[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [華嚴經探玄記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733) › 4.57 # 華嚴經探玄記 4.57 華嚴經探玄記 4.57 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.4.57) 第二答中二：初一頌讚問勸聽，上半歎問會機、下半勸聽許說；後有十偈舉義正答。於中初五偈答後遮救難，以救義若成本難方遣故須先答；後五偈答前本法難。此中答意，明藏識緣起有其二義：一是不起義，以無自性故；二是有起義，有此無性緣起故。此二不二，是一無礙甚深緣起。此中由不起故成起，是故只由諸緣不相知故而成熏習，有種種法生。答後難也。二由起故不起，是故只由諸法種種生故，各無自性唯一心性。答前難也。又前即不礙一心即是種種，後即不礙種種即是一心，緣起正理無礙鎔融是其意也。前五偈中，初一法說、後四喻況。或可長為五分：一宗、二因、三喻、四合、五結。諸法不自在者，立宗也，謂諸法是有法，不自在是法，法與有法和合名宗。於中有二義：一藏性緣起，能所熏起攝多法，故云諸法。以互為因緣，更相繫屬，各各不得自有所在。二從諸緣起，無自性故，無自可在。二出因者，何以得知不自在耶？因云求實不得故。以本識諸法互依緣起更相形奪，各無自性，故云求實不得。此有二義：一約本識明不自在。以依彼諸緣無自性故，云求實不可得。二約能熏等法明不自在，以依本識無自體故，云求實不可得。或通論有四義：一諸法依識故，於諸法求實有不得；二本識為依故，於本識求實無不得；三諸法起識故，於諸法求實無不得；四識隨緣起故，於本識求實有不得。或開為八句，謂各有有、無、俱、不俱四句故，准思可見。又釋：此有四句。一以不起不異起故，求不起實不得，是故不起不自在；二以起不異不起故，求起實不得，是故起亦不自在；三以無二故，求二實不得，是故無俱自在；四不礙二義故，求俱非實不得，是故無俱非自在。何以如此不自在者以緣起自在故。何故不實者？以緣起理實故。三「是故一切法」下結也。以結隨法，故在宗因後。明合隨喻，故在喻後說。二俱不相知者，如上能所熏中各有有無二義，以二有二無各不俱故不得相知，以一有一無、一無一有各無二故無可相知。正由如是不知等故，得有一切法，故云一切不相知也。此顯非直平等一味不壞諸法，亦乃只由平等有諸法也。四喻中有四喻。此藏識四義：一相續因果依他義、二互為因果生識義、三受熏義、四相依持義。初云如駛流者，《唯識論》中明阿賴耶識恒轉如瀑流，是此義也。此中無絕是彼恒義，流流是彼轉義。故彼論云「恒言遮斷，轉表非常。」若細別分，凡水流時要有四義：一有能流之水，曲有三：一水體清淨，喻本識是如來藏本性清淨心；二土雜成濁，喻如來藏自性清淨，為無明所染有其染心；三遇冷成水，喻如來藏還與妄識俱成本識緣起，故《楞伽》云「如來藏名阿梨耶識，而與無明七識俱等。」二相由故流，以喻本識自相義。謂後水推故前得流，或前水引故後得流，各有有力無力等，互不相知而得流注，此即不流之流。如云「江河競注而不流」，此之謂也。經中名流注生滅，《唯識論》第三云「如暴流水，非斷非常，相續長時，有所漂溺。」此識亦爾，從無始來生滅相續，非常非斷，漂溺有情令不出離。乃至謂此識性無始時來，剎那剎那果生因滅。果生故非斷、因滅故非常，非斷非常是緣起理。乃至應信大乘緣起正理，謂此正理深妙離言，因果等言皆假施設。觀現在法有引後用，假立當果對說現因；觀現在法有酬前相，假立曾因對說現果、假謂現識似彼相現。如是因果理數顯然，遠離二邊契會中道，諸有智者應順修學。又依《楞伽》云「剎那息煩亂，寂靜離所作，一切法不生，我說剎那義。初生即有滅，不為愚者說。無間相續性，妄想之所熏。」解云：前論中生滅隔念，經中生滅同念，是故則不生不滅之生滅（更思之）。經約終教，是不生滅與生滅和合，名阿梨耶識等故。論約始教，唯生滅是識，細剋亦不成生滅，以生時無滅，應非有為，以相不具故；若有滅，應不得生，以相違故。是故終教中同念，以各虛假故不相礙也。又依真心故得同，隨相故有異（更思之）。過去滅能成生、當來滅能壞生，生法能壞過、滅能成當滅。又一滅相望前生能壞，望後生能成，一生相，望前滅能壞、望後滅能成，是故相續無絕（更思之）。又生由滅起故，是故生中具有滅。具有滅故，令生不住，還復成滅；滅由生有故，是故滅中含於生。含於生故，令滅不住，還復成生。是故生滅交涉，前後同時，不相障礙，流注不斷。又一生相中有四種滅義同時具足：一性不成就名滅、二由滅故起是故具滅、三能成滅故具滅、四由生滅俱是夢妄。計妄中看有前後，理實照時皆無前後，是故生時還有滅也（更思之）。前念滅流流至於生，後念生流流至於滅，生滅二流故云流流。未得治道已前無暫停止，故云無絕已。二流各無等，不相知也。三依風故有二義：一依風得流，喻藏識因相義，謂依惑業風熏習種子而漂流故，此約因相辨。二依風起浪，《楞伽》云「藏識海常住，境界風所動，種種諸識浪，騰躍而轉生。」《唯識》第三云「又如瀑流，雖風等擊，起諸波浪，而流不斷。此識亦爾，雖遇眾緣，起眼等識，而恒相續。」此中，一風吹故流、二由水故流，故云流流。互依無性，各不相知。或種子流及所依識流等，雖不相知而有流。上文業不知心，准之。四依地高下故流，喻本識果相義，依種種受生地報故流。人天處為高、惡道處為下，此約果相。此中，心與報為二，無性故不相知。上報不知受等，准之。或帶物而流，故《唯識》云「又如瀑流，漂水上下，魚草等物，隨經不捨。此識亦爾，與內習氣外觸等法恒相隨轉也。」第二燈焰喻成依者，有三義：一生識義、二互為因果義、三執受義。初生識者，如依前焰燒炷，故後焰得生，明照前境但一念，故不暫停。六識亦爾，名言等依本種子識故，能生後識照於境界，前滅後生間無暫停。此中以本識如爐油、識中諸種子如燈炷、所生現行六識如炎，無體速滅故不相知。二俱不相知者，古人云：炎、爐為二，炷、油為二，四法和合而生，各不相知。此恐無理，文意似取前焰後焰為二，由速滅不住無體，可以相知；六識依本無體亦爾。心不知受等，准之。二同時互為因果義，如《攝論》第二云。論曰「譬如燈光與燈炷，生及燒燃一時更互為因。」釋曰：由炷體依止能生光炎故，炷是光炎生因。光炎則此生剎那中由能燒燃炷，光炎則為炷燒燃因（乃至云云）。論曰「應知本識與能熏習更互為因，其義亦爾。如識為染污法因，染污法為識因。」釋曰：此阿梨耶識為種子生因。若無此識，三業生滅無可依處。如體謝滅，功能亦爾。故由此識諸法體生，功能亦立。是故本識為彼生因。彼法亦爾，若彼法無此識，起在現在無有道理；轉後異前，此變異是彼法果。解云：此中前念炎炷同一剎那更互生燒，各有因果亦同時謝滅，後炎亦爾，故云炎炎。未至治際，此法恒起，故不暫停。以二因二果不俱，故不相知；一因一果無二，故無可知。又亦能燒炷之炎，及炷所生之炎，故云炎炎。以生理不停故則是燒，燒理亦爾，故云不暫停。不相知如上。此中互為因果義，略作二重，各有三門：一護過、二顯德、三示過，如問答中（云云）。三執受義者，此中明燈有二功能：一內燒炷燋、二外發光照，喻此本識有內外執持。《瑜伽》云「此識執受有二：一內執受種及五根身、二外執受器世間。猶如燈炎內執膏炷、外發光明，此之謂也。」此內外二，故云炎炎。恒執無間，故云不停。內外為二，以無性故不相知也。第三風喻熏習義者，此中風有二義：一有力能動他，喻轉識能熏成種子等；二無體義，謂此風不能自現動相，要吹物令動方知風相。此動乃是物動，故知風無自體。諸能熏法不能自成種子，要熏本識成種子已方顯能熏，此種乃是識種，故知能熏無性。二俱不相知者，風、物為二，依物之動則風無性，隨風之物物無自性，亦二無二有不俱，一無一有無能所，故各不知也。識中亦爾，准之，故云諸法亦如是。第四地喻相依持義，如地輪依水輪，水輪依風輪，風輪依虛空，虛空無所依。心義亦爾，境界依妄心，妄心依本識，本識依淨心，淨心無所依。又釋：現行依種子、種子依本識，本識依真如，真如無所依。不知者，空與風為依，自無體故不知風；風與水為依，自依空故無力能知水；水望地亦爾，識中亦准之。上來答後遮救難竟。第二答前本難中，五偈分二：初二正答前難、後三便顯觀門。前中難云：心性既一，云何能生種種果報？今答：以隨諸轉識熏習故生，非是一心自作種種，故云眼耳乃至因此轉眾苦。前或至善趣等五對，皆約報辨，故通云眾苦也。此中眼等五識可知。心是本識，有集起義故。意是末那，有思量義故。情是識，則第六是了別義故。此八各有根，五根可知，意為第六根，七八互為根，皆有生識義，是故云情根。因此能所熏和合轉眾苦。疑云：既隨熏轉眾苦，即是成多心，云何仍說唯一心耶？答云：此能熏諸法若是實，可使隨熏失一心；眾苦既虛假，故得一心實不轉。疑云：若實不轉，云何前言隨熏轉眾苦？答云：但示現轉，非是實轉。疑云：於法性若有此示現，亦得相違。答云：但隨他有示現，於彼法中無此示也。何以無者？以示現無所有故。此偈中，上半明不染而染、下半明染而不染。下三偈便明三無性觀：初一遍計無相觀，謂上八識等，約執但是虛妄，都無所有，故云也。次一明依他無生觀，初句觀方便尋思等。次句觀境有者，是前眼耳等；無所有者，以眾緣無性故空也。次句正觀，以見無所有理，故云不倒也。下句釋云：以得見法之眼不雜無明，故云淨也。後一明真實無性性觀，於中虛妄是所執性，非妄是無相性，實是無生性，不實是依他性。