成唯識論了義燈 3.65

3.65

《論》：然諸種子略有六種者，准《瑜伽》第五種子七義，何故二論多少不同？答：開合有異，如《樞要》辨，今更助釋。第三、第五、第三云：又雖與他性為因，及與後念自性為因，然已生未滅方能為因，非未生已滅，即此第二果俱有義。此言俱有為因為果俱是現有，瑜伽簡他未生已滅為因之者故開為二，此論據因同時為一，故云雖因與果有俱不俱，而現在時可有因用第五又雖得餘緣。然成變異，方能為因，非未變異，亦此第五，彼約得緣熟未熟別，未熟非種，是種類故，開之為二，此待緣同故合為一，故此云自眾緣合功能殊勝，殊勝即變異。西明釋云：彼第三相成前俱有隨轉，第五變異成待眾緣今疑所以，餘何不成獨成二耶？又若成前更無別義，何故《瑜伽》云又建立因有七種相？故應思擇，一無常法是因。本疏云：亦簡真如受熏為種。《要集》云：如雖受熏不為法因，但所持種為法因故此不識意。《攝論》云：此中攝持種子相應，謂有生法俱生俱滅故成熏習。如是熏習攝持種子，應正道理。真如常法不是持種，故非法因，又下受熏，遮無為故。

Regarding the treatise statement: "However, seeds have roughly six characteristics": according to Yogācāra fascicle five, there are seven characteristics of seeds; why do the two treatises differ in number? Answer: There are differences in unpacking and combining, as analyzed in the Shunyao; I now provide supplementary explanation. The third and fifth: The third says, 'Furthermore, although it is a cause for another nature, and a cause for its own nature in a subsequent moment, only when it has already arisen and not yet perished is it able to be a cause, not when unarisen or already perished'—this is the second characteristic here, 'simultaneous with the result' (phala-sahabhū). Saying here that co-existing as a cause and as a result are both presently existent: Yogācāra unpacked it into two to exclude others who take what is unarisen or already perished as a cause; this treatise, based on cause being simultaneous, combines them into one, hence it says: 'Although cause and result may be simultaneous or non-simultaneous, only in the present moment can causal efficacy exist.' The fifth says: 'Furthermore, although it obtains other conditions, only when a transformation is completed is it able to be a cause, not when untransformed'—this is also the fifth here. That text distinguishes between having obtained conditions that are matured or unmatured, where the unmatured is not a seed but a continuum of type, unpacking them into two; this treatise combines them into one because their awaiting conditions is the same, hence it says here: 'its own assembled conditions being conjoined, its capacity is superior,' where 'superior' means transformed. The master of Ximing explains: 'The third characteristic there establishes the preceding co-existence and continuous conforming, while the fifth, transformation, establishes awaiting assembled conditions.' Now one may wonder about the reason: why would they not establish the others, but only establish these two? Furthermore, if they merely established the preceding without any distinct meaning, why does Yogācāra state: 'Furthermore, the establishment of causes has seven characteristics'? Therefore, one should deliberate. 'First, impermanent dharmas are causes.' The Basic Commentary says: 'This also excludes tathatā receiving perfuming to become a seed.' The Yaoji says: 'Although tathatā receives perfuming, it does not act as a cause for dharmas, but only the held seeds act as causes for dharmas'—this fails to understand the meaning. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: 'Here, the association of holding seeds means that conditioned dharmas arise together and cease together, thereby accomplishing perfuming. Such perfuming holding seeds accords with correct principle.' Tathatā is a permanent dharma and does not hold seeds, so it is not a cause for dharmas; furthermore, below, receiving perfuming excludes unconditioned dharmas.