金光明經玄義 2.9

2.9

次觀心明三識。論金光明者，諦觀一念心，即空即假即中，即是觀心識於三識。何者？意識託緣發意，本無識，緣何所發？又緣中為有識、為無識？若有識，緣即是識，何謂為緣？若無識，那能發識？若意緣合發，二俱無故，合不能發，離最不可。當知此識不在一處，從眾緣生。從緣生法，我說即是空。於此空中假作分別，是惡識、是善識、是非惡非善識，種種推畫強謂是非識。若定空不可作假識，若定假不可作空，當知空非空、假非假，非空非假雙亡二邊正顯中道，一念識中三觀具足。識於三識，亦不得三識觀。故《淨名》云「不觀色、不觀色如、不觀色性，乃至不觀識、不觀識如、不觀識性。」雖不得識、不得識如、不得識性，雙照識、識如、識性宛然無濫。以照識性故，是菴摩羅識。照識如故，是阿梨耶識。亦照亦滅故，是阿陀那識。是名觀心中三識金光明。六即位，如上說。

Next is contemplating the mind to clarify the three kinds of consciousness. In discussing Suvarṇaprabhāsa: clearly contemplating a single thought-moment of the mind as simultaneously empty, conventional, and middle is precisely contemplating the mind's consciousness within the three kinds of consciousness. How so? The mental consciousness relies on conditions to give rise to ideation. Originally there is no consciousness; from what condition could it arise? Furthermore, within the condition, is there consciousness, or is there no consciousness? If there were consciousness, the condition would itself be consciousness; why call it a condition? If there were no consciousness, how could it give rise to consciousness? If the mind and condition combine to give rise [to it], since neither exists in itself, they cannot give rise [to it] in combination, and separate [from each other] is utterly impossible. One should know that this consciousness does not abide in a single place; it arises from manifold conditions. What arises from conditions, I declare to be empty. Within this emptiness, distinctions are provisionally made: that this is bad consciousness, this is good consciousness, or this is neither bad nor good consciousness; through various speculations, one arbitrarily insists that this is consciousness and that is not. If it were definitely empty, it could not be made into conventional consciousness; if it were definitely conventional, it could not be made empty. One should know that emptiness is not [absolute] emptiness, and the conventional is not [absolute] conventionality. Neither empty nor conventional, both extremes are doubly extinguished, properly revealing the middle way; within a single thought-moment of consciousness, the three contemplations are fully present. Discerning the three kinds of consciousness, one also does not grasp the contemplation of the three kinds of consciousness. Therefore the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "One does not contemplate form, does not contemplate the suchness of form, and does not contemplate the nature of form, down to: one does not contemplate consciousness, does not contemplate the suchness of consciousness, and does not contemplate the nature of consciousness." Although one does not grasp consciousness, does not grasp the suchness of consciousness, and does not grasp the nature of consciousness, doubly illuminating consciousness, the suchness of consciousness, and the nature of consciousness, they are clearly distinct without confusion. Because it illuminates the nature of consciousness, it is the amalavijñāna. Because it illuminates the suchness of consciousness, it is the ālayavijñāna. Because it both illuminates and extinguishes, it is the ādānavijñāna. This is called Suvarṇaprabhāsa of the three kinds of consciousness in contemplating the mind. The six identities of stages are as explained above.