成唯識論了義燈 6.28

6.28

《論》：「習氣依處」等者。西明自問：准菩薩地，依牽引因引二涅槃，如何此論下得果中不得離繫？此論種子對有為果故，五果中除牽引、生起，不能親證離繫果故。此解不爾，今謂若約能引即取種子，菩薩地是若據能證，即除種子，此論文是非此論中，唯望有為，但種、現殊，引證有別，各據一義，故不相違。又問：云：《瑜伽》第五說業種子為牽引因，名言種子為生起因，如何此中約潤、未潤，開為二因。解云：又此二因通諸種子，如此論說。然尋伺地就相顯說，以業對疎故名牽引，名言生果親名生起。此牽引、生起多義不同。或有處說近遠相對二因門，如《雜集》第四，無明望老死為引，無明望行為生故。或有處說名言、業種為二因門，如尋伺地，彼論云：依習氣依處，由淨、不淨業等牽引自體。乃至廣說，有潤種子依處，三界繫法各從種生，名生起因，《顯揚》同此。今謂此文亦兼未潤、已潤名為引、生，於生說潤顯引未潤，不唯業種與名言對。故二論云：愛為能潤，種為所潤。故引經云：「業為感生因，愛為生起因。」或有處說種子能生異類、自類二因門，如菩薩地雜染中說，於現法中無明等法，所有已生、已長種子。今此種子望於餘生，生老死等為牽引因，無明等法，各別種子名生起因。今謂此中，亦約遠近，已生、已長故近，望於餘生，生老死等，即是望遠。故無記因中云：由各別自種子，種種稼穡差別，而生為牽引因，即彼種子，望所生芽，名生起因。又云：一切種子望後自果，名牽引因，望初自果名生起因，非必異類。或有處說種對涅槃、菩提分法二因門，如菩薩地清淨因中說云，今謂此中亦兼未熟及已熟，位名為引、生，說攝受因親近善士，聽聞正法，諸根成熟，名攝受因，次說生起故由成熟。

Regarding the treatise's phrase "the basis of vāsanā" and so forth: Ximing asks himself: In accordance with the *Bodhisattvabhūmi*, relying on the lead-in cause (kāraṇa-hetu) one leads to the two nirvāṇas; why then, below in this treatise, in the section on obtaining fruits, does it not obtain the fruit of disconnection (visaṃyoga-phala)? [His answer was:] Because in this treatise seeds are contrasted with conditioned fruits, among the five fruits the lead-in [cause] and generating [cause] are excluded, for they cannot directly realize the fruit of disconnection. This explanation is not so. I now say: If considered in terms of being able to lead to it, one takes the seeds—this is [the perspective of] the *Bodhisattvabhūmi*. If considered in terms of being able to directly realize it, one excludes seeds—this is the correct reading of the present treatise. It is not that this treatise looks only toward the conditioned; it is simply that seeds and actual occurrences differ, and leading-to and realizing are distinct. Each relies on one perspective, so they do not contradict each other. He further asks: "The fifth fascicle of the *Yogācārabhūmi* states that karmic seeds are the lead-in cause and name-and-concept seeds are the generating cause; why here are they divided into the two causes based on being moistened and unmoistened?" He explains: "Moreover, these two causes are common to all seeds, as stated in this treatise. However, the *Vitarkavicārabhūmi* speaks according to obvious characteristics: because karma relates more distantly [to the fruit], it is called the lead-in [cause], whereas name-and-concept [seeds] produce the fruit directly, so they are called the generating [cause]." These lead-in and generating causes have many different meanings. In some places, it speaks of the two causes in contrast as proximate and distant, as in the fourth fascicle of the *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā*, where ignorance is the lead-in [cause] with respect to old age and death, and ignorance is the generating [cause] with respect to formations (saṃskāra). Or in some places, it speaks of name-and-concept seeds and karmic seeds as the two causal modes, as in the *Vitarkavicārabhūmi*, where that treatise says: "Relying on the basis of vāsanā, through pure and impure karma, one's self-body is led-in..." up to the extensive explanation that "the basis of moistened seeds, the factors bound to the three realms each arising from its seed, is called the generating cause." The *Prakaraṇāryavācā* is the same as this. I now say: this passage also combines the unmoistened and moistened to designate the lead-in and generating [causes]; speaking of "moistened" in the case of generating reveals that the lead-in is unmoistened, not merely that karmic seeds are contrasted with name-and-concept seeds. Therefore, the two treatises say: craving is that which can moisten, and seeds are that which are moistened. Thus a sūtra is quoted: "Karma is the cause that induces birth, and craving is the generating cause." Or in some places, it speaks of the two causal modes of seeds being able to produce heterogeneous and homogeneous [fruits], as in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* under the section on defilement, which states that among phenomena such as ignorance in the present life, all those seeds that have already arisen and grown—these seeds, with respect to future lives, in giving rise to old age and death and so forth, are the lead-in cause, whereas the separate seeds of phenomena such as ignorance are called the generating cause. I now say: here it is also based on distant and proximate; having already arisen and grown, it is proximate, whereas looking toward future lives, in giving rise to old age and death and so forth, it is distant. Therefore, in the section on indeterminate causes, it states: "From their distinct individual seeds, various different crops are produced—this is the lead-in cause; those very seeds, with respect to the sprout produced, are called the generating cause." It also says: "All seeds, with respect to their subsequent own-fruits, are the lead-in cause; with respect to their initial own-fruit, they are the generating cause." It is not necessarily heterogeneous. Or in some places, it speaks of the two causal modes of seeds with respect to nirvāṇa and the factors conducive to awakening, as stated in the section on pure causes in the *Bodhisattvabhūmi*. I now say: here it also combines the immature and mature states to designate the lead-in and generating [causes]. It states that the supportive cause (parigraha-hetu) is associating with good friends, hearing the true Dharma, and the maturing of one's faculties—these are called the supportive cause; next it speaks of generating, which is due to maturity.