成唯識論 八識俱轉·正解識變·唯識成立
八個識可以同時轉——不是排隊輪班，而是像好幾盞燈一起亮。它們是一還是異？論主的答覆很小心：就世俗說相，八個識確實有別；就真實說，相與所相都不可得，所以無別。這不是含糊，是分層。
然後是全論最吃重的一句：「是諸識轉變，分別、所分別。」識一起來，就自己變出兩頭——能認識的那一頭（見分）、被認識的那一頭（相分）。你以為外面有個東西被你看見，其實是同一個識變出了兩邊，再由這一邊去緣那一邊。
既然能所都是識自己變的，那麼離開識、另外實有的「我」與「法」，就找不到了——「由此彼皆無，故一切唯識」。
「明唯識相」到這裡講完。相講清楚了，接著才問：那個「性」是什麼。
論主釋「識轉變」時，還記了第二種解法：依《攝大乘論》立唯二義——唯遮外境，二顯內識有能取所取。二說並存而不判，這是本論一貫的體例。
此外還有一段問答廣辨很值得留意：有人問，若一切唯識，那我與他人所見為何大致相同？論主答：各人識變各人之相，然由共業所感，相似而現，故似有共同外境。「似有」二字是關鍵——不是真有一個公共世界，是眾多識流因共業而變出相似的相。
The eight consciousnesses can turn at the same time — not taking turns in a queue, but lit together like several lamps. Are they one or many? The treatise answers carefully: spoken of conventionally, by their characteristics, the eight are indeed distinct; spoken of truly, neither characteristic nor the thing characterised can be found, and so there is no distinction. That is not evasion; it is layering.
Then comes the load-bearing line of the whole treatise: "These consciousnesses transform; there is that which discriminates and that which is discriminated." The moment a consciousness arises, it puts out two ends of itself — the end that knows (the seeing part) and the end that is known (the image part). You take it that something outside has been seen by you; in fact one consciousness has produced both sides, and then this side takes that side as its object.
Since both the grasper and the grasped are the consciousness's own transformation, a self and dharmas standing outside consciousness are simply not to be found — "and because of this, those are absent; therefore all is consciousness-only."
With that, "clarifying the character of consciousness-only" is complete. The character having been made clear, the next question can be asked: what is its nature?
In expounding "the transformation of consciousness" the treatise also records a second reading: following the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, "only" excludes the outer object and "two" shows that within consciousness there is a grasper and a grasped. Two readings set side by side and neither adjudicated — the manner of this treatise throughout.
A stretch of question and answer also repays notice. If all is consciousness-only, someone asks, why do you and another see much the same thing? Because each consciousness transforms into its own aspect, comes the answer, yet through deeds held in common the aspects arise alike, so that there seems to be a shared outer world. That word seems carries the weight — not one public world, but many streams of consciousness transforming, through common deeds, into similar aspects.
〔科判〕㊁總料簡八識一、異 〔T31 0038b06〕
〔科判〕1 明俱轉 〔T31 0038b06〕
是故八識一切有情心與末那二，恒俱轉；若起第六，則三俱轉；餘隨緣合，起一至五，則四俱轉，乃至八俱，是謂略說識俱轉義。
〔科判〕2 問、答分別 〔T31 0038b09〕
若一有情多識俱轉，如何說彼是一有情？若立有情依識多少，汝無心位應非有情？又，他分心現在前位，如何可說自分有情？然立有情依命根數或異熟識俱不違理，彼俱恒時唯有一故。
一身唯一等無間緣，如何俱時有多識轉？既許此一引多心所，寧不許此能引多心？又誰定言此緣唯一？說多識俱者，許此緣多故。又欲一時取多境者，多境現前寧不頓取？諸根、境等和合力齊，識前後生不應理故。又心所性雖無差別而類別者，許多俱生，寧不許心異類俱起？又如浪像依一起多，故依一心多識俱轉。又若不許意與五俱，取彼所緣應不明了，如散意識緣久滅故。
如何五俱唯一意識，於色等境取一或多？如眼等識各於自境取一或多，此亦何失？相、見俱有種種相故。
何故諸識同類不俱？於自所緣若可了者，一已能了，餘無用故。若爾，五識已了自境，何用俱起意識了為？五俱意識助五令起，非專為了五識所緣。又於彼所緣能明了取，異於眼等識，故非無用。由此聖教說彼意識名有分別，五識不爾。
〔T31 0038c02〕多識俱轉何不相應？非同境故，設同境者，彼此所依體、數異故，如五根識互不相應。
〔科判〕3 一、異分別 〔T31 0038c04〕
八識自性不可言定一，行相、所依、緣、相應異故；又一滅時餘不滅故，能、所熏等相各異故；亦非定異，經說八識如水波等，無差別故；定異應非因果性故。如幻事等，無定性故。
如前所說，識差別相依理世俗，非真勝義，真勝義中，心言絕故。
如伽他說：
「心、意、識八種，俗故相有別；
真故相無別，相、所相無故。」
〔科判〕(二) 正解識變 〔T31 0038c13〕
〔科判〕㊀結前、問後 〔T31 0038c13〕
已廣分別三能變相為自所變二分所依。云何應知依識所變假說我、法非別實有，由斯一切唯有識耶？
〔科判〕㊁舉頌答 〔T31 0038c15〕
頌曰：
〔頌曰 12 T31 0038c16〕
１７是諸識轉變，分別所分別，
由此彼皆無，故一切唯識。
〔科判〕㊂長行釋 〔T31 0038c18〕
〔科判〕1 正釋頌 〔T31 0038c18〕
論曰：「是諸識」者，謂前所說三能變識及彼心所，皆能變似見、相二分，立「轉變」名。
所變見分說名「分別」，能取相故；所變相分名「所分別」，見所取故。
由此正理，彼實我、法離識所變皆定非有，離能、所取無別物故，非有實物離二相故。
是故一切有為、無為，若實、若假，皆不離識。「唯」言為遮離識實物，非不離識心所法等。
或轉變者，謂諸內識轉似我、法外境相現。
此能轉變即名分別，虛妄分別為自性故，謂即三界心及心所。此所執境名所分別，即所妄執實我、法性。
由此分別變似外境假我、法相，彼所分別實我、法性，決定皆無，前引教理已廣破故。
〔T31 0039a01〕是故一切皆唯有識，虛妄分別有極成故。「唯」既不遮不離識法，故真空等亦是有性。
由斯遠離增、減二邊，唯識義成，契會中道。
〔科判〕2 問、答廣辨 〔T31 0039a04〕
由何教理唯識義成？
豈不已說？
雖說未了，非破他義己義便成；應更礭陳，成此教理。
如契經說：「三界唯心」；又說：「所緣唯識所現」；又說：「諸法皆不離心」；又說：「有情隨心垢、淨」。
又說：「成就四智菩薩能隨悟入唯識無境」。
一、相違識相智：謂於一處，鬼、人、天等隨業差別所見各異，境若實有，此云何成？二、無所緣識智：謂緣過、未、夢境像等非實有境，識現可得，彼境既無，餘亦應爾。三、自應無倒智：謂愚夫智若得實境，彼應自然成無顛倒，不由功用應得解脫。四、隨三智轉智：一、隨自在者智轉智：謂已證得心自在者，隨欲轉變地等皆成，境若實有，如何可變？二、隨觀察者智轉智：謂得勝定修法觀者，隨觀一境，眾相現前，境若是實，寧隨心轉？三、隨無分別智轉智：謂起證實無分別智，一切境相皆不現前，境若是實，何容不現？
菩薩成就此四智者，於唯識理決定悟入。
又伽他說：
心、意、識所緣，皆非離自性，
故我說一切唯有識無餘。
此等聖教誠證非一。
極成眼等識，五隨一故，如餘，不親緣離自色等。餘識識故，如眼識等，亦不親緣離自諸法。此親所緣定非離此，二隨一故，如彼能緣。所緣法故，如相應法，決定不離心及心所。
此等正理，誠證非一，故於唯識，應深信受。
〔T31 0039b01〕我、法非有；空、識非無。離有、離無，故契中道。
慈尊依此說二頌言：
「虛妄分別有，於此二都無，
此中唯有空，於彼亦有此，
故說一切法，非空非不空，
有無及有故，是則契中道。」
此頌且依染依他說，理實亦有淨分依他。
若唯內識似外境起，寧見世間情、非情物，處、時、身、用定、不定轉？
如夢境等，應釋此疑。
何緣世尊說十二處？
依識所變，非別實有。為入我空說六二法，如遮斷見說續有情。為入法空復說唯識，令知外法亦非有故。
此唯識性豈不亦空？
不爾。
如何？
非所執故。
謂依識變，妄執實法，理不可得，說為法空；非無離言正智所證唯識性故，說為法空。
此識若無，便無俗諦；俗諦無故，真諦亦無。真、俗相依而建立故。
撥無二諦是惡取空，諸佛說為不可治者。應知諸法有空、不空，由此慈尊說前二頌。
若諸色處亦識為體，何緣乃似色相顯現，一類堅住相續而轉？
名言熏習勢力起故。
與染、淨法為依處故。謂此若無，應無顛倒，便無雜染，亦無淨法，是故諸識亦似色現。如有頌言：
亂相及亂體，應許為色識，
及與非色識，若無餘亦無。
色等外境分明現證，現量所得，寧撥為無？
現量證時，不執為外，後意分別，妄生外想。故現量境是自相分，識所變故，亦說為有；意識所執外實色等，妄計有故。說彼為無。
〔T31 0039c01〕又色等境，非色、似色，非外、似外，如夢所緣，不可執為是實外色。
若覺時，色皆如夢境不離識者，如從夢覺知彼唯心，何故覺時於自色境不知唯識？
如夢未覺不能自知，要至覺時方能追覺，覺時境色應知亦爾，未真覺位不能自知，至真覺時亦能追覺。未得真覺恒處夢中，故佛說為生死長夜，由斯未了色境唯識。
外色實無，可非內識境；他心實有，寧非自所緣？
誰說他心非自識境？但不說彼是親所緣。
謂識生時無實作用，非如手等親執外物，日等舒光親照外境；但如鏡等似外境現，名「了他心」，非「親能了」。親所了者，謂自所變。
故契經言：無有少法能取餘法，但識生時，似彼相現，名取彼物。
如緣他心，色等亦爾。
既有異境，何名唯識？
奇哉！固執觸處生疑！豈唯識教但說一識？
不爾，如何？
汝應諦聽：若唯一識，寧有十方凡聖、尊卑、因果等別？誰為誰說？何法何求？故「唯識」言有深意趣。「識」言總顯一切有情各有八識、六位心所，所變相、見、分位差別及彼空理所顯真如。識自相故，識相應故，二所變故，三分位故，四實性故，如是諸法皆不離識，總立識名。「唯」言，但遮愚夫所執定離諸識實有色等。
若如是知唯識教意，便能無倒善備資糧速入法空，證無上覺，救拔含識生死輪迴；非全撥無惡取空者，違背教理能成是事，故定應信一切唯識。
〔科判〕(三) 釋諸妨難解唯識義 〔T31 0039c28〕
〔科判〕㊀釋違理 〔T31 0039c28〕
〔科判〕1 釋分別生難 〔T31 0039c28〕
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〕第十七頌
甲、八識俱轉·一異（總料簡八識）
一、明俱轉
前面八個識各自起、不起的道理既然講明白了，這裡就來算它們能幾個一起轉。任何一個有情，「心」（也就是第八阿賴耶）和「末那」（第七）這兩個識總是一直一起轉、不會斷；要是再起個第六意識，那就成三個一起轉；其餘前五識則看條件湊不湊得齊，湊齊一個就多起一個、最多五個都起——這樣一加，就成了四個一起轉、一直加到八個一起轉。這就是『許多識可以一起轉』的大略意思。
二、問、答分別
〔有人問難〕：要是一個有情身上有好幾個識一起轉，那怎麼還說他是『一個』有情（識都好幾個了，人怎麼還算一個）？〔回答〕：你要是主張『有情算一個還是幾個，得看識有幾個』，那麻煩可大了——這麼一來，你在「無心位」（識都不起的時候）豈不就成了不是有情了（識數變零，人也沒了，這不荒唐嗎）？再說，「他分心」（別人的心、或不同類的心）現前的時候，難道就能說那是『自己這個有情』嗎（要是只看識的種類、數目對得上就算同一個，那豈不把你我都混成一個了）？所以可知：算有情幾個，該按「命根」的數目、或按「異熟識」（第八）的數目來算——這兩種算法都不出毛病，因為命根和異熟識任何時候都只有一個（一個身子就一個異熟識，所以是一個有情，不管上頭起幾個識）。
〔有人問難〕：一個身子只有一個「等無間緣」（就是前一念讓開、引出後一念的那個依靠），那怎麼能在同一個時候有好幾個識一起轉呢（好幾個識總不能共用一個開路的緣吧）？〔回答〕：你既然承認這一個等無間緣能引出好幾個心所（心所本來就一串好幾個），那憑什麼不許它也引出好幾個心王（識）呢？再說，誰規定這個緣只能有『一個』？主張多識一起起的人，本來就承認「等無間緣」也可以有好幾個（前一念好幾個識讓開，後一念好幾個識接上）。
再說：要在同一時候取好幾個境的話，好幾個境一齊現前的時候，為什麼不能一下子一起取（非得一個一個前後來）？因為各個根、各個境湊合的力道是齊等的（同時都現成了）；既然條件都同時齊備，你卻硬說識要一個前、一個後地生（不肯一起起），那就講不通。
再說：心所的「性」（都是緣慮、攀緣對象這個性）雖然彼此沒兩樣，可它們的「類」是分別的（像受、想、思那些是不同類的心所）；既然這些不同類的心所都准它們一起生，那為什麼不准心王裡頭不同類的（八個識）也一起起呢？又好比水面的浪、鏡子裡的影，都是依著『一個』（一片水、一面鏡）就起出「許多」來；可見：依著『一個心』（一聚根和境）也照樣能有好幾個識一起轉。
再說：要是不准第六意識跟前五識一起起，那五識所取的對象就該『看不清楚』才對——會像『散位獨頭意識』（沒跟五識搭夥、自己散著起的那個意識）去追想早已滅掉的境那樣，模模糊糊。可是實際上五識取境是清楚的，可見意識確實跟五識一起在幫忙看。
〔有人問難〕：跟五識一起起的，明明只有『一個』意識，它怎麼能對著色、聲等等好幾種境，又取一個、又取好幾個呢（一個意識怎麼應付得了那麼多）？〔回答〕：你看眼等各個識，各對自己的境也都能又取一個、又取好幾個（不是只能取一個），那這個意識又有什麼不行？因為一個識的「相分」和「見分」本來就能現出種種不同的樣子（一個識能變出好幾個所緣的影像、好幾個能緣的作用），所以一個意識應付多境並不奇怪。
〔有人問難〕：那為什麼同一類的識（比方兩個眼識）不一起起呢？〔回答〕：對自己要緣的那個境，只要是了知得了的，一個識就已經把它了知完了，其餘同類的識再來也沒事可做（所以同類的不必一起起）。
〔有人問難〕：照這麼說（一個識已經了知得了，其餘的就沒用），那五識既然已經把自己的境了知完了，又何必再有個意識跟著一起去了知（豈不也成了多餘）？〔回答〕：跟五識一起起的這個意識，作用是『幫五識起得更明利』，並不是專為了去了知五識那個境；況且它對那個境還能更進一步『看得清、分得明』（加以分別、審察），這一點是眼等五識做不到的，所以它並不多餘。正因為它能這樣分別審察，經教才把這個意識叫作「有分別」，五識就不是這樣（五識沒有分別）。
〔有人問難〕：好幾個識既然一起轉，那它們彼此為什麼「不相應」（不算互相搭配的相應法）呢？〔回答〕：因為它們緣的不是同一個境（各緣各的，自然搭不上）；就算退一步說它們緣的是同一個境，可它們各自所靠的根，連根的本身、連根的數目都各不相同（像五個根、五個識，靠的根各是各的）——所以這些識彼此並不相應，就像五個根的識彼此並不相應一樣。
三、一、異分別
先說八個識能不能算是『一個』。答案是：不能咬定說它們是一個。為什麼不能？理由有好幾條，一條一條看。第一，它們運作的樣子（行相）、所靠的根（所依）、所緣的境，還有跟它們相應的那些心所，全都各不相同——既然樣樣都不一樣，怎麼能算是同一個？第二，一個識滅掉的時候，其餘的識並不跟著一起滅（你滅你的、我起我的，各走各的）——既然不同生同滅，也不能算是一個。第三，能熏的、被熏的這些角色也分得清清楚楚（第八識是被熏的那一個，其餘七個是去熏它的）——角色都不同，當然不是一個。
可是反過來說，也不能咬定它們就是『各別不同的好幾個』。為什麼也不能？因為經裡說八個識『就像水和波』那樣——水和波說到底是一回事，並沒有真的差別。再說，要是咬定它們各別不同、彼此毫不相干，那「因果」就講不通了：因和果本該是同一類、接連著的（前一念當後一念的因），你把它們咬死成各別不相干的東西，這條因果的線就接不上了。所以該曉得：八個識就像變魔術變出來的東西一樣，看著好像各是各的，其實並沒有『各別不同』的那種實實在在的自性（既不能說死是一個、也不能說死是好幾個）。
像前面說過的，『八個識有差別』這話，是按『道理世俗諦』（世俗這一層上的道理）來講的，並不是按「真勝義諦」（最究竟的真實這一層）。在真勝義裡頭，「心」也罷、「言說」也罷，全都用不上了（既離開了用心去攀緣的相，也離開了用話去表達的相）。就像偈頌所說的：『心、意、識這八種，按世俗來說相是有差別的；按真諦來說相就沒有差別了——因為連那能描述的相、被描述的相，都根本不可得。』
