起信論疏筆削記 3.24

3.24

Regarding the approach of mind-only, the substance is brought forth with respect to the deluded mind. Now, first considering the reciprocal relation between archetype and reflection, four propositions are formed across all the teachings: First, archetype only and no reflection, which is the Hīnayāna teaching, because it does not know that all dharmas are manifested by vijñaptimātra and are entirely reflected images. Second, reflection only and no archetype, which is the final teaching, because in the fruit of Buddhahood there are no separate material and audible virtues, but only suchness and suchness-wisdom existing solely, using great compassion and great wisdom merely as an empowering condition to cause the Buddha's physical form, voice, and teaching of the Dharma to appear within the minds of beings whose faculties have matured; therefore, the Buddha's teaching is merely a reflected image in the minds of beings. Thus the Avataṃsaka states: "The Buddhas have no Dharma; / regarding what could the Buddha preach? / Only in accordance with their own minds / does he teach such a Dharma for them." Third, both archetype and reflection, which is the provisional teaching of the Mahāyāna, meaning that what the Buddha himself preaches, both text and meaning, are manifested by pure consciousness associated with the marvelous observing wisdom, and this is called the archetypal teaching; while the text and meaning transformed upon the consciousness of the hearer are the reflected-image teaching. Only when Buddhas and sentient beings serve mutually as empowering conditions does the teaching arise; hence the Vijñaptimātra text says: "Through reciprocal empowering strength, / the two consciousnesses become determined." Fourth, neither archetype nor reflection, which is the sudden teaching. Not only is there no Buddha's physical form and voice outside the mind, but the reflected images within the minds of sentient beings are also empty, because their nature is originally apart [from marks] and their marks are originally cut off; this is simply the teaching of no-teaching. Thus the Vimalakīrti-sūtra states: "One who teaches the Dharma has nothing to preach and nothing to indicate; one who hears the Dharma has nothing to hear and nothing to attain." What is clarified here is the second proposition: reflection only, not archetype. In "The speaker's pure consciousness..." and so forth, the momentum of the phrasing here seems to suggest the proposition possessing both archetype and reflection, yet the intent clarifies reflection only and not archetype. Although it says "manifested by pure consciousness," the intent is to show that great compassion and great wisdom serve as the empowering condition. Moreover, it mentions only the Buddha serving as the empowering condition for sentient beings, without mentioning sentient beings serving as the empowering condition for the Buddha, because its intent lies in reflection only. Furthermore, the Buddha's pure consciousness is the true mind of sentient beings; the Buddha's manifestation is the sentient beings' manifestation, and both are reflections. Citing the scriptural passage makes this clear; how could one see the phrase "manifested by pure consciousness as an empowering condition" and immediately take both archetype and reflection together, identifying it with the provisional teaching? One must penetrate it through the intent and not be constrained by the phrasing; let the learner reflect upon this. Thus the text below says in full: "All dharmas have distinctions only based on deluded thoughts; if one is apart from mental thoughts, then there are no marks of any objective realms." In "Therefore..." below, it concludes the meaning. When it speaks of "one's own mind," this is precisely the deluded consciousness, not the true mind. The text below says: "The three realms are deceptive, made by mind alone; apart from mind, there are no objective realms of the six dusts."