成唯識論述記 1.108

1.108

述曰：上之二句答難破執，下之一句意標論宗，結歸唯識。此中所說「由」者，故也，因由之義。「假」有二種：一者，無體隨情假。多分世間、外道所執，雖無如彼所執我、法，隨執心緣，亦名我、法，故說為假。二者，有體施設假。聖教所說，雖有法體，而非我、法，本體無名，強名我、法，不稱法體，隨緣施設，故說為假。因二起言稱之為說，我、法之相如論自釋。「相」謂相狀，「轉」是起義，相起非一，故名種種。二句意言：汝所問云：我、法若無，世間及聖教云何說有者，非離識外有實我、法自體性故。世間、聖教說有我、法，但由二種假名言故，說有我、法種種相轉，應釋頌言：世間聖教所言我法，由假說故，有此種種諸相轉起，非實有體，說為我、法。此釋順下長行論文。外復問言：有實我、法可依假說，我、法實無，假依何立？第三句云：彼我、法相，依內識等所變現相而起，假說我、法諸相。非依離識實有我、法而起假說。但依內識所變相見而假說故，此但說識，義兼心所。若爾，真如應非唯識，不離識故，真如名唯識，非識所變故，不說為我、法。若說為真如，亦心所變故。此中總顯由無始來，橫計我、法分別心故，熏習本識，後後遂有相、見分生。

The Commentary states: The upper two lines answer the objection and refute attachments; the lower line is intended to indicate the treatise's doctrine, concluding by returning to consciousness-only. What is spoken of here as 'because' (由) means 'on account of', carrying the sense of cause or origin. 'Metaphorical designation' (upacāra) is of two kinds: First, designation without an objective entity in accordance with ordinary sentiment. Mostly grasped by the worldly and non-Buddhists: although there is no self or dharma as grasped by them, in following the grasping mind's cognitive object, it is also termed self and dharma; hence it is called metaphorical. Second, designation by nominal positing based on an existing entity. Spoken of in the sacred teachings: although there is an entity of the dharma, it is not a self or a dharma; the original entity is nameless, yet it is forcibly termed self or dharma, which does not match the dharma's entity, being nominally posited in accordance with conditions; hence it is called metaphorical. The arising of speech caused by these two is termed 'speaking of'. The marks of self and dharmas will be explained in the treatise itself. 'Marks' means characteristics. 'Evolve' carries the meaning of arising. Since the arising of marks is not single, they are called 'various'. The meaning of the two lines is: What you asked—namely, if self and dharmas do not exist, how do worldly conventions and sacred teachings speak of their existence?—is not because there is an intrinsic nature of real self and dharmas existing apart from consciousness. Worldly conventions and sacred teachings speak of the existence of self and dharmas only on the basis of two kinds of metaphorical nominal conventions, speaking of the evolving of various marks of self and dharmas. The verse should be interpreted: As for the self and dharmas spoken of in worldly conventions and sacred teachings, because they are metaphorically spoken of, these various marks evolve and arise; they do not have real entities when spoken of as self and dharmas. This interpretation accords with the prose of the treatise below. The outsider again asks: If there were a real self and real dharmas, metaphorical speech could rely on them; if self and dharmas are really non-existent, upon what is the metaphor established? The third line states: Those marks of self and dharmas arise relying on the marks transformed and manifested by internal consciousness and the like, metaphorically speaking of the various marks of self and dharmas. They do not arise by metaphorically speaking on the basis of real self and dharmas existing apart from consciousness. Because they are metaphorically spoken of solely on the basis of the objective aspect and subjective aspect transformed by internal consciousness, this mentions only consciousness, but the meaning includes mental factors. If so, tathatā ought not to be consciousness-only; but because it is not separate from consciousness, tathatā is called consciousness-only, and because it is not transformed by consciousness, it is not spoken of as self or dharma. If it is spoken of as tathatā, it is also transformed by the mind. Herein it is shown in general that because of the discriminating mind that arbitrarily conceives self and dharmas since beginningless time, perfuming the root consciousness, subsequently the objective aspect and subjective aspect are produced.