宗鏡錄 65.13

65.13

Answer: The treatise states: "As for all such clingings to an ātman described, the aggregates outside one's own citta may exist or not exist"—the commentary explains: "The places that the cognitive faculty cannot reach are all called outside citta. The seventh vijñāna's conceptualization of an ātman outside citta is only existent; the sixth vijñāna's conceptualization of the aggregates outside citta may be non-existent." The treatise states: "The aggregates within one's own citta all exist"—this refers to the immediate object (sākṣād-ālambana). Regardless of identity or difference, when conceptualized as an ātman, the mental image (pratibimba) definitely exists. Thus no dharma can grasp any dharma; there is only one's own citta turning back to grasp one's own citta. Therefore, they all take the aggregates as object; these all explain that upon which the ātman relies. The treatise states: "Therefore, clingings to an ātman all take the characteristics of the impermanent five appropriated aggregates as object, falsely clinging to them as an ātman"—this concludes the previous meaning. The objective aspect (nimittabhāga) of the image must be an aggregate; taking this as an ātman shows the Mahāyāna principle that citta does not arise with respect to non-existence in direct apprehension. To constitute an objective condition (ālambanapratyaya), there must be a real dharma. The treatise states: "Yet, because the characteristics of the aggregates arise from conditions, they exist like magical illusions; whereas the ātman falsely clung to, being arbitrarily conceptualized, definitely does not exist." Moreover, non-Buddhists and others mostly conceptualize the king of mind (cittarāja) as a master, an agent, or an experiencer, because they cannot understand that it fundamentally lacks an intrinsic nature and flows in transmigration according to conditions. In the Mahāratnakūṭasūtra, the Buddha said: "Kāśyapa, just as a throat-constriction disease can cut off life, so too, Kāśyapa, among all views, only the view of self can instantly cut off the life of wisdom." Therefore we know: the view of a dharma-self contradicts the domain of direct perception (pratyakṣa) and obstructs the wisdom of dharma-emptiness; the view of a personal self is the root of birth and death and cuts off the life of wisdom. Without entering the mirror of the source, these two afflictions are difficult to eliminate.