成唯識論了義燈 6.3

6.3

論。謂識等生時無實作用等者。大乘鏡中實無色起。薩婆多許有別色生故。此論云。但如鏡等似外境現。本釋如汝即是如彼薩婆多等。若經部師宗雖無別色亦有似現。非大乘宗許有別色故。維摩經等云。如燋穀芽。如谷響。如鏡像等。並喻無故　若爾何故攝大乘等以鏡像等喻依他起。不可就他他是實故。自無別色。何喻依他　答有二義。一取不離義二取似義。且如鏡像。薩婆多許。一不離鏡。二似面等像而非實面。不取像色實與非實。對薩婆多取其二義。對經部師取似有義。實不離心　問大乘鏡中既實無像。云何解深密心意識品云。如一影生緣現前。唯一影起等。佛地經云。如依圓鏡眾像影現　答就他宗及世間許取以為喻。亦復無違。經部雖無實影。取似亦復無失。攝論云。由迷亂故謂見影像等。據自實義以破他宗。故解深密云。如鏡為緣還見自質。非鏡有影。大智度論三十六云。如油中見像等者。亦是就他非龍猛等執彼為實。

The treatise: "This means that when consciousness and the like arise, they have no real function," and so forth. In the Mahāyāna, there is truly no physical form arising in a mirror. The Sarvāstivādins maintain that a distinct form is generated. Therefore, this treatise states: "It merely appears like an external object, just as with a mirror and the like." The original explanation: 'just as with you' means just as with those Sarvāstivādins and the like. As for the Sautrāntika school, although there is no distinct form, there is still a simulated appearance. It is not that the Mahāyāna school accepts that there is a distinct form. Therefore, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and other texts say: "like a scorched grain sprout, like an echo in a valley, like an image in a mirror," and so on, all as metaphors for nonexistence. If so, why do the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and other texts use the mirror image and the like as metaphors for the other-dependent nature (paratantra-svabhāva)? One cannot conform to the other, for the other takes it as real. Since one's own system has no distinct form, how can it serve as a metaphor for the other-dependent? Answer: There are two meanings: first, taking the meaning of not being separate; second, taking the meaning of resemblance. For instance, regarding an image in a mirror, the Sarvāstivādins hold: first, it is not separate from the mirror; second, it resembles the face or other image, yet is not the real face. It does not take whether the image-form is real or unreal. Facing the Sarvāstivādins, one takes those two meanings; facing the Sautrāntikas, one takes the meaning of seeming existence, which in reality is not separate from mind. Question: Since in the Mahāyāna there is truly no image in a mirror, why does the Saṃdhinirmocana's chapter on 'Mind, Mentation, and Consciousness' say: "Just as when a single condition for generating a reflection appears before it, only a single reflection arises," and so forth? And the Buddhabhūmi-sūtra says: "Like images of forms appearing in reliance on a round mirror"? Answer: Conforming to other schools and what is accepted in the world, one adopts it as a metaphor, so there is again no contradiction. Although the Sautrāntika has no real reflection, taking it as a simulated appearance is also without fault. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: "Due to confusion, one claims to see a reflected image," and so forth, relying on one's own real doctrine to refute other schools. Therefore, the Saṃdhinirmocana says: "With the mirror as a condition, one turns back to see one's own archetype (bimba); it is not that the mirror has a reflection." When the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, fascicle 36, says: "like seeing an image in oil," and so forth, this is also conforming to others; it is not that Nāgārjuna and others grasped it as real.