English
English version The Jailers and Other Beings If you allow for their transformation, why not allow it for consciousness? Due to the karma of beings in hell, the four great elements (earth, water, fire, and wind, the four basic elements constituting the material world) manifest various differences such as jailers. These differences manifest in different colors, shapes, and sizes, hence they are called jailers and so on. Transformation is also like this, or it manifests jailers shaking their hands and feet, causing fear and harm to beings in hell. Or there are two mountains resembling rams, sometimes joining together and sometimes separating. In the forest of iron trees, the sharp thorns of the iron trees sometimes lower and sometimes rise. They say these things are not non-existent. Why not admit that karma arises from consciousness, and consciousness undergoes transformation, but instead say that these are transformations of the four great elements? Furthermore. Karma imprints within consciousness, clinging to the result as arising externally. For what reason is the result not spoken of in the place of imprinting? It is the karma of sinners in hell that allows them to see such aggregates of the four great elements and their transformations. This karma imprints within the continuous stream of consciousness of beings in hell, and not elsewhere. This place of imprinting is the transformation of consciousness, manifesting as images like jailers. This is the karmic result, yet it is not admitted that the result arises in the place of imprinting. Instead, it is admitted that the karmic result arises in a place where there is no imprinting. What is the reason for holding such an attachment? Is it the Agamas (Buddhist scriptures)? If consciousness merely manifests external dusts like form, and there are actually no external dusts like form, the World-Honored One should not have said that the sense bases (the six sense organs: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind) truly exist. Therefore, the Agamas are not the reason, because it does not accord with the intention of the Agamas. The teachings on the sense bases such as form are to transform those attached to 'self' and 'person'. They are spoken according to specific intentions, like saying that beings are born by transformation. Just as the World-Honored One said that there are beings born by transformation (beings not born from parents but transformed by karmic force), this is spoken due to a specific intention. The continuum of transformation continues without interruption until the next life. Furthermore, the Buddha said: There are no beings or self, but only phenomena with cause and effect. From this specific statement, it is known that this is a separate teaching. The World-Honored One said that the sense bases such as form are also like this, to liberate those who cling to 'self' and 'person', it is convenient to say that there are sense bases and beings. This statement is based on the expedient intention of the teachings. So, what is the true intention of the separate teaching? Consciousness arises from its own seed, manifesting as if it were dust. To establish the internal and external sense bases, the Buddha spoke of these two. What meaning does this verse intend to reveal? Consciousness, which is like dust, arises from the superior transformation of its own seed. This seed and consciousness, which is like dust, manifest as consciousness like form, which is a convenient gateway for the arising of external sense bases such as form. Therefore, the World-Honored One spoke of the internal and external sense bases. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
第说。眼入色入乃至似触识。从自种子至变异差别生。是种子及似触。显现为触识生方便门故佛世尊说。为身入及触入若约此义说入。有何利益。 若他依此教 得入人无我 由别教能除 分别入法空 若佛世尊由此义说诸入。受化弟子得入人空。从唯六双但六识生。无一法为见者乃至为触者。若知此义说人空。所化弟子得入人我空。由别说者。由说唯识教。得入法我空。云何得入法空。一切法唯识生似色尘等。无有一法色等为相。若知如此得入法空。若一切法一向无。是唯识亦应无。云何得成立。非一切法一向无。说为法空。非知此义名入法空。若尔云何得入法空。由除分别性相故。得入法空。如凡夫分别所有法相。由此法相一切法空无所有。是名法空。不由不可言体诸佛境界说诸法空。如此唯识由别识所分别体无所有故空。若入此理得成立唯识入法我空。不由拨一切法无。若不如此别识应成别识境。唯识义则不成。识尘实有故。此云何可信由此义。佛世尊说。色等入是有不由实有。色等入为眼识等境界。由如此理是义可信。 外尘与邻虚 不一亦不异 彼聚亦非尘 邻虚不成故 此偈欲显何义。是色等入各各是眼识等境。为当与邻虚一如有分色鞞世师所执。为当不一由邻虚各别 故。为当是邻虚聚色入与邻虚成一作眼识境。是义不然。是有分色于分中不可见异体故。亦非多邻虚各各不可见故。亦非多邻虚聚集成尘。由邻虚不成一物故。云何不成。 一时六共聚 邻虚成六方 若六同一处 聚量如邻虚 有六邻虚从六方来。与一邻虚共聚。是一邻虚不成一物。有六方分故。是一邻虚处他方邻虚不得住故。若一邻虚处即是六处。一切同一处故。则一切聚物量同邻虚。更互不相过故。如邻虚量聚亦不应可见。若汝言邻虚不得聚集无方分故。此过失不得起。是邻虚聚更互相应。罽宾国毗婆沙师作如此说。则应问之。如汝所说邻虚聚物。此聚不异邻虚。 若邻虚不合 聚中谁和合 复次无方分 邻虚聚不成 若邻虚无和合。于聚中此和合属何法。若汝言邻虚更互得和合。此义不然。何以故。邻虚无方分故。若和合不成。何况有假名聚。应如此说。聚有方分。若和合义不可立。无方分邻虚云何和合得成。是故邻虚不成一物。邻虚和合。若可然若不可然。今所不论。 若物有方分 不应成一物 邻虚东方分异余五方。乃至下方分亦如是。若分有异邻虚取分为体。云何得成一物影障复云何。 若一邻虚无有方分。日正出时云何一边有影。何故作如此问。 现代汉语译本：因此，如果认为邻虚（paramāṇu，最小的物质单位）聚集在一起形成色入（rūpa，色），并与邻虚结合成为眼识（cakṣu-vijñāna，视觉意识）的对境，这种说法是不对的。因为有分色（avayava-rūpa，组成部分）在各个部分中是不可见的，它们是不同的实体。而且，也不是因为多个邻虚各自不可见。也不是因为多个邻虚聚集在一起形成微尘（rajas，尘埃），因为邻虚不能成为一个单一的物体。为什么不能成为一个单一的物体呢？ 一时六共聚，邻虚成六方，若六同一处，聚量如邻虚。 如果有六个邻虚从六个方向来，与一个邻虚聚集在一起，那么这一个邻虚就不能成为一个单一的物体，因为它有六个方向的部分。这一个邻虚所占据的位置，其他方向的邻虚就不能占据。如果一个邻虚占据的位置就是六个位置，那么一切都位于同一个位置，那么一切聚集物的量就和邻虚一样大了，因为它们不会互相穿过。如果邻虚的量是这样，那么聚集物也不应该可见。如果你说邻虚不能聚集，因为它没有方向的部分，那么这个过失就不会产生。邻虚聚集在一起，互相对应。罽宾国（Kaśmīra）的毗婆沙师（Vaibhāṣika，论师）是这样说的。那么就应该问他，如你所说邻虚聚集在一起形成的物体，这个聚集体和邻虚是不同的吗？ 若邻虚不合，聚中谁和合，复次无方分，邻虚聚不成。 如果邻虚没有结合，那么在聚集体中，这个结合属于什么法？如果你说邻虚互相结合，这种说法是不对的。为什么呢？因为邻虚没有方向的部分。如果结合不能成立，那么何况有假名的聚集体。应该这样说，聚集体有方向的部分。如果结合的意义不能成立，没有方向的部分的邻虚怎么能结合成功呢？所以，邻虚不能成为一个单一的物体。邻虚的和合，无论是可能的还是不可能的，现在都不讨论。 若物有方分，不应成一物。 邻虚的东方部分不同于其余五个方向，乃至下方的部分也是如此。如果部分有不同，邻虚以部分为本体，怎么能成为一个单一的物体呢？影子和遮挡又怎么解释呢？ 如果一个邻虚没有方向的部分，那么太阳正出的时候，为什么一边会有影子呢？为什么要提出这样的问题呢？
English
English version: Therefore, if it is thought that paramāṇus (the smallest units of matter) gather together to form rūpa (form), and combine with the paramāṇu to become the object of cakṣu-vijñāna (visual consciousness), this view is incorrect. This is because avayava-rūpas (component parts) are invisible in each part, and they are different entities. Moreover, it is not because multiple paramāṇus are individually invisible. Nor is it because multiple paramāṇus gather together to form rajas (dust), because paramāṇus cannot become a single object. Why can't they become a single object? 