成唯識論述記 8.339

8.339

問：且如行中福、不動，以正簡擇力而起，何故仍說以無明為緣也？答：《瑜伽》第十云：「由不了知世俗苦故，起非福行；由不了達勝義苦故，起福、不動行。」《緣起》亦云：「又無知故，於非對治起對治想，造諸福行，或不動行。」故以無明為因生福、不動。世俗勝義苦，非謂苦苦、壞苦名世俗，行苦名勝義，若爾，即色、無色無壞苦故，若亦迷彼，豈唯發非福也。但可總言，世俗易了知者，名世俗苦，即三塗等苦，彼不了故造非福行；難了知者，名勝義苦，即人、天善趣，勝義道理體皆是苦，世俗難了謂為善勝，迷之故造福、不動也。是亦有壞苦，名勝義苦也，不可定判三苦分之，如《對法》第七、《大論》第十、《顯揚》〈破苦品〉等。別抄說。

Question: In saṃskāra, meritorious and immovable [karma] arise through the power of correct discrimination; why then are they still said to have ignorance (avidyā) as their condition? Answer: Fascicle 10 of the Yogācārabhūmi says: 'Due to not understanding conventional suffering, non-meritorious karma is initiated; due to not comprehending ultimate suffering, meritorious and immovable karma are initiated.' The Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra also says: 'Furthermore, due to ignorance, taking what is not an antidote to be an antidote, one performs various meritorious actions or immovable actions.' Therefore, with ignorance as cause, meritorious and immovable [karma] are generated. Conventional and ultimate suffering does not mean that the suffering of suffering and the suffering of change are called conventional while the suffering of conditioning is called ultimate. If it were so, then because the form and formless realms lack the suffering of change, if one is also deluded regarding them, how could that initiate only non-meritorious [karma]? One can only generally say that what is easily understood conventionally is called conventional suffering, namely the suffering of the three evil destinies and so forth; not understanding that, one performs non-meritorious actions. What is difficult to understand is called ultimate suffering, namely the good destinies of humans and devas; in ultimate principle their essence is entirely suffering, but conventionally it is difficult to understand, and people consider them good and superior; being deluded about them, one performs meritorious and immovable [actions]. This also contains the suffering of change being called ultimate suffering; one must not definitively divide them among the three sufferings, as in Fascicle 7 of the Abhidharma-samuccaya, Fascicle 10 of the Great Treatise [Yogācārabhūmi], the 'Chapter on Refuting Suffering' in the Prakaraṇāryavācā, and so forth. This is explained in a separate note.