成唯識論了義燈 3.55

3.55

《論》：此識因相雖有多種，十因幾因，如《樞要》辨非聲性故非隨說因，是現行故非牽引生起，若種因相八，除隨說及相違因，種非聲故，是無記故六因之中能作幾因雖《顯揚論》破破薩婆多，離第八識餘現等法非因緣故。《雜集論》中，依第八識持諸法種，說有六因皆因緣性，且現行識望彼諸法為能作因，能作因寬。又對法云：依因自性建立能作因故，當知一切因皆能作因所攝，雖現行識非諸法種，據能持種說為因相，《攝大乘》云：因相者，謂即如是一切種子阿賴耶識，於一切時與彼雜染品類諸法現前為因，此雖說現識，亦得攝用歸體名因，望七轉識既同生滅即俱有因，望自心所即相應因。故《攝論》云：俱有因者，即阿賴耶與諸轉識，若離如是俱有因攝內外種子阿賴耶識，所餘因緣定不可得。問：俱有相應二因何別？答：俱有通七識，相應自心所，若自心所俱時而生，為俱有因。所緣體等，即相應因。望自後念即同類因，通生諸法即遍行因。故無性云：因相即是增盛作用，熏習功能能為因性，現前能生雜染法故。若薩婆多，但說苦下五見疑癡，集諦下四二見疑癡，除三見故，此能遍生五門雜染，名為遍因，雜集通說四諦諸惑能為遍因，故《雜集》云：此遍行因非唯令相似煩惱增長，所以者何？若有隨習貪等煩惱，皆令嗔等一切煩惱相續增長堅固等無性《攝論》即通說一切。故彼《論》云：即異門說阿賴耶識同類遍行異熟三因，若離任持熏習因性不相應故，既說賴耶由能任持熏習因性為三因性即任持習氣，不別說染故通諸法，或雖總言意但取染，亦得望後自異熟識為異熟因，即此前引《攝論》為證若據剋性體用別論，現識望餘但能作因，是增上故，若種因相為六因性，能作因通俱有因者種生於現，既與果俱名俱有因。下云：如俱有因者自俱有因，如薩婆多通持業依主相應因者，但依主釋種子前後自類相生即同類因。下云：如同類者義同前會，諸名言種生於現行亦同類因，種子現行性皆同故故。下《論》云：因果俱是善等性故亦名善等，《雜集論》云：謂由彼長養諸種子故，於未來世即彼種類增勝而生。乃至云：立同類因遍行因者，自種望餘非因緣性，俱為增上由隨轉故假說因緣，異熟因性亦復如是，或可能與遍行為因，以現貪等緣餘嗔等熏種生彼名遍行因種是此因亦名遍行因如似生因因故亦名生因，異熟因亦爾，現行善等為方便因，能感異熟名異熟因，種子能與此異熟因為因亦名異熟因，或能有異熟立異熟名，與此為因名異熟因，現行善等是能有異熟。然《雜集論》舉果顯彼，能有異熟云：能攝受自體故，即是異熟因，名與小同，義意有別又此三相文義意殊。准《樞要》中一云：此論三相唯現，然曾聞釋三相俱通種現二法，且對他宗舉顯勝者，又據前總標此中且說我愛執藏持雜染種能變果識，名為異熟以辨三相，故但說現，理實俱通以為了義因果分別云：在因具三相，佛果唯二無其果相，非異熟故者若爾自相亦應非有，以攝因果而為自相，既無果相，攝何為自？答：從舊因生為果，攝諸法種為因，包此二種名攝二相若爾自相中果相，應與果相別？答：果相據勝顯，簡他但異熟，自相談其體，果非唯異熟。但云：與雜染法互為緣故，由他能熏第八識起，亦即果故。或但攝因以體，能持諸法種子，即體攝用而為自相，若親因生即是自相，若離因生無自相故，望他業感方名為果，故佛位無。故《攝論》云：果相者謂即依彼雜染品法，無始時來所有熏習，阿賴耶識相續而生，此論復說異熟為果若爾因相佛位亦無。《攝論》說云：因相者，乃至阿賴耶識，於一切時與彼雜染品類諸法現前為因，復云：聞熏非賴耶攝？答：《攝論》據染，此論即通，但此能持諸法種子，不但雜染。下文又云：一切種相應更分別，通一切故，《攝論》但以種為因相者，性用別論，親生諸法，現行不爾，餘准可知。

[The Śāstra says:] Although the causal characteristic of this consciousness has many kinds, as to which causes among the ten causes [it constitutes], as analyzed in the Shunyao: because it is not of the nature of sound, it is not a conventional cause; because it is an actual active dharmas, it is not an impelling or producing cause. If it is the causal characteristic of seeds, there are eight causes, excluding the conventional and contradictory causes, because seeds are not sound and because they are indeterminate. Among the six causes, which causes can it constitute? Although the Prakaraṇāryavācā Śāstra refutes the Sarvāstivādins—because apart from the eighth consciousness other active dharmas and the like are not root causes—the Abhidharmasamuccaya, relying on the eighth consciousness holding the seeds of all dharmas, states that there are six causes, all of which are causal conditions. First, the active consciousness is an acting cause with respect to those dharmas, for the acting cause is broad. Furthermore, the Abhidharma says that because the acting cause is established on the basis of the intrinsic nature of cause, it should be understood that all causes are subsumed under the acting cause. Although the active consciousness is not the seeds of all dharmas, based on its ability to hold seeds it is spoken of as having a causal characteristic. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "As for the causal characteristic, it refers to this very all-seed ālayavijñāna serving at all times as a present cause for all dharmas of the defiled class." Although this speaks of the active consciousness, its function may also be gathered back into its substance to call it a cause. In relation to the seven evolving consciousnesses, since they arise and cease together, it is a co-existent cause. In relation to its own mental factors, it is an associated cause. Therefore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "As for the co-existent cause, it is the ālaya together with the evolving consciousnesses. If one were separated from this ālayavijñāna which encompasses internal and external seeds as a co-existent cause, any remaining causal condition would certainly be impossible to obtain." Question: What is the distinction between the two causes, co-existent and associated? Answer: Co-existent extends to the seven consciousnesses, while associated pertains to its own mental factors. If its own mental factors arise at the same time, it is a co-existent cause; having the same object, substance, and so forth, it