成唯識論述記 3.26

3.26

述曰：即顯前種生後之義。此非俱有，俱種攝故。《攝論》無此。問：第七識亦至金剛心方斷，何不名種？答：十地等中以轉變故，緣境易脫故，未對治已即轉變故，種子不然。若爾，如何名有受盡相種子、無受盡相種子？名言無記種生果無量無盡，可恒隨轉；善、不善等種生果有限，如何恒轉？答曰：彼據生果有分限，名有受盡相，非種子體未得對治，即滅無餘。又有分熏習名有受盡相，名言熏習名恒隨轉。此等種唯有自類生果恒隨轉，即是與果不俱有名種，此闕恒與果俱一義。若闕一義得名種子，其第七識闕恒隨轉，應名種子。此不應爾，今於此中，正以生滅、恒轉二理顯種子義，餘但別遮，非正顯故，其第七識為種不成。又說種子具有六義，非顯具六即是種子。又此自類亦非種子，不與果俱故。無性《攝論》說非種子，然名種類。此顯自類至對治位非得種名，生果之時可名種子，但若生果必俱時故。若論其體，自類之時亦名種子，非現行故，此但任運牽生後果。若緣具勝種子勢增，有勝與果用起之時，方名種子。無性顯此二位差別，果俱名種。不爾名為種類。今此約非現行談其體說總名種子，亦不相違。又顯種子具斯六義，非說念念皆具六義故皆名種。然應分別，若具六義方名種子𨷂一不成，無性有情第七闕與現果俱，故非是種子，若爾，即未生果時恒隨轉種，應不名種，由此應釋，對治道起，謂令不生現行等位，如見道中無想定等，據其體有，修道方除。據果不生種見道斷，以盡已來無與果俱義故。今言與果俱者，至對治道起已來，有與現行果法俱現和合之義，名為種子，非要此念與現和合方名種子。不爾，便於一界不成三界諸種子，種子成就義便不成，故知不約剎那而說，約後能有與果俱義以顯自性。無性所言不生果時名種類者，約畢竟不生當果為論。如見道中無想定等，若恒隨轉得名種子，應善種等生不善等。

The Commentary states: This reveals the meaning of a preceding seed producing a subsequent one. This is not 'coexistent', because it is subsumed under seeds producing seeds. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha does not have this. Question: The seventh consciousness is also severed only upon reaching the vajropamasamādhi; why is it not called a seed? Answer: Because in the ten stages and so forth it undergoes transformation, its grasping of intentional objects is prone to distraction and interruption, and it transforms even before counteraction; seeds are not like this. If so, how are they called 'seeds with the characteristic of exhaustion of fruition' and 'seeds without the characteristic of exhaustion of fruition'? Nominal and neutral seeds produce fruits limitlessly and endlessly, so they can persist in continuous transformation; wholesome and unwholesome seeds produce fruits of a limited scope, so how do they persist continuously? The answer is: That is stated on the basis that their production of fruits has a boundary limit, hence they are called 'having the characteristic of exhaustion of fruition'; it does not mean that the substance of the seed is extinguished without remainder before attaining counteraction. Furthermore, karmic perfuming is called 'having the characteristic of exhaustion of fruition', while nominal perfuming is called 'persisting in continuous transformation'. These seeds only persist in continuous transformation as their own kind produces their fruit, which is to say they are called seeds despite not being coexistent with their fruit; this lacks the single meaning of constantly coexisting with the fruit. If one can be called a seed while lacking one meaning, then since the seventh consciousness lacks persisting in continuous transformation, it ought to be called a seed. This should not be so. Now, herein, it is precisely through the two principles of arising-and-perishing and persisting in continuous transformation that the meaning of a seed is revealed, whereas the others merely make specific exclusions and do not primarily reveal it; therefore, the seventh consciousness cannot constitute a seed. Moreover, it is said that a seed possesses all six characteristics; it is not meant that anything possessing the six is identical to a seed. Furthermore, this homogeneous kind is also not a seed [strictly speaking], because it is not coexistent with its fruit. Asvabhāva's commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states that it is not a seed, but is rather called a homogeneous type. This reveals that the homogeneous kind, up to the stage of counteraction, does not acquire the name of seed; at the time of producing a fruit it may be called a seed, but whenever it produces a fruit it must be simultaneous. If one discusses its substance, at the time of being of its own kind it is also called a seed, because it is not an actual manifestation; this merely spontaneously pulls forth and produces a subsequent fruit. If conditions are complete and superior so that the force of the seed intensifies, and a superior function of granting a fruit arises, only then is it called a seed. Asvabhāva reveals the distinction between these two stages: when coexisting with the fruit it is called a seed; otherwise, it is called a homogeneous type. Now, in this text, speaking of its substance on the basis of not being an actual manifestation, it is generically called a seed, which also does not contradict [this]. Moreover, it reveals that a seed is endowed with these six characteristics; it is not saying that in every moment it possesses all six characteristics and is therefore always called a seed. However, a distinction must be made: if it must possess all six characteristics to be called a seed, and failing one it fails to be so, then in sentient beings devoid of the nature [of enlightenment], the seventh consciousness lacks coexistence with an actualized fruit, so it is not a seed. If so, then seeds that persist in continuous transformation when not yet producing fruit would not be called seeds. Thus it should be explained: when the path of counteraction arises, it refers to the stage where actual manifestations and so forth are prevented from arising. For instance, with the asaṃjñi-samāpatti and so forth in the path of seeing, based on their substance being present, they are eradicated only in the path of cultivation; yet based on the fruit not arising, the seeds are severed in the path of seeing, because from that point on there is no meaning of coexistence with a fruit. What is now called 'coexistence with the fruit' means that up until the path of counteraction arises, it possesses the capacity of being coexistent and conjunct with actualized fruition phenomena; this is why it is called a seed, not that it must be conjunct with an actual manifestation at this very moment to be called a seed. If not, then within one realm the seeds of the three realms could not be established, and the meaning of the possession of seeds would fail to be established. Therefore we know that this is not spoken in terms of a single moment, but is spoken in terms of subsequently having the capacity of coexistence with the fruit in order to reveal its intrinsic nature. What Asvabhāva said regarding being called a homogeneous type when not producing fruit is discussed in terms of definitely never producing a future fruit. As in the case of the asaṃjñi-samāpatti in the path of seeing, if anything that persists in continuous transformation were to be called a seed, wholesome seeds and so forth would produce unwholesome fruits.