宗鏡錄 68.15

68.15

答。麁細之色。皆從識變。既從識有。外色全空。故經云。色性自空。非色滅空。為未了者。更須破析。直至極微。方信空現。識論云。餘乘所執離識實有色等諸法。如何非有。彼所執色。不相應行。及諸無為。理非有故。且所執色。總有二種。一者有對。極微所成。二者無對。非極微成。彼有對色。定非實有。能成極微。非實有故。謂諸極微。若有質礙。應如瓶等。是假非實。若無質礙。應如非色。如何可集成瓶衣等。又諸極微。若有方分。必可分析。便非實有。若無方分。則如非色。乃至雖非無色。而是識變。謂識生時。內因緣力。變似眼等色等相現。即以此相。為所依緣。然眼等根。非現量得。以能發識。比知是有。此但功能。非外所造。外有對色。理既不成。故應但是內識變現。發眼等識。名眼等根。此為所依。生眼等識。此眼等識。外所緣緣。理非有故。決定應許自識所變。為所緣緣。謂能引生似自識者。乃至由此定知。自識所變以色等相。為所緣緣。見託彼生。帶彼相起故。然識變時。隨量大小。頓現一相。非別變作眾多極微。合成一物。為執麁色有實體者。佛說極微。令其除析。非謂諸色實有極微。諸瑜伽師。以假想慧。於麁色相。漸次除析。至不可析。假說極微。雖此極微猶有方分。而不可析。若更析之。便似空現。不名為色。故說極微。是色邊際。由此應知。諸有對色。皆識變現。非極微成。餘無對色。是此類故。亦非實有。或無對故。如心心所。定非實色。諸有對色。現有色相。以理推究。離識尚無。況無對色。現無色相。而可說為真實色法。

Answer: Coarse and fine forms are both transformed from consciousness. Since they exist from consciousness, external form is completely empty. Therefore a sūtra says: 'The nature of form is inherently empty; it is not empty because form is destroyed.' For those who have not yet understood, it must be further broken down and analyzed right down to the minute atom before they will believe that emptiness appears. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra says: 'How can the various dharmas such as form held by other vehicles to be real apart from consciousness not exist? Because the form, non-concurrent formations, and various unconditioned dharmas they hold to are non-existent in principle. First, the form they hold to is broadly of two kinds: first, resistant form, which is composed of minute atoms; second, non-resistant form, which is not composed of minute atoms. That resistant form is definitely not truly existent, because the minute atoms that can compose it are not truly existent. That is, if minute atoms have material resistance, they should be like a vase, etc., being conventional and not real. If they have no material resistance, they should be like non-form; how could they gather together to form vases, robes, and the like? Furthermore, if minute atoms have spatial parts, they can definitely be analyzed, and thus are not truly existent; if they have no spatial parts, they are just like non-form. […] Furthermore, although they are not without form, they are transformations of consciousness. That is, when consciousness arises, through the power of internal causes and conditions, it transforms and appears as resembling the characteristics of the eyes, etc., and form, etc., and it takes these very characteristics as the supporting conditions. However, the sense faculties such as the eyes are not obtained by direct perception; because they can give rise to consciousness, they are known to exist by inference. These are merely functional capabilities, not externally composed. Since external resistant form is illogical, it should merely be the transformation and appearance of internal consciousness. What gives rise to visual consciousness and the like is called the visual faculty and the like; taking these as supports, the visual consciousness and the like arise. Because an external objective-condition for this visual consciousness and the like is non-existent in principle, one must definitely accept that what is transformed by one's own consciousness is the objective-condition, meaning that which can induce what resembles one's own consciousness. […] From this it is definitely known that what is transformed by one's own consciousness takes the characteristics of form, etc., as its objective-condition, because the darśanabhāga arises depending on them and arises bearing their characteristics. However, when consciousness transforms, according to size, it suddenly appears as a single characteristic, not separately transforming into many minute atoms to aggregate into a single object. For those who grasp coarse form as having a real substance, the Buddha spoke of minute atoms to make them eliminate and analyze it; he did not mean that forms truly possess minute atoms. Yogācāra masters, through the wisdom of conceptualization, gradually analyze the characteristics of coarse form until they cannot be analyzed further, and conventionally designate them as minute atoms. Although these minute atoms still have spatial parts, they cannot be further analyzed; if they are analyzed further, they will appear like empty space and not be called form. Therefore it is said that the minute atom is the limit of form. From this it should be known that all resistant forms are transformations of consciousness, not composed of minute atoms. The remaining non-resistant forms, being of this class, are also not truly existent; or because they are non-resistant, like the citta and caittas, they are definitely not real form. Resistant forms visibly possess characteristics of form, yet when investigated with reason, they do not even exist apart from consciousness; how much less could non-resistant forms, which visibly lack characteristics of form, be said to be real form dharmas!'