成唯識論述記 1.574

1.574

述曰：梵即梵王，此事梵王者計。此下皆從所執、所事以立其名，乃至事我者亦爾。有外計此是常，是一，能生一切法。或計有一時是常，是一，能生諸法。有計方亦爾，是一，是常，能生萬法。此破能生，別有一計，上破實有，勝論等計，故不同也。本際者，即過去之初首，此時一切有情從此本際一法而生，此際是實，是常，能生諸法。古人云：諸部有計時頭眾生，與此同也。自然者別有一法，是實，是常，號曰「自然」，能生萬法。如此方外道亦計有自然，是一，是常，能生萬法。虛通之理，名「不可道之常道」也，稍與彼同。虛空亦然，別有一法，一切有情皆因而有，其我亦然，別有一我，能生萬法。前破實有，今破能生，故前、後別。宿作因等非一，故論言等。

The Commentary states: 'Brahmā' is King Brahmā; this is the view of those who worship King Brahmā. From here below, their names are established according to what they grasp and worship, down to those who worship the self. Some non-Buddhists grasp that this [Brahmā] is eternal, is one, and is able to produce all dharmas. Or some grasp that there is a time that is eternal, is one, and is able to produce all dharmas. Some grasp that direction is also like this: it is one, it is eternal, and it is able to produce all dharmas. Here it refutes their being able to produce, which is a distinct thesis; above it refuted their being real existents, which was the thesis of the Vaiśeṣika and others, hence they are not the same. The 'original limit' (pradhāna / pūrva-koṭi) is the very beginning of the past; at this time all sentient beings were produced from this one dharma of the original limit; this limit is real, is eternal, and is able to produce all dharmas. The ancients said: 'Various schools grasp sentient beings born at the head of time'—this is the same as that. 'Nature' (svabhāva) is a separate dharma that is real and eternal, called 'nature', which is able to produce all dharmas. The non-Buddhists of this region [China] likewise grasp that there is nature (ziran), which is one, eternal, and able to produce all dharmas; the principle of vacuous pervasion is called 'the eternal Dao that cannot be spoken of', which is somewhat similar to theirs. 'Space' (ākāśa) is also like this: there is a separate dharma through which all sentient beings come to exist. The 'self' (ātman) is also like this: there is a separate self able to produce all dharmas. The previous [refutation] refuted real existence; this one refutes production, hence the former and the latter are distinct. Because the causes such as previous actions (karman) are not just one, the treatise says 'and so forth'.