維摩經玄疏 5.113

5.113

Answer: The Dilun masters say, 'The six consciousnesses are discriminating consciousnesses; the seventh consciousness is wisdom, which obstructs the billowing-wave consciousness; the eighth consciousness is the truly permanent consciousness. Wisdom-consciousness is conditioning cultivation; if the eighth consciousness manifests, the seventh consciousness is extinguished; the eighth consciousness is called genuine cultivation, its substance spontaneously fused and ever quiescent.' But the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says, 'The seventh consciousness is the mind of grasping at views, and the eighth consciousness is the morally indeterminate, unfailing consciousness.' How could one say it is genuine cultivation? Furthermore, what is explained here is that the six consciousnesses are themselves inconceivable liberation; how could it be that after the six and seven consciousnesses are extinguished, the eighth consciousness as genuine cultivation is inconceivable liberation? Why is this? As the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra says: 'What is called that eye organ, in the Tathāgatas, is ever complete, an unblemished cultivation, seeing distinctly and clearly… up to the mind organ, it is likewise so.' The Lotus Sūtra explains: 'The six sense organs born of father and mother are purified, and by their own serenity, illuminate the realms of the ten directions.' How could the six consciousnesses be extinguished and there be separate genuine and conditioning cultivations? Therefore the sūtra says: 'The Buddha knows that all sentient beings are ultimately quiescent and extinguished—that is the great nirvāṇa, which cannot be extinguished again; all sentient beings cannot be extinguished again'—that is, the six consciousnesses cannot be extinguished. Furthermore, this sūtra says: 'Liberation is simply all dharmas'; how could it not be the six consciousnesses, the eighteen realms, and all dharmas! If so, how could one explain inconceivable liberation solely in terms of the eighth consciousness? Moreover, if we speak of the four inexpressibles, not only is the unarisen-unarisen eighth consciousness inexpressible, but the unarisen-arisen seventh consciousness is also inexpressible, and the arisen-unarisen and arisen-arisen six consciousnesses are also inexpressible. If we speak in terms of causes and conditions, they can also be expressed; in terms of the causes and conditions of the four siddhāntas, they can again be expressed. But the two paths of the North and South cling to differences between genuine and conditioning [cultivation] for attaining buddhahood—does this not fall into views of self and other? If one knows that the Tathāgata ever teaches no Dharma, what dispute could there be over whether buddhahood attained through the two cultivations of genuine and conditioning can be stated? That various sūtras and treatises contain such passages is merely the Sage's teaching adapted to capacities. How could great beings of the dharma-body not adapt to conditions and receive beings through the four siddhāntas, such that Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu each had different teachings? These are all later generations propagating the Dharma who missed the intended meaning, rigidly clinging to texts and taking biased sides! If one grasps this meaning, one should not ask how it differs from others.