[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘法苑義林章](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861) › 1.21.1 # 大乘法苑義林章 1.21.1 大乘法苑義林章 1.21.1 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.21.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.21.1) 顯中道者，《瑜伽論．攝決擇分》八十一卷說「經體有二：一文、二義。 文是所依，義即能依。 由能詮文，義得顯故。 」能詮文中復分為二：一者龍軍論師、無性菩薩，及《佛地論》一師所說。 且無性云：「此中即是隨墮八時，聞者識上直非直說，聚集顯現以為體性。 」此意即取隨世俗說日夜八時，說《花嚴經》八會之時，詮辨諸法八轉聲時。 聞法者識所變聲等，直非直說以為教體。 《佛地論》云「謂佛慈悲本願緣力，其可聞者自意識上文義相生，似如來說。 」此意即是由佛本願為增上緣，令聞者識有文義相。 此文義相，雖自親依善根力起，而就本緣名為佛說，佛實無言。 故無性云：「若爾，云何菩薩能說？ 彼增上生故作是說。 譬如天等增上力故，令於夢中得論呪等。 若離識者，佛云何說？ 」此就本緣佛不說法，乃無文義，唯有無漏大定、智、悲。 若依聞者自識所變，有漏心現，即似無漏聲名句文以為教體。 無漏心現，即真無漏文義為體。 此即如來實不說法。 故《大波若》第四百二十五卷、《文殊問經》、《涅槃經》等皆作是言「我成道來不說一字，汝亦不聞。 」《十地》亦言三界唯識，故知教體唯心所變文義為性，善順契經，不違唯識。 問：何故佛寶即有本佛，今說法寶即唯心變？ 答：教法戲論唯說自心，餘非戲論故取本質，理、行、果法同佛寶故。 《無垢稱經》言「法非見聞覺知。 若行見聞覺知，即是見聞覺知，非求法也。 」故唯心變。 問：若取佛說，義即可然。 若聞者心所變為教，子細研究，於理實難。 過去、未來既非實有，非有為法生已便住，如何識上聚集解生？ 答：無性解云「隨墮八時聞者識上，直非直說聚集顯現，以為體性。 謂八時中聞者識上有直非直二種言說聚集顯現故。 」《瑜伽》說心略有五種：一率爾、二尋求、三決定、四染淨、五等流。 如〈五心章〉自當廣釋。 如聖教說諸行無常，有起盡法。 如言諸字率爾心已，必起尋求續初心起。 雖多剎那，行解唯一，總名尋求，未決定知諸所目故。 如《瑜伽論》第三卷說。 又一剎那五識生已，從此無間必意生故。 復言行時由先熏習連帶解生有三心現，謂率爾亦尋求及後決定，決定知諸目一切行。 故《瑜伽》說「尋求無間，若不散亂，決定心生。 若散亂時，生即不定。 雖知自性，然未知義。 為令了知，復說無字。 於此時中有先三心，於無字上但有其二，謂率爾、尋求。 未決定知無所無故，即從決定後却起尋求。 」論但定說率爾尋求定無間生，尋求已後許散亂故。 復言常時五心竝具，其義可解。 由前字力展轉熏習連後字生，於最後時始能解義，染淨等心方乃得轉。 故雖無過、未，而教體亦成。 若新新解竝有率爾，四字之上皆定有二心，謂率爾、尋求。 即於末後有十二心一時聚集，第一有二、第二有三、第三有二、第四有五，故成十二。 既於初字有率爾、尋求，於第二字新生決定，并前為三。 第三字中却起尋求，并前為四。 第四字時但新決定、染淨、等流三心而起，合有七心一時聚集。 如是方名五心具足。 故唯識教其體理成，勘《對法》第一疏應具廣之。 二者護法、勝子、親光等說。 凡論出體，總有四重：一攝相歸性體，即一切法皆性真如。 故《大波若經．理趣分》說一切有情皆如來藏，《勝鬘經》說夫生死者是如來藏，《無垢稱》言一切眾生皆如也，一切法亦如也，眾賢聖亦如也，至於彌勒亦如也。 諸經論說如是非一。 一切有為、諸無為等有別體法是如之相，譬如海水隨風等緣擊成波相，此波之體豈異水乎？ 一切諸法隨四緣會成其體相，然不離如。 有漏種子性皆本識亦復如是，故皆無記。 二攝境從識體，即一切法皆是唯識。 《花嚴》等說三界唯心，心所從王名唯識等。 如是等文誠證非一。 三攝假隨實體，即諸假法隨何所依實法為體。 > As for explaining the Middle Way: Fascicle 81 of the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*'s "Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī" states: "The essence of a sūtra is twofold: first, the phonemes/words; second, the meaning. The phonemes/words are what is relied upon; the meaning is what relies upon \[them\]. Because of the expressive phonemes/words, the meaning is able to be revealed." Within the expressive phonemes/words, there are again two divisions: First is that which is stated by Master Nāgasena, Bodhisattva Asvabhāva, and one master of the \*Buddhabhūmi-vyākhyāna\*. Asvabhāva says: "Here, it is precisely according to the descent into the eight periods that, on the consciousness of the hearer, direct and indirect speech aggregate and manifest to constitute the essence." The intent here takes the eight periods of day and night according to conventional worldly parlance, the times of the eight assemblies when the \*Avataṃsaka-sūtra\* was preached, and the times when all phenomena are explicated through the eight case endings (\*vibhakti\*). The sound, etc., transformed by the consciousness of the hearer of the Dharma, \[as\] direct or indirect speech, is taken to be the essence of the teaching. The \*Buddhabhūmi-vyākhyāna\* states: "By the conditioning power of the Buddha's compassion and fundamental vows, images of words and meanings arise on the self-awareness of those capable of hearing, resembling the Tathāgata preaching." The intent here is precisely that, taking the Buddha's fundamental vows as the sovereign condition (\*adhipati-pratyaya\*), the consciousness of the hearer is made to have the forms of words and meanings. Although these forms of words and meanings directly arise on the basis of \[the hearer's\] own power of wholesome roots, in reference to the fundamental condition they are named the 'Buddha's teaching'; the Buddha in reality has no speech. Therefore Asvabhāva says: "If so, how can a bodhisattva preach? Because of their sovereign arising, it is explained thus. Just as, for instance, by the sovereign power of gods, etc., one is made to obtain treatises, spells, etc., in dreams. If it is apart