宗鏡錄 62.9

62.9

Answer: This was already explained in detail earlier, and now citations are brought forward once more as proof. The *Trimśikā* says:
‘These dharmas are transformations of consciousness. / Discriminated and discriminating: / because of this, both of those are non-existent; / therefore all is consciousness-only.’
‘Transformations’ means that the eight consciousnesses, from their self-verifying part (svasaṃvittibhāga), transform and manifest in the semblance of two parts. That is, the transformed darśanabhāga has an active functioning capacity, and so is termed ‘seeing’; the transformed nimittabhāga is the object of functioning, and so is termed ‘objective image.’ Both evolve in dependence upon the self-verifying part. Since the two parts, seeing and objective image, subsume all dharmas entirely, and these two parts arise through transformation upon the substance of citta, one knows therefore that all dharmas are not separate from citta. ‘Discriminated and discriminating’: the darśanabhāga is that which discriminates; the nimittabhāga is that which is discriminated. ‘Because of this, both of those are non-existent’: upon these two parts of seeing and objective image, through false grasping, those two graspings at self and dharmas are non-existent. That is, outside these two parts of seeing and objective image, objects of self and dharmas that are grasped as existent by deluded sentiment are all non-existent. Therefore it says, ‘because of this, both of those are non-existent.’ ‘Therefore all is consciousness-only’: ‘only’ negates the existence of external objects; ‘consciousness’ sets aside the emptiness of citta. Eliminating grasping at the two extremes, it dwells directly in the Middle Way. That is, using the word ‘only’, it negates the Sarvāstivādins’ grasping that outside citta there are real objects. Using the word ‘consciousness’, it sets aside Bhāviveka and others' grasping and pernicious clinging to emptiness. It thereby refutes the two extremes of emptiness and existence and dwells directly in the Middle Way. Hence the commentary says: ‘Externally, it encompasses the myriad phenomena; internally, both subject and object are established. It can well be said that the four parts are of one citta, and no principle surpasses this.’ Furthermore, the Hīnayāna poses nine objections, challenging the purport that there are no dharmas outside citta and that all is mind-only. The first is the objection regarding the rationale for consciousness-only: The various Hīnayāna masters say, ‘Apart from citta, matter (rūpa) is visibly seen, and it is a real object that is conditions as object (ālambanapratyaya). Why does the author of the treatise encompass it and reduce it to citta, collectively designating it as consciousness-only? First, matter and citta are distinct. Second, subject and object are different.’ The challenge says, ‘External material objects do not draw the cognizing citta along. If matter followed citta, consciousness-only would be acceptable. When, facing sentiments, external material objects outwardly delude citta, and citta is deluded by objects, that is not the meaning of consciousness-only.’ The author of the treatise says: ‘It is simply that these external material objects, first, are transformed by the cognizing citta of all sentient beings, and second, are sustained by the citta of all sentient beings. Fundamentally, they all stem from citta. Therefore they are subsumed into consciousness-only.’ The *Daśabhūmikasūtra* and the *Avataṃsakasūtra* state that the three realms are mind-only. The meaning is: the dharmas of the three realms are solely transformations of citta; apart from citta, there is not a single thing more. This is also to negate the two graspings at self and dharmas. They are merely held to exist by deluded sentiment; their entire substance is completely non-existent. There is only inner citta, hence it is said that all is mind-only.