因明義斷 1.59

1.59

約四無記辨二量云：如通果心，十四變化與五俱者，容通現比，所餘唯比。此出何文？通果之心為散為定？若依小乘，通果色心，可通欲界。既或許欲界，即是散心。若依大乘，心色俱是色界，亦非全散心，何唯比量耶？又自問云：如睡眠聞思所引，睡眠通聞思，化心由修引，化心通現量。答云：聞思約位起，睡眠通聞思，現量離動搖，散心非現量。此釋未善。睡眠通聞思，二量是何攝？若非二量既許是善，何非量收；若比量者，即例睡眠。比量引眠，亦通比量。化心現量，引化心是現量。又變化非唯散，何假餘例？

In discussing the two pramāṇas with respect to the four kinds of indeterminate (avyākṛta) states, it is said: as for the mind resulting from supernormal powers (abhijñāphala-citta), the fourteen mind-manifestations when accompanying the five [sensory consciousnesses] may admit of both pratyakṣa and anumāna, while the remainder are exclusively anumāna. From what text does this come? Is the mind resulting from supernormal powers distracted or in meditative absorption? If based on the Hīnayāna, the form and mind resulting from supernormal powers can extend to the desire realm. Since they are admitted to extend to the desire realm, they are distracted mind. If based on the Mahāyāna, mind and form both belong to the form realm, and are likewise not entirely distracted mind; why then are they exclusively anumāna? Furthermore, it asks itself: just as sleep is induced by hearing and reflection, and sleep extends to hearing and reflection, so the mind of magical creation is induced by cultivation, and the mind of magical creation extends to pratyakṣa. It answers: hearing and reflection arise according to their stage; sleep extends to hearing and reflection; pratyakṣa is free from agitation, and a distracted mind is not pratyakṣa. This explanation is not good. Sleep extends to hearing and reflection: which of the two pramāṇas does it fall under? If it is not the two pramāṇas, since it is accepted as wholesome, why is it not subsumed under pramāṇa? If it is anumāna, then it serves as a parallel to sleep. When anumāna induces sleep, it also extends to anumāna. When the mind of magical creation is pratyakṣa, the induced mind of magical creation is pratyakṣa. Moreover, magical creation is not merely distracted; why rely on other parallels?