唯識二十論 偈六 業熏在識
偈五立了「轉變可以在識」的一半，偈六補另一半，用一個樸素的常識：種子種在哪裡，果就長在哪裡。世親點破對方的破綻——你說獄卒是業力生的大種變的，可你不得不承認那「業的熏習」是熏在識的相續裡的（習氣不可能熏在識外的大種上）。種子既在識裡，果也該在識裡結；你卻把種子留在識、把果掛到識外——「業熏習餘處，執餘處有果」，種一處收一處，哪有這種道理？所以「熏在識，果就在識，你憑什麼不許」。這一問靠「因果同處」這條誰都得認的線，把獄卒的果牢牢釘回識裡。
理上輸了，對方打出最後一張牌：搬佛經——「佛明明說有色等處（眼處、色處……十二處），要是只有識變似色，佛幹嘛這麼說？」世親不否認那是佛說、也不跟佛唱反調，只下一句判語：「此教非因，有別意故」——佛說色等處別有用意（密意），不能拿來當「色等實有」的證據。這正是唯識家讀經的家法：佛語有了義與密意之分，遇到字面像說外境實有的經文，既不硬掰也不不認，而是辨明它是依密意而說。
至於這密意是什麼，世親留給偈七，用「佛說化生有情其實是依密意（指心相續往後世）、非實有化生有情」作類比解開。偈六把 §壹 的「立」夯到底（熏在識、果在識），只留下「色等處密意為何」這條尾巴——正是通向偈七、並轉入 §貳 偈八「依何密意說色等十」的線頭。
Verse 5 established one half — "the transformation can be within consciousness." Verse 6 supplies the other half, using a plain piece of common sense: wherever the seed is sown, there the fruit grows. Vasubandhu exposes the opponent's flaw — you say the hell-wardens are a transformation of the great elements produced by the force of karma, yet you cannot but admit that "the perfuming of karma" is perfumed within the continuum of consciousness (the karmic perfuming, vāsanā, cannot be lodged in the great elements outside consciousness). Since the seed is within consciousness, the fruit too ought to come to fruition within consciousness; but you leave the seed in consciousness and hang the fruit outside it — "the perfuming of karma is in one place, yet [you] cling to the fruit being in another place" — sowing in one place, reaping in another: where is there such a principle? So "perfuming is in consciousness, the fruit is in consciousness; on what grounds do you refuse it?" This one question, relying on the line "cause and fruit are in the same place" that everyone must concede, nails the wardens' fruit firmly back inside consciousness.
Beaten on principle, the opponent plays his last card — hauling in the scriptures: "the Buddha plainly said there are the bases of colour and the rest (the eye-base, the colour-base… the twelve bases); if it were only consciousness transforming as though there were colour, why would the Buddha say so?" Vasubandhu neither denies that this is the Buddha's word nor sets himself against the Buddha; he simply delivers one verdict: "this teaching is not a ground, because it has a separate intent" — the Buddha's saying that there are the bases of colour and the rest has a separate purpose (a hidden intent), and cannot be taken as proof that "colour and the rest really exist." This is exactly the house-rule of the Yogācāra reading of scripture: the Buddha's words admit a distinction between the definitive meaning and the hidden intent; when one meets a passage that on its surface seems to assert the reality of external objects, one neither twists it by force nor refuses to acknowledge it, but discerns that it is spoken in accordance with a hidden intent.
As to what this hidden intent is, Vasubandhu leaves it to Verse 7, to be untied by analogy: "the Buddha's saying there are spontaneously-born beings is in fact spoken by hidden intent (pointing to the continuum of mind carrying on into the later life), not that there really are spontaneously-born beings." Verse 6 rams the "establishing" of §I home to the bottom (perfuming is in consciousness, the fruit is in consciousness), leaving only this one loose end — what is the hidden intent of the bases of colour and the rest? — which is precisely the thread-end leading into Verse 7, and on into §II, Verse 8, "by what hidden intent are the ten [bases] of colour and the rest spoken of."
