大乘法苑義林章 4.17

4.17

第五問答者，問：若三食通三界散位，段食唯欲界者，亦有上界資下段食及餘三食耶？答：有。二定以上起初禪四識，豈非資下三耶？又段食示現可爾，即大威德菩薩等是，實不資下。問：下資上耶？答：有。由依上定起觸觸境，思妙理故。又解此非下食，但長養故。不爾，定心亦應名食，非別攝益。此義不爾，定不損害觸等攝別義，所望異故。問：如是四種為唯種子？亦通現行？答：前三唯現行，識食通種子。九十四說「由段食等力故，有氣力等，諸根大種皆得增益。由是因緣，諸有顧戀身命愚夫，為此義故有所追求，追求之時造作新業及增煩惱。由此段、觸、思三門故，能集後有業煩惱識。此於現法，由業煩惱所隨逐故，成其有取，便能攝受當來後有。」此意即顯由前三食集種子識，後有增長，故知前三皆唯現行。其彼種子即後有因，為種子識，此通二世。未來唯凡，非在聖者，依總果業非聖者故。問：一切有情一一念頃，隨所有處皆定有耶？答曰：不定。識食定有，餘或有無。問：若許五趣皆有段食、觸食等者，彼必生樂。極苦趣中，《攝論》說有樂，彼定是樂耶？答：起順益捨，非喜、樂受。又《唯識》言「餘處所說彼有樂者，隨轉理門，非大乘義。」此義為正。但生順捨，必非喜、樂。問：若三食通三性，如何不善能長養耶？答？如行惡行觸五妙欲，亦資長故。後世雖損，現資養故。問：因果別中，隨所應有四，三食處皆得四種耶？謂不淨食等。答：欲界具四；色界有三，除不淨食；無第四少分，以無佛故。然無色界全無第四及初。問：三界中何界食麁耶？答：且段食者。九十四云「欲天及中有、母腹、卵㲉皆細，餘位名麁。」然五十七，唯天為細餘名麁者，據多分故，或五趣相望為麁細故；九十四中自趣望故。又全消化、不消為麁細，餘不爾故。五十七云「在欲界三食為麁，在色、無色三食為細。」九十四云「三食在無色界名細，餘處名麁。有色為依、易分別故；無色為依，難分別故。」此意即顯以有色所依為麁，無色所依為細。五十七以定地法行相難知名細，散地行相易知名麁。各據一義，亦不相違。九十四云「更有別義：一切四食能令已生有情安住名麁，能令求生有情安住名細，本有、中有麁細別故。」此等一切皆應准知，非要勝義，故不具述。九十四云「無有少法生已安住，亦無有我能食所食。然唯約與未生諸法作生緣理，唯法引法說為食義。但由法假於其識上，假想施設補特伽羅，望此四食說為食者，隨順世間約世俗諦有能食者，非約勝義。若說有識生已安住，體是真實補特伽羅名為食者，不應立識為其食性，未曾見有補特伽羅還自能食補特伽羅。」乃至廣說。故知食者但假設施。「復次三食為因能生三苦：一界不平等苦、二欲希求苦、三求不充苦。由段、觸、思三為因故，故觀段食如子肉想不應貪著；觀順樂觸如無皮牛，諸虫唼食多生眾苦；觀意會思如一大火。作此觀已，勿為三苦之所苦惱，坦然而住。三食為緣生識內苦，故觀識食如三百鉾之所讚刺，乃至廣說。不審觀此便為喜貪之所染污。若為二染，生二過失：一者當來、二者現法。」乃至廣如九十四說。問：若無漏法破裂有故說為非食，何故《佛地經》云「廣大法味喜樂所持名為食」耶？答：《佛地》第一說「食能長養三有眾生」，此斷有故應不名食，是住持因故亦名食。如有漏法雖障無漏，然持有漏得名為食。無漏亦爾，雖斷有漏然持無漏，云何非食？謂佛菩薩後得無漏，能說能受大乘法味生大喜樂。又正體智受真如味生大喜樂，能任持身令不斷壞，長養善法故名為食，非與有情而為食也。唯大悲心神通變境資養有情，近亦名食，故不相違。問：何故有漏觸為食體，無漏法中喜樂為食？答：由有漏觸引喜樂勝，無漏喜樂治憂苦勝，各立為食，對治別故。又無漏受領法味增，說之為食，亦如有漏觸生喜增立名為食，故不違理，各隨增故。問：《佛地經》說一食，廣大法味喜樂所持。《法花》說二食：一者法喜、二者禪悅。處處說四，謂段、觸、思、識。《攝論》說四，不淨依止等。《阿含》說九，四是世間、五是出世。世間食者即段、觸等。出世食者，一禪、二願、三念、四八解脫、五喜食。《佛地》、《法花》唯說無漏資無漏食，不說有漏。《佛地》經中唯說因聞正法之食，不說禪悅。《法花》通說因定、慧資，故說二食，福、慧品中此二勝故；念、願、解脫非增勝故，略而不說。處處說四，世間食故。不淨等四，依人別故。說九食者，有漏、無漏合二說故。無漏法資破有漏食，具五種故。故《阿含》云「常共專念除捨四種世間之食，求於五種出世間食。」有漏法中段等為勝，無漏法中定等為勝，各據勝立，亦不相違。

Fifth, questions and answers: Question: If the three nutriment [types] permeate the dispersed state of the three realms, whereas piece-nutriment belongs only to the desire realm, does an upper realm also nourish a lower piece-nutriment and the other three nutriments? Answer: It does. When one in the second dhyāna or above generates the four consciousnesses of the first dhyāna, is that not nourishing the lower three? Moreover, piece-nutriment can be so by manifestation—namely, in the case of bodhisattvas of great majestic virtue and the like; in reality it does not nourish what is lower. Question: Does what is lower nourish what is upper? Answer: It does. Because based on upper samādhi one generates contact that contacts objects, and deliberates on wondrous principles. Another explanation: this is not lower nutriment, but only provides nourishment. Otherwise, the mind of samādhi should also be called nutriment, not being a distinct gathering and benefiting. This interpretation is not so: samādhi does not impair the distinct meaning of contact and the others gathering [and nourishing], because what is expected differs. Question: Are these four kinds solely seeds, or do they also include actual manifestations? Answer: The first three are solely actual manifestations; consciousness-nutriment includes seeds. Chapter Ninety-Four states: 'Due to the power of piece-nutriment and the rest, one has physical strength and so forth, and the sense faculties and primary elements are all augmented. For this reason, foolish worldlings who cling to body and life seek after things for this purpose; when seeking, they create new karma and increase kleśas. Through these three gateways of piece, contact, and volition, they are able to accumulate the karma-kleśa consciousness of future existence. In the present life, because they are pursued by karma and kleśas, they come to have clinging, and thus can grasp coming future existence.' This intention shows precisely that through the previous three nutriments, seed-consciousness is accumulated, and future existence increases; hence we know that the first three are all solely actual manifestations. Their seeds are the cause of future existence, serving as seed-consciousness; this spans the two periods [of present and future]. The future belongs only to ordinary worldlings, not to noble ones, because karma of the total retributive effect does not belong to noble ones. Question: For all sentient beings at every single moment of thought, wherever they may be, do they definitely have [nutriment]? Answer: It is not fixed. Consciousness-nutriment is definitely present; the rest may or may not be. Question: If it is granted that all five destinies have