成唯識論述記 7.465

7.465

述曰：四、論主釋。初答教；後顯理。教中初列六文，後方總指。「三界唯心」，即《十地經》第八卷第六地文，花嚴所說。世親《攝論》第四無解，無性第四廣解《十地經》名、體，言唯心者，心、識是一，「唯」言為遣所取境義，由彼無故，能取亦無，不遮心所，不相離故。如說若無心所心未曾轉，三界唯心之言，即顯三界唯識，即與欲等愛結相應墮在三界，即屬三界貪等結，此唯識言，無有橫計所緣。不遣真如所緣、依他所緣，謂道諦攝根本、後得二智所緣。不為愛所執故，非所治故，非迷亂故，非三界攝，亦不離識，故不待說，非無無漏及無為法。若爾，欲、色二界可說唯心，是則言二界唯心，何故復言無色唯心？以小乘等多計彼唯識故，有立已成。此不然也！非但色無，亦無貪等能取之心，故亦無餘虛空等識所取義。又經部執無色心等是無色無體，無實所取境義，顯現所依，恐彼執為非心等故，說三界唯心，此即唯心，義意如是。又前二師有二翻解，此舉能起執虛妄心，故但言三界，不爾，無漏應非唯識。又說「所緣唯識所現」者，《解深密經》文，即七十六說同此意，汝謂識外所緣，我說即是內識上所現，無實外法。世親說云：「謂識所緣唯識所現無別境義」。復舉識者，顯我所現，定識所行，唯識所現，無別有體，乃至佛告慈氏：「無有少法能取少法」，無作用故，但法生時緣起力大，即一體上有二影生，更互相望不即不離，諸心、心所，由緣起力，其性法爾如是而生，如質為緣等，此中略舉。

The Commentary states: Fourth, the author of the treatise explains. First, he answers by scriptural teaching; later, he demonstrates by reasoning. In the scriptural teaching, he first lists six passages, and only afterwards points to them collectively. "The three realms are mind-only" is a passage from the sixth stage in the eighth fascicle of the Daśabhūmika-sūtra, spoken in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra. Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, chapter four, does not explain it; Asvabhāva's commentary, chapter four, extensively explains the name and essence of the Daśabhūmika-sūtra. Regarding the phrase 'mind-only' (cittamātra): mind and consciousness are one; the word 'only' is used to eliminate the sense of an apprehended external object (grāhya-viṣaya). Because that [object] does not exist, the grasper (grāhaka) also does not exist. It does not exclude the mental factors, because they are not separate [from the mind]. As it is said, if there were no mental factors, the mind would never arise. The statement 'the three realms are mind-only' indicates that the three realms are vijñapti-mātra: namely, associated with the fetters of craving such as desire and falling within the three realms, they belong to the fetters of greed and the like of the three realms. This phrase 'vijñapti-mātra' implies that there is no falsely imagined object of cognition. It does not eliminate the object of cognition that is tathatā, nor the object of cognition that is the dependent nature (paratantra)—that is to say, the objects of cognition of the fundamental and subsequently acquired wisdoms included within the truth of the path (mārgasatya). Because they are not grasped by craving, are not what is to be counteracted, and are not deluded confusion, they are not subsumed under the three realms, yet neither are they separate from consciousness; hence there is no need to mention them, yet it does not mean that untainted and unconditioned dharmas do not exist. If so, the desire and form realms could be said to be mind-only; that being so, one would say 'the two realms are mind-only'—why then also say 'the formless realm is mind-only'? Because the Hīnayāna and others mostly hold that that [realm] is consciousness-only, establishing it would be establishing what is already accepted (siddhasādhana). This is not so! Not only is form non-existent there, but there is also no grasping mind of greed and the like; therefore, there is also no object grasped by the other consciousnesses of empty space and the like. Furthermore, the Sautrāntikas hold that the formless-realm mind and the like are formless and lack substantial entity, lacking a real grasped object as the basis of manifestation; fearing that they might hold that it is not mind and so forth, [the sūtra] states that 'the three realms are mind-only.' This is mind-only; such is the purport. Moreover, the previous two masters offer two alternative explanations: here, raising the deceptive mind that can generate clinging, it only mentions the three realms; otherwise, the untainted would not be vijñapti-mātra. Furthermore, regarding the statement that 'the object of cognition is only the manifestation of consciousness,' this is a passage from the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, and chapter seventy-six [of the Yogācārabhūmi] expresses this same meaning: what you call an object of cognition external to consciousness, I say is precisely what appears on internal consciousness, with no real external dharma. Vasubandhu states: 'It means that the object of cognition of consciousness is only the manifestation of consciousness, with no separate external object.' Raising 'consciousness' again is to show that what is manifested by oneself, the domain of meditative consciousness, is only the manifestation of consciousness, having no separate entity. Furthermore, the Buddha told Maitreya: 'There is no dharma whatsoever that can grasp any dharma,' because there is no [external] agent of action; rather, when dharmas arise, the power of dependent origination is great, so that on a single entity two images arise, which viewed from one another are neither identical nor separate. All minds and mental factors, by the power of dependent origination, arise inherently in this manner by their nature—just as an archetype serves as a condition and so forth—which is briefly cited here.