成唯識論述記 3.16

3.16

問：若爾，如何本有同念，得生新熏？體相違故，此不同時，如世第一法無漏緣增本有種子，牽生後念，任運自類，法爾之種，復能為因，生於後念一新熏種，本、新二種緣力既齊同生一現，故無同念種生種失。此亦難解，若本有種更生種子，便一念中有四法也，謂一、本有；二、本有所生；三、新現行所熏；四、是現行，如何可說三法展轉？今釋不然，即本有種及現行為因緣，生一新熏種，故但三法。又解本有種望新熏種，非其因緣，現行能熏為因緣故，即是本有唯望現行，現行唯望新熏，為因緣故。由此別脫戒體不增而用增，與道、定戒相似，定、道二戒既是現思，故唯念念是用增非體，前解即與別脫戒體用俱增義。此中雖顯與果俱有，望現行說，可現在時說為因義。種望於種既許異時，若入過去，何者因義？

Question: If so, how can originally existent [seeds] in the same thought-moment produce newly perfumed [seeds]? Because their essences conflict, they are not simultaneous. Just as the worldly supreme dharma increases the untainted conditions of originally existent seeds and draws forth subsequent moments, the natural seed of its own class moving spontaneously can also serve as a cause to produce a single newly perfumed seed in the subsequent moment; since the conditioning power of the two seeds, original and new, is equal, they together produce a single active manifestation, so there is no fault of a seed producing a seed in the same thought-moment. This is also difficult to explain: if an originally existent seed produces a further seed, there would be four dharmas in a single thought-moment, namely: (1) originally existent; (2) produced by the originally existent; (3) perfumed by the new active manifestation; and (4) the active manifestation; how could one speak of 'three dharmas mutually interacting'? Now, we explain that it is not so: the originally existent seed and the active manifestation together serve as the hetupratyaya to produce a single newly perfumed seed, so there are only three dharmas. Another explanation: with respect to the newly perfumed seed, the originally existent seed is not its hetupratyaya; because the perfuming active manifestation is the hetupratyaya, this means the originally existent is a hetupratyaya only with respect to the active manifestation, and the active manifestation is a hetupratyaya only with respect to the newly perfumed. Hence, the essence of the prātimokṣa precept does not increase while its function increases, resembling the noble path and concentration precepts; since concentration and path precepts are active volitions, only their function increases from moment to moment, not their substance; the former explanation accords with the meaning that both substance and function increase for the prātimokṣa precept. Although here it is shown to exist simultaneously with the result, this is stated with respect to active manifestations, so that being a cause can be spoken of at the present time. Since seeds with respect to seeds are allowed to be at different times, if they enter the past, what constitutes their meaning as a cause?