乙、正解識變（識轉變·唯識成立）
一、結前問後
前面已經把「三能變」（第八的異熟能變、第七的思量能變、前六的了境能變）的相狀詳細講過了，這三能變正是它們各自所變現出來的「見分、相分」這兩分的依靠。那麼接著要問：我們憑什麼曉得『所謂的『我』、『法』只是順著識所變出來的、隨便安個名罷了，並不是離開識另外真有那麼個實體』，因此就說『一切都只是識』呢？（底下就舉頌來回答這個問題。）
二、舉頌答
頌說：『這『各個識』的『轉變』，就是『能分別的』（也就是能緣的見分）和『被分別的』（也就是所緣的相分）這兩面；正因為離了識並沒有真的我、真的法，所以那些被執著的『實我、實法』全都是沒有的；於是可知一切都只是識。』
三、長行釋（正釋頌）
論裡解釋說：頌中『這各個識』，指的就是前面講的「三能變識」和跟它們相應的心所，這些都能變現出像「見分、相分」那樣的兩分，所以才給它立名叫「轉變」。其中變出來的見分叫作「分別」（能分別的那一面）——因為它能去取相（去攀緣對象）；變出來的相分叫作「所分別」（被分別的那一面）——因為它是被見分所取的。
照這個正理推下去：那些被執著的「實我、實法」，離開了識所變的見分、相分這兩面，就決定都是沒有的——因為離開『能取的（見分）』和『所取的（相分）』之外，再找不出別的東西了；也不會有什麼實在的東西能離開這見、相兩面而獨自存在。所以一切有為法、無為法，不管你說它是實的、是假的，全都離不開識。頌裡那個「唯」字，是要擋掉『離開識而實有的東西』，並不是要擋掉『不離識的那些心所法』等等（心所那些還是有的，沒被擋掉）。
「轉變」還有另一種解法：是說各個內識轉起來，現出像「我、法」那樣的外境的相。這『能轉變的』就叫「分別」——因為它本身就是「虛妄分別」（虛妄地去分別），這指的就是三界裡的心和心所。它所執著的那個境就叫「所分別」，也就是被妄執成的「實我、實法」的那個性。就由這分別變現出像外境那樣的「假我、假法」的相；而它所分別出來的那個「實我、實法」性，決定是沒有的——前面引的教、理已經把它廣廣地破過了。所以一切都只是識；因為『虛妄分別是有的』這一條，雙方本來都認可（沒人否認自己在亂分別），這一點已經站穩了。
頌裡那個「唯」字既然不擋「不離識」的那些法，那麼『真空（也就是真如）』這些也都是「有」的（不是斷滅的無）。這麼一來：被執成實的我、法那種外境，決定是沒有的；而真如等不離識的法，決定是有的——一邊不多認、一邊不少認，就避開了「增益」（無中生有、硬說它實有）和「損減」（有中說無、一筆抹掉）這兩個偏邊，唯識的道理才站得住，正好合上中道。
四、問、答廣辨（成立唯識教理）
〔有人問難〕：到底憑哪些「教」（經教）和「理」（道理），唯識的道理才算成立？〔回答〕：前面不是已經說過了嗎？〔再追問〕：雖然說過，可還沒說得很透；況且『把別人的主張破掉』並不就等於『自己的主張就站住了』（破了別人，自己也未必對）；所以應該再說得確切些，好把這唯識的教、理立穩。
先舉「教」這一邊的證據（也就是引經來證）。像契經就說『三界只是心』；又說『所緣的境只是識變現出來的』；又說『一切法都離不開心』；又說『有情是跟著心的染、淨（而跟著染、跟著淨的）』。
經又說『修成四種智的菩薩，能順著悟入『只有識、沒有實境』這個道理』。接著一個個解這四種智：第一、相違識相智（從『同一處所卻見到相違的相』看出識變）——是說：在同一個地方，餓鬼、人、天等等，會隨著各自業力的不同而看見不一樣的東西（比方同一攤水，餓鬼看成膿血河、人看成清水、天人看成琉璃地）。要是這境真是實實在在擺在那兒的，那『同一個境、卻看出好幾樣』這種事怎麼說得通呢（可見境是隨著各人的識變出來的）？
第二、無所緣識智（從『沒有實境、識照樣起』看出識變）——是說：人去緣過去的、未來的、夢裡的那些影像時，這些境根本不是實有的，可識照樣起得來、緣得到。既然那些（過去、未來、夢裡的）境並非實有、識卻照起，那其餘那些（現在看起來像實有的）境也該是這樣（境其實沒有，是識自己現出來的）。
第三、自應無倒智（從『若境是實，愚人就該自然不顛倒』反推出境非實）——是說：假如愚人那點認識所得到的真是「實境」（如實的境），那他光憑見著實境，就該自自然然變成「不顛倒」、用不著費什麼功夫就該得解脫了。可實際上愚人偏偏是顛倒的、也沒解脫，可見他所緣的並不是什麼實境（要真是實境，他早該醒了）。
第四、隨三智轉智（境會隨著三種智而變，可見它不是實境）——這一條底下又分三小條：（一）隨自在者智轉智——是說：已經證得「心自在」的人（像八地以上的菩薩），他想把地變成水、把水變成別的，要怎麼變就能怎麼變。要是境真是實有的、定死在那兒的，怎麼會隨人的心意說變就變？（二）隨觀察者智轉智——是說：得了好定、又在修觀的人，他盯著同一個境去觀，種種相就一齊現出來（比方修不淨觀，到處都看成一堆白骨）。要是境是實的，哪能隨著他的心這麼變？（三）隨無分別智轉智——是說：當人起『證真的無分別智』（直證真如、不起分別的那種智）的時候，一切境相全都不現了。要是境是實的，怎麼容得它說不現就不現（可見並沒有什麼實境）？
菩薩修成了這四種智，對唯識的道理就一定悟得進去。又有偈頌說：『心、意、識所緣的那些境，沒有一個是離開『識自己』而另外有的，所以我說一切都只是識、再沒有別的（沒有離識的境）。』這一類經教的確切證據不只一處。
前面引完了經，接著舉「理」這一邊的證據（也就是用因明的推論，按『主張—理由—例子』的套路來證）。先就五識立一條：拿『雙方都認可的眼等五識』當主張，理由是『它們都是五識當中的一個』，例子就拿『其餘那幾個（大家已經承認不直接緣外境的）識』來比——這樣可推知：五識也都不會直接去緣離開識的色等境。再就六、七、八識立一條：拿『其餘那幾個識（第六、七、八）』當主張，理由是『它們同樣是識』，例子拿「眼識等」來比——這樣可推知：它們也都不會直接去緣離開識的種種法。再立一條：這些識所『直接緣到的那個對象』，決定離不開這個識本身——理由是『它無非是『能緣的』和『所緣的』兩者之一』，例子一邊拿『能緣的（見分不離識）』、一邊拿『相應的心所（它所緣的法也不離心）』來比——這樣可推知：所緣決定離不開心和心所。這一類正理的確切證據也不只一處，所以對唯識這道理該深深地信受。
這裡把兩邊一齊收住：被執成實的「我、法」，是沒有的；可那依他而起的『空（真如）、識』，又不是沒有。一邊不落「有」、一邊不落「無」，所以正合中道。慈尊（彌勒菩薩）就照這個意思說了兩首偈：『『虛妄分別』是有的；在這分別裡頭，『能取、所取』這兩樣都是沒有的；這分別裡頭只有『空性（真如）』在；而那空性裡頭也還有這個（虛妄分別）在；所以說一切法『不是空、也不是不空』——因為有（虛妄分別）、又無（能取所取）、又有（空裡頭有分別、分別裡頭有空），這就正合中道。』這首偈姑且是就「染分依他」（雜染那一面的依他起）來講的；就道理來說，其實還有「淨分依他」（清淨那一面的依他起也一併攝在裡頭）。
〔有人問難〕：要是一切只是內識變得像外境而起，那怎麼會看見世間有情、無情那些東西——有的在『處所、時間』上是「定」的（限在某處、某時，比方某物只在某地某時見得到），有的在『身相、作用』上又是「不定」的（不限定，比方有的物到處都見得到、人人都用得上）？這些定、不定的相，不正像外面真有東西嗎？〔回答〕：你看夢境也一樣有處、時、身、用的定和不定（夢裡也會夢見限定的地方、限定的時候，也會夢見不限定的東西），應該拿這個來解開這疑問——夢裡明明沒有外境，卻照樣現出定、不定的相來，可見有定不定並不證明外境是實有的。
〔有人問難〕：既然只是識，那世尊為什麼又講「十二處」（六根加六境，聽起來好像真有外境）？〔回答〕：這十二處是順著識所變的東西來講的，並不是離開識另有什麼實體。佛為了讓人悟入「我空」（看破沒有實我），才說「六根、六境」這兩組六的法——把人拆成這些法，好顯出所謂的「我」不過是一堆法湊在一起、並沒有個實我；這就好比為了破「斷見」（怕人以為人死燈滅、一了百了），才方便說有個『相續的有情』（暫且立個有情，把人從斷見裡拉出來）。再進一步，佛為了讓人悟入「法空」（連這些法也看破），又說『只是識』，好讓人曉得連那些外法也不是實有的。
〔有人問難〕：那這個「唯識性」（識的真實本性）豈不也是空，也該一筆抹掉？〔回答〕：不是這樣。〔再追問〕：為什麼不是？〔回答〕：因為它『不是被妄執出來的東西』。意思是說：順著識所變、再被人『胡亂執著』成的那個實法，按道理根本找不到，所以才說「法空」（空掉這個被執的法）；可並不是說『那離開言說、要靠正智才證得到的唯識性』也是沒有的——所以這個「法空」空的是被執的法，並不是空掉唯識性本身。
這個識要是沒有了，那「俗諦」（世俗這一層的真實）就沒了；俗諦既然沒了，「真諦」（究竟這一層的真實）也跟著沒了——因為真、俗這兩諦本是互相依靠著才立得起來的（拆了一根，兩根都倒）。把兩諦都一筆抹掉，那就是「惡取空」（把空理會錯、執成什麼都沒有的那種壞空見），諸佛說這種人是『沒法救治』的。所以該曉得：一切法既有「空」的一面（被執的能取、所取那兩樣是空的），也有「不空」的一面（依他起、圓成實這兩樣不是空的）；正因為這樣，慈尊才說了前面那兩首偈。
〔有人問難〕：要是各種「色處」也是拿識當體，那它為什麼偏偏現得像「色相」（有形有質的樣子）、而且一類一類地穩穩當當、接連不斷地轉（看著像真有實在的東西）？〔回答〕：那是「名言熏習」（無始以來言語概念熏下來）的勢力所起的；再說這色相還給「染、淨」兩面的法當著落腳處——意思是這色相要是沒有了，那就沒有顛倒了，也就沒有雜染了，連淨法也沒了（染也好、淨也好，都得托著色相才轉得起來）；所以各個識也就變得像有色一樣地現出來。就像有偈頌說的：『那『亂相』（變得像色的相分）和『亂體』（能起這亂的見分），該把它們認作『像色的識』和『不像色的識（其餘的識）』；這（亂相、亂體）要是沒有了，其餘那些（染、淨）也跟著沒了。』
〔有人問難〕：色等外境明明可以當下親眼證到、是「現量」（不靠推度、當場直接領受）所得的，怎麼可以一口說它沒有？〔回答〕：你當下現量親證它的那一刻，其實並沒有把它執成『外面的』；是後一念意識起了分別，這才胡亂生出『外面』這個念頭。所以該曉得：現量所緣的那個境，本是『識自己的相分』、是識變出來的，所以也說它「有」；至於意識所執著的那種『在外面、是實在的』色等，那是胡亂計度才有的，所以說它（外面的實色）是沒有的。
再說：色等境其實是『本不是色、卻像色，本不在外、卻像在外』，就跟夢裡所緣的一樣（看著像色、像在外，其實都不是），不能把它執成實實在在的外面的色。
〔有人問難〕：要是醒著時看見的色也跟夢境一樣離不開識，那好比我們從夢裡醒過來才曉得夢『只是心變的』；可為什麼醒著時對自己看見的色境，卻不曉得它『只是識』（醒著的時候自己並不知道）？〔回答〕：就像在夢還沒醒時，人不能自己曉得（這只是心變的），非得到醒了才能回過頭來覺察；醒著時的境色也是這個道理——還沒得到「真覺」（證到真如的那種徹底醒覺）的階段，人就不能自己曉得這只是識，要到「真覺」的時候才能回過頭來覺察。沒得真覺的人，老是待在（無明的）夢裡頭，所以佛把這叫作「生死長夜」（在生死裡頭一場長長的黑夜大夢）；正因為這樣，人才一直沒能徹底明白色境只是識。
〔有人問難〕：外面的色既然不是實有的，那固然可以說它不是內識所緣的境；可是『別人的心』是實有的吧，那它豈不就成了自己這個識所緣的境了（這不就是識緣到了識以外的實境嗎）？〔回答〕：誰說別人的心「不是」自己識緣的境？只是不說別人的心是自己識『親自直接緣到的對象』罷了。意思是：自己這個識起來的時候，並沒有一種實在的作用能伸過去親自抓住別人的心——它不像手親自抓住外物、也不像太陽伸出光去親自照著外境；它只是像鏡子那樣，自己變現出像外境的影子來，所以才叫『了別他心』、卻不是『親自直接了別他心』。真正親自了別到的，只是自己（識）變出來的（那個相分）。
所以契經說：『沒有哪一丁點的法，真能伸過去抓住另一個法。』只是在識起來的時候，它變現出像那個（所緣）的相來，這就叫作『取到那個東西』（其實是現出個影子，不是真伸手去抓）。緣別人的心是這樣，緣色等也一樣是這樣（都是現出個像它的影子，並不是真去抓外面的東西）。
〔有人問難〕：既然有「異境」（別人的心等等，那是不同於自己的境），那為什麼還叫「唯識」（只有識）？〔回答〕：怪哉！你這麼死執著，真是處處都生疑！難道「唯識」這套教，是說『只有唯一一個識』（而沒有自、他這麼多個識）嗎？〔再追問〕：不是這樣，那又是怎樣？〔回答〕：你仔細聽：要是真就只有一個識，那哪會有十方的凡夫、聖人，尊、卑，因、果這些差別？又是誰給誰說法？有什麼法可說、有什麼法可求（全成一個了，這些就都談不上了）？所以可知「唯識」這句話自有它深的用意（並不是說只有唯一一個識）。
「識」這一個字，總起來把好幾樣都顯了出來：一切有情各自有的八個識、六大類心所，加上它們所變的相分、見分，加上種種狀態的差別，再加上那由空理所顯出的真如。為什麼這些都能歸到「識」這一字底下？道理有五條：第一樣是『識的本身』（八個識心王）；第二樣是『跟識相應的』（心所）；第三樣是『前兩樣（心王、心所）所變的』（相分、見分這兩分）；第四樣是『前三樣的種種狀態』（不相應行法，那是依著前面這些假立的狀態）；第五樣是『前四樣的真實本性』（真如）——這五樣樣樣都離不開識，所以總起來立個「識」的名。至於「唯」這一個字，只是要擋掉愚人所執的那種『一定離開諸識而實有』的色等，並不是要擋掉那些不離識的法。
人要是能這樣明白唯識教的本意，就能不顛倒地好好備齊資糧、很快契入「法空」，證得無上的覺悟，把含識（有情）從生死輪迴裡救拔出來；這絕不是那種『把什麼都一筆抹掉』的惡取空的人所能辦到的——他既違背了教、又違背了理，所以辦不成這件事。所以一定要信『一切都只是識』。
A. The eight consciousnesses turning together · same-or-different (the general sorting-out of the eight consciousnesses)
1. Showing the turning-together
The principle of how each of the eight consciousnesses arises or does not having now been made clear, here it comes to reckoning how many of them can turn at once. In any sentient being, the "[store-]mind" (that is, the eighth, the ālaya) and the "manas" (the seventh), these two consciousnesses, are always turning together at once and do not break off; if there arises also a sixth, the mental consciousness, then there are three turning together at once; the remaining first five consciousnesses turn or not according to whether their conditions are assembled — for each one assembled, one more arises, up to all five arising — so that, adding them up, there are four turning together at once, on up to eight turning together at once. This is the gist, in brief, of the sense in which "several consciousnesses can turn together at once."
2. Sorting it out by challenge and answer
〔Q〕: If in one sentient being several consciousnesses turn together at once, then how can he still be called "one" sentient being (the consciousnesses being several now, how is the person still counted as one)? 〔A〕: If you hold that "whether a sentient being is counted one or several goes by how many consciousnesses there are," then a great trouble arises — for on this account, in the "mindless state" (when no consciousness arises) would you not become "no sentient being at all" (the consciousness-count dropping to zero, the person gone too — is this not absurd)? Furthermore, when "another's portion of mind" (another person's mind, or a mind of a different kind) is present, could you then say that this is "one's own [single] sentient being" (if all that mattered were that the kind and number of consciousnesses matched up, would that not blend you and me into one)? So one can know: how many sentient beings there are should be counted by the number of "life-faculties," or by the number of "maturation consciousnesses" (the eighth) — both of these counts run into no trouble, for the life-faculty and the maturation consciousness are, at any moment, but one (one body has but one maturation consciousness, and so it is one sentient being, no matter how many consciousnesses arise atop it).
〔Q〕: One body has only one "immediately-antecedent-and-contiguous condition" (the support whereby the preceding thought-moment gives way and draws forth the succeeding one); then how can there be several consciousnesses turning together at one and the same time (surely several consciousnesses cannot share one path-opening condition)? 〔A〕: Since you already concede that this one immediately-antecedent-and-contiguous condition can draw forth several mental factors (the mental factors being, of course, a string of several), on what ground do you refuse to let it draw forth several mind-kings (consciousnesses) too? Furthermore, who laid it down that this condition can be only "one"? Those who hold that several consciousnesses arise together concede from the outset that the "immediately-antecedent-and-contiguous condition" too can be several (in the preceding moment several consciousnesses give way, and in the succeeding moment several consciousnesses take up).
Furthermore: if one would grasp several objects at one and the same time, then when several objects are present together, why can they not be grasped all at once (why must it be one after another)? Because the conjoining-force of the several faculties and the several objects is even and equal (all are ready at the same time); and since the conditions are all ready at once, while you would insist that the consciousnesses must arise one before and one after (refusing to let them arise together), that does not hold.
Furthermore: though the "nature" of the mental factors is no different one from another (all of them having this nature of attending-to and reaching-out-to an object), their "kinds" are distinct (the likes of feeling, conception, and volition are mental factors of different kinds); and since these mental factors of different kinds are all allowed to arise together, then why not allow the mind-kings of different kinds (the eight consciousnesses) to arise together too? Again, just as the waves on the water and the images in a mirror, all of them arise as "many" in dependence on "one" (one sheet of water, one face of mirror) — so it can be seen: in dependence on "one mind" (one cluster of faculty and object), there can likewise be several consciousnesses turning together at once.
Furthermore: if one does not allow the sixth, the mental consciousness, to arise together with the first five consciousnesses, then the objects the five consciousnesses grasp ought to be "unclear" — they would be like "the diffuse, solitary-acting mental consciousness" (the mental consciousness that does not pair up with the five consciousnesses but arises diffusely on its own) recalling an object long since vanished, all hazy and blurred. But in fact the five consciousnesses grasp their objects clearly; which shows that the mental consciousness is indeed arising together with the five and helping them see.
〔Q〕: The one arising together with the five consciousnesses is plainly only "one" mental consciousness; how can it, facing several objects like form, sound, and the rest, grasp now one, now several (how can a single mental consciousness handle so many)? 〔A〕: Look how each of the eye and the other consciousnesses, each facing its own object, can likewise grasp now one, now several (not bound to grasp only one); then what is amiss with this mental consciousness [doing the same]? Because the "image-part" and "seeing-part" of a single consciousness can of themselves manifest all manner of different shapes (a single consciousness can transform out several object-supporting images and several apprehending functions) — so it is no marvel that one mental consciousness handles many objects.
〔Q〕: Then why do consciousnesses of the same kind (say, two eye-consciousnesses) not arise together? 〔A〕: As to its own object to be apprehended, so long as it can be apprehended, one consciousness already apprehends it fully, and the rest of the same kind, coming on too, have nothing left to do (and so those of the same kind need not arise together).
〔Q〕: On this account (one consciousness having apprehended fully, the rest are useless), then since the five consciousnesses have already apprehended their objects fully, what need is there of a mental consciousness arising together to apprehend them as well (would this not also be redundant)? 〔A〕: The mental consciousness that arises together with the five consciousnesses has the function of "helping the five to arise the more keenly and clearly," and is not there merely to apprehend the five's object; what is more, with respect to that object it can go a step further and "see it clearly, tell it apart distinctly" (adding discrimination and examination), which the eye and the other five consciousnesses cannot do — so it is not redundant at all. It is just because it can thus discriminate and examine that the holy teaching calls this mental consciousness "having discrimination," and the five consciousnesses are not so (the five consciousnesses have no discrimination).
〔Q〕: Since several consciousnesses turn together, then why are they "not concomitant" with one another (not counted as mutually-fitting concomitant dharmas)? 〔A〕: Because the object each refers to is not the same one (each refers to its own, so naturally they do not match up); and even granting, a step back, that they refer to the same object, still the faculties each rests on differ — the very substance of the faculty and the very number of faculties being each its own (as with the five faculties, five consciousnesses, each resting on its own faculty) — and so these consciousnesses are not concomitant with one another, just as the consciousnesses of the five faculties are not concomitant with one another.
3. Sorting out one-or-different
First, whether the eight consciousnesses can be counted as "one." The answer: one cannot fix them as one. Why not? The grounds are several; take them one by one. First, their way of working (their mode of activity), the faculty each rests on (its support), the object each refers to, and the mental factors concomitant with each — all of these are each different; and since every item differs, how could they be counted one and the same? Second, when one consciousness ceases, the rest do not cease along with it (you cease while I arise, each going its own way) — and since they do not arise and cease together, neither can they be counted one. Third, the role of "the perfuming" and "the perfumed" is told cleanly apart (the eighth consciousness is the one perfumed, the remaining seven are the ones that go and perfume it) — and the roles being different, they are surely not one.
But to put it the other way round, one cannot fix them as "several, each distinct from the rest" either. Why not this either? Because the sūtra says the eight consciousnesses are "like water and waves" — water and waves, in the end, are one matter, with no real difference at all. And again: were one to fix them as distinct, each unrelated to the rest, then "cause and effect" could not be made out; for cause and effect ought to be of one kind and continuous (the preceding moment being the cause of the succeeding) — and if you fix them dead as unrelated separate things, this thread of cause and effect cannot be joined up. So one should know: the eight consciousnesses are like things conjured by magic — they look as though each were its own, yet there is no such solid, real "distinct-from-the-rest" own-nature about them (they can be fixed neither dead as one nor dead as several).
As was said before, the saying that "the eight consciousnesses have differences" is put with reference to the "conventional truth of principle" (the principle on the conventional level), and not with reference to the "ultimate truth, the truly-supreme meaning" (that final, real level). In the truly-supreme meaning, both "mind" and "speech" alike are of no use (it being apart both from the mark of mind reaching out to an object and from the mark of words expressing). As the verse (gāthā) says: "Mind, manas, and consciousness, these eight kinds — by the conventional, their marks have difference; by the truth, their marks have no difference — for the describing-mark and the described-mark are alike not to be found."
B. Correctly resolving consciousness-transformation (consciousness-transformation · the establishing of consciousness-only)
1. Closing the foregoing and posing what follows
The marks of the "three transformers" (the eighth's maturation-transformer, the seventh's cogitation-transformer, the first six's object-discerning-transformer) having now been treated in detail, these three transformers being just the support of the "seeing-part and image-part," the two parts each transforms into. Then it comes to the question: by what do we know that "the so-called 'self' and 'dharmas' are only conventionally posited in keeping with what consciousness transforms, and not some substance really existing apart from consciousness," and that therefore "all is consciousness alone"? (Below the verse is brought forward to answer this question.)
2. Bringing forward the verse to answer
The verse says: "The 'transformation' of these 'several consciousnesses' is just 'the discriminating' (that is, the apprehending seeing-part) and 'the discriminated' (that is, the apprehended image-part), these two sides; and just because, apart from consciousness, there is no real self and no real dharmas, those grasped-at 'real self, real dharmas' are all of them non-existent; whence it can be known that all is consciousness alone."
3. The prose exposition (correctly explaining the verse)
The treatise explains and says: the verse's "these several consciousnesses" means just the "three transforming consciousnesses" spoken of before and the mental factors concomitant with them; these all can transform into the semblance of the two parts, "seeing-part and image-part," and so are given the name "transformation." Of these, the seeing-part transformed-into is called "discrimination" (the discriminating side) — because it can grasp the mark (reach out to the object); the image-part transformed-into is named "the discriminated" (the discriminated side) — because it is what is grasped by the seeing-part.
Push on by this right principle: those grasped-at "real self, real dharmas," once apart from the seeing-part and image-part that consciousness transforms into, are decidedly all non-existent — for apart from "the grasping (seeing-part)" and "the grasped (image-part)" no further thing can be found; nor will there be any real thing that could stand on its own apart from these two parts, seeing and image. Therefore all conditioned dharmas and unconditioned dharmas, whether you call them real or call them conventional, are none of them apart from consciousness. That word "only" in the verse is to fend off "a thing really existing apart from consciousness"; it is not to fend off "the mental-factor dharmas that are not apart from consciousness" and the like (those mental factors and the rest still are; they are not fended off).
"Transformation" has yet another way of being explained: it means that the several inner consciousnesses turn so as to manifest the marks of "outer objects" that look like "self and dharmas." This "transforming side" is just what is called "discrimination" — because it is in itself "unreal imagining" (it imagines unreally), and this points to just the mind and mental factors within the three realms. The object it grasps at is just what is called "the discriminated," that is, the "real self, real dharmas" nature that gets wrongly grasped. It is by this discrimination that the marks of "conventional self, conventional dharmas" that look like outer objects are manifested; while that "real self, real dharmas" nature it discriminates out is decidedly non-existent — for the teaching and the principle cited before have already broken it down at length. Therefore all is consciousness alone; because the proposition "unreal imagining is there" is one that both sides allow all along (no one denies that he is imagining wildly), and this point already stands firm.
Since that word "only" in the verse does not fend off "the dharmas not apart from consciousness," then "true emptiness (that is, suchness)" and the like are all of them "existent" too (not nothing in the way of annihilation). With this: the self and dharmas grasped to be real, those outer objects, are decidedly non-existent; while suchness and the other dharmas not apart from consciousness are decidedly existent — one side not over-affirmed, one side not under-affirmed, and so one steers clear of the two leaning extremes, "addition" (conjuring something out of nothing, asserting it really existent) and "subtraction" (calling existent things non-existent, wiping them away at a stroke), and the principle of consciousness-only stands firm, fitting squarely onto the middle way.
4. The broad sorting-out by challenge and answer (establishing consciousness-only by teaching and principle)
〔Q〕: By just which "teaching" (the scriptural teaching) and "principle" (the reasoning) does the sense of consciousness-only count as established? 〔A〕: Was it not already said above? 〔Further pressed〕: It was said, but not yet thoroughly; what is more, "breaking down another's thesis" does not amount to "one's own thesis standing firm" (break down another and you are not yet right yourself); so one should state it more exactly, the better to set firm this teaching and principle of consciousness-only.
First bring forward the evidence on the side of "teaching" (that is, cite scripture for proof). Thus the sūtras say "the three realms are mind alone"; and say "the object referred to is only what consciousness manifests"; and say "all dharmas are not apart from mind"; and say "sentient beings follow the mind in defilement and purity (defiled as the mind is defiled, pure as the mind is pure)."
The sūtra further says "the bodhisattva who perfects the four wisdoms can accordingly awaken into the truth of 'there is only consciousness, no [real] object.'" Then it explains these four wisdoms one by one: First, the wisdom of mutually-contradicting consciousness-marks (seeing consciousness-transformation from "in one place, contradicting marks are seen") — this says: in one and the same place, hungry ghosts, humans, gods, and the rest, each according to the difference in their karma, see different things (for instance, looking at one and the same pool of water, the hungry ghost sees a river of pus and blood, the human sees clear water, the god sees a ground of lapis lazuli). If this object were really and solidly set there, then how could the case of "one and the same object, yet several things seen" be made out (which shows the object is transformed by each one's own consciousness)?
Second, the wisdom of objectless consciousness (seeing consciousness-transformation from "no real object, yet consciousness arises all the same") — this says: when a person refers to the images of the past, the future, or a dream, these objects are not at all really existent, yet consciousness arises and reaches them all the same. Since those (past, future, dream) objects are not really existent and yet consciousness arises just the same, then the rest of the objects (those that now look as if really existent) ought to be just so too (the object is in fact not there; it is consciousness itself that manifests it).
Third, the wisdom of "[the fool] ought of himself to be undeluded" (deducing in reverse, from "if the object were real, the fool would of himself be undeluded," that the object is not real) — this says: suppose the little cognition the fool has really got hold of a "real object" (an object as it truly is), then merely by setting eyes on a real object he ought to become "undeluded" of himself, and ought to win liberation without putting in any effort at all. But in fact the fool is, on the contrary, deluded, and has not won liberation; which shows that what he refers to is no real object at all (were it truly a real object, he would long since have woken up).
Fourth, the wisdom [showing] that [the object] turns along with three [kinds of] wisdom (the object turns along with three kinds of wisdom, which shows it is no real object) — this one further divides into three sub-points: (1) the wisdom [showing the object] turning along with the master-of-self's wisdom — this says: one who has realized "mastery of mind" (such as a bodhisattva of the eighth ground and above) can turn earth into water, or water into something else, just as he wishes. If the object were really existent and fixed dead in its place, how could it turn at the bidding of one's mind, changing at a word? (2) the wisdom [showing the object] turning along with the observer's wisdom — this says: one who has got fine concentration and is moreover cultivating contemplation, fixing his gaze on one and the same object to contemplate it, finds all manner of marks appearing together before him (for instance, cultivating the contemplation of foulness, he sees a heap of white bones everywhere). If the object were real, how could it turn so at the bidding of his mind? (3) the wisdom [showing the object] turning along with the non-discriminating wisdom — this says: when a person rouses "the truth-realizing, non-discriminating wisdom" (that wisdom which directly realizes suchness and raises no discrimination), all object-marks fail to appear at all. If the object were real, how could it be permitted to go unmanifest at a word (which shows there is no real object at all)?
When a bodhisattva has perfected these four wisdoms, he is bound to awaken into the principle of consciousness-only. Again a verse (gāthā) says: "The objects that mind, manas, and consciousness refer to — not one of them is apart from 'consciousness's own self' and existing besides; therefore I declare that all is consciousness alone, with nothing else (there is no object apart from consciousness)." Sure proofs of this sort from the holy teaching are more than one.
The citing of scripture done, next is brought forward the evidence on the side of "principle" (that is, to prove it by inference of logic, set out in the pattern of "thesis — reason — example"). First, an inference set up for the five consciousnesses: take "the eye and the other five consciousnesses both sides concede" as the thesis, the reason being "they are each one among the five consciousnesses," the example being "the rest of those (consciousnesses already conceded not to refer directly to an outer object)" — by this it can be inferred: the five consciousnesses too do not directly refer to form and the rest apart from consciousness. Next, an inference for the sixth, seventh, and eighth consciousnesses: take "the rest of those consciousnesses (the sixth, seventh, eighth)" as the thesis, the reason being "they are equally consciousnesses," the example being "the eye-consciousness and the rest" — by this it can be inferred: they too do not directly refer to the manifold dharmas apart from consciousness. Set up a further inference: "the object these consciousnesses directly refer to" is decidedly not apart from this consciousness itself — the reason being "it is nothing but one of the two, 'the referring' and 'the referred-to,'" the example being, on one side, "the referring (the seeing-part not apart from consciousness)" and, on the other, "the concomitant mental factors (the dharmas they refer to also not apart from mind)" — by this it can be inferred: the referred-to is decidedly not apart from mind and the mental factors. Sure proofs of this sort of right principle, too, are more than one; and so one should deeply trust and accept this principle of consciousness-only.
Here both sides are gathered up at once: the "self and dharmas" grasped to be real are non-existent; yet the "emptiness (suchness) and consciousness" that arise in dependence-on-others are, in turn, not non-existent. One side does not fall into "being," one side does not fall into "non-being," and so it fits squarely onto the middle way. The venerable Maitreya (the bodhisattva Maitreya), in keeping with this sense, spoke two verses: "'Unreal imagining' is there; within this imagining, the two — 'grasper, grasped' — are both not there; within this imagining there is only 'emptiness (suchness)'; and within that emptiness, in turn, there is this (the unreal imagining); therefore it is said that all dharmas are 'neither empty nor not-empty' — because there is (the unreal imagining), and there is not (grasper and grasped), and there is (within the emptiness there is imagining, within the imagining there is emptiness), this fits squarely onto the middle way." This verse is put, for the moment, with reference to "the defiled portion of the other-dependent" (the defiled side of the other-dependent nature); but as a matter of principle there is in truth also "the pure portion of the other-dependent" (the pure side of the other-dependent being subsumed in along with it).
〔Q〕: If all is only the inner consciousness arising so as to look like an outer object, then how is it that one sees the world's sentient and insentient things — some, in "place and time," "fixed" (confined to a certain place, a certain time, as a thing seen only at a given spot at a given moment), and some, in "body-mark and function," in turn "unfixed" (unconfined, as a thing seen everywhere, usable by all)? Do not these fixed-and-unfixed marks show that there truly are things out there? 〔A〕: Look how a dream-realm likewise has the fixed and unfixed of place, time, body, and function (in a dream too one dreams of a confined place, a confined moment, and also of unconfined things); one should take this to clear up the doubt — in a dream there is plainly no outer object, and yet it manifests the fixed-and-unfixed marks all the same; which shows that having the fixed-and-unfixed does not prove the outer object really existent.
