Cheng Weishi Lun, Fascicle One

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。

If a dharma is determinate, has an object, is the lord, and lets mind and mental factors take their own objects, only then is it a support; this is the inner six sense bases; the others, not having an object, being determinate or being lord, are like the king but not like the ministers. So the sacred teachings say only that mind and mental factors are said to have supports, and not that form and other dharmas do, because they have no object. Speaking only of mental factors, the mind is their support; not speaking of mental factors as supports of the mind, because they are not lords.

然有處說依為所依，或所依為依，皆隨宜假說。

Yet in some places dependence is said to be the support, or the support is said to be dependence, both as provisional expressions according to what is fitting.

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、染淨、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。

Hence the simultaneous supports of the five consciousnesses are definitely of four kinds, namely the five material faculties and the sixth, seventh and eighth consciousnesses, and if any one is lacking they definitely do not operate. The supports differ as to same object, discrimination, defilement and purity, and root. The sacred teachings say only that they depend on the five faculties, because these are uncommon, and necessarily share the same object, and are close in aspect and in accord.

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，染淨依故，同轉識攝，近相順故。

The simultaneous supports of the sixth mental consciousness are of only two kinds, namely the seventh and eighth consciousnesses, and if either is lacking it definitely does not operate. Although the five consciousnesses together take objects clearly, they are not necessarily present, so they are not supports. The sacred teachings say only that it depends on the seventh, because it is the support of defilement and purity, included among the evolving consciousnesses, close in aspect and in accord.

第七意識俱有所依但有一種：謂第八識，藏識若無，定不轉故。如伽他說：

The simultaneous support of the seventh consciousness is only of one kind, namely the eighth consciousness; if the store consciousness is absent, it definitely does not operate. As a verse says:

阿賴耶為依，故有末那轉，

Depending on alaya, manas operates;

依止心及意，餘轉識得生。

depending on mind and on manas, the other evolving consciousnesses arise.

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：藏識恆與末那俱時轉故；又說藏識恆依染汙，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。

The simultaneous support of the alaya consciousness is also of only one kind, namely the seventh consciousness; if that consciousness is absent, it definitely does not operate. The treatise says: the store consciousness always operates together with manas; and it also says that the store consciousness always depends on the defiled, which is manas. As for the statement that manas is absent in three states, it is said in relation to the obscured manas, just as it is said that alaya is absent in four states, which does not mean the eighth is absent, and this should be understood likewise. Although in the realm of form it also depends on the five faculties, they are not necessarily present and are not included among its supports; the seeds of consciousness cannot manifestly take their own objects, so they can have the sense of dependence but lack a support.

心所所依，隨識應說，復各加自相應之心。

The supports of mental factors should be said according to the consciousness, and further each adds its own corresponding mind.

若作是說，妙符理、教。

If it is stated this way, it wonderfully accords with principle and teaching.

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。

As for the opening-and-guiding support (kaidao yi), one view holds: the five consciousnesses, whether of oneself or others, do not continue before and after, and are necessarily brought forth by the sixth consciousness, so only the sixth consciousness is the opening-and-guiding support.

第六意識自相續故，亦由五識所引生故，以前六識為開導依。

The sixth mental consciousness continues of itself, and is also brought forth by the five consciousnesses, so the preceding six consciousnesses are its opening-and-guiding support.

第七、八識自相續故，不假他識所引生故，但以自類為開導依。

The seventh and eighth consciousnesses continue of themselves and are not brought forth by other consciousnesses, and take only their own kind as opening-and-guiding support.

有義：前說未為究理。

One view holds: what has been said above has not yet exhausted the principle.

且前五識未自在位，遇非勝境，可如所說。

For the first five consciousnesses in a state not yet free, when encountering a non-superior object, it may be as said.

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？

But in a state of freedom, like that of the Buddhas and others, who are free regarding objects, whose faculties can be used interchangeably, who are spontaneous and determinate and need no searching, why would those bodies of the five consciousnesses not continue?

等流五識，既為決定、染淨、作意勢力引生，專注所緣，未能捨頃，如何不許多念相續？

The five consciousnesses of equal outflow, since they are brought forth by the power of determination, defilement or purity, and attention, are focused on their object and cannot be dropped for an instant, so why would one not allow many moments to continue?

故《瑜伽》說：決定心後，方有染淨，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。

So the Yogacara says: only after the determining mind is there defilement or purity, and only after this do the five consciousnesses of equal outflow arise as good or bad, and these are not due to their own discriminating power, until that mind does not go to other objects; for as long as this lasts, the eye and mental consciousnesses are either good or defiled, and continue to operate; as with the arising of eye consciousness, so up to body consciousness, one should know it is likewise.

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。

That meaning decisively shows that during that time the eye and mental consciousnesses both operate continuously, and since at the time of eye consciousness it is not without mental consciousness, it is not that the two consciousnesses arise in alternation.

若增盛境相續現前，逼奪身心不能暫捨，時五識身，理必相續，如熱地獄、戲忘天等。

If an intensified object continually presents itself, pressing and seizing the body and mind so that they cannot rest for even a moment, then the bodies of the five consciousnesses by reason must continue, as in the hot hells and among the gods of forgetful play.