piece-nutriment, contact-nutriment, and so on, they must generate pleasure. In the destinies of extreme suffering, the Saṃgraha says that pleasure exists; is that definitely pleasure? Answer: They generate agreeable, beneficial equanimity, not the sensations of joy or pleasure. Furthermore, the Cheng weishi lun says: 'What is said elsewhere about pleasure existing there is an adaptable provisional teaching (anuvṛtti-yukti-mukha), not the Mahāyāna doctrine.' This meaning is correct: they only generate agreeable equanimity, definitely not joy or pleasure. Question: If the three nutriments permeate the three moral natures, how can what is unwholesome provide nourishment? Answer: Just as when one commits evil actions and contacts the five wondrous desires, they also nourish and foster. Though it brings detriment in future lives, it provides nourishment in the present. Question: Among the distinct causes and effects, in accordance with the four that should be present, are all four kinds obtained in the places with the three nutriments—namely, impure nutriment and the like? Answer: The desire realm has all four; the form realm has three, excluding impure nutriment; it lacks a minor part of the fourth, because there are no buddhas. However, the formless realm entirely lacks the fourth and the first. Question: Among the three realms, in which realm is nutriment coarse? Answer: To begin with piece-nutriment: Chapter Ninety-Four says, 'Desire-realm devas, the intermediate existence, the maternal womb, and eggshells are all subtle; the other states are called coarse.' However, Chapter Fifty-Seven says that only devas are subtle and the rest are called coarse; this is said in terms of the majority, or because coarse and subtle are set relative to the five destinies; in Chapter Ninety-Four, it is set relative to each destiny itself. Moreover, full digestion versus non-digestion constitutes coarse and subtle, the others not being so. Chapter Fifty-Seven says, 'In the desire realm the three nutriments are coarse; in the form and formless realms the three nutriments are subtle.' Chapter Ninety-Four says, 'The three nutriments in the formless realm are called subtle; in other places they are called coarse. With form as support, they are easy to discern; with the formless as support, they are difficult to discern.' This intention shows that having form as a support is coarse, and having the formless as a support is subtle. Chapter Fifty-Seven takes the phenomenal aspects of the states of samādhi to be subtle because they are difficult to know, and the phenomenal aspects of the dispersed states to be coarse because they are easy to know. Each relies on one meaning, so they do not contradict each other. Chapter Ninety-Four says, 'There is also another meaning: all four nutriments that can cause already-born sentient beings to abide are called coarse, and those that can cause sentient beings seeking birth to abide are called subtle, because there is a coarse and subtle distinction between basic existence and intermediate existence.' All these should be understood accordingly; they are not essential paramārtha, so they are not related in detail. Chapter Ninety-Four says, 'No dharma whatsoever abides having arisen, nor is there a self that can eat or is eaten. It is only in terms of the principle of serving as a causal condition for the arising of unarisen dharmas—only dharmas leading dharmas—that the meaning of nutriment is spoken of. It is merely through dharma-designation that upon consciousness, a pudgala is provisionally posited; in relation to these four nutriments one speaks of an eater, conforming to the world and speaking of an eater in terms of saṃvṛti-satya, not in terms of paramārtha. If one speaks of a consciousness that abides having arisen, whose substance is a real pudgala called an eater, one should not establish consciousness as its nutrimental nature; one has never seen a pudgala turn around and be able to eat a pudgala itself,' up to extensive explanations. Hence we know that an eater is merely a provisional designation. 