§頌
業熏習餘處，執餘處有果， 所熏識有果，不許有何因？
§論（世親自註）
論曰：執那落迦由自業力生差別大種起形等轉變，彼業熏習理應許在識相續中，不在餘處有熏習識，汝便不許有果轉變，無熏習處翻執有果，此有何因？有教為因，謂若唯識似色等現無別色等，佛不應說有色等處。此教非因，有別意故。頌曰：
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
§頌 白話
業的熏習（習氣）熏在這一處（識裡）， 你卻執著果在另一處（識外）有； 那「被熏的識本身就有果」這一點， 你不承認，又有什麼理由呢？
§論 白話
世親解釋這首偈。
對方執著「地獄眾生由自己的業力，生出特殊的大種、起出形相等的轉變」。可是那「業的熏習」，照理就該承認是在「識的相續」當中——不是熏在別的地方。既然如此，你卻不承認「果的轉變在識裡」；明明在「沒有熏習的那個地方（識外）」反倒執著有果——這是什麼道理？
對方說：我有佛經的教為依據。也就是說：如果真的只是識變現得像有色等、並沒有另外的色等，那麼佛就不應該說「有色等處」了（可佛偏偏說了）。
世親回答：這條教不能當作依據，因為它別有用意（佛說它時另有密意）。世親接著用下一首偈來說明那密意。
§Verse — plain reading
The perfuming of karma (the karmic perfuming, vāsanā) perfumes in this place (within consciousness), yet you cling to the fruit being elsewhere (outside consciousness); that "the perfumed consciousness itself has the fruit" — this you do not allow: and on what ground?
§Auto-commentary — plain reading
Vasubandhu explains this verse.
The opponent clings to "the beings of hell, by their own force of karma, produce special great elements and give rise to a transformation of shapes and the rest." But that "perfuming of karma" ought, by rights, to be admitted to lie within "the continuum of consciousness" — it is not perfumed somewhere else. That being so, you yet do not allow "the transformation of the fruit to be within consciousness"; rather, in the very place where there is no perfuming (outside consciousness), you cling to there being a fruit — on what ground is this?
The opponent says: I have a teaching of the Buddha for my ground. That is: if it really were only consciousness manifesting as though there were colour-and-form, and there were no separate colour-and-form, then the Buddha ought not to have said "there are the bases of colour and the rest" (yet the Buddha did say so).
Vasubandhu answers: this teaching cannot be taken as a ground, because it has a separate intent (the Buddha, in saying it, had a hidden intent). Vasubandhu then uses the next verse to make that hidden intent clear.
偈五立了一半，偈六補另一半
偈五反問「業力轉變何不在識」，立了「轉變可以在識」。可對方還能賴：憑什麼一定在識、不在識外？偈六就來補這一刀，用的是一個再樸素不過的常識——種子種在哪裡，果就長在哪裡。
熏一處、果別處，自相矛盾
世親點破對方的破綻：你說獄卒是「業力生差別大種」變的，可你不得不承認，那「業的熏習」（業留下的習氣、種子）是熏在識的相續裡的——習氣不可能熏在識外那塊大種上。既然種子（熏習）在識裡，那果（獄卒的形相轉變）也該在識裡結才對。你倒好，把種子留在識裡，卻把果掛到識外去——「業熏習餘處，執餘處有果」，種一處、收一處，天下哪有這種道理？所以「所熏識有果，不許有何因」——熏在識，果就在識，你憑什麼不許？
這一問樸實卻致命：它不靠玄理，靠的是「因果同處」這條誰都得認的線，把獄卒的果牢牢釘回識裡。
對方最後一張牌：搬佛經
理上輸了，對方打出最後一張牌——搬佛經來壓：「佛明明說有『色等處』（眼處、色處……十二處）！要是真像你說的只有識變似色、沒有別的色，那佛幹嘛說有色等處？」這一招借的是佛的權威。
世親不跟佛諍，他判「密意」
世親的回答極有分寸——他不否認那是佛說的，也不跟佛唱反調，只下一句判語：「此教非因，有別意故」。意思是：佛說色等處這句教，不能拿來當「色等實有」的證據，因為佛說它時別有用意（密意），不是在立色等外法為實有。
這裡見出唯識家讀經的家法：佛的話有「了義」與「密意」之分；遇到字面像在說外境實有的經文，不是硬掰、也不是不認，而是辨明它是依密意而說。至於這密意究竟是什麼，世親不在這裡展開——他留給偈七，用「化生有情」這個現成的佛教例子來解。
承衍
偈六把 §壹 的「立」夯到底：熏在識、果在識，獄卒之有不待心外。剩下的尾巴只有一條——佛說色等處的「密意」到底是什麼？這條尾巴，偈七用「佛說化生有情其實是依密意（指心相續往後世）、非實有化生有情」作類比正面解開；解開後，§壹 的答難就圓滿，論的重心隨即轉入 §貳——偈八「依何密意說色等十」，把十二處整個收進唯識的密意裡。讀偈六，記住它留的那條尾巴，正是通向下一段的線頭。
Verse 5 established one half; Verse 6 supplies the other
Verse 5 pressed back the question "why should the transformation of the force of karma not be within consciousness?", and so established that "the transformation can be within consciousness." But the opponent can still hold out: on what grounds must it be in consciousness rather than outside it? Verse 6 comes to deliver that very stroke, using a most plain piece of common sense — wherever the seed is sown, there the fruit grows.
