成唯識論了義燈 2.58

2.58

問：色種依大起，即說大種為生因。五識由根發，亦說根體為起因？二問：色種由大生，即說大種為起因。無表由表起，應說表色為生因？解初難：色種從大起，親故名生因；五識雖根發，疎故不名因。又解：能生、所生，俱具質礙，即說大種為生因；所生心法非是礙，不說根法為生因。又生義寬通，心、色並名生，大造是狹，生心非造因。解第二難：大種令色起，實故名生因；無表假表起，從假說假因。如佛身無表色亦非造因，日輪光等亦爾。解云：要由彼得起，故日光亦名造，佛身無表色，遠妨惡故，亦名造因。難第二：色種從大起，大起說依因，孤行之香由質起離質，由何得說依因？二，欲、色兩界從大起，可使有依因，無色妙定非大起，如何說彼有五因？解云：據彼依質說五事，是故四大具五因，不言諸色皆具五。孤行、妙色無依因。又難：色界定、道依大起，說此大種為生因；無色定、道無大種，應說彼處無生因。解：色界定、道非實色，假說為色假造因；無色定、道假色名，從假說有假造因。難第三：帶質之色同安危，可得說為安立因，無色、孤行無本質，如何說有安立因？　解云：大造造彼具五義，不言所造要五因，故亦無妨。難第四同難第五：四大能資色，即說四大長養因，飲食亦資根，亦得名為長養因。解：大種資義寬，是故四大名長因，飲食內資其義狹，是故不名長養因。又問：若爾何故眠、夢、梵行、等持說四為養，不說大種為長養耶？解：云眠等長養通內外，故只說四長養因，大造養色不自養，但是別養非長因。然有三義：一、異熟；二、長養；三、等流。等流中有四：一、異熟；二、長養、三變壞；四、自性等流。將前所造於此三門，幾具三乃至一、二等，諸法皆然。一切法有二：謂有為、無為。無為常住，非依大造。有為法中有三：謂心、色、不相應。不相應者，即前二位假所建立，更不別明。前二之中，初明心法，於三門中而聊簡之。心法具異熟，異熟有二：一、總；二、別。若第八心、心所有總，若後起者即是別。前六識中，異熟但有別，若據初起名總，並得具二。長養之中，但相增盛而無處寬遍，等流之中，無變異等流，心法分別義准細明思之。二明色法，色法分四：五根色、法處色、內五塵色、外五塵色。若五根色具異熟、長養，等流之中，但有初二，內扶塵中，得有第四等流，而無第三，雖有衰變，而亦異熟，非名變異。外塵之中，但有變異及自性等流，而無長養、異熟。疎增上故非異熟，非內色故非長養。法處色中若定果，有相增盛、處寬遍。准《瑜伽》文非是異熟，等流之中除初及第三，無表色得有相增長養，而無處寬遍也。非業果故非異熟，等流之中，無異熟等流及變異等流。極略、極逈大乘觀心中起，但有長養相增盛，非異熟、等流，如無表色說，若小乘、外道異熟心起，非業親感，非異熟故。執積微成地，即具後三等流，後應更詳。塵大互造四句：一、唯能造非所造，一切有部四大唯能造；二、唯所造非能造，謂眼等色根，諸部皆同唯所造；三、亦能造亦所造，即師子宗四大，及數論五大。闕第四句。