二觀若成是出世間，二觀若無是世間。約觀智說，此等有無相待不實，故云但有假言說；有無俱亡，方入無性性觀也。此應廣說三性等觀，約解、約行分之。 > In the second part, the answer, there are two sections: first, one verse praises the inquiry and encourages listening—the first half praises the question as matching the capacity \[of the audience\], and the second half encourages listening and promises exposition; afterwards, there are ten verses that set forth the principles to properly answer. Therein, the first five verses answer the refutation of the defensive argument, for if the defensive principle is established, the original objection is resolved, so it must be answered first; the latter five verses answer the earlier objection on the fundamental doctrine. The intention of the answer here clarifies that the conditioned arising of the storehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna) has two meanings: first is the meaning of non-arising, because it lacks own-nature (svabhāva); second is the meaning of arising, because this conditioned arising without own-nature exists. These two are non-dual; they are a single, unobstructed, profoundly deep conditioned arising. Herein, because of non-arising, arising is accomplished; therefore, merely because the conditions do not know one another, perfuming (vāsanā) is accomplished and manifold phenomena arise. This answers the latter objection. Second, because of arising, there is non-arising; therefore, merely because manifold phenomena arise, each lacks own-nature and is solely the one mind-nature. This answers the earlier objection. Furthermore, the former does not obstruct the one mind being precisely the manifold, and the latter does not obstruct the manifold being precisely the one mind; the unobstructed fusion of the correct principle of conditioned arising is the intention. Among the first five verses, the first is an exposition of doctrine, and the following four are metaphors. Alternatively, they may be expanded into five parts: first, the thesis (pratijñā); second, the reason (hetu); third, the metaphor (dṛṣṭānta); fourth, the application (upanaya); and fifth, the conclusion (nigamana). That 'all phenomena lack autonomy' establishes the thesis; that is, 'all phenomena' is the subject (dharmin), and 'lack autonomy' is the predicate (dharma); the conjunction of the predicate and the subject is called the thesis. Therein are two meanings: first, in the conditioned arising of the storehouse nature, the active and passive perfuming arise and subsume many phenomena, hence it says 'all phenomena'. Because they serve as mutual causes and conditions and are interdependent, none can possess an independent existence. Second, arising from conditions, because they lack own-nature, they have no intrinsic existence. Second, presenting the reason: how is it known that they lack autonomy? The reason says, 'Because, seeking reality, it cannot be found.' Because the fundamental consciousness and the various phenomena mutually depend on conditioned arising and mutually delineate and deprive each other, each lacking own-nature, it says 'seeking reality, it cannot be found.' This has two meanings: first, clarifying non-autonomy in terms of the fundamental consciousness; because it depends on those conditions and lacks own-nature, it says 'seeking reality, it cannot be found.' Second, clarifying non-autonomy in terms of the perfuming dharmas and so forth; because they depend on the fundamental consciousness and lack an intrinsic essence, it says 'seeking reality, it cannot be found.' Or, discussed broadly, there are four meanings: first, because all phenomena rely on consciousness, seeking real existence in all phenomena cannot be found; second, because the fundamental consciousness is the reliance, seeking real non-existence in the fundamental consciousness cannot be found; third, because all phenomena give rise to