[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) › [宗鏡錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016) › 59.7 # 宗鏡錄 59.7 宗鏡錄 59.7 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [59.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.59.7) 答。約俗則似同似別。論真則非即非離。識論云。如是六位心所法。為離心體有別自性。為即是心分位差別。設爾何失。二俱有過。若離心體有別自性。如何聖教說唯有識。又如何說。心遠獨行。染淨由心。士夫六界。莊嚴論說。復云何通。如彼頌言。許心似二現。如是似貪等。或似於信等。無別染善法。若即是心分位差別。如何聖教說心相應。他性相應。非自性故。又如何說。心與心所。俱時而起。如日與光。瑜伽論說。心所非即心故。應說離心有別自性。以心勝故。說唯識等。心所依心勢力生故。說似彼現。非彼即心。又識心言。亦攝心所。恒相應故。唯識等言。及現似彼。皆無有失。此依世俗。若依勝義。心所與心。非即非離。諸識相望。應知亦然。是謂大乘真俗妙理。攝論頌云。遠行及獨行。無身寐於窟。調其難調心。是名真梵志。百法釋云。如來依意根處。說遠行及獨行也。隨無明。意識遍緣一切境也。故名遠行。又諸心相續。一一轉故。無實主宰。名獨行。無身者。即心無形質故。寐於窟者。即依附諸根。潛轉身內。名為寐於窟也。寐者。藏也。即心之所蘊在身中。此偈意謂破外道執有實我也。世尊云。但是心獨行。無別主宰。故言獨行也。又無始遊歷六塵境。故名遠行。無別心所。故名獨行。明知無別心所也。士夫六界者。瑜伽云。佛說皆云。四大。空。識。能成有情。色。動。心。三法最勝。為所依。色所依者。即四大也。動所依者。空即是也。謂內空界。不取外者。由內身中有此空界故。所以有動。故為動依。心所依者。識是也。即說六界能成有情。不言心所界也。釋云。許心似二現者。此中似言。似心外所計實二分等法。故名為似。無別染善法者。謂唯心變似見相二分。二分離心。無別有法。復言心變似貪信等故。貪信等。離心之外。無別染善法。體即心也。如二分故。應說離心有別自性。以心勝故。說唯識等者。既說離心有所。何故說唯識。心遠獨行染淨由心。六界之中唯說心者。以心勝故。說。此唯識等。如何勝。總有四義。一。能為主。二能為依。三行相總。四恒決定。非如心所等。有時不定。又若依第一體用顯現諦。即心王為體。心所為用。即體用不即不離也。若依勝義。即是因果差別諦。即王所互為因果。法爾非離也。若依第三證得勝義諦。即依詮顯者。若依能詮依他起性說。非即。若依所詮二無我理說。即王所非離。若第四勝義勝義諦。廢詮談旨。亦不言即離也。即一真法界。離言絕相。即王所道理同歸一真如故。 > Answer: In terms of the conventional, they seem identical and seem distinct; in terms of the ultimate, they are neither identical nor separate. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra states: "Do these six categories of mental factors have distinct self-natures apart from the substance of mind, or are they simply positional distinctions of mind? Supposing so, what is the fault? Both hold errors. If they have distinct self-natures apart from the substance of mind, how could the sacred teachings say there is consciousness only? Moreover, how could they say: 'The mind wanders far and travels alone; defilement and purification depend on the mind'? And \[how could they say\] the person consists of six elements? How, further, could the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra be reconciled? As its verse says: 'It is acknowledged that mind appears like two; / likewise it appears as greed and the like, / or appears as faith and the like: / there are no distinct defiled or wholesome phenomena.' If they were simply positional distinctions of mind, how could the sacred teachings speak of association with mind? Association is with other natures, not with self-nature. Moreover, how could they say that mind and mental factors arise simultaneously, like the sun and its light? The Yogācārabhūmiśāstra states that mental factors are not identical to mind. Therefore, one should say that apart from mind they have distinct self-natures. Because mind is superior, it is said to be vijñapti-mātra and so forth. Because mental factors arise by the force and power of mind, they are said to appear resembling it, not that they are identical to mind. Furthermore, the words 'consciousness' and 'mind' also subsume mental factors, because they are constantly associated. Thus the words 'vijñapti-mātra' and so forth, as well as 'appearing resembling it', are both without error. This is according to the conventional. If according to the ultimate truth, mental factors and mind are neither identical nor separate. One should know that the same applies when the various consciousnesses are viewed in relation to one another. This is called the subtle principle of ultimate and conventional in the Mahāyāna." A verse in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Traveling far and wandering alone, / bodiless, slumbering in a cave: / one who tames this mind difficult to tame / is called a true brāhmaṇa." The Commentary on the Hundred Dharmas explains: "The Tathāgata, based on the sense-base of the manas, speaks of 'traveling far' and 'wandering alone'. Following avidyā, the manovijñāna ubiquitously takes all objects as its cognitive conditions, and hence it is called 'traveling far'. Furthermore, because the various \[moments of\] mind occur in continuous succession one by one, without a real ruler, it is called 'wandering alone'. 'Bodiless' means that the mind has no physical form or substance. 'Slumbering in a cave' means relying on the sense faculties and secretly operating within the body; this is called 'slumbering in a cave'. 