成唯識論了義燈 3.88

3.88

《論》：及隨法處所攝實色。西明解云：第八緣實不緣假故。然前解處中，即許第八亦緣假色，判為護法正義，云：生相等隱第八不緣，長、短等顯故第八緣。又引鏡智，緣十八圓滿，證八緣假。若如是者，今法處中，亦應緣假，何但取實？故本《疏》判，唯緣實者，護法正義。若取鏡智，緣方、圓等，證八緣假，亦應緣過、未及生、住等假相。鏡智緣故，故因果殊不可相例。又云：異生定所生色亦有實用。云：威德者是根本定，非勝者起名威德定。今謂不爾，若許異生定變實色，何故《瑜伽》第十三云：謂超第二阿僧企耶？變有實用。若云：彼說通變，此說定變者。此亦不爾。通力是勝，尚超第二劫，變方有用。定力是劣，云：何凡變即許實用？故威德定是勝人起。三十三云：非聖神通不堪受用。故問：既許變化，於上下界各變幾塵？西明釋云：由化心託欲、色異熟本質化，欲界具五，上界除香、味。今謂上亦變香。《法華經》云：乃至於有頂，聞香知所在。若云：彼說法處今說五境者。何故定通變五境耶？應皆法處，若雖定等，變非法處收。若爾何等是法處攝？若云：雖定等力，擊第八變，是業果色，故是五塵。若定果等，即法處色者，應佛唯有法界、無色等五界。既許定生具十八界，故知上界亦變香境。西明問：五根、五境，隨其所應，同在一處，為各別四大造？為一四大造？若一四大造，云何《瑜伽》云：羯剌藍時，能造身根及眼等，大俱時而有次第造耶？若別大造，何故五十四但說七物與眼同處？彼問：云色蘊中，眼幾物所攝？答：若據相離攝唯有一物，謂眼識所依清淨色。若據不相離攝，即有七物，謂眼、及身、地、色、香、味、觸。三藏解云：同一處者唯一大造，以理推微五根根依同一處者。一地大造，而說造眼四大者，隨所造法，名造眼大，乃至名能造觸大，據實一大。此釋七物有，并會俱時而有，以初即有，此能造眼等之功，故說俱有。問：云何無火等？壽、煖、識三恒不相離，除無色處。解云：據實有火等。而五十四但說七物者，據相顯說，以地堅性眼等所依，是故偏說。

[The Śāstra says:] "And also real form subsumed under the mental locus (dharmāyatana)."

Ximing explains this by saying: "It is because the eighth [consciousness] conditions what is real and does not condition what is nominal." However, in his earlier explanation of the [twelve] loci, he conceded that the eighth also conditions nominal form, determining this to be Dharmapāla's definitive view, saying: "The hidden characteristics such as origination are not conditioned by the eighth, but manifest ones such as long and short are conditioned by the eighth." Furthermore, he cited the Mirror-like Wisdom (ādarśajñāna) conditioning the eighteen [dhātus] completely to prove that the eighth conditions what is nominal. If it were so, then here within the mental locus it should also condition what is nominal; why would it take only what is real? Therefore, the original Commentary (Shu) determined that conditioning only what is real is Dharmapāla's definitive view. If one takes the Mirror-like Wisdom conditioning [nominal forms like] square, round, and so forth to prove that the eighth conditions the nominal, it should also condition past, future, as well as nominal characteristics such as origination and duration, because the Mirror-like Wisdom conditions them; therefore, cause and fruit differ and cannot serve as parallels for each other.

He also says: "The forms produced by a worldling's absorption (samādhi) also possess actual utility." He states: "'Of majestic power' refers to the fundamental absorptions (mūladhyāna); it does not mean that being generated by a superior person is called majestic absorption." I now say this is not so. If one allows that a worldling's absorption transforms real form, why does the thirteenth chapter of the Yogācāra-bhūmi state: "It means transcending the second asaṃkhyeya [kalpa]" before transformations have actual utility? If one says: "That text speaks of transformation by supernormal powers (ṛddhi), whereas this speaks of transformation by absorption"; this too is not so. The power of supernormal faculties is superior, yet it still requires transcending the second kalpa before its transformations possess utility. The power of absorption is inferior; how could one allow that an ordinary being's transformation immediately possesses actual utility? Therefore, an absorption of majestic power is generated by superior persons. Chapter thirty-three states: "Non-noble supernormal powers cannot be experienced and used." Hence [this is known].

Question: Since transformation is permitted, how many sense-data (viṣaya) does one transform in the lower and upper realms respectively?

Ximing explains: "Because the transformative mind transforms by relying on the fundamental substance (mūladravya) of the fruition of the Desire and Form Realms, the Desire Realm possesses all five, while the upper realm excludes fragrance and taste." I now say that fragrance is also transformed in the upper realm. The Lotus Sūtra says: "Even up to the Peak of Existence (bhavāgra), smelling fragrance, one knows its location." If one says: "That refers to the mental locus, whereas now we speak of the five external sense objects"; why then would absorption and supernormal powers transform the five external sense objects? They should all be mental loci! If, though transformed by absorption and the like, they are not subsumed under the mental locus, then what is subsumed under the mental locus? If one says: "Although through the power of absorption and the like, striking the eighth consciousness's transformation, it is matter that is karmic fruit and therefore consists of the five sense-data; if matter produced by absorption, etc., were matter of the mental locus, the Buddha would only possess the mental dhātu and the five dhātus of the formless realm, etc." Since it is conceded that what is produced by absorption possesses all eighteen dhātus, we therefore know that fragrance is also transformed in the upper realm.

Ximing asks: "Do the five sense organs and five sense objects, according to their proper correspondence, existing together in one place, derive from separate four great elements or from a single set of four great elements? If they are produced by a single set of four great elements, how does the Yogācāra-bhūmi say: 'At the time of the kalala, the great elements capable of producing the body sense organ, the eye, and so forth, exist simultaneously and produce them successively'? If they are produced by separate great elements, why does chapter fifty-four speak only of seven entities existing in the same place with the eye? In that question, it asks: 'Within the form aggregate, how many entities are subsumed under the eye?' The answer states: 'If subsumed in terms of mutual separation, there is only one entity, namely the subtle form on which visual consciousness relies. If subsumed in terms of non-separation, there are seven entities, namely: eye, body, earth, visible form, fragrance, taste, and tangibility.'"

The Tripiṭaka Master explains: "Those in the same place are produced by only a single set of great elements. Investigating by reason the subtle support of the five sense organs occupying the same place, they are produced by a single earth element. Yet speaking of the four great elements that produce the eye, according to the dharma that is produced, they are named the 'elements producing the eye', down to being named the 'elements capable of producing tangibility'; fundamentally there is only one set of great elements. This explains the existence of the seven entities and also reconciles their existing simultaneously, because from the very beginning there exists this efficacy capable of producing the eye and so on; hence they are said to exist simultaneously." Question: "Why are fire and the like absent? Life, warmth, and consciousness are always inseparable, except in the formless realm." The explanation states: "Fundamentally, fire and the rest exist. But the reason chapter fifty-four speaks only of seven entities is based on what is prominent, because the solid nature of earth is the support of the eye and so forth; therefore, it is spoken of specifically."