一本來自性清凈涅槃。謂一切法相真如理。雖有客染而本性凈。具無數量微妙功德。無生無滅湛若虛空。一切有情平等共有。與一切法不一不異。離一切相一切分別。尋思路絕名言道斷。唯真聖者自內所證。其性本寂故名涅槃。二有餘依涅槃。謂即真如出煩惱障。雖有微苦所依未滅。而障永寂故名涅槃。三無餘依涅槃。謂即真如出生死苦。煩惱既盡餘依亦滅。眾苦永寂故名涅槃。四無住處涅槃。謂即真如出所知障。大悲般若常所輔翼。由斯不住生死涅槃利樂有情窮未來際用而常寂故名涅槃。一切有情皆有初一。二乘無學容有前三。唯我世尊可言具四。如何善逝有有餘依。雖無實依而現似有。或苦依盡說無餘依。非苦依在說有餘依。是故世尊可言具四。若聲聞等有無餘依如何有處設彼非有。有處說彼都無涅槃豈有餘依彼亦非有。然聲聞等身智在時有所知障。苦依未盡圓寂義隱。說無涅槃。非彼實無煩惱障盡所顯真理有餘涅槃。爾時未證無餘圓寂故亦說彼無無餘依。非彼後時滅身智已無苦依盡無餘涅槃。或說二乘無涅槃者依無住處不依前三。又說彼無無餘依者依
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 顯得。指的是大涅槃（Mahā-nirvāṇa，偉大的寂滅）。雖然這（涅槃）本來就是自性清凈的，但由於客塵煩惱的遮蔽，使得它不能顯現。當真正的聖道生起，斷除了這些遮蔽，使得涅槃的相狀顯現，就叫做獲得涅槃。這是依據遠離遮障的真如（Tathātā，如是）而設立的。所以，它的本體就是清凈法界（Dharmadhātu，一切法的本性）。
涅槃的意義區別，大致有四種：一、本來自性清凈涅槃。指的是一切法相的真如理。雖然有客塵煩惱的染污，但其本性是清凈的，具足無數量的微妙功德。它無生無滅，澄澈如虛空。一切有情平等共有，與一切法不一不異，遠離一切相和一切分別。尋思的道路斷絕，名言的道路也斷絕。只有真正的聖者才能在自身內心證得。它的本性本來就是寂靜的，所以叫做涅槃。二、有餘依涅槃。指的是真如出離了煩惱障（Kleśāvaraṇa，煩惱的障礙）。雖然還有微小的痛苦所依存在，但障礙已經永遠寂滅，所以叫做涅槃。三、無餘依涅槃。指的是真如出離了生死之苦。煩惱既然已經斷盡，剩餘的所依也已滅除，眾苦永遠寂滅，所以叫做涅槃。四、無住處涅槃。指的是真如出離了所知障（Jñeyāvaraṇa，所知的障礙）。大悲（Mahākaruṇā，偉大的慈悲）和般若（Prajñā，智慧）常常輔助和護持。因此不住于生死和涅槃，利益安樂有情，直到未來際，作用恒常而本體寂靜，所以叫做涅槃。一切有情都具有第一種涅槃，二乘（Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的無學聖者可以具有前三種涅槃，只有我的世尊（Bhagavān，佛）才能說具足四種涅槃。為什麼善逝（Sugata，如來）會有有餘依涅槃呢？雖然沒有真實的所依，但顯現出類似有的樣子。或者說，痛苦的所依斷盡了，就叫做無餘依涅槃；不是說痛苦的所依還在，而叫做有餘依涅槃。所以，世尊可以說具足四種涅槃。如果聲聞等有無餘依涅槃，為什麼有的地方說他們沒有涅槃呢？既然說他們都沒有涅槃，難道有餘依涅槃他們也沒有嗎？然而，聲聞等在身智存在的時候，有所知障，痛苦的所依沒有斷盡，圓寂的意義隱沒，所以說沒有涅槃。不是說他們實際上沒有煩惱障斷盡所顯現的真理，也就是有餘涅槃。那時還沒有證得無餘圓寂，所以也說他們沒有無餘依涅槃。不是說他們後來滅身智以後，沒有痛苦的所依斷盡的無餘涅槃。或者說，說二乘沒有涅槃，是依據無住處涅槃，而不是依據前三種涅槃。又說他們沒有無餘依涅槃，是依據……
【English Translation】 English version: It appears. This refers to Mahā-nirvāṇa (Great Extinction). Although this (nirvāṇa) is originally pure in its self-nature, it is obscured by adventitious defilements, preventing it from manifesting. When the true noble path arises, cutting off these obscurations, causing the aspect of nirvāṇa to appear, it is called attaining nirvāṇa. This is established based on Tathātā (Suchness) free from obscurations. Therefore, its essence is the pure Dharmadhātu (Realm of Dharma).
The meanings of nirvāṇa are distinguished into roughly four types: First, the originally pure self-nature nirvāṇa. This refers to the truth of all dharmas, Tathātā. Although there are adventitious defilements, its inherent nature is pure, possessing countless subtle qualities. It is without birth or death, clear like space. All sentient beings equally share it, and it is neither one nor different from all dharmas, free from all characteristics and all discriminations. The path of thought is cut off, and the path of language is severed. Only true sages can realize it within their own minds. Its nature is originally quiescent, hence it is called nirvāṇa. Second, nirvāṇa with remainder. This refers to Tathātā free from the kleśāvaraṇa (obscuration of afflictions). Although there is still a subtle basis of suffering that has not been extinguished, the obscurations are forever extinguished, hence it is called nirvāṇa. Third, nirvāṇa without remainder. This refers to Tathātā free from the suffering of birth and death. Since afflictions have been completely exhausted, and the remaining basis has also been extinguished, all suffering is forever extinguished, hence it is called nirvāṇa. Fourth, non-abiding nirvāṇa. This refers to Tathātā free from the jñeyāvaraṇa (obscuration of knowledge). Mahākaruṇā (Great Compassion) and Prajñā (Wisdom) constantly assist and support it. Therefore, it does not abide in birth and death or nirvāṇa, benefiting and bringing joy to sentient beings until the end of the future, its function is constant while its essence is quiescent, hence it is called nirvāṇa. All sentient beings possess the first type of nirvāṇa. The Arhats of the Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna (Hearer Vehicle and Solitary Realizer Vehicle) can possess the first three types of nirvāṇa. Only my Bhagavan (World-Honored One, Buddha) can be said to possess all four types of nirvāṇa. Why would the Sugata (Thus Gone One, Buddha) have nirvāṇa with remainder? Although there is no real basis, it appears as if there is. Or it is said that when the basis of suffering is exhausted, it is called nirvāṇa without remainder; it is not said that when the basis of suffering is still present, it is called nirvāṇa with remainder. Therefore, the World-Honored One can be said to possess all four types of nirvāṇa. If the Śrāvakas, etc., have nirvāṇa without remainder, why do some places say that they do not have nirvāṇa? Since it is said that they do not have nirvāṇa at all, do they not even have nirvāṇa with remainder? However, when the body and wisdom of the Śrāvakas, etc., are still present, there is the obscuration of knowledge, and the basis of suffering has not been exhausted, the meaning of perfect quiescence is obscured, so it is said that they do not have nirvāṇa. It is not that they actually do not have the truth revealed by the exhaustion of the obscuration of afflictions, which is nirvāṇa with remainder. At that time, they have not yet realized perfect quiescence without remainder, so it is also said that they do not have nirvāṇa without remainder. It is not that after they extinguish their body and wisdom, they do not have nirvāṇa without remainder, where the basis of suffering is exhausted. Or it is said that the Two Vehicles do not have nirvāṇa, based on non-abiding nirvāṇa, not based on the first three types of nirvāṇa. Furthermore, it is said that they do not have nirvāṇa without remainder, based on...
不定性二乘而說。彼才證得有餘涅槃。決定迴心求無上覺。由定願力留身久住。非如一類入無餘依。謂有二乘深樂圓寂得生空觀親證真如。永滅感生煩惱障盡顯依真理有餘涅槃。彼能感生煩惱盡故後有異熟無由更生。現苦所依任運滅位餘有為法既無所依與彼苦依同時頓捨顯依真理無餘涅槃。爾時雖無二乘身智而由彼證可說彼有。此位唯有清凈真如。離相湛然寂滅安樂。依斯說彼與佛無差。但無菩提利樂他業。故復說彼與佛有異。諸所知障既不感生。如何斷彼得無住處。彼能隱覆法空真如令不發生大悲般若窮未來際利樂有情故。斷彼時顯法空理。此理即是無住涅槃。令於二邊俱不住故。若所知障亦障涅槃。如何斷彼不得擇滅。擇滅離縛彼非縛故。既爾斷彼寧得涅槃。非諸涅槃皆擇滅攝。不爾性凈應非涅槃。能縛有情住生死者斷此說得擇滅無為。諸所知障不感生死。非如煩惱能縛有情。故斷彼時不得擇滅。然斷彼故法空理顯。此理相寂說為涅槃。非此涅槃擇滅為性。故四圓寂諸無為中初後即真如。中二擇滅攝。若唯斷縛得擇滅者不動等二四中誰攝。非擇滅攝。說暫離故。擇滅無為唯究竟滅。有非擇滅非永滅故。或無住處亦擇滅攝。由真擇力滅障得故。擇滅有二。一滅縛得。謂斷感生煩惱得者。二滅障得。謂斷除障而證得者
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： （對於）執著於二乘（Śrāvakayāna，聲聞乘和Pratyekabuddhayāna，緣覺乘）的人來說，是這樣解釋的：他們才證得了有餘涅槃（Sa-upādisesa-nirvāna，還有殘餘的涅槃）。（但他們）決定回心轉意，尋求無上正覺（Anuttarā-samyak-sambodhi，無上圓滿的覺悟）。由於他們的堅定誓願之力，（他們的）身體能夠長久住世。這不像某些（小乘修行者）進入無餘依涅槃（Anupādisesa-nirvāna，沒有殘餘的涅槃）。 也就是說，有些二乘修行者深深地喜愛圓寂（Nirvana，涅槃），獲得了生空觀（Śūnyatā，空性）的證悟，親自證得了真如（Tathātā，事物的真實本性），永遠滅除了導致輪迴的煩惱，煩惱障（Kleśa-āvarana，由煩惱引起的障礙）已經斷盡，顯現了依于真理的有餘涅槃。他們能夠導致輪迴的煩惱已經斷盡，所以未來的異熟果（Vipāka，由業力導致的果報）沒有理由再生起。 現在（他們）所承受的痛苦所依（指五蘊之身）任其自然地滅去，其餘的有為法（Saṃskṛta，因緣和合的事物）既然沒有了所依，就與那痛苦的所依同時頓然捨棄，顯現了依于真理的無餘涅槃。那時雖然沒有了二乘的身智，但由於他們的證悟，可以說他們證得了涅槃。這個狀態只有清凈的真如，遠離一切相，湛然寂靜，安樂自在。依據這個（狀態），可以說他們與佛沒有差別。但是他們沒有菩提心（Bodhi-citta，為利益一切眾生而求證悟的心）和利益他人的事業，所以又說他們與佛有差別。 （有人問：）既然所知障（Jñeya-āvarana，對所知事物的障礙）不會導致輪迴，如何斷除它們才能獲得無住處涅槃（Apratisthita-nirvāna，不住于生死和涅槃的涅槃）呢？（回答是：）因為它們能夠隱蔽法空真如（Dharma-śūnyatā-tathātā，諸法空性的真實本性），使（修行者）不能生起大悲心（Mahā-karunā，偉大的慈悲）和般若智慧（Prajñā，智慧），從而在未來無盡的時間裡利益有情眾生。所以，斷除它們的時候，就能顯現法空之理。這個道理就是無住涅槃，使（修行者）不住于生死和涅槃這兩邊。 （有人問：）如果所知障也障礙涅槃，如何斷除它們卻不能獲得擇滅（Pratisamkhyā-nirodha，通過智慧抉擇而滅除）呢？（回答是：）擇滅是脫離束縛，而所知障並非束縛。（有人問：）既然如此，斷除它們怎麼能獲得涅槃呢？（回答是：）不是所有的涅槃都屬於擇滅。如果不是這樣，（萬法）本性清凈（Prakrti-parisuddha，事物本來的清凈狀態）就不應該是涅槃了。 能夠束縛有情眾生，使他們停留在生死輪迴中的（煩惱），斷除這些（煩惱）才說是獲得了擇滅無為（Pratisamkhyā-nirodha-asaṃskṛta，通過智慧抉擇而滅除的無為法）。所知障不會導致生死輪迴，不像煩惱那樣能夠束縛有情眾生。所以，斷除它們的時候，不能獲得擇滅。然而，因為斷除了它們，法空之理得以顯現。這個道理寂靜無相，所以被稱為涅槃。但這個涅槃不是以擇滅為本性。所以，在四種圓寂（Nirvana，涅槃）的無為法中，最初和最後（的涅槃）就是真如，中間兩種（涅槃）屬於擇滅。 （有人問：）如果只有斷除束縛才能獲得擇滅，那麼不動（Āniñjya，禪定中的不動狀態）等兩種（無為法）屬於四種（無為法）中的哪一種呢？（回答是：）不屬於擇滅。因為（不動等）說是暫時的脫離（煩惱）。擇滅無為法唯有究竟的滅除（煩惱）。（不動等）有非擇滅（Apratisamkhyā-nirodha，非由智慧抉擇而滅除），因為不是永遠的滅除。 或者，無住處涅槃也屬於擇滅。因為通過真實的抉擇之力滅除障礙而證得（涅槃）。擇滅有兩種：一種是滅除束縛而獲得的，指的是斷除導致輪迴的煩惱而獲得的；另一種是滅除障礙而獲得的，指的是斷除所知障而證得的。
