Cheng Weishi Lun, Fascicle One
證此識有，理趣無邊，恐厭繁文，略述綱要。
The principles proving that this consciousness exists are boundless; for fear of wearying with a long text, I have only briefly stated the essentials.
別有此識，教理顯然，諸有智人，應深信受。
That there is this separate consciousness is manifest in both teaching and principle; all wise people should deeply believe and accept it.
如是已說初能變相；第二能變其相云何？
Having thus explained the characteristics of the first transforming consciousness, what are the characteristics of the second transforming consciousness?
頌曰：
The verse says:
５次第二能變，是識名末那，
5 Next is the second transformation, this consciousness is called manas,
依彼轉，緣彼，思量為性相。
it turns depending on that, takes that as object, with thinking and deliberating as its nature and characteristic.
６四煩惱常俱，謂：我痴、我見，
6 Four afflictions are always concurrent, namely: self-delusion, self-view,
並我慢、我愛，及餘觸等俱。
together with self-conceit and self-love, along with the other mental factors such as contact.
７有覆無記攝，隨所生所繫。
7 It is included in the obscured-neutral, and is bound according to where it is born.
阿羅漢、滅定、出世道無有。
It is absent in arhats, in the absorption of cessation, and on the supramundane path.
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，恆、審思量勝餘識故。
The treatise says: Next after the first consciousness, the karmically matured transformer, one should now explain the characteristics of the deliberating transformer. In the holy teaching this consciousness is separately named manas, because its constant and careful deliberation surpasses the other consciousnesses.
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。又摽意名，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。
How does this name differ from the sixth, the mental consciousness? This one is a karmadharaya compound, like the name "storehouse consciousness", where consciousness is itself mind; that one is a tatpurusha compound, like the eye consciousness and so on, where consciousness is different from the organ. But the holy teachings, fearing this one would be confused with that one, establish only the name "mind" (manas) for the seventh. Moreover, the name "mind" is given in order to distinguish it from "thought" (citta) and "consciousness" (vijnana), because its accumulating and discerning are inferior to the other consciousnesses, or else to show that this one is the immediate support of that mental consciousness, and so it is called "mind" only.
「依彼轉」者，顯此所依。
"Turns depending on that" shows the support of this consciousness.
「彼」謂即前初能變識，聖說此識依藏識故。
"That" means the first transforming consciousness mentioned before, because the sages say this consciousness depends on the storehouse consciousness.
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。
One interpretation: this mind takes the seeds of that consciousness as its support, and not that manifest consciousness; this one is without interruption and does not borrow the manifest consciousness as its simultaneous support in order to arise.
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。
Another interpretation: this mind takes both the seeds of that consciousness and that manifest consciousness as its support; though it is without interruption, it has change, and because it is called an active consciousness, it must borrow the manifest consciousness as its simultaneous support in order to arise.
「轉」謂流轉，顯示此識恆依彼識取所緣故。
"Turns" means revolving, showing that this consciousness constantly depends on that consciousness to take its object.
諸心、心所皆有所依，然彼所依，總有三種：
All minds and mental factors have supports, but those supports are in general of three kinds:
一、因緣依，謂自種子，諸有為法皆託此依，離自因緣必不生故；二、增上緣依，謂內六處，諸心、心所皆託此依，離俱有根必不轉故；三、等無間緣依，謂前滅意，諸心、心所皆託此依，離開導根必不起故。
First, the support of causal condition, namely one's own seed; all conditioned dharmas rely on this support, and apart from their own causal condition they surely do not arise. Second, the support of dominant condition, namely the six inner sense bases; all minds and mental factors rely on this support, and apart from the simultaneous faculty they surely do not turn. Third, the support of immediately preceding condition, namely the mind that has just ceased; all minds and mental factors rely on this support, and apart from the opening faculty they surely do not arise.
唯心、心所具三所依，名有所依，非所餘法。
Only minds and mental factors have all three supports and are called having supports; other dharmas do not.
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。
As for the first, the support of seeds, some say thus: only after the seed has ceased can the manifest fruit arise, and a fruit without seed has already arisen; the Compendium of Abhidharma says that seed and sprout and the like do not coexist.
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。
One interpretation: what they say is not established as proof. They are speaking in reliance on the seed that gives rise to the later seed; that the seed gives rise to the sprout is not ultimate truth; that the seed ceases and the sprout arises is not fully established. Flame and wick are causes of each other at the same time.
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。
But the seed's own kind of cause and effect are not simultaneous, while seed and manifestation giving rise to each other are definitely simultaneous, so the Yogacara says: an impermanent dharma is a cause of another nature and also a cause of its own nature in the next moment, which is the meaning of causal condition. "Own nature" shows that the seed's own kind, earlier being the cause of the later; "another nature" shows that the seed and the manifest activity are causes of each other. The Compendium of the Mahayana also says: the storehouse consciousness and defiled dharmas are mutual causes and conditions, like a bundle of reeds existing at the same time. It also says: the seed and the fruit are necessarily simultaneous. So the support of seeds is definitely not earlier and later.
