大方廣佛華嚴經搜玄分齊通智方軌 3.30

3.30

二觀體者，即顯因緣理次第生義。以空及似實等三性為順觀體，逆即成一緣起空無性性觀，即用緣起次第理為此觀體。即依經辨也。若依論辨，但准以思攝。三釋文者，就因緣分者，即因分也。次第者，漸次也。觀者，照達義。就此以題章也。此文有四，相從為三，要則為二，總攝為一。門別四者，一舉彼解惑，顯成無我門；二依論「愚癡」下、依經「一切凡夫」下，責情顯理門；三依論「無智」下、依經「常隨邪念」下，辨相顯實門。四「不知諸諦第一義諦」下，依實辨相門。相從三者，四門中，初一名成；釋成無我中二名答，答顯無我；後一名相，謂依二諦立因緣相。要攝二者，前之三門宗顯無我，即因緣性；後一總顯因緣之相。總為一者，總為第一因緣分次第。就第三辨相顯實中，只由癡愛起諸業行乃至老死，非由於我。於中初順、次逆、後結。順中初言無智有無，經云「常隨邪念」，是無明支。無智是癡，求是愛，求常名有，求斷曰無也。過去唯癡，實即過去備諸煩惱，癡愛力強，所以偏舉。「恒隨」下是行。行有六句，前三行過、後三行體。依經，行過三句亦是無明支，以闕論中無明支故。「以是行」下是其識支。初以是行起心種子，乘前起後，由行熏心令心生後，故說為種，心者是梨耶。二「有漏」下對後生死顯前種義。有漏是愛，取想是見。依經，取心心即通想。「所謂業為地」下復生後有，是名色支。生名色等有七句：一業為地、二識為種、三無明覆、四愛水潤、五我心溉灌、六種種見綱、七名色牙生。問：如熏習義，應業為種、識為依地，云何今識為種子？答：凡論業種，分別有二：一熏習成種時、二引生感果時。若熏習成種時，業為種子，以識為地，為識未被熏時未辨有種。今為熏習，始說種生，即與上心能熏義親、與識義疎，故識為地。種為能依，即屬業也。二引生感果者，以識為種，用業為地。今言業者是臨生時中陰求生，業心為正業種，猶在本識未發。今此上心求生中陰，是種子用相，此用相既非業體，但能引業感得識支，如地引種令得成果，說業為地。種在識內，與彼本識同無記性，先造業識上心已謝、今種現與本識俱成，與識義親、與能薰疎，故判從識合為種子。此有二義：一是即體、二是異體，此義如上料簡中說。問：業力無明及諸見等，現今求生用識為依，應從識為種，云何別分為所依地？答：理同依識，但有別義不如種子。以種現同識無記性，一體、二相，俱一不分。求生無明雖與識同，現變成其色心等別，不如本識體相二義，不可從識為種子也。餘文可知。二依止一心觀者，即十二緣等能依也。心者，即梨耶心。就此以題章。以梨耶緣起為此觀體。三門同上。初所治者，治彼外境自性執，謂一切境。別治但以惑自性差別積聚等三，通治可知。二能治。所依觀體者，還以三空空似實無生性相為此順觀，故論云「阿梨耶識為大空故無生似實。」無願如論，思之應知。逆成一觀同初門。唯識者，有二種：一梨耶唯識持生諸法，離識即無；二明意識唯識，生死涅槃染淨等法現在意地，離識即無。梨耶唯識始是解境，非行所依；意識唯識此終，即是正解所依。心終意始，反前可知。觀相云何？如行心見法為境，若無觀心覺境，染淨等法縱任現前，今知意言所作取，謂之心不起。知識作時，名用依他遣分別境。問：依他與識云何取別？答：依他約相。所以知？分別體空，相能起識。其識隨緣不守自性，此應成空乃現似相，故知約相。二唯識約體，三界唯心，顛倒分別即空，故得知也。識望無性即似非實，體相相成，故通說耳。問：如境依心即是果法，似而非無，云何對識辨境即空？答：但從心生，非分別境，屬能緣心，依他性攝。所以知？當見境時，但見實故，故論主以二諦等文作一依止觀也。問：後知唯識還是所知，與前謂境有何義別，仍判後境屬依他性？答：前見境時不知緣集，說唯識作，作義非性。見識作時分雜謂染，緣集作理違分別性，故知別也。遣實境滅時，即得一分空無相性。無相現故，唯識想境並則不生，名得無性性。此是行門唯識觀法。若約生解，則三性後辨無性性。問：唯識想滅，為知無相境遣唯識想？為識想自滅？答：更無別知無相觀心。但唯識想兼知無性，取想則自不現在前。又亦依前勢，而得後心不生也。今此文內通二唯識。三界唯心作，即本識唯識。如經下偈「但從貪心有」，即意識唯識。此是順觀，此依經辨。三釋文者，經本有四：初句立宗、二「十二緣分」下引聖教證、三「所以者何」下責、四「隨事生欲心」下答。隨者，眾多義。事者，上心作業。生欲心者，心是梨耶心。問：既言欲心，即是意識，云何言本心？答：欲心有二義，一識現起作用分別；二即此識因緣發起作用義邊即屬其事、能見取邊即屬意識。因緣發起即屬梨耶，為起時同處不可分別。如行誑心名為無明，欲心取境即是不了，豈可欲心之後別辨不了？故知即欲名為不了，但成文故語有前後。事是行者上心分別事，即是業行。行誑心名無明者，其行現成分別實相。今梨耶識變成不了，名為意識，取其實事故名無明。餘文可知。此依論辨。問：此與經本何別？答：經通、論局也。