故《瑜伽》言：若此六識為彼六識等無間緣，即施設此名為意根。

So the Yogacara says: if this group of six consciousnesses is the immediately preceding condition for that group of six consciousnesses, then this is called the mind faculty (manas).

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。

If before and after the five consciousnesses there were definitely only mental consciousness, that treatise should say: if this one consciousness is the immediately preceding condition for those six consciousnesses; or they should say: if these six consciousnesses are the immediately preceding condition for that one consciousness. Since it does not say so, one knows that the five consciousnesses have the sense of continuity.

五識起時，必有意識能引後念意識令起，何假五識為開導依？

When the five consciousnesses arise, there is necessarily mental consciousness that can bring about the following moment of mental consciousness; what need is there to take the five consciousnesses as the opening-and-guiding support?

無心睡眠、悶絕等位，意識斷已，後復起時，藏識、末那既恆相續，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？

In states such as sleep without mind and fainting, when mental consciousness has been cut off and arises again later, since the store consciousness and manas always continue, they too should be its opening-and-guiding support. If they use their own previous kind to open and guide, why would the five consciousnesses not be allowed to do likewise with their own kind? Since here it is not so, how could it be so there?

平等性智相應末那初起必由第六意識，亦應用彼為開導依。

The manas corresponding to the wisdom of equality, when it first arises, must be through the sixth mental consciousness, and that too should be used as its opening-and-guiding support.

圓鏡智俱第八淨識，初必六、七方便引生。又異熟心依染汙意，或依悲願相應善心。既爾，必應許第八識亦以六、七為開導依。

The pure eighth consciousness together with the mirror wisdom, at its beginning must be brought forth by the expedient means of the sixth and seventh. Also the vipaka mind depends on the defiled mind, or on good minds corresponding to compassion and vows. Since this is so, one must allow that the eighth consciousness also takes the sixth and seventh as opening-and-guiding supports.

由此彼言都未究理。

Hence what they say has not exhausted the principle.

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。

It should be said that among the six consciousnesses before the five, whichever consciousness is used is the opening-and-guiding support; the sixth mental consciousness uses its previous own kind or the seventh and eighth as the opening-and-guiding support; the seventh manas uses its previous own kind or the sixth consciousness as the opening-and-guiding support; and the adana consciousness uses its previous own kind and the sixth and seventh as the opening-and-guiding support. None violates principle, in accordance with what has been said earlier.

有義：此說亦不應理。

One view holds: this statement is also not reasonable.

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。

The opening-and-guiding support is that which has an object, is the lord, and can serve as the immediately preceding condition (samanantara-pratyaya). For the later arising mind and mental dharmas, it makes way and guides, and is called the opening-and-guiding support. This belongs only to mind, not to mental factors and the like.

若此與彼無俱起義，說此於彼有開導力；一身八識既容俱起，如何異類為開導依？若許為依，應不俱起，便同異部心不並生。

If this and that do not have the sense of arising simultaneously, it is said that this has the power of opening and guiding that; but since the eight consciousnesses of one body may arise together, how could a different kind be the opening-and-guiding support? If one allows it to be a support, it should not arise simultaneously, which would be the same as minds of different schools not arising together.

又一身中諸識俱起，多少不定，若容互作等無間緣，色等應爾，便違聖說等無間緣唯心、心所。

Moreover, in one body the consciousnesses that arise together are indefinite in number; if one allowed them to act as each other's immediately preceding conditions, form and the like should be so too, which would contradict the sacred saying that the immediately preceding condition is only mind and mental factors.

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。

But the Mahayana-samgraha says that form can also have an immediately preceding condition; this is a statement of allowing and then withdrawing, namely provisionally allowing the Small Vehicle's claim that form and mind have an immediately preceding condition before and after, and withdrawing it as a causal condition; otherwise the word "samanantara" (equal and immediate) would be useless. If one says the word "equal" does not rule out many and few but only indicates the same kind, this would contradict your holding that a different kind of consciousness acts as the immediately preceding condition.

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。

So the eight consciousnesses each take only their own kind as opening-and-guiding support, which deeply accords with teaching and principle, because their own kind surely has no sense of arising simultaneously. The support of mental factors should be stated according to the consciousness.

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。

Although mind and mental factors, being of different kinds, arise together, they correspond with one another, combine as if one, necessarily arise and cease together, and have necessarily the same functions; when one opens and guides, the others also open and guide, so they alternately act as immediately preceding conditions; the consciousnesses are not like this and should not be taken as an example.

然諸心所非開導依，於所引生無主義故。

But the mental factors are not opening-and-guiding supports, because they have no sense of being lord in what they bring forth.

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。

If the immediately preceding conditions of mind and mental factors were each only of their own kind, then when the seventh and eighth consciousnesses first undergo the transformation of the support, the corresponding faith and the rest would lack this condition, which would contradict the sacred saying that all minds and mental factors arise from four conditions.

