成唯識論述記 3.26

3.26

The Commentary states: This reveals the meaning of a preceding seed producing a subsequent one. This is not 'coexistent', because it is subsumed under seeds producing seeds. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha does not have this. Question: The seventh consciousness is also severed only upon reaching the vajropamasamādhi; why is it not called a seed? Answer: Because in the ten stages and so forth it undergoes transformation, its grasping of intentional objects is prone to distraction and interruption, and it transforms even before counteraction; seeds are not like this. If so, how are they called 'seeds with the characteristic of exhaustion of fruition' and 'seeds without the characteristic of exhaustion of fruition'? Nominal and neutral seeds produce fruits limitlessly and endlessly, so they can persist in continuous transformation; wholesome and unwholesome seeds produce fruits of a limited scope, so how do they persist continuously? The answer is: That is stated on the basis that their production of fruits has a boundary limit, hence they are called 'having the characteristic of exhaustion of fruition'; it does not mean that the substance of the seed is extinguished without remainder before attaining counteraction. Furthermore, karmic perfuming is called 'having the characteristic of exhaustion of fruition', while nominal perfuming is called 'persisting in continuous transformation'. These seeds only persist in continuous transformation as their own kind produces their fruit, which is to say they are called seeds despite not being coexistent with their fruit; this lacks the single meaning of constantly coexisting with the fruit. If one can be called a seed while lacking one meaning, then since the seventh consciousness lacks persisting in continuous transformation, it ought to be called a seed. This should not be so. Now, herein, it is precisely through the two principles of arising-and-perishing and persisting in continuous transformation that the meaning of a seed is revealed, whereas the others merely make specific exclusions and do not primarily reveal it; therefore, the seventh consciousness cannot constitute a seed. Moreover, it is said that a seed possesses all six characteristics; it is not meant that anything possessing the six is identical to a seed. Furthermore, this homogeneous kind is also not a seed [strictly speaking], because it is not coexistent with its fruit. Asvabhāva's commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states that it is not a seed, but is rather called a homogeneous type. This reveals that the homogeneous kind, up to the stage of counteraction, does not acquire the name of seed; at the time of producing a fruit it may be called a seed, but whenever it produces a fruit it must be simultaneous. If one discusses its substance, at the time of being of its own kind it is also called a seed, because it is not an actual manifestation; this merely spontaneously pulls forth and produces a subsequent fruit. If conditions are complete and superior so that the force of the seed intensifies, and a superior function of granting a fruit arises, only then is it called a seed. Asvabhāva reveals the distinction between these two stages: when coexisting with the fruit it is called a seed; otherwise, it is called a homogeneous type. Now, in this text, speaking of its substance on the basis of not being an actual manifestation, it is generically called a seed, which also does not contradict [this]. Moreover, it reveals that a seed is endowed with these six characteristics; it is not saying that in every moment it possesses all six characteristics and is therefore always called a seed. However, a distinction must be made: if it must possess all six characteristics to be called a seed, and failing one it fails to be so, then in sentient beings devoid of the nature [of enlightenment], the seventh consciousness lacks coexistence with an actualized fruit, so it is not a seed. If so, then seeds that persist in continuous transformation when not yet producing fruit would not be called seeds. Thus it should be explained: when the path of counteraction arises, it refers to the stage where actual manifestations and so forth are prevented from arising. For instance, with the asaṃjñi-samāpatti and so forth in the path of seeing, based on their substance being present, they are eradicated only in the path of cultivation; yet based on the fruit not arising, the seeds are severed in the path of seeing, because from that point on there is no meaning of coexistence with a fruit. What is now called 'coexistence with the fruit' means that up until the path of counteraction arises, it possesses the capacity of being coexistent and conjunct with actualized fruition phenomena; this is why it is called a seed, not that it must be conjunct with an actual manifestation at this very moment to be called a seed. If not, then within one realm the seeds of the three realms could not be established, and the meaning of the possession of seeds would fail to be established. Therefore we know that this is not spoken in terms of a single moment, but is spoken in terms of subsequently having the capacity of coexistence with the fruit in order to reveal its intrinsic nature. What Asvabhāva said regarding being called a homogeneous type when not producing fruit is discussed in terms of definitely never producing a future fruit. As in the case of the asaṃjñi-samāpatti in the path of seeing, if anything that persists in continuous transformation were to be called a seed, wholesome seeds and so forth would produce unwholesome fruits.