成唯識論了義燈 1.116

1.116

釋此頌文如《樞要》說，以義稍難，故更廣之。先定性境，後顯不隨。何名性境？從實種生，有實體用，能緣之心，得彼自相，名為性境。如身在欲界，第八所變，五塵之境。以實種生，復因緣變，名為性境。眼等五識，及俱第六，現量緣時，得境自相，即此相分，亦是性境。相從質故，餘法准知。如此相分，有四不隨：一、不隨能緣同善、染性；二、不從能緣同一界繫；三、不隨能緣同一種生；四、不隨能緣是異熟等。於中雖有與能緣心同界、同姓，是境自性，不由能緣心力，是此性、界地等。名性境不隨心，且如五識通三性，相、質俱無記，不從於五，亦通三性。餘准知之。雖五識身無記性者，緣五塵境，其性雖同，而相、見分，各守自性，不是隨彼能緣心故，方成無記性。餘皆准知。若獨散意識，緣自界五塵等，但是彼境，自住自性，非得自性。然性、種等，亦同五緣。釋第二句，謂能緣心但獨變相，無別本質第二。雖有本質，然彼相分，不生本質，以彼本質，是不生法等。此等相分，及第六識，緣第八識，相應五數所現相分，但與能緣，同一種生故，名獨影唯從見，如獨意識，緣彼空花、及無為等，皆與見分同一種起。或無為緣，是第三句，或是第四，緣第八識，相應五數。或第四句，緣空華等，此等影像，有四從見：一、從見分同是善、染；二、同一界；三、同一種；四、同異熟及非異熟，以不生本質，但意識所變，此之相分由能緣心，故是此界性等，攝相從見故，名獨影唯從見。問：如空花，相分為色為心，若是色者，何得同性？若是心者，本意緣色，云何變心相分緣耶？答：虛妄計者，是遍計色。汎爾緣者，雖非遍計，是彼類故，亦彼所收，以彼同種，故同識性。又遍計名，是分別義，非唯執心，不爾攝法，有不盡失。如似熱病，壞眼等故，非黃見黃。非黃見黃，是第六識，非是眼識得自相故，此雖非是法執之心，亦得名為遍計起色。然所熏種，隨本質收。問：如後得智，緣諸無為，自共二相，及緣凡夫，所緣空華、菟角等相，是何法收？答：緣無為等，所有相分、法同分收，以體是假，法同分寬故。不同有漏，非妄緣故。或緣空花等，亦是遍計所起色攝。遍計之言，是分別故。二解任取。問：如身在上界，以上天眼緣欲界色。此色相分，為何類收？答：一、云雖非獨影，相亦從見，以彼定色，不生於下，地繫別故。此從於見，同一界繫，非同一種。若爾，云何緣自相境耶？答：親杖本質，名得自性。若爾，後得緣無為等，相、見應別？答：雖得自性，元不生故。二、云：性境不隨心，以杖自八所變之色為本質故，別成種故，性自無記，不由心故。又既通果實，是上界似下界故，以天眼通作用勝故。上得似下，不同緣上，要引通果及定果相，同彼方緣。又解所起相分而是業果，雖天眼通，眼識所起，非通果色，以緣欲界業果色故。但由通果心所，變起是彼識緣，如業果眼所起，眼識帶定通果色之相分，何妨通果心，帶於業果色。前二解勝義難更思。問：如有無漏，更互相緣，及不相應，相分何攝？答：亦二解。一、云法同分；二、云遍計色。前釋為正。問：既色中立遍計，心等中何無？答：色聚非緣慮，遍計同彼，立遍計。心法唯能緣，遍計非緣，故不立。不相應法，可許立之，言二十四，且隨勝立，如諸心所，隨勝立故，又隨其所應，亦屬彼能緣心。問：上地散眼耳緣下地不？若不緣下，云何上得見下？若緣於下，相分何收？答：散不緣下，以極遠故，言上見下，據通果故。又解散眼、耳識亦可緣下。如見下三災，生異想等，杖自他質。二解不定，繫從見分，上地所收，有漏異界，不隨增故。有說下繫託下地，相熏成下故，非漏自性，故不隨增。然難思之。

Explaining this verse is as stated in the *Shuyao*; because the meaning is somewhat difficult, I shall elaborate it further. First, define the 'nature-sphere' (xìngjìng), and afterwards show its non-conforming. What is meant by nature-sphere? Born from real seeds, possessing real substantial function, and where the apprehending mind attains its self-characteristic—this is called a nature-sphere. For instance, when the body is in the desire realm, the spheres of the five sense-objects transformed by the eighth [consciousness], being born from real seeds and also transformed through conditioned co-arising, are called a nature-sphere. When the five consciousnesses such as the eye [consciousness], as well as the concurrent sixth [consciousness], apprehend through direct perception (pratyakṣa) and attain the self-characteristic of the sphere, this very image-part (nimittabhāga) is also a nature-sphere. Because the image conforms to the underlying substance (vastu), the remaining factors are understood accordingly. Such an image-part has four non-conformings: first, it does not conform to the apprehending [mind] in sharing the same wholesome or defiled nature; second, it does not follow the apprehending [mind] in belonging to the same realm-tie; third, it does not conform to the apprehending [mind] in being born from the same seed; fourth, it does not conform to the apprehending [mind] in being ripened (vipāka) or the like. Although among these there are instances that share the same realm and same nature with the apprehending mind, this is the sphere's own nature and does not depend on the power of the apprehending mind to be of this nature, realm, plane, and so forth. This is called 'the nature-sphere does not conform to the mind.' Take, for instance, the five consciousnesses that pervade the three natures: their image-part and underlying substance are both indeterminate (avyākṛta), and do not follow the five in also pervading the three natures. The rest are understood accordingly. Although when the five consciousness-bodies of indeterminate nature apprehend the spheres of the five sense-objects their nature is the same, nonetheless the image-part and seeing-part each preserve their own nature, and it is not because of conforming to that apprehending mind that it becomes of indeterminate nature. All others are understood accordingly. If the solitary scattered mental consciousness apprehends the five sense-objects and so forth of its own realm, that sphere merely abides in