大方廣圓覺修多羅了義經略疏 1.585

1.585

中實神解故。梵云乾栗馱，是堅實之心也，不同緣慮集起之義。言皆生者，本覺心體為因、根本不覺為緣，生三細；業識為因、境界為緣，生六麁。故《楞伽》云：「大慧！不思議熏、不思議變是現識因。取種種塵及無始妄想熏，是分別事識因。」是知諸法皆無自體，無自體故，必假所依，依圓覺心而生起也。如幻馬無體，必依於巾。巾喻真心，馬即蘊界，配前五法，本末應知。問：「既真能生妄，真是妄源，何故前云無明無體？」答：「妄託真起，說真為源。現且迷真，真本無妄。如二月託本月而起，說本月為起二之依。本月實無二輪，即是二無其體。故經說種種生於覺心，不是心生種種。」然諸經論俱說萬法一心、三界唯識，宗途有異，學者罕知。今約五教略彰其別：一、愚法聲聞教，假說一心，謂實有外境，但由心造業之所感故；二、大乘權教，明異熟賴耶名為一心，遮無境故；三、大乘實教，說如來藏以為一心，理無二故；四、一乘頓教，泯絕染淨，但是一心，破諸數故；五、一乘圓教，總該萬有，即是一心，理事、本末無別異故。此上五教後後轉深，後必收前，前不攝後。然皆說一心，有斯異者，蓋以經隨機說、論逐經通、人隨論執，致令末代固守淺權。今本末會通，令五門皆顯，詮旨相對復為三門：初約所詮，逆次順法，從四至一展轉起末，謂本唯非染非淨一法界心，由不覺之名如來藏，與生滅合成阿梨耶識。復由執此為我、法故，轉起餘七，成八種識。各由識體起能見分，由能見故似外境現，執取此現為定實故，造種種別業、共業。故內感自身，外感器界一切諸法。二、約能詮，順文逆法，從一至四展轉窮本，謂佛對下劣根性未能頓達萬法所起根本者，且言從業所感，此則初聲聞教；次為機稍勝者，說能、所感一切唯識，展轉乃至唯一真心，名頓教等。皆由根有勝劣故，令說有淺深。若執前前即迷後後，始終通會方盡其源。三、能詮所詮逆順本末皆無障礙，由稱法性直，譚不逐機，宜異說故，即圓教也。唯心之義經論所宗，迷之則觸向面牆，解之則萬法臨鏡。況此標為義本，如何不盡源流？達者審之，勿嫌具列。

Because it is internally real and spiritually discerning. In Sanskrit it is called hṛdaya, which is the solid, real mind, not having the meaning of collecting and arising based on discursive thought. Regarding "are all born": the substance of the mind of original enlightenment acts as the cause, and fundamental non-enlightenment acts as the condition, generating the three subtle marks; the karma-consciousness acts as the cause, and sense-objects act as the condition, generating the six coarse marks. Therefore the Laṅkāvatāra states: “Mahāmati! Inconceivable perfuming and inconceivable transformation are the causes of the manifesting consciousness. Grasping various sense-objects and the perfuming of beginningless false discrimination are the causes of the discriminating object-consciousness.” From this we know that all dharmas lack self-nature; lacking self-nature, they must rely on a support, arising in reliance on the mind of perfect enlightenment. Just as the illusory horse has no substance and must rely on the cloth. The cloth metaphorizes the true mind, and the horse is the skandhas and elements; matching with the five dharmas above, the root and branch should be understood. Question: “Since the true can produce the false, and the true is the source of the false, why was it said earlier that avidyā has no substance?” Answer: “The false relies on the true to arise, so the true is called the source. For now, it is merely delusion about the true; the true fundamentally has no falsity. Just as a second moon arises relying on the original moon, so the original moon is said to be the basis for the arising of the second. The original moon actually has no second disk, which means the second lacks its own substance. Therefore the sūtra states that the various [illusions] are born in the mind of enlightenment, not that the mind gives birth to the various [illusions].” Yet the various sūtras and treatises all state that the myriad dharmas are One Mind and the three realms are vijñapti-mātra; their doctrinal paths differ, which scholars rarely understand. Now, based on the five teachings, their differences are briefly revealed: 1. The Hīnayāna śrāvaka teaching provisionally speaks of One Mind, asserting that external objects truly exist, but are simply induced by karma created by the mind; 2. The Great Vehicle provisional teaching explains the maturing ālaya as One Mind, in order to deny the existence of external objects; 3. The Great Vehicle real teaching speaks of the tathāgatagarbha as One Mind, because principle is non-dual; 4. The One Vehicle sudden teaching completely obliterates defilement and purity, being solely One Mind, breaking through all reckonings; 5. The One Vehicle perfect teaching universally encompasses the myriad existents as precisely One Mind, because principle and phenomena, root and branch, have no distinction. Among these five teachings, each subsequent one becomes progressively deeper; the latter necessarily subsumes the former, while the former does not encompass the latter. Yet all speak of One Mind; the reason for such differences is that sūtras were spoken according to capacities, treatises explained according to sūtras, and people clung according to treatises, causing later generations to stubbornly adhere to the shallow and provisional. Now, integrating root and branch so that all five gateways are revealed, the contrast between the signifier and the signified forms three gateways again: First, regarding the signified, reversing the sequence to follow the Dharma, from the fourth to the first, branches progressively arise: namely, fundamentally there is only the one dharmadhātu mind that is neither defiled nor pure; through non-enlightenment it is named tathāgatagarbha, which merges with arising and ceasing to become the ālayavijñāna. Further, through clinging to this as self and dharma, it transforms and gives rise to the remaining seven, forming the eight kinds of consciousnesses. Each, from its consciousness-substance, gives rise to the active viewing division; due to active viewing, it appears like external objects; clinging to this appearance as fixed and real, one creates various individual and collective karmas. Therefore internally it induces one's own body, and externally it induces all dharmas of the receptacle world. Second, regarding the signifier, following the text while reversing the Dharma, from the first to the fourth, one progressively plumbs the root: namely, the Buddha, for those of inferior faculties who could not suddenly comprehend the fundamental source from which the myriad dharmas arise, provisionally said that they are induced by karma—this is the initial śrāvaka teaching; next, for those of slightly superior capacities, he said that the inducer and the induced are all consciousness-only, progressively reaching the sole true mind, named the sudden teaching, and so forth. All because capacities have superior and inferior, the teachings have shallow and deep. If one clings to the earlier ones, one will be confused about the later ones; only by thoroughly harmonizing beginning and end can one fathom their source. Third, signifier and signified, forward and backward, root and branch, are all without obstruction; because it directly accords with the nature of dharmas, expounding directly without following capacities or requiring disparate explanations, this is the perfect teaching. The doctrine of mind-only is the core of the sūtras and treatises; if confused about it, one faces a wall wherever one turns; if understanding it, the myriad dharmas are reflected as in a mirror. Moreover, since this is indicated as the doctrinal basis, how could one not exhaustively trace its source and flow? May the discerning examine this carefully and not resent its complete exposition.