成唯識論演祕 4.76

4.76

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.