成唯識論了義燈 2.59

2.59

釋法處色。西明問云：大乘法處實色是有礙不？解云：諸法處色皆是無對，如無色界諸宮殿等，皆是無對以法處故。問：變大地為金，水為蘇、酪等，如何無對耶？解云：定所變色有其二種，一者有對，二者無對，若法處色即是無對，變為色等即是有對者，未詳此釋。且定通起色等五塵，對五識別即此色等名為有對者，何故諸論不說，色等中有定等起色耶？又設五取名為色等，根、境相例應俱無礙，何者大論中說，等心諸天變身萬億，共立毛端空量地等。既云共立毛端空量地等，即同一處互不相礙，豈名有礙？不同同處不相離色，由相隨順，一因所引，同是一根等故，大小同許，如五根境，若自若他，大小同許體為有對。今既共立毛端，并有自他根境，如何不礙？又，亦不同外器世界，許共業感，同處不礙。根非共感，如何不礙？由此准知，定等起色，是無質礙，論自說故。若爾，定等准論所說是法處攝，豈許五識緣法處耶？答：許亦何過？違諸論說根、境相對，五識所緣是五塵故。此論復云：勿麁相識緣細相境故。答：亦無違。前據自力，故作此說，若他力引，則不決定。故第二云：定通等力，則不決定。又問：法處有實色不？答：許有實。即唯定等所起之色，非餘四種，餘皆假故。既定等生，許有實色，何無質礙？答：亦無違。以定等因，自在起故，不同業色，說質礙故，名為色者。據業所生，五根境說，非據定等所生色說，又釋實色，亦是有礙。說法處色為無礙者，據假色說，此義亦難，幾識緣礙非礙當更尋文。

Explaining form belonging to the base of mental objects (dharmāyatana). Ximing asked: Is the real form of the dharmāyatana in Mahāyāna obstructive or not? The explanation says: All forms belonging to the base of mental objects are non-resisting (apratigha), like the various palaces and the like in the formless realm, which are all non-resisting because they belong to the dharmāyatana. Question: When transforming the great earth into gold, or water into clarified butter, curds, and the like, how can it be non-resisting? The explanation says: The forms transformed by concentration are of two kinds: the first is resisting (sapratigha), and the second is non-resisting. If it is form belonging to the base of mental objects, it is non-resisting; if transformed into color-form and so forth, it is resisting. This explanation is not yet sound. Moreover, if the five dust-objects such as visible form arise from concentration and supernormal powers, resisting and distinguishing them against the five consciousnesses, so that these very forms and the like are called resisting, why do the various treatises not state that among visible form and the like there is form arisen from concentration and the like? Furthermore, even if five graspers are called form and so forth, by parallel between base and object, both should be non-obstructive. Why? In the great treatise (*Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra*), it is said that devas of equal mind transformed their bodies into ten thousand kotis and all stood together on the space of a hair-tip. Since it says they all stood together on the space of a hair-tip, they occupied the same space without mutually obstructing one another; how could it be called resisting? It is not like forms that are not separated while occupying the same space, which, through conforming to one another, being induced by a single cause, and belonging to the same single base and so forth, are accepted by both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna alike; like the objects of the five sense bases, whether self or other, both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna agree that their substance is resisting. Now, since they stand together on a hair-tip, with the bases and objects of both self and other, how could they not obstruct? Moreover, it is also not like the external vessel world, which is accepted to be produced by collective karma and thus does not obstruct in the same location. The sense bases are not produced by collective karma, so how could they not obstruct? From this, it can be known by inference that forms arising from concentration and the like lack material obstruction, as stated by the treatises themselves. If so, forms arising from concentration and the like, as explained by the treatises, are subsumed under the dharmāyatana; could it be accepted that the five consciousnesses apprehend the dharmāyatana? Answer: Even if accepted, what fault is there? Objection: It contradicts what various treatises say—that base and object correspond to each other, and that what the five consciousnesses apprehend are the five dust-objects. This treatise also says: "Lest a coarse consciousness should apprehend a subtle object." Answer: There is also no contradiction. The previous statement was made with respect to [the senses'] own power; if induced by other power, it is not fixed. Thus the second [fascicle] states: "Through the power of concentration and supernormal faculties, it is not fixed." Further question: Does the dharmāyatana contain real form or not? Answer: Real [form] is accepted. It is only the form arisen from concentration and the like, not the other four kinds, because the others are all nominal. Since it is born of concentration and the like, and accepted as real form, why does it lack material obstruction? Answer: There is also no contradiction. Because the cause is concentration and the like, it arises with mastery, unlike karmic form, which is spoken of as having material obstruction; calling it "form" is spoken with reference to the objects of the five sense bases born of karma, not with reference to form born of concentration and the like. Another explanation: Real form is also obstructive. Speaking of form belonging to the base of mental objects as non-obstructive is spoken with reference to nominal form. This interpretation is also difficult; how many consciousnesses apprehend the obstructive and the non-obstructive should be investigated further in the texts.