宗鏡錄 49.49

49.49

答。以假故不緣。如不相應法。對法論云。極略極逈。但是第六意識。可析為極微故。第八不緣。受所引色中。若定道共色。即此不緣。唯以現行思為體故。遍計所起色。唯是鏡像水月。此亦不緣。唯第六識遍計起故。又定所生色中。如十一切處觀。亦不緣假想色故。故此論文但緣實色。不緣假故。第八所緣必有用故。彼無實用。第八不緣。然諸法體。一者有法。二者無法。第八何故不緣無法。此任運緣。非分別故。無籌度故。後得智等有籌度故。諸六識等有分別故。由此故知。第八識體。不緣我也。第八識變。變必有用。故。不緣無用。無用。故不緣我等。以無體用故。於有法中。略有二種。一者有為。二者無為。何故此識不緣無為。若實無為。因未證故。若假無為。無體用故。皆不得緣。

Answer: Because they are nominal, it does not take them as object, just as with non-concurrent dharmas. The Abhidharmasamuccaya says: 'Extremely reduced and extremely distant [forms] are merely that which the sixth, manovijñāna, can analyze into subtle atoms.' Hence, the eighth does not take them as object. Among forms induced by taking precepts: as for form concurrent with absorption or the path, this [eighth consciousness] does not take them as object, because their substance is solely active intention (cetanā). Form arising from conceptual construction is merely reflections in a mirror or the moon in water; this too it does not take as object, because it arises solely from the conceptual construction of the sixth consciousness. Furthermore, among forms produced by meditative absorption, such as in the contemplation of the ten totalities, it also does not take nominal imagined forms as object. Therefore, the text of this treatise states that it only takes real forms as object and does not take nominal ones, because what is taken as object by the eighth must possess efficacy. Those [nominal forms] lack real efficacy, so the eighth does not take them as object. Now, among the substances of all dharmas, the first are existent dharmas, and the second are non-existent dharmas. Why does the eighth not take non-existent dharmas as object? This [consciousness] takes objects spontaneously, not through conceptualization, because it lacks deliberation. Subsequent wisdom and the like possess deliberation, and the six consciousnesses possess conceptualization. From this, one knows that the substance of the eighth consciousness does not take a self as object. The transformation of the eighth consciousness must have efficacy when it transforms; therefore, it does not take what is without efficacy as object. Being without efficacy, it therefore does not take a self and so forth as object, because they lack substance and efficacy. Among existent dharmas, there are summarily two kinds: first, conditioned; second, unconditioned. Why does this consciousness not take the unconditioned as object? If it were the real unconditioned, it has not yet been realized at the stage of the cause; if it were nominal unconditioned, it lacks substance and efficacy. In neither case can it be taken as object.