成唯識論了義燈 4.53

4.53

《論》：「唯異熟心及彼心所，實恒、遍、無雜，是正實趣、生。」問：立趣生體，為但依王，亦兼心所，為實？為假？答：有三釋，一云，但依心王立趣生體，具四義故，若依王、所即六趣生，有違前失。此卷初云：應一有情有六種體，第一云，此識足為界趣生體，無勞別執有實命根，亦不得云此中識言，亦攝心所，彼辨唯識義，此出趣生體。又若此識言亦攝心所，命根亦應通依王、所種，故但依王，立趣生體。第七亦云：然立有情依命根數惑異熟識，故知不多。何故論云：唯異熟識及彼心所是正實趣生？答：此相從說，正取心王。不爾，同前六種體失何得難他？問：八俱五數四闕何義，而非有情？答：八俱雖具，種類言之，有雜有間。據百法簡，不約相應。不爾，命根及眾同分，遍、恒、無雜足為趣生，何要須實？一云，通依王所立為趣生，此正辨云：唯異熟識心及心所，實、恒、遍、無雜是正實趣生，又結云：正實趣生既唯異熟心及心所，彼心、心所，離第八識，理不得成，又復王、所同引業招，而前說云：此識足為界趣生體，據勝偏說：難他有情，應有六體者，據六受熏後生現時，應六第八。經說：無處無容，二識並生，故彼成過。不障王、所，六各一體，說為有情。問：若爾，何故第七云：然立有情依命根數惑異熟識？答：同一聚故，名之為一，或從王勝說趣生一：一云，通依王、所總立為一，何以得知？准前不許多體，准後依命根數立，此文復舉王、所，順前後故。若爾，趣生體應是假。何故論云：是正實趣生？答：正簡方便惑、業中有，實簡遍計，妄立趣生，今此趣生，體雖是假，依實法立故言實、恒、遍、無雜。問：何理得知趣生體假？答：准第七云，然立有情依命根數惑異熟識故，不障能依趣生體假。　問：趣生體百法何攝？答：依初二釋即心、心法攝，若依後體，即有二解：一云、假有三種，一相待假，如長等色。二分位假，如生等相。三聚集假，即隨實攝（是更一法師解），今云不相應攝。大乘許多不唯二十四，如隨煩惱，且據勝說二十四種，或同分攝，如法同分，但云眾同分者，且對他宗不立法同分者說。若據寬論，應但云同分，或有眾同分。眾同分中，有總有別，此別同分，雖無教文理亦無失。

