成唯識論了義燈 6.185

6.185

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 Opening the earlier text, this can be known; briefly, we do not cite it again.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.