大乘法苑義林章 5.48

5.48

五影質有無者，《唯識》第七卷說「有二所緣緣：一親、二疎。若與能緣體不相離，是見分等內所慮託，應知彼是親所緣緣。若與能緣體雖相離，為質能起內所慮託，應知彼是疎所緣緣。」此五種色雖多是假，彼能緣心親所緣相決定皆有，故彼復說「親所緣緣能緣皆有，離內所慮託必不能生，性是依他，從因所起。諸非實色，即能緣等種子所生，無色用故，或無別種成本質故，同一種起，然無實用。若實有者，有色用故，別從種生，非與能緣同一種起。」如《樞要》說。或變似色、或有色用，依此二理親所緣故，五皆名色。依《集量》說，疎所緣緣，一切心生決定皆有。《佛地》等說「無分別智緣真如時亦變影像，故諸心起定有本質。」即依此義，五中四色必有本質。初極略色，欲色界十有色處，以色無色定果實色以為本質，論說極微有十五故。次極逈色，以欲色界色處為質，無色界無別處所故。此中所說，皆由折彼麁色所生故以為質，非有彼類說為本質。受所引色，既非心變，非影像故，不說本質。遍計所起，以欲色界十有色處及上二界中定所起色以為本質，皆可託彼變影像故。定所生色，以欲、色界諸根境色以為本質。五十四說勝定果色，然從緣彼種類影像三摩地發，說彼大造故，用二界諸色為質。若有質色、若無本境，皆用名教以為本質，許識行相通見及影，故知所緣定有影質。由此四色本質皆成，故《成唯識》說「疎所緣緣，能緣或有離外所託亦得生故。第八第六此諸心品所杖本質，或有或無，疎所緣緣有無不定。」若依此義，極略、極逈、遍計起色折緣諸色，因名教者本質如前。依自尋思計諸我法、空花兔角，過去未來劫盡常微，不因他教，皆無本質。又定果色有變有化，有緣他起，有定力生。若變緣他，定有本質。其化定力及自在位，不假他生。故此本質有無不定。雖說行相通見及影，誰許彼遍一切心。正智緣如，行緣一故。若緣如智，亦有影像。誰能照彼知有真如？即本後智亦應無別。又諸菩薩雖入滅定，尚起威儀遊諸淨土。此由定前意樂，擊發本識相分，現諸威儀。後雖滅心，威儀不滅，由第八識持緣彼故。此位威儀依何本質？不爾，八地以上菩薩入滅定位，無前意識發起威儀，即應不成念念入定，亦非不起定現諸威儀，如是便違處處經典。又梵王等變本形類，佛前聽法談論語言。前能變心意識已滅，以非定通識時現在前，此所變形唯第八境，彼以何法為本質耶？第八所緣亦定果故，由斯定果所杖本質有無不定。故《唯識》說契當深宗。《集量》未行，且依現教「性境不隨心，獨影唯從見，帶質通情本，性種等隨應。」

