[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) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 74.7 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.7 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [74.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.74.7) 疏「依唯識」下，二會今經意。於中有三：初標所取，取前安惠云「前亦未為失」。二「以攝境」下，出無失所以。三「若離佛外」下，結彈第二護法所釋。二中亦三：初直出所以、二示法性他心之相、三結成正義。初中，直出所以，即示法相宗，有其三義：一云「攝境從心不壞境」者，即示心境有無。彼得本質，恐壞唯心。既不壞境，得之何妨？壞有何失？以無心者「無心於萬物，萬物未嘗無。此得在於神靜，失在於物虛。」謂物實有故。若唯心壞境，則得在於境空，失在於心有。故以境由心變，故說唯心。所變不無，何必須壞？若以緣生無性，則心境兩亡，故云借心以遣境，境遣而心亡，非獨存心矣。二云「能所兩亡不礙存故」者，上不壞境且遣懼質之病，今遣空有之理，故心境並許，存亡心境相籍故。空有相依，緣生故有，有即存也、空即亡也，空有交徹，存亡兩全。三云「第一義唯心非一非異」者，正出具分唯心之理。上第一釋，雖有唯心之義，尚通生滅唯心。第二義，雖兩亡不羈，而未言心境相攝。今明具分唯識，故云第一義唯心。同第一義故非異，不壞能所故非一。非一，故有能所緣，他義成矣；非異，故能所平等，唯心義成矣。云「正緣他時即是自故」者，結成得於本質，無心外過。以即自故，不失唯識。 > As for the commentary's "Relying on Consciousness-Only" and below, this is the second part, harmonising the meaning of the present sūtra. Within this there are three: First, marking what is accepted, adopting Sthiramati's earlier statement that "the former is not yet an error either." Second, from "Because absorbing the object" onward, bringing forth the reason why it is without error. Third, from "If apart from the Buddha" onward, concluding with a critique of the explanation by the second master, Dharmapāla. Within the second there are also three: first, directly bringing forth the reason; second, demonstrating the characteristics of others' minds in the dharmatā; third, concluding and establishing the correct doctrine. Within the first, directly bringing forth the reason demonstrates that the Faxiang school has three meanings: The first says, "Absorbing the object into mind without destroying the object," which demonstrates the existence and nonexistence of mind and object. They attain the fundamental substance, fearing that it would destroy mind-only. Since it does not destroy the object, what harm is there in attaining it? What error is there in destroying it? Because for one without mind, "Having no mind toward the myriad things, the myriad things have never ceased to exist. Here the gain lies in the quiescence of spirit, and the loss lies in the emptiness of things," meaning that things exist substantially. If mind-only destroys the object, then the gain lies in the emptiness of the object and the loss lies in the existence of the mind. Therefore, because objects are transformed by mind, it is called mind-only. What is transformed is not nonexistent; why must it be destroyed? If based on conditioned arising being without intrinsic nature, then mind and object are both extinguished; hence it is said, "Borrowing mind to dispel the object, once the object is dispelled, mind is extinguished; it is not that mind alone remains." The second says, "Because the dual extinction of grasper and grasped does not obstruct their preservation": the above non-destruction of the object provisionally dispelled the flaw of fearing substance; now it dispels the principles of emptiness and existence. Therefore mind and object are both admitted, as their preservation and extinction rely on each other. Emptiness and existence depend on each other: because of conditioned arising they exist; existence is preservation, and emptiness is extinction; emptiness and existence interpenetrate, and both preservation and extinction are fully maintained. The third says, "The ultimate truth of mind-only is neither one nor different," which directly presents the principle of complete mind-only. Although the first explanation above has the meaning of mind-only, it still communicates with the mind-only of arising and ceasing. Although the second meaning has the dual extinction without constraint, it has not yet stated that mind and object mutually absorb each other. Now, clarifying complete Consciousness-Only, it is called the ultimate truth of mind-only. Because they share the same ultimate truth, they are not different; because they do not destroy grasper and grasped, they are not one. Because they are not one, there are the grasper and the grasped, and the meaning of 'other' is established; because they are not different, grasper and grasped are equal, and the meaning of mind-only is established. The statement "When precisely taking the other as object, it is just oneself" concludes that one attains the fundamental substance without the error of an external mind. Because it is just oneself, it does not lose Consciousness-Only. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 74.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.74.6) - [Next: 74.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.74.8) - [Up: 74](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.74) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.74.7) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.74.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.74.7) · Pramāṇa