大乘法苑義林章 3.6

3.6

生等五因以辨造者，《對法》第一說「所造者，謂以四大種為生、依、立、持、養因義。」即依五因說名為造。生因者，即是起因，謂離大種色不起故。諸所造色雖自種生，若離大種必不能起。《瑜伽》第三「問云：諸法皆從自種而起，寧說大種能生諸色，乃至長養耶？彼自答云：由諸內外大種、造色種子，皆悉依附內相續心。諸大種子未生諸大，造色種子終不能生。要大種子先生大種，造色種子方生造色，為前導故說彼能生，故名生因。」第六十六說此同之。今應問曰：若爾，別解脫及定道俱戒，既離大種，應不得生。此隨所遊、所防名色，亦隨彼二假說大造。不離義有二：一定同處、二必假藉。別解脫戒等必藉大生，非定同處，亦名不離。離質聲、光皆亦如是。《瑜伽論》五十四說「勝定果色唯依勝定，不依大種。」彼如何通？彼自解云「然從緣彼種類影像三摩地發，說彼大造。非依彼生，說名為造。」〈法處色章〉當具陳述。或復五因非遍一切，如離輪光等無所依因故。依因者，《對法》云「即是轉因，謂捨大種諸所造色，無有功能據別處故。諸所造色依據大種方乃得生，故捨大種無別處住。」《瑜伽》第三云「由造色生已，不離大種處而轉，故名依因。」若爾，如何五十四說離輪光明，大種香等皆不可得。今依即質以辨依因，離質光等無依因義，故不相違。或說：彼光亦有大造，隨有光處有大造故。此釋不然。聲、香離質，何大所造？故前說善。立因者，即隨轉因。由大變異，能依造色隨變異故。能造、所造安危必同，故大變時造隨變異。《瑜伽》第三云「由大種損益，彼同安危故。」別解脫戒後相續生，表業變異如何相續？或說後時所依猶有：故不變異。如實義者，此隨所遊、所防大造。不爾，無色定道俱戒，無所依故，應無此因。若爾，所防久已斷滅，既無能造，應無立因，不可防他說名為色，將他四大造自無表。此唯是彼遠分對治，義名為造，曾有類故，二定已上無表竝然。論說防他，他四大造。此義不然。非已過故，防不得故，應非對治。此義名色假名為造，遠分對治，故無有失。遠防自身曾有惡戒，即從過去大造今色，或無表戒等無立因義，依質實色具立因故。若取依身大種名造，無色聖者應無無表，便非大乘，亦違《顯揚》諸律儀色，依不現行法建立色性，故以隨彼所防大造。持因者，即是住因。謂由大種，諸所造色相似相續生，持令不絕故。造色續生，由大持力。不爾，造色應有間斷。《瑜伽》第三說「由隨大種等量不壞，故名持因。」又聲光等大小有異，如何但說等量不壞？《對法》依全分總說持因，《瑜伽》依小分故作是說。彼依即質，造色說故。或《瑜伽》言等量不壞，非是大造二量齊等。等者，前後相似之義。前說為善。養因者，即是長因，謂由大種養彼造色令增長故。由大親養，造色增長。或長即因，或長之因，故名長因。《瑜伽》第三云「由因飲食、睡眠，修習梵行三摩地等。」依彼造色倍復增廣，故說大種為彼養因。能養造色有因有緣，大為養因，彼為養緣，各據一說故不相違。又由彼緣先養大種，令造色增，故無有失。或彼通養大及造色、心心所等一切法因。此唯造色、能養別因、由造性鈍不如心等、故藉二養。心等不爾。五十四「問：諸行皆從自種而起，如何說大造所造耶？由彼變異而變異故，彼所建立及任持故。」《顯揚》第五說「謂依大種，有餘造色攝在一處，名大所造。」此義即顯相依而有，是為造義，非辨體者。現行相望，增上緣故。

