[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [翻譯名義集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131) › 6.37 # 翻譯名義集 6.37 翻譯名義集 6.37 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [6.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6.37) 【乾栗陀耶】或名牟呼栗多，此云堅實心。《楞伽》注云：謂第一義心，如樹貞實心，非念慮也，乃是群生本有之性。又摩訶衍論立十種識，總攝諸識。云何為十？於前九中，加一切一心識。論上文云，所謂以一心識，遍於二種自在，無所不安立。如佛告文殊師利言：「我唯建立一種識，所餘之識，非建立焉。所以者何？一種識者，多一一識。此識有種種力，能作一切種種名字，而唯一識，終無餘法，是故我說建立一種識。」今謂一切一心識，是此方言。梵語正名乾栗陀耶。問：「一切一心識，與菴摩羅，云何甄別？」答：「從諸佛所證之理，乃立菴摩羅名。就眾生所迷之本，則標乾栗陀號。何者？經云：『而轉諸識入菴摩羅』，故知果位名菴摩羅。一切一心識，論云：『能作一切種種名字，知是群生所迷之本。』輒辨此義，後賢詳之。」（昔住大覺，李相公垂訪，問曰：「《楞嚴》性覺妙明，本覺明妙，此為一法？此為二法？若云二法，性覺即本覺；若云一法，上句安言妙明？下句安言明妙？」余即答曰：「一法二義，上句言性，性體即寂而常照，故曰妙明。下句言覺，覺用即照而常寂，故曰明妙。」）《禮記》云：「人生而靜，天之性也；感物而動，性之欲也。」斯乃儒家以寂然不動為性，感而遂通曰情。吾宗則以明靜真心為性，是理具也；昏動妄念為情，是事造也。故《楞嚴》云：「從無始來，生死相續，皆由不知常住真心，性淨明體，用諸妄想。」此想不真，故有流轉，以茲情性，分今十識。前之八識，皆屬情也，九十二識，乃當性焉。問：「心與於性，同異云何？」答：「或同或異。言或同者，如《楞嚴》云：『常住真心，性淨明體。』此俱目真。《光明》云：『心識二性，躁動不停。』此俱召妄。二名異者，如《楞嚴》云：『舜若多性可消亡，爍迦羅心無動轉。』此心真而性妄矣。大意云：『隨緣不變故為性，不變隨緣故為心。』此性真而心妄也。忠國師云：『迷時結性成心，悟時釋心成性。』然，真妄二心，經論所明，大有四義，一唯真心，《起信》云：『唯是一心，故名真如。』二者唯妄心，如《楞伽》云：『種種諸識浪，騰躍而轉生。』三者從真起妄，如《楞伽》云：『如來之藏，是善不善因，能遍興造一切趣生。』四者指妄即真，如《楞嚴》云：『則汝今者識精元明。』又《淨名》云：『煩惱之儔，是如來種。』諸文所陳，此四收盡。然此諸識，西域東夏，異計紛紜。今先敘異執，後述會通。初異執者，性相二宗，肇分於竺國，南北之黨，彌盛於齊朝。故西域那爛陀寺，戒賢大德，遠承彌勒、無著，近踵法護、難陀，依《深密》等經《瑜伽》等論，立法相宗。言法相者，唯齊八識業相，以為諸法生起之本。故法相宗，以識相行布為旨。其寺同時智光大德，遠稟文殊、龍樹，近遵青目、清辯，依《般若》等經《中觀》等論，立法性宗。言法性者，以明真如隨緣，為染淨之本。故一性宗，以真理融觀為門。洎乎東夏，《攝論》有梁、唐之異，《地論》分南北之殊，以無著菩薩造《攝大乘論》，流至此土，二譯不同。梁朝真諦，乃立九識，計第八識生起諸法。如彼論明十種勝相，第一依止勝相，明第八識生十二因緣。次唐時玄奘新譯《攝論》，但立八識。乃謂第九，秖是八識異名。此是梁、唐之異也。天親菩薩造《十地論》，翻至此土，南北各計。相州南道，計梨耶為淨識；相州北道，計梨耶為無明。此乃南北之殊也。其次會通者，《妙玄》云：『今明無明之心，不自不他，不共不無因，四句皆不可思議。此約自行破計，南北不存。若有四悉檀因緣，亦可得說。此約化他，性相俱存。以阿梨耶中，有生死種子，熏習增長，即成分別識。若阿梨耶中，有智慧種子，聞熏習增長，即轉依成道後真如，名為淨識。若異此兩識，秖是阿梨耶識，此亦一法論三，三中論一耳。』《攝論》云：『如金土染淨，染譬六識，金譬淨識，土譬梨耶識。』明文在茲，何勞苦諍！又《宗鏡》云：『此阿賴耶識，即是真心。不守自性，隨染淨緣，不合而合，能含藏一切真俗境界，故名藏識。如明鏡不與影像合，而含影像。此約有和合義邊說，若不和合義者，即體常不變，故號真如。本一真心，湛然不動。若有不信阿賴耶識即如來藏，別求真如理者，如離像覓鏡，即是惡慧。以未了不變隨緣，隨緣不變之義，而生二執。』又《宗鏡》以理量二門，收盡一切性相，識相妙有，是如量門；識性真空，是如理門。」問：「真心無相，云何知有不空常住湛然之體？」答：「以事驗知，因用可辨，事能顯理，用能彰體。如見波生，知有水體。當觀理量之門，以造性相之道。」 > \[Hṛdaya\] Also called muhūrta; here translated as "firm and solid mind." A commentary on the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: "It refers to the supreme-truth mind, like the solid core of a tree; it is not conceptual thought, but the nature inherently possessed by all living beings." Furthermore, the Mahāyāna Treatise establishes ten kinds of consciousness that subsume all consciousnesses. What are the ten? To the previous nine, it adds the consciousness of the single mind of everything. Earlier in the treatise it says: "That is to say, with the single mind-consciousness, it pervades the two kinds of mastery, leaving nothing unestablished." As the Buddha told Mañjuśrī: "I establish only one kind of consciousness; I do not establish the remaining consciousnesses. Why is this? The one kind of consciousness is the manifold single consciousnesses. This consciousness has various powers and can produce all various names, yet it is solely one consciousness, with no other phenomena at all. Therefore, I say that I establish one kind of consciousness." Now I say that "consciousness of the single mind of everything" is the phrasing of this land; its proper Sanskrit name is hṛdaya. Question: "How are the consciousness of the single mind of everything and the amala distinguished?" Answer: "In terms of the principle realized by all buddhas, the name amala is established. In terms of the source about which sentient beings are deluded, the title hṛdaya is designated. Why is this? The sūtra says: 'And transforms the various consciousnesses to enter the amala'; thus we know that in the fruit stage it is named amala. As for the consciousness of the single mind of everything, the treatise says: 'It can produce all various names,' which shows it is the source about which living beings are deluded. I venture this distinction; later sages may examine it in detail." (Formerly, when I lived at Dajue, Prime Minister Li paid a visit and asked: "In the Śūraṅgama-sūtra, 'the nature-enlightenment is wondrously bright, and original enlightenment is brightly wondrous'—is this one phenomenon or two phenomena? If you say two phenomena, nature-enlightenment is just original enlightenment; if you say one phenomenon, why does the upper line say wondrously bright, and the lower line say brightly wondrous?" I answered at once: "One phenomenon with two meanings: the upper line speaks of the nature; the substance of the nature is quiescent yet ever luminous, hence called 'wondrously bright.' The lower line speaks of enlightenment; the