成唯識論 了境識·性相·三性
第三能變是前六識。論主先解決一個看似瑣碎、其實有講究的問題：這六個識，名字是怎麼安的？
答：隨根立名——眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識。為什麼不隨境立名（色識、聲識）？因為根是不共的依，境則可以共（意識也緣色）。隨根立名，才顯各識之不共。
第二問：既然八個識都能了別，為什麼「了境」單給前六？答：了別有麤細。第八識緣境微細，第七識恆審思量而不了麤境，唯前六識了別麤顯之境——所以「了境為性相」是就其麤顯了別這一分而立名，不是說別的識不能了。
第三問：前六識通哪三性？答：通善、不善、無記三性。 這一點很要緊——第八識唯無記，第七識唯有覆無記，只有前六識三性俱通。
這意味著什麼？意味著造業的地方在這裡。 第八識是倉庫，不造業只受熏；第七識恆執我，是染污的根但不造善惡業；真正造善造惡、能改變命運走向的，是前六識。
所以整個修行的著力點也在這裡：你改不了第八識裡已經存的種子，但你可以決定現在往裡面存什麼。 前六識通三性，這是負擔，也是全部的自由所在。
The third transformer is the first six consciousnesses. The treatise settles first a question that looks minor and is not: how are these six named?
By their faculties — eye-consciousness, ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, mind-consciousness. Why not by their objects (form-consciousness, sound-consciousness)? Because the faculty is the support not shared, whereas objects can be shared (the mind-consciousness takes form as object too). Naming by faculty is what shows each consciousness's distinctness.
Second question: since all eight discern, why is "object-discerning" given to the first six alone? Because discernment is coarse or fine. The eighth takes its object too subtly; the seventh deliberates constantly and does not discern coarse objects; only the first six discern what is coarse and evident. "Object-discernment is its nature and mode" names them by that portion — coarse and evident discernment — not by denying that the others discern at all.
Third question: which of the three moral natures do the first six run through? All three — wholesome, unwholesome, and neutral. This matters. The eighth is neutral only; the seventh obscured-neutral only; the first six alone run through all three.
Which means: this is where deeds are done. The eighth is a storehouse and only receives perfuming; the seventh grasps a self unceasingly and is the root of defilement but performs no wholesome or unwholesome deed; what actually does good and evil, and can turn the direction of a life, is the first six.
And so this is where practice bears down: you cannot alter the seeds already lodged in the eighth, but you can decide what is put in now. That the first six run through all three natures is the burden — and the whole of the freedom.
如是已說第二能變。第三能變，其相云何？
頌曰：
〔頌曰 4 T31 0026a13〕
８次第三能變，差別有六種，
了境為性、相，善、不善、俱非。
論曰：次中思量能變識後，應辯了境能變識相。
此識差別總有六種，隨六根、境，種類異故。
謂名眼識乃至意識，隨根立名，具五義故。五謂依、發、屬、助、如根，雖六識身皆依意轉，然隨不共，立意識名，如五識身，無相濫過。或唯依意，故名意識，辯識得名，心、意非例。
或名色識乃至法識，隨境立名，順識義故。謂於六境了別名識，色等五識，唯了色等，法識通能了一切法，或能了別法，獨得法識名，故六識名無相濫失。
此後隨境立六識名，依五色根未自在說；若得自在，諸根互用，一根發識，緣一切境；但可隨根，無相濫失。
《莊嚴論》說：如來五根，一一皆於五境轉者，且依麁顯、同類境說。
《佛地經》說：成所作智，決擇有情心行差別，起三業化、作四記等。若不遍緣，無此能故。
〔T31 0026b01〕然六轉識所依、所緣，麁顯極成，故此不說。前隨義便，已說所依；此所緣境，義便當說。
次言「了境為性相」者，雙顯六識自性、行相，識以了境為自性故；即復用彼為行相故。由斯兼釋所立別名，能了別境，名為識故。
如契經說：眼識云何？謂依眼根，了別諸色；廣說乃至意識云何？謂依意根，了別諸法。
彼經且說，不共所依，未轉依位，見分所了；餘所依、了，如前已說。
此六轉識，何性攝耶？
謂善、不善、俱非性攝。
俱非者，謂無記，非善、不善，故名「俱非」；能為此世、他世順益，故名為善，人、天樂果，雖於此世能為順益，非於他世，故不名「善」；能為此世、他世違損，故名「不善」，惡趣苦果，雖於此世能為違損，非於他世，故非不善。於善、不善；益、損義中，不可記別，故名無記。
此六轉識若與信等十一相應，是善性攝；與無慚等十法相應，不善性攝；俱不相應，無記性攝。
有義：六識三性不俱。
同外門轉，互相違故；五識必由意識導引，俱生、同境成善、染故。若許五識三性俱行，意識爾時應通三性。便違正理，故定不俱。
《瑜伽》等說：藏識一時與轉識相應，三性俱起者，彼依多念。如說一心，非一生滅，無相違過。
有義：六識三性容俱。
率爾、等流眼等五識，或多或少，容俱起故。
五識與意，雖定俱生，而善性等，不必同故。前所設難，於此唐捐。
故《瑜伽》說：若遇聲緣從定起者，與定相應意識俱轉，餘耳識生。非唯彼定相應意識，能取此聲。若不爾者，於此音聲，不領受故，不應出定。非取聲時，即便出定，領受聲已，若有希望，後時方出。
〔T31 0026c03〕在定，耳識率爾聞聲，理應非善。未轉依者，率爾墮心，定無記故。
由此誠證五俱意識，非定與五善等性同。
諸處但言五俱意識亦緣五境，不說同性。
《雜集論》說：等引位中五識無者，依多分說。
若五識中，三性俱轉，意隨偏注，與彼性同。無偏注者，便無記性。故六轉識，三性容俱。
得自在位，唯善性攝。佛色心等，道諦攝故。已永滅除戲論種故。
六識與幾心所相應？
頌曰：
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
〔所釋之頌〕第八頌
〔釋第三能變〕
前面已經把第二能變（也就是思量能變·末那識）講完了。那麼第三能變長什麼樣子呢？下面用頌來回答：
〔所釋頌〕
甲、第三能變·性相（v8）
一、六識差別 · 隨根立名
論曰：講完了思量能變識（也就是末那）以後，接著該講第三類——「了境能變識」，意思是『了別境界（認識對象）的識』。這一類識的長相。這一類識細分起來總共有六種；之所以分成六種，是因為它們各自對著六根、六境（眼耳鼻舌身意這六個門，色聲香味觸法這六種對象），種類就跟著不一樣。
這六種識，就叫眼識、耳識……一直到意識。為什麼用根來給識取名（這叫「隨根立名」）？因為識和根之間有五層關係，正好湊齊五個道理。這五個道理是：一、識要靠這個根（依根）；二、識是從這個根上發出來的（發於根）；三、識歸屬於這個根（屬於根）；四、識幫著這個根做事（助於根）；五、識跟這個根長得相像（如於根）。
這裡有人也許會問：六種識其實都要靠「意」（也就是末那）才轉得起來，那為什麼偏偏只有第六叫「意識」？回答是：雖然六識都靠意，可是「意根」是意識所『專靠』的（別的識不專靠意根，這叫「不共」），所以就拿這個專靠的根來給它取名，叫「意識」。這跟前面五識的取名是一個道理——五識也各自有自己專靠的色根（眼識專靠眼根、耳識專靠耳根……），就照這個來取名。這樣取名，名目就不會彼此混淆（不會「相濫」）。
或者換個講法：意識只靠「意」（意根），所以就直接叫它「意識」。不過要說明：這套『拿根來取名』的辦法，只適用於給「識」取名（第六叫意識、眼識叫眼識，都是這樣）；至於「心」（第八）和「意」（第七）這兩個名字，就不是照這個辦法來的（它們不是「隨根」取的名）。
還有另一種取名法：也可以把這六種識叫作色識、聲識……一直到法識。這是『拿境（對象）來取名』（叫「隨境立名」），這樣取也順著「識」字的本義——因為「識」本來就是『了別對象』的意思。也就是說，能對著六種對象去了別的，就叫「識」：眼等前五識只了別色聲香味觸這五種對象，所以叫色識、聲識……；而「法識」（也就是意識）能了別一切法，或者說，正因為只有它『能了別『法』這一類』，才獨獨拿到「法識」這個名字。這樣一來，六種識的名字也不會彼此混淆。
不過要補一句：剛才那套『拿境來給六識取名』的講法，是針對『五個色根還不自在』的階段說的（也就是凡夫這個階段，眼只能看、耳只能聽，一根管一境）。要是修到「得自在」了（像佛那樣），各個根就能互相代用——隨便哪一個根，都能發出識去緣一切境（眼根也能聽、能嗅）。到那時候，根和境不再一一對應，就只能改用『拿根來取名』了；這樣取也照樣不會混淆（就不能再單靠『拿境取名』那一套了）。
這個「諸根互用」是有經教根據的。《莊嚴論》說『如來的五根，每一個都能在五種境上轉』——意思就是佛的眼根不只能看，還能在聲、香、味、觸上轉。不過這句話且是就『比較粗顯、同一類』的境來說的（先就明顯易見的講，不是說細微的境也樣樣都能）。《佛地經》也說：佛的「成所作智」能判斷一切眾生心思行為的種種差別，能起身、語、意這三方面的變化（三業化），還能對人作「四記」（四種不同的回答方式）等等——這些本事，如果不是『一根能遍緣各種境』，根本辦不到（反過來證明佛確實諸根互用、能遍緣）。
至於前六識『靠什麼』（所依）和『緣什麼』（所緣），這兩樣都很明顯、大家也都公認，沒什麼爭議，所以這裡就不另外細說了。前面講「隨根立名」時，順帶已經把『靠什麼』說過了；至於『緣什麼』（所緣境），下面也會順著話頭一併講到。
二、了境為性相
接著，頌裡「了境為性、相」這一句，一口氣點出了六識的兩面：一面是它的「自性」（它本身是什麼），一面是它的「行相」（它怎麼運作）。這兩面其實是同一件事——「了別境界」：六識本身就是「了境」（這是自性），它運作起來也就是「了境」（這是行相）。順著這句，前面給它取的名字也就解釋通了——正因為它『能了別對象』，所以才叫作「識」。
就像經裡說的：『什麼是眼識？就是靠著眼根、去了別各種色』……這樣一路說下去，一直到『什麼是意識？就是靠著意根、去了別各種法』。不過這段經文只是就三個側面講的：第一，它只舉了各識『專靠的根』（不共所依，眼識舉眼根、意識舉意根），沒提它們共靠的意；第二，它是就『還沒轉依的階段』（凡夫位）來講的；第三，它說的「了別」是「見分」（能緣那一面）所了的。至於其餘沒提到的——像各識共靠的「意」、轉依以後的了別等等——前面都已經補充說過了。
三、六識三性所攝
那麼這六種轉識，在「善、惡」這條線上算哪一性呢？答案是：它們通三性——善、不善（惡）、俱非（也就是無記，非善非惡）這三種它都可以是。
先說「俱非」是什麼。「俱非」就是「無記」：既不是善、也不是不善，兩邊都不是，所以叫「俱非」（「俱非」就是『兩個都不是』）。
那善、不善又怎麼界定呢？這裡用一個標準：看它對『這一輩子』和『下一輩子』都有沒有好處。能對這一輩子、又對下一輩子都帶來好處的，才叫「善」。打個比方：人、天的「樂果」（投生為人、生到天上享福，這是過去善業招來的果報），雖然在這一輩子能讓人受益，可是它本身不能再給下一輩子帶來好處（享福本身不會再造善因），所以樂果不算是「善」（它只是無記的異熟果）。
反過來，能對這一輩子、又對下一輩子都造成損害的，才叫「不善」（惡）。同樣打個比方：惡趣（地獄、餓鬼、畜生）的「苦果」，雖然在這一輩子讓人受苦受害，可是它本身不能再損害下一輩子（受苦本身不會再造惡因），所以苦果也不算是「不善」。
像這樣，又說不上是善、又說不上是不善，既談不上益、也談不上損——這種『沒法歸到善惡哪一邊去記』的，就叫「無記」（「無記」就是『無從記別善惡』的意思）。
那六種轉識到底落在哪一性，要看它當下跟什麼樣的心所搭在一起（相應）。分三種情形：一、要是它跟「信」等十一個善心所搭在一起，那它這時候就屬「善」；二、要是它跟「無慚」等十個不善心所（也就是染污的心所）搭在一起，那它這時候就屬「不善」（惡）；三、要是這兩類它都沒搭上，既沒善心所、也沒不善心所，那它這時候就屬「無記」。
四、六識三性俱不俱（諍）
〔異說一·三性不俱〕 一派人主張：六種識在同一個時刻，不會善、惡、無記三性一起出現（叫「三性不俱」）。他們的理由是這樣的：六種識都是『向外轉』的（都朝著外境跑、緣外境而起，這叫「外門轉」），而善、惡、無記彼此是互相違背的，不可能在同一個朝外的當下混在一起。再說，前五識一定要靠意識來帶（導引），五識跟意識是同時生、對著同一個境，才成得了善或染。那麼，假如承認五識可以三性一起起，這帶頭的意識在那當下豈不也得跟著通三性了——這就講不通、違背正理了。所以斷定：三性一定不會同時並起。
那有人會反問：《瑜伽》這些論不是說過『藏識（第八）在同一個時候跟轉識相應，三性可以一起起』嗎？這一派回答：那句話是就『好幾個剎那』（多念、多個前後相續的時刻）來說的，不是說同一個剎那。這就好比說「一心」——這個「一心」指的是『一段相續的心』，並不是『同一個生滅當下的心』。所以那句經論講的是前後好幾念，跟這裡講『同一念不能三性並起』，並不矛盾。
〔應知·三性容俱〕 另一派（這是正確的講法）說：六種識在同一個時刻，善、惡、無記三性是可以一起出現的（叫「三性容俱」）。理由是：眼等五識裡頭，有「率爾心」（剛碰到境、頭一剎那那一下子的識）、也有「等流心」（接著一念念延續下去的識），這些或多或少是可以同時起的，並不限定都得是同一性。再說，五識跟意識雖然一定同時生，可是它們的善、惡、無記不一定要一樣（意識是善，五識未必跟著是善）。所以前面〔異說一〕設下的那個難題（『五識若三性俱起，意識也得通三性』），到這裡就落空、白費了。
這有經教為證。《瑜伽》說：假如有人正在定中，忽然外頭來了個聲音，把他從定裡引出來——這時候，跟定相應的那個意識還在繼續轉著（人還在定裡），同時另外又生起了一個耳識（去聽那聲音）。也就是說，並不是『只靠那個在定的意識』就能聽到這聲音的。
這裡論主插了一段反推來證明：假如真是『只靠定中的意識去取聲』、根本沒有耳識，那會怎樣？那這聲音就根本沒被耳識領受到，人也就不該因此出定了（沒聽見，憑什麼出定）。可事實是：人並不是一聽到聲就立刻出定，而是先由耳識把聲音領受進來、心裡頭起了想理會的念頭（若有希望），過一會兒才真正出定。——這就反過來證明：那當下確實另有一個耳識在聽。
再看這當下的善惡：在定中耳識頭一下子聽到聲（率爾聞聲），按道理這耳識不會是善的（因為那個時候在定的是意識、意識是善，耳識並不跟著善）。而還沒轉依的凡夫，他那「率爾墮心」（剛碰境頭一剎那、還來不及分別的那一念）一定是無記的。由此就確確實實證明了：跟五識一起的那個「五俱意識」，未必非得跟五識的善惡性一個樣。經論裡好些地方只說『五俱意識也緣五種境』（跟五識對著同一個境），可從來沒說過它們的善惡性一定相同。
那有人會引《雜集論》來問：論裡不是說『在『等引位』（也就是入定的時候）沒有五識』嗎？這一派回答：那句話是就『大多數情形』（多分）說的，不是說定中絕對一個五識都沒有（前面剛舉過定中起耳識的例子，可見並非全無）。
接著把道理說全：假如五識當下三性一起轉（有的善、有的無記……），那麼意識會「偏注」——也就是特別偏向、注意到其中某一個識，這時意識的性就跟它所偏向的那個識一樣；要是意識並沒有特別偏向哪一個，那它就是無記性。可見不管哪種情形，六種轉識在同一當下，善惡無記三性確實是可以一起並存的（這就坐實了「三性容俱」）。
不過要補一個例外：修到「得自在位」（也就是成佛的階段），六識就只剩「善」這一性了。為什麼？因為佛的色法、心法等等，全都歸在「道諦」裡頭（都是清淨無漏的），而且佛早已把那些戲論的種子永遠斷除乾淨了（再不會起染污），所以佛位的識只通善性。
〔Expounding the third transformer〕
The second transformer (that is, the cogitation-transformer · the manas-consciousness) has already been treated above. So what does the third transformer look like? The verse below answers:
〔The verse expounded〕
"Next, the third transformer: its differentiations are of six kinds; discerning objects is its nature-and-mark; good, bad, and neither-of-the-two." (v8) "Their mental factors — the universal, the object-specific, the good, the afflictions, the secondary afflictions, and the indeterminate — are all concurrent with the three feelings." (v9) "First the universal: contact and the rest; next the object-specific, namely desire, resolve, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom — their objects being different." (v10)
A. The third transformer · marks-and-nature (v8)
1. The differentiation of the six consciousnesses · named after the faculty
The treatise says: having finished [treating] the cogitation-transforming consciousness (that is, the manas), we come next to the third class — "the object-discerning transforming consciousness," meaning "the consciousness that discerns the realm of objects (the things cognized)" — and its appearance. This class of consciousness, broken down, comes to six kinds in all; and the reason it splits into six is that they each face the six faculties and the six objects (the six gates of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind; the six kinds of object: form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharmas), and so their kinds differ accordingly.
