English
English version: The mind-essence that arises from awakening is熏染(xūn rǎn, imbued/influenced) by 无明 (avidyā, ignorance). Because of the arising and ceasing of actions, it is called 'arising'. Furthermore, this very mind-essence, due to the熏染(xūn rǎn, imbued/influenced) of 无明 (avidyā, ignorance), transforms into the nature of seeing, and even transforms into the continuous arising of thoughts. In this way, the mind-essence possesses these five functions, and is able to generate consciousness when facing境(jìng, realms/objects), so it is called '意(yì, intention/mind)'. The fifth function here is still consciousness, but from the meaning of arising later, it can be included in '意(yì, intention/mind)'. The section '此意(cǐ yì, this intention/mind)' below is the second part, explaining in detail. It expands on the above five functions and establishes the names of the five consciousnesses. The meaning of the initial 业识 (karma-vijñāna, action consciousness) has already been explained earlier. Speaking of 转识 (pravṛtti-vijñāna, evolving consciousness), it is the aspect of seeing that revolves around the境(jìng, realms/objects), so it is called 转识 (pravṛtti-vijñāna, evolving consciousness). However, there are two ways of explaining 转识 (pravṛtti-vijñāna, evolving consciousness). If it is said that the nature of seeing, moved by 无明 (avidyā, ignorance), is called 转识 (pravṛtti-vijñāna, evolving consciousness), then this refers to 阿梨耶识 (ālayavijñāna, storehouse consciousness). If it is said that the nature of seeing, moved by the境(jìng, realms/objects), is called 转识 (pravṛtti-vijñāna, evolving consciousness), then this refers to the seventh consciousness (末那识, manas-vijñāna, mind consciousness). These two meanings are different and should not be confused. There are also places that say that all natures of seeing are generally called 转识 (pravṛtti-vijñāna, evolving consciousness), which includes the eight consciousnesses (aṣṭa vijñāna, eight consciousnesses). The aspect of '转(zhuǎn, revolving)' mentioned here refers to the initial meaning. Third, 现相 (darśana-bhāga, appearance aspect) is still the 境界相 (viṣaya, object) among the above three aspects. However, here, in order to explain that there is no separate 境界相 (viṣaya, object) apart from 转识 (pravṛtti-vijñāna, evolving consciousness), the nature of being able to manifest is cited to clarify the manifested境(jìng, realm/object). Speaking of 'like a bright mirror reflecting forms', as the four-fascicle scripture (possibly referring to the four-fascicle version of the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra) says: '大慧 (Mahamati, the wise one), broadly speaking, there are three kinds of consciousness, and broadly speaking, there are eight aspects. What are the three? They are 真识 (tathatā-jñāna, true consciousness), 现识 (darśana-vijñāna, appearing consciousness), and 分别事识 (vikalpa-vastu-jñāna, discriminating consciousness). Just as a bright mirror holds various forms, 现识 (darśana-vijñāna, appearing consciousness) manifests in the same way.' Furthermore, in this passage, the meaning of '现(xiàn, appearing)' is explained as: 'Because at all times, it arises spontaneously and is always in front.' It should be known that 现识 (darśana-vijñāna, appearing consciousness) is definitely in the eighth consciousness. And 业识 (karma-vijñāna, action consciousness), etc., take this as the root, and its aspect is very subtle. How can