成唯識論述記 8.403

8.403

八、廢立增減，釋諸妨難。問：無明以誰為因？無因應有始，有因應無窮。答：以不如理作意為因。何故不說？《瑜伽》第十云：彼唯不斷因，非雜染因故，依染因說支故。又彼無明自性是染，不如理作意自性非染，不能染無明，無明染彼，故不說也。又生雜染是業煩惱之所熏發，業復以無明為因故，不說無明以不如理作意為因。《緣起》上卷云：問：若無明亦緣非理作意，何故不說？佛言無明亦引非理作意與行為緣，又從無明所生觸、受為緣，生愛，是故不說，即由無明勝故，偏說。問：老死有果不？若無者，生死應有終；有者，應無窮，此亦應說。答：有。謂憂悲苦惱。《十地經》第八云：「死別離時，愚人貪著心熱，名憂；發聲啼哭，名悲；五根相對，名苦；意根相對，名憂；憂苦轉多，名惱。」新翻《大般若》亦云：「老死愁歎苦憂惱」。問：何故不說？答：緣起順生死流趣諸趣義，憂悲離散，行相高舉，不順流趣，故不說之。此為舊說，與小乘同，如《婆沙》第二十三．四等。今又解云：立支要須定或遍，此愁歎苦憂惱，不遍亦不定，是故非支。問：非理作意以誰為因，憂悲以誰為果？答：此顯輪轉因果已周，故不須說，即是影顯已具足故。云何影顯？謂由惑生惑業，從業生於事，從事事惑生，有支理唯此，以五果種依當起說，亦得說有前後，如受事生愛或，顯無明支由前老死生，如愛生取，顯後無明亦由前無明生。

Eighth, establishing and eliminating, increasing and decreasing, resolving various difficulties. Question: What does ignorance take as its cause? If it has no cause, it should have a beginning; if it has a cause, there should be an infinite regress. Answer: It takes improper attention as its cause. Why is this not stated? The tenth fascicle of the *Yogācāra* says: because that is merely an uninterrupted cause, not a cause of affliction; the factors are expounded based on causes of affliction. Furthermore, that ignorance is by its own nature defiled, whereas improper attention is by its own nature not defiled; it cannot defile ignorance, but ignorance defiles it, hence it is not mentioned. Furthermore, afflictions of birth are perfumed and aroused by karma and defilement, and karma further takes ignorance as its cause; hence it is not said that ignorance takes improper attention as its cause. The first fascicle of the *Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra* states: Question: If ignorance also conditions improper attention, why is this not stated? The Buddha said: ignorance also projects improper attention to serve as a condition for volition; moreover, contact and feeling produced from ignorance serve as conditions to produce craving; therefore it is not stated—that is, because ignorance is predominant, it is stated exclusively. Question: Does old age and death have a fruit or not? If it does not, saṃsāra should have an end; if it does, there should be an infinite regress, so this should also be stated. Answer: It does. Namely, grief, sorrow, suffering, distress, and lamentation. The eighth fascicle of the *Daśabhūmika-sūtra* says: 'At the time of parting at death, the hot mind of a foolish person's craving is named grief; weeping aloud is named sorrow; confronting the five sense faculties is named suffering; confronting the mental faculty is named distress; as distress and suffering multiply, it is named lamentation.' The newly translated *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra* also says: 'Old age and death, grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, and anguish.' Question: Why are these not stated [as factors]? Answer: Dependent origination has the meaning of flowing along with saṃsāra toward the various destinies; grief and sorrow are scattering, and their mental mode is high and raised, not conforming to flowing toward the destinies, hence they are not stated. This is the old explanation, identical to the Hīnayāna, as in the twenty-third and fourth fascicles of the *Vibhāṣā*, etc. Now it is further explained: to establish a factor, it must be definite or pervasive; these—grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, and lamentation—are neither pervasive nor definite, and therefore are not factors. Question: What does improper attention take as its cause, and what does grief and sorrow take as their fruit? Answer: This shows that the causes and fruits of transmigration are already complete, hence there is no need to state them; that is, they are already fully indicated by implication. How are they indicated by implication? That is, from defilement arise defilement and karma; from karma arise entities; from entities, entities and defilements arise: the principle of the factors of existence is solely this. Because the five fruit seeds are spoken of based on their future arising, they can also be said to have before and after: just as the entity of feeling gives rise to the defilement of craving, showing that the factor of ignorance arises from the preceding old age and death; just as craving gives rise to grasping, showing that subsequent ignorance also arises from preceding ignorance.