維摩經疏卷第三．第六 3.15

3.15

In the first clause, regarding "Dharma has no discrimination," this directly explains that the principle is absent [of discrimination]. Within the true Dharma, there are no six sense faculties producing consciousness to discern sense objects; this is called 'having no discrimination.' Regarding "because it is free from all consciousnesses," this explains to reveal its absence. In the domain of empirical events, the six sense faculties produce consciousness; within the true Dharma, this consciousness does not exist, hence it is called 'free from all consciousnesses.' Because it is free from all consciousnesses, it has no discrimination. It is also said: 'Having no discrimination' means that within the true Dharma there are not the three kinds of discrimination: first, svabhāva-vikalpa; second, anusmṛti-vikalpa; third, abhinirūpaṇā-vikalpa. Svabhāva-vikalpa refers to discriminative activity regarding the self-marks of conditioned phenomena currently conditioned. Anusmṛti-vikalpa refers to discriminative activity that recollects conditioned phenomena experienced in the past. [Abhinirūpaṇā-vikalpa] refers to discriminative activity of forcible conceptualization regarding what is not present in the past, future, or present. Among the eight consciousnesses, only the sixth consciousness (manovijñāna) possesses all three discriminations above. The remaining seven consciousnesses have only svabhāva-vikalpa, because they condition the present. Alternatively, the seventh, manas, also has abhinirūpaṇā-vikalpa, because it calculates and grasps at a self. If we discuss their essential nature, according to the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya, abhinirūpaṇā-vikalpa takes prajñā as its substance, anusmṛti-vikalpa takes smṛti as its nature, and [svabhāva]-vikalpa takes vitarka as its nature. Since within the true Dharma there are no false eight consciousnesses, there are therefore none of these discriminations. Regarding "Dharma has no comparison," this directly explains that the principle is absent [of comparison]. Marks and sense objects confronting one another is called 'comparison.' The true Dharma is without this, hence called 'dharma has no comparison.' Regarding "having no relativity," this explains to reveal its absence: because there is no mutual relativity between sense faculties and sense objects, it is said to have no relativity. Alternatively, existence and non-existence are compared with each other; since the ten thousand phenomena have no intrinsic nature, how could they have relativity? Thus absence is revealed. Since existence is already non-existent, what non-existence could there be? Both existence and non-existence are empty, hence there is no relativity. Just like the ring finger: compared to the long it is short, looking toward the short it is long, yet its nature is neither long nor short. Just so, the essential nature of the true Dharma is inherently empty, free from the nature of existence or non-existence, hence without relativity. Therefore the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'If a phenomenon is established dependent on a cause, this in turn becomes dependent. Now there is no causal dependence, nor is there any phenomenon that is established.' Regarding "Dharma does not belong to a cause," this directly clarifies that the principle is absent [of belonging to a cause]. In the domain of empirical events, results arise from causes; because the cause subsumes the result, it is called 'belonging to a cause.' The true Dharma is without this, hence called 'not belonging to a cause.' Regarding "because it does not reside in conditions," this explains to reveal its absence. Direct production is called 'cause'; indirect assistance is called 'condition.' As in conventional truth phenomena: a seed is the cause, earth and water are conditions, and the sprout and fruit are able to be born. If there were conditions present, one could speak of it belonging to a cause in relation to them. If no conditions are present, in relation to what could one speak of it belonging to a cause? Alternatively, 'condition' is another term for cause; saying 'it does not reside in conditions' should be understood as still meaning 'it does not reside in causes.' One cannot repeat the words to indicate 'not residing in conditions.' Arising not being separated from conditions is termed 'residing.' The true does not rely on conditions, hence it is said 'does not reside in conditions,' and therefore does not belong to a cause.