consciousness, seeking real non-existence in all phenomena cannot be found; fourth, because consciousness follows conditioned arising, seeking real existence in the fundamental consciousness cannot be found. Or they may be expanded into eight propositions, meaning each has the four propositions of existence, non-existence, both, and neither; this can be seen by considering it accordingly. Another explanation: this has four propositions. First, because non-arising is not distinct from arising, seeking the reality of non-arising cannot be found, hence non-arising lacks autonomy; second, because arising is not distinct from non-arising, seeking the reality of arising cannot be found, hence arising also lacks autonomy; third, because there is no duality, seeking the reality of both cannot be found, hence there is no autonomy of both; fourth, because it does not obstruct the two meanings, seeking the reality of neither cannot be found, hence there is no autonomy of neither. Why are they non-autonomous in this way? Because conditioned arising is autonomous. Why are they not real? Because the principle of conditioned arising is real. Third, from 'Therefore, all phenomena' onward is the conclusion. Because the conclusion follows the doctrine, it is placed after the thesis and the reason. The application follows the metaphor, so it is stated after the metaphor. 'Both do not know one another': as in the active and passive perfuming above, each has the two meanings of existence and non-existence; because two existences and two non-existences do not coexist, they cannot know one another; because one existing and one non-existing, or one non-existing and one existing, each lack duality, there is nothing that could be mutually known. Precisely due to such not-knowing and so forth, all phenomena can exist, hence it says 'all do not know one another.' This reveals that not only does equal one-taste not destroy the various phenomena, but also, solely due to equality, the various phenomena exist. Fourth, within the metaphors, there are four metaphors. These are four meanings of the storehouse consciousness: first, the meaning of other-dependence (paratantra) as continuous cause and effect; second, the meaning of generating consciousness through mutual cause and effect; third, the meaning of receiving perfuming; fourth, the meaning of mutual support. First, it says 'like a swift current': in the Cheng weishi lun it explains that the ālayavijñāna constantly rolls on like a rushing torrent; this is that meaning. Here, 'without interruption' is the meaning of its constancy, and 'flowing and coursing' is the meaning of its rolling on. Hence that treatise says: ''Constant' refutes annihilation; 'rolling on' indicates non-permanence.' When distinguished in detail, water flowing must generally have four meanings: First, there is the water capable of flowing, subtly having three \[aspects\]: 1. The essence of the water is pure, metaphorically showing that the fundamental consciousness is the naturally pure mind of the tathāgatagarbha; 2. Mixed with earth, it becomes turbid, metaphorically showing that the naturally pure tathāgatagarbha is defiled by ignorance and has its defiled mind; 3. Encountering cold, it becomes ice/water, metaphorically showing that the tathāgatagarbha in turn conjoins with the false consciousness to form the conditioned arising of the fundamental consciousness. Hence the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra says: 'The tathāgatagarbha is named the ālayavijñāna, and it is conjoined with ignorance and the seven consciousnesses, etc.' Second, flowing through mutual reliance, metaphorically showing the meaning of the fundamental consciousness's own-characteristic. That is, because the following water pushes, the preceding water can flow; or because the preceding water draws, the following water can