成唯識論述記 8.82

8.82

述曰：非除生起因外，彼九因名所餘因。若唯取九，九中亦有因緣，方便疎故。攝九盡便寬，生起之中有非因緣故，方便攝便不盡亦太狹。若因緣唯攝生起，即攝增上業種太寬；若不攝餘五因緣，五因緣不盡太狹；若方便定攝九因，即五因中有因緣者，亦方便攝是太寬失，不攝生起業種是太狹失，故知文勢如我所解。此中影略，但以攝不盡。太狹為解而影取寬，上皆准知。問：何以〈菩薩地〉因緣分二，能生因亦名牽引種，雖有二名，猶攝現行因緣不盡，尋、伺地，一生起因，即攝現、種俱盡？答：約潤、未潤唯約種論，故須分二，能起於果體是因緣，不分潤與未潤故，尋、伺地唯一生起，亦無違也。此第一師辨訖。

The Commentary states: It is not that, setting aside the generating cause (saṃjanana-hetu), those [other] nine causes are named the 'remaining causes.' If one were to take only the nine, there are also cause-conditions (hetu-pratyaya) among the nine, while auxiliary means (upāya) are distant and indirect. If [the remaining causes] subsumed the nine completely, that would be too broad; and since within the generating cause there are also things that are not cause-conditions, if they were subsumed under auxiliary means, it would not be exhaustive and would also be too narrow. If cause-condition subsumed only the generating [cause], it would subsume the karmic seeds of the dominant [cause], which is too broad; if it did not subsume the other five cause-conditions, the five cause-conditions would not be exhausted, which is too narrow. If auxiliary means definitely subsumed the nine causes, then those among the five causes that possess cause-conditions would also be subsumed under auxiliary means, which is the fault of being too broad; and not subsuming the karmic seeds of the generating [cause] would be the fault of being too narrow. Therefore we know that the drift of the text is as I have explained. Here, by implicit abbreviation (yinglue), the text takes 'not subsuming exhaustively' and 'being too narrow' for its explanation while implicitly including the aspect of being too broad; all of the above should be understood accordingly. Question: Why is it that in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* cause-conditions are divided into two, with the productive cause also being called the project-seeds, and although there are two names, it still does not completely subsume active cause-conditions; whereas in the *Vitarkādi-bhūmi*, a single generating cause subsumes both active states and seeds completely? Answer: Because [the former] is discussed solely with respect to seeds in terms of being moisturized versus unmoisturized, it had to be divided into two. That which can produce an effect in its substance is a cause-condition; without dividing into moisturized and unmoisturized, the *Vitarkādi-bhūmi* presents only a single generating [cause], which also does not conflict. Here the first master's analysis is concluded.