〔Q〕: Since all is only consciousness, then why did the World-Honored One go on to speak of the "twelve bases" (the six faculties plus the six objects, which sounds as though there really were outer objects)? 〔A〕: These twelve bases are spoken in keeping with what consciousness transforms; it is not that there is some substance besides, apart from consciousness. The Buddha, in order to let people awaken into "the emptiness of self" (seeing through that there is no real self), spoke the "six faculties, six objects," these two sets of six dharmas — breaking a person up into these dharmas, the better to show that the so-called "self" is no more than a heap of dharmas pieced together, with no real self in it; just as, in order to break the "annihilation view" (lest people suppose that at death the lamp goes out and all is done), the Buddha expediently spoke of "a continuing sentient being" (setting up a sentient being for the moment, to draw a person out of the annihilation view). Going one step further, the Buddha, in order to let people awaken into "the emptiness of dharmas" (seeing through even these dharmas), spoke again of "only consciousness," the better to let people know that even those outer dharmas are not really existent.
〔Q〕: Then is this "consciousness-only nature" (consciousness's real nature) not also empty, and to be wiped away at a stroke? 〔A〕: It is not so. 〔Further pressed〕: Why not? 〔A〕: Because it "is not something wrongly grasped at." The meaning is: the "real dharma" that, in keeping with what consciousness transforms, gets "wildly grasped at" by a person, cannot in principle be found, and so it is said to be "the emptiness of dharmas" (the emptying of this grasped-at dharma); but it is not that "the consciousness-only nature, apart from words, to be realized only by right wisdom," is also non-existent — so this "emptiness of dharmas" empties the grasped-at dharma, and does not empty the consciousness-only nature itself.
Were this consciousness to be non-existent, then there would be no "conventional truth" (the truth on the conventional level); and the conventional truth being gone, the "ultimate truth" (the truth on the final level) would go along with it too — for these two truths, the ultimate and the conventional, are set up only in dependence on each other (pull out the one prop and both fall). To wipe away both truths at a stroke is "ill-grasped emptiness" (that bad emptiness-view which misconstrues the emptiness-principle and grasps it to mean there is nothing at all), and the Buddhas say such a one is "beyond cure." So one should know: all dharmas have an "empty" side (the grasper and grasped grasped at being empty) and a "not-empty" side (the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished, these two, being not empty); and it is just for this that the venerable Maitreya spoke the foregoing two verses.
〔Q〕: If the various "form-bases" too take consciousness as their substance, then why do they manifest precisely as "form-marks" (a shape, a solid look), and turn on, of one kind, firmly abiding, in unbroken succession (looking as though there were truly real things there)? 〔A〕: That is roused by the force of "name-and-word perfuming" (the perfuming of speech and concept laid down from beginningless time); and besides, this form-mark serves as the resting-place for the dharmas of both sides, "defilement and purity" — meaning that, were this form-mark non-existent, then there would be no delusion, and so no defilement, and the pure dharmas would be gone too (defilement and purity both must lean on the form-mark in order to turn); and so the several consciousnesses likewise manifest as if they had form. As a verse says: "The 'deluded mark' (the image-part that has turned to look like form) and the 'deluded substance' (the seeing-part that can raise this delusion) — these should be conceded as the 'form-resembling consciousness' and the 'non-form-resembling consciousness (the remaining consciousnesses)'; were these (the deluded mark, the deluded substance) non-existent, the rest (defilement, purity) would go along with them too."
〔Q〕: Form and the other outer objects can plainly be realized at first hand, right before one, gotten by "direct perception" (taking-in on the spot, not by inference or reckoning) — how can one say in one breath that they are not there? 〔A〕: At the very moment you realize it by direct perception, at first hand, you do not in fact grasp it as "the outer thing"; it is the next thought-moment, the mental consciousness, that rouses discrimination and only then wildly gives rise to the notion "outer." So one should know: the object referred to by direct perception is the consciousness's own image-part, transformed by consciousness, and so it too is said to be "existent"; while the "outer, real form and the rest" that the mental consciousness grasps at is had only by wild reckoning, and so it (the outer real form) is said to be non-existent.
Furthermore: form and the other objects are in fact "not form, yet resembling form; not outer, yet resembling outer," just like what is referred to in a dream (which looks like form, looks like outer, yet is neither) — they cannot be grasped as solidly real outer form.
〔Q〕: If the form one sees while awake is, like a dream-realm, not apart from consciousness, then it is as when we wake from a dream and only then know that the dream "was only what the mind transformed"; why is it that, while awake, as to the form-objects of one's own seeing, one does not know it "is only consciousness" (while awake one does not know it oneself)? 〔A〕: It is just as when a dream is not yet over: a person cannot of himself know (that it is only what the mind transformed), and must wait until he wakes before he can look back and become aware of it; the object-form while awake is on this same principle — at the stage where one has not yet gotten "true awakening" (that thorough waking which realizes suchness), a person cannot of himself know that it is only consciousness, and must wait for the time of "true awakening" to look back and become aware of it. One who has not gotten true awakening dwells ever within the dream (of ignorance), and so the Buddha calls this "the long night of birth-and-death" (a long dark dream-night within birth-and-death); and it is just for this that a person has all along failed to grasp thoroughly that the form-object is only consciousness.
〔Q〕: Granted that outer form is not really existent, so that one may say it is not an object of the inner consciousness; but "another's mind" is really existent, is it not? — then would it not become an object referred to by this consciousness of mine (would this not be consciousness reaching an object really outside consciousness)? 〔A〕: Who said that "another's mind is not" an object referred to by one's own consciousness? It is only that one does not call another's mind "the object one's own consciousness directly and immediately reaches." The meaning is: when this consciousness of mine arises, there is no real function that reaches across to lay hold of another's mind directly — it is not like a hand laying hold of an outer thing directly, nor like the sun stretching out its rays to shine on an outer object directly; it only manifests, like a mirror, an image resembling the outer object, and so it is called "apprehending another's mind," but is not "directly able to apprehend [it]." What is truly directly apprehended is only what oneself (the consciousness) transforms into (that image-part).
And so the sūtra says: "There is no slightest dharma that can truly reach across and lay hold of another dharma." It is only that, when consciousness arises, it manifests a mark resembling that (referred-to thing), and this is what is called "grasping that thing" (it in fact manifests an image, and does not truly reach out a hand to lay hold). Referring to another's mind is so, and referring to form and the rest is just so too (in every case it manifests an image resembling it, and does not truly go and lay hold of outer things).
〔Q〕: Since there is "a different object" (another's mind and the like, an object different from one's own), then why is it still called "consciousness-only" (only consciousness)? 〔A〕: How strange! You cling so doggedly, raising doubts at every turn! Does this teaching of "consciousness-only" say "there is but a single, sole consciousness" (with no such manifold consciousnesses, self's and another's)? 〔Further pressed〕: Not so; then how? 〔A〕: Listen closely: if there truly were but one consciousness, how could there be the differences of the worldlings and the noble ones of the ten directions, of high and low, of cause and effect? And who would teach the Dharma to whom? What dharma would there be to teach, what dharma to seek (all being one, none of these could be made out)? So one can know that the words "consciousness-only" have a deep import of their own (it is not that there is but a single, sole consciousness).
The single word "consciousness" altogether displays several things at once: the eight consciousnesses each sentient being has of its own, the six great classes of mental factors, plus the image-part and seeing-part these transform into, plus the differences of all manner of states, plus that suchness disclosed by the emptiness-principle. Why can all these be gathered under the one word "consciousness"? On five grounds: the first item is "consciousness itself" (the eight consciousness-mind-kings); the second is "what is concomitant with consciousness" (the mental factors); the third is "what the first two (mind-king, mental factors) transform into" (the two parts, image and seeing); the fourth is "the various states of the first three" (the non-concurrent formation dharmas, which are states conventionally set up in dependence on the foregoing); the fifth is "the real nature of the first four" (suchness) — every one of these five being not apart from consciousness, they are all gathered up and set up under the one name "consciousness." As for that word "only," it merely fends off the "form and the rest that the fool grasps as definitely existing really apart from the consciousnesses"; it is not to fend off those dharmas that are not apart from consciousness.
If a person can thus understand the true intent of the teaching of consciousness-only, then he can, undeludedly, well lay in the provisions and swiftly enter into "the emptiness of dharmas," realize the supreme awakening, and rescue the sentient (the beings that bear consciousness) out of the round of birth-and-death; this is by no means something that the "ill-grasped emptiness" man — the one who wipes everything away at a stroke — could ever bring off, for he has gone against both the teaching and the principle, and so cannot bring this matter to pass. And so one must be settled in faith that "all is consciousness alone."
〔所釋之頌〕第十七頌
本節『八識俱轉一異、正解識變、一切唯識』之宗，經論早有所本。《解深密經·分別瑜伽品》正立此義：世尊說『我所說識的所緣，唯是識所現』；又說『這當中沒有少分的法能見少分的法，然而就在此心如是生起的時候，便有如是影像顯現』——『識所緣唯識所現、心生時影像顯現』，正是本章頌十七『分別、所分別，一切唯識』的經本，本論所引『契經說所緣唯識所現』即指此經。論本則在《瑜伽師地論》：〈攝決擇分〉錄有與《解深密》同文的『識所緣唯識所現、心生時影像顯現』，是法相唯識所現之論本；〈本地分〉又定『識，就是現前了別所緣境界』、『識能了別事的總相』，這『識的了別性即能變似而能取』一義，正是頌十七『諸識轉變、見分名分別、能取相』的論本。護法糅釋成立唯識所宗，其經在《解深密》，其論在《瑜伽師地論》——下面順著頌文講開。
甲、八個識同時轉、是一還是異
一、八識怎樣同時轉
八識的體用既然都辨明了，就可以說：一切有情身上，「心」（第八阿賴耶）和「末那」（第七）這兩個識是恒時一齊轉的；若再起第六意識，就成三個識一齊轉；其餘前五識則隨緣和合，起一個乃至起五個，於是成四個一齊轉、乃至八個一齊轉。這就是『諸識同時轉』的大略義理。
二、由此引出的一連串問答
既然一個有情身上有這麼多識同時轉，馬上就有問題：那怎麼還說他是『一個』有情？論主答：如果主張「有情」的數目要看識的多少來定，那你在「無心位」（識不行的時候）豈不該變成『不是有情』了（這顯然講不通）？再說，「他分心」（別人的心、或異類的心）現前的時候，難道就能說它是「自分有情」嗎（識數即使相同，也不能混成一個）？所以該知：要立「有情」的數目，應當依「命根」的數、或依「異熟識」（第八）——這樣才都不違理，因為命根和異熟識這兩樣恒時都只有一個（一身一個異熟識，所以是一個有情）。
接著問：一身只有一個「等無間緣」（前一念讓位、給後一念開路），怎麼能同一時有好多識一起轉（這許多識難道共用一個開導緣）？答：既然許這一個等無間緣能引生好多個心所，憑什麼不許它也能引生好多個心王？再說，誰咬定這緣『只有一個』呢？主張多識同起的人，正是許「等無間緣」也有好多個。
又問：想在同一時取好多境的人，那麼多境現前的時候，為什麼不能一下子並取（非得前後不可）？因為諸根、諸境等和合的力量是齊等的（同時具足），若說識要前後而生（不能同時），那才講不通。
又：心所的「性」（緣慮性）雖然沒有差別，可它「類」有分別（像受、想、思各是一類），這樣尚且許好多個心所一齊生，憑什麼不許心王的異類（八個識）也一齊起？再打個比方：水上的浪、鏡裡的像，都是依『一個』（一片水、一面鏡）而起「許多」，可見依「一心」（一聚根境）也能讓好多識同時轉。
又：若不許第六意識和前五識一齊起，那五識所取的境就應該「不明了」——會像『散位的獨頭意識』去追緣早已滅掉的境那樣模模糊糊（因為它沒和五識同緣現前的境）。
又有人問難：為什麼跟五識一齊起的只是『一個』意識，它卻能在色、聲等境上取一境或取多境（一個意識怎能應付那麼多）？答：就像眼等諸識各在自己的境上也能取一個或取多個（不限於一個），這意識又有什麼不對？因為識的「相分、見分」本來就有種種行相（一個識可以變現許多相、許多見）。
又問：為什麼同類的識（比如兩個眼識）不一齊起？答：對自己所緣的境，若是能了知的，一個識已經能了它了，其餘同類的就沒用了（所以不一齊起）。
順著這就再問：若如此（一個識已能了、其餘就沒用），那五識既已了自境，又何必再起意識去了知？答：和五識俱起的意識，是『幫助五識讓它們起得明利』，並不是專為了知五識的所緣；而且它在那所緣上能更『明了地取』（加以分別審察），有別於眼等五識，所以並非無用。正因為這樣，聖教才說這意識叫「有分別」，五識則不然（無分別）。
又問難：好多識既然一齊轉，為什麼彼此「不相應」（不互為相應法）？答：因為它們不是同緣一個境；就算同緣一境，彼此「所依」的根體、根數也各不相同（像五根五識所依各別）——所以諸識互不相應，正像五根的識互不相應。
三、八識是一還是異
八識的自性『不可一口咬定為一』——因為它們的行相、所依、所緣、相應的心所各不相同；又一個識滅的時候其餘的識不滅；能熏、所熏等的相也各異（第八是所熏，其餘是能熏）。可也『不可一口咬定為異』——因為經說八識『像水和波』等、無有差別；若真定為異，那就該失掉因果性了（因果要相續成一類）；就像幻化的事物等，並沒有「定異」的自性。
如前面說過的，『識的差別相』是依『道理世俗諦』而立的，不是「真勝義諦」；在真勝義裡，「心」和「言」都絕了（離開心緣的相、離開言說的相）。如一首伽陀所說：心、意、識這八種，約世俗故相有差別；約真諦故相無差別，因為能相、所相都不可得。
乙、正面解『識的轉變』，把「一切唯識」立起來
一、承前啟後的一問
前面已經詳細分別了「三能變」（異熟、思量、了境）的相，知道它們是各自所變現的「見分、相分」二分的所依。那麼接下來要問：怎麼知道『我和法只是依著識所變而假說的、並不是離開識另有實體』，因而「一切唯有識」呢？下面就舉頌來答。
二、舉頌作答
頌說：這「諸識」的「轉變」，就是「分別」（能分別的見分）和「所分別」（所分別的相分）；由這個緣故（離了識沒有實在的我和法），所執的實我、實法都沒有；所以說一切唯識。
三、長行正釋這首頌
論先這樣解：頌裡「是諸識」，指的是前面說的「三能變識」以及與它們相應的心所，這些都能變現出相似於「見分、相分」的二分，所以立「轉變」之名。所變的見分叫做「分別」——因為它能取相；所變的相分叫做「所分別」——因為它是被見分所取的。
由這個正理：那所執的「實我、實法」，離開識所變的見、相二分，就決定沒有——因為離開「能取（見分）、所取（相分）」便沒有別的東西，也沒有什麼實在物能離開這見、相二相而存在。所以一切有為法、無為法，不論是實是假，都不離識。頌裡的「唯」字，是要遮掉『離識的實物』，並不是遮掉『不離識的心所法』等（心所這些仍然是有的）。
關於「轉變」這一語怎麼解，窺基《述記》羅列了古德兩系不同的讀法。安惠的解釋是：所謂「轉變」，是說這三能變識的自體都轉變、現似見、相二分，識的自體分本身就叫「轉變」——這「轉變」取的是「變現」義，又取「變異」義（自體現似二相、其實並非實有二相）。護法菩薩的解釋則是：所謂「轉變」，取的是「改轉」義——是說一個識的體改轉成見、相二相生起，異於它自己的本體，所以是就「自體能轉變」說的。本論這裡的初解，所宗正是護法「改轉」這一讀。至於下面難陀等人的「第二解」，《述記》指出它是就『前三能變裡的見分識，能轉依他起的相分、現似外境之相，只有見、相二分的內識、全無所變的外境』立說的，這是依《攝大乘論》等『唯二分』之義、不立自證分，與護法「四分」之義有別——安惠唯立一分、難陀唯立二分、護法立四分，諸師立分的不同，《述記》逐處詳之。
「轉變」還可以另作一解：是說諸內識轉而現似「我、法」的外境之相。這個「能轉變」就叫「分別」——因為它以「虛妄分別」為自性，也就是指三界的心和心所。這所執的境就叫「所分別」，也就是所妄執的「實我、實法」之性。由這分別，變現出相似於外境的「假我、假法」相；而那所分別的「實我、實法」性決定都沒有——前面所引的教與理已經廣破過了。所以一切都唯有識，因為『虛妄分別是有』這一點雙方都共許（已極成）。
頌裡的「唯」字既然不遮「不離識」的法，所以「真空」（真如）等也是「有性」（不是斷滅無）。由此（執實的我法外境決定沒有、真如等不離識的法決定有），就遠離了『增益（執實有）、損減（撥為無）』兩邊，唯識的義理才得成立，契會中道。
四、廣辨教理、把唯識立穩
