大乘百法明門論開宗義記 1.18

1.18

論。一切最勝故與此相應故二所現影故三位差別故四所顯示故如是次第　開曰。此辯法次第也。一切法中心最勝故。故最第一明其心法。謂此心法勢分用強。緣慮道中心王觸勝。故契經說。心遠獨行染淨由心。士夫六界心能道世間。心能遍攝受。如是心一法皆自在隨行。是故論言一切最勝故。雖由作意警而方生。及心生已依心而住。如臣引王。非臣勝故。心起必有心所相應故。此第二明其心所。是故論言。與此相應故。心所與心有四等義非定一異故成相應。故唯識云。而時依同所緣事等名相應義。一體等。各有一體故。二依等。同依一根故。三緣等。同緣一境故。四時等。同一剎那故。若依小乘。同一行解。如同緣一青俱作青解故。今大乘宗不許同行。了別領納等作用各異故。由斯八識雖各一體。而時依境不必皆同。是故諸識非相應也。心心所起必現色影故。次第三明其色法。是故論言。二所現影故。謂若心起託境方生。必變色影當情而現。故諸色法皆不離心。無有一色非心變者。如地獄卒鬼見膿河眼外毛輪夢中色像。皆自心變都不離心。此心豈唯變色法耶。答。就麁顯著且說色言。為破離心有實色執。實色尚爾。況非色乎。心心所色必有分位故。此第四明不相應。是故論云。三位差別故。如唯識論顯此義云。得非得等非如色心及諸心所體相可得。非異色心及諸心所作用可得。故非實有。但說色等分位假立。此定非異色心心所有實體用。許蘊攝故。如色心等。若異心等。或心心所及色無為所不攝故。如畢竟無。定非實有。前明諸法後顯法性故。次第五明無為法。是故論言。四所顯示故。如唯識論顯此義云。然諸無為所知性故。或色心等所顯性故。如色心等。不應執為離色心等實無為性。若異心等。非法性故。故依前四顯示無為。雖與諸法體不相離。而與諸法亦非即一。由常無常性各異故。如是次第總結前說。汎論諸法次第有五。一者生起。十二支等先因後果次第生故。二者觀行。如四諦等先果後因次第觀故。三者麁細。如六度等前麁後細次第修故。四者勝劣。心心所等前勝後劣次第有故。五者言說。如正斷等雖無前相次第說故。於前五法而配屬者。心心所色不相應行而有生起勝劣次第。兼說無為麁細次第。有為事麁無為細故。小乘則依麁細次第故以色法而為其初。一切法中色最麁故。亦依觀行以不淨觀佛法要門依色法故。不許諸法心所變故。不以心心為最初也。

