大乘法苑義林章 1.46

1.46

五遣相證性識。識言所表，具有理事。事為相用，遣而不取。理為性體，應求作證。《勝鬘經》說「自性清淨心」。《攝論》頌言「於繩起蛇覺，見繩了義無。證見彼分時，知如蛇智亂。」此中所說起繩覺時遣於蛇覺，喻觀依他遣所執覺；見繩眾分遣於繩覺，喻見圓成遣依他覺。此意即顯所遣二覺皆依他起，斷此染故，所執實蛇實繩我法不復當情，非於依他以稱遣故皆互除遣。蛇由妄起體用俱無，繩藉麻生非無假用。麻譬真理，繩喻依他。知繩麻之體用，蛇情自滅。蛇情滅故，蛇不當情，名遣所執。非如依他須聖道斷，故漸入真，達蛇空而悟繩分；證真觀位，照真理而俗事彰。理事既彰，我法便息。此即一重所觀體也。能觀唯識以別境慧而為自體，《攝大乘》第六說「為何義故入唯識性？由緣總法出世止觀智故。」無性解云「由三摩呬多無顛倒智故。」或有解言：能觀唯識通以止觀而為自性。此亦不然。若取相應，四蘊為體；若兼眷屬，即通五蘊。今且依名，觀體唯慧。無性又云「唯識現觀智故」，又云「由三摩呬多無顛倒智」，但舉定中所起之智以為觀體，作尋思等勝唯識觀必居定故，不言即以止為觀體。《攝論》又云「由四尋思、四如實智，如是皆同不可得故。以諸菩薩如是如實，為入唯識勒修加行，即於似文似義意言，推求文名唯是意言。」乃至廣說。《瑜伽》、《對法》等，尋思如實智皆慧為體，尋思唯有漏，如實智通無漏。《攝大乘》云「入所知相者，謂多聞熏習所依非阿賴耶識所攝」者，此文唯舉無漏種子在彼位增，名為聞熏稱非藏識，非諸能觀皆唯無漏；不爾，四尋思應非加行智。此雖總說，若別顯者，略有二位：一因、二果。因通三慧，唯有漏故。以聞思修所成之慧而為觀體，此唯明利簡擇之性，非生得善。故《攝論》云「似法似義意言，大乘法相等所生起勝解、行地、見道修道等。」《成唯識》云「此中唯識資糧位中，聽聞思惟能深信解，在加行位，起尋思等引發真見。果唯無漏，修所成慧而為觀體，通以正智、後所得智為自體故。」《攝大乘》等云「如理通達故、治一切障故、離一切障故，見、修、無學道，如其次第，證真理識唯正體智，證俗事識唯後得智。」文多義顯，不引教成。上來雖復辨能所觀。總義說者，若總言唯識通能所觀，言唯識觀唯能非所，通有無漏、通散及定。以聞、思、修，加行、根本、後得三智而為自體。若言唯識三摩地，通有無漏，唯定非散，唯修慧非聞思，通三智。若言正證唯識，唯無漏非有漏，唯定非散，唯修慧非聞思，唯正智、後得非加行。此非義說。不爾，三摩地等亦通聞思，《十地論》說故，至下當知。然總遍詳諸教所說一切唯識，不過五種：一境唯識。《阿毘達磨經》云「鬼、傍生、人、天，各隨其所應，等事心異故，許義非真實。」如是等文但說唯識所觀境者，皆境唯識。二教唯識。「由自心執著」等頌，《花嚴》、《深密》等說唯識教者，皆教唯識。三理唯識。《三十頌》言「是諸識轉變，分別、所分別、由此彼皆無、故一切唯識。」如是成立唯識道理，皆理唯識。四行唯識。「菩薩於定位」等頌，「四種尋思如實智」等，皆行唯識。五果唯識。《佛地經》言「大圓鏡智，諸處、境、識皆於中現。」又《如來功德莊嚴經》言「如來無垢識，是淨無漏界，解脫一切障，圓鏡智相應。」《唯識》亦言「此即無漏界，不思議善常，安樂解脫身，大牟尼名法。」如是諸說唯識得果，皆果唯識。此中所說五種唯識，總攝一切唯識皆盡。然諸教中就義隨機，於境唯識種種異說，或依所執以辨唯識。《楞伽經》說「由自心執著，心似外境現。以彼境非有，是故說唯心。」但依執心虛妄現故。或依有漏以明唯識，《花嚴經》說三界唯心，就於世間說唯識故。或依所執及隨有為以辨唯識，《三十頌》言「由假說我法，有種種相轉，彼依識所變。」依識自體起見相分，二執生故。或依有情以辨唯識，《無垢稱經》云「心清淨故有情清淨，心雜染故有情雜染。」或依一切有無諸法以辨唯識，《解深密》說「諸識所緣，唯識所現。」或隨指事以辨唯識，《阿毘達磨契經》頌言「鬼、傍生、人、天，各隨其所應。」隨指一事辨唯識故。如是等輩無量教門，舉此六門類攝諸教。理義盡者唯第五教，總說一切為唯識故。或束為三，謂境、行、果，如《心經贊》具廣分別。

Fifth is the consciousness that eliminates marks and realizes the true nature. What is expressed by the term 'consciousness' possesses both facts and principle. Facts constitute marks and functions; they are eliminated and not grasped. Principle constitutes the true nature and essence; one should seek to realize it. The Śrīmālādevī-sūtra speaks of 'the mind that is naturally pure.' A verse in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Regarding a rope, the awareness of a snake arises; seeing the rope, one comprehends the non-existence of its object. When realizing and seeing its parts, one knows that it was confusion like the cognition of a snake.' What is stated here—that upon arising the awareness of a rope, the awareness of a snake is eliminated—is an analogy for contemplating the other-dependent and eliminating the conceptually constructed awareness. Seeing the various parts of the rope eliminates the awareness of the rope, which is an analogy for seeing the consummate nature and eliminating the other-dependent awareness. This meaning reveals that the two awarenesses to be eliminated are both other-dependent arisings; because this defilement is severed, the conceptually constructed real snake, real rope, self, and dharmas no longer confront the mind. It is not that with respect to the other-dependent, because it is called 'eliminated', they mutually extinguish each other. The snake arises from delusion, and both its essence and function are non-existent; the rope arises dependent on hemp, and its nominal function is not non-existent. Hemp is an analogy for the true principle; rope is an analogy for the other-dependent. Knowing the essence and function of the rope and hemp, the mental state regarding the snake naturally ceases. Because the mental state regarding the snake ceases, the snake does not confront the mind, which is termed 'eliminating the conceptually constructed.' It is not like the other-dependent, which must be severed by the noble path. Therefore, gradually entering the true, one penetrates the emptiness of the snake and realizes the parts of the rope; in the stage of contemplation realizing the true, one illuminates the true principle, and conventional facts become manifest. Once principle and facts have become manifest, self and dharmas then cease. This is a single tier of the object of contemplation. The consciousness that contemplates takes wisdom belonging to the particular objects as its essence. The sixth chapter of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'For what purpose does one enter into the nature of consciousness-only? Because of the supramundane wisdom of śamatha and vipaśyanā that has total phenomena as its object.' Asvabhāva explains: 'Because of the non-erroneous wisdom in samāhita.' Or some explain: 'The