大乘法苑義林章 4.13

4.13

第二出體性者，六十六云「段食當言香、味、觸處所攝。」《成唯識》言「謂欲界繫香、味、觸三。」此言意顯唯欲界繫香、味、觸三，於變壞時有資養者，說名為食，非下一切及上觸等。九十四云「諸有漏觸能與喜樂為食。」《唯識》亦言「謂有漏觸總取境時，攝受喜樂及順益捨，能為食事。」此言意顯三界有漏八識俱觸，攝益喜樂及順益捨。攝益身者，是觸食體。若引苦憂，非順益捨，觸體非食，非資益故。故《唯識》言「此觸雖與諸識相應，屬六識者食義偏勝。」即彰觸食通八識俱，密會天親《攝論》第三云「此中觸食屬六識身，觸麁顯境，資養勝故，不取餘觸。」有義：唯取六識俱觸以為食體。論觸雖通八識俱轉，為食體者唯六識俱，七八俱觸全無引生喜樂二受及順捨故，八俱之捨一切地時行相同故。前解不然。非要觸能引自俱生喜樂受等方名為食，引餘識俱喜樂等起攝益身者一切皆是。由第八等觸勝自境，引生六識俱時喜等，故亦是食。然准諸文，第二解勝，但言攝益喜等為食，非七八故。《成唯識》言「思食謂有漏思，與欲俱轉。」又言「此思雖與諸識相應，屬意識者食義偏勝。」此意正顯三界有漏八識俱思，希可愛境攝益身者皆思食體。密會五十七及天親《攝論》云「緣未來境，攝益於識，名為思食。意思於境，希望勝故。」由此九十四云「若在意地能會境思，名意會思，能與一切於可愛境專注希望為食。」復有義者：六識俱思諸有漏者，希境益身皆思食體。七八不然，無行相故。諸處但說與意俱者，通緣未來，彼最勝故。亦有希望現境思故，許通五識。《唯識》所言諸識相應，顯思體俱，食唯六俱。有義：思食唯第六俱，諸處但說緣未來故。五識緣現觸力增長，非思食故。《唯識》說「思體通諸識，成食義者，唯第六俱。」故世親說：「意思食者是能希望，由希望故饒益所依，如遠見水雖渴不死，以眼為門意希望故，非五識有希未來故。」此雖三解，第二解勝。五識於境有微細思，可希望故。不爾，五識應無欲俱。准此，第三乃同《唯識》，不許別境與五俱義。故知正者，第二師勝。《成唯識》云「識食謂有漏識。此識雖通諸識自體，而第八識食義偏勝。」此顯識食取通三界有漏八識，正能執受唯第八識，一類相續執持勝故。《攝論》、《唯識》皆取第八，實通八識。然《瑜伽》等但總言識，不別說是第八。唯《攝論》及《唯識》取第八故。雖知八識皆可名食，非一切識皆立食名，取有漏位第八識全，恒執持故。五十七說「由三養識，識復長養諸根大種，故立為食。」故知諸識非資養者，皆非食攝，如觸思等。下第三門，辨相之中，四句分別方應了知。然第七識有漏，皆是由與本識為俱有依，能執持故。即七八全、六識少分，或除第七，非資養故。由此《集論》第三卷說「三蘊、五處、十一界一分攝。段食是色蘊，思、觸是行蘊，八識是識蘊。五處者，謂香、味、觸三，法、意二處。十一界者，香、味、觸、法及七心界。除無漏四，非資益故。言一分也，即非一切香、味、觸三皆是食體，非資養故。」五十七言「能長養者名食，與此相違非是食故。」如段食，餘食亦爾。

Second, identifying the essential nature [of nutriment]. Fascicle sixty-six [of the Yogācārabhūmi] states: 'Material nutriment should be said to be subsumed under the bases of odor, taste, and tangibles.' The Cheng weishi lun states: 'It refers to the three—odor, taste, and tangibles—bound to the desire realm.' This statement is intended to show that only the three—odor, taste, and tangibles bound to the desire realm—which provide nourishment when undergoing transformation and disintegration, are called nutriment, and not all [tangibles etc.] below, nor the tangibles and so forth above. Fascicle ninety-four states: 'All sāsrava contact can serve as nutriment for joy and pleasure.' The Weishi also states: 'It refers to sāsrava contact that, when apprehending an object in general, takes in joy, pleasure, and beneficial equanimity, thus capable of performing the function of nutriment.' This statement is intended to show that contact associated with the eight sāsrava consciousnesses across the three realms, when taking in and benefiting joy, pleasure, and beneficial equanimity, and thereby benefiting the body, is the essential nature of contact-nutriment. If it induces suffering, grief, and non-beneficial equanimity, the essence of contact is not nutriment, because it does not provide nourishment or benefit. Therefore, the Weishi states: 'Although this contact is associated with all consciousnesses, the meaning of nutriment is especially prominent in those belonging to the six consciousnesses.' This clearly reveals that contact-nutriment applies to that associated with the eight consciousnesses, and implicitly harmonizes with Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, fascicle three, which says: 'Here, contact-nutriment belongs to the six consciousness-bodies; by contacting coarse and conspicuous objects, its nourishment is superior, and thus it does not take other contacts.'

