成唯識論述記 8.320

8.320

述曰：第二別攝十二有支。此中以總復攝於別十二支故。問：何以知十二支是別，攝總惑、業、苦不盡耶？答：若除此中無明、愛、取餘一切惑，除正感後世行餘別報等行、并別報體。苦、聖者身行及苦等，非十二支故。就解十二支中有三：初以惑、業、苦總攝十二支，即此文是；二、廣明十二有支，即論云此十二支略攝為四，謂能引支等以下文是；三、總結支歸惑、業、苦，即下論云：「由惑、業、苦即十二支故，此能令生死相續也。」今此惑、業、苦總攝十二支中，指如餘論廣釋，即《瑜伽》第九、第十、第九十三、《對法》第四、《十地論》第八及天親所造《十二因緣論》等，此為論也。然《緣起經》中亦甚廣明，至下論中此所無者附文解出。此十二支且略以十門解釋：一、列支名，辨總、別體；二、明支總、別名義得名；三、次第所由；四、總、別業用；五、因果差別；六、支互為緣，四句料簡；七、能、所引生諸論對釋；八、廢立增減，釋諸妨難；九、定世破邪；十、諸門辨釋。論文有四：一、能、所引生；二、釋妨；三、定世；四、諸門辨。一、列支名辨總、別體者，列名可知，總五事中，相及分別，三性之中唯依他性，取蘊、處、界一分為體。別體性者，一、無明支者，以行蘊中無明為體，不取餘法，何以知者？《緣起經》云：初無明有十一殊勝非餘法故。《大論》第九云：以七無知等為無明支，故唯取無明不取餘法。問：若爾，何故《對法》第四云：無明與行得為因緣，無明俱思種，名無明支故？答曰：不爾，彼非因緣故。此論解云：無明俱思假說為無明，實非此支攝，由假說彼為行因緣，實非取餘為此支體。《大論》第十及此論下說為一事故不取餘法。又諸論、此論皆言：正發業唯是無明，餘者是助，故不取也，非如小乘約分位辨，此有十九、七、五、六種諸無知等，如《大論》第九等說，此無明支別有實性，何以知者？下十二支假實之中說為實故，《大論》第十，乃至五十六緣起善巧中皆言實故。又，五十五明諸煩惱假實之中，言五見假，此為實故。又，《緣起經》下卷、五十六中，皆廣問答，簡諸餘法，故名無明，《俱舍》第十文勢同也，此通現行及種為體。《十地經》云：「無明有二：謂子時、果時。」《緣起》下卷云：無明有四，謂隨眠等。又唯發業性，通不善、無記，然發福、非福、不動三無明別，如《對法》第七。

The Commentary states: Second is to subsume individually the twelve members of existence. Here, the individual twelve members are again subsumed by the general [categories of afflictions, karmas, and sufferings]. Question: How is it known that the twelve members are individual and do not exhaustively subsume all afflictions, karmas, and sufferings? Answer: If one leaves aside ignorance, craving, and grasping here, all remaining afflictions, as well as karmas of distinct retributions that are other than those that directly induce future lives, together with the substances of those distinct retributions, [and also] the bodily actions and sufferings of noble beings, are not part of the twelve members. In explaining the twelve members, there are three [parts]: first, generally subsuming the twelve members under afflictions, karmas, and sufferings, which is this very passage; second, extensively clarifying the twelve members of existence, which corresponds to the subsequent text of the treatise stating, "These twelve members are briefly subsumed into four, namely the inducing members, and so forth"; third, summarily returning the members to afflictions, karmas, and sufferings, which is the subsequent treatise saying, "Because afflictions, karmas, and sufferings constitute the twelve members, these are able to cause birth and death to continue in succession." Now, in this general subsumption of the twelve members under afflictions, karmas, and sufferings, the statement referring to their extensive explanation in other treatises points to the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, fascicles 9, 10, and 93, the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya, fascicle 4, the Daśabhūmika-śāstra, fascicle 8, and the Pratītyasamutpāda-śāstra composed by Vasubandhu, etc.; these are the treatises. Furthermore, the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra also explains them very extensively; anything not present here will be explained in accordance with the text when coming to the treatise below. These twelve members are briefly explained through ten gates: 1. Listing the names of the members and discerning their general and individual essences; 2. Clarifying the derivation of the general and individual names and meanings of the members; 3. The rationale for their sequence; 4. General and individual karmic functions; 5. Distinctions between cause and effect; 6. The members serving mutually as conditions, examined via the four alternatives; 7. Comparative explanation of various treatises regarding that which induces and that which is induced, that which produces and that which is produced; 8. Eliminating, establishing, adding, and subtracting, and resolving objections; 9. Determining the time-periods and refuting heterodox views; 10. Discerning and explaining through various gates. The text of the treatise has four [sections]: 1. That which induces and that which is induced, that which produces and that which is produced; 2. Resolving objections; 3. Determining the time-periods; 4. Discerning through various gates. First, listing the names of the members and discerning their general and individual essences: listing the names can be understood [from the context]. In terms of the general five phenomena, [their essence consists of] marks and conceptual discrimination; among the three natures, only the paratantra-svabhāva; and a portion of the grasped aggregates, sense-bases, and elements constitute their essence. As for their individual essences: 1. The member of ignorance takes the ignorance within the aggregate of formations as its essence and does not take any other dharma. How is this known? The Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra states: "The initial ignorance has eleven superior qualities, which other dharmas do not possess." Fascicle 9 of the Great Treatise [Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra] states that the seven kinds of unknowing and so forth constitute the member of ignorance; therefore, it only takes ignorance and does not take other dharmas. Question: If so, why does fascicle 4 of the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya state: "Ignorance and formations can act as direct causes, because the seeds of volition conjoined with ignorance are called the member of ignorance"? Answer: It is not so, because that is not a direct cause. This treatise explains: volition conjoined with ignorance is metaphorically called ignorance, but in reality it is not subsumed under this member; because it is metaphorically designated as the direct cause of formations, other [dharmas] are not in reality taken as the essence of this member. Fascicle 10 of the Great Treatise and this treatise below state that it is a single thing, so it does not take other dharmas. Furthermore, various treatises and this treatise all state: that which directly initiates karma is solely ignorance, while the rest are auxiliary; hence they are not taken. It is not like the Hīnayāna, which discriminates it according to stages; here, there are the nineteen, seven, five, and six kinds of unknowing and so forth, as explained in fascicle 9 of the Great Treatise and elsewhere. This member of ignorance has a distinct real nature. How is this known? Because below, among the nominal and real [status] of the twelve members, it is stated to be real; and from fascicle 10 up to fascicle 56 of the Great Treatise, under skill in dependent origination, it is consistently stated to be real. Furthermore, in fascicle 55, when clarifying the nominal and real among afflictions, it states that the five views are nominal, whereas this [ignorance] is real. Moreover, the second fascicle of the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra and fascicle 56 [of the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra] both present extensive questions and answers excluding all other dharmas, hence calling it ignorance; the phrasing of fascicle 10 of the Abhidharmakośa-śāstra is also identical. This [member] takes both active manifestations and seeds as its essence. The Daśabhūmika-sūtra states: "Ignorance has two [aspects]: namely, the time of the seed and the time of the fruit." The second fascicle of the Pratītyasamutpāda[-sūtra] states that ignorance has four kinds, namely dormant tendencies and so forth. Furthermore, its nature is solely to initiate karma, permeating both the unwholesome and the indeterminate; however, the three kinds of ignorance that initiate meritorious, non-meritorious, and immovable [karmas] differ, as described in fascicle 7 of the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya.