成唯識論演祕 3.856

3.856

答：言我正須王眼。王以四實為眼施之，彼不肯受言：「我須王眼，何用此為？」王聞此已，便舉兩手欲自挑眼。帝釋知王施心決定，便止王言：「欲何所求？」王言唯諸如來應正等覺是我所求。帝釋聞已便復本形，讚歎王言：「真是菩薩不久定得無上菩提。」作是言已，忽然不現，故彼爾時，實未挑眼。又彼所引善惡行經，諸地獄等有餘種子，不爾，斷已更不生故。釋云：此說種子，如第九十說，即彼云：若地獄中解諸支節，乃至糜爛亦有身根。有說：爾時亦有眼等，異熟斷已更不續故。有說：眼等斷已更續，業所引故，趣法爾故。身根必無斷已更續，是諸色根所依止故。有餘師說：諸地獄中雖解支節為百千分，而諸分內皆有身根諸分中間相連續故，如碎杜仲及藕根莖，亦如破瓜，蔕不相離。若相離者，身根亦無，非一有情有二身故。而世現見諸蟲身為多分已猶動行者，風力所轉，非有身根。釋云：此當評家種子也。若依經部，異熟色法斷已更續；今依大乘，諸異熟色雖斷已續，若離諸根更不執受，亦名不續。然根斷已後從種生亦名為續，施王等事理無違也。然於地獄傳有二說：一云一切地獄眼等諸根必無斷義，相續受苦無間斷故；二云無間地獄諸根不斷，六識明利苦相續故。餘地獄中亦有間斷，隨斷隨生，契經說故。有義：雖未見文，後說應勝。

He replied: 'I precisely need the king's eyes.' The king offered the four fruits as eyes, but the brahmin refused to accept them, saying: 'I need the king's eyes; what use is this?' Having heard this, the king raised both hands, preparing to gouge out his own eyes. Śakra, knowing that the king's intention to give was resolute, stopped the king, saying: 'What do you seek?' The king replied: 'Only the anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi of all Tathāgatas is what I seek.' Having heard this, Śakra restored his original form, praised the king, saying: 'Truly a bodhisattva, you will before long attain unexcelled bodhi!' Having spoken these words, he suddenly vanished. Therefore, at that time, he did not actually gouge out his eyes. Moreover, regarding the Sūtra of Pāpadatta and Puṇyadatta cited, and the various hells and so on, there were remaining seeds; if not, once severed, they would not arise again. The exposition states: This speaks of seeds, as stated in the ninetieth fascicle, where it says: 'If limbs and joints are severed in the hells, even unto being reduced to pulp, there is still the tactile faculty.' Some say: At that time the visual and other faculties also exist, because once ripened matter is severed, it is not resumed. Some say: The visual and other faculties are severed and resumed again, because they are drawn by karma and because it is the natural law of the destinies. The tactile faculty is definitely never resumed after being severed, because it is the basis of all physical faculties. Other masters say: In the hells, although limbs and joints are severed into hundreds of thousands of pieces, within all pieces there is the tactile faculty, because the pieces remain interconnected—like crushed eucommia bark or lotus root stems, or like a broken melon whose stem remains connected. If separated, the tactile faculty would also be absent, for a single sentient being does not have two bodies. As for the common sight of insects whose bodies are cut into many parts yet still wriggle and move, this is moved by the force of wind and is not the possession of a tactile faculty. The exposition states: This corresponds to the evaluated seed theory of the reviewer. According to the Sautrāntika, ripened material dharmas are severed and resumed again. Now according to the Mahāyāna, although various ripened material dharmas are resumed after being severed, if they are separated from the faculties and no longer appropriated, this is also called non-resumption. However, after the faculties are severed, their later arising from seeds is also called resumption; thus the case of King Sarvadada and others is not contradictory to principle. Regarding the hells, two explanations are handed down: One says that throughout all hells, the visual and other faculties definitely never suffer severance, because the experiencing of suffering is continuous without interruption. The second says that in the Avīci hell the faculties are never severed, because the six consciousnesses are sharp and suffering is continuous; in the other hells there is interruption, arising anew as soon as severed, as stated in the sūtras. There is an opinion: Although no explicit text has been seen, the latter explanation is superior.