Second, the contemplation essence: that is, it reveals the meaning of the principle of cause and condition producing in sequence. Taking the three natures—emptiness, semblance, reality, and so forth—as the essence of forward contemplation, in reverse it becomes a single contemplation of the empty and natureless nature of dependent origination; that is, it takes the principle of the sequence of dependent origination as the essence of this contemplation. This is explained according to the sūtra. If explained according to the treatise, it should merely be understood and gathered accordingly.

Third, explaining the text: regarding the division of cause and condition, this is the causal division. 'Sequence' means gradual succession. 'Contemplation' has the meaning of illuminating and penetrating. The section title is based on these [terms].

This text has four [sections], which group into three, reduce to two, and are subsumed into one.

As four distinct sections:
1. Adducing their understanding and confusion to establish selflessness;
2. Following the treatise from 'ignorance' down, and the sūtra from 'all ordinary people' down, reproaching sentiment to reveal the principle;
3. Following the treatise from 'without wisdom' down, and the sūtra from 'constantly following erroneous thoughts' down, discerning characteristics to reveal reality;
4. From 'not knowing the noble truths and the ultimate truth' down, discerning characteristics based on reality.

Grouped into three:
Among the four sections, the first is called establishment; the two within explaining the establishment of selflessness are called the answer, an answer revealing selflessness; the last is called characteristics, meaning establishing the characteristics of dependent origination based on the two truths.

Reduced to two:
The former three sections principally reveal selflessness, which is the nature of dependent origination; the latter one comprehensively reveals the characteristics of dependent origination.

Subsumed into one:
Altogether they constitute the first: the sequence of the division of cause and condition.

Within the third, discerning characteristics to reveal reality: it is merely due to ignorance and craving that the various karmic formations arise, through to old age and death; it is not due to a self. Therein, first is forward, next is reverse, and last is the conclusion.

In the forward [sequence], the initial statement 'having no wisdom regarding existence and non-existence'—the sūtra saying 'constantly following erroneous thoughts'—is the link of ignorance. Having no wisdom is ignorance; seeking is craving; seeking permanence is called existence, and seeking annihilation is called non-existence. Past [existence] is solely ignorance; in reality, the past possesses all the afflictions, but because the power of ignorance and craving is strong, they are singled out.

From 'constantly following' down is formations. Formations has six clauses: the first three are the faults of formations, and the latter three are the essence of formations. According to the sūtra, the three clauses on the faults of formations are also the link of ignorance, because the link of ignorance in the treatise is missing [here].

From 'by means of these formations' down is the link of consciousness. First, 'by means of these formations, the seed of the mind arises' mounts the preceding to give rise to the succeeding: because formations perfume the mind, causing the mind to produce the subsequent, it is spoken of as a seed; 'mind' is the ālaya[vijñāna]. Second, from 'with outflows' down, the meaning of the preceding seed is revealed in contrast to subsequent saṃsāra. 'With outflows' is craving; 'grasping thoughts' are views. According to the sūtra, grasping mind—the mind also pervades thought.

