成唯識論了義燈 6.97

6.97

《論》：「又說全界一切煩惱」等。問：正無明支，唯見道斷，助者通修，善惡趣同，何故說云，往惡趣行，唯分別起？豈善趣總業任運能發耶？答：往惡趣總報業，正、助唯分別發，人天總報任運亦助，由此能發惡報行者，說唯分別。故五十九云：若諸煩惱猛利現行，方能發起往惡趣業，非諸失念而現行者，又分別起，能發此業，非任運起。若許修惑助發總報，此何所簡？若爾，如何說全煩惱皆能發業？答：約人天說，若惡趣行但分別發，故說唯言，又正感惡趣別報業者，亦分別發，任運但能助發別業，故說唯言。若爾，生惡趣已，豈不能造別報業耶？若不造者，何故第三？云阿賴耶識隨先業轉，眼等六識隨現緣發。若云，先造業感待現緣發。若爾，即無順現受業，皆先造故；若云，現受業唯人天造，惡趣不能，斯有何失？若爾，龍鬼不得供養初出慈定、見道等耶？若許得者，准此亦能正造感彼惡趣別報。此亦不然，此供養業所感善報，是人天果，非惡趣報。若爾，於獄卒等起惡被損，豈非別報，准此應知既有此理，取捨任情。

Regarding the statement in the treatise: "It is also said that all afflictions of the entire realm," and so forth: Question: The primary avidyā limb is abandoned only by the path of seeing, whereas the auxiliary ones extend to cultivation, identically in wholesome and unwholesome destinies. Why then is it said that actions leading to unwholesome destinies are produced solely by conceptual discrimination? Could the general karma for wholesome destinies be initiated spontaneously? Answer: The general retribution karma leading to unwholesome destinies is initiated, both primarily and auxiliarily, solely by discrimination, whereas the general retribution of humans and devas is also assisted spontaneously; therefore, those actions capable of initiating unwholesome retribution are said to be solely discriminative. Thus fascicle fifty-nine states: Only when afflictions have a fierce and sharp samudācāra can they initiate karma leading to unwholesome destinies, not when they occur through lapses of mindfulness; moreover, those arising from discrimination can initiate this karma, not those arising spontaneously. If it were allowed that afflictions abandoned by cultivation assist in initiating general retribution, what would this exclude? If so, how can it be said that all afflictions are capable of initiating karma? Answer: This is said with respect to humans and devas; if actions for unwholesome destinies are initiated solely by discrimination, the word "solely" is stated. Furthermore, karma that primarily induces particular retribution for unwholesome destinies is also initiated by discrimination, whereas spontaneous ones can only assist in initiating particular karma; thus the word "solely" is spoken. If so, once one is born in an unwholesome destiny, could one not generate particular retribution karma? If one does not generate it, why does fascicle three say: the ālayavijñāna operates according to prior karma, and the six consciousnesses beginning with the eye arise according to present conditions? If you say that priorly generated karma awaits present conditions to arise, then there would be no karma experienced in the present life, because all would have been generated previously; if you say that karma experienced in the present life is generated only by humans and devas, and those in unwholesome destinies cannot do so, what flaw is there? If so, could dragons and spirits not make offerings to one who has just emerged from the contemplation of benevolence, the path of seeing, and so forth? If you grant that they can, in accordance with this they can also directly generate particular retribution that induces that unwholesome destiny. This too is not so: the wholesome retribution induced by this karma of making offerings is a fruit of humans and devas, not an unwholesome retribution. If so, when one gives rise to evil toward hell wardens and the like and suffers harm, how is that not particular retribution? In accordance with this, one should know that since both lines of reasoning exist, acceptance and rejection are left to discretion.