成唯識論了義燈 6.29

6.29

《論》攝受五等。問：何故諸論釋此十因，次第有別？此論牽、生後說攝受，菩薩地文攝受因後方釋能生。答：菩薩地文據生現次第，由有習氣諸緣攝受，方始能生，餘文即據體類次第。引、生同種未潤、潤別，故不相違。本釋云：助成因緣，名為攝受，故除因緣親能生，故《雜集論》云：雖自種生，能增彼力，名攝受因。西明釋云：能增彼力故者，是釋彼因義，非釋其名。今謂不爾，設解因義，取以釋名，斯有何過？如彼論解，隨說因云，隨起說故；觀待因云，欲生因故；牽引因云，招當有故；生起因云，生當有故；攝受因云，能增彼力故。若不以此釋因之義，解其因名，更何義釋？又復自云：攝受因者，諸論解名不同，《瑜伽》等論因能攝果，名攝受因。《雜集》餘因釋名皆同諸論，何獨攝受，但解因義？又《瑜伽》三十八云：因彼一切心及心所，前生開導所攝受故。所緣境界，所攝受故。方生、方轉故。攝受者即是增力，不爾如何方生、方轉。

Regarding the treatise's "supports five" and so forth: Question: Why do the various treatises differ in the order of explaining these ten causes? This treatise explains the supportive [cause] after the lead-in and generating [causes], whereas the text of the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* explains the producing [cause] only after the supportive cause. Answer: The text of the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* is based on the sequence of producing actual occurrences: only because there is the vāsanā supported by various conditions can it then produce; the other texts, on the other hand, are based on the sequence of substance and class. The lead-in and generating share the same seed, differing only as unmoistened and moistened, so they do not contradict each other. The primary commentary says: Assisting and fulfilling the direct cause (hetu-pratyaya) is called "support"; hence, excluding the direct cause, it can directly produce. Therefore, the *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā* says: "Although it arises from its own seed, that which can increase its power is called the supportive cause." Ximing explains: "The statement 'because it can increase its power' explains the meaning of that cause, not the name." I now say this is not so. If one explains the meaning of the cause and uses it to interpret the name, what fault is there in that? For instance, when that treatise explains the causes: the discursive cause (anuvyavahāra-hetu) is because it gives rise to discourse accordingly; the relative cause (apekṣā-hetu) is because it is the cause of desire to arise; the lead-in cause is because it invites future existence; the generating cause is because it generates future existence; the supportive cause is because it can increase its power. If one does not use this meaning of the cause to explain its name, by what other meaning could one explain it? Furthermore, he himself says: Regarding the supportive cause, the various treatises explain the name differently; treatises like the *Yogācārabhūmi* state that because the cause can support the fruit, it is called the supportive cause. For all other causes in the *Abhidharmasamuccayavyākhyā*, the explanation of the name matches the other treatises; why should it explain only the meaning of the cause for the supportive [cause] alone? Moreover, the thirty-eighth fascicle of the *Yogācārabhūmi* says: "Because all those minds and mental factors are supported by the preceding arising and leading [mental states], and supported by the objective sphere, they then arise and then operate." "Supporting" is precisely increasing power; otherwise, how could they "then arise and then operate"?