瑜伽論記 19.236

19.236

備云：辨相有二。一、列相、通相。若約外相，但取根本影像二相，及餘四事中影像相。若論通相，能分別心亦名為相，以後得智能顯諸相故亦名相，即將此文為證，若不爾者以相對相故不應成問答，是故辨過云：分別應非為相為性準此所論真如亦名相無失。今詳論文，雖有此解義亦未盡，故撮往之文取制數門以述論文。辨夫五事各有異門，異門者何？相有十門，名六門，分別有六門，正智有四門，真如有三門，是名異門，此中何等相事十門？一、簡無取有門，但以依他中除名等四，安立相事如分別有門中已解；二、有無想論門，非唯依他起，亦取遍計性名為相事，如辨菩薩善巧說；三、能緣屬境門，諸心心法若分別若正智能顯諸相故亦名相，正智雖有不及顯相，而就世間智故略而不說，即是異不異門義也；四、簡淨辨染門，理實名等四事並有相義，以體相故但後二事非雜染事，雜染事者即名相分別，故初三事並名為相，如辨四依中說；五、約體辨相門，相等五事並有體相，故並名相事，約總體相隨其別義安立名等，故不應難言事成一種，如下相門及後復次，以相對名四句中說；六、以性歸相門，真如雖無相而是相性故，隨相名相如下相四句中說；七、本影別論門，名等四事約本安立當心而現並名相事，以相分故此義共許不以引證；八、攝影屬本門，名等影像還屬名等，如真四句中說後得智亦觀真如故，若依此門唯本性相及其影像名為相事；九、對真辨相門，於五事中前四名相是言依故，如前分別中說；十、對別辨相中，想即是相餘四所不攝，落在於相故，是名相十門。何等名為名事六門？一、簡無取有二門，有無想論門，此二門如辨有中說；三、本影別論門，唯以本法名句文身，名為名事，以名影像名相事故，又解：名事唯有本法，更無影像以假無影故；四、攝影歸本門，若本若影並名名事，真事影像亦名真如，亦有何妨，名事影像亦名名事故，分別等亦爾，不以別述；五、攝假從實門，即以音聲為名事體，義之可解；六、總論二名門，即以表義顯境二種名為名，三界繫中解，是名名事六門。何等名為分別六門？一、簡無取有門；二、有無總論門；三、本影別論門；四、攝影歸本門，此之四門準名可解；五、流轉還滅門，唯取善法欲已還所有心法名分別事，善法欲已去所有善心，從證等流法所生故名正智事，如繫不繫中說，可引對法；六、漏無漏門一切有漏心心所法皆名分別，如前分別門中說三界行中所有心心法，然對法論主就勝辨心，故聞思慧聚不名外門，是名分別六門。何等名正智四門？一、本影別論門，唯以本質名為正智，如念住門中說；二、攝影歸本門，準真可解；三、簡漏辨正智門，唯以無漏心心所法名正智，如前分別中說；四、對轉取還門，非唯無漏智，亦取解脫分等有漏心法，亦正智繫不繫門中說，是謂正智四門。何等名真如事三門？一、本影別論門；二、攝影屬本門，此之二門準上可解；三、廢疎取親門，雖真影像想名真事，而影有二。一、非安立相；二、安立諦相。初與本真極相似故屬於真事，後與本真不相似故名為相事，引真四句為證，是名真事三門，詳夫五事名之與體有目來矣，聊作異門未曾得有，可謂先前映後乘妙於千古，粗論綱要略述如之，細不可具不須多論。

[Dao]bei states: "In defining sign (nimitta), there are two aspects: specific signs and common signs. If considered in terms of external signs, one takes only the two signs of the fundamental essence (maula) and the mental reflection (pratibimba), as well as the reflection signs within the remaining four matters. If discussed in terms of common signs, the cognitive mind capable of discrimination is also called a sign, because the subsequent wisdom can manifest all signs and is therefore also termed a sign; this very text serves as proof. If this were not so, then because it would be a sign contrasted against a sign, it should not constitute a question and answer. Therefore, in explaining the error, it says: 'Discrimination would not have sign as its nature.' By analogy with this discussion, it is without fault that tathatā is also called a sign."
Now, examining the text of the treatise, although this explanation exists, the principle is not yet exhausted. Therefore, gathering previous passages, I establish several approaches to expound the text of the treatise.
In distinguishing the five matters, each has its distinct approaches (paryāya). What are these distinct approaches? Sign has ten approaches, name has six approaches, discrimination has six approaches, correct knowledge has four approaches, and tathatā has three approaches: these are called the distinct approaches. Among these, what are the ten approaches to the matter of sign?
1. The approach of excluding non-existence and grasping existence: relying purely on paratantra while excluding the four [matters] such as name, establishing the matter of sign, as already explained in the approach regarding the existence of discrimination.
2. The approach of discussing existence and non-existence: not only taking paratantra, but also taking parikalpita nature as the matter of sign, as stated in distinguishing the bodhisattva's skill [in means].
3. The approach of subsuming the grasper under the objective realm: all minds and mental factors, whether discrimination or correct knowledge, are capable of manifesting all signs and are therefore also called signs; although correct knowledge includes [the aspect of] not manifesting signs, here it is omitted and not spoken of with reference to worldly knowledge, which is precisely the meaning of the approach on difference and non-difference.
4. The approach of excluding purity and distinguishing defilement: in principle and truth, the four matters such as name all possess the meaning of sign because they have essential signs, but the latter two matters are not defiled matters, whereas defiled matters are precisely named signs and discrimination; thus the first three matters are collectively called signs, as stated in distinguishing the four refuges.
5. The approach of distinguishing signs based on essence: the five matters, including sign, all possess essential signs, hence they are all called matters of sign; based on the comprehensive essence and sign, name and so forth are established according to their distinct meanings, so one should not object saying that the matters become a single kind, as stated below in the approach to signs and in the subsequent tetralemma contrasting sign with name.
6. The approach of reducing the nature to the sign: although tathatā is signless, it is the nature of signs, and thus in accord with signs it is called a sign, as stated below in the tetralemma on signs.
7. The approach of distinguishing the fundamental essence and the reflection: the four matters such as name, established on the basis of the fundamental essence, appear before the mind and are all called matters of sign; because they are objective aspects (nimittabhāga), this meaning is mutually accepted and not cited for proof.
8. The approach of subsuming the reflection under the fundamental essence: the reflections of name and so forth still belong to name and so forth, as stated in the tetralemma on tathatā, because subsequent wisdom also observes tathatā; if relying on this approach, only the fundamental nature's sign and its reflection are called the matter of sign.
9. The approach of distinguishing sign in contrast to tathatā: among the five matters, the first four are called signs because they are the basis of verbal expression, as stated in the previous [section on] discrimination.
10. The approach of distinguishing sign in contrast to the specific: samjñā is precisely sign, and not being subsumed under the other four, it falls under sign; these are called the ten approaches to sign.

