成唯識論述記 8.540

8.540

述曰：此約實體、相顯二位，說支實義，攝苦如是，諸經論中，隨彼相增，所說不定。此義如何？且此論等中有二：一、全體多分攝三苦，即有漏法皆行苦，名全，餘二苦名多分；二、相顯多分攝三苦，即捨受俱支等名行苦，行苦名相顯，餘二受俱苦名多分。《緣起經》上卷云：生顯行苦，老顯壞苦，死顯苦苦。《十地》第八云：「經曰：『十二因緣分說名三苦相，是中無明、行、識、名色、六入，名為行苦；觸、受名為苦苦；餘因緣分，名為壞苦。』」即愛、取、有、生、老死支。彼論無解，皆各隨義增，實無違也。《瑜伽》等說據遍法體正稱道理，《緣起經》中但約果時以辨三苦，因多種子，隱而不論，或說果時，即顯因故，謂有為法造作名行；生是起義，造作義增，說為行苦；老是衰義；壞是變義；老壞義增說為壞苦；死是滅義；苦是迫義；死滅迫增，說為苦苦，以果三苦顯因，隨應亦有三苦，隨相增說，不違《瑜伽》。《十地經》中通因果辨，行是作義，前之七支並引因攝造作義增，當果本故說為行苦，雖觸、受二亦引因收，苦苦義增不說為行，謂受支體多起苦受，諸支苦苦唯受支增，觸近生受與受相順，但說觸、受為苦苦體，欲顯諸受體皆是苦，無有少樂，為令生厭故，說觸、受俱為苦苦。雖於死位，苦苦亦增，與老相隣，但名壞苦，謂正壞體多是老支，死是滅無，與老相順，故老死支實名壞苦，於當果位生為壞本，故生、老死皆壞苦攝，其愛、取、有為能生因，生當果時此三極近，從所生說愛、取、有三，亦名壞苦。又，此愛等五，能、所生攝，於熟變時此苦方起，變壞名壞苦，故皆壞苦攝。《對法論》說，於當果位有能、所生，由熟變故說名為果。壞苦亦爾，皆隨相增，說此三苦，非為實理，故論會之，餘隨相增，所說如是。

The Commentary states: This refers to the two states of actual substance and manifest characteristics, describing the actual meaning of the links subsuming suffering in this way; in various sūtras and treatises, according to which characteristic is predominant, what is stated is indeterminate. What does this mean? In this treatise and others there are two [interpretations]: first, that the whole substance or the greater portion subsumes the three sufferings—that is, all sāsrava phenomena are the suffering of conditioned existence, which is called 'entirety', while the other two sufferings are called 'the greater portion'; second, that the manifest characteristics mostly subsume the three sufferings—that is, the links conjoined with equanimity and so forth are called the suffering of conditioned existence, where the suffering of conditioned existence is called 'manifest characteristic', while the sufferings conjoined with the other two sensations are called 'the greater portion'. The first fascicle of the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra says: Birth manifests the suffering of conditioned existence; aging manifests the suffering of change; death manifests the suffering of suffering. Fascicle 8 of the Daśabhūmika-śāstra says: 'The sūtra states: "The twelve links of dependent origination are said to have the characteristics of the three sufferings: among them, ignorance, volitional formations, consciousness, name-and-form, and the six sense bases are called the suffering of conditioned existence; contact and sensation are called the suffering of suffering; the remaining links of dependent origination are called the suffering of change."' That is, the links of craving, grasping, existence, birth, and aging and death. That treatise has no explanation; they each follow the predominance of meaning, and in reality there is no contradiction. What the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra and other texts say is based on the comprehensive nature of phenomena and directly corresponds to reason. In the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra, it is solely in terms of the time of the fruit that the three sufferings are distinguished; the causes are mostly seeds, hidden and not discussed; or by speaking of the time of the fruit, the causes are thereby made evident. That is, the activity of conditioned phenomena is called 'conditioned'; birth is the meaning of arising, and the meaning of activity is predominant, so it is said to be the suffering of conditioned existence; aging is the meaning of decay; change is the meaning of alteration; aging and alteration are predominant, so it is said to be the suffering of change; death is the meaning of cessation; suffering is the meaning of oppression; death, cessation, and oppression are predominant, so it is said to be the suffering of suffering. Revealing the causes through the three sufferings of the fruit, the causes also have the three sufferings according to appropriateness; being spoken according to the predominance of characteristics, it does not contradict the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra. In the Daśabhūmika-sūtra, it is distinguished throughout both cause and fruit: 'formations' means activity; the first seven links are all subsumed under the projecting cause, where the meaning of activity is predominant, and being the basis for the future fruit, they are called the suffering of conditioned existence. Although contact and sensation are also included in the projecting cause, the meaning of the suffering of suffering is predominant, so they are not said to be conditioned existence: that is, the substance of the link of sensation mostly gives rise to painful sensation, and the suffering of suffering among all links is predominant only in the link of sensation; contact directly produces sensation and accords with sensation, so only contact and sensation are said to be the substance of the suffering of suffering; wishing to reveal that the substance of all sensations is suffering, without any little pleasure, in order to generate revulsion, it says that both contact and sensation are the suffering of suffering. Although in the state of death the suffering of suffering is also predominant, because it is adjacent to aging, it is only called the suffering of change; that is, the substance of actual change is mostly the link of aging, while death is cessation into non-existence, according with aging, so the link of aging and death is properly called the suffering of change. In the state of the future fruit, birth is the root of change, so birth, aging, and death are all subsumed under the suffering of change. Craving, grasping, and existence are the producing causes; when producing the future fruit, these three are extremely proximate, so described from the perspective of what is produced, the three links of craving, grasping, and existence are also called the suffering of change. Furthermore, these five, craving and so on, are subsumed under the producer and the produced; only at the time of ripening and alteration does this suffering arise; alteration is called the suffering of change, so they are all subsumed under the suffering of change. The Abhidharmasamuccaya states that in the state of the future fruit there are the producer and the produced; because of ripening and alteration, it is called a fruit. The suffering of change is also like this. All these three sufferings are spoken according to the predominance of characteristics and are not the actual principle; therefore the treatise reconciles them, and the rest stated according to the predominance of characteristics are like this.