These six kinds of consciousness are called the eye-consciousness, the ear-consciousness… on down to the mind-consciousness. Why use the faculty to give the consciousness its name (this is "named after the faculty")? Because between consciousness and faculty there are five layers of relation, making up exactly five senses [of dependence]. The five senses are: first, the consciousness must rely on this faculty (depending on the faculty); second, the consciousness is issued from this faculty (issued from the faculty); third, the consciousness belongs to this faculty (belonging to the faculty); fourth, the consciousness assists this faculty in its work (assisting the faculty); fifth, the consciousness resembles this faculty (being like the faculty).
Here someone might ask: all six kinds of consciousness actually need the "manas" (that is, the seventh, the manas-consciousness) before they can turn at all — so why is it just the sixth that is called "mind-consciousness"? The answer is: although all six consciousnesses rely on the manas, the "mind-faculty (manas)" is what the mind-consciousness relies on exclusively (the other consciousnesses do not exclusively rely on the manas-faculty — this is being "not-shared"), so the consciousness is named after this exclusively-relied-on faculty and called the "mind-consciousness." This is the same principle by which the earlier five consciousnesses are named — the five consciousnesses likewise each have their own exclusively-relied-on form-faculty (the eye-consciousness exclusively relies on the eye-faculty, the ear-consciousness on the ear-faculty…), and are named accordingly. Naming this way, the names will not get confused with one another (no "mutual confusion").
Or, to put it another way: the mind-consciousness relies on the "manas" (the mind-faculty) alone, so it is simply called the "mind-consciousness." But it must be made clear: this method of "taking the faculty to give a name" applies only to naming "consciousnesses" (the sixth being the mind-consciousness, the eye-consciousness being the eye-consciousness, all of this kind); as for the two names "mind" (the eighth) and "manas" (the seventh), they are not formed by this method (they are not names taken "after the faculty").
There is also another method of naming: one may also call these six kinds of consciousness the form-consciousness, the sound-consciousness… on down to the dharma-consciousness. This is "taking the object to give a name" (called "named after the object"), and naming this way also conforms to the very meaning of the word "consciousness" — for "consciousness" originally means "discerning an object." That is, whatever discerns upon the six kinds of object is called "consciousness": the first five consciousnesses, the eye and the rest, discern only the five objects of form, sound, smell, taste, and touch, and so are called the form-consciousness, the sound-consciousness…; whereas the "dharma-consciousness" (that is, the mind-consciousness) is able to discern all dharmas, or rather, precisely because it alone "is able to discern that class called 'dharmas,'" it alone gets the name "dharma-consciousness." This way too, the names of the six kinds of consciousness will not get confused with one another.
But a word must be added: that method just given of "taking the object to name the six consciousnesses" is spoken with regard to the stage where "the five form-faculties are not yet sovereign" (that is, the stage of the ordinary being, where the eye can only see, the ear can only hear, one faculty managing one object). If one cultivates to "attained sovereignty" (as with a Buddha), then each faculty can stand in for the others — any one faculty at all can issue a consciousness that reaches out to all objects (the eye-faculty too can hear, can smell). At that point faculty and object no longer correspond one to one, and one must switch to "taking the faculty to name [them]"; named that way, they likewise will not get confused (one can no longer rely on the single method of "naming after the object").
This "faculties used interchangeably" has scriptural warrant. The Sūtrālaṃkāra says "the Tathāgata's five faculties, each one, turn upon all five objects" — meaning the Buddha's eye-faculty can not only see but can also turn upon sound, smell, taste, and touch. Yet this saying is for the moment spoken with regard to the "coarser, more manifest, same-class" objects (it speaks first of the plainly evident, not saying that even the subtlest objects too are all handled across the board). The Buddhabhūmi-sūtra likewise says: the Buddha's "wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done" can judge the manifold differences in the mind-and-conduct of all sentient beings, can set going the transformations of the three [kinds of] action — body, speech, and mind (the transformations of the three actions) — and can make the "four kinds of reply" (four different ways of answering) to people, and so on. None of these powers could be managed unless "one faculty could reach out across all objects" — which, conversely, proves that the Buddha truly does use the faculties interchangeably and can reach out across [all objects].
As for what the first six consciousnesses "rely on" (their support) and what they "reach out to" (their object), both of these are quite manifest and commonly conceded — there is no dispute about them — and so they are not spelled out separately here. Earlier, when treating "naming after the faculty," the "what they rely on" was already mentioned in passing; as for "what they reach out to" (their object-realm), this too will be touched on below as the discussion runs on.
2. Discerning objects as nature-and-mark
Next, the verse-line "discerning objects is its nature-and-mark" points out, in one stroke, both sides of the six consciousnesses: one side is their "self-nature" (what they are in themselves), the other their "mode-of-action" (how they operate). These two sides are in fact one and the same thing — "discerning the realm of objects": the six consciousnesses in themselves are just "discerning objects" (this is the self-nature), and in their operation they are likewise just "discerning objects" (this is the mode-of-action). Following this line, the name given them earlier is also explained — precisely because they "are able to discern objects," they are called "consciousness."
Just as scripture says: "What is the eye-consciousness? It is, relying on the eye-faculty, the discerning of the various forms"… and so on down to "What is the mind-consciousness? It is, relying on the mind-faculty, the discerning of the various dharmas." But this passage of scripture speaks only with regard to three aspects: first, it raises only each consciousness's "exclusively-relied-on faculty" (the not-shared support, the eye-consciousness raising the eye-faculty, the mind-consciousness raising the mind-faculty), not mentioning the manas they rely on in common; second, it speaks with regard to "the stage where transformation [of the basis] has not yet occurred" (the ordinary-being's stage); third, the "discerning" it speaks of is what the "perceiving part" (the side that does the reaching-out) discerns. As for the rest that it does not mention — such as the "manas" the several consciousnesses rely on in common, and the discerning after the transformation of the basis, and so on — these have all already been supplemented above.
3. The six consciousnesses subsumed under the three natures
So these six transforming consciousnesses — along the line of "good and bad," which nature do they count as? The answer is: they run through the three natures — good, bad (evil), and neither-of-the-two (that is, the indeterminate, being neither good nor bad) — they can be any of these three.
First, what "neither-of-the-two" means. "Neither-of-the-two" is just "the indeterminate": it is neither good nor bad, being neither of the two sides, and so is called "neither-of-the-two" ("neither-of-the-two" means "neither one nor the other").
Then how are good and bad to be defined? Here a single standard is used: see whether a thing is beneficial to "this life" and "the next life" both. Only what brings benefit to this life and to the next life both is called "good." Take an illustration: the "pleasant fruit" of the human and heavenly [realms] (being reborn as a human, or born into heaven to enjoy blessings — this is the karmic fruit drawn on by past good deeds) can, in this life, let one enjoy benefit, yet it cannot in itself go on to bring benefit to the next life (enjoying blessings does not in itself make any further good cause), so the pleasant fruit does not count as "good" (it is merely an indeterminate ripening-fruit).
Conversely, only what brings harm to "this life" and "the next life" both is called "bad" (evil). Take the same kind of illustration: the "painful fruit" of the evil destinies (the hells, hungry ghosts, animals), though it makes one suffer and be harmed in this life, cannot in itself go on to harm the next life (suffering does not in itself make any further bad cause), so the painful fruit too does not count as "bad."
