成唯識論了義燈 6.16

6.16

所緣緣中第二師說：第八相分皆杖質生。第三師云：非諸有情種皆等故。西河隽法師云：因位第八不緣無漏，雖五性別非可為難。又如長養色，一切有情勝劣不定上得為緣，雖五性殊何妨得慮，且為一解。長養色等，雖或勝劣有情皆有，故得為緣。無漏種子有無無體，不得所慮。又種多少，不唯無漏，於諸有情，且約有漏斷、未斷別，故得為難，正解如本。西明解云：第三師難第二師言：應無凡聖等異。此難非理，因八不緣無漏種故，又復前師但云自第八影必須枝質，非自無種必須變化。若以他有即例為質，應眼等起所有色等，恒具彼影必枝質故。既眼等起或唯緣青等，故約自相必須杖他，非他所有皆須為質故。今此難約自所變，有多種子，所對有情非必相似。今准難意通因果位，若果位八緣無漏種，或有有情無無漏種，若望此說自相無質，若云依有為質無者不杖，何故不許於已有用，杖彼質變？於自無用，但自親緣即不杖質。然西明云：護法依自八變有用，以難於他者，亦不應理，彼師亦許有用變故。前第二卷變自他根，俱許有用非無用變，又難變器亦取有用，非是許有無用亦變。

Regarding the objective condition (ālambanapratyaya), the second master says: "The objective aspect of the eighth [consciousness] is in all cases generated by leaning upon an external archetype (bāhyārtha)." The third master says: "Because the seeds of all sentient beings are not identical." Dharma Master Jun of Xihe says: "At the causal stage, the eighth does not take the anāsrava as object; although the five gotras differ, this cannot serve as an objection. Furthermore, just as with nutriment-nurtured form (aupacayikarūpa), sentient beings have superior and inferior [forms] variably, yet the higher [consciousness] can take them as an objective condition; although the five gotras differ, what prevents them from being cognized? This is tentatively one explanation." Nutriment-nurtured form and the like, though superior or inferior, are possessed by all sentient beings, and thus can serve as an objective condition. Anāsrava seeds are either present or absent and have no real entity [in some], so they cannot be cognized as an object. Moreover, the quantity of seeds is not restricted to the anāsrava; among sentient beings, there is tentatively the distinction between severed and unsevered sāsrava, so this can serve as an objection. The correct explanation is as in the root [text]. Ximing explains: "The third master objects to the second master, saying: 'There would be no distinction between ordinary beings and noble ones.' This objection is not reasonable, because the causal eighth does not take anāsrava seeds as object. Furthermore, the previous master only said that one's own eighth's reflection must lean upon an archetype, not that what one lacks in seed must be manifested. If one took what others possess as an analogy for the archetype, then whenever the eye [consciousness] and so forth arise, whatever color and so forth [is present] should always be fully equipped with that reflection and necessarily lean upon an archetype. Since when the eye [consciousness] and so forth arise, they sometimes only cognize blue and the like, therefore regarding one's own specific characteristic, it must lean upon another, but not everything possessed by others must serve as an archetype. Now this objection concerns what is transformed by oneself: there are multiple seeds, and the corresponding sentient beings are not necessarily similar. Now, examining the intention of the objection, it applies to both causal and resultant stages: if the resultant eighth cognizes anāsrava seeds, some sentient beings do not have anāsrava seeds; if spoken with respect to this, one's own specific characteristic lacks an archetype. If one says that it relies on what exists to serve as an archetype and does not lean upon what is absent, why not admit that regarding what is useful to oneself, it transforms leaning upon that archetype, while regarding what is of no use to oneself, it merely directly cognizes it oneself without leaning upon an archetype?" However, Ximing's statement that Dharmapāla relies on the transformation of one's own eighth having utility to object to the other master is also unreasonable, because that master also admits transformation having utility. Earlier in the second fascicle, regarding transforming one's own and others' faculties, both are admitted to have utility, not transformation without utility; furthermore, the objection regarding transforming the container world also takes utility, not that transforming without utility is also admitted.