瑜伽師地論略纂 13.23

13.23

論云「及諸色根所依處，根所依處」者，即攝造根四大，及扶根四大，及扶根塵。護月有二種五根：一、意識及相應變者；二、末那相應變者，彼以第七識緣第八相分為我所故。　問曰：若爾，第七既緣第八相以為我所，即第七名無漏緣使耶？以緣第八相為我所故。今解：唯緣根及所依等為所緣，非種子，種子即自體上義分，即自證分緣，故非無漏緣使。第七雖緣第八起我，然迷總報，故迷現行，不別緣還滅上功能，故非無漏緣使。　若爾，亦緣第八所緣外器為所緣，應是上界緣使。述曰：不然。第八雖緣上器，然有親有疎：欲界者親，由業感緣；上界者疎，不由業感緣。第七既緣第八見分為我，所緣相業所招生親相分者，即欲界器。其我所即須隨我，我既欲界繫，所亦應然，故非他界緣使。　問曰：意識緣上界色等時，此即隨見分欲界繫；第八既緣上界相色等，即應欲界繫。述曰：不然。第八含種子，種子故，第六不然，故不為例。有種故，親變故，第八境非欲界繫；第六識等不名種子，影像緣故，隨見分欲界繫。又解：護月第七緣第八時無我所，通說故言，其實無也。三、本識所變五根。今唯有所變實業感者，非餘二種五根也。此緣內時，其造聲四大一切時有，常緣其聲界，義說有之，其實無有。即緣聲之種子及四大故，名為緣聲，非現行聲一切時有也。此中應有一大增時，如眼中，地大、身根、眼根、四塵，即七物可得知，餘無不可得者，彼增時亦則說緣。其護法唯有二種五根：第八、第六二識所變，第七緣第八為我家之我，即為我所故。護月難護法曰：若上不緣下外器者，何故修生天眼，第八緣也？義曰：此非第八境，故不緣，唯意所行。若爾，心無境無，意不緣此，第八復不緣，其眼應無。若爾，如五識非第八境，意不緣此，五識豈即應無？識是見分，取於所緣，此根非見分，何得為例？亦隨識為見分，故同五識。述曰：緣未必要須業所感者，如下界長養根等，第八亦緣；如種雖非業生，第八亦不妨緣。若爾，何故不許上地離下地生時亦緣外器相？以下界第八緣上界眼故。如下次自解。

The treatise says, "and the support-bases of the physical sense-faculties; 'support-bases of the sense-faculties'" means subsuming the four great elements that produce the sense-faculties, the four great elements that support the sense-faculties, and the sensory data that assist the sense-faculties. Candragupta maintains two kinds of five sense-faculties: first, those transformed by the mental consciousness and its associated [mental factors]; second, those transformed in association with manas, because the seventh consciousness takes the nimittabhāga of the eighth as 'mine'. Question: If so, since the seventh consciousness takes the nimittabhāga of the eighth as 'mine', would the seventh then be termed an anusaya that takes the unconditioned/untainted as object, because it takes the nimittabhāga of the eighth as 'mine'? Now it is explained: it only takes the sense-faculties and their support-bases and so forth as objects, not the seeds; seeds are an aspectual distinction on its own substance, taken as object by the svasaṃvittibhāga, hence it is not an anusaya taking the untainted as object. Although the seventh consciousness arises [with the notion of] 'I' by taking the eighth as object, it is deluded about the general fruition (vipāka), and thus deluded about actual active dharmas (samudācāra); it does not separately take as object the capacity regarding cessation (nirodha), and therefore is not an anusaya taking the untainted as object. If so, it would also take the external receptacle-world taken as object by the eighth as its object, and thus it ought to be an anusaya taking a higher realm as object. The commentary states: This is not so. Although the eighth takes the higher receptacle-world as object, there is the direct and the indirect: that of the desire realm is direct, being taken as object through the retributive karmic force; that of the higher realms is indirect, not taken as object through the retributive karmic force. Since the seventh consciousness takes the darśanabhāga of the eighth as 'I', the nimittabhāga born of karma that is taken as object—the directly produced nimittabhāga—is precisely the receptacle-world of the desire realm. The 'mine' must follow the 'I': since the 'I' is bound to the desire realm, the 'mine' must likewise be so; hence it is not an anusaya taking another realm as object. Question: When the mental consciousness takes rūpa and so forth of the higher realm as object, it follows the darśanabhāga and is bound to the desire realm; since the eighth takes the nimitta-rūpa and so forth of the higher realm as object, it ought likewise to be bound to the desire realm. The commentary states: This is not so. The eighth contains seeds; because of the seeds, it is so, but the sixth is not, hence it cannot serve as a parallel. Because there are seeds and because it transforms them directly, the object of the eighth is not bound to the desire realm; the sixth consciousness and so forth are not called seeds, and because they take an image (pratibimba) as object, they follow the darśanabhāga and are bound to the desire realm. Another explanation: According to Candragupta, when the seventh takes the eighth as object, there is no 'mine'; it was stated as a general formulation, but in actuality it is absent. Third: the five sense-faculties transformed by the mūlavijñāna. Here, only those which are real and retributively produced by karma are transformed, not the other two kinds of five sense-faculties. When this takes the internal as object, the four great elements that produce sound exist at all times; it is nominally said that it constantly takes the sound-element as object, but in actuality it does not. That is to say, because it takes the seeds of sound and the four great elements as object, it is described as 'taking sound as object'; active sound does not exist at all times. Herein, when one great element increases, as in the eye, where there are the earth element, body-faculty, eye-faculty, and four sensory data—namely seven entities that can be apprehended—and the rest do not lack what is apprehensible, when those increase, it is also said to take them as object. Dharmapāla maintains only two kinds of five sense-faculties: those transformed by the eighth and sixth consciousnesses, while the seventh takes the eighth as 'the self of my house', that is, as 'mine'. Candragupta objects to Dharmapāla, saying: If a higher [realm] does not take the lower external receptacle-world as object, why does the eighth take the divyacakṣus cultivated and produced as object? The meaning is: this is not an object of the eighth, hence it does not take it as object; it is solely the domain of the intellect (manas). If so, where there is no mind there is no object: if the intellect does not take this as object and the eighth also does not take it as object, that eye-faculty ought not to exist. If so, just as the five consciousnesses are not the object of the eighth, yet if the intellect does not take them as object, would the five consciousnesses then not exist? A consciousness is a darśanabhāga, grasping its object; this sense-faculty is not a darśanabhāga, so how can it serve as a parallel? It also follows consciousness in being a darśanabhāga, and thus is identical to the five consciousnesses. The commentary states: Taking as object does not necessarily require being retributively produced by karma, just as the eighth also takes the nurtured sense-faculties of the lower realm as object; and just as seeds, though not born of karma, can nevertheless be taken as object by the eighth. If so, why is it not admitted that when one is born in an upper stage having separated from a lower stage, one also takes the form of the external receptacle-world as object? Because the eighth of the lower realm takes the eye-faculty of the higher realm as object. This will be explained in detail below.