成唯識論了義燈 6.153

6.153

《論》：三唯識真如者。本疏云：見識真如，便能知此。意說所觀，如《要集》云：有釋云，三藏解云，或用觀智名為真如。不爾，便與後文相違。染淨唯識，應通三性，此意若說所觀如，遍三性故，應通三性。今謂本釋為正，何以故？若取能觀，名唯識如，何故七十七云：謂一切行，唯是識性，又如何言：由相真如，了別真如故？一切諸法平等平等，以能觀智，雖是行收，非一切行，又能觀智，二乘等無，如何平等？若云，就所觀說，即非能觀。若爾，既取所觀唯識，何故不通初二性攝？答：就所觀性，即唯成實，約詮顯者，可通三性。《論》云：隨相不障通餘。

Treatise: "The third is the tathatā of consciousness-only." The original commentary states: Seeing the tathatā of consciousness, one can then know this. It means the object of contemplation. As the Yaoji states: Some explain that the Tripiṭaka Master explained that perhaps the contemplating wisdom is called tathatā; otherwise, it would contradict the subsequent text, [where] defiled and pure consciousness-only should encompass all three natures; this intention is that if speaking of the contemplated tathatā, because it pervades the three natures, it should encompass the three natures. Now I say that the original explanation is correct. Why? If one takes the contemplating [wisdom] to be called the tathatā of consciousness-only, why does [fascicle] seventy-seven state, "namely, all saṃskāras are solely the nature of consciousness"? And why does it say, "Due to the tathatā of marks, one cognizes tathatā; therefore, all phenomena are completely equal"? Because although the contemplating wisdom is subsumed under saṃskāras, it is not all saṃskāras; furthermore, the contemplating wisdom is absent in the two vehicles and so forth, so how could it be equal? If one says it is spoken of in terms of the contemplated, then it is not the contemplating [wisdom]. If so, since it takes the contemplated consciousness-only, why does it not encompass the first two natures? Answer: In terms of the nature of the contemplated, it is solely the consummate [nature]; in terms of what is expressed and revealed, it can encompass the three natures. The treatise states: According to marks, it does not obstruct encompassing the others.