The treatise says: "Because it is the most supreme of all; because they are associated with this; because it is the shadow manifested by these two; because they are distinctions among the states of these three; because it is revealed by these four—such is the order." The explanation says: This explains the order of the dharmas. Because citta is the most supreme among all dharmas, citta dharmas are explained first. That is to say, this citta dharma has strong force and functioning; within the path of cognising reflection, the mind king is supreme in contact. Therefore a sūtra states: "The mind goes far and travels alone; defilement and purity depend on the mind. Among the person's six elements, the mind can guide the world; the mind can universally embrace and receive. In this way, this single dharma of the mind proceeds everywhere with sovereignty." Therefore the treatise says: "Because it is the most supreme of all." Although it is only produced after being alerted by attention (manaskāra), and after the mind has arisen it abides dependent upon the mind, this is like a minister guiding the king—it does not mean the minister is supreme. Because when citta arises there are necessarily caittas associated with it, caittas are explained second. Therefore the treatise says: "Because they are associated with this." Caittas and citta have four kinds of equality and are neither definitely one nor different; thus they form an association. Therefore the Vijñaptimātratā says: "Possessing the same time, support, ālambana, and substance is called the meaning of association." First, equality of substance: each has one substance. Second, equality of support: they rely upon the same sense faculty. Third, equality of ālambana: they take the same cognitive object. Fourth, equality of time: they occur at the same single moment. If according to the Hīnayāna, they have the same mode of understanding (ākāra), just as when taking the same blue object together they both produce an understanding of blue. Now, the Mahāyāna school does not accept having the same mode of understanding, because their functions, such as discerning and experiencing, are each distinct. Because of this, although each of the eight consciousnesses has one substance, their times, supports, and objects are not necessarily all identical; therefore the consciousnesses are not associated [with one another]. Because when citta and caittas arise they necessarily manifest shadows of rūpa, rūpa dharmas are explained third. Therefore the treatise says: "Because it is the shadow manifested by these two." That is to say, when the mind arises, it is only produced by relying on an object, and necessarily transforms into a shadow of rūpa that appears before consciousness. Therefore all rūpa dharmas are not separate from the mind; there is not a single form that is not transformed by the mind. Such things as the hell-wardens, the river of pus seen by ghosts, hair-circles floating before the eyes, and forms in dreams—all are transformed by one's own mind and are not apart from the mind at all. Does this mind transform only rūpa dharmas? Answer: It refers tentatively to rūpa because it is coarse and manifest, in order to refute the grasping at real rūpa existing apart from the mind. If even real rūpa is like this, how much more so non-rūpa? Because citta, caittas, and rūpa necessarily have states, non-associated dharmas are explained fourth. Therefore the treatise says: "Because they are distinctions among the states of these three." As the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi reveals this meaning, saying: "Acquisition, non-acquisition, and so forth cannot be apprehended with substantial characteristics like rūpa, citta, and caittas; nor can they be apprehended with functions different from rūpa, citta, and caittas. Therefore they are not real existents, but are only posited nominally on the states of rūpa and the rest." These definitely do not have real substances or functions different from rūpa, citta, and caittas, because they are accepted as being subsumed under the aggregates, like rūpa, citta, and the rest. If they were different from citta and the rest, they would not be subsumed under citta, caittas, rūpa, or the unconditioned, like absolute non-existence, and would definitely not be real existents. Because earlier it explained all dharmas and later it reveals the nature of dharmas (dharmatā), unconditioned dharmas are explained fifth. Therefore the treatise says: "Because it is revealed by these four." As the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi reveals this meaning, saying: "Yet all unconditioned [dharmas] are the nature of what is known, or are the nature revealed by rūpa, citta, and the rest, like rūpa, citta, and the rest; one should not cling to them as a real unconditioned nature apart from rūpa, citta, and the rest." If they were different from citta and the rest, they would not be the nature of dharmas. Therefore, unconditioned dharmas are revealed in dependence on the former four. Although they are not separate in substance from all dharmas, neither are they identical with all dharmas, because their natures of permanence and impermanence are distinct. "Such is the order" sums up the preceding discussion. Broadly speaking, the order of all dharmas has five kinds: First is arising: as with the twelve links, which arise sequentially from cause first to fruit later. Second is contemplative practice: as with the four noble truths, which are contemplated sequentially from fruit first to cause later. Third is coarse and subtle: as with the six perfections, which are cultivated sequentially from coarse first to subtle later. Fourth is superior and inferior: as with citta and caittas, which exist sequentially from superior first to inferior later. Fifth is verbal explanation: as with the correct abandonments, which are explained sequentially though without the preceding characteristics. Aligning them with the preceding five dharmas: citta, caittas, rūpa, and non-associated formations have the order of arising and of superior and inferior; they additionally explain the unconditioned in terms of the order of coarse and subtle, because conditioned affairs are coarse while the unconditioned is subtle. The Hīnayāna, relying on the order of coarse and subtle, places rūpa dharmas first, because among all dharmas rūpa is the coarsest. It also relies on contemplative practice, because the contemplation of impurity, an essential gateway of the Buddha's Dharma, relies on rūpa dharmas; and because it does not accept that all dharmas are transformed by the mind, it does not take citta as the very first.