設有處說種果前後，應知皆是隨轉理門。
Even where it is said in some places that seed and fruit are earlier and later, one should know that this is all in accordance with the gate of provisional reasoning.
如是八識及諸心所，定各別有種子所依。
Thus the eight consciousnesses and all the mental factors definitely each have their own seed supports.
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。
Next, the simultaneous support. Some say thus: the five consciousnesses such as the eye consciousness take the mental consciousness as their support, and when this arises manifestly, that one must be present. There is no separate eye and so on as a simultaneous support, because the five faculties such as the eye are themselves the seeds.
《二十唯識》伽他中言：
The verse in the Twenty Verses on Consciousness-Only says:
「識從自種生，似境相而轉，
"Consciousness arises from its own seed and turns appearing as an object,
為成內、外處，佛說彼為十。」
in order to complete the inner and outer sense-fields, the Buddha spoke of those as ten."
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：
The meaning of that verse is: the World-Honored One, in order to complete the twelve sense-fields, said that the seeds of the five consciousnesses are the eye and other faculties, and the image-parts of the five consciousnesses are the objects of form and so on, so the eye and other faculties are themselves the seeds of the five consciousnesses. The Treatise on Observing the Object-Condition also says thus:
「識上色功能，名五根應理，
"The potentiality of form in consciousness is reasonably called the five faculties,
功能與境色，無始互為因。」
the potentiality and the object of form have been causes for each other since beginningless time."
彼頌意言：異熟識上能生眼等色識種子名色功能，說為五根，無別眼等，種與色識常互為因，能燻與種遞為因故。
The meaning of that verse is: the seeds on the karmically matured consciousness that can give rise to the eye and other consciousnesses of form are called the potentiality of form and are spoken of as the five faculties, and there is no separate eye and so on; the seed and the consciousness of form are constantly causes of each other, because the perfuming and the seed are causes of each other in turn.
第七、八識無別此依，恆相續轉，自力勝故。
The seventh and eighth consciousnesses have no such separate support, and turn in constant continuity, because their own power is superior.
第六意識別有此依，要託末那而得起故。
The sixth, the mental consciousness, has this separate support, and arises only depending on manas.
有義：彼說理、教相違。
One interpretation: they say that principle and teaching conflict.
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。
If the five material faculties are the seeds of the five consciousnesses, the seeds of the eighteen realms should become confused, yet each of the eighteen realms has its own seed, as is taught everywhere in the holy teachings.
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。
Moreover, the seeds of the five consciousnesses each have different aspects that can produce the image-part and the seeing-part; what do they take to be called the eye and other faculties? If it is the seeds of the seeing-part, they should be included in the consciousness aggregate; if the seeds of the image-part, they should be included in the external sense-fields, which contradicts the holy teaching that the five faculties such as the eye are all included in the form aggregate and the internal sense-fields.
又若五根即五識種，五根應是五識因緣，不應說為增上緣攝。
Moreover, if the five faculties are the seeds of the five consciousnesses, the five faculties should be the causal conditions of the five consciousnesses, and should not be said to be included in the dominant condition.
又鼻、舌根即二識種，則應鼻、舌唯欲界繫；或應二識通色界繫，許便俱與聖教相違。眼、耳、身根即三識種，二界、五地為難亦然。
Moreover, the nose and tongue faculties would be the seeds of two consciousnesses, so then the nose and tongue would belong only to the desire realm; or else the two consciousnesses would have to extend to the form realm, and either admission contradicts the holy teaching. The eye, ear and body faculties would be the seeds of three consciousnesses, and the objection regarding the two realms and five levels would be likewise.
又五識種既通善、惡，應五色根非唯無記。
Moreover, since the seeds of the five consciousnesses extend to wholesome and unwholesome, the five material faculties should not be only neutral.
又五識種無執受攝，五根亦應非有執受。
Moreover, the seeds of the five consciousnesses are not included in what is held and sustained, so the five faculties should also not be held and sustained.
又五色根若五識種，應意識種即是末那，彼以五根為同法故。
Moreover, if the five material faculties are the seeds of the five consciousnesses, the seed of the mental consciousness should be manas, because they take the five faculties as a parallel case.
又《瑜伽論》說眼等識皆具三依，若五色根即五識種，依但應二。
Moreover, the Yogacara Treatise says that the eye and other consciousnesses all have three supports; if the five material faculties were the seeds of the five consciousnesses, there should be only two supports.
又諸聖教說眼等根皆通現種，執唯是種，便與一切聖教相違。
Moreover, the holy teachings everywhere say that the eye and other faculties include both the manifest and the seed; to hold that they are only seeds contradicts all the holy teachings.
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》。
Some, to avoid the earlier objections, clinging to that view, turn around and say: in the karmically matured consciousness, the seed of the dominant karma that brings about the five consciousnesses is called the five material faculties; it is not the causal seed that produces the five consciousnesses, and this wonderfully accords with the two verses and well follows the Yogacara.
