大方廣佛華嚴經疏 21.19

21.19

第九照心本末名為覺林。十頌顯於具分唯識，大分為二：前五約喻顯法、後五法合成觀。前中二：前二約事、後三約心。乍觀此喻，似前喻所作、後喻能作；細尋喻意，前喻却親，故喻真妄依持、後喻心境依持。然依生滅八識但有心境依持，而即如來藏心故有真妄依持，以會緣入實差別相盡唯真如門，即前喻所顯；攝境從心不壞相故是生滅門，即後喻所明。存壞不二、唯一緣起，二門無礙唯是一心，故下合中但明心造；欲分義別，喻顯二門，是名具分唯識。今初，二偈真妄依持即真如門，攝一切法也。初偈，初句總喻一心、次句喻隨緣熏變成依他也、次句不了依他故成遍計、第四句喻依他相盡體即圓成。後偈喻依圓真妄非即離義，上半不即能所異故、大種中無色身所觸故、色中無大種眼所見故。又能造無異畫色差別故、喻妄依真能所異故、性無差別相不同故。下半不離義，謂所造青等離能造地等無別體故、假必依實同聚現故、喻妄必依真性相交徹故。然大必能造色，非色能造大，喻妄必依真起，真不依妄生，故不云也。然不離於色，有大種可得。後三約心者，喻於唯識心生滅門。於中，初一亦明心境不即離義，上半不即，心中無彩畫，不可見故。彩畫中無心，無慮知故，喻能變所變見相別故。下半不離，隨心安布故，喻離心則無境界相故。要由心變於境，非是境能變心，故云唯識，不言唯境；但云然不離於心有彩畫可得，不言然不離於畫而有心可得。次一偈喻能所變之行相，明畫師巧思不住，變態多端。所畫非心誰相知者，法合。彼心者，真妄和合心也。恒言遮斷，不住遮常，如瀑流故。含一切種，故云無量相。甚深細，名難思議。次句頓現萬境。下句喻所變境離心無體。又常不住者，無住為本故。無量難思，總標深廣。下二句釋，示現一切，廣故難思；各不相知，深故難思。三一偈，重喻上來不相知義。謂非唯所畫之法自不相知，喻所變之境無有體性。能畫之心念念生滅，自不相知故，亦不能知於所畫，雙喻心境皆無自性，各不相知故。言不能知自心，而由心故畫。又雖不知畫心，而由心能畫，喻眾生雖迷心現量，而心變於境。又由不能知所畫，但畫於自心，故能成所畫，喻眾生由迷境，唯心方能現妄境。又喻正由無性方成萬境，故云諸法性如是。第二五偈合中分四：初一偈合。初二句，初句合最初句心者，即總相之心也。下三句合第二句諸世間者，即諸彩色，此句為總。下出諸相，即蘊界處，故云無法不造故。晉譯云造種種五蘊，《正法念》云：心如畫師手，畫出五彩，黑青赤黃白及白白，故上文云「布諸彩色」。畫手，譬心六色，如次喻地獄、鬼、畜、修羅、人、天。若言種種則十法界，五蘊等法皆心所造。次二頌合前初偈下半，於中二：初一舉例以合，由成前諸言，謂如世五蘊從心而造，諸佛五蘊亦然。如佛五蘊，餘一切眾生亦然，皆從心造。然心是總相，悟之名佛，成淨緣起；迷作眾生，成染緣起。緣起雖有染淨，心體不殊，佛果契心同真無盡，妄法有極故不言之。若依舊譯，云心佛與眾生，是三無差別。則三皆無盡，無盡即是無別之相。應云心佛與眾生，體性皆無盡。以妄體本真故亦無盡，是以如來不斷性惡，亦猶闡提不斷性善。又上三各有二義：總心二義者，一染、二淨。佛二義者，一應機隨染、二平等違染。眾生二者，一隨流背佛、二機熟感佛。各以初義成順流無差，各以後義為反流無差，則無差之言含盡無盡。又三中二義，各全體相收，此三無差成一緣起。上約橫論。若約一人，心即總相，佛即本覺、眾生即不覺，乃本覺隨緣而成此二，為生滅門；下半此二體性無盡，即真如門，隨緣不失自真性故，正合前文大種無差。若謂心佛眾生三有異者，即是虛妄取異色也。後一偈反勢合，謂妄取異色則不知心行，若知心行普造世間則無虛妄，便了真實。即正合大種無差，兼明觀益。三一偈有二義：一雙合前真妄心境不即離義，上半合前二三偈之上半，即前互無不即之義，心即能變及心體故。身即所變，謂有根身是識相分及性之相故。下半雙合前兩偈下半不離之義，謂雖不相住，而依心現境，依體起用作諸佛事，體用不礙，為未曾有。二又將合前第四偈，謂上半合前恒不住義，及各不相知而能作佛事，合示現一切色。自在未曾有，合無量難思議，為兼此義，不以互無言之而言不住，譯之妙也；晉經但云心亦非是身，但得前文互無之義。末後一偈結勸，即反合前畫師不知心喻。若不知心，常畫妄境；觀唯心造，則了真佛。上半有機、下半示觀。然有二釋。一云：若欲了佛者，應觀法界性。上一切差別皆唯心作，以見法即見佛故。二觀法界性是真如門，觀唯心造即生滅門，是雙結也。又一是真如實觀、一是唯心識觀，大乘觀要不出此二，觀此二門唯是一心，皆各總攝一切法盡，二諦雙融無礙一味，三世諸佛證此為體故。欲知彼者，應當觀此既為妙極，是以暫持能破地獄。

Ninth, illuminating the root and branches of the mind is called Forest of Awakening. Ten verses reveal the complete-aspect mind-only (vijñapti-mātra), which are divided broadly into two parts: the first five reveal phenomena through metaphors, and the last five integrate the phenomena to form contemplation. Within the former part there are two sections: the first two [verses] concern phenomena, and the latter three concern the mind. At first glance, these metaphors seem as though the former illustrates what is created and the latter illustrates what can create; but examining the intention of the metaphors closely, the former metaphor is actually more proximate, so it illustrates the mutual support of the true and the false, whereas the latter metaphor illustrates the mutual support of mind and objects. However, relying upon the eight consciousnesses of arising and ceasing, there is only the mutual support of mind and objects, but because they are identical to the mind of the Tathāgatagarbha, there is the mutual support of the true and the false; for gathering conditions to enter reality, where differentiated marks are exhausted as only the gate of tathatā, is what the former metaphor reveals; while subsuming objects into the mind without destroying marks is the gate of arising and ceasing, which is what the latter metaphor clarifies. Preservation and destruction are non-dual, being a single pratītyasamutpāda; the two gates are unobstructed, being only the one mind. Therefore, in the subsequent correlation, it only clarifies mind-creation; wishing to distinguish the aspects of meaning, the metaphors reveal the two gates—this is called complete-aspect mind-only. Now, the first two verses on the mutual support of the true and the false are the gate of tathatā, which subsumes all dharmas. In the first verse, the first line metaphorically refers to the one mind in general; the second line metaphorically refers to perfuming and transforming in accordance with conditions to become the other-dependent nature (paratantra); the third line refers to failing to understand the