大乘法苑義林章 3.16

3.16

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.