成唯識論掌中樞要 2.230

2.230

攝大乘云。如是菩薩悟入意言似義相故悟入遍計所執。悟入唯識故悟入依他起性。若已滅除意言聞法熏習種類唯識之相。乃至爾時菩薩平等平等無分別智已得生起。悟入圓成實性。又云。名．事互為客。其性應尋思。於二亦當推唯量及唯假。實智觀無義。唯有分別三。彼無故此無。是即入三性。初半頌悟入遍計所執。次半頌悟入依他起性。後一頌悟入圓成實性。成唯識云。非不見真如而能了諸行皆如幻事等。雖有而非真。如是上下三處不同。攝論初文煖．頂二位悟入所執。忍．第一法悟入依他。初地初心入圓成實。攝論第二文煖．頂尋思悟入初二性。四如實智悟入圓成。成唯識文要入初地方悟三性。雖有三文義理唯二。一者二證。二者相似。成唯識中據實親證。由無漏二智真．俗前後方可證得後二性故。證二性時不見二取。即名證彼計所執無。無法體無。智何所證。心所變無依他起攝。真如理無圓成實攝。故計所執不說別證。但於二性不見二取。可名悟入遍計所執。然正體智達無證理。多說此智證計所執。雖見道前亦已不見。未親得二不名證無故於初地方名證得。攝論初文悟圓成者據實證得。與唯識同。悟前二性據相似悟。長時多分意解思惟前二性故。短時小分雖亦相似悟入圓成。非長時多分亦非親證。故據實說。攝論次文悟入三性。總據相似意趣而說。創觀名．事不相屬故名悟所執。次觀唯有識量及假名等諸法。雖未證實。名悟依他如實智位雖實有相而未證真。二取俱亡與真真觀相似趣入。意解亦謂即是真如。故實智位名入圓成。實未悟入。攝論據相似意解三性別明悟入。唯識據真實別證二性。通證所執雖文有異而不相違。餘所有文皆准此釋。

The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* states: "Thus, the bodhisattva, by awakening to the mental speech resembling the marks of referents, awakens to the parikalpita-svabhāva; by awakening to consciousness-only, awakens to the paratantra-svabhāva. When the marks of consciousness-only that are varieties of perfuming of mental speech heard from the Dharma have been eliminated, up to that time when the bodhisattva's impartial non-conceptual wisdom has arisen, they awaken to the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva." It also states: "Name and referent are mutually guest-like; their nature should be investigated. Regarding the two, one should also infer only measure and only nominal designation. True wisdom observes the absence of referents, and that there are only three discriminations. Because that is absent, this is absent; that is entering into the three natures." The first half-verse is entering into the parikalpita-svabhāva; the next half-verse is entering into the paratantra-svabhāva; the final verse is entering into the pariniṣpanna-svabhāva. The *Cheng weishi lun* says: "It is not the case that without seeing suchness one can comprehend all formations as being like illusions and so forth, which although existing are not real." Thus the three places above and below differ. The first passage of the *Saṃgraha* takes the levels of heat and summit as awakening to the imagined, forbearance and supreme mundane factors as awakening to the dependent, and the initial mind of the first ground as entering the consummate. The second passage of the *Saṃgraha* takes investigation at heat and summit as awakening to the first two natures, and the four true knowledges as entering the consummate. The text of the *Cheng weishi lun* requires entering the first ground before awakening to the three natures. Although there are three texts, the principle is only twofold: first, direct realization; second, similitude. The *Cheng weishi lun* relies on genuine direct realization. Because the two anāsrava wisdoms, ultimate and conventional, sequentially realize the latter two natures, when realizing the two natures one does not see the two graspings, which is termed realizing the absence of that imagined nature. As an unestablished phenomenon lacks essence, what would wisdom realize? The absence transformed by mind is subsumed under the dependent; the absence of the principle of suchness is subsumed under the consummate. Therefore, the imagined nature is not said to have a separate realization; merely not seeing the two graspings in the two natures may be termed awakening to the parikalpita-svabhāva. However, the fundamental wisdom penetrates the principle of absence and realization, and it is mostly said that this wisdom realizes the imagined. Although prior to the path of seeing one also does not see it, since one has not directly attained the two, it is not termed realizing absence; hence it is only called realization upon the first ground. The realization of the consummate in the first passage of the *Saṃgraha* is based on genuine realization, the same as the *Vijñapti-mātra*. Awakening to the former two natures is based on similitude awakening, because for a long time and mostly one conceives and contemplates the former two natures through mental resolve. Although for a short time and in small measure one also enters the consummate in similitude, it is neither for a long time nor mostly, nor is it direct realization; hence it speaks based on reality. The next passage of the *Saṃgraha* on entering the three natures is spoken generally based on the intent of similitude. Initially contemplating that name and referent do not belong to each other is called awakening to the imagined; next contemplating that all dharmas are merely the measure of consciousness and nominal designations, though not yet directly realizing reality, is called awakening to the dependent; at the stage of true knowledge, although marks truly exist, one has not yet realized truth; the cessation of both graspings resembles the entry into genuine contemplation of truth, and mental resolve also deems it to be suchness, so the stage of true knowledge is called entering the consummate, though in truth one has not yet awakened. The *Saṃgraha* explains awakening separately for the three natures based on similitude and mental resolve; the *Vijñapti-mātra* distinguishes the realization of the two natures based on reality and broadly realizes the imagined. Although the texts differ, they do not contradict each other. All other passages should be interpreted according to this.