成唯識論了義燈 3.89

3.89

《論》：因緣分別二變西明二解。第二唯第八心王為因緣變。云：何名有實用？實用有二：如色，一、質礙用；二、本質用。若爾，五識所變為第六質，何非因緣？若云：無質礙用不具二義者。第八所變長等，亦唯為本質，應非因緣。法師自云：若爾初解為勝。問：第八在意界，所緣應當唯法界，云何通十八界耶？答：依彼六二緣，意處所緣法界攝，不依六二緣，隨彼所緣十八攝。又以闇從明十八界攝。既爾何不別立界處？答：處、界、出生、及因義。意處所緣法處收。第八無別出生、因故。亦隨六意處攝。問：若五識變相分無礙，與對法第三相違。彼論有對無對分別中云：諸有見者，皆是有對，豈眼識相分非有見耶？彼《論》云：謂眼所行境是有見義。故眼識相應名有見。若云：有對者。是境界有對，非障礙有對者，理亦不然。彼云：三因故名有對，謂種類故，積集故不修治故。種類者互為能所礙，積集者極微已上，以一極微無對礙故，不修治者非定起色今為二解。一云：五識所變並是有礙，且說有見舉此例餘，即對法云：諸有見色名有對故。一云無對，非有見故。眼所行境，名為有見。眼根但照彼本質故。若爾何故名同境根？答：同取本質。如說王所同一所緣，或有對三義，本質具三，相但後二，總名有對，非礙名對。今據所變有質礙對，名為實用，五識相無。若准此釋，七識應是分別變收，但為境故，此亦不然。自在定生，既有實用，何非因緣？答：定、散別故。自在所生為食等用。不得相例若爾五識亦因緣變。有段食用故。據此可爾，又解亦非。為他食用是因緣，五變自用，故非因緣。

[The Śāstra says:] "Transformation through causal condition (hetupratyaya) and through discrimination (vikalpa)."

Ximing offers two explanations. The second maintains that only the eighth mind-king is transformation through causal condition. Question: What is meant by having "actual utility"? Actual utility is twofold: like form, first, the utility of obstructive resistance; second, the utility of acting as the fundamental substance (mūladravya). If so, why is what the five consciousnesses transform—serving as the fundamental substance for the sixth consciousness—not transformation through causal condition? If one says: "It lacks the utility of obstructive resistance and does not possess both meanings"; then what the eighth transforms, such as length and so forth, also serves only as fundamental substance, and ought not to be transformation through causal condition! The Master himself says: "If so, the first explanation is superior."

Question: Since the eighth is in the mental realm (manodhātu), what it conditions should only be the mental realm (dharmadhātu); how can it encompass all eighteen dhātus? Answer: Relying on those six sets of two conditionings, the object of the mental locus is subsumed under the dharmadhātu; not relying on the six sets of two conditionings, according to what it conditions, it is subsumed under the eighteen dhātus. Furthermore, by subordinating the dark to the light, it is subsumed under the eighteen dhātus. If so, why not separately establish a dhātu and āyatana? Answer: Āyatana and dhātu have the meanings of origination and cause. The object of the mental locus is subsumed under the dharmāyatana. Because the eighth has no separate origination or cause, it also follows the sixth in being subsumed under the manāyatana.

Question: If the perceptual image (nimittabhāga) transformed by the five consciousnesses is without obstruction, it contradicts the third chapter of the Abhidharmasamuccaya. In that treatise's distinction between with-resistance (sapratigha) and without-resistance (apratigha), it says: "All that is visible is with-resistance." Could the image component of visual consciousness not be visible? That Śāstra says: "'Visible' means the objective sphere traversed by the eye." Thus, what is associated with visual consciousness is called visible. If one says that "with-resistance" means resistance of objective sphere (viṣayapratighāta) and not resistance of obstruction (āvaraṇapratighāta), that principle is also incorrect. That text says: "It is called with-resistance due to three causes, namely: because of its category, because of accumulation, and because of non-cultivation." "Because of category" means they mutually obstruct each other as object and agent; "because of accumulation" means an atom and above, since a single subtle atom has no obstructive resistance; "because of non-cultivation" means it is not form produced by absorption.

Now two explanations are given: One says that what the five consciousnesses transform is entirely obstructive; mentioning "visible" is merely giving an example to illustrate the rest, matching the Abhidharmasamuccaya: "All visible form is called with-resistance." The other says it is without resistance because it is not visible. What is traversed by the eye is called visible. The eye organ merely illumines that fundamental substance. If so, why are they called organs having the same domain (samānaviṣaya)? Answer: They jointly take the fundamental substance, just as it is said that the mind-king and mental factors share the same single object of cognition. Alternatively, regarding the three meanings of with-resistance: the fundamental substance possesses all three, while the image component has only the latter two; collectively they are named with-resistance, where resistance does not mean physical obstruction. Now, relying on what is transformed having the resistance of physical obstruction, it is called actual utility; the image component of the five consciousnesses lacks this. If following this explanation, the seven consciousnesses should be subsumed under transformation through discrimination because they merely serve as objects; this too is incorrect. Since what is produced by sovereign absorption possesses actual utility, why is it not transformation through causal condition? Answer: Because absorption and the distracted state differ. What is produced by mastery serves as food, etc., for use. They cannot serve as parallels for each other. If so, the five consciousnesses are also transformations through causal condition, because they have the utility of morsel food (kavaḍīkārāhāra). According to this, it would be acceptable. Another explanation says it is also not so: serving as food for others' use is causal condition; the five transform for their own use, and therefore it is not causal condition.