成唯識論了義燈 3.69

3.69

《論》：此種勢力等，此解生引通於內外，准二《攝論》皆亦同此，然世親論果有正、殘，因分生引。無性論文但云：若外種子親望於芽為能生因，傳望莖等為能引因，識望名色為能生因，傳望六處乃至老死為能引因，因雖分生引，果中不名殘正遠近。二論名即可同，但果取有寬狹，二論內外各別作法，此論總明，《雜集》但望十二緣生不說於外，與《瑜伽》第九第十同。第五但說雜染十因，菩薩地文即說三性十因，俱分生引，果中不云殘正遠近，廣略不同義皆無違，又《伽論》、《雜集》但於因中去果遠近分於生引，果中不說，此即影顯，又緣生支有總通現。《瑜伽》第十云：要先愚於所應知事即起邪行，起邪行令心顛倒，心顛倒結生相續，結生相續，諸根圓滿等，此即假說，非正緣起，故不於此別分生引然。有解云：本疏無性唯說正殘，違無性者是不尋疏。《要集》云：有說世親說近遠。無性云：正殘亦途聽耳。問：此生引因且緣生中為行支，是為亦通餘？答：既云能所引俱名為引因，復許通內外故不唯行。問：屍骸既許前生力引應通四生，化生何故不有屍骸？答：三生漸死，前生有力引遠殘果，化生頓滅，無力引果。問：若取老死而為引因，由頓滅故無力引果，此由生支而為引因，何關頓滅不引殘果？答：屍骸望生即為殘果，望於老死即為正果，故生望為引，老死望為生，三生有生引，死後有屍骸，化生闕能生，死後無屍骸。問：化生無老死，闕能生故無屍骸，雖化亦具支何得生因闕？答：老死位漸死，可能作生因，化生死頓無，不能作生因。問：《攝論》但云：若二種子唯作生因非引因者，收置倉等麥等種子不應久續，死後屍等分位隨轉亦不應有，此即一因義分生引，何故今說有引無生？答：《攝論》因望近遠果，一法分二因，瑜伽果望近遠因，兩因位有別，此亦互顯。今者此釋且據《瑜伽》。問：准依此《論》及《瑜伽》等，但說能所引以為引因，能生為生因，何處說生等，以為生引因？答：《論》中作法且舉一偶，義准展轉作亦無失，若定如《論》不應說別，又據增上支支皆緣，不爾如何生緣老死，既說生與老死為緣，為生為引，若非二攝，豈可二因攝因不盡？由此故知，漸次第作於理無爽，是故此《論》但總說云：此種勢力，生近正果，名生因等。不爾設據能所引因為引因，如何三生漸成？有力而為引因。問：何故《瑜伽》等約因位別分生引，《攝大乘》等據果位殊分生引？答：因有熟未熟，未熟遠引近即生，果中有正殘，近正稱生，殘遠名引，各據一義互相影顯。