other-dependent and thus forming the imagined nature (parikalpita); the fourth line metaphorically refers to the exhaustion of marks of the other-dependent, whose essence is the fully perfected nature (pariniṣpanna). The subsequent verse metaphorically illustrates the meaning of neither-identity-nor-difference between the other-dependent and the fully perfected, and between the true and the false. In the first half, they are not identical because subject and object differ: within the great elements (mahābhūta) there is no visible form (rūpa), as they are what is touched by the body; and within visible form there are no great elements, as it is what is seen by the eye. Furthermore, the creating [elements] have no differentiation, whereas the painted colors differ; this illustrates that the false relies on the true, and subject and object differ, because nature has no differentiation while marks are dissimilar. The latter half conveys the meaning of non-separation: the created blues and so forth have no separate essence apart from the creating earth and so forth; what is provisional necessarily relies on the real, appearing in the same assemblage; this illustrates that the false necessarily relies on the true, nature and marks interpenetrating each other. However, the great elements are necessarily able to create form, while form cannot create the great elements; this illustrates that the false necessarily arises relying on the true, while the true does not arise relying on the false; hence it is not stated so. Yet, not apart from form are the great elements to be found. The latter three [verses] concerning mind illustrate the gate of arising and ceasing of the mind-only mind. Within them, the first [verse] also clarifies the meaning of the neither-identity-nor-difference of mind and objects. The first half is non-identity: in the mind there are no painted colors, as it cannot be seen; in the painted colors there is no mind, as they lack thought and cognition; this illustrates that the transforming and the transformed, seeing-aspect (darśanabhāga) and mark-aspect (nimittabhāga), are distinct. The latter half is non-separation: because they are arranged according to the mind; this illustrates that apart from the mind there are no marks of sensory objects. It must be that the mind transforms into objects, not that objects are able to transform the mind; hence it is called 'mind-only' and not 'object-only'; it merely says that not apart from the mind are painted colors to be found, not that not apart from the painting is a mind to be found. The next verse illustrates the active modes (ākāra) of the transforming and the transformed, clarifying that the painter's skillful thought does not abide and his changing postures are multifaceted. As for 'the painting is not the mind, who knows another?,' this is the doctrinal correlation. 'That mind' is the mind of the harmonisation of the true and the false. 'Constantly' refutes annihilation; 'non-abiding' refutes permanence, like a rushing torrent. Because it contains all seeds (bīja), it is called 'immeasurable marks.' Being extremely profound and subtle, it is called 'inconceivable.' The next line suddenly manifests myriad objects. The lower line illustrates that the transformed objects have no essence apart from the mind. Furthermore, 'constantly non-abiding' is because non-abiding is the root. 'Immeasurable and inconceivable' generally indicates depth and breadth. The lower two lines explain: 'manifesting all' is inconceivable due to breadth; 'not knowing one another' is inconceivable due to depth. The third verse re-illustrates the aforementioned meaning of 'not knowing one another.' It means not only do the painted things themselves not know one another—illustrating that the transformed objects have no self-nature—but the painting mind, arising and ceasing thought by thought, does not know itself, and therefore also cannot know what is painted; this doubly illustrates that both mind and