Regarding distinguishing construction by means of the five causes of generation and so forth, the first fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya states: "'Derived' means having the four great elements as the causes of generation, dependence, maintenance, holding, and nourishment." That is, based on the five causes it is said to be "constructed". As for the cause of generation (janana-hetu), it is the cause of arising; that is, because matter does not arise apart from the great elements. Although all derived matter arises from its own seeds, if apart from the great elements it certainly cannot arise. Fascicle three of the Yogācārabhūmi raises a question: "If all phenomena arise from their own seeds, why say that the great elements can generate the various forms of matter, and so forth up to nourishing them?" It answers itself: "Because the seeds of all internal and external great elements and derived matter all adhere to the internal continuous mind. Before the seeds of the great elements generate the great elements, the seeds of derived matter can never generate [derived matter]. It requires the seeds of the great elements to first generate the great elements, and only then do the seeds of derived matter generate derived matter. Because they serve as the vanguard, they are said to be able to generate, and are thus called the cause of generation." Fascicle sixty-six states the same. Now one should ask: If so, since the prātimokṣa discipline and the vows concomitant with concentration and the path are separate from the great elements, they should not be able to arise. [Answer:] These are called matter in accordance with the bodily activities undertaken and the evils prevented, and they are also metaphorically said to be constructed by the great elements in accordance with these two. Non-separation has two senses: first, necessarily being in the same locus; second, necessarily depending upon [them]. Prātimokṣa vows and the like necessarily depend upon the great elements to arise, and though not necessarily in the same locus, this is also called non-separation. Sound and light separated from their source material are also like this. Fascicle fifty-four of the Yogācārabhūmi states: "Matter resulting from superior concentration depends only on superior concentration; it does not depend on the great elements." How does one resolve this? It explains itself: "Yet because it is produced from samādhi taking those types of images as objects, it is said to be constructed by the great elements; it is not called constructed because it arises depending upon them." The "Section on Matter of the Dharmāyatana" will present this in detail. Or furthermore, the five causes do not pervade all cases, just as light separated from a orb of light lacks the cause of dependence. As for the cause of dependence (niśraya-hetu), the Abhidharmasamuccaya states: "It is the cause of transformation; that is, if abandoning the great elements, derived matter has no capability to occupy a different place. All derived matter can only arise by relying on the great elements; therefore, if abandoning the great elements, it has no other place to abide." Fascicle three of the Yogācārabhūmi states: "Because after derived matter has arisen, it operates without departing from the locus of the great elements, it is called the cause of dependence." If so, why does fascicle fifty-four say that in light separated from its orb, the great elements, odor, and the like are all unobtainable? Now, the cause of dependence is distinguished based on matter coincident with the source material; light and the like separated from the source material have no meaning of the cause of dependence, so there is no contradiction. Or some say: That light also has the construction by the great elements, because wherever there is light, there is construction by the great elements. This explanation is not correct. When sound and odor are separated from their source material, by what great elements are they constructed? Therefore, the previous explanation is good. As for the cause of maintenance (pratiṣṭhā-hetu), it is the cause of following transformation. Because when the great elements undergo change, the derived matter relying upon them undergoes change accordingly. The constructor and the constructed must share security and peril; therefore, when the great elements change, derived matter changes accordingly. Fascicle three of the Yogācārabhūmi states: "Because of the harm and benefit to the great elements, they share the same security and peril." After prātimokṣa vows continuously arise, if manifest action undergoes change, how can they continue? Some say: At later times, that which they depend on still exists, hence they do not change. As for the true meaning, this is construction by the great elements in accordance with the bodily activities undertaken and the evils prevented. If not, the concentration and path-concomitant vows in the formless realm, having no locus of support, would lack this cause. If so, what is prevented has long since been eliminated, and since there is no constructor, there should be no cause of maintenance; one cannot say it is called matter because it prevents others, taking another's four great elements to construct one's own non-manifest [action]. This is only a remote antidote to them, and is nominally called "constructed" because it belongs to a past category; non-manifest actions from the second dhyāna and above are all like this. A treatise says that it prevents others, and is constructed by another's four great elements. This meaning is incorrect. Because it is not in the past, and what is prevented cannot be obtained, it would not be an antidote. It is nominally called matter and metaphorically called constructed because it is a remote antidote, so there is no fault. Remotely preventing one's own past evil vows means that the present matter is constructed from past great elements; or non-manifest vows and the like lack the meaning of the cause of maintenance, because only real matter coincident with the source possesses the cause of maintenance. If one takes the great elements of the supported body as the constructor, a noble one in the formless realm would have no non-manifest action, which would not be Mahāyāna, and would also contradict the Xianyang shengjiao lun where all morality matter is established as physical nature on the basis of non-manifest phenomena; therefore, it is construction by the great elements in accordance with what is prevented. As for the cause of holding (upastambha-hetu), it is the cause of abiding. That is, because of the great elements, derived matter arises in a similar continuity, held so as not to be interrupted. The continuous arising of derived matter is due to the holding power of the great elements; if not, derived matter would be interrupted. Fascicle three of the Yogācārabhūmi states: "Because it does not deteriorate in equal measure with the great elements, it is called the cause of holding." Furthermore, sound and light vary in size; why only speak of not deteriorating in equal measure? The Abhidharmasamuccaya speaks of the cause of holding generally in terms of the whole, while the Yogācārabhūmi speaks this way in terms of a small portion, because it is spoken in terms of derived matter coincident with the source. Or what the Yogācārabhūmi calls "not deteriorating in equal measure" does not mean that the two quantities—the great elements and the constructed—are equal; "equal" means similar before and after. The former explanation is good. As for the cause of nourishment (upabṛṃhaṇa-hetu), it is the cause of growth. That is, because the great elements nourish that derived matter, causing it to increase and grow. Due to the direct nourishment by the great elements, derived matter increases and grows. Either growth is itself the cause, or it is the cause of growth, hence it is called the cause of growth. Fascicle three of the Yogācārabhūmi states: "Due to the causes of food and drink, sleep, and the practice of brahmacarya, samādhi, and so forth, derived matter relying upon them becomes doubly augmented and expanded; therefore, the great elements are said to be their cause of nourishment." That which can nourish derived matter has causes and conditions: the great elements are the nourishing cause, and those are the nourishing conditions; each relies on one explanation, so they do not contradict each other. Furthermore, due to those conditions, the great elements are nourished first, causing derived matter to increase, so there is no fault. Or those are causes that generally nourish all phenomena, including the great elements, derived matter, mind, and mental factors. These are specific causes that nourish only derived matter; because the nature of derived matter is dull and not like mind and the like, it relies on two kinds of nourishment, whereas mind and the like do not. Fascicle fifty-four asks: "All conditioned phenomena arise from their own seeds; how can it be said that the great elements construct what is constructed? Because when they undergo change, [the constructed] undergoes change; and because they are established and sustained by them." The fifth fascicle of the Xianyang shengjiao lun states: "It means that depending on the great elements, other derived matter is gathered in one place, which is called constructed by the great elements." This meaning shows that existing in mutual dependence is the meaning of construction, not distinguishing the substantial entity. When viewed as existing phenomena interacting, it is due to the sovereign condition (adhipati-pratyaya).