[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) › 3.49 # 成唯識論述記 3.49 成唯識論述記 3.49 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.49) 述曰：其內外種生近果、生正果名「生因」，引遠果、引殘果名「引因」。無性云：如內識種生現識等名近果，是生因；望名色等是遠果，是引因。外種望芽是近果，是生因；望莖等是遠果，是引因。天親云：如內種子生正果名生因，生殘果名引因，即現在種生現在身名生因，生六處等皆名生因，引餘枯喪屍骸等名引因。雖生他界等，勢分力故，餘骸尚有，如下自解。外種生芽莖等為生因，是正因；生枯死時草等，是引因，勢分力故。然至此位時，內外種皆無，或生他界等，或種已久滅。然由前生勢分力故，引彼猶有，即義說彼生因之種名引因。然今兩說生、引二因俱無別體，一體望別，故說二也。若無引因勢分力者，一切死後皆應頓絕如化生死。若遍四生具二因者，無性理勝，以化生死無屍骸故。然世親論意無著大師為成引因說枯喪等，故說頌言：「枯喪由能引，如任運後滅」，天親解云：若無引因，應無枯喪果，如任運後滅，但是天親解略，無性釋廣，亦不相違。此雖《攝論》文，然《對法》第四卷說：能引、所引，能生、所生；《瑜伽》第九說：能引、所引俱是引因，能生名生因。《瑜伽》第十云：從無明乃至受是引因，愛、取、有是生因。此意欲顯未潤七支，去果猶遠，名為引因，引遠果故；能潤二支、及所潤有，去果近故，名曰生因，近生果故，亦即此中近、遠所攝。無性但約已潤種中，果去因為近、遠，《瑜伽》約潤、未潤位去果近、遠，亦不相違。次第十四緣分別辨內外種因、非因緣，熏、不熏別。 > The Commentary states: When internal or external seeds produce an immediate result or produce a direct result, they are called 'productive causes'; when they project a distant result or project a remnant result, they are called 'projecting causes.' Asvabhāva says: For instance, internal seeds of consciousness producing the present consciousness and so forth are called an immediate result, and are the productive cause; in relation to name-and-form and so forth, they are the distant result, and are the projecting cause. In relation to the sprout, the external seed is an immediate result, and is the productive cause; in relation to the stalk and so forth, it is a distant result, and is the projecting cause. Vasubandhu says: For instance, internal seeds producing the direct result are called productive causes, and producing the remnant result are called projecting causes; that is, present seeds producing the present body are called productive causes, and producing the six sense-bases and so forth are all called productive causes, while projecting the remaining withered corpse and so forth is called a projecting cause. Even though \[the sentient being\] is born into another realm or the like, by the power of its momentum the remaining corpse still exists, as explained below. The external seed producing the sprout, stalk, and so forth is the productive cause, which is the direct cause; producing the withered, dead grass and so forth is the projecting cause, by the power of its momentum. Yet when that state is reached, the internal and external seeds are both absent—either \[the sentient being\] has been born into another realm or the like, or the seed has long since perished. Nevertheless, by the power of the momentum of their prior production, they project that which still remains; that is to say, conceptually speaking, that seed which was the productive cause is called the projecting cause. Now, according to both explanations, productive causes and projecting causes have no separate substantial entity; it is a single entity viewed in differing relations, and hence two are spoken of. If there were no power of momentum from a projecting cause, then after death everything would instantaneously cease, just as in the death of an apparitional being. If \[one considers whether\] both causes are fully present throughout the four modes of birth, Asvabhāva's principle is superior, because when apparitional beings die there is no corpse. However, in Vasubandhu's commentary, the meaning is that the master Asanga spoke of withered corpses and the like to establish the projecting cause, hence stating the verse: 'Withering and death are due to that which projects, / Just as there is later perishing by natural course.' Vasubandhu explains: If there were no projecting cause, there would be no result of withering and death, just as there is later perishing by natural course. It is simply that Vasubandhu's explanation is concise and Asvabhāva's commentary is broad, so they do not contradict each other. Although these are passages from the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the fourth fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya speaks of the projecting and projected, and the productive and produced; the ninth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi states that both the projecting and the projected are projecting causes, and that which is productive is called the productive cause. The tenth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi says: From ignorance up to feeling are projecting causes; craving, grasping, and becoming are productive causes. This intends to show that the seven branches that have not yet been moistened are still distant from the result, and are called projecting causes because they project a distant result; the two moistening branches and the moistened becoming are near to the result, and are therefore called productive causes because they immediately produce the result, which is also subsumed under the immediate and distant discussed here. Asvabhāva merely takes the distance of the result from the cause among already-moistened seeds as 'near' and 'distant,' while the Yogācārabhūmi takes the distance of the result from the cause according to the stages of being moistened or unmoistened; thus they do not contradict each other. Next, the fourteenth section distinguishes internal and external seeds by cause and non-cause condition, and the distinction between perfumed and unperfumed. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.48](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.48) - [Next: 3.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.50) - [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.3.49) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.49) · Pramāṇa