'Slumbering' means hiding, referring to the mind being stored within the body. The purport of this verse is to refute the non-Buddhists' grasping at a real self. The World-Honoured One said that it is merely the mind wandering alone without a distinct controller; hence he says 'wandering alone'. Moreover, because from beginningless time it traverses the objects of the six sense-fields, it is called 'traveling far'; because there are no distinct mental factors, it is called 'wandering alone'. One clearly knows that there are no distinct mental factors." Regarding the "person's six elements", the Yogācārabhūmiśāstra states: "The Buddha's teachings all say that the four great elements, space, and consciousness are capable of constituting a sentient being. The three phenomena of matter, movement, and mind are the most supreme, serving as the bases. The basis of matter is the four great elements. The basis of movement is space, meaning internal space, not taking the external: because there is this element of space within the physical body, movement exists; thus it serves as the basis of movement. The basis of mind is consciousness. Thus it is said that the six elements can constitute a sentient being, without speaking of an element of mental factors." The commentary explains: "Regarding 'it is acknowledged that mind appears like two', the word 'like' here means that it appears like the real two parts \[of grāhaka and grāhya\] and other phenomena conceptualized outside the mind; hence it is called 'like'. Regarding 'there are no distinct defiled or wholesome phenomena', this means that only the mind transforms into the resemblance of the two parts of darśanabhāga and nimittabhāga; apart from mind, the two parts have no distinct existing phenomena. Furthermore, it is said that mind transforms into the resemblance of greed, faith, and so forth; therefore, apart from mind, greed, faith, and the like have no distinct defiled or wholesome phenomena: their substance is the mind itself, just like the two parts. Regarding 'one should say that apart from mind they have distinct self-natures; because mind is superior, it is said to be vijñapti-mātra and so forth': since it is said that apart from mind there are mental factors, why is it said to be vijñapti-mātra, that 'the mind wanders far and travels alone', that 'defilement and purification depend on the mind', and among the six elements only mind is spoken of? Because mind is superior, it speaks of this vijñapti-mātra and so forth. How is it superior? In general, there are four meanings: first, it can serve as the master; second, it can serve as the basis; third, its cognitive mode is general; fourth, it is always determinate, unlike mental factors and the like, which are sometimes indeterminate. Furthermore, if based on the first truth, the manifestation of substance and function, then the principal mind is the substance and the mental factors are the function; thus substance and function are neither identical nor separate. If based on the ultimate truth, it is the truth of the distinction between cause and effect; thus the principal mind and mental factors serve mutually as cause and effect, and are naturally not separate. If based on the third ultimate truth of realization, that which is revealed through designation: if spoken according to the paratantra nature that designates, they are not identical; if spoken according to the principle of the two kinds of selflessness that is designated, the principal mind and mental factors are not separate. If based on the fourth ultimate truth of the ultimate, words are discarded and the purport is discussed; here too one speaks neither of identity nor of separation. That is, the one true dharmadhātu transcends speech and severs characteristics, because the principle of both the principal mind and mental factors equally resolves into the one tathatā." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 59.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.59.6) - [Next: 59.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.59.8) - [Up: 59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.59) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016~en-mt.59.7) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [成唯識論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.7.192) — Classical Chinese - [成唯識論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.darsana.yogacara.trimsika!vijnaptimatratasiddhi*zh-xuanzang.7.60) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.59.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2016.59.7) · Pramāṇa