成唯識論述記 3.531

3.531

問：如緣本識增上緣中，熏成種時，同時心所亦熏成本識種，緣彼心所亦爾。何故心所能熏、所熏無頓生果之妨？答：即能熏心王，緣本識及五數熏成種子。此種後時，生本識及五數現行，能熏心所不熏彼本識及五數種，此相分熏種但生自相分現行，非親生彼本識等故，故無此妨。問：心所能熏，何不同彼心王能熏俱生於彼本質之法？心所能熏，即生自相分現行，不生本質耶？答：若能熏之心是一，緣本識及五數，所熏有六，故即熏六个。能熏之心後，種生現行，頓生六果妨，不可論其本質生與不生；所熏六種乍可論其本質、影像，其所熏不然，此亦不然，受熏例應爾。心所生影像，心王生本質，由是義故，如實義者，如緣本識熏種之時，能熏心聚，共熏成一本識之種，此增上緣，本有種子為因緣故，無頓生六果之妨。多種生一芽，因緣便無此事，增上緣等，理亦無失。又設能熏，各各熏一本識種子，雖為六種，六種共生一果，亦無妨難，能持之識體是一故。論所言如貪、信等不能受熏，此對難陀亦熏心所，非對經部，經部說心所亦非所熏故，如《攝論》云：是能依故，不自在故。若對彼宗，有立已成之過，由大乘異師亦有說心所是所熏故，今以為喻。量云：第八五數，應非所熏；是能依故，不自在故；如貪、信等。若爾，七識應是所熏，既是自在及所依故，此亦不然。《因明》者說，但遮能依心所，體是所熏，不表七識心王是所熏法。觸等五法既非所熏，如何同識能持種子？又以不能持諸種子為第二宗，於理無失？文有宗二，因、喻唯一。

Question: When taking the root consciousness as an overarching condition (adhipati-pratyaya) and perfuming it into a seed, the caitasikas of the same moment also perfume a seed of the root consciousness, and taking those caitasikas as cognitive objects is likewise. Why does the caitasikas' ability to perfume and their being perfumed not entail the flaw of simultaneously generating fruits? Answer: It is precisely the perfuming cittarāja that, taking the root consciousness and the five caitasikas as cognitive objects, perfumes and forms seeds. Later, these seeds generate the samudācāra of the root consciousness and the five caitasikas; the perfuming caitasikas do not perfume seeds of that root consciousness and five caitasikas. The seeds perfumed by this nimittabhāga merely generate the samudācāra of their own nimittabhāga, because they do not directly generate that root consciousness and so forth; hence there is no such flaw. Question: Why can the perfuming caitasika not, like the perfuming cittarāja, co-generate that entity of the original essence (mūla-dravya)? Does the perfuming caitasika merely generate the samudācāra of its own nimittabhāga and not generate the original essence? Answer: If the perfuming mind is one, taking the root consciousness and five caitasikas as cognitive objects, the perfumed [entities] are six, and thus it perfumes six [seeds]. When, from the perfuming mind, seeds later generate samudācāra, as to the flaw of simultaneously generating six fruits, one cannot discuss whether their original essence is generated or not. Regarding the six perfumed seeds, one may for the moment discuss their original essence and reflected image (pratibimba); but regarding the perfumed it is not so, and here it is also not so—being perfumed should analogously be like this. The caitasikas generate the reflected image, and the cittarāja generates the original essence. For this reason, the true meaning is: when perfuming seeds by taking the root consciousness as a cognitive object, the perfuming mental aggregate together perfumes and forms a single seed of the root consciousness; because this is an overarching condition and the intrinsically existing seeds serve as the primary cause (hetu-pratyaya), there is no flaw of simultaneously generating six fruits. That many seeds produce a single sprout is never the case for primary cause, but for overarching conditions and so forth, there is logically no fault. Furthermore, even if each of the perfuming [factors] perfumes a seed of the root consciousness, although they become six seeds, six seeds together producing a single fruit also poses no objection, because the substance of the consciousness that sustains them is one. What the treatise says about [caitasikas] being like greed, faith, and so on and thus unable to receive perfuming—this is directed against Nanda's [view] that caitasikas are also perfumed, not against the Sautrāntika, for the Sautrāntika states that caitasikas are also not what is perfumed; as the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Because they are based [on others] and because they are not independent.' If it were directed against that school, it would commit the fallacy of proving what is already established (siddhasādhana), because different Mahāyāna masters have also stated that caitasikas are what is perfumed; hence it is now taken as an example. The formal syllogism (prayoga) is: The five caitasikas of the eighth consciousness should not be what is perfumed; because they are based [on others] and because they are not independent; like greed, faith, and so on. If so, the seven consciousnesses should be what is perfumed, since they are independent and what is depended upon. This is also not so. The logicians state that this merely negates that the caitasikas, which are based [on others], are substantively what is perfumed; it does not indicate that the cittarāja of the seven consciousnesses is a dharma that is perfumed. Since the five dharmas of contact and so forth are not what is perfumed, how could they, like consciousness, be able to sustain seeds? Moreover, taking 'inability to sustain all seeds' as the second thesis entails no logical fault. The text contains two theses, but only one reason and one example.