'At one time, six gather together, paramāṇus form six directions, if six are in the same place, the measure of the aggregate is like a paramāṇu.' If six paramāṇus come from six directions and gather together with one paramāṇu, then this one paramāṇu cannot become a single object because it has parts in six directions. The place occupied by this one paramāṇu cannot be occupied by paramāṇus from other directions. If the place occupied by one paramāṇu is the same as six places, then everything is in the same place, and the measure of all aggregates is the same as a paramāṇu because they do not pass through each other. If the measure of a paramāṇu is like this, then the aggregate should also not be visible. If you say that paramāṇus cannot gather because they have no directional parts, then this fault will not arise. Paramāṇus gather together and correspond to each other. This is what the Vaibhāṣikas (exponents of the Vaibhāṣika school) of Kaśmīra say. Then one should ask them, as you say, the object formed by paramāṇus gathering together, is this aggregate different from the paramāṇu? 'If paramāṇus do not combine, who combines in the aggregate? Furthermore, without directional parts, paramāṇus cannot form an aggregate.' If paramāṇus do not combine, then to what dharma does this combination belong in the aggregate? If you say that paramāṇus combine with each other, this view is incorrect. Why? Because paramāṇus have no directional parts. If combination cannot be established, then how much less can a nominally designated aggregate exist. It should be said that the aggregate has directional parts. If the meaning of combination cannot be established, how can paramāṇus without directional parts combine successfully? Therefore, paramāṇus cannot become a single object. Whether the combination of paramāṇus is possible or impossible is not discussed now. 'If an object has directional parts, it should not become a single object.' The eastern part of a paramāṇu is different from the other five directions, and even the lower part is the same. If the parts are different, and the paramāṇu takes the parts as its essence, how can it become a single object? How can shadows and obstructions be explained? If a paramāṇu has no directional parts, then why is there a shadow on one side when the sun rises directly? Why is such a question asked? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
是邻虚无有别分正为日所照。复次此邻虚与彼邻虚若并无方分。云何相障。何以故。此邻虚无有余分。是处相合他来则障。若无有障一切六方邻虚同一处故。则一切聚同邻虚量。此义已如前说。是影及障。属聚不属邻虚。云何不许此义。汝今许聚是有异邻虚不。故说影障属聚耶不也。若同则无二。若聚不异邻虚。此影及障则不属聚。何以故。但形相分别谓之为聚。何用作此思量。是色等诸尘体相未破。何者为其体。眼等境界及青等类此义即应共思量。此眼等境界及青等类。汝执为尘体。为是多物为。是一物若尔有何失。若多者其失如前。若一者亦有过。如偈言。 若一无次行 俱无已未得 及别类多事 亦无细难见 若一切青黄等无有隔别。是眼境界执为一物。于地则无次第行。若一下足应遍行一切。此间已得彼处未得。于一时中此二不成。何以故。一时中一物不应有已得未得。不应有多别类如象马等军。亦不应有多别事。何以故。是一物处多物则在其中。此彼差别云何得成。复次云何为一是二所至中间则空。复次是最细水虫与大同色。无不可见义。若汝由相差别色等诸尘。执有别物不由别义。若尔决定约邻虚别类。应分别尘差别。则邻虚不成一物。色等五尘非眼等境界。是故唯识义得成。诸尘者。 现代汉语译本：是邻虚（Paramāṇu，最小的物质单位）无有别分，正为日光所照。再者，此邻虚与彼邻虚若并无方位区分，云何互相阻碍？何以故？此邻虚无有剩余部分，是处相合，他物来则阻碍。若无有阻碍，一切六方邻虚同一处故，则一切聚合体同邻虚的量。此义已如前说，是影及障，属于聚合体，不属于邻虚。云何不许此义？汝今许聚合体是有异于邻虚，故说影障属于聚合体耶？不也。若同，则无二。若聚合体不异于邻虚，此影及障则不属于聚合体。何以故？但形相分别，谓之为聚合体。何用作此思量？是色等诸尘，体相未破，何者为其体？眼等境界及青等类，此义即应共同思量。此眼等境界及青等类，汝执为尘的本体，为是多物，为是一物？若尔，有何缺失？若多者，其缺失如前。若一者，亦有过失，如偈言： 若一无次行 俱无已未得 及别类多事 亦无细难见 若一切青黄等无有隔别，是眼境界执为一物，于地则无次第行。若一下足，应遍行一切。此间已得，彼处未得，于一时中，此二不成。何以故？一时中，一物不应有已得未得。不应有多别类，如象马等军。亦不应有多别事。何以故？是一物处，多物则在其中，此彼差别云何得成？复次，云何为一？是二所至，中间则空。复次，是最细水虫与大同色，无不可见义。若汝由相差别，色等诸尘，执有别物，不由别义。若尔，决定约邻虚别类，应分别尘差别，则邻虚不成一物。色等五尘非眼等境界。是故唯识义得成。诸尘者。