[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) › [大乘入道次第](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864) › 1.51 # 大乘入道次第 1.51 大乘入道次第 1.51 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1.51) 次依於忍印所取無，觀能取識亦復不有。世第一法雙印能取、所取皆無。問：何故爾耶？答：前四尋思觀所取無，未重印可。今重印彼決定是無，故名為忍。又能取心對境而立，境既非實，心焉實歟？亦猶因風浪起，風息浪沈；籍境心生，境無心滅。此忍雖亦印能取空，而未雙能印於識境，故世第一而能雙印識境皆空。問：外境本空，談無未乖正理。內識因起，不有乃爽中宗。《華嚴》三界唯心，《大集》識為法種。准斯聖旨，有義皎然。何得今言同境非有？答：依他幻識似有非無，執有實心，遍計非有。今觀無彼遍計執心，不說依他識體非有。故《唯識》云：「若執唯識是實有者，亦遍計攝。」由斯聖教並不相違。問：依他識有即名唯識，內境非無，應名唯境？答：依他識有，復能變境。境雖內有，不能變識。故言唯識，不名唯境。又境之體通於內外，外無內有。識唯是內。若境言唯，恐濫外境亦是實有。由境有濫，境不言唯。識無斯過，故言唯識。問：何智能觀遍計識等為無等耶？答：四如實智。此智是前尋思智果。故《攝論》云：「了知假有實無，所得決定行智方便果相，名如實智。」所言了知假有實無，即尋思也，故知實智是尋思果。問：雖觀遍計心境皆空，空此境心、修乎無相復何攝益？答：不了內心，妄執外境。外境既執，因增貪等。貪等既熾，盲無聖眼。聖眼莫起，不達真理。真理未證，詎亡惑業？惑業猶存，沈溺五趣。五趣不息，豈登極果？了達內心，不執外境。外境不執，便息貪等。貪等息矣，故生聖眼。聖眼既生，能達真理。真理既證，便除惑業。惑業因亡，五趣果息。五趣息已，便登佛果。有斯勝利，故修此觀。《深密》、《瑜伽》而有頌云：「若不了知無相法，雜染相法不能斷。不斷雜染相法故，壞證微妙淨相法。不觀諸行眾過失，放逸過失害眾生。懈怠住法動法中，無有失壞可憐愍。」 > Next, relying on patience, one confirms the non-existence of the apprehended, and contemplates that the apprehending consciousness also does not exist. In supreme worldly dharmas, one doubly confirms that both the apprehending and the apprehended are non-existent. Question: Why is this so? The answer: Previously, the four investigative searches contemplated the non-existence of the apprehended, but had not yet confirmed it repeatedly. Now, one repeatedly confirms that it is decisively non-existent; therefore it is named 'patience'. Furthermore, the apprehending mind is established in contrast to the object; since the object is not real, how could the mind be real? It is like waves rising due to the wind, sinking when the wind ceases; the mind is born dependent on the object, and when the object is absent, the mind ceases. Although this patience also confirms the emptiness of the apprehending, it is not yet able to doubly confirm both consciousness and object; therefore, supreme worldly dharmas can doubly confirm that both consciousness and object are empty. Question: External objects are fundamentally empty, so speaking of their non-existence does not run contrary to the correct principle. Internal consciousness arises from conditions, so saying it does not exist violates the central doctrine. The Avataṃsaka states that the three realms are only mind, and the Mahāsaṃnipāta states that consciousness is the seed of phenomena. According to these holy intentions, the meaning of existence is bright and clear. How can it now be said that, like the object, it does not exist? The answer: The other-dependent illusory consciousness appears to exist and is not non-existent; grasping that there is a real mind is the imagined \[nature\] which is non-existent. Now one contemplates the non-existence of that imagined grasping mind, not that the substance of the other-dependent consciousness does not exist. Thus the Cheng weishi lun says: "If one grasps representation-only as being really existent, it is also subsumed under the imagined." According to these holy teachings, there is no contradiction at all. Question: If the other-dependent consciousness exists and is thus called representation-only (vijñapti-mātra), then since the internal object is not non-existent, should it be called representation-of-object-only? The answer: The other-dependent consciousness exists and is further capable of transforming into objects. Although the object exists internally, it cannot transform into consciousness. Therefore it is called representation-only, not representation-of-object-only. Furthermore, the substance of objects extends to both internal and external: the external does not exist, while the internal exists. Consciousness is exclusively internal. If one spoke of 'object-only', one might fear confusing it with external objects also being really existent. Because there is confusion regarding objects, one does not speak of 'object-only'. Consciousness does not have this fault, and is therefore called representation-only. Question: What wisdom can contemplate the imagined consciousness and the rest as non-existent and so forth? The answer: The four kinds of wisdom of yathābhūta knowledge. This wisdom is the fruit of the preceding investigative wisdom. Thus the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Thoroughly knowing conventional existence and real non-existence, the fruit-characteristic of the expedient means of wisdom of decisive practice thus obtained is called yathābhūta knowledge." The statement 'thoroughly knowing conventional existence and real non-existence' refers precisely to investigative search; therefore one knows that real wisdom is the fruit of investigative search. Question: Although one contemplates both the imagined mind and objects as empty, what benefit is gathered by emptying this object and mind and cultivating signlessness? The answer: Failing to understand the internal mind, one falsely grasps external objects. Once external objects are grasped, greed and the rest increase in consequence. When greed and the rest flare up, one is blind without the holy eye. When the holy eye does not arise, one does not penetrate the true principle. When the true principle is not realized, how could afflictions and karma be eliminated? While afflictions and karma still remain, one is submerged in the five destinies. If the five destinies do not cease, how could one ascend to the ultimate fruit? When one thoroughly penetrates the internal mind, one does not grasp external objects. When external objects are not grasped, greed and the rest then cease. When greed and the rest cease, the holy eye is born. Once the holy eye is born, one is able to penetrate the true principle. Once the true principle is realized, afflictions and karma are then eradicated. With the cause of afflictions and karma eliminated, the fruit of the five destinies ceases. When the five destinies have ceased, one then ascends to the Buddha fruit. Because there is such superior benefit, one cultivates this contemplation. The Saṃdhinirmocana and Yogācārabhūmi have verses that say: "If one does not thoroughly know signless phenomena, one cannot sever phenomena with defiled characteristics. Because one does not sever phenomena with defiled characteristics, one ruins the realization of phenomena with subtle, pure characteristics. Failing to contemplate the manifold faults of conditioned formations, the fault of heedlessness harms sentient beings. Indolently abiding in conditioned dharmas and fluctuating dharmas, lacking destruction, they are pitiable." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1.50) - [Next: 1.52](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1.52) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864~en-mt.1.51) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1.51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1864.1.51) · Pramāṇa