華嚴經內章門等雜孔目章 1.61

1.61

第九辨真妄不同者，此阿賴耶識有真妄不同，如《地論》說十二緣生是第一義諦，即是真義。如《攝論》說如幻事鹿渴、夢想翳闇等，譬第一識似如此事，即是其妄有。又知此識無有生性，為通達真；知此識假有，為通達俗。俗者即是其妄，真者正是其真。又依二乘道理，如《瑜伽論》說，廣辨賴耶薰習成種，判定異熟生滅報分。後論判言「上來所說，我為愚癡無智者說。」義言愚癡無智，即是聲聞。又論云「我不齊如是說阿賴耶。若知賴耶及陀那識等，於內於外不見藏住。能如是知者，是名菩薩菩薩。」當知為無智說者，即是其妄；為菩薩說者，即是其真。又約乘分別，愚法聲聞，對凡夫外道妄執自性，即是其真；法執未除，即明是妄。大乘初教，對彼愚法聲聞分別實執，即是其真；未盡法空，即是其妄。如熟教文，對彼初教細分別，即是其真，自非究竟，即是其妄。何以故？由在名言語境界故。餘義準知。

Ninth, distinguishing between the true and the false: This ālayavijñāna has distinctions of true and false. As the Daśabhūmika-śāstra explains, the twelve links of conditioned arising are the ultimate truth; this is the meaning of the true. As the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states, it is like illusory creations, mirages, dreams, optical cataracts, and darkness; using these as metaphors, the first consciousness resembles such things; this is its false existence. Furthermore, knowing that this consciousness lacks the nature of arising is penetrating the true; knowing that this consciousness exists conventionally is penetrating the conventional. The conventional is precisely the false, and the true is precisely the genuine true. Furthermore, according to the doctrine of the two vehicles, as explained in the Yogācārabhūmi, it extensively distinguishes the ālaya's perfuming into seeds, determining the portions of arising, ceasing, and maturation of karmic retribution. Later, the treatise judges: "What has been explained above, I explained for the foolish and ignorant." Meaning that the foolish and ignorant are precisely the śrāvakas. Furthermore, the treatise states: "I do not stop at explaining the ālayavijñāna in this way. If one knows that regarding the ālaya and the ādānavijñāna, internally and externally one does not see storage or abiding—one who can know in this way is called a bodhisattva." One should know that what was taught for the ignorant is the false; what was taught for bodhisattvas is the true. Furthermore, distinguishing according to the vehicles: for the dharma-ignorant śrāvaka, in contrast to the deluded grasping of ordinary beings and non-Buddhists at an intrinsic nature, it is the true; but because attachment to dharmas is not yet eradicated, it is clearly the false. For the initial Mahāyāna teaching, in contrast to those dharma-ignorant śrāvakas who conceptually grasp reality, it is the true; but because it has not exhausted the emptiness of dharmas, it is the false. As in the text of the mature teaching, in contrast to the subtle distinctions of the initial teaching, it is the true; but not being ultimate in itself, it is the false. Why? Because it still remains within the realm of words and expressions. Other points may be understood by analogy.