鼻識Nose-consciousness
心王八識之第三。前五識之第三。三能變中之了境能變（第三能變）。依鼻根（→#62），緣香境（→#67），性境現量通三性。合中取境之第一識（鼻、舌、身三識皆合中取境，與離中取境之眼、耳二識相對）。
漢zh · Xuanzang 譯
心王八識之第三。前五識之第三。三能變中之了境能變（第三能變）。依鼻根（→#62），緣香境（→#67），性境現量通三性。合中取境之第一識（鼻、舌、身三識皆合中取境，與離中取境之眼、耳二識相對）。
經
[共傳] 《雜阿含經》卷九（六入處段，T2n0099）：
緣鼻、香，生鼻識。
[大乘] 《解深密經》卷一·心意識相品（玄奘譯，T16n0676）：
阿陀那識為依止、為建立故，六識身轉⋯⋯耳鼻舌身及聲香味觸為緣，生耳鼻舌身識，與耳鼻舌身識俱隨行，同時、同境，有分別意識轉。
——《解深密》以眼識（→#1）為典範，耳鼻舌身四識依此典範平行展開（詳 →#2 之大乘段）。鼻識於四識平行論中之位置：四識皆依阿陀那識（即阿賴耶 →#8），皆與五俱意識（→#6）同時同境而轉。
論
《成唯識論》卷五（前六轉識三性，T31n1585）：
此六轉識，何性攝耶？謂善、不善、俱非性攝。
《八識規矩補註》（T45n1865）前五識體性頌：
性境現量通三性。
——鼻識緣性境（真實相分），唯現量（不起比量計度），通善、惡、無記三性。相應心所 34（同前五識；→#1 已詳）。
諸緣
《八識規矩補註》所傳頌文（T45n1865）：「九緣七八好相隣，合三離二觀塵世」——「合三離二」即指鼻舌身三識合中取境、眼耳二識離中取境之分判。鼻識七緣方生，較眼識少「空」「明」二緣：
| 緣 | 義 |
|---|---|
| 1. 根 | 鼻根（淨色根，→#62） |
| 2. 境 | 香境（→#67） |
| 3. 作意 | 遍行心所（→#9）—— 警心趣境 |
| 4. 分別依 | 第六意識（→#6）—— 五俱意識同時起分別 |
| 5. 染淨依 | 第七末那識（→#7）—— 恆審思量為俱有所依 |
| 6. 根本依 | 第八阿賴耶識（→#8）—— 種子所藏 |
| 7. 種子 | 鼻識自種子（第八識所持，現行所熏） |
「空」「明」二緣之缺乃合中取境之必然——香境須與鼻根直接接觸方起識（無距離可言，無光明可資），故諸緣較離中取境之眼耳少二。諸緣遞減鏈：眼 9 → 耳 8 → 鼻／舌／身 7 → 第六意識 5 → 末那 4 → 阿賴耶 4。
至佛位
前五識共轉為成所作智（→#1 已詳）。鼻識所轉之獨特處在於：佛之接物含合中取境三識之根境接物 —— 佛能以轉淨之鼻識緣眾生身境（供香、即至之物理刹那），於最直接之身體層面回應有情生命之諸緣。鼻舌身三合中取境之識（→#3-#5）於佛位共擔「接近物理生命之佛現前」之功能，與離中取境之眼耳二識（→#1, →#2）之距離形態接物構成典範兩極。
按：四層引文於鼻識義之架構位置 —— 阿含立鼻識為三緣（鼻、香、識）和合之事件；解深密經以眼識為典範推廣四識平行論；唯識論立通三性、純現量；諸緣段以《八識規矩頌》七緣詳列。鼻舌身三識與眼耳二識之分判即在「合／離」：眼耳二識所緣之境隔空而至（離中），鼻舌身三識所緣之境須合身而起（合中）。此一物理性之分判於諸緣計數中即顯為「9-8-7-7-7」之兩階遞減：八緣（耳）至七緣（鼻舌身）之降，乃由「離 → 合」之質變所致，非僅量減。
梵saṃskṛta
ghrāṇa-vijñāna < ghrāṇa（鼻，→#62 已詳）+ vijñāna（識，→#1 已詳）。
