金剛經纂要刊定記 1.34

1.34

答：「不然。所言依者，明妄無自體依真而成，顯本末之義，非先後之義。故《起信》云：『以如來藏無前際故，無明之相亦無有始。』若說三界外更有眾生始起者，即是外道經說。二者謂妄體全空，都無生起之蹤跡，故言妄無始也。故《起信》云：『覺心初起心無初相』，即斯義也。若據此意，夢喻正同，以夢生時無蹤跡故。有茲兩意，故云妄無初也。然上夢鑛二喻之中，各取少分共況一識，無初之義方盡其理。夢則喻無初法，鑛則喻無初時。若單用鑛喻，則妄識有實。若唯取夢喻，則妄識有始。今既分取相似之處，理極成矣。物者即夢中所現之物也。境者即是識中所變我法等境。成有者，且如夢中所見自他境界，覺來反想即定是無，正在夢時決定為有。若不然者，何有讚喜謗瞋、厭苦欣樂等事耶？故知有也。如《莊子》中說，莊周夢為蝴蝶，都來妄却莊周，及乎睡覺夢除，何曾更有蝴蝶？為莊周時既不羨蝴蝶，為蝴蝶時亦不羨莊周，彼此各行互不相識。然準彼書意，以顯生死齊平；今之所引，意明執實之義。謂依於妄識，變起我法等相，悟來了達則誠知是空，若正迷時定執為有。若不然者，何有貪瞋愛惡取捨等事耶？故知是有。故《成唯識論》云：『依識所變妄見我法，猶如幻夢。幻夢力故，心似種種外境相現，緣此執為實有外境。』然雖夢中見種種事，推其根本唯一夢心，以夢心滅時夢事皆滅。法中亦爾，境雖無量，原其根本唯一識心，識心滅時境界隨滅。故《起信》論云：『一切諸法唯依妄念而有差別。若離心念，即無一切境界之相。』則知三界唯心萬法唯識，諒不虛哉！由是三界世間，一切有漏染法，皆從妄識而生，故名此識以為妄本。

I reply: Not so. What is called 'relying' clarifies that delusion lacks an intrinsic nature of its own and is established by relying on truth, demonstrating the relation of root and branch, not an order of earlier and later. Therefore the Awakening of Faith says: 'Because the tathāgatagarbha has no prior limit, the marks of ignorance likewise have no beginning.' If one were to say that outside the three realms there are sentient beings who begin anew, that is the teaching of non-Buddhist scriptures. Second, the very nature of delusion is completely empty, entirely lacking any trace of arising; thus we say delusion is beginningless. Therefore the Awakening of Faith says: 'When one is awakened to the initial arising of mind, the mind has no initial mark'; this is precisely that meaning. According to this meaning, the dream metaphor is precisely identical, because when a dream arises there is no trace of it. Because of these two meanings, delusion is said to have no beginning. However, from the two metaphors above of the dream and the ore, each takes a fraction to together illustrate the one consciousness, so that the meaning of 'having no beginning' fully exhausts its principle. The dream illustrates the fact of having no beginning, while the ore illustrates the time of having no beginning. If one were to use the ore metaphor alone, then the deluded consciousness would be real. If one were to take the dream metaphor alone, then the deluded consciousness would have a beginning. Now, having drawn partially upon their points of resemblance, the principle is fully established. 'Things' refers to the things that appear within the dream. 'Objects' refers to the objects such as self and dharmas transformed within consciousness. 'Formed as existent' means: for instance, regarding the realms of self and other seen in a dream, upon waking and reflecting back, they are definitely nonexistent, yet while one is in the dream, they are decisively existent. Were it not so, why would there be such things as praise and joy, slander and anger, revulsion at suffering and delight in pleasure? Thus we know they are existent. As related in the Zhuangzi, Zhuang Zhou dreamt he was a butterfly, completely forgetting Zhuang Zhou, and when he woke from sleep and the dream was dispelled, how could there ever again be a butterfly? While he was Zhuang Zhou, he did not envy the butterfly; while he was the butterfly, he did not envy Zhuang Zhou; each went its own way without knowing the other. Now, according to the intention of that book, it serves to demonstrate the equivalence of life and death; what is cited here is meant to clarify the meaning of clinging to reality. That is, relying on the deluded consciousness, marks such as self and dharmas are transformed and arise; upon awakening and thorough comprehension, one truly knows they are empty, but while one is deluded, one decisively clings to them as existent. Were it not so, why would there be such things as greed and anger, love and hate, grasping and rejection? Thus we know they are existent. Therefore the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi says: 'Relying on what consciousness transforms, one falsely perceives self and dharmas, just like an illusion or a dream. Due to the power of illusion and dream, the mind appears as if various external objective marks, and based on this, one clings to them as real external objects.' Yet although in a dream one sees various things, if one traces their root, it is solely the one dreaming mind, because when the dreaming mind ceases, all things in the dream cease. The case in the Dharma is also like this: although objects are immeasurable, if one traces their root, it is solely the one conscious mind; when the conscious mind ceases, the objects cease along with it. Therefore the Awakening of Faith says: 'All dharmas are differentiated only on the basis of false thoughts. If one is free from the thoughts of the mind, there are no marks of any objects at all.' From this we know that the three realms are mind-only and the ten thousand dharmas are consciousness-only—surely this is not in vain! Consequently, all defiled dharmas with outflows in the world of the three realms are born from the deluded consciousness; hence this consciousness is named the 'root of delusion.'