flow. Each has potency or impotence, etc., and without knowing each other they are able to flow continuously; this is the flowing of non-flowing. As it is said, 'The rivers race onward yet do not flow'—this is what it means. In the sūtras it is called 'flowing production and cessation.' The third fascicle of the Cheng weishi lun says: 'Like a rushing torrent, neither annihilated nor permanent, continuous for a long time, having things adrift and sinking in it. This consciousness is also like this: from beginningless time, its production and cessation are continuous, neither permanent nor annihilated, drowning sentient beings so that they do not escape.' And so forth, down to: 'This nature of consciousness, from beginningless time, produces effects and ceases as causes moment by moment. Because effects are produced, it is not annihilated; because causes cease, it is not permanent. Non-annihilation and non-permanence are the principle of conditioned arising.' Down to: 'One should have faith in the correct principle of Mahāyāna conditioned arising. This correct principle is profound, wondrous, and beyond words; words such as 'cause' and 'effect' are all conventional designations. Observing present phenomena having the function of drawing forth what follows, an upcoming effect is provisionally established in counter-relation to state a present cause; observing present phenomena having the mark of recompensing what preceded, a past cause is provisionally established in counter-relation to state a present effect, provisionally saying that the present consciousness manifests resembling those marks. Such principles and reckonings of cause and effect are clear and distinct, far removed from the two extremes and in accord with the Middle Way; all who are wise should follow and practice this.' Furthermore, relying on the Laṅkāvatāra: 'In a moment (kṣaṇa), confusion is stilled; / peaceful and quiet, free from activity. / All phenomena are unproduced— / this I call the meaning of a kṣaṇa. / Initial production immediately contains cessation, / yet this is not spoken for the foolish. / Its nature of uninterrupted continuity / is perfumed by false discrimination.' Explanation: In the former treatise, production and cessation occur in separate mind-moments; in the sūtra, production and cessation occur in the same mind-moment. Therefore, it is the production and cessation of non-production and non-cessation (reflect on this further). The sūtra speaks according to the Final Teaching, where the unproduced-unceasing and the produced-ceasing unite in harmony, named the ālayavijñāna, etc. The treatise speaks according to the Initial Teaching, where only production and cessation constitute consciousness; examined strictly, it does not even establish production and cessation, for when there is production there is no cessation, so it should not be conditioned, as its characteristics would be incomplete; if there is cessation, it could not be produced, because they are contradictory. Therefore, in the Final Teaching they are in the same mind-moment; because each is empty and provisional, they do not obstruct each other. Furthermore, relying on the true mind, they can be identical; following characteristics, they are different (reflect on this further). Past cessation can accomplish production; future cessation can destroy production. A produced dharma can destroy the past, and cessation can accomplish future cessation. Furthermore, the single characteristic of cessation, viewed against preceding production, can destroy; viewed against subsequent production, can accomplish. The single characteristic of production, viewed against preceding cessation, can destroy; viewed against subsequent cessation, can accomplish. Therefore, continuity is without interruption (reflect on this further). Moreover, because production arises through