成唯識論述記 1.109

1.109

愚夫不了此唯內識，依之妄計有實我、法。我、法實無，隨彼妄情所執之相，名為我、法。故知世間所說我、法是假非實。故經頌言：「如愚所分別，外境實皆無，習氣擾濁心，故似彼而轉。」聖者依此內識所變，若相，若見，為起言論，斷染取淨，引生真見，假為立名，說為我、法。法體實非若我，若法，故知聖教所說我、法，亦假說也。是故經言：「為對遣愚夫，所執實我法，故於識所變，假說我法名。」此解二種我、法之名，依識變立。又第二解，世間所執我、法體無，依識所變，妄情為緣而起於執，妄情所執是世我、法，然體無故，以無依有，依內妄情說為我、法。聖教所說我、法二種，依識體上有我、法義，義依於體，別依於總，依有體法說為我、法，即說所執能計之情及所詮之法，皆識所變，以為我、法。此上二解，第一解云：說為我、法，而體是無，隨情說假。設體雖有，不稱名假，我、法二假乃屬於說，唯假言說以為我、法，彼體都非。第二解云：以無依有，世間說情，以為我、法，以義依體，聖教說體，以為我、法。假我及法不在於言，以所說為若我、法故。此上二解皆護法釋，若安惠解，二種我、法皆是別無，依於總無見、相二分，施設假說，性非有故。自證離言，非我、法故，唯佛所證。

Foolish people do not understand that this is only internal consciousness, and relying on it, they falsely conceive of a real self and real dharmas. Self and dharmas are really non-existent; following the marks grasped by their deluded sentiments, they are named self and dharmas. Therefore, we know that the self and dharmas spoken of in the world are metaphorical and not real. Hence a sūtra verse states: 'Just as foolish people discriminate, / External objects are really all non-existent; / Latent predispositions agitate and turbid the mind, / Therefore it evolves resembling them.' The noble ones, relying on what is transformed by this internal consciousness—whether the objective aspect or the subjective aspect—in order to initiate discourse, sever defilement, adopt purity, and give rise to true seeing, metaphorically establish names and speak of them as self and dharmas. The entities of dharmas are truly neither self nor dharmas; therefore, we know that the self and dharmas spoken of in the sacred teachings are also metaphorical designations. Hence a sūtra states: 'In order to counteract and dispel the real self and dharmas / Grasped by foolish people, / Therefore, in regard to what is transformed by consciousness, / The names of self and dharmas are metaphorically spoken of.' This explains that the two kinds of names, self and dharmas, are established relying on the transformation of consciousness. Furthermore, according to a second interpretation: The self and dharmas grasped by the world lack real entity; relying on what is transformed by consciousness, deluded sentiments serve as conditions to give rise to grasping. What is grasped by deluded sentiments is the worldly self and dharmas; yet because their entities are non-existent, by relying the non-existent upon the existent, they are spoken of as self and dharmas relying on internal deluded sentiments. The two kinds—self and dharmas—spoken of in the sacred teachings rely on the presence of the senses of self and dharma upon the entity of consciousness: the sense relies on the entity, the specific relies on the general, and relying on dharmas that have an entity, they are spoken of as self and dharmas. That is to say, both the grasping sentiment that can conceive and the dharmas designated are transformed by consciousness, taking them to be self and dharmas. Of these two interpretations above, the first interpretation says: They are spoken of as self and dharmas, yet their entities are non-existent, being metaphors spoken in accordance with sentiment. Even if the entity exists, it does not match the name, being a metaphor. The two metaphors of self and dharma belong to speech; solely taking metaphorical speech to be self and dharmas, their entities are neither. The second interpretation says: Relying the non-existent upon the existent, the world speaks of sentiments as self and dharmas; relying the sense upon the entity, the sacred teachings speak of the entity as self and dharmas. Metaphorical self and dharmas do not reside in words, because what is spoken of is taken as self and dharmas. Both of these above interpretations are Dharmapāla's explanations. If according to Sthiramati's explanation, both kinds of self and dharmas are specifically non-existent; relying on the generally non-existent subjective and objective aspects, metaphorical designations are posited, since their nature is non-existent. Self-awareness is beyond words and is neither self nor dharma, being realized by Buddhas alone.