In this way, what one can call neither good nor bad, and what affords neither benefit nor harm — this sort that "cannot be marked off to either side, good or bad" — is called "the indeterminate" ("indeterminate" means "having no way to mark off as good or bad").
As to which nature the six kinds of transforming consciousness fall into, that depends on what sort of mental factors they are joined with (concurrent with) at the moment. There are three cases: first, if it is joined with the eleven good mental factors of "trust" and the rest, then at that moment it is "good"; second, if it is joined with the ten bad mental factors of "shamelessness" and the rest (that is, the defiled mental factors), then at that moment it is "bad" (evil); third, if it is joined with neither of these two classes — no good mental factor and no bad mental factor — then at that moment it is "indeterminate."
4. Are the three natures of the six consciousnesses concurrent or not (a dispute)
〔One view · the three natures are not concurrent〕 One party maintains: in one and the same moment the six kinds of consciousness will not have all three natures — good, bad, and indeterminate — appearing together (called "the three natures are not concurrent"). Their reasoning runs like this: all six kinds of consciousness "turn outward" (they all run toward outer objects, arising in dependence on outer objects — this is "turning through the outer gate"), and good, bad, and indeterminate are mutually opposed to one another, so they cannot be mixed together in one and the same outward-facing moment. Moreover, the first five consciousnesses must be led (guided) by the mind-consciousness; the five consciousnesses and the mind-consciousness arise at the same time and face the same object, and only so do they come to be good or defiled. That being so, suppose one grants that the five consciousnesses can arise with all three natures at once — then the leading mind-consciousness too would in that moment have to run through all three natures along with them — and that would not get through, would contradict right principle. So it is determined: the three natures definitely will not arise concurrently.
Then someone may rejoin: 〔Q〕 Did not the Yogācārabhūmi and the like say "the store-consciousness (the eighth) is concurrent with the transforming consciousnesses at one and the same time, and the three natures may arise together"? 〔A〕 This party answers: that saying is spoken with regard to "several moments" (several successive, one-after-another moments), not to a single moment. It is just like saying "one mind" — this "one mind" means "a stretch of continuing mind," not "the mind of a single arising-and-perishing moment." So what that scripture-and-treatise speaks of is several successive moments, and it does not contradict the point here that "in a single moment the three natures cannot arise together."
〔The right meaning to be known · the three natures may be concurrent〕 Another party (this is the correct account) says: in one and the same moment the six kinds of consciousness may indeed have good, bad, and indeterminate appearing together (called "the three natures may be concurrent"). The reasoning is: among the eye and the rest of the five consciousnesses there is the "spontaneous mind" (the consciousness in the very first moment of just meeting an object, that first instant) and also the "outflowing mind" (the consciousness continuing on moment after moment thereafter), and these may, in greater or lesser number, arise at the same time, not bound to be all of one nature. Moreover, although the five consciousnesses and the mind-consciousness definitely arise at the same time, their good, bad, and indeterminate need not be the same (the mind-consciousness being good, the five consciousnesses need not be good along with it). So the difficulty set up earlier by 〔the one view〕 ("if the five consciousnesses arose with the three natures together, the mind-consciousness too would have to run through the three natures") here comes to nothing, falls flat.
There is scriptural warrant for this. The Yogācārabhūmi says: suppose a person is in concentration, and suddenly a sound comes from outside and draws him out of the concentration — at that moment the mind-consciousness concurrent with the concentration is still turning on (the person is still in concentration), while at the same time another ear-consciousness arises (to hear the sound). That is to say, it is not "by the concentration-mind-consciousness alone" that this sound can be heard.
Here the author inserts a stretch of reasoning back from the consequence, to prove it: suppose it really were "by the concentration-mind-consciousness alone that the sound is taken," with no ear-consciousness at all — what then? Then the sound would simply not be received by any ear-consciousness, and the person ought not, on that account, to come out of concentration (not having heard it, on what could he come out?). But the fact is: the person does not come out of concentration the instant a sound is heard; rather, the ear-consciousness first receives the sound, a wish to attend to it arises in his mind (if there is a hankering), and only a while later does he truly come out. — This, conversely, proves that in that moment there really is another ear-consciousness doing the hearing.
Look next at the good-or-bad of that moment: while in concentration, the ear-consciousness, in the first instant, hears the sound (the spontaneous hearing of the sound), and by rights this ear-consciousness will not be good (because at that time what is in concentration is the mind-consciousness, and the mind-consciousness is good, while the ear-consciousness is not good along with it). And as for the ordinary being who has not yet transformed [the basis], his "spontaneous falling mind" (the first instant of just meeting an object, that one moment before there is even time to discriminate) is definitely indeterminate. From this it is conclusively proven: the "mind-consciousness concurrent with the five" that arises together with the five consciousnesses need not be of the very same good-or-bad nature as the five consciousnesses. In quite a few places the scriptures-and-treatises only say "the mind-consciousness concurrent with the five also reaches out to the five objects" (facing the same object as the five consciousnesses), but they never say that their good-or-bad nature must be the same.
Then someone may bring in the Abhidharma-samuccaya-vyākhyā to ask: 〔Q〕 Does the treatise not say "in the 'equipoise state' (that is, when one is in concentration) there are no five consciousnesses"? 〔A〕 This party answers: that saying is spoken with regard to "the majority of cases" (the greater part), not that in concentration there is absolutely never a single one of the five consciousnesses (the example of the ear-consciousness arising in concentration was just given, which shows it is not utterly absent).
Then the principle is stated in full: suppose at a given moment the five consciousnesses turn with all three natures together (some good, some indeterminate…), then the mind-consciousness will "lean its attention" — that is, lean especially toward, attend to, one of those consciousnesses, and at that point the mind-consciousness's nature is the same as the consciousness it leans toward; but if the mind-consciousness does not lean especially toward any one of them, then it is of indeterminate nature. So it can be seen that, whichever the case, the six kinds of transforming consciousness in one and the same moment can indeed have good, bad, and indeterminate, all three natures, coexisting together (this clinches "the three natures may be concurrent").
But one exception must be added: when one has cultivated to "the state of attained sovereignty" (that is, the stage of becoming a Buddha), the six consciousnesses are left with the one nature "good" alone. Why? Because the Buddha's form-dharmas, mind-dharmas, and the rest are all subsumed under the "Path-truth" (all pure and undefiled), and because the Buddha has long ago forever severed away the seeds of conceptual proliferation (he will never again give rise to defilement), so the consciousness in the Buddha's state runs through the good nature only.
〔所釋之頌〕第八頌
說完了第二能變（思量能變、末那），接著說第三能變。這第三能變就是我們最熟悉的前六識——眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意。這一節順著頌文，先講它的「相」：六個識怎麼安立名字、為什麼說它『以了境為性、為相』、它通到善惡無記哪幾性，最後岔出一段古德的辯論——六識的三性到底能不能同時並起。至於它相應的那一串心所（遍行、別境、善、煩惱、隨煩惱、不定），頌文雖在這裡先點了名，留到後面幾節再細講。
前六識的安立，經論早有所本。《解深密經·心意識相品》明說：依「阿陀那識」為依止、為建立，六識身才得轉起——也就是眼識、耳識、鼻識、舌識、身識、意識；而且當一個眼識轉起時，同時只有一個「分別意識」與它同所行、同所緣地俱轉，乃至二、三、四、五個識身齊轉時，也只有這一個分別意識與它們同所行轉。這正是前六識安立、以及「五俱意識」（與五識同時、同境俱轉的分別意識）的經本。《楞伽經》則從反面點明：前五識『不能了知色等的自性』，所以才有五識身的轉起去了別色等；又說『五識身者，心、意、意識俱起，善、不善相展轉變壞、相續流注』——這既顯五識以「了境」為事，又顯五識通善通不善，是六識通三性的經本。至於論本，《瑜伽師地論》定眼識「依眼、了別色」、定『識就是現前了別所緣境界』（這是「了境為性相」的論本）；又說意識比餘識「有勝作業」，能「分別所緣、審慮所緣」，乃至能發起身語業、能離欲斷善續善（這是意識能通法、五識唯了境的論本）；〈攝決擇分〉更說「六識身有善、不善等性可得」（六識通三性的論本）、『了別器、依、我、境四種業剎那剎那俱轉可得』（諸識俱轉、三性容俱的論本）。本節護法所糅釋的，其經根即在《解深密》《楞伽》，其論本即在《瑜伽師地論》——下面順著頌文講開。
甲、六個識怎麼安名——隨根立名與隨境立名
繼『思量能變（第二能變、末那）』之後，該辨明「了境能變識」的相。「了境能變」就是「了別境界」的識。這識的差別總共有六種，因為它隨著六根、六境，種類各各不同。
一、隨根立名——具足五義
為什麼六識不多不少恰好六個？窺基《述記》解釋：根與境各有六別，識隨著根境的差異而轉，所以六識的種類『不是隨意多少、也不是另立別數』，正好對應六根六境而成六。
第一種安名的辦法叫「隨根立名」：依眼根的叫眼識、依耳根的叫耳識……乃至依意（意根）的叫意識。窺基《述記》指出，這六個識其實同時也託著六境，但所以偏取「根」來立名，是因為『根於境上更勝（根的勢用勝過境）』，所以偏從根稱。為什麼能這樣隨根取名？因為識對根具足五重意義——一是依根（識仗根而起）、二是發於根（識由根而生發）、三是屬於根（識繫屬於根）、四是助於根（識能資助於根）、五是如於根（識隨順似於根）。窺基《述記》把這五義逐字落實為『依於根、根之所發、屬於彼根、助於彼根、如於彼根』，五重都扣在「根」上，所以隨根立名。有人或許會問：六個識其實都依「意」（末那）而轉，為什麼偏偏把第六個叫「意識」、好像只有它依意似的？答：這是就「不共」說的——前五識各有自己不共的色根（眼識唯依眼根、耳識唯依耳根），第六識所獨依、不與他識共的正是「意根」，所以順著這層不共，把第六叫「意識」，正像把前五依各自不共的色根叫眼識、耳識一樣，名目並不會混亂（沒有「相濫」之過）。
也可以換個角度說：第六識唯獨依「意」（意根）而起，所以就叫意識。不過要留意，這是專就『辨『識』之得名』而說的；「心」（第八）、「意」（第七）的得名各有自己的道理，不照這「隨根」的規則來。
二、隨境立名——順著「識」的本義
第二種安名的辦法叫「隨境立名」：也可以把六個識叫做色識、聲識……乃至法識。這是順著「識」字的本義——識本來就以「了別境界」為義，所以順著它所了別的境來取名。怎麼隨境？凡於六境上能了別的就叫「識」：色等前五識唯能了別色等五種境，而「法識」（也就是意識）能通了別一切法；或者說，因為意識能（單獨）了別「法」這一境，所以獨得「法識」這個名。這樣隨境取的六個名也一樣不會相濫。
不過「隨境立名」這一說有個前提：它是依『五色根還沒得自在』時說的。若是已得自在（如諸佛、聖位），諸根可以互相為用——一個根就能發識、緣取一切境，這時候就不好再「隨境」取名了（因為一根能緣諸境，名目會亂），只能「隨根」立名，仍舊不會相濫。聖教也印證這層：《莊嚴論》說『如來的五根，每一根都能在五境上轉』，那是且就「麁顯、同類」的境來說的（不是說只能緣本類境）；《佛地經》說『成所作智能決擇有情心行的種種差別、能興起身語意三業的變化、能作四種記別』——這些功用，若不是『一根能遍緣諸境』就辦不到。可見得自在後諸根互用、一根遍緣，是有聖教為據的。
至於六個識的「所依」和「所緣」，因為太過麁顯、人人公認，所以這裡不另外細說：前面隨著文義方便，已經說過它們的「所依」；這「所緣境」也留到下文隨義便處再說。
乙、什麼叫「了境為性相」
頌說「了境為性、相」這一句，是同時點出六識的「自性」和「行相」兩面：六識以「了別境界」為它的自性，又即用這「了別境界」作它的行相（自性、行相都落在「了境」上）。由這一句，也順帶把上面所立的別名解釋了——正因為它「能了別境」，所以才叫做「識」。
窺基《述記》把這一句判作「體、相二門」來細看：「了」字通到「自性」這一面，這自性就是識的「自證分」；而「行相」這一面，就是識的「見分」，以攀緣境相為其所緣；自證分又是見分的所依、見分以境相為所緣——合起來，所以總說「了境為性相」。一個「了」字，自性、行相兩面都收攝在內。
這也有聖教為證。如契經說：『什麼是眼識？就是依眼根、了別種種色』……這樣廣說下去，乃至『什麼是意識？就是依意根、了別種種法』。不過要曉得，那段經是且就「不共所依」（眼識且舉它不共的眼根）、且就「未轉依位」、且就「見分所了」來說的；其餘的所依（如共依的意根等）與所了（如轉依後所了的境），則如前面已經說過的那樣，不限於經文那一層。
丙、六個識通到哪三性
這六個轉識，是被哪一性所收？答：被善、不善、俱非（無記）這三性所收。
窺基《述記》提綱挈領地說：這裡是『舉頌作答』，一答就顯出「六識並通三性」。
