成唯識論述記 9.311

9.311

述曰：自下第二，總結止繁。義類無邊者，《顯揚》第六、第十七．第十三說三性各五業等，三性是三乘菩提方便，三性決了隱密義經。《攝大乘》說：《梵問經》不得生死、涅槃等是，金、藏、土喻是，一切法常、無常是。通達三性時，行於相？行無相耶？悟入遍計性入何性？乃至入圓成實除遣何性？三性依止五事中何事？若無初性有何過？於依他中應無名言執，名言執無故應無染、淨，無第二性有何過？不由功用一切雜染皆應非有，此染無者應無清淨，無圓成實有何過？一切清淨品皆應不可知，三性麁細難見，極難了亦爾，幾無體能轉有體等？幾性不生能生生等？三性執、無執相，三性各云何知？三性幾自非染，能令他染等，三性各以何為喻？《中邊論》說：色有三種：一、所執義色，色家分別性；二、分別義色，色家依他性；三、法性色，色家真實性，色通相故。一、色通三性，乃至識蘊，乃至十二處亦爾，如是等門義類無盡，皆易知故。恐厭繁文，今此論中略示綱要，然此等並收諸經論盡，更無一餘。《對法》第十二、《別抄》有異，應取解之。

The Commentary states: From here below is the second [part], a general conclusion to avoid proliferation. Regarding 'the categories of meaning are boundless': the Prakaraṇāryavācā, fascicles six, seventeen, and thirteen, speaks of the five activities of each of the three natures, that the three natures are the expedients for the bodhi of the three vehicles, and that the three natures definitively resolve sūtras of implicit meaning. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: the Brahmaviśeṣacintī-paripṛcchā's teaching of not attaining saṃsāra, nirvāṇa, and so forth; the similes of gold, the treasure, and earth; and the permanence and impermanence of all phenomena. When penetrating the three natures, does one practice with marks, or practice without marks? Awakening to and entering the parikalpita nature enters which nature? Down to: entering the pariniṣpanna eliminates which nature? Which of the five entities do the three natures rely upon? If the first nature did not exist, what fault would there be? In the other-dependent there would be no grasping of nominal expression, and because grasping of nominal expression would be absent, there would be neither defilement nor purity. If the second nature did not exist, what fault would there be? Without effort, all defilements would not exist; and if this defilement were absent, there would be no purification. If the pariniṣpanna did not exist, what fault would there be? All aspects of purification would be unknowable. The coarse and subtle aspects of the three natures are difficult to see, and are likewise exceedingly difficult to comprehend: How many, lacking substance, can transform what has substance? How many natures, being unarisen, can give rise to what is arisen? The characteristics of grasping and non-grasping in the three natures; how is each of the three natures known? How many of the three natures are not themselves defiled yet can cause others to be defiled, and so on? What is used as a simile for each of the three natures? The Madhyāntavibhāga-śāstra states: 'Form has three varieties: first, form as the grasped object, which is the parikalpita nature of form; second, form as discrimination, which is the other-dependent nature of form; third, form as dharmatā, which is the real nature of form, because form is a common characteristic.' A single form pervades the three natures, down to the aggregate of consciousness, and down to the twelve sense bases as well. Such approaches and categories of meaning are infinite, and all are easily known. Fearing tedious proliferation, in this treatise only an outline is briefly shown. Yet these entirely encompass all sūtras and treatises without any remainder. The Abhidharma-samuccaya, fascicle twelve, and the Biechao have differences; one should take them and understand them.