成唯識論了義燈 5.262

5.262

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'.