Fifth, concerning the presence or absence of image and archetype: Volume Seven of the Cheng weishi lun says: "There are two kinds of objective condition: first, direct; second, remote. If it is inseparable from the substantial entity of the cognitive subject and is that which is mentally contemplated and relied upon internally by the seen portion and so forth, it should be known as the direct objective condition. If it is separate from the substantial entity of the cognitive subject, yet serves as an archetype capable of giving rise to that which is mentally contemplated and relied upon internally, it should be known as the remote objective condition." Although these five kinds of form are mostly conventional, the direct objective aspect grasped by that cognitive mind is definitely present in all of them. Therefore, that text further says: "The direct objective condition is present for all cognitive subjects; without that which is contemplated and relied upon internally, [cognition] definitely cannot arise. Its nature is dependent on others, arising from causes. All forms that are not real are produced from the seeds of the cognitive subject itself and so forth, because they lack the functions of form, or because they lack distinct seeds to constitute an archetype; they arise from the same seed, yet have no real function. If they are real existents, possessing the functions of form, they are produced from distinct seeds and do not arise from the same seed as the cognitive subject." This is as stated in the Shuyao. Either they transform to resemble form, or they possess the functions of form; by virtue of these two principles, being direct objects, all five are called "form." According to the Pramāṇasamuccaya, the remote objective condition is definitely present whenever any mind arises. The Buddhabhūmi[-sūtra-śāstra] and others say: "When non-conceptual wisdom takes tathatā as its object, it also transforms an image; therefore, when any mind arises, an archetype definitely exists." Based on this meaning, four of the five forms must have archetypes. First, extremely abstracted form takes the ten physical sense bases of the desire and form realms, as well as the real forms resulting from samādhi in the form and formless realms, as its archetype, because the treatises state that there are fifteen kinds of subtle atoms. Next, extremely distant form takes the visual form base of the desire and form realms as its archetype, because the formless realm has no distinct spatial location. What is explained here is all produced by mentally analyzing those coarse forms, and is therefore taken as the archetype; it is not that there is an actual class [of atoms] that is said to be the archetype. Because form induced by reception is neither transformed by the mind nor an image, an archetype is not posited for it. Form arisen from conceptualization takes the ten physical sense bases of the desire and form realms and the forms arisen from samādhi in the two higher realms as its archetype, because all of them can be relied upon to transform an image. Form produced by mastery takes the forms of the faculties and objects of the desire and form realms as its archetype. Chapter Fifty-four says that the form resulting from superior samādhi, however, arises from samādhi that takes the image of that type as its object, and is said to be created by those great elements; thus it uses the various forms of the two realms as its archetype. Whether forms with archetypes or [cognitions] without an original object, all use names and teachings as archetypes, since it is accepted that the cognitive aspect of consciousness encompasses both the seeing [portion] and the image; thus we know that an object of cognition definitely possesses an image and an archetype. Because archetypes are established for all four forms in this way, the Cheng weishi lun says: "The remote objective condition is only sometimes present for a cognitive subject, because cognition can also arise separated from an external support. The archetype relied upon by these mental factors of the eighth and sixth [consciousnesses] may be present or absent; the presence or absence of the remote objective condition is indefinite." If one follows this meaning: regarding extremely abstracted, extremely distant, and conceptually arisen forms, when they analyze or take various forms as their objects based on names and teachings, their archetypes are as stated before. When one conceives of various selves, dharmas, sky-flowers, rabbit horns, past and future, or the eternal atoms at the end of a kalpa purely on the basis of one's own discursive thought without depending on external teachings, none of these have an archetype. Furthermore, form resulting from samādhi includes transformation, creation, arising dependent on another, and being produced through samādhi power. If it is transformation dependent on another, it definitely has an archetype. Its creations through samādhi power and those in the state of mastery do not depend on another to arise. Therefore, the presence or absence of an archetype for this is indefinite. Although it is said that the cognitive aspect encompasses both the seeing [portion] and the image, who allows that this pervades all minds? For when correct wisdom takes tathatā as its object, the cognitive mode and the object are one. If wisdom taking tathatā as its object also possessed an image, who could illuminate that and know that there is tathatā? Then there would also be no difference between fundamental and subsequent wisdoms. Moreover, although bodhisattvas enter the cessation attainment, they still manifest bodily comportment and travel through pure lands. This is because the aspiration prior to the attainment stimulates the image aspect of the fundamental consciousness to manifest the various bodily comportments. Afterwards, although the mind is ceased, the bodily comportment does not cease, because the eighth consciousness maintains and takes it as its object. What archetype does the bodily comportment in this state rely upon? If this were not so, then when a bodhisattva on the eighth ground or above enters the state of the cessation attainment, without a preceding mental consciousness to initiate bodily comportment, they would either fail to enter attainment from moment to moment, or fail to manifest bodily comportment without emerging from the attainment; this would contradict numerous scriptures. Furthermore, when Brahmā-kings and others transform their original appearance to listen to the Dharma and converse before the Buddha, the preceding mental consciousness capable of transformation has already ceased, because the consciousness of samādhi and supernormal power does not always remain manifest; the appearance thus transformed is an object only of the eighth [consciousness]—what dharma does it take as its archetype? Since the object of the eighth [consciousness] is also a result of samādhi, the archetype relied upon by this result of samādhi is indefinite in its presence or absence. Therefore, what the Cheng weishi lun states accords with the profound teaching. While the Pramāṇasamuccaya was not yet circulating, one should provisionally rely on the present teaching: "The objective nature does not conform to the mind; a solitary image depends solely on the seeing [portion]; a representative image partakes of both consciousness and archetype; nature, seed, and so forth conform accordingly."