[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) › 4.12 # 成唯識論了義燈 4.12 成唯識論了義燈 4.12 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.12) 《論》：「觀現在法」等。西明云：觀現在種法有引後用，於因上假立當果，對說現因。今謂不爾，何者云：於現在種因之上，假立當果。為觀現因名作當果。為觀現因能有所引，名為當果。若觀現因名為當果，果因無別　又《論》云：「假謂現識似彼相現。」若觀引後用，說彼所引，名為當果。即不依於現因之上，假立當果。所引非因，但是依識變作未來，假名當果，依現立當故是假立。又解云：現識者，即種子識。有似酬前引後相，故說之為似，即託此相，而假說曾、當，非觀心上變。此亦不爾，何者前觀現在法等，後言假謂現識似彼相現。若非依此觀心，現識之上有似曾、當相現，種子之上何能似有。然當兩重因果，文顯可知。 > The Treatise says: 'contemplating present phenomena' and so forth. Ximing says: contemplating that the present seed phenomena have the function of leading to what follows, one nominally designates a future result on the cause, and in contrast speaks of the present cause. Now I say this is not so. Why? When one says: 'on the present seed-cause, one nominally designates a future result,' is one contemplating the present cause and calling it the future result, or is one contemplating that the present cause is able to lead to something and calling that the future result? If one contemplates the present cause and calls it the future result, then result and cause would have no distinction. Furthermore, the Treatise says: 'Nominal means that the present consciousness appears resembling that form.' If one contemplates the function of leading to what follows and speaks of that which is led forth, calling it the future result, then one is not nominally designating the future result on the present cause. That which is led forth is not the cause; it is simply that, relying on consciousness, it transforms into the future, and is nominally called the future result; being established as future on the basis of the present, it is therefore a nominal designation. Another explanation says: 'present consciousness' refers to the seed-consciousness. Since it has an aspect resembling the repayment of the previous and the leading forth of the subsequent, it is spoken of as 'resembling'; thus, relying on this aspect, one nominally speaks of past and future, and it is not a transformation upon the contemplating mind. This is also not so. Why? The previous text speaks of 'contemplating present phenomena' and so forth, and the subsequent text says 'nominal means that the present consciousness appears resembling that form.' If it were not relying on this contemplating mind, so that on the present consciousness an aspect resembling past and future appears, how could there resemble being such on seeds? However, the two tiers of cause and effect are clear in the text and can be known. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.11) - [Next: 4.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.13) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832~en-mt.4.12) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1832.4.12) · Pramāṇa