Perfuming in one place, fruit in another — self-contradiction
Vasubandhu exposes the opponent's flaw: you say the hell-wardens are a transformation of "the special great elements produced by the force of karma," yet you cannot but admit that "the perfuming of karma" (the karmic perfuming, vāsanā, the seeds karma leaves behind) is perfumed within the continuum of consciousness — perfuming cannot be lodged in those great elements outside consciousness. Since the seed (the perfuming) is within consciousness, the fruit (the transformation into the wardens' shapes) ought likewise to come to fruition within consciousness. But you do otherwise: you leave the seed in consciousness, yet hang the fruit outside it — "the perfuming of karma is in one place, yet [you] cling to the fruit being in another place" (業熏習餘處，執餘處有果); sowing in one place, reaping in another — where in the world is there such a principle? So, "the perfumed consciousness has the fruit — to not allow this, on what ground?" (所熏識有果，不許有何因) — perfuming is in consciousness, so the fruit is in consciousness; on what grounds do you refuse it?
This one question is plain yet lethal: it relies on no abstruse principle but on the line "cause and fruit are in the same place," which everyone must concede, and so nails the wardens' fruit firmly back inside consciousness.
The opponent's last card: hauling in the scriptures
Beaten on principle, the opponent plays his last card — hauling in the scriptures to bear down: "the Buddha plainly said there are 'the bases of colour and the rest' (the eye-base, the colour-base… the twelve bases)! If it really were as you say, only consciousness transforming as though there were colour, with no separate colour, why would the Buddha say there are the bases of colour and the rest?" This move borrows the authority of the Buddha.
Vasubandhu does not dispute with the Buddha; he judges it "hidden intent"
Vasubandhu's answer has the finest measure — he does not deny that this is what the Buddha said, nor does he set himself against the Buddha; he simply delivers one verdict: "this teaching is not a ground, because it has a separate intent" (此教非因，有別意故). The meaning is: the Buddha's teaching that there are the bases of colour and the rest cannot be taken as proof that "colour and the rest really exist," because the Buddha, in saying it, had a separate purpose (a hidden intent, abhiprāya) — he was not establishing colour and the rest as real outer dharmas.
Here the house-rule of the Yogācāra reading of scripture comes into view: the Buddha's words admit a distinction between "definitive meaning" (了義) and "hidden intent" (密意); when one meets a scriptural passage that on its surface seems to assert the reality of external objects, one neither twists it by force nor refuses to acknowledge it, but discerns that it is spoken in accordance with a hidden intent. As to what this hidden intent actually is, Vasubandhu does not unfold it here — he leaves it to Verse 7, to be resolved with the ready-made Buddhist example of "spontaneously-born beings" (化生有情).
