成唯識論述記 8.496

8.496

又此中二說，正發業無明唯見道斷故。彼人復云：異熟愚迷前七苦；真實義愚迷第八苦。《大論》第十云：迷世俗苦起非福；迷勝義苦造福、不動。《對法》第六云：前七苦是世俗苦；第八苦是勝義苦，故發非福無明，是修道斷，餘見斷者。不然，豈以世俗苦言同故，一切處文是一世俗，以易可知，故名世俗，唯勝智境故名勝義。言非福果，世俗易知是苦，名世俗苦；福、不動果，勝智方知是苦，名勝義苦，非是分八苦而論名世俗勝義。彼八苦中，前七易知，名為世俗，第八勝智知，名為勝義，非謂前七是迷發非福行之世俗也，若不爾者，前七苦中，第六、七是壞苦，豈色界等無壞苦耶？彼若有者，迷之何故不造非福？又，惡趣豈無第八勝義苦，何故迷之但造福、不動行？故知文同非必一義，此中無明唯見所斷，此等徵詰如別章說。

Moreover, between the two theories here, the ignorance that directly initiates karma is severed exclusively by the path of seeing. That person further says: "Foolishness regarding karmic retribution is delusion regarding the first seven sufferings; ignorance regarding ultimate truth is delusion regarding the eighth suffering. The tenth fascicle of the Great Treatise states: Being deluded regarding conventional suffering, one generates non-merit; being deluded regarding ultimate suffering, one creates merit and immobility. The sixth fascicle of the Abhidharma-samuccaya states: The first seven sufferings are conventional suffering; the eighth suffering is ultimate suffering; therefore, the ignorance that initiates non-merit is severed by cultivation, and the rest is severed by seeing." This is not correct. How could it be that because the words 'conventional suffering' are identical, passages in all contexts refer to the same 'conventional'? Because it is easy to know, it is called conventional; because it is an object only of superior wisdom, it is called ultimate. Stating that non-meritorious fruit is conventionally easy to know as suffering, it is called conventional suffering; meritorious and immovable fruits are known as suffering only by superior wisdom, so they are called ultimate suffering—it is not that the eight sufferings are categorized to be called conventional and ultimate. Among those eight sufferings, the first seven are easy to know and are called conventional, and the eighth is known by superior wisdom and is called ultimate; it does not mean that the first seven are the 'conventional' of delusion that initiates non-meritorious formations. Were it not so, among the first seven sufferings, the sixth and seventh are suffering of change (vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā)—could the form realm and so forth lack the suffering of change? If they possess it, why does delusion regarding it not generate non-merit? Furthermore, could evil destinies lack the eighth ultimate suffering? Why should delusion regarding it initiate only meritorious and immovable formations? Therefore, we know that identical phrasing does not necessarily entail identical meaning; ignorance here is severed exclusively by seeing. Such cross-examinations are as explained in the separate chapter.