成唯識論述記 8.404

8.404

問：若爾，何故不說無明為無明因？答：由無明自體雜染，若無餘緣不能增長，不損減故，不說為因，由此亦顯老死有果，謂為無明因，如受生愛，雖知發、潤惑體不同，是彼等流，故以為喻，非如小乘無明，以五蘊為緣起支，愛等亦爾，惑等相例。又顯破彼常、斷二愚，謂愚現無因故，說前世十愚，現無後果故，說未來二。雖更有前前世之因，即知現受生愛等故，知前無明老死所生，未來老死能生無明，因果不斷，唯十二支，故不說無明因及老死果，非彼二法皆無果因，由此亦非有無窮失。此等廢立，文外所加，自下敘立，依文自有。問：生老死支，是三相不？若是相者，何故不說住為支耶？又滅在過去，其體即無，豈緣起支體通無法？若非相者，既非生等相，此是何生等？答：是三相攝。後難善釋，前難如何？以緣起支，是流轉義，住不順流轉故，不說為支。又住濫無為，所以不說。言緣起者，有為相故，生老即生異，唯死非滅相。滅相是無，有法方是緣起支故，謂緣起支約相續立，即是正死末後之時，及前將死順死之位，總名死支，滅相體無，唯過去立，故不為例。若爾，諸論說一期四相謂依相續，死、滅何殊？答：一期剎那，時分雖異，依世立相，其義乃同，要依過去，方立滅相，但表此法，後時無故，非一期滅相體，即是死支，以此死支，顯將正死。雖俱是假，依世不同，然依滅相，以立死支，令生厭故，故依三相，立三支也。問：若生、老等，即生等相，此後二支，應行蘊攝。答：以彼三相，顯此三支，非此三支即唯三相。以三支體，即現五蘊，名依相立，體實有殊，如觸處死，非即滅相，但將、正死，解支節等，是死觸故，豈以名死，體即滅相？由此三支雖依三相以立其名而令生厭，體非即彼，三相所攝。問：何故諸支各別而立，唯老與死二合立耶？

Question: If so, why is it not said that ignorance is the cause of ignorance? Answer: Because the essential nature of ignorance is defiled, if it lacks additional conditions it cannot increase, nor does it decrease; therefore it is not stated as its [own] cause. By this it is also revealed that aging-and-death has an effect, namely being the cause of ignorance. Just as feeling produces craving—although we know that the entities of the afflictions which initiate and moisture are distinct, [feeling] is their outflow (niṣyanda), and therefore it is used as an analogy—it is not like the Hīnayāna view where ignorance takes the five aggregates as the factors of dependent origination. The same applies to craving and the rest, and afflictions follow this parallel. Furthermore, this serves to refute the two delusions of eternalism and annihilationism: regarding the delusion that the present has no cause, the ten delusions of the past life are taught; regarding the delusion that the present has no future result, the two of the future are taught. Although there are causes from still earlier lives, through knowing that present feeling produces craving and so on, one knows that past ignorance was produced by aging-and-death, and future aging-and-death can produce ignorance. Cause and effect being uninterrupted, there are only twelve factors; thus the cause of ignorance and the effect of aging-and-death are not stated, not that those two dharmas completely lack effect or cause, and thereby one also avoids the fault of infinite regress. These rejections and establishments are additions outside the text; what is established below follows the text itself. Question: Are the factors of birth and aging-and-death the three characteristics [of conditioned phenomena] or not? If they are the characteristics, why is abiding not stated as a factor? Furthermore, cessation belongs to the past, and its entity is non-existent; can the entities of the factors of dependent origination encompass non-existent phenomena? If they are not the characteristics, since they are not the characteristics of birth and the like, what kind of birth and so on are they? Answer: They are subsumed under the three characteristics. The latter objection will be well explained; what about the former objection? Because the factors of dependent origination have the meaning of cyclical transmigration, and abiding does not accord with transmigration, it is not stated as a factor. Moreover, abiding might be confused with the unconditioned, which is why it is not stated. That which is called "dependent origination" has the characteristics of the conditioned: birth and aging are just arising and alteration; only death is not the characteristic of cessation. The characteristic of cessation is non-existent, and only an existent dharma can be a factor of dependent origination. That is to say, the factor of dependent origination is established in terms of continuity: namely, the final moment of actual death, as well as the prior stage approaching death and conducive to death, are collectively called the factor of death. The entity of the characteristic of cessation is non-existent, established only in the past, so it does not serve as a parallel. If so, treatises speak of the four characteristics of a single period of existence as based on continuity; how do death and cessation differ? Answer: Although the temporal divisions of a single period and of an instant differ, when establishing characteristics based on time their meaning is identical. One must rely on the past before establishing the characteristic of cessation, merely indicating that this dharma does not exist at a later time; it is not that the entity of the characteristic of cessation of a single period is itself the factor of death. For by this factor of death, approaching and actual death are indicated. Although both are designations, they are based on different times. Nevertheless, based on the characteristic of cessation, the factor of death is established in order to generate revulsion; therefore, based on the three characteristics, three factors are established. Question: If birth, aging, and so on are simply the characteristics of arising and the rest, then these last two factors should be subsumed under the aggregate of formations (saṃskāra-skandha). Answer: These three factors are indicated by those three characteristics; it is not that these three factors are merely the three characteristics. Because the entities of the three factors are simply the present five aggregates, their names are established on the basis of the characteristics, while their entities are actually distinct. Just as death at the organ of touch is not itself the characteristic of cessation, but rather approaching and actual death, the dissolution of bodily parts, and so forth, are the touch of death—how could it be that because it is named "death," its entity is simply the characteristic of cessation? Thus, although these three factors establish their names based on the three characteristics to induce revulsion, their entities are not identical with them, [though] subsumed under the three characteristics. Question: Why are the other factors established individually, while aging and death alone are combined and established together?