先把「俱非」說清楚。「俱非」就是無記——它既不是善、也不是不善，兩邊都不是，所以叫「俱非」。窺基《述記》就此點明：所謂「俱非」，是顯它的自性『不是善、不善這兩種自性』，所以叫俱非。那什麼叫善、什麼叫不善？能在此世、他世兩世都作順益的，才叫「善」。要注意：人、天的樂果雖然在此世能給人順益，卻不能更去順益他世（果報本身不再招感後世的利益），所以樂果本身不叫「善」。窺基《述記》進一步申說：每一法要能『此世、他世兩世都順益』，才稱為善；人、天的樂果只順益一世、不及二世，本身是「無記果法」，體性不是善，而且到了後世還會作衰損（樂果壞時即成苦），所以不名為善。能在此世、他世兩世都作違損的，才叫「不善」。同樣，惡趣的苦果雖然在此世能違損人，卻不能更違損他世，所以苦果本身也不算「不善」（這層准著『樂果非善』一例就可以推知）。至於在『善與不善、利益與違損』這些分際上，無從記別、判不出偏向哪邊的，就叫「無記」。
那六識具體怎麼判？很簡單：這六個轉識若與「信」等十一個善心所相應，就屬善性；若與「無慚」等十個（不善心所）相應，就屬不善性；若這兩邊都不相應，就屬無記性。
丁、六識的三性能不能同時並起——古德有兩說
接著岔出一段辯論：在同一剎那裡，六個識的善、不善、無記三性，能不能同時並起？這裡古德有兩種講法。
先有一說主張「三性不俱」（同一時不能三性並起）。 它的理由是：六個識同樣是「外門轉」（都向外攀緣外境而轉），而善、惡、無記三性彼此相違，不能在一念裡共存；何況前五識一定要由意識來導引，五識與意識是俱生、同緣一境的，要靠這樣才成得了善或染。既然如此，假使容許五識三性一齊現行，那麼導引它們的意識在那一刻也就得通三性了——這便違背正理，所以斷定三性不俱。它還回應一條反證：《瑜伽》等處說『藏識在一時能與轉識相應、三性一齊生起』，那是就「多念」（前後好幾剎那）說的，並不是說一剎那裡三性並起；就像說「一心」時，那「一心」是指一段相續的心、不是指一個生滅的剎那，所以並沒有相違的過失。
另有一說（這是應知的正義）主張「三性容俱」（可以並起）。 它說：「率爾心」「等流心」這幾類眼等五識，或多或少是容許同時並起的（不必同屬一性）。五識與意識雖然一定俱生，可是它們的善性等不必相同；所以前一說所設的那個難（『五識若俱、意識就得通三性』），到這裡就落空了（白費）。這有《瑜伽》為據：假使有人正遇到「聲」這個緣而從定中出來，那與定相應的意識其實還在俱轉（仍是定心），另外有一個耳識生起去聞聲——並不是『唯獨那定相應的意識去取這聲』。為什麼？因為若是唯意識取聲、耳識不領受，那此人就不該因聲出定；可事實是『並非一取到聲就立刻出定』，而是耳識領受了聲、心裡若起了希望，過一會兒才出定。可見在定時是「耳識率爾聞聲」、而意識仍在定中。這耳識率爾聞聲，按理應當不是善的（因為那一刻意識在定為善）；而未轉依的凡夫，他的「率爾墮心」必定是無記。由這一段就確切證明：「五俱意識」未必一定與五識的善等性相同。經論各處只說『五俱意識也緣五境』，可從沒說它與五識「性相同」。
《雜集論》也補一證：它說『等引位（入定位）中沒有五識』，那是依「多分」說的（多半如此，不是絕對全無）。若是五識中有三性一齊轉，意識便隨它「偏注」於哪個識，就與那個識同性；若意識沒有偏注哪一個，那就成無記性。所以結論是：六個轉識的三性是容許並起的。但要補一句界限——到了「得自在位」（佛位），六識就唯被善性所收了，因為佛的色、心等等都是「道諦」所攝，而且已經永遠滅除了戲論的種子（再無染污無記可雜），所以佛地唯善。
承衍
前六識『以了境為性相、通善不善俱非三性』這一節所立，是唯識系安立『轉識門』的基礎，後出諸論循著唯識系的次第逐一承用。《百法明門論》把眼、耳、鼻、舌、身、意這前六識列在八識心法之中（八識的前六），而本節三性所判，正落在它所列的心所之上——善性對應「信」等善十一，不善性對應「無慚」等煩惱、隨煩惱；判前六識屬哪一性，憑的就是它與這些心所相應不相應。《唯識三十論頌》的頌八（前六識總標·了境為性相·善不善俱非三性），正是本節所釋的本頌，逐頌相承；而頌八點到的那一串心所，下啟頌九以下「六位心所」的廣辯。《辯中邊論·辯相品》立「虛妄分別」一義——識是依他起、似境而現——這與本節『了境／識了別境』的義理相通，前六識正是依他起上的「了別」用。《攝大乘論·所知相分》分立身識、身者識、受者識等依止阿賴耶而轉的諸識，前六識即在其中、是依他起的了別識。至於《二十唯識論》，主於成立唯識無境、破外人實境之執，於『了境識的體相·三性』沒有正面對位，這裡從闕。
Having finished with the Second Transformation—the deliberating transformation, the manas—we now come to the Third Transformation. This Third Transformation is the set we know most intimately: the first six consciousnesses—eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. Following the verse, this section first treats their "aspect": how the six consciousnesses are given their names, why each is said to "have discerning objects for its nature and for its aspect," which of the three moral qualities—wholesome, unwholesome, indeterminate—they run through, and finally a side-debate among the old masters: whether the three moral qualities of the six consciousnesses can actually arise simultaneously. As for the long train of mental factors they associate with (the universals, the object-specific factors, the wholesome, the afflictions, the secondary afflictions, and the indeterminate), although the verse names them here at the outset, their detailed treatment is held over to the following sections.
The setting-up of the first six consciousnesses has its roots in scripture and treatise alike. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, in its chapter on mind, mentation, and consciousness, plainly says that it is in dependence on the "appropriating consciousness" (ādāna-vijñāna), as their basis and their establishment, that the six bodies of consciousness can turn—the eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousnesses; and that when a single eye-consciousness turns, only one "discriminating mind-consciousness" turns together with it, sharing its sphere and its object, and likewise when two, three, four, or five bodies of consciousness turn together, only this one discriminating mind-consciousness turns sharing their sphere. This is precisely the scriptural basis both for the setting-up of the first six consciousnesses and for the "mind-consciousness that accompanies the five" (the discriminating mind-consciousness that turns simultaneously with the five, upon the same object). The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra makes the point from the other side: the first five consciousnesses "cannot discern the self-nature of forms and the rest," and so the five bodies of consciousness arise to discern form and the rest; and it says that "as for the five bodies of consciousness, mind, mentation, and mind-consciousness arise together, and the wholesome and unwholesome transform and dissolve into one another, flowing on in succession"—which both shows that the five consciousnesses have "discerning objects" for their work, and shows that the five run through both wholesome and unwholesome, the scriptural basis for the six consciousnesses running through the three qualities. As for the treatise-basis, the Yogācārabhūmi fixes the eye-consciousness as "resting on the eye and discerning form," and fixes that "consciousness is just the present discerning of the object-field taken as object" (this is the treatise-basis for "discerning objects as nature-and-aspect"); it also says that the mind-consciousness, beyond the other consciousnesses, "has superior operations," being able to "discriminate its object and deliberate upon its object," and on up to rousing the karmas of body and speech, freeing itself from desire, cutting off and re-continuing the wholesome roots (this is the treatise-basis for the mind-consciousness running through all dharmas while the five merely discern objects); and its Section on Ascertainment further says that "in the six bodies of consciousness, the wholesome, unwholesome, and other qualities are to be found" (the treatise-basis for the six consciousnesses running through the three qualities), and that "the four kinds of operation—discerning the container, the basis, the self, and the object—are to be found turning together moment by moment" (the treatise-basis for the consciousnesses turning together and the three qualities being able to co-occur). What Dharmapāla's woven commentary expounds in this section has its scriptural root in the Saṃdhinirmocana and the Laṅkāvatāra, and its treatise-basis in the Yogācārabhūmi—and so, following the verse, we open the exposition below.
A. How the Six Consciousnesses Are Named—Naming by Faculty and Naming by Object
After the "deliberating transformation" (the Second Transformation, the manas), we should now clarify the aspect of the "object-discerning transforming consciousness." "Object-discerning transformation" simply means the consciousness that discerns objects. The differentiations of this consciousness come to six in all, because it differs in kind as it follows the six faculties and the six object-fields, each distinct.
1. Naming by Faculty—Complete in Five Senses
Why exactly six consciousnesses, no more and no fewer? Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) explains: the faculties and the object-fields each have six distinctions, and the consciousness turns following the differences of faculty and object-field, so the kinds of consciousness are "not a matter of arbitrary number, nor a separately posited count"—they answer precisely to the six faculties and six object-fields, and so come to six.
The first way of naming is called "naming by faculty": the one that rests on the eye-faculty is the eye-consciousness, the one that rests on the ear-faculty is the ear-consciousness, and so on, up to the one that rests on the mind (the mind-faculty), which is the mind-consciousness. Kuiji's Notes points out that these six consciousnesses in fact also rest upon the six object-fields, yet a name is taken preferentially from the "faculty" because "the faculty prevails over the object-field upon it (the faculty's force surpasses the object's)," and so the name is taken from the faculty. Why can a name be taken from the faculty in this way? Because a consciousness stands to its faculty in five distinct senses—first, it depends on the faculty (the consciousness arises by leaning on the faculty); second, it issues from the faculty (the consciousness is generated and set in motion by the faculty); third, it belongs to the faculty (the consciousness is bound to and owned by the faculty); fourth, it assists the faculty (the consciousness is able to support the faculty); and fifth, it resembles the faculty (the consciousness conforms to and is like the faculty). Kuiji's Notes spells out these five senses word for word as "resting on the faculty, issuing from the faculty, belonging to that faculty, assisting that faculty, resembling that faculty"—all five fastened to the "faculty," and so the name is taken from the faculty.
Someone might object: all six consciousnesses in fact turn in dependence on "mind" (the manas), so why single out the sixth and call it the "mind-consciousness," as though it alone depended on mind? The answer: this is said with respect to what is not shared. The first five consciousnesses each have their own unshared material faculty (the eye-consciousness rests only on the eye-faculty, the ear-consciousness only on the ear-faculty); and what the sixth consciousness rests on uniquely—what it does not share with any other consciousness—is precisely the mind-faculty. So, following this layer of non-sharing, the sixth is called the "mind-consciousness," exactly as the first five are called eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, and so forth after each one's own unshared material faculty. The names do not become confused (there is no fault of "names running together").
One may also put it from another angle: the sixth consciousness rests on "mind" (the mind-faculty) and on it alone, and so it is called the mind-consciousness. But note carefully: this is said specifically to settle how the consciousness (the vijñāna) gets its name. "Mind" in the sense of the eighth (citta) and "mind" in the sense of the seventh (manas) each get their names by their own logic, and do not follow this "naming by faculty" rule.
2. Naming by Object—Following the Root Meaning of "Consciousness"
The second way of naming is called "naming by object": the six consciousnesses may also be called the form-consciousness, the sound-consciousness, and so on, up to the dharma-consciousness. This follows the root meaning of the word "consciousness"—consciousness has, by its very meaning, the discerning of objects, and so a name is taken from the object it discerns. How does the naming follow the object? Whatever discerns upon the six object-fields is called a "consciousness": the first five (form-consciousness and the rest) can discern only their respective five object-fields (form and so on), while the "dharma-consciousness" (that is, the mind-consciousness) is able to discern all dharmas without restriction; or one may say that because the mind-consciousness is able (on its own) to discern the "dharma" object-field, it alone receives the name "dharma-consciousness." The six names taken in this way, after the object, likewise do not run together.
