宗鏡錄 64.5

64.5

答。二解俱得。其皆由解者。一切有漏。與第七二分別俱故。或第六識。二分別引故。後生果時。皆似我法。其不由解者。此說第六根本。兼緣一切為因。緣發諸識令熏習故。後生果時。似我法相起。或非外似外。六七計為似外起故。如夢者。夢娑剌拏王事。此云流轉。其王容貌端正。自謂無雙。求覓形容。欲同等比。顯己殊類。時有人言。王舍城中有大迦旃延。形容甚好。世中無比。遣使迎之。迦旃延至。王出宮迎。王不及彼。人視迦旃延。無看王者。王問所以。眾曰。迦旃延容貌勝王。王問。大德。今果。宿因。迦旃延答曰。我昔出家。王作乞兒。我掃寺地。王來乞食。我掃地竟。令王除糞掃。除糞掃訖。方與王食。以此業因。生人天中。得報端正。王聞此已。尋請出家。為迦旃延弟子。後共迦旃延。往阿槃地國。山中修道。別處坐禪。阿槃地王。名鉢樹多。將宮人入山遊戲。宮人見王形貌端正。圍遶看之。鉢樹多王。見娑剌拏王。疑有欲意。問娑剌拏王曰。汝是阿羅漢耶。王答言非。次第二問餘三果。皆答言非。又言。汝離欲不。答言非。鉢樹多王瞋曰。何故入我婇女之中。遂鞭身破。悶絕而死。至夜方惺。至迦旃延所。迦旃延見已。心生悲愍。其諸同學。方為療治。娑剌拏王語迦旃延曰。我從師乞。暫還本國。舉軍破彼阿槃地國。殺鉢樹多王。事畢當還。從師修道。迦旃延從請。語曰。汝若欲去。且停一宿。迦旃延安置好處令眠。欲令感夢。夢見舉軍征阿槃地國。自軍破敗。身被他獲。堅縛手足。赤華插項。嚴鼓欲殺。王於夢中。便大恐怖。叫喚失聲云。我今無歸。願師濟拔。作歸依處。得壽命長。迦旃延以神力手指火。喚之令寤。問言。何故。其心未惺。尚言災事。迦旃延以火照而問之。此是何處。汝自看。其心方寤。迦旃延語言。汝若征彼。必當破敗。如夢所見。王曰。願師為除毒意。迦旃延為說一切諸法。譬如國土。假名無實。離舍屋等。無別國土。乃至廣說種種因緣。至一極微。亦非實事。無此無彼。無怨無親。王聞法已。得預流果。後漸獲得阿羅漢果。故知萬法唯識。夢覺一如。覺中所見。即明。了意識。夢中所見。即夢中意識。分別之意既同。差別之境何異。迷悟若此。曷疑慮焉。昏覺如斯。可洞達矣。第八外取他心難。若。論主言外色實無。是內識之境者。即可然。且如他人心是實有。豈非自心所緣耶。意云。且如此人心。若親緣得他人心著。即離此人心。別有心為境。若此人心緣他人心不著者。即有境而不緣。若緣著。即乖唯識義。若緣不著者。即何成他心智耶。論主答云。雖說他心非自識境。但不說彼是親所緣。意云雖說他人心非此人境。若此人親緣他人心。即不得。若託他人心為質。自變相分緣。亦有他心智。但變相分緣時。即不得他人本質。但由他人影像相自心上現。名了他心。即知他心相分。不離自心。亦唯識。意云。此人心緣他人心時。變起相分。當情。相分無實作用。非如手等執物。亦非如日舒光。親照其境。緣他人心時。但如鏡中影。似外質現。鏡中像。亦無實作用。緣他人心時。亦復如是。非無緣他人心體故。名了他心。非親能了。親所了者。謂自所變。

