末那識Manas
心王八識之第七。三能變中之第二能變（思量能變）。依彼轉、緣彼——依阿賴耶識（→#8）而起，緣阿賴耶識之見分恆執為「我」。思量為性相——以思量為自性，亦以思量為行相。四煩惱（我癡、我見、我慢、我愛）恆俱。有覆無記——煩惱障覆性，但不直接造業。八識中唯一「亦恆亦審」之識——恆續不斷地深細執審我相。
漢zh · Xuanzang 譯
心王八識之第七。三能變中之第二能變（思量能變）。依彼轉、緣彼——依阿賴耶識（→#8）而起，緣阿賴耶識之見分恆執為「我」。思量為性相——以思量為自性，亦以思量為行相。四煩惱（我癡、我見、我慢、我愛）恆俱。有覆無記——煩惱障覆性，但不直接造業。八識中唯一「亦恆亦審」之識——恆續不斷地深細執審我相。
經
[共傳] 阿含 / Nikāya 經藏中尚無「末那識」之獨立術語——manas 一字僅作意根（意識之所依根）之原始用法（→#6 意識所依之根）。第七識之獨立建立為大乘唯識對阿含六識說之精微深化——非否定阿含，乃就阿含內部問題（五位無識時何者持續執我？六識間斷時生命相續之機制何在？）作架構補出。
[大乘] 《楞伽經》（求那跋陀羅譯本 T16n0670，卷次以 CBETA 字元核校為準；藏識海偈接續）：
譬如巨海浪，斯由猛風起⋯⋯藏識海常住，境界風所動，種種諸識浪，騰躍而轉生。
意等七種識，應知亦如是，如海共波浪，心俱和合生。
——「意」（manas）為七轉識之上首——於藏識海中與餘六識和合生起。末那為七轉識中最深者：恆續不斷而執取阿賴耶。此偈之梵文文本根為《解深密經》第五品之 ādāna 喻（散文形式）—— 楞伽編集者將其偈頌化為偈。
論
《成唯識論》卷四（二能變頌，T31n1585）：
次第二能變，是識名末那，依彼轉緣彼，思量為性相。
四煩惱常俱，謂我癡我見，并我慢我愛，及餘觸等俱。
——⭐ 此頌之每一短句皆為《唯識三十頌》（《唯識三十頌》（Triṃśikā））偈 5b-d + 偈 6 之 verbatim calque（梵漢逐字對應，下詳於梵段）。
《成唯識論》卷四後段（思量為性相之雙顯）：
思量為性相者，雙顯此識自性行相。意以思量為自性故，即復用彼為行相故。未轉依位恒審思量所執我相，已轉依位亦審思量無我相故。
——⭐ 「審」之質不變，「所審」轉：未轉依位（凡位）恆審執我相；已轉依位（佛位）亦審思量無我相。修行不破末那之審察功能，唯轉其所審之相（我 → 無我）。轉識成智之架構結構即建於此「審不變、相轉」之上。
《成唯識論略纂》（窺基）：
思量名意，末那中勝，恆審思量勝餘識故。
——八識皆有思量之分（前五識緣境、第六深推、第八持種），唯末那「恆審」勝於其餘——恆續不斷且深細推度，故獨得「意」（manas）之典範名。
⭐ 「恆審」四句分判（《八識規矩補註》引護法）：
| 識 | 恆 | 審 | 解 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 第八阿賴耶（→#8） | 恆 | 非審 | 持種不斷而無深推度 |
| 第六意識（→#6） | 非恆 | 審 | 能深細推度但有間斷（五位無識） |
| 第七末那（本條） | 恆 | 審 | 恆續不斷地執審我相 |
| 前五識（→#1-#5） | 非恆 | 非審 | 不執我，緣具則生緣缺則滅 |
末那為唯一同時「恆」且「審」之識。此架構獨特位置直接導向其義理功能：恆執我相不間斷，故有情日夜鎮昏迷而不自覺。
《八識規矩補註》第七識頌：
帶質有覆通情本，隨緣執我量為非。
八大遍行別境慧，貪癡我見慢相隨。
恆審思量我相隨，有情日夜鎮昏迷。
——末那相應 18 心所（八識中第二少，僅多於阿賴耶之 5）：
| 類 | 數 | 條目 |
|---|---|---|
| 遍行 | 5 | →#9-#13（作意/觸/受/想/思） |
| 別境 | 1（唯慧） | →#18 慧（為「審」之必要心所） |
| 根本煩惱 | 4 | 我癡（→#32 癡）/我見（→#35 惡見）/我慢（→#33 慢）/我愛（→#30 貪） |
| 大隨煩惱 | 8 | →#48-#55（不信/懈怠/放逸/惛沈/掉舉/失念/不正知/散亂） |
| 計 | 18 |
⭐ 末那為前六識之「染淨依」——前六識之染與淨皆受末那我執遮蔽之影響。即使前六識起善心（如布施、慈悲），末那於該刹那仍恆執「我在布施、我在慈悲」之我相——故善亦帶染。佛位（轉依後）末那轉為平等性智，方能有真正之「無我之善」。「有情日夜鎮昏迷」一句即此教義之抒情表達。
諸緣
末那識四緣方生——較意識之 5 緣更精簡（深處愈簡之鏈）：
| 緣 | 義 |
|---|---|
| 1. 根 | 阿賴耶識（→#8）—— 為其俱有依 |
| 2. 境 | 阿賴耶識之見分（→#8）—— 恆執為「我」 |
| 3. 作意 | 遍行心所（→#9）—— 警心趣境 |
| 4. 種子 | 末那識自種子（第八識所持，現行所熏） |
⭐⭐ 末那「依彼緣彼」之獨特結構——根與境同為阿賴耶一識：
- 依彼（tad āśritya）= 依阿賴耶識體（其本體基底）
- 緣彼（tadālambana）= 緣阿賴耶之見分（執為「我」之認識論之對象）
⭐ 此主客同源之結構乃末那「執自為我」之機制之根：子依母而生，又執母為己有——末那之無始我執，其結構本身即是如此。安慧於《三十頌釋》[Tvbh_62] 以 ahaṃ mama（「我、我所」）二字直陳此關係：末那於阿賴耶見分之上加上 ahaṃ mama 之 satkāya-dṛṣṭi-投射，構成「我」之現象學。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
