成唯識論了義燈 6.74

6.74

《論》：「復由此說生、引同時」等者。有其四釋：一云，生引等支，未潤之時，不與生支俱。若潤已後，但名有支，故名不俱。此解但潤、未潤不俱，不解得生、引同時；第二云，雖云潤、未潤時不俱，正潤之時生、引得俱。此解雖似順文，未契復由此說。復由此說者，即指前詞，依當現起。亦違《十地經》說子、果俱時。第三云：於現生、老二支位中，有當來識等五果種，為當來所引支，與現生、老同時而有。此生、老支，是過去愛、取之所生，故名生、引同時，此上諸解皆為不正；第四云，潤、未潤時必是不俱，被潤已去，正生現時，果因同時。即此生、老望愛、取、有是所生，即此生、老位識等種子，望前無明、行支是彼所引。未潤之時，必不得俱，愛潤已去，即得為俱，名生、引同時。此同本疏。西明釋同第三，不順經論。此論云：依當現起說有前後，由斯識等，亦說現行。因時定無現行義，故復由此說生、引同時。既云復由此說，即由前說現起次第，據此一重，亦未能解兩重緣起。又《緣起經》云：若引若生，為一時起，為次第起。世尊告曰：一時而起次第宣說，若一時起，何因緣故？先說其引，後說其生。世尊告曰：要由有引，後有方生，非無引故。若據現生、老。即由生已，方造來業，引識等五。即是由有生已，方始有引，何得云要有引，後有方生，非無引故。

Regarding the Treatise stating: 'Furthermore, through this it is said that birth and projection are simultaneous,' and so forth: there are four explanations. The first says: the projecting branches and the like, before being moistened, are not concomitant with the branch of birth. Once moistened, they are merely called the branch of existence; therefore they are called non-concomitant. This explanation only explains that the moistened and unmoistened are not concomitant, but fails to explain how projection and birth can be simultaneous. The second says: although they are not concomitant when moistened and unmoistened, at the very time of being moistened, birth and projection can be simultaneous. Although this explanation seems to follow the text, it does not accord with 'furthermore, through this it is said.' 'Furthermore, through this it is said' refers to the preceding statement, relying on future active arising. It also contradicts the Daśabhūmika's statement that seed and fruit are simultaneous. The third says: in the stage of the two present branches of birth and aging, there are the seeds of the five future results of consciousness and so forth, serving as the projected branches of the future, which exist simultaneously with present birth and aging. These branches of birth and aging were produced by past craving and grasping, hence they are called simultaneous in birth and projection. All the above explanations are incorrect. The fourth says: the moistened and unmoistened must be non-concomitant; once moistened, at the very time of active birth, fruit and cause are simultaneous. That is, these [branches of] birth and aging are what is produced in relation to craving, grasping, and existence; and the seeds of consciousness and so forth in this stage of birth and aging are what is projected in relation to the preceding branches of ignorance and formations. Before being moistened, they definitely cannot be concomitant; once moistened by craving, they can be concomitant, which is called birth and projection being simultaneous. This agrees with the root commentary. Ximing's explanation agrees with the third, which does not accord with the sūtras and treatises. This treatise states: 'Based on future active arising, sequence is spoken of; through this, consciousness and the others are also spoken of as active. Because there is definitely no active meaning at the causal time, furthermore through this it is said that birth and projection are simultaneous.' Since it says 'furthermore through this it is said,' it is based on the previously explained order of active arising; relying only on this single layer, one still cannot understand the two layers of dependent origination. Furthermore, the Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra states: 'Do projection and birth arise at the same time or sequentially?' The World-Honoured One replied: 'They arise at the same time and are expounded sequentially.' 'If they arise at the same time, for what reason is projection taught first and birth taught later?' The World-Honoured One replied: 'Only because there is projection can there subsequently be birth; it is not that there is no projection.' If it were based on present birth and aging, then only after birth has occurred would one create future karma and project the five [branches] of consciousness and the rest. This would mean that only because there is birth is there then projection; how could it say: 'Only because there is projection can there subsequently be birth; it is not that there is no projection'?