成唯識論述記 8.489

8.489

述曰：十一、學等分別門，一切唯非學非無學，有學、無學者，流轉相違故。聖者所起有漏善業，以無漏明而為緣故，違有支故，非有支攝。《大論》第十云：十二皆非有學及無學，唯非學非無學攝。彼論問言：彼所有善有漏支，何故非學？答：墮流轉故名為支，若學所有善有漏法，彼與流轉相違及用明為緣，故非支攝。有人解云：今大乘既取善法欲已去名學故，內法異生發心已去，皆不發總報業，皆非無明發，皆非行支者，不然，《緣起》下云：外法異生具四無明發行，內法異生若放逸者，彼除一種不共無明，餘三無明為緣生行。內法異生若不放逸，及聖有學，三無明為緣雖引非福行，此行不能招三惡趣，我不說為無明緣行，却證前文能引支中云，別助當業皆非行支。又，不放逸內法異生，若造福行及不動行，彼是正法如理作意，心之所引發，解脫為依，乃至廣云。雖於善趣感殊勝生，而非無明起增上緣乃至諸聖有學，不共無明已永斷故，不造新業乃至應知內法有學，不緣無明更造諸行。經既唯言聖不造業，不共無明種已斷故。又云：內法不放逸者，造福、不動，明知善法欲已去，皆猶造行支。然如《決擇分》，善雖無別文定釋感總、別報，且同小乘一說唯感別報，可非行支非正引故。雖言不放逸造福行等非無明發，而言聖者不共種斷故不造行，明知不放逸者言無，但是不起現行不共，及現相應發。而有種子不共相應發亦無爽，不爾，彼福、不動應不名行，亦不可唯言聖不造業故。《對法》第七云：未見諦者雖起善等，由彼隨眠所隨縛故亦名愚癡，由彼勢力於三界苦不如實知，便能發起後有因性福、不動行，非已見諦能發此業，無真實義愚故，是故彼業說因於此真實義愚生。

The Commentary states: Eleventh is the section on classification into the learner and so forth. All [twelve links] are exclusively neither of the learner nor of the non-learner, because learners and non-learners run counter to saṃsāra. Sāsrava wholesome karma produced by noble ones takes anāsrava knowledge as its condition, and because it runs counter to the links of existence, it is not subsumed under the links of existence. The tenth fascicle of the Great Treatise states that the twelve are all neither learner nor non-learner, but are subsumed exclusively under neither learner nor non-learner. That treatise asks: "Why are the wholesome sāsrava links possessed by them not learner?" Answer: "Because they fall into saṃsāra, they are called links. If wholesome sāsrava dharmas are possessed by a learner, they run counter to saṃsāra and employ knowledge as their condition; therefore they are not subsumed under the links." Someone explains: "Now, since the Mahāyāna takes desire for wholesome dharmas and beyond to be called 'learner,' from the arising of the [bodhi-]citta onward, internal pṛthagjanas never generate karma of general retribution, are never triggered by ignorance, and are never the formation link." This is not correct. The lower part of the Dependent Arising [chapter] states: "External pṛthagjanas possess four kinds of ignorance to initiate formations. If an internal pṛthagjana is negligent, then excluding the one unshared ignorance, the remaining three kinds of ignorance serve as conditions to generate formations. If an internal pṛthagjana is non-negligent, or is a noble learner, although three kinds of ignorance serve as conditions to induce non-meritorious formations, these formations cannot incur [rebirth in] the three evil destinies, and I do not call them formations conditioned by ignorance." This conversely corroborates the earlier passage regarding the inducing links which states that distinct auxiliary karma for future existence is not a formation link. Furthermore, if a non-negligent internal pṛthagjana performs meritorious formations and immovable formations, these are induced by a mind of proper attention to the true Dharma, rely on liberation, and so forth in detail. Although they result in superior rebirth in wholesome destinies, they are not ignorance acting as a predominant condition, and so forth, up to noble learners having eternally severed the seeds of unshared ignorance, so that they do not perform new karma, and so forth, up to: one should know that internal learners do not generate formations conditioned by ignorance. Since the sūtra only states that noble ones do not perform karma because the seeds of unshared ignorance are already severed, and also states that non-negligent internal [practitioners] perform meritorious and immovable [formations], we clearly know that from the desire for wholesome dharmas onward, they still perform the formation link. However, as in the Decisive Section, although there is no separate passage definitively explaining wholesome [karma] as incurring general or particular retribution, if we follow the single theory of the Hīnayāna that it incurs only particular retribution, it could not be a formation link because it does not directly induce [rebirth]. Although it states that non-negligent ones performing meritorious formations and so forth are not triggered by ignorance, it states that noble ones do not generate formations because their seeds of unshared [ignorance] are severed; hence we clearly know that the statement that non-negligent ones lack it only means that they do not generate active unshared [ignorance] or formations associated with active [defilement]. Yet there is no error in saying they are generated by seeds of unshared or associated [ignorance]; otherwise, their meritorious and immovable [actions] should not be called formations, nor could it be said solely that noble ones do not generate karma. The seventh fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya states: "Those who have not seen the truths, though they generate wholesome [states] and so forth, are also called ignorant because they are bound by their dormant tendencies. Due to that power, they do not know the suffering of the three realms as it truly is, and can then initiate meritorious and immovable formations, which are causes of future existence. Those who have already seen the truths cannot generate this karma, because they lack ignorance regarding ultimate truth; therefore that karma is said to arise caused by this ignorance regarding ultimate truth."