Question: Since material seeds arise based on the great elements, the great elements are spoken of as a generative cause (janma-hetu). The five consciousnesses arise due to the sense bases; can the substance of the sense bases also be spoken of as a generative cause? Second question: Since material seeds arise from the great elements, the great elements are spoken of as an originating cause. If unmanifest [action] arises through manifest [action], should manifest form be spoken of as a generative cause? Resolving the first difficulty: Material seeds arise from the great elements, and being proximate, [the great elements] are called a generative cause. Although the five consciousnesses arise from the sense bases, being distant, [the sense bases] are not called a [generative] cause. Another resolution: Both producer and produced possess material obstruction, so the great elements are spoken of as a generative cause; the produced mental factors are not obstructive, so the base-factors are not spoken of as a generative cause. Furthermore, the meaning of "generating" is broad and inclusive, covering both mind and form; the creation by the great elements is narrow, and generating mind is not a cause of creation. Resolving the second difficulty: The great elements cause form to arise, and being real, are called a generative cause; unmanifest [action] arises in dependence on false/nominal manifest [action], so it is said to have a nominal cause in accordance with the nominal. For example, unmanifest form in the Buddha's body is also not a cause of creation, and the same is true of the light of the sun's disc. An explanation says: Because it must arise through that, the sun's light is also called creating; and unmanifest form in the Buddha's body, by remotely obstructing evil, is also called a cause of creation. Second difficulty: Material seeds arise from the great elements, and their arising from the great elements is called a supporting cause (niśraya-hetu). Isolated fragrance arises from a substance, but when separated from the substance, by what can it be said to have a supporting cause? Second, the two realms of desire and form arise from the great elements and can be allowed to have a supporting cause; subtle concentration in the formless realm does not arise from the great elements, so how can it be said to have the five causes? The explanation says: The five matters are spoken of in reference to depending on a substance; therefore, the four great elements possess the five causes. It is not said that all forms possess all five. Isolated and subtle forms lack a supporting cause. Another difficulty: Concentrations and the path in the form realm arise depending on the great elements, so these great elements are spoken of as a generative cause; concentrations and the path in the formless realm lack great elements, so one should say that there is no generative cause there. Explanation: Concentrations and the path in the form realm are not real form; nominally called form, they are nominally caused to be created. Concentrations and the path in the formless realm have the name of nominal form, and in accordance with the nominal are said to have a nominal generative cause. Third difficulty: Form that has substance shares safety and danger, so it can be spoken of as an establishing cause (pratiṣṭhā-hetu); the formless and isolated [forms] lack an original substance, so how can they be said to have an establishing cause? The explanation says: The creation by the great elements possesses the five meanings in creating those [forms], but it is not said that the produced must necessarily have all five causes; thus there is also no contradiction. The fourth difficulty is the same as the fifth difficulty: The four great elements can nourish form, so the four great elements are spoken of as a nourishing cause (upastambha-hetu); food and drink also nourish the sense bases, so can they also be named a nourishing cause? Explanation: The sense of nourishment by the great elements is broad, which is why the four great elements are called a nourishing cause; the nourishment of internal [organs] by food and drink is narrow in meaning, so they are not called a nourishing cause. Further question: If so, why do sleep, dreams, celibacy, and meditative absorption be spoken of as the four that nourish, while the great elements are not spoken of as nourishing? Explanation: Sleep and the like nourish both internal and external, which is why only four are spoken of as nourishing causes. Creation by the great elements nourishes form but does not nourish itself; it is only a specific nourishment, not a general nourishing cause. Now, there are three meanings: 1. vipāka; 2. nourishment; 3. niṣyanda. Within niṣyanda there are four: 1. vipāka; 2. nourishment; 3. deterioration; 4. svabhāva-niṣyanda. Applying the previously mentioned created [forms] to these three categories: how many possess all three, down to one or two, etc., as holds true for all dharmas. All dharmas are of two kinds: conditioned and unconditioned. The unconditioned is eternal and does not depend on creation by the great elements. Among conditioned dharmas there are three: mind, form, and non-concomitant. As for the non-concomitant, they are nominally established upon the former two categories, so they are not separately clarified. Between the former two, first we clarify mental dharmas, differentiating them within the three categories. Mental dharmas possess vipāka. Vipāka has two kinds: 1. universal; 2. particular. If it is the eighth [consciousness] with its mental concomitants, it has universal; if it arises later, it is particular. Among the first six consciousnesses, vipāka is only particular; if considered in terms of initial arising, it is named universal, and they can possess both. Among nourishment, there is only an intensification of characteristics and no broad diffusion across space. Among niṣyanda, there is no niṣyanda through deterioration. The distinctions of mental dharmas should be considered in detail following these principles. Second, to clarify material dharmas. Material dharmas are divided into four: the forms of the five sense bases, forms belonging to the base of mental objects (dharmāyatana), forms of the internal five dust-objects, and forms of the external five dust-objects. The forms of the five sense bases possess vipāka and nourishment; among niṣyanda, they have only the first two. Among the internal supporting dust-objects, they can possess the fourth niṣyanda, but lack the third; although there is decline and change, it is also vipāka, and not called deterioration. Among external dust-objects, there are only deterioration and svabhāva-niṣyanda, but no nourishment or vipāka. Because they are distant and conditioning, they are not vipāka; because they are not internal form, they are not nourishment. Among forms belonging to the base of mental objects, if they are the fruit of concentration, they have intensification of characteristics and spatial diffusion. According to the text of the *Yogācārabhūmi*, they are not vipāka. Among niṣyanda, the first and third are excluded. Unmanifest form can have nourishment through intensification of characteristics, but lacks spatial diffusion. Because it is not a fruit of karma, it is not vipāka; among niṣyanda, it lacks vipāka-niṣyanda and deterioration-niṣyanda. The extremely reduced and extremely distant arise within the meditative mind in Mahāyāna, having only nourishment through intensification of characteristics, and are not vipāka or niṣyanda, as explained for unmanifest form. If they arise in the vipāka mind of Hīnayāna or tīrthikas, they are not directly induced by karma, and thus are not vipāka. If one clings to the accumulation of atoms forming earth, it possesses the latter three niṣyandas; this should be detailed later. The four alternatives of dust-objects and great elements mutually creating: 1. Only capable of creating and not created: the four great elements of the Sarvāstivāda are only capable of creating. 2. Only created and not capable of creating: namely, the material bases such as the eye, which all schools uniformly hold to be only created. 3. Both capable of creating and created: namely, the four great elements according to the school of Harivarman (*Tattvasiddhi*), and the five great elements of the Sāṃkhya. 4. Lacking the fourth alternative.