成唯識論演祕 4.76

4.76

詳曰：《觀經》文云：「心雜染故，有情雜染。」但約有情不依佛說，若兼佛者即不應云有情等也。而如來者非有情故，故前說云唯依取蘊建立有情，佛無有漏，非有情攝。論既釋經，應同經意，若云示現稱有情者，亦為不可。准論釋經染、淨二門破他申自，皆並不言佛果淨識，故知二疏善悟奧旨。又設兼據淨心釋者，亦成繁見，何所以者？言心為本，即是染、淨有為、無為之總句也。後復對彼因心而生，復云以心為本，別釋無漏現行諸法因淨心生亦心為本。前既言總，後何云別？若言據彼別淨心說，若爾，別染何不是彼別染本耶？若許是者，云何不是別釋染現？又若別釋容有斯理，但一釋中何得矛楯，餘准此非。

In detailed evaluation: The text of the *Guan jing* says: 'Because mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled.' It is only formulated with reference to sentient beings and is not based on the Buddha; if it had also encompassed the Buddha, then it should not have said 'sentient beings' and so on. And the Tathāgata is not a sentient being, for as previously explained, sentient beings are established solely on the basis of the grasping aggregates, whereas the Buddha is free from the sāsrava and is not subsumed under sentient beings. Since the Treatise explains the sūtra, it must accord with the intent of the sūtra; if one were to say that he is designated a sentient being through manifestation, this also is untenable. According to the Treatise's explanation of the sūtra in the two gateways of defilement and purification—refuting others and establishing its own [doctrine]—neither mentions the pure consciousness of the Buddha-fruit; thus we know that the two Commentaries well understood the profound meaning. Furthermore, even if one were to explain it by also taking into account the pure mind, it would also result in a redundant view. Why is this? The statement that 'the mind is the root' is the general phrase for both defiled and pure, conditioned and unconditioned. Later, in contrast to 'being born due to the mind', it further says 'taking the mind as the root', separately explaining that unconditioned active dharmas are born due to the pure mind and also take the mind as their root. Since it spoke generally before, why speak particularly later? If one says that it is stated on the basis of that particular pure mind, if so, why would a particular defilement not be the root of that particular defilement? If you allow this to be so, why would it not be a separate explanation of active defilements? Moreover, if explained separately there might possibly be this rationale, but within a single explanation how could there be such a contradiction? The rest should be rejected accordingly.