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、舌唯應欲界繫故；三根不應五地繫故；感意識業應末那故；眼等不應通現、種故；又應眼等非色根故。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。
Their empty words have no real meaning: the five material faculties should not be neutral; they should not only be held and sustained, included only in the form aggregate, only internal sense-fields; the nose and tongue should only belong to the desire realm; the three faculties should not belong to five levels; the karma that brings about the mental consciousness should be manas; the eye and other faculties should not extend to both manifest and seed; and the eye and other faculties should not be material faculties. Moreover, if the five consciousnesses were all brought about by karma, they would be exclusively included in the neutral nature; since the wholesome and other five consciousnesses are not brought about by karma, they should have no eye and other faculties as simultaneous support, so what they say is not a good rescue.
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。
Moreover, the holy teachings everywhere say that the alaya consciousness transforms and manifests images of material faculties and the supports of faculties, the world as vessel, and so on; how do you deny the material faculties? You admit that the eye and other consciousnesses transform and manifest images of form and so on, but do not admit that the eye and others are transformed by the storehouse consciousness; such confused error deeply contradicts teaching and reason.
然伽他說：種子功能名五根者，為破離識實有色根，於識所變似眼根等，以有發生五識用故，假名種子及色功能。非謂色根即識業種。
But the verse says that the potentiality of seeds is called the five faculties, in order to refute the really existing material faculties apart from consciousness, with regard to the image-eye faculty and so on transformed by consciousness, because they have the function of producing the five consciousnesses, which is nominally called seed and the potentiality of form. It does not say that the material faculties are the karmic seeds of consciousness.
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。
Moreover, the clear mental consciousness that takes the five objects should take the five consciousnesses as its simultaneous support, because they must be simultaneous with the five consciousnesses; if they did not depend on the eye and other consciousnesses, they should not serve as support for the five consciousnesses, because mutual dependence has equal power.
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。
Moreover, though the seventh consciousness is without interruption, since it has change in the path of seeing and so on, it should, like the six consciousnesses, have a simultaneous support; otherwise it should not be included among the active consciousnesses, which would contradict the holy teaching that there are seven active consciousnesses; so one should admit it has a simultaneous support, which is included in the manifest eighth consciousness. As the Yogacara says: when there is the storehouse consciousness, there can be manas; manas is the support, and the mental consciousness can turn. The meaning of that treatise is that the manifest storehouse consciousness is the support, and manas can exist, and not by that seed. Otherwise it should say: when there is the storehouse consciousness, the mental consciousness can turn.
由此彼說理、教相違。
From this, what they say conflicts with both reasoning and teaching.
是故應言前五轉識，一一定有二俱有依，謂五色根、同時意識；第六轉識決定恆有一俱有依，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；唯第八識恆無轉變，自能立故，無俱有依。
Therefore it should be said that each of the first five evolving consciousnesses definitely has two simultaneous supports, namely the five material sense organs and the simultaneous mental consciousness; the sixth evolving consciousness definitely always has one simultaneous support, namely the seventh consciousness, and if it arises together with the five consciousnesses, it also takes the five consciousnesses as simultaneous supports; the seventh evolving consciousness definitely has only one simultaneous support, namely the eighth consciousness; only the eighth consciousness never changes, because it can establish itself and has no simultaneous support.
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、八識既恆俱轉，更互為依，斯有何失？
One view holds: this statement does not yet exhaust the principle. Since the remaining members of the eighth category share the nature of consciousness, why not allow them to have simultaneous supports? Since the seventh and eighth consciousnesses always operate together and support each other, what fault is there in this?
許現起識以種為依，識種亦應許依現識，能燻異熟，為生、長、住依，識種離彼不生、長、住故。
If one admits that manifest consciousness depends on seeds, one should also admit that the seeds of consciousness depend on manifest consciousness, which can perfume the vipaka (ripened result) and is the support for their arising, growth and abiding, since the seeds of consciousness do not arise, grow or abide apart from it.
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，恆相續轉；《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。
Moreover, the vipaka consciousness in the realm of form can hold and maintain the body and operates in dependence on the material sense organs, as a sutra says: the alaya consciousness is blown by the wind of karma, pervasively depends on all the faculties, and continuously operates; the Yogacara also says: the six consciousnesses such as eye consciousness depend separately and cannot hold and appropriate a body with material faculties. If the vipaka consciousness did not pervasively depend on the material faculties, it would be like the six consciousnesses, which cannot hold and appropriate, or else the reason given would have the fault of being indeterminate.
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，初燻習位亦依能燻。
Therefore, if the store consciousness is manifest, it definitely has one support, namely the seventh consciousness, and in the realm of form it also depends on the material faculties; if the seeds of consciousness definitely have one support, namely the vipaka consciousness, then at the stage of initial perfuming they also depend on the perfuming agent.
餘如前說。
The rest is as stated before.
有義：前說皆不應理，未了所依與依別故。
One view holds: all that was said earlier is not reasonable, because it has not understood the difference between support and dependence.
「依」謂一切有生滅法，仗因託緣而得生、住，諸所仗託皆說為依，如王與臣互相依等。
"Dependence" refers to all dharmas that arise and cease, which rely on causes and lean on conditions to arise and abide; all that they rely on and lean on is called dependence, as a king and his ministers depend on each other.