ghrāṇa < √ghrā「嗅」< 印歐祖語 *ǵʰreh₁-（亦作 *gʷʰreh₁-，學界於齶／脣化齶之分析尚有分歧）。同源詞集限於印度伊朗語支：梵 √ghrā、阿維斯陀語 gairyō。印歐其他語支無確定同源詞。
⚠ In Review · 拉丁 fragrō（「散發香氣」）非同源——常被誤判為遠親之偽同源：
| 維度 | Skt √ghrā | Latin fragrō |
|---|---|---|
| 印歐祖語根 | *ǵʰreh₁- / *gʷʰreh₁-「嗅」 | *bʰreh₁g-「爆裂、外散」 |
| 字首輔音 | 梵 gh- | 拉丁 fr- |
| 對應規律 | 印歐祖語 *ǵʰ- → 梵 gh- | 印歐祖語 *bʰ- → 拉丁 f- |
| 系統對應？ | ❌ 拉丁 fr- 不對應梵 gh- |
二詞之表面相似 + 義域相近 = 偶合（accidental similarity），非系統同源。⭐ 此為百法範圍內同源學科之示例 —— 印歐同源之確立須循規則音變對應，僅憑語音與語義之表面相似不足以立同源關係。
⚠ In Review · 《阿毘達磨集論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya）梵本無獨立之 ghrāṇa-vijñāna 定義段 —— 《集論》之識蘊定義以 vijānana（了別）總覆八識；前五識個別分判出自《唯識三十頌》第三能變框架（偈 8bc: viṣayasyopalabdhiḥ sā）及《成唯識論》傳統（→#1 / →#2 已詳）。
《唯識三十頌》（Triṃśikā）+ 安慧釋（Triṃśikā-bhāṣya [Tvbh_70]）：
cakṣurādivijñānaṃ ṣaṭprakāram api viṣayavijñaptiḥ ǀ
眼等諸識（共六種，含鼻識）皆為境之了別（viṣaya-vijñapti）。
「cakṣurādi」（眼等）之 ādi（等）攝鼻識於典範之內 —— 鼻識之梵文定義循典範延伸而立（→#2 已詳此架構形式）。
按：v0.1 嘗試之 ghrāṇa / Latin fragrō 同源關係於本譯已降階為偽同源（音變規律不符）—— 此案例反顯同源學科之必要：印歐同源之確認須系統地語音對應，非語音語義之表面巧合。鼻識之印歐祖語詞源誠實狀態：印度伊朗語支內確認，跨語支待考。此「誠言其疑」之姿態，即《指月》方法論第三節之實例。
巴pāḷi
南傳限於六識，鼻識於南北傳判攝完全共傳，皆名 ghāna-viññāṇa；分歧僅在 manas（→#7）與 ālaya-vijñāna（→#8）二識之有無（→#1 已詳此南北情境）。
Pāli 對應：ghāna-viññāṇa。Skt → Pāli 之語音對應：ghr- → gh-（巴利語標準輔音群簡化，丟失中介 r）；-āṇa → -āna（反映 ṇ 於部分環境規律化）。
南傳論藏《阿毘達摩攝義論》（Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha II）將 ghāna-viññāṇa 列為 89／121 種 citta 之中之二：一為善異熟（kusala-vipāka），一為不善異熟（akusala-vipāka）—— 視鼻識為心識流（citta-vīthi）中「嗅」之刹那，緣鼻根、香境、過去業之異熟而起。
《相應部·六處相應》SN 35 系列諸經之鼻識生起公式：
Ghānañca paṭicca gandhe ca uppajjati ghāna-viññāṇaṃ.