consciousness that contemplates takes both śamatha and vipaśyanā universally as its nature.' This too is incorrect. If taking what is associated, the four aggregates are its essence; if including retinue, it then extends to the five aggregates. Now, relying provisionally on the designation, the essence of contemplation is wisdom alone. Asvabhāva also says: 'Because it is the wisdom of direct realization of consciousness-only,' and also says: 'Because of the non-erroneous wisdom in samāhita.' He only adduces the wisdom arising within concentration as the essence of contemplation; because engaging in the superior contemplation of consciousness-only such as investigation must abide in concentration, he does not state that śamatha itself is the essence of contemplation. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha also states: 'Because by means of the four investigations and the four accurate knowledges, they are likewise equally unobtainable. Because all bodhisattvas, in this accurate way, diligently cultivate preparation in order to enter consciousness-only, they inquire into the mental discourse resembling syllables and resembling referents, finding that the names of syllables are only mental discourse,' and so on at length. In the Yogācārabhūmi, Abhidharmasamuccaya, and so forth, investigation and accurate knowledge both have wisdom as their essence; investigation is sāsrava only, while accurate knowledge extends to anāsrava. When the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'Entering the marks of the knowable means the support of extensive hearing and perfuming, which is not subsumed under the ālayavijñāna,' this text only adduces that the anāsrava seeds increase in that stage, which is called 'perfuming by hearing' and described as not the storehouse consciousness; it does not mean that all [minds] that contemplate are anāsrava only. Otherwise, the four investigations would not be preparatory wisdom. Although this is a general explanation, if distinguished specifically, there are roughly two stages: first, the cause; second, the fruition. The cause extends to the three wisdoms because it is sāsrava only. It takes wisdom arisen from hearing, reflection, and cultivation as the essence of contemplation; this is only of a nature of clear and sharp discernment, not innate goodness. Therefore the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'Mental discourse resembling dharmas and resembling referents, from which arise the stage of resolute conduct, the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and so on, regarding the Mahāyāna dharma-marks.' The Cheng weishi lun states: 'Herein, in the stage of provisions for consciousness-only, hearing and reflecting can produce deep faith and understanding; in the stage of preparation, giving rise to investigation and the like induces true seeing. The fruition is anāsrava only, taking wisdom arisen from cultivation as the essence of contemplation, universally having fundamental wisdom and subsequently attained wisdom as its essence.' The Mahāyānasaṃgraha and other texts state: 'Because of accurate penetration, because of curing all hindrances, and because of departing from all hindrances, the paths of seeing, cultivation, and the stage beyond learning, in their respective order, the consciousness realizing the true principle is fundamental wisdom only, and the consciousness realizing conventional facts is subsequently attained wisdom only.' The texts are numerous and their meaning is clear, so teachings will not be cited to establish this. Although subject and object of contemplation have been distinguished above, to state the general meaning: if speaking generally of consciousness-only, it extends to both the subject and object of contemplation; the phrase 'contemplation of consciousness-only' refers only to the subject, not the object; it extends to both sāsrava and anāsrava, and extends to distraction and concentration; it takes hearing, reflection, and cultivation, as well as the three wisdoms—preparatory, fundamental, and subsequently attained—as its essence. If speaking of the samādhi of consciousness-only, it extends to both sāsrava and anāsrava; it is concentration only and not distraction; it is the wisdom of cultivation only, not hearing and reflection; it extends to the three wisdoms. If speaking of correct realization of consciousness-only, it is anāsrava only and not sāsrava; it is concentration only and not distraction; it is the wisdom