This "naming by object," however, comes with a precondition: it is said for the time when the five material faculties have not yet attained mastery. Once mastery has been attained (as with the buddhas, the realized stages), the faculties can serve one another's functions—a single faculty can then give rise to consciousness and take hold of every object-field. At that point one can no longer name "by object" (because if one faculty cognizes all object-fields, the names would fall into confusion), and one can only name "by faculty," which still keeps the names from running together. The holy teaching confirms this layer too: the Sūtrālaṃkāra says that "in the Tathāgata's case, each of the five faculties turns upon all five object-fields"—and that is said with respect to the coarse, manifest, same-kind object-field (not that it can cognize only its own native kind); the Buddhabhūmi-sūtra says that "the wisdom of accomplishing what is to be done can discriminate the manifold differences in sentient beings' mental conduct, can rouse the transformations of the three karmas of body, speech, and mind, and can perform the four kinds of declaration"—and these functions could not be carried out unless one faculty were able to cognize all object-fields across the board. So we can see that, after mastery is attained, the mutual functioning of the faculties—one faculty cognizing all-round—has the holy teaching as its warrant.
As for the "basis" and the "object-condition" of the six consciousnesses: because these are so coarse and manifest, and everyone acknowledges them, they are not separately set out in detail here. Earlier, where the wording made it convenient, the "basis" has already been spoken of; and this "object-condition" is likewise held over to a later place where the sense makes it convenient.
B. What "Discerning Objects as Nature-and-Aspect" Means
The verse's line "discerning objects for its nature and aspect" points out, in a single stroke, both sides of the six consciousnesses—their "self-nature" and their "mode of activity." The six consciousnesses have the discerning of objects for their self-nature, and they likewise use this very discerning of objects as their mode of activity (both self-nature and mode of activity come to rest on "discerning objects"). And this one line also incidentally explains the distinct names set up above—it is precisely because the consciousness "is able to discern objects" that it is called a "consciousness."
Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) parses this line as a "twofold gate of essence and aspect": the word "discern" reaches to the side of "self-nature," and this self-nature is the consciousness's "self-witnessing portion"; while the side of the "mode of activity" is the consciousness's "perceiving portion," which has the grasping of the object's image for its object. The self-witnessing portion is in turn the basis of the perceiving portion, and the perceiving portion has the object's image for its object—taken together, this is why one says all at once "discerning objects as nature-and-aspect." With the single word "discern," both sides—self-nature and mode of activity—are gathered in.
This too has the holy teaching as its witness. As a sūtra says: "What is the eye-consciousness? It is what rests on the eye-faculty and discerns the manifold forms"—and so on at length, up to "What is the mind-consciousness? It is what rests on the mind-faculty and discerns the manifold dharmas." But one should understand that this passage is said with respect to the unshared basis (the eye-consciousness merely cited by its unshared eye-faculty), with respect to the stage before the transformation of the basis, and with respect to what is discerned by the perceiving aspect. The remaining bases (such as the shared mind-faculty) and what else is discerned (such as the objects discerned after the transformation of the basis) are, as already said above, not confined to that one layer of the sūtra's wording.
C. Which Three Moral Qualities the Six Consciousnesses Run Through
These six transforming consciousnesses—which moral quality gathers them in? The answer: they are gathered in by the three qualities of the wholesome, the unwholesome, and the neither-of-the-two (the indeterminate).
Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) sums it up at the head: here the verse is "raised as the answer," and a single answer brings out that "the six consciousnesses run through all three qualities."
First, let us be clear about "neither-of-the-two." "Neither-of-the-two" is the indeterminate—it is neither wholesome nor unwholesome; it falls on neither side, and so it is called "neither-of-the-two." On this point Kuiji's Notes makes plain that what is called "neither-of-the-two" shows that its self-nature "is not the two self-natures of the wholesome and the unwholesome," and so is called neither-of-the-two. Then what is "wholesome," and what is "unwholesome"? Only what is able to bring benefit in both this life and the other life is called "wholesome." Note carefully: although the pleasant fruits of the human and heavenly destinies can bring benefit to one in this life, they cannot go on to benefit the other life (the fruit-reward itself no longer summons further benefit for a later life), and so a pleasant fruit, taken in itself, is not called "wholesome." Kuiji's Notes presses the point further: a dharma must be able to "benefit in both this life and the other life" before it is called wholesome; the pleasant fruits of the human and heavenly destinies benefit only one life and do not reach to the second, are in themselves an "indeterminate fruit-dharma" whose essential nature is not wholesome, and moreover come to inflict decline in the later life (when the pleasant fruit dissolves it turns to suffering), and so are not named wholesome. Only what is able to inflict harm in both this life and the other life is called "unwholesome." Likewise, although the painful fruits of the woeful destinies can inflict harm on one in this life, they cannot go on to harm the other life, and so a painful fruit, taken in itself, does not count as "unwholesome" either (this layer can be inferred on the model of the "pleasant fruit is not wholesome" case). And whatever, on these dividing-lines of "wholesome and unwholesome, benefit and harm," admits of no determination—where one cannot judge which side it inclines to—is called "indeterminate."
How, then, are the six consciousnesses specifically judged? Quite simply: if these six transforming consciousnesses associate with the eleven wholesome mental factors—faith and the rest—they belong to the wholesome quality; if they associate with the ten (unwholesome mental factors)—shamelessness and the rest—they belong to the unwholesome quality; and if they associate with neither side, they belong to the indeterminate quality.
D. Whether the Three Moral Qualities of the Six Consciousnesses Can Arise Simultaneously—the Old Masters Hold Two Views
Now a side-debate branches off: within one and the same instant, can the three qualities of the six consciousnesses—wholesome, unwholesome, indeterminate—arise simultaneously? Here the old masters hold two views.
There is first a view maintaining that "the three qualities are not together" (the three qualities cannot arise simultaneously at one time). Its reasoning is this: the six consciousnesses are alike "outward-turning" (they all turn by reaching out to grasp outer objects), and the three qualities of wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate are mutually opposed and cannot coexist within a single moment of thought. What is more, the first five consciousnesses must be led by the mind-consciousness—the five and the mind-consciousness are born together and cognize the same object, and only by this can they become wholesome or defiled. That being so, if one were to allow that the three qualities of the five consciousnesses could become active all at once, then the mind-consciousness that leads them would, at that very moment, also have to run through all three qualities—which would violate correct principle. Therefore it concludes that the three qualities are not together. It also answers a counter-evidence: the Yogācārabhūmi and other places say that "the store-consciousness can, at one time, associate with the transforming consciousnesses, the three qualities arising all at once"—but that is said with respect to many moments (several successive instants, one after another), not that the three qualities arise simultaneously within one single instant. It is just like saying "one mind," where "one mind" refers to a single stretch of the mental continuum, not to a single instant of arising-and-ceasing; so there is no fault of contradiction.
There is another view (and this is the settled, correct reading) maintaining that "the three qualities may be together" (they can arise simultaneously). It says: the eye and the other five consciousnesses, in such classes as the "abrupt mind" and the "uniform-flow mind," are to a greater or lesser degree allowed to arise simultaneously (and need not all belong to one quality). Although the five consciousnesses and the mind-consciousness are certainly born together, their wholesomeness and so on need not be the same; and so the difficulty raised by the first view ("if the five are together, the mind-consciousness must run through all three qualities") here comes to nothing (it is spent in vain). This has the Yogācārabhūmi for its warrant: suppose someone, just meeting the condition of a "sound," emerges from meditative concentration—the mind-consciousness associated with that concentration is in fact still turning along with it (it is still the meditative mind), while a separate ear-consciousness arises to hear the sound. It is not the case that "the concentration-associated mind-consciousness alone takes hold of this sound." Why? Because if it were the mind-consciousness alone that took the sound, the ear-consciousness not receiving it, then this person should not have emerged from concentration on account of the sound; yet the fact is that "it is not that one emerges from concentration the very moment the sound is taken"—rather, the ear-consciousness receives the sound, and if a wish then arises in the mind, only after a while does one emerge from concentration. We can see, then, that during concentration the "ear-consciousness abruptly hears the sound" while the mind-consciousness is still within concentration. This ear-consciousness, abruptly hearing the sound, ought by rights not to be wholesome (because at that moment the mind-consciousness is wholesome in concentration); and for an ordinary person who has not yet transformed the basis, his "abruptly falling mind" must be indeterminate. By this single passage it is conclusively proven: the "mind-consciousness that accompanies the five" need not always share the wholesome and other qualities of the five consciousnesses. The texts everywhere say only that "the mind-consciousness that accompanies the five also cognizes the five object-fields"; they never say that it is "of the same quality" as the five consciousnesses.
The Abhidharma-samuccaya adds a further proof: it says that "in the stage of meditative equipoise (the stage of being in concentration) there are no five consciousnesses"—but that is said with respect to "the greater part" (so it is for the most part, not absolutely none at all). If, among the five consciousnesses, the three qualities turn all at once, then the mind-consciousness, according to whichever consciousness it "leans its attention" toward, shares that consciousness's quality; and if the mind-consciousness leans its attention toward none of them, then it becomes the indeterminate quality. So the conclusion is: the three qualities of the six transforming consciousnesses are allowed to arise simultaneously. But one boundary must be added: upon reaching the "stage of attained mastery" (the buddha-stage), the six consciousnesses are gathered in by the wholesome quality alone—because the buddha's form, mind, and the rest are all gathered in by the truth of the path, and because the seeds of conceptual proliferation have been forever extinguished (there can no longer be any defiled-indeterminate to mix in). And so at the buddha-ground there is the wholesome alone.
Onward Transmission
What this section establishes—that the first six consciousnesses "have discerning objects for their nature-and-aspect and run through the three qualities of wholesome, unwholesome, and neither-of-the-two"—is the foundation on which the consciousness-only system founds its account of "the gate of the transforming consciousnesses," and the later treatises take it up one by one in the system's own order. The Hundred Dharmas treatise lists the eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousnesses—these first six—among the eight consciousness-dharmas (the first six of the eight), and the moral-quality judgment made in this section comes to rest precisely upon the mental factors it enumerates: the wholesome quality answers to the eleven wholesome factors, faith and the rest, the unwholesome quality to the afflictions and secondary afflictions, shamelessness and the rest; whether one of the first six consciousnesses belongs to a given quality is decided by whether or not it associates with these factors. The Thirty Verses—verse eight (the general statement of the first six consciousnesses · discerning objects as nature-and-aspect · the three qualities of wholesome, unwholesome, and neither-of-the-two)—is the very root-verse this section expounds, verse answering to verse; and the train of mental factors that verse eight touches on opens downward into the broad discussion of the "six classes of mental factors" from verse nine onward. The Madhyānta-vibhāga, in its chapter on characteristics, establishes the doctrine of "unreal imagination"—consciousness is other-dependent and appears as the semblance of an object—which runs together in doctrine with this section's "discerning objects / consciousness discerning the object-field," the first six consciousnesses being precisely the "discerning" function upon the other-dependent. The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapter on the characteristics of the knowable, separately sets up the body-consciousness, the consciousness of the embodied one, the consciousness of the experiencer, and the rest—consciousnesses that turn in dependence on the ālaya—among which the first six consciousnesses are included, being the discerning consciousnesses upon the other-dependent. As for the Twenty Verses, its concern is to establish consciousness-only and that there are no external objects, refuting the outsiders' clinging to real objects, and it has no direct counterpart to the "essence-and-aspect · three qualities of the object-discerning consciousness"; here it is left aside.