What are the six approaches to the matter of name?
1 and 2. The approach of excluding non-existence and grasping existence, and the approach of discussing existence and non-existence: these two approaches are as stated in distinguishing existence.
3. The approach of distinguishing the fundamental essence and the reflection: taking only the fundamental dhammas of name-, phrase-, and syllable-groups as the matter of name, because the reflection of a name is called the matter of sign. Another explanation: the matter of name consists solely of the fundamental dhamma and has no reflection whatsoever, because what is nominal (prajñapti) has no reflection.
4. The approach of subsuming the reflection under the fundamental essence: both the fundamental essence and the reflection are called the matter of name; just as the reflection of the matter of tathatā is also called tathatā without any fault, so too the reflection of the matter of name is also called the matter of name; discrimination and so forth are also like this and will not be separately explained.
5. The approach of subsuming the nominal under the real: taking sound directly as the essence of the matter of name, the meaning of which can be understood.
6. The approach of comprehensively discussing the two kinds of names: taking the two kinds of names that express meaning and reveal the objective realm as name, as explained under 'bound to the three realms'. These are called the six approaches to the matter of name.

What are the six approaches to discrimination?
1. The approach of excluding non-existence and grasping existence;
2. The approach of comprehensively discussing existence and non-existence;
3. The approach of distinguishing the fundamental essence and the reflection;
4. The approach of subsuming the reflection under the fundamental essence. These four approaches can be understood by analogy with name.
5. The approach of saṃsāra and cessation: taking only all mental factors up to the desire for wholesome dharmas as the matter of discrimination; all wholesome minds from the desire for wholesome dharmas onward, being arisen from the outflow of realization, are called the matter of correct knowledge, as stated under 'bound and unbound', for which the Abhidharma may be cited.
6. The approach of tainted and taintless: all tainted minds and mental factors are called discrimination, as stated above in the approach to discrimination regarding all minds and mental factors among the active formations of the three realms; however, the author of the Abhidharma treatise distinguished mind in terms of superiority, hence the assemblage of wisdom arisen from listening and thinking is not called external. These are called the six approaches to discrimination.

What are the four approaches to correct knowledge?
1. The approach of distinguishing the fundamental essence and the reflection: taking only the fundamental essence as correct knowledge, as stated in the approach to the stations of mindfulness;
2. The approach of subsuming the reflection under the fundamental essence: can be understood by analogy with tathatā;
3. The approach of excluding the tainted and distinguishing correct knowledge: taking only taintless minds and mental factors as correct knowledge, as stated above in [the section on] discrimination;
4. The approach of contrasting saṃsāric transformation and grasping cessation: not only taking taintless wisdom, but also taking tainted mental factors such as those of the aids to liberation, as also stated in the approach to correct knowledge being bound or unbound. These are called the four approaches to correct knowledge.

What are the three approaches to the matter of tathatā?
1. The approach of distinguishing the fundamental essence and the reflection;
2. The approach of subsuming the reflection under the fundamental essence: these two approaches can be understood by analogy with the above;
3. The approach of discarding the remote and taking the intimate: although the conceptual reflection of tathatā is called the matter of tathatā, reflections are of two kinds: (1) the sign of the unposited, and (2) the sign of posited truth. The former is extremely similar to the fundamental tathatā and therefore belongs to the matter of tathatā; the latter is not similar to the fundamental tathatā and is therefore called the matter of sign, citing the tetralemma on tathatā as proof. These are called the three approaches to the matter of tathatā.
Carefully examining the five matters, their names and essences have been designated since antiquity, but this provisional formulation of distinct approaches has never existed before; it can be said to illuminate both the past and the future, conveying supreme subtlety through the ages. A coarse discussion of the essentials has been briefly set forth like this; detailed matters cannot be fully provided and need not be elaborated further.