成唯識論了義燈 2.57

2.57

明大造義。大造之中有親、疎造：親造者謂同界地、同有漏等名為親造；若異界地、有漏無漏即名疎造。如身在上界變起金、銀等，思惟欲色，而起定果色等，此即欲界大疎造也。然有漏得造無漏，無漏不造有漏，何以故？若第八緣自具大、造，第六獨緣唯從見也，此之相分非實色故，不得名無漏造有漏。問：又今助釋，無漏亦得疎造有漏，如緣佛身親相分等。若親造中，薩婆多師大種能造，唯無記、唯有漏，唯以觸處，四大能造，法處之中，更不別立有餘色故，唯有無表不是極微，所造通三性，謂色、聲二塵。若大乘假名善、惡，無記大種為說名造，據體大、造親者，無記造無記，善造善，無漏亦爾，以其大及色，俱通無漏，觸處、法處俱有能造，以定通果色親所依，起四大亦定通起故，然通假實，能造思之。若出體者，能造唯有四大，所造謂五塵色、法處色中，自在所生，及遍計所起、受所引色。若取無表即非大造，依思種、現故非大所造。若據疎緣亦可大造，又約依他、圓成而辨體性，不言遍計者，非妄所起，從種生故。諸師明異，且取正義。若常、無常唯依他，大造有為無常法故，此約常無常門。又若有漏依他起，若無漏通圓成，無漏離倒用周遍故。此約漏無漏門。五法分別者，大造通相、名，通分別、正智，以通漏、無漏故，不通如如。以相性故，若攝相歸性，亦通如如。三性分別者，在凡夫唯無記。若佛果唯性，二乘及菩薩通無記及善性，不律儀惡身、語業等，隨轉門通不善，據實義者大種、造唯無記，律儀善身、語業等。若有漏位假通善性，據體無記，實善性者，約思而立。若初地已上通漏、無漏，及善、無記。若薩婆多大種唯無記，造色通三性。大種造色有多解不同：一者、唯從自種造名大造，故〈二十唯識〉云：識上色功能名五根應理，功能謂種子也。五根者，所造色也；二者、唯取四大種名大造色，所依名造，非辨體也。謂色種子要依大種，大種起時，方能得起，由他挾帶，故名大造色。增上與力，名為造也；三者、二種俱取。今者雖三師不同，唯第二師勝。何以故？依《瑜伽論》第三云：大種於色種有五種功能故，所以知勝。其五者何：一、為生起因。謂由大種，恒將帶生故；二、依因。謂此造色依大種故；三、安立因。謂此色種及大種，同安危故。大種壞，故造色亦壞；四、持因。謂此色於大種中，各相遍故。故《瑜伽論》云：一和雜不相離，二同處不相離，五長養因，謂色根等依大種事得增長故。

