成唯識論了義燈 3.58

3.58

《論》：如炷與焰，展轉生燒等者，初喻三法，後喻因果，俱喻因緣，西明釋云：三法喻能生因，後喻依持。因《要集》云：無性釋意，燈喻互為因緣生緣，束蘆喻更互依持令住不倒，亦順《瑜伽》五十一文，彼彼明建立緣性及俱轉相故。今謂無性蘆喻依持，此喻俱有因，故頌前問，若唯本有，轉識不應與阿賴耶為因緣性。釋頌復云：於一切時展轉相生互為因果結，云唯依此二建立因緣。又下云：三法展轉因果俱時，如炷生焰焰生焳炷，亦如束蘆更互相依，因果俱時，理不傾動。又云能熏生種種起現行，如俱有因，故雖云相依，意取俱時喻於因果，簡他前後，為因緣性，不以相依之言，證依持因。又解無性亦證因緣同時不倒，簡餘持種以為因緣，別時因緣皆悉顛倒。故彼《論》云：又如束蘆，互相依持，同時不倒，應觀此中，更互為因，道理亦爾，不言依持，《瑜伽論》中識俱轉相，別復次明，非互為緣，同處而辨。

Regarding the treatise statement: "Like the wick and the flame, which mutually produce and burn each other, and so forth": the first metaphor refers to the triad of dharmas, while the second metaphor refers to cause and effect, both serving as metaphors for direct cause (hetu-pratyaya). The master of Ximing explains: "The metaphor of the triad of dharmas illustrates the generative cause, while the latter illustrates support and maintenance." The Yaoji states: "As for the meaning of Asvabhāva's explanation: the lamp metaphor illustrates the productive condition of mutual direct causes, whereas the metaphor of the bundle of reeds illustrates mutual reliance and support causing them to stand and not collapse. This also accords with the text in Yogācāra fascicle fifty-one, for there it explains the establishment of conditionality and the characteristic of co-arising." I now maintain: Asvabhāva used the reed metaphor for support and maintenance, illustrating the co-existent cause (sahabhū-hetu). Hence, the question prior to the verse asks: 'If [seeds] were only naturally present, the transforming consciousnesses could not serve as the nature of direct cause for the ālaya.' In explaining the verse, it also says: 'At all times they mutually produce each other and are mutually cause and effect,' concluding: 'Only relying on these two is direct cause established.' Furthermore, below it says: 'The triad of dharmas mutually operate as cause and effect simultaneously, just as the wick produces the flame and the flame scorches the wick, and also like a bundle of reeds that mutually lean upon each other: cause and effect being simultaneous, the principle stands unshaken.' It also says: 'The actively perfuming produces the seed, and the seed arises as active manifestation, like a co-existent cause.' Therefore, although it speaks of 'mutual reliance,' the intention is to take simultaneity to illustrate cause and effect, excluding other views of before and after acting as the nature of direct cause; it does not use the words 'mutual reliance' to prove a supporting cause. As another explanation, Asvabhāva also proves that simultaneous direct causes do not collapse, excluding the view of others that merely sustaining seeds constitutes a direct cause, for direct causes at different times are completely mistaken. Hence his treatise says: 'Furthermore, like a bundle of reeds mutually supporting each other and not collapsing at the same time, one should observe that here, their mutually acting as causes follows the same principle.' It does not say 'support and maintenance.' In the Yogācārabhūmi, the characteristic of the simultaneous arising of consciousnesses is explained in an alternative formulation, not as their being conditions for each other, which is discussed in the same passage.