cessation, production fully contains cessation. Because it fully contains cessation, it causes production not to abide, turning back to become cessation. Because cessation exists through production, cessation contains production. Because it contains production, it causes cessation not to abide, turning back to become production. Therefore, production and cessation intersect; before and after are simultaneous and do not obstruct one another, flowing continuously without cut. Furthermore, within a single characteristic of production, four kinds of meanings of cessation are simultaneously fully present: 1. Nature not being established is called cessation; 2. Arising by virtue of cessation, it thus contains cessation; 3. Being able to accomplish cessation, it thus contains cessation; 4. Because production and cessation are both dreamlike and false. Viewed within false calculation, there are before and after; when reality is illuminated, there are no before and after at all; therefore, when there is production, there is also cessation (reflect on this further). The cessation-flow of the preceding mind-moment flows into production; the production-flow of the subsequent mind-moment flows into cessation. The two flows of production and cessation are therefore called 'flowing and coursing.' Prior to attaining the path of antidote, there is no pause even for an instant, hence it says 'without interruption.' The two flows each have no \[independent nature\], etc., and do not know each other. Third, depending on the wind, there are two meanings: 1. Flowing due to wind metaphorically shows the meaning of the causal characteristic of the storehouse consciousness, meaning it drifts and flows relying on the wind of defilement and karma perfuming the seeds; this is distinguished according to the causal characteristic. 2. Raising waves due to wind: the Laṅkāvatāra says, 'The ocean of the storehouse consciousness is constantly abiding; stirred by the winds of sensory objects, the waves of manifold consciousnesses leap and turn into arising.' Cheng weishi lun, fascicle 3, says: 'Also like a rushing torrent, though struck by wind and the like, raising various waves, its flow is uninterrupted. This consciousness is also like this: though encountering various conditions, raising the eye-consciousness and so forth, it is constantly continuous.' Herein, 1. flowing because blown by wind, and 2. flowing by means of water, hence it says 'flowing and coursing.' Mutually dependent and lacking own-nature, neither knows the other. Or the flow of seeds and the flow of the consciousness relied upon, though not knowing each other, still flow. As in the text above, 'karma does not know mind,' which should be understood by analogy. Fourth, flowing according to the high and low of the ground metaphorically shows the meaning of the fruition characteristic of the fundamental consciousness: it flows relying on the retribution of rebirth grounds where one is variously born. Human and deva realms are high; evil destinies are low. This is according to the fruition characteristic. Here, mind and retribution are two; because they lack own-nature, they do not know each other. As above, 'retribution does not know experiencing,' which should be understood by analogy. Or it flows bearing objects, hence the Cheng weishi lun says: 'Also like a rushing torrent carrying water up and down, fish, grass, and other things follow along without being abandoned. This consciousness is also like this: it constantly rolls on together with internal impressions (vāsanā) and external contacts and other dharmas.' Second, the metaphor of the lamp flame establishing reliance has three meanings: first, the meaning of generating consciousness; second, the meaning of mutual cause and effect; third, the meaning of appropriation (upādāna). First, generating consciousness: just as