瑜伽論記 13.254

13.254

釋中，先明三乘未見諦人在見道前但緣轉識為境作四諦觀，修習作意，未能通達阿賴耶識道理。觀苦諦時亦總觀者，阿賴耶識以未知故，但言緣轉識為境，次明已入道即能通達阿賴耶識。言或入聲聞正性離生等者，景云：舊言聖性名為正性，凡夫性名為邪性，今入見道捨邪得正，當受無邊生死，今入見道唯除七生，餘生得滅超昇離生，今西國解念真如理，名為正性。言離生故即見道，煩惱為生死本，猶如生食在腹不消為諸病本，將喻名法即名見惑為生，今斷見惑故名離生，此中既言菩薩達一切法真如已通達賴耶，即簡二乘，二乘見道但觀人無我所顯真如，即不得言達一切法真如法界通達賴耶，以彼菩薩通達二空真如，出觀後復心中了了見賴耶是諸法本，聲聞已見諦者觀苦集時名總通達，以彼賴耶是苦集故，泰云：此文既辨還滅，滅賴耶識名為還滅，今此中言復能通達阿賴耶者，即斷種子賴耶名為還滅，三乘俱即能斷種子賴耶故名通達，若菩薩通達二無我真已，後得智中即能通達阿賴耶識，當於爾時能總觀察自識內所有一切雜染，亦能了知自賴耶見分自身，或可轉識亦名自身了別，此中身外為相分相縛所縛，內為一切雜染種子麁重所縛，基云：此由汎解，不言入獨覺見道者，略而不論，又觀行同故，唯斷人執相似，若說聲聞已說獨覺，此中言緣轉識為境者違攝論文，彼云菩薩初學應先學如實因緣，如實因緣者，即阿賴耶識，故相違也，一解云：其實菩薩地前作阿賴耶唯識，如攝論說，然通三乘前見道行故，名唯觀轉識，轉識中有雜染，故皆緣之，非菩薩不緣第八，又皆緣第八作唯識，然入見諦已後即緣本質第八，若能作唯識觀，此約後得智，若未入見諦，緣本質不著，無後得智故，緣自第六之影，故名緣轉識，非謂本質中不緣第八，攝論約本質，此間約影像，說無過，聲聞等人影，菩薩雙觀，入見諦已去後得智起，方實緣阿賴耶，不然不緣，若前不緣第八，後如何得緣。

In the explanation, it first clarifies that before the path of seeing, individuals of the three vehicles who have not yet seen the truths merely take the evolving consciousnesses as their cognitive object to practice contemplation of the four truths, cultivating attention without yet being able to penetrate the principle of the ālayavijñāna. When contemplating the truth of suffering, they also contemplate it in a general manner; because the ālayavijñāna is not yet known, it is merely said that they take the evolving consciousnesses as their cognitive object. Next, it clarifies that upon having entered the path, they are then able to penetrate the ālayavijñāna. Regarding the statement 'or entering the śrāvaka's correct nature and departure from birth' and so forth: Jing says: In the old terminology, the noble nature was called the 'correct nature', and the ordinary person's nature was called the 'erroneous nature'. Now, entering the path of seeing, one abandons the erroneous and attains the correct; one would otherwise have experienced boundless cyclic existence, but now entering the path of seeing, with the sole exception of seven rebirths, the remaining rebirths are eradicated, transcending and rising above in departure from birth. Now in the Western countries, it is explained that mindfulness of the principle of tathatā is called the 'correct nature'. The phrase 'departure from birth' refers to the path of seeing: defilements are the root of cyclic existence, just as undigested raw food in the stomach is the root of all illnesses; using a metaphor to name the dharma, the delusions of seeing are called 'raw' [uncooked], and now because one severs the delusions of seeing, it is called 'departure from raw/birth'. Since it is said here that the bodhisattva penetrates the ālayavijñāna after having penetrated the tathatā of all dharmas, this excludes the two vehicles. The path of seeing of the two vehicles only contemplates the tathatā revealed by personal selflessness, so it cannot be said that they penetrate the dharma-realm of the tathatā of all dharmas and penetrate the ālaya; because that bodhisattva penetrates the tathatā of the two types of emptiness, after emerging from contemplation they again clearly see within their mind that the ālaya is the root of all dharmas. When those of the śrāvakas who have already seen the truths contemplate suffering and origin, it is called general penetration, because that ālaya is suffering and origin. Tai says: Since this passage analyzes cessation through return, the cessation of the ālayavijñāna is called cessation through return. Now, where it is said here that 'one is furthermore able to penetrate the ālaya', it means that severing the seeds of the ālaya is called cessation through return. Because all three vehicles are able to sever the seeds of the ālaya, it is called penetration. If a bodhisattva penetrates the reality of the two selflessnesses, then in the subsequent attainment of knowledge they can penetrate the ālayavijñāna. At that time, they can universally observe all defilements within their own consciousness and can also know their own body as the seeing portion of their own ālaya; or it may be said that the evolving consciousnesses are also called the discernment of their own body. Here, the exterior of the body is bound by the object-binding of the image portion, and the interior is bound by the heavy burdens of all defiled seeds. Ji says: This is a general explanation; not mentioning entry into the pratyekabuddha path of seeing is an omission for brevity; furthermore, because their contemplative practice is identical, only severing personal attachment is similar, so in speaking of the śrāvaka, the pratyekabuddha has already been spoken of. The statement here about 'taking the evolving consciousnesses as cognitive object' contradicts the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, which says that when bodhisattvas first train they should first study true causes and conditions, and true causes and conditions are the ālayavijñāna; hence there is a contradiction. One explanation says: In reality, bodhisattvas prior to the stages practice consciousness-only with respect to the ālayavijñāna, as stated in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. However, because it is common to the practice prior to the path of seeing across the three vehicles, it is called 'merely contemplating the evolving consciousnesses'; because there are defilements within the evolving consciousnesses, they take all of them as objects, not that the bodhisattva does not take the eighth consciousness as an object. Moreover, they all take the eighth as an object in practicing consciousness-only; however, after entering the seeing of the truths, they take the archetype of the eighth as an object. If they can practice the contemplation of consciousness-only, this is with reference to the subsequent attainment of knowledge; if they have not yet entered the seeing of the truths, they cannot grasp the archetype, and because they lack the subsequent attainment of knowledge, they take the mental image of their own sixth consciousness as an object, and hence it is called 'taking the evolving consciousnesses as cognitive object', not meaning that they do not take the eighth as an object in the archetype. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha refers to the archetype, while this text refers to the mental image, so there is no fault. The mental image of persons of the śrāvaka and so forth—the bodhisattva contemplates both; upon entering the seeing of the truths and beyond, only when the subsequent attainment of knowledge arises do they truly take the ālayavijñāna as an object; otherwise, they do not. If they did not take the eighth as an object previously, how could they take it as an object later?