成唯識論了義燈 1.92

1.92

言有迷謬者，疏有二解。初約人，後約法。人即據能迷說，起癡、邪見，攝屬於人。約法者，據無明不解名迷，邪見不正解名謬，據惑分二，然總是法，俱約能迷說。西明云：問：二空，即是我法二無，如何說無為迷悟依？解云：誰言說無為迷悟境？此說二空，所顯理性，是迷悟境。此未必爾。何者？於空執有，何非迷境？達此空無，可非悟境？若非為境，違下第八云：愚夫執有，聖者達無，亦得說為凡聖智境。又下第十云：餘雖亦得，作迷悟依。而非根本，故此不說。非謂全非。今解。此據根本迷悟之境故，說真如。由要證真，方了俗故。加行緣空，不斷惑故。故說若證二空，彼障隨斷，據實二空及二空性，俱迷悟境。

Regarding the words "there are delusions and errors," the basic commentary offers two explanations: first with reference to persons, and second with reference to dharmas. With reference to persons, it speaks based on those capable of delusion; the arising of delusion and wrong views is subsumed under persons. With reference to dharmas, based on ignorance and failure to comprehend, it is called "delusion"; based on wrong views and incorrect understanding, it is called "error." Two are distinguished according to the defilements, yet altogether they are dharmas, both spoken of with reference to those capable of delusion. Ximing says: "Question: The two emptinesses are simply the nonexistence of self and phenomena. How can a nonexistence be spoken of as the basis for delusion and awakening? Answer: Who says that a nonexistence is spoken of as the objective realm of delusion and awakening? Here, it is the nature of principle revealed by the two emptinesses that is the objective realm of delusion and awakening." This is not necessarily so. Why? When one grasps at existence with regard to emptiness, how is that not an objective realm of delusion? When one comprehends this emptiness and nonexistence, how could that not be an objective realm of awakening? If it were not an objective realm, it would contradict fascicle eight below, which says: "Fools grasp at existence, while sages comprehend nonexistence; it may also be spoken of as the cognitive realm of ordinary beings and sages." Furthermore, fascicle ten below says: "Although the rest can also serve as the basis of delusion and awakening, they are not the root, and therefore are not spoken of here." It does not mean they are entirely not so. Our present explanation is: because this is based on the root objective realm of delusion and awakening, it speaks of tathatā. This is because one must realize the real before one can understand the conventional, and because preparatory practices taking emptiness as an object do not sever defilements. Therefore it says that if one realizes the two emptinesses, those obstacles are severed accordingly; in actual fact, both the two emptinesses and the nature of the two emptinesses are objective realms of delusion and awakening.