relying on the preceding flame burning the wick, the subsequent flame can arise, clearly illuminating the preceding object for only a single thought-moment, hence not pausing for an instant. The six consciousnesses are also like this: because verbal designations and the like rely on the fundamental seed-consciousness, they can generate subsequent consciousnesses to illuminate objects, preceding ones ceasing and subsequent ones arising without a moment's pause. Here, taking the fundamental consciousness as the lamp oil, the seeds in the consciousness as the lamp wick, and the generated active six consciousnesses as the flame, lacking an essence and swiftly ceasing, they do not know one another. As for 'both do not know one another,' ancients said: the flame and the basin are two, and the wick and the oil are two; the four dharmas arise in combination, each not knowing the other. This is likely without principle. The textual intention seems to take the preceding flame and subsequent flame as two; because they swiftly cease without abiding and lack essence, how could they know each other? The six consciousnesses relying on the fundamental without essence are also like this. 'Mind does not know experiencing,' etc., should be understood by analogy. Second, the meaning of simultaneous mutual causality, as stated in the second fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. The treatise says: 'For example, the light of the lamp and the wick of the lamp: production and burning simultaneously serve as mutual causes.' The commentary explains: 'Because the substance of the wick is the support that can generate the bright flame, the wick is the cause of the production of the bright flame. The bright flame, in this very moment of production, because it can burn the wick, is the cause of burning the wick' (down to and so forth). The treatise says: 'It should be known that the fundamental consciousness and the active perfumings serve as mutual causes; its meaning is also like this. Just as consciousness is the cause of defiled dharmas, defiled dharmas are the cause of consciousness.' The commentary explains: 'This ālayavijñāna is the generative cause of the seeds. If there were no such consciousness, the production and cessation of the three karmas would have no support. As the substance passes away, its potency is also like this. Therefore, by this consciousness the substance of all dharmas is produced, and their potencies are also established. Therefore, the fundamental consciousness is their generative cause. Those dharmas are also like this: if those dharmas lacked this consciousness, arising in the present would be without reason; evolving subsequently different from prior, this transformation is the fruit of those dharmas.' Explanation: Here, the flame and wick of the preceding mind-moment simultaneously generate and burn in the same single kṣaṇa; each has cause and effect, and simultaneously passes away; the subsequent flame is also like this, hence it says 'flaming and blazing.' Until reaching the state of antidote, these dharmas constantly arise, hence they do not pause for an instant. Because the two causes and two effects do not coexist, they do not know one another; because one cause and one effect lack duality, there is nothing that could be known. Furthermore, it is the flame that can burn the wick and the flame produced by the wick, hence it says 'flaming and blazing.' Because the principle of production does not pause, it is precisely burning; the principle of burning is also like this, hence it says 'not pausing for an instant.' Not knowing each other is as above. Here, the meaning of mutual causality is briefly made into two levels, each with three gates: 1. guarding against faults, 2. revealing virtues, and 3. showing faults, as in the questions and answers (and so forth). Third, the meaning