末那轉為平等性智（samatā-jñāna）——《成唯識論》卷十：「觀一切法自他有情悉皆平等，大慈悲等恒共相應。」「審」不變，「所審」轉——未轉依位恆審執我相，已轉依位亦審思量無我相（《成唯識論》卷四，→#7 論段已詳）；恆續執我之功能性形式於佛位轉為恆續觀自他平等。大慈悲（mahā-karuṇā）非感情之附加，乃自他平等之直接認知後果——「感受眾生苦」之情感維度於此被「自他結構平等」之認知維度所重置；慈悲為情轉為慈悲為自他平等之認知。
按：四層引文 + 諸緣段呈末那架構縱深 —— 阿含尚無末那獨立術語（為其歷史先後框架）；楞伽藏識海偈以譬喻形式立末那為七轉識之上首；唯識論以《唯識三十頌》（Triṃśikā）偈 5b-d 之逐語素仿譯（依彼轉緣彼思量為性相）+ 偈 6 之逐語素仿譯（四煩惱常俱）為義理核心；諸緣 4 + 「依彼緣彼」之主客同源結構為其機制。末那為唯識自六識升級至八識架構之首先比量銜接——五位無識時何者執我？答：末那。意識間斷時染淨依何在？答：末那。佛位前我執之本體基礎？答：末那俱生我執。三問三答，皆指向同一識位。
梵saṃskṛta
manas——「意、思量者」< √man「思、量、念」+ -as（中性後綴）。
⭐ 印歐祖語同源網絡：√man < 印歐祖語 *men-「思」（→#6 已詳此 root 詞族）—— 印歐心識詞彙之核心根。同源於拉丁 mēns / mentis、希臘 menos、英文 mind、英文 mental, mention, monument, memorial、古愛爾蘭 menme。梵 manas 與英文 mind 為直接印歐祖語同源——東西文明之心識核心詞同一根。
⭐⭐ √man 之四 dharma 詞族 — baifa 範圍內印歐祖語同源豐富之跨法詞族：
| Dharma | 構造 | 義 | baifa 位置 |
|---|---|---|---|
| manas- (意根 / 第七識) | √man + -as | 思量者 | →#6 / 本條 #7 |
| manas-kāra (作意) | √man + -as + √kṛ + 後綴 | 思量之作起 | →#9 |
| māna (慢) | √man + -a | 自高、自量 | →#33 |
| mano-vijñāna (意識) | √man + -as + vi-jñāna | 思量之分別知 | →#6 |
——四 dharma 跨心王（#6, #7）/ 心所（#9, #33）之兩類；同印歐祖語 *men- 之根於唯識心識架構中分節為四展用：認知官能（意根 #7）/ 認知喚起（作意 #9）/ 我相昇高（慢 #33）/ 推論性認知（意識 #6）。
⭐ 慢與末那同根之義理呼應 —— māna（慢，→#33）正是末那執我之外顯：第七識恆執阿賴耶見分為我（內），此恆執之外顯（與他人比較之高擡）即慢心所。故末那四煩惱必含「我慢」（與我癡、我見、我愛並列；下詳於偈 6）。詞源學作為心識架構之闡明：同根之內外二展用，使 #33 慢之教義至 #7 末那方得本體依據。
⚠ In Review · 唯識學中 manas 一字之術語雙義：
| 義 | 所指 |
|---|---|
| manas as faculty (indriya) | 意根 = 第七末那識（本條 #7），第六意識之所依 |
| manas as consciousness (-vijñāna) | 第六意識（→#6） |
二義皆出 manas 之根；唯識立第七識之創新即在此分節（→#6 已詳）。
梵本定義 — Triṃśikā 偈 5b-d + 偈 6 + 偈 7bcd
⚠ In Review · 《阿毘達磨集論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya）梵本無獨立之 kliṣṭa-manas 定義段 —— Asg 之識蘊定義以 vijānana（了別）總覆八識（→#1 已詳此架構形式）。末那之梵本義理核心源自世親之《唯識三十頌》(Triṃśikā) 偈 5b-d + 偈 6 + 偈 7bcd——三偈構成末那教義之架構三聯。
⭐⭐ 《唯識三十頌》（Triṃśikā） 偈 5b-d（依彼轉緣彼之根據）——世親 Triṃśikā-vijñaptikārikā；安慧 Triṃśikā-bhāṣya [Tvbh_62]：
tad āśritya pravartate ǀ tadālambaṃ manonāma vijñānaṃ mananātmakam ǁ
「依彼[阿賴耶]而轉起；以彼[阿賴耶]為所緣；名為「意」之識，思量為性。」
| 《唯識三十頌》（Triṃśikā） 5b-d Skt | 《成唯識論》卷四漢 |
|---|---|
| tad āśritya pravartate | 依彼轉 |
| tadālambam | 緣彼 |
| manonāma vijñānam | 是識名末那 |
| mananātmakam | 思量為性相 |
⭐ 此為 baifa 範圍內最標誌之逐語素仿譯之一——梵漢逐字對應；玄奘之譯近於音譯。
⭐⭐ 末那於三藏義架構中之位置：成論卷二「能藏／所藏／執藏」之三聯，其梵本之根分立兩處——能藏 + 所藏出自安慧 [Tvbh_50] 對 ālaya 之雙向動詞分析（ālīyante kāryabhāvena / ālīyate kāraṇabhāvena，→#8 已詳）；執藏出自本偈 5b-d 之 tad āśritya + tadālambaṃ —— 末那為三藏義之執藏面之文法主格（grammatical agent）。三藏義之架構（architectural）三聯由是合構：阿賴耶之雙向繫縛（[Tvbh_50]） + 末那之依彼緣彼（[Tvbh_62]）= CWS 之三藏義。