function of enlightenment is luminous yet ever quiescent, hence called 'brightly wondrous.'") The Book of Rites says: "That humans are born quiescent is the nature of Heaven; to be stirred through contact with things is the desire of the nature." This is the Confucian taking the stillness of non-movement as nature, and that which is stirred and then penetrates as sentiment. Our school takes the luminous, quiescent true mind as nature, which is inherently possessed in principle; and the murky, agitated false thoughts as sentiment, which is constructed through phenomena. Hence the Śūraṅgama-sūtra says: "From beginningless time, the continuation of birth and death has all been due to not knowing the constantly abiding true mind, the naturally pure and luminous substance, and using various false thoughts." Because these thoughts are not real, there is transmigration; through this distinction of sentiment and nature, the ten consciousnesses are differentiated here. The former eight consciousnesses all pertain to sentiment; the ninth and tenth consciousnesses correspond to nature. Question: "What is the identity or difference between mind and nature?" Answer: "They are sometimes identical and sometimes different. That they are sometimes identical: as the Śūraṅgama-sūtra says, 'The constantly abiding true mind, the naturally pure and luminous substance'—here both denote the real. The Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra says, 'The two natures of mind and consciousness are restless and never cease'—here both refer to the false. That the two names are different: as the Śūraṅgama-sūtra says, 'Though the nature of Śūnyatā may perish, the vajra mind does not vacillate'—here mind is real and nature is false. The Dayi says: 'Because it follows conditions without changing, it is nature; because it does not change while following conditions, it is mind'—here nature is real and mind is false. National Preceptor Zhong said: 'In delusion, nature congeals into mind; in awakening, mind is released into nature.' However, regarding the two minds—true and false—explained in the sūtras and treatises, there are broadly four meanings: First, solely the true mind, as the Awakening of Faith says: 'It is solely the one mind, hence named suchness.' Second, solely the false mind, as the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: 'Waves of various consciousnesses leap and turn, arising successively.' Third, the false arising from the true, as the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: 'The tathāgatagarbha is the cause of good and non-good, and can extensively give rise to all destinies and rebirths.' Fourth, pointing out that the false is itself the true, as the Śūraṅgama-sūtra says: 'Then what you now have is the quintessence of consciousness, originally luminous.' Also, the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa says: 'The company of afflictions is the seed of the Tathāgata.' What is stated across the texts is exhausted by these four. However, regarding these consciousnesses, diverse theories have proliferated in the Western Regions and the Eastern Land. Now I shall first state the differing assertions, and then explain their reconciliation. First, regarding the differing assertions: the two schools of nature and characteristics first diverged in India, and the factions of north and south flourished even more in the Qi dynasty. Thus at Nālandā Monastery in the Western Regions, the Venerable Śīlabhadra, distantly inheriting from Maitreya and Asaṅga and closely following Dharmapāla and Nanda, relied on sūtras such as the Saṃdhinirmocana and treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi to establish the Dharma-Characteristics school. 'Dharma-characteristics' means taking only the karmic characteristics of the eight consciousnesses as the source of the arising of all dharmas. Hence the Dharma-Characteristics school takes the structured arrangement of the characteristics of consciousness as its main purport. At the same monastery and during the same period, the Venerable Jñānaprabha, distantly receiving from Mañjuśrī and Nāgārjuna and closely complying with Piṅgala and Bhāviveka, relied on sūtras such as the Prajñāpāramitā and treatises such as the Madhyamakaśāstra to establish the Dharma-Nature school. 