is an associated cause. In relation to its own subsequent moments, it is an equal-status cause. Producing all dharmas comprehensively, it is a universal cause. Hence Asvabhāva says: "The causal characteristic is its heightened activity; the capacity of perfuming is able to serve as the nature of a cause, because it actively produces defiled dharmas in the present." If one follows the Sarvāstivādins, they only speak of the five views, doubt, and delusion under suffering, and the four [views, i.e.] two views, doubt, and delusion under the truth of arising, excluding three views; these are able universally to produce defilements of the five gates, and are named universal causes. The Samuccaya broadly explains that all afflictions of the four truths are able to serve as universal causes; hence the Samuccaya says: "This universal cause does not merely cause similar afflictions to increase. Why is that? Because if there is habituation in afflictions such as greed, it causes all afflictions such as anger to increase continuously and become firm, and so forth." Asvabhāva's commentary on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha then speaks broadly of all. Thus that treatise says: "By alternative designations, the ālayavijñāna is spoken of as the three causes: equal-status, universal, and maturation, because apart from sustaining the causal nature of perfuming, it would not be tenable." Since it says that the ālaya constitutes the nature of the three causes through its ability to sustain the causal nature of perfuming, it sustains habituated residues and does not specifically speak of defilement, hence it extends to all dharmas. Alternatively, although spoken of generally, the intent is only to take defilement; it can also serve as the cause of maturation with respect to the subsequent consciousness of its own maturation, for which the previously cited Mahāyānasaṃgraha serves as proof. If analyzed strictly by distinguishing substance and function, the active consciousness with respect to others is merely an acting cause, because it is an auxiliary condition. If the causal characteristic of seeds constitutes the nature of the six causes: the acting cause is pervasive. As for the co-existent cause: seeds produce active dharmas; since they exist simultaneously with the result, they are called a co-existent cause. When it says below: "like a co-existent cause," this means their own co-existent cause; as in the Sarvāstivāda, it is interpreted as both karmadhāraya and tatpuruṣa. As for the associated cause: it is only interpreted as tatpuruṣa. The mutual production of seeds before and after of their own category is an equal-status cause. When it says below: "like equal-status," the meaning is the same as the previous reconciliation. Various conventional-designation seeds producing active dharmas are also an equal-status cause, because the natures of seeds and active dharmas are both the same. Hence the Śāstra below says: "Because cause and effect are both of the nature of goodness, etc., they are also called good, etc." The Abhidharmasamuccaya says: "That is to say, because of its nourishing of the seeds, in a future life that very kind arises with increased superiority," and so on, up to saying: "establishes the equal-status cause." As for the universal cause: its own seeds with respect to others are not of the nature of a causal condition; both are auxiliary conditions, and by being conformant are metaphorically called causal conditions. The nature of the maturation cause is also like this. Or, it may serve as a cause for the universal: because present greed and the like take other [afflictions such as] anger as objects and perfume seeds to produce them, they are called universal causes; seeds being the cause of this are also called universal causes, just as a cause of a productive cause is also called a productive cause. The maturation cause is also like this: active good and the like serve as expedient causes capable of inducing maturation, so they are called maturation