成唯識論了義燈 3.84

3.84

《論》：如眾燈明，各遍似一。《疏》及《樞要》已具解訖。《要集》彈云：若由炷、盞發影，可言隨彼有多影。但由一光發，如何有多影？彼自解云：謂多燈各發一別光，多光相資假立一明光，一光不明，多光方明故。今謂不然，取意有別。若二炷相近同生一焰，光即是一，但發一影。若炷相離，或多盞相離，即別生焰。焰別光殊，便發多影。然光雖別各遍似一，如共業果。炷、盞相近，共生一焰，如二眼根共發一識。不爾，假光實非是一，何得喻識而是一耶？又假一明光，即應唯發一影，如何有多？又且發影為離炎光，為即炎光。若離炎光，光既遍室，影亦應遍，既猶炎東影於西發，即不離炎光，不離炎光，不得言一。光不離炎，炎應成一故。今共果取離炎光喻，二根發識取不離喻。故《疏》、《樞要》得二論意。又西明云：質異同見等四句，有過不成，思之可悉。

The treatise says: "Like the lights of multiple lamps, each pervading and resembling one." The commentary and the Pivotal Meaning (Chuyao) have already fully explained this. The Yaoji criticises it, saying: If the shadows arose from the wicks and dishes, it could be said that multiple shadows correspond to them. But if they arise from a single light, how could there be multiple shadows? It explains itself, saying: Multiple lamps each emit a distinct light, and multiple lights assist one another to conventionally establish a single bright light; one light is not bright, and only when multiple lights combine is it bright. We now say that this is not so, for the intended meaning differs. If two wicks are close together and jointly produce a single flame, the light is one, and only a single shadow is cast. If the wicks are separated, or multiple dishes are separated, distinct flames are produced. When the flames are distinct, their lights differ, and multiple shadows are cast. Yet although the lights differ, each pervades and resembles one, like the fruit of shared karma (sādhāraṇa-karman). Wicks and dishes being close together and jointly producing a single flame is like two eye faculties jointly generating a single consciousness. Otherwise, since the conventional light is not truly one, how could it serve as an example for consciousness being one? Moreover, a conventionally single bright light should only cast a single shadow; how could there be multiple? Furthermore, does the casting of a shadow occur apart from the flaming light, or is it identical to the flaming light? If it were apart from the flaming light, since the light pervades the room, the shadow should also pervade; since the shadow is cast in the west while the flame is in the east, it is not apart from the flaming light. If it is not apart from the flaming light, it cannot be called one, because if light were not apart from the flame, the flames would have to be one. Now, the fruit of shared [karma] adopts the metaphor of the light apart from the flame, while two faculties generating a consciousness adopts the metaphor of not being apart. Therefore, the commentary and the Pivotal Meaning capture the intent of both treatises. Furthermore, Ximing's four alternatives regarding different original substances and identical seeing, etc., contain errors and are not established, as reflection will make clear.