its own nature and does not attain the self-nature. Yet its nature, seed, and so forth are also the same as in the apprehension by the five. Explaining the second line: this means that the apprehending mind merely transforms an image solitarily, without a distinct second underlying substance. Or, although there is an underlying substance, that image-part does not generate an underlying substance, because that underlying substance is an unproduced dharma and so forth. These image-parts, as well as the image-parts manifested by the sixth consciousness when apprehending the five mental factors associated with the eighth consciousness, are born only from the same seed as the apprehending [mind]; therefore, it is called 'the solitary shadow solely conforms to the seeing[-part].' As when the solitary mental consciousness apprehends sky-flowers, unconditioned dharmas, and so forth, they all arise from the very same seed as the seeing-part. Or, apprehending the unconditioned is the third line, or the fourth, apprehending the five mental factors associated with the eighth consciousness. Or the fourth line, apprehending sky-flowers and the like. These images have four conformings to the seeing: first, conforming to the seeing-part in being equally wholesome or defiled; second, being of the same realm; third, being of the same seed; fourth, being equally ripened or non-ripened. Because it does not generate an underlying substance and is merely transformed by the mental consciousness, this image-part, owing to the apprehending mind, is of this realm, nature, and so forth; subsuming the image to conform to the seeing, it is called 'the solitary shadow solely conforms to the seeing[-part].' Question: As with a sky-flower, is the image-part form (rūpa) or mind (citta)? If it is form, how could it share the same nature? If it is mind, when the original intention was to apprehend form, how could it transform a mental image-part to apprehend it? Answer: That which is falsely conceptualised is fully conceptualised form (parikalpita-rūpa). That which is grasped in an ordinary manner, though not fully conceptualised, is of that class, and therefore is also included therein; because it is of the same seed, it is of the same nature as consciousness. Furthermore, the name 'fully conceptualised' carries the meaning of conceptual discrimination and is not solely the grasping mind; if it were not so, the subsumption of dharmas would have the fault of being incomplete. For example, because of a fever damaging the eyes and so forth, one sees yellow where it is not yellow. Seeing yellow where it is not yellow belongs to the sixth consciousness, not the eye consciousness, because the eye consciousness attains the self-characteristic; though this is not a mind of dharma-grasping, it can also be named form arisen from full conceptualisation. However, the seeds perfumed are subsumed under the underlying substance. Question: When the subsequent wisdom (pṛṣṭhalabdha-jñāna) apprehends the various unconditioned dharmas, both their self-characteristics and common characteristics, and when it apprehends the images of sky-flowers, hare's horns, and so forth grasped by ordinary worldlings, under what dharma are they subsumed? Answer: All image-parts in apprehending the unconditioned and so forth are subsumed under generic dharmas (dharmasabhāga), because their essence is provisional and generic dharmas are broad. It is not like the defiled, because it is not a mistaken apprehension. Or, apprehending sky-flowers and the like is also subsumed under form arisen from full conceptualisation, since the word 'full conceptualisation' means discrimination. Either of the two explanations may be adopted. Question: If the body is in the higher realm, and with the higher divine eye one apprehends the form of the desire realm, under what class is this form's image-part subsumed? Answer: First, it is said that although it is not a solitary shadow, the