from consciousness, how could the Buddha preach?" In this regard, in reference to the fundamental condition, the Buddha does not preach the Dharma, having no words or meanings, possessing only unconditioned, great samādhi, wisdom, and compassion. If based on what is transformed by the hearer's own consciousness, when manifested by a sāsrava mind, it takes words, names, phrases, and phonemes that resemble anāsrava as the essence of the teaching. When manifested by an anāsrava mind, it takes truly anāsrava words and meanings as the essence. This means that the Tathāgata truly does not preach the Dharma. Therefore the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra\* fascicle 425, the \*Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra\*, the \*Nirvāṇa-sūtra\*, and others all state: "Since my attaining the Path, I have not spoken a single word, nor have you heard one." The \*Daśabhūmika\* also states that the three realms are consciousness-only. Thus one knows that the essence of the teaching has as its nature the words and meanings transformed by mind alone, which accords well with the sūtras and does not contradict consciousness-only. Question: Why is it that the Buddha jewel possesses an original Buddha, while the Dharma jewel spoken of now is transformed only by the mind? Answer: The teaching of the Dharma is conceptual proliferation (\*prapañca\*) and only speaks of one's own mind; the remainder is not conceptual proliferation, so the original substance is taken, because the dharmas of principle, practice, and fruit are identical with the Buddha jewel. The \*Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra\* states: "The Dharma is not seeing, hearing, perceiving, or knowing. If one engages in seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing, that is just seeing, hearing, perceiving, and knowing, not seeking the Dharma." Hence it is transformed by mind alone. Question: If one takes the Buddha's preaching \[as the essence\], that meaning is indeed acceptable. If what is transformed by the hearer's mind is taken as the teaching, when examined in fine detail, it is truly difficult in principle. Since past and future are not real existents, and conditioned dharmas do not abide once arisen, how can an understanding arise from aggregation on consciousness? Answer: Asvabhāva explains: "According to the descent into the eight periods, on the consciousness of the hearer, direct and indirect speech aggregate and manifest to constitute the essence. This means that within the eight periods, direct and indirect—these two kinds of speech—aggregate and manifest on the consciousness of the hearer." The \*Yogācārabhūmi\* states that minds are briefly of five kinds: first, sudden (\*nirvikalpa\*); second, seeking (\*paryeṣaṇa\*); third, deciding (\*niścaya\*); fourth, defiled/purified (\*saṃkleśavyavadāna\*); fifth, equal flow (\*niṣyanda\*). As the "Chapter on the Five Minds" will itself explain at length. As the sacred teaching states: "All conditioned phenomena are impermanent; they are dharmas subject to arising and ceasing." For example, after the sudden mind at the word 'all', a seeking \[mind\] must arise following the initial mind. Although it spans many moments, the cognitive activity is single, collectively named 'seeking', because it has not yet decisively known what is indicated by 'all'. As stated in fascicle 3 of the \*Yogācārabhūmi\*. Moreover, after the five consciousnesses arise in a single moment, immediately following this the mental consciousness must arise. When the word 'conditioned phenomena' is spoken, due to previous habituation, an understanding arises in connection, and three minds manifest, namely, sudden, also seeking, and subsequent deciding, decisively knowing that 'all' indicates all conditioned phenomena. Therefore the \*Yogācārabhūmi\* states: "Immediately after seeking, if there is no distraction, a deciding mind arises. If there is distraction, its