唯識二十論述記 2.360

2.360

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.