image also conforms to the seeing, because that concentration-produced form is not generated in the lower [realm], due to the difference in plane-ties. This conforms to the seeing in sharing the same realm-tie, not the same seed. If so, how can it apprehend a sphere of self-characteristics? Answer: Directly relying on the underlying substance is called attaining the self-nature. If so, when the subsequent [wisdom] apprehends the unconditioned and so forth, should the image and seeing be distinct? Answer: Although it attains the self-nature, it originally does not arise. Second, it is said: The nature-sphere does not conform to the mind, because relying on the form transformed by one's own eighth [consciousness] as the underlying substance, it forms a distinct seed; its nature is inherently indeterminate, not due to the mind. Furthermore, since it is a real fruition of supernormal power, it is of the higher realm resembling the lower realm, because the activity of the divine eye's supernormal power is superior. The higher can resemble the lower; unlike apprehending the higher, where one must induce the image of supernormal fruits and concentration fruits to be identical with that before apprehending it. Another explanation says that the image-part arisen is a karmic fruit; although arisen from the eye consciousness of the divine eye's supernormal power, it is not form of supernormal fruit, because it apprehends the karmic-fruit form of the desire realm. It is merely transformed by the mental factors of the supernormal-fruit mind and is an object of that consciousness; just as the eye consciousness arisen from a karmic-fruit eye carries an image-part of form of concentration or supernormal fruit, what objection is there to a supernormal-fruit mind carrying karmic-fruit form? The first two explanations are superior; the meaning is difficult and should be reflected on further. Question: When the defiled and undefiled apprehend each other mutually, and [apprehend] non-concurrent dharmas, under what are the image-parts subsumed? Answer: There are also two explanations. First, it is generic dharmas; second, it is fully conceptualised form. The former explanation is correct. Question: Since fully conceptualised [dharmas] are established within form, why are they not [established] within mind and so forth? Answer: The aggregate of form is not cognitive; fully conceptualised [dharmas] being like it, full conceptualisation is established [there]. Mental dharmas are solely apprehending; fully conceptualised [dharmas] are not apprehending, so they are not established [there]. Non-concurrent dharmas may be allowed to be established; stating twenty-four is merely establishing them according to prominence, just as the various mental factors are established according to prominence; furthermore, according to what is appropriate, they also belong to that apprehending mind. Question: Does the scattered eye or ear of a higher plane apprehend a lower plane or not? If they do not apprehend the lower, how could the higher see the lower? If they do apprehend the lower, under what is the image-part subsumed? Answer: The scattered do not apprehend the lower, because it is extremely distant; saying that the higher sees the lower is based on supernormal fruit. Another explanation says that scattered eye and ear consciousnesses may also apprehend the lower, as when seeing the three lower disasters and generating differing thoughts, relying on one's own or others' underlying substances. The two explanations are not definitive; the tie follows the seeing-part, being subsumed under the higher plane, because defiled dharmas of a different realm do not increase in accordance [with it]. Some say that, being tied to the lower, it relies on the lower plane, and the image perfumes and forms the lower; therefore, not being the self-nature of the defilement, it does not increase in accordance. Yet this is difficult to conceive.