華嚴經內章門等雜孔目章 1.56

1.56

第二明末那識者，略作八門：一列名、二明體性、三辨建立、四辨相應、五約對治道辨有無並辨斷之位分、六對三性分別、七約遍計等三性明分齊、八還原顯實。初辨名者，西方名末那，此云染污意，此從過立名。二體性者，從三法出體，則以心聚為體。三明建立者，《攝論》云「舉六過失證有末那：一若無末那，則意識不與五識相似不成過。由大乘佛語意詮，下含同時依止根。若無末那，意識則無同時依止根，不與五識相似不成同時過。二若無末那，第六識得意識名，即無意義過。為意義是次第滅，現無體故。三若無末那，無想滅心定無差別過。若有末那無想有，末那滅心無，末那二定則有異。四若無末那，自然成無流過。何以故？意識起解脫分善時，即須是無流，由無我見及我慢等。五若無末那，我執不遍三性過。若無末那識，意識起解脫分善時，即須無我執。六若無末那，獨行無明不成過。若有末那無意識時，末那地中無明即成獨行。若無末那，意識行時，末那常為染污依止，意識無明即不成獨行。若有末那，即有六德，翻前即是。」四相應者，末那一起相續不廢，與我見我慢我愛無明四使相應，及與遍行五數相應，總有九數。問：《攝論》何故不明心所有法，但與四使相應？答：《攝論》教興在其熟教，所以知之。如下論智差別文，舉十二甚深顯甚深義，不共聲聞。當知教高，非是初教。若立心數即有所妨，於道無益，故不明之。五約對治道辨有無并斷之位分者，末那識於無漏道即說無有識。何以故？於無我理成其妨故。若說滅時，初見道位即滅末那。何以故？障見無我理故。故無性《攝論》云「轉染污末那故，得平等性智。初現觀時，先已證得。於修道位轉，復清淨轉。」清淨者，即滅習氣。人言：在修道中滅俱生我，末那俱生并無明心煩惱修道斷者。此義不然。末那一起，相續緣我不廢，因何得改境起其法執？若起法執，何名緣一類我塵？問：末那何故唯是俱生？答：末那不緣於外緣義，不緣名故，不得起分別我見。問，論云「俱生我修道斷」，因何末那是俱生我非修道斷？答：俱生修道斷者，是寄位語，如初僧祇斷皮、第二僧祇斷肉、第三僧祇斷心，此可爾也。今將分別俱生麁細之相，寄顯見修，非言實斷。六三性分別者，末那識是染污故，有覆無記性攝。七遍計等三性者，末那識是遍計、是依他、是圓成實、是三無性，此約初教。若終教即真如。若圓教即具一切。何以故？由末那識得是心故。八還原顯實者，由末那識本是生死初無。今以智求，即空無實故，一切法皆如也，眾聖賢亦如也。

