宗鏡錄 68.3

68.3

答。大約有三境。頌云。性境不隨心。獨影唯從見。帶質通情本。性種等隨應。性境不隨心者。性境者。性是實義。即實根塵四大。及實定果色等相分境。言不隨心者。為此根塵等相分。皆自有實種生。不隨能緣見分種生故。獨影唯從見者。影為影像。是相分異名。為此假相分。無種為伴。但獨自有。故名獨影。即空華兔角。過去未來。諸假影像法。是此但從。能緣見分變生。與見分同種。故名獨影。唯從見。帶質通情本者。即相分。一半與本質同一種生。一半與見分同一種生。故言通情本。情即能緣見分。本即所緣本質。言性種等隨應者。隨應。是不定義。謂於三境中名隨所應。有性。種。界繫。三科。異熟等。差別不定。又廣釋云。性境者。為有體實相分名性境。即前五識。及第八心王。并現量第六識所緣諸實色。得境之自相。不帶名言。無籌度心。此境方名性境。及根本智緣真如時。亦是性境。以無分別任運轉故。言不隨心者。都有五種不隨。一性不隨者。其能緣見分。通三性。所緣相分境。唯無記性。即不隨能緣見分通三性。二種不隨者。即見分從自見分種生。相分從自相分種生。不隨能緣見分心種生故。名種不隨。三界繫不隨者。如明了意識緣香味境時。其香味二境。唯欲界繫。不隨明了意識通上界繫。又如欲界第八緣種子境時。其能緣第八唯欲界繫。所緣種子。便通三界。即六八二識。有界繫不隨。四三科不隨者。且五蘊不隨者。即如五識見分。是識種收。五塵相分。即色蘊攝。是蘊科不隨。十二處不隨者。其五識見分。是意處收。五塵相分。五境處攝。是處科不隨。十八界不隨者。其五識見分。是五識界收。五塵相分。五境界攝。此是三科不隨。五異熟不隨者。即如第八見分。是異熟性。所緣五塵相分。非異熟性。名異熟不隨。獨影境者。謂相分與見分同種生。名獨影唯從見。即如第六識緣空華兔角過未。及變影緣無為。并緣地界法。或緣假定果。極逈極略等。皆是假影像。此但從見分變生。自無其種。名為從見。獨影有二種。一者無質獨影。即第六緣空華兔角。及過未等所變相分。是。其相分。與第六見分同種生。無空華等質。二者有質獨影。即第六識緣五根種現。是皆託質而起故。其相分。亦與見分同種而生。亦名獨影境。三帶質者。即心緣心是。如第七緣第八見分境時。其相分無別種生。一半與本質同種生。一半與能緣見分同種生。從本質生者。即無覆性。從能緣見分生者。即有覆性。以兩頭攝不定。故名通情本。質即第七能緣見分。本即第八所緣見分。又四句分別。一唯別種。非同種。即性境。二唯同種。非別種。即獨影境。三俱句。即帶質境。四俱非。即本智緣如。以真如不從見分種生故。名非同種。又真如當體是無為。但因證顯得。非生因所生法故。名非別種。性種說隨應者。性即性境。種謂種類。謂於三境中。各有種類不同。今皆須隨應而說。又約八識分別者。前五轉識。一切時中皆唯性境。不簡互用不互用。二種變中。唯因緣變。又與五根同種故。第六意識有四類。一明了意識。亦通三境。與五同緣實五塵。初率爾心中是性境。若以後念緣五塵上方圓長短等假色。即有質獨影。亦名似帶質境。二散位獨頭意識。亦通三境。多是獨影。通緣三世有質無質法故。若緣自身現行心心所時。是帶質境。若緣自身五根。及緣他人心心所。是獨影境。亦名似帶質境。又獨頭意識。初剎那緣五塵。少分緣實色。亦名性境。三定中意識。亦通三境。通緣三世有質無質法故。是獨影境。又能緣自身現行心心所故。是帶質境。又七地已前有漏定位。亦能引起五識。緣五塵故。即是性境。四夢中意識。唯是獨影境。第七識唯帶質境。第八識。其心王唯性境。因緣變故。相應作意等五心所。是似帶質真獨影境。

Answer: Broadly speaking, there are three types of objects. The verse says: / “The nature-object does not follow the mind; / The solitary image derives solely from the seeing; / The substance-bearing [object] connects both the subjective feeling and the archetype; / Nature, seed, and so forth are determined as appropriate.” / As for “the nature-object does not follow the mind”: Regarding the nature-object, “nature” means real entity; it refers to the nimittabhāga objects such as the real sense-faculties, sense-data, the four great elements, and the real forms produced by samādhi. Saying that it “does not follow the mind” means that because these nimittabhāgas of faculties and sense-data are each produced from their own real seeds, they do not follow the generation from the seeds of the darśanabhāga that apprehends them. As for “the solitary image derives solely from the seeing”: An image is a shadow-image, which is an alternative name for nimittabhāga. Because this nominal nimittabhāga has no seed to accompany it and arises purely by itself, it is named “solitary image.” That is, nominal shadow-image phenomena such as sky-flowers, hare’s horns, past, and future—these are transformed and generated solely from the apprehending darśanabhāga, sharing the same seed as the darśanabhāga; hence it is called “a solitary image deriving solely from the seeing.” As for “the substance-bearing [object] connects both the subjective feeling and the archetype”: That is, one half of the nimittabhāga is produced from the same seed as the archetype, and the other half is produced from the same seed as the darśanabhāga; therefore it is said to “connect both feeling and archetype.” “Feeling” is the apprehending darśanabhāga; “archetype” is the apprehended substance. As for saying “nature, seed, and so forth are determined as appropriate”: “As appropriate” indicates an undetermined meaning; it means that within the three objects, according to what is appropriate, there are undetermined distinctions regarding nature, seed, realm-bondage, the three categories, vipāka, and so forth. Furthermore, an expanded explanation states: As for the nature-object, having a substantial, real nimittabhāga is called a nature-object. That is, the real forms apprehended by the first five consciousnesses, the eighth mental king, and the direct-perception sixth consciousness, grasping the specific characteristic of the object without carrying verbal designations and without an estimating mind—only this object is named a