of cultivation only, not hearing and reflection; it is fundamental wisdom and subsequently attained wisdom only, not preparatory. This is a non-literal explanation. If it were not so, samādhi and the like would also extend to hearing and reflection, because the Daśabhūmika-śāstra states this, as should be known below. However, examining in general all instances of consciousness-only expounded in the various teachings, they do not exceed five kinds: First, consciousness-only as object. The Abhidharma-sūtra states: 'Ghosts, animals, humans, and gods, each according to their respective status, because their minds differ regarding the same object, it is admitted that referents are not real.' Such texts that speak only of the object contemplated in consciousness-only are all consciousness-only as object. Second, consciousness-only as teaching. Verses such as 'Due to clinging by one's own mind', and teachings in the Avataṃsaka, Saṃdhinirmocana, and other sūtras that speak of consciousness-only are all consciousness-only as teaching. Third, consciousness-only as principle. The Triṃśikā states: 'These consciousnesses transform; discrimination and that which is discriminated, due to this, are both non-existent; therefore, all is consciousness-only.' Establishing the principle of consciousness-only in this way is all consciousness-only as principle. Fourth, consciousness-only as practice. Verses such as 'Bodhisattvas in the concentrated state', 'the four kinds of investigation and accurate knowledge', and so forth are all consciousness-only as practice. Fifth, consciousness-only as fruition. The Buddhabhūmi-sūtra states: 'In the great round mirror wisdom, all bases, objects, and consciousnesses are manifested.' Furthermore, the Guṇavyūharājasūtra states: 'The Tathāgata's undefiled consciousness is the pure anāsrava realm, freed from all hindrances, associated with mirror wisdom.' The Triṃśikā also states: 'This is the anāsrava realm, inconceivable, wholesome, and permanent, the body of peace and liberation, called the Dharma of the Great Muni.' Such explanations of attaining the fruit of consciousness-only are all consciousness-only as fruition. The five kinds of consciousness-only spoken of here exhaustively subsume all consciousness-only. However, in the various teachings, according to meaning and adapting to capacities, there are various different explanations regarding consciousness-only as object: either consciousness-only is distinguished based on the conceptually constructed—the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra states: 'Due to clinging by one's own mind, the mind appears resembling external objects. Because those objects do not exist, therefore it is said to be mind-only,' which is solely based on the deceptive manifestation of the clinging mind; or consciousness-only is clarified based on the sāsrava—the Avataṃsaka-sūtra says that the three realms are mind-only, which explains consciousness-only with respect to the mundane world; or consciousness-only is distinguished based on the conceptually constructed and conforming to the conditioned—the Triṃśikā states: 'Because self and dharmas are nominally designated, there are evolutions of various marks; they are based on the transformations of consciousness,' for based on the essence of consciousness the seeing and seen divisions arise, from which the two clingings are born; or consciousness-only is distinguished based on sentient beings—the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra states: 'Because the mind is pure, sentient beings are pure; because the mind is defiled, sentient beings are defiled'; or consciousness-only is distinguished based on all existent and non-existent phenomena—the Saṃdhinirmocana states: 'What is cognized by the various consciousnesses is only manifested by consciousness'; or consciousness-only is distinguished by pointing to particular matters—the verse of the Abhidharma-sūtra states: 'Ghosts, animals, humans, and gods, each according to their respective status,' distinguishing consciousness-only by pointing to a single matter. For such immeasurable doctrinal gates, adducing these six gates categorizes and subsumes the various teachings. The one that exhausts principle and meaning is only the fifth teaching, because it speaks of all as consciousness-only in general. Or they may be condensed into three, namely object, practice, and fruition, as explained extensively and in full in the Commentary on the Heart Sūtra.