成唯識論述記 1.270

1.270

述曰：筏蹉氏外道名「犢子外道」男聲中呼。歸佛出家，名「犢子部」、「皤雌子部」，女聲中呼，即是一也。上古有仙居山寂處，貪心不已，遂染母牛，因遂生男，流諸苗裔，此後種類皆言「犢子」，即婆羅門之一姓也。《涅槃經》說犢子外道歸佛出家，此後門徒相傳不絕，今時此部是彼苗裔，遠襲為名，名「犢子部」。正量部等亦作此計。然《廣百論》第二、三卷唯有三種；《對法》第一、《瑜伽》第六及六十四、《顯揚》第十並有四種。然今此文列有三種，義寬於《瑜伽》，彼無第三，非即、離計。經部本計我亦非離蘊，偏破犢子，如《俱舍論》第二十九并三十說。然薩婆多等敘外道，計無離蘊者，以二十句等我見等中，唯即蘊故，如《毘婆沙》第八卷。問：為有離蘊計為我耶？彼答言：無。諸所執我一切皆緣五取蘊故，緣蘊外無不生心故。今者大乘說有離蘊計為我者，如《瑜伽》等說，然亦釋經：一切皆緣五取蘊起，至下當知。此據影像相分為論，必須有故；所緣緣體非無法故，非據本質，本質諸蘊或復無故。然今大乘影像而言，緣無心不生；本質而說，緣無心亦起。薩婆多說緣有心生，無即不起。經部師說緣無心得生，不要於有。大乘一念即俱得緣，獨無不生，俱無得起，故三宗別。

The Commentary states: The Vātsīputrīya outsiders are called 'Calf-Son Outsiders' when addressed in the masculine gender. Those who took refuge in the Buddha and went forth are called the 'Vātsīputrīya school' or 'Bādhīputrīya school' when addressed in the feminine gender; they are one and the same. In ancient times there was a seer living in a secluded mountain place; unable to quell his lustful mind, he defiled a cow, and consequently a boy was born, from whom descendants flowed. Thereafter, all of this lineage were called 'Calf-Son', which is one of the Brahmin clans. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says that Calf-Son outsiders took refuge in the Buddha and went forth, and thereafter their disciples passed it on without interruption; now this school consists of their descendants, continuing the ancient name, called the 'Vātsīputrīya school'. The Saṃmatīya and others also hold this position. However, fascicles two and three of the Guang bai lun have only three kinds; the first fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya, fascicles six and sixty-four of the Yogācārabhūmi, and fascicle ten of the Prakaraṇāryavācā all have four kinds. Now, this text lists three kinds, which is broader in scope than the Yogācārabhūmi, which lacks the third position of neither identical nor separate. The fundamental position of the Sautrāntikas is also that the self is not separate from the aggregates; this specifically refutes the Vātsīputrīyas, as explained in fascicles twenty-nine and thirty of the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra. However, when the Sarvāstivādins and others recount the outsiders, they maintain there are none separate from the aggregates, because in the twenty views of selfhood and the like, it is exclusively identical with the aggregates, as in fascicle eight of the Mahāvibhāṣā. Question: Is there a position that takes what is separate from the aggregates as the self? They answer: No. All posited selves are conditioned upon the five grasping aggregates, because outside the aggregates there is no non-existent object that causes a mind to arise. Now, the Mahāyāna says there are positions taking what is separate from the aggregates as the self, as explained in the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts; however, it also explains the sūtra statement that 'all arise conditioning the five grasping aggregates', as will be known below. This is argued based on the reflected image-aspect (nimittabhāga), which must exist, because the substance of the objective condition (ālambanapratyaya) is not a non-existent dharma; it is not based on the original archetype (mūla-dravya), for the archetypal aggregates may be absent. Now, according to the Mahāyāna, in terms of the reflected image, a mind does not arise conditioning what is non-existent; in terms of the original archetype, a mind can also arise conditioning what is non-existent. The Sarvāstivādins state that a mind arises conditioning what is existent, and if it is non-existent, it does not arise. The Sautrāntika masters state that a mind can arise conditioning what is non-existent, without requiring what is existent. In the Mahāyāna, in a single thought-moment, both can be conditioned: it does not arise from an absolute non-existence alone, but can arise where there is non-existence [of an archetype together with an image]; thus the three schools differ.