⭐ 安慧之 nairukta-vidhi 詞源學[Tvbh_62]——manas 之名非詞彙上首要，乃從動詞名詞 mananā（思量之動作）衍生：
mananātmakatvān mana ity ucyate nairuktena vidhinā
「以具思量自性故，依詞源學方法（耶斯卡《尼祿多》Nirukta 之 vidhi）名之為「意」。」
——「意」之名非原為名詞而後加之以「思量」之義；乃「思量」為先，方有「意」之名。此即《成唯識論》卷四「思量為性相者，雙顯此識自性行相」之梵文詞源學根據——安慧之詞源方法為《成唯識論》性相雙顯論之義理依據。
⭐⭐ 《唯識三十頌》（Triṃśikā） 偈 6（四煩惱常俱之根據）[Tvbh_64]：
kleśaiś caturbhiḥ sahitaṃ nivṛtāvyākṛtaiḥ sadā ǀ ātmadṛṣṭyātmamohātmamānātmasnehasaṃjñitaiḥ ǁ
「[末那]與四煩惱恆相應，彼[煩惱]為有覆無記；名為：我見、我癡、我慢、我愛。」
| 《唯識三十頌》（Triṃśikā） 6 Skt | 《成唯識論》卷四漢 |
|---|---|
| kleśaiś caturbhiḥ sahitaṃ ... sadā | 四煩惱常俱 |
| nivṛtāvyākṛtaiḥ | 有覆無記 |
| ātma-dṛṣṭi / ātma-moha / ātma-māna / ātma-sneha | 我見/我癡/我慢/我愛 |
——⭐ 第二標誌逐語素仿譯。順序略異：《唯識三十頌》（Triṃśikā）為 dṛṣṭi-moha-māna-sneha（見癡慢愛），玄奘為韻律和諧重排為「癡見慢愛」，義理上等同。
⭐ 安慧附頌[Tvbh_66]——義理上關鍵：
avidyayā cātmadṛṣṭyā cāsmimānena tṛṣṇayā ǀ ebhiś caturbhiḥ saṃkliṣṭaṃ mananālakṣaṇaṃ manaḥ ǁ viparyāsanimittaṃ tu manaḥ kliṣṭaṃ sadaiva tat ǀ kuśalāvyākṛte citte sadāhaṅkārakāraṇam ǁ
「由無明、我見、我慢、貪愛此四，染污思量相之意；由顛倒因，意恆染污，於善與無記心中恆為我執之因。」
⭐⭐ 末段 kuśalāvyākṛte citte sadāhaṅkārakāraṇam 為《成唯識論》「染淨依」教義之直接梵文根據——即使前六識起善心或無記心（非染心）之刹那，末那仍恆為「我執之因」（ahaṅkāra-kāraṇa）。善亦帶染，此即末那「染淨依」之所以然。
⭐⭐⭐ 《唯識三十頌》（Triṃśikā） 偈 7bcd（三位無有之根據）[Tvbh_68]：
arhato na tat ǀ na nirodhasamāpattau mārge lokottare na ca ǁ
「[末那]於阿羅漢位無；於滅盡定中無；於出世道中亦無。」
——末那於三位中暫斷或永斷：
| 位 | 性質 | 機制 |
|---|---|---|
| 阿羅漢位 (arhattva) | 永斷 | 一切煩惱永遠捨棄 |
| 滅盡定 (nirodha-samāpatti，→#76) | 暫伏 | 由 mārga-bala（道力）暫時止息 |
| 出世道 (lokottara-mārga) | 暫斷 | anātma-darśana 與 ātma-darśana 於同刹那不可並起（vipakṣa-pratipakṣayor ayaugapadyāl） |
⭐⭐⭐ 此偈為 baifa 範圍內最深之跨連結構之一：偈 7bcd 三位無有為 #7 末那、#76 滅盡定（不相應行）、#99 想受滅（無為）三條 baifa 條目之共同梵文文本根。同一現象學（末那於三特定狀態中暫止），三範疇視角之折射：本條（#7）以心王之視角立其「暫斷／永斷」；#76 以不相應行之視角立 asthāvara 諸識（含末那）之止息；#99 以無為之視角立此止息之 tathatā-面相。讀者順 (→#76, →#99) 互參即可重構此跨三範疇之文本同一性。
按：末那之梵文教義以三偈為核心—— 偈 5b-d（依彼轉緣彼，性相雙顯）+ 偈 6（四煩惱常俱，有覆無記）+ 偈 7bcd（三位無有）。⭐ 詞源閃光：安慧之 nairukta-vidhi（mananā → manas）為《成唯識論》性相雙顯論之直接梵文根；末那名義從思量動詞衍生而非反向——名隨於用，用先於名。⭐⭐ 跨三範疇之結構發現：偈 7bcd 三位無有為 #7／#76／#99 之共同梵本根，三範疇視角之折射；此乃 baifa 範圍內深層之跨連結構（卷首§四節以此為示例）。⭐⭐⭐ Asg ⚠️ 待查標出於此撤下——Asg 無末那獨立定義並非闕如，乃文本之結構事實；末那之梵本根即在《唯識三十頌》（Triṃśikā） + 安慧。
巴pāḷi
⚠ In Review · ⚠️ 南傳不立第七末那識——此為 baifa 範圍內南北傳心識架構之最深架構分歧（與 →#8 阿賴耶並列為南北最深分歧）。本條無 Pāli 經藏對應段；本段以「南傳對應論」之形式呈現南傳如何處理同一現象學。
Pāli manas 之範圍：南傳 manas 一字僅作三功能性角色，皆不立為獨立識：
| Pāli 角色 | 義 |
|---|---|
| manāyatana（意處） | 12 處之第六，意識所緣之內入處 |
| mano-indriya（意根） | 22 根之意根，意識所依之根 |
| mano-viññāṇa-dhātu indriya-support | 意識之 indriya 基礎 |
——唯識所謂之「末那」於南傳中無對應。然唯識立末那所欲解之義理問題（持續執我、染淨依、五位無識時之我感相續），南傳並非未見，乃以不同機制分別處理：