nature-object. Also, when fundamental cognition cognizes tathatā, it is likewise a nature-object, because it functions naturally without discrimination. Saying that it “does not follow the mind” means there are five kinds of not-following: First, nature not following: the apprehending darśanabhāga connects to the three natures, whereas the apprehended nimittabhāga object is exclusively of the morally indeterminate nature; thus it does not follow the apprehending darśanabhāga in connecting to the three natures. Second, seed not following: the darśanabhāga is generated from its own darśanabhāga seed, and the nimittabhāga is generated from its own nimittabhāga seed; because it is not generated from the mind-seed of the apprehending darśanabhāga, it is called “seed not following.” Third, realm-bondage not following: for example, when the clear manovijñāna cognizes objects of odor and taste, these two objects of odor and taste are bound exclusively to the desire realm, not following the clear manovijñāna in connecting to the bondage of the higher realms. Again, for example, when the eighth consciousness of the desire realm cognizes the object of seeds, the apprehending eighth consciousness is bound exclusively to the desire realm, whereas the apprehended seeds connect to the three realms; thus the sixth and eighth consciousnesses have “realm-bondage not following.” Fourth, the three categories not following: first, regarding the five skandhas not following, the darśanabhāga of the five consciousnesses is subsumed under the consciousness seed, whereas the nimittabhāga of the five sense-data is subsumed under the form skandha—this is the skandha category not following. Regarding the twelve āyatanas not following, the darśanabhāga of the five consciousnesses is subsumed under the mental āyatana, whereas the nimittabhāga of the five sense-data is subsumed under the five object āyatanas—this is the āyatana category not following. Regarding the eighteen dhātus not following, the darśanabhāga of the five consciousnesses is subsumed under the five consciousness dhātus, whereas the nimittabhāga of the five sense-data is subsumed under the five object dhātus—this is the three categories not following. Fifth, vipāka not following: for example, the darśanabhāga of the eighth consciousness is of the nature of vipāka, whereas the apprehended nimittabhāga of the five sense-data is not of the nature of vipāka—this is called “vipāka not following.” As for the solitary-image object, it means that the nimittabhāga and the darśanabhāga are produced from the same seed; this is named “a solitary image deriving solely from the seeing.” This is, for example, when the sixth consciousness cognizes sky-flowers, hare’s horns, the past and future, and transforms an image to cognize the unconditioned, as well as cognizing the phenomena of earth realms, or cognizing nominal forms produced by samādhi, the extremely distant, the extremely subtle, and so forth—all of which are nominal shadow-images. These are transformed and produced solely from the darśanabhāga and lack seeds of their own; this is called “deriving from the seeing.” The solitary image has two kinds: The first is the solitary image without an archetype: that is, the nimittabhāgas transformed when the sixth consciousness cognizes sky-flowers, hare’s horns, the past, the future, and so forth. These nimittabhāgas are produced from the same seed as the darśanabhāga of the sixth consciousness, having no archetype such as sky-flowers. The second is the solitary image with an archetype: that is, when the sixth consciousness cognizes the seeds and manifestations of the five sense-faculties, which all arise relying on an archetype. Their nimittabhāgas are also produced from the same seed as the darśanabhāga; they are likewise named solitary-image objects. Third, the substance-bearing [object] is when mind cognizes mind. For example, when the seventh consciousness cognizes the darśanabhāga object