宗鏡錄 59.19

59.19

答。經論通辯。有三種性。約能所染淨分別。隨事說三。縱有卷舒。皆不離識性。合則一體無異。開則三相不同。三相不同。約用而行布。一體無異。就性以圓融。行布乃隨義以施為。圓融則順性而冥寂。若無行布。無可圓融。如無妄情。不立真智。染淨既失。二諦不成。是以因妄辯真。在行相而須悉。尋迹得本。假因緣以發明。斯三性法門。收凡聖境界。事無不盡。理無不窮。今言三性者。約經論共立。一遍計所執性。二依他起性。三圓成實性。遍計所執性者。謂愚夫周遍計度。所執蘊等實我實法。名為遍計性。有二。一自性。總執諸法實有自性。二差別。別執取常無常等。實有自體。或依名遍計義。如未識牛。聞牛名。便推度。因何道理。名之為牛。或依義遍計名。或見物體。不知其名。便妄推度。此物名何。如未識牛共推度云。為鬼耶。為獸耶。此諸遍計。約體不出人法二體。約執不出名義二種。又一有遍非計。如無漏諸心。有漏善識。能遍廣緣。而非計執。無漏諸心。即諸聖人無漏智慧。了諸法空。即無法不遍。都無計執。名為非計。唯後得智。有漏善識。即地前菩薩。雖有漏心中。能作無我觀故。亦能觀一切皆無有我。亦是遍而非計。二有計非遍。如有漏第七識。恒緣第八見分起我法二執。從第六識入生空觀時。第七識中。猶尚緣第八見分。起於法執。故知計而非遍。三亦遍亦計。即眾生染心。四非遍非計。即有漏五識。及第八賴耶。各了自分境界。不遍。無計度。隨念分別。故非計也。賴耶。唯緣種子。根身。器世間。三種境故。尚不能緣前七現行故。非遍非計。有漏種子。能持能緣。無漏種子。即持而不緣。況餘境耶。又古德云。眾生染心。於依他起自性中。當知有二種遍計所執自性執。一者隨覺。即現行執。二者慣習。習氣隨眠。即執種子。依他起性者。依他眾緣和合生起。猶如幻事。名依他性。圓成實性者。一味真如圓滿成就。

Answer: The sūtras and treatises generally explain that there are three kinds of nature. Distinguishing in terms of active and passive, defiled and pure, three are spoken of in accordance with phenomena. Even if there is contraction and expansion, none depart from the nature of consciousness. Conjoined, they are one substance without difference; opened out, they are three characteristics that are not the same. That the three characteristics are not the same is graded arrangement according to function; that they are one substance without difference is perfect fusion with respect to nature. Graded arrangement operates in accordance with meanings; perfect fusion is calm and quiescent in accordance with the nature. If there were no graded arrangement, there would be nothing to perfectly fuse, just as without deluded feelings, true wisdom would not be established. Once defilement and purity are lost, the two truths cannot be established. Therefore, discerning the true on the basis of the deluded must be thoroughly understood in terms of subjective aspects; tracing the footprints to find the root relies on causes and conditions for illumination. These teachings of the three natures encompass the realms of both ordinary beings and sages; no phenomenon is unexhausted, no principle unplumbed. Now, when speaking of the three natures, they are established jointly by the sūtras and treatises: first, the parikalpitasvabhāva (nature of conceptual construction); second, the paratantrasvabhāva (dependent nature); third, the pariniṣpannasvabhāva (consummated nature). As for the parikalpitasvabhāva, it means that fools ubiquitously conceptualize and grasp at the aggregates and so forth as a real self and real dharmas; this is called the conceptually constructed nature. It has two aspects: First, self-nature: grasping generally that all dharmas have a real self-nature. Second, distinction: grasping particularly that they have a real self-substance as permanent, impermanent, and so forth. Or, conceptualizing the referent based on the name: such as not yet knowing what an ox is, and upon hearing the name 'ox', one ponders and surmises: for what reason and principle is it named an 'ox'? Or, conceptualizing the name based on the referent: seeing an object without knowing its name, one falsely ponders and surmises: what is this object named? Just as not yet knowing an ox, they jointly ponder and surmise, saying: 'Is it a ghost? Is it a beast?' All these conceptualizations, in terms of substance, do not go beyond the two substances of person and dharma; in terms of grasping, they do not go beyond the two kinds: name and referent. Furthermore: First, there is conceptualizing that is ubiquitous but not grasping: such as all outflow-free minds and good outflow-bound consciousnesses, which can ubiquitously and broadly cognize without grasping. Outflow-free minds are the outflow-free wisdom of all the sages, which understands that all dharmas are empty; thus there is no dharma it does not pervade, yet it is completely without grasping, which is called 'not grasping'; this is only the subsequently attained wisdom. Good outflow-bound consciousnesses are the bodhisattvas prior to the stages (bhūmi): although in their outflow-bound minds, because they are able to perform the contemplation of selflessness, they can also contemplate that all are devoid of self; this too is ubiquitous but not grasping. Second, there is grasping that is not ubiquitous: such as the outflow-bound seventh consciousness, which constantly cognizes the darśanabhāga of the eighth and gives rise to the two graspings at self and dharmas. When one enters the contemplation of the emptiness of persons from the sixth consciousness, within the seventh consciousness it still cognizes the darśanabhāga of the eighth and gives rise to grasping at dharmas; therefore one knows it grasps but is not ubiquitous. Third, both ubiquitous and grasping: namely, the defiled minds of sentient beings. Fourth, neither ubiquitous nor grasping: namely, the outflow-bound five consciousnesses and the eighth ālaya[vijñāna], which each perceive their own portion of the objective sphere, are not ubiquitous, and have no conceptualizing or recollective discrimination, and therefore do not grasp. The ālaya only cognizes three kinds of spheres—seeds, the bodily sense-faculties, and the receptacle world—and cannot even cognize the actual active states of the preceding seven; hence it is neither ubiquitous nor grasping. For outflow-bound seeds, it can both hold and cognize them; for outflow-free seeds, it holds them but does not cognize them; how much less other spheres? Furthermore, ancient masters said: Within the dependent self-nature, the defiled minds of sentient beings should be understood to have two kinds of grasping at the conceptually constructed self-nature: First, grasping following awareness, which is active grasping. Second, habituation, the anuśayas of latent impressions, which is the seed of grasping. As for the paratantrasvabhāva: it arises from the harmony of other multiple conditions, like an illusion; hence it is named the dependent nature. As for the pariniṣpannasvabhāva: it is the single-taste tathatā, fully and completely accomplished.