有人再問：到底憑哪些「教」和「理」，唯識的義才得成立？答：前面不是已經說過了嗎？又問：雖然說了卻還沒講透；何況『破掉別人的義』並不就等於『自己的義便成立』；所以該更確切地陳明，把這唯識的教理立穩。
先舉「教」證。如契經說「三界唯心」；又說『所緣只是識的所現』；又說『諸法都不離心』；又說『有情隨著心的垢、淨（而成染、淨）』。又說『成就四智的菩薩能隨而悟入『唯識無境』』。這四智是：
第一，相違識相智——在同一個處所，餓鬼、人、天等隨各自業的差別所見各不相同（比如同一條水，鬼見成膿河、人見成清水、天見成琉璃）；如果境是實有的，這『一境而異見』怎麼成立得了？可見境是隨識而變的。
第二，無所緣識智——緣過去、未來、夢中的境像等這些並非實有的境時，識照樣現起、可得；那（過、未、夢）境既然不是實有而識仍能起，那其餘（現在看似實在的）境也應該是這樣——境本身沒有，識自己現出來。
第三，自應無倒智——若愚夫的智所得是「實境」，那他應當自然就成了「無顛倒」、不必下什麼功用就該得解脫了；可是愚夫實實在在是顛倒的、是不得解脫的，可見他所緣的並不是實境。
第四，隨三智轉智——境會隨著三種智而轉，由此可知沒有實境：其一，隨自在者智轉智——已證得「心自在」的人（像八地以上），隨他所想轉變地、水等都能成辦；若境是實有的，怎能隨意而變？其二，隨觀察者智轉智——得了勝定、修法觀的人，隨他觀一個境而眾相現前（像修不淨觀就遍見白骨）；若境是實在的，怎能隨心而轉？其三，隨無分別智轉智——起「證實無分別智」的時候，一切境相都不現前；若境是實在的，怎容它不現？可見沒有實境。
菩薩成就了這四智的，對唯識之理就決定悟入。又一首伽陀說：心、意、識所緣的境，都不是離開『自（識）性』而別有的，所以我說一切唯有識、再沒有別的（離識的境）。這一類聖教的確證不止一處。
接著舉「理」證（用比量推）。『雙方共許的眼等五識』，因為它是『五識隨一』的緣故，就像其餘已經許為不親緣外境的識一樣，都不親緣離開自（識）的色等境。『其餘的識（第六、七、八）』因為「是識」的緣故，像眼識等一樣，也不親緣離開自的諸法。又這些識的「親所緣」決定不離這識本身——因為它是『能緣、所緣二者隨一』的緣故，就像能緣的見分不離識、也像相應的心所所緣不離心，決定不離心和心所。這一類正理的確證也不止一處，所以對唯識應當深深信受。
再說中道。所執的「我、法」並非有；依他起上的『空（真如）、識』並非無。離了「有」邊、離了「無」邊，所以契會中道。慈尊（彌勒）依這義理說了兩首頌，大意是：「虛妄分別」是有的，在這分別之中「能取、所取」二者都沒有；這分別之中只有「空性（真如）」，而那空性之中也還有這「虛妄分別」；所以說一切法「非空、非不空」——因為有（虛妄分別）、無（能所二取）以及有（空中有分別、分別中有空）的緣故，這就契會中道了。要附帶說明：這頌且就「染分依他」說的，論其理，也還有「淨分依他」（清淨的依他起也攝在裡頭）。
下面是一連串的解疑。
有人疑：若只是內識變似外境而起，怎麼會見到世間有情、無情諸物，在處所、時間上有『決定（限定）』、在身相、作用上有『不定（不限）』的轉現（看起來像有外境的定與不定）？答：像夢境等也照樣有處、時、身、用的定與不定（夢裡也見得到定處、定時、不定之物），就拿這個來解這疑——夢沒有外境而看似有定不定。
又疑：若是唯識，那為什麼世尊要說「十二處」（六根六境，看似有外境）？答：十二處是依識所變而說的，不是離識另有實體。為了讓人悟入「我空」才說「六根、六境」這兩組六法（顯出「我」只是諸法假合），就像為了遮「斷見」而權說『相續的有情』一樣。為了讓人悟入「法空」，又進一步說「唯識」，好讓人知道外法也不是實有的。
又疑：那這「唯識性」豈不也是空（也該撥成無）？答：不是這樣。問：為什麼？答：因為它『不是所執的東西』。意思是：依識所變而被「妄執」的實法，按理推求不可得，所以說「法空」；而不是說『離言、由正智所證的唯識性』也沒有——所以這「法空」是空掉所執，不是空掉唯識性。
又疑（順上）：這識若沒有，便沒有「俗諦」；俗諦既然沒有，「真諦」也就沒有——因為真、俗二諦是相依而建立的。把二諦都撥成無，那就是「惡取空」，諸佛說這種人是『不可救治』的。所以應當知道：諸法有「空」（所執的二取空）也有「不空」（依他、圓成不空），慈尊正是為這個才說前面那兩首頌。
又疑：若諸「色處」也以識為體，為什麼卻會現似「色相」、而且一類堅住、相續而轉（看起來像有實質）？答：是由「名言熏習」的勢力所起的；又因為這色相要給「染、淨」諸法作所依處——意思是這色相若沒有，就應該沒有顛倒，便沒有雜染，也沒有淨法（染淨都托著色相而轉），所以諸識也變似色而現。如一首頌說：「亂相」（似色的相分）和「亂體」（能亂的見分），應當許作『色識（似色的識）』與『非色識（其餘的識）』；若這（亂相、亂體）沒有，那其餘（染淨）也就沒有了。
又疑：色等外境分明可以當下親證、是「現量」所得的，怎可撥它為無？答：當現量親證的時候，並不執它為「外」；是後一念的意識起了分別，才妄生「外」的想。所以要分清：現量所緣的境，是『自（識）的相分』、是識所變的，所以也說它「有」；至於意識所執的那種『在外、實在』的色等，是妄計而來的，所以才說它（外實色）為無。又：色等境其實是『非色而似色、非外而似外』的，就像夢中所緣（似色似外而實在不是），不可執它為實有的外色。
又疑：若醒覺時的色也都像夢境那樣不離識，那麼就像從夢醒過來才知道夢「唯心」一樣，為什麼醒著的時候對自己的色境卻不知道「唯識」（醒時不自知）？答：就像夢還沒醒時不能自知（它唯心），要到醒時才能追憶覺知；醒覺時的境色也是如此——還沒得「真覺」（證真）的時候不能自知唯識，等到「真覺」的時候也就能追憶覺知了。還沒得真覺的人，恒處在（無明的）夢中，所以佛說這是「生死長夜」，正因為這樣才沒能了達色境唯識。
又疑：外色實在沒有，固然可以說它不是內識所緣的境；可是「他心」是實有的，難道不就是自識所緣的（豈不是識緣了識外的實境）？答：誰說他心「不是」自識的境呢？只是不說他心是自識的「親所緣」罷了。是說：自識生起的時候，並沒有實在的作用去親取他心——不像手等之親執外物、不像日等之舒光親照外境；而只是像鏡子等之變似外境而現，所以叫「了他心」、不是「親能了他心」。它親所了的，只是自（識）所變的（相分）。所以契經說：『沒有少分的法能取另一法』；只是在識生起的時候，變似那（所緣）之相而現，就叫做『取那個物』。緣他心是這樣，緣色等也是這樣（都是似那相現、不是實取外境）。
又疑：既然有「異境」（他心等異於自己的境），怎麼還叫「唯識」？答：奇怪呀，這麼死執，處處生疑！難道「唯識」這教法只說『唯有一個識』嗎？問：不是這樣，那是怎樣？答：你好好聽著：若只有一個識，怎會有十方的凡、聖，尊、卑，因、果等差別？誰替誰說（法）？有什麼法可說、有什麼法可求？所以「唯識」這句話自有它深的意趣（並不是說只有一個識）。
那「識」這個字到底總攝些什麼呢？「識」這一語，總顯：一切有情各有八個識、六位心所，以及它們所變的相分、見分，和種種分位差別，還有那空理所顯的真如。它攝法的道理有五重：是『識的自相』（八識心王）、是『識的相應』（心所）、是『二者（心王心所）所變』（相、見二分）、是『以上三者的分位』（不相應行）、是『以上四者的實性』（真如）——這樣諸法都不離識，所以總立「識」之名。「唯」這個字，只是遮掉愚夫所執的那種『一定離開諸識而實有』的色等（並不是遮掉不離識的諸法）。
末了作結：若能這樣了知唯識教的意趣，便能無顛倒地善備資糧、迅速悟入「法空」，證得無上覺，救拔含識（有情）出生死輪迴；這絕不是『全撥為無』的惡取空者所能成就的——他違背了教與理，所以成不了這事。所以決定應當信「一切唯識」。
承衍
本節『八識俱轉一異、正解識變、成立唯識』所立之義，是整個唯識系坐實「一切唯識」之宗的樞紐，後出諸論逐一承用。《百法明門論》把本章所料簡的八識（前五、第六、第七、第八）列為心法八識，又把與五識相應的五遍行、以及「識言總顯」的六位心所，列在心所法之下——本章『八識俱轉一異』所列的，正是百法心法的這八個。《唯識三十論頌》的頌十五（五識隨緣現）、頌十六（意識除五位）、頌十七（識轉變、一切唯識），正是本節所釋的本頌，逐頌相承。《二十唯識論》與本節正相關，是成立「唯識無境」的專論：它說『安立大乘三界唯識……內識生起的時候似外境而現』，正是本章『諸識轉變、似外境相現』的張本；又以「處、時定如夢，身不定如鬼，同見膿河等，如夢損有用」四事，回應本章『處、時、身、用的定與不定都像夢境』的釋疑，也正對四智裡的「相違識相智」（鬼、人、天所見各異）。《辯中邊論·辯相品》立「虛妄分別有，於此二都無，此中唯有空，於彼亦有此」，正是本論成立唯識所引慈尊兩首頌的本頌，所明的是『染分依他、契會中道』一義。《攝大乘論·所知相分》以依他起、唯識性、三性明唯識，本論「識變」的第二解所說『依《攝論》立唯二義』，即本於此。
A. The Eight Consciousnesses Turning at the Same Time, and Whether They Are One or Many
One. How the Eight Consciousnesses Turn at the Same Time
Since the substance and function of the eight consciousnesses have now been settled, one may say this: in every sentient being the "mind" (the eighth, the ālaya) and the "manas" (the seventh) are these two consciousnesses that turn together at all times; if the sixth mind-consciousness also arises, that makes three consciousnesses turning together; and the remaining first five consciousnesses, arising as conditions assemble, may arise as one or as five, so that there may be four turning together, or up to eight turning together. This is, in outline, the meaning of "the consciousnesses turning at the same time."
Two. The Chain of Questions and Answers This Draws Out
Since there are so many consciousnesses turning at the same time in a single sentient being, a question arises at once: how, then, can he be said to be a single sentient being? The treatise answers: if one holds that the number of "sentient beings" is to be fixed by the number of consciousnesses, then in a "mindless state" (when the consciousnesses do not operate) would you not have to become "not a sentient being" (which is plainly untenable)? Moreover, when "another's mind" (someone else's mind, or a mind of a different kind) is present, can one then say it is one's "own" sentient being (even if the number of consciousnesses is the same, they cannot be merged into one)? So one should know: to fix the number of "sentient beings," one should rely on the number of the "life-faculty," or on the "ripening consciousness" (the eighth) — only thus is there no conflict with reason, for of these two, the life-faculty and the ripening consciousness, there is at all times only one (one body, one ripening consciousness, hence one sentient being).
Next it is asked: a single body has only one "immediately antecedent condition" (the prior moment yielding its place to open the way for the next moment) — how, then, can many consciousnesses turn together at one and the same time (do all these consciousnesses share a single condition that opens the way)? The answer: since one grants that this single immediately antecedent condition can give rise to many mental factors, on what grounds would one not grant that it can also give rise to many mind-kings? Besides, who insists that this condition "is only one"? Those who hold that many consciousnesses arise together are precisely the ones who grant that the "immediately antecedent condition" too is many.
It is asked again: for one who wishes to grasp many objects at the same time, when those many objects are present, why can he not grasp them all at once (why must it be one after another)? Because the power of the coming-together of the various faculties and objects is equal (present at the same time); to say that consciousness must arise in succession (and not simultaneously) is what makes no sense.
Again: although the "nature" of the mental factors (the nature of cognizing) has no difference, their "kind" is differentiated (feeling, perception, and volition are each a kind); even so, one grants that many mental factors arise together — on what grounds would one not grant that the differing kinds of mind-kings (the eight consciousnesses) too arise together? And to give an analogy: the waves upon the water and the images within the mirror both arise as "many" in dependence on "one" (a single body of water, a single mirror) — which shows that in dependence on "one mind" (one assembly of faculties and objects) many consciousnesses too can turn at the same time.
Again: if one does not grant that the sixth mind-consciousness and the first five consciousnesses arise together, then the objects grasped by the five consciousnesses ought to be "not clear" — they would be as hazy as the "scattered solitary mind-consciousness" cognizing an object that has already perished (because it would not cognize, together with the five consciousnesses, the object present before them).
Then someone raises a challenge: why is it that, among those arising together with the five consciousnesses, there is only "one" mind-consciousness, and yet it can grasp one object or many objects among the fields of form, sound, and so on (how can one mind-consciousness cope with so many)? The answer: just as the eye and the other consciousnesses can each, in their own fields, grasp one or grasp many (not limited to one), what is wrong with this mind-consciousness doing so? Because the "object-aspect and the perceiving-aspect" of a consciousness have, by their very nature, all manner of modes (one consciousness can manifest many object-aspects and many perceiving-aspects).
It is asked again: why do consciousnesses of the same kind (for instance, two eye-consciousnesses) not arise together? The answer: with respect to its own cognized object, if a consciousness is one that cognizes, a single consciousness already cognizes it, and the others of the same kind would be useless (and so they do not arise together).
Following this, it is asked further: if it is so (that one consciousness can already cognize, and the rest are useless), then since the five consciousnesses already cognize their own objects, why must the mind-consciousness arise again to cognize them? The answer: the mind-consciousness that arises together with the five consciousnesses is there to "assist the five consciousnesses so that they arise clearly and sharply," and is not present solely to cognize what the five consciousnesses cognize; moreover, upon those objects it can grasp "more clearly" (discriminating and examining them), differing from the eye and the other five consciousnesses, and so it is not useless. It is for just this reason that the sacred teaching calls this mind-consciousness "having discrimination," whereas the five consciousnesses are not so (they are without discrimination).
It is challenged again: since many consciousnesses turn together, why are they "not associated" with one another (not mutually associated dharmas)? The answer: because they do not cognize one and the same object; and even if they cognize one object, the substance and number of the "supports" — the faculties — on which each leans are also different from one another (as the five faculties and five consciousnesses each lean on their own). So the various consciousnesses are not mutually associated, just as the consciousnesses of the five faculties are not mutually associated.
Three. Whether the Eight Consciousnesses Are One or Many
The self-nature of the eight consciousnesses "cannot be flatly asserted to be one" — because their mode of operation, their support, their cognized object, and the mental factors associated with them are each different; and when one consciousness ceases, the others do not cease; and the aspects of the perfuming and the perfumed are also distinct (the eighth is the perfumed, the rest are the perfumers). Yet it also "cannot be flatly asserted to be many" — because the scripture says the eight consciousnesses are "like water and waves" and so on, without difference; and if they really were fixed as many, then the nature of cause-and-effect would be lost (cause and effect must continue as one stream); just as illusory things and the like have no "fixedly many" self-nature.
As stated before, the "differentiated aspect of consciousness" is established with respect to the "conventional truth of principle," not the "ultimate truth in its true sense"; in the true ultimate, both "mind" and "speech" are cut off (apart from the aspect that mind cognizes, apart from the aspect of verbal expression). As a verse says: of these eight — mind, manas, and consciousness — with respect to the conventional, their aspects are differentiated; with respect to the truth, their aspects are without difference, because both the characterizing and the characterized are unobtainable.
B. The Direct Reading of "the Transformation of Consciousness," Establishing "Everything Is Consciousness-Only"
One. The Bridging Question
We have already differentiated in detail the aspects of the "three transformers" (the ripening, the deliberating, and the cognizing of fields), and we know they are the support of the "perceiving-aspect and object-aspect" — the two parts — that each of them manifests. So the next question is: how do we know that "self and dharmas are merely conventionally spoken of in dependence on what consciousness transforms, and are not real entities existing apart from consciousness," so that "everything is consciousness-only"? The verse is now cited in answer.
Two. The Verse Given in Answer
The verse says: the "transformation" of these "consciousnesses" is just the "discriminator" (the perceiving-aspect that discriminates) and the "discriminated" (the object-aspect that is discriminated); for this reason (apart from consciousness there is no real self or dharmas), the real self and real dharmas that are grasped are absent; therefore everything is consciousness-only.
Three. The Prose Exposition Properly Explaining This Verse
The treatise first explains it thus: by "these consciousnesses" the verse means the "three transformer consciousnesses" spoken of before, together with the mental factors associated with them; all these can manifest the two parts that resemble the "perceiving-aspect and object-aspect," and so the name "transformation" is set up. The perceiving-aspect that is transformed is called the "discriminator," because it grasps aspects; the object-aspect that is transformed is called the "discriminated," because it is grasped by the perceiving-aspect.
By this correct principle: the "real self and real dharmas" that are grasped are, apart from the perceiving-aspect and object-aspect that consciousness transforms, definitively absent — because apart from "what grasps (the perceiving-aspect) and what is grasped (the object-aspect)" there is nothing else, and there is no real thing that could exist apart from these two aspects of perceiving and object. So all conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, whether real or conventional, do not stand apart from consciousness. The word "only" in the verse is meant to exclude "real things apart from consciousness," and is not meant to exclude "the mental-factor dharmas that are not apart from consciousness" and the like (these mental factors still exist).
