宗鏡錄 65.11

65.11

Answer: They arise from the sixth and seventh vijñānas taking consciousness as an object. The Vijñaptimātratāsiddhiśāstra states: "Because all cittas and caittas are dependently arisen (paratantra), they are also like magical illusions and are not truly existent. In order to dispel the erroneous attachment that there are real objects outside cittas and caittas, we say there is consciousness only. If one clings to vijñaptimātra as truly existent, it is like clinging to external objects and is also a clinging to dharmas. Furthermore, clinging to dharmas is generally of two kinds: the first is innate (sahaja), and the second is conceptually differentiated (vikalpita). Innate clinging to dharmas, by the power of internal causes through beginningless perfuming, is constantly co-present with the body; without relying on heterodox teachings or perverse differentiation, it operates spontaneously, and is therefore called innate. This has two kinds: the first is constantly continuous, located in the seventh vijñāna, taking the eighth vijñāna as object, giving rise to an image of its own citta, and clinging to it as a real dharma. The second is intermittent, located in the sixth vijñāna, taking as object the characteristics of the aggregates, bases, and elements transformed by consciousness, either collectively or individually, giving rise to an image of its own citta, and clinging to it as a real dharma. Because these two clingings to dharmas are subtle, they are difficult to sever; only by repeatedly cultivating the contemplation of the emptiness of dharmas across the subsequent ten bhūmis can they be eliminated. Conceptually differentiated clinging to dharmas is also due to the power of present external conditions; it is not co-present with the body, but must await heterodox teachings and perverse differentiations before arising, and is therefore called conceptually differentiated. It exists solely in the sixth manovijñāna and also has two kinds: the first takes as object the characteristics of the aggregates, bases, and elements expounded in heterodox teachings, gives rise to an image of its own citta, conceptually discriminates, and clings to it as a real dharma; the second takes as object characteristics such as the primordial nature (prakṛti) expounded by heterodox teachers, gives rise to an image of its own citta, conceptually discriminates, and clings to it as a real dharma. Because these two clingings to dharmas are coarse, they are easily severed; upon entering the first bhūmi, contemplating all dharmas as the tathatā of dharma-emptiness, one can eliminate them. As for all such clingings to dharmas described: dharmas outside one's own citta may exist or not exist, but dharmas within one's own citta all exist. Therefore, clinging to dharmas always takes as object the semblances of dharmas manifested by one's own citta, clinging to them as real existents. Yet, because the characteristics of these semblances of dharmas arise from conditions, they exist like magical illusions; whereas the real dharmas that are clung to, being falsely conceptualized, definitely do not exist. Therefore the World-Honoured One said: 'Maitreya, you should know that the objects taken by all consciousnesses are manifestations of consciousness only; their dependently arisen nature is like a magical illusion and the like.' Thus, the ātman and dharmas apart from consciousness clung to by non-Buddhists and the other vehicles are not truly existent. Therefore, cittas and caittas definitely do not use external dharmas such as form as the objective condition (ālambanapratyaya), because the conditioning function must rely on a real substance." The commentary states: "As for 'if one clings to vijñaptimātra as truly existent, it is like clinging to external objects and is also a clinging to dharmas'—for this reason, one should merely dispel those objects outside citta as non-existent like hare's horns, while the citta capable of apprehending them exists like a magical illusion; thus there is a slight difference, but this does not mean that citta is called a real existent." Furthermore, those who cling to an ātman and cling to dharmas outside citta are of two kinds: first, like the non-Buddhists and others, who cling that apart from citta and so forth there is a separate entity that is permanent and one, naming it ātman. This is purely imagined (parikalpita), and its substance is entirely non-existent. Second, the fundamental entity (mūladravya) that serves as the distant objective condition (dūra-ālambanapratyaya), which the cognitive citta cannot directly grasp, is also called outside citta. This is dependently arisen (paratantra), and its substance does exist.