唯識二十論述記 2.360

2.360

若別褒者，護法等說：除無分別，必有影像，其理稍勝。所以者何？既說諸心同鏡照物，必有影生，理無乖返；若無影像，違親所緣。如《佛地論》、《成唯識》、《瑜伽論》說：心、心所法從四緣生，說緣於無，無漏之心無此緣者，便違聖教及違比量。遍計所執說凡夫境，意說：凡夫若心起執，必變為依他內影像相分，此性離言及離假智識，有執故。執此以為色、聲法等，不稱所變離言影像，說能執心名為遍計。遍計所取，名為所執。此是無法，不能與識作所緣緣，所變影像，體是有法，與能遍計作所緣緣，亦不違理。但是凡夫起能執心，當體顯現，名凡夫境，非說為境故，即是所緣緣，但作所緣，不能作緣。當情現故，無體性故。如見於繩，眼識無執，是現量攝，得法自相。但見青等離言之境，意識於此亦自變為離言影像，不知此影像非繩、非非繩，非蛇、非非蛇，遂執為蛇，不稱影像，說此執心名能遍計，體是有法，所變影像，體亦有法，名所遍計。遍計所取，當情所現，情有理無，說為所執，遍計性成。此唯凡夫所行之境，名非聖境，非許無法作所緣緣。若說不稱本質名所執無，應五識等中亦有法執，有緣順境亦生瞋故。因論生論，圓成實性，聖能親證，凡夫心緣，但可心變，不能親取。聖人若知遍計無時，亦心變作無之影像，有似於無，非即親緣遍計所執；依他起，性凡、聖之心俱能親變，亦親緣之。約親所緣，遍計所執唯凡夫境；圓成實性唯聖人境。若疎所緣，遍計所執亦通聖境；圓成實性亦通凡境。不爾，凡夫加行智等或遍計心聞說圓成應不緣執，聖應不知所執非有，各據差別，亦不相違，依他親、疎緣皆通二。

If we evaluate them individually, Dharmapāla and others say that, excluding non-conceptual [wisdom], there must definitely be an image; their reasoning is somewhat superior. Why is that? Since all minds are said to be like a mirror illuminating an object, an image must definitely arise, which does not contradict principle; if there were no image, it would contradict the immediate intentional object. As the Buddhabhūmi-śāstra, Cheng weishi lun, and Yogācārabhūmi state: mind and mental factors arise from the four conditions; to say that when cognizing non-existence the undefiled mind lacks this condition would contradict the sacred teachings and contradict inference. When the imagined nature is said to be the sphere of ordinary beings, the meaning is: if an ordinary being's mind gives rise to attachment, it definitely transforms into an internal objective-aspect image that is other-dependent; because this nature is ineffable and beyond conventional cognition, they have attachment. Grasping this as phenomena of form, sound, and so on, it does not correspond to the transformed, ineffable image; the mind that can grasp is called the imaginer. What is grasped by the imaginer is called the imagined. This is a non-existent phenomenon and cannot serve as an ālambana-pratyaya for consciousness; the transformed image, in substance, is an existent phenomenon and serves as an ālambana-pratyaya for that which imagines, which does not contradict principle. It is merely that when an ordinary being gives rise to the grasping mind, it manifests directly to that entity, and is termed the sphere of ordinary beings; it is not that because it is called a sphere, it is therefore an ālambana-pratyaya. It only acts as an intentional object (ālambana), but cannot act as a condition (pratyaya), because it manifests according to delusion and lacks intrinsic substance. Just as when seeing a rope, visual consciousness has no attachment, is subsumed under direct perception, and attains the particular characteristic of the phenomenon; it merely sees the ineffable object of blue and so forth, and mental consciousness in relation to this also transforms by itself into an ineffable image; not knowing that this image is neither rope nor not-rope, neither snake nor not-snake, it then grasps it as a snake, which does not correspond to the image; this grasping mind is called that which imagines, its substance being an existent phenomenon; the transformed image is also an existent phenomenon in substance and is called that which is imagined. What is grasped by imagination manifests according to delusion; existing in delusion but lacking in principle, it is called the imagined, and the imagined nature is established. This is solely the sphere of activity of ordinary beings and is termed not the noble sphere; it does not grant that a non-existent phenomenon acts as an ālambana-pratyaya. If one said that not corresponding to the original entity is called the non-existence of the imagined, then attachment to phenomena would also exist in the five consciousnesses and so forth, because aversion also arises when cognizing agreeable objects. Since discussion gives rise to further discussion: the perfected nature is directly realized by noble ones, whereas when the minds of ordinary beings cognize it, they can only mentally transform it and cannot directly grasp it. When a noble person knows that the imagined is non-existent, they also mentally transform an image of non-existence that has a semblance of non-existence, rather than directly cognizing the imagined nature itself. As for the other-dependent nature, both ordinary and noble minds can directly transform it and also directly cognize it. In terms of the immediate intentional object, the imagined nature is solely the sphere of ordinary beings, and the perfected nature is solely the sphere of noble ones. In terms of the mediate intentional object, the imagined nature also extends to the noble sphere, and the perfected nature also extends to the ordinary sphere. If not, when an ordinary being's preparatory knowledge or imagining mind hears the perfected nature explained, it would not cognize or grasp it, and a noble one would not know that the imagined is non-existent; each is based on a distinction, and they do not contradict each other; both the immediate and mediate conditions of the other-dependent extend to both.