成唯識論了義燈 6.185

6.185

第十二說，依《顯揚》論第二說者，與五十五同有十一解，與五十五別，成十二釋，披前可智，略不更舉。准《顯揚》等，解脫即門，以能觀智無漏離縛，名為解脫。故彼論云：若解脫言之，唯是無漏修惠非餘，即持業釋。或可，正能為解脫門，有漏是遠，方便非正，不得名解脫門。據遠方便有漏亦是，依此解者，解脫即是涅槃，因此觀智為門，得入解脫之門，依主釋也。據前持業，解脫門有三。據後依主，解脫體一，不可言三。由此三空，能為彼門。應云三是解脫之門，或解脫之三門。准《顯揚》第二，空無相願，俱通境智，即境為門，若無彼境，智如何起？若境非彼，智不稱境，不名正智，智稱境生，方名正智。故能觀智，用境為門。如教與智，及義為門。智因言教，方能悟理；理亦因教，而方得顯，與二為門。三解脫門，應知亦爾。然所觀境名為門者，即所變相，未真證故。無為解脫，因門方顯。解脫之智，因門能證。故《佛地論》大空無相為所入門，明有能入，能入即智。或能觀智，名之為門，理由智顯，言所入門者。因智為門，果智方入，如四神足，足雖即定，從四因生定，亦定生故，應智由智入。准此而明，理通二釋，言二空門，義亦准此。

A twelfth explanation, according to what is stated in the second fascicle of the Xianyang lun: being the same as [fascicle] fifty-five, there are eleven explanations; being distinct from [fascicle] fifty-five, it forms twelve interpretations. Opening the earlier text, this can be known; briefly, we do not cite it again. According to the Xianyang and other texts, liberation itself is the door; because the observing knowledge is anāsrava and free from bonds, it is called liberation. Thus that treatise says: "If spoken of in terms of liberation, it is purely anāsrava cultivated wisdom and nothing else"—this is a karmadhāraya compound. Alternatively, it is specifically capable of being the door to liberation; sāsrava is a distant expedient, not the direct [cause], and cannot be called a door to liberation. In terms of the distant expedient, sāsrava is also [included]. According to this explanation, liberation is precisely nirvāṇa; using this contemplative wisdom as the door, one is able to enter the door of liberation—a tatpuruṣa compound. In terms of the previous karmadhāraya, there are three doors to liberation. In terms of the latter tatpuruṣa, the essence of liberation is one and cannot be called three; because of these three emptinesses, they can serve as its door, one should say the three are the doors of liberation, or the three doors to liberation. According to the second fascicle of the Xianyang, emptiness, the signless, and the wishless all extend to both object and knowledge, that is, the object serves as the door. If there were no such object, how could knowledge arise? If the object were not that, the knowledge would not correspond to the object and would not be called correct knowledge; only when knowledge arises corresponding to the object is it called correct knowledge. Therefore the observing knowledge takes the object as its door. Just as teaching serves as the door for both knowledge and meaning: knowledge relies on spoken teaching before it can awaken to the principle, and the principle also relies on teaching before it can be revealed; thus it serves as the door for both. The three doors to liberation should be understood to be also like this. However, the reason the observed object is called a door is that it is the manifested mark, not yet genuinely realized. Unconditioned liberation is revealed only through the door; the knowledge of liberation can realize only through the door. Therefore the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra states that great emptiness and the signless are the door entered, making it clear that there is an enterer, and that which enters is knowledge. Or, the observing knowledge is called the door; the principle is revealed through knowledge. As for the statement 'the door entered': taking causal knowledge as the door, fruit knowledge then enters. Just as with the four bases of psychic power: although the 'base' is itself samādhi, since samādhi arises from the four causes, and it is also produced by samādhi, knowledge should enter through knowledge. Clarifying in accordance with this, the principle extends to both interpretations; the meaning of the statement 'two doors of emptiness' is also by analogy to this.