Clarifying the meaning of the creation by the great elements: within the creation by the great elements, there are direct creation and remote creation. Direct creation means that being in the same realm and stage, and being equally sāsrava and so forth, is called direct creation; if in different realms and stages, or different as sāsrava and anāsrava, it is called remote creation. For example, if a body in a higher realm transforms gold, silver, and so forth, contemplating the matter of the desire realm and producing matter resulting from meditative absorption and so forth, this is the remote creation by the great elements of the desire realm. However, the sāsrava can create the anāsrava, but the anāsrava does not create the sāsrava. Why is this? If the eighth [consciousness] cognizes [matter], it inherently possesses the great elements and what is created; if the sixth [consciousness] cognizes it alone, it proceeds only from the seeing aspect; since this image aspect is not real matter, it cannot be called the anāsrava creating the sāsrava. Question: Now, as an additional explanation, the anāsrava can also remotely create the sāsrava, as in cognizing the direct image aspect of a Buddha's body, and so forth. If within direct creation, for the Sarvāstivāda masters, the great elements as creators are exclusively indeterminate and exclusively sāsrava, and only the four great elements belonging to the sense object of touch are the creators; within the sense object of dharmas, they do not establish any additional matter, for there is only non-revelatory matter (avijñapti-rūpa), which is not subtle atoms; what is created encompasses the three moral natures, namely the two sense objects of matter and sound. For the Mahāyāna, conventionally designating wholesome, unwholesome, and indeterminate great elements is called creation; based on the substance, for the direct creators and created: the indeterminate creates the indeterminate, the wholesome creates the wholesome, and the anāsrava is likewise, because the great elements and matter both encompass the anāsrava; both the sense object of touch and the sense object of dharmas have creating elements, because the matter resulting from meditative absorption and supernormal powers has as its direct basis the four great elements which also arise from meditative absorption and supernormal powers; however, they encompass both nominal and real, which should be contemplated regarding the creators. If bringing forth their essential nature: the creators are only the four great elements; what is created refers to the matter of the five sense objects, and within the matter of the sense object of dharmas, matter born of mastery, matter produced by conceptualization, and matter derived from vows. If non-revelatory matter is taken, it is not created by the great elements, because it depends on the seeds and actualization of volition (cetanā), hence it is not created by the great elements. If based on remote conditions, it could also be created by the great elements. Furthermore, distinguishing the essential nature in terms of dependent nature and perfected nature (pariniṣpanna), without mentioning conceptualized nature, is because they are not produced from delusion, but are born from seeds. The various masters clarify differences; for now, we adopt the correct doctrine. In terms of permanent and impermanent, they are exclusively dependent nature, because the great elements and what is created are conditioned, impermanent dharmas; this is in terms of the section on permanence and impermanence. Moreover, if sāsrava, they are dependent nature; if anāsrava, they encompass the perfected nature, because the anāsrava is free from delusion and its function is all-pervading; this is in terms of the section on sāsrava and anāsrava. In distinguishing by the five dharmas: the great elements and what is created encompass appearance (nimitta) and name (nāma), and encompass discrimination (vikalpa) and correct knowledge (samyagjñāna), because they encompass both sāsrava and anāsrava; they do not encompass tathatā, because they are of the nature of appearances; if one subsumes appearances into their nature, they also encompass tathatā. In distinguishing by the three moral natures: in ordinary beings they are exclusively indeterminate; in the Buddha-fruit they are exclusively [wholesome] nature; in the two vehicles and bodhisattvas they encompass indeterminate and wholesome natures. Evil bodily and verbal karma of non-restraint (asaṃvara) and so forth, according to the adaptable gate, encompass the unwholesome; based on the definitive meaning, the great elements and what is created are exclusively indeterminate; good bodily and verbal karma of restraint (saṃvara) and so forth, in the sāsrava stage are conventionally held to encompass the wholesome nature, but based on substance they are indeterminate; that which is truly of a wholesome nature is established in terms of volition. From the first bhūmi upwards, they encompass sāsrava and anāsrava, as well as wholesome and indeterminate. For the Sarvāstivādins, the great elements are exclusively indeterminate, while created matter encompasses the three moral natures. Regarding the great elements creating matter, there are multiple different explanations: first, creation only from their own seeds is called creation by the great elements, hence the Viṃśikā says: 'The potential of matter on consciousness is called the five faculties, which is reasonable'—potential refers to seeds, and the five faculties are created matter; second, taking only the four great elements is called created matter by the great elements; being the basis is called 'creating', not distinguishing their substance; that is, the seeds of matter must depend on the great elements, and only when the great elements arise can they arise; because they are borne along by the other, they are called matter created by the great elements; giving predominant force is called 'creating'; third, both are taken together. Now, although the three masters differ, only the second master is superior. Why? Because according to the third fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi, the great elements have five functions with respect to the seeds of matter, hence we know this is superior. What are the five? First, being the cause of arising (janana-hetu), meaning they are constantly born along with the great elements; second, the cause of reliance (niśraya-hetu), meaning this created matter relies on the great elements; third, the cause of establishment (pratiṣṭhā-hetu), meaning this seed of matter and the great elements share safety and danger, so that when the great elements disintegrate, created matter also disintegrates; fourth, the cause of holding (upastambha-hetu), meaning this matter mutually pervades within the great elements—hence the Yogācārabhūmi says: 'one is inseparable through mingling, two is inseparable through occupying the same locus'; fifth, the cause of nourishment (upabṛṃhaṇa-hetu), meaning that physical faculties and so forth increase by depending on the substantial reality of the great elements.