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？

In states such as sleep without mind and fainting, although mental consciousness is cut off, when it arises later its opening-and-guiding support is just its previous own kind; for the interrupted five consciousnesses one should know it is likewise: there is no mind of the same kind intervening between them, which is called immediacy, and when they ceased earlier they had already opened and guided the present consciousness; what need is there for a different kind to be the opening-and-guiding support?

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。

Yet in the sacred teachings it is said that the first six consciousnesses draw each other forth, or that the seventh and eighth arise depending on the sixth and seventh; these are all said in terms of the superior dominant condition (adhipati-pratyaya), not the immediately preceding condition, so they are not contradictory. The Yogacara treatise says: if this consciousness, immediately, makes the consciousnesses definitely arise, this is said to be the immediately preceding condition for them. Also that these six consciousnesses are the immediately preceding condition for those six consciousnesses, whereupon the name mind faculty is established; the words are general and the meaning specific, which is also not contradictory.

故自類依，深契教理。

So the support of its own kind deeply accords with teaching and principle.

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。

The digression is concluded, and one should now discuss the main treatise. Although this evolving consciousness has the three supports, the words "it operates depending on that" show only the first two, in order to show that this consciousness has the same support and object, and because the first two supports have superior function, or because the opening-and-guiding support is easy to understand.

如是已說此識所依，所緣云何？

Thus the support of this consciousness has been stated; what about its object?

謂即「緣彼」。

It is just "taking that as object."

「彼」謂即前此所依識，聖說此識緣藏識故。

"That" refers to the consciousness that is the support mentioned above, because the sages say that this consciousness takes the store consciousness as object.

有義：此意緣彼識體，及相應法。

One view holds: this manas takes as object the substance of that consciousness and the corresponding dharmas.

論說：末那我、我所執恆相應故。

The treatise says: manas is always associated with the attachment to self and to what belongs to self.

謂緣彼體及相應法，如次執為我及我所。

That is, taking as object that substance and the corresponding dharmas, it grasps them respectively as self and as what belongs to self.

然諸心所不離識故，如「唯識」言，無違教失。

But the mental factors are not apart from consciousness, as in the saying "consciousness-only"; there is no fault of contradicting the teaching.

有義：彼說理不應然，曾無處言緣觸等故。

One view holds: their reasoning is not right, because nowhere is it said that manas takes contact and the like as object.

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。

It should be said that this manas takes as object only the seeing part and the image part of that consciousness, grasping them respectively as self and as what belongs to self, since both the image part and the seeing part have consciousness as their substance, which does not contradict the sacred saying.

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。

One view holds: this statement is also not reasonable. The five material faculties and objects are not the aggregate of consciousness; it should then, like the five consciousnesses, also take external objects; like mental consciousness, take common objects; and those born in the formless realm would not grasp what belongs to self, since they are weary of form and are born there with unchanged form.

應說此意但緣藏識及彼種子，如次執為我及我所。

It should be said that this manas takes as object only the store consciousness and its seeds, grasping them respectively as self and as what belongs to self.

以種即是彼識功能，非實有物，不違聖教。

Because the seeds are just the functions of that consciousness and are not real things, this does not contradict the sacred teaching.

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，恆相續生，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。

One view holds: all that was said earlier is not reasonable. The seeds of form and the like are not the aggregate of consciousness, and the treatise says seeds are real existents. If provisional, they would be like non-existents and not a causal condition. Also this consciousness is accompanied by satkayadrishti (view of a real body), spontaneous and of one kind, continually arising, so how could it allow separately grasping a self and what belongs to self? There is not in one mind two objects such as permanence and annihilation, nor would it be reasonable to speak of the two graspings as separate and simultaneous, nor of two graspings before and after, because from beginningless time this has operated as of one flavor.

應知此意但緣藏識見分非餘，彼無始來一類相續似常、一故，恆與諸法為所依故。

One should know that this manas takes as object only the seeing part of the store consciousness and nothing else; that part, from beginningless time, continues as one kind, like something permanent and single, and is always the support of all dharmas.

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。

This consciousness grasps only that as its own inner self, and by the momentum of language one speaks of "self and what belongs to self." Or this consciousness grasps that as self, as the self's, and so about one view it speaks in two expressions.

若作是說，善順教理。多處唯言有我見故，我、我所執，不俱起故。

If it is stated this way, it well accords with teaching and principle. In many places it speaks only of the view of self, and the graspings of self and what belongs to self do not arise together.

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。

Before the transformation of the support, it takes only the store consciousness as its object. After the transformation of the support, it also takes true suchness and all other dharmas. The wisdom of equality realizes the ten kinds of equality, knows the differences in the resolve of all sentient beings, and manifests the various images of Buddhas.

此中且說未轉依時，故但說此緣彼藏識。悟迷通局，理應爾故。無我、我境，遍、不遍故。

Here we speak only of the time before the transformation of the support, so it is said only that this takes that store consciousness. In awakening and delusion, whether pervasive or limited, the principle should be so. Egolessness and the object of self: pervasive or not pervasive.

如何此識緣自所依？如有後識，即緣前意。彼既極成，此亦何咎？

How does this consciousness take its own support as object? Like a later consciousness that takes the earlier mind as object. Since that is fully established, what fault is there here?