成唯識論述記 2.584

2.584

述曰：識既不能取心外法，唯緣所變蘊、界相等，或總緣蘊，或別緣蘊、界、處亦然，起自心相執為實法，非二十句見及六十五等；見道斷故；如我見說此執。有說，通五識起，今舉正義，故不相違。然我本相即唯言蘊，其法本相言界、處者，我作用義，故說言蘊。無為無用計為我，少故不說處、界。然說我為一及常者，亦說有於作受之用，其法不然，但計有體即計為法，故計於法亦依處、界。處、界即是真如、擇滅等，不了此界、處而執有法故，下准此知。又緣識所變諸蘊、處、界，起自心相執為實法，同前我中二解。然《涅槃經》，外道以佛性為我，此不相似，非我相故，無作用故，但名緣蘊，法可與同，佛性不失法自體故。故於我中唯言緣蘊，雖無作用緣，有少功能故；法體不然，故通界、處，又依於本質與相分，相似、不相似合說，我中應言處、界，故計佛性為我。若但依相似法為論，法中應但言「蘊」，以親所取，與本質真如不相似故，以前准後前加「處」、「界」，以後准前應除「界」、「處」，以親相分唯有漏故。我執加「取」字，後依本質有無漏故，故減「取」字。又我唯總執，故緣五蘊，法通總、別故說三科。

The Commentary states: Since consciousness cannot grasp dharmas external to the mind, it only takes as objects the transformed marks of aggregates, realms, and so on; either taking the aggregates collectively as objects, or taking the aggregates, realms, and bases separately as objects, it generates its own mental marks and grasps them as real dharmas. These are not the twenty views of the person or the sixty-five views, etc., because those are severed in the path of seeing; like the view of self, this attachment is thus described. Some say it also arises in the five consciousnesses; here the orthodox view is presented, so there is no contradiction. However, regarding the fundamental mark of a self, only the aggregates were mentioned, whereas for the fundamental mark of a dharma, realms and bases are mentioned; this is because the self signifies active function, so aggregates are mentioned. Unconditioned dharmas lack function and are rarely conceptualized as a self, so bases and realms were not mentioned. When the self is said to be unitary and permanent, it is also said to have the functions of acting and experiencing; dharmas are not like this—merely conceiving an essence is conceiving a dharma, hence conceiving dharmas also relies on bases and realms. Bases and realms are precisely tathatā, cessation through deliberation, and so forth; failing to understand these realms and bases, one grasps that there are dharmas, so below should be understood accordingly. Furthermore, taking as objects the aggregates, bases, and realms transformed by consciousness, it generates its own mental marks and grasps them as real dharmas, identical to the two explanations under the self above. However, in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, non-Buddhists take Buddha-nature as the self; this is not similar, as it is not the mark of a self and lacks active function, so it is merely called taking the aggregates as objects; dharmas can be identical with it, because Buddha-nature does not lose the intrinsic essence of a dharma. Therefore, under the self, only taking the aggregates as objects was spoken of; although it lacks active function as an object, it has a slight efficacy; the essence of a dharma is not like that, so it extends to realms and bases. Furthermore, based on the combined consideration of whether the archetype (maula-viṣaya) and the nimittabhāga are similar or dissimilar, bases and realms should have been stated under the self, which is why Buddha-nature is conceptualized as a self. If discussed solely based on similar dharmas, then under dharmas only "aggregates" should have been stated, because the directly grasped object is not similar to the archetype tathatā. Applying the earlier to the later, "bases" and "realms" were added earlier; applying the later to the earlier, "realms" and "bases" should be removed, because the immediate nimittabhāga is solely sāsrava. Under attachment to self, the word "clinging" (upādāna) was added, while later, based on the archetype having anāsrava, the word "clinging" was omitted. Furthermore, the self is grasped only collectively, hence it takes the five aggregates as objects; dharmas apply to both collective and distinct, hence the three classifications are stated.