唯識二十論述記 2.291

2.291

述曰：此第三喻。阿練若者，舊云阿蘭若，此云閒寂曠野處也，離村空野，名阿練若。此中仙人名阿練若仙人。吠摩質咀利王者，即舊云毘摩質多羅阿修羅王也，天帝釋設支夫人之父也。此云綺飾，或云綵畫。由仙人意瞋，令阿修羅王夢見異事。舊論言見恐怖事，此則不同。《中阿含經》云：有七百仙人，住阿練若時，天帝釋嚴身，入中於下風坐，諸天皆來，恭敬帝釋。毘摩質多羅阿修羅王見帝是事，忽變為天，著好嚴具，破其籬垣，入仙人處，在上風坐，仙怪是事，皆不敬之，甚生憤恨云：汝等何故，但敬帝釋，而輕蔑我？欲苦諸仙，諸仙懺謝，其恨不已，不受仙悔，諸仙心念，令返衰惱。應時毘摩質多羅王即大困苦，遂生悔心，漸謝仙等，仙等心念，赦其僣失，即還如本。今此論說阿修羅得夢，經說覺時遭苦，然理大同。此前所說，皆增上緣令他事起，非親為緣令有此事。

Commentary: This is the third analogy. 'Araṇya' was formerly transcribed 'araṇya', meaning a quiet and solitary wilderness; a desolate wilderness away from villages is called an araṇya. The ṛṣis residing there are called araṇya ṛṣis. 'King Vemacitrin' is what was formerly called the asura king Vimalacitra, the father of Śakra Devānām Indra's consort Śacī. It translates as 'variegated adornment' or 'colorful painting'. Through the mental anger of the ṛṣis, the asura king was made to see strange things in dreams. The older translation says he saw terrifying things; this differs slightly. The Madhyama-āgama says: There were seven hundred ṛṣis dwelling in the wilderness. When Śakra Devānām Indra, adorned, entered among them and sat downwind, all the devas came to revere Śakra. The asura king Vimalacitra saw this action of Śakra, suddenly transformed into a deva, wore fine adornments, broke through their fence, entered the ṛṣis' dwelling, and sat upwind. The ṛṣis marveled at this and none showed him respect. He was deeply resentful and furious, saying: 'Why do you only revere Śakra while despising me?' Wishing to torment the ṛṣis, the ṛṣis confessed and apologized, yet his hatred did not cease and he would not accept their repentance. The ṛṣis thought in their minds, causing him to suffer distress in return. Immediately King Vimalacitra fell into great distress and misery. Thereupon he gave rise to repentance and gradually apologized to the ṛṣis. The ṛṣis thought in their minds, forgiving his transgression, and he returned to normal. Now this treatise speaks of the asura experiencing a dream, whereas the sūtra speaks of his suffering while awake; yet the principle is largely the same. All those stated above are adhipati-pratyayas causing another's events to arise, not direct causal conditions bringing about these events.