Carried forward (承衍)
Verse 6 rams the "establishing" of §I home to the bottom: perfuming is in consciousness, the fruit is in consciousness, the existence of the wardens does not await anything outside the mind. Only one loose end remains — what, after all, is the "hidden intent" of the Buddha's saying that there are the bases of colour and the rest? This loose end Verse 7 unties head-on by analogy: "the Buddha's saying there are spontaneously-born beings is in fact spoken by hidden intent (pointing to the continuum of mind carrying on into the later life), not that there really are spontaneously-born beings." Once it is untied, the answering of objections in §I is complete, and the treatise's centre of gravity at once turns into §II — Verse 8, "by what hidden intent are the ten [bases] of colour and the rest spoken of," which folds the entire twelve bases into the hidden intent of consciousness-only. Read Verse 6, and remember the loose end it leaves: it is precisely the thread-end leading into the next part.
考據Apparatus
一、科判定位
| 系統 | 此偈之位 |
|---|---|
| 全論五段 | §壹 立宗·答四難（偈一–七）之夯實偈。偈五立「業力轉變可在識」 → 偈六進證：熏習既在識相續，果亦應在識，執果在餘處（識外）自相違；末出「有教為因」之難（佛說色等處），斷以「此教非因，有別意故」 → 偈七 正面解密意 |
| 偈五→偈六 | 偈五立轉變在識，偈六補其所以然：熏習與果同處——熏在識則果在識，方無矛盾；並引出「佛既說色等處」之教難，懸至偈七 |
| 玄奘段位 | §頌〔p0075b02–03〕· §論自註〔p0075b04–09〕 |
二、源頌 · 義理脈絡
§頌一兩難貫四句：「業熏習餘處」（設熏習在一處）·「執餘處有果」（卻執果在另處）——此即對方「熏在識而果在識外大種」之自相違；「所熏識有果，不許有何因？」——熏既在識，果即在識，何故不許？
§論二節：(一)熏果同處之證——對方執那落迦由自業力生差別大種起轉變；然業之熏習理應在識相續中，不在餘處；既不許「果轉變在識」，卻於「無熏習之處（識外）」執有果，此無因。(二)教難與斷——對方搬經教為據：「若唯識似色等現、無別色等，佛不應說有色等處。」世親斷曰「此教非因，有別意故」——佛說色等處別有密意，非可執為色等實有之證，啟偈七。
三、經論宗依（經證 → 論本）
- 經證：熏習（業習氣）與其果之說，本佛說業感相續之理；「佛說有色等處」亦佛經之教——世親不否認其為佛說，唯判其為密意說（待偈七解）。
- 論本：世親自註（T1590）以「熏果同處」破執果在識外，復標佛說色等處「有別意」；論之立義不離佛說，且善判佛教之了義與密意。
四、本論釋要（世親自註 T1590）
本偈兩義：(一)邏輯之釘——熏習之所在即果之所在。對方既須承認業習氣熏在識相續（非熏在識外之大種），則由之而起之果（獄卒等轉變）亦當在識；乃竟把熏習留在識、把果掛到識外，是「熏一處、果別處」之自相違。(二)教證之消解——對方最後援「佛說色等處」為據；世親不與佛諍，而判此教「有別意」——佛依密意而說，非實立色等外法。此一判，正啟偈七以「化生有情」喻釋密意，並接 §貳 偈八「依何密意說色等十」。
五、諸家異釋（古德 · 標宗）
- 護法《成唯識寶生論》T31n1591（唐·義淨譯·漢有傳本）——卷一末／卷二開首釋本偈，展開熏習在識相續、及佛說色等處之密意。〔標宗：護法於熏果同處及教密意處有詳釋；古德讀法之一，此處只記其宗，不判。〕
- Vinītadeva Prakaraṇaviṃśakaṭīkā——藏譯存·漢無傳本，依例僅志其名，內容不入義據。
六、譯名 · 古譯對讀（三漢譯）
| 漢譯 | 譯本 | 對讀 |
|---|---|---|
| ★ 唐·玄奘 T31n1590 | 「業熏習餘處，執餘處有果，所熏識有果，不許有何因？」 | 五言四句，以「熏一處·果別處」之自相違立難；自註復消解「佛說色等處」之教難（此教非因，有別意故）；以此為底本 |
| 陳·真諦 T31n1589《大乘唯識論》 | 散文連展熏果同處之難與教密意（古代漢證·參校） | |
| 後魏·般若流支 T31n1588《唯識論》 | 「業熏於異法，果云何異處」——「異法／異處」即玄奘「餘處」之難，問熏與果何故異處（古代漢證·參校） |
七、術語（古德所傳梵 · 發音輔助）
| 漢 | 梵（發音輔助） | 義 |
|---|---|---|
| 熏習 | vāsanā | 業習氣；熏在識相續，為果之所依 |
