[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830) › 3.42 # 成唯識論述記 3.42 成唯識論述記 3.42 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.42) 述曰：薩婆多等以善色望四蘊為因，四望色蘊亦得為因，此即不然，唯引自果因果隨順，功能同故，名為因緣；若增上緣等，義則可爾。如何色等與心為因不相隨順？功能異故。問：言恒隨轉名為種子，第八識現行既恒隨轉，為名種不？有說亦得，以名「一切種子識」故。若謂然者，此現行望自種，既非因緣，非能熏故，如何名種？有說不得，言「一切種子識」含藏一切法，能生一切法，名一切種，非彼現行能生自種。種雖依識，現行自體，是識所緣，不同於識，故識現行非名種子。此闕何義也？與果不俱故。其無性人第七識亦具六義。應名種子，此亦不然。論自解言「與現行果俱現和合方成種子」，種子之法其相沈隱，所生果法其相麁顯，故與現俱方成種子。第七相顯，設所熏種，果乃沈隱，不與現行果法和合，不名種子，第八現識亦然，無所生果故。第八門中以上明種，自下第三總結聊簡。 > The Commentary states: The Sarvāstivādin and others take wholesome form in relation to the four aggregates as a cause, and the four aggregates in relation to the form aggregate can also serve as a cause. This is precisely not so. Only that which induces its own fruit conforms as cause and fruit, having the same efficacy; this is called a primary cause (hetu-pratyaya). If it were an empowering condition (adhipati-pratyaya) and so forth, the meaning would indeed be admissible. How could form and the like serve as causes for the mind when they do not conform to each other, having disparate efficacies? Question: It is said that persisting in continuous transformation is what is called a seed; since the actual manifestation of the eighth consciousness persists in continuous transformation, is it called a seed or not? Some say it may also be so, because it is named the 'all-seed consciousness'. If one thinks so, then since this actual manifestation in relation to its own seed is not a primary cause—not being capable of perfuming—how could it be called a seed? Some say it cannot; the expression 'all-seed consciousness' means that it contains all dharmas and is capable of generating all dharmas, hence it is called 'possessing all seeds', not that its actual manifestation is capable of generating its own seeds. Although seeds rely on consciousness, the substance of the actual manifestation is an intentional object of consciousness, which is not the same as the consciousness \[as seed holder\]; therefore, the actual manifestation of consciousness is not called a seed. Which meaning does this lack? It lacks coexistence with the fruit. The seventh consciousness of a person devoid of the \[enlightenment\] nature also possesses the six characteristics and should be called a seed; this is also not so. The Treatise itself explains: 'Only when coexistent and conjunct with the actualized fruit does it constitute a seed.' The characteristics of the dharma of a seed are sunken and concealed, while the characteristics of the fruit produced are coarse and manifest; hence only when coexisting with the actual manifestation does it constitute a seed. The seventh consciousness has manifest characteristics; even if it perfumes seeds, its fruits are sunken and concealed, and since it is not conjunct with actualized fruition dharmas, it is not called a seed. The actualized eighth consciousness is also like this, because it has no fruit to produce. The above has explained seeds under the eighth topic; from this point, the third section provides a general conclusion and brief differentiation. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.41) - [Next: 3.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.43) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.3.42) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.42) · Pramāṇa