成唯識論述記 10.670

10.670

述曰：善等三性，識之相分，不必皆同，性相別故，有漏名等，勢分轉故，不順理故，不能引相與見分，相必能令同，如鼻、舌、身識見與彼相分，非必同性，故與見分非必性同。見、相分中，三性因緣雜引生故，不可同性，作用別故，性不可同，如無漏緣使等相分唯有漏，虛空等能緣心通三性，相分唯無記，香等三境唯無記，能緣之識通三性等。若皆純種唯一性者，三境唯無記，等言應不成失，不可說約第八所變唯說無記。三識所變通三性，二境亦爾，以三識所變三處攝故，應言通三性，諸論無文故。虛空、非擇，例亦應然，故相分、見分不必同性。性別既爾，蘊等識相或相、見分同，或相、見分異，類此應知，亦不定故。若相分與見分蘊等亦同，便無五蘊、十二處、十八界別。既有三科別，明知相、見分等不必皆同。《佛地論》說，三身生滅門，化自、他身色俱非等，化心亦爾。三身相對四句門，生法二身攝三身門，十佛攝三身門，如彼第七。因解身、土能變、所變，即釋唯識相、見異同。

The Commentary states: As for the three natures of wholesome and so forth, the nimittabhāga of consciousness does not necessarily share the same nature, because nature and marks are distinct; because the terms of the sāsrava and so forth roll on in momentum, and do not accord with reason, they cannot induce the nimitta to be necessarily identical with the darśanabhāga. Just as the darśana and nimittabhāga of the nose-, tongue-, and body-consciousnesses are not necessarily of the same nature, they are therefore not necessarily of the same nature as the darśanabhāga. Because within the darśana- and nimitta-bhāgas the three natures are heterogeneously induced and generated by causes and conditions, they cannot be of the same nature; because their functions are distinct, their natures cannot be identical. For instance, the nimittabhāga of anāsrava cognizing the anusayas is solely sāsrava; the mind cognizing space and so forth admits of the three natures, yet the nimittabhāga is solely indeterminate; the three sense fields of odors and so forth are solely indeterminate, while the cognizing consciousness admits of the three natures, and so forth. If they were all purely of a single nature from pure seeds, the statement that the three sense fields are solely indeterminate, and so forth, would fall into error; one cannot say that, in terms of what is transformed by the eighth consciousness, it is stated to be solely indeterminate. What is transformed by the three consciousnesses admits of the three natures, and the two sense objects are also likewise: since what is transformed by the three consciousnesses is subsumed under three places, it should be said that they admit of the three natures, but there is no textual evidence for this in the treatises. Space and the uncalculated [cessation] should also be treated as analogous; therefore, the nimittabhāga and darśanabhāga are not necessarily of the same nature. Since the difference in nature is such, whether the marks of consciousness such as skandhas are identical or different between the nimitta- and darśana-bhāgas should be understood by analogy, as it is also not fixed. If the nimittabhāga were identical in skandhas and so forth with the darśanabhāga, there would be no distinction of the five skandhas, twelve āyatanas, and eighteen dhātus. Since there is the distinction of the three classifications, it is clearly known that the nimitta- and darśana-bhāga and so forth are not necessarily all identical. The Buddhabhūmisūtra-śāstra states, in the section on the arising and ceasing of the three bodies, that the forms of transforming oneself and others are both non-forms, and so on; transformation of mind is also likewise. The section on the four alternatives between the three bodies, the section on the two bodies of generation and dharma subsuming the three bodies, and the section on the ten Buddhas subsuming the three bodies, are as in its seventh fascicle. In connection with explaining the transforming and transformed aspects of bodies and lands, it thereby explains the differences and similarities of the nimitta and darśana in vijñapti-mātra.