【English Translation】 English version: For those attached to the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, the Hearer Vehicle, and Pratyekabuddhayāna, the Solitary Realizer Vehicle), it is explained thus: They only attain Sa-upādisesa-nirvāna (Nirvana with remainder). (But they) resolve to turn their minds and seek Anuttarā-samyak-sambodhi (Unsurpassed Perfect Enlightenment). Due to the power of their firm vows, (their) bodies can abide in the world for a long time. This is not like some (Śrāvakas) who enter Anupādisesa-nirvāna (Nirvana without remainder). That is to say, some practitioners of the Two Vehicles deeply delight in Nirvana, attain the realization of Śūnyatā (emptiness), personally realize Tathātā (the true nature of things), forever extinguish the afflictions that lead to rebirth, the Kleśa-āvarana (afflictive obscurations) are exhausted, and manifest Sa-upādisesa-nirvāna based on truth. Because their afflictions that lead to rebirth are exhausted, there is no reason for future Vipāka (karmic retribution) to arise again. Now, the basis of their present suffering (referring to the five aggregates) naturally ceases, and since the remaining Saṃskṛta (conditioned phenomena) have no basis, they are simultaneously and suddenly abandoned along with the basis of suffering, manifesting Anupādisesa-nirvāna based on truth. Although there is no longer the body and wisdom of the Two Vehicles at that time, it can be said that they have attained Nirvana due to their realization. In this state, there is only pure Tathātā, free from all appearances, serene, tranquil, and blissful. Based on this (state), it can be said that they are no different from the Buddha. However, they do not have Bodhi-citta (the mind of seeking enlightenment for the benefit of all beings) and the activities of benefiting others, so it is also said that they are different from the Buddha. (Someone asks:) Since Jñeya-āvarana (cognitive obscurations) do not lead to rebirth, how can one attain Apratisthita-nirvāna (non-abiding Nirvana) by eliminating them? (The answer is:) Because they can conceal Dharma-śūnyatā-tathātā (the true nature of the emptiness of phenomena), preventing (practitioners) from generating Mahā-karunā (great compassion) and Prajñā (wisdom), thereby benefiting sentient beings in the endless future. Therefore, when they are eliminated, the principle of Dharma-śūnyatā is revealed. This principle is Apratisthita-nirvāna, which keeps (practitioners) from abiding in both Saṃsāra and Nirvana. (Someone asks:) If Jñeya-āvarana also obstruct Nirvana, how can one not attain Pratisamkhyā-nirodha (cessation through discernment) by eliminating them? (The answer is:) Pratisamkhyā-nirodha is the liberation from bondage, but Jñeya-āvarana is not a bondage. (Someone asks:) Since this is the case, how can one attain Nirvana by eliminating them? (The answer is:) Not all Nirvanas belong to Pratisamkhyā-nirodha. If this were not the case, Prakrti-parisuddha (the naturally pure state of phenomena) should not be Nirvana. The (afflictions) that can bind sentient beings and keep them in Saṃsāra, it is said that one attains Pratisamkhyā-nirodha-asaṃskṛta (unconditioned cessation through discernment) by eliminating these (afflictions). Jñeya-āvarana does not lead to Saṃsāra, and cannot bind sentient beings like afflictions. Therefore, one cannot attain Pratisamkhyā-nirodha when eliminating them. However, because they are eliminated, the principle of Dharma-śūnyatā is revealed. This principle is without characteristics and tranquil, so it is called Nirvana. But this Nirvana is not by nature Pratisamkhyā-nirodha. Therefore, among the four kinds of Nirvana, the first and the last (Nirvanas) are Tathātā, and the two in the middle (Nirvanas) belong to Pratisamkhyā-nirodha. (Someone asks:) If one can only attain Pratisamkhyā-nirodha by eliminating bondage, then to which of the four (unconditioned phenomena) do Āniñjya (immovability in meditation) and the other two (unconditioned phenomena) belong? (The answer is:) They do not belong to Pratisamkhyā-nirodha. Because (immovability, etc.) are said to be temporary departures (from afflictions). Pratisamkhyā-nirodha is only the ultimate cessation (of afflictions). (Immovability, etc.) have Apratisamkhyā-nirodha (cessation not through discernment), because it is not a permanent cessation. Alternatively, Apratisthita-nirvāna also belongs to Pratisamkhyā-nirodha. Because one attains (Nirvana) by eliminating obstacles through the power of true discernment. There are two kinds of Pratisamkhyā-nirodha: one is attained by eliminating bondage, referring to those attained by eliminating the afflictions that lead to Saṃsāra; the other is attained by eliminating obstacles, referring to those attained by eliminating Jñeya-āvarana.
。故四圓寂諸無為中初一即真如。後三皆擇滅。不動等二暫伏滅者非擇滅攝究竟滅者擇滅所攝。既所知障亦障涅槃。如何但說是菩提障。說煩惱障但障涅槃豈彼不能為菩提障。應知聖教依勝用說。理實俱能通障二果。如是所說四涅槃中唯後三種名所顯得。二所生得。謂大菩提。此雖本來有能生種而所知障礙故不生。由聖道力斷彼障故令從種起名得菩提。起已相續窮未來際。此即四智相應心品。
云何四智相應心品。一大圓鏡智相應心品。謂此心品離諸分別。所緣行相微細難知。不忘不愚一切境相。性相清凈離諸雜染。純凈圓德現種依持。能現能生身土智影。無間無斷窮未來際。如大圓鏡現眾色像。二平等性智相應心品。謂此心品觀一切法自他有情悉皆平等。大慈悲等恒共相應。隨諸有情所樂示現受用身土影像差別。妙觀察智不共所依。無住涅槃之所建立。一味相續窮未來際。三妙觀察智相應心品。謂此心品善觀諸法自相共相無礙而轉。攝觀無量總持定門及所發生功德珍寶。于大眾會能現無邊作用差別皆得自在。雨大法雨斷一切疑令諸有情皆獲利樂。四成所作智相應心品。謂此心品為欲利樂諸有情故。普於十方示現種種變化三業成本願力所應作事。如是四智相應心品雖各定有二十二法能變所變種現俱生。而智用增
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本：因此，四種圓寂的無為法中，最初的真如是真如本身。後三種都是擇滅（通過智慧選擇而達到的寂滅）。不動等二種是暫時伏滅，不屬於擇滅所攝，究竟滅盡的才屬於擇滅所攝。既然所知障也障礙涅槃（Nirvana），為什麼只說是菩提（Bodhi）障？說煩惱障只障礙涅槃，難道它不能成為菩提障嗎？應當知道聖教是依據殊勝的作用來說的，實際上二者都能普遍地障礙兩種果報。像這樣所說的四種涅槃中，只有後三種名為所顯得，前兩種名為所生得，指的是大菩提。這雖然本來具有能生的種子，但因為所知障的障礙而不生。由於聖道的力量斷除了這種障礙，才使得它從種子生起，名為得到菩提。生起之後相續不斷，窮盡未來際。這就是與四智相應的清凈心品。 什麼是與四智相應的清凈心品？一是大圓鏡智（Mahādarśa-jñāna）相應心品。說的是這種心品遠離各種分別，所緣的行相微細難以知曉，不忘失也不愚昧於一切境相，自性清凈，遠離各種雜染，純凈圓滿的功德顯現，作為種子的所依持。能夠顯現和產生身、土、智的影像，沒有間斷，窮盡未來際，就像大圓鏡顯現各種色像一樣。二是平等性智（Samatā-jñāna）相應心品。說的是這種心品觀察一切法，自己和他人、有情眾生都平等無二。大慈悲等恒常共同相應，隨著各種有情眾生所喜好的，示現受用的身、土、影像的差別。是妙觀察智（Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna）不共的所依，是無住涅槃所建立的，一味相續，窮盡未來際。三是妙觀察智相應心品。說的是這種心品善於觀察諸法的自相和共相，沒有障礙地運轉。攝取和觀察無量的總持（Dhāraṇī）定門以及所發生的功德珍寶。在大眾集會中能夠顯現無邊的作用差別，都能夠自在。降下大法雨，斷除一切疑惑，使各種有情眾生都獲得利益和快樂。四是成所作智（Kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna）相應心品。說的是這種心品爲了利益和快樂各種有情眾生，普遍在十方示現種種變化的三業，成就本願力所應當做的事情。像這樣，與四智相應的清凈心品雖然各自都有一定的二十二法，能變的、所變的、種子和現行同時生起，但是智慧的作用更加顯著。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, among the four Nirvanas (extinction) that are unconditioned, the first, which is Suchness (Tathatā), is Suchness itself. The latter three are all selective extinction (Nirodha-samāpatti), achieved through wisdom. The two, 'immovable' and others, which are temporarily suppressed, are not included in selective extinction; only those that are ultimately extinguished are included in selective extinction. Since the Obstruction of Knowledge (Jñeyāvaraṇa) also obstructs Nirvana, why is it only said to be an obstruction to Bodhi (Enlightenment)? If the Obstruction of Afflictions (Kleśāvaraṇa) only obstructs Nirvana, can it not also be an obstruction to Bodhi? It should be understood that the holy teachings speak according to the most prominent function; in reality, both can universally obstruct both results. Among the four Nirvanas spoken of in this way, only the latter three are called 'what is manifested,' while the first is called 'what is obtained,' referring to Great Bodhi. Although it inherently possesses the seed capable of generating it, it does not arise due to the obstruction of the Obstruction of Knowledge. It is through the power of the holy path that this obstruction is severed, causing it to arise from the seed, and is called obtaining Bodhi. Once arisen, it continues uninterrupted, exhausting the future. This is the mind-quality corresponding to the Four Wisdoms (Catur-jñāna). What is the mind-quality corresponding to the Four Wisdoms? First, the mind-quality corresponding to the Great Mirror Wisdom (Mahādarśa-jñāna). This mind-quality is free from all discriminations, and the characteristics of what it cognizes are subtle and difficult to know. It neither forgets nor is ignorant of any aspect of reality. Its nature is pure, free from all defilements. Pure and complete virtues manifest, serving as the basis for seeds. It can manifest and generate the images of body, land, and wisdom, without interruption, exhausting the future, just as a great mirror reflects various forms. Second, the mind-quality corresponding to the Wisdom of Equality (Samatā-jñāna). This mind-quality observes all phenomena, regarding oneself and others, sentient beings, as all equal and without difference. Great compassion and other qualities constantly correspond with it. According to what various sentient beings desire, it manifests differences in the body, land, and images to be enjoyed. It is the uncommon basis of the Discriminating Wisdom (Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna), and is established by Non-Abiding Nirvana, continuing in a single flavor, exhausting the future. Third, the mind-quality corresponding to the Discriminating Wisdom. This mind-quality skillfully observes the self-characteristics and common characteristics of all phenomena, functioning without obstruction. It gathers and observes limitless gates of Dhāraṇī (total retention) and the treasures of merit that arise from them. In great assemblies, it can manifest limitless differences in function, all with自在(freedom). It rains down the great Dharma rain, cutting off all doubts, enabling all sentient beings to obtain benefit and happiness. Fourth, the mind-quality corresponding to the Wisdom of Accomplishing Activities (Kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna). This mind-quality, for the sake of benefiting and bringing happiness to all sentient beings, universally manifests various transformations of the three actions (body, speech, and mind) in the ten directions, accomplishing what should be done according to the power of its original vows. In this way, although the mind-quality corresponding to the Four Wisdoms each has a fixed twenty-two dharmas, with the transforming, the transformed, the seeds, and the manifest arising simultaneously, the function of wisdom is more prominent.
