成唯識論述記 7.518

7.518

述曰：此顯說彼十二處喻。《二十唯識》復說頌言：「依彼所化生，世尊密意趣，說有色等處，如化生有情」。彼自釋言，如佛說有化生有情，彼但依心相續不斷能往後世，密意趣說，不說實有化生有情，說無有情我，但有法因故說色等處。契經亦爾。依所化生宜受彼教密意趣說，非別實有。如有外道，計我實有，佛說無我。外道謂佛說死已後，斷滅無餘，便來問佛：「死後既無，我寧非斷滅？」佛答彼曰：「有化生有情，續於死後，非謂斷滅。實無有情，但有如幻，化生有情」，佛觀彼意恐謂斷滅，說有中有化生有情，非許實有化生有情。但隨所宜佛便為說。故說諸處其義亦然，法體離言幻化法故，非十二處，故今引此以為同喻。問：眾生執有我，為破實我說法處；眾生執有法，為破彼法應別說。

The Commentary states: This reveals the illustrative example for speaking of those twelve āyatanas. The Viṃśikā-vijñaptimātratā further states in verse: "Depending on those beings to be transformed, / the World-Honoured One, with intentional import, / spoke of there being āyatanas such as form, / just like apparitionally born sentient beings." Its own commentary explains: Just as the Buddha spoke of apparitionally born sentient beings, that was only based on the unbroken continuity of mind able to go to future lives, spoken with an intentional import; he did not speak of really existing apparitionally born sentient beings. He spoke of there being no sentient being or self, but only phenomenal causes, and therefore spoke of the āyatanas such as form. The sūtras are also like this: based on what is appropriate for those beings to be transformed to receive that teaching, it was spoken with intentional import, not as separate realities. Just as when a non-Buddhist posited that the self is real, the Buddha taught selflessness; the non-Buddhist thought that the Buddha was teaching that after death there is total annihilation without remainder, and came to ask the Buddha: "If there is nothing after death, is my self not annihilated?" The Buddha answered him, saying: "There are apparitionally born sentient beings who continue after death, which is not to say there is annihilation. In reality there are no sentient beings, but only apparitionally born sentient beings like an illusion." The Buddha observed his intention, and fearing he would suppose there was annihilation, spoke of there being apparitionally born sentient beings of the intermediate state, not that he conceded really existing apparitionally born sentient beings. He merely taught in accordance with what was suitable. Therefore, speaking of the āyatanas has the same meaning: because phenomenal entities are illusory phenomena beyond words, they are not twelve āyatanas; hence this is now cited as a parallel example. Question: Sentient beings grasp at the existence of a self; to demolish a real self he spoke of the āyatanas of phenomena. Sentient beings grasp at the existence of phenomena; to demolish those phenomena, should he not speak separately?