[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) › 3.9 # 成唯識論述記 3.9 成唯識論述記 3.9 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.9) 述曰：謂此種子要望所生現行果法，俱時現有。「現」者，顯現、現在、現有三義名「現」。由此無性人第七識不名種子，果不顯現故，即顯現言簡彼第七，現在簡前、後，現有簡假法，體是實有成種子故。顯現唯在果，現有唯在因，現在通因、果，和合簡相離，即簡前法為後法種。有說種生現行之時，必前後念，非此剎那，如何解此？彼師意說如上座部心有二時，即因在生，果在滅，故同在現在，亦不相違。此即勝軍假明上座，非實用之，第三卷中自當廣述。若爾，種望種亦應然，何為料簡？《瑜伽》云：「法與自性為因，非即此剎那」，此必異時，非果俱有。若因在滅，果在生相仍名俱有，即有二趣並生之妨。由此故知，種生現時定必同世，種生於種，世不必同。雖必同世，若與現行和合之位方成種子，簡與他身現行為因，不和合故。 > The Commentary states: That is, this seed must exist simultaneously with the active manifestation that is the produced result. 'Manifest' (xian) has three meanings: manifest (xiānxian), present (xiànzài), and currently existent (xiànyǒu). By this, the seventh consciousness of an icchantika (person lacking the seed of liberation) is not called a seed, because its result is not manifest; that is, the word 'manifest' excludes that seventh consciousness; 'present' excludes prior and subsequent; 'currently existent' excludes nominal dharmas, since only that whose substance is real forms a seed. 'Manifest' pertains only to the result; 'currently existent' pertains only to the cause; 'present' applies to both cause and result; 'conjoined' excludes what are separated, thereby excluding a prior dharma from being the seed for a subsequent dharma. Some say that when a seed produces an active manifestation, it must involve prior and subsequent thought-moments and not this single kṣaṇa; how is this interpreted? That master means that, as in the Sthaviranikāya, thought has two times: the cause is at arising, and the result is at ceasing; thus, being together in the present, they do not contradict each other. This is Jayasena's provisional adoption of the Sthavira view, not his actual doctrine, which will be expounded in detail in the third fascicle. If so, seed with respect to seed should also be like this; why make this distinction? The Yogācāra states: 'A dharma is a cause for its own nature, but not in this very kṣaṇa'; this must be at a different time, not existing simultaneously with the result. If cause is at ceasing while result is at arising, and they are still called simultaneous, there would be the fault of two destinies arising alongside each other. From this we know: when a seed produces an active manifestation, they must be in the same period of time; when a seed produces a seed, they need not be in the same period of time. Although they must be in the same period of time, they constitute a seed only when in a state of conjunction with the active manifestation; this excludes being a cause for the active manifestation of another person's body, because they are not conjoined. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.8) - [Next: 3.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.10) - [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.3.9) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.3.9) · Pramāṇa