成唯識論述記 8.356

8.356

述曰：此簡非也。由此道理，一切現報業、別、助、當業，皆非行支，一切現業皆唯能感別報果故。亦由此文即證現業不感引果。感當業中，別有一業唯感別報，亦非行支，由此即顯設有一業唯感總報，復有一業通感總、別，皆行支攝。《緣起經》說：聖者不造後有業故。《對法》第七說：聖不造業，無真實義愚故。又《瑜伽》第十說：有支非學攝故，別報非也。此中有云：學是解脫分等為體故，初發心已去皆不造後有引業，此亦不然，所以者何？《緣起》下說：內法異生，不放逸者，所有福行、不動行。非無明為緣者，不起現行相應無明而引發故。若放逸者，三種無明之所引發；不放逸者，為簡於此，故說彼行非無明發，非彼無明種子不發行也，得成總報，《對法》第七云：「有二種愚：一、異熟愚；二、真實義愚。由後發福、不動；初發非福故。」無有福、不動非無明所發，不爾，何故即彼經言：我說諸聖有學不造新業？不言內法異生不造新業？由此當知。順解脫分、順決擇分善方便性者，能違背有尚有感總是無明、行支，彼二位中生得善法故，是行支感總報也。或說彼二方便善法不感總報，此中所說感總報業方成行，故《緣起》復云：內法不放逸行，非無明引故，雖言感報，但別報因，由此道理。既所有業皆非行支，現所有業亦非行體，不爾，別報有相例失，以感生死非殊勝故。非正行支，非非行攝，若不爾者，於一生中，唯有總行兼總別行，所餘能感異熟別報，名色等支，應非行感，由此故知，唯別業果既名名色，別報因體，應名行支。若正異熟名色支者，或唯總報，或兼總別；若兼名色支，唯滿果亦是。行支亦爾。正行如報或唯感總，或兼總別，若兼行支，唯感別報，諸行亦是。聖不造業，約正行支，別報即名色，兼名色支攝，亦不相違。此論但取正行名「行」，兼行即非，別不獨能牽後有故。然體是行，不爾，即有如前理妨，所以除也。既爾，返顯能發彼行所有無明，非緣起中無明支攝，但是有分熏習所收。

The Commentary states: This eliminates what are not [the branch of karmic formations]. By this principle, all karma ripening in the present life, and specific, auxiliary, and subsequent karmas, are not the branch of karmic formations, because all karma ripening in the present life can only induce results of specific ripening. Also from this text it is proven that present karma does not induce projectible results. Among karmas that induce future results, there is a distinct karma that induces only specific ripening; it is also not the branch of karmic formations. From this it is shown that if there is a karma that induces only universal ripening, and furthermore a karma that induces both universal and specific ripening, both are subsumed under the branch of karmic formations. The Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra says that noble ones do not create karma for future existence. The seventh fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya says that the noble ones do not create karma because they lack delusion concerning ultimate reality. Moreover, the tenth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi says that the branches of existence are not subsumed under the path of training (śaikṣa); hence specific ripening is not [the branch of karmic formations]. Here some say: Since the path of training has the aids to liberation (mokṣabhāgīya) and so forth as its nature, from the initial resolve of the mind onwards one never creates projecting karma for future existence. This is also not so. Why is that? Later in the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra it is said: regarding the meritorious and immovable formations of non-negligent ordinary persons within the Buddhist Dharma, those that do not take ignorance as condition are induced without giving rise to active, associated ignorance. For the negligent, they are induced by three kinds of ignorance; to exclude them, it is said that for the non-negligent, those formations are not induced by ignorance—it is not that seeds of ignorance do not induce those formations to establish universal ripening. The seventh fascicle of the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya says: 'There are two kinds of delusion: first, delusion regarding karmic ripening; second, delusion regarding ultimate reality. The latter induces meritorious and immovable [formations]; the former induces non-meritorious [formations].' There are no meritorious or immovable formations that are not induced by ignorance. Were it not so, why would that sūtra say: 'I say that noble ones in training do not create new karma,' and not say that ordinary persons within the Buddhist Dharma do not create new karma? By this one should know that those skillful expedients belonging to the aids to liberation and aids to penetration (nirvedhabhāgīya), though turning away from existence, still induce universal [ripening] through ignorance and the branch of karmic formations; because innate wholesome dharmas exist in those two stages, they are the branch of karmic formations inducing universal ripening. Alternatively, it is said that the wholesome dharmas of expedient means in those two stages do not induce universal ripening; the karma inducing universal ripening spoken of here only then constitutes karmic formations. Hence the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra further says: 'Formations of the non-negligent within the Dharma are not induced by ignorance.' Although it speaks of inducing retribution, it is merely the cause for specific ripening. By this reasoning, since all such karmas are not the branch of karmic formations, all present karmas are also not the substance of karmic formations. Were it not so, there would be the fault of falsely assimilating specific ripening, because inducing birth-and-death is not superior. They are not the primary branch of karmic formations, but not non-formations either. If not so, within a single lifetime there would only be universal formations along with formations for both universal and specific, while the remaining branches of name-and-form and so forth that induce specific ripening would not be induced by formations. By this one knows that since the fruit of merely specific karma is called name-and-form, the substance of the cause of specific ripening should be called the branch of karmic formations. If one takes the primary ripening branch of name-and-form, it is either only universal ripening, or both universal and specific; if one includes the concurrent branch of name-and-form, merely fulfilling fruits are also it. The branch of karmic formations is also like this: primary formations, like retribution, either only induce universal ripening or both universal and specific; if one includes concurrent formations, all formations that only induce specific ripening are also it. The statement that noble ones do not create karma concerns the primary branch of karmic formations; specific ripening is name-and-form, subsumed under concurrent name-and-form, which is not contradictory. This treatise only takes primary formations as 'karmic formations', and concurrent formations are not, because specific [ripening] cannot independently drag future existence along. Yet in substance it is formation; if not so, there would be the aforementioned logical obstruction, which is why it is excluded. Since it is so, conversely it reveals that all ignorance capable of giving rise to those formations is not subsumed under the branch of ignorance in dependent origination, but is merely contained within the perfuming of existence-factors.