大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 42.4

42.4

第九菩薩。疏「具分唯識」者，已如上釋，正取真妄合成以為具分。疏「乍觀此喻似前喻所作」等者，即揀《刊定》。《刊定》云「前二喻真妄心所作以辨唯識，次二喻真妄心能作以辨唯識。」今言似者，大種異色似畫師所作，然不離心有彩畫者似能作也。則麁觀似爾，細尋不然。「細尋」已下，即顯正義。疏「然依生滅八識」下，辨二所由，顯法相宗但是心境依持。「而即如來藏」下，辨具二所以。於中先總；後「以會緣入實」下別示二相，即以《起信》真如生滅二門為二義耳。「存壞不二唯一緣起」，結歸《華嚴》。會緣入實，壞也。不壞相故，存也。言「二門無礙唯是一心」者，結歸《起信》。依一心法立二種門故，須具足二義方名具分唯識。問：《唯識》第九亦說其所轉依有其二種：一持種依，謂第八識；二迷悟依，謂即真如。何以說言然依生滅八識唯有心境依持？答：彼雖說迷悟依，非即心境依持。以真如不變，不隨於心變萬境故，但是所迷耳。後還淨時，非是攝相即真如故，但是所悟耳。今乃心境依持即是真妄，非有二體，故說一心。約義不同，分成兩義說二門別。故論云「然此二門皆各總攝一切法故，以此二門不相離故。」廣如〈問明品〉及玄談中。疏「初偈初句總喻一心」者，含真含妄、有能有所。論云「所言法者，謂眾生心，是心即攝一切世間出世間法，故下合云心如工畫師。」「次句隨緣熏變成依他」者，《起信論》云「自性清淨心，因無明風動，有其染心。」《楞伽經》云「藏識海常住，境界風所動，種種諸識浪，騰躍而轉生。」亦是不生不滅與生滅和合，非一非異，名阿賴耶識是也。「次句不了依他故成遍計」者，以經云「虛妄取異相故。」故《起信》云「一切諸法皆依妄念而有差別。若離心念，則無一切境界之相。」「第四句喻依他相盡體即圓成」者，以言大種無差別故。大種即喻真如，謂心體離念即是如來平等法身，從緣無性即真如矣。又一二兩句即不染而染，三四兩句即染而不染，故有後偈喻不即離。疏「大種中無色身所觸故」者，堅濕煖動皆是觸故。言「色中無大種眼所見故」者，約顯色說，青黃赤白眼之境故。直就法體，大種是觸，色即是色。若就根得，謂身及眼。「又能造無異色」者，然取增勝，地多則黃、水多則白、火多即赤、風多即青，而堅濕煖動共造於青，亦共造於黃赤及白。在能造邊同一堅等，及所造邊即有青等，故云「能造無異畫色差別故」。疏「喻妄依真」下，合。先合能所異故。亦應具言真中無妄，聖智境故；妄中無真，凡所知故。從「性無差別」下，合上又能造無異等。