⭐⭐ 南傳之功能性對應四機制：
| 唯識末那之功能 | 南傳對應機制 | 出處 |
|---|---|---|
| 持續我感（恆執我相） | bhavaṅga-citta（有分心，→#6 已詳）+ asmi-māna（我慢隨眠） | Vism XIV、Abhidhammattha-saṅgaha V |
| 五位無識時之相續 | bhavaṅga 之深層持續 | 同上 |
| 前六識之染淨依 | anusaya（隨眠）+ āsava（漏） | Vism XXII、四 āsava 教義 |
| 我執之 latent 因 | anusaya 之 māna-anusaya + asmi-māna（「我慢」隨眠） | Vism 同段 |
⭐⭐⭐ 瑜伽行派之架構創發即「南傳分散於四機制之功能，集中於一 dharma」之集中化——將 bhavaṅga + anusaya + āsava + citta-santati 之功能性工作合併為單一結構元素（末那）之恆續運作。
| 維度 | 南傳 | 北傳瑜伽行派 |
|---|---|---|
| 識數 | 6 | 8（含末那 + 阿賴耶） |
| 我感相續之本體 | 多機制分布處理 | 集中於末那一識 |
| 推論結構 | 不需比量升級 | 五位無識 → 立第七、第八之必要性 |
| 修行對治之單位 | anusaya-by-anusaya 之逐一斷除 | 末那之整體轉依（→平等性智） |
⭐ 南北對話之深處：非二者誰對誰錯，乃同一現象學於系統分節時之兩種架構選擇。瑜伽行派之集中化使「轉依」（āśraya-parāvṛtti）成為單一識位之轉化操作；南傳之分散化使修行為多機制之逐一斷除工作。二者皆有 internal 連貫性，異在於架構承諾。
按：本條無經、論二段乃架構分歧之必然——南傳無末那獨立術語，非翻譯之疏漏。然南傳於同一現象學並非無義理處理，乃以 bhavaṅga + anusaya + āsava + citta-santati 四機制分別承擔末那之功能。瑜伽行派之創新在於集中化——將四分散之機制合於一識位之恆續運作；此架構集中化使「轉依」成為可執行之單一修行操作（轉末那 → 平等性智）。⭐ 此一南北對照為 baifa 最深架構對話之一（與 →#8 並列）；卷首§四節以此為南北結構分歧之示例。
漢綜述zh-synthesis
「末那」之梵文 manas 為 √man（思、量、念）+ -as（中性後綴）之衍生——直譯「思量者」「思量之作具」。⭐⭐ √man 之印歐祖語 *men- 「思」為印歐心識詞彙之核心根，其同源網絡遍佈印歐諸語：拉丁 mēns / mentis（心、智）、希臘 menos（精神、意志）、英文 mind（最日常之心識核心詞）+ mental, mention, monument, memorial、古愛爾蘭 menme。梵 manas 與英文 mind 為直接印歐祖語同源——東西文明之心識核心詞共一動詞根、共「思」之語法手勢。⭐⭐⭐ √man 之四法詞族——baifa 範圍內印歐祖語同源最豐富之跨法詞族：
| dharma | 構造 | 義 | baifa 位置 |
|---|---|---|---|
| manas | √man + -as | 思量者（認知官能義） | →#6 意根 / 本條 #7 末那識 |
| mano-vijñāna | manas + vi-jñāna | 思量之分別知 | →#6 |
| manas-kāra | manas + √kṛ + 後綴 | 思量之作起 | →#9 作意 |
| māna | √man + -a | 自高、自量 | →#33 慢 |
——⭐ 同印歐祖語 *men- 之根於唯識心識架構中分節為四展用：認知官能（意根 / 末那 #7）/ 推論性認知（意識 #6）/ 認知喚起（作意 #9）/ 我相昇高（慢 #33）。詞源學作為心識架構之闡明：四法跨心王（#6, #7）/ 心所（#9, #33）之兩類；同根之內外二展用——末那執我（內）+ 慢之與他人比較之高擡（外）——使 #33 慢之教義至 #7 末那方得本體依據（末那執我為慢之本體根）。唯識學中 manas 一字之術語雙義須釐清：(a) 作官能（indriya）= 意根 = 第七末那識（本條 #7）= 第六意識之所依；(b) 作識（-vijñāna 之省稱）= 第六意識之 mano-vijñāna（→#6）。二義皆出 manas 之根；唯識立第七識之創新即在此分節（→#6 已詳）——同字、二識位、根族唯一而功能分立。修飾語 kliṣṭa-（「染污」、< √kliś「擾、傷」；印歐祖語 *kleys- 「彎、傷」之重構不確）為瑜伽行派為區分轉依前後之末那所加之技術性形容——kliṣṭa-manas 指未轉依之末那（凡位之恆執我者）；佛位轉依後之末那捨此 kliṣṭa- 而成平等性智（→修持段詳）。Pāli 無 kliṣṭa-manas 之專技合詞，南傳之 manas 範圍亦完全不同（→南北段詳）。