Second, explaining the manas consciousness has briefly eight headings: 1. Listing the names; 2. Explaining its essential nature; 3. Distinguishing its establishment; 4. Distinguishing its associations; 5. Determining its presence or absence and the stages of its severance in relation to the path of antidotes; 6. Differentiating it with respect to the three natures; 7. Clarifying its demarcations in terms of the three natures such as parikalpita; 8. Returning to the origin to reveal the real. First, distinguishing the name: in the Western regions it is called *manas*, which here translates as 'defiled mentation' (kliṣṭamanas); this name is established from its fault. Second, its essential nature: deriving its nature from the three dharmas, it takes the aggregate of mind as its essential nature. Third, explaining its establishment: the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says: "It adduces six faults to prove the existence of manas: 1. If there were no manas, the mental consciousness would not be similar to the five consciousnesses, incurring the fault of non-establishment. Because the meaning expressed by the Mahāyāna Buddha's words implicitly includes a simultaneously supporting sense-faculty. If there were no manas, the mental consciousness would have no simultaneously supporting faculty, failing to be similar to the five consciousnesses and incurring the fault of not being simultaneous. 2. If there were no manas, the sixth consciousness obtaining the name 'mental consciousness' (manovijñāna) would incur the fault of having no sense for 'mental'. Because 'mental' signifies immediately preceding cessation, which presently lacks an substantial entity. 3. If there were no manas, there would be the fault that the concentration without thought (asaṃjñisamāpatti) and the concentration of cessation (nirodhasamāpatti) would have no distinction. If there is a manas, the concentration without thought has it and the concentration of cessation lacks it, so the two concentrations differ. 4. If there were no manas, there would be the fault of naturally becoming taintless. Why? When the mental consciousness gives rise to the wholesome [roots] leading to liberation, it would necessarily be taintless, due to the absence of the view of self, conceit, and so forth. 5. If there were no manas, there would be the fault that the grasping to self would not pervade the three natures. If there were no manas consciousness, when the mental consciousness gives rise to the wholesome leading to liberation, it would necessarily lack grasping to self. 6. If there were no manas, isolated ignorance (āveṇikī avidyā) would fail to be established. If there is a manas, when there is no mental consciousness, the ignorance on the plane of manas becomes isolated. If there were no manas, while the mental consciousness is functioning, manas would constantly serve as the defiled support, and the ignorance of the mental consciousness would not become isolated. If there is a manas, then there are six virtues, which are the exact reversals of the preceding." 4. Associations: Once manas arises, it continues unbroken, associated with the four afflictive propensities—the view of self, conceit, love of self, and ignorance—and associated with the five omnipresent mental factors, making nine factors in total. Question: Why does the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* not explain the mental factors, but only says it is associated with the four propensities? Answer: The emergence of the teaching of the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* lies in the mature teaching, which is how we know this. As in the text below on the differences of wisdom, it raises the twelve profound meanings to reveal the profound doctrine, not shared with śrāvakas. One should know this teaching is high, not an initial teaching. If it were to establish mental factors, there would be obstruction and no benefit for the path; therefore it does not explain them. 5. Determining presence or absence and the stages of severance in relation to the path of antidotes: With respect to the taintless path, it is said that the manas consciousness does not exist. Why? Because it forms an obstruction to the principle of selflessness. When speaking of its cessation, manas is ceased at the very stage of the initial path of seeing (darśanamārga). Why? Because it obstructs the vision of the principle of selflessness. Therefore Asvabhāva's commentary on the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* says: "By transforming the defiled manas, one attains the wisdom of equality (samatājñāna). At the time of the initial direct realization, it has already been attained. At the stage of the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga), it transforms and turns into further purity." 'Purity' refers to extinguishing the residual habit-energies. Some say: 'The innate [grasping to] self is severed in the path of cultivation; the innate manas together with the afflictions of the ignorant mind are severed in the path of cultivation.' This statement is incorrect. Once manas arises, it continuously takes the self as its object without interruption; how could it alter its object to generate grasping to dharmas? If it generated grasping to dharmas, how could it be said to take a uniform object of self as its referent? Question: Why is manas exclusively innate? Answer: Manas does not take external referents as its object, and does not take names as its object; therefore it cannot give rise to discriminating view of self. Question: The treatise says "the innate self is severed in the path of cultivation"; why is it that manas is the innate self yet is not severed in the path of cultivation? Answer: The statement that the innate is severed in the path of cultivation is provisional language assigned to stages, just as the first asaṃkhyeya kalpa severs the skin, the second asaṃkhyeya kalpa severs the flesh, and the third asaṃkhyeya kalpa severs the marrow; this is plausible. Now, using the coarse and subtle characteristics of discriminating and innate to provisionally illustrate seeing and cultivation does not mean actual severance. 6. Differentiating by the three natures: Because the manas consciousness is defiled, it is subsumed under the veiled-neutral nature (nivṛtāvyākṛta). 7. The three natures such as parikalpita: The manas consciousness is parikalpita, is paratantra, is pariniṣpanna, and is the three non-natures—this is according to the initial teaching. If according to the final teaching, it is just true suchness. If according to the perfect teaching, it is endowed with all of them. Why? Because the manas consciousness is able to be mind. 8. Returning to the origin to reveal the real: Since the manas consciousness is originally saṃsāra, originally non-existent, when now sought with wisdom, it is empty and without reality; therefore all dharmas are suchness (tathatā), and the assemblies of noble ones and sages are also suchness.