it be forcibly placed in the seventh consciousness? This is very inappropriate. Speaking of 'immediately appearing when the five dusts arrive', the aspects that arise do not depart from the nature of seeing, but only appear in the mirror of seeing, so it is said 'immediately appearing when they arrive'. In reality, it also manifests 法尘 (dharma-dhātu, realm of ideas), but in order to clarify based on the dusts, the five dusts (pañca viṣaya, five objects of senses) are briefly mentioned. Question: How wide or narrow is the境(jìng, realm/object) of this consciousness? In this treatise, only the five dusts are mentioned, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
伽经云。阿梨耶识分别现境自身资生器世间等。一时而知。非是前后。瑜伽论说。此由了别二种境故转。一由了别内执受者。谓了别遍计所执自性。妄执习气。及诸色根。根所依处。谓有色界。若无色界。唯有妄执习气了别。二了别外无分相器者。谓了别依止。缘内执受阿梨耶识。故于一切时。无有间断。器世界相。譬如灯炎。生时。内执受识。外发光明。如是阿梨耶识。内缘执受境。外缘器世界境。生起道理。应知。亦尔。中边论云。此识所取。四种境界。谓．尘．根．我．及识所摄。所取既无。能缘本识。亦尔得生。若依中边论及楞伽经则习气等。非此识境。若依瑜伽论。声尘及七种识等。非其所缘。依此论说。现根及识等。亦非此识所现境界。如是相违云何和会。答此非相违。何以故。不以言唯缘如此法故。不言余法非境界故。问虽无相违。而有不同。不同之意。可得而闻乎。答不同之意。各有道理。如中边论。欲明现起诸法。皆是本识所现。离识之外。更无别法。是故唯说。现行诸法。习气种子。其相不显。与识无异。是故不说。瑜伽论等。为显诸相无有离见自相续者故。除心心法。以外诸余相续之法。说为此识所了别。诸心之法。离尘不立。其义自显故。不别说。诸余论显没之意。准此可知。不可偏执一隅 现代汉语译本： 《伽经》中说：‘阿梨耶识（Ālaya-vijñāna，藏识，根本识）分别显现境界，包括自身、资生（维持生命所需）和器世间（物质世界）等，都是同时了知的，并非有先后顺序。’《瑜伽师地论》中说：‘这是由于了别两种境界而转变。一是了别内在的执受者，即了别遍计所执自性（虚妄分别的自性）、妄执的习气以及诸色根（眼、耳、鼻、舌、身五种感觉器官）和根所依之处，即有**（有根身）或无**（无根身），只有妄执的习气了别。二是了别外在的无分相器（不可分割的物质）者，即了别依止、缘于内在执受的阿梨耶识，所以在一切时，没有间断的器世界相。’譬如灯的火焰，生起时，内在的执受识向外发出光明。同样，阿梨耶识内在缘于执受境，外在缘于器世界境，生起的道理，应当知道也是如此。 《中边分别论》中说：‘此识所取（所缘取的）有四种境界，即尘（感觉对象）、根（感觉器官）、我（自我意识）以及识所摄（意识所包含的）。’所取既然没有，能缘的本识（根本识）也因此得以生起。如果依据《中边分别论》和《楞伽经》，那么习气等就不是此识的境界。如果依据《瑜伽师地论》，声尘（声音）以及七种识等，就不是它所缘的。依据此论说，现根（现在的感觉器官）以及识等，也不是此识所显现的境界。如此种种相互矛盾，如何调和呢？ 回答：这并非相互矛盾。为什么呢？因为没有说‘仅仅缘于如此的法’，也没有说‘其余的法不是境界’。问：虽然没有矛盾，但有不同之处。这不同之处的含义，可以听闻吗？答：不同之处的含义，各有道理。比如《中边分别论》，想要阐明现起（当下生起）的诸法，都是本识所显现的，离开识之外，更没有别的法。所以只说现行（当下运行）的诸法，习气种子，它的相不明显，与识没有差别，所以不说。《瑜伽师地论》等，为了显示诸相没有离开见（能见）自相续者，所以除了心心法（心理活动）以外，其余相续的法，说是此识所了别的。诸心的法，离开尘（感觉对象）不能成立，它的意义自然明显，所以不特别说。其余论典显没（显露或隐藏）的意义，参照这个就可以知道。不可偏执一隅。
English
English version: The *Gāthā* says: 'The *Ālaya-vijñāna* (storehouse consciousness, fundamental consciousness) distinctly manifests realms, including itself, sustenance (what is needed to maintain life), and the *bhājana-loka* (receptacle world, material world), etc., all known simultaneously, not sequentially.' The *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* says: 'This transforms due to distinguishing two types of realms. One is distinguishing the internal grasped-at, namely distinguishing the *parikalpita-svabhāva* (imagined nature), the habitual energies of false grasping, and the various sense faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and the places where the faculties rely, namely having ** (having a body with sense organs) or not having ** (not having a body with sense organs), only the habitual energies of false grasping distinguish. Two is distinguishing the external indivisible object, namely distinguishing relying on, conditioned by the internally grasped-at *Ālaya-vijñāna*, therefore at all times, there is no interruption of the appearance of the receptacle world.' For example, the flame of a lamp, when it arises, the internal grasped-at consciousness emits light outwards. Similarly, the *Ālaya-vijñāna* internally conditions the grasped-at realm, externally conditions the receptacle world realm, the principle of arising should