objects lack self-nature, each not knowing the other. Hence it says, 'unable to know its own mind, yet because of the mind it paints.' Furthermore, although not knowing the painting mind, yet because of the mind it can paint; this illustrates that although sentient beings are deluded about the direct perception of the mind, yet the mind transforms into objects. Moreover, because it cannot know what is painted, but only paints in its own mind, it is therefore able to accomplish what is painted; this illustrates that because sentient beings are deluded about objects, only the mind is able to manifest false objects. Furthermore, it illustrates that precisely due to having no nature are the myriad objects accomplished; hence it says, 'the nature of all dharmas is like this.' In the second part, the five verses of correlation are divided into four: First, one verse of correlation. In the first two lines, the first line correlates with the very first line's 'mind,' which is the mind of general characteristics. The lower three lines correlate with the second line's 'all worlds,' which are the various colors; this line is general. The lower [lines] set forth various marks, which are the aggregates (skandha), realms (dhātu), and bases (āyatana); hence it says 'there is no dharma it does not create.' The Jin translation says: 'creates the various five aggregates.' The Saddharmasmṛtyupasthāna-sūtra says: 'The mind is like a painter's hand, painting five colors: black, blue, red, yellow, white, and ultra-white.' Thus the text above says: 'arranging the various colors.' The painting hand is a metaphor for the mind; the six colors respectively illustrate the hells, pretas, animals, asuras, humans, and devas. If one speaks of 'various kinds,' then the ten dharmadhātus, five aggregates, and so forth are all created by the mind. Next, two verses correlate with the latter half of the preceding first verse. Within them are two: First, one cites an example to correlate, thereby establishing the preceding words, meaning that just as the worldly five aggregates are created from the mind, the five aggregates of the Buddhas are also like this. As with the Buddhas' five aggregates, so are those of all other sentient beings: all are created from the mind. Yet the mind is the general characteristic: awakening to it is called a Buddha, forming pure pratītyasamutpāda; delusion about it makes sentient beings, forming defiled pratītyasamutpāda. Although pratītyasamutpāda has defiled and pure, the essence of the mind is not different; the Buddha-fruit tallies with the mind, identical with the true and endless, whereas false dharmas have an end, so it is not spoken of. If one relies on the old translation, it says: 'Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings—these three are without difference.' Then all three are endless, and being endless is precisely the mark of non-difference. It should say: 'Mind, Buddha, and sentient beings—in essence, all are endless.' Because the essence of the false is fundamentally true, it is also endless; thus the Tathāgata does not cut off the evil nature, just as an icchantika does not cut off the good nature. Furthermore, the three above each have two meanings. The two meanings of the general mind are: first, defiled; second, pure. The two meanings of the Buddha are: first, adapting to capacities and according with defilement; second, being equal and opposing defilement. The two meanings of sentient beings are: first, following the flow and turning away from the Buddha; second, when capacities mature, evoking the Buddha. With their respective first meanings, they form non-difference in following the flow; with their respective second meanings, they form non-difference in reversing the flow; thus the word 'non-difference' embraces both the ended and the endless. Furthermore, the two meanings within the three each completely subsume the whole essence; these three without difference form a single pratītyasamutpāda. The