末那為心王八識之第七、《唯識三十頌》三能變（tri-pariṇāma）中之第二能變（思量能變）。義理核心由《唯識三十頌》偈 5b-d + 偈 6 + 偈 7bcd 三聯構成——三偈為 baifa 範圍內逐語素仿譯至漢之最標誌性實例之一。偈 5b-d（依彼轉緣彼，性相雙顯）：tad āśritya pravartate / tadālambaṃ manonāma vijñānaṃ mananātmakam——玄奘《成唯識論》卷四「次第二能變，是識名末那，依彼轉、緣彼，思量為性相」為梵漢逐語素對應；安慧 [Tvbh_62] 之 nairukta-vidhi（耶斯卡《尼祿多》Nirukta 詞源學方法）——mananātmakatvān mana ity ucyate nairuktena vidhinā（「以具思量自性故，依詞源學方法名之為意」）——為《成唯識論》「思量為性相者，雙顯此識自性行相」之直接梵文根：「意」之名非原為名詞而後加思量義；乃思量為先，方有「意」之名——名隨於用、用先於名。偈 6（四煩惱常俱，有覆無記）：kleśaiś caturbhiḥ sahitaṃ nivṛtāvyākṛtaiḥ sadā / ātma-dṛṣṭy-ātma-moha-ātma-māna-ātma-sneha-saṃjñitaiḥ——四煩惱即我見、我癡、我慢、我愛（玄奘為韻律重排為「癡見慢愛」），分別為 →#35 惡見、→#32 癡、→#33 慢、→#30 貪 之 ātma- 別相（冠以「我」之四子相）。安慧附頌 [Tvbh_66] kuśalāvyākṛte citte sadāhaṅkārakāraṇam（於善與無記心中恆為我執之因）為「染淨依」教義之直接梵文根：即使前六識起善心之刹那，末那於該刹那仍恆執「我在布施、我在慈悲」之我相——故善亦帶染；佛位（轉依後）末那轉為平等性智，方有真正之「無我之善」。「有情日夜鎮昏迷」一句即此教義之抒情表達。偈 7bcd（三位無有）：arhato na tat / na nirodhasamāpattau mārge lokottare na ca——末那於阿羅漢位永斷、於滅盡定（→#76）暫伏、於出世道（lokottara-mārga）暫斷。⭐⭐⭐ 偈 7bcd 為 baifa 範圍內最深之跨範疇結構：同一現象學（末那於三特定狀態中暫止），三範疇視角之折射——本條（#7 心法）以心王視角立其暫斷／永斷；→#76 滅盡定（不相應行）以 prajñapti 視角立諸識止息之假立；→#99 想受滅（無為）以 asaṃskṛta 視角立此止息之 tathatā-面相。一梵本文本根 + 三範疇位置 = 卷首§4.11 所揭跨三範疇結構發現之文本錨。「恆審」四句獨立分判：阿賴耶恆而非審、第六意識審而非恆、前五識非恆非審——末那為唯一「亦恆亦審」者。架構之獨特位置直接導向其義理功能：恆執我相不間斷，故有情日夜鎮昏迷而不自覺。心所相應 18（遍行 5 + 別境慧 1 + 四煩惱 4 + 大隨 8）+ 諸緣 4（根=阿賴耶／境=阿賴耶見分／作意／自種子）；其中根、境同為阿賴耶一識——「依彼緣彼」之主客同源結構乃末那「執自為我」之機制根（子依母又執母為己有之經典意象）。
南傳不立第七末那識——此為 baifa 範圍內南北傳心識架構之最深架構分歧（與 →#8 阿賴耶並列為南北最深分歧）。Pāli manas 之範圍僅限三功能性角色，皆不立為獨立識：(a) manāyatana（意處，12 處之第六）；(b) mano-indriya（意根，22 根之意根）；(c) mano-viññāṇa-dhātu 之 indriya-支援。唯識所謂之「末那」於南傳中無對應——然唯識立末那所欲解之義理問題（持續執我、染淨依、五位無識時之我感相續），南傳並非未見、乃以四機制分散處理：①bhavaṅga-citta（有分心，→#6 已詳）+ asmi-māna（我慢隨眠）—— 持續我感之機制；②bhavaṅga 之深層持續—— 五位無識時之相續；③anusaya（隨眠）+ āsava（漏，特別 bhavāsava「有之漏」）—— 前六識之染淨依；④māna-anusaya（我慢隨眠）—— 我執之潛在因。⭐⭐⭐ 瑜伽行派之架構創發即「南傳分散於四機制之功能、集中於一法」之集中化——將 bhavaṅga + anusaya + āsava + citta-santati 之功能性工作合併為單一結構元素（末那）之恆續運作。此一集中化使「轉依」（āśraya-parāvṛtti）成為單一識位之轉化操作——末那整體轉為平等性智一事之執行；南傳之分散化則使修行為多機制之逐一斷除工作——諸 anusaya 之一一根除（《清淨道論》對 7 隨眠之逐一處理）。⭐ 此南北對照非二者誰對誰錯，乃同一現象學於系統分節時之兩種架構選擇：北傳之架構集中化 vs 南傳之機制分散化；二者皆內部連貫，異在於系統承諾。baifa 卷首§四節以 #7 + #8 之集中化／分散化對照為架構分歧之核心示例——此架構歧異為佛教思想史最深之部派歧異。
末那為深層修行對治之最終目標——其轉化即整個菩薩道之 āśraya-parāvṛtti（轉依）。其機制為「審不變、所審轉」之教義精微（《成唯識論》卷四「未轉依位恆審思量所執我相，已轉依位亦審思量無我相」）：末那之審察功能本身不被破除、唯所審之相由「我」轉為「無我」。修行非破末那、乃重新定向末那之恆續操作——從「恆執所構作之自我」轉為「恆認識自他之平等」。佛陀並非變為非思量之佛陀，乃變為其恆續背景為平等而非自我之思量者。修持之機制由偈 7bcd 三位無有之第三項揭示：lokottara-mārga 中末那暫斷因 anātma-darśana（無我之見）與 ātma-darśana（執我之見）於同剎那不可並起（vipakṣa-pratipakṣayor ayaugapadyāl）——出世道之每一剎那觀無我即末那執我之刹那性暫止；如此之刹那暫斷重複熏習即為轉依之歷程。⭐ 末那至佛位 → 平等性智（samatā-jñāna），《成唯識論》卷十「觀一切法自他有情悉皆平等，大慈悲等恒共相應」——大慈悲（mahā-karuṇā）為平等智之認知層後果，非情感之附加：見自他結構平等之恆續認知，即構成慈悲之根；慈悲為情之模型（「感受眾生苦」）於此被「自他結構平等」之認知模型重置。轉依後之慈悲非「我感受彼之苦」之自他二元情感性反應，乃「自他於 dharmatā 層位結構性平等」之認知性直觀。⭐ 末那為前六識之染淨依之教義之修持涵義：即使具足戒律、深修禪定、廣作布施——若未及末那之轉，所有善行仍受「我在行善」之我相染色；佛位前一切修行皆是受第七識所染之修行；唯轉依後方有真正脫離我相之菩薩行。此非否定凡位修行之價值（凡位修行為轉依之必要前奏），乃精準名出修行之終極工作場所——末那之恆執我此一深層結構。