| 識相續 | vijñāna-saṃtāna | 識之相續流；熏習之所在 |
| 別意（密意） | abhiprāya | 佛說色等處之別有用意；非實立外法 |
梵羅馬字僅作發音輔助；無古德音寫可徵者從闕，不據現代校本補。
八、互讀（唯識系次第）
| 百法明門論 | 唯識三十論 | 二十論內部 |
|---|---|---|
| #8 阿賴耶識 ālaya——熏習所在之識；「所熏識」即此 ⭐ | 偈二「習氣」·偈十八「由一切種識，如是如是變」——種子熏習在識，正本偈之義 | 偈五 業力大種——本偈承其「轉變在識」，補「熏果同處」 |
| #6 意識 mano-vijñāna——現行熏習之能熏 | 偈十九 異熟·等流——熏習成果之機理 | 偈七 密意——承本偈「此教非因，有別意」，正釋色等處之密意 |
| #100 真如／無為——佛說了義與密意之分判所依 | 偈廿三–廿五 三性三無性——了義之究竟說 | 偈八 自種似境——「依何密意說色等十」正面開展 |
九、校本定位
- 漢文正文（§頌）：T31n1590〔p0075b02–03〕（玄奘譯）
- 漢文自註（§論）：T31n1590〔p0075b04–09〕（玄奘譯）
- 參校漢譯：T31n1589（真諦《大乘唯識論》）· T31n1588（般若流支《唯識論》「業熏於異法，果云何異處」）
- 古德釋：T31n1591（護法《成唯識寶生論》卷一末／卷二開首·漢有傳本）
1. Doctrinal-outline placement
| System | This verse's place |
|---|---|
| The treatise's five parts | The consolidating verse of §I Establishing the Thesis · Answering the Four Objections (vv.1–7). Verse 5 establishes "the transformation by the force of karma can be within consciousness" 「業力轉變可在識」 → v.6 carries the proof further: since the perfuming lies in the continuum of consciousness, the fruit too ought to lie in consciousness; to cling to the fruit being elsewhere (outside consciousness) is self-contradictory 〔熏習既在識相續，果亦應在識，執果在餘處（識外）自相違〕; at its close it raises the objection "there is a teaching as ground" 「有教為因」 (the Buddha said there are the bases of colour and the rest), cut off with 「此教非因，有別意故」 ("this teaching is not a ground, because it has a separate intent") → v.7 resolves the hidden intent head-on. |
| v.5 → v.6 | Verse 5 establishes that the transformation is within consciousness; verse 6 supplies its rationale: perfuming and fruit are in the same place — perfuming being in consciousness, the fruit is in consciousness, and only thus is there no contradiction; it further draws out the scriptural objection "but the Buddha did say there are the bases of colour and the rest" 〔佛既說色等處〕, holding it over to verse 7. |
| Xuanzang's textual loci | §Verse 〔p0075b02–03〕· §Auto-commentary 〔p0075b04–09〕 |
2. The source-verse · the doctrinal thread
The §Verse runs a single dilemma through four lines: 「業熏習餘處」 ("the perfuming of karma is in one place" — supposing the perfuming to be in one place) · 「執餘處有果」 ("yet [you] cling to the fruit being in another place") — this is the opponent's self-contradiction of "perfuming in consciousness yet fruit in the great elements outside consciousness" 〔熏在識而果在識外大種〕; 「所熏識有果，不許有何因？」 ("the perfumed consciousness has the fruit — to not allow this, on what ground?") — perfuming being in consciousness, the fruit is in consciousness, so why not allow it?
