成唯識論了義燈 6.30

6.30

《論》引發因。本疏解云：必是同性，望後勝品，性論則狹，界論則寬。西明云：但顯隨同類，未必同性。《要集》釋云：有釋意者，三性種子，隨所依識，成無記性。雖性不同，然相順故能生善等。問：此言隨所依識，成無記性，雖性不同，然相順故能生善等者。為善種依識，名無記故，生現善法名相順，為生異性名相順。若生異性，違諸論說，若還生善，此即性同，如何得言未必性同？故前第二云，因果俱有善等性故，亦名善等。《要集》又云：如三性第六緣第八見，所現影像隨自見分，即通三性，而能熏成無記種子，此亦異性相順能生者。誰言此相定隨見性，若定隨見生無記果，非性決定，各引自果。若云六義彼說種子者，豈相熏彼見種，非親因緣耶？

Regarding the treatise's "initiating cause" (pravartaka-hetu): The primary commentary explains: It must be of the same nature (svabhāva); looking toward subsequent superior grades, in terms of nature it is narrower, but in terms of realm (dhātu) it is broader. Ximing says: It merely shows that it follows the same class, not necessarily the same nature. The *Yaoji* explains: A certain interpretation holds that the seeds of the three natures, in accordance with the consciousness on which they rely, become of indeterminate nature. Although their natures are not the same, because they are mutually compliant, they can produce the wholesome and so forth. Question: As for this statement that "in accordance with the consciousness on which they rely, they become of indeterminate nature; although their natures are not the same, because they are mutually compliant they can produce the wholesome and so forth"—is it that the wholesome seed relying on consciousness is called indeterminate and producing an actual wholesome dharma is called "mutually compliant", or is producing a different nature called "mutually compliant"? If it produces a different nature, it contradicts the explanations of the various treatises; if it still produces the wholesome, then the nature is the same, so how could one say "not necessarily of the same nature"? Therefore, the second fascicle above says: because both cause and fruit possess the wholesome and other natures, they are also named wholesome and so forth. The *Yaoji* also says: For example, when the sixth consciousness of the three natures cognizes the seeing-portion of the eighth consciousness, the reflected image that appears follows its own seeing-portion, thereby having the three natures, yet it can perfume and form indeterminate seeds; this too is a case of different natures being mutually compliant and able to produce. [We reply:] Who said that this image-portion definitely follows the nature of the seeing-portion? If it definitely follows the seeing-portion and yet produces an indeterminate fruit, then the nature would not be determinate, with each leading to its own fruit. If you say that the six characteristics describe seeds, could the image-portion perfume that seeing-portion's seeds without being a direct cause (hetu-pratyaya)?