考據Apparatus
〔所釋之頌〕第八頌
本章釋《唯識三十論頌》頌八（前六識總標·了境為性相·善不善俱非三性）。
一、科判定位
| 科判 | 此章之位 |
|---|---|
| 三能變 | 初能變（阿賴耶）· 第二能變（末那）→ 第三能變·了境（前六識） |
| 了境章內 | 性相（頌八：六識差別·了境為性相）· 三性（善·不善·俱非） |
| 所釋頌 | 《唯識三十論頌》頌八全 |
了境上承末那（末那之染令前六識成雜染），下啟六位心所相應（頌九以下廣辯遍行、別境、善、煩惱、隨煩惱、不定）。了境者，前六識之識體（眼識乃至意識），非心所；以「了別境界」為性相。
二、源頌 · 義理脈絡
８次第三能變，差別有六種，了境為性相，善不善俱非。 〔T1586 0060b18–b19〕
頌八一句總標第三能變：開為六識（隨根隨境）、立其體性行相（了境）、判其三性所攝（善·不善·俱非）。本論依之三分廣辯：六識安名（隨根立名具五義／隨境立名順識義）、了境雙顯（自性·行相皆了境）、三性分判（信等相應善·無慚等相應不善·俱不相應無記），末岔『三性俱不俱』一諍。
| 頌語 | 義門 | 所辯 |
|---|---|---|
| 第三能變 | 總標 | 次末那後，辯了境能變識相 |
| 差別有六種 | 安名 | 隨六根、境，種類異故；隨根立名（具五義）／隨境立名（順識義） |
| 了境為性、相 | 體性 · 行相 | 「了境」雙顯六識自性與行相 |
| 善、不善 | 三性（前二） | 與信等十一相應善·與無慚等十法相應不善 |
| 俱非 | 三性（無記） | 善不善俱非；俱不相應，無記性攝 |
『三性容俱不俱』——本論於此列二「有義」而以「容俱」為應知正義，逐說具於〔義疏〕。
三、經論宗依（經證 → 論本）
經證
阿陀那識為依止、為建立故，六識身轉，謂眼識、耳、鼻、舌、身、意識。此中有識：眼及色為緣生眼識，與眼識俱隨行，同時、同境，有分別意識轉。 〔解深密經·心意識相品 T676 0692b19–b22〕
若於爾時一眼識轉，即於此時唯有一分別意識，與眼識同所行轉。若於爾時二、三、四、五諸識身轉，即於此時唯有一分別意識，與五識身同所行轉。 〔解深密經 T676 0692b24–b28〕
不能了知色等自性，故五識身轉。大慧！即彼五識身，俱因差別分段相知，當知是意識因彼身轉。 〔楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 T670 0484a18–a21〕
五識身者，心、意、意識俱。善不善相，展轉變壞，相續流注。 〔楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 T670 0512b08–b09〕
《解深密》明六識身依阿陀那而轉（眼識乃至意識），復明五識起時唯有一分別意識同時、同境、同所行轉——前六識安立及「五俱意識」之經本；《楞伽》以『不了色等自性故五識身轉』明五識之了境義，復明「五識身者心意意識俱、善不善相展轉變壞」——五識通善不善之經本。
論本（瑜伽師地論 T1579）
云何眼識自性？謂依眼，了別色。 〔T1579·本地分 0279a25–a26〕
識，謂現前了別所緣境界。 〔T1579·本地分 0280b09〕
又諸意識望餘識身有勝作業。謂分別所緣，審慮所緣，若醉，若狂，若夢，若覺，若悶，若醒，若能發起身業、語業，若能離欲，若離欲退，若斷善根，若續善根，若死，若生等。 〔T1579·本地分 0280b26–0280c01〕
又六識身，有善不善等性可得。 〔T1579·攝決擇分 0579a29–b01〕
何故若無諸識俱轉，業用差別不應道理？謂若略說有四種業。一、了別器業，二、了別依業，三、了別我業，四、了別境業。此諸了別，剎那剎那俱轉可得。 〔T1579·攝決擇分 0579c02–c05〕
《瑜伽師地論》定眼識「依眼了別色」、意「識謂現前了別所緣境界」（了境為性相之論本）；明意識望餘識有「分別所緣·審慮所緣」等勝作業（意識通法、五識唯境之論本）；〈攝決擇分〉明「六識身有善不善等性可得」（六識通三性之論本）、「諸了別剎那剎那俱轉可得」（諸識俱轉、三性容俱之論本）。護法糅釋所宗，其經在解深密、楞伽，其論在瑜伽師地論。
四、本論釋要（護法糅釋 · T1585）
六識·隨根立名
論曰：次中思量能變識後，應辯了境能變識相。 〔T1585 0026a15–a16〕 此識差別總有六種，隨六根、境，種類異故。 〔T1585 0026a16–a17〕 謂名眼識乃至意識，隨根立名，具五義故。五謂依、發、屬、助、如根，雖六識身皆依意轉，然隨不共，立意識名，如五識身，無相濫過。 〔T1585 0026a17–a20〕
六識·隨境立名
或名色識乃至法識，隨境立名，順識義故。謂於六境了別名識，色等五識，唯了色等，法識通能了一切法，或能了別法，獨得法識名，故六識名無相濫失。 〔T1585 0026a21–a24〕 此後隨境立六識名，依五色根未自在說；若得自在，諸根互用，一根發識，緣一切境；但可隨根，無相濫失。 〔T1585 0026a24–a27〕
了境為性相
次言「了境為性相」者，雙顯六識自性、行相，識以了境為自性故；即復用彼為行相故。由斯兼釋所立別名，能了別境，名為識故。 〔T1585 0026b03–b06〕
三性所攝
此六轉識，何性攝耶？謂善、不善、俱非性攝。 〔T1585 0026b10–b11〕 能為此世、他世順益，故名為善，人、天樂果，雖於此世能為順益，非於他世，故不名「善」……於善、不善；益、損義中，不可記別，故名無記。 〔T1585 0026b12–b17〕 此六轉識若與信等十一相應，是善性攝；與無慚等十法相應，不善性攝；俱不相應，無記性攝。 〔T1585 0026b17–b19〕
三性俱不俱
有義：六識三性不俱。同外門轉，互相違故；五識必由意識導引，俱生、同境成善、染故。 〔T1585 0026b19–b21〕 有義：六識三性容俱。率爾、等流眼等五識，或多或少，容俱起故。五識與意，雖定俱生，而善性等，不必同故。 〔T1585 0026b24–b27〕 故六轉識，三性容俱。得自在位，唯善性攝。佛色心等，道諦攝故。已永滅除戲論種故。 〔T1585 0026c09–c11〕
要義：本論先開六識為二門安名——「隨根立名」偏舉所依根（眼識乃至意識），具依、發、屬、助、如五義；「隨境立名」順『識以了境為義』（色識乃至法識），二門皆無相濫；「隨境」一門限「五色根未自在」位，得自在則諸根互用、唯隨根。次以「了境」雙顯六識自性與行相（識以了境為自性，又即用彼為行相）。後判三性：以『此世、他世二世順益／違損』定善與不善（故樂果非善、苦果非不善，唯一世故），於益損不可記別者為無記；具以信等十一、無慚等十法之相應與否分屬。末列三性俱不俱二說，以「容俱」為正——五識與意識雖定俱生而善性不必同，得自在位（佛位）則唯善。
五、諸家異釋（窺基《述記》T1830）
述曰：謂根與境各有六別，識隨彼異，故非多少，亦非定別。 〔T1830 0415c20–c21〕
述曰：勝於境故，偏從根稱。 〔T1830 0416a04–a05〕
述曰：謂依於根，根之所發，屬於彼根，助於彼根，如於根故。 〔T1830 0416a07–a08〕
即第三句，了境為性相、體相二門；了者即通自性，自性即自證分；行相即是識之見分，緣相為境；自證為見之依緣見為境，是故總言了境為性相。 〔T1830 0418a20–a24〕
述曰：此舉頌答，即顯六識並通三性。 〔T1830 0418b21–b22〕
何名俱非？顯彼自性非善、不善二種自性，故名俱非。 〔T1830 0418b26–b28〕
述曰：謂一一法要令此、他二世順益，方名為善……人、天樂果，唯順益一世，非二世故，不名為善，是無記果法故，體非是善，於後世中作衰損故。 〔T1830 0418c01–c08〕
窺基釋「種類異」為根境各六、識隨彼異，故六識不多不少；釋「隨根立名」為「勝於境故偏從根稱」，並逐解依、發、屬、助、如五義（依於根·根之所發·屬於彼根·助於彼根·如於根）。於「了境為性相」立「體相二門」——「了」通自性（自性即自證分），「行相」即識之見分（緣相為境）。於三性，以「此舉頌答即顯六識並通三性」總標；定「俱非」為自性非善不善二種，故名俱非；釋「善」必「此、他二世順益」方名善，故人天樂果唯益一世、體是無記果，不名為善（苦果非不善，准前可知）。
六、譯名 · 古譯對讀（玄奘 ↔ 真諦《轉識論》）
| 義 | 玄奘《成唯識論》 | 真諦《轉識論》 |
|---|---|---|
| 前六識（總名） | 了境能變識 · 六轉識 | 三塵識（「三塵識，即是六識」〔0061c09〕） |
| 立名所本 | 識以了境為自性、行相 | 識轉似塵（「第三塵識者，識轉似塵，更成六種識轉似塵」〔0062a20–a21〕） |
| 三性 | 善 · 不善 · 俱非 | 體通三性（「體通三性」〔0062a21–a22〕） |
| 別境·勝解 | 勝解 | 了（「此中言了者，即舊所明解脫數也」〔0062a25〕） |
| 五識俱起 | 率爾、等流眼等五識，或多或少，容俱起 | 一時俱起／前後次第（「乃至一時具五識俱起亦爾。或前後次第而起」〔0062b14–b15〕） |
玄奘以『了境能變·六轉識』名前六識，依『了境為自性行相』立名；真諦《轉識論》以「三塵識」總名六識，依「識轉似塵」立名，並以「了」當別境之勝解（玄奘作「勝解」）——古譯於此一分歧。
七、術語
了境能變（viṣaya-vijñapti）— 第三能變·前六識識體，以了別境界為性相。 隨根立名 · 隨境立名 — 眼識乃至意識（依根勝）／色識乃至法識（順識義）二門安名。 了境為性相 — 識以了別境界為自性，又即以之為行相（自性即自證分、行相即見分）。 三性 — 善（信等十一相應）· 不善（無慚等十法相應）· 俱非／無記（俱不相應）。 率爾 · 等流 — 五識生起之心位；本論以之證五識三性容俱。 五俱意識 — 與五識同時、同境俱轉之分別意識；本論證其與五識善等性不必同。 得自在位 — 佛位；六識唯善性攝，色心皆道諦攝、永滅戲論種。 〔梵文為古德所傳發音輔助。〕
八、互讀（唯識系次第：百法 → 三十頌 → 二十論 → 辯中邊論 → 攝大乘論）
- 百法：心法·前六識（眼耳鼻舌身意，八識之前六）；心所·善十一（信等）、煩惱·隨煩惱（無慚等）——三性相應之所判即此諸心所。
- 三十頌：頌八（前六識總標·了境為性相·三性）——逐頌姊妹；下啟頌九（六位心所）。
- 二十論：〔從闕〕主唯識無境、破外執，了境識體相·三性無正面對位。
- 辯中邊論：辯相品·虛妄分別（識為依他、似境而現）——與『了境／識了別境』義相通。
- 攝大乘論：所知相分·身識身者識受者識等（依止阿賴耶之轉識）；前六識為依他起之了別。
章內：末那(二)（前承——末那染令六識雜染）· 了境(二)以下（續此——六位心所相應·三受·依緣分別）。
九、校本定位
頌 T1586〔0060b18–b19〕（本論引頌 T1585〔0026a13–a14〕）· 本論 T1585 了境釋〔安名 0026a15–a27·了境性相 0026b03–b06·三性 0026b10–b19·俱不俱 0026b19–0026c11〕· 述記 T1830〔隨根境 0415c20–c21·隨根立名 0416a04–a05·五義 0416a07–a08·了境體相 0418a20–a24·三性答 0418b21–b22·俱非 0418b26–b28·善 0418c01–c08〕· 《轉識論》T1587〔0061c09·0062a20–a25·0062b14–b15〕。 〔經證〕解深密 T676〔六識身轉 0692b19–b24·五俱意識 0692b24–b28〕· 楞伽 T670〔五識身轉 0484a18–a21·五識善不善 0512b08–b09〕。〔論本〕瑜伽師地論 T1579〔眼識自性 0279a25–a26·識了別境 0280b09·意識勝業 0280b26–0280c01·六識善不善 0579a29–0579b01·諸識俱轉 0579c02–c05〕。
This chapter expounds Triṃśikā verse 8 (the general statement of the first six consciousnesses · discerning-objects as their nature-and-mark · good, bad, and neither-of-the-two as the three natures).
