Cheng Weishi Lun, Fascicle One

故彼識言，顯第八識。

Therefore the phrase "that consciousness" indicates the eighth consciousness.

護法等菩薩造

Composed by Dharmapala and other bodhisattvas.

三藏法師玄奘奉詔譯

Translated by imperial command by the Tripitaka Dharma Master Xuanzang.

又契經說：一切有情皆依食住，若無此識，彼識食體不應有故。

Moreover, the sutra says: all sentient beings abide depending on food; if there were not this consciousness, the substance of that consciousness-food could not exist.

謂契經說食有四種：

That is, the sutra says there are four kinds of food:

一者、段食，變壞為相。謂欲界繫香、味、觸三，於變壞時能為食事。由此色處非段食攝，以變壞時，色無用故。

First, morsel food, whose characteristic is to be transformed and broken down. That is, the three of smell, taste and touch belonging to the desire realm, at the time of being transformed and broken down, can perform the function of food. Hence the sense-field of form is not included in morsel food, because at the time of breakdown, form has no function.

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，觸麁顯境，攝受喜、樂及順益捨，資養勝故。

Second, contact food, whose characteristic is contact with objects. That is, when contaminated contact has just taken an object, it receives joy and so on and can perform the function of food. Though this contact is associated with all the consciousnesses, the meaning of food is especially strong for the six consciousnesses; contact has coarse and obvious objects and receives joy, pleasure and also conforming equanimity, with strong nourishment.

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，意識於境，希望勝故。

Third, volition food, whose characteristic is hope. That is, contaminated volition turning together with desire hopes for lovable objects and can perform the function of food. Though this volition is associated with all the consciousnesses, the meaning of food is especially strong for the mental consciousness, since the mental consciousness has the strongest hope toward objects.

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。

Fourth, consciousness food, whose characteristic is holding. That is, contaminated consciousness, increased by the power of morsel, contact and volition, can perform the function of food. Though this consciousness is common to the substance of all the consciousnesses, the meaning of food is especially strong for the eighth consciousness, since its continuous holding as one kind is strongest.

由是《集論》說此四食，三蘊、五處、十一界攝。

Hence the Compendium of Abhidharma says that these four foods are included in three aggregates, five sense-fields and eleven realms.

此四能持有情身命，令不壞斷，故名為食。

These four are able to hold the body and life of sentient beings so that they do not break down or end, and so they are called food.

段食唯於欲界有用，觸、意思食雖遍三界而依識轉，隨識有無。

Morsel food is useful only in the desire realm, while contact and volition food, though pervading the three realms, depend on consciousness to turn, and exist or not according to consciousness.

眼等轉識有間、有轉，非遍、恆時能持身命，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，於持身命，非遍、非恆。

The eye and other active consciousnesses are interrupted and changeable, and are not pervasively and constantly able to hold the body and life; for there is interruption in the absorption without mind, in sleep, in fainting, and in the heaven of non-perception, and even in states with mind, they change according to support, condition, nature, realm, level and so on, and with regard to holding the body and life they are neither pervasive nor constant.

諸有執無第八識者，依何等食？《經》作是言：「一切有情皆依食住。」

For those who hold that there is no eighth consciousness, on what do they rely as food? The sutra says thus: "All sentient beings abide depending on food."

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。

It is not that past or future consciousnesses and so on are food in the state without mind; they are neither present nor permanent; like flowers in the sky and the like, they have no substance or function. Even if they had substance and function, they are not included in the present, and like empty space and the like are not of the nature of food; nor can it be said that the mind in absorption and the like serve as food for beings in the state without mind, since while dwelling in the state without mind it has already ceased, and that the past is not food is already fully established.

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。

Nor can it be said that the conditioned dharmas not associated with mind, such as the absorption of non-perception, are that food, because they are not included in the four foods such as morsel food, and dharmas not associated with mind are not really existent.

有執滅定等猶有第六識，於彼有情能為食事。彼執非理，後當廣破。

Some hold that even in the absorption of cessation there is still a sixth consciousness, which can perform the function of food for that being. Their view is unreasonable and will be refuted at length later.

又彼應說生上二界無漏心時，以何為食？無漏識等破壞有故，於彼身、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。

Moreover, they should say what serves as food when an uncontaminated mind arises in one born in the upper two realms. Uncontaminated consciousness and the like destroy existence and cannot serve as food for that body and life. Nor can one hold that there are contaminated seeds in uncontaminated consciousness that can serve as that food; uncontaminated consciousness and the like are like nirvana, and cannot hold contaminated seeds.

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。

Moreover, one cannot say that for beings of the upper realms, body and life support each other and thereby are food for each other, since the four foods do not include that body and life, and moreover the formless realm has no body, life has nothing that can hold it, and the community of beings and the like have no substance.