漢譯「末那」為玄奘所選——音譯（mañjuśrī-式音譯），保留梵音而不意譯。⚠️ 玄奘何不意譯：因「意」字漢文已涉第六意識之意（mano-vijñāna）與六根之意根（manas-indriya 之 →#6 一面），意譯「意識」會與第六意識同名而失第七之分位獨立。音譯「末那」雖漢文讀者陌生，但達成術語分立之教義要求——末那為第七、意識為第六，二識絕不混淆。「思量」為其義譯，常以雙合形式「末那思量」並用。漢譯傳統穩定一致：玄奘「末那」+「思量」之雙重譯法為千年之標準，無實質爭議。英譯之選擇較複雜——為 baifa 範圍內英譯選擇分歧最大之法之一：
(a) Manas——直接音譯，術語式梵文保留；保守之譯界選擇（Stcherbatsky 主流、Anacker、Schmithausen、Lusthaus、Williams）；保留術語之不確定性而要求讀者學習其分位義； (b) Defiled mentality / Defiled mind——Anacker、Jiang 之意譯方向；以 defiled 譯 kliṣṭa-；但 mentality 之語感過認知化、失 manas 之 faculty 一面； (c) Afflicted mind——Lusthaus 之意譯方向；以 afflicted 譯 kliṣṭa-；直譯但與第六意識（mind）之譯名衝突； (d) Ego-consciousness / Ego-mind——Schmithausen 後期、Waldron 之功能性譯；以 ego- 名其執我功能；讀者友善但失 manas 之 thinking-faculty 義； (e) Self-mentation——Lamotte 之新創譯；精確但生澀，未廣傳； (f) I-mind——Williams 之鮮活譯；保留第一人稱代名性而捕捉 ahaṅkāra（「我作」）之語感；非正式但教義傳神。
本譯於英文段保留 Manas（直接音譯）為通行譯，輔以 afflicted ego-mind 之釋義性稱謂——既保音譯之術語分立，又給讀者語意錨。「有覆無記」之譯：nivṛta-avyākṛta 之 nivṛta-（被覆蓋／被障）易被誤譯為 covered 或 hidden 而失「煩惱所覆」之教義；本譯以 obscured-neutral 為中性而精準之表達——obscured 含「被遮覆而仍存在」之語感，合 nivṛta- 之機制（被覆而非絕滅）；neutral 應 avyākṛta 之「不可記為善或不善」之道德未定義。「思量」之譯名挑戰：mananā / mananātmaka 之 thinking 譯（Stcherbatsky）失其恆續義（thinking 暗示間斷可選）；mentation 譯（Lusthaus、Schmithausen）保留拉丁 mentāre 之動性核心，較貼 √man 之動詞性根。收尾架構觀察：印歐祖語 *men- 之 √man 根於唯識心識架構中分節為四法（→#6 意識 / 本條 #7 末那 / →#9 作意 / →#33 慢）——baifa 範圍內最豐富之跨法詞族；中華文明之「意／末那／作意／慢」四字無對應之同根詞族（「意」字部分覆蓋意識／意根二位、「末那」音譯不入字根族、「作意」為合詞、「慢」字另根），唯梵文 + 印歐西支（mind / mental / mention / monument / memorial / mēns / menos）保此根族之衍生同源呼應。漢字之「意」之語意統一性與梵文之「manas-」之衍生統一性是兩種不同之語言統一形式——前者為概念之貫通，後者為形態之貫通；唯識立第七之術語精細性即在此形態統一性之保留（同根四法各立分位），此於漢字概念統一框架中表達為四詞之並置（意 / 末那 / 作意 / 慢）。漢字之失衍生同源由音譯「末那」之外來感（對於「意」之熟悉感）標出——音譯之必要性即同根分位之詞源學要求於漢譯中之顯現。
末那 ——次第二能變，是識名末那；依彼轉、緣彼，思量為性相；四煩惱常俱，謂我癡、我見、并我慢、我愛；有覆無記。
英綜述en-synthesis
Sanskrit manas (with the technical Yogācāra qualifier kliṣṭa — "afflicted" — yielding kliṣṭa-manas, "the afflicted ego-mind"). Manas derives from PIE *men- "to think" — the same root that yields English mind (the most central cognitive term in the English lexicon). Cognates spread across the major branches: Latin mēns / mentis "mind, intellect," Greek menos "spirit, will," English mental, mention, monument, memorial. The seventh consciousness is etymologically the thinker — the one whose nature is mentation.