以智名顯。故此四品總攝佛地一切有為功德皆盡。此轉有漏八七六五識相應品。如次而得。智雖非識而依識轉識為主故說轉識得。又有漏位智劣識強。無漏位中智強識劣。為勸有情依智捨識故說轉八識而得此四智。大圓鏡智相應心品有義菩薩金剛喻定現在前時即初現起。異熟識種與極微細所知障種俱時捨故。若圓鏡智爾時未起便無能持凈種識故。有義此品解脫道時初成佛故乃得初起。異熟識種金剛喻定現在前時猶未頓捨。與無間道不相違故。非障有漏劣無漏法但與佛果定相違故。金剛喻定無所熏識無漏不增應成佛故。由斯此品從初成佛盡未來際相續不斷。持無漏種令不失故。平等性智相應心品菩薩見道初現前位違二執故方得初起。後十地中執未斷故有漏等位或有間斷。法雲地後與凈第八相依相續盡未來際。妙觀察智相應心品生空觀品二乘見位亦得初起。此後展轉至無學位或至菩薩解行地終或至上位。若非有漏或無心時皆容現起法空觀品菩薩見位方得初起。此後展轉乃至上位。若非有漏生空智果或無心時皆容現起。成所作智相應心品有義菩薩修道位中後得引故亦得初起有義成佛方得初起。以十地中依異熟識所變眼等。非無漏故有漏不共必俱同境根發無漏識理不相應故。此二于境明昧異故。由斯此品要得成佛依無漏根方容
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 以智慧名聲顯赫。因此，這四智品總攝了佛地一切有為功德，全部包含在內。這是轉變有漏的第八識、第七識、第六識、第五識相應的品。按照次第而獲得。智慧雖然不是識，但是依靠識而運轉，以識為主，所以說轉變識而獲得。而且在有漏位，智慧弱小而識強大；在無漏位中，智慧強大而識弱小。爲了勸導有情依靠智慧捨棄識，所以說轉變八識而獲得這四種智慧。 大圓鏡智（Mahādarśa-jñāna）相應的心品，有一種觀點認為，菩薩金剛喻定（Vajropama-samādhi）現在前時，就是最初顯現的時候。因為異熟識（Vipāka-vijñāna）的種子與極微細的所知障（jñeyāvaraṇa）的種子同時捨棄的緣故。如果圓鏡智（Ādarśa-jñāna）那時沒有生起，就沒有能夠持有清凈種子的識的緣故。有一種觀點認為，此品在解脫道時，最初成佛的時候才得以最初生起。異熟識（Vipāka-vijñāna）的種子在金剛喻定（Vajropama-samādhi）現在前時，還沒有完全捨棄。因為與無間道（anantarya-mārga）不相違背的緣故。不是障礙有漏的、低劣的、無漏的法，只是與佛果決定相違背的緣故。金剛喻定（Vajropama-samādhi）沒有熏習的識，無漏沒有增長，應該成佛的緣故。因此，此品從最初成佛開始，直到未來永恒相續不斷。持有無漏的種子，使之不失壞的緣故。 平等性智（Samatā-jñāna）相應的心品，菩薩見道（darśana-mārga）最初顯現的位次，因為違揹人我執（ātmagraha）和法我執（dharmagraha）這二種執著的緣故，才得以最初生起。後十地中，執著沒有斷除的緣故，在有漏等位，或許會有間斷。法雲地（Dharmamegha-bhūmi）之後，與清凈的第八識（vijñāna）相互依靠，相續不斷，直到未來永恒。妙觀察智（Pratyavekṣaṇā-jñāna）相應的心品，生空觀（śūnyatā）品，二乘（śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha）見道位也得以最初生起。此後輾轉直到無學位（asaikṣa-bhūmi），或者直到菩薩解行地（mokṣa-bhāgīya-bhūmi）終結，或者直到上位。如果不是有漏，或者沒有心的時候，都容許顯現。法空觀（dharma-śūnyatā）品，菩薩見道位才得以最初生起。此後輾轉乃至上位。如果不是有漏，生空智（śūnyatā-jñāna）的果，或者沒有心的時候，都容許顯現。 成所作智（Kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna）相應的心品，有一種觀點認為，菩薩修道位中，因為後得智（pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna）的引導，也得以最初生起。有一種觀點認為，成佛的時候才得以最初生起。因為在十地中，依靠異熟識（Vipāka-vijñāna）所變的眼等，不是無漏的緣故，有漏的不共，必定共同對境，根發無漏識的道理不相應的緣故。這二者對於境的明昧不同。因此，此品要得到成佛，依靠無漏根，才容許。
【English Translation】 English version It is renowned for its wisdom. Therefore, these four categories encompass all conditioned virtues of the Buddha-ground, exhausting them completely. This is the transformation of the corresponding categories of the tainted eighth, seventh, sixth, and fifth consciousnesses. They are obtained in sequence. Although wisdom is not consciousness, it operates based on consciousness and relies on consciousness as its primary support. Therefore, it is said that the transformation of consciousness leads to its attainment. Moreover, in the tainted state, wisdom is inferior and consciousness is strong; in the untainted state, wisdom is strong and consciousness is weak. To encourage sentient beings to rely on wisdom and abandon consciousness, it is said that the transformation of the eight consciousnesses leads to the attainment of these four wisdoms. The mind category corresponding to the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom (Mahādarśa-jñāna), some argue that it initially manifests when the Bodhisattva's Vajra-like Samadhi (Vajropama-samādhi) is present. This is because the seeds of the resultant consciousness (Vipāka-vijñāna) and the extremely subtle seeds of the cognitive obscurations (jñeyāvaraṇa) are abandoned simultaneously. If the Perfect Mirror Wisdom (Ādarśa-jñāna) does not arise at that time, there would be no consciousness capable of holding the pure seeds. Others argue that this category initially arises during the path of liberation, only when one initially attains Buddhahood. The seeds of the resultant consciousness (Vipāka-vijñāna) are not completely abandoned when the Vajra-like Samadhi (Vajropama-samādhi) is present, as it does not contradict the uninterrupted path (anantarya-mārga). It does not obstruct the tainted, inferior, or untainted dharmas, but only contradicts the definite result of Buddhahood. The consciousness not influenced by the Vajra-like Samadhi (Vajropama-samādhi), without the increase of untaintedness, should become a Buddha. Therefore, this category continues uninterrupted from the initial attainment of Buddhahood until the end of the future, holding the untainted seeds to prevent their loss. The mind category corresponding to the Wisdom of Equality (Samatā-jñāna) initially arises when the Bodhisattva's path of seeing (darśana-mārga) is first manifested, as it contradicts the two attachments: self-attachment (ātmagraha) and dharma-attachment (dharmagraha). In the subsequent ten grounds, attachment has not been severed, so there may be interruptions in the tainted states. After the Cloud of Dharma Ground (Dharmamegha-bhūmi), it relies on the pure eighth consciousness (vijñāna), continuing uninterrupted until the end of the future. The mind category corresponding to the Wonderful Discriminating Wisdom (Pratyavekṣaṇā-jñāna), the emptiness of self (śūnyatā) contemplation, can also initially arise in the path of seeing of the Two Vehicles (śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha). Thereafter, it gradually progresses to the state of no-more-learning (asaikṣa-bhūmi), or until the end of the Bodhisattva's stage of understanding and practice (mokṣa-bhāgīya-bhūmi), or until a higher stage. If it is not tainted or when there is no mind, it is permissible to manifest. The emptiness of dharma (dharma-śūnyatā) contemplation initially arises in the Bodhisattva's path of seeing. Thereafter, it gradually progresses to a higher stage. If it is not tainted, the result of the wisdom of the emptiness of self (śūnyatā-jñāna), or when there is no mind, it is permissible to manifest. The mind category corresponding to the Wisdom of Accomplishing Activities (Kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna), some argue that it initially arises in the Bodhisattva's path of cultivation, guided by the subsequent acquired wisdom (pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna). Others argue that it initially arises only upon attaining Buddhahood. Because in the ten grounds, the eyes and other sense organs transformed by the resultant consciousness (Vipāka-vijñāna) are not untainted, the tainted and non-common must share the same object, and the principle of the roots emitting untainted consciousness is not consistent. The clarity and obscurity of these two towards the object are different. Therefore, this category requires the attainment of Buddhahood, relying on untainted roots to be permissible.
現起。而數間斷。作意起故。此四種性雖皆本有而要熏發方得現行因位漸增。佛果圓滿不增不減盡未來際。但從種生不熏成種。勿前佛德勝後佛故。大圓鏡智相應心品有義但緣真如為境。是無分別非後得智。行相所緣不可知故。有義此品緣一切法。莊嚴論說大圓鏡智於一切境不愚迷故。佛地經說如來智鏡諸處境識眾像現故。又此決定緣無漏種及身土等諸影像故行緣微細說不可知。如阿賴耶亦緣俗故。緣真如故是無分別。緣餘境故後得智攝。其體是一隨用分二。了俗由證真。故說為後得。餘一分二準此應知。平等性智相應心品有義但緣第八凈識。如染第七緣藏識故。有義但緣真如為境。緣一切法平等性故。有義遍緣真俗為境。佛地經說平等性智證得十種平等性故。莊嚴論說緣諸有情自他平等隨他勝解示現無邊佛影像故。由斯此品通緣真俗二智所攝於理無違。妙觀察智相應心品緣一切法自相共相皆無障礙二智所攝。成所作智相應心品有義但緣五種現境。莊嚴論說如來五根一一皆於五境轉故。有義此品亦能遍緣三世諸法不違正理。佛地經說成所作智起作三業諸變化事抉擇有情心行差別領受去來現在等義。若不遍緣無此能。故然此心品隨意樂力或緣一法或二或多。且說五根於五境轉不言唯爾故不相違。隨作意生緣事相境起化業
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 現在生起，並且數量是間斷的，因為有作意（manasikara）的緣故。這四種自性雖然都是本來就有的，但是必須要經過熏習才能顯現出來，在因位上逐漸增長，到了佛果圓滿時，不增不減，直到未來際。但是從種子生起，不熏習就不能成為種子。不要讓前佛的功德勝過後佛的功德。大圓鏡智（Ādarśa-jñāna）相應的意識品類，有一種觀點認為只緣取真如（Tathātā）作為境界，這是無分別智（nirvikalpa-jñāna），不是後得智（prsthalabdha-jñāna），因為它的行相和所緣是不可知的。另一種觀點認為，這個品類緣取一切法。莊嚴論（Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra）說，大圓鏡智對於一切境界都不會愚昧迷惑。佛地經（Buddhabhūmi-sūtra）說，如來的智慧之鏡，能夠顯現所有處所的境界和意識的眾像。而且，這個品類決定緣取無漏種子（anāsrava-bīja）以及身土等諸影像，所以它的行相和所緣非常微細，說是不可知的。就像阿賴耶識（Ālaya-vijñāna）也緣取世俗諦（saṃvrti-satya）一樣。因為它緣取真如，所以是無分別智；因為它緣取其他境界，所以屬於後得智的範疇。它的本體是一個，隨著作用而分為二。因爲了知世俗諦是通過證悟真如而實現的，所以說它是後得智。其餘的『一分為二』，可以參照這個道理來理解。 平等性智（Samatā-jñāna）相應的意識品類，有一種觀點認為只緣取第八凈識（amalavijñāna），就像染污的第七識（kliṣṭa-manas）緣取藏識（Ālaya-vijñāna）一樣。有一種觀點認為只緣取真如作為境界，因為它緣取一切法的平等性。有一種觀點認為普遍緣取真諦和俗諦作為境界。佛地經說，平等性智證得了十種平等性。莊嚴論說，緣取所有有情（sattva）的自他平等，隨著他們的勝解（adhimukti）而示現無邊的佛影像。因此，這個品類通緣真諦和俗諦，被兩種智慧所攝，在道理上沒有違背。 妙觀察智（Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna）相應的意識品類，緣取一切法的自相（svalakṣaṇa）和共相（sāmānyalakṣaṇa），都沒有障礙，被兩種智慧所攝。 成所作智（Kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna）相應的意識品類，有一種觀點認為只緣取五種現境。莊嚴論說，如來的五根（pañcendriya）一一都在五境（pañcaviṣaya）上運轉。有一種觀點認為，這個品類也能普遍緣取三世諸法，不違背正理。佛地經說，成所作智慧夠發起三種業（trividha-karma），以及各種變化之事，能夠決斷有情的心行差別，領受過去、現在、未來等的意義。如果不普遍緣取，就沒有這種能力。然而，這個意識品類隨著意樂（chanda）的力量，或者緣取一種法，或者兩種，或者多種。且說五根在五境上運轉，並沒有說只有這樣，所以不相違背。隨著作意而生起，緣取事相境，發起化業。
【English Translation】 English version It arises now, and the number is intermittent, due to the arising of attention (manasikara). Although these four natures are all originally present, they must be cultivated to manifest. They gradually increase in the causal stage, and in the complete Buddha-fruit, they neither increase nor decrease until the end of future time. However, they arise from seeds, and without cultivation, they cannot become seeds. Do not let the merits of the previous Buddhas surpass those of the later Buddhas. The mind category corresponding to the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom (Ādarśa-jñāna), according to one view, only takes Suchness (Tathātā) as its object. This is non-discriminating wisdom (nirvikalpa-jñāna), not subsequent wisdom (prsthalabdha-jñāna), because its aspects and objects are unknowable. Another view is that this category takes all dharmas as its object. The Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras (Mahāyāna-sūtrālaṃkāra) says that the Great Perfect Mirror Wisdom is not deluded or confused about any object. The Buddhahood Sutra (Buddhabhūmi-sūtra) says that the Tathagata's mirror of wisdom manifests all the images of realms and consciousnesses in all places. Moreover, this category definitely takes pure seeds (anāsrava-bīja) and images of bodies and lands, so its aspects and objects are very subtle and said to be unknowable. Just as the Ālaya-consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna) also takes conventional truth (saṃvrti-satya) as its object. Because it takes Suchness as its object, it is non-discriminating wisdom; because it takes other objects as its object, it is included in subsequent wisdom. Its essence is one, but it is divided into two according to its function. Because understanding conventional truth is achieved through realizing Suchness, it is said to be subsequent wisdom. The remaining 'one divided into two' should be understood in the same way. The mind category corresponding to Equality Wisdom (Samatā-jñāna), according to one view, only takes the eighth pure consciousness (amalavijñāna) as its object, just as the defiled seventh consciousness (kliṣṭa-manas) takes the storehouse consciousness (Ālaya-vijñāna) as its object. According to one view, it only takes Suchness as its object, because it takes the equality of all dharmas as its object. According to one view, it universally takes both ultimate truth and conventional truth as its object. The Buddhahood Sutra says that Equality Wisdom realizes the ten kinds of equality. The Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras says that it takes the equality of self and others of all sentient beings (sattva) as its object, and manifests boundless Buddha images according to their superior understanding (adhimukti). Therefore, this category universally takes both ultimate truth and conventional truth, and is included in both wisdoms, which is not contradictory in principle. The mind category corresponding to Wonderful Observing Wisdom (Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna) takes the self-characteristics (svalakṣaṇa) and common characteristics (sāmānyalakṣaṇa) of all dharmas without any obstruction, and is included in both wisdoms. The mind category corresponding to Accomplishing Wisdom (Kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna), according to one view, only takes the five present objects as its object. The Ornament of the Great Vehicle Sutras says that each of the Tathagata's five roots (pañcendriya) operates on the five objects (pañcaviṣaya). According to one view, this category can also universally take the dharmas of the three times without violating the correct principle. The Buddhahood Sutra says that Accomplishing Wisdom can initiate the three kinds of karma (trividha-karma) and various transformative events, can determine the differences in the minds and actions of sentient beings, and can receive the meanings of the past, present, and future. If it does not universally take them as its object, it does not have this ability. However, this mind category, according to the power of intention (chanda), either takes one dharma, or two, or many as its object. It is said that the five roots operate on the five objects, but it is not said that it is only so, so there is no contradiction. It arises according to attention, takes the object of phenomena as its object, and initiates transformative actions.