arising is undetermined." Although the intrinsic nature is known, its meaning is not yet known. In order to make it understood, the word 'un-' is spoken. At this time there are the prior three minds; on the word 'un-', there are only two, namely, sudden and seeking. Because it is not yet decisively known what is negated by 'un-', following the deciding mind, seeking arises again. The treatise only definitively states that sudden and seeking are definitely produced without interruption, because after seeking, distraction is allowed. When it is spoken again, at 'permanent', the five minds are simultaneously complete, and the meaning can be understood. Due to the power of the former words gradually perfuming and arising in connection with the latter words, at the very last moment one is finally able to understand the meaning, and the defiled, purified, and other minds can only then operate. Therefore, although past and future do not exist, the essence of the teaching is also established. If in each new understanding there is sudden, on all four words there are definitely two minds, namely sudden and seeking. Thus at the very end there are twelve minds aggregated at one time: the first has two, the second has three, the third has two, and the fourth has five; hence twelve are formed. Since on the first word there are sudden and seeking, on the second word deciding newly arises, making three with the former. In the third word, seeking arises again, making four with the former. At the time of the fourth word, only three minds—deciding, defiled/purified, and equal flow—newly arise, together making seven minds aggregated at one time. Only thus is it named 'complete with the five minds'. Therefore the essence of the consciousness-only teaching is logically established; one should consult the first commentary on the \*Abhidharmasamuccaya\* for a full expansion. Second is that which is explained by Dharmapāla, Jñānaputra, Prabhāmitra, and others. Whenever discussing the emergence of the essence, there are four levels in all: First, the essence that gathers marks back to nature: that is, all dharmas have as their nature tathatā. Therefore the \*Naya-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra\* states that all sentient beings are the tathāgatagarbha; the \*Śrīmālādevī-sūtra\* states that saṃsāra is the tathāgatagarbha; the \*Vimalakīrtinirdeśa\* states that all sentient beings are 'thus' (\*tathā\*), all dharmas are also 'thus', all the worthy and noble ones are also 'thus', and even Maitreya is also 'thus'. Sūtras and treatises stating such are not one. All conditioned and unconditioned dharmas that possess distinct essences are the marks of suchness; just as sea water, encountering conditions such as wind, is agitated into the marks of waves, how could the essence of these waves be different from water? All dharmas assemble their essence and marks following the four conditions, yet they are not separated from suchness. Sāsrava seeds whose nature is entirely the fundamental consciousness are also like this; therefore, they are all indeterminate. Second, the essence that gathers objects into consciousness: that is, all dharmas are consciousness-only. The \*Avataṃsaka\* and others state that the three realms are mind-only, mental factors follow the primary mind and are called consciousness-only, and so forth. Such texts of sincere proof are not one. Third, the essence that gathers designations according to the real: that is, all designated dharmas take whatever real dharmas they rely upon as their essence. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.20) - [Next: 1.21.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.21.2) - [Up: 1.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.21) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861~en-mt.1.21.1) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.21.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.1.21.1) · Pramāṇa