Answer: Both explanations are acceptable. As for the explanation that it is entirely through it: all defiled [consciousnesses] are concomitant with the two discriminations of the seventh consciousness, or they are induced by the two discriminations of the sixth consciousness; therefore, when later producing fruits, they all resemble self and dharmas. As for the explanation that it is not through it: this refers to the sixth consciousness as the root, which concurrently takes all as objects to be the cause, conditioning the arousal of the consciousnesses so as to cause perfuming; therefore, when later producing fruits, they arise resembling the marks of self and dharmas. Alternatively, they are not external but resemble the external, because the sixth and seventh [consciousnesses] falsely imagine them as arising resembling the external. As for 'like a dream', it refers to the story of King Śaraṇa—which is translated here as 'transmigration'. This king was handsome in appearance and considered himself matchless. He searched for someone of [equal] countenance, wishing to find a peer to show his own exceptional class. At that time someone said: 'In Rājagṛha there is Mahākātyāyana, whose appearance is extremely fine, matchless in the world.' He sent an envoy to invite him. When Kātyāyana arrived, the king came out of the palace to welcome him. The king was not equal to him; when people looked at Kātyāyana, none looked at the king. The king asked why, and the crowd said: 'Kātyāyana's countenance surpasses the king's.' The king asked: 'Venerable, what was the past cause of your present fruit?' Kātyāyana answered: 'Formerly, when I went forth into the homeless life, you were a beggar. When I was sweeping the monastery grounds, you came to beg for food. After I finished sweeping the grounds, I had you clear away the dung and sweepings. Only after you finished clearing away the dung and sweepings did I give you food. By this karmic cause, I was born among humans and devas, obtaining the retribution of a handsome appearance.' Having heard this, the king immediately asked to leave home and become Kātyāyana's disciple. Later, together with Kātyāyana, he went to the country of Avanti to cultivate the Way in the mountains, sitting in meditation in a secluded place. The king of Avanti was named Palāśaka (Poshutu). He brought his palace women into the mountains for amusement. When the palace women saw King [Śaraṇa's] handsome countenance, they surrounded him to look at him. King Palāśaka saw King Śaraṇa and suspected he had lustful intentions. He asked King Śaraṇa: 'Are you an arhat?' The king answered, 'No.' Next he asked about the other three fruits, and to all he answered, 'No.' He said again: 'Are you free from lust?' He answered, 'No.' King Palāśaka was enraged and said: 'Why have you entered among my palace maidens?' Thereupon he whipped him until his body broke open, and he swooned and died. Only at night did he regain consciousness and go to Kātyāyana's place. Seeing him, Kātyāyana gave rise to compassion in his mind, and his fellow students treated him. King Śaraṇa said to Kātyāyana: 'I beg of Master that I may temporarily return to my own country, raise an army to crush that country of Avanti, and kill King Palāśaka; when the matter is finished, I shall return to cultivate the Way under the Master.' Kātyāyana consented to his request and told him: 'If you wish to go, stay for one night.' Kātyāyana arranged a fine place for him to sleep, wishing to induce a dream. He dreamt that he raised an army to invade the country of Avanti, but his own army was defeated, he himself was captured by the other, his hands and feet were firmly bound, red flowers were placed on his neck, and the drums were beaten ready to execute him. In the dream the king was terrified and cried out aloud: 'Now I have no refuge; I pray the Master will rescue me, be my refuge, so that I may attain long life!' Kātyāyana, through spiritual power, held fire on his finger, and called him to wake up, asking: 'What is the matter?' His mind was not yet sober, and he still spoke of the calamity. Kātyāyana illuminated him with fire and asked: 'Where is this place? Look for yourself.' His mind then woke up. Kātyāyana told him: 'If you invade them, you will certainly be defeated, just as seen in the dream.' The king said: 'I pray the Master will eliminate my poisonous intention.' Kātyāyana explained to him that all dharmas are like a country—mere nominal designations without reality; apart from houses and buildings, there is no separate country—and so on, extensively explaining various causes and conditions, down to a single paramāṇu, which is also not a real entity: there is neither this nor that, neither foe nor kin. Having heard the Dharma, the king attained the fruit of stream-enterer (srotāpanna), and later gradually attained the fruit of arhat. Therefore one knows that the myriad dharmas are vijñaptimātra, and dreaming and waking are identical. What is seen when awake is the clear, distinct manovijñāna; what is seen in a dream is the manovijñāna in the dream. Since the discriminating mind is the same, how could the differentiated objects be different? When delusion and awakening are like this, why have doubt? When sleep and awakening are thus, it can be thoroughly understood! Eighth, the objection concerning apprehending another's mind externally. If the treatise master says that external forms do not truly exist and are objects of internal consciousness, that may be granted. But another person's mind is truly existent; is it not an object conditioned by one's own mind? The idea is: if this person's mind can directly condition and reach another's mind, then separate from this person's mind, another mind exists as an object. If this person's mind cannot condition and reach another person's mind, then there is an object that is not conditioned. If it does reach it, that contradicts the principle of vijñaptimātra. If it does not reach it, how is knowledge of others' minds (paracittajñāna) established? The treatise master answers: Although it is said that another's mind is not an object of one's own consciousness, it is only that it is not said to be a direct object-condition (pratyaya-ālambana). The meaning is: although it is said that another person's mind is not this person's object, if this person were to directly condition another person's mind, that would be impossible. If, relying on another person's mind as the basic substance (ālambana-dravya), one transforms one's own nimittabhāga to condition it, there is also knowledge of others' minds. But when transforming the nimittabhāga to condition it, one does not reach the other person's original substance; it is merely because the other person's reflected image appears upon one's own mind that it is called knowing another's mind. Thus one knows that the nimittabhāga of another's mind is not separate from one's own mind, and is also vijñaptimātra. The meaning is: when this person's mind conditions another person's mind, the nimittabhāga that is transformed and arises is present before the mind; the nimittabhāga has no real activity, unlike a hand grasping an object, nor like the sun emitting light directly illuminating its object. When conditioning another's mind, it is merely like an image in a mirror appearing to resemble an external substance; the image in the mirror also has no real activity. When conditioning another person's mind, it is also like this. It is not that, lacking the conditioning of the substance of another person's mind, it is called knowing another's mind; yet one cannot directly know it. What is directly known is what is transformed by oneself.