be known to be the same. The *Madhyānta-vibhāga* says: 'What this consciousness grasps at has four types of realms, namely *dhātu* (sense object), *indriya* (sense organ), *ātman* (self-consciousness), and what is included by consciousness.' Since what is grasped at does not exist, the fundamental consciousness that grasps is thereby able to arise. If based on the *Madhyānta-vibhāga* and the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra*, then habitual energies, etc., are not the realm of this consciousness. If based on the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, sound and the seven consciousnesses, etc., are not what it conditions. Based on this treatise, the present sense faculties and consciousnesses, etc., are also not the realms manifested by this consciousness. How can such contradictions be reconciled? Answer: These are not contradictory. Why? Because it is not said 'only conditioned by such a dharma,' nor is it said 'other dharmas are not realms.' Question: Although there is no contradiction, there are differences. Can the meaning of these differences be heard? Answer: The meanings of the differences each have their own reasons. For example, the *Madhyānta-vibhāga* intends to clarify that all dharmas that arise are manifested by the fundamental consciousness, and apart from consciousness, there are no other dharmas. Therefore, it only speaks of the dharmas that are presently active, the habitual energy seeds, their appearance is not obvious, and there is no difference from consciousness, so it does not speak of them. The *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, etc., in order to show that the various appearances do not depart from the self-continuum of seeing, therefore, apart from mental activities, the remaining continuous dharmas are said to be distinguished by this consciousness. The dharmas of the mind cannot be established apart from sense objects, its meaning is naturally obvious, so it is not specifically mentioned. The meaning of the other treatises, whether they reveal or conceal, can be known by referring to this. One should not cling to one corner. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
。以谤通方之说也。且止傍论今释大文。 第四智识者 是第七识上六相中初智相也。爱果名染净法。分别彼法。计我我所故。言分别染净法也。 相续识者 即是意识。上六相中相续相也。 以念相应不断故者 是约自体不断。释相续名。 住持 以下。约其功能。释相续名。此识能起爱取故。能引持过去无明所发诸行。令成堪任来果之有。故言住持过去之果令不失故。此义具如瑜伽论说。又识能起润生烦恼。能使业果续生不绝。故言成就现未等报无差违故。如是三世因果流转不绝。功在意识故名相续。 言念已𨒬事虑未来事者 显此识用不同智识。以彼但缘现在境故。由此文证。故知。此相续识。正是意识。不同上说相续心也。 是故 以下。结成唯识。是上所明五种识等。无别自体。皆依一心义故。三界虚伪。唯心所作也。 言以一切法皆从妄念而生一切分别即分别自心心不见心无相可得者 如十卷经偈云。身资生住持。若如梦所见。中应有二种心。而无二相。如刀不自割。指亦不自指。如目不自见。其事亦如是。此义云何。若其梦中所见诸事。如其所见是实有者。则有二故。而其梦中实无能取所所二相。三界诸心。皆如此梦。故言一切分别即分别自心。而论自心 现代汉语译本：这是诽谤通达各方之说的言论。暂且停止旁论，现在解释经文的主要内容。 第四智识者，指的是第七识（末那识，Manas-vijnana）上的六个相中的第一个，即智相。执着于果报，称为染净法。因为分别这些染净法，并执着于‘我’和‘我的’，所以说分别染净法。 相续识者，就是意识（Mano-vijnana）。是上述六个相中的相续相。 ‘以念相应不断故’，是从自体不断绝的角度来解释相续这个名称。 ‘住持’以下，是从其功能方面来解释相续这个名称。这个意识能够生起爱和取，因此能够牵引和保持过去无明所引发的诸行，使之能够成为堪能承受未来果报的‘有’。所以说住持过去之果，使之不失坏。这个意义详细地记载在《瑜伽师地论》（Yogacarabhumi-sastra）中。而且，意识能够生起润生的烦恼，能够使业果相续不断地产生，所以说成就现在和未来的果报没有差别和违背。像这样，三世的因果流转不绝，功用在于意识，所以称为相续。 ‘言念已灭事虑未来事者’，显示这个意识的作用不同于智识，因为它只缘取现在的境界。通过这段文字可以证明，这个相续识正是意识，不同于上面所说的相续心。 ‘是故’以下，总结归纳为唯识的道理。上面所说的五种识等，没有单独的自体，都是依于一心（eka-citta）的道理。所以三界是虚假的，都是唯心所造。 ‘言以一切法皆从妄念而生一切分别即分别自心心不见心无相可得者’，如十卷经的偈颂所说：‘身资生住持，若如梦所见，中应有二种心，而无二相。如刀不自割，指亦不自指。如目不自见，其事亦如是。’这个道理是什么呢？如果梦中所见的诸事，如其所见是真实存在的话，那么就应该有能取和所取两种相。但是梦中实际上没有能取和所取两种相。三界诸心，都像这个梦一样。所以说一切分别就是分别自心，而讨论自心