As to how the term "transformation" is to be read, Kuiji's Notes (the Shuji) lays out two lines of reading among the ancient masters. Sthiramati's explanation is this: "transformation" means that the self-substance of each of the three transformer consciousnesses transforms and manifests as resembling the two parts, perceiving-aspect and object-aspect — the self-substance-portion of consciousness is itself what is called "transformation"; this "transformation" takes the sense of "manifesting-as" and also the sense of "altering" (the self-substance manifests as resembling the two aspects, though there are not really two aspects). The bodhisattva Dharmapāla's explanation, by contrast, takes "transformation" in the sense of "shifting-and-turning" — it means that the substance of one consciousness shifts and turns so as to give rise to the two aspects, perceiving and object, differing from its own substance, and so it is spoken of as "the self-substance being able to transform." The first explanation given here in the treatise takes as its basis precisely Dharmapāla's "shifting-and-turning" reading. As for the "second explanation" of Nanda and the others below, the Notes points out that it is framed with respect to "the perceiving-aspect consciousness, among the first three transformers, being able to transform the other-dependent object-aspect and manifest the aspect of an outer field — there being only the inner consciousness of the two parts, perceiving and object, and no transformed outer field at all"; this is set up on the basis of the "only two parts" doctrine of the Mahāyāna-saṃgraha and the like, which does not posit the self-witnessing-portion, and differs from Dharmapāla's "four parts" doctrine — Sthiramati positing only one part, Nanda only two parts, Dharmapāla four parts, the differences among the masters in positing parts being detailed point by point in the Notes.
"Transformation" admits of a further reading. It means that the inner consciousnesses turn and manifest the aspect of an outer field that resembles "self and dharmas." This "that which transforms" is called the "discriminator," because it has "false discrimination" as its self-nature — that is, it refers to the mind and mental factors of the three realms. This grasped field is called the "discriminated," that is, the nature of the falsely grasped "real self and real dharmas." By this discrimination, an aspect of "conventional self and conventional dharmas" resembling an outer field is manifested; while the "real self and real dharmas" that are discriminated are definitively absent — the teaching and reasoning cited before have already refuted them at length. So everything is consciousness-only, because the point that "false discrimination exists" is held in common by both parties (already thoroughly established).
Since the word "only" in the verse does not exclude the dharmas that are "not apart from consciousness," therefore "true emptiness" (suchness) and the like are also of "an existent nature" (not annihilation-nothingness). By this (that the grasped real self, real dharmas, and outer field are definitively absent, while suchness and the other dharmas not apart from consciousness definitively exist), one departs from the two extremes of "superimposition (grasping it as really existent) and denial (writing it off as nothing)," and the principle of consciousness-only is thereby established, in accord with the middle way.
Four. The Broad Settling of Teaching and Reasoning, Firmly Establishing Consciousness-Only
Someone asks again: by exactly which "teachings" and "reasonings" is the meaning of consciousness-only established? The answer: was this not already said before? It is asked again: though it was said, it has not yet been driven home; and besides, "refuting another's position" does not amount to "one's own position being established"; so it should be set out more precisely, firmly establishing this teaching and reasoning of consciousness-only.
First, "teaching" proofs are cited. As a scripture says, "the three realms are mind-only"; and again, "what is cognized is only the appearance of consciousness"; and again, "all dharmas are not apart from mind"; and again, "sentient beings become defiled or pure according to the defilement or purity of mind." And it says, "the bodhisattva who accomplishes the four wisdoms can accordingly awaken into 'consciousness-only, without object.'" These four wisdoms are as follows.
First, the wisdom of the mutually conflicting aspects of consciousness — in one and the same place, hungry ghosts, humans, gods, and so on see differently according to the difference of their respective karma (for example, of one and the same river, a ghost sees a river of pus, a human sees clear water, a god sees lapis lazuli). If the object were really existent, how could this "one object yet differing views" be established? It shows that the object transforms according to consciousness.
Second, the wisdom of consciousness having no object cognized — when cognizing such non-existent objects as the past, the future, and dream-images, consciousness still arises and is obtainable; since those (past, future, dream) objects are not really existent and yet consciousness can still arise, then the other (the present, seemingly real) objects should be like this too — the object itself is absent, and consciousness manifests it of itself.
Third, the wisdom that there would otherwise be no error — if what the deluded person's cognition obtains were a "real object," then he ought naturally to become "free of error," and ought to attain liberation without exerting any effort; but the deluded person is, in plain fact, in error and does not attain liberation, which shows that what he cognizes is not a real object.
Fourth, the wisdom of the threefold turning according to wisdom — the object turns according to three kinds of wisdom, and by this one knows there is no real object. (i) The wisdom of turning according to the wisdom of the sovereign one — one who has realized "mastery of mind" (such as those of the eighth ground and above) can, according to his thought, transform earth, water, and the like, and accomplish them; if the object were really existent, how could it change at will? (ii) The wisdom of turning according to the wisdom of the contemplator — one who has gained excellent absorption and cultivates contemplation of dharmas can, according to his contemplation of a single object, have a multitude of aspects appear (as one who cultivates the contemplation of impurity sees skeletons everywhere); if the object were real, how could it turn according to mind? (iii) The wisdom of turning according to non-discriminating wisdom — when one gives rise to the "non-discriminating wisdom that realizes the real," all object-aspects do not appear; if the object were real, how could it be made not to appear? It shows there is no real object.
The bodhisattva who has accomplished these four wisdoms will definitively awaken into the principle of consciousness-only. And a verse says: the objects cognized by mind, manas, and consciousness are none of them apart from their own (consciousness's) nature; therefore I say everything is consciousness-only, and there is nothing else (no object apart from consciousness). Firm proofs of this kind of sacred teaching are found in more than one place.
Next, "reasoning" proofs are cited (inferring by valid inference). "The eye and the other five consciousnesses, held in common by both parties," because they are "any one of the five consciousnesses," like the other consciousnesses already granted not to intimately cognize an outer object, do not intimately cognize the form and other objects that stand apart from their own (consciousness's) nature. "The remaining consciousnesses (the sixth, seventh, and eighth)," because they "are consciousness," like the eye-consciousness and the rest, also do not intimately cognize the dharmas that stand apart from their own. And the "intimate cognized object" of these consciousnesses definitively does not stand apart from these consciousnesses themselves — because it is "any one of the cognizer and the cognized," like the perceiving-aspect that cognizes, which is not apart from consciousness, and like the cognized object of the associated mental factors, which is not apart from mind, it definitively does not stand apart from mind and mental factors. Firm proofs of this kind of correct reasoning are likewise found in more than one place, and so one should deeply accept consciousness-only.
Then there is the middle way. The grasped "self and dharmas" are not existent; the "emptiness (suchness) and consciousness" upon the other-dependent nature are not non-existent. Departing from the extreme of "existence" and departing from the extreme of "non-existence," one accords with the middle way. The Venerable One (Maitreya), in dependence on this principle, spoke two verses, the gist of which is: "false discrimination" exists; within this discrimination both "the grasper and the grasped" are absent; within this discrimination there is only "the nature of emptiness (suchness)," and within that emptiness there is again this "false discrimination"; therefore all dharmas are "neither empty nor not empty" — because there is (false discrimination), there is not (the two graspings of grasper and grasped), and there is again (within emptiness there is discrimination, within discrimination there is emptiness) — and this accords with the middle way. It should be added, by way of explanation, that this verse speaks for the time being with respect to the "defiled portion of the other-dependent"; in its full principle, there is also the "pure portion of the other-dependent" (the pure other-dependent nature is subsumed within it as well).
What follows is a chain of resolutions of doubts.
Someone doubts: if it is merely the inner consciousness transforming so as to resemble an outer field that arises, how is it that one sees, throughout the world, sentient and insentient things turning forth with "determination (limitation)" in place and time, and with "indeterminacy (non-limitation)" in bodily form and function (seeming as if there were an outer field with its determination and indeterminacy)? The answer: dream-objects and the like likewise have determination and indeterminacy of place, time, body, and function (in a dream one can also see a determinate place, a determinate time, indeterminate things); take this to resolve the doubt — a dream has no outer field and yet seems to have determination and indeterminacy.
Again one doubts: if it is consciousness-only, then why did the World-Honored One speak of the "twelve sense-bases" (the six faculties and six objects, seemingly an outer field)? The answer: the twelve sense-bases are spoken of in dependence on what consciousness transforms, not as real entities existing apart from consciousness. In order to make people awaken to the "emptiness of self," he spoke of the two sets of six dharmas, "the six faculties and six objects" (showing that "self" is merely a conventional assemblage of dharmas) — just as, in order to block the "view of annihilation," he provisionally spoke of "the continuous sentient being." And in order to make people awaken to the "emptiness of dharmas," he further spoke of "consciousness-only," so that people would know that outer dharmas too are not really existent.
Again one doubts: is not this "nature of consciousness-only" itself also empty (should it too not be written off as nothing)? The answer: it is not so. It is asked: why? The answer: because it is "not a thing that is grasped." That is to say, the real dharmas "falsely grasped" in dependence on what consciousness transforms are, when investigated by reason, unobtainable, and so one speaks of the "emptiness of dharmas"; but it is not that "the nature of consciousness-only, beyond words and realized by right wisdom," is also absent — so this "emptiness of dharmas" empties what is grasped, not the nature of consciousness-only.
Again one doubts (following on the above): if this consciousness were absent, there would be no "conventional truth"; and the conventional truth being absent, the "ultimate truth" too would be absent — because the two truths, the true and the conventional, are established in mutual dependence. To write off both truths as nothing is "evil-grasped emptiness," and the buddhas say that such a person is "beyond cure." So one should know: dharmas have "emptiness" (the grasped two graspings are empty) and also "non-emptiness" (the other-dependent and the perfectly-accomplished are not empty); it was for precisely this that the Venerable One spoke the two verses given above.
Again one doubts: if the "fields of form" too have consciousness as their substance, why is it that they manifest resembling "form-aspects," and turn forth as one kind that abides firmly and continuously (seeming as if there were real substance)? The answer: it arises by the force of the "perfuming of names and words"; and because this form-aspect must serve as the support for the "defiled and pure" dharmas — meaning that if this form-aspect were absent, there should be no error, and so no defilement and no pure dharmas (defilement and purity both rest upon the form-aspect and turn forth) — and so the consciousnesses too transform so as to resemble form and manifest it. As a verse says: "the disordered aspect" (the object-aspect resembling form) and the "disordered substance" (the perceiving-aspect that disorders) should be granted as "form-consciousness (consciousness resembling form)" and "non-form-consciousness (the remaining consciousnesses)"; if these (the disordered aspect and disordered substance) were absent, then the rest (defilement and purity) would be absent too.
Again one doubts: form and the other outer fields can plainly be intimately realized right now and are obtained by "direct perception" — how can they be written off as nothing? The answer: at the time of intimate realization by direct perception, one does not grasp them as "outer"; it is the mind-consciousness of the next moment that gives rise to discrimination and then falsely produces the notion of "outer." So one must distinguish clearly: the object cognized by direct perception is the "object-aspect of one's own (consciousness)," is what consciousness transforms, and so it too is said to "exist"; but the kind of form-and-the-like that the mind-consciousness grasps as "outer and real" comes from false reckoning, and so it (the outer real form) is said to be absent. Again: form and the other objects are in fact "not form yet resembling form, not outer yet resembling outer," like what is cognized in a dream (resembling form, resembling outer, yet in truth not so), and must not be grasped as a really existent outer form.
Again one doubts: if the form of the waking state too is, like a dream-object, not apart from consciousness, then just as, upon waking from a dream, one knows the dream was "mind-only," why is it that, while awake, one does not know one's own form-objects to be "consciousness-only" (one does not know it of oneself while awake)? The answer: just as, while the dream has not yet ended, one cannot know of oneself (that it is mind-only), but only upon waking can one recall and become aware of it — the objects and forms of the waking state are likewise: while one has not yet attained "true awakening" (the realization of the real), one cannot know of oneself that it is consciousness-only, but when "true awakening" comes, one can then recall and become aware of it. One who has not yet attained true awakening dwells constantly within the (ignorance) dream, and so the Buddha says this is the "long night of birth-and-death," and it is for just this reason that one has failed to comprehend that form-objects are consciousness-only.
Again one doubts: outer form is indeed absent, granted, and so may be said not to be an object cognized by the inner consciousness; but "another's mind" is really existent — is it not, then, an object cognized by one's own consciousness (does consciousness not, then, cognize a real object outside consciousness)? The answer: who says that another's mind is "not" an object of one's own consciousness? It is only that one does not say another's mind is the "intimate cognized object" of one's own consciousness. The point is: when one's own consciousness arises, it has no real action by which it intimately grasps another's mind — not like a hand and the like that intimately grasps an outer thing, not like the sun and the like that sends forth light and intimately illuminates an outer object — but is only like a mirror and the like that transforms so as to resemble an outer object and manifests it, and so it is called "cognizing another's mind," not "intimately able to cognize another's mind." What it intimately cognizes is only what it itself (consciousness) transforms (the object-aspect). So a scripture says: "There is no slight dharma that can grasp another dharma"; it is only that, when consciousness arises, it transforms so as to resemble that (cognized) aspect and manifests it, and this is called "grasping that thing." Cognizing another's mind is thus, and cognizing form and the like is thus too (both are resembling-that-aspect-manifested, not a real grasping of an outer field).
Again one doubts: since there is a "differing object" (another's mind and the like, which differ from one's own object), how can it still be called "consciousness-only"? The answer: how strange — to hold on so stubbornly, raising doubts at every turn! Does the teaching of "consciousness-only" say there is "only a single consciousness"? It is asked: it is not so; then how is it? The answer: listen well — if there were only a single consciousness, how could there be the distinctions of ordinary and noble, honored and lowly, cause and effect, throughout the ten directions? Who would expound (the dharma) for whom? What dharma would there be to expound, what dharma to seek? So the phrase "consciousness-only" has its own deep intent (it does not say there is only a single consciousness).
What, then, does the word "consciousness" subsume in full? The single word "consciousness" sets forth in full: every sentient being has its own eight consciousnesses, six classes of mental factors, the object-aspect and perceiving-aspect they transform, and the various phase-distinctions, together with the suchness disclosed by that principle of emptiness. The way it subsumes dharmas has five layers: it is the "self-aspect of consciousness" (the eight consciousnesses, the mind-kings); it is the "association of consciousness" (the mental factors); it is "what the two (mind-kings and mental factors) transform" (the object-aspect and perceiving-aspect); it is "the phases of the above three" (the non-associated factors); and it is "the real nature of the above four" (suchness) — in this way all dharmas are not apart from consciousness, and so the name "consciousness" is set up to cover them all. The word "only" merely excludes the kind of form and the like that the deluded grasp as "definitely existing apart from the consciousnesses as real" (it does not exclude the dharmas not apart from consciousness).
Finally, by way of conclusion: if one can understand the intent of the teaching of consciousness-only in this way, then one can, without error, well prepare the provisions, swiftly awaken into the "emptiness of dharmas," realize unsurpassed awakening, and rescue conscious beings (sentient beings) out of the cycle of birth-and-death. This is by no means what the evil-grasped emptiness-holder, who "writes everything off as nothing," can accomplish — he contradicts both teaching and reasoning, and so cannot accomplish this. Therefore one should definitively believe that "everything is consciousness-only."
Onward Transmission
What this section establishes — "the eight consciousnesses turning together, their sameness-and-difference, the correct reading of transformation, the establishing of consciousness-only" — is the pivot on which the whole consciousness-only system makes good its thesis that "everything is consciousness-only," and the later treatises take it up one by one. The Hundred Dharmas treatise lists the eight consciousnesses sorted out in this chapter (the first five, the sixth, the seventh, the eighth) as the eight consciousness-dharmas under the mind-dharmas, and places the five omnipresent factors associated with the five consciousnesses, together with the six classes of mental factors that "the word 'consciousness' sets forth in full," under the mental-factor dharmas — the eight that this chapter's "eight consciousnesses turning together, one or many" enumerates being precisely these eight mind-dharmas of the Hundred Dharmas. The Thirty Verses — verse fifteen (the five consciousnesses manifesting according to conditions), verse sixteen (the mind-consciousness except for the five states), and verse seventeen (the transformation of the consciousnesses, everything consciousness-only) — is the very root-text this section expounds, verse answering to verse. The Twenty Verses bears directly on this section, being the treatise devoted to establishing "consciousness-only, without object": it says, "establishing that the three realms of the Great Vehicle are consciousness-only... at the arising of the inner consciousness it manifests as resembling an outer field," which is the very groundwork for this chapter's "the transformation of the consciousnesses, manifesting as resembling the aspect of an outer field"; and with its four points — "place and time are determinate as in a dream, the body is indeterminate as with the hungry ghosts, all alike seeing a river of pus and the rest, and as in a dream there is loss of function" — it answers this chapter's resolution that "the determination and indeterminacy of place, time, body, and function are all as in a dream," answering as well to the "wisdom of the mutually conflicting aspects of consciousness" among the four wisdoms (ghosts, humans, and gods each seeing differently). The Madhyānta-vibhāga, in its chapter on aspects, sets up "false discrimination exists; in this the two are both absent; in this there is only emptiness; in that too there is this," which is precisely the root-text of the two verses of the Venerable Maitreya that this treatise cites in establishing consciousness-only, declaring the one sense of "the defiled portion of the other-dependent, in accord with the middle way." The Mahāyāna-saṃgraha, in its chapter on the characteristic of the knowable, clarifies consciousness-only by means of the other-dependent nature, the nature of consciousness-only, and the three natures; this treatise's second explanation of "transformation," which speaks of "establishing only the two parts on the basis of the Saṃgraha," is rooted just here.