故後得智攝。此四心品雖皆遍能緣一切法而用有異。謂鏡智品現自受用身凈土相持無漏種。平等智品現他受用身凈土相。成事智品能現變化身及土相。觀察智品觀察自他功能過失雨大法雨破諸疑網利樂有情。如是等門差別多種。此四心品名所生得。此所生得總名菩提。及前涅槃名所轉得。雖轉依義總有四種而今但取二所轉得。頌說證得轉依言故。此修習位說能證得。非已證得因位攝故。後究竟位其相云何。頌曰。
３０ 此即無漏界 不思議善常 安樂解脫身 大牟尼名法
論曰。前修習位所得轉依應知即是究竟位相。此謂此前二轉依果。即是究竟無漏界攝。諸漏永盡非漏隨增性凈圓明故名無漏。界是藏義。此中含容無邊希有大功德故。或是因義。能生五乘世出世間利樂事故。清凈法界可唯無漏攝。四智心品如何唯無漏。道諦攝故唯無漏攝。謂佛功德及身土等皆是無漏種性所生。有漏法種已永捨故。雖有示現作生死身業煩惱等似苦集諦而實無漏。道諦所攝。集論等說。十五界等唯是有漏。如來豈無五根五識五外界等。有義如來功德身土甚深微妙非有非無。離諸分別絕諸戲論。非界處等法門所攝。故與彼說理不相違。有義如來五根五境妙定生故法界色攝。非佛五識雖依此變然粗細異
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 因此，後得智（後天獲得的智慧）能夠統攝一切。這四種心品（指四智：成所作智、妙觀察智、平等性智、大圓鏡智）雖然都普遍能夠緣取一切法，但其作用各不相同。大圓鏡智品（Ādarśa-jñāna）顯現自受用身（Sva-saṃbhoga-kāya）和凈土（Buddha-kṣetra）之相，並保持無漏種子（anāsrava-bīja）。平等性智品（Samatā-jñāna）顯現他受用身（Para-saṃbhoga-kāya）和凈土之相。成所作智品（Kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna）能夠顯現變化身（Nirmāṇa-kāya）及其凈土之相。妙觀察智品（Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna）觀察自他（自己和他人）的功能、過失，降下大法雨（dharma-megha），破除各種疑惑，利益安樂有情（sattva）。像這樣，通過各種不同的途徑來實現差別。這四種心品被稱為所生得（niṣpatti-labdha）。這所生得總稱為菩提（bodhi，覺悟）。以及之前的涅槃（nirvāṇa，寂滅）被稱為所轉得（āśraya-parivṛtti-labdha）。雖然轉依（āśraya-parivṛtti）的意義總共有四種，但現在只取兩種所轉得。頌文說『證得轉依』，是因為這裡說的是修習位（bhāvanā-avasthā）能夠證得，而不是已經證得的因位（hetu-avasthā）。 那麼，在究竟位（atyanta-avasthā）時，它的相狀是怎樣的呢？頌文說： 30 此即無漏界（anāsrava-dhātu），不思議善常（acintya-kuśala-nitya）， 安樂解脫身（sukha-vimukti-kāya），大牟尼（mahā-muni）名法（dharma）。 論曰：應該知道，前修習位所得的轉依，就是究竟位的相狀。這指的是此前兩種轉依的果。也就是究竟的無漏界所攝。諸漏（āsrava）永遠斷盡，不再有煩惱隨之增長，自性清凈圓滿光明，所以稱為無漏。界（dhātu）是藏的意思。這裡面包含著無邊稀有的大功德。或者，界是因的意思，能夠產生五乘（pañca-yāna）世間和出世間的利益安樂之事。清凈法界（viśuddha-dharma-dhātu）可以僅僅被無漏所攝嗎？四智心品如何僅僅被無漏所攝？因為是道諦（mārga-satya）所攝，所以僅僅被無漏所攝。也就是說，佛的功德以及身土等，都是無漏種性所生。有漏法（sāsrava-dharma）的種子已經永遠捨棄了。雖然有示現生死身、業、煩惱等，好像是苦集諦（duḥkha-samudaya-satya），但實際上是無漏的，是道諦所攝。《集論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya）等說，十五界等僅僅是有漏。如來（tathāgata）難道沒有五根（pañcendriya）、五識（pañca-vijñāna）、五外界（pañca-viṣaya）等嗎？有一種觀點認為，如來的功德身土非常深奧微妙，非有非無，遠離各種分別，斷絕各種戲論，不是界處等法門所能涵蓋的。所以與他們的說法在道理上並不矛盾。另一種觀點認為，如來的五根五境是妙定所生，屬於法界色所攝。不是佛的五識，雖然依此而變現，但有粗細之別。
【English Translation】 English version Therefore, the subsequently attained wisdom (post-natal wisdom) encompasses all. Although these four mind categories (referring to the four wisdoms: Kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna, Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna, Samatā-jñāna, and Ādarśa-jñāna) are all capable of universally cognizing all dharmas, their functions differ. The Ādarśa-jñāna (Mirror-like Wisdom) category manifests the Sambhogakāya (enjoyment body) and Buddha-kṣetra (Buddha-field), maintaining the anāsrava-bīja (non-outflow seeds). The Samatā-jñāna (Equality Wisdom) category manifests the Para-saṃbhoga-kāya (other-enjoyment body) and Buddha-kṣetra. The Kṛtyānuṣṭhāna-jñāna (Accomplishment Wisdom) category can manifest the Nirmāṇa-kāya (transformation body) and its Buddha-kṣetra. The Pratyavekṣaṇa-jñāna (Discriminating Wisdom) category observes the functions and faults of oneself and others, pours down the dharma-megha (great Dharma rain), breaks through all doubts, and benefits sentient beings. In this way, differences are achieved through various paths. These four mind categories are called niṣpatti-labdha (obtained by production). This niṣpatti-labdha is collectively called bodhi (enlightenment). And the preceding nirvāṇa (cessation) is called āśraya-parivṛtti-labdha (obtained by transformation of the basis). Although there are four types of āśraya-parivṛtti (transformation of the basis) in total, only two types of obtained by transformation are taken now. The verse says 'attaining transformation of the basis' because it refers to the bhāvanā-avasthā (cultivation stage) being able to attain, not the hetu-avasthā (causal stage) that has already attained. So, in the atyanta-avasthā (ultimate stage), what is its appearance like? The verse says: 30 This is the anāsrava-dhātu (non-outflow realm), acintya-kuśala-nitya (inconceivable, wholesome, and eternal), sukha-vimukti-kāya (blissful liberation body), the great muni (mahā-muni) is called dharma. The treatise says: It should be known that the transformation of the basis obtained in the previous cultivation stage is the appearance of the ultimate stage. This refers to the result of the two previous transformations of the basis. That is, it is encompassed by the ultimate anāsrava-dhātu. All outflows (āsrava) are forever exhausted, and no more afflictions increase, the self-nature is pure, complete, and luminous, so it is called non-outflow. Dhātu (realm) means store. It contains boundless rare great merits. Or, dhātu means cause, capable of producing the benefit and happiness of the five vehicles (pañca-yāna) in the world and beyond. Can the viśuddha-dharma-dhātu (pure Dharma realm) be encompassed only by the non-outflow? How are the four wisdom mind categories encompassed only by the non-outflow? Because it is encompassed by the mārga-satya (truth of the path), it is encompassed only by the non-outflow. That is, the Buddha's merits, as well as the body and land, are all born from non-outflow seeds. The seeds of sāsrava-dharma (outflow dharmas) have been forever abandoned. Although there are manifestations of birth, death, body, karma, afflictions, etc., which seem like duḥkha-samudaya-satya (truth of suffering and its origin), they are actually non-outflow and encompassed by the truth of the path. The Abhidharma-samuccaya (Compendium of Abhidharma) and others say that the fifteen realms, etc., are only outflow. Does the tathāgata (Thus-Gone One) not have the pañcendriya (five roots), pañca-vijñāna (five consciousnesses), pañca-viṣaya (five external realms), etc.? One view is that the merits, body, and land of the Thus-Gone One are very profound and subtle, neither existent nor non-existent, far from all discriminations, and cut off from all fabrications, not encompassed by the Dharma gates of realms and places. Therefore, it is not contradictory to their statements in principle. Another view is that the five roots and five realms of the Thus-Gone One are born from wonderful samādhi (concentration), and belong to the form encompassed by the Dharma realm. It is not the five consciousnesses of the Buddha, although they manifest based on this, but there are differences in coarseness and fineness.
