起信論疏筆削記 15.29

15.29

疏　上來下，三，權實對辨。實教如上所辨。若權教所說，眾生諸佛互為增上緣，故文於自識而現影像。今此疏文且就眾生一邊而論，故假佛悲智為增上緣，自識有見佛種子為因緣，託佛所現化身為本質。然於自識變起影像而見於佛，唯此影像是自識現，故云唯識。若彼本質，自攝歸佛識，非屬眾生。若如此說，還是於自識外別自有佛本質，何成一切唯心？非同今文所說，應化唯是自心所現。縱說由佛悲願，此亦自心悲願無二無別，故今引彼對辨，要知權實有異也。餘如下，指廣說處。

[Commentary] 'Above ...' [marks] the third: contrasting and analyzing the provisional and the real. The real teaching is as analyzed above. According to what the provisional teaching explains, sentient beings and all Buddhas serve as decisive conditions (adhipati-pratyaya) for each other; therefore, an image is manifested within one's own consciousness. Now this commentary text provisionally explains from the side of sentient beings: relying on the Buddha's compassion and wisdom as the decisive condition, and with the seeds for seeing the Buddha in one's own consciousness as the cause-condition (hetu-pratyaya), one relies on the transformation body manifested by the Buddha as the substantive basis (dharmin/bimbam). Yet, transforming and giving rise to an image within one's own consciousness, one sees the Buddha; only this image is manifested by one's own consciousness, and therefore it is called vijñaptimātra. As for that substantive basis, it is subsumed within the Buddha's consciousness and does not belong to sentient beings. If explained this way, then outside of one's own consciousness there is separately a Buddha's substantive basis; how could that establish that all is mind-only? It is not the same as what the present text says—that response and transformation are manifested solely by one's own mind. Even if one says it is due to the Buddha's compassionate vows, these too are non-dual and non-different from the compassionate vows of one's own mind. Therefore it is now cited to contrast and analyze them, so that one must know that the provisional and real are distinct. The rest, as in 'as below...', points to the place of extensive explanation.