成唯識論了義燈 5.262

5.262

《論》：《鄔陀夷經》是此誠證。無色亦名意成天故。《要集》斷本釋云：舍利子意在色後起未說無色，出現意成天謂非想者，不了舍利子意，所以見訶。依何文義證無色界亦入滅定？云：此誠證故非善釋。今謂《要集》不了本解，謂非善釋。即是後世鄔陀夷也。言意成天超過段食，舍利子說有退定者，色界後起，出現不了謂是非想。故知上二俱名意成。《俱舍》引經復云：隨受一處意成天身，能入出此定，故通無色。經不遮彼，言隨一故。又《瑜伽》五十六，復於色界重現在前，託色所依方現前故。若已建立於一切處，皆得現前，說一切處，不簡下三。此《論》後師，要斷下三方起此者，未必為正。故但河沙彌不了說意，何非善釋為誠證耶？西明云：然大乘宗分成兩說，難陀等說，上界八地起滅盡定，故名意成天。覺師子釋，第四靜慮已上五地方起滅定名意成天。護法同第二釋者，准何得知？難陀通說、覺師子說，唯上五地名意成天。若准《雜集》第九，覺師子釋四句之中，許第四靜慮重起，不言下三非意成天，豈善釋耶？若將護法同第二說，如何釋彼五十六文，於一切處皆得現起。若云少分一切，《雜集》不說，唯言。

The treatise says: 'The Udāyi-sūtra is verified proof of this, because the formless realm is also called the mind-made gods.' The Yaoji, judging the original commentary, says: 'Śāriputra intended that it arises after the form realm and had not yet spoken of the formless realm. When Udāyi appeared and spoke of the mind-made gods thinking it meant neither-perception, he failed to understand Śāriputra's intent, and was therefore rebuked. On what textual meaning does one prove that the formless realm also enters the attainment of cessation? Saying "this is verified proof" is therefore not a good explanation.' Now I maintain that the Yaoji failed to understand the original explanation, and claiming it is not a good explanation is just being a latter-day Udāyi. The phrase 'mind-made gods' exceeds coarse food. Śāriputra stated that there are those who fall from concentration, arising after the form realm; Udāyi appeared and failed to understand, thinking it was neither-perception. Therefore we know that both of the upper [two realms] are called mind-made. The Kośa cites the sūtra, saying again: 'Taking rebirth as a body among any of the mind-made gods, one is able to enter and emerge from this concentration'; hence it extends to the formless realm. The sūtra does not exclude it, because it says 'any'. Furthermore, fascicle fifty-six of the Yogācāra says: 'Again, in the form realm it manifests anew, because it only manifests based on physical support. If it has already been established, it can manifest in all places.' Saying 'all places' does not exclude the lower three [formless levels]. As for the latter master of this treatise who holds that one must sever the lower three before raising this, it is not necessarily correct. Thus, it was only the novice of the Danhe [river] who failed to understand the intent of the speech; why would it not be a good explanation as verified proof? Ximing says: 'However, the Mahāyāna tradition is divided into two explanations. Nanda and others say that the upper realm's eight levels give rise to the attainment of cessation, and are therefore called mind-made gods. Buddhasiṃha explains that only the five levels from the fourth dhyāna upward give rise to the attainment of cessation and are called mind-made gods.' Based on what is it known that Dharmapāla agrees with the second explanation? Nanda speaks generally, while Buddhasiṃha says that only the upper five levels are called mind-made gods. If one relies on fascicle nine of the Samuccayavyākhyā, Buddhasiṃha's explanation among the four propositions allows it to arise again in the fourth dhyāna, but does not say that the lower three are not mind-made gods—how could that be a good explanation? If one makes Dharmapāla agree with the second explanation, how does one explain the text of fascicle fifty-six: 'In all places it can be manifested'? If one says it means a partial 'all', the Samuccayavyākhyā does not speak of 'only'.