'Furthermore, the three nutriments serve as causes that can produce three sufferings: first, the suffering of the inequality of the primary elements; second, the suffering of seeking out desires; third, the suffering of unsatisfied seeking. Because the three—piece, contact, and volition—serve as causes, one should contemplate piece-nutriment as like the flesh of a son, not becoming greedily attached to it; one should contemplate contact agreeable to pleasure as like a flayed cow, being gnawed by various worms and producing much suffering; one should contemplate volition associated with the mind as like a great fire. Having cultivated these contemplations, one should not be tormented by the three sufferings, but abide calmly. The three nutriments serve as conditions producing the internal suffering of consciousness; hence one should contemplate consciousness-nutriment as like being pierced by three hundred spears,' up to extensive explanations. 'If one does not carefully contemplate this, one will be defiled by joy and craving. If defiled by these two, two faults arise: first, in future lives; second, in the present life,' up to extensive explanations as in Chapter Ninety-Four. Question: If anāsrava dharmas rupture existence and are therefore said to be non-nutriment, why does the Buddhabhūmi-sūtra say, 'Sustained by the joy and pleasure of the vast taste of the Dharma, this is called nutriment'? Answer: Fascicle 1 of the Buddhabhūmi says, 'Nutriment can nourish sentient beings of the three realms of existence.' Since this severs existence, it should not be called nutriment; yet because it is a cause of sustenance, it is also called nutriment. Just as sāsrava dharmas, though obstructing the anāsrava, sustain the sāsrava and obtain the name of nutriment, anāsrava is also like this: though severing the sāsrava, it sustains the anāsrava; how could it not be nutriment? That is, the subsequent anāsrava [wisdom] of buddhas and bodhisattvas can expound and experience the taste of the Mahāyāna Dharma, generating great joy and pleasure. Moreover, the fundamental wisdom experiences the taste of tathatā and generates great joy and pleasure, being able to support the body so that it is not broken and interrupted, nourishing wholesome dharmas; hence it is called nutriment; it does not serve as nutriment for [ordinary] sentient beings. Only when the mind of great compassion with supernormal powers transforms objects to nourish sentient beings is it also proximately called nutriment; hence there is no contradiction. Question: Why is sāsrava contact the substance of nutriment, whereas among anāsrava dharmas, joy and pleasure serve as nutriment? Answer: Because sāsrava contact is superior in inducing joy and pleasure, while anāsrava joy and pleasure are superior in counteracting grief and suffering, each is established as nutriment because of differences in the counteragent. Furthermore, anāsrava sensation experiences an increase in the taste of the Dharma and is spoken of as nutriment, just as when sāsrava contact produces an increase in joy it is established with the name of nutriment; hence it does not contradict principle, each according to its predominance. Question: The Buddhabhūmi-sūtra speaks of one nutriment: sustained by the joy and pleasure of the vast taste of the Dharma. The Lotus Sūtra speaks of two nutriments: first, the joy of the Dharma; second, the delight of dhyāna. Various places speak of four—namely piece, contact, volition, and consciousness. The Saṃgraha speaks of four: impure support, and so forth. The Āgamas speak of nine: four mundane and five supramundane. The mundane nutriments are piece, contact, and so on. The supramundane nutriments are: first, dhyāna; second, aspiration; third, mindfulness; fourth, the eight liberations; fifth, the nutriment of joy. The Buddhabhūmi and the Lotus Sūtra speak only of anāsrava nutriment nourishing the anāsrava, not of the sāsrava. The Buddhabhūmi-sūtra speaks only of the nutriment caused by hearing the true Dharma, not of the delight of dhyāna. The Lotus Sūtra speaks broadly of nourishment caused by samādhi and prajñā, and therefore speaks of two nutriments, because these two are superior among the categories of merit and prajñā; mindfulness, aspiration, and liberation are not predominant, so they are omitted and not stated. The four spoken of in various places are mundane nutriments. The four such as impure [support] are based on distinctions among persons. Those who speak of nine nutriments combine the two teachings of sāsrava and anāsrava. The nourishment of anāsrava dharmas shatters sāsrava nutriment, possessing five kinds. Therefore the Āgama says: 'Always mindfully abandon the four kinds of mundane nutriments together, and seek the five kinds of supramundane nutriments.' Among sāsrava dharmas, piece and the others are superior; among anāsrava dharmas, samādhi and the others are superior. Each is established according to what is superior, so there is no contradiction either.