The §Auto-commentary has two parts: (i) the proof that cause and fruit are in the same place 〔熏果同處之證〕 — the opponent clings to the hell-beings (那落迦) producing, by their own force of karma, special great elements that give rise to a transformation; yet the perfuming of karma ought by rights to lie within the continuum of consciousness, not somewhere else; while not allowing "the transformation of the fruit to be in consciousness," he yet clings, in the place where there is no perfuming (outside consciousness), to there being a fruit — and this is without ground. (ii) the scriptural objection and its cutting-off 〔教難與斷〕 — the opponent hauls in a scriptural teaching as ground: 「若唯識似色等現、無別色等，佛不應說有色等處。」 ("if it were only consciousness manifesting as though there were colour and the rest, with no separate colour and the rest, the Buddha ought not to have said there are the bases of colour and the rest"). Vasubandhu cuts it off: 「此教非因，有別意故」 ("this teaching is not a ground, because it has a separate intent") — the Buddha's saying that there are the bases of colour and the rest has a separate hidden intent; it cannot be seized upon as proof that colour and the rest really exist; this opens verse 7.
3. Scripture and treatise: the grounding (scriptural proof → treatise-root)
- Scriptural proof. The teaching of perfuming (the karmic perfuming) and its fruit rests on the Buddha's principle of the continuum of karmic fruition; "the Buddha said there are the bases of colour and the rest" 〔佛說有色等處〕 is likewise a teaching of the Buddha's scripture — Vasubandhu does not deny that it is Buddha-word, but judges it to be spoken by hidden intent (to be resolved at verse 7).
- Treatise-root. Vasubandhu's auto-commentary (T1590), with "cause and fruit in the same place" 〔熏果同處〕, refutes the clinging to the fruit being outside consciousness, and further marks the Buddha's saying that there are the bases of colour and the rest as "having a separate intent" 〔有別意〕; the treatise's establishing of its doctrine does not depart from the Buddha-word, and is skilled at distinguishing the definitive meaning (了義) of the Buddha's teaching from its hidden intent (密意).
4. The treatise-root in essence (Vasubandhu's auto-commentary, T1590)
This verse has two senses: (i) the logical nail 〔邏輯之釘〕 — where the perfuming lies is where the fruit lies. Since the opponent must admit that the karmic perfuming is perfumed within the continuum of consciousness 〔熏在識相續〕 (not perfumed in the great elements outside consciousness), then the fruit that arises from it (the transformation into the wardens and the rest) ought too to be in consciousness; yet he goes and leaves the perfuming in consciousness and hangs the fruit outside it — this is the self-contradiction of "perfuming in one place, fruit in another" 〔熏一處、果別處〕. (ii) the dissolving of the scriptural proof 〔教證之消解〕 — the opponent finally appeals to "the Buddha said there are the bases of colour and the rest" as ground; Vasubandhu does not dispute with the Buddha, but judges this teaching to "have a separate intent" 〔有別意〕 — the Buddha spoke by hidden intent, not actually establishing colour and the rest as outer dharmas. This one verdict precisely opens verse 7's resolving of the hidden intent by the illustration of "spontaneously-born beings" 〔化生有情〕, and joins to §II verse 8, 「依何密意說色等十」 ("by what hidden intent are the ten [bases] of colour and the rest spoken of").
5. The ancient masters' readings (古德 · stating their position)
- Dharmapāla, Cheng weishi baosheng lun 《成唯識寶生論》T31n1591 (Tang; tr. Yijing 義淨; a transmitted Chinese witness) — the end of fascicle one / the opening of fascicle two expounds this verse, unfolding the perfuming lying in the continuum of consciousness, and the hidden intent of the Buddha's saying that there are the bases of colour and the rest. 〔Position stated: Dharmapāla gives a detailed exposition at the point of cause-and-fruit-in-the-same-place and the teaching's hidden intent; this is one of the ancient masters' readings, recorded here only as to its position, not adjudicated.〕
- Vinītadeva, Prakaraṇaviṃśakaṭīkā — extant in Tibetan translation · no transmitted Chinese witness; per convention its name only is recorded, its content not entering as doctrinal ground.
