成唯識論述記 8.556

8.556

述曰：《瑜伽》第十說：有三緣無因緣者，依現行愛、取，不依種愛、取故，依業種為有，不依識等種有說故，不說有因緣，非相違也。彼論但言：無明望色行為增上，望無色行為三緣，謂等無間、所緣、增上，如是餘支為緣多少，應如此知，謂有色望有色支，為一增上；望無色支，為二緣，謂所緣、增上；無色望有色，一增上，望無色為三緣，謂等無間、所緣、增上。彼復問言：何故相望無因緣？答：因緣者，自體種子緣所顯故，故知依現愛、取及業有說，愛、取依現，非依種子，有依業種，非自體故，若無此論，難解《瑜伽》。彼又問言：若無因緣者，何故說言依因果性建立緣起？答：依增上緣所攝，引發、牽引、生起因說為因故，既言依增上生起因，明依業有說，即以此文證生起因唯說增上緣。

The Commentary states: When the tenth fascicle of the Yogācārabhūmi states that there are three conditions and no condition of cause, it is because it is based on active craving and grasping, not on the seeds of craving and grasping, and because it is stated based on karmic seeds being ‘existence’ (bhava), not based on the existence of seeds such as consciousness; hence it does not state that there is a condition of cause, so there is no contradiction. That treatise merely states: Ignorance in relation to material volitional formations is the dominant condition; in relation to immaterial volitional formations it is three conditions, namely, the immediately preceding, the objective, and the dominant. The number of conditions for the remaining links should be understood in this manner: a material link in relation to a material link is one dominant condition; in relation to an immaterial link it is two conditions, namely, the objective and the dominant; an immaterial link in relation to a material link is one dominant condition, and in relation to an immaterial link it is three conditions, namely, the immediately preceding, the objective, and the dominant. It further asks: Why is there no condition of cause in relation to each other? It answers: As for the condition of cause, it is manifested through the condition of its own-nature seed; therefore, one knows it is stated based on active craving and grasping and karmic existence. Craving and grasping are based on the active, not on the seed; existence is based on karmic seeds, not on own-nature. Without this treatise, it would be difficult to understand the Yogācārabhūmi. It further asks: If there is no condition of cause, why is it stated that dependent origination is established on the basis of the nature of cause and effect? It answers: It is because it is stated to be a cause on the basis of the instigating, projecting, and producing causes subsumed under the dominant condition. Since it says ‘based on the producing cause [which is] dominant’, it is clear that it speaks based on the existence of karma; this text is precisely cited to prove that the producing cause is explained solely as the dominant condition.