From 'what is called karma as earth' down, subsequent existence is produced again: this is the link of name-and-form. Producing name-and-form and so forth has seven clauses: 1. karma as the earth; 2. consciousness as the seed; 3. ignorance covering; 4. the water of craving moistening; 5. the mind of self irrigating; 6. the net of various views; 7. the sprout of name-and-form emerging.

Question: According to the principle of perfuming, karma should be the seed and consciousness the supporting ground; why is consciousness now the seed?

Answer: Whenever karmic seeds are discussed, there are two distinctions: 1. when perfuming forms a seed; 2. when it induces and produces, bringing about the fruition. When perfuming forms a seed, karma is the seed and consciousness is the earth, because before consciousness has been perfumed, it has not yet been determined that there is a seed. Now, because of perfuming, one first speaks of the seed being produced; thus it is intimately related to the perfuming capacity of the active mind above, and distantly related to consciousness; hence consciousness is the earth. The seed is the supported, and thus belongs to karma. Second, regarding inducing and producing, bringing about the fruition: one takes consciousness as the seed and karma as the earth. Here, what is called 'karma' refers to the intermediate existence seeking rebirth at the verge of birth; the karmic mind is the actual karmic seed, still latent in the basic consciousness and not yet activated. Now, this active mind seeking rebirth in the intermediate existence is the functional characteristic of the seed. Since this functional characteristic is not the essence of karma, but can merely induce karma to bring about the link of consciousness—just as earth induces the seed to attain fruiting—karma is said to be the earth. The seed is within consciousness, of the same indeterminate nature as that basic consciousness; the active mind of the previous consciousness that produced karma has already perished, while the present seed and basic consciousness are established together; being intimately related to consciousness and distantly related to the perfumer, it is judged as belonging to consciousness and combined as the seed. This has two meanings: one is identical essence, and the second is different essence; this meaning is as explained in the critical examination above.

Question: The power of karma, ignorance, the various views, and so forth, in presently seeking rebirth, use consciousness as their support; they should be classified with consciousness as the seed—why are they separately distinguished as the supporting ground?

Answer: In principle, they similarly rely on consciousness, but have a different meaning and are not like the seed. Because the seed presently shares the indeterminate nature of consciousness, being of one essence and two aspects, both are one and undivided. Although the ignorance that seeks rebirth is together with consciousness, it presently transforms into the distinctions of form, mind, and so forth; it is not like the two meanings of essence and aspect of the basic consciousness, and cannot be classified with consciousness as the seed. The rest of the text is readily understood.

Second, the contemplation of relying on the one mind: that is, the supported of the twelve links, etc. 'Mind' is the ālaya mind. The section title is based on this. It takes ālaya dependent origination as the essence of this contemplation. The three sections are as above.

First, what is eliminated: it eliminates the grasping at an intrinsic nature in external objects, meaning all objects. As for specific elimination, it merely eliminates the three—intrinsic nature, distinction, and accumulation of delusion; general elimination is readily understood.

Second, the antidote. The essence of the contemplation relied upon: again, it takes the threefold emptiness—emptiness, semblance, reality, the nature and characteristics of non-arising—as this forward contemplation. Thus the treatise says: 'Because the ālayavijñāna is the great emptiness, it is non-arising, semblance, and reality.' Wishlessness should be understood by reflecting on the treatise. In reverse, it forms one contemplation, identical to the first section.

Regarding consciousness-only (vijñapti-mātra), there are two kinds: 1. ālaya consciousness-only, which maintains and generates all phenomena, so that apart from consciousness there is nothing; 2. mental consciousness consciousness-only, where phenomena such as saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, defilement, and purity are presently on the mental plane, so that apart from consciousness there is nothing. Ālaya consciousness-only is merely the object of understanding, not what practice relies upon; mental consciousness consciousness-only is the culmination, which is what correct understanding relies upon. Culminating in mind and beginning in mentation, it can be understood in reverse of the preceding.