There is an opinion: Only contact associated with the six consciousnesses is taken as the essential nature of nutriment. Although contact in the treatise generally operates in association with the eight consciousnesses, that which constitutes the essential nature of nutriment is only associated with the six consciousnesses, because contact associated with the seventh and eighth entirely lacks the ability to induce the two feelings of joy and pleasure, as well as beneficial equanimity; and the equanimity associated with the eighth has identical cognitive aspects in all stages and times. The previous explanation is incorrect. It is not required that contact must induce joy, pleasure, and other feelings that arise simultaneously with itself to be called nutriment; whenever it induces joy and so forth associated with other consciousnesses to arise and benefit the body, it is entirely [nutriment]. Because contact of the eighth [consciousness] and so on excels in its own object and induces simultaneous joy and so forth in the six consciousnesses, it is also nutriment. However, based on the various texts, the second explanation is superior, as they merely state that taking in and benefiting joy and so forth is nutriment, not the seventh or eighth.

The Cheng weishi lun states: 'Volition-nutriment refers to sāsrava volition operating together with desire.' It also states: 'Although this volition is associated with all consciousnesses, the meaning of nutriment is especially prominent in that belonging to the mental consciousness.' This intent precisely shows that volition associated with the eight sāsrava consciousnesses across the three realms, when desiring a desirable object and benefiting the body, is entirely the essential nature of volition-nutriment. This implicitly harmonizes with fascicle fifty-seven and Vasubandhu's Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya, which say: 'Taking a future object as its condition and benefiting consciousness is called volition-nutriment, because the mind's volition has superior hope toward the object.' For this reason, fascicle ninety-four states: 'If it is volition capable of encountering an object on the mental ground, it is called volition encountering through the mind, which can serve as nutriment for all focused longing toward desirable objects.'

There is another opinion: All sāsrava volition associated with the six consciousnesses that longs for an object and benefits the body constitutes the essential nature of volition-nutriment. The seventh and eighth are not so, because they lack this cognitive aspect. The various texts only say that what is associated with the mind-ground conditions the future because it is the most prominent. Because there is also volition that longs for a present object, it is permitted to apply to the five consciousnesses. When the Weishi speaks of association with all consciousnesses, it clarifies the essential nature of volition being conjoined, while nutriment belongs only to the six.

There is an opinion: Volition-nutriment is conjoined only with the sixth, because the various texts only speak of conditioning the future. The five consciousnesses condition the present through the strengthening power of contact, not volition-nutriment. The Weishi states that 'the essence of volition applies to all consciousnesses, but that which accomplishes the meaning of nutriment is conjoined only with the sixth.' Therefore Vasubandhu said: 'Volition-nutriment is that which can hope; through hope, it benefits its basis. Just as seeing water from afar prevents dying of thirst because the mind hopes using the eye as a gateway, it is not that the five consciousnesses have hope for the future.'

Although there are these three interpretations, the second interpretation is superior. The five consciousnesses possess subtle volition toward objects, which can have longing. Otherwise, the five consciousnesses would not be associated with desire. Following this, the third [interpretation] agrees with the Weishi's position that does not accept the non-standard doctrine that the specific-state [mental factors] are conjoined with the five. Therefore, we know that the correct one is the second master's superior view.

The Cheng weishi lun states: 'Consciousness-nutriment refers to sāsrava consciousness. Although this consciousness generally applies to the intrinsic nature of all consciousnesses, the meaning of nutriment is especially prominent in the eighth consciousness.' This shows that consciousness-nutriment takes the eight sāsrava consciousnesses throughout the three realms, but that which properly is capable of appropriating is only the eighth consciousness, because of its superior maintenance in a uniform continuity. Both the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and Weishi take the eighth, though it actually applies to the eight consciousnesses. However, the Yogācārabhūmi and other texts merely speak generally of consciousness, without specifically calling it the eighth, because only the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and Weishi take the eighth. Although it is known that all eight consciousnesses can be called nutriment, not all consciousnesses establish the name of nutriment; the entire eighth consciousness in the sāsrava state is taken because it perpetually maintains. Fascicle fifty-seven says: 'Because the three nourish consciousness, and consciousness in turn nourishes the sense faculties and primary elements, it is established as nutriment.' Therefore, we know that any consciousness that does not provide nourishment is not subsumed under nutriment, just like contact, volition, and the rest. Only in the third section below, when distinguishing the characteristics through the fourfold analysis, should this be understood. However, the seventh consciousness is sāsrava; all [such aspects] are because it serves as the simultaneous support for the basic consciousness and can maintain it. That is, the seventh and eighth in their entirety and a small portion of the six consciousnesses [are nutriment], or the seventh is excluded because it does not provide nourishment.

Because of this, the third fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya states: 'It is subsumed under a portion of three aggregates, five bases, and eleven dhatus. Material nutriment is the aggregate of matter; volition and contact are the aggregate of formations; the eight consciousnesses are the aggregate of consciousness. The five bases are the three—odor, taste, and tangibles—and the two bases of dharmas and mind. The eleven dhatus are odor, taste, tangibles, dharmas, and the seven mind dhatus. The four anāsrava ones are excluded, because they do not provide benefit. The phrase "a portion" means that not all of the three—odor, taste, and tangibles—are the essential nature of nutriment, because they do not [all] provide nourishment.' Fascicle fifty-seven states: 'That which can nourish is called nutriment; that which is contrary to this is not nutriment.' As it is for material nutriment, so it is for the other nutriments.