緣鼻與香，生鼻識。
同公式亦見《大念處經》DN 22 法隨觀·六入處段、《中部》MN 148 Chachakkasutta。「根境識三事和合」於六識皆逐字可代換，與《雜阿含》卷九「緣鼻、香，生鼻識」一致。
按：鼻識為南北傳完全共傳之教義，惟北傳唯識補諸緣與三依之架構，南傳於 citta-vīthi 中作流程層分析；二者於機制一致而於背景架構（六識 vs 八識）分歧。合中取境之分判為南北傳共識——南傳論藏亦明 gandha 須與 ghānappasāda（鼻淨色）直接接觸方起 ghāna-viññāṇa；唯識所加者乃將此 contact-形態形式化為「七緣」之列舉。
漢綜述zh-synthesis
「鼻識」之梵文 ghrāṇa-vijñāna 為兩段合成——ghrāṇa（鼻，→#62 已詳，< √ghrā「嗅」，印歐祖語 *ǵʰreh₁-，同源詞限於印度伊朗語支，跨語支待考）+ vijñāna（識，→#1 已詳）。⚠️ 拉丁 fragrō（「散發香氣」）為偽同源（印歐祖語根 *bʰreh₁g- 而非 *ǵʰreh₁-，字首輔音對應規律不符），本譯以此案例示印歐同源確立之方法論：系統語音對應為唯一判準（→梵段已詳）。Pāli ghāna-viññāṇa 承標準對應：ghr- → gh-（輔音群簡化）。
鼻識為了境能變第三之前五識分位之第三條（→#1 已詳此分位共式）。義理特徵與 →#1 平行：性境現量通三性、34 心所相應、無分別。七緣方生（較眼識少「空」「明」二緣）——「合三離二」之合中取境三識（鼻舌身）之首（→梵段《八識規矩頌》「合三離二觀塵世」）。「空」「明」二緣之缺乃合中取境之必然：香境須與鼻根直接接觸方起識，無距離可言，無光明可資。諸緣三依（→#6/#7/#8）全同 →#1。至佛位 → 與餘四識共轉成所作智（→#1 已詳）。南北傳判攝完全共傳（→#1）。
與 →#1 同——南北傳判攝完全共傳（→#1）。
鼻識之修持涵義在香境之現象學特性——極速顯現而迅速消逝，嗅覺適應使香氣稍候即淡；此「鮮明到達、迅速消逝、不可復返」之特徵使鼻識成為無常（anityatā，→#84）之直接顯現處。漢傳「香嚴童子」入道因緣（《楞嚴經》二十五圓通章）即觀沉香之生住滅而悟；一炷香即無常之全弧。
「鼻識」玄奘直譯；英譯 Nose-consciousness 沿 →#1 譯式。
鼻識 ——依鼻根，緣香境，了別為性；性境現量，無分別為相；通善、不善、俱非三性。
英綜述en-synthesis
Sanskrit ghrāṇa-vijñāna compounds ghrāṇa (the nose-faculty, see →#62) with vijñāna (discriminating awareness, see →#1). The Pāli ghāna-viññāṇa preserves the compound via standard cluster-simplification (ghr- → gh-).
The Indo-European etymology of ghrāṇa requires care. The root √ghrā "to smell" is reconstructed to PIE *ǵʰreh₁- (or *gʷʰreh₁-; scholars disagree on the labio-velar question), but the cognate set is limited to Indo-Iranian — Sanskrit √ghrā and Avestan gairyō "to smell" are the only confirmed reflexes. There is no securely attested PIE-level cognate in Greek, Latin, Germanic, Celtic, or Slavic. This entry's earlier treatment (in v0.1 of the underlying drafts) speculatively proposed Latin fragrō "to emit fragrance" as a distant cognate — an attractive guess given the close semantic match. It is, however, a false cognate: Latin fragrō derives from PIE *bʰreh₁g- "to break, to exhale," whose initial *bʰ- yields Latin f- by regular sound law, while Skt gh- derives from PIE *ǵʰ-. The two initial-consonant correspondences belong to different sound-change pathways. Surface phonetic similarity plus semantic overlap does not establish cognate status; what establishes it is systematic phonological correspondence, which here fails. The honest etymological position is therefore: ghrāṇa is securely Indo-Iranian, with PIE attestation uncertain beyond that branch.
This false-cognate case is itself instructive. It is the kind of resemblance that looks etymologically promising — both words mean something close to "fragrance, smelling," both are short, both have a velar-aspirate-rhotic shape — and which a non-specialist reader might accept on the strength of resemblance alone. The discipline of cognate-checking is what separates similarity from shared inheritance. This volume's introduction (§3) uses ghrāṇa / fragrō as a worked example of this distinction.
