成唯識論述記 2.106

2.106

述曰：自下第二、顯色頓變，非積小義。自申正義，述能成所成根、塵等義。隨其相分形量大小，其能變識頓現此相，非別變作眾多極微，如薩婆多，從小至大合成一物。如《瑜伽》第三及五十四、《顯揚》第五、第十六、第十八，皆廣解之。此中意說順世、衛世極微本是常法，所生子微與因量等，仍名為麁，是無常法。子微聚集與量德合，方成大量。薩婆多微隨何色者，即彼處攝，七極微成微，乃至展轉積小成大，皆是實有。經部極微體是實有，積成大物，大物是假，實隨於假，十處所攝；大乘極微法處所攝，然是假法。其色處等形量大者，體是實有，折大成小極微故假。由此識變，但隨形量若大若小，不從於小以成大也。所言「一相」，是假一相，形假似一，實非是一，不同衛世，間如色等法形表等假，五識緣時，為緣假實，若緣長等，即同經部，應無緣義。若不緣者，如何此中言「隨大小」？又如何說長等假色，色處所收？答：由此義故西方二釋：一云五唯緣實；五識唯現量，明了緣自相故；如色處中唯青等，實眼識緣之；五識同時意識，明了取得長短等故。長等假色，色處所攝，若以別根、境相對，長等法處收，唯意緣故。此中所言「隨大小」者，隨其顯色大小頓變，眼識緣之，無大小解，今談之為大小等也，意識緣之作大小相，非五識能緣作大小解，即是假形。色處既爾，乃至觸處亦不緣假，唯緣本實四大為境，不同經部。第二師云：五亦緣假，以能明了照其自相，是處自相，非事自相，亦非自相自相。「處」者，十二處。「事」者，謂青、黃等各各別事。「自相自相」者，於一青中復有多微，一一各別，或多分段，各各有別。由如是理，故名現量，非言現量皆是實法，無漏亦緣諸假法故。然假有二：一、無體假；二、相待假；前如忿等，後如悔等。以癡相說，長等但是相待假收，非如青等相待仍實，名之為假，體是有法，無如經部緣假之失，長等有體，依他法故，長等但是青等分位，其實五識得多青等，名緣長等，無別緣也，唯意得之。名「緣假」者，五識亦緣青分位故，故《瑜伽論》第三卷說，識變色時隨小大中，由此長等，本識亦變。此甚難解，前解為勝，如《對法》第一疏。

The Commentary states: Below is the second section, revealing that visible form transforms instantaneously, not by accumulating small parts. Setting forth the correct doctrine, it expounds the meaning of sense faculties, dusts, and so forth, as both what can produce and what is produced. According to the size and shape of its nimittabhāga, the transforming consciousness instantaneously manifests this mark; it does not separately transform into numerous atoms that, as in the Sarvāstivāda, unite from small to large to compose a single entity. As the Yogācāra[-bhūmi] fascicles 3 and 54, and the Prakaraṇāryavācā fascicles 5, 16, and 18, all explain at length. The intention here is to state: in the Lokāyata and Vaiśeṣika, atoms are originally permanent entities; the child-atoms they produce are equal in quantity to the causes, yet are still called coarse and are impermanent entities. When the child-atoms aggregate and unite with the quality of quantity, they finally form large quantities. In the Sarvāstivāda, whatever form an atom belongs to, it is subsumed under that sense base; seven atoms form an aṇu, and so on, gradually accumulating small to make large, all being substantially existent. In the Sautrāntika, the substance of an atom is substantially existent; when accumulated into a large entity, the large entity is nominal; reality accords with the nominal, and both are subsumed under the ten sense bases. In the Mahāyāna, atoms are subsumed under the dharmāyatana, yet are nominal entities. Those large shapes and quantities in the rūpāyatana and so forth are substantially existent; through dividing the large to make the small, atoms are therefore nominal. Hence, consciousness transformation merely accords with shape and quantity, whether large or small; it does not proceed from the small to make the large. What is called "a single mark" is a nominal single mark; the nominal shape resembles unity, but in reality is not one, unlike the Vaiśeṣika. As for nominal shapes and expressions among visible forms, when the five consciousnesses cognise them, do they cognise the nominal or the real? If they cognise long and so forth, they would be identical to the Sautrāntika, and should lack the meaning of condition. If they do not cognise them, why does it say here "according to size"? And why is it said that nominal forms such as long are subsumed under the rūpāyatana? Answer: Due to this meaning, there are two explanations in the West: One says that the five only cognise the real; because the five consciousnesses are purely pratyakṣa and clearly cognise svalakṣaṇa; just as within the rūpāyatana they cognise only blue and the like, which are real, by the visual consciousness; and the mental consciousness contemporaneous with the five consciousnesses clearly apprehends long, short, and the like. Nominal forms like long are subsumed under the rūpāyatana; if contrasted with distinct faculties and objects, long and the like are subsumed under the dharmāyatana, being cognised solely by the mind. What is said here as "according to size" means that according to the size of the manifest color, it is instantaneously transformed; the visual consciousness cognises it without forming an understanding of size, and we now speak of it as size and so forth; the mental consciousness cognises it and forms the mark of size, whereas the five consciousnesses cannot cognise it to form an understanding of size; this is nominal shape. If the rūpāyatana is thus, down to the spraṣṭavyāyatana, it also does not cognise the nominal, but cognises only the fundamentally real four great elements as its object, unlike the Sautrāntika. The second master says: the five also cognise the nominal, because they can clearly illuminate its svalakṣaṇa; this is the svalakṣaṇa of an āyatana, not the svalakṣaṇa of an individual item, nor the svalakṣaṇa of a svalakṣaṇa. "Āyatana" refers to the twelve āyatanas. "Item" refers to distinct items like blue, yellow, and so forth. "Svalakṣaṇa of a svalakṣaṇa" means that within a single blue there are furthermore many atoms, each distinct, or many segments, each distinct. Due to such reasoning, it is named pratyakṣa; it does not mean that pratyakṣa is always a real entity, because anāsrava [wisdom] also cognises nominal phenomena. However, nominal entities are of two kinds: first, nominal without substance; second, nominal by mutual dependence; the former is like anger, the latter like regret. Speaking in terms of ignorance, long and the like are subsumed solely under the nominal by mutual dependence; unlike blue and the like, which are still real in mutual dependence, they are called nominal, yet their substance is an existing entity; thus avoiding the Sautrāntika fault of cognising the nominal. Long and the like have substance because they are paratantra phenomena; long and the like are merely positions of blue and the like. In reality, the five consciousnesses apprehend multiple blues and the like, which is called cognising long and the like; there is no separate cognising, for it is apprehended solely by the mind. That it is called "cognising the nominal" is because the five consciousnesses also cognise the positions of blue; therefore, fascicle 3 of the Yogācārabhūmi says that when consciousness transforms visible form, it accords with small, large, or medium, and thus the fundamental consciousness also transforms long and the like. This is very difficult to understand; the former explanation is superior, as in the first commentary on the Abhidharma-samuccaya.