大乘法苑義林章 3.16

3.16

類異有殊者，《瑜伽》第三、五十四說「類異有三：一異熟類，此有二種：一業生最初起者、二相續後時轉者。二長養類，此復有二：一處寬遍，由食、睡眠、梵行、等至之所長養；二相增盛，亦由食故，彼所依故，修勝作意故，長時純熟故之所長養。三等流類，此有四種：一異熟等流、二長養等流，此二即前二類所攝；三變異等流、四本性等流，異熟、長養二種不攝，皆後二故。五根唯有異熟、長養，離此二外無別等流。此依三類體別而說。此五色根具二異熟及二長養，總說如是。其眼耳根，修果名天，餘皆名肉。天唯長養，具二養義。肉通異熟及長養二，養二皆具。天眼非業之所生，故不通異熟。」有異論師作《雜心疏》，時雖不用，亦謂自計當其深理，乃云：說一切有部，身在下地，起上身根。以《雜心》云「極微在四根十種」，應當知身根九，餘八，謂在有香地。此理不然。《俱舍論》云「欲微聚無聲無根有八事，有身根九事，十事有餘根。」以欲標名，顯是欲界極微聚說，非說上界微聚亦爾，起彼眼耳當成身等。又違《發智》、《婆沙》所說，彼云「頗有成就彼眼根不成就彼身根耶？答曰：有。謂身在下起上天眼，不成彼地身根。」如是等故，但是學不師授、文不遍尋，妄率胸情浪生穿鑿，應依典據以範後學耳。《瑜伽》第三復有類例。有一種眼，謂能見色。有二種眼，謂長養、異熟。乃至十一種眼，謂去、來、今、內、外、麁、細、劣、妙、遠、近眼。耳等亦爾，然有差別，論自顯之。有假眼、實眼，義准應悉。恐厭繁文故略而止，廣如彼說。

Regarding differences among types, fascicles three and fifty-four of the Yogācārabhūmi state: "There are three differences of type. First, the type of maturation (vipāka). This has two varieties: 1. that which initially arises born of karma, and 2. that which proceeds in continuation at a later time. Second, the type of nutriment-nourished (aupacayika). This also has two varieties: 1. broad extension of locus, nourished by food, sleep, chastity, and meditative attainment; 2. enhanced prominence of characteristics, nourished also by food, by its support, by cultivating superior attention, and by ripening over a long duration. Third, the type of uniform flow (niṣyanda). This has four varieties: 1. uniform flow of maturation, and 2. uniform flow of nourishment—these two are subsumed under the previous two types; 3. uniform flow of alteration, and 4. uniform flow of natural disposition—these are not subsumed under maturation and nourishment, because both are the latter two. The five faculties possess only maturation and nourishment; apart from these two there is no distinct uniform flow. This is spoken based on the distinct substances of the three types." These five physical faculties possess both maturations and both nourishments; this is the general explanation. Among the eye and ear faculties, those that are the fruit of cultivation are called "divine" (divya), while the others are all called "fleshy." The divine ones are solely nourished, possessing both meanings of nourishment. The fleshy ones include both maturation and nourishment, possessing both kinds of nourishment. Because the divine eye is not born of karma, it does not include maturation. There was an unorthodox commentator who composed a Commentary on the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya*. Although his view was not adopted at the time, he considered his own reckoning to hit upon the profound principle, claiming: "In the Sarvāstivāda, when the body is in a lower stage, it gives rise to a body faculty of a higher stage. Because the *Miśrakābhidharmahṛdaya* says, 'Subtle atoms exist in four faculties as ten substances,' one should know that the body faculty has nine, and the others eight, referring to stages with odor." This reasoning is incorrect. The *Abhidharmakośa* says: "In the desire realm, an atomic cluster without sound and without faculties has eight entities; one with the body faculty has nine entities; and one with the remaining faculties has ten entities." By specifying it with "desire," it shows this refers to atomic clusters of the desire realm, not that atomic clusters of higher realms are also like this, such that giving rise to those eyes and ears would fulfill the body and so forth. Furthermore, it contradicts what is stated in the *Jñānaprasthāna* and the *Vibhāṣā*, which say: "Can one possess that eye faculty without possessing that body faculty? Answer: Yes. That is, when the body is in a lower stage and gives rise to a higher divine eye, one does not possess the body faculty of that [higher] stage." On account of such points, this is merely a case of learning without a teacher's transmission and failing to examine texts comprehensively, recklessly indulging personal fancy and inventing baseless speculations. One ought to rely on canonical authority to guide future students. Fascicle three of the Yogācārabhūmi has further classifications: there is one kind of eye, namely that which can see forms; there are two kinds of eyes, namely nourished and maturational; and so forth up to eleven kinds of eyes, namely past, future, present, internal, external, coarse, subtle, inferior, superior, distant, and near eyes. The ear and the rest are also like this, though there are distinctions, which the treatise itself clarifies. That there are conventional eyes and real eyes should be understood accordingly from the meaning. Fearing tedious length, I shall briefly stop here; for details, see that treatise.