6. Rendering and old-translation comparison (the three Chinese translations)
| Chinese translation | Edition | Comparison |
|---|---|---|
| ★ Tang · Xuanzang T31n1590 | 「業熏習餘處，執餘處有果，所熏識有果，不許有何因？」 | A five-character quatrain; it raises the objection by the self-contradiction of "perfuming in one place · fruit in another" 〔熏一處·果別處〕; the auto-commentary further dissolves the scriptural objection of "the Buddha said there are the bases of colour and the rest" (this teaching is not a ground, because it has a separate intent 〔此教非因，有別意故〕); this is taken as the base text. |
| Chen · Paramārtha T31n1589 《大乘唯識論》 | In continuous prose, unfolds the objection of cause-and-fruit-in-the-same-place together with the teaching's hidden intent (an ancient Chinese witness · collated for comparison). | |
| Later Wei · Prajñāruci T31n1588 《唯識論》 | 「業熏於異法，果云何異處」 — "karma perfumes in a different dharma; how then is the fruit in a different place" — "different dharma / different place" 〔異法／異處〕 is Xuanzang's objection of "another place" 〔餘處〕, asking on what grounds perfuming and fruit are in different places (an ancient Chinese witness · collated for comparison). |
Verbatim comparison follows the CBETA original text.
7. Terms (Sanskrit per the ancient transmission · pronunciation aid)
| Chinese | Sanskrit (pronunciation aid) | Sense |
|---|---|---|
| 熏習 | vāsanā | the karmic perfuming; perfumed within the continuum of consciousness, the basis of the fruit |
| 識相續 | vijñāna-saṃtāna | the continuum-flow of consciousness; the place where the perfuming lies |
| 別意（密意） | abhiprāya | the separate purpose of the Buddha's saying that there are the bases of colour and the rest; not an actual establishing of outer dharmas |
The Sanskrit roman script is a pronunciation aid only; where no ancient-master transliteration is attested, it is left blank, not supplied from modern critical editions.
8. Cross-reading (the Yogācāra sequence)
| Baifa (Hundred Dharmas) | Triṃśikā | Within the Viṃśatikā |
|---|---|---|
| #8 storehouse consciousness ālaya — the consciousness in which the perfuming lies; "the perfumed consciousness" 〔所熏識〕 is just this ⭐ | Triṃśikā v.2 「習氣」 ("perfuming") · v.18 「由一切種識，如是如是變」 ("from the all-seeds consciousness, [there is] transformation thus and thus") — seeds and perfuming lie in consciousness, precisely this verse's sense | v.5 the force of karma and the great elements — this verse carries on its "transformation is in consciousness," supplying "cause and fruit in the same place" |
| #6 mind-consciousness mano-vijñāna — the perfumer of present-active perfuming | Triṃśikā v.19 異熟·等流 (maturation · uniform outflow) — the mechanism by which perfuming comes to fruit | v.7 hidden intent — carries on this verse's "this teaching is not a ground, it has a separate intent," resolving head-on the hidden intent of the bases of colour and the rest |
| #100 suchness / the unconditioned — that on which the discernment of the Buddha's definitive meaning and hidden intent rests | Triṃśikā vv.23–25 the three natures and three non-natures — the ultimate statement of the definitive meaning | v.8 own-seed-as-though-object — 「依何密意說色等十」 ("by what hidden intent are the ten [bases] of colour and the rest spoken of") unfolded head-on |
9. Witness placement
- Chinese verse-text (§Verse): T31n1590 〔p0075b02–03〕 (Xuanzang)
- Chinese auto-commentary (§Auto-commentary): T31n1590 〔p0075b04–09〕 (Xuanzang)
- Chinese translations collated for comparison: T31n1589 (Paramārtha, 《大乘唯識論》) · T31n1588 (Prajñāruci, 《唯識論》「業熏於異法，果云何異處」)
- Ancient master's commentary: T31n1591 (Dharmapāla, 《成唯識寶生論》end of fascicle one / opening of fascicle two · a transmitted Chinese witness)