[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [成唯識論了義燈](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832) › 3.71 # 成唯識論了義燈 3.71 成唯識論了義燈 3.71 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.71](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.71) 能熏義中，二有勝用。西明云：業感異熟心心所等，護法無異分別。門人分成兩釋：一云業感定不能熏，唯法爾起，必用業助。若依此說，異熟心心所等，取六識滿業所感心心所等。一云業感有二：強者能熏，劣即不熏。若依此說，等取劣者。三藏意取，後解為勝。又云初釋不許影像熏本質種。今謂此說俱不應理。何者？初釋本質非影熏成，轉識不應與阿賴耶為因緣性，違護法釋。第二解若是業，招名為異熟，雖復引、漏二果有別，為業引同，俱名異熟，並不能熏，俱異熟故。論不簡故，無文證故，俱是滿果，何獨等劣，應勝劣俱等。若非業引，但分別生，即是能熏，性非異熟，是異熟生。異熟生寬，業非業感，俱異熟生。此簡異熟，是業感者。性微劣故，不是能熏。不假業力強分別起者。此異熟生，及威儀工巧，非業引者，亦能熏攝。 > Regarding the meaning of 'capable of perfuming' (能熏), the second \[condition\] is 'having superior activity' (有勝用). Ximing says: As for the mind and mental factors of karmically induced fruition (vipāka), Dharmapāla made no distinction. His disciples are divided into two interpretations: One says that what is karmically induced definitely cannot perfume; it only arises by nature, necessarily assisted by karma. If relying on this explanation, the fruition mind and mental factors, etc., refer to the mind and mental factors induced by completing karma in the six consciousnesses. The second says that there are two kinds of karmically induced \[states\]: the strong can perfume, whereas the inferior do not perfume. If relying on this explanation, 'etc.' includes the inferior ones. The Tripiṭaka Master's intention took the latter explanation to be superior. \[Ximing\] also says that the first interpretation does not allow the reflex image (nimittabhāga) to perfume the seed of the archetype (bimbabhāga). Now I say: Neither of these statements is reasonable. Why so? According to the first interpretation, the archetype is not perfumed and produced by the reflex image, so the transforming consciousnesses could not serve as the hetupratyaya (causal condition) for the ālayavijñāna, which contradicts Dharmapāla's explanation. As for the second interpretation, if it is karma-induced, it is called vipāka; although the two fruits—projected (leading) and completing—are distinct, because they are equally projected by karma, both are called vipāka, and neither can perfume, since both are vipāka. Because the treatise does not distinguish them, and because there is no textual evidence, and since both are completing fruition, why should 'etc.' only include the inferior? It ought to include both superior and inferior. If it is not karma-projected, but simply arises through discrimination, then it is capable of perfuming; its nature is not vipāka, but rather born-of-fruition (vipākaja). Born-of-fruition is broader: whether induced by karma or not, both are born-of-fruition. Here the exclusion of vipāka applies to that which is karmically induced: because its nature is weak and inferior, it is not capable of perfuming. That which does not depend on karmic force but arises through strong discrimination—this born-of-fruition, as well as deportment and technical craft, when not projected by karma—is also subsumed under what is capable of perfuming. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.70](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.70) - [Next: 3.72](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.72) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.3.71) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.71](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.3.71) · Pramāṇa