成唯識論述記 2.774

2.774

述曰：本識是體，種子是用；種子是因，所生是果，此之二法理應如是，不一、不異。本識望種，四出體中攝相歸性，故皆無記。種從現行望於本識，相用別論，故通三性。若即是一，不可說為有因、果法，有體、用法；若一向異，應穀麥等能生豆等，以許因果一向異故。不爾，法滅應方有用，以許體、用一向異故，用、體相似氣勢必同，果、因相似，功能、狀貌可相隨順，非一向異。然《瑜伽．決擇》第五十一末、五十二末廣說，而彼但言，種望現法即是此中因望果義，非唯種子望本識義，彼約因、果門，此亦體、用門，清辨等宗、譬喻師等。第三、問答辨假、實門，如生望法非一、異，即說生為假。種望於法非是一、異，種子應非實。

The Commentary states: The fundamental consciousness is substance, and seeds are function; seeds are cause, and what is produced is effect. According to principle, these two dharmas ought to be like this: neither one nor different. When the fundamental consciousness is viewed in relation to seeds, among the four ways of setting forth the essential nature, characteristics are gathered back to the nature, and so [both] are exclusively indeterminate (avyākṛta). When seeds are viewed in relation to the fundamental consciousness from active phenomena, characteristics and functions are discussed distinctly, and so they pervade the three natures. If they were strictly identical, one could not say that there are dharmas of cause and effect, or dharmas of substance and function. If they were categorically different, grain and barley ought to be able to produce beans and the like, since cause and effect would be admitted to be categorically different. Otherwise, only when a dharma perishes would there be a function, since substance and function would be admitted to be categorically different. Function and substance are similar, and their momentum must be identical; effect and cause are similar, and their function and appearance can accord with each other, and they are not categorically different. However, the end of fascicle 51 and the end of fascicle 52 of the 'Viniścaya-saṃgrahaṇī' of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra explain this extensively; yet that [text] only says that seeds with respect to active phenomena are precisely the meaning of cause with respect to effect here, and not only the meaning of seeds with respect to the fundamental consciousness. That [text] is in terms of the gate of cause and effect, whereas this is also in terms of the gate of substance and function, [addressing] the doctrines of Bhāviveka and others, the Dṛṣṭāntikas, and so forth. Third is the gate of discerning nominal and real through questions and answers. Just as origination with respect to a dharma is neither one nor different, and origination is thus said to be nominal, so seeds with respect to dharmas are neither one nor different, and seeds should be unreal.