causes; seeds being able to serve as a cause for this maturation cause are also called maturation causes. Or, possessing maturation, the name 'maturation' is established; being a cause for this, it is called a maturation cause—active good and the like possess maturation. However, the Abhidharmasamuccaya presents the result to reveal the possessor of maturation, saying: "Because it is able to gather and accept the physical body, it is the maturation cause." The name is the same as the Hīnayāna, but the intended meaning is different. Moreover, the text and meaning of these three characteristics have different intents. According to the Shunyao, one interpretation is: the three characteristics in this treatise are exclusively active; however, I have heard an explanation that the three characteristics all extend to both seeds and active dharmas. It primarily highlights what is predominant against other schools; furthermore, relying on the previous general introduction, here it tentatively speaks of the consciousness that is grasped and held as a self through self-love, holds defiled seeds, and is the transformed resultant consciousness, naming it 'maturation' to distinguish the three characteristics; therefore, it only speaks of the active, whereas in truth and reality it extends to both, which is taken as the definitive meaning. In distinguishing cause and effect: it is said that in the causal state all three characteristics are complete, whereas in the Buddha-fruit there are only two, lacking the resultant characteristic because it is not maturation. If so, the intrinsic characteristic should also not exist, because it gathers cause and effect to form the intrinsic characteristic: since there is no resultant characteristic, what does it gather to form the self? Answer: Arising from past causes is the effect; gathering the seeds of all dharmas is the cause; encompassing these two kinds is called gathering the two characteristics. If so, should the resultant characteristic within the intrinsic characteristic be different from the resultant characteristic? Answer: The resultant characteristic is based on what is prominent and manifest, distinguished from others as merely maturation; the intrinsic characteristic discusses its substance, and the effect is not solely maturation. It merely says: "Because it serves as mutual conditions with defiled dharmas, the eighth consciousness arises through the perfuming of others, which is also an effect." Or, it simply gathers the cause: taking the substance's ability to hold the seeds of all dharmas, it gathers function into substance to form the intrinsic characteristic. If it is produced directly by cause, that is the intrinsic characteristic, for without arising from cause there would be no intrinsic characteristic. Only in relation to the karmic retribution of others is it called an effect, hence it does not exist in the Buddha-stage. Thus the Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "As for the resultant characteristic, it refers to the continuous arising of the ālayavijñāna based on all the perfumings of defiled dharmas since beginningless time." This treatise also explains maturation as the effect. If so, the causal characteristic would also not exist in the Buddha-stage. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "As for the causal characteristic, up to: the ālayavijñāna serving at all times as a present cause for all dharmas of the defiled class," and further says: "hearing-perfuming is not subsumed under the ālaya." Answer: The Mahāyānasaṃgraha relies on defilement, whereas this treatise is general; it is just that this [consciousness] holds the seeds of all dharmas, not only defilement. The text below also says: "The characteristic of all seeds should be further distinguished," because it extends to all. When the Mahāyānasaṃgraha only takes seeds as the causal characteristic, this is discussing nature and function distinctly: directly producing all dharmas; active dharmas do not do this. The rest can be inferred accordingly.