of appropriation: here it clarifies that the lamp has two functions: 1. internally burning the wick to char, and 2. externally emitting light to illuminate. This metaphorically shows that this fundamental consciousness has internal and external upholding. The Yogācārabhūmi says: 'The appropriation of this consciousness is twofold: first, internally appropriating the seeds and the physical body with the five sense organs; second, externally appropriating the receptacle world. Just as the lamp flame internally holds the oil and wick, and externally emits illumination—this is what it means.' These internal and external two are why it says 'flaming and blazing.' Constantly appropriating without interruption, it says 'not pausing.' Internal and external constitute two; because they lack own-nature, they do not know each other. Third, the metaphor of wind showing the meaning of perfuming: here wind has two meanings: 1. having potency to move others, metaphorically showing that the evolving consciousnesses can perfume into seeds, etc.; 2. having no essence, meaning this wind cannot manifest its own mark of motion; it must blow on objects and cause them to move before the mark of wind is known. This motion is indeed the motion of the object, so we know wind has no self-essence. All perfuming dharmas cannot establish seeds by themselves; they must perfume the fundamental consciousness to form seeds, and only then is the perfumer revealed; this seed is indeed a seed of consciousness, so we know that the perfumer lacks own-nature. 'Both do not know one another': wind and objects are two; relying on the motion of objects, wind lacks own-nature; following the wind, objects lack own-nature; likewise, two non-existences and two existences do not coexist, and one non-existence and one existence have no active and passive, so neither knows the other. In consciousness it is also like this, understood by analogy, hence it says 'all dharmas are also like this.' Fourth, the metaphor of earth showing the meaning of mutual support: just as the earth wheel relies on the water wheel, the water wheel relies on the wind wheel, the wind wheel relies on empty space, and empty space relies on nothing. The meaning of mind is also like this: sensory objects rely on the false mind, the false mind relies on the fundamental consciousness, the fundamental consciousness relies on the pure mind, and the pure mind relies on nothing. Another explanation: active dharmas rely on seeds, seeds rely on the fundamental consciousness, the fundamental consciousness relies on tathatā, and tathatā relies on nothing. 'Do not know': space provides support for wind, and lacking an essence itself, does not know wind; wind provides support for water, and itself relying on space, lacks potency to know water; water toward earth is also like this, and in consciousness it is also understood by analogy. Thus far, answering the refutation of the defensive argument is concluded. In the second part, answering the earlier fundamental objection, five verses are divided into two: the first two directly answer the earlier objection, and the latter three directly reveal the gates of contemplation. In the former, the objection asked: since mind-nature is one, how can it produce manifold retributions? Now it answers: because it arises following the perfuming of the various evolving consciousnesses, it is not that the one mind itself makes the manifold; hence it says 'eye, ear... thereby rolling on the various sufferings.' The five pairs above, such as 'or reaching good destinies,' are all distinguished in terms of retribution, hence they are collectively called 'the various sufferings.' Here, the five consciousnesses such as eye\[-consciousness\] are obvious. 'Mind' (hsin/citta) is the fundamental consciousness, because it has the meaning of accumulation and arising. 