成唯識論述記 6.536

6.536

The Commentary states: Regarding the "two [theories of] no-cause": first, one who passes away from the heaven of non-conception and comes to be born here, having attained the knowledge of past lives (pūrvanivāsānusmṛti-jñāna), cannot remember all the states prior to emerging from that mind, and thus clings to the idea that phenomena arise without a prior cause, thinking that all phenomena, like oneself, must all be born originally without [cause], and therefore clings to the idea that oneself and the world arise without a cause; second, through investigation (vitarka) and inquiry (vicāra), failing to remember past lives, one forms such a grasping, [holding that things] arise without a cause, and so forth in detail. These two views arise due to two matters: the vacancy of the heaven of non-conception and investigation/inquiry. Question: Why is it that here only "two [theories of] no-cause" are spoken of, while there is also the failure to know the many lives prior to the desire realm up to the fourth dhyāna, which should also lead to conceiving no-cause? Answer: In fact there are such cases; in realm after realm one may not know where the cause originated. Those who cling to no-cause only [do so because] passing away from non-conception through past-life knowledge is prominent, so only that one is spoken of. Furthermore, tracking back within one life to non-conception, the subtle states prior to emerging from that mind are difficult to discern, and so they cling to no-cause. In other realms, the causes in prior births are gross and easy to discern, and so they do not cling to no-cause. Regarding the "four [views on having] limits": first, because one can exclusively remember down to the Avīci Hell and up to the fourth dhyāna heaven, grasping the self as entirely pervading therein, one then thinks: "If there were a self beyond this, I should be able to see it. Therefore, I know it has a limit"; second, because one can exclusively remember the sides as boundless, grasping the self as pervading them, one clings to boundlessness; third, because one can remember down and up as close like the first, and far and wide like the second without finding boundaries, one conceives the notion of having a limit regarding above and below, and the notion of boundlessness regarding the sides; fourth, because one can remember the period of the destruction eon, one gives rise to the notion of neither having a limit nor having no limit, because no receptacle world can be found. Since all four remember the eons of formation and destruction, they may be called [theories regarding] the past boundary. Regarding the "four prevarications of eel-wrigglers": the "deathless" means heaven; because gods have long lifespans, externalists grasp them as permanent and deathless. Because one answers the deathless gods' unconfused questions, one is able to be born in that heaven. Now, disparaging them, they are called "eel-wriggling prevarications." First, thinking: "I do not know good, non-good, and so on; if another asks me, I must not give a definite answer. If I were to answer definitely, lest others perceive my lack of knowledge and thereupon ridicule me, I should not fully speak of the secret meaning of the gods," and so on; second, one who practices deceit thinks: "It is not the case that my pure deity permits explaining all hidden secrets, namely what one has personally realized and the cultivation of the pure path"; hence one speaks as before; third, harboring fear and giving no explanation: "Lest my dullness and inferiority become known to others, and on this account I fail to attain liberation"; taking this as a fault and putting oneself at ease because one harbors fear, as explained extensively before; fourth, there are the foolish and dull who exclusively cultivate the practice of cessation and are unable to speak evasively; they merely think: "Whenever anyone asks me, I shall turn the question back. Following whatever they ask, I shall confirm and agree with all of it following their words without reduction." Though these look toward the future, they are also called [theories regarding] the past boundary, yet they operate in the present. Furthermore, all four take as their object the teachings heard previously, so they are all subsumed under the past boundary. These four arise, respectively, based on: first, fear of ignorance; second, practicing deceit; third, harboring fear; fourth, being foolish and dull.