成唯識論掌中樞要 2.47

2.47

四食證末，云說為有情依食住者，皆依示現。《中觀論．破如來品》云：如來者亦名眾生。又《智度論》第三十卷云：於二足、四足等眾生等最為尊勝等，說為有情皆是示現；又言於眾生中尊，佛身何必則是眾生。入城乞食等皆名依食住，亦示現也。《對法》第五云：一、不淨依止住食，謂欲界異生由具縛故；二、淨不淨依止住食，謂有學及色、無色界異生有餘縛故；三、清淨依止住食，謂阿羅漢等，解脫一切縛故；四、示現依止住食，謂諸佛及已證得大威德菩薩由唯示現食力住故。《攝論》第十亦同，唯示現食但說唯佛，世尊實不受食，亦不假食，彼約四食作論，故不說菩薩。異熟識食彼非示現，故《對法》據三食作論，恒無漏俱，實無三食，故稱示現，實不相違。又此論據八地以去菩薩實是有情，非是示現，雖現三食，亦不說之。佛示有情，故不為例。或偏依段食，八地已往實不待資。問：何故四食一入長養，餘三非，四種長養三非食耶？《瑜伽》自釋後難、前難如何。

At the end of the proof of the four nutriments, it states that saying that sentient beings abide supported by nutriment is in all cases said in terms of manifestation. The Chapter on the Examination of the Tathāgata in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'The Tathāgata is also called a sentient being.' Furthermore, the thirtieth fascicle of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'Among two-footed, four-footed, and other sentient beings, he is supreme and most exalted,' and so forth; saying that he is a sentient being is entirely an expedient manifestation. It also says that he is supreme among sentient beings; why must the Buddha's body actually be a sentient being? Entering the city to beg for food and the like are all called abiding supported by nutriment, which is also a manifestation. The fifth fascicle of the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-bhāṣya] states: (1) nutriment for abiding on an impure support, which refers to ordinary beings of the desire realm due to being fully bound; (2) nutriment for abiding on a pure and impure support, which refers to trainees (śaikṣa) and ordinary beings of the form and formless realms due to having remaining bonds; (3) nutriment for abiding on a pure support, which refers to arhats and others, because of being liberated from all bonds; (4) nutriment for abiding on a manifest support, which refers to the Buddhas and bodhisattvas who have attained great majestic power, because they abide solely through the manifested power of food. The tenth fascicle of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha is also the same: solely manifest nutriment is spoken of only for the Buddhas; the World-Honoured One does not actually receive food, nor does he depend on food. That text constructs its discussion around the four nutriments, and thus does not speak of bodhisattvas. Vipāka-vijñāna nutriment is not a manifestation for them, so the Abhidharma[-samuccaya-bhāṣya] conducts its discussion based on three nutriments; because it is constantly conjoined with the anāsrava, there are in reality no three nutriments, and hence it is called manifest; there is in reality no contradiction. Furthermore, this treatise relies on the fact that bodhisattvas from the eighth bhūmi onward are truly sentient beings, not manifestations; although they manifest the three nutriments, it does not speak of them. The Buddha manifests as a sentient being, and therefore is not comparable. Or, it refers specifically to kavaḍīkārāhāra, which those beyond the eighth bhūmi truly do not depend on for sustenance. Question: Why among the four nutriments does only one enter into nourishment, while the other three do not; and among the four kinds of nourishment, why are three not nutriment? The Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra itself explains the latter question; what about the former question?