大乘百法明門論開宗義記 1.36

1.36

The Treatise: "1. pudgalanairātmya; 2. dharmanairātmya." The commentary says: This differentiates and lists them according to the number. These two kinds of anātman are fully explained in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi; I briefly cite the text of the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi to explain them. Now, "anātman" (no-self) is established in opposition to the marks of a self. Because the self that is grasped has two kinds of marks, the absence of a self is spoken of with these two names. Therefore, one should first distinguish the two kinds of marks of a self. Pudgala has two translations here: if translated according to worldly convention, it is called "person" (ren); if translated according to the scriptures, it is called "one who repeatedly takes destinations [of rebirth]" (shuququ). Hence the new and old translations have these two distinctions. "Dharma" means to uphold [its own nature] and provide a model [for cognition]. "Self" (ātman) takes being a master and controller as its designation. Free agency and decisive governance are called "master and controller". External paths sometimes grasp that apart from all dharmas there is a distinct real self that is an agent: this is the mark of a pudgala-self. Ordinary worldlings sometimes grasp that the aggregates of form and so on all possess an intrinsic nature and are productive agents and so forth: this is the mark of a dharma-self here. Now, within the Buddha's teaching, the marks of a self are shown to be nonexistent; therefore, two kinds of anātman are demonstrated here. If apart from all dharmas there were a distinct real self, then all dharmas should be real and permanent, because like the agent they would have no change or destruction. Hence the Yogācārabhūmi says: "Because a real self distinct from all conditioned formations arising from conditions cannot be found." If it is said that all dharmas themselves are the self, then all dharmas would also not be impermanent, because they would have the mark of an autonomous, real self. Hence the Yogācārabhūmi says: "Because the nature of all conditioned formations arising from conditions is not a real self, being impermanent." The meanings of these two—the anātman of persons and of dharmas—are explained at length in the Abhidharmakośa, Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, and elsewhere. Here, both person and dharma are called "anātman"; thus both are discussed in opposition to marks of a self. In the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, however, self and dharma are distinguished: the various marks of a self are sentient being, living soul, and so forth; the various marks of a dharma are aggregates, sense bases, elements, and so forth. This is based on actual meaning, whereas that text is based on the predominance of the mark. Because the meaning of "master and controller" is predominant with respect to persons, it demonstrates the mark of a self exclusively in reference to sentient beings. Therefore, in the principle of the two emptinesses, self and dharma are also distinct. If one grasps that there is something really existent, autonomous, and permanent, then the meaning of "self" also applies throughout all dharmas. Therefore, anātman applies equally to persons and dharmas. If so, why are there these two graspings, based on which the sacred teachings explain the marks of a self? Answer: They are spoken of as conceptual designations based on false perfuming. That is to say, through the force of the perfuming of beginningless false grasping of a real self by sentient beings, when the consciousnesses arise, they manifest into the semblance of marks of a self. Although these two marks of a self exist within internal consciousness, due to conceptual differentiation they arise seeming to be external objects. Just as with one who is under an illusion or dreaming: due to the power of the illusion or dream, the mind appears in the semblance of various external objects, and focusing on these, grasps them as really existent marks of a self. Each of these two marks of a self has two types: 1. innate (sahaja); 2. intellectually formed (parikalpita). Innate ātmagrāha, through the internal causal power of beginningless false perfuming, is always coexistent with the body. Not depending on false teachings or false conceptual differentiations, it arises spontaneously; hence it is called "innate". This again has two kinds: 1. Constant and continuous: occurring in the seventh consciousness, taking the eighth consciousness as its object, it produces an aspect of its own mind and grasps it as a real self. 2. Intermittent: occurring in the sixth consciousness, taking the images of the five grasping aggregates manifested by consciousness as its object, either collectively or individually, it produces an aspect of its own mind and grasps it as a real self. These two [forms of innate] ātmagrāha are subtle and therefore difficult to sever. Later, in the path of cultivation (bhāvanāmārga), one must repeatedly cultivate the two superior contemplations of emptiness to eliminate them. Intellectually formed ātmagrāha also occurs through the power of present external conditions and is not coexistent with the body; it must depend on false teachings and false conceptual differentiations before it can arise, and hence it is called "intellectually formed". It exists only in the sixth mental consciousness. This also has two kinds: 1. Taking as its object the marks of the aggregates taught by false teachings, it produces an aspect of its own mind, and through conceptual discrimination grasps it as a real self. 2. Taking as its object the marks of a self having an intrinsic nature and so forth taught by false teachings, it produces an aspect of its own mind, and through conceptual discrimination grasps it as a real self. These two [forms of intellectually formed] ātmagrāha are coarse and therefore easy to sever; upon entering the first bhūmi, when one contemplates all dharmas and the tathatā of the two emptinesses, one can eliminate them. As for the two marks of a self described in this way: dharmas external to one's own mind may or may not exist, but dharmas internal to one's own mind all exist. Therefore, both graspings take as their object the semblance of dharmas manifested by one's own mind, grasping them as the mark of a self. Apart from one's own mind, [a self] cannot be found in reality. Hence both persons and dharmas are without self. The meanings of the two selves of person and dharma are limitless. Fearing an overly extensive text, I have stated them concisely. Those who delight in broad learning should seek out the extensive treatises.