成唯識論了義燈 3.59

3.59

《論》：非熏令長可名因緣等者。本疏云。現業增果種　西明云。善惡業與異熟果應成因緣，能增長異熟果故。《要集》云：現業熏有支種，此種能增長現異熟果故，應是因緣。今謂不爾，阿賴耶識隨先業轉，種生現已，更若為增，若至現增，應至後念非剎那滅。又，生已方增，不見此理，若未生增，現無果故。故但增種令有力生現異熟果以為正義。然現善惡即增果種，非種增種，現以增故。若現不增，應非行支，唯種是支。既爾，何故說行支體通現種耶？又不應言於後法中，為彼得生攝殖彼種子，業種現在與現果力，何名後法？若言初，未與力後方與力名為後法，行應不與識等為緣，以未與力故；若許與力，何不生現者，理亦不然，愛未潤故，業未熟故，緣未具故。

Regarding the treatise statement: "It is not that perfuming and augmenting can be called a direct cause, and so forth": the Basic Commentary says that active karma augments the result's seeds. The master of Ximing says: "Wholesome and unwholesome karma ought to become direct causes for the maturation result, because they are able to augment the maturation result." The Yaoji says: "Active karma perfumes the seeds of the existence limb (bhava-aṅga), and because these seeds can augment the presently manifested maturation result, they ought to be direct causes." I now maintain that this is not so. The ālayavijñāna evolves according to prior karma; once the seed has already produced the active manifestation, how could it be further augmented? If the augmentation reached the active manifestation, it would have to extend into a subsequent moment and not be moment-by-moment perishable. Furthermore, that augmentation occurs only after something has already arisen—this principle is not found; and if it were augmented before arising, there would be no present result. Therefore, simply augmenting the seed so that it has the power to produce the present maturation result is taken as the orthodox meaning. However, present wholesome and unwholesome [actions] directly augment the result's seed; it is not that a seed augments a seed, because the augmentation is done by the active manifestation. If the active manifestation did not augment, it would not be the formation limb (saṃskāra-aṅga), and only the seed would be the limb. Since that is so, why is the essential nature of the formation limb said to comprise both active manifestation and seeds? Moreover, one should not say: 'in future states of existence, in order that it may be obtained and produced, they gather and plant its seeds'—if the karma-seed in the present gave power to the present result, how could it be called a 'future state of existence'? If one says that it is called a 'future state of existence' because it does not give power at first and only gives power later, then formations should not serve as conditions for consciousness and the rest, since they have not yet given power; and if one allows that they have given power, why do they not produce the active manifestation? That reasoning is also incorrect, because craving has not yet moistened them, karma has not yet matured, and conditions are not yet complete.