宗鏡錄 64.5

64.5

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.