由此定知異諸轉識，有異熟識一類恆、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。

From this one definitely knows that, different from the active consciousnesses, there is a karmically matured consciousness, of one kind, constant and pervasive, holding body and life and preventing their breakdown or end. It was in reliance on this that the World-Honored One spoke thus: all sentient beings abide depending on food.

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。

Sentient beings are established only in reliance on the "aggregates of clinging"; the Buddha has no contaminated aggregates and is not included among sentient beings, and the saying that he abides depending on food as a sentient being should be understood as spoken in accordance with his manifestation.

既異熟識是勝食性，彼識即是此第八識。

Since the karmically matured consciousness is of the nature of supreme food, that consciousness is this eighth consciousness.

又契經說：住滅定者，身、語、心行無不皆滅，而壽不滅，亦不離煖，根無變壞，識不離身。若無此識住滅定者，不離身識不應有故。

Moreover, the sutra says: for one who abides in the absorption of cessation, the activities of body, speech and mind are all extinguished, yet life is not extinguished, nor is warmth gone, the faculties are not damaged, and consciousness does not leave the body. If there were not this consciousness, there could be no consciousness not leaving the body for one abiding in the absorption of cessation.

謂眼等識行相麁、動，於所緣境起必勞慮，厭患彼故，暫求止息，漸次伏除至都盡位，依此位立住滅定者，故此定中彼識皆滅，若不許有微細一類恆、遍執持壽等識在，依何而說識不離身？

That is, the aspects of the eye and other consciousnesses are coarse and agitated, and arising toward their objects they inevitably cause toil and thought; weary of this, one temporarily seeks rest, gradually subdues and removes them until they are entirely exhausted, and in reliance on this state one is established as one abiding in the absorption of cessation. So in this absorption all those consciousnesses cease, and if one did not admit a subtle consciousness of one kind, constant and pervasive, holding life and the like, then in reliance on what could one say that consciousness does not leave the body?

若謂後時彼識還起，如隔日瘧名不離身，是則不應說心行滅，識與想等起滅同故。壽、煖諸根應亦如識，便成大過，故應許識如壽、煖等實不離身。又此位中若全無識，應如瓦礫非有情數，豈得說為住滅定者？又異熟識此位若無，誰能執持諸根、壽、煖？無執持故皆應壞滅，猶如死屍便無壽等。既爾，後識必不還生，說不離身，彼何所屬？諸異熟識捨此身已，離識餘身無重生故。

If one says that those consciousnesses arise again later, and that being called not leaving the body is like a tertian fever, then one should not say that mental activity has ceased, because consciousness arises and ceases together with perception and so on. Life, warmth and the faculties would then also have to be like consciousness, which would be a great fault, so one must admit that consciousness, like life and warmth, really does not leave the body. Moreover, if in this state there were no consciousness at all, one would be like a tile or pebble, not counted among sentient beings; how could one be said to abide in the absorption of cessation? Moreover, if the karmically matured consciousness were absent in this state, who could hold the faculties, life and warmth? Without holding, they would all decay and cease, like a corpse that has no life and so on. Since it is so, later consciousness surely cannot be born again; if one says it does not leave the body, what does that refer to? After the karmically matured consciousnesses abandon this body, apart from consciousness there is no other body that is born again.

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燻、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、煖，有情攝故。

Moreover, if in this state there were no seed-holding consciousness, how could later consciousness arise with no seeds? That the past and future conditioned dharmas not associated with mind are not really existent substances has already been established. And that form and other dharmas apart from consciousness all have no ability to be perfumed or to hold seeds has also been refuted. In the states without mind such as the absorption of cessation, just as in states with mind, there definitely really is consciousness, with faculties, life and warmth complete, because they are included among sentient beings.

由斯理趣，住滅定者，決定有識，實不離身。

By these reasonings, one abiding in the absorption of cessation definitely has consciousness, which truly does not leave the body.

若謂此位有第六識，名不離身，亦不應理，此定亦名無心定故。

If one says that in this state there is a sixth consciousness, called not leaving the body, that is also unreasonable, because this absorption is also called the absorption without mind.

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、煖等，非第六識。若此位有行相、所緣可知識者，應如餘位，非此位攝。

If it is called "without mind" because the five consciousnesses are absent, then all absorptions should be called without mind, because all absorptions lack the body of five consciousnesses. The mental consciousness is included among the six active consciousnesses, like the body of five consciousnesses, and does not exist in the absorption of cessation. Or else, the aspects and objects of the consciousness in this state cannot be known, like life, warmth and so on, so it is not the sixth consciousness. If in this state there were a consciousness whose aspects and objects can be known, it should be like the other states and not be included in this state.

本為止息行相、所緣可了知識，入此定故。

One originally enters this absorption in order to bring to rest the consciousnesses whose aspects and objects can be discerned.