1. Position in Kuiji's Structural Outline
| Outline | This chapter's place |
|---|---|
| Three transformers | the first transformer (ālaya) · the second transformer (manas) → the third transformer · discerning objects (the first six consciousnesses) |
| Within the discerning-objects chapter | marks-and-nature (verse 8: the differentiation of the six consciousnesses · discerning-objects as nature-and-mark) · the three natures (good · bad · neither-of-the-two) |
| Verse expounded | the whole of Triṃśikā verse 8 |
The discerning-objects [consciousnesses] follow upon the manas above (the manas's defiling makes the first six consciousnesses defiled) and open below onto the concurrence with the mental factors of the six positions (verse 9 and after treats at length the universal, the object-specific, the good, the afflictions, the secondary afflictions, and the indeterminate). The object-discerners are the consciousness-substances of the first six consciousnesses (the eye-consciousness through the mind-consciousness), not mental factors; they take "discerning the realm of objects" as their nature-and-mark.
2. Source verse · doctrinal context
８次第三能變，差別有六種，了境為性相，善不善俱非。 〔T1586 0060b18–b19〕
tr. "8. Next, the third transformer: its differentiations are of six kinds; discerning objects is its nature-and-mark; good, bad, and neither-of-the-two."
Verse 8 in one sentence generally states the third transformer: it opens into six consciousnesses (following faculty and object), establishes their substance-nature and mode-of-action (discerning objects), and judges them as subsumed under the three natures (good · bad · neither-of-the-two). On this the root treatise expounds at length in three parts: the naming of the six consciousnesses (named after the faculty by the five senses of dependence / named after the object by the sense conforming to "consciousness"), the twin disclosure of discerning-objects (both self-nature and mode-of-action are discerning-objects), and the judgment by the three natures (good in concurrence with trust and the rest · bad in concurrence with shamelessness and the rest · indeterminate when concurrent with neither), ending with the side-branch dispute "are the three natures concurrent or not."
| Verse phrase | Doctrinal gate | What is argued |
|---|---|---|
| 第三能變 the third transformer | general statement | following upon the manas, it argues the marks of the object-discerning transforming consciousness |
| 差別有六種 its differentiations are of six kinds | naming | because their kinds differ following the six faculties and objects; named after the faculty (with the five senses) / named after the object (conforming to "consciousness") |
| 了境為性、相 discerning objects is its nature, mark | substance-nature · mode-of-action | "discerning objects" twin-discloses both the self-nature and the mode-of-action of the six consciousnesses |
| 善、不善 good, bad | the three natures (the first two) | good in concurrence with the eleven [factors] of trust and the rest · bad in concurrence with the ten [factors] of shamelessness and the rest |
| 俱非 neither-of-the-two | the three natures (indeterminate) | neither good nor bad; concurrent with neither, subsumed under the indeterminate nature |
"The three natures may be concurrent or not" — here the root treatise lists two "one view holds…" [positions] and takes "they may be concurrent" as the right meaning to be known, set out in full in the Exposition.
3. Scriptural and treatise grounding (scripture → root śāstra)
Scriptural witnesses
阿陀那識為依止、為建立故，六識身轉，謂眼識、耳、鼻、舌、身、意識。此中有識：眼及色為緣生眼識，與眼識俱隨行，同時、同境，有分別意識轉。 〔解深密經·心意識相品 T676 0692b19–b22〕
tr. "Because the ādāna-consciousness serves as basis and as foundation, the six consciousness-bodies turn — namely, the eye-consciousness, the ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, and mind-consciousness. Herein there is consciousness: the eye together with form being the conditions, an eye-consciousness arises; and concurrent with the eye-consciousness, running along with it, at the same time and on the same object, a discriminating mind-consciousness turns."
若於爾時一眼識轉，即於此時唯有一分別意識，與眼識同所行轉。若於爾時二、三、四、五諸識身轉，即於此時唯有一分別意識，與五識身同所行轉。 〔解深密經 T676 0692b24–b28〕
tr. "If at that moment a single eye-consciousness turns, then at this time there is only a single discriminating mind-consciousness, turning upon the same field as the eye-consciousness. If at that moment two, three, four, or five consciousness-bodies turn, then at this time there is only a single discriminating mind-consciousness, turning upon the same field as the five consciousness-bodies."
不能了知色等自性，故五識身轉。大慧！即彼五識身，俱因差別分段相知，當知是意識因彼身轉。 〔楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 T670 0484a18–a21〕
tr. "Because [they] cannot discern the self-nature of form and the rest, the five consciousness-bodies turn. Mahāmati! It is just these five consciousness-bodies that, by the differentiated, segmented marks they jointly cause to be known, you should understand that the mind-consciousness turns on account of those bodies."
五識身者，心、意、意識俱。善不善相，展轉變壞，相續流注。 〔楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 T670 0512b08–b09〕
tr. "As for the five consciousness-bodies, they are concurrent with mind, manas, and the mind-consciousness. Their good and bad marks, transforming and perishing in succession, flow on continuously."
The Saṃdhinirmocana shows the six consciousness-bodies to turn in dependence on the ādāna (the eye-consciousness through the mind-consciousness), and further shows that when the five [sense] consciousnesses arise there is only a single discriminating mind-consciousness turning concurrently, at the same time, on the same object, upon the same field — the scriptural root for the establishing of the first six consciousnesses and for "the mind-consciousness concurrent with the five"; the Laṅkāvatāra, with "because [they] cannot discern the self-nature of form and the rest, the five consciousness-bodies turn," shows the discerning-objects sense of the five consciousnesses, and further shows "the five consciousness-bodies are concurrent with mind, manas, and the mind-consciousness; their good and bad marks transform and perish in succession" — the scriptural root for the five consciousnesses running through both good and bad.
Root śāstra (Yogācārabhūmi T1579)
云何眼識自性？謂依眼，了別色。 〔T1579·本地分 0279a25–a26〕
tr. "What is the self-nature of the eye-consciousness? It is, in dependence on the eye, the discerning of form."
識，謂現前了別所緣境界。 〔T1579·本地分 0280b09〕
tr. "Consciousness: that is, the presently discerning of the field of objects that are its object-support."
又諸意識望餘識身有勝作業。謂分別所緣，審慮所緣，若醉，若狂，若夢，若覺，若悶，若醒，若能發起身業、語業，若能離欲，若離欲退，若斷善根，若續善根，若死，若生等。 〔T1579·本地分 0280b26–0280c01〕
tr. "Again, the mind-consciousness, compared with the other consciousness-bodies, has superior operations — namely, discriminating its object-support, deliberating upon its object-support; being drunk, being mad, dreaming, waking, fainting, reviving; being able to set going bodily action and verbal action; being able to become free of desire, to fall back from freedom from desire, to sever the roots of good, to renew the roots of good, to die, to be born, and so forth."
又六識身，有善不善等性可得。 〔T1579·攝決擇分 0579a29–b01〕
tr. "Again, in the six consciousness-bodies, the natures of good, bad, and the rest can be found."
何故若無諸識俱轉，業用差別不應道理？謂若略說有四種業。一、了別器業，二、了別依業，三、了別我業，四、了別境業。此諸了別，剎那剎那俱轉可得。 〔T1579·攝決擇分 0579c02–c05〕
tr. "Why, if the several consciousnesses did not turn concurrently, would the differentiation of their operations not stand to reason? Because, stated briefly, there are four kinds of operation: first, the operation of discerning the receptacle [world]; second, the operation of discerning the basis [body]; third, the operation of discerning the self; fourth, the operation of discerning objects. These several discernings can be found turning concurrently moment by moment."
The Yogācārabhūmi settles that the eye-consciousness is "in dependence on the eye, the discerning of form" and that consciousness "is the presently discerning of the field of objects that are its object-support" (the śāstra-root for discerning-objects as nature-and-mark); it shows that the mind-consciousness, compared with the other consciousnesses, has the superior operations of "discriminating its object-support · deliberating upon its object-support" and the rest (the śāstra-root for the mind-consciousness running through [all] dharmas while the five consciousnesses [run] only through objects); and its Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī shows that "in the six consciousness-bodies the natures of good, bad, and the rest can be found" (the śāstra-root for the six consciousnesses running through the three natures) and that "the several discernings can be found turning concurrently moment by moment" (the śāstra-root for the several consciousnesses turning concurrently, the three natures admitted as concurrent). What Dharmapāla's redaction takes as authority has its scripture in the Saṃdhinirmocana and the Laṅkāvatāra, and its śāstra in the Yogācārabhūmi.
4. Essentials of the root treatise (Dharmapāla's redaction · T1585)
The six consciousnesses · named after the faculty
論曰：次中思量能變識後，應辯了境能變識相。 〔T1585 0026a15–a16〕 此識差別總有六種，隨六根、境，種類異故。 〔T1585 0026a16–a17〕 謂名眼識乃至意識，隨根立名，具五義故。五謂依、發、屬、助、如根，雖六識身皆依意轉，然隨不共，立意識名，如五識身，無相濫過。 〔T1585 0026a17–a20〕
tr. "The treatise says: after [treating] the cogitation-transforming consciousness in the middle, one should next argue the marks of the object-discerning transforming consciousness." "This consciousness's differentiations are in all of six kinds, because their kinds differ following the six faculties and objects." "Namely, they are named the eye-consciousness through the mind-consciousness, named after the faculty, because they fulfill five senses [of relation]. The five are: depending [on the faculty], being issued [from it], belonging [to it], assisting [it], and being like [it]. Though all six consciousness-bodies turn in dependence on the manas, yet, following what is not-shared, the name 'mind-consciousness' is set up, [just] as for the five consciousness-bodies, without the fault of mutual confusion."
The six consciousnesses · named after the object
或名色識乃至法識，隨境立名，順識義故。謂於六境了別名識，色等五識，唯了色等，法識通能了一切法，或能了別法，獨得法識名，故六識名無相濫失。 〔T1585 0026a21–a24〕 此後隨境立六識名，依五色根未自在說；若得自在，諸根互用，一根發識，緣一切境；但可隨根，無相濫失。 〔T1585 0026a24–a27〕
tr. "Or they are named form-consciousness through dharma-consciousness, named after the object, because [this] conforms to the sense of 'consciousness.' That is, discerning upon the six objects is called consciousness: the five consciousnesses, form and the rest, discern only form and the rest; the dharma-consciousness penetratingly is able to discern all dharmas, or, [being the one] able to discern dharma[s], it alone gets the name 'dharma-consciousness' — hence the names of the six consciousnesses are without the fault of mutual confusion." "This latter setting-up of the names of the six consciousnesses after the object is spoken with regard to the five form-faculties' not-yet-being-sovereign; if sovereignty is attained, the several faculties are used interchangeably, one faculty issuing a consciousness that takes all objects as its object — then one can only [name them] after the faculty, without the fault of mutual confusion."
Discerning objects as nature-and-mark
次言「了境為性相」者，雙顯六識自性、行相，識以了境為自性故；即復用彼為行相故。由斯兼釋所立別名，能了別境，名為識故。 〔T1585 0026b03–b06〕
tr. "Next, the saying 'discerning objects is its nature-and-mark' twin-discloses the self-nature and the mode-of-action of the six consciousnesses, for consciousness takes discerning-objects as its self-nature; and it again uses that very [discerning] as its mode-of-action. By this it also explains the distinguishing name set up [for them]: because [each] is able to discern objects, it is named 'consciousness.'"
Subsumed under the three natures
此六轉識，何性攝耶？謂善、不善、俱非性攝。 〔T1585 0026b10–b11〕 能為此世、他世順益，故名為善，人、天樂果，雖於此世能為順益，非於他世，故不名「善」……於善、不善；益、損義中，不可記別，故名無記。 〔T1585 0026b12–b17〕 此六轉識若與信等十一相應，是善性攝；與無慚等十法相應，不善性攝；俱不相應，無記性攝。 〔T1585 0026b17–b19〕
tr. "These six transforming consciousnesses — by which nature are they subsumed? They are subsumed by the good, the bad, and the neither-of-the-two natures." "Because [a dharma] can be favorable-and-beneficial to this world and the other world, it is named 'good'; the pleasant fruit of the human and heavenly [realms], though it can be favorable-and-beneficial in this world, is not so to the other world, and hence is not named 'good'… Among the senses of good, bad; benefit, harm, [where a dharma] cannot be marked off [either way], it is named 'indeterminate.'" "These six transforming consciousnesses, if concurrent with the eleven [factors] of trust and the rest, are subsumed under the good nature; if concurrent with the ten [factors] of shamelessness and the rest, are subsumed under the bad nature; if concurrent with neither, are subsumed under the indeterminate nature."
