大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 74.7

74.7

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.