What are the characteristics of contemplation? It is like the practicing mind seeing phenomena as objects; if there is no contemplating mind awakening to the objects, defiled and pure phenomena will present themselves unrestrained. Now, knowing that what is grasped is made by mental speech, that mind does not arise. When one knows that it is made by consciousness, this is called using other-dependent [nature] to dispel the parikalpita object.

Question: How are the other-dependent and consciousness distinguished?

Answer: The other-dependent is in terms of characteristics. How is this known? The imagined essence is empty; the characteristics can give rise to consciousness. That consciousness follows conditions and does not maintain an intrinsic nature; this should become empty, and so manifests semblant characteristics; therefore we know it is in terms of characteristics. Second, consciousness-only is in terms of essence: the three realms are only mind, and inverted discrimination is empty; therefore we know this. In contrast to naturelessness, consciousness is semblance and not real; essence and characteristics complete each other, and so they are spoken of together.

Question: As objects rely on mind, they are resultant phenomena, semblance and not non-existent; why is it that when discerning objects in contrast to consciousness, they are empty?

Answer: They merely arise from the mind; they are not parikalpita objects, but belong to the cognizing mind, subsumed under the other-dependent nature. How is this known? Because when seeing objects, one merely sees reality; therefore the author of the treatise, with the text on the two truths, made one contemplation of reliance.

Question: Knowing afterwards that it is consciousness-only is still an object of knowledge; what difference in meaning does it have from the previously perceived object, that the subsequent object is still judged as belonging to the other-dependent nature?

Answer: Previously, when seeing the object, one did not know the assembly of conditions, speaking of it as made by consciousness-only, where the meaning of 'making' was not the nature. When seeing that it is made by consciousness, one discriminates it as defiled; the principle of conditioned assembly contradicts the parikalpita nature; therefore we know they are different. When the real object is dispelled and extinguished, one attains a portion of the nature of emptiness and signlessness. Because the signless manifests, both the thought and object of consciousness-only do not arise; this is called attaining the natureless nature. This is the consciousness-only contemplation method in the approach of practice. If explained in terms of generating understanding, then the natureless nature is discerned after the three natures.

Question: When the thought of consciousness-only is extinguished, is it that knowing the signless object dispels the thought of consciousness-only, or does the thought of consciousness extinguish by itself?

Answer: There is no distinct contemplating mind that knows the signless. It is just that the thought of consciousness-only concurrently knows naturelessness, and grasping thought naturally does not present itself. Moreover, relying on the momentum of the preceding, the subsequent mind is also prevented from arising.

Now, within this text, both consciousness-only teachings are covered. 'The three realms are made only by mind' is basic-consciousness consciousness-only. As the sūtra's verse below says, 'They only exist from a greedy mind'—this is mental-consciousness consciousness-only. This is forward contemplation; this is explained according to the sūtra.

Third, explaining the text: the sūtra text has four parts: 1. the initial phrase establishes the thesis; 2. from 'the twelve links' down, it adduces the sacred teaching as proof; 3. from 'why is that' down, it questions; 4. from 'following affairs, desire-mind arises' down, it answers. 'Following' has the meaning of manifold. 'Affairs' are the karmas produced by the active mind. 'Desire-mind arises': 'mind' is the ālaya mind.

Question: Since it says 'desire-mind', that is the mental consciousness; why say it is the basic mind?

Answer: Desire-mind has two meanings: 1. the present functional discrimination of consciousness; 2. the aspect where this consciousness is aroused into function by causes and conditions belongs to the affairs, while the aspect of being able to see and grasp belongs to the mental consciousness. Being aroused by causes and conditions belongs to the ālaya, because when arising they are in the same locus and cannot be distinguished. Just as when formations deceive the mind it is called ignorance, when the desire-mind grasps objects it is non-comprehension; how could one discern non-comprehension separately after desire-mind? Therefore we know that desire itself is called non-comprehension; it is merely to form the text that the words appear before and after. 'Affairs' are the affairs discriminated by the active mind of the practitioner, which are karmic formations. Formations deceiving the mind being called ignorance means that their formations presently constitute the parikalpita real characteristics. Now the ālaya consciousness transforms into non-comprehension, called the mental consciousness, and grasping its real affairs is called ignorance. The rest of the text is readily understood. This is explained according to the treatise.

Question: What is the difference between this and the sūtra text?

Answer: The sūtra is comprehensive, while the treatise is restrictive.