宗鏡錄 65.13

65.13

答。論云。如是所說一切我執。自心外蘊或有或無者。釋云。能緣緣不著處。皆名心外。第七計我心外唯有。第六計我心外之蘊。或是於無。論云。自心內蘊一切皆有者。親所緣也。不問即離。計為我者。影像必有。故無有少法能取少法。唯有自心還取自心。故皆緣蘊。此皆辯我所依也。論云。是故我執。皆緣無常五取蘊相。妄執為我者。結成前義。影像相分。必是蘊故。緣此為我。義顯大乘親緣。於無心不生也。成所緣緣。必有法故。論云。然諸蘊相從緣生故。是如幻有。妄所執我橫計度故。決定非有。又諸外道等。多於心王計為主宰。作者受者。由不能知本無自性。隨緣流轉故。大寶積經。佛言。迦葉。譬如咽塞病。即能斷命。如是迦葉。一切見中。唯有我見。即時能斷於智慧命。故知法我見者。違現量境。障法空智。人我見者。為生死根。斷智慧命。不入宗鏡。二患難消。

Answer: The treatise states: "As for all such clingings to an ātman described, the aggregates outside one's own citta may exist or not exist"—the commentary explains: "The places that the cognitive faculty cannot reach are all called outside citta. The seventh vijñāna's conceptualization of an ātman outside citta is only existent; the sixth vijñāna's conceptualization of the aggregates outside citta may be non-existent." The treatise states: "The aggregates within one's own citta all exist"—this refers to the immediate object (sākṣād-ālambana). Regardless of identity or difference, when conceptualized as an ātman, the mental image (pratibimba) definitely exists. Thus no dharma can grasp any dharma; there is only one's own citta turning back to grasp one's own citta. Therefore, they all take the aggregates as object; these all explain that upon which the ātman relies. The treatise states: "Therefore, clingings to an ātman all take the characteristics of the impermanent five appropriated aggregates as object, falsely clinging to them as an ātman"—this concludes the previous meaning. The objective aspect (nimittabhāga) of the image must be an aggregate; taking this as an ātman shows the Mahāyāna principle that citta does not arise with respect to non-existence in direct apprehension. To constitute an objective condition (ālambanapratyaya), there must be a real dharma. The treatise states: "Yet, because the characteristics of the aggregates arise from conditions, they exist like magical illusions; whereas the ātman falsely clung to, being arbitrarily conceptualized, definitely does not exist." Moreover, non-Buddhists and others mostly conceptualize the king of mind (cittarāja) as a master, an agent, or an experiencer, because they cannot understand that it fundamentally lacks an intrinsic nature and flows in transmigration according to conditions. In the Mahāratnakūṭasūtra, the Buddha said: "Kāśyapa, just as a throat-constriction disease can cut off life, so too, Kāśyapa, among all views, only the view of self can instantly cut off the life of wisdom." Therefore we know: the view of a dharma-self contradicts the domain of direct perception (pratyakṣa) and obstructs the wisdom of dharma-emptiness; the view of a personal self is the root of birth and death and cuts off the life of wisdom. Without entering the mirror of the source, these two afflictions are difficult to eliminate.