成唯識論了義燈 2.81

2.81

五、妄為違教失者。云違自教者，大乘教門要由現行熏發，新熏種子勢力強盛，決定感果名增長故。乃至云，今立種子不由熏發念念位增，豈不乖於大乘諸教者？此不應理，不言種子體念念增將為正義，此假敘釋，如前已明。若戒功能皆由熏增決定感果，即捨戒已，應不感果，捨功能故。若功能不捨，則命終等猶成律儀，不名捨戒，有功能故。故由動發期願，現思熏成種已作白等訖，種子之上由期願力，遮防諸惡，無表功能，倍倍增長，由此令思有感果用，功能決定，非即無表假能感果，故下論云：假法如無，非因緣故。若捨戒已，因循住舊，勢力萎歇，期願盡故。而五十四云：由不律儀思數數現行，是故非福運運增者，是說業道，以初要期但得不律無表，未成業道故。又別脫無表，由受發故，住法竟得，不律非受，要作方得。故說不律儀思數數現行，非福增長，律、不律別。又有別釋，如大師表無表章辨，《成業論》中云：「由思差別所熏成種。謂從此後不作因生。」不作因生，即是功能，設餘說種以假從實，故不相違。

Fifth is the fault of falsely claiming contradiction with the teachings. As for [the opponent's] claim that it contradicts our own teachings, [they argue that] the Mahāyāna doctrinal approach requires being perfumed and brought forth by active manifestations, so that newly perfumed seeds have strong efficacy and definitively induce a fruit, which is what is called 'increase'; and further down to saying: 'Now positing that seeds increase at each moment and stage without being brought forth by perfuming—how is this not contrary to the Mahāyāna scriptures?' This is unreasonable. It is not our definitive position to say that the substance of the seeds increases thought-moment by thought-moment; this was a provisional exposition, as already clarified above. If the functional capacity of the precepts were entirely due to increase through perfuming and definitively inducing a fruit, then once the precepts are relinquished, they should not induce a fruit, because their functional capacity has been relinquished. If the functional capacity were not relinquished, then at death and the like one would still possess the discipline, and it could not be called relinquishing the precepts, because the functional capacity would still exist. Therefore, through the arousal of the pledge, active volition perfumes and forms seeds; when the motion and so forth are completed, upon those seeds, through the power of the pledge, evil is blocked and prevented, and the functional capacity of the avijñapti doubles and increases. Through this, volition is made to have the function of inducing a fruit, and its functional capacity is definitive; it is not that the provisional avijñapti itself can induce a fruit. Hence the treatise below says: 'Provisional dharmas are like nonexistence, because they are not causal conditions.' Once the precepts are relinquished, one follows the old state, the efficacy wanes and ceases, because the pledge has ended. And when the fifty-fourth fascicle [of the Yogācārabhūmi] says: 'Because the volition of non-discipline manifests again and again, demerit constantly increases'—this speaks of the courses of karma, because from the initial pledge one only obtains the avijñapti of non-discipline, not yet having completed the course of karma. Furthermore, because prātimokṣa avijñapti is brought forth by reception, it is obtained when the ritual dharma is concluded; non-discipline is not received, but must be actively performed before it is obtained. Therefore, it is said that because the volition of non-discipline manifests again and again, demerit increases; discipline and non-discipline are different. There is also another explanation, as analyzed in the Great Master's 'Chapter on Vijñapti and Avijñapti'. In the Karmasiddhi-prakaraṇa it says: 'It is the seeds perfumed by the differentiation of volition; that is, from this point on, they are produced without being performed as causes.' 'Produced without being performed as causes' is precisely this functional capacity. Even if other [texts] speak of seeds, they subsume the provisional under the real; hence there is no contradiction.