'Intellect' (yi/manas) is the manas, because it has the meaning of cogitation. 'Mentation' (ch'ing/vijñāna) is consciousness, which is the sixth \[consciousness\], because it has the meaning of discernment. These eight each have organs: the five organs are obvious; the intellect is the organ of the sixth; the seventh and eighth serve as organs for each other; all have the meaning of generating consciousness, hence it says 'the organs of consciousness.' Thereby the active and passive perfumings harmonize and roll on the various sufferings. A doubt says: since it follows perfuming and rolls on the various sufferings, that means it becomes many minds; how can you still speak of only one mind? The answer says: if these perfuming dharmas were real, they could cause one mind to be lost following perfuming; since the various sufferings are empty and provisional, the one mind truly does not transform. A doubt says: if it truly does not transform, why did you previously say that it rolls on the various sufferings following perfuming? The answer says: it only manifests transformation; it is not a real transformation. A doubt says: if there is this manifestation in dharmatā, that would also be contradictory. The answer says: it only manifests following other \[conditions\]; in that dharma itself there is no such manifestation. Why is there none? Because manifestations do not exist. In this verse, the first half clarifies undefiled yet defiled; the second half clarifies defiled yet undefiled. The three verses below directly clarify the contemplation of the three non-natures: The first is the contemplation of the signless nature of imagined \[reality\] (parikalpita): that is, the above eight consciousnesses and so forth, in terms of grasping, are merely false and completely non-existent, hence it says so. The next clarifies the contemplation of the unproduced nature of other-dependent \[reality\] (paratantra): the first line contemplates the expedient investigation and so forth; the next line contemplates the existence of the object, which is the previous eye, ear, and so forth; 'do not exist' means they are empty because conditions lack own-nature; the next line is the correct contemplation, because seeing the principle of non-existence, it says 'not inverted'; the bottom line explains: because one attains the eye that sees dharmas unmixed with ignorance, it says 'pure.' The last clarifies the contemplation of the nature of the ultimate non-nature (pariniṣpanna): therein, the false is the imagined nature; the non-false is the signless nature; the real is the unproduced nature; the unreal is the other-dependent nature. If the two contemplations are accomplished, it is supramundane; if the two contemplations are absent, it is mundane. Spoken in terms of contemplative wisdom, these mutually dependent existences and non-existences are not real, hence it says 'there are only conventional designations'; when existence and non-existence both perish, only then does one enter the contemplation of the nature of non-nature. Here one should extensively explain the contemplations of the three natures and so forth, dividing them according to understanding and according to practice. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.4.56) - [Next: 4.58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.4.58) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733~en-mt.4.57) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [成唯識論演祕](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1833.3.61) — Classical Chinese - [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.31.44) — Classical Chinese - [成唯識論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.trimsika!vijnaptimatratasiddhi*zh-xuanzang.3.72) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.4.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.4.57) · Pramāṇa