成唯識論述記 3.274

3.274

問：大乘所緣本是心變，隨心何繫，地、境亦隨之故，如在欲界命終生上，此潤生愛是上界繫，依欲界身，緣欲界身，仍相分中所變相分是上界繫，隨見心說，第七緣第八相分亦然。何故不如此中緣種、境是異界繫，心是異界繫？答曰：不例，如本識緣異地身、異地器。異地身者，在下界起他界地天眼、耳等，此豈非是緣異地身。異地器者，如緣於彼無色諸天淚下如雨，此非菩薩生彼化作，聖說菩薩不生彼故，乃是信有第八教，生彼入滅定，此是利根，亦緣下地，即利根不還、阿羅漢等。又下菩薩等入彼界定所變生色，此並得緣，故同種子，相、見地別，此同前難，何勞為證？此若不爾，七識緣境下文但據由分別心，不是定有實用故變，本識必有實用故變。他界地身、器，見、相得別繫，七識不爾，故繫隨相。若不爾者，本識亦但隨心變境，即天眼、耳無識持故，應名爛壞，應非有情。若一身中起二界身，俱是實有，第八不持，非此身攝，即眾生界有增減過。第十卷云：三性雜生，故相、見分不必同性，如二禪以上起初禪眼、耳，身識緣上地色，此亦相、見別地所繫。

Question: In the Mahāyāna, cognitive objects are fundamentally transformed by citta, and whatever realm the citta is bound to, the stage and object also follow it. For example, when one dies in the desire realm and is born above, the craving that moistens rebirth is bound to the higher realm; relying on the desire-realm body, it cognizes the desire-realm body, yet the nimittabhāga transformed within the nimittabhāga is bound to the higher realm, being designated in accordance with the cognizing citta; the seventh [consciousness] cognizing the nimittabhāga of the eighth is also like this. Why is it not like this case, where in cognizing seeds the object is bound to a different realm and the citta is bound to a different realm? Answer: They cannot be equated, just as when the fundamental consciousness cognizes a body of a different stage or a vessel of a different stage. As for a body of a different stage: when one in the lower realm gives rise to divine eyes, divine ears, and so forth of other realms and stages, is this not cognizing a body of a different stage? As for a vessel of a different stage: for example, when one cognizes those formless devas whose tears fall like rain—this is not a transformation created by a bodhisattva born there, because the noble teachings state that bodhisattvas are not born there, but rather those who have faith in the teaching of the eighth consciousness and, having been born there, enter the cessation attainment; these are those of sharp faculties who also cognize lower stages, namely non-returners, arhats, and so forth of sharp faculties. Furthermore, the visible forms produced through transformation when lower bodhisattvas and others enter the samādhi of that realm—all these can be cognized. Therefore, like seeds, the nimittabhāga and darśanabhāga belong to different stages. This is the same as the former objection, so why labor to use it as proof? If it were not so, the seven consciousnesses cognizing objects—as explained in the text below—merely rely on the conceptualizing mind, transforming without necessarily having real utility, whereas the fundamental consciousness must transform with real utility. With the body and vessel of another realm and stage, the darśanabhāga and nimittabhāga can be bound differently, but the seven consciousnesses are not like this, so their binding follows the nimittabhāga. If it were not so, and the fundamental consciousness also merely transformed objects following citta, then divine eyes and ears, lacking consciousness to sustain them, would rot and decay, and would not belong to sentient beings. If in a single body the bodies of two realms were produced and both were truly existent, but the eighth did not sustain them and they were not subsumed within this body, then there would be the fault of increase and decrease in the realm of sentient beings. The tenth fascicle states: Because the three natures arise in a mixed manner, the nimittabhāga and darśanabhāga do not necessarily share the same nature, just as when one from the second dhyāna or above gives rise to the eye, ear, and body consciousnesses of the first dhyāna to cognize visible forms of the higher stages, here too the nimittabhāga and darśanabhāga are bound to different stages.