又若此位有第六識，彼心所法為有？為無？

Moreover, if in this state there is a sixth consciousness, do the mental factors exist or not?

若有心所，經不應言住此定者心行皆滅，又不應名滅受想定。

If mental factors exist, the sutra should not say that for one abiding in this absorption the activities of the mind are all extinguished, nor should it be called the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception.

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？

The preparatory practice of this absorption only loathes feeling and perception, so in this absorption only feeling and perception cease; feeling and perception are the two dharmas that most strongly assist the mind, and among the mental factors alone are called mental activity, so to say mental activity ceases, what contradiction is there?

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。

In the absorption of non-perception, then, only perception should cease, because only perception is loathed, but you do not admit this; since only feeling and perception strongly assist the mind, when these two cease, the mind too should cease.

如身行滅而身猶在，寧要責心令同行滅？

Just as bodily activity ceases while the body remains, why demand that the mind cease together with its activity?

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、伺於語是遍行攝，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。

If so, then when the speech activities of investigation and analysis cease, speech should not cease, which is not what is admitted. But activities have pervasive and non-pervasive aspects with regard to dharmas: when a pervasive activity ceases, the dharma surely ceases with it; when a non-pervasive activity ceases, the dharma may remain. The non-pervasive activity refers to inhalation and exhalation, and when the breath is seen to cease, the body remains; investigation and analysis are included among the pervasive activities with regard to speech, and when they cease, speech surely is absent. Feeling and perception are also included among the pervasive activities with regard to mind, because they are admitted to be, like volition and so on, universal dharmas. When feeling and perception cease, the mind surely ceases with them; how can it be said that they cease and the mind remains? Moreover, if volition and so on are admitted to be universal dharmas, then when feeling and perception cease, they too should cease. Since it is so, faith and so on would also be absent in this state, since when a non-pervasive one ceases, the rest may remain; how can it be said that other mental factors exist? And if volition and so on are admitted not to be absent in this state, feeling and perception should be the same, since they are universal dharmas. Moreover, if volition and so on exist in this absorption, there should also be contact, since all other mental factors arise only by the power of contact. If contact is admitted to exist, there should also be feeling, because contact conditions feeling. Since feeling is admitted to exist, perception should arise too, because they are inseparable.

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。

Just as feeling conditions craving, though not all feeling can give rise to craving, so contact conditions feeling, but not all contact can produce feeling; so the difficulty raised on this basis is not established.

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。

Their rescue is wrong, because there is a difference. That is, the Buddha himself specified that only feelings born of contact with ignorance serve as the condition for craving to arise, and nowhere has he specified that contact produces feeling only in some cases. So if there is contact, feeling must arise, and feeling and perception go together; this principle is definite. Otherwise one should say that, as in other states, feeling and perception do not cease either, since you hold that volition and so on exist in this state, and having admitted this you would contradict and harm the statement that mental activity ceases, and the absorption of the cessation of feeling and perception could not be established.

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？

If there are no mental factors, consciousness too should be absent; one never sees any other mind apart from mental factors; if other pervasive factors cease, the dharma ceases with them, so feeling and the like would not be universal dharmas, and this consciousness would not be an associated dharma. If admitted, it would have no support, object and so on, and would be like form and other dharmas, not mind. Moreover, the sutra says: dependent on mind and dharmas as conditions, mental consciousness arises, and the coming together of the three is contact, which arises together with contact, with feeling, perception and volition. If there is a mental consciousness in this absorption, then, since the three come together, there must be contact, and since contact is definitely accompanied by feeling, perception and volition, how can there be consciousness without mental factors?

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。

If one says that at other times the three coming together have power, and complete contact, produce contact, and can give rise to feeling and so on; but because before this absorption mental factors were loathed, in the state of absorption the three have no power, do not complete contact or produce contact, and there is also no feeling and so on.

若爾，應名滅心所定，如何但說滅受、想耶？

If so, it should be called the absorption of the cessation of mental factors; why does it speak only of the cessation of feeling and perception?

若謂厭時唯厭受、想，此二滅故，心所皆滅，依前所厭，以立定名。

If one says that when loathing, only feeling and perception were loathed, and when these two cease the mental factors all cease, and the name of the absorption is established according to what was loathed before.

既爾，此中心亦應滅，所厭俱故，如餘心所。不爾，如何名無心定？

If so, here the mind too should cease, because it goes together with what is loathed, like the other mental factors. Otherwise, how could it be called the absorption without mind?

又此定位意識是何？

Moreover, what is the mental consciousness in this state of absorption?

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。

It should not be defiled or neutral in nature; in all wholesome absorptions this does not occur; other defiled and neutral minds necessarily have mental factors, and one should not, while loathing the wholesome, give rise to defilement and the like. It is not that seeking quiescence turns around into scattering.