The ninth bodhisattva. The commentary states: "Complete-aspect Consciousness-only." This has already been explained above; it precisely takes the synthesis of the true and the false as constituting the complete aspect. The commentary states: "At first glance, this metaphor resembles what is produced in the preceding metaphor..." and so forth. This selects and refutes the Kanding. The Kanding says: "The first two metaphors use what is produced by the true and false mind to distinguish Consciousness-only; the next two metaphors use what can produce the true and false mind to distinguish Consciousness-only." Now, saying "resembles": the great elements being different from colors resembles what is produced by the painter, yet [colors] not being apart from the mind having the painting resembles what can produce. Thus, a coarse observation seems like that, but detailed investigation is not so. From "detailed investigation" onward directly reveals the correct meaning. The commentary states: "However, relying upon the eight consciousnesses of arising and ceasing..." and so forth. This distinguishes the reason for the two, revealing that the Dharma-character school only has the mutual support of mind and objects. "And yet is identical to the tathāgatagarbha..." and so forth. This distinguishes the reason for possessing both. Therein, it first generalizes; later, from "because integrating conditions into the real..." onward, it shows the two aspects separately, taking precisely the two gates of tathatā and arising and ceasing from the Awakening of Faith as the two meanings. "Preservation and destruction are non-dual, being solely a single conditioned arising" concludes by returning to the Avataṃsaka. Integrating conditions into the real is destruction. Because characteristics are not destroyed, it is preservation. The statement "The two gates are unobstructed, being solely the one mind" concludes by returning to the Awakening of Faith. Because based on the phenomenon of the one mind two gates are established, one must possess both meanings before it is called complete-aspect Consciousness-only. Question: The ninth fascicle of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi also states that its locus of transformation has two kinds: first, the support that maintains seeds, meaning the eighth consciousness; second, the support of delusion and awakening, meaning tathatā. Why do you say that relying upon the eight consciousnesses of arising and ceasing only has the mutual support of mind and objects? Answer: Although that text speaks of the support of delusion and awakening, it is not the mutual support of mind and objects. Because tathatā is unchanging and does not transform into the myriad objects in concordance with the mind, it is merely that which is deluded about. Later, when returning to purity, because it does not integrate characteristics into being identical to tathatā, it is merely that which is awakened to. Here, however, the mutual support of mind and objects is precisely the true and the false, which do not have two separate essences; hence we speak of the one mind. In accordance with the differences in meaning, it is divided into two meanings and spoken of as the distinction between the two gates. Therefore the treatise says: "Yet these two gates each entirely subsume all phenomena, because these two gates are not separate from each other." This is explained extensively as in the "Inquiry and Illumination Chapter" and in the Profound Discourse. The commentary states: "The first line of the first verse generally illustrates the one mind through metaphor." It contains the true and contains the false; it has the active and the passive. The treatise says: "That which is called 'phenomenon' refers to the mind of sentient beings; this mind subsumes all mundane and supramundane phenomena. Therefore below it synthesizes: 'The mind is like a master painter.'" "The next line: conforming to conditions, perfuming transforms it into the dependent [nature]." The Awakening of Faith states: "The inherently pure mind, stirred by the wind of ignorance, comes to have defiled mind." The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra states: "The ocean of the storehouse consciousness is permanently abiding; stirred by the winds of external objects, waves of various consciousnesses leap and arise in turn." This is also the non-arising and non-ceasing harmonizing with arising and ceasing, neither identical nor different, which is called the ālayavijñāna. "The next line: failing to understand the dependent [nature], it becomes the parikalpita [nature]." This is because the sūtra states: "Because falsely grasping different characteristics." Therefore the Awakening of Faith states: "All phenomena have distinctions solely based on false thoughts. If separated from mental thoughts, then there are no characteristics of any external objects." "The fourth line illustrates that when dependent characteristics are exhausted, the essence is precisely the pariniṣpanna [nature]." This is because it says that the great elements are without difference. The great elements illustrate tathatā, meaning that the mental essence free from thought is precisely the Tathāgata's universal dharmakāya; having no intrinsic nature as derived from conditions is precisely tathatā. Furthermore, lines one and two represent undefiled yet defiled; lines three and four represent defiled yet undefiled. Therefore, the subsequent verse uses metaphor for neither identical nor separate. The commentary states: "Within the great elements there is no color, because they are touched by the body." Solidity, wetness, warmth, and motion are all tangible objects. The statement "Within colors there are no great elements, because they are seen by the eye" is spoken with regard to manifest color: blue, yellow, red, and white are the objects of the eye. Directly in terms of the essential reality of phenomena, the great elements are tangibles, and colors are colors. In terms of sensory apprehension, they are the body and the eye. "Furthermore, that which can produce is without difference, while colors differ." Selecting what is predominant: where earth predominates it is yellow, where water predominates it is white, where fire predominates it is red, and where wind predominates it is blue. Yet solidity, wetness, warmth, and motion together produce blue, and also together produce yellow, red, and white. On the side of what can produce, it is the same solidity and so forth; arriving at the side of what is produced, there are blue and so forth. Therefore it says: "That which can produce is without difference, while painted colors differ." The commentary states: "Illustrating that the false relies on the true..." and so forth synthesizes [the metaphor]. First, it synthesizes the difference between what can produce and what is produced. It should also fully state: within the true there is no false, because it is the domain of noble cognition; within the false there is no true, because it is what ordinary people cognize. From "the nature is without difference" onward synthesizes the aforementioned point that what can produce is without difference, and so forth.