成唯識論了義燈 6.85

6.85

《論》：「生惡趣者，於現我境，亦有愛故」者。西明舊疏云：緣起約已生惡起，說不起愛，觀佛三昧據將生說。准此會釋，不合經文。文云：依無希求，即約未生說無，不約已生。今准《要集》云：有兩釋：初釋同本疏；後釋云，此約欲界終生惡趣者說，若上界命終生惡趣者，若起欲界愛有上緣失，若上界愛非自地緣故；二云，生惡趣已，於自真我實有愛生。即以此理證愛遍有，非此潤生。雖有二釋，後釋為正。今謂前釋許愛上緣，亦無有失，如前第六云：求上地生味上定故，許愛上緣，設云潤生，不得上緣者，約不別緣，總緣何失？若云生已，方始起愛，違前第三，於五取蘊非愛著處，謂生惡處念我何時當捨此命、此苦身心，如何起愛？據實生已，亦許起愛，非必愛彼故，前五、六俱引《大論》云：不遍一切識身者，意地一切根相應，然爭潤生，彼非所爭。　西明又問：若爾，論中二說，皆無惡趣潤愛，應唯種潤。解云：由業力故，於寒熱等處可愛相生，如《觀佛三昧經》說：今問此說於欲可爾，上界生下起愛，如何非於上界有寒熱等相，故由此，既顯潤生起愛，引生惡趣，於現我境，明是欲生，非生彼已方始起愛，故前釋勝。

The Treatise: 'Those who are born in evil destinies also have craving toward the present self-object.' Ximing's old commentary says: The Pratītyasamutpāda-sūtra speaks of not initiating craving with respect to having already been born into evil destinies; the Guan Fo sanmei jing speaks in terms of when one is about to be born. According to this reconciliation, it does not conform to the text of the sūtra. The text states: 'Based on having no yearning', which means that having none is spoken in terms of before birth, not in terms of after birth. Now, according to the Yaoji, there are two explanations: The first explanation agrees with the original commentary. The latter explanation states: This is spoken in terms of those who die in the desire realm and are born into evil destinies; if those who die in higher realms are born into evil destinies, if they initiate desire-realm craving, there is the fault of having craving that takes a higher realm as object, and if they initiate higher-realm craving, it would not take their own plane as object. The second [explanation] states: Having been born into evil destinies, toward their own true self, craving actually arises. That is, by this principle it proves that craving is universally present, not that this [craving] moistens rebirth. Although there are two explanations, the latter explanation is correct. We now say: The former explanation accepts craving taking a higher realm as object, and there is likewise no fault. As stated earlier in fascicle 6: 'Because of seeking birth in higher realms and relishing higher dhyānas', it is accepted that craving takes a higher realm as object. Even if one says that moistening rebirth cannot take a higher realm as object, this is said of not taking them individually as objects; what fault is there in taking them collectively as object? If one says that craving only begins to arise after birth, it contradicts the earlier fascicle 3, which states that with respect to the five grasping aggregates they are not places of clinging affection—meaning that having been born into an evil destiny, one thinks, 'When will I cast off this life and this suffering body and mind?', so how could craving arise? In actuality, after birth, one is also permitted to initiate craving, though not necessarily craving for that [suffering state]. Therefore, both fascicles 5 and 6 earlier cite the Yogācārabhūmi: 'That which does not pervade all consciousness-bodies is associated with all faculties of the mental plane'; however, the dispute concerns moistening rebirth, which is not what is disputed there. Ximing further asks: If so, in both explanations of the treatise there is no moistening craving for evil destinies, so it should be moistened solely by seeds. The explanation says: Due to the force of karma, an agreeable appearance arises in places of cold, heat, etc., as stated in the Guan Fo sanmei jing. We now ask: This explanation may be so for the desire realm; but when one is born from higher realms down below, how does craving arise? It is not that there are appearances of cold and heat in higher realms. Therefore, since it shows that craving arises to moisten rebirth, leading to birth in evil destinies, having craving toward the present self-object clearly means when about to be born, not that craving only begins to arise after one has already been born there. Hence, the former explanation is superior.