成唯識論了義燈 3.66

3.66

《論》：二果俱有至俱現和合。本疏三義名現。西明云：種與現行果俱在現在，故名為現。有解二義：現在、現有，破初顯現，破次非有。次非有者，西明說中，不簡假法，假法非有，云現有破。未詳決云，唯簡第七，狹而無文，亦破初說。有云二義：一、種、果俱現在；二、俱在現在，一身和合。　《要集》云：有釋、有云於理為勝。今謂有釋，不簡假法，如有解破。若云護法宗，假法如無非因緣故，不相應行假，實門簡故，此不遮。亦應常法及諸轉識不須遮簡。出體門中，簡轉識訖，四分門中，顯是相分。常法轉識，非第八相，此何須簡？云親生自果，即引自果。既云及所生果，不一不異，即與果俱，後何須簡？故諸門中，具義多少，亦須簡假。又云：簡無性第七，諸七轉識有力能熏，皆成種果，亦不顯現，應此中簡。其義等故，如何留在第三方簡？故於此中，但簡前後，若種若現。及他相離，無和合者。此亦不得疏之本意，以無性人，第七恒轉，亦具七義，但種果沈隱，以此簡之。餘非恒轉，故後門簡。

The treatise: "Second: existing simultaneously with the fruit... up to... existing simultaneously in a harmonious union." The basic commentary gives three meanings for the term "manifest/present" (xian). Ximing states: "The seed and the active fruit both exist in the present (xianzai); hence it is termed 'present/manifest'." One interpretation offers two meanings: "present" (xianzai) and "actual existence" (xianyou); the former refutes initial appearance, while the latter refutes non-existence. Regarding this second refutation of non-existence: in Ximing's explanation, fictitious dharmas (prajñapti-dharmas) were not excluded, and since fictitious dharmas lack real existence, he states that "actual existence" refutes them. Without examining thoroughly, some say this solely excludes the seventh consciousness, which is narrow and lacks textual basis, also refuting the first explanation. Another says there are two meanings: first, seed and fruit are both present; second, both being in the present, they form a harmonious union in one and the same person. The Yaoji states: "A certain explanation and a certain [other] view are logically superior." Now I say that that certain explanation does not exclude fictitious dharmas, just as the other interpretation refutes. If one says that according to Dharmapāla's tradition fictitious dharmas are like non-existents and cannot be hetupratyaya, and that fictitious dharmas among the non-associated conditioning forces (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) are already excluded in the section on real entities, so they are not rejected here; then permanent dharmas and the transforming consciousnesses (pravṛtti-vijñāna) would likewise not need to be excluded. In the section defining the essential nature, the transforming consciousnesses have already been excluded; in the section on the four divisions (caturbhāga), it was revealed that they are the objective aspect (nimittabhāga). Since permanent dharmas and transforming consciousnesses are not the objective aspect of the eighth consciousness, why would they need to be excluded here? If one says "directly producing its own fruit" refers to drawing forth its own fruit, and since it already states "as well as the fruit produced are neither identical nor different," that already means being simultaneous with the fruit—why would they need to be excluded subsequently? Therefore, throughout the various sections, depending on how many meanings are provided, fictitious dharmas must also be excluded. Furthermore, it is said: "Excluding the seventh consciousness of those lacking nature: the various seven transforming consciousnesses possess the capacity to perfume, and all become seeds and fruits, yet they are not manifest, so they should be excluded here. Since their meaning is equivalent, why would they be reserved for exclusion only in the third section? Therefore, here one only excludes what is prior and posterior, whether seed or active, as well as what is separated in another [stream of existence] without harmonious union." This also fails to grasp the original intention of the commentary. For a person of no-nature (apratisiddha-gotra/agotraka), the seventh consciousness continuously revolves and also possesses the seven meanings; it is only because its seeds and fruits are submerged and hidden that it is excluded here. The others do not continuously revolve, and hence are excluded in subsequent sections.