考據Apparatus
〔所釋之頌〕第十七頌
一、科判定位
| 科判 | 此章之位 |
|---|---|
| 三能變 | 三能變相已廣辯 · 前六識現起分位已明（前章） |
| 此章內 | 總料簡八識一、異（明俱轉·問答分別·一異分別）· 正解識變（結前問後·舉頌答·長行釋） |
| 所釋頌 | 《唯識三十論頌》頌十七全 |
前章既明前六識之現起分位，本章總料簡八識之俱轉與一異，次正解「識轉變」義，以頌十七「故一切唯識」結成唯識之宗——「明唯識相」至此收尾。
二、源頌 · 義理脈絡
是諸識轉變，分別、所分別，由此彼皆無，故一切唯識。 〔T1586 0061a02–0061a03〕
頌十七正釋「識轉變」：諸識轉變而現似二分，能分別者即見分，所分別者即相分；離此二分，別無所執之我法可得，故曰「一切唯識」。此頌為全論「明唯識相」一分之結頌。
三、經論宗依（經證 → 論本）
經證
由彼影像唯是識故。善男子！我說識所緣，唯識所現故。 〔解深密經·分別瑜伽品 T676 0698b01–0698b02〕
此中無有少法能見少法；然即此心如是生時，即有如是影像顯現。 〔解深密經 T676 0698b04–0698b05〕
譬如明鏡，現眾色像。大慧！猶如猛風，吹大海水。外境界風，飄蕩心海，識浪不斷……故五識身轉。 〔楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 T670 0484a16–0484a19〕
《解深密》以「識所緣唯識所現」「無有少法能見少法然即此心如是生時即有如是影像顯現」直立唯識——本章頌十七『分別所分別、一切唯識』之經本，本論引『契經說所緣唯識所現』即此；《楞伽》以『明鏡現像、外境界風飄蕩心海、識浪不斷』顯八識浪依藏識而轉、五識身轉，為頌十五『五識隨緣現、如濤波依水』之經本。
論本（瑜伽師地論 T1579）
我說識所緣、唯識所現故……此中無有少法能見少法；然即此心如是生時、即有如是影像顯現。 〔T1579·攝決擇分 0724a06–0724a09〕
識，謂現前了別所緣境界。 〔T1579·本地分 0280b09〕
又識能了別事之總相。 〔T1579·本地分 0291b21〕
《瑜伽師地論》〈攝決擇分〉錄『識所緣唯識所現、心生影像顯現』（與《解深密》同文，法相本地之唯識所現論本）；〈本地分〉定『識＝現前了別所緣境界』『識了別事之總相』（頌十七『諸識轉變、見分名分別、能取相』之論本——識之了別性即能變似而能取）。護法糅釋成立唯識所宗，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）
五識 · 所依
論曰：「根本識」者，阿陀那識，染、淨諸識生根本故。「依止」者，謂前六轉識以根本識為共親依。 〔T1585 0037a17–a19〕
五識 · 隨緣現
「五識」者，謂前五轉識，種類相似，故總說之。「隨緣現」言顯非常起，「緣」謂作意、根、境等緣……由此或俱或不俱起，外緣合者有頓、漸故。 〔T1585 0037a19–a23〕
五位 · 列名
五位者何？「生無想」等。 〔T1585 0037b03–b04〕
八識 · 俱轉
是故八識一切有情心與末那二，恒俱轉；若起第六，則三俱轉；餘隨緣合，起一至五，則四俱轉，乃至八俱，是謂略說識俱轉義。 〔T1585 0038b06–b09〕
八識 · 一異
八識自性不可言定一，行相、所依、緣、相應異故……亦非定異，經說八識如水波等，無差別故；定異應非因果性故。 〔T1585 0038c04–c07〕
識變 · 立轉變名
論曰：「是諸識」者，謂前所說三能變識及彼心所，皆能變似見、相二分，立「轉變」名。所變見分說名「分別」，能取相故；所變相分名「所分別」，見所取故。 〔T1585 0038c18–c21〕
識變 · 由此彼皆無
由此正理，彼實我、法離識所變皆定非有，離能、所取無別物故，非有實物離二相故。是故一切有為、無為，若實、若假，皆不離識。「唯」言為遮離識實物，非不離識心所法等。 〔T1585 0038c21–c25〕
識變 · 第二解（虛妄分別）
或轉變者，謂諸內識轉似我、法外境相現。此能轉變即名分別，虛妄分別為自性故，謂即三界心及心所。 〔T1585 0038c25–c27〕
唯識義成 · 契中道
「唯」既不遮不離識法，故真空等亦是有性。由斯遠離增、減二邊，唯識義成，契會中道。 〔T1585 0039a02–a04〕
成立唯識 · 唯識言深意
「識」言總顯一切有情各有八識、六位心所，所變相、見、分位差別及彼空理所顯真如……如是諸法皆不離識，總立識名。「唯」言，但遮愚夫所執定離諸識實有色等。 〔T1585 0039c20–c25〕
要義：本論於五識以『依本識、隨緣現』明其現起分位（行相麁動、所藉緣不具，故起少斷多）；意識內外門轉、不藉多緣，唯五位（無想天·無想定·滅盡定·睡眠·悶絕）無心時不起。八識料簡，俱轉者『心與末那恒二，加六成三，加五至八』；一異者『不可定一（行相所依等異）、不可定異（如水波無差別、定異失因果）』，依世俗立差別、真勝義中心言絕。正解識變，本論二復次：初解『諸識變似見相二分名轉變，見分名分別（能取）、相分名所分別（見所取），離二取無實我法』；後解『內識轉似我法外境相現、能轉變即名分別、以虛妄分別為自性』。「唯」字遮離識實物、不遮不離識之心所真如，故遠離增減契中道。結成『識言總顯八識六位心所相見分位真如、皆不離識』，定應信一切唯識。
五、諸家異釋（窺基《述記》T1830）
「依止根本識」者，此句通下第六識，二俱依止第八識故，顯其共依。然依止有二：一、依種子第八識，即是因緣親依……二、依現行第八，即是增上緣依。 〔T1830 0475b13–b17〕
安惠解云：何名轉變？謂是三識自體皆轉變似見、相二分，識自體分名為轉變。轉變者，變現義……或轉變者，是變異義……護法菩薩解云：又轉變者，是改轉義，謂一識體改轉為二相起，異於自體……今取自體能轉變也。 〔T1830 0487a06–a16〕
下難陀等第二解……言轉變者，即前三能變內見分識，能轉依他相分，似外境相現，唯有見、相之內識，都無所變之外境……此依《攝論》等說唯二義，不說自證分師義，前師別也。 〔T1830 0487b26–c03〕
窺基於「依止根本識」剖二依（依種子第八為因緣親依、依現行第八為增上緣依）、判此句通前六識共依。於「轉變」一語列古德二系：安惠以『變現／變異』釋轉變（自體現似二相、實非二相，即遍計所執似依他有，理實無）；護法以「改轉」釋轉變（一識體改轉為見相二相、見有能取用、相有質礙用，取自體能轉變），此本論初解所宗。後難陀等「第二解」則以『見分識轉依他相分似外境現、唯見相二分、依《攝論》立唯二義』，與護法四分義別。安惠唯一分、難陀二分、護法四分諸師立分之異，《述記》逐處詳之。
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》 |
|---|---|---|
| 識變·能所 | 是諸識轉變·分別·所分別 | 此識轉不離兩義（「此識轉不離兩義，一能分別、二所分別」〔0062b20〕） |
| 唯識成立 | 由此彼皆無，故一切唯識 | 唯識義得成（「所分別既無，能分別亦無……以是義故唯識義得成」〔0062b20–b22〕） |
| 五位無心 | 除生無想天，及無心二定，睡眠與悶絕 | 離六處（「離無想定及無想天、熟眠不夢、醉悶、絕心、暫死」〔0062b18–b19〕） |
| 識俱轉·喻 | 如濤波依水 | 如眾浪同集一水（「如眾像影俱現鏡中，亦如眾浪同集一水」〔0062b16–b17〕） |
玄奘頌作「分別、所分別」，真諦《轉識論》作「能分別、所分別」，二者皆以能取所取雙泯成立唯識；「五位無心」真諦列為「六處」（兼攝暫死），「識俱轉」之喻玄奘作「濤波依水」、真諦作『眾浪同集一水／眾像現鏡』——古譯於分位開合一分詳略。
七、術語
識轉變（vijñāna-pariṇāma）— 諸識自體變似見、相二分；本論立此為「一切唯識」之正釋。 分別 · 所分別（vikalpa · vikalpita）— 能取之見分（能取相）· 所取之相分（見所取）。 根本識（mūla-vijñāna）— 阿陀那識（第八），染淨諸識生起之根本、前六轉識之共親依。 五位無心 — 無想天 · 無想定 · 滅盡定 · 睡眠 · 悶絕；意識於此五位不現行。 虛妄分別（abhūta-parikalpa）— 三界心及心所，能轉似我法外境相現者，識轉變之自性。 唯識 — 「識」總顯八識·六位心所·相見二分·分位·真如皆不離識；「唯」但遮離識實有之外境。 〔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·八識（前五·第六·第七·第八，本章八識俱轉一異之所列）；心所·五遍行（五識相應）·六位心所（『識言總顯六位心所』）。
- 三十頌：頌十五（五識隨緣現）· 頌十六（意識除五位）· 頌十七（識轉變·一切唯識）——逐頌姊妹。
- 二十論：正相關·成立唯識之專論。「安立大乘三界唯識……內識生時似外境現」〔T1590 0074b27–b29〕為『諸識轉變似外境相現』之張本；「處時定如夢，身不定如鬼，同見膿河等，如夢損有用」〔0074c15–c16〕正對本章『處時身用定不定如夢境』釋疑及四智『相違識相智（鬼人天所見各異）』。
- 辯中邊論：辯相品·虛妄分別（「虛妄分別有，於此二都無，此中唯有空，於彼亦有此」即本論成立唯識所引慈尊二頌之本，染依他·中道）。
- 攝大乘論：所知相分·唯識（依他起·唯識性·三性；本論識變第二解「依《攝論》說唯二義」即本於此）。
章內：阿賴耶識章（初能變·根本識·五識所依）· 末那章（第二能變·恒俱轉之一）· 了境章（第三能變·前六識·五識現起·五位無心皆於此章後段）。
九、校本定位
頌 T1586〔0060c05·0060c06·0060c07·0060c08·0061a02·0061a03〕· 本論 T1585 正解識變諸段〔五識 0037a17–a23·五位 0037b03–b04·俱轉 0038b06–b09·一異 0038c04–c07·識變 0038c18–c27·中道 0039a02–a04·唯識言 0039c20–c25〕· 述記 T1830〔五識依止 0475b13–b17·轉變二義 0487a06–a16·難陀第二解 0487b26–0487c03〕· 《轉識論》T1587〔0062b16–b22〕。 〔經證〕解深密 T676〔0698b01–0698b05〕· 楞伽 T670〔0484a16–0484a19〕。〔互讀〕二十論 T1590〔0074b27–b29·0074c15–c16〕。〔論本〕瑜伽師地論 T1579〔本地分 0280b09·0291b21·攝決擇分 0724a06–0724a09〕。
1. Position in Kuiji's Structural Outline
| Outline | This chapter's place |
|---|---|
| The three transformers | the first transformer (the ālaya) · the second transformer (the manas) · the third transformer (object-discerning) have all been treated at length → the general sorting-out of the consciousnesses (turning together · same-or-different) → correctly resolving consciousness-transformation · establishing consciousness-only |
| Within this chapter | the modes of the five consciousnesses' arising (verse 15) · the mental consciousness's five mindless states (verse 16) · the eight consciousnesses turning together · same-or-different · correctly resolving consciousness-transformation (verse 17) · resolving the several objections so as to clear the sense of consciousness-only |
| Verses expounded | Triṃśikā verse 15 in full · verse 16 in full · verse 17 in full |
The marks of the three transformers having been treated and distinguished at length, this chapter takes up from the phrase "the support of the two parts each [consciousness] transforms into" and goes on, with verse 17's "these consciousnesses transform — discrimination and the discriminated," to set up squarely the thesis "all is consciousness-only" — the pivot of the whole treatise's thirty verses is made firm in this one verse.
2. Source verses · doctrinal context
依止根本識，五識隨緣現，或俱或不俱，如濤波依水。 〔T1586 0060c05–0060c06〕
tr. "Resting on the root consciousness, the five consciousnesses appear as conditions allow — now together, now not together — like waves resting on water."
意識常現起，除生無想天，及無心二定，睡眠與悶絕。 〔T1586 0060c07–0060c08〕
tr. "The mental consciousness arises constantly, save for [one] born in the heaven of no-conception, and the two mindless concentrations, [deep] sleep, and fainting."
是諸識轉變，分別、所分別，由此彼皆無，故一切唯識。 〔T1586 0061a02–0061a03〕
tr. "These consciousnesses transform [into] discrimination and the discriminated; because of this, those [self and dharmas] are alike non-existent, and so all is consciousness-only."
Verses 15 and 16 show the modes of arising of the first six consciousnesses (the five consciousnesses [arising] as conditions allow, the mental consciousness [arising always] save in the five [mindless] states), while verse 17 then correctly explains "consciousness-transformation" and so establishes consciousness-only: the several consciousnesses, in their own substance, transform into the semblance of the two parts, seeing and seen; the grasping seeing-part is named "discrimination," the grasped image-part is named "the discriminated"; apart from these two parts a real self and real dharmas are decidedly both non-existent, and so "all is consciousness-only." The sorting-out of modes in the first two verses lays the ground for "establishing consciousness-only" (there is no object outside consciousness; only the inner consciousness transforms and appears as conditions allow), while the third verse correctly answers the question "how, in dependence on what consciousness transforms, are self and dharmas conventionally posited, and how is there only consciousness."
| Verse-phrase | Doctrinal gate | What it settles |
|---|---|---|
| 依止根本識 resting on the root consciousness | the support of the five consciousnesses | the first six evolving consciousnesses take the eighth root consciousness (ādāna) as their common intimate support |
| 五識隨緣現 · 或俱或不俱 the five consciousnesses appear as conditions allow · now together, now not | the arising of the five consciousnesses | inwardly they rest on the root consciousness; outwardly they appear only when attention, faculty, object, and the manifold conditions come together — hence they arise but seldom; like waves resting on water |
| 意識常現起，除…… the mental consciousness arises constantly, save… | the modes of the mental consciousness | the mental consciousness turns by both inner and outer doors, not borrowing many conditions; only in the five mindless states does it not arise |
| 是諸識轉變 these consciousnesses transform | consciousness-transformation | the three transforming consciousnesses and their mental factors transform into the semblance of the two parts, seeing and image; this is given the name "transformation" |
| 分別、所分別 discrimination and the discriminated | grasper and grasped | the seeing-part transformed-into is named "discrimination" (the grasper of the mark) · the image-part transformed-into is named "the discriminated" (what the seeing grasps) |
| 由此彼皆無，故一切唯識 because of this they are alike non-existent, so all is consciousness-only | the establishing of consciousness-only | apart from grasper and grasped there is no separate thing, and real self and dharmas are decidedly non-existent; all is consciousness-only, and departing from the two extremes of addition and subtraction it accords with the middle way |
For the term "transformation," the root treatise sets out two successive expositions (first Dharmapāla's explanation, then Nanda et al.'s); Sthiramati has a separate explanation of "manifesting / altering" (seen in full in heading 5). The various sortings-out — the five mindless states, the eight consciousnesses turning together, same-or-different — the root treatise lays out place by place as several "one view holds…," taking Dharmapāla as correct, the whole given in the Exposition.
3. Scriptural and treatise grounding (scripture → root śāstra)
Scriptural witnesses
由彼影像唯是識故。善男子！我說識所緣，唯識所現故。 〔Saṃdhinirmocana · Yoga-discernment chapter, T676 0698b01–0698b02〕
tr. "Because that image is consciousness alone. Good son! I teach that the object-support of consciousness is only what consciousness manifests."
此中無有少法能見少法；然即此心如是生時，即有如是影像顯現。 〔Saṃdhinirmocana T676 0698b04–0698b05〕
tr. "Herein there is no slightest dharma able to see [any] slightest dharma; yet just as this mind arises thus, there is just such an image manifesting forth."
譬如明鏡，現眾色像。大慧！猶如猛風，吹大海水。外境界風，飄蕩心海，識浪不斷……故五識身轉。 〔Laṅkāvatāra T670 0484a16–0484a19〕
tr. "As a bright mirror manifests the manifold form-images. Mahāmati! As a fierce wind blows upon the great sea-water — the wind of outer objects sets the mind-sea tossing, and the waves of consciousness do not cease… and so the body of the five consciousnesses turns."
The Saṃdhinirmocana, with "the object-support of consciousness is only what consciousness manifests" and "there is no slightest dharma able to see [any] slightest dharma; when the mind arises, the image manifests," sets up consciousness-only directly — the scriptural root of this chapter's verse 17, "discrimination and the discriminated · all is consciousness-only," which the root treatise cites as "the sūtra says the object-support is only what consciousness manifests"; the Laṅkāvatāra, with "the bright mirror manifesting images · the wind of outer objects setting the mind-sea tossing · the waves of consciousness not ceasing," discloses that the waves of the eight consciousnesses turn in dependence on the store-consciousness and that the body of the five consciousnesses turns — the scriptural root of verse 15's "the five consciousnesses appear as conditions allow · like waves resting on water."
Root śāstra (Yogācārabhūmi T1579)
我說識所緣、唯識所現故……此中無有少法能見少法；然即此心如是生時、即有如是影像顯現。 〔T1579 · Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī 0724a06–0724a09〕
tr. "I teach that the object-support of consciousness is only what consciousness manifests… Herein there is no slightest dharma able to see [any] slightest dharma; yet just as this mind arises thus, there is just such an image manifesting forth."