'Dharma-nature' means clarifying that suchness following conditions is the source of defilement and purity. Hence the Single-Nature school takes the unhindered contemplation of the true principle as its gate. When it came to the Eastern Land, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha had the differences between Liang and Tang, and the Daśabhūmika-śāstra had the divergence of north and south. Because the Mahāyānasaṃgraha composed by Bodhisattva Asaṅga was transmitted to this land, the two translations were not identical: Paramārtha of the Liang dynasty established nine consciousnesses, asserting that the eighth consciousness gives rise to all dharmas. As that treatise explains the ten superior characteristics, the first, the superior characteristic of reliance, clarifies that the eighth consciousness produces the twelve links of dependent origination. Next, in the Tang dynasty, Xuanzang's new translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha established only eight consciousnesses, asserting that the ninth is merely a different name for the eighth consciousness. This is the difference between Liang and Tang. When the Daśabhūmika-śāstra composed by Bodhisattva Vasubandhu was translated into this land, the south and north each held their own assertion: the Southern Branch of Xiangzhou asserted that the ālaya is pure consciousness; the Northern Branch of Xiangzhou asserted that the ālaya is ignorance. This is the divergence of north and south. Next, regarding their reconciliation: the Miaoxuan says: 'Now, clarifying the mind of ignorance: it is not from itself, not from another, not from both, and not without cause; all four propositions are inconceivable. This is in terms of one's own practice in breaking attachments, where neither south nor north remains. If there are causes and conditions of the four siddhāntas, it may also be stated. This is in terms of transforming others, where both nature and characteristics are preserved. For within the ālaya, there are seeds of birth and death; when perfumed and cultivated, they increase and form the discriminating consciousness. If within the ālaya there are seeds of wisdom; when perfumed through hearing, they increase and undergo transformation of the basis to become the suchness of the fruition of the Path, named pure consciousness. What is other than these two consciousnesses is merely the ālayavijñāna; this is also discussing three within one dharma, and one within three.' The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Like the defilement and purity of gold and earth: defilement is likened to the six consciousnesses, gold to pure consciousness, and earth to the ālayavijñāna.' Clear scriptural evidence is right here; why labor in bitter contention! Furthermore, the Zongjing says: 'This ālayavijñāna is none other than the true mind. Not abiding in its own nature, it follows defiled and pure conditions; neither combined yet combined, it can contain and store all real and conventional realms, hence named the storehouse consciousness. It is like a clear mirror not uniting with the images, yet containing the images. This is spoken from the side of the meaning of harmonious combination; if spoken in terms of non-combination, its substance is constantly unchanging, hence called suchness. Originally the one true mind, tranquil and immovable. If one does not believe that the ālayavijñāna is itself the tathāgatagarbha and seeks the principle of suchness elsewhere, it is like seeking the mirror apart from the images, which is wicked wisdom. Because one has not comprehended the meaning of unchanging while following conditions and following conditions while unchanging, two attachments arise.' Furthermore, the Zongjing uses the two gates of principle and measure to subsume all nature and characteristics: the wondrous existence of the characteristics of consciousness is the gate of accordance with measure; the true emptiness of the nature of consciousness is the gate of accordance with principle." Question: "The true mind has no form; how can one know that it has an unempty, constantly abiding, tranquil substance?" Answer: "It can be verified through phenomena and discerned through function: phenomena can reveal principle, and function can manifest substance. Just as seeing waves arise lets one know that there is the substance of water, one should contemplate the gates of principle and measure to attain the Path of nature and characteristics." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 6.36](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6.36) - [Next: 6.38](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6.38) - [Up: 6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131~en-mt.6.37) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6.37](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.6.37) · Pramāṇa