成唯識論述記 6.536

6.536

述曰：「二無因」者，一、從無想天沒來生此間，得宿住通，不能憶彼出心已前所有諸位，便執諸法本因無而起，諸法如我亦應一切本無而生，便執我及世間無因而起；二、由尋、伺不憶前身，作如是執，無因而起，乃至廣說。如是二見由無想天虛忘尋、伺二事而起。問：此中何故但說「二無因」亦有，不知欲界乃至第四定以前多身，應計無因故？答：據實亦有，地地不知因所從起。執無因者，但宿住通無想沒顯，但說其一。又約一生却尋無想，出心已前，微細位難見故，彼計無因。餘地前生因麁易見故，不計無因。「四有邊」者，一、由一向能憶下至無間地獄，上至第四靜慮天，執我於中悉皆遍滿，便作是念：過此有我，我應能見。故知有邊；二、由一向能憶傍無邊，執我遍滿，故執無邊；三、由能憶下上如初近，遠傍如第二不得邊際，於上下起有邊想，於傍起無邊想；四、由能憶壞劫分位，便生非有邊非無邊想，諸器世間無所得故。此四皆憶成壞劫故，得說前際。「四不死矯亂」者，不死謂天，以天長壽，外道執為常住不死。由答不死，天無亂問，故得生彼天。今毀之言，名為矯亂。一、念我不知善、不善等，有餘問我，不得定答。我若定答，勿他鑒我無知，因即輕咲，我於天祕密義不應皆說等；二、行諂曲者作是思惟，非我淨天，一切隱密皆許記別，謂自所證及修淨道，故作如前語；三、懷恐怖而無記別，勿我昧劣為他所知，由是因緣不得解脫。以此為失而自安處，懷恐怖故，如前廣說；四、有愚戇專修止行，不能矯言，但作是思，諸有問我，我當返誥。隨彼所問，我當一切隨言無減而印順之。此待未來亦名前際，然於現轉。又四皆緣先所聞教，皆前際攝。此四，第一依怖無知；二、行諂曲；三、懷恐怖；四、為愚戇而起。

The Commentary states: Regarding the "two [theories of] no-cause": first, one who passes away from the heaven of non-conception and comes to be born here, having attained the knowledge of past lives (pūrvanivāsānusmṛti-jñāna), cannot remember all the states prior to emerging from that mind, and thus clings to the idea that phenomena arise without a prior cause, thinking that all phenomena, like oneself, must all be born originally without [cause], and therefore clings to the idea that oneself and the world arise without a cause; second, through investigation (vitarka) and inquiry (vicāra), failing to remember past lives, one forms such a grasping, [holding that things] arise without a cause, and so forth in detail. These two views arise due to two matters: the vacancy of the heaven of non-conception and investigation/inquiry. Question: Why is it that here only "two [theories of] no-cause" are spoken of, while there is also the failure to know the many lives prior to the desire realm up to the fourth dhyāna, which should also lead to conceiving no-cause? Answer: In fact there are such cases; in realm after realm one may not know where the cause originated. Those who cling to no-cause only [do so because] passing away from non-conception through past-life knowledge is prominent, so only that one is spoken of. Furthermore, tracking back within one life to non-conception, the subtle states prior to emerging from that mind are difficult to discern, and so they cling to no-cause. In other realms, the causes in prior births are gross and easy to discern, and so they do not cling to no-cause. Regarding the "four [views on having] limits": first, because one can exclusively remember down to the Avīci Hell and up to the fourth dhyāna heaven, grasping the self as entirely pervading therein, one then thinks: "If there were a self beyond this, I should be able to see it. Therefore, I know it has a limit"; second, because one can exclusively remember the sides as boundless, grasping the self as pervading them, one clings to boundlessness; third, because one can remember down and up as close like the first, and far and wide like the second without finding boundaries, one conceives the notion of having a limit regarding above and below, and the notion of boundlessness regarding the sides; fourth, because one can remember the period of the destruction eon, one gives rise to the notion of neither having a limit nor having no limit, because no receptacle world can be found. Since all four remember the eons of formation and destruction, they may be called [theories regarding] the past boundary. Regarding the "four prevarications of eel-wrigglers": the "deathless" means heaven; because gods have long lifespans, externalists grasp them as permanent and deathless. Because one answers the deathless gods' unconfused questions, one is able to be born in that heaven. Now, disparaging them, they are called "eel-wriggling prevarications." First, thinking: "I do not know good, non-good, and so on; if another asks me, I must not give a definite answer. If I were to answer definitely, lest others perceive my lack of knowledge and thereupon ridicule me, I should not fully speak of the secret meaning of the gods," and so on; second, one who practices deceit thinks: "It is not the case that my pure deity permits explaining all hidden secrets, namely what one has personally realized and the cultivation of the pure path"; hence one speaks as before; third, harboring fear and giving no explanation: "Lest my dullness and inferiority become known to others, and on this account I fail to attain liberation"; taking this as a fault and putting oneself at ease because one harbors fear, as explained extensively before; fourth, there are the foolish and dull who exclusively cultivate the practice of cessation and are unable to speak evasively; they merely think: "Whenever anyone asks me, I shall turn the question back. Following whatever they ask, I shall confirm and agree with all of it following their words without reduction." Though these look toward the future, they are also called [theories regarding] the past boundary, yet they operate in the present. Furthermore, all four take as their object the teachings heard previously, so they are all subsumed under the past boundary. These four arise, respectively, based on: first, fear of ignorance; second, practicing deceit; third, harboring fear; fourth, being foolish and dull.