瑜伽師地論略纂 13.37

13.37

論云「亦是有情互起根本，一切有情相望互為增上緣故」等者，此中諸法師敘云西方二說：一云護月第八亦變為他身。二、護法不然，謂第八為二變，謂變根等，令自見等，此是不共相業感；二、亦共相感，令他見等，故名增上緣。若護月云亦變為他身者，其他身五根識所依者，亦從自身種子而生，則他依之識何非自種生耶？應同於根。立量云：他身眼識應從自身種子生，他身眼根、眼識之中隨一攝故，如他身眼根。若他身識所依根自不親生者，與我何異？他為增上緣，而第八變故。然變為他身是即外器所攝，非託變他實根識，託變彼扶根塵，第六識可計為有情等。此中有二業，謂共、不共。然共中有二，謂共中共、共中不共。如一外器世界，他共緣受用故，名共中共。如衣物等，唯自所用，他雖有用義名共，然自受用業勝，名共中不共。不共中亦二，謂不共中不共、不共中共。謂如自眼根，他識不依，唯自識依，名不共中不共。其扶根塵等，自不共業招，然亦他第八變，即不共中共。今解：此以理准文，即他身是不共中共業。然大乘中以理剋之，曾問云：如自身中眼識所變，亦非意等所見者，何況他人？如何名共中共、不共中共？敘曰：然以理准，無共者皆自第八所變，他即不受用。今據相似，如眼根唯自受用義，他無，名不共中不共。其外器世界雖自變者，非他用，然受用中有相似義，謂言共用，故名共業。餘之二句，准此應釋。今現亦則變他身實根等義。又有云：二師義者，一云變，第八託他身而變；第二云眼識依彼第八所變而更變之。若爾，何者？不然，豈以眼重依之而便說異？如此等理，有識詳之。以上列雜染根本，次下釋妨難。謂阿賴耶中解脫分等種子是何等共諦等，問曰何故。次下起此文，故結中無勘，下結文即知。

The treatise says: "They are also the root of sentient beings' mutual arising, because all sentient beings serve as sovereign conditions (adhipati-pratyaya) with respect to one another," and so forth. Here, various Dharma masters relate two Western views: First, Candragomin states that the eighth consciousness also transforms into the bodies of others. Second, Dharmapāla says this is not so; he states that the eighth consciousness produces two kinds of transformation: transforming the sense faculties and so forth so that oneself sees them, which is induced by unshared karmic characteristics; second, it is also induced by shared characteristics so that others see them, which is why it is called a sovereign condition. If Candragomin says that it also transforms into the bodies of others, then the consciousnesses of the other body's five faculties, upon which they depend, would also arise from one's own seeds; why then would the consciousness dependent on them not arise from one's own seeds? It should be the same as the sense faculties. Establishing an inference: "The visual consciousness of another body should arise from one's own seeds (thesis); because it is included within either the visual faculty or visual consciousness of another body (reason); like the visual faculty of another body (example)." If the faculties upon which another's consciousness depends were not directly produced by oneself, how would they differ from me? Since another serves as the sovereign condition, the eighth consciousness transforms them. However, transforming into another's body is included within the external receptacle [world], not relying on transforming another's real faculties and consciousnesses; it relies on transforming the auxiliary physical elements (upastambha-rūpa) of those faculties, which the sixth consciousness may impute to be sentient beings, and so forth. Here there are two types of karma: shared and unshared. However, within shared karma there are two: shared within shared, and unshared within shared. Like a single external receptacle world: because others collectively perceive and use it, it is called shared within shared. Like clothing and items: they are used only by oneself; although others have the capacity to use them—hence called shared—one's own karma of experiencing their use is superior, so it is called unshared within shared. Within unshared there are also two: unshared within unshared, and shared within unshared. For example, one's own visual faculty: another consciousness does not depend on it, but only one's own consciousness depends on it; this is called unshared within unshared. As for the auxiliary physical elements of the faculties and so forth, they are brought about by one's own unshared karma, but are also transformed by another's eighth consciousness; this is shared within unshared. Now the explanation is: reasoning by comparing with the text, another's body is karma that is shared within unshared. Yet in the Mahāyāna, when strictly reasoned, it was once asked: "Just as what is transformed by the visual consciousness in one's own body is not seen by the mind and so forth, how much less by other people? How can it be called shared within shared, or shared within unshared?" The explanation says: by reasoning, there is no sharedness; all is transformed by one's own eighth consciousness, and others do not use it. Now, based on similarity: just as the visual faculty has the meaning of being used only by oneself and not by others, it is called unshared within unshared. Although the external receptacle world is transformed by oneself and not used by others, in its experiential use there is an aspect of similarity, which is described as shared use; hence it is called shared karma. The remaining two clauses should be explained in accordance with this. At present, it also has the meaning of transforming the real faculties and so forth of another's body. Furthermore, some say of the positions of the two masters: one says that the eighth consciousness transforms by relying on another's body; the second says that the visual consciousness transforms further by relying on what was transformed by that eighth consciousness. If so, which one? It is not so: how could one speak of difference merely because visual consciousness repeatedly relies on it? Such principles should be examined by the discerning. The above lists the roots of defilement; next below, objections are resolved. Namely, what kind of shared truth and so forth are the seeds of the aids to liberation (mokṣabhāgīya) in the ālayavijñāna? It is asked: for what reason? Next below, this text arises; hence there is no discrepancy in the conclusion, and from the concluding text below it will be known.