above is discussed horizontally. If discussed in terms of a single person: the mind is the general characteristic, the Buddha is original enlightenment (akuśala/bodhi: benjue), and sentient beings are non-enlightenment; it is precisely original enlightenment according with conditions that forms these two, which is the gate of arising and ceasing; in the lower half, the essence of these two is endless, which is the gate of tathatā, because according with conditions it does not lose its own true nature—this precisely matches the earlier text's 'the great elements are without difference.' If one says that the three—mind, Buddha, and sentient beings—are different, that is falsely grasping different colors. The next verse correlates by reversing the position: it means that falsely grasping different colors implies not knowing the operations of the mind; if one knows that the operations of the mind universally create the worlds, then there is no falsehood, and one immediately understands reality. This precisely matches 'the great elements are without difference' and concurrently clarifies the benefit of contemplation. Third, one verse has two meanings: First, it doubly correlates with the earlier meaning of the neither-identity-nor-difference of true and false, mind and objects. The first half correlates with the first half of the preceding second and third verses—that is, the earlier meaning of mutual absence and non-identity—because the mind is the transforming [subject] and the essence of mind, and the body is the transformed [object], meaning the endowed body is the mark-aspect (nimittabhāga) of consciousness and the mark of the nature. The latter half doubly correlates with the meaning of non-separation in the latter half of the preceding two verses: it means that although they do not abide in each other, yet relying on the mind, objects appear, and relying on the essence, function arises to perform all Buddha-works; essence and function do not obstruct each other, which is unprecedented. Second, it is also brought to correlate with the preceding fourth verse: the first half correlates with the earlier meaning of 'constantly non-abiding,' and 'not knowing one another yet able to do Buddha-works' correlates with 'manifesting all colors.' 'Unimpeded and unprecedented' correlates with 'immeasurable and inconceivable.' In order to embrace this meaning, it does not express it in terms of mutual absence but says 'non-abiding,' which is the subtlety of the translation; the Jin sūtra merely says 'the mind is also not the body,' obtaining only the earlier text's meaning of mutual absence. The final verse concludes with an exhortation, which conversely correlates with the earlier metaphor of the painter not knowing the mind. If one does not know the mind, one constantly paints false objects; contemplating that all is created by the mind alone, one then understands the true Buddha. The first half has the capacity, and the latter half shows the contemplation. However, there are two explanations: First, it says: if one wishes to understand the Buddha, one should contemplate the nature of the dharmadhātu. All the differentiations above are created by the mind alone, because seeing phenomena is immediately seeing the Buddha. Second, contemplating the nature of the dharmadhātu is the gate of tathatā, and contemplating mind-only creation is the gate of arising and ceasing—this is a dual conclusion. Furthermore, one is the contemplation of the reality of tathatā, and the other is the contemplation of mind-only consciousness; the essentials of Mahāyāna contemplation do not go beyond these two. Contemplating that these two gates are only the one mind, both universally subsume all dharmas completely; the two truths are doubly harmonised in unobstructed single flavor; the Buddhas of the three periods realise this as essence. One who wishes to know them should contemplate this, which is supreme; therefore, briefly upholding it can shatter the hells.