瑜伽師地論略纂 11.53

11.53

論解能生、方便二因攝十因中云「當知此中，牽引種子，生起種子，名能生因；所餘諸因，名方便因」者，如第五卷〈尋伺地〉文云：能生因者，謂生起因。方便因，謂所餘因。如彼前文自解牽引因云：由淨不淨業熏習三界諸行，於三界中牽引愛非愛自體，即牽引因。唯約行支異熟因而論，故〈尋伺地〉方便因中攝，是增上緣。今此中云牽引因者，一切種子望後自果是牽引因，即如行支善惡種子還生自善惡行，識支遠生老死，皆自種是因緣故，故今是能生因攝。據實合二文一處，牽引生因是能生因，是亦方便因，是行支、識支種子望生老死等故，亦無相違。二文各得一義故。　依處中，是習氣依處；未被潤故，各以自種子生。若生起因是能生因攝，此中即初種子望初自果是生起因，如識種子望名色等亦能生因，二處有違。　若爾，牽引、生起二因何別？義曰：二別。一、寬狹別，牽引因通增上緣、因緣故，是能生因、方便因二因所攝；生起因狹，唯因緣攝。二、為潤未潤別，故依處中，故牽引因是習氣因依處，行、識支種未被潤也；生起因是有潤種子因依處，即已被潤也。故有差別。有潤雖通業報種子，各望自果為生起故，唯是因緣。此釋伏難：若無記生起因，應是增上緣，方便因攝。此等中唯約染污等作法。若十五依處，五果有違。如第五卷及《雜集》第四卷勘會。　問云：其同事因攝生起因等，何故非因緣、能生因攝？答曰：約緣為論，故不攝，據實得攝。如此等妨，餘准此應知。

Regarding the treatise's explanation that the two causes of producing cause and auxiliary cause subsume the ten causes, saying, "It should be known that herein, the drawing-forth seed and the generating seed are named the producing cause; all remaining causes are named auxiliary causes": As the text of Fascicle 5, "Bhūmi with Examination and Investigation," states, the producing cause refers to the generating cause; the auxiliary causes refer to all remaining causes. As its preceding text itself explains the drawing-forth cause: Conditioning karmic actions in the three realms by pure and impure karma, drawing forth pleasing and displeasing self-existences within the three realms—this is the drawing-forth cause. Discussed solely with respect to the saṃskāra-aṅga as a maturation cause, it is therefore subsumed under auxiliary causes in the "Bhūmi with Examination and Investigation," being an empowering condition (adhipati-pratyaya). Now, what is called the drawing-forth cause here is that all seeds are drawing-forth causes with respect to their own subsequent fruits. That is, just as wholesome and unwholesome seeds of the saṃskāra-aṅga in turn generate their own wholesome and unwholesome saṃskāras, and the vijñāna-aṅga remotely generates aging-and-death, all have their own seeds as the direct cause condition (hetu-pratyaya); hence, here it is subsumed under the producing cause. In reality, combining the two texts together, the drawing-forth producing cause is a producing cause and is also an auxiliary cause, because it is seeds of the saṃskāra-aṅga and vijñāna-aṅga with respect to birth, aging-and-death, and so on; thus there is no contradiction. This is because the two texts each capture one aspect of the meaning. / Among the bases (āśraya), it is the habit-energy basis; because it has not yet been moistened, each generates through its own seed. If the generating cause is subsumed under producing causes, herein the initial seed with respect to its initial own-fruit is the generating cause, just as the vijñāna-seed with respect to nāmarūpa is also a producing cause; in these two places there is a contradiction. / If so, what is the difference between the drawing-forth and generating causes? The commentary states: There are two differences. First, the difference of breadth and narrowness: because the drawing-forth cause encompasses both empowering condition and direct cause condition, it is subsumed under both producing cause and auxiliary cause; the generating cause is narrow, being subsumed only under direct cause condition. Second, the difference of being moistened or not moistened: thus, among the bases, the drawing-forth cause is the base of the habit-energy cause, where the seeds of the saṃskāra- and vijñāna-aṅgas have not yet been moistened; the generating cause is the base of the cause with moistened seeds, which have already been moistened. Therefore, there is a distinction. Although moistened [seeds] encompass seeds of karma and retribution, because each is a generating [factor] with respect to its own fruit, it is strictly a direct cause condition. This resolves a latent objection: if the neutral generating cause ought to be an empowering condition, it would be subsumed under auxiliary causes. Among these, the method of formulation is applied solely with respect to defilements and so forth. If applied to the fifteen bases, there would be a contradiction with the five fruits, as should be verified and reconciled with Fascicle 5 and the Abhidharmasamuccaya-vyākhyā, Fascicle 4. / Question: The co-operating cause subsumes the generating cause and others; why is it not subsumed under direct cause condition and producing cause? Answer: It is discussed with respect to auxiliary conditions, so it does not subsume them; in reality, it does subsume them. Objections like this should be understood by analogy.