[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論述記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830) › 8.82 # 成唯識論述記 8.82 成唯識論述記 8.82 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.82](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8.82) 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. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.81](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8.81) - [Next: 8.83](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8.83) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830~en-mt.8.82) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8.82](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1830.8.82) · Pramāṇa