成唯識論述記 7.504

7.504

述曰：《辨中邊論》初卷所說彌勒本頌。「虛妄分別有」，即有三界虛妄心也，舊譯同此。名分別者，即能分別，分別境故，能起執故。「於此二都無」者，謂能取、所取二，或我、法二，於此妄心之上都無。舊云：「彼處無有二」。處言與於大義相似，以處、於、中字皆第七囀有所依故。今言於此，舊言彼處，凡言此者，謂此近法。上來始明妄有，今既於妄心上無二，如何言彼對誰此耶？既於近上有但可言此。「此中唯有空」者，謂此妄心中唯有真如，真如是空性，依空所顯故，前長行言空、識是有，亦惟此知。梵音但言瞬若即是空，又言多者是性義。今言瞬若多故是空性，依空門所顯故。梵音有性字，順此方言頌中略故，遂除性言頌言唯有空，唯與定有別者。梵音言都，都者不唯是唯，亦是定義，於此都字之上加阿縛馱剌那，即是揩定義。故今應言唯是定義，以依他中決定唯有空故。前已言無有二，此言唯者更何所簡，不可已無更須簡故，唯是定義，於理為勝。「於彼亦有此」者，「彼」者彼空性中；「亦有此」者，謂有妄分別，即虛妄分別是俗諦，妄分別有空者，即俗諦中有真諦空，即真諦空中亦有妄分別，即真中亦有俗諦，二諦必相有無。一無時亦無二，故相形有也。舊云：「於此亦有彼」，但彼此為異，義意大同。下成前義。「故說一切法」者，謂有為、無為，依此二無，名之為空，故此二攝法盡。有為即妄分別，無為即空性，謂《般若經》中說一切法，此中但明三界心、心法，故唯言妄心，是俗諦非無不妄心，舊此頌上三句同此。「非空非不空」者，謂由空性故，及妄分別故，言非空，以二諦有故；「非不空」者，謂所取、能取二，或我、法二，二皆無故，非不空也。「有無及有故」者，「有」謂妄分別有故，「無」謂二取我、法無故；「及有」者，謂於妄分別中有真空故，於真空中亦有妄分別故。此中應言三故字，謂有故即妄分別，無故即能、所取，及有故即俗、空互有。梵云薩埵是有故，亦云有情義合多故；阿薩埵非有故，或言無故，此中文略，但言一故字。「是則契中道」者，謂非一向空，如清辨；非一向有，如小乘，故名處中道。謂二諦有不同清辨，二取無不同小部，故處中道。舊云是名中道義，說此會於中道，非謂詮於彼義。以上並是《中邊》第一卷長行自解，彼云：「如是理趣妙契中道，亦善符順《般若》等經，說一切法非空、非有」。

The Commentary states: This is Maitreya's root verse spoken in the first fascicle of the Madhyāntavibhāga. "Imagining the unreal exists" means the unreal minds of the three realms exist; the old translation is identical to this. It is called "imagining" (vikalpa) because it can discriminate: because it discriminates objects, and because it can give rise to attachment. "In this, the two are completely absent" means that the two—the grāhaka and the grāhya—or the two—self and dharmas—are completely absent upon this unreal mind. The old version says: "In that place there are not the two." The word "place" is largely similar in meaning to "in this / upon this" (yuji), because the words "place," "in," and "within" all indicate the seventh case ending (locative), signifying a substratum. The present text says "in this" (yucit), while the old text says "in that place"; whenever one says "this," it refers to this proximate dharma. Above, unreal existence was just explained; now, since the two are absent upon the unreal mind, how could one say "that," relative to which "this"? Since it is upon the proximate, one can only say "this." "Within this there is only emptiness" means that within this unreal mind there is only tathatā. Tathatā is the nature of emptiness (śūnyatā), because it is revealed in reliance on emptiness; in the prose above, it was stated that emptiness and consciousness are existent, which is also known only from this. The Sanskrit merely says śūnya, which is "empty"; furthermore, saying tā indicates the sense of "nature." Now saying śūnyatā, it is the nature of emptiness, because it is revealed through the gate of emptiness. The Sanskrit has the word for "nature"; in keeping with the language of this country, it was omitted in the verse, and hence the word "nature" was dropped and the verse states "there is only emptiness." Regarding the distinction between "only" (mātra) and "definitely" (niyata): the Sanskrit says tu; tu means not only "only," but also has the sense of "definitely"; when avadhāraṇa is added to this word tu, it is an exact determination. Therefore, one should now say that "only" has the sense of "definitely," because in the other-dependent nature there is definitely only emptiness. Earlier it already stated "there are not the two"; what further exclusion could this word "only" make? One cannot make a further exclusion of what is already absent; therefore, "only" having the sense of "definitely" is superior in reasoning. "And in that [emptiness], this is also present": "that" means within that nature of emptiness; "this is also present" means that imagining the unreal is present. That is, imagining the unreal is the conventional truth; that there is emptiness in unreal discrimination means that within conventional truth there is the emptiness of the ultimate truth; that is, within the emptiness of the ultimate truth there is also unreal discrimination, which means within the ultimate there is also conventional truth. The two truths necessarily exist or do not exist with respect to each other. When one is absent, the other is also absent; hence they exist in mutual relation. The old version says: "In this there is also that"; they only differ in "this" and "that," while the intended meaning is largely the same. Below establishes the preceding meaning. "Therefore all dharmas are said": that is, conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, in reliance on the absence of these two, are called "empty"; therefore these two encompass dharmas exhaustively. Conditioned dharmas are unreal discrimination; unconditioned dharmas are the nature of emptiness. That is, in the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtras, it speaks of all dharmas; here it only clarifies the minds and mental factors of the three realms, and therefore it only speaks of the unreal mind; this is the conventional truth, not that there are no non-unreal minds. The preceding three lines of this verse in the old translation are identical to this. "To be neither empty nor non-empty": because of the nature of emptiness and because of unreal discrimination, they are said to be "not empty," since the two truths exist; "nor non-empty": because the two—grāhya and grāhaka—or the two—self and dharmas—are both non-existent, they are "not non-empty." "Because of existence, non-existence, and [mutual] presence": "existence" means because unreal discrimination exists; "non-existence" means because the two graspers, self and dharmas, do not exist; "and [mutual] presence" means because there is true emptiness within unreal discrimination, and there is also unreal discrimination within true emptiness. Here there should be three instances of the word "because" (kāraṇa): "because of existence" refers to unreal discrimination; "because of non-existence" refers to grāhya and grāhaka; "and because of existence" refers to the mutual presence of the conventional and emptiness. In Sanskrit, sattva means "because of being existent," and also has the sense of "sentient being" having multiple applications; asattva means "because of non-existence" or "because of being absent"; here the text is abbreviated, stating only a single word "because." "And this accords with the Middle Way": it is not unilaterally empty, as Bhāviveka holds; nor is it unilaterally existent, as the Hīnayāna holds; therefore it is called abiding in the Middle Way. That is, the existence of the two truths is not like Bhāviveka, and the non-existence of the two graspers is not like the Lesser Vehicle schools; therefore it abides in the Middle Way. The old version says "this is called the meaning of the Middle Way"; this is said to accord with the Middle Way, not that it expresses that meaning. All of the above is the self-commentary in the prose of the first fascicle of the Madhyāntavibhāga, which states: "Such an approach of principle marvelously accords with the Middle Way, and also suitably conforms with the Prajñā and other sūtras, which say that all dharmas are neither empty nor existent."