The Śāstra states: "Only the maturational mind and its mental factors are real, constant, universal, and unmixed; they are the true and real realms and rebirth states." Question: In establishing the intrinsic nature of the realms and rebirth states, is it based solely on the primary [mind], or does it also include the mental factors? Is it real, or nominal? Answer: There are three explanations. One says: It is established based solely on the primary mind, because it possesses the four characteristics. If it were based on the primary [mind] and mental factors, then there would be six realms and rebirth states, incurring the previous fault. Earlier in this fascicle it says: "Then one sentient being would have six kinds of intrinsic natures." And the first [explanation] says: "This consciousness is sufficient to be the intrinsic nature of the realms and rebirth states, and there is no need to separately grasp a real life-faculty (jīvitendriya)." Nor can it be said that the word "consciousness" here also subsumes the mental factors; for that was an explanation of the meaning of vijñapti-mātra, whereas this presents the intrinsic nature of realms and rebirth states. Furthermore, if the word "consciousness" here also subsumed the mental factors, the life-faculty would likewise apply commonly based on the seeds of both the primary [mind] and mental factors; therefore, it is based solely on the primary mind that the intrinsic nature of the realms and rebirth states is established. The seventh [fascicle] also states: "However, the establishment of sentient beings is based on the life-faculty, the mental factor of delusion, or the maturational consciousness." Thus we know they are not multiple. Why then does the Śāstra say: "Only the maturational consciousness and its mental factors are the true and real realms and rebirth states"? Answer: This is spoken in accordance with association, while primarily taking the primary mind. If not, how could one refute the other with the aforementioned fault of having six kinds of intrinsic natures? Question: Which of the four characteristics are missing from the five mental factors associated with the eighth [consciousness], such that they are not [part of the essence of] a sentient being? Answer: Although those associated with the eighth possess them, speaking in terms of their types, there is mixture and interruption. This distinction is made according to the hundred dharmas, not based on association. Otherwise, the life-faculty and nikāya-sabhāga, being universal, constant, and unmixed, would be sufficient to be the realms and rebirth states; why would they need to be real? Another says: It is based commonly on both the primary [mind] and mental factors that they are established as the realms and rebirth states. This text explicitly explains: "Only the maturational consciousness mind and mental factors, being real, constant, universal, and unmixed, are the true and real realms and rebirth states." It also concludes: "Since the true and real realms and rebirth states are only the maturational mind and mental factors, without the eighth consciousness those minds and mental factors could not logically be established." Moreover, the primary [mind] and mental factors are together summoned by the projecting karma. And what was said earlier, that "this consciousness is sufficient to be the intrinsic nature of the realms and rebirth states," was spoken primarily according to the superior. The refutation of the opponent—that a sentient being would have six intrinsic natures—was spoken on the basis that when six receive perfuming and later manifest at birth, there would be six eighth consciousnesses. The scripture states: "In no place and in no circumstance can two consciousnesses arise simultaneously"; therefore, that entails a fallacy. This does not prevent the primary [mind] and mental factors from each having one intrinsic nature among the six, being designated as a sentient being. Question: If so, why does the seventh [fascicle] state: "However, the establishment of sentient beings is based on the life-faculty, the mental factor of delusion, or the maturational consciousness"? Answer: Because they belong to the same assemblage, they are called "one," or the realm and rebirth state are said to be one following the predominance of the primary mind. Another says: It is established comprehensively based on both the primary [mind] and mental factors as one. How is this known? In accordance with the previous [passage] not allowing multiple intrinsic natures, and following the subsequent [passage] establishing them based on the life-faculty and mental factor [of delusion], this text again mentions both the primary [mind] and mental factors, in accord with both what precedes and follows. If so, the intrinsic nature of realms and rebirth states should be nominal. Why does the Śāstra say: "They are the true and real realms and rebirth states"? Answer: "True" excludes the intermediate existence (antarābhava) of expedients, afflictions, and karma; "real" excludes parikalpita, the falsely established realms and rebirth states. Now, although the intrinsic nature of these realms and rebirth states is nominal, because it is established on real dharmas, it is described as "real, constant, universal, and unmixed." Question: By what principle is it known that the intrinsic nature of realms and rebirth states is nominal? Answer: Following the seventh [fascicle], which states: "However, the establishment of sentient beings is based on the life-faculty, the mental factor of delusion, or the maturational consciousness," this does not prevent the supported intrinsic nature of realms and rebirth states from being nominal. Question: Under which of the hundred dharmas is the intrinsic nature of realms and rebirth states subsumed? Answer: According to the first two explanations, it is subsumed under mind and mental factors. If according to the latter intrinsic nature, there are two interpretations: One says that nominal existence has three types: first, relational nominality, such as long and [short] forms; second, states of conditioned existence, such as the characteristics of arising and so forth; third, aggregational nominality, which is subsumed according to the real (this is an explanation of another master). Now we say it is subsumed under the non-associated [formations] (cittaviprayukta-saṃskāra). The Mahāyāna allows many [non-associated formations], not merely twenty-four; like the upakleśas, the twenty-four kinds are spoken only according to the prominent ones. Alternatively, it is subsumed under sabhāga, as in dharma-sabhāga; mentioning only nikāya-sabhāga was spoken merely in contrast to other traditions that do not establish dharma-sabhāga. If discussed broadly, one should just say sabhāga, or say nikāya-sabhāga. Within nikāya-sabhāga, there are general and specific aspects; although there is no scriptural passage for this specific sabhāga, in principle there is also no fault.