成唯識論了義燈 6.31

6.31

《論》菩薩地說等。本釋云：牽引種子、生起種子，合六因中諸因緣種，未潤已前，亦未成熟，皆名牽引種，即牽引因全四因少分，除生起因故。若被潤已去，皆名已熟，即生起因全四因少分，除牽引因，是此生起因。西明云：於六因諸因緣未潤，未成名牽引種；已潤已熟，名生起種。《要集》云：有說順前違後，有釋順後違前，然云有釋，於理為勝。今謂不爾，准西明釋，六因俱通牽引、生起者，即牽引、生起，二種何殊？若云望果位分二因緣種，正生現果已潤熟，故名生起種。即此因種，望後自果，未潤熟故名牽引種，由此俱通者。此說亦非，准此即應生起在初牽引居後，又不可有潤望果，遠近亦分成二。前文自云：未成熟位，謂能牽引遠自果故；已成熟位，謂能生起近自果故。故知牽引即牽引種；生起即生起種。違彼等文不可更分。彼後文云：彼六因中諸因緣種，皆攝在此二位中故者，意說，已潤之種却說未潤之時，名牽引種，未潤之種影論，若潤已去，名生起種。云彼六因皆攝在此二位中故，據談其體，只是未潤全名牽引種，已潤全名生起種，故不違後。然下論釋尋伺地文，言生起因，與釋菩薩地文有別。彼文不約潤、未潤分，但據親能生自果者，即是生起，不為一例。

Regarding the treatise's "the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* states" and so forth: The primary commentary says: The lead-in seeds and generating seeds unite all direct-cause seeds among the six causes; prior to being moistened and before maturing, they are all called lead-in seeds, which comprises the entirety of the lead-in cause and a fraction of four causes, excluding the generating cause. Once moistened onward, they are all called already matured, which comprises the entirety of the generating cause and a fraction of four causes, excluding the lead-in cause; this is this generating cause. Ximing says: Among the six causes, all direct causes that are unmoistened and immature are called lead-in seeds; those already moistened and matured are called generating seeds. The *Yaoji* says: Some say [one interpretation] accords with what precedes but contradicts what follows, while another interpretation accords with what follows but contradicts what precedes; however, it says that the latter interpretation is theoretically superior. I now say this is not so. Following Ximing's explanation, if all six causes are common to both lead-in and generating, then what is the difference between the two types of seeds, lead-in and generating? If one says that they are divided into two types of direct-cause seeds based on the state of the fruit—when directly producing a present fruit they are already moistened and matured, hence called generating seeds, and these very causal seeds, with respect to subsequent own-fruits, are unmoistened and immature, hence called lead-in seeds, and therefore are common to both—this statement is also incorrect. Following this, generating would be first and lead-in would be after; moreover, it is impossible that looking toward distant and proximate fruits with respect to being moistened could also be split into two. The preceding text itself says: "The state of being immature means being able to lead to distant own-fruits; the state of being already matured means being able to generate proximate own-fruits." Therefore we know that lead-in is precisely the lead-in seed, and generating is precisely the generating seed. Contradicting those texts, they cannot be further divided. When the subsequent text says: "because all direct-cause seeds among those six causes are subsumed within these two states," the meaning is that for a seed that is already moistened, speaking retrospectively of when it was unmoistened, it is called a lead-in seed; for an unmoistened seed, by implication, once moistened onward, it is called a generating seed. When it says that those six causes are all subsumed within these two states, in terms of their substance, it is simply that the unmoistened in their entirety are called lead-in seeds, and the moistened in their entirety are called generating seeds; therefore, it does not contradict what follows. However, the subsequent treatise's explanation of the *Vitarkavicārabhūmi* passage, in speaking of the generating cause, differs from its explanation of the *Bodhisattvabhūmi* passage. That passage does not divide them based on moistened and unmoistened, but merely takes whatever directly produces its own fruit as generating; it is not of a single pattern.