識，謂現前了別所緣境界。 〔T1579 · Maulī-bhūmi 0280b09〕
tr. "Consciousness: that is, the presently-cognizing discernment of the object-realm it supports upon."
又識能了別事之總相。 〔T1579 · Maulī-bhūmi 0291b21〕
tr. "Again, consciousness can discern the general mark of a thing."
The Yogācārabhūmi's Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī records "the object-support of consciousness is only what consciousness manifests · the mind arising and the image manifesting" (same text as the Saṃdhinirmocana, the śāstra-root for "what consciousness manifests" in the dharma-lakṣaṇa basic stage); its Maulī-bhūmi settles "consciousness = the presently-cognizing discernment of the object-realm it supports upon" and "consciousness discerns the general mark of a thing" (the śāstra-root for verse 17's "these consciousnesses transform · the seeing-part named discrimination · the grasper of the mark" — consciousness's discerning nature is precisely its ability to transform into a semblance and so to grasp). What Dharmapāla's redaction takes as authority for establishing consciousness-only 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 five consciousnesses · their support
論曰：「根本識」者，阿陀那識，染、淨諸識生根本故。「依止」者，謂前六轉識以根本識為共親依。 〔T1585 0037a17–a19〕
tr. "The treatise says: 'the root consciousness' is the ādāna consciousness, because it is the root from which the defiled and pure consciousnesses arise. 'Resting on' means: the first six evolving consciousnesses take the root consciousness as their common intimate support."
The five consciousnesses · appearing as conditions allow
「五識」者，謂前五轉識，種類相似，故總說之。「隨緣現」言顯非常起，「緣」謂作意、根、境等緣……由此或俱或不俱起，外緣合者有頓、漸故。 〔T1585 0037a19–a23〕
tr. "'The five consciousnesses' means the first five evolving consciousnesses; being similar in kind, they are spoken of together. The phrase 'appear as conditions allow' shows that they do not arise constantly; 'conditions' means attention, faculty, object, and such conditions… By this they arise now together, now not together, since the gathering of outer conditions is now sudden, now gradual."
The five states · listing the names
五位者何？「生無想」等。 〔T1585 0037b03–b04〕
tr. "What are the five states? '[One] born in [the heaven of] no-conception' and the rest."
The eight consciousnesses · turning together
是故八識一切有情心與末那二，恒俱轉；若起第六，則三俱轉；餘隨緣合，起一至五，則四俱轉，乃至八俱，是謂略說識俱轉義。 〔T1585 0038b06–b09〕
tr. "Therefore, in every sentient being the eight consciousnesses [run thus]: the [store-]mind and the manas, the two, ever turn together; if the sixth arises, then three turn together; the rest, as conditions gather, arise from one up to five, and then four turn together, on up to eight together — this is the gist of the sense in which the consciousnesses turn together, stated in brief."
The eight consciousnesses · same-or-different
八識自性不可言定一，行相、所依、緣、相應異故……亦非定異，經說八識如水波等，無差別故；定異應非因果性故。 〔T1585 0038c04–c07〕
tr. "The eight consciousnesses' own nature cannot be called definitely one, for their mode of activity, support, object, and concomitants differ… nor are they definitely different, for the sūtra says the eight consciousnesses are like water and waves, without difference; [and] were they definitely different, they ought not to have the nature of cause and effect."
Consciousness-transformation · setting up the name "transformation"
論曰：「是諸識」者，謂前所說三能變識及彼心所，皆能變似見、相二分，立「轉變」名。所變見分說名「分別」，能取相故；所變相分名「所分別」，見所取故。 〔T1585 0038c18–c21〕
tr. "The treatise says: 'these consciousnesses' means the previously-stated three transforming consciousnesses together with their mental factors, which all transform into the semblance of the two parts, seeing and image; this is given the name 'transformation.' The seeing-part transformed-into is called 'discrimination,' because it grasps the mark; the image-part transformed-into is named 'the discriminated,' because it is what the seeing grasps."
Consciousness-transformation · because of this they are alike non-existent
由此正理，彼實我、法離識所變皆定非有，離能、所取無別物故，非有實物離二相故。是故一切有為、無為，若實、若假，皆不離識。「唯」言為遮離識實物，非不離識心所法等。 〔T1585 0038c21–c25〕
tr. "By this right principle, that real self and dharmas, apart from what consciousness transforms, are all decidedly non-existent — for apart from grasper and grasped there is no separate thing, and there is no real thing apart from the two parts. Therefore all conditioned and unconditioned [dharmas], whether real or conventional, are none of them apart from consciousness. The word 'only' is to ward off a real thing apart from consciousness, not [to ward off] the mental factors and the like that are not apart from consciousness."
Consciousness-transformation · the second explanation (unreal imagining)
或轉變者，謂諸內識轉似我、法外境相現。此能轉變即名分別，虛妄分別為自性故，謂即三界心及心所。 〔T1585 0038c25–c27〕
tr. "Or 'transformation' means: the several inner consciousnesses turn so as to manifest the marks of self, dharmas, and outer objects. This transforming [side] is just what is named 'discrimination,' because its own nature is unreal imagining — that is, the mind and mental factors of the three realms."
The sense of consciousness-only made good · according with the middle way
「唯」既不遮不離識法，故真空等亦是有性。由斯遠離增、減二邊，唯識義成，契會中道。 〔T1585 0039a02–a04〕
tr. "Since the word 'only' does not ward off the dharmas not apart from consciousness, true emptiness and the like are also of the nature of being. By this, departing from the two extremes of addition and subtraction, the sense of consciousness-only is made good and accords with the middle way."
Establishing consciousness-only · the deep import of the word "consciousness-only"
「識」言總顯一切有情各有八識、六位心所，所變相、見、分位差別及彼空理所顯真如……如是諸法皆不離識，總立識名。「唯」言，但遮愚夫所執定離諸識實有色等。 〔T1585 0039c20–c25〕
tr. "The word 'consciousness' altogether displays that every sentient being has its own eight consciousnesses, the six classes of mental factors, the image and seeing transformed-into, the differences of state, and the suchness disclosed by the emptiness-principle of these… all such dharmas being not apart from consciousness, they are all set up under the name 'consciousness.' The word 'only' merely wards off the real form and the rest that the fool grasps as definitely apart from the consciousnesses."
Essentials: the treatise, for the five consciousnesses, shows their modes of arising by "resting on the root consciousness · appearing as conditions allow" (their mode of activity coarse and stirring, the conditions they borrow not complete, hence they arise but little and break off much); the mental consciousness turns by both inner and outer doors, not borrowing many conditions, and only in the five states (the heaven of no-conception · the concentration of no-conception · the concentration of cessation · sleep · fainting) does it not arise when mindless. In sorting out the eight consciousnesses, as to turning-together "the [store-]mind and the manas ever the two, plus the sixth makes three, plus the five up to eight"; as to same-or-different, "they cannot be called definitely one (their mode of activity, support, and the rest differing), nor definitely different (like water and waves, without difference; were they definitely different, cause and effect would fail)" — difference being set up by the conventional, while in the truly-ultimate the [reach of] mind and speech is cut off. In correctly resolving consciousness-transformation, the treatise gives two successive expositions: the first explains "the several consciousnesses transform into the semblance of the two parts, seeing and image, named transformation; the seeing-part named discrimination (the grasper), the image-part named the discriminated (what the seeing grasps); apart from the two graspings there is no real self or dharmas"; the latter explains "the inner consciousnesses turn so as to manifest the marks of self, dharmas, and outer objects; the transforming [side] is just what is named discrimination, with unreal imagining for its own nature." The word "only" wards off a real thing apart from consciousness, not the mental factors and suchness that are not apart from consciousness, and so, departing from addition and subtraction, it accords with the middle way. It concludes by making good that "the word 'consciousness' altogether displays the eight consciousnesses, the six classes of mental factors, the image-and-seeing parts, the states, and suchness, all not apart from consciousness," and so one should be settled in faith that all is consciousness-only.
5. Divergent readings across the masters (Kuiji, Shuji T1830)
「依止根本識」者，此句通下第六識，二俱依止第八識故，顯其共依。然依止有二：一、依種子第八識，即是因緣親依……二、依現行第八，即是增上緣依。 〔T1830 0475b13–b17〕
tr. "'Resting on the root consciousness': this phrase runs down to [cover] the sixth consciousness too, since both [the five and the sixth] rest on the eighth consciousness, showing their common support. Now 'resting on' is twofold: first, resting on the seed-eighth-consciousness, which is the intimate support that is the causal condition… second, resting on the active-eighth, which is the support that is the dominant condition."
安惠解云：何名轉變？謂是三識自體皆轉變似見、相二分，識自體分名為轉變。轉變者，變現義……或轉變者，是變異義……護法菩薩解云：又轉變者，是改轉義，謂一識體改轉為二相起，異於自體……今取自體能轉變也。 〔T1830 0487a06–a16〕
tr. "Sthiramati explains: what is named 'transformation'? It means that the own-substance of the three consciousnesses all transforms into the semblance of the two parts, seeing and image; the consciousness's own-substance-part is named transformation. 'Transformation' has the sense of manifesting-forth… or 'transformation' has the sense of altering… The bodhisattva Dharmapāla explains: again, 'transformation' has the sense of changing-over, meaning that one consciousness-substance changes over and arises as two marks, [these] being other than [its] own substance… here we take it that the own-substance is what transforms."
下難陀等第二解……言轉變者，即前三能變內見分識，能轉依他相分，似外境相現，唯有見、相之內識，都無所變之外境……此依《攝論》等說唯二義，不說自證分師義，前師別也。 〔T1830 0487b26–c03〕
tr. "Below, Nanda et al.'s second explanation… by 'transformation' is meant the seeing-part consciousness within the foregoing three transformers, which can turn the other-dependent image-part so that it manifests as the mark of an outer object; there being only the inner consciousness of seeing and image, with no outer object transformed-into at all… this rests on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and the like, which state only the two-part sense, not the master's [view] of the self-witnessing part — it differs from the former master[s]."
Kuiji, on "resting on the root consciousness," divides out the two supports (resting on the seed-eighth as the intimate support that is the causal condition · resting on the active-eighth as the support that is the dominant condition) and judges this phrase to run to the common support of the first six consciousnesses. On the term "transformation" he sets out the ancient masters' two lines: Sthiramati explains transformation as "manifesting / altering" (the own-substance manifests the semblance of the two marks, while in truth there are not two marks — that is, the wholly-imagined seeming to be the other-dependent, in principle non-existent); Dharmapāla explains transformation as "changing-over" (one consciousness-substance changes over into the two marks of seeing and image, the seeing having the function of grasping, the image having the function of resistance, taking the own-substance as what transforms) — this is what the root treatise's first explanation takes as authority. Then Nanda et al.'s "second explanation" takes "the seeing-part consciousness turning the other-dependent image-part to manifest as an outer object · only the two parts seeing and image · resting on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha to set up the two-part sense," differing from Dharmapāla's four-part doctrine. The masters' differences over the setting-up of parts — Sthiramati's single part, Nanda's two parts, Dharmapāla's four parts — the Shuji details place by place.
6. Rendering of terms · old-translation comparison (Xuanzang ↔ Paramārtha, Zhuanshi lun)
| Sense | Xuanzang, Cheng Weishi Lun | Paramārtha, Zhuanshi lun |
|---|---|---|
| consciousness-transformation · grasper and grasped | 是諸識轉變·分別·所分別 these consciousnesses transform · discrimination · the discriminated | 此識轉不離兩義 this consciousness-turning is not apart from two senses (「此識轉不離兩義，一能分別、二所分別」〔0062b20〕) |
| the establishing of consciousness-only | 由此彼皆無，故一切唯識 because of this they are alike non-existent, so all is consciousness-only | 唯識義得成 the sense of consciousness-only comes to be established (「所分別既無，能分別亦無……以是義故唯識義得成」〔0062b20–b22〕) |
| the five mindless states | 除生無想天，及無心二定，睡眠與悶絕 save [one] born in the heaven of no-conception, and the two mindless concentrations, sleep, and fainting | 離六處 apart from six occasions (「離無想定及無想天、熟眠不夢、醉悶、絕心、暫死」〔0062b18–b19〕) |
| the consciousnesses turning together · simile | 如濤波依水 like waves resting on water | 如眾浪同集一水 like the many waves gathering together in one water (「如眾像影俱現鏡中，亦如眾浪同集一水」〔0062b16–b17〕) |
Xuanzang's verse has "discrimination, the discriminated," Paramārtha's Zhuanshi lun has "the discriminating, the discriminated," both establishing consciousness-only through the twin effacement of grasper and grasped; the "five mindless states" Paramārtha lists as "six occasions" (taking in also "momentary death"), and for the simile of "the consciousnesses turning together" Xuanzang has "waves resting on water," Paramārtha has "the many waves gathering together in one water / the many images manifesting in a mirror" — the old translation parting from [the new] in the opening-and-folding of detail in [its handling of] the states.
7. Key terms
- consciousness-transformation (識轉變, vijñāna-pariṇāma) — the several consciousnesses, in their own substance, transform into the semblance of the two parts, seeing and image; the root treatise sets this up as the correct explanation of "all is consciousness-only."
- discrimination · the discriminated (分別 · 所分別, vikalpa · vikalpita) — the grasping seeing-part (the grasper of the mark) · the grasped image-part (what the seeing grasps).
- the root consciousness (根本識, mūla-vijñāna) — the ādāna consciousness (the eighth), the root from which the defiled and pure consciousnesses arise, the common intimate support of the first six evolving consciousnesses.
- the five mindless states — the heaven of no-conception · the concentration of no-conception · the concentration of cessation · sleep · fainting; in these five states the mental consciousness does not become active.
- unreal imagining (虛妄分別, abhūta-parikalpa) — the mind and mental factors of the three realms, which can transform so as to manifest the marks of self, dharmas, and outer objects; the own-nature of consciousness-transformation.
- consciousness-only (唯識) — "consciousness" altogether displays that the eight consciousnesses · the six classes of mental factors · the two parts, image and seeing · the states · and suchness are all not apart from consciousness; "only" merely wards off an outer object really existing apart from consciousness.
〔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): the mind-dharmas · the eight consciousnesses (the first five · the sixth · the seventh · the eighth, the ones laid out in this chapter's eight-consciousnesses turning-together and same-or-different); the mental factors · the five omnipresent (concomitant with the five consciousnesses) · the six classes of mental factors ("the word consciousness altogether displays the six classes of mental factors").
- Triṃśikā: verse 15 (the five consciousnesses appear as conditions allow) · verse 16 (the mental consciousness save the five states) · verse 17 (consciousness-transformation · all is consciousness-only) — the verse-by-verse sister.
- Viṃśatikā: directly relevant · the dedicated treatise on establishing consciousness-only. "Establishing that in the Mahāyāna the triple world is consciousness-only… when inner consciousness arises it appears to resemble an outer object" 〔T1590 0074b27–b29〕 is the prototype for "the several consciousnesses transform so as to manifest the mark of an outer object"; "place and time are fixed, as in a dream; the body is not fixed, as with [the hungry ghosts and] the pus[-river]; all alike see the pus-river and so on; as in a dream there is loss-and-function" 〔0074c15–c16〕 squarely answers this chapter's resolution of the doubt over "place, time, body, and function being fixed-or-unfixed, as in a dream-realm" and the four-wisdoms' "wisdom of mutually-contradicting consciousness-marks (what hungry ghosts, humans, and gods see differing each from each)."
- Madhyāntavibhāga: the Characteristics chapter · unreal imagining ("unreal imagining exists; in it the two are both non-existent; herein there is only emptiness; in that too there is this" — the source of the two verses of the venerable Maitreya that the root treatise cites in establishing consciousness-only; defiled other-dependent · the middle way).
- Mahāyānasaṃgraha: the Knowable-Characteristic division · consciousness-only (the other-dependent · the consciousness-only nature · the three natures; this chapter's second explanation of consciousness-transformation, "resting on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha to set up the two-part sense," is grounded here).
Within the treatise: the chapter on the ālaya-consciousness (the first transformer · the root consciousness · the support of the five consciousnesses) · the chapter on the manas (the second transformer · one of the two ever turning together) · the chapter on object-discerning (the third transformer · the first six consciousnesses · the arising of the five consciousnesses · the five mindless states, all in the latter part of this chapter).
9. Collation position
Verses T1586 〔0060c05·0060c06·0060c07·0060c08·0061a02·0061a03〕 · root T1585 the several segments correctly resolving consciousness-transformation 〔the five consciousnesses 0037a17–a23 · the five states 0037b03–b04 · turning together 0038b06–b09 · same-or-different 0038c04–c07 · consciousness-transformation 0038c18–c27 · the middle way 0039a02–a04 · the word consciousness-only 0039c20–c25〕 · Shuji T1830 〔the five consciousnesses' support 0475b13–b17 · the two senses of transformation 0487a06–a16 · Nanda's second explanation 0487b26–0487c03〕 · Zhuanshi lun T1587 〔0062b16–b22〕. 〔Scripture〕 Saṃdhinirmocana T676 〔0698b01–0698b05〕 · Laṅkāvatāra T670 〔0484a16–0484a19〕. 〔Cross-reading〕 Viṃśatikā T1590 〔0074b27–b29·0074c15–c16〕. 〔Root śāstra〕 Yogācārabhūmi T1579 〔Maulī-bhūmi 0280b09·0291b21 · Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī 0724a06–0724a09〕.