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。

If one says it is wholesome, because it is associated with wholesomeness, it should be without associated wholesome roots such as non-greed. This mind should not be intrinsically wholesome or ultimately wholesome, because that contradicts your own school's teaching, and it is not a wholesome root and so on or nirvana. If one says this mind is wholesome by arising from a cause, because it is evoked by the wholesome roots of preparatory practice, that principle is also wrong, since it contradicts your own school, and like other wholesome minds it is not wholesome by arising. A wholesome mind immediately gives rise to minds of the three natures, so how can a wholesome mind arise from what precedes it? So the mind is wholesome by the power of association. Since it is so, it must be associated with wholesome roots; how can it be said that this mind alone has no mental factors? So if there are no mental factors, the mind too should be absent.

如是推徵，眼等轉識於滅定位非不離身，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。

By such inference, the eye and other active consciousnesses in the absorption of cessation are not what does not leave the body; so the consciousness that the sutra says does not leave the body is this eighth consciousness, and in entering the absorption of cessation one is not entering it in order to bring it to rest, because this consciousness, holding in perfect quietude, is the one holding.

無想等位，類此應知。

The states of non-perception and the like should be understood similarly.

又契經說：心雜染故，有情雜染；心清淨故，有情清淨。若無此識，彼染、淨心不應有故。

Moreover, the sutra says: when the mind is defiled, beings are defiled; when the mind is pure, beings are pure. If there were not this consciousness, that defiled or pure mind could not exist.

謂染、淨法以心為本，因心而生，依心住故，心受彼燻，持彼種故。

That is, defiled and pure dharmas take mind as their root, arise from mind, abide in mind, and mind receives their perfuming and holds their seeds.

然雜染法略有三種：煩惱、業、果，種類別故。

Defiled dharmas are in brief of three kinds: affliction, karma and result, because their kinds are different.

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。

If there were not this consciousness holding the seeds of affliction, then after going back and forth among realms and levels, after a state without defiled mind, the arising of all afflictions would be without cause, since other dharmas cannot hold those seeds, and the past and future are not really existent. If afflictions arise without a cause, there would be no fruits of learning or beyond learning of the three vehicles, and all those already cut off would arise.

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。

If there were not this consciousness holding the seeds of karma and results, then after going back and forth among realms and levels, after dharmas of different kind, the arising of all karma and results would also be without cause, since other seeds and other causes have been refuted before. If all karma and results arise without cause, then after entering the realm of nirvana without remainder, the karma and results of the three realms should arise again, because afflictions too would arise without cause.

又行緣識應不得成，轉識受燻，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。

Moreover, the teaching that formations condition consciousness could not be established, since the active consciousnesses receiving perfuming has been refuted earlier. The defiled consciousness of conception and rebirth is not brought about by formations; if one must say name and form are conditioned by formations, there is no sense of condition because the time is too far apart. This is not established, and what follows is not established either.

諸清淨法亦有三種：世、出世道、斷果別故。

Pure dharmas also are of three kinds: the mundane and supramundane paths, and the result of cutting off, being different.

若無此識持世、出世清淨道種，異類心後，起彼淨法皆應無因，所執餘因前已破故。若二淨道無因而生，入無餘依涅槃界已，彼二淨道還復應生，所依亦應無因生故。

If there were not this consciousness holding the seeds of the mundane and supramundane pure paths, then after a mind of a different kind, the arising of those pure dharmas would be without cause, and the other causes they hold have been refuted before. If the two pure paths arise without cause, then after entering the realm of nirvana without remainder, those two pure paths should arise again, because their support too would arise without cause.

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。

Moreover, the supramundane path should not arise at first, because there is no dharma to hold its naturally existing seed; contaminated kinds are not its cause, and arising without cause is not the Buddha's teaching. If it does not arise at first, it will not arise later either, and so there would be no path and fruit of the three vehicles.

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、淨二心不俱起故，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？

If there were not this consciousness holding the seeds of affliction, then transformation of the basis and the result of cutting off could not be established either: that is, when the path arises, the manifest afflictions and their seeds are both absent; defiled and pure minds do not arise at the same time, and the mind associated with the path does not hold those seeds, being of opposite nature, like nirvana; the past, future, attainment and so on are not really existent; the principle of other dharmas holding seeds is not established. Since there is nothing to be cut off, there is no cutting off either; in dependence on what and by what would the result of cutting off be established?

若由道力，後惑不生，立斷果者，則初道起應成無學；後諸煩惱皆已無因，永不生故。

If, by the power of the path, later delusions do not arise, and this establishes the result of cutting off, then at the first arising of the path one would become one beyond learning; all later afflictions would be without cause and would never arise.

許有此識，一切皆成，唯此能持染、淨種故。

Admitting this consciousness, everything is established, because only this can hold the seeds of defilement and purity.