成唯識論了義燈 6.4

6.4

Question: In refuting the knowledge of others' minds, it should be that it conditions an external object. Now you say: it conditions one's own mind and does not directly condition another's mind; it should also be that, like taking a mirror as a condition, one turns back to see one's own archetype. Does the mirror serve as a metaphor for the mind, or should one take the archetype? Answer: Supposing it is so, what fault is there? Both have faults. If the mirror is taken as a metaphor for the mind, one should say that taking the mirror as a condition, one turns back to see one's own mirror; thus, taking the mind as a condition, one turns back to see one's own mind—how could one say 'one turns back to see one's own archetype'? Taking the archetype as a metaphor for the mind is to be questioned in the same way. Answer: There are two explanations. One says: provisionally speaking in terms of the dispersed state, one should say that, like the archetype, taking the mirror as a condition, one turns back to see one's own archetype. Now, the knowledge of others' minds, with another's mind as a condition, turns back to see one's own mind. The second says: speaking in terms of meditative concentration, just as concentration serves as a condition, one's own mind transforms into various reflected images that are not separate from one's own mind, like a dispersed mind which, taking a mirror as a condition, turns back to see the original archetype. It is not that, separate from the archetype, a distinct [entity] is generated in the mirror. Question: One's own mind, taking another as a condition, can still see one's own mind; but one's own archetype, taking a mirror as a condition, cannot see—how can the archetype serve as a metaphor? Answer: The metaphor takes a partial aspect: just as the archetype of the eye, taking the mirror as a condition, turns back to see the archetype of the eye. Hence it is said: 'turns back to see one's own archetype.' Although what is seen is not the eye, it is the basis of the eye, conforming to conventional truth. Question: Among what is seen, according to the Mahāyāna school the archetype and the image-aspect (pratibimba) are distinct; how can one say 'turns back to see one's own archetype'? Answer: Subsuming the image-aspect under the archetype, because it resembles the archetype; in terms of what is truly seen, one directly sees one's own image-aspect. Taking a partial metaphor to illustrate the objects grasped by the knowledge of others' minds and the like is completely without fault. Therefore, Asvabhāva's Commentary (Mahāyānasaṃgrahopanibandhana), fascicle 5, states: 'Wholesome and unwholesome volitional karma of the uncollected levels, taking the archetype as a condition, gives rise to the reflected fruit; it is just like this.' Question: For all deluded views, what is the substantial entity of the reflected images seen, and under what category are they subsumed? Answer: Solitary, dispersed conceptual thought falsely grasps that the mirror contains an image and so forth; as for where these reflected images seen by deluded [views] are subsumed, the Yaoji states: 'Some say it is still the base of forms (rūpāyatana), because it resembles the preceding characteristic.' In the original subcommentary there is no such text. The original explanation in the 'Chapter on the Base of Phenomena' in the Fayuan states: 'The reflected form is the base of forms,' referring to the solitary manovijñāna in a dispersed state conditioning the five dusts, called conceptual mind. Subsuming the aspect under the archetype, it is subsumed under the base of forms; this does not address the case of grasping a real form in a mirror as a reflected image. The master's original explanation is that without relying on an archetype, falsely grasping a mirror image as truly existent is an imagined [form] within the base of phenomena (dharmāyatana). Question: In the Prakaraṇāryavācā-śāstra, the form-objects of the five dusts also have reflected form; within the forms of the base of phenomena, the sphere of meditative concentration also has reflected form; and among imagined forms, there is also reflected form. What is the difference? Answer: Reflected forms belonging to the base of forms have two explanations: One says that the conceptual manovijñāna conditions the characteristics of the five dusts; matching the object against the sense faculty, it should be subsumed under the base of phenomena. Now, in accordance with the archetype and the fruit produced, it is included in the base of forms. The second says: what is transformed by the five consciousnesses is called reflected form, while what is transformed by the fundamental consciousness is the remaining form; matching the sense faculty against the object, what is transformed by the eighth [consciousness] should be included in the base of phenomena. Subsuming the dark under the luminous, it is subsumed under the base of forms. Both explanations are admissible, but the second is superior. Imagined reflections have already been briefly discriminated earlier; those belonging to meditative concentration, such as transformed gold and the like which lack real utility, are called reflections of meditative concentration. Question: Taking the mirror as a condition, why does it not say 'turns back to see one's own reflection', since it conditions a reflected image? Answer: Conditioning a reflection is not mutually accepted; subsuming the aspect [under the archetype], it says 'seeing the archetype'.