The √man root opens onto a four-dharma cluster within the catalog — the strongest single-root cluster in baifa: manas (this entry, the seventh consciousness), mano-vijñāna (the sixth consciousness, →#6), manas-kāra (attention, →#9, "the making-active of mind"), and māna (conceit, →#33, "the elevation of self in mind"). Four classifications, four doctrinal positions — but a single PIE root threading through them. Within Yogācāra, this is no accident. The seventh's "constant grasping of self" (its essence) externalized into comparison with others is conceit; conceit's ontological grounding is the seventh's permanent ego-mentation. The doctrine and the etymology converge at exactly the same point. This is etymology as architecture: the same root, deployed differently across the catalog, marks the same cognitive substrate operating in different functional modes.
Kliṣṭa-manas is the second of the three transformations of consciousness in Yogācāra. It sits between the storehouse-consciousness (the first transformation, on which it depends) and the six surface consciousnesses (which depend on it as their "afflictive-and-purifying support" — 染淨依). Its operation has a unique structural perversity: it depends on the ālaya-vijñāna and grasps the seeing-portion of that very ālaya-vijñāna as "self." A child depends on its mother and grasps her as its own — this image, classical to the tradition (Sthiramati's Triṃśikā-bhāṣya glosses tad-āśritya / tad-ālambana with precisely this structural point), captures the structural inversion of the seventh consciousness: it takes its own basis as its possessed object. The Triṃśikā states this in two adjacent half-verses (5b–d): tad āśritya pravartate | tadālambaṃ manonāma vijñānaṃ mananātmakam — "depending on it, it operates; with it as object, this consciousness named manas is mentation-natured." Xuanzang's Chinese rendering — 「依彼轉、緣彼，思量為性相」 — is a verbatim calque, one of the most iconic in the entire baifa corpus. The Yogācāra Chinese tradition's 性相雙顯 doctrine (the assertion that manas "doubly-displays" its self-nature and its operation) has its precise Sanskrit textual root in Sthiramati's nairukta-vidhi etymology: manas is named from mananā (the act of mentation) by Yāska's etymological method (Nirukta); the noun is derived from the verbal action, not the reverse.
Constant and investigating. Among the eight, only the seventh is both constant and investigating. The eighth is constant but does not investigate; the sixth investigates but is not constant; the first five neither investigate nor grasp self. The seventh alone never lapses and never stops grasping. This is the structural reason the felt sense of "I am" remains continuous across the gaps in conscious thought — across deep sleep, across unconsciousness, across the meditative attainments of no-thought and cessation, across the āsaṃjñika rebirth-state in which the sixth consciousness is suspended for an entire divine lifespan (the five interruption states named in Triṃśikā 偈 16; see →#6's Investigating but not constant section). Where the sixth lapses, the seventh persists. Where the eighth has no investigative power, the seventh has it constantly. The seventh is therefore the architectural answer to the question raised by Triṃśikā 偈 16: when the sixth lapses in the five no-mind states, what carries the felt continuity of self?
The four self-afflictions. The seventh consciousness is constantly accompanied by exactly four primary afflictions, named directly in Triṃśikā 偈 6 — kleśaiś caturbhiḥ sahitaṃ nivṛtāvyākṛtaiḥ sadā / ātmadṛṣṭyātmamohātmamānātmasnehasaṃjñitaiḥ:
- ātma-dṛṣṭi (我見) — self-view, the construction of a self-substance (cross-listed as a sub-form of 惡見 →#35)
- ātma-moha (我癡) — self-delusion, the ignorance of selflessness (cross-listed as a sub-form of 癡 →#32)
- ātma-māna (我慢) — self-conceit, the elevation of the constructed self (cross-listed as a sub-form of 慢 →#33; here the √man root cluster's external manifestation appears within the manas itself)
- ātma-sneha (我愛) — self-love, the attachment to it (cross-listed as a sub-form of 貪 →#30)
These four are not occasional moods but the seventh's permanent companions; they are what it does and the texture of its persistence. Sthiramati's appended verse [Tvbh_66] makes the doctrinal reach explicit: kuśalāvyākṛte citte sadāhaṅkārakāraṇam — "even in wholesome and neutral states of the surface mind, [manas] is constantly the cause of the I-maker." The seventh's ego-affliction is not a feature that activates only during clearly-afflictive moments; it is the constant background of the entire conscious stream, including its ostensibly virtuous moments. This is what makes the seventh "the afflictive-and-purifying support" (染淨依): every wholesome or unwholesome action of the sixth is filtered through the seventh's permanent ego-mentation. There is no virtue that escapes its tinting except in the radical case of having transformed it.
Obscured but uncreating. The seventh occupies a peculiar moral position: obscured-neutral (有覆無記). It is not karmically creative — it does not initiate bodily or verbal action; that is the work of the sixth (→#6's animation clause). But it colors whatever the sixth does. This combination of features — moral non-initiation but pervasive moral coloration — is structurally precise: the seventh cannot be the agent of karma (only mentation, not action), but it is the substrate of karma (the I-maker without which no act would feel like my act). The Yogācāra term kliṣṭa-manas (afflicted manas) names this structural position: afflicted (because of the four constant ego-companions), but obscured-neutral (because not karma-initiating).