The treatise: "The force of this seed, etc." This explanation of producing and drawing forth extends to both internal and external. Following the two Mahāyānasaṃgraha treatises, both are also like this. However, in Vasubandhu's treatise, fruits have primary and residue, and causes are divided into producing (janaka) and drawing forth (ākṣepaka). Guṇamati's treatise merely states: 'As for external seeds, directly relative to the sprout, they are producing causes; indirectly relative to the stalk and so forth, they are drawing-forth causes. Consciousness relative to name-and-form is a producing cause; indirectly relative to the six sense bases and up to old age and death, it is a drawing-forth cause.' Although causes are divided into producing and drawing forth, among fruits they are not designated residue, primary, distant, or proximate. The terminology of the two treatises can be harmonized, but the scope of their taking the fruit is broad or narrow. The two treatises treat the internal and external separately, whereas this treatise clarifies them collectively. The Abhidharmasamuccaya only considers the twelve links of dependent origination without speaking of the external, agreeing with Yogācārabhūmi fascicles 9 and 10. Fascicle 5 merely speaks of the ten causes of defilement; the Bodhisattvabhūmi text speaks of the ten causes across the three natures, both dividing producing and drawing forth without mentioning residue, primary, distant, or proximate in the fruit. These differences in breadth and brevity do not contradict the meaning. Furthermore, the Yogācārabhūmi and Abhidharmasamuccaya only divide producing and drawing forth in the cause according to its proximity or distance from the fruit, without stating it in the fruit; this is an implicit reflection. Moreover, the links of dependent origination collectively extend to present manifestations. Yogācārabhūmi, fascicle 10, states: 'One must first be ignorant regarding things that should be known, which immediately gives rise to perverse conduct; perverse conduct causes the mind to be inverted; the inverted mind causes rebirth to continue; when rebirth continues, the faculties are perfected, etc.' This is a metaphorical explanation, not direct dependent origination, and hence producing and drawing forth are not separately distinguished here. However, an interpretation states: 'The basic commentary's claim that Guṇamati only speaks of primary and residue contradicts Guṇamati's text; this is due to not examining the commentary.' The Yaoji states: 'Some say Vasubandhu speaks of proximate and distant, and Guṇamati says primary and residue; this too is mere hearsay.' Question: As for these producing and drawing-forth causes, within dependent origination are they only the link of formations (saṃskāra), or do they also extend to the rest? Answer: Since both that which draws forth and that which is drawn forth are called drawing-forth causes, and they are also permitted to extend to internal and external, they are not only formations. Question: Since corpses are accepted as being drawn forth by the power of the previous life, this should extend to all four forms of birth; why do apparitional births (upapāduka) not have corpses? Answer: In the three forms of birth, death is gradual, so the previous life has the power to draw forth distant, residue fruits. Apparitional birth ceases abruptly and lacks the power to draw forth a fruit. Question: If one takes old age and death as the drawing-forth cause, being an abrupt cessation it lacks the power to draw forth a fruit; but this is having the birth link as the drawing-forth cause—what does abrupt cessation have to do with not drawing forth a residue fruit? Answer: A corpse relative to birth is a residue fruit; relative to old age and death it is a primary fruit. Therefore, birth relative to it is drawing forth, and old age and death relative to it is producing. The three forms of birth have producing and drawing forth, and thus after death there is a corpse. Apparitional birth lacks the producing cause, so after death there is no corpse. Question: Apparitional birth lacks old age and death, and because it lacks the producing cause there is no corpse; but although apparitional, it still possesses all the links—how could it lack the producing cause? Answer: In the stage of old age and death, death is gradual, so it can act as a producing cause. In the death of an apparitional birth, it abruptly ceases to exist, so it cannot act as a producing cause. Question: The Mahāyānasaṃgraha merely says: 'If the two seeds only acted as producing causes and not drawing-forth causes, barley seeds and the like stored in granaries would not endure long, and the continuing phases of corpses and the like after death would also not exist.' This means that a single cause is conceptually divided into producing and drawing forth; why is it now said that there is drawing forth without producing? Answer: In the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, looking from the cause to proximate and distant fruits, a single dharma is divided into two causes; in the Yogācārabhūmi, looking from the fruit to proximate and distant causes, the positions of the two causes are distinct. These also implicitly illuminate each other. Now this explanation is based on the Yogācārabhūmi. Question: Following this treatise and the Yogācārabhūmi, etc., they only speak of that which draws forth and that which is drawn forth as drawing-forth causes, and that which produces as producing cause; where does it say that birth and the like are producing and drawing-forth causes? Answer: The method in the treatise merely presents one pair; deducing the meaning as applying successively is also without fault. If it were strictly as the treatise states, it should not speak of differences. Moreover, based on predominant conditions, every link is a condition; otherwise, how could birth condition old age and death? Since it says birth is a condition for old age and death, is it producing or drawing forth? If not subsumed under these two, how could the two causes fail to subsume all causes? From this we know that constructing them in gradual sequence is logically unassailable. Therefore, this treatise only speaks generally: 'The force of this seed producing proximate and primary fruits is called a producing cause, etc.' Otherwise, even if one takes that which draws forth and that which is drawn forth as drawing-forth causes, how could the three forms of birth gradually possess the power to act as drawing-forth causes? Question: Why do the Yogācārabhūmi and others divide producing and drawing forth based on differences in the causal state, while the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and others divide producing and drawing forth based on differences in the fruit state? Answer: In the cause, there is mature and immature: the immature distantly draws forth, while the proximate produces. In the fruit, there are primary and residue: the proximate and primary is termed produced, while the residue and distant is termed drawn forth. Each is based on one perspective, mutually and implicitly illuminating the other.