瑜伽師地論略纂 14.94

14.94

論解假實中云「如別抄於異熟所攝諸蘊」者，謂同時心、心所法等，即如第八同時數等。「及心加行差別中而施設」者，謂異熟心任運生法，非別加行；若三無記，加行心發，故言心加行。於異熟生心上假施設故，故是假有。　問曰：若爾，即無記心非別有體，有異熟生心是任運，此亦是無記、是加行，云何於上假施設耶？以是一名言種子類故，所以餘三假離異熟名言種子外，餘三無記心無別種生，威儀等四塵於異熟五塵上施設故言假故。又身業中，有香等非身業體，何故威儀等中，有四塵乃至皆彼體耶？義曰：若身名有表，唯色可然，香等無表示；色非相明利，香等闇昧，故非也。其威儀界中皆心引生，非如身業俱有香等非心引生，不為例也。謂解大義曰：菩薩、如來各為一，俱有利者之善，餘三人各二，即三人各二為六，菩薩、佛各力一，故八也。　變化差別中云異生、聲聞、獨覺、菩薩、如來差別故，為嬉戲、為利他，身語變化差別故，有八種者，即合獨覺、聲聞為一，以變化業等起，無非餘故四。又開此為二，合菩薩、佛為一，以因果雖異，行相等故。此四人中皆有二種，故成八也。何者為二？一、如論為嬉戲故變化；二、為利他故化。雖有善、無記不同，而皆變化，故成八種。又化不為心，以心非化可作故，唯身、語可化。此四人皆有化身、語，故分為八。若取初解者，如何異生為善事化故，化心善也？若如後解者，論云為嬉戲、為利他，意欲簡善、無記，殊分為八，故不得以後解為勝也。如前解異生為善化心，有何妨難？故取前解順其論文為勝也。若爾，如來如何有無記心？故知後解身、語為勝。嬉戲、利他不應分別不善、無記，但應言由利他等故，皆有身、語。身、語為二。又八者，聲聞、獨覺、菩薩各二，謂無記及善，如來唯善，異生唯無記，故六。又異熟生，一向無記，據任運酬因果也。　「二三可得」者，威儀、工巧通三性也。　「一有二種」者，謂變化心通二性也。

Regarding the treatise's explanation of nominal and real where it states, “as explained elsewhere in the notes, the aggregates subsumed under maturation,” this refers to simultaneous mind and mental factors and the like, which is just like the simultaneous associates of the eighth [consciousness] and so forth. Regarding “and conceptually designated within the distinctions of mental exertion,” this means that the mind of maturation is a phenomenon that arises spontaneously without distinct exertion; whereas the [remaining] three neutralities are generated by an exerting mind, hence it is called “mental exertion.” Because they are conceptually designated upon the mind arisen from maturation, they are nominally existent. Question: If so, then neutral minds do not have a separate substantial entity. The mind arisen from maturation is spontaneous; this is also neutral and is exertion—how is it conceptually designated thereon? [Answer:] Because it belongs to the same class of nominal seeds; therefore the other three are nominal, for apart from the nominal seeds of maturation, the other three neutral minds have no distinct seeds from which they arise. Because the four sensory objects such as bodily comportment are designated upon the five sensory objects of maturation, they are called nominal. Furthermore, among bodily karma there are odors and the like that are not the substance of bodily karma; why is it that among bodily comportment and the like, all four sensory objects and so forth are their substance? The meaning is: if the body is called informative, only visible form can be so, while odor and the like have no informative indication; visible form has distinctive and clear characteristics, whereas odor and the like are obscure, hence they are not [informative]. Within the realm of bodily comportment, all are induced by the mind, unlike bodily karma where co-existing odors and the like are not induced by the mind; this does not serve as an analogy. The explanation of the Great Meaning states: the Bodhisattva and the Tathāgata each constitute one, both possessing the wholesome [mind] of benefiting others; the remaining three persons each have two, so the three persons having two each make six, while the Bodhisattva and the Buddha each make one, hence there are eight. Regarding the distinctions of magical transformation, where it says that through the distinctions of ordinary beings, śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas, and tathāgatas, for amusement or for the benefit of others, through the distinctions of bodily and vocal transformation, there are eight kinds: this combines pratyekabuddhas and śrāvakas into one, because the karma of magical transformation arises equally, leaving no other, hence there are four. Again, opening this into two and combining bodhisattvas and buddhas into one, because although cause and effect differ, their aspects of practice are equal. Among these four persons, each has two kinds, thus making eight. What are the two? First, as the treatise states, transforming for amusement; second, transforming to benefit others. Although there are differences between wholesome and neutral, both are magical transformations, hence they form eight kinds. Furthermore, transformation is not of mind, because mind cannot be made through transformation; only body and speech can be transformed. These four persons each have transformed body and speech, thus divided into eight. If one adopts the first explanation: how could ordinary beings, transforming for wholesome deeds, have a wholesome mind of transformation? If it is according to the latter explanation: the treatise states “for amusement, for benefiting others,” intending to distinguish wholesome and neutral and specially divide them into eight, so one cannot take the latter explanation as superior. As in the former explanation, what fault or difficulty is there in an ordinary being having a wholesome mind of transformation? Therefore, taking the former explanation as conforming with the text of the treatise is superior. If so, how could the Tathāgata have a neutral mind? Therefore we know that the latter explanation of body and speech is superior. Amusement and benefiting others should not be distinguished as unwholesome or neutral; one should only say that on account of benefiting others and so forth, both have body and speech. Body and speech make two. Again, the eight: śrāvakas, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas each have two, namely neutral and wholesome; the Tathāgata is solely wholesome; ordinary beings are solely neutral; thus making six. Furthermore, what arises from maturation is exclusively neutral, based on spontaneously repaying causes and fruits. “Two and three may be obtained” means that bodily comportment and technical crafts are permeable to the three natures. “One has two kinds” means that the mind of magical transformation is permeable to two natures.