瑜伽論記 10.55

10.55

解十因文，即總解三性十因之義，於中名想言說三法為隨說因，由想說法名故而起言說，由說義顯，是即法隨說顯名隨說因，基云：謂如先有色名，故後聞此名遂起想取像善惡，由此取像故遂起言說因為色等言，又如雜集論第四卷云：隨說因謂名想見言說，兼用先為體，此論不言彼言見者有何意也，由想取色像故遂起執著執善名見，因著故起言說，問若清淨因云何名著，清淨因見即正見，稱彼法知雖非執著亦名為見，彼論說者，以共想用各別故，此論等不說者，謂於取像起執著，即一物相似想中攝見故所以不論，又如汎有所說但唯有想未必起能，彼論據合作法並起執著說，此論唯約不執著說，無違，次觀待此法為因故求取彼名觀待因。言一切種子望後自果名牽引因者，依此中文通取有分熏習牽後異熟果，復有名言熏習引後同類果名牽引因，除因緣種所餘三緣名攝受因，通收有分名言二種種子，初念自果名生起因，即同時生也，泰云：如決擇云：依諸行淨不淨業習氣依處施設牽引因，依有潤種子因依處施設生起因，所以者何，由是色無色繫法各從自種子生愛名能潤，由此所潤諸種子先所牽各別自體當所生起，如經言，業為盛生因，愛為生起因，釋云：由愛種子潤業故報方得生起，初起時須愛潤起故，愛種子望初起果名生起因，後時相續更不由愛，如羅漢無愛報亦得相續，但由業力後起報相續，故云一切種子望後自果名牽引，此之二因即攝大乘論生引二因義，西方遠師有三釋，初釋云：一切種子望初念報起名生因，望後念已去起報名引因，二釋云：初望一報生身名生因，望後死屍名引因，故攝大乘論云：死猶相續，三釋云：無明行望未來生老死名引因，愛取有望生老死為生因，故十二因緣中無明行為能引支，愛取有為能生支，次通收一切前種所生現行望後種所生現行名引發因，通收內外三性等法各別因緣名定別因，隨何法起皆藉此觀待因等亦方得生起名同事因，一切有為礙生法者是相違因，不相違因可知，依舊地持解，初二因及後二因共，此間同解中間六因中唯約外法無記因釋，下舉六種相違，正取生起相違名相違因，怨敵相違中云謂毒蛇鼠狼猫狸鼷鼠者，此中互相為怨敵，乃至鼷鼠轉怖畏毒蛇，如是次第互為怨也，相見之時無心情也。

The text explaining the ten causes generally explains the meaning of the ten causes across the three natures. Among them, the three factors—name, conception, and verbal expression—constitute the conventional cause (anuvyavahāra-hetu). Because one conceives of the name of a dharma, verbal expression arises; and because the meaning is revealed through expression, this dharma is revealed in accordance with expression—hence it is called the conventional cause. Kuiji says: For example, because the name 'form' existed first, upon hearing this name later one subsequently gives rise to conception and grasps the image as good or bad; because of this grasping of an image, one subsequently gives rise to verbal expression, taking it as the cause for uttering words such as 'form'. Furthermore, as the fourth fascicle of the Samuccaya states: 'The conventional cause refers to name, conception, view, and verbal expression, jointly using them with the former [three] as its nature.' What is the intention behind this treatise not mentioning 'view' while that treatise does? Because by grasping the image of form through conception one subsequently gives rise to clinging, and clinging to what is good is called 'view'; and because of clinging, one gives rise to verbal expression. One asks: If it is a cause of purity, how can it be called clinging? The view that is a cause of purity is right view; knowing in accord with that dharma, although not clinging, is also called 'view'. That treatise mentions it because its function is distinct while shared with conception; that this and other treatises do not mention it is because, when clinging arises upon grasping an image, view is subsumed within the similar conception of a single thing, which is why it is not discussed. Furthermore, generally whenever there is something expressed, there is only conception, and it does not necessarily give rise to view; that treatise speaks according to the combined functioning where clinging arises concurrently, whereas this treatise speaks solely based on non-clinging, so there is no contradiction. Next, because one regards this dharma as a cause and therefore seeks and grasps that [result], it is called the cause of dependency (apekṣā-hetu). As for 'all seeds, in relation to their own subsequent fruits, are called the propelling cause (ākṣepa-hetu)': according to the text here, it comprehensively includes the habit energy of the factors of existence propelling subsequent retribution fruits, and it also includes the habit energy of conventional designations leading to subsequent fruits of the same kind—both are called the propelling cause. The remaining three conditions, excluding the cause-condition seeds, are called the receiving cause (parigraha-hetu). This comprehensively subsumes both types of seeds—those of the factors of existence and those of conventional designations. The own fruit of the very first moment is called the generating cause (abhinivṛtti-hetu), which means simultaneous generation. Tai says: As the Viniścayasaṃgrahaṇī says, 'The propelling cause is designated based on the support-basis of the habit energy of pure and impure actions among all formations; the generating cause is designated based on the causal support-basis of moisturized seeds.' Why is this? Because dharmas bound to the form and formless realms each arise from their own seeds, craving is called 'that which can moisturize'; through these moisturized seeds, the respective individual substances previously propelled will be generated in the future. As a sūtra says: 'Karma is the cause of thriving rebirth; craving is the cause of arising.' The commentary explains: Because craving seeds moisturize karma, the retribution can then arise; when it first arises, it requires craving to moisturize its arising, so craving seeds are called the generating cause in relation to the first-arisen fruit. At later times, continuation no longer relies on craving—just as an arhat has no craving yet their retribution can still continue—the retribution that arises later simply continues due to the power of karma. Therefore it says that all seeds, in relation to their own subsequent fruits, are called propelling. These two causes are precisely the meaning of the generating and propelling causes in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha. Master Yuān of the Western Region has three explanations. The first explanation states: All seeds, in relation to the arising of the first moment of retribution, are called the generating cause; in relation to the arising of retribution from the subsequent moments onward, they are called the propelling cause. The second explanation states: In relation to the body born of a single retribution at the beginning, they are called the generating cause; in relation to the subsequent corpse, they are called the propelling cause. Therefore the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'Death still continues.' The third explanation states: Ignorance and formations, in relation to future birth, aging, and death, are called the propelling cause; craving, grasping, and existence, in relation to birth, aging, and death, are called the generating cause. Therefore, among the twelve links of dependent origination, ignorance and formations are the propelling limbs, while craving, grasping, and existence are the generating limbs. Next, comprehensively taking all actualities generated by prior seeds in relation to actualities generated by subsequent seeds is called the inducing cause (udbhāvana-hetu). Comprehensively taking the individual cause-conditions of internal and external dharmas of the three natures is called the distinct cause (pratiniyama-hetu). Whatever dharma arises, it must rely on these causes such as the cause of dependency before it can be generated—this is called the co-functioning cause (sahakāri-hetu). All conditioned things that obstruct the arising of dharmas are the contradictory cause (virodha-hetu); the non-contradictory cause (avirodha-hetu) can be known [by implication]. According to the explanation in the old Bodhisattvabhūmi, the first two causes and the last two causes are shared, matching the explanation here, while the middle six causes are explained solely with reference to external indeterminate causes. Below, six kinds of contradiction are cited; taking specifically the contradiction of arising is called the contradictory cause. In 'hostile contradiction,' where it says 'poisonous snakes, weasels, cats, mice, and harvest mice': here they are mutually hostile enemies, up to harvest mice in turn fearing poisonous snakes; in this sequence they are mutually hostile, having no kindness when meeting one another.