成唯識論演祕 6.178

6.178

答：有兩釋，一云：鏡中有別影像，眼識起時緣影而生；不爾，便應有見無相，喻不似法。又《攝論》等鏡像況依他，空花類遍計。又七十六云：如淨鏡，若有一影生，緣現前唯一影起，多影亦然。准此別有，但無實用，說離質無。攝影從質，云見自質。一云：離質無別影像，由迷亂故謂見影像。故《佛地論》第四說云：謂諸有情顛倒，執著影像熏習成就力故，鏡面為緣自識變異似面影現，由是世間起增上慢，謂我鏡中見其面影，以無別影鏡中生故。經但說言眾像顯現，不言生起。《佛地》第五言生起者，依現假說。又無性《攝論》第五說云：又如影像於鏡等中還見本質，而謂我今見於影像，而此影像實無所有。又世親《攝論》亦第五云：譬如影像實無有義，即於本質起影像覺，然影像義無別可得。

Answer: There are two explanations. One says: In the mirror there is a distinct reflected image; when the eye-consciousness arises, it arises apprehending the image. Were it not so, there would be darśana-bhāga without nimitta-bhāga, and the analogy would not resemble the phenomenon. Moreover, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and other texts use the mirror image to illustrate the dependent nature, and sky-flowers to typify the fully conceptualized nature. Furthermore, fascicle seventy-six states: 'Like a clean mirror: if one image is produced, when conditions are present, only one image arises; the same is true for multiple images.' Following this, it exists distinctly, but lacks real practical efficacy; hence it is said not to exist apart from the model. Subsuming the image under the model, it is said to 'see one's own model.' The other says: Apart from the model there is no distinct reflected image; through deluded confusion, one supposes that one sees an image. Therefore the Buddhabhūmy-upadeśa, fascicle four, says: 'Sentient beings, through the force of the maturation of perfuming by inverted grasping at images, take the mirror surface as a condition, and their own consciousness transforms to appear resembling the image of a face; due to this, the worldly form an overweening conceit, supposing "I see the image of the face in the mirror." This is because no distinct image is produced in the mirror.' The sūtra merely says that manifold images appear, not that they are produced. When fascicle five of the Buddhabhūmy-upadeśa speaks of 'production,' it is nominal based on manifestation. Moreover, Asabhāva's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, fascicle five, says: 'Also, like an image: in a mirror and so forth one looks back and sees the original model, yet supposes "I am now seeing an image"; but this image actually does not exist at all.' Furthermore, Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, also fascicle five, says: 'Just as an image actually has no referent, one conceives the perception of an image with respect to the original model; yet no distinct referent of an image can be obtained.'