of the eighth, its nimittabhāga is not produced from a distinct seed: one half is produced from the same seed as the archetype, and one half is produced from the same seed as the apprehending darśanabhāga. That which is produced from the archetype is of the unobscured [morally indeterminate] nature; that which is produced from the apprehending darśanabhāga is of the obscured [morally indeterminate] nature. Because its subsumption on both ends is indeterminate, it is called “connecting both feeling and archetype.” The “substance” is the apprehending darśanabhāga of the seventh consciousness; the “archetype” is the apprehended darśanabhāga of the eighth consciousness. Furthermore, there is a four-clause analysis: 1. Exclusively of a different seed and not of the same seed: this is the nature-object. 2. Exclusively of the same seed and not of a different seed: this is the solitary-image object. 3. Both [a different and the same seed]: this is the substance-bearing object. 4. Neither: that is, fundamental cognition cognizing suchness; because tathatā is not produced from the seed of the darśanabhāga, it is called “not of the same seed”; furthermore, tathatā is itself unconditioned, revealed only through realization and not a phenomenon produced by a productive cause, so it is called “not of a different seed.” As for saying “nature and seed are spoken of as appropriate”: “nature” is the nature-object, and “seed” means variety. This means that within the three objects, each has different varieties; now, all must be spoken of as is appropriate. Furthermore, distinguishing them with respect to the eight consciousnesses: The first five evolving consciousnesses at all times are exclusively nature-objects, without distinguishing whether they function mutually or not. Between the two kinds of transformation, they are exclusively transformations by causal conditions. Furthermore, they share the same seeds with the five sense-faculties. The sixth manovijñāna has four classes: 1. The clear manovijñāna also connects to the three objects. When it cognizes the real five sense-data together with the five [consciousnesses], in the initial moment of spontaneous mind it is a nature-object. If in subsequent moments of mind it cognizes nominal forms such as round, square, long, and short superimposed on the five sense-data, it is a solitary image with an archetype, also called a pseudo-substance-bearing object. 2. The solitary manovijñāna in the dispersed state also connects to the three objects, mostly being solitary images, because it generally cognizes phenomena of the three periods of time with or without archetypes. When it cognizes the currently active citta and caittas of its own person, it is a substance-bearing object. When it cognizes its own five faculties and cognizes the citta and caittas of others, it is a solitary-image object, also called a pseudo-substance-bearing object. Furthermore, when the solitary manovijñāna in the first kṣaṇa cognizes the five sense-data, cognizing a small portion of real forms, it is also called a nature-object. 3. The manovijñāna in samādhi also connects to the three objects. Because it generally cognizes phenomena of the three periods of time with or without archetypes, it is a solitary-image object. Furthermore, because it can cognize the currently active citta and caittas of its own person, it is a substance-bearing object. Furthermore, in the defiled state of samādhi prior to the seventh bhūmi, because it can also induce the five consciousnesses to cognize the five sense-data, it is a nature-object. 4. The manovijñāna in dreams is exclusively a solitary-image object. The seventh consciousness is exclusively a substance-bearing object. As for the eighth consciousness, its mental king is exclusively a nature-object, because it is transformed by causal conditions; its associated five mental factors such as attention (manaskāra) are pseudo-substance-bearing and true solitary-image objects.