瑜伽師地論略纂 4.99

4.99

The above concludes the explanation of the fourth section, the approach to distinction. Below explains the fifth section, the approach to the sequence of conditioned arising. There are three explanations in the treatise. In the first alternative explanation, concerning [the phrase] “because of wrong conduct, one causes the mind to be inverted,” and so forth: One interpretation holds that the five links—consciousness and so forth—are all stated as the causal five links based upon the five manifested states of birth and aging-and-death that will arise in the future period, not based upon the five links when in the causal state. Therefore, the *Cheng weishi lun* says: because the distinct characteristics in the causal state are difficult to know, the five links are separately established based upon the state of the future fruit. If based on this interpretation, that “the mind is inverted” means that according to karma, the manifested volition of consciousness is called formation, while the seed karma is called consciousness, and it is said that the link of name-and-form connects birth into continuity. The *Abhidharma-samuccaya* also says: since name-and-form has arisen, one attains inclusion within the common character of sentient beings. That work states that name-and-form is the initial receiving of birth. The *Cheng weishi lun* reconciles this by stating: because the seed of karma within consciousness is called the link of consciousness. “The complete faculties” refers to the link of the six sensory bases. “The two objects of experience” refers to the links of contact and feeling. Contact induces the arising of feeling, and both experience objects; therefore the *Abhidharmakośa* calls them “concomitant with contact and feeling.” “Indulging” is craving directed toward the present. “Yearning” is craving directed toward the future. Combined, they are called the link of craving. “The proliferation of afflictions” refers to the link of grasping. Here, only karma is stated as the link of existence; as reconciled above, the remaining links may be understood. Another interpretation holds: combined, they rely on the three time periods to distinguish the sequence: ignorance, formations, and consciousness are in the past time. “The mind is inverted”: the seeds of consciousness and so forth are all called mind, because they are not separate from consciousness, and because consciousness is predominant. Due to the perfuming and triggering by wrong conduct, there will be the arising of existence, and hence the mind is called inverted. It is an abbreviation that does not state the perfuming and triggering by correct conduct. By analogy with the later craving and grasping which moisten the karma of subsequent existence, one knows that in the past period they also moistened the mind of formations; hence it abbreviates and does not discuss craving, grasping, and existence of the past period. The four links following upon name-and-form's connecting birth are the links of birth and aging-and-death of the past time. The *Cheng weishi lun* says: however, if the fruit that is born is in the future, then in order to produce revulsion, birth and aging-and-death are spoken of; if it is in the present, then in order to cause one to understand their sequential arising by states, consciousness and the rest of the five are spoken of. That treatise states that the link of consciousness initially enters the mother's womb, whereas here it states name-and-form; hence there are only four links. Dependent on present feeling, greedy craving arises, afflictions proliferate, and they moisten the karma of subsequent existence, leading up to birth and aging-and-death in the future. It only mentions moistening karma without mentioning triggering it, because by analogy with the past period, one knows that it triggers karma. This mutually illuminates that the past mentions triggering without mentioning moistening karma, while the present mentions moistening without mentioning triggering karma; the future mentions birth and aging-and-death without mentioning name-and-form and so forth, while the present mentions name-and-form and so forth without mentioning birth and aging-and-death. Like two lamps and two torches, they are understood through mutual illumination. Wishing to reveal the uninterrupted continuity of cause and fruit across the three time periods, and to accord well with the Śrāvakayāna, this explanation is made.