成唯識論述記 1.31

1.31

唯內證淨，為簡依他，故說識性。何故須簡？有漏依他，不可敬故；無漏依他，亦俗諦故，非最勝故，非諸聖法真實性故，非所證故，非迷、悟依故，或彼即是滿、分淨故，略不敬也。又有別解，如《樞要》說。若於識性滿淨即者，是持業釋，淨屬人故；滿淨之者，是依士釋，淨屬智故。今取後釋。此即如來智周德圓，窮真如性，故稱為「滿」；澂鑒無垢，二障都盡，說名「清淨」。澂鑒曰「清」，無垢名「淨」，「者」即假者，意顯如來證唯識理，究竟圓極，名「滿淨者」。於唯識性「分清淨者」，「分」謂少分，「淨」者同前，即諸菩薩分證唯識真如自性，覺未圓明，名「分淨者」。欲顯師、弟悟證不同，故於唯識說「滿、分淨」。

Because it is solely the purity realized internally, in order to exclude the other-dependent, it speaks of the “nature of consciousness.” Why is it necessary to exclude it? Because the other-dependent with outflows cannot be revered; and the other-dependent without outflows is also conventional truth, not the most supreme, not the true nature of all noble dharmas, not that which is realized, and not the support for delusion and awakening; or because it is itself that complete or partial purity, it is briefly omitted from homage. There is also an alternative explanation, as stated in the Shunyao. If one who is completely pure in the nature of consciousness is identical with that purity, it is a karmadhāraya compound, because purity belongs to the person; if it is one possessing complete purity, it is a tatpuruṣa compound, because purity belongs to wisdom. Here we adopt the latter explanation. This refers to the Tathāgata's wisdom being all-encompassing and virtues complete, exhausting the nature of tathatā, and therefore it is called “complete”; clear and discerning without defilement, with both obscurations utterly exhausted, it is called “pure.” Clear and discerning is “clear”; free from defilement is “pure.” “One” (zhe) is the designated person, intending to manifest that the Tathāgata has realized the principle of vijñapti-mātra to ultimate perfection, and is thus called “one who is completely pure.” As for “one who is partially pure” in the nature of vijñapti-mātra: “partially” means a small portion; “pure” is the same as above; that is, the bodhisattvas who partially realize the intrinsic nature of the tathatā of vijñapti-mātra, whose awakening is not yet fully illuminated, are called “those who are partially pure.” Wishing to manifest that master and disciple differ in awakening and realization, it speaks of “completely and partially pure” with respect to vijñapti-mātra.