Are the three natures concurrent or not
有義：六識三性不俱。同外門轉，互相違故；五識必由意識導引，俱生、同境成善、染故。 〔T1585 0026b19–b21〕 有義：六識三性容俱。率爾、等流眼等五識，或多或少，容俱起故。五識與意，雖定俱生，而善性等，不必同故。 〔T1585 0026b24–b27〕 故六轉識，三性容俱。得自在位，唯善性攝。佛色心等，道諦攝故。已永滅除戲論種故。 〔T1585 0026c09–c11〕
tr. "One view holds: the three natures of the six consciousnesses are not concurrent. For they all turn through the outer gate and are mutually opposed; and the five consciousnesses are necessarily led by the mind-consciousness, arising together and on the same object so as to become good or defiled." "One view holds: the three natures of the six consciousnesses may be concurrent. For the spontaneous and the outflowing eye and the other five consciousnesses, in greater or lesser number, may arise concurrently; and though the five consciousnesses and the manas-[consciousness] arise definitely together, yet their good nature and the rest need not be the same." "Hence the three natures of the six transforming consciousnesses may be concurrent. In the state of attained sovereignty, they are subsumed under the good nature alone — because the Buddha's form, mind, and the rest are subsumed under the Path-truth, and because the seeds of conceptual proliferation have already been forever extinguished and removed."
Essentials: the root treatise first opens the six consciousnesses into two gates of naming — "named after the faculty," which singles out the supporting faculty depended upon (the eye-consciousness through the mind-consciousness), fulfilling the five senses of depending, being-issued, belonging, assisting, and being-like; "named after the object," which conforms to "consciousness takes discerning-objects as its sense" (form-consciousness through dharma-consciousness), both gates without mutual confusion; the "naming after the object" gate is limited to the state of "the five form-faculties not yet sovereign," for when sovereignty is attained the faculties are used interchangeably and [naming] is only after the faculty. Next, by "discerning objects" it twin-discloses both the self-nature and the mode-of-action of the six consciousnesses (consciousness takes discerning-objects as its self-nature, and again uses that very [discerning] as its mode-of-action). Afterward it judges the three natures: by "favorable-and-beneficial / opposed-and-harmful across the two worlds, this world and the other" it settles good and bad (hence the pleasant fruit is not good, the painful fruit not bad, being of one world only), and where benefit-and-harm cannot be marked off, it is indeterminate; it assigns [each] by whether or not it is concurrent with the eleven [factors] of trust and the rest, the ten [factors] of shamelessness and the rest. Last it lists the two positions on whether the three natures are concurrent, taking "may be concurrent" as right — though the five consciousnesses and the mind-consciousness arise definitely together, their good nature need not be the same; in the state of attained sovereignty (the Buddha's state) they are good alone.
5. Divergent readings across the masters (Kuiji, Shuji T1830)
述曰：謂根與境各有六別，識隨彼異，故非多少，亦非定別。 〔T1830 0415c20–c21〕
tr. "The Shuji says: that is, faculty and object have, each, six distinctions, and consciousness differs following them; hence [they are] neither more nor fewer, nor are [they] of fixed [separate] distinction."
述曰：勝於境故，偏從根稱。 〔T1830 0416a04–a05〕
tr. "The Shuji says: because [the faculty] is superior to the object, [the name] is taken one-sidedly from the faculty."
述曰：謂依於根，根之所發，屬於彼根，助於彼根，如於根故。 〔T1830 0416a07–a08〕
tr. "The Shuji says: that is, depending on the faculty, issued by the faculty, belonging to that faculty, assisting that faculty, being like the faculty."
即第三句，了境為性相、體相二門；了者即通自性，自性即自證分；行相即是識之見分，緣相為境；自證為見之依緣見為境，是故總言了境為性相。 〔T1830 0418a20–a24〕
tr. "[In] the third line, 'discerning objects is its nature-and-mark,' there are the twin gates of substance and mark: the 'discerning' penetrates to the self-nature, and the self-nature is the self-witnessing part; the mode-of-action is just consciousness's perceiving part, which takes the perceived-mark as its object; the self-witnessing serves as the support-cum-object of the perceiving, taking the perceiving as its object — therefore it generally says 'discerning objects is its nature-and-mark.'"
述曰：此舉頌答，即顯六識並通三性。 〔T1830 0418b21–b22〕
tr. "The Shuji says: this raises the verse as the answer, thereby disclosing that the six consciousnesses alike run through the three natures."
何名俱非？顯彼自性非善、不善二種自性，故名俱非。 〔T1830 0418b26–b28〕
tr. "Why is it named 'neither-of-the-two'? To disclose that its self-nature is neither of the two self-natures, good and bad, it is named 'neither-of-the-two.'"
述曰：謂一一法要令此、他二世順益，方名為善……人、天樂果，唯順益一世，非二世故，不名為善，是無記果法故，體非是善，於後世中作衰損故。 〔T1830 0418c01–c08〕
tr. "The Shuji says: that is, each single dharma must be favorable-and-beneficial to the two worlds, this and the other, before it is named 'good'… the pleasant fruit of the human and heavenly [realms] is favorable-and-beneficial to one world only, not to two worlds, and hence is not named 'good'; being an indeterminate fruit-dharma, its substance is not good, for in the later world it works decline-and-harm."
Kuiji glosses "their kinds differ" as faculty and object having six each and consciousness differing following them, so that the six consciousnesses are neither more nor fewer; he glosses "named after the faculty" as "because [the faculty] is superior to the object, [the name] is taken one-sidedly from the faculty," and unpacks the five senses one by one (depending on the faculty · issued by the faculty · belonging to that faculty · assisting that faculty · being like the faculty). On "discerning objects is its nature-and-mark" he sets up the "twin gates of substance and mark" — the "discerning" penetrates to the self-nature (the self-nature being the self-witnessing part), the "mode-of-action" being just consciousness's perceiving part (which takes the perceived-mark as its object). On the three natures he generally states "this raises the verse as the answer, thereby disclosing that the six consciousnesses alike run through the three natures"; he settles "neither-of-the-two" as the self-nature's being neither of the two, good and bad, hence named neither-of-the-two; he glosses "good" as that which must be "favorable-and-beneficial to the two worlds, this and the other," before it is named good — hence the pleasant fruit of the human and heavenly [realms] is beneficial to one world only, its substance an indeterminate fruit, and is not named good (the painful fruit's not being bad may be known by the same reasoning).
6. Rendering of terms · old-translation comparison (Xuanzang ↔ Paramārtha, Zhuanshi lun)
| Sense | Xuanzang, Cheng Weishi Lun | Paramārtha, Zhuanshi lun |
|---|---|---|
| the first six consciousnesses (general name) | 了境能變識 the object-discerning transforming consciousness · 六轉識 the six transforming consciousnesses | 三塵識 the three-object consciousnesses ("the three-object consciousness, that is, the six consciousnesses"〔0061c09〕) |
| the basis of [their] naming | 識以了境為自性、行相 consciousness takes discerning-objects as its self-nature and mode-of-action | 識轉似塵 consciousness turns so as to resemble the object ("the third, the object-consciousness: consciousness turns so as to resemble the object, further becoming six kinds of consciousness turning so as to resemble the object"〔0062a20–a21〕) |
| the three natures | 善 good · 不善 bad · 俱非 neither-of-the-two | 體通三性 in substance running through the three natures ("in substance running through the three natures"〔0062a21–a22〕) |
| object-specific · resolve | 勝解 resolve (adhimokṣa) | 了 discernment ("here, by what is called 'discernment,' is meant just the 'liberation'-factor explained of old"〔0062a25〕) |
| the five consciousnesses arising concurrently | 率爾、等流眼等五識，或多或少，容俱起 the spontaneous and outflowing eye and the other five consciousnesses, in greater or lesser number, may arise concurrently | 一時俱起／前後次第 arising all at once concurrently / arising one after another in sequence ("even up to all five consciousnesses arising concurrently all at once it is likewise; or they arise one after another in sequence"〔0062b14–b15〕) |
Xuanzang names the first six consciousnesses "the object-discerning transformer · the six transforming consciousnesses," setting up the name in dependence on "discerning-objects as their self-nature and mode-of-action"; Paramārtha's Zhuanshi lun gives the six consciousnesses the general name "the three-object consciousnesses," setting up the name in dependence on "consciousness turns so as to resemble the object," and takes "discernment" for the object-specific factor of resolve (which Xuanzang renders "resolve") — the old translation parting [from the new] here on a single point.
7. Key terms
- the object-discerning transformer (了境能變, viṣaya-vijñapti) — the consciousness-substance of the third transformer, the first six consciousnesses, taking the discerning of the realm of objects as its nature-and-mark.
- named after the faculty · named after the object — the two gates of naming: the eye-consciousness through the mind-consciousness (the faculty being superior) / form-consciousness through dharma-consciousness (conforming to the sense of "consciousness").
- discerning objects as nature-and-mark — consciousness takes the discerning of the realm of objects as its self-nature, and again takes that very [discerning] as its mode-of-action (self-nature being the self-witnessing part, mode-of-action being the perceiving part).
- the three natures — good (concurrent with the eleven [factors] of trust and the rest) · bad (concurrent with the ten [factors] of shamelessness and the rest) · neither-of-the-two / indeterminate (concurrent with neither).
- the spontaneous · the outflowing — the mind-states in the arising of the five consciousnesses; the root treatise uses them to prove that the three natures of the five consciousnesses may be concurrent.
- the mind-consciousness concurrent with the five — the discriminating mind-consciousness that turns together with the five consciousnesses, at the same time and on the same object; the root treatise proves that its good nature and the rest need not be the same as the five consciousnesses'.
- the state of attained sovereignty — the Buddha's state; the six consciousnesses are subsumed under the good nature alone, form and mind alike subsumed under the Path-truth, the seeds of conceptual proliferation forever extinguished.
〔Sanskrit forms are a pronunciation aid transmitted by the ancient masters.〕
8. Cross-reading (the Yogācāra sequence: Baifa → Triṃśikā → Viṃśatikā → Madhyāntavibhāga → Mahāyānasaṃgraha)
- Baifa (Hundred Dharmas): mind-dharmas · the first six consciousnesses (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind — the first six of the eight consciousnesses); mental factors · the eleven good (trust and the rest), the afflictions and secondary afflictions (shamelessness and the rest) — these mental factors are just what the judgment of the three natures by concurrence turns on.
- Triṃśikā: verse 8 (the general statement of the first six consciousnesses · discerning-objects as nature-and-mark · the three natures) — the verse-by-verse sister; opening below onto verse 9 (the mental factors of the six positions).
- Viṃśatikā: 〔omitted here〕 — chiefly on consciousness-only-without-object and the refuting of outer grasping; no direct counterpart for the substance-and-marks of the object-discerning consciousness or the three natures.
- Madhyāntavibhāga: the Characteristics chapter · unreal imagining (consciousness as other-dependent, appearing to resemble an object) — of one vein with "discerning objects / consciousness discerns objects."
- Mahāyānasaṃgraha: the Knowable-Characteristic division · the body-consciousness, the experiencer-consciousness, and the rest (the transforming consciousnesses based on the ālaya); the first six consciousnesses are the other-dependent discerning.
Within the treatise: the manas (II) (preceding — the manas's defiling makes the six consciousnesses defiled) · discerning objects (II) and after (continuing this — concurrence with the mental factors of the six positions · the three feelings · supports, conditions, and discrimination).
9. Collation position
Verse T1586 〔0060b18–b19〕 (the root treatise citing the verse T1585 〔0026a13–a14〕) · root T1585 the discerning-objects exposition 〔naming 0026a15–a27 · discerning-objects nature-and-mark 0026b03–b06 · the three natures 0026b10–b19 · concurrent-or-not 0026b19–0026c11〕 · Shuji T1830 〔following faculty and object 0415c20–c21 · named after the faculty 0416a04–a05 · the five senses 0416a07–a08 · discerning-objects substance-and-mark 0418a20–a24 · the three-natures answer 0418b21–b22 · neither-of-the-two 0418b26–b28 · good 0418c01–c08〕 · Zhuanshi lun T1587 〔0061c09 · 0062a20–a25 · 0062b14–b15〕. 〔Scripture〕 Saṃdhinirmocana T676 〔the six consciousness-bodies turn 0692b19–b24 · the mind-consciousness concurrent with the five 0692b24–b28〕 · Laṅkāvatāra T670 〔the five consciousness-bodies turn 0484a18–a21 · the five consciousnesses' good and bad 0512b08–b09〕. 〔Śāstra〕 Yogācārabhūmi T1579 〔the eye-consciousness's self-nature 0279a25–a26 · consciousness discerns objects 0280b09 · the mind-consciousness's superior operations 0280b26–0280c01 · the six consciousnesses' good and bad 0579a29–0579b01 · the several consciousnesses turning concurrently 0579c02–c05〕.