Like all five sense-consciousnesses, nose-consciousness operates by direct perception only (pratyakṣa / 現量) — odor is registered as such before any concept of "what it smells like." The thought "this is jasmine" or "this is incense" is not nose-consciousness but mind-consciousness operating concurrently. It apprehends the actual olfactory object (vastu / 性境) and is itself morally neutral (通三性), taking ethical valence only from the mental factors that co-arise with it. As with eye- and ear-consciousness, Abhidharma-samuccaya gives no per-識 definition for nose-consciousness; the Triṃśikā-Sthiramati frame folds it under cakṣurādi-vijñānaṃ ṣaṭprakāram api viṣaya-vijñaptiḥ, with the ādi clause incorporating it into the eye-paradigm.
Seven conditions and the contact-mode. Where eye-consciousness requires nine conditions and ear-consciousness eight, the three contact-senses (nose, tongue, body) require seven — neither distance (ākāśa / 空) nor light (āloka / 明) is needed. Nose-consciousness operates only in direct contact: the odor-bearing molecule must reach the nasal faculty for cognition to arise. The remaining seven conditions (faculty, object, attention, the three deep-mind dependencies — manas →#7, mano-vijñāna →#6, ālaya →#8 — and the seed) parallel the other senses. The Yogācāra structural distinction between 离中取境 (distance-mode: eye, ear) and 合中取境 (contact-mode: nose, tongue, body) is not just a phenomenological observation but an architectural marker: it explains why the condition-count drops from 8 to 7 between śrotra-vijñāna and ghrāṇa-vijñāna. The drop is qualitative, not merely numerical — it tracks the shift from cognition-at-a-distance to cognition-at-contact.
Nose-consciousness is shared canon. Both Theravāda and Yogācāra recognize ghāna-viññāṇa / ghrāṇa-vijñāna as arising from the meeting of nose-faculty, odor-object, and discriminating cognition; the Pāli formula ghānañca paṭicca gandhe ca uppajjati ghāna-viññāṇaṃ (SN 35, DN 22, MN 148) is verbatim what the Saṃyuktāgama gives as 「緣鼻、香，生鼻識」. The contact-mode (合中取境) analysis is also shared: Theravāda Abhidhamma similarly requires direct contact between gandha (odor) and ghānappasāda (the nose-sensitivity) for ghāna-viññāṇa to arise. The Yogācāra additions are architectural: seven conditions made explicit, three deep-mind dependencies named, the seed-storage role articulated. Ghāna-viññāṇa in Theravāda is one of 89 (or 121) types of citta, with two varieties (one wholesome-resultant, one unwholesome-resultant), analyzed within the citta-vīthi framework rather than through Yogācāra's tri-pariṇāma.
Olfactory experience has a phenomenological signature distinct from the other senses: it is immediate but ungraspable. A scent is registered the moment air carries an odor-molecule across the threshold of the nasal mucosa, and the same scent attended to a moment later is already different or gone — the olfactory object does not persist for inspection the way a visible object does. Olfactory adaptation is rapid; the nose habituates within minutes and the scent fades from awareness even though its physical source is unchanged. This combination — vivid arrival, rapid fading, irrecoverability — makes the olfactory faculty a pointed object for contemplating impermanence (anityatā →#84). The Chinese Buddhist tradition has developed this into an explicit contemplative method: the 香嚴 tradition, exemplified in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra's twenty-five-faculties chapter (《楞嚴經》二十五圓通章, T19n0945) where the bodhisattva 香嚴童子 attains awakening through the contemplation of aloeswood incense (沉水香) — observing the rise, duration, change, and cessation of fragrance as a direct, unmediated teaching on the four marks of conditioned phenomena. A single stick of incense is the entire arc of anitya in compressed form.
Nose-consciousness — the discriminating cognition that arises depending on the nose-faculty and its olfactory object. Apprehends odor directly by perception, in the contact-mode (without distance or light), without conceptual construction. Morally neutral in itself; takes its ethical valence from the mental factors it co-arises with.
譯translator's note
譯者按： 結構分析詳 S3-P02、S3-P06。鼻識（ghrāṇa-vijñāna，#3）為百法範圍內同源學科之實例 —— v0.1 之 ghrāṇa / Latin fragrō 同源猜想於本譯降階為偽同源（音變規律不符），反顯確立印歐同源須系統地語音對應而非語音語義之表面巧合（卷首§三節以此為示例）。鼻識同時為合中取境三識（鼻舌身 →#3-#5）之首，諸緣 7 對 離中 8/9 之降為架構而非數量之差。