Three states of cessation. The Triṃśikā names three states in which manas ceases — Triṃśikā 偈 7bcd: arhato na tat | na nirodhasamāpattau mārge lokottare na ca — "[manas] is not in arhattva, nor in nirodha-samāpatti, nor in the lokottara-mārga."
- arhattva — at arhat-attainment, manas is permanently abandoned; all ego-grasping is rooted out and does not return.
- nirodha-samāpatti (cessation-attainment, →#76) — manas is temporarily suspended by the power of the path during this meditative attainment available only to anāgāmin and arhat.
- lokottara-mārga (the supramundane path) — manas is suspended during direct realization of selflessness because anātma-darśana (the seeing of no-self) and ātma-darśana (the grasping of self) cannot co-occur in the same instant.
This three-state cessation list is the Sanskrit textual root of the Yogācāra doctrine of manas's impermanence-conditions, and it serves as a deep cross-link to two other entries in this catalog: #76 滅盡定 (cessation-attainment, in the prajñapti category) and #99 想受滅 (cessation of perception-and-feeling, in the asaṃskṛta category). The same phenomenon — manas's suspension during nirodha-samāpatti — appears in three different categorical positions across the baifa enumeration: as a property of the seventh consciousness here (#7), as a prajñapti dharma there (#76), as the unconditioned dimension of that prajñapti there again (#99). One Sanskrit root passage, three doctrinal positions in the catalog. The cross-references → #76 and → #99 are therefore not mere associations but deep architectural cross-links that the introduction's §4.11 develops as a foundational structural finding.
The Theravāda tradition does not establish manas as an independent seventh consciousness. Manas in the Pāli canon and Abhidhamma serves only as manāyatana (the mind-base in the twelve-fold sense-field schema), as mano-indriya (the mind-faculty), and as the indriya-support for mano-viññāṇa itself. The functional roles that Yogācāra assigns to kliṣṭa-manas — persistent ego-grasping, structural support for the six surface consciousnesses, dependence-and-grasping of the deeper consciousness — are distributed in Theravāda across four distinct mechanisms: bhavaṅga-citta (the resting-state consciousness maintaining continuity across cognitive gaps), anusaya (latent defilements, particularly māna-anusaya and asmi-māna), āsava (outflows, especially bhavāsava — the outflow of becoming), and citta-santati (moment-to-moment continuity). Yogācāra's innovation is architectural consolidation: it bundles the work of these four distinct Theravāda mechanisms into a single structural element with continuous operation. The two systematizations are not in conflict; they make different architectural choices about the same phenomenology. Theravāda distributes the I-making work; Yogācāra concentrates it. The deepest result of the Yogācāra concentration is that transformation becomes possible as a single operation: where Theravāda must root out the anusayas one by one, Yogācāra can speak of āśraya-parāvṛtti (the turning-around-of-the-basis) as a single transformation of manas itself into wisdom.
The seventh consciousness is the deepest target of contemplative training — the consciousness whose transformation the entire bodhisattva path eventually accomplishes. The Yogācāra doctrine of āśraya-parāvṛtti — "the turning around of the basis" — is precisely the transformation of kliṣṭa-manas from constant ego-grasping into constant equality-recognition. Cheng Weishi Lun 卷四 makes the transformation's structural logic explicit: 「未轉依位恒審思量所執我相，已轉依位亦審思量無我相故」 — "in the un-transformed state [manas] constantly investigates and computes the grasped self-image; in the transformed state it also constantly investigates and computes the no-self-image." The investigative function (審) is not abolished; what changes is what is investigated. From "constantly grasping the apparent self" to "constantly recognizing the equality of self and other" — this is the deepest layer of the path, and it is structurally a redirection of the seventh's constant operation, not its destruction. The bodhisattva does not cease to be a thinker; the bodhisattva becomes a thinker whose constant background is equality rather than ego.
Manas — the afflicted ego-mind, the second transformation of consciousness. Arises in dependence on the ālaya-vijñāna (→#8) and grasps its seeing-portion as "self." Constantly accompanied by the four ego-afflictions: self-view, self-delusion, self-conceit, self-love. Constant and investigating — the only consciousness with both qualities. Obscured-neutral in moral character: not karma-initiating, but the ego-substrate coloring all karma-bearing action. The afflictive-and-purifying support of the six surface consciousnesses; the structural source of persistent "I-am" beneath all conscious activity. Suspended in three canonical states: arhattva, nirodha-samāpatti, and the lokottara-mārga.
譯translator's note
譯者按： 結構分析詳 S3-P04、S3-P02。末那（kliṣṭa-manas，#7）為心王架構之樞紐——前五識之感官翼、第六意識之業處、第八阿賴耶之基底三者，皆需經末那之我相染色方構成有情之我相。⭐ 跨法詞源閃光：印歐祖語 *men- 之 √man 根於唯識架構中分節為四 dharma：意識（→#6）/ 末那（本條）/ 作意（→#9）/ 慢（→#33）—— baifa 範圍內豐富之跨法詞族。⭐⭐ 跨三範疇之跨連：偈 7bcd 三位無有為 #7／#76／#99 之共同梵本根——同一現象學，三範疇視角之折射；卷首§4.11 以此為示例。⭐⭐⭐ 南北深層架構分歧之一：南傳以 bhavaṅga + anusaya + āsava + citta-santati 四機制分散處理之功能，唯識集中於末那一識；二者皆內在地連貫，異在於架構承諾。