仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經疏 2.477

2.477

解曰：生諸有情色心二法者，准《起信論》，從轉相後而起現相現境方有色塵，即轉識後而生色也。此亦不然。現識現境因前六熏，豈以現境便從心起？鏡中之像從鏡生邪？如依《唯識》，三類境中且如性境，於相分中熏色之時，種因心熏現從識起，從心生色有何過耶？此亦不然。緣慮質礙一各別故。能熏持種皆自類生，豈以熏持體即是色？此亦不然。熏持由心故說心生，心若不生，何名唯識？況《楞伽》第三云「謂津潤妄想大種生內外水界，湛能妄想大種生內外火界，飄動妄想大種生內外風界，斷截色妄想大種生內外地界。」彼經既云妄想種生，說心生色斯有何過？若礙慮異，定別有體，云何修斷得無漏耶？又佛菩薩毛容巨海、芥納須彌，色若定礙，何不礙彼？但對妄情說礙慮異，得自在者實無異矣。是心之相從心而生，聖教正理之為定量。從此第三色心蘊義。

Exposition: '[They] produce the two dharmas of matter and mind of all sentient beings': according to the Awakening of Faith, after the transforming characteristic, the manifesting characteristic arises and presents objects, and only then are there material objects; this means matter arises after the transforming consciousness. This too is not correct. The manifesting consciousness presents objects because of the perfuming by the first six [consciousnesses]; how could the presented objects arise directly from mind? Does the reflection in a mirror arise from the mirror? If, according to Vijñaptimātratā, among the three classes of objects, taking for instance the objective nature (vastu-lakṣaṇa), when matter is perfumed within the image-aspect (nimitta-bhāga), its seeds are perfumed by virtue of mind and actualise from consciousness; what fault is there in mind producing matter? This too is not correct. Cognition and physical obstruction are entirely distinct. The perfumer and the holder of seeds both arise from their own classes; how could the perfuming and holding be in their very essence matter? This too is not correct. Perfuming and holding are due to mind, and therefore are said to be produced by mind; if they were not produced by mind, why call it consciousness-only? Furthermore, the third fascicle of the Laṅkāvatāra says: 'The great elements of moistening conceptual thought produce the inner and outer water realms; the great elements of heat conceptual thought produce the inner and outer fire realms; the great elements of moving conceptual thought produce the inner and outer wind realms; the great elements of cut-and-divide material conceptual thought produce the inner and outer earth realms.' Since that sūtra states that they arise from the seeds of conceptual thought, what fault is there in saying mind produces matter? If obstruction and cognition were different and definitely possessed separate substances, how could one cultivate and sever [defilements] to attain the uncontaminated? Furthermore, buddhas and bodhisattvas can contain vast oceans within a single pore, and accommodate Mount Sumeru within a mustard seed; if matter were definitely obstructive, why does it not obstruct them? It is only in response to deluded sentiments that obstruction and cognition are said to differ; for one who has attained mastery, there is truly no difference. It is the aspect of mind that arises from mind; the sacred teachings and correct reasoning serve as the authoritative standard. From this point, the third [part clarifies] the meaning of the aggregates of matter and mind.