。非五境攝。如來五識非五識界。經說佛心恒在定故。論說五識性散亂故。成所作智何識相應。第六相應。起化用故。與觀察智性有何別。彼觀諸法自共相等。此唯起化。故有差別。此二智品應不併生。一類二識不俱起故。許不併起于理無違。同體用分俱亦非失。或與第七凈識相應。依眼等根緣色等境是平等智作用差別。謂凈第七起他受用身土相者平等品攝。起變化者成事品攝。豈不此品攝五識得。非轉彼得體即是彼。如轉生死言得涅槃不可涅槃同生死攝。是故於此不應為難。有義如來功德身土如應攝在蘊處界中。彼三皆通有漏無漏。集論等說十五界等唯有漏者。彼依二乘粗淺境說。非說一切。謂餘成就十八界中唯有後三通無漏攝。佛成就者雖皆無漏而非二乘所知境攝。然餘處說佛功德等非界等者。不同二乘劣智所知界等相故。理必應爾。所以者何。說有為法皆蘊攝故。說一切法界處攝故。十九界等聖所遮故。若絕戲論便非界等亦不應說即無漏界善常安樂解脫身等。又處處說轉無常蘊獲得常蘊。界處亦然。寧說如來非蘊處界。故言非者是密意說。又說五識性散亂者說餘成者。非佛所成。故佛身中十八界等皆悉具足而純無漏。此轉依果又不思議超過尋思言議道故。微妙甚深自內證故。非諸世間喻所喻故。此又是善白法性
故。清凈法界遠離生滅極安隱故。四智心品妙用無方。極巧便故。二種皆有順益相故。違不善故。俱說為善。論說處等八唯無記。如來豈無五根三境。此中三釋廣說如前。一切如來身土等法皆滅道攝。故唯是善。聖說滅道唯善性故。說佛土等非苦集故。佛識所變有漏不善無記相等。皆從無漏善種所生。無漏善攝。此又是常無盡期故。清凈法界無生無滅性無變易故說為常。四智心品所依常故無斷盡故亦說為常。非自性常從因生故。生者歸滅一向記故。不見色心非無常故。然四智品由本願力所化有情無盡期故窮未來際無斷無盡。此又安樂無逼惱故。清凈法界眾相寂靜。故名安樂。四智心品永離惱害。故名安樂。此二自性皆無逼惱。及能安樂一切有情。故二轉依俱名安樂。二乘所得二轉依果唯永遠離煩惱障縛無殊勝法故但名解脫身。大覺世尊成就無上寂默法故名大牟尼。此牟尼尊所得二果永離二障亦名法身。無量無邊力無畏等大功德法所莊嚴故。體依聚義總說名身故。此法身五法為性。非凈法界獨名法身。二轉依果皆此攝故。如是法身有三相別。一自性身。謂諸如來真凈法界。受用變化平等所依。離相寂然絕諸戲論。具無邊際真常功德。是一切法平等實性。即此自性亦名法身。大功德法所依止故。二受用身。此有二種。一自
【現代漢語翻譯】
因此，清凈法界遠離生滅，極其安穩，所以是善。四智心品（指如來所證得的四種智慧：成所作智、妙觀察智、平等性智、大圓鏡智）的妙用沒有固定方向，極其巧妙方便，所以是善。這兩種（清凈法界和四智心品）都具有順益眾生的特性，違背不善，所以都可稱為善。論典中說處等八事唯是無記（非善非惡），難道如來沒有五根（眼耳鼻舌身）和三境（色聲香）嗎？對此，有三種解釋，如前文廣說。一切如來的身土等法都屬於滅道所攝，所以唯是善。聖者說滅道唯是善的性質，說佛土等不是苦集（苦諦和集諦）。佛識所變的有漏、不善、無記等現象，都是從無漏善種所生，屬於無漏善所攝。這又是常，沒有窮盡期限，所以是善。清凈法界沒有生滅，其自性沒有變易，所以說是常。四智心品所依的清凈法界是常，沒有斷盡，所以也說是常。但它不是自性常，而是從因緣所生，生者終歸於滅，這是一定的道理。我們不能因為沒有看到色心就認為沒有無常。然而，四智心品由於本願力的緣故，所化度的有情沒有窮盡期限，窮盡未來際也沒有斷絕窮盡的時候。這又是安樂，沒有逼迫惱亂，所以是善。清凈法界眾相寂靜，所以名為安樂。四智心品永遠遠離惱害，所以名為安樂。這二者的自性都沒有逼迫惱亂，並且能夠安樂一切有情，所以二轉依（轉捨染污的所依，轉得清凈的所依）都名為安樂。二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）所得到的二轉依果，只是永遠脫離煩惱障縛，沒有殊勝的功德法，所以只名為解脫身。大覺世尊成就無上寂默之法，所以名為大牟尼（偉大的聖人）。這位牟尼尊所得到的二果，永遠脫離二障（煩惱障和所知障），也名為法身。無量無邊的力、無畏等大功德法所莊嚴，以體、依、聚的含義總括起來說，名為身，所以此法身以五法為體性，不是清凈法界單獨名為法身。二轉依果都屬於法身所攝。這樣的法身有三種差別相：一、自性身，指諸如來真凈法界，是受用身、變化身、平等性的所依，遠離一切相，寂然不動，斷絕一切戲論，具足無邊際的真常功德，是一切法的平等實性。這個自性也名為法身，因為是大功德法所依止的緣故。二、受用身，這有兩種。一自受用身
【English Translation】 Therefore, the Pure Dharma Realm is far from birth and death, and is extremely peaceful and secure, hence it is good. The wondrous functions of the Four Wisdoms Mind-Essence (referring to the four wisdoms attained by the Tathagata: the Wisdom of Accomplishing Activities, the Wisdom of Wonderful Observation, the Wisdom of Equality, and the Great Mirror Wisdom) have no fixed direction and are extremely skillful and convenient, hence it is good. Both of these (the Pure Dharma Realm and the Four Wisdoms Mind-Essence) have the characteristic of benefiting sentient beings and opposing unwholesomeness, so both can be called good. The treatises say that the eight items such as the sense bases are only neutral (neither good nor evil). Does the Tathagata not have the five roots (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and the three objects (form, sound, smell)? Regarding this, there are three explanations, as explained in detail earlier. All the Dharmas such as the body and land of all Tathagatas are included in cessation and the path, so they are only good. The sages say that cessation and the path are only of a good nature, and say that the Buddha-lands etc. are not suffering and accumulation (the Truth of Suffering and the Truth of the Accumulation of Suffering). The phenomena of the conditioned, unwholesome, and neutral etc. transformed by the Buddha's consciousness are all born from unconditioned good seeds and are included in unconditioned good. This is also constant, without an end, so it is good. The Pure Dharma Realm has no birth or death, and its nature has no change, so it is said to be constant. The Pure Dharma Realm on which the Four Wisdoms Mind-Essence relies is constant and has no cessation, so it is also said to be constant. However, it is not constant by its own nature, but is born from causes and conditions. Those who are born will eventually return to extinction, this is a certain principle. We cannot assume that there is no impermanence just because we do not see form and mind. However, the Four Wisdoms Mind-Essence, due to the power of its original vows, has no end to the sentient beings it transforms, and there is no cessation or exhaustion throughout the future. This is also happiness, without oppression or disturbance, so it is good. The Pure Dharma Realm is tranquil in all its aspects, so it is called happiness. The Four Wisdoms Mind-Essence is forever free from harm, so it is called happiness. The nature of these two has no oppression or disturbance, and they can bring happiness to all sentient beings, so the two Transformations of Basis (transforming and abandoning the defiled basis, transforming and attaining the pure basis) are both called happiness. The fruits of the two Transformations of Basis attained by the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) are only the eternal liberation from the bonds of the afflictive obscurations, without any superior meritorious Dharmas, so they are only called the Liberation Body. The Greatly Enlightened World-Honored One has achieved the unsurpassed Dharma of Silence, so he is called the Great Muni (great sage). The two fruits attained by this Muni are the eternal liberation from the two obscurations (afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations), and are also called the Dharma Body. Adorned with immeasurable and boundless powers, fearlessness, and other great meritorious Dharmas, it is collectively called the Body in terms of essence, support, and aggregation. Therefore, this Dharma Body has five Dharmas as its nature, and the Pure Dharma Realm alone is not called the Dharma Body. The fruits of the two Transformations of Basis are all included in the Dharma Body. Such a Dharma Body has three distinct aspects: First, the Self-Nature Body, which refers to the true and pure Dharma Realm of all Tathagatas, which is the basis of the Enjoyment Body, the Emanation Body, and equality, is free from all appearances, is still and unmoving, cuts off all conceptual elaborations, possesses boundless true and constant merits, and is the equal and real nature of all Dharmas. This Self-Nature is also called the Dharma Body, because it is the support of great meritorious Dharmas. Second, the Enjoyment Body, which has two types. One is the Self-Enjoyment Body.
受用。謂諸如來三無數劫修集無量福慧資糧所起無邊真實功德。及極圓凈常遍色身。相續湛然盡未來際恒自受用廣大法樂。二他受用。謂諸如來由平等智示現微妙凈功德身。居純凈土為住十地諸菩薩眾現大神通轉正法輪決眾疑網令彼受用大乘法樂。合此二種名受用身。三變化身。謂諸如來由成事智變現無量隨類化身。居凈穢土為未登地諸菩薩眾二乘異生稱彼機宜現通說法令各獲得諸利樂事。以五法性攝三身者。有義初二攝自性身。經說真如是法身故。論說轉去阿賴耶識得自性身。圓鏡智品轉去藏識而證得故。中二智品攝受用身。說平等智于純凈土為諸菩薩現佛身故。說觀察智大集會中說法斷疑現自在故。說轉諸轉識得受用身故。後一智品攝變化身。說成事智於十方土現無量種難思化故。
又智殊勝具攝三身。故知三身皆有實智。有義初一攝自性身。說自性身本性常故。說佛法身無生滅故。說證因得非生因故。又說法身諸佛共有遍一切法猶若虛空無相無為非色心故。然說轉去藏識得者。謂由轉滅第八識中二障粗重顯法身故。智殊勝中說法身者。是彼依止彼實性故。自性法身雖有真實無邊功德而無為故不可說為色心等物。四智品中真實功德鏡智所起常遍色身攝自受用。平等智品所現佛身攝他受用。成事智品所現隨類
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 受用身。指的是諸如來經過無數劫修行，積累無量福慧資糧所產生的無邊真實功德，以及極其圓滿清凈、常時周遍的色身。這種色身相續不斷，澄澈明凈，直至未來永恒地享受廣大的法樂。這是第一種，自受用身。 第二種是他受用身。指的是諸如來憑藉平等性智，示現微妙清凈的功德之身，居住在純凈的佛土，為安住於十地（菩薩修行的十個階段）的菩薩們展現大神通，轉動正法輪（佛法的傳播），解答眾生的疑惑，使他們能夠享受大乘佛法的快樂。自受用身和他受用身合起來，稱為受用身。 第三種是變化身。指的是諸如來憑藉成所作智，變現出無量隨順不同眾生根性的化身，居住在清凈或不清凈的國土，為尚未登上菩薩之地的菩薩、二乘（聲聞和緣覺）以及其他眾生，根據他們的根器和需要，示現神通，宣說佛法，使他們各自獲得各種利益和快樂。 用五法性來統攝三身，有一種觀點認為，前兩種（自受用身和他受用身）包含在自性身中。因為經典中說，真如就是法身。論典中說，轉變阿賴耶識就能獲得自性身，因為圓鏡智的品類就是轉變藏識而證得的。中間兩種智慧品類（平等性智和妙觀察智）包含在受用身中。因為平等性智在純凈的佛土為諸菩薩示現佛身。妙觀察智在大**中說法，斷除疑惑，展現自在。還說轉變各種轉識就能獲得受用身。 後一種智慧品類（成所作智）包含在變化身中。因為成所作智在十方國土示現無量種不可思議的化身。 另外，智慧殊勝地包含著三身。因此可知三身都具有真實的智慧。有一種觀點認為，第一種（自性身）包含在自性身中。因為自性身是本性常住的。佛的法身沒有生滅。證得法身是因為修證，而不是因為生。而且法身是諸佛共有的，周遍一切法，就像虛空一樣，沒有形象，沒有造作，不是色法，也不是心法。然而說轉變藏識才能獲得法身，指的是通過轉變和滅除第八識（阿賴耶識）中的兩種障礙（煩惱障和所知障）的粗重部分，才能顯現法身。智慧殊勝中說法身，是因為法身是其他（受用身和變化身）的依據和真實本性。自性法身雖然具有真實無邊的功德，但因為是無為的，所以不能說成是色法或心法等事物。四智品中，真實的功德，圓鏡智所產生的常時周遍的色身，包含自受用身。平等性智品所示現的佛身，包含他受用身。成所作智品所示現的隨類化身
【English Translation】 English version The Enjoyment Body (Sambhogakaya). This refers to the boundless and true merits arising from the countless eons of practice and accumulation of immeasurable blessings and wisdom by the Tathagatas (Buddhas), as well as the supremely perfect, pure, and constantly pervasive Rupakaya (form body). This Rupakaya is continuous, clear, and serene, eternally enjoying vast Dharma bliss into the future. This is the first type, the Self-Enjoyment Body. The second type is the Other-Enjoyment Body. This refers to the Tathagatas manifesting subtle and pure merit bodies through the Wisdom of Equality, residing in pure Buddha-fields, displaying great supernormal powers for the Bodhisattvas abiding in the Ten Bhumis (ten stages of Bodhisattva practice), turning the Wheel of Dharma (the propagation of Buddhist teachings), and resolving the doubts of beings, enabling them to enjoy the bliss of Mahayana Dharma. The combination of these two, the Self-Enjoyment Body and the Other-Enjoyment Body, is called the Enjoyment Body. The third type is the Transformation Body (Nirmanakaya). This refers to the Tathagatas manifesting countless transformation bodies according to the different capacities of beings through the Wisdom of Accomplishment, residing in pure or impure lands, displaying supernormal powers and expounding the Dharma for Bodhisattvas who have not yet attained the Bodhisattva grounds, the Two Vehicles (Sravakas and Pratyekabuddhas), and other beings, according to their capacities and needs, enabling each of them to obtain various benefits and happiness. Using the Five Dharmata (Five Wisdoms) to encompass the Three Bodies, one view holds that the first two (Self-Enjoyment Body and Other-Enjoyment Body) are included within the Essence Body (Svabhavikakaya). This is because the sutras say that Suchness (Tathata) is the Dharmakaya (Dharma Body). The treatises say that transforming the Alaya Consciousness (Storehouse Consciousness) leads to the attainment of the Essence Body, because the category of the Mirror-like Wisdom is what is attained by transforming the Storehouse Consciousness. The middle two wisdom categories (Wisdom of Equality and Wisdom of Discriminating Awareness) are included within the Enjoyment Body. This is because the Wisdom of Equality manifests the Buddha Body for the Bodhisattvas in pure Buddha-fields. The Wisdom of Discriminating Awareness expounds the Dharma in great assemblies, cutting off doubts and manifesting freedom. It is also said that transforming the various consciousnesses leads to the attainment of the Enjoyment Body. The last wisdom category (Wisdom of Accomplishment) is included within the Transformation Body. This is because the Wisdom of Accomplishment manifests countless inconceivable transformations in the ten directions. Furthermore, the excellence of wisdom comprehensively encompasses the Three Bodies. Therefore, it can be known that all Three Bodies possess true wisdom. One view holds that the first one (Essence Body) is included within the Essence Body. This is because the Essence Body is inherently permanent. The Buddha's Dharmakaya has no birth or death. Attaining the Dharmakaya is due to practice, not due to birth. Moreover, the Dharmakaya is shared by all Buddhas, pervading all dharmas, like space, without form, without fabrication, neither form nor mind. However, the statement that transforming the Storehouse Consciousness leads to the attainment of the Dharmakaya refers to the manifestation of the Dharmakaya through the transformation and elimination of the coarse and heavy aspects of the two obscurations (afflictive obscurations and cognitive obscurations) in the eighth consciousness (Alaya Consciousness). The statement about the Dharmakaya in the excellence of wisdom is because the Dharmakaya is the basis and true nature of the others (Enjoyment Body and Transformation Body). Although the Essence Dharmakaya possesses true and boundless merits, because it is unconditioned, it cannot be described as form or mind, etc. Within the Four Wisdoms, the true merits, the constantly pervasive Rupakaya produced by the Mirror-like Wisdom, encompasses the Self-Enjoyment Body. The Buddha Body manifested by the Wisdom of Equality encompasses the Other-Enjoyment Body. The transformations manifested by the Wisdom of Accomplishment
種種身相攝變化身。說圓鏡智是受用佛。轉諸轉識得受用故。雖轉藏識亦得受用。然說轉彼顯法身故。于得受用略不說之。又說法身無生無滅唯證因得非色心等。圓鏡智品與此相違。若非受用屬何身攝。又受用身攝佛不共有為實德故四智品實有色心皆受用攝。又他受用及變化身皆為化他方便示現。故不可說實智為體。雖說化身智殊勝攝。而似智現或智所起。假說智名體實非智。但說平等成所作智慧現受用三業化身。不說二身即是二智。故此二智自受用攝。然變化身及他受用雖無真實心及心所。而有化現心心所法。無上覺者神力難思故能化現無形質法。若不爾者云何如來現貪瞋等。久已斷故。云何聲聞及傍生等知如來心。如來實心等覺菩薩尚不知故。由此經說。化無量類皆令有心。又說如來成所作智化作三業。又說變化有依他心依他實心相分現故。雖說變化無根心等。而依餘說。不依如來。又化色根心心所法無根等用故不說有。如是三身雖皆具足無邊功德。而各有異。謂自性身唯有真實常樂我凈。離諸雜染眾善所依。無為功德。無色心等差別相用。自受用身具無量種妙色心等真實功德。若他受用及變化身。唯具無邊似色心等利樂他用化相功德。又自性身正自利攝。寂靜安樂無動作故。亦兼利他。為增上緣令諸有情得利樂
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 種種身相攝受變化身（Nirmanakaya，應化身）。說圓鏡智（Adarsa-jnana，如實反映一切事物的智慧）是受用佛（Sambhogakaya，報身），因為轉變諸轉識（Vijnana，了別識）而得受用。雖然轉變藏識（Alaya-vijnana，阿賴耶識）也能得受用，然而說轉變藏識是爲了彰顯法身（Dharmakaya，法性身）的緣故，對於得受用就略而不說。又說法身無生無滅，唯有證悟才能獲得，不是色心等法。圓鏡智的體性與此相違背。如果不是受用，那屬於哪個身呢？ 又受用身攝屬於佛不共的有為實德，所以四智品（Catur-jnana，四種智慧）中真實具有色心，都屬於受用所攝。又他受用身（Para-sambhogakaya，他受用報身）以及變化身都是爲了教化他人的方便示現，所以不可說以實智為體。雖然說化身是殊勝的智慧所攝，但只是相似於智慧的顯現，或者是由智慧所生起，假借說為智慧之名，體性實際上不是智慧。只是說平等性智（Samata-jnana，平等對待一切眾生的智慧）和成所作智（Krtyanusthana-jnana，成就一切應作事業的智慧）能夠顯現受用身的三業化身，沒有說二身就是二智。所以這二智是自受用身所攝。 然而變化身和他受用身雖然沒有真實的心和心所，但有化現的心心所法。無上覺者（Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi，無上正等正覺）的神力難以思議，所以能夠化現無形質的法。如果不是這樣，如來（Tathagata，如來）怎麼會示現貪瞋等煩惱？因為如來早就斷除了這些煩惱。聲聞（Sravaka，聽聞佛法而修行證果的人）和傍生等眾生又怎麼能知道如來的心？因為如來真實的心連等覺菩薩（Ekajati-pratibaddha-bodhisattva，一生補處菩薩）尚且不能知道。因此經中說，化現無量種類的眾生，都讓他們有心。又說如來以成所作智化作三業。又說變化有依他心，因為依他實心相分顯現的緣故。雖然說變化沒有根心等，但那是依據其他的說法，不是依據如來說的。又化現的色根心心所法沒有根等的作用，所以不說有。 像這樣，三身雖然都具足無邊的功德，但各有不同。所謂自性身（Svabhavakakaya，自性身）唯有真實、常樂我凈（Nitya-sukha-atma-subha，常樂我凈）的功德，遠離各種雜染，是眾善所依，是無為功德，沒有色心等差別相用。自受用身具足無量種妙色心等真實功德。至於他受用身和變化身，唯有無邊的相似色心等利益安樂他人的化相功德。 又自性身主要是爲了自身利益，寂靜安樂沒有動作的緣故，也兼顧利益他人，作為增上緣，使一切有情眾生得到利益安樂。
【English Translation】 English version Various forms of bodies encompass the Nirmanakaya (Transformation Body). It is said that the Adarsa-jnana (Mirror-like Wisdom) is the Sambhogakaya (Enjoyment Body), because it is through the transformation of the Vijnana (Consciousness) that enjoyment is attained. Although the transformation of the Alaya-vijnana (Storehouse Consciousness) also leads to enjoyment, the mention of transforming the Alaya-vijnana is to highlight the Dharmakaya (Truth Body), so the attainment of enjoyment is omitted. Furthermore, it is said that the Dharmakaya is without birth or death, attainable only through enlightenment, and is not of the nature of form or mind. The nature of the Adarsa-jnana contradicts this. If it is not enjoyment, then to which body does it belong? Moreover, the Sambhogakaya encompasses the non-common, active, and real virtues of the Buddha. Therefore, the Catur-jnana (Four Wisdoms) truly possess form and mind, all of which are included in enjoyment. Furthermore, the Para-sambhogakaya (Other-Enjoyment Body) and the Nirmanakaya are expedient manifestations for the purpose of teaching others, so it cannot be said that they are based on real wisdom. Although it is said that the Nirmanakaya is encompassed by superior wisdom, it is only a manifestation similar to wisdom, or arises from wisdom, and is nominally called wisdom, but its essence is not truly wisdom. It is only said that the Samata-jnana (Wisdom of Equality) and the Krtyanusthana-jnana (Wisdom of Accomplishment) can manifest the three karmas of the Sambhogakaya and the Nirmanakaya, but it is not said that the two bodies are the two wisdoms. Therefore, these two wisdoms are encompassed by the self-enjoyment. However, although the Nirmanakaya and the Para-sambhogakaya do not have real mind and mental factors, they have manifested mind and mental factors. The power of the Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (Supreme Perfect Enlightenment) is inconceivable, so it can manifest formless phenomena. If this were not the case, how could the Tathagata (Thus Come One) manifest afflictions such as greed and anger? Because the Tathagata has long since eradicated these afflictions. How can Sravakas (Hearers) and animals know the mind of the Tathagata? Because even the Ekajati-pratibaddha-bodhisattva (Bodhisattva Bound by One More Birth) does not know the real mind of the Tathagata. Therefore, the sutra says that the Tathagata transforms countless beings and causes them all to have minds. It also says that the Tathagata transforms the three karmas with the Krtyanusthana-jnana. It also says that transformation has a dependent mind, because the appearance of the dependent real mind is manifested. Although it is said that transformation has no root mind, etc., that is based on other teachings, not based on the teachings of the Tathagata. Furthermore, the transformed sense organs, mind, and mental factors do not have the function of roots, etc., so it is not said that they exist. In this way, although the three bodies are all complete with boundless merits, they are different from each other. The Svabhavakakaya (Essence Body) only has the virtues of reality, Nitya-sukha-atma-subha (eternity, bliss, self, and purity), is free from all defilements, is the basis of all good, is unconditioned virtue, and has no differentiated appearances or functions of form and mind. The self-enjoyment body has countless kinds of wonderful form, mind, and other real virtues. As for the other-enjoyment body and the transformation body, they only have the boundless virtues of transformation appearances, such as similar form and mind, which benefit and bring joy to others. Moreover, the Svabhavakakaya is mainly for one's own benefit, because it is peaceful, joyful, and without action. It also benefits others as a contributing condition, enabling all sentient beings to obtain benefit and joy.
故。又與受用及變化身為所依止。故俱利攝。自受用身唯屬自利。若他受用及變化身唯屬利他。為他現故。又自性身依法性土。雖此身土體無差別。而屬佛法相性異故。此佛身土俱非色攝。雖不可說形量小大。然隨事相其量無邊。譬如虛空遍一切處。自受用身還依自土。謂圓鏡智相應凈識由昔所修自利無漏純凈佛土因緣成熟。從初成佛盡未來際相續變為純凈佛土。周圓無際眾寶莊嚴。自受用身常依而住。如凈土量身量亦爾。諸根相好一一無邊。無限善根所引生故。功德智慧既非色法。雖不可說形量大小。而依所證及所依身亦可說言遍一切處。他受用身亦依自土。謂平等智大慈悲力由昔所修利他無漏純凈佛土因緣成熟。隨住十地菩薩所宜變為凈土。或小或大或劣或勝前後改轉。他受用身依之而住。能依身量亦無定限。若變化身依變化土。謂成事智大慈悲力由昔所修利他無漏凈穢佛土因緣成熟。隨未登地有情所宜化為佛土。或凈或穢或小或大前後改轉。佛變化身依之而住。能依身量亦無定限。自性身土一切如來同所證故體無差別。自受用身及所依土雖一切佛各變不同。而皆無邊不相障礙。餘二身土隨諸如來所化有情有共不共。所化共者同處同時。諸佛各變為身為土形狀相似不相障礙。展轉相雜為增上緣。令所化生自識變現
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 因此，受用身（Sambhogakaya）和變化身（Nirmanakaya）是所依止的，所以都屬於俱利（ubhaya-artha，自利利他）。自受用身（Svasambhogakaya）只屬於自利。而他受用身（Parasambhogakaya）和變化身只屬於利他，因為是為他人示現的。 此外，自性身（Svabhavikakaya）所依止的是法性土（Dharmadhatu）。雖然此身和土在本體上沒有差別，但因為屬於佛法（Buddha-dharma）的法相（dharma-laksana），在性質上有所不同。因此，佛身和佛土都不是色法（rupa）所攝。雖然不能說其形狀大小，但隨著事相（vastu-lakshana），其量是無邊的。譬如虛空，遍一切處。自受用身還依止於自己的佛土。這是因為圓鏡智（Adarsa-jnana）相應的清凈識，由過去所修的自利無漏純凈佛土的因緣成熟，從初成佛到未來際，相續變為純凈佛土，周圓無際，眾寶莊嚴。自受用身常依止於此。如同凈土的量，自受用身的量也是如此。諸根（indriya）和相好（lakshana）一一無邊，由無限的善根所引生。功德和智慧既然不是色法，雖然不能說其形狀大小，但依據所證悟的境界和所依止的身，也可以說遍一切處。 他受用身也依止於自己的佛土。這是因為平等智（Samata-jnana）和大慈悲力，由過去所修的利他無漏純凈佛土的因緣成熟，隨著住在十地（bhumi）的菩薩所宜，變為凈土，或小或大，或劣或勝，前後改變。他受用身依止於此。能依止的身量也沒有定限。變化身依止於變化土。這是因為成事智（Krtyanusthana-jnana）和大慈悲力，由過去所修的利他無漏清凈或不清凈的佛土因緣成熟，隨著未登地的有情所宜，化為佛土，或凈或穢，或小或大，前後改變。佛變化身依止於此。能依止的身量也沒有定限。 自性身和佛土，一切如來所證悟的都是相同的，所以在本體上沒有差別。自受用身和所依止的佛土，雖然一切佛各自變化不同，但都是無邊的，互不障礙。其餘二身和佛土，隨著諸如來所教化的有情，有共同和不共同之處。所教化的是共同的，在同一處同一時間，諸佛各自變為身和佛土，形狀相似，互不障礙，輾轉相雜，作為增上緣（adhipati-pratyaya），令所教化的眾生自己的識（vijnana）變現。
【English Translation】 English version: Therefore, the Sambhogakaya (enjoyment body) and Nirmanakaya (emanation body) are what one relies on, thus both belong to ubhaya-artha (benefit for oneself and others). The Svasambhogakaya (self-enjoyment body) belongs only to benefiting oneself. While the Parasambhogakaya (other-enjoyment body) and Nirmanakaya belong only to benefiting others, because they are manifested for others. Furthermore, the Svabhavikakaya (essence body) relies on the Dharmadhatu (realm of reality). Although this body and land are not different in essence, they differ in nature because they belong to the dharma-laksana (characteristics of the Dharma) of the Buddha-dharma (Buddha's teachings). Therefore, both the Buddha's body and land are not included in rupa (form). Although one cannot describe their shape or size, their extent is limitless according to the vastu-lakshana (characteristics of things). It is like space, pervading everywhere. The Svasambhogakaya also relies on its own Buddha-land. This is because the pure consciousness corresponding to Adarsa-jnana (mirror-like wisdom), matures from the causes and conditions of the self-benefiting, non-outflow, pure Buddha-land cultivated in the past, and continuously transforms into a pure Buddha-land from the initial attainment of Buddhahood to the end of the future, being perfectly round, boundless, and adorned with numerous treasures. The Svasambhogakaya constantly relies on this. Just as the extent of the pure land, so is the extent of the Svasambhogakaya. Each of the indriya (sense organs) and lakshana (marks and characteristics) are boundless, brought forth by limitless roots of goodness. Since merit and wisdom are not rupa, although one cannot describe their shape or size, based on the realm attained and the body relied upon, one can also say that they pervade everywhere. The Parasambhogakaya also relies on its own Buddha-land. This is because Samata-jnana (wisdom of equality) and great compassion, mature from the causes and conditions of the other-benefiting, non-outflow, pure Buddha-land cultivated in the past, transforming into a pure land according to what is suitable for the Bodhisattvas dwelling in the ten bhumi (grounds), being either small or large, inferior or superior, changing before and after. The Parasambhogakaya relies on this. The extent of the relying body also has no fixed limit. The Nirmanakaya relies on the transformation land. This is because Krtyanusthana-jnana (wisdom of accomplishing what needs to be done) and great compassion, mature from the causes and conditions of the other-benefiting, non-outflow, pure or impure Buddha-land cultivated in the past, transforming into a Buddha-land according to what is suitable for sentient beings who have not yet ascended the grounds, being either pure or impure, small or large, changing before and after. The Buddha's Nirmanakaya relies on this. The extent of the relying body also has no fixed limit. The Svabhavikakaya and Buddha-land are the same for all Tathagatas (thus-gone-ones) in what they have realized, so there is no difference in essence. Although the Svasambhogakaya and the Buddha-land relied upon are transformed differently by each Buddha, they are all boundless and do not obstruct each other. The other two bodies and Buddha-lands, according to the sentient beings taught by the Tathagatas, have common and uncommon aspects. Those who are taught in common, in the same place and at the same time, the Buddhas each transform into bodies and Buddha-lands, with similar shapes, not obstructing each other, intermingling with each other, serving as adhipati-pratyaya (dominant condition), causing the vijnana (consciousness) of the sentient beings being taught to manifest.
。謂於一土有一佛身為現神通說法饒益。于不共者唯一佛變。諸有情類無始時來種性法爾更相系屬。或多屬一或一屬多。故所化生有共不共。不爾多佛久住世間各事劬勞實為無益。一佛能益一切生故。此諸身土若凈若穢無漏識上所變現者。同能變識俱善無漏。純善無漏因緣所生。是道諦攝非苦集故。蘊等識相不必皆同。三法因緣雜引生故。有漏識上所變現者同能變識皆是有漏。純從有漏因緣所生是苦集攝。非滅道故。善等識相不必皆同。三性因緣雜引生故。蘊等同異類此應知。不爾應無五十二等。然相分等依識變現。非如識性依他中實。不爾唯識理應不成。許識內境俱實有故。或識相見等從緣生。俱依他起虛實如識。唯言遣外不遮內境。不爾真如亦應非實。內境與識既並非虛。如何但言唯識非境。識唯內有境亦通外。恐濫外故但言唯識。或諸愚夫迷執于境起煩惱業生死沉淪不解觀心勤求出離。哀愍彼故說唯識言令自觀心解脫生死。非謂內境如外都無。或相分等皆識為性。由熏習力似多分生。真如亦是識之實性。故除識性無別有法。此中識言亦說心所。心與心所定相應故。此論三分成立唯識。是故說為成唯識論。亦說此論名凈唯識。顯唯識理極明凈故。此本論名唯識三十。由三十頌顯唯識理。乃得圓滿非增減故。
{ "translations": [ "現代漢語譯本：", "如果在一個佛土中，有一佛身顯現神通說法，利益眾生。在不共的情況下，只有一佛變化。所有有情眾生從無始以來，其種性和本性就相互聯繫。或者多個眾生屬於一個佛，或者一個眾生屬於多個佛。因此，所化度的眾生有共同和不共同之分。否則，如果多佛長久住世，各自辛勤勞作，實際上是沒有益處的。因為一佛就能利益一切眾生。這些佛身和佛土，無論是清凈還是污穢，都是在無漏識上所變現的。它們與能變識一樣，都是善良且無漏的，由純粹善良無漏的因緣所生，屬於道諦所攝，而不是苦諦和集諦。蘊等的識相不必完全相同，因為它們是由三法（善、惡、無記）的因緣混合引發產生的。在有漏識上所變現的，與能變識一樣，都是有漏的，由純粹有漏的因緣所生，屬於苦諦和集諦所攝，而不是滅諦和道諦。善等的識相不必完全相同，因為它們是由三性（善、惡、無記）的因緣混合引發產生的。蘊等的同異，應該依此類推來理解。否則，就不應該有五十二種心所等差別。然而，相分等是依識的變現而存在，不像識的自性那樣，在依他起性中是真實的。否則，唯識的道理就不能成立，因為如果承認識的內在境界和外在境界都是真實存在的。或者，識的相分、見分等是從因緣而生，都依他而起，虛幻與真實如同識一樣。只說『唯』是爲了排除外境，而不是遮蔽內在境界。否則，真如也應該不是真實的。內在境界與識既然都不是虛幻的，為什麼只說唯識而否定外境呢？識只是內在的，而境界則內外相通。因為害怕與外境混淆，所以只說唯識。或者，因為那些愚昧的人執迷於外境，產生煩惱、造作惡業，在生死輪迴中沉淪，不瞭解觀心、勤求出離。爲了哀憐他們，所以說唯識，讓他們自己觀察內心，解脫生死，而不是說內在境界像外境一樣完全不存在。或者，相分等都是以識為自性，由於熏習的力量，好像有多種分位產生。真如也是識的真實自性，所以除了識性之外，沒有別的法存在。這裡所說的『識』也包括心所。心與心所一定是相應的。這部論通過三個部分來成立唯識，所以稱為《成唯識論》。也說這部論名為《凈唯識論》，顯示唯識的道理極其明凈。這部論的原本名為《唯識三十頌》，因為用三十頌來顯示唯識的道理，才得以圓滿，不能增減。", "專有名詞：", "佛土 (Buddhakṣetra): 佛所居住和教化的世界。", "佛身 (Buddhakāya): 佛所具有的身體，包括法身、報身、應身等。", "神通 (Abhijñā): 超越常人的能力，如天眼通、天耳通等。", "說法 (Dharma talk): 宣講佛法。", "有情 (Sattva): 一切有情識的生命，即眾生。", "種性 (Gotra): 潛在的、與生俱來的能力或傾向。", "法爾 (Dharmatā): 事物的本性或自然規律。", "所化生 (Vineyajana): 被佛陀或菩薩所教化和引導的眾生。", "共 (Common): 共同的，普遍的。", "不共 (Uncommon): 不共同的，獨特的。", "無漏識 (Anāsrava-vijñāna): 沒有煩惱染污的清凈識。", "道諦 (Mārga-satya): 達到解脫的道路，即八正道。", "苦諦 (Duḥkha-satya): 苦的真理，即人生是苦的。", "集諦 (Samudaya-satya): 苦的根源，即煩惱和業力。", "蘊 (Skandha): 構成人身的五種要素，即色、受、想、行、識。", "識相 (Vijñāna-lakṣaṇa): 識的各種形態和特徵。", "有漏識 (Sāsrava-vijñāna): 具有煩惱染污的識。", "滅諦 (Nirodha-satya): 滅苦的真理，即涅槃。", "三性 (Trisvabhāva): 遍計所執性、依他起性、圓成實性。", "相分 (Nimitta-bhāga): 識所認識的對象或境界。", "見分 (Darśana-bhāga): 識的能認識作用。", "依他起性 (Paratantra-svabhāva): 依因緣而生起的性質。", "真如 (Tathatā): 事物的真實如是之性。", "心所 (Caitasika): 伴隨心識生起的各種心理活動。", "成唯識論 (Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra): 闡述唯識思想的論著。", "凈唯識論 (Śuddha-vijñaptimātratā-śāstra): 闡述清凈唯識思想的論著。", "唯識三十頌 (Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā): 闡述唯識思想的三十頌。", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "",
已依聖教及正理 分別唯識性相義 所獲功德施群生 愿共速登無上覺
## 成唯識論卷第十
成唯識論後序
吳興沈玄明撰
原夫。覺海澄玄。涵萬流而浚宗極。神幾闡妙。被眾象而凝至真。朗慧日而鏡六幽。泄慈雲而清八㝢。演一音而懸解。逸三乘以遐騖。體陳如之半器。津有有于鹿園。照善現之滿機。繹空空于鷲嶺。雖絕塵于常斷。詎遺筌于有空。顯無上之靈宗。凝中道于茲教。逮金河滅景。派淳源而不追。玉牒霏華。緒澆風而競扇。於是二十八見迷。桑雁於五天。一十六師亂。云牛於四主。半千將聖。茲惟世親寔賢劫之應真。晦生知以提化。飛光毓彩誕映資靈。曜常明於八蘊。藻初情於六足。秀談芝于俱捨。摽說有之餘宗。攝玄波于大乘。賁研空之至理。化方升而照極。湛沖一於斯頌。唯識三十偈者。世親歸根之遺制也。理韜淵海。泛浮境于榮河。義郁煙飆。麗虹章于玄圃。言含萬象。字苞千訓。妙旨天逸。邃彩星華。幽緒未宣。冥神絕境。孤明斂映。秘思潛津。後有護法安慧等十大菩薩。韞玄珠於八藏。聳層構於四圍。宅照二因。棲清三觀。升暉十地。澄智水以潤賢林。鄰幾七覺。皎行月而開重夜。優柔芳烈。景躅前修。箭涌泉言。風飛寶思。咸觀本頌。各裁斯釋。名曰成唯識
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本 依據聖教（佛陀的教誨）和正理（正確的邏輯），分別解釋唯識（唯有意識）的體性和現象。 愿以此所獲得的功德，施予一切眾生，愿我們共同迅速證得無上正覺（最高的覺悟）。
《成唯識論》卷第十
《成唯識論》後序
吳興沈玄明 撰
追溯本源，覺悟之海澄澈深遠，包容萬流而深究根本。神妙的機理闡發精微，覆蓋萬象而凝聚至高的真理。它像朗照的慧日，照亮六道幽暗；又像傾瀉的慈雲，凈化八方寰宇。它宣講唯一的真理之音，解除眾生的迷惑；超脫三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）而遠行。它體悟陳如（憍陳如，佛陀最早的五位弟子之一）的半器之喻，在鹿野苑引導有為之法；它照見善現（須菩提，佛陀的十大弟子之一）的圓滿機緣，在鷲峰山闡釋空性之理。雖然它超越了常與斷的塵世執著，但並沒有捨棄有與空的方便法門。它彰顯無上的靈妙宗旨，將中道（不偏不倚的真理）凝聚於此教義之中。自從金河（指佛陀涅槃）的景象消逝後，純正的源流不再被追尋；玉牒（珍貴的典籍）散發光華，但浮躁的風氣競相煽動。於是，二十八種邪見（對『我』的錯誤認知）迷惑了天竺（古代印度），十六外道（不信奉佛教的修行者）擾亂了四方之主。在無數將要成聖的人中，唯有世親（Vasubandhu）是賢劫（現在這個時代）的應化之真。他隱藏自己的先知先覺，以引導教化眾生。他飛揚的光芒孕育著色彩，誕生的祥瑞映照著靈性。他像常明之星，照耀著八識（眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識、末那識、阿賴耶識）；又像美麗的藻飾，點綴著六足論（佛教論書）。他像秀美的芝草生長在《俱捨論》（Abhidharmakośa）中，標榜著說一切有部（Sarvāstivāda）的遺風。他將玄妙的波濤納入大乘佛教，用研習空性的至高真理來裝飾它。他的教化像太陽升起照亮極地，他的思想像清澈的流水一樣純凈。這《唯識三十頌》（Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā）是世親（Vasubandhu）歸根溯源的遺作。其中的道理深藏如淵海，在榮河（比喻虛幻的境界）中泛起；其中的意義濃郁如煙雲，像彩虹一樣絢麗地裝飾著玄圃（傳說中的仙境）。言語包含萬象，文字蘊藏千訓。精妙的旨意自然流露，深邃的色彩像星光一樣閃耀。幽深的思緒尚未宣揚，冥想的神思超越了境界。孤明的光芒收斂隱沒，秘密的思緒潛藏涌動。後來有護法（Dharmapāla）、安慧（Sthiramati）等十大菩薩，將玄妙的寶珠蘊藏在八藏（佛教的八部經典）之中，在四圍（指佛教的教義）聳立起高大的建築。他們傚法照和二因（指智慧和慈悲），安住在清凈的三觀（空觀、假觀、中觀）。他們像升起的陽光照耀十地（菩薩修行的十個階段），用清澈的智慧之水滋潤賢聖的樹林。他們接近七覺支（菩提的七個要素），像皎潔的月亮照亮漫長的黑夜。他們溫和柔順，芳香遠播，他們的身影追隨前人的修行足跡。他們的言語像泉水一樣涌出，他們的思想像風一樣飛揚。他們都觀察本頌（《唯識三十頌》），各自裁定解釋，名為《成唯識論》（Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi）。
【English Translation】 English version Based on the sacred teachings (Buddha's teachings) and correct reasoning (right logic), to separately explain the nature and phenomena of Vijñaptimātratā (consciousness-only). May the merits and virtues acquired thereby be bestowed upon all sentient beings, and may we all swiftly attain unsurpassed perfect enlightenment (supreme awakening).
Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi Treatise, Volume 10
Postface to the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi Treatise
Composed by Shen Xuanming of Wuxing
Tracing back to the origin, the sea of enlightenment is clear and profound, encompassing all streams and deeply investigating the root. The divine mechanism elucidates the subtle, covering all phenomena and condensing the supreme truth. It is like the illuminating sun of wisdom, shining upon the darkness of the six realms; and like the pouring clouds of compassion, purifying the eight directions of the universe. It proclaims the unique sound of truth, resolving the delusions of sentient beings; transcending the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) and traveling afar. It embodies the metaphor of Ajñāta Kauṇḍinya's half-vessel, guiding the conditioned dharmas in the Deer Park; it illuminates Subhūti's complete opportunity, expounding the principle of emptiness on Vulture Peak. Although it transcends the worldly attachments of permanence and annihilation, it does not abandon the expedient means of existence and emptiness. It manifests the supreme spiritual essence, condensing the Middle Way (the truth of non-duality) in this doctrine. Since the scene of the Golden River (referring to the Buddha's Parinirvana) vanished, the pure source is no longer pursued; the jade tablets (precious scriptures) emit brilliance, but the frivolous atmosphere competes to fan the flames. Thus, the twenty-eight wrong views (incorrect perceptions of 'self') deluded India (ancient India), and the sixteen heretical teachers disturbed the lords of the four directions. Among the countless who are about to become saints, only Vasubandhu (世親) is the incarnate truth of the Bhadrakalpa (the present era). He conceals his prescience to guide and transform sentient beings. His flying light nurtures colors, and the auspicious signs of his birth reflect spirituality. He is like a constant star, illuminating the eight consciousnesses (eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, mind-consciousness, manas-consciousness, ālayā-consciousness); and like beautiful decorations, adorning the Six Pāda Śāstras (Buddhist treatises). He is like the beautiful sesame growing in the Abhidharmakośa (俱捨論), proclaiming the legacy of the Sarvāstivāda (說一切有部). He incorporates the profound waves into Mahayana Buddhism, and adorns it with the supreme truth of studying emptiness. His teachings are like the sun rising to illuminate the extreme, and his thoughts are as pure as clear flowing water. This Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā (唯識三十頌) is the legacy of Vasubandhu (世親) returning to the root. The principles within are deeply hidden like the ocean, floating in the illusory realm of the Rong River (a metaphor for illusory states); the meanings within are as rich as smoke and clouds, adorning the mysterious garden like a rainbow. The words contain all phenomena, and the characters contain thousands of teachings. The subtle meaning flows naturally, and the profound colors shine like starlight. The profound thoughts have not yet been proclaimed, and the meditative thoughts transcend the realm. The solitary bright light is collected and hidden, and the secret thoughts are hidden and surging. Later, there were ten great Bodhisattvas such as Dharmapāla (護法), Sthiramati (安慧), who concealed the mysterious jewels in the eight treasuries (the eight sections of Buddhist scriptures), and erected tall buildings in the four directions (referring to Buddhist doctrines). They emulate the two causes of illumination and wisdom (referring to wisdom and compassion), and dwell in the pure Threefold Contemplation (emptiness, provisional existence, the Middle Way). They are like the rising sun illuminating the ten bhūmis (the ten stages of a Bodhisattva's practice), and use the clear water of wisdom to nourish the forests of the virtuous. They approach the Seven Factors of Enlightenment (the seven elements of Bodhi), like the bright moon illuminating the long night. They are gentle and supple, and their fragrance spreads far and wide, their figures follow the footsteps of previous practitioners. Their words flow like a spring, and their thoughts fly like the wind. They all observe the original verse (Triṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā), and each adjudicates and explains it, named Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi (成唯識論).
論。或名凈唯識論。空心外之二取。息滯有之迷涂。有識內之一心。遣歸空之妄執。晦斯心境。苦海所以長淪。悟彼有空。覺岸於焉高蹈。九十外道。亂風轍而靡星旗。十八小乘。軔羬軒而扶龍轂。窮神體妙。詣賾探機。精貫十支。洞該九分。顧十翼而搏仙羽。頫九流以浚瓊波。盡邃理之希微。闡法王之奧典。稱謂雙絕。筌象兼忘。曜靈景于西申。閟虹光于震旦。濟物弘道。眇歸宗德。粵若大和上三藏法師玄奘。體睿捨真。履仁翔慧。九門禪宴。證靜于融山。八萬玄津。騰流於委海。疊金墻而月曜。峻玉宇而霞騫。軼芳粹于澄蘭。孕風華于龍翼。悼微言之匿彩。嗟大義之淪暉。用啟誓言。肆茲遙踐泳祥河之輟水。攀寶樹之低枝。循鏤杠以神遊。𨈆霙峰而安步。升紫階而證道。瞰玄影以嚴因。采奧觀奇。徒蒼龍於二紀。緘檀篆貝。旋白馬於三秦。我
大唐慶表金輪。禎資樞電。奄大千而光宅。御六辯以天飛。神化潛通。九仙贐寶玄猷旁闡。百靈聳職。凝旒邃拱。沓通夢于霄暉。掞組摛華。煥騰文以幽贊。爰降綸旨。溥令翻譯。
敕尚書左僕射燕國公于志寧。中書令高陽公許敬宗等潤色。沙門釋神泰等證義。沙門釋靖邁等質文。肇自貞觀十九年終於顯慶之末。部將六十。捲出一千。韜軼蓬萊。池湟環㴾。載隆
【現代漢語翻譯】
現代漢語譯本： 此論或名為《凈唯識論》。它清除了執著於心外之境和心外之識的兩種錯誤觀念，止息了沉迷於『有』的迷途。它確立了『有識』在於內心唯一的觀念，遣除了迴歸于『空』的虛妄執著。如果昧於此心與境的道理，就會在苦海中長久沉淪；如果領悟到『有』與『空』的真諦，就能在覺悟的彼岸高蹈前行。九十多種外道，像混亂的車轍一樣，使人迷失方向，星旗也隨之倒下。十八部小乘佛教，像堅固的車軸一樣，扶持著佛法的車輪前進。他們窮究精神的本體，探尋微妙的機理，精通佛教的十支論，洞察佛教的九分教義。他們回顧《十翼》而像仙人一樣自由飛翔，俯視諸子百家而像疏浚瓊波一樣汲取精華。他們窮盡深奧哲理的細微之處，闡述佛法的精妙典籍。他們的稱謂超越了相對的概念，忘卻了言語和形象。他們的光輝在西方閃耀，他們的虹光在震旦（中國）隱現。他們救濟眾生，弘揚佛法，最終歸於佛的德行。 追溯往昔，大和尚三藏法師玄奘，秉持著睿智，捨棄虛妄，以仁為本，以慧為翼。他在九門禪宴中，于融山證得禪定；他的八萬玄津，在委海中奔騰流淌。他的寺廟重疊著金色的墻壁，像月亮一樣閃耀；他的殿宇高聳，像彩霞一樣飛舞。他的才華超越了澄澈的蘭花，他的文采孕育于龍的翅膀。他哀嘆精微的佛法教義隱匿光彩，慨嘆偉大的佛法真義淪沒無聞。因此，他發下誓願，開始了遙遠的求法之旅，他像在祥河中停止汲水一樣，減少自己的需求；他像攀援寶樹而使樹枝低垂一樣，虛心學習；他沿著雕刻著花紋的欄桿，像神仙一樣遊歷；他在險峻的山峰上，安穩地行走。他登上紫色的階梯而證得佛道，俯瞰玄妙的景象而嚴謹地修持因地。他採擷深奧的見解，探尋奇異的景象，耗費了二十年的光陰；他將佛經珍藏在檀木盒中，用貝葉書寫，然後用白馬馱回了三秦（關中地區）。 大唐王朝慶祝金輪王的出現，吉祥的徵兆如同樞星的光芒。佛法的光輝普照整個世界，佛陀以六種辯才弘揚佛法。神妙的教化潛移默化地影響著人們，九天仙人獻上寶物，讚頌玄妙的佛法，百神肅立，各司其職。皇帝凝神端坐，深邃地思考，如同在夢中與天上的光輝相通。大臣們奮筆疾書，用華麗的辭藻來讚美佛法的幽深玄妙。於是，皇帝頒佈詔書，廣泛地命令翻譯佛經。 奉敕尚書左僕射燕國公于志寧、中書令高陽公許敬宗等人負責潤色文字，沙門釋神泰等人負責考證義理，沙門釋靖邁等人負責校對文辭。從貞觀十九年開始，到顯慶末年結束，共翻譯了六十部經典，一千卷。其價值超越了蓬萊仙島，其規模超過了池塘。佛法因此而昌盛。
【English Translation】 English version: This treatise is also named 『Treatise on Pure Consciousness-Only』. It clears away the two misconceptions of clinging to external objects and external consciousness outside the mind, and ceases the delusion of being stuck in 『existence』. It establishes the concept that 『having consciousness』 lies in the unique mind within, and dismisses the false attachment of returning to 『emptiness』. If one is ignorant of the principle of this mind and its objects, one will be trapped in the sea of suffering for a long time; if one understands the truth of 『existence』 and 『emptiness』, one can advance triumphantly on the shore of enlightenment. The ninety-six non-Buddhist schools, like chaotic ruts, cause people to lose their way, and their star banners fall. The eighteen schools of Theravada Buddhism, like solid axles, support the wheel of Dharma forward. They exhaustively study the essence of the spirit, explore the subtle mechanisms, master the ten branches of Buddhist treatises, and deeply understand the nine divisions of Buddhist teachings. They look back at the 『Ten Wings』 and fly freely like immortals, looking down at the various schools of thought and extracting their essence like dredging the jade waves. They exhaust the subtle points of profound principles and expound the wonderful scriptures of the Dharma King. Their appellations transcend relative concepts, and they forget words and images. Their brilliance shines in the West, and their rainbow light appears in Zhen Dan (China). They save sentient beings, promote the Dharma, and ultimately return to the virtues of the Buddha. Looking back, the Great Master Tripitaka (Sanzang) Xuanzang (a famous Chinese Buddhist monk), upheld wisdom, abandoned falsehood, took benevolence as the foundation, and took wisdom as wings. In the Nine Gates Chan banquet, he attained Samadhi (state of meditative consciousness) on Rong Mountain; his eighty thousand profound essences flowed in the Wei Sea. His temples overlapped with golden walls, shining like the moon; his palaces were towering, flying like colorful clouds. His talent surpassed the clear orchids, and his literary talent was nurtured in the wings of the dragon. He lamented that the subtle Buddhist teachings were hidden and lacked brilliance, and sighed that the great Buddhist truths were lost and unheard of. Therefore, he made a vow and began his distant journey to seek the Dharma. He reduced his needs, like stopping drawing water in the Xiang River; he learned humbly, like climbing a precious tree and lowering its branches; he traveled like an immortal along the carved railings; he walked steadily on the steep peaks. He ascended the purple steps and attained Buddhahood, overlooking the mysterious scenes and diligently cultivating the causes. He collected profound insights and explored strange scenes, spending twenty years; he treasured the Buddhist scriptures in sandalwood boxes, wrote them on palm leaves, and then carried them back to the Three Qins (Guanzhong area) on white horses. The Great Tang Dynasty celebrated the appearance of the Golden Wheel King, and auspicious omens were like the light of the pivot star. The light of the Dharma shines throughout the world, and the Buddha promotes the Dharma with six kinds of eloquence. The miraculous teachings subtly influence people, the nine celestial beings offer treasures, praising the profound Dharma, and the hundred gods stand in awe, each performing their duties. The emperor sits solemnly, thinking deeply, as if communicating with the heavenly light in a dream. The ministers write diligently, using gorgeous words to praise the profound and mysterious Dharma. Therefore, the emperor issued an edict, widely ordering the translation of Buddhist scriptures. By imperial order, Yu Zhining, Duke of Yan and Left Minister of the Ministry of Works, Xu Jingzong, Duke of Gaoyang and Chancellor of the Secretariat, and others were responsible for polishing the text, the monks Shi Shentai and others were responsible for verifying the meaning, and the monks Shi Jingmai and others were responsible for proofreading the wording. Starting from the nineteenth year of Zhenguan (Tang Dynasty era) and ending at the end of Xianqing (Tang Dynasty era), a total of sixty scriptures were translated, totaling one thousand volumes. Its value surpassed the Penglai Immortal Island, and its scale exceeded the ponds. The Dharma therefore prospered.
法寶。大啟群迷。頌德序經。並紆宸藻。玄風之盛。未之前聞。粵以顯慶四年龍棲葉洽。玄英應序。厥閏惟陽。糅茲十釋四千五百頌。匯聚群分。各遵其本。合為一部。勒成十卷。月窮於紀。銓綜云畢。精括詁訓。研詳夷夏。調驚韶律。藻掞天𨓍。白鳳甄奇。紫微呈瑞。遂使文同義異。若一師之制焉。斯則古聖今賢。其揆一也。三藏弟子基鼎族高門。玉田華胄。壯年味道。綺日參玄。業峻林遠。識清云鏡。閑儀玉瑩。陵道邃而澄明。逸韻蘭芳。掩法汰而飛辯。緒仙音於八梵。舞霄鶴以翔禎。摛麗范於九章。影桐鸞而絢藻。升光譯侶。俯潛睿而融暉。登彩義徒。顧猷暢而高視。秀初昕之琁景。晉燭玄儒。矯彌天之絕翰。騰邁真俗。親承四辯。言獎三明。䟽發戶牖。液導津涉。繢功資素。通理寄神。綜其綱領。甄其品第。兼撰義䟽。